Agenda - 03-23-2000 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

MEMORANDUM To: BOCC and Manager From: Alice Gordon Subject: Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement Date: March 15, 2000 The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the issues that were left unresolved during the BOCC discussion of the Water and Sewer boundary Agreement in February. There are two types of outstanding issues, namely, those that are more controversial and those on which there is substantial agreement. The complete Water and Sewer Boundary Agreement in your packet is the "final" version produced by the Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force, and it has handwritten annotations by Commissioner Carey. Since all of the controversial issues occur on pages 13 -16, you have in your packet another copy of pages 13 -16 with handwritten annotations by Commissioner Gordon to bracket the sections to be discussed and to summarize alternatives from which the BOCC can choose. Of the three controversial issues, two were the subject of much debate by the task force, and were passed by a split vote. The third is controversial because the language added since the February meeting is new and it changes the language approved by the BOCC in February. Controversial Issues In general, the choice is between the original version forwarded by the Water and Sewer Boundary Task Force and the changes shown in handwritten additions. (A) P. 13 — Sizing of Lines (new language added since February) The choice is between: (1) language approved by the BOCC in February to show compliance with state regulations (2) change to add new language showing compliance with state op Ijcv Comment by Commissioner Gordon If we stick with the term "State regulations," that would mean lines would be sized only to serve the intended use, and the sole exception would be if state regulations required something larger. If we use the term "state policy, "' then there might be increases in size that were not mandatory. (B) P. 13 — Controlling Access to Lines (task force split vote) The choice is between: (1) original language recommended by the task force (2) change to add service to "another essential public facility" Comment by Commissioner Gordon This issue was discussed extensively by the task force. The language proposed by the majority and adopted by majority vote was as follows: Section D on "controlling access to lines" (page 13) would exclude service to another public facility, since (according to the majority) that service might allow extensions to extensions and thereby allow proliferation of utility lines. However, Section E on "siting of essential public facilities" (page 14) was included to provide some flexibility.