Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-1996 CC Adopted MinutesREGULAR MEETING ~ November 4, 1996 A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Monday, November 4, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., by Mayor Houston. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston. ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Houston led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. INTRODUCTION OF NEW DUBLIN POLICE PERSONNEL 7:02 p.m. 3,1 (700-10) LT. Farruggia introduced two new Dublin Police Personnel, Deputy Craig Schwarz and Deputy Cary Neaback. Deputy Schwarz is a 12 year veteran of the Sheriff's Department with 7 years of patrol experience. Deputy Schwarz indicated he was glad to be assigned to Dublin. He felt the grass was greener in Dublin. Deputy Neaback also has 12 years experience in the Sheriff's Department with 6 1/2 years patrol experience. CONSENT CALENDAR 7:05 p.m. On motion of Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Approved (4.2 600-40) Agreement for Lease of Fallon School Multipurpose Facility; Authorized (4.3 430-20) Mayor to execute Budget Change Form to provide Special Clean-up Bins. at Arroyo Vista; Approved (4.4 600-30) designation of Vice Mayor Burton and Councilmember Barnes as City's representatives to negotiate with City Manager; CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 507 Received (4.5 320~30) City Treasurer's Investment Report for First Quarter 199¢/97; Approved (4.7 300-40) the Warrant Register in the amount of $705,091.63. Vice Mayor Burton pulled Item 4.1 from the Consent Calendar. He stated that on page 483 of the Minutes for october I, 199G the date addressing the fire issue was incorrectly stated as November 5~ 1996. Mayor Houston indicated that the Minutes were correct as stated and that the date for the Council meeIing had been changed later to November 4, 1996. No change was necessary to the Minules. on motion of Vice Mayor Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved Minutes (4.1) of Special Meeting of September 30, 1996 and Regular Meeting of October 1, 1996. Cm. Howard pulled Item 4.6 pertaining to additional hours at the Library. She wanted to thank Zinda Wood who worked very hard to get more hours for the Dublin Library aI no more cost to the City. The Dublin Library would be open on SaIurdays from I0 am to 5 p.m. starting November 9, 1996. This will be an increase of three additional hours. On motion of Cm. Howard, seconded by Vice Mayor Burton, and by unanimous vote, the Council received (4.¢ 220~20) a Report regarding Additional Hours at the Dublin Library. Mayor Houston announced that Item 7.2 would be addressed at this time. FIRE & EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES 7:08 p.m. 7.2 (540-70) Staff Report was presented by City Manager Richard Ambrose. On September 23, 1996, the Dublin City CounCil received informational presentations from the Alameda County Fire Department and Twin Valley Fire (Cities of Livermore & Pleasanton) regarding proposals to provide Fire Service to the City of Dublin commencing July 1, 1997. On October 1, 1996, the City Manager presented the Council with a comprehensive analysis evaluating the four fire service options available to the City for Fiscal Year 1997- 98 with a recommendation that the City contract with Alameda County. At that meeting, the Council continued the item for consideration at its meeting of November 4, 1996 in CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4,1996 PAGE 508 order to allow the Dublin community more time to provide the Council with input on the issue and to provide more time for Twin Valley to firm up its proposal with respect to labor agreements, cost allocation and impact on Dougherty Regional Fire Authority personnel. The City received a letter from SRVFPD inviting DRFA employees to apply for entry level Firefighter/Paramedic positions with the District contingent upon their successful completion of the Paramedic Program. These positions would be in addition to the DRFA positions being absorbed by SRVFPD. Mr. Ambrose stated that time was becoming critical. There were multi-issues that could not be addressed until a fire provider for the City of Dublin was selected. He needed the Council to provide direction so Staff could begin negotiating with the provider. He indicated that DRFA had opened Fire Station No. 3 the previous Friday. Vice Mayor Burton asked about the timeframe getting critical. Mr. Ambrose indicated contract negotiations with either Twin Valley or Alameda County would be similar. The County might be a little quicker. But the other issues regarding the dissolving of DRFA can't move ahead until the Council makes a decision as to its fire provider. Mayor Houston requested each of the proposers to give an update to the Council. Deborah Acosta, representing the Management Leadership of Twin Valley, read a letter from Cathy Brown, Mayor of Livermore. She indicated the Twin Valley JPA would be ratified by the first meeting in December by both Livermore and Pleasanton City Councils. She was excited and proud of the progress that Livermore and Pleasanton had made in 30 days. It demonstrated the commitment both cities had to the Twin Valley Fire Department. She indicated that consolidation of fire services has been talked about in the valley for over twenty years. In 1993, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon began serious consideration of fire consolidation. In 1994, they jointly hired a consultant. In 1995 a report was released stating the idea of fire consolidation had merit. On August 26, 1996 a resolution was adopted for Valley Fire Management. The City of San Ramon decided to go it alone. She felt fire consolidation provides a higher level of service. It is cost efficient. It provides best local control. She thanked the Council for considering the Twin Valley proposal and hoped the Council would decide to partner with them. Stewart Gary, Livermore Fire Chief, gave a recap of the progress made by the Twin Valley Fire Department. One fire chief had been appointed for the Twin Valley Fire Department. Cost sharing and cost allocation had been prepared. Each City would pay its own fire costs. The two unions had agreed to merge. Employee seniority will be CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 509 honored. Twin Valley will take the last two DRFA employees so all 32 line personnel will have jobs. As to the truck company issue, the City of Dublin can modify their contract as they wish. If that means keeping three truck companies, that would be o.k. Twin Valley is dedicated to' commitment and cooperation. Vice Mayor Burton asked what would be on the side of the Dublin engines? Chief Gary responded that "City of Dublin" could be on the trucks and the uniform patches would say "Twin Valley Fire Department". They were open for discussion on this 1ssue. Vice Mayor Burton asked what person would be called the Fire Chief. Chief Gary stated he was the Fire Chief. If Dublin wanted a Duty Chief, that could be discussed. ' Vice Mayor Burton stated that the City of Dublin was politically committed to the sale of fireworks in Dublin. Did Twin Valley Fire Department have a problem with that? Chief Gary responded if the sale of fireworks in the City of Dublin was a Council policy, Twin Valley would not interfere with the fireworks policy. Vice Mayor Burton asked about our fire inspection policy. Chief Gary indicated that LiVerm0re had a similar policy and Twin Valley Fire would provide the same level of service that Dublin had in place today. Vice Mayor Burton asked about the Advisory Board. Chief Gary stated that the JPA Board would set policy. The day-to-day operations would be overseen by the Management Staff. A Citizen Advisory Commission was a possibility in the future. Vice Mayor Burton indicated there did not seem to be a meeting of the minds between Twin Valley's unions and DRFA's union. What could be done to bring the unions together? Chief Gary felt it was unfortunate that passions had run high on both sides. They were dealing with 132 firefighters and their families. He felt good management, communication, and listening skills would solve the problems. Chief Bill McCammon, Alameda County Fire Department, felt they had the complete proposal that the City needed. There would be more local control. The City would CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 510 develop what type of service it wanted in the contract. There would be an engine company in Dublin and one at Santa Rita. There were also mutual aid agreements in place. Alameda County Fire Department was committed to customer service. They are a special district with funding coming through property tax from the State, not the County. Vice Mayor Burton felt Dublin has been rated low on the totem pole in the Valley, but we have Dublin Pride. We do not want to lose our identity. We want to have "Dublin" on the fire trucks. Chief McCammon responded that Alameda County Fire Department was open to whatever Dublin requested. Vice Mayor Burton wanted "Dublin Fire Services" with three people in City Hall. Chief McCammon indicated that would be a fire marshall and two fire inspectors. Vice Mayor Burton asked if Dublin could have a fire chief in Dublin? Chief McCammon responded that the City of San Leandro had one Deputy Chief that worked directly with the Staff and attended Council meetings. Vice Mayor Burton reiterated that Dublin wanted its own identity with a person representing us. He also wanted to see the fire inspection program continued. Chief McCammon indicated that he liked the City of Dublin's Fire Inspection Program. He felt self-inspection was a better option. Vice Mayor Burton asked if it was possible to have Karl Diekman stay, but not get paid as much? He was a good Rotarian. He had moved his family here. He wanted to see if there was a possibility of combining jobs to keep him. Vice Mayor Burton asked if Chief McCammon was o.k. with the City's fireworks policy? Chief McCammon responded that ACFD would uphold the City's policy. Vice Mayor Burton indicated he wanted specific people assigned to Dublin and not be part of a pool that circulated around. Vice Mayor Burton asked if the City of Dublin would have an appointment on the Advisory Committee? Chief McCammon answered yes. He indicated the Board of Supervisors was the governing body who fully supported what was happening. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 511 Cm. Moffatt asked about binding arbitration? Chief McCammon indicated they used the wage formula which paid the average of eleven jurisdictions. Cm. Moffatt asked if ACFD had any issues pending? Chief McCammon responded no. Cm. Moffatt asked if they had binding arbitration and the price went up, would it affect the City of Dublin's contract. Cm. Howard asked who would cover Schaefer Ranch? Chief McCammon indicated Station No. 7 at Palomar and Station No. 1. Mayor Houston asked if the City contract for police services had to be approved by the Board of Supervisors? Mr. Ambrose responded yes. Mayor Houston read the following speaker request slips that were turned in by people who did not wish to speak, but wanted to have their comments entered into the public record. Dorene Paradiso, 5168 Paseo Granada, Pleasanton, Isupport Pleasanton/Livermore's Twx'n Valley Fire Dept. & hope Dublin will join us in the consolidation. Please do not give up local control by letting it go over the hill. Ail considere~ 7hu'n Valley is the most cost effective way to go & your control stays here in the Valley. Jane Moorhead, 11389 Rampart Drive, Dublin, as a Dublin resident ands fireh'ghter the benefits of a Valley Department are obvious. The issues of local control and geographic location are much better served by a Twin Valley Department. Don7 make the mistake of turning control of our cities fire service to the county's control. Lucia Mahar, 7754 Creekside Drive, Dublin, as a Dublin resident and a fireh'ghter~ I am in favor of the twin Valleyplan. The reasons are as follows: 1. Opportunity for city to have local control and be a partner in the service 2. Excellent city coverage with TVFD- LOCAL Stations within the vMley-engines don't have to come from Castro Valley or East County $. County Board of Supervisors are in direct control of ALCOFD. I would prefer that they stay out of Dublin business. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 512 Bob Londagin, 836 Chateli Ct., Pleasanton, I wholeheartedly support the Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore Fire Dept merger. One reason not considered so far is the familiariIy factor. People who know each other work be#er together. Jim Linhart, 2519 Almanor Ct, Livermore, I have worked in this valley for over 30 yrs a fire Dept member for Z different Depts. and feel that there is nothing These $ Depts can not do togetherI Mary Kaune, 11763 CaStle Ct, Dublin, I think the Alameda County Fire Service is the best choice for Dublin. They are the most expierenced (sic) and will keep our important equipment in the vi&. Mayor Houston read the following letter from Ralph Hughes, 7581 Brighton Drive, Dublin, I regret that I cannot appear in person before you. As you know, twice before I have urged you to vote for the Alameda County Fire Department as Dublin's fire service. The issue is now before you for a third time, the matter having been continued for a month due to the majority decision of the Council One month ago, the representative from what may become Twin Valley Fire Department addressed this council He was not there to do so, but rather hear the council's decision. He told the council that it would be at least two months before a firm decision could be reached by Pleasanton and Zivermore. He was, of course, correct. A month after his presentation, no actual decision has been reached by Pleasanton or Livermore, neither council has approved the contracts necessary to form the joint powers agreement between Pleasanton and Zivermore, and no contract has been signed by any union with either city to form the fire department. While the press has vh'scussed the "tentative agreements,, the fire department has not been formed, and a great deal of work remains to be accomplished I urge this council to make the hard decision tonight. The right decision favors the Alameda Court& Fire Department. Both Pleasanton and Mvermore have excellent fire departments and serve their cities well They may eventually enter into the joint powers agreement, and in the future the ciIy of Dublin may wish to become a principal and participant under that agreement. That is, however, in the future. Alameda CounU already exists, has a great reputation, and has the experience the City needs in providing additional agencies (such as San Zeandro) with fire service. My opinion would be unchanged even if Twin Valley was formed today. Dublin has experienced contract services for law enforcement, and recently losI its chief of police and lieutenant as a result. The same problem would exist with contracted fire service under Twin Valley. While Alameda County has an advisory board upon which Dublin would place a member, Twin Valley, if formed, has no provision for an advisory board Dublin would have little, if any say over the operation of its fire department. 1M'n Valley CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 513 would be funded from the general funds of Livermore and Pleasanton, and subject to any budgetaryproblems or disputes the two cities may have in the future. Alameda County is funded primarily through property taxes. I question whether the actual service to be prodded would be as good under Twin Valley~s plan. Recall the statements made by the fireh'xhters' union representative. Under Ikv~'n Valley~s plan, the truck would be taken out of Dublin and placed in Pleasanton, along with its cre~ ~e absence of this piece of equipment and crew can make a great difference in Dublin, since i~ is this piece of e~uipment and crew which pro,des rescue operations and ventilates the rmf in the event of ~ structure fire. A few months a~o~ ~ &v~oper w~s re~ired to expend l~rge s~ms of moue% ~nd re-due (sic) its pla~s at Seh~effer ~neh; because of the eouncil~ concern over a ~0 second deI~y in fire se~iee. Mo~n~ this tmek and crew to ?leasanton would cause a h've minute dela~ While mo~n~ the tr~ek to Pleasanton may be ~ ~ idea region~ll~ it is not in the best interest of the City of Dublin. Finally~ I have discussed this matter with our local firefighters who have placed their lives on the line to protect the residents and business owners of Dublin. Their opinion is also unchanged~ and they support Alameda County Fire. I urge the council to thank Pleasanton and Livermore for theirproposal~ and wish them the best in their endeavor. I trust that the City can leave the door open for future discussions with 71~7'n Valley in the event Dublin is offered a partnership in the service. In the meantime, however~ I urge the council to vote in favor of Alameda County Fire. Frank Nevis, 11733 Castle Ct, Dublin, indicated he had spoken with Valerie Barnes concerning the way the contract was put together. Whatever you want, you can make it. He felt the present was more organized. It was already in place. Livermore and Pleasanton have ignored Dublin. Now in 30 days they want to repair the fighting and magically work for Dublin. He had heard that the large equipment would be moved from out of Dublin to Pleasanton. He felt the present system with Alameda County was the best. John Hughes, 6600 Maple Drive, Dublin, indicated he felt the same way. Alameda County has its act together rather than like the other that has gotten together in 30 days. Time was of the essence. Alameda County was sound. They already have a station on the Santa Rita property. He wanted the City to merge with something that was rock solid now. Pleasanton has not always had harmonious relations with Dublin. He supported Alameda County Fire Department. Steve Harmon, 1 1474 Winding Trail Place, Dublin, indicated he had spoken to the Council on October 1st. He was the San Leandro Human Resources Director. Tonight he was sPeaking only as a Dublin resident. In regard to the issue of local identity, if he CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 514 needed fire service, he didn't care what was on the truck, he wanted the best job done. Alameda County performance has already been demonstrated. Going with Twin Valley Fire would be a leap of faith. Although they have made progress, there were still many unknowns with Twin Valley. One is in action already. Go with Alameda County Fire Department. Merritt Redick, 11768 Solana Drive, Dublin, felt time was of the utmost importance. Alameda County Fire was much further ahead. The Board of Supervisors has already approved the concept. Twin Valley Fire still needed the City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton City Councils to give their approval. The Dublin City Manager has studied both proposals and recommended Alameda County Fire. Richard Guarienti, 8279 Rhonda Avenue, Dublin, indicated he had been a former resident of Livermore and had respect for the Livermore Fire Department. He felt it was appropriate for the Council to provide further study. He was sitting with the Dublin firefighters who were for Alameda County Fire. He felt the morale of the firefighters was important. He felt we should go with Alameda County Fire. Maybe in the future the City could go with Twin Valley. Tim Green, DRFA Union Secretary, indicated at the June 12, 199¢ union meeting the members heard presentation from Alameda County. 39 members were present at the meeting. 37 members were in favor of Alameda County Fire and 2 members supported Twin Valley Fire. On September 24, 199¢, they heard a presentation from Livermore/Pleasanton. 39 of 45 members were present. 38 members supported Alameda County Fire and 1 member abstained. Joe Silva, 7547 Sutton Lane, Dublin, strongly urged the Council to vote for Alameda County Fire. Ken Marlin, 8144 Aldea Street, Dublin, is a San Leandro Police Officer who has lived in Dublin for 13 years. He drives a black and white and sees the expertise of the Alameda County Fire Department. He wants the best for his wife and two kids so he urged the Council to go for Alameda County Fire. Suzanne Gilbert, 7281 Castle Drive, Dublin, highly recommended going with Alameda County Fire. It was an established product. Alameda County Fire was already training our firefighters. Brian McKenna, President of Alameda County Fire Fighters, stated Alameda County Fire Department consisted of 206 dedicated men and women trying to be the best they could possibly be. He loved his job. He felt the community should be proud of the Dublin firefighters and the Council should be compassionate and caring toward the Dublin firefighters. Though Twin Valley Fire offered more money in their proposal, the Dublin CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 515 firefighters had chosen your families over theirs. They unanimously chose Alameda County Fire. They would provide the highest level of service across the board i.e. hazardous materials. Mabel Raglin, 7458 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, remembered when Dublin had one grocery store, one gas station, and the Fire Station on Donahue in 1962. She felt they have served us well. There was no library, no city hall, no schools, but Dublin has always had a fire department. She remembered when Chief Phil Philips was the only paid personnel with the rest being volunteers. She felt safe then. She hated controversy and wished it Could stay the same, but she realized it was not the way it worked. In 1976 her husband collapsed with a heart attack. She dialed the operator to get the fire department who came and resuscitated him. She was arrested because she became hysterical during the rescue attempt. The firefighters went to court with her. She felt the City should give our firefighters what they wanted, which was Alameda County Fire. She also asked residents that when they hear a siren, give them the same courtesy you would give the police. Rod Tatum, 4 Catalpa Lane, San Ramon, stated he supported the Alameda County Fire Department. As a resident of San Ramon who was one block from the Dublin border, he was concerned with the service he would receive under the new proposal by Twin Valley Fire. He was also concerned about the proposal of relocating the ladder truck to Pleasanton. He wanted to keep things the way they are now. Dan Benfield, President of DRFA Union, was embarrassed by the local firefighters fighting against each other. The Council would be the ones to make the decision. The process began six months ago. The Union wanted what best suited the needs of the residents of Dublin. Alameda County Fire Department has successfully gone through the process with Eden, Castro Valley and San Leandro. Lessons were learned through the process. Pleasanton and Livermore will have to learn as they go along. When consolidated, Twin Valley Fire will be roughly the same size as Alameda County. With Alameda County Fire, the emergency medical services would have paramedic services. Twin Valley Fire did not have an EMS supervisor. Alameda County Fire uses the same computer system. Livermore Fire Department has its own communication system. Alameda County Fire has two Battalion Chiefs on duty every day. Twin Valley Fire will have Battalion Chiefs that work 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., but after 5 p.m. the Battalion Chief will have to respond from home. Alameda County Fire has a hazmat team. Twin Valley Fire has shown little interest and is not participating in the training. The City Manager recommended Alameda County Fire Department to the Council. Lenard DeStefano, 6825 Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, indicated he was surprised the Mayor apologized for the length of Ralph Hughes's letter. He felt the letter was very valid. He felt the response time was critical. If the City loses a truck, loses equipment, loses man power, it loses response time. He wanted the highest level of service. He CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 516 supported Alameda County Fire Department rather than Twin Valley Fire. He was afraid the voting populous in Pleasanton could take the truck away from us. We paid for the truck. Mayor Houston indicated if the truck goes, the cost would change. Mayor Houston read the following telephone messages that were received at the City Offices for the Council. Kelly Sequeira, 7150 Brighton Drive, supported the Alameda County Fire Department. Mary Sweetfer~ 11688 Ladera Drive, was in favor of Alameda County Fire Department. Charlene Smith, 11763 Silvergate Drive, want the City to go with Alameda County Fire Department. If we went with Twin Valley, same thing that happened with San £amon could happen again. Bill Sloss, a Dublin resident, expressed his support for Alameda County as the new Fire Service provider. He inch'cated that he would hate to see the City lose an engine. MargoJohnson, 11556 Estrella Court,, please contract with Alameda County Fire. Dale Chandler, 8641 Wicklow Lane, supports Alameda County Fire Department choice. Michael Smith, 8726 Bandon D~ve, supports going with Alameda County Fire Department. He wants to make sure fire truck stays in Dublin. Joanne Ojeda, 7979 Countess Court~ supports the choice of Alameda County Fire Department. John Torres, please go with Alameda County Fire Department. Willa Won& 6955 Amador Valley Blvd., wants Alameda County for fire service. Brian Parrish,'7570 Frederickson, has been here eight years and asked the Council to please $o with Alameda County Fire. He's done research and thinks the best coverage would be with Alameda County. Ingrid Register, 7563 Sutton Lane, would prefer Alameda County Fire Department as our fire provider. Mike McLaughlin, G400 Dijon, supports Alameda County Fire Department. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 517 Larry Peluso, 6631 Spruce Lane, supports choice of Alameda County Fire Department. Mark Stanton, 85P 7 kVicklow Lane, wants Alameda County Fire to take over. Patrick Dailey, 11879 tlanagan C6 sent the following letter: "Dear Council Members, I would like to express my preference concerning your decision regarding Fire Protection for the City of Dublin. Having looked at and listened to the two proposals submitted to you for consideration I must tell you that the overwhelming choice is for Fire Protection for the City of Dublin to be provided by Alameda County Fire. The proposal from the proposed "Valley Fire" is uncertain and filled with 'fits': The Alameda County Fire Department has much more to offer the City of Dublin in the way of Fire Protection seMces than any other proposal on the table, and this is the bottom line--SERVICES, rLrF' Suzanne Gilbe~ 7381 Castle Drive, supports the City contracting with Alameda County Fire Departm en t. Diane Messe6 8150 Comae Road, is in favor of Alameda County Fire Department. John Hughes, 6600 Maple Drive, strongly supports the Alameda County Fire Department. Mary Connie, 11763 Castle Cour6 asks the Council to please go with City Manager's recommendation of AIameda County Fire Department. J. Hernandez, '6700 Dougherty Road, #1G~ is in favor of Alameda County Fire Department. Albert Lutz, 11608 Regio Cour6 supports Alameda County Fire Department. He's concerned about the fire protection in Dublin. Fernan do Carranza, 7577 Tamarack Drive, supports joining with Alameda County Fire. Sandy Garcia, Ironwood Drive, wants the City to keep the fire service as is with Alameda County Fire Department. She is happy with fire service as it stands. It has a proven track record She has not been able to attend the Council meetings, but she wanted to voice her opinion. Kathy Ramos, 7513 Sutton Lane, wants Alameda County Fire Department. They would keep fire services in Dublin whereas the other alternative would not be easily accessible. Vicky K Gomez, 7500 Sutton Lane, is in favor of the Alameda County Fire taking over Dublin's fire services. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 518 Ken Marlin, 8144 Aldea Street, has been a Dublin resident for 14 years. He has been a professional polive officer for 17 years in San Leandro. He has worked side by side with Alameda County Fire Department and urges the Council to go w~th Alameda County Fire Department. A1Esquivel, 7536 Sutter Lane, supports Alameda County Fire Department for Dublin Fire Services. Rosemarie Mullins ~ Pat Mullins: 7584 Sutton, prefers Alameda County for Fire Services. Hilda ~ Paul Huan~ 7563 San Sabana; supports Alameda County Fire Department. John ~Jean Chas% 11491 Silvergate, received a letter from the Firefixhters. They supported Alameda County Fire Department choice as opposed to Livermore ~ Pleasanton. Poi Peterson~ 11945 West Vomac Rd, sent the following letter dated September 38, "Dear Mayor Houston: I understand that Dublin is in need of new funds for the fire department and that there are two choices on how roger them. I think that Pleasanton and Livermore have a good offer, but before you say yes to them I think that it would be in our best interest to accept the coun~v's proposaL This will give Dublin a chance to look more closely at the other proposal and then give an answer. Then (if Pleasanton and Zivermore have a better offer) Dublin can accept Iheir offer. That way we don't run blindly into something we don't know too much about." Norm ~ Mildred Palmer, 7338 Limerick Court~ urges the Council to go with Alameda Counly Fire Department. Her husband Works for the SherifFs Department. She doesn't trust Pleasanton and L~vermore. Audrey Nevis,. I 1733 Castle Court~ wanls us to go with Alameda County Fire Department. Bob Heady, Rampart Drive, (caNed on october ~ 1996) asked the Council to please continue the item until October 15Ih to give more time for discussion of the issues. Jane Morehead, 11389 Rampart Drive, (called on October 1~ 1996) strongly recommended that the Council continue to the next meeling. MichaeI Horrias, 8633 Fir Cour6 in the County vs. pleasanton, he chooses the County. Why go with Pleasanton? They have never treated Dublin weN in the past. We have always been the poor step child Alameda County is cheaper and already organized His understanding is Twin Valley is only a concepl and not even a fire department yet. The Union says go with the County. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 519 Christine Herman, 8488 Deervale Road, supports Alameda County Fire Department. Ilo Moy, 11744 Castle Ct., supports Alameda County Fire Department. George & Beverly Minor, 7441 Brookdale Ct.., supports Alameda County Fire Department. It would be too much ora struggle for three cities to create a fire department. The County already has a medical team trained. The County is more tlexible. The County should provide fire for all the cities. They should work together for the common good. Jim Fronsdahl, 11518 Roiling Hills Drive, supports the Alameda County Fire Department. He felt they have given great service to our community. Erica Edon, 7579 Amarillo, felt Alameda County Fire was more thorough and would provide better coverage. Dublin would not lose a fire engine. Sherry Villagran, 7710 Cardigan, wants Alameda County Fire. Eunice Landers, 7698 Sunwood Drive, wants Alameda County Fire. Mary Menke, 7698 Sunwood Drive, wants Alameda County Fire. Patricia Lopez, 11640 Luna Ct., wants to join up with Alameda County Fire and keep the ladder truck in Dublin. Nora Minke, 7698 Sunwood, wants Alameda County Fire. Susan & Ron Schultz, 7078 Lancaster Ct.., please go wfth Alameda County Fire. Pa'fa Schneider, 11689 Amarillo Ct., wants Alameda County for fire services. Donna & Frank Peterson, 11609 Zadera Ct~ please go with Alameda County Fire. Ken &Jackie Nobel~ 7331 Starward Dr., please go with Alameda County. Kathy Hileman, 11700 Amarillo Ct., please go with Alameda County Fire Department. Vice Mayor Burton indicated the Pastor at Valley Christian Church wanted the Alameda County Fire Department. Mayor Houston asked if there were any questions from the Council. Cm. Howard asked Twin Valley Fire who would cover Schaefer Ranch? CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 520 Fire Chief Gary responded the Dublin Station and mutual aid. Mayor Houston thanked everyone who came for the issue, but he felt it was time for the Council to make a decision. Vice Mayor Burton indicated he was impressed by the public support and the interest shown. Cm. Howard was glad the Council had spent the extra 30 days to get the input from the community. Cm. Barnes indicated she has been using the 30 days to listen to the input from the community. On motion by Vice Mayor Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council selected Alameda County Fire Department as its preferred fire service provider for the City of Dublin commencing July 1, 19~97; authorized the City Manager to negotiate an agreement with Alameda County for use of the Santa Rita Fire Station; directed Dublin's Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DP, FA) Board members and the City Manager to discuss the following issues with the full DRFA Board and to bring forward a recommendation to resolve these outstanding items: (a) options for transitioning DRFA employees who will not be employed, either by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District or Dublin's new fire service provider, and a recommended allocation of the associated costs to the cities of Dublin & San Ramon; (b) method for administering and allocating costs associated with outstanding and ongoing liabilities of DRFA; and (c) allocation of DRFA assets between the two agencies and any associated liability which may exist between the two agencies. Vice Mayor Burton further suggested that "Dublin Fire Department" will be on the fire trucks with Alameda County Seal in the circle; a "Fire Chief" be assigned to the City Hall Offices to work as a liaison between the Staff and the City Council; there be a 5 year contract with a 1 year cancellation clause; fireworks be the same policy with the City Council making the policy; the Firefighters patch say "Dublin"; the Mayor make an appointment to the Advisory Committee; and positions be found for all DRFA employees. Cm. Moffatt asked that a dispute management clause be included. Mr. Ambrose responded that Staff would be bringing back a negotiated contract for the Council's approval. Fire Chief McCammon explained that Supervisor Mary King only made the appointment to the Fire Advisory Committee for the unincorporated area and that the Mayor would make the appointment from Dublin. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 521 Cm. Moffatt stated that fifteen years ago the County gave up control for City control. He felt it was in the best interest for the Tri~Valley cities to work together. He felt the other cities were offering an olive branch. But since the calls received from the citizens was 40 for Alameda County and 2 for Twin Valley, he would vote with the citizen's choice. Vice Mayor Burton felt somewhere along the line it would all work out. He wanted to thank you everyone for their effort. Mayor Houston called for a 5 minute break at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REALIGNMENT OF ESTABLISHED RIGHT-OF WAY LINE FOR A NEW ROAD PARALLEL TO AND SOUTH OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE DRIVE AND REGIONAL STREET (THE PARALLEL ROAD) 9:I8 p.m. 6.1 (670~40) Mayor Houston opened the public hearing. PUblic Works Director Lee Thompson indicated that the applicant wanted more time to meet with the City. He indicated there was no urgency involved in addressing the item. The Mayor continued the public hearing until December 3, 199¢. Cm. Moffatt requested that the new road be called "Bray". AWARD OF BID ~ MAPE MEMORIAL PARK RENOVATION ~ CONTRACT 96-08 9:20 p.m. 7.1 600-30 Staff Report was presented by Parks & Community Services Director Diane Ix>wart. At the September 17, 1996 Dublin City Council meeting, the Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids for renovation of Mape Memorial Park. The proposed project as approved by the Council includes 1) separated younger and older children's play areas with accessible equipment and surfacing; 2) new park furniture including benches, trash receptacles and picnic tables; 3) two small group picnic areas; 4) concrete walkway encircling the park; 5) upgraded park lighting; 6) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 522 sand volleyball court; 7) restroom building; 8) pedestrian bridge over the creek; and 9) enhanced shrub and tree plantings. The Preliminary estimates for the improvements exceeded the available budget by approximately $30,105. In the bid documents, the pedestrian bridge was identified as an additive bid item. The City received a total of nine bids for the project. The Iow bidder was Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. with a base bid of $406,371.O2 and an additive alternate of $35,000. Staff recommends including a 10% contingency bringing the total funds needed to $485,508. The budget for the improvements is $360,275 which is a shortfall of $125,233. The Alameda County Recycling Board will be distributing special Measure D funds if the special monies are used to promote the purchase of Recycled Products. The City of Dublin's allocation is $12,655. There are "Plastic Lumber" products available as benches and tables for parks. The City Council will need to adopt a budget change to increase the Measure D Revenue by $12,655 and provide an additional appropriation in the Mape Memorial Park Renovation Project. In May of 1996, the City Council approved the master plan for Mape Memorial Park. A request for an'addendum in the amount of $12, 715 has been submitted to cover the additional consultant services required. The Mape Memorial Park Renovation has grown from a $231,345 project in FY 1995~96 to a potential $529,508 project in FY 1996~97. Ms. Ix>wart presented several options to address the problem. She indicated if the City used the Park Dedication Funds, it would mean that some other high priority projects could not be funded and the Council would need to relook at the current CIP Projects. Cm. Moffatt asked if the amount for the DSRSD permit for water and sewer was a real number. Ms. Lowart responded that the permit fee would cost $4,900. Cm. Barnes asked why our bids are going out of sight. Ms. Ix>wart explained that the bid climate was changing. Bids were going higher not just for our City, but with other agencies as well. The economy is up so the contractors have the upper hand. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 523 Mr. Ambrose stated the Council needed to understand what would be left in the Park Dedication Funds. The Dublin Unified School District wanted the City to participate with school renovations which could impact future Park Dedication Funds. Mayor Houston indicated that the Alameda County Transportation Authority was also experiencing higher bids. He suggested Staff look at CDBG funding. Mr. Ambrose responded that CDBG funding was already a part of the project and CDBG funds had already been allocated for this year. Mayor Houston asked if it was possible to get an advance? Ms. Ix>wart indicated that the latest CDBG funding only goes through this fiscal year. Staff could look at reallocating CDBG funds. Mr. Ambrose stated Staff would contact Alameda County in regard' to an advance. Cm. Moffatt indicated he had a problem with spending future monies. The City would be borrowing monies from the General Fund and pay it back later, but it could get the City out of sync. Mayor Houston asked if the funds would be advanced to us from Alameda County rather than from our own General Funds. He thought it had been done before and wanted Staff to look into it. Mr. Ambrose indicated the County had more CDBG funds than they spend. Cm. Moffatt asked if the City did not put in bathrooms, could porta potties be used? Ms. Ix>wart indicated porta~potties are only used during summer programs. Mayor Houston felt if something had to be taken out of the project, that the bridge should be considered. He felt there was a need for the restroom. He asked how much the bridge cost. Ms. Lowart responded $38,500. She indicated that the bridge has been fully designed so it could be brought back later. Cm. Barnes asked if some other group could build the bridge as a project. Ms. Lowart indicated the bridge was easier to leave out now. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 524 On a motion by Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by unanimous vote, the Council choose Option #2(which awarded the contract for the base bid of $406,371.02 making the total project cost under this option $491,008 and making the total Park Dedication Funds to be used on the project $409,603 leaving a year end balance of $97,658); approved the budget change form to increase the Measure D Revenue by $12,655 and provided an additional appropriation in the Mape Memorial Park Renovation Project of the same amount and adopted RESOLUTION NO. 125 ~ 96 AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 96-08 MAPE MEMORIAL PARK RENOVATION TO VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE, INC. and authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement. Staff was directed to investigate the CDBG funding with the County to help offset the cost. RECONSIDERATION OF CITY MEMBERSHIP IN THE TRI-VALLEY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (CVB) 9:$6 p.m. 7.3 470~50 Staff Report was presented by Economic Development Manager Greg Reuel. Dublin was approached by the Pleasanton CVB in 1995 to join a proposed Tri~Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) that would include the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, and San Ramon. The Tri-Valley CVB was organized and funded with membership fees from Livermore, Pleasanton, and private enterprises. The City Councils of Dublin and San Ramon decided not to join. At its City Council meeting of September 3, 1996, Mayor Houston and Vice Mayor Burton requested that the issue of the City's participation in the Tri-Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau be brought back to the Council for reconsideration. The new owners of the Dublin Park Hotel (Pacific Valley Investors) have presented a proposal to the City to encourage membership in the Tri-Valley CVB. Dublin Park Hotel cannot join the CVB unless the City of Dublin is a member. Dublin Park Hotel has offered to advance the first year membership of $9,000 if they could be reimbursed the $9,000 through a formula based on increased transient occupancy tax revenues (TOT) received by the City. The first year membership covers a period of November 1996 through June 30, 1997 and is an introductory amount that is not tied to any sharing formula with the other member cities of the CVB. Pleasanton CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 525 contributed $165,000 and Livermore contributed $ 77,000 for the first year operation of CVB. If Pacific Valley Investors (PVI) see a benefit of membership in the CVB after the first year membership, the City would agree to join the CVB for a second year of membership starting July 1, 1997 and ending June 30, 1998 with the following conditions: 1) The City would pay no more.than 20% up to a maximum of $5,522 of the City membership fee in the second year. The second year membership fee for the City of Dublin would be $27,610. 2) PVI would advance to the City its share of the City of Dublin membership assessment in the CVB prior to the City joining CVB in the second year. ($22,088) c) In the second year of membership, PVI would be reimbursed its share from increased TOT only after the City is reimbursed its participation fee of $5,522. Mr. Reuel indicated the City was lucky to have Wayne Levenfeld, President of Pacific Valley Investors. He is making $3 million worth of improvements to the hotel. He wants to be able to compete with the other hotels in the area. Vice Mayor Burton complimented Mr. Reuel on his negotiating skills. He asked if John Moore would be coming with a hotel in Eastern Dublin? Mr. Reuel responded that within the next two year period, there would not be a change in the sharing. San Ramon may join later. Vice Mayor Burton believed the City should be a part of it. The State had passed the California Tourism Marketing Act and tourism was revenue generating. On motion by Vice Mayor Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Mayor to execute the proposed agreement with the Tri~ Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau and the proposed agreement with Pacific Valley Investors. PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA RURAL HOME FINANCE AUTHORITY ~ RURAL CALIFORNIA GOLD LEASE PURCHASE PROGRAM 9:45 p.m. 8.1 450-60 Staff Report was presented by Assistant City Manager Paul Rankin. Kaufman & Broad has been selected by the California Rural Home Mortgage Finance Authority to offer a special Lease-Purchase arrangement. This is a pilot program which creates home ownership opportunities for families and individuals who qualify at market loan rates, but .may have limited financial resources to afford the down CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 526 payment and closing costs. The transaction becomes a Lease~Purchase, whereby the "buyer" builds up equity and makes lease payments over time in order to exercise the purchase option. This program will not directly affect the obligation of the Developer to meet the requirements of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The Lease-Purchase Financing Program will also not affect the sales price of the unit. K&B believes this program represents one additional financing method which may make a difference to some individuals contemplating a home purchase. The City of Dublin would need to become a member of the California Rural Home Mortgage Authority in order for Kaufman & Broad to offer the program at any projects developed in the. City. Kaufman & Broad is currently developing two projects in Dublin. The California Rural Home Mortgage Authority is a non-profit Joint Powers Authority which was formed under the auspices of the Regional Council of Rural Counties. The Rural California Gold Lease-Purchase Program is eligible to accept Associate Members. As an Associate Member, the City does not have any voting rights and there are no dues assessed. Matt Koart, of Kaufman & Broad, stated the primary motivation was to serve part of the market not being served, the young buyers. They would need to qualify and K&B will be providing an affordable product. Cm. Moffatt asked about repairs to the house and taxes? Mr. Koart responded since it was a lease, the "buyer" would not be able to claim mortgage interest. This program would be for the California Highland Project in Western Dublin. It is not for single family residents. There would be a homeowners association. Vice Mayor Burton felt it sounded good. · It would provide housing for the $50,000 to $60,000 income. Mr. Koart indicated the sales price would be approximately $220,000. There would be a small minority of buyers who would participate. Vice Mayor Burton felt it would be a discipline to put some money aside to be able to buy the house. Mr. Koart responded this would be an opportunity, not a free ride. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 527 On motion by Vice Mayor Burton, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 126 ~ 96 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION & DELIVERY OF A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE AS AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA RURAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE AUTHORITY IN THE RURAL CALIFORNIA GOLD LEASE-PURCHASE PROGRAM DESIGNATION OF CITY COUNCIL 1996 AD~HOC AUDIT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE 9:55 p.m. 8.2 310-60 Staff Report was presented by Assistant City Manager Paul Rankin. The independent auditors from the firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company have completed the work required to publish the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ending June 30, 1996. In the past, the City Council has established an ad-hoc subcommittee to review the report with the Auditors. Once a subcommittee is designated, Staff will contact the Auditors to identify potential meeting dates and times. The final report will need to be issued by the second week of December in order to meet the deadline for submittal to the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. Vice Mayor Burton asked that the decision be delayed. Mayor Houston responded that timing was important and a decision needed to be made tonight. On motion by Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Howard, and by unanimous vote, the Council designated Cm. Barnes & Vice Mayor Burton as members of an ad-hoc subcommittee to meet with the City Auditors to review and discuss the report for the period ending June 30, 1996. TRANSITION FOLLOWING NOVEMBER 5, 1996 ELECTION 9:58 p.m. 8.3 630-10 Staff Report was presented by City Manager Richard Ambrose. In January 1996, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing rules for the selection of Vice Mayor. Since that time, Council meetings have been changed to the first and third Tuesdays of the month. During a Team Building Workshop held in July 1995, the Council indicated that the City Council should certify the results of the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 528 election and recognize outgoing Councilmember(s) at the first December meeting and then hold a special meeting the folloWing night at which time the new Council would be sworn in and a reception held for the new Council. The Council also indicated City Staff should coordinate a dinner for Outgoing Councilmember(s). With respect to Commission and Committee appointments, the Council requested Staff to advertise City Commission/Committee vacancies in mid-November with a submittal deadline in mid-December; to circulate copies of the applications to all Councilmembers; and to place the Mayor's proposed appointments for Commission and Committee vacancies on the first City Council meeting in January. Outgoing Commission and Committee members have been recognized at the beginning of a City Council meeting subsequent to the end of their term. Mr. Ambrose reported that the City Clerk will run ads for openings on Commissions and Committees on November 6, 1996. Election results should be received from the Registrar of Voters by November 27, 1996. Election results could be certified at a Regular City Council meeting on December 3, 1996 with a plaque being presented to outgoing Councilmember(s). A Special Meeting could be held on December 4, 1996 for the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office to new Council, have the new Council determine who will serve as Vice Mayor for one year and hold a reception for the new Council. The deadline for Commission and Committee Applications will be December 10, 1996. The dates for the dinner for outgoing Councilmember(s) and recognition of outgoing Commissioners/Committee Members needed to be determined by the Council. Mayor Houston stated that the Registrar of Voters has 30 days from the date of the election. Mr. Ambrose responded that the City Clerk has been in contact with the Registrar of Voters and it is their intention to have the certified.results to the Cities before Thanksgiving. Mayor Houston indicated the newly elected Councilmember(s) have the right to preside at the December 3, 1996 Council meeting. They have been elected and they are entitled to do the City's business. Cm. Barnes asked if the "old" Council had to certify the election results? Mr, Ambrose answered yes. Cm. Barnes stated at the team building meeting, the Council had determined that having one body have to certify the election results and then get up and have to leave was awkward. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 529 Vice Mayor Burton asked why the results couldn't be certified on December 2nd. Mayor Houston responded that December 2nd was the Community Tree Lighting event. He felt the certification should be done on December 3rd with the regular Council business being conducted on December 4th. Mr. Ambrose asked about the reception for the incoming Council. Mayor Houston suggested the certification only be held on December 3rd with a reception being held after for the outgoing Council. On December 4th a reception at 6:00 p.m. could be held for the new Council followed at 7:00 p.m. by the swearing in of the new Council and the regular City Council meeting. Cm. Howard wanted to remind the Council of the Hospice Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 5th. Cm. Barnes asked if the present Commissioners and Committee Members held their seat until the new appointments were made. Mayor Houston suggested the new appointments be made at the second meeting in December which would be December 17th. Then they could get to business in January. Mr. Ambrose responded that it would depend on how much time was needed for the interviews. Mayor Houston agreed the appointments should wait until January. Vice Mayor Burton suggested recognition of outgoing Council and Commissioners and Committee Members could be combined. Cm. Barnes responded no, the recognition should be separate for Council and Commissioners/Committee Members. On motion by Vice Mayor Burton, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 127 ~ 96 ESTABLISHING RULES FOR THE SELECTION OF VICE MAYOR AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 5~96 No date was determined for dinner for outgoing Council. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 530 REQUEST FOR INPUT ON EXTENSION OF MEASURE "B" HALF-CENT SALES TAX 10:1 $ p.m. $.4 1060-40 Staff Report presented by Public Works Director Lee Thompson. The original voter-approved Measure "B" half-cent sales tax has been funding major improvements in the Tri-Valley area such the BART Extension, the 1-580/I-680 Flyover, and improvement to Route 84. This program is set to expire in 2002. Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) is proposing to go to the voters for an extension of the program to help fund some of the remaining needed regional projects in Alameda County. ACTA is asking for input from the affected agencies. Staff believes the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) should formulate a priority list for the Tri-ValleY Area to be submitted to ACTA. This would present a united front through the TVTC for the Tri-Valley area. Cm. Moffatt was concerned if the TVTC could get the information ready in a timely manner. Mayor Houston responded that a list of projects had already been established bY the TVTC. On motion by Mayor Houston, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature expressing the City Council's desire to work with the Tri-Valley Transportation Council to develop a unified list of projects for the entire Tri-Valley area. Vice Mayor Burton stated for the record that although he had voted for it, he was really against it. He felt automobile users should pay for the transportation projects. OTHER BUSINESS 10:16 p.m. ABAG General Assembly Registration (140-10) Mr. Ambrose announced that registration for the ABAG General Assembly Meeting on November 22,~ 1996 had to be received by November 15th. Cm. Moffatt indicated the Council would need a new representative. Mr. Ambrose stated he would still be a member of the Council on November 22nd. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 531 Sewer Connection Fees (1030~20) Mr. Ambrose indicated that Dublin San Ramon Service District and City Staff were talking about sewer connection fees. DSRSD wanted to hold a Liaison Committee Meeting. He asked our Liaison Committee members, Cm. Barnes and Mayor Houston, for their availability on November 18th, 19th, and 20th. Cm. Moffatt felt there was a problem with DSRSD. The City had lost two restaurants due to the high connection fees. He was disappointed with DSRSD and wanted to send a message to them. Substitutes for the Mayors' Conference (140-15) It was determined that Vice Mayor Burton and Assistant City Manager Rankin would attend the Mayors Conference. on November 13, 1996. DSRSD Water Bill (1000-20) Cm. Barnes requested an accounting of the DSRSD water bills for the City. She asked how the billing was broken down. Mr. Rankin responded that there are separate meters. Cm. Barnes felt we needed to be aware as a City where we are going. ADJOURNMENT 11.1 There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m. Minutes prepared by Sandie Hart, Secretary ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 15 REGULAR MEETING November 4, 1996 PAGE 532