CCMIN040296 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush compared the situation to a general plan amendment which is voted in by the people and any change would also have to be approved by the voters. It depends on how you phrase the agreement, whether it goes to the voters. At present, the only thing going to the voters is whether to participate in the project. Mr. Pico felt entering inW the MOU was a condition of participating in the project. Ms. Mohr could only support the motion if the 'poison pill' provision was dropped. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis and Pico NOES: Councilmembers - Michelotti, Mohr and Mayor Tarvet ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Ms. Mohr, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to mnke the modifications to paragraph 7, to delete paragraph 8b, and to add paraFaph 9 as part of paragraph 7. Ms. Michelotti asked Mr. Stiebel if Dublin would agree to this. Mr. Stiebel indicated Dublin had rejected the "urban growth boundary" language even though the implications of the current language is the same. The actual wording is very sensitive and if the wording is changed, he felt Dublin would reject it. He suggested taking the language from paragraph 9 and making it part of paragraph 7. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Michelotti and Mohr NOES: Councilmembers Dennis, Pico and Mayor Tarver ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Mr. Pico, to direct the LAVWMA representatives to accept the original EBDA proposal, to accept a 32.43 mgd dry weather flow pipeline expansion, with everyone participating, keeping the influent/effiuent provisions in terms of no service in unlncorporated areas, no sunset on influent and no MOU. Th~ roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmember Pico and Mayor Tanter NOES: Councilmembers Dennis, Michelotti, and Mohr ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 04/02/96 -24-