Laserfiche WebLink
4 4.4 Approved agreement with Zanker Road Resource Management, LTD for <br />disposal of yard waste — Reso #29-98 <br />4.5 Approved recommendation for approval of contracts with Town Geologist <br />for design of landslide repairs-Reso #30-98 <br />4.6 Accepted grant of storm drain easement on Lands of Vidovich — Resolution #31-98 <br />Item Removed: <br />4.3 Approval of agency agreement for a Countywide AB939 Implementation Fee - <br />Resolution # <br />Siegel asked for clarification of the implementation fee. Staff responded that this fee was <br />approximately $7,500 and the monies were used to fund AB939 related costs. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Hubbard and passed <br />unanimously to adopt Resolution #28-98 approving an agency agreement for a Countywide <br />AB939 Implementation Fee. <br />5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br />5.1 Request from Mr. Schoendorf regarding interpretation of Town Municipal Code <br />concerning undergrounding of utility lines <br />Michael Schoendorf, 13145 Byrd Lane, referred to the correspondence he had written over the <br />last several months on the issue of underground utility installations. He believed the ordinance <br />had been misinterpreted and should be clarified so that in the future residents did not experience <br />the confusion he had had with his neighbor. He specifically referred to a letter from John Krug, <br />Service Planning Supervisor, PG&E and did not agree with Mr. King's opinions. Mr. <br />Schoendorf stated that he had the documents to support that the lateral from the pole was not part <br />of the distribution but part of the secondary which was covered by Town ordinances. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Dauber and <br />passed unanimously to direct staff to clarify ordinance section 8-204 to read: "Every <br />electrical, telephone and other utility service lead-in shall be constructed and placed <br />underground so that no portion thereof shall remain aboveground at any place between the <br />street or easement line supply and the structure which such lead-in serves. No new utility <br />pole or overhead line shall be installed, except for repair or maintenance purposes." <br />5.2 Statement of Position on AB 1776 (Motor Vehicle Tax) Reso # <br />N, <br />i <br />Johnson stated that fourteen out of the fifteen Santa Clara County cities had stated their <br />opposition to the repeal of the motor vehicle tax. Hubbard believed this tax was an appropriate <br />tax for use of roads, etc. Sigel stated that the loss of this revenue would be fiscally damaging to <br />the Town and Dauber also commented that this tax accounted for a signficant amount of the <br />library budget. She also asked why local governments had not gotten back the ERAF property <br />tax monies. Casey believed the people had been overtaxed and this was a good step in beginning <br />to reduce taxes. She believed Governor Wilson when he said the money would be returned to the <br />local governments by other means. <br />May 20, 1998 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />