Fiscal Impact Assessment: A Scenario Planning Tool

Transcription

1 Fiscal Impact Assessment: A Scenario Planning Tool CALAFCO Conference September 3, 2015

2 LAFCO Nexus to Fiscal Impact Analysis LAFCO s role under C-K-H Local Government Reorganization Act: Protect agricultural lands and open space Encourage orderly development within local agency boundaries Strengthen coordinated local government planning Consider growth within or through local agency boundary changes that: best accommodates / provides necessary governmental services provides housing for persons and families of all incomes Allows for orderly growth in the most efficient manner feasible

3 HOW & WHERE TO GROW EFFICIENTLY

4 Role of Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis can help LAFCO, local agencies, and the public: Explore cost / revenue implications of growth and development patterns Compare different types of greenfield versus infill development Test various planning and land use scenarios for their fiscal benefit, neutrality, or deficit Compare scenarios that are more or less likely to support achievement of regional blueprints and Sustainable Communities Strategies Analyze relationships among efficient and orderly growth, municipal service and infrastructure needs, and costs / benefits

5 Inform Planning Process Fiscal impact assessment tools can be used to evaluate: Alternatives for feasible extension of municipal services Viability of municipal incorporation / special district formation Alternative development patterns for proposed municipal annexation Alternative planning scenarios: general plan updates specific plans and other districtlevel plans Urban fringe development impacts on ag / open space Urban growth / service boundaries Rural-urban connection strategies

6 Large Scale & New Town Planning Fiscal impact analyses for largescale planning with SOI changes and / or annexation: Compare proposed development and alternatives for potential cost and revenue implications Assess the potential tax revenues of property annexation through alternative scenarios Examine various forms of compact development to test efficiencies of public services and infrastructure

7 Planning for Growth and Fiscal Analysis Efficient, Equitable, Healthy, Sustainable, Resilient City and county planning increasingly takes a more integrated and holistic approach, with fiscal impact analysis as one of several decision support and evaluation tools

8 Integrated Tools for Large Scale Planning Fiscal & Economic Development Impact Sustainable Systems Integration Modeling Climate Mitigation & Adaptation Modeling Visual Simulation / Placemaking Live Oak General Plan Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan

9 Comparative Analysis of Land Use Scenarios

10 Comparative Analysis of Land Use Scenarios Alternative A Alternative C $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $11,250,528 Revenue $17,561,530 Expenditure $20,000,000 $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $10,715,386 Revenue $17,599,499 Expenditure Alternative B Alternative D $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,663,722 $20,296,875 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,736,365 $20,609,718 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 Revenue Expenditure $0 Revenue Expenditure

11 Comparative Analysis of Land Use Scenarios Net General Fund Impact of Development Alternatives Land Use Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Acreage (Urban Uses) 2,501 2,774 2,398 3,030 Housing Units 15,510 17,602 15,937 17,276 Service Population (residents + employees) 58,382 66,994 57,740 67,796 Service Population/Acre Housing Units/Residential Acre Revenue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Property Tax $1,740,357 $1,951,142 $1,724,155 $1,931,133 Transfer Tax $247,589 $276,553 $231,276 $323,843 Sales Tax $5,707,324 $9,289,484 $5,193,845 $9,287,022 Other Recurring Revenues $3,555,258 $4,146,542 $3,566,109 $4,194,368 Subtotal $11,250,528 $15,663,722 $10,715,386 $15,736,365 Per Acre $4,499 $5,647 $4,469 $5,194 Per Housing Unit $725 $890 $672 $911 Expenditure Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Expenditures $17,561, $20,296, $17,599, $20,609, Per Acre $7, $7, $7, $6, Per Housing Unit $1, $1, $1, $1, Net Revenue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Net Revenue -$6,311,002 -$4,633,153 -$6,884,113 -$4,873,353 Performance Metrics Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Net Revenue per Acre -$2,524 -$1,670 -$2,871 -$1,609 Net Revenue per Service Population -$108 -$69 -$119 -$72 Net Revenue as % of Total Revenue -56.1% -29.6% -64.2% -31.0%

12 Fiscal Impact Assessment: A Scenario Planning Tool CALAFCO Conference September 3, 2015

13 Fiscal Impact Tools Change Local Planning Local Government Commission Kate Meis, Executive Director

14 Local Government Commission We are a nonprofit organization that fosters innovation in local environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and social equity.

15 What we do The LGC is helping to transform communities through inspiration, practical assistance and a network of visionary local elected officials and other community leaders. How we do it Workshops and Trainings Participatory Planning and Design Work Policy Development Assistance Tours of Model Projects Networking Events Annual and Biennial Conferences Local Government Commission

16 Network of Members For more information: Contact Erin Hauge at or visit lgc.org/membership Benefits: Access to the latest best practices A peer network of leading elected officials Access to thought leaders in a range of policy arenas Local, regional, statewide and national events on cutting edge issues Local Government Commission

17 LGC Board Members Councilmember Jake Mackenzie, City of Rohnert Park Councilmember Pam O'Connor, City of Santa Monica Supervisor Deidre Kelsey, County of Merced Chair Vice-Chair Secretary / Treasurer Mayor Thomas Butt City of Richmond Mayor Miguel Canales City of Artesia Councilmember Dominic Farinha City of Patterson Councilmember Steven Hansen City of Sacramento Mayor Pro Tem Jon Harrison City of Redlands Councilmember Beth Krom City of Irvine Councilmember Michele Martinez City of Santa Ana Supervisor Jennifer Montgomery County of Placer Councilmember Susan Ornelas City of Arcata Supervisor Jane Parker County of Monterey Supervisor Leticia Perez County of Kern Local Government Commission

18 California in 2050 Business as Usual Growing Smart

19 A1 v C1/C2 Land Consumed For New Growth to 2050 (mi 2 ) More land than Delaware and Rhode Island combined 5,600 3,750 square miles saved 1,850 Business As Usual Growing Smart

20 A1 v C1/C2 Infrastructure Cost for New Growth Capital Costs for New Growth to 2050 $4,000 Saved per New Housing Unit : $710 Million/Year Dollars Billions $165.4 $32 Billion Saved* $133.4 Flickr: sl-engineer *Includes local roads, waste water and sanitary sewer, water supply, and parks & recreation Business As Usual Growing Smart

21 84% of CA Counties have At-Risk or Poor Road Conditions Local Government Commission

22 Trends in California City Finance State and federal aid to CA cities is declining, down from 21% of a city s budget in to 10% today. The sales tax base is declining, due to a shift toward a service-oriented economy and increasing Internet and catalog retail sales. Limitations on taxes and fees that cities can impose are driven by Prop. 13, Prop. 218 and other state laws. State population growth is higher in cities. Cities must respond to citizens demand for a greater array of services that bring with them additional costs and new challenges (high tech, cable, transit, etc.). Public safety spending is up. Infrastructure improvements and maintenance are lagging. Local Government Commission

23 Fiscal Benefits of Constrained Growth Local Government Commission

24 Case Study: Mixed-Use Generates 25x Higher Property In San Joaquin Valley Cities Local Government Commission

25 Case Study: Mixed-Use Generated Higher Tax Revenue Than Big Box Stores Local Government Commission

26 Case Study: City of Modesto Downtown Development Generates 5x Higher Property Than Mall Local Government Commission

27 Case Study: City of Galt Mixed-Use Generates Higher Revenue Local Government Commission

28 TOD GROWS LOCAL TAX BASES Super Walmart Outlet Mall Land Consumed (acres) % increase in tax revenue during recession New Main Street Property Tax /Acre $5,706 $8,886 $223,575 Residents/Acre Jobs/Acre Local Government Commission

29 Case Study: City of Galt Mixed-Use Reduces Payback Period Local Government Commission

30 Case Study: Northeast Ohio Suburban Growth Would Require 3,700 Miles of New Roads= Cleveland to Panama City Local Government Commission

31 Fiscal Impact Tools Local Government Commission

32 Resources Local Government Commission

33 Speakers Raef Porter, Senior Research Analyst, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Jeff Goldman, Principal at AECOM Local Government Commission

34 The 2015 CALAFCO Annual Conference Program Fiscal Analysis Tools for New Development The Use of IMPACS in the Sacramento Region Raef Porter SACOG

35 To address concerns about regional growth, SACOG in 2002 launched the: Sacramento Region Blueprint: Transportation/Land Use Study

36 MTP/SCS Principles Smart Land Use Economic Vitality Environmental Quality Access and Mobility Financial Stewardship Equity and Choice

37 Benefits of integrated land use and transportation planning

38

39 MTP/SCS Principles Smart Land Use Economic Vitality Environmental Quality Access and Mobility Financial Stewardship Equity and Choice

40 MTP/SCS Principles Economic Vitality

41 IMPACS

42 Regional Analysis of Growth Scenarios $13.8 Billion

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54 Where has it been used

55 Thank You Raef Porter