HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-HDPC-1989-07-25 HYDROPOWER COMMISSION
Minutes
July 25, 1989
Present: D. Hoffman, E. Mulholland, E. Brothers, H. Jones
Absent: T. Araneo, C. Emilian, M. Walker, A. Skutt, M. Sprague,
M. Sampson
1. Meeting was called to order at 8:20 p.m. by Dan Hoffman.
2. Van Natta Dam RFP--The City has received four responses to its
requests for proposals, and the subcommittee rejected two of them,
mainly for lack of experience or for not complying with the
guidelines set up in the RFP. The other two did not have enough
information to make a recommendation, and Ms. Jones was asked to
contact them for more information to be provided by July 24
(tentatively) .
The City has authorized an expenditure of $2,600 for hiring an
engineering consultant. Leasing the site to a private developer was
an option suggested since the City's license expires in March, 1990
and construction is not likely to begin by then. An independent
developer has stated that he will apply for a license if the. City
surrenders its license.
3. Commission Vacancies--To continue as a viable group, the Commission
needs to acquire new members. Originally the Commission was set up
to represent constituencies, and one of the problems is that some of
these are fairly inactive. An "at large" position is vacant, and
two Energy Commission positions are vacant. There is also a lack of
representation from Fall Creek neighborhood. It was suggested that
the media might spread the word that membership is needed.
5. Dan Hoffman presented a chart of two paths this project could take:
one exempting the Falls from hydropower development, and the other
deciding whether the City should build a plant. Ms. Jones suggested
that requests for bids for project construction should be issued in
May instead of July 1991. Engineers generally need 18 months to
prepare drawings, but March 1990 was still considered feasible. Ms.
Jones said that the Planning and Development Committee had
considered soliciting additional engineering services with respect
to coming up with a preliminary design plan based on the underground
design scheme, possibly a two—phase contract. Phase 1 would be the
preliminary design, reserving the right not to enter into phase 2
with that engineer unless it's to the City's satisfaction. Ms.
Jones is currently researching firms doing underground engineering
(i.e. Besha and Morrison—Knudsen) . She is also working to identify
other projects that have been built based on this design.
Preliminary design for an above—ground plant is completed. Ms.
Jones said that if this design is preferred, there are advantages to
continue using Stetson—Harza as our engineer, but suggested
reviewing competitive proposals anyway. If Council decides by
Hydropower Commission
Minutes - 7/25/89
Page 2
January to go to phase 2 (either above or underground) , it has to
have the underground design and its cost estimates by then. A
recommendation from the Commission to Council by September is
desired, and an engineer should be hired by October. The Commission
would like Council's guidance before proceeding.
Two other areas to be determined before Council can go ahead are
price for the power and procuring land and water rights. It was
suggested that NYSEG be contacted to continue negotiations.
Discussion followed regarding land and water rights acquisition, and
possibly resuming them along with the power negotiations. Ms.
Jones believed Cornell might be more involved with the project if
it's underground, since they own the streambed. They also own the
originally proposed location for the above-ground plant. Ms. Jones
will be one of the people to contact both Cornell and Mark
Finkelstein.
6. Discussion regarding the cost of hiring an engineer for final design
work before knowing whether the river is designated. It was noted
that some money will have to be spent, even with the right to
terminate the contract without cause. Ms. Jones estimated a cost of
$25,000 if underground designs were pursued. Ms. Jones suggested
that a group excursion be arranged to see some of these types of
operations.
Ms. Jones reported that locating the plant underground would not
involve going back to step one in the application process. The City
still holds the license and would probably have to file an amended
application. The alternative would be to proceed with the original
license, because filing an amendment does not hinder the validity of
the license.
Discussion regarding obligation for development of the recreational
plan which is written into the license. The plan does not have to
be exactly as originally presented, but it must be submitted to FERC
after the project is constructed. There was some question as to
whether this obligation was absolute.
Discussion regarding the question of another extension for Van
Natta Dam. Ms. Jones said that she is requesting this information
from FERC. If the City transfers the exemption as the Commission
has discussed as a possibility, it might make a good case for an
extension, otherwise, it is believed unlikely.
8. Next meeting date is September 18, 1989.
EPJ/HYDRO/MINUTES.JUL