CC Minutes - 02/28/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lankston reviewed the three options before the council: 1. Amend the City's Ice and Snow Removal Policy by repealing Resolution 4278 and replacing it with a proposed new resolution (see Attachment A). By adopting the proposed new resolution, anti-icing and de-icing chemicals will be permitted in quantities appropriate for ice and snow control on streets and staff will be able to move ahead with the purchase of application equip- ment. 2. Adopt the proposed new resolution but amend Section 3 to allow for the use of anti-icers and de- icers through April 1, 2006. Amending Section 3 would allow for the use of anti-icing and de- icing agents for an additional year. This option would result in operating inefficiencies as staff' will be unable to purchase equipment for liquid de-icer application and, further, would not realize the economy of scale in purchasing liquid de-icer due to limited storage capacity. Annual rental rates are approximately 15 percent of the cost of a new liquid applicator. With this option the City will have spent $3,500 on rental fees over the two-year trial period. 3. Allow Resolution 4784 to sunset, at which time Resolution No. 4278 will go back into effect. This resolution states that the City will not use anti-icing or de-icing chemicals in quantities required for ice and snow control on streets. De-icing chemicals with corrosion inhibitors may be used in quantities necessary to keep sand stockpiles and sanding equipment workable. With this option, maintenance staff is limited to using only plows and sanding rock for providing safe road condi- tions for the traveling public during winter storms. Mr. Poling called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the potential impact of de-icers on the vegetation in the street frontage of a house. That did not sound like a negligible effect to her. Ms. Taylor determined from Mr. Lankston that staff anticipated using magnesium chloride. Mr. Lankston added that CMA was only effective to temperatures above 25 degrees. Magnesium chloride was effective to temperatures of zero degrees and was less expensive than CMA. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's concern about the impact of the products on vegetation, Mr. Lankston clarified that the Boulder study examined how far from the roadway it took magnesium chloride to get a dilution of 500:1, at which point the effects of the material became negligible. The City's dilution before the product reached the catch basin was about 640:1. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the cumulative effect of the products in question, and about the fact the studies being cited were "somewhat old"; for example, the Boulder study was done in 2002. She wanted to know if the studies considered cumulative effects. The Boulder study mentioned that chloride-free de-icers were not used due to their expense, but she did not think that should be a determining factor. She asked if the costs of chloride-free de-icers had dropped as predicted in the study. Mr. Lankston noted that CMA was a chloride-free de-icer and it was about three times more costly than magnesium chloride. Staff was looking at other chloride-free de-icers and would continue to do so. Several were used with magnesium chloride as an anti-corrosive additive. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 5 Work Session