HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-3-10 Board of Public Works Meeting AgendaBOARD • PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
Wednesday, March 3,2010
*4:45 p.m.*
*Common Council Chambers*
1. GIAC Renovation Project — Update & Discussion —10 minutes
Program Director Marcia Fort and Community Development Deputy Director Sue
Kittel will provide a brief update on the construction and renovation of GIAC.
2. Power to Act — Approval • Parking Policy for Persons with Disabilities —
Resolution — 10 minutes
The proposed resolution that City Attorney Dan Hoffman provided to the Board
on February 17, 2010, has been provided to DAC Liaison Larry Roberts.
3. Request for Sidewalk Variance for 211 Columbia Street — Discussion —1
minutes
Please see the attached request from the new property owner of 211 Columbia
Street. Mr. Fox has been notified of the Board's discussion of this item and plans
to attend the board meeting.
4. Appeal of Water Service Repair for 525 West BuWalo Street — Discussion —
10 minutes
Attached is an e-mailed appeal to an invoice for the replacement of water service
for 525 West Buffalo Street. The property owners have been notified of the
Board's discussion and plans to attend the meeting.
6. Golf Course Rates — Discussion — 15 minutes
Enclosed is some additional data that we have put together. Please review this
and call if there are holes in the data you want. Staff is distracted by snow at the
moment.
FYI — Attached is a proposed resolution that is in the Common Council agenda packet
for March 3rd.
W.J. Gray, P.E.
February 26, 2090
Page 1
2. Power to Act — Approval of Parking Policy for Persons with Disabilities--
Kesolution 1 minutes
Purpose: The City of Ithaca strives to provide convenient parking options for persons
with disabilities while balancing the exclusive use of such parking spaces with the
needs of the general public. To guide the provision of such parking options, the
following policy has been developed and adopted by the Board of Public Works.
Legal Requirements: The federal rules and regulations enacted for the implementation
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Building Code
contain accessibility requirements for places of public accommodation and commercial
facilities, including accessible parking spaces in parking lots and parking garages. For
parking areas of 1 to 25 spaces, at least one (1) accessible space is required. The required
number of accessible spaces increases as the size of the parking area increases,
representing approximately two percent of the spaces. There are no requirements to
provide accessible spaces where no other parking spaces are provided or required.
There is no requirement to provide accessible spaces "on street."
City of Ithaca Provision for Off - Street Accessible Parking: The City's parking lots and
parking garages shall meet at least the minimum standards set by law in all cases.
Whether accessible spaces beyond the minimum -required are provided shall be based
on reasonable accommodation, considering demand, cost, physical constraints, and
utilization rates and other, relevant factors. Accessible spaces may be relocated, added
or reduced, based on these factors and applicable laws and regulations.
City of Ithaca Provision for On- Street, Reserved Parking for Persons with Disabilities
RPPD : The use of on- street, reserved parking for persons with disabilities is
considered a partial accommodation, because the spaces generally do not meet the
requirements for accessible spaces (e.g., they do not have access aisles or they may not
be proximate to a curb ramp). The Central Business District (and to a lesser extent other
business districts, such as Collegetown and the West End) contains a concentration of
commercial and public facilities which are not required to provide off street parking, or,
consequently, accessible parking. Municipal parking garages and lots do provide
accessible parking spaces and are reasonably distributed. However; the use of on- strut,
reserved parking spaces for persons with disabilities within the areas of high parking
demand in business districts can provide a greater level of accommodation and
convenience for some persons with disabilities who do not require fully accessible
parking spaces.
For the purposes of this policy, any area in a business district with metered parking
shall be assumed to be a high parking demand area. Since there is no requirement for
Page 2
on- street, accessible parking spaces in these areas, no minimum required number of
such spaces has been established. The City is committed to reserving a reasonable
number of on street spaces, in business districts, for persons with disabilities. The
designation and actual number of such spaces shall be based on staff study, public
requests, reasonable accommodation and factors considered for off - street accessible
spaces. Spaces may be
relocated, added or reduced based on these factors. Consideration will be given to
issues of safety and practicality associated with the particular location, especially if the
reserved spaces will not be fully accessible.
Requests for On- Street, Reserved Parking for Persons with Disabilities (RPPD) Spaces in
Residential Areas: The City of Ithaca provides on- street, RPPD in residential areas on a
very limited basis. Such spaces are intended to serve a dual purpose, namely, providing
at least partial accommodation to one of more nearby residents with disabilities, as well
as utility to other persons with disabilities who may need such parking in that vicinity.
The following criteria must be met to consider an on- street parking space for RPPD
designation:
1. The request must be accompanied by valid proof of permanent disability status
for parking purposes (as recognized by New York State in accordance with Sec.
1203 (a -d) of NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law) of one or more persons residing
(through rental or ownership) within 250 feet of the requested, reserved space.
2. If the place of residence of the person(s) on whose behalf the reserved space is
requested is capable of having off - street parking under zoning codes, the request
must include a statement concerning the duration of the request and why a curb
cut for off - street parking is not being requested instead. If the residence currently
has off - street parking available, the request must include a statement concerning
why the applicant's accessibility needs cannot be met through use or
modification of the existing parking area.
The Superintendent of Public Works shall create an application form for requests for on-
street, reserved parking for people with disabilities. Upon application, staff shall
evaluate the request. If the request meets the above criteria and if it poses no traffic
safety problem in the opinion of the City Transportation Engineer, then the Citv
Transportation Engineer shall forward the request to the Board of Public Works for
consideration and may include a recommendation. If the request does not meet the
above criteria or if it poses a traffic safety problem in the opinion of the City
Transportation Engineer, then the City Transportation Engineer shall deny the request.
The applicant shall have the right to appeal this decision, in writing, to the Board of
Public Works.
Page 3
If the request is granted by the Board, a sign designating the RPPD space shall be
installed and maintained for five (5) years (except as provided for below). Prior to the
end of said five -year period, the City shall notify the initial applicant that the sign will
be removed until the request is renewed. If the City finds that the applicant no longer
resides within 250 feet of the designated space, the City may remove the sign.
It should be noted that an on- street, RPPD parking space is not reserved for the
applicant or any specific person, but is available to a� person with a valid parking
permit for a person with disabilities.
Sidewalk variance 211 Columbia St Page 1 of 1
Bill Gray - Sidewalk variance 211 Columbia St
From: Todd Fox <todd_fox @verizon.net>
To: <billg @cityofithaca.org>
Date: 2/22/2010 8:10 PM
Subject: Sidewalk variance 211 Columbia St
CC: <kgehring @cityofithaca.org>
Attachments: 211 Columbia Photos.pdf
!:lil!
I am requesting to be put on the agenda for the first week of March in order to obtain approval for a variance
for the sidewalk gradient in front of my property located on 211 Columbia Street. The house that I bought is
currently condemned and has been a fire hazard and eye soar to everyone in the neighborhood. I am
proposing to tear down the current house and construct a duplex, which I will occupy. In order to meet city
building requirements I must provide parking for the house. Putting in the driveway would require tearing up
and replacing the entire sidewalk in front of the property. Because of the difficulty of this project I have hired
Rick Manning, a Registered Landscape Architect to help explore every possible solution.
Because of several factors it is not possible to put in a new sidewalk that meets the required 8.3% gradient.
211 Columbia is located on a particularly steep hill.
The east neighbor recently constructed a new driveway and sidewalk without the appropriate city review and
permits that make it impossible for this project to conform to city sidewalk and driveway standards. The
neighbor's sidewalk is at a 16% gradient and the apron leading into his driveway is at a 26% gradient and set
approximately 22" above the road elevation (See attached photos). Two options can be explored: First the
sidewalk gradient from the proposed new driveway to the eastern neighbors stairway landing needs to be
constructed at a gradient of 10% (requiring some reconstruction of new sidewalk on adjacent property; or,
Second the sidewalk elevation at the driveway must be set at approximately 18" above the road elevation to
allow the sidewalk gradient to not exceed 8.3 %.
Without the ability to put in a driveway with parking spaces I will not be able to move forward with this
project nor will anyone who buys the property from me. This means that the condemned house will most likely
remain as is and continue to be a burden on the community.
If you require any more information from me regarding this issue please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you,
Todd Fox
607 - 793 -0082
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \billg \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \4B82E49Ecoimain... 2/23/2010
�„ �; •� s • s. •
211 Columbia (house to be demolished and rebuilt) - Approximate drive location in red.
Adjacent sidewalk, east of 211 Colulmbia. Steep section of sidewalk is at a 15 %+ gradi-
ent and is shown in red box.
Two adjacent driveways have sidewalk sections that are 20" to 24" above the roadway
elevations.
(2/2M?o 0) Kathrin Gehring - Re. Water Bill appeal
rn
From: Erik Whitney
To: Gehring, Kathrin; Holcomb, Julie; Parsons, Debra
Date: 2/25/2010 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Water Bill appeal
Attachments: Clip from Chapter 348 - Article II City Code 020910.pdf
Kathy,
Other than an email version i haven't received anything. I appended to this reply the complete e-mail chain, plus i attached
what Michelle had requested and we sent along.
regards, erik
>>> Kathrin Gehring 2/25/2010 12:20 PM >>>
Hello,
Do any of you have an appeal or a letter about a water bill from a Michelle Barry for either 525 West Buffalo or 104 North
Aurora Streets? I have received a couple of calls from Michelle's assistant telling me that an appeal was sent to the City, but
I don't have it, and they want to be on the March 3rd BPW agenda. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Thanks for your help,
- Kathy
>>> Erik Whitney 2/9/2010 1:25 PM >>>
Hello Michelle,
Sorry, I did get wrapped up in all sorts of other water & sewer stuff. I've attached a clip of City Code Chapter 348, Article II
Water. I've highlighted the sections i believe we are looking at here. Please feel free to call me, or email with any questions.
Regards,
Erik Whitney, P.E.
Assistant Superintendent
City Of Ithaca
Department Of Public Works
Water & Sewer Division
510 First Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
ph: 607 272 1717
cell: 607 327 1419
fx: 607 277 5028
>>> "Michelle Berry" <michelle@consultcourtney.com> 2/9/2010 2:16 AM >>>
Thanks, Deb.
Just to let you know, we haven't yet received the code section. We're suspecting that it will be difficult for us to appeal
without being able to refer to the code. If Erik is too swamped to send it, perhaps someone else could? Also, we let the
Mayor know that we might need to know the next day for public comment, as this Wed. Robert is working out of town late
and may not be able to cancel a class to return. And I'm getting my wisdom teeth out the day before, so I'm an unlikely
candidate to appear as well. Will there be another time this month?
Thanks everyone for shuttling us through the process. Best, Michelle Berry & Robert Lofthouse
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Debra Parsons
To: Carolyn Peterson ; Camille Little ; Erik Whitney ; Julie Holcomb ; Michelle Berry
Cc: Eric Rosario ; J.R. Clairborne ; lofthouse r@sunybroome.edu
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Appeal requested, BPW
Michelle,
(2/25/2010) Kathrin Gehring - Re: Water Bill appeal r. , _ Page 2
I have flagged this bill as being under appeal. Late charges won't accrue during the process.
I have asked Erik to respond to your request for the code section.
Please let me know if I can provide other information.
Debbie Parsons
Debra A. Parsons
City Chamberlain
City of Ithaca
108 E. Green Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274 -6585
>>> "Michelle Berry" <michelle @consultcourtngy.com> 2/5/2010 6:20 AM >>>
Dear Mayor,
Carolyn, so good to see you the other night! Erik would probably be able to fill you in more since he and my husband
Robert Lofthouse discussed our concern the other week.
I'm writing for Robert, but I'm sure he'll also be in touch. I've copied him as well as both our Council members, so they're
aware that we didn't receive prior notification that we'd be billed over $1,400 dollars for work the City began in October. We
saw the work happening in the street, but wouldn't suspect that street work would later be billed to us. This happened in
October. Our bill arrived in January. So our very first concern is the lack of notification that the City would consider us liable.
Next, we understand that replacement of old line with copper is our responsibility but all of the work was done under the
street. We believe the portion of the water line from the valve near the street to the meter in our basement was already
upgraded to 3/4 inch copper pipe by a previous owner of our home. Therefore, we don't feel we are liable for these charges
and would like to know the appeal process before the Board of Public Works as well as when the next public comment
meeting for BPW is.
Finally, Erik said we should alert Deb that we'd like to not accrue late charges or be taken to collections (I think the bill was
due the first of February?) while we are in the appeal process. Also, could someone forward the code to our attention or a
link?
Thanks kindly,
Michelle Berry & Robert Lofthouse
525 W. Buffalo Street
Michelle C. Berry, MS
CEO Courtney Consulting
Freelance Writer /Cornell Alumna
(888)-250-8812 (phone)
(607) 697 -0488 (fax)
(607) 592 -2527 (cell)
http: / /www.consuitcourtngy.com (website)
http:// michelleberrybiog.blogspot.com/ (biz blog)
http:// michelleberrypoet .wordt)ress.com/ (writing blog)
http: / /www.reikigoddess.org (reiki practice)
Facebook: http: / /www.facebook.com /michelle. berry
Twitter: http : / /twitter.com /michelleberry67
No virus found in this incoming message.
Ffjl# , k 1.
108 E GREEN STREET
ITHACA NY 14850
Invoice Date :
12/31/2009
Invoice # :
00011552
Account # :
00004299
Due Date:
02/08/2010
Additional Description: REPAIR WATER SERVICE LEAK 10/20 + 10/21/09 - SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT FOR
BREAKDOWN OF CHARGES
BILLS NOT PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS ACCRUE A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PERCENT PER ANNUM OR $3.00
PER MONTH, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, PURSUANT TO CITY CODE. BILLS REMAINING UNPAID ON NOVEMBER I ST ARE ADDED TO
THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE NEXT CITY TAX BILLING, AND COLLECTED AS A PART THEREOF.
I Make check payable to :
I'TY OF ITHACA
CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE
108 E GREEN STREET
ITHACA NY 14850
Return this portion with your payment
Invoice Date : 12/31/2009
M_____'_ _ u _ nnni I can
.invoice fF : UUV 1 1 DDG
Please Pay on or before $1,490.91
02/08/2010
Amount Paid
INV00011552
0000000000000000011SS20000000000000110000000 1000000149091009
Water & Sewer Division
Dili to :
LOFTHOUSE ROBERT W
General Billing Information
525 W BUFFALO St
(607) 274 -6580
ITHACA, NY 14850
Information specific to bill
(607) 274 -6596
Property
525 Buffalo St W
Invoice From: Water & Sewer Division
Invoice I2ef. STMT #18144
Entry Bate
Item Category
Item Description Qty Price Total
10/21/2009
LABOR (WATER)
1.00 $412.51 $412.51
10/21/2009
EQUIPMENT(WATER)
1.00 $145.80 $145.80
10/21/2009
MATERIAL (WATER)
1.00 $118.55 $118.55
10/21/2009
OT14ER (WATER)
1.00 $814.05 $814.05
Total: $1,490.91
Additional Description: REPAIR WATER SERVICE LEAK 10/20 + 10/21/09 - SEE ATTACHED STATEMENT FOR
BREAKDOWN OF CHARGES
BILLS NOT PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS ACCRUE A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PERCENT PER ANNUM OR $3.00
PER MONTH, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, PURSUANT TO CITY CODE. BILLS REMAINING UNPAID ON NOVEMBER I ST ARE ADDED TO
THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE NEXT CITY TAX BILLING, AND COLLECTED AS A PART THEREOF.
I Make check payable to :
I'TY OF ITHACA
CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE
108 E GREEN STREET
ITHACA NY 14850
Return this portion with your payment
Invoice Date : 12/31/2009
M_____'_ _ u _ nnni I can
.invoice fF : UUV 1 1 DDG
Please Pay on or before $1,490.91
02/08/2010
Amount Paid
INV00011552
0000000000000000011SS20000000000000110000000 1000000149091009
Water Plant Up! ,.
s
t
ENG #NEERtiVG �t�f�l?�iFtT[t�i`!
1.0 Background
1.1 Project History
1.2 Raw Water Quality
1.3 Anticipated Pull Scale Plant Design
1.4 Membrane Technologies
2.0 Pilot Units
2.1
Pilot Unit Type
2.2
Pilot Unit Minimum Requirements
2.3
Pilot Units Housing
2.4
Pilot Source Water
2.5
Pilot Timing
2.6
Pilot Units Logistics
3.0 Pilot Test Protocol
3.1 Qualified Manufacturers
3.2 Membrane Pilot Units
3.3 Pilot Phases
3.4 Pilot Unit Calculations
3.5 Pilot Unit Monitoring
3.6 Water Quality Sampling
4.0 Pilot Unit Leasing Agreement
4.1 Anticipated Schedule
4.2 Pilot Start -Up and Operation
4.3 Membrane Manufacturer's Scope of Supply
4.4 City's Scope of Supply
4.5 Terms and Conditions
4.5.1 Delivery Location
4.5.2 Warranty, Limitation of Liability and Remedies
4.5.3 Maintenance of Equipment
4.5.4 vela Usage
4.5.5 Indemnification
4.5.6 Termination
4.5.7 Entire Agreement
4.5.8 Confidentiality
4.5.9 Payment Terms
4.5.10 Governing Laws
f (f i t
The City of Ithaca, New York has 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 (MGD) capacity. The purpose of this document is to establish
the criteria for pilot testing, discuss logistics of pilot units and to provide
documents for pilot leasing and agreements.
9.1 Project History
The existing water supply system for the City of Ithaca consists of the
following major components. A location map is shown on Figure 1.
• Six -Mile Creek (water source)
■ The Sixty Foot Dam, which impounds a portion of the Six -
Mile Creek creating the Sixty -Foot Reservoir (also known as
Potters Falls Reservoir)
• Water intake system within the Sixty -Foot Reservoir
A Silt dam /silt pond (located upstream of the Reservoir)
Silt dam dredged material dewatering area
® 24 -inch diameter cast iron, raw water transmission main,
which conveys water by gravity to the City's Water
Treatment Plant (WTP)
7 MGD capacity WTP located at 202 Water Street
■ Residual handling site (two open drying beds) on Giles
Street
Distribution system consisting of two clearwells, pump
stations, holding tanks and conveyance pipes.
The system serves approximately 30,000 customers in the City of Ithaca,
as well as customers in the Town of Ithaca along East Shore Drive and
Taughannock Boulevard. The City's WTP currently provides 3.0 to 4.0
MGD on an average daily basis.
The City's WTP was originally constructed in 1903 and the last major
upgrade was completed in 1951. Since its construction, City staff has
maintained the functionality of the plant to meet challenging water
treatment and changing water quality regulations. Now beyond 100 years,
the facility is operating past its useful life.
A comprehensive master plan and a detailed environmental impact study
(2004 -2008) compared various alternatives; including purchasing treated
water from the Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission.
After several committee meetings, public and environmental
considerations, the alternative being selected is the "rebuild" option, which
is to replace the existing plant with a 6 MGD membrane filtration plant.
- 1 -
ir
a
0
0
ti
O
W
E
C
N
O
J
a
PROJECT LOCA-nON
ADAPTED FROM: ITHACA -EAST, ITHACA -WEST, NY USGS QUADRANGLES
CITY OF ITHACA
WATER SUPPLY PROJECT LEGEND
nDA= CN+vI0nNI?vAEvITAL AERIAL SCOPE OF
IMPACT STATEIVIENT REBUILD OPTION
ITHACA, NEW YORK
r i I # :9 1 o
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Y
Feet
FILE NO. 1598.350.91 J��OQO _ QCifiIGN£s GIRL
MAY 2CkI8 =-
-z-
11
1.2
Key features of this alternative include:
Replace the existing plant with a 6 MGD plant on the current
site
Utilize coagulation, flocculation and high rate
clarification to save space and membrane filtration to
enhance water quality
Purchase water during construction to allow
demolition of the existing facilities
Reservoir improvements
Maintenance dredging to retain water supply yield and
reduce transfer of sediments downstream
Pre- sedimentation basin to improve water quality,
reduce chemical use and reduce the amount of waste
generated at the WTP.
Continued use of the 100 year old raw water transmission
main
Raw Water Quality
The available raw water quality data and trends for 2007 to 2009 have
been summarized and are shown here graphically as follows:
Figure 2:
Raw Water Turbidity
Figure 3:
Raw Water pH
Figure 4:
Raw Water Temperature
Figure 5:
Raw Water Alkalinity
Figure 6:
Raw Water E. Coli Concentrations
Figure 8:
Raw Water TSS
Figure 9:
Raw Water Soluble Iron
Figures 9, 10 and 11 represent the available raw water test results and
trends for TOC /DOC, UV254 and calculated SUVA, respectively
Limited data is also available on the existing settled water turbidity and pH
as shown in Figures 12 and 13.
It should be noted that a few spikes of turbidity in the raw water have been
reported with turbidities as high as 1400 NTU.
-3-
FIGURE 2: RAW WATER TURBIDITY
1004.00
900.00
f
800.04
700.Ofl a
? 640.00
}
n 500.04
a 400.00
300.00
■ � a
200.00 , ■ ' a ■
100.00 ■ ■� ®a ■ ■ a a
■ i
0.04
�-ng> gLn >wonz L3:>K > 0Z C- mK'DyotC- DVO6 ZO
a�a v 3c �° <° — a 3692a<? c �o�m6006600QgoOoo oo
J mm00000cDoa000
JJ --4 -4 V J JV mm m m m mmm m o D O o cc CDO
CD CD
DATE
FIGURE 3: RAW WATER pH
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
k
8.4
Q7.5
7.o i
6.5
6.0
E
5.5 I
5.0 ~ —�--�-
-- n�D?��- ��- DU10ZC7� -rises ��� btnOZO ��7 �D���- DCnOZO
vroiy- ovccctrnnomvmm- ovcc�mn 0 mromavcc cmnom
.0 !O a ^ < n ff -s -' tQ '6 ^ F n ? tT -� j .� 7 !D " C ?
666 o g o Q o 0 o a O o o o g q o� O O a 0 4 0 0 6 a q Q raD O O o 0 0
-1-4 V JJ J V V J V V mmm�O fpm mm co C. 0 (DODO [D to wCD
DATE
FIGURE 4: RAW WATER TEMPERATURE
100
90
80
C 70
w
w 60
t9 ® a
50
® ■ s�
a. 40 ®■
■ ■
E 3Q
20-
10
0
��T�D�«�DCnOZp��i�D� -� DtnOZO4�t�Dg�� DtnOZO
mrova fl,�� ccroMo rovrov�vc cc ro�ommruma�y,cc cm�oca
aJ ooagovvooQ � � aa000a=ooaoaacDOo�oo
J V J V V V V m mm pm mm OSmow 5 MO [D �
cO co
DATE
-4-
200 FIGURE 5: RAW WATER ALKALINITY
180
1 &0
F-
140-. '
m 120
E ir
100 f
PtJ $ •
8 o a
60
0
40
20
0
TSm1 K 0Z p DK 9>9 �>wozo
K O 00'ri C m
° b 0° b° .� J O O a 0 O O b 0° b O q 0 0° O O O b b ° b a <°p b b° 0 0
"� V Yv N� V V� V -J qq pppq Nppgq� fD f4 O�pO to tD� (p Cp
DATE
3,OOt
2,500
2,000
J
E
01,500
1,000
500
0
FIGURE &: RAW WATER E.COLI CONCENTRATION
mmmamccc
?o t? ..�'oc[a mv v o9cc7ro7 sp �- o,yc �?cc-c, o9c7 ro omm 7 6rp� m - occcip� <
N oo oo -9bo 000aao o a6o0oo0bo
o
V V vv m
V ggqppq pq�^ qq{D Cp to O(00 Cp fpm W C9
DATE
FIGURE 7: RAW WATER TSS i
500
f
i
400
+
300
+
Ei
+
Lo 200
i T I
+ +
+ I
+
100
+ ++ +
+ �- + ++ +
i !
0
wo- g>g- -ODtAOZ0 - mm>Kc- ">w0z0c -MK L�DCronpZo
fD m y 0 0 !n D
=
O o o o s o 9 -T t 9 7 'F :P 9 <
O Oo o o O °b° a OO O o
V pc Ob
W NCO m Otp 0 C0 11,13(o
DATE
-eJ'-
FIGURE 8: RAW WATER SOLUBLE IRON
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
rn
E 1.00
U. 0.80
0.60
0.40
+
0.20
a� 4. ash w4 da ' + + do '9s►+a9a9y as aa.�*
0.00
a�i��='�cceDCnpz00ccD0aO0 4 0 -0 cDtnQzD
• m°6666co6°66 °6° 0066 v6666° °
v-4� mm 0 66m666
r1 V -1 - CD co m co m w o co o co
co
DATE
FIGURE 9: RAW WATER TOCIDOC ( o Raw Water TOC (mg/L)
o Raw Water DOC (mg1L)
1- Feb-93 29- Oct -95 25- Jul -98 20- Apr -01 15 -Jan-04 11- 00-06 7-Jul-09 2- Apr -12
DATE
FIGURE 10: RAW WATER UV -254
0.2500
A
0.2000
A
•
0.1500
Ir
A
A
` A A A
A � � A
0.1000
A
A 1
A A A 1
A A AAA A A A A A A A
A AA A A
A A A a
0.0500--
i A Ag A 8 A A AA A A A A
A A
{tf
A AA A A
a
4
0.0000.
N p D D' p -o> D D D D O D D p b D p D 2
O 6 .°� ' tc O m
iu <" > °a. a b a gi m v o b m i r$
DATE
FIGURE 11: RAW WATER SUVA
10.0
9.0
$.0
7fl
'
f a
&.0
I
a
o e
I
1
5.0
� 4.0
° + e
3.0
20
s o M ♦ ° a ® ♦� Mao o+
1.0
9 •
0.0
m 0 D D o D D b D D O D D 0 D > O > z
a m m r 'o
7 9 a
7
DATE
FIGURE 12: SETTLED WATER TURBIDIDTY
20
1$
16
14
12
z10 a a W a
as a com® »a® a l m a MMMMM MOMMOMIN It ■ as
6 as
-MIM AMMAN MMOM is as loom MEMMOMMO
d
® swum a ales no a
2
c ngD��c �DtnOZO� si�Dg<<- D(nOZ�� r1�D�� -� D(nOZC7
d m -O pt t: C C c m o m 0. m v 'o o C C o m (� o m d t� 41 a C C c m Cl O m cr 7-9
0 0 0 0 p O J J o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 7 697 m 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 to 6 0 0 0 0
'`1J J "� J J J J JJJ �Ca Cow C. N Cod cc co ocn ww totoo Coto
DATE
FIGURE 13: SETTLED WATER pH
10.0
9.0
J7�.=w�, .h• ..per ' - - �- '�d"'�L:.��= � _ �- .�- =-�'�
7.0
6.0
5.0
�31gD���- �- DtnOZp�- 'ti�D��- �YtnOZp��t�D��- �- DtnOZp
°cry' ,� doom o= n?s°; ota9m -< 7 ?6(o9 n
0 0 0 o p 0 J J o 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 p o Cp O o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 to 0 0 0 a o
V V JvJ V 4 JJ J ri o Co Ca Co � cO Oo CO Co CO CO (O(O tO �O Co to tDW 10 to to
DATE
-7-
1.3 Anticipated Fall Scale Plant Design
Over 80% of the time (as shown on Figure 2), the raw water turbidity stays
below 30 NTU, however, the continued occurrence of high turbidity spikes
and associated high solids loading (as shown on Figure 7) justifies having
a pretreatment upstream of any membrane technology chosen.
Additionally, the organic loading should be effectively reduced in order to
achieve the long term Disinfection By Product (DBP) goals. In order to
achieve these goals, obtain the maximum recovery in the membrane plant
and reduce power consumption, a complete coagulation, multi -stage
flocculation and high rate clarification such as plate settlers are anticipated
for the full scale plant design.
The current plant has switched to poly- aluminum chloride (PACL) as the
primary coagulant and as seen by comparing raw and settled water
turbidities (Figures 2 and 12), it appears to be performing well and will be
used in the pretreatment of membrane plant.
The plant firm capacity will be confirmed in the next few months. It is
anticipated that the plant building and infrastructure will be built for a 6
MGD, with a minimum of 4 MGD of the membrane equipment initially
installed.
1.4 Membrane Technologies
Membrane technologies have seen a significant growth and increase in
application in the last two.decades. Membrane systems are available in
several different types and pore sizes, each uniquely fitting a particular
need and application as shown in Figure 14.
Source of Water
Needed Pressure
Seawater
` ~.
700 -1200 psi
_.._.._.._.._.._.. _..---- .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._
Brackish
_.._.._.._._..-
:---- .._ -. -- -.:_:._.._..-.._.. --
200 -500 psi
_- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - --
[H�ard water & High
� �� s'
—_ -100 -150 psi
C
s-
-- - - -- - - -- - - —
Surface Water _ �_
& GWUI
—
25 psi
----- - - - - --
Surface Water
20 psi
FIGURE 14: MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGIES
NF has been successfully used in many large plants in Florida for removal of
organics, color, TOC and DBP precursors, while removing 50 % -70% of source
water salt content. Although for Ithaca water system, NF would substantially
reduce the DBPs to near undetectable, and provide the best protection against
any possible Emerging Contaminants (ECs), disadvantages of this technology
are:
■ Significant power requirements, 3-4 time more than low pressure
membranes (MF /UF).
® Since the source water is soft with very low TDS (150 -200 mg/L), the
permeate from NF will have essentially no hardness and will be very
corrosive with a LSI of -2. This will require significant post treatment such
as lime, CO2 and caustic.
® NF systems are designed for removal of dissolved substances and not
particulate matters. Typical maximum turbidity to NF should be less than
0.5 NTU. Therefore, for this source water, significant pretreatment will be
required. The optimum pretreatment for NF is utilizing low pressure
membranes (MFIUF).
® NF will have a recovery of 80 % -85 %, resulting in 15 % -20% continuous
concentrate waste.
Therefore, NF is not considered as an option. However, in the future, if required
by significantly more stringent water regulations, the proposed membrane
filtration would become an optimum pretreatment for other advanced
technologies such as NF.
Low pressure Microfiltration (MF) and Ultrafiltration (UF) membrane filtration
technology have emerged as viable options for addressing the current and future
drinking water regulations related to the treatment of surface water, Groundwater
Under the Influence (GWUI), and for microbial and turbidity removal. Full -scale
facilities have demonstrated the efficient performance of both MF and OF as
feasible treatment alternatives to conventional granular media processes. Both
MF and OF have been shown to exceed the removal efficiencies identified in the
Surface Water Treatment Rule and addressing Cryptosporidium oocyst, Giardia
cyst, and turbidity removal requirements.
hAr and P
M krp - i +ome annrl1- - lull . rS iha4, .. r 1. -4-4
1Vil u11u ul 1t1G17Q1G JyJiG1110 y-1 Jul ally uo 1hollY f heEll L 11l L!C UPlC7l1Z;U
in the outside -in or inside -out direction of flow. Pressure (5 to 35 psi) or vacuum
( -3 to -12 psi) can be used as the driving force across the membrane. Typical flux
(rate. of finished water permeate per unit membrane surface area) at 20 degrees
C for MF and OF ranges between 20 and 50 gallons per square foot per day
(gfd). For source waters with moderate turbidity and when coagulation for
1'x'10
reduction of TOG is required (such as Ithaca), a conservative flux of 30-40 gfd
may be utilized for equipment sizing, subject to pilot test results.
MF and OF membranes are most commonly made from various organic
polymers such as different cellulose derivatives, polysulfones, polypropylene,
and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). MF membranes are capable of removing
particles with sizes down to 0.1 to 0.2 microns. Some OF processes have a lower
cutoff rating of 0.01 to 0.05 microns. Pressure or vacuum may be used as the
driving force to transport water across the membrane surface.
Since disinfection will be required as a secondary barrier, for this project, both
IMF and OF are considered synonymous and should be considered for
implementation.
All MFIUF manufacturers would require screening particles down to 200 -400
microns. Therefore, automatic backwash strainers with 200 or 250 microns are
planned and should be provided on each pilot unit.
NIMI
2.1 Pilot Unit Type
Pilot units shall be either MF or UF, pressurized or submerged (vacuum)
type. The units shall be fully automated, self contained with the following
minimum requirements.
2.2 Pilot Unit Minimum Requirements
• The pilot unit shall be completely assembled, self - contained skid
mounted
• The unit shall have an integral PLC controller with SCADA capability
for remote monitoring. Remote control will not be allowed.
• Power requirement shall be single phase, 60 hertz, 230 volts.
• Stainless steel or non - metallic process tanks.
■ Non- metallic Clean -ln -Place (CIP) tank.
Self priming, VFD controlled filtrate pump.
Compressed air system as required for valve operation, backpulse and
other specific needs of the pilot unit.
■ All the necessary online instrumentation and analyzers as listed in
Section 3.
2.3 Pilot Units Housing
Since there is no extra or unused covered space available on the existing
site, the City will purchase or lease a wooden shed with a unit heater to
house all pre - qualified manufacturer's pilot units in a single structure.
2.4 Plot Source Water
All pilot units will obtain a common identical source water from the existing
settled water system, conveyed to an emptylunused concrete filter box
adjacent to the pilot housing shed. The settled water will be brought
inside the shed with a common intake manifold to all pilot units. The
maximum head available on this manifold near floor of the shed is
estimated to be 10 feet.
If fhiC nxiniinkhm lipnA ie nn+ - A....o +o +Ihnn +k- —;]-+ . 4 _t,....I.J 1,..,
,. a, ��v uru��caN��,,, .1t N 1IWL Gi�J Gt.�UGtIC., U1L -,,11 U1G FJ11Vt U1IIt .71 IVUld have a
secondary pump to raise the pressure as required for continuous pilot
operation.
-11-
2.5 Pilot Tithing
It is anticipated that the pilot testing will begin as soon as the units are
available and hooked up, which is expected to be mid -March 2010.
The current plan is to obtain a minimum of 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.
2.6 Pilot Units Logistics
The City will have a forklift to pick up the pilot units as delivered and carry
them into the housing shed. If any bolting or supports of the units on the
wooden shed floor is required, the manufacturer shall provide such
provisions and install such measures.
A common electric service of 60 hertz, 200 amps and 230 volt will be
provided to the shed. A panel consisting of 4 breakers, each connected to
an outlet on the wall will be provided. The manufacturers shall clearly
specify the.type of outlet and prong orientation, when sending the utility
requirements form to the City.
2.7 Pilot Unit Utility Requirements
Each manufacturer shall submit the size, weight and utility requirements
as listed in Table 1 as soon as possible so site arrangements can be
made.
-12-
Elul
Pilot Unit Leasing Agreement
This agreement is for the lease of a MF or OF fully automated pilot unit from the manufacturer. The City of Ithaca (City)
will make the necessary hook -ups and arrange for housing the units. The City engineer, O'Brien & Gere, will be the main
contact with the manufacturer and will make payments for this agreement.
4.9 Anticipated Schedule
The membrane manufacturer pledges support of this pilot program for up to four (4) months based on the
expectation that their equipment will perform as required and will have a reasonable chance of bidding on a full -
scale plant for this project. Should it become evident that the commercial equipment will not be purchased from
the membrane manufacturer, they reserve the right to withdraw the pilot unit from the program at anytime.
Based on the requirements, the membrane manufacturer will ship in accordance with the specified schedule pilot
program but will confirm the shipping schedule after receipt of a purchase order or acknowledgement of award
for piloting.
Tentative schedule is as follows:
■ Equipment on Site: On or before March 15, 2010
■ Phase 1: March 30, 2010
■ Test Duration: 1,500 hours cumulative, continuous operation
4.2 Pilot Start-Up and Operation
After unit delivery, a membrane manufacturer field engineer completely familiar with the pilot unit will be on -site
to optimize system parameters and to provide operator training, as specified.
The initial Clean -In -Place (CIP) procedure will be performed by the membrane manufacturer. At that time, the
procedure can be demonstrated to operators so that subsequent cleanings can be performed without membrane
manufacturer supervision, if requested. The membrane manufacturer will fully coordinate and plan such
procedures in advance.
4.3 Membrane Manufacturer's Scope of Supply
The membrane manufacturer will supply:
• Membrane Filtration Pilot Unit
■ Membrane Filtration Module
■ Strainer(s) with the size as required by manufacturer
■ Online analyzers, as specified
■ Air Compressor (if required)
■ CIP /EFM hot water system
■ Cleaning Chemicals for EFM /CIP
■ Freight (mobilization and demobilization)
• Start -up assistance and training
• Calibration and repair of equipment, as needed
■ Periodic site visits during Phase 3
• Challenge test supervision for Phase 4
• Weekly update of all pilot data, as specified
• Complete comprehensive report, summarizing the pilot results
4.4 City's Scope of Supply
As a general guideline, the City will provide:
• Utility supply and plumbing and electrical connections, per Table 1
• Dedicated analog phone line or Internet for remote monitoring, per Table 1
• Assistance with maintenance and cleaning procedures (as necessary)
■ Uploading and reloading of delivered equipment with a forklift.
• Unpacking and repacking of pilot unit
• Climate controlled shelter for pilot unit
Operate atc pIIUt unit per I Ilai lU1CICa Ut CIS P1 VOCUUI es
• Weekly transmission of manually recorded data to manufacturer
• Required water sampling, per Table 2
4.5 Terms and Conditions
These terms and conditions shall apply to a pilot study from the membrane manufacturer or its subsidiaries
including use of certain equipment. The pilot study equipment shall, at all times, remain the property of the
membrane manufacturer. The City, their engineers and consultants shall have no right, title or interest in the
pilot unit.
4.5.1 Delivery Location
Delivery of equipment is to the project site, which is located at 202 Water Street, Ithaca, New York,
14850.
I
04
A " C)
-
9=0
C) oo
C:)
,dc V,
q
c) Lo
CY)
CU
CnA'S"I
N
cD
O
Lb
Lo c,4
0)
O
d
(6)c
C:)
0
c
CY)
I M F ,
NO
CN
I rl- V�W0 ,CO
0
cu
CIJ CO
CU
CnA'S"I
N
O
E
CO IN
=
3
0
c
... 1-5
a -M
NEE 0
0 co C)
I M F ,
NO
iii
E 0
00
00
co � co 60 N
CL a)
E
00
L
CY) §VS@ I` Lo
-0
Q
E
CN
- WN . . . . . . . . . . . .
SO-
F" To
I
z
E
E
C) j Lo 04
0) co
o
E
M co % CYm to
', m
z
... . .. .
CM
..........
C)
U?
O
CN 0
-31 ' CD
N a')
00
6511 m N 3O
C4
eJ U')
r CN
CL) to
Lo
B
Q) 0
-0 0)
C)
c
(1) >'
(n O
q
co "t U-) it, Lo
co
(=)
U')
01
cr E
co f.0 CD
��'
a U-)
Z r- 0),
w
.0
C)'J, - cy) Lo
725
0
0
E
"t VON, �','4�z��'
'5 cy)
�
LU 6
LU �j
0
co
tf
D)o
fi
Lq
D
0
U) co
4) co
0 "zil
C:
= C\!
"o
a)
C)
a Izi-
a
CD CO Co C'�
a) Lr)
> N
4) CM
> N
-0 C\j
--
0) jt$" co cc
tit 4441
fit 4441
(n
ca Co
co "A
"05 0)
N
cr �
z
cn
0
0
gcm Gam'
CL
0)
Co
0
Q
C:
CL
C"
C"
0 X593 N J' al C)
N M 60 CD - J
N CO
7M I,-
5�
z
co
0
cu
CU
CnA'S"I
C
(D
JOY
0
c
I M F ,
NO
iii
E 0
E co
c
'N
CL a)
E
IN
-0
E
CN
co
SO-
F" To
I
z
E
co
cu
CU
E co
c
E
-0
E
E
O
O
0
O
N a')
0 .tl
r CN
CL) to
Lo
B
Q) 0
-0 0)
C)
c
(1) >'
(n O
q
." C
5 co
co
(=)
U')
01
cr E
a U-)
Z r- 0),
"W
0 a)
6
0 4)
0
X
CL C)
x
CL
x
�
LU 6
LU �j
0
co
tf
D)o
Lq
D
0
U) co
4) co
0 "zil
C:
= C\!
a)
C)
a Izi-
a
2>2 0
a) Lr)
> N
4) CM
> N
-0 C\j
--
tit 4441
fit 4441
(n
ca Co
—W
w
O (1)
0
0
C\J M
co
0)
Co
0
Q
C:
CL
C"
C"
10. CITY ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE:
10.1 Change of Starting Time of Monthly Council Meptings from 7:00 PM TO 5:30
Resolution
WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca Common Council presently meets on the first Wednesday
• f each month / n •
WHEREAS, Common Council meetings have often continued into late evening hours,
thus reducing the possibility for public participation as well as the public's ability to follow
these proceedings broadcast on Public Access Television, and
WHEREAS, it is desirable that Common Council meetings be conducted during a time
period that would be more convenient for the public to attend these meetings; now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED, The Common Council of the City of Ithaca supports moving the Common
Council meeting time from 7:00 PM to 5:30 PM on the usual meeting day, the first
Wednesday of each month.