HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-1986
off'
Cry OUA)
SaN I~,19~~
AGENDA
CITY OF 09NTOA CITY COUNCIL
0 January 14, 1986
Special Called Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on
Tuesday, January 14, 1986, at 6:00 p.m. in the Civil Defense
Room of the Municipal Building at which the °ollowin; items
will be considered:
6:00 P.M.
1. Consideration of conditions and economic impact
analysis on Z-1779 (Petition of Miller of Texas -
Lakeview Uevelopment).
I.. Executive Session:
A. Le al Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17
d. Keal Estate Under Sec. 2(f)) Art. 6252=17
V.A.,r.S.
G. Personnel Under Sec. 2(g), Art 6252-17 V.A.T.S.
U. doard A~pQpointments Under Sec. 2(g), Art
625k-17 V,A.1'.S.
•
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the
bulletin board at the City Nall of the City of Denton, Texas,
on the day of 1986 at --r a'clock
CITY SECRETARY
•
20j1C
+ti t
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 9, 1986
To: Mayor and City Council.
From: Jeff Mayor, Director of Planning and Development
Subject: Conditions and Economic Impact Analysis for Z-1779
Attached are a copy of the economic analysis report presented-by
the petitioner for Z-1779 and a list of conditions suggested by
staff. Additional information will be provided as it is completed
and received by the Planning and Development Department.
CC:ab
Attachments
I
Z-1779. Petition of Moller of Texas, Inc, requesting
OTTEWd development toning on 690,84 acres presently zoned
agricultural (A). The property is described as beginning
approximately 600 feet south of U,S, Highway 380 and
extending to approximately igloo feet south of PM 416
(fast McXinney Street). -The property Is further described
as being a tract in the M. Forrest Survey, Abstract 417,
and the W. Durham Survey, Abstract 330. It the planned
development is approved, the full0winp land uses will be
permitted:
a) Cluster housing - 782 dwelling units on 15.70 acres
with a density of 18 units per acre - attached
b) Multi-family - S37 units on 22.37 acres
with a density of 24 units per acre
c) Office - 8,78 acres
d) General Retail - 17.94 acres
e) Multi-family - 38S units on 16,05 acres
with a density of 24 units per acre
f) Cluster housing - 137 units on 11.47 acres
with a density of 12 units per acre - attached
g) Community Facilities - 13,39 acres
h) Single Family (10) - 137 units on 10,000 square foot
lots on 39,30 acres
with a density of 3.5 units per acre
i) Single Family (10) 249 units on 10,000 square foot
lots on 71,01 acres
with a density of 3,5 units per acre
j) Clssster housing - 4S2 units on 17.30 acres - detached
with a density of 12 units per acre
k) Office - 7,70 acres
1 Park - 8,40 acres
n General ,detail - 22.52 acres
n) Hulti-family - S,393 units on 107,85 acres
with a density of 50 units per acre
o) Cluster housing - 115 units on 14.41 acres
with a density of 8 units per acre - attached
p Community Facilities - 9.21 acres
q Sinlls Family - 331 units on 7000 square foot lots
on 2.85 acres
with a density of 4 units per acre
r) Neighborhood Service - 4.40 acres
s) Slnyle Family - 28S units on 7000 square foot lots
on 71.62 acres
with a density of 4 units per acre
t) Cluster Housing - 184 units on 22,99 acres
with a density of 8 units per acre - attached
u) Cluster Housing - 197 units on 24,72 acres
with a density of 12 units per acre - detached
v) Cluster Housing - M units on 30.28 acres
with a density of 18 units per acre - attached
w) Cluster Housing - 241 unite on 30.18 acres
with a density of 8 units per acre - detached
i ! •1• r w
WON, sm, sup
• r mmW _ w w _ _
• w ri i i
40P 4WW
_ w w i - sm*
dft *to 0 MOP
14106 AMID 400, s,,.
400
• • •
of of of
- -
0-000 0#1 #*of
4" - -
cc in MILLS RD - - -
. 1
y INNFY
. 4$ 426
CM)
• . Z * I w mow. r _ _ _
O
Foster r_-
t Mayhill
Community d'. I
1
• 'A
Fd'
1'. d
'VOW
pot
b~~► R ; ~ I
i
l ••rt 1'$'?.
i
Gl~
. sit
t
DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT ~p
LAKEVIEW
DEVELOPMENT
Nam
s
Z-1779 - Proposed Conditions:
1. A comprehensive site plan must be submitted for each parcel
before platting is approved. The comprehensive site plan must
show all development standards including but not limited to
lot dimensions, lot coverage- height parking, setbacks,
ingress and egress, landscaping, buffering/screening, and
signs,
2. A tree preservation plan showing all existing trees, all trees
to be removed, and all trees to be planted must be approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in conjunc-
tion with the comprehensive site plan,
3. A detailed landscaping plan must be approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council in conjunction with the
comprehensive site plan.
4. Developer shall submit a detailed General Development Plan
prior to any platting. That plan shall include an exact
description of the infrastructure improvements necessary
to allow each phase or tract of land to be developed. The
developer shall commit either to phases or tracts of land
0 by designing his General Development Plan to properly match
that specific method of development. A traffic study must be
submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission
with the General Development Plan. The traffic study must
consider but is not limited to the specific planned develop-
ment conditions listed below.
S. One hundred twenty (120) feet of right-of -wayextend+n from
University Drive (U.S. 380) to the southern boundary of the
development shall be dedicated as condition to approval of
the first plat of the development.
6. Improvements to state roads shall be done at the developer's
V/ expense including but not limited to new signals, signal
optimization (timing, equipment, etc.), turn lanes, and any
rights-of-way necessary to achieve ultimate development, All
improvements shall be determined during the platting process.
7,f Repaving or overlay of a 24 foot section of Mills and Blagg
Roads from the North/South Arterial to Mayhill Road and
Trinity Road from Mills Road to McKinney Street is required.
The timing for improvements will be determined during the
platting process when traffic counts on either Mills, Blagg
or Trinity Roads show that 100 vehicle trips per day are
generated by this development. The developer will be respon-
sible for improvement cost, not to exceed $S0,000 per road.
01
.
Conditions - Z-1779
Page 2
8. Developer ohall pay for any signalixation or road improve-
I ments necessary on Mayhill Road due to traffic generated from
this development. Those improvements shall be determined in
the platting process with the total cost of road improvements
on Mayhill Road not to exceed $50,000 for the developer and
signalization warranted at the intersections of McKinney
Street and Mayhill Road and I.H. 35 and Mayhill Road as a
result of this development will not exceed $50,000 for the
J. 9.developer.
The phasing for the construction of the road network will be
determined by the formula below:
Construction shall begin when building permits are issued
and completion of the road work and improvements must be
done before certificates of occupancy are issued or utility
connections are authorized.
TT u 0.915(SF) + 0,518(MF) + 0.468(TH) + 4.616(0) + 27.107(R)
Where: TT ■ Total Trips
SF ■ Single-Family (dwelling units)
MF w Multi-Family (dwelling units)
TH = Townhouse (dwelling units,
0 ■ Office per 1,000 square feet)
R . Retail per 1,000 square feet)
The control totals should be:
Phase 1 m 0 trip3
Phase IA w 700 trips
Phase 1B ■ 10250 trips
Phase 2 ■ 4,100 trips
Phase 3 • 6,100 trips
Phase 4 !A 89180 trips
Phase 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits,
two lanes of the North/South Arterial will be built from
University Drive (U.S. 380) to McKinney Street.
Phase 1A. This phase would require widening of the
- inter-
sections at University Drive (U.S. 380) and at Blagg Road.
The exclusive right-turn lanes at U.S. 380 and the North/South
Arterial will be needed at this time.
Phase 1B would require widening the intersections at Mills
Road an at McKinney Street. The exclusive right-turn lane
at the North/South Arterial and F.M. 426, southbound to west-
bound, will he needed with the implementation of Phase 1B.
Conditions - Z-1779
Page 3
Phase 2. The North/South Arterial shall be expanded to a
Giffijr ane divided roadway from McKinney Street to U.S. 380.
Improvements associated with this phase include the right.
turn lane at Loop 288 and F.b' 426, northbound to eastbound,
and the dual left-turn lanes at U.S. 380 and Loop 288, west-
bound to southbound.
Phase 3. The North/South Arterial shall be expanded to a
six lane divided roadway from University Drive (U.S. 380) to
McKinney Street. This phase requires the dedication of 120
feet of right-of-way and the extension of two lanes of the
North/South Arterial to I.H. 35E. The improvement associated
with this phase is the right-turn lane at Loop 288 and U.S.
380, northbound to eastbound.
Phase 4. The North/South Arterial must be expanded to a
s x- ane divided road from U.S. 380 to I.H. 3 E for full
development to occur. Exclusive right-turn lanes at Loop 288
and U.S. 380 and Loop 288 and P.M. 426, eastbound to south-
bound, and dual left-turn lanes at P.M. 426 and Loop 288,
westbound to southbound, and North/South Arterial and U.S.
380, northbound to westbound, are required with this phase.
10. A twenty-five (25) foot setback from the right-of-way is
required along the North/South Arterial on the east and west
sides of the arterial and on the north and south sides of
McKinney Street. A reduced setback may be requested by the
developers with the comprehensive plan and landscaping plan
when these documents are submitted for approval by the City
Council.
No parking areas are allowed in any front yard setback or in
the 25 foot setbacks outlined above.
12.) All major drainage channels are to remain in their natural
state after cleanout at the developer's expense. Floodway
to be dedicated to the City of Denton. All minor drainage
channels are to be concrete constructed unless approved by
City staff and Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. Sidewalks will be required along the south and west sides of
all streets In the development.
14. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) will be
provided by the developer to the City of Denton for park
purposes prior to the issuance of any building permits.
William L. McKee, Ph.D,
1320 Churchill
Denton. Texas 76201
1817) 666.2773
666.3448
November 27, 1986
Mr. David Ellison
Senior Planner
City of Denton
Municipal Building
Denton, rx 76201
Dear Mr. Ellison:
Enclosed is a Copy of my final report, "Lakeview Development:
Economic Analysis." You have previously received a copy of
the analytical spread sheets which, in their final form,
generated most or the information presented in the report.
1 trust that you will find the conclusions to be consistent
with the data as we have discussed it on several occasions over
the past few weeks.
Please know that I deeply appreciate the courtesies that you and
0 our staff have extended to me in our work. I also found Mr. McCrane,
. Nelson, Mr. Berstein, and the members of your development
committee to be quite cooperative and encouraging,
Sincerely,
lam' ~'1 Y1Q YAs.__
William L. McKee
Economist
WLM/nv
Encl.
L '•"i. i~ "tea .
ECONOMIC IMPACT
LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT
($1985)
DIRECT REVENUE IMPACT:
REAL PROPERTY TAX BASE $1,0280532,298
REAL PROPERTY TAXES
1988-2002 ANNUAL~2002- )
City $26,768,706 $ 51445,771
County 7,218,694 1,615,271
DISD 38p749,967 71845,603
$720733,967 $14,906,645
ANNUAL CITY GENERAL FUND REVENUES K200„2-
Real Property Tax $50446,771
City Sales Tax 5689350
Elec., Water & Sewer 7680000
$6,782,121
OTHER ECONOMIC IMPACTS (2002- )
Denton and Denton Co, State of Texas Federal
Lakeview Jobs 20434
Total Jobs 15,000 150000
Personal Ire. $3201519,950 $3200519,960
Tax Revenues $ 18,000,000 $ 21,300,000 $143,6001000
LAKEVIEW POPULATION AND SCHOOL ENROLLMNTS (2002- )
Population DISD
20,083 4,165
J r
THE LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Prepared by
William L. McKee, Ph.D.
Economist
for
Mr. David Ellison
Senior Planner
City of Denton
November 27, 1985
j
THE LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Lakeview is a proposed development project expected to
be completed in 2002, with the first buildings ready for use
in 1989. As reflected by the data that follows, the
develi.per is undertaking substantial entrepreneurial risks
with the expectation that Denton 's current growth pattern
will extend throughout this century and into the next,
Given the magnitude of the Lakeview Development, it would
contribute substantially to the continuation of economic
growth in the Denton area over the next several years.
Recent analyses conducted by various public and private
agencies indicate that Denton is a feasible area for
expanded commercial and residential development. In its
proposed form, the Lakeview Development is compatible with
these growth opportunities. Moreover, the tax revenues to
bo generated by the Development will apparently be
sufficient to cover substantial levels of municipnl service,
maintenance, and repair for the foreseeable future.
Revenue Impacts (amounts shown are in 1955 dollars)
The increase in the Denton real property tax base
resulti.ag from the construction and sale of 9,531 dwelling
units and almost 800,000 square feet of retail and office
space is estimated to be $1,026,5320298 (in 1985 dollars).
Through completion of the project in 2002, a total of
$72,733,967 in City ($26,7650736), County ($7,218,594), and
10
71-
Denton ISD ($38,749,637) taxes will be generated directly
from the development. From 2002 forward, LnnMS1 real
property tax revenues from Lakeview will total approximately
$15 million ($5,445,771 City; $1,615,271 County; and
$7,845,603 Denton ISD).
Additionally, City retail sales tax revenues will rise
to approximately $568,350 by 2002 and should continue at
that level through the foreseeable lifetime of the
Development. The City of Denton, as a result, will receive
over $6 million in direct tax revenues each year once the
project is completed. The $5,445,771 in annual City real
property taxes resulting from the Development will almost
double the $5,667,981 that the City expects to receive in
the 1985-86 fiscal year.
After 2002, it is estimated that the City of Denton
will receive approximately $9,300,000 annually in utility
revenues from residentiaA customers. The larger portion of
this amount ($7 million) is from electricity sales.
Commercial and government o:fices in the area will add
several million additional dollars in utility revenues to
the City, depending on the nature of their business
operations. It is estimated that commercial and government
utility sales will amount to over $7 million per year. The
return to the City's General Fund, which is separate from
the utility department, is projected to be $768,000 per year
after the Development is completed and occupied.
2
Other Direct Economic I!!Qacts
Direct economic effects in Denton also include the
eventual creation of an estimated 2,434 new gobs in Lakeview
offices and retail stores. It must also be noted that the
Development will provide other direct economic revenues to
the Denton community that are not included in the revenue
estimates shown above. Among these (unmeasured) revenues
are; (1) property tax receipts from privately held, open
areas in the Lakeview community; (2) property tax receipts
over the period 1986-2002 from land areas scheduled fo:-
completed construction at some later date; (3) franchise and
business license revenues; (4) increased State revenues for
the Denton ISD; and (5) the various construction fees
charged to the Development. Finally, direct economic
benefits to the Denton community also include the sizable
value of the highway and streetwork dedicated to Denton by
the developer, in addition to the substantial land area
provided for these purposes, as well as for public schools
and parks. (DISD, for example, estimates that its land
acquisition costs for future school sites are $25,000 per
acre, exclusive of approximately $40,000 in streetwork
requirements for each new school site.)
Lakeview Population and School Enrollments
By 2002, the population of the Lakeview Development is
estimated to be 20,063 (assuming full occupancy). The
Denton Independent School District will
gain a substantial
. number of new enrollments as the dwelling units begin to
3
fill. At completion of the Development in 2002, full
. occupancy of its dwelling units would contribute the
following new enrollments in DISD: 1,736 in grades K-6=
1,176 in grades 7-8i and 1,243 senior high school students.
(These estimates are based on factors derived from a
continuing, longitudinal otudy of enrollment trends in the
Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District.)
Lmerx$ncv Service Protection Costs
The City's annual cost of providing police, fire, and
emergency medical protection to the Lakeview Development
will be approximately $1,425,000 for 30 additional fire
officers and 26 police, at current staffing rates. (This
figure includes an estimated 30 percent fringe benefit
rate.) Nine new police patrol cars and 3 additional fire
and emergency vehicles (a fire engine or pumper, ambulance,
and snorkel truck) would add $536,000 to start-up costs, but
these items must be depreciated over several years,
Similarly, a new fire station in the Development would add
another $350,000 in costs.
Indirect Impacts
The analysis presented above is centered on the
estimation of the economic and demographic results that will
stem directly from the completion of the Lakeview
Development. Other, and even more substantial, impacts of
the Development are expected to accrue, however, as these
increased expenditures "ripple" through the Denton economy,
4
{
For example, it is eatimated that eventually 2,434 new gobs
. will be created directly within the Development'# office and
retail tenants, but this figure ignores the substantial
number of conetruction gobs that will be created while the
structures, roads, and other facilities are being built.
More importantly, the direct estimates do not provide
evidence of the increased spending by households, public
agencies, and businesses in Denton as the $1 billion in
initial expenditures flow into the second-round consumption
spending of these groups.
The estimates provided here are generated through the
Texts input-Qutout Model, developed by the Texas Board of
Water Resources and distributed by the Texas Department of
Community Affairs, Actually, the model is a quantitative
representation of the State economy for a given year,
showing the interaction of all businesses, industries,
governments, and households. "Multipliers," which are
generated by the model, provide measurable evidence of the
economic interdependencies among the State's economic
sectors.
On a statewide basis, the impact of $1 billion in
construction expenditures is expected to create 30,000
permanent jobs throughout Texas and expand the State's
economic activity by about $2.8 billion each year. Tax
revenues created by the increase in economic activity are
estimated to be $143 million in odditionai federal taxes,
5
$21.3 million in State taxes, and $29.3 million additional
local (county and city) taxes.
Not all of these dollar impacts accrue solely to the
Denton community because of the "leakages" of money outside
of the area--far example, consumer purchases from suppliers
outside of Denton. Under the assumption that about 50
percent of all the new jobs will be in the City and 60
percent of the expanded retail purchases will be made in
Denton, local employment should expand by about 15,000 and
local taxes by almost $18 million as a consequence of the
Development. Other intangible economic impacts that will
benefit the Denton community would include the value of city
parka, open space utilization, planned thoroughfares, and
flood plain control.
Conclusion
The data reviewed for this study indicate that Denton
is likely to experience substantial commercial and
residential growth in the future. The proposed Lakeview
Development 1.9 economically compatible with these growth
prospects and also is in line with the strong national trend
toward higher density developments as land'values continue
to appreciate.
Substantial tax revenues and other economic benefits
will be realized through the project. Based on the
materials and data reviewed for this study, the net economic
impact for the City of Denton and the Denton ISD appears to
be ^ositive.
6
Y - ..c~a-•..-,.gyp .
oft
THESE ARE THE E,3TIMATED YEARLY EFFECTS DUE TO THE
PARAMETERS THAT YOU I4AVE ENTERED. RESULTS ARE EXPRESSED IN
THIRD QUARTER 1984.
SECTORi 12 BUILDING CONST
ANALYSIS FORt Production VALUE OF CHANGEt 11000f0U0000.0
VALUE OF CHANGE IN PRODUCTION .1000000000.0
CHANGE IN NUMBER OF JOBSt
CHANGE IN BUILDING CONS? . 10900.0
CHANGE IN JOBS ECONOMY WIDE . . . . » . . , . . . . . . . . 30094.0
CHANGE IN PERSONAL INCOMEt
CHANGE IN BUILDING CONST . 255,700000.0
CHANGE ECONOMY WIDE . , , . . » , . . . . . . » 64110399f.)O.0
CHANGE IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ECONOMY WIDE .?~829OUCSUUO.U
CHANGE IN TAX REVENUESt
FEDERAL . » 14~609000.0
STATE 21300r,►6. 4) . 0
LOCAL 29809000.0
SECN SIC SECTOR NAME PRODUCTION M JOBS PERE INC
1 01 AGRICULTURE 6380000.0 214.29 1875720.0
2 02 LIVESTOCK 1171oO(o.0 139.32 2127707.0
3 07 AGRI SERVICES 6660000.0 328.25 1432566.0
4 Lib PRIMARY FORESTRY 2790000.0 16.62 316107.0
5 09 FISHERIES 590000.0 8.51 172044.0
6 10 METAL MINING 1400000.0 30.19 355880.0
7 12 COAL & LIS MINING 1320000.0 28.47 1335544.0
8 131 CRU PETRO & NAT GAS 24140000.0 40.43 6302616>0
9 132 NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS 180000010 3.1L 845520.0
10 13 OIL & GAS FIELD SVCS 5174000.0 68.51 1970287.0
11 14 NONMETAL NONFUEL MIN 6720000.0 144.93 1708224.0
12 15 BUILDING CONST 1000540000.0 10905.89 255838,104.0
13 16 FACILITY CONST 192000010 23.89 495552.0
14 17 SPCL TRADE CONTR 13610000.0 134.38 4106137.0
15 20 FOOD & KINDRED 49050000.0 215.00 4963860.0
16 22 TEXTILE MILL PROD 1320000.0 15.41 339108.0
17 23 APPAREL & RELATED 3970000.0 87.93 120132e.0
18 24 LOG L5R & MILL PROD 20550o(K).0 223.40 3125655,0
19 25 FURNITURE & FIXTUR 2630000.0 51.74 623047.0
EO 86 PAPER & CONTAINERS 6190000.0 47.96 1319089.0
i
. r
SECM SIC SECTOR NAME PRODUCTION M JOBS PERS INC
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
21 27 PRINTED PAPER PRODS 8724r10t,.,) 139.62 2441640.0
22 28 CHEMICAt.S & PROD 25070000.0 55.86 2048219.0
23 291 PETRO REFINING 45440040.0 34.41 1690368.0
24 29 OTHER PETRO PRODS 5020400.0 28.66 573786.0
25 30 RUBBER & PLAST PROD 6220040.0 68.84 1226584.0
26 31 LEATHER & PRODUCTS 3150000.0 78.95 .951299.9
27 32 CLAY, GLASS, STONE 73720000.0 786.37 14390140.0
28 33 STEEL & PRIM METALS 25330000.0 151.60 4417552.0
29 34 FAD METAL PRODUCT 87470000.0 985.27 21,727550.4
30 35 FAW MINE MACHINE 3590000.0 36.46 1046639.0
31 35 OTHER MACHINERY 12070000.0 123.30 3106818.0
32 36 ELECT INSTR & APPL 4890400.0 63.20 1614189,0
33 36 ELECT COMPUTE EQUIP 610000.0 8.19 230336.0
. 34 37 PARTS TRANSP EQUIP 7200000.0 79.16 1679760.0
35 38 INSTRUMENTS 213000010 31.64 531742.0
36 39 MISCELLANEOUS MFG e04OOOO.O 32.02 618936.0
37 40 RAILROADS 8830000.0 110.24 3918754.0
38 41 RURAL LOCAL TRANSP 1580000.0 32.09 621256.17
39 42 MOTOR F'RT & STORAGE 26330000.0 414.30 9728935.0
7"F`7$S .'a3 . I ...r. ^'L-
SEC# SIC SECTOR NAME PRODUCTION M JOBS PERS INC
• • Y • • • . • • ♦ • • Y . . • . . . • • . • . • • . . • . • • .
• • ♦ . .
40'44'
G 44 WATER TRANSPORT 3120000.0 27.17 1149472.0
41 45 AIR TRANSPORT 7860000,0 114.23 2368218.0
42 46 PIPELINES 1674000.0 6.36 208082.0
43 47 OTHER TRANSPORT 850000.0 28.73 273530.0
44 48 RADIO TV COMM 16450006.0 323.5:2 4999285.0
45 49 UTILITIES 5367C)1:104:1,0 244.63 6570676.0
46 54 WHOLESALE! DURABLE 5911000040 688.63 2f0B4540.0
47 51 WHOLESALE, NON-DUR 47270000.0 497.69 17r3P4450.4
48 52 BUILDING MATERIALS 6660000.0 871.42 26 4052.0
49 53 GENERAL MERCHANDISE 882000010 386.48 2782710.0
50 54 FOOD STORES 15640000.0 653,32 4623184.0
51 55 CAR DLR REP' SVC STA 1560.10000.0 526.85 4457564.0
52 56 APPAREL STORES 7130000.0 285.22 2697992.0
53 57 FURNITURE DEALERS 4870000.0 181.20 1169774.0
54 58 EAT 6 DRINK PLACE 18210004.0 1009.95 4962225.0
55 59 OTHER RETAIL 16730000.0 1-,41.84 5793599.0
56 60 BANKING 47350000.4 331,67 82311320.0
57 61 CREDIT AGN XCFT BANK 22960000.4 164.82 14818750.4
58 62 SCTY COMMOD BROKERS 16310000.0 131,11 3376170.0
A
a
r~s:~:Te7 7 97'
'5
SEC# SIC SECTOR NAME PRODUCTION # JOBS PERS INC
59 63 INSURANCE B2b640G0.C► 330.32 8991488.0
60 64 INSUR AGENT BRO DLRS 10670400.0 155.54 4233856.0
61 65 REAL ESTATE 21700000.0 174.44 4491900.0
62 46 REAL EST INSUR LOANS 264000.0 2.09 53820.0
63 67 HOLD & INVESTMNT OFC 15280000.0 122.83 3162964.0
64 70 LODGING 5890000.0 217.69 1359412.4
65 72 PERSONAL SERVICES 7880001.0 886.77 2456984.0
66 73 ADVERT & BUS SVCS 115540000.0 3520.73 58809860.4
67 75 AUTO RENTAL & SVCS 6330000.0 136.47 1488681.0
68 76 ELECT & MISC REPAIR 6000000.4 91.48 3017400.0
69 78 MOTION PICTURE PROD 1080000.0 25.42 397408,4
70 79 REC & AMUSEMENT 4930000.0 147.68 2853996.0
71 S0 HEALIH SERVICES 42230000.0 1426.43 18623430.0
• 72 81 LEGAL SERVICES 7810000.0 97.64 3248960.0
73 82 PRIVATE EDUCATION 3500000.0 155.96 1964550.0
74 8'0 SOCIAL SERVICES ic.►220000.0 355.63 3300038.0
75 84 GALLERY, Z00 MUSEUM 190000.0 6.61 61351.0
76 86 MEMBERSHIP'WRGS 3680000.0 128.05 118827L'.0
77 89 MISCELLANEOUS SVCS X3800000.0 223.07 66(.1920.0
i
CITY TAX COUITY TAX DISD TAI( CON VALUE CITY TAX COMITY TAX DISO TAX CON VALUE CITY TAX COUNtY TAX DISD TAX CON VALUE CITY
TAX CWITY TAX 0150 TAX
COLLECT 92 COLLECT 92 COLLECT 82 1993 COLLECT 93 COLLECT 93 CQ LECT 63 1994 COLLECT 94 COLLECT 94 COLLECT 94 1995 COLLECT 95 COLLECT 95
COLLECT 95
24719 7332 35811 4200000 242% 7203 34986 4200000 24264 7203 349% 42=0 24284 7203 34988
0 D 0 a G 0 0 a 0 0 11 0 a 0 0
a 0 0 0 0 0 D O 0 0 0 23712272 137TO4 40687 197523
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12425320 71643 21309 103503 4141738 23948 7103 34501
a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3675000 21299 83113 30813
0 a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 a 0 0 a 0
23128 WSO 33370 3790000 21803 8431 31236 375OO0D 211183 9431 31236 375000E 21683 5431 31236
48258 13720 88840 7250X10 44811 13291 84558 T75O0OO 44811 13291 rb558 7750000 44811 13291 64558
0 a 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O D 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 D 0 0 D a C
0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 n 0 a 0 0
0 0 0 0 a D 0 0 0 0 0 O a a 0
0 a a b 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 D
D 0 0 0 0 0 a 2175000 12578 373D Tells 21 TM 12578 3730 Tell$
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0
34345 10187 49480 8030000 34688 10341 50230 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 D
0 0 a' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0
29882 e79s 42733 5130000 29862 6796 42733 51317000 29682 e79s 42733 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4930000 27972 am 4D234 4030000 27927 8283 40234 483DOOD 27927 9783 40234
0 D 0 0 a a D 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
b b 0 D 0 0 O 0 0 0 D 8220000 47528 14087 86473
a a 0 0 0 0 0 6405000 37034 10985 53351 8]00000 36427 10604 52474
. -
150109 48697 227784 183232 54348 263978 289619 81'131 389722 397535 117913 572721
429079 127269 618165 571377 169476 Q3171 738286 216390 1080751 979123 ;90418 1410800
5871es 174188 80942 31880UDD 751809 223625 1067146 48885320 TOOBlas 298421 1449473 86754010 1376659 400331 !963321
CITY TAX RATE 0.00690 NEW APPRA25EiTOTAL VALUE 1.00 PREY APPRAISE/Ta1AL VALUE 0.90
COMITY TAX RATE 0.00175 COLLECTION RATE 0.96
0150 TAX RATE 0.00@''.x0
CON VALUE CITY TAX COMITY TAX DISO TAX CON VALUE CITY TAX COUNTY TAX DISO TAX CON VALUE CITY TAX COUNTY TAX OISO TAX
CON VALUE
PARCEL USE 1969 COLLECT 99 COLLECT 99 COLLECT 89 1990 COLLECT 9a COLLECT 90 COLLECT 90 1991 COLLECT 91 COLLECT 91 COLLECT 91
1992
A CLUSTER 0 a D 0 0 0 0 0 4276000 24719 7332 35611 4275OOa
6 RULFm a 0 0 0 266500(X7 155247 46049 223661 0 0 0 a 0
C OFFICE 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 OENRETAIL 0 a 0 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 D 0 0
E RULFAR 19250000 111304 33014 190353 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
F f, USTER 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 D D 0 0 a 0
G SDIOOL 0 0 a 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
N OF-10 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 4000000 23126 6890 33320 4000000
I 9F-10 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 8000000
J CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
K OFFICE 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L PARK a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R aENRETAK 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N At11.FAN 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 D 0
0 CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P SC1(Cl. 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 D
Q 9F-7 5940= 34345 10187 4x3480 5940700 34345 10187 49490 5940000 34345 10187 49480 5940000
R NSERV O 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
5 IV-? 0 0 0 D 5130000 29682 8798 42733 5130000 29662 am 42733 5130000
CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D 0 a
U CLUSTER 0 U 0 a 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y (LUSTER 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOT TAXES ON NEW CON 145649 43201 209933 219253 65033 315874 111853 33177 161144
TAXES ON PREY CON 0 0 0 131094 38891 188849 328412 97410 473136
f TOTAL 25190000 145649 43201 209633 37920000 350337 103914 504723 19345000 440285 130597 634290 27345000
REAL PROPERTY TAXESs
Anuai
1866-2002 ~ r
City =29,795x736 S 5,445,771
County 7,219,594 1,61$x271
DI50 36,749,937 7,645,603
TOTAL !92,733,967 61409064945
i
r T
a* VALUE CITY TAX COUIITY TAX OISO TAX CON VALUE CITY TAX COL ITY TAX DISO TAX CON VALUE CITY TAX COUNTY TAX DISD TAX CON
VALUE CITY TAX COLAITY TAX Qt5D TAX
1999 COLLECT 99 COLLECT 99 COLLECT 99 2a00 COLLECT 0O COLLECT 00 COLLECT DO mm COLLECT O1 COLLECT 01 COLLECT 01 2002 COLLECT 02 COLLECT
02 COLLECT 02
0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a D
a 0 0 0 a 0 fl 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a 0 a a a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a D d
a 0 0 n a 0 D D a D 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 a a D a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0
O 0 a a O O a a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0
o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o a D D 0 0 0 0
7710000 21663 6431 31239 O 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 D 0 0
7730000 14811 13291 64558 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 a 0 0
11 MID 68603 20346 96635 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 a a 0 a
a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a a
0 0 0 0 0 0 o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0
5199194 30062 9917 43308 a 0 0 a D a a 0 0 0 o a
0 0 0 0 179800001 1039604 308357 1497734 170600000 1039604 3Onb57 1497734 1797DW00 109025 308166 14969D1
d 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0
0 d d a O 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 a
0 a 0 9 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a D 0 0 0
a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a D 0
a a a a D 0 0 0 0 0 b d 0 0 o D
0 0 D o D a 0 0 0 .0 D 0 0 0 0 0
7770000 44926 13326 64724 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 b 0 , 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0
0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a D 0
21D064 62313 302664 1039604 308351 1497734 1039804 308357 1497734 1039025 306166 1496901
7346364 695961 3390383 2535459 752043 3652781 3471103 1029584 SM41 4406746 1307066 9348702
3533416/ 2556486 758774 3683047 179800000 3575063 1060400 515051S 17M XX30 4510706 1337921 6498475 179700000 5445771 1615271 7645603
var. ~
Y CITY TAX RATE 0.00590 NEW A14WISE/TOTAL VALUE I'm PREY XPPRAISEPOTAL VALUE 0.90
COUNTY TAX RATE 0.00175 COUECTION RATE 0.98
DISO TAX RATE 0.008
CITY TAX COUNTY TAX DIM TAX CON VALUE CITY TAX COUNTY TAX OI£O TAY CON VALUE C17Y TAX COUNTY TAX DISD TAX CON VALUE CITY TAX
COUNTY TAX DISO TAX
PARCEL USE COLLECT 05 COLLECT 95 CDLLECT 05 1898 COLLECT 98 COLLECT 98 COLLEI:T 98 1997 COLLECT 97 COLLECT 97 COLLECT 97 19% COLLECT
98 COLLECT 98 COLLECT 96
A CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0
0 WAN 0 0 a 7 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0
C WFIEE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0
0 WJKTAIL 414173E 23948 71D3 54501 0 D 0 O 0 0 0 0
E WAR O 0 a 0 0 a a 0 0 0 a a
F CLUSTER 3970000 20642 6123 29730 3570000 20642 8123 29738 3670000 20642 6173 29739
G Soon 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0
N Sr-10 37wm 21683 6431 31239 375= 21683 6431 31238 3750000 21683 6431 31239
3 CLUSTER 7750000 44811 t3291 64558 7150000 44811 13291 04556 7750LXX1 44811 13291 64558
11865000 88803 20348 Bd635 118115000 84603 20348 98835 1f(vi000 88603 20346 99835
K orrice ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1497=6 96198 25567 124194
L PAR( 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
M CENRCTAIL 0 0 a 0 155973A7 80184 26749 129928 5194194 30082 8917 43309
N Fw AM O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a
0 CLUSTER 2175000 12576 3730 18118 2100000 12142 3602 17493 0 0 D 0
P SCHOM 0 0 a a 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0
O SF-7 0 0 D D D D D 0 0 0 0 0
R NSERV 3737x40 21610 6410 31133 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 D
' 5 SF-7 n 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
T CLUSTER 4930000 27927 9293 40234 0 0 a a a 0 0 0
U CLUSTER 78750fp 45533 13500 65599 7770000 44926 13326 64724 7770000 44926 13328 64724
V CLUSTER 8160000 47181 13994 87973 6160DOO 47191 13994 67973 016COOD 47181 139% 67973
W CLUSTER 8300000 30427 10805 52479 6300000 38427 108(75 52479 0 a a 0
TOT TAX ON NEW CON 397538 117915 572721 370900 110024 534404 396598 IWO 556964 364105 1074197 524559
1AXES ON PREY CON 979123 290416 1410M 1338905 .596540 192WO 1670750 495502 2407013 2018889 596751 2906280
TOTAL 1376658 408331 1983321 84154186 1707844 506964 2480454 66862370 2457309 810231 2963977 62972210 2382794 706761 3432039
4r .r.rr r..r. sr r
POP CHO LV POP TOT LV DU ww DU POP CHG LV POP TOT LV DU NEW OU POP CHO LV POP TOT LV W NEW OU POP DC LV POP
TOT LV OU
1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 19% 19% 1994 1994 1995 1995 1995 1995
115 230 114 58 113 343 170 58 113 457 226 56 113 570 282
0 1095 537 0 1085 537 0 1085 537 0 1095 537
a 778 395 0 778 385 0 778 305 0 776 385
a 0 a 0 0 0 0 D 0 35 71 71 35
so 32 15 42 130 47 15 42 172 62 15 42 213 77
89 89 32 31 Be 175 63 31 B6 260 94 31 86 346 125
0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a a 0 0 n 0 29 59 59 29 29 59 117 58
183 731 264 67 168 917 331 a 917 331 0 917 331
158 471 171 57 158 632 228 57 158 789 2% 0 789 285
D 0 0 48 93 93 46 46 93 189 92 48 93 279 138
f 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0
I(J 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 137 277 277 137
` 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 123 123 61 60 121 244 121
1L----------------------- .err w r r M----------- rrr r nr r r wr r- r nr - ..r
II111I` 589 3475 1535 272 677 4152 1807 295 673 4825 2102 409 961 %M 2511
POKILATIJOW PROTECTIONS
NEW OU POP CIC LV POP TOT LV OU NEW DU POP CH0 LV POP TOT LV OU NEW DJ POP CHG LV POP TOT LV OU NEW DU
PARCEL. USE Im 1989 1989 1989 19mi 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1992
A CLUSTER 0 0 O 0 0 O 57 115 115 57 57
8 ML4UAN 0 0 0 537 1085 1085 537 0 1083 53?
E MULFAM 385 778 778 385 0 778 385 0 778 385
F CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H SF-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 44 44 16 16
I SF-fO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
J CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N MIJLFA14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 SF-7 66 183 183 66 68 183 366 132 66 183 548 198 66
9 5F-7 O 0 0 57 158 158 57 57 158 318 114 57
T CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W CLUSTER D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 451 961 r51 451 660 1425 2386 1111 1% 500 2886 1307 228
HOU5EHOL0 SIZE FACTORSi SF. 2.77
MF ■ 2.02
NEW DU POP GIG LU POP TOT LV DU WW OU POP CHD LV POP TOT LY DU KM OU FOP C1E LU POP TOT LU OU PEN DU POP CtG
LU POP TOT LV OU
1990 1999 1999 1999 2000 20M 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2W 20012 2002 2002 2408
0 570 292 0 570 282 0 570 292 0 570 282
0 1085 337 0 1085 537 0 1095 537 0 10% 537
0 778 395 0 778 395 0 778 385 D 778 385
0 277 137 0 277 137 0 277 137 0 277 137
15' 42 379 137 0 379 137 0 379 137 0 379 137
31 86 690 249 0 690 249 0 690 249 0 690 249
113 229 913 452 0 913 452 0 913 452 0 913 452
0 O 0 1796 3832 3632 1799 1798 3632 7264 3598 1797 3630 10894 5393
0 232 115 0 232 115 0 232 115 0 232 115
0 917 331 0 917 331 0 917 331 0 917 331
O 789 m 0 799 285 0 799 285 0 789 285
0 372 194 0 372 184 0 372 184 0 372 184
74 149 600 297 0 600 297 O 600 297 0 600 297
0 11tH 545 0 1101 545 0 1101 545 0 1101 545
0 487 241 0 487 241 0 487 241 0 487 241
233 505 9189 4177 1796 3832 12821 5975 1798 3632 16453 7773 1797 3630 20083 9:570
i
• • r
POMATMN PFAMTMN9
LV POP TOT LV OU NEW OU POP C1O LV POP TOT LV OU NEW DU POP CIO LV POP TOT LV DU NEW DU POP DG LV POP TUT LV 0U
PARCEL USE 1993 1866 logo 19110 1996 1994 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1998
A CLUSTER 570 282 0 570 282 0 $70 282 0 570 28R
8 Pl1LFM 1085 537 0 1085 537 0 1085 537 0 1085 537
E MULFAM 778 385 0 778 385 0 778 395 0 778 385
F CLUSTER 71 35 34 48 139 99 34 go 208 103 34 69 277 177
It SF-10 213 77 15 42 255 92 I5 42 298 107 15 42 338 122
I SF-10 348 125 31 88 432 159 31 86 518 1B? 31 86 BW 218
J CLUSTER 0 0 113 228 228 113 113 228 45? 226 113 228 685 339
N MJLF AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 CLUSTER 117 58 29 59 178 87 29 37 232 115 0 232 115
Q 3F-7 917 331 0 917 331 0 917 331 0 917 331
J S SF-7 789 205 0 789 285 0 789 285 0 789 285
I T CLUSTER 279 138 46 93 372 184 0 372 184 0 372 184
U CLUSTER 0 0 75 152 152 75 74 149 301 149 74 149 450 223
V CLUSTER 277 137 136 275 551 273 136 275 826 409 136 275 1101 545
W CLUSTER 244 121 60 121 366 181 80 121 487 241 0 487 241
2511 --9 1123 494 7835 3541 403
TOTAL 8684 3944
R
HOUSEHOLD SIZE FACTORSI SFw 2.77
WE 2.02
I
f
K-6 7-8 9-12 TOT LV DU K-8 7-8 9-12 TOT LV OU K-6 7-8 9-12 TOT LV OU K-6 7-8 9-12
1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 20M
54 28 42 292 54 28 42 282 54 28 42 282 54 26 42
81 70 59 537 81 70 59 537 81 70 59 537 81 70 59
58 50 42 380 58 50 42 385 58 54 42 385 58 50 42
26 14 21 137 26 14 21 137 26 14 21 137 26 14 21
49 18 29 137 49 16 29 137 49 18 29 137 49 18 29
90 32 52 249 90 32 52 249 90 32 52 249 90 32 52
88 45 Be 452 86 45 88 452 86 45 68 452 66 45 68
0 0 0 1798 270 234 196 35% 539 467 396 5393 809 701 593
22 12 17 115 22 12 17 115 22 12 17 115 22 12 17
119 43 7O 331 119 43 70 331 119 43 70 331 119 43 70
103 37 60 285 103 37 60 285 103 37 60 285 103 37 60
35 18 29 164 35 18 28 164 35 18 28 184 35 16 28
56 30 45 297 55 30 45 297 58 30 45 297 56 30 45
104 55 82 545 104 55 82 545 104 55 82 545 104 55 82
46 24 36 241 46 24 36 241 46 24 36 241 46 24 36
927 475 650 5975 1197 709 B48 7773 1466 943 1045 9570 1736 1177 1243
DISO STUDENT PRO3FCTIOMS
TOT LV DU 9-8 7-8 9-12 TOT LV DU K-6 7-8 9-12 IOT LV DU r-6 7-8 9-12 TOT LV UU
PARCQ USE 1969 1989 19% 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1992
A CLUSTER 0 D D D 0 0 0 0 57
8 MIILFAM 0 0 D D 537 81 70 59 11 6 9 114
537 91 70 59 537
E PtXFAM 385 58 5D 42 385 59 5D 42 nr
F 50
CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 42 385
p D O 0 4
M SF-10 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 D 16
32
I SF-10 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 8 2 3
0 0 0 0 0 iz
3 CLUSTER 0 D 0 D 0 D p 0 0
N KJLFAM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0
0 CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q
Q 0 O 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q SF-7 66 2a 9 14 132 48 17 28 198 71 26 42 264
5 SF-7 0 0 0 0 57 21 7 12 114 41 15 2a
T CLUSTER 0 D D R 0 0 0 0 0 171
U CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 4 0
p D 0 0 Q 0 U D 0 0 0
V CLUSTER . D 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0
W CLUSTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D D 0
- -
TOTAL 451 82 59 56 1111 206 1aa fat 1347 •',7 168 179 1535
K-12 FACTORSt K-8 7-8 9-12
SF 0.38 0.13 0.21
PLLISTER 0.19 0.10 0615
Pf 005 0.13 0.11
I
K-6 7-8 9-12 TOT LV OU K4 7-8 9-12 TOT LV OU K-6 7-8 9-12 70T LV OU K-6 7-8 9-12
1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 19% 1994 1995 1995 1995 1995
22 11 17 170 32 17 26 226 43 23 34 282 54 28 42
61 70 59 537 61 70 59 537 81 70 59 537 81 70 59
58 50 42 385 58 SD 42 385 58 5D 42 305 58 5o 42
0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 35 7 4 5
12 4 7 47 17 6 10 62 22 8 13 77 28 10 18
12 4 7 63 23 8 13 94 34 12 20 125 45 16 26
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 29 6 3 4 58 11 6 S
05 34 55 331 119 43 73 331 119 43 70 331 119 43 70
62 22 38 228 82 30 48 285 103 37 60 295 103 37 60
0 a 0 46 9 5 7 92 17 9 14 138 26 14 21
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0
a 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 26 14 21
0 a 0 0 0 0 0 61 12 6 9 121 23 12 18
-
340 196 223 1807 420 228 274 2102 494 261 325 2511 579 303 389
r
OI80 STUDENT MXCTII0119
TOT LV 0U K-6 7-0 9-12 TOT LV DU 9-0 7-8 9-12 TUT LV OU K.;, 7-8 9-12 TOT LV OU
W1RCL USE 1998 1990 1998 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1956 1999
A CLUISTER 282 54 26 42 262 54 28 42 282 54 28 42 261
6 IWAM 537 81 70 5Q 537 81 70 59 537 81 70 59 537
E MULFA1f 305 50 50 42 365 50 5O 42 385 58 50 42 385
F CLUSTER Be 13 7 O 103 20 10 15 137 26 14 21 137
H 9F-40 92 33 12 19 107 '-9 14 22 122 44 1B 26 137
I SF-10' 156 58 20 33 197 67 24 39 210 78 28 46 249
3 CLUSTER 113 21 11 17 226 43' 23 34 339 64 34 51 452
M I"AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 CLUSTER 07 17 9 13 115 22 12 17 115 22 12 17 115
Q Ff-7 331 119 43 70 331 1t8 43 70 331 119 43 70 331
9 5F-7 285 103 37 6O 295 103 37 8O 295 103 37 60 205
T CLUSTER 184 35 tc 28 164 35 18 28 184 35 16 M 104
U CLUSTER 75 14 6 it 149 28 t5 22 223 42 22 33 297
V CLUSTER 273 S2 27 41 409 76 41 61 545 104 55 t12 545
Y CLUSTER 1B1 34 1B 27 241 46 24 38 241 40 24 36
241
- -
TOTAL 3050 630 350 472 3541 791 409 549 3944 875 451 612 4177
K-42 FACTOR91 9-8 7-9 9-12
9F 0.38 0.13 0.21
CLUSTER 0.19 0.10 0.15
NF 0.15 0.13 0.11
CITY OF DENTON
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
Sin le Fami1
o a units 11,831.00
Estimated house size 2.77
Total single family acres 40263.46
Occupancy rate 92.0;
Multi-Fami1
-`To`tal un is 119458.00
Estimated house size 2.02
Total multi-family acres 579.09
Occupancy rate 91.81
Mobile Home
Mal units 850.00
Estimated house size 2.40
Total mobile home acres 87.76
Occupancy rate 91.7%
Density
-in le Family - 2.77 units/acre
11,831 units - 40263.46 acres)
Multi-Family - 19.78 units/acre
(110458.units - 579.09 acres)
Mobile Home - 9.68 units/acre
(8S0 units - 87.76 acres)
Total Density - 4.89 units/acre
(24,139 units - 4,930.31 acres)
Denton Development Guide Density 4.70 units/acre
n ,
Cffrof O1RJM1'Wr ?XX" MUNICIPAL AWILDING i DENWK roux 71401 i r&cAvNCWE ft r7)at4aor
Offift of 00 ph► Mrn;prr
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 20, 1986
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svohla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Lakeview Development Financial Information
The Lakeview Development Pro Forma that was provided in your
original agenda package was incorrect. The amount shown for fire
expenditures was listed for only one year and not for the length
of the project. The correct number for fire expenditures should
have been $15,4610481.00 instead of $100570615.00. This
correction then re ises the total opperating and non-operating
expenditures to 42,904,616.00. ;`he revenue estimate of
$31,972,578.00 remains the same. A copy of the revised pro forma
in enclose herewith.
Should you have any question regarding this matter, please contact
myself or John McGrane.
'0~~Q
Rick 8VVFh1_av"r'
Acting City Manager
cyb
Enclosure
sa • a m : + y, ate, a -e:. ~"`lW~'r^.~;~s .
LAKEVID DEVBYAPMENT
PRO FORMA
RFIYBNUES
Ad Valorem Taxes . . . . . , ,
Sales Taxes. $26+896,806.00
Fines and Fees 1.506,225.00
Solid waste. .69,540.00
2,218,147.0Q
Utilities. .
1,'81,900.00
TOTAL
$31,972,578.00
EXPENDITURES:
Traffic Control, .
Animal Control , , , , , , . , . , . , $ 86,000,00
Police 5450708,40
Pi rr, 6p3039889.00
Parks and Recreation 15,461,481.00
• Administration , , ,
• 130, 000.00
Recreation . . . . , .
Parks. 3800000.00
• 490, 000, 00
Building Operation Y
Library. 600000,00
37
• 2,900.00
Solid Waste
Residential. . , , , , , ,
• 1,357,249,0U
Commercial . . , , , , • , , , , . ,
Utilities. 448,967,QQ
Miscellaneous. . , , , . , , , , , , 1,281, S 0 0
_1,306,27S Q0
TOTAL
$28,184,369,00
CAPITAL AND OTHER NON-OPERATING EXPENSES:
Capital Improvements
Debt Service $13,600,000.00
,__1.,120, 247.00
TOTAL
$14,7200247.00
NET GAIN (LOSS)
($LO 9~1 *038~U)
. R .J' "-t£ f. fa - bra •:y W.T 1+.5 'f*.~' 2R i~
C/TYOMENTOP4 rMXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING/ DENTOO(TaW 70?01 / Tl.'LEPHONE~tf 77 6~e"t10f
o1/ift of ow city Vanow
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
DATE: January 20, 1986
SUBJECT: Council Agenda Item 9H
I would like to inform you that Item 9H has been removed from
the agenda by staff, Staff is doing further research on this
item and will present a report to you at a later date.
w
C Ve a
Acting City Manager
ji
2762M
fir... i ,.'I.\
f
Y
7
1
r
1. Applecreek Apartments
2. Mack Paz.:- Apartments
3. Ramsgate Apartments
4. The Oaks Apartments
5. Woodhill Apartments
6. The Residence Apartments
.
y 5
.y a.r.
SELECTED APARTMENTS
Applecreek Apartments 308.00 units
MMcKinney east of Woodrow 11.41 acres
22.99 units/acre
Mack Park Apartments 226.00 "nits
- McKinney east of Audra 10.99 acres
20.S'S units/acre
Ramsgate Apartments 279.00 units
1407 Bernard at Lindsey 8,95 acres
31.17 units/acre
The Oaks Apartments 296,00 units
42S Bernard at IOOF 9.78 acres
30.26 units/acre
Woodhill Apartments 351.00 units
1408 Teasley at I-35 17.00 acres
20.65 units/acre
The Residence Apartments 112,00 units
1801 Jason 4.00 acres
28.00 units/acre
TW U
Guinn Hall 280 rooms/21 floors
Stark Hall 320 rooms/24 floors
Total rooms 11300
NTSU
Bruce Hall 239 rooms
Clark Hall 240 rooms
Crumb,y Hall 109 rooms
Kerr Hall 479 rooms
Maple Hall 344 rooms
McConnell Hall 143 rooms
West Hall 190 rooms
Kendall Hall 74 rooms
Total rooms 20000
Lakeview
Single family
Total single family acres 332.36
Total single family units 10543.00
Density 4.64 units/acre
Multi-Family
Total multifamily acres 26S.74
Total multi-fancily units 8,028,00
Density 30,20 units/acre
Total
Total residential acres S98.10
Total residential units 9,571.00
Total density 16.00 units/acre
Lakeview and Total Densi.tY
Single Family
Total density 2.91 units/acre
Multi-family
Total density 23.06 units/acre
Total Density 6.09 units/acre
f ,
C/TYMDNNr N, MC" wUNlaML auxonvo / DIEmrm Tvw logor / TELEPHONE (a 1n""Sor
art@ of me aty umm w
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
DATE: January 30, 1986
SUBJECT: Further Information on Lakeview
At the last meeting we gave you a summary sheet showing
revenues, The sheet showed the overall revenues and the
overall expenditures that we would expect with the addition of
Lakeview. During the discussions we advised you that we
thought there would be approximately 2,000,000 more dollars
worth of fines and fees. We have made that adjustment to the
revenue side.
We also discussed the capital expenditures, particularly in the
parks area. Attached you will find a memo from Steve Brinkman
which indicates a more detailed allocation of costs for the
park development. The first thing you will note is that
$100000000 of the total cost has been eliminated. This
$10000 000 was for land in lieu of land that we would lease
from tAe Corps. In further discussions with Steve he indicated
that he knew of no case where the Corps had refused to lease
excess land around the lake to other city governments. In fact
that is what was done in the City of Lewisville and Highland
Village, We have contacted the Corps and they are sending us
the appropriate forms and at this time they see no reason why
the leasing cannot take place. They lease the land for lease
payments which are essentially the improvement of the land for
recreational activities( i.e., there would be no actual
out-of-pocket-cost to lease the land.) Steve has also
attributed the cost for the other improvements such as the
recreational center, swimming pool, and the neighborhood parks
totally to Lakeview. He has pro rated the golf course and the
three major parks. As you can see from the backup tha total
amount of cost that should be attributed to Lakeview is
Lakeview Memo
Page 2
January 30, 1986
$6,125,000. This is a higher number than we first estimated at
the last meeting. You will also note that Steve addresses
other warrs to either get more park land or money te
land. Me also tried to assess the effect of the l
inotheeu
i rofopehn
spaces in the development that would not be City owned$ It
would be available for certain residents of the Lakeview
project to use such as swimming pools and tennis courts in the
condominium areas and the multi-family areas.
We have also had further discussions with Dr.
some of the original calculations that were done and Msome of
the methodology used. There were also some questions raised
about some of the sales tax numbers. We have reviewed all of
these. Depending of some of the assumptions that we make there
could be some adjustments to the salaries which would show a
reduction in the expenditures particularly in the police and
fire wages. or we could make similar assumptions on the
revenue side which would increase the value of the ad valorem
tax because the construction costs would be more. If we accept
this method of calculation or premise, it would mean that
expenditures for police and fire would be significantly changed
( $1,2 million for police and $2.3 million for fire.) At this
point we are still not real comfortable with this premise and
therefore have not included it in the final summary sheet.
Finally John has also gone back to look at some sales tax
calculations, It appears that in the first sheet we made an
error in that we did not use the cumulative effect of the
population within the new development, our recalculations
shows that the sales tax should be $3,840,148.
You also asked us to contact the school district to inquire as
to cost and effect that this increase population would have on
the district, John McGrane did contact Gilbert ,Bernstein,
Gilbert advised us that because he did not feel comfortable on
assessed value, effective tax rates and construction costs as
well as state assistance and new requirements from the
legislature on class size etc,, he did not feel comfortable in
giving out any numbers to project the effect on the district.
John has attached a memo detailing further comments.
You also asked us to do some comparisons on density in Lakeview
and in the rest of the City as well as a breakdown by zoning
classifications and finally there was a request to give you
some idea of densitie3 in the total built-out along 288,
Jeff's staff has provided these numbers for you,
a *,.r MT '{"'i:* ss° _ •e-4.? _ - F t~,r -~'r :e i r "4'f
Lakeview Memo
Pa=e 3
January 30, 1986
You also asked us to discuss with the developer a reduction in
density for a reduction in the right-of-way width and ultimate
design of the road (i.e., four lanes versus six lanes.) Staff
f has been very concerned about this issue. In looking at the
draft plans of the County 'transportation Plan and also in
discussions with the Highway Department, there have been
indications that U.S. 380 and I-SSS will both need to be
substantially enlarged within the next 1S years. In fact there
is some question as to whether 380 built at a six lane divided
highway will meet the demands that are being projected. 13SB
Is also projected to be expended at least to six lanes and
maybe more. If the road through Lakeview is built as a four
lane on 80 feet of right-of-way, the staff feels there will be
a substantial traffic problem throughout the development. This
road will be used as a connection between 380 and 3S not only
for Lakeview but for many residents north and east 380 and it's
connection or south of it's connection with 3S. At minimum the
staff would certainly recommend to you the full 120 foot
right-of-way regardless of what is built in density. In
discussions with the developer, he felt that since time was of
the essence to him, he would prefer to have the Council
deliberate the existing proposal at this time with the six lane
divided structure and the 120 feet of right-of-way.
In conclusion the new summary sheet which we have included for
you shows changes to the revenue side on sales tax and fines
and fees making the new revenue total $36,306,SOI. We have
also made changes to the capital improvement4 expenses in the
amount of a $6.87S million reduction. Making these changes
shows a final result of $276,885 in net gain to the City of
Denton. I would caution the Council that as we mentioned the
other night we have made a number of assumptions. We have
tried to make the best assumptions that we can and we feel
fairly comfortable with the numbers that we have provided to
you. The staff has reviewed the conditions one more time. We
have called your attention to the change in density and to the
d'.fferences within the City. However, we feel that with all
the conditions that we are requiring and the location of this
development, it will be able to be served and maintained
without making unsolvable demands on our infrastructure or
services. Therefore, we are still recommending the project to
you.
If you have any further questions, we would be happy to try and
before or at the meeting.
answeZva
c Acting City Manager
Attachments
ji/2767M
1.
„tin
iotia
elry ofDaNTON TW14" CIVk 4NOW/ as! a 9aKlr sr / o w/er~, Timm 7't~o !
MEMORANDUM
TOs Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager
FROMs Steve Brinkman, Director, Parks and Recreation
DATES January 28, 1986
SUBJECTS Lakeview Park and Recreation Facility Development
We are projecting development of the parks and recreation facilities to
be phased in as follows:
1990 Pecan Creek, 100+ acres 1.00 mil
Neighborhood Park (Tract G), 12.56 acres .35 mil
1995 Cooper Creek, 90 acres 3.00 mil
Neighborhood Park (Tract, L), 7.2 acres .30 mil
2000 Timber Branch, 20 acre* 1.50 mil
Neighborhood Park (Tract P), 8.06 acres .35 mil
The total for development of park and recreation facilities was 13
million. We have reduced this amount by one m+llion for land
acquisition, because we feel thb chances of not leasing the Corps of
Engineers property are remote. The following chart shows you what
development costs can be attr',buted to Lakeview, to the rest of Denton,
and to non-residents.
Total Cost Attributed Cost Attributed Cost Attributed
Cost:` to Lakeview to Denton _ to Non-Residents
Recreation Center 2.0 mil 2.0 mil
Swimming Pool 1.0 r'Al 1.0 mil
Golf Course 2.5 mil 0.625 mil 1.125 mil 0.75 mil
Neighborhood Parks; 1.0 ;ail 1.0 mil
Cooper Creek 3.0 mil 0.75 mil 1.95 jail 0.30 mil
Timber Branch 1.5 mil 0.60 mil 0.75 mil 0.15 xil
Pecan Creek 1.0 ltil 0.15 mil 0.55 mil 0.30 mil
Total 12.0 mil 6.125 mil 4.375 mil 1.50 mil
O~rH~sn lMrka and It~cr~reiioh / O~rMO~n, ~ixas I (a! sj ttf-#!y►o
tti
'Lllw it`
Qkh
8*#3 ~S]~~d91hJ
P•
Costs attributed to Lakeview amount to 514 of the total 12 million
development plan. C%~ `,m attributed to Denton would amount to 379, and
costs attributed to non-resident usage would be 120.
Manda_tory Dedion
If a mandatory dedication ordinance is passed, iL will require, at the
time of the final platting, that land or a fee in lieu of land would be
necessary. This would affect Lakeview unless they were to be exempted
from these requirements. What land and money they have pledged to give
the city would be deducted from any future requirements assessed at the
time of final platting. In this way, we will be able to develop the
three neighborhood park areas under consideration for little or no cost,
in order for this to be possible, we would need to pass a mandatory
dedication ordinance as soon as possible and not grandfather in
developments that have been approved for zoning but have not developed.
IMpact of Private Recreation Develorsnent
It is difficult to assess the Impact of private recreation facilities on
the overall needs of Lakeview residents, We feel that many of the
multifamily developments will add their own pools, tennis courts, and
clubhouses as a marketing strategy. This might delay to some extent our
need for a public pool and tennis courts in some areas, But for the most
part, residents served by these private facilities will still need
athletic fields, playgrounds, picnic and nature areas in parks as well as
gymnasiums, fitness facilities, and meeting rooms.
Other private facilities such as bowling centers, movie theaters, health
clubs, etc., will not reduce the demand on public facilities. These
facilities will offer a wider selection of recreational opportunities for
Lakeview residents#
e- a teve Brinkman
MEM00492
n r rir ,r r
r ! s it .r5 '1.- .
r... M e
LAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT
PRO FORMA
REVENUES:
Ad Valorem Taxes $26,896,806.00
Sales Taxes. . 3184U,14b.OU
Fines and Fees . . . 2,U6915UO.OO
Solid Waste. . 2,2ld,147.UO
Utilities. . . . . . 11281w9U0.00
TOTAL $36,3U6,5U1.UO
EXPENDITURES:
Traffic Control. $ 86,UUU.OU
Animal Control 5059708.00
Police . 613030889.OU
Fire 15,4619481.00
Parks and Recreation
Administration . . . . . , . . 130,000.00
Recreation 38U,UUO.UU
Parks . . 490,00U. 0O
Building Operation 6U,U00.00
Library. . , . . , 37209UU.00
Solid Waste
Residential, . , . . , , , , . . . , , 10357,249.UU
Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . 448,967.UU
Utilities. . . . . . . . , . . , 1126i,9oU.00
Miscellaneous. . . . . , . , 11306,275.U0
TOTAL 28tl84,369.UU
CAPITAL AND OTHER NUN-OPERATING EXPENSES:
Capital Improvements . , $ 6,725,OD0.O0
Debt Service . . . . . , 11120,247.00
TOTAL $ 7,d45,247.OU
i
NET GAIN (LOSS) $ 276,E S8as490
_ c..r r rF sa l
r yY > k .2 Il
aWY IK Df/~g T MS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 215 E. MoKINNEY ST. / DENTON, TEXAS MW
MEMORANDUM
s a s■■ a s m s es
DATE: January 3U, 1986
TO: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
FROM: John F. McGrane, Directer of Finance
SUBJECT: FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE LAKEVIEW PROJECT ON THE DENTON INDEPENDENT
TMOOL DISTRICT
Pursuant to the request made by Council, I have contacted Gilbert Bernstein at
the Board of Education in order to ascertain if they had done a financial
impact study of the Lakeview Project. Mr. Bernstein indicated that they had
not done an impact study due to the uncertainty of the variables that would be
involved in such a calculation. In his opinion, items such as projected
property tax values, the amount of state aide received based on enrollment
criteria, etc., would make the projection difficult. However, he did indicate
that he has forwarded to the Council a letter with the board's concerns on
school sites. He also indicated that a "ball park" number for the
construction of schools would be as follows:
m Each elementary school would cost approximately
$4,O00,OU0 to construct,
• Each junior high school would cost approximately
$80000,000 to construct, and
• Each senior high school would cost approximately
$15,000,OUO to construct.
Their projections indicate that the development in this area
would probably need three (3) elementary schools, one (1) junior
high school, and one (1) senior high school.
If you need any additional information, or have any further
questions, please advise.
a , -4
ohn F. McGrane
JFMcG:ab
1749F
i
81716004M DIFW METRO 434-2620
- s n =m ~ xa x~ - mFa~i,w fw4
CITY OF DENTON
STATISTICAL INFORMATION
single Famil
Total unffs 119831,00
Estimated house size 2,77
Total single family acres 40263.46
Occupancy rate 92.04
Multi-Family
`-To'ta un is 119458,00
Estimated house size 2.02
Total multi-family acres S79.09
Occupancy rate 91.9%
Mobile Home
Total units $S0.00
Estimated house size 2,40
Total mobile home acres 87.76
Occupancy rate 91.7%
Density
' n le Family - 2.77 units/acre
(11 831 units - 4,263.46 acres)
Multi-family - 19.78 units/acre
(11,458 units - 579.09 acres)
Mobile Home - 9.68 units/acre
(850 units - 87.76 acres)
Total Density - 4,89 units/acre
(24,139 units 4,930.31 acres)
Denton Development Guide Density - 4.70 units/acre
I
Lakeview
Single Family
Total single family acres ss2.36
Total single family units 10543.00
Density 4.64 units/acre
Multi-Family
Total multi-family acres 157.8y
Total multi-family units 21635*OU
Density 16.70 units/acre
Multi-Family (Area N)
Total multi-family acres 107.85
Total multi-family units 50393.OU
Density 50.OU units/acre
Total
Total residential acres 598110
Total residential units 90571.00
Total density 16.00 units/acre
Lakeview and Existing Den sit
Single Family
Total density 2.91 units/acre
(13,374 units divided by 4,5;5.82 acres)
Multi-Family
Total density 23.06 units/acre
(190486 units divided by 844.63 acres)
Total Density 6.097 units/acre
(33,710 units divided by 5,528.41 acres)
OWN vMW 7 r as.a
e r -r;V;, x. ?rr^sn E°x°~•'` a. _ 77
17
CITY Of DaNTON
DaN>a~T~r
! i BESTING I LARaYIall i TOTAL I g T$GORY 1 UNITS/ACRB I UNITS/ACI UNITSACR6 ~1
I I I I I
I Jingle family 1 2.77 1 4.64 I 2.91
i I
! I I I J
I Multi-family 1 19.78 1 30.20 ! 23.06 I
1 ! I ! J
I Mobile Homes ! 9.60 I 0 I 9.68 1
! I I I I
I 1 1 ! 1
I Total Density I 4.89 1 16.00 I 6.097 1
00710/2
LOOP 288 CORXIDOA*
Zonie_C,1411sificidi= Acfe• Developed ACE** Vacant
Multi-family 21
Light industrial 217
Commercial 33
Office
f Total 21 Acres 256 Acres
Planned Development
PD-27
Multi-family (25 maximum density) 26.40
PD-41
Single family (detached) 15.80
Sibq" a family (attached) 16.16
Multi-family 34.85
General Retail 15.15
Open Space 26.41
PD-70
Light Industrial 53.98
PD-73
Light Industrial 23.15
Single family (8 Units) 45.96
PD-92
Multi-family 27.00
Light Industrial 30.10
Density and Total Units
Existing Multi-.family 286 units
286 units divin-N 'Uf 2), acres 13.6 units per acre
Straight Zoning on Loop 288
256 acres x 19.78 units per acre 5,064 units
Planned Developments
111 acres (Mr, C. GR, and LI) x 19.78 units per acre 4,174 units 16 units
Acre
Total existing and possible multi-family units 9,524 unlta
* This study is based on straight zoning and planned developments of
multi-family classification or higher. The area considered la a 1,000 Foot
strip on each side of Loop 288 from "niversity Drive (Kwy. 380) to Colorado
Boulevard.
007lo/1
•r,'.S'
-
°"K r._ E rocs
i 1
A; i N
....r.
ar0i0 _ - A L I =
i 1'12 • ~
T 4T.
'00 01 . IIII
MR 11 A { { { 1 r
{ LI
I
i ~ fll
{ MR•1 _ 1 l r I
I I \
w. ~ I
w
o II, L.I
LI
S-1710
r I LI
1 00 ~I I SGfip
\ L~ . ' I
P!7 8b 1,
16 Ll
I
• I
ti
_r
ooe
' • f
r^. la
.gyp.
ZONING ON VACANT LANs
Le Acreage + Percent
Agricultural 50101.92 57
Single family 2,075.45 23
Multi-family 545.78 6
Industrial 735.93 8
Commercial/General Retail 504.65 6
Institutional 5.30 less than 1
Park 54.22 less than 1
Total 9,023.25
Based on Land Use Intensity Studies October, 1985
00710/3
i
LAND USN CHARACTLRISTICS
I I City Study 1 City Study I NCTCOG Study 1AVg of 461 City of l
I Category I-(1979) , _ (1904) jam- ICttLes(2)1 Dallas I
l Acres 1 Percent 1 Ac ras 1 Pa gc9n t J Ac its 1 Percent 1 Percent 1 Percent I
i ! I I f ITotal I I I 1
I I f I I I I I I
18ingle Family130285 1 42.81 !3,133 f 39.31 13,960 1 50.21 1 39% 1 461 1
I ) 1 I I 1 f I I i
I Multi-F4milyl 285 1 3.71 1 440 I 5.54 1 I )All typesl 71 1
I I I I I I f I I 1
I Com®aercial 1 680 1 8.9% 1 667 1 8.4% +1,161 1 14.70 f 51 I 101 I
I I I I I I I I I I
fInatitutionall 498 1 6.51 1 834 1 10.5• ! N/A I N/A 1 201 l In belowl
I I I I I I I I I I
I Industrial I 372 1 4.61 1 316 1 4.0% 1 229 1 3.01 1 111 1 141 f
I I I I I I f I I I
t open space 1 635 1 8.31 1 721 1 9.01 1 458 1 5.7% 1 In Inst.1 In belowl
I I I I I I I I Figure f I
I Transpor- 11,191 125.01 (1,859 1 23.31 120076 1 26.4% 1 261 1 231 I
! tation I I I I I I I IAll Pub- I
I I I l I Ilic use i
I Total I I I I I I f I I
I Developed 17,676 1100.01 17,972 1100.0% 17,879 1100.0! 1 100.01 1 100,01 1
I Land Area I I 1 I I I f I I
The only significant difference between Denton and other cities is the
amount of developed commercial land. The higher than average amount
ta-emphasizes the fact that Denton draws from a trade area which extends
beyond its city limits.
0058k
T Ts 77,
VI I
C/TX gM9NT44Vy TEXAS CfiWc soar / t. AIaK~nhr / OaneM, T~saa 7x141
M.BM0RAN D U M
TOs Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager
PROMS Steve Brinkaan, Director, Parks and Recreation
DAM January 28, 1986
SUBJECTs Lakeview Park and Recreation Facility Development
We are projecting development of the parks and recreation facilities to
be phased in as follows
1990 Pecan Creek, 100+ acres 1.00 mil
Neighborhood Park (Tract G), 12.56 acres .35 mil
1995 Cooper Creek, 90 acres 3.00 mil
Neighborhood Park (Tract L), 7.2 acres .30 ail
2000 Timber Branch, 20 acres 1.50 sail
Neighborhood Park (Tract P), 8.06 acres .35 mil
The total for development of park and recreation facilities was 13
million. We have reduced this amount by one million for land
acquisition, because we feel the chances of not leasing the Corps of
Engineers property are remote. The following chart shows you what
development coats can be attributed to Lakeview, to the rest of Denton,
and to non-residents.
Total Coat Attributed Cost Attributed Cost, Attributed
Cost to Lakeview to Denton to Non-Residents
Recreation Center 2.0 mil 2.0 mil
Swimming Pool 1.0 nil 1.0 mil
Golf Course 2.5 ail 0.625 ail 1.125 ail 0.75 ail
Neighborhood Parks 1.0 ail 1.0 ail
Cooper Creek 3.0 ail 0.75 ail 1.95 rail 0.30 nil
Timber Branch 1.5 mil 0.60 all 0.75 ail 0.15 ail
Pecan Creek 1.0 ail 0.15 ail 0.55 mil 0.30 ail
Total 12.0 nil 6.125 mil 4.375 sail 1.50 ail
OwlvL w FS~I f~ eA~~4yl~ '7IG1Ni~8~
.w
. IV,
Costs attributsd to Lakeview amount to 511 of the total 12 million
development plan. Costs attributed to Denton would nmount to 371, and
costs attributed to non-resident usage would be 121.
Mandatory Dedication
if a mandatory dedication ordinance is passed, it will require, at the
time of the final platting, that land or a fee in lieu of land would be
necessary. This would affect Lakeview unless they were to be exempted
from these requirements. What land and money they have pledged to give
the city would be deducted from any future requirements assessed, at the
time of final platting. In this way, we will be able to develop the
thr.te neighborhood park areas under consideration for little or no coat.
In order for this co be possible, wr would need to pass a :,andatory
dedication ordinance as soon as po^:+ible and not grandfather in
developments that have been approved ^,r zoning but have not developed.
Impact of Private Recreation Development
It is difficult to assess the impact of private recreation facilities on
the overall needs of Lakeview residents. We feel that many of the
multifamily developments will add their own pools, tennis courts, and
clubhouses as a marketing strategy. This might delay to some extent our
need for a public pool and tennis courts in some areas. But for the most
part, residents served by these private facilities will still need
athletic fields, playgrounds, picnic and nature areas in parks as well as
gymnasiums, fitness facilities, and meeting rooms.
Other private facilities such as bowling centers, movie theaters, health
clubs, etc., will not reduce the demand on public facilities. These
facilities will offer a wider selection of recreational opportunities for
Lakeview residents.
5 - (PJ17 -
teve r n man
MEM00492
r
URBAN $ERV.CES ARALYSI$
WS AN'a RECREATION
1. What Park and Recreational facilities are currently serving this area or
are capable of serving this area if annexed and/or developed (federal,
state, local)? our existing facilities are at or near maximum
use. This area would need its own facilities,
2. What capital projects ,nd/or equipment will be needed to adequately serve
this area if annexed and/or developed based on the master plan or similar
standards.
Equipment/Project
Description Estimated Cost Fiscal Year Standard Used
See attached information
~ J
,
3. Now much additional funding will be needed for maintenance if annexation
rnd/or development occurs as proposed? gee attached information
4. Will additional Personnel he needed to properly serve thie area if annexed
and/or developed? Now many _ and, what
type see attached information
Additional Comments:
Person to contact if there are questions Date
1129s/2
f,
Eakeviow Information
Median Acreage 6± acres
School/Park Acreage 12.56 acres
7.20 acres
8.06* acres
27,82 acres
* We have asked the developer to consider donating an additional two
acres at this site if the Corps of Engineers does not lease us
their property adjacent to this site.
Adjacent Corps of Engineers Property
Timber Creek 20+ acres
Cooper Creek 90+ acres
Pecan Creek 100+ acres
Proposed use of these areas might includee
Pecan Creek
Golf Course
Outdoor Education Center
Beach
Boat Launch Facilities
i:arina
Day Use Areas (picnic, play)
Cooper Creek
Athletic Fields
Recreation Center/Pool/Tennis Courts
Picnic/Play Areas
Nature Area/Trail System
Timber Branch
Nature Area/Trail System
Picnic/Play Areas
Amphitheater
It is possible to lease this Corps of Engineers property by assuming
the maintenance costs. We feel that we can start working on the
lease of the Pecan Creek area and, as the development takes place,
add the Cooper Creek and Timber Branch areas.
A typical lease with the Corps of Engineers would last 25 years and
could then be renewed for another 25 year increment. Environmental
impact studies will need to be undertaken for any major developments
we may undertake.
j
Al,
Because the Corps of Engineers would continue to own these areas,
grant funds from the state would not be available for development.
There is a possibility that funds could be redirected from Ray
Roberts ar existing commitments on Lewisville, but at this time, the
chances of this cannot be determined.
Mandatory Jedicatipn
A mandatory dedication ordinance at the present levels would have
required 64.6 acres.
Land Standardt 3 acres/1,000 population or
1 acre/150 dwelling units
Total 9,699 dwellings units . 64.6 acres
Due to the high density levels, this development factors high
for population impact. Using the average service area of one
half mile radius from a neighborhood park, the development needs
at least three neighborhood park locations if there is safe
access across the major thoroughfare. We would also recommend
that, because of they high density within the park service areas,
the parks be between 10 and 15 acres in size. This development
should also contain a community park which would provide
athletic facilities, large picnic and play areas, and room for a
recreation center and pool.
Our requirements for parkland would, therefore, bet
3 neighborhood parks of
10 to 15 acres in size 30-40 acres
1 community park 20 to 30 acres in size 20.30 acres
All 64.6 acres would be required for this project in four
separate location.
Due to this development's location adjacent to Corps of
Engineers' property, we feel we can help meet park requirements
by leasing their land if the developer provides access points
and some school/park sites.
Donation of Development Funds
The developer has also indicated that they plan to donate 0250,000
for the development of these park areas. We feel that this is a
very positive move and the first time we know of that a developer
has made this type of donation.
c --.i ,2• ai. v'~l •i:f ' j. ,:s ui, o-1 {.:1
PARK AND RECREATION STANDARDS
Outdoor Facilities Goal 20#000 pop. Estimated
Standard Cost
Soccer Field 1/4,000 5.0 500,000
Football Field 1/100700 2.0 200,000
Picnic Shelters 1/20500 8.0 200,000
Picnic Areas 1/18000 20.0 20,000
Baseball Diamond Lighted 1/6,000 3.0 5000000
Softball Diamond Lighted 1/7,000 3.0 500,000
Tennis Courts 1/20500 810 2500000
Basketball Courts 1/50000 4.0 40,000
Handball/Racketball (4-Wall) 118400 2.0 20,000
Play Areas 1/20000 10.0 100,000
Golf Course (18 hole) 1/25,000 0.8 2,000,000
Swimming Pool 1/20,000 1.0 110000000
Shuffleboard Lighted 1/5,000 4.0 500000
Horseshoe Lighted 115,000 4.0 20,000
Volleyball Lighted 1/50000 4.0 20,000
Amphitheatre 1/500000 0.4 250,000
Park Acreage 3ac/10000 60.0 3,0000000
Indoor Facilities
District Recreation
Center (with gym) 1/150000 1.3 2,000,000
Senior Center 1/50,000 0.4 800,000
Swimming Pool 1/50,000 0.4 10000,000
Outdoor Education Center 1150,000 0.4 400,000
4•j
Personnel Growth (20,000 population)
1986 1987 1988 1.89 1990 x1995 2000 2002
Administrative Add 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
Total 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 4
Recreation Add 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0
Total 0 0 1 1 2 5 6 6
Parks Add 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 0
Total 0 1 3 5 6 8 10 10
Building Operations Add 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2
TOTALS 0 2 8 11 14 25 26 22
i
Budget Growth (20,000 population)
1986 Dollars
Administrative Add 11974586 0 30,000 40,000 0 30,000 30x200 0
Total $197,586 $197,586 $227,586 $2670586 $267,586 $297,586 $327,586 $327,586
Recreation Add $717,505 0 30 000 50 000 50 000 200 000 50 000 0
Total $717,505 $717,505 $747,505 $7970505 $847,505 $1,,047,505 $1,097,505 $1,097,505
Parks Add $707f657 40 000 100 000 100 000 50,000 100,000 100,000 0
Total $707,657 $747,657 $847,657 $9470657 $997,657 $1,097,657 $1,1971657 $10197,657
Building Operations Add $6381264 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 0 0
Total $638,264 $6380264 $638,264 $6380264 $6680264 $698,264 $608,264 $698,264
TOTALS $20261,012 $21301,012 $2,461,012' $2,651.0012 $21781,012 $311141,012 $3,3210012 $3,3210012
Capital Needs (20,000 popixlation) 1986 Dollars
Millions of Dollars
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 2002
Land Acquisition 1.0*
Park Development 0.5 2.5 2.5 1.0
Recreation Center 2.0
Pool 1.0
Golf Course 2.5
TOTALS 1.5 8.0 2.5 1.0
*If Corps of Engineers property is not leased
LAIEVIEW DEVELOPMENT
PRO FORMA
REVENUES:
Ad Valorem Taxes $26,8969806,00
Sales Taxes. , 1,506,225,00
Fines and Fees 69, S00, 00
Solid Waste. , 20218,147.00
Utilities. . . 1,281,900.00
TOTAL $31,972,578,00
EXPENDITURES:
Traffic Control, $ 86,000.00
Animal Control 5050708,00
Police . , . 603030889.00
Fire . . . , 10057,61S.00
Parks and Recreation
Administration 1309000,00
Recreation 3800000.00
Parks. 490,000,00
Building Operation . . . . . 609000.00
Library, . . , , , , . . . , , 372,900.00
Solid Waste. , ,
Residential. 1,357,249,00
Commercial 4480967,00
Utilities. 1,2810900,00
Miscellaneous. 609,989.00
TOTAL $139084,217,00
CAPITAL AND OTHER NON-OPERATING EXPENSES;
Capital Improvements $130600,000.00
Debt Service 11120,247,00
TOTAL $14,7200247.00
NEI' GAIN (LOSS) $ 4,168,114,00
!e kuh)fiJ