My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC Min 2002-08-26 Reg
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CC Min 2002-08-26 Reg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:42:46 PM
Creation date
10/11/2002 10:24:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
8/26/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
an investment and an effort by the City to commit resources now to take care of <br /> future needs that are apparent, but not necessarily critical at this point. <br /> <br /> Rich Hegeman asked what other cities have experienced with residential uses, <br /> how much it costs to have recycled water in those areas, and how many acre feet <br /> SBSA discharges into the bay every year. <br /> <br /> Ray Wang stated that he thought it bizarre to approve a feasibility study without <br /> checking to see how the residents feel about it. He stated he supports conserving <br /> water but wants to be sure the residents' concerns are known. <br /> <br /> 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 various concerns and questions as follows: <br /> <br /> 1. Regarding odors while walking at night. <br /> PWS Director Ingram stated this was the first time hearing 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 Southem 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 altematives 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 /> <br />REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 26, 2002 <br />MINUTES PAGE 6 <br />MINUTES Book No. 59 <br />Page No. 240 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.