Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tonawanda staff: leftover sewer-lining bond funds cannot be repurposed for a different sanitary sewer segment
Summary
City staff reported that leftover bond funds originally authorized for a specific sewer-lining project cannot legally be used to pay for lining work on a different street and recommended alternatives including using general fund dollars or doing no work after video inspection found no urgent defect.
City staff told the Tonawanda Common Council that leftover borrowing authorized for sewer lining on Fletcher Street cannot be transferred to pay for lining of a different sanitary sewer segment, and outlined options for addressing a short section of unlined sanitary pipe.
Public works staff said in-house engineering, use of county unit prices and spot repairs on the original project produced significant savings in the sewer bond. Staff inspected a short unlined segment near Hackett and Rogers and reported the pipe showed no clear visual defects in the television inspection; the primary unknown is the condition of internal gaskets that cannot be seen without further intrusive testing.
“Long story short, we had a lot of money left in the bond,” Jason, a public works staff member, said. He told the council that the bond attorney advised the city that funds appropriated for one named sewer-lining bond cannot be used to pay for a different street or for sanitary vs. storm sewer work without a new bond resolution and financing. Jason said issuing a new bond for a relatively small amount (staff cited an example cost in the tens of thousands) could incur financing and professional fees that would exceed the value of the project.
Given the inspection findings and the bond restriction, staff presented two main options: (1) use general-fund dollars to complete lining if council decides the work is necessary, or (2) defer action because the televised inspection did not show a failing section that requires immediate work. Staff said homeowners at the end of Rogers had installed backflow prevention and sump solutions that should mitigate backups in the near term.
Council members discussed the trade-offs. One council member said the modest cost of a short lining project might be justified to reduce future risk; others noted that expensive financing for a small-dollar project would be imprudent. No motion to reallocate the bond or to approve general-fund spending was made at the meeting.
Staff recommended monitoring the segment and returning if further evidence of a defect appears or if additional inspection indicates infiltration through gaskets.
