CCMIN070996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Micheloff felt if there were then a two member JPA, there would be additional costs for each member. However, she would support this motion in order to get some movement on negotiations. She did not like the attitude that even though an agreement is reached, it can be changed in the next breath. She wanted good faith negotiations. Mr. Pico indicated he had authorized agreements with governmental agencies in good faith and lived to regret it. He felt on an issue of this magnitude, the agreement needs to be as ironclad as possible. One of his real concerns about having unanimity on the sunset clause is the same issue being faced by EBDA by the threat of condemnation by DSRSD. We could enter into an agreement with DSRSD, Livemore and Pleasanton, acting as LAVWMA, that there will be unanimity within LAVWMA on the sunset of an influent limitation for LAVWMA and a fourth party could come along, as DSRSD is now doing, that will say there is potential capacity in the pipe that is being artificially limited and try to acquire the capacity by condemnation. He felt that if the supersewer is built there could be major problems with regard to trying to exercise controls on growth in the Valley. He would not support the motion. He felt it was up to DSRSD to make concessions. Ms. Mohr indicated the reason F-RDA is exposed to a lawsuit by DSRSD is because of the federal money that was used. Pleasanton is paying for this expansion and would not have the same exposure. Mr. Pico disagreed. Mr. Tarvet stated an amendment was made to the LAVWMA JPA that said no project could be vetoed by an agency and that is exactly what DSRSD is doing with Union Sanitary by vetoing the EBDA deal. When we talk about living up to agreements, he did not believe the IPA amendment was being followed at this time. He finds that unacceptable. Th~ roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, and Mayor Tarvet NOES: Councilmember Pico ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to direct the LAVWMA representatives to discontinue any attempt to get a measure on the November 1996 ballot. Mr. Tarvet also indicated that he had an objection to placing this on the ballot for a special election unless there was unanimity on the agreement with no controversy on the decision. Ms. Dennis felt that currently the critical item is to deal with the pipeline repair. 07/09/96 -8-