Middletown Common Council Workshop

for

Middletown Municipal Improvements Relating to

Water Main Extension and Water Tank

Durham Meadows Superfund Site

February 13, 2017

*597054*
SEMS Doc ID 597054
 Agenda

Introduction
Description of Existing Middletown System
served by Long Hill Pump Station
Presentation by EPA and Middletown Water
and Sewer Department
Statement from EPA
Statement from Connecticut Department of
Public Health
Statement from Connecticut Department of
Energy and Environment
 Introduction

Project to extend water main, install water tank, and provide clean
water to Durham includes numerous entities.
Regular meetings have been held for many years (2006)
City of Middletown Water and Sewer Department
Town of Durham (First Selectman)
Town of Durham (Health Department)
Connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDPH)
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
AECOM, design consultant for EPA

More recently the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been
involved.
 Introduction

February 13, 2017 Workshop participants:

EPA
Edward Hathaway, Project Manager for Durham Meadows Superfund Site ME/VT/CT
Superfund Section, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration, US EPA New England
Region
Daniel Keefe, Chief- ME/VT/CT Superfund Section
Jim Murphy, Team Leader, Community and Government Relations
CTDEEP
Patrick Bowe, Director, Remediation Division, Bureau of Water Protection and Land
Reuse
CTDPH
Vicky Carrier, Drinking Water Section
Town of Durham
Laura Francis, First Selectman
Bill Milardo, Assistant Health Director and Sanitarian
City of Middletown
Bob Young, Acting Director, Water and Sewer Department
Joe Fazzino, Chief Engineer, Engineering Division
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Steve Dunbar, Project Manager for Durham Meadows
AECOM
Rich Berlandy, PE, Design Engineer for project
Background

Existing City of Middletown

System for area to be served by
Cherry Hill water tank.

The Long Hill Pump Station uses

small jockey pumps and hydro-
pneumatic tanks to serve the
existing area.

The system currently supports

about 35 properties with an
average demand of about 8,000
gallons per day.
 Existing service area for Long Hill Pump Station

Background

Long Hill Tank and Pump Station

 Extent of groundwater contamination at
Background Durham Meadows Superfund Site

RT 17
Durham has been dealing with contaminated
drinking water supplies since 1970s.

1982, CTDEP, now CTDEEP, ordered DMC

and MMC to provide water and perform
monitoring due to contamination of drinking
water wells. MMC

EPA designated the contamination associated

with the DMC and MMC facilities the Durham
Meadows Superfund Site in 1989.
DMC
50 wells, serving 54 locations (mostly Strong Middle

residential homes), have contamination School

requiring use of carbon filters. 10 of these

locations are also receiving bottled water for
drinking water use due to 1,4-dioxane
contamination.
Extent of contamination in 2005
The major contaminant is trichloroethylene or
TCE. The federal drinking water is 5 parts per
billion. The CT Drinking Water Action level is
1 part per billion.

Fairground Wells
Concentrations detected in private wells in
2016 were as high as 1,400 parts per billion
(280 times the safe level).
Background
Project was developed with a Regional prospective.

Groundwater contamination and other water quality

issues are a problem for an area much larger than
the EPA Superfund Site. H

Areas with Contaminated Groundwater

A. The Superfund area, includes most of E

Schools Area
B. The MTBE area along Main Street (Gasoline D
Stations Area) G
C. The 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) Site F
D. The Parsons Area C B

Areas with Impaired Groundwater Quality (hard

water, high iron & manganese) A

E
F. Durham Heights Area
G. Woodland Drive Area
H. The Royal Oak Drive Area;

I. The Durham Center system was listed due to the

threat of future contamination of these wells as the
groundwater contamination expands. I
.
Background

In 2000, CTDEEP provided funding for a study to

look at a Regional solution to the water quality
issues. A technical review committee (TRC) was
formed and included representatives of:
H
the Midstate Regional Planning Agency;
CTDEEP
Connecticut Department of Public Health;
EPA;
City of Middletown;
Town of Durham; and D
G
Town of Middlefield.
F
The 2000 Durham Water System Extension C B
Feasibility Study concluded that the best solution was
to extend the transmission main from Middletown
south on Route 17 from the Talcott Ridge Drive area A
where the new Cherry Hill storage tank is proposed.
The study identified that the storage tank would likely E
be 70 feet tall and 48 feet wide with 950,000 gallons
of storage.

I
 Extent of groundwater contamination at
Background
Durham Meadows Superfund Site

RT 17
EPA, after a public comment period,
finalized a cleanup plan in 2005. The 2005
cleanup plan includes:

MMC

Provision of a public water supply for

those impacted by the contamination by
connecting to the City of Middletown CHS
water supply. Korn
Elementary
Excavation of contamination associated School
DMC
with Durham Manufacturing Company
and Merriam Manufacturing Company. Strong Middle
Long-term monitoring and groundwater School
use restrictions.

The City of Middletown provided comments Extent of groundwater contamination in 2005

on the 2005 cleanup plan and noted that a
water tank at the Cherry Hill location on
Talcott Ridge Drive would be necessary to
provide water to Durham.

Fairground Wells
 Background
Long Hill Tank
In 2008, CTDEEP funded an update of the
Durham Water System Extension Feasibility Long Hill
Pump Station
Study to continue the Regional planning and to
maintain progress while EPA was in legal
discussions with the companies responsible
for the contamination.
Cherry Hill
Tank
The updated Durham Water System Extension H
Feasibility Study was completed in 2012 and
also included an Environmental Impact
Evaluation.
D G
The study re-affirmed that an extension of the F
C B
water main along Route 17 and the
development of the Cherry Hill Water tank on
Talcott Ridge Drive is the best long-term A
solution. The updated tank dimensions were E
75 feet high and 50 feet wide with a capacity
of 1 million gallons.

I
 Background
Long Hill Tank
To solicit public input on the Durham
Water System Extension Feasibility Long Hill
Pump Station
Study, CTDEEP published a legal notice
in the Middletown Press once a week for
three consecutive weeks in December
2012. Cherry Hill
Tank
H
The public notice stated The proposed
permanent solution is to extend
Middletown's water supply transmission
piping and interconnections along Route D G
17 into Durham. The action also includes F
C B
installation of a water storage tank at
Cherry Hill in the City of Middletown and
the provision of fire protection to areas of A
Durham. The purpose of this public E
notice announcement is to solicit
comments concerning the EIE and the
proposal.
I
 Background
In June 2012, the City of Middletown Long Hill Tank
Common Council was provided a
presentation regarding the proposed Long Hill
Pump Station
water line extension and water tank.

The City of Middletown Common Council Cherry Hill

approved a resolution authorizing the Tank
Mayor to sign a Memorandum of H
Understanding between the City of
Middletown and the Town of Durham
where Middletown agrees to allow for the
construction of piping and other D G
improvements required to supply F
C B
adequate amounts of potable water to
the Superfund Site Area A properties and
Durham will agree to purchase such A
water from Middletown. E

The Memorandum of Understanding was

signed June 22, 2012 and specifically
I
mentions Talcott Ridge Drive and the site
of the new Cherry Hill Storage Tank.
 Water Main and Tank Design

In 2013, EPA began the design for the Superfund

Site related water extension.

EPA mailed a public information fact sheet

describing the project along with an invitation to a
June 2013 public information meeting to discuss
the project. All of the addresses on Talcott Ridge
Drive and Watch Hill Drive were on the mailing
list.

The CTDEEP, CTDPH, Town of Durham, and City

of Middletown all participated in the development
and review of the design.

Note: EPA pays for all of the design work and 90% of the
construction and testing. CTDEEP pays for 10% of the
construction and testing. Durham and Middletown
would each own and operate the infrastructure within
each community.
 Water Main and Tank Design

The design was based on the following assumptions:

An atmospheric water tank is necessary to provide the necessary

reliability and quantity of water and is the standard of water systems.
The City of Middletown wants to avoid having to operate two water
systems from the Long Hill pump station.
System must provide sufficient water to meet the demands under the
design fire scenario.
The system must meet CTDPH requirement for 25 psi pressure at the
curb stop and also achieve the recommended 35 psi pressure at the
curb stop.
This requires that the lowest elevation of water in the tank for daily water
usage be at or above 491 msl in order to provide 35 psi for Talcott Ridge
Drive and Watch Hill Drive.
Water Main and Water Tank Design

Schematic showing components of design

In Middletown and Durham
 Water Main and Water Tank Design

Municipal improvements in Middletown:

880,000 gallon water tank
20 inch water main from water tank to Cul-de-Sac on Talcott Ridge Drive
16 inch water main from Cul-de-Sac on Talcott Ridge Drive to
Durham/Middletown line
Water meter station
Water Main and Water Tank Design

 Aerial depiction

of Municipal Improvement

Work

New and upgraded water mains

Shown in red

Location of new Water Tank

Shared driveway to be reconstructed

Location of meter vault

 Tank and Driveway Location

C ity of Middletown, Connecticut

Map Legend: httpJ/gis.city ofmidd letow n.comlmidd letow nctAe gend.pdf

Property Card: httpJ/gis.vgsi.com/Middletow nCT/Parcel.aspx?pid=1401 7 1
N
1 in = 188 ft .;.=
MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY - NOT A LEGA L DOCUMENT
Becaise of d ifferent update schedules., a.Hren! p.-operty assessments' may not f &fleo: r eam! changes to property boundarie'.s . Chect v,o'it h the Board of Assessors to confirm boundar ies uses st the time of assessment.
 Water Main and Tank Design

The design was completed in 2015. The

design confirmed the need for a water
storage tank to meet the project
requirements.

EPA secured funding to move forward with

the implementation of the water main and
water tank in 2015.

The water main and water tank installation

has been approved by the CTPDH.

EPA retained the US Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) to manage the
procurement of the contractor and
management of construction.

The USACE also performed a detailed

technical review of the design.
 IWWA and 8-24

Two approvals were required from Middletown for the water main extension and
water storage tank. If approved, the project would be put out for bid.
In October 2016, EPAs consultant, AECOM, briefed the Inland Wetland and
Watercourse Agency relating to wetland impacts associated with the project.
IWWA held a hearing on December 7, 2016. After a presentation and discussion,
the hearing was continued to ensure that the signs were in place for the required
period and remained intact. Several property owners identified concerns regarding
the project. The clearing to install the access driveway to the tank was a major
topic.
A second IWWA hearing was held January 4, 2017. The IWWA approved the
permit after that hearing.
An 8-24 review meeting was held with Planning and Zoning on January 11, 2017.
The 8-24 review was continued to January 25th.
On January 25th, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Commission issued a unfavorable
review of the project citing five reasons which are presented and discussed in the
following slides.

.
 8-24 Unfavorable Review

1. The proposed water tower, as designed, does not incorporate site

concealment techniques, which, if employed, could potentially
minimize adverse visual impacts on the immediate neighborhood.

Response:
While concealment techniques have become more common for
cell towers, there are fewer options for large structures like water
tanks.
Cell towers are fairly narrow and tall which allows concealment
techniques that mimic a tree to be employed with varying success.
A 45 foot wide water tank has a much different geometry that does
not resemble many natural features that would blend with a tree
line.
Individuals with experience have suggested that finishing the tank
in a neutral color and allowing the tank to age will result in a
natural coloring that may be the most effective method to reduce
the visual impact.
 8-24 Unfavorable Review

2. Vistas and views shall be adversely impacted since the water

tower, as proposed, extends above the tree-line.
3. The project, as proposed, especially what is perceived as the
physically prominent appearance of the water tower, will generally
degrade views for several houses in the immediate area, which
may, in turn, lower property values.

Response to both comments:

The tank may extend above the tree line and this would change the vista for
those property owners who are in the line of sight of the tank.
A balloon test documented that the trees at the tank site are the same
height as the tank.
Water tanks are not an uncommon landscape feature given that
atmospheric tanks are the standard of practice.
The water tank location was acquired at the same time as the approval of
the subdivision. The subdivision has always had the concept of a tank
being present at some time in the future. The tank is 1,300 feet from the
Talcott Ridge Drive Cul-de-Sac and the majority of the space between the
homes and tank is tree covered.
Any location selected for the water tank would likely result in the tank being
within the view of someone. Other water tanks are much closer to
properties.
 8-24 Unfavorable Review

4. The project designers did not present alternative water tower

designs.

Response:
There are few options for a large potable water storage tank.
Concrete and steel are the two most common materials.
The height of the tank is controlled by the elevation necessary to
achieve water pressure and the width is both a function of the
required volume and structural integrity.
The current tank height is the minimum that would meet the
project requirements.
 8-24 Unfavorable Review

5. The partial re-paving of the road after construction site work, as

proposed, will adversely impact the appearance of the
neighborhood as a whole, which can adversely impact property
values.

Response:

EPA has revised the design include paving of the entire width of
Talcott Ridge Drive.
The basis for the paving is the truck traffic necessary to construct
the water tank.
 Design Accommodations

Based on the IWWA hearings, 8-24 meeting and feedback from the property
owners, the following items are being addressed:

Revising the design to include paving of the entire width of Talcott Ridge Drive.

Providing additional information and opportunities for discussion.

Input during hearings and meetings along with informal discussions after the
hearings and meetings has helped identify concerns by property owners.
EPA prepared a response to the initial concerns identified by the property owners.
EPA has arranged for meeting space on February 21st and 28th and will be
available to meet with the property owners and discuss their concerns.

Re-aligning the City of Middletown Right of Way to align with the shared driveway that
currently exists.
To reduce clearing and visual impacts, EPA is working with the City Attorney,
Water and Sewer Department, and property owners to re-align the City of
Middletown Right of Way.
The re-alignment will also eliminate impacts to wetlands.
To be successful, all four property owners including the defunct Talcott Ridge LLC
must all consent.
EPA is working to scope title work and survey.
 Re-alignment of Right of Way

- Driveway Extent if Existing Driveway is Used

Final Driveway Alignment if Constructed within Easement -
Property Lines
Current City of Middletown Utility Easement
Proposed Alternative City of Middletown Utility Easement
Additional Information Regarding
Comments
Questions were raised regarding:
Need and cost for booster pumps;
Construction impacts and duration;
Tree clearing;
Contribution to sprawl;
Lack of public notice and input from
residents of Talcott Ridge Drive;
Visual impact of tank;
Lack of benefit to Middletown;
Operate two systems;
Additional cost to Middletown
 Additional Information Regarding Comments

Need and cost for booster pumps:

The CT DPH criteria for water mains requires 25 psi at the curb stop and
recommends 35 psi. The new water main would achieve these
requirements.
For most municipalities, it is the property owner who must address any
pressure issues from the curb stop into the house.
Because the existing system provides higher pressure, EPA included the
option for residents to receive a booster pump at no cost to them to allow for
no change in water pressure as a result of the new water main and tank.
The estimated annual electrical cost is $15.
Pumps should last 10 years or more with replacement cost of $1,000
$1,500.
EPA cannot agree to replace the pumps in the future. EPA is prohibited by
federal law from paying operation and maintenance costs.
Any future replacement is a City of Middletown issue.
The only way to increase the water pressure without booster pumps would
be to increase the height of the tank by 64 feet.
The property owners can decline the booster pump or bypass after

installation.

Existing High HGL 576

Existing Low HGL 484
Water Pressure Analysis comparing existing conditions based on
Cherry Hill Tank High HGL 512
Cherry Hill Tank Average HGL 502 system at Long Hill Pump Station with conditions based on water
Proposed Low HGL 491 pressure from proposed Cherry Hill water storage tank
HGL-Hydraulic Grade Line Existing Condition Proposed Condition

At Street First Floor At Street First Floor

Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
Cherry Cherry Cherry Cherry Cherry Cherry
Existing Existing Existing Existing Hill Tank Hill Tank Hill Tank Hill Tank Hill Tank Hill Tank
Low High Low High Low Average High Low Average High
Street First Floor Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
Elev. Elev. (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)
Talcott Cul-de-sac 410 32 72 NA NA 35 40 44 NA NA
199 Talcott 399 435 37 77 21 61 40 45 49 24 29 33
87 Watch Hill 400 413 36 76 31 71 39 44 48 34 39 43
82 Watch Hill 402 401 35 75 36 76 39 43 48 39 44 48
67 Watch Hill 406 414 34 74 30 70 37 42 46 33 38 42
60 Watch Hill 406 405 34 74 34 74 37 42 46 37 42 46
37 Watch Hill 394 417 39 79 29 69 42 47 51 32 37 41
34 Watch Hill 392 404 40 80 35 74 43 48 52 38 42 47
17 Watch Hill 384 401 43 83 36 76 46 51 55 39 44 48
Intersection Watch
Hill & Talcott Ridge 389 41 81 NA NA 44 49 53 NA NA

The Cherry Hill water storage tank would operate on a typical day from 512 feet to 502 feet. On the
maximum design demand day the operating level could drop as low as 491 feet. The analysis evaluated
the water pressure for homes with first floor elevations above 400 feet to assess changes between
existing pressure based on the Long Hill pump station and the proposed Cherry Hill water storage tank
 Additional Information Regarding
Comments
Construction duration and impacts:
The estimated time for installation of the
water main is 13 weeks.
The tank construction could require 3-4
months and could be done at the same time
as the water main.
EPA would work with the residents regarding
the sequencing of construction, traffic safety,
and access.
EPA and its implementation team would keep
the property owners informed of construction
activities and coordinate with the property
owners to reduce the inconvenience to the
extent reasonable.
Traffic plans, work sequencing, and
schedules would all be developed once a
construction contractor is retained.
 Additional Information Regarding
Comments
Contribution to sprawl:
.
State of Connecticut Growth Principle 6,
which is discussed in the Plan of
Conservation and Development states
Integrate planning across all levels of
government to address issues on a
local, regional, and statewide basis.
The Durham water extension has been
a project that has been the subject of
substantial planning at the local, state,
and federal levels. This planning
sought to address public health issues
in Durham with the support of the City
of Middletown in a way that did not
adversely impact the City of Middletown
from a capital cost or other cost
perspective.
The project creates the opportunity to
increase revenue without sprawl or
other impacts on City services.
 Additional Information
Regarding Comments
Tree clearing:
Goal is to clear no more trees
than necessary.
Tree clearing is necessary to
install the water tank and widen
the driveway.
About 1.5 acres will be cleared.
See outline on photo.
EPA will require contractor to
limit clearing to only those
areas required for construction
of the tank and driveway.
Work sequencing will assume
Right of Way will be relocated
to allow initial work to proceed
with reduced clearing.
Additional Information Regarding
Comments
Lack of public notice and input from residents of Talcott
Ridge Drive:
A significant focus of the public outreach was in
Durham to address the concerns of the residents
with contaminated water.
EPA and CTDEEP did perform broader outreach
activities relating to the water main extension and
design.
CTDEEP published legal notice of Durham
Water Extension Feasibility Study and
included tank in public notice.
EPA issued a public information fact sheet and
held a pubic meeting to discuss the water
main extension and water tank at the
beginning of the design effort in 2013.
EPA records show that the mailing list
included all properties on Talcott Ridge Drive
and Watch Hill Drive.
Letter from City of Middletown to EPA, MOU, and
Council resolution all documented that the City of
Middletown wanted the tank to be located at the
Cherry Hill location. As a result, the design did not
include a site selection component.
 Additional Information Regarding
Comments
Lack of public notice and input from residents of
Talcott Ridge Drive:
EPA developed a Public Information Fact Sheet in
August 2016 and placed on EPA website.
During September/October 2016 EPA sent letters to
about 180 property owners either seeking access
for water connection, curb stop installation, or
access for water tank work. A copy of the Public
Information Fact Sheet was included with each
letter.
EPA also sent letters, which included the Public
Information Update, to the 8 properties which are
being offered a booster pump.
EPA met with the property owners who abut the
tank site in October 2016 to discuss the project.
EPA has made several design adjustments based
on that meeting and follow-up discussion.
EPA s plan was to perform additional outreach
once the construction contractor was selected.
This would allow EPA to work closely with the
property owners just prior to and during
construction to minimize any inconvenience and
construction related impacts.
 Additional Information Regarding
Comments
Lack of public notice and input from residents of
Talcott Ridge Drive:
It is now clear that a number of the Talcott Ridge
Drive residents were not sent the August 2016
update because they did not fall into one of the
above categories (water service installation, curb
stop, booster pump, or tank access).
Several property owners also reported that they do
not recall receiving the 2013 public information fact
sheet.
Current situation indicates that more outreach was
needed to make sure the property owners were
aware of the design effort.
EPA is ready to work closely with the property
owners to discuss the project, gain an
understanding of their concerns, and make
reasonable accommodations consistent with
federal procurement regulations.
EPA has scheduled meetings on February 21st and
February 28th, 2017 to have further discussion with
the property owners.
 Additional Information Regarding
Comments
Visual impact of tank:
The tank will be about 80 feet high, when vent
cap is included.

Field assessment using balloons suggests

current trees are at height of tank.

After site clearing it is possible that 10 -15 feet

of the tank will be visible.

The concrete will be tinted to color specified by

City of Middletown.

Input from experts suggests that tanks get less

noticeable as concrete ages.

EPA is open to suggestions and is willing to

further investigate ways to reduce tank view.

At request of PZC photos and drawings were

developed to show possible visual impact.
Additional Information

Regarding Comments

Figure shows location of

photos that were taken to
create visual representation of
how the tank may look.

Following slides show tank

projected on to photos and a
profile of the tank.
Additional Information Regarding Comments

L0<ation 1 Proposed
Additional Information Regarding Comments

location 2 Proposed

I
Additional Information Regarding Comments

location 3 Proposed
Additional Information Regarding Comments

location 4 Not Visible

 Additional Information Regarding Comments

Location 5 Existinc View

North to Lone Hill Tank
Additional Information Regarding Comments

Cross Section From Photo Location 1 to Proposed Water Tank

Additional Information Regarding Comments

Cross Section From Ta lcott Ridge Cul -de-Sac to Proposed Water Tank
Additional Information Regarding Comments

Photo of tank at another location Cimarron Tank

Additional Information Regarding Comments

Photo of tank at another location Cimarron Tank
 Additional Information Regarding Comments
Photo of tank at another location Long Hill Tank
 Additional Information Regarding Comments

Could the City of Middletown water main be extended to Durham without

the need for the tank?
Could a separate system serve Durham?

o The Long Hill Pump Station uses small jockey pumps and hydro-
pneumatic tanks to serve the existing area.
o The pumps are too small to provide long-term service and fire
protection to Durham.
o Atmospheric tanks are the standard practice and provide superior
long-term performance and assure fire protection without a
dependence on pumps.
 Potential Benefit of Project to Middletown

Municipal improvements for the City of Middletown include installation of new water mains on
Route 17 and Talcott Ridge Drive, an 880,000 water storage tank, and a water meter station on
Route 17 - at no cost to the City of Middletown. Estimated cost of improvements is $6.4 million
not including the design costs.

These improvements will increase the reliability of the water system and provide improved fire protection
(2,500 gpm with water tank vs 750 gpm with existing system) for the residents in the City of Middletown
served by the Long Hill pump station.

The City of Middletown parcel on Talcott Ridge Road represents the best location for the water tank in
order to achieve the water pressure requirements for the City of Middletown residents to be served by the
tank. The parcel was obtained by the City of Middletown over 20 years ago as a possible location for a
water tank.

Middletown gets 1 customer who will generate annual revenues that will help to stabilize water rates or
reduce rate impacts of other infrastructure projects within Middletown's remaining distribution system

Equivalent revenue would require development of nearly 300 residential properties based on the initial
Superfund area and up to 900 residential properties if the other areas with water quality issues are
provided water in Middletown with resulting costs for education and public services. Project actually
reduces sprawl in Middletown.

The proposed work is critical to provide safe drinking water to the residents impacted by the
contamination in Durham.

This project represents over a decade of effort by Durham, Middletown, CTDEEP, CTDPH, and
EPA to find a long-term solution.
 Project Schedule and Potential Delays

EPA has $20 million set aside to move forward with this project.
The expectation was to issue the request for bids early in 2017 (January) to allow
construction to begin in summer 2017.
Typically requires about 6 months or more from request for bid to start of construction.
If tank site is approved in March 2017, it will still be difficult for work to begin in 2017.
There is no viable alternative location if Cherry Hill tank site is not available.
$500,000 was spent to investigate and design at the tank site location.
Either Middletown or Durham would need to provide a location at an elevation that
meets the project requirement. No location that is currently available meets that
criteria.
Multi-year delay, additional funding, and uncertain retention of existing funding are
issues if the search for a new tank site must be undertaken.
There is no assurance that any new location would be approved.
Approval of the project by the Common Council is need to proceed.