PL PACKET 05171983 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 138 The Practice of Local Government Planning I':, Project. Factor I� • Goals'and Extent proposal contributes to the goals and objectives of the requesting I objectives agency and/or governing authority I Standards and Extent proposal conforms to criteria and standards established by criteria requesting agency and/or governing authority Service limits Extent that existence (or absence),of public or private facilities limits (or denies)the provision of adequate services in area I Environmental Extent proposal may improve environmental quality of the city and its quality neighborhoods I I Quality of life Extent proposal would offer opportunities for improving the quality of life for residents in terms of personal enrichment and living conditions Special need Extent proposal meets a community obligation to serve a special need of a segment of the city's population, including low/moderate income, aged. minorities, handicapped, etc. Health, safety. Extent proposal eliminates conditions detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare general welfare of the community Service Extent proposal improves the citywide distribution of related services distribution Economic Extent proposal will encourage capital investment, improve the city's tax development base; improve job.cpportunities. attract consumers to the city, or produce public or private revenues 1 • Public benefit Extent proposal cost is justified in terms of number of persons to be benefited i - Cost-effective Extent proposal may be cost-effective in terms of capital and probable operating costs Commitment Extent proposal is acceptable in terms of possible future commitments to Fprovide similar improvements in other areas of the city Coordination Extent proposal appears to be coordinated with other public or private 11 l� projects or facilities Neighborhood Extent of efforts made to inform area residents about proposal and involve 1 involvement them in its planning i i j Total priority points: Figure 5-4 Priority evaluation formula,rated on a scale of 0 to 50 points, according to fourteen factors. Where application of priority formula does not seem to result in adequate score for a project, the task force may iJ request CLIC to add up to 50 points. i agencies are governed by locally elected officials,the primary focus of.the met- ropolitan agency is on areawide problems and'not necessarily on local impacts of capital investment decisions. Another technique that-has-been used is the A- 95 metropolitan review process whereby federally funded projects must receive comments from a-metropolitan agency. Here; again, comments are usually fo- cused on policy issues of metropolitan significance and not necessarily on local impacts. In some metropolitan areas the local impact problem may be over- "': looked when the metropolitan planning agency itself does not control the trans- il I ,