pages: PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-04-28 | 4 | Ms. Kozisek, Public Works, summarized the staff report. The next public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 30, 2008, and will also be available on the City website. The following meetings will be noted on the website as well. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Helen Sause noted that she hoped the 27 projects reduced the 101 projects. She inquired when the Sewer Master Plan would be completed. She inquired where the Estuary Crossing study would occur, and wondered what the study was about. She inquired whether the Tree Master Plan fell under this work, and whether there would be implementation from it. Ms. Kozisek replied that the 27 projects were not taken out of the 101 projects, which were anticipated for the future. She noted that Public Works planned to finish the Sewer Master Plan by the end of 2008. She noted that the Estuary Crossing study was in response to the problems encountered by pedestrians and bicyclists when traveling through the Tubes. The study was intended to find other possible ways to get across the Estuary, and the environmental phase was intended to examine all possibilities before picking one that had the least adverse impact. She noted that the Tree Master Plan was underway, and that the trees were being measured. She added that had already been funded, and was not included in this project. She expected that would be completed in several months. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the genesis of the Public Benefit Score, Ms. Kozisek replied that it was a concept that had been around for a few years. The score was looked at, but is not the final score upon which a determination was made. A higher score has more benefits, such as economic or visual benefits, cultural/historic/recreation potential or preservation, or environmental impacts. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the City Hall Tower retrofit was given a score of 76, which is higher than either bridge maintenance, storm drain repair or water taxi vessel procurement. She added that the cost would be $430,000, and noted that the City's budget restrictions were well-known. She understood it was a private funding effort, and that it was listed in the unfunded list, and inquired why it received a score of 76. Ms. Kozisek replied that the complete list was not available at this time, but added that private funding gave the project a higher score. The project on City Hall would benefit all citizens, while the storm drains were not noticed unless they flooded onto someone's property. In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the Board would like to continue this item in order to allow sufficient time to read the material, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft replied that would be helpful. Board member Lynch inquired about the acronyms and the presentation of the data with respect to fees received and projected expenditures. Ms. Kozisek replied that they were Page 4 of 17 | PlanningBoard/2008-04-28.pdf |