My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 11 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2004-2019 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2012 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 11 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 10:18:29 AM
Creation date
11/8/2012 2:34:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
RCPKT 2012 11 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Revitalization Commission <br />Minutes <br />DATE <br />Page 2of 3 <br />Reports of the Commission <br />– <br />Business Matters of the Commission <br />– <br />a.Recap HPC/LRC Meeting. Members expressed satisfaction with the <br />joint meeting, which gave each group a better understanding of each <br />other. Agreed it wasworthwhile. HPC realized our financial abilities. <br />Discussed liaison potential;Sam went over legal ramifications in terms <br />of contact between HPC & LRC members. Karl asked that Carlos and <br />Alex get together and brainstorm how to move forward with HPC. <br />b.TIF Analysis. Aaron presentedthe TIF analysis found in the packet. <br />Discussion followed about when and how oftento update members, <br />that this was a “living-breathing” document.Sam went over the <br />example of schools, fire districts and other entities and discussed how <br />State contributions can backfill TIF contributions. <br />DELO presented on funding and TIF. Three components: improve <br />Cannon St., the underpass and parking facilities. Michael started a <br />dialogue on how the process works in terms of logistics, interaction w/ <br />Council, City, developer, etc. DELO wants agreement on <br />compensation for developer’scapital improvements sooner rather than <br />later, e.g., Cannon St. <br />Steve Fisher stated that Aaron’s analysis is solid, and the assumptions <br />are probably conservative. The City/LRC should have a good <br />application for screening applicants since there will be a lot of interest <br />in the money being made available. <br />c.IGA for Underpass. Rob recommended agreement should allow for <br />pre-payment w/o penalty. Troy talked about the schedule by the RR <br />and PUC; it is at their timing if we want their funding. Michael stated <br />he hoped the completion date could be accelerated from December <br />2015, and asked about offering a cash bonus for early completion, and <br />why the stormwater fund is capped. <br />Carlos asked if we can go with design/build to save time. Justin would <br />like to see a flow chart of the project. Troy noted there are other things <br />beyond our control, e.g., Street Faire. Carlos asked DELO what else <br />can be done to spark DELO if the Underpass doesn’t happen until Dec. <br />2015. Rick repliedit should not be delayed more than a year, and we <br />should help people get across the tracks safely. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.