Conflicts defender cites contractor and utility delays on office project; occupancy and payments uncertain

Peter Degnan, the county conflicts defender, informed the Public Safety Committee on Sept. 3 that work to ready a local conflicts-defender facility is stalled by contractor performance issues and by a utility inspection required for occupancy. Degnan said the project cannot proceed to occupancy until utilities and inspections are completed and that some contractor work remains unfinished.

Degnan described multiple causes for delay and singled out the local electric utility, RG&E, as a particular hold-up. "They've dropped the ball on us for months and months, and we're still working on that," he told the committee. He also said most interior work was finished and that state building-code occupancy paperwork and inspections must be completed to obtain an occupancy permit.

Committee member Ms. Burdick asked whether the state could withhold grant money if inspections find the project unacceptable. Degnan replied he did not know the current payment status and could not say whether funds had already been disbursed; he said he knew the state was "curious as to what's going on" and that any questions about withholding payments would be handled at the state level.

Why it matters: the conflicts-defender office's ability to occupy the renovated facility affects service delivery and may have fiscal implications if grant reimbursements or final payments hinge on inspection outcomes. Degnan said the county has contractual remedies available for nonperforming vendors but prefers that contractors correct work without litigation.

Supporting details: Degnan said the county has vendor contracts and that legal remedies have been used in the past when performance was unsatisfactory, but that the usual practice is to ask contractors to remediate issues first. He noted that some inspector and paperwork steps are managed by the state building-code office and local Department of Public Works collaboration. The committee did not direct a formal action in the transcript; the matter was discussed and committee members asked questions about payments and occupancy timing.

Discussion vs. decision: this agenda item was recorded as discussion only; the transcript shows no motion or vote. The committee asked for clarification and Degnan provided status and next-step information but no timeline for occupancy or payment outcomes.