Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RDC seeks $350,000 to build nine downtown vendor sheds; plumbing uncertainty could change site plan
Summary
A proposal to build nine 12x12 vendor sheds and an ADA restroom as part of a downtown incubator seeks partial disbursement to place a 30% deposit; town staff warned utility-camera results are pending and could require moving the restroom, altering costs and timing.
The town heard an update on a proposed downtown vendor incubator and a request for funds to order nine vendor sheds, with project backers asking the council to disburse enough to meet a roughly 30% down payment to the manufacturer.
Presenter (speaker 6), who outlined the site and design, said the team reduced the shed count from 10 to 9 “so that it would be a stronger connection to the parking lot” and described each shed as a 12-by-12, insulated, lit unit that will require individual building permits. He said an ADA restroom/concession unit will be larger than the other sheds and will sit on a concrete pad with plumbing.
Why it matters: proponents said the sheds are an incubator model to give small businesses a short-term, lower-cost storefront and training; they aim to open by Memorial Day weekend and need the manufacturer’s lead time (6–8 weeks) and a deposit to secure production.
Key details and finances: speakers said the overall project cost has been refined and is now expected to be under the originally requested $350,000. The group is proposing a disbursement-and-reimbursement approach similar to a prior façade program—drawdowns against invoices—so the town or RDC would pay contractors and be reimbursed through submitted receipts. Sponsors were cited as additional support: two at $10,000, two at $5,000 and a fifth sponsor whose level is not yet specified.
Legal and ownership structure: the town attorney (speaker 2) outlined two protective options for municipal investment—either filing a UCC lien on the physical assets or having the RDC buy and own the sheds and lease them to the vendor organization. “We would be taking, like, a UCC lien against all the assets,” the attorney said, and added he will propose a recommended structure in a memorandum within two weeks. He advised no approval was required at tonight’s meeting pending that memo and further coordination with staff.
Outstanding feasibility issue: camera inspection of the sanitary line under the proposed site reached roughly 26 feet and encountered a partial blockage in a clay tile main, leaving the exact route and cost of plumbing uncertain. Project staff said an outside contractor could not clear or fully inspect the run; they do not expect final findings until the following Monday. As Presenter (speaker 6) put it, “I think we will not have those findings until next Monday.” That uncertainty could prompt moving the restroom closer to Plymouth Street to avoid a costly lateral run.
Operations and risk management: if the program dissolves, the RDC would have the right to sell sheds to recover costs; sponsorship income could either be returned to the RDC or retained for programming. Presenters emphasized the project is primarily an incubator and training effort rather than a revenue generator for their nonprofit. Vendor fees were discussed as roughly $2,500 for a season, with seven vendors committed so far.
Next steps: the town attorney will draft options for the funding and ownership structure and circulate a memorandum; proponents asked council members to consider a disbursement sufficient to place the shed order if the council concurs after reviewing the attorney’s recommendation and the pending utility-camera report.
The council recorded discussion but took no formal vote on funding at the meeting.
