Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 25, 2020 <br />Page 4 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />Bise says that it is his understanding that city council has a policy that when they look <br />at a development project, they look at an 80% scenario. That is not uncommon but in <br />that scenario, you have to vary your assumptions. For those assumptions, city council <br />has said that the scenario would be running at 80%. Because they are using a marginal <br />analysis, that 20% difference is not enough to tip the scales because that is part of the <br />marginal costing. It is no surprise the scenario generates the deficits to the general <br />funds in this case. <br /> <br />Rice says that what this is expressing is that you could have a development proposal <br />that never builds all the commercial space. <br /> <br />Bise says that is correct. <br /> <br />Rice adds that a developer could also build the commercial space but it not be utilized. <br /> <br />Bise says that is not necessarily true. It assumes across the board that the market <br />changes 80% for all uses including residential. One of the things we have been involved <br />with since the recession are development agreements. Development agreements are <br />being opened up again because the retail or single-family market has shifted so you <br />would want to revisit it. <br /> <br />Rice asks that for better or worse for the 80% rule that is used in our modeling, if we did <br />that for this proposal, we would end up with red ink on three of the five categories is that <br />right? <br /> <br />Bise says that is right. <br /> <br />Rice says that the bottom line of the annual net fiscal impact would be less than the <br />current by-right development, correct? <br /> <br />Bise says that is correct. <br /> <br />Diehl asks if he has an opinion on the probability of the 80% versus the full build out. <br /> <br />Bise says he does not feel comfortable commenting on the 80% because that is a city <br />council decision. <br /> <br />Moline asks if he can explain about why different funds achieve different totals over the <br />course of time. For example, the debts service fund ends up on a particular level and <br />the general funds ends up on a different particular level. <br /> <br />Bise says regarding the debts service fund, in talking to staff and departments, the city <br />is stretched to capacity for general government space. We would then need to assume <br />that at some point the city will go and build something to expand and fix this issue and <br />there will be a cost for this. We then decided to take the impact fee approach. For <br />example, if the level of service is 1 sq ft per person, we assume that if there are 1,000 <br />people, it is 1,000 dollars. So essentially every dollar minus that small assumption is <br />free money because most of the city’s debt service costs right now are attributable to