City Council Minutes 2006 12 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes December 19, 2006 Page 4 of 13 On the operational, or on-going and recurring costs, the principle revenues are property tax, intergovernmental grants, motor vehicle use tax, and a portion of the sales tax revenues. The Analysis shows the City spends $1,112.58 annually to service a typical residential dwelling unit, and $0.52 a square foot for non- residential. On the capital side, or onetime costs, those revenues consist of use tax, building permit fees, impact fees, and a designated portion of the City sales and use tax. Capital costs are derived based on the estimated combined value of City facilities and land assets. Facility costs are based on estimated replacement costs including land. Capital costs per dwelling unit are primarily impacted by the cost factor of Land Management. The analysis reflects the capital cost per single- family dwelling unit is $9,972.71, for a multi-family unit $9,355.51. For non- residential, the cost is $9.64 per retail square foot, which is driven primarily by the transportation factors. Mayor Sisk requested an Applicant presentation. Michael Markel, Markel Homes, 5723 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, CO reported at the last City Council meeting, he prE~sented an extensive PowerPoint presentation outlining their proposal. Council requested additional information relative to the fiscal impact analysis. He stated Mr. Josh Burch, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) was available to respond to Council questions. Mayor Sisk requested public comml:mts. There were no comments. COUNCIL COMMENT Mayor Pro Tem Br6wn outlined the benefits the development brings to tI'Ie community, Hecla Lake, trails, and open space. He voiced concern should the Home Owners Association fail to maintain the amenities. Planning Oirector Wood stated it would potentially violate the subdivision agreement. He explained there would be recourse through the contract subdivision agreement and enforcement through the general development plan. He noted the City would maintain the parks and playfields. City Attorney Light noted the public improvements are covered under provisions of the subdivision agreement. He e~xplained if a common area is allocated to a homeowners association, the subdivision agreement requires the developer to approach the City for consent to that assignment. The City may require the homeowners association to accept the maintenance obligations of common areas through a contract. As a last resort, if common areas are not maintained, there is a provision of the Planned Unit Oevelopment Act, which provides the City