AgdaPkt 2004-09-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�� l City of Redwood City Recycled Water Task Force Report Marc6 3, 2004 2. TASK FORCE OPERATIONS Details about the Task Force, including members, quorum and decision-making requirements, and other operational details are provided in Attachment 1. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE The goal of the Task Force is to identify 1,946 AF/Y of potable water demand reductions (i.e., the amount provided by Alternative E, as presented in the Rejrned Project Feasibility Analysis — Alternative E, dated February 21, 2003) by 2010, in a financially feasible manner, that avoids using recycled water at schoolyards, parks, and playgrounds. The Task Force has achieved this goal and unanimously makes three recommendations to the City Council. First, the Task Force recommends that the City implement Alternative TF, which consists of measures that provide quantifiable reductions in potable water demand that achieve the Task Force goal (see Section 3.1). Second, the Task Force recommends that the City investigate and/or implement OPMs 1 through 10 (see Section 3.2), which will likely result in additional reductions in potable water demand. This recommendation is made to give the City additional flexibility to meet future potable water supply demands. Third, the Task Force recommends that City staff prepare annual reports, for City Council and public review, on their progress toward implementing the first two recommendations ofthe Task Force. 3.1. Alternative TF By implementing Alternative TF, it is estimated that the City can achieve 2,002 AF/Y of potable water demand reductions, which is approximately 56 AF/Y more than the potable water demand reductions estimated for Alternative E. Given the inherent uncertainty in estimating projected water needs and projected reductions in potable water demand, such as those presented in the City's Urban Water Management Plan (dated June 2, 2003), the Refined Project Feasibility Analysis — Alternative E, and this Task Force Report, the Task Force believes it is prudent to have this "extra" potable water demand reduction. Costs to implement Alternative TF are estimated to be $14,000 more than those for Alternative E. Considering the margin of error in the estimated $43,600,000 capital cost for Alternative E, the cost difference between Alternatives E and TF is negligible. Therefore, the Task Force considers the costs of Alternatives E and TF to be essentially the same. As further discussed in Section 3.1.2, portions of Alternative TF provide other benefits to the City in addition to reductions in potable water demand. Estimates of potable water demand reductions and estimated costs presented herein were developed with the assistance of City staff and the City's consultants, including Kennedy/Jenks Consultants and Dr. John Whitcomb. _ _ __.._. ._ . ...._