2019-356-E Planning - Tischler Bise Fiscal Economic Model consulting

Browse Search

'DocuSi n Envelope ID:49DCCCCF-BDED-4EDB-A3D5-579B6C96F48E Section 4: Project Approach and Scope Project Approach TischlerBise recommends that the fiscal impact model structure for the Fiscal/Economic Impact Model incorporate an average cost-hybrid methodology. As the discussion below will indicate, this approach represents an acceptable compromise between the sophistication of the case study-marginal approach and the simplicity of the average cost approach. The two most commonly used fiscal impact methodologies are the average cost and the case study- marginal approach. The average cost approach is the most popular and frequently used method for evaluating fiscal impacts. Since this approach focuses on the average cost per capita or in some cases, per capita and job, it doesn't consider the available capacities of existing capital facilities. In addition, it masks spatial relationships and the timing of additional facilities required to serve new growth. However, this approach does lend itself extremely well for evaluating specific development proposals and economic development/public incentives. This is because specific development proposals tend to be viewed in isolation, and depending on the size of the project, may not trigger required thresholds for capital facilities and/or"lumpy"operating costs under the case study-marginal approach. The case study-marginal methodology is the approach most reflective of fiscal reality. Utilizing the Fire Department as an example, the average cost approach would divide the expenditure for fire services by population and possibly employment to arrive at a figure, say $21 per person. This cost would occur regardless of any spatial distribution. The case study-marginal approach would reflect whether the Fire Department required additional space and apparatus to meet level of service times and responses. If new growth were primarily infill versus leap-frog development, the cost differential could be significant since in the former case there would be no additional cost for capital and associated personnel while in the latter case there might be a need for a new station with associated apparatus and personnel.As discussed above, depending on the size of the jurisdiction and the size of the specific project being evaluated, cost and facility thresholds may never be triggered. In response to the advantages and disadvantages of these two methodologies,TischlerBise has developed numerous fiscal impact models that utilize a hybrid of these two methodologies. In a nutshell, the average cost components of the model (particularly public safety, parks/recreation and public works elements) are developed so that there is an option to reflect whether the area being evaluated is greenfield versus infill, or whether sufficient capacity exists, and/or whether there are locational differences that should be accounted for (i.e., average response times or variations in trip lengths, etc.). This allows the model to utilize cost information but still account for spatial relationships. We also provide the ability to add "marginality"to the average cost components by allowing for an adjustment to account for fixed costs and revenues, which improves the accuracy of the analysis. In addition, TischlerBise develops these models to accept direct entry of marginal costing data for specific operating and capital costs. For example, if it is known that a development will trigger the need for a community policing officer,the user can select to enter the entire cost of the position in a specific year. 20 TischlerBise PISCOL ECONOMIC I P-ANKING