Laserfiche WebLink
necessary. You can't do it in the winter at all and there are only a very few days in other <br />periods to do maintenance or service on the pipe. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if DSRSD goes its own way, can Pleasanton and Livermore afford to <br />put the second pipe in the ground alone. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated that will be reviewed. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the money DSRSD has accumulated would be divided up or would <br />DSRSD use it for its project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum believed it would be Pleasanton's position that the fees were accumulated for <br />expansion and should be used for Pleasanton's needs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated there were many legal issues about what DSRSD is obligated to <br />provide to Pleasanton because it had taken over the City's sewer treatment plant. I-Ie felt <br />DSRSD was obligated to serve the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to page 5 of the report and the future savings of $1.3 million if <br />a 36" replacement pipe were installed instead of a 24', because the larger pipe would allow <br />construction of 18,700 ft. of the slip lining. It seems this discussion is about the 24" <br />replacement pipe and whether to confarm that action. Would it make sense to reconsider that <br />because an agreement (with EBDA) may be close and from the studies that suggest a larger <br />pipeline, this money for a 24' replacement is a waste. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated the Carollo study suggested there may be savings by putting in a <br />larger pipe in the first section because LAVWMA may be able to slip line the downstream <br />sections of the existing pipe. Carollo also stated it had to confirm that with further engineering <br />studies and field review, so it is not a certainty. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr then asked if the low bid was just for a 24' pipe? <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated three sizes were bid: 24', 36' and 42'. There was a low bid established <br />for each size and the LAVWMA Board chose the size. LAVWMA staff did not make a <br />recommendation as to size because the project was urgent enough that it needed to proceed to <br />repair regardless of size. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr surmised we may be throwing $700,000 away or missing the opportunity to <br />save $1.3 million. Is that much haste really necessary? <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum believed the matter was serious enough to proceed. He described the corroded <br />condition of the existing pipe. The longer LAVWMA waits the more danger of a serious <br />failure. It is also serious because there is not an approved expansion project. If there were <br /> <br />06/04/96 -17- <br /> <br /> <br />