Font

Follow-Up Requests Regarding
Fiscal Impact Analysis and Schools Study

(From Monthly Meeting on 10-13-15)

*Administration responses linked as received*

1.     Please provide an updated copy of the fiscal impact analysis with continuous page numbering. 2.     Please provide any data available on current tenants of the Metropolitan and whether they are relocating from elsewhere within Howard County or from outside Howard County. 3.     Please provide copies of any studies (market demand, etc.) which informed the fiscal impact analysis.

4.     Please run a new Scenario C which would assume Scenario B plus the redevelopment of the Flier site as a 220-unit mixed income LIHTC project.

5.     Please run a new Scenario A-1 which would assume CDHC's original recommendation of 15% affordable units (5% at 80% of HC AMI, 5% at 60% of HC AMI, and 5% at 40% of HC AMI for rental units; 15% at 80% of HC AMI for for-sale units) and include the density bonus of an additional 1,250 units.

6.     Please run a new Scenario B-1 which would assume CDHC's original recommendation of 15% affordable units (5% at 80% of HC AMI, 5% at 60% of HC AMI, and 5% at 40% of HC AMI for rental units; 15% at 80% of HC AMI for for-sale units) and maintain the existing Downtown Columbia Plan density of 5,500 units.

7.     In the fiscal impact analysis, are references to AMI based on Howard County AMI or Baltimore MSA AMI?

8.     The fiscal impact analysis assumes equal assessed values for affordable units at all levels of affordability. However, Todd Brown explained that these properties would be assessed based on income generation. If that is the case, it would seem that varying rental price points would impact assessed value. Can you please clarify this point?

9.     For both Scenarios A & B, please show 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year impacts, including the timing of capital projects and their associated debt service.

10.     Under Results of the Study, only Table G is provided in current dollars. Please provide tables C-F restated in current dollars as well.

11.     Please provide a copy of the build-out schedule used as the basis for the Fiscal Impact Analysis.
12.     Please provide a revised copy of the phasing progression chart from the Downtown Columbia Plan to reflect the additional density.

13.     Please provide an analysis of debt affordability for all capital projects assumed in the fiscal impact analysis.

14.     Please provide a revised Table D that breaks out restricted revenues from the general fund.

15.     Please provide a revised Table E including the full cost of each capital project and the % of cost allocated to new Downtown development.

16.     Please adjust the calculations on page 42 to reflect the full costs of current school construction.

17.     Please explain the difference between page 34, which shows an annual loss of approx. $15 million, and Table G on page 7 of the Executive Summary which shows a $22 million positive impact.

18.     On page 25, how did you arrive at the assumptions of $56/night and a 95% occupancy rate? (The 2009 fiscal impact analysis assumed $150/night and a 65% occupancy rate.)

19.     The Fiscal Impact Analysis assumes that Scenario A produces 138 students more than Scenario B. However, the School System estimates an additional 650 students from the additional density. Please revise Scenario A of the fiscal analysis to account for 650 additional students.

20.     Please provide a clear comparison of need for additional schools and school capacity based on:

     a.     projected enrollments prior to adoption of the Downtown Columbia Plan,

     b.     projected enrollments based on the current Downtown Columbia Plan, and

     c.     projected enrollments based on the proposed additional 1,250 units.

     What are the differences in the size and timing of schools/additions required to meet those needs?