My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/17/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
11/17/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:34:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/17/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
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
of the residents will be considered to receive a $5,000 <br />Homestead Exemption. <br />282 - Dwelling Units x $ 5,000 = $1,410,000 <br />282 - Dwelling Units x $25,000 = 7,050,000 <br />Total <br />Exemptions = $8,460,000 <br />Assessments = $28,764,000 <br />Homestead <br />Exemptions_ = 8,460 000 <br />Total = $20,304,000 <br />To determine the taxes paid on the assessed value, the millage <br />rate for the parcel must be applied. The millage rate is .0109. <br />Assessed Value = $20,304,000 <br />x Millage Rate = .0109 <br />Taxes paid by a <br />single family <br />residential <br />development =•$221,314 <br />Net Fiscal Impact of Single Family Residential,Development <br />The costs to the County for providing services to a single family <br />residential development on the proposed rezoning site have been <br />.calculated as $2,795,817. The tax revenue that the County would <br />generate from the single family residential development are an <br />estimated $221,314. Thus, for a single family residential <br />development to be built on the site in question would cost the <br />County $2,574,503. <br />III. ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL -DEVELOPMENT <br />The per capita multiplier method is not a very accurate method <br />for determining the impacts of industrial development. As has <br />been demonstrated previously, the per capita multiplier method <br />relies on estimates of incoming residents to determine impact on <br />the total budget of the study area. This is not possible for <br />industrial development. There is not.a strong correlation between <br />residents being attracted to an area and industrial development, as <br />there is between residential population growth and residential <br />development. <br />The Employment Anticipation Method will be used in this analysis <br />to determine the impacts of non-residential development on the <br />County's service costs. This method bases changes in the County's <br />expenditures on anticipated changes in the County's employment base. <br />Researchers have developed coefficients which can be used to <br />predict the change in County expenditures related to local employment <br />variation. (See Attachment C) These coefficients can be used to <br />extrapolate the percentage change that one industrial employee <br />will produce in the County's per capita local publics service <br />expenditures. <br />The Employment Anticipation Method is based on these assumptions: <br />1) The level of County industrial employment directly affects <br />the magnitude of local County expenditures. <br />2) The relationship analyzed is the impact of industrial employment <br />on County expenditures within a multivariate context, bontrolling <br />for the effects of other social, political and economic factors. <br />3) The impact of additional employment will vary for communities <br />of differing population size and direction of growth.? <br />Costs Generated by Industrial Development <br />Assumptions <br />To determin <br />development <br />NOV 17 7 2 hell & <br />e the potential number of employees which industrial <br />would generate, it is necessary to calculathe <br />Listokin LAK 1 FADE �.`� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.