CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

idea of returning to unanimity for the same reason it requested the second JPA modification; because the member did not trust another agency not to block a project. The point of the original discussion is that DSRSD wanted to be able to recycle water and use it for landscaping. That was where we started heading in trying to find a compromise. When DSRSD started talking about the growth limits that we wanted to see, then we stopped talking about it. When you recycle water, you produce additional capacity for growth. The whole discussion keeps circulating around how much growth is this pipeline going to accommodate and what is the limit. DSRSD's position has consistently been, we don't have a growth limit and don't want a growth limit. He suspected DSRSD will not agree to the unanimity rule on the sunset clause. He felt it could be offered in order to accept the EBDA project and move it forward. Even if that were agreed to, he still did not feel there was enough information to proceed with an expansion project. Ms. Micheloff felt if this were accep~ at the next LAVWMA meeting and the offer was sent to EBDA and accepted, then there could be other Council meetings before the first of August at which ballot language could be considered. Mr. Tarvet pointed out that staff has said there will not be enough financial information before that time to make the decision. If we try for the November ballot, we could be going to an election with a lot of unanswered questions about the financing of a project and he did not think that should be done. Ms. Michelotti indicated the parties have been working for almost six years trying to get some kind of agreement. The financial information seems to be key to the issue. Ms. Mohr felt it is getting more expensive the longer it takes because of the repair of the existing pipe. She referred to the first pipe that was installed. It was sized to function as a growth constraint. It is now full and instead of stopping growth, we are facing a $200 to $300 million price tag to fix it, because sizing it to limit growth did not work. We saw the Dublin grade expanded to eight lanes and two of those were restricted because it was thought that if we restricted the ability of traffic to come in and out of the Valley that would prevent growth and that didn't work. She suggested that EBDA has a pipeline that is twice as big as it needs and she sees no indication that its service is trying to grow big enough to fill that pipe. So having a pipe that is bigger than is needed doesn't necessarily mean that somehow the area will be obligated to grow big enough to fill it. She referred to the Mayor's use of the word 'trust" between the various entities. There has been a lot or discussion about constitutional revision and whether government is broken and she felt this is one of the prime examples of broken government. It is embarrassing to be a party of these discussions. No one trusts each other and nothing gets done. It seems the pipeline is being used as a means of controlling growth, when that should be done by each jurisdiction that has the power to approve projects. Whether the pipe is there or not, if we don't build this one big enough, when the time comes that it reaches capacity, then the next bill could be four or five times the current cost. She is extremely frustrated with this process. She felt the most obvious solution was to compromise on the influent limitation (which she feels is a disincentive to recycling) and that we agree to the sunset 07/09/96 -5-