CCMIN090799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Lawson said all funds are accounted for. You will know from tomorrow on the fees will be higher and you will know who paid them. His purpose is just to get more money in both funds. It is an equity issue as well as a money issue. He acknowledged that this is a big fee increase, but he felt it was entirely justified. Ms. Dennis asked if any study had been done on the impact on growth of a higher fee. Mr. Lawson said that would require another consultant and would be interesting. However, in his experience when developers and commercial entities are leaving an area it is for a combination of reasons, not just sewer fees. Land values, the labor pool, power, etc. are much more significant. There was discussion about the availability of grants for the construction. There are no grants available at this time. Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Court, referred to the fact that the majority of the sewer increase is to pay for repairs to the LAVWMA pipeline. He felt all the homeowners have been robbed because LAVWMA built a pipeline that only lasted ten years. Pipelines in San Francisco have lasted longer than the 1904 earthquake. His main concern was that there is no Pleasanton representation on the DSRSD Board. It appears that Board does what it wants and gives Pleasanton the bill. He was very concerned about the Clean Water Revival project. Pleasanton is paying for part of that and has had no chance to vote on the decision or comment on it. DSRSD is currently spending a great deal of money on an "education program", which he felt was dis-information. He also complained about the efforts on odor control and did not think DSRSD had been doing an adequate job with the funds it had been spending. He did not think the voters understood the liability that was involved with the sewer line expansion. He had thought there would be a bond issue or some levy on the property taxes. It appears that we need the expansion, but the less we need the expansion, the more it will cost the current users. Now that we see what the funding is, do we really want to go through with the expansion? There seems to be a lot of financial exposure for something the City may not need or use. He believed the way sewer bills are paid and how we fund DSRSD activities have to be rethought. He felt that the farther away from the voters that people who make decisions are, the harder it is to get them to do what you want. He would prefer that the City not pay for the Clean Water Revival project and to have closer financial scrutiny of DSRSD. Ms. Dennis clarified that the allocation for odor control was for a future project and asked exactly what was the City's participation in the Clean Water Revival project and if there were a way that Pleasanton residents would not be required to pay for it. Mr. Lum explained that under the agreement with DSRSD, the City has until the LAVWMA project is operational to decide whether it chooses to participate in the Clean Water Revival project. If the City chooses not to participate in the project, that project Pleasanton City Council 20 09/07/99 Meeting