Minutes 1996 0617 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - June 17, 1996 Page - 11 - NEW BUSINESS (continued) Council supports the sale, and approximately S2 million will come to San Leandro. She said the only sticking point is whether the cap is forever or sunsets in 20 years. She recommended directing Council Member Galvan to vote to approve with or without the cap. She said taking a position on the cap doesn't matter in the long run because future boards can put a cap on or take it off. LAVWMA can accept an offer on less than a majority vote. She would like to see San Leandro realize the funds. LAVWMA would be bound to make payments even if DSRSD is not at the table. Council Member Galvan said his goal is to put San Leandro in a position to realize some money, and moving forward at this point will not do so. LAVWMA would be required to make payments, but contingent on a vote of the people of Livermore and Pleasanton. DSRSD is not at the table because the sunset clause has not been resolved. He said some time should be taken to work out language to bring DSRSD to the table. Mayor Corbett recommended that Council Member Galvan be allowed to go forward and recognize DSRSD's concern. She said, although LAVWMA changed the last EBDA offer, they did accept it with a change. She said the sunset clause was only included in the agreement in exchange for the urban limit line, which has been removed. LAVWMA has authority to accept the agreement with only two voting parties. This is the only way to get it beyond this deadlock. She said she is interested in focusing on San Leandro issues and would like to realize the funding. Council Member Galvan said, if the matter goes to a vote of the people in Pleasanton or Livermore and fails, it can still proceed because DSRSD can proceed if it approves the agreement. If it fails with a vote of the people and DSRSD is not at the table, it cannot proceed. He noted the Union Sanitary District is voting no because they feel the last unresolved issue should be resolved; therefore, the agreement will not go forward because EBDA voting must be unanimous. Council Member Glaze said this all started many years ago with the proposal for the Super Sewer. He would like the issue resolved. Council Member Galvan said that proposal was different. Council Member Young agreed that Council Member Galvan should have latitude to make a decision based on what the joint agreement is with EBDA; that should be sufficient. Mayor Corbett said Council Member Galvan could be given authority to vote on three options based on the amount of capacity: 1) with cap and a sunset, 2) no cap, 3) cap. Council Member Galvan said there is no offer to vote on. All EBDA is considering at the next meeting is to sunset or not sunset; he requested direction on how to vote.