Planning Commission Regular Meeting/Work Session

NaptystaffIt's just to support other efforts. But the two main ones on here that at some point should have some kind of CIP or budget request if they require further study are the study of a Main Street bicycle facility and extending the Blenheim Boulevard multimodal improvements into Old Town and through Fairfax Circle. The project that has been approved that is about to become under construction only goes from Layton Hall Drive up to Ridge Avenue. It doesn't go all the way to the two ends. And so this recommendation is based partially on both the Old Town and the Fairfax Circle small area plans. to extend those further. And then the bottom three items that don't have any update next to them, the roadbed improvements, the TDM program,

Kirsten Lockhartthen my second comment was going to be just based on some comments that were made during my recent reappointment hearing. There is a group of council members that doesn't seem to see value in the small area plans as a sort of guiding concept for development. So I would recommend that our recommendations speak to, perhaps are organized by small area plan or flag those things that are crucial towards the future success of the small area plans, those infrastructure investments that the city needs to make for that planning to be successful.

Paul Cunninghamsomething i have a responsibility i think to look at with my fellow planning commissioners at least comment on city council can do as they choose and so can staff when we look forward a number of years in tight budget conditions we hit a low in 2011 of the entire general fund portion of the cip is $1,701,600. So from where we were at the worst of economic times to now, adjustments have to be made in the CIP, and I can understand that. Now when we look at things like the small area plans and say how do they fit into the CIP and the projects we're looking at, I start to scratch my head a little bit 2019 com plan that we spent three and a half years working hard to get to fruition this the small area plans dealt with the five major business areas in the city

and the fact that that's all commercial land it's all business land it's not residential land that we're talking about and yet those small area plans are designed to make those areas more efficient more tax effective, more beneficial to the future goals of the city because that's the area we have for expansion. We don't have a lot of room left to build more subdivisions or housing of any kind except dense housing that in essence goes up. so all of the development that occurs in the small area plan areas is going to impact the future of the citizens to pay for the ongoing function of the city or to let business that's profitable pay taxes and help cushion us a little bit so that we've got a tax base that's multifaceted enough to support things.

So when we're back to the situation that I see us in now with the budget, with looking at small area plans, with looking at the CIP, I see major changes in the CIP, but I don't find necessarily the guidance when suddenly a million dollars shows up for Katherine Johnson middle school fields and those things that pop up to see how the flow through the CIP is being controlled and what our comments are. Therefore, what I'd like us to do as we're moving forward with the next couple of meetings is look at the CIP, see what's good, see if there are recommendations we need to make that would impact things that perhaps should be delayed further because we don't have the money as I see it in this budget climate to pay for everything

James FeatherOne observation on your slide seven, it's called small area plan CIP projects. These are projects in the activity centers, some of which I'm not sure. Multimum or transportation externally funded except for fire station three. Is that? We're highlighted in the small area plan or in the comp plan. Transportation ones generally come up in the context of the small area plans, so we want to create networks and

want to make sure we understand what are projects that are in the activity centers versus what are called out in the CIP. And the reason I bring that up is because of your experience in your interview about some trepidation about some of what's in the small area plans, how much of the small area plans are really calling for general fund spending and capital versus what something happens to be in the activity center?

And they can be, for sure. Turn the water tower into park. You know, that would be something that we could call that, but it's not on the radar right now, and I'm not sure we're in a position to want to put it on either. I mean, we should be thinking about things that may be highlighted in either the comp plan or the small area plans that are not in the capital improvement CIP. We may want to suggest it go in there, but with a very far out year, if it's beyond 2031, we don't have to worry about it years. So Mr. Cunningham's suggestion about spending some time going through the comp plan and small area plans is a worthy exercise for a couple of our meetings as we prepare to put together some sort of recommendation. I think the scope of what we have to comment