Minutes 05/08/1984 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~38 TUESDAY MAY 8, 1984 Bob Grant was quoted in the same article as saying, "I feel confident that this is what the Authority members want." But it didn't work out that way, because Consulting Engineer Bill Overman came along April 24, in a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and P.S.A. Board, and condemned the proposal as having insufficient advantage to the County. Furthermore, he recommended a whole new proposition as to the diversion and cost-sharing in the Koehler plant. Historical Background Without re-hashing the long history of this matter, I think it de- serves to be said again that our current state of affairs is rooted in a report to the County by Overman & Associates dated January, 1982. This report was a response to the City's tentative plans to expand the City's plant from 6.0 MGD to 12.0 MGD. It identified a number of alternatives for P.S.A. and, in effect, for the City. It ended by recommending "Alternative 5"--which thereafter was referred to commonly as the "two-plant concept". This alternative was based generally on a determination on page 38 of the report, where Overman said, "This expansion (speaking of expanding the City's plant from 6.0 to 8.0 MGD) in conjunction with that of the Authority's Facility to 8.0 MGD, would provide the estimated treatment capacity necessary to satisfy the needs of the entire area for the next 20 years. This combination of treat- ment facilities' expansion would provide 16.0 MGD of treatment capacity to the area at a cost which would be significantly less than that pro- posed by the City as Alternate 1, upgrading of the City facility to 12.0 MGD." This concept was generally embraced by the City and P.S.A., but then we spent the better part of two years arguing about which of the two plants should be expanded first. When it appeared last November that the Council might move on to expand the City plant, the County initi- ated a "summit" meeting of the governing bodies, on December 19, 1983. Two rather new ideas came to the front at that time: 1. That the County might decide to build a third plant. 2. That the County might want to divert sewage originating from City customers, in order to gain capacity in the City plant--the "swapping" idea. The first idea simply torpedoed the two-plant concept. The second idea was just contrary to the original scheme, as we understood it, that the City would have the opportunity to divert sewage coming from within its jurisdiction, and similarly the P.S.A. would have the opportunity to divert only that quantity of sewage coming from within its jurisdiction. Consequently and ever since December 19, we've had not one but two argu- ments going: (a) which plant to expand first; and (b) if we divert first, whether P.S.A. should be allowed to buy the right to divert a portion of