CCMIN040296 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis asked if Council accepts the MOU, can it still be worked on to get improvements to the MOU until August, when it is placed on the ballot? Mr. Roush felt that until all paxties sign the document, it can still be worked on until the parties say they are not willing to refine it further. The current proposal, if approved, would lay out the umbrella under which further refinements occur. Ms. Acosta indicated that when a complicated negotiation process is going on it becomes very difficult when substantially new elements are introduced late in the process. If there is something that has not been considered before, it is important to bring that up tonight. Ms. Dennis wanted to be certain that new development being serviced by this agreement should pay Waffle mitigation fees. She felt people would be less concerned about development if there were U'af~c mitigations. Ms. Michelotti believed that one of the concerns raised at the Council workshop was that Dublin have some kind of urban growth limit. She felt there has been movement on the part of Dublin as stated in this agreement. The Tri-Valley Transportation Council is trying to get a mitigation fee regionally acceptable by all. It will be tied to new development and the amount will be resolved in the future. She was uncomfortable including that regional fee in the MOU. Mr. Tarvex felt he has been working too long on this process; there is too much distrust; there is too much debate about whether one jurisdiction should control another and whether there is cooperation or not; who contributes to 580/680; and how are we going to build out this valley. He has been trying to work out something he can present to the voters that he can support. We have tried over and over to get agreement. The single most important thing for him to see in any agreement is that there is a guarantee to the community that it knows what to expect from the sewer pipeline. He feels it will be necessary to have unanimous support to win an election. This proposal does not do either of those things. Further, the agreement includes a provision to serve unincorporated areas in 2025. This pipe will not be f'dled by 2025 and there is a question of how much growth is necessary to pay for the pipe. He did not have enough information on how much growth is necessary to accommodate payment for the pipe; how much is necessary to build storage as an alternative to a larger pipeline; and discussion has changed from dry weather flow to wet weather flow. He feels the bigger the pipeline is, the more growth you can accommodate and the size of the pipe we are discussing is so big there is no limit to what it can serve. The MOU has no limit on what it will serve and Dublin is saying it does not want an urban limit in its General Plan. Mr. Tarvex wanted to go back to the original concept of a 32.43 mgd dry weather flow pipeline and ask LAVWMA staff to develop cost estimates for future storage. He felt getting back to dry weather flow would encourage Livermore to participate in discussions again. We don't know what will happen in the future, but once we invest $150 million to put the pipe in the ground, it will be very attractive for potential developers to want to use it. He has tried to look at all the alternatives, conditions, and ways to allay his fears, but he felt the bottom line was you either plan for twenty year increments and build the infrastructure accordingly, or you build infrastructure for 50-100 years. 04/02/96 -19-