November 22, 2005 > Union City Council meeting Nov. 8
Union City Council meeting Nov. 8
by Jeremy Inman
Councilmember Fernandez was not present due to illness. Because of his absence, an item on the agenda had to be continued for a future meeting. The item in question would extend the proposed moratorium on the granting of permits for the establishment of new recycling facilities pending some changes to the municipal code to allow for greater local control over such public nuisances as odor, sound, pests, etc. The ordinance would have been adopted on Nov. 8 if the required four members of council were present (Valle has to sit the item out because of his affiliation with TriCed), as well as having been extended through Jan. 1 of 2006 to allow the new regulations to take effect on Dec. 9. The ordinance will likely be adopted at the council meeting on Nov. 22.
Several new city employees were introduced, including two new police officer recruits, Andrew Gannam and Joshua Clubb.
A proclamation was made in recognition of the volunteers of this year's Make a Difference Day, who organized a series of public service projects including tree planning in the Contempo Neighborhood, and work in the Community Garden, the Dry Creek Cottage Gardens, and the Mission/Tamarack landscaping corridor.
The consent calendar included, but was not limited to, a resolution authorizing the reallocation of funds to reimburse the city of Fremont for Union City's share of costs for the joint Alvarado Boulevard widening project; a resolution awarding a contract to Melrose Ford of $138,647.44 for six new police patrol units; a resolution of intention to enter into a contract with the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency to receive DUI Enforcement and Education Program Grant Funds; and an acceptance of a report by the city attorney regarding Union City's ability to provide ambulance service and the status of the county ambulance provider agreement with American Medical Response (A.M.R.).
Regarding this last item, Union City may not provide its own ambulance service under state law (specifically, the Emergency Medical Services Act) because it did not provide its own service as of June 1, 1980. It was also asked of the city attorney how many extensions may the county make to the contract with A.M.R., after which he informed council that there need not be any competitive bidding required for ambulance service providers, and that A.M.R. can continue to provide for the county unopposed and indefinitely as long as it maintains its level of service. In response to the council not seeing the logic behind this piece of legislation, because they want some flexibility in the bidding process for their ambulance service providers, and because of some public comment that response times were actually fairly high, the council intends to send correspondence to Assemblyman Alberto Torrico in regard to the issue.