HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 TriVlyTransp&ActionPln
..
~
.
(
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
City Council Meeting Date: January 10, 1994
SUBJECT:
Tri-Valley Transportation and Action Plan Model Results
Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson
EXHIBITS A~CHED:
1) Draft letter to Tri-Valley Transportation Council
2) Map showing Road Network Systems Level of Service
3) Table showing possible Alternatives for the Tri-valley
Transportation Plan
4) Blank rating form for Study Alternatives
5) Table showing Land Use Data used in the latest Model run
6) Tri-Valley Transportation Joint Powers Agreement
RECOMMEHDATION~)
Hear Staff presentation and discuss study alternatives
identified in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 is a rating form for
Council's use to help prioritize the study alternatives.
2) Authorize the Mayor to send the attached letter (or as
modified) to Tri-valley Transportation Council
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None at this time.
DESCRIPTION: The Tri-Valley Transportation Council's traffic consultant,
Barton-Aschmann, has now run the Tri-Valley Transportation Model for the Year 2010
with land use data acceptable to each of the seven jurisdictions. The model results
indicate the following three major regional roads in the Dublin area that will not
meet generally acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standards, D for arterial streets
and E for freeways:
1) Dublin Boulevard (from 1-680 to Livermore): LOS E and F
2) 1-580 (throughout the Tri-Valley area): LOS F
3) Tassajara Road (throughout the Eastern Dublin area): LOS F. However, the
model shows that Fallon Road will have enough capacity to accommodate some
of the overflow traffic from Tassajara Road, which would then improve the
LOS on Tassajara Road to acceptable levels.
Because Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 are the only two major regional east-west roadway
systems in the Dublin area, these roadways will not accommodate all of the projected
east-west traffic demand. One or more of the following improvements or combination
upgrading of improvements could improve Dublin Blvd. and 1-580 to acceptable LOS:
WITHIN DUBLIN'S JURIDICTION
OUTSIDE OF DUBLIN'S JURISDICTION
1) Extending the transit spine
road to Livermore
1) Upgrading Highland Avenue
2) Upgrading SR 84 to a six-lane expressway or
freeway from 1-680 to Vasco Road
3) Widening Vasco Road to four lanes
4) widen 1-580 from Greenville Road to Eden
Canyon Road
The next step in preparing the Tri-valley Transportation Plan is to find methods of
matching development to needed roadway improvements. The TVTC has proposed six
types of studies to undertake to try to match transportation improvements to
developments (see Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 3 lists these six different transportation study alternatives and the
earlier preferences from each of the other Tri-Valley jurisdictions. The Dublin
City Council did not previously rank the alternatives because results of this latest
model run were not available, and it was felt at the time that it was not prudent to
recommend solutions until it was known where the problems would occur. It appears
---------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------
ITEM NO. Z-i..--
COPIES TO: Bill van Gelder, T.E.
City of Pleasanton
. .
.
.
that the majority of the other jurisdictions would prefer the reduced land use
growth rate as a first alternative, transit improvements and shifting higher
densities to mass transit centers as the next highest alternatives, then road
improvements, and increasing Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures and reducing
the LOS standards as the last alternatives. TDM measures would include such things
as telecommuting, flex hours, four-day work weeks, carpooling and paying for
employee parking.
At the December 15th Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) meeting, the TVTC
directed staff and the consultant to explore improvement to the network system by
reducing the land use growth rate for the Year 2010. At that meeting, John Dillon
from the City of San Ramon informed the TVTC that he had contacted EPS (the land use
consultant to Barton-Aschmann) to find out the absorption rate for development in
the Tri-Valley area. He was told by EPS that the absorption rate for the area is
projected to be approximately 2.8% per year. The existing Tri-valley land uses in
the model reflect an approximate 4% growth rate per year. Therefore, the TVTC
directed staff and the consultant to study a reduced area-wide land use growth rate
of approximately 2.8% growth rate instead of 4%.
staff believes that the direction given by the TVTC is inappropriate. The Tri-
Valley Transportation Joint Powers Agreement clearly states: 1) that its purpose is
to provide for the joint preparation of a transportation plan and to provide a forum
for the review and coordination of transportation facilities; and 2) that the
transportation plan must be approved by all jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction should
determine its own land uses, growth rates, and transportation alternatives for its
own area. The TVTC has no authority to determine land uses, growth rates, or
transportation alternatives. Individual jurisdictions may need to coordinate with
other jurisdictions to prepare a regional transportation plan and implement regional
transportation solutions. The determinations of individual jurisdictions for their
own areas then need to be assembled and coordinated for the region.
Dublin's Planning Department and the City's consultant, WRT, feel more comfortable
using Dublin's existing Year 2010 land use estimates. It should be noted that the
City of Dublin's land use numbers are consistent with the latest ABAG growth
projections (projections '94). These numbers are based on professional land use
studies conducted by Staff, the City's consultants, and ABAG over the last several
years. AlSO, the CMA and MTC will not accept a computer model that shows land uses
inconsistent with ABAG projections, which will happen if the projected growth rate
is drastically cut. If the numbers do not approximately match ABAG numbers, the
model cannot be used for CMA Deficiency Plans, air quality studies, and/or other
environmental documentation studies.
A negative aspect of reducing the projected growth rate is that it could increase
the cost per unit for infrastructure improvements and thereby the needed traffic
impact fee amount per unit. In addition, if Dublin develops a roadway network and
financing plan for reduced growth by the Year 2010, not all of the needed
infrastructure will be planned, financed and implemented. To go back and widen
roadways after the fact would be a more costly undertaking.
It would seem to staff that it is shortsighted to articifially reduce the rate of
growth to match a transportation system and not plan for a transportation system to
match anticipated development. Reducing the growth rate would give unrealistic
expectations on what impacts that growth in other jurisdictions would have on
Dublin's infrastructure. The TVTC should be reminded that it does not have the
authority over land uses for any jurisdictions but is an adivsory planning body.
Staff therefor recommends that the City Council set the following priorites for
further TVTC plan Studies for the Dublin area only:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Additional road improvements
Increase TDM measures
Higher densities near transportation nodes
Reduced Level of Service
Transit improvements
Reduce land use growth rate
(a lot)
(a lot)
(some)
(some)
(some)
(none)
staff also recommends that Council send the attached letter (Exhibit 1) to the TVTC
expressing the City'S concern with reducing the growth rate for the Year 2010 and
providing the City Council's priorities for further transportation studies.
Page 2
.
.
~
January 10, 1994
Ms. Millie Greenberg, chair
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
c/o Mr. Bill van Gelder
Traffic Engineering Department,
City of Pleasanton
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton CA 94566
SUBJECT:
Dublin City Council's Preferred Transportation Alternatives
and opposition to Reduced Land Use Growth Rate
Dear Ms. Greenberg:
In response to the Tri-Valley Transportation council's (TVTC) request, on January
10, 1994, the Dublin City Council analyzed and ranked the transportation plan
alternatives for further study in the Dublin area as follows: Road Improvements (a
lot); Transit Improvements (some); Higher Densities (some); Reduced Land Use Growth
Rate (none); Reduced Level of Service Standards (some); Increase TDM Measures (a
lot) .
At the TVTC meeting of December 15, 1993, the TVTC directed its Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and consultant, Barton-Aschmann Associates, Inc., to run the Tri-
Valley Model using a slower growth rate for the whole Tri-Va11ey area (2.8%, instead
of the current 4%) for the Year 2010. EPS, a land use consulting firm, recommended
an absorption rate for development in the Tri-valley area based on what they feel
the market will support by the Year 2010. The members of the TVTC have not received
anv tvpe of formal report from EPS that supports this conclusion. The TVTC is
hoping that network deficiencies will be improved or eliminated if jurisdictions
slow the rate of land use growth. The TVTC concluded that if the model results
still show network deficiencies, the rate of growth may be decreased more in some
areas.
The City of Dublin would like to go on record as opposing a reduced land use growth
rate for the following reasons. First, our staff and the City's land use
consultant, WRT, derived land use numbers after more than three years of
professional land use studies.
Second, Dublin's Year 2010 land use numbers are consistent with ABAG's projected
land use numbers. This is significant to the extent that the congestion Management
Agency (CMA) and MTC will not accept a computer model that shows land uses
inconsistent with ABAG's. If the model is not consistent with ABAG numbers, then
the model cannot be used for CMA Deficiency Plans, air quality studies, and/or other
environmental documentation. We do not believe that it is prudent to have two
models, one with numbers acceptable to the CMA, ABAG, and some Tri-val1ey
juriSdictions, and another with TVTC's numbers that indicate a slower growth rate
with no traffic congestion that cannot be used for any official and legal purposes.
r('~:: ..":? ;""j ':'::, ~..~ft /
'~., :; ~~;
t...:." ~.-,,' ;,';.:.;, i" ,," "",,, ,~ j ·
.
.
Third, we strongly believe that the Tri-valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan
should incorporate policies, objectives and implementation strategies for ultimate
Tri-Valley growth for the Year 2010. Not planning for ultimate growth or faster
growth rate for Year 2010 may result in increased traffic deficiencies at the Year
2010 or beyond and costly right-of-way acquisition expenses to construct the needed
roadway network at that time.
Fourth, with a slower growth rate through land use regulations, the regional traffic
impact fee could be higher. If the amount of development is reduced, a higher
traffic impact fee is needed to pay for the transportation network.
Fifth, there is no accepted evidence to support a slower market growth rate.
Sixth, the JPA clearly states that its purpose is to provide for the joint
preparation of a Transportation Plan and to provide a forum for the review and
coordination of transportation facilities and must be approved by all jurisdictions.
Therefore, it is more appropriate for each jurisdiction to provide the TVTC and the
TVTC's consultant with land use data than having the land use data dictated to the
jurisdictions.
We realize that the Tri-Valley area is at a critical juncture in terms of
anticipated future development and future transportation plans. The TVTC has a
major responsibility and task to develop a transportation model and plan that is
acceptable to all Tri-Valley jurisdictions. Therefore, we urge you to reconsider
your direction to run the model with only the slower growth rate alternative. We
feel it is more appropriate to study a combination of alternatives. This will
present a more viable solution for future traffic congestion in line with the
original charge to the TVTC.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to continue working
with the TVTC to develop an effective and reliable transportation plan for the
future Tri-Valley area.
Sincerely,
Peter W. Snyder
Mayor
PS/CRC/mb
cc: Alameda county Board of supervisors
Contra Costa county Board of supervisors
Town of Danville Town Council
San Ramon City Council
Pleasanton City Council
Livermore City Council
TVTC TAC
a:jan\05tvtc
.
, Co
"
..
~
."
.,
~
~
<:)
\
\
\
\
;;ll n"lW'l3l/~ "\
i:i:it; ~
-lb -
t~, :::1
~lI:.;I: _
I
~I
_I
3
1
~
o
.
-
,.....
X
'X
'X
o
~
n ~
@€)
os
~
(Ill """"",i""<lJ
!,C.~ :'. ::- ...' "_
~~ :'"e;~
.":"~!"=;,
,\
-., "~
,[, ~
2
"._ .0.-\" \.ii.,~ ,~j "ftJ ,........>
:1
!;).
~
~-
"""61
:r \,lj. ~
\~~~
'1
~'t'fr
-\ ":2.
~~
. \ ~ ~
\~ --'-~
. .
-
~ ~
U)
'tI M
(]) ...<
III (])
III J.., ~
(]) ::l '"
J.., III Q) 0 (]) Q) Q) Q)
U '" ~ ..... l:: g <:: l::
l'1 Q) 0 0 0 0
....~ CIl .0: Z CIl Z :z;
.-
-
>-
..... 0 ~
<:: U III
(/) 0 III ->-
S'tl <\I"'1ll
III >CO"'
>- ~ III
'tlJ.., ~ >-1Il
III '" III ""
U'tl ". :0....
::ll'1 III Q) Q)'c Q) Q) Q) III
'tl'" g "" g tl>'tl <:: <:: l:: l::
~ 1Il-IJ 0.... 0-1""1 s:: 0 0 0 0
ll;(/) CIl~ CIl:t:Ill Z Z Z :z;
M
i Po
III 'tl~
0
H <:: III
~ "'"
,.; <::
~ tl>(])
<::S
.....1Il
Po III ""
III Ill.....
~ ,C::3
(]) 1lotJ'
-IJ (])
'" Q) ""
'till; 'tl
>< <:: ::3>-
I>l Ill..c:: .....U
M 0-<-1.1 U <::
~P\ :it ,:: Q)
'tlO ..... ""
l>'''' ~~ ~~ ..., '" '" '"
.'"
H" ::3...... Q) U 0 0 III 0 0
I>: 'tIQ) C C ..... ..... g ..... .....
~ .. &~ 00 0
. ."" ... ZU ,0( ,0( CIl ,0( .0:
1>:"
0
"""" III
ID
~1l III
.....
HID J..,-IJ
~~ Ill'''' '"
..c::lIl 0 Q) Q) III Q) III
... III III bll'1 ..... S g g g S
.. I>: '''i <II 0 0 0 0 0
I>l :t;Q .0: CIl CIl CIl CIl tIl
~
~ III
III -IJ
~ <::
~ III
g
I>l -1.1 III
~ III '''i :-
~ III 0 '"
l'1 J.., <II 0 Q) III <II III
t.l ~~ g ..... g g g a
0 0 0 0 0
I>l tIl ,0( tIl tIl tIl ell
M
jq
H
III
III III
0
Po -IJ
<::
III
g
III
:-
0
'tlJ.., QI III III III (]) ~
"'0. a ~ a g a
~~ 0 0 0 0 0
tIl CIl tIl tIl ell '"
0
!l >- u
'"
,:: <:: III
o III ::3 ..., -1.1
-1 III 0 III <:: J.,
-IJU U 0 III 0 <:: III
U l'1 U III J., '" 0 f3
'''i <II III ..... 0 c a
'tlJ.., 'CJ III ..... <:: g III III -1.1
III III QI J., .... ..... J., III I>: -I
...,.... g '" :> .... Q) III III
J., III III C l:: .ll :> QI ,::
::l J.., ..... 0 III :l .... ..... III U
..,Q., .0: U Q Q M P. '" QI
'\:l
-
III
F"''" ~'\~3"!> 'JIi!l'f 3.
f;' )\ t.;':.1 i; Itj :
.... . ,I..,.. _
6:.2..:t ~~ ~~_~;.. WI I -
~E
Pi=
aI
lZi
Ot!)
Hili
E-tH
~a
o
PiIlQ
all>
~~
E-t~
=
>l1lQ
1lQE-t
~~
~>l
ICl
He
~~
.
><
o
l!l
~
~
H
p::
IJ.l
~
Ilt
~
z
0
H
E-l 4-1
~~ +J Q) Q) Q) Q)
~Cl 0 a a a c 0
~z r-i 0 0 0 0 r-i
E-!~ ~ 00 00 00 z <
oo~
0
t)
~
p::
8
0
~
~
~
0
00
~
z
0
z
-
00
0 00
4-1 I-l Q)
C ......... f..l
Q) ;:j
Q) [ ~ ~ 'Cllll
0 00 C ltl
00 ..... o Q) 0 ..... ltl ltl Q)
4-1 > .jJ'Cl r-i > :3 a a
C J.l 0 Q) J.l'Cl Q)
Q) Q) 00 C > Q) ltl 0.-..
~ ~ 00 Q) Q) 000 ::E:
:::- ..... C 'Cl f..l 00
H > 4-1 4-10 11-I .....8
~ 0 ..... ..... ..... 11-I o C 11-I......
J.l 00 004-1 0 0 11-I
~ C C ltl ....-l ltl+J
ltl Q)4-I Q) Q) 00 J.l C
~ ..... f..l 'Clf..l 4-1 >'Cl E-!Q)
8 .jJ 0 ltl Q) f..l a
I-l 'Cl ~ g f..l ~ltl ~ ~
< ltl Q) 'Cl
0 > II-IC Q) QJ C ltl ltl
J.l 0 00 ltl 0 o ltl Q) C
J.l C f..l ;:j ;:j4-1 J.l ltl
'Cl ~ ltl+J 'Cl 'Cloo O~
'Cl J.l QJ Q) C
< H E-t p:: p:: H
,
- - - - - -
M N M "'" 10 I.D
~
t)
~
o
.
tJL~~~~:~T Lf,
.
.
It_j'-1. '-
Table
HOUSEHOLDS/EMPLOYED RESIDENTS COMPARISON :TRIVALLEY LANDUSE FORECASTS
JURISDICTION 1990 2010 01 FF-90 1990 2010 01FF-90
HOUSEHOLDS EMPLOYED RESIDENTS
ALAMO-BLACKHAIJK 5,988 6,123 135 9,605 9,831 226
DANVI LLE 10,999 14,684 3,685 17,069 23,069 6,000
SAN RAMON 13,176 15,885 2,709 21,494 25,369 3,875
DOUGHERTY VALLEY 101 10.356 10,255 171 17,939 17,768
OTHER CCC 474 858 384 n8 1,405 627
TASSAJARA 119 6,224 6,105 217 9,972 9,755
DUBLIN 6,978 7,579 601 10,719 10,802 83
E.DUBLlN 49 13,2,45 13, 196 92 21 ,~26 21,234
PLEASANTON 19,762 30,276 10,514 31,651 44,675 13,024
LIVERMORE 20,819 ' 27,005 6,186 30,954 41,650 10,696
N. LIVERMORE 38 11,253 11,215 55 17,429 17,374
OTHER ALAMEDA 50 806 756 n 1,266 1,189
TOTAL 78,553 144,294 65,741 122,882 224,733 101,851
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Cct4PARISOH TRIVALLEY LAHDUSE FORECASTS
JURISDICTION 1990 2010 DIFF-90
ALAMO-BLACKHAIJK 1,613 1,693 80
DANVILLE 6,007 8,315 2,308
SAN RAMON 27,681 44,183 16,502
DOUGHERTY VALLEY 0 5,365 5,365
OTHER CCC 90 90 0
TASSAJARA 31 1,333 1,302
DUBLIN 12,752 14,307 1,555
E.DUBLlN 445 23,046 22,601
PLEASANT ON 28,363 58,360 29,997
LI VERMORE 33,506 50.843 17 ,337
N. LIVERMORE 75 13,072 12,997
OTHER ALAMEDA 1,093 1,417 324
TOTAL 111,656 222,024 110,368
Hote:
Year 1990 Forecasts from EPS 10/6/93
Year 2010 Forecasts form Expected Scenario 11/24/93
r' ',~' ?r: ~ ~,o ~~, ~ ~
, " ";,:,: 7:/' 1 '~
_, -. i,;'.:l~.J i._>:J, J
5.
---
~..
.
.-.
,
'-f-
-.--....
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
BY AND AMONG THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,
TOWN OF DANVlLLE AND CITIES OF DUBLIN, LIVERMORE
PLEASANTON AND SAN RAMON
1. Parties. This Joint Powers Agreement, dated'March 1, 1991, for the purpose
of reference only, is entered into pursuant to Government Code-'S;;tion 6502 by and among
the following public agencies: the County of Alameda, the County of Contra Costa, the
Town of Danville, the City of Dublin, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton and the
City of San Ramon (hereafter referred to as "Parties" or "Party").
2. Recitals. Each Party to this Agreement is a public agency duly authorized and
existing under the law of the State of California. The County of Contra Costa, the Town
of Danville and the City of San Ramon are situated within the boundaries of the County of
Contra Costa. The County of Alameda, the City of Dublin, the City of Livermore and the
City of Pleasanton are situated within the boundaries of the County of Alameda.
The area commonly known as the "Tri-Valley Area" encompasses the Town of
Danville, tbe Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon and portions of the
Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa immediately adjacent to the cities and town.
Page 1 of 11
r':"'":.... ~ ~~ ,~:; :i~ ",:,-'t - . :;: '.~'> ~,' ~ 1-~1
. . .'
~
_..~.-~,;;; '.:.~ ~ "~ ..... II! :~1
, :~ /
~~.._.~~~
.
"-.
The parties hereto recognize that adequate transportation planning is essential to the
orderly development of the Tri-Valley Area and that review and coordination of planning
and implementation of transportation facilities in the Tri-Valley Area is to the benefit of
all parties hereto and their constituents.
3. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the joint
preparation, including sharing of costs, of a transportation plan and to provide a forum for
the review and coordination of planning and implementation of transportation facilities in
the Tri-Valley Area. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend to create
an agency or entity separate from the Parties to the Agreement and no provision of this
Agreement should be so construed.
4. Tri-Valley Transportation CounciL The administration of the activities called
for in this Joint Powers Agreement is delegated to and vested in the ''Tri-Valley
Transportation Council" ("Council"). The Council shall be comprised of one member of the
board of supervisors and city or town council of the respective Parties to this Agreement,
to be appointed and serve at the pleasure of the respective board or council. Each member
of the Council shall have one vote. One member shall be elected by the members of the
Council annually to serve as chairperson and one member shall be elected annually to serve
Page 2 of 11
.
.
as vice-chairperson. Each city or town council and board of supervisors may appoint an
alternate who may vote in the absence of the designated voting member. The meetings of
the Council shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act,
Government Code sections 54950 et seq. A quorum of four members shall be required to
transact any business hereunder.
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council is authorized and directed, on behalf of all
Parties, to perform all acts necessary or desirable to execute and administer this Joint
Powers Agreement including, but not limited to: selecting and retaining a consultant to
prepare a transportation plan and related environmental documents; authorizing, evaluating
and monitoring the expense of preparation of the transportation plan; and other actions
consistent with those specified in this Agreement.
In particular, the Tri- Valley Transportation Council:
a. may review and provide comments to any Party's proposed general plan
amendment or specific plan, when regional or subregional transportation issues are involved;
b. shall review and provide comments regarding any proposed new
freeway, expressway, arterial, transit project or major intersection improvement of regional
Page 3 of 11
...
.
or subregional significance to be located in the Tri- Valley Area;
c. shall, upon \ ,unanimous vote of all members, select and retain a
consultant to prepare a transportation plan (referred to herein as the "Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan") as specified in paragraph 5 below, and assess the costs of the
consultant among the Parties;
d. may seek, on behalf of the Council, a Party or Parties, funding from
Federal, State or local sources for transportation planning, facilities, improvements, projects
and/or operations which are consistent with the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan; and
e. may serve as a forum for the resolution of transportation-related
disputes between the Parties.
5. Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. The Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and
related environmental documents shall be prepared by a consultant selected by the Council.
At a minimum, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan shall identify current and future needs
for transportation facilities and programs in the Tri-Valley Area and current and anticipated
future deficiencies in such transportation facilities and programs. "Transportation facilities
and programs" include freeways and freeway interchanges, expressways, arterials, major
Page 4 of 11
.
.
intersections of regional or subregional significance and public transit such as light raiL
~
Adoption or amendment of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan shall require the unanimous -
vote of all members of the CounciL Following its adoption, the Parties agree to consider
the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan when adopting or amending circulation elements of their
---
general plans and specific plans, zoning ordinances or capital improvement programs.
6. Rescission of MOU. The Parties hereto are parties to a Memorandum of
Understanding, effective May 23, 1989, entitled "Tri~Valley Transportation Planning
Program," which established a Tri-Valley Transportation CounciL By entering into this Joint
Powers Agreement, the Parties hereto agree to rescind and terminate the Memorandum of
Understanding and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council created by that Memorandum of
Understanding.
7. Administrative Services. There shall be a technical advisory committee
("TAC"), made up of one staff member from each Party, with one staff member serving as
chairperson. It shall be the responsibility of the chairperson of the T AC to provide
administrative services as necessary to the Council, such as preparation of agendas for
Council and T AC meetings. The chairperson shall rotate annually among the parties.
Page 5 of 11
.
..
8. Contract of Administration. The Council shall select one Party as Contract
Administrator. The Contract Administrator, who shall be a T AC representative, shall be
responsible for payment of consultant services required by the CounciL The Contract
Administrator shall prepare regular written reports to the Council and the T AC on the
status of consultant services. Reasonable and ordinary expenses incurred by the Contract
Administrator shall be reimbursed equally by all other Parties.
9. Accounting Services. The finance Director of one of the Cities, as designated
annually by vote of the Council, ("Finance Director") shall provide accounting services for
all payments and receipts required by the terms of this Agreement, and shall be responsible
for the safekeeping of all funds paid by or to the Parties to this Agreement. The Finance
Director and the Contract Administrator shall be staff members from the same Party.
Reasonable and ordinary expenses incurred by the Finance Director in providing accounting
services shall be reimbursed equally by all other Parties.
10. Payment for Expenses. Each Party to this Agreement shall:
a. Pay, upon demand of the Finance Director, its "appropriate share" of
all expenses incurred in the performance of activities called for by this Agreement. The
"appropriate share" of each Party shall be an equal amount of all expenses.
Page 6 of 11
.
-.
b. All bills and invoices for expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement
shall be directed to the Finance Director, who shall calculate the amount owed by each
Party under the formula set forth in subparagraph a. above, and shall bill each Party
accordingly. All bills shall be paid by each Party upon demand.
c. The Finance Director shall demand advance payment by the Parties of
the estimated costs of preparation of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan. All such advance
payments will be retained in a separate account by the Finance Director and interest earned
on such funds shall be used to reduce proportionately the Parties' contributions.
11. Vote Required.
a. A unanimous vote of all Parties shall be required for adoption of the
annual work program and budget.
b. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, five votes shall be
required for:
i) Grant applications;
ii) Expenditure of funds;
Page 7 of 11
. ,
-.
...
. .
16. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date
of execution of the last signatory hereto.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
Dated: J~ dRj 199/
Approved as to Form:
V12P
City Counsel
Attest:
junJ;J' f0J____
Dated: /)J /J /2 u" 1/ /~ /9 Or----
/
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
~~.
fnm Powers, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
I~
Approved as to Form:
~~ ~ ~-
r:J!... ~ ~-
County Counse~
S/yt-(::f/I~ I . I (1 C; I
Dated: I
.
TOWN OF DANVILLE
L;-~L<-'U-~~I-<:~
Millie Greenberg, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
4~~~
. ~~U'- .~~
/ .
Att~St: - J
.y'\0L-J{)A;l /}r,i~
(sit:noturcs continued on next pngc.)
Page 10 of 11
, .
.
.
Dated: 3,// / q /
Approved as to Form:
1/flvVl( 7/_ f; Z~ ~
Dated: ~j~ /1, /7'1/
Dated:
~/(!ql
~F~
Dated: 3 - f .~ '7 I
VrvO.
01.23.91
jpaagrm
:-.
CITY OF I>..YB IN
At~arrt E cL
CITY OF LIVERMORE
&d--v~~d
Cathie Brown, Mayor
Attest:
(!!,u,~~ ~
CI~EA)1~
Ken Mercer, Mayor
~"AM~
CITY OF SAN RAMON
Atl~
1'YlrUi d/.J J-,-u
Page 11 of 11
.
.
iii) Execution of contracts; and
iv) Adoption of policies, rules of procedure and other operational
matters of the Council and staff.
~
( ~ \
c. Any abstention from voting by any member shall be construed as a "yes" V
vote on a particular matter.
d. A majority vote of those present and voting shall be required for any
other action not specified above.
12. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended at any time upon the written
approval of all Parties to the Agreement.
13. Notices. Except where this Agreement may specifically provide otherwise, any
notices to be sent to any Party shall be directed to the office of the city manager or county
administrator of the Party, with copies to all other city managers and county administrators.
14. Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall terminate as to any or all
Parties upon the occurrence of any of the following conditions:
Page 8 of 11
-..
".
a. Ninety (90) days' prior written notice of termination by any Party given
to the chairperson of the Council; provided, however, that the terminating Party shall be
liable for its appropriate share of any expenses incurred up to the date of termination.
b. Automatically, upon the failure of any Party to pay its appropriate share
of expenses within 60 days of date of invoice.
c. Mutual written agreement by all Parties hereto.
15. Disposition of Funds Upon Termination. Any funds remaining with the
Finance director, including any interest earned on such funds, upon termination of this
Agreement by all Parties shall be returned to each Party in proportion to the contribution
of each Agency.
(Continued on next page.)
Page 9 of 11