ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE MINUTES - DECEMBER 11, 2013

MICHAEL E. PLOCHOCKI, CHAIRMAN

MEMBERS PRESENT:   Mr. Shepard, Mrs. Tassone, 1Mrs. Rapp

MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Williams

ALSO ATTENDING: Mr. Dougherty and see attached list

Chairman Plochocki called the meeting to order at 9:07 AM.  A motion was made by Mrs. Tassone, seconded by Mr. Shepard to waive the reading of the minutes of the proceedings of the previous committee meeting.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.  A motion was made by Mrs. Tassone, seconded by Mr. Shepard to approve the minutes of the proceedings of the previous committee.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

1Mrs. Rapp arrived at the meeting.

1.     WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION: Tom Rhoads, Commissioner; Robert Kukenberger, Vice President CDM Smith

        a.     A Resolution Approving the Costs of Certain Improvements for CSO Improvements for the Onondaga County Sanitary District

Chair Plochocki:

• Reconciliation of Clinton CSO project reviewed last month; financially ahead of the game,  if County Executive had continued with original plan for RTFs  the increase would have been an additional $15M minimum
• $20M increase over original budget
• Detailed information provided last month – had time to digest, now able to dig deeper; public hearing was approved

Mr. Rhoads provided a presentation handout to the committee (on file with the Clerk) and presented the following highlights:

• 3 main points
• Could have cost $94M as originally planned with RTFs (slide 3)
• Strong awareness of budget at $61.5M and estimate at $79M (slide 13)
• Why award project with estimated cost higher than budget of $61.5M (slide 16)

• Old program would tear down neighborhoods, building huge aboveground RTFs using swirl concentrator technologies; swirls, disinfects after removing some of the solids and releases into the creek
• County Executive proposed change; original project slated for $94M, could have cost more
• RTFs without storage on the frontend have had water quality issues in other areas; could have spent a lot of money and not gotten a satisfactory result
• Important to understand this before moving to slide 13

• Referenced minutes from website of the June 15, 2011 EP committee showing estimated construction costs of $79M, prior to opening bids (on file with Clerk)
• Demonstrates there was knowledge of a $61.5M budget and $79M project
• Understands many members of the legislature have changed since 2011

• Reasons to move forward - $31M in grants and ACJ deadline of 12-31-13
• Had to get project started, where aware it was above budget
• Expected reconciliation at the end of the project
• Mindful of being good stewards of public dollars; didn’t want to lose grants or miss ACJ deadline

Mr. Kukenberger:

• Presentation same as last month other than date change on cover, addition of slide 16 and renumbering of slides following 16
• Feels confident every decision made on the project was correct; made with much thought, discussion and  engineering background
• Would not have met ACJ deadline if bids were rejected; working round the clock to meet deadline
• No indication costs would have decreased with rebidding; probably would have increased
• If rejected and redesigned, would have delay and cost of redesign, still no guarantee it would be less
• Low bidder proposed alternate method of tunneling verses open cut for the entire facility;  reviewed with County Executive and WEP, found to be a better method for construction and meeting deadline

Chair Plochocki asked to break the reconciliation into three parts; $10 million overbid, $10 million construction cost overruns and potential $10 million that the county is being sued over.  He believes it is well understood that the bid came in $10 million higher than expected and the reasons for awarding the bid.  Similarly understands and appreciates the stand taken with the $10 million that we are being sued over; doesn’t feel costs are appropriate and are glad they were denied.  The real question stems from the construction overrun issues, questions why the legislature wasn’t told sooner.  Mr. Rhoads responded that the construction estimate was $79 million in 2011, as presented in the minutes.  In addition, quarterly reports have a budget section containing the Clinton budget.  Each time there was a change in the contract there were remarks in the reports; could see we were above the bid price, all approved change orders are documented in those reports.  Chair Plochocki stated that it would be fair to say the legislature was given a $79 million dollar figure and the $77,680,000 figure isn’t news.  The news was in 2011, even though the legislature did not actually approve the money at that time.  Mr. Rhoads stated his understanding was that there was a need to go full speed ahead to make sure that ACJ deadlines were meet and didn’t lose the grant funds.  There were real good reasons to proceed accordingly.      

In answer to Mrs. Rapp, Mr. Rhoads responded that $77,680,000 does not include the amount we are being sued for.  This is the reason it was included in the slide; want a good transparent discussion.  Mrs. Rapp asked if we would discuss that.  Mr. Rhoads responded, if and when, it is a long day away.  Mrs. Rapp stated that she wants to know more about this.

Chair Plochocki stated that more than 50% of the legislature has changed since 2011; you are saying the legislature was fully briefed.  After the bids, there was knowledge that the bids came in $10 million more; he    questions why the construction cost weren’t included.  Mr. Millea responded:

• Didn’t  come back and ask for $9 million increase from allocated amount as legislature approved $120 million for the Save the Rain program in 2011 – wasn’t called Save the Rain at that time; was in addition to authorization that already existed for the RTF strategy; no need to come back for the additional funds because the program had been funded; unique project component of a larger program,  were able to encumber funding in advance of the project
• Had full knowledge we would need to come back to discuss actual costs; didn’t want to do this several times -   management team decided  to comeback when close to completion to true up entire budget
• At no time were we spending monies we didn’t have, were dipping into funds set aside for other proponents of the Save the Rain program; set up budget in 2011 through 2018; promised we wouldn’t come back unless the two significant gray projects came in over projected cost  
• Still tightly managing other components of the Save the Rain project
• Unforeseen conditions have led to changes throughout the system for large subsurface infrastructure projects; Wetzel Road and Midland CSO 044 had changes
• Important to put the pieces together, what happened and when, and what was communicated and when

Mrs. Rapp asked what would happen if the additional monies aren’t approved.  Mr. Millea responded that it would have an extremely detrimental effect on the other components of the Save the Rain program.  Mrs. Rapp asked if we would meet the ACJ requirements.  Mr. Millea responded that it would absolutely make it very difficult.  In answer to Mrs. Rapp, Mr. Millea stated he would not suggest that this is an option. 

Mr. Millea stated that we are not here to discuss any scope change or additional funding for the Save the Rain program.  We are talking specifically about the project.  Had we known then what we know now, we would have added the $20 million in January of 2011.  During that period, he had only been on the job for about six months and there was a transition of commissioners; we were working with the best information we had.  Mrs. Rapp responded that she remembered the whole conversation; we were on notice that original bids were incorrect and would wait until the end to reconcile, rather than coming in a number of times.  However, it is imperative for us to ask these questions, for the what if’s.

Mr. Millea stated that we knew there was a $9 million dollar change from the offset, but we didn’t’ know we would see additional costs come along through the construction phase.  He asked that we discuss the significant acceleration costs and the decisions made on those critical points.

In answer to Mrs. Tassone, Mr. Millea stated that all funding approved for Save the Rain projects was driven toward compliance with the consent program, except those approved for the suburban program, which are outside the scope and an additional budget.  Anything labeled Save the Rain is consent driven.  Chairman Plochocki noted that those additional monies are also for consent judgment as required.  Mr. Millea agreed.  

Mr. Rhoads referenced slide 14 for the changes made during construction.  

In answer to Chair Plochocki, Mr. Kukenberger responded:

• Construction cost changes were anticipated in the $79 million figure; know below grade risks of a project such as this
• Overriding feature was the high chloride ground water – 4 times as much salt as sea water; 2003-2005 NYSDEC allowed higher chloride levels to be discharged into the creek
• In 2007-2008 issues aroused with NYSDEC and environmental groups about potential impact of chlorides on the creek; regulations placed strict guidelines on amount of chlorides discharged to Onondaga Creek; fisheries people maintain we could have discharged chlorides
• Facility designed to minimize the amount of chloride discharged; resulted in jet grouting and other components that increased costs and risks; also related to claim as this is why grouting was needed

Mr. Kukenberger supplied the following handout detailing the changes listed on slide 14.

• Encountered rocks/boulders below grade
• Present where not expected, very deep
• Caused 90 day delay and extra cost for major pipeline installation by trenchless methods
• Total added cost for rocks/boulders - $939,970
• Major factor in need for acceleration due to the 90 day time delay

• Repair/replacement of existing infrastructure
• Conduit and electrical duct bank repairs
• Existing conveyance repairs
• Caisson repairs
• Sanitary sewer replacement
• Total added cost for repair/replacement of existing utilities : $402,000

• Modifications to improve O&M efficiency
• LED parking lot lighting
• Troweled finish of walls
• Retaining wall modifications
• Facility interior modifications
• Total added cost for enhancements to improve O&M: $504,000

• Acceleration costs
• Overtime
• Six and seven work days per week
• Additional supervision
• Additional equipment
• Total added cost of acceleration: $2,926,564

• Potential Outfall and Creek Modifications
• Engineer and CM will monitor Storage Tank Discharge and Creek Bank for erosion or instability
• If issues, will recommend modifications to strengthen creek bank/bottom
• Budget – Conceptual $200,000

• Contingency
• Allowed 1% contingency for remainder of contract work

Chair Plochocki asked if it was fair to say that as of June 2011, many if not all of the changes during construction were known, which is why the estimate was put in.  Mr. Kukenberger responded that the details weren’t known.  We were aware of the risks of deep excavation and control of ground water.  Mr. Rhoads added that these are subsurface projects.  We are dealing with the unknown.  There are complex geologies; found old railroad foundations, old excavating material; all sorts of large items.  The $79 million estimate was put forth to help the group understand that there were going to be unknown conditions.  This is a real world situation and it happens everywhere. 

Chairman Plochocki stated this entire discussion comes down to two words, foreseeability and conveyance; what was foreseen when and when was that conveyed to the legislature.  What he is hearing is that exact specifics weren’t foreseen, but in June 2011, the potential for problems in this area was conveyed.  Today, we are actually a little below the estimate of $79 million, with $77 million and change.  Mr. Rhoads responded that he understands the fiduciary responsibility, and the need to ask good questions so that they have confidence in the team.  We believe that we have made the right decisions.

In answer to Mrs. Rapp, Mr. Rhoads and Mr. Kukenberger confirmed that there was almost $3 million in acceleration charges.  Mrs. Rapp asked what the fine would be if we missed the deadline.  Mr. Kukenberger:

• 2 ways to look at acceleration cost; item numbers 1 and 4 are connected
• Delay caused by rocks/boulders below grade, separate item not related to $10M claim
• Section of pipeline needed to be installed by tunneling to connect conveyances built in 2007-2008 to this facility; work subcontracted to local company; based on geotechnical baseline report, boring and site history anticipated technique to jack and bore pipe, 3 feet diameter pipe with 4 feet diameter casing; boulders/rocks were expected at a different level, geology in this area dove the boulders down into the pipeline area, weren’t able to proceed with work; work was in critical path of everything following it; had 22 days allowed, took about 120 days to do the work; even with change order of $939,970, company is still at risk of bankruptcy because of the time spent; did everything they possibly could, worked around the clock, manufactured unique boring items to make this happen; was successful – pipeline is in, doesn’t leak and is high quality work
• Due to pipeline delay the contractor asked for acceleration or extension of time till April; great deal of time spent on analyzing and negotiating with them; original cost for acceleration $3.1M, able to negotiate down to $2.9M – some items are time and material, may come in a little less; time extension cost was $2.8M not including penalties and fines of $5k per day; savings wasn’t big enough to go to time extension, also other issues with time extension; e.g., how all the contractors would work together to get this done; extended PLA to avoid Wicks Law for project, allowing for 1 prime contractor, all others subcontractors; 1 contractor to negotiate acceleration with, they spent 2 months negotiating with their subcontractors and providing an agreement to meet the deadline 

Mrs. Rapp asked if we were meeting the deadline.  Mr. Rhoads responded that we are going right down to the wire, but are on a path to success.  We toured on Tuesday and the construction managers are optimistic, but we are under huge deadline pressure.  When we evaluated time related overhead verses acceleration and our exposure to the penalties, this was deep in our discussions.  Mrs. Rapp stated that was such a complex issue to get past.  Mr. Rhoads added that there is a federal court order and other parties besides the DEC.  There are other parties to these lawsuits; we do not have our own destiny in our control.  The decision was made to proceed with acceleration.  Mr. Kukenberger added that it was a well thought out decision.  

In answer to Chair Plochocki, Mr. Rhoads stated that with the fines the cost of extending the contract would have been even greater than the acceleration costs.  Mrs. Rapp added that it sounds like it could have been a lot more.  Chairman Plochocki stated that we are paying less and not violating the consent order by choosing acceleration.  Mr. Rhoads added time related overhead and acceleration were about the same costs, but we would have exposed ourselves to significant penalties, a loss of momentum, and the county would have been seen as a failure, unable to meet its deadlines.  There were discussions and risks in each part of this.  Mr. Kukenberger added that extending the contract would put more money in the pocket of the engineers.  There would have been additional costs for engineering with extension.  When you add everything up, this may have been the cheaper option.  

Mrs. Rapp asked about the funding sources, questioning if the $300,000 was cash.  Mr. Kukenberger and Mr. Rhoads responded:

• Not cash, $300k is an estimate to make the numbers round out
• Agency will deem certain items ineligible; miscellaneous costs - $300k is meant to cover this
• Portion of $300k is revenue received from trolley lot parking
• If unable to include in EFC bond, might be AAA bond

Mrs. Rapp stated that she did not have any information on the lawsuit.  Chair Plochocki responded that due today’s tight agenda, he would prefer not to go into executive session.  It is not an urgent matter today; just want to notify us of the lawsuit.  If there is interest amongst committee members, we could discuss this next month; really want to focus on these costs at hand.

Mrs. Rapp asked if there was an opportunity to decrease the $79 million amount by shuffling around the Save the Rain funds.  Mr. Millea:

• No - can go through entire budget and where it is going at the next meeting; 2011 budget presented  best effort to get to 2018
• Within 2018 requirements have ambient monitoring program, green infrastructure program, swim modeling, benchmarks need to be achieved annually and reported each year till 2018; WEP working hard on system optimization, making sure we stay within cost framework already allocated
• Have had this discussion internally to see where there was flow; working as hard as possible with DEC to avoid incremental capital costs for floatable control facilities, will help save more than $15m
• Would like funding to be approved after discussion; hope discussion doesn’t lead to what can we cut out of the rest of the program, rest of the program is as important as this project; this project shouldn’t be funded at the expense of structured elements of the Save the Rain program
• Moving forward to keep us on schedule with 2018 obligations

Mrs. Rapp stated that as we continue to receive these awards there may be grant money and help from other sources for our Save the Rain program.  Mr. Millea:

• Grants are few and far between, pursue every grant they can; received $3M for the Civic Strip
• Pursuing funding from the Water Quality Improvement program for other components of the sanitary system; could benefit from limited grant funding program
• Have been to Washington to discuss funding at the federal level, not having tremendous success
• Water Resources Development Act has $0 earmarked for the first time in decades; Congressman Walsh was a master at plugging in significant funding directed towards Onondaga Lake cleanup issues; doesn’t exist any longer
• Can work through EFC for low interest financing, saves upwards of $8M in interest costs; 2% at 30 years is free money when you do the math on time, value and money

Mrs. Rapp added that Save the Rain pays us back essentially $15 million in O&M costs, by using low tech.  Mr. Millea responded that the O&M costs will be far less than what the sewage treatment plant would have cost.  Mrs. Rapp stated this needs to part of the record.  Mr. Millea added that the life cycle is very important, and the environmental impact is significant.  This is a better environmental outcome.  Mrs. Rapp added because it is storage as opposed to swirling.     

Mrs. Tassone stated that she hopes this is not going to be a trend; bid projects out and partway through the project, we need more money.  This is not the way government should be run.  We bid a project out and it should be stuck at that bid period.  Mr. Millea responded that they agree and are sending that message to our engineering consultant community, as well as the general contractor community.  We are going to hold the line on design, construction and potentially pursuing bonding of overages.  Onondaga County has never pursued construction bonds.

In answer to Mrs. Rapp, Mr. Millea responded that construction contractors post a bond to insure compliance of the contract.  We require these bonds, but have never gone after one when we feel a contractor has failed to perform. 

Mr. Millea:

• Not suggesting the contractor failed to perform in this case, we worked in concert with the contractor to advance this project; no bond issue with this contract
• Historically have had issues where we might have been able to hold a contractor more liable
• Now having internal discussions on this; would be a policy shift for us and speaks to Mrs. Tassone’s point
• Need to talk to the governor about design build; Governor Cuomo authorized design build for state agencies, didn’t include county government
• Design builds projects are at the contractors risk, unforeseen conditions become their liability; fixed price contract

Mr. Kukenberger added that his firm is doing design builds in other parts of the country.  Mr. Millea added that we are doing this with the Metropolitan Water Board; looking forward to seeing how this works.  This is only done through a performance contract.  We would love to do design build for future projects with WEP, as it is not always clear who is at fault; taxpayers are held responsible.  Together we need to continue to support our department heads, hold our general contractors and design firms accountable for their performance.  A memorializing resolution to the governor suggesting he expand design build to local government would also be extremely helpful.

Chairman Plochocki stated when you have a two-year lag between the times of the refined estimates and approval a perception can arise, in the mind of the public, that there were costs that weren’t unforeseen, resulting in overtime costs and other such things.  We need to make sure that the public understands that we are managing their money to the absolute best extent possible.  While he isn’t saying anything was wrong in this situation, he can’t emphasis enough the importance of continuing all due diligence and giving us the best estimates early on.  Just the perception that something has gone over budget can be difficult.

Mr. Dougherty stated that he agrees completely that we need to do a better job of maintaining the cost.  However, he wants to be careful that we don’t pass all the risk onto the contractors.  His fulltime job is with a government contractor and there are always unforeseen circumstances that arise.  As soon as you pass all the risk onto them, they will raise their prices.  Instead of having cost overruns on one or two projects, because of unforeseen problems, we will have higher costs on all of the projects.  Contractors aren’t stupid and won’t adopt the chance of all these unforeseen possibilities.  On the surface, this may seem to be a great thing, but we will be paying for this across the board.  Mr. Millea responded that they are struggling to find a balance.  Mr. Dougherty raised a valid point and even in the design build environment, change orders would be permissible in the event that an unforeseen condition is a valid and reasonable adjustment to the design.  Chloride is a great example; wouldn’t hold a contractor responsible for regulatory compliance, which was something that they couldn’t have foreseen.  Wetzel Road provides an example of what we want to deal with in the design build scenario; have engineer estimate on construction costs, low bid comes in 30%-40% below the estimate, by law, we must award that contractor and then end up in a situation where we have a change order battle throughout the entire project.  We have seen this several times. 

Mrs. Rapp asked if that happened with this project.  Mr. Millea responded that this is the exact opposite.  Our engineer’s estimates were $61 million for the tunneling scenario.  The tunneling bids came in at $90 million, as the general contractors saw the tunneling risks involved.  Jett Industries proposed the cut and cover.  Mrs. Rapp asked if they were, the only cut and cover bid.  Mr. Millea responded that there were five bids; two were cut and cover.  Mr. Kukenberger added that we believe there were three.  We don’t know what the others were proposing; hear in the industry that three contractors would have proposed the cut and cover. 

In answer to Mrs. Rapp, Mr. Millea confirmed that Jett Industries was the low bid.  Mr. Kukenberger added that the low bid, as designed with the tunnels, was $85 million; tunneling bids ranged from $85 - $99 million.  Mr. Millea added that this shows Mr. Dougherty’s point, they were hedging their risks and put a premium price on the approach; added additional funds for the risk.  Jett mitigated the risks by going to a cut and cover scenario.

Chair Plochocki stated that in a parallel universe if we had decided go with the RTF as planned; there is no reason to believe that these overage costs would have been any different.  Mr. Kukenberger agreed.  The bids that were taken for the RTF, at the same location, did not have everything built into the design to handle the ground water, as we now know we would have had to do.  It is our professional opinion that if we had awarded and gone ahead with the RTF low bid, we would have been facing extreme change conditions to deal with the soils in the ground water.  It was going to a similar depth, with very different means to get there.  Moreover, that project could have gotten to the point where the contractor could have stopped work, stating they weren’t  allowed to discharge ground water to the creek or the Metro Treatment Plant, tell them what to do.  Knowing what we know now, we anticipate that this would have happened.  In the end, the RTF would have been more risk than the storage facility, because the storage facility was at least designed with that in mind.  Just before the June timeframe, as program manager, we had our expert geotechnical people come in and look at the design and their comments were that this was going to be much more expensive.      

 A motion was made by Chair Plochocki, seconded by Mrs. Rapp to approve this item.  Ayes: 3 (Plochocki, Rapp, Shepard); Abstaining:  1 (Tassone).  MOTION CARRIED.

              b.     A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $20,000,000 Bonds of the County of Onondaga, New York, to Pay the Cost of CSO Improvements in and for the Onondaga County Sanitary District, Intended to Enable the County to Comply with Requirements Set Forth in the Amended Consent Judgment and Related Municipal Compliance Plan for the Clinton Street Conveyances and Regional Treatment Facility Project, in and for Said County ($20,000,000)

A motion was made by Chair Plochocki, seconded by Mrs. Rapp to approve this item.  Ayes: 3 (Plochocki, Rapp, Shepard); Abstaining:  1 (Tassone).  MOTION CARRIED.

        c.     Reducing Authorized Costs for Certain Improvements Made for the Midland Wastewater Treatment Plant in and for the County of Onondaga, New York Pursuant to Section 41.00 of the Local Finance Law, and Amending Resolution Nos. 50-2008 and 51-2008 ($9,756,000)

Mrs. Rapp stated that we could say that the Clinton cost is only $10 million because of the reduction in these Midland funds.  Mr. Millea agreed.

 A motion was made by Mrs. Rapp, seconded by Mrs. Tassone to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

        d.     Memorializing the New York State DEC to Increase the Treatment Capacity Rating at the Oak Orchard Wastewater Treatment Plant

Mr. Dougherty:

• Plant built in early 1980’s
• Permit parameters given for operation based on plant design, not future processing capabilities 
• Plant treats water for all of the Town of Clay, the Village of North Syracuse and parts of the Town of Cicero
• Load on the plant has gone up over the years; the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) has exceeded the design limit for the plant for 10 out of 12 months in 2012
• Per NYS law triggered a report to NYS showing we are in excess and our plan for reduction; 1 piece of plan was to stop all development and new sewer connections within the Oak Orchard service area; will inhibit the growth of the tax base and development of areas he would like to see developed  
• Plant is still operating very well even with exceeding BOD5 limits for 10 of 12 months; not discharging effluent into streams, plant is not shutting down
• Resolution asks the state to reconsider the limit; plant operating well within its capacity in terms water volume and treatment; only the number put on plant during design and build is being exceeded  
• BOD5 limit of 20,352 pounds per day is the average the plant has been shown to process for all of 2012; want design limit increased - plant has proven it is able to handle this volume
• NYSDEC sets the limit

In answer to Chairman Plochocki, Mr. Dougherty stated when the plant was being built we applied for a permit that allowed us a certain amount.  After the plant was built and all through 2012, the plant has been shown to be able to handle more than it was designed to handle.  

Mrs. Tassone asked why the DEC put a limit on this.  Mr. Rhoads responded there are reasons to put limits on, but they are based on theoretical capabilities.  We have proven with actual demonstration, meeting 404,000 parameters per year, that we can meet this.  They put a limit on every discharge, but we believe this limit was overly conservative.       

Mrs. Rapp asked to be listed as a cosponsor.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rapp, seconded by Mrs. Tassone to approve this item.

Chair Plochocki asked to also be listed as a sponsor.  

Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

2.     OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT:  Dave Coburn, Director

        a.     A Resolution Amending the 2014 County Budget to Provide for Ongoing County Participation in Honeywell and Onondaga Lake Remediation Issues ($85,000)

Chair Plochocki stated there was no real ask, simply asking for the annual rollover.

A motion was made by Mrs. Rapp, seconded by Mr. Shepard to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

Mrs. Rapp asked how much was left in the account.  Mr. Coburn responded $85,000 was left in the contingency account.  There is about $65,000 currently with the contract.

3.     OCWA:

        a.     Confirming Appointment to the Onondaga County Water Authority (Robert J. Andrews)

A motion was made by Mr. Shepard, seconded by Mrs. Rapp to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

4.     A Local Law Governing the Sale, Application and Disposal of Waste Associated with Natural Gas Exploration and Extraction Activities

Chairman Plochocki stated this exact same law was presented last month.  It wasn’t voted on last month, as there was a concern that the caucus might want to make changes.  The law has been discussed and appears to have widespread support. 

A motion was made by Chairman Plochocki, seconded by Mr. Shepard to approve this item.  Ayes: 3 (Plochocki, Tassone, Shepard); Abstaining:  1 (Rapp).  MOTION CARRIED.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 AM.

Respectfully submitted,

KATHERINE M. FRENCH, Deputy Clerk

Onondaga County Legislature

* * *

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES – DECEMBER 11, 2013

KEVIN A. HOLMQUIST, CHAIRMAN

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Mr. Dougherty, Mrs. Tassone, Mr. Ryan

MEMBERS ABSENT:  Mr. May

ALSO PRESENT:  See attached list

Chairman Holmquist called the meeting to order at 10:40 a.m.  A motion was made by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mrs. Tassone to waive the reading and

approve the minutes of the proceedings of the previous committee meeting; MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Holmquist took the agenda items out of order. 

3.     EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS:  William Bleyle, Commissioner

        a.     A Local Law Authorizing the Amendment to the Lease of County Property Located in the Town of Marcellus, County of Onondaga to New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC. D.B.A. AT&T Mobility, and Amending Local Law No. 25-2008

• Existing lease – local law passed in 2008 that authorized leasing tower space
• AT&T is requesting to add additional equipment; not on ground, so no SEQR; additional antennas within current footprint to provide higher grade of service for people in Marcellus area
• AT&T in return wishes to increase payment to County - negotiated rent from $2,000/month plus 3% escalator to $3,000/month with 3% escalator
• Reviewed with engineers for any tower enhancements – if there is a need, AT&T will pay full cost
• Amending the existing lease – currently five years with renewals
• Exact same footprint – additional equipment but within existing; have equipment on ground but no change to that

A motion was made by Mr. Dougherty, seconded by Mrs. Tassone, to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

2.     ASSIGNED COUNSEL PROGRAM:  Renee Captor

        a.     Amending the 2013 County Budget to Accept New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services Grant Funds for the Counsel at First Appearance Project, and Authorizing the Execution of Agreements to Implement this Resolution ($588,000)

• Office of ILS implemented an initiative to provide representation for arraignments at town and village courts
• Currently do this anecdotally but not in organized fashion; Judge Lippman stated providing representation in all cases is a priority, so they initiated the grant

Chairman Holmquist asked if this is a new grant.  Ms. Captor responded it is a funding stream but it is a new grant within the funding stream.  Ms. Captor answered Chairman Holmquist that they have participated in the funding stream before but not the grant.

Mr. Dougherty asked what happens if the grant goes away.  Ms. Captor replied presumably they would discontinue the service unless it is mandated by the judiciary by some juncture.  Mr. Dougherty commented it is a lot of money.  Chairman Holmquist asked if there is any anticipation of this being an annual grant.  Ms. Captor responded that they are looking at funding for the initial three year period, and after that they do not know.  Ms. Captor replied to Mr. Holmquist that she has not heard of anything more, and that it is a three year grant in the form of a demonstration.  There may be additional funding available but there is no commitment.

Chairman Holmquist asked if it is for 2013.  Mr. Hammer responded they are accepting the funds this year, but it will be spent over a three year period (2013 – 2016); $200,000 each year.  When the grant is up, they are not sure what will happen in the future.  Mrs. Tassone asked if the County accepts the grant and after three years the program is successful, will the County tax payers have to pay for it.  Ms. Captor answered that she does not think whether they make the tax payers continue to pay for it has anything to do with whether the County accepts the grant or not.  It is a judicial priority one way or another, so better to do it with funding then without.  

Mr. Ryan commented it is definitely easier to continue the program if the County is receiving the funds.

Mr. Dougherty stated the first three years is a no brainer.  The concern is that the County will start a program that will be hard to stop; don’t want to be in the position of cutting the grant if it doesn’t come back.  Ms. Captor commented she understands the concern, but there is no way to tell.

A motion was made by Mr. Dougherty, seconded by Mr. Ryan, to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

Chief Balloni commented this is for representation at arraignments which cuts the number of people coming to the County jail for $100 - $250 bails.  It could pay for itself.  They are paying to house eighteen people right now, and it is costing $40,000 - $50,000 per month.  It could easily go up. 

1.     SHERIFF:  Chief John Balloni

        Monthly Update on Status of:

        a.     New Mental Health Unit at Justice Center

• Promised RFP will be issued – architectural firms decided upon in 2 to 3 weeks, then will pick firm to go forward

        b.     Special Operations Facility 

• Received first draft from VIP Architectural Associates - countywide needs assessment, footprint
• Phase 2 is where to place it; expect final draft of first phase shortly

        c.     Pistol Permits

• Have some data on pistols on a cap system - not a whole pistol permit system; old system had some data which is converting to new system; reporting having that process worked out by end of week

        d.     Correctional Health 

• Switched to new company; things proceeding well with no major issues; pleased with transition
• Some issues with old company – records required to keep but not kept the way they should have been; issued a letter through Law to have them rectify the situation; working with them to straighten it out
• Will decrease outside hospital details - major driver in custody overtime; looking forward to improvement over next yr
• New company bringing in own electronic record system; vast improvement over paper records – will increase efficiencies, keeps track of drugs patients are on, warns if several scripts interact negatively, etc.
• Hoping to see they build out infirmary; more treatment in-house so less go to hospital - less deputies escorting
• Stitches – plenty of medical people to handle; routine medical procedure done in house; don’t have to send deputies to guard for days while prisoner on a drip; can save 100’s of thousands
• Can’t send one deputy to hospital; has to be relief; prisoner must be guarded; pod – one deputy guards 60 prisoners
• When get Mental Health Unit, will have additional savings; less one on one; 1 deputy guarding 60 vs 1 guarding 1 or 2 in constant watch; tremendous efficiency and cost savings
• Done under rigid rules and medical oversight; improving life of the individual in institution for the better; Mental Health is a win/win; pay for it in just savings of operational efficiencies
• Currently would save the boarding of prisoners which is costing significant hours

The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 a.m.                                        

Respectfully submitted,

Jamie M. McNamara, Assistant Clerk

Onondaga County Legislature

* * *

HEALTH COMMITTEE MINUTES - DECEMBER 12, 2013

DANNY J. LIEDKA, CHAIRMAN

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Mr. Jordan, Mr. Dudzinski

MEMBERS ABSENT:  Mr. Ryan, Ms. Williams

ALSO PRESENT:  Chairman McMahon, Mrs. Ervin, also see attached list

Chairman Liedka called the meeting to order at 9:38 a.m.  A motion was made by Mr. Dudzinski, seconded by Mr. Jordan to waive the reading and approve of the minutes of the proceedings of the previous committee meeting; MOTION CARRIED. 

1.     HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:  Ann Rooney, Deputy County Executive

        a.     Confirming the Appointment of Robert Long as the Onondaga County Commissioner of Adult Services and the Director of Community Services

        b.     Confirming the Appointment of David Sutkowy as the Onondaga County Commissioner of Children and Family Services and Other Related Positions

        c.     Confirming the Appointment of Lisa Alford as the Onondaga County Executive Director of the Office of Aging

        d.     Confirming the Appointment of Sarah Merrick as the Onondaga County Commissioner of Social Services

        e.     Confirming the Reappointment of Cynthia B. Morrow, M.D., M.P.H. as Commissioner of Health for the County of Onondaga

• Experience and everything each person brings to table – should be extremely confident; pleased with level of individuals serving on Human Services side
• Working with them every day is a pleasure; all want to be reappointed, and Ms. Merrick a new appt.; speaks well for the County, and where the County is heading
• Mr. Long has been Commissioner of Mental Health for 5 ½ years; appt. to new department of Adult and Long Term Care Services; reputation and performance speak for themselves; stellar performer
• Mr. Sutkowy has been Commissioner of Social Services for 15 years; appt. as Commissioner of Children and Family Services; through a lot of changes, Mr. Sutkowy has been point person in transition - getting in touch with other counties or the state; this reorg streamlines everything, and will tap into Mr. Sutkowy’s real expertise
• Ms. Alford is Commissioner of Aging and Youth; dept. abolished; per state law someone identified as Director of Office of Aging; appt. as Deputy Commissioner in Adult & Long Term Care; inspiring history and resume
• Ms. Merrick is current Deputy Commissioner of DSS; County Executive pleased to bring name forward as Commissioner of SS Economic Security; organized, detailed, awards and accomplishments
• Dr. Morrow - reappt. as Commissioner of Health; by state law CE election and appt. of Commissioner of Health staggered; state role for Commissioner of SS and Health; cannot say enough about job she does representing community – flu shots, food inspections, health and safety, etc.; Health Dept. second to none in NYS
• Personal level – honored to work with all these individuals

A motion was made by Mr. Jordan to approve items 1a through 1e.

Mr. Jordan stated he is honored to sponsor this resolution.  Mr. Dudzinski commented they all have unbelievable credentials.  Chairman Liedka said he has had great interaction with everybody, it’s a great relationship, they bring a lot to the table, and it is a well-oiled machine. 

Mr. Dudzinski seconded the motion.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

2.     HEALTH:  Cynthia Morrow, M.D., MPH, Commissioner

        a.     Authorizing the County Executive to Enter into an Agreement with Oneida County for the Provision of Various Medical Examiner Services

• Approval for 5 year contract with Oneida County for medical examiner services including forensic investigator contracts; did 1 year trial and coming forward with a 5 year contract; intermunicipal agreement
• It’s worked out very well; increase in volume of cases significant, which speaks to need of contract; both sides happy
• Cost based contract; CPI component for every year, but in case goes over there is reconciliation as well

A motion was made by Mr. Jordan, seconded by Mr. Dudzinski, to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Antonacci stated there was an article in the Utica OD that stated Oneida was looking at the contract, and maybe the contract costs on their end were going to exceed what they could pay for themselves.  If Oneida decides to revoke the contract, will the County incur any costs or will there be costs that cannot be recouped?  Dr. Morrow would have to speak to legal, and stated Oneida is required by contract to pay for all costs incurred.  If Oneida was to choose not to continue with the contract moving forward, then there would have to be a significant discussion with Oneida County.  Dr. Morrow cannot imagine there would be a scenario where the County would be liable.  Dr. Morrow responded to Mr. Antonacci that they are raising the price because of costs.

        b.     Authorizing the County Executive to Enter into Agreements with the Oswego County Soil and Water Conservation District Providing for the Transfer of Funding for Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FLLOWPA)

• For over 25 years, have received funding for water quality programs – protecting streams, lakes, rivers; funding from Water Resources Board and DEC has gone through private org – Finger Lakes Association
• WRB and DEC decided the funding should be distributed through Oswego Soil Conservation – legally need intermunicipal agreement; nothing changes for County except where funding is from
• For water chestnuts and milfoil; it is a 25 county association

A motion was made by Mr. Jordan, seconded by Mr. Dudzinski, to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

        c.     Transfer of Funds from Preschool Services Account 696450 ($123,400) to Professional Services Account 694080 ($123,400)

• During budget presentation mentioned significant problem with TB drugs and testing; thought could absorb some costs, but costs are skyrocketing
• Jan. 2013 cost $50 to treat latent TB infection (not disease); INH treatment for 9 months; INH drug shortage hit, so switched to Rifampin
• Rifampin costs several $100s up to $1000; between Jan. 2013 and April 2013, treatment went from average of $50 per patient to $1100 per patient
• Thought would be able to switch back to INH (cheaper) when available, but supply/demand; when realized demand, the price of cheaper drug went up dramatically; at mercy of national drug shortage
• Do not have funds to get the meds to treat TB w/o the transfer; no choice because it is a public health mandate
• No one understands why there was a drug shortage, but do know drugs have started flowing again; cost of INH up to same level as replacement; no intention to drop price to original costs
• Price increase in INH which is most common used drug; went up 992%
• Manufactured by different suppliers in the US

Mr. Jordan asked if they have looked into alternative sources.  Previously the Legislature discussed acquiring prescriptions out of Canada.  Dr. Morrow responded they have looked into everything including purchasing the drugs and hiring a part-time pharmacist to package them; cheaper to buy in bulk.  Dr. Morrow stated they have looked at everything that is legally available in the US.  They have talked with the County and state.  Mr. Jordan asked if the purchase of drugs from Canada is a state prohibition or federal prohibition.  Dr. Morrow replied she would defer to law.  Mrs. Berger stated they can legally do that.  Mr. Jordan said this is ridiculous.

A motion was made by Mr. Jordan, seconded by Mr. Dudzinski, to approve this item.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Liedka stated with costs tripling, someone should write a letter to the senator.

3.     YOUTH BUREAU:  Lisa Alford, Commissioner

        a.     Authorizing the Execution of Intermunicipal Agreements to Provide Certain Municipally Operated Youth Programs with Funding

• Requesting intermunicipal agreements with Town of Camillus, Town of Cicero and City of Syracuse for various youth development and delinquency prevention programs
• 1 at Camillus Town Shop Youth Center, Town of Camillus Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Cicero Canteen and City of City of Syracuse Parks and Recreation program
• Programs operated many years; Canteen program about 25-30 years; Canteen funding at least last 10 years; funding in City of Syracuse for after school fitness program for past 5 years; this will allow intermunicipal agreements

A motion was made by Mr. Jordan to approve this item.

Mr. Jordan requested to be added as a cosponsor.  Mr. Jordan stated he has experience with the Canteen program in Cicero, and it is a great program that does a lot of good for the kids in the district.

Mr. Dudzinski seconded the motion.  Passed unanimously; MOTION CARRIED.

4.     CORRECTION:  Ann Rooney, Deputy County Executive

        a.     A Resolution Authorizing the Construction of a Dog Shelter Facility on the Grounds of the Jamesville Correctional Facility in and for the County of Onondaga, New York, at a Maximum Estimated Cost of $350,000 and Authorizing the Issuance of $350,000 Bonds of said County to Pay the Costs thereof ($350,000)  (Handout on file with Clerk)

• Meeting since August with several animal advocacy groups including Animal Alliance and People for Animal Rights
• Several years received complaints about number of healthy dogs euthanized from lack of shelter space
• Time frame allowed for dog at SPCA or Dewitt Animal Hospital not long enough before euthanizing – around 20 days
• Dog is capture or surrendered; screening, shots and veterinary care done; 20 days for owner to pay all fines or be adopted (if no one claims)
• Euthanized approximately 650 healthy dogs because of time frame; space huge concern
• In concert with organizations, the idea will serve two capacities:
• (1) build shelter on grounds of Jamesville Correctional Facility to help prevent 200-250 euthanized dogs a year; will allow for extended time frame; capacity for 20 dogs
• (2) Positive for inmates; recidivism and re-socialization; already run these types of programs at Jamesville
• Pheasant program that has been in existence since early 70’s - alliance with Onondaga Sportsman Club; bring in baby chicks and inmates raise; then release so hunters have more pheasants to participate in activity
• Not facility where hardened criminals are sentenced; max stay is 2 years
• Also have Parks crews – assist in community putting up lights or getting ready for events;  i.e. Highland Forest or Lights on the Lake
• Commissioner Cowen and jail will identify which inmates are suitable for these activities
• Win/win for healthy dogs being put down for no reason except time, and it will enhance activities for inmates socialization so when they do return, the recidivism numbers will be affected in a positive way
• Working with Tompkins County SPCA – state of the art facility; 2 wealthy benefactors funding the operation; no kill facility; doesn’t have to be this costly, but has to have certain parameters and guidelines
• One parameter - dogs will be prescreened before going to Jamesville – will not take dogs with known health or behavioral issues; only those slated for euthanization
• Capacity for 20 dogs; work arrangement - team of inmates (2 to 4) w/correctional officer; no additional staff necessary
• Volunteer groups excited about prospect of reducing euthanization – they will bring expertise as far as treatment and care of animals; inmates will work with them to take care of dogs; volunteer agencies will arrange the adoptions

Chairman Liedka stated, in reference to liability, the prescreening of dogs does not address a dog biting, and asked if the inmates would sign a waiver.  Ms. Rooney does not believe they would, and Ms. Rooney does not believe the County could have them sign a waiver.  The County also runs a zoo with the same liability for every person that comes in to the zoo (not just inmates but the public).  The dogs will be prescreened, and they will take the suitable action if a dog is not cooperating, but there are no guarantees.  Chairman Liedka asked if the County has to put the dog down at a certain point.  Ms. Rooney responded no.  The idea is to hold them, but they are working with other groups so there are options for things like foster care; not envisioning the dogs being there their whole life.  Chairman Liedka stated Ms. Rooney mentioned other animals at Tompkins County, and asked if the County’s intention is to add other animals.  Ms. Rooney replied no; dogs.

Mr. Jordan objects to this even being considered as it was not on the agenda he received, and Mr. Jordan is not prepared to discuss this.  Mr. Jordan has looked into this, and every program he has seen talks about long term facilities where people are there for years.  Many of these talk about a prisoner being there for a year with incidents and training programs, and only one did not involve the dog being in the cell with the prisoner.  The County is not even attempting that.  Many of these programs talk about four or five dogs, and immediately the County is talking about twenty dogs and a no kill facility.  Mr. Jordan received a phone call from someone who is very involved in animal rights, and they are adamantly opposed.  They said dogs picked up in the City would normally go to the SPCA, but to save money the City contracted with an animal hospital (tiny facility).  Dozens of dogs are being picked up every night, and the dogs are not spade or neutered.  People get the dogs, then abandon them and get new dogs.  This facility would be full instantaneously, and it’s a no kill facility.  What happens to all the other dogs that are being picked up in the City?  Mr. Jordan continued that most programs deal with long term facilities; unlike Jamesville where many people are not there for six months.  Even if they are sentenced for a year, they may do nine months.  Mr. Jordan stated the prisoner would be with the dog for a month or two, and asked if this will really reduce recidivism; anything dealing with recidivism talks about prisoners in long term facilities.  The annual cost is $12,000 per year to run the program.  Mr. Jordan commented that he loves dogs, and maybe a more appropriate program is to fundraise so the SPCA could expand their facility and add twenty kennels.  There are all kinds of issues here, and compared to other programs this is not appropriate.  Last week Mr. Jordan emailed his constituents about the issue.  Initially it was 50/50, and people Mr. Jordan talked to, said Mr. Jordan was right and they did not like the idea.  When the article came out in the paper, every response but one was adamantly opposed to this.  It is extremely well intentioned but Mr. Jordan does not support using tax payer dollars for this.  

Ms. Rooney stated the inmates at Jamesville live in pods with possibly twenty sets of bunk beds and a common area in the center.  The only inmates living in cells are the ones that have behavioral issues so they would not be the ones for this program.  The idea to have a dog in a pod for one inmate logistically does not make sense.  Ms. Rooney cannot say how many inmates want to be assigned to the crews they have (pheasants or parks), but they want positive activity, and do not want to sit around all day.  The affects for them taking care of dogs should not be minimized by the length of stay.  Universally the calls the Executive office has received have been overwhelmingly positive since it was announced in September.  The fact that the County could avoid somewhere in the neighborhood of two hundred euthanizations a year would be positive for the community.  Mr. Jordan does not see where they are coming up with two hundred a year, because they are assuming the dogs will be adopted in a short period of time.  Mr. Jordan said he had to put a dog down, it was a heart wrenching experience, and he said he would not go through that again.  Mr. Jordan’s daughter asked for another dog, so they went to the Humane Association to adopt a dog.  Mr. Jordan called at least a dozen times in four weeks, because he wanted the dog for his daughter’s birthday.  Their response was that they were still considering the application, so Mr. Jordan bought a dog.  Two weeks later the Humane Association called to say he was approved to adopt a dog.  The process needs to be sped up a little bit, and maybe more of the dogs at the animal shelters would be adopted. 

Mr. Dudzinski stated Ms. Rooney brought up an interesting point that prisoners say they want other things to do, and said that he could think of a lot of things that they could do, but the question is:  what can they do?  Mr. Dudzinski asked if they can work with highway crews.  Ms. Rooney responded they already are doing some of that in affiliation with the Parks Department.  The issue is the number of correction officers.  If the prisoners have to leave the facility, they have to be supervised by at least one corrections officer; usually two.  This is a little more practical because it is right at the facility.  The expense comes with the transport of the vans, because they have to be guarded.  If the committee talks with Commissioner Cowen, then he would say the prisoners are out there every day; especially with Parks. 

Chairman Liedka asked what the County has to do to get a price.  Ms. Rooney replied they are envisioning a pull barn.  The materials used on the inside are different, so they do not deteriorate prematurely; not just drywall.  The estimate is based on those discussions, and discussions had with the SPCA about their internal renovation.  That is where the initial $350,000 estimate comes from.  This is not an exact science, and often times they come to the Legislature with a best guess because no money has been assigned to do design work.  That is part of what’s being approved with this. 

Chairman McMahon commented this item is on the agenda so legislators can ask questions, make a decision on this and everyone can digest whether they support it or not.  The right way to do this is to send this issue through numerous committees.  Chairman McMahon stated a concern is that Onondaga County is getting into the dog nanny business, and does not agree that the County can do it.  The County can facilitate a program that works to address recidivism rates to save money, and helps with an issue that people do not realize as far as euthanizing dogs.  These are two social issues that the County can help, but for this to work it has to be a public/private partnership.  Chairman McMahon does not know who the groups are, how many volunteers they have to do this, and what the standards are for adoptions.  If the goal is to save two hundred dogs a year, then the County is looking at a thirty to forty day window to get a dog in and out.  How is this not going to be another department asking for $50,000 then $150,000 or $200,000?  Chairman McMahon does not believe there is any support for that.  Chairman McMahon said people are torn on cost, and the overall idea that the County is getting into this business is not supported.  The emphasis needs to be put on the public.  If the organizations mean what they say that they want to be involved, then the Legislature needs to see the following:  what organizations are in play, how many volunteers they have, who the veterinarians are that will look at the dogs, who are the vets willing to do volunteer surgery, and what are the policies and procedures that will be in place for adoptions.  The financial standpoint is another issue.  Should the County be paying $350,000 for a kennel? 

Ms. Markarian:

• From Animal Alliance of Greater Syracuse; in existence for 4 1/2 years
• Work has been to strengthen collaboration of all animal welfare groups and shelters including the Dewitt Animal Hospital and gov’t entities like Syracuse Common Council, Mayor’s Office, SPD and County Executive’s Office
• Very grateful there has been reaching out because of frustration of suffering of animals
• Public very concerned – looking for creative solutions to solve animal welfare problem; people crying out because of level of violence in community
• Met with health and pet clinics as well as Dr. Wilcox (at Animal Hospital) to strategize
• What is point of funneling more animals in the system faster than adoptions – struggling with this; trying to turn tide around; just like crime multifaceted – same as animal or human welfare
• Health and pet clinics trying to offer low cost vet care; pet responsibility; Animal Alliance working on spade and neuter clinic for $20 per pet
• Dr. Wilcox in favor to prevent dogs going to Dewitt Animal Hospital; working try to address bringing down population
• Dog at Jamesville not adopted – can go to foster home or SPCA or another site with greater potential
• Heart wrenching putting a dog down because of attachment to pet; how to strengthen and create bond to give second chance to prisoner as well as animal to trust and form relationships
• When working with families, ran into crisis with animals - one hit by car, another attacked by a stray, etc. – strategize with family with how to solve problem so pet can remain in family; in process of problem solving achieved attachment with pet; pet became a family member

Mr. Jordan commented he is not opposed to the concept, but is not sure this is something county government should get involved in.  If the resolution is to convey land next to Jamesville to the SPCA or Humane Association so they can build a facility and run a program with the prisoners, then Mr. Jordan would see no problem.  Maybe there is a Friend’s organization that could raise money to help operate the facility, but again with the understanding that prisoners would go over and work with the dogs.  The County could reap the benefits of the program without diving in head first without knowing what the long term ramifications are.  The County would not be in the dog kenneling business.  Mr. Jordan supports the concept but do not know it’s something the County should be getting involved in and being the operator of. 

Chairman McMahon stated any organization would have a comprehensive plan and the County has a plan, but he needs to know about the finances.  Chairman McMahon wants to know the organization’s plans to make this operation work.  The County knows they need corrections officers, but what about the rest of it.  There needs to be a business plan on how it would work, which would make it easier to get to the next step and talk about dollars.  Does the County want to put money in or not?  Chairman McMahon’s main concern is this is not an operational cost year in and year out.  Ms. Rooney asked Ms. Markarian if the group is already working on this.  Ms. Markarian responded they are working with groups, and there are so many volunteers.  This is what they wanted and have been asking for.  This is a partnership where the County is focusing on the jail, and the organization is focusing on the welfare of animals and humans.  The Dewitt Animal Hospital is very sad about the level of euthanization.  The Animal Alliance is trying to bring down the population. 

Chairman McMahon asked for Mr. Long’s opinion about the shortened time period, and how it will affect recidivism rates.  Mr. Long responded it could be successful if it is structured correctly.  Some people will spend two years in jail; not all there for short periods of time.  The key is to structure the program in such a way that the person has a positive attachment to the animal.   If they have issues, then this will expand their attachments in other ways.  This is not for an inmate that’s there for two weeks or weekends, but it could be successful for someone there for three or four months or longer. 

Chairman Liedka stated the committee needs to make a decision, and the finances are on Ways and Means.  The plan needs to be vetted.  Chairman Liedka commented from the committee’s standpoint, they have heard what they need to handle it. 

A motion was made by Chairman Liedka, seconded by Mr. Dudzinski, to approve this item.  Ayes:  2 (Liedka, Dudzinski)  Noes:  1 (Jordan); MOTION CARRIED.

Ms. Rooney stated they will work on the plan Chairman McMahon asked about.  Chairman McMahon responded they need that, and for any out of the box issue that they are asking for a good faith in judgment.  There are two aspects:  make sure it’s programmatically sound, and is the approach the right one to take.  Chairman McMahon commented Mr. Jordan might be on to something.  Should they look at creating a Friend’s organization that the County can support with an allotment?  This has to be ironed out and iron clad before it’s fair to ask the Ways and Means Committee to vote on the money being spent.  Chairman Liedka does not disagree.  Ms. Rooney stated they appreciate the input, and this was by design something that they were not going to advance without the support of the Animal Alliance and volunteers.  The organization said they would fundraise for food and other items.  In Ithaca they have three hundred volunteers who work at the SPCA.  The people who are committed to this issue are very committed.  This will give a focal point for the volunteers to make a difference.  Ms. Rooney said the Animal Alliance will be happy to put a plan together, and that makes all the sense in the world.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Jamie McNamara, Assistant Clerk

Onondaga County Legislature