My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 10 30
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
REVITALIZATION COMMISSION
>
2024 Revitalization Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 10 30
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 12:34:48 PM
Creation date
10/29/2024 9:30:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
10/30/2024
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.
/
85
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 />September 18, 2024 <br />Page 3of8 <br />Commissioner Lipton commented that he doesn't think we don't have nearly enough funding <br />needed to do all of the proposed improvements. It looks like we may have to choose elements <br />of the various plans, or discard elements of the various plans in order to get some reasonable <br />budget that we can actually do two phases. He would like a conversation with the <br />commissioners to get a sense of this. Doubling down on Front Street seems to be important and <br />should be a priority to anchor all of this. He wouldn't want to give up on Front Street to do other <br />parts of the plan. He feels we need to figure out how to do both early on. <br />The Director of Community Development asked if the commission thinks the plan is structured in <br />a way that supports those priorities, if the commission would like a paragraph added to the plan <br />to emphasize it in the presentation to Council staff can add that language. Commissioner Lipton <br />asked when staff intends to bring this to Council. The City Engineer responded that it depends <br />on the recommendation from the Commission today. If LRC approves recommendation to City <br />Council for adoption, we will add it to the next possible City Council meeting depending on the <br />availability to add it to Council's agenda. Commissioner Lipton commented that it would be <br />difficult for him to make recommendations without seeing numbers. The EV Manager <br />commented that we will not have any more numbers other than what we have in front of us. We <br />cannot move forward with construction documents and the next round of consultant work unless <br />the project is adopted and the plan is adopted. From there we will go into construction document <br />phase which will home in on actual costs. We will not have more detailed monetary costs unless <br />the plan is adopted to move forward with construction documents. <br />Commissioner Lipton asked for clarification on the $14,250,000 indicated on the presented <br />phasing plan. It doesn't seem to him that this number is a relevant number. He asked how can <br />they make recommendations to council without actually having a better feel for that. The <br />Director of Community Development commented that as we have developed this plan, the <br />number continues to increase; but the phases, the short-term focus has remained the same. We <br />have heard from LRC, City Council and from the public that these are the highest priorities, but <br />we don't know what it is going to cost. It may end up costing more and we may end up value - <br />engineering the project. We won't know that until we get into construction document <br />development and then we will have to start making hard choices. We want to design for the <br />whole phase and then bid. Then we try to get it within the budget the best we can. It has to go in <br />that order, to design for the full first phase, and then bid it out to get it within budget. The EV <br />Manager commented that this plan is intended to live beyond what the LRC is able to fund so <br />that the City can use additional funds to continue future phases as funds are available to do so. <br />The City Engineer clarified that the way it would work is we would send out for RFP for design <br />and award the design, then come back to the LRC with 30% design for everything in phase 1. <br />Then the LRC would need to make decisions on priorities based on budget availability. <br />Commissioner Williams commented that it would be helpful to say that the LRC knows what <br />their budget is. It would be Council's decision to pursue additional funding to cover anything they <br />deem important that the LRC is unable to fund. The LRC can be clear to Council what they have <br />available to fund this project. <br />Commissioner Lipton expressed concern about what the LRC can recommend to council while <br />acting responsibly. We can say it's a beautiful master plan, the LRC can only commit $9M, and <br />these are the LRC's priorities. The Director of Community Development responded that we have <br />heard pretty universally that Front Street is a priority in the first phase and he's not sure how <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.