Laserfiche WebLink
Director, what his plans were for the transportation study funds <br />and a comprehensive plan for McCaslin, incorporating talking with <br />RTD about what might happen with the bus traffic. <br /> <br />Tom Phare, Public Works Director, stated that the proposed work <br />program for the transportation item is generally open to address <br />issues like that and to address any possible need to review <br />alignment and access issues on 96th Street, should any development <br />proposals impact the plan the city has for the connection to Hwy. <br />42. McCaslin Boulevard, its general layout, as far as the number <br />of lanes and general location of the roadway, was negotiated as <br />part of the Homart Development Agreement. He explained that the <br />individual access points are done PUD by PUD. Public Works, to the <br />extent that they are allowed, is seeing that the impact isn't <br />negatively impacted by the other, to make a consistent pattern. <br />They are providing common access points for left turns, as in the <br />section between Via Appia and Cherry. <br /> <br />Mayer wondered if it would be worth having a consultant look at all <br />of the modes of transportation and their coordination from area to <br />area. <br /> <br />Phare didn't think a consultant was necessary. <br /> <br />Mayer felt that going back to the original $25,000 could be <br />accommodated. Presently, it was at $20,000. <br /> <br />Hornbostel was in favor of leaving it at $20,000. <br /> <br />Sisk wondered what the reasoning behind the elimination of the <br />community park was. <br /> <br />Miller: <br /> <br />The primary and the secondary would <br />be. Possibly, there's other funding <br />sources, if the 3/8 cents sales tax <br />were to be successful. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that that is a priority to the community, as they would <br />rather have other services cut than see the community park deleted <br />from the budget. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />This is based on revenue, as we know <br />it right now. As the new shopping <br />centers arrive, as they start <br />generating revenue, we would go back <br />in and readjust this for those kinds <br />of things next year for anticipated <br />income. Then a community park would <br />come back in. Obviously, we cannot <br />build a community park in 1994. If <br />you look at the out years starting <br />in 1995, you take up all the money <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />