HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2003, COUNCIL LIAISON RPT #1 - SLO COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MEETING OF OCTOBER 8, 2003 RECEIVE[
OCT 14 2003
LWison Report LO CITY CLERK, W 0 npa LD
COUNCIL ,B'CDD DIR
,Z CAO J?FIN DIR
October 21, 2003 ?a CAO ,IQ FIRE CHIEF
Z ATTORNEY OPW DIR
FerCLERK/ORIG 2POLJCE CHF
To: City Council ❑ D�EET1 HEADS l �i REC DIR
From Ken Schw Z JIaj2td�L B IL DIR
Copies: Ken Hamp' George, Mike McCluskey, Tim Bocau� V HR DIR
Re: SLO cil of Governments meeting of October 8 2003
One didn't have to look too far to understand that a goodly portion ofthis meeting was all
about money. . . . . or more accurately,the lack of money to carry out transportation
projects that have been `on the books' for years. The State budget is in shambles and
Caltrans, like most State agencies, is required to make some very severe budget cuts.
Caltrans District V Director Gregg Albright gave a very succinct,not very encouraging
report. He is spending lots of time in Sacramento.
Simply stated,projects that have gone through the review and design phases and have
been fimded will move ahead. Those that have not made it through the complete process
will be delayed for several years. Because our City(like all others)is dependent on
fimding from State and Federal sources, we have an interest in who gets what and how
much It is clear that competition for what We money that is out there will be tough and
the political overtones will be significant. Questions like: should COG move forward
with the BIG dollar projects or distribute those bucks to a lot of nue projects? Should we
recognize the regional importance of one or two big projects(41/46)or divvy up the
bucks so communities can deal with the condition of local streets? It ain't gonna be easy.
What came through to me was that if anyone has a project for which all of the work is not
completed at the time of submittal—forget it. Pressure will be on staff to complete
packages that are filly complete. I was assured that our Foothill bridge project was still
on the books for$200,000.
One controversial item(Agenda item C-2-B)was continued to our December meeting.
This deals with the `pooling' of all fiords and to allow COG staff to make the decisions
on how those fiords might best be used in `hump sum' distributions to`priority"projects.
The question of whose`priority"counts is the issue.
Distributed with the COG agenda was a report dealing with"Community Profiles"
gleaned by COG staff from the 2000 census reports. This is available on line. I was
impressed with the info and the comparisons that can be made between communities in
using the data. I recommend taking a look at the report and making a copy if you are
likewise impressed.
Our staff appears to be keeping pace through their involvement with TTAC and
interactions with COG staff I appreciate their advanced review and comments of COG
and SLORTA agendas. Incidentally,there was no SLORTA meeting in October. RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE21a ITEM 011 �
luarson
-ALI
ptI??\OOM8 ...DQPX/- "pe2Sle.