CCMIN080195 - Laserfiche WebLink

There was another meeting where the proposal (which is now redlined) was handed out and discussed with the group. Out of that meeting, the proposal came through to the City Manager. Mayor Tarver opened the discussion for public input. Pat Murray, 4470 Mirador Drive, commended the Mayor on his stance for the annexation of this property and hoped that he will continue to fight this battle. She felt the County's role was only to increase funds and felt the County wasn't concerned as to the outcome versus the revenue. Mayor Tarver stated that Supervisors King and Campbell are members of LAFCO, along with Mayor Tarver, Cathi Brown, two representatives from special districts and Bob Butler, a resident of Pleasanton. There are seven seats on the LAFCO Board and the County has two. George Gunter, 1805 Greenwood Road, felt he was fortunate to have met with Ed Campbell and Mary King. He stated that Ed Campbell stated that the County used to get 32 % of the tax dollars and now they get 17%. At the meeting it was discussed that they plan to discuss at the next Board of Supervisors meeting a change to their policy about tax sharing agreements with the cities of Alameda County. What they are planning to do is change the policy where they will not discuss or approve any agreement regarding property taxes with any city in Alameda County unless that property has a plan on it; then they will sit down with the city and discuss how much taxes they will get from the property. San Francisco will not file an application with Pleasanton and felt the Board of Supervisors won't force them to come back either. Mr. Gunter continued, Supervisors King and Campbell have said that they support Pleasanton and they support the property being developed under Pleasanton. He felt that Pleasanton should respond to the proposal and that the public should be educated about the project. He recommended that Council make a proposal, protect Pleasanton and be fair to our City and have an equal say as to what happens to that property. When the final proposal comes through and the plan is approved by everyone, then the people of Pleasanton should have a chance to vote on it. The Council should direct the City Manager to contact the County and say that if they will postpone everything for 30-60 days, we will do the same. That will be enough time to write the proposal the way the City of Pleasanton needs in order to protect the community and the City. Ms. Michelotti asked Mr. Gunter how and when he wanted the people to vote on this issue and what happens if the people vote the issue down. She asked if the community should have the final say. Mr. Gunter stated that if you have three equal partners (San Francisco, Alameda County and the City Council) when the plan is developed; and if the plan is agreed upon, then he felt there are several ways to then get public feedback. Once three parties have an agreement, then 08/01/95 -14-