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' '