City Council Study Session Summary 2008 02 26

Home Browse Search

City Council Study Session Summary February 26, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Mayor Pro Tem Marsella agreed with Councilors Dalton and Muckle that the focus should be on what needs to be addressed not on the whole Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Clabots agreed and thought that Opportunity Areas 2, 5, and 6 needed the most attention. Councilor Dalton referred to Councilor Muckle's suggestion about letting ConocoPhillips know what the City wants, he wasn't sure if the timeline would allow for much input from ConocoPhillips. He felt that transportation was an important issue. Mayor Sisk stated that the Comprehensive Plan was the vision of the City. He said that there had been discussion about retail on the southeast corner of ConocoPhillips. He also said that the City needs to look at the tax issues but not through the Comprehensive Plan. The Mayor agreed with Councilor Clabots that Opportunity Areas 2, 5 and 6 are the areas needing the review and that in Area 2 both the east and west side should be looked at. Mayor Sisk said that green building, historical preservation and transportation were all things that should be considered in the review. Council Muckle agreed with Mayor Sisk and Councilor Clabots and added that there should be more of a technical element in the Plan. Chris Pritchard, Planning Commissioner, said that there were height issues in Area 2 that may need to be addressed. Mayor Sisk added that ConocoPhillips would probably want to build a hotel on the property. 3. Presentation/Discussion/Update -Fiscal Impact Analysis Tool City Manager Fleming gave an introduction about the Fiscal Impact Analysis Tool stating that it was required by the City and that in 2005 Leland developed the current tool. City Manager Fleming said that when the tool was used there was concern about the accuracy, such as did it take into account retail leakage/cannibalization. City Manager Fleming said that Director of Finance Kevin Watson has recreated the Leland model particularly the budget and assumptions aspect of the model. Director Watson passed out 2 handouts and went over them with City Council explaining the difference between the Leland model and the model he created. City Manager Fleming explained that one of the objectives is to look at how we allocate operating costs. Currently they are looked at as residential vs. non- residential and does not distinguish the non-residential from retail, office or industrial. Further testing needs to be done for revenue flow accuracy and to get feedback so that the model can be further refined and tested. Director Watson said that the tipping-points need more clarification.