Laserfiche WebLink
Robert Schmidt stated he does not believe that reclaimed water is drought proof. <br /> He questioned the statement, "the residents met with acceptance". Looking at <br /> suggestion D to spend $35M to put water in Redwood Shore and Seaport seems <br /> rather expensive and might be managed with conservation. He asked that the <br /> speaker representing businesses not make statements on behalf of the residents <br /> and stated that recycled water is not going to help drinking water in a drought <br /> situation. He asked if there is a project that is reliant on the recycled water project <br /> and stated that as a citizen, he is more concerned with safety and the health of <br /> the citizens rather than running a water enterprise. <br /> <br /> 8:15-8:30 p.m. - Recess <br /> <br /> Staff responded to vadous concerns and questions as follows: <br /> <br /> 1. Regarding odors while walking at night. <br /> PWS Director Ingram stated this was the first time headng about that issue <br /> and will be checked. <br /> 2. The common areas maintained by homeowner associations would be <br /> eligible for use of the recycled water, but no private residences would ever <br /> be using the recycled water. <br /> 3. Cost of water in the range of between $18, 000.-$20,000. per acre foot per <br /> year compared to $300-$500 per acre foot per year in Southern California. <br /> PWS Director Ingram stated that the lower cost is only for purchasing <br /> water, not for infrastructure. <br /> 4. Where are the funds to pay for the project going to come from? This will <br /> take a combination of loans, grants and/or bonded indebtedness. Economic <br /> analysis is being conducted, that information will go back to the Utilities <br /> Committee and Council will see that in October. It is clear that there will be <br /> an impact on rates, but the complete analysis will clarify the <br /> 5. Are there better alternatives for $35M? Mr. Whitcomb stated that the cost <br /> of the project for approximately 2,000 acre feet is less costly per unit than <br /> the South Bay Water Recycling programs current costs for their Phase I, <br /> Phase II system but the drivers are different. Redwood City is building a <br /> water supply here, and they are paying whatever costs they have to in <br /> order to avoid wastewater discharges to the bay. It is very difficult to <br /> compare projects. <br /> 6. A question about the South Bay cities involvement and wanting to know <br /> more about their experiences with residential uses. Several people have <br /> been invited to the September 16 session that have been directly involved <br /> or somehow connected with residential projects from various prospectives. <br /> 7. How many acre feet of water are going to the San Francisco Bay? SBSA <br /> Manager Bewley responded that the project on the average day of the <br /> driest and hottest month 3.7M gallons of irrigation water on that day. On <br /> that day, in wastewater treatment, there will be 18-20M gallons a day. So, <br /> with the project they will use about ¼ of the water coming through the plant <br /> on the peak day of irrigation which coincides with the lowest flow days in <br /> the plant. <br /> <br />REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 26, 2002 <br />MINUTES <br /> PAGE 6 <br /> <br /> <br />