Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />use alternatives (Kaiser <br />County's General Plan, <br /> <br />Godschalk 1995). These same characteristics <br /> <br />were populated with sophisticated citizens and developers who were acquainted <br />with growth management concepts and planning law, Planners needed to ensure that <br />process was "legally and that growth management policies could withstand the <br />constitutional challenges based on tests of rational nexus and takings. Fiscal <br />was into the planning processes not only to ensure due diligence related to the <br />costs of growth, but also because it "was a way of testing the implications of planning safely" (Avin), <br /> <br /> <br />These two case studies are intended to provide an understanding of the dimensions or characteristics of <br />the fiscal impact analysis models and the application of fiscal impact analysis in each community, The <br />two models are different in detail, but strikingly similar in scope and complexity. With similar tools, <br />each community has found different uses for fiscal impact analysis in response to community needs. <br /> <br />A. Howard County, Maryland <br /> <br />During the process of developing the 199Q G~I1~ra1 Plal1, Howard County retained the services of <br />Tischler & Associates, Inc. to prepare an analysis of the costs and revenues associated with development <br />of the county according to the land uses and pace of growth envisioned by the preliminary plan. The <br />consultant was asked to project the net costs associated with growth over a 20 year period, holding the <br />level of services and tax rate constant and accelerating the purchase of parkland and school sites. <br />issues paper, (Howard County I <br />that the plan would cause revenues and expenditures to increase at roughly the same rate. County staff <br />subsequently drew from the consultant's report to create a spreadsheet model which featured the same <br />input and output formats used in the plan's background study. <br /> <br /> <br />Dimensions of the Model - On the revenue side, the model directly linked the zoning and land uses, as <br />proposed in the draft plan, with the projected growth of housing units, by type and price, and <br />commerciallindustrial space, by value, More specifically, residential development was divided into <br />several unit types, based largely on differing school-aged children generation rates, Single family <br />detached, single family attached, apartment, condominium, and "other" unit types were allocated <br />according to historical trends of annual market demand for such units, Thus, market factors related to <br />product type, price, and production were integral to the fiscal impact model growth assumptions, <br /> <br />A fundamental element of the proposed comprehensive plan was an annual quota or cap on residential <br />development. The level of permitted development, however, closely matched anticipated housing <br />demand based on long term trends for housing starts, The cap was intended to dampen the "boom and <br />bust" cycle of housing growth which made the concurrent provision of adequate government facilities <br />difficult. <br /> <br />Market-related factors were also utilized in projecting non-residential growth, Development was <br />allocated among retail, office and R&D, and industrial and warehouse uses by square footage and <br />market value. Like the residential market, cycles were eliminated through the use of longer term trends <br />in non-residential space absorption. <br /> <br />file://\\metro-inet.us\Roseville\CommDev\PLANNING AND ZONING\PLANNING FI.., 02/17/2005 <br />