of the
Suffolk County Legislature
Capital Budget Minutes
                A special meeting of the Public Safety & Public Information Committee 
        of the Suffolk County Legislature was held in the Rose Y. Caracappa 
        Legislative Auditorium of the William H. Rogers Legislature Building, 
        Veterans Memorial Highway, Smithtown, New York, on May 30, 2001, to 
        discuss the matter of the Capital Budget.
        Legislator Angie Carpenter - Chairperson
        Legislator Maxine Postal
        Legislator Joseph Caracappa
        Legislator David Bishop - Vice-Chair
        Legislator William Lindsay
        Paul Sabatino - Counsel to the Legislature
        Doug Sutherland - Aide to Legislator Carpenter
        Linda Burkhardt - Aide to Presiding Officer Tonna
        Tom Donovan - Aide to Presiding Officer Tonna
        Jim Spero - Deputy Director/Budget Review Office
        Rosalind Gazes - Budget Analyst/Budget Review Office
        Bonnie L. Godsman - County Exec's Office/Intergovernmental Relations
        Kathy LaGuardia - County Executive's Budget Office
        John Gallagher - Commissioner/Suffolk County Police Department
        James Abbott - Chief Deputy Commissioner/Suffolk County Police Dept
        James Maggio - Deputy Commissioner/Suffolk County Police Department
        Phil Robilotto - Chief of Department/Suffolk County Police Department
        Jan Rios - Detective-Lieutenant/Suffolk County Police Department
        John Blosser - Lieutenant/Suffolk County Police Department
        Fred Webber - Sergeant/Suffolk County Police Department
        Vincent Stile - Communications/Suffolk County Police Department
        Thomas Arciero - Inspector/Suffolk County Police Department
        Edward Webber - Chief/Suffolk County Police Department
        Jim Shields - Suffolk County Police Department
        Mark Hauser - Suffolk County Police Department
        Jim Strack - Sergeant/Suffolk County Police Department
        Alan R. Otto - Chief of Staff/Suffolk County Sheriff's Department
        Joe Rubacka - Sergeant/Suffolk County Sheriff's Department
        All Other Interested Parties
        Alison Mahoney - Court Stenographer
                   (*The meeting was called to order at 2:10 P.M.*)
        We will convene the Public Safety Capital Budget Hearing, and I thank 
        you for your indulgence.  I'm sure everyone is aware of the fact that 
        we have lost power, there's been an accident, so we will do the best 
        we can.  
        Let us begin with Dave Fischler; Dave, are you here?  I know that he 
        left a conference to come here and hopefully he'll get back there. So 
        why don't you address any concerns that you have, and I guess we're on 
        page 209.
        Okay, thank you very much.  We have five Capital Projects that we 
        submitted beginning with this project, 3405 as the improvements to the 
        Fire Training Center, this has been an ongoing project this year. We 
        have already appropriated $450,000 for the design and planning stages, 
        next year will be the construction of the facility.  There will be a 
        combustible burn facility at the request of the fire services, we want 
        to maintain one structure.  
        This facility, while we have already made -- we have already taken 
        action to be environmentally sensitive and move forward to a gas 
        burning operation, this one facility will maintain combustible burn to 
        give the most life-like fire training possible to our fire fighters.  
        They will not use any hydrocarbons in terms of the ignition source 
        which we currently use which has created a problem over the years, 
        that will be eliminated.  The combustible materials will be wood 
        pallets and the combustion will be -- ignition source will be by a 
        gas-fed ignition source. So we're maintaining that environmental 
        We have gone to the {SETHRA} Board and have gotten a positive 
        determination and I guess negative for that in terms that we did video 
        taping for them and showed that we would not have any environmental 
        impact, they agreed and issued that negative determination that it 
        would be appropriate to go ahead with that project. So we're asking 
        you to continue that format.  I think many of you have already 
        received letters and correspondence from the various fire services to 
        go forward with a combustible burn, we've done everything else that 
        you've asked, maintain one facility to allow that most realistic 
        training. While the other one provides realistic training, this is -- 
        they need to see at least the actual fire conditions typically for a 
        new (inaudible).  So we believe that would be appropriate.
        Yeah, I did -- I received a number of letters from the various fire 
        service communities that they really are very supportive of having us 
        go forward with this.
        Right. So that's that one for that one.
        The next one is Capital Project 3412, it's to -- this was at the 
        request and it was the number one priority of the FRES Commission and 
        the fire services to bring -- have the new mobile command posts.  
        Obviously ours goes back to 1986, it's been used extensively, you know 
        the major incidents that we've had, it's been used in not so major, 
        you know, besides the wild fires, TWA and other major type fires like 
        the Sag Harbor fire in downtown Sag Harbor, but on a regular basis by 
        fire departments and any fire or EMS mass casualties or even in 
        disaster operations.  Unfortunately we've had some failures with it 
        and it's starting to fall apart, it's 16 years old, it's gotten a lot 
        of wear and use and it's starting to fail.  We were out in Greenport 
        at a major gasoline -- a major propane leak which consideration was 
        going to be to evacuate a hospital and also our electric and radios 
        went dead.  While we have made repairs to it, this goes to the normal 
        thing, one thing starts going, the next one and the next one. 
        It was brought up by the fire service, you know, while we did get past 
        that evening, we brought the rescue truck with outside lighting and 
        flash -- let the outside lights flash in and that's not a way to 
        Not in supporting our volunteer fire and EMS services. They have asked 
        that to be the number one priority, I concur with that.  And even 
        though it was listed in the year 2004 budget, we would like to see 
        that moved up to next year's budget. We don't now know how much 
        longer -- you know, repairs are starting to become more extensive, 
        doors have to be replaced, rot, wear and tear on the system and engine 
        and electrical system and so on.  So we ask that that be moved up to 
        the --
        -- 2002 budget.  Next -- any questions on that? 
        The next project is construction of the new Arson training Facility, 
        it was included in the Capital Budget of the County Exec and also by 
        Legislative Budget Review, we concur with both of them that it should 
        go forward in next year's.  During the construction phases of updating 
        our training center we had to knock down the old arson training 
        facility, that building is used not only to train fire fighters, it 
        recognizes the signs of arson so they know they have a potential arson 
        and they could make necessary notifications to the police arson squads 
        to do the investigation.  It also allows training for the people who 
        are being trained as arson investigators.  We just completed a course 
        as Fire Investigator I's, it's a certified course that all our people 
    including police and fire investigators need to take there.  In the 
        past we were able to give them hands-on experience, this time we were 
        not because we had no facility; this will allow us to continue that 
        project.  Moving on? 
        Right along. 
        Okay.  The next one is project -- there's no number to it, this is 
        construction of a new fire vehicle storage facility.  Our current 
        garage is dilapidated, it was built back in the early 60's, it does 
        not -- cannot handle the equipment that we have currently.  We have 
        some equipment and vehicles in there, we have vehicles out in our pump 
        test facility that have to be continuously moved whenever we do fire 
        apparatus testing for their pumps, also when there's other training 
        going on there they have to be moved in and out.  In addition, in the 
        middle of the night if we have to respond, our command post which is 
        located out there, we have to send people in their cars to get out 
        there into an isolated field and it's not a good situation to have 
        these people move forward.
        In addition, this Legislature, I guess about two years ago, created -- 
        Steve Levy introduced a resolution authorizing us to purchase a 
        $200,000 decontamination trailer, that's being delivered, we have no 
        storage space for that. While recommendations were made to look at 
        other Yaphank space, we have, there is none available, the best we can 
        do is outside space at the Department of Health facility on 
        Patchogue -- Sills Road and that's not really good if we want to get 
        out in a timely fashion to get people in vehicles to drive places and 
        maintain a vehicle outside that has water and liquid in there that we 
        wouldn't have to train every time, it doesn't make sense. So a new 
        facility, storage facility for our vehicles is needed.  We were 
        proposing a butler building no extensive, big taj majhal or anything 
        but simply a butler building with some office space for some 
        maintenance mechanics that take care of the fire training grounds and 
        enough places to put the vehicles. 
        Are there any questions?  That's it, right?
        No, one more.
        Okay, go ahead.
        Okay. And the final one is an interim backup Fire Rescue 
        Communications Facility. We have an elaborate facility, the backup, we 
        have no backup capability in the event that we had to evacuate that 
        facility, that evacuation could be for numerous reasons whether it's a 
        threat, whether it's an actual fire in the facility; I hope there's a 
        never a fire in the fire rescue facility because it's not good 
        publicity.  But in the event that there is a need to get out of our 
        facility, out of our building, we have a place to go to continue fire 
        EMS dispatch.  There's the most cost effective equipment we would be 
        buying, while this may be only temporary, we plan to move to an 
        emergency operation center where this equipment could be used during 
        times of activation of the EOC but still maintain a backup capability. 
        It allows our people to enter a separate building.   As you know, our 
        back is an addition, the front part, this is in the Probation building 
        and there is light. So we had a backup -- so anyhow, that backup 
        facility is really needed.  The Police Department has been innovative 
        over the years and had built up backup communications systems and it's 
        something that is needed for fire EMS.  To not be able to dispatch 
        obviously is a problem we have if our system goes down or in an 
        emergency we have to evacuate that room, not with having any other 
        facility to go to, calls will not be able -- we will not be able to 
        evacuate fire and EMS agencies.
        To put it off -- you know, can we buy time? Yeah, but we'll be rolling 
        the dice I think.  But is there another facility we could go to in the 
        County?  We have to be close enough to our facility that the time 
        frame between us and evacuating our current facility and being 
        operational in another facility is minimal time, to get in cars and 
        travel sometimes becomes excessive time and slows the fire and rescue 
        dispatch operation.  So we would ask that this project be considered 
        in the future as we go forward.  And that's all I have. 
        Okay.  I would just ask the committee if there's a consensus on these 
        last two that are not included at all, that we at least recommend in 
        the out years that they be included so that in the future they could 
        be considered. 
        In the out years, subsequent.
        Yeah, all right, those two.  
        Just for consideration purposes.
        Exactly.  So that would be -- neither of them have project numbers, 
        though, so I don't know how you would handle that.
        MR. SPERO:
        We get the numbers and then we do an amendment to have them --
        Okay. So on those last two, the Fire Rescue Command Facility and the 
        interim backup.  Are there any questions for Dave?  Any other 
        comments, Dave? 
        Great.  Thank you very much.
        Thank you. 
        I think rather than moving in there, if everyone doesn't mind just 
        continuing along here. Okay?
        LEG. POSTAL:
        Maybe, Deputy Commissioner Abbott, you would like sit --
        No, I'm fine. 
        All right.  Let us move to -- who wants to go?  Commissioner, you were 
        here -- you were the first one here so we'll let you go up first. 
        Thank you. I don't know if I was the first one here.
        Well, you were the first one that Maxine and I noticed, so that  
        MR. DONOVAN:
        Everything is up and running, I don't know if you want to move back 
        into the auditorium. 
        No, I think we'll just continue here. I don't want to lose time 
        because there's a three o'clock meeting that's scheduled to start.  I 
        guess we need to go to page 169 for your projects in the Budget Review 
        Report, page 170, it starts with Project No. 3117.  
        Okay, 3117.  I don't have that listed in the order that I have.
        Well, why don't you just go with what you have. 
        Okay.  First of all, let me just say on an overall that the Capital 
        Budget appropriation that we get back after our submission to the 
        County Executive's Budget Office and the recommendations of the 
        Legislative Budget Review Office, you know, is a good one for us in 
        general.  We want to first make sure that that's put on the record, 
        that we do feel that we got a fairly good response to our request but 
        there are some exceptions that we will be noting as I go along here.
        The -- our number one priority -- I guess just in passing, because I 
        think this has already been taken care of -- was a replacement of a 
        tower, a {comset} tower over in the State park and that tower was 
      voted in, you know, it's actually been put into the budget now.  And I 
        think we're having -- Vincent Stile is here.  The only problem we're 
        having now is we have to negotiate with the State exactly how they 
        want the tower put up.  Subsequent to your voting it in they kind of 
        changed the rules as to what they want to do, whether they're going to 
        replace the water tower or give us the opportunity to put up a poll, 
        separate poll or put a pole on top of the tower, but that's not 
        relevant to the funding.  
        The second project that we are pushing for is -- these are in priority 
        order -- is the 800 Megahurtz Intelligent Repeater Radio Enhancement.  
        This is a project in terms of the  --
        LEG. POSTAL:
        What's the project number?
        Can you just give us the project number?
        Yeah, I don't --
        3221. Oh, I see, it's over in the third column, I'm sorry, 3221. That 
        project involves a recurring and chronic problem we have with getting 
        our radio transmission through certain parts of the Police District 
        and really throughout the entire County where we have some 
        transmissions that have to be reached out to the east end also.  And 
        this Intelligent Radio Repeater Enhancement is an overall attempt to 
        answer that chronic lack of communication that we occasionally have.  
        I'm not saying it's totally absent but it becomes -- there are certain 
        areas around this district that are real problem areas for us, one is 
        the Northport area, that's the immediate project that we have under 
        this 3221 umbrella is the Northport project.  In subsequent years we 
        have asked for a repeat of Huntington where there's been, again, an 
        ongoing problem in reaching into the Huntington area because of the 
        configuration, the topography of the area, we have had trouble with 
        transmissions going into the various parts of -- the 2nd Precinct has 
        always had a problem with various parts of Huntington Village, 
        etcetera, Huntington Bay. 
        And finally we have under subsequent years a repeater that we're 
        asking for to be put into Sag Harbor which will give us the loop of 
        transmissions that take us out to the east end and back.  As you know, 
        some operations that we are on, we service either ourselves as a 
        service arm to other agencies or we need directly take in the entire 
        County, and that's the second repeater that we need to put in in the 
        Sag Harbor area, the north shore.
        So right now it's included in subsequent years and you agree with 
        We agree that it's subsequent years.
        As long as we can keep it in -- keep focused on it because it's a 
        chronic problem, it's not going to go away. 
        MR. SPERO:
        Actually it's spread over three years, 2002, three and four, so it's 
        like one repeater a year.
        Right. Okay.
        So as long as we can keep focused on that, we're asking --  because it 
        is important.  
        Next is 3164 which is a replacement of the installation of HVAC system 
        in the ID Section.  Lieutenant Rios is here from that section, but 
        that's a whole issue that has to do with OSHA safety standards.  It's 
        a repeated problem, ID uses certain types of material that have got to 
        be filtered out of the building and out of the work area and the HVAC 
        system that we're looking for is designed specifically to do that.  
        And we're, you know, making a strong request that that be kept in in 
        tact in the budget for 2002, 260,000.
        And you're also making some minor improvements architecturally with 
        I'm not sure about those; Lieutenant?
        The structural --
        MS. MAHONEY:
        Just state your name, please.
        I'm sorry, Detective Lieutenant Jan Rios.  The structural changes 
        would all be in the system.  Some would be within the section itself 
        as far as fuming hoods go, everything else would be after that, up in 
        the ceiling, on the roof, whatever.
        So there are changes architectural but they're really integrated 
        totally with the HVAC system such as duct work and fume hoods.
        Next project is the one that has been -- it's been not recommended 
        either by the Budget Office or the Exec Budget and that's 3181, the 
        Quartermaster Supply Storage Area and a forensic building for auto. 
        You know, I will -- I will accept -- I have no choice, I will accept 
        the fact that it's not being recommended, but it's something I just 
        want to bring to the committee's attention.  Our storage area -- I 
        have photographs here if anybody cares to look at them later, but 
        they're rather dramatic of the kind of way we have to store things 
        where boxes are piled on top of boxes. So there is a need to do 
        something about this at some point in the future, about giving it some 
        more room.  It also would free up room in the headquarters building.  
        3175 --
        Just backup a minute.  This is something that the Budget Review Office 
        seems to support the concept of what you're asking for; correct?
        MR. SPERO:
        That's correct.  We thought building a new facility for them to get 
        the Quartermaster out of headquarters was an optimal solution for the 
        space problem there.  Because really you're using that office space as 
        a warehouse, so it would be better to have some sort of a warehouse to 
        store these items and free up the office space.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        You seem to be recommending --
        MR. SPERO:
        Well, in lieu of the fact that the Legislature didn't want to 
        appropriate the full blown project, you might try to look at some 
        other lower cost alternatives.
        Like a butler building?
        MR. SPERO:
        It could be a butler building, even if it's cold storage.
        We acknowledge, you know, that there's a cost, obviously it's a major 
        project cost.  DPW I think would be -- I would suggest we talk 
        together with this committee to have DPW with us also to come up with 
        their view of what they think the building should cost, because 
        sometimes it's variance with what we think it should cost. 
        Well, perhaps we should at least consider including some monies in for 
        planning to start this process, especially since --
        MR. SPERO:
        The building has been planned, that building has been -- the plans are 
        already completed.
        Well, as far as as looking at --
        MR. SPERO:
        It could be changed, it could be amended.
        As far as looking at lower cost alternatives.  Because right now there 
        is nothing put in any of the years, whether it be next year or 
        subsequent years, for this project at all.  So I don't know, what is 
        the desire of other members of the committee on this?
        LEG. POSTAL:
        Well, when you're saying the planning is done, you're talking about 
        the planning for a building.
        MR. SPERO:
        The appropriations for the construction were rejected by the 
        Was this like about four months ago?
        MR. SPERO:
        No, it was longer than that. 
        No, we revisited it.
        No, I don't think so.
        MS. LaGUARDIA:
        Yeah, because last year we brought it up again. 
        MR. SPERO:
        Was it rejected two times?
        MS. LaGUARDIA:
        It was rejected prior to that.
        And is the money in there this year?
        MR. SPERO:
        No, there's no money in the Capital Budget for this year.
        For 2001, there's nothing in there.
        This building, we got involved with DPW in the cost of the building 
        being costed out as bearing a cost of a generator to be, in effect, a 
        backup generator for the entire headquarters complex, and that drove 
        the cost of the building up.  So I think at one point it got -- I 
        would say there's some confusion as to why the building was costing so 
        much and the building was rejected.
        MR. SPERO:
        The generator money is now in the program as part of another project, 
        so this project cost could be reduced by at least a half of million 
        Perhaps you could have some conversations with DPW and get that 
        information to us before Tuesday. 
        All right. 
        All right?  So that was 3181. 
        Can we --
        When is the deadline for amendments, is it today?
        MR. SPERO:
        It's technically today. We can put something in the hopper.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        You can even amend something --
        MR. SPERO:
        And just to have it -- this way you'd have something to vote on next 
        LEG. POSTAL:
        MR. SPERO:
        Why don't we do that?
        Okay. All right, continue. 
        Thank you.  Additional prisoner transport bus, Capital Project 3175.  
        That was recommended, it's in the budget, it's been recommended by 
        both the Budget Office and the Budget Review Office.
        You're safe.
        I said you're safe.
        Thank you.
        That's a good position to be in. 
        Moving right along.
        MR. SPERO:
        Don't say any more. 
        I know when to hold them and when to fold them. 
        3202, equipment shelter replacement at the Mt. Misery Radio Tower 
        site.  The only problem we have with this is that the we asked for 
        75/5 on 3203 for next year and it was recommended to be put into 2003 
        and our concern is that that might be too long to wait for the 
        replacement for that tower site. 
        The County Executive's Budget Office said that pushing it off a year?
        The Executive Budget Office put it in, the Legislature recommended 
        actually going right into the present budget and we agree with that 
        recommendation, you know. I don't want to get into -- obviously I 
        don't want to get into a contest with the County Executive's Budget 
        Office, but we do agree that the Legislative budget recommendation we 
        think is really the more reasonable one.
        So we're recommending moving the money to 2002.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        MR. SPERO:
        No. Actually, we're recommending amending the current Capital Budget.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        And doing it this year.
        MR. SPERO:
        Finding an offset this year.
        Can we find that kind of offset, do you think? 
        MR. SPERO:
        Yeah. It's 75/5, I think we can come up with something.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        Yeah, why don't we do that.
        Thank you.  Because this is one of our -- again, Mr. Stile can -- 
        MR. STILE:
        It's a crowded building.  I mean, and we just had to put a temporary 
        repair on the roof last year.
        All right. 
        Okay.  There is no number assigned to the next one which is 
        replacement of a forklift in the impound yard.  Sergeant Strack is 
        here to speak to this, but the only -- this is one that I know is -- 
        we thought we had a solution.  We requested a forklift and forklifts, 
        there are forklifts and there are forklifts. The ones that are needed 
        in the impound yard are a different breed than the type of forklift 
        you think of when you think of a forklift, because you're actually 
        moving cars.  And also, you're moving them not on a flat service, 
        you're moving them through terrain so it has to be, you know, in 
        effect, an outdoor type of vehicle that is capable of moving vehicles 
        around on non flat services.  
        The cost is high, it's 156,000.  We thought we had -- through the 
        Executive Budget Office, we thought we had worked out an agreement 
        with DPW to use their forklift but it's just come to my attention, 
        literally just come to my attention, that that forklift that DPW is 
        was going to share with us is not capable of doing the job that we 
        need done out at the impound yard, it doesn't have the off-road 
        capability that is needed for the forklift that we have. We have one 
        forklift now that is literally on its last legs, out of three we have 
        one operating.  So it's -- I'm sorry to have to bring it as a last 
        minute item, you know, in effect contradicting what seemed to be a 
        reasonable agreement, to let DPW share their forklift with us. But I 
        just simply have to say, that particular forklift is not going to be 
        able to function to serve both of us.
        Well, I see a comment that Budget Review made and with the increased 
        amount of vehicles because of the DWI seizure policy, they seem to be 
        in agreement with the concept.  Did you have this information that it 
        wasn't going to work with --
        MR. SPERO:
        No, we went with the --
        No, I don't think anybody knew. I think the Sergeant said -- when was 
        that, just recently? 
        It was just told to me -- 
          MS. MAHONEY:
        Just state your name, please.
        Sergeant Jim Strack, Commanding Officer/Impounds.  It was just told to 
        me Monday about this shared agreement, so the first thing I did was 
        call around to find out what type of forklift was being ordered. And 
        there was one being ordered for DPW and one being ordered through the 
        bus transport division, I'm not exactly sure, but I called all the 
        people appropriate and all -- those three forklifts are LPG solid 
        tired, the type of thing you might see at Home Depot. The impound 
        yard, it couldn't even go -- get into the impound yard, I only have 
        about six inches, four to six inches of ground clearance, they would 
        just immediately get stuck.  They also only have a 5,000 pound lifting 
        capability, they also don't have long enough forks to hold up a car, 
        it just -- it's use is completely inappropriate. 
        I realize the one that I'm asking for is much more expensive but 
        there's a reason. It has to have pneumatic tires, it has to have -- it 
        has to be low profile but high ground clearance, it has to go in 
        buildings but also go off-terrain, it has to handle vehicles up to 
        10,000 pounds; there's a host of things that it's required.  We're 
        basically in an off-road impound yard, there is not one paved section 
        of it. And as you stated before, we're doing more and more and more 
        cars every year, and if the new law passes maybe you want five next 
        Yeah, I would have to assume some responsibility here, I think we 
        should have done more homework obviously with DPW.  The Executive 
        Budget Office, you know, recommended the shared service, but no one 
        really realized that the shared service really -- the shared service 
        cannot work as it's presently configured.
        The ones that are being ordered or have been ordered for DPW, do you 
        know anything about that? 
        DPW I think ordered two for the shops, one for each shop.
        Right, so that doesn't sound right.
        And the third one was that bus transportation which they keep motors 
        for the County buses in a facility, in the Bomarc facility. Presently 
        when they have to move them, they call me, they make an appointment 
        and I have one of my men move it with my forklift.  So it's 
        actually -- the funny thing is the much heavy duty forklift can 
        obviously do the light duty jobs.
        The light duty being ordered can't do the job that's necessary for me.
        So the one that's been ordered for Bomarc, is it possible that the 
        configurations of what's being ordered for Bomarc be changed so that 
        we can go back to sharing it?
        Well, again, in the past they didn't have any, they used -- they would 
        call me and I would use one of mine, Buildings and Grounds had a very 
        small one.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        I think what Legislator Carpenter is asking is whether DPW has gone so 
        far down the road with regard to this forklift that they could not 
        modify or cancel what they have ordered --
        And we just ordered this.
        MR. SPERO:
        Public Works is the next committee.
        And if they had been -- yeah, and we'll raise that in Public Works. So 
        if they had not had them before and they had been using yours, then 
        we've already got this shared thing in place. 
        Also, I need one every day without fail, they need it twice a year.
        All right. We'll address that in Public Works.
        All right. We would be more than happy to work with you on that.  If 
        there's any way we can work a shared appropriation out with them to 
        get us what we need and it would be of course for their use.  As the 
        Sergeant said, their use is minimal compared to our use.
        And they're doing it already.
        I also -- with the purchasing with the decommissioned vehicles, we 
        have been for years, and before me Lieutenant {Vasile} had been 
        helping out other County agencies and we basically wanted to get one 
        with the best capability.  Also because the Bomarc is also east end 
        emergency staging area, part of this is a real public safety issue.  
        The fact that this particular one could also be like a front loader, 
        it could keep the place opened basically no matter what. 
        Okay.  All right, let's continue then. 
        We have the next -- our next project priority that's been included in 
        Capital project 3135 which is a kind of generic project for vehicles, 
        heavy duty vehicles and included in there is our request for a 
        four-wheel-drive tow truck to replace one of our tow trucks in the 
        transportation section.  And that's included, we recommend that be 
        left in.  
        Next is 3220. 3220 was an 800 Megahurtz Radio System and Enhancement 
        for the entire south shore which was a multi-agency use project that 
        we designed. And Vincent Stile who really serves as the County's, not 
        just the department but really it's for all County agencies, I guess 
        the major element in communications expertise comes from him.  And we 
        designed a project which has been redesigned, the request for the 
        project was, as you see, the time frame from 2002 throughout beyond 
        2004, a $5 million project.  We were asked to reaccept, you know, 
        redesign that strictly for the County Police Department, strictly for 
        our use, our need.  And we did that and the 200,000, approximately, 
        199.6, what we have is -- we use just want to point out that that will 
        serve the needs of the County Police Department in the immediate 
        future for the 800 Megahurtz Radio System on the south shore.  The 
        Legislative Budget Review Office already has noted that and said that 
        you'd have to include additional money if you want to include other 
        users on the system.  We're not -- we're designing it just to be able 
        to handle our units because that's what we were told to do to knock 
        down the cost. 
        The National Emergency Radio System, it's not under any project number 
        because it was not funded.  And I just note that, again, Legislative 
        Budget Review said that money should be included at some point for 
        that.  That's a national -- that is when we have a multi-agency use 
        outside of the County such as TWA, if we have a National Emergency 
        Radio System hook-up we can then talk to other agencies who do not use 
        our radio frequencies.  The recommendation is that you -- from LBO is 
        to include that at some point in the future. 
        Jim, do you know offhand what that amount is? 
        MR. SPERO:
        A hundred and thirty-six thousand.
        So that doesn't seem like it -- would that be something that would be 
        in the Capital anyway or something that should go --
        MR. SPERO:
        It could be.  Well, you know, with the 5-25-5 provision, we'd have to 
        fund it with pay-as-you-go money.  You could put it in the Capital if 
        you'd like.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        But it would be appropriate for the pay-as-you-go.
        MR. SPERO:
        Right. Well, all equipment now, virtually all equipment has to be 
        funded through pay-as-you-go.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        Right. I had asked that when we get to the Operating Budget that we 
        have a list provided to us of all of the projects that would be 
        appropriate for operating budget funding, and would you include this 
        as well? 
        MR. SPERO:
        It's one of these projects that you don't need it until the day you 
        need it, then you say you're really sorry you don't have it because 
        you can't talk to other agencies; if you have it you can go right on 
        their frequencies.  
        We have a replacement for the air-conditioning for the second floor of 
        the computer room at Police Headquarters which has now been folded 
        into project 3122; 3122 is improvements overall to police 
        headquarters.  That includes this air-conditioning for the computer 
        room, it's -- again, it's a rather necessary, rather important 
        conclusion that we keep in -- you know, we're just earnestly 
        requesting you keep it in because the computer function is critical to 
        us and if the room is not properly ventilated or air-conditioned it 
        goes down.
        Okay. They agreed, so you're okay.
        3122, these are the general improvements. 
        LEG. POSTAL:
        That includes that --
        Right, and we all agree.
        Air-conditioning, backup generator, okay.
        3135, heavy duty vehicles. This is the generic. What's been done here 
        is to I guess kind of meld in different purchases of different 
        vehicles such as two car carriers, four-wheel drive two truck, as I 
        said. We have -- you know, obviously we concur with the recommendation 
        to keep those in the budget.  And I think LBO is recommending that we 
        should reprioritize the order of purchase which we're going to do, 
        Okay, we are going to do.
        LEG. POSTAL:
        3172, surveillance vehicle for internal -- well, primarily for the 
        criminal intelligence section which is a highly sophisticated piece of 
        equipment. It's been included, recommended by both for the 2002 
        3184, renovations to the police precinct buildings.  These are two 
        long-term major projects, one is the 4th Precinct, 2002 calls for 
        450,000 in planning money, this would be the last precinct of the 
        seventh precincts in the district that would come under renovation; 
        I say that because the 6th Precinct has committed to renovation.
        On the 6th Precinct for 2003 -- I assume -- no, is that 2006?
        2004 I think it is.
        The 6th Precinct is already under the planning -- planning has already 
        begun on that and again, that's recommended from both budget offices 
        that we start planning for the 4th Precinct renovation.  
        Next to last is the UPS system for computers previously adopted in the 
        2003.  We're saying we agree with the Legislative Budget Review Office 
        that the precincts would be the first ones we would put on-line.  
        These are systems for the -- at the precinct to -- they're not 
        backups, what would you describe them as? 
        Continuous electrical current, power.
        MS. MAHONEY:
        Just state your name, please.
        I'm sorry. Chief Webber. 
        I'm sorry; he hasn't been here in a while.
        Oh, your absence was noted.
        We agree that they should be moved to 2000.  We asked for that, they 
        were put in 2003 and Legislative Budget Review Office is recommending 
        Did we -- can we make that move then? 
        MR. SPERO:
        The final project for us is 3221, improvements to the 800 Megahurtz 
        System in Huntington.
        MR. STILE:
        We discussed that.
        We already talked about that. Yeah, it's folded into the previous -- 
        the previous project was folded into that.  Other than that, we don't 
        ask for any more modest requests that we've brought --
        Oh, very modest. Are there any other questions for the Police 
        Commissioner or anyone while they're here?  Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Okay.  Who's left, up next, the Sheriff? 
        Chief Otto.
        Chief Otto, welcome. 
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Thank you. Good afternoon. Okay, what I would like to do, Ma'am, is 
        I'd like to address those projects which there may be some 
        disagreements or something. 
        CHIEF OTTO:
        The other ones that we agree on I'm just going to leave them alone.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        So first up would be Capital Project 3008 which is basically the 
        replacement facility for the Yaphank Correctional Facility. The 
        2002-2004 Proposed Capital Program, the Sheriff had requested and the 
        County Executive and Budget Office had recommended funding for a 280 
        bed correctional facility that would replace a portion of the existing 
        facility at Yaphank. Our original request scheduled was for $3.36 
        million for planning in 2003.  The Proposed Capital Program schedule 
        this funding in 2004, the same year that the construction funding is 
        scheduled.  Since time is of the essence and also we feel that it's 
        unrealistic to have both the planning monies and the construction 
        monies of such a large project scheduled for the same year, we request 
        that the funding for planning be moved to 2003 as we originally 
        Another reason to place the planned funding in 2003 is that the new 
        Jail Medical Unit which will be a part of this 280 bed correctional 
        facility, okay, has its planning funds located this year to be 
        appropriated in Capital Project 3009.  However, the construction funds 
        for the Jail Medical Unit, 1.7 million, one million seven hundred and 
        sixty thousand --
        MS. MAHONEY:
        Can you close that door? I can't hear, I'm sorry.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Okay. The construction funding for the Jail Medical Unit, $1,716,000 
        which were originally included in Capital Project 3009 are now not 
        included in either Capital Project.  However, $39,000 for furniture 
        equipment for Jail Medical was transferred from 3009 to 3008. Why this 
        is confusing, I believe there's been some over sites in the summary, 
        this is what we'd like to see happen.  
        Number one, the planning monies left in Project 3009 should go to 3008 
        for Jail Medical and be used simultaneously with the planning monies 
        for the new facility.
        So what would the total of all that planning money be? 
        CHIEF OTTO:
        The two together, Ma'am? 
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Just give us a second here.
        About 3.5. 
        So you're requesting that the planning money for both be combined and 
        moved to 2003.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Right. We had three point -- we had 3,360,000 planning for our 
        facility and Jail Medical had for their planning, what --
        MS. GAZES:
        One fifty-six.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        A hundred and fifty-six thousand?
        A hundred and fifty-six, yeah.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Okay.  So we just think they should be consolidated, okay, and used at 
        the same time for planning for the facility, it just makes sense. We 
        think that was an oversight.
        MR. SPERO:
        See, the planning monies for the Jail Medical Unit is in this year's 
        Capital Budget. So we're dealing with basically 2002.
        So the money that's in this year's meaning 2001 would have to be 
        MR. SPERO:
        Appropriated, and then it would be there for the use when --
        So why don't we do that?  Why don't we prepare a resolution to 
        appropriate that money since --
        MR. SPERO:
        What we could do, we'll transfer the 156 to 3008.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        That's right.
        MR. SPERO:
        And then appropriate it there.
        MR. SPERO:
        And then we also believe that the project is under funded for the Jail 
        Medical, that would be another 1.7, but that's for construction.
       CHIEF OTTO:
        That's the next step.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        The equipment monies for Jail Medical was transferred to 300 -- was 
        transferred from 3009 to 3008 and we believe that's correct, that 
        should be done, that has been done.
        The construction money, again, for Jail Medical, 1.7 million, is 
        totally missing from the project.  In other words, when we came up 
        with the figures for this replacement facility, we worked very 
        closely, days and days and days with DPW coming with a dollar amount.  
        Jail Medical was not part of that at that time, the monies were not in 
        there.  So I just want to -- I tried -- in fact, I called three times 
        today to the Health Department, okay, I wanted to speak to them about 
        this because basically this isn't my problem, okay?
        CHIEF OTTO:
        And they did not get back to me, all right, and I just want to put it 
        on the record that that we caught this and this is a concern, this is 
        their concern and the way to be addressed, you know, is to do this and 
        hopefully --
        MR. SPERO:
        The Health Department would like the Jail Medical component to be a 
        separate Capital Project, they have made a separate request.  However, 
        I think in actually implementing the entire project because the Jail 
        Medical is part and parcel of the correctional facility, it should be 
        lead as one job, as part of one project.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        But the construction funds of 1.7 were in.
        MR. SPERO:
        They're not in, we don't think they're in.  We don't think there's 
        sufficient money to do what the Sheriff had requested and what the 
        Health Department is requesting of the Jail medical.
        But that funding was in the Adopted 2001, that money.
        According to this note that I see here, the construction funds of 1.7 
        for the Jail Medical Unit were included in the Adopted 2001-2003 
        Capital Program and 2002.
             MS. GAZES:
        Yeah, they were in the previous.  When we adopted the budget last year 
        it was in but in the proposed it's no longer there.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        It fell through the cracks. 
        Well, Jim, I think you'd better prepare this as a stand-alone for now.
        MR. SPERO:
        You want to advance the planning funds for the new construction to 
        MR. SPERO:
        And then we'll add the funding for the Jail Medical Unit.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Planning is so important because we have to plan everything together.
        Yeah, and at least it's in there.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        And, you know, in all fairness to the Health Department, I mean, you 
        absolutely, positively need a new medical section there, it has to be 
        part of it.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Capital Project 3035, currently this project provided funding for the 
        purchase and installation of closed-circuit TV cameras throughout the 
        maximum and minimum facilities in Riverhead; these included 
        closed-circuit TV's in the visiting room which is now used by both 
        facilities. The RFP to perform a security view of Suffolk County 
        Correctional Facility was put to bid, proposals have been returned to 
        purchasing and they're currently going to award a contract, so that's 
        In the 2002-2004 Proposed Capital Program, the Sheriff requested and 
        the County Executive Budget Office of the Legislature had recommended 
        funding for a 10,752 square foot addition to the existing 
        administrative area of the Sheriff's Office in Riverhead; this was to 
        provide general office space. While all the funding remains the same 
        as we requested, the time table for this project was pushed back one 
        year further than we had requested.  While the Budget Review Office 
        supports the inclusion of funding to provide this much needed space, 
        they state that before initiating planning and construction of new 
     office space, the utilization of available space in the former 
        Infirmary Building in Yaphank should be considered.  
        It must be pointed out that the Sheriff's Department was the first 
        department to suggest the renovation of the former Infirmary as an 
        alternative to this new construction.  Originally our Civil Bureau and 
        Academy Bureau were slated to occupy the entire first floor of that 
        building, now the Purchasing Department is the first to occupy the 
        space.  Based on current projections, our Civil Bureau is not 
        scheduled to move into the renovated Infirmary until 2005; be assured 
        that the deteriorating office space in Westhampton will not survive 
        that long without a massive injection of capital funds.  We are not 
        exaggerating or overstating our case. In fact, we cordially invite 
        each and every Legislator to visit the Civil Bureau to see for 
        themselves the conditions in which our County employees now work.
        Well, Chief, I would suggest that if you want to invite each and every 
        Legislator you send it out to them because I am the only one sitting 
        here right now. 
        CHIEF OTTO:
        I understand.
        I don't want to take the responsibility for passing that information 
        CHIEF OTTO:
        Moreover, it must be pointed out that when we were urged to leave our 
        Academy Bureau at a special location, the Community College in 
        Brentwood, apparently because there were so many other County 
        departments now expressing -- and I say now expressing an interest in 
        moving to the old Infirmary now that $14.6 million has been allocated 
        for renovations. Even if additional space at the former Infirmary was 
        made available to the Sheriff's Department, the majority of our 
        bureaus and sections must still remain in close proximity to our main 
        office in Riverhead.
        Consider, if you will, for one minute moving the Police Department's 
        Personnel Investigations Unit, Medical Evaluation, Claims, 
        Communications, Payroll and Accounting 12 to 15 miles away from 
        headquarters.  These are units that require daily personnel and 
        physical interactions with our administrative offices. These offices 
        need to be expanded to handle the increased size and workload that 
        they have now been experiencing.  The Riverhead facility was built in 
        the 60's.  While one renovation has been completed, this was not a 
        renovation in size, there is no size increase since it's conception.  
        We believe that the Sheriff's Department would be far less fragmented 
        by having -- relocating just the Civil Bureau to the Yaphank site.
        Any questions on 3035?
               CHIEF OTTO:
        Okay. And then Project 3011, this is replacement of security booths at 
        Suffolk County's Correctional Facilities. In summary, the Sheriff's 
        Department originally requested that the entire project be funded for 
        2001, instead the visitor's shelter was removed from the scope of the 
        project and funded in 2000 through the Operating Budget, funding for 
        two security booths for Deputy Sheriffs was deferred till 2002. 
        Although the project has been reduced in scope, it has also been 
        delayed by one year, therefore the funding of the project should not 
        be reduced since escalation of the pricing must not be considered.  
        But due to the deplorable condition of the old security booths, and we 
        understand these are from the 50's, we urge that an offset be found 
        and a new security booth be purchased in July, 2001.  By the way, the 
        visitor's shelter has been delivered and assembled and the visitors 
        who visit our inmates are very happy, the Deputy Sheriffs who watch 
        them are still in the 50's booth.
        And the total cost of this is what?
        CHIEF OTTO:
        About 110,000. 
        Jim, I'm not sure where this is at right now.  We would have to find 
        an offset of 110 if we were to do this this year.
        MR. SPERO:
        And given where we are in the year, I don't know how doable that's 
        going to be.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        One suggestion.  If you look a little bit, even doing one would be a 
        tremendous morale boost, so do one maybe this year.
        I don't know if --
        MR. SPERO:
        Let me check it out.
        All right, would you do that?
        MR. SPERO:
        I will get back to you.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        And the last project we need to discuss, Project 3044, that's the 
        replacement of the County DWI facility in Yaphank.  I would like to 
        put on the record that the Sheriff's Department will be soon 
        submitting a resolution to appropriate the funding for construction 
        and equipment. Under the advice of the Department of Public Works, we 
        are requesting an additional $205,080 in 002 for the construction 
        phase due to price escalation, and we want to make sure that that's 
        still in there.
        Okay, it will be noted. 
        CHIEF OTTO:
        That hasn't been approved? We need to have that recommended.  This is 
        DPW telling us this.  Now, I understand that when Budget Review talked 
        to them they said, "Well, we're going to try to stay within the 
        budget," but this project is so successful, are we going to jeopardize 
        this project when all of a sudden we don't have the money and we can't 
        do it?  This is probably one of the most successful projects in maybe 
        the State. 
        So the planning money for this was appropriated.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        The planning money, that's no problem, yeah.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        We're just looking at the cost --
        MR. SPERO:
        The construction funds are scheduled for this year, I guess there's a 
        concern about the amount of money that's currently in the Capital 
        Budget.  When is the project out to bid, or is out to bid now? It's 
        out to bid now.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        The RFP was sent out, it is out to bid now, the bids haven't come in 
        MR. SPERO:
        Let's see what happens. I think we'll make an appropriate response 
        when we see the bid process come in.
        But at least it's on record that you feel that it's going to come in 
        way above.
             CHIEF OTTO:
        Well, again, this recommendation was based on DPW.
        CHIEF OTTO:
        The RFP --
        Well, hopefully this -- looking at the bids, we won't go along with 
        that and will come in with what we have out there; wouldn't that be a 
        nice thing?
        CHIEF OTTO:
        That's all I'm asking.
        Is there anything else, Chief?
        CHIEF OTTO:
        No, I think that's it.
        All right. Is there anyone else that needs to address the committee?  
        Okay then, we stand adjourned.  Thank you very much. 
                      (*The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 P.M.*)
                                  Legislator Angie Carpenter, Chairperson
                                  Public Safety & Public Information Committee
        {    } - Denotes Spelled Phonetically