[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
[6.1 ALACHUA STREET UPDATE]
[00:02:08]
>> THAT DESIGN IS COMPLETE. FOR THAT STREET AND PSYCH TREATMENT FOR THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS. AT THIS POINT, WE WANT TO GET THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THE ACTUAL INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN ABOUT A MONTHS TIME AFTER RECEIVING THAT PERMIT FROM ST.
JOHN'S FOR THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. OBVIOUSLY, MR. GEORGE WAS HERE LAST TIME. HE IS WELL AWARE THAT THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN -- THEY'RE STILL WORKING OUT THE FINE DETAILS AND FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF IT. BUT ONCE THAT IS FINALIZED, AND TO HAVE IT ALL SQUARED AWAY, IT WILL TAKE THE PROJECT BACK TO THEN AND GET THEIR BLESSING TO MOVE FORWARD. WITH THE CHANGE IN SCOPE TO THE PROJECT. ANDRE INDICATED THAT THAT WILL PROBABLY BE AT THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION. AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT HE IS PLANNING FOR RIGHT NOW.
>> SO YEAH, IN JUNE? >> THAT IS WHAT HE INDICATED
>> IN THE BIG CONCRETE VAULTS WILL BE MOVED?
>> YES. THANK YOU. THEY'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON GETTING THOSE RELOCATED, SO THAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE SOON.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT IS THE BUDGET IN THE BANK RIGHT NOW FOR THAT PROJECT? WHAT DO WE HAVE?
>> I'M UNFORTUNATELY NOT INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE BUDGET. I DO KNOW THAT CITY COMMISSION REALLOCATED SOME FUNDING AND A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO SHIFT TO THAT. THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH TG UTILITIES WAS $2.4 MILLION, OF WHICH THEY ALREADY PURCHASED THIS. THERE WAS A BALANCE OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT LEFT IN PLACE.
THEN LIKE YOU SAID, I KNOW SOME OF THE FUNDS WERE GETTING MOVED AROUND FROM OTHER PROJECTS.BUT I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER TODAY. JUST FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THOSE FUNDS WILL HAVE TO BE USED TO PAY THE RAILROAD TO COMPLETE THE SURFACE, THE ACTUAL RAILROAD CROSSING IN THE INSTALLATION OF THEIR PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR GATES. WE DO KNOW THE NUMBER IS $955,000.
IT WAS ON THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION AGENDA BUT THEY
[00:05:02]
BUMPED IT WHEN THEY WERE WORKING OUT AGAIN THE INTIMATEDETAILS OF THE FINANCIALS. >> I JUST KNOW WHEN I'VE COME TO BUMPS WITH PROJECT AND NUMBERS, I HAVE WORKED BACKWARDS. I HAVE 1 MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS. YOU CAN DO IT FOR THAT? INSTEAD OF HOW MUCH CAN YOU DO IT FOR, AND THEN THEY COME BACK. IF THAT'S WHAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE, CAN -- IS
THAT INSANITY? OKAY. >> I WILL CHECK ON THAT, AS
>> THAT IS WITH THE CITY DOING THE STORMWATER COMPONENT IN HOUSE, AND THEN PAYING THE RAILROAD TO DO THEIR PIECE AND WORKING WITH OUR CONTINUING SERVICES PROVIDERS TO DO THE SECTION OF ROAD BETWEEN FRONT AND SKAGIT STREET.
>> I MEAN THE REAL DEAL. WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PLANNED, LIKE THE BEST WAY WITH THE PUMPS, WITH EVERYTHING, COULD WE NOT PUT IT OUT THERE, HEY, WE HAVE $2 MILLION. WHO CAN DO THIS FOR $2 MILLION? HAS THAT BEEN TRIED? AND THEN WE KNOW IT'S DONE RIGHT AND NOT JUST HALFWAY.
>> YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT?
>> I'LL ANSWER IT. >> JUST BEFORE --
>> YOU HAVE THE $7 MILLION PRICE. THAT WAS ONLY FROM ONE, SO IT'S NEVER BEEN PUT BACK OUT TO BID SINCE THE FIRST
CONTRACTOR WENT AWAY. >> CORRECT
>> WE NEVER PUT IT OUT BACKWARDS.
>> RIGHT, THAT'S TRUE. >> TO MAKE A REALLY LONG STORY SHORT, THAT PLAN IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> THE DRILLING UNDERNEATH PLAN?
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEAR FUTURE. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. TO DO THAT YOU HAVE TO TO DO THE ORIGINAL PLAN, WHICH YOU NEED TO DO, IS SOMETHING CALLED THE JACK AND BORE UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD. AND I THINK A 38 INCH PIPE. 36 INCH PIPE UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD. TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO DIG A TREMENDOUS HOLE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE TRACK, BIGGER THAN THIS ROUND, ABOUT THE SIZE OF THIS ROOM. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO DOWN FAR ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN GET UNDER THE RAILROAD TRACK. THAT WHOLE WILL FILL UP WITH WATER. SO THE WHOLE THING HAS TO BE BRACED AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF IT. THAT'S WHY THE
PROJECT IS SO EXPENSIVE. >> SOMEBODY ON THE RAILROAD?
>> IN THAT SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITH A RESILIENCY WALL BEING BUILT. AND THE CHANCES OF THE RESILIENCY WALL BEING BUILT IN THE NEAR FUTURE ARE ALL OF THIS AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE PUMPS. NOT PARTICULARLY ROSIE, EITHER.
>> THEY SAID THEY WERE CAPABLE OF DIGGING UNDERNEATH THE
RAILROAD. IF THEY WANTED IT. >> NO, THEY ARE NOT. THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. >> HE TOLD ME -- I'M JUST
GOING BY WHAT HE TOLD ME. >> SURE.
>> HE TOLD ME THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME. THEY COME IN AND DIG UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD TRACK AND LEAVE THE RAILROAD TRACK IN PLACE. WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO DO TO PUT IT ALL BACK IN.
>> THAT'S NICE THAT THEY TOLD YOU THAT, BUT THEN GO TO THE RULE AND I FORGET THE NAME OF THAT, BUT IT'S EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THEM. I WILL NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
>> DID YOU TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT THAT?
>> I DON'T HAVE -- YES, I HAVE. I HAVE ALSO LOOKED AT THE RULES AND THEY WILL NOT DO THAT. ABSOLUTELY.
>> CAN WE MOVE TO CHECK TO SEE IF IT CAN BE DONE?
>> ANYBODY IS HAPPY TO GO CHECK. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TAKING OUT THE TRACK, DIGGING THE TRENCH, PUTTING THE TUBING, PUTTING IT BACK. NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT. IT DOES NOT MATTER. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT. NO IF AND OR BUTTS.
>> IT MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY. >> IT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY.
>> THEN WHY DID WE ORDER ALL THESE PUMPS AND PAY MILLION DOLLARS FOR THESE PUMPS IF THIS PLAN WILL NEVER WORK?
>> YOU HAVE TO ASK OTHER PEOPLE THAT QUESTION. NOT THAT IT'S
>> WE HAD EVERY ANTICIPATION OF IT WORKING. WE HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE CONTRACTOR WHO WE WERE UNDER CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY WHO SAID THEY WERE GOING TO COMPLETE THE WORK. AND THEY PURCHASED PARTS OF MATERIALS AND REALIZED THEY BLEW THEIR BED WHEN THEY COULD NOT GET THE SPECIALIZED CONTRACTORS IN
[00:10:02]
PLACE TO DO THAT BIG OF A LINE IN A CONFINED SPACE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT WE HAD. SO -->> WAS THERE EVER ANY -- REMEMBER AT ONE POINT, I THINK CHARLIE MENTIONED THERE WAS GOING TO BE MONEY COMING BACK
FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR. >> IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
>> AND WHAT WAS -- DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME BUT THE CITY OWNS THE PUMPS WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. IN THE COMPTROLLERS,
ALL OF THOSE. >> IS THERE A SECONDARY MARKET
>> IS WORKING ON REPURPOSING AND/OR SELLING THOSE.
>> GOOD. I JUST FEEL LIKE WITH THIS BOARD AND THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A RESILIENCY WALL. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE BIG. I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
I HATE TO GIVE UP ON THE BEST PLAN WHEN THIS IS THE TIME AND WE HAVE NOT -- I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE NOT WORKED IT BACKWARDS
OR PUT IT OUT THERE. >> SO HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT GOING OUT, YOU KNOW, GOING OUT OR BID ON THE
ORIGINAL PLAN? >> MR. GEORGE HAS MENTIONED GOING BACK OUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT FELL INTO WHERE THEY WERE AT IN THE PROCESS AND WHAT THEY ULTIMATELY DECIDED TO
DO. >> LET ME GIVE YOU SOME FURTHER INFORMATION. SO THE TWO POLES THAT ARE OUT THERE, THE UTILITY POLES, TO DO A JACK AND BORE, THERE'S TWO WAYS OF GETTING THE POLLS. ONE OF THEM, ONE OF THE WAYS BEING PURSUED IS TO GO THROUGH THE JACK AND BORE WE DIG THE HOLE, GO UNDERNEATH, WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY THE RAILROAD WILL ALLOW. WE PUT OUT A BID FOR THAT. I CALLED UP EVERY -- THERE'S 10 OR 11 CONTRACT IS IN NORTHEAST GEORGIA AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA.
I CALLED EVERY ONE OF THEM PERSONALLY AND TALKED TO THE CONTRACTORS AND ASKED THEM TO BID ON IT. YOU KNOW HOW MANY BIDS WE GOT BACK? ONE. THERE IS NOBODY INTERESTED IN THIS KIND OF A JOB. IT IS JUST NOT OUT THERE. IT'S TOO MUCH HASSLE, TOO MUCH MONEY, TOO MUCH ANNOYANCE, TOO MUCH RAILROAD.
IT IS NOT A WORKABLE PLAN. THAT'S ME, WHO IS NOT AN ENGINEER WHO SAT AND TALKED TO ALL THESE PEOPLE AND WORK THROUGH THIS. MAYBE THE ENGINEERS KNOW SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. AND THAT'S THE REALITY. THE SEAWALL, WHICH WE SPENT $600,000 DESIGNING IS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THAT PROCESS WILL TAKE MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS ACCORDING TO THEM, SO WE WILL
SEE. IF THEY APPROVE IT. >> WHY WOULD THEY NOT APPROVE
IT? >> THE REASON THEY WOULD NOT APPROVE IT IS PRETTY SIMPLE. IF YOU GO ALONG THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE AND YOU STAY SECTIONS IS ON THE SURE WORD SIDE, YOU NEED A PERMIT FROM ONE ENTITY, THE CITY. IF YOU GO OUT INTO THE SOVEREIGN WATERS OF THE STATE, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PLAN DOES, YOU NEED TO GO FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS GOES OUT TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY PEOPLE, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS GOES OUT TO THE MARINA PEOPLE. IT GOES OUT TO ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND THEY ALL HAVE TO APPROVE.
WHEN WE DID THE ARCHAEOLOGY STUDY FOR THE MOORING FIELD, THAT WAS LIKE $70,000, AND IT TOOK TWO YEARS.
>> THAT'S WHY WE NEED CHANGE TO GET IT MOVING.
>> CHANGE TO WHAT? >> LIGHTEN UP SOME OF THE CITY
RULES >> IT'S NOT THE CITY. THE CITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. IT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. IT'S THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE FEDS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY. THESE ARE NOT CITY RULES. THIS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE DATE GOVERNMENT. SOVEREIGN WATERS OF THE STATE AND IT'S THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DOES NOT GIVE A RATS -- DOESN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE BUTLER LINE. WHILE --
>> MAYBE GOT A WRONG OPINION FROM THE WRONG PERSON.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT, GO CHECK IT OUT YOURSELF. I TALKED TO THE
[00:15:01]
LADY WHO IS REVIEWING THE PERMIT.>> WELL IT HAS TO BE DONE. SO WHATEVER STEPS WE'VE GOT TO DO
TO GET IT ROLLING. >> SO IT IS SITTING IN FRONT OF THEM RIGHT NOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK HER NAME WAS MELISSA. I DON'T REMEMBER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION ON THE RESILIENCY WALL? I MEAN, THAT IS ACCURATE, AS WELL? NOT THAT I'M FACT
CHECKING -- >> LEAVE EVERYBODY, VERIFY EVERYTHING. I AGREE WITH YOU 100 PERCENT. YOU SHOULD CHECK
>> THE NEW PLAN IS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR PROPERTY AND THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA. AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO
WORK. FOR A LOT LESS MONEY. >> WHICH NEW PLAN?
>> FOR THE STORM WATER COMPONENT.
>> STORMWATER, CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SO WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM? >> I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS WEIRD
>> IT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER LET THIS YOU HAVE TO DIG THE WHOLE THING BACK UP AND DO IT AGAIN IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT THE BEST WAY WHICH IS TO PUMP THE WATER OUT. I HAVE
FAITH . >> THE PUMPING THE WATER OUT HAD TO DO WITH THE RESILIENCY WALL. IT IS NOT THE CURRENT WATER. IT IS WATER THAT WOULD COME IN THROUGH INUNDATION. SO THERE HAS TO BE A WALL THERE TO PUMP OUT THE WATER.
>> SO NOW WHEN IT FLOODS, EVERYONE ELSE'S WATER WILL
COME THERE. >> IN THIS NEW PLAN SHOULD WORK
OKAY, RIGHT? >> IF PERCHANCE, WATER GETS BEHIND IT, IT DOES NOT GET OUT.
>> SO WHEN THE RESILIENCY WALL GET BUILT, THERE NEEDS TO BE A
>> PERHAPS. >> BUT NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE PRESUMABLY, THE RESILIENCY WALL IS THERE FOR YOU'RE NOT
GETTING THAT WATER. >> IT'S STILL JUST STORMWATER YOU'RE DEALING WITH, IT NOT THE FLOODING. IT'S FLOODING, IT NOT TITLE FLOODING. IT IS STORMWATER FLOODING.
>> PART OF THE REASON FOR THE PUMPS FOR THAT SYSTEM TO GO BELOW TITLE WATERS CURRENTLY, SO THE PUMPS WERE THERE IN A HIGH TIDE EVENT. ABLE TO FORCE THE WATER OUT, EVEN THOUGH THE OPENING OF THE PIPE THAT GOES INTO THE RIVER IS A LOW-WATER.
>> HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED NOW WHEN THERE IS A HIGH TIDE THAT THERE IS WATER ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS? AND HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THAT THE RAILROAD TRACKS ARE HIGH AND DRY? SO HOW DO YOU THINK THE WATER GOT THERE? I WILL TELL YOU HOW IT GOT THERE. ALL THE OUTFLOW TYPES, NONE OF THEM HAVE FLAPPER VALVES. THE WATER GOES RIGHT UP THROUGH THEIR AND RIGHT TO THEIR SO THAT ROBIN CAN BE ALLEVIATED BY PUTTING FLAPPER VALVES ON WHICH IS A RELATIVELY CHEAP AND TO DO YOUR
>> IS THAT ON OUR PLAN? >> I'M CERTAIN IT IS.
>> SHOW ME. >> THE TROUBLE WITH FLAPPER VALVES IS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED. ANY OTHER
>> ALL OF THIS IS BASED ON MY OPINION. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.
I'M NOT WITH THE CAR AND I DON'T RESENT THE CITY OF ENGINEERS OPINION OR ANYONE ELSE'S OPINION BUT THIS IS INFORMATION I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GLEAN.
>> I DO KNOW THERE ARE DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE INEVITABLY -- THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD -- HAVE PUT A LOT OF THEIR HANDS ON HOLD BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY FED UP WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED, AND NOT ME, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED MYSELF, BUT OTHERS WHO HAD PLANS FOR THAT AREA, AND NOW THEY DON'T WANT TO INVEST IN THAT AREA. AND THAT DISAPPOINTING.
>> ALONG THOSE LINES, IS THERE SOMETHING WE COULD DO TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT A NEW PLAN THAT WOULD REASSURE PEOPLE THAT IT'S GOING TO WORK? I MEAN, IS IT A PUBLIC REASON TATIAN BY ANDRE? IS IT INVITING THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PROPERTY
[00:20:03]
UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR CONSIDERATION UNDER DEVELOPMENT TO A MEETING ABOUT THAT? IS IT JUST PUSHING INFORMATION OUT TO THEM? YOU'RE IN THAT POSITION, SO WHAT WOULD -->> THERE'S ONE OTHER PIECE OF DATA THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW.
>> NOT EVIL. I WILL GET MY BEST BEDSIDE MANNER.
>> YES, THANK YOU. SMILE WHILE YOU DELIVER IT.
>> THE NEW PLAN WILL COME AND AID STORMWATER FROM SCHAEFFER'S PROJECT AND FROM THE ARTESIAN ARTISAN HOME PROJECT THAT'S BEING BUILT, AND MAY BE A WEE BIT MORE AND THAT IT. ORIGINALLY IT WAS TO ACCOMMODATE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT IN THERE. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SO NOW, PEOPLE IN WHICH 10 POINTER IS DONE. YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE STORM WATER ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY AND DEAL WITH IT.
>> THAT WILL AFFECT THE VALUE. IT MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE TO
DEVELOP ABSOLUTELY. >> I THINK IT WOULD HAVE UP TO MINE LIKES 2000 IF NOT MORE. THAT'S NOT INCLUDING ALL THE ENGINEERING AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> SO THAT'S WHY -- I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ALLUDING
TO. >> IF YOU DON'T HAVE ROOM TO DO IT AND IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE DESIGN AND GOING TO AFFECT
THE VALUES OF THE PROPERTIES. >> IT WILL AFFECT THE DESIGN.
>> WHAT CAN BE BUILT THERE? >> WEEDS.
>> SO BACK TO THE QUESTION I ASKED FROM THE POSITION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT THIS GROUP COULD RECOMMEND BE DONE TO EITHER MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE FOR THEM, FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEVELOP THOSE PROPERTIES, OR DIVIDE THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO BE REASSURED THAT THEY CAN? IF MORE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THE SYSTEM, THEN SHARING INFORMATION ABOUT THAT IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT. SO THAT PROMISE THIS WHOLE TIME THAT THIS IS GOING IN, AND EXCITED , COMING UP WITH PLANS, ANOTHER FOR HAVE TO HAVE STORMWATER ONLINE PROPERTIES, EVERYBODY HAS PUT EVERYTHING FOR A SLAMMING HALT. SO I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE PAST. I FEEL LIKE THIS WAS AVOIDABLE TWO YEARS AGO BUT HERE WE ARE. AND IT'S JUST -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU COULD DO EXCEPT PROVIDE HERE IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO NOW. MAKE YOUR PLANS AROUND THAT, JUST INFORMING EVERYBODY.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? >> WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT, HOW
DID YOU EVEN HANDLE THAT? >> IT'S COMPLICATED.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHY PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP OR SPEND 10 TIMES WHAT THE COSTS SHOULD BE, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ANY REAL ANSWERS FOR DEVELOPING THE AREAS. SO DIFFICULT. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU PUSH, YOU ARE STILL LEFT WITH NOTHING. I DON'T EVEN HAVE ANYTHING FROM THE CITY SAYING I CAN EVEN TIE
IN IN WRITING. >> SO THAT IS A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT. IF THE ENGINEERING PLANS TO ASSOCIATE WITH THAT, SHOWING THAT TIME INTO THAT SYSTEM, THAT'S YOUR TICKET FROM THE CITY THAT IS YOU CAN'T DO THAT OBVIOUSLY, THE SYSTEM HAS TO BE IN WAYS FOR YOU TO DO THAT. IT GOES TO THE QUESTION, CAN A SIMILAR TYPE SYSTEM BE INSTALLED IN BROOME STREET? BECAUSE IT HAS AN OUTFALL THAT DRAINS PROPERTY FROM THE EAST OF THE RIVER. IT'S OBVIOUSLY A DEAD-END RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT ARE THERE OTHER WAYS THAT THE CITY STORMWATER UTILITY AND/OR CRA FUNDS THAT CAN HELP OFFSET SOME OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES FOR STORMWATER, MAINTAINED AND TREATING IT ON THE SITE. THANKS AGAIN, COULD BE ANOTHER TOOL FOR THE CITY TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRA. MAKING SYSTEMS VERY UNIQUE. THE INTENDED MUNICIPAL PERMIT IS
[00:25:04]
NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY. AND THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY CHALLENGES WITH DEVELOPING STORMWATER DOWN THERE. ONE BECAUSE YOU ARE CLOSE TO THE WATERFRONT IN DEALING WITH STORM SURGE AND TIED EVENTS. AND NUMBER TWO, HOW CLOSE IS IT TO THE SURFACE? YOU WILL NOT WANT TO HAVE A WET OR DRY STORMWATER POND ENDED UP VALUABLE PROPERTY. YOU WILL WANT TO PUT IT UNDERGROUND. FOR SITUATIONS LIKE BEHIND US WHERE YOU HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN ELEVATION ABOVE THE WATER TABLE WHICH FORCES EVERYTHING UP AND CREATES THESE DESIGN CHALLENGES. SO YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IS THERE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO HELP OFFSET THOSE EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY? THAT'S SOMETHING THE CITY MAY NEED TO FURTHER ASK FOR SINCE THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED. THESE PLANS ARE LIKE 2017 OR 2018. IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT AND DISCUSSED FOR A LONG TIME.>> THE LOT BEHIND CRAB TRAP WILL HAVE TO PUT EVERYTHING ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY UNLESS THAT INCLUDES THEM, TOO. THEY'RE
NOT DEVELOPED. >> I KNOW THEY MENTIONED THE 101 -- THE END OF THE NEW SYSTEM. I DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS FIRST COME FIRST SERVE OR HOW THAT IS DIVVIED UP, BUT THERE IS ADDITIONAL CAPACITY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE ALL CAPACITY DIRECTED TO THIS SYSTEM. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS ON THAT BUT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CAPACITY ABOVE 101 AND THE MAC DUNCAN TOWNHOMES ARE PUTTING INTO THE SYSTEM. THIS SYSTEM IS TAKING UP THE WHOLE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
TALKED WITH ANDRE LAST WEEK. HE HAD TO UP THE SIZE OF IT WHEN HE IS FINALIZING HIS CALCULATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF IT. BASICALLY THE WHOLE 200 FOOT SECTION OF DRIVEWAY.
>> SAID DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO ADD MORE VERBIAGE? -- AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GO ABOUT THIS, BUT WHAT VERBIAGE NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO GO TO THE CITY PLANNING BOARD.
>> TO LOOK AT HOW WE CAN PROVIDE SIMILAR TYPES SYSTEMS THAT PEOPLE CAN BUY INTO. I DON'T THINK -- THE CRA PLAN, IF WE WERE TO EVER UPDATE THAT ENTIRE TIME, WORKING THROUGH SUBJECTIVE STRATEGIES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVE WITH STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE. WHEN WE WERE UPDATING THE ENTIRE LAND, YOU ARE BASICALLY GOING TO CREATE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT WORK PLAN. AND THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT WE COULDN'T INCLUDE THERE. BECAUSE WE ARE GENERATING MORE MONEY, COULD START ALLOCATING AND BUDGETING FUNDS TOWARDS THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS AND GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING FROM ANDRE AND THE CITY ENGINEER AND WHOEVER ELSE ON HOW TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT HAPPEN AND HOW OR WHERE IT COULD HAPPEN, SO YEAH, BUT I DON'T THINK IT NOT NECESSARILY A PLANNING BOARD OR A CODE AMENDMENT TYPE OF THING. JUST ALLOCATING, FIGURING OUT WEARING IT'S FEASIBLE TO ALLOCATE FUNDS TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS. >> QUESTION FOR YOU. DON'T
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SYSTEM? >> THEY DO.
>> THEY BUILT IT? >> IN 2004 OR SOMEWHERE. IT IS IN THE GALLERY UNDERNEATH. THAT'S THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM.
IT'S JUST AN INFILTRATION GALLERY. THAT YOU HAVE DOWN THERE BEHIND THIS WITH THE HARBORVIEW TOWNHOMES. AND WITH THESE PRIVATE SYSTEMS, NOBODY REALLY MAINTAINS. IT'S JUST LIKE ANY OTHER DRAINAGE . FILLS UP WITH SILT, SAND, DEBRIS. ALL OF THAT CAPACITY IS REDUCED IF YOU ARE NOT MAINTAINING IT
[00:30:01]
PROPERLY. CITIES, WE CAN ASSUME THAT THE CITIES WILL DO BETTER MAINTENANCE THAN THE STANDARD PRIVATE FACILITY. ONCE IT BUILT, OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND. THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA IF YOU CAN IMPLEMENT THIS SYSTEM. THERE IS ALSO DEVELOPMENT DOWN THERE. YOU KNOW, JUST THROWING GOOD MONEY AWAY ON THAT PART. GOT TO RAISE IT UP ANYHOW.>> WE HAD WANTED TO HAVE ANDRE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. DO WE LOOK TO SCHEDULE HIM TO COME NEXT MONTH TO TALK ABOUT THIS PROJECT AGAIN, PROVIDE WHATEVER UPDATES AND DETAILS? BUT ALSO TO TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A BROOME STREET, THE SAME THING. AND WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CAPACITY OF THESE SYSTEMS? SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO ADDRESS THIS ANYWAY FOR THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ENCOURAGE THAT DEVELOPMENT. OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE SO THESE PROPERTIES GET DEVELOPED. SEE YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW WE CAN
HOPEFULLY HELP. >> I THINK THAT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE. AND SOMETHING THAT THE COURT NEEDS SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO CRAFT THE LANGUAGE AND GO ABOUT GETTING THAT IN OUR PLAN AND GETTING IT IMPLEMENTED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN THE FLAPPERS ARE GOING IN, TOO, OR WHAT THE PLAN IS. WHEN THE FLAPPERS ARE GOING IN. WHAT THE
LAND IS. JUST A TIMELINE. >> LET ME JUST GIVE YOU ONE MORE PIECE OF DATA. WHY THIS IS SO DIFFICULT RATED DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE RAILROAD. IT GETTING THE PIPE UNDER THE RAILROAD. THAT IS WHAT IS HARD ABOUT ALL THIS. AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO GET CHEAP AND IT'S NOT GOING TO GET EASIER AND YOU'RE TALKING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A RAILROAD THAT DOES NOT REALLY CARE AND THEY DON'T WANT YOU GOING UNDER THEM. IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME PROBLEM AT ASH STREET. ASH STREET WILL BE ANOTHER PROBLEM. YOU HAVE THE SIZE OF THE PIPE. AND WE PUT ALL THESE OLD PIPES AND THAT ARE FALLING APART, AND THEY WON'T LET YOU LEAVE THEM. SO GOING UNDERNEATH AND CAN INCREASING THE CAPACITY IS THE LIMITING STEP IN ALL OF THIS. THE PROBLEM IS GETTING ACROSS THE RAILROAD. THAT THE PROBLEM. IT'S ONE OF GEOGRAPHY.
>> SO WITH THE NEW DESIGN, WHAT THEY ARE ABLE --
>> THEY'RE JUST USING THE OLD TYPE.
>> CORRECT. >> THESE TWO EXISTING PIPES.
THERE'S A STORM STRUCTURE RIGHT HERE THAT CATCHES A 24 INCH AND AN 18 INCH PIPE. ONE OF THEM IS BASICALLY CRUMBLING.
I THINK IT'S 24 THAT THEY WILL SLIP LINE OR DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE IT IS STABLE ENOUGH AND UTILIZE THAT
EXISTING STRUCTURE. >> THAT IS THE RATE LIMITING IN ALL OF THIS. IT'S EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE RAILROAD. THE RAILROAD IS NOT ACCOMMODATING.
>> AND IT IS THERE TO STAY. >> I WOULD THINK SO. UNLESS YOU'VE GOT A BETTER IDEA. THEY ARE NOT GOING AWAY. TO DEAL WITH THEM IS VERY DIFFICULT. EVEN UNDER THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> MAYBE A DIFFERENT APPROACH.
>> FIND ONE OF THE WIVES, INVITE THEM TO THE BOARD.
>> ON FACEBOOK READ >> ALL RIGHT.
>> YOU'VE GOT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. KEEP TO LET THEM GET THEIR IDEA. MIGHT BE THE SAME WAY WITH THE RAILROAD. PUSHING
IN THEIR DIRECTION. >> EVERYONE THAT IS AFFECTED BY IT MOVES INTO THE RAILROAD GRADE I THINK IT'S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO NOT HAVE LETTING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEM, SO TO ME THAT WOULD MAKE BUSINESS SENSE, BUT I THINK TO YOUR POINT, TOO, IS THERE A BENEFIT IN MOBILIZING PROPERTY OWNERS TO COME TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THIS? YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW THE ONES THAT HAVE THE INVESTMENT BESIDES THE CITY, SO
[00:35:06]
YOU KNOW, IS THERE A BENEFIT TO DOING THAT? NOT IN AN ADVERSARIAL WAY BUT HOW TO WASTE ALL OF THE PROBLEM? WHAT FLEXIBILITY DOES THE RAILROAD REALLY HAVE, AND WHAT CAN THEY DO TO ACCOMMODATE IT OR CHIP IN, HOW WILL IT AFFECT THEM INTHE LONG RUN? >> THEY DON'T CARE.
>> WELL, IF THEY'RE GOING TO LEAD ON THE OTHER SIDE.
>> WHAT IS YOUR OPINION, COMMISSIONER? THINK THE RAILROAD IS UNBENDING, UNYIELDING?
>> I AGREE. IN THIS YOU'VE GOT TO AND WITH THE RAILROAD, PROBABLY OWN IT. IT'S AN UPHILL BATTLE. ONE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY ON DEVELOPERS DOWN THERE. WE WILL NEVER MAKE IT OUT OF THERE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
THEY'VE GOT ALL THE LAWS AND RULES WITH THEM. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S US OR JACKSONVILLE OR WHATEVER.
>> I THOUGHT THEY ALREADY SAID YES. RIGHT?
>> IT'S THE COST NOW. WE HAD APPROVAL TO DO THE JACK AND BORE AND THE HUGE 36 INCH LINE UNDERNEATH, SO WE JUST GOT
APPROVAL. >> WANT TO MAKE IT AN EASIER WAY. INSTEAD OF JACK AND BORE, MAKE IT CHEAPER, TAKE IT UP THE
TRACKS, BEST CASE AN AREA. >> SO THE SYSTEM THAT'S GOING TO GO UNDER THE STREET, WHAT IS ITS CAPACITY? IT WILL HANDLE NICK DUNCAN STATION, 101 NORTH SECOND STREET, IS THAT IT? DOES
THE CRAB TRAP HOOK INTO THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT CAPACITY ABOVE THOSE TWO PROJECTS. THERE IS ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT AMOUNT.
>> SO THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT'S BUILT UNDERNEATH AND THE STREET IS PAVED OVER IT? SO IN THEORY YOU COULD DO THAT AT STRAIGHT,
TOO, CORRECT? >> IN THEORY. THERE'S AN EXISTING PIPE THAT GOES UNDERNEATH BROOME STREET AS COMMISSIONER ROSS ALLUDED TO. OBVIOUSLY, THE SIZE OF THAT PIPE IS GOING TO BE A LIMITING FACTOR. BUT YES, IN THEORY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS HINTING AT RATE
>> IS THERE SUCH A PIPE UNDER ALASKA STREET?
>> YES. >> SO THAT'S PART OF THE
>> THEORETICALLY, THERE IS ONE AT A BROOME STREET, AS WELL?
>> CORRECT. >> SO I'M WONDERING IF THE COMBINATION WOULD PROVIDE CAPACITY FOR THE PROPERTY? BECAUSE FROM THE CRA STANDPOINT FOR DEVELOPMENT, IT IS THE GOOD SOUL PROPERTY IS ALL THAT'S LEFT. THERE IS NOT ANYTHING
ELSE, IS THERE? >> THERE IS ONE PROPERTY WEST
OF CRAB TRAP, TOO. >> NORTH OF BROOME STREET, THAT'S COVERED. HE'S DEALING WITH THAT. SO ONE IS AT THE CORNER AND THEN THAT ONE, THERE IS A BUILDING THERE. SO THERE AREN'T REALLY A LOT OF LACES IT WILL BE DEVELOPED ANYWAY. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT, THE KIND OF SYSTEM THEY ARE ANTICIPATING BY PUTTING THAT UNDER BROOME. MAYBE EVEN UNDER NORTH SECOND STREET, PROVIDING ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR THAT
PROPERTY, THEN THAT'S IT. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING ANDRE HERE HE COULD TALK TO THAT AND TO THE
CAPACITY. SO -- >> THAT TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPERS NOT BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP. WHAT ELSE IS THERE?
>> AND THE ONE OTHER ENLARGED --
>> KNOWING IF THAT ONE CAN -- >> SO IS THAT BEHIND?
>> NINE LOTS. >> SO THAT PROPERTY, THAT --
>> IT'S THE OLD HOTEL PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S AVAILABLE DEVELOPMENT, CORRECT?
>> C3 ZONING. >> THAT'S AN OLD PLAN TO
[00:40:12]
CONNECT THE TWO. NOW THEY CAN'T.>> SURE, BUT GIVEN THE COST, IT NOT ON THE TABLE, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF SYSTEM YOU COULD PUT TOGETHER THAT WOULD PROVIDE ENOUGH CAPACITY TO TAKE CARE OF
THIS PROBLEM. >> NOT THAT PROJECT. UNLESS --
>> YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY, HAVING AN UNDER BROOME STREET, IT WAS NOT ENOUGH CAPACITY. MAYBE PART OF THE PROPERTY COULD BE IN THEIR OWN UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM, BUT MAYBE NOT THE WHOLE THING. SOME COMBINATION THAT MAKES IT AFFORDABLE. I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING --
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> ONLY HAVE THREE EXTRA LOTS. ONE ON THE NORTH AND THEN TO TO
THE WEST. >> I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS WHETHER IT'S THE STORM WATER CAPACITY PROBLEM PREVENTING THE PROPERTY FROM BEING DEVELOPED, OR ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT? THAT WE DON'T
EVEN KNOW ABOUT. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE HEARING, IS THAT THERE IS A HESITATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PLANS BECAUSE OF THE STORM WATER. THE PRICE JUST WENT WAY UP RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS IT ON SITE INSTEAD.
>> IT JUST CHANGES WHAT YOU CAN DO. WHAT YOU CAN DEVELOP. AND IT'S SO OUTRAGEOUS RIGHT NOW ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU NEED TO GO SO FAR UP IN A CERTAIN WAY IN THE PROPERTY. IT JUST ONE MORE THING BECAUSE OF THE RAILROAD. IT'S NOT REALLY THE RAILROAD'S FAULT. NO, IT'S THE COST OF THE PROJECT, BUT GOING UNDER THE RAILROAD INCREASES COST
>> RIGHT. THE BID THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED TURNED OUT NOT TO BE LEGIT. IT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DONE AT THAT PRICE.
>> I'VE LOOKED AT THIS SO MANY YEARS, AND THIS GOING ON A LONG PERIOD I'M JUST WONDERING IS HE CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY BUT JUST CAN'T DO IT? OR --
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. >> OR NOT INTERESTED IN
DEVELOPING? >> HE IS NOT AT THE CITY. NOT HAPPY. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HIM. THERE'S DEVELOPERS AROUND THAT ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE CITY.
>> IF YOUR DEVELOPER AND YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY AT THIS SORT OF THING, MAYBE YOU FIND WAYS TO DO IT. WE WERE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN'T DO STUFF BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY. WE DON'T HAVE THIS, WE DON'T HAVE THAT. HOW MUCH EFFORT IS ACTUALLY BEING EXTENDED TO TRY AND FIND A WAY
TO DO IT? >> SO DO YOU THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE DID A LONG TIME AGO ON THIS BOARD, WE INVITED PROPERTY OWNERS TO COME TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT DOES PROHIBIT THEM FROM DEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTY AND WE HAD ONE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME AND SPOKE ABOUT A SEWER PIPE AND ALL OF THAT. WE WERE ABLE TO CLEAR THAT UP. SO IS THAT -- IS THAT A TACTIC THAT WE TAKE? DO WE REACH OUT AND SAY ARE YOU, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY? AND IF SO, DO YOU FEEL THERE ARE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES PROHIBITING THAT. WHAT ARE THEY? AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THEM. TO YOUR POINT, WE MAY BE -- WE MAY BE THINKING THAT'S HOLDING THEM UP AND MAYBE IT NOT WORK I DON'T KNOW. YOU MIGHT KNOW
DIFFERENTLY. >> IN MY EXPERIENCE, OVER THE YEARS WITH THIS, IT -- COMMITTEES LIKE THIS ARE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO HELP DEVELOPERS DEVELOP AND MAYBE THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED AND THEY DON'T
REALLY TELL YOU. >> NUMBER ONE REASON, BECAUSE THEY WILL PUT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO THAT.
IT ALREADY FLOOD. >> SO WE ARE HEARING FROM ONE
PROPERTY OWNER FOR SURE. >> IT'S A BIG ONE.
>> ABSOLUTELY, YEAH. >> THAT'S MORE OF A RESILIENCE THE ISSUE THEN STORM WATER PUMP ISSUE. THE REAL ISSUE IS THE TITLE FLOODING COMING ACROSS AND NOT HAVING RESILIENCE.
>> RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE FLOODING. THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT HELPS DEAL WITH IT AFTER THE FACT. BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS STOPPING THE
[00:45:04]
FLOODING. >> AND I'M SURE THAT HAVING THE RAILROAD RIGHT NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY PROBABLY MAKES IT KIND OF DIFFICULT IF YOU WANT TO TURN IT INTO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH THE RAILROAD RIGHT NEXT TO IT, THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING. SO WE KIND OF AND UP IN A POSITION WHERE THE CITY IS NOT IN THE POSITION, BUT IF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO GO FOR IT, GREAT. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE YOU CAN DO.
>> EVERYBODY HAS BEEN PLANNING ON THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WHILE TYING INTO THAT. NOW THEY ARE TOLD THAT THEY CAN'T, SO THAT'S -- I KNOW PLANS HAVE BEEN MADE. NOW THEY'VE COME TO A SCREECHING HALT BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE REASSIGNED, REENGINEERED, RETHOUGHT OUT. THAT'S WHY THIS PAST MONTH HAS JUST BEEN DIFFERENT. THAT THEY FINALLY PUT A COMPLETE STOP TO IT. SO ANYWAY -- NOT HERE, SO WE MIGHT AS WELL MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
>> OKAY, SO -- >> I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO INVITE SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPEAR TO LAY IT ON THE TABLE? WHY THEY WANT TO BUILD OR DON'T WANT TO BUILD, ARE THEY GOING TO BUILD? LAND COULD BE VACANT FOR THE
NEXT 70 YEARS, NOT AN ISSUE. >> IT'S GOING TO BE -- I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO DEVELOP, WHY DOESN'T HE COME SEE US, COME SEE THE CITY? AND SAY HEY, HOW CAN WE WORK THIS OUT, HOW CAN WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THIS? THAT HE DOESN'T, SO I LEFT
THIS >> WELL I KNOW THINGS THAT I CAN'T SAY. BUT -- THERE'S TWO ISSUES HERE. ONE IS THE RESILIENCY WALL AND GETTING THAT BUILT. THE OTHER IS THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. SO I THINK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THIS BOARD, SO AS NOT TO HAVE THOSE IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO DEVELOP OR NOT, WE CONTINUE TO PUSH FORWARD WITH THOSE TWO INITIATIVES, AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAPPEN IN THE VERY BEST WAY POSSIBLE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE CAN -- NOT CONTROL, BUT WHAT WE CAN IN FACT, I WOULD SAY. THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT FOR THIS GROUP.
LOOK FOR WAYS TO CONTINUE TO PUSH THOSE TWO PROJECTS
FORWARD. >> GET SOME ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS. SO NEXT TIME, WE WILL TALK TO ANDRE. AS FAR AS THE RESILIENCY WALL, NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, WHAT -- IF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS SAYING NO. IT'S LOOKING LIKE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN OPTION TO PUT THE WALL WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED. THEN I THINK WE NEED TO FIND THAT OUT AND LOOK AT WHAT IS OPTION B, WHAT'S PLAN B?
>> I DON'T THINK THEY SAID THAT EITHER. I THINK THEY WERE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. WE HAVE A HIGHLY QUALIFIED FIRM THAT THE CITY CONTRACTED TO DECIDE THIS, THAT THEY ARE NOT JUST GOING TO PUT LINES ON IMAGINARY SCENARIOS THAT OBVIOUSLY HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING AGENCY. WE ARE RELYING ON OUR DESIGN ENGINEER TO PUT FORTH SOMETHING THAT THEY BELIEVE IS FORMIDABLE. WHETHER IT TAKES A WHILE TO DO SO, YES. AND THOSE PROPERTIES -- WE ARE WORKING WITH HIM BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY AS PART OF THE DESIGN. HE AUTHORIZED THE CITY TO INCLUDE HIS PROPERTY AND THE DESIGN. THE UNIQUE SITUATION OUT THERE, BECAUSE ALL THE WATERS IN THE STATE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ACTUALLY OWN THE RIGHTS TO THOSE WATERS. SO IT IS A UNIQUE SITUATION. AND OBVIOUSLY, THE SITUATION BETWEEN THE TWO CITY PROPERTIES THERE IS A BIG QUESTION MARK STILL. BUT WE ARE HOPEFUL AND CONTINUE TO HOPE THAT WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION THERE THAT WORK WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER AND THEIR DESIRES, INCLUDE THEM IN THE OVERALL DESIGN. THEN IT GETS BACK TO FUNDING. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CHEAP TO BUILD ANY SEGMENTS. THE CHEAPEST SEGMENT TO BUILD IS THE SOUTHERNMOST SEGMENT, BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY A BULKHEAD ON LAND.
AT THE OTHER SEGMENTS, ONCE YOU GET THERE, NORTH AND SOUTH,
[00:50:06]
SOUTH OF BRETZ, THE DESIGN INCLUDES BULKHEAD, JUST IN FRONT OF THE CURRENT SEAWALL CAP, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S BEHIND IT AS FAR AS TIEBACKS AND STUFF. IT SHIFTS TO THE INSIDE OF THE PILE CAP BECAUSE THERE'S PILES ON THE EXISTING SYSTEM, AND THEN MR. GEORGE HAS ASKED THE DESIGNER TO LOOK AT A SIMPLE TYPE OF WALL FOR THE SEGMENT. JUST A DIFFERENT DESIGN. HE'S ASKED FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THOSESYSTEMS. >> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE AT THIS POINT, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PUT ON NEXT TIME -- ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME, AND UPDATE WITH WHERE THE APPROVAL PROCESS IS AND POTENTIALLY SOME OTHERS. RIGHT.
>> THIRD AGENDA ITEM FOR THE MEETING? JUST FOR AN UPDATE?
>> YEAH, DEFINITELY. >> LIKE I SAID, THOSE SEEM TO
[6.2 CRA PLAN UPDATE]
BE THE TWO MAIN STICKING POINTS, SO WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THOSE EACH TIME. ALL RIGHT. MUST THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE CRA PLAN UP DATE. WE WANT TO CATCH EVERYBODY UP ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS OBJECTIVES ANDSTRATEGIES. >> YEAH, SO LAST NIGHT'S CITY COMMISSION MEETING, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION TO -- WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET, FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT PART OF THE BENEFIT WAS FOR THE OVERALL CRA PLAN UP DATE. I WAS TALKING WITH MS. GIBSON AND WE BOTH AGREE THAT THE ORIGINAL LAND, DEVELOPED IN 2004, 2005, 20 YEARS INTO THE CURRENT PLAN.
AND THIS BOARD HAS BEEN WORKING OBVIOUSLY ON THE OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES AND LOOKING TO UPDATE THOSE WORK I THINK WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS WITH THAT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS TIME-CONSUMING. IT'S NOT THE MOST FUN EXERCISE, BUT -- SO THE PLAN WAS TO EITHER USE OUR TWO NEW IN-SERVICE CONTRACTOR.
ONE OF OUR CONTINUING SERVICE DIVIDERS. A FIRM THAT'S WORKING ON THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDELINES UPDATE AS WELL AS THE CRA DESIGN GUIDELINES. SO THE THOUGHT WAS THEY ARE ON OUR LIST OF QUALIFIED CONSULTANTS THAT COULD APPROACH THEM ABOUT FULL CRA AND UPDATE. THAT WOULD INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE OBJECTIVES AND BANDAGES WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON BUT ALL OF THE CONTEXTUAL MATERIALS, AS WELL.
AND THEN ACTUALLY PROVIDE US A ROOKIE CAPITAL PLANNING DOCUMENT SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY THE PROJECTIONS AND FINANCING BASED ON ASSUMED SCENARIOS, AND IDENTIFY PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT WE COULD WORK TOWARD, INCLUDING IN THAT PLAN. JUST KIND OF TABLED IT LAST NIGHT AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING. IT WAS VOTED DOWN. HOWEVER, THE CRA PLAN COMPONENT OF IT WAS NEVER REALLY DISCUSSED.
>> WHAT WAS VOTED DOWN? I'M SORRY.
>> THE RESOLUTION THAT INCLUDED MONEY THAT WE COULD HAVE ALLOCATED TOWARDS A COMPLETE UP DATE TO THE CRA PLAN.
>> SO THERE WAS A RESOLUTION ON LAST NIGHTS AGENDA FOR $50,000 FOR A PARKING AND CIRCULATIONS DADDY AND THE CRA PLAN, REDOING THE CRA LAND, WHICH IS LIKE BASICALLY THE OBJECTIVES AND MATAGI'S, PLUS THAT DOCUMENT? IN SOME OF THE PARKING STUDY HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED. SO THEY APPROVED PAYING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY, WHICH IS ROUGHLY $15,000. AND THE REST WAS TABLED BECAUSE KELLY GIBSON WASN'T AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SO THEY DECIDED THEY WOULD RING IT BACK ANOTHER TIME TO VOTE ON THAT. SO IF APPROVED, THERE WOULD BE MONEY THAT WOULD BE PUT TOWARDS BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON. IT WOULD NOT NEGATE WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON BUT IT WOULD INCORPORATE WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON INTO A NEW CRA PLAN. SO I GUESS AT THIS POINT, IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME INPUT INTO THAT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT APPROVED LAST NIGHT .
[00:55:07]
SO IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL. >> AGAIN, IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DECIDE HOW WE WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR UPDATING THAT. IF THE BOARD BELIEVES IT DOES NEED TO BE UPDATED. CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.
THIS WAS OWING MONEY FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHETHER WE WANT TO ADVOCATE BUDGETING OUT OF THE CRA FUNDS TO DO THAT STUDY, OR HOW WE WANT TO LOOK FOR THE BOARD'S DIRECTION, IF WE WANT TO PURSUE UPDATING THE PLAN WOULD COME BACK TO YOU WITH AVENUES TO WORK TOWARDS EARMARKING CRA FUNDS OR FIGURING OUT ANOTHER WAY TO END THE UPDATE IF IT IS SOMETHING THE BOARD BELIEVES WE ARE DUE FOR.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION. WHAT ADDITIONAL WOULD THEY BE DOING BEYOND WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IF WE COMPLETED WHAT WE HAVE
BEEN DOING? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION,
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. >> WE'VE BEEN UPDATING THE
PLAN. >> HALFWAY THROUGH, PROBABLY.
>> WE ARE UP TO OBJECTIVE SIX.
>> SO WHAT MORE WOULD THEY BE DOING, ALSO GIVEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF PROPERTIES LEFT IN THE CRA. SO WHAT ARE WE SPENDING MONEY FOR?
>> THEY WOULD BE UPDATING THE DOCUMENT, REALLY JUST REFRESHING THE DOCUMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE, ZONING AND CHANGES. MAKING THE CHANGES IN DOCUMENT. CREATE THE FUNDING AND THE CAPITAL PLAN. PROJECTS IN SECTION 5 OF THE PLAN.
PROJECTIONS. >> YOU CAN SEE BASED ON THE TABLE OF CONTENTS, THE PART WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IS
THERE. YOU KNOW. >> TO THE GIVE LIKE A SLIDING SCALE BECAUSE THE NUMBERS CHANGE SO DRASTICALLY?
>> COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >> LIKE SOME OF THE STUFF DOES NOT GET DONE IN THE NEXT FIVE OR 10 YEARS, AS WE SEE IN TWO YEARS, THE PRICE CHANGES. LIKE IF WE GET -- IF WE PAY THEM FOR THE OPINION OF COST, THAT'S ONLY THAT YEAR. WILL IT EVEN MATTER FIVE YEARS FROM THEN ON THINGS CAN ACTUALLY BE DONE?
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE COMMISSION LAST NIGHT. PART OF THE TRAFFIC FLOW STUDY, AS SOON AS YOU OPEN THE STREET, THAT WHOLE THING JUST CHANGES.
>> I THINK THAT WAS A BIG REASON FOR THE HESITATION.
EXACTLY READ >> SO THE PLANS, MAYBE WE BRING IN AND OUT HAD CONSULTING FIRM. THEY TAKE THE SNAPSHOT IN TIME AND DEVELOP THEIR LAND. THEN IT PRETTY MUCH BECOMES THAT PRETTY SOON. BUT I GUESS I'M HAVING TROUBLE GETTING MY ARMS AROUND THE WHOLE SIZE OF THIS AND WHETHER WHAT WE DO HERE AS A BOARD -- ARE WE JUST ONE LITTLE SMALL PIECE OF THIS? OR ARE WE
A BIG PIECE OF THIS PLAN? >> IT WILL BE YOUR PLAN.
>> I GUESS I'M STILL COMING BACK TO -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ITEM WAS GOING TO DO. THAT WE ARE NOT ALREADY DOING.
>> MORE INFORMATION? >> YES, PLEASE.
>> THERE WAS A PLAN TO PUT FORWARD LAST NIGHT TO SPEND $65,000 TO ASK A PLAN. IN THAT PACKET, NONE OF THE INFORMATION IN THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT WASN'T LOOTED. I GOT THE INFORMATION BY FILING A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST. AND I GOT THE TEST FOR NUMBER ONE, WHICH WE NOW PAID FOR, WHICH WAS TO DO THESE METERS STRIP THINGS. FOR COUNTS FOR THE CITY. WHICH I
[01:00:08]
THINK WAS UNNECESSARY BUT WE HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR IT, SO HERE WE ARE. I GOT THE -- FOR SCOPE TWO, AND PART OF SCOPE TWO, COMING UP WITH A PLAN TO HELP THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN COME UP WITH INFORMATION FOR THAT WHILE THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN, THE REENGINEERING OF DOWNTOWN IS REFRESHING ALL THAT AND IT IS HALFWAY DONE AND SHOULD BE DONE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO. SO HIRING A CONSULTANT TO GIVE ME INFORMATION TO TELL ME WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE SEEMED LIKE A TREMENDOUS WASTE OF TIME. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT AND TASK THREE AND WHAT'S IN TASK FOUR. GOING TO ASK FOR THAT IN THE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST TODAY. SO I WILL BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU WHEN I GET IT.>> IT IS CONFUSING. I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE PARKING AND CIRCULATIONS STUDY COMBINED WITH THE CRA.
>> I WAS SURPRISED, TOO. >> TWO DIFFERENT REQUEST.
>> THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUDGET. MS. GIBSON, WHATEVER THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DOING WITH THE PARKING CIRCULATIONS STUDY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT MONEY IS GOING TO BE DEDICATE AT IT AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRA PLAN
DATE. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT AMOUNT
IS? >> I DON'T KNOW THE CIVICS OF THE AMOUNT, BUT WE WERE ESTIMATING THE DATE
$20-$25,000. >> SO THE CRA PLAN, THAT COMES OUT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. INITIATED THIS. NOT A PLANNING
DEPARTMENT. >> WE HAD A CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSED WHERE WE WERE AT WITH OUR STRATEGIES. IT'S DUE FOR AN UPDATE. RELEVANT TIMING FOR THE CRA DESIGN GUIDELINES BEING UP DATED. AS THESE WERE UPDATED AT THE SAME TIME BY THE SAME CONSULTANT, NOW IS JUST THE APPROPRIATE TIME. TYPICALLY NOW, I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT STATUTES. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE MANDATED. IT HAS TO BE UPDATED EVERY SEVEN YEARS. BUT IT'S UNUSUAL FOR A PLAN TO BE 20 YEARS OLD. EVEN MODIFIED TO YOUR POINT, IT IS A SNAPSHOT IN TIME, BUT IF WE WERE DOING THINGS, YOU WOULD UPDATE THAT. THE COST CHANGE, THE TAX EXCHANGE. THE PLAN WAS IMPLEMENTED. TO RESET THE BASE YEAR FROM 2005 TO 2013. THE TAX NUMBERS WERE NOT GENERATING ANY REVENUES WRITTEN 2013, THAT WAS RESET TO THE BASE YEAR AND THEY
EXTENDED THE CRA TO 2053. >> THE WHOLE SECTION WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROJECTIONS AND THE DOLLARS COMING IN. THAT TYPE OF. TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW -- TRYING TO ADD THAT FUNDING PIECE. WE TALKED ABOUT EACH ELEMENT. I'M FORGETTING THAT THIS IS PART OF A LARGER DOCUMENT THAT ALREADY HAS A
WHOLE SECTION ABOUT THAT. >> I MEANT DOES THE STATE CARE, IF THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE US FUNDING FOR SOMETHING, DOES
HAVING A PLAN EFFECT -- >> THE STATE WILL NOT GIVE US
FUNDING FOR ANYTHING. >> THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE
CRA PLAN FOR THAT. >> I THINK THAT'S A LEGISLATIVE REQUEST. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT A CRA
PLAN. >> I WILL SAY ONE LAST THING AND THEN SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. LOOK AT THIS. YOU HAVE TWO ON
[01:05:01]
THE WATERFRONT. AND YOU HAVE TOM FLANNERY'S PROPERTY. 10 POINTERS GOING IN DEVELOPING. SOMEBODY COULD MAYBE REDO SOMETHING NEXT TO HIM. THERE'S NOT MUCH LEFT TO DO. IS THIS PIECE OVER HERE ABOUT TO BE DEVELOPED?>> OH, THAT FELL THROUGH. >> THAT PROPERTY --
>> I THOUGHT SOMEBODY ELSE HAS IT UNDER CONTRACT RATE
>> THEY DID. IT ALL THROUGH. >> I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE CALLED UP AND SAID ARE YOU INTERESTED IN BUYING IT? THERE IS A BACKUP CONTRACT. THAT'S THE OTHER PROPERTY. THAT'S IT.
ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THEN BILL CAVANAUGH'S PROPERTY.
>> DO WE FEEL LIKE WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS REQUEST TO THE FUND, A NEW VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT, OR DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO DO, UPDATE OUR OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES AND HAVE THAT THE OUR GUIDING DOCUMENT GOING FORWARD?
>> I WILL GIVE YOU MY TWO CENTS YOU ARE CITIZENS OF THE CITY.
YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB AND YOU SHOULD CONTINUE. I THINK WHEN IT IS HOMEGROWN IT IS A LOT BETTER THAN SOME CONSULTANTS LETTING IN ALL THESE LANDS AND THERE ARE BUCKETS OF LANDS YOUR GUY HAVE LOOKED AT THEM ALL. WHAT DO WE
DO WITH THEM? >> WE SHOULD DO PAID PARKING.
>> SO ON AND SO FORTH. >> I THINK WE WOULD DO A GOOD
JOB AND CONTINUE. >> THANK YOU.
>> I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AND CONTINUE TO HAVE IS THAT TO FUNDING AND HOW DOES THAT ALL WORK? AND I'VE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY'S COMPTROLLER. SOME DOCUMENTATION HAPPENING NOW. THE VILLAGE RATES FOR THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE. SO THERE IS NOT A LOT OF INFORMATION YET, BUT I THINK THAT SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE AS A GROUP NEED TO DIG INTO.
KIND OF MONITORING THAT, KIND OF PLANNING FOR THAT AND HAVING SOME AND THAT INTO -- OTHER THAN THE DEBT SERVICE, WHICH IS THE NUMBER GOES UP, AND IT IS GOING UP TO YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE WE RECOMMENDING THAT THOSE BE USED? BUT AGAIN, IF THEY ARE ALREADY SAYING WE SEE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH ISSUE. THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE PLAN ALREADY. THE WALK ABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY ALONG NINTH STREET. ALL OF THAT. ARE WE CAPABLE OF CONTINUING, MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, PLANNING TO WATCH OUT? WE DON'T HAVE THE ULTIMATE SAY.
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT LIKELY RECOMMENDS IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY YAY OR NAY BUT WE CAN ALSO SAY IF THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION. SO -- A ROADBLOCK, BUT WE ARE STILL GOING AT IT. A DON'T THINK UNTIL WE REALLY GET THE MORE WE CAN GO ANY FURTHER. MAYBE WE
JUST KEEP GOING AT IT. >> YEAH. IT HAS TO WORK. WITH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE ON STRATEGIES AND OBJECTIVES, IF THEY GO OUT, WILL IT BE INCORPORATED OR EVAPORATE?
>> I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH KELLY GIBSON ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I WAS ONLY YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY SHARED THE PLAN WITH ME I WAS A LITTLE SOUP RISE. I SAID BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OR YEAR AND A HALF. AND SAID NO. THIS WILL BE USED AS A BASE DOCUMENT. CONTINUE TO FINISH GOING THROUGH THE OBJECTIVES. WE JUST DON'T HAVE TO SPEND OUR TIME IS MUCH ON THE WORDSMITHING. JACOB WOULD NOT BE THE ONE WRITING IT. YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD DO THOSE PIECES AND IT WOULD COME TOGETHER MUCH QUICKER. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW, WE'VE BEEN MOVING
THROUGH IT VERY SLOWLY. >> IF THEY WERE USING IT AS A BASIS AND NOT CHANGING THINGS AND BECOMING LESS FOR THE
[01:10:04]
LOCALS AND CITIZENS, THE BEST PRICE? HAVE WE ASKED AROUND?>> THAT WAS NOT LOCKED IN STONE AS FAR AS USING SOMEBODY ON THE CCN A LIST. OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN REQUEST PUZZLES FOR IT. NONE OF THAT WAS THAT IN TONE. I THINK THE REQUEST WAS TO TRANSFER THE MONEY FROM THE SALARY CATEGORY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, TO THE PROJECT CATEGORY, SO THAT MONEY IS THERE AND ALLOCATED TO BE USED IN THIS WAY, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ASKING US TO DO.
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT WE THINK THE
NEXT BEST COURSE WOULD BE. >> THE WAY I SEE IT, JANUARY 1, AND OVERALL THE OBJECTIVES THAT I THOUGHT WERE GOING TO MAKE THE COMPANY SUCCESSFUL TO MY CLO, AND IT WAS THERE JOB TO GET A PLAN. FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. IF YOU DO BOTH, THE STRATEGY KIND OF IS THE PLAN. HOW DO WE GET THIS DONE? I GUESS I WOULD LOOK TO GUIDANCE FOR THAT TYPE OF COMPANY. SITTING HERE WITH A PLAN TO 20 YEARS. NOTHING HAPPENS. DON'T WANT TO WASTE MORE MONEY IF THAT WERE TO
HAPPEN. >> PART OF THE REASON STUFF HAS NOT HAPPENED WITH THE PLAN IS NOT GENERATING ANY REVENUE. TO WORK WITH THE PLAN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE MONEY. SO FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE ARE GENERATING THE TAX INCOME FINANCES. AND WHEN I KIND OF ALLUDED TO THE MEAT OF WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IN MY MIND TO SAY TO SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND DO THIS DOCUMENT. IS THAT WORKING CAPITAL PLAN? THE CRA ADVISORY BOARD COULD THEN LEAN ON TO ADVOCATE FOR THOSE PROJECT AND FOR THE FUNDING MECHANISMS TO PUT IT IN PLACE FOR THE PROJECT TO BE COMPLETE.
JUST A QUICK COMMENT. OUR CRA IS ARIES MALL. AND THERE ARE VERY FEW PROPERTIES LEFT. HOWEVER, THERE ARE PLANS IN PLACE. LIKE I SAID, UNLESS DISSOLVED UNTIL 2053. THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO MAKE THESE CONDITIONS. NOW THAT WE ARE GENERATING ON, LET'S HOPE TO CONTINUE TO GENERATE MORE RUNS.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE TOWNHOMES WERE STILL INCLUDED.
UP ON THE NORTH END. COME TO START GENERATING SIGNIFICANT FUNDS AND MONEY THAT OTHERWISE IN THIS PREVIOUS 19 YEARS AS PLANNED, THEY WERE NOT THERE. AND SO THAT IS KIND OF WHY YES, I LIKE THE HOMEGROWN COMPONENTS OF US AND THE CITIZENS, WORKING TO THE OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES. BUT THERE MAY BE SOME BENEFIT TO HAVING SOMEBODY ELSE ON THE CAPITAL PLANNING SIDE OF THINGS. HAPPY TO PLOD ALONG. AS WE GET TO THE OBJECTIVES, WE CAN CERTAINLY UPDATE THE INTRODUCTION PART OF THE DOCUMENT. OBVIOUSLY CHANGES TO THE LAND-USE AND ZONING.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT STUFF EASY TO UPDATE. THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 50 PAGES LONG. VERY SPECIFIC STATUTES THAT CAN MAKE THIS PLAN ON OUR OWN. AND WORK THROUGH AS LISA ALLUDED TO. OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF THINGS. THE SPREADSHEET CAN'T SOLVE THAT AS FAR AS OUTLINING PROJECT THAT WE MAY WANT TO IDENTIFY AND PUT IN ROUGH NUMBERS TOWARDS. I'M
HAPPY TO -- EITHER WAY. >> SO WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES, AND THEN WE LOOK FOR SOMEBODY THAT PULLS TOGETHER THE FINANCIAL PIECE OF IT? AND WITH IT THE OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES.
[01:15:09]
>> AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, FINISHING THE OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES. IF WE GO TO SOMEBODY ELSE, THAT WORK IS INTENDED NOT TO BE ON THE WAYSIDE TO WORK THROUGH THE THREE YEARS , INCLUDING SUGGESTIONS ON ANYTHING. MORE OF THE CLEANING OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE FUNDING COMPONENT IS
WHAT I'VE GOT. >> SO IT'S MOSTLY USEFUL FOR
STAFF HERE. >> FOR STAFF AND THE BOARD, THE PLAN IS GOING TO CHANGE. THE FUNDING COMPONENT WITHIN APPENDIX DOCUMENT THAT THE BOARD LOOKS AT EVERY YEAR AND PRIORITIZES IF THINGS CHANGE OR MOVE. OVER THE BOARD RECOMMENDS PRIORITIES. WHOEVER RECOMMENDS THE EXECUTIVE BOARD FUNDING ON
IT. >> THANKS FOR GETTING THOSE FOR
STRATEGIES. >> WE WERE ON SIX.
>> THERE IS -- THERE'S THE 11TH. I THINK THERE'S 12. SO
WE HAVE SIX MORE TO GO, YEAH. >> THE REMAINING ONES ARE
SOMEWHAT LESS >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, THERE'S A LITTLE LESS. I THINK IF WE, YOU KNOW, REALLY FOCUS ON IT AND GET THROUGH IT PRETTY EFFECTIVELY.
>> MIGHT HIT A BUMP AND AVOID -- DISCUSSING THE WHOLE TIME WE
ARE HERE. >> RIGHT. I DID GET A TAX INCREMENT ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET. THE CURRENT YEAR TAXABLE VALUE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S, JUST OVER 38 MILLION, AND THE PRIOR-YEAR TAXABLE VALUE WAS 30.5 MILLION. SO IT HAS INCREASED QUITE A BIT. THE ACTUAL DOLLARS THAT COME IN WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THESE RIGHTS FROM THE CITY IN THE COUNTY. SO SHE DOESN'T HAVE ESTIMATES ON THAT YET.
>> THAT'S WHERE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO PROJECT. BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO NOW BECAUSE THE TIMING ON THAT PIECE RIGHT THERE , THE TIMING AND WITH THE VALUE OF IT MIGHT BE, BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE IF IT IS TOWNHOUSES VERSUS COMMERCIAL BUILDING OR WAREHOUSE. COULD BE VASTLY DIFFERENT.
>> THAT'S WHY AGAIN, THINKING ABOUT HAVING THEM DO SOMETHING WITH THIS, IS IT A GAS? I MEAN, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO REALLY COME UP WITH NUMBERS BEYOND THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, RIGHT?
>> YOU COULD PROJECT SATAN NEXT YEAR OR MAYBE EVEN TWO YEARS OUT BASED ON WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED AND SAY OKAY, IF THAT IS PROPOSED FOR SAY, 20 TOWNHOUSES, WE CAN ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THAT WHEN IT IS DONE, JUST LIKE THE ONES BEHIND US OR WHATEVER, BUT UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT THE INTENDED USE IS, THERE IS NO WAY TO DO THAT. SO AGAIN, ARE YOU PAYING MONEY FOR A MAN THAT'S REALLY GOING TO BE A
GAS? >> DON'T THINK WE GOT 30 YEARS
OF DEVELOPMENT DOWN THERE. >> I THINK TO THE POINT, THERE ARE MANY PROPERTIES WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES BUT THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BOTH PRIVATELY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IN THE AREA.
>> IN MY OPINION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WALL IS GOING TO DO.
>> WE GO BACK TO WHAT ARE OUR KEY PRIORITIES AND IT IS THE WALL. HOW DO WE KEEP THE AREA FROM FLOODING? 50% OF THE WHITE
[01:20:09]
>> YES. FRONT STREET ITSELF. I WOULD OPPOSE WHETHER PLANNING GOES FORWARD AND REQUEST THE BUDGET TRANSFER OR NOT AND HAS THAT MONEY THERE AND AVAILABLE TO BE USED FOR SUCH A THING, YOU KNOW, I WOULD PROPOSE FOR NOW WE WOULD CONTINUE WITH WHAT
WE ARE DOING. >> UNTIL WE CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER. ALSO THE SITUATION BASED ON THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION HERE WE GO BACK TO KELLY AND STAFF URQUIDY THERE IS A SCOPE OF WORK THAT MAKES SENSE. JUST WANT TO READ VIEW THE DOCUMENT. MAYBE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC WITH WHAT WE WANT TO DO. WE WANT TO HAND THEM THE OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES AND HAVE THEM DO THAT. IS THERE SOME PIECE OF THE FINANCIAL PART WE DO FEEL THEY CAN HELP WITH?
>> CERTAINLY, BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION. WE WILL HAVE MORE
CONVERSATION. >> DIDN'T KNOW WHERE I WAS GOING TO GO WITH THAT. MORE INFORMATION ON IT.
>> MAYBE EVEN A PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION. JUST IN GENERAL OUTLINE FORM OR SOMETHING. BUT JUST TO SAY AND HERE IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED.
>> WHAT DOES THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WANT THEM TO DO?
>> IT'S NOT FAIR TO ASK YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO UPDATE A PLAN WITHOUT YOU KNOWING, SO THAT'S THE LEAST WE CAN DO.
>> AND THE PARKING STUDY -- >> I THINK THEY STOP THAT.
>> THAT IS REALLY ALL OVER THE CITY MARKET IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THE CRA, SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS -- I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WANTS A COPY OF THIS YEAR, AND COPIES FOR EVERYBODY SO WE WOULD HAVE THESE INITIAL NUMBERS.
>> JUST DO IT THROUGH CHAT GPT. >> THIS IS THE WHOLE PLAN?
>> WE CAN TRY. >> I'M GOING TO TRY IT AND SEE
WHAT HAPPENS. >> THE INCREMENTAL FINANCING MONEY THAT COMES IN HAS TO BE SPENT IN THE CRA, CORRECT? OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS. PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS TO DETERMINE
HOW THAT MONEY GETS SPENT. >> CORRECT.
>> AND TYPICALLY, WHO DOES THAT, MAKE THAT DECISION?
>> THE CITY. >> RIGHT, BUT IS IT BASED ON SOME RECOMMENDATIONS LIKE THIS? OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
>> IN MY MIND, THAT SHOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MAKE TO THE CRA EXECUTIVE BOARD CITY COMMISSION, BUT THERE HAS JUST NEVER BEEN ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE ARE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT SHOULD BE
OUR ROLE. >> OKAY. DO YOU KNOW IF -- HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION OR NOT GIVEN TO HOW THIS MONEY WOULD BE SPENT? IT IS STARTING TO ADD UP.
>> RIGHT NOW THERE'S JUST OVER 1 MILLION IN REVENUE. I THINK IT'S LIKE $50,000. IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHERE I ENVISIONED THIS MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION ON MAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION. GOING BACK TO HOWEVER WE UPDATE THE LAND.
[01:25:01]
THE PLAN SHOULD REALLY BE A CAPITAL PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR EACH YEAR BASED ON X NUMBER OF DOLLARS IN THE FUND, WE SUGGEST OR LIKE TO PROPOSE SPENDING ON THESE PROJECTS OR ALLOCATING X NUMBER OF FUNDS TO RESILIENCY. ANOTHER TYPE OF REVENUE NODE.TO GO BACK REAL QUICK, WHERE I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT, THIS WAS INITIALLY CREATED IN 2000 OR WHEN CRA WAS ESTABLISHED AND THE BOUNDARIES WERE DRAWN. INITIALLY THE BOUNDARIES INCLUDED WAY DOWN ON THIRD TREAT AND THE BOUNDARIES. IN THE WORLD ENDS OF PUBLIC CHARADES. MEMBERS ALL OVER THAT. 20 YEARS INTO THE PLAN, ONE CAN ARGUE THAT IT'S TIME TO DO THAT WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN, SAYING WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY TODAY WANT TO SEE? ANY TYPE OF UPDATE. DOESN'T BA FULL-BLOWN PLANNING EXERCISE BY ANYONE. IT WAS NEARLY CREATING A WORKING DOCUMENT SINCE WE ARE GOING TO BE GENERATING FUNDS THAT WE CAN THEN USE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT'S ALL I
HAD IN MY MIND. >> SO WHAT IS THE
MILLION-DOLLAR -- >> IT'S IN OUR ANNUAL REPORT.
OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, THAT WAS A LOT OF TALKING. THAT WAS A LOT OF TALKING. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS? I KNOW THERE IS MORE BUSINESS AND ALL THAT BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRESSING ISSUES RIGHT NOW? ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?
>> DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION REGARDING THIS ITEM?
>> I THINK IT IS JUST REALLY A DIRECT FROM HALF, FROM US TO STAFF TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE --
>> I DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY.
>> ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ALL IN FAVOR, RIGHT?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.