Agenda Packets - 1983/10/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This policy, stated simply, says the Council will respond to demand for regional services within the MUSA and the Freestanding Growth Centers, and will create a supply of new services on the edge of the MUSA only when the supply of developable land becomes too tight. In considering each regional function the Council will allocate funding to the two categories of projects. The projects not funded in each group will be evaluated to decide if a shift of funding between categories is necessary. Policy D below is to be used when ranking projects within the MUSA and Freestanding Growth Centers. Policy E is for projects to expand the MUSA. IN RANKING PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) AND FREESTANDING GROWTH CENTERS, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL REGULARLY ANALYZE THE REGION'S MAJOR ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS AND THEIR LEVELS OF REGIONAL SERVICES. THE COUNCIL WILL GIVE PRIORITY TO PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF REGIONAL SERVICES TO THESE CONCENTRATIONS OVER EXPANDING OR UPGRADING THE SYSTEMS WITHIN THE MUSA FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. The intent of this policy is to serve existing development before serving new development within the MUSA and Freestanding Growth Centers. The concentrations of major activity will change as development occurs and demand for regional services grows. The Council does not intend to encourage development or redevelopment that is under -serviced in the MUSA or Freestanding Growth Centers, placing itself in the position of having to serve it later. The Council will continue to carefully monitor regional systems impacts of any new development in the MUSA and Freestanding Growth Centers. Major activity concentrations could include, but are not limited to, major employment concentrations, major retail centers with high patronage (but perhaps low employment), major educational facilities, high -density housing concentrations, and major sports facilities. IN RANKING PROJECTS THAT MAY REQUIRE EXPANSION OF THE MUSA, THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER: THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY EXISTING METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTOR; RECENT POPULATION TRENDS IN ALL SECTORS; THE LEAST COST AMONG SECTORS FOR PROVIDING A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF BASIC PUBLIC SERVICES; THE MOST RECENT ESTIMATES OF DEVELOPABLE LAND FOR URBANIZATION IN EACH SECTOR; AND FUTURE ENERGY USE AND COSTS. Policy E is Policy Na. 10 in the Council's Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF), which contains guidelines for monitoring fiscal activity of the regional commissions. It can be used for decision -making for expansion projects on the edge of the MUSA (see discussion in appendix beginning on page 21). IN REVIEWING ALL PROJECTS REQUIRING CHANGES IN THE INVESTMENT PLANS FOR REGIONAL SYSTEMS, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MAY, IN ADDITION TO ITS OTHER REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. CONDUCT AN ECONOMIC IMPACT REVIEW; 2. CONDUCT A FISCAL ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT; AND/OR 3. DEVELOP PUBLIC/PRIVATE COST -SHARING AGREEMENTS WHEN NECESSARY. This policy is not intended to add significantly to the review process. Too often, however, economic -impact reviews discuss public fiscal impacts and do not examine what happens to the economy. In reviewing projects affecting the