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 16, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />Council member Leh said Council is looking for steady commitment of funds <br />from LRC. He thinks it is important for LRC to make a firm commitment, which <br />will also assist in the language to develop for the ballot and voters. <br />Commissioner Smith asked if the LRC has ever contributed on a percentage <br />basis and whether that would be a firm enough commitment to City Council. <br />Director Pierce said it was feasible, but had not been done previously except in <br />the case of a 50/50 split. She said it would make it more difficult for Council to <br />project the commitment and could result in fewer projects being prioritized <br />within the Urban Renewal Area (URA). <br />Responding to a question from Commissioner Williams, Director Pierce said <br />that if Council wants to bond for the projects, they are required to ask voters for <br />the full amount of the project cost —not just what they might project they need <br />outside of the LRC contributions and other sources. Commissioners also <br />discussed how Council might be prioritizing the projects and what populations <br />would be served. <br />Commissioner Gambale asked for Council member Leh and Director Pierce to <br />react to his proposed funding scenario. He emphasized he hopes to see two <br />underpasses constructed in the URA. Council member Leh said City Council is <br />wrestling with the numbers and there remains a lot of uncertainty. He said the <br />funding contributions would give a general level of assurance to Council. <br />Director Pierce noted that LRC funds will benefit improvements in the URA, but <br />that the funding being discussed will not pay for a complete underpass project. <br />Commissioner Tofte reiterated that ten years from now, people may be saying <br />more projects should have been funded while they were affordable. He is fine <br />with the $1.25M contribution but thinks LRC should go as high as $1.5M to get <br />more projects completed. <br />Council member Leh said this is a transformative project. Council recognizes <br />not all underpasses have the same contribution to the URA, and it is acceptable <br />to express preferences to which underpasses the LRC wants. It is only going to <br />get more expensive. He supports $1.25M or $1.51VI and thinks that will be <br />helpful to Council. <br />Chair Adler feels more comfortable with $1.25M but has not seen projections at <br />that amount. <br />Agenda Packet P. 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.