CCMIN031094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Scribner believed that it was necessary to go into Closed Session to discuss all terms of this offer. She felt that the terms that were presented to Council at this time were not the-. same as presented before. She, too, was unsure as to what would be placed on the June ballot. She felt that the voters were being asked to vote on something that didn't exist. Mayor Tarvet explained that there is not a signed agreement because Council has not told EBDA that it accepts it. Once the terms are accepted, EBDA will sign an agreement. He felt the issues were outlined clearly. Mr. Pico did not believe it was necessary to go into closed session. He felt that if Council wanted to make any modifications or changes to this agreement, it should be made in public. Mayor Tarver stated that if Council did go into closed session, it could, for example, direct him to tell the other LAVWMA members the Pleasanton does not want to pay the amounts which are on this list and that we want to continue the negotiations. Mr. Roush pointed out that Council could say that this offer is not acceptable in open session and then convene in closed session to give direction to the negotiators direction as to what is acceptable. By doing this, the June election will be missed because the negotiators would not be able to meet by tomorrow afternoon. In response to Mr. Pico, Mr. Roush stated that the ballot arguments, the submission date for the arguments for and against the matter are due March 21, 1994, as is the date for the impartial analysis of the measure. There would need to be an agreement by that time. Mr. Pico also asked if it was a reasonable expectation to have the agreement completed by that time. Mr. Roush answered that it was possible. Ms. Mohr objected to Conditions 3 and 4 as they were presented. Ms. Mohr asked if it is the City's right to set and modify the limit lines. Mr. Roush answered yes. The City may set the lines, but they may not be modified. Mr. Pico asked how the drawing or defining of the line impacted the agreement. Mr. Roush stated that he was unable to answer that because he was not sure what language might be acceptable to EBDA. That is part of the language negotiation. Ms. Scribner did not understand what the rush was in placing this matter on the June ballot. She would much rather know what the agreement is before doing so. Mr. Pico was willing to put this on the June ballot only if 1) there was an agreement in hand; 2) an intelligent ballot argument and impartial analysis could be written; 3) those that were in favor or opposed had adequate time to write and prepare their arguments. 03/10/94 2