Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Creekside Plaza topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates whether to fund $12M flood-and-safety fix or $24M full Creekside reimagining
Summary
City staff presented a 60% design and updated cost estimates for Creekside Plaza; administration said a $12 million option would address FEMA flood mitigation and essential repairs while a roughly $22.8–$24.3 million full build would add trail, streetscape and plaza reimagining. Council asked for more funding detail, oversight assurances and a clear funding strategy before indicating an appetite for the full project.
Director Schultz and staff returned to council with an updated 60% design and new cost estimates for the Creekside Plaza reimagining. Schultz said the administration and consultants (Fishbeck and Pod) are asking council to state whether it prefers a focused flood-and-safety approach or to pursue the full reimagined project. He summarized the options as a smaller set of maintenance and safety work (items labeled A–H) and a separate FEMA-driven flood-mitigation package for the garage and stream bank.
Schultz gave the high-level estimates: staff said the full project range is roughly $22.8 million to $24.3 million, and that flood mitigation and essential safety work could be isolated into a roughly $12 million package. He described discrete repair clusters (ADA ramps, guardrails, red-brick pavers, steps and curbs, pedestrian bridges, restroom and pump-room work and miscellaneous façade repairs). On the paver work he noted that reusing the existing bricks would still require extensive waterproofing and that a substantial share of bricks (staff estimated 15%–25%) could be lost or need replacement.
Council members pressed on three themes: funding, durability/maintenance and process oversight. Several members—Ms. McGregor and Ms. Skidmore among them—said the 12M approach risks repeated maintenance costs if the City simply reuses the aged brick pavers; Ms. McGregor noted that some bricks are disintegrated and asked why the city would reinstall the same material. Schultz and consultants said an alternative full-paver replacement option could cost materially more (staff mentioned a possible multi-million-dollar premium to replace all pavers with a different product), and that construction methods and material selection would be changed to extend longevity.
Funding and sequencing were frequent questions. Council sought clarity about grant eligibility, bond appetite, TIF and private contributions. Staff said they are pursuing state capital funds, federal earmarks, Franklin County TID money, and private contributions; they confirmed $250,000 had been secured from a local donor and that federal/state grant applications are ongoing. Staff stressed that some grants target new projects more readily than maintenance, and that review panels' priorities can vary.
Council members repeatedly asked for a clear trade‑off analysis showing effects on the broader capital improvement plan if council commits to the full $24M option. Mr. Renner and others said they want fiscal clarity—bond package scenarios, phasing options, and scheduling—before signaling support. Schultz said further design direction from council would let Fishbeck & Pod proceed to higher levels of design (90%/construction documents) and allow the administration to develop bond and phasing scenarios.
Why this matters: Creekside Plaza is a high-profile downtown asset. The choice between a $12M safety-focused package and a $22.8–$24.3M fully reimagined plaza has long-term implications for maintenance costs, downtown businesses, available grant matches and the city's capital priorities.
Next steps: staff asked for a council signal (not a binding vote) about appetite for the full project so consultants can proceed; council members asked for more detailed funding mechanics and to convene CIP advisory review and public updates going forward.
