Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BPW-2010-10-27BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Regular Meeting 4:45 p.m. October 27, 2010 PRESENT: Mayor Peterson Commissioners (5) - Jenkins, Wykstra, Brock, Warden, Goldsmith OTHERS PRESENT: City Attorney - Hoffman Deputy City Controller - Andrew Superintendent of Public Works - Gray Assistant Superintendent of Streets and Facilities - Benjamin Assistant Superintendent of Water and Sewer – Whitney Common Council Liaison – Zumoff Information Management Specialist - Myers Bridge Systems Engineer – Gebre Chief Water Treatment Plant Operator (WTP) – Baker Environmental Engineer – Gibson EXCUSED: DAC Liaison – Roberts ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: There were no additions to or deletions from the agenda. MAYOR’S COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Peterson reported that discussions on the 2011 proposed budget have been taking place throughout the month. She stated that the last budget meeting would be this evening as part of the City Administration Committee meeting. Common Council will vote on the recommended 2011 budget at their meeting on November 3, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in Common Council Chambers. She further reported that the Charter Review Committee for the review of the Board of Public Works issues has been conducting telephone interviews with different City Mayors in New York State. She explained that so far they have talked with two different Mayors, and the way they both handle public works related issues are remarkably different and interesting. COMMUNICATIONS AND HEARINGS FROM PERSONS BEFORE THE BOARD Several members of the public spoke before the Board following the special presentation by Delta Engineers Special Presentation: Delta Engineers - Update on the Clinton Street Bridge/Prospect Street Reconstruction Project Delta Project Manager Joe Mieczkowski and Senior Engineer Jeremiah Shaw provided the following update to the Board on the status of this project. Mr. Mieczkowski explained that Delta Engineers submitted a draft design report to New York State in April 2009, which prompted changes to the design. He stated that they are interested in getting additional input and ideas as they work on the final design report which needs to be finalized and sent to the State by early 2011. CC Liaison Zumoff arrived at the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mieczkowski reported that the acquisition of the land right-of-ways in the project area is scheduled for completion in October 2011. He stated that after that is completed, they will be able to advertise, bid the project, and begin construction. Construction is scheduled for March 2012 through November 2012, with final touches being put into place between March and June of 2013. He stated that the plan is to widen the Clinton Street/Prospect Street bridge to provide for a shared travel lane with an uphill bicycle lane and full sidewalks on both sides of the bridge and street from Cayuga Street to Aurora Street. There will be two entrance points to the City View Apartments; a new retaining wall in front of the Carriage House 2 October 27, 2010 (the existing retaining wall will remain), and the entrance to Spencer Street will be adjusted as well. There will be stone veneer on top of the concrete for the retaining wall with details of specific materials to be determined. He further explained the posted detour during construction will be Clinton Street to Albany Street to Green Street, to East State Street, then to S. Aurora Street. He noted though, that locals will know that they can continue up Clinton Street to Cayuga Street. They hope that the revised detour format will help alleviate some of the problems encountered earlier this year when the posted detour that had drivers coming up Clinton Street to Cayuga Street. Commissioner Brock expressed her concerns regarding snow removal on the sidewalks where they abut retaining walls, and whose responsibility it will be to clear the sidewalks of snow and ice. Supt. Gray responded that if the retaining walls were moved back to accommodate snow removal that it would take more private property away at more cost to the City. The proposed design was a compromise, and the north side will have offset space for snow removal. Mr. Mieczkowski explained that the signage for the detour will be in the design plan for the contractors to follow and use. Mayor Peterson, in reviewing the environmental assessment form, had questions and concerns about dealing with residential complaints from the detour that was in place during the construction work this season, and how to address them for the upcoming work. Mr. Mieczkowski stated that the concrete on the new bridge will match the South Plain and South Aurora Street bridges. It will also have ornamental structures and green beams for structural support. A brief discussion followed on the type, color, and texture of concrete proposed for the new bridge. The Property Manager for City View Apartments requested that the street signs on Prospect Street be changed to better direct people to the apartments as current signage is confusing, and visitors tend to go around in circles before finding them. Supt. Gray responded that she should work with his office to arrange for new or additional signage, as that is something that could be done separate from the bridge reconstruction project. John Efroymson, former Common Council member, addressed the Board to see whether or not plans could be made to allow a turning lane on Prospect Street where it meets Aurora Street for those vehicles making a left hand turn towards downtown. He explained that one car turning left at that intersection can back traffic up to the police station. He further stated that including a turning lane in the design of the project would help traffic flow immensely in that area. Mr. Mieczkowski responded that idea was investigated as the project was being developed. He stated that the cost/benefit would not be worth the reconfiguration and taking of private property that it would require for tractor trailer trucks to make a left hand turn. He further stated that the whole intersection would need to be reconfigured to add just one turning lane. Supt. Gray further explained that if this idea were to be pursued that traffic counts would be needed, and the only way to accommodate a turn lane would be to take the front porch off the house on the corner as one goes uphill. The redesign is also hampered by the built environment and topography of the area. Judge Judy Rossiter, who is a resident of the neighborhood that will be affected by the bridge reconstruction, addressed the Board on this topic as well. She wondered whether land could be taken to the left of Prospect Street instead of to the right to accommodate the construction of a left hand turn lane. She would like to see the possibility of that option kept open because it does become a major problem at different times during the year. She further questioned whether some traffic, during the 3 October 27, 2010 construction period, could be allowed from Turner Place, to Prospect Street, to Aurora Street to help traffic flow. She also asked if Prospect Street could be kept open while work is being done on the bridge or at least shorten the time period that it would be closed. Mr. Mieczkowski responded that the current plan is for local traffic to have access to those streets while construction takes place. Judge Rossiter requested that neighbors in the affected area be included in any committee that is set up to plan detours during the construction period. Supt. Gray responded that staff has been made aware that neighbors need to be included in the committee and he will make sure that takes place as their input is very important. Bill Kaupe, resident of the affected neighborhood, addressed the Board to support comments made by Judge Rossiter. He asked if some traffic prevention could happen as well during the construction period. He explained that during this year’s work on the bridge, traffic on South Hill Terrace was out of control, with some people going the wrong way on one way streets. He suggested that additional enforcement efforts in the area might be helpful to deter this practice from taking place during the upcoming reconstruction of the bridge. Mrs. Perialas, one of the owners of Pyramid Sound Studio, addressed the Board to explain the problems they encountered this year during the water and sewer work that was done, and the bridge closure. She stated that access to the studio during construction was poor, and they had to pay a private hauler to pick up the garbage as Casella would not enter the construction area. Mr. Mieczkowski responded that designers will work with the Perialas’ to see what their needs are, but this project will have an even larger impact on their studio than the work that was done this year. A Public Information Session will take place today at 6:00 p.m. in the Second Floor conference room to provide information about the Clinton Street bridge reconstruction project as well. The Board encouraged members of the public in attendance to attend that meeting for more detailed information about the project. CREEKS, BRIDGES, AND PARKS Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for East Clinton Street Bridge Replacement and Clinton/Prospect Street Reconstruction Project - Resolution By Commissioner Goldsmith: Seconded by Commissioner Brock WHEREAS, the East Clinton Street Bridge is located in the City of Ithaca and carries East Clinton Street (State Route 96B) over Six Mile Creek, and Prospect Street is a continuation of Route 96B from the eastern limits of East Clinton Street to South Aurora Street, and WHEREAS, the East Clinton Street Bridge has been rehabilitated numerous times but is currently in poor condition, with areas of severe deterioration, and WHEREAS, Prospect and East Clinton Streets were built in 1919, with a concrete base laid over native soils, surfaced with bricks, and that base has deteriorated significantly, causing unstable conditions and potholes, and WHEREAS, to improve these streets to accommodate the current level of use and render them safer for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, the City of Ithaca retained Delta Engineers, Architects and Surveyors (Delta), to prepare a proposed design for the City’s replacement of the bridge and reconstruction of East Clinton and Prospect Streets, which proposed design was subsequently presented to the City’s Board of Public Works, and WHEREAS, State law and regulations and Section 176.6 of the City Code of the City of Ithaca require that a lead agency be established for conducting environmental review of certain proposed actions, in accordance with applicable law, and 4 October 27, 2010 WHEREAS, State regulations and the City Code specify that the lead agency shall be that agency which has primary responsibility for undertaking, approving or funding the action, and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2010, there having been no objection by other, involved agencies, the Board of Public Works declared itself to be the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed replacement of the Clinton Street bridge and the reconstruction of East Clinton and Prospect Streets (per the Delta design), and WHEREAS, appropriate environmental review of this action has been conducted, including the preparation (and revision) of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), consisting of Parts I, II and III, and WHEREAS, the action, as defined and reviewed in the revised FEAF, consists of the replacement of the East Clinton Street bridge and the reconstruction, realignment, widening of East Clinton and Prospect Streets (between South Cayuga Street and South Aurora Street), as well as: - construction of three new retaining walls along Prospect Street, to consist of cast-in-place concrete with a laid-up stone facing, and with new, enhanced landscaping behind them; - reconstruction of the existing storm sewer system along said streets; - reconstruction of existing sidewalks and construction of new section (on south side of Prospect St.); - addition of 5-foot uphill bicycle lane for full project length; and - off-site detour plans, including appropriate signage, electronic message boards, and temporary traffic calming; and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works has reviewed the FEAF, Parts I, II and III; now therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Public Works of the City of Ithaca, acting as Lead Agency for the above-described action, hereby adopts as its own the findings and conclusions more fully set forth in the Full Environmental Assessment Form (as revised and dated October 27, 2010); and be it further RESOLVED, That the Board hereby determines that the proposed action, as described and referred to in the FEAF, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and that further environmental review is unnecessary, and be it further RESOLVED, That staff is requested to provide notice of this determination to all involved and interested agencies. Commissioner Wykstra stated that he felt it was not necessary to complete Part III of the environmental review, however, he won’t vote against the resolution. He further stated that the listed possible mitigations are just that – not promises or anything. He noted that the City should be careful in how it approaches mitigation measures. He does not like the precedent this will set. He asked whether he could abstain from voting. Mayor Peterson responded that she respectfully disagrees with Commissioner Wykstra’s statements. Commissioner Goldsmith noted that he was in agreement with Commissioner Wykstra’s statements, but that he would support the resolution. Mayor Peterson explained why the engineers for the project completed sections I, II, and III. Commissioner Brock noted as well that she agrees with Commissioners Wykstra and Goldsmith. She will support the resolution, but is uncomfortable with the precedent setting. She feels that Part III was not necessary. 5 October 27, 2010 A Vote on the Resolution Resuletd As Follows: Ayes (5) Brock, Goldsmith, Warden, Jenkins, Peterson Nays (0) Abstentions: Wykstra Carried WATER AND SEWER Water Plant Pilot Study Report – Presentation by O’Brien & Gere O’Brien and Gere Consultant Rick Gell, and Watek Engineering Consultant Ben Movahed, joined the Board for the report on the membrane pilot testing for the Water Treatment Plant Upgrade project. They both acknowledged the hard work of the plant personnel and other City staff for coordinating all the logistics, utility connections, data collection, laboratory sampling and supervising operation of the pilot units. The following topics were covered during the presentation, with detailed explanations where needed, as well as questions and answers back and forth between the Board and the consultants: Background: pilot purpose, membrane manufacturers, source water for piloting. Background: After extensive technology screening, the City and their consultants made a decision to replace the existing conventional plant built in 1903 with a membrane filtration plant of 4 to 6 million gallons per day capacity. Pilot purpose: a membrane pilot testing program was established in order to: Obtain process design and operational parameters for the full scale plant Evaluate water quality, chemical and power requirements Show compliance with regulatory requirements Be able to competitively bid between various membrane manufacturers Familiarize the City operation staff with membrane filtration technologies Membrane manufacturers: Based on the criteria established for qualifications, four manufacturers were prequalified. The three manufacturers who showed interest, had pilot units available and agreed to participate were: Memcor System by Siemens Norit by Kruger Pall Water Processing Source Water for Piloting: due to high degree of source water quality variability, occasional high turbidity spikes and for enhanced organic removal, it has been determined that the full scale plant will have coagulation, flocculation and settling prior to membrane filtration. Therefore, it was agreed by the team that the pilot units should be located downstream of the existing settling basins, where they would obtain a common identical source water from the existing settled water system, conveyed to an empty/unused concrete filter box adjacent to the pilot housing shed. This approach is conservative, since the full scale plant will have three stage flocculation, plate settlers, and more modern enhanced design as compared to the existing 1903 plant. Therefore, it is certain that the pilot units are seeing higher levels of solids and organic loading than the full scale membrane system. Equations and Terminologies: abbreviations, acronyms, equations. Pilot Test Procedures and Logistics: pilot protocol, membrane modules tested, pilot unit utilities and set up, pilot study phases and schedule. Pilot Test: the first step in the pilot test was to prepare a pilot test protocol, which established the test procedures and targets for all stakeholders including: State review agency, City staff, manufacturers, and the consultants. 6 October 27, 2010 Pilot Protocol: the pilot program was to obtain 1,500 hours of actual, continuous operation from each unit or approximately 2.5 to 3.0 months, considering down times and unexpected shut downs. Adequate time was given to each manufacturer to optimize their operating parameters initially as well as in between phases. Membrane Modules Tested: each manufacturer was given the opportunity to review the pilot test protocol, which contained existing plant water quality along with full scale plant expectations to propose a membrane system for this project. The protocol clearly indicated that only modules that are pilot tested will be allowed to be bid for the full scale plant and substitutions will not be allowed unless justified and approved by the City in advance of bidding. Pilot Units Utilities and Set Up: as the team was obtaining information on pilot units from the manufacturers, the City staff started coordinating and ordering material and installing the temporary enclosure, electric power, phone line and various water and drain lines. The team greatly appreciates the operational staff’s quick response and willingness to perform a majority of the tasks, typically given to outside contractors. The operational staff also took a tremendous amount of responsibility upon themselves for monitoring and assisting with pilot units operation and maintenance. Pilot Study Phases and Schedule: Phase I – installation and training, Phase II – optimization, Phase III – demonstration, Phase IV – Fiber Cut Test, Phase V – demobilization. Raw and Settled Water Quality: daily sampling, weekly sampling, existing plant performance, membrane pretreatment requirements. Pilot Test Results and Performance: pilot units operating parameters, filtrate turbidity, filtrate particle counts, bacteria and coliform removal, organic removal, trihalomethanes, sum of five haloacetic acids, overall recovery, transmembrane pressure, flux, fouling and cleaning, pressure decay test, log removal value, fiber cut test, overall performances and acceptability. Existing Plant Performance: The existing plant removal efficiencies for turbidity and ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nanometers ranged from 50% to 97%, with an average of 80%. The ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nanometers removal ranged from 15% to 96%, with an average of 60%. These types of removal efficiencies are very impressive considering the age and limitations of a 1903 plant. Credit should be given to City staff who continuously make chemical feed adjustments and perform continuous plant optimization (with significant technology limitations) to achieve these high removal rates. Fouling and Cleaning: Each of three manufacturers had a different backwash, maintenance wash and CIP method and procedures. One way to evaluate the effectiveness of each pilot washing and cleaning procedure is to observe the normalized membrane resistivity, which is defined as the inverse of normalized permeability. The membrane resistivity came back to the baseline after each clean / maintenance wash. The value of resistivity is flux dependent also. Therefore it is concluded that the cleaning chemicals and procedures utilized by the three pilots were effective in cleaning the membranes. During the period of August 13 to August 24, 2010 the existing plant Potassium Permanganate feed system was stopped in order to evaluate possible inorganic fouling on membranes. The pilot units had difficulty with significant fouling rate caused by inorganic fouling and trying to restore to the baseline. Potassium Permanganate or other oxidants will be required to oxidize iron and manganese in pretreatment. Fiber Cut Test: On August 26, 2010 all pilot units were stopped and performed a fiber cut challenge test in presence of the engineers and plant operators. The procedure was as follows: 7 October 27, 2010 The units performed a CIP/Clean to have a clean membrane surface during test A Pressure Decay Test (PDT) was done to confirm passing result A single fiber was cut Unit was put back on line A PDT test confirmed a failed test Fiber was repaired A PDT test confirmed a passing test This test confirmed that a breach can be detected This test confirmed that a breach can be detected, repair method is acceptable and the overall test procedure is sensitive to detect one broken fiber in a module with thousands of fibers. Overall Performances and Acceptability: The performances of all three membrane units were acceptable for meeting and surpassing expectations and regulatory requirements. All units demonstrated the ability to consistently remove particulates, bacteria and turbidity surpassing current and pending regulations. There were no significant fouling issues, except when the Potassium Permanganate feed was stopped. Since the full scale plant will have pre-oxidation and more enhanced removal, this will not pose a problem. Log Removal Values meet and surpass the regulatory requirements. PDT tests and fiber cut test show acceptable sensitivity and acceptable procedures for identifying and repairing membrane breaches. The wash/clean procedures implemented show effective cleaning regime and returning to baseline. The system Transmembrane Pressure, recovery and cleaning procedures were unique for each system and need customization of full scale plant design after the membrane manufacturer is selected. Therefore it is concluded that Pall, Norit and Siemens membrane systems are acceptable and qualified to bid the Ithaca plant upgrade project. Recommendations and Basis of Design: pretreatment needs, membrane design parameters by manufacturers, recommended membrane design parameters, uniqueness of the membrane systems, procurement options. Procurement Options: Unlike conventional water treatment process units, there are significant advantages to the owner to select membrane system prior to the full design of the treatment facility. Since each system has some unique features, the plant can be customized and made more efficient. The membrane system manufacturers will provide a guaranteed life cycle price proposal and propose guaranteed system operating parameters, based on owner provided scope, contract, power and chemical unit prices, interest/inflation rates, degree of redundancy, spares, etc. A well written and prepared procurement contract with well defined scope is the key to obtaining fair reasonable and accurate proposals. After determination of the selected membrane system manufacturer, then the procurement options are as follows: OPTION 1: Pre-Negotiated Membrane system The owner negotiates the membrane equipment price with the selected membrane manufacturers and details are provided to the General Contractor (GC) to include the membrane equipment as well as installation in his/her contract. This option will result in a single contract to manage, but typically has a higher cost, since the GC will add markup on equipment. Another disadvantage of this option is that the operators need to go through the GC for services during warranty period. OPTION 2: Membrane System Assigned to GC The owner prices and procures the membrane system equipment, provides details to GC and the equipment package is assigned to GC. This option still has the GC markup factor, but the scope division requirements are substantially reduced. Same disadvantage for warranty issues apply here as indicated for Option 1. 8 October 27, 2010 OPTION 3: Membrane System Supplied by Owner The owner has two contracts. First contract is with the membrane system manufacturer and second contract with GC, who only installs the owner provided equipment. Detail shop drawings and submittals need to be prepared and included in the GC bid package. This option requires more coordination and scope division (down to nuts and bolts), but has a lower cost, since the GC does not add markup on equipment. This option has the higher potential for change orders if the scope is not clear to details. Mayor Peterson asked what the rough estimate for the cost of this portion of the project would be. O’Brien and Gere Consultant Rick Gell responded that it will cost approximately $4 million dollars; with the total cost for the entire project estimated to be $12 million dollars. The Board expressed their thanks to Mr. Gell and Mr. Movahed for their time and detailed presentation. ADJOURNMENT On a motion the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Sarah L. Myers Carolyn K. Peterson Information Management Specialist Mayor