Laserfiche WebLink
NOES: Councilmember Mohr <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the size of the pipeline is being studied now and the first part of that <br />will come back to LAVWMA at its May meeting in terms of the 6,000 ft. of repair. You will <br />see this issue relatively soon. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if there are two proposals submitted will there be any financial estimate <br />of the cost differential if just Pleasanton/Livermore moved forward without DSRSD? She <br />assumed that the advantage of all three participating was that it kept the costs down. If we drop <br />DSRSD, what does that do to the costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum indicated that information is being determined now. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver referred to the resolution adopted by Livermore which had other provisions <br />regarding directing its LAVWMA representative to disapprove transmission to EBDA of the <br />conditions to DSRSD's pwposal which were rejected by the majority of the LAVWMA Board <br />as not consistent with the majority project. He feels there should be only one project moving <br />through for possible approval. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mayor Tarver, seconded by Mr. Pico, to adopt Resolution No. <br />96-36, directing the Councilmembers who are LAVWMA representatives to disapprove <br />transmittal to EBDA of the conditions in the DSRSD proposal rejected by the LAVWMA <br />Board of Directors at its April 3, 1996 meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr referred to the JPA. Since LAVWMA has a unanimity rule, if there is not <br />a unanimous vote to modify the LAVWMA agreement to say that there could not be two <br />separate proposals, then DSRSD could still go forward regardless of our action tonight. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the JPA for LAVWMA permits one member agency to move ahead <br />with a project as a sole use project. The issue at the moment will be competing offers; one with <br />majority support and one with minority support; and the procedure that ought to be followed in <br />terms of transmitting only one of those at a time to EBDA to consider rather than submitting <br />both. The Mayor's position in the motion is that the majority proposal should go to EBDA fffst <br />for consideration. ff that is rejected, then the sole use project would then go forward for <br />consideration. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr understands that and there is logic to that, however, the JPA does not prohibit <br />that unless the members make a decision to modify the JPA. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that would not modify the JPA, it would simply be that the sole use <br />project would not be transmitted until the majority project had been rejected. <br /> <br />04116/96 <br /> -22- <br /> <br /> <br />