Demolition Documents (compiled notebook)

Home Browse Search

grant and $81,480 of loan under the City's normal guidelinea. 2. With regard to the "Streetscape -Supplemental," I question whether the city should pay anything to remove the transit district's island on High Street. I understand that the city put some money into building it, apparently; however, it seems to me that the transit district, which has a geographically larger tax base than the city, should pick up all of the costs of that removal --which is not a usual element of our streetscape projects. Attachment D of the staff report includes a memorandum from Larry Wacker to Randy Curtis (located near the end of the attachmeat). It notes the following: • Removal of Sxisting Transfer Facility: The current facility was developed in cooperation with the Transit District utilizing a combination of District and Renewal Funds. Givea the completion of a new facility, it is conaisteat with the objectives of the renewal program to restore the existing site to vehicular circulation. This item is estimated to cost $45,000. 3. On the "Reimbursement" request, I believe that the $101,469 for "consultant fees:" is entirely out of line. I suspect that the figure is that high because the consultant fees were spent on other than "pure" streetscape elements. I also question the $3,700 for tree removal; is that something that we have ever covered under "streetscape"? I also have some concerns with the "contingency" expenditures. They are so high because what they are asking that we pay for is so far beyond what we usually cover in streetscape projects. The original request from the County and Transit to iaclude reimbursement for previously conducted demolition of sidewalks and removal of street trees. These iteme total $13,371. Staff recommends in the staff report that these items not be funded because they were accomplished prior to aay agreement between County/Transit and the Renewal Agency. County/Transit staff have indicated they are comfortable with this recommendation. Architectural fees are typically allowed for as an eligible streetscape expease. In this case many of these costs have been incurred as a result of the Agency's information requiremente. The staff recommendation to pay only 6~ of actual construction costs as architectural fees. This keeps these fees at standard levels for typical streetscape projects. Contingency fees are for estimating purposes only. The Agency will only pay for actual reimbursable costs incurred, whether or not the contingency is present. The bottom line is that I would like an estimate from staff as to what the price tag would be if we contributed only towards the kind of streetscape elements that we have historically paid towards. I think that we owe that to our constituents, who might much prefer that we use this money to complete Riverfront Park and related downtown urban renewal projects that have been ~ identified over the last 5 years.