Agenda - 08-08-1994 - VIII-Q - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

30 indicating an appropriate area west of the road not to exceed 10 acres. Seconded by Burklin. VOTE: 9 in favor. 1 opposed (Waddell - felt there was sufficient information to make a recommendation) . Adjournment time was reached. MOTION: Reid moved to extend the meeting to complete the agenda. Seconded by Barrows. VOTE: 8 in favor. 2 opposed. AGENDA ITEM #11: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS a. Fiscal Impact Analysis Methodology (The abstract and information provided for discussion are on file in the Planning Department. ) Barrows expressed concern that the statistics used were historical and that she did not think that they reflect the demographics of the population attracted to new subdivisions. She continued that, at the very least, they are misleading. She asked if some updated statistics could be gathered from some of the subdivisions being implemented now. When Collins responded that 1990 census data was used, Barrows indicated that she was not aware that the data were so current. Further discussion indicated the feeling that families with school age children were in older established subdivisions/neighborhoods rather than in newer subdivisions. Brown expressed concern with the use of averages in preparing the impact analyses. Waddell responded that he felt the only thing that could be done would be to use "averages" . Collins indicated that a "per capita" methodology was used in development of the residential template. If "built" subdivisions were analyzed, a "case study" approach would be used, and the data might reflect reality better. He stated that it is difficult to take an actual situation and apply it to something proposed. The "per capita" method is an accepted and widely used