Laserfiche WebLink
It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, that the LAVWMA <br />representatives be directed to ask for a reconsideration of the size of pipeline and that the <br />contract for the 36" pipeline be awarded. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti questioned the Council action to send the LAVWMA representatives to <br />vote for a 24" pipe. She had requested research of the minutes and in several places it was <br />stated the size of the pipeline was to be a future discussion. Since the Council did not give <br />direction to the LAVWMA representatives to vote for a 24" pipe, she wanted reconsideration <br />at LAVWMA of the decision. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt a 36" pipe would save money in the future and aim solve the immediate <br />problem. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Mr. Pico, seconded by Mayor Tarver, to accept <br />the staff recommendation to ratify the actions taken by LAVWMA representatives to: a) <br />accept the East Bay Dischargers Authority 519196 counter proposal for additional <br />wastewater disposal capacity; b) authorize proceeding with engineering and f'mancial studies <br />for pipeline replacement, and wastewater disposal expansion; and c) award a pipeline <br />replacement contract (6000 foot section near Eden Canyon) for a 24-inch pipe to the low <br />bidder (Dresser/Areial Construction). <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis supported the substitute motion because LAVWMA has not been able to <br />negotiate an expansion project. A 36" pipe is clearly an expansion project and we have an <br />obligation to go to the voters with that. We were forced to separate this because of the timing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr believed the engineering analysis says replacement of the 6000 feet at 36" <br />means there is a potential of saving $1.3 million and it does not create any additional capacity. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet said the potential savings is only if there is an expansion project. There is <br />no project and that should not enter into this at all. There is no information on alternatives, <br />whether financial or engineering. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico felt the savings estimate was speculative and to approve a larger pipe size <br />would result in a $740,000 increase in cost right now. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: Councilmembers - Michelotti and Mohr <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if there would be a vote on her original vote. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the substitute motion supersedes the original motion. <br /> <br />06/O4/96 -19- <br /> <br /> <br />