Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCCMINS 12-02-1996SPEC~2%L MEETSNG OF DECEIVER 2~ 1996 - 6:00 p.m. CClosed Session) C~LL TO ORDER - Mayor Brown called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue. ROLL CALL - Mayor Brown, Vice Mayor Tom Vargas, and Councilmembers Tom Reitter, Ayn Wieskamp, and John Stein were present. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - No comments were made. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - Council met with the City Attorney: 1) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (B). Facts and circumstances exist that might result in litigation and that are known to a potential plaintiff (including, but not limited to, an accident, disaster, incident or transactional occurrence): letter to Jerry Peeler from Michael White dated November 19, 1996 regarding Tract Map 6800 (Pulte Home Corporation). 2) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (E). A statement threatening litigation was made by David Lanferman on behalf of Pulte Home Corporation and Kaufman and Broad, but not at a public meeting. The City official or employee receiving knowledge of the threat is Thomas Curry. That official or employee made a record of the statement, and that record is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office. RECONVENE PUBLIC MEETING - The public meeting was reconvened at 7:04 p.m. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Brown at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue, Livermore. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Mayor Vargas, Councilmembers Stein, Reitter, Wieskamp, and Mayor Brown. Staff Members Present: City Manager Jerry Peeler, City Attorney Tom Curry, Planning Director Bob Brown, Assistant City Engineer Dan Smith, Finance Director Monica Potter, December 2, 1996 CM/57/149 Personnel Director Andrea Greenberg, Fire Chief Stewart Gary, Public Works Director John Hines, Police Chief Ron Scott, city Clerk Alice Calvert, and Senior Clerk Donna Geier. PUBLIC REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No report. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES APPROVAL - None. PROCLAMATION - A Proclamation was presented honoring Karin Mohr on her retirement from the Pleasanton City Council. CITIZENS FORUM - No comments were made. CONSENT CALENDAR ON THE MOTION OF CM STEIN, SECONDED BY VM VARGAS, AND BY A 5-0 VOTE, THE CONSENT CALENDAR WAS APPROVED. Mayor Brown asked when the Capital Improvement Program Budget would be presented to Council. City Manager Jerry Peeler said it will be presented to Council at the December 16 meeting. 1.1 Approval of warrants, minute order action, for the 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program. 1.2 RESOLUTION 96-285 Authorizing an Operating Agreement with Springtown Full- Service Golf, Inc. for the operation of the Springtown Golf Course Pro Shop and Coffee Shop. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 Hearing to reconsider adjustments to fees and permit- for users of Police, Fire, Building, Planninq, Engineering, City Clerk, and Finance Department services. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council reconsider the resolution adjusting the fees and permits. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing. Ken Bradley, 1332 Concannon Boulevard, thanked Council for allowing him to address this issue. He addressed a number of concerns including more fees and the fee increases. He hypothetically outlined a scenario involving a scout troop that enters a float in a parade, goes to a park for a birthday celebration complete with cake and candles, and then has a sleepover in somebody's tent. He outlined that the fee for a float is $100.00, a permit for candles is $255.00 (a 410% increase over the old fee), and a tent fee is $355.00 (a 592% increase over the old fee). He noted CM/57/150 December 2, 1996 that palm readers and fortune tellers will find the resolution beneficial because their permit fees dropped from $230.00 to $100.00. Mr. Bradley also noted that the previous fee document was approximately 15 pages, while the current resolution is 29 pages. As an outsider, he stated it is very hard to imagine why the fee structure is the way it is. For example, it looks as if it costs the Fire Department $695.00 every time they respond to a false alarm, $430.00 to respond to a DUI heavy rescue and $215.00 to respond to a DUI response. He went on to say he did not understand the permit for a masseuse, which is $65.00. If this does not apply to a Massage Therapist, Physical Therapist, or Chiropractor, then what kind of activity is this permit for? He explained that some things have happened roundabout. For example, some years ago the City required insulation in the attics of all homes sold. They devised inspections for this. However these inspections have evolved into reports which list the permits that are on a particular home. The fee for this was $10.00; it is now $30.00. Builders are requested to go through a Design Review Process which he understands as a painful process that has gone from $110.00 to $650.00. Developers who are making significant improvements in City facilities are required to pay even more fees. He stated that a fee system is needed. There are valid fees as well as valid times to collect fees for services. He requests that Council review these fees and take into consideration the interests of the community. Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. City Attorney Tom Curry said that this item was renoticed as a Public hearing to accommodate additional testimony. The decision tonight is whether or not the Council wishes to make any changes in the resolution that was already adopted. If so, they must move to reconsider and adopt something different. If the decision is not to make any changes, the matter can be concluded. The resolution has already been adopted and is effective; however, it can be altered. CM Wieskamp stated that she trusts the expert consultant who was hired. The consultant had a lot of input from the staff and reviewed everything very carefully. She does not support imposing unnecessary fees. She trusts that what is said is true, and supports the new fee structure. CM Reitter concurred with CM Wieskamp and would like to hear from the City Manager or any other staff members on the general philosophy about the fees reflecting the cost of providing the services. He asked if there were particular reasons for such significant increases in fees. December 2, 1996 CM/57/151 Mayor Brown commented that the objectives of the study were to cover the full costs, both direct and indirect, of providing City services. Fire Chief Stewart Gary clarified that non-profit, church and charity organizations are not charged fees. A tent permit requiring a fee would be for a business, such as Costco, having a tent sale which requires plan checking, electrical connections and on-site inspections. Costco would pay full cost recovery for this service. Most of the City fees have not been adjusted for some time, and this is the first time the fee schedule completely reflects full cost recovery. Depending on the fee, the increase was between 50 and 70 percent for full cost recovery for the Fire Department. City Manager Jerry Peeler stated that in many instances, particularly in the Fire Department and Building Department, the City looked at who benefits from the actions people are requesting from the City. In many instances, almost 100% of the time, the actions specifically benefited the individual or business who was requesting a specific activity. The approach was to attempt to recover 100% of the cost in these instances. For example, in the Planning Department, the City felt that the 70% goal of cost recovery was an appropriate goal because in many instances, 30% of the time the public interest is being served by a General Plan change or zoning request. Even though an individual stands to benefit from this, the 30% is an opportunity for the public to take an advantage of the concerns they may have toward a particular issue. The goal was 100% cost recovery benefitting the individual. CM Vargas asked what the goal was within the Animal Control Department for recovery. Police Chief Ron Scott said the goal was to come to equitable recovery. The majority of their fees do not recover near the 100% of the cost. Each one of the fees was developed by doing a cost analysis of the staff time involved. In many cases, after reviewing the fees, they were adjusted backwards from the recommended recovery rate to something more appropriate. The goal was to keep it reasonable and recover some of the costs. Mayor Brown stated that she has no desire to reconsider this item. City Manager Jerry Peeler commented that the last time this was done was five or six years ago. Some of the increases seem particularly dramatic, especially from a percentage standpoint. One of the goals is to review these fees on a more frequent basis to lessen the impact to both the public and the users. CM/57/152 December 2, 1996 THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS THAT NO CHANGES WERE NECESSARY TO THE FEE RESOLUTION. Z.Z Hearing to consider proposed merger of the Livermore and Pleasanton Fire Departments, including proposed organization design and cost sharing agreements. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council take the following actions: ae Adopt a resolution authorizing a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton, creating the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department Joint Powers Authority. 0 Adopt a resolution adopting the cost allocation plan for the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement as developed by the David M. Griffith Company. Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Memorandum of Understanding with IAFF Local #1974 and the Joint Powers Authority, and authorizing the City Managers to execute the agreement as Executive Directors of the Joint Powers Authority. Direct each Mayor to appoint two members and appropriate alternates from each City to the Joint Powers Authority Board. Direct the Joint Powers Authority Board to develop appropriate bylaws and present them to the City Councils for ratification. Mayor Brown asked Fire Chief Stewart Gary to present a brief overview. She also asked that, while providing a historical background, Chief Gary clarify if the City is doing anything currently with the City of Dublin that may require Livermore to pull back in certain areas. Chief Gary presented overhead transparencies providing goals and objectives. The first overhead asked why consolidate? Consolidation would accomplish 1) one integrated team, 2) management economies of scale, 3) sharing economical support services such as computer services and clerical support, and 4) better disaster coordination which means one integrated team. responding to both City's needs if a catastrophe occurs. Each City sets its own service levels while the cost allocation formula shares the management overhead expenses. Each Council is still individually responsible for the expenses of its fire personnel in its fire stations, December 2, 1996 CM/57/153 and can add or subtract fire companies as it deems fit based on its fire and General Plan policies. There will not be an occasion in the future where growth or lack of growth hinders another City from changing its fire services on the street level. The second overhead provided history of the consolidation studies. The first study was done in 1978. In 1994, after the County consolidated two fire districts and formed a new County Fire Department, the valley Cities and the County contracted with the Davis Company to look at the valley. The Davis study concluded that there were economies sharing fire services in the valley, especially at management and mid-management levels. In 1995, an Implementation Study was performed by the City Chiefs, and in 1996, the four Mayors met regarding governance options. As of June 1996, San Ramon notified the City of Dublin that the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority would be split. This began the request for proposal. The service base of this one integrated team includes a population of 124,000, 46 square miles, 6,500 incidents, and 10 fire companies, and provides a full range of services. The proposal is for a seamless two-City partnership, providing a quick, well-trained backup for multiple incidents, all capabilities and integrated response. These items help create an effective response which stops the emergency from escalating once the team gets there. The maximum responses that each partner would receive today are nine engine companies, one truck company, one air and light unit, one duty chief and one investigator. All this would be within 16 minutes based within the two Cities and again equates to an effective response force. Management changes include a decrease of 14 chief officers. Three chief officers will be leaving because Dougherty is dissolving and Dublin went with Alameda County. In Livermore and Pleasanton today, there are 10 chief officers, down three since 1992 when the recession started. The estimated final size should be about seven chief officers. That includes the use of some civilian positions as retirements continue to occur. Total staff positions will be nine. Before this consolidation, managers wore a variety of hats, doing a lot of part-time jobs, none of them 100%. When combined, there will be full-time shift supervision and emergency response with three chief officers, a full-time training officer, people focused on administration and full- time medical and disaster planning people. Instead of people doing a variety of jobs 10 to 20 to 30 percent of the time, there will be people focused in a specialized niche area. CM/57/154 December 2, 1996 Other personnel issues include one seamless work force, one single labor contract, union locals emerging into one, and firefighters initially staying in one parent city, yet being cross-trained in each other's City. However, there will be common promotion testing and common entry-level hiring and training. It is important that firefighters stay in their · parent City, and that fire captains know their community. More importantly, with common cross-training, when companies come together, there will be one team that is trained together, knows each other by name and knows each other's personal philosophies. The governance structure came down to two choices: a "lead" city which would provide all of the services under contract, or a Joint Powers Authority. The best of both has been used. The JPA Board will really be a sub-committee of the two Councils. It will set fire budget policy and personnel relations strategies, and recommend those strategies back to the two partner Councils for full adoption. Day-to-day operations will continue as they do today under the Council- Manager form of government. This type of consolidation will be invisible to the citizens. They will call 911 and get a firetruck. They do not intend to re-logo the vehicles. The "lead" City concept is not to create another bureaucracy. The cities will continue to use the finance, personnel, legal and City Manager functions, and as appropriate, share those costs under the cost allocation plan. Cost sharing was achieved by the David M. Griffith Company who was familiar with both Pleasanton's and Livermore's financial set-up. First of all, the ability to "share down" by attrition is needed. Second, a seamless sharing of overhead staff must be effective. The cost sharing formula is based in four areas: administration, fire suppression, command and control services, prevention, and hazardous materials regulation. There is a sub-formula inside each one of these areas. More importantly the revenues stay in each City and offset their own costs, allowing each city to set its own fees. The overall cost administrative allocation is as follows: Livermore picks up 54.07% of the costs, Pleasanton 45.93%. Pleasanton has more vacancies due to retirements during the recession. Today, Pleasanton is paying $745,000 while Livermore is paying $1.3 million. Livermore also has a full-service, fully-staffed Fire Prevention Bureau Program. Therefore, there is a $217,000 credit in new revenue to the City of Livermore as part of sharing a combined management fire-prevention team. This cost allocation formula will be run annually between the Finance Directors and David M. Griffith, and differences will be reconciled at the end of each fiscal year. Other future factors can be added into the cost allocation formula if needed. December 2, 1996 CM/57/155 The recommendation is that Council approve the five key steps: adopt the Joint Powers Agreement as proposed, adopt the cost allocation plan, adopt the MOU with the Local 1974, appoint the Council representative and alternates, and direct the JPA to have its first meeting to finish developing its bylaws. CM Reitter asked if there are any major incompatibilities as far as equipment between Pleasanton and Livermore. Chief Gary responded that they are dispatched by a separate communications center, but they share a common radio frequency. Pleasanton is co-owner with Livermore of the 800 megahertz radio system. Pleasanton is currently dispatched by Alameda County. They are also currently discussing with Alameda the possibility of moving the Livermore fire dispatch to the County, or will perhaps ask Pleasanton to make an alternate future dispatch decision. This will be looked at very aggressively early on. However, they currently have the same common frequencies and can talk to one another easily. Mayor Brown opened the public hearing. made and the hearing was closed. No comments were Mayor Brown thanked Chief Gary for his forward thinking and creativity, and the joint efforts of the City of Pleasanton. This affords the Cities tremendous opportunities and strengthens the public service delivery system and the paramedics system. CM STEIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, SECONDED BY CM REITTER. CM Stein commented that this seems like a win-win situation. The Cities win in terms of more effective service and a somewhat lower cost level. The citizens will be happy with the flexibility in day-to-day operation and can expect to have a much better response in terms of valley-wide emergencies. VM Vargas said this is a progressive matter in terms of the tax payers. It is an efficient use of limited dollars and affords the ability to enhance service. CM Wieskamp stated it is very positive to see the management and union cooperating so well. · MAYOR BROWN ASKED THAT THE MOTION INCLUDE APPOINTMENT OF HERSELF AND CM WIESKAMP AS DELEGATES TO THE JPA BOARD, AND THE REST OF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL AS ALTERNATES. Chief Gary stated they did feel the name reflected the two- city partnership. However, the question is still open CM/57/156 December 2, 1996 whether or not to hyphenate the name. If Council would like to see anything different in terms of identifying their City, they are open to that. THE MOTION PASSED BY A 5-0 VOTE, AND THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS WERE ADOPTED: RESOLUTION 96-286 AUTHORIZING A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LIVERMORE AND THE CITY OF PLEASANTON, CREATING THE LIVERMORE-PLEASANTON FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY RESOLUTION 96-287 ADOPTING THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT AS DEVELOPED BY THE DAVID M. GRIFFITH COMPANY RESOLUTION 96-288 APPROVING THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH IAFF LOCAL #1974 AND THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BY MINUTE ORDER ACTION, MAYOR BROWN APPOINTED HERSELF AND CM WIESKAMP AS DELEGATES TO THE JPA BOARD, AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL AS ALTERNATES, AND DIRECTED THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY BOARD TO DEVELOP APPROPRIATE BYLAWS AND PRESENT THEM TO THE CITY COUNCILS FOR RATIFICATION. Pleasanton City Manager, Deborah Acosta, thanked Council for the opportunity to work with the City of Livermore. The City of Pleasanton is just as excited about this joint venture. The meeting reconvened after a short recess with all members present. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None. 4. ORDINANCES - None. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Measure B Sales Tax - Discussion regarding reauthorization of the Measure B 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation. Assistant City Engineer Dan Smith explained that the present Measure B Program started in 1986 and runs through 2002. It is time to consider a reauthorization program. The Measure B reauthorization represents the best chance to fund some of December 2, 1996 CM/57/157 the major projects in Alameda County in the Tri-Valley area and in Livermore. The Alameda Transportation Authority is the agency responsible for developing the expenditure plan for the reauthorization program. Vince Harris, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Authority, introduced Administrative Manager Joan Van Brasch. Mr. Harris said the Measure B Program is an active program. It is comprehensive and will generate about a billion dollars in its current form. It is composed of four basic components: the Capital Construction Program which generates about 2/3 of the revenues; AC Transit; Counties Para-transit Program which receives about 1.5 percent of the total revenue, or $1.5 million per year; and the Local Street and Road Program which receives about 18% of the revenues, which is critical since each of the 14 Alameda County Cities and the unincorporated area of the County receive these funds monthly. Livermore receives about $400,000 a year in these funds alone. Capital construction is by far the largest. It receives a total of $700 million in Measure B funds and is helping all areas of the County including Livermore and the Livermore Valley. The draft of the measure in 1986 had some foresight, however, the projects do require additional funds. This is why the Authority established the initial usable segment approach. Early on, it was recognized that the funds needed to deliver the projects in their entirety as promised to the voters; however in some respects this cannot be done because of shortage of funds. The draft of the measure did understand that there would be projects that would not be finished, or would need to be.considered beyond the year 2002. Senate Bill 878 allows for the development of a new expenditure plan and mandates that they go forward with this process. In March of 1996, the Governing Board approved the plan of action that is currently before Council. The plan is intended to be inclusive. It was developed based on a stakeholder approach. This means that since 1986, many individuals, groups and jurisdictions have gained a real benefit from the program. The Authority is building upon the stakeholder concept. The Authority, in conjunction with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, is going forward with this effort. Mayor Brown confirmed that Livermore-Amador Valley Transportation Authority did not receive Measure B monies. AC Transit was the only operator, other than Para-transit, that directly received funds. Mr. Harris said what has been developed includes several steps, the first being approval of the plan. Next is the formulation of a steering committee, which is an advisory body composed of both board members from the Transportation Authority and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, with a board member representing the transit CM/57/158 December 2, 1996 community. These members were asked to serve by the chairs of the boards of ACTA and CMA. In the next phase of work the consultant, Moore, Iacofano, and Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), will act as a facilitator for this overall process. They have also hired a polling firm which will assist in assessing the pulse of the public as they move forward and look at preparing the new projects for the expenditure plan. They will also be hiring a technical support consultant to help identify the project descriptions and also allow them to gain an accurate sense of cost estimates. This plan has been put together to provide an avenue, or forum, for as many interested parties as possible to become a part of developing this expenditure plan. In some respects it is a funnel approach. They have been approached by many interested groups and individuals. Almost 300 different groups have contacted the Authority acknowledging that they want to be stakeholders in the overall process. From this, workshopS will be held to receive input from leaders in the community to gain some sense of sentiment. The Authority is trying to adhere to the planned schedule of events. Their basic work needs to be done by the end of next year so this item can be placed on the ballot in 1998. To place it on the ballot, they need to have the concurrence from the majority of the Cities representing the majority of the population in the County. They are in the process of holding self-held workshops. They can be held by individuals and groups so they can provide information to the Authority by December 15. A kit has been developed so individual groups can hold their own workshops so they can determine what they want considered in the new expenditure plan. Mr. Harris explained that community group meetings are also going to be held in each of the four areas of the county: central, north, south, and east. They are in the process of determining the dates and locations. Meetings will be held January 8 in the central part of the County including Hayward and San Leandro; January 15 will be the north County which encompasses Piedmont, Berkeley, Emeryville and Oakland; and meetings will be held January 22 in the south County which is Union City, Newark and Fremont; and in east County on January 29. The purpose of the meetings is to join people of different interests to.express their concerns of what they would like to see in the plan. From now through February 1, workshops for Councils will also be held. Ultimately the intent is to have applications come from these groups to the steering committee to develop the Expenditure Plan Development Committee or the EPDC. This is a body of individuals of about 40 persons who would actually work on the formulation of the expenditure plan. They will be assisted by MIG and the technical support consultant. December 2, 1996 CM/57/159 Through these workshops and other avenues, the steering committee will receive applications for the EPDC membership. The steering committee has broken itself up into captains. There will be one captain for each area of the county. The captains will be responsible for screening the applications for the EPDC. The EPDC should be composed of a very good group of individuals representing all interests of the County. Not everyone who applies will make it. The applications need to be in by February 1. The Authority is currently working on the application. They hope the EPDC will be formed by February 24. The first orientation meeting will be in March. Typically they will meet monthly. They may have to meet twice a month for some of the early meetings. Key dates for jurisdictions are March 31 for submittal of the early project and program list, and meetings two and three of the EPDC will be held in April. They will begin to start looking at these projects and programs as they are submitted and will also work with the Alameda County Transit Advisory Committee, who will serve as the advisory body to the EPDC, to give some sense of the kinds of programs going in the overall "pot" from the regional County perspective. In May, they hope to be making a recommendation on the selection and prioritization of these projects. An expenditure plan is hoped to be drafted by July, and the Authority hopes to have the final recommendation on the Plan by September 1997. This is the cumulative process they hope to take in going through this reauthorization effort. CM Reitter asked if the Authority is anticipating a similar kind of split like that of the current four components of the program. Mr. Harris responded that it is not determined; however, they have formulated some criteria for the EPDC, and it comes down to balance. Not all of the percentages have been received, but this will definitely be a part of the discussion as they go through the process. CM Reitter asked if the Authority expects local matches to be a key component of the new plan. CM Wieskamp responded that many of the members have felt that it is very imperative not to do local matches. They need to come up with accurate numbers of the money they need to ask for. CM Reitter asked how much the gasoline tax would have to be raised in this area to provide the same amount of money. Mr. Harris said he does not have this information but it can be provided. They are looking at 10 to 20 years of the 1/2 cent tax. CM/57/160 December 2, 1996 VM Vargas asked if the Authority has an order of magnitude estimated in terms of a tax enacted today that would generate the same life as the prior Measure B Authorization. Mr. Harris said the current Measure B Program generates about $70 million per year. In the fifteen year term, it is over a billion dollars for this current program. They are using a basic projection of that same growth curve with some conservative assumptions. In the ten years, they anticipated $1.4 billion. About $2.8 billion was estimated for the 20-year program if it could be achieved. The current Measure B Program has generated more funds than was estimated in 1986. In 1986, it looked like about $60 million a year. Within the last couple of years, it has generated almost $70 million per year. As it relates to the capital projects, much of the shortfall was encompassed in estimates that were below cost that did not include inflation. They are being very cautious on this reauthorization effort to make sure they get more solid estimates up front. Mayor Brown said the public needs to take advantage of every opportunity to be able to grasp it from the get-go so it's not a learning curve in the end. The steering committee needs to be able to bring the information home in terms of what has been received out of Measure B and what is expected from it if people vote for it again. People need to simplify it. Everyone needs to understand and get behind this issue. CM Wieskamp stated that the local funds represented about 18% of the total sales tax program in the Tri-Valley share of the population. A lot of this went into one project, but it was a project long awaited. The whole County has pulled together and decided that the people deserve a BART station, and they put a major amount of the money into that. Everybody in the County needs to get a reasonably fair share, but sometimes somebody may give a little more because it benefits the whole County. The survey that is going on will be very important in determining what the expectations of the citizens are. The citizens must be involved, because it is their vote that will pass Measure B. CM Stein said the most important thing is to solve existing problems. The main reason Measure B passed was because everybody viewed 880 as a major problem and all the communities on the west side of the hill voted that the problem needed to be fixed. The first question to ask of the citizens is, what do they think are the existing problems in the County? Maybe there are only five or six, but they need to focus on those because those are the ones that will get the votes. There were a couple of projects December 2, 1996 CM/57/161 that people didn't view as major problems, but as things that were necessary to get community and County-wide support. Major existing problems are what the County needs to focus on because they will get the votes. Mayor Brown invited members of the audience to comment. Chris Kinzel, Transportation Consultant, stated that the Tri-Valley Business Council recently sponsored a transportation forum held in Livermore. He thanked Mayor Brown for her participation. He said he supports the staff's recommendation and that of the Alameda County Transportation Authority. A good transportation system benefits residents, visitors, employees, employers and motorists. Transportation is a key issue when discussing the quality of life, especially when congestion enters the picture. Not too many years ago, a commute of sixty minutes was considered the very maximum. Today, commutes in excess of 90 minutes are common. Long commutes negatively effect nearly everyone except maybe oil companies or radio stations. The Tri-Valley Business Council is supportive of an approach which uses all forms of transportation financing including gas taxes, developer fees, and sales taxes such as Measure B. In the Tri-Valley alone in the next 15 years, there could be road deficiencies as high as $400 million dollars. If normal income sources were used, the income would be under $50 million without utilizing such funding sources as Measure B. The Measure B reauthorization should include funds for increased highway capacity, for road maintenance, and for transit as recommended in the staff report. At a recent meeting of the Transportation Committee of the Tri-Valley Business Council, the two highest projects from.a priority standpoint were Route 84 between Livermore and Sunol and Interstate 680 and between Route 84 and Milpitas. The 1-650 project is so new, it is not on any official lists of problems, although this project is very severe and would be a concern to the voters. The Tri-Valley Business Council urges the City to move forward on this Measure B reauthorization Program. No other comments were made and Mayor Brown closed the public hearing. Mayor Brown said the whole purpose of tonight was not to vote on Measure B, but to begin the process of developing projects, information, and to support the Transportation Authority in its efforts to move forward. VM Vargas stated he visualized ACTA as providing some operating assistance to LAVTA as part of the Measure B Program if there is a component that includes operating assistance for transit. There will clearly be increased demands in the valley dealing with the congestion that is occurring, particularly if LAVTA is expected to deal with the kinds of problems on 1-580. He stated that there should CM/57/162 December 2, 1996 also be support for passing the Altamont Pass Rail, because it is fairly a minimal investment for an ability to get some transit alternatives over to the Santa Clara Valley. Mayor Brown asked how the survey will be administered. Will people be asked what they think are important projects, or just for a list of projects that they might support? Mr. Harris responded that it is a combination. The consultant has provided a draft of the polling device. It will be devised to ask "would you support these projects?" and then will ask, "would you pay for them?" Project questions will be asked generally at first; specifics will come later. CM Wieskamp asked when the EPDC applications will be available to the City of Livermore and Pleasanton, so everyone will know when and where to send people if they are interested in getting an application. Joan Van Brasch, Alameda County Transportation Authority's Administrative Manager, answered that the applications will be available by the end of the week. The cities have received notice that they can get an application from ACTA. CM Wieskamp said she hopes they receive a wide range of applicants. She recalled a previous committee which had problems with the applicants not attending meetings and coming in at the last minute not knowing what had happened previously. It should be emphasized that people must be committed and their full participation is required. Mr. Harris said that the Authority recognizes those problems that did occur. They are being very organized as far as how the meetings are being held. A record will be kept of what goes on at each meeting. The Expenditure Plan Development Committee will be balanced to make sure there is appropriate representation from a whole host of different groups. Mayor Brown said that there were people who actively worked against Measure B in the Livermore community. It did not pass in Livermore. She suggested to CM Wieskamp that they invite these citizens to a workshop. CM Wieskamp said that one has to expect there will be a certain amount of negatives on any tax proposal; however, the more open and inclusive it is, the better. VM Vargas concurred with a focus on Highway 84 as a project. There also needs to be an improvement between Vineyard and 1-680. December 2, 1996 CM/57/163 CM Wieskamp said this is a County-wide process, and there will be feedback from Fremont regarding what is done in this section as to whether other problems could occur. Hopefully this improvement can be made without the solution causing another problem. City Manager Jerry Peeler said a couple issues came up several weeks ago relative to Measure B reauthorization in regard to whether the Council wants to join with other valley Cities to present a valley priority list. Is this something the City would be interested in doing? Should it be done individually or in the context of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council? Mayor Brown Said if the Tri-Valley Transportation Council can develop something for the City, or if a sub-committee of Alameda County can be created, it would be great. It needs to be bounced off the survey and attention needs to be given to the voters. CM Wieskamp stated that the question has come up regarding a cost analysis of the benefits of various projects, "Does this list make sense, or is there anything that needs to be shifted?" There is a limited amount of money to be spent in the valley, therefore it needs to be determined where it would be most beneficial to make changes in problems. People need to see good results for dollars. Mayor Brown said what each project means needs to be defined. For instance, the 1-580 Interchange for Route 84: is Livermore responsible for the toll road lane? Assistant City Engineer Dan Smith said the interchange in the Project Study Report has been designed as to not preclude a future toll road; however, there are no toll road facilities whatsoever. It just had to be shown that a future facility could exist. Mayor Brown said this is the type of question the community is going to ask. Anything that is produced should be clear in terms of defining a project. John Hines said the idea of putting the toll road in conjunction with the existing interchange is much more complicated than just adding two more lanes to the interchange. It is two entirely different problems. CM Stein said the public does not want to see too much flexibility. They want a list of dollars and projects. Most people can identify the major problems in the valley: 1-580 east of 1-650 in the afternoon, Dublin Grade in the morning, 1-680 in both directions on Mission Peak and the interchange between 238 and 1-580. CM/57/164 December 2, 1996 ?. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - None. 8. MATTERS INITIATED BY CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, STAFF, AND COUNCILMEMBERS City Commissions/Boards - City Clerk Alice Calvert announced that there are vacancies on City commissions/boards. The Planning Commission vacancy requires the entire City Council to interview. She suggested that Council interview Planning Commission applicants on Monday, January 6, at 6:00 p.m., City Hall, Conference Room A. Mayor Brown suggested that the City Clerk's office hold off on the other committee vacancies until she is able to confirm her schedule in January. She tentatively scheduled interviews for Youth Advisory Commission, Airport Advisory Commission, Design Review Committee, and Beautification Committee on January 14 and January 28 (to be confirmed). Lab work on Carbon Aero Gel Filters - said there was an article in the paper over the weekend about the Alameda County Water District working with the Lab on their carbon aero gel filters for reverse osmosis types of applications. John Hines replied that about eight months ago, the City made an offer to the Lab to provide space, utilities, manpower and whatever necessary to help conduct the experiment. However, they went to the Alameda County Water Authority. VM Vargas asked that this be monitored. Moratorium on Residential Development - CM Reitter said Council may want to consider a moratorium at their next meeting on residential development. Mayor Brown said they can consider it at the next meeting, and move it to January if necessary. Reverse Osmosis - CM Stein asked if Council could get a status report on reverse osmosis at their next Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. The December 9, 1996 City Council meeting has been rescheduled to December 16, 1996, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 3575 Pacific Avenue. APPROVED: ATTEST: ALICE CALVERT, CITY CLERK CITY OF LIVERMORE December 2, 1996 CM/57/165 ................................... 1' TT 1' '