01 - Laserfiche WebLink

He noted other resolutions have been adjusted which state that State Route 84, Project 82A has a lower priority than 6.1. and B.2; M project funding priorities be consistent with the regional priorities established by the CMA Triangle Study. These are not contained within Pleasanton's resolution but are within other agencies' resolutions. He said it does appear to be in conflict with language in the original resolution that states that projects in List A are a first priority and List B will be as a second priority. Mayor Hosterman said the City's basic assumptions that have been acted on previously have changed and the completion of State Route 84 which is very important for Pleasanton citizens has been changed from a priority to something in the future. Mr. Tassano confirmed that it has been changed in three of the other member agency's resolutions and he discussed the history and role of the M Council and funding for sub-regional projects. Councilmember Cook-Kallio voiced concern over the change in priorities, believed the MC's composition has nothing to do with the Triangle Study composition and she questioned why the two were mixed and voiced concern with mixing apples with oranges. Mr. Tassano confirmed List A projects were to be funded ahead of List B, and she confirmed that the initial resolution was brought forward to the Council prior to listening to the other agencies' comments. She also questioned how binding it is to have three entities put together a recommendation like this, and Mr. Fialho said it is largely dependent upon how they vote; for the Tri-Valley there is an approved Triangle Study report that at least three member agencies support and feel should guide the prioritization of List A and B in the MC process. Councilmember McGovern confirmed that the Mayor was not notified that the two cities and the county were going to change the resolution agreed upon. Councilmember McGovern said at the last meeting, she questioned whether List A was the priority, as A.1 had been completed and she thought that Councilmember Sullivan had worked to reach that consensus level within meetings. Councilmember Sullivan noted he is the representative for Pleasanton on the MC and all decisions must be unanimous. They worked very hard for over a year to not only come up with the fee but also address transportation problems while not overburdening local businesses to stifle the economy, while making allowance for our affordable housing opportunities. He felt all jurisdictions worked very well on it, it was important for Pleasanton to have assurances that the high priority list remain before approving the fee. They had that discussion in several meetings, specifically included that language in the final resolution and vote; that the A list would remain the high priority. The two cities and the county agreed to it at that meeting. He was surprised no one contacted him to let him know that they were going to change their resolutions or priorities. Councilmember Cook-Kallio questioned and confirmed that the two other cities have approved their resolutions and the County will consider action tomorrow. She said she feels blind-sighted and believed the City was in a position of saying no. Councilmember Sullivan said there is the fee which is up for discussion tonight, and the second piece is the strategic expenditure plan which states how the money is to be spent as well as projects on the list. The fee does not go into effect for one year from now, so potentially the Council could hold off on approving the fee and work through the strategic expenditure plan if our current concerns are satisfied and State Route 84 is still on the high priority list, the City could vote on the entire thing at once. This way all of the information is on the table, everyone understands how much money there is and where it is going. He confirmed with Councilmember Cook-Kallio that the same timeline would be maintained as to when it is to be imposed. City Council Minutes 7 October 21, 2008