CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Steve Sherman, representing the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, referred to the staff report which talks about the four possible options for pipe size. The report shows that using a 36" pipe is the least expensive method. The Chamber supports this option as it offers the greatest flexibility. The known factor for this size is that it will provide the Valley with 55 MGD. He felt there was a large unknown in trying to using any kind of parallel pipe system. For less cost, it is guaranteed to get the greatest MGD with a 36" pipe. This is the most flexible option. The second item referred to dealing with the existing line. It is unknown whether it is possible to slipline the pipe. For less cost, there could be a new pipe line. He believed the engineering reports support this option. With regard to a vote on this, the Chamber opposes putting issues like this to the general electorate. This issue in particular is one of the most complex issues to deal with. Council must know what the existing needs of the Valley are, plan for what the future needs might be and weigh that in relationship with other entities. He did not think it possible to summarize all that in ways to allow the electorate to make an informed decision. Council is in the best situation to receive all information and to vote on the matter. He requested Council to take action as soon as possible in order to address any replacement need that may occur in the near future. If Council supports a 36" pipe early, then as future repairs are necessary, the larger pipe could be used and there will be no waste of money to repair the same section of pipe twice. Ms. Michelotti referred to the unanimity rule, which had been taken out with regard to -- the expansion project. She asked how the LAVWMA Board would feel about approving a sunset clause but requiring a unanimous vote of LAVWIVIA for the sunset to occur. Ms. Mohr felt that the EBDA JPA would cease to exist at that time. Mr. Tarvet asked staff to say whether EBDA or LAVWMA goes away in 2020. Ms. Mohr felt the LAVWMA JPA and EBDA JPA had to be in agreement and thought one of them would have to terminate. Mr. Lum said the EBDA JPA expires in 2020, but it is expected to continue in some form° Ms. Michelotti asked if the sunset came before that occurred. If the sunset were accepted in 1996 it would be twenty years from that time. Mr. Lum indicated the sunset occurs in 2020, regardless of when it is accepted. Mr. Tarver did not know how this proposal would be received by the other members of LAVWMA. One of the reason the JPA was modified in the first place was so no individual agency would be allowed to veto a project of up 32.42 MGD dry weather flow. We are now at the point of reaching agreement and signing an agreement and he felt there was no reason to revert to the original JPA, which requires unanimity, for further expansion. He suspects that if one agency does not want another agency to continue the sunset provision, it will object to the 07/09/96 -4-