My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 06 25
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2020 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2020 06 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/12/2020 10:30:52 AM
Creation date
11/12/2020 10:30:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/25/2020
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 25, 2020 <br />Page 5 of 24 <br /> <br />past developments. The city’s existing tax levy can meet those debt requirements. This <br />is therefore free money to a certain extent because every dollar in the general fund <br />transferred to the capital fund is now available for other things. <br /> <br />Howe asks regarding the analysis of benefits from this proposal, does this include the <br />cost of maintenance. <br /> <br />Bise says yes it does. <br /> <br />Howe asks if it includes the use of the rec center. <br /> <br />Bise says that it does. We factored in the entire tax supported operations. <br /> <br />Howe asks what the average percent of occupancy or revenue a development would <br />get. <br /> <br />Bise says it does not really work that way. When we do this type of analysis, there is <br />thought given into what we are going to model it after. He then gives examples of <br />different models used. <br /> <br />Diehl asks that in terms of positive, negative, or neutral of being developed at 80%, how <br />would you rate that? <br /> <br />Bise says that his company works with many jurisdictions and the revenue structure <br />varies from state to state. More times than not, we would show a deficit to the general <br />fund. This is in the top third of a proposal of what we would see nationally, and that is <br />because of the mixed-use nature of the project. If you can generate surpluses or be <br />fiscally neutral in your primary tax supported funds, that is a bonus. <br /> <br />Diehl says that gets that the proposed application is fiscally neutral, but what about the <br />80%? <br /> <br />Bise says that if you look at the average annual deficit, it is basically a rounding error in <br />the existing budget. <br /> <br />Rice asks staff if they have anything, further they would like to present to the <br />commissioners. <br /> <br />Zuccaro says he would like to review staff’s recommendations again for the <br />commissioners. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />The following is staff’s recommendations to the commissioners: <br />• Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />o Use the public hearing to review the amendment criteria and understand <br />the community support <br />• General Development Plan (GDP) <br />o If the commission support the comprehensive plan policy changes, staff <br />recommends conditional approval of the GDP
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.