Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11101987 - T.7 JOINT MEETING of the ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS November 10, 1987 Board Chambers 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 Supervisor McPeak, Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Super- visors, and Supervisor Edward Campbell, Chairman, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, convened the joint meeting of the two Boards. Supervisor McPeak presented an overview of Contra Costa County's position relative to the agreement between BART and San Mateo County for the construction of a Colma Station for which San Mateo has agreed to pay $25 million. She advised that a majority on the BART Board of Directors had agreed to change their policy for construction of new stations with priority for new stations assigned to those areas where the governing body is able to commit funds for the station, which is the case of San Mateo County. Supervisor McPeak further noted that the $25 million buy-in by San Mateo does not cover the capitalization costs incurred byi San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties for developing the system. She expressed a desire to work with Alameda County to oppose the BART-Colina station. Supervisor Campbell advised that Alameda County's County Counsel is to report to his Board on 'November 17, 1987 as to the legal action they would take on the BART-Colma proposal. He noted that the action of the BART Board jeopardized the construction of the Dublin Canyon and Warm Springs stations in Alameda County. He further noted that the electorate in Alameda County had passed a one-half cent sales tax measure with the understanding that these stations would be constructed. He advised that after the measure had passed he was told that only the Dublin Canyon Station would be built. Supervisor Campbell expressed concern that BART put the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in the position of misrepresenting the intent of the measure to its constituency. He advised that he will ask his Board to oppose the construction of any new BART stations outside the current service area. There was discussion -on the feasibility of the two counties sharing in the expense of hiring a financial expert to review the contributions of the three service counties and determine what would be a- fair buy-in by another jurisdiction for BART service. Board members spoke on potential impact of the Caltrain proposal for a station on Market Street in San Francisco rather than at Fourth and Townsend. Nello Bianco, Director of BART (representing Contra Costa County) urged the two Boards to take immediate action to block the Colma extension. He called attention to the fact that the $25 million to be paid by San Mateo for the Colma station will be refunded from the revenues generated at that station. He advised that there are three BART Directors who have indicated they may oppose the Colma Station and that one more vote is needed to defeat the proposed extension. Mr. Bianco urged the Alameda County Board to prevail upon its BART representatives to oppose this extension. It was noted that the cities in both counties were taking positions in opposition to the Colma extension. Following discussion the Supervisors unanimously agreed to work together in requesting the BART Board of Directors to recon-. sider their approval of the Colma station and not ratify the principles of agreement; directed staff of both counties to work jointly on exploring the feasibility of legal action; and- requested the County Administrators of the two counties to explore the possibility of jointly working on acquiring economic expertise in . analyzing the principles of agreement. 1 Mark Finucane, Health Services Director, Contra Costa County, advised that he and Dave Kears, Director of Health Services, Alameda County, have been working together on the AIDS problem and have shared a number of programs and ideas. He advised of their participation in a group called the Bay Area Officials who have hired a staff person to assist in the development of policy posi- tion papers which will then be submitted to each Board of Supervi- sors. In addition, Mr. Finucane spoke on the success of the trauma center and of the excellent working relationship of the two coun- ties on perinatal issues and mental health programs. David Kears spoke on the 10 percent reduction proposed for MediCal allocation rates and of the work of the two Health Depart- ments in seeking to defeat this proposal. He, too, commented on the excellent working relationship between the two counties and of the need to continue to work together. There was discussion on the use of nurses from the Nursing Registry and expense incurred; the advantages of recruitment programs to secure registered nurses to staff the county hospital; the feasibility of joint medical programs and the possibility of extending the Contra Costa Health Plan coverage to Alameda County employees. Supervisor Perata commented on the need to become more aggres- sive in seeking an adequate level of funding for MediCal programs and particularly for the medically indigent adult population. He agreed to formulate a political strategy for consideration by each Board. Mark Finucane was requested to consult with Dave Kears on Contra Costa's participation in a Permanent Oversight Committee on infant mortality. Phil Batchelor, County Adminstrator, Contra Costa County, spoke on the negative impact to counties as a result of the recent passage of SB 709. He advised of a statewide delegation of coun- ties looking at the problems associated with implementing SB 709 and of the lead position assigned to Contra Costa County to redraft the language of SB 709 to correct many of its deficiencies. Mel Hing, County Adminstrator, Alameda County, agreed with Mr. Batchelor on the need to correct the fiscal consequences of this legislation. Chuck Zahn of the Community Development Department, Contra Costa County, gave a brief overview of the landfill facility status in Contra Costa and the status of two applications for land use permits for new landfills (Kirker Pass site and the East Contra Costa site) . He spoke of the pending hearing on the application for a land use permit for a transfer station at the Acme Landfill site, which is modeled after Alameda County's Davis Street Transfer Station. Mr. Zahn advised that the 1987 revision of the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan provides for recycling goals, approval of the transfer station as well as other solid waste issues. He spoke of a proposed contingency plan which would allow for the export of waste from Contra Costa County to a facility in Alameda County if a new Contra Costa facility is not on-line when the Acme Landfill facility closes. There was discussion on the need to amend the Solid Waste Managment Plan of Alameda County if it becomes necessary to accept Contra Costa's waste at a landfill facility in Alameda County. There was also discussion on the question of including a reciprocity clause in a waste disposal agreement between the two counties. Dave Okita of the Community Development Department, Contra Costa County, spoke on the development of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to provisions of AB 2948 with the comple- tion date for the plans scheduled for the end of March 1988. He spoke about the coordination and cooperation in the development of plans between Alameda and Contra Costa counties as well as other 2 r counties in the Bay and San Joaquin areas. Mr. Okita commented on ' the issues of import-export of hazardous materials, the need to determine appropriate levels of source reduction and waste minimi- zation, and regional hazardous waste facilities. There was consensus that staff of the two counties would continue to meet periodically on this matter. Supervisor Schroder spoke of a study commissioned by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on a single transit agency concept for the East Bay counties that would provide for coordina- tion of services. He spoke of the need to have the transportation staff -in the two counties review the single trans .agency concept in order to provide for the movement of people between the two coun- ties, i.e. , where they live in one county and work in another. He commented on the need for each Board to give some guidance to the various transit agencies within each jurisdiction to start working toward a working relationship. Supervisor Campbell spoke of the need to review the possibili- ty of establishing a joint powers agreement on a tri-county or regional level to handle traffic accumulated impacts, particularly from new development. He advised that a regional joint powers agreement would also provide a vehicle for funding many of the transportation projects to provide for future growth. There was discussion on the need to discuss the BART issue at another joint meeting; the need for a staff recommendation on joint action relative to a tax measure and a commitment for BART extensions for the three counties;, the problem with CALTRANS being able to get projects designed and moving in a timely fashion toward completion; the need for reforms on project design and implementation for all the counties that have either passed or are looking to pass transportation finance measures; request to the County Counsels and County Administrators of both counties to review the feasibility of a fiscal analysis and litigation relative to the BART issue with a report to each Board by December 15, 1987. There was agreement to again meet jointly in early 1988 with Alameda County hosting the meeting. The Board members concurred that the next meeting's agenda would include for discussion trans- portation issues, the Vasco Road .realignment project, and the homeless issue including the need to secure shelters. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 -p.m. Respectfully submitted, Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator,. Contra Costa County Bye YJeanne O. Maglio Deputy Clerk 3