CITY OF NORWALK

CITY OF NORWALK

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

FINANCE/PUBLIC WORKS/ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

JOINT PUBLIC HEARING

DECEMBER 3, 2002

ATTENDANCE: Joseph Mann; Bruce Kimmel; Bill Wrenn (7:50pm); Judith Rivas (7:40pm); Jeanette Olmstead-Sawyer.

STAFF: Bill Grumman, Director of DPW; Peter Romano.

The meeting was called to order at 7:40pm by Mr. Mann, whom served as acting chairman.

PUBLIC HEARING FOR ROAD ABANDONMENT ON A PORTION OF OAKWOOD AVENUE

Mr. Romano started out by stating that he had received a call from Mr. Greene from the Planning & Zoning office at 5:00 pm that evening, requesting that there be no action taken on this item. In addition, he asked that the item be referred back to Planning & Zoning for further review. Mr. Desmond, co-owner of Silvermine Development, asked for an explanation for the delay. Mr. Romano said that Planning & Zoning indicated to him that the parcel of land was being considered for an affordable housing project by the city.

Mr. Desmond then gave some background on the history of the property. He said that several years ago, he responded to an advertisement from the State regarding excess property. 4,975 square feet was offered to the city of Norwalk, but the city declined. He purchased the property. He further stated no one knew about the additional 2,772 square feet of land until his company paid for a survey and discovered it. Neither the city of Norwalk nor the State claimed ownership. His purpose for wanting the parcel is to construct a driveway, which would give direct access to the 18-unit housing development he intends on building on the adjacent property. Mr. Kimmel stated and Mr. Desmond confirmed that without the parcel of land in question, no construction can begin. Mrs. Sawyer asked for clarification on what use the city now had in mind for the land. Mr. Romano stated that Public Works had no interest in the land but that Planning & Zoning are involved in discussions about the land.

After more discussions, Mr. Mann stated that in light of the fact that Planning & Zoning had requested a hold on a decision, it would be prudent to table the matter and refer it back to them per their request. Mr. Desmond said that he was under the impression a decision was going to be made at this meeting whether he would get the parcel of land or not. Mr. Kimmel added that since there were several parts of city government that were looking into creating affordable housing in Norwalk, everyone needed to be sensitive to time. Mr. Desmond asked how was the city's plan for affordable housing related to the 2,200 square feet of land he had been trying to acquire from the city for the past 2 years. He continued to state that, neither he nor his partner had ever been approached by the City within the past two years about building public housing. Mr. Mann responded by saying that he did not know what the specifics were surrounding the request from Planning & Zoning, but since the request had been made, he had no problem not taking any action on the matter until more details were made available. Ms. Rivas said that affordable housing was not necessarily public housing in the sense of a housing project. Affordable housing could be ownership housing. She continued by saying that if the need is there for the city then that should and would come first. Mr. Desmond then referred to a meeting held a year ago at which time the Committee members had advised him on what steps to take in order to purchase the land. Mr. Grumman expressed his opinion about the inopportune timing of the city's involvement at the last moment, but stated that there clearly could not be a decision made with a direct request from Planning & Zoning to wait. Mr. Desmond then strongly expressed his dismay over the city's sudden interest in the land after he paid for a survey to uncover a piece of property they were not aware of. Mr. Wrenn stated that the map said the city owned the property and it was the job of city government to protect public interest. Ms. Lauricella, a resident, voiced her approval of the city's plan to create affordable housing. She mentioned that in other cities, where city property was given up, there was occasionally land swapping between the Development Company and the city. She then suggested that the matter be tabled and referred to the appropriate committee for review. Mr. Mann closed the public hearing at 8:05pm.

APPROVE THE ROAD ABANDONMENT IN A PORTION OF OAKWOOD AVENUE

** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO TABLE TO ITEM UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 2002

Corrections to the Minutes of November 4, 2002:
Page 8 - last sentence ' He suggested that the 3 foot island be removed' change to ' He suggested that the 3 foot island not be removed'

** MS. OLMSTEAD-SAWYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED
** MOTION CARRIED WITH 3 VOTES IN FAVOR AND 2 ABSTENTIONS (MR. KIMMEL AND MR. WRENN)

AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, ALEX A. KNOPP, TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY BANNER SERVICES, INC., TO PROVIDE FOR THE INSTALLATION, REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE OF AESTHETIC COMMUNITY BANNERS ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLES IN SELECT LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF NORWALK AT NO COST TO THE CITY.

Mr. Magaffrey, a representative from the Community Banner Company, started out by stating that his company had a three-year agreement with the city of Norwalk. He pointed out that in the first year, the banners were used to commemorate the 350 year anniversary and that they were now entering into the second and third phases. He said that the company would once again, like permission to use the metal traffic signal poles on which to place the banners. They would install and maintain the banners as they had in the past. He continued to argue that the banner program had been widely well received by the business community and that many residents felt it added to community pride.

Mr. Mann brought up the fact that one of the reasons this matter was sent back, was the disclosure that there was a charge to the businesses to have their names on the banner. He said that the question had been raised about the city receiving some of the profit from these charges. Mr. Magaffrey stated that the program was not set up for the city to benefit monetarily from the program because there were other benefits. For example, during the 350th anniversary, there was no cost to the city to install, maintain or remove the numerous banners commemorating the event. He stated that if the city had to pay for the vast amount of banners that had been put up, including brackets and maintenance, it would have been extremely costly. He continued to state that the business community basically funded the program and the city benefits all around. The program was set up for three years and as such, does not generate much profit in the first year. The profit comes in the second and third year if the number of businesses that had previously signed on would again want to get involved. He said that in other cities, installation costs were a separate charge. However, for the city of Norwalk, there was an agreement that installation cost would not be charged. In that respect, he said, the city received a monetary benefit. He then added that a 3% - 5% royalty agreement could be worked out between his company and the community.

Ms. Rivas inquired about what portion of the banner was designated to advertising and sponsorship. Mr. Magaffrey responded that approximately 25% to 30% of the banner was designated to sponsorship. He continued to state that the banner had two clients; the city they are working for and the businesses. No phone numbers, addresses or different colors are allowed. Mr. Kimmel inquired about Community Banner's involvement in the removal of the banners in phase one. He continued to state that there was an assumption that the banners remained in place until the new ones were installed. Mr. Magaffrey responded that the banners remained in place for a year per the contract with the city and that the company was responsible for removal as phase two and three began. Mr. Kimmel said that PL&G had wanted some of the banners down. Mr. Magaffrey said that to the best of his knowledge, the banners that were requested to be removed had been relocated to poles that were approved. Mr. Kimmel then commented on the fact that if there were going to be new themes, that the city should have some input. Mr. Magaffrey said that the company had no input on what theme was chosen. Mr. Kimmel then asked about location. Mr. Magaffrey said that location was contingent on the city's approval of usage of the poles. After which, a map would be created showing the intended locations.

Mr. Wrenn stated for clarification, that a contract was already in place and that the company was going ahead regardless of the decision made by the Committee. Mr. Magaffrey confirmed that the contract was set and that the company was simply looking for permission to use the poles. A contingent plan had already been established however, if Public Works does not give permission to use the poles. He stated that the banners would have to be installed at alternative locations which would drastically affect the number of banners that the company would be able to sell and ultimately the affect the benefit for the community. He continued to argue that it was more effective to have a consistent banner program in place with a consistent theme, rather than having sparsely placed banners. The traffic poles would assure a consistent look. Mr. Wrenn expressed dissatisfaction with the current number of banners. He felt there were too many and that it appeared to be more like advertising than aesthetics.

Ms. Sawyer said that it was important that they know what the new theme would be. Mr. Magaffrey said that they were willing to work with whatever committee was designated to decide on a theme. Mr. Mann asked about the procedures surrounding deciding on a theme if the Committee approved it. Mr. Grumman responded that he believed that a committee does exist that decided on a theme. Mr. Wien, responded from the audience, and said that he believed during the first year the Mayor and a group of representatives from the SoNo businesses had decided on the theme. Mr. Mann expressed his concern about what happened after the matter was approved by the Committee. Mr. Magaffrey pointed out that he was not sure either, but that the SoNo group was very involved and that he would customize the banners to conform to whatever the city decided.

Mr. Kimmel articulated his concern about the density issue. He stated that the 350th anniversary warranted the density in phase one, but that a lesser theme would not require the same. He then asked for further clarification on the monetary profit to the city if there was a 3% to 5% royalty agreement established. Mr. Magaffrey responded by relating that in phase one, 275 banners were sold at $400 each. Mr. Kimmel then eagerly agreed that a 5% royalty would be fitting. Mr. Magaffrey said that he as willing to offer a 5% royalty if it would guarantee approval to use the poles. Ms. Rivas then added that the decisions on density and theme should be referred to the appropriate committee and that they were not decisions that should be made by Public Works. Mr. Wrenn asked if the Committee could have final approval of which poles were to be used to avoid overcrowding. Mr. Grumman pointed out that the traffic signal poles were spaced far apart. Mr. Kimmel then added that the Committee could not micro-manage the project in that manner. He said that a separate committee needed to be established for those issues.

** MS. RIVAS MOVED TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE A 5% PROFIT SHARING OF TOTAL GROSS SALES AND ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE, VIA THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, TO OVERSEE THE PROJECT
** UNANIMOUS VOTE TO PASS THE AMENDMENT

** MR. MANN MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGREEMENT
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, ALEX A KNOPP, TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR LEAF AND YARDWASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES FOR A TERM OF (…) FOR A SUM NOT TO EXCEED $$ FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03

Mr. Grumman gave some background information on this item. He stated that there were 5 bids submitted and DW Transport was the apparent low bidder. However, there was a stipulation included in their bid, which was not acceptable to DPW. After some discussions, an agreement was reached between DW Transport and DPW, that resulted in the removal of the stipulation about the low price being contingent on yard-waste being 95% leaves. After careful consideration and consultation with Corporation Council, the changes submitted by DW Transport would not be admitted. Mr. Grumman added that they were still however, the low bidder and that they should be given the contract.

Ms. Lauricella, spoke from the audience, on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She suggested the possibility of having the public do compositing on their properties, in addition to leaf hauling. She continued to argue that it would save the city money. Mr. Kimmel inquired about the possibility of composting. Mr. Grumman said that it had been tried before in the past and was not successful. The concerns with odor, mold spores and space were issues that could not be addressed effectively and money was not available.

** MR. MANN MOVED TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR LEAF AND YARDWASTE REMOVAL WITH DW TRANSPORT FOR THE AMOUNT OF $1,975,544.66
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR ALEX A. KNOPP TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH LOSITO ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR INC., TO INSTALL A CROSSWALK WARNING SYSTEM AT THE NORWALK COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR A SUM NOT EXCEED $8,500

Mr. Grumman said that a request had been made by the college to install a crosswalk warning signal due to the potential dangers to students from on-coming traffic across Richards Ave. He said that the College was willing to pay for half the cost. Two bids were submitted and Losito was the low bidder. Mr. Grumman continued to argue that he had seen a demonstration of the crosswalk and it appears that it would not only be eye-catching but effective in slowing down traffic and warning to stop for pedestrians. The walkway would be lit up going across so as to serve as a warning especially at night, for drivers to slow down. Mr. Wrenn asked if anyone had gotten hit and inquired as to the necessity of the crosswalk. Mr. Grumman said that no one had gotten hit but there was a real safety hazard especially with the growing population of the College. He continued to state that all the questions have been asked and the danger perceived is very real. Mr. Kimmel agreed that any measure to help the students should be taken. Mr. Wrenn added that there was a traffic light 100 yards ahead of the pedestrian crossing and that most people were careful.

** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF THE CROSSWALK WARNING SYSTEM
** MOTION CARRIED WITH 4 IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSED (MR. WRENN)

EXECUTE AGREEMENT FOR THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR PROPOSED WETLANDS RESTORATION OF WILTON COVE

Mr. Grumman said that the project was a joint city and state project to open up the culverts under Wilton Ave (Rte 136). The design is such that salt water can be flushed at high-tides back into the cove area, which is also the backyard of Standard Oil. He continued to state that the salt tolerant plants will be killed off as a result of this. There have been some setbacks with the state regarding the soil samples. However, he said he would like to move forward providing they received a good bid.

** MR. MANN MOVED TO APPROVE THIS ITEM
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC WORKS CENTER

Mr. Romano said that a fence was built by Deering, and had not been billed until recently. The balance owed was $7,000.

** MR. KIMMEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE ITEM
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

STRUCTURAL REPAIRS TO SAND/SALT STORAGE BUILDING AT THE PUBLIC WORKS CENTER

Mr. Romano said that they were seeking approval for a change order for Conti to go in a do some structural repairs to the sand/salt building that was built over 2 years ago. He stated that Conti already had an existing contract.

Mr. Kimmel inquired about the reason the city had to pay for any of the repairs. Mr. Romano responded that engineering firm that was hired by the city had sub-contracted the structural engineering. When the structural problems surfaced, the city had an outside company do the investigation. The contractor and the architect were both consulted and it was decided that the problems were to be fixed initially by the contractor. He continued to stated that an outside firm had reviewed the drawings and concluded that the specifications were ambiguous to a point where the contractor could not be held responsible for certain things. Through negotiations it was agreed that everyone had some responsibility. As a result the city agreed to pay for 1/3 of the repairs and 2/3 to other parties in order to avoid a potential lawsuit further down the road. Mr. Kimmel asked which city agency would have been responsible for catching the mistakes. Mr. Romano responded that Public Works was responsible. More discussions ensued about the

** MR. MANN MOVED TO APPROVE
** MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Wrenn requested that the rules be suspended in order to add an item to the agenda. He wanted an update on the police building discussed at the last Council meeting. He said he wanted to know what had been done since then. Mr. Mann suggested that the issue be put on a regular agenda and that everyone be made aware there was going to be a discussion in order to fairly discuss all sides.

FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

** MR. WRENN MOVED TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE AGENDA:
UPDATE ON WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH THE REMEDIATION PORTION OF THE POLICE STATION
** MOTION CARRIED WITH 4 IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSED (MR. MANN)

Mr. Wrenn asked what had been done since then. Mr. Grumman said if he had known it was going to be on the agenda, Osprey would have been invited to give an update. He said that he had requested a cost breakdown and so far the price ranges were extremely high. This was due to the amount of contaminants and the locations where the waste had to be trucked to. He said that the prices ranged from $25 to $300 per unit. He continued to state that the state had been monitoring and inspecting the piles on a weekly basis to make sure the piles were segregated properly.

Mr. Romano said that to his understanding the excavation was almost done. Mr. Kimmel asked for clarification on when Osprey would be able to say the sight was clean. Mr. Romano said that he was not sure that would ever be the case. Mr. Grumman said that the majority of the material would be under the parking lot. Mr. Kimmel then asked if Mr. Grumman was comfortable with the cost. Mr. Grumman said that he was not comfortable with the price. Mr. Wien stated that he thought the cost to remove everything in 1 pile, was $550,000, which was voted on at the last meeting. He suggested that maybe an audit of the dirt might prove that so many piles may not have to be removed. Ms. Rivas said that she understood it to be several piles of dirt. Mr. Mann stated that the issue raised by Mr. Wien would be best addressed at another meeting when more preparation could be done. Mr. Wrenn said that the issue of the audit should be addressed and would like to make sure it was on the agenda for the next meeting.

Ms. Lauracelli from the audience requested to speak regarding saving money. Mr. Mann said that the issue of saving money was not directly related to the update and should be held until the next meeting.

** MR. MANN MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING
** MOTION CARRIED WITH 2 IN FAVOR (MR. MANN AND MS. RIVAS) 2 OPPOSED (MR. KIMMEL AND MR. WRENN) AND ONE ABSTENTION (MS.
SAWYER)

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Michele Montgomery
Telesco Secretarial Services


Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page