CCMIN060496 - Laserfiche WebLink

certainty (of an expansion projec0 in the near future, it may be possible to rationalize delaying the repairs. Ms. Miehelotti asked if the 36" pipe had been chosen and installed, would it alleviate any of the pressure on the remainder of the pipe. Mr. Lure was not certain if that were significant. Sliplining the pipe would be sligh~y less expensive, but you cannot slip the current 24" pipe as a pure replacement project. If a 36" pipe were installed and the remainder of the pipe were sliplined, that is where the estimated savings could come from. Ms. Mohr felt a 36" pipe seemed so obvious, how was the decision made for a 24" pipe? Mr. Tarvet indicated that designwise it makes sense, but there will also be $800,000 of additional cost to the ratepayers for a potential piece of an expansion project that no one is willing to buy into. Brad Hirst, 1811 Santa Rita Road/t128, representing the Chamber of Commerce, indicated his belief that this question is before Council because twenty years ago the City did not build a pipeline for $6 million that would have solved the sewer requirements for generations to come. The pragmatic business result of the political decision in 1978 is that we now must spend $200 million from this Valley with no federal assistance. There are now two questions: (1) whether to repair the pipeline and (2) what size pipe. Clearly there is a problem with the existing pipeline and he was concerned with the lack of responsible action on the part of LAVWMA. The question has been around for months and months. If there is a serious incident, it is possible the Regional Water Quality Control Board could levy a fine of several million dollars on the ratepayers of the Valley. That issue has never been addressed. He urged repair of the 6000 feet of leaking pipe at the earliest possible date. Regarding the size of the pipe, it appears the consideration is between a 24" or a 36" pipe. The difference in cost is about $740,000. If you look at it from a political standpoint and talk about growth, you get a 200% expansion in capacity for about 40% expenditure of funds. From a practical business standpoint, that seems logical to do. A 36" pipeline is about $2.5 million; a 24" pipeline is $1.8 million, but what is not talked about is the cost of sliplining the 24~ pipe that is left. That will cost an additional $1.4 million, which means the real cost of the 24" pipe is $3.2 million. He urged replacement of the pipeline with a 36" pipeline. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street 11210, believed there was an engineering report that stated the undersized pipe was a factor in the delamination of the pipeline. He also felt there was good documentation that in 1978 the engineers made recommendations for a larger pipeline and that was ignored by the politicians. That is what is cosling us $100 million. He felt Council should listen to the engineers and stop trying to use infrastructure to control growth. 06104/96 -18-