My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003
City-of-Paris
>
Boards and Commissions
>
OTHER
>
WATER AND SEWER SUBCOMMITTEE
>
2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2015 3:38:17 PM
Creation date
2/2/2015 10:56:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
269
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).
View images
View plain text
City Council Water & Sewer Subcommittee <br />March 25, 2003 <br />Page 4 <br />illegal because the city's permit states that the city has to do a noncompliance <br />report; this means if you are overflowing sewage into the streets the city is <br />not complying with the permit. The EPA expects the city to have the sewage <br />in a pipeline taking it to the wastewater plant for treatment. Mr. Campbell <br />stated they started reporting the overflows, and the reports started climbing <br />until they peaked in 1990 at 125; by that time, the EPA was on the city really <br />heavy. The City started spending money and changed the way it did things. <br />It changed the way lift stations were operated, the way they approached <br />overflows, and the personnel. As a result of these changes the overflows <br />were reduced. Mr. Campbell said there are one or two a year at this time; <br />however, the city spent 18.3 million dollars to get to this point. The City was <br />under an administrative order up until last year. Mr. Campbell explained that <br />this figure includes everything involved in stopping overflows: upgrading the <br />sewer treatment plant, putting in new pipelines, adding new lift stations, <br />installing manholes and manhole covers, and a study. <br />City Manager Malone said the EPA proposed a very large fine because of the <br />overflows. The city took the position that overflows were being brought <br />under control and the city was efficiently using twenty year old data and had <br />personnel in the field fixing the problems. The city refused to consider <br />paying a fine, so the EPA wrote a new order requiring the city to do a study <br />which cost approximately $850,000.00. EPA also required the city to meet <br />the permit requirements within a three -year time limit. The last big bond <br />issuance provided the money to carry out the repairs that were dictated by the <br />study which had been mandated by EPA. <br />Councilwoman Neeley wanted to know how much was the issuance. Gene <br />Anderson, Director of Finance, advised that it was 9.5 million dollars and <br />was issued in March of 2000. Mr. Anderson said the city still has about <br />seven million of that money left, but about four million of that money will go <br />toward finishing the elevated water storage tank on the west side of the city <br />along with the water lines needed for that project. <br />Mr. Campbell said on page 28, one of the things they did at the wastewater <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.