My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2021 05 25
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2021 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2021 05 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:15:47 PM
Creation date
6/21/2021 11:32:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/25/2021
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />May 25, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Renewal Area (URA) which includes improving infrastructure to facilitate redevelopment. <br />Three of the underpasses Council is currently considering are in the URA which is why <br />the Council is seeking some LRC funding for those. <br />She reviewed the specific plans in the TMP for all six underpasses the Council is <br />considering as well as how the Council is considering paying for them with a bond issue <br />paid for by a combination of city money and a possible tax increase. This funding would <br />require a ballot question for approval by residents. <br />Lexi Adler, LRC Chair, stated the LRC is has begun discussions on this and have asked <br />staff to get additional information about how much money they would have available and <br />possible funding amounts. <br />Public Comments — None. <br />Graham Smith asked if the Council has a specific funding number in mind at this point. <br />Mayor Stolzmann stated the Council feels these underpasses could help revitalize the <br />URA and would like the LRC to give the maximum amount feasible. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Maloney stated the number will be dependent on how many underpasses <br />are included in the final plan and also how these underpasses would specifically help <br />address blight in the URA. Also, he noted the URA sunsets in 10 or 11 years and that <br />needs to be taken into consideration. <br />Mark Gambale states this looks like a good project to collaborate with the Council on and <br />asked if the Council has done any polling with the public on this issue. <br />Adler stated the LRC's mission includes implementing the Hwy 42 Revitalization Urban <br />Renewal plan in the area and this project would address that. She noted funding for this <br />project can't leave the LRC with no funding for other programs. <br />Corrie Williams asked if the City would move forward with this project without LRC <br />support, can the LRC funding only be used for the three underpasses in the URA, and <br />what evidence that this supports or attracts businesses or that this addresses blight. <br />Smith asked how can we be sure the underpasses will address blight. He was concerned <br />spending too much on this could hamstring the LRC and keep them from addressing <br />blight in specific areas. <br />Bob Tofte stated there are some other projects coming that the LRC might want to fund <br />and this could limit that. He asked if the bond issue needs to be on the ballot this year or if <br />it can wait for next year. He strongly supports an underpass at South Boulder Road and <br />Main but would like more information on what level of commitment the LRC can afford <br />and still do other projects. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.