[Vision2020] (no subject)

[Sue Hovey]

Golly, I didn't think I was looking all that hard for things to complain 
about.  I didn't see it as a complaint, simply a perspective.  And yes, I do 
think one can argue that had the previous council not gone into litigation 
we would never have needed mediation--we could have simply acquiesed at the 
outset.  But it seems to me the ploy was ( and is) risking our future water 
supply so I agreed with the council's earlier move to protect us through 
litigation.

Sue
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Harkins" <jeffh at moscow.com>
To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)


> Sue,
>
> Moscow City currently serves the sewer needs of Moscow as a monopoly.  It 
> might be interesting if Whitman County decided to get competitive with 
> Moscow by constructing their own sewer treatment facility.  Not all that 
> much of a reach - if we fail to meet EPA standards (and as I am told, we 
> are operating on an extension of standards), it is conceivable that 
> Whitman could build a state of the art facility and offer that facility to 
> Moscow.  I know if I were working with the economic planners on the west 
> side of our border, I would certainly advise them to do a business plan. 
> If they can treat sewage better than we can, we might be forced to up our 
> investment to meet standards or buy from them.  The protocol reached by 
> the Moscow City Council seems to have diverted that pressure - at least in 
> the near term.
>
> My goodness - you certainly are looking hard for things to complain about. 
> But at least you seem to acknowledge that an executive session over the 
> litigation over water was a legal path for the council to pursue.  Now, do 
> you also accept that the litigation was instigated by the previous council 
> and the mediation would never have been required had that body not tried 
> to litigate the issue?
>
>
>