My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-08-09 FPAC Packet
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Financial Planning and Analysis Committee (FPAC)
>
FPAC Packets
>
2009
>
09-08-09 FPAC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2024 4:19:12 PM
Creation date
8/19/2020 4:18:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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).
View images
View plain text
o Grants <br />o Contributions from Surrounding Residents /Businesses <br />o Assessment for Improvement District <br />o General Obligation Bonds <br />o TIF is not an option (State Exclusion) <br />• Project Valuation Assessment <br />o Criteria: <br />■ Numbers of residents impacted (residents on either side and <br />possible destinations) <br />■ Frequency of movements (survey of current pedestrian movements <br />on route) <br />■ Current Value of Businesses on proposed route benchmarked <br />against similar business on route with existing pedestrian access <br />■ Projected life of the community asset (depreciable life) <br />■ Potential for ancillary redevelopment along the proposed route <br />(e.g. percent of property with development greater than 30 years).\ <br />o Cost Pro -Forma <br />■ Comparison costs to other regional assets <br />■ Pro -Forma opportunity costs (is there a property value premium <br />for locations near to pedestrian bridges) <br />o Historical Experience <br />■ Accident report <br />■ Anecdotal complaints <br />• Community survey (business and residents) <br />■ Comparable experiences in other communities <br />Repair of a Damaged Park. <br />• Cash Contribution — It would be appropriate to pay for planning and project <br />preparation costs out of existing City funds / budget. The understanding of the <br />community needs, the potential value added and project costs can be covered by <br />the City Department Budgets. Since the benefit for this project is expected by <br />current residents and will also incur to future residents, it is appropriate to <br />consider using existing funds and/or to also seek commitment of future funds. <br />The damage to the existing park is impairment to a current community asset. <br />Delay or deferral of repair further damages the current community and will not <br />meet the community's expectation that taxes have been collected and paid to <br />maintain a park asset in a functional and undamaged state. <br />• Future Fund Sources — The project should not be expected to wait for the <br />collection of future sources of funds. However if fund balances are insufficient it <br />is not unacceptable to utilize General Obligation Bonds to allow the project to <br />proceed with payment made from future tax levies. <br />o TIF is not an option (State Exclusion) <br />• Project Valuation Assessment <br />o Criteria: <br />■ Numbers of residents impacted (residents on either side and <br />possible destinations) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.