Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

24

Transcript of Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

Page 1: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 2: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

Page 3: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

Slide by Greg Kacvinsky, OHM, at MAP 2016

Page 4: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 5: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 6: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 7: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 8: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 9: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

Lafayette, LA

Page 10: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 11: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 12: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 13: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 14: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 15: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 16: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 17: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 18: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019
Page 19: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

Calibration

■ Sticky issues:– Parking lots– Common areas– Developments

with multiple parcels

■ Depiction

■ “Splitting” the data

■ Other revenues and costs

Page 20: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

What we learnedabout our City

■ Floor area ratio drivestax value per acre■ Parking lots decrease tax value per acre■ Beautiful and new ≠ More tax revenue■ Tax value only one consideration■ Policy levers exist to boost revenue generation

– Many implemented through our new zoning ordinance

Page 21: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

What we learnedabout the process

■ Better for generalized findings than doing parcel level comparisons

■ Maps understood best by visual learners

■ Timing

■ Sticky issues

■ Easier than expected

Page 22: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

Ypsilanti Township Revenue Power per Acre

Page 23: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019

Neighborhood Revenue Power Comparison

Neighborhood 1 –Sherman Oaks

• Zoned R-1• SEV $5,844,600.00• Acreage 54.32 acres• 3 People / Acre • Revenue Power =

$6,968.53 per acre

Neighborhood 2 –Pineview

• Zoned R-2• SEV $13,462,000.00• Acreage 64.19 acres• 5 People / Acre• Revenue Power =

$13,579.39 per acre

Neighborhood 6 –Parkside Preserve

• Zoned PD• SEV $24,649,600.00• Acreage 50.22 acres• 17 People / Acre• Revenue Power =

$31,794.19 per acre

Neighborhood 3 –River Grove Village

• Zoned RM-2• SEV $6,546,200.00• Acreage 20.7 acres• 13 People / Acre• Revenue Power =

$20,522.53 per acre

Population Density and Revenue PowerLow

High

Neighborhood 4 –Hewitt

• Zoned R-5• SEV $57,301,100.00• Acreage 171.71 acres• 13 People / Acre• Revenue Power =

$21,602.81 per acre

Neighborhood 5 –Gault Village

• Zoned R-5• SEV $57,365,290.00• Acreage 160.97 acres• 18 People / Acre• Revenue Power =

$23,073.10 per acre

*SEV and Acreage represent the total SEV and total acreage for the entire neighborhood

Page 24: Richard Murphy - MuniFi for Planners April 2019