CCMIN040296 - Laserfiche WebLink

We don't do that with roads or parks. We build as growth occurs and he sees no reason to treat sewer any differently. Ms. Michelotti felt we are so close to agreement and was upset that Mr. Tarver had reversed his position and negated all the work so far. The longer this is delayed the more expensive the pipeline becomes and increments of $3 million mean a lot to the ratepayers. Her concerns centered on the "poison pill" aspect. She hoped the parties could get back to trusting one another and having faith in the negotiations. She did not like approaching the matter with a "worst case seego" attitude. If them was a validation lawsuit, why do you need a "poison pill". At some point we must get a spirit of cooperation or them will never be a regional cooperative plan. She believed we are telling the public we are limiting the influent so we only build out our present General Plans in the cities. This agreement states DSRSD will not service the unincorporated areas to 2025. She felt there would be responsible Councilmembers in 2025 who will make the correct decisions for the people. She did not feel today's Council should make decisions for future Councils. She felt this agreement will save money for the rate payers and offers cooperation with Dublin and DSRSD. We still have a failing pipeline that needs to be fixed. She believes that slip lining or repairing the existing pipe is throwing money away. Replacement is the only viable solution. Mar. Tarver felt that 25 years ago a decision was made for a future Council because the pipeline was made small enough so that 25 years later we had to discuss the pipeline. He did not believe Council could make someone else pay for the pipeline and did not believe we were saving the ratepayeE any money. Mr. Pico indicated he has been following this for three years and felt the issue comes down to trying to control growth in the Tri-Valley subregion by using sewer capacity and he thought this was the best hope of creating or implementing a subregional planning strategy. He felt the key part was urban growth boundaries and protecting areas outside of that as rural or agricultural use in order for him to support this plan. He also had concerns that this agreement not become a super-sewer agreement that creates unlimited capacity for development. He believed that this MOU, with a couple of modifications, could be agreed to by all parties, including San Ramon and Dublin, who are not now part of the sewer agreement. Those cities need to be a pan of this agreement. He did not want "weasel words" for what an urban growth boundary is and Dublin should not have different language than any other city. He suggested the following modifications to the proposed agreement: Item 7, first line - include Dublin as a party to the MOU. Second paragraph of Item 7 - "All four jurisdictions ·.." Delete the last sentence of the third paragraph of Item 7. Item 9 - add the third paragraph to Item 7 and delete the balance of the section. Ms. Michelotti felt paragraph 9 was necessary because it designates Dublin's growth -- boundary, whatever it is called. She asked for Mr. Stiebel to comment. 04/02/96 -20-