Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch agreed with Mr. Boyd. He said he thinks there is a difference between <br />the role of the consultant and that of our attorney. He said we often get presented with <br />two courses of action and we should make the decision as political bodies. He said there <br />is a precedent for overcoming initial regulatory agency obstacles. He said we should do <br />what is necessary to take that to conclusion and push what the community wants and <br />what is the lower cost option. <br /> <br />Mr. Ellis said the goal is to narrow down the alternatives. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling said that before we go down the path recommended by Mr. Lynch <br />we need to understand the downside and the cost involved and what our backup plan is. <br />He said then we can either agree that is a logical approach or get different consultants. <br />He said the community is asking us to move forward on this. He said the decision point <br />is are the consultants expert enough to give good advice. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boyd said he is not saying he does not trust the consultants, but it is a matter <br />of which path to take. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker said he is not comfortable going against the advice of the consultant <br />at this time, but he said we should make sure we push the envelope. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch said he is hearing from the consultant that there is regulatory peril with <br />the solutions the community wants, not that they definitely will not be approved. He said <br />he would support pursuing these even if it take additional work. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker said at what point does the practicable outweigh other issues. He said <br />it is worth examining if we are stuck having to come up with 9.9 mg and asked if there is <br />a way to go back and look at this. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ellis said that the 50 year requirement means we have to look beyond short- <br />term lower costs, but higher overall. Regarding the demand projections, he said he <br />believes the analysis remains accurate. He said if there are serious reasons to believe <br />they are wrong then we are back at square one if they are significantly different. <br /> <br />Mr. Parker said that the consultant has to look at peak demands at peak periods. <br /> <br /> Dr. Brown asked if we feel our current conservation measures are aggressive <br />enough or if there is room for more significant reductions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Ellis said that the projections assumes 100% of toilet replacement by the end <br />of the planning period. He said that the regulatory agencies regard the projections as <br />having been reasonably made. He said we have to ask if there is a reason to revisit the <br />projects and we have to ask if we want to start over. <br /> <br /> Ms. Thomas said she would like to see the figures the projects were based on and <br />how much residents and businesses are using so we can assure the public that the <br />projections are reasonable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Boyd asked where we go from here and what is the decision making process <br />going to be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frederick said that the decision will be made by RWSA which includes <br />representatives from the City, County and Service Authority. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bob Tucker, County Executive, asked if all elected officials want to be <br />involved or ifa smaller group is needed. He said that he, as a member of RWSA, will not <br />take action until the Board of Supervisors gives him direction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rooker suggested that one or two Councilors and Board members could <br />participate with RWSA and the Service Authority. <br /> <br />Mr. Gaffney said that makes sense to narrow down the nine alternatives. <br /> <br /> <br />