Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 12', 2019 <br />Page 8 of 12 <br />Brauneis noted that opportunities like needing to repave Pine Street were great times to <br />take advantage of other improvements. He suggested prioritizing safety where we know <br />things are unsafe and increased connectivity. <br />Rice noted that sufficient parking in the downtown area may come into conflict with <br />some of the multi -modal goals of the Plan. <br />Ritchie replied that there had been a lot of discussion about the parking impact. <br />Rice added that from a planning perspective, the Commission would prefer a higher <br />level of facility save for the budget issues, which were not the Commission's bailiwick. <br />Moline recommended pursuing scenario 3. <br />Hoefner stated that the report was organized by priority, but he did not have a sense of <br />cost -benefit ranking among the different projects with their vastly different costs. <br />Libhart replied that cost -benefit analysis was very complicated but she thought the <br />comment was important. She noted that scenario 3 would fund everything except that it <br />did not factor in transit. <br />Williams asked about how to increase CIP funding, for example, were there <br />conversations about increasing taxes or having specific taxes for transportation. She <br />also asked about outside funds. <br />Libhart replied that there would be additional funding mechanisms, but what they <br />budgeted into the plan anticipated grant funding. Some of the costing involved <br />budgeting for different levels of local involvement based on the availability of other funds <br />for certain projects, like Highway 42. The cost also used a higher amount for grant <br />funding than the City was currently receiving. <br />Moline asked about the transportation service fee in scenario 3. <br />Libhart replied that there would have to be nexus study, but there was a possibility to <br />use a system would be a fee -accessed to contribute to maintenance funding, which <br />would free up the CIP for more capital, which could also be leveraged for more grant <br />funding as well. <br />Brauneis asked what level of feedback Council wanted from the Commission. <br />Ritchie suggested noting any concerns with the plan or any recommendations for top - <br />priority projects. <br />Hoefner recommended keeping the Commission's input at a high level. <br />Ritchie added that Council may appreciate specific feedback on policy. <br />W <br />