CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti felt there was an either/or situation. Union Sanitary said it would accept the agreement if them was no influent limit or if there was a sunset clause included. Mr. Lure agreed that was the latest clarification. Ms. Micheloff remembered that in December 1995, Council gave direction to the LAVWMA representatives to agree to a sunset provision in the future (15 or 20 years). It seems that if a sunset clause could be included, there would be an agreement with EBDA as Union Sanitary would go along. Ms. Mohr agreed. Ms. Dennis asked for clarification about the sunset clause. It seemed to her that the clause was included in order to get other things in the agreements. Are those issues there now? Mr. Tarvet said no, because LAVWMA went back to the original EBDA proposal and accepted it. It did not have a sunset. Since then, EBDA voted unanimously to accept an agreement with a sunset provision. Union Sanitary has taken the position that if the sunset is not included, it will not accept the agreement. Mr. Tarvet felt the current situation was that there had to be a sunset clause in order to get an agreement, unless some other offer is made to EBDA. Ms. Dennis wanted to know the relationship of the sunset clause to the rest of the agreement. Is it acceptable? Mr. Pico felt there were other items that were tradeoffs, e.g., urban growth boundary, etc., that mitigated the potential impact of a sunset clause. He remembered that the sunset clause was added at the last minute and he was not sure that the entire Council was in agreement that it was acceptable. There was also an understanding that DSRSD was going to put some constraints on the limits of its service area and only serve areas within incorporated cities. Those controls are not included in the current proposed agreement. Ms. Michelotti felt there was an impasse unless the sunset clause is incorporated and reviewed at a future time. Mr. Tarvet did not think it made much sens~ to try to push this on the ballot since all information is not yet available. Based on the interruptable flow parameters, the amount of growth that has to be accommodated and whether it is likely to occur, risk factors to ratepayers, storage capacity and costs, dual pipe concept vs. single pipe concept, some of the analysis of the costs of that on an on-going basis, the financial analysis is weak becaus~ it does not look at much beyond the cost of the pipe being put in the ground and we are still trying to fred out the storage capacity for various pipes. If we agreed to a sunset provision that required unanimity for LAVWMA to remove it, he thought would be a fair arrangement. There is still not enough information to decide on the pipe design and size. 07/09/96 -3-