The agenda prioritized discussions around infrastructure and development projects. The meeting began with a detailed examination of the proposal for the repair of the rock face along the Shoreline, a project deemed critical for the area’s safety and aesthetic value. The authority exhibited a sense of trust in Beta’s grasp of the intricacies of the project, including adherence to timelines. The board’s approval for the chair to sign an agreement with Beta reflects a strategic step in enhancing the city’s natural waterfront.

Furthermore, the authority discussed the draft urban renewal plan for the Pleasant Street Flint area, highlighting the necessity of feedback from the housing agency as well as addressing concerns about the approval process with the MEPA under secretary director.

The meeting also covered the application for a state OneStop Grant, which would fund a master plan for Pleasant Street. The board agreed to provide a match of up to $15,000, contingent upon the grant’s approval. The differentiation between urban renewal plans and master planning was a key part of the discussion, emphasizing the detailed modeling involved in the current planning process.

The Deval Street Corridor development plans were also a focal point, with the board reviewing ideas about building sizes, parking garages, and the formation of a stakeholders group. The authority stressed the importance of a plans to attract potential developers, coupled with a robust process of public engagement and stakeholder input. The formation of a small group to assist in the planning process prior to public meetings was considered essential for incorporating community perspectives.

Moreover, the meeting addressed a HUD contract with CDA concerning parking and cathodic protection of the pier. The discussion revealed the city’s role as a subrecipient of a grant and the necessity to clarify the proposed parking’s location. Additionally, the authority debated the cathodic protection project for the pier, focusing on the allocation of funds, finalizing contracts, bidding for engineering firms, and potential contract amendments with HUD to cover additional costs.

A notable non-infrastructure topic was the need to redesign the Fall River Redevelopment Authority’s logo and branding. With a chosen firm submitting a bid of $19,886, members debated the selection, calling for a review of the firm’s previous work and a comparison with other bids. The authority’s cautious approach reflects a desire to ensure a successful rebranding that resonates with the public and aligns with the city’s vision, learning from past efforts that had not been well-received.

The meeting, while addressing these significant projects, also included routine administrative tasks such as the approval of meeting minutes and warrants. However, these tasks were overshadowed by the strategic discussions focusing on the city’s development and infrastructure enhancement. The discussion on Devall Street also surfaced concerns about the qualifications of a proposed landscape designer, highlighting the authority’s attention to ensuring the suitability of contractors for city projects.