CCMIN110999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush indicated that Pleasanton's bond counsel was not aware of any prohibition on a general obligation bond measure at a special election. If the bond counsels of the two cities confer and it is agreed a special election could not be called, then a closed session would be called for Council to discuss that. At this point, we do not believe that is the case. Ms. Acosta stated that if the measure had to be on the ballot for March 2000, that means staff could not give the voters any real specifics about the uses for the property. Ms. Ayala felt that was a real problem. The ballot language is very important and Council wants a plan for the public that makes sense. Mr. Lymburn understood that and felt it was possible to put that together in a general way. He referred to the bond measure for the Laguna Honda Hospital in San Francisco which was put on the ballot without knowing how much the public would have to pay. Other funds came in from the federal government and tobacco settlements, which reduced the amount the bondholders would pay. He felt Pleasanton could go to the voters for approval of up to $100 million and then use the time between now and March 2000 to talk to other agencies to find additional funding and advise the voters of the reduction in out of pocket expense. He felt it would take years to develop a detailed plan for use of the Bernal property. A series of possible uses could be presented to the voters with a commitment to go through a process to finalize those plans. He indicated the resources of the City of San Francisco would be made available to help get a measure ready for the March 2000 ballot. He said if it does not happen in March, it will not happen at all. He was willing to forego a hearing on the project and instead focus energy on finding a way to have the City of Pleasanton purchase the property. Mayor Tarver commended Mayor Brown for his leadership and ability to move his community, but this is a different city with a different style. There is much citizen participation and involvement and they lead the Council. The process that would be successful in Pleasanton would be to continue negotiations on the property and to involve the community and various agencies and groups in deciding what could be supported for $100 million. Ms. Ayala indicated there are many people in Pleasanton very concemed about development. If we can get acceptance from all aspects of the community, it would be possible to get a two-thirds vote on a bond measure. The purpose of the proposed committee is to achieve that acceptance. Mr. Lymburn believed Council was asking San Francisco to risk the entire project in order to give additional time. There have already been accusations that traffic studies are not up to date, etc. He believed Pleasanton had an astonishingly high level and quality of debate about the CAPP Initiative in a very short period of time. That tells him it is possible to have the kind of dialogue in a short time to allow people to make a decision on whether to buy the 500 acres. Pleasanton City Council 17 11/09/99 Minutes