Laserfiche WebLink
Member consensus was that staff should identify potential costs and steps in <br /> the initial application, in Step 1. <br /> Further discussion included City Council funding for studies that didn't result <br /> in a project, as part of doing business; and a public understanding that when <br /> that particular funding resource is eliminated or significantly diminished, no <br /> more projects could be considered until the next funding cycle. <br /> By consensus, and due to time constraints, it was member consensus to defer <br /> discussion on the organized collection item on the agenda to a future meeting; <br /> with Chair DeBenedet alerting the public to that deferral. <br /> Page 28 of the Packet/Area 9 of the Document under Table 2 <br /> Member Vanderwall noted the 25/75% cost-share, and suggested and <br /> suggested an additional sentence related to identifying non-implemented <br /> studies born by fund: "Only studies done up to available funding levels..." or <br /> "funding levels for the process will generally be determined by the number of <br /> studies done in a given year." <br /> Chair DeBenedet noted those traffic studies requiring outside consultants and <br /> suggested clarification that: "...at Step_, if the project does not proceed, the <br /> cost of the study will be borne by the City; but if it proceeds, the cost of the <br /> study will be included in the total project cost and potentially be assessable to <br /> benefitting residents." <br /> • Process for staff removal of strategies deemed to cause problems or safety <br /> issues identified from temporary strategies; process involved to remove? <br /> (page 14 of the document; page 32 of the packet) <br /> Chair DeBenedet suggested that procedures should generally be followed as <br /> outlined in the program; however, if removal of the request is initiated by the <br /> benefitted area, language should specify that: "...removal of strategies will be <br /> completely charged to property owners." <br /> Member Vanderwall questioned why the first portion of that language was <br /> limited to safety/crash complaint issues for city-initiated implementation or <br /> based on pending development, not existing issues. <br /> Consensus of members was to include that language: "if removal is initiated to <br /> accommodate new development or redevelopment, the developer is <br /> responsible for costs, not the City." <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that this should clarify that those costs were not charged <br /> back to citizens when they paid for the initial installation; and the unfairness <br /> of them then having to pay again for its removal. <br /> Page 13 of 16 <br />