Matching Items (4)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

42698-Thumbnail Image.png
Created1999-06-29
Description

A comprehensive review of over 100 city or county budgets. Many of these governmental entities have service populations in the general order of magnitude similar to Pima County, and some have experienced similar trends in population growth. Given the comparisons that have been made, Pima County's per capita expenditure is

A comprehensive review of over 100 city or county budgets. Many of these governmental entities have service populations in the general order of magnitude similar to Pima County, and some have experienced similar trends in population growth. Given the comparisons that have been made, Pima County's per capita expenditure is among the lowest of other high growth counties with a similar population base.

42651-Thumbnail Image.jpg
Created1999-09
Description
Following the January 1999 regarding the future of Canoa Ranch, the County Administrator met with the developer/owners to discuss plans for acquisition of the property, The owners did not desire to sell the entire property to Pima County, and proposed development of the property as shown in this report. This

Following the January 1999 regarding the future of Canoa Ranch, the County Administrator met with the developer/owners to discuss plans for acquisition of the property, The owners did not desire to sell the entire property to Pima County, and proposed development of the property as shown in this report. This memorandum provides an update and report on Canoa Ranch.
42664-Thumbnail Image.jpg
Created2000-06
Description

Provides a brief analysis of the legal and financial feasibility of the March 16, 2000 proposal, as well as a comparative analysis of (1) the conservation value, (2) the level of cultural resource protection, and (3) the fiscal impact of the proposal as measured against other development projects and against

Provides a brief analysis of the legal and financial feasibility of the March 16, 2000 proposal, as well as a comparative analysis of (1) the conservation value, (2) the level of cultural resource protection, and (3) the fiscal impact of the proposal as measured against other development projects and against the various alternatives that might be exercised by the landowner.

42621-Thumbnail Image.jpg
Created2001-10
Description

Provides a rational basis for (1) a cost of growth element to require development to pay a fair share of public facility costs, and (2) to plan for and regulate infrastructure service area boundaries beyond which the County may limit or prescribe conditions on the publicly financed extension of improvements.