My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-04-95 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1995
>
04-04-95 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 2:28:41 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:29:59 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
activity to provide services to residents. Germantown <br />officials were also considering two other alternatives: one <br />was to encourage nonresidential, light -industrial and office <br />uses; the other was to increase the density of residential <br />development. The fiscal impact analysis focused on <br />marginal costs and revenues based on local data factors <br />—the case study approach was used wherever possible. <br />Exhibit 2 indicates that all three alternatives would have <br />positive financial results for the city. <br />The study confirmed that the current land -use alternative <br />emphasizing low -density single-family housing will enable <br />Germantown to remain inn a positive fiscal posture for the <br />foreseeable future. The projeced cumulative surplus of $41 <br />million is about 77 percent of the surplus that might be <br />generated by the high employment scenario. Elected <br />officials have found that the fiscal impact analysis has given <br />them a more specific baseline against which to measure <br />requests proposed by developers. The mayor and aldermen <br />now are able to ask whether a proposal would have an <br />economic impact over and above that projected based on <br />the future land -use plan. <br />Germantown purchased a tailored software system for <br />future fiscal evaluations. As quoted in the Germantown <br />News, the administrator said, "We now have a tool. We <br />can use this study to calculate what it will cost, both in the <br />short and long term, to maintain and develop the city in <br />various ways." The city has continued to use the program <br />for three primary purposes: reviewing annexation ques- <br />tions, evaluating the impact of proposed large develop- <br />ments (both shopping centers and residential), and capital <br />improvements planning. <br />Germantown has an annual annexation process through <br />which it looks at the costs and revenues that would result <br />from additional annexation. Faced with high growth <br />pressures, the city has found the fiscal impact analysis <br />software program worthwhile in helping the planning <br />commission and the board of mayor and aldermen review <br />the fiscal effects of new growth. <br />In the capital improvements planning process, <br />Germantown uses the fiscal impact analysis program in <br />planning for future fire and police service needs. <br />Germantown has a five-year capital improvements <br />program, and uses the fiscal impact analysis information for <br />background in scoping out budget proposals and related <br />capital improvements requests by department. <br />Overall, fiscal impact analysis enables Germantown to <br />maintain its land -use policies and understand and articulate <br />the assumptions on which they are based and their fiscal <br />ramifications. <br />Venice, Florida —Developing Strategies to <br />Serve Future Growth <br />The city of Venice, Florida, has a permanent population of <br />about 15,000 and a seasonal population of 19,000. <br />t Located in Sarasota County on the booming Gulf coast, <br />Venice is experiencing growth pressures. Developers in the <br />country are requesting annexation, in large part because the <br />city can provide better services to future residents than can <br />the county. <br />Venice decided to address several items in its 1987 <br />fiscal impact analysis. It wanted to evaluate two growth <br />alternatives, develop a capital improvement program that <br />would identify existing facility deficiencies and project <br />facility needs due to growth, and create a revenue - <br />development strategy. <br />The first alternarive assumed growth would continue <br />to the year 2000 as projected in the comprehensive plan. <br />The second alternative assumed that additional growth <br />would result from annexation of an area to the north and <br />east of the existing city limits. <br />City department heads and the consultant agreed on <br />service level, cost, and revenue factors, and these were used <br />in the fiscal evaluation of the two alternatives. The fiscal <br />evaluation forecast the need for new capital facilities to <br />serve growth resulting from annexation. <br />Florida state law requires that local governments pro- <br />vide a five-year projection of facilities to serve new develop- <br />ment. Consequently, these new facilities were incorporated <br />into a preliminary Capital Improvement Element (CIE) for <br />Venice. According to the state taw, the CIE must also. <br />describe existing deficiencies in capital facilities to serve the <br />present population and the direct operating expenses of <br />those facilities, and discuss the revenue sources the local <br />government intends to use to pay for the needed capital <br />facilities. This last requirement was part of the reason <br />Venice decided to develop a revenue strategy as part of its <br />fiscal impact analysis. <br />The cumulative results of Venice's study indicated a <br />fiscal surplus under both alternatives. An important reason <br />for this was that the basic road network and schools are <br />provided not by Venice but by Sarasota County. The <br />alternative based on the comprehensive plan was slightly <br />more beneficial from a fiscal perspective primarily because <br />annexation would require that additional capital facilities <br />be built within a few years of the annexation. <br />.the fiscal impact analysis has <br />helped the elected officials express <br />their vision for the future.... <br />Raleigh, North Carolina —Analyzing Economic <br />Development Impacts <br />Evaluating subareas of a community is a valuable approach <br />for fiscal impact analyses since, as in the case of southeast <br />Raleigh, existing capital facility capacities can be specified <br />and revenue strategies can be targeted. (See the MIS Report <br />for a full discussion) <br />Plymouth, Minnesota —Analyzing Land -Use <br />Alternatives and Costs for a Capital Facility <br />Replacement Program <br />Plymouth is a Minneapolis suburb with a population of <br />about 45,000. In 1984, a cost revenue subcommittee com- <br />posed of private sector representatives requested that the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.