Laserfiche WebLink
<br />at 11/19/99 11:04 AM Pg 001/005 <br /> <br />'clV~ <br />QC- \\/':;>0' 't <br /> <br />-From Jeff Bronow, TA Inc. to 651 490 2931 <br /> <br />m] <br /> <br />TISCHLER & <br />AsSOCIATEs,INC. <br /> <br />4701 Sangamore Rd <br />Suite N210 <br />Bethesda, IvID 20816 <br /> <br />VOlce <br />(800) 424-4318 <br />(.301) 320-6900 <br /> <br />f>l'l( <br />(301) 320.4860 <br /> <br />e-m:Jil: <br />info@ <br />tiscWeras S ociJ1tes .com <br /> <br />tis due mssoc:iates, com <br /> <br />Fiscal Impact Analysis <br />. <br />Capital Facility .'\nalysis <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Impact Fee Systems <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Growth Policy PLanning <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Economic and M:J.Iket Analysis <br /> <br />MUNIES. FISCAL,) 8" CRTM <br />Fiscal impact systems taiLored <br />for each corom'mity <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />\V-(q~qq <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Edward Burrell, Dermis Welsch, David Windle, City of Ril.Ohfield <br />Cc: Bill Byers, Metropolitan Council <br /> <br />FROM: JeffBronow, Tischler & Associates, Inc. <br /> <br />DATE: November 19, 1999 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Draft Level of Senice Document for Roseville <br /> <br />This memorandum is in response to conUllents received regarding the draft LOS <br />document for the City ofRoseville. Please review and then we can talk over the <br />phone to discuss any outstanding issues. I want to conullunicate the issues first <br />by writing to provide an organized fonnat. Also, unfortunately my voice is still <br />not fully recovered. (It ends up that I have a paralyzed right vocal cord of all <br />things.) So, the more I can get out by writing, the better. <br /> <br />The conunents bdow are based 011 the written comments in the draft that I <br />received from Dennis in the mail and the same from Ed during the presentation to <br />the Liaison Conunittee last month. Ed, please review and then we can talk as we <br />agreed we would after the presentation. I understand that there may be more <br />conunents not included in the infomtation 1 have received to date. Our goal is to <br />make any agreed upon changes and get the LOS signoffby early December, so <br />the fiscal model can be finalized and the report prepared by mid December. <br /> <br />1. The question was raised of why no park costs were included. <br /> <br />The main reason no park and recreation costs were included is because the <br />analysis is being conducted just for the General Fund (and now also the <br />Community Devdopment Fund as explained in point 2 below). This is consistent <br />with the other cities that have been analyzed as part of the Metro Study. In <br />addition: <br /> <br />. The population growth is minimal under both growth scenarios - an <br />increase of 1,555 residents under Trends from 1999 to 2020 (a 4.5 <br />percent increase over the base population of 34,334), and an increase <br />of3,0:n residento; under the Concentrated scenario (an 8.8 percent <br />increase). Ao; a result the impact on parks from new growth is <br />,minimal. Most ofthe planned growth is nomesidentia1. <br /> <br />. The two revenues used to finance the Recreation Fund are property <br />taxes and user charges. These generally offset the budgeted costs, so it <br />can be assumed that the recreation costs from the small increase in <br />population will be offset by user fees and property taxes. Note that the <br /> <br />Page 1 <br />