08-25-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Final Report ticular study has involved the use of hypothetical , although 1111 realistic , project proposals as well as generalized data , caution must be used in attempting to directly transfer the findings in the future to specific project proposals . Before discussing the specific findings of the study , it may be use- ful to first define fiscal impact . Fiscal impact analysis is de- fined as the projection of direct , current , public costs and rev- enues associated with residential and non-residential growth to the local jurisdiction in which the growth occurs . Such analysis does not include indirect effects of development , such as the secondary consequences of growth , i . e . increase or decrease in property value ., due to nearby development ; the effects of inflation on future costs or revenues ; or the private costs of public actions , such as the costs passed on to developers or consumers through local land use regulation . ( Fiscal impact analysis is synonymous with Cost- Revenue Analysis for the purpose of this study . ) In order to evaluate the direct , current , public costs of future development and the revenues generated by this growth , the analyse was conducted in three stages : ( 1 ) the hypothetical land use al- ternatives were broadly defined , ( 2 ) revenues generated by the prop- erty tax and selected intergovernmental sources were projected by land use type , and ( 3 ) municipal and school district service costs were projected by land use types . II . Land Use Alternatives 4111 After considerable discussion between the consultant , city staff , and members of the Wetlands Committee , the following land use alter - natives were selected for the 75 acre slte . These u1iernatIves wr• r , thought to be both realistic for the city as well as representative of a wide divergence of land uses in the city . A. R-1 , Single and Two Family Residential Development Of 156 units ( households ) valued at approximately $80 , 000 . 00 each at a density of 3 . 48 houses per acre with a projected pop- ulation of 557 ( of whom 178 are elementary and secondary stu- dents ) . B. R-3 , Townshouses Residential Development Of 471 units valued at approximately $ 70 , 000 . 00 each at a den- sity of 10. 52 per acre with a projected population of 1 , 420 ( of whom 256 are elementary and secondary students ) . C. R-4 , Multi-family Apartments Residential Development Of 806 units valued at about $40 , 000 . 00 each at a density of 18 units per acre with a projected population of 1 , 221 ( of whom 110 are elementary and secondary students ) . D. Industrial-Office Complex 1111 On 13 . 43 acres ( 585 , 010 square feet ) at a cost of $ 21 , 060 , 378 . No populations were projected to be generated by this complex . -7