Laserfiche WebLink
Downtown Development Advisory Board Minutes <br />September 24, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br />Mr. Hayden stated that an Intergovernmental Agreement forthcoming between Marion County, <br />Salem Area Mass Transit and the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Salem should be <br />utilized to outline participation. He noted that final participation costs are expected to differ from <br />the current estimate and would be limited to actual construction bid. Mr. Curtis said the <br />development team would return to the Board with amended cost estimates after the private <br />sector RFP process is complete. <br />Mr. Hayden discussed the City's participation in construction of the arcades located on High <br />and Church Streets. He noted that arcades, under the new development guidelines, are <br />required to be incorporated into new developments on Front Street and are to be privately <br />funded. Arcades are not required for this project. He added that the City usually participates in <br />skybridge construction as a lender only, being reimbursed by the property owner over a <br />reasonable length of time. <br />Mr. Young asked if landscaping not in the public right-of-way would qualify for streetscape <br />funds. Mr. Hayden replied that only street trees, planters and landscaping which lies within the <br />public right-of-way would qualify for renewal streetscape funds. He noted that the presence of <br />landscaping within the public right-of-way would increase the City's maintenance burden. He <br />noted that staff has discussed a possible joint maintenance agreement to share costs between <br />the three jurisdictions. Mr. Curtis said he didn't see a problem with having Marion County <br />groundskeepers helping with the maintenance. <br />Mr. Jones asked why the canopies weren't included in the regular streetscape program. Mr. <br />Hayden said the proposed streetscape budget follows the City's weather protection limits fairly <br />closely. <br />Mr. Elliott asked if the City would set precedent for future Front Street developments by <br />participating in the arcade construction. Mr. Russell explained that Front Street requires the <br />building to be offset by eight feet on the ground floor, thus arcades are part of the building, and <br />not free standing as in the Courthouse Square proposal. <br />Mr. Lodder discussed the streetscape tiling and noted that, at Mr. Datwyler's sugges~ion, the <br />development team is considering full-thickness pavers as opposed to shallow tiles. Mr. <br />Datwyler is currently reviewing the proposed materials. <br />Ms. Young asked where the liability would lie regarding the arcade/bridge system. Mr. Hayden <br />said the property line would determine responsibility; also a weather protection agreement <br />would call for the County and Transit to be responsible for maintenance of all weather <br />protection, including the awning systems that overhang the public right-of-way. <br />Mr. Dorney asked what the timeline is for final authorization of the expenditure. Mr. Curtis said <br />they would like to have City Council authorization by the end of October for incorporation into <br />Certificate of Participation (COP) sale documents. <br />Mr. Elliott asked if the delay for the private development was calculated as one year from now <br />~; or one year from when the public project is complete. Mr. Lodder said the private development <br />will follow approximately one year behind the public schedule, suggesting that construction <br />should begin on the private development prior to completion of the public project. <br />