The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/07/1993, 8 - COUNCIL DIRECTION ON NON-CITY USE OF SLO TRANSIT VEHICLES MEETING DATE: city of san Luis ogispo September 7, 1993 Iff C®UNCII_ AGENDA REPORTITEM NUMBER: FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director"VP\- Harry Watson, Transit Manager SUBJECT: Council direction on non-City use of SLO Transit vehicles CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Deny a request by the City of Morro Bay for use of the City trolley during the Morro Bay Harbor Day Festival 2. Direct staff to return with a policy that San Luis Obispo Transit vehicles, including the trolley, will only be used for SLO Transit routes and City activities BACKGROUND: Morro Bay Request Staff receives numerous requests to supply SLO Transit service and/or vehicles, in particular the trolley, to private citizens, companies, organizations, and other municipal governments for various activities. Private citizens want to use the vehicles in support of parties and weddings, while corporations and companies want to use them for company outings and sales promotions. Organizations want to use them in .fund raising and multi-location activities, and municipalities want their use for festivals and celebrations in their local communities. Attached is a letter from the City of Morro Bay, dated September 1, 1993, requesting use of the SLO Transit back-up trolley for use during their Harbor Festival. The City of Morro Bay offers remuneration for its use of an unspecified amount and acknowledgement that insurance issues must be dealt with. Because the City of San.Luis Obispo would be without a back-up trolley, staff recommends Council deny the Morro Bay request. Follow-up Policy Staff routinely answers all such requests for such service negatively in that insurance and proper training of operators are issues that cannot be easily addressed. Rather,than continue such denials on an ad-hoc basis, staff sought direction from the Mass Transportation Committee in order to formulate a policy for Council adoption. The Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) discussed this issue at their August meeting and recommend a policy be developed denying such requests for the following reasons: 1. The primary use of our second trolley must be as a backup unit to our primary trolley and must be available at all times. 2. Loaning or renting of buses and trolleys is an inappropriate use of the taxpayer's dollars. 3. Outside use of transit vehicles raises several responsibility issues, among which are: a) who is responsible for any required repairs?; b) who is responsible for any damage incurred?;_and—.------- c) nd_. ___-_c) who is responsible for servicing the vehicle? �u�►�ibl►i�lllll[Ulli°�9�U�11 City Of San Luis OBISPO COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT Trolley Page Two 4. How would insurance issues be dealt with? (Insurance is currently contained within a service contract). 5. Who assures that the drivers are qualified to operate the vehicles? Do they have necessary licenses, experience and medical certificates to operate the equipment? 6. Staff time would be required to book and monitor compliance of any rules that would be in place (primary use would be on weekends). Vehicles would need to be inspected prior to each check out and return check in. 7. The next logical step of any short term loan or rental agreements would be long term and long distance requests for charters of transit vehicles for social and field trips. 8. The City should not compete with the private charter business, as it is an inappropriate role for a City to play. The MTC felt that any one of these objections was adequate basis for the recommendation. Upon receipt of Council input, staff would propose to develop a policy on such matters and return to the City Council for review.and adoption. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impact, either positive or negative, with the adoption of a policy of not loaning or renting transit vehicles for non-SLO Transit use. The fiscal impacts of loaning/renting of transit vehicles would vary, dependent on the rate charged for rental and the type of use. No funds have been provided for in the currently adopted budget for operations outside the parameters of our current service contract. Attachment: Request from Morro Bay t,eneylfhw i p U C of Morro Bay Morro Bay, CA 93442 . 805-772-6200 RECE£1' � SEP r ~ ADMINISTF;,q I- -r. r SAN LUIS OBISPO CA - ; September 1, 1993 - - r Honorable Peg Pinard and City Council Members City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San. Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Mayor and Council Members: The City of Morro Bay, at the direction of the City Council, hereby respectfully requests the rental of your City's back-up trolley for passenger use during the 1993 Morro Bay Harbor Festival, to be held Saturday and Sunday, October 2 and 3, 1993. We will of course be willing to formalize this arrangement in writing with you. It is my understanding there would be some renumeration and insurance concerns that would need to be resolved. Please let me know what we need to do to satisfy your requirements. Let me thank you in advance for your consideration of this request, and let me offer our invitation to you to attend our annual Harbor Festival. Sincerely, William Yate Mayor WY:bd cc: John Dunn, City Administrator r 83 FINANCE ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLJC WORKS 595 Harbor Street 595 Harbor Street 715 Harbor Street 695 Harbor Street HARBOR DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLJCE DEPARTMENT RECREATION AND PARKS 1275 Embareadero 535 H .M.b.ee# cc^1l___n_--e_-I--- NA L�__ ,iPA1T .M 1! DATE� September 4, 1993 W1 01B3X�e City of San Luis Obispo - 990 Palm St . San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 Sp ( 1993 Re: Margarita Area Annexation CITY COUNCIL .`!FN LUIS 051SP0, CA Dear Council, Planners, and Others : This letter is to clarify any misunderstanding there might be between City Staff and the Margarita Property owners . We, the property owners are still working together as a coalition as much as possible with the goal of getting our properties annexed and developed within the city limits of San Luis Obispo. We are giving you a copy of a letter that was hand delivered in separate envelopes to a secretary in the upstairs office and intended for each council member to have a copy on July 26, 1993 . We also want you to know the letter sent to Arnold Jonas by RRM Design Group IT. Keith Gurnee) , dated June 1, 1993 was not reviewed or approved by the property owners before it was sent . We want you to know we have not given up on our hopes, dreams, plans for the Magarita Area and are looking forward to working together on this project . Thank you very much for your initial support at this time . Sincerely, R�tTA-16 �� Richard DeBlauw For: The Margarita Area Property Owners 5F COUP!CIL CDD DIR IjCAO ❑ FIN DIR CC : Peg Pinard ; CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Penny RappaATTORNEY ❑ PW DIP Bill Roalman dCLERKORIG ❑ POLICE CHF Dave Romero ❑ MGMTTEA.Ai ❑ REC DIR Allen Settle ❑-CREA�FIL g ❑ UTILDR John Dunn 1. ❑ PER SDI John Mandevillei Glen Matteson . BUSINESS OFHCE:744 ALTA VISTA WAY,ARROYO GRANDE,CA93420 (805)5447778 V w � 9�LUIS OBIS ' July 26, 1993 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St . San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Attention: Kenneth .C. Hampian . Assistant City Administrative Officer Dear Ken, This letter is to inform the City Staff that all the property owners in the Margarita Expansion area are very much interested in having their properties annexed from the county into the City of San Luis Obispo with water, sewer, police, and fire service. We request that there would not be any unnecessary fianacial fees that would prohibit the financial feasibility of developing the properties. We the undersigned property owners request we be notified in advance of any and all meetings the city will be having regard- ing the annexation of the Margarita Expansion Area as well as the Airport Area. Sincerely, Richard DeBlauw 411 .E1 Camino Real Arroyo Grande, CA 9 420 John ingo are ia . 290 ismo 547 rado Rd Sa Luis Obispo 7CA 93401 Sa_ T,uis Obispo, CA 93401 ry a ine1 3. 4 5 C estmon.t Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ' ' BUSINESS OWE:744 ALTA VISTA WAY,ARROYO GRANDE,CA93420 (805)5447778 MEETING AGENDA DATE f-7-91 ITEM#® September 2, 1993 AO [/ 0 CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR O FIRE CHIEF Y ❑ PIU DinCOMMUNICATION ITEM IG ❑ POLICE CHFAM ❑ REC DIRTO: Council Colleagues LF. o UrIL DIR❑ PLHS DIR FROM: Dave Romero SUBJECT: MARGARITA EXPANSION AREA At our meeting of August 31, 1993 we considered a communication from the Mayor regarding clarifying the status of the Margarita Expansion Area. Our subsequent discussion and direction to staff missed the central point of the Mayor's memo, that is, "What is the status of this project?" I for one would very much like to see a staff agenda report on this subject. Therefore, at the September 7, 1993 Council meeting, I will propose that we direct staff to prepare such an agenda report. DR:ss Attachment (Mayor's memo dated 8/20/93) c: J. Dunn RECEIVED SEP 2 1993 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,.CA AIGENDA 7INITEM #�� nl - E -z4-9 August 20, 1993 NCIL•. CDD DIA 0 FIN DIR MEMORANDUM A OFIRE CHIEF EY 0 PW DIR _ CIERKbFiI0 0 POLICE CHF TO: Council Colleagues 0 MG TEAM O REC DIR D E{► FILE 0 UTIL DIR FROM: Mayor Peg Pinard S, 0 PERS DIR SUBJECT: ITA ION AR A Recently, at their request, I have met with several different property owners in the Margarita area. These property owners are interested in proceeding with annexation to the City as they *are already covered under the existing Land Use Element. The staffs recollection is that the last formal action by the City Council was to defer processing of this expansion area until completion of the new Land Use Element. I believe it is appropriate to reconsider and to clarify the status of the Margarita Area. I am asldng for.Council concurrence to place this matter on the next agenda for considera- tion..A brief staff report will suffice as the options regarding the area are limited and fairly. clearcut. The next step, in my understanding, is to get the process underway with LAFCO. Because the Margarita area is shown in the urban reserve area in both the existing and draft LUE, Council policy regarding the ultimate inclusion of this area within the City is already clear and has been in place for many years. Therefore, what remains unresolved is the uses and kind of development to be allowed within the area,which will be addressed concurrent with the LUE update and an eventual Specific.Plan. However, revising the City boundary line to include this area does not necessarily have to await these other actions. PP:ss c: Diane Gladwell John Dunn Jeff Jorgensen