The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCCMPacket2014-04-15CITY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA FOR APRIL 1.201=1 5:30 PA4. ROLL CALL INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS I. WORKSHOP A. Paducah Riverfront Development Authority Riverfront Phase 1 B Recommendations — S. DOOLITTLE/M. THOMPSON/R. MURPHY II. ORDILNANCE -ADOPTION A. Accept Grant Award. for Distracted Driving Enforcement for Police Dept. — S. ERVIN/POLICE CAPT. HODGSON B. Approve Memorandum of Understanding with Higdon Development, Inc. for Development of Property Located on Bleich Road -- S. ERVIN III. CITY MANAGER REPORT IV. MAYOR & COMMISSIONER COMMENTS V. PUBLIC COMMENTS VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION Agenda Action Form Paducah City Commission i /teetina Date: April, 15. 2014 Short Title: THE FINAL REPORT OF THE PADUCAH RIVERFRONT DEVELOMMENT AUTHORITY REGARDING PHASE IB, SHULTZ PARK, OF THE PAUDCAH RIVERFRONT PROJECT ❑Ordinance ❑ Emergency ❑ iVtunicipat Order ❑ Resolution ❑ iVfotion Staff Work By: ivturphy and Doolittle Presentation By: Bruce Brockenborough, PRDA Chair Background Information: After the end of Phase IA, Shultz Park, of the riverfront redevelopment project, a number of questions arose over the strategy going forward with the development. After consultation of the Board of Commissioners, the City Manager tasked the PRDA with making a thoughtful study of what had been accomplished, what occurred that was less than optimal. and make recommendations as to how the city should move forward with the project. The strategy advocated by PRDA is summarized as follows: •:• Phase IB should be finished. This can be accomplished be cutting some unnecessary items from the scope of the project, reducing the scope, delayinQ others for a multi-year implementation, and shifting some expenses to the Trails project. $6.0 million has already been expended tokvard the mass fill and piles in Phase IA. Abandoning the project appears to be counterproductive to Paducah`s tourism strategy and desire to expand quality recreational opportunities. Abandoning the project and not completing it could jeopardize the use of Federal funds expended in :Phase IA. Not completing the construction could also void the city's construction permit with the Corp of Engineers. And obviously, if not completed, the $.9 million Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG) would be forfeited. It is unlikely the $3.9 FHWA grant could be converted to some other unknown use. 67.500 tons of rock should be added to the existing till and build to the designed elevation not completed in Phase IA. There would be a diminishing return to accepting a tower elevation. Design costs would be incurred to accomplish this and the frequency of flood inundations would erode expensive surfaces and increase maintenance costs. A fueling system is elemental to the success of the transient dock. PRDA believes it may be possible to find a fuel vendor to put up the capital necessary Agenda ,action Form Paoe 2 for the right to fuel transient watercraft. If that happens before bid documents are released, another $251,000 can be further stricken from the estimate. ❖ The Transient Dock design, as a safety, consideration, should be modified to include more pedestrian railings to create an enclosed area. No funds should be expended at this time in [lie pursuit of a marina. There are no funds available for it; and the market for slips are unclear. At some point in the future, the city may opt to seek private investment along with an operator to construct slips and manage a marina. •:• if possible, the remaining scope should be bid as a single project. Economy of scale should produce the best prices. And lastly, PRDA strongly recommends to the commission that the balance of the unused portion of the former Executive Inn site be master planned by PRDA at this time. With the impending construction of the hotel and riverfront. the "scar" from the former development cannot be left unattended. A modest budget appropriation should be made to accomplish this task. PRDA recornmends the attached spreadsheet as the basis for a bidding strategy. It lists the project deletes, modifications, deferrals to the bidding process. Goal: ❑Strong Economy ❑ Quality Services❑ Vital Neighborhoods Restored Downtowns Fonds Available: Account Name: NA Account Number: NA Finance Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends that the vlayor and Board of Commissioners take this report under advisement. Attachments: Study Recommendations ; > -_>` 12»«Ilrf« c` \(at//(\222 et }}{\ /� \\\ }�\\\w�\}\ G il \ � \\ \_ \ now IIE : 1<� now IIE CONTENTS The Process .... .... .. .......... _ ............... ...... TheMoney.. ............................. ...... ............... Schultz Park Expansion —Phase 18 ........ Water Based Elements I......., ........... ............ Land Based Elements ................ ............. PRDA Recommended Strategy .............. __ _ LIST OF FIGURES USED Figure 1: Sources of Funds Available to Project _ ....... ........ .. ...... '... '..' . .__4 Figure 2: Phase I Analysis of Funds Committed. ___ __ ...... ....... ... ......... .. .. ....... .. ..... __ ..5 Figure 3: Project Expense by Year,,,...,.. ........................ ........ ........... _ ........ .................... ..................... __S Figure 4: Local Funds Allocated to Date ........... ___ ...... ... ...... .... ......... __ .... _6 Figure 5: Balance of Grant Funds Available ............ ........ .... .......... ......... .. ....... ............. .... _ .. ...... 6 Figure 6: Overview of Phase [B Shultz Park ........ ....... .......... ................................. ....... ..... 7 Figure 7 Overview of Water Features ....... ...... ......... ........... ... . .. ...... ........ __ ...... . ..... _ 7 Figure8 Land Features ............. .......................... I I ................... ... ...... ...................... ...... ..... ......... 8 Figure 9 Color Code Drawing ..... ....... ...... ........ — ....... _ ..I.... _ ....... ......... —.11--.. __ ... ..... . Figure 10: Monitoring for Settlement ............. ............................. ............... _ _ ......... .......... ...... ...... 11 Figure 11: stone Block Revetment, Clarksville .... ....... .......... ............ . ............ ... ...... ................. ... ...... ... ......11 Figure12: Shultz Park ... .... .... ___ ................. ....... ........... _ ........ ........... ... .. ............... . .... .... .......... ......... 12 Figure 11 Extending Greeway"Trall to R[verfront ........................................ ....... ... ..... . ......... 13 Figure 14-1 Recommended Bidding Plan .. . _ ..... .... . . ....... ..... ....... .... . ..... . ............ ... ................15 Figure iS: Project Scenario-,,...__ ... — ................. _ ........ _ ....... ................ ... .. ...... ..... ... 16 ABSTRACT Construction of Phase 1 (mass fill and piles) of the Riverfront Development Project at Schultz Park commenced in 2013 after nearly seven years of project planning, design, mitigation, and funding approvals. Unfortunately, time passage and other factors have resulted in construction costs that exceed the City's financial capacity to complete the project in accordance with present design. While such an occurrence is not unusual for capital projects of such complexity, it has nonetheless resulted in a project standstill that threatens the loss of Federal funding while at the same time necessitating additional local funding for the project to be completed as designed. In consultation with the Board of Commissioners, City Manager Jeff Pederson tasked the Paducah Riverfront Development Authority to review the project status and history for the purpose of developing a set of recommendations to complete the project. Specifically, the PRDA was asked to identify financial resources and design alternatives that would reflect the community's values and priorities for the project. Using that charge as the guiding principle, this Report identifies revisions to the Project Plan that are believed by the PRDA to constitute a sensible and workable solution. The Report is presented to the Board of City Commissioners for its consideration. The PRDA appreciates the opportunity to apply its focus and expertise to the effort to complete this important community asset, rti . � 1• l'� 4 :fS N �1�Sii 7 i; THE PROCESS The Paducah Riverfront Development Authority (PRDA) became involved MO the planning and implementation process after the completion of Shultz Park Phase IA (mass fill and piles) arty the boat launch at 6th and Burnett Streets of the riverfront development project. That part of the implementation became contentious after the bids were received and construction was initiated. Phase IA at Shultz parK cost some 51.8 million more than anticipated. It was important to understand why the effort went so wide of he mark. In PRDA's "autopsy without blame" analysis, a number of factors were thought to contribute to the problem. In no particular order, they were. 1. Unforeseen delays with the environmental permitting created a six year delay in the project and the amount of capital available from Federal sources did not increase, I:ur inflation took its toll. 2. The amount of fill needed for Phase IA was miscalculated. 3. The enormous weight of the rock, some 300,000 tons, sank the mass into the soft mud of the river bottom. While this was expected, it was not calculated into the fill )ceded. Going forward, the City has at its disposal about 55.1 million in Federal Funds to complete Phase IB at Shultz Park. The PRDA examined the cumulative pieces that make up the balance of the construction needed to complete the park. This involved numerous meeting with the City Engineer, interviews wit) a marina operator and boaters, ano a site visit to the riverfront park in Clarksville, TN. THE MONEY SOURCES OF FUNDS AVAILABLE _ _— Total Required Additional Actual Grant Usable Available Source Project City City Funds Contract Amount Amount From Grant Match Required Amount S 2,276,900 S -----__Sources 2,25,LEX S S 2,254,!00 S 334,356 S.. _,538.766 rl,D Shu:tz P3ra Phase ; -;,Il ary >- es 5 3,000.000 S 2.97D,6 -,ti S S 2,970,00W S 1335,329 . 1,205,013 FHWA $hoitz Phase . - 2nd=pn;ra'.: S 3,920,000 5 3.881,D - S S 3.381.-X0 pro: Sia <vFWS 3 G ;e 2nd •artract s 910,000 S 910,Wi S 320.060 S 1.330.:00 31 J '4WA T� Greerway "•a � Phase 'I S 500,000 5 5W,[� S 1s0CV^C 5 650 SCC =: 3.1 TOTALS $ 10,606,900 $ 10,515,100 $470,000 $ 10,985,1OD $2,169,395 $7,393,495 Glossary FHWa Federal kighway Admrtnstraton HUD Housing arrd Urban Development FWS BIG Fish and Wildlife Service Boating Infrastructure Grant TS Trarsportallon Ennancement (From Federal Naghwayt FIGURE 1: SOURCES OF FUNDS AVAILABLE TO PROJECT 41 PHASE I ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CONTRACTS AND EXPENSES ( 2006 thru October 2013) Shultz Pack Sub -Total Ohio River Boat Launch (PF0039) ingl nee nng :esi gn Contract .1R i Now Smith Group ARI Const rcrn on Con tra Ct -,. m Sm i th Con I Tact, ng Co, LLC ndi an a Bat Con s2 rva tI do VC A with 1,SF4VS Kentucky :Natural ,an as Dust Cooy Services P3duCan 31Le-ni Recording Conservation Easement %AcCacken County cerk Adverbsement-aoucan Sur P,operty \cqu.st-- Martha rinCy Boat Launch Sub•Totai FIGURE 2: PHASE I ANALYSIS OF FUNDS COMMITTED 5.9).[75 M 52.588,J6S 79 55, 742 �0 55,1734 S46 CU S91576 S7,000.00 S:97,C75x 514.251.So $..583,465'9 $ 6,092,224,02 $2,891,792.38 TOTALS $ 1,542,73729 $ 47,340,01 $ 7,39039.10 S 9,985,016.40 Distribution Of Funds FY 2007-14 510,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 56,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 2007 2008 2004 2010 �— _ "` �= . Expense By Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2 �� 2011 in Expense By Fiscal Year FIGURE 3. PROJECT EXPENSE BY YEAR 5 Other Fees & Shultz Park RlverFront Redevelopment (DT0015) AKA PHASE IA Design Expenses Construction TOTAL nginee•ngDes ig�-i.t:NowSmanGroupnRi S 919.740'.00 Con;tructi on Contract • VACConstruttion 3, E,cavatiq, arc i 4,305,32932 E•gi nee ring Consuls ng iervices • RF 3 Boat Launcn Rorerce 5 Hutcheson IN Om ICAI $ 165,525.39 -.olog,caI Consust,ng Services-Aedv,Pq;,olog,c a l Service s S 157,131.80 E!ectncal Enginee• mgC,7nsuiting Services • Marcum Engmee••ng, LLC S W,065.J0 attorney sees For V,,;sel •_awsua Greenbaum loll 3i Me-Donaid S 15,92004 Attorney fees -or btussel Lawsw; • Derton h <euler S 5,94670 a ^.omty Fees For'rooerty ow,,ershio - Whitlow, Robe•I.s. Houston 3, Straub S 1,542 52 Travel-xpenses•;ick Murohy i 2.262-35 Advertising -°ad"C Sun 5 3.97213 oerma =ees- Kv State Treasurer 5 2.500.00 _ooy Services • -a-cal, 31;,ent,n! 5 94S37 Welding nsoections - Tachn:[3i N41d,ng .n soecnan, n; 5 1,444 S0 S 1,551.55229 S 33,08941 S 4.M17332 Shultz Pack Sub -Total Ohio River Boat Launch (PF0039) ingl nee nng :esi gn Contract .1R i Now Smith Group ARI Const rcrn on Con tra Ct -,. m Sm i th Con I Tact, ng Co, LLC ndi an a Bat Con s2 rva tI do VC A with 1,SF4VS Kentucky :Natural ,an as Dust Cooy Services P3duCan 31Le-ni Recording Conservation Easement %AcCacken County cerk Adverbsement-aoucan Sur P,operty \cqu.st-- Martha rinCy Boat Launch Sub•Totai FIGURE 2: PHASE I ANALYSIS OF FUNDS COMMITTED 5.9).[75 M 52.588,J6S 79 55, 742 �0 55,1734 S46 CU S91576 S7,000.00 S:97,C75x 514.251.So $..583,465'9 $ 6,092,224,02 $2,891,792.38 TOTALS $ 1,542,73729 $ 47,340,01 $ 7,39039.10 S 9,985,016.40 Distribution Of Funds FY 2007-14 510,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 56,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 2007 2008 2004 2010 �— _ "` �= . Expense By Fiscal Year 2011 2012 2013 2 �� 2011 in Expense By Fiscal Year FIGURE 3. PROJECT EXPENSE BY YEAR 5 CITY FUNDS COMMITTED TO PROJECT Boat Launch $ 334,365.78 Shultz Park Phase I - Initial Contract (fill and Piles) $ 1,835,028.82 Engineering & Design $ 1,38S,405.49 £nviromental Costs $ 184,939.84 NliscCosts $ 47,340.01 TOTAL S 3,787,079.94 FIGURE 4: LOCAL FUNDS ALLOCATED TO DATE SOURCES OF FUNDS AVAILABLE GOING FORWARD FIGURE S. BALANCE OF GRANT FUNDS AVAILABLE 91 Total Usable Required Additional Actual Available Source Project Grant City City Funds Contract Status From GrantRequired Amount Match Amount .� s*v.-..� �nw. yn.uaaru.mac-cm Aa. .. u� Sources T�3�,3JO•�c�ana�_� ✓ib6Sh4jltz PaFk Pkase i Fill aiqd Piles , s�5+%'lw 52,9*�9E1 5 ��r, y�yO 5 �,i?6 699 T .i—ro'rrvc9 S-4S9sr@24 3PEPIF FHWA Shultz Phase I - 2nd Contract 5 3,881,000 5 - 5 3,88--,000 ? Not Bid Av-13ble K'eFWS BiG Schulz Phase I - 2nd Contract 5 910,000 S 320,000 5 1,2ACCC ? Not Bid Av;rlahle Sub Tota!5,111,000? '- ;;reenavay Trail Phase III` S SCO,OCO 5 150,000 5 650,CG0? Not Designed °ote^.; al TOTALS AVAILABLE $ 5,291,000 $ 470,000 $ 5,761,000 \Key Number FIGURE S. BALANCE OF GRANT FUNDS AVAILABLE 91 - . -�, J. _•��-�.� �� 7 c ...y�.,�tTtS I I - � �� nr` ✓:. FIGURE 8: LAND FEATURES Shultz Park el .t '�h.Myl ,r'v • p.wygy �P" /moi _ � - �srmars lSSifixll I LEGEND Floodwall Normal Pool Parking :._:... ngpror i 3q ,L ra Ammltou c^_Br,3;n Green Area Revetment Sidewalks Transient Dock - Rip Rap FIGURE 9: COLOR CODED DRAWING 8I SCHULTZ PARK EXPANSION—PHASE 1B The riverfront development project at Schultz Park is not a single mass project with single use programing. Rather, it should be seen as a collection of programmatic elements, each with their own function and merit. The park project consists of both water based elements (See Fig. 7) and land side elements (See Fig. 8). Phase IA was the placement of rock fill and piles for the transient dock. Phase IB is the completion of the park (See Fig. b) WATER BASED ELEMENTS The planned water side elements break down into two major sub -groups. They are: 1. Transient dock, and; 2. Marina with slips Values Promotion of Regional Tourism Recreational Opportunities for Residents Connecting People to the River Create Opportunities for Private Development While both elements in the plan are shown as described as water based features, they are somewhat mutually exclusive. That is, we can pian a dock fo, transient boaters, without the need of constructing a marina with rental slips. There is no fund -ng and no plan to construct a marina at this juncture. In our plan, the incompletely named "Transient Dock" breaks Down into two major and equal sub -functions. They are: 1. Public Use Trail/Riverwalk– The transient dock is designed to be 20 feet wide, which is wider than a dock that is needed only for transient boats. Given the distance the self- adjusting gangway structure and dock are away frorn the shore, there will be an adventurous element to the experience to draw visitors. The strategy is consistent with both bolstering Paducah's quality of life initiatives for residents and adding to Paducah status as a regional tourism base. The design detail provides for installation of a center rail and benches that will promote the dock as a way for people without boats to connect to the Ohio River. PRDA recommends altering the plan from a center rail, to an enclosed "corral" design, for safety reasons. a 2. Transient Boot Dock -- The transient dock will be attractive to a prospective market cf 2,800 boat owners that have boats in slips and are locatA reasonably close to Paducah. These boat owners are seeking entertainment and activities that are found in Paducah. There is also a smaller market of transient boaters that are on the longer north -south river migrations or other excursions. They too are seeking activities and services offered by transient docks. The minimum list of services needed to attract transient boaters is: 1) the ability to receive visiting boats for short stays; 2) shore power and potable water should be available in service pedestals; and 3) gas and diesel fuel should also be available. Offering these services to transient boaters will contribute to the array of downtown Paducah's cultural offerings, shops, and restaurants. The design documents include elements of construction that are above the minimum necessary to operate a successful Public Use Trail and Transient Boot Dock. They may be desirable, but are not essential for service these two purposes. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to either delete them from future bid documents, or bid them as alternates. They are: 1) Marina Services Building 2) Sanitary System, and 3) A Minimal Fuel System LAND BASED ELEMENTS The land side elements are all of those things that go on top of the rock fill that was constructed in Phase IA. It breaks down into five major sub -groups. They are 1. Land mass 2. Stone Revetment 3. Access, Circulation, and Parking 4. Passive Green Areas S. Sidewalks and Stairs Unlike the water based features, much of the land based elements are not mutually exclusive. That is, their functions are dependent upon each other. 1. Land Mass — The land mass, as designed, has a variety of planned elevations for the stone fill. The top elevations undulate across the top of the fill area between 330' and 338' NAVD 88. This creates a pleasing roll, but has other functionality as well. On top of that fill is another soil and rip rap blan'tet. This cap will raise those elevations approximately three feet and is needed for a finished appearance to support grass, trees and other plant life. The elevations as designed were not arbitrarily chosen. They correspond to a history of re:orded high flood elevations. If built to the design elevation, flood water is less likely to cover the land mass with any regularity. There are two primary reasons why this is important. First, the 10 1 damage caused by flood water erosion to the landscaping, concrete pathways and other amenities will be minimized. The other practical purpose is to protect the piles, gangway, transient dock and other elements downstream. At these elevations, it becomes much less likely a runaway barge or large pieces of debris could get over the peak of the land mass and create damage. It is estimated that the remaining rock necessary to build to design elevation is approximately 65,500 tons. The cost to place this rock will be a minimum of $12/ton or $780,000 (this is based on the original unit price bid of Phase )A). However, it may not be reasonable to expect that price again. PRDA requested the City Engineer to monitor the land mass to see if additional settlement is occurring. date, it looks stable. FIGURE 10: MONITORING FOR SETTLEMENT To Furthermore, there is a diminishing return to redesigning the land mass. While the change in quantities and labor for installation would be negligible, the current engineering represents a sunk cost. Modifying the elevations down, ostensibly to save the cost of additional rock, will generate the need for redesign costs. This would absolutely be needed to determine new horizontal and vertical positioning of the built amenities, which among other things. are the grading, stairs, sidewalks, and inlets for drainage. These new design costs would eal up the savings. Z. Stone Revetment — Along the southerly edge of land is proposed a stone block revetment. A!I of the park's newly created green areas are surrounded by limestone rip -rap. The rip -rap is placed to prevent erosion. The relentiess flow of the Ohio River would destroy the land mass if it were not placed. It is, however, not friendly as a walking or sitting surface. It is just too rough for that purpose. The placing of the stone blocks will allow people to FIGURE 11: STONE BLOCK REVETMENT,CLARKSVILLE 11 1 traverse their way down to the water's edge. This strategy preserves the overall value of letting people connect to the water's edge. The placed stone block has other functions. It will be a good gathering place for people during large events, like fireworks. The stone block also has an esthetic quality that is much more attractive than rip -rap. The blocks will be an attractive -looking feature as people circulate intc the park from the Jefferson Street floodwall opening. 3. Access, Circulation and Parking — We tend to explain and think of the park in terms of the expanded portions only. However, the existing Shultz Park gets an overhaul roughly from Jefferson Street floodwall opening all the way to the 2nd Street floodwall opening. A significant expense in addressing those areas outside of the land mass is the reconstruction of the access roadway and the parking areas, 4. Green Areas — The expanded part of the park, as well as the rehabilitated areas of Shultz Park, comprise about seven (7) acres of green area. In its design, the areas are largely passive space. That is, they are not designed for specific recreational activities. A generous amount of landscaping will complement the landform with a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs. The esthetic qualities of the landscape not only contribute to the experience, but certain parts of the plan are critical for erosion control. FIGURE 12: SHULTZ PARK s. Sidewalks and Stairways - A significant network Df sidewalks and stairways are present in the design (See Figs. 8, 9) to assist people moving about the park. Notably, the sidewalk that traverses the entire length of the proposed improvements will become a section of Paducah's Greenway Trail with a trailhead for parking and unloading. PRDA RECOMMENDED STRATEGY Phase IB should be finished. This can be accomplished be �_,jtting some unnecessary items from the scope of the project, reducing the scope, delaying others for a multi-year impiementatior, and shifting some expenses to the Trails project. $6.0 millfan has already been expended toward the mass fill and piles in Phase IA. Abandoning the project appears to be counterproductive to Paducah's tourism strategy and desire to expand quality recreational opportunities. Abancui-iing the project and not completing it could jeopardize the use of Federal funds expended in Phase IA. Not completing the construction could also void the city's construction perp ,it with the Corp of Engineers. Ana obviously, if not completed, the $.9 million Boating Infrastrcacture Grant (BIG) would be forfeited It is unlikely the $3.9 FHWA grant could be converted to sclr.e other unknown use. 67,500 tons of rock should be added to the existing fill and build to the designed elevation not completed in Phase IA. There would be a diminishing reiurn to accepting a lower elevation Design costs would be incurred to accomplish this and the f iquency of flood inundations would erode expensive surfaces and increase maintenance costs. A fueling system is elemental to the success of the trar54=nt dock. PRDA believes it may be possible to find a fuel vendor to put up the capital necessary for the right to fuel transient watercraft. If that happens before bid documents are released, another 5251,000 can be further stricken from the estimate. The Transient Dock design, as a safety consideration, should be modified to include more pedestrian railings to create an enclosed area. No funds should be expended at this time in the pursuit/ of a marina. There are no funds available for it, and the market for slips are unclear. At sora= point in the future, the city may opt to seek private investment along with an operator to constn ct >lips and manage a marina. If possible, the remaining scope should be bid as a singli, project. Economy of scale should produce the best prices. And lastly, PRDA strongly recommends to the commission 'hat the balance of the unused portion of the former Executive Inn site be master planned by PRDA at this time. With the impending construction of the hotel and riverfront, the "scar" from th= `ormer development cannot be left unattended. A modest budget appropriation should be macre to accomplish this task. PRDA recommends the following, Figure 13 lists the project deletes, modifications, deferrals to the bidding process. If the recommended strategy reduces ai d defers about 51.75 million worth of construction, the project gets within striking distance of 11,e Federal sources available 14 1 I •O O O O O 9i N N 151 O O SS j 0 a0 .n 61 �0 C rn lD G O �D N ` N 00 i N In N ✓V� ✓t In ✓1 V1 lA; I N .- N �f CO C 9 '� •L .. C _ y D C ;O vi ',Y E E Y' a c c c �+ �v •o a -� ea o � E: - A' v 'm s m on - o y L f r y N D C C O~ a .iyi C W m m m D i y m m E E F 0 E O 0 C C O O — :J L L d 1 y y y Y 1 y ^ J L D Q Q Q N O v o O. Y iY t y0 D D a L :J LJ L y T Y Y S' Y 2 m m in C E 1 Q W Q 1 � I 7 O V C O d lu N a c T � c y Q y u o E r a m x C O a+ D > m p +y- c c y Z ' s 06 v c H Y e T LL NT V CL) U C u m S ` O - _ :. .2 o y u Z v 3 N C = •-' �7 V OD YY i f 9 FIGURE 14: RECOMMENDED BIDDING PLAN 151 Note: These are called estimates for a reason. We cannot project future )id prices with any certitude for large quantities of a complex civil construction project. When you attempt to d2•.;uct estimated prices from estimated prices, the error rate can compound itself. There are too many variables in constant flux, which include availability/scarcity of resources, quarry schedules, fuel prices, number o` bidders, methods and means tc accomplish the task, number of construction days allowed, etc. Al4'"�i-.,.r Jz x -MM3 E7'. 1F'y1`{1Y�� K Rock 67500Tons Needed For Design Elevation S 1,147,500 Phase IB As Designed" $ 5,876,757 Projected Construcion Total (As Designed) $ 7,024,257 Value of Deletes, Modifications and Alternates $ (1,746,675) Estimated Phase IB Cost $ 5,277,582 Amount of Grant Dollars Available $ (S,111,000) Expected Delta Needed To Minimally Implement IB $ 166,582 Amount Defered From Proposed IB $ 315,000 Total Expected Local Dollars Needed to Complete $ 481,582 "Includes $587,000 Contingency Amount FiGURE 1S: PROJECT SCENARIO 16 1 Agenda Action Form Paducah City Commission Meeting Date: 8 Agril 2014 Short Title: KY Office of Highway Safety — Distracted Driving Enforcement ® Ordinance ❑ Emergency ❑ Municipal Order ❑ Resolution ❑ Motion Staff Work By: Don Hodgson, Sheryl Chino Presentation By: Steve Ervin, Don Hodgson Background Information: To coincide with a national campaign, the Kentucky Office of Highway Safety is offering mini grant funds for texting while driving enforcement from April 7 through April 20, 2014, This focused enforcement effort is to help reduce the collisions, injuries and fatalities that have been occurring due to driver's inattention and distraction. The Paducah Poiice Department has been awarded a Highway Safety Mini -grant in the amount of 530,000. This grant will reimburse overtime hours associated with saturation patrols, including fuel costs. There is not a match requirement for this grant application. The application was originally approved by municipal order 1760. The grant requires authorization by the Paducah City Commission to allow the Mayor to execute all grant related documents. Goal: ❑ Strong Economy ® Quality Services ❑ Vital Neighborhoods ❑ Restored Downtowns Funds Available: Project Title: 14 Hwy Sfty Enforce Project #: PO0079 Finance File #; 6.256 Acct #: 001-1602-521.12-01, 001-1602-521.31-03 Budget: $30,000 ($27,000 OT, $3,OOOFuel -- based on OT hrs wkd) Source of Funds: Federal Grant — no local match Staff Recommendation: Approval Department Head 1� City Clerk ❑ PA Agenda Action Form Paducah City Commission ,r phi* Meeting Date: �rm� y , �fl-1-- Short Title: Lakewood Villa — Infill Development Agreement — Section 2 Ordinance ®Emergency ❑ Municipal Order ❑ Resolution ❑ Staff Work By: Stephen Ervin Presentation By: Stephen Ervin Background Information: Phil Higdon is requesting infill development incentives for Section 1 1 of Lakewood Villa. Lakewood Villa Section 1 is a 64 -unit Condominium development located on Bleich Road. Section 1 is complete. Lakewood Villa Section 2 is in compliance with the following Infill Development findings: • That a Residential Development Agreement will increase residential development in the City of Paducah. • That the City of Paducah's economic well-being is related to and in many respects dependent upon, sustained growth of its population and tax revenue base through development of vacant properties. • That a Residential Development Agreement will encourage development of single-family owner -occupied housing on vacant, orphaned, or underutilized land located in the mature portions of Paducah where infrastructure and services are in place. • That a Residential Development Agreement will encourage infill development that may have been underutilized or blighted, helping to catalyze revitalization. J • That infill residential development will increase the revenue tax base necessary to meet various capital needs, especially in the area of public safety, maintain infrastructure and facilities, promote economic development, and will aid in the maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities. • That a Residential Development Agreement will help maintain growth through infill development, which encourages a healthy economy. • That a Residential Development Agreement will encourage infill residential development. which will increase the population base of the City of Paducah, therefore increasing the possibilities of becoming a designated urbanized area. AL!enda A,:n >n Form Pa�ze The 10-vear infill development agreement allows the City to reimburse the developer for the actual costs incurred in connection with the constructionofqualified "municipal facilities" (streets, gutters, and other public infrastructure) within the proposed development, in an amount not to exceed the total cost of facilities or the total sum of all ad valorem real property taxes collected by the City from the property, whichever is less, over a ten year period. Goal:® Strong Economy® Quality Services® Vital Neighborhoods❑ Restored Downtowns Funds Available: Account Name: Account Number; Finance Staff Recommendation: Approve agreement Other Recommendation: Motion: Attachments: Aareement N4ap City Clerk City Manager Department Head