CC_Minutes_2011_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2011 Page 29 and C less intense, but focusing on residential and commercial mitigation throughout the system. Ms. Bloom advised that the AUAR — Appendix H listed seventeen (17) different roadway improvements necessary to ensure no impact to the transportation system as redevelopment of the Twin Lakes area occurred. Ms. Bloom noted that im- provement cost allocations were based on a"cost per network trip;" and explained network trips, and how each parcel impacted different intersections and street segments from origin to destination. Ms. Bloom noted that those roadway cost estimates had been developed based on environmental clean-up needs, building demolition, actual right-of-way costs, actual construction and engineering costs; and adjustments from engineer's estimates and adjustments for construction infla- tion. Ms. Bloom provided an update from staff on a proposed change in methodology that expanded the area to be included in the allocation that would include parcels from previous development, including the addition of background traffic and the addition of base line traffic that would be covered by public funds and based on 2006 land use for existing uses. Ms. Bloom noted that the allocation agreement added redevelopment areas in existing areas, and comparisons were made be- tween the tables from 2010 and 2011 to see how the addition of the background and base line traffic impacted the infrastructure. Ms. Bloom noted that the origi- nal report only had four (4) of the seventeen (17) improvements for background traffic, and now the proposal was for $12 million in public costs with the back- ground traffic added. Ms. Bloom clarified that the base line network trips were based on pre-AUAR land uses; and if redevelopment traffic did not exceed that base line, they the par- cel would not have a cost allocation. Ms. Bloom noted that many uses in 2006 were not fully operational, and advised that staff had attempted to be conservative in their numbers. Ms. Bloom noted that the cost allocation overview for network trips represented the sum of this development's vehicular trips that pass through intersec- tions/segments requiring improvements; with the total cost allocation based on that specific development's total cost proportion based on its network impacts; creating an average cost per network trip with that total cost allocation divided by network trips. Based on that methodology, Ms. Bloom advised that the cost allocation summary indicated a total cost of$26,462,791, with public costs allocated at $14,260,683, and redevelopment costs allocated at $12,202,108. Ms. Bloom noted that the City had used grant funds and TIF dollars as applicable to-date; and this reduced the overall total, and created the rationale for this new methodology.