Introduction:
Studies on the fiscal issues of growth or sprawl
mostly fall within two categories: (1) estimating the potential savings
of managed growth over unmanaged growth; and (2) investigating the extent
to which each land use type pays the costs it introduces to the public
sector.
Potential Savings or fiscal impact on municipalities
or school districts:
The first study on the costs of sprawl (Real Estate
Research Corporation (RERC), 1974) focused on the relationship between
on-site infrastructure costs and density or land use patterns. Recent
studies (Frank, 1989; Duncan et al., 1989; and Burchell et al., 1992; Bank
of America et al., 1995) used a similar approach to look at the relationship
between density or land use pattern and off-site infrastructure costs (i.e.
local and county roads, water, sewers, and schools). Assuming identical
population, household, and employment growths, the methodology involves
tabulations of all per unit costs of different infrastructure types, multiplied
by their quantities required by both unmanaged growth and managed growth
scenarios. The estimated difference between total off-site infrastructure
capital costs is interpreted as potential savings of managed growth relative
to unmanaged growth on the net deficit of a municipality or school district.
It is estimated as $5.1 million annually in a study for eighteen communities
in Southeast Michigan (Burchell and Neuman 1996). In a New Jersey
study (Burchell et al., 1992), managed growth is 2% less costly than unmanaged
growth for both municipalities and school districts. Specifying the
scenarios of different densities, Frank (1989) concluded that capital costs
of off-site infrastructure for a typical subdivision of three houses per
acre can be reduced at least one-third by developing near basic public
facilities and employment centers, with an average density of 12 houses
per acre. Such an approach or “bottom-up” methodology - has limited
the geographical scope of most studies to several residential developments
to all developments in a MCD or county. However, a study in California’s
Central Valley employs GIS to apply the methodology to a larger geographical
area and is able to project the cost difference between the managed and
unmanaged growth scenarios of California’s Central Valleys in forty years
(American Farmland Trust, AFT 1995).
Fiscal Impact of Land Uses:
The second type of studies uses a methodology (The
Costs of Community Services or COCS) developed by American Farmland Trust
(AFT). COCS studies (AFT, 1993a, AFT, 1993b, and Arend et Al. 1996) intend
to tabulate the cash flow including revenues, capital costs, and operating
costs associated with a land use type independent from whether it is a
product of sprawl or managed growth. The main research question is
the extent to which a new land use pays for its public costs introduced.
The costs are in the forms of services to residents, workers, farmers,
and school children, while its associated revenue comes from property tax
levied on new developments, sales tax, as well as non-tax and intergovernmental
resources. Land uses with a cost and revenue ratio less than one
pay for what they cost the public sectors, generating net revenue, thus
considered fiscally sound. Those with a ratio greater than one, however,
are subsidized by other fiscally sound land uses. A fiscal impact
hierarchy is compiled by AFT based on the results of similar studies in
different localities in the U.S (Appendix A). The assumption is that
the fiscal impact hierarchy of land uses stays the same, although the expenditure
and revenue ratio of same type of land use may change in different localities.