2006_0620_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting— 06/12/06 DRAFT Minutes - Page 14 2006 Budget including $25, 000 to initiate the proposal; with staff having discussed additional initial potential funding sources from the Economic Development Fund and Twin Lakes administrative fees; with annual updates needed, or as development occurs. Mr. Schwartz also reviewed development of a fee schedule and traffic policy to create analysis feed to be paid through development fees; and potential sharing of data, for a fee, with other agencies andlor jurisdictions. Councilmember Ihlan spoke of the value to the City of the data generated, and its use as an important planning tool; however, she sought an appropriately-structured analysis fee, and recommended that be included in requests for proposals from consultants. Staff advised that the City Council had the option to not accept any proposals at any time during the process. Councilmember Pust requested how qualified consultants would be identified when the City Council was unclear as to how much they were willing to spend. Staff noted that additional pricing information was not easy to obtain from the consultants they had contacted, as each consultant was looking to submit a proposal upon receipt of the City's Request for Proposals (RFP's); and wasn't willing to "tip their hands;" creating the need for the City to request proposals, get firm numbers, then create a scope of services. Further discussion included the "trending up" of the Economic Development Fund reserves; and potential for a temporary, internal loan, with new development fees to repay the internal loan for initial funding of the traffic model. Councilmember Pust opined that, while supporting the model, it needed to be proven revenue-neutral for her to support it. Public Comment Dan Roe, 2100 Avon Street Mr. Roe suggested that, in relation to initial funding and benefit of the data, would be to look at other communities surrounding