|
I III I ·
<br />
<br /> AMERICAN
<br /> PLANNING
<br /> ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br />I I II I
<br />
<br />Impact Analysis:
<br />From Sharp Tools
<br />Come Sharp Assessments
<br />
<br />By Stuart 3Ieck, A/CP, and Laura Thompson
<br />
<br />Incre'~singly, planners are using formal impact assessment
<br />techniques as parc of development reviews. Some states, like
<br />California, already mandat~ such an approach through a state
<br />environmental quality act (SEQA). This issue of Zoning News
<br />reviews the experiences ora number of local governments as
<br />they test new tools and concepts. It also provides tips for
<br />planners thinking about initiating similar programs in their
<br />communities.
<br />
<br /> What is Impact Analysis?
<br /> Impact analysis is a series of techniques used to analyze the
<br /> consequences of development for a community. An impact
<br /> analysis process may result in alternatives and modifications to
<br /> an original development proposal. It may also allow a
<br /> community to decide whether to accommodate development by
<br /> expanding existing public facilities or building new ones.
<br /> Alternately, it may conclude that existing services and facilities
<br /> are adequate to handle_marginal change. Impact analysis may
<br /> also flag intergovernmental policy issues, such as the effect on
<br /> local school systems, which may be separate governmental units.
<br /> "It seems to me that planners need to be much more
<br /> systematic in the way they think about development projects,"
<br /> says Raymond Burby, a professor of urban and regional planning
<br /> who teaches impact analysis to graduate students at the
<br /> University of New Orleans. "It is a serious deficiency in planning
<br /> practice that we make recommendations either for or against
<br /> development projects, or we make planning decisions without an
<br /> adequate understanding of the consequences of the decision." ~
<br /> "At one time," Burby notes, "there was an excuse for that
<br />because we lacked the technology and methods to predict how
<br />development decisions would affect public service systems or the
<br />environment or the fiscal well-being of the community." But
<br />the computer has wrought % revolution in the technology of
<br />impact assessment over the past 20 years." Burby also cites the
<br />federal government's investment of % tremendous amount of
<br />money" in developing methods to predict the impacts of
<br />federally funded projects, as required by the National
<br />Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Computer models on noise,
<br />air and water quality, and flooding arc examples of areas in
<br />which computer-based technology has helped the art and
<br />science of impact assessment.
<br /> "A lot of assessment techniques that used to be in the
<br />domain of civil engineers can be used by planners," Burby says.
<br />His planning students learn how to develop simulations of
<br />water and sewer systems. That's important, he says, because
<br />"when you understand the impacts of development decisions on
<br />public services, you have a better understanding ofhow to do
<br />your job. You don't have to defer to the experts in those
<br />systems," such as engineers.
<br />
<br /> Types of Techniques
<br /> Fiscal impact. One of the most popular techniques is fiscal
<br /> impact or cost-revenue analysis. It is used to determine whether
<br /> development will generate enough taxes and other related
<br /> general revenues to pay for the added public services it requires.
<br /> Often, fiscal impact analysis will precede modifications to local
<br /> government fee structures or policies on subsidies for certain
<br /> types of development. Still, the relationship between revenues
<br /> and costs should not be the sole criterion for deciding whether
<br /> to approve a development.
<br /> Since 1980, Newark, Delaware, has required that fiscal
<br /> impact analysis procedures be performed on development
<br /> proposals. Newark adopted these procedures, says associate
<br /> planner Maureen Feeney Roser, because, although people
<br /> generally assumed that the city always benefited financially from
<br /> development projects, no one had validated that assumption.
<br /> Last updated in 1989, the Newark fiscal impact model deter-
<br /> mined that the city was indeed making money from develop-
<br /> ment projects, but not as much as was previously thought.
<br /> Newark includes its fiscal impact .analysis in a broader
<br />assessment of several impacts of proposed development. A
<br />typical staffreport to the planning commission, for a 135-unit
<br />single-family residential development and a 20,000-square-foot
<br />neighborhood shopping center proposed in 1994, addresses
<br />physical conditions at the site such as soil types, density in
<br />relationship to nearby subdivisions, site design, and traffic
<br />impact. (In this case, the Delaware state transpo?tation
<br />department critiqued the developer's traffic consultant's report.)
<br />Roser's fiscal impact analysis looked at the consequences of the
<br />development over a five-year period, finding that net revenue
<br />would be positive. The report also included comments from a
<br />number of city departments, including building, public works,
<br />electric, and planning, as part of an internal city subdivision
<br />advisory committee. The report made clear recommendations,
<br />including suggested conditions, to the planning commission on
<br />both the subdivision design and the rezoning.
<br /> DeKalb, Illinois, performed fiscal impact analysis routinely
<br />for several years as part of an economic development program to
<br />determine the extent to which the city should participate in
<br />commercial and industrial projects. The city formally adopted a
<br />fiscal impact analysis plan in February 1995. Mark Biernacki,
<br />director of planning and development, says increased
<br />development in DeKalb prompted the adoption. He reports
<br />that computer-based methodology lets planners calculate the
<br />fiscal impact of new development in one to two hours.
<br /> The department's 128-page, 1995 report, Development Trends
<br />and their Fiscal Impacts in DeKalb, Illinois, found that residential
<br />development was producing a negative fiscal impact, coming
<br />mainly from larger, three- and four-bedroom single-family
<br />detached residences. Townhouse developments produced positive
<br />fiscal impacts, and apartments had a marginally negative impact.
<br /> Commercial development yielded a positive fiscal impact.
<br />Warehousing and miscellaneous manufacturing development
<br />initially produced positive fiscal impacts, but after 10 years the
<br />revenue-cost relationship declined to a break-even or negative
<br />level. Overall, projected development in DeKalb over the next
<br />
<br />
<br />
|