My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-13-09
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Financial Planning and Analysis Committee (FPAC)
>
FPAC Packets
>
2009
>
10-13-09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2025 12:09:22 PM
Creation date
8/26/2025 12:09:15 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.
/
52
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 /> 0 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 /> IIIIpossible destinations) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.