HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-1991-11-13BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
November 13, 1991
NOTES
Present: Commissioners Berg, Brandford, Cox, Reeves, Rusoff,
Tripp, Berg; Mayor Nichols; Council Liaison Blanchard; Acting
Supt. Gray, Asst. Supt. Ferrel, Asst. Supt. Shimer; Asst. City
Attorney Kennedy.
Others Present: Guy Gerard, Resident
Ken Deschere
Robert Leather, Sciencenter
Commissioner Reeves chaired the meeting, which was called to
order at 4:02 p.m.
The following were additions to the Agenda:
*1992 Budget
The following items were deferred to a future agenda:
*Water and Sewer Rates for 1992
*Street Closings for Festival /City Park Usage /Procedures:
Review and finalize proposed procedures for adoption
*Neighborhood Traffic and Parking Concerns
1. Giles and Columbia Street
2/6/91 request for Stop Sign and Speed Bumps
2. South Aurora and Hillview Place
7/30/91 request for traffic light
3. Hudson and Columbia Street
9/25/91 request for traffic light
4. Center and North Plain Streets
5/28/91 request for All Way Stop
5. Bryant Park area
9/91 request for parking changes
6. GIAC /Central School
10/15/91 request for flashing light /increased police
patrols
7. South Hill Area
10/91 request for various changes in parking and
traffic
8. North Tioga and Farm Streets (ongoing)
*Increased Penalties for Public Works Regulations Violations
*Energy Commission Requests
Tabled Items:
None
1. Ken Deschere - BPW Rule 18 - Water and Sewer work at
202 South Hill Terrace
Mr. Deschere first indicated to the Board that he was
complaining with regard to Rule 18 regarding owner responsibility
for repairs to water lines, and asked the Board to reconsider the
use of this Rule.
Mr. Deschere further addressed the Board presenting his
problem regarding a leak he says has existed since excavation
work was done by NYSEG in 1988. He indicated that the water and
gas lines are only about 6 inches apart and he feels that the
failure of the water line is due to damage done by the excavation
crew. The leak was not discovered until two years later when a
meter reader found it. Mr. Deschere stated that the weld at the
tap into the main had a crack in it. He felt that since the
failure was located between the main and the curb box, and
occurred after excavation work had been performed in the street,
that the responsibility for the repair should rest with NYSEG or
the City.
Acting Supt. Gray asked Mr. Deschere whether or not this was
"lead" service and he indicated that it was. Acting Supt. Gray
then explained to Mr. Deschere that while all of the previous
service belonged to the homeowner, the City adopted the system
that when the lead was replaced and the system upgraded, the City
then owned the service to the property line; and when the system
was converted to copper, the City then owned to the curb stop.
He further explained that since Mr. Deschere's service was still
lead, it had been concluded, and it was reasonable to expect,
that due to the age of the service, this was a normal failure
that would have occurred anyway. Also, since the service would
have to be updated to meet Code, the cost of updating and re-
placing the lead would have been Mr. Deschere's.
Commissioner Cox at this point indicated that he was not
going to entertain any discussion about Rule 18 since it has
served the City very well and he did not see any reason to change
it. Also, with the necessary upgrading of the system, this Rule
would become obsolete shortly. He felt that the City's charges
with regard to this matter would have to remain, as Mr. Deschere
would have had to upgrade his system anyway. However, he felt
that Mr. Deschere's problem should receive some consideration and
suggested that the Board contact NYSEG and try to ascertain
whether or not NYSEG would accept any responsibility for the
breakage and the cost connected with its repair.
All Board members agreed on this course of action.
2. Sciencenter request for Parking on First Street Extension.
Alderwoman Blanchard reported to the Board that she had
attended a meeting with the Sciencenter Development Team, the
Building Department and the Department of Public Works to discuss
the previous proposal and come up with an acceptable alternative.
She then introduced Mr. Leathers.
Bob Leathers presented a diagram of the proposed
Sciencenter and parking facilities indicating a new proposal for
the parking facilities. He indicated that the Extension of First
Street was not actually a street, but a dirt road which had a
curb cut, but no structure. They are proposing that the
Sciencenter be allowed to develop parking along the side that is
adjacent to the future Sciencenter building leaving the side
towards the Dept. of Public Works Barn open. The Sciencenter
would license this area from the City and use the Extension of
First Street as the entrance to additional parking. They are
proposing that this area could be used as natural on street
parking and that the parking lot be developed along the side
adjacent to the building, leaving the area adjacent to the Public
Works building alone. This would fulfill the Sciencenter's
parking needs while not interfering with the City's desire or
ability to sell the adjacent property.
The proposal to the Board is that the
to use this portion of the street on a
contingent upon the their receiving the
completing their site plan review.
Sciencenter be allowed
yearly license basis,
building permit and
Act. Supt. Gray indicated a continued concern with the value
of the adjacent land and also about er endicular
P P parking on a
(W "City Street." At the present time, as the Extension is actually
a dirt road, this would not create a problem; but were the
adjacent land to be sold and the dirt road actually to become a
A
street, it may pose a dangerous situation. Discussion followed
and it was decided that since the use of the Extension as a
street would be limited that this may not be as large a problem
as anticipated.
There was a discussion about the "phase" development of the
Sciencenter and whether or not the Development Team could
consider the use of only what space was needed for parking as
each phase develops. The President requested that the Board not
Put too much stress on the "phase" development factor as they
fully intended to complete the entire project and would not want
to run up against a problem later when they move on to "Phase 2"
development.
The Mayor indicated that he strongly backs this project as
he feels it is an important contribution to the City and he hopes
that the Board will support the Sciencenter.
Many of the Board members felt that this was a more
desirable proposal than the one which was previously submitted.
Commissioner Reeves indicated to the members of the Development
Committee that a resolution would be reached next week at the
regular meeting of BPW.
3. TRASH TAG FEES - 1992
Commissioner Reeves indicated that it would be beneficial
for the Board to set the new trash tag fees for 1992 as soon as
possible in order to advise the public what the fee will be and
also to prevent the last minute return of the 1991 tags which
occurred last year.
The proposed fi
tags and $22.00 per
the present tipping
of $3.00 per tag as
(which only got the
site).
ae for 1992 is $36.00 per sheet of 12 -35 lb.
sheet for 12 - 20 lb. tags. This is based on
fee of $145.00 per ton. This would be a rate
opposed to last year's rate of $1.00 per tag
hauler through the gate at the disposal
The $145.00 tipping fee is based on an assumed price to
dispose of the trash, but is budgeted for only 8 months but next
year the $145.00 will be based on 12 months. They are attempting
to maintain a price for two years and 1992 will create a surplus
(based on 8 month fee) which will offset a 1993 deficit (based on
12 month fee at the same rate). This will probably mean a raise
in fee in 1994.
There followed some discussion of the fee and what it would
cover, i.e., hauling and the "at the gate fee" for disposal. It
was shown that the increase is necessary to cover the costs which
were not figured into last year's costs and show a profit to the
City.
Commissioner Berg brought up the question of whether or not
the Board actually wished to set a fee at this meeting or wait
until the next meeting when more information would be available.
Acting Supt. Gray indicated that we just want to avoid the
problems we had last year where the City ended up setting the
rate in late December and missed the students and had to expunge
a great many violations.
The Board would be setting a trash tag fee contingent upon
the passing by the Council of the budget. There followed a
discussion about Cornell and large business in the area as to
whether or not they use the City's services and the fact that a
great many are coming back to recycling through the City because
of the competitiveness of the price. There is a question as to
whether or not these large businesses are figured in the cost of
the tags, and whether or not this is overpricing the tags.
Acting Supt. Gray also indicated that he would prepare a
sheet with the relevant figures so the Board could make a more
informed decision.
4. Water and Sewer Rates - 1992
Commissioner Reeves indicated that there had been no
increase in the water and sewer rates for three years before the
1991 rate increase. These years' rates undershot expenses. Last
year in 1991 there was a substantial increase and we are looking
again at an increase. Superintendent Gray indicated that he was
not prepared to discuss this information off the top of his head
as there are a series of things going on all at the same time.
Part of the reason is that water consumption is dropping off,
mainly because of recycling and conserving but the rates were
fixed and the City's revenues were coming down. At the same
time, chemical costs and lab cost are increasing, etc. creating a
larger cost of living increase. Superintendent Gray stated that
he would prepare some facts to further enlighten the Board and
would present it at the next meeting.
5. Parking Fees - 1992
Mayor Nichols indicated that the actual amount that is in
the budget comes from the ramps and lots is only $1,500 over
budget for this year. The income has been far short of what was
budgeted since the rates were increased from $.25 to $.30 per
hour and increased the permit fees (which was thought would
create some increased income). The Council is asking that the
Board take whatever steps are necessary to increase the income.
In discussion previously, the income from the lots and ramps was
joined with the meters.
Joe Daley has requested that the ramps and lot fees not be
increased but that the meter fees be increased once again. The
meters were previously raised from $.25 per hour with a limit of
one hour per prime areas and $.25 per two hour in the areas
further away from the Commons to $.25 per 1/2 hour with a one
hour limit in prime areas and $.25 per hour in the other.
There has been a proposal that all day meters for commuters
who use Thurston Avenue and Stewart Avenue. This would hold 70
spaces on Thurston Street for 8 hour meters at $.25 per hour (or
$2.00 per day). This would involve a capital cost of $200.00 per
meter. This would have the potential of $25,000.00 income per
year (assuming 70 meters with a 50% usage). The same is true of
Stewart Avenue and some other streets in the City. Mayor Nichols
asked that the Board think about this proposal.
Barbara Blanchard brought up five line items in the budget
which need to be discussed:
1. Revenue line for Public Work Services which is
now at about $36,000.00 and the suggestion is that
the Board look at how people are charged for services
that the Dept. performs and bills back to them;
2. Parking lines, lots, ramps and meters;
3. Line that has to do with Street Openings;
4. Resident v. Non - resident fees at the Golf Course;
5. Fee on Property Rental - License Fees.
Mayor Nichols stated that some of the items are included in
the budget and that some of these items should be looked at as
further potential for income.
6. Change of name of Cleveland Avenue to Wheat Street
Alderperson Blanchard informed the Board that she and Bob
Romanowski had done a house -to -house survey of Cleveland Avenue
to ask residents' opinions of changing Cleveland Avenue to Wheat
Street. The residents expressed the opinion that they did not
desire the name change, but they did, however, express an
interest in the placement of a historic marker. Based on this,
the Planning Dept. made some inquiries as to how to go about
doing this. Until recently, the procedure was to file an
application for the marker, stating what you wanted it to say and
send to the State Education Dept. Now it is up to the City to
get it. A company, John Hines & Co., in Elmira, New York has
been contacted with regard to the cost of making up the marker
and Alderperson Blanchard showed the Board a pamphlet of the
available styles and prices. The one that is most appropriate
costs about (in a ball park figure) $119.00 and this would cover
what the residents wanted at an acceptable cost to the City. It
was decided that the residents would be consulted with regard to
the placement of the marker when it is available.
Alderperson Blanchard asked that the Board put this on their
agenda for next week to vote on this and prepare a resolution for
the purchase and placement of this marker.
It was decided that if the Board were to pass the
resolution, Alderperson Blanchard would go ahead and get some
definite figures for the marker.
Commissioner Reeves reminded the members that there was a
meeting of the Board the same evening at Streets and Facilities
at 7:30.
Staff Updates: Deferred
From Acting Supt. of Public Works:
From Asst. City Atty.:
The meeting was adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
Notes by
Elaine Mecus
Administrative Secretary