My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:232
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:232
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/12/2005 11:12:35 AM
Creation date
8/12/2005 8:18:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/16/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:232
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Special Meetin~ of the Board of Directors August 1, 2005 <br /> <br /> Zone 7 Director Marchand asked to change the language in the fifth, eighth and ninth recitals in <br /> the Joint Resolution from "water supply" to "delivered water" so as to agree with the language <br /> that is contained in the Policy Principles and to agree with the fifth point in the Resolution. He <br /> stated that the focus is on delivered water, not on the quality of the water supply (that is received <br /> from the State). Director Marchand also cautioned that when work is done on the fourth <br /> "Facilities Principle", that staff not look simply at the capital costs. There are huge ongoing <br /> operations and maintenance costs associated with "point of use" systems. He went on to say that <br /> over 95% of home "point of use" devices actually end up contaminating water rather than <br /> purifying. <br /> <br /> Zone 7 Director Marchand pointed out that a significant number of the taste, odor and hardness <br /> complaints in Pleasanton come from the wells that are owned and operated by the City of <br /> Pleasanton. Twenty percent of Pleasanton's water comes from their own wells and they are <br /> responsible for some of the taste and odor complaints in Pleasanton. These matters are beyond <br /> Zone 7's control. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton Mayor Hosterman remarked that the reason Pleasanton is here is because they want to <br /> improve water quality in all feasible manners. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton Utility Planning Manager Steve Cusenza stated that for the record, the City of <br /> Pleasanton wells as of about two years ago did contribute to taste and odor problems but for the <br /> past two years Pleasanton has used chloraminated, as does Zone 7. <br /> <br /> Zone 7 Director Marchand said the studies done in the Tri-Valley cited a chlorine odor in the <br /> water. That information is still relevant and the chlorine odors mentioned in those studies were <br /> due to the fact that Pleasanton wells were not chloraminated. <br /> <br /> Zone 7 General Manager Myers interjected that there are several operational matters that might <br /> affect certain kinds of odors and content can change on a daily basis. <br /> <br /> Chair Greci reiterated that this forum is a perfect opportunity to work together to educate and to <br /> relay information to the public, and all have a responsibility to share. <br /> <br /> DSRSD President Ford mentioned the "point of use" treatment devices that homeowners use can <br /> have major problems if they are not properly maintained. <br /> <br /> Chair Greci requested that on the next meeting agenda an informative presentation be given by <br /> Mr. Jerry Nakano on the work Zone 7 is doing. <br /> <br /> Zone 7 Director Quigley inquired if there could be some thought given to a rebate for customers <br /> for a suite of effective "point of use" devices. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton Councilmember Sullivan remarked that these three Boards/Council agreeing on broad <br /> policy principles and adopting goals to work for the betterment of delivered water to their <br /> customer is a significant undertaking. <br /> <br /> Zone 7 Director Kalthoff made a MOTION to approve the Joint Resolution. DSRSD Director <br /> Scannell SECONDED the MOTION. <br /> <br /> DSRSD Director Hansen raised a point of order commenting that a motion to approve the Joint <br /> Resolution had not been agendized and that this particular group had been asked to only discuss <br /> this item and take it back to their Boards/Council to approve at their respective meetings. <br /> <br /> 7 DRAFT <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.