Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Inderbitzen believed that members of the community have been systematically <br /> excluded from any discussion of the impacts of this evenings proposed action. He was <br /> concerned about the following items: 1) that the anticipated agreement with EBDA has a <br /> litigation indemnity; 2) if the City would be partially liable for the return of the $800,000 that <br /> the County is requesting from TWA; 3) the City of Hayward is requesting a cap on available <br /> capacity; 4) urban limit lines are being set; and 5) the possible violation of the Brown Act. <br /> Mr. Inderbitzen suggested that Council consider the use of eminent domain as a way to acquire <br /> capacity in the EBDA line. In nearly all circumstances, the City would consider that as a viable <br /> alternative to acquire property. He then spoke about CEQA. Mr. Inderbitzen also felt that <br /> Council needed to provide the public with all information regarding this agreement to enable the <br /> public to give meaningful input. If the Council was not sure what the agreement was then it <br /> should be shared in a public forum to give the public opportunity to deliberate and consider it. <br /> He felt that voters would be inclined to vote no if they are not aware of what they are voting <br /> on. He concluded by urging Council to support the motion made by Ms. Scribner. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if it were possible to condemn and take property from another agency. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush answered yes. He pointed out that LAVWMA has considered this option and <br /> it still remains as an option. He explained that it is more difficult to condemn property from <br /> another agency than from a private individual. <br /> <br /> There was considerable discussion regarding the possibility of eminent domain. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr would like to consider the opportunity of eminent domain. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner inquired about the use of state and federal funds to build the original EBDA <br /> pipeline and how that works if there is capacity remaining. Would the City be forced to build <br /> another pipeline as opposed to use a pipeline with capacity that has been funded with tax dollars. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that that issue also has been discussed by LAVWMA/TWA. This ties <br /> somewhat to the eminent domain issue. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver stated that there were excellent points made by the previous speakers. He <br /> fled to get an agreement that would give the City additional sewage treatment capacity. He <br /> thought this was a good agreement that could get on the ballot for people to see and to debate <br /> and decide on, but clearly there was certain mount of opposition, He did not want to put <br /> anything on the ballot that was not going to be successful. The intent was not to get a lot of <br /> criticism about the details. Mayor Tarver did not want to violate CEQA. He did not want to <br /> rush into something that would fail in the end. He supported the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if it would be appropriate to make a substitute motion that authorizes the <br /> negotiating team to continue to work with LAVWMA to create a draft agreement that could be <br /> brought back through the public process and possibly be scheduled for the November election. <br />- He did not think that it was logistically possible to place this agreement on the June ballot. <br /> <br /> 03/10/94 5 <br /> <br /> <br />