Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/09/27 Item 10ITY COUNCIL STATEMENT ~~~ CITY OF CHULAVISTA 9/27/2011, Item ~~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REJECTING THE SINGLE BID RECEIVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE "THIRD AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FROM `F' STREET TO `H' STREET (CIP PROJECT NO. STL-362)" DUE TO UNCERTAIN REDEVELOPMENT FUNDING RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (1) AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO APPLY FOR FY13 AND FY14 CDBG CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS TOTALING $750,000 FOR THE "THIRD AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FROM `F' STREET TO `H' STREET" (CIP PROJECT NO. STL-362), (2) APPROPRIATING $400,000 TO THE STL- 362 PROJECT FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND, (3) AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO REVISE THE STL-362 PHASE 1 PROJECT LIMITS AND RE-BID PHASE 1 BASED UPON AVAILABLE FUNDS AND FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS, AND (4) AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO PREPARE ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE BIDS TO THE REVISED STL- 362 PHASE 1 PROJECT LIMITS SHOULD BIDS BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OR SHOULD PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE SUBMITTED ASST. CITY MANAGER / DEVELO ENT SERVICES DIRECTOR 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~X NO B~'~ DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ,, ,^/ ASSISTANT CIT MANAGER( ~~ SUMMARY On August 10, 2011, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Third Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project, from `F' Street to `H' Street (STL-362)". A single bid was received from 3-D Enterprises, Inc. of San Diego in the amount of $4,997,000; the bid was determined to be responsive to the City's request for bid proposals. Subsequent to receiving bids, staff was informed that the availability of $2.5 million in Redevelopment Funds previously appropriated to the project by City Council Resolution No. 2011-045 on March 8, 2011 is now uncertain as a result of legal challenges to, and a stay of, State Assembly Bills AB-26 and AB-27 10-1 9/27/2011, Item Page 2 of 6 regarding redevelopment agencies now pending in the State Supreme Court._ The State Supreme Court is expected to issue a final ruling by January 15, 2012. Therefore, the proposed action would reject the single bid proposal received without prejudice from 3-D Enterprises, Inc. due to finding constraints not existent at the time the bid was received. The proposed action would further (1) direct staff to apply for FY13 and FY14 Community Development Bloclc Grant (CDBG) capital improvement grants totaling $750,000, (2) appropriate $400,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Traffic Signal Fund, (3) authorize staff to revise the Phase 1 project limits and re-bid Phase 1 based upon available fiords and firtuure appropriations, and (4) authorize City staff to prepare additive alternative bids to the revised Phase 1 project limits should bids be significantly lower than the Engineer's estimate or should previously appropriated redevelopment funds become available during construction (in the event the State Supreme Court's Wiling is favorable to the City). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project was covered in previously adopted Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), Final Environmental Impact Report-06-O1 ("FEIR-06-O1 "). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on April 26, 2007 the City, acting as Lead Agency, certified FEIR-06-O1 for the UCSP. On January 25, 2011 the .City, acting as Lead Agency, having found and determined that certain amendments to the UCSP, including the referenced Third Avenue Streetscape improvements, would not result in significant unmitigated impacts and that only minor technical changes or additions to FEIR-06-O1 were necessary and that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent environmental document had occurred, adopted an Addendum to FEIR-06-O1. Therefore, no further CEQA actions or determinations are necessary. Additionally, because the project proposes to utilize federal Community Development Bloclc Grant (CDBG) monies, the Development Services Director has also- reviewed the proposal for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Environmental Guidelines. The Development Services Director has determined that the project proposal qualifies for a previously certified Categorical Exclusion (subject to 58.5) pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 24, Section 58.35(a). Thus, no further NEPA environmental review or determination is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the resolutions. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION Project Baclc~r~ound/Description Third Avenue, between "H" Street and "E" Street is designated in the City's Urban Core Specific Plan as a Smart Growth area. Smart Growth is characterized as providing a variety of 10-2 9/27/2011, Item ~~ Page 3 of 6 transportation choices, pedestrian-friendly access, and strong links between land uses and regional transportation. Smart Growth fosters distinctive and attractive communities with strong and unique identities, drawing people to them, thereby enhancing the area's overall vitality and economic stability. With those guiding principles in mind, City staff prepared plans to implement the first phase of the Urban Core Specific Plan's (UCSP's) Third Avenue Streetscape improvements between H Street and F Street. Project features include: ^ Shorter Pedestrian Crossings and Improved Pedestrian and Multi-modal Accessibility ^ A Special Event Plaza Adjacent to Memorial Parlc ^ More Open Sidewalks for "People Gathering," Strolling, and Outdoor Dining o New Covered Transit Shelters with Seating and Improved ADA Accessibility ^ Community Gateway Features and Directional Signs ^ Decorative Concrete & Pavers ^ Improved and Energy Efficient Pedestrian Lighting ^ New Drought-Tolerant Landscaping ^ Additional Street Trees & Tree Up-Lighting ^ Removal of 1980s-era Planters and Planter Boxes ^ -New Seating, Benches, and Street Furniture Public Works Contract Bid On August 10, 2011, the Director of Public Works received a single bid proposal from 3-D Enterprises, Inc. of San Diego for the "Third Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project, from "H" Street to "F" Street in the amount of $4,997,000, which was approximately 3% above the Engineer's estimate. The contractor submitted all required items and the bid was determined by staff to be responsive. Portion of Redevelopment Funding Uncertain Subsequent to opening the bid from 3-D Enterprises, Inc., staff was informed that $2.5 million in redevelopment funds appropriated to the Third Avenue Streetscape project by Council Resolution No. 2011-045 on March 8, 2011 is not currently available for constriction due to legal challenges to, and stays of, State Assembly Bills AB-26 and AB-27 regarding redevelopment agencies now pending in the State Supreme Court. Redevelopment fiends appropriated to the project prior to January 1, 2011 are unaffected by the State Supreme Court's stay. The State Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on AB-26 and AB-27 by January 15, 2012. When issued, the State Supreme Court's ruling could result in the availability of between $1.2 and $2.5 million in previously appropriated redevelopment funds, or nothing, to the project. Amore detailed discussion follows in the next section. AB-26 and AB-27 and Third Avenue Streetscape Master Plan (TASMP) The Agency's portion of funding for the Third Avenue Streetscape project was memorialized via an Agency and Council resolution and agreement in March 8, 2011 ("March Agreement). However, after Council and the Agency approved the March Agreement, the Governor signed AB X1 26 and AB Xl 27. The bills purported to dissolve redevelopment agencies (AB-26) and, if cities and/or counties wanted to continue redevelopment activities, to permit cities and/or 10-3 9/27/2011, Item ~'i Page 4 of 6 counties to opt into the voluntary alternative redevelopment program ("VARP") by malting a remittance payment to the state in Fiscal Year 2011-12 and each subsequent year (AB-27). AB-26 generally prohibited redevelopment agencies from undertaking new activities or obligations and only permitted the use of agency fitnds to pay existing debts or obligations during the winding down of redevelopment agency activities. AB-26's goal was to wind down redevelopment agency activities until the agency was dissolved and to maximize fiends available to the state. A review of AB-26, shows that the March Agreement was potentially impacted by AB-26. Specifically, section 34167.5 of AB-26 states that the state Auditor-Controller shall review the activities of redevelopment agencies involving transfer of assets that occurred after January 1, 2011 between the agency and the city and/or county that created the agency and if the transfer was not contractually committed to a third party, then the transfer, to the extent permitted by state and federal law, would be deemed unauthorized. The Auditor-Controller would then be tasked those recouping those unauthorized transfers. Accordingly, AB-26 potentially impacted the March Agreement. AB-27 permitted cities and/or counties to opt into the VARP via a locally adopted ordinance. In so doing, a city and/or county could continue to engage in redevelopment activities. In August of 2011, the City of Chula Vista adopted an ordinance to opt into VARP. As a result, once the ordinance became effective, the Agency could proceed with the March Agreement and fund the Third Avenue Streetscape project improvements notwithstanding section 34167.5. The legality/constitutionality of AB-26 and AB-27 was called into question in litigation before the Supreme Court in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (`CRA Lawsuit"). On August 11, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued a stay ("Stay") in the CRA Lawsuit pending the Court's decision on the merits. The Stay was granted on all provisions of AB-27, and on all provisions of AB-26, except that the request to stay Division 24, Part 1.8 of the Health and Safety Code (Health & Safety Code, §§ 34161-34167) was denied. On August 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court modified the Stay and clarified that the exception to the Stay of AB-26 includes all of Part 1.8, including section 34169. The effect of the Stay was to preserve the status quo by authorizing redevelopment agencies to perform tinder "existing obligations" as defined by the statute while preventing agencies from undertaking new debt or malting new commitments, among other things. Specifically, section 34167.5 was not stayed by the Court and remained an effective law. In addition, the Stay put on hold, the City's ability to participate in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program. Accordingly, given that section 34167.5 of AB-26 remained an effective law and that participation in the VARP has been placed on hold given the Stay, the viability of the use of Agency fiends for the Third Avenue Streetscape project improvements is uncertain. The Supreme Court should provide further guidance on these issues by January 15, 2012, as indicated in their Stay. Bid Rejection Because the availability of redevelopment fiends appropriated to the project by City Council on March 8, 2011 is uncertain, staff recommends that the bid received from 3-D Enterprises, Lzc. be rejected without prejudice and that the project re-bid with revised limits. 10-4 9/27/2011, Item ~ Page 5 of 6 Proposed Future Capital Improvement Funding Staff has identified the following ways in which a portion of the funding gap created by uncertainties related to redevelopment funding may be closed: ^ Approximately $750,000 of CDBG capital improvement funding (i.e., CDBG finding over and above the CDBG community services cap) would be available for projects over the next two fiscal years. Normally, funding allocation comes before the City Council in March for the next fiscal year. For the FY13 CDBG funds, City Council will hold a public hearing in October 2011 to reexamine priorities for the upcoming application cycle. Additionally, a portion of the FY14 CDBG funds can be allocated in advance of the normal application cycle; this is called a "pre-award" cost. City Council can identify this project as a priority and direct staff to prepare applications for FY13 and FY14 Community Development Bloclc Grant (CDBG) capital improvement funding for $375,000 in each fiscal year. City staff can identify the funding for the public hearing in October 2011. If approved for future appropriation to the project, it would be necessary to advance construction funding in the approved amounts from the available balance of the General Fund until such time as the CDBG funds are available to reimburse the General Fund. ^ Appropriate $400,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Traffic Signal Fee fund. This appropriation would be for replacement of the traffic signal at "G" Street and for modifications to the traffic signals at "F" Street and "E" Street. Completion of the replacement and modifications would fully implement the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) traffic mitigation requirements within the Third Avenue corridor between "H" Street and "E" Street. Proposed construction funding, including existing and proposed appropriations, is summarized as follows: Construction Funding (Actual & Proposed) Funding Source TransNet Smart Growth Grant RDA Bayfront/Town Centre [ (Unaffected by AB-26 & Ab-27) Community Development Block Grant Traffic Signal Fund General Fund Advance in FY 12 (Repaid in FY l3 & FY 14 w/CDBG) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Prior to Actual Proposed Proposed Proposed FY11-12* FYlI-12* FYll-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 Totals $1,593,903 $1,593,903 $1,012,611 $ 208,205 $ 375,222 $1,012,611 $ 375,000 $ 375,000 $1,333,427 $ 400,000 $ 750,000 -$ 375,000 -$ 375,000 $ 400,000 $0 $2,814,719 $ 375,222 $1,150,000 $0 $0 $4,339,941 Additional RDA Funds available for ~ I,ZOO,QO/1 ' $5,539,941 construction if AB-26 & AB -27 upheld Additional LtDA Funds available far ~ ~~ j00;000 constrtection if AB-26 & AB -27 overturned '" Funds currently available for construction $6,839,941 10-5 9/27/2011, Item /C~ Page6of6 Revision of Project Scope and Additive Alternative Bids Because the City was awarded a TransNet Smart Growth Grant through SANDAG to link the major transit hub at "H" Street to the village, it is necessary for the base bid (i.e., revised Phase 1 limits based upon actual and committed future allocations) to include work from "H" Street to a point north of "G" Street. Water relocation work between "F" Street and "H' Street, which would be shared approximately 50/50 with Sweetwater Authority, will be included with the Phase 1 work to facilitate work north of Parlc Way should funding permit or become available. If the resolution is approved, staff would also develop two or three additive alternative bids to complete streetscape segments from the north end of the revised Phase 1 work based upon logical termination points. Staff would structure the bid proposal in such a way as to assure that the base bid and additive alternative bids are balanced to reflect the tnie cost of the work. Staff will also hold a mandatory pre-bid conference with potential contractors informing them that any suspected unbalanced base bids or additive alternative base bids will be referred immediately to the City Attorney's Office. By including additive alternative bids to the request for bid proposals, the City would be able to increase the limits of work based upon funds available at the time of contract award, as well as additional work that could be authorized after contract award should additional redevelopment funds become available as a result of the State Supreme Court's ruling. At the time of award, which staff anticipates to occur in early December 2011, staff will propose a resohtion allowing the City Manager to amend the construction contract to include this additive alternative work should redevelopment funding appropriated in March 2011 become available to the project. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properties, which are the subject of this action. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The unappropriated balance of the Traffic Single Fund has sufficient funds to appropriate $400,000 to the project. The advance of $750,000 in General Funds at the time of construction contract award would result in an immediate impact of $750,000 to the General Fund Balance, but would be repaid in FY13 and FY14 with CDBG fiords, resulting in a zero net impact to the General Fund. Should a favorable ruling be issued by the State Supreme Court regarding AB-26 and/or AB-27 on or about January 15, 2012, previously appropriated redevelopment fiends would become available to complete additional streetscape improvements. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Should FY13 and FY14 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) capital improvement funding of $375,000 per fiscal year be approved during public hearing in October 2011, these funds would be used to repay the $750,000 General Fund advance to the project in the current fiscal year. However, those CDBG funds would not be available in FY 13 and F14 to fiord other eligible projects, such as ADA Ramps. ATTACHMENTS: None. Prepared by: Kirk Ammer°man, Principal Civil Engineer, 9-20-20I 1, 1355 I:\Engineer\AGENDA\CAS201 l\09-27-1 1\STL-362 REJECT & REBID - Final.doc 10-6 RESOLUTION NO. 2011- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REJECTING THE SINGLE BID RECEIVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE "THIRD AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FROM `F' STREET TO `H' STREET (CIP PROJECT NO. STL-362)" DUE TO UNCERTAIN REDEVELOPMENT FUNDING WHEREAS, Third Avenue, between "H" Street and "E" Street, is designated in the City's Urban Core Specific Plan as a Smart Growth area, which is characterized as providing a variety of transportation choices, pedestrian-friendly access, and strong links between land uses and regional transportation; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared plans to implement the first phase of the Urban Core Specific Plan's (UCSP's) Third Avenue Streetscape improvements between "H" Street and "F" Street; and WHEREAS, On August 10, 2011, the Director of Public Works received a single bid proposal from 3-D Enterprises, Inc. of San Diego for the "Third Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project, from "H" Street to "F" Street (Phase 1) in the amount of $4,997,000, which was approximately 3% above the Engineer's estimate; and WHEREAS, subsequent to opening the bid from 3-D Enterprises, Inc., staff was informed that $2.5 million in Redevelopment Funds appropriated to the Third Avenue Streetscape project by Council Resolution No. 2011-045 on March 8, 2011 is not currently available, for reasons more fully explained in the related Staff report for this Resolution (and which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution) for construction due to legal challenges to, and stays of, State Assembly Bills AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 regarding redevelopment agencies now pending in the State Supreme Court; and WHEREAS, the availability of Redevelopment funds appropriated to the project by City Council on March 8, 2011 is uncertain and sufficient funds are not available at this tune to award the construction contract to 3-D Enterprises, Inc.; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the bid received from 3-D Enterprises, Inc. be rejected without prejudice due to uncertain redevelopment funding and insufficient project funds; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby reject the bid proposal received from 3-D Enterprises, Inc. without prejudice due to uncertain redevelopment funding. 10-7 Resolution Page 2 Presented by Gary Halbert, AICP, PE Asst. City Manager/ Development Svs. Director Richard A. Hopkins Director of Public Works Approved as to form by Glen R. Googins City Attorney 10-8 RESOLUTION NO.2011- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (1) AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO APPLY FOR FY13 AND FY14 CDBG CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS TOTALING $750,000 FOR THE "THIRD AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FROM `F' STREET TO `H' STREET" (CIP PROJECT NO. STL-362), (2) APPROPRIATING $400,000 TO THE STL-362 PROJECT FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL FUND, (3) AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO REVISE THE STL-362 PHASE 1 PROJECT LIMITS AND RE-BID PHASE 1 BASED UPON AVAILABLE FUNDS AND FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS, AND (4) AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO PREPARE ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE BIDS TO THE REVISED STL-362 PHASE 1 PROJECT LIMITS SHOULD BIDS BE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OR SHOULD PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE WHEREAS, Third Avenue, between "H" Street and "E" Street, is designated in the City's Urban Core Specific Plan as a Smart Growth area, which is characterized as providing a variety of transportation choices, pedestrian-friendly access, and strong links between land uses and regional transportation; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared plans to implement the first phase of the Urban Core Specific Plan's (UCSP's) Third Avenue Streetscape improvements between "H" Street and "F" Street; and WHEREAS, $2.5 million in Redevelopment Funds appropriated to the Third Avenue Streetscape project by Council Resolution No. 2011-045 on March 8, 2011 is not currently available, as more fully explained in the related Staff report for this Resolution (and which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution), for construction due to legal challenges to, and stays of, State Assembly Bills ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 regarding redevelopment agencies now pending in the State Supreme Court; and WHEREAS, Redevelopment funds appropriated to the project prior to January 1, 2011 are unaffected by the State Supreme Court's stay; and WHEREAS, the State Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on AB X1 26 and AB X1 27 by January 15, 2012; and 10-9 Resolution Page 2 WHEREAS, the State Supreme Court's ruling could result in the availability of between $1.2 and $2.5 million in previously appropriated redevelopment funds, or nothing, to the project; and WHEREAS, the City was awarded a TransNet Smart Growth Grant through SANDAG to link the major transit hub at "H" Street to the Third Avenue Village, it is necessary for the base bid (i.e., revised Phase 1 limits) to include work from "H" Street to a point north of "G" Street using all available construction funds; and WHEREAS, Staff has identified ways in which a portion of the funding gap created by uncertainties related to redevelopment agencies and redevelopment funding may be closed. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Chula Vista as follows: Section 1. City Staff is authorized to apply for FY13 and FY14 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) capital improvement grants totaling $750,000 for the Third Avenue Streetscape (STL-362) project. Section 2. The City hereby appropriates $400,000 to the STL-362 project from the unappropriated balance of the Traffic Signal Fund. Section 3. City Staff is authorized to revise the Phase 1 project limits and re-bid Phase 1 based upon available funds and future appropriations. Section 4. City Staff is authorized to prepare additive alternative bids to the revised Phase 1 project limits should bids be significantly lower than the engineer's estimate or should previously appropriated redevelopment funds become available during the construction phase (in the event the State Supreme Court's ruling is favorable to the City). Section 5. This Resolution shall in no way be construed as requiring the City (or Agency) to abide by the 2011 Redevelopment Legislation in the event either, or both, bill are found unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid in whole or in part, nor shall this Resolution effect or give rise to any waiver of rights or remedies the City (and/or the Agency) may have, whether in law or in equity, to challenge 2011 Redevelopment Legislation. This Resolution shall not be construed as the City's (and/or Agency's} willing acceptance of, or concurrence with, the 2011 Redevelopment Legislation, either AB X1 26 or AB X1 27; nor does this Resolution evidence any assertion or belief whatsoever on the part of the City (and/or Agency) the 2011 Redevelopment Legislation is/are constitutional or lawful. 10-10 Resolution Page 3 Presented by Gary Halbert, AICP, PE Asst. City Manager/ Development Svs. Director Richard A. Hopkins Director of Public Works Approved as to form by Glen R. Googins City Attorney 10-1 1 THIRllAVENUEVILLAGEASSOCIATION 353 Third Avenuc Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 422-1982 Phone (619) 422-]452 Facsimile www.thirdavenuevilla *e 2011 Board of Directors Adam Sparks -President Lisa Moctezuma -Vice President Greg Smyth -Secretary Michael Green -Treasurer Eric Crockett Carl Harry Betsy Keller Sherry Mestler Tom Money Christine Moore James Pieri, Jr. Snooky Rico Ian Trotter EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Greg Mattson EVENT MANAGER Jovita Juarez OFFICE MANAGER Heather Marshall September 27, 2011 Madame Mayor and City Council Members City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Third Avenue Streetscape Master Plan (TASMP) Ladies and Gentlemen: Since the approval of the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) and associated environmental documents back in 2007, the Third Avenue Village Association Board and its committees have been actively supporting, tracking and assisting City staff in the revitalization of Third Avenue. These efforts have encompassed traffic and parking studies, landscape designs, sign programs, ordinances, reports, and peer reviews. In addition, for the past four months, our staff has worked with the City departments in creating a Maintenance Agreement between TAVA and the City for the long-term upkeep of Third Avenue Village. In one sense TAVA is disappointed to be here tonight to once again asking for support of a staff funding request to keep the TASMP moving forward. TAVA staff supports the City's recommendations to provide replacement TASMP funding from the CDBG and Traffic Signal unallocated funds. These funds are critical for keeping the project concepts intact!! As it stands now, the City has to proceed with a revised bid and additive alternate to make the fiznding work. We are proud to have developed a strong partnership with the City's design team in order to incorporate our vision for Third Avenue into the City's plan. We have even incorporated a vision for the future years in the design to accommodate new technologies, lighting, electrical and irrigation needs. The Village community has been eager to have the revitalization start in early 2011 to have a vibrant, exciting and new Village area with outdoor experiences, landscaping, tree lighting and many other wonderful attributes. But now the timing and funding is in jeopardy. This is a vital community project and it is going to be completed piecemeal or block by block. The longer we wait, the more issues arise: funding allocations, logistics, higher costs and, most IMPORTANTLY, the community sentiment that we cannot get anything done in a fiscally sound and timely manner. .~-.~~