(note: See Parks for bids relating to Holland Sporting Club and also Finance )
Towing Bid Town Board, 4-5-2016 As the town is the owner of the land on which JCPC will construct off-site wetland mitigation, the board authorized the applicant to submit a wetlands permit to the Planning Board to be reviewed as part of the applicant’s site plan review. Supervisor Grace explained the off site mitigation plan that had been worked out at the Planning Board level.
Town Board, 9-24-2013
On the recommendation of Councilman Paganelli, the Board voted to reject the two bids it received earlier this year and go out to bid again with rewritten bid specs. There was no discussion.
(Note: the bid gives the winning vendor the ability to tow distressed vehicles within the town and also includes towing town-owned vehicles. Bids were received in April, but no decision has been made to award the bid.)
The two bidders appeared before the Board to argue their case why they should be awarded the bid. The attorney for Yorktown Auto Body acknowledged that Hilltop Service Station was the highest bidder but stated that the latter did not meet several items in the bid specs such as the required storage and the availability of a heavy duty tow truck. He also questioned why it has taken so long to award the bid.
Calling the issue “complicated,” Councilman Paganelli said the town would do a better job on the bid specs next year and Supervisor Grace said it was unfair to hold up awarding the bid much longer. Councilman Murphy, noting that both bidders were local businesses, said he wanted to do what was best for the constituents.
The Board decided that the town attorney would complete the vetting process and make a recommendation to the Board. Both sides were directed to provide her with any documents in support of their position.
As part of a review of next week’s agenda, there was some back and forth between the town attorney and town clerk over the status of a review of the towing bids that had been received and who was talking to who and doing what vetting and the need that everyone should be on the same page. The only bidder mentioned was Hilltop Service Station and whether the bid met the specs. It was decided that the discussion should continue in closed session.
Highway Superintendent DiBartolo advised the Board that when it prepares the specs for the towing contract, it was important to include the requirement that the vendor be able to provide indoor storage for town trucks. He explained that the previous day, four trucks with salt went down, and if the trucks are stored outside, the salt hardens and becomes unusable; a jack hammer is needed to break up the blocks.He said the specs should also include the requirement that the vendor have a truck large enough to tow a town truck.
Councilman Paganelli said he was working with Town Clerk Roker on the specs and Supervisor Grace said he would try to get the specs done ASAP.
Initially listed on the agenda to “extend” the towing bid, Councilman Paganelli stated that based on some checking he had done, the prices in the existing bid (which dated to 2009) were outdated and he suggested that a new bid be done instead of extending the existing one.
Councilman Murphy said that the last time the bid was extended it was pointed out that there were major problems with the specs and that the specs needed to be redone.Supervisor Grace said that the looser the specs, the better the price was likely to get.
Councilman Paganelli will follow through and report back to the board.
Town Board, 12-28-2012
Supervisor Grace explained that because the Town’s current insurance carrier (Trident) had informed the Town some time ago that it would no longer cover the Town due to the number of losses, Bob Spadaccia, the Town’s insurance broker sought out other carriers. Travelers was the only company interested in submitting a proposal.
The new 2013 package (a combination of policies) will cost the Town about $168,618 more, or $655,618 compared to approximately $487,000 for 2012 coverage. Supervisor Grace said that some aspects of the new policy offer better coverage – but only if the Town needs to use the policies. He mentioned attorney’s fees and deductibles but did not explain the details of the new policies.
In a unanimous vote, the Board authorized the Supervisor to sign the new policy.
Town Board, 10-9-2012
'What would normally have been either a routine bid award to the lowest bidder, or alternately, a one year extension of an existing bid award that was good for three years, became contentiouswhen it was determined that there was a problem with both the original 2010 bid specs and the more recent 2012 specs.At issue was
why the Board voted, on August 14, to advertise for new bids instead of extending the current award, and then, once it had advertised for new bids,whether it could or should extend the existing bid
Prior to 2010, the bid specs stated that the contractor, who was to supply the required materials for the job, would be entitled to 10% above cost, cost being the discounted price the contractor usually was charged. In 2010, the bid specs were changed to read: 10% above list price. (According to Town Attorney Koster, the change was requested by a former department head who has since retired; she did not know the reason he requested the change.)The difference in wording: 10% above cost versus 10% below list, could amount to as much as 30%.
As an example of why the materials issue was important, the Board noted that it had a preliminary cost figure of $80,000 for the new emergency generator at the YCCC and that 30% would be a significant cost difference.
According to Mike Dubovsky of P&M Electric, the company that has been awarded the Town’s electrical work for about 20 years, he has always charged the Town 10% above cost and, in fact, had not realized that his 2010 and 2011 contracts were supposed to be 10% below list. In effect, he said, he was short changing himself. If the Town extended the P&M contract for another year, the labor rate would have been 50 cents lower than the lowest bidder on the new specs.But, since the 2010 bid specsaid 10% below list, if P&M were to be given the contract for another year, it would have to abide by the specs (as distinct from its practice over the past two years) and charge 10% below list, in effect, raising the cost to the town.While Councilman Paganelli initially supported extending the P&M bid based on the lower labor rate, he later withdrew his support for the extension stating that he could not justify the higher cost to the taxpayers.Supervisor Grace said it would be a violation of the law for him to renegotiate the terms of a third year extension with P&M and that any such extension had to be based on the 2010 bid specs. He apologized to Mr. Dubovsky but said he couldn’t do anything about the issue.
Instead, the Board voted 4-1, with Councilman Paganelli voting no, to go out for a new bid, this time specifying that the materials charge would be 10% above cost.Supervisor Grace initially wanted the contractor to write in his own percentage but Ms. Koster pointed out that with two variables, labor cost and materials cost, it would be difficult to determine who was the low bidder.
Town Board, 9-24-2019
As a follow up to last week’s discussion, the owner of AAA Carting and Kim Angliss Gage, the department head who oversees the garbage contract, answered questions about service issues. The vendor explained that that according to the contract, the company is required to send notices to residents only when there is a change in their collection days, not a change in time, an issue that Councilman Lachterman raised. The vendor also disputed Councilman Diana’s comment that residents were being disturbed by 4:30am collections; according to the contract, collection is supposed to start no earlier than 6am and that his workers are not on duty at 4:30am. Ms. Gage said that as issues have arisen, they have been addressed, including reminding drivers that they should be more careful when handling the recycling bins. She added, that the next time the town purchases bins, she will use a different vendor who uses a more durable plastic.
Satisfied with the vendor’s services, the board voted to extend the existing contract for an additional year on the same terms and conditions as in the original contract.
Town Board, 9-17-2019
The board postponed voting to renew the garbage contract with AAA Carting for an additional year pending a discussion with the vendor about service issues at the September 24 work session. Councilman Diana said he had received calls about very early morning pick ups. Supervisor Gilbert and his assistant Mr.Glass said that this issue had been addressed and may have resulted from a change in the pick up schedule. In general, Supervisor Gilbert said that the department that oversees the vendor was satisfied with the service.
While Councilman Diana initially wanted the board to go out for a new bid, the town attorney advised that this could be a risk because the new price could be higher than the price locked into the original contract that Councilman Diana had voted for. Mr. Diana, however, thought a new bid might come in lower. It was explained that if the town did go out for a new bid, it would lose the opportunity to renew the existing contract. Supervisor Gilbert said that based on conversations with other town supervisors,Yorktown was in a good position vis a vis its contract.
Town Board, 1-9-2018
Several board members said that they had received numerous calls about problems with the new garbage contractor. While acknowledging that there have been problems, Kim Angliss Gage of the Refuse and Recycling Department reminded the board that as soon as the new contractor started, he was faced with extra volume due to the holidays and the weather that resulted in road closings. On the bright side, she added that the new contractor had hired all but one of the workers from the previous company so that the workers were familiar with the routes.
She said the board had to deal with three problems: pick ups at three multi family locations, the service stops at town buildings and source separation issues. Other issues brought up by board members included pick ups on private roads and the size and number of containers at condominium complexes. Responding to complaints that some of the carter’s employees had used foul language, Supervisor Gilbert stated that while there are always two sides to a story, any inappropriate language would not be tolerated.
Mr. McDermott advised the board that the contract with the carter allows the board to set up meetings with the contractor as needed and suggested that such a meeting be called sooner not later. The supervisor agreed.
(Note: As the number of dumpsters at condo complexes involves money, and money is part of the negotiation with the garbage contractor, there was a possibility that this issue might also be discussed during the closed executive session.)
Town Board 10-3-2017
The board awarded a bid to AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal for proving garbage removal and recycling. The $1,999,999 contract is good for two years with three one year options to review if the town so wishes. (Although the supervisor said that the contract was $600,000 lower than what he said was the current $2.4 M contract with Competition Carting, the arithmetic works out to a $400,000 savings.) The contract begins January 1, 2018.
Town Board, 2-14-2017
With 2017 being the last possible one year extension of the 2013 garbage collection contract with Competition Carting, Kim Angliss Gage, head of the Reuse and Recycling Department, requested permission to seek Requests for Proposals for a new contract. She explained that the RFP has been drafted to give potential vendors maximum flexibility to come up with alternative collection systems, e.g., automated trucks and either once a week or twice a week pickup, within a basic set of parameters set by the town for kitchen garbage and recycling pick up. Acknowledging that the town didn’t have all the answers, her approach was “let them throw out ideas.”
Initially, Supervisor Grace said he wanted to see if legally the town could extend the current contract for one more year at the same price before going out for an RFP, but he changed his mind and agreed to the RFP which doesn’t bind the town to anything. He said that the current contract has saved the town $3 million over five years.
The board voted to renew the contract. It appeared to be a one year renewal , but there was no documentation. The contract price remains unchanged.
The town exercised its option and voted to renew the garbage collection contract with Competition Carting for 2016 at the same price. This is the second of three possible extensions.
The board voted 5-0 to grant a special permit allowing the company to park its trucks and related equipment on the Richard Place parcel. The permit, effective as of July 24, 2014, will be valid for three years and can be renewed upon application.
The approval resolution included 15 conditions, including that the application apply to the DEC within 30 days for a multi sector permit and within 60 days to any other agency that would require a permit. Other conditions included the location of the single fuel tank that will be permitted on the site, and the requirement that the application submit a landscape plan, to be approved by the building department, that would provide adequate year round landscaping and screening from the North County Trailway and Patriot Park.
Under the terms of the existing two year contract with Competition Carting, the town was required to notify the company if it wished to extend the contract. (The original bid gave the town the option to renew the contract for 3-one year extensions at the same price.)
Councilman Bianco suggested that the contract renewal be subject to the contractor getting the special permit from the Zoning Board allowing him to park his garbage trucks on Richard Place (See ZBA discussions below) but the town attorney and Supervisor Grace said that such a condition was not part of the original contract and therefore could not be made part of the renewal resolution. Supervisor Grace stated that the ZBA had already approved the special permit and Councilman Bianco said, “I’ll take your word for it.” Supervisor Grace said he would have preferred the renewal be for three years, but Councilman Bianco said he would vote for only one year.
Refuse & Recycling Coordinator Kim Angliss Gage advised the board that the refuse district was saving money as tipping fees for the garbage had decreased and recycling fees had increased.
Although the observer did not hear motions, seconds and votes, it appeared that the intent of the board was that there were two votes, each passed 4-0: one renewing the contract for a year and a second that may have directed the contractor to comply with the ZBA determination.
Competition Carting
The board had a brief discussion that focused on updating what additional information it had received since the last meeting. To date, there has been no response from the DEP and, in response to a question from Mr. Fine, Mr. Ciarcia explained that the Notice of Intent to file for the multi sector permit had been prepared but not submitted because the SWPP was still in the preparation stage and he wanted to submit everything as a package. Mr. Fine also read a memo from the town engineer and environmental consultant that advised the board to hold off issuing the special permit until more information was available from the outside agencies and also the applicant’s meeting the requirements of the town code.
In general, the board had no problem moving forward to grant the special permit and will have the attorney draw up a resolution for consideration and a vote next month. Mr. Fine explained that if there were violations of DEC or DEP regulations, such as the fueling operation, it would be up to those agencies to enforce their regulations. He said the area was a commercial one, with truck traffic from UPS and the highway garage and saw no conflict with the proposed parking of garbage trucks, adding that this use was actually an improvement over the site’s prior use as a contractor’s storage yard.
The draft resolution will have a 3 year time limit on the permit.
Mr. Winter noted that the location of the fueling tanks does not meet the code’s 25 feet set back requirement and will have to be moved.
Competition Carting
Mr. Ciarcia advised the board that more information had been forwarded to the DEP and that the applicant was awaiting a response. He said he had had discussions with DEC about the possible need for a wetlands permit and it appeared that one would not be needed, although it did not appear that the agency issued non-jurisdictional notifications. He added, however, that once the applicant applied for the multi sector permit, that division of DEC would automatically refer the application to other units within the agency. He also said that that the town engineer was satisfied that the multi sector permit would address the town’s stormwater issues. As of the meeting date, the ZBA had not received a memo from the town engineer summarizing her latest discussions with Mr. Ciarcia.
Citing what she called deficiencies in the EAF, Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, asked the board to take a second look at the EAF. She also raised questions about whether any conditions placed on a special permit, such as the requirement that the application apply for the multi sector permit, had to be met before the special permit became effective. Citing what she called the applicant’s lack of good faith over the past 17 months, she expressed concern that it the permit legalized the use, there would be little incentive for the applicant to submit the stormwater prevention plan (SWPP) that was the heart of the multi sector permit application.
The board closed the hearing and reserved decision pending the receipt of responses from the DEP and the town engineer as well as the applicant’s preparation of the SWPP.
The board unanimously adopted a negative declaration for SEQRA purposes after determining that the long EAF indicated no significant environmental impacts from the project.
Mr. Ciarcia said he had followed through on the board’s request at its last meeting that he meet with the town engineer to go over a variety of issues, including the possible need for DEP, DEC and town permits. Referring back to an October, 2013 DEP memo, he stated that the DEP issues had been “put to bed” because the agency had no jurisdiction over the application because it is not a solid waste facility, the applicant was not planning to add any impervious surfaces and there would be no sewage discharge. The applicant would, however, require a DEC multi sector permit based on a housekeeping operation as distinct from the more usual construction activity and also possibly a DEC wetlands permit, although the applicant would be seeking a determination from the agency whether its voluntary plan to retrofit an existing catch basin would be exempt from the wetlands permit requirement. He added that the two units within DEC would work together on the two issues.
Mr. Spiezio said the current application will retain the right to have on site fuel storage capability.
Mr. Fine noted that in her April 22, 2014 memo, written after her meeting with Mr. Ciarcia, the town engineer stated that DEC and DEP needed more information to evaluate what permits were needed but that it was unclear what information the two agencies had asked for, or did need, and what the applicant had already submitted. In response to Mr. Tripodi’s question as to what documents the applicant has already submitted to the agencies, Mr. Ciarcia said the applicant hadn’t submitted anything because he didn’t think he needed permits other than the multi sector permit. Mr. Ciarcia added that the applicant didn’t want to complete that multi sector permit process which would require preparing a stormwater management plan until he knew if the special permit application was going to be approved.
After considerable back and forth discussion, the board directed the applicant to send letters to the DEP and DEC within seven days, with copies to the town engineer and the ZBA, asking specifically what information they needed to review the permit request so that at its May meeting, the board would have a better idea of what information was needed.
Commenting on various aspects of the application, Susan Siegel (the person writing this summary), questioned what would happen if the board granted the special permit with a condition that the applicant get the DEC multi sector permit but there was a delay in obtaining the permit; she noted the applicant’s record over 15 month of non compliance with requests. In response, Mr. Fine said that in the absence of the DEC permit, the fueling operation could not continue but that that would be an issue for the DEC, not the town. Also, that the board could include a deadline as to when the multi sector application had to be filed, but could not include a deadline for DEC to act on issuing the permit.
Mr. Ciarcia said he has submitted the long form EAF and added that both the DEC and DEP had already commented on the application.
On the fuel tank issue, Mr. Spiezio informed the board that since the last meeting, the remaining fuel storage tank had been removed and, weather permitting, the company had relied on wet fueling, adding that there were still a few kinks that had to be worked. Initially, Mr. Ciarcia said that the latest site plan called for a 250 gallon on site fuel tank (diesel) which would be a “reserve” tank in the event the tanker was not available. But later, Mr. Spiezio changed that to a 500 gallon tank. He said the tank would meet NFPA standards, and noted that there were other fuel tanks along Front Street and that the previous occupant of the Richard Pl. parcel had had a fuel tank. Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, commented that according to DEC regulations, a multi sector permit would be needed for either a fuel storage tank or wet fueling. Mr. Spiezio said that the multil sector permit might require the applicant to modify some catch basins. (Mr. Spiezo also made reference to storage tanks under 1100 gallons coming under a threshold, but it was not clear what threshold this was or whether it was a DEC or DEP threshold.)
Mr. Fine said that the ZBA could approve the special permit with the condition that the applicant get the DEC multi sector permit but that the fueling operation, from a tank or wet fueling, would not be permitted until the DEC permit was granted.
Commenting on the town engineer’s report (that was not read at the meeting) that raised questions that needed to be clarified, e.g., how the application complied with the DEP’s watershed regulations, Mr. Ciarcia said the regulations did not prohibit fueling in the watershed, adding that there would be no discharge from the site. The term “hot spot” was raised but not explained. Mr. Ciarcia said that the proposed use was not a solid waste facility and therefore did not require a DEP permit. Mr. Fine said that more information was needed from the DEP. At Mr. Winter’s suggestion, Mr. Ciarcia agreed to meet with the town engineer to go over and clarify the issues raised in her memo.
In response to Mr. Fine’s question about employee parking and problems along Front St., Mr. Spiezio said he had already spoken to his employees about this and that they would park on site. He said that the company has “done almost everything possible to comply” with the regulations and, in a reference to what he called the single person who was asking questions added, “we need to get off square one”.
Ms. Siegel said she appreciated the savings on her refuse tax , was pleased with the garbage service and that she hoped the remaining issues could be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction but she didn’t think the cost savings should be at the expense of violating the town’s code, noting that the applicant has been in violation of the code for 15 months, since January, 2013.
The applicant submitted a revised plan that showed the elimination of a trailer; the “office” use will now be located off site and there won’t be any kiosk type building. Given this change, the board agreed that there is no requirement for Planning Board site plan approval. The existing trailer will be removed from the site. Mr. Ciarcia also advised the board that the original town wetlands permit had been found and the record indicated that the required wall and drainage improvements had been made. He said the current site plan does not provide for any new improvements or changes to the site.
The site will accommodate 19 vehicles. Asked about employee parking, the applicant (Mr. Spiezio) said that employee cars would park where the trucks are. He implied that there would be 18 employees, plus a supervisor, but there was no response to the question from the board as to how many actual employees manned the 18 garbage trucks. Mr. Fine noted that some employee parking did “bleed over” onto Richard Place. Mr. Spiezio said it would be easy to redirect employee parking.
In response to Mr. Fahey’s question as to how many roll off containers were contemplated, Mr. Spiezio said that the number varied by season.
In response to Mr. Fine’s questions about what could be done to minimize the dust from moving trucks, Mr. Spiezio said there really wasn’t any good solution, other than paving the site which no one wanted. He said one solution might be using a sprinkler to hose down the area, but that this could create a mud situation.
Mr. Ciarcia said that the DEP has no jurisdiction over the site plan because no changes or improvements to the site were being made. He said the site was being used as a transfer station and was not a solid waste facility.
When questioned about the truck washing, Mr. Spiezio said that this was done by an outside vendor who placed booms around the trucks and equipment sucked up the water. The question of any water seeping into the ground was left unanswered.
Mr. Ciarcia also questioned the Planning Board’s recommendation for additional screening near the bike path saying that the existing vegetation provided sufficient screening.
Mr. Fine commented that based on one summer’s experience, from his adjoing office, he didn’t notice any odors.
When the outstanding requirement for a full EAF was brought up, Mr. Ciarcia advised the board that it would be “a lot of nothing” but when the board’s attorney explained that the full EAF would go into more detail about the potential impacts, and it was pointed out that the board had determined at a previous meeting that a full EAF was required, Mr. Ciarcia said one would be provided at the next meeting.
Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, asked about the status of the application to the DEC for a multi sector permit and also whether the existing fuel tanks had been emptied. In response Mr. Spiezio said that only one of the two tanks had been removed. After Mr. Fine reminded Mr. Spiezio that the board had directed that no fueling take place at the site, a discussion followed about the possibility of what Mr. Spiezio called “wet fueling,” i.e., a tanker truck comes to the site to fuel the garbage trucks in lieu of an on site tank. Mr. Spiezio explained that the ability to fuel the trucks on site was an integral part of the business and that he couldn’t operate the trucks without that ability.
Mr. Winter said he would have to look into the NPA standards regarding wet fueling and Mr. Ciarcia said he would begin the process of applying for a building permit for a stationary fuel tank if the company wanted to pursue that option.
Although it was apparent than there had not been an application yet for the mutli sector permit, it was acknowledged that one would not be needed if the company went to a wet fueling system. In response to Ms. Siegel ‘s follow up question whether the applicant would need a “regular” DEC wetlands permit, Mr. Ciarcia said no because the permit issued 20 years ago was still valid because no new changes were planned for the site. The board’s attorney asked that the applicant submit copies of both the prior town and DEC wetlands permit for the record and also that the question of the DEC permit be referred to the town engineer.
Mr. Ciarcia informed the board that while the applicant still planned to file for a DEC multi sector permit (a requirement if there was to be a fuel dispensing operation on the site), no application had been filed yet because of the uncertainty over which DEC office the application should be filed with.
He asked if the existing fuel tanks, currently located in a dumpster, could be put in a roll off container on a temporary basis pending the approval of the DEC permit. The board said that the fuel operation could not continue, even on a temporary basis, without a permit and that the building department would have to file a notice of violation if the operation contined. The board gave the applicant a few days to use up the existing fuel in the tank. Mr. Fine also advised the applicant that the violation could be prosecuted even while the special permit application was being processed.
In response to Mr. Fine’s questions about the status of the other information the board requested in December, Mr. Ciarcia said that there had been no progress on preparing a site plan due to the holidays, that the requested long form EAF would be submitted along with the site plan once the applicant knew what he was doing (the need for a trailer was still unresolved) , and that an application for a town wetlands permit would be made and processed by the Planning Board along with the site plan. He said all these documents would be submitted to the Planning Board in February and to the Zoning Board at its February meeting.
Susan Siegel, the person writing these notes, noting that there appeared to be little progress since the previous board meeting, asked the board what action it might take in February if the above documents were not provided and she said a balance needed to be struck betwee n the desired goal of reducing the cost of garbage collection with goal of enforcing the existing town code. In response, Mr. Fine said that the board could not impose deadlines, that it was mindful that the applicant has been in violation of town code for a year, and that the review of the special permit application could continue for the remainder of the applicant’s contract with the town.
Mr. Ciarcia advised the Board that a copy of the Decola town wetlands permit had still not been found and that the applicant felt that one should be applied for, either to the Town Board or the Planning Board which would trigger the need for a site plan. He also said that because having a fuel dispensing operation on the site is an integral part of the applicant’s plan, the applicant would be filing an application with the DEC for a multi sector permit as a “transportation facility” and that that permit would include stormwater measures.
Mr. Winter advised the Board that the previous Decola use of the property included a fuel dispensing operation.
Mr. Ciarcia also said that the applicant prefers the trailer to the gatehouse concept, but that this issue was still flexible.
In response to comments from Westchester County, the Planning Board, and the Conservation Board regarding screening along the bike path, Mr. Ciarcia said that given the existing landscaping abutting the bike path, he didn’t think any additional screening was needed and instead mentioned some plantings along Richard Pl.
Mr. Fine read a memo that was either from the fire inspector or the Fire Advisory Board that identified numerous fire hazards on the site including the existing improper fuel dispensing system and the presence on the site of gasoline containers and other unmarked containers. Mr. Ciarcia said he was unaware of these conditions and that they would be taken care of.
Susan Siegel, the person writing these notes, referred to earlier Planning Board discussions and asked the Board to consider if the presence of the trailer changed the use of the site. Also the fuel dispensing operation.
In what he described as an “update,” Dan Ciarcia advised the Board that the applicant was in the process of “regrouping” and would be filing an application with the DEC for a Multi Sector SPEDES permit and that based on the application, the DEC would determine if a stormwater plan (SWPP) and a wetlands permit were also required. He also said that the applicant was now considering just a small “guardhouse” like structure, in lieu of a smaller trailer, that would be used to house the employee time clocks and storage of some items. Also, that a portosan would provide toilet facilities, and that the applicant was in the process of addressing the issues raised in the memos submitted to the ZBA.
A memo from the Building Department clarified that the application was for a special permit based on section 300-44 of the zoning code governing outdoor storage. (Without the trailer, the application would not involve a structure that would require a site plan.)
In response to questions raised by Bruce Barber regarding the possible need for a town wetlands permit, Mr. Ciarcia continued to refer to the earlier 1999 wetlands permit adding that his client was not planning any changes to the site so a new permit should not be required. However, Mr. Barber expressed concern that the new use involved new pollutants. Regarding the presence of the fuel tanks, Mr. Ciarcia said that they were a convenience for his client. It was noted that copies of the old wetlands permit could not be located.
Commenting on the photos shown at the ZBA meeting of garbage being transferred, Mr. Ciarcia said it was just a transfer from a dumpster to a truck, and Mr. Fon indicated that it was not unusual for the garbage in a small truck that did not have a compacter to be transferred to a larger compacting truck. He had no problem with such a transfer.
In response to Mr. Tegeder’s questions about the need for screening, Mr. Ciarcia said that the tops of the trucks were just about visible from the skate park and he didn’t see the need for additional screening.
The Board opened the public hearing on the company’s application for a special permit to permit the outdoor storage of its garbage trucks.
After a brief presentation by Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s engineer, chairman Gordon Fine read a series of reports from the DEC, DEP, Planning Board, Conservation Board and Town Engineer. Together the reports raised issues relating to wetlands, stormwater, the status of the trailer which could determine whether a formal site plan approval was required, the status of the town owned Richard Place parcel, possible contamination from oil spills and other contaminants (there’s a 550 gallon fuel tank on site used to fuel up the trucks), dust kicked up from the truck traffic, the proximity of the site to the proposed Depot Square revitalization project, landscaping requirements, and whether garbage was being handled on the site. A memo from the town attorney advised the Board that the Town Board would be granting the applicant a license to gate off Richard Place that would run for the length of the applicant’s two year contract; the license agreement has not been approved yet. The Board also received a letter from the applicant addressing some of the issues raised in the report.
Summarizing all the issues, Mr. Fine said the key was enforcement: regardless of what the applicant said and/or what conditions might be included in the permit, the issue was how would the town know if those conditions were being followed. Specifically, he noted that at previous meetings, the applicant advised the Board that there would be no garbage handling at the site. But, Mr. Fine, whose private law office abuts the site, showed Mr. Ciarcia photos he had taken, twice, of dumpsters being emptied into garbage trucks. He also said that when he saw the trucks being washed, he didn’t see the booms on the ground that were supposed to contain the dirty water. He added that during the summer months, he was not aware of any odor from the site.
Regarding the trailer, Mr. Ciarcia said that the applicant is considering something smaller, like a “guardhouse,” that could house employee time clocks but John Winter, the building inspector, said that even this structure might trigger the site plan requirement and that he would have to review the town code before giving a more definitive opinion.
Mr. Ciarcia also said that a wetlands permit was not needed because the applicant was not making any physical improvements to the site.
Before adjourning the hearing until the next meeting in December, the Board referred the application back to the Conservation Board and ABACA to review the landscaping issue and for more review by the town engineer.
After a discussion with Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s engineer, that touched on several issues, the Board decided that there were too many unresolved issues for it to make a recommendation to the ZBA. Summing up the Board’s concerns, Mr. Fon said that the Board wasn’t saying “no” to the request, just asking questions to make sure that whatever is done is done the right way. In lieu of a recommendation to the ZBA, the Board directed Mr. Tegeder to send a memo to the ZBA in time for its October 24 meeting highlighting its concerns.
Need for a site plan. Questions continued about the main use of the site (conduct of a business or simply storage and what use was primary and what an accessory use), what section of the zoning code was applicable, whether the use was allowed in an I-2 zone and the status of the “temporary” trailer Depending on the answers to the questions, a site plan may or may not be required. The Board will request an interpretation from the building inspector and depending on his findings, the matter may have to be referred to the ZBA for an interpretation. Mr. Ciarcia said the trailer would be scaled down in size and only used for employee time clocks and GPS tracking. Mr. Tegeder noted that temporary trailers were only permitted as part of construction projects.
While the previous use of the site for outdoor storage of construction materials dating back to the 1980s was referred to, Mr. Tegeder noted that that use had since lapsed and questions about the use of the site needed to finally be resolved. Mr. Flynn asked for more information about the number and nature of the trucks using the site: garbage, recycling, and oilers used to maintain the trucks.
Gate across Richard Pl.
While Mr. Ciarcia explained that the Town Board had no problem with the gate (see previous meeting), Mr. Tegeder noted that town code required Planning Board approval for the closing off of a road, even a paper road. He said that there might be a future need for the road parcel in the event that the Depot Square project went forward and he asked Mr. Ciarcia, why the applicant couldn’t fence off both parcels on either side of the road. Mr. Ciarcia stated that when the town took ownership of the parcel, it was not necessarily for road purposes.
Time period for special permit. In response to a question from Ms. Kutter as to how long the special permit might be good for, Karen Wagner, the Board’s attorney explained that the ZBA could put time limits on the permit with the requirement that the applicant come back to the Board for periodic renewals.
Wetlands issues. Bruce Barber expressed concern over the possibility of chemical spills on the site and the need to consider whether the applicant needed a wetlands permit. He also expressed concern about the weight of the trucks on the gravel surface and how this might impact drainage as well as the possible need for a stormwater plan.
Other issues included employee parking, the possible need for screening along the abutting trailway and how potential contaminants would be contained.
In response to a question from Ms. Kutter about whether Yorktown Recycling, a separate business located on Front Street at the corner of Richard Place ,was using any of the Competition Carting site to store recyclables, Mr. Ciarcia said no.
The main issue before the Board was the company’s use of the paper extension of Richard Place that bisects the two parcels the company plans to use to park its trucks. The secondary issue of employee parking on Front Street was quickly resolved when Brian Amico, the company’s representative, said he would instruct his employees to park in the lot and not on Front St.
While Supervisor Grace had no problem with the company using the right of way along the paper road, noting that this type of use existed all over Yorktown (driveways, mailboxes, lawns), Councilman Bianco had an issue with the company erecting a security gate across the road which he called a gift to someone, and the town attorney had issues with a private company being given the use of town land. The differences were resolved when it was agreed that the town would give a license to the company in exchange for $10 and that a “knock box” would be installed so that the town would have access to the site in the event of an emergency.
Councilman Bianco also noted that there were environmental issues associated with the site but these issues were not discussed.
Special Use permit for outdoor storage
On a referral from the ZBA, the Board reviewed a site plan for the proposed outdoor storage of garbage trucks and a temporary trailer used as office space. The applicant needs a special permit to permit the outdoor storage. (The applicant is currently addressing a code violation enforcement issue in town court.) In response to several of the issues raised by Board members, the applicant will return on October 21 so that the Planning Board may be in a position to send a memo to the ZBA in time for the latter’s October 24 public hearing on the special permit application that address site plan planning issues. Prior to the meeting, several Board members indicated their intention to visit the site.
Dan Ciarcia, the applicant’s engineer, stated that there would be about 12 trucks parked on the site, along with employee parking and the storage of rolloff containers. The applicant is proposing to install a security gate across the extension of Richard Place which is town owned land. (The street is part paved and part dirt into the site.) He said the gate would impair the town’s ownership rights.
In response to Mr. Flynn’s comments that on a visit to the site, he had observed an “oiler truck,” it was explained that garbage trucks need to have their fluids refilled; this led to a discussion over possible leaks during this refueling process and/or from the trucks and the fact that the ground was pervious gravel and that there were wells downstream of the site. Mr. Ciarcia stated that major maintenance work on the trucks was done off site. Also the trucks were washed off site. He also said that as no site work, i.e., changes or improvements, were proposed, there was no wetlands issue.
Commenting on the presence of the trailer, Mr. Fon (who deals with garage issues on a daily basis in his job at the Greenburgh DPW) raised the issue of what the primary use of the site was: a place of business, or a place for outdoor storage. He also wanted to know if the trucks being parked there serviced other communities besides Yorktown.
Other issues raised by Planning Board members was the adequacy of screening on the Trailway that abuts the site, odor issues for abutting property owners, the possibility of rodents in the event the trucks can’t dispose of their load by the end of the day and are parked overnight with the garbage, and whether the town should permit the storage of garbage trucks so close to the highway garage site that is proposed for redevelopment.
Prior to its next meeting, the Board asked for input from the building inspector and town engineer. Speaking for the Board, Mr. Fon said that while garbage collection was a necessity, the town should do it right.
During Courtesy of the Floor, Ann Kutter and George Hansen expressed separate concerns about problems they were experiencing with the kitchen trash collection. Ms. Kutter said that while the service started out okay, it was getting worse. She cited the company’s failure to pick up all the recyclables that have been left by the roadside. Mr. Hansen expressed concern that when he called the Refuse and Recycling Department with a complaint, the phone message automatically directed him to Competition Carting and he wanted to know how the Town was keeping track of complaints if they weren’t being received by town employees.
In response to both comments, Supervisor Grace acknowledged that there have been glitches since the new company took over but that they have been and are being addressed. He said his office has been receiving complaints. He said that part of the problem was that some residents weren’t used to putting their garbage out by 6am which is the requirement of the new company who has a different pick up schedule than the previous carter. Also, Competition Carting picks up recyclable differently, using two trucks instead of the one that the former carter used. Part of the problem, he added, was the requirements of Westchester County regarding comingling of different recyclables which he said needed to changed.
Kim Angliss Gage, head of the Refuse and Recycling Department explained that while the department’s automated message advised residents with garbage issues to contact Competition Carting directly, she said that if the person stayed on the line, they would be connected to a town employee who would take down their name and address and that this information would be forwarded to Town Board members so that they could keep track of complaints. She also said that January and February recycling disposal reports from the County’s facilities showed no change from previous years.
Jeff Buss, the attorney representing Competition Carting said that the company was ready to go to begin picking up garbage and recyclables on January 1.
He informed the Board that the company had 11 trucks and 23 employees on staff, including a dispatcher who would handle complaint calls, uniforms for its workers, that 100 containers for town buildings and multi family residences have been ordered to replace existing CRP containers, and that the trucks would be tagged and ready for inspection by the county by Friday. (The trucks have to be tagged so that the county knows they’re from Yorktown.) He said the company would be located in Yorktown but he did not know the location.
In response to a question from Ms. Angliss-Gage, the interim head of the Department of Environmental Conservation as to what name the carter would be using, Frontline Waste Management or Competition Carting, Mr. Buss said Competition Carting, noting that the latter was a registered d.b.a. for Frontline.And, in response to a second question about the relationship between Competition Carting and R&S Waste Services, Mr. Buss said that R&S would have an equity position in Competition Carting and would be able to provide Competition with back up trucks if and when the need arose. R&S, he said, provided Mr. Amico with the financing it needed. It was noted that the bid specs included a provision that the contract could not be subcontracted out without the Town Board’s approval but that it was common for businesses to be sold and/or do business using dbas.
Ms. Angliss-Gage advised Mr. Buss that the Town needed to pin down the holiday service days with Competition as soon as possible as the schedule had to be printed in January. She also reminded Mr. Buss that the contract stated that Competition had to give the Town 60 days notice before making any changes to the pick-up schedule. Mr. Buss told her he would have Mr. Amico get in touch with her the next day. (Mr. Amico had previously met with Supervisor Grace.)
In response to Councilman Bianco’s question of what would the Town do in the event Competition Carting did not pick-up the garbage,Supervisor Grace and Councilmen Murphy and Paganelli didn’t see a problem and felt that the Town could step in, renting trucks if necessary. This is a safety issue, Councilman Paganelli said, and we need a provisionary plan in place. Councilman Patel said he was against town employees picking up the garbage. Town Attorney Koster suggested that the Town might want to go out to bid for the rental of packer trucks so that it would be ready, just in case, the need arose. Based on a call she made to one supplier, Ms. Angliss-Gage noted that rental trucks might not always be available exactly when the Town needed them.
The Board discussed new information indicating there will be management changes at Competition Carting, the company that was awarded the bid to collect garbage beginning January 1, 2013. According to a letter that Brian Amico, the owner of Competition Carting sent to the Westc hester Solid Waste Commission, the new chairman of the company will be Joseph Spiezio III who is licensed to collect garbage as R& S Waste Services and there will be a stock transfer. Councilman Paganelli said it was not known what ownership interest Mr. Spiezio will have in Competition Carting. At the request of Councilman Bianco, Supervisor Grace will ask Mr. Spiezio to attend the December 11 work session.
During Courtesy of the Floor, a property owner from Jefferson Village said that he was upset that the Town had awardede the garbage bid to a company without any experience, without trucks and with no bond. Supervisor Grace defended the decision and the changes in the bid specs that he said opened up the bidding competition that resulted in a lower bid and a savings to the taxpayers. He commended the Board for taking a “bold risky move” and he was hopeful that the new company would be satisfactory.
After a lengthy and often contentious discussion, and a closed executive session with the town attorney, the Board voted unanimously to award the garbage contract to Competition Carting.
Supervisor Grace started the discussion with a motion to award the contract to the lowest bidder, Competition Carting, at which point Councilman Bianco proceeded to ask Brian Amico, the lowest bidder, a series of questions about the number of trucks and employees he currently has, his experience, his financing, etc. He said his concern was deciding whether Mr. Amico qualified as a “responsible” bidder. He also handed Deputy Town Clerk Quast a copy of a vetting document prepared for the Board by Kim Angliss-Gage, interim head of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the town employee incharge of garbage and recycling issues. Ms. Angliss-Gage recommended against giving the award to the lowest bidder. Her main concern was that Competition Carting could not gear up to begin collecting in the 10 remaining weeks before January 1. In response, Mr. Amico said that he had expected the bid to be awarded on October 2nd, the day after the bids were opened.
Mr. Amico said he would require eight trucks to do the job and that he would purchase 3 to supplement the five he currently had. He would also hire eight additional employees to supplement the four he now has on staff He refused to disclose any information about his financing, adding that this was not a requirement of the bid specs and that he first had to be awarded the bid before he could get his financing. And, while he didn’t like some of the requirements in the bid specs, especially those involving recyclables, he said he had no other choice but to comply with them. Asked where he would park his garbage trucks, he said he had several locations, but was not specific. He assured the Board that he could do the job and that as a Town resident, he did not want to create problems for his fellow residents. At one point, he turned toward the audience and showed hostility to the audience which voiced its displeasure at some of his answers.
Mr. Amico said that as a former employee of Suburban Carting which once had the Town’s garbage contract, he was familiar with the Town’s routes and had some ideas as to how the collection system could be improved. His other experience included having about 1,000 routes in Dutchess County which he sold, and an undisclosed number of current residential customers in Putnam county. He also said that collecting garbage wasn’t brain surgery.
Supervisor Grace explained, more than once, that when the Town stripped the experience r requirements from the bid specs, as well as the performance bond requirement, its intent was to give start-up companies an opportunity to bid on the assumption that they could come in with a lower cost to the taxpayers because of their lower overhead.Councilman Murphy said that he had voted against the new CRP contract last year because he felt that the Town hadn’t gotten competitive bids. (Supervisor Grace said that three or four companies had submitted bids last year.) When Councilman Bianco asked, “Did we do this bid for him (referring to Mr. Amico),” Supervisor Grace said an emphatic, “No.
Although the bid specs did not require a performance bond, Mr. Amico said he would get a six months bond.
As the discussion heated up and Town Attorney Koster said she wanted to speak to the Board in closed session, the Board voted to go into executive session and left the room.When it returned, Supervisor Grace said he would not vote for something that had been written down; he didn’t explain what was in the document.He then made a motion to award the contract to Competition Carting which was seconded by Councilman Murphy. A 5-0 vote followed.Board members then explained the reasons for their vote.
Councilman Bianco said that on the advice of the town attorney “we have no other choice,” that the issue was not whether Competition Carting was a “responsible” bidder, and that he hopes the newcarter will succeed. He said that he made a mistake when he voted for the bid specs that eliminated the experience requirement, adding that, “Our hides are in the game” and that “it’s a risk we took.”
Councilman Murphy said that the vote was no reflection on CRP but that the Board had to do what it could to keep taxes down.
Supervisor Grace said the savings would be about a 30% reduction in taxes (Councilman Bianco said this worked out to a $70/year savings per taxpayer), but he did suggest earlier in the discussion that the Board might want to put aside some of the savings in the event there was a problem with the bid, and/or to build up a surplus that could be used to purchase automated collection equipment that could reduce future collection costs.He cited the savings as an important factor in keeping within the 2% tax levy cap.He said he was proud of the Board for awarding the bid and that it was natural for people to fear change.He said that there was no legal basis for rejecting the lowest bid. He added that sometimes the Board had to make tough decisions and that the Board showed good faith in being willing to try a “new guy.” Our primary responsibility, he said, is to the taxpayers.
Councilman Patel said he was following the advice of counsel when he voted for the bid award.
Councilman Paganellisaid he had no problem with the changed experience specs but thought that the specs should have included a bonding requirement.
After Board members explained their vote, Supervisor Grace gave members of the audience an opportunity to speak. One Town resident, a mason, said that when he bid on Town jobs, he had to get perforance bonds and that he couldn't bid for certain jobs because the specs had higher bond requirments. He wanted to know if, in the future, the Board would reduce its bonding requirements for future bids. In response, Supervisor Grace said that the Towno might consider reducing future bond requirements if it opened up more competition which could lead to lower prices for taxpayers.
Supervisor Grace informed the Board that based on a preliminary review, he did not see any problems with awarding the bid to the lowest bidder which would result in an $800,000 savings.He said the bidder has all the equipment and is ready to go.Councilman Paganelli said he spoke to a solid waste person who said he knew of no problem with the company.The town is considering a two year contract.No action was taken to award the bid.
Supervisor Grace announced that two bids were received based on the revised specs; one was $1 million less than the current contract price and a second, from the current vendor, was $500,000 less. The Board is currently reviewing the bid submissions. Supervisor Grace explained that the revised specs “purged”language that restricted other companies from bidding. Both bids were based on prevailing wages.
Councilman Bianco congratulated the supervisor for going out to bid a second time instead of renewing the current contract which had an option to renew clause, adding that it was always good to go out to bid.
The Board okayed going out to bid for garbage and recycling collection for residential units in order to see if it could get a lower price than the lowest bid it accepted last year for CRP. (There was some confusion as to whether the bid award last year was for one year, with the option to renew for three years, or was for three years.)
The new bid specs will differ from the old specs in the following areas.
Prevailing wage
One of the reasons cited last year from the large increase in cost was that anyone bidding for the contract had to pay prevailing wages, a rate set by the state Department of Labor (DOL) for specific jobs and which was tied to union wages.
Citing sections of the state Labor Law, Supervisor Grace questioned whether the prevailing wage requirement applies to garbage collection for single family homes. He said he has received one document from the DOL that says that it does apply but also an appellate court decision that he said did not completely address the issue. He said he didn’t agree with the case law on the issue, although Town Attorney Koster disagreed with his “too literal” interpretation of the law.Kim Gage, interim head of the Environmental Conservation Department, noted that the garbage trucks pick up at curbside and do not go to the actual buildings.
Because any new contract would have to be awarded by October 1 in order for the carter to be up and running by January 1, and because any court challenge on the prevailing wage issue would take time to decide, Supervisor Grace asked for and received the Board’s permission to file an “order to show cause” prior to October 1. He said he would ask other municipalities to join in any future lawsuit, adding that he had one other town already interested in challenging the issue. He added that the lawsuit would, at a minimum, let the public know what the prevailing wage requirement is costing residents.
As the Supervisor’s prevailing wage argument dealt with single family homes and not dwellings of three or more stories, it was not clear how the new bids specs would deal with Beaver Ridge, Wynwood Oaks and Trump Park, all of which exceed three stories.
The bid specs will ask for prices with and without the prevailing wage requirement.
How pricing is to be determined
In previous years, the price was based on the number of units that received pick-up services. Single family homes were counted as one unit and condos and apartment buildings were counted as .4 of a unit.
Supervisor Grace said that at a meeting he attended along with Councilman Paganelli, the carters had explained that they are concerned only with the number of stops they have to make and not the number of dwelling units. (Councilman Bianco said he knew nothing of such a meeting.) It was pointed out that in some condo units, residents place their garbage in large dumpsters while in others, their garbage is placed at curbside in front of the individual units.
The new specs will be based the cost on stops which Supervisor Grace said would incentivize residents in condo units to use central collection points.
Years of experience
In contrast to the former bid that required carters to have 10 years experience, the new bid will have no experience requirement.Ms. Koster noted that in the past, the Town had had a five year experience requirement but that in the last bid, Patrick Lofaro, the former head of the Environmental Conservation Department had requested 10 years in order to cut down on the number of complaints.
Councilman Bianco, concerned that the absence of any experience requirement might encourage “fly-by-nights,” said he wanted to see some experience and Supervisor Grace said “let’s see when it (the bids) come in.” He explained that in the garbage business it was not unusual for companies to reformat themselves and he did not see any problems with “new” companies getting the needed start-up capital.
In response to Supervisor Grace’s comment that if a new carter did a poor job the Town could get rid of the carter, Councilman Bianco asked, “So who would pick up the garbage?” Councilman Murphy said that the Town had packer trucks and could do the pick-ups.
Bonding requirement
The new specs do not have a bonding requirement. It was estimated that this could reduce the bid price by about $30,000.Comptroller Joan Goldberg said that currently the carter is paid at the end of each month so that if the company didn’t pick up, it wouldn’t get paid.Supervisor Grace said that even if the Town required a bond, collecting on the bond would be difficult.
Although not on the agenda, there were some brief comments about the Town’s intent to rebid the garbage contract in the hope of getting a lower price. Supervisor Grace said that the previous bid specs, that required the contractor to have been in business for 10 years were too restrictive and limited competition.He also questioned whether prevailing wages had to be paid. Town Clerk Roker said that if the Town tried to avoid prevailing wage requirements, the state Department of Labor would “be on your case.” Councilman Paganelli didn’t think that any other contractor could beat the CRP price and that there was no way of getting around the prevailing wage requirement.
Present at the discussion was Brian D’Amico who is interested in opening up a recycling business in Yorktown(see below) and it appeared that he might be interested in the new bid for garbage services.
In two separate resolutions, the Board awarded a bid to Gabrielli Truck Sales for $361,200 for the purchase of two trucks for the Highway Department and $43,508 to Sullivan Data for computer hardware.
Awarding both bids was postponed at the June 19 meeting so that the supervisor would have more time to review them.Regarding the truck bid, he said he needed to know more about how the Town would finance the anticipated $250,000 repair of the Greenwood Street bridge that he had only learned about that afternoon. When Comptroller Joan Goldberg advised him that the funds for the bridge repair were already included in a bond anticipation note, he said his concern was satisfactorily addressed.
On the computer bid, his initial concern was that the single bidder, Sullivan Data, the Town’s IT consultant, helped draw up the specs for the bid. After being assured by Town Clerk Roker than the bid specs had been sent to 13 potential vendors, his concern was allayed.
The two new highway trucks will replace two existing 1992 vintage trucks. The funds will come from the existing snow line in the highway budget, leaving approximately $50,000 to cover any snow expenses for 2012. Supervisor Grace said that by doing its own bid for the trucks rather than buying off the state contract, the Town saved $40,000.
In response to Councilman Patel’s question whether the purchase represented “needs” or “wants,” Deputy Highway Superintendent Paul Hollopeter said that realistically the department could use four new trucks. Comptroller Joan Goldbergthat past Boards had deferred the purchase of new trucks in an effort to reduce tax increases. She suggested that the annual Highway Department budget should include a set amount of $100,000 each year towards the purchase of new trucks.Supervisor Grace said that once the Town got new fleet management software, he expected that the life cycle of the town’s vehicles would lengthen.
Highway Department truck
Without any discussion, the Board voted to advertise for a new truck for the Highway Department. Highway Superintendent DiBartolo said the Town had to act quickly in order to get this year’s model.It was not clear exactly what was being bid or what the anticipated price would be.
Water Department truck
It was not clear if the Board awarded the bid, or agreed to award it at the next meeting.
Bid awards
T-shirts for the summer camps to Sonic Sports and Vision Designs.
Laboratory services for the Water Pollution Control Plant to EnviroTest Laboratories
Contract extension for Workers' Compensation administsration
Approved resolution authorizing the Supervisor to sign a 3-year agreement with USA/TPA for third party administration of the Town’s workers’ compensation program. The resolution noted that two bids had been received and that the USA/TPA bid was the lower of the two. (The cost was not identified in the resolution.)
Police cars
The board approved the purchase of two 2012 Dodge Chargers for the Police Department to be purchased off the state contract.
Lab services. The board voted to advertise bids for lab services for the sewer plant (see 3-13-2012 below) and for summer camp t-shirts
Car and truck body work: The board voted to extend the bid for one year for body work on town trucks and cars. Supervisor Grace said that in response to questions raised by Fred Gulitz at an earlier meeting (see 3-6-2012), he had looked into whether this should be rebid but that the consensus was the town had a “good deal” with the current vendor, Tompkins Garage, which charged either $27/hour or $30/hour (there was some confusion over the exact price). The town has a $5,000 deductible.
Towing bid
Initially listed on the agenda to “extend” the towing bid, Councilman Paganelli stated that based on some checking he had done, the prices in the existing bid (which dated to 2009) were outdated and he suggested that a new bid be done instead of extending the existing one.
Councilman Murphy said that the last time the bid was extended it was pointed out that there were major problems with the specs and that the specs needed to be redone.Supervisor Grace said that the looser the specs, the better the price was likely to get.
Councilman Paganelli will follow through and report back to the board.
Auto body bid
Supervisor Grace said that at next week’s meeting, he would ask the board to extend the auto body bid that was put on hold after Fred Gulitz raised questions about the bid at the last board meeting. (see Town Board, 3/6/2012 below)
Contract agreements
Without any discussion, the board voted unanimously to extend the existing contracts for Mike Dubovsky as Environmental Inspector, Lynstaar Engineering for engineering services (for Sharon Robinson to serve as Acting Town Engineer) and Fred Koelsch to provide GIS mapping services through December 31, 2013.
Proposed purchase of two trucks for the Sewer Department.
In response to questions and concerns raised by Supervisor Grace, the board held off voting on a resolution to authorize the purchase of two new trucks for the Sewer Department.
Comptroller Goldberg explained while initially only one purchase was contemplated this year, a second truck became unexpectedly needed to be replaced. She added that the 2012 budget for the sewer district included $55,000 for the purchase of the vehicles but that the department would be $10,000 short for the anticipated $65,000 expense. She said the sewer district had the additional funds. Acting Town Engineer Robinson said that the department hadn’t purchased a new truck in 25 years.
Supervisor Grace asked why the department needed two trucks with extended cabs when a cab costs $5,000-$6,000 additional dollars.
This led to a lengthier discussion about fleet management in general and Supervisor Grace saying he was “uncomfortable” with some issues involves the town’s fleet although he did not elaborate, other than to question why a DEC truck with 114,000 miles needed some repair work. Councilman Murphy revisited an issue from a previous meeting when an agenda item to approve selling four police cars at auction was put on hold because no one on the board had the specs for the cars to be sold. Councilman Paganelli questioned whether Supervisor Grace, who had been given details on the mainienance of the town’s vehicles, wanted to micromanage fleet issues.
Laboratory services for the sewer plant
In a change of plans, the board decided not to authorize the Supervisor to sign a contract with Yorktown Medical Lab to provide lab services to the sewer plant for some required testing but instead go out to bid for the service. While Town Attorney Koster said that the contract could be awarded as a “sole source” contract, Comptroller Goldberg said that the Northern Westchester Joint Water Works had used an RFP process. When purchasing services, she said that the town had to follow the Corrective Action Plan that it had submitted to the state Comptroller’s office.
Staff will review its options and in the meantime, the sewer department will use the Yorktown Medical lab on a month to month basis.
Auto body repair bid
Referring to an agenda item to extend the bid for body repair on town cars and trucks for an additional year, Fred Gulitz asked why the town did not rebid the service. While praising the work of Tompkins Garage, the vendor that had the winning bid in 2009, he said there were 11 auto body shops within a 10 mile radius and that the town might be able to save money if it solicited new bids.
Supervisor Grace said he would look into the issue and, as there was no rush to extend the contract, the item was pulled from the agenda. Highway Superintendent DiBartolo, who has taken over the responsibility for this bid after the retirement of Pat Lofaro, said that it was typical to do bids that gave the town the option to extend the bid for three additional one year periods. He said that Tompkins charged $27 an hour which was a “terrific number.”
Athetlic Equipment
The board awarded a bid.
Broadcast Services Agreement. On the initiative of Councilman Bianco, the board voted 5-0 to extend the contract for Cary Vigilanate for one year instead of six months at the cost of $500 per month. Ms. Vigilante assists in the broadcast programming for the government channel.
Pool Concession
Extended the bid for the concession stands at Junior lake and Shrub Oak pools.
The board voted unanimously to award the bid for sweatshirts for the highway department to the Sports Barn, the lowest bidder, at a cost of $64.75 per sweatshirt.
Town Board, 2/7/2012
In a single 4-0 vote, the board voted to advertise bids for Water Department materials, sweatshirts for the Highway Department, and athletic equipment and games for the parks and Recreation Department.
Town Board, 1/24/2012
The immediate issue was whether to renew the current software maintenance contact for the department’s AS 400 system for six months or one year. The annual cost is approximately $50,000.
Comptroller Joan Goldberg explained that the reason for the six month contract would be not to tie the town’s hands in the event that it wanted to move to a new windows based system. She explained that the town had looked into a new system last year but that the police chief was not inclined to change systems. You need the support of the department, she said, in order to make the change. She said the newer system would save money for the Building Department and Court. Councilman Patel said that the current system was outdated and that the town needed the new system as soon as possible.
Chief McMahon said that the new system had no benefit to the Police Department and that two new modules could be added to the current system, at an approximate cost of $10,000 each, that could do what the newer system could do for the Building Department and Court. In support of the one year contract, he said it would take more than six months for the changeover to a new system, a point challenged by Councilman Patel who said the new system could be installed in six months.
Councilman Paganelli said that the town needed cost estimates for the new system.
A consensus was reached (no vote was taken) to renew the contract for six months.
Printing Services
Town Board, 2/7/2012
In a 4-0 vote, the bid to print town letterhead and envelopes and the Environmental Conservation mailer was awarded to Shop Smart Central, dba Chase Press and to Accel Pritning for the senior newsletter.
Town Board, 1/17/2012
The board voted to rebid the printing bid for town publications and printing projects as there was no response to the first bid. Supervisor Grace said the town would look into the original bid to see if any changes were needed.
Town Board, 1/10/2012
The board unanimously approved a resolution to advertise for a printing bid. (Note: There was no discussion as to what was included in the bid.)
Miscellaneous Bids
Town Board, 1/10/2012
Award bid for 2012 Parks Brochure
The board unanimously approved a resolution to award a bid for the 2012 Parks brochure. . (Note: There was no discussion of the amount of the award or how many vendors submitted bids.)