OSWEGO, NY Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The city’s proposed downtown parking policy remains in limbo for a little while longer.
Gay Williams, city attorney, had requested further discussion regarding the plan.
However, at its meeting Monday night, the Physical Services Committee decided to take no action on the matter.
“There are still some issues, some small fine details that really need to be addressed,” said Councilor Sue Sweet, the chair of the parking committee. “We’d like to pull this until it is fine-tuned, rather than have issues later.”
Even though the councilors didn’t discuss the proposal there was some discourse.
Joe OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Donnell, of Rochester, co-owner of the Browne-Davis building on West First Street, asked the councilors to take a closer look at the proposal. There are several problems that need to be addressed, he said.
While he isn’t against the policy in principle, he and his tenants are concerned about the associated fees.
The fee for each annual parking permit for the calendar year 2010 will be $25 per month, according to the current version of the policy.
“The last time we had met there was a couple of statements made (by councilors) that I just wanted to offer a little bit of rebuttal,” he said.
One was an opinion by some of the councilors that having your driveway (snow) plowed for $25 a month was a good deal, OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Donnell said.
“What we’re talking about over here is a space that’s 9′ by 18′, not a full driveway. Also, the residents are still going to be required to maintain the snow removal within their space,” he said.
“The other point I’d like to make is, we are still very much in favor of an organized parking plan; we’re still upset about the fee,” he continued. “I have emails from a couple of our tenants indicating their strong objection to that as well. The underlying reason for the fee seems to be snow removal. I know it’s Oswego, but I don’t think it snows 12 months a year here.”
There are property taxes being paid by the property owners over there, he added.
He said there were concerns about whether there would be parking spaces for tenants who had more than one vehicle and if they could sub-lease their spot to another individual.
“If we have to secure those spots, we would like the right to distribute those as we see fit,” he told the committee.
The Armed Forces, who occupy the lower part of the building, said they’d be willing to pay for spots, he said.
“There are still a lot of problems with the parking proposal,” he said.