Pass: 18,951 / 73.4% Yes votes ...... 6,854 / 26.6% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Since then, the Valley cities have had to increase their sewage disposal capacity to serve existing development, as well as development expected under the Valley cities' General Plans. So, in 1998 the LAVWMAmembers negotiated revisions in their Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), which governs LAVWMA. One of those revisions authorized LAVWMA to construct a new pipeline and increase its capacity to a total of 41.2 MGD. Livermore's portion of that expansion would be 12.4 MGD. Under the amended JPA, Livermore and Pleasanton must take the question of participating in the pipeline expansion to their voters for approval. The deadline to obtain that approval is November, 2005.

In 1998, Pleasanton's voters approved that City's participation, while Livermore's voters did not. Under the JPA, if Livermore's voters do not approve joining in the expansion project by November 2005, Pleasanton and DSRSD may agree between themselves how to divide the costs and capacity that Livermore does not use. Also, if Livermore does not participate in LAVWMA's expansion, it likely will need to develop alternative treatment and disposal plans, as well as fund, construct and maintain those alternatives. The costs for those alternatives would include construction and ongoing operating costs.

One alternative the City studied is in-Valley disposal using reservoirs for recycled water. With that alternative, the annual sewer service fee on existing residents and businesses for operating costs could increase 3%-4.5% above the annual sewer service fees for LAVWMA participation. The increase depends on the in-Valley disposal alternative chosen.

Beyond operating costs, the estimated capital cost of LAVWMA participation to meet new service demands in Livermore is $26 5 million Without participation that estimated cost is above $75 million. The City typically offsets capital costs like these with fees on development that creates demand for the services.

The measure contains certain limitations on how Livermore could participate in LAVWMA. First, it prohibits Livermore's LAVWMA representatives from voting to approve any authorization to extend service to land that would have new urban uses and be brought inside the City's urban Growth Boundary after November 1, 2005. Second, it prohibits the City's LAVWMA representatives from voting to approve mutual adjustments to sewer inflow limits between LAVWMA members. "Inflow" or influent limits, under the JPA, relate to how much wastewater can be taken in by an agency's treatment plants.

A yes vote would allow Livermore to participate in the increase of LAVWMA's capacity with the above restrictions; a no vote would deny Livermore the ability under the present JPA to participate in that additional disposal capacity.

City of Livermore Ballot Measure Information

League Pros & Cons

• Livermore-Amador Valley League of Women Voters Pros and Cons

Contact information for Supporters and Opponents

• Tom Reitter: Supporter 925-422-1468
• Doug Mann: Opponent

Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton are required to pump their treated sewage to the Bay. The capacity of the original pipeline is committed to existing or planned growth of these cities. The expansion pipeline has just been completed to accommodate future needs of the Tri-Valley cities. Now is our best chance to get additional capacity. The Council majority favors this project because 1) Livermore now has a complete Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and a vote is required to expand it, 2) our new General Plan, which revitalizes downtown and concentrates growth within our UGB, needs the capacity from the expansion project to be implemented, and 3) this measure protects the capacity needed by the General Plan because it requires a vote of Livermore's electorate before any new urban development outside of our current UGB can connect to the city's sewer system. Even those who disagree with this restriction support this measure because it provides economical capacity for new commercial and industrial projects that create jobs.

The expansion project is simpler and, according to consultants, cheaper than alternative methods of wastewater disposal. If Livermore voters reject this last chance to participate, the capacity will default to Pleasanton and Dublin to use, or, possibly to sell to Livermore at a higher price in the future.

Join us in voting for economical and reliable wastewater disposal capacity that is needed for future jobs and residents. Vote YES on Measure E.

s/MARSHALL KAMENA
Mayor
s/TOM REITTER
Vice Mayor
s/MARK L. BEEMAN
Council Member
s/LORRAINE DIETRICH
Council Member
s/MARJORIE R. LEIDER
Council Member

With today's Council, this is not really a concern. Mayor Kamena and Tom Reitter have trustworthy reputations. They won't become operatives of the developers. A victory in November by Council candidate John Marchand would also be a hopeful sign that Livermore has enough sincere people who govern for our benefit, not at the behest of corporations like Pardee Weyerhaeuser and their "Livermore Trails" mess.

The danger comes when we elect a council that once again starts pushing housing tracts on us, claiming that more urban developments will solve the problems that were created by the previous urban developments. The developers' best friend on the Council is Lorraine Dietrich. They could be strengthened with wins by any combination of Tom Bramell, John Stein, Bill Aboumrad or mayoral candidate David Mertes as well. These people believe in far more growth than most of us want.

I believe that energy availability in the coming years will begin to substantially reshape the very nature of urban planning in this country. It will be increasingly difficult to develop in places like Livermore, which is physically distant from significant energy production, food production, potable water or valuable natural resources. As energy continues to diminish, it will be impractical for overly dependent urban communities to continue raising their populations.

If reduced development rates occur in Livermore, the existing ratepayers will be responsible for paying for the sewer since we will not receive enough connection fees to pay off the debt.

Study the issues and vote every election. http://www.dougmann.com has more information.

s/DOUGLAS L. MANN
Livermore Resident

Joining the recently completed pipeline expansion project is the best way to get the wastewater disposal capacity needed to build our City's current General Plan. If this measure fails, we will have to design, build, and pay for a different project. Any alternative project will take two to eight years longer and, by our consultant's estimates, cost significantly more. The costs of the expansion project on this ballot are well known and will be paid by new connections to the city's sewer system, not by current customers.

Approval of this measure will reduce sewer connection fees for new users, stimulating downtown redevelopment, particularly restaurants and businesses. Without approval, fees will rise more than 50%.

The argument against this measure erroneously suggests that there may be too few new customers to pay for the pipeline expansion project. Even if this were true, rates are reviewed every two years and new connection fees can be adjusted to protect current ratepayers. Alternatively, any excess capacity could be leased to other Tri-Valley cities, which would save them money over building holding ponds they are projected to need in the future.

Every member of the City Council agrees that the inappropriate personal political comments in the argument against Measure E are not relevent.

What is relevant is that all members of the City Council agree that Measure E is good for Livermore.

Please join all of us in supporting Measure E. Vote Yes!

s/MARSHALL H. KAMENA
Mayor s/TOM REITTER
Vice Mayor
s/MARK L. BEEMAN
Council Member
s/LORRAINE DIETRICH
Council Member
s/MARJORIE R. LEIDER
Council Member