Laserfiche WebLink
The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti wanted to proceed in a timely fashion to get an item on a ballot, because <br />that is required by the LAVWMA JPA. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr supported the motion because there is a need to continue talking and to reach <br />agreement with EBDA. Until that happens, there is no point in talking about pipe size. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti was concerned that further repairs would be done with a 24" pipe. If the <br />ultimate size decided on is 36" as recommended in the engineering report, she was concerned <br />that money would have been spent on the smaller size. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt there was still not enough financial information available to decide. He <br />felt that a dual pipe would be cheaper in the long run. Repairs are costly now because there are <br />only short periods of time when the pipeline could be shut down for repairs before the storage <br />ponds start to fill. The dual pipe would allow repairs for a lot less cost in the long run. There <br />is no information in the staff report about the maintenance and operation of a dual pipe system <br />vs. a single pipe system. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti said the last report stated very clearly that if the 6000 foot section had <br />been replaced with a 36" pipe it would have been easier to slipline the remaining part. She felt <br />that it makes sense that the replacement be done with a 36" pipe. Do we really want to spend <br />so much money on a pipe that may fail. She felt the technical information was suggesting use <br />of a 36" pipe. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver said that because there is no defined expansion project, it is necessary to <br />replace a failing pipe. You are asking the ratepayers to pay additional costs for expansion that <br />has not been approved. You can put a 36" pipe in the ground, but if you don't have the sewage <br />to put in it, it is wasted space. That is a replacement project that is supposed to be paid for by <br />new development. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Denni.~, to authorize the LAVWMA <br />representatives to continue to vote for a repair pipeline comparable to the existing size. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis did not think it was the fault of Pleasanton that there is no agreement on an <br />expansion project to take to the voters. She did not think the voters want LAVWMA to move <br />ahead with expansion without their approval. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked how much more of the pipeline was failing. <br /> <br />07/09/96 -9- <br /> <br /> <br />