Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Fiscal Impact <br />Applicability <br /> <br /> <br />Strengths, Weaknesses, and <br /> <br />benefits of a case approach are derived from the collection of a variety perspectives on a <br />single tOpIC or issue. section provides an analysis of opinions of the eight mdividuals <br />interviewed for this study, Based on their experience in implementing fiscal impact analysis in <br />Howard County, Maryland and Loudoun County, Virginia, interviewees were asked to summarize the <br />strengths and weaknesses of the fiscal impact analysis technique. They were also asked to comment on <br />fiscal impact analysis has not been more widely applied in comprehensive planning, <br /> <br />Strengths <br /> <br />A significant virtue of fiscal impact analysis was that it began "to brmg a realistic sense of costs <br />growth into the public discussion (McLaughlin)." The community benefited from the "objective screen" <br />that fiscal impact analysis provided. It also lead to a better understanding of the relationships among the <br />factors contributing to growth and development. Fiscal analysis was viewed as a tool that enabled the <br />linkage of the costs of growth to the local budget. <br /> <br />A secondary benefit was a by-product of the work required to develop and implement fiscal impact <br />analysis - the information collection and development tracking processes in both communities were <br />greatly improved. Data collection became routine and institutionalized, More and better information <br />about development impacts and facilities needs and costs resulted from the FIM development and <br />documentation process, <br /> <br />Weaknesses <br /> <br />The most frequently mentioned weakness of the fiscal impact analysis approach was related to the <br />"inherent limitations" associated with any modeling technique. "Outputs are only as good as the inputs" <br />and their specific application to the subject community, While fiscal analysis can provide important <br />information about the direction or tendencies of impacts, it's outputs are not "the answer." Policy <br />decisions often "get bogged down by numbers," rather than illuminated by them. Outputs are "always <br />subject to debate," regardless of the quality of the model. Planners worry that fiscal factors may become <br />the sole deteIminant of policy decisions, rather than simply one of many inputs in those decisions, <br /> <br />Public expectations of fiscal analysis remain unfulfilled, The question, "if the (development) business <br />can have a bottom line, why can't the County?" has not been adequately addressed. Additionally, <br />Loudoun's "black box" problem, stemming from use of the comparable city method of analysis, <br />significantly eroded the public's trust and confidence in the fiscal impact model. The model's <br />"proprietary fonnula was a fatal flaw (Maio)," <br /> <br />Good models are complex, and consequently expensive, difficult, and time consuming to maintain, The <br />state of the art in fiscal impact modeling (at least as it stood in 1989) is not user friendly, Users feel that <br />models are cumbersome and data needs are "overkill," while at the same time maintaining high levels of <br />utility requires complexity, Statistically sophisticated staff are needed to maintain and interpret fiscal <br />impact analysis model outputs, <br /> <br />file:/I\\metro-inet.us\Roseville\CommDev\PLANNING AND ZONING\PLANNING Fl.., 02/17/2005 <br />- - - <br />