Finally the report was provided in April, and discussion will follow in May at the FMC meeting on the 20th.  Report is on the CB 8 web page under the Croton Water Treatment Plant, Van Cortlandt Park, Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study
Van Cortlandt Park Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study Part 1
Van Cortlandt Park Pedestrian Bridge Feasibility Study Part 2

Letters of support are being sent to the Community Board 8.  Here are a few:

FIPNA Support Pedestrian Bridge 05182010

BCEQpedestrian_bridge_support05182010

Pedestrian Bridge Support Letter FVCP 051710

In 1999, the New York City Council passed the ULURP resolution approving the site selection to build a filter plant in Van Cortlandt Park.  The resolution promising certain things, including the Facility Monitoring Committee.

The pedestrian bridge is mentioned in the resolution and on the list of projects.    If the project is feasible, and for some reason, too expensive, then we should be given the opportunity to raise the money elsewhere.  Parks should do the report, then it has to go to the CITY COUNCIL.

HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS:

• RESOLUTION: Reso 933 of 1999
  
• LIST OF MITIGATION PROJECTS:Mosholu Mitigation Res 993 of 1999

Among the many other items included is this one:

9.) DPR shall undertake a study and impact analysis (the study) to determine whether or not a pedestrian footbridge, crossing the Major Deegan Expressway linking the heretofore and connected east and west portions of Van Cortlandt Park is technically, legally and financially feasible. Said study shall be completed by September 2002 and the results of such study shall be filed with the Speaker of the City Council and the Director of the Land Use Division of the City Council within the ten (10) days of completion. In the event that said study determines that the construction of such a pedestrian footbridge is technically, legally and financially feasible, a Budget Modification, transferring from DEP to DPR funds sufficient to design and build it shall be introduced in the Council by the Mayor within sixty (60) days of the completion of the study;

The public is invited to attend this presentation. A representative of the New York City Comptroller’s office will present the September 1, 2009 Audit Reports listed below:

The audits can be found at the following links:
• DEP’s Oversight of Costs to Construct the CWTP, FR09-110A, 9/1/2009 – http://bit.ly/AI5Pr
• DEP’s Progress in Constructing the CWTP, FR08-121A, 9/1/2009 – http://bit.ly/1a4a3E

VLADECK HALL, Amalgamated Housing Co-op, 74 Van Cortlandt Park South, enter off of Hillman Avenue, Bronx, NY 10463.

Parking is limited, please use public transportation.

Bring a friend
Refreshments

—————-

Point of view: More investigation

needed at filtration plant

By Karen Argenti

City Comptroller William Thompson provided many of us with a fresh drink of water with his audits of the Croton Water Filtration Plant, which is one of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s biggest boondoggles and now confirmed as one of the biggest frauds in the city’s history.

Many following this scandal closely were not the least bit surprised at Mr. Thompson’s finding that the timing and planning have been bungled, nor did we blink an eye at unjustifiable cost overruns into the billions. We’ve known this and have said it repeatedly all along.

But there’s a missing piece in the comptroller’s report and that is to answer the fundamental questions of why? Why were the Department of Environmental Protection’s calculations so far off? Though DEP incompetence is legendary, former Commissioner Chris Ward’s misguided insistence that the plant should be put in the Bronx because it was the cheapest place to build by hundreds of millions of dollars cannot be ignored.

There was a fascinating — and largely overlooked — revelation in the report. That is the creation of a new Cost Estimating Division of the Bureau of Engineering and Construction that has one function: conduct regular meetings between the DEP, other city agencies and the project engineers and contractors.

The comptroller needs to go the next step and fully investigate the relationship between Mr. Bloomberg’s DEP and those who gained most from the experimental underground design in Van Cortlandt Park — the diggers and dirt haulers and the contractors, consultants and engineers who would not have been needed had the plant been built on top of the ground in Westchester.

Those of us who have been in this fight for years will recall that former General Contractors Association (GCA) Executive Director Frank McArdle made it clear that he participated in regular meetings with DEP leadership to offer guidance on the bids for this project. Well, now it’s time for the public to get full details on the nature of those meetings. What was discussed, what was the DEP advised and who had influence in the decision-making that landed the hideous plant in a Bronx park?

Further, what did former DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd mean when she stated at a meeting in Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz’s office in the summer of 2007 that “there’s a natural affinity between the DEP and its contractors?”

Also, it was hard not to notice DEP’s Mark Lanaghan’s discomfort at being asked about the relationship between his agency, their contractors and the bid process during an Croton Filtration Plant Monitoring Committee meeting earlier this year. His face got red and he said in no uncertain terms can the public know more about the DEP’s deliberations and relationships with contractors and engineers and how they negotiated the bids on the Croton filtration project.

There are many eye-opening discrepancies to find. For example, how is it that Schiavone Construction Company won the bid on the first contract even before the site was approved by the City Council?

Mr. Thompson’s report says construction delays were caused in part by the first contractor who left the project. What he failed to mention is that this contractor, Perini Construction, was under federal investigation into suspected fraud in the granting of contracts for minority-owned businesses. How was Perini able to qualify and why were there only two bids? Was there open bidding as required by law, or was this simply handed off as, you know, kind of an agreement between friends?

It’s obvious that these secret relationships between a city agency and contractors do not promote the public good. They open the door for processes that are not transparent and, as we now know, are not economical. In this case, the cost to the public is $2 billion and counting, not to mention the environmental devastation this project has caused.

With what is now confirmed, that the DEP based their decision on where to site the plant on false numbers, that former DEP Commissioner Ward bolted the DEP for a plum job with the GCA, that there have been extensive backroom relationships between the DEP and contractors, there is no doubt that Thompson needs to find the missing piece in his otherwise stellar reports.

Karen Argenti is a longtime activist on environmental issues.

Riverdale Press, September 17, 2009 – http://bit.ly/12LGKg

]]> http://www.waterblogged.org/riverdale-press-91719-keep-investigating-filter-plant-project/feed/ 0 http://www.waterblogged.org/comptroller-william-thompson-audit-september-1-2009/ http://www.waterblogged.org/comptroller-william-thompson-audit-september-1-2009/#comments Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:02:50 +0000 karen http://www.waterblogged.org/?p=231 The City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Financial Audit, Audit on the Department of Environmental Protection’s

Progress in Constructing the Croton Water Treatment Plant, FR08-121A
September 1, 2009 - Download the Complete Audit Report (pdf 356kb)

OVERSIGHT OF COSTS TO CONSTRUCT THE CROTON WATER TREATMENT PLANT, FR09-110A, SEPTEMBER 1, 2009  Download the Complete Audit Report (pdf 317kb)

Thank you Comptroller Thompson.  Keep up the good work.

JPR Numbers on the Fence – July 2009

Thank you.

Today we have the work we have all been awaiting for at least 25-30 years — clean the inside fence around the Jerome Park Reservoir of all the vines and weeds.  Whether the reason is that they finally woke up (doubtful), or if it has something to do with the permission to blast around the reservoir (possible), or if it is because of someone’s campaigning, one thing is certain.

It is a beautiful thing.

Thank you to my friend who took the photo’s to memorialize this time and effort.

So now, anyone have any ideas of what’s up?

22 Questions to the FMC and the DEP by Karen Argenti, June 18, 2009

1. Why is the Demonstration Building surrounded by a chain link, not an opaque fence as required by law? Why is this temporary building standing, if the Buildings Department permit approved demolition in January 2009?[1]
2. Why are there depressions in the roadway on Goulden Avenue at various work sites extending from Sedgwick to 205^th Street where the DEP contractor dug up and filled in?
3. Can you specify the new “information not previously available” as mentioned in the Minor Modification (MM) on page 2 that you received to make changes to the work at the Jerome Park Reservoir (JPR)?[2] Why has work stopped on the sound barrier?
4. Can you provide access to review all geologist reports for JPR?
5. Can you reference the page in Table 1 for the project element discussion “As Discussed in the Final SEIS” as well as the “As Currently Proposed (Minor Modification)?
6. Can you reference the page in the old FSEIS[3] referenced on page 9 of the MM[4] when you compare the work proposed in the FSEIS to the new work for the south basin ramp?
7. What other alternatives did you review in the site and the method of excavation for the Shaft and Meter Chamber?
8. What other alternatives did you review for the site and construction of the ramp for the south basin, such as attached to the dividing wall?
9. Where in the FSEIS did you study the impact of the construction of the south basin ramp, as well as the traffic impact for its use?
10. Where are the plans for the Outdoor Urban Ecology Lab (OUEL)?
11. Where are DEP’s plans for the restoration of the Harris Park Annex after the work is completed?
12. Where is the geologist report mentioned on page 15 of the MM?
13. Why did the city claim[5] the community’s court case was not ripe in August 2008, when it already had a complete statement of the process in an addendum to the original Cultural Resources Assessments related to CRO-313 and CRO-312OS with a state agency (no more an interested party than the public or the court) and made an agreement concerning impacts?[6]
14. What is the basis for holding executive sessions of the FMC? All public bodies must hold meetings open to the public unless certain reasons for executive sessions apply.[7]
15. Where is the public participation for the evacuation plan as stated in the document you provided to the EPA?[8]
16. What is the timeline and status of the work on the pipeline from the plant to the Hunts Point Dewatering Plant?
17. When is the DEP’s hearing for the MM?
18. When will the FMC meet during the summer?
19. Can the community have input in the plans for the vacated Jerome Avenue Pumping Station, and when will it be offline?
20. Where are the permits posted for the work ongoing at JPR?
21. Will the DEP discuss these projects at the DSC of the affected community boards and/or borough board?
22. What is the status of the park work at JPR?

A shareholder’s report on NYC, Inc.

As he campaigns for a third term as mayor, Michael Bloomberg portrays himself as a man above politics and as a savvy businessman who can get us through tough times by his careful management of our dollars.

Residents of the Northwest Bronx know better – or should. They have had years of bad news about the huge project that Mr. Bloomberg personally arranged to have dumped in their backyard – the water filtration plant under construction in Van Cortlandt Park.

When he made the deal in the back room of Bronx Democratic Party headquarters that brought the plant to the park, Mr. Bloomberg notoriously enticed legislators to vote for the project with a promise of $220 million in city funds to be spent on parks in their districts. But that was just a down payment.

Mr. Bloomberg may be able to finance his own campaigns, but for the others who sat around the table that day the real windfall was campaign cash from the contractors and construction unions that would build the plant. Our mayor waded waist-deep in the pay-to-play culture of city politics.

Let’s turn to the other side of the ledger, to Mike Bloomberg, the CEO of NYC, Inc. Let’s observe his Department of Environmental Protection in action. Seldom has there been more comprehensively- documented proof that a city agency is managed by a gang that can’t add straight or that its projections and promises are as evanescent as a spring shower that no sooner sprinkles the ground than it evaporates into thin air.

The DEP’s most recent broken promise is its pledge to excavate in the vicinity of the Jerome Park Reservoir without resorting to blasting. Its decision to dynamite after all needs to be viewed in the context of its sorry record of miscalculation and misstatement. Here’s some of that record:

• The DEP’s inability to comply with the schedule it set itself has cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in fines.
• When the agency’s own draft environmental impact statement showed that our water bills would be lower if the plant were built in an industrial park in Westchester, the price tag underwent an unexplained $200 million increase. The new estimate in the final environmental impact statement was just enough to wipe out the potential savings and blunt an argument against building in Van Cortlandt.
• With years of construction still to go, the project has already exceeded its budget by more than $2 billion.

The only question that remains to be answered about the filtration plant is whether the decision-makers were knaves or fools: did they deliberately lie about the cost and consequences of building the plant in the park, or were they too dumb to figure out where to put the decimal points when they estimated the price?

The evidence is mixed.

The DEP did lie to cover its tracks when it upped the estimate for building in Westchester. A spokesman said town officials had negotiated a monetary trade-off for the inconvenience of hosting the plant. Not true, the town supervisors told The Press.

What about what the DEP characterizes as the “minor modification” of using dynamite? It’s tempting to conclude that it kept plans to blast in its back pocket, but there’s no way to know.

As to the DEP’s inability to contain costs, its track record argues for incompetence rather than dishonesty. It has been almost as wrong about the ultraviolet water treatment plant it is building in the Westchester industrial park as about the filtration plant. The cost of building the UV plant has ballooned from $597,000 to $1.6 billion.

Duplicity or ineptitude: either way, this sorry history has had real consequences. It has cost the residents of Norwood their tranquility, and now threatens the tranquility of Van Cortlandt Village and the schools along Education Mile.

And it has contributed to a rise in water rates that threatens the ability of non-profit organizations to maintain thousands of affordable apartments in the Bronx and elsewhere.

Is the mayor who boasts of his businesslike approach accountable for the performance of his agencies? Or is the CEO of NYC, Inc. like those other CEOs, of banks and insurance companies and automobile manufacturers, we have come to know recently, reaping the bonus of re-election for presiding over a failed enterprise?

http://riverdalepress.com/full.php?sid=8617&current_edition=2009-05-14