Page 219 - Littleton, CO Comprehensive Plan

Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City of Littleton, CO

KEY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Fiscal Impact Analysis demonstrate the following:

▪ 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
begin to 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 nonresidential
development than does Scenario 2 and thus more development overall. 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 present 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 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. Projected revenues for capital needs are
insufficient to cover the projected level of infrastructure needs, and transportation
infrastructure accounts for the majority of capital costs (87 to 93 percent of total projected
capital costs).

31