CCMIN020398 - Laserfiche WebLink

Item 6c Review LAVWMA proposal for development of a public information program for the proposed wastewater disposal expansion pro_iect. (SR98:23) (i) Addendum to Item 6c (ii) Review of LAVWMA proposal for pipeline relining evaluation. (SR98:37) Randall Lum presented the staff reports. Ms. Dennis asked what the alternative would be if an agreement could not be reached with EBDA? Mr. Lum said because the pipe needed to be relined, the section that received the test relining would not have to be relined. Mr. Pico asked when was the last time the city entered into a public relations campaign related to a ballot issue of this type. Ms. Acosta said not during the past eight years since she had been with the city. Mr. Pico asked what the process is for public information related to ballot issues? Ms. Acosta the city has to be careful not to take an advocacy role. With any items that may of be interest to the community, it is presented through staff reports, factual information and forums. Mr. Pico asked why this project deviated from that process. Ms. Acosta said this project is different because it is a multi-agency project. The question has always been over how to describe the facts. Her understanding in this particular case is to make the facts clear for the public. As an alternative the process used in the past could be used. Ms. Michelotti asked for the LAVWMA representatives to provide some insight as to what happened at the Board meetings. Mayor Tarver wanted Council to make decisions that he can take to LAVWMA Board rather than what is happening now. He felt if the City moved forward it might get stuck paying for the project, even if an agreement could not be reached. He was uncomfortable with the amount of money being spent on the EIRs, the consultants, and public information when we don't know if there will be a project. He had some concerns with the scope of work for the Pleasanton City Council 02/03/98 Minutes 10