Page 197 - Littleton, CO Comprehensive Plan

Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City of Littleton, CO

KEY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from the FIA results presented in this report:

▪ The type of growth makes a difference:

• Although all three development scenarios initially produce deficits, the relatively large
share of nonresidential development projected in Scenarios 2 and 3 expands the City’s
Sales Tax base significantly, so that as build-out occurs, the revenues generated by growth
exceed the costs associated with supporting that growth.

▪ The amount of growth makes a difference:

• Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 assume the same amount of residential development, as well
as the same mix of housing typologies. But Scenario 3 projects more overall development
than does Scenario 2 by assuming a densification/intensification of nonresidential
development relative to current zoning and land use regulations. As a result, Scenario 3
produces approximately 1.5 times the cumulative revenue that Scenario 2 produces.

▪ Continuing the same development patterns produces the worst fiscal results:
• Scenario 1, which is closest to a continuation of current population and development
trends, produces the worst fiscal results of the three scenarios with a projected average
annual net deficit due to growth of approximately $5.08 million. This is primarily due to
property tax revenue being insufficient to cover the infrastructure costs and related
operating costs associated with population growth.
• This finding suggests that the City may want to consider a shift in its approach to land use
and development decisions in order to facilitate more nonresidential development.

▪ Transportation capital costs reflect the majority of projected capital costs:

• Analyzing operating and capital results separately for all scenarios reveals net surpluses
on the operating side and net deficits for capital. Transportation infrastructure accounts
for the majority of capital costs (87 to 93 percent of total projected capital costs).

▪ The City of Littleton’s impact fee methodology should be revisited to ensure transportation
impact fees can support transportation infrastructure needs, as well as other infrastructure
categories:

• The City’s current impact fee structure does not account for differences in land use beyond
residential / nonresidential categories; however, distinct housing typologies (i.e., Attached
vs. Single Family Detached) and different commercial land uses (i.e., Retail vs. Office) place
varying degrees of demand on transportation and other infrastructure. This presents the
potential for the City to explore more comprehensive impact fee pricing in order to ensure
that funding for capital improvements keeps pace with development.

9