HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4.1 Approve 07-13-1992 Minutes (2) J
REGULAR MEETING - July 13, 1992
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held
on Monday, July 13 , 1992 , in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic
Center. The meeting was called to order at 7: 35 p.m. , by Mayor
Snyder.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor
Snyder.
ABSENT: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (610-20)
Mayor Snyder led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of
allegiance to the flag.
VIDEO PRESENTATION (330-80)
City Manager Ambrose advised that the City Council on June 9th,
adopted a balanced budget for the City of Dublin which included
reductions of about a quarter of a million dollars, with knowledge
that the State Legislature and Governor were discussing certain
reductions that could impact local government.
A short video was shown, "The California Dream: In Trouble" related
to California's budget crisis. This video was prepared jointly by the
League of California Cities and the City of Lakewood.
Cm. Jeffery advised that at the last Council meeting, the City Council
voted to fly the City flag at half mast until the State's Budget is
settled. She advised everyone that it is very important to pay
attention to' what the film said. Since Proposition 13, cuts that
cities have made are equal to the gains that the State has made.
Copies of the video can be made available for service groups.
CONSENT CALENDAR
On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous
vote, the Council took the following actions:
Approved Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 8th, Adjourned Regular
Meeting of June 9th, and Regular Meeting of June 22, 1992; (Mayor
Snyder abstained from voting on the June 22nd minutes)
Received the City Treasurer's Investment Report as of June 30, 1992
(320-30) ;
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 278
Regular Meeting July 13, 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO.
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 81 - 92
SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 1435
FEDERAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA)
(1060-90 & 660-40)
and approved a draft letter of support to be sent to Senator Kopp;
Accepted improvements under Contract 92-08 Street Slurry Seal Program
and authorized $56, 054 .44 payment to California Pavement Maintenance
Company (600-30) ;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 92
RECITING THE FACTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
HELD ON JUNE 2, 1992, DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND
SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW (630-30)
MEASURE G YES=3,270 NO=1,003
MEASURE H 2 YEARS=2,625 4 YEARS=1,529
and declared the Ordinance duly adopted by the people to be effective
on July 23 , 1992
ORDINANCE NO. 11 - 92
PROVIDING FOR THE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE MAYOR,
SETTING THE MAYOR'S TERM OF OFFICE, AND RELATED MATTERS
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 84 - 92
APPROVING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, DRAWING AND DELIVERING WARRANTS,
ACCEPTING AND RECORDING GRANT DEEDS, AND DECLARING THIS PORTION
OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND DOUGHERTY ROAD A PART OF
THE CITY STREET SYSTEM (600-30 & 670-20)
and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 85 - 92
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION
DETACHMENT FROM LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARR DISTRICT
and
RESOLUTION NO. 86 - 92
APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
REGARDING TAX EXCHANGE UPON DETACHMENT OF PORTION OF
LIVERMORE AREA RECREATION AND PARR DISTRICT (600-40)
CM - VOL 11 - 279
Regular Meeting July 13, 1992
and directed Staff to prepare and submit an application to Alameda
County LAFCO (620-20) ;
Adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 92
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-92
CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN ON NOVEMBER 3, 1992 (630-30)
Received a Preliminary Finance Report for the month of June, 1992
(330-50) ;
Accepted improvements for Contract 92-04 Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate
Drive Modifications, Phase I and authorized $3,497. 55 retention
payment to East Bay Excavating Company, Inc. (600-30) ;
Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $2,246, 214 . 15 (300-40) .
Cm. Burton requested that the Contra Costa County Dougherty Valley
Draft EIR be pulled from the Consent Calendar and discussed.
Senior Planner Carrington advised that traffic would have a major
impact on Dublin, as the report identifies that 13% of the total
traffic will come through the City of Dublin. Staff feels that a more
accurate estimate would be 20 to 25% . This would be the equivalent of
a 6 lane arterial . Also, DSRSD is listed as a possible source for
water and sewage, but Staff felt that cities in and Alameda County
should have .first priority for these resources.
Cm. Burton stated he lost a lot of confidence in their EIR when he
read Staff's comments. He questioned if they will mitigate the
problems that will apparently impact us. We should have some way of
expressing stronger concerns and should comment to the Board of
Supervisors and the City of San Ramon. The City Council should make
some kind of statements.
Mr. Carrington stated that factoring in corrections should be
relatively easy for them by using up to date transportation purposes
information. As far as mitigation, he was not sure the impacts are
mitigatable. This EIR document is with the County.
Cm. Jeffery advised that San Ramon is going through the same process.
She questioned when theirs would be ready to comment on.
Mr. Carrington advised that comments were made in March. They feel
the way to mitigate would be for us to reduce our East Dublin plan.
Cm. Moffatt commented that if cities lose control to counties,
counties will take over and develop.
Cm. Burton stated the jobs/housing balance was also way out of line.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 280
Regular Meeting July 13, 1992
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council received a Report with Staff comments and directed
that they be forwarded on the Contra Costa County Dougherty Valley
Draft EIR (420-50) ;
PUBLIC HEARING
COUNCILMEMBER AND MAYOR'S COMPENSATION (700-20)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
City Clerk Kay Keck presented the Staff Report and advised that the
California Government Code allows the City Council to enact an
Ordinance which provides for a salary increase of 5% for each calendar
year. No Councilmember shall be eligible to receive the increase,
however, until one or more Councilmembers begin a new term of office.
This will occur following the November, 1992 election.
Ms. Keck explained that if this Ordinance is adopted, Councilmember
salaries would be increased by $20. 10 per month. An Ordinance was
adopted in May of 1991 which provided for a 1991 increase of $19. 14
per month to the Council's current monthly salary of $382 .88. If this
Ordinance is adopted, the Councilmembers' total compensation following
the November election will be $422 . 12 per month.
Ms. Keck advised that the Council may also determine whether the Mayor
should be compensated in addition to what he/she receives as a
Councilmember.
Ms. Keck stated that Staff recommended that the Council make a
determination related to the 1992 5% salary increase and, if
appropriate, introduce the Ordinance. If the Council wishes to
compensate the Mayor in addition to the Councilmember compensation,
Staff should be directed to prepare the appropriate Ordinance which
would be brought back to a future Council meeting.
Cm. Jeffery pointed out that the approximate hourly rate for the
amount of work put in by the Council is about $6 per hour. The amount
of the increase is not a big deal, except for this year. The Council
should take the lead set by the City Manager and refuse to accept a
raise. She stated she did feel, however, that the Mayor should be
additionally compensated. A Mayor's responsibilities take a lot of
time, and she felt it was appropriate to compensate the Mayor.
Cm. Burton felt this was not the time to break down the Council's
public image by giving themselves a raise. The City Manager is
standing fast, and the Council should also.
Peter Hegarty stated as a former Councilmember, he knows what the
Council is going through. They don't make enough money for what they
do. If they do give themselves a raise, he did not feel that the
entire community would be upset. The residents elected them, and in
most instances, residents are proud of what the Council has done. You
can't compare a $20 per month raise to what the City Manager makes.
He felt the Council deserves $20 more per month.
:e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL it - 281
Meetinq July 13, 1992
Lee North suggested that the Council consider approving the raise, and
then just defer it this year, or until the financial situation
improves.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
Cm. Moffatt felt that since the Council is asking others to bite the
bullet, it should lead by example and do the same thing.
By a consensus, the Council took no action to approve a 5% increase
for calendar year 1992 .
With regard to additional compensation for the Mayor, Mayor Snyder
explained that this would not be relative to his current position of
Mayor. Voters passed the measure to directly elect Dublin's Mayor and
this question is now before the Council to determine the compensation
to be received by the person elected Mayor in November.
Cm. Jeffery requested that Staff bring back information relative to
what neighboring cities do.
Cm. Moffatt also questioned if there was anything like a job
description for the Mayor.
City Attorney Silver indicated that Staff could provide the Government
Code Sections which pertain to a Mayor's duties.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE WHICH ADOPTED THE 1991 EDITIONS OF THE
UNIFORM: BUILDING CODE, PLUMBING CODE AND MECHANICAL CODE (440-20)
Mayor Snyder opened the public hearing.
Building Official Taugher presented the Staff Report and advised that
State Law requires that the City adopt new editions of the Uniform
Codes 6 months after the State has adopted same. In order to adopt
codes by reference, it is necessary to have a noticed public hearing.
A newspaper notice will set a public hearing date of July 27th.
Mr. Taugher stated that only 3 code sections contain significant
changes. These changes relate to Swimming Pool Fences, Seismic
Requirements, and Fire Sprinklers. Other changes were discussed which
were concluded to be non-substantial changes.
Cm. Moffatt asked if the regulations relating to swimming pools will
be retroactive for people who are currently legal.
Mr. Taugher advised that it will only apply to new swimming pools, hot
tubs and spas.
Cm. Moffatt asked if the new rules would apply if you sell your house.
Mr. Taugher responded that they would not.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ n ■ e ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 282
Regular Meeting July 13, 1992
Mr. Taugher discussed the fire sprinkler changes and advised that the
new regulation would be less restrictive, but would not be
retroactive.
With regard to the seismic requirements, Cm. Moffatt questioned if it
would be worth the additional price of about $20, 000 on a $200, 000
house for these stress walls. Some of these buildings have to have
flexibility of movement. If you start strengthening these walls, he
thought you might be allowing the buildings to fall down easier.
Mr. Taugher explained the factors involved. Since the City is close
to 2 major earthquake faults, he felt it is worthwhile and that was
why he recommended that the seismic design forces be increased to
account for the proximity to the Hayward and Calaveras Faults.
Cm. Moffatt asked if other cities anticipate adopting these stricter
requirements.
Mr. Taugher advised that Hayward is still under the Uniform Code as
printed. He stated he was not aware of any other cities that have
taken this approach.
Cm. Burton stated he was concerned about the costs. The fault stops
at about Silvergate Drive. He is an advocate of affordable housing
and this increases costs. He stated he is a native Californian and
has been through a lot of earthquakes.
Mayor Snyder stated he didn't think Cm. Burton was here for the big
one in 1906..
Cm. Burton questioned with regard to fire sprinklers, what happens to
dwellings built after January, 1975.
Mr. Taugher explained that older houses were deemed to comply with
codes. They had to meet the code when they were built.
Cm. Burton asked Mr. Taugher to explain the Class A, B and C fire
roofs.
Mr. Taugher explained that the method of classifying roofs was set up
by Underwriters Labs and relates to vulnerability to fires.
Mr. Lee Baxter, Regional Manager of the Consumer Protection Agency
stated he was in favor of the swimming pool code. He discussed
swimming pool submersion statistics and stated they found that a
majority of accidents occured to children who lived there or were
visiting the home where the pool, spa or hot tub was located. They
work closely with code officials, as well as the National Spa and Pool
Institute. He showed a door alarm which meets the basics of the code
and costs less than $50. This would be only one measure that could be
taken.
Mayor Snyder closed the public hearing.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 283
Regular Idleeting July 13, 1992
Cm. Burton stated he would like to have the earthquake section
removed.
Cm. Jeffery made a motion, which was seconded by Cm. Howard to
introduce the Ordinance as presented.
Cm. Burton stated he wished to make a substitute motion.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by majority
vote, the Council waived the reading and introduced the Ordinance with
the additional seismic requirements (Section 12) removed. Cm. Jeffery
and Mayor Snyder voted against this motion.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous
vote, the Council scheduled a public hearing for July 27, 1992 for
second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTING THE WESTERN DUBLIN
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN PA 88-144 (420-30)
Planning Consultant Brenda Gillarde presented the Staff Report and
advised that at the June 8th City Council meeting, the Council was
presented with a resolution adopting the Western Dublin GPA and SP.
The resolution would have approved a Specific Plan for a maximum of
3 , 131 units on the Eden property and 74 units on the Milestone
property. Contained within the resolution were CEQA required
findings, a .statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation
monitoring program, all describing the SP with 3, 131 units on the Eden
property and 74 units on the Milestone property.
Ms. Gillarde advised that during the discussion, concerns were raised
by several Councilmembers about the impacts of the Milestone portion
of the project. Staff was directed to prepare an alternate resolution
which would adopt a SP allowing a maximum of 3, 131 units on the Eden
property and two units on the Milestone property.
After the June 8th meeting, the City received a letter from attorneys
representing Milestone requesting the Council to proceed with a
decision on the Eden property, but defer a decision on the Milestone
property until August 24th. The letter further requested preparation
of a third resolution which reflects their request to defer the
decision on Milestone.
Ms. Gillarde advised that Staff had prepared 3 resolutions for Council
consideration. 1) Resolution would adopt a GPA and SP for Western
Dublin which would allow a maximum of 3, 131 units on the Eden property
and a maximum of 74 units on the Milestone property. 2) Resolution
would allow a maximum of 3 , 131 units on the Eden property and a
maximum of 2 units on the Milestone property. This resolution
reflects the Rural Residential land use alternative for the Milestone
property. 3) Resolution prepared at the request of Milestone Land
Development Corporation which would approve a GPA and SP for Western
s ® ® : mmn : N N n E 0 0 0 ■ 0 ■ 0 0 ■ 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 ■ a ® 0 0 0 0
CM - VIOL 11 - 284
Regula Meeta.n July 13, 1992
Dublin which would allow a maximum of 3, 131 units on the Eden property
and would not specify any land uses for the Milestone property, and
defer a decision regarding the appropriate land uses for Milestone to
a later date.
Ms. Gillarde passed out documents which made minor changes and
explained that they were mostly editorial.
Cm. Moffatt advised that Milestone is requesting a deferment because
they have taken some new people aboard and in order to allow them
ample time, he felt the City Council should approve a deferment for a
set period of time.
Cm. Burton stated he was concerned that we would be using up one of
the General Plan Amendments allowed. We need to get going on the
eastern plan. He felt Milestone should be evaluated from another
perspective and stated he favored the second resolution. They have a
right to come back at some future time. He felt we could accomplish
the same thing by allowing 2 dwelling units and then let them come
back at some future time.
Cm. Moffatt asked if we will have to go through this all over again if
we go with 2 units on the Milestone property.
Ms. Gillarde advised that they would need to go through another GPA
because it would be different than what was adopted.
Cm. Jeffery reminded everyone that a promise was made to the people of
Dublin that -we would not develop those hills where the Milestone
property is.
Cm. Burton stated he felt it was proper that the 2 issues, Eden &
Milestone be separated.
On motion of Cm. Burton, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous
vote, the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 92
ADOPTING THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND WESTERN DUBLIN
SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
SPECIFIC PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
This resolution approved the development applications from Eden
Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc. , and 2 units, Rural
Residential on the Milestone property.
Cm. Howard left the Council meeting.
:e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 285
Meeting July 13, 1992
ALAMEDA COUNTY ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT PROGRAM (570-60 6 600-40)
Sergeant Masterson advised that under AB 4114, Chapter 1685, cities
and counties are authorized to establish a service abatement authority
with the power to impose a $1 motor vehicle registration fee on every
vehicle within the county for the abatement of abandoned vehicles.
The money is to be distributed to participating cities on a per capita
basis. Based on Dublin's 1991 population of 23 ,484, the City would
receive an allotment of $18, 334 to abate vehicles each year.
Sgt. Masterson explained that each city in the county must pass a
resolution in order to participate in the program. After the Board of
Supervisors has approved the program, it would be submitted to the
California Highway Patrol for final approval.
After the $1 per vehicle fee is collected by the State, the funds will
be transferred to a County Abatement Service Authority for
administration of the program. This Authority will consist of one
voting member from each participating city. The money can only be
used by the city assigned and cannot be used to supplement a city who
may have overspent their account. Monies that are not used one year
may be rolled over and added to that city's following year allotment.
This $1 registration fee can only be collected for 5 years from the
date the Authority is established.
Sgt. Masterson advised that to date, 8 of the 14 cities in Alameda
County have passed resolutions stating their intent to be a part of
the Alameda -County Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program. If the
Council does not pass a resolution, Dublin citizens will still be
assessed the extra $1 on registration fees, but the City will not be
able to use any of the money.
Cm. Burton asked how much it would cost for us to abate the vehicles
each year.
Sgt. Masterson stated $18, 000 is a lot more than enough. Abandoned
vehicles are not a big problem here in Dublin. We abate approximately
120 per year. Cars parked on public streets longer than the allowed
72 hours make up about 75% of our tows.
Mr. Ambrose pointed out that currently we are only identifying the
direct towing costs. If you add all the Staff time involved, we will
probably come closer to the $18, 000. We have to demonstrate what we
expend.
Sgt. Masterson advised that this program is good for 5 years. The
Department of Motor Vehicles will collect the funds and the State
Controller will put them in a trust fund. The County Treasurer will
get the funds quarterly and disburse them immediately.
Mayor Snyder stated this program sunsets after 5 years, but if it is a
major success, someone could ask that it be continued.
:e :u :a : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 286 Meeting July 13, 1992
J
Cm. Jeffery questioned if this would be an exception if the State
takes our entire VLF dollars.
Mr. Ambrose clarified that this is under another law and is completely
separate from the Vehicle License Fees.
On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Burton, and by unanimous
vote (Cm. Howard absent) , the Council adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 92
APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AND CITY OF DUBLIN
PARTICIPATION IN THE ALAMEDA COUNTY
ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT AUTHORITY
and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement and appointed the
Chief of Police or designee to serve on the Authority.
STATUS REPORT ON APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION
FROM MANDATORY GARBAGE SERVICE (610-20)
Management Assistant Bo Barker presented the Staff Report and advised
that since adoption of the Mandatory Garbage Service Ordinance earlier
this year, 38 individual residents have applied for an exemption from
garbage service.
Mr. Barker reviewed the significant factors and reasons for the
mandatory garbage service. Of major concern is the fact that State
Law requires that by the year 2000, the City must reduce the amount of
garbage placed in the landfill by 50%.
The applications for exemption from mandatory garbage service have
been reviewed and individual on-site property inspections made. Of
the 38 applications, 2 have been closed out due to a sale of the
property and new tenants have initiated service. Four other
applications have been approved because the property is vacant. The
remaining 32 applications cite a variety of reasons why they should be
exempted from service. These fall generally into 4 categories:
15 Take their waste to their place of business or work location.
9 Have their waste picked up by a friend or relative.
5 Are employees of the garbage company and take their waste to work.
(3 are employees of LDD which has a company policy which states
employees must subscribe to the mandatory garbage service. )
3 Take waste to the dump themselves.
Mr. Barker stated that according to the Ordinance, exemptions may be
granted only if the owner can demonstrate that no solid waste is
produced or accumulated on the property. This information is being
presented in order to allow the Council an opportunity to review its
policy on exemption from garbage service. Some of the specific
■ ® ® ® ■ O ® ■ ! ® ■ ® i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B ■ ■ A ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ! ® i ■ ® ■
CM - VOL 11 - 287
Regular Meeting July 13® 1992
circumstances may not have been anticipated when the Ordinance was
adopted and the exemption process originally developed.
Cm. Burton clarified that the minimum service is $6. 65 per month.
Mr. Barker stated this was correct. This rate provides for weekly
pickup of a a minimum 20 gallon container and also includes the
quarterly special pickups and weekly recycling pickups.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if we could verify those who take it to the
dump themselves. They could bring in receipts. Also, he questioned
those who work for the garbage company.
Mr. Rankin advised that the garbage company has a policy whereby
employees cannot file for an exemption from mandatory service. Also,
they are not allowed to transport their waste from one service
provider to another.
Cm. Moffatt felt that if they can verify and certify that they take
their garbage to the dump themselves, they should be given an
exemption. Also, if they have a company here and take their home
waste there, as long as they could show a billing in their name, we
should allow it.
Staff pointed out that this would be unfair to other ratepayers as
they would not be paying for recycling and the quarterly pickups.
Mr. Barker indicated that Staff's research shows that you can't take
it to the dump for less than it costs for weekly pickup service.
Mr. Rankin clarified that currently, the Ordinance requires weekly
trips to the dump.
Cm. Jeffery stated she felt that everyone should be treated fairly and
the same rules should apply to everyone. Exceptions could be handled
at the Staff level. What is appropriate for one resident is
appropriate for all.
Cm. Burton stated he was originally against mandatory service, but was
impressed with the work Staff had done. He felt that $6. 65 per month
is an appropriate rate for what's provided. We should not get into
the inspection business to determine whether someone goes to the dump
every week. If a resident is unhappy with the requirements, they can
appeal to the City Council.
The Council concurred (Cm. Howard absent) that the program should
continue as is.
Cm. Moffatt questioned if a person owns a business in Dublin and uses
a dumpster which is hauled away weekly, what is wrong with this?
Cm. Burton felt the problem was how do you monitor it.
CM - VOL 11 - 288
Regular Meeting July 13, 1992
OTHER BUSINESS
Upcoming Meetings
Mr. Ambrose advised that the Business Task Force will meet on July
16th at 2 : 30 p.m.
On Thursday, July 16th at 6: 30 p.m. , there will be a public meeting in
the RMR put on by Caltrans on the I-580/I-680 Interchange Project.
LAVTA (Wheels) 1060-20
Cm. Jeffery stated that at the recent Wheels meeting, it was suggested
that we have Mayor Snyder put on the Altamont Pass Coalition Study
Committee. She stated she would give the information to the City
Manager.
Tollroads (800-30)
Cm. Burton stated he was interested in having the City Council review
the tollroad situation. He has a couple of suggestions for a Council
position and would like to have this subject agendized.
Budget for Conferences/Meetings (330-20)
Cm. Moffatt stated he had a meeting to go to in Monterey and his
understanding was that he would have the normal $25 to go for a lunch
meeting. Also, he has another meeting to attend in Los Amgeles.
Mr. Ambrose advised that the League Policy Committee meetings which he
and Cm. Jeffery attend were budgeted for.
Cm. Jeffery advised that there will be a lot of discussion at the
Monterey Conference about budget strategies. We shoud find some way
of finding out how we can participate. She felt all the cities should
get together and say, "This is what we are going to do about the State
Budget. " There were several legal questions that were to have been
answered regarding taking cities monies. She stated the League is
looking at the possibility of getting a restraining order to stop the
State from taking our money.
Ms. Silver advised that the battle over SB 2557 is still being fought.
Cm. Jeffery asked if it would be possible to develop some kind of a
charter that all cities could adopt.
Ms. Silver stated the League could develop a master charter. The
process would require that a committee be established.
■ w ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
CM - VOL 11 - 289
Regular Meeting July 13, 1992
Mayor Snyder advised that he had accepted an invitation to address a
Thursday morning session at the League Conference and he will pay his
own expenses.
Cm. Jeffery felt perhaps the Council was being penny-foolish by
cutting out this important conference.
Cm. Burton suggested looking at the possibility of assigning one
person to go, particularly if that person is on a committee or board.
Mr. Ambrose pointed out that the Council adopted a budget which
deleted funds for the annual conference, the Executive Forum and the
Mayor and Councilmember's Institute. Other typical expenses that are
submitted for reimbursement are still in the budget, including policy
committee meeting expenses.
Cm. Burton suggested that the City pay Mayor Snyder's travel costs.
We should find a way to reimburse both Mayor Snyder and Councilmember
Jeffery since they will be attending at least part of the conference.
Mr. Ambrose advised that a certain amount was budgeted and if they
exceed the amount, a budget adjustment would need to be made.
Mayor Snyder stated he was planning on going down Thursday morning and
coming back when he was through Thursday.
Mr. Ambrose advised that Staff can deal with a budget adjustment, if
necessary, later in the year.
CLOSED SESSION
At 9 :40 p.m. , the Council recessed to a closed executive session to
discuss Personnel (600-30) , in accordance with Government Code Section
54957.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CM v VOL 11 - 290
Regular Meeting July 13, 1992