Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />This policy, stated simply, says the Council will respond to demand for <br />regional services within the MUSA and the Freestanding Growth Centers, and <br />will create a supply of new services on the edge of the MUSA only when the <br />supply of developable land becomes too tight. In considering, each regional <br />function the Council will allocate funding to the two categories of projects. <br />The projects not funded in each group will be evaluated to decide if a shift of <br />funding betweei~ Categories is necessary. Policy D below is to be used when <br />ranking projects within the MUSA and Freestanding Growth Centers. Policy E is <br />for projects to expand the MUSA. <br /> <br />Do <br /> <br />IN RANKING PROJECTS LOCATED WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA <br />(MUSA) AND FREESTANDING GROWTH CENTERS, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL <br />REGULARLY ANALYZE THE REGION°S MAJOR ACTIVITY CONCENTRATIONS AND THEIR <br />LEVELS OF REGIONAL SERVICES. THE COUNCIL WILL GIVE PRIORITY TO PROVIDING <br />AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF REGIONAL SERVICES TO THESE CONCENTRATIONS OVER <br />EXPANDING OR UPGRADING THE SYSTEMS WITHIN THE MUSA FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT. <br /> <br />The intent of this policy is to serve existing development before serving <br />new development within the MUSA and Freestanding Growth Centers° The <br />concentrations of major activity will change as development occurs and demand <br />for regional services grows° The Council does not intend to encourage <br />development or redevelopment that is under-serviced in the MUSA or <br />Freestanding Growth Centers, placing itself in the position of having to serve <br />it later° The Council will continue to carefully monitor regional systems <br />impacts of any new development in the MUSA and Freestanding Growth Centers. <br />Major activity concentrations could include, but are not limited to, major <br />employment concentrations, major retail centers with high patronage (but <br />perhaps low employment), major educational facilities, high-density housing <br />concentrations, and major ~ports facilities. <br /> <br />Ee <br /> <br />IN RANKING PROJECTS THAT MAY REQUIRE EXPANSION OF THE MUSA, THE COUNCIL <br />WILL CONSIDER: THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY <br />EXISTING METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS IN THE APPROPRIATE SECTOR; RECENT POPULATION <br />TRENDS IN ALL SECTORS; THE LEAST COST AMONG SECTORS FOR PROVIDING A <br />COMPLETE SYSTEM OF BASIC PUBLIC SERVICES; THE MOST RECENT ESTIMATES OF <br />DEVELOPABLE LAND FOR URBANIZATION IN EACH SECTOR; AND FUTURE ENERGY USE AND <br />COSTS. <br /> <br />Policy E is Policy No. 10 in the Council's Metropolitan Investment Framework <br />(MIF), which contains guidelines for monitoring fiscal activity of the regional <br />commissions. It can be used for decision-making for expansion projects on the <br />edge of the MUSA (see discussion in appendix beginning on page 21). <br /> <br />IN REVIEWING ALL PROJECTS REQUIRING CHANGES IN THE INVESTMENT PLANS FOR <br />REGIONAL SYSTEMS, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MAY, IN ADDITION TO ITS OTHER <br />REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES: <br /> <br />1. CONDUCT AN ECONOMIC IMPACT REVIEW; <br /> <br />2. CONDUCT A FISCAL ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT; AND/OR <br /> <br />3. DEVELOP PUBLIC/PRIVATE COST-SHARING AGREEMENTS WHEN NECESSARY. <br /> <br />This policy is not intended to add significantly to the review process. Too <br />often, however, economic-impact reviews discuss public fiscal impacts and do <br />not examine what happens to the economy. In reviewing projects affecting the <br /> <br /> <br />