CCMIN052196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti felt the matters could be resolved after the Committee is convened. Steve Sherman, 4751 Sutter Gate Avenue, representing the Chamber of Commerce, objected to the vote at the 5/15/96 LAVWMA meeting which approved replacing the 6000 ft. of pipe at the same size (24"). The engineers' recommendations were for a 36" pipe to accommodate future needs for the area. He felt the economies of scale were far superior and justified the larger pipe. The Chamber supported replacing the 6000 ~. section with a larger pipe. Mr. Tarver said this was not on the agenda. If the Council wanted to reconsider its vote it would have to put it on the agenda. He felt the 24" pipe was for a replacement project, not an expansion project. Replacement costs are paid by existing ratepayers. Existing ratepayers should not be accommodating additional growth and expansion. When the expansion project does come forward there are three possible alternatives: parallel pipelines (he felt this was safer and more cost effective, because LAVWMA could shut down one pipe to repair it and still maintain sewage flow). The expansion project could be a 24" or a 30" pipe with the existing line or potentially the dual pipeline could be eliminated and a single 36" pipe be employed. He could not support that. He felt a redundant system was a better approach than one giant pipeline. One pipeline could potentially lead to the same situation in 20 years with a deteriorating pipeline that has to be replaced at tremendous costs instead of repairing it with a dual system. Council can ask its representatives to LAVWMA to reconsider its position, but he felt LAVWMA had taken the right action. Ms. Micheloff wanted further discussion. She felt Council had only taken action on the EBDA agreement not on the size of the pipe. Mr. Tarvet disagreed. Mr. Roush suggested putting this on the June 4 agenda. Ms. Michelotti recalled an engineering report that indicated that to handle existing capacity, the pipeline should be larger. She did not believe there was a vote on the pipe size. She had grave concerns regarding present and future repairs. She knows three different sized pipes were being investigated. She wanted further consideration to make sure the best decisions are made for the citizens. Mr. Tarvet indicated LAVWMA had awarded a contract and had concerns about the timing of discussions and how that would affect the contract. Mr. Pico did not want to discuss this if Council had authorized its representative to vote. Ms. Michelotti did not believe that had been done and felt the last discussion had only dealt with the EBDA proposal on the expansion project only. 05/21/96 -6-