05-08-39 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

125 REG?7LAR ?%,T, ,,,E`��ING '�iFurj_'ES I�. ".AY 5. 1070, Be it remembered that 'the Common Council !net in the Council Ch�.mberfi in the Citv Hall, Monday May 8, 1939, at 7: Z f P.M. All members were present. President McCarthy presided. The reeding of the minutes was suspended. C 0111,IUIN I C AT I ON To the Honorable Council of the City of South Bend, Indiana. Gentlemen: On rionae.y evening, April 24, 1939, estimates were given you on various types of 4.ewage treetment plants. These estimates were based on a -population of 150,000 people rnd ran aps,.,med sewage flow of fifteen (15) million gallons ner day. Using these same figures, we submit the following estimate on cost of construction, cost of operation and degree of treatrr.ent which can, be ex- pected of a chemical treatment plant of our design. Cost of building, ecui.pment, engineering inspection, and royalties 8860,000.00 Operating cost per Million gallons 10.00 Opere_tling cost and maintenance per year 50,000.00 Treatment: Effluent of plant day B.O.D. not over .3 -0 Parts Per Million Suspended. solids not over 15 P.P.M. Solids in solution over 70% removal Dissolved_ Oxygen over 6 P.P.M. You will note that with one exception the percent removal or percent re,�3 cation is not given. The above figures r epresent an effluent where 95% of the nutresci.ble material has been removed. In this nr_ocess ,ie are able t o adjust the degree of treatment and the r ctual cost of such treat ment will be based accordingly. Anydegree of purificationdesired can be obtained by the adjust- ment of the amount of chemicals and carbon used.. The above figures are f or a complete treatment and represent a. substantial savings to the city on the plant alone. Actual cost of a plant forSouth Bend can only be determined after a care- ful survey of the seviage problems. There are other features of this process which suggest changes in your present plan of a sewage disposal system, which will affect the cost of both the plant and the sewers. These changes, if effected,, will bring about another substantial savings to the city. We feel that by using this process of treatment the city can save considera-ble over x;500,000.00, and at the same time produce an effluent better than any other known process. PUTMAN SYSTF,T�7 OF SESAGE TRT�ATMENT ByY A. R. Putnam _1 Councilman Richardson made a motion that the communication be placed on file. Councilman Brannor seconded the motion. Motion carried. RFPORT OF THE, 001T VITTEV' OF THE THOLE Tr` THE COMIrON COUINCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND: t Your Committee of the whole to whom was referred a motion reger:aing a sewage disposal ;clan for the city of South Bend, Indiana, Respectfully report that they have examined the matter and that in their opinion this matter should be kept in the Committee of the Whole for further consideration and study. Leo M. Jordan, CHAIRMAN Councilman Hull made a motion to .accept the report. Councilman Niezgodski seconded the motion. Motion carried.. REPORT OF CITY TRAFFIC E ?rIN}~ERINCx COMA IT'1'FE TO THE CITE' TRAFFIC CO'111ISSION South Bend, Indiana. The Engineering Committee of the City Traffic Commission held a special meeting in the City Hall, Tuesday, May 2, 1959, E_t 4 P.I12., for the purpose of discussing with interested citizens the traffic problem at the intersection of Washington and Walnut. Present at this meeting were: Mr. Williams , Mr . Richardson, Mr. Minczewski and Mr. Miller, members of the committee, and ten interested citizens including councilman Niezgodski f rom the Washington Walnut district. The results of studies made at the intersection by the traffic engineer were presented.. These studies covered acci.derit experience, volume of traffic, delays to cross traffic, Speeds on Washington Avenue and pr eeent pGr':ing conditions. Oomp- r.isons of other intersections in the city experiencing similar traffic difficulties during peak and. off pea'. hours were presented. It was explained by the committee that no funds were available for traffic signals at this time. It was also explained that while it was the opinion of the committee at this time that no traffic signals were necessary t this intersection, they - would, however, reconsider the matter at a later date, along with other intersections in a proposed traffic signal project for 1c)IL0. A plan showing proposed parking restrictions, crossivalk lines,etc., was presented, and it was explained that this plan should be adopted even though traffic signals were installed at the intersection at a later date.