Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 10, 2015 <br />Page 7 of 29 <br />model. The applicant provides a more specific Louisville characteristic that is supported by a <br />traffic engineer, so they are proposing a different persons /household than what our model <br />assumes for that type of housing structure which is based on a national ITE. They are showing <br />it is 1.8 persons /household where the adopted model is 1.4 persons /household. They have <br />more residents within a unit than ours. With those base assumptions, we do a 20 year forecast <br />based on the different funds within the budget. <br />Adopted Model Numbers Developer Numbers <br />RESIDENTIAL <br />Persons per household 1.4 1.8 <br />Vehicle Trips Lower Generation Higher G ration <br />MU Trip Adjustment 50% (ITE) 25% <br />COMMERCIAL <br />MU Trip Adj. (retail) 28% (ITE) <br />MU Trip Adj. (office) 50% (ITE) <br />Fiscal impact Model <br />2 <br />Revenue by Fund <br />SCENARIO <br />Developer <br />Numbers <br />% <br />Model <br />Numbers <br />% <br />Original <br />Gdp <br />General Fund <br />$2,891 <br />62% <br />$2,256 <br />58% <br />$2,660 <br />64% <br />Urban Revitalization District Fund <br />$D <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />Open Spaces & Parks Fund <br />$373 <br />8% <br />$353 <br />9% <br />$368 <br />9% <br />Lottery Fund <br />$D <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />Historic Preservation Fund <br />$132 <br />3% <br />$122 <br />3% <br />$130 <br />3% <br />Capital Projects Fund <br />$1,256 <br />27% <br />$1,183 <br />30% <br />$1:030 <br />25% <br />TOTAL REVENUE <br />$4,653 <br />100% <br />$3,914 <br />100% <br />$4,188 <br />100% <br />Expenditures by Fund <br />General Fund <br />.519 <br />39% <br />$672 <br />42% <br />$691 <br />46% <br />Urban Revitalization District Fund <br />$D <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />Open Spaces & Parks Fund <br />$409 <br />10% <br />$129 <br />8% <br />$86 <br />690 <br />Lottery Fund <br />$D <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />$0 <br />0% <br />Historic Preservation Fund <br />$132 <br />3% <br />$122 <br />8% <br />$130 <br />9% <br />Capital Projects Fund <br />$1,852 <br />47% <br />$664 <br />42% <br />$611 <br />40% <br />TOTAL EXPENDIITURES <br />$3,913 <br />100% <br />$1,588 <br />100% <br />$1,518 <br />100% <br />HET FISCAL RESULT BY FUND <br />General Fund <br />$1,372 <br />$1,584 <br />$1,969 <br />Urban Revitalization District Fund <br />$0 <br />$0 <br />$0 <br />Open Spaces & Parks Fund <br />($37) <br />$224 <br />$281 <br />Lottery Fund <br />$0 <br />$0 <br />$0 <br />Historic Preservation Fund <br />$D <br />$0 <br />$0 <br />Capital Projects Fund <br />($596) <br />$519 <br />$419 <br />NET FISCAL IMPACT <br />$739 <br />$2,327 <br />$2,670 <br />For comparison purposes, staff also provided a fiscal analysis using the City's established <br />vehicle trip generation rates and adjustment factors as documented by the Institute of <br />Transportation Engineers (ITS). This scenario yields a net positive fiscal impact of +$2,327,000 <br />over the same 20 -year period, or +$116,350 per year. The following table summarizes the <br />model's output for all both scenarios and the approved GDP. <br />According to the new model, the previously approved GDP would yield a net positive fiscal <br />impact of +$2,670,000 over a 20 -year period, or +$138,000 per year. The proposed rezoning, <br />using the applicant's numbers, would yield a net positive fiscal impact of +$739,000 on the City <br />over the same 20 -year period, or a positive +$36,900 per year. <br />It is important to note that we do not have a single criterion in the Comp Plan or in the LMC that <br />says there is fiscal performance as the sole determinate of anything. It is information. The <br />