HNTB
HNTB
Corporation is a full-service planning and engineering firm headquartered in Kansas City
with offices in Overland Park and nation-wide. HNTB brings extensive
knowledge of Kansas land development law and infrastructure financing
options through experience with Kansas communities. This includes special assessment
districts, sales and use taxes, excise taxes, tax increment financing, in-lieu
fees public/private partnerships, federal grants, and other sources available
through home rule authority. Regionally, HNTB is working to assist
communities with funding options for roadways, streetscape, interchanges, parks/open
space, storm water detention and removal, boat ramps and recreation
facilities, HNTB has experience in calculating infrastructure demand,
undertaking siting and design, and assisting communities to build and manage
capital improvements programs. Elizabeth Garvin, HNTB's Kansas
attorney, has also been involved in legal assignments focused on impact fees,
tax increment financing, adequate public facilities/infrastructure extension,
and right-of-way condemnation.
HNTB
has long recognized the importance of stakeholder input to the development of a
comprehensive plan, and therefore established a Public Involvement Group within its
engineering ranks. HNTB has been a leader in helping clients win acceptance
for their projects for over 25 years. In recognition of the value of citizen
input to public policy decisions, HNTB has helped communities across the nation
build consensus on transportation projects and has developed and implemented
public involvement programs for a wide range of public projects. These projects
include feasibility studies, major investment studies, environmental
assessments, environmental impact statements, transit and rail projects,
aviation projects, access-management studies and water and wastewater
projects. In fact, HNTB was recently honored with a national award, as the
National Transportation Public Affairs Workshop recognized HNTB with a 2000
EXCEL Award for the firm’s public involvement efforts on a major planning
effort in Kansas City.
Tischler & Associates, Inc.
Three staff members are expected to
work on this assignment.
Paul
Tischler, who is President of TA, has
over 30 years of consulting experience in fiscal evaluations, as well as market
and economic feasibility studies, and is a frequent speaker on fiscal analysis,
impact fees, revenue strategies and other related topics. He has spoken to
such entities as ICMA, NAHB, APA, and GFOA. He is on the faculty at the
Lincoln Land Use Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Growth Management
Institute. He has also authored a number of articles on fiscal impact analysis
such as the ICMA (International City/County Management Association) MIS report
entitled "Analyzing the Fiscal Impacts of Development." He recently
served on the Governor of Maryland’s Smart Growth Infrastructure Committee.
Carson
Bise, AICP who is Vice
President of TA, has over fourteen years of fiscal, economic and planning
experience, having conducted fiscal evaluations in 23 states. Mr. Bise has
developed and implemented more fiscal impact models utilizing the case
study-marginal approach than any planner in the country. The applications he
has developed have been used for evaluating multiple land use scenarios,
specific development projects, annexations, urban service provision,
tax-increment financing and concurrency/adequate public facilities monitoring.
Mr. Bise has also authored several articles related to fiscal impact analysis
and lectured extensively on the subject. His most recent article, entitled
“Smart Growth and Fiscal Realities,” appeared in the ICMA publication, Growing
Smart! He is currently under assignment to update and revise TA’s previous MIS
report “Analyzing the Fiscal Impacts of Development” and recently completed a
chapter on fiscal impact analysis for the forthcoming APA reference book Planning
and Urban Design Standards.
Chris
Cullinan has a B.A. in Political
Science and a Masters of Public Affairs in Public Financial
Administration. As a former Budget Director, he brings several years of
financial management experience including budgeting, cost analysis, revenue
analysis and forecasting, long-term financial planning, and capital improvement
planning. He has conducted several fiscal analysis studies. His current
projects include the City of Frederick,
MD and Amherst County, VA. He has
also developed fiscal impact models for Davie
County, NC; Marysville, OH; Falls Church, VA; Sebastian, FL; and Barnstable, MA.
HNTB
Three staff members are expected to
work on this assignment.
Elizabeth A. Garvin, Esq., AICP
is an attorney with a background and focus in planning law, including plan
implementation, code drafting, and development negotiation. She serves as
Director of Regulatory Services for the Urban Planning Group in HNTB’s Kansas City
office. She has also served as counsel to the Kansas City, Missouri Tax
Increment Financing Commission. Ms. Garvin specializes in plan and policy
implementation, assisting public clients with regulatory and funding
decision-making processes.
W.
Brian Comer, AICP has extensive experience in
land use studies, comprehensive community plans, corridor plans and other
aspects of community planning. He has also developed a particularly strong
level of expertise in GIS.
Joseph
E. Drimmel, P.E. is a Civil Engineer
with HNTB's Kansas City office. He served as the City Engineer for the City
of Atchison, Kansas since 2001 and has designed streets, water, sanitary sewer
and storm sewer projects. Mr. Drimmel has performed the duties of project
manager, owner, inspector and project engineer on multiple projects and has set
budgets for the Engineering Department, along with the five-year Capital
Improvement Projects. Mr. Drimmel worked with another engineering firm between
his first tenure with HNTB and the City of Atchison, where he worked on multiple municipal projects.
There
are two major work activities requested by the City. The first relates to
determining the actual/projected public costs and benefits associated with
current and projected growth in the City, which is essentially a fiscal impact
analysis. The second major work effort involves examining methods for the appropriate allocation of public costs from
several perspectives. An overview of probable approaches to each of these
major work activities is discussed below.
Actual/Projected Public
Costs and Benefits
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. A common type of
analysis using this approach is a cost of land use fiscal analysis. In this type of analysis the characteristics of
various residential (i.e. single family, townhouse, apartment) and
nonresidential (i.e. 1,000 square feet of retail, industrial, office)
“prototypes” are defined and a “snapshot” approach is used to determine the
annual costs and revenues for each prototype to understand the generalized
impacts each land use independently has on a local government’s budget. The factors
used to define these prototypes typically include persons per household,
employment density, vehicle trips, assessed value, etc. Since this approach focuses on the average cost, 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. These are important considerations,
especially when determining the number and type of facilities necessary to
serve new growth, as well as the adequacy of the City’s revenue structure to
finance and operate these facilities.
In contrast to the average cost approach is the case
study-marginal approach. This approach has the greatest accuracy in
forecasting short to mid-term impacts of growth and policy decisions.
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. A series of
sensitivity evaluations would allow the client to understand whether any or all
of proposed plans make sense from the perspective of timing and phasing.
Please see the reprint, "Fiscal Impact Analysis: Reader Beware, Some
Caveats", published by The Growth Management Reporter, in the Appendix to
our proposal, which further discusses the reasons for using a case
study-marginal approach. Under this approach, TA would prepare a growth
alternatives fiscal impact analysis of one or more growth scenarios are evaluated for
their fiscal impact on the City.
As
noted in the cover letter, we recommend a three-phased approach for this
assignment. In order to ensure a cost-effective work scope that fully meets
the City’s objectives, we recommend that a Phase I fiscal impact feasibility
analysis be conducted. As discussed under the Work Scope, the tasks conducted
in the feasibility analysis will enable City decision makers to not only have a
full discussion of the trade-offs between various approaches and products
discussed above, but also include the consultant’s recommendation for
implementing the major work categories on a priority basis. This menu approach
will allow the City to determine which work activities and costs it wishes to
incur to achieve the various objectives outlined in the RFP. Our clients have
found this to be a very cost-effective approach, particularly when an agreement
on a specific fiscal approach or product does not exist.
Appropriate Allocation of Costs/Revenue/Implementation Strategies
The
second major work effort identified in the RFP is to “examine methods for the
appropriate allocation of public costs” from several perspectives. The fiscal
impact analysis will have established
the context in which the demand for City services and infrastructure is
occurring and likely shortfalls to fund this demand. This will ensure a
complete understanding of the current situation and provide a level base from
which all stakeholders can begin the discussion and understanding of financing
options.
The
next step is to investigate and analyze financing options available to the
City. TA will use its national expertise as part of this task. This will
include a detailed narrative describing each option. The various pros and cons
of each option will then be discussed. The financial requirements and
limitations of each option will be measured by several fiscal indicators
including yield, volatility, and equity. HNTB will examine the legal
requirements and limitations of each revenue alternative including relevant
state enabling legislation and steps the City would have to take to legally
implement each revenue alternative. The final analysis involves
evaluating the revenue alternatives based on non-financial, non-legal factors
such as public acceptance, administrative feasibility, cost of implementation,
and technical ease.
The end
product of this task will be a “matrix” of financing options from which the
City can evaluate its alternatives based on the above criteria. In addition to
this “matrix”, TA will also prepare a detailed report of the financing options.
Shown below are two graphics which could be utilized in our analysis. They can
serve as a structure for the “matrix” of revenue strategies. These graphics
were taken from ICMA (International City/County
Management Association) IQ Report, “An Introduction to Infrastructure
Financing”, co-authored by Paul Tischler and Dwayne Guthrie.
FUNDING SOURCES BY
DEMAND AND SIZE OF BASE
A RANKING OF FUNDING SOURCES
The suggested work scope is
discussed below.
TA will review relevant
budgets, fiscal information, planning documents, past studies and other
materials so that meaningful discussions can be held.
TA will meet with
appropriate City staff. This is likely to include at a minimum, the City
Manager, Planning Director, Finance Director and suggested elected/appointed
officials. The interviews will focus on obtaining key information regarding
the current status of fiscal evaluations of proposed development
projects/scenarios, fiscal impact data needs and approaches. The topics discussed
will pertain to current levels of service, geographic considerations, possible
growth scenarios and other issues.
In this task we will
prepare a report discussing the findings of the above task. The report will
discuss the major issues, findings and recommendations regarding which fiscal
impact approach (i.e. average cost or case study-marginal approach) is
appropriate. Potential limitations will be discussed, as will trade-offs. As
appropriate, suggested work tasks under different methodologies will be
recommended and likely consulting costs will be discussed. In summary, this
report will be a road map for interested parties that will discuss the
suggested services and route to implementing fiscal impact evaluations
answering different questions.
Deliverable: Fiscal
Impact Feasibility Analysis Report
TA
will meet with appropriate City officials to present the findings and answer
questions.
Make
changes to the work scope based on the two tasks above.
Deliverable: Revised
Work Scope as Appropriate
In the Phase I feasibility analysis, we will discuss in
further detail the different approaches to fiscal impact analysis, as well as
the potential limitations and trade-offs. The meetings we will have had with
City staff will have provided us with a better understanding of the available
data, which is an important consideration when determining which type of
analysis will be of the most benefit to the City. Based on our discussions and
evaluation of relevant data and materials, we will recommend the preferred
approach. The work scope for the one or both of two likely approaches that
would be pursued by the City in Phase II is discussed below.
TA
and City staff may decide that a Cost of Land Use Fiscal Analysis, focusing on
the average cost concept, is the preferred work product. In this type of
analysis the characteristics of various residential (i.e. single family,
townhouse, apartment) and nonresidential (i.e. 1,000 square feet of retail,
industrial, office) “prototypes” are defined and a “snapshot,” modified average
cost-per capita approach is used to determine the annual costs and revenues for
each prototype to understand the generalized impacts each land use
independently has on a local government’s budget. The factors used to define
these prototypes typically include persons per household, employment density,
vehicle trips, assessed value, etc.
TA will review up to ten land use categories suggested
by the Client and suggest any changes.
Deliverable: Memorandum
Discussing Prototype Land Use Categories
Based on interviews with City service providers, we will
assign costs and revenues to each land use prototype based on factors such as
household size, vehicle trip generation rates and employment density.
Deliverable: Memorandum
Discussing Cost and Revenue Factors
Based on the above tasks TA will calculate the fiscal
impact results by prototype land use.
A
succinct fiscal impact report will be prepared
discussing the full cost allocation for each prototype land use. The report will discuss the average share of
capital costs, operating expenses and revenues by land use type. The
residential results will be presented on a per unit basis and the
nonresidential on a per 1,000 square foot basis. There will be graphs
as well as tables showing the net surplus or deficit for each of the land use
categories. This should be beneficial in understanding the appropriate mixes of
different types of land use. The table of contents may be as follows:
- Executive Summary
- Average Annual Results by Prototype
- Fiscal Implications
- Annual Revenue by Prototype
- Annual Costs by Prototype
- Cost and Revenue Assumptions
A draft report will be
provided to the client for review. After mutually agreed changes are made, a
final report will be sent.
Deliverable: Draft and
Final Cost of Land Use Fiscal Impact Reports
TA
will present the findings of the cost of land use fiscal analysis report.
To assist the Client in defining
scenarios, TA will conduct a "brainstorming" session. The intent is
to agree on the land use categories, scenario(s), allocation to fiscal analysis
zone (geographic subarea), timeframe and other relevant topics. The
population, household and employment projections could cover a 5 to 20-year
time period. After the Client completes the scenario projections and prepares
the accompanying narrative, TA will prepare a memorandum reflecting the
comments on projections for each scenario(s).
Deliverable: Memorandum
Discussing Land Use Scenario(s)
In this task we will conduct onsite
interviews with personnel from the various City departments and service
providers. It is anticipated this will include activities funded through the
General Fund. The purpose of these onsite interviews is to provide TA with an
understanding of the department structure and scope of operations, discuss
facility-related variable costs and other operating expenses, as well as discuss
and agree upon methodologies for forecasting future demand for services and
facilities. The demand sources for the various City services and facilities
will vary by activity and department. The demands for City services can also
vary by the type of development as well as geographic location. TA will
supplement this task with our extensive national as well as recent regional
experience conducting fiscal impact analyses. This experience allows us to
facilitate meaningful conversations with City service providers and identify
cost drivers for specific services that can vary due to the unique
characteristics of a jurisdiction. For example, discussion with the public
works department in one community may indicate the best driver for non-salary
operating costs for road maintenance is additional road mileage, where in
another community it may be additional vehicle trips.
Information
obtained during the previous task will be described in narrative form in a
Level of Service, Cost and Revenue Factor Document. This document will discuss
the different cost components for the various City service providers, including
both facility and non-facility related operating expenses, methodologies for
forecasting future capital facility needs and associated operating expenses.
The document will also contain a separate chapter discussing revenue sources
and associated projection methodologies. A draft will be sent to the Client,
and after mutually agreed upon changes are made, a final document issued.
Deliverable: Memorandum
Discussing Cost and Revenue Factors
Based
on the methodologies and factors contained in the Level of Service Document
prepared in the previous task, TA will
develop the fiscal model for this assignment.
TA will prepare a fiscal impact report that describes in
succinct fashion the fiscal findings for the different alternatives. It is
anticipated the report will have the following categories.
-
Executive
Summary
-
Cumulative
Fiscal Results By Alternative(s)
-
Annual
Fiscal Results By Alternative(s)
-
Average
Annual Fiscal Impact Results By Alternative(s)
-
Major
Revenue Findings
-
Major
Capital Cost Findings
-
Major
Operating Expense Findings
The fiscal report will be a stand-alone document that
will be clearly understood by all interested parties. The analysis will
address each scenario. The fiscal impact report will present all of the major
findings and the reasons for the results. This will include issues regarding
differences between the alternatives, spatial distribution, staging, and other
issues.
Deliverable: Draft and
Final Growth Alternative(s) Fiscal Impact Reports
TA
will present the findings of the fiscal impact report.
The
fiscal impact analysis will establish the
context in which the demand for City services and infrastructure is occurring.
It will also project the likely shortfall to fund this demand. This will
ensure a complete understanding of the current situation and provide a level
base from which all stakeholders can begin the discussion and understanding of
financing options. The following tasks are recommended to provide a complete
analysis of the financing options available to the City to fund its
infrastructure and service delivery needs.
Task
1: Analysis of Infrastructure Financing Options
This task includes several subtasks. The objective is
to produce a “matrix” of financing options, the pros and cons of which can be
viewed according to several factors.
a.
Description of Financing
Options – TA will provide a
detailed narrative describing each financing option.
b.
Financial Requirements and
Limitations of Financing Options – In
this subtask TA will evaluate how the various financing options fit in the
City’s overall fiscal structure and financial management policies. This
subtask also involves TA evaluating the revenue alternatives using a variety of
fiscal measures in the categories of yield, volatility, predictability, and
equity.
c.
Legal Requirements and
Limitations of Financing Options – In
this subtask HNTB will examine the City’s ability to legally expand and/or
increase existing revenue sources and rates. Components of this subtask include
citing specific sections of the Kansas Statutes, state case law, federal legal
precedents, and steps the City would need to enact revenue alternatives. This
will also include an examination of legal limitations on revenue alternatives.
d.
“Appropriateness” and
Applicability of Financing Options
– Based on our on site work and national and state experience, we will evaluate
the possible effect of the financing strategy on the greater Lawrence community.
We will evaluate the revenue alternatives based on non-legal, non-financial
factors such as public acceptance, administrative feasibility, cost of
implementation, and technical ease.
Task 2: Public Participation and
Education
As
part of this process we will collect input from stakeholders. This will
include residents, neighborhood associations, developers, affected public
entities and others. Our products and presentations will allow those
designated by the City to understand the background, reasoning, and approaches
utilized in this process and raise any questions about the information being
used.
No
matter what techniques are used, TA and HNTB recognize that a proactive
approach to public involvement leads to successful projects. Involving the
public early in the planning and decision-making process greatly reduces the
possibility of schedule delays, budget overruns and costly legal processing
during later design and construction phases.
Deliverable: Materials
and Graphics as Appropriate
TA
will prepare a draft report which will include at a minimum the following
information:
Ø
Executive Summary.
Ø
A detailed description of revenue
alternatives available.
Ø
A “matrix” of revenue options
available to the City, how they are apportioned and the pros and cons.
Ø
Financial and legal information
which adequately explain the financing options available to the City.
Following the City’s
review of the draft report, we will make mutually agreed upon changes and issue
the final report.
Deliverable: Draft and
Final Financing Options Report
We will present the
findings and recommendations to the City Council.
Task 5: Implementation
of Financing Options (Optional)
The consultant team will
assist the City in implementing the financing options. This task might include
the following subtasks:
Ø
Additional presentations to
citizens, stakeholders.
Ø
Assistance in preparing ordinances
(if legal action is needed for implementation).
Ø
Presentation to state legislators,
municipal associations, etc. (if state enabling legislation is required for implementation).
Ø
Analysis of revenue alternatives
for achieving “revenue neutral” proposals for raising revenues or implementing
new revenue sources.
