Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 06 26

Home Browse Search

Revitalization Commission Minutes May 22, 2024 Page 4 of 7 the district, no one has made a case as to whether this project is a proper use of LRC funds and if it will prevent blight and bring more money into the district. The Director of Public Works noted that there are a lot of parallel things and political shifts happening. The city thought LRC was more invested in the underpass than maybe it is. There is a city budget process happening and bonding process in parallel. In order to build projects, the LRC will need to bond, and we need to start working on a bond. Ultimately, we need to develop a spend -down and allocation plan. The Director of Community Development responded to the connection to urban renewal. He noted that we haven't done a direct financial analysis of how much money would be brought in. The plan has an investment objective to bring in transportation improvements and focus on public investment and public infrastructure. From the staff analysis, there is a clear connection to URA objectives with transportation improvements. Staff can try to bring direct financial analysis in the future. He commented that this project is one of the strategic projects that the LRC had planned on supporting in the past. If there are other projects, we have only 8 years to fund and if we don't start the bonding process now, we won't have the ability to bond through the LRC. He commented that the S. Street underpass project was included in the work plan decided upon last year. Mayor Leh asked how the LRC can discuss bonding if it hasn't been decided on whether to fund the underpass. He commented that it's clear that LRC support for this project has softened. He suggested the LRC needs to describe in detail what support they want to provide for an underpass before the question of bonding can be decided. Mayor Leh commented that he feels funding the gap on an underpass project with city budget is a council decision and council doesn't have the information to support the project with the information we have now. Commissioner Tofte asked if the commission should look at bonding needs regardless of whether the underpass project is supported. Chair Adler asked the commission to decide whether the LRC wants to bond in support of projects. Commissioner Lipton agreed that the LRC has to make the decision to bond, but he is not ready to make the decision today. He feels he doesn't have enough information to decide. He requested the LRC review the work plan, decide what projects we want to support and what projects can be included. He also asked how real estate acquisitions play into this. He is interested in bonding, but unsure what for and how much. The Director of Community Development commented that from a high level, city staff recommends bonding the $10M because that enables the LRC to pay for infrastructure projects, maintain current programming and possibly have a little funding left over. The EV Manager gave her presentation (notes above). Commissioner Williams agrees that bonding needs to be done and she feels a larger bonding amount will provide the LRC with more flexibility to fund projects and/or acquisitions. She commented that bonding would be for the LRC's big impact projects. She supports the proposed Vision Plan and noted that the city should be involved in helping to fund it and that it shouldn't solely be the LRC's responsibility. Commissioner expressed interest in breathing life into the