pf_03625 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the application of the fiscal impact was to four sub-area growth scenarios being considered through the comprehensive planning process (Loudoun 1991). model tested the fiscal impacts of providing public water and sewer, and thus permitting suburban scale development, into areas not necessarily planned development. In summary, the provision of services and the wider distribution of development was assumed that opening additional areas to development would not result greater overall growth) resulted in projections of less favorable fiscal positions for the County in three of the four areas, Ultimately, fiscal impact analysis was considered as one input into a complex decision process and did not, solely, drive the final plan recommendations, The Choices and Changes plan did, however, institutionalize fiscal impact analysis in the planning process, requiring an annual update of the model. Development remained a highly politicized issue m Loudoun County, as local elected officials continued to approve rezonings which enabled development of tens of thousands of additional residential units (Loudoun County 1995). The real estate slump of the early 1990s lead to increasing fiscal stress as the County government experienced substantial reductions in assessments, even as new housing construction continued at relatively high levels, Although elected officials considered using the FIM for the analysis of individual projects, the development community questioned the validity of the model in light of the "invisible" embedded algorithms, Politically, the model was viewed as indefensible, and staff undertook substantial "off-line" work to supplement and document the model. The process of documenting all assumptions and conducting sensitivity analyses of the model" the fonnation of a publicly appointed group to provide oversight. The resulting Technical Review Committee (TRC) was comprised of prominent members of groups that included development, environmental, school, and taxpayer interests, Working through rules requiring consensus, the TRC validated all 125 assumptions in the demographic module, the element containing the development related assumptions. While the proprietary algorithms remained unknown, the model was generaIly demystified and accepted for limited application, Subsequent to the work of the TRC, the most acceptable elements of the model were the development assumptions and these were used during the review of County agency service plans, These service plans were developed independently by individual agencies, and the aggregate capital facility timing and cost had not closely scmtinized in any comprehensive manner. The named for the Board of Supervisors member requesting the analysis, led to a review of the long term fiscal impacts of the service plans using the FIM. Ultimately, the service plans were reconsidered in total and the County developed a twenty year Cilpital Nt;t;ds Anillysis. Fiscal impact analysis had been successfully used to tie long term capital budgeting into the planning process, The FIM was also used to analyze the fiscal impacts of two area plans, the and the IoU ROild Plan, By the time these area plans were prepared, the application of fiscal impact analysis had become more accepted. It proved useful in generating public and interest group support for the area plans, The initial concerns with the black-box issue have not disappeared, however, and Loudoun's use of fiscal impact analysis has not attained the same level of public acceptability as Howard County's, Applications of the FIM were related to broad countywide or area plan analyses. There remains a desire on the part of elected officials and planning commissioners for a project-based model applicable to individual rezoning or special exception cases, It is likely that the development of a project model will file://\\metro-inet.us\Roseville\CommDev\PLANNING AND ZONING\PLANNING FI... 02/17/2005