Laserfiche WebLink
298 <br /> <br /> Regarding Item 41 - Approval of Agreement with Dublin San "' <br /> Ramon Services District (DSRSD) for Purchase of Recycled Water for <br /> 1-680/Stoneridqe Interchange Landscaping, Mr. Cordtz stated that <br /> $400/acre-foot is excessive since recycled water can be purchased <br /> for $200/acre-foot. He added that Caltrans should be responsible <br /> for the payment of the recycled water since the City already paid <br /> for the plants. <br /> <br /> Mr. Elliott clarified that the process whereby the recycled <br /> water is metered and paid for would go through the City but that <br /> Caltrans would ultimately pay for that water. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cordtz commented that affordable housing in Hacienda <br /> Business Park would be impacted by the DSRSD construction of a new <br /> East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) building at $240 to <br /> $300 per square foot and the increase in sewage fees and Zone 7's <br /> water charges to pay for the building. <br /> <br /> Mr. Keith Wardin, 2931 Liberty Drive, Vice President of the <br /> Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber had some <br /> concerns about the proposed changes under Item 4n - Amend Regional <br /> (DSRSD) Sewer Connection Fees. He indicated that it is a stated <br /> policy of the Chamber to promote a levy and assessment of fees <br /> which are fair and equitable and which promote the well-being of <br /> the economy and the community. He stated that the local component <br /> of the amendment is based on some assumptions that the Chamber has ~" <br /> not had a chance to review and that the available information is <br /> not sufficient to make a credible analysis. In addition, the <br /> Chamber raised the following questions on the assumptions made <br /> regarding the regional component in relation to DSRSD: (1) The <br /> Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) project alternative may be <br /> good conservative planning in many respects, but is an expensive <br /> alternative that could have a negative effect on the Chamber by <br /> placing undue levies on immediate and short term users. He stated <br /> that the Chamber would like to know for sure what the alternative <br /> would be before any fee changes are made. (2) DSRSD did not <br /> consider higher levels for debt in planning this project, resulting <br /> in disproportionate levies on short term and near term users which <br /> are unfair and inequitable. He requested Council to postpone any <br /> decision on the matter until the Chamber has had a chance to study <br /> the issue further. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer clarified that the 3% increase, which follows <br /> DSRSD's normal process for approving annual fees, reflects only the <br /> construction cost index and that DSRSD is not funding the TWA <br /> project. <br /> <br /> - 2 - <br /> 7-16-91 <br /> <br /> <br />