CCMIN041696 - Laserfiche WebLink

it did not speak to whether there was a majority project that was inconsistent with the sole use project. We want to clarify that before going to a sole use pipeline. F-RDA should consider all joint use projects. Ms. Micheloff felt the prior motion was not clear on the date of the agreement referred to. She also thought she heard that the wet weather and dry weather flows would be the same. She needed clarification on that point. She also referred to number 9 of the proposal and asked if there is the availability of additional capacity for wet weather flow or are we subject to building more holding ponds? Secondly, there was a discussion at LAVWMA about whether we buy a certain size pipe for existing capacity. She objected to spending $200 million of taxpayers money for a pipeline that will not accommodate what we need at the minimum. Mr. Tarvet felt the intention is to talk about where we go from here in terms of the size of the project. Part of that process is to discuss how to handle wet weather flow. There is more information required regarding cost of storage vs. cost of the pipe, whether there are two pipes (one for backup if the fffst fails), or whether there is one large oversized pipe. The thrust of this is to discuss the avenge dry weather flow and whether there is sufficient capacity to take care of the existing general plans for the next 25 years for the agencies which are part of this agreement. Ms. Micheloff did not want an understanding that there will be a 21 ~ pipe only. She did not support that and felt it was shortsighted. She wanted future capacity in order to build out the City's general plan. Mr. Tarver referred to the proposed #7 which reads: "The maximum size of the new pipeline and pumping system shall be 32.42 MGD ADWF, augmented by such wet weather pipeline capacity as LAVWMA determines is necessary and appropriate, if any. LAVWMA will reduce the size of the pipeline to the extent of any capacity rights in the expansion project that a member agency decides not to exercise. ~ So if DSRSD decides not to become a member of this, we reduce the pipeline. He hoped DSRSD would decide to be a participant. We are trying to analyze and balance between storage and expenditures and still retain some limit to the size of the pipe. Ms. Michelotti indicated that when we go to bid for replacement, the size of the pipeline must be there. Analysis is being done now. One of the possible reasons the present pipeline failed was that it was undersized for what was forced through it. She was concerned about locking in the size of the pipe. Mr. Tarvet felt staff should talk about that, because the current pipe in dry weather is not near its capacity. He indicated the current proposal does not lock in the size of pipe. It says we want additional analyses and information. If it is decided to go with parallel pipes, there would be 42~ of pipe available, but that decision has not been made. There are still further 04116/96 -18-