Utilizing the Integrated Model for Planning and Cost ...lgc.org/wordpress/docs/freepub/community_design/fact_sheets/Galt… · Utilizing the Integrated Model for Planning and Cost

1

Utilizing the Integrated Model for Planning and Cost Scenarios Tool to Understand the Fiscal Impacts of Development: A Spotlight on the City of Galt

The City of Galt, a small, agricultural community located in Sacramento County, California, recently partnered with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the Local Government Commission (LGC) to learn more about the effects that land use decisions may have on a community’s fiscal health, by using SACOG’s Integrated Model for Planning and Cost Scenarios (IMPACS) tool, employed for SACOG’s Blueprint project and enhanced for SACOG’s Rural-Urban Connections Strategy project. This work was made possible through funding from the Sacramento Air Quality Management District. This white paper provides an overview of this effort, information about SACOG’s IMPACS tool, challenges, lessons learned, and a general overview of how local governments can benefit from conducting a fiscal analysis. Fiscal Analysis in the City of Galt The City of Galt is a small, agricultural community located in Sacramento County with a population of approximately 23,647 people. According to the City of Galt’s General Plan, the population of Galt is likely to increase to 51,291 and employment is projected to increase to approximately 46,000 by the year 2030. As city staff and elected officials plan for this future growth in today’s current economic climate, they have realized the importance of making economically viable development decisions. Understanding the importance of both political and staff level support, SACOG and LGC asked both staff and elected officials at the City of Galt if they would be interested in using SACOG’s IMPACS tool to learn more about infrastructure and fiscal analysis. SACOG developed the IMPACS tool to “provide local governments a means of evaluating the fiscal challenges and opportunities of providing infrastructure (including culinary water, secondary water, sanitary sewer, flood control and drainage, streets, as well as water and wastewater treatment) and police and fire services in their community.” Specifically, IMPACS allows communities to analyze and estimate the infrastructure and city service needs, capital costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and expected revenues for specific development scenarios.

How IMPACS Works:

1. Input and specify scenario data in IMPACS.

Users provide site context including defining the existing site conditions, the proposed land use program and other important development parameters.

2. Define and Refine Infrastructure Assumptions and Inputs. Users can review and refine assumptions pertaining to the infrastructure evaluated in IMPACS.

3. Outputs and Reports. IMPACS generates several reports, which provide fiscal and infrastructure analysis for the proposed development scenario.

*For complete information about how IMPACS works, please refer to the IMPACS user guide available as an appendix to this document.

2

Developing Scenarios to Model in IMPACS The City of Galt, SACOG and LGC held several meetings to discuss IMPACS, its possibilities and benefits, and to brainstorm how the model could help Galt understand the fiscal costs and benefits associated with their future development goals. Staff from the City of Galt also attended an IMPACS training session. The City of Galt developed initial scenarios using the Galt General Plan as the base. Several of the initial scenarios only made minor changes to the Galt General Plan or modeled small areas of development within the larger city limits. For example, one initial scenario modeled a potential industrial development, which could help support their interest in developing a local creamery or food hub. Another initial scenario modeled a small infill project that consisted mostly of residential development. Initial results from IMPACS showed that the small infill project consisting solely of residential development was not financially viable. The payback period was almost 172 years, whereas a desired payback period is generally 30 years or less. The net present value, examined over a fifty-year period of time, was negative at -$566,355,280. Galt, SACOG and LGC staff tried to improve the fiscal impact of the project by making adjustments to the initial scenario, such as mixing in commercial development alongside the residential development. Once these adjustments were made the payback period was reduced significantly to 24.5 years and the Net Present Value became positive, at $2,214,799, a much better investment. The adjustments revealed that the project became financially viable once the jobs housing balance was improved. To further amplify these initial findings, the City of Galt, SACOG and LGC developed four new fictitious development scenarios. Each scenario modeled a typical growth pattern seen in communities across California. The first development scenario, titled “low density” included low-density development consisting of big-box retail, low density housing and no mixed-use development; the second scenario, “targeted development,” made minor improvements and consisted of industrial, downtown, and southeast focused development; the third scenario, “downtown focus,” pulled development from the outlying areas to focus growth in downtown Galt; the last scenario, “mixed-use,” consisted of mixed-use development which balanced housing and jobs. Galt, SACOG and

City of Galt Development Scenarios

Low Density: Big box retail, low-density housing and no mixed-use development. Focused Development: Industrial development, downtown development and Southeast Galt Development. Downtown Focus: Pulls growth from the outlying areas to downtown Galt. Mixed-Use: Mixed-use development that balances housing and jobs.

Industrial

Southeast

Downtown

3

LGC determined that these scenarios better exemplified the drastically varied fiscal impacts that different growth patterns have on a community. Defining and Refining Infrastructure Assumptions and Inputs Defining and refining infrastructure assumptions and inputs is one of the most important steps when using IMPACS. Refining the default values will personalize the results based upon local variables and help ensure more accurate information. Users can refine estimated future demand for the culinary water system, secondary water, sanitary sewer, flood control and drainage, street and transportation and water and wastewater treatment. Users can also refine existing capacity assumptions including water systems capacity and transportation capacity. Additionally, the model can calculate the projects initial infrastructure costs and long-term operation and maintenance costs. Cost assumptions for water systems, transportation, and services, and parks can be refined as well. Lastly, users can refine revenue projections from key revenue generating sources such as property taxes, licenses and permits, motor vehicles in lieu revenue, fines and forfeitures, and franchise taxes. Additional taxes include supplemental sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, etc. For complete information about defining and refining infrastructure assumptions, please refer to the IMPACS user guide available as an appendix to this white paper. It is also important to define whether specific costs associated with infrastructure, such as sewer, stormwater, or transportation, are public sector versus developer costs. The City of Galt found that refining these default values greatly changed a potential development’s public cost. In some cases a project’s feasibility was dependent on refining this information. While working with the City of Galt, it was also determined that it would be helpful to model some costs as shared by allowing users to define the public cost percentage. Involving local government staff is crucial in this step of the process to best determine which costs are paid for by the public versus paid for by the developer.

Analyzing Results from IMPACS to Determine a Project’s Fiscal Impact The results from the IMPACS tool provide key information that can be used to determine infrastructure needs and a project’s fiscal impact on a community. Key pieces of fiscal information local municipalities can garner from IMPACS include: total and per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) capital and O&M costs; annual net revenue; net present value; the ratio of revenue to cost; and a simple and bonded payback analysis (see below for more details

These triggers allow you to determine developer vs. public sector costs.

4

on these outputs). This information, as well as the additional information available in IMPACS outputs, can help municipalities, such as Galt, test different project scenarios to see if they are financially feasible, and make changes to further measure the land use impacts on the economics of the project. On a communitywide basis, the results can help determine the proper mix of development to ensure an economically sustainable and balanced growth strategy. In addition to using the IMPACS tool to analyze the fiscal impacts of development projects, the environmental and quality of life impacts of proposed development should also be evaluated. Where and how development occurs has a direct effect on the environment, including air and water quality, as well as open space and natural resources. For example, a growing body of evidence has found that land use is directly related to vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Research has shown that centrally located mixed-use developments generate fewer vehicle miles traveled and therefore lower greenhouse gas emissions, compared to separated, low-density land uses (www.epa.gov/dced/topics/eb.htm). For example, the average vehicle miles travelled per household in SACOG’s preferred growth scenario (which promotes compact, mixed-use development and more transit choices) is approximately 30% lower than SACOG’s Base Case (which is a projection of how the six-county Sacramento region would grow if recent development trends continued) scenario. Moreover, quality of life for residents and visitors should also be considered when analyzing a project, including the health and happiness of residents and accessibility to schools, places of work, stores, and parks and open spaces. Annual Net Revenue The IMPACS tool provides information about annual net revenue for each scenario, based upon projected annual operation and maintenance costs and projected annual revenue. Actual Simple Payback Period and Gap Per ERU The desired pay-back period for municipal projects is generally 30 years or less, although this desired simple payback period can be modified within IMPACS. When comparing the pay back periods for each of the fictitious Galt scenarios, the only scenario that met the desired pay-back period was the Mixed-Use Scenario, which is characterized by development that balances jobs and housing. Another way to meet the desired pay back period is to determine the gap per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU), a standardized unit used to characterize infrastructure demand in diverse land uses, and charge an assessment or development impact fee to cover these additional costs. For example, in the scenario to the right, the gap per ERU is $599 per year. A $599 fee could be charged each year per residential dwelling built, to help reach the desired simple payback period of 30 years.

5

Net Present Value Net present value is another source of data that can be used to ensure that a project is financially feasible. The net present value graph in IMPACS shows whether the development scenario will generate a positive, negative or neutral cash flow over a 50-year time period. Generally, positive net present values represent a good investment, whereas a negative net present values represents an investment that will lose money over a buildings’ estimated 50-year lifespan, if not balanced with other revenue generating projects. When comparing the four fictitious scenarios from Galt, the only scenario that generated a positive net present value was the Mixed-Use Scenario.

Ratio of Revenue to Cost The ratio of revenue to cost, per-acre, provides a helpful way to understand what land uses within a development provide the highest sources of revenue compared to infrastructure costs and whether a project’s revenue will exceed project costs. Ratios higher than 1.0 indicate that revenue will exceed costs over a 50-year time period. Furthermore, calculating results on a per-acre basis allows scenarios to be fairly compared to one another, on an equivalent basis. In one of Galt’s fictitious scenarios (seen in the graph to the right), it is clear that mixed-use development provides the highest ratio of revenue to cost, per land use acre, when compared to the other land uses in these scenarios. It is important to note that this ratio should not be relied on exclusively for making land use decisions. The quality of life in a community relies on a range of land uses that may or may not be fiscally viable when viewed in isolation. The fiscal performance of the entire plan is a better metric to consider, followed by specific changes to improve the fiscal performance balanced with providing a good quality of life for residents. What the Scenario Results Mean for the City of Galt After comparing the variety of financial results from the different development scenarios for Galt, it became clear that mixed-use focused development consistently generates better financial outcomes when compared to other types of development. Mixed-use development generated a higher ratio of revenue to cost, per-acre, and the mixed-use scenario was the only scenario that met the desired pay-back period of 30 years or less and had a positive net present value over a 50-year time period. The analysis in Galt reinforces the idea that where and how a community builds has a tremendous impact on the cost of development and the subsequent fiscal impact on a community. It also seems to indicate that the City of

6

Galt may want to consider incorporating more vertical or horizontal mixed-use development in their future growth plans, as it seems to have the most positive fiscal impact when compared to other typical growth scenarios. These results are supported by research on this topic from across the nation. For example, one study indicated that compact infrastructure is up to 47% less expensive than conventional development patterns (Morris Beacon, 2010). Fiscal Analysis in nine different communities in Colorado, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming found that 2-3 story mixed-use buildings generate between 3-5 times more revenue on a per-acre basis compared to single-use commercial buildings, such as low-density housing or big box retail development (Joseph Minicozzi and Sonoran Institute, 2012). Lastly, SACOG’s Blueprint process found that the “region could save $13.8 billion if it built the Preferred Alternative (which promotes compact, mixed-use development and more transit choices) rather than the Base Case (which is a projection of how the six-county Sacramento region would grow if recent development trends continued) over the next 50 years.” Challenges of Undertaking Infrastructure and Fiscal Analysis at the Local Level This project not only helped the City of Galt understand the fiscal impacts of different land use scenarios, it also helped LGC and SACOG understand the benefits and challenges of utilizing fiscal impact analysis tools at the local level. Local governments across the nation currently face severe budget shortfalls, leading to challenges maintaining adequate staff and subsequent staff time constraints. The City of Galt is no exception. Currently the City of Galt’s Community Development Department consists of the Community Development Director, a Senior Planner and an Administrative Assistant. These staffing constraints limited their capacity to utilize and gain a complete understanding of the IMPACS tool, which can initially be fairly complicated to use and understand, unless users go through training and use the tool regularly. Staff from the City of Galt noted that the tool was slightly cumbersome to use without regular use. Furthermore, time constraints limited their ability to review the data and inputs for local accuracy. To overcome these staffing constraints, SACOG staff ultimately input the data themselves for each of the scenarios in IMPACS, and further modified the scenarios based upon input from city staff. Despite the benefit that the IMPACS tool, and other tools, can provide, staffing constraints at the local level serve as a barrier to their use. There can also be political sensitivities associated with using tools, such as IMPACS, to model scenarios and determine the fiscal impacts of potential development. Some local governments may be concerned about releasing scenario results for public review that involve private property, especially if the property owner has not provided consent or input about the scenarios. It may also cause a backlash from the public in the future if the final development decision does not match scenarios that were previously shown to them. Such concerns can be overcome with adequate notification up-front to both the public and private developers that tools such as IMPACS help inform decision-making, but do not provide “the answer.” Considering the growing interest in the Central Valley for using IMPACS, this or other tools could eventually become part of the planning and review process.

Using IMPACS In Your Community Are you interested in using IMPACS to help make more informed development and land use decisions in your community? Contact Raef Porter, [email protected], at SACOG to learn more, attend a training and access the tool.

7

How the Tool/Process Can Be Improved to Benefit Local Governments Undertaking this project in the City of Galt provided several new ideas for how the tool could potentially be modified to better meet the needs of local governments, allowing them to more easily understand and utilize the tool as well as clearly communicate results to a broader audience. Suggestions for possible improvements include: § Provide an option to show outputs, such as the ratios of revenue to cost, in dollar amounts, which may be

more easily understandable. § Add call-out-boxes to provide additional information and helpful hints as users input information and interpret

results. For example, a call out box could be used to explain the meaning of Net Present Value and how results can be interpreted. A call out box, or some other method, could also be used to highlight the most common levers that people change based upon local conditions.

§ Provide a number of user-friendly graphs that automatically populate and are easily modifiable based upon outcomes. These graphs can be used to help communicate the results to a broader audience.

Benefits of Utilizing Infrastructure and Fiscal Analysis at the Local Level Despite the barriers and challenges associated with tools such as IMPACS, fiscal analysis allows local governments to make informed land use decisions and create an economically viable and balanced growth strategy for their community. Infrastructure and fiscal analysis can help local governments:

Ø Understand the current capacity and future demands on infrastructure

for potential development sites. Ø Make informed development decisions based upon accurate fiscal

information and analysis for a general plan or specific development proposal.

Ø Easily compare several different land use scenarios, based upon their fiscal impact on a community.

Ø Determine if developer impact fees, or other fees or assessments, should be implemented to ensure that projects are economically feasible.

Ø Provide data that can be used to encourage builders and developers to modify their projects to minimize impacts and maximize benefits.

Ø Encourage growth patterns that balance housing and jobs, which can support alternative modes of travel, reduce VMT and emissions, and minimize the cost of transportation for residents.

Similar Efforts: § Joe Minicozzi, from Public Interest Projects, analyzes and compares the revenue of different development

types on a per-acre basis. http://lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/fact_sheets/SJ_Report_Valuing_Downtowns_email.pdf

§ The State of New Hampshire created an online “Cost of Sprawl” modeling tool that allows municipalities to understand the fiscal impacts of different land use scenarios and decisions. www.costofsprawl.org

Learn More Kate Meis, Local Government Commission, [email protected], 916-448-1198 ext. 305 David Shabazian, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, [email protected], 916-321-9000

“This will be an excellent broad brush tool to evaluate larger scale projects like a specific plan or major subdivisions…We can use this tool during initial negotiations with developers to show them fact-based data demonstrating impacts that could be minimized and benefits that could be optimized by making minor modifications to their projects.” - City of Galt Staff

Appendix

IMPACS Final Report / User Guide

Prepared for:

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Rural-Urban Connection Strategy

June 2011

IMPACS Final Report / User Guide 2

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION TO THE RUCS PROJECT IMPACS MODEL .......................................................................... 4

1. Purpose of the IMPACS Model ......................................................................................................... 4

2. Components of IMPACS ................................................................................................................... 4

3. Relationship of IMPACS to I‐PLACE3S ................................................................................................ 5

INTRODUCTION – IMPACS MODEL SETUP ................................................................................................ 7

1. Basic Settings ................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Display Settings................................................................................................................................ 8

STEP 1 – DEFINE SCENARIO PROGRAM .................................................................................................. 10

1. Scenario Details ............................................................................................................................. 10

2. Land Use Information .................................................................................................................... 13

3. Development Parameters .............................................................................................................. 15

Block Pattern ..................................................................................................................................... 16

STEP 2– INFRASTRUCTURE ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS ........................................................................ 19

1. Demand ......................................................................................................................................... 19

2. Capacity ......................................................................................................................................... 22

3. Cost ............................................................................................................................................... 23

4. Revenue ........................................................................................................................................ 26

STEP 3 – OUTPUTS AND REPORTS .......................................................................................................... 28

1. Development Summary ................................................................................................................. 28

2. Infrastructure Summary ................................................................................................................. 29

3. Revenue Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................... 29

4. Generate Report ............................................................................................................................ 30

IMPACS MODEL TEAM CONTACT INFORMATION: .................................................................................. 31


TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: IMPACS Main Screen ................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2: Relationship of IMPACS and I‐PLACE3S ...................................................................................... 6

Figure 3: Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors ............................................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Settings and Default Values ....................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4: Hydrologic Data and Assumptions ............................................................................................. 8

Figure 5: Settings and Default Values ....................................................................................................... 8

Figure 6: Scenario Details ...................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7: Prototype Override ................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 8: Datasheet Import .................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 9: Land Area and Use Details ....................................................................................................... 13

Figure 10: Landscaping Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 14

Figure 11: Site Context .......................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 12: Roadway Network ................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 13: Infill and Water Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 18

Figure 14: Water Demand Calculations .................................................................................................. 20

Figure 15: Transportation Demand Factors ............................................................................................ 21

Figure 16: Roadway and Water System Capacity .................................................................................... 23

Figure 17: Transportation Cost Factors .................................................................................................. 24

Figure 18: Emergency Service Worker Costs .......................................................................................... 25

Figure 19: Park and Recreation Costs ..................................................................................................... 25

Figure 20: Land Use Reference Table ..................................................................................................... 27

Figure 21: Revenue Estimate ................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 22: Infrastructure Summary ........................................................................................................ 28

Figure 23: Revenue Analysis .................................................................................................................. 30


INTRODUCTION TO THE RUCS PROJECT IMPACS MODEL 1. Purpose of the IMPACS Model

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has created the Rural‐Urban Connections Strategy (RUCS) to promote rural economic and environmental sustainability. The RUCS program has successfully developed a wide variety of initiatives and tools that enable local governments to make informed decisions about their future growth patterns affecting rural areas. The Integrated Model for Planning and Cost Scenarios (IMPACS) described in this user guide is the latest addition to SACOG’s toolkit. The model provides local governments a means of evaluating the fiscal challenges and opportunities of providing infrastructure and services in their communities.

The RUCS IMPACS model allows communities to analyze the infrastructure, parks, and certain public service requirements and understand the fiscal impacts of different development scenarios. The model can help jurisdictions perform the following tasks:

• Determine infrastructure demand from proposed development.

• Estimate the capacity of existing infrastructure.

• Determine whether new infrastructure is required for a proposed development project.

• Estimate capital costs and operational costs needed for the new infrastructure.

• Determine law enforcement, emergency service, library, and park and recreation needs.

• Evaluate expected revenues from development and compares with cost and expenditures.

• Identify thresholds in land use patterns that trigger the need for new, larger, or smaller infrastructure.

SACOG encourages users to attend IMPACS model training prior to using the model. This will increase the user’s understanding of the functionality and limitations of the model. If a user has a specific technical question feel free to contact the IMPACS model team (see end of this guide for contact information).

To estimate the infrastructure demand and cost of a project, it is necessary to analyze a large amount of data regarding site conditions, the proposed land use program, development parameters, infrastructure unit costs, and potential development revenues. While the IMPACS model performs the majority of these analyses automatically, the model requires the user to provide key data inputs. This user guide explains the specific steps needed to run the model. User inputs are color‐coded as bright green cells. Default values are provided, but the accuracy of the scenario output will improve with the use of project specific values.

2. Components of IMPACS

The four major components of the model are summarized below and described in greater detail in this document.

• Introduction: IMPACS model setup. This module describes basic program set up steps and provides general assumptions for each of the model’s components. This module also allows the user to modify display setting, hydrologic data on which wet utilities assumptions are based, equivalent dwelling conversion factors, and other key assumptions affecting calculations and model outputs. This module also provides mapping information and a glossary of technical terms used in the model.

• Step 1: Define scenario program. This module requires the user to specify the scenario identification descriptors, location, specific land use information and approximate site conditions, development parameters (land use density, mix, block patterns, roadway level of service, and infill status), and wet utilities options (water supply, water treatment, and wastewater) .


• Step 2: Infrastructure assumptions and inputs. This module allows the user to review, and in some cases refine, the demand, capacity, cost, and revenue assumptions pertaining to various types of infrastructure evaluated in the model.

• Step 3: Outputs and reports. This module generates a series of reports that allow the user to evaluate the fiscal characteristics and performance of the project. In two of the reports, the user can game various policy and fiscal variables to refine the analysis and create a report showing how a development scenario will perform fiscally over time.

Figure 1: IMPACS Main Screen

3. Relationship of IMPACS to I-PLACE3S

The IMPACS model has been designed to integrate with I‐PLACE3S, SACOG’s web‐based software tool that facilitates an integrated land use and transportation analysis known as scenario planning. IMPACS is intended to supplement I‐PLACE3S scenario planning in which several land use options are considered and objectively evaluated against quantifiable criteria. I‐PLACE3S integrates the effects of a wide variety of land uses, identifies the redevelopment and infill potential of land, and estimates housing and job potential and transportation impacts (such as vehicle miles traveled). IMPACS augments I‐PLACE3S capabilities by providing information on infrastructure demand, capacity, cost, and revenue to allow SACOG member jurisdictions to better understand the fiscal implications of different growth patterns, particularly at the rural‐urban fringe. In addition, I‐PLACE3S and IMPACS can share land use scenarios so that the jobs, housing, and transportation impacts of these scenarios can be evaluated in the context of fiscal impacts. See Figure 2, next page.


In the future, IMPACS will allow the user to import the data for a land use scenario from I‐PLACE3S so that the same scenario can be modeled for housing, job, and transportation effects as well as fiscal effects.

Figure 2: Relationship of IMPACS and I‐PLACE3S


INTRODUCTION – IMPACS MODEL SETUP Within the Introduction module are two tabs: Screen Setup and Settings. These tabs and their function are described below.

1. Basic Settings

ERU DEFINITION

Residential and nonresidential uses can have significantly different infrastructure demands. A standardized measure, equivalent residential units (ERU), is used to create a common unit characterize infrastructure demand in divers land uses. The ERU is based on the infrastructure demand of one single‐family unit. The default ERU assumptions in the IMPACS model assume that one single‐family unit is equal to 2,500 square feet of gross floor area in commercial office, retail and other nonresidential uses. The default setting also assumes that one single family unit is equal to between 900 and 1,200 square feet of multifamily unit. The user can choose to enter custom ERU assumptions. This will help improve the output quality of the model.

Figure 3: Equivalent Dwelling Unit Factors

HYDROLOGIC DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS

The IMPACS model uses regional rainfall and evapotranspiration data to calculate stormwater generation and landscape irrigation water demand. The user can substitute locally specific data for the default data in the Hydrologic Data table. This will improve the quality of the stormwater generation and landscape irrigation demand estimates. Figure 4 illustrates the hydrologic data.


Figure 4: Hydrologic Data and Assumptions

2. Display Settings

In order for the IMPACS model to display properly on the user’s monitor, the user may need to change the default display management settings. The user should determine their size of the monitor’s screen and select the appropriate model display settings.

Figure 5: Settings and Default Values


The IMPACS model was developed in Microsoft Excel using macros and visual basic programming to add functionality. IMPACS allows the use of Excel keyboard commands to toggle between view modes and perform other functions. Useful keyboard shortcut commands include:

The display mode, which can be set to “Full Screen” use with the keyboard command <Ctrl> + <Shift> + F key.

The IMPACS application, which can be set to “Working Mode” and displays all Tabs and Excel Features, with the keyboard command: <Ctrl> + <Shift> + W key.


STEP 1 – DEFINE SCENARIO PROGRAM Site context and the proposed development program have a considerable influence on the extent and cost of the infrastructure that will be required to serve a new growth area. The first step in using the IMPACS model is to define the existing site conditions, the proposed land use program, and other important development parameters. There are three steps to this process: 1) specify scenario details and existing conditions, 2) enter land use program information, and 3) enter development parameters.

1. Scenario Details

In the Scenario Details tab, the user sets up a scenario run file by providing a title, base year, project location, and description.

After this basic information is provided, the user has two options to define the existing site conditions needed to run the IMPACS model: either select from a list of pre‐programmed prototypical locations or enter project location specific data to create a custom analysis. The prototype option is best when a quick analysis is desired, when the site conditions of a proposed development are unknown, or when a specific location has not been selected. The custom analysis is appropriate to examine a more complete development plan. The steps required for each option are described within this section.

Figure 6: Scenario Details

Enter scenario title and a brief description.

Specify a base year (This should be the year in which project development is proposed to begin).

Verify scenario date.

Identify user name.

Enter project location (county).

Select the growth area within the county (if pre‐determined).


Prototypical Conditions Option:

SACOG has collected data on existing infrastructure conditions, topography, and other variables for a range of locations in the region and developed prototypes that can be used to approximate conditions for an analysis. The prototypes allow users to avoid the tedious process of collecting and providing detailed development and cost factors assumptions when conducting a sketch‐level analysis.

To use a prototype that is already in SACOG’s database:

Select the county where the project is located. It is important the correct County be selected, as the jurisdiction’s fiscal policies impacts the revenue calculations in Step 3.

Select the growth area that most closely represents the project location.

Review the prototype characteristics to ensure they reflect conditions of the project location. The prototype characteristics can be viewed by clicking on the “Review/Change Data” tab on the upper right of the screen.

If the prototype characteristics are accurate enough for analysis purposes, move to the “Land Use Information” step.

If the prototypes are not accurate enough for the analysis, then enter custom values as described in the custom conditions option below.

Custom Conditions Option:

Entering customized data will increase the accuracy of the IMPACS model outputs. To enter project location specific data and create a custom analysis, the user will need to open on the “Review/Change Data” tab on the upper right of the screen. The user can either alter the selected prototype assumptions or import an entirely new data set using the datasheet import function.

Prototype Override

The “Review/Change Data” spreadsheet contains existing conditions assumptions related to infrastructure capacity, infrastructure design characteristics, and capital, operations, and maintenance costs from the prototype selected in the “Scenario Details” tab. To override the prototype default data, the user will need to perform the following steps (Figure 7, next page):

In grey highlighted column, second from the right, switch the dropdown option from “County Data” to “Override”. This needs to be repeated for each row of data that will be changed.

Enter the custom location specific data into the bright green‐highlighted column to the left.

Confirm that the value in the selected value matches your custom input.


Figure 7: Prototype Override

Datasheet Import

The user also has the option of entering data into a standardized IMPACS 2.0 datasheet template and importing this datasheet into the IMPACS model. To do this, download the standardized IMPACS 2.0 datasheet template from the SACOG website. The user will then need to enter all the required data. To import the data the user will need to press the “Select Datasheet” button, select the appropriate file, and then press the “Import Datasheet” button. The import process may take a few minutes.

SACOG encourages users to add all customized scenarios to SACOG’s IMPACS prototype library. If the user needs assistance developing a custom scenario, please contact the SACOG IMPACS model team (see contact page at the end of this guide). Over time SACOG hopes to provide a wide range of locations in the region within this library.

Figure 8: Datasheet Import


2. Land Use Information

TOTAL LAND AREA AND BREAKDOWN BY TYPE

In the next step, the user defines the land use program of the proposed project. The user must first enter the total project area. In the second step the user defines the breakdown of the total acreage among various land uses (residential, mixed use, non‐residential, and public realm open space). This land use program can be described by acreages or by percentages. The “Input Mode” dropdown bar allows the user to select which way they wish to describe the land use program.

Figure 9: Land Area and Use Details


The worksheet has a variety of specific land uses types within each category from which to choose. It is possible that the categories will not exactly match the land use categories from a project or plan for the scenario being created. The user should select the worksheet category and land use closest to the actual land uses being proposed. The sum of the acreages is indicated in the cell directly below the Total Development area input cell. All of the Development Site Area acreage should be assigned. If the land use allocations do not equal 100% the cells will be highlighted in red.

Again, SACOG asks users to add their land use program scenarios to the IMPACS prototype library.

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY / INTENSITY Each land use category contains development density (residential) and intensity (nonresidential) assumptions (e.g. units/acre, floor‐area ratio, lot size). The model uses these assumptions to calculate a project’s proposed infrastructure demand. The user has the option to: 1) import the default development intensity assumptions from the selected prototype, or 2) enter custom assumptions relevant to a project’s specific conditions. To select the default assumptions the user should click on the tab entitled “Import Defaults from Prototype” and then save the file to make the imports permanent. To develop custom assumptions, the user should enter the appropriate values to the right of the land use category. The user will need to save the file to make these changes permanent.

LANDSCAPE ASSUMPTIONS

In addition to development intensity assumptions, each land use category contains assumptions regarding landscape conditions including percentage of area covered by turf, other planted landscaping, hardscape, and building roofs (see Figure 8, below). The model uses these assumptions to calculate landscape water demand and stormwater generation. In the Landscape Definition Worksheet, the user can utilize the default assumptions or input custom assumptions if desired. The user should save the file after making any changes in order to make these permanent.

Figure 10: Landscaping Assumptions


3. Development Parameters

After describing the proposed land use program, the user will need to define: 1) the site context in relation to existing infrastructure, 2) the existing and future roadway infrastructure, and 3) the type of water supply and treatment infrastructure required to serve the project.

SITE CONTEXT

The location, condition, and type of existing infrastructure can have considerable impact on a project’s infrastructure costs. The user will need to enter information regarding existing roadway infrastructure conditions:

Level of service (LOS) on existing roadways.

Existing roadway category (from 2‐lane local street to 6‐lane divided freeway).

Length of the roadway segment (in feet).

Percent of trips from the site allocated to each segment.

These transportation‐related parameters are used to estimate the capacity of existing roadways. If a roadway segment’s LOS and category are known, the segment’s capacity to accommodate future development can be calculated. The length parameter is used to calculate cost of lane expansion, if required. The percent of trips from the site allocated to each segment allows calculation of the impact of the development to those segments.

Users must also enter the distance (in feet) from the site to the nearest water main, nearest sanitary sewer main, nearest stormwater drainage main. These distance parameters allow the model to calculate the length of potential connections of project infrastructure to existing utility main lines.

Figure 11: Site Context


Block Pattern

Block pattern directly impacts the layout, length, and cost of a development’s roadway network. Because, utilities are often located under or next to these roadways, the block pattern geometry also affects the extent and cost of other infrastructure as well. Block pattern often varies according to the underlying land use. The user will assign a block pattern to each land use category contained in the project. Graphical representations of the block patterns are demonstrated in the Development Parameters tab to aid the user’s selection. The steps involved in this process are:

Assign a block pattern to each land use category in the project.

Define default block pattern.

Define default local street.

Define default major street.

BLOCK PATTERN

Street widths and cross section improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting) affect the amount of roadway area, improvement and maintenance cost, stormwater generation, and the length, size, and cost of other types of infrastructure (e.g. water and sewer mains and stormwater management facilities). The user can accept the default street cross section specifications in the table or can customize them to local specifications. Users who wish to use the default settings may skip to the following section in this guide. Users wishing to provide custom specifications should perform the following steps:

Define right‐of‐way width for each roadway category (in feet).

Define pavement width for each roadway category. Include vehicle lanes, shoulders, and Class II bike lanes (in feet).

Define sidewalk width (in feet). If no sidewalk proposed then enter a zero as the value.

Define sidewalk completeness. 100% sidewalk completeness means that sidewalks will be present on both sides of the roadway. 50% sidewalk completeness means that sidewalks will be present on one side of the roadway. 0% sidewalk completeness means no sidewalk will be present.

Define curb and gutter completeness. 100% curb and gutter completeness means that curbs and gutters will be present on both sides of the roadway. 50% curb and gutter completeness means that a curb and gutter will be present on one side of the roadway. Zero percent curb and gutter completeness means no curb and gutter will be present.

Define the spacing of street lights (in feet). The value that should be entered should be the distance between street lights on one side of the roadway.

MAJOR ROAD PATTERN

The location and type of major roadways in the vicinity of the project influence whether a project needs to construct collector or arterial streets to serve the project. Major roadway patterns affect infrastructure costs to the extent that utility lines serving a project follow these roadways. Images of four major road patterns common in the Sacramento region are presented. The user will select the pattern most similar to the context of the project. Figure 12 (below) illustrated the default roadway network options.


INFILL

Infill development offers projects the potential to tie into existing roadways and other infrastructure, thereby reducing infrastructure costs. Generally, infill projects are those mostly surrounded by developed lands. The location and scale of a development has a strong influence over the types of internal roadways a development project needs to construct. If a development is small and located directly adjacent to a road network with sufficient capacity, the development may not need to construct any access roads. If a project is large enough, it may need to develop local access roads to serve the project. The user will need to identify the percentage of the project as “infill,” that is, adjacent to existing development. Next, users must specify whether the infill development portion of the project would NOT need local access roads (Option 1) or would need such roads (Option 2).

Figure 12: Roadway Network


WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Development projects result in new demand for water supply, water treatment, and wastewater treatment. Whether or not the new demand can be met using existing infrastructure can have a considerable impact on a development’s infrastructure costs. In this part of the Development Parameters tab, the user will define whether the project requires new infrastructure. To do this, the user must select the appropriate scenario for:

• Water supply – select Scenario 1 if new infrastructure is needed to provide water to the project. Select Scenario 2 if existing infrastructure is sufficient to supply the proposed water demand.

• Water treatment – select Scenario 1 if new treatment infrastructure is needed. Select Scenario 2 if existing treatment infrastructure is sufficient. Select Scenario 3 if no water treatment infrastructure is needed (such as when private wells will supply water).

• Wastewater treatment – select Scenario 1 if new or upgraded wastewater treatment facilities are needed. Select Scenario 2 if a new community septic system will serve the project. Select Scenario 3 if existing wastewater treatment facilities are adequate. Select Scenario 4 if demand can be met by individual septic systems.

Figure 13: Infill and Water Infrastructure


STEP 2– INFRASTRUCTURE ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS After the user defines the existing site conditions, proposed land use program, and other important development parameters, the IMPACS model uses this information to calculate a) the project’s demand for infrastructure, parkland and recreation facilities, and emergency services; b) the capacity of existing infrastructure; c) the cost of the required infrastructure and service expansion; and d) the potential revenue streams created by the development scenario. These calculations provide the foundation for the cost/revenue analysis provided in the Outputs and Reports module.

The methodology adopted to evaluate existing infrastructure capacity follows a multi‐source strategy. First, the effort is focused on the prototypical areas of development for SACOG jurisdictions. A survey was distributed to SACOG members to gather key information, including:

Specific names and locations of areas that fit a reasonable range of development prototypes for the region.

Qualitative assessment of growth constraints and infrastructure capacity for each prototypical area.

Sources and local contacts that can provide more detailed information about infrastructure in a specific location.

SA COG also reviewed studies and plans associated with the prototypical areas that can provide current infrastructure levels and their capacity. These studies included general plans, water and wastewater master plans, transportation improvement plans, park and recreation master plans, and other infrastructure planning documents. As a result of this research, SACOG identified a wide discrepancy in the level of services and capacity even across the region, and even within specific counties, particularly for wet utilities.

For these reasons, this module provides the user an opportunity to review, and if necessary refine, the model assumptions and calculations to improve the accuracy of the resulting cost / revenue analysis. While most of the assumptions and inputs used in the model are automatically imported from the Define Scenario Program and other reference tables in the model, this module enables users to calibrate a number of project‐specific variables. Replacing the default values with location‐specific values will increase the quality of the model outputs.

The IMPACS model includes lookup tables that list service providers for each county, a capacity assessment for each service provider within an available capacity percentage range (e.g., 5 – 10% of designed capacity), a translation of the available capacity into “equivalent residential units (ERUs), or average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for transportation, based on the actual total designed capacity. Because the best information or assessment on the current capacity may be a range in many cases, the model includes a conservative (low), an average (medium), and an optimistic (high) estimate for the available capacity. Users can choose the appropriate level in creating their scenario.

1. Demand

Estimating future demand is an important step in defining a project’s potential infrastructure costs and revenue streams. Using data from the prototypical site conditions and the land use program, the model calculates the project’s future demand for culinary water, sewer, flood control and drainage, street and transportation, and water and waste water treatment infrastructure.

Culinary Water System

The Culinary Water tab estimates the project’s total potable water demand and the associated infrastructure requirements. Default demand rates for non‐potable water consumption in residential and non‐residential uses are provided. Water demand for residential uses is measured in gallons of


water consumed per resident per day. Nonresidential water demand is measured as gallons per full time employee (FTE) per day. Because water demand varies according to the efficiency of the plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings installed in a development, the model provides separate water demand values for baseline, better, or best‐practice level of water efficiency and infrastructure performance.

Using these water demand values, the model calculates the demand for culinary water infrastructure. The tab describes infrastructure requirements for water supply, treatment, distribution, storage, pumping, and water service appurtenances (e.g., meters, back flow valves, fire hydrants, etc).

This page contains a link to data, assumptions, and notes that are used to calculate water demand and translate that demand into infrastructure needs. Key information includes existing and design capacity, system design and operational guidelines (such as pipe sizes and maximum velocity), and infrastructure requirements for supply, treatment, distribution, storage, appurtenances, and pumps.

Secondary Water

Secondary water used for non‐potable purposes (that is, other than culinary water), including industrial uses and landscape irrigation. Similar to culinary water, this tab provides values for residential and nonresidential uses base on the same per capita and FTE measurements described above.

Figure 14: Water Demand Calculations


Sanitary Sewer

The Sanitary Sewer tab estimates the project’s future level of sewage generation from residential and non‐residential uses and the associated infrastructure requirements. The generation level is reported as gallons per year. The calculation is based on the number of projected ERUs for residential and nonresidential uses. The model uses these values to calculate the demand for sewer infrastructure. The tab identifies the required amount of sewage collection, conveyance, and treatment infrastructure.

Flood Control & Drainage

The Flood Control and Drainage tab estimates the amount of stormwater infrastructure required to serve the project. The tab identifies the infrastructure requirements for stormwater collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment. Water runoff rates collected by flood control and drainage system are based on the hydrologic factors and assumptions contained in the Settings tab of the Introduction module.

Street & Transportation

The Street and Transportation tab estimates the extent of the street infrastructure in the proposed development. The tab identifies the average length of new streets per acre for each of the five block patterns, the amount of paved area based on average length and assumed roadway width for each street type, average street node density (number of street intersections per gross acre), and overlap factor (the proportion of trips with overlapping routes). Individual sums for both local and major streets are provided. The tab also estimates the number of vehicle trips that the development will generate.

Figure 15: Transportation Demand Factors


Water and Wastewater Treatment

The Water and Wastewater Treatment tab estimates the volume of wastewater generated from water use and stormwater / development runoff (if treated) that is sent to a wastewater treatment facility. The calculations for the volume of wastewater from culinary water use are based on estimates of the percentage of potable water used in toilets, showers, sinks, and other purposes that is collected for distribution to a wastewater treatment facility. The overall wastewater generation rate is estimated as a percentage of total culinary water use contained in the Settings tab of the Introduction module.

2. Capacity

The amount of infrastructure that a project will need is equivalent to the project’s gross infrastructure demand, as described above, minus the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate this demand. While estimates of existing capacity are important factors in determining a project’s infrastructure costs, precise estimates of existing capacity require location‐specific analysis that would be a prohibitive barrier to most IMPACS users. In order to provide the necessary analysis, the model provides two simplified ways of estimating existing infrastructure capacity. To determine existing water system infrastructure capacity, the model utilizes the prototypical site conditions selected Step 2, Prototype Selection.

The prototypical site conditions provide an approximation of existing conditions in the project area. For transportation infrastructure capacity analysis, the model performs a basic level of service analysis based on transportation‐related development parameters the user entered in the Define Scenario Program module. Users who feel these methodologies are not precise enough can develop a custom scenario as described in this module. Development of a custom scenario will increase the accuracy of the model output.

Water Systems Capacity

The prototypical site conditions selected in Step 2 provide the basis for the water systems capacity analysis. The prototypical site’s water supply, water treatment, water storage and sewer treatment infrastructure capacity serve as the capacity estimates for the project site.

Transportation Capacity

IMPACS uses the LOS and existing street segment data entered by the user in the Development Parameters tab of the Scenario Program module to estimate the capacity of existing roadways to accommodate future trips. The model then compares the existing capacity to the project generated demand and calculates the capacity balance. If capacity exceeds project demand, then the project will not have to upgrade transportation infrastructure. If the converse is true, and demand exceeds capacity, then the project will have to upgrade transportation infrastructure. The analysis can be performed on up to three roadway segments. Figure 16 (next page) illustrates the roadway capacity calculations.


3. Cost

After demand and existing capacity are determined, the model can calculate the project’s initial infrastructure costs and long term operations and maintenance costs. The model provides both per unit cost assumptions and total costs for water systems (culinary water, sewage, and stormwater) and transportation‐related infrastructure. The model also evaluates the costs of providing the project with emergency services (police and fire) and parks.

The infrastructure cost estimate relies on accurate per unit infrastructure costs. The model uses regionally specific infrastructure per unit cost estimates. These costs will be updated regularly in order to maintain their accuracy. If the user encounters unit costs that seem incorrect, please notify the SACOG IMPACS model team (see contacts page at the end of this guide).

Water System Tab

The Water Systems tab identifies unit costs and total cost for culinary, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure. Culinary water‐related costs are provided for water supply, treatment, distribution, storage, pumping, and water service appurtenances (e.g., meters, back flow valves, and fire hydrants). Sewer system‐related costs include collection, conveyance, and treatment infrastructure. Stormwater

Figure 16: Roadway and Water System Capacity


system‐related costs include collection, conveyance, detention, and treatment infrastructure. Capital costs are based on gallons per minute of capacity for treatment and pumping facilities, diameter per linear foot for collection and distribution pipelines, per gallon for storage facilities, and per unit for fire hydrants. Costs are also estimated for community septic systems and stormwater detention based on water volume in cubic feet of detention.

Transportation

The Transportation tab identifies unit costs and total roadway construction costs. Unit costs include the cost of paving, curb, gutter, drainage, sidewalks, streetlights, and signalized street intersections. The tab includes two fields that allow users to input project specific assumptions on the type of paving material (asphaltic or poured concrete) and the number of signalized street intersections. The tab also calculates operation and maintenance costs for roadway infrastructure (street repairs and street sweeping).

Figure 17: Transportation Cost Factors

Services

The Services tab allows the user to enter the appropriate service ratios for police officers and fire fighters (i.e., the ratio of emergency personnel per 1,000 residents) and the annual net operating expenditure per emergency personnel member (i.e., per police officer or fire fighter). Once these values are established, the model calculates the estimated costs of police and fire services for the project. Net operation expenditure per police emergency service worker includes salary, benefits, and administrative overhead costs). Figure 18 (next page) illustrates the service cost calculations.


Parks

The Parks tab allows the user to enter the appropriate parkland ratio (ratio of park acres per resident), the cost of park improvements per acre, and the annual operating and maintenance cost per acre of park type. After the user defines these parameters, the model calculates the estimated costs of park and recreation facilities for the project. Three types of park and recreation facilities are defined in this tab: recreation parks, pocket parks, and sports facilities. This tab contains separate improvement and operations / maintenance calculators.

Figure 18: Emergency Service Worker Costs

Figure 19: Park and Recreation Costs


4. Revenue

While development projects require expenditures on the initial capital costs, operation, and maintenance, they also generate revenue for a community. Ideally the revenues from the development are equal to or greater than its costs. The model uses County specific assumptions to estimate the annual revenues, expenditures, and net revenues per acre for each land use. The net revenue per acre data are then applied to the project land use program, and the project’s net revenue is identified by land use category and as a sum total.

The IMPACS model uses generic factors to generate estimated revenues and costs based on the mix of land uses, density, and other characteristics contained in the development scenario. These factors are integrated into the overall model to generate net revenue factors for each land use. The Revenue tab focuses on land uses and the revenues and costs that result from their development, not specific revenues associated with specific types of infrastructure. An important assumption in the Revenue tab is that each particular land use performs fiscally in a similar way across the region. If this is not the case, users would need to enter values specific to their communities to more accurately model projected revenues.

Projected net revenue is shown by general land use category (residential, mixed‐use, retail, office, other) based on reference tables containing the acreages of each specific land use, residential densities and nonresidential FARs, dwelling unit sizes, and nonresidential square footage in the proposed development scenario.

The revenue tab assumes property taxes (including any supplemental taxes and property‐based special assessments), sales tax (based on local rates), licenses and permits, motor vehicle in lieu revenue, fines and forfeitures, and franchise taxes. In addition, supplemental sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and other types of revenue may apply depending on the mix of land uses in the development scenario and the jurisdiction in which the development is proposed.

Figures 20 and 21 (next page) illustrates the revenue tab and detailed reference tables.


Figure 21: Revenue Estimate

Figure 20: Land Use Reference Table


STEP 3 – OUTPUTS AND REPORTS This final component of the model automatically generates a series of reports that allow the user to evaluate the characteristics and financial performance of the project. These reports, described in greater detail below, are:

• Development Summary. This tab provides summary statistics related to the distribution of land uses, resulting population and jobs, and equivalent residential units (ERUs), the standard measure used by IMPACS to estimate infrastructure and service demands.

• Infrastructure Summary. This tab provides a summary of the quantities, capital construction costs, and operations and maintenance cost of the various types of infrastructure, emergency services, and parks and recreation facilities associated with the development scenario.

• Revenue Analysis. This tab provides a summary of projected revenue sources by land use sector compared to total costs, a life cycle and payback period analysis, and net present value calculation.

• General Report. This tab provides a summary of total infrastructure costs, on‐site development costs, and public sector costs by infrastructure category, emergency services, and park and recreation facilities.

1. Development Summary

The Development Summary shows the land use and demographic characteristics of the project. A series of tables describe the distribution of lands uses by acreage and category, residential units, nonresidential floor area, and conversion of the land use distribution to ERUs. This tab also provides information on the total residents, population density, total jobs, and jobs to housing ratio.

Figure 22: Infrastructure Summary


2. Infrastructure Summary

The Infrastructure Summary identifies the quantities of new infrastructure needed by type to service to project and identifies the capital construction costs and annual operational and maintenance costs associated with this level of infrastructure. Emergency service and parks and recreation facility costs are also included in this tab. At the bottom of the summary, total infrastructure costs are divided into on‐site costs (i.e., costs to the developer) and public sector (i.e., local government) costs. Both total cost and cost per ERU are described. A public sector cost implication summary box is provided at the top of the tab.

The Infrastructure Summary allows the user to control two variables that can be used to refine the infrastructure cost analysis. The first toggle appears as check boxes to the right of the infrastructure tables. By checking the box, the user indicates that capital cost of the associated infrastructure element is considered a public sector cost. The second toggle is located in the top left corner and allows the user to view the effects of differing levels of water system (i.e., culinary water, wastewater, and stormwater) infrastructure performance. The user can select from a baseline technology scenario, a better technology scenario, or a best practices technology scenario. This feature allows the user to see the impact higher performance infrastructure can have on infrastructure demand and cost.

The resulting output of this tab is the total and per/ERU infrastructure and service costs (including operation and maintenance), on site (developer) cost, and public cost. The output also shows whether the development scenario would trigger the need to upgrade additional transportation, water, and wastewater infrastructure

3. Revenue Analysis Summary

The Revenue Analysis Summary provides a variety of financial metrics that evaluate the impact of a project on the local government. The key metrics for this tab are the difference between annual operations / maintenance costs and revenues, breakdown of projected annual revenue by land use type, and the analysis of annual net present value (positive or negative) during the selected time period. The resulting net present value graph shows whether the development scenario will generate a positive, negative, or neutral cash flow over time in constant dollars.

The first series of metrics in the summary include the total public sector capital cost, public sector annual operations and maintenance costs, and the annual revenue. The total public sector capital cost indicates the initial costs that the local government will incur as a result of the development project. These capital costs will be funded through various revenues (impact fees, property‐based taxes, supplemental sales taxes devoted to transportation improvements, or other sources). In addition to capital costs, the community will also need to pay public sector annual operations and maintenance costs. Ideally annual revenue from the development is high enough to cover or exceed the annual operations and maintenance costs. The annual net revenue can be obtained by subtracting the public sector annual operations and maintenance costs from annual revenues. If this value is positive, then the project will benefit the community financially. If the value is negative, then the development would require ongoing, annual public funding to cover costs.

The user also has an option to designate a desired simple payback period to determine if the revenues generated by the project are sufficient to pay infrastructure and service costs associated with the project during that time period. The payback is determined by dividing the total public sector capital costs by the annual net revenue. The resulting quotient represents the number of years it will take to pay for the initial capital cost. If a “NA” appears in the simple payback cell, it means that the annual net revenue is negative and the project will not generate funds to pay of the initial capital expense.


This tab also includes a bond analysis and life cycle cost analysis. The bond analysis allows a user to determine the total and per ERU funding gap or surplus based on the bond maturity period and coupon rate selected by the user. The lifecycle costs analysis allows the user to examine a specific period of time (up to 50 years) during which to calculate the positive or negative net present value of the future annual cash flows based on an assumed discount rate (annual average inflation rate) and maintenance escalation rate (if any).

4. Generate Report

In the final tab, the user can generate a summary report that provides simplified analysis outputs from the Development Summary, Infrastructure Summary, and Revenue Analysis Summary. The page is preset to be printed to PDF. The report includes a summary of:

• The acreages of residential and nonresidential uses, total residents, number of jobs, dwelling units, and nonresidential ERUs.

• Land use breakdown by residential and nonresidential categories used in the model.

• Quantity and cost breakdown by infrastructure type, emergency services, and park and recreation facilities.

• Infrastructure and operation maintenance costs (total and per ERU), by total, on‐site (developer), and public costs.

• Whether the project would trigger transportation, water, or wastewater upgrades.

Figure 23: Revenue Analysis


IMPACS MODEL TEAM CONTACT INFORMATION: If you have specific technical questions about how to use IMPACS model please contact the flowing team members:

Raef Porter, Senior Research Analyst, (916) 340‐6261, [email protected]

Joe Concannon, Data Services Manager, (916) 340‐6234, [email protected]

Documents

Utilizing the Integrated Model for Planning and Cost ...lgc.org/wordpress/docs/freepub/community_design/fact_sheets/Galt… · Utilizing the Integrated Model for Planning and Cost