CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

should never have been given the treatment plant. It created a monster whose only mission is to serve sewer and water to all growth in every project that ash for it. The rate payers have to pay the additional cost for an expanded pipeline and if growth does not occur, the rate payers will have to pick up the bill for that. He felt we have to be aware of the risks and minimize them where possible. EBDA has twice the capacity it needs and that is why it is talking to us about selling some of it to reduce the rates to its ratepayers. Why should we build a pipe too big for our needs and then have to look for someone to buy the excess so our rates can go down. We need to accommodate our present General Plan. What we are really discussing is what somebody else might want to do twenty years from now. He did not know why that was being debated, when we need the capacity now and let the future leaders make their own decisions. This has been a twenty year battle. Ms. Mohr brought up the fact that the original pipe was sized to control growth and it didn't work. If we had not done what we did then, we would be replacing a bigger pipeline now at more expense. We are fortunate now to be in need of capacity and have a pipeline that is falling. If there is no agreement, so we can combine those two needs, we will make bad decisions. Ms. Michelotti did not think it was fortunate to have to spend $200 million. She felt Mr. Tarver had made a misstatement, because Mr. Pico just said we don't need the capacity. She wondered whether we were trying to get any agreement at all. She felt Mr. Tarver had been trying to do the best for Pleasanton a year ago, because we do need more capacity. She agreed technology may change in the future and we can encourage people to conserve water. It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to direct the LAVWMA representatives to support a sunset clause in 2020 as to the infiuent limit. Mr. Tarver indicated he could not support the motion unless it included a return to the unanimity rule, so it is clear that exercising the sunset provision would require all parties to agree. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Michelotti and Mohr NOES: Councilmembers Dennis, Pico and Mayor Tarver ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to direct the LAVWMA representatives to accept the sunset clause in 2020 if all LAVWMA member agencies agreed. Ms. Mohr asked what happens if one entity withdraws from LAVWMA. Mr. Beougher indicated there would still be a requirement of unanimity for whatever agencies were in LAVWMA. 07109196 -7-