My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 07 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2021 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 07 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2021 7:30:49 PM
Creation date
7/26/2021 11:48:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
7/14/2021
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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 />June 30, 2021 <br />Page 3of6 <br />Commissioner Williams asked if the LRC can provide input on the ballot <br />measure. Staff noted that City Council drives the ballot language, but it is also <br />heavily developed by bond counsel to meet specific requirements of TABOR. <br />Council member Leh said the ballot language is very constrained but that <br />Council will make language as clear as possible. Council will also likely adopt a <br />resolution to explain more about intent than can be put into the actual ballot <br />language. <br />Commissioner Tofte said he is disappointed in how Council has approached <br />this project and feels there has not been enough public process in design. He <br />asked for clarification on 2nd reading of the ballot language on July 27 and what <br />happens if changes are made or an additional meeting is required. City <br />Manager Balser said amendments can be made on 2nd reading, but that Council <br />could also have a special meeting to further review changes as the City's <br />charter outlines the timeline to submit a ballot question to the voters. <br />Commissioner Tofte said the process has been rushed and he disagrees with <br />the current ranking of underpasses. He does not think this should move forward <br />without an underpass under Hwy 42 and would like to see it listed as a higher <br />priority due to safety rather than convenience concerns. <br />City Manager Balser said the ballot language will not list priorities. The LRC can <br />use the Cooperation Agreement to suggest prioritization of underpasses that <br />differs from City Council's list. The LRC can suggest prioritization. <br />Commissioner Tofte said Main Street and South Boulder Road will be built <br />regardless of LRC contribution. Commissioners and staff discussed that <br />additional pledged contributions from LRC could encourage a Hwy 42 <br />underpass to be built. <br />Chair Adler asked if the LRC can have input on the resolution of intent. City <br />Manager Balser said that is Council action but that individual Commissioners <br />could attend a Council meeting to provide input. <br />Commissioner Smith agrees with Commissioner Tofte; there has been a lack of <br />public engagement on the project. He is also surprised with the prioritization. <br />The surface level improvements noted in the Resolution in the URA are <br />disappointing. He asked for input from staff about the correct prioritization of <br />projects. Director Pierce suggested the LRC focus on Main Street and South <br />Boulder Road and Hwy 42 and South Street is sound and are critical crossings <br />and will help eliminate blight. To accomplish its mission, the LRC will have to <br />Agenda Packet P. 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.