Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c) The City could play its more traditional role and simply review aU <br />plans and specifications for public improvements, prior to construction <br />and financing by the developer. <br /> <br />My overall concenl about this project is that the School District may have <br />incorrect1y heightened their expectations for revenue generation from this site, (To <br />my knowledge, the City has given 110 approvals for this project to date and must <br />hold pubJic hearing on changes to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and <br />a subdivision process.) <br /> <br />With the number of variables yet to be resolved, developers may shy aware ITom <br />this project or submit a low quote. Developers may also suggest that more revenue <br />can be generated with a higher density. The question is, will the school district be <br />satisfied with initial quote, or send the project back to the developers and the <br />neighbors to work out a more financially feasible so]ution. <br /> <br />A better approach may be to delay the date for receiving proposals until mid or late <br />January and aHow the consultants to more fully address some (or aU) of the <br />variables. <br />