Remarks by Jim Garing
41 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 2
I also remember, and since we have the applicant here, he could clarify this, but I also remember that the applicant thought he could reduce the actual irrigation water on site to less than three acre feet instead of the 7.2 that the city calculated.
No mayor, but if we don't have any public comment I can make a motion I
I move to approve with conditions from Water Issues Subcommittee WSA 26-031.
Thank you, Mayor. My view is that this is an enterprise fund that needs to be in balance. The longer we wait, the further out of balance we're going to be and the higher the rate increase will have to be in the future. So I would support a scenario two.
And if we want to do a study for alternatives, that's fine. I think that's a good idea. But I don't want to continue the deficit. Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor. Tim, I've been told that there are differences between the city's request for a proposal and the actual contract with FAN. Are you aware of that or know about that?
For instance, well, the issue whether it identifies 2C, but the mayor's covered that. But what about traffic control and traffic planning?
So you're saying that FAN's gonna do traffic?
Thank you, Mayor. I would just say, in my view, I'd just soon delay this until Public Works gets a chance to review Michael Marchant's concerns. Lois?
Thank You mayor I'm curious you spoke somewhat generally on the order of things to be done but it seems to me that all the items in the program summary need to be set in terms of when they get done and why they get done then and that hasn't been done yet as far as I can tell it's not in the current master plan document and
Well, does that become part of the master plan document?
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Well, the departures from the specifications.
The comments I'm going to make are not against the rodeo, but they are questions that a careful owner of a historic public asset should ask before committing lots of funds. The answers are really intended to ensure that the rodeo is a going concern in Prescott for another 113 years. Carter raised the issue of structural analysis. There is a very excellent reason to conduct a thorough structural analysis of the grandstands by a licensed structural engineer. The reason for that is if you look at the upper concourse, there have been added 2,286 bleacher seats. Those are not part of the original…
Well, in order to reduce the amount of coliform reaching Miller Creek, especially during monsoon events, we're going to need some kind of a treatment system and it's going to cover some property. Do we have any idea? Because we should have something reserved in the master plan document for that.
On page 14 of the master plan document, you identify eight deficiencies, and I'm thinking that those deficiencies should be answered in the final document. The proposed activities in the multipurpose center include 500 seats, 12 functions a year. That's a substantial increase in the scope of activities on the rodeo site over what has been occurred in the past. The surrounding neighborhoods have grown up around the rodeo as it exists, but they didn't grow up around a much expanded scope of activities, and there must be a way to mitigate Dust, noise, traffic jams. I mean, if you've seen…