Excerpts from a study and ranking of 23 cities
Although the study referenced here is more than a decade old, the methodology and comprehensiveness of issues covered is very useful in understanding the role and impact CDCs can have in a city.
I've been active for the past decade within the industry having directed a CDC and now involved in policy and funding CDC activities. My observation is that in the last decade, CDCs in Cleveland have continued to evolve in handling even more complex real estate projects and at the other end of the spectrum, some are involved in a renewal of activities related to community outreach and capacity building. In addition, cooperation and in some cases consolidations have occurred and the scope of services is expanding to include more social issues such as education and economic issues such as workforce.
I encourage you to look at the whole study and to share your perspective on the successes, opportunities and challenges CDCs in Cleveland face.
And, if you're in a outer-ring or outlying suburb what are your resources, both within your city government and your neighborhood or community wide civic wide organizations?
Showing posts with label City of Cleveland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City of Cleveland. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
2013 Consolidated Plan City Council Budget Hearing
Community Development Block Grant Budget (CDBG) hearings begin this morning and run through Thursday. Watch the hearing live at Cleveland Channel 20. See the previous post regarding CDBG funds for the hearings schedule and demographic information that provides the context for these hearings.
CDBG funds are federal funds issued through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City of Cleveland's CDBG allocations are estimated for 2013 at $24.7 million. This represents the lowest allocation in the program's 39-year history.
2013 CDBG Presentation and budget information,
Department of Building & Housing
Department of Building & Housing
Summary excerpts:
2012 marked an unprecedented "push back" against abandoned property. Some 2012 successes have included a large number of inspections (8,569); condemnation notices (4,478), with several thousands in process; 758 demolitions (housing rehab will be reported in a separate section that details housing);
Demolition summary, City of Cleveland, from 2006 - 2012; 6,517 structures at a cost of $49.2 million. Through the County land back, an additional 2,311 properties were demolished in the last two years.
Total demolitions in the City of Cleveland (City/County) for the 6 year period from 2006 - 2012 were 8,828. Per the 2010 census there were an estimated 113,000 housing structures (excluding 94,000 multi-family units (45.4%)). The 8,828 demolitions to-date, represent approximately 5.0 to 7.0% of the housing single-family stock. Note that the population of Cleveland decreased by 81,000 for the decade 2000 -2010, from 478,000 to 397,000.
The City recovered $700,000 from just three property owners related to nuisance abatements. There are an additional 92 properties that the City is pursuing owners to recoup $219,000 in demolition costs.
Building & Housing's software, the Accela Automation System was upgraded in 2012 with one noteworthy accomplishment of rental registration data and certificate of disclosure information incorporated into the system.
Total demolitions in the City of Cleveland (City/County) for the 6 year period from 2006 - 2012 were 8,828. Per the 2010 census there were an estimated 113,000 housing structures (excluding 94,000 multi-family units (45.4%)). The 8,828 demolitions to-date, represent approximately 5.0 to 7.0% of the housing single-family stock. Note that the population of Cleveland decreased by 81,000 for the decade 2000 -2010, from 478,000 to 397,000.
The City recovered $700,000 from just three property owners related to nuisance abatements. There are an additional 92 properties that the City is pursuing owners to recoup $219,000 in demolition costs.
Building & Housing's software, the Accela Automation System was upgraded in 2012 with one noteworthy accomplishment of rental registration data and certificate of disclosure information incorporated into the system.
Initiatives announced for 2013 establishing a "Customer Service Center"; selecting mobile computing devises for use in the field; and implementing an electronic construction plan submittal system.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
U.S. EPA states Cleveland waste-to-energy project must be regulated as a major source of pollution; City of Cleveland submits revised plans in attempt to be regulated as minor source of pollution.
U.S. EPA asserts Ohio EPA issued Draft Air Permit in violation of Clean Air Act
In the first of two separate communications today, U.S. EPA sent a letter this morning to the Ohio EPA asserting that the review and processing of the City of Cleveland's permit application for a waste-to-energy facility was done incorrectly by allowing the application to be considered under regulations for a “synthetic minor”, or new minor source of pollution as opposed to more stringent regulations for a new major source.
REF: 2/23/12 U.S. EPA letter (Scribd on-line document or PDF download)
The U.S. EPA cites Section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act and stated in their letter that “Cleveland Public Power falls within the listed source category “municipal incinerators capable of charging more than fifty tons of refuse per day”.
The letter goes on to summarize that the permit application will need to be modified and re-evaluated. They then provide an extensive list of sixteen additional comments and concerns about the project.
The release of the letter today coincides with the closing of the official public comment period for the Draft Air Permit which was released by the Ohio EPA for the project.
Cleveland Public Power announces scaling back of project and lowering emissions to be regulated as a minor source of pollution
In what appears as a direct response or move based on anticipating the U.S. EPA affirmation today, Cleveland Public Power announced a modification to their plans for the project to lower project air pollution.
The City stated today that they’ll be “reducing the number of gasification lines from 4 to 3, enhancing the proposed air pollution control equipment and increasing the facility’s stack height from 175 feet to 200 feet.” And, that these enhancements will significantly reduce the maximum annual emissions…by an average of more than 25% and also reduce the predicted maximum air quality impact in the nearby neighborhoods by an average of more than 50%.”
REF: 1) Comments re: Draft Air Permit; 2) Final comments [mark-up] of Draft Air Permit; and, 3) Final emissions & Air Qaulity Impact Comparisons [w/modified emission calculations].
It is unclear by these two separate communications today what the next steps in the process for this project will be. It is possible that due to today’s U.S. EPA’s assertions the Ohio EPA may be required to re-issue a new draft air permit which would then trigger a new public comment period and process of review. It would appear that the Cleveland Public Power is attempting to modify their initial application and by reducing the scale of the project, hoping to have the current draft air permit modified and approved with no further public comments or public process.
Meanwhile, Cleveland City Council is still holding a piece of legislation, introduced back on November 4th, 2011 that would authorize between $200,000 and $250,000 to hire a consultant to review a Request for Information and Qualifications that the City issued back in September of 2011.
In terms of the estimated $2.0 million project costs to-date - in addition to the internal project development within Cleveland Public Power and the Division of Waste, there have been three separate trips to Japan to view technology of Kinsei Sangyo Co., Ltd; there have been multiple feasibility studies that have included a review of the recycling pilot project by R. W. Beck (2008); a feasibility study that looked only at the gasification project proposed by Tien, conducted by RNR Consulting Inc. (2009); and, Peter Tien and his company Princeton Environmental Group were awarded a $1.7 million contract (Scope of Work) to conduct and preliminary design for the facility and to prepare and submit the air permit application. And, then most recently Cleveland City Council has been asked to approve authorization (Ord. 1574-11) of up to $250,000 for an additional consultant as mentioned above.
UPDATE 2/27/2012 -- The City of Cleveland's Department of Public Utilities issued a contract default letter to Peter Tien of Princeton Environmental Group that gives him 10 working days to correct deficiencies in his $1.5 million contract for preliminary design and permit application work.
Considering the changes Cleveland Public Power (CPP) has announced today regarding the number of gasifiers/furnaces (they’ve reduced the number from four, two-batch gasifiers (8) and one furnace (4) to three, two-batch gasifiers (6) and one furnace (3); we should expect to receive additional information regarding the amount of waste that is being proposed to be gasified/combusted. Prior to today’s announcement the amount was approximately 560 tons per day or approximately one-half of the average daily tonnage of waste processed daily by the City. In addition, we should expect to get updates on potential cost re-calculations and it was anticipated that CPP would be releasing additional information this week on financing operations for the estimated $180 to $300 million project.
Also affected from today’s announcements is likely the amount of power that would be generated from the facility. The project was initially planned to generate 20 MW of power and then it was downsized to a project 15 MW of power. It has also been estimated that the facility itself would require 5 MW of power to operate.
Thanks to Congressman Dennis Kucinich for his work in prompting the U.S. EPA's action today as well as the following organizations that have been leading the opposition to the proposed facility as well as the being the major proponents for a more common sense approach to adopting best practices in waste management that create more jobs and are less risky -- Environmental Health Watch, Earth Day Coalition, Northeast Ohio Sierra Club, Ohio Citizen Action, and too all of the residents in the community that have been involved as well!
In the first of two separate communications today, U.S. EPA sent a letter this morning to the Ohio EPA asserting that the review and processing of the City of Cleveland's permit application for a waste-to-energy facility was done incorrectly by allowing the application to be considered under regulations for a “synthetic minor”, or new minor source of pollution as opposed to more stringent regulations for a new major source.
REF: 2/23/12 U.S. EPA letter (Scribd on-line document or PDF download)
The U.S. EPA cites Section 169(1) of the Clean Air Act and stated in their letter that “Cleveland Public Power falls within the listed source category “municipal incinerators capable of charging more than fifty tons of refuse per day”.
The letter goes on to summarize that the permit application will need to be modified and re-evaluated. They then provide an extensive list of sixteen additional comments and concerns about the project.
The release of the letter today coincides with the closing of the official public comment period for the Draft Air Permit which was released by the Ohio EPA for the project.
Cleveland Public Power announces scaling back of project and lowering emissions to be regulated as a minor source of pollution
In what appears as a direct response or move based on anticipating the U.S. EPA affirmation today, Cleveland Public Power announced a modification to their plans for the project to lower project air pollution.
The City stated today that they’ll be “reducing the number of gasification lines from 4 to 3, enhancing the proposed air pollution control equipment and increasing the facility’s stack height from 175 feet to 200 feet.” And, that these enhancements will significantly reduce the maximum annual emissions…by an average of more than 25% and also reduce the predicted maximum air quality impact in the nearby neighborhoods by an average of more than 50%.”
REF: 1) Comments re: Draft Air Permit; 2) Final comments [mark-up] of Draft Air Permit; and, 3) Final emissions & Air Qaulity Impact Comparisons [w/modified emission calculations].
It is unclear by these two separate communications today what the next steps in the process for this project will be. It is possible that due to today’s U.S. EPA’s assertions the Ohio EPA may be required to re-issue a new draft air permit which would then trigger a new public comment period and process of review. It would appear that the Cleveland Public Power is attempting to modify their initial application and by reducing the scale of the project, hoping to have the current draft air permit modified and approved with no further public comments or public process.
Meanwhile, Cleveland City Council is still holding a piece of legislation, introduced back on November 4th, 2011 that would authorize between $200,000 and $250,000 to hire a consultant to review a Request for Information and Qualifications that the City issued back in September of 2011.
In terms of the estimated $2.0 million project costs to-date - in addition to the internal project development within Cleveland Public Power and the Division of Waste, there have been three separate trips to Japan to view technology of Kinsei Sangyo Co., Ltd; there have been multiple feasibility studies that have included a review of the recycling pilot project by R. W. Beck (2008); a feasibility study that looked only at the gasification project proposed by Tien, conducted by RNR Consulting Inc. (2009); and, Peter Tien and his company Princeton Environmental Group were awarded a $1.7 million contract (Scope of Work) to conduct and preliminary design for the facility and to prepare and submit the air permit application. And, then most recently Cleveland City Council has been asked to approve authorization (Ord. 1574-11) of up to $250,000 for an additional consultant as mentioned above.
UPDATE 2/27/2012 -- The City of Cleveland's Department of Public Utilities issued a contract default letter to Peter Tien of Princeton Environmental Group that gives him 10 working days to correct deficiencies in his $1.5 million contract for preliminary design and permit application work.
Considering the changes Cleveland Public Power (CPP) has announced today regarding the number of gasifiers/furnaces (they’ve reduced the number from four, two-batch gasifiers (8) and one furnace (4) to three, two-batch gasifiers (6) and one furnace (3); we should expect to receive additional information regarding the amount of waste that is being proposed to be gasified/combusted. Prior to today’s announcement the amount was approximately 560 tons per day or approximately one-half of the average daily tonnage of waste processed daily by the City. In addition, we should expect to get updates on potential cost re-calculations and it was anticipated that CPP would be releasing additional information this week on financing operations for the estimated $180 to $300 million project.
Also affected from today’s announcements is likely the amount of power that would be generated from the facility. The project was initially planned to generate 20 MW of power and then it was downsized to a project 15 MW of power. It has also been estimated that the facility itself would require 5 MW of power to operate.
Thanks to Congressman Dennis Kucinich for his work in prompting the U.S. EPA's action today as well as the following organizations that have been leading the opposition to the proposed facility as well as the being the major proponents for a more common sense approach to adopting best practices in waste management that create more jobs and are less risky -- Environmental Health Watch, Earth Day Coalition, Northeast Ohio Sierra Club, Ohio Citizen Action, and too all of the residents in the community that have been involved as well!
 |
Congressman Kucinich's Press Conference at Cleveland's Ridge Road Transfer Station, site of the proposed waste-to-energy facility - 2.23.2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
White Paper on Waste Processing Technologies - highlights of risks associated with GASIFICATION as an emerging technology
REF:
Meeting the Future: Evaluating the Potential of Waste
Processing Technologies to Contribute to the Solid
Waste Authority’s System
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida
Prepared by:
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.
8550 Arlington Blvd, Suite 304
Fairfax, VA 22031
September 2, 2009
Found an interesting and what appears to be a very useful report (Sept. 2009) that reviews waste management technology for the Palm Beach County FL.
Even though the information from this white paper was developed over 2-years ago, it marks the same time that Ivan Henderson, Commissioner of CPP lead the trip to Asia to explore emerging technologies (Aug. 2009). Some of the information may have become slightly outdated, but nonetheless, the most interesting factoids and statements are presented below:
Even though the information from this white paper was developed over 2-years ago, it marks the same time that Ivan Henderson, Commissioner of CPP lead the trip to Asia to explore emerging technologies (Aug. 2009). Some of the information may have become slightly outdated, but nonetheless, the most interesting factoids and statements are presented below:
(See further excerpts and references to useful PowerPoint slides here)
Note: CPP has yet to explain how this project, that has been estimated to cost between $180 and $300 million, will be financed.
Note: CPP has yet to explain how this project, that has been estimated to cost between $180 and $300 million, will be financed.
----------------------------------------------------
Gasification Facilities in operation worldwide: Seven (7) plants with this technology are currently operating in Japan, with at least two of them firing MSW. The largest of these plants in Kurashibi has a reported furnace size of 185 TPD, with three units of this size. Their largest facility fires up to 555 (Metric) TPD of MSW. There are 20 smaller facilities in Europe and Asia. Most of them are relatively small (less than 10 tons per day), with none designed for more than 70 tons per day throughput. Since 1996, no new greenfield commercial plant has been implemented.
Reliability: Pyrolysis and gasification systems have limited MSW operating history on which to rely and, although they may have fewer moving parts and appear to be simpler in operation than other systems, they do not have sufficient experience to draw conclusions for reliability of operation.
Environmental/Air: Several gasification/pyrolysis systems show the gas generated driving a gas turbine, which could be part of a combined cycle system. This would increase efficiency; however,
turbine manufacturers are reluctant to guarantee performance on units fueled by syngas from MSW.
Costs and Revenue Streams: The only technologies with dependable estimates for capital and operating costs, based on long experience in the U.S., are the proven mass-burn/waterwall, mass-burn/modular and RDF/dedicated boiler technologies. All of the others have cost estimates that are speculative, theoretical, or market driven. Unless a vendor’s cost proposals are backed by substantial guarantees of performance, they cannot be considered reliable.
Conclusions: …
Environmental/Air: Several gasification/pyrolysis systems show the gas generated driving a gas turbine, which could be part of a combined cycle system. This would increase efficiency; however,
turbine manufacturers are reluctant to guarantee performance on units fueled by syngas from MSW.
Costs and Revenue Streams: The only technologies with dependable estimates for capital and operating costs, based on long experience in the U.S., are the proven mass-burn/waterwall, mass-burn/modular and RDF/dedicated boiler technologies. All of the others have cost estimates that are speculative, theoretical, or market driven. Unless a vendor’s cost proposals are backed by substantial guarantees of performance, they cannot be considered reliable.
Conclusions: …
3. [in assessing the use of emerging technologies]...[including] gasification without on-site energy production. If…[Cleveland] pursues the use of these technologies, it must be prepared to manage the considerable risks involved, including commercialization risks, scale-up risks, performance risks, construction and operating cost risks and environmental compliance risks.
4. Accessing these technologies is best done through a competitive public procurement and negotiation process that requests proposals from contractors that are able to provide a facility and services with appropriate financial guarantees to deliver the permitting, design, construction, start-up and acceptance testing, and long-term commercial operations under performance-based full-service contracting arrangements.
Sources of Information regarding the City of Cleveland CREG Center Proposal
Here are the major sources of information available on-line pertaining to the project:
UPDATED Friday, 1/20/2012
NOTE that the Ohio EPA has confirmed the extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft Air Permit to the close-of-business, Thursday, February 23rd, 2012.
Send comments to the Cleveland Division of Air Quality, 75 Erieview Plaza, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH, 44114, Attn: David Hearne. CPP Ridge Road Permit #PO107767; Facility ID 1318008750. Comments sent by email to: DHearne@city.cleveland.oh.us
Three additional meetings will be held by the City of Cleveland to Explain the proposed CREG Center and to take questions and comments from the public (see schedule below), and an additional meeting is being considered specifically for the Hispanic Community.
UPDATED Friday, 1/20/2012
NOTE that the Ohio EPA has confirmed the extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft Air Permit to the close-of-business, Thursday, February 23rd, 2012.
Send comments to the Cleveland Division of Air Quality, 75 Erieview Plaza, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH, 44114, Attn: David Hearne. CPP Ridge Road Permit #PO107767; Facility ID 1318008750. Comments sent by email to: DHearne@city.cleveland.oh.us
Three additional meetings will be held by the City of Cleveland to Explain the proposed CREG Center and to take questions and comments from the public (see schedule below), and an additional meeting is being considered specifically for the Hispanic Community.
- Thursday, January 26th @ Zelma George Recreation Center,
3155 MLK Jr Blvd., 6:00 -9:00 p.m. - Wednesday, February 8th – Cudell Recreation Center,
10013 Detroit Ave., 6:00 -9:00 p.m. - Thursday, February 9th – Harvard Community Services Center,
18240 Harvard Ave., 6:00 -9:00 p.m.
Information and resources:
- CPP PowerPoint Presentation for Public Meeting held Thursday 1/19/2012
- Cleveland Public Power (CPP) CREG Center site
- Princeton Environmental Group, Basis of Design Report, 08-31-2011
- CPP Air Permit Application
- EPA Draft Air Permit for proposed project
- Initial EPA Public Hearing Notice for Jan. 9th 2012 Public Hearing, NOTE: City of Cleveland has requested Ohio EPA to extend Public Comment period an additional 30-days to February 23rd, 2012. (Spanish version)
- City of Cleveland MSWE Development Chronology of Events
- Earth Day Coalition Clean Air site
- Ohio Citizen Action Cleveland Incinerator site
- Estimated maximum emissions as stated in the CPP application for air permit operating at 72.24% heat input
- Max Mercury Emissions CPP Facility vs Actual Reported Mercury Emissionsfrom Operating Power Plants 2010
- Max Potential Total PM (F+C) Emissions CPP Facility vs. Actual Total PM Emissions from Major Industrial and Utility Sources 2009
- Feasibility Assessment Report MSW EPF, RNR Consulting, 2009 (cost of $329k)
- Research on Gasification - Excerpts from work conducted by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. pertaining to energy technologies.
- Public Comment submitted by Claude Lawrence Cornett, Jr.
CPP Announces meeting on gasification facility, provides no meaningful data on emissions
NOTICE -- Cleveland Public Power has announced a meeting to be held regarding the proposed Gasification-Municipal Solid Waste-to Energy facility being proposed for the Ridge Road Transfer Station. The meeting is scheduled to be held at the Estabrook Recreation Center, 4125 Fulton Road, at 6:00 pm, Thursday, January 23rd, 2012.
See the initial Public Hearing Announcement from the EPA for the one and only Public Comment Hearing held on January 9th. NOTE that the City of Cleveland has requested from Ohio EPA a 30-day extension of the Official Public Comment Period from January to February 23rd. See the original announcement for where and how to submit comment.
The CPP statement, linked here, see specific text regarding emissions, is an insult to the process. CPP has applied for an Air Permit to operate a gasification facility. I find it incredulous that while their Draft Air Permit is being reviewed for public comment (closing 2/2012), that CPP cannot communicate clearly what the emissions are estimated to be; what they’ve actually stated within their permit application.
Instead, under no less a heading of “ Understanding the impact”, CPP states
“...if we don’t allow mercury and other toxins into the gasification process, we will not have mercury and other toxins coming out of the gasification process.”
In fact, here is a listing of the emissions listed for the facility, per CPP’s EPA Permit Application using a 72.24% utilization of heat input:
REF: http://ohiocitizen.org/?p=10745
Let's have a serious discussion of the impacts of these emissions on the people living in our Cleveland neighborhoods and not greenwash this project as panacea to our waste management and energy generation challenges.
As the Council representative of Ward 14, I represent a population of approximately 24,000 people for which our neighborhoods are directly down-wind from the proposed facility, 2 miles North. The neighborhoods are recognized as low-income and are made up of a population that is between 30% and 44% Hispanic minority.
It is important to note that in consulting with representatives from the EPA Region 5 Office, they have confirmed that the communities to be impacted by the proposed project qualify as Environmental Justice areas of concern, due to the prevalence of low-income and minority (Hispanic) residents who are disproportionately impacted by asthma and other debilitating health conditions related to poor air quality in the City at present.
REF:
See references to Environmental Justice in “Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2003” and “Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting: Reducing Pollution in High-Risk Communities is Integral to Agency’s Mission. December 2001”.
“…while incidence of asthma is average for Hispanics in general, Puerto Ricans are about…as likely to be diagnosed with asthma than non-Hispanic whites, and about 1 in 5 Puerto Rican children are diagnosed with asthma, compared to 1 in 10 Hispanic children overall, and 1 in 13 non-Hispanic White children…” ("Profiles of Latino Health," 2009). 2011 Latino Community Report, Ohio Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs.
See the initial Public Hearing Announcement from the EPA for the one and only Public Comment Hearing held on January 9th. NOTE that the City of Cleveland has requested from Ohio EPA a 30-day extension of the Official Public Comment Period from January to February 23rd. See the original announcement for where and how to submit comment.
The CPP statement, linked here, see specific text regarding emissions, is an insult to the process. CPP has applied for an Air Permit to operate a gasification facility. I find it incredulous that while their Draft Air Permit is being reviewed for public comment (closing 2/2012), that CPP cannot communicate clearly what the emissions are estimated to be; what they’ve actually stated within their permit application.
Instead, under no less a heading of “ Understanding the impact”, CPP states
“...if we don’t allow mercury and other toxins into the gasification process, we will not have mercury and other toxins coming out of the gasification process.”
In fact, here is a listing of the emissions listed for the facility, per CPP’s EPA Permit Application using a 72.24% utilization of heat input:
- Particulate PM(F+C) 78.75 Tons per year
- Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); 78.75 Tons per year
- Nitric oxide & nitrogen dioxide NOx; 194.31 Tons per year
- Carbon monoxide (CO); 87.95 Tons per year
- Volatile organic compounds (VOC ); 26.59 Tons per year
- Hyposulfurous acid (H2SO2); 7.36 Tons per year
- Lead (Pb); 500 Pounds per year
- Ammonia; 16.36 Tons per year
- Hydrogen chloride (HCI); 6.55 Tons per year
- Dioxin; 1.27 E-5 Tons per year
- Cadmium (Cd); 26 Pounds per year
- Mercury (Hg); 260 Pounds per year
- Hydrogen fluoride (HF) 1,260 Pounds per year
REF: http://ohiocitizen.org/?p=10745
Let's have a serious discussion of the impacts of these emissions on the people living in our Cleveland neighborhoods and not greenwash this project as panacea to our waste management and energy generation challenges.
As the Council representative of Ward 14, I represent a population of approximately 24,000 people for which our neighborhoods are directly down-wind from the proposed facility, 2 miles North. The neighborhoods are recognized as low-income and are made up of a population that is between 30% and 44% Hispanic minority.
It is important to note that in consulting with representatives from the EPA Region 5 Office, they have confirmed that the communities to be impacted by the proposed project qualify as Environmental Justice areas of concern, due to the prevalence of low-income and minority (Hispanic) residents who are disproportionately impacted by asthma and other debilitating health conditions related to poor air quality in the City at present.
REF:
See references to Environmental Justice in “Public Involvement Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency May 2003” and “Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting: Reducing Pollution in High-Risk Communities is Integral to Agency’s Mission. December 2001”.
“…while incidence of asthma is average for Hispanics in general, Puerto Ricans are about…as likely to be diagnosed with asthma than non-Hispanic whites, and about 1 in 5 Puerto Rican children are diagnosed with asthma, compared to 1 in 10 Hispanic children overall, and 1 in 13 non-Hispanic White children…” ("Profiles of Latino Health," 2009). 2011 Latino Community Report, Ohio Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Council reviews proposal for new $32 million city-wide 800 MHz radio system
Council voted 15 to 3 approving the new radio system. The system is anticipated to be initiated and operational within 18-months.
UPDATE -- 6:40 pm July 20th, 2011
Council's Joint Safety and Finance Committee concluded testimony regarding the Administration's proposed new county-wide radio system. A major issue discussed was why the Administration has not considered utilizing the Ohio MARCS P25 system being planned for implementation in Cuyahoga County on September 1, 2011.
Initially the Administration claimed there were technical issues pertaining to 1) interference on the MARCS system's 700 MHz syestem coming from Canada as well as 2) system capacity issues, i.e., the MARCS system for Cuyahoga County was described as being limited to only 15-channels.
After several conversations with Ohio MARCS staff, Council confirmed that in fact the interference issue is set to be eliminated as of August 1st and that the MARCS Cuyahoga system is designed to initially run with 15-channels but can also be upgraded to 30 channels when needed.
The comparison of potential systems therefore breaks down to approximately:
- Administration's proposed system - $32 million; 30-channel county-wide system, plus utilization of an 11-channel P25 system run by the Southwest Regional Communications Network.
- Potential City of Cleveland/Ohio MARCS Cuyahoga system - $26 million; 30-channel city-wide system, plus utilization of an 15-channel (expandable to 30[channels) P25 system run by Ohio MARCS Cuyahoga.
The City has $11 million in bonding accrued to-date for the $32-million dollar system. With continuing lower revenues and increasing costs of utilities and services, a potential $6 million in savings should warrant more time and deliberations.
------------------------------------------------
Cleveland City Council's Public Safety Committee met yesterday to review proposed legislation for a $32 million city-wide 800 MHz radio system. The system would replace one purchased in 1993 that serves over 5,000 radio users across departments and divisions that include Public Safety, Public Works, Public Utilities, City Courts, Building & Housing, Port Control and more.
See the presentation given to Council today here.
The new system would utilize up-to-date standards and comply with The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) Project 25, which is an open source system developed to address emergency communications systems in the United States. Motorola is being proposed to be awarded the contract.
According to the administration, the new system would enable the City to communicate with the County and State of Ohio Multi-Agency Radio Communications System (MARCS); would drastically improve reliability, redundant coverage and operation; and would integrate with the Southwest Regional Communications Network that is composed of 8 of the County's 59 municipalities - Brookpark, Berea, Middleburg Heights, North Royalton, Parma Heights, Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, and Strongsville.
Presently there are 47 different types of radio systems currently being used in Cuyahoga County, due to the different set of frequency bands used by the various public safety agencies. The new system would include the use of 14 radio towers up from the current 8 the City of Cleveland uses today, which would expand the city's radio coverage area.
Presently there are 47 different types of radio systems currently being used in Cuyahoga County, due to the different set of frequency bands used by the various public safety agencies. The new system would include the use of 14 radio towers up from the current 8 the City of Cleveland uses today, which would expand the city's radio coverage area.
The current system was purchased by Motorola, 18-years ago and has had multiple failures reported in 2008, 2009 and 2011. Annual maintenance costs for systems such as Cleveland's range from $1 to $3 million. The Jackson Administration began the process to replace the current system in January 2009.
In addition to Motorola being proposed as the vendor, The Administration is also seeking approval for a $552,000 contract with RCC Consultants. RCC was utilized to assist in the pre-bid analysis of the project through a grant from the US Department of Justice. The legislation is expected to be heard for a second time next Wednesday in City Council's Committee of the Whole and a vote is expected the same day.
REF: City of Cleveland Request For Proposal - 800 MHz APCO P25 Radio System
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)