Lancaster Highway storage building status; where is it?

[Lee Chowaniec]

At Monday evening’s town board meeting the writer questioned whether Resolution #7, authorizing the purchase of a 2015 F-550 XL Reg Cab 4X2, was part of the $1.1 million bonded by resolution in April of 2013 as a capital improvement plan for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment for the Highway Department?

Supervisor Dino Fudoli answered that it was part of that bond issue.

Chowaniec then stated that earlier in 2013 the town also bonded $250,000 for the acquisition of a construction vehicle and apparatus for use by the town.

On that same day in April of 2013 when the town bonded$1.1 million for the capital improvement project the town approved bonding $865,000 for the construction of a 25,000 square foot town storage building.

Since April of 2013, residents have seen hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on updating highway vehicle equipment but have yet to see evidence of any storage building construction taking place.
Pursuant to the requirements of the New York State Highway Law #142 (4), the Town Superintendent shall provide a suitable place for storing equipment, tools, machinery owned by the town and stored therein when not in use. It was discussed by this board the importance of having vehicles and equipment with electronics stored inside especially over the winter months.

On June 17, 2013 an invitation to bid on the construction of a 25,000 square foot storage facility at the Pavement Road complex was put out.

On August 5, 2013, the town by resolution rejected all bids because they came in much higher than expected.

On August 19, the bid process was renewed with the building reduced in size to 20,000 square feet. A bid that came in at bond limit was later increased by $50,000 and included a change in the way the building was to be designed – radiant floor heat.

On January 21, 2014 the town approached NYSERD for a grant to cover the $50,000 and was told the grant amount would be much lower than requested.

Here we are in July of 2014 and it appears nothing has been done to move this project forward that the public is aware of. If by law such facility is required, if such facility is needed to protect today’s sensitive electronics, and considering project costs increase over time, why is the town hesitant in increasing the bond amount to cover the $50,000 added cost – if indeed the original bid amount has not increased over the past year of delay? I am looking at this in terms of fiscal responsibility in that the longer a project is delayed the more costly it becomes. What are we in getting this done before the snow flies?

Supervisor Fudoli: The winning bid for construction came from Dave Kulbacki of Kulbachs Construction. I talked to Dave Kulbacki the other day and they granted us an extension. At one time they granted us a 45 day extension of the current price they quoted us. I called last week because we were past that 45 day extension.

One of the things Dave Kulbacki said was that the framing contractor he used may be gone already; on other jobs. He may not be able to do it for the price first quoted. What he wanted to do was dust off the plans and say that he was still able to do it for the price quoted; or close to it.

Senator Gallivan had offered $50,000 at one point in time but there was no certainty on that. What I left it at with Dave Kulbacki was literally that he was to contact me this week and let me know if he could do it for the original price. At the same time I was talking to Town Engineer Bob Harris on what could legally be done on the bid specifications. In other words, there are two garage doors on that building and maybe we could cut it down to one garage door. What can we alter on that building that will not alter the specs to the point we have legal problems; where another contractor that lost the bid sues the town and says that we opened the bid specs after you already awarded the bid and that is a violation of law.

If Kulbacki gets back to us and says he can honor the price, we were going to sit down as a group – Kulbacki, Harris, Dave Brown and myself – and see what can be done with this project without altering it to the point where we get into legal trouble and where we could lower our costs where we could come at or near the bonded number.

Certain things are allowable to be paid for from other proceeds. In other words, when you bond for a particular building, that building is collateralized by that particular structure; the bond holders. You can’t pump money into that. But certain soft costs can be picked up by the town from other sources of revenue. We can pick up soft costs like engineering, inspections and things like that. So if we can pick up some of those soft costs outside of the bond, that it does not alter the bond, we will be able to move this project forward almost as is. Where are we in this process, waiting for Dave Kulbacki to call to tell us he can do the construction for the price quoted in 2013 and if not we may to rebid it again. Dave said he would have an answer for me this week.

Chowaniec: So you are telling me that you cannot amend the bond and add $50,000 to it and start the project?

Fudoli: We can amend it but that would not be my favorite option because we have already paid interest on the Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) and to me that’s pissing that money away. We bonded what we did for that purpose and I would like to squeeze it in under the price range.

Chowaniec: Is the bond repayment for 15 years?

Fudoli: I imagine it is as it is for a building and the term is usually for 15 years.

Chowaniec: $50,000 over 15 years equates to near nothing in annual taxpayer obligation. Like everyone else, I don’t want to pay more in taxes. But when I consider how much money the town is spending in purchasing new vehicles and equipment they should be stored in a heated building, out of the elements; especially in winter. Otherwise we are pissing money away; in my opinion.

Council member Mark Aquino: We can use common sense and rent space as we did last year. I don’t like to do that either, but it buys us a little time to make the right decision on what we want to do.

Chowaniec: But at the same time, the space you rented last year wasn’t large enough to store all the equipment. Isn’t that right?

Aquino: Yeah, but we could add to it.

Fudoli: We could still lease some space to put equipment in and build the storage facility smaller than we originally anticipated. It was dirt cheap to lease last year’s storage space.

Chowaniec: You are actually thinking about decreasing the size of the planned 20,000 square foot storage facility?

Fudoli: I am only saying if we needed to. Instead of spending more money we might be able to find a deal out there that allows us to store a couple pieces of equipment, we might do that and build this building a little bit smaller. All I’m saying is those options are on the table.

[gorja]

I like the idea that Supervisor Fudoli wants to stick to the original bonding amount. As long there is a heated storage area this winter and future winters to store the expensive equipment, I support the supervisor's decision.

[Lee Chowaniec]

16 months after bonding to erect a highway storage facility no shovel has hit the ground and we are being told by the town that they are considering options on how best to move the project forward – namely, how to come up with the $50,000 shortfall to begin construction; if the original construction bidder is able to hold the price set last year.

What don’t make sense to this individual are the costs involved so far in doing nothing. $2,400 was spent in leasing a building on Cemetery Road over the winter to store equipment; and the building was not large enough to store everything. Vehicles with new age technology sat outside exposed to the winter elements. A board member declared they would find more space to lease this winter if need be – adding more expense to the equation.

Supervisor Fudoli commented that the Bond Anticipation Note interest payment is already in effect. The town can find the money to cover these expenditures but can’t find a way to raise $50,000 to begin a project that by its very nature would offset those costs over time.

No taxpayer wants to pay more in taxes unless the project outlay makes sense and is fiscally responsible. This appears to be what is taking place here. It is disturbing to see how the town can come up with the funds for baseball facility, a skate park, etc, but is having difficulty finding the funds to protect the highway equipment it is spending hundreds of thousands to purchase. Let’s git er done!

Lastly, the option mentioned by the Supervisor to possibly lease building space off-site to store some equipment and decrease the size of the storage facility makes no sense fiscally and in the sense that the board itself declared early on that a building under 20,000 square foot would not fit the town needs for current storage needs and maneuverability and not allow for future expansion needs.

[hawkeye]

were is the coldcraft building when you need it?

[gorja]

I do think the baseball facility and skatepark could use money from recreation fees that homebuilders pay. Highway garage isn't recreational

[Lee Chowaniec]

I do think the baseball facility and skatepark could use money from recreation fees that homebuilders pay. Highway garage isn't recreational

Understood. That was just an example to show that money can be found to fund anything. But the town can't come up with any creative way to fund a project of greater significance, that services the best interest of the entire community and in the interim is spending money otherwise that could be used to make up the $50,000 shortfall. Is that fiscal responsibility?

And, everything should be stored in one building all year long, not helter-skelter.

[WNYresident]

On that same day in April of 2013 when the town bonded$1.1 million for the capital improvement project the town approved bonding $865,000 for the construction of a 25,000 square foot town storage building.

http://armstrongsteel.com/

Steel Buildings

6" concrete slab, $20 to $25 a square at 25,000 square feet with 20 foot ceilings. Electrical, heating/hvac and plumbing extra if needed. 50 year structural warranty. You know what was funny. The sales person said people have to be careful on town building construction. The builders have a habit of low balling the bid to win but then nickle and dime their way up with change orders.


Why Armstrong

http://www.armstrongsteelbuildings.c...rong-steel.pdf

Completed on time. On Budget.

http://www.armstrongsteelbuildings.c...g-brochure.pdf

Buying Direct

http://www.armstrongsteelbuildings.com/buyingdirect.pdf

[FMD]

Where did you get the $20-$25 per sq ft price from? Including concrete and foundation....

Seriously, I want to know. Because thruogh my extensive research into steel building construction, while easier to build than a pole barn, are surprisingly much more expensive for some odd reason.

Also, the butler steel building looks to be a much stronger/better design

[WNYresident]

I called.

I talked to a Cathy Holland who works for Armstrong Steel.

I asked for a basic open storage type building at 25,000 square feet with 20 foot ceilings. She said 6" pad. Remember that doesn't include electrical, heating, plumbing if needed.

Dear Tony,
It was good talking to you today about your project. Per our conversation, this email includes a few brochures about our building and the services we offer.


This link will take you to our 3D building. It’s great for learning the basics about pre engineered steel buildings and an extremely handy tool to have at your fingertips when you’re discussing a steel building with anyone.

Finally, it’s important to remember that not all steel building companies are the same, just like not all steel buildings are the same. This link is a great place to start when comparing our buildings to others on the market (Armstrong vs the competition). Armstrong Steel is committed to it’s customers and so we’d like to make sure you’re safe while you’re shopping for a building. Be sure to check any company’s BBB record before doing business with them. Armstrong Steel is the #1 contacted steel building company in the USA. Roughly 8,000 customers a month reach out to Armstrong Steel for assistance and/or information! Complaint volume is a strong indicator of how a company takes care of it’s customers and we’re proud of our BBB record! If you would like to know more about us and our mission as a steel building company check out this letter from our CEO(Letter from the CEO).

[Lee Chowaniec]

I do recall that when a resident questioned the exorbitant cost of building the storage facility and how he could put up a pole barn for far less cost, he was told as it was a government related project and the town was forced to hire union contractors who pay prevailing wages, that factor increased the cost of the project by 40%.

[WNYresident]

How could the town discriminate against non-union workers?

[gorja]

How could the town discriminate against non-union workers?

All municipalities in NYS have to abide by that law.

[WNYresident]

All municipalities in NYS have to abide by that law.

So then my question should be

How could all the municipalities discriminate against non-union workers?

[gorja]

So then my question should be

How could all the municipalities discriminate against non-union workers?

I'm sure it was a Democratic initiative.
http://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection...g%20Worker.pdf

[shortstuff]

16 months after bonding to erect a highway storage facility no shovel has hit the ground and we are being told by the town that they are considering options on how best to move the project forward – namely, how to come up with the $50,000 shortfall to begin construction; if the original construction bidder is able to hold the price set last year.

What don’t make sense to this individual are the costs involved so far in doing nothing. $2,400 was spent in leasing a building on Cemetery Road over the winter to store equipment; and the building was not large enough to store everything. Vehicles with new age technology sat outside exposed to the winter elements. A board member declared they would find more space to lease this winter if need be – adding more expense to the equation.

Supervisor Fudoli commented that the Bond Anticipation Note interest payment is already in effect. The town can find the money to cover these expenditures but can’t find a way to raise $50,000 to begin a project that by its very nature would offset those costs over time.

No taxpayer wants to pay more in taxes unless the project outlay makes sense and is fiscally responsible. This appears to be what is taking place here. It is disturbing to see how the town can come up with the funds for baseball facility, a skate park, etc, but is having difficulty finding the funds to protect the highway equipment it is spending hundreds of thousands to purchase. Let’s git er done!

Lastly, the option mentioned by the Supervisor to possibly lease building space off-site to store some equipment and decrease the size of the storage facility makes no sense fiscally and in the sense that the board itself declared early on that a building under 20,000 square foot would not fit the town needs for current storage needs and maneuverability and not allow for future expansion needs.

You made a good point here Lee, if money is had to install turf and a sports complex yet they can't find an additional 50 thousand to complete this project that benefits the entire town-is abstract to me. What is going on here? I do not feel that rec fees should supplement this project, that is crossing the line in allocation of funds.