Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storage Tank topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineer's plan favors 2-million‑gallon tank near treatment plant; cost‑sharing and timing debated
Summary
District engineer recommended a ~2,000,000‑gallon usable emergency storage tank sited near the treatment plant; committee discussed sizing (1.5× vs 2× max‑day), potential for two tanks on a 4‑acre site, developer discounts, and asked staff for cost shares, timeline and legal review before board action.
Joe, the district engineer, presented updated tank-sizing analysis and a preferred site near the treatment plant that would reduce long pipeline runs and pump costs. He said a single 2,000,000‑gallon usable tank (roughly a 2–2.5M gross tank in design) would improve emergency storage and help both upper and lower pressure zones; building two tanks at one site would be more economical over time if future redundancy is desired.
"I'm gonna recommend a 2,000,000 gallon tank," Joe said, explaining that the usable capacity figure already accounts for operational and fire‑flow considerations. He described options for sizing (1.5× vs 2× max‑day demand) and walked through assumptions for max‑day, peak flows and fire requirements. Committee members raised whether the district should engineer now for two tanks on a 4‑acre parcel to save future site and earthwork costs.
Cost and fees: Directors and landowners discussed how to allocate costs and whether developers should receive discounts on EDU (Equivalent Dwelling Unit) calculations. One landowner (Bob Kyle) argued that fees in his 6.70 FSA are fixed and must be honored under the contract; staff responded that the contract language and any updates require legal review. Committee asked staff to produce a clear cost estimate, a proposed division of contributions and a timeline for negotiating participation by Rancho North and other developers.
Permits and CEQA: Joe noted CEQA and other environmental reviews will be required; he said siting closer to the treatment plant may reduce permitting complexity in some respects but agreed the entire project will take many months and not be completed within a single year.
Next steps: Committee supported moving the site recommendation to the board for discussion and directed staff to get detailed cost estimates, a draft cost‑share formula, and to attempt negotiations with landowners about site acquisition and participation. Directors also recommended tying any developer‑discount question to the upcoming CIP update and rate studies so the district can quantify long‑term impacts on rates.
