9.3 city of amsterdam - montgomery county, ny

Section 9.3: City of Amsterdam

DMA 2000 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update – Montgomery County, New York 9.3-1 June 2016

9.3 City of Amsterdam

This section presents the jurisdictional annex for the City of Amsterdam.

9.3.1 Hazard Mitigation Plan Point of Contact

The following individuals have been identified as the hazard mitigation plan’s primary and alternate points of

contact.

Primary Point of Contact Alternate Point of Contact

Richard Miller, P.E.

61 Church St., Amsterdam, NY 12010

Phone: 518-841-4327

E-mail: [email protected]

Michael Whittey, Fire Chief Amsterdam Fire Department

10 Guy Park Ave. Ext., Amsterdam, NY 12010

Phone: 518-843-3556

E-mail: [email protected]

9.3.2 Municipal Profile

This section provides a summary of the community.

Population

According to the U.S. Census, the 2010 population for the City of Amsterdam was 18,620 with the population

of 2,944 for those over age 65. That is 15.8 percent of the population over age 65.

Location

The City of Amsterdam is located in the northeast portion of Montgomery County, about 30 miles west of

Albany, along the Mohawk River. It shares its boundaries with the Village of Hagaman to the northeast and

with the Town of Charleston to the southwest.

Brief History

The City of Amsterdam is located within the original “City of Caughnawaga.” The city was incorporated as a

village in 1830 and new charters throughout the nineteenth century increased the size of the village until 1885

when it became a city.

Governing Body Format

The City of Amsterdam is governed by a mayor and a five-member City Council. This governing body will be

responsible for the adoption and implementation of this plan.

Growth/Development Trends

The following table summarizes major residential/commercial development and major infrastructure

development that are identified for the next five years in the municipality. Refer to the map in section 9.2.8 of

this annex which illustrates the hazard areas along with the location of potential new development.

Table 9.3-1. Growth and Development

Property Name

Type (Residential or

Commercial) Number of Structures Parcel ID(s)

Known Hazard Zone* Description/Status

River Ridge

Housing Senior Living 12

Sandy Drive,

Amsterdam None Under Design

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Property Name

Type (Residential or

Commercial) Number of Structures Parcel ID(s)

Known Hazard Zone* Description/Status

Pedestrial Bridge Bridge 1 Bridge Street,

Amsterdam None Under Construction

* Only location-specific hazard zones or vulnerabilities identified.

9.3.3 Natural Hazard Event History Specific to the Municipality

Montgomery County has a history of natural and non-natural hazard events as detailed in Volume I, Section

5.0 of this plan. A summary of historical events is provided in each of the hazard profiles and includes a

chronology of events that have affected the County and its municipalities. The table below presents a

summary of natural events that have occurred to indicate the range and impact of natural hazard events in the

community. Information regarding specific damages is included if available based on reference material or

local sources. For details of events prior to 2008, refer to Volume I, Section 5.0 of this plan.

Table 9.3-2. Hazard Event History

Dates of Event Event Type

FEMA Declaration # (If Applicable)

County Designated? Summary of Damages/Losses

August 26 –

September 5,

2011

Hurricane Irene DR-4020 Yes

The City was without power due to Irene. The

power outages shut down communication

between the DPW and the DPW supervisor, city

hall and other government entities. Numerous

residents were evacuated and/or sheltered. Many

roads and access to bridges was cut off. Parts of

the City flooded and impacted homes and

businesses, particularly on the west end along

Route 5. The Amtrak Station was flooded and

had to close and Canal Lock 11 was severely

damaged. Dove Creek experienced bank

erosion, undercutting its retaining wall which

placed St. Mary's Hospital facilities at risk. The

basement flooded at the hospital, forcing parts of

the hospital to evacuate. Two neighborhoods in

the City, hamlet of Port Jackson and the west

side along Route 5 sustained the majority of

flood damage from Hurricane Irene.

September 7-

11, 2011

Remnants of

Tropical Storm

Lee

EM-3341

DR-4031 Yes

Vulnerable areas from this event are discussed in

further detail below in the section, “Other

Vulnerabilities Identified by Municipality”.

Notes: EM Emergency Declaration (FEMA) FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency DR Major Disaster Declaration (FEMA) IA Individual Assistance N/A Not Applicable PA Public Assistance

9.3.4 Hazard Vulnerabilities and Ranking

The hazard profiles in Section 5.0 of this plan have detailed information regarding each plan participant’s

vulnerability to the identified hazards. The following summarizes the hazard vulnerabilities and their ranking

in the community. For additional vulnerability information relevant to this jurisdiction, refer to Section 5.0.



Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Risk Ranking

The table below summarizes the hazard risk/vulnerability rankings of potential hazards for the community.

Table 9.3-3. Hazard Risk/Vulnerability Risk Ranking

Hazard type Estimate of Potential Dollar Losses to Structures Vulnerable to the Hazarda,c

Probability of Occurrence

Risk Ranking Score

(Probability x Impact)

Hazard Rankingb

Drought Damage estimate not available Occasional 26 Medium

Earthquake 500-Year MRP: $3,970,448

Rare 12 Low 2,500-Year MRP $56,491,883

Extreme Temperature Damage estimate not available Frequent 18 Medium

Flood 1% Annual Chance: $1,789,000 Frequent 27 Medium

Severe Storm 500-Year MRP: $982,585 Frequent 48 High

Severe Winter Storm 1% GBS: $13,918,620

Frequent 51 High 5% GBS: $69,593,100

Notes: a. The general building stock valuation is based on the custom inventory generated for the municipality and based on

improved value. b. High = Total hazard priority risk ranking score of 31 and above

Medium = Total hazard priority risk ranking of 20-30+ Low = Total hazard risk ranking below 20

c. Loss estimates for the severe winter storm hazard is structural values only and do not include the value of contents. Loss estimates for the flood and earthquake hazards represent both structure and contents.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Summary

The following table summarizes the NFIP statistics for the community.

Table 9.3-4. NFIP Summary

Municipality # Policies (1)

# Claims

(Losses) (1)

Total Loss

Payments (2)

# Rep.

Loss Prop.

(1)

# Severe

Rep. Loss

Prop. (1)

# Policies in

100-Year

Boundary (3)

City of

Amsterdam 23 9 $245,181.71 *0 *0 3

* NFIP LEGACY SYSTEMS SERVICES RL FOR

SELECTED COUNTY AS OF 5/31/2013 DOES NOT

LIST ANY REPETITIVE LOSS PRPERTIES FOR

THE CITY OF AMSTERDAM

Source: FEMA Region 2, 2013 (1) Policies, claims, repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss statistics provided by FEMA Region 2, and are current as of May 31,

2013. Please note the total number of repetitive loss properties includes the severe repetitive loss properties. The number of claims represents claims closed by 5/31/2013.

(2) Total building and content losses from the claims file provided by FEMA Region 2. (3) The policies inside and outside of the flood zones is based on the latitude and longitude provided by FEMA Region 2 in the policy file. Notes: FEMA noted that where there is more than one entry for a property, there may be more than one policy in force or more than one

GIS possibility. A zero percentage denotes less than 1/100th percentage and not zero damages or vulnerability as may be the case.



Critical Facilities

The table below presents HAZUS-MH estimates of the damage and loss of use to critical facilities in the

community as a result of a 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance flood events.

Table 9.3-5. Potential Flood Losses to Critical Facilities

Name Municipality Type

Exposure Potential Loss from

1% Flood Event

1% Event

Percent Structure Damage

Percent Content Damage

Days to 100-

Percent(2)

Florida Avenue Amsterdam, City of Highway

Bridge X - - -

RTE 5 Amsterdam, City of Highway

Bridge X - - -

RTE 30 Amsterdam, City of Highway

Bridge X - - -

Amsterdam Pump Station

3 Amsterdam, City of WW Pump - 40 NA NF

Source: HAZUS-MH 2.1 Note: NP Not provided by HAZUS x Facility located within the DFIRM boundary. - No loss calculated by HAZUS NA Not calculated in HAZUS NF HAZUS estimate the facility will not be functional WW Pump Wastewater Pump Station WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Please note it is assumed the wells have electrical equipment and openings are three-feet above grade. (1) HAZUS-MH 2.1 provides a general indication of the maximum restoration time for 100% operations. Clearly, a great deal of effort is

needed to quickly restore essential facilities to full functionality; therefore this will be an indication of the maximum downtime

(HAZUS-MH 2.1 User Manual).

(2) In some cases, a facility may be located in the DFIRM flood hazard boundary; however HAZUS did not calculate potential loss. This may be because the depth of flooding does not amount to any damages to the structure according to the depth damage function used in HAZUS for that facility type.

(3) Dams located in the floodplain are not listed in the table above. HAZUS does not calculate potential losses to a dam as a result of a flood event.

Other Vulnerabilities Identified by Municipality

The following describes vulnerable areas within the City of Amsterdam.

Flood

Rain events, large or small, continue to be an issue for the City of Amsterdam as flooding occurs easily. The

west end on the south side of the City flood frequently and are continuous problem areas. The City is

reviewing its options in establishing a flood mitigation plan to remediate, prepare, and be cognizant of where

flooding risks exist. Those buildings continuously damaged by flooding are being reviewed for repurposing

and establishing a new park.

The following water sources have caused flooding throughout the City during previous events: Brookside

Reservoir Dam, Chuctanunda Creek (North and South), and Bunn Creek. Currently, the City is seeking to

repair damages at both creeks and remove the Brookside Reservoir Dam.

Hurricane

Within a span of a week, two damaging storms impacted the City of Amsterdam. The close timing of the

storms caused extended power outages, road closures, delays in the provision of critical services, and

infrastructure damage.



Structural Damage

Homes, city-owned property, roads, the Water Treatment Plant, and the Wastewater Treatment Plant all

sustained damage during Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. Due to stream channels filling with debris,

extensive erosion occurred throughout the City. Flooding throughout the City was so severe that a business

was forced to relocate outside of the City limits to continue operating. The City is looking into the

construction of a new stormwater system along Route 5 to mediate previous damages.

Life Safety

During both Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, residents were evacuated and sheltered. The provision

of medical services after a storm remains an issue. St. Mary’s Hospital becomes inaccessible when the road

floods, and the road is impassible. City officials are investigating establishing emergency shelters throughout

the City.

Loss of Service

Continuity of services remains a problem during and after storm events. Following Hurricane Irene and

Tropical Storm Lee, power was out on the south side of the City for about a week. West end roads were closed.

The biggest concern was St. Mary’s Hospital losing power – forcing it to close and be evacuated. Schools

within the City were also closed for several days. Maintaining power to critical City buildings during and after

a storm remains an issue.

City Department Losses

The Police, Fire, and Department of Public Works all incurred overtime costs to address the city-wide issues

and damages associated with both Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee. Some DPW machinery and

equipment was also damaged and lost during these storms.

New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program

Montgomery County was selected to participate in the statewide competitive program, New York Rising

Community Reconstruction Program. Projects addressing flooding vulnerabilities of infrastructure, homes,

and the continuity of utilities in the City of Amsterdam were identified. Issues and concerns of this nature

were also addressed specifically by the City of Amsterdam in Letters of Intent (LOI) submitted for the FEMA

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Action Worksheets located at the end of this annex provide detail on the

projects.

9.3.5 Capability Assessment

This section identifies the following capabilities of the local jurisdiction:

Planning and regulatory capability

Administrative and technical capability

Fiscal capability

Community classification

NFIP

Integration of mitigation planning into existing and future planning mechanisms

Planning and Regulatory Capability

The table below summarizes the regulatory tools that are available to the community.



Table 9.3-6. Planning and Regulatory Tools

Tool/Program

(code, ordinance, plan)

Do you

have

this?

(Y/N)

Authority

(local, county,

state, federal)

Dept./Agency

Responsible

Code Citation and Comments

(Code Chapter, date of adoption,

name of plan, explanation of

authority, etc.)

Building Code Y Local Code

enforcement Chapter 90, Adopted 7/17/2007

Zoning Ordinance Y Local Planning Board Chapter 250, Adopted 4/21/1992

Subdivision Ordinance Y Local Planning Board Chapter 210

NFIP Flood Damage Prevention

Ordinance (FDPO) Y Local City Engineer Chapter 129 adopted 9/15/1987

NFIP-Freeboard N

State mandated BFE+2ft for residential

construction. BFE+1ft for all other

construction.

NFIP-Cumulative Substantial

Damage N

Growth Management N

Floodplain Management/

Basin Plan Y State DEC Chapter 90, Adopted 7/17/2007

Stormwater Management

Plan/Ordinance Y Local Planning Board Chapter 250, Adopted 4/21/1992

Comprehensive Plan/Master

Plan Y Planning Board Planning Board 2004

Capital Improvements Plan Y Local City Comptroller Annual Update

Site Plan Review Requirements Y Local Planning Board Chapter 250, Adopted 4/21/1992

Habitat Conservation Plan N

Economic Development Plan N

Emergency Response Plan N

Post Disaster Recovery Plan N

Post Disaster Recovery

Ordinance N

Real Estate Disclosure

Requirements Y State Realtor State mandated

Other [Special Purpose

Ordinances (i.e., critical or

sensitive areas)]

N

Open Space Plan N

Stream Corridor Management

Plan N

Watershed Management or

Protection Plan Y County NYSDOS

Mohawk River Watershed

Management Plan, 2015

Administrative and Technical Capability

The table below summarizes potential staff and personnel resources available to the community.

Table 9.3-7. Administrative and Technical Capabilities

Staff/Personnel Resources

Available

(Y or N) Department/Agency/Position

Planner(s) or Engineer(s) with knowledge of land development

and land management practices

Y Engineer

Engineer(s) or Professional(s) trained in construction practices

related to buildings and/or infrastructure

Y Engineer

Planners or engineers with an understanding of natural hazards Y Engineer

NFIP Floodplain Administrator Y Richard Miller, City Engineer

(per NYSDEC records)

Surveyor(s) N



Staff/Personnel Resources

Available

(Y or N) Department/Agency/Position

Personnel skilled or trained in “GIS” applications Y Engineer

Scientist familiar with natural hazards in the municipality N

Emergency Manager Y APD, AFD, Engineering

Grant Writer(s) Y Urban Renewal Agency Consultant

Staff with expertise or training in benefit/cost analysis N

Professionals trained in conducting damage assessments N

Fiscal Capability

The table below summarizes financial resources available to the community.

Table 9.3-8. Fiscal Capabilities

Financial Resources Accessible or Eligible to Use (Yes/No/Don’t Know)

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Yes, have used

Capital Improvements Project Funding Yes, have used

Authority to levy taxes for specific purposes Yes, have used

User fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric service Yes, have used

Impact fees for homebuyers or developers of new development/homes No

Incur debt through general obligation bonds Yes, have used

Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes, never used

Incur debt through private activity bonds No

Withhold public expenditures in hazard-prone areas No

Other Yes, have used

Mitigation grant programs Yes, have used

Community Classifications

The classifications listed below relate to the City’s ability to provide effective services to lessen its

vulnerability to the hazards identified. These classifications can be viewed as a gauge of the City’s capabilities

in all phases of emergency management (preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation) and are used as an

underwriting parameter for determining the costs of various forms of insurance. The Community Rating

System (CRS) class applies to flood insurance while the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule

(BCEGS) and Public Protection classifications apply to standard property insurance. CRS classifications range

on a scale of 1 to 10 with class 1 being the best possible classification, and class 10 representing no

classification benefit. Firewise classifications include a higher classification when the subject property is

located beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable fire hydrant and is within five road miles of a recognized fire station.

The table below summarizes classifications for community program available to the community.

Table 9.3-9. Community Classifications

Program Classification Date Classified

Community Rating System (CRS) NP NP

Building Code Effectiveness Grading

Schedule (BCEGS)

N/A NP

Public Protection N/A 2006

Storm Ready NP NP

Firewise NP N/A N/A = Not Applicable

NP = Not Participating

__ = Unavailable

TBD = To Be Determined



Criteria for classification credits are outlined in the following documents:

The CRS Coordinators Manual

The BCEGS

The ISO Mitigation online ISO’s Public Protection website at

http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/ppc0001.html

The National Weather Service Storm Ready website at

http://www.weather.gov/stormready/howto.htm

The National Firewise Communities website at http://firewise.org/

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

The following section provides details on the NFIP as implemented within the municipality:

NFIP Floodplain Administrator

Richard Miller, City Engineer

Program and Compliance History

City of Amsterdam joined the NFIP on July 16, 1984 and is currently an active member of the NFIP. The

current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps are dated June 19, 1985. The City’s Flood Damage Prevention

Ordinance (FDPO), found at Chapter 129 of the local code, was last updated on September 15, 1987.

As of May 31, 2015 there are 17 policies in force, insuring $5,614,200 of property with total annual insurance

premiums of $25,265. Since May 31, 2015, nine claims have been paid totaling $269,084.70. As of May 31,

2013, there are no Repetitive Loss or Severe Repetitive Loss properties in the community.

The community is currently in good standing in the NFIP and has no outstanding compliance issues. City of

Amsterdam has completed Community Assistance Visits (CAV).

Loss History and Mitigation

Since May 31, 2015, nine claims have been paid totaling $269,084.70. As of May 31, 2013, there are no

Repetitive Loss or Severe Repetitive Loss properties in the community.

Thirty-five residential and commercial structures sustained flood damage following Hurricane Irene and

Tropical Storm Lee. No Substantial Damage determinations were made. Only one property is currently

pursuing a mitigation project. Grant funding has been the primary source of funding for the one mitigation

project.

Planning and Regulatory Capability

The City’s FDPO was last updated on September 15, 1987, and is found at Chapter 129 of the local code.

The floodplain management ordinance meets the requirements set forth by FEMA and New York State. There

are no other local ordinances or plans that further support the implementation of the FDPO in the City.

Administrative and Technical Capabilities

The City’s FDPO identifies the City Engineer as the local NFIP Floodplain Administrator, currently Richard

C. Miller, P.E., for which floodplain administration is an auxiliary duty.

The City Engineer/NFIP Administrator is responsible for completing permit reviews.

http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/ppc0001.html

http://www.weather.gov/stormready/howto.htm

http://firewise.org/



A list of flood-damaged homes was started by the City following Hurricane Irene. However, this list does not

identify those homeowners interested in mitigation. Substantial Damage estimates are not made by the

floodplain administrator.

Richard C. Miller, P.E. feels that to better fulfill his duties as the City’s floodplain administrator, he needs

additional training. Richard C. Miller, P.E. is not certified in floodplain management, however, attends regular

continuing education programs for code enforcement and building construction.

Public Education and Outreach

In the City of Amsterdam, the following educational and/or outreach activities related to the NFIP:

identification of property on latest flood map.

The City Engineer/NFIP Administrator is responsible for completing permit reviews.

Actions to Strengthen the Program

There were no barriers identified to running an effective floodplain management program in the community.

Additional training opportunities on both floodplain management and CRS would be welcomed and attended

by City personnel. Though the City is not currently a participant in CRS, after receiving more information,

there could be an opportunity to join.

Integration of Hazard Mitigation into Existing and Future Planning Mechanisms

It is the intention of this municipality to incorporate hazard mitigation planning and natural hazard risk

reduction as an integral component of ongoing City operations. The following textual summary identifies

relevant planning mechanisms and programs that have been or will be incorporated into City procedures,

which may include former mitigation initiatives that have become continuous/on-going programs now

considered mitigation “capabilities:”

Hazard Mitigation – The City actively supports this Hazard Mitigation Plan by implementing,

monitoring, and updating its implementation as defined in Section 7.0 of this plan. County-wide

initiatives identified in the County annex are also supported throughout the life cycle of the plan.

Floodplain Management – The City continues to pursue its options of membership in the CRS

program. Efforts have been made as well to ensure compliance with and good standing in the NFIP.

Building Code, Ordinances, and Enforcement - The City is continuing to incorporate hazard

information and recommendations from this Hazard Mitigation Plan into pending updates and

revisions to be made to Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Plan Review ordinances.

Emergency Response Plan – The City continues to develop, enhance, and implement existing

emergency plans. There is currently an emergency response plan for the City. Having this plan

affords the City the opportunity to outline in detail the functions and responsibilities of each City

department during a large scale natural or man-made emergency, so that response to emergencies

lessens the severity of a disaster on property and the population. This plan includes many pre-event

actions that both mitigate disaster losses and directly supports recovery efforts.



9.3.6 Mitigation Strategy and Prioritization

This section discusses past mitigations actions and status, describes proposed hazard mitigation initiatives, and

prioritization.

Past Mitigation Initiative Status

The following table indicates progress on the community’s mitigation strategy identified in the 2008 Plan.

Actions that are carried forward as part of this plan update are included in the following subsection in its own

table with prioritization. Previous actions that are now on-going programs and capabilities are indicated as

such in the following table and may also be found under ‘Capability Assessment’ presented previously in this

annex.

Table 9.3-10. Past Mitigation Initiative Status

Description Status Review Comments

1: Where appropriate, support retrofitting,

purchase, or relocation of structures located in

hazard-prone areas to protect structures from

future damage, with repetitive loss and severe

repetitive loss properties as priority.

Continuous

Progress continues to be made on appropriate

projects throughout the City. This initiative will

be carried over into the updated mitigation

strategy.

2: Consider participation in incentive-based

programs such as CRS. Continuous

This is a programmatic and operational action,

and will be moved to the Capabilities section,

Integration of Hazard Mitigation into Existing

and Future Planning Mechanisms.

3: Continue to support the implementation,

monitoring, maintenance, and updating of this

Plan, as defined in Section 7.0.

Continuous





4: Strive to maintain compliance with and

good-standing in the NFIP. Continuous





5: Continue to develop, enhance, and

implement existing emergency plans. Continuous





6: Create/enhance/maintain mutual aid

agreements with neighboring communities. Continuous





7: Support County-wide initiatives identified

in Section 9.1 of the County Annex. Continuous





8: Consider flood-proofing efforts for St.

Mary’s Hospital which is in the 500-year

floodplains.

Continuous

The City continues to investigate the feasibility of

this project. This initiative will be carried over

into the updated mitigation strategy.

9: Consider flood-proofing, or elevating

Amsterdam WW Pump Stations 1 and 3 which

are in the 100-year floodplain.

Continuous

The City continues to investigate the feasibility of

these projects. This initiative will be carried over

into the updated mitigation strategy.

10: Pursue continuing professional education

and certification (e.g., Certified Floodplain

Manager under the Association of State

Floodplain Managers) of Code Enforcement

Officers and NFIP FPAs in floodplain

management and hazard risk reduction.

Continuous







Completed Mitigation Initiatives not Identified in the Previous Mitigation Strategy

No projects have been identified by the community as being completed.

Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives for the Plan Update

The community identified mitigation initiatives that they would like to pursue in the future. Some of these

initiatives may be previous actions carried forward for this plan update. These initiatives are dependent upon

available funding (grants and local match availability) and may be modified or omitted at any time based on

the occurrence of new hazard events and changes in City priorities. Table 11 identifies the City’s updated

local mitigation strategy.

As discussed in Section 6, 14 evaluation/prioritization criteria are used to complete the prioritization of

mitigation initiatives. For each new mitigation action, a numeric rank is assigned (-1, 0, or 1) for each of the

14 evaluation criteria to assist with prioritizing actions as ‘High,’ ‘Medium,’ or ‘Low.’ The table below

summarizes the evaluation of each mitigation initiative, listed by Action Number.

Table 12 provides a summary of the prioritization of all proposed mitigation initiatives for the plan update.



Table 9.3-11. Proposed Hazard Mitigation Initiatives

Init

iati

ve

Mitigation Initiative

Applies to New and/or

Existing Structures*

Hazard(s) Mitigated Goals Met

Lead and Support Agencies

Estimated Benefits

Estimated Cost

Sources of Funding Timeline Priority M

itig

atio

n

Cat

ego

ry

CR

S C

ateg

ory

City of

Amsterdam-1

Where appropriate, support

retrofitting, purchase, or

relocation of structures

located in hazard-prone areas

to protect structures from future damage, with

repetitive loss and severe

repetitive loss properties as priority. Assure that any

mitigation addresses the 500-year flood event or “worst

damage scenario”.

Existing

Flood,

Severe Storm

All City engineer High High HMGP Long-

term Medium SIP PP

City of

Amsterdam-

2

Pursue continuing

professional education and

certification (e.g., Certified

Floodplain Manager under

the Association of State Floodplain Managers) of

Code Enforcement Officers

and NFIP FPAs in floodplain management and hazard risk

reduction.

New and Existing

Flood 2, 4 City

Administration Medium Low

Local Budget

Short-term

High LPR P I

City of

Amsterdam-

3

Consider flood-proofing efforts for St. Mary’s

Hospital which is in the 500-

year floodplains. Assure that

any mitigation addresses the

500-year flood event or

“worst damage scenario”.

Existing Flood 1, 4 St. Mary’s

Hospital High High HMGP

Long-

term Medium SIP PP

City of

Amsterdam-4

Consider flood-proofing, or elevating Amsterdam WW

Pump Stations 1 and 3 which

are in the 100-year floodplain. Assure that any

mitigation addresses the 500-year flood event or “worst

damage scenario”.

Existing Flood 1 City Engineer High High HMGP Long term

Medium SIP PP

City of

Amsterdam-

5

Establish an emergency

shelter location and a supply

of portable generators

Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan




Init

iati

ve






Estimated Benefits

Estimated Cost


itig

atio

n

Cat

ego

ry

CR

S C

ateg

ory

City of

Amsterdam-

6

Establish an emergency

communications protocol

and implement a formal

multi-lingual

communications system.


City of

Amsterdam-

7

Provide emergency

communications in Spanish

and work with community leaders to identify best paths

of communication for those

with limited technology.


City of

Amsterdam-

8

Protect and reinforce the

Dove Creek retaining wall

which sits adjacent to the St.

Mary's Hospital computer

systems and hospital records.


City of Amsterdam-

9

Establish pre-positioned

EMS resources on the south side of the River. There is

currently no services in this

location and emergency responders are unable to

reach populations across the

river during severe storms.


City of

Amsterdam-10

Conduct a detailed property

inventory and analysis of

existing conditions of buildings that have been

damaged by floods,

especially in the East End and South Side

neighborhoods in the City.


City of

Amsterdam-11

Maintain the Mohawk River

and Schoharie Creek tributaries through debris

clearance.


City of

Amsterdam-

12

Relocation of the Amtrak station away from an

extremely high risk area to

mitigate and recover from interstate transportation

disruptions.





Init

iati

ve






Estimated Benefits

Estimated Cost


itig

atio

n

Cat

ego

ry

CR

S C

ateg

ory

City of Amsterdam-

13

Complete infrastructure

improvements for storm

drains in the west end of the

City of Amsterdam

(NYSDOT project in planning) to mitigate

drainage issues for key areas

known to flood.


City of

Amsterdam-

14

Stabilize the streambank

along South Chuctanunda Creek


City of

Amsterdam-

15

Stabilize Cleveland Avenue Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

16

Identify and purchase

floating dock designs for Riverlink Park


City of

Amsterdam-

17

Construct the Riverwalk and Chuctanunda Trail which

will provide opportunities for

streambank stabilization and other mitigation features.


City of

Amsterdam-

18

Development of a marina

which will provide a shelter

for vessels and floating structures out of the main

current.


City of

Amsterdam-

19

Relocate the City's DPW garage and storage facility

which is currently located

within the Mohawk River floodplain.


City of

Amsterdam-20

South Side Floodwall

Certification Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

21

Dove Creek Restoration and

Medical Facility Retaining

Wall Reinforcement





Init

iati

ve






Estimated Benefits

Estimated Cost


itig

atio

n

Cat

ego

ry

CR

S C

ateg

ory

City of Amsterdam-

22

Combined Sewer Overflow Diversion Structure Screens

Project


City of

Amsterdam-23

East Side Pump Station

Mechanical Bar Screen Replacement Project


City of Amsterdam-

24

Removal of Old Brookside Reservoir Dam and repair

Bunn Creek Bypass


City of

Amsterdam-

25

Acquisition of Properties Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-26

Gateway Park – demolish the

Carpetland building that was severely damaged during

Hurricane Irene and

repurpose property for public recreational use.


City of Amsterdam-

27

Streambed and Retaining Wall Inspection and Repair

North Chuctanunda Creek


City of

Amsterdam-

28

Streambed and retaining wall

inspection and repair Bunn

Creek


City of

Amsterdam-

29

Stormwater System

Installation at Guy Park Avenue between State Route

5 and Steadwell Avenue


City of

Amsterdam-

30

Identify appropriate green infrastructure measures and

flood mitigation techniques,

develop enhanced

stormwater and other

regulations that will require

and/or incentivize green infrastructure throughout the

urban core, and flood





Init

iati

ve






Estimated Benefits

Estimated Cost


itig

atio

n

Cat

ego

ry

CR

S C

ateg

ory

mitigation measures in areas

prone to flooding.

City of

Amsterdam-

31

Purchase and install

generators for City Hall and

DPW buildings


City of Amsterdam-

32

Waterfront Heritage Area Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

Notes: Not all acronyms and abbreviations defined below are included in the table. *Does this mitigation initiative reduce the effects of hazards on new and/or existing buildings and/or infrastructure? Not applicable (N/A) is inserted if this does not apply. Acronyms and Abbreviations: Potential FEMA HMA Funding Sources: Timeline: CAV Community Assistance Visit CRS Community Rating System DPW Department of Public Works FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FPA Floodplain Administrator HMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance N/A Not applicable NFIP National Flood Insurance Program OEM Office of Emergency Management

FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program RFC Repetitive Flood Claims Grant Program (discontinued 2015) SRL Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Program (discontinued 2015)

Short 1 to 5 years Long Term 5 years or greater OG On-going program DOF Depending on funding

Costs: Benefits: Where actual project costs have been reasonably estimated: Low < $10,000 Medium $10,000 to $100,000 High > $100,000 Where actual project costs cannot reasonably be established at this time: Low Possible to fund under existing budget. Project is part of, or can be part of an existing on-going program. Medium Could budget for under existing work plan, but would require a reapportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. High Would require an increase in revenue via an alternative source (i.e., bonds, grants, fee increases) to implement. Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed project.

Where possible, an estimate of project benefits (per FEMA’s benefit calculation methodology) has been evaluated against the project costs, and is presented as: Low= < $10,000 Medium $10,000 to $100,000 High > $100,000 Where numerical project benefits cannot reasonably be established at this time: Low Long-term benefits of the project are difficult to quantify in the short term. Medium Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to

life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property.

High Project will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property.

Mitigation Category:



Local Plans and Regulations (LPR) – These actions include government authorities, policies or codes that influence the way land and buildings are being developed and built.

Structure and Infrastructure Project (SIP)- These actions involve modifying existing structures and infrastructure to protect them from a hazard or remove them from a hazard area.

This could apply to public or private structures as well as critical facilities and infrastructure. This type of action also involves projects to construct manmade structures to reduce the

impact of hazards.

Natural Systems Protection (NSP) – These are actions that minimize damage and losses, and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems.

Education and Awareness Programs (EAP) – These are actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them.

These actions may also include participation in national programs, such as StormReady and Firewise Communities

CRS Category: Preventative Measures (PR) - Government, administrative or regulatory actions, or processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and built. Examples include

planning and zoning, floodplain local laws, capital improvement programs, open space preservation, and storm water management regulations. Property Protection (PP) - These actions include public activities to reduce hazard losses or actions that involve (1) modification of existing buildings or structures to protect them from

a hazard or (2) removal of the structures from the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation, relocation, structural retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. Public Information (PI) - Actions to inform and educate citizens, elected officials, and property owners about hazards and potential ways to mitigate them. Such actions include

outreach projects, real estate disclosure, hazard information centers, and educational programs for school-age children and adults. Natural Resource Protection (NR) - Actions that minimize hazard loss and also preserve or restore the functions of natural systems. These actions include sediment and erosion control,

stream corridor restoration, watershed management, forest and vegetation management, and wetland restoration and preservation. Structural Flood Control Projects (SP) - Actions that involve the construction of structures to reduce the impact of a hazard. Such structures include dams, setback levees, floodwalls,

retaining walls, and safe rooms. Emergency Services (ES) - Actions that protect people and property during and immediately following a disaster or hazard event. Services include warning systems, emergency response

services, and the protection of essential facilities



Table 9.3-12. Summary of Prioritization of Actions

Mitigation Action / Project

Number Mitigation Action/Initiative Lif

e S

afe

ty

Pro

pe

rty

Pro

tect

ion

Co

st-E

ffe

ctiv

en

ess

Te

chn

ica

l

Po

liti

cal

Le

ga

l

Fis

cal

En

vir

on

me

nta

l

So

cia

l

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

Mu

lti-

Ha

zard

Tim

eli

ne

Ag

en

cy C

ha

mp

ion

Oth

er

Co

mm

un

ity

O

bje

ctiv

es

To

tal High/

Medium/ Low

City of

Amsterdam-

1

Where appropriate, support retrofitting, purchase, or relocation of

structures located in hazard-prone areas to protect structures from future damage, with repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss

properties as priority.

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 Medium

City of

Amsterdam-2

Pursue continuing professional education and certification (e.g., Certified Floodplain Manager under the Association of State

Floodplain Managers) of Code Enforcement Officers and NFIP

FPAs in floodplain management and hazard risk reduction.

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 High

City of

Amsterdam-

3

Consider flood-proofing efforts for St. Mary’s Hospital which is in the 500-year floodplains.

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 Medium

City of Amsterdam-

4

Consider flood-proofing, or elevating Amsterdam WW Pump

Stations 1 and 3 which are in the 100-year floodplain. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 Medium

City of Amsterdam-

5

Establish an emergency shelter location and a supply of portable

generators Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-6

Establish an emergency communications protocol and implement

a formal multi-lingual communications system. Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

7

Provide emergency communications in Spanish and work with

community leaders to identify best paths of communication for

those with limited technology.


City of

Amsterdam-

8

Protect and reinforce the Dove Creek retaining wall which sits

adjacent to the St. Mary's Hospital computer systems and hospital

records.


City of Amsterdam-

9

Establish pre-positioned EMS resources on the south side of the

River. There is currently no services in this location and

emergency responders are unable to reach populations across the river during severe storms.


City of Amsterdam-

10

Conduct a detailed property inventory and analysis of existing

conditions of buildings that have been damaged by floods,

especially in the East End and South Side neighborhoods in the City.


City of

Amsterdam-11

Maintain the Mohawk River and Schoharie Creek tributaries

through debris clearance. Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of Relocation of the Amtrak station away from an extremely high Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan





e S

afe

ty

Pro

pe

rty

Pro

tect

ion

Co

st-E

ffe

ctiv

en

ess

Te

chn

ica

l

Po

liti

cal

Le

ga

l

Fis

cal

En

vir

on

me

nta

l

So

cia

l

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

Mu

lti-

Ha

zard

Tim

eli

ne

Ag

en

cy C

ha

mp

ion

Oth

er

Co

mm

un

ity

O

bje

ctiv

es

To

tal High/

Medium/ Low

Amsterdam-

12

risk area to mitigate and recover from interstate transportation

disruptions.

City of

Amsterdam-

13

Complete infrastructure improvements for storm drains in the west

end of the City of Amsterdam (NYSDOT project in planning) to

mitigate drainage issues for key areas known to flood.


City of

Amsterdam-

14

Stabilize the streambank along South Chuctanunda Creek Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

15

Stabilize Cleveland Avenue Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

16

Identify and purchase floating dock designs for Riverlink Park Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

17

Construct the Riverwalk and Chuctanunda Trail which will

provide opportunities for streambank stabilization and other

mitigation features.


City of

Amsterdam-

18

Development of a marina which will provide a shelter for vessels and floating structures out of the main current.


City of

Amsterdam-

19

Relocate the City's DPW garage and storage facility which is

currently located within the Mohawk River floodplain. Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

20

South Side Floodwall Certification Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

21

Dove Creek Restoration and Medical Facility Retaining Wall Reinforcement


City of Amsterdam-

22

Combined Sewer Overflow Diversion Structure Screens Project Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of Amsterdam-

23

East Side Pump Station Mechanical Bar Screen Replacement

Project Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-24

Removal of Old Brookside Reservoir Dam and repair Bunn Creek

Bypass Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of Acquisition of Properties Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan





e S

afe

ty

Pro

pe

rty

Pro

tect

ion

Co

st-E

ffe

ctiv

en

ess

Te

chn

ica

l

Po

liti

cal

Le

ga

l

Fis

cal

En

vir

on

me

nta

l

So

cia

l

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

Mu

lti-

Ha

zard

Tim

eli

ne

Ag

en

cy C

ha

mp

ion

Oth

er

Co

mm

un

ity

O

bje

ctiv

es

To

tal High/

Medium/ Low

Amsterdam-

25

City of

Amsterdam-

26

Gateway Park – demolish the Carpetland building that was

severely damaged during Hurricane Irene and repurpose property

for public recreational use.


City of

Amsterdam-

27

Streambed and Retaining Wall Inspection and Repair North Chuctanunda Creek


City of Amsterdam-

28

Streambed and retaining wall inspection and repair Bunn Creek Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of Amsterdam-

29

Stormwater System Installation at Guy Park Avenue between

State Route 5 and Steadwell Avenue Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

30

Identify appropriate green infrastructure measures and flood mitigation techniques, develop enhanced stormwater and other

regulations that will require and/or incentivize green infrastructure

throughout the urban core, and flood mitigation measures in areas prone to flooding.


City of

Amsterdam-

31

Purchase and install generators for City Hall and DPW buildings Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

City of

Amsterdam-

32

Waterfront Heritage Area Please refer to the City and Town of Amsterdam and Town of Florida NY Rising Community Reconstruction Plan

Note: Refer to Section 6 which contains the guidance on conducting the prioritization of mitigation actions.



9.3.7 Future Needs To Better Understand Risk/Vulnerability

None at this time.

9.3.8 Hazard Area Extent and Location

Hazard area extent and location maps have been generated for the community that illustrate the probable areas

impacted within the municipality. These maps are based on the best available data at the time of the

preparation of this plan, and are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. Maps have only been

generated for those hazards that can be clearly identified using mapping techniques and technologies, and for

which the community has significant exposure. These maps are illustrated in the hazard profiles within

Section 5.4, Volume I of this Plan.

9.3.9 Additional Comments

None at this time.



Name of Jurisdiction: City of Amsterdam

Number: City of Amsterdam-31

Mitigation Action/Initiative: City Hall Back-Up Generator

Mitigation Action Worksheet

Assessing the Risk

Hazard(s) addressed Hurricane, Nor’Easter, Severe Storm, Severe Winter Storm, Earthquake

Specific problem being

mitigated

Power outages result in the closure of City Hall. This interferes with the

administration of services and handling of the event causing the power outage. All

departments have to be relocated and the general public is unable to communicate

with the local officials.

Evaluation of Potential Actions/Projects

Actions/Projects Considered

(name of project and reason

for not selecting)

1. Tree Trimming. Remove tree branches that may fall onto power lines causing

power outages. This is currently being done as existing City maintenance to

protect feeder lines but doesn’t help with primary or secondary lines off City

property.

2. Bury Power Lines. This option is not being pursued as it is cost prohibitive due

to the long run and the City does not have the legal authority to bury the lines.

3. Urge Special Treatment from Power Company-Meet with the executive team

and urge them to take steps necessary to prevent power failures to City Hall

This is not the best alternative because it relies on others to address the

problem. The solution remains outside the control of the City.

Though we do get priority, the system is complex and does not provide a

direct connection to a sub-station.

(Another alternative could be to install a secondary electrical feed from an

independent section of the local grid – this is typically technically infeasible and

cost-prohibitive.)

Action/Project Intended for Implementation

Description of Selected

Action/Project

Install a back-up generator and associated electrical connections to maintain the

City Government during a power outage and provide the general public a place to

go for comfort, warmth and electrical power (charging phones and computers).

This project was also addressed separately by the City of Amsterdam in a Letter of

Intent for the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Mitigation Action/Project

Type SIP

Goals Met 1, 4

Applies to existing

structures/infrastructure,

future, or not applicable

Existing

Benefits (losses avoided) High

Estimated Cost $150,000 (LOI estimates $150,000)

Priority* High



Plan for Implementation

Responsible Organization City Engineer

Local Planning Mechanism Municipal Budget-Funds will be requested during the next budget cycle for

matching funds for a FEMA grant.

Potential Funding Sources FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, New York Rising Community

Reconstruction Program

Timeline for Completion 8 months (after funds are approved)

Reporting on Progress

Date of Status Report/

Report of Progress

Date:

Progress on Action/Project:



Prioritization

Criteria

Numeric

Rank

(-1, 0, 1) Provide brief rationale for numeric rank when appropriate

Life Safety 1 Will allow this critical facility to remain operational during power outages.

Property Protection 0 This project will have no significant effect on reducing damage to the Village Hall

structure.

Cost-Effectiveness 1 This project is considered highly cost-effective.

Technical 1 There are no technical issues associated with the project, and with routine

maintenance will provide long term protection against power interruptions.

Political 1 This project is supported both publically and politically.

Legal 1 The municipality has full legal authority to implement this project.

Fiscal 0 The City can currently fund the local match if a grant were awarded.

Environmental 1 There are no environmental constraints associated with this project.

Social 1 This project benefits all sectors of the community equally.

Administrative 1 The City has all administrative and technical resources necessary to implement

this project.

Multi-Hazard 1 This project provides protection against multiple hazards.

Timeline 1 The project can be implemented within one year once funding is secured.

Agency Champion 1 The City Supervisor and Emergency Management Coordinator are the leads for

this critical project.

Other Community

Objectives 1

This project supports the City’s commitment to provide uninterrupted critical

services to their residents, particularly in times of natural disasters and other

emergencies.

Total 12

Priority

(High/Med/Low) High



Name of Jurisdiction: City of Amsterdam

Number: City of Amsterdam-31

Mitigation Action/Initiative: Department of Public Works Back-Up Generator

Mitigation Action Worksheet

Assessing the Risk

Hazard(s) addressed Hurricane, Nor’Easter, Severe Storm, Severe Winter Storm, Earthquake

Specific problem being

mitigated

During a power outage the Department of Public Works (DPW) losses all

communication between the Department Supervisor and City Hall plus local area

goverments. The garage doors must be opened manually, heating system will not

function and the repair facility.

Evaluation of Potential Actions/Projects

Actions/Projects Considered

(name of project and reason

for not selecting)

1. Tree Trimming. Remove tree branches that may fall onto power lines causing

power outages. This is currently being done as existing City maintenance, to

protect feeder lines, but doesn’t help with primary or secondary lines off City

property.

2. Bury Power Lines. This option is not being pursued as it is cost prohibitive due

to the long run and the City does not have the legal authority to bury the lines.

3. Urge Special Treatment from Power Company-Meet with the executive team

and urge them to take steps necessary to prevent power failures to City Hall

This is not the best alternative because it relies on others to address the

problem. The solution remains outside the control of the City.

Though we do get priority, the system is complex and does not provide a

direct connection to a sub-station.

(Another alternative could be to install a secondary electrical feed from an

independent section of the local grid – this is typically technically infeasible and

cost-prohibitive.)

Action/Project Intended for Implementation

Description of Selected

Action/Project

Install a back-up generator to provide power during an outage. This will maintain

the operational capabilities of the DPW and allow the City to keep its fleet of

vehicles operational. This project was also addressed separately by the City of

Amsterdam in a Letter of Intent for the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

Mitigation Action/Project

Type SIP

Goals Met 1, 4

Applies to existing

structures/infrastructure,

future, or not applicable

Existing

Benefits (losses avoided) High

Estimated Cost $150,000 (LOI estimates $150,000)

Priority* High



Plan for Implementation

Responsible Organization City Engineer

Local Planning Mechanism Municipal Budget-Funds will be requested during the next budget cycle for

matching funds for a FEMA grant.

Potential Funding Sources FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, New York Rising Community

Reconstruction Program

Timeline for Completion 8 months (after funds are approved)

Reporting on Progress

Date of Status Report/

Report of Progress

Date:

Progress on Action/Project:



Prioritization

Criteria

Numeric

Rank

(-1, 0, 1) Provide brief rationale for numeric rank when appropriate

Life Safety 1 Will allow this critical facility to remain operational during power outages.

Property Protection 0 This project will have no significant effect on reducing damage to the Village Hall

structure.

Cost-Effectiveness 1 This project is considered highly cost-effective.

Technical 1 There are no technical issues associated with the project, and with routine

maintenance will provide long term protection against power interruptions.

Political 1 This project is supported both publically and politically.

Legal 1 The municipality has full legal authority to implement this project.

Fiscal 0 The City can currently fund the local match if a grant were awarded.

Environmental 1 There are no environmental constraints associated with this project.

Social 1 This project benefits all sectors of the community equally.

Administrative 1 The City has all administrative and technical resources necessary to implement

this project.

Multi-Hazard 1 This project provides protection against multiple hazards.

Timeline 1 The project can be implemented within one year once funding is secured.

Agency Champion 1 The City Supervisor and Emergency Management Coordinator are the leads for

this critical project.

Other Community

Objectives 1

This project supports the City’s commitment to provide uninterrupted critical

services to their residents, particularly in times of natural disasters and other

emergencies.

Total 12

Priority

(High/Med/Low) High

9.3 city of amsterdam - montgomery county, ny

Documents