Loading...
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