HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2002, LIAISON CLR #1 - SLORTA / SLOCOG MEETING JULY 10, 2002 MEETING AGENDA
DATE IIlo'02 ITEM #
LIAISON REPORTClea �l
COUNCIL CDD DIR
�SCAO ❑ FIN DIR
J 16 2002 ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
�y ATTORNEY ?W QIP
CLERK1ORIG -OLICE CHF
To: Council Colles DPT HEAIrS Ae'C DIP
From Ken Sch uTIL DIR
Copies: Ken Hamp' George,John Mandeville,Mike McCh! HR DIR
Re: SLORTA/SLOCOG meeting July 10, 2002
The SLOCOG portion ofthe meeting contains two items of considerable interest.
1. An acceptance action of a consultant report dealing with a centralized
maintenance facility for all the rolling stock of all of the transit systems operating
in the County. The report was presented is such a way that facilitysize and costs
could be seen if our SLO City transit system was to be included or excluded
(except for heavy duty maintenance like major engine repair or replacement and
body and paint work). Why SLO Transit in or out? Simply because we have our
own facility that does much,but not all, of our own maintenance work
Much discussion was generated about the need for one centralized facility. Such
a facility would necessitate"deadheading"buses from outlying systems into SLO
every day,therefore, why not have north and south county satellite facilities? I
subscribe to that idea because the north and the south county areas would then
have to provide housing for the employees of those satellite facilities.
Another point of discussion revolved around the inclusion or exclusion of school
busses. Why can't such a facility do the maintenance of school buses? There
could certainly be some cost savings to the taxpayer. This point will be&irther
explored with school officials.
2. The other major item was the CDH housing allocation for the SLO Region
(County). Board members were rebellious and agreed unanimously that the
number of housing units CDH expects our cities and County to produce was
wrongly arrived at. The Thursday Tnb story by Silas Lyon was well done and
pretty much covered the Board's action. The only reason why the vote was 9—3
had to do with the base figures the Board authorized staff to use in continuing
SLOCOG's arguments not with CDH, but with our State legislators. Three
members wanted to allow the negotiations to go back to the 10,000+/_figure we
had once used versus the 13,000+/_figure that the Board had based it latest
negotiations upon.
Strong feelings were expressed by members—not about the evident need for
affordable housing—but about having to kowtow to a dictatorial ruling of a State
agency. There was strong feeling that this continues to represent an unfounded
mandate and that the State should pay for fulfilling the requirement. RECEIVED
JUL 12 ?002
SLO CITY CLERK