HILL CANYON REPORT GOES TO COUNCIL; PARKS CONCERNED OVER EXPANSION OF TREATMENT PLANT.

Byline: Teresa Jimenez Daily News Staff Writer

The City Council will continue a years-long debate tonight when it considers a report addressing how large the Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant should be to serve future customers in the city.

The report, conducted by three engineers with no ties to the city, concludes that the city's proposed $75 million expansion for 14 million gallons per day at the treatment plant fits with growth projections and buildout of the city, Public Works Director Don Nelson said.

Still, Councilwoman Linda Parks said she would like clarification on the study, which she said may show that the city's needs could be met with a plant capacity smaller than 14 million gallons a day. The plant already handles 10 million gallons a day.

``The city's saying see, we're right,'' Parks said. ``But I want to know are we comparing apples to oranges? I want that clarified. Then we can talk about the cost component of the plan.''

She added that she intends to follow the recommendations of the engineering team, hired to serve as an outside peer review committee.

``I'll go along with peer review. I just need to see what is being suggested with what is proposed,'' Parks said.

Though the study has been available for a month, it was not scheduled for public discussion until a committee member could attend the public hearing to answer questions, Nelson said.

The $25,000 report was the product of a recommendation that came out of a nine-hour council workshop on the controversial issue.

The council majority, including Mayor Judy Lazar, Andy Fox and Michael Markey, have said that the proposed facility would provide for industry growth allowed within the General Plan.

But council members Elois Zeanah and Parks have contended that plans to expand the treatment plant go beyond the city's needs and would encourage growth to the point that the General Plan guidelines would be threatened.

They point to a flaw in the original proposal, which stated that the city's population at buildout would be 136,000. It has since been reduced to 124,000. Use per person was also reduced from 100 gallons a day to 75 gallons a day.

Zeanah and Parks have also fought the overall cost of the project, saying it could be modified to cost customers less and that new customers should pay for the majority of the project.

In a separate agenda item for tonight's meeting, Parks has proposed tacking $2.50 a month on to the existing $12.40 sewer rate to pay for specific projects that would bring the city into compliance with state and federal mandates.

The fee hike would end once the work is completed, probably in a year, she said.

Parks listed corrosion control, replacement of chlorine with sodium hypochloride and upgrade of the south head-works hydraulics as the work that would be funded with the rate increase.

She made the proposal on the condition that a critique be done on the $75 million capital project.

Parks and Zeanah have said that the price tag could be trimmed considerably by eliminating items such as conference rooms at the site and considering other processes for reducing odors.

Still, Nelson said Parks' proposal does not solve the treatment plant problem.

``Those are components in the capital program,'' Nelson said. ``It doesn't address the larger issues. It doesn't get to the issue of funding the facilities.''

In the meantime, city staff members must wait for the council to provide them with solutions.

``At some point in time, the system will fail if the city hasn't taken action,'' Nelson said. ``I kind of relate it to a body. People don't just suddenly die. They get sick and the body progressively worsens.''

TIMELINE 

April 1989: Facing a booming population, the city questions the capacity of its wastewater treatment plant.

1993: City staff develops a $75 million plan for expanding the treatment plant.

1995: The City Council fails to get a 4-1 vote needed to approve fee increases to finance the project. Residential rates would have jumped from $7.35 to $17.85 a month. Developer fees would have risen from $3,900 to $5,310 for each new home.

May 1996: The council approves a $1.80-a-month residential sewage-fee increase to pay for operations and maintenance of the plant. The earlier developer fee is also approved.

September 1996: The state Water Resources Control Board warns that the city could lose millions of dollars in federal grants and loans if it does not submit improvement plans by the end of the year.

Dec. 17, 1996: A proposal to increase the monthly sewer rate by $2.50 fails by a 3-2 vote. It needed a 4-1 vote to pass.

Dec. 31, 1996: The city misses the first deadline set by the state.

February 1997: The council unanimously agrees to consider a scaled-down expansion of the plant. The council also agreed to hire three experts to evaluate the size of the project.

May 1, 1997: The city misses the second deadline set by the state.

June 1997: The three engineers on the peer review committee say the 14 million-gallon capacity proposed in the city's plan is appropriate.

CAPTION(S):

Box

Box: TIMELINE (see text)