Last October the city held a visioning workshop for citizens to share their ideas for the Hollice Williams park. This is the park that can be approximated as the space under I-110 from Jordan Street south. After that workshop, architects and designers worked to create a conceptual plan for the park space, and now you will have an opportunity to share your thoughts on the plan.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 24th, at 5:30 pm at City Hall. Please come and see the plan and let us know what you think. I have had a sneak preview of the framework, and it is exciting. There are many opportunities for citizens and citizen groups to get involved in shaping this project so that we can make this a signature park for our community.
I hope to see you there and hear your ideas for this unique property.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Parks calendar photo contest
The Pensacola Parks and Recreation Department is again soliciting photos for the annual parks calendar. The calendar for 2010, the first one, included many wonderful images of our parks. For 2011 there is a bit more notice, so you will have a chance to photograph your favorite park during multiple seasons. With over 90 parks in the city, there are many opportunities for finding a great shot. Submissions will be accepted until September 30, 2010. More information is available on the parks website.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
UWF Maritime Museum offer
We are getting closer to getting a final site plan for the maritime park. (See my recent post for a discussion of the site plan process.) Once a final site plan is approved, the developer can begin putting in roads, drainage, and other improvements, making visible progress on the project. Last week UWF presented the CMPA and the city a proposal for the museum location, along with several other requests that they believe are essential for their participation in the project.
We have a new impetus to get this site plan approved—a deadline for the New Market Tax Credits. These credits were offered to us last summer and would provide millions of dollars in “free money” to the project. We have received word that if we want these tax credits, we must commit by February 8th. So there is some urgency to reach a final agreement regarding the museum and UWF's other expectations for the project.
At our recent CMPA meeting we (I'm the council's representative on the CMPA board) approved the new site plan and UWF’s requests in concept, though many details were left pending. Now it is time for the city council to weigh in on the plan approved by the CMPA as well as on the items that are under City purview. The council had a brief meeting to review the proposal last week. A number of questions were raised. Many concerned the requirements for the tax credits. Others related to specific details in UWF’s request. While it is clear that a variety of concerns still linger, we agreed in concept with the proposal presented by the university.
A special meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday, February 2, to clarify City Council's position on those details. And I would like your feedback. It is vital that the pub
lic weigh in on details of this project.
The proposed site plan is to the right. A slightly different higher resolution is available. In addition to this plan, a sequence of previous site concepts were presented by UWF along with their comments. These include the Gindroz sketch and the design criteria package plan.
The following is a brief summary of the requests with some extra context:
We were assured by UWF that they are still a willing partner in this project. If they can not receive the tax credits, they will revert to the original plan to raise the funds for the project. The city has committed to moving forward with the credits and expect at least $7M in credits at minimum which will enhance this project.
I am hopeful that we will resolve all of these concerns to everyone’s satisfaction, and we can continue on our path to building a centerpiece attraction for our community.
We have a new impetus to get this site plan approved—a deadline for the New Market Tax Credits. These credits were offered to us last summer and would provide millions of dollars in “free money” to the project. We have received word that if we want these tax credits, we must commit by February 8th. So there is some urgency to reach a final agreement regarding the museum and UWF's other expectations for the project.
At our recent CMPA meeting we (I'm the council's representative on the CMPA board) approved the new site plan and UWF’s requests in concept, though many details were left pending. Now it is time for the city council to weigh in on the plan approved by the CMPA as well as on the items that are under City purview. The council had a brief meeting to review the proposal last week. A number of questions were raised. Many concerned the requirements for the tax credits. Others related to specific details in UWF’s request. While it is clear that a variety of concerns still linger, we agreed in concept with the proposal presented by the university.
A special meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday, February 2, to clarify City Council's position on those details. And I would like your feedback. It is vital that the pub
lic weigh in on details of this project.The proposed site plan is to the right. A slightly different higher resolution is available. In addition to this plan, a sequence of previous site concepts were presented by UWF along with their comments. These include the Gindroz sketch and the design criteria package plan.
The following is a brief summary of the requests with some extra context:
- The commercial building to the north of the museum would be limited to 48 ft height and would be set back 75 ft from the waterfront.
- The developer will incur costs for numerous changes, including a retaining wall and accelerated dredging. (The city has provided $40M in bond proceeds to the CMPA for the construction of the park. Any additional costs for the developer would have to be paid out of those funds, necessitating reductions in other portions of the project.)
- A portion in the northwest corner of the site would be leased to UWF for a marine services center, including a boat lift and boat storage. (This would require a rezoning by the city to allow such uses.)
- UWF "is willing to entertain" an off-site location for the majority of their boat storage. (It is unclear at this time if they expect the city to provide that site.)
- The tax credits together with any other funds made available immediately to UWF by the CMPA must yield a minimum of $13.4M to UWF. (Current estimates predict a best case of $13.1M from the tax credits, about $7M worst case. The CMPA would need to take anywhere from $300,000 to $6M from another park element to meet this request.)
- The university must own the museum. (Lawyers are trying to determine if this request can be met under the tax credit regulations.)
- whether boat storage on site is consistent with the park aesthetics
- which park amenities would be reduced to fund the extra costs, and the impact of those reductions on those aspects of the park
- the encroachment of the museum and research center into the southern park which had been designated for public open space
- the economic vitality of the proposed site.
We were assured by UWF that they are still a willing partner in this project. If they can not receive the tax credits, they will revert to the original plan to raise the funds for the project. The city has committed to moving forward with the credits and expect at least $7M in credits at minimum which will enhance this project.
I am hopeful that we will resolve all of these concerns to everyone’s satisfaction, and we can continue on our path to building a centerpiece attraction for our community.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Green lights
Last summer I wrote about a new initiative by Gulf Power to install more environmentally friendly lighting. The lights recently were installed, and they are definitely worth a look.
The new lights are in the park-like space between the main Gulf Power building and 9th Av, between Salamanca and Romana. They utilize new LED street light technology and are part of a nationwide test program to assess the performance of LED lights as street lights. LEDs are more efficient than regular lighting, and we currently use them in our stop lights and pedestrian crossing lights. However, a few technical issues remain in determining if they are satisfactory for street lights; hence the test.
If this test is successful, switching our street lighting to LED would provide significant energy and, therefore, cost savings. The city spends $730,000 on electricity for street lights annually. These LED lights are 60W and replaced 100W fixtures. Switching all of the lights in this manner would lead to a 40% decrease in cost, a savings of nearly $300,000 each year. (Of course, there could be differences from this, depending on the wattage differences, and there would be costs of buying new equipment.) In addition to the energy savings, LED lights are expected to be replaced at much lower frequency, saving labor costs.
Check out the lights, day and night. Interestingly, they are opposite a few different kinds of lights for your comparison. One thing you might notice is that they are in a clear globe, but at night, the vast majority of the light shines down. This is an additional energy-saving feature--why would we need to light the sky? These lights are "semi-cutoff", allowing some light to go upwards, but directing most of it to where it is needed. (While you are down there, check out the lighting on Bayfront Parkway. On the southeast side, the lights that were replaced after Ivan are full-cutoff, meaning their light is only directed toward the ground, while those on the northwest side are more traditional street lights.)
The technology for energy efficient lighting is improving every year, and I am hopeful that this pilot program will prove a success, and we can move toward more efficient, environmentally-friendly lighting for our community.
The new lights are in the park-like space between the main Gulf Power building and 9th Av, between Salamanca and Romana. They utilize new LED street light technology and are part of a nationwide test program to assess the performance of LED lights as street lights. LEDs are more efficient than regular lighting, and we currently use them in our stop lights and pedestrian crossing lights. However, a few technical issues remain in determining if they are satisfactory for street lights; hence the test.
If this test is successful, switching our street lighting to LED would provide significant energy and, therefore, cost savings. The city spends $730,000 on electricity for street lights annually. These LED lights are 60W and replaced 100W fixtures. Switching all of the lights in this manner would lead to a 40% decrease in cost, a savings of nearly $300,000 each year. (Of course, there could be differences from this, depending on the wattage differences, and there would be costs of buying new equipment.) In addition to the energy savings, LED lights are expected to be replaced at much lower frequency, saving labor costs.
Check out the lights, day and night. Interestingly, they are opposite a few different kinds of lights for your comparison. One thing you might notice is that they are in a clear globe, but at night, the vast majority of the light shines down. This is an additional energy-saving feature--why would we need to light the sky? These lights are "semi-cutoff", allowing some light to go upwards, but directing most of it to where it is needed. (While you are down there, check out the lighting on Bayfront Parkway. On the southeast side, the lights that were replaced after Ivan are full-cutoff, meaning their light is only directed toward the ground, while those on the northwest side are more traditional street lights.)
The technology for energy efficient lighting is improving every year, and I am hopeful that this pilot program will prove a success, and we can move toward more efficient, environmentally-friendly lighting for our community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
