pf_03065 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

,From Jeff Bronow, TA Inc. to 651 490 2931 at 11/19/99 11:04 AM Pg 002/005 property tax projections in the fiscal model will therefore include only the General Fund portion of the property taxes. . A significant portion of the recreation costs are for particular facilities like the Skating Center and Activity Center seem to be offset by user fees. So there are no net costs for these facilities. V\~ ,--' &lchv,,~ '1 Ce..dA . As far as capital improvements, it was indicated that after next sununer no more new parks are plalUled to be built in the City. The long tenn plan is to redevelop and infill existing parks. These capital improvements will primarily be funded with TIF money and referendum bond approvals (that all City residents will pay for, not just new growth), The question is how to include these costs in the tiscal model. Since we are using a "snapshot" approach that uses the current tax levy to detennine the amount of rcvcnues generatcd, filturc bonds trom higher taxcs dedicated tor particular improvcmcnts arc not includcd. It is therciore assumcd that future park improvemcnts will be otlsct by votcr approved tax incrcases that the whole City will benefit from, not just new growth. TIF revenues will be accounted for in the model and the report will indicate that these revenues will go towards site specific infrastructure improvements including parks. However, given that nF is generally collected and allocated on a case by case basis, it is hard to generalize what costs they will offset. . For Richfield (the other mature redeveloping suburb) we have also assumed no park capital costo;; associated with new growth given that the park infrastructure is mostly in place and that they concentrate more on redeveloping and improving existing parks. This is unlike the other, less mature suburbs, being looked at in this study that will see a significant amount of new park acreage necessary to maintain levels of service for new residential growth, whae the population may increase 50 to 100 percent. (And actually, for the other cities, park impact fees and land dedication offset (fully of partially) park development costs.) . So it can be seen how the park and recreation situation is different that the General Fund departments like Police and Fire that use non-dedicated general tax dollars and revenues to pay for necessary services. 2. There was a question raised on Page 11 asking where permit fees are? That is a good question. And I think, in retrospect now, they should be included. They were originally not included because like Recreation, these fees are accounted for in a separate fund, the Community Development Fund. However, given that development fees are a significant revenue source for the City directly tied to new development they should be included. This will also be consistent with the fiscal methodology used for Richfield (which doesn't have a separate fund to account for these fees). I have fee revenue infomlation by development type that was provided by David Windle. I will include this in the revised LOS document. 1 will also provide an outline of the associated Page 2