Ulster County presents Government Operations Center; bids total about $21.8 million

Jamie Capiano, a county project presenter, told the Ulster County Legislature’s Ways and Means Committee on April 10 that the county’s planned Government Operations Center will centralize 9‑1‑1 public-safety answering point (PSAP) functions, the emergency operations center (EOC), training space and related IT and support areas.

Capiano said bids for construction, submitted in mid‑February after documents went out earlier this year, totaled about $21,800,000 across five prime contracts procured under New York’s Wicks Law. “We cannot have any type of downtime,” Capiano said, describing a phased transition in which the county’s current operations would become the backup PSAP while the new center is commissioned.

The county’s consultant team and Christopher Young of the Irvine Group described the building program as including a PSAP, an emergency response center (ERC), the Department of Emergency Services workspace, IT infrastructure and support spaces. Young said selections emphasized durability, energy efficiency and provisions to allow future expansion. The project team is also designing resiliency measures, including redundant power and commissioning plans, to ensure continuous operations during emergencies.

County materials and presenters said the project began in 2021 with site development work through 2022; the legislature approved the site purchase in 2023 and related land work continued through 2024. Capiano said the county expects the facility to be fully operational in early 2027. The presenters noted the need for extensive training space to support staff work with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and dispatcher training.

Project oversight includes weekly coordination among county departments, DPW partners, finance and consultants. Presenters said the bid totals aligned closely with earlier Palumbo Group estimates prepared about a year earlier, which the team viewed as validating the project budget despite concerns about federal tariffs and material cost volatility.

Committee action on GOC documents: members moved to block a set of resolutions described at the meeting as GOC‑related (Res. 159, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 200) and the motion to block was adopted by voice vote. Separately, the committee discussed and approved an amendment removing the bond portion of a bond authority tied to a capital resolution (Res. 201); that amendment and the amended resolution were adopted on a voice vote.

Staff briefed the committee that construction documents are extensive (presenters noted nearly 227 drawing sheets and thousands of pages of specifications) and that the transition from existing systems to the new facility is a key risk the county is managing with commissioning agents and staged cutovers.

The presenters and committee members did not provide a detailed construction start date in committee remarks; materials said construction would begin in June (year not specified) and that the county aims for early‑2027 full operation. Funding sources discussed in the briefing included land acquisition and construction budgets; at the committee meeting members also handled related capital and bond‑authority paperwork for the project.

Votes at a glance: Resolutions tied to the project and related capital actions listed during the meeting were acted on by the committee by voice votes (tallies were not recorded in the transcript). Res. 159; Res. 1907; Res. 1908; Res. 1909; Res. 200 — motion to block these GOC‑related resolutions (motion made and carried by voice vote). Res. 201 — motion to amend as presented (removed bond portion of bond authority); amendment adopted and resolution adopted as amended (voice votes).