My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2003 09 23
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2003 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2003 09 23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:15 AM
Creation date
9/10/2014 12:31:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2003 09 23
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Laus stated that the analysis took into consideration the top 50 sales tax payers in the City and <br />nationwide industry norms. The $200/SF is conservative because the City has some at $300/SF. <br /> <br />Kalish asked what the difference is between the analysis done for the South Sub-area and the STK <br />analysis. <br />Laus stated that this analysis is based strictly on the development of STK. It does not include the <br />hospital and senior housing, the CTC or Archdiocese properties. It does contain the same <br />assumptions and the market value as for high-end multi-family residential. <br /> <br />McDermott asked what the timing was for the revenue and expenditures. <br />Laus stated that the timing is based on a 20-year build-out schedule, with equal development each <br />year. <br /> <br />McDermott asked if the expenditures would come before revenue. <br />Laus stated that is not necessarily the case because the net effect is minimal. <br /> <br />Lipton asked how inflation was included in the analysis scenarios . <br />Laus stated that inflation factors were not included. <br /> <br />Lipton inquired if the model could accommodate other build-out. <br />Laus replied that it could. <br /> <br />Lipton stated he was interested in seeing a 20-year annualized cash flow analysis. <br />Laus stated that would be possible but in a different format. <br /> <br />Lipton then asked for information regarding marginal vs. average cost. <br />Laus stated there are two methods used for fiscal analysis: marginal and average cost. The <br />average cost was the method used by the City. She also stated that in the long term they would <br />balance out between the two methods. <br /> <br />McAvinew asked if it was fair to say that it is difficult to come up with something absolute. <br />Laus replied that it is best to look at relative values between scenarios with this model. <br /> <br />Pritchard and Robson had no questions at this time. <br /> <br />Lipton requested that the Commissioners summarize what they would like to have available for <br />their review prior to making any decisions. The group detailed the following: <br /> <br />1.20 year annualized cash flow <br /> <br />2.marginal vs. average cost discussion <br /> <br />3.build-out assumptions for each scenario. residential, commercial and industrial <br /> <br />4.clarification of the difference between property value and market value <br /> <br />5.clarification of sales tax assumptions. Laus replied that the sales tax information is <br />confidential. <br /> <br />Public Comment: <br /> <br />Lipton then asked for additional public comment, reminding each person to give name and <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.