HAD A CHANCE TO TALK. YEAH. I WAS WONDERING HOW MANY THIS COMMITTEE A SENIOR. SENIOR. ALL
[Call to Order]
[00:00:05]
RIGHT, LET'S KEEP MOVING ON. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF WE CAN HAVE EVERYONE'S ATTENTION, WE'RE GOING TO START PUBLIC WORKS MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER[n. 2024-1022 – WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RE: APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY & WATER POLLUTION CONTROL, AND HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON, ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING, P.C. ]
HERE. SINCE CARL ONLY HAS ONE. WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH 1022 WATER POLLUTION ENGINEERING SERVICE CONTRACT. LET'S SEE. WATER QUALITY. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ASKS FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HENNINGSON DURHAM AND RICHARDSON ARCHITECTS ENGINEERING. THEY WILL ASSESS AND EVALUATE TECHNOLOGICAL AND OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVES RELATED TO THE EFFICIENCIES AND ENHANCEMENTS TO THE SOLID HANDLING PROCESSING PLANT. AND CARL TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT, AND THERE WAS QUESTIONS AS TO, YOU KNOW, WE PUT ALL THIS MONEY, $381 MILLION INTO IT SINCE 2007. WEREN'T WE DOING THIS ALL ALONG, WHICH WE WERE.BUT THE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT NOW REQUIRES SOME REINVESTIGATING. AND I'M GOING TO LET CARL GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON IT SO I DON'T DILUTE IT. YEAH, I THINK THIS WHOLE THING STARTED ABOUT 17 YEARS AGO, THE WHOLE CONSENT ORDER PROCESS AND THEN WORKING OUR WAY IN. BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A SOLIDS HANDLING PORTION OF THE PLANT. THAT WAS THE FIRST CAPITAL PROJECT. THAT WAS MIGHT TURN DOWN HERE. THAT WAS THE FIRST CAPITAL PROJECT THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED. SO THAT'S THAT'S BEEN FULLY OPERATIONAL FOR ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS, IS A CONSTANT EVOLUTION OF REGULATIONS, AND WE WANT TO STAY AHEAD OF THIS. SO WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT SOURCES OF MONEY. AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET A $50,000 GRANT. WE HAVE MONIES IN A SMALL PROJECT CAPITAL PROJECT ACCOUNT THAT WE'VE SET UP. SO WE HAD IDENTIFIED SOME THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IN ANTICIPATION OF KNOWING THAT WE HAVE EQUIPMENT THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR SEVEN YEARS. YOU GET USEFUL LIFE OF MAYBE 2025 ON SOME OF THIS EQUIPMENT THAT SEE SOME PRETTY AGGRESSIVE OPERATIO. BECAUSE OF OUR WASTEWATER PROCESSES. WE HAVE SOME CAPITAL OR SOME SOME EQUIPMENT PROCESS EQUIPMENT THAT BECAUSE AT THE TIME STILL HAD A LITTLE OVER TEN YEARS OF USEFUL LIFE LEFT IN IT. WE DIDN'T WANT TO SCRAP IT AND SPEND THAT MONEY THEN. SO WE WANT TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT HOW WE'RE RUNNING OUR OUR SOLIDS SOLIDS TREATMENT PROCESS. WE WANT TO LOOK AT SOME PLANNING GOING FORWARD WITH WHEN WILL WE NEED SOME UPGRADES WITH PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, WHAT TYPES OF EQUIPMENT SHOULD WE BE USING? AND THEN LOOKING AT THE REGULATIONS, THERE'S ALWAYS A PUSH TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL THAT GOES TO THE LANDFILL. OUR PROCESSED SLUDGE GOES TO THE LANDFILL. ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE CAN REDUCE THE VOLUME OF THAT SLUDGE, WHICH IS GOING TO SAVE US COST, WHILE SAVING SPACE IN THE LANDFILL? THERE'S A BIG PUSH ON THESE FOREVER CHEMICALS P FAS AND WHATEVER THAT THAT WE NEED TO REMOVE FROM THE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM RIGHT NOW, THAT THERE'S NO EFFECTIVE WAY TO TREAT IT OTHER THAN LOOKING AT SOME, SOME THERMAL PROCESSES. SO WE WANT THIS CONSULTANT TO COME IN AND LOOK AT THOSE TECHNOLOGIES FOR US. WHEN YOU LOOK AT TRYING TO MINIMIZE MATERIAL GOING TO LANDFILLS, THERE'S A PUSH TO DO LAND APPLICATION. WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANY LAND APPLICATION UNTIL WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE EVERY POSSIBLE CHEMICAL TAKEN OUT OF THIS. OUR PROCESSES PROCESSED SLUDGES. SO THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKED AT. AND IT'S AGAIN, WHAT IT'LL DO IS GIVE US SOME LONG, LONG RANGE PLANNING, SOME BUDGETING AND TRY TO PINPOINT ON A SCHEDULE WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTING SOME SMALL PROJECTS. WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS JUST WAIT, GET ALL THE WAY TO THE END, HAVE EQUIPMENT THAT'S FAILING, WE HAVE MORE REGULATIONS ON TOP OF US, AND FIND OUT THAT WE HAVE TO DO A BIG PROJECT INSTEAD OF DOING SMALL PROJECTS ALONG THE WAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE GIST OF WHY WE WANTED TO DO THIS STUDY. OKAY. THANK YOU CARL. QUESTIONS FOR CARL. CARL, DOES THIS THIS FIRM HAVE THEY MUST HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET THE FOREVER CHEMICALS. I KNOW BECAUSE ON SOLID WASTE WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THE SAME THING ON THAT BOARD. AND I MEAN IT'S A IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE. SO AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE REGULATIONS CHANGING BEFORE THE, BEFORE THE, BEFORE YOU CAN BE DONE WITH YOUR PROJECT. YEAH.
IS CAUGHT UP. SO, SO REQUIRE YOU TO GET RID OF THIS STUFF BEFORE THERE'S A WAY TO DO IT. SO WE PUT TOGETHER A DETAILED RF AND RFQ REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. AND WE PUBLISHED THIS. WE CONTACTED FIRMS. WE I THINK WE RECEIVED SEVEN SEVEN PROPOSALS. AND WE MADE A SELECTION BASED ON AFTER INTERVIEWING THE INTERVIEW PROCESS, WE MADE A SELECTION BASED ON WHO WE FELT WAS THE MOST SUITABLE AND QUALIFIED WITH THE RIGHT EXPERTISE FOR THIS PROJECT. AND YOU SPEND WE'RE SPENDING A LITTLE MONEY ON THIS, ON THIS STUDY, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THE RIGHT PEOPLE THAT WERE GIVING US THE GUIDANCE. OTHER QUESTIONS TIM. SO IS THIS ESSENTIALLY LIKE SOMEONE COMING IN AND FIGURING OUT WHAT YOUR CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE OVER THE NEXT 15
[00:05:06]
YEARS OR SO OR. YEAH, IT'S KIND OF TWO THINGS GOING ON HERE IS ONE IS TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, AND THEN FROM THAT AND LOOKING AT OUR EQUIPMENT AND WHERE WE'RE WHERE WE MAY NEED TO GO REGULATORY WISE FROM THERE, PUT TOGETHER A PLAN FOR US. THEY WOULD HAVE NO BETTER IDEA ABOUT WHAT THE NEW REGULATIONS ARE GOING TO COME DOWN. AND. MX FIVE, WELL, 5 TO 10 YEARS, IT'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE. BUT THERE'S THERE ARE A LOT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS THAT ARE THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW. AND WE WANT TO HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT'S ON TOP OF THAT BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY BECOME BEFORE THEY'RE IMPLEMENTED. AND THEN WE HAVE THE STATE COMING TO US AND SAYING, OKAY, BY NEXT YEAR YOU NEED TO IMPLEMENT THIS. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S PENDING SO WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES AND KIND OF HAVE OUR DUCKS IN A ROW. THE FRUSTRATION LEVEL FROM MY PART AT LEAST, IS THAT YOU HEAR A LOT OF THINGS. THAT WE CAN'T REPLACE. SO WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THE BEST LOOK AT BETTER WAYS. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE REGULATIONS CHANGE. SO. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE PUSH THAT. GREAT. THANK YOU MIKE. FORTUNATELY WITH THE REGULATIONS YOU PROBABLY DON'T PUSH BACK A WHOLE LOT. CARL, INASMUCH AS THIS IS A STUDY WITH THE CONSULTANT ABOUT CAPACITY IN PART, AND YOU CITE THAT RIGHT NOW 110,000 PEOPLE ARE SERVED, GIVE OR TAKE, CITY OF UTICA, I GUESS, GAINED IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. AND WHICH IS WHY WE REDISTRICTED 6000 PLUS PEOPLE JUST HERE ALONE. DOES THIS STUDY ANTICIPATE AND I FORESEE IT HAPPENING AN ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN POPULATION FOR NOT JUST UTICA, BUT THE AREA, YOU KNOW, SURROUNDING UTICA THAT'S SERVED BY WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT THE COST IMPACTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. LOOK, THE POPULATION, BECAUSE POPULATION THEN LEADS TO MORE WATER CONSUMPTION AND THE WATER CONSUMPTION METER READINGS ARE THAT'S HOW WE GENERATE OUR REVENUE AND IMPACTS ON ON SEWER RATES AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. YEAH. SO THAT THAT ALL HAS TO COME INTO PLAY BECAUSE BEFORE WE WANT TO ADVANCE A PROJECT, WE KNOW HOW WE NEED TO KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT. YEAH. AND THE CITY USED TO BE BETWEEN, WHAT, 115, 120,000 YEARS BACK. SO THE PLANTS DEALT WITH IT IN THE PAST, RIGHT? I JUST WENT INTO THE RIVER. YEAH.YEAH, YEAH. GOOD. THANKS. THE GOOD OLD DAYS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON WITH THIS? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? CALL THE VOTE, AND I. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[o. 2024-0137 – BONDING RESOLUTIONS 1) RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A COMPREHENSIVE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PHASE 5) IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $5,000,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $5,000,000 BONDS OF THE COUNTY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF (DPW 071). 2) RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION AND RESURFACING OF COUNTY ROADS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $3,000,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000 BONDS OF SAID COUNTY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (DPW-076) 3) RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COUNTY BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $4,500,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $4,500,000 BONDS OF THE COUNTY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF (DPW-077). 4) RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO 121 2nd STREET BUILDING FOR USE BY CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $8,000,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $500,000 BONDS OF THE COUNTY TO PAY COSTS THEREOF (DPW-105). 5) RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ASBESTOS REMOVAL AT THE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $2,000,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $2,000,000 BONDS OF THE COUNTY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF (GEN-004). 6)RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COUNTY-WIDE COMPUTERIZATION IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $1,100,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,100,000 BONDS OF THE COUNTY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF (GIT-010). 7) RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF THE MOHAWK VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE SCIENCE AND TECH BUILDING ON UTICA CAMPUS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $42,080,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $14,415,000 BONDS OF THE COUNTY TO PAY COSTS THEREOF (MVC-051). 8) RE: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MOHAWK VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE BUILDING ON THE ROME CAMPUS FOR A DENTAL HYGIENE PROGRAM IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ONEIDA, NEW YORK, AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $4,500,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $375,000 BONDS OF THE COUNTY TO PAY COSTS THEREOF (MVC-117). ]
THANK YOU. CARL, WE'RE GOING TO JUMP TO AUDIT CONTROL FOR VANESSA. WE'VE GOT 1037 BINDING RESOLUTIONS. THERE'S SEVEN DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS. WE'VE GOT THEM ALL UNDER ONE ONE. THIS IS ALL UPWARDS OF 28 MILLION THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED IN THE BUDGET. THIS IS JUST PROVIDING HER THE MECHANISM TO GO OUT AND BOND AS NEEDED AS THESE PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ALL AT ONCE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR NASA ON THE BINDING RESOLUTIONS? I'LL CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. VANESSA.[c. 2024-0901 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT THE ONEIDA COUNTY DPW FUEL STORAGE DISPENSING FACILITIES PROJECT IS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT ]
OKAY, MOVING ON TO PUBLIC WORKS 901. THIS IS JUST A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT.THIS IS FOR THE FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. TALK TO MATT ABOUT THAT SINCE THEY'RE BEING SEPARATED, THE GAS AND THE DIESEL FOR VARIOUS REASONS. WE JUST HAVE TO DO A DECLARATION THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE NO NEGATIVE EFFECT. SO THERE'S NO COST OR ANYTHING. IT'S JUST STRICTLY A DECLARATION. THE BOARD HAS TO APPROVE QUESTIONS ON THIS.
HAVING NONE, I CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[d. 2024-0911 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND MARCH ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, P.C. ]
MOVING ON TO 911. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENTS. PUBLIC WORKS ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL. I'M SORRY FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH MARCH ASSOCIATES FOR ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES, PLUS REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES FOR ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PROJECTS ON THE SEVENTH FLOOR. I THINK WHAT MATT EXPLAINED, BECAUSE OF THE WHO WE'RE PUTTING IN THE SEVENTH FLOOR, SOME OTHER REGULATIONS COME INTO PLAY. THAT'S WHAT'S JUMPING THIS UP BY $50,000. THAT WAS UNANTICIPATED QUESTIONS, HAVING NONE. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY[i. 2024-0908- PUBLIC WORKS RE: APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND C & S ENGINEERS, INC. ]
AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY GOING ON TO 908. CHANGE ORDER. PUBLIC WORKS[00:10:04]
REQUEST APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER TO A CONTRACT WITH CNS ENGINEERING FOR WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURE ON A NIGHT OF SEWER OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK IN THE TOWN OF PARIS. IT'S A $5,055 INCREASE FOR INCIDENTALS THAT WERE OVERLOOKED. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE $5,000? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.[m. 2024-1030 – MVCC RE: APPROVAL OF A WORK ORDER BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND MOHAWK VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE ]
AYE. OPPOSED? UNANIMOUSLY. MOVING ON TO 1030. LET'S SEE. PUBLIC WORKS REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF A WORK ORDER TO INCREASE THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK STATE FOR A PROJECT ON MOHAWK VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE CAMPUS IN UTICA. THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY IS OVERSEEING THE RENOVATION OF ROOM 101 AND PAYNE HALL. IT COVERS A MAGNITUDE OF THINGS PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, CARPET MOLDING, REMOVAL OF SEATS, AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL READ IN THE DOCUMENTATION. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? YES, CHRIS. SO THIS THIS WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, THIS OTHER WORK OR IT WAS. SO THIS WAS A NEW KIND OF VENTURE THAT WE WENT WITH DASNY TO BASICALLY WE CONTRACT WITH THEM TO DO PROCURE, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND EVERYTHING. SO THEY JUST DID THE BIDS. WE HAD THE FULL AMOUNT BUDGETED, BUT WE STARTED WITH A SMALLER CONTRACT AMOUNT, AND WE NEED TO PUT THE CONTRACT IN SO THEY COULD AWARD THE BIDS. SO WE'RE ADDING THE FUNDS TO MATCH WHERE THE BIDS CAME IN TO AWARD THE, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BE DONE.WHY DIDN'T WHY DIDN'T THIS GO THROUGH ACQUISITION AND CONTRACT. BECAUSE IT'S A DOLLAR AMOUNT. IS THAT WHY. BECAUSE THE TOTAL CONTRACT. YES, IT'S A TOTAL IT'S ABOVE THAT $50,000 AMOUNT. OKAY. WASN'T THIS MATT THAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS ALREADY AGREED. YES. SO IT'S.
YES. SO THE PROJECT THE PROJECT IS FOR JUST THIS PROJECT, THE ACCOUNTS COMING OUT OF. AND SO THIS THE CONTRACT WE DID WITH THEM WAS A SMALLER CONTRACT WE STARTED WITH. IT WAS STARTED PRIOR TO ME COMING ON, BUT IT WAS THE FIRST $140,000 BUMP, RIGHT? YES. BUT THE BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT HAS NOT CHANGED. OKAY. IT'S JUST MOVING IT TO THE CONTRACT SO THEY CAN AWARD IT BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE USUALLY DO, BECAUSE TYPICALLY DASNY IS AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NOT ONEIDA COUNTY. RIGHT. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE FUNDS IN THEIR CONTRACT TO BE ABLE TO AWARD IT. AND THEY PAY, YOU KNOW, ALL THE PAY UPS GO THROUGH THEM AND THEN WE PAY DASNY. SO WE'RE ONLY PAYING ONE ENTITY. DO WE TYPICALLY USE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OR IS THAT SOMETHING. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME DOING IT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEP.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I'LL CALL THE VOTE ON 1030. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED?
[l. 2024-1032 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: TRANSFER OF $273,000.00 TO VARIOUS DPW ACCOUNTS ]
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MOVING ON TO 1032. PUBLIC WORKS SEEKS CONSIDERATION OF A TRANSFER TO THE ROAD MACHINERY FUND. THE COST OF AUTO PARTS HAS BEEN INCREASING, ALONG WITH HAVING TO PAY SHIPPING CHARGES FOR PARTS THAT ARE NO LONGER STOCKED, PLUS A PUBLIC WORKS REPORT, IT HAS SEEN A REVENUE INCREASE DUE TO DEPARTMENTS CHARGEBACKS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK TO MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT FROM WITHIN OUR OWN STRUCTURES THAT THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. SO THIS IS A TRANSFER OVER FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO THE OTHER. QUESTIONS ON THIS HAVING NONE. CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MOVING ON TO 0878 CONSULTING[b. 2024-0878 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: APPROVAL OF A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND BARTON & LOGUIDICE, D.P.C. ]
SERVICES. PUBLIC WORKS SEEKS AN ACCEPTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH BARTON LOGIUDICE TO PROVIDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF A BRIDGE AND STEUBEN VALLEY ROAD OVER STEUBEN CREEK IN THE TOWN OF TRENTON. THIS IS A LOCAL BRIDGE COUNTY, SO THIS IS NOT PART OF A BRIDGE NEW YORK PROGRAM AT A COST OF $113,500. QUESTIONS ON THIS PROJECT? HAVING NONE. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WHAT I'M[a. 2024-0868 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF THE COSTS OF A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, WHICH MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL-AID AND/OR STATE-AID, OR REIMBURSEMENT FROM BRIDGE NY FUNDS ]
[e. 2024-0958 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: APPROVAL OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND THE TOWN OF KIRKLAND ]
[f. 2024-0866 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF 100% OF THE COSTS OF A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, OF WHICH QUALIFIED COSTS MAY BE REIMBURSED FROM BRIDGE NY FUNDS ]
[g. 2024-0938 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: APPROVAL OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND THE TOWN OF KIRKLAND ]
[j. 2024-0899 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING OF THE COSTS OF A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, WHICH MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL-AID AND/OR STATE-AID, OR REIMBURSEMENT FROM BRIDGE NY FUNDS ]
[k. 2024-0864 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: APPROVAL OF AN INTERMUNICIPAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND THE TOWN OF CAMDEN ]
GOING TO DO WITH THE NEXT SIX DOCKETS, WHICH ARE THREE DIFFERENT NEW YORK BRIDGE PROJECTS. WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW YORK BRIDGE PROJECTS, 95% FED, 5% STATE, EXCEPT FOR THE CULVERTS, WHICH ARE 100% STATE, LOCAL, LOCAL. SO IT'S 95% FED, 5% FOR. YES. THANK YOU. IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON INDIVIDUAL ONES, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT I WANT TO JUST VOTE ON IT AS A PACKAGE ON ALL SIX DOCKETS. IF WE CAN PLEASE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE THREE PROJECTS, SIX PACKETS, THEY ARE 868, 864. 958, 66, 938 AND 899. SO LAST CALL. ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE PROJECTS HAVING NONE. WE'LL CALL THE VOTE ON ALL SIX DOCKETS, PLEASE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL SIX PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MATT, I THINK YOU'RE FREE TO GO. ONE LAST
[h. 2024-0929 – PUBLIC WORKS RE: APPROVAL OF A FLOOD MITIGATION GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ONEIDA COUNTY, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, AND THE TOWN OF CAMDEN ]
[00:15:09]
DOCKET FOR PLANNING. I KNOW JAMES IS HERE. IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS FLOOD MITIGATION GRANT PLANNING REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF 124,008 FLOOD MITIGATION GRANT FOR THE TOWN OF CAMDEN. THE MONEY WILL BE USED TO FILL, FACILITATE AND REHABILITATE THE TOWN ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND STABILIZE LOCAL WATERWAYS. THE WORK IS FOCUSED ON THE NORTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE TOWN THAT EXPERIENCED SEVERE FLOODING AND ROADWAY DAMAGE, CAUSING ROADS TO BECOME INACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. ON AUGUST 18 TO 24, THE TOWN SHARE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT WILL BE 26,466. ANY QUESTIONS? YES. DOCKET. NO. HAVING NONE? CALL THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUS. I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. STAND* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.