Revitalization Commission Agenda and Packet 2021 07 07

Home Browse Search

SUBJECT: DRAFT COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UNDERPASS IMPROVEMENTS DATE: JULY 7, 2021 PAGE2OF6 so that funds can be used to construct the appropriate projects at the locations since designs and estimates will continue to evolve over the next year plus. Commissioners expressed concern with Council's prioritization at the June 30 meeting. With Council's current prioritization and bonding cap, there is a possibility that only one underpass, at Main Street & South Boulder Road, would be constructed in the Urban Renewal Area (URA). Commissioners generally felt there had been a lack of community engagement around the determined prioritization and that the Hwy 42 & South Street underpass should have been ranked higher. Most of the meeting centered on those reflections as well as alternative structures to the funding contributions to incentivize two underpasses to be built in the URA. Below, staff will summarize the motion that was made as well as other options the Commission could consider for the Agreement, which might influence two underpass projects being constructed. Commissioner Gambale made a motion on revising the financial contribution structure in the draft Agreement; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tofte. This Option #1 called for a split in funding between Main Street & South Boulder Road ($7.75M) and Hwy 42 & South Street ($6M). Additionally, if Hwy 42 & South Street was constructed, the LRC would provide an additional $5M between 2028 and 2032—totaling an $18.75M contribution. The $5M would be spread over five years as follows (amounts in addition to the previously committed $1.5M a year): 2028- $2M, 2029- $2.5M, 2030- $2.5M, 2031- $2.5M, and 2032- $3M. Essentially Option #1 would mean that if the City only constructed Main Street & South Boulder Road in the URA, it would only receive $7.75M from the LRC. However, if the City constructed both projects, it would receive $18.75M. For Option #1, the funding would be structured as follows, for one project and then for both projects: 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $1.5M 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $2.0M $2.5M $2.5M $2.5M $3.0M Staff has two other options Commissioners can consider that operate under the same funding assumption ($18.75M) and also provide for prioritization of two underpasses. Option #2 is a simplified version —providing $18.75M in total funding but without a project split. The requirement would be to strongly suggest the two prioritized projects to be constructed to receive the $18.75M in funding, which would be provided as outlined in the table below: 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $1.25M $2.0M $2.5M $2.5M $2.5M $3.0M Agenda Packet P. 3