Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tarver said you are going from don't do anything, just replace the pipe with existing <br />capacity, ratepayers pay a good sized bill, to build a super sewer and hope for the best. He felt <br />there is an in-between process that says we are taking care of the General Plan, we are <br />accommodating reasonable growth within these areas, and that gets back to the concept of the <br />32.43 mgd pipeline. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked if he was suggesting crafting something independently to place on the <br />ballot and then see if the other paxties agree? <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr felt it was a waste of time to have the voters approve a proposal that has not <br />been accepted by the other parties. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico wanted to place something before the voters that they can support. He felt that <br />with the changes he suggested, that was possible. The only alternative to the "poison pill' <br />would be to add an alternative that Section 8 would disappear if we obtained enabling legislation <br />that validated the MOLT. That would leave the door open for those who don't like the poison <br />pill to go out and get some enabling legislation that would validate the MOU and the controls <br />we are trying to put in place. From all the negotiations and discussions, it seems a primary <br />concern is that someone can circumvent the controls on the pipeline and take the excess capacity <br />and use it for growth that we don't want in the Valley. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti objected to making a tremendous investment and then no matter where <br />you are in capacity use, the remainder is negated. The Mayor said 25 years ago Council <br />approved a limited pipeline. In fact, it was 15 years ago and it cost $17 million. Now it costs <br />$200 million. In 15 years, what will the cost be.'? <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr had indicated that as long as there was "extortion" money from the City of <br />Hayward, she would not support the proposal. She has changed her mind and is now willing <br />to support this contract with the "extortion" money in it. Enabling legislation is out of our <br />control. We can propose it and advocate for it, but if the Legislature or the Governor does not <br />support it, there is nothing the City can do. As she reads the proposal, Dublin is the city with <br />greater urgency than the rest of us for development. DSRSD has indicated it is seriously <br />considering condemnation, which appears to have a good chance. If we say that you have to <br />do this our way and they aren't willing to agree to our suggested changes, it seems we have <br />pushed them to the wall. DSRSD's litigation for the space in the EBDA pipe would go forward <br />and we, as contractors to DSRSD for service, automatically get pulled in, and we end up a party <br />to litigation without any control over what is happening. If we cannot come to some kind of <br />resolution, we are giving up our ability to control that destiny. With respect to the 25 years, <br />she does not think it is reasonable or right for us to tell the people 25 years from now that they <br />have to live the way we say. It is rightfully theirs and the Council that is sitting at that time. <br />By then she believed the technology will exist to use this water rather than throwing it away. <br />She disagreed with trying to control beyond 25 years. If someone took action 25 years ago that <br />governed us today and we felt it was wrong, but could do nothing about it, we would be very <br />unhappy. She did not want to do that to our children. Rather than give up our ability to <br /> <br />04/02/96 -22- <br /> <br /> <br />