10/31/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCT 3 11985 BOOK '62 PAGE 602 *Analysis of Alternatives The effectiveness of each alternative presented can be judged by the degree to which it achieves the previously stated objectives. The following matrix compares the strengths (+) and weaknesses (-) of each alternative in relation to its - effectiveness is achieving the stated objectives. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 1) Implementation of + + + + + - + #8 #9 Thoroughfare Plan 2) Coordination with the + + - - - Drainage District 3) Effecting timing + + - 4) Utilization of existing + + +.„ - - rights-of-way 5) Expansion costs borne + + mostly by new development 6) Cost efficient improvements + + - - - + - + 7) Equitable distribution of - + + - - dedication burden NET IMPACT: +5 +7 +1 -3 -3 0 0 -2 -1 It should be noted that a traffic impact fee could be adopted that would distribute the costs of right-of-way acquisition and facilities expansion. An impact fee can address some of the above objectives. For example, an impact fee formula can be designed to distribute most of the costs of right-of-way and road expansion to new developments. ° Summary Alternative #1: CONTINUATION OF PRESENT POLICY advantages: implements Thoroughfare Plan, no public costs — disadvantages: unfair to some individual property owners: Alternative #2: CONTINUATION OF"PRESENT POLICY WITH COMPENSATION OPPORTUNITIES advantages: implements Thoroughfare Plan, fair to property owners disadvantages: requires adoption of an impact fee system that can be applied in such a way as to credit some dedications. Alternative #3: UTILIZING CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY THROUGH CULVERTING advantages: implements Thoroughfare Plan, lessens amount of needed right-of-way disadvantages: high cost, necessitates extensive agreement with Drainage District, constrains potential for future canal widening 16