|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Livermore City Council voted unanimously last week to place an initiative proposing regulations on health care service costs in Livermore on the November ballot.
The initiative, spearheaded by a union representing Stanford Health Care workers, seeks to limit local health care charges to 115% of the “reasonable cost of direct patient care.” The rules would apply to all medical practitioners in Livermore, including Stanford Health Care-ValleyCare.
The ballot measure is proposed by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, which collected enough signatures in Livermore to force the council to consider placing the initiative on the ballot citywide. The union also tried a signature collection drive for a similar initiative in Pleasanton that didn’t materialize.
A similar initiative is slated to appear on the city of Palo Alto’s ballot, and another that qualified in Emeryville is on hold as the city is challenging the legality of a union proposal. Currently, no California city has a similar healthcare service cost oversight.
In Livermore, the council decided last month to order city staff to prepare an informational report to further explore the impacts of the first-of-its-kind initiative before determining whether, as Election Code states, it should be adopted immediately or placed on the ballot for local vote.
The city report found that there would be significant expenses for the city to both initially implement and sustain such an initiative over time. The report did not state potential health care cost savings from the initiative.
Following the presentation and public comment, the council agreed July 23 to place the initiative on the ballot for November’s election.
Meanwhile, the city has challenged the legality of the initiative in a lawsuit filed last month in Alameda County Superior Court.
In other business
* The council moved forward with transitioning the city from an at-large elections system for City Council to a district-based elections system by hearing public opinion on the matter, a necessary step in the consideration process.
The city would be divided into four districts, in accordance to standard practice for its population size. The make-up of these districts will be decided by the city after a series of public hearings.
The next hearing is set for Aug. 13.
The decision to shift voting systems occurred in response to a potential lawsuit. Kevin Shenkman, who represents Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, sent a letter to the city in May arguing that Livermore’s at-large elections violates the California Voting Rights Act. Other California cities have faced similar lawsuits.
Shenkman cited the lack of diversity on the Livermore council, stating that the city’s “at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a “protected class”) to elect the candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of the City’s Council elections.”
Livermore’s current voting system means all voters in the city elect the four council members and the mayor. The new district-based election system will divide the city into four districts, in which voters will elect a single council member who lives in their respective district as their council representative. The mayor will continue to be elected at-large, regardless of district.
The new district-based elections system is on track to be implemented by the November 2020 general election.
Editor’s note: Anumita Kaur is a freelance writer for the Pleasanton Weekly.
Editor’s note: Anumita Kaur is a freelance writer for the Pleasanton Weekly.
Newport Academy received numerous state citations before closing Pleasanton clinicsApril 28, 2026 6:00 am
Important distinction to this headline…..the City Council HAD to put it on the ballot because SEIU shills got enough signatures by asking people “do you want free health care”? Duh. The Council’s only choices were to put it on the ballot or accept it immediately. The City report indicated it will cost almost $2million for Livermore to implement this as the ONLY city in the United States to try to regulate health care. The council members rightly lambasted the union lackey who could not speak without reading the pre-written words by SEIU. To quote Councilman Coomber, “Shame on you.” This is pathetic. Get it right Livermore.
The voters in Livermore will get this right and vote it down. I have faith in them. This is SEIU’s attempt to really get the Stanford health care systems attention. I guess Kaiser isn’t enough for them so now they need another crusade.
The positive thing is it may force Stanford/Valley Care to explain why some of their services/procedures are far more expensive than other hospitals.
Who is really behind this….SEIU’s! Not Stanford workers. This is a union ploy. All this will end up doing is possibly driving out health care in Livermore! Research and think about this. How unfortunate it would be to lose health care in Livermore? It would be terrible. Make informed decisions.
Is this really within the purview of a local city council? To regulate health care fees instead of the market, State, or Federal government? Unions are manipulating the system plus, who monitors the fee limits?? Our city staff? Cmon, nice idea but impractical and more regulations.
What does the union have to gain here via limiting healthcare costs? Or is it really not, and just assigning a “cost plus” strategy where they can jack their union wages and just tag 115% onto the cost?