Nov
3rd

Getting ready for the DEP meeting 11/5/09 same time and place

The next Croton Facilities Monitoring Committee (CFMC) meeting will be held on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 7 PM in the DEP’s Contractor’s community office on 3660 Jerome Avenue, Bronx NY 10467 (across from the CWTP between 213th and Bainbridge)

  1. Welcome, Call Meeting to Order
  2. Consider, Adopt Minutes of    CFMC 4-30 (as revised) and 6-18 Meetings
  3. DEP Report on Jobs & Hiring
  4. Parks Dept Report on Jobs & Hiring
  5. Status Report – Jerome Park Reservoir Public  Access Study
  6. Croton Construction Update
  7. Discussion, Set Next Meeting CFMC Principals

Topics should include questions concerning the below listed documents:

1.  Comptroller’s Audits

• 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

Community response  WaterBlogged.org » From Guest Pens: Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz – Croton is one of the Mayor’s worst failures http://bit.ly/3Xawfi

2.  Public comments in June and DEP response in September

June Public written:  Why_to_the_DEP_June_2009 (verbal comments in minutes we have not seen yet)

CRO-313-312OS Minor Mod RTC 07-24-09 v2

CRO_Design Commission Response_090728_FINAL

PDC Response 2 – Friend of VCP

3. Community’s response to the Design Commission

Deisgn_Comm_re_Parking_MGH_101309

Nov
1st

From Guest Pens: Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz – Croton is one of the Mayor’s worst failures

(Editor’s note:  We started the category of Guest Pens.  Just send the info in on any one of our comment section (it is always monitored), and I will post.  Some people do not want to use their name, but I have to verify that they are credible. )

Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz

3107 Kingsbridge Avenue, Bronx, New York 10463 (718) 796-5345

November 1, 2009

The meeting that the five community members of the Croton Facilities Monitoring Committee (CFMC) held in the Amalgamated House’s Vladeck Hall on Thursday, October 29 illustrated conclusively that the water filtration plant boondoggle that is costing taxpayers unnecessary billions and is being grossly mismanaged by a secretive NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is one of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s worst failures.

At the meeting, Deputy Comptroller John Graham explained that the recently released audits by Comptroller Bill Thompson found that the DEP could not account for the astronomical rise in costs as compared with their original budgeting for the project.  Many who attended spoke emphatically that the comptroller’s findings definitively support their long-held claim that the DEP cooked the books in order to see to it that the plant was built in Van Cortlandt Park and to create a lucrative bonanza for contractors and engineers while sticking everyday New Yorkers with an outrageous bill.

Specifically, the comptroller reported that the DEP failed to account for a cost escalation rate above those substantiated by industry indexes such as the Engineering News-Record Construction index of 5.04%, or the Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction of 5.73%, or the Prevailing Wage Rates of 4.7%.

I agree with the Comptroller:  “(The DEP’s) Underlying estimate was unreliable and lacked sufficient documentation to substantiate its accuracy and completeness.”  The still unanswered question of why they did it and who benefited from it was also raised at the meeting, but not surprisingly, though DEP and contractor representatives were present, they did not participate in the discussion.  What is clear is that we all need to continue our due diligence until the truth is definitively known.

Though not an official CFMC meeting, the gathering was a clear statement to Mayor Bloomberg’s DEP that a majority of the seven-member committee is fed up over the unexplained costs, debilitating and expensive construction delays, and ongoing DEP stonewalling and lack of transparency as indicated in the comptroller’s audit.   It was made clear that at the next CFMC meeting, scheduled for Thursday, November 5 at 7:00 p.m. at the DEP office at 3660 Jerome Avenue, the comptroller’s report is going to be on the agenda and Mayor Bloomberg’s DEP is going to have to attempt to justify their actions and also change the opaque processes which contribute to the scandal on a daily basis.

Since its establishment by the City Council in 2004, the committee charged with monitoring this project was manipulated by the DEP, thereby hampering its work.  However, in 2007 after my office reported that the DEP’s explanation rate for the cost escalation was not correct and that DEP’s stated justifications were invalid smoke screens, the committee finally stood up to then-Commissioner Emily Lloyd, and voted to ask for the audit.  In a pathetic and obvious attempt to avoid inquiry, though the report was issued almost two months ago, the DEP has balked at scheduling meetings of the CFMC until after the mayoral election.

But Thursday’s history-making meeting proves that no matter how much the Mayor controls the Manhattan media, the people of the Bronx must continue to stand strong in the pursuit of truthful information from City Hall and diligence over the administration’s ongoing attempt to hide from scrutiny.

I applaud the work of the community members of the Croton Facilities Monitoring Committee, and look forward to its next meeting on Thursday, November 5 so we can hear what the DEP has to say.

Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, 81st AD

Oct
23rd

Thurs. 10/29/09, 6:30 pm Community Members of the Croton FMC meet at Vladeck Hall

On Thursday, October 29, 2009 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Community Members of the Croton Facilities Monitoring Committee (CFMC) – Bronx Community Boards 7, 8 &12, Borough President Ruben Diaz and Council Member Oliver Koppell, will hold an informational meeting on the audits prepared in response to the December 2007 CFMC motion concerning the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

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

Sep
26th

What’s going on at the Jerome Park Reservoir?

Well, here we are at the end of September 2009 and the Demo Plant is finally, finally going down.

Temporary Building to Model Filtration Methods
Temporary Building to Model Filtration Methods on Goulden Avenue looking south, Bronx, NY — Potentially the site of the Outdoor Urban Ecology Lab (OUEL)
NYC DEP Off Site work for the CWTP at the Jerome Park Reservoir, Bronx, NY, September 2009
NYC DEP Off Site work for the CWTP at the Jerome Park Reservoir, Bronx, NY, September 2009
NYC DEP JPR work on the CWTP, Goulden and 205 St. Sound Barrier half painted white.
NYC DEP JPR work on the CWTP, Goulden and 205 St. Sound Barrier half painted white.

Sep
21st

Riverdale Press, 9/17/19 Keep Investigating Filter Plant Project

—————-

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


Sep
13th

Comptroller William Thompson Audit, September 1, 2009

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.

Aug
15th

Rowdy Meetings: Parks and Health Care Insurance Reform

Think republican’s invented the rowdy health care reform recess rallies filled with misinformation and fear to pursue their own agenda? Bronxites know better, having experienced these forums on at least two occasions in the past, starting with Clinton High School overlooking the Jerome Park Reservoir. Filling the room with non resident people who are told to disturb the peace and the meeting is the Mayor Bloomberg & Friends modus operandi.

As in the current national heath care reform mess, both the 2003 Croton Filtration and the 2005 Yankee Stadium Redevelopment meetings mangled an overlying issue with the project purpose — the taking of parkland (read: free land), when other alternatives existed to build said project. This mantra was encouraged by the so-called union-contractors and supported by union leadership and membership for selfish reasons – so contractors could make money; and union members higher pay and better benefits.

Just like some are confused about health care reform, few decision makers realized in 2004 and 2006 that alternative sites for each project would maintain union workers keeping their jobs and benefits, and would save the taxpayer billions of dollars.

Today, the message of health care reform is being purposely confused with “death trap for old people,” “increased in abortions,” or “socialistic medicine” for someone’s selfish agenda – like those $24 million per year health care insurance company CEOs, lobbyists tied to the health care industry, etc. Clearly, reform mean equal and better health care for all.

While those joint ventures of contractors and union leaders were initially successful, they ended with many corruption investigations, convictions and pleas, as well as with those same union workers left out in the picket line at the site of the Lehman College Science Building – across the street from the Jerome Park Reservoir!

Mayor Bloomberg & Friends are republicans; that explains the similarities to the national health care reform battle. Hopefully health care reform comes quicker than the long awaited park mitigation around the Jerome Park Reservoir and replacement parks around Yankee Stadium!

We need to learn from our mistakes; not make them over and over. The republican lobbyist spinners have selfish agendas. This is not a public relations campaign, this is our lives.  Health Insurance Reform is not complicated. The cost of inaction is immeasurable. President Obama’s program is clear:  he is not going to raise taxes, but cut the costs we all know exist.

I support the President’s Health Insurance Guarantees.

1. No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions

2. No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays

3. No Cost -Sharing for Preventive Care

4. No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill

5. No Gender Discrimination

6. No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage

7. Extended Coverage for Young Adults

8. Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

Join me. Take Action. Start the discussion.

Aug
2nd

JPR Numbers on the Fence – What could they mean?

Some neighbor took photo’s of these numbered fences.  Let us know if you find out what they mean.

JPR Numbers on the Fence – July 2009

Thank you.

Jul
17th

What’s going on at the Jerome Park Reservoir?

Well folks, I have been involved with the Jerome Park Reservoir since we moved uptown to Giles Place in 1971.  First it started with my mother, Theresa Argenti, and her efforts at getting the fence secured as many of our youth would go swimming and some would get caught in the reservoir utilities and drown.  It was the first time that Jerome surfaced to ask for help.  Later articles from Jerome involved work at the Fort independence Park.  By the time we got to the 1980’s, it was full blown articles about the Jerome Park Reservoir.

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?

Jun
22nd

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

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 205th 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?


[1] See the following link for the permit to demolish January 15, 2009, with no asbestos abatement and pre-demolition inspection of February 27, 2009 http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&passjobnumber=210107819&passdocnumber=01

[2] Minor Modification of April 2009, page 2: “Since completion of the Final SEIS, design has progressed to the final design and, as is typical for large scale and complex engineering projects, some changes to the preliminary design and proposed construction methods were made based on information that was previously not available.” (emphasis added)

[3] There was no work proposed for the South Basin Ramp in the Final SEIS JPR. It stated in section 8.2.1.4 that: “The Microstrainer Building would be demolished, and the area would be landscaped and kept open for a potential access ramp to the bottom of the Reservoir’s south basin.

[4] MM, page 9: “The Final SEIS proposed that an access ramp to the South Basin be constructed in the vicinity of Gate House No. 6. …………… Construction of the South Basin Ramp, adjacent to Gate House No. 6 along the western wall of the Reservoir, is proposed for inclusion under Contract CRO-312OS.”

[6] MM, page 15: “In response to a July 28, 2008 addendum to the roginal Cultural Resouces Assessments, related to Contract CRO-313 and CRO-312OS work on the SMC, the OPRHP accepted the finding that a controlled blasting program can be developed that would minimize impacts to historic resources, and also agreed that there would be no adverse impact so archelogical or architectural resources (OPRHP, September 5, 2008 included in Attachment A).

[7] http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/pdfs/public.pdf See page 2 for info on the Executive Sessions.

[8] RMP Database: rtknet.org The Right to Know Network, the DEP stated: “If there is an accidental release, we will immediately call for emergency response to minimize the effect of the release and notify the public of any actions necessary to ensure public protection, through the City emergency management agencies.” Emphasis added