Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Louisville City Council Special Meeting <br />January 25,2005 <br />Page 7 of 10 <br /> <br />Preferred Plan Option #2 adjusts for Louisville share of open space cost; results in lower <br />open space cost; 20-year operation surplus of$6 to $7 million; and 20-year capital deficit <br />of$ll to $14 million. <br /> <br />Land Use Plan Option #3 assumes "Do Nothing" scenario; limited residential <br />development (1,000 new units); limited retail development (200,000 Sq Ft); STK build <br />out as industrial space; 20-year operating deficit of $2 to $3 million, and 20-year capital <br />deficit of $9 to $10 million. <br /> <br />Impacts of Extension of Open Space Tax: No impact on operating surplus/deficit; <br />increased capital revenues; and significantly decreases overa1l20-year capital deficit in <br />all scenarios. <br /> <br />Impacts of Residential Use Tax: No impact on operating surplus/deficit; significantly <br />improves overa1l20-year operating surplus in all scenarios; significantly decreases <br />overa1l20-year capital deficit in all scenarios. <br /> <br />Impacts of Both Revenue Sources: Operating surpluses in all scenarios. Eliminates 20- <br />year capital deficit in scenario 2 - creates capital surplus. <br /> <br />City Manager Simmons explained the residential use tax, which was used for local school <br />improvement was not re-approved by the voters in 2003. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt voiced her understanding that a portion of sales revenues is <br />directed to the general fund for maintenance and support of open space property. City <br />Manager Simmons explained the City's land acquisition fund has an operational <br />component in place, whereby activities are charged directly to that fund. <br /> <br />Council member VanPelt asked for clarification on why transportation infrastructure is <br />the biggest reason for the capital deficit in all of the options. She noted that new <br />development will have transportation hubs and asked if that was taken into consideration <br />when analyzing the impacts on the transportation networks. Cunningham stated the <br />transportation has been over estimated. He suggested the transportation cost may be <br />significantly less than shown in the analysis. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt asked if the sales tax erosion has been factored into Option #3. <br />Cunningham confirmed that it was a factor and noted it becomes harder to carve out <br />market share. <br /> <br />Council member Marsella inquired about the correlation between residential units and <br />being able to attract retail. She asked if the analysis is based on the number of people or <br />the type of housing. Cunningham stated it was a matter of spending potential, and density <br />of housing. <br /> <br />Council member Marsella asked ifit would require a mix of homes. Cunningham <br /> <br />7 <br />