Laserfiche WebLink
39 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stressed that a percentage should be set for local <br />needs. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder indicated it was difficult to determine what <br />would be a reasonable percentage. <br /> <br /> With regard t~.item 7, M~. Scribner asked how "subregional" is <br />defined. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder responded that if Alameda County were the only <br />County with gas tax, that could have a negative impact on our gas <br />stations, but if all the East Bay were regulated, it would be more <br />equitable. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner asked if the money would be returned for that <br />region's use. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler indicated regional mitigations are inevitable <br />although the state had agreed with a gas tax. He stated <br />development fees may be the only way, but he could not say how it <br />could be implemented. <br /> <br />8. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCILMEMBERS <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated a question had come up about how to <br />fill the possible empty seat on the Council. She requested a <br />report on that to be on an agenda prior to the November election. <br />Ms. Acosta indicated it would be on the October 6th agenda. <br /> <br />9. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> LAVWMA/TWA <br /> ABAG <br /> ACAP/ACTEB <br /> Alameda County Waste Management Authority <br /> Alameda County Transportation Plan Committee <br /> Mayor's Affordable Housing Task Force <br /> Tri-Valley Transportation Council <br /> League of California Cities <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked about the status of ACAP/ACTEB. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated that ACAP was the same as always and ACTEB <br />was an advisory committee for the Board of Supervisors, but it was <br />not clear. Mr. Mercer requested a written report at the next <br />meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer than asked about the Tri-Valley Transportation <br />Council. <br /> <br />9/15/9~ 13 <br /> <br /> <br />