Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Michelotti could not support this because she felt we were giving up city-centered <br />growth, not servicing unincorporated areas, etc. when we are so close. Also it contains <br />provisions that will be rejected. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated one of the problems identified by the EBDA group was that if there <br />was no agreement among the LAVWMA members, then one of the EBDA members would not <br />go along with the deal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver state those issues are still there; that all the jurisdictions have to ratify this <br />before there is a deal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis said she voted not on that, because she preferred the voters make the <br />decision on an issue of this magnitude. A councilmember can choose not to support a particular <br />provision, but she had a serious problem saying there is no deal at all. Rather than reject the <br />possibility of getting something before the voters, she preferred to put an agreement to them and <br />if they reject it, then Council can go forward with further negotiations. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Mr. Pico, to reiterate Mr. Pico's motion <br />except that the restriction on development in unlncorporated areas could only be removed <br />by agreement of all parties and the "poison pill" could only be removed by agreement of <br />all parties or by state legishtion. In the future, 25 years from now, if there is an exception <br />everyone wants to make, that would be approved by the voters. <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Dennis and Pico <br />NOES: Councilmembers Michelotti, Mohr, and Mayor Tarver <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet could not support putting something on the ballot that he could not support. <br />He really believed the voters will not support uncontrolled growth. He thought they would <br />support the original agreement and that Livermore might decide to participate. There is no <br />reason that all jurisdictions have to participate in the project. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to direct the LAVWMA <br />representatives to accept the original EBDA proposal, to accept a maximum 32.43 mgd flow <br />pipeline expansion, no sunset on infiuent limitations and no MOU. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Pico, Dennis and Mayor Tarvet <br />NOES: Councilmembers Michelotti and Mohr <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />04/02/96 -25- <br /> <br /> <br />