HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - December 18, 1991 (41)j OF
CITY OF LODI
AGENDA TITLE: San Joaquin County's Withdrawa of Request to Serve the Community of
Victor With Water
MEETING DATE: December 18, 1991
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION This item is for information only. 1`b action is required.
BACKGROUND P4;CRMATUN: The City Council, at its meeting of November 20, 1991, took
no action on the Victor Water Service Request and continued
it until the question on CEQA requirements could be
evaluated.
The City recently received the attached letter from the County of San Joaquin
withdraw ng their request for the City to supply bulk water to the community of
Victor.
FUI`� Not applicable.
JLR/lm
Attachment
Na
JackRcnsko
orks Director
cc: Eugene B. Delucchi, Chief Deputy Director
San Joaquin County, Public Works Department
APPROVED:_
rJ�.m
THOMAS A PETERSON
a—
�O.Pq� rh'•.CO
04�IFpRa`P
HENRYM. HIRATA
DIRECTOR
December 4, 1991
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
GEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
P.O. SOX 1810 —1910 E HAZELTON AVENUE
STOCKTON. CAL.FORNIA95201
(2091468-3000
Mr. Jack L. Ronsko
Director of Public Works
City of Lodi
Call Box 3906
Lodi, California 95241-1910
EUGENE DELUCCHI
PMEF DEPUTY DIREC • OR
THOMAS R. FUNN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
MANUEL LOPEZ
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
RICHARD G PAYNE
DEPUTY "ECTOR
DEC
9
CITY
0�r
191
Y C)F 1
?• •—.lC lyORks Dc�^R� Dl
SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY WATER WORKS #'2 (VICTOR WATER SYSTEM)
Dear Mr. Ronsko:
At the Lodi City Council meeting of November 20th, the City
Council expressed concern regarding a precedent which could be set
by providing water service to the Community of Victor. Even
though it appears that the majority of the Council may be
receptive to the proposal, we are concerned that their interest
relies only upon a substantial benefit being derived by the City
of Lodi.
If the City Attorney had not questioned whether or not CEQA
review was necessary, I anticipate that the Council may have
conceptually approved the proposal subject to the drilling of
test wells east of the City to ascertain that suitable well sites
were available.
Connection to the City of Lodi is not the most cost-effective
alternative for the Community of Victor. It does, however, make
the best water management sense for both Victor and Lodi.
Additionally, the alternative of connection to the City of Lodi
requires.a total up front expenditure. The other available
alternatives can be staged, easing the funding requirements for
Victor.
In asking for connection to the City of Lodi, we felt that our
request was reasonable; agreeing to pay the capital costs
required for the Transmission Facility, deeding that fa:ility to
the City of Lodi for its future use and provision for future
connections. We also agreed to pay the City's connection fees
and established water rate of 150 percent of that al;ount charged
......»...�.....�wn>•.w�.w.nRr.w�.,..w.................,,,�,,.,.,....�.a.�...,....�.n�.wa.t.t;c..��.w ,:» �:r.�tt;»Ye �i ir.A lS're'�'Ci xr.�na'kz'ti�,s5h.a r.t.. , � � ........«..
•y^ .m. ,k ... ^�. ..,.w?id•t�✓..�-+:<xr.f�N 7.r�r.A.S.V ��rt i:31«v'!4e5:rr ardrk. .'.Tk �: .,lt�'+-•
na
Mr. Jack L. Ronsko - 2 - December 4, 1991
to city residents, even though we feel that this charge is not
reasonable considering the fact that the City would not have to
maintain the Distribution System.
In our opinion, the County was willing to pay more than its fair
share for this interconnect. However, it appears that the City
of Lodi desires an even better "deal" and final approval, if
obtained, would be unacceptably delayed. The Count hereby
withdraws the request made on behalf of the Community of victor
for water service from the City of Lodi.
Very ly yours,
EUGENE B. DELUCCHI
Chief Deputy Director
EBD :ad
A VQNNE
c: Henry M. Hirata, Director of Public Works/San Joaquin County
D