USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Fiscal impacts of alternative land development patterns in Michigan


Material Information

Fiscal impacts of alternative land development patterns in Michigan
Physical Description:
Fiscal Impact Land Use Change Advisory Committee. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Place of Publication:
Detroit, Mich
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Land use--Economic aspects--Michigan   ( lcsh )
Community development--Michigan   ( lcsh )
Land use--Michigan--Planning   ( lcsh )
letter   ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C01-00084
usfldc handle - c1.84
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text




MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECUON A: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS SECTION I: 1HB POTENTIAL SAVINGS OF CURRENT VERSUS COMPACT DEVELOPMENT: 1HE FINDINGS OF THE FIELD ........................................ .A-1 SECTION IT: GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS: Michigan and Its Component Regions ...................................... : ...................... ... A-2 SECTION ill: CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND ITS ALTERNATIVE: COMPACT GROWTH ........................................................... A-4 SECTION IV: CURRENT DEVELOPMENT VERSUS COMPACT GROWTHDOES COJ\.1l'ACT GRO'WTII PAY? ..... .... ........... ................ ..... .............. .. .... .A--6 SECUONI: THE LITERATURE OF THE COSTS OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ll'll'R.ODUCTION ................................................................................................... : ........... 1-1 BACKGROUND ............. .... .. .... ........... ................. .. .. .... ............. .. .. .............. .............. .. .... l-2 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF LrrERATURE RB'VIEW ... ........ ........... .... ........................ 1-3 Otaracteristics of Sprawl ................................................................... : ... ............................... l-4 0\aracteri.stics of Compact G-rowth.. .......... ...... .............................................................. l-4 1HE FORCES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH ..................................................................... .1-4 Relationships Among Employment, Population, and Income ....................................... I-4 The Nature of Current DevelopJXtent .... .............. ............................................. ................ I-5 The Nahlre of Compact Growtlt ...... : .......................................... ................................. J-6 The Forces Agaillst Change .............................................................................................. I-7 THE LITERATURE OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ... ....... ........ ................. ........... ... .I-8 General Societal Costs and Benefits of Current Development Trends .. .............. .... .... 1-8 Capital and Operating Costs (Public and Private) .... . .. ..... ...... ..... .... ...... ................ .. .I-9 Transportation and Travel Costs of Current Development Trends .......... ..... .. ........ .1-9 Social Cost of Current Development Trends: The Undermining of Older Cities .. .. .I-10 Land and Natural Habitat Costs of Current Development ... ..... .... ..... . .............. : ... .1-11 Quality of Ufe Costs of Current Development Patterns ............................................ 1-12 THE LITERATURE OF COMPACT GROWTH AND RESOURCE SA VINGS ...... .. ... .I-13 Capital (Public Infrastructure) Costs: Current Development Trends Versus Managed Growtl\. .. ... ''''" J-13 Capital (Private Housing) Costs: Current Development Trends Versus Compact Growtlt. ............................. ..... ............... ......... .......................... ........... .... J-20 Land Consumption: Current Development Trends Versus Compact Growth .. ..... .I-24 TAll! Of CONTENTS


MICHIGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS COST-REVENUE IMPACTS AND CURRENT VERSUS COMPACT DEVELOPMENT .......... .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. ..... ......... ......... . ............. .... .. ... .. ... ... ........... I-26 Summary of Development Pattern Impacts . ........... ... ..... . .. .... ..... ........ .......... ........... I-28 COST-REVENUE IMPACTS OF GROWTH .. .... ........ ...... ............ ........ .... ................... I-29 The Cost-Revenue Impact Hierarchy .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ............... .............. ... .... ................... I-29 liigh Property Taxes and Cost-Revenue Conoen\S ........................ ..... ....... ..... .. .... ...... J-34 Cost-Revenue Concerns and the Sel ection of Land Uses. .................... ............... .. .. .. I-34 lrlfrastructwe Set-Asides .. .. .. .. ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ....... I-35 Established Communities: Where Costs Are Coming From .. .. ...... .. .. .. . .......... ...... .I-35 C\111'\Wa.tive Versus hldividual Effects .......................................... J-35 CONCLUSION ......................... . ............ ...... ... .. .. ......... ............. ......... ... ...................... 1 -36 REFERENCES .. . .. .. ......... . .. ... .. .. ... . .. ........ ......... ............ .. ........ ....... ................ .... ... .l -36 SECI10ND: SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS IN MICHIGAN ANDTIJE S11JDY COMMUNITIES ThrrRODUCTION ...... ....................... .... ............................................... . .. ... . ................ .D-1 STATEWIDE TR.ENDS AND PROJECTJONS ... ........... .............. ..... .... ................ .. .. .. .. .D-1 Overview ........ ............... .... .... .... .................. ....... .. ....... ...... ... . .. .... .... ... .... ...... .. ....... . .. .. 1 1 Population.. ............... .... ................. ................... ... ....................... .... . ... .. .. ........ .... .......... n-1 Houseltolds . .................. ... ............ .... .......................... .... ... ... .... ... ........ ............ . .. .. .. n-4 Emplo}'D'\el'\t ............. .................. ............ ............. ........ ..... ... . ....................................... .D-5 Manufacturin.g ........ ............ .... .. ..... .. .... ............ ...... ..... ......... .. ......... ..... ..... ... ..... .... ... ... 11-5 Services . ... .. .. .. .. .. . ........ ... .. ..... .. .. . .. ... ..... .. .... .. . .. .. ..... .............. . .. .. .. ....................... 11-6 Wholesale/Retail ....................... ......... ... .... .. .... ............................ ................ ................. n-6 Ott\er Emplo)'Dle'Jlt Sectors ................................. ...... ..... .. ....... ...... ............... ..... . ....... n-6 Future Emplo}'lllel'lt Tre:rtds .................... ......................... .......... .. ...... ............................ n-7 REGIONAL TR.ENDS .AN'D PROJECllONS ............................... ... . ....... ............ ..... ..... . .. U-7 S\1Jl\II\aJ'}' of 1 4 State Regions ..... ............... ............... ........ .. .......... ...... ............ .. .... ....... .D-7 Population. .................. . ... .. .................................... .... ..... ................. .. ...... .... ..... ..... ... ...... ..D-7 Housellolds ........... .............. ..... ............ ...... ....... ... ..... ................. ..... ............... ... ......... .D-10 Empl())'U\el"l-t .......... ........... ....... .......................... ................................ .... ............ ..... .... ... .D-14 Selection of Regions for Further Discussion. .. ..... .. ....... ..... .. ..... ..... .. .. ................ . .U-14 Soutlteas t Mid\igan ... ..... ............ ..... . ........... ... . ..... ... ...... ... ... .................. ... ............ .D-14 Population .... .................................................... .......... ..... .. ....................................... ll-14 Households ........... ...................... ... ....... ... . .. .......... ... .. ......... .. ..... .. .... ... .D17 Entploymettt .. . ................... .... ... .......... . ... ... ............ ........... ... ... .............. . .. ............ .D-17 Grand Rapids an.d Musk.egon . ...... ........ ............. .... ........... ......................... .D-17 Population .. ... . ..... ......... ............................................................................................. .D-17 Housel1.olds ............ ............................. ............ ...... ... ................................ ........... .... ..... .D-18 Employmmt ... ......................... .. ................................................................. ... .. ......... : .. U-18 Traverse City Region ................. .. ...... .. . ........ ......................... . ................... .... ............. .D-19 Population.. .... ....... . . ....................................................................... ..... .......................... .D-19 Housellolds .................................................................................................................. .D-19 Emp)o)'D'\el\t ................................................................................................................ .D-19 SELECTION OF S1UDY ................... .. ............. ........... ..... .. .............. .II-19 Gectg:raphic Distrl"butiOJ\. ... ....... ................ .... ....... ........................................................... .D-24 Variation in CommuJUty Types .. ... .......... ..... ........... ..... ..... ...... .... ................. .... ........... ..11-24 TAll! OP CONTfNTS ii


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS T ob .. of Contents Sig:t'\ificant Growtll ...................... ........ ............................. .. .. .. .... .... ... ......... .. ...... .. . .D-25 Population ........ ... ....................... : : .. : .. .. : :::-.:::. . ............... D-25 Housel\olds .. .. .. .. .. ................. H 1 t j i :' I ................................................ ..... U-25 Bmploymertt ...... ........ : ........... ..... .. .. ....... .. . .. .. .. .. ....... .. .. ; .. ....... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ; .. .. Community Volunteered fOr the Study ..................................................................... ll-26' Meets Goals of tlle Ftmding So\ll'Ce .. ........ .. .... .. ....... .. . .. ........ .. ... .. .. ... TI-26 STUDY COMMUNITY TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ........................................... U-26 Charter Townslrlp of Allertdale ......... ........................... ..... ........................................... ll-26 Bear Creek Township, City of Petoskey and Resort Townshlp .... ... .. . .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. U-31 Bedford Township ....................... .......... : D-37 Charter Township of Canton. ..... .. .. .. ..... .. . ........ .. . ........ . ...................................... D-37 Garfield Township ............ ...... .................. ..... ..... .. ............................. ............ ...... .... .. n.-40 Charter T own.shlp of Harrison .... .. .. ................ ...... ........ ..... .... ................. ................. D-42 City of Hartford ........................................................................................................... II-44 City of Kentwood .................................................................................................... ...... n-46 Otarter To'WI\sltip of MacouW .............................. o.o ... :.o ................. ........................... .... n-48 Otarter Township of Meridian .. .. .............. ............ ....... ............................................... D-50 Oty of Montague . .. .. ..... .. .. ....... .. .... .. .... .. .. ............. ........ .. .. ........ .. ..... .. . ... .... D-50 City of Mt. Pleasant. .............................................................. ................................... .ll-53 City of MllSkegon ........................................................................................................ D-55 Oty of Novi ......... ........ ...... ...... o ....................... ... ................... ................ .................. .D-57 Pittsfield To'WilShip ............................................................................................... o o .D-59 City of Portage ......... oooooooooooooooo .......... o o o ........... o ....... AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ..................... ......... ............... .. D-63 Statewide Tretlds and Projections. ................................................................................ D-63 Regional Trends and Projections .. o o .. ooooooo .. o ................................................... U-64 Trends and Projections for 18 Study Communities .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .......... ... ...... ......... ll-65 REFERENCES ............................................................................ o ........................................... .D-67 SECJ10NW: CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND COMPACf GROWTH DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR 18 CASE STUDY COMMUNITIES IN MICHIGAN Il\Jl"RODUCTION ................... ..... ........... ................. o ..... o .......... o ....... H ................................. ..In-1 MICHIGAN: CURRENT VERSUS COMPACf DEVELOPMENT PATTBRNS ... .. .. .Ill-2 Background 00000004000000000000000 .............................. ooooooooooooOoooo+oooooooooooooooooooooooooo.DI-2 Future Growth and Development Current Development Trends ... .................. m-3 Future Growth and Development Compact Growth Goals -.Ill-8 EIGHTEEN CASE STUDY COMMUNITJES: CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS VERSUS COMP ACf GROWTH ALTERNATIVES ................................ :.Jll-10 hltrod.uc:tion ... .............................. ... ............... o o ... o ................... ..................................... m-10 Current Residential and Nonresidential Development Pattems ............... .. ...... . .Ill-10 .Agricultural and Fragile l..arl.d I..oss ........................................ o ......................................... .III-11 Construction Costs .......... ......... o ......................... .................... o .. o .......................... m-11 Zoning of Currently Vacant and Developable Land ....... ... .. ... . ...... .. .. .. .. . .. ... m-11 Propert)' Tax Assess meJ\ts ....... o ......................... : ....... o o ........................................... ID-11 T.ut! Of CoNTeNTS aa


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Table of Con .. nh Charter Township of Allendale ............ ......... ..... ..... .................. ...... ............. ....... ID-12 Bear Creek Township, City of Petoskey, and Resort Township .... .... ... ...... .... ....... .. ID-17 Township .... ..... ......... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ......... .... .. ..... ......... ..... .. ..... ..... ............ m-29 Cantott Charter ToWI\Ship ......... ..................................... .......... ............ ....... .. ....... ... .m-34 Garfield Towt'\SlUp .................. ... .... .. ... .... ..... ................. ................. ...... ........ ..... .... Harrison Oarter Townsltip ... ... . ........... ... ..... ... ...... .. ..... ..... ... ........ ........ ......... ........ m-44 City" of Hartford .... .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........ .. .. .. ........ .. .. ..... .. .. ............. .. .ID-49 C ity of Kentwood .............. ..... .... ...... ... .......... .. .... ......... ............ ..... .. .. ..... ........ ..... ..m-54 Macomb Olarter To'WI\Ship ............ ............................... ................... .. ......... ........ .DI-59 Meridian Otarter T 0\YnSl:ti p ...................... .... . . .. ...................................................... lll-64 City of ...... ......................................... ........ ....... ..................................... .IU-68 City of Mt. Pleasant .. ..... ........ ..... .... .. ... ... ........ .. ................................................... .ID-74 City of Muskegon .. ........ ...... ......... ......... ... .... ............... .. . .. .. .. . ... ........ ................... .ID-78 City of Novi ... ....................................... ........................................................ ...... .. .m-83 Pittsfield To'WilShip ... ........... .... ... ......... .......... .... ........ ..... .. ......... ..... ......... .... ... ... .. m-88 City of Portage ... .. .. . ............. ... ......................... ....... .. ... ..... .... ... ... ........... . ....... ..... .ID-93 REFERENCES .... ....... .... ... ............................... .... ... ...... ..... .... ..... .. .... ............. .... ..... ..... .DI.-98 SEcnONJV: DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS UNDER CURRENT AND COMPACT DEVELOPMENT FOR STUDY COMMUNITIES IN MIOUGAN Il\J"I'R.ODUCTION ............. .... ... ............. ............ . ... .... ..... ..... . ......... .. ............. ................. IV-1 TliE ASSESSMENT MODEL ........ ....... . .................. .... .. . ........ .......... . . ............. ..... . .. IV-2 Population, Household, and Employment Projections ... ........... ... ..... . ........ .. ..... ... JV-2 Land Required For Residential and Noru-esidential Spaoe Demands ........... ............. JV-3 Land Required For Residential and Noru-esidential Purposes ........ ... ......... .. ............ JV-3 RESULl'S OF TifE ASSESSl\mNl" ............... ..... ...... ....................... ....... ..... ......... ..... . .. Residential and Nonresidential Growth .... ........ .... .. ... . .. .. . ........ ...... .. ..... ..... .... .. .. JV-6 Cunmt Versus Compact Developmen.t ............. ..... ....... ...... .... ..... ............ ..... .. .. .. IV-6 Road Infrastructure Requirements and Costs ....... .. .. ... .... ..... .... .. ..... ............ ....... JV22 Current Versus Compact Development .. ... ... ..... .. ..... ..... .. ........ ... .. ..... .... .. ........ JV-24 Utility lnfrast:ruch.ue ........ .. ...... .... .... .............................. ......... .................. ............... IV -29 Current Versus Compact Development. ... .... .. .. ... ..... .... .. ..... .... .. ...... .................. IV -31 Residential and Costs .. .............................. ................... . ....... ......... IV-31 Components of Residential and Nonresidential Costs ............ ....... .......... ... ... ....... JV-38 Curreitt VerstJS Compact [)evelopmm.t .... ........ ..... ................................................. IV-38 RESULTS OF TifE ASSESSMENT : COSI"-REVENUE IMPACI"S .... ..... ......... .. ...... JV-41 CONCL U SIONS n-J CONTEX'I' ..... .......... ........... .............. ............ ... IV-42 REFERENCES ... . ......... . ... . .......... ..... ...... .... .. ......................... ..... ......... ........ ............ IV -47 TAll! Of CONTENTS ,,




MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS INTRODUCFION The Southeast Michigan C01mcil of Goverrunents (SEMCOG) commissioned a study on the differences in resouroe consumption and costs of current versus compact development. The first is often termed trend development; the second, managed growth. Resource consumption and costs are viewed in four different substantive areas under the above two different development scenarios: infrastructure, housing, land, and public services. Eighteen separate communities of various types and sizes, and in diverse geographic settings, have been analyzed to determine whether differences in cost result from differing future development patterns. Data on population, housing, employment, land use, zoning, developable acreage, infrastructure costs, public service costs, and tax rates were incorporated into four density-based land-use models to quantify the differing impacts of current versus compact development. The Michigan Fiscal Impact Study was undertaken by the Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) and Michigan State University Department of Agricultural Economics during 1996. The purpose of the study was to identify current growth patterns in the study communities, specify future growth patterns, and develop and evaluate a growth alternative (compact development). The study's findings are presented below. SEcnON I-THE POTENTIAL SAVINGS OF CURRENT VERSUS COMPACf DEVELOPMENT ntE FINDINGS OF THE FIElD Current, or trend, development is historical development in an area. Nationally, the land "llse literature describes this type of development SEc:not

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS development over a twenty-year growth horizon. Land saved from development in a Lexington, Kentucky, study was more than 25 percent for a similar projection period. In each of these cases, localities were willing to amept density increases of 20 to 30 percent to adopt a more resource-protective growth pattern. Infrastructure Sll!Jings related to compact development have received even more attention. Studies undertaken in California, Florida, Minnesota, and New Jersey, as reported by three different authors, indicate average savings of approximately 25 percent for roads, 5 percent for schools, and 15 percent for utilities. Housing cost savings resulting from more compact growth have received mixed reviews. In locations where the number of housing units is actually limited through growth controls (California and Florida), housing costs rise about 10 percent; where no limit is imposed and density increases more than compensate for density deaeases (New Jersey; Lexington, Kentucky; and the Delaware Estuary), housing costs actually decline by an average of 5 percent. Cost-revenue imp

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS These population and employment increments represent growth that is 3.5 and 2.0 times faster, r espectivel y than p opulation and employment growth p rojected for the state as a w hole. Although these communi ti es are individually r epresentative of those found in the L ocation 1 9 9 5 Commu n i!}. C o u ntt P oulation Sou th east M ichigan Reg ion Hanison Macomb 25,883 Macomb Macomb 32,579 B edford Monroe 26_229 N ovi oakland 44,000 Pit1sfield Washtenaw 20 ,587 Canton Wam e 65.978 G rand Rapids/Muskegon Re giono Kentwood Kent 42,969 Allendale Ottawa 9;z1,7 M ontague Muskegon 2,262 M uskelron Musk"""n 41.309 Tr a verse City Region Bear Creek Fzrmt 3,781 Pelc6key -6,()92 Resort Fzrmt 2,609 Garfield Gd Traverse 11,973 Other R egions Portage (Kalamazoo) Kal amazoo 42,493 Hartford (SL Joseph) VanBuren 2,360 M eridian (Lansing) lngNm 38,0S9 Mt. P l easant !Sa&J!!aw! Isabel Ill 24 ,973 T ota l 44 3,433 Southeast Michlgan <1,735, 738 G ra n d Rapi ds/M uske gon 1;z1,7,356 Tnvene City 245,697 M i cllisan 9 51!,! 8 1 SEcnoN A state in terms of location and size, future population and employment growth is far in excess of what the stat e as a whole is e xperie n cing. Population and employment change for individual oouununities and their h ost regions is shown below. P o pulation Employment 1995 c:Mnge 199 5-2020 c:Mnge 1995 EmE;l ox:ment Number % Number % 6,318 3,458 1 3 4 2_769 43.8 2.327 55,409 170 1 V 0 3 202.1 5,134 8,(}88 30 8 3,708 72.2 25, 4 79 1 9 570 44 5 11,229 44.1 13, 6 10 14,8 0 1 7 1 9 6,442 47.3 17,508 31,228 47 3 13,057 74.6 35,872 IQ,601 2 4. 7 1 0,672 30 0 2_732 9,172 99.0 4,024 147.3 1,128 344 15. 2 415 3 6 8 2t.444 4,291 1 0 .4 1 ?16 8. 0 1,875 1,564 41.4 350 18.7 3,245 80 1.3 so 1.5 1.125 2. 710 103.9 563 50.0 11,650 16,004 133.7 122.0 32,939 11,317 26 .6 8,588 26.1 689 94 4.0 28 4 .0 12,500 3 .911 10.3 2.652 21.2 3{!},1 14. 3 9,444 83.0 206,957 196 209 44.2 94, 713 4 S.8 2. 4 77,024 426,667 9:0 296,664 12. 0 691,710 335,758 26.5 133,816 19.3 134,Q87 73,676 30 .0 35,155 26.2 4,887, 199 1 ,110,654 11.7 669.!!35 13.7


MIOiJGAN ASCAL IMPACTS SICTION 111-CUitiiNT DIVILOPMENT AHD m ALTIItNAliVI. COMP'ACT GROWTH Actual historical, or current development trends in the Michigan study communities are characterized by lower-density single-family development consuming land beyond already -developed suburban areas and, even more significantly, in distant and sparsely developed rural areas. Strip commercial development is also beginning to move to the periphery of existing developed areas and beyond, along major thoroughfares, bypasses, and beltways. Current development trends consume significant AmOIU\ts of agricultural and fraJI lands and provide few buffers for inclusive water bodies, fraJI environmental lands, and natural habitats. Compact development in the Michigan study communities seeks to contain growth closer to existing Camm: I Cllmnt or Trend Growth SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN llECION Harrison development. It is characterized by a somewhat higher density, more diversity in housing type s, and increased nonresidential development near existing residential concentrations. nus alternative preserves land fr o m being consumed in peripheral areas via density reductions supports the clustering of different housing types closer in. and promotes nonresidential development, primarily convenience goods retailing, in the Jess-developed areas. Water bodies, frail environmental lands, and natural habitats are adequately buffered from future development. Implementation of compact growth in Michigan will require carelul planning and growth management and will take a larger regional view toward the location of certain residential and nonresidential uses. Current and compact growth patterns in the study communities are synopsized in the table below Com....tor Growth S.F hcmes on oma1l aNI lazge loto. Hip S.F densitieo 1M atlochecl and PliD Suber residential deNity via M -P housing Limit 10 oouthun boundaries.lnduo flrip o:>mmertial 10 major rood In-MainJoin """"'/ ::"""d Olllploeo demand fO< office and exbling """""trations of indllOtrialweo. ri!tall ace lledion of oplculhlnlland in -...... Novi llapid-olfannland toa>mmtidal S.F dft>si!Mos recho:ld-in: lnc:reued dft>silios in .-. NoNeoldmtial...., Cocusm The Town Nonnsidmtial.-o:>noentralod in Town loportlon of M-F Wlib u a part -via IISierins aM hip ciWitleo In peripheral anu. Canllln Farmland and IOieoiOoonvmod to low-deN!ty the reoidential uoa, cxmllictins with airport horaliiU u an 1-:,: of t anifOo.!. lion. hlnllands""" SKnoHA flli it,. lv ...


MICHIGAN FISCALI M PAQS $tcfionA . ; : .. ,!)' Cown I Current o r Trend Growth Compact or ManOAecl Growth GRAND RAPIDS/MU SKEGON REGIONS . .. . ... "' . Kentw ood Scarce vacant land limits commercial Higher noruesldenlial d.,.;u... Rezoning of some Jnfill Rezon1n5 of nonreoi entia! nonresidential tracts to residen tial. Proh!ctio n of lands needed or olanne residential21'0WII\. Roodo lains and wetlands alon Plaster Creek. AllendaJe Qpen space and te1rieu ltural areu outside oJ rural limiting new tile ewe amver to 5-F residenlialuses at developmen t to Down town Development Authority relatively low densities. cliJtrlc!. Prolection of wetlands in Undevei.;;;t;i an-as. Tourism spurs "'tali giOWth. NCJnleSidenlial Devel=t limited =heralrus via in6ll and =. .,q,.nds from """"'"""ties to the oa<>th. hisMr ties near ._.. Proteetion of tial -and residential ouns. fannland in nonnaJ """'"" MUJ!cd.lvlsion developers ol housing In""" Protection of T lie congestion at the limited nonresldenlial wetlands, creek and river setbacb sites. OTHER REGIONS Pcrtage Ladt ol vac:aAt land nouilo density to olwetlarwls around Gourdneck Lake, acmrnmodale ...,;dmtial Austin !.aU. and-game ua. Nonn!sidential U5eS strip on.aidentill-and llm!lld ontsicleCBO, HOOsing recle.a.prnent in*ad tluOotentheCBD. Deausoin 5-P densities inc:reue in M-P onsltles. Hanford Growth lost due to lade New nonresidential and resident!=:: on of developable land. t tax base to annex\ land. Rehabilitation and eve=ent of ,;..;:.x.rt oubl!c servioe and lnfrasbUc:ture. structures in downtown encoun Meridian Continued uses at Peripheral uses limited to very residential subdivision d.,.;Mes ges M F and and agricul tural uses ::,:ew al uses romrnerdal deve L Zonin2 for clusle< deve ment to r ooen space. Mt Pieasant Nea rbycuiM demand for M obile homes limited to current locatk> in residential and entia! growth whkh Is the proportion and density ol MF unlts to l imited to 3CO aaes of...oently: innexecllancl. oaximri>odate MW reslclentlai demand. Probeetion of dnancc for M-F and mobile homoo. alonJt the a River. SICIION A


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS SECTION IV-CURUNT VERSUS COMPACJ GROWTH IN YHE II STUDY COMMUNmiS: DOES COMPACJ GROWTH PAY? Land Con1umption Current development trends versus compact growth in the Michigan study communities would consume 62,846 acres versus 53,113 acres over the twenty-five year period 1995-2020. Ninety percent of this land would be taken to accommodate residential development. Compact gr0U11h saoes 9,733 acres of derlelopab/e land. Current development trends versus compact growth in the Michigan study communities over a twenty five year period would consume 42,817 acres versus 35,363 acres of prime farmland. Compact growth Sillies 7,454 acres of prime form/and. Current development trends versus compact growth in the Michigan study communities over a twenty five year period would consume 15,200 acres versus 13,216 acres of fragile environmental lands. Compact growth saws 1,984 acres of frail entJironmenlat lands. lnfra1tructu,. (Roadt) Current development trends versus compact growth in the Michigan study communities over a twenty five year period would cause the construction of 1,528 lane-miles versus 1,338 lane-miles of local roads. Compact growth Sllllt$ allout 190 lanemiles of local roads. SECIION A s.ctionA Related to this local road lane-mile savings is a construction cost savings of $45.1 million (regardless of who pays for local roads). CompilCt growth saws $45.1 million in local road costs. Current development trends versus compact growth in the Michigan study communities over a twenty five year period would cause the construction or widening of 45.4 lane-miles versus 36.6 lane-miles of state roads. Compact growth saoes rwrly 9 lane miles of state roads. Related to this state road lane-mile savings is a cost savings of $8.8 million. Compact gr0U11h saoes $8.8 million in state road costs. lnfrcutructuN (Water and se-r) Current development trends versus compact growth in the Michigan study communities over a twenty five year period would require 75,932 versus nearly 65,555 water hookups. With the number of hookups a main factor in annual water-system treatment and distribution costs, compact growth would save nearly 10,400 water hookups and $17.5 million in water capital costs. Compact growth Sillies $17.5 million in water azpila1 costs. Because 10,400 or 18 percent fewer sewer hookups are required under this scenario, compact growth saves $13.3 million in sewer capital costs than current development trends. Compact growth $13.3 million in sewer azpila1 costs. .. 6


. MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Housing Costs Approximately 81,324 housing lilii!$ will be b\lilt in the Michigan study communities over the twenty-five year period 1995-2020. Those near existing development-66,958 under compact growth versus 54,986 under current development trends represent a very small (10%) in density Thooe built peripherally to existing development, usually in rural areas (11,972 fewer under compact development), represent a much more significant decrei1Se (40%) in density. Cumpact grqwlh builds 11,972 metre housing units near existing development rather than In peripheral ur rural areas. Overall, Wlder compact development, housing costs will be 6.8 percent less: 5.4 percent less near. areas of existing development and 3.5 peroent mure outside these areas in peripheral or rural areas. Compact growth produces 6.8 percent overall lower housing costs tlwn current development trends. Cost-Revenue Impacts Because infrastructure requirements that impact debt service costs and operating services are reduced under compact growth, $1.8 million in annual local public-sector service costs can be saved. (This amounts to a cost savings of approximately 3.5 percent annually.) Compact growth saves 3.5 percent in annuall=l public-sec/or service costs. Section A SUMMARY Across the foregoing indices of measurement-land consumption, infrastructure requirements/costs, housing costs, and fiscal impacts compact development occasions noticeable savings over current development trends. The savings noted parallel those found in the literature and pertain to the 18 study communities in Michigan (see Summary Exhibit). What is the significance of these savings, and what do they mean when disbibuted over eighteen study communities that could be close to 650,000 in population, or 240,000 households, by the year 2020? It does not mean that each existing household could be saved 1,740 square feet of land, or $230 in local road costs (regardless of who pays for them}; it means much more. The significance of these savings is that a group of dti2ens making decisions about future public policy could reduce land consumption and road building in their living environment by 15 percent. One-eghth of all roads to be built need not be built. A similar amount of land need not be consumed. These are very significant accomplishments by any measure. These per""""ges are tl1e result of weighted averages ln dilfelent din!dions.


MICHIGAN flSCALIMPACTS MdionA SUMMARY EXHIBIT SAVINGS OF COMPACT GROWTH VERSUS CURRENT DEVELOPMENT: FINDINGS IN MICHIGAN AND OTIIER LOCATIONS NATIONALLY Compad Growth Compact Growth -Cwrent Development: Cwrent Development Findings of the Field Naticmally Fmdings in Michigan Area Sa11ings: Area Sar1ings: of lmp



MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS INTRODUCTION The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) has commissioned a study on the differences in resoW'Oe consumption and costs of uncontained versus contained development. The first situation is termed cunent development; the second, compact growth. These costs are viewed in four different substantive areas: infrastructure provision, housing costs, land consumption, and municipal costrevenue impacts. Eighteen separate communities of various types and sizes, and in different geographic settings, are analyzed to determine whether differences in cost emerge due to different future development patterns Further, the benefits of current development are analyzed. Does current development reduce housing costs by making available cheaper land? Does it diminish core and inner suburban traffic congestion by opening up peripheral lands? The to these questions are found in this study. This report is presented in four sections. Section One will review the literature of current development versus compact growth as it relates to the consumption or cost of infrastructure, housing, land, and public services (municipal operating costs). Section Two will detail the characteristics and future growth of the selected 18 communities. Section Three will describe two sets of growth alternatives in these communities and the dimensions of their difference; Section Four will present the results of growth pattern differences in the selected communities as they relate to the above four areas of resoW'Oe consumption. SECTION I Section I Two concepts must be understood at the outset. First, most of the literature to date has been able to portray two clearly different growth scenarios for the communities under study. This may not be the case for the communities to be studied in Michigan-some communities may already be p r acticing compact growth, others may be unwilling to do so. Thus, .the results in this state may not be as clearcut as they have been in other locations. Second, there is no wrong or right development pattern; it is a matter of choice. This choice often affects, however, when and by whom payment for public service infrastructure will be made. The capital costs of historical and cunent development patterns have usually been supported by the population at large. But, for about a decade, as new development costs have occurred, land development practice has sought to shift these costs to the specific increment of the population that has caused them. This shifting of costs has occasioned a careful look at what contributes to them and whether they can be lessened. These types of considerations form the basis of a compact growth approach to future development. Related to the above is the whole area of municipal cost-revenue impacts. Cost revenue impacts are the operatiorull as opposed to capital costs that occur in municipalities as a function of land development. Operational costs are affected by a variety of factors including the demography of development, size of the unit being developed, income of those who occupy and where and how development takes place relative to other development. Thus, cost-revenue impacts are not limited to just the


MICHIGAN fiSCAl IMPACTS pattern of development. Yet, cost revenue impacts, are of special concern to those providing funding for this study and for that reason this aspect of the study will receive considerable attention. IACKGROUND The purpose of this section is to discuss differences between current or sprawl development and an alternative, managed growth or compact development. 'These differences emerge largely from the use of land. In the first case, under sprawl development, land is consumed as if it has considerable supply and there are little costs in discarding or underusing old land in search of new. This approach to development often takes land in one half acre or larger parcels to accommodate detached single-family homes and strip nonresidential centers along the outer beltways and spokes from the core of the metropolitan area. Lands are skipped over en route to rural and ex-urban locations as inner

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS .. planning and have a dramatic effect.An the public and private resources : consumed for land development. The next section of the study will attempt to document: (1) whether or not there are resource savings associated with compact development; and (2) the levels of these savings, if any, across a variety of natural and man-made resources. The section will concentrate on findings of the field. A specific examination in the state of Michigan will be W\dertaken later In the study. SCOP E AND PURPOSE OP LIRRA1URE REVIEW The purpose of examining the literature of the sprawl versus compact growth experience is to classify and analyze what is known about growth management's effect on (1) p\lblic Infrastructure provision, (2) private Infrastructure (housing) costs, (3) land consumption, and (4) cost/revenue impacts (public service costs). Do the patterns of development spawned by compact growth save Infrastructure costs? Do they drive up h ousi.llg costs? Do they reduce the amount of land. Including fragile areas, )alcen for development? Do they have a negative effect on local public service costs? These four areas are defined as follows. Infrastructure or public capilill construction Includes the capital improvements necessitated by growth encompassing roads, utilities, schoOls, and other facilities (e.g., town hall, fire and rescue stations). Privale C#pitlll anrstrudion in the form qj l!ousitlg is typically considered on a basis for SecnoHI Sedion l a .variety of shelter types such as slngledetached and attached homes, town houses, garden units, and the like. Land consumption ( including natural habitat losses) Involves the use of land to accommodate urban and suburban development with the focus on overall quantity of land converted to development uses as well as the conversion of agricultural acreage and the intrusion of development into fragile environmental areas. impacts to opemtionally service development, compare development In areas of excess service capacity with development In locations that would have to expand public services and infrastructure. Cost-revenue impacts include the longer-run savings In operating costs, both regionally and in a single rommunity. Most studies summarized here contrast two alternative development futures. One alternative represents existing development patterns extended Into the future; it is called current or sprawl development. Development of this type typically includes subdivisionstyle residential development and &trip nonresidential development consisting oi (1) sldpped-over, noncontiguous residential land development In the form of 05 to 1.5 acre lots, and (2) nonresidential development of floor-. area ratios of 0.20 or less. Sprawl development continues prior trends of agricultural and other fragile land consumption, significant road/ pavement construction, and high amounts of water and sewer lnfrutructure provision. This type o f development has reportedly contributed Floor .rca ralto (FAR.) it tht ,roit floor area of all boYdlop or-00 alol divided by llloiO

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS to both higher housing costs for new households and negative fiscal impacts to host public service jurisdictions Characteristics of Sprawl New residential development is very low density Automobile dependent Uneamomical for utility expansion/ extension of other public services Scattered rural subdivisions Strip residential development along county roads Diminished rural character and small town atmosphere Suburbanization of landscape Loss of unique character; transformation to "anytown" USA Reduced retail shopping opportunities downtown Strip commerc:ial development at the edges of town Land consumptive Energy inefficient High ratio of road surface to development served (Michigan Society, of Planning Officials 1995.) The second alternative is called compact grqwth, or planned development. This type of development seeks to contain most new growth around existing centers and limit the intensity of development in rural and sensitive environmental areas. It also seeks to save more prime agricultural and fragile lands, prevent wetland encroachment, buffer streams and other water bodies, and protect open water and natural habitats. It further seeks to reduce road construction and water I sewer infrastructure provision through more contained cluster development ancl, in SECnONI s.chon I some cases, mixed-use development. These goals are pursued by increasing the share and density of development close to existing development and decreasing the share and density of development in the outer, more rural and undeveloped areas of the county or metropolitan area. Density increases and decreases are handled in a way that does not alter regional housing costs, inaease public service outlays, or limit revenues of public service providers. Economical public service provision Farmhouses dot the countryside Distinct edge between city and oountry Farms, forest, other natural open spaces surround city Can walk or bike to shopping areas, schools, and public buildings Residential neighborhoods surround downtown Commercial development is principally downtown or in planned clusters (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995 ) THE FOlCIS OF ECONOMIC GlOWIH RelatioMhlp1 Among Employment, Populcltion-and Income Economic growth is the sustenance of employment, population, and income of an area (Peterson and Vroman 1992). In each component of economic growth. there is a natural increase and a migration factor. The first relates to the type and level of growth as a function of what already exists in an area; the second relates to what will be attracted


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS to an area, either independently or . through inducement. There is a lead-lag relationship between jobs and housing in which a certain critical mass of population is needed before a significant number of jobs oome onstream; yet with the arrival of jobs, so too comes a new increment in population (Mills and McDonald 1992). In an ideal setting, growth is a relatively orderly process, and public and private institutions fadlltate growth. Infrastructure is in place where needed and is neither overused nor undermaintained. Further, there are reasonable relationships between existing and new growth (one does not cannibalize the other), and reasonable relationshlps exist between residential and nonresidential growth (i.e., the journey to work is relatively short and efficient). There is also an equitable balance of income groups paralleling job opportunities throughout the region. In other words, growth is both unfettered and efficient so that the economic opportunity of the region is maximized All of the development components' directions are harmonious, and minimal ronflict leads to maxilnum regional growth and productivity. The Nature of Cu.....,t Development Tho Cosl of Cun-ent Development Current development trends depart from the idealized state in that (1) the competition for market share causes some inefficiency and waste, and (2) the public and private sector institutional overlay contributes to a somewhat lethargic and unresponsive regulatory frame. As examples, nonresidential commercial development is often free to locate along nearly any major road in SfCIIOHI S.CIIon I the metropolitan area, maximizing vehicular access to the proposed facility. Similarly, office or industrial development in the form of an industrial park is often situated to maximize interstate road system access, placing it in most cases, on the periphery of the metropolitan area (Cervera 1986) When both forms of nonresidential development are on or near the beltways or intetstates of metropolitan areas, residential development is lured to a new outer ring of the metropolitan area to maximize access to jobs and shopping. Aocess from this new outer ring is increasingly oriented to state or interstate highway job location rather than to central core sour.:es of employment Associated with this movement outward are both (1) the requirement for more land and public infrastructure to service the radiating growth, and (2) the increasing underuse of core land and infrastructure. This underused infrastructure may not yet be paid for but, regardless must be regularly repaired / maintained even when surrounding neighborhoods become partially abandoned. Also associated with this movement outward is the aeation of nedge cities," often at the intersection of interstate roadways. These are the new centers of commerce and communication of the region (Garreau 1991). The string" beltway employment and edge cities stimulate the growth of bedroom counties and communities, whose sole purpose is to service the new peripheral employment locations by providing sites of even more peripheral residence. This latter phenomenon occurs because


MICHIGAN ASCAliMPACTS land (except for abandoned areas in the core) is least expensive the farther the distance from the center of the metropolitan area. A$ a result, the metropolitan area (except for the core) becomes homogeneous with industrial, commercial, and residential development on or near the main road SPOkes radiating from the core or the beltways around the core l inking these radial SPOkes. The core of the metropolitan area, absent redevelopment, is abandoned by most economic activities and becomes a home by default for poor residents who cannot follow (because of income or infirmity), or who are not allowed to follow (because of exclusionary zoning) upper income residents to the suburbs. Even with redevelopment, the central core is a struggling entity with no soft-goods retail anchors, no quality supermarkets or movie theaters, a downwardly mobile population, public school systems being replaced by private, and increasingly higher property taxes to pay for rising public service costs (Downs 1989). The dual costs of (1) providing new infrastructure for those who are moving outward, and (2) maintaining the old infrastructure for the population and economic entities left behind cause taxes and development costs to rise throughout the metropolitan area These dual costs, in turn, cause a regional rise in the costs either to do business or to reside in the area. A$ a result, wage and product costs inaease and companies and regions become less competitive. Poorly planned growth in a metropolitan area brings about a type of economic triage wherein a finite amount of money is allocated to prepare and SI!CIION I s.ction I access new areas while old areas are left to die. These are the signs of a region that is becoming noncompetitive and whose end state is a major loss of economic tenants The Benefits of Current Development Pattems Current development trends occur because, in IM slwrt run, they appear to provide some benefits for the region. Current development is an efficient distributor of economic activities in a micro sense (Muller 1981). Firms and people are distributed to localities that minimize indit1fdual out-of-pocket costs. Current development also has a cleansing and regenerative effect. It provides a new alternative when existing economic entities become dated or inconvenient to access Further, current development is a bellwether for change. Developers sense the desires of consumers and provide new development at preferred locations Moving outward from a dated or inconvenient core is the easiest indif1idual solution and provides what consumers seek in most marketplaces. The larger socida1 costs or impacts of these development patterns are not considered by the firms or individuals who choose them. For these reasons, any alternative that attempts to address the larger issues of development must also consider the individual, short-term benefits of current or traditional development. 1M Nature of Compoct Otowth Compact growth attempts to limit costs by mitigating impacts of inevitable growth and by encouraging containment of growth within locations


MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS that are more efficient to service A :n, byproduct of compact growth is the. saving of fragile and other undeveloped lands. The underlying idea is that water and sewer services, road repair and maintenance, municipal functions, school facility development, and solid waste collection should be contained near existing dt!velopment, since most "urban" -scale development projects cannot take place without these services. These types of development controls limit the unrestrained use of undeveloped peripheral land and also limit the costs of providing public infrastructure to this land (Dtmcan 1989). The controls further help to retain a market for existing or core locations by creating a more limited range of alternatives to the undeveloped peripheral locations. Even with compact growth, the forces of current development are usually strong enough to create edge cities in spite of relatively tight observance of urban service districts. Compact growth in an eccnwmic sense is not restraint of the IOCiltional forces of market growth but rather their channeling (Delaware Estuary Program 1995). Most of the employment and population growth that would have taken place under current development trends in leapfrog fashion to the outer reaches of metropolitan areas or counties is contained around already developed centers or cross-roads that are efficient to service with public infrastructure. The savings that are achieved can be plowed ba:ck into core areas to renew decaying neighborhoods, to provide incentives for private development of new and modem replacement structures, additional street-level parking, and enhanced public safety, and to return these areas to a position SECnONI Section I \hal is competitive with peripherally growing areas. In the final equation then, there is a more orderly and less wasteful relationship between old and new development under compact growth. Old areas are not ignored because they are no longer desired; instead, they are refurbished and upgraded. Peripheral areas are not uniformly sought as the new "Triple A" locations. Rather, there is a more controlled approach to slicing off additional land segments for primarily residential development. As a result, the contrast between old and new is lessened, and old locations with rejuvenation money have a chance to compete with the new peripheral locations. This approach allows less new land to be consumed and less additional funding to be allocated to new infrastructure (Hartshorn and Muller 1992). The Forces Agoirm Change Why isn't compact growth pursued as a matter of course and called "traditional" development? The answer is complex F'ust, current development continues to be popular because of the short-term benefits that accrue to households as opposed to the long-term costs that accrue to society. Second, current development is closely aligned with traditional American land conversion that has been characterized as a "frontier" philosophy. According to this philosophy, land is available in unlimited supply to be converted to developed uses, and it is the responsibility of both political jurisdictions and professionals in the development arena to ensure that land is ready for development regardless of cost. Economic uses will reside on this land, pay taxes to support required Tho of 1M Com of Sprawt-1-7


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS services, and an economic base will develop. Depending upon situation and location, this base will be more or less full and more or less diverse. The problem, however, is that this pattern often results in sprawl that is not fully paid for by those creating it. Another factor that operates in favor of continuing current development trends is that the costs of this type of development have not been made explicit to the public. In its report on land use trends in Michigan, the Michigan Society of Planning Officials (MSPO) indicates that sprawl is a "build now, pay later" land use pattern as opposed to the "pay as you grow" land use pattern of compact growth (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995) That is, the physical and social costs of current development have been and will be borne by current and future populations. As a result, to the individual they appear small. There are some hard choices associated with compact growth affecting where we live and at what density. H handled correctly, costs emerging &om these choices can be minimized and a large share borne by those who aeate them. These costs are both societally and individually small. The Michigan report further notes that middle class subwban residents who may benefit from current development trends and hold political power within a region are not likely to seek solutions to existing conditions if they are WlAWare of its true costs to society as a whole. To some extent, this is a matter of educating the average citizen. In a random survey of 400 residents, the study found that more than half the general population {51.9 percent) judged themselves to be either 'not informed at SEC110NI Section I all or only slightly informed on land use issues" (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995). However, 73 percent of the general population surveyed thought more land use planning was needed, and 70 percent of those who believe economic development and environmental protection are almost always in conflict would support protection of the environment even if that would limit some economic development (Michigan Society of Planing Officials 1995). This suggests that an informed public is crucial to countering current development trends, and informing the public is the purpose of this overall report. IHE L111RATURE OF CURRENT DM10PMENT The literature on current development trends is diverse and uneven. Much of it consists of historical renditions of how it has occurred in a particular area. The costs and benefits of current development, however, clearly form the heart of what literature exists. As a summary assessment of the literature, at least six basic groupings of costs and benefits of current development emerge with important subsets. General Societal Com and a-fits of Cunent Development Trends The first grouping involves genera I societal costs and benefits and includes explanations of what current development is and what it has meant for, or will mean to, the future of the metropolitan area. Inherent in most of the literature in this grouping is the idea that current development is: {1) here to stay as part of the American" system or {2) is a chain of events that in the long


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS run is unworkable but in the short rwJ cannot be stopped. Accordingly, it either should be coped with or replaced. An important subset of this literature is information on the location cJwices of households and businesses and how inevitable they are given certain forces in American society (Garreau 1991; Richardson and Gordon 1993; Mills and McDonald 1992) and how they could possibly change given certain strong commitments by the public to an alternative urban form (Calthorpe 1993; Downs 1994). Capital and Operating Costs (PubUc and Private) Probably the largest single sector of the literature on costs and benefits of current development is related to capital and operating costs, both public and private. "Public capital and operating costs of sprawl" usually refer to roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and public buildings, as well as annual expenditures to maintain them (in both small enclaves in remote locations of the metropolitan areas where population is growing, and in central cities from which some of the population growth is being drawn). "Primte capital and operating costs of sprawl" refer to the construction and occupancy costs of private housing and can vary depending on metropolitan location and the density and form of development. The scenario most often reported in the literature is that the current development trends, with large-lot single-famlly zoning as the preferred residential expression, cause excessive "public" infrastructure and operating costs as well as an inaease in housing purchase prices and occupancy costs (Burchell et al. 1992a, b; 1994b; Real S!CnONI Section I Research Corporation 1974; Siemon eta!. 1990; York 1989; Duncan 1989; Tischler 1 994). Michiganians are driving more and living farther from their work: In the last 20 years the number of registered passenger vehicles has increased by almost 2 million while population has increased by 420,000. This is putting pressure on the road system at a time when only 39 percent of the state highways are rated in at least 'good' condition. (Michigan Society of Planning Offidals 1995.) A strong literature subset is specific costs and benefits of alternative development scenarios. Compact growth as an alternative to sprawl can occasion its own, primarily "private" development costs. These too are documented in the literature and a=ue from reducing the number of development units allowed to take place under managed growth and increasing the lot size and housing costs associated with this type of regulation in "growth control" communities (Fischel1990; Zorn eta!. 1986; Schwartz et al.l981) Transportation and Travel Casts of Current Development Trends Yet another u cost" or ''benefit" of current development is the vehicle miles traveled during commuting time. Excessive commuting time Is shown to be a cost of current development (Kain 1988; Cal thorpe 1993; Crane 1994); reduced commuting time to increasingly suburban jobs is shown to be a benefit (Gordon and Richardson 1994b; Giuliano 1995; Arrington 1995). The Mlchigan "cost" is expressed in the following way:


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS In the last 20 years the number of vehicl e miles traveled has increased by more than 20 billion. Over the past decade the average travel time to work for workers traveling 45 minutes or greater increased by 24 percenl (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995.) The debate on current development trends invariably involves whether commuting by automobile or transit is more expensive (l

MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS Population shifts over the last.4Q,, years have reduced Detroit's ..,. population by 821,594, Flint's by 22,382, and Saginaw's by 23,406 . At the same time the racial concentration of non-whites has doubled and median income has fallen in these cities. The abandonment of urban areas by large numbers of citizens threatens to create a series of problems and expenses which society as a whole will ultimately have to bear (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995). A benefit of current development is its almost uniform acceptance by all forms of American society and its increasing movement to the outer reaches of metropolitan areas 1llis has allowed the lowet'-'mlddle class and near-poor to occupy less expensive housing in uzones of emergence# or stable and integrated inner suburbs (Sternlieb and Beaton 1972; Krote 1992). Land and Natural Habitat Casts of Development Trends Yet another alleged cost-of current development is its propensity for the destruction of natural resources. Land under current development trends is either consumed in increasing bites, or it is ignored and wasted due to uncontrolled conversion of less expensive peripheral development sites (Mills 1981). As these lands are used for development, natural habitats for flora and fauna are conswned at significant rates (Dahl1990; Nelson 1992). Forest and agricultural lands may be prematurely sacrificed while other, closer-in lands remain undeveloped SK110N I Section I The most important land-use change of the past half century has been the mlgration of people from urban to once rural landscapes in a much lower density land-use pattern. In many instances, this process has led to the deterioration of cities, reduced land available to resource-based industry, conversion of wetlands and wildlife habitat, diminished water quality, and reduced open space. (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995.) The Michigan story relative to current development trends further states: The same land-use pattern that has caused problems in urban areas has also caused problems in nature-particularly in the loss of biological diversity-the variety and richness of living organisms and the ecological complexes they live in. Changing land-use patterns have negatively impacted Michigan's wildlife and plant habitats. Today there are many plants and animals officially classified as endangered (69), threatened (257), or of special concern (243) (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995). To protect these lands from development, aggressive campaigns for fragile land purchase must be ongoing by various levels of government (Coughlin and Keene 1981; Bookout and Wending 1988; Ewing 1995; Aberger and Propst 1992). These become significant costs to local and state governments of metropolitan areas where current or spread development Tloe lite Com of Spnow!-111


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS dominates. There is an important subset of this literature that specifically compares the effects of more .and less contained development alternatives on critical lands and habitats (BW'cheU eta!. 1992a, b; BW'chell and Listokin 1994b, 1995). On the other hand, a small number of studies indicate that one benefit of current development trends is that they allow skipped-over sites to be used for inner-suburb recreation sites and/ or infiii housing. The fact that they have been skipped over makes them cheaper for these inner-area recreational and developmental uses (Ohls and Pines 1975; Peiser 1989). In addition to consuming natural resources prematurely, current development trends can also prevent economic development of valuable natural resources. Scenic landscapes that are economically valuable for tourism and recreation disappear into low density rural development (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995). In some cases, traditional patterns of growth may result in fragmented, "landlocked" tracts of otherwise developable natural resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, sand, gravel) which have become surrounded by residential developments. The resources become either inaccessible, or cannot be extracted due to resulting zoning regulations designed to protect the interests and property values of nearby residents (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995). SEC110NI Quality af Ufe Costs af Current Development Patterns The final major concentration in the literature is the impact of current development trends on quality of life Those who view current development trends as having negative consequences indicate that the vast single-use residential subdivisions, accessible primarily by automobile, have lost their sense of "place." The idea of a multi-use village with people biking and walking has been replaced by row upon row of single-family housing, without sidewalks or bike paths but with three off-street automobile parking spaces per dwelling unit. According to those who advance this viewpoint, most Americans would prefer to return to more traditional metropolitan Ul'ban forms (Krieger 1991; Calthorpe 1993; Nelessen 1994) Michigan's recognition of the problem takes the following form: Society as a whole will lose the aesthetic appeal of natural open spaces, the changing scenery and varied habitat that support the state's biological diversity, ToUl'ism opportunities will .. continues the distinct edge between city and country will grow more and more obscure resulting in an even more homogenized landscape (Michigan Society of Planning Officials 1995). In opposition are those who claim that for the last twenty years Americans have repeatedly indicated their


MIOIIGAN FISCAL IM,ACTS preference for, and satisfaction suburbs and suburban living. The . suburbs offer the predictability of enhance<:l public safety, public education, and housing investment (Dyckman 1976; Goldberg and Mercer 1986; Audirac et al. 1990; Garreau, 1991; Fannie Mae 1992, 1994). These components of the debate are mirrored in an important subset of this literature-loazlron clwiu tmd dedsion lttllking far lwuselwlds and busintsses. THE UfERATURI OF COMPACT GROWI'H .AND RISOURCE SAVINGS Proponents of compact growth often describe the economic savings associated with this type of development as a prelude to the call for its adoption. For instance, a Florida study, after observing that M compact, infiJl, and higher density development is more efficient to serve than scattered, linear, and lower density sprawL" asked for state growth management that would foster the development pattern (Duncan et aL 1989, 21). Similar statements appear in The Costs of Spnzrol report, a study conducted more than two decades ago by the Real Estate Research Corporation, yet one that has been relied upon continuously and Is cited in some of the most recent studies of current development's disadvantages. The most comprehensive rteenl assessment of the economies afforded by compact development is that conducted by a team of academic and professional researchers from Rutgen; University. This study focused on the .impacts of the then pending New Jersey State Development aiu:J Redevelopment Plan. Findings In this report indicated that the state o f New Jersey could save $ECJION I $1.3 billion in Infrastructure costs for roads, utilities, and schools over a twenty-year period if a s tate plan encouraging compact growth were followed, as opposed to the patterns of development evident at that time (Burchell et aL 1992a) The Rutgers study was instrumental in fostering support for the plan, which ultimately was unanimously adopted by the New Jersey State Planning Commission in 1992. Capital (Public Infrastructure) C asts: Current Development Trends Versus Managed Grawth The planning literature has long been Interested in the relationship between land-use patterns and Infrastructure costs (Burchell and Listolcln 1990, 75). While there are gaps in what is lcnown, a number of studies support the contention that compact growth, by fostering compact, infill, and higher density development, can realize cost savings with respect to capital facility provision. Initially, most attention was paid to the association between density and on-site capital improveonents, such as sidewalks, curbs, local streets, and so on. Not surprisingly, studies showed that the on-site infrastructure outlay per unit would be reduced as density Increased, since local i :red improvements would be "amortized" over a larger number of units. To illustrate, the cos t for sidewalks would be essentially be halved for single-family detached homes with fifty-foot frontages, compared to those with lOO.foot frontages. Recently, the planning literature has also considered the linlcage between off silt capital improvements and landuse patterns. The former includes


MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS neighborhood and community-wide infrastructure-area roads, schools, utility plants, and so on. The latter-the pattern of development-is defined as scattered or current development versus managed or compact growth. Current development is characterized by a skipped-over yet relatively even land development pattern, as opposed to compact gruwth, which is characterized by somewhat more dense development in closer-in areas, and partially preserved areas farther out. While there have been several investigations of this topic, three major studies stand out: James Duncan and Associates, The Sf!llTch for Efficient Urban Growth Pattems (1989); the literature synthesis by James E Frank (1989), Costs of Altmuzlioe Deoelopment Patterns: A Review of the Literature; and the Rutgers University studies by Robert W. Burchell and others, Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Dtoelopment and lWevelopment Plan (1992a) and Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Dtoelopment and Rednlelopment Plan: Supplemental AlP LAN Assessment (1992b ). The synthesis of infrastructure savings potentially available from managed growth will be based on these three major investigations by Duncan, Frank, and Burchell. The Duncon Study A large-scale study was conducted in 1989 in Florida, entitled 5f!4Tch for E.fficimt Growth Patterns (Duncan et a!. 1989). This analysis encompassed detailed case studies of the actual costs (and revenues) incurred by several completed residential and nonresidential projects throughout Florida. The projects chosen were SIC110NI s.dion I representative of five different development patterns ranging from 11SCattered" to "compact." 'While the Florida study did not intend a current development-compact growth analysis, it is possible to group its five patterns into the two aggregate development profiles of current development and compact growth. The former includes the Florida development patterns of "scattered," "linear," and "satellite"; the latter includes the Florida "contiguous" and "compact" categories. With this grouping, the relative capital costs of current development trends versus compact growth can be determined from Florida case study information on incurred infrastructure expenses. The total capital cost for a detached unit built under current development trends in Florida approached $16.000; under compact growth, capital costs were about $11,000, or roughly 70 percent of current development. Major costs in both cases were roads and schools, in combination representing 80 to 85 percent of all expenditures. Capital costs related to roads were reduoed by 60 percent the under compact growth scenario, whereas school capital costs were only reduoed by 7.4 percent. (See Table I-1.) Viewed in reverse fashion, the costs of compact growth relative to current development were less: 40 percent of current development costs for roads, 93 percent for schools, 60 percent for utilities and slightly more (102 percent) for H other" capital outlays. The Frank Study A study by James Frank for the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C. reviewed the national literature conducted over roughly a four-decade


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS period (Frank 1989). Frank ordered .the findings of the various studies he analyzed and expressed them in equivalent dollar terms (1987 dollars). In Frank's synthesis of the literature, the capital costs of multiple individual development patterns were investigated (i.e., infrastructure outlays of higher versus lower-density single-family detached and attached homes) rather than the capital implications of the two polar types of compact growth versus current development. He concluded from the national literature that multiple factors affected development costs including density, contiguity of development, and distance to central public facilities (i.e., sewage and water plants), as well"!' other characteristics such as municipal improvement standards. The dollar impacts of these different factors identified by Frank are shown in Table I-2 and summarized in Table 1-4. In brief, Frank determined. that capital costs are highest in situations of low density development located a considerable distance from central locations. By contrast, he showed that costs can be reduced dramatically in situations of higher-density development that is dinected to central or contiguous locations. When all capital are totaled ... the total cost for low .density ... sprawl .. is slightly than $35,000 per dwelling unit. Further, if that development is located 10 miles from the sewage treatment plant, the central water source, the receiving body of water, and the major concentration of employment, almost $15,000 per dwelling unit is added to the cost, for a total of $48,000 per dwelling unit .... SECIION I Section I The cost can be reduced to Jess than $18,000 ... by choosing a central location, using a mix of housing types in which single-family units constitute 30 percent and apartments 70 percent of the total, and by planning contiguous development instead of leapfrogging. (Frank 1989, 39.) If Frank's multiple individual development types are aggregated into those more likely to be found under current versus compact development (i.e., more leapfrog single-family detached and lower-density units in the former, and more contiguous, clustered single-family detached and higher density units in the latter), the following findings can be extracted from his summary of the literature. The cost of compact growth is 73 percent of the cost of current development with respect to roads, 99 percent for school capital expenditures, and 66 percent for utility capital extensions (See Table I--4). Frank's study did not consider the "other" infrastructure category. The Study As noted earlier, both the first and second Rutgers impact assessments considered the consequences to the state of New Jersey of a compact growth strategy versus current development trends across numerous substantive dimensions. The second study's major findings are contained in Table I-3 and summarized in Table I-4. To illustrate, while a similar level of growth would occur in New Jersey under both scenarios from 1990 to 2010 (an increase of 520,000 persons, 431,000 households, and 654,000 jobs), there would be significant savings under the compact growth approach with respect to Tho lire,.,.,.. altllo .Cotls of Sprawl-l-15


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Section I TABLEI-1 Jomu Duncan Florida Growth Pan.m Study: Capitol Fodlity Collh under c:.....nt -lopment Trend .,.,..UI Cotnpod Growth (pe< dwelling unij; 1988 dollan) Category of Average of Case Studies Average of Case Studies Cunent Development Capital Under Cunent Under Compact Trends VerallS Costs Development Trends 1 Development 2 Compid Development Diffmnu Number!% Roads $7.014 $2,784 (+) $4,230 li0.3 Schools 6,(1/9 5,62.5 (+) 4.54 7.4 Utilities 2,187 1,320 (+) 867 39.6 Other 661 672 (-) 11 1 7 --TarAL $15,941 $10,401 (+) $5,540 36.7 Noles : 1 Cummt development as defined here include the following patterns oi"url>an form" analyzed by the Florida study: "scattered," '"linur," "and satellite. The capital coot fiswes shown in this table are avenges of the Florida cue studies characterized by the ocottered, linear, and satellite patterns (e.g., Drive, Tampa Palms, University 8oulevarbert W. BW'Chell and David Lislokin, May 8, 1990;and James Duncanet al, TlteStmchfor Effi

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS S.dlon I TABUI-2 Jamea L Frank-Urban Land In stitute National Literature Synthesis: Capital Facility Casts of Development (per dwelling unit 1987 dollars) Dwelling Density Service Type ancl Categoty 1 d .u./4 acres Streets (SF) Utilities Schools 1 d.u./acre (SF) Street& Utilities Schools 3du./acre Streets (SF Con Utilities ventional) Schools 5du./acre Streets (SF austerecl) Utilities Schools 10 d.u./aae Streets (Townhouses) Utilities Schools 15 du./ acre Streets (Garden Utilities Apartments) Schools 30du./acre Streets (High-rise Utilities Apartments) Schools 12 du./ac:re Streets (Housing Unit Utilities Mix\ Schools Nolfos: du dwelling unit SF = single-family NA not applicable Costs 24,848 39,951 12,813 12,308 19,189 1.2,313' 7 083 11,388 12,313 6,121 7,574 12,313 4,855 4,920 10,438 3,367 3,285 10,438 1,843 1,997 3,786 4,653 5,789 9.860 Neighbomoocl Community Costs ContiguDU& Leapfrog -. ------1,891 2,406 1,405 1,279 -1,930 2,788 1,()99 2,231 -1,930 2,788 1,099 2,231 1,930 2,788 1,()99 2,231 -1,576 2,194 1,(J76 1,676 Costs for Distance to Employment, Sewage Plant, Water Plant, Receiving Bocly o f Water SMiles t O Miles 2,500 5,000 4,800 9,600 NA NA 2,500 5,000 4,800 9,600 NA NA 2,500 5,000 4,800 9,600 NA NA 2,500 2,500 4,800 9,600 NA NA 2,350 4,700 4,524 9,()5() NA NA 2,350 4,700 4,525 9,0SO NA NA 2,000 4,000 3,840 7,680 NA NA 2,350 4,700 4,525 4,700 NA NA Soun:e: James E. Frank, 1989. The Com of Altmullir>t Der>tJopmmt PIZitmls: A kDiew of the Litmltlm Washlllgton, Urban Urullnstitute. . SECIIONI Tho lilt-.. ol ffoo Com of 17


MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS infrastructure. Over the period 1990 to 2010 compact versus current development would require: $699 million less investment in roads ($2,924 million for current development versus $2,22.5 million for compact growth), or a 24-percent savings $561 million less investment in water and sewer (utility) costs ($7,42 4 million for current development versus $6,863 million for compact growth), or a 7 6-percent savings $173 million less investment in schools ($5,296 million for current development versus $5,123 million for compact growth), or a 3.3-percent savings The infrastructure model used in this study relates development density and housing type to the demand for local/ state roads and water I sewer infrastructure In the first case, land consumed is directly correlated to lane miles of road required for two-lane (local) and four -lane (state) roads. Usually, there are significant differences in local road lane-miles necessary under current versus compact development, but only small differences in state road lane-miles under one or the other scenario. In the second case, housing type, and to a lesser extent density, are related to the amount of water and sewer use (in gallons) by development type. Usually, these differences are small Larger and more significant are the differences observed in water I sewer infrastructure and costs. This is related to the number of required hookups from the trunk line The cost of ongoing water and sewer SIICIIONI s.chon I operations is a function of the number of hookups. Thus, if hookups can be saved by clustering, mixed-use, and multifamily development, long-run operating costs also should be less. When all components of infrastructure were summed (roads, utilities, and schools), the Rutgers impact assessment found that current development patterns would necessitate a statewide infrastructure outlay of $15.6 billion from 1990 to 2010. By contrast, opting for more compact development would reduce the necessary capital investment over the two decade period from $15.6 to $14.2 billion representing a savings of $1.4 billion, or just under 10 percent (fable 1) Since the focus of this analysis and the original assessment was a simultaneous comparison of the impacts of current development trends versus compact growth. the capital infrastructure profile of these two scenarios is readily available Compact growth relative to current development required 76 percent of the capital costs for roads, 'n percent for schools, and 92 percent for utilities. (The "other" capital category was not examined.) In short, the Rutgers study reached a conclusion similar to earlier investigations with respect to infrastructure: compact versus current development can realize savings in capital extensions required to service growth. Other Studies There have been other studies over a nearly forty-year period that have examined the interrelationship between land use and infrastructure costs. Notable examples include The Cost of MunicipalSmrices in ResidentiJJI AmiS


MICHIGAN FISCALIMPACIS Section I ' . TABLE 1-3 Robert W Burdteif:: New j ..,S.,; y I m pact Assessm e nt: Summary of Impacts for. Current Development Trends versus Compact Growth Growth/Devel'P'ment Current Com pas Current Developmont 1m pads D evelopmfnt GroWth Trends Versus Trends Compact Growth % I. PoPuLATION GROWTH 520,()12 520,012 0 0 (persons) n HOUSEHOLD GROWTH (households} 431,000 431,000 0 0 ill. EMI'LoYMENI' GROWTH 653,600 6 5 3,600 0 0 (employees) IV. lNFRASIRucrtlR# A. ROADS ($millions) Local $2,197 $ 1 ,630 $567 25.8 State Z2Z 132 l8.Z Total Roads $2,924 $2,225 $699 23 9 B. UTILmES-Water $634 $55() $84 13.2 $6.313 ZQ c TILmES-5ewer $6,790 szz ($millions) $7, 424 $561 7 6 Total Utilities $6,863 E. SCHOOLS $5,296 $5,123 $173 3.3 ($ millions) F AIL lNFRASIRUCTLJRE $15,644 $14,211 $1,433 9.2 (sum of A-B in $ millions) v. LAND CONStiMPilON A. Over all Land (aaes) 2'12,(119 117,607 174,472 59.7 B. Fragile Lands (aaes) 36,482 6,139 30,343 83.2 C Agricultural Lands(aaes) 1 08,000 66,000 42,000 38.9 VL HOUSE PR!CB A. Median Cost per Unit $172,567 $162,162 $10,495 6.1 g990 dollars) 8 6.7 B. Ousin$ Index 11 8 126 affordable) NO!t$: 1. For current development trends, see text 2. For compact growth, see text. 3. lnmlllionsof199Ddollars Soura: Robert W. 81achell et al., 1992b lmJIIld Aos..,menl of the New Jersey Interim Slllk D

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS (Wheaton and Schussheim 1955), Municipal OJsts and Revenues Resulting from Growth (Isard and Coughlin 1957), The Costs of Sprawl (Real Estate Research Corporation [RERC) 1974), the Windsor and Altshuler critiques of the RERC study (Windsor 1979; Altshuler 1977), and more recent analyses, such as Deuelopment in Wright OJunty, Minnesota (Resource Management Consultants 1989). The Wright OJunty study showed that higher-density development close to existing urban infrastructure was less expensive to serve than lower-density development located farther from established public service centers. A 1975 Rand report funded by the National Science Foundation projected the off-site capital improvements (streets, utilities, fire protection, and so forth) for a community in California under three patterns: "compact," "scatteration," and "leapfrog" (Dougharty 1975). The first pattern is analogous to what has been referred to here as compact growth; the other patterns characterize two forms of current development. The Rand study projected that whereas the capital outlay for the equivalent of compact growth would be $2,000 per unit, with "scatteration" and "leapfrog," current development costs could exceed $10,000 per unit. The biggest difference was with respect to roads and utilities, where the more compact growth alternative was much more efficient. Summary In summary, three major studies over the past Frank, and Burchell-have examined in detail infrastructure demands under current development trends versus a compact growth alternative. All conclude that reasonable economies are possible SECIIONI Sodk>nl under compact growth for road and utility capital extensions; a more modest saving is afforded with respect to school capital costs. As would be expected, the findings from these three major studies differ somewhat. For instance, compact growth allows for a 7 percent school infrastructure saving according to Duncan. while Frank and Burchell find 1 percent and 3 percent savings, respectively. The commonalities in the direction and order of magnitude of the findings are much stronger, however, than these individual differences and are shown in Table I-4 as "synthesis" findings from the three major studies. Among the findings: relative to sprawl development, compact growth requires 75 percent of the infrastructure cost for roads; 95 percent of the infrastructure costs for schools; 85 percent of the infrastructure costs for utilities; and is at rough parity (100 percent) for the "other" capital category. (Table I-4.) Capital (Private Holding) Com: Current Development Trends Venu Compact Growth The growth control studies earlier cited in the literature review deal with the price effects of growth controls in a given community. What about overall housing costs in a larger area governed by compact growth where development would be restricted in certain localities (i.e., areas with fragile lands) while encouraged in others (areas with. existing or excess infrastructure capacity, such as urban centers or suburban infilllocations)? The only study to date that has considered housing aifordabillty under compact growth on such a wide geographic basis is the impact assessment study by


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Robert W. Burchell at Rutgers University. The Burchell Study Researchers examined the statewide consequences of housing affordability under sprawl development versus compact growth. The study team employed a housing-cost model to determine differences in housing price in various locations. The housing-cost model factors in the land component of housing price to allow this prioe to rise or fall according to the amount of land included in the enhanced lot size locations of limited growth areas, or the reduced lot size loca tions of more active growth areas, as well as taking into account the differences in housing prices in these two locations. Thus, preservation efforts serve to rais.! regi01tRl lwusing costs if they are IWI counteracted by increases in densities in areas that accommodate new development near already developed areas. The housing cost model uses existing housing prices in an area and the share of housing prioe that land represents. It adjusts price up or down according tO the amount of land consumed for a housing lot. This calculation in done for both developed and rural areas under each alternative. The results of the Burchell study were as follows: L Relative to sprawl development, where growth was occurring in New Jersey's outlying locations and often encroaching on environmentally sensitive areas, compact growth would limit growth in such areas or would allow development only at significantly lower densities (i.e., SEC110NI to be environmentally compatible). Section I 2. Given these land development curtailments under compact growth, the price per acre of land would drop in such locations 3. Although the prioe per acre would decline, a housing "unit would occupy significantly more land in rural and environmentally sensitive areas under compact growth (as development would be allowed only at much lower densities), and overall housing prices would increase. 4. A contrary effect would occur, however, in some other portions of the state under the compact growth alternative. For instance, a larger share of development would take plaoe in what are referred to as "centers" -in contrast to the deconcentration occurring under current development. As a result, housing prices would decrease in centers and in redeveloping/infill areas given the inherent higher density of the housing mix proposed there (e.g., a higher share of attached single-family and multi-family units). 5. The impact assessment projected instances where, relative to spraw l, compact growth would increase housing costs-e.g., in the rural and environmentally sensitive locations-and cases where compact growth would decrease housing costs (centers and redevelopingf.infill areas). Since housing developed in centers/infill areas would exceed in quantity the housing lllolilt,.,.,. ol tbe .COJIJ of Sprowf.-1 21


M ICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS;on I TABUI-4 Relative lnm.structvre Cooto of c-t -lopment Trenclo versus Compact Growth ........ n.... MajCM' Stucllu lnfrui!Ucluft CWI'mt Compact Growth: Compact Cost Development Finclingo from Growth: Catego ry T rends Tluee Major S tuclies Synthesis &o m (in percent, relative to spraw l) TlueeMaj o r Studies Dunam Fnmk Burchell (in percent, Study Study 1 Study 4 relative sprawl) Roads 100% 40% ?3% 7 6 % 75% Schools 100% 93 99 97 95 U tili ties 100% 60 66 92 8S Other 100% 102 NA NA 1 00% Notes: 1. This is calculated from the base F rank findings as follo ws: Assumed P 3 ercen tues DtnsiJy nCumnl CompGct and Dwelunir Twes I Growt h 1 dwellingunit/4 adupment iDill II< /upfiogand tlO.miledis!Jm&e under spmol, and contigvqus anOnSenSUS from the three studies noted in the text. 3. Derived from the Burchell et aL N ew Jersey Impact assessmen t study (1992a). 4. Derived from the B urchell et al. New Jersey Impact assessment study (19921>). SeaiONI


MIOI IGAN ASCAL IMPACTS built in rural areas, housing cOStS under oompact growth were found to be somewhat less than conditions. 6 The specific findings are summarized as follows : Under current trends, the median housing price in constant 1990 dollars would be $172,567; under compact growth, the price would be $162,162$10,495less, representing a saving of just over 6 percent. Other Stud ies A number of other studies reveal that housing prices increase in the immediate area where there are compact requirements (Fischel 1990). Fo r instance, Schwartz, Hansen, and Green (1981) followed the effects over time of the Petaluma (Califomia) Plan. This plan limited building permits, favoring dwellings with costly design features and developer-provided au)enities and services to the community. Using a recurring (i e hedonic) pricing technique, the authors compared the price of a standard bundle of housing cllaracteristics to the corresponding price in nearby Santa Rosa, which had not adopted compact growth measures during the period. They found that after several years, Petaluma's housing prices had risen 8 percent above those of Santa Rosa. Schwartz, Zorn, and Hansen (1989) did a similar study of the compact growth measures in Davis, Califomia, comparing house prices in Davis to those in a control sample of other Sacramento suburbs. They found that growth controls caused house prices in Davis to be 9 percent higher in 1980 SlC110NI ,. s.c:tionl than they would have been without '\hem. In Petaluma (Schwartz, Hansen, and Green 1 981) and in Davis (Zorn, Hansen, and Schwartz 1986), the effects on the housing stock affordable to low and moderate-income households to contro l areas were also monitored In Petaluma, the authors found that the percentage of the housing stock that was affordable to low-and moderate-income households had dropped significantly below that of the contro l group (Fischel1990). In Davis, on the other hand, growth controls required that those who received building permits construct a percentage of units earmarked for low income people. Thus, the limited growth that did occur in Davis contained both low income and high-income housing. According to Fischel (1990), however an unanticipated offset to this apparent success occurred. The authors noted that existing housing in Davis increased in price reflecting the overall increase in quality interpretation of this outcome was that older housing was filtering up and being improved in the process. Katz and Rosen (1987) analyzed 1,600 sales transactions of single-family houses during 1979 in 64 communities in the San Francisco Bay Area Of these transactions 179 involved houses located in communities where a building permit moratorium or bjnding rationing system was recently or currently in effect According to (1990), this study is particularly valuab l e since, unlike the above California studies, it does not focus on just a single community. The authors found that the price of houses sold in the growth


M ICHIGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS controlled communities was higher than those sold in nongrowth controlled communities. Summary In short, when the overall picture is examined with respect to housing construction costs wuler compact growth versus current development trends-taking into accoW\t both instances of rising and lowered costs, as was done in the New Jersey impact assessment-the finding is that compact growth can moderate rather than increase the cost of housing. On the other hand, where building permits are limited and there is no attempt to offset this with the provision of affordable housing or housing at higher densities, housing costs will rise Wlder compact growth schemes. Lond CoMUmption: Cu.....m Development Trondo Versus Compact Growth What is the relative quantity of land used Wlder current development versus compact growth? In contrast to the considerable literature examining the relationship between development patterns and infrastructure, few studies discuss, and even fewer empirically investigate, how sprawl versus managed growth affects land consumption. For instance, in the 1981 NatitmAI Agricultural u111d Study, growth management was offered as a strategy t o reduce the loss of farmluul : In many parts of the country, the problem of agricultur.J protection can be addressed realistically and effectively only by considering its relation to the SOCl!ClH I Section I entire system of land use and development within a given region .... A coordinated regional approach to growth management can accomplish a variety of mutually complementary objectives such as minimizing public investment costs and focusing farmland preservation efforts on areu where agriculture is most liJcely t o remain economically viable over the long run. Therefore ideally, a growth management strategy should consider functional and spatial inter relationships at the regional a s well as the local level (Coughlin and Keene 1981). Beginning in the late-1980s sever.J growth management plans emphasized the ability of compact growth to reduce land consumption, especially the loss of farmland. As an example, the Vermont Growth Management Act of 1988 (Act 200) states as one of its purposes protect .. agricultural areas ... from the loss of peace and quiet and (Vermon t 1988). To this end, regional plans and approved municipal plans must be wnsistent with the state goals listed in Act 200. One of these goals is that and econom.ically viable agricultural and forest lands shall be pro tected" (Vermont 1988). In a sim.ilar fashion, farmland preservation is incorporated in Maine's Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act of 1988. One of the ten goals of the plan is to the state's agricultural and forest resources from development which threatens these resources"' (Maine 1988). Munidpalities are directed to follow certain guidelines, one of which states that they must "ensure the protection of agricultur.J and forest


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS resources and discourage new development that is inoompatible W'ilh uses related to the agricultural and forest industry" (Maine 1988). Reduced land consumption is emphasized in the New Jersey State Planning Act. The Act specifically requires the New Jersey State Planning Commission to: coordinate planning activities and establish statewide planning objectives in ... agriculture and farmland retention ... and the State Development and Redevelopment Plan shall protect the natural resources and qualities of the State including, but not limited to, agriculture development areas, ... and . identify areas for growth, limited growth, agriculture, open space conservation, and other appropriate designations that the Commission may deem necessary (New Jersey State Planning Commission 1991). This framework was made operational in the Amended Interim State Develop ment and Redevelopment Plan and ultimately in the final State Plan (Burchell et al. 1992b). Land was classified into five planning areas (PAs) based on their current importance to the environmental quality and economy of the state. The five areas included: PAl Metropolitan Planning Areas PA2 Suburban Planning Areas P A3 Fringe Planning Areas PA4 Rural Planning Areas PAS Environmentally Sensitive Planning Areas SfC!IONI Section I policies were directed toward each type of planning area. To reduce the agricultural land Joss that had been occurring in P A4 and the encroachment on environmentally sensitive lands occurring in PAS under prevailing current development trends; the resource management system of the Plan directed growth away from these areas to P A2 and P A3. As an additional safeguard centers within each planning area received the bulk of growth; environs or protected areas did no!. The Burchell Study The Rutgers University impact assessment conducted by Burchell et al. examined overall land consumption under the two development scenarios of current and compact growth and further considered the relative conversion of agricultural acreage and impacts on fragile lands (Burchell et a!. 1992a, b). Agricultural lands included such cat egories as cropland that is harvested, pastured lands in permanent pasture, and woodlands that oould be used for agricultural purposes. Fragile land encompassed floodplains and wetlands, acreage with steep slopes or with critical habitat designation, aquifer recharge areas and critically sensitive watersheds, and stream buffers. The analysis employed a landoonsumption model at the local oommunity level to look at differences between the current and compact growth scenarios. This model allQwed future projections of households and jobs to be converted to the demand for residential and nonresidential structures, and ultimately to the demand for residential and nonresidential land. Historical rates of fannland takings were applied to land


MICHIGAN RSCALIMPACTS consumed under the sprawl development future, and goals of farmland retention were applied under the compact growth scenario. A similar procedure was used for fragile land consumption comparisons. The model, using different densities, development locations, and housing types for current versus compact growth, calculated the total agricultural and fragile lands consumed under each development alternative and expressed these as well as their differences in acres. The results are described below. The analysis found that there was more than enough land statewide to accommodate the projected twenty-year development (1990-2010) of persons (520,000), households (431,000), and employees (654,000) under both current and compact growth alternatives. As of 1990, there was a total of two million acres available for development in the state of New Jersey. Of these two million acres, development between 1990 and 2010 under current conditions would consume 292,(!79 acres, whereas compact growth that accommodated the same level of growth in terms of persons, households, and jobs would consume only 117 ,6(17 acre&-175,000 fewer than under current development (Burchell et al. 1992b). Thus, compact growth's overall land drawdown was 60 percent less than that of current development. The impact assessment further found that compact growth would have the environmental advantage of preserving greater levels of fragile and agricultural lands. Reflecting historical rates of loss, under current conditions 36,482 acres of fragile landS would be consumed for development; by contrast, under compact growth the consumption of these lands would drop to 7,150 acres or SI!CTION I Se<&nl by 80 percent. Thus, compact growth in New Jersey could not only accommodate future development but preserve 30,000 acres of fragile environmental lands. In a similar vein, the study found that under current development 108,000 agricultural acres would be consumed, during 1990-2010, while under compact growth, only 66,000 agricultural acres would be converted. This represented a savings of 42,000 acres, or 40 percent of prime agricultural land. To recap, the Rutgers University impact assessment found that the availability of land to accommodate projected growth in the state was more than enough with respect to either growth scenario current or compact growth. People or jobs would not be driven from the state if the state moved to more managed growth land-development efforts in the future. COST.aEV!NUE IMPACIS AND CURREHTVIUUS.COMPACI" DEVILOPMENT In theory, cost-revenue impacts and observed differences under current trends versus compact growth depends upon two factors. The first is the ability to influence the type of development. To the degree that dwelling type can be altered by compact versus current development in sub-regional settings, the demographics and the resulting public service costs of development will change. The second important is the ability to influence the intensity and scale of new neighborhoods. If compact development can provide more contained development patterns, infrastructure provision will be Jess. So too will the annual debt service on capital costs for roads, water I sewer


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS lines, and so on, as well as the annual maintenance costs associated with facilities. Also important is the location where development takes place. If located near existing development, exces s service capacity may be drawn upon. If development is skipped over, providing new public service infrastructure will almost always be more expensive than extending existing facilities. In reality, only the second category of influence, relating to the intensity and compactness of new neighborhoods, should be relied heavily upon for areally larger applications of growth management (i.e., at the regional level). With regard to the first category, it is very difficult to influence housing type (and thus, demographics) for an entire state. At the sub-regional level, the ability to influence housing choice leads to the potential export of housing types to other sub-regional areas. In other words, trying to save public service costs by influencing the demographics of occupied structures may drive those who would have occupied the original structures elsewhere to reside (sending up service costs there). What's more, the demographics of the altered housing type may be the same as the first (maintaining high service costs in the original location). In one of the only studies since the 1974 Costs of Sprawl study to view the effects of different development patterns on public service costs, the Rutgers study by Burchell et al used a cost-revenue model to view the effects of current versus compact development. The Rutgers fiscal impact model estimated the number of people, employees, and students that would be attracted by development under different SECnONI S ection I . ;development scenarios and projected future costs versus revenues. While at the regional and state levels, population and employment projections did not vary between alternatives, at the munidpallevel there were significant differences. In the scenariosanalyzed for compact growth, urban communities with slack service capacity received more growth than rural areas with Jesser amounts of public service infrastructure. The reduced infrastructure provision and the potentially reduced annual maintenance on this infrastructure led to more positive fiscal impacts for compact growth. The Burchell study in New Jersey found that: By containing population and jobs in already developed areas and by creating or expanding centers in newly developing areas, the State Plan (compact growth) offered an annual $112 million [or 2 percent) fiscal advantage to municipalities. This advantage reflects the ability under the managed growth scenario to draw on usable excess operating capacity in already developed areas as well as efficiencies of service delivery. For instance, fewer lane-miles of local roads would have to be built under the compact growth alternative, thus saving municipal public works maintenance and debt service costs. Public school districts would reali2e a $286 million (or 2 percent] annual financial advantage under the State Plan, again a reflection of drawing on usable excess public school Jloo "'"""",. cl tM Cosfs of Spoawl-1-'IT


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS operating capacity and other service and fiscal efficiencies realized due to the redirection of population via compact growth. Thus, municipal and school district providers of public services could be ahead fiscally by close to $400 million annually under compact versus current development, while supplying a similar quality of services. Under current development, the State's school districts would have to provide 288..000 pupil spaces to the year 2010 (365,000 gross need less 77..000 usable excess spaces); for compact development, the need was a somewhat lower 278,000 pupil spaces reflecting some excess space in central locations. Overall, if new space had to be built to accommodate all new students, costs of new school facilities would be approximately $5.3 billion under currentdevelopmentaendsand $5.1 billion under compact development. Thus, $200 million [or approximately 3 percent] is potentially saved due to somewhat more excess capacity in closer-in areas being drawn upon by compact growth as opposed to what can be drawn upon by current development trends in suburban and rural areas (Burchell, et. al. 1992b). Summary of DevelopmPallem lmpacb This report has revieWed the literature with regard to compact growth versus SI!CilON I Section I current development trends for public/private capital costs (infra structure requirements/ costs and housing costs), land consumption, and cost-revenue impacts. The most extensive literature concerns public capital needs/ costs. t The empirical investigations with respect to the remaining three subject areas are sparser. The findings may be summarized as follows: 0 CAPITAL {PUBUC INFRASrRUCTURE) COSTS Compact gri1Wth relative to current development is: 75 percent as expensive with respect to roads 95 percent as expensive with respect to schools 85 percent as expensive with respect to utilities at parity with respect to other infrastructure 0 CAPITAL (PRIVATE HOUS!NG) COSTS Compact gr11Wih relatioe to current development: doesn't increase housing costs and, in fact, may afford a small (i.e., less than 6 percent) savings 0 LAND CONSUMP110N Compact gTI1Wfh reliZtive to current development consumes: 40 percent as much land overall 60 percent as much of agricultural acreage and 17 percent the level of &agile lands 0 FIScALIMPACI"S Compact grr1Wth reliZtive to current development: is Jess costly on an annual basis to both municipality and school district by about 2 percent


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS COST-REVENUE IMPACTS OF GROWTH The Coot-Revenue Impact Hierarchy Defining The Fi><:allmpoet Hierarchy Up to now, this literature review has focused on the impact of development patterns on natural (land) and man made (roads, water/sewer) infrastructure as well as public operating costs and private housing costs Public operating costs are more impacted by the type of residential and nonresidential development than they are by the development pattern of either As such, oost-revenue impacts and the technique that estimates them, cost-revenue analysis require special attention Cost-revenue Impacts are the public costs versus revenues associated with land development (Burchell and Listokln 1978). How much does the new land use inaease public service cost& as measured by services to new residents, workers, and school children-versus the increase in revenues from property tax levies on the structUres these people occupy, and non-tax and intergovernmental revenue sources as well? Costs to service people, workers, and school children vary with the size of the facility brought in and with the wealth of the district (Burchell, Listokln, and Dolphin 1993). Larger residential and nonresidential facilities cost a jurisdiction more and wealthier jurisdictions tend to spend more. The form of growth (compact growth versus current development patterns) does not impact public service costs to the degree that structure type, size, and location do. There are some small savings SfCIIONI Sedion I relative to the form of growth which have been discussed previously It is now necessary to review and summarize the cost-revenue impacts of various types of land use whether they are the product of current development trends or compact growth. Generally, some types of land uses are better than others from a cost-revenue perspective Nonresidential land uses, for the most part, have been shown to be superior; most standard forms of residential land uses, inferior (Tab l e I 5) (Burchell and Listokin, 1994a). The fiscal impact hierarchy extends from research office parks at the top to mobile homes at the bottom. Somewhere in the middle are open space lands or undeveloped and unimproved property. The hierarchy takes both costs and revenues into account It shows which land uses, after all costs and revenues are oonsidered, are more profitable than others. It also takes into account the number of districts for which revenues are generated as opposed to the number of districts in which costs occur. In the case of nonresidential uses, costs occur primarily in one district (munidpal) while revenues are generated for two districts (municipal and school). Position on the cost-revenue impact hierarchy depends on type of unit (reflecting size or intensity of use) within both residential and nonresidential classifications. Position also depends on the service district in which it is being viewed. Often, fpr instance, retail facilities or age-restricted housing may be break-even or barely positive or negative in the munidpal service jurisdiction, yet both may be very positive assets in the school district. On the other hand, a garden condominium may be significantly Tloelileratore ol lfle Com of Sprowhl29


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS positive in the school dislrict yet barely positive in the municipal jurisdiction (Burchell and Listokin, 1994a). For the most part although the llltWUnJ of surplus or deficit for a particular land use may vary from district to district, its relative position on the cost-revenue hierarchy rarely varies. The Cott-ltevenue lmpad Hierarchy'-ondAmwen Those opposed to cost-revenue analysis-particularly the cost-revenue impact hierarchy-criticize several aspects of the technique and its res ults in an attempt to downplay its public policy impacts. The arguments fall into six basic areas, which are listed below along with responses to them (Burchell and Listokin, 1994b). Criticism 1: Cost-revenue impacts 11re a produd of their m-oirrmmmt-ioall m>mue procedurt$ tmd IISStSSmmt Influence signijiCilntly Cf)St-rewnue outcomes. Response: Cost-revenue analysis is a product of its environment, and analytic outcomes are affected by the environment. Different tax bases, tax rates, assessment ratios, and costs per capita tend to afft absolute cost revenue outcomes; that is, they affect the level of dollar surplus or deficit associated with a particular type of land use, not the relative effects of one land use versus another. In some municipalities or counties, wherein aa1es or income tax dominate as sources of local revenue, there c:ertainly could be a change in the degree of surplus or deficit of a particular land uae. The outcome would not n ormally cause a change of position in 'the cost-revenue hierarchy. SIC110NI Socl;on I One factor that could cause a change in the hierouchy is the amount of state aid a jurisdiction receives. If the jurisdiction received a significant amount of state aid on a per capita basis, there might be some slight increase in revenue associated with residential uses but probably not a significant change in revenues versus costs. Criticism 2: The questjDn of seanulllry efftcts is always a troubltsOmt f#ue. Secondmy efftcts ar e the Cf)Sts M-Sus m>mues of residentilll derle/opmmtthat oftm follOrDS nonresidmtilll devtlopmmt a nd victvtrSQ. These Cf)Sts are large, seldom tllken into accounJ, and alter the findings with regard to primary efftcts. Response: Few studies trace secondary effects. Those studies that do consistently find that in larger jurisdictions secondary effects play more of a role than they do in smaller jurisdictions. Generally speaking, when secondary effects (both costs and revenues) are tracked, they are found to be relatively small and do not alter the findings with reg;ud to primary effects. Another troublesome issue is the position of land uses relative to a particul;u jurisdiction's boundaries. While the hierarchy would still apply to different land uses in the same jurisdiction, the worst case scenario might be for a local jurisdiction to get the land use that produces a cost revenue debit, while a neighboring jurisdiction secures the land use with the bendjt Criticism 3: What about the quality and lfiUinJity of str11ias ddimr.t 1111! thm any swings? The al1ility to 1toid ""ts doum in


' MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Sectlon I MUNICIPAL BREAK-EVEN . TABLE I-S The Cost-Revenue Hierarchy of Lond Uses . (+). REsEARCH OFFICE PARKS OFFICE PARKS INDUSTRIAL DBVBLOPMENT HIGH-R:rs!!/GARDEN APARTMENTS (5 TIIDI0/1 BEDROOM) AGE-REsnuCJ'ED HOUSING GARDEN CONDOMINIUMS (1-2 B .EDROOMS) OPEN SPACE (-) Rl!rAIL FACILITIES TOWNHOUSES (2-3 BEDROOMS) Exi'ENSIVE SINGU!-FAMILYHOMES (3-4 BEDROOMS) (+) SCHOOL DISTRICT BREAK-EVEN TOWNHOUSES (-) (3-4 BEDROOMS) INEXPENSIVE SINGU!-F AMILY HOMES (4+ BEDROOMS) GARDEN APARTMENTS (3+ BEDROOMS) MOBILE HoMES Nolt: The abovelistcxmtains too many disclaimers to include here. SUffice it to say that cost-revenue impacts always must be viewed to IN! oontext of other properties' impado in IN! jurisdiction of development. On IN! above lls.t, IN! higher IN! position the more positive the illlpact. SfCIIONI Thelilwafwo ollllo Com of Sp......r-l-31


MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS the face of swelling revenues is rnmexistent-so there are really no savings, just more or less services associaled with ane type of lilnd use versus another. Response: Given a cost-revenue surplus, will there be savings or is this a signal to spend more locally? Unfortunately, in the face of increased revenues, communities tend to spend more than if they are operating in a situation of revenue depletion. Yet the increases in service are usually deemed necessary and in the long run probably contribute to an enhanced quality of life. Often the expenditures are held in reserve until a revenue surplus becomes available. Absent the surpluses, the service extensions may never occur. Rich communities offer a vast array of public services. In a 1990 Princeton University study on factors associated with increases in quality of life over time in communities (better schools, less crime, stable housing value, more recreation facilities, and so on), those communities experiencing positive increases in their tax bases were associated with positive increases in the indices measuring quality of life Criticism 4: The per azpita, average costing approach is too simplistic to provide an accurate statement of costs. Study results are skewed by emp/Qying this most dominant method. Response: Most of the analyses undertaken today use an average costing, per capita technique. For any single development the accusation that this is too crude a measure to gauge local costs may be Seenc>NI Section I true. At this level, marginal costing may better portray the true impact. In the long run, however, it has been shown that average costing is an accurate assessment of relative costs, and decent indices of per unit costs have been developed. Marginal costing is always less than adequate in the ''tipping point" type of situation; that is, where a facility is developed locally and causes more than its share of costs. The developer of that facility will not allow a greater charge than an appropriate share of costs, nor will a town council, in a situation of considerable excess service capacity, be convinced that there are only nominal costs when a facility develops. Thus, regardless of its simplicity, the employment of average costing techniques is both increasing and increasingly well received. Criticism 5: Difficult hut significant rmmues receiue insu.fficimt attention. Intergwernmental rmmues and special districts are tm2ted superficially in rmmue calculations, thus limiting accurate fiscal impact results. Res!:>onse: Special districts and intergovernmental revenues do not receive adequate treatment. lhis is certainly the case for modest cost revenue analyses although, as more effort is spent on these analyses, the revenue portion of the fiscal equation becomes both more significant and vastly improved. Two points are in defense of the status quo. First, with regard to special districts, these districts are created to raise money for a particular purpose which often directly reflects user need. The discretion built into a special district budget, because it is supported by rate payers, is much less than it is in the municipal or school


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS ::::: district budget. Thus, costs and revenues are theoretically very close, and situations where costs significantly to development, are infrequent. Second, with regard to intergovernmental transfers; local residents and board members focus on local revenues and usually not on revenues transferred from state and federal levels. Revenue transfers, except in hardship situations (municipal and school aid) are often on a per capita or per pupil base and increase proportionately with growth. nus latter calculation is a relatively easy one and is usually handled correctly Criticism 6: Ccst-revenue analysis is influenced by 1M client and sponsor, and its outccme often reflects their individual interests. Response: Cost-revenue analysis is often affected by the client. nus does not. mean that the analyst is co-opted by the client or that methods and procedures are purposel y abused. What it does mean is that the development product to be analyzed is shaped by the client in light of estimated cost-revenue outcomes, and this shaping of development in tum affects the results of the final costrevenue analysis Knowing that a project will be analyzed for costs and revenues causes the developer to specify a somewhat different development product. Knowing that a project must pass cost revenue scrutiny may make a municipality choose assessment ratios Obiously in dlc aulysis to c:ome there will be no priori tboploa of allemalive de>elop1110ot s=mos toelftcld01irod outcomes by Recgcrs Uaiverrity. Miehlpn State University, SEMCOG, orotbct&. SECilON I Section I that reflect average versus the most current prices Neither practice is wrong; each anticipates a cost -revenue analysis and, alternately, attempts to portray e ither the developer or the municipality in the most favorable light. The Impact of the Criticisms on the Cost-Rev.nue Hierarchy To recap, the various criticisms of cost revenue analysis that tend to chip away at the concept of a cost-revenue hierarchy are: 1) the impact of local conditions on the cost-revenue analysis implies that the hierarchy is far from universal; 2) secondary effects potentially shift the internal order within the hierarchy; 3) a lack of real savings--just more and varied services-could point to the futility of all such types of cost-revenue categorization of land uses; 4) simplistic cost calculations tmdermine the hierarchy's foimdation; 5) as does the failure to trace and calculate difficult revenues; and 6) there is a feeling that results either are compromised by, or significantly reflect client interests Field practice indicates an improvement over time in methods, analytic calculations, and the accuracy and honesty of analysis. Within this improved set of working conditions, cost-revenue methods and the hierarchy have largely remained intact nus improvement has led to better and more easily reviewed analyses and less encompassing and globally stated findings and conclusions. I t has also led to a critique format for cost-revenue analysis of the following form (Burchell and Listokin. 1994a):


MJO!JGAN FISCAl IMPACTS Site of the analysis--have the specific costand reuenuegenerating features of the politicJll jurisdiction been correctly interpreted? Are methods approprillte to the task and etmectly chosen? Have all costs been traced and tabulated correctly? Are all revenues calculated, and does their prediction method accurately reflect their flaw Has the scale of the impacts relative to existing budgets been stated? How large is the fiscal surplus or deficit? Is the finding consistent with other findings for similar types of land uses in similar settings? If unique, do circumstances justify the uniqueness of the finding? Is it citilT tJuzt the rost-revmue analyst understands and knows the field well enough to underlaloz the analysis and draw approprilzte conciusions? Are the statements that portray the results of the analysis consistent with what was found in the anal ? ys.s. Is the p!Jlcement of this partiadar finding within the conste/JJltUm of other findings COTI'eCIIy done? Is there a commonsense Wgic to the outcome of the analysis? Has a financilll utopiJZ been found in a particular developmeni prqposal or, on the other hand, have we come $fC!lONI upon a fiscal abyss related to forthcoming development? S......l Thus, cost-revenue analysis, in part responding to the criticisms and shortfalls and in part maturing on its own. is now a well-founded and accepted technique of public finance evaluation. In the process, however, local practitioners have sought to use the hierarchy as a "magic bullet" for land use planning. Because certain types of land uses have been shown to be better financially, they have been chosen over other land uses. As a result, the basics of monitoring, spending, and balancing c:os1s and revenues as a component of prudent fiscal practices has largely been forgotten. High Property Tax .. ..,d eo ............. Concem High property taxes generate concern. High property taxes generally indicate a significant array of public services or a stagnant or declining tax base. Otten different types of land uses (primarily nonresidential) are solid ted to "cure" the tax problem. Almost as often the tax problem is not cured. This failure is due to the fact that the magnitude of the problem (that is, the vast array of public services or the decline of the tax base) is bigger than a single or a string of individual land uses can begin to reverse. Lower taxes are brought about by decreasing the quality and quantity of public services, performing services for others for a fee, or sharing the c:os1s of services. They are usually not brought about by chasing elusive nonresidential or specialty residential uses (retirement communities or vacation homes).


MICHIGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS Cost-Revenue Concerns and the . Selection of Land Uses Cost-revenue concerns often determine what type of land uses are selected in a community. Usually low-bedroom residential and nonresidential land uses are preferred. While these types of land uses have a measurably positive tax effect, the best way to reduce taxes is to limit public services. The tax rate of an area has a strong correlation with the quantity and quality of its public services. Educated and wealthy populations usually demand a signifi cant range and depth of public services. This appetite for publjc services must be curbed before true savings can be realized by the community. Infrastructure Set-Asidu One of the most naive but prevalent practices on the part of local officials is the failure to put away money for a "rainy'' day. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of public infrastructure. Infrastructure does not last forever; it. must regularly be checked and maintained. Occasionally, it must be replaced. Very little of this monitoring and repair happens at the local level. Accordingly, most local infrastructure (bridges, water/sewer systems, public bus/train stations, in particular) are in a dreadful state of repair. These systems are so worn down that daily use may cause them to fail. Further, if unanticipated growth does take place in the jurisdictions these systems usually cannot be upgraded without substantial replacement to accommodate this growth. The premature failure of one component of infrastructure can mean pervasive undermaintenance of all systems. Undermaintenance usually SECOONI Section I means insufficient resources set aside for these purposes. Establi1hecl Communities: Where Costs Are Coming From High tax rates in established, slow growing communities are seldom attributed to existing residents. The newcomers are villains and usually taxed as such. Yet the reality is that small changes in the sodoeconomic characteristics of a large number of existing households produce significant changes in the cost of local government For instance, just a small inaease in the number of school children per unit could place significant demands on the local school system. This rnay correlate in better communities with above average school systems, unique housing stocks, or pleasant physical settings. In declining communities it may be attributable to the decreasing occupancy of housing in these communities. Whatever the situation, the hidden cost of inaeased public services is often due to change in the occupant characteristics of the existing housing stock. Cumulative VeriUIIndlvldual Effectl There is a cumulative effect of growth that encompasses the succession effects of individual land uses Residential development spawns nonresidential development and vice versa. Thus, even though a jurisdiction rnay attract more profitable land uses through one form of zoning, invariably another zone may receive development of another type that may be more of a fiscal drain. While secondary fiscal effects of primary growth are usually small compared to primary effects, they are present and must be accounted for. The reality is that profitable nonresidential land uses


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS also may come "bundled" with less profitable residential land uses. CONCLUSION lhis section has sought to present what the literature has found concerning the costs of two alternative growth patterns (current development versus compact growth) and to answer additional questions about the impacts of various types of land uses. Of particular significance is the finding that a group of citizens making decisions about future public policy, by choosing compact growth, could potentially reduce land consumption and road building in their living environment by orders of magnitude of 60 percent and 25 percent, respectively (see Table 1). These are very significant societal accomplishments by any measure. Ongoing operating costs for roads and infrastructure might also be reduced if a community's capital commitments were ultimately diminished. Additionally, by preserving land in the process of development, under compact growth, there is less need to acquire land for parks and recreation as it becomes less plentiful and more costly (see Table 1). Finally, by containing development around existing centers, these centers might be maintained as healthier entities, better able to pay their taxes in full. All of this could oontnbute to lower taxpayer costs in the region. With regard to the second issue of cost revenue impacts of alternative land uses, the cost-revenue hierarchy consisting of lightly occupied, high value research factories at the top and ,. SECTION I Se

, MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Audirac, I., A H. Shermyen, and M. ,T. Smith. 1990. "Ideal Urban Form and Visions of the Good Ufe: Florida's Growth Management Dilemma." Joumal of the American Planning AsSiation 56 470-482. Baldassare, Mark. 1986. Trouble in ParadiS

MICHI GAN FISCAL IMPACTS Burchell Robert W., et al. 1992b. Impact Assessment af 1M New Jersey Interim State Develupment and Redevelupment Plan, Report III: Supplemental AIPLAN Assessment. Report prepared for New Jersey Office of State Planning, Trenton. April30. Calthorpe, Peter G. 1993. The Next American Metropolis. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cervero, Robert. 1986 Gridlock New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Coughlin, Robert E., and John C. Keene. 1981. The Protection af Farmland: A Reference Guidebook ftn' State and Local Governments. Study prepared for the National Agricultural Lands Study. Amherst, MA: Regional Science Research Institute. Crane, Randall. 1994. Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Tnroel in Planning. Jounud af the American Planning Association 60 Dahl, T.E., 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States: 1780s-1980s. Washington, DC: U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Delaware Estuary Program. 1995. Comprehensive Consemztion and Management Plan. January. Dougharty, L.A., et aL 1975. Municipal Seroice Pricing Impact on Fiscal Position. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Downs, Anthony. 1989. The Nted ftn' tl New Vision ftn' the Derlelupment af I S!CIION I s.ctlon I LArge U S Metropolitan Areas. New York: Salomon Brothers. August. Downs, Anthony. 1994. New Visions for Metrupolitan America. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute and The Brookings Institution. Duncan, James, et al. 1989. The Sl!ll1'Ch ftn' Efficient Urban Growth Patterns. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Community Affairs. Dyckman, John W. 1976. "Speculations on Future Urban Form.." Working Paper, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research. BCONorthwest. June 1994. Emluation af and Slaw-Growth Policies. Eugene. OR Ewing, R 1995. Best Develupment Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Milking Money at the Same Time. Chicago: American Planning Association. Fannie Mae. 1992, 1994. Suroey of Residential Satisfaction of Housing Occupants. Fischel, W. A. 1990. "Do Growth Controls Matter?' Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy May. Frank, James E. 1989. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A RerJiew af the Literature. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Gans, Herbert, J. Kasarda, and H. Molotch. 1982. "Symposium: The State of the Nation's Oties."


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACT.S Garreau_ Joel. 1991. Edge City: Ufe on the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday. Giuliano, Genevieve. 1995. The Weakening Transportation-Land-Use Omnection. Access 6 (Spring): 3-11. Goldberg, Michael A, and John Mercer. 1986. The Myth of the North American City. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1989. Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Reply. Journlll of the American Planning Association 55: 342-46. Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1994a. ''Sustainable Congestion," in J. Brotchie, ed., Cities in Competition: The Emergence of Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century. Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson.1994b. Geographic Factors Explaining Worktrip Length Clumges. Prepared for the US. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Gordon, Peter, Harry W. Richardson, and Myung-Jin Jun. 1991. The Commuting Paradox: Evidence from the Top Twenty. Journal of the American Planning Association 57: 416-420. Greene, David L. and Donald N. Jones. 1995. The Full Costs and Benefits of Transportation: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Hartshorn, Truman A, and Peter 0. Muller. 1992. "The suburban downtown and urban economic development today." In Edwin S. SEC110NI Section I Mills and John F McDonald (eds.), Sources of Metropolitan Growth. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Herson, Lawrence J. R. 1992. "The New Suburbanization: Challenge to the Central City." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 522, 184. Isard, Walter, and Robert E. Coughlin. 1957. Municipal Costs and Revenues Resulting from Growth. Wellesley, MA: Chandler-Davis. Jackson, Kenneth T. 1976. "The Effect o f Suburbanization on the Cities." In P. Dolce, ed., Suburbia: The American Drt12m and Dilemma. Garden City, NY. I

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Michigan Society of Planning Officials. 1995. Patterns on the lAnd: Our Choices-Our Future. Rochester, Michigan. Mills, David E. 1981 "Growth, Speculation, and Sprawl in a Monooentric City." Journal of Urban Economics 10: 201-26. Mills, Edwin S., and John F. McDonald. 1992. "Editors' introduction." In Edwin S. Mills and John F. McDonald (eds. ), Source s of Metropolitan Growth. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Muller, Peter 0. 1981. Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Muller, Peter 0. 1986. "Transportation and Urban Form: Stages in the Spatial Evolution of the American Metropolis. In Susan Hanson (ed.), Geography of Urban Transpm-ltl tion. New York: Guilford Press. Nelessen, Anton C. 1994. Visions for" New American Drtam: Proct8S, Principles, and Rn Ordina:nce to Plan and Design Small Urban Communities Nelson, A. C. 1992. "Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons &om Oregon." Journal of the American Planning AssociRtion 58: 471-88. New Jersey State Planning Commission. 1991. Communilies of Pilla: The Interim State Develapment lltfd Redeuelapmmt Plan for the SIRte of New Jersey. July. SfcnoNI Soclion I Ohls, James C., and David Pines. 1975. "Discontinuous Urban Development and Economic Efficiency." lAnd Economics 3 (August): 224-34. Parsons Brinckerhoff and ECONorthwesl Forthcoming 1 996 A Frmneworlcfor Ewluating the Impacts of Alternative Urban Forms. Washington, DC. Peiser, Richard B 1989 "Density a n d Urban Sprawl." lAnd Economics 65: 1 93-204. Peterson, George E., and Wayne Vroman (eds.) 1992. "Foreword." Urban lAbar Mlrkets lltfd Job Opportunities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Real Estate Research Cotporation 1974. The Costs of Sprawl: Environmental lltfd Economic Costs of Alternmve ResidentiJll Develapmmt Patterns at the Urban Fringe. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Resource Management Consultants, Inc. (RMQ. 1989. Development in Wright County, Minnesota: Cost Revenue Relationship. Minneapolis, MN: RMC, Inc. July. Richardson, Harry W., and Peter Gordon. 1993. "Market Planning: Oxymoron o r Common Sense?" Journal of the American P/Qnning Association 59: 347-52. Schneider Mark. 1989. The Competitive City: The Politiall Economy of Su/Turbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.


MICHIGAN F ISCAliMPACfS Schwartz, S L, D. E Hansen, and R. Green. 1981. "Suburban Growth Controls and the Price of. New Housing. ftmrnal of Environmental Economics and Management 8 (December): 303-20. Schwartz, S. I., P. M. Zorn, and D. E. Hansen. 1989. "Research Design Issue and Pitfalls in Growth Control Studies. Land &:onomics 65 (February): 87-88. Siemon, Larsen and Purdy. 1990. Crossroads: Two Growth Alternatives for Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach (VA) Growth Management Study. Chicago, Illinois. Steiner, Bill. 1992 "The Future of Downtowns: I ssues to Consider As We Approach 2001." SmAll Town (November-December). Stemlieb, George, and W. Patrick Beaton. 1972. The Zone of Emergence: A Case Study of Plainfield, New Jersey. Tischler&: Associates, Inc. 1 994. Marginal Cost Analysis of Growth Alternatives-King County, Washington. Bethesda, MD. SlCIIONI Section I Vermont (State of). 1988 Vt. Stat. Ann. 24 Wheaton, William L and Morton J. Schussheim. 1955. The Cost of Municipal Services in Residential Areas. Washington, D.C : US. Deparbnent of Commerce. Windsor, Duane. 1979 "A Critique of The Costs o f Sprawl." Journal of the American Planning Association 45 (March): 279-92 York, Marie L. 1989. Encouraging Compact Development in Florida. Florida Atlantic University-Florida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Zorn, P. M D. E. Hansen, and S. L Schwartz. 1986. "Mitigating the Price Effects of Growth Control: A Case Study of Davis, California. Land Economics 62 (February): 47-57. llle I.Heroture ol llle Co"' of Sp"""-l-41


SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS IN MICHIGAN AND THE S1UDY COMMUNITIES: EMPLOYMENT GROWTH 1990.2020 Ipfln Oet'nt 31J,SfJ -111,116 M-'I1,J.U Wt ;, .... u,611 ow.."'" TalllcllonF -:10.101S,OOIIO:ZO,OOO :1.001 IOS.IOO -8102,1110 Source: MSPO. 1995. Palf

MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS r. INTRODUCJION This section, Section Two, will docwiiertt and discuss current and proj ected growth trends in Michigan and a representative group of case study communities. These communities are given more detailed discussion of trends and development patterns il) Seclion Titre.! as a prelude to the modeling effort and results that will constitute Stdion Four of the study. This section of the study covers: an overview of Michigan growth trends at the state, region, and county levels; a more detailed discussion of the regions projected to be the focus of significant growth and development within Michigal\; the selection of 18 representative communities for study; and growth trends and projections in these selected communities. The primary analysis of growth centers around population, household, and employment trends and Information contained here draws on the Michigan Society of Planning Officials' working papers on Dmwgraphic Trnuis (August 1995), Jobs & Built Errvirrmmmt (August 1995), TnmsportRticm Trends (August 1995), and Water, Sewer and Other Jnfrllstructure Tmuls (August 1995) Other works, such as the Policy Choices series (1993, 1995) &om Michigan State University and Michigtln Beyond 2000 (1987) from the Hudson Institute, were also analyzed. The study further employs US. Census data and projections summarized by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, University of Midligan Institute of Labor Relations, the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. of Lansing, Michigan, and the State of Michigan Department of Managi!ment and Budgel, Sfc:now II $fd!on ll STATIWIDflUNDS AND JIROJICJIONS Overview Michigan as a midwestern state is one of the most important industrial areas of the United States. Metropolitan Detroit is home t o the domestic plants of Ford. General Motors, and Chrysler, all of which have undergone significant modernization during the early 1990s. Michigan is the twentythird largest state in physical area, eighth largest in population, ninth largest in gt9SS state product, and seventh in functional highway mileage. Ninety-seven percent of Michigan's population resides in the state's Lower Peninsula, and three percent resides in the Upper Peninsula. Seventy percent of the state population lives in communities of population slze greater than 2,500. These locations are designated urban by the U.S. Census. Similarly, 80 percent of the population Jives in one of the state's nine metropolitan areas (these locations are designated metropolitan by the U.S. Census-i.ev areas having economic, political, and travel linkages to large cities). Popularion The State of Michigan's population increased steadily &om the early 18003 to 1970, grew slowly during the 1970s, and appears to have stabilized over the period 1980 to 1990 at about 9.3 rnillion. The slow rate of growth during the last lD-15 years is due to out> migration of a share of the working and elderly populations to jobs and retirement in the sunbelt (MSPO 199Sa). The state's 198().1990 aggregat e population growth rate was less than 0.5%.


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS In 1995, Michigan was home to 9.5 million people, as shown in Table n-1. Detroit, the state' s largest city, is located in the eastern portion of the southern Lower Peninsula and has a 1995-1996 population of nearly one million. Several other major cities in Michigan, with populations of 100,000 to 200,000, are also located in either the central or southern Lower Peninsula. These are Grand Rapids, Flint, Warren, Lansing, Sterling Heights, Ann Arbor, and Livonia. W ithin the central and southern Lower Peninsula, population has been shifting from cities to suburbs over the past 30 years. With the exception of Ann Arbor and Sterling Heights, where it has increased, and Detroit, where it has decreased rapidly, population in these larger cities has generally declined slowly during the period, while communities on the cities' fringes have experienced population growth (MSPO 1995a). Rural communities in the Lower Peninsula also have experienced notable population growth (MSPO 1995a). The central and southern parts of the Lower Peninsula contain both the state's industrial and agricultural belts. The northern part of the J.,ower Peninsula and the Upper PeninSula are worlds apart from industrial southern Michigan Thousands of lakes and rivers, deep forests, and abundant wildlife characterize the northern portion of the state. The northern Lower Peninsula counties are experiencing some of the greatest relative population increases nus surge is due to both natural increase and migration but is dominated by the latter. Ninety percent of Michigan's 83 counties experienced growth due to natural inaease. All but four counties in the northwest Upper Peninsula, three counties in the northeast Lower Peninsula, and Lake County had more births than deaths SKIION II j s.ction II from 1980 to 1990. On the other hand, more than 60 percent of Michigan's counties experienced net out-migration. Thus, much of what happens in Michigan is a function of this latter variable and much of it affects the southern part of the state. Future trends indicate the following with regard to migration (Bynum Grumman, 1993): Industrial counties in southern Michigan will continue to experience net out-migration. Counties in the northern Lower Peninsula with leisure/recreation as their major activity will receive net in-migration. Counties in the Upper Peninsula will experience both in-migration related to retirees in the eastern portion. and out-migration related to continued decline of the industrial base in the western portion. State population projections for 2020 vary from a low of 10.4 million to a high of 10.6 million. The Michigan Department of Management and Budget (DMB) projects an aggregate 30-year growth rate of 12% for a total population of 10.4 million people by 2020; the University of Michigan projects a slightly higher aggregate growth rate of 13% over this period, with a total population of nearly 10.5 million by 2020 (MSPO 199Sa). In its Demographic Trtnds working paper, the Michigan Society of Planning Officials (MSPO) supports the DMB population projection of 10.4 million (MSPO 1995a). Using the DMB projections for the northern and western parts of the state in conjunction with the most recent projections by the Southeast Michigan


1111 r. I, 1.' l I I l f l f t i: !Total Populatlo a Total Household& Elllploymeal Empt.oymelll BYSector Manufacl1srlag Who l esal o/Retall Sel"rrorTocaJ Rank G rowth %of Total Raak %of Total\ Raak 30.4 I 24.7 I 20.0 3 -11.7% 18.1 3 20.0 2 21.0 3 22.7 2 51.9% 23.3 2 16.6 3 2 1.1 2 26.6 I 114.6% 29.2 I 14. 8 4 15.6 4 13.8 4 25.0% 13.0 4 5.9 s 6.4 5 6.4 5 46.6% 6.5 s 4.6 6 4.3 6 4 6 6 32.6% 4.3 6 4.5 7 4.1 7 3.7 7 11.2 % 3.5 7 3.2 8 2.9 8 2.3 8 .3% 2.2 8 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 4 .2% 100 0 ----------------------1994 Ciry and CoWity Data Book; SEMCOO projections; Michigan Society of Planning Officials' Demog"'f'hic Tnnds Wonl:lng P

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Council of Governments (SEMCOG) for southeast Michigan results in a state population of 10.6 million by 2020, or a 14.3% overall growth rate for the period 1990-2020. These are the projections that will be used in this study. While these projections at first blush appear high, the most recent U.S. Census estimates have Michigan at 9,485,000 in 1993, and Series A projections show a growth of 275,000 from 1993 to 2000 and an average of 310,000 per decade from 2000 to 2020 This correlates with the 10.4 million, and more recent building permit data from SEMCOG communities lend credence to the 10.6 million figure. The MSPO's Demographic Trends working paper further finds that population density is lower in the newer growth areas because new homes are being oonstructed on increasingly larger lots. Older cities in Michigan were built to a residential density of 5.5 dwelling units per acre; the current trend in suburban developments Is toward a density in new subdivisions of 1.3 dwelling units per acre. Density outside of subdivisions, largely in unincorporated areas, is about 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres (MSPO 1995a). The regional population trends identified in MSPO' s Demographic Trends are surnmariz.ed below: Southeast Michigan the Grand Rapids, and the Traverse Oty areas will experience significant population increases, with Southeast Michigan gaining the most people. The largest rate of population growth will occur in the northern portion of the Lower SrcnoNII Peninsula due to an in migration of retirees. Section II Population density will fall in large central cities and older suburbs but rise in new suburbs and rural areas across most of the Lower Peninsula The proportion of people over age 65 will continue to grow statewide. Households Table ll-1 shows household growth in Michigan. The number of households in Michigan is growing much more rapidly than the population. Data provided by the Planning &: Zoning Center, Inc., of Lansing, Ml (PZC) and SEMCOG shows the number of households in Michigan grew by 7%, from 3.2 to 3.4 million, from 1980-1990. Based on these same souroes, the state had approximately 3.5 million households in 1995, and will increase to 4.2 million households by 2020. This represents a household growth rate of 20% over the 25-year period. The growth rate for number of households has been highe&t in communities around Detroit and Grand Rapids, and in the northern portion of the Lower Peninsula (MSPO 1995a). Households will continue to increase faster than population due to the continued strong growth of oneand two-person households (MSPO 1995a). Reflecting the above, although the number of households in Michigan has been steadily increasing, the number of persons per household has been declining. Census data show the number of persons per household was 3.4 in 1950 and 1960, peaked at 3.5 in 1970, then declined to 2.8ln 1980 and 2.7 in 1990 (MSPO 1995a) Based on data and projections provided by the PZC,


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS household size is projected to decline to 2.5 by 2020. ""' Employment In recent years, Michigan's employment has been growing rapidly (see Table Ill). The 1980 job base of 4.0 million in 1980 grew to 4.7 million in 1990 and has increased to an estimated 4.9 million in 1995. Over the next 25 years, the number of jobs is projected to stabilize at about 5 6 million. These figures are based on 1980 and 1990 data from the Michigan Employment Security Commission and 2010 projections by the University of Michigan Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations reported in ]ohs & the Built Environment (MSPO 1995b). The non-Detroit portion of Southeast Michigan, generally, as well as the suburbs of Traverse City and Grand Rapids, have experienced the most extensive employment increases. More than 80% of the state's 1980 to 1990 job increase was located in counties north of Wayne County (Detroit) in the Southeast Michigan Region (MSPO 1995b). A significant portion of the state's future job growth is projected to take place around Traverse City; Detroit, and Grand Rapids. As the number of jobs increases, the state is experiencing changes not only in the locus but also in the type of jobs that are being created. Throughout Michigan jobs are shifting from cities to suburbs and rural areas. Employment is further shifting from the manufacturing to the service sector. In 1970, the manufacturing sector employed the most people (30%); in 1990, the service sector employed the most people (27%) (MSPO, 1995b). Wholesale/retail employment,at about 23% in 1990, grew slightly over the period. Manufacturing declined significantly to 20%. Almost all of manufacturing's 12 SEc:noH II Section II percent point loss in share of i!mployment was picked up by the growth in services. Manufadurlng Manufacturing currently accowtts for more than 28 percent of Michigan's gross state product. Transportation equipment, machinery, fabricated metals, food products, chemicals, paper products, and sporting goods are the state's primary manufactured goods. Heavy industry is concentrated mainly in the central and southern Lower PeninSula, with Detroit the leading industrial city (although of declining Importance). Detroit produces automobiles, metals, machinery and machine tools, as well as smaller quantities of railway cars, chemicals, drugs, auto upholstery, and food products. Saginaw is another industrial center specializing in foundries and machine shops. Battle Creek is important for food processing and cereals, Grand Rapids and Muskegon for furniture, I

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS robotics, automobile employment has dropped considerably. In 1970, U.S. automobiles had an 80% share of the domestic market, a figure that decreased to 60% by 1990. Further, during the past 15 years, other manufacturing jobs have been dispersing throughout the state. "The non-automobile manufacturing sector has been shifting from large-scale operations in urban areas to smaller scale facilities in suburban and rural communities. This has led t o a shrinking tax base for previously strong areas such as Wayne County, Saginaw County, and the cities of Detroit, Dearborn, Pontiac, and Flint. Senoicu The service industry is the fastest growing employment sector in Michigan; this type of employment doubled in suburban counties during the period 1980 to 1990. By the mid 1980s, the number of people employed in services exceeded the number employed in manufacturing. Currently, services account for 70 percent of the gross state product. Growth in this industry is expected; it is projected to grow more rapidly than other industries in the state. Locations of most rapid service growth have been Oaldand, Grand Traverse, and Ottawa counties. The bulk of service industry employment is in health care and related services (35%), followed by business services (17%). The growth of services has resulted in substantial amounts of nonresidential construction in primarily suburban locations. Wholuole/Retall Employment in the wholesale trades has been expanding rapidly, particularly in Oakland and I

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS employment has increased in counties with the largest growth in population and employment; it has decreased lit'' Detroit and counties with W:ge urban areas. Significant growth in construction employment occurred in southeast Michigan counties, especially Macomb, Lapeer Livingston, and Shiawasee The share of employment in public transportation, communications, and utilities decreased from 4 5% in 1970 to 3 7% in 1990. However, employment in these sectors has been generally increasing, especially in those counties that have experienced the greatest gains in population Wayne, Macomb Oakland, Kent, and Ingham counties showed significant growth in this eniployment category. Employment in forestry, agriculture, and fisheries represents about 2.2"k and showed linle absolute change during the 1980.1990 decade. Northern Michigan counties showed the largest percentage increases, but the greatest absolute employment gains occurred in Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties in Southeast Michigan. Losses were evident in smaller rural counties throughout the state. Future Emp loyment Trends The Michigan Society of Planning Offidals identified the following pertinent future state employment trends in its Jobs & the Built Environment working paper (1995b): Total employment will increase with decreases in urban communities and increases in suburban and rural areas, particularly those surroWtding existing urban centers. SfcnONII Sedion II Fringe counties l ocated between metropolitan areas and along major interstates will experience significant new job growth. The importance of the service .industry will continue to grow. Retail business will continue its trend, moving away from growth in downtown areas and shopping malls toward growth in fringe area superstores and discount retailers The demand for office space will continue to show an increase in Southeast Michigan subwbs Manufacturing establishments will downsize and diversify and will continue to disperse from wban areas. REG IONAL TRENDS AND PROJECfiONS Sum mary of 14 Stat e Re gion s Michigan's 83 counties are grouped into 14 geographic regions. Each region has formed a coundl of governments or a planning commission to help coo r dinate planning and deliver public services within the region. Figure 1 shows the l ocations of the counties and regions, as well as the regional planning entities. Recent and projected growth trends for the counties, by region, are shown in Tables ll-2 (population), ll-3 (households), and ll-4 (employment). Popu lation Table Il-2 shows past and projected population by county and region. Past


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS I 694,600 I 134,6$9 I 1,011,793 I 138,802 I %64,740 I 2.,337,843 2 151,495 2 119,881 23,822 19,9:57 7 40,448 7 36.459 7 28,349 7 54.110 7 73)78 7 16,436 7 16,374 7 228,o59 7 7 51,815 -,506 36,961 47.S55 18,928 157,174 SKnONII TABLEBl r..-o By C.W.ty ADd Jt.ajoo (IlliG, 1990, :1010,%0:10, ADd Clw>J<) 717,AOO 832.,477 884.222 133.600 IS4.867 164.788 1,083)92 1,272.,192 l,359,s./i 145,607 182..766 199.160 282,937 340,274 373.362 2.111,687 1,992,302 1,961.3S3 111,723 98)20 91.918 24,952 32.105 35.682 21,896 27,470 30,257 38,982 37,723 37,093 34,931 31.102 29.178 30.209 31,740 32.505 54.624 60.482 63,411 75,6$1 86.092 91.312 U.681 26,751 30,786 19.776 28.350 32.637 211.946 197-'86 190.406 39,928 42,712 44,104 55,498 54.868 54)53 57,024 62,025 64)26 500,631 615,862 673,471 37.308 44,608 48,251 53,o59 63.353 68-'00 20,146 %2..631 23,874 187.768 271.114 312,787 Sedion II %2..800 166,822 31,188 71,799 276.254 S3,S53 18,197 90,425 (226,156) (150,334) (8,158) 1.130 10,730 1,939 8.361 (1,466) (1,889) (1-'08) (5,773) 1.860 2,296 514 8,787 2.073 15.661 2.245 3.402 12,861 (16,113) (21,540) (861) 4,176 (1,463) (945) 5.209 7)02 56.125 172,847 347 10.950 5.so4 15.441 1.218 3,728 30,594 125.019


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 32.315 20.649 9.465 7,492 6,858 14,993 14,267 11,205 19,901 22,992 54,899 10.952 14,007 23,019 10.009 25.102 TABLE UZ(CODtillad) PO{Milallcm By Co1mty and Reci<>D (1980, Cbaap) 29.602 29.1 00 24,019 25,330 18,135 21.on 13,997 16,527 11,395 13,172 29.086 34,651 13,681 13,650 12,200 15.540 21,468 28,229 31,609 25 040 30.890 33,815 64,273 87.672 99,371 13,497 18.703 21,306 16,527 19,804 21,442 21,265 20,488 20,100 12,147. 16,225 18,264 26,360 28,110 28,985 (1,710) 749 2.795 1,444 984 2.964 (524) 995 1,561 2,()48. 9.374 2.545 2,520 (1,754) 2,138 (1,167) 1.490 (3,214) (1,281) (273) 5 .010 10,141 8.775 35,098 7,809 4 ,915 (1,165) 6,117 2,625 (3,206) 1,492 (4,012) (8,529) (380) (5,488) 2,850 (2,484) (499) (1,823) Notes: Region 1 numbers for 2020 are SBMCOG. Regioos 2 tbroqb 14 projccdoos for 2020 fn>m 1994 Mkblpo Dqlor1meol of Managemeat & lludpl; projccdoos for 2010 io!ttpOw.d. 1994 City and Couoty Dala Book, SEMCOO projeaio.,.. and MicltJPo Society ofPlamWig Official$' O....Ogrophic T>eod.r Worting Pop

MICHIGA!\1 FISCAL IMPACTS population figures have been obtained from the U.S. Census for 1980 and 1990 Future projections for the Southeast Michigan Region (Region 1 ) were obtained from SEMCOG For the other 13 regions, future population figures were taken from tables developed by the Michigan Department of Management and Budget and are found in Demographic Trends (MSPO, 1995a) The Grand Rapids, Alpena, Traverse City, and Sault Ste. Marie Regions (Regions 8, 9, 10, and 11) had the fastest rate5 of population growth during the period 1980 to 1990. Their growth rates ranged from 6 to 13% over the deade. Future projections prepared by SEMCOG and the Michigan Department of Management and Budget show that the fastest future growth will also OttUr in these same four regions Each will experience population growth rates ranging from 34 to 46% f o r the period 1990 to 2020. Southeast Michigan, Jackson, l

MICHIGAN FISCAl I MPActS Sec6on II Figure D l. Michigan Regions Michigan Regions I. Southeast Michigan Region 2. Jackson Region 3 Kalamazoo Region 4 St. Joseph Region 5. flint Region 6. Lansing Region 7. Saginaw Region 8. Grand Rapids Region 9. Alpena Region 10. Traverse City Region 11. Sault Sie. Marie Region 12. Marquette Region 13. Ironwood Region 14 Muskegon Region SEa!ONII


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS SlcnoN II 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 TABLED.:! Ho-By Cotmcy IUld RfCioo ODd Cbma<) Section II Soc:W..con oie T,..._"' M.lchigar ...G.,.. StW, Ca .,.ili..,.ll-1 2


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS 10 10 10 Traverse 10 10 10 10 10 10 14 TABLE D-3 (-IIAodl Hoasebolcls By County and Re;ioo u9so, 1990, Jfli Noteo: Region I projc

MICHIGAN fiSCAL IMPACTS rate. Households increased by only 1.5% from 1980 to 1990; the projected household growth rate from 1990 to 2020 is only 4.4%. Employment Employment trends in the counties are shown in Table U-4. Once again, the Grand Rapids, Alpena, Traverse City, and Sault Ste. Marie Regions (Regions 8, 9, 10, and 11) are projected to show the fastest rates of growth. Growth rates for employment in these regions from 1990 to 2020 are projected to range from 31 to 37"/o. The second fastest rates of growth are projected for the Kalamazoo and Ironwood Regions (Regions 3 and 13), with rates of employment growth ranging from 21 to 23%. All of these growth rates are higher than the projected state average of 19.2% for aggregate employment growth. The remaining regions are expected to gain employment more slowly than the statewide average. The Southeast Michigan, Jackson, Lansing, Saginaw, and Marquette Regions (Regions 1, 2, 6, 7, and 12) constitute a third group, with expected employment increases ranging from 15 to 18% between 1990 and 2020. The slowest employment growth is projected for the St Joseph, Flint, and Muskegon Regions (Regions 4, 5, and 14), with rates of 10 to 12% for the period 1990 to 2020. Selection of Regions for Fvrther The Southeast Michigan, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, and Traverse City areas (Regions 1, 8, 14, and 10) were selected for further discussion based on significant past and future growth rates for population, households, and employment. They are projected to experience significant levels of development within the state during the SfenoNII s.ction II next 24 years. Southeast Michigan clearly has the highest numbers of people and jobs. Thus, its absolute numbers of population, households, and employment change are always higher than comparable figures for any of the other 13 regions. Southeatf Michigan The governmental units in the seven counties (Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, StClair, Washtenaw, and Wayne) of Southeast Michigan (Region 1) have formed a voluntary association of governme\ts known as the Southeast Michigan Coundl of Governments (SEMCOG). This area contains 50 percent of the state's population and employment and encompasses 233 cities, vUlages, and townships. Population The Southeast Michigan Region experienced a net population loss of more than 90,000 between 1980 and 1990. Detroit, located in Wayne County, has a population of about 1 million; its steadily declining population (15 percent loss since 1980) has had a dominant influence on the negative growth rates of both Wayne County and the region. Population changes by county for 1980 to 1990 ranged from -10% in Wayne County to + 15% in Uvingston County. In general, the more positive growth rates were associated with greater distance &om Detroit. The Southeast Michigan Region is projected to have the greatest llbsolute growth in population of all regions. It is expected to show a net gain of almost 572,000 people between 1990 and 2020, a growth rate of nearly 13%. This includes a loss of more than 150,000


MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS SfCIION II llmploymmt By Coomcy and Region (1930,J??O, 2010,2020 ,1111d Cbange) Section II


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS s.ction II Soarce: Isle TABLE U-4 (-dnuod) EmpJo,maat By C<>aDI)' """ltoP>o (1!110, 1m. 2010 2020, ..... <::Jauce) Rqloo I pn>jecciool for 2020 .. &om SI!MCOO. ResJoo> 21hroo!ab 14 ue &om aollldy by d>e Uoivcnlly of Labo< Uld I.-a! Rota!iou ; pR>jcMI

MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS people in Wayne County, due to the influence of Detroit, and a gain of about 722.000 people in the region's othertlle counties. Wayne County's population will decline by 7% by the year 2020. It is the only county in the Southeast Michigan Region with a growth rate below the projected state population average growth rate of 14.3%. Macomb, Monroe, and Oakland counties are projected to grow in population by about one-quarter. St. Oair and W ashtenaw wiJl. increase more rapidly, with projected population growth rates of 32 to 37%. Uvingston' s projected 1990-2020 population growth rate of 90% is the second highest of the 83 counties of the state. Hou se h olds Almost one-half of the state's households were also found in the Southeast Michigan Region in 1990. The 1980-1990, growth rate for the region was about 5%, which was two-thirds of the comparabl e household growth rate for the state. Wayne County showed a loss in households of about 5% from 1980-1990, again due to Detroit's declining population. Monroe County increased households by nearly 8%, whim was slightly higher than the average Michigan rate. Uvingston's 198Q-1990 household growth rate of 24% was the highest of the region. The other four counties' 1980-1990 househol d growth rates were of a midrange, varying from about 12 to 16% for the decade. The Southeast Michigan Region is expected to experience the greatest inaease in number of households, with an estimated 364,728 households to be added between 1990 and 2020. This is a 22% increase in households, and althOugh the relative percentage of Michigan's households in this region will SECTION II drop somewhat, it will still contain close ,,, to half of the state's households by the ;to -; end of the projection period Wayne County is expected to have a net growth rate of only 1%, again reflective of decUnes in Detroit. The other six counties will experience more rapid household growth. The most rapid growth for the period is the doubling projected for Uvingston County, which is the highest growth rate of any county of the state. Uvingston County contains the inte18eetions of Interstate 96 and US 23 and is midway between Detroit and Lansing. The growth rates for the remaining Southeast Michigan counties are projected at 34 to 43%. Employment More than one-half of the state's jobs were found in the Southeast Michigan Region in 1990, and the region will continue to gain jobs. Growth in employment between 1990 and 2020 is projected at 18%; the region will continue to have about 50% of the state's jobs at the end of the period. All counties of the region are expected to gain jobs. Although Detroit's continued loss of jobs constricts Wayne County's net growth rate to just under 3'l(. over the period. the county has more employment than any other county in the state and will still have more than a 1 mllllon job base in the yesr 2020. Oakland County is gaining on Wayne County and will have close to 890,000 jobs by 2020. Uvingston County will experience the most rapid growth rate in jobs in the state over the period. O...d Rapids and M usk .. R .. lons Population The Grand Rapids and Muskegon Regions (Regions 8 and 14) are in southwest Michigan, and both are


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS characteristic of the growth of this area of the state. The Grand Rapids Region, encompassing seven counties, evidenced the highest population growth rate (about 13%) of all regions during the period 1980. 1 990. The Muskegon Region, although much stnaller, is influenced somewhat by the population trends of the Grand Rapids area. This region contains five counties. Muskegon's 1980.1990 growth rate was just over 2%; although dominated by the Grand Rapids region, together, these two regions accounted for a decade growth in population of close to 115,000. Within the two combined regions, four counties showed low or negative growth rates during the decade: Mason, Mecosta, Muskegon, Newago, and Oceana Counties displayed growth rates of -3 to 2%. Osceola County also had a rel atively low growth rate of about 6%. Six counties had growth rates ranging from 9 to 13%, and Ottawa County had the highest growth rate of nearly20%. Key cities exhibited slow or negative growth. The Oty of Grand Rapids, located in Kent County, grew by 4% from 1980 to 1990 The Oty of Muskegon lost population (about 1 %), which contnbuted to Muskegon County's overall slow growth rate of barely 2%. The Grand Rapids Region's projected population gain of more than 365,000 people by 2020 is the second highest of the 14 regions; its projected growth rate of nearly 39% during the period is also the second highest. The Muskegon Region's projected population gain of 15% (37,600) by 2020 is about the same as the statewide average. Together, the two regions will comprise about 15% of the state's population in 2020. Se

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS growth is projected for all counties in the two regions Muskegon s projected growth rate of 7% is the lowest ; the ' ; highest significant growth 'rates are projected for Ottawa (37%), Allegan (33%), Mecosta (31%), and Kent (30'%) counties. Traverse City Region Papulation The Traverse City Region (Region 10) encompasses ten counties in the northwest section of the Lower Peninsula. In 1990, it contained about 2.5% of the state's population. It is a rapidly growing region; its 1980 to 1990 growth rate of 11% was the third highest among all regions. Within the region, historic growth has been relatively uneven. Manistee County lost nearly 8% of its population over the period 19801990; growth rates in other counties ranged from 5% (Wexford County) to 23% (Kalkaska County). The Traverse Oty Region's projected aggregate growth rate of 38% for 1990 to 2020, which will add about 88,400 people over the period, is among the highest of the regions. Eight of the region's ten component counties wiD experience population growth rates from 30% to nearly 60% between 1990 and .2020. Wexford County will grow more slowly (10%), and Manistee County will decline by about 6% over the period. Households Nearly 3"k of the state's households were located in the Traverse City Region in 1990, reflecting a 19% increase from SECIION II s.ction II "' 1980. Household growth was low for Manistee County (1 %), but ranged from 11 to 30% in the other nine counties. Household growth in the Traverse City Region is expected to be 47% percent over the 30-year period 1990-2020 (stays at 3% for 2020). Although future growth for Manistee County will be only about 3%, all other counties are projected to experience growth in households of approximately 28 to nearly 70% over the period. Employment The Traverse Oty Region's share of state employment was nearly 3% in 1990 and will increase slightly in 2020. Its future rate of growth for the period 1990 to 2020, 36%, is nearly double the rate projected for the state as a whole. Positive employment growth is projected for all ten counties of the region. The projected rates are highest for Emmet and Grand Traverse counties (50 and 44%, respectively) The lowest projected employment growth rate is about 20% for Antrim, Manistee, and Missaukee counties SEUCIION OF STUDY COMMUNinES Coinmunlties likely to experience rapid growth and development were selected for analysis of the resource impacts of current (sprawl) versus contained (managed growth) development strategies within their bounds. Forty four communities volunteered to participate in the study; eighteen were selected for analysis based on a variety of criteria. The locations of the eighteen selected communities listed below are shown in Figure n-2.


FISCAL IMPACTS Michigan Communities (and C ounry) I Bear CIMk Township, City o f POII

MIOIIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Allendale (Charter Township), Ottawa County Bear Creek (Township), Emmet Couitiy .,. Bedford (Township), Monroe County Canton (Charter Township), Wayne County Garfield (Township), Grand Traverse County Harrison (Charter Township), Macomb County Hartford (City), Van Buren County Kentwood (City), Kent County Macomb (Charter Township), Five basic factors were considered in selecting the 18 case study communities from the 44 that volunteered. These factors included: geographic location within the state variations in community type significant household. or employment change willingness to participate in the study community agreement with the goals of the funding source Each selection criterion is described bnetly below. Geographic Distribution To ensure interest in the project and increase the odds that project results would be applicable throughout the state, a wide geographic distribution of case study communities was sought This was further qualified to Include those communities in regions that were and/ or would be the f astest-growing in the state: the Southeast Michigan Region, the Grand Rapids/Muskegon Regions, and the Traverse City Region. secnoNII Sodlon II Macomb County Meridian (Charter Township), Ingham County Montague (City), Muskegon County Mt. Pleasant (City), Isabella County Muskegon (City), Muskegon County Nov! (City), Oakland County Petoskey (City), Emmet County Pittsfield (Township), Washtenaw County Portage (City); I

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS were described by more than one category. In addition, other characteristics were considered, such as a known activity that would add variety to the analysis. An eXample is the city of Muskegon, an officially designated state urban enterprise zone with very aggressive redevelopment measures in spite of its overall population loss of the previous decade. Through this selection aiterion, the effects of alternative growth patterns on human-made and natural infrastructure needs can be viewed in communities of various types. These could be: (1) medium-sized communities in the subwban ring experiencing additional future growth pressure (metropolitan); (2) larger, free-standing communities that are within metropolitan areas and slowly growing; (3) medium-sized, free standing communities outside of metropolitan areas that are either not growiilg on their own or are experiencing moderate growth through annexation (small urban); (4) smaller communities in rural areas experieOC;ng significant change in land use as a result of immediate development pressures (nonmetropolitan, agriculture, forested); and (5) smaller communities in coastal areas that are, or are being sought as, vacation or retirement destinations (coastal). SIGNIFICANT GllOwnt Populotion Recent population gains and projected population growth are important characteristics of communities selected for study. Significant population (or employment) change is obviously necessary before differing costs of growth related to pattern of development can be determined. Most of the selected coiJIIJWilitles are projected to show strong population SrcnoN II growth, particularly those in the Southeast Michigan Region. For compar ative purposes, a few communities showing negative o r low rates of growth for the time period were included These are the cities of Muskegon (-16%) Petoskey (-7%), Montague (-3%), and Hartford (4%). While decreasing in population, these are areas of reasonable employment growth. Hou .. holda New peopl e in a community require housing of a variety of types in which to live. Since residential uses are developed to accommodate households rather than people, growth in households is of particular interest. Again, projections from SEMCOG are used to identify household change for the Southeast Michigan Region Projections based on 1970 to 1990 U.S. Census rates of household change were used as the basis for future household projections for the rest of the state. All of the selected communities except Muskegon are projected to grow in number of households. This reflects the trend towards single-person and c:hildless married household growth. Employment Another factor that affects land-use change is employment growth. Additional empl oyees will require new facilities in which to work. This generates new construction in the form of retail stores, offices, warehouses, and industrial establishments to the extent that these are new jobs, not merely relocated jobs. Recent past and.current employment information is available from the Michigan Employment Security Commission. Projected employment in the Southeast Michigan Region is from SEMCOG. For the rest of the state, it is based on COWlty projections prepared


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS by the University of Michigan's Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, allocated to governmental units withlti a county based on past employment growth trends. Trends in projected employment show significant variations among the study communities. Again, these variations are essential to better measure the effects of current development patterns versus managed growth on the consumption of natural and man-made resources in these communities. Community Vo.lunteered for the Study This is a very important factor. Communities with an interest in participating in the study are most likely to use study findings as part of their future land-use decisions. This is one of the project's goals. These communities are also more likely to be helpful in providing the research team with the necessary informatiOf\ for undertaking the required analyses. Community Meets Goals of the Funding Source This project is funded by the Coastal Programs Unit of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Frey Foundation (which principally focuses on Kent, Charlevoix, and Emmet counties), and by the. C. S. Molt Foundation, which has special interest in the protection of sensitive areas and the environmental quality of the Great Lakes Region. Where applicable, communities selected for study should also share these values. Every effort will be made to avoid sensitive environments as part of the managed growth alternative to ensure adequate consideration of the research sponsors' interests. SEC110N II STUDY COMMUNITY TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Section II Trends and projections for each of the 18 study communities are presented below. They are presented in alphabetical order except for three communities in Emmet County-Bear Creek, Petoskey, and Resort-that are grouped together and intended to reflect the county trends. Recent and projected growth trends are shown in Table ll-5-Population, Table ll-6Households, and Table ll-7Employment. These three tables show comparative information for the state, the selected regions, and the study communities within selected regions. Charter Township of Allendale Ouerview. The Charter Township of Allendale (Table n-a) is approximately eight miles west of Grand Rapids in Ottawa County in the Grand Rapids Region. With about 281 persons per square mile in 1995 Allendale is clearly a metropolitan community: The Township's area of33 square miles is 85% undeveloped land. Allendale is proximate to a wide variety of activities. Nearby Grand Rapids is a regional hub of retailing and employment, while fishing and other outdoor recreational activities can be pursued on the Grand River, which flows along two of Allendale's political boundaries. The community is an employment-serving residential location as it within 20 minutes of several employment centers: Grand Rapids, Grand Haven, Holland, Zealand, and Coopersville. As the home of Grand Valley State University, is starting to take on the image of a college town. The public school system has significant new capital facilities, and the !Qwnship and school district are coterminous, which helps create an


.. 0 z f r f l t f Ji f. I .. I --:x I ---or; I ---I .,E-I _, __ ,.... .. Mkt:lp ..... H-"'""""" I MT 13.649 MM-I MT 1 4.230 .... M.,... I MT 22,902 Novl Odlud I MT Pillll'ldd Wutunaw I MT 12.997 c-Wayne I MT 48,616 GnM ,,, ,.._.sea a a' I """"""' Keol I su 3M31 An...dalo Ottawa I MT 6,010 Moo._ Mill ..... 1 4 AF 2.332 Must.,.. Mlllte,oa 14 su 40,S23 Tn,..,._ CltJ z.--o.ct -10 c 3,217 _, -10 APC 6,097 -10 c 1,687 Oorf'odd OdTra._ 10 MT 8,747 Otlotr ....... Panop(Kal-) Kal.,_.., 3 su 38 ,157 Har1ford (SLloaepll) v ... a.,. 4 AF 2.493 ,..,_ 6 MT 18,734 Mt. Pit uw(s.p.w) ,....., 7 MT 23.746 T .... 337,560 -MicNp I 4.612,782 G_..,, ___ a a: 14 1,067,078 TnCI(J 10 201,266 Mill I' I f,lQ,m TULBII.S ,__G........,_OIIdl'roJ(1,_, 199t, :Wit,,. ...... _,_-_ ,_ -----24.615 27,111 19.)41 22.714 32.579 61.600 17.9U 23,7oll 26,229 31,185 )4,)17 )),loll 44,000 55,742 63,570 17.120 20.517 29,468 35,388 $7 040 65.971 14.377 97,206 37,826 42.969 49,330 53.570 1,022 9,267 14,770 1lj09 2,276 2,262 1,468 2,606 40,113 41.309 43,814 45,600 3.469 3,711 4,119 5,345 6.056 6,092 6,140 6.112 2.061 2.609 4,23 5 5 .319 10.526 11.973 21.575 27,917 41,042 42,493 49.263 53,810 2.341 2.360 1,416 2,454 35.644 38,069 40,436 42.000 23.215 24.913 27,113 21.540 391,293 4Cl,u3 5!$,153 '-".642 4,590,461 4,735,738 4,962.603 5.162.405 1,200, 204 1,267,356 1 468.810 1.603.113 230 .962 245.697 269.903 319.373 t.m.m f S14,Ml lt,17l,lll 11,'25,335 I 1.m 29,021 4,956 11,742 ..... 18,399 6.361 5 503 206 2,575 938 ... 1,626 9,602 6,190 57 2.347 2.140 tu_.Jt 226.865 201.455 44.206 "8.151 L.r.t: Al'oA&rili,..: SU.Small-(25,000 10 .999 -I .. ---I --4 7 2,230 u 3 ,<$8 19 1 26,3U 42.8 5!.409 IU 3,132 10 0 &.088 26. 7 7,828 14. 0 19,570 43. 1 5,920 20.1 14,801 27. 9 12,819 1'-2 31,228 14. 1 4,240 u 10,601 su ),669 2A.I 9,Jn 9 1 131 5 6 344 6.2 1,716 3 9 4.291 24. 1 626 13.3 1,564 0.1 32 0.5 80 62.3 1 014 25. 6 2,710 80. 2 6,402 19. 7 16,004 16. 0 4 ,527 9 2 11,317 2 4 38 1.6 94 6. 2 1,564 3 9 ),911 8.6 1 ,427 5 3 3,567 ZS.A 13,719 15 1 1!16,219 ... 199,802 4 0 426 ,667 15. 9 134,303 9.1 335,758 11. 0 29,470 1 0 2 73,676 ..., 451,511 u 1 111,6M hnrtt:l U.S. Cpolatioo and Houslns. 1980, 1990: SBMCOO (f SBMCOO communily projectioo): and Michigan [)q>uunent of Managemetrt and Bodtel (fl>' all Oilier c:cmm'"'ity Jl"'idOftl) .. J: i'i % 13.4 170.1 z 30 8 44,5 71. 9 47. 3 i ). 1 9 24.7 99. 0 15. 2 10,4 41A 1.3 10).9 133.7 26.6 4 0 10. 3 1 4 3 44. 1 9 0 26.5 30 0 U.7 t =


TABLEIU llouoebokl Grow& Trads and P...,Joo. 10 MT 3.111 4,137 4,615 1,950 10.173 l.JlS 72.3 1,223 28.0 S.SSI .:. 120.4 0... ....... ........ (JWomoloo) k.tlmemo 3 su 13,152 15.467 16,41S 20,019 22,421 3.604 22.0 1,402 12.0 6.006 '.. 36.6 Hutfonl (.St. Jotq>ll) v .. a..... 4 AI' 172 m 889 940 9?4 51 5. 7 34 3.6 85 9.6 [ Mtridloo {l.ooslnl) Japom 6 MT 10.952 14,022 15,174 16,570 17.500 1.396 9.2 930 5.6 2,326 15.3 Ml Pl..,... (Sqinow) Jsahdla 7 MT 6.145 6,661 7,156 7,826 8,172 670 9.4 446 5.1 1,116 15. 6 f TGUI 116,984 143,US' 162.684 207,:156 2JJ,384 44,572 21A 32,128 15.5 16,700 47.1 Sou .. -M ......... I 1.623.875 1,698.819 1,n3.011 1,941,257 2,063,547 168,186 9.5 122,290 6 3 290.476 16.4 l G ..... 8& 14 370,565 4:15,895 453,560 536,555 591.885 82,995 18.3 55,330 10. 3 138.325 30.5 f 10 73.m 87,576 94,475 115,170 128,967 20.696 21.9 13,797 12. 0 34,493 36.5 l MI ...... 3,195,213 3,419,331 3,531,390 3,960,117 4,231,!11 428,727 12.1 %71,464 "' 700 191 19.8 f top: AJIIlatioo) tl -SIIMOOG (for SEMCOO projeetio.,) ud Planning ond Zooioa Cauer ,lnc. Ml for all ad... COIDIDUIIity projectioas I t


f : I f .. l f J r.i LocI C..U.IY I R-..!!!!. MOCOIIII> I MT MOCOIIII> I MT Monroe I MT Novl O.ti...S I MT PkUflold Wut!tenaw I MT Cono>o W oyoo I MT ..... su OUowo 8 M T M-aoo 14 AP Muot.aon 14 su Tn_OIJ....., -Cnd -10 c ........, -10 APC -10 c Oorlldd Od1'rnll) Vu8uron 4 AP --(l.oooio&) lopano 6 MT ML-(s.p.w) IMbel1< 1 MT ToW -M ....... I lA 14 ,.. ..... CltJ 10 ...... 1 TAJL0 l:n9ioJ-G.-T.-oM 11"'-:ze1e, :telO,.,. ChaD&<> Y ear 19!10 1995 20 1 0 mo S,334 6,311 IJ62 9.017 1.175 2,327 S.l$4 7,030 4,204 5,134 8,074 1.142 22.221 15,419 34.748 36.708 11.963 13,610 11.560 20.0S2 14.229 17,501 27.206 30,565 33,720 JS.rn 41.329 46.634 1,921 2,732 5,146 6,756 1,045 1,121 1,317 1,543 11,101 21,444 22,474 23,160 1,715 1 175 :z.osa l.llS 3,215 3,245 3,210 3,295 I,QlS 1,125 1,467 1,688 8.807 11,650 20,171 25,864 30,679 32.939 37,233 4I,Sl1 (>81 (>89 703 717 11.970 11.500 14,091 1 5 .152 8,405 11,382 17.048 20,826 lN,IIN l86.M7 Ut,m 301 ,611 2,350.238 1,477.024 2,176,714 2,173,688 1'>47.611 69 1 710 824,008 82S,Sl6 124,031 134,087 1(>4,132 169,241 4.'6Ulf .....,,.,,..1m.:Z010 Nombet-.. 1.144 3U 1.927 115.1 2,940 57.3 9.169 36.4 4.9SO 36.4 9,698 SS. 4 (>,451 IJ.O 2,414 11.4 249 22.1 1,030 4.8 Ill 9.8 lS 0.8 342 30.4 8.528 73.2 4,294 13.0 1 4 2 0 1,591 12.7 5,666 49 8 62,121 JU 299.700 12.1 1 32,298 19. 1 30,146 22 S "'"" JJ.t taae .. : AFaA.,;o.INtalllld 0< loruiOII; C=Coollal; M TMooopoUiall; SU.Small-o (25, 000 to 49,999 popularioo) Cll-l810.:ZO:ZO N-.. SlS 6.1 1 176 33 .1 761 9.5 1,960 5.6 1.492 1.0 3,3S9 12. 3 4.305 10.2 1,610 31. 3 166 12. I (>86 3.1 167 8.1 25 0.8 221 IS I 5.1'>16 18.2 4,294 II.S 14 2.0 1 ,061 7.5 3,178 21.2 31,891 11.8 (3,036) (0. 1 ) I,Sll 0.2 5,009 3.0 (IG,l54) (U} Soom>o SBMCOO ((or SEMCOO communities), Univcraity or Mich igan lnadrute o f Labor A Jndustrial Rclt1i2 30.0 4,024 147.3 415 36.8 1,716 8 .0 3SO 18.7 so I.S S63 so. o 14,2 1 4 121.0 8,588 16.1 28 4 0 2.6S1 21.2 9 444 &J. O ,.,713 45.1 296,664 12.0 1)),816 19: 3 JS,ISS 26.2 UJ,l35 117 J: Q i a f =


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS atmosphere of coordination among public service districts Residents describe the quality of life as excellent. Population and Employmtnl Growth. Allendale is growing in terms of both population and employment indices. Tile township's 1995 population of approximately 9,300 is expected to grow by 99% to reach nearly 18,500 by the year 2020 Allendale's 2,350 households .ue projected to grow by 121% to 5,200 by 2020. This faster rate of growth of households versus population indicates decreasing household size. Household size will decrease from 3.9 in 1995 to about 3.5 in 2020. According to the township supervisor, most of Allendale s employment base developed during the late 1980s. Tile township expects local employment to more than double, from 2 730 in 1995 to 6 ,7(1) by 2020. Employment growth will generate a secondary demand for additional housing units. Demographic and Labor Force Ciu>racteristics. Population characteristics from the 1990 Census indicate that 95% of current residents are white. Blades, constituting 3% of the population. are the only other group with significant representation in the population. Among residents who are 25 years of age or older, about 17% have completed a four-year college Median household income in 1989 was $30,738; 12.4% of the population was below the poverty level. Residents of Allendale are employed primarily in the service industries (37%), followed by wholesale / retail trade (27%) and manufacturing (22%) About one-fifth of the labor is occupied in executive/professional occupations. Most resident workers (71%) drive to work alone, and the average work trip is SecnoHII Sodioo l l about 1 9 minutes. Of those residents of working age (16 older), 32% are not in the labor force. Hous ing and Public Infrastructure. Of Allendale's 2,150 housing units in 1990, 64% were single-family, 23% were multifamily, and a relatively high percentage (about 13%) were mobile homes/ trailers. Tile vacancy rate for all housing units in 1990 was 45%. Median h ousing value was $70,500 in the same year ; median gross rent, $434 About half of the township' s homes are served by a public or private water company, and more than one-third are connected to a public sewer system. hor C,..k Township City o f P-lkoy, and RNartTownahip Oomliew Bear Creek, Petoskey, and Resort, shown in Tables ll-9 through ll11 are discussed together because they are intended to characterize the southern portion of Emmet County. These three are all coastal communities: Bear Creek Township, with an area of 40 square miles, is the largest; the City of Petoskey, with 3.3 square miles, is the smallest In-between is Resort Township, a community of about 21 square miles. Bear Creek, Petoskey, and Resort are adjacent to each other, located along Little Traverse Bay of Lake Michigan. They are characterized by both waterfront activities and parkland. Golfing, boating. fishing. swimming, skiing. hiking. and camping are recreational activities found within these communities and the county as a whol e. Sighlleers can also visit historic limestone quarries within these communities. US. 31 and US. 131 run through the communities, following the shoreline of Little T r averse Bay. Be.u Creek is proximate to, and oo ntalns


. MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Section II TABLEII-9 Bear CTUk Township (Traverse Oty Region ) Population, Households, and Emjlloymen l Characteristics and Projec:tions,1995 '{: ; .. Changtl99.S.2 0.ZO Cbarac l e ris tlcs Pro,jectioos 1 990 1995 .ZOIO 2020 Number % Area (Sq,uare M Ues) 39.70 Population 3.469 3,781 4,719 5,345 1,564 41.4 Population Density 87 95 119 135 39 41.4 Ptl'SOftSIHousthold 2.83 2.86 2.93 2.97 0.11 3.8 Ho.,..holcls 1,224 1,322 1,609 1.800 478 36.2 %Vacancy 41.7 38.0 34 .9. 33 2 -4.8 .7 H ousing Units 2,101 2,132 2,469 2.694 562 26.4 EmDiovment CAt Place) I 72S 1875 2,058 2225 350 18.7 '1990 Cttaract e ristits StaUc Numbtr % Locator Map Race White 3,426 98.8 Black 4 0.1 d' Emmet County Asian 6 0.2 Other 33 1.0 ,LJ b PopulatlODin Urban Residence . Edoca.Uoa: Persons 25 and Older 2,243 Bachelor's Degree or Higher 434 19.3 1'---, IDOOme '1/ 'II. Median Household lnoome $ 28,811 %Persons Below Poverty Level 8.3 Housing Charac...utics _)>;"/"" Single-Family 1,711 81.4 't115 s.s :1 .1 Mobile Home or Trailer 260 12.4 A Median Housing Value s 74,800 Median Gross Ren t $ 426 j _L/ Housing PllbDc Utility Connections PubliC/Private Water Company 632 30. 1 PubUeSewerSysu.n 90S 43.1 Bear Creek TOWDShip Labor Force (Age16 or Oldu) 2,577 Not in Laboc Force 877 34. 0 )1\.;t) Employed in Civilian Occupations 1,606 Exec.!Profes.sional Oecupalions 427 26.6 Oecupation by Industry: WholesaleJRetall 414 25.8 Finance. Insurance. Real ESlate 39 2.4 l . Services 653 40 7 -Mariufacruring 191 11.9 .. .. -. Agrieulnue, Frosuy, Fisheries 14 0.9 CJ,_...,., 1\ n r Other 295 18.4 A. J ourney to Work -Mean Tnvel 1ime (MinuteS) 16.9 % Drivin to Work Alone 87.5 Soun:e: U.S. Census. 1990; SEMCOO and Plannlng & Zonin& Ceale< I'IOjections, 199().2020; and Bear Creek Township SfC110N 11 --"< T...4o ;, M;oloigoo

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS Section II TABLEDIO City of Petoskey (Tnvene City Rfllon) Population, Households, and Emptoymont Chara::= .::.- ...___.._......, ___ A. Soun:e: U.S. Census. 1990; SEMCOG and Plannina &Zoning Center Projeclions. 1990-2020; and City of Petoskey SKnoN II So utoftoitT,...iftMajga __,.._ShldyC:O.nif'u U-30 1.3 1.3 S.I 6.8 0.0 6.8 1.5


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS t ; TABLEIIII s.c:tion u Resort Townsbip ( Travene City R eg)on) P opulatio n Households, and E mp loyment Cha r ac l ertsties and Projections 1 995 2020 I 1. ChanJ:t 1 9952 020 Cbaracterist l cs P roJect ions 1 990 1 995 2010 2020 Numbe r % Area (Square Milts) 20 97 Po pulation 2,068 2,609 4,235 5,3 1 9 2,710 103.9 Population D ensity 99 1 2 4 202 254 129 103.9 Persons/Househo l d 2.97 3.03 3.23 3 30 0.27 8.9 Housebo lds 697 861 1,312 1 .612 751 87 2 %Vacancy 29. 3 29.3 25.0 23 3 6.0 .5 Housing U llits 9 8 6 1.218 1,748 2.102 884 72.6 Emolovmen t (At Pia) 1.025 1 .125 1 ,4 67 1688 563 50 0 1990 Chanct e ri stlcs S talfc N umber % Locato r Ma p R ace White 2,026 98.0 Black 5 0.2 c Emmet County Asian 4 0.2 Other 33 1.6 P opulation ill Urban Resldt:nce . Ed:ucatJon: Persons 25 and Older 1.288 .....__ ....... Bacbelor's Degree or Higher 322 25.0 "'l"l 1Dcome l/ Median .Household lntome $ 32.250 % Below Poverty Level 3.1 H owiDg Cbaracterisllcs Singlel'2mi l y 792 80.3 Multifamily 42 4.3 ..r< Mobile Home or Trailer 138 14 0 J. M edian Housin_g Value $ 80,200 }tJ M edian Gross Rent s 402 J _/ H ousi og PubUc UWJty CoDDecllous Publie/Pri v ate W81er Company 112 11.4 Public Sewer Sysum 119 12.1 Resort T ownshlp Labor For

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS portions of, the Hardwood State Forest. The Bear River runs through Bear Creek Township and the C ity of Petoskey. Bear Creek Township is the largest township in Emmet County, exceeded in population only by the city of Petoskey. The bay area of Bear Creek is at a lower elevation and rises like the edges of a bowl to higher elevations southward and eastward. The higher elevations afford panoramic views of Uttle Traverse Bay and the Bear River Valley. The township is also among the most diversified conummities of the region. This diversity extends to land use, housing, and transportation. Due to the convenient highways, U .S. 131 and U.S. 31, the township is in a major growth area of Emmet County. The county's major attractions are Uttle Traverse Bay and the central city services of Petoskey. Petoskey, because it is a city, is more densely developed and serves as a regional service center in the Traverse City Region of the Lower Peninsula. Petoskey's hospital complex, central business district (CBD), and professional services extend to areas far beyond the city's boundaries. The city is also the county seat of government for Emmet County. Petoskey has an extensive and coordinated recreation program involving parks, playgrounds, and neighborhood schools The city's natural landscape is quite varied. It rises significantly from the shoreline of Uttle Traverse Bay on Lake Mlchlgan. offering dramatic views of the lake. The shoreline is more than 2.5 miles long and is predominantly publicly owned. The second most significan t water resource is the Bear River. This waterbody offels both canoeing and fishing About two miles of the river are within city limits, and there is significant public ownership of both shores. SfCIIONII -..u Resort has extensive frontage on both Uttle Traverse Bay and Walloon Lake Notwithstanding, its 20 square miles is considerably smaller than a standard geographic township in Michigan (36 square miles). The township's irregular size and shape are determined by the shorelines of Lake Mlchlgan and Walloon Lake. At the southern tip of Resort, on Walloon Lake, is the Hemingway summer home, an historic site. Popul4tion tmd Emp/Qyrnml Growth. Future population growth rates show wide variation within the three commwlities. Petoskey follow s the trend of mature urban areas, whereas Bear Creek and Resort reflect the realities of growing subwbs.lf current trends continue, Petoskey will experience continued low population growth, increasing 2.0% by the year 2020. Resort with the lowest population total, is projected to grow by about 104% by 2020; Bear Creek's projected growth is at a more modest level of 41 o/o. The combined 1995 population of these jurisdictions (12,369) will increase by nearly 36% to nearly 17,000 by the year 2020 The growth of households for thesr three COIIUJ\Wlities is relatively strong Projected 1995-2020 growth rates are 13% for Petoskey, 36% for Bear Creek, and 87% for Resort. For Petoskey, household size decreases will contribute to smaller households. Household sizes will be larger in Bear Creek and Resort, as population growth will outstrip hou$ehold growth. Existing employment ranges from 1 125 jobs in Resort to 3,245 In Petoskey. Petoskey's employment will clecliM by 5% from 3,245 to 3,o95 by 2020. Both Resort and Bear Creek will experience employment increases. The 1995-2020


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS projected employment increases are 50% for Resort and about 19% for Bear Creek. As a group, total employmenF will increase by 12% from 6,245 to 7,008 by the year 2020. Demographic and La11or Force Cllllracteristics. Population characteristics from the 1990 Census indicate that the vast majority of residents in each community are white (%to 99%), and .19 to 25% have completed four years of college. Median household income ranges from $26,055 in Petoskey to $32,250 in Resort .. The proportion of residents below the poverty level was highest in Bear Creek (8%) and lowest in Resort (3%). Labor force characteristics also exhibit small differences among the communities. About one-third of eligible residents are not in the labor force in each of the communities. The most common occupation of residents is in services (41-46%) followed by wholesale/retail (22-26%) and manufacturing occupations (about 12%). About 27-30% of residents occupy. executive and professional positions. In Petoskey, 65% of the employed labor force drives to work alone, taking an average of about 12 minutes. In Bear Creek and Resort, more than 85% of the residents drive to work alone with a commute time of about 17 minutes. Housing and Public Infrastructure. Housing characteristics for Bear Creek and Resort are quite similar. The majority of the units are single-family (about 80%). There is a small proportion of multifamily units (4-6%), with nearly three times this percentage in mobile homes/trailers (12-14%). Median housing values are $74,800 for Bear Creek and $80,200 for Resort; median gross rents are $426 and $402, SEC1101< II respectively. Prices for Jakefront property dwarf those off the lake. { v : In contrast, Petoskey had about 60% of its housing in single-family dwellings in 1990 and 40% in multifamily dwellings; there are almost no mobile homes/trailers. Petoskey's median housing value of $64,400 and median gross rent of $376 were 10 and 20 percent lower than equivalent values for Bear Creek and Resort. While vacancy rates vary substantially among the three communities, two are relatively high. This reflects the seasonal use of the housing stock in Bear Creek and Resort Bear Creek's rate of nearly 42% is the highest, followed by 29% for Resort. Bear Creek Township contains the historic summer resort community of Bayview (some 437 homes). Resort Township contains the emerging 1,100 acre complex of Bay Harbor, a major new resort-recreation development. Petoskey has a much more normal vacancy rate of about 8%. On average, about one-quarter of the housing stock of the three communities is vacant during much of the winter. Future vacancy rates will decline for both Bear Creek and Resort, indicating a higher proportion of units with year-round occupancy. The communities show considerable differences in the use of public infrastructure. In Petoskey, almost all housing is connected to public/private water and sewer systems. Comparable statistics for the other two communities are about one-third to one-tenth. In Bear Creek, only 30% of the homes are connected to a public/private water company, 43% to a public sewer system. Percentages are even lower for Resort about 11% of the housing units are connected to public/private water and sewer systems.


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Bedford Township Overview. Bedford Township (Table llU) is a suburbanizing community in the Southeast Michigan Region. Located just north of Toledo, OH, It encompasses nearly 40 square miles and is located in a county (Monroe) that is one of the most intensively fanned in the southern portion of the state. Three-quarters of Bedford's 1990 population was living in urban areas as part of the Toledo metropolitan area. During the past twenty years, Bedford has attracted upscale residential development because it offers a country suburban type of development pattern. Homes provide umore house and land" for the money. 1n addition, Bedford has a good school system and a low crime rate. Shopping at major regional malls outside the dties of Toledo, Monroe, and Detroit is just a short drive away. PopuUUian and Employment Growth. Bedford's population, households, and employment are each projected for significant inaease. The township's 1995 population of about 26,000 is expected to grow by 30% to 34,000 in 2020. As of 1995, Bedford had about 9,050 households, which are projected to grow by 43% to nearly 13,000 in 2020. Household size will deaease from 3.0 in 1995 to 2.7 in 2020. Bedford's at place employment will continue to grow rapidly. The Township's 1995 employment of about 5,100 will inaease by nearly three-quarters to 8,850 by 2020. Demographic and lAbor Force Characteristics. As of the 1990 Census, nearly 99% of the Bedford population was white, and about 15% of adult residents had college degtees. Median household income in 1989 was $40,982; SfcnoNII Sodion II only 4.2% of the population was below the poverty level. Reflecting the suburban nature of the community, nearly 32% of those eligible were not in the labor force In 1990. Those in the labor force were almost equally divided among services (28%), manufacturing (26%), and wholesale/retail trades (25%). Twenty four percent of those employed were in executive and professional occupations. Housing and Public Infrastructure. With 8,240 housing units as of 1990, the community had a vacancy rate of only 2.2%. Most of the housing (88%) was single-family; the remainder was evenly divided at 6% each between multilamily and mobile home/trailer units. Median housing value in 1990 was $71,200; median gross rent was $440 Use of public infrastructure in Bedford Township was relatively low compared to other study communities. About 55% of the housing units are connected to a public/private water supply system (Bedford obtains its water from Toledo); 70% are connected to a public sewer system. Bedford's residents spend an average of 22 minutes commuting to work; about 88"/o of commuters drive to work alone. Almost no residents use public transportation; about 9% ride in carpools, and 3% walk to work or work at home. Chartet' Township of Canton Overview. The Owter Township of Canton (Table ll-13) is a growing suburban community outside of Detroit in Wayne County In the Southeast Michigan Region. It is one of the physically largest study communities (36 square miles), and all of its population is considered to be living in an urban residence.


MICHIGAN fiSCAl IMPACTS Section II TABLEIIIl B edford To.,nshlp (SootheastMIUc Sewer System Labor Force (A&e16 or Older) Not In Ubor Force Employed in Civilian Occupations ExecJProfessional Occupations Occupation by lnduSIJ)I: Wholesal

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Sodionll TABLEII-13 C.ntoa Cbarlor ToWJUblp (Soulh ... t Mlcblgan Rogloa) Populalion, H.-.i>olds, and Employmeat Chantclorisllcs and Projocllons, 1995-2020 Chan2t 1995-2020 Chantcterislic:s Proiec:tioos Area (Squaro MUes) Populallon Population Doaslty Pusom/Housdlold B-olda II. Vacucy Housing Unils Emplo}Jilent (At Place) White Black Asian Other PopulAtion In Urban Reside...., Education: Persous 25 aud Older Bocbelor' s Deane or Hiibet Median Household Income 'llo Petsoa$ Below Poverty Level HousiQB Cbaracteristic:s Single-Family Multifamily Mobile Home or Trailer Median Housing Value Median Gross Rent Bousiag PubUt UtWty Colmoctioas Public/Private Water CompoDy Public Sewer SySI$ Occupation by Industry: Wholesale/Retail Finana:, Insurance. Real Estate Services ManufiC!Uring Agricultu.e. Forestry. Fisheries Olher Joumcy to Work Mean Ttavel Time (Minutts) II. Drivin 10 WodooAiooe 1990 35.99 57,040 1.585 2.92 1 9.536 3.8 20,307 14.229 1990 Number 52.973 1 ,167 2.562 338 57.047 33,754 8,795 $ 47,009 12.970 4,955 2.382 $ 109,300 $ 487 19,363 1 9,118 41,140 9,269 30,320 9,478 7,298 1 ,921 8.688 8,189 200 4,024 233 1995 65.978 1.833 2.92 22.591 3.8 23,483 17.508 92.9 2.0 4.5 0 6 100.0 26.1 4.8 63.9 24A 11.7 95A 94.1 22.5 31.3 24.1 6.3 28.7 27.0 0.7 133 89.6 2010 84.377 2.344 2.86 29.554 3.8 30,72o" 27,206 2020 Number 91.206 31.228 2.701 868 2.85 -0.07 34.072 11,481 3.8 35,417 11,934 30565 13.057 Locator Map WaynoC<>anty Soom:e: U.S. Census. 1990; SEMCOG and Planning A Znni"' Center Projeetlona. 1990-2020: and ConlOn OWter Township II> 47.3 47.3 -2.3 50.8 0.0 50.8 74.6 StcnoNII .,. .. IJ.36


MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS Canton's crosshair location Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, and Toledo, as well as its exoellent access to regioi\hl northsouth and eastwest highways, have been assets for its residential growth. The township also enjoys commuter and regional air service via the Willow Run Airport in Van Buren Township, the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Romulus, and the Mettetal Airport in the township itself. Canton's eommunity is drawn together and heavily invested in the recently completed Summit On The Park, an 85,0oo-square-foot community center with basketball courts, swimming pools, exercise rooms, and meeting facilities. An 18-hole Pheasant Run Golf course has also just been completed. Papulation and Employment Growth. As is the case for Bedford Township in the SEMCOG region, Canton is projected to experience significant growth in population, households, and jobs. The township's 1995 population of nearly 66,000 will increase by 47% to more than 97,000 by 2020; its 22,600 households will grow by 50% to more than 34,000. Household size will remain at about 2.9 persons per household. The township's job base will increase by 75% from about 17,500 jobs in 1995 to almost 30,600 jobs in 2020. Canton has the largest population and household count of the 18 study communities. De77Wgtaphic and Labor Force Characteristics. As of 1990, 93% of the population was white, 5% Asian, and 2% black. Canton has the large5t Asian population of the 18 communities. More than one-quarter of the township's adult residents have completed college. Median household income in 1989 was $47,009; 4.8"1.> of the population was below the poverty level. SECnONII Section II Of the 41,000 residents of working age, about 23% were not in the labor force as iif 1990 Resident employment in services (29%) is closely followed by manufacturing (27"/o) and wholesale/retail trades (24%). Those in represent 31% of the civilian employed . Nearly 90% of employed residents drive to work in single-occupancy vehicles; journey to work trips average 23.3 minutes. Housing and Public Infrastructure. In 1990, Canton had a vacancy rate of less than 4% of its 20,300 housing units. Nearly two-thirds of the township's housing units were single-family; about one-quarter were multifamily; the remainder were moblle homes/trailers. The 1990 median housing value of $109,300 was among the highest of the study communities; the same was true for the median gross monthly rent of $487. Approximately 95% of local housing units are connected to public/private water and sewer systems. Garfield Township Overview. Garfield Township (Table ll14) is a metropolitan community of about 27 square rnlles just south of Traverse City in the Traverse City Region. Garfield has been primarily agricultural, but numerous farms are currently undergoing conversion to residential development. Some of the township's farms, which were larger and more profitable than those of surrounding locations, now represent the only large undeveloped parcels left in the area. Recent development includes a regional mall, rental and condominium garden apartments, and single-family detached and attached units.


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Section II TABLED-14 Garlldd Township (Travtne Cily Region) Populadon, Houatholds, ond Employmtnt Chanu:ttrisllcs and Projt v-acy Housing Units Emolovmtnt_(At 1'18ce) CbandtrisdC:IIIIon: Ponoos 25 and Older B10helor's Degree or Higher -Median Household Income 'II> Below ro.erty Level Bouslt>c Cbanodloas PubticiPrivale Waler Compaoy Publlc Sewer System Labor Foru (Ago 16 or Older) Not in Labor Force Employed in Civilian Occupations Exec./Professionll Oc:cupaticos Occupation by lndustty: Wholesale/Recail Finanoe. Insurance. Rell Eswe Services Manufacturing Agricullure Foresuy, FIJberies Other Jouroey to Work Mean Travel nme (MinuleS) 'll> Dri to WO!t Alone 1990 26.83 10.526 392 :Z.S4 4,137 8.3 4,513 8.807 Number 10.309 40 59 118 7,062 1,418 2.393 940 1,132 $ 72,220 $ 439 1,913 2,203 8.226 2,813 4.920 1 144 1.368 266 1.7SS 532 Ill 888 16.1 1995 11,973 446 2.59 4,615 8.3 5,034 11.650 97.9 0 4 0.6 1.1 20.1 8.6 53.0 20.8 25.1 42.4 48.8 34.2 23.3 27 8 5.4 35.7 10.8 2.3 18.0 85 1 Chane 1995 2020 2010 2020 Numbtr 'II> 21.575 27.977 16,004 133.7 804 1,043 596 133.7 2.71 2 .75 0.16 6.0 7.950 10,173 S.SS8 120.4 8 3 8.3 0.0 8,672 11.098 6.063 120.4 20.178 25.864 14,214 122.0 Locator Map Grand TnYene County C.rhld Towasblp ...---=--Soun:e: U.S. ee--. 1990; SEMCOG and Pllnniog It Zonin& C..... Pn:ljeclioos. 1990-2020; and Garfield T......Wp S

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Population and Employment Growth. Very rapid growth is projected for township's population and householiti: The 1995 population of nearly 12,000 is projected to grow by 134% to 28,000 in 2020. Households will grow by 120% from 4,615 to 10,173; employment will increase by 120% from 11,650 to 25,900. Household size will increase over the period from 2.6 to 2.8 persons. Demographic and Labor Force CJumges. As of 1990, the community was almost entirely white (98%), with very small black and Asian (combined, 1 %) and other (1%) populations. At least 20% of those 25 years of age completed college. Median household income in 1989 was $26,603; at that time, 8 .6% of the residents were below the poverty level. Of those aged 16 or older, one-third were not in the labor force. Of those employed in civilian jobs, the services industry account for 36%, followed by wholesale/retail trades (28%), and manufacturing (11%). Executive/professional occupations account for 23% of the employed civilian labor force. Single-occupancy vehicles are used in 85% of work trips; average travel time to work is 16 minutes. Housing and Infrastructure. In 1990, the community's 4,510 housing units had a combined vacancy rate of 8.3%. The single-family share of all housing units (53%) was low compared to the other study communities; proportions of multifamily units (21%) and mobile homes/ trailers (25%) were relatively high. Although the township of Garfield has the highest percentage of mobile home/trailer units, Canton, Macomb, and Novi have more overall units in this category. Median housing value in Garfield in 1990 was $72,220; the median gross rent was $439. Less than SK110N II . . ',{ half the homes are connected to Section II p;ublic/private water public sewer Charter Township af Harrison Overview. The Charter Township of Harrison (Table ll-15) is a metropolitan community of 14 square miles located in Macomb County in the Southeast Michigan Region. Harrison is considered the "Venice" of Michigan with its 49 miles of waterfront on lakes, rivers, and canals. Lake St. Clair on the eastern end and S!>uthem boundary of Harrison contains beaches of the Metro Beach Metropark and feeds the canals that extend into residential subdivisions, connecting them to the lake. The Clinton River, Anchor Bay, and Black River also feed these canals. The township is considered a "boat mecca" due not only to the canals but illso the presence of 36 marinas within a three-mile radius. The Selfridge Air National Guard Base lies on the north side of the township. Population and Employment Growth. Harrison will experience moderate increases in population, households, and jobs over the twenty-five-year projection period 1995-2020. The 1995 population of nearly 26,000 is projected to grow 13% to over 29,000 by 2020. Households during this period will increase by 22% from about 10,650 to 13,000. Persons per household will drop slightly o ver the projection period. Local employment will increase by 44% from around 6,300 in 1995 to 9,100 in 2020 Demographic and Labor Force Chara;:teristics. The township of Harrison's population is 97% white, 2% black, and 1% Asian and others. As of 1990, about 16% of those 25 and older had completed college. In 1989, median household Income was $39,210; 5.1% of


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Section II TABLEIIIS Harrison Charttr TowRShlp (Soulhtut Mkhlpn Rt&ion) PopulaUon, HoUStholds, and Employmtnl CharaSing Value Median Gross Rent Housf112 Public Utility Cocmtc:lioDS Pul>lic:JPrivate Water Company Public Sewer System Ltbor Force (Ap 16 or Olcltr) Nor in Labor Force Employed In Clvt1ian Oce1JpatiORS ExecJProfessional Occupations Occupation by lndusuy : Wholesale/Retail Finance. Insurance, Real Estate Services Manufactllrin& Forestry, Fisheries Other JourntY co Won Mean Travol Tune (Minutes) 'J& Drivi 10 Wod< Alone 1990 14.1S 24.68S 1,745 2.48 9.9SO 6.3 10.616 5.334 1990 Numbtr 23.&3& 498 .161 188 24.685 16.314 2.581 $ 39.210 6.219 3.371 1.026 $ 92,200 $ S02 10.497 9,488 19.628 5.492 12.761 3,416 3.08S 669 3.485 3.628 8S 1.806 2S.J 1995 2S.SS3 1.829 2.43 10.648 6.3 11.361 6.318 96.6 2.0 0.7 0.8 100.0 IS.! S.l S8.6 31.8 9.7 98 9 89.4 28.0 26.8 24.2 5.2 27.3 28.4 0.7 14.2 8$.4 2010 2020 Number .,. 27.111 29.341 3.458 1,916 2.074 244 2.32 2.26 .0.17 11.680 13.000 2.352 6.3 6.3 12.462 13,870 2.S09 8.562 9087 2.769 Locator Map Mtcomb County HtrriMo Cbarttr Towmltlp ;. Sourjccdons. 1990-2020; end llanison Chanu Township 13.4 13.4 .1 22.1 0.0 22.1 43.8


MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS the residents were below the poverty , level. .. . : . About 28% of the nearly 20,000 persons of working age remained outside the labor fori:e. Occupations of those in the labor force are almost equally represented by manufacturing (28%), services (27%), and wholesale/retall trades (24%). Executive and professional occupations account for 27% of civilian employment. About 88% of those employed drive to work alone, averaging about 25 minutes for their journey to work. HCJUSing and InfrllSiructure. A!; of 1990, close to 60% of the 10,616 housing units in Harrison Township were single-famlly units. About one-third were multifamlly units, and 10% were mobile homes/trailers. In 1990, the vacancy rate for all housing was 6.3%; median housing value was $92,200, and median gross rent, $502. Ninety-nine percent of the housing units in Harrison have public/private water supply connections and 89% have public sewer system connections. City of Hortford Overview. The Qty of. Hartford (Table ll-16), one square mile in area, is the smallest of the study communities. It is an agricultural comrnlll\ity in Van Buren County in the St. Joseph Region. In contrast to other communities of the area, Hartford has few tourist attractions. However, several recreational and historic sites are just outside the city's boundaries. They include the canoe trail along the Paw Paw River, VanAuken and Rush Lakes for boating, Mint Farms, the Potawatom Burial Ground, the County Poorhouse Museum and other facilities. The city enjoys excel,lent regional access. Interstate 94 runs east-west just south SI!CIIONII .Section II of the city, and state Route 140 runs north-south just west of the city. .... ,;: Popu!JJtion and Employment Growth. Although located equidistant hom two urban centers, with I
PAGE 100

MICHIGAN FlSCAI.IMPACTS TABLE 11-16 City or Hartford (SL Josepb Recion) Population, Houstholds, and EmploymHit Characceristlc:s aod Projectlons, 1995-20%0 CbanH 1995-lOlO Charaeleristics ProloVacancy 4.5 45 4 5 4.5 Housing Unlls 913 931 984 1,020 89 Em..Jovmml &low Poverty Level 225 HousiDg Ouonoelerislice Single-Fantily 636 69.9 Multifamily 192 21.0 1, _,.l Mobile Home or Trailer 74 8.1 .1 l A Median Housing Velue $ 28.900 Median Gross Rent $ 324 / Houdng Publl< Ullllty CnlllltCdons Public/Private Water Company 842 92.2 Public Sewer Syscem 880 96.4 City of Hertford Lebor Force (Age16 or Older) 1,717 No< in Labor Force 593 34.5 "'l:l Employed in Civilian Occupations 974 Exec./Professionel Occupations 179 18.4 Occupation by lndu>try: Wholessl.ntelail 231 23.7 Finance, Insurance Reel Es1ace 33 3.4 ServiC
PAGE 101

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS :.: ./. civilians employed work in executive/professional positions. Relative to other study communities, jf' low proportion of workers drive to work alone-about two-thirds; the.average travel time is 22 minutes. The labor force of the city of Hartford participates largely in migrant farm work, food processing/packaging, and machine shops. Over the past several years, many of the industries offering year-round employment in Hartford closed; the city currently has a relatively high unemployment rate. The population of migrant farm workers is stable but seasonal. Many of these workers have been employed at the same farm for years, spending part of the year in this area of Michigan and the remainder of the year on an equivalent farm in Texas Housing and Public Infrastructure. As of 1990, Hartford's housing stock consisted of single-family homes (70%), multifamily housing (21%), and mobile homes/trailers (8%).1n 1990, median housing value was $28,900 and median gl'OSS rent $324 Well-maintained houses are generally small in size but in the $40,000 price range. Several years ago, a developer constructed the firs t new houses that the city had seen in 30 years. These sold for $50,000 to $60,000. Most homes in the city are connected to public infrastructure. Connections to a public/private water company are in place for 92% of local housing units; 96% of the housing is coMected to a public sewer system. City of Kentwood Ouerview. At 21 square miles, the city of Kentwood (Table 11-17) is in the mid range of physical size of the study communities .lt is a small urban community in Kent County in the Grand Rapids Region. As part of the Grand SftnONII Rapids metropolitan area, the city has excellent regional highway access is also adjacent to the Kent County Airport. ln addition to shopping in Grand Rapids and nearby Wyoming City, residents can shop locaily at major malls as well as in the central business district. Kentwood is home to Calvin College, a small liberal arts college. Kentwood, once considered to be on the fringe of development, is now more identified with the urbanized portion of the region. Papula. ticn and Employment GrtYWih. Strong growth is projected for Kentwood's population, households, and jobs. Over the period 1995 to 2020, population is expected to increase by more than 29% from about 43,000 to 55,600; households will increase 24% from 17,200 to 21,400. At-place employment is projected to increase by 30% from about 35,900 to 46,630. Demographic and Labor Force Changes. Kentwood has a higher percentage of blacks (6%) and Asians (2%) than most other study communities. Whites account for about 91 o/oof. the population. About one-quarter of adults have completed college.ln 1989, median household income was $34,324; 3.7% of the population was below the poverty level. ln 1990, about one in four elig;ible labor force participants was not in the labor force. Most of those employed found jobs in wholesale/retail trades (28".4), services (27%), and manufacturing (26%). Those working in executive/professional occupations represent 27% of the civilians employed. Of those currently employed, 87% drive to work alone; mean journey-to-work time is about 19 minutes.

PAGE 102

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS s.ctionll TABLE IJ.J7 Cfly ofKenhrood (Grand Rapids Roglon) Population, Housthokls, and Employmeat CharacterioUcs and Projections, 1995 0 Chan.oe 1995-2020 Charoderlslics ProJocUons A....,(SquareMDO$) Population Population D Be low Poverty Level HoaAng Cbancterisllcs Singi ... Family Multifamily Mobile Home or Trailer Median Housing Value Median Gross Rent Housiug PtlbUc UUDty c-tloDs PubUc/Privale Waler Compaliy Public Sewer Systom Labor Foru (Age 16 or Older) No in Labor Force Employed in Civilian Oceupations E>tate Services ManufiCIUring Forestry. Other Joumey 1o Wodc Mean Tnvol Time (Mimltes) 'll> Drivin to Wod< Alone 1990 21.00 37,826 1.801 2.48 15.247 6.7 16.337 33,720 1990 Number 34.522 2,113 740 451 37.826 23.648 6.148 $ 34.324 8,374 6.896 898 s 77,000 $ 415 15.805 15,725 28.651. 6.814 21,068 5,728 5.963 1,704 5,768 S.S28 126 1,979 18.9 1995 42,969 2.046 2.50 17,181 6.7 18.409 35.812 91.3 5.6 2.0 1.2 100.0 26.0 3.7 51.3 42.2 5.S 96.7 96.3 23.8 27.2 28.3 8.1 27.4 26.2 o.6 9.4 86.6 2010 49,330 2,349 2.56 19.235 6.7 20.610 42.329 2020 Number 53.510 10.601 2.551 505 2.60 0.10 20,604 3.423 6.7 22.077 3,668 46,634 10,762 LocatorMa KeutCODDty aty of Kentwood SOu= U.S. Census. 1990; SEMCOGandPianning& :bming Ceaterl'rojeaioos. 199G-l020; llld Oty of Kmtwood 24.7 24.7 4.0 19.9 0.0 19.9 30.0 SfcnONII S.,ciacana .. SiwlyCO.ue:N I W

PAGE 103

MlOUGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Hausing and Public Infrastructure. In 1990, slightly more than half of the housing units in the city of Kentwood' were single-lamlly, 42% multllamlly, and 6% mobile homes/trallers. The housing stock exhibited a 6.7% vacancy rate. Median housing value was $77,000; median gross rent, $475. In Kentwood, public and private water supply systems serve nearly 97% of the housing units, and 96% of existing housing is connected to a public sewer system. Charter Township of M acomb Overview. The Charter Township of Macomb (Table II-18) Is a metropolitan community twelve miles north of Detroit in the Southeast Michigan Region. It is one of the largest of the study communities (36 square miles). With its flat, fertile land, Macomb was established as an agricultural community in 1834, Since then, it has developed a more residential nature. However, nearly two-thirds of the land remains agricultural and vacant. Approximately one-third of the township is affected by 100and sao year floodplains. Golf is a popular recreational draw as the township has seven golf courses. Reaeational opportunities also abound a few miles east of Macomb along the Anchor Bay in Chesterfield Township. The Lakeside Mall in nearby Sterling Heights is a source of regional shopping. Multiple forms of transportation access are available via Interstate 94 to the east of the township, the G.T.W. Railroad which runs southwest to northeast in the community at its eastern edge, and the Ben-Macomb Airport in the northwest corner of the township. Population and Employment Growth. Macomb's projected growth pattern is reasonably similar to Bedford, Canton, StcnON II S.cllon II and Harrison: population, households, :.aitd jobs will increase substantially over ll\e next twenty-five years. Macomb's projected growth is more rapid than any of the other study communities. With projected growth of 170%, population is expected to increase from about 32,600 to almost 88,000 by 2020. Households will grow at about the same pace (164%), from 10,270 to 27,160. Household size will remain stable at 3.2 persons per household Employment will triple over the period, from approximately 2,330 jobs in 1995 to 7,030 '" 2020. Demographic and Labor Force Changes. Almost all of the population of the township of Macomb is white (98%), and individual percentages of other racial groups are below 1%. Approximately 13% of those 25 years and older have completed college. Median household income was W ,338 in 1989; only 2.7% of the population was below the poverty level at that time. About one-fourth of those 16 or older were not in the township's labor force of 16,200 Of residents employed in dvilian occupations, 31 % have jobs in manufacturing, 27% in services, and 23% in wholesale/retail trades. Nearly 25% of those in civilian occupations are in executive/professional positions. 91% of those employed travel t o work in single-occupancy vehicles. An average travel time to work of 26 minutes Is the highest of the study communities. Housing and Public Infrastructure. Macomb had 7,560 housing units in 1990. Of these, 77% were single-family and a high proportion, 22%, were mobile homes/trallers. Only 2% were multifamily units. Median housing value of .$109,900 was 90e of the highest of the study communities, as was median

PAGE 104

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS S.dion II TABL11 Moc-b Ouorter ToWDSIIlp (SoulhcUI Mid>ipn Ropm) PopulatiOCI, H04IMI>olcb, and Employ .... nt Cllaractertstia and Projoctions. 1!195-2010 Ch-1995 1020 Chonderistlcs-Prolec:lloas 1990 1995 2010 2020 Number ., A...., (Square Miles) 36.28 PopulaUon 22.714 32.S19 61,600 87.988 55.409 170.1 PopulaUon DmsiiY 626 898 1 ,698 2.425 1.527 170.1 Pti'SCIIIIIHouacb 3.09 3.17 3.20 3.24 0.07 2.1 Howtholds 7.354 10.272 19.221 27.162 16.890 164.4 'II>V2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 HoasmcUaiU 7.562 10.563 19.165 27.930 17.368 164. 4 FmnJo,_,tiAtl'laa:l 1.775 2,.327 5,254 7.030 4.703 202.1 1990 Choratics StoUc Number 'II> LocatorMa Roct While 22.322 98.3 Black 109 o.s Asian 188 o.a Macomb Cowlly Olhet 9S 0.4 Popalalion ia Urbu -19.ll4 84 2 Educalloa: ,..._ 25 aad Ol4tr 13.768 Bocllelor' Ocgrec orHlJI>ct 1.819 13.2 ......... Mcdim HOU$Chold Income s 47.338 lll Below Poverty 2.7 Housbo& Ouoracttrtslico Single-Family 5.182 76. 5 Mullifamily 137 1.8 Mobile Home or Tn!ler 1.667 22.0 ModianHousingVIIIue $ 109.900 Median Groos Real $ 567 H-"'cl'llbllc Ullllly Publk/Private Wlll:r Coonpony 6,837 90.4 Public Sewer SyUem 6,021 79 6 Lal>or Fora (Azt 16 nr Oldar) 16,202 No in Labor Ft:e 4.184 25.8 Employed in 11.268 ExecJProfessional Occupad0111 2.762 l4.S Oecupalion by lndU$1fY! WholesaleiRetail 2,631 23.3 Finm:e, Insurance. Relll EIWe 580 5.1 ScrviO<$ 3,003 26.7 3.506 31.1 AIJic:ullme. Fllberies 142 1.3 ,.._ ""-Olhet 1.406 12.5 ]OOirM)'IOWork MeaD n.ve1 n ... {Mimltal 25.6 lll Drivin 10 Wort Alene 90.5 Source: u.s. Cemus. 1990; SEMCOO and Pllnnina .t Zocoltl& Ccntct 1990-2010; oad SrcnoNU ._ A

PAGE 105

MICHIGAN ASCAI. IMPACTS gross rent of $567. Only 2.8% of the units were vacant in 1990. Public .. infrastructure connections are water than sewer. More than 90% of the homes are connected t o a public/ private water company; 80% have public sewer connections. Chw ler Township of M eri d i an OvervinD. The Charter Township of Meridian (Table ll-19) is a small, fastgrowing metropolitan community of nearly 32 square miles in Ingham County in the Lansing Regi on. It is on the border of the city of East Lansing, which is the home of Michigan State University. The land is flat, with a river, lake, and numerous wetlands. Interstate Routes 496 and 96, as well as State Route 43, provide regional highway access. Merid;an is characterized by its linked park and open s pace sys tem. This includes a continuous greenbel t along the Red Cedar River as well as parkland connectors via sidewalks, pathways, and w a te rways. The open space and greenbelt areas buffer residential areas from the more intensive nonresidential uses. P opuhdion and mploymml Growth. Population, households, and employment are all projected to increase. Meridian's population will Increase from about 38,100 in 1995 to 45,000 in 2020, reflecting a growth rate of 18%. A somewhat higher growth rate will increase households from 15,200 to 18,750 over the same period. Household size will decrease sllghtly from 2.5 to 2.4 persons. Employment will increase by one-fifth from 12.500 jobs in 1995 to 15,150 jobs in 2020. Demographic and U.bor Fom Changes. The population's racial annposition is similar to that of Kentwood. The majority o f the population is white SfcnON II (91%), but blacks (4%) and Asians (4%) ; t,re also reprE5ellted. Residents of are well-educated. Half of tho se 25 or older have a colleg e education. This is the highest percen tage of the 1 8 study communitie s. Median household income in 1989 was $41,530; 9.5% of the population was below the poverty level. 26.7% of the 27,528 persons aged 16 or older were not in the labor force in 1990. Service employment (47%) is the primary occupati onal category for those employed in civilian jobs. Wholesale/retail trades ranks second with 18%, and manufacturin g ranks third with 9%. A high percen'-ge of employed persons (47%) are in executive/professional positions. Mean travel time to work is 20 minutes; 84% of workers drive to alone. Huusing and Public Infnutructure Of Meri
PAGE 106

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS S.ction II TABLEII-19 Meridian Charter Township (Lansing Region) PopuloUon, Houstholds, and ChancterisU<:s and ProjtctloDS, 1995-:ZO:ZO Chan 1995-:ZO:ZO Characteristics .. Projections 1990 1995 :ZOIO :zo:zo Nu.m.btr 'J. Area (Squart Milo$) 31.81 Populi !Jon 35,644 38,089 40.436 42,000 3.911 Populltlon Dtnslty 1.121 1.197 1.271 1 ,320 123 Penoaslllousthold 2.54 2.51 2.44 2.40 .(),JJ Households 14,022 15,174 16.570 17.500 2.326 Below Poverty uvet Housing Charoderistlcs Single-Family Multifamily Mobile Home or Tnailer Median Housing Value Median Gross Rent Housing Public U111Jty Connecdoas Public/Private wCompany Public Sewer System Labor Force (Age 16 or Older) Not in Labor Force Employed in Civilian OccupollOCI$ ExecJProfessionaJ Occupollons Occupollon bY Industry: Whoksale/ReWI Finance, Insurance. Real Eswe Services Manufocturing Foruny. Fisheries OOer Journey to Work Mean Travel Time (Minutes) 'II> Dri to Wort. Alone 428 3S,086 22,222 11,766 $ 41.530 9,066 5,327 292 s 108.800 S 48S 13,442 13.834 21.528 7,348 19,428 9.194 3.560 1.594 9,102 1.826 193 3,153 20.4 98.4 S2.9 9.5 61.2 36.0 2.0 90.8 93.4 26.1 47.3 18.3 8.2 46.8 9.4 1.0 16.2 84.4 MeridlaD Charter Towasblp Scun:e: U.S. Census. 1990: SEMCOG and Planning A Zenina Ceor.erl' and Meridian Charter Township 10.3 10.3 -4.4 IS.3 o.o IS 3 21.2 $ECnON II SGcia ca ,.-c r,.,..;.J.4idljp Olfd .. llo48

PAGE 107

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Section II TABL E li:W Cily of Montague (MusktgDD Regi on) P opulation, HOUStholds, a n d and Projectio ns Chan .. 1995:W Characteristics -Projections 1990 1995 :W10 20:W Number '!b Area ( Sq uare MDes) 2.66 P op u lation 2.276 2,262 2.46 8 2 606 344 Pop u lation Densi t y 856 850 928 980 129 Porsomllfousel!old 2.57 2.49 2.36 2.30 Howoholds 884 910 1 044 1 ,133 223 % V acancy 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 -Housing Units 970 999 1,145 1,243 245 Empl o yment (At Pl ace) 1,045 I, 128 1 ,377 1.54 3 415 1 990 Cha neterlstics-Static Number Loca lorMap '<:P' R oot Whit e Black Asian Olher 2.222 I 9 44 97 6 o o 0.4 1 9 M uskego n County Population in Uri>an Residence Education: P ersons 25 and Older Bachelor's Degree or Hight< In come Median Household Income %Bel ow Poverty Level Housing Cbaramristlcs Single-Family Multifamily Mobile Home or Trai!N Median Housin g Value Median Groos Rent H ous i og PubUc UtDlty Conuecllons PubliciPrivate Water Company Labor F orce (Age 1 6 or Older) Not in Labor Employt
PAGE 108

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS recreational fadlities A walk through the downtown p r ovides an opportunity to visit a local pharmacy outfitted with an old-fashioned soda fountain, to shop at one of the unique specialty boutiques or to stroll leisurely along the pedestrian pathway overlooking White Lake A walk along Dowlin g Stree t provides entr& into an era of historic homes, complemented by a local historic museum. Those with an abundance of energy can take a b icycle trip on the Montague-to-Hart non-motorized bike trail or enjoy boating from the White Lake marina and boat launch facilities. The dty of Montague o ffers a full service industrial park and an excellent system of public and private schools. Future projects include a farmers market, development o f a small inn to house tourists and additional retail space in and arowtd the waterfront. Carefully crafted and land-use regulations protect both the shoreline and residential areas. Population and Empl&ymenl Growth. During the period 1995-2020, Montague's population. households and employment are projected to increase. A 15% population inaease from a 1995 base of 2,260 is antidpated; households will increase 25 % from a base of about 910. This relationship between population and households will be reflected in a decrease from 2.6 to 2.3 persons per household over the period. Thus, single-person households and families without children are expected to inaease locally Employment is projected to grow from about 1,130 in 1995 to 1,.545in 37% inaease. DmtognzpiUc and Labor fqra Chanu;terislics ; Census statistics for 1990 indicate that the resident population is white (98%); blacks and Asians constitute less than 1 % of the SfcnoNII $od;onll population; other radal groups represent less than 2%. As of 1990 14 % of the adult population had compl eted college. Median household income in 1989 was $28,170; about 9% of the population at that time was below the poverty level 1n 1 990 of those eligible, 35% were not in the labor foroe. Those employed fowtd jobs in the manufacturing sector (36%), services (27% ) and wholesale/retail trade (21% ). Executive/professional occupations amount to 23% of those employed. About 83% of working residents drive to work alone; mean travel time Is about 19 minutes and Public Infrastructure.ln the dty of Montague, most housing is single family (80% ). M ultifamily homes repreaent18% of the housing stock, and mobile homes/trailers amount t o about 0.5%. As of 1990, the median housing value was $45,800; median gross rent, $347 About 95% of local housi n g units are connected to public/private water systems and 96% are connected to public sewer systems. City .. Mt. "--' C>Dnview. The City of M t. Pleasan t (Table n-2.1) is a metropolitan community in Isabella County in the Saginaw Region. It is approximately 7 aquare miles in size and is adjacent to the Soaring Eagle Casino owned by the Chippewa Saginaw Indians. This $500 million development includes m ultiple gambling venues and a 523-room. four star hotel Opened in 1996, it has almldy had significant impact on employment patterns of the region Popu!Jllion and Empl&yment Growth. Mt. Pleasant is expected to gain population.

PAGE 109

. MICHIGAN F ISCAL IMPACTS Sec.iion II . T A BLEIIll City o f ML 1'1easant (Sa gi naw R egion) P opula ti on, HoU$ebolds, and EmJ!\Oymml Cbaracterislics and Projections, 1995-:1.020 Cha r acteristics ... P r ojectioas Area (Square M il es) Popu l ation Popu l ation Dens ily Peno ns/Housebold Households % V acancy HoliSing Unll$ Emo l oyment (At Place) Characteristics Static Race Wbite Black Asian Oth e r Po p ulati o n in Urban R esidence Edu cation; Persons lS and Older Bac:hclor's Dearee or RiBber In come Medlan Househol d lneome % B elow Poverty Leve l H ousing Cbanu::teris tic:s Single-Family Multifamily Mobil e Home or Trailer Medlan Hoilsing Value Median Oms Rent H ousing Public: UIIUty COODec:IIODS Public/Private Water Company Public Sewer System Labor Force (Age16 or Older) Not in Labor Forte Employed i n Civilian Occ:upal!ODS Exec.!Professional Occupations O c cupation by Industry: Whole sale/Retail Finance, Insurance, ReaiEState Services Manufacturing A&riculture, Forestry, Fish eries Other Journey to Work Mean Tnlvel Time (Minutes) .. % Drivin to Work Alone 1 990 7.23 23,285 3.221 3.50 6,661 5.8 7.071 8.405 1 990 Number 22.020 539 345 381 23.285 7,984 3,138 $ 19,185 3,256 3,622 124 $ 59,100 $ 408 7,017 7,049 20,498 9.375 10,205 3,167 2,967 369 5 307 523 1 04 9 35 128 19!15 24,973 3 454 3 49 7, 1 56 5.8 1,596 11.382 94.6 2 3 1.5 1.6 100. 0 39.3 38.7 46.0 51.2 1.8 99.2 99.7 45.7 31.0 29.1 3 6 52. 0 5 1 1.0 9.2 64.4 lOIO 27,113 3,750 .3.46 7,826 5.8 8.307 17. 048 C ha 02el99 5-2020 2020 Number 'll> 28,540 3.567 3.947 493 3.45 -0.04 8,272 1,117 5 8 -8,782 1,18 6 20, 826 9,444 Locator Map l.sabdla Cou nty Clly or M ouD1 Pleasant 5oPrce. ; U.S CtiiSUS, 1990; SEMCOG and Plannlll$ & Zooing C enter Projeclioas 1990-2020: and City of ML Pleasant ScnoN II 14.3 14.3 -1. 1 15. 6 0.0 15.6 83.0

PAGE 110

M I CHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS households, and jobs, but at a lesser rate than some of the other study communities. Mt. Pleasant s population will grow by more than one-fourth from about 25,000 to 31,500 by the year 2020. Household growth of nearly 20% will increase the number of households from about 7,000 to 8,400 during the same period. This refledS a change in household size from 3 6 t o 3.8 persons per household from 1995 to 2020. The 1996 opening of the Soaring Eagle Casino had a very positive effect on regional employment Without the casino, Mt. Pleasant and other communities could easily have undergone employment decline. Job growth is now projected at 83% In this community, with employment Increasing from around 11,400 In 1995 to 20,830 In 2020. Dcrulgrllphic Gnd lAbor Foret CharllCteristics. Mt. Pleasant's racial composition is 95% white, 2.3% black, 1.5% Asian, and a small percentage of "other." Of those persons 25 years of age or older, nearly 40% have a college degree. While this is a relatively high proportion of college-educated residents, the number of persons below the poverty level (38.7'%) is the highest of the study communities, largely because of the high proportion of college students living In the dty. Median household income of $19 ,1851n 1989 was also comparatively low. A large proportion (46%) of those eligible are not part of the labor force. Among those employed In dvilian occupations, more than half have service jobs. Executive / professional occupations employ 31% of the labor force. The only other industrial category of note is wholesale/ retail trade, In which nearly 30% of the civilians participate. About two-thirds of employed residents drive to work alone; $K110N II average travel time is appr oximately 1 3 minutes. Only residents of the city of Petoskey, at 12 minutes, have a shorter commuting time within the study group communities. Housing and Public Infrastructure. Housing characteristics for the d ty In 1990 Indicate more multifamil y units (51%) than single-family units (46%). Of a total of 7 ,(170 units in 1990, 5.8% were vacant. More than 99% of the homes In Mt. Pleasant are connected to public/private water supply and public sewer systems. City of Ollttvitw. The city of Muskegon (Table n-22) is a small urban community of 14 square miles located in Muskegon County In the Muskegon Region. Located along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. the dty of Muskegon is the cultural center of the region. Muskegon is home to the O.erry County Playhouse and Frauenthal Center for the Performing Arts, several major colleges and regional health care Institutions, and a host of national firms (including Fonune 500 companies). Reautional opportunities abound. Muskegon Lake and Lake Michigan provide excellent harbors, extensive public beaches wetlands and natural areas, and renowned fishing. Within the city, one may take a carriage ride along historic Western Avenue, attend a &pedal service at downtown churches or aynagogues, or visit the history or art museums. One may also choose to shop in the downtown mall, attend an outdoor concert at the Landing Pavilion participate In the excitement of a semipro hockey game at the Walker Civic Arena, enjoy the camaraderie of friends at a local bistro, or experieru:e dining at one of the dty' s numerous restaurants.

PAGE 111

MIC HIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS TABLEIIl2 Ci t y of M uskegon Regioa) Population, Househ o lds, aDd E\W'Ioyment and Projections, 1995 Ch ane 1995 2020 Cbaracterislics Projections 199 0 1995 11)10 2020 Number ,. .U.. (Square Miles) 14.38 Popu l auon 40.283 41.309 43.884 45,600 4,291 Popul a tion D ensity 2,801 2.873 3.052 3.111 298 Penons/Housebold 2.73 2.72 2.76 2.80 0.08 H o useho lds 14,770 15,213 15.874 16,314 1,101 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 H o using U nits 16.019 16.499 17.216 17,694 1,194 Emulovment (At Place ) 21,101 21,444 22 474 23 160 1716 Static White Black Asian Othe r 28.148 1 0,9 1 6 139 69. 9 27 1 0.3 2.7 Muskego n County Urban Resideoce 1 1 Persons 25 and Olde r Bachelor s Des= or Higher Median Household Income % B e low Poveny Lev el Olaracteristics SingleF amily Multiliunily Mobile Home or Median Housing V alue Median Gross Rent jHg Publl<: Utility Coaneetlons Public/Private Water CompanJ Public Seweo: System 1 6 o r Olde.r) Not in Labo r Force Employed in Civ i lian Occupations E.xec.IProfessional Occupations Occupation by lndumy: Who lesalo/Retai l Finance. Insurance, R eal Estate Services Manufacturing Agriculture, Foreslry. Other IJo,.m,ev t o W ork Mean Travel T ime (Minutes) 1,080 40 283 24,830 2 036 $ 18, 748 10,373 5,450 16 $ 32,400 $ 343 15,914 15,867 30,603 14.817 1 3 970 2.569 3,750 422 3,966 3,879 107 1,846 1 7.6 100. 0 8.2 26.5 64.9 34.0 0.1 99.3 99.1 48 4 18.4 26.8 3.0 28.4 27.8 0.8 13.2 City ofMuskegoa Source: U .S. Census. 1990; SEMCOG and Planning&. Zoning ee-Proj
PAGE 112

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Once a lumber economy, later supplanted by the automobile industry, Muskegon's economy is now experiencing significant growth in hightech industrial development 8rul in tourism. Muskegon Lake provides deep harbor access for both commercial and recreation watercraft. Tile Muskegon Airport, located near the city, provides full-service passenger facilities with linkage to major national airports Within Western Michigan, the city is considered a prime location for potential growth because of its significant residential and recreational lakefront development opportunities. The city has good regional access via Interstate 96 and US 31. Papulation and Employment Growth. Despite its many assets, Muskegon is facing the issues of urban-to-suburban migration that are typical of established metropolitan centers. From 1995 to 2020, population is expected to grow by 10%, from about 41,300 to 45,600. Households will grow by 7"k from about 15,200 to 16,300, with a concomitant increase in persons per household from 2.7 to 2.8. Employment will increase moderately from about 21,450 in 1995 to 23,160 in 2020. Demographic and Labor Fora Characteristics. Population characteristics for 1990 show Muskegon to be the most racially balanced study community. Tile population is 70% white, 27% black, and 3% other. Compared to the other proportion of adult residents (8%) have college degrees. Like Hartford and Mt. Pleasant, median household income is relatively low ($18,748 in 1989); the percentage of people below the poverty level (26.5%) is relatively high. Muskegon has the highest proportion of eligible residents net in the labor force. SfcnoNII Sodion II Of those eligible, almost half (48%) are not in the labor force. Of employed residents, jobs are equally divided among services, manufacturing, and wholesale/retail trades at about 28% each. Only 18% of Muskegon's residents are in executive and professional occupations. Three-quarters of employed residents drive to work alone; mean travel time is about 18 minutes. Housing and Public Infrastructure. About 65% of Muskegon's housing units are single-family; multifamily units represent another 34%; the share of mobile homes/trailers is negligible. As of 1990, median housing value was $32,400; median gross rent, $343 The vacancy rate across housing types was 7.8% at that time. Use of public infrastructure in the city is high: more than 99% of the housing units are connected to public/private water supply and public sewer systems. City of Novl OrJmriew. The Oty of Novi (Table ll-23) is a metropolitan community in Oakland County. Novi is located at the hub of the current transportation system for the Southeast Michigan Region. Interstates 275 and 96 allow easy access to Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, and Flint. Novi's physical size is nearly 31 square miles, and it is undergoing rapid suburbanization. Tile city made a transition from a rural residential to an inaeasingly OOD\IJierCial character during the 1980s. In spite of recent commercial and industrial growth, it remains diverse and balanced. Novi has a strong commitment to recreation with more than 300 acres of public spaoe devoted to softball, soccer, cross-country skiing, and swimming. It has a number of shopping and dining attractions, from the Twelve Oaks Mall. which is a regional shopping oenter, to nwnerous ..

PAGE 113

M ICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS . . :r ABu; 11 Clly or Novl (Sou theist M;chlgan Regkm) Population, H ouseholds, and E..,..loyment Cha?
PAGE 114

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS restaurants. The city also has one of the best school systems in Michigan. Population and Employment Growth. Novi is expected to experience strong growth in population, households, and jobs from 1995 to 2020. Population will increase by 45% from 44,000 to 63,600; households by 62"/o from 17,000 to 27,600; and jobs by 44% from 25,480 to 36,710. Demographic and Labor Force Characteristics. Population characteristics for 1990 indicate that Novi is predominantly white (96%), with Asians (3%) as the only other significant racial group. The educational level is fairly high: more than one-third of the population aged 25 and over has a bachelor's degree. Median household income in 1989 was $47 ,518; the percentage below the poverty level. 3.3"/o at that time, was low compared to other study communities. Approximately one-quarter of the eligible residents are not in the labor force. Of those employed in civilian jobs, the largest occupational concentration is in services (32%), with wholesale/retail and manufacturing trailing at about 24% each. Persons employed in executive/professional occupations account for 37% of the workforce. More than 90% of those employed drive to work alone, traveling an average of 24 minutes. Housing and Public Infrastructure. Of Novi' s housing units, 58% are single family, 28% multifamily, and 13% mobile homes/traUers. The 1990 median housing value of $127,900 and median gross rent of $680 are the highest of the study communities. Novi evidenced a 6.()% overall housing vacancy rate in 1990. More than 80% of homes have connections to a public or private water system; about 87% are connected to a public sewer system. Pillmelcl Townahip Overview. Pittsfield Township (Table ll24) is a metropolitan community of 28 square miles located in Washtenaw County in the Southeast Michigan Region. Until the 1960s, Pittsfield was primarily an agricultural community. Over the past 30 years, it has changed into a predominantly urban community. Development in the township is influenced by three contiguous urbariized areu-Ann Arbor to the north, Ypsilanti City and Township to the east, and Saline to the southwest. As a result, Pittsfield is well-integrated into the economies of Arm Arbor, Ypsilanti, and Saline. Recent growth within the township, however, has helped to strengthen the concept of Pittsfield as a singular entity. Population and Employment Growth. Population, households, and jobs are projected to show very strong increases during the next 25 years. Population will increase by nearly 72% from 20,600 to 35,400. Households will increase 89% from 8,335 to 15,713 over the period. Household size will decrease from 2.5 to 2.3 persons. At-place employment will increase locally by nearly 50% from 13,610 to 20,052 .. Demographic and Labor Force Characteristics. Census statistics indicate that Pittsfield, like Muskegon, has a heterogeneous racial mix. In 1990, whites constituted 81% of the population, blacks 17%, and Asians 4%. Nearly 39% of adult residents at that time had completed college. As of 1989, median household income was $34,639; the percentage of households below the poverty level was slightly Jess than 10%

PAGE 115

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS Section II TABLEIIZ4 PiusDeld Township (Soulhus! Michigan Region) HouseholdS, and and ProjediOJ>S, 1995 Chanlt 1995%020 Characl
PAGE 116

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS About one-quarter of those eligible were not in the labor force in 1990. Among the civilian population employed. more than 38% were found in executive/professional occupations. The service industry ranks first (43%) as an occupational choice. Manufacturing (20"k) and wholesale/retail trades (18%) ranks second and third, respectively, but are substantiaDy lower than the service industry. The proportion of employed residents driving to work alone is about 86%; mean journey to work time was 20 minutes. Housing and Public Infrastrvcture 13% of Pittsfield's housing units were vacan t in 1990. Multifamlly units predominate, with 60% of the units. Single-family units constitute 32%; mobile homes/trailers, 8%. Median housing value of $118,000 in 1990 was relatively high compared to other study communities; median gross rent at $585 was also high. Most homes utilize public infrastructure connections; approximately 86% are connected to public/private water supply and public sewer systems. City of Portage Overrriew. The City of Portage (Table D -25) is a small urban community in the Kalamazoo Region. It encompasses an area of 32 square miles. Portage prides itself on providing residents with a high quality of life, a vibrant economy, excellent regional shopping opportunities, and superior schools. Designated as a "Tree City USA" by the National Arbor Day Foundation for the past several years, Portage possesses unique natural beauty, including abundant foliage, numerous lakes, a state game area, and significant open space and recreation areas. Located approximately halfway between StCIION II S.ctioft II Chicago and Detroit, Portage possesses strong retail, manufacturing, and industrial bases. Significant manufacturing and industrial establishments, including the world headquarters of the Upjohn Company, provide substantial employment opportunities locally Popul4tion and Employment Growth. Strong future growth is anticipated in population, households, and employment. A population of 42,500 in 1995 will reach 53,800 by 2020 an increase of 27%. The number of households will increase from 16,400 t o 22,400 over the same period, an increase of 37%. Household size will decrease from 2.6 to 2.4 persons. Employment is expected to grow by 26% from about 33,000 in 1995 to 41,500 in 2020. Demographic and lAbor Force Characteristics. Census statistics for 1990 indicate that Portage's population is predominantly white (94%), blacks comprise 3% and Asians 2%. As of 1990, nearly one-third of resident adults had graduated &om college. Median household income as of 1989 was $39,045; 4.2"-b of the population was below the poverty leve l. Among those eligible, about one-quarter of the population was not in the labor force. Executive and professional occupations accounted for 32% of employed residents. About one-third of the employed civilian population is found in the service industry; manufacturing and wholesale/ retail trades employed 27% and 23%, respectively. About 88% of employed residents drive to work alone, traveling approximately 18 minutes each way. Housing and Public InJrastructu:re. In 1990, Portage had a median housing value of $72.000 and a median gross ll-58

PAGE 117

MICHIGAN fiSCAL IMPACTS Secliooll TABLEII-25 City o f Portag e ( Kalamazoo Regio n ) Popu l ation, Househo l ds, a nd and Proj edions, 1995-2.020 C h arute 1995-2020 C hllracteristics ProiecUon s Aroa (SquaJ'e MUes) P o p ulation Pop u latio n Dens ity Persoas!Housebo l d Househo l ds %Vacancy Housing Units Em p loyment (At P l ace) C h aracteristics Static Race White B l ack Asian Olher Population in Urban Residence Educ:atlon: Penons 2 5 and O l der Bacl>elor's Degree or Higher IBCOme Median Househol d Income % Below Poverty Level Housh>g Cbaracterlsllcs Sing l e-Fami l y Multifamily Mobile Home or Trailer Me&an Housing Value Me&an Gross Rent H o using Public Utility C o ouectioos PubllciPrivale Water Company Public Sewer System Labor F orce (Ace 1 6 or Older) Not in Labor Force Employed in CiviUan Occupations &ecJProfessional Occupations Occupation b y Industry: Wholesale/Retail Finance Insurance. Re al Estate Services Manufaccuring Agriculture. Forestty Fisheries Other Joun>ey t o Work Mean Travel Time (Minutes) % Drivin to Work Alone 1 990 32.20 41.042 1,275 2.65 15,467 4.1 16,133 30,679 Num ber 38.704 1,139 846 353 41.042 26,227 8 209 $ 39,045 11. 580 4,036 386 $ 72.000 $ 434 13,098 1 2.876 31.203 8,069 2 2,195 7,14 3 5,115 1 508 7,088 6,076 194 2,214 17.7 1995 42.493 1.320 2.59 16AI5 4.1 17.122 32.939 94.3 2.8 2 1 0.9 100.0 31.3 4.2 72.1 25.0 2.4 81.2 79. 8 25. 9 32.2 23. 0 6.8 31.9 21A 0.9 1 0.0 88.2 201 0 2.020 Number 'll> 49,283 53, 810 11,317 1.531 1 67i 351 2.46 2.40 -0.19 20.019 22,42 1 6,006 4.1 4.1 -20.&81 23.386 6,265 37.233 41.527 8.588 Lo ca torMa Kalamazoo County City of P o rtage N N,_ Source: U.S. C e nsus, 1990: SEMCOG and Planning & Zoning Center Projections, 1 99G-l020; and of Ponage SfcnoN It 26. 6 26.6 -7.3 36.6 0.0 36.6 26. 1

PAGE 118

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS rent of $434. Its aggregate vacancy rate in that year was 4.1 %. Most homes (72%) were single-family; multifamily units comprised 25% of the housing stock, and mobile homes/trailers, 2%. Inionnation on infrastructure indicates that public/private water supply systems serve 81% of the housing units; public sewer systems serve nearly 80% of local housing units. SUMMARY AND CONQ.USIONS Section Two has documented and discussed current and projected growth trends in Michigan and the 18 study communities. Statewide Trends and Projections (See Tablell-1, p. 3) Michigan's population has remained relatively stable during the past 20 years; natural increase has been balanced by out-migration. Michigan's 1980 population of 9.3 million held stable in 1990 and then grew slightly to an estimated 9.5 million by 1995. Future projections are more optimistic. Michigan's Department of Management and Budget and SEMCOG have projected a 2020 population of 10.6 million, reflecting a 1995-2020 growth rate of 11.7%. This future stronger growth rate is based on a more diversified economy and enhanced retirement offerings within the state which will curtail significant out migration. Stemming out-migration is the key to sustaining even moderate levels of aggregate growth in the state of Michigan. Keeping both young workers and older retirees in the state will alter significantly the magnitude of the state's future growth rate. Households in Michigan are increasing faster than population due to continued decreasing household size in the form of -II Sediol'l II more oneand two-person households. Most of the latter are married couples without children. Tota l households have grown from 3.2 million in 1980 to an estimated 3.5 million in 1995. Ail increase to 4.2 million households, equal to a 1995-2020 growth rate of nearly 20%, has been projected for 2020 by the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc. of Lansing. ML The more rapid growth of households over population is reflected in a continued household size decrease from 2.7 persons per household in 1990 to 2.5 in 2020. Michigan's employment has been growing rapidly in recent years In 1980, the state had 4 0 million jobs; this increased to an estimated 4.9 million by 1995. Projections prepared by the University of Michigan s lnstitute of Labor and Industrial Relations show the state will have 5.6 million jobs by 2010 and will remain at approximately that level through 2020. Much of the future employment growth is expected to occur in southeast Michigan (especially the Detroit suburbs), the Grand Rapids area and in and around Traverse City. Although jobs are increasing. the state still experiences significant changes in the location of employment. Jobs continue to migrate from urban centers to suburban and rural areas particularly to those locations a short distance from major employment concentrations. Fringe counties located at the edge of non-metropolitan areas and most places along major interstates are also attracting significant new job growth. Employment has been steadily shifting from the manufacturing to the service sector. In 1970, the manufacturing sector accounted for the highest percentage of employment (30%) in the state. AF. of 1990, the service sector led in employment (27%), followed by SaciacancicT,_.MMic:AiiIMSMiyCc mil'u 11-60

PAGE 119

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS wholesale/retail trades {23%) and manufacturing (20%). The trend away from manufacturing employment is f expected to continue in the future in Michigan. Regional Trends and Projections (Sao Flguroll-1, p. 3, and Tables 11-2 [pp 8 9), 113 [pp 12-13), and [pp. 15-16.)) Michigan's 83 counties are grouped into 14 geographic regions. The Grand Rapids, Alpena, Traverse City, and Sault.Ste Marie Regions {Regions 8, 9, 10, and 11 in text tables and on Figure 1) evidenced the highest 1980-1990 population growth rates and are projected to show the highest rates of growth from 1990 to 2020. Future population growth rates for these four regions range from 34 to 46% The Marquette and Ironwood Regions (Regions 12 and 13) stand out as the regions with the slowest growth futures. The modest declines evidenced from 1980-1990 are expe>cted to. increase somewhat from 1990 to 2020 Of the remaining regions, the St. J oseph, Flint, and Saginaw Regions (Regions 4 5, and 7) have historically low growth rates but are expected to remain essentially stabl e in the future. The Southeast Michigan, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Muskegon Regions (Regions 1, 2, 3, 6, and 14), which experienced low or negative population growth during 1980-1990, are expected to show higher growth rates (1Q-19%) between 1990 and 2020 The regions with the highest proportion of the state's population are the Southeast Michigan Region (Region 1, encompassing half the state's 1990 population), the Grand Rapids Region (Region 8 10% of the population), and the Saginaw Region (Region 7 8% of the state's population). SECTK>NU Section II Household growth in the regions generally follows population growth. The Grand Rapids, Alpena, Traverse City, and Sault Ste. Marie Regions evidence the highest past household growth rates (14-19%) and future rates are expected to be at the 36 to 47% level. The Ironwood Region trails the other regions with a 1.5% growth rate for 1980-1990 and a projected growth rate of 4.4% for 1990-2020. The remaining regions have modest prior household growth rates and are expected to show more rapid growth in the future. As with population. the regions with significant shares of the state's households are the Southeast Michigan, Grand Rapids, and Saginaw Regions. In terms of employment, the Grand Rapids, Alpena, Traverse City, and Sault Ste. Marie Regions have led and again are expected to lead the state in growth, with increases of 31 to 37% from 1990 to 2020. The Southeast Michigan, Kalamazoo, and the Ironwood Regions are also expected to show significant increases in employment--IS to 23% over the period. Other strong employment growlh locations are Jackson. Saginaw, Lansing, and Marquette Regions; all at the 15-16% growth levels The Southeast Michigan Region will comprise close to hal f of all absolute employment growth The remsining regions have more modest future employment growth (12% or less) The Southeast Michigan Region currently and in the future will have about one-half of the state's jobs. Southeast Michigan's current and future levels of employment concentrations are followed by the Grand Rapids Region (12%) and the Saginaw Region (7%).

PAGE 120

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Trends and ProJections for 18 Study Communities (See Tablell-5, 11-6, and 11-7, pp. 27-29.) Eighteen communities likely to experience future rapid growth and development have been selected for analyses of cost-revenue impacts, infrastructure development, and land consumption. These analyses involve differences between current and contained development. Current development is often leapfrog and land consumptive and requires significant new infrastructure. Contained Allendale (Charter Township), Ottawa County Bear Creek (Township), Emmet County Bedford (Township), Monroe County Canton (Charter Township), Wayne County Garfield (Township), Grand Traverse County Harrison (Charter Township), Macomb County Hartford (City), Van Buren County Kentwood (City), Kent County Macomb (Charter Township), Macomb County development takes place closer to existing development, usually on less land and requiring less new infrastructure. The community selection process sought variety in five different substantive areas: 1) geographic location within the state; 2) variation in community type; and 3) significant population, household, and employment growth; 4) a willingness to participate in the study, and 5) evidence of conformance with the study sponsors' goals in terms of respect for environmentally sensitive areas. The resulting 18 communities include: Meridian (Charter Township), 1ngham County Montague (Oty), Muskegon County Mt. Pleasant (City), lsabella County Muskegon (Oty), Muskegon County Novi (Oty), Oakland County Petoskey (Oty), Emmet County Pittsfield (Township), Washtenaw County Portage (Oty), Kalamazoo County Resort (Township), Emmet County

PAGE 121

MICHIGAN F ISCAL IMPACTS . TABLE H -26 Summary or Trends in Socioeconomic Cbaractemtlcs or Mlcblgan, Study CommunitieS, aud R06t Regions Grand Rapids 9,172 99.0 4,024 147.3 Travezse City 1,564 41.4 350 18.7 Southeast Michigan 8,088 30.8 3,708 72.2 Southeast Michigan 31,228 47.3 13,057 74.6 Traverse City 16,004 133.7 14,214 122 0 Southeast Michigan 3,458 13A 2,769 43.8 St. Joseph 94 4 0 28 4.0 Grand Rapids 10,601 24.7 10,762 30.0 Southeast Michigan 55,409 170.1 4,703 202.1 Lansing 3 ,911 10.3 2,652 21.2 Muskego n 344 15.2 415 36.8 Saginaw 3,567 14.3 9 444 83.0 Muskegon 4,291 10.4 1,716 8.0 Southeast Michigan 19,570 44.5 11,229 44. 1 Traverse City 80 1.3 so 1.5 Southeast Michigan 14,801 71.9 6,442 47.3 Kalamazoo 11,317 26 6 8.588 26.1 Traverse City 2 710 103.9 563 50.0 Communities 196,209 44.2 94, 713 45.8 Mi chigan Region 426,667 9.0 296,664 12.0 Rapids/Muskegon R egious 335.758 26.5 133,816 19. 3 City Region 73.676 30 0 35,155 26.2 of Mich igan 1,110,654 11.7 669,335 13.7 Sources: See Tables 11-4, 11, and 11-6. SECIION IV Section ll 2,863 120.9 478 36 2 3 906 43 2 11,481 50 8 5.558 12o.4 2,352 22 1 85 9.6 3,423 19 9 16,890 164.4 2,326 15.3 223 24.5 1,116 !5. 6 1, 101 7 2 10.585 62.1 178 6.8 7.378 88.5 6,006 36.6 751 87.2 76,700 47.1 290,476 16 4 138,325 30.5 34,493 36.5 700. 191 19.8

PAGE 122

MICHIGAN fiSCAL IMPACTS Past and projected population, household, and employment trends for each community were obtained from sources such as the U.S. Census, University of Michigan Institute of Labor and Indusbial Relations, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), State of Michigan Department of Management and Budget, and the Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., of Lansing, Michigan. Information presented in both text and tabular form also includes selected data on: labor force and labor force participation, race, income, adult education. housing value, rents and vacancy, public infrastructure, physical size (square miles), and journey to work. The communities selected for study represent diverse and challenging sites to view the effects of differing future land-use patterns on resource consumption. The primary regions of which most communities are a part (Southeast Michigan. Grand Rapids/Muskegon, and Traverse Oty) represent three-quarters of projected population growth and over twc:rthirds of projected household and employment growth in the state of Michigan for the next 25 years. The communities themselves constitute about 18 percent of projected population growth, 11 percent of the projected household growth, and 14 percent of projected employment growth over this time period. (See Table D-26 ) Selected communities have in common some aspect of future growth-whether it be population. households, or employment. Most are in the path of outward development from established areas or they themselves are experiencing a development resurgence. Communities are physically and demographically large and small, newly SEcTioN IV S.ction II forming and mature, residential and nonresidential enclaves. They have volunteered for the study and share the study sponsors' goals of sensitive, well integrated, and fiscally sound future development As such, they are ideal sites for analysis of the need for growth management measures and are likely to implement recommended strategies. Within the set of study communities, the Southeast Michigan Region communities will experience by far the greatest numerical increase in population, household, and employment. In descending order of population increase, these are the communities of Macomb, Canton, Novi, and Pittsfield. Employment growth communities are much more regionally diverse. Again. in descending order of future increase, they are: Canton and Novi (Southeast Michigan Region), Garfield (Traverse Oty Region), Kentwood (Grand Rapids Region), Mt. Pleasant (Saginaw Region), and Portage (Kalamazoo Region). As has been shown in this section of the analysis, growth is occurring in the state of Michigan in the Southeast Michigan, Grand Rapids/Muskegon. and Traverse Oty areas. Thus, these regions are ideal candidates for some type of growth management effort. The next section of the study will discuss growth in each of the constituent communities of these regions and how resulting land-use patterns can be made more efficient through various techniques of growth management ltEFIItiHCU Bynum, Timothy S., and Phyllis T. H. Grumman (Eds.). 1993. PoHcy dulices: frtnning thL tkbate far Michigtm's future. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI. SoCJ' o caaic T,... iltMic:ll<;a: taftdfk....,. c.o-.u.Mt-114A

PAGE 123

MICHIGAN FlSCALIMPACTS Grand Valley Metropolitan Council. 1994. Metrapoliwn development blueprint, Grand Valley Metrapoliwn Rgion: 2015. Grand Rapids, Ml. April. Grumman, Phyllis T. H., and Brendon P. Mullan (Eds.) 1995. Policy choices: creating Michigan's future. Michigan State University Press, Bast Lansing, MI. Johnson, William B., Jane Newltt, and David Reed 198 7 Michigan beyond 2000. Hudson Institute, Lanham, MD Michigan Employment Security Commiss i on, Divis i on of Research and Statistics. 1996a. Personal communication with Michael Williams March 25 and 29 Michigan Employment Security C o mmission, Division of Research and Statistics 1996b. Quarterly area employment summaries by county. Michigan Society of Planning Officials (MSPO) 1995a. Demographic trends. Working paper Rochester, Ml. August Michigan Society of Planhing Officials. 1995b. Jobs & the built environment. Working paper. Rochester, MI. August. Michigan Society of P l anning Officials. 1995c. Patterns on the lAnd: our choice&-OUr future. Rochester, MI. September Michigan Society of Planning Officials. 1995d. Transportation trends. Working paper. Rochester, Ml. August S!CTIONI V s.ction u Michigan Society of P lanning Offi ci als 1995e. Water, sewer, and other iit.frastructure trends. Working paper. Rochester, Ml. August. Southeas t Michigan Council of Governments (SBMCOG). 1990. &gional devel11p11renl forecast: popuiiiHon, households and employment by minor civil division. Detroit, MI. June. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). 1993. Rgional profile of Southeast Michigan. Detro it, Ml. December. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SBMCOG) 1994a. Patterns of diversity and change in Southeast Michigan. Detroit, Ml. August Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). 1994b Population and occupied housing units in Southeast Michigan, 1993. Detroit, MI. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Development Initiative Oversight Corrunittee. 1993. Regional development initiative: final report tif the RDI aversighl committee. Detroit MI. U .S. Deparbnent of Commerce Bureau of the Census. 1994. County and city data book. Washington, D.C. U S Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 1992 Tow! fuli Hme and part-time employment by major industries. Washington, D C.

PAGE 124


PAGE 125

MICHIGA N FISCAL IMPACTS INTRODUCTION The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) has commissioned a study on the differences in resource conswnption and cost of current versus ccmpad development. The first situation is often termed trend dn>elopment; the second, managed growth The costs associated with each will be viewed in four different areas: infrastructure provision, land conswnption, housing costs, and revenue impacts. Eighteen commtmities of various types and sizes and in different geographic settings will be analyzed to determine what differences in resources or cost would emerge under different development patterns Information obtained from state and local officials for this report, Section Three, lays the groundwork for the final report, Section Four, which will address such questions as: 1) Do current development trends reduce housing costs by making cheaper land available? 2) Do current development trends diminish core and inner subwban traffic congestion by opening up peripheral lands? 3) Does compact growth reduce the public cost of providing sewer and water lines, roads, and schools? 4) Does compact growth reduce development pressures on agricultural lands, scenic areas, and wetlands? 5) Can compact growth balance the economic interests of residents, businesses, developers, and government agencies? 6) What does compact growth mean for employment and population SICIIO N Ill S ECTI O N Ill growth? How does this relate to regional growth trends? 7) What land-use patterns result from compact growth? 8) Can the pressure to develop wetlands, agricultural acreage, or other special land uses be redirected? 9) Can local governments alter the way they spend money on roads, sewers, and other infrastructure to encourage efficient development patterns? The primary focus of Section Three is on development trends in the individual communities. Section Three first provides an overview of current development trends versus compact growth in the state of Michigan. Where appropriate, discussions of current development trends and compact growth issues for individual regions also are presented Then, based on interviews with planners and other local officials, Section Three presents commtmity profiles that discuss development issues, current l and-use development patterns, and future forms of both current development trends and compact growth. An important aspect of each community profile is identification of the goals that compact growth would be intended to achieve for that community. As described in Section I, current development trends are extensions of previous trends in which market forces encourage housing and commercial growth in peripheral areas outside of existing development and public infrastructure. Current development trends allow the pressures of suburbanization to follow already established paths of regional growth (Burchell et al. 1992). Compact growth,

PAGE 126

MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS on the other hand, aims at sustainable development. 1It involves infill and redevelopment of established centers, selected growth in new centers, or a focus on old crossroads in rural areas It seeks to minimize "skip-over" development, sprawling residential subdivisions, and nonresidential strip development along major arterials It also involves appropriate buffering for wetlands and the protection of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. MICHIGAN: CURRENT VERSUS COMPACf Bock ground Michigan is a state with vast natural resources which are accessible to the public and which serve to define the quality of life for the state's residents. As detailed by the Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project (MRRAP 1992): {t]he state hAs sand dunes, more than 11,000 inlllnd lakes, 36,000 miles of streams, 38.000 square miles of GreAt Lakes, and 3,288 miles of GreAt Lakes ooastline, including islllnds. Preservation of these natural resources, as well as farmland, forests, wetlands, open space and other sensitive environmental lands is a growing concern. Economic demand for residential, colliD\eTcial, and industrial development is encroaching upon natural resources as development continues to spread out &om urban core areas and consume developable lands in peripheral areas. In addition the need to 'Sustainable development is development that pre$C
PAGE 127

April 23, 1997 Mr. Gary L. Brosch, Director Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620..5375 Dear Mr B rosch: Enclosed is the literature search for TCRP Project H-10, The Costs of SprawlRevisited. This reflects the combined efforts of all members of the research team. Also enclosed is a Michigan study just completed by Rutgers University on the costs of sprawl in that state. This study employs many of the same types of models that wiU be used in the H-10 national analysis. You will be receiving in about one week, a description of the work contemplated for the national evaluation. This is a relatively short document" that explains the models to be used and basic data sources relied upon. Look forward to seeing you at the May 9 meeting. 33Livingston Avenue, Suite 400, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1982 Tel: 908-932-3133 Fax: 908-932-2363

PAGE 128

MICHIGAN FISCAliMPACfS further subdivided into smaller parcels 10 years later, again without local review (MSPO 1995c). Future Growth ond Development: Current Development Trends Despite the fact that most of the significant development in Michigan has adhered to local plaMing and zoning regulations, the overall development pattern has been one of sprawl (MSPO 1995c) and it is likely to continue in this form into the future. Specific aspects of sprawl are discussed below. Populo .lion, Househokls, onrl Employment In general, the trend of deaeasing population density in older cities and suburbs coupled with increasing population in newer subwbs and rural areas will continue at an increased rate in the lower peninsula (MSPO 1995a). This will result in overall lower population densities in older cities and rising densities in developing areas. As the population continues to age, retirees will migrate to resort and retirement communities. Growth in residential units will increase faster than the population as one-person households increase and .as the growth in vacation homes in the northern areas of the state also increases (MSPO 1995a). Employment opportunities will continue to migrate from urban core areas to outer rings of development . Eventually, the state will have a homogeneous geographic distribution of population and jobs across the state. (These trends in population, households, and employment have been detailed in the 5edion Two report.) St:cnoNIII SecnONIII Lonrl Usa O.velopment PoHe rns Development trends for Michigan indicate increasing sprawl and consumption of undeveloped acreage. Land devoted to residential development is growing due both to the rise In second homes and the lower densities in growing suburban areas. Low-density development of nonresidential uses is also contributing to current development trends. Because of the demand for land for new development, farmland acreage has been steadily decreasing, and development pressures are threatening environmentally sensitive lands, scenic areas, natural habitats, and natural resources such as oll and gas reserves. Urbanized Land. Urban land uses covered 6.3% of the state In 1978 (MSPO 1995c). Based on reductions In other categories of land coverage, urbanized land increased to between 8% and 10% of the state by 1995. Statistics and trends reported by the MSPO In Jobs & The Built Environment (1995b) indicate that the largest amount of urbanized land cover is in the southern portion of the state around key metropolitan areas. The largest category of urbanized land use Is residential development, which occupies two-thirds of Michigan's urbanized land (MSPO 1995b). According to the MSPO, the trend towards larger lot sizes Is leading to more land consumption per dwelling, and further decreasing the state's average residential density. In contrast to residential development, industrial uses occupy only 6% of urbanized land, and commercial uses

PAGE 129

MIOIJGAN FISCAl IMPACTS account for only 5% (MSPO 1995b). Transportation, institutional, utility, recreational, and cemetery uses occupy the remainder of wbanized land. Although Michigan's population has shown little change during the past 15 years, land development is nevertheless occurring at a rapid pace in many areas. The MSPO predicted that continuation of current population and land development trends would lead to an increase of 75 percent in urbanized land to accommodate an 11.8 percent growth in population over the next 30 years (MSPO 1995a). This would result in demand for 1.5 to 2.0 million additional acres of residential, conunerdal, and industrial land if the projected lowdensity development trend continues (MSPO 1995a). As stated in Patterns on the lAnd: Our Choices, Our Futun: (t)M demographic friUure driving Michigan land use cluznge is not so much populaJion growth, which has been modest, but ratMr a movement of houselwlds out of older cities and suburbs. (MSPO 1995c). Farmland. Agricultural land uses in Michigan include cultivated land, orchards, berry farms, vineyards, permanent pasture, and other uses such as greenhouses, horse tracks, and farmsteads. Most of Michigan's agricultural land is in the southern half of the Lower Peninsula, especially in southeast Michigan where most of the population increase is occurring (MSPO 1995c). Agricultural acreage has been steadily decreasing. It declined by 754,000 acres between 1982 and 1992, an area equivalent to the state of Rhode Island (MSPO 199Sb). The loss during the S
PAGE 130

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Nonetheless, the overall trend of the past 20 years, has been one in whicl)j, _'i{. land devoted to forests and wetlands has decreased due to demands for both agricultural and. urban land uses. As stated by the MSPO (1995c): [w]et deciduous forests have long since given way to urban and built-up land in southeast Michigan and along Saginaw Bay. Across southern Michigan, wetlands have been drained, prairies pl=ed under, and forests cut to a=mmodllte agriculture. The northern lower peninsula and the upper peninsula remain forested, though the vast majority of land has been cut over at lmst once. Wetlands have decreased prlmarily through a large number of small encroachments that fall outside the Wetlands Protection Act (MSPO 1995c) Enaoachment of residential and nonresidential growth in forested areas is also interfering with management of species habitat, timber harvesting, and reaeational uses, particularly in tlte upper peninsula and the northern half of the lower peninsula. Deforestation has diminished the availability of habitat for numerous bird species, resulting in noticeable population declines (MSPO 1995c). New development may also result in fragmentation of forest lands, and parcels of 40 aaes or less are not suitable for timber harvesting (MSPO 1995c) Residents moving to subdivisions near forests may object to timber removal, and reaeational uses (MSPO 1 995c). Coastal Lands. Coastal land use issues are stirring up a growing conflict among these interested in tourism, SECTION Ill SECf iON Ill preservation of scenic lands, and urban development. The state's coastal dunes, for example, are a source of valuable natural habitat as well as sand and gravel for road construction. Managing this resource becomes especially difficult as residential sprawl encroaches on the coastal areas, and residents complain about heavy truck traffic and other aspects of the industrial operations. Oil and Gas Reserves. Michigan's oil and gas fields support a $600 million annual industry (MSPO 1995c). The geological formation containing the most productive fields cuts through densely populated areas, particularly in the southern portion of the Lower Peninsula. The geographic expansion of residential land uses is causing conflicts since new residents often object to the noise, odors, and use of heavy equipment associated with drilling and operating the wells (MSPO 1995c) Land Development Trends. The following trends, identified by the MSPO in Jobs & the Built Etwironment, are expected to continue into the future: New construction at the urban fringe that will encourage the deterioration and abandonment of housing in central cities through lack of demand unless new job opportunities are made available. A deaease in good agricultural land as decisions regarding its value are based e
PAGE 131

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS lands, scenic areas, and areas of natural resources. A growing demand for services and Infrastructure in areas without such services coupled with an lmder utilization of resources in urban areas that will result in a duplication of investment in schools streets and other capital facilities as well as a duplication of services. A decline in revenue sources to meet existing and future public service requirements. lnfroltrudure anr:l Public &pencliture Water and Sewer Service. Approximately two-thirds of Michigan's population uses public water and sewers (MSPO 1995e) The areas which still rely heavily on private weDs are in mid-Michigan, northern Michigan, and a number of communities in southeastern Michigan. The population shift from older cities to suburban and rural areas has resulted in inefficient public sewer and water expenditures because: 1 ) existing infrastructure in older cities is underutilized; 2) poor site conditions in outlying areas cannot support septic tanks and have resulted in the installation of expensive public treatment systems; and 3) new public infrastructure in outlying areas must often be extended long distances through partially vacant or low-density land uses (MSPO 1995e). 1 ) Underutilization. Existing infrastructure is underutilized when it is not serving the number of users for which i t was designed, as is the case in Michigan's older cities, which are losing jobs and people to suburban areas. Duplication occurs SfCTIOH Ill as new Infrastructure is constructed to service the users that have moved from older urban areas to new peripheral developments. Saginaw is an example of this problem. New growth in peripheral areas is too far away to take advantage of the surplus drinking water capacity in existing areas of development (MSPO 1995c). Underutillzation also occurs when older infrastructure deterio r ates. A loss of population, resulting in a shrinking tax base, makes it difficult to maintain older systems. As taxes go up to generate required p u blic reven u es, residents move out to areas with lower tax rates. The shrinking revenue base eventually leads to poor maintenance and the resulting deterioration of lnfrastructure.In Michigan, a large portion of the infrastructure is aging, and many communities cannot afford to maintain or improve their systems (MSPO 1995e). The lack of investment creates system inefficiency and l oss of capacity due to sewer line infiltration and inflow, and lealcing water mains. (MSPO 1995e).ln its worlcing paper on fobs, Sewers, and Other Infrastructur e Trends, the MSPO reported on a 1991 survey by the American Water Works Association: One out qj jifle Michigan communities' ability to lllieqtuJte water smrice has been IUWersely afftckd due to dderionztitlg infrastructure, and OM out qj wery semJ communities with sewersluroe been furceJI to impose a sewer blzn within the last jifle years, resulting in 11 temporary halt qj furtMr .UW!opment lind aptmSilm by txisfing businesses.

PAGE 132

MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS The same survey indicated that only 30% of the communities felt that the current status of their infrastructure was adequate. 2) Poor site conditions and environmentally sensitive lands. Soils in some of Michigan's rapidly growing areas are poorly suited for septic tanks, and many such systems have failed Older septic systems in second homes may be inadequate when the homes are converted to year-round use (MSPO 1995c). Subsequent construction of public systems is expensive because the homes the lot sizes were built on are II\Uch larger than lot sizes for more compact housing developments (MSPO 199Se). Environmentally sensitive lands are also an issue in some high growth areas Water pollution in Lake St. Clair stems from upstream communities with inadequate infrastructure to accommodate new development (MSPO 199Se). 3) Infrastructure in low-density areas. New development is typically drawn to areas with public infrastructure, particularly sewers. Consumers prefer safe, reliable systems which are repaired and maintained by someone else to septic tanks which require owner maintenance (MSPO 1995e) However, the lower density of development in growing areas can result in higher public costs for sewer and water service because the number of users along the line who pay for the service is low. To counteract this, some communities encourage new development in new sewer service areas so they can charge user fees to pay off the system's construction costs (MSPO 199Se). SOCIIONIII SKTtONIII Transportation. Transportation JJ'tfrastructure typically occupies 20% to 25% of land within cities, and the percentage is even higher if parking is included (MSPO 1995b ). In Michigan. the growth of low density suburbs has resulted in increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because public transit in these areas is impractical, and carpooling is infrequent. Between 1990 and 2010, a 40% increase in state VMT is projected (MSPO 199Se).ln its TransportaJion Trends working paper, the MSPO (1995d) found that fuel consumption rose by 12% during 1980 to 1990, and the number of workers driving their own vehicles to work increased by 25% During this period, public transit ridership in metropolitan areas decreased by 66%; ridership in carpools also declined substantially. The MSPO in its Transportation working paper (1995e) projects that unless trends change: Urban road mileage will increase with the spread of wbanization. Vehicle miles of travel will continue to increase. Travel times to work will increase due to longer trips and congestion. Carpool ridership will continue to decline. Local government road revenue responsibilities will continue to increase Maintenance and construction costs for road improvements will continue to rise. Public Expenditures. The current development pattern places a burden on state and local agencies responsible for constructing and maintaining infrastructure. For example, Oakland County, which maintains the state's

PAGE 133

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS second largest road anticipates that funds will be available to complete only ten percent of the $1 57 billion in roadway work needed over the next ten years (MSPO 199Sc). If curren t trends continue, the MSPO (199Sc) concluded, the costs of maintalning and constructing urban infrastructure will becouoe prohibitive leading to serious consequences for human health and the environment Large public expenditw"eS would be needed to cover the costs of: o construction of new sewer and water lines in areas where failed septic tanks have contaminated ground and surface water o construction or expansion of wastewater treatment plants to aa:ommodate rapid growth implementation of control and prevention system for storm water runoff in new developments to a v oid erosion and watershed damage o catching up on deferred mainlelwlce, which if ignored could lead to declining infrastructure systems Futvre Growth onot Develop.....,!: Compact Growth Goob Compact growth would seek to retain growth around exi&ting centers and establish a plan foe growth in the lliOI'e nual areas, especially those that border water bodies. An emphasis would also be placed on land-use efficiency, with lands saved from development, and further p reserved through deaeued density and clustering. An attempt would also be made to save agricultuxal SKTtONIII and other frail lands from development, protect river corridors, and minimize infrastructure provision through compact and mixed-use development Compact growth as it relates to economic development encompasses the foUowing principles: Populcmon, HousolloiJ-, onJ Employment o Compact growth supports economic growth and development that are COI\&istent with environmental objectives-i.e., that aim for sustainable d evelopment Compact growth allow s for the same level of job production and population growth in communities and regions u would take place via traditional or sprawl growth. The growth of some heavy manufacturing or fe:tVice industries may be an el
PAGE 134

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Compact growth will accommodate residential and nonresidential development at the level of traditional development, but at lower overall land consumption rates and development costs. Land Use Development PoHems Compact growth encourages new growth at locations within individUDI communities that are different from where it would have taken place under traditional development. These redirected growth locations surround or are within existing development centers. At the periphery of existing development, they are in new nual centers (formerly crossroads) that are strategically located and specified as to size. Res i dential growth can take place in peripheral or nual areas outside centers but usually on large lots with significant amounts of open space. Compact growth foresees an increase in the levels of development within the aforementioned growthdesignated areas and less development taking place outside these areas. 11lis is tn contrast to the current trend where an increasing percentage of development would consume land in nual and pristine areas. Compact growth foresees some increase in density and floor area ratio in and around existingdevelopedareas{no more than 10 percent), and SEC'IIOH Ill SECTION Ill some decrease in projected density (at least 40 percent) in areas that are currently nual or marginally developed. Compact growth embraces the concept of' increased residential clustering, espedally in the nual or marginally developed areas. Compact growth foresees more efficiency in land development patterns reducing the amount of developable land consumed. Compact growth Is committed to a significant reduction in the taking of prime agricultural and frail lands for development, and committed to the preservation of lands used for agriculture, wetlands, open space, and scenic vistas. Compact growth maintains the distinct edges between city and country, development and open spaCe-thereby supporting the heterogeneity of land uses that contributes to citizens' quality of life. Compact growth maintains that where lands are retained permanently for the benefit of the public good, some fonn of payment should be made to private landholders and to the host public service jurisdictions for access to this land. lnfroslrucfvre and Public &pendifures Compact growth foresees full public services extended to close-in growth areas and more llinited public services

PAGE 135

MICHIGAN fiSCAL IMPACTS available to peripheral locations outside designated growth centers. Compact growth seeks to reduce the physical infrastructure required for roads, utilities, public schools, and other public buildings. Infrastructure quality will not suffer; future quantity will be reduced through effidency of development patterns and a general decrease in the consumption of capital infrastructure per Wlit of development. Compact growth, by relying on the unused service capadty of mature service providers, seeks to reduce the public costs of providing various components of municipal and school district services. Effidency in land-use patterns, lower amounts of land consumption. lower infrastructure costs, and lower residential and nonresidential development costs will contribute to a better business environment. EIGHREN CASE STUDY COMMUNmES: CURRINJ DIVILOPMINT l'UNDS VS. COM,ACJ GllOWIH ALllllNA11VE$ ltmoduction This section provides background information about the eighteen case study commwlities. It includes a discussion of existing development patterns and growth issues for each commwlity, a disc:usslon of public expenditure and service costs, and SCTION Ill desaiptions of current development trends as well as a compact growth alternative for comparison. Based on this information, the likely characteristics of the two future growth alternatives are i dentified. The background information presented in this section will be used for modeling the cost-revenue impacts of current development trends versus compact growth in Section IV. For both alternatives, construction near existing development would aHect local revenues differently than construction in a peripheral area that does not have a full range of sewer, water, and other infrastructure services. Thus, a map for each comrnwlity is included to show the general boundaries for existing and peripheral development areas. For reference purposes, two tables are included for each commwlity. These show the values of key variables for residential and nonresidential growth trends under 1) current development and 2 ) a compact growth alternative. The above tables also show the standardized values developed for infrastructure costs, local tax rates, and conversion of agricultural and fragile lands to other uses. Some additional discussion of these variables is presented in the paragraphs below. Curnnt Ruidentlal oncl Nonrftidentlol Develop.....,t Patlems Eadt community provided information on development densities, sales prices, rental fees and location (near versus peripheral to existing development) on recent construction projects, aa well aa an overview of housing Wlits by type. ht some cases, this was augmented with information from the U.S. Census and other aouroes to determine current development trends. Compact growth trends were based partly on the SKIIONIII ewr.nt O.elopMt TtMCis ottd Co.pocf Growflt .D.Jc.,t 111-10

PAGE 136

MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS densities in local master plans and partly on the development would be needed to reduce municiJlal' infrastructure costs while still maintaining.master plan goals. Agrlcultvrol and Fragile Land Lass Each community's data on the zoning of vacant lands, developable agricultural aaeage, and fragile lands was compared with the projected needs for residential and nonresidential aaeage, based on the future population and employment shown in Section n. This provided an index of agricultural and fragile land acreage that would be lost with each acre of new development. The potential conversion of these lands varies with location (Le., near versus peripheral development areas), but on a per unit basis, remains the same for both the current and compact growth trends. Construction Costs The original cost data provided by the communities contained a variety of assumptions regarding pipe diameters, building sizes, right-of-way widths, excavation and surface preparation costs, roadway curbs and storm drains, and the like. To model multiple communities, however, the data must be converted to a uniform set of variables. For roadway construction costs, the eighteen communities were divided into urban, suburban, and rural categories, and typical roadway construction costs were derived for each category for various roadway construction scenarios. These costs are also the same for both existing and peripheral development locations. The values for sewer and water construction costs show an individual community's costs for extending service into a new area for a variety of pipe sizes, but the internal subdivision costs represent typical costs SfCIIONIU SECflON Ill for pipes with 8-inch diameters; these are the same for each community. Nonresidential construction costs were more difficult to generalize, as they are somewhat dependent on development size, which varied substantially among the communities. Based on the available information, the development sizes and costs were averaged together to obtain typical development scenarios of 1) 25,00 0 square feet of office space at $60 per square foot, 2) 10,000 square feet of retail space at $50 per square foot, 3) 20,000 square feet of industrial space at $35 per square foot, and 4) 10,000 feet of warehouse space at $35 per square foot. Zoning of Currently Va-and Developable Land The available developable vacant and agricultural land, as well as fragile lands and land zoned for other uses, was for both each community's existing and peripheral development areas. This information was used in conjunction with projected densities, population. and job growth in determining the agricultural and fragile land Joss for each acre of new development. Property Tax AsHSirnents Stole fdiiCOiion Tax AD types of property in the state of Michigan pay the same millage for city and county taxes. When projecting the tax revenues for future new construction, however, it is necessary to apply one school tax rate to single-family housing and a dllierent one to apartment buildings, commerdal, and industrial property. However, under Michigan's new school finance law, the difference is minimal. The revenue per pupil is largely fixed by the state, independent of local assessed value. Adopted in 1993,

PAGE 137

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS the state education tax is based on real and personal property not otherwise exempted. The rate is 6 mils ($6 per $1,000), and it is allocated to the School Aid Fund. This is the same for all commwlities and is not shown in the ensuing tables. Generol P,..,.ny Tox In Michigan, the General Property Tax applies to real and personal property not otherwise exempted. It is based on the taxable value of the property, which cannot increase in any one year by more than the lesser of 5% or inflation. Property is reassessed in accordance with state equalized valuation (50% of true cash value) when sold. The rate varies by mwlicipality but may not exceed a level of 15 mils or 18 mils in counties with separate, voter-fixed allocations for all jurlsdktions. 1hese limitations were reduoed by the nwnber of mils allocated to local school districts in 1993. The foregoing limitations may be inaeased up to 50 mils with voter approval. The state constitutional tax limitation amendment of 1978 (Headlee) requires a taxing jurisdiction to roll back authorized rates if the state equalized value, excluding new construction, increases faster than the rate of inflation, and state law requires a rate rollback to offset assessment increases (which the governing body can overcome by vote). Local school district operating taxes are limited to the lesser of 18 mils or the 1993 millage rate. Homestead and qualified agricultural property is exempt &om this millage. However, school districts with a 1994-95 per pupil foundation allowance of over $6,500 may reduce the exemption on homestead and qualif:ied agricultural property by the nwnber of mils S
PAGE 138

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS SECTION Ill . Figure 111-1 Allendale Charter Township, Ottawa County, Ml N I 0 I 2 Milos ---SECTION HI

PAGE 139

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111 Allendale Charter Township S!CIION Ill 1995-2020 Development Charecterlatl" Current Development Trends Cenlral part ol communlly Areas of Exllltlng Development Leas Developed Peripheral Areu Protection AnNI8 North, west, south and southeast parts of township Wetlands Realdentllll Percent DUa Per New Pattern ofDUa Acre Sale/Rent Detached 62.0 2.0 $ 95,000 Attached (Condos) 11.5 4.0 $ 75.000 6 0 12.0 s 575 20. 5 4.0 $ 50,000 Percem I I of Nonresidential Land Uses 83.5 FAR Commerc i al Office Industrial and Fragile Lend Loaa Lands Lands 1Ro,ach1'18y CoMtructlon Coats IPtve existing 2-lane gravel road !Widen 2-lane paved road to 4 lanes !New 2 lane paved road & Water/100 llnear ft. Size (inches) into New Area Subdivision Costs (pipe size) $-F Detached S..F Attached Water 12 $5,000 8 $2,700 $1, 700 0.4 0.4 of Devalopmem 0.20 Coata/Lane Mila $225,000 $394,000 $487,000 Sewer 8 $ 4,500 8 $ 3,400 $ 2,900 Percent DUaPer New ofDUa Acre Sale/Rent 1 00.0 0.50 $ 125,000 Percent 1 6.5 FAR 0.2 0.2 of Development 0.90 Co818/Lane Mile $225,000 $394,000 $487,000 Size (ft2) coavrr 25,000 $ 60 00 10,000 $ 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 L egend: DU Owelling Unit; FAR=Fioor Area Rat i o to Lot Size; ROWeRighi..Qf-Way; S..FaSingle Family SICTIONIQ

PAGE 140

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111-2 Allendale Charter Township S!CtiON 111 1995-2020 Compact Growth Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Planned Residential Development Pattern Single-Family Detached Single-Family Attached (Condos) MuhHamily Mobile Homes Total Residentia l Distributlon of Housing Units (%) Planned Non-Residential Development Pattern Distributlon of Non-Residential Uses Commercial Office Industrial Agricultural and FragUe Land Loss Agricuhural Lands Fragile Lends (wooded/wetland areas) Zoning of Currently Vacant & Agricultural Lands Single Family Detached Single FamUy Attached Muhi-Family Mobile Homes Subtotal of Residential Acreage Acres of Fragile Lands Acreage for Other Uses Total More in central part of community less in north, west, south and southeast parts of township Avoid wetlands Near Existing Peripheral Development Development Pencent DUs Per Pencent DUs Per ofDUs Acre ofDUs Acre 67. 0 2.25 100.0 0.30 5.0 4.50 18.0 13.50 10.0 4 .50 100.0 100.0 80. 0 20.0 Percent FAR Percent FAR 100.0 0 4 N/A 0.4 N/A 0.4 N/A AC1"881Acre Acres/Acre of Development of Development 0.20 0.90 0,07 Acres Percent Acres Percent 2,582 n.5 14,000 92. 3 . . 50 1.5 !ID l.2 !ID D.3 2,672 80. 2 14,040 92 5 . 1,135 7 5 658 19.8 -. 3,330 100.0 15,175 100. 0 PrOJ!erlv Tax Assessments (Mils) Government Rate Municipal 3.1430 County 4.8990 Special Assessments Legend: 0\J=Dwelllng Uni1; FAR=Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size SEC!lON Ill

PAGE 141

MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACIS 2 1 % are mobile homes. In contrast, 100% of the peripheral area homes are single family detached Over four-fifths of the township's recent nonresidential development is near existing developmenl The costs of constructing nonresidential uses range from $35 I square foot for warehousing to $60 I square foot for office space. Most of the recent nonresidential projects were small-less than 5,000 square feet of spw:e each. Between 1995 and 2020, Allendale is expected to increase its households by 121% and its employment by 147%. As shown in Table ID-2, the township has about 18,500 acres of vacant and agricultural land available for development. Of these, about 2,700 acres near existing development are zoned for residential use. Most of this acreage is designated for single-family detached homes, although SOD1e multifamily and mobile home uses are included. In the peripheral area, 14,000 acres are zoned for single-family detached homes, and 40 are zoned for mobile homes. Given the antidpated future development densities, Allendale has more than enough acreage to accommodate population growth, and some of it could be rezoned to accommodate future nonresidential growth. Additional development. however, would result in significant loss of agricultural land in the peripheral area-at a rate of nearly one aae per aae of new developmenl nus is in direct conflict with the township's desire to maintain its quality of life and preserve its rural character. A further potential conflict could arise over the disposition of animal waste. New residents may complain of the odors from chicken and dairy operations. In at $fC110N Ill S!CTJON Ill least one case, a petition for residential zoning by one landowner was successfully opposed by nearby farmers. The potential l oss of sensitive lands is relatively low. Near existing development, no losses would occur due to new development. In peripheral areas, the estimated loss would be 0.07 aaes per aae of new development. Public lnfrattrudure and Service Com Table ID-1 shows the costs of developing new infrastructure in both the existing and peripheral areas. Roadway construction costs are relatively low. Paving an existing lane gravel road would cost $225,000 per lane mile. The cost of widening a road to four lanes would be $394,000 per lane mile. A new two-lane road would cost $487,000 per lane mile and new internal subdivisio n roads would cost $262,000 per lane mile. Originally, all subdivisions were required to be built to a county standard, and the county maintained the roads. To achieve the required right of way for widening and new construction of roadways, numerous trees were cut down. In addition, developers built up narrow frontages along existing roads to avoid the costs of building new roads to county standards. To help maintain the township's rural character and preserve the charm of winding country roads, a private road ordinance was passed. The township's private road ordinance permits a reduced roadway standard to eMOUrage development of larger off-road projects, and it protects small winding roads that the county would find unacceptab l e. A N detached site condoN zoning allows for privately funded construction and maintenance of roadways. The County

PAGE 142

M IOGGAN ASCAL IMPACTS Road Commission has n o review authority over detached site condo r.> developments, and it has stated it will no longer resurface subdivision roads; the township will have that responsibility. 1he costs of extending sewer or water lines into a new area are roughly $5,000 per 100 linear feet. Within a subdivision. the costs of provid.iJ18 sewer service to a residential unit are higher than for providing water. Typical water service costs within a subdivision would be $1,600 to $2,700, depending on the type of unit. Comparable costs for sewer service range from $3,100 to $3,400 per unit. Developers pay for this cost for residential subdivisions. In the future, sewer constructiof! in peripheral areas will cost IJlOre because a lift station will be required. As shown in Table Jn-2, the municipal property tax rate is about 3.1 mils and the county rate is about 4.9. Future Development A Future Willi Cumtnl o. .. lopment Trend Under current development trends the future would be characterized by the expansion of the boundaries of existing development, resulting in substantial conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses in the peripheral areas. Densities would follow the historic growth pattern with average residential densities near existing development, ranging from two to twelve units per acre depending on the type of unlt.ln peripheral areas, the current average density of 0.5 residential units per aae would be pushed up SODleWhat by development pressures. Nonresidential uses would also extend into the peripheral area S
PAGE 143

MIOilGAN flSC.UI M P A Cf$ Figure 10l Bear Creek Township, Emmet County, MI KEY /:'-".......... ""-' Pe* ad I 0 ) CJ_ .... ,, c::::J ... ............. A N c.rr-t o. ., ,,.., _. c ... o. .,,. .., 111--11

PAGE 144

MICHIGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS TABLE 01-3 Bear Creek Township SECTION Ill 1995 Development CJ:if!IC\!lflst19.S Current Development Trends . . Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Protection Residential Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Northwest corner of township Lower 415 of township, E. of Boyer Rd. & S. of Atkins Rd. Petoskey State Par1< snd dunes along Lake Michiga n Percent DUs Per New Percent DUe Per ofDUs Acrt1 Sale/Rent ofDUs Acre 94.0 1 6 $ 200,000 94.0 0 8 6.0 2.0 $ 60,000 6.0 2.0 40.0 Percent FAR FAR New Sale/Rent $ 175,000 $ 50,000 Jm;tril>ution of Nonresidential Land Uses 90.0 Percent 10.0 Commercial Office and Fragile Land Loss Lands Lands Costs IF existing 2-lane gravel road IWi den 2-lane paved road to 4 lanes !New 2lane paved road Subdivision Roads 0.1 0.1 0.2 of Development 0.70 0.30 Coats/Lane Mile $225,000 $394,000 $487,000 0.1 0.1 of Development 0.85 0.15 Costs/Lane $225,000 $394 000 $487,000 & Water/100 linear It. Water Sewer Size (112) Cost/If Size (Inches) 8 12 25,000 $ 60.00 Into New Area $2,500 $ 2,500 10,000 $ 50.00 Subdivision Costs (pipe size) 8 8 20,000 $ 35.00 S-F Detached $2,700 $ 3,400 SF Attached Unit $1,700 $ 2,900 100 Legend: DU:Dwening Unit; FAR= Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size; ROW= Right-ot-Way; SF..Single Family SECIION Ill c..,.,t O.V.Iopmont TronJs onJ Compact Gtowfh Dowelopml Allomalivos-111-19

PAGE 145

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TAB L E 111-4 Bear Cteek Town.hlp StcnoN Ill 1995-2020 Development Cherecterlatlca -Compact Growth Pattem Delached Attached (Condos) ol Pattern of N on-Residential Uses Commercial Office comer Less in lower .US of township, E. of Boyer Rd. & S. of Atkins Rd. A void on St. P k & dunes o f DUe Acre 90. 0 1.80 7 5 9.00 2. 5 2.50 80. 0 Percent FAR 80.0 0.2 0 2 of Development 0 .70 ofDUs 95.0 5 0 20. 0 Percent 20 0 Acre 0 .80 1.50 FAR 0 .05 0 .05 of Development 0.85 Lagend : DU.DweUing Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size St<:11Ct4 II o. . ,., r,..a ...J c.., lief Growth O.u a la,a "' .. fU.-20

PAGE 146

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS SECTION Ill Figure m-3 City of Petoskey, Emmet County, MI Somce : Cemer fbr Urba Policy lleee:n:b a..,... um...,;,y, JotMy SCnON Ill

PAGE 147

M ICHI GAN FISCAl IMPACTS TABLE 111-5 City of Petoakey SICI>OH Ill 1 9952020 Development Characterlallca Current Development Trenda Areaa of ExlaUng Deve l opment Leu Developed Peri pheral Areas Protection"-Real dentlal Pattem Detached Attached ( Condos ) M obile Ho1118$ Units Entire city N one, city is developed None Percent DUa Per New ofDUa Acre Sale/Rent 85. 0 3 5 $ 100,000 15. 0 18. 0 $ 450 1 00.0 Percent J C of Nonresidential Land Uses 100 0 FAR Commen::ial OffiCe Ind u stri a l JRCNadwity Conatructlon Costa elCi&ting 2ane gravel road IWiden 2 -lane paved road to 4 lanes J New2ane paved road &Weter/IOOIIMarft. Size (n:hes) into New Area S ubdivision Cos1s (p ipe siz e ) S.F De tac hed Uni t S.F Altachad Unh U n h Watar 8 $3,000 8 $2,700 $ 1,700 0 6 0 6 of Development CoatallaneMIIe NIA $ 787,000 NIA S.W.r t2 $ 2.500 8 $ 3 ,400 $ 2,900 100 DUa Per New ofDUa Acre Sale/Rent FAR o f Development SID (ft2 ) eostrrt" 25,000 $ 60.00 10, 000 $ 50.00 20, 000 $ 35.00 Legend: D U.Owelllng Unil; F ARsfloor Are a Ratio to LOI Size ; ROWRight.()f-Way; S.F Sing1e Family SECnONIII

PAGE 148

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111-6 City of Petoskey SECTION Ill 1995-2020 Compact Growth : . . .. Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Planned Residential Development Pattem Single-Fa m ily Detached S i ngle-Family Attached ( Condos ) Multifamily Mobile Homes Total Residential Distribution of Hou sing Un"s (%) Planned Non-Residential Development Pattern Distribution of Non-Residential Uses Commercial OffiCe Industrial Agricultural and Fragile Land Loss Agricultural Lands Fragile La nds (wootled/weUand areas) Zoning of Currently Vacant & Agricultural Lands Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multi-Family Mobile Homes Subtota l of Residential Acreage Acres of Fragile Lands Acreage for Othe r Uses Total E ntire city None, city Is developed None Near EKistlng Development Percent DUsPer ofDUs Acre 75.0 4.00 5.0 5.25 20. 0 20.00 100 0 100 0 Percent FAR 100 0 Acres/Acre of Development . Acnes Percent 1 2 100.0 . . . 12 100.0 . . 1 2 100.0 Property Tax Assessments (Mils) Government Mu n clpa l County Special Assessments Legend: Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size Peripheral Development Percent DUs Per oiDUs Acre Percent FAR Acres/Acre of Development . Acres Percent . . . . . . . . Rate 14.1530 4.8500 SICIION Ill C"'""' Development Trends and Co"'p
PAGE 149

MICHIGAN ASCt. L IMPACTS us llwy 31 KEY Nw"' ... ..... F"tgure IU-4 Resort Township, Emmet County, MI ""l Dwnll; 01 t t I Ellillilc Din II II c::::J 1'1if1Jhnl oou $1ct10Nlll SI'CIIOH Iff

PAGE 150

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS SfCTION Ill . TABLE 111 Resort Township 1995 Development CUrrent Development Trends ol Existing DevsiOpment Less Dsveloped Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Residential Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Homes Upper quarter of township, north of Sterzik Road South of Sterzik Road Shoreline areas Percent DUs Per New Percent DUsPer ofDUs Acre Sale/Rent oiDUs Acre 96.0 1.1 $ 250,000 96.0 0.5. 4.0 2.0 $ 65,000 4.0 1.0 Percent FAR FAR New Sale/Rant $ 200,000 $ 55,000 of Nonresidential Land Uses 95.0 Percent 5.0 Commercial Office Construction Coste lr existing 2-lane gravel road 2ane paved road to 4 lanes INEIW paved road Subdivision Roads 0.1 0.1 of Development 0.47 Costsllane Mile $225,000 $394,000 $488,000 0.05 0.05 ol Development 0.15 Costs/Lane Mile $225,000 $394,000 $488,000 & Water/1 00 llnear It Water Sewer Size (112) costlff Size (inches) 8 12 25,000 $ 60.00 i nto New Area $2,500 $ 2,500 10,000 $ 50.00 Subdivision Cosls (pipe size) 8 8 20,000 $ 35.00 S.f Detached Unit $2,700 $ 3,400 S.F Attached Unit $1,700 $ 2,900 Legend: DU=Dwelling UnH; FAR..floor Area Ralio to Lot Size; ROW=RlghtOfWay; SF-Single Family SIC!ION Ill O.Miopmenf Truda anJ Gtowfh Allemofivet-111-25

PAGE 151

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABL 111-8 Res ort Township SeCTION 111 1995-2020 Development Chllrecterlatlce Compact Growth Areaa o f Exlatlng Development I.Ha Developed Peripheral Areas Protactlon Areu Pall am Detached Attached (Condos) Psttam I I ol Non-Residential Uses Commercial Office and Fragile 1.8nd Lo .. Lands of Currently Vacant A Landa Family Detached F am ily Attached Homes ol Residential Acreage of Freglfe Lands lor Ot he r Uses More In upper quarter of township, north of Sterzik Road less in areas south of Sterzi k Road Av oid shoreline areea oiDUa 90.0 5.0 4 0 1.0 Percent 96.0 Acre 1.32 4 50 7 .25 2 .25 FAR 0.2 02 of Devalopmant 0.47 Acree Percent 700 48.7 700 48. 7 800 53. 3 Pfl!SIIdy Tex Aamamopll (MOtl Government Mun clpa l County Special Asaossmenta oiDUs 100.0 30.0 2.0 Acree 1 200 1,200 6 ,800 A cre 0.40 FAR 0 .03 0 .03 ol Development 0 15 Parcant 15.0 15.0 65.0 Rata 1 .4095 4.6500 legend: DUDwellin g Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to lot S i ze $lC11QHIA

PAGE 152

. MICHJGAN FISCAL IMPACTS it is the only one with multifamily housing (15%); however, the majori pr, !!f its housing units are single-family (85%). Average housing densities in Petoskey are the highest of the three communities, ranging from 3.5 units per acre for single-family detached homes to 18.0 units per acre for multifamily units. In Bear Cr!!ek, 60% of the housing is ln the area of existing development, and 40"k is ln the peripheral area. Most of the homes are single-family detached units, and density ln peripheral areas is only half as great as density near existing development Resort's housing units are split 50/50 between existing and peripheral development areas. In both existing and peripheral areas, most of the homes are single-family. densities near existing development range from 1.1 to 20 units per acre, depending on the type of units-a bout half this density in the peripheral area. In Bear Creek and Resort, sales prices .for new single-family residences vary from $175,000 to $250,000 for detached units. Prices also vary considerabl y with the home's view of the water. A lake view could double the cost of a single family detached home pushing It to $500,000 or more. For a home on the waterfront, the lot is worth more than the house. Housing values in Petoskey, by way of contrast, are about half as much-around $100,000 for singlefamily detached units. Recent noruesidential development patterns are somewhat difficult to characterize because only a few new projects have been undertaken; these ranged in size from a delicatessen to a WalmarL In Petoskey, all recent nonresidential uses have been located SECIIOHIII SE<:IIOO< Ill within existing development, and the Jloor area ratios of 0.60 were much . : 1\igher than for the other two communities Ninety to 95% of recent nonresidential development in Bear Creek and Resolit was near existing development. In Bear Creek, floor area ratios were 0.1 to 0.2 throughout the conununity. In Resort, the average FAR was 0.1 near existing development and 0.05 in peripheral areas. Currently, there are no large shopping malls within the three communities. Petoskey is fully built up, and Bear Creek citizens are opposed to them. A recently approved Walmart in Bear Creek has drawn opposition from citizens who feel it is inconsistent with the master plan. Although US Route 31 presents an opportunity for strip commercial development in Resort, the topography of this area will prevent large-scale shopping malls. Households in Bear Creek are projected to increase by 36% and employment by 19% between 1995 and 2020. The community would like to preserve its agricultural land but is being pressured to convert farmland to residential uses. Another concern in Bear Creek is the type of residential development that is occurring. Demand exists for more apartment units, but developers cannot accommodate the demand, given the current low rent structure, high tap-in fees, and the high costs of extending sewer and water lines. Households in Resort Township are also expected to increase-by S?o/...-and job&-by 50%-during the 1995-2020 period. Based on current demand, this growth will most likely be accommodated by high priced, low density single-family homes. Although some people would accept a higher development density for a unique site in

PAGE 153

MIOiiGAN FISCAl IMPACTS an upscale area with a lake view, few sites are available for such development. The township discourages development of multifamily uses and mobile homes. Petoskey is expected to experience lower household growth, 7%, and lower employment growth. 1.5%, from 1995 to 2020 than the other two areas. Even if greater growth were anticipated, however, no land would be available for development. Table ill-6 shows only 12 acres of currently vacant and developable agricultural lands. The college currently owns about 400 vacant acres (not shown in Table ill-6), which will most likely be developed as donnitories. What new growth there is in Petoskey will occur as infill and redevelopment; while growth in Bear Creek and Resort will occur at the expense of fragile and agricultural lands. Table ID-3 shows that Bear Creek would lose agricultural lands at about .10 to .85 acre per aae of new development, and loss of wooded/wetland areas would range from 0.15 to 0.30 aae per acre of new development. The reverse is true in Resort (Table IU-1), where potential loss of wooded/wetland areas would be greater than the loss of agricultural lands as growth occurs. Public trrfrostruc:tvra ortd s.,; .. Com Tables ill-3 ill-5, and ill-7 show infrastructure costs. Extending sewer or water lines into a new area will cost about $2,500 per 100 linear feet. Petoskey has no developable residential land for subdivisions, but providing sewer or water lines to new subdivisions in Bear Creek and Resort will cost $2,700 to $3,400 per house and $1,600 to $3,100 per apartment. S!C!lON Ill The Petoskey Beltway is a source of controversy among the three communities. It is a proposed four-lane expressway intended to bypass downtown Petoskey where traffic becomes congested during the summer due to the influx of tourists. Because the proposed alignment cuts through neighborhoods and farmland in Resort and Bear Creek, both townships are opposed to-the beltway and would like the Michigan oor to eliminate the words "highway bypass" from the legislation so that alternatives could include improvements to existing local roads. Roadway construction costs vary. In Bear Creek and Resort, which are largely rural, the costs would range from $225,000 to pave an existing two lane gravel road to $481,000 for a new two-lane road. In Petoskey, which is wban in nature, roadway construction costs would range from $525,000 for internal subdivision roads to $181,000 to widen a two-lane road to four lanes. Property tax rates are shown on Tables ID-4, ID-6, and ID-8. The municipal rate is about 1.4 mils for Bear Creek and Resort, but Petoskey's rate is 10 times higher at 14.2 mils. The county tax rate is 4.85 mils. A Fufu,. Wrlft C.,,....t Development r,.rtd. If the Petoskey Beltway is constructed, development in the communities under current trends will be characterized by new housing and commercial growth along the beltway corridor. In Petoskey, the attractiveness of new development in the larger, less densely developed communities outside its borders (Bear S!CIIONIII

PAGE 154

. MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS .. Creek and Resort) will contribute to the continued loss of year-round popul"!tion and jobs. Demand for single-family attached units in Resort and J,>etoskey will be at average densities of 4.0 to 4.5 units per acre. Much of the new development would result in conversion of valuable farmland and woodland/wetland acreage to single family residential uses in Bear Creek and Resort. (Tables ill-3, ill-5, and W-7 represent current trends for residential and nonresidential growth.) A future With Compocf Growth A compact growth plan for these three communities demonstrates the need for planning on a regional scale. Petoskey, with an area of only 3.3 square miles, Is already built up and cannot control growth beyond its boundaries. However, controls in the surrounding communities could contribute to in-fill development and use of existing infrastrucluie within Petoskey Residential densities in Petoskey could increase Single-family attached and multifamily units would constitute a high proporticin of total housing units. (Tables W-4, ill-6, and ill-8 show the compact growth alternative.) Both Bear Creek and Resort could encourage growth near existing development. Counter to current trends, overall residential densities will increase near existing development and decrease in peripheral areas. By 2020, approximately 20% of Bear Creek's total housing would be in the peripheral area, compared to only 40% under current trends. Similarly, 30% of Resort's total housing would be in the peripheral area, compared to 50% for a trend extended alternative. Some nonresidential development would also occur in the peripheral aieas of these two communities to support the new residential growth. B edford Townsh ip ExWing Development Location of Dwelopment SEcnONIII Figure m-s shows the community's current development pattern, with the existing core of development in the southern half of Bedford Township. The township is about 65% developed. Most commercial development is found along Secor Road, culminating at the intersection of Stems Road in the western portion of the township. Industrial uses are located primarily in the Bedford Park Industrial Center on the township's southeast side. This industrial center Is a natural expansion of the nearby city of Toledo's industrial area. Industrial uses are described as UsmaiJ" and uclean. u A sewage treatment plant Is also l ocated in the southeast portion of Bedford Township. The peripheral area of Bedford is situated north of Consear Road and Temperance and east of the Ann Arbor Railroad tracl
PAGE 155

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Figure m-s Bedford Township, Monroe County, MJ SfcnONIII KEY ..... ,. __ AI-,/'.,. --'"'' Dtlilk,_al I h1' c:::J ....... c::J,......Ds I 0 ---SfCTlON Ill

PAGE 156

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS SECTK>N Ill TABLE 111 9 Bedford Townshi p 1995-2020 Development Cltil'rii"l)fi!ilittt:SCurrent Development Trends Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Southern hall of township, about65% developed Northern half of township Wetlands in central and southern portions of township Residential Percent DUs Per New Percent DUs Per New Pattern ofDUs Acre Sale/Rent Detached 88.0 3.5 $ 200,000 Attached (Condos) 6.0 7.5 $ 700 Homes 6.0 12.5 $ 60,000 of Units 80.0 Percent ll of Nonresidential Land Uses 10 0.0 FAR Commercial Office Industrial and Fragile Land Loss Lands Lands Construction Costs IF existing 21ane gravel road IWiden 2-lane paved road to 4 lanes INew 2-lane paved road Subdivision & Water/100 linear ft. Size (inches) into New Area Subdivision Costs (pipe size) S.F Detached Unit S.F Attached Unit Water 6 $3,500 8 $2,700 $1,700 0.3 0.2 of Development o.n Costs/Lane Mite $225,000 $394,000 $487,000 Sewer 8 $ 4,000 6 $ 3,400 2,900 ofDUs Acre Sate/Rent 100.0 0.4 $ 150 ,000 Percent FAR of Development 0.85 Costs/Lane Mite $225,000 $394,000 $487,000 Size (112) Costlft' 25,000 $ 60.00 10,000 $ 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 Legend: DU..Owelling Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size; $-!=;Single FamUy SltnOH Ill Omen! Oevelopmont Troncls 011d CAmpod Gtowlf> Devolopmnl Aflotnolivos-111-31

PAGE 157

MICHIGAN fiSCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111 Bedford T ownahl p StCtiON Ul 1995-2020 Development Characteristics -Compact Growth Areas of Existing Development Leaa Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas PlaMed Realdentlal Development Pattern Single-Family Detached Single-Family Attached (Condos) MuHHamily Mobile Homes Total Residential Distribution of HousinQ Units (%) Planned Non-Residential Development Pattem Distribution of Non-Residen1ial Uses Commeteial Office Industrial Agricultural and Fragile Land Lou Agricultural Lands Fragile Lands (wooded/wetland areas) Zoning of CurrenUy Vacant & Agricultural Landa Single Family Detached Single Family Altached Multi -Family Mobile Homes Subtotal of Residential Acreage Acres of Fragile Lands Acreage lor Other Uses !Total More in southern haH of township, about 65% developed Less in northern haH of township Wetlands in central and southern portions of township Near Exlatlng Peripheral Development Development Percent oua Per Percent oua Per ofOUa Acre ofDUa Acre 65.0 4.00 100.0 0.20 9.0 8.50 6.0 13.75 100.0 100.0 90.0 10.0 Percent FAR Percent FAR 100.0 0.40 N/A 0.30 N/A 0.40 N/A Acru/Acre Acru/Acre of Development of Development o.n 0.85 0.09 0.15 Acraa Percent Acraa Percent 2,000 89.3 72 0.4 . . -1.8 2,040 91.1 72 0.4 200 8.9 2,442 15.0 -13,768 84.6 2,240 100.0 16,282 100.0 Property Tax AIMUmonta (Mila) Government Rate Muncipal 2.0883 Ccunty 5.9895 Special Assessments Fire (per parcel) 8.8000 legend: DU=Owelling Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ra1io to Lot Size SICTION Ill

PAGE 158

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS residential growth in the peripheral area has been in single-family dwellings .;md. the densities are much lower than fo f "'Y the area near existing development Average residential sales prices range from $60,000 for mobile homes to $200,000 for single-family detached units. Near existing development (Bedford's southern half), the trend is towards larger homes at relatively higher densities; whlle smaller homes on larger lots predominate in the peripheral area (Bedford's northern half). Growth in nonresidential uses has been focused near existing development. Sites near existing development attracted almost all nonresidential growth. Typical project sizes have been modest, indicating that the demand is for small offices and neighborhood commercial uses. Typica l FARs are 0.2 to 0.3. Bedford is projected to increase its number of households by 31% and its employment by 72% between 1995 and 2020, and classic growth problems are expected to ensue. Population and employment growth will add to existing congestion on local roads, particularly on Smith, Rauch, Summerfield, and Temperance. Another potential problem is housing costs. Community sentiment favors continued development of large single-family detached homes, and young workers will have difficulty finding affordable apartments or single family attached homes. Under the existing pattern, additional growth will also lead to loss of agricultural lands throughout the township at a rate of about 4/5 acre of agricultural land per acre of development. The potential loss of sensitive environmental lands would be SECTION Ill lower-ranging from about 10 to 15% of . \9,'1e developable acreage. .. Public lnlrastrudure ancl Service Com Table m -9 shows that paving an existing two-lane gravel road in Bedford would cost about $225,000 per lane mile, widening an existing road to four lanes costs $394,000, and a new two-lane road would cost $487,000 per lane mile. For subdivision roads, average costs per mile would be about $262,500. However, construction in the northern half of the township could cost less ($161,000 per mile) than in the southern half ($266,000) in part because no curbs and gutters are required for roads in some rural areas. Some residents have expressed concern over the Monroe County Road Commission's oversight of roadway repair and maintenance projects. They claim some of the roadwork has been substandard, causing the township and residents to pay more for repair work. Residents of the Springbrook in the Lambertville section of Bedford have created a special district that will assess each existing home $280 to cover the costs of resurfacing the roads in that subdivision; the township will contribute 25% of the resurfacing costs. Bedford's highways experienoe unnatural wear and tear due to the heavy truck and equipment traffic that passes through the township. Roadway maintenance costs have become such a strain on the budget that the township has proposed a five-year, 2.75 mil levy designated specifically for road maintenance. Naturally, residents oppose the levy, preferring instead to see a reduction in truck traffic. As shown in Table ill-9, the cost of

PAGE 159

MICHI GAN FISCAl.IMPACIS extending sewer and water Jines into a new area is about $4,000 per 100 linear feet. These costs can increase dramatically in peripheral areas where water I sewer lines have to be blasted outofbedrock. Bedford is a General Law township, with limited taxing power. However, the township has levied a special assessment to pay for new equipment tor the volunteer fire department. The levy is 8.80 mils per parcel (not property value) Other property taxes include 2.1 mils for munidpal government and 5.9 mils for oounty government Futvre Development A Future Willi C:..rrant Development Trends It development follows current trends, the southern halt of the township would absorb most of the new employment growth, and oontinue to provide high density housing and large, expensive homes; the northern half would see oonversion of agricultural lands to low density housing with relatively small homes on large lots using septic tanks (see Table ID-9). Average residential densities near existing development would range from 3.5 units per acre tor single-family homes to 12.5 units per acre for mobile homes. In the peripheral area, the densities would average 0.4 units per acre. A Future Willi Compact Grawtl! The type of growth planned by the township would include nonresidential development around the existing development oore at slightly higher densities than at present. As shown in Table In-10, resulting peripheral densities would be SO% of those that SE
PAGE 160

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS SEChON Ill Figure DI-6 Ca nton Charter Township, Wayne County, MI N I 0 I 2 Mios ---stcnOHm

PAGE 161

MICHIGAN fiSCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111-11 Canton Charter Township SeCTION 111 1995-2020 Development Cha racteristicsCurrent Development Trends Areas of Existing Development Leas Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Residential Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Eastem and central areas of township Westem third of township Hills and wooded areas in northwestern portion Percent DUe Per New Percent DUsPer oiDUs Acre S.le/Rent ofDUa Acre 60.0 4.0 $ 250,000 100.0 1.3 25.0 6.5 $ 150,000 4 0 15.0 9.0 $ 850 5.5 30.0 New S.le/Rent $ 275 000 $ 175,000 $ 950 Percent 11 of Nonresidential Land Uses 100.0 FAR Percerrt FAR Commercial Offrce Coste IF existing 2-lane gravel road IWo(!en 2-lane paved road to 4 lane8 paved road Subdivision Roads & Weter/100 linear It Size Qnches) into New Area Subdivision Costs (pipa size) S.F Detac:lled S.FAttac:lledUnlt Water 8 $7,000 8 $2,700 $1,700 0.2 0.2 0.2 of Development 0 .60 Coata/Lene Mile $330,000 $578,000 $715,000 s.-10 $ 7,000 8 Industrial $ 3,400 $ 2.900 100 of Developmerrt 0.65 0.35 CoataiLane Mile $330,000 $578,000 $715,000 SID (112) Coe1lft' 25,000 $ 60.00 10,000 $ 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 Legend : DU Owelllng Unit; FAR-Floor Area Retio to Lot Size; ROW:Right-OfWay; S.F=Single Family Srcnot< Ill

PAGE 162

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111-12 Canton Charter Township S!cnoN Ill 1995-2020 Compact Growth Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Pattern Detached ISirgi&-Farnily Attached (Condos) Homes Pattern of Non-Residential Uses Commercial Office More in eastern and central areas of lownshlp Less l n western third of township Avoid hills and wooded areas in northwestern POrtion ofDUs 50.0 30.0 20.0 Percent 100.0 Acre 4.50 7.25 10.00 FAR 0.30 0.30 of Development 0.80 property Tax Assessments (Mils) Government Munclpal County Special Assessments ofDUs 60.0 20. 0 20.0 15.0 Percent Acre 0.75 3.00 4.50 FAR of Development 0.65 Rate 9.3700 19.4200 Legend: DUDwePing Unit; FAR=Aoor Area Ratio to Lot Size S!CIION Ill Cumnl Dowlo, Trenclo artd Compact Gtawtfa 0.../apmenl AllomaiMtt-111-37

PAGE 163

MICHIGAN RSCAliMPACTS (Gargaro 1996 ). Housing prices typically range from $150,000 single-family attached to 5275,000 for a single-family detached unit. In early 1996, 7,000 housing units were in various stages of development, including 1,000 units of single-family and l!'ultifamily housing in the 680-acre Central Park development, and 1,000 single-family and condominium units on the 450-aae Pheasant Run development (Gargaro 1996). Allrecmt nonresidential development has ta1cen place near existing development, and nonresidential uses have also been growing rapidly. Recently approved developments include a 60,000 square foot sporting goods superstore, tluft shopping centers of 20,000, 25,000 and 75,000 square feet, and an 8,000 square foot restaurant (Gargaro 1996). Developets are also proposing a 200,000 square foot Super Kmart and a $35 million, 250,000 square foot industrial project (Gargaro 1996). Surprisingly, little office development has ocx:urred during the past few years. Recently completed projects ranged from 10,000 to 105,000 square feet. Boor area ratios were 0.20 for all types of nonresidential development. Canton is projected to inan5e its households by 51% and it& employment by 75% between 1995 and the year 2020 and residential and nonresidential growth is currently proceeding aa:ording to Canton's Muter Plan. Approximately 4,600 aaes are zoned for future residential development, as shown in Table III-12. However residential growth is in conflict with the proposal by Willow Run Airport to extend one of its runways for use as a trade port which would increase the number of air freight opezatlons over Canton's residential areas (Gargaro StcnoNfll 1996 ). Residents have also expressed coru:ems about traffic congestion associated with nonresidentia l developments. The proposed super I
PAGE 164

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS for public roads range hom $330,000 per lane mile for paving an existing twqt lane road to $715,000 per J,ane mile for a new two-lane road. Costs of Internal subdivision roads are about $385,000 per mile (see Table ID-11). n.e county provides construction management and Inspection for roadways; once the roadway is completed. the township takes over. If a development is likely to generate 1,000 trips per day or m ore, the developer is responsible for paving the road. A vote on millage for roadway improvements failed In 1995 by 97 votes. Extending sewer and water lines into a new area costs around $7,000 per 100 linear feet. Within a new subdivision, the costs for providing water service are less than for sewer service. The township used to pay for extra sewer capacity when a developer wanted to extend a sewer past empty land. Now, a new policy is In force and the developer must pay all costs. If any other intervening development connects to a line at a later date, the first developer receives no reimbursement unless a contract is arranged in advance. This new policy is intended u an incentive to deter leapfrogging Residential properties account for more than 75% of the township's tax base. n.e municipal property tax rate is about 9.4 mils and the county rate is 19 4 mils. Fulure Development A Fufv,.. Wdlo c.m....t Table m -11 shows that if the township's historic trend is extended Into the future, average densities will range hom 4 units per acre for single-famlly detached homes to 9 units per aae for $11C110N II SI!C110N Ill multi family units. Extending the current development trend would also continue the conversion of agricultur al lands to residential uses In the western thlzd of the township. The loss of sensitive environmental lands would be significant. A Fulu,.. Wdlo Compoct G
PAGE 165

MICHIGAN fiSCAl. IMPACTS Figure Ill 7 Garfield Township, Grand Traverse County, Ml KEY N_ ...... /':V-J' ......... '""' .,., :II 7 ""'sO""' 's SECnONIII A N

PAGE 166

MICHIGAN FISCIJ. IMPACTS StcnONIII TABLE 111 Garfield Township 1995 Development Current Development Trends Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Residential Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Homes of of Nonresidential Land Uses Commercial Office Construction Costa IF existing 2-lane gravel road 2 1ane paved road to 4 lanes !New 2l ane paved road Subdivision Roads & Water/100 Unear It. Size (inches) I nto New Area Subdivlsi9n Costs (pipe size) SF Detached Unit S.F Attached Unit North-central and southeast portions of township Far west, northwest, south central and southeast areas Wetlands. creek and river setbacks throughout township Percent DUs Per New ofDUs Acre Sale/Rent 52.0 2 12 $ 137,500 3.0 3.20 $ 105 653 17.0 7.00 $ 520 28 0 4.00 $ 60,000 Percent 80.0 FAR Water 8 $4,200 8 0.3 0.1 of Development 0.94 Costs/Lane Mile $330,000 $578,000 $715,000 Sewer 8 $ 6,500 8 $2,700 $ 3,400 $1,700 $ 2,900 of 98.0 2.0 20.0 DUs Per New Acre Sale/Rent 0.45 $ 110,000 1.28 FAR 0. 1 5 0.05 $ of Development 0.89 Costs/Lane Mile $330,000 $578 ,000 $715,000 50,000 Size (112) Cost/If 25,000 $ 60.00 10,000 $ 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 Legend: DU=Dwelling Unit; FAR=Fioor Area Retio to Lot Size; RQW,.Righi-OfWay; S.F=Single FamUy SfC!lON Ill Current D..,.Jopatent Trends ortd Compad Growth OevelopmMt Ahmativa-111-4 1

PAGE 167

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS TABLE 111 Garfield Township SICTION Ill 1995 Development CharacterlsUcsCompact Growth Areaa of Existing Development Lese Developed Peripheral Al'llaa Protection Areas Pattem Detached Attached (Condos) Pattem of Non Residential Uses Commercial Office Industrial of Currently Vacant & Lenda Family Detached Family Attached Homes of Residential Acreage of Fragile Lands for Other Uses More in north-central and southeast portions of township Less in far west, northwest, south central and southeast areas Avoid wetlands, creek and river setbacks throu hout township ofDUa 46.0 4.0 30.0 20.0 75.0 Acre 2.44 3 .60 7 .75 4.50 FAR 0.4 0.2 of Development 0.94 Percent 770 11.6 15 0.2 97 1.5 6Q fl.& 942 14.2 400 6.0 5,265 79.7 PI'JISI!IdY Tax As-aments (Mill) Govem"**t Muncfpal County Spedal Assessments Fire ofDUa 66.0 10.0 10.0 Percent 25. 0 200 45 245 831 6,712 Acre 0.30 3.50 0.80 FAR 0.09 0.03 of Develop"**t 0.89 Percent 2.6 0.6 3.1 10.7 66.2 Rate 2.5000 7.2419 2.0000 Legend: DU=Dwelling Unit; FAR-Floor Area Rallo to Lot Size $Kt10NIP

PAGE 168

MIOllGAN FISCAL IMPACTS of wetlands, as weU as creek and river setbaclcs throughout the township. ;;;;_ Table ID-13 shows that 60% of Garfield's housing is near existing development. Nearly all of the homes In the peripheral area are single-family detached units, but housing near existing development is mixed. Garfield is pleased with its varied mix of housing; i t offers higher proportions of multifamily and mobile home units than do most other communities. In the vicinity of existing development, 52% of the homes are single-family units, 17% are multifamily units, and 28% are mobile homes. Prices range from $60,000 for moblle homes to $137,500 for single-family detached houses. To encourage developments with affordable housing. Garfield supports mixed-use types of development (e.g., commercial and apartments). The Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance permits a variety of uses on sites of 20 or more acres. Planners are promoting greater residential densities. The Silver Lake Farms subdivision, developed during 1987-1990, is on 3/4aae lots. Many planners now encourage 1/2 acre lots with clustered units and semi-detached (i.e., duplex) units. However, some developers feel that PUD designs take too long for approval. The township planners would like to see 4-5 units per acre overall for Silver Lalce and some other developments, together with some 50 foot lots to achiev e a higher density near the rore. Four-fifths of recent I\OJU8idential development has been near development. tittle commercial land is available for development In the township. The farmers feel it is more SKnONIII SfCTION I ll gro&table to sell their land for " SUbdivision development than to selllO. acre commercial roadside lots. Costs of construction have ranged from $13/square foot for warehouse space to $32/ square foot for industrial uses. All recent projects were under 7,000 square feet in size. Typical floor area ratios ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 In areas near existing development and from 0.05 to 0.151n peripheral areas. Many of the commercial areas are PUDs which have 20 acres of land with two acres of buildings. Garfield is expected to Increase its households by over SO"k between 1995 and 2020. Employment will more than double during the same period. Traffic congestion is already developing as residents In neighboring tOWNhips travel through Garfield to reach jobs and shopping areas. Mass transit is not practical as a solution. The Michigan DOT is currently studying the feuibllity of a bypass and another means of crossing the local Boardman River. The majority of the developable land is farmland. and roughly 9/10 of an acre of farmland would be lost for each acre of new growth in both the existing and peripheral areas of development (see Table ID-14). The potential loss o f sensitive environmental lands would be smaller, around 1/20 to 1/10 of an acre per acre of new development PubJie lnfraJtruclu,. ond Table m-13 shows that roadway oonstruction oosts are relatively low ClODtpU'ed to other study communities. Paving an existing two-lane road will alit only $330,000 per lane mile; widening a two-lane road to four lanes will alit $578,000 per lane mUe. A new

PAGE 169

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS two-lane road would be $715.000 per lane mile, and internal subdivision roads would cost $385,000 per mile. The costs of extending sewer and water service into new areas are also shown on Table ID. Sewer line construction costs of $6,500 per 100 linear feet are somewhat more expensive than water line costs of about $4,200. In addition. Garfield has a "tap-in fee" of $500-i. e., the initial fee a resident pays to hook into the county sewer and water system. The township also charges Nbenefit fees" of $925 for water and $760 for sewer which are the residents' annual contributions for maintenance and operation of these systems. Property tax assessments include a fire assessment of 2.0 mils in addition to munidpal and county assessments of 25 and 7.2 mils, respectively. Future O.v.lopiiNint A Fvlvre Wrllo O.velop .... nt r ... .u Extending current development trends would distribute much of the population growth across developable land in single-family homes at a density of 2 to 3 units per acre. Since the available residentially zoned acreage is insuffident to accommodate this growth, the core area of existing development will expand noticeably into peripheral areas. A Fu!v.-. Wrllo Compad Gnlwlft Under Garfield's compact growth plan. shown in Table m-14, residential densities in the core will inaea8e to 2.4 units per acre for single-family detac:hecl homes, 3.6 units per acre for singlefamily attached, and 7.8 units per acre for mullif.unily units. Multifamily SKTIONIII developments will be encouraged; 30% of the core's residential units will be in this category. The proportion of housing near existing development will increase from 60% to 80%. In the peripheral development area, the number of residential units per acre will decrease slightly to about 1 unit for every three acres instead of the current rate of about one unit for every two acres. The amount of nonresidential development in peripheral areas will increase to 25% of the total, which will help reduce some of the traffic congestion as people travel &om homes to work or shopping. Harrbon Ch-r Towmhip Exlsllng Development l.oc:otiott of Development Figure m-a shows the township is ss. 90o/o developed. An area of about 1,000 acres in the western portion of the Township between the Ointon River and Metropolitan Way is unsewered and could be classified as peripheral to remaining undeveloped land is wetlands. Areas that the township would like to preserve are the wetlands near Huron-Clinton Metropark Authority Oefferson to Metro Beach Highway, southeast of V andy). As shown in TableiD-15, 90o/o of the housing is near existing development, and these units are either single-family detached (60%) or multifamily (40%) However, aome townhouse and condominium units are in various stages m development. The older sections m Harrison have small homes on small lots, espec:ially between the Clinton River and Metro Beach Road in the western part of the township. Along Lake Shore Drive, some small old cottages are being tom down to make s...-111 c.r..t De slap"' r,...,_ -a eo..,wGrowfl. o.,,,,D, ... ., ... 11-AA

PAGE 170

MICHIGAN fiSCAl. IMPACTS StCOONIII u-F'tpre m-s Harrison Charter Township, Macomb County, Ml N I 0 I 2 Milel --$fCIIOH Ill o.n-t.Datah .. tT,..._eaJCs ; 11riGtowJ.DeualopMf_..s,..;,., IU.....S

PAGE 171

MICHIGAN FISCAl I M PACTS TABU: 111-15 Harrlaon Charte r Townahlp SKnON 111 1995-2020 Development CheracterlaUcaCurrent Deve l opment T renda Areaa of Elclltlng Developmen1 Leee Developed Pe ripheral Areee Protection Areee Aealdentlal Pattern Detached Attached ( Condos ) Homes Nonresidential Land Uses Commercia Office c-tnoctlon Coeta 2ana gravei!Qad 2-lane paved road to 4 lanes I New 2ane paved road Subdivision Roads A W-1100 llMer It. Size (incMa) into New Area ln1emal Subdivision C<*S (pipe size) S.F Detached S.F Attedled UnH UnH 85% of township Inbetween C l inton River & Metropolitan Way Wetlends near Huron-C linton Metroparlc A Percent OUs Par New oiDUa Acre Sale/Rent 60.0 3 0 $ 200,000 40. 0 10 0 $ 1 050 Percent 100.0 FAR Water 8 $5,500 8 $2,700 $ 1,700 0.3 0.3 o of Developman1 0 .60 ColtaiUne Mile NIA $578,000 NIA Sewer 10 $ 8,000 8 $ 3,.00 s 2,900 Percent DUe Per New ofDUa 100.0 Acre Sale/Rent 1.50 $ 216 000 FAR of Davelopmen1 1.00 ColtaiUne Mile NIA $578,000 NIA Sb:a (112) Coatlft" 25,000 $ 60.00 10 000 $ 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 35.00 legend: DU50walting UnH; FAR=Fioor Area Ratio to lot Size; ROWRight-OfWey; S.FaSklgle Family SK110NUI

PAGE 172

MICHIGAN FlSCALIMPACTS TABLE 111-16 Hamson Charter Township 1995-2020 Developrt,;,en(C_ hll f.i>teristicsCompact Growth Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Areas ProtecUon Areas Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Pattem of Non-Residential Uses Commercial Office More throughout 85-90% of township Less in west, between Clinton River & Way Wetlands near Huron-Clinton Melropark Authority ofDUs 55.0 10.0 35.0 Percent 100.0 Acre 3.50 5.25 9.00 FAR 0.40 0.40 ofDUs 60.0 40.0 5.0 Percent Acre 0.75 4.00 FAR S!cttONIII and Fragile Land Loss of Development of Development Lands Lands of Currently Vacant & Lands Famny Detached FamUy Attached Homes of Residential Acreage of Fragile Lands lor Olher Uses 0.60 Acres Percent 465 46.3 135 13.4 600 59. 7 405 40.3 l'roJ!edy Tax .Assessmente (Mils) Government Muncipal CountY Special Assessments SMART Legend: OU=DweHing Unit; FAR=Fioor Area Ratio to Lot Size SrcnoN Ill' Acres 454 454 1.00 Percent 100.0 100.0 Rate 6.9307 4.4346 0.3300

PAGE 173

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS way for larger, more expensive homes. Recent sales prices for single-family homes have been aro\Uld $200,000. Aside from some new marinas and restaurants, very little commercial development has oc:curred since the 1970s. Some industrial uses in town include manufacturing, stamping, plastics manufacturing, and metal cutting. The average size of recent construction projects has been 16,000 square feet. As shown in Table ID-15, floor area ratios are 0.3 to 0.4. Antidpated future household growth during the 199.5-2020 period will be about 22%, while employment growth is projected for this period at 44%. As shown in Table ID-16, approximately 1,000 aaes remain for residential development. Based on Harrison's existing trend in residential density, the township has more than enough aaeage to support its projected inaease in households. The zoning of the excess acreage could be for nonresidential purposes. Otherwise, growth in nonresidential uses would have to be accommodated via redevelopment or rezoning As shown in Table m-16, about 40% of W"ldeveloped land near existing development in Harrison is wetlands or wooded areas. Agricultural lands constitute 60% of W"ldeveloped land near existing development and about 100% of peripheral lands. Thus, future development would result in the loss of remaining farmland and sensitive environmental lands. l'vl>lic /nlnultvdvre S.IYict Com Table ID-15 shows the costs of developing new infrastructure. The costs include $578,000 per lane mile to SOCIION Ill SECTION Ill widen an existing two-lane road to four lanes and $385,00 to construct new internal subdivision roads. Harrison is experiendng problems with its sewer and water infrastructure; much of the infrastructure is old. Some areas have failing septic tanks that are polluting local canals. In one subdivision with 890 units on septic tanks, 50% are bubbling out into the canals. During 1994, mats of vegetative material mixed with fecal material washed up on the beach. During a major project in 1967-1969, lot owners in one area in the northern part of Harrison asked to be excepted from the project, and the state agreed. Now, those lots which Wen! originally 120 feet are being subdivided into 50-60 foot lots. Since the owners of new homes on these Jots have invested in an engineered septic field at a cost of $10,000 per lot, they don't want a public sewer. A major concern In the township is how to pass revenue bonds for infrastructure improvement. A 1995 proposal for a $6 ml1lion bond to upgrade the sewer and water lines lost by 19 votes. Passage of the bond issue would have raised every household's water bill by $36 for the first three years and $50 a year thereafter. The cost of extending sewer and water lines Into a new area is $5,500 per 100 linear feet for water and $8,000 per 100 linear feet for sewer service U a developer pays for a new external line, a lalmll benefit clatrge is ClOnSUDUil8ted so part of the cost can be recovered if lots across the road are developed in the future. Eighty-114!Ven percent of Harrison's tax revenue comes from single-family residences Table ID-16 shows the

PAGE 174

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS :/, J:'' municipal tax rate is about 6.9 mils, while the county rate is 4.4 mils. A ; . special assessment of .3 mils is for public bus service. Futuro Development A Future With C..rntnl Development Trends Historic development has resulted in small residential lots at densities of 3.0 units per acre for single-family detached units. Multifamily housing density is around 10 units per acre. (See Table m-15.) The current trend is toward larger lots, and small homes will likely be razed for construction of larger homes. Current development trends will result in continued development of large homes at a somewhatlower density. Excess developable acreage currently zoned for residential uses may be rezoned to accommodate nonresidential uses. A Fulure Wrlh Compact Grawfll In contrast to the current development trends, the compact growth alternative would increase residential densities for most housing .types near existing development, resulting in densities of 3.5 units per acre for single-family detached units, 5.3 units per acre for townhouses, and 9.0 units per acre for multifamily units. (See Table In-16.) In the peripheral area, more housing units would be constructed as single-family attached or PUD dwellings at average densities of four units per acre. Job growth would occur through redevelopment of existing nonresidential properties. Excess developable acreage would be used for public and oPen space uses. $:nnN Ill SCr10N Ill City of Hartford Existing Development Locolion of Development Figure m-9 shows that the entire city of Hartford is developed and has no areas of sensitive environmental lands to be protected. However, the city recently annexed about 213 acres of Wldeveloped land between its southern boWldary and Interstate 94, which could be considered an area of peripheral development. The tract has no sewer or water lines; half of it Is zoned for commercial uses and half is zoned for single-family detached residential uses. All existing residences are single-family detached units. Ninety percent are near existing development, as shown in Table m-17. Most of the houses are small, with a market value of about $40,000. Sales of newer homes have been in the $75,000 range. Although the zoning on the annexed land is for low density single-family housing, the city would consider single-family attached or multifamily uses if approached by developers. N"mety percent of current nonresidential development is near the area of existing development. However, the annexed land includes zoning for commercial development, and the city would also consider industrial uses on this land. Recent development includes two medical offices, a drugstore, a car dealership, a video store, a restaurant, and a $1 million seasonal racecar track which has generated noise complaints from nearby residents. F ARs range from 0.1 to 0.2 in the peripheral area _and

PAGE 175

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS SfcnoN Ill Figure 10-9 City of Hartford, Van Buren County, Ml KEY /'>:,/ ... /:'../-"'........ .,. .,,' .,., t1r 1 c:::J_ ... "q .. V IIPw* SecnoNHI . l _] . .... . . .. . .. St A N ao..n..: c... .... un.. PoW)' amueh .._. ........ ..,. -Jonoy

PAGE 176

MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS SECTION Ill . TABLE 111-17 ,Git.YAof.l:lal:lford 1995 Development CharacterlstiesCurrent Development Trends Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Residential Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Homes Enlire city except for annexed land Recently annexed land None Percent ofDUs 100.0 PJJ:cent DUs Per Acre New Sale/Rent 3 0 $ 75,000 FAR IDistrii>Ut;on of Nonresidential Land Uses 90.0 Commercial Office and Land Loss Lands Lands IRc>adlwary Construction Costa IPa,leexisting 2-lane gravel road IWiden 2-lane paved road to 4 lanes I New 2-lane road & Waterl100 linear It. Size (Inches) into New Area Subdivision Costs (pipe size) S-F Detached Unit 5-F Attached unn Unit Water 12 $6,500 8 $2,700 $1,700 02 0.3 0.4 of Development Coats/Lane Mile NIA $578,000 NIA Sewer 8 $ 6,500 8 $ 3,400 $ 2,900 Percent of DUs 100.0 Percent 10.0 DUsPer Acre 0.50 FAR New Sale/Rent $ 105,000 Coats/Lane Mile N/A $578,000 NIA Size (ft2) coatlft' 25,000 $ 60.00 10,000 $ 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 35.00 l,.egend: DU=Dwelting Unn; Area Ratio to Lot Size; ROW=flight-01-Way; SF=Single Family SK!IOHIII c.,,.., O...lopmonl r ..... and Co"'f'od Growth O...lopmonl Allomalw..-111-51

PAGE 177

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TAB LE 111 1 8 Cl1y of Hartford 1995-2020 De v elopment Chllrecurlatlca-Compact Growth AlMa o f Exist in g Developmen t Leu Deve loped Periphera l Areas Protec tio n Am Pattern D etach ed Attached (Condos) More in entire ci1y excep1 for annexed land Less in recently annexed land N one of DUa ACI'II 1 00.0 3.38 p.,.,. 75.0 FAR 0 3 0. 4 0.5 of DUa Acre 100 .0 0.30 25.0 FAR 0.08 0.09 SICTIOH Ill IASIMIItul'lll and Fragile Land Lou Lands of Development of Devalop.,..nt Vacent & ,, Landa Famtly Detached Family Attached Homes ol Relidenlial Acrea ge I Acraa of Fragile Lands for Other Uses Acrn f'en)ent 40 100 0 40 Property !Jx A-IDII!da (Mill) Government Muncl pal County Special AsaaMmenta Library Lagend: DUDwelling Unit; FAR.Floo r Area Ratio to Lot Sia Acnla Percent 107 50.0 107 50. 0 107 50.0 214 Rllte 20 .2700 8.7 000 0 .8500

PAGE 178

MIOiiGAN FISCAL IMPACTS from 0.2 to 0.4 in the existing development area. Future growth in the city of Hartford will be relatively smalL Households .will increase by only 10% and employment by 4% between 1995 and 2020. This growth will likely be accommodated through redevelopment of existing properties and new development on the annexed land. Up until recently, Hartford had little need to compile statistics or develop comprehensive plans. However, the city now faces challenges associated with urbanization and. plans to prepare a comprehensive plan with new zoning. Unfortunately, city planners currently have a very tight budget, which makes gathering information difficult. As indicated, the annexed land would be the primary location for new ment. As a result, no agriculturu land or fragile environmental lands would be consumed. {See Table m-18.) Roadway construction costs in Hartford include $578,000 per lane mile to widen a two-lane road to four lana New roads in the annexed area would cost around $385,000per mile. (See Table Dl17. ) Extension of sewer and water lines into the annexed area would cost around $6,500 per 100 linear feet. The costs of providing service to new homes would be somewhat higher for sewer lines {up to $3,400 per 100 linear feet) than for water Jines {up to $2,700). The groundwater has a heavy iron content. The municipti tax rate of 20.3 Dills shown in Table m-18 is among the highest of the study communities, because the city's small tax revenues are based on homes and commercial/ SfCTIONin SECTION Ill industrial uses that are relatively small in both size and number. Even minimal services are difficult to maintain with the city's small tax base. Hartford has few ratables, and assessed valuations are approximately 50% of market value. The city is building a system to remove iron from the water and has added 2.U Dills to the property tax to pay for this. Another 4 Dills of the tax is for sewer infrastructule. A ballot to add 2 more mils for needed street improvements failed by 30 votes in 1996. In addition, the city has levied a special assessment of .85 mils for the library. The county tax rate is 6.7 Dills. Future Development A future Willi Current Development Trench Hartford is not typical of current development trends because it is experiencing neither the rapid growth of rural communities nor the net population loss of developed cities. If growth bypasses Hartford and occurs in the surrounding communities however, Hartford will be hard pressed to maintain enaugh jobs and development to support city services. The city has already lost several businesses that provided year-lOlqld employment, and growth in new service industries has been slow. Thus, the extension of current development trends for Hartford would :result in a pattern of little growth. The city would also have difficulty developing the tract of annexed land. Overall housing density would remain at three dwelling Wlits per acre and range from two to four units per acre. A future Wdlt Compad Grawlh A compact growth alternative would focus on helping Hartford increase Its

PAGE 179

MICHIGAN FlSCAliMPACJS tax base by providing larger, more expensive homes, as well as new employment in service industries. This would be accomplished through careful development of the annexed tract of land which is directly accessible to 1-94. Future zoning would provide for higher densities in areas of existing development and development of single-family detached homes at an average density of one Wlit for every three acres on the annexed tract as indicated in Table ID-18. Approximately 10% of the dty' s commercial uses would also be on this tract of land. In addition, new nonresidential growth would take place through renovation and redevelopment of existing structures in the developed portions of the dty. City of Kentwood Elcialing Development Localion of Development Over the past seven years, the dty of Kentwood has grown in a predictable pattern. following the expansion of utility lines, which gradually extended to the southeast comer of the dty. Since Kentwood is 70% developed, the dty is also at a point where many infill developments are occurring. The southeastern portion of the dty is considered peripheral to existing development. (See Table m-10.) Wetlands and floodplains along Plaster Creek are areas the dty would like to protect. Other wetland and floodplain areas are intelspersed in developed areas. Seventy percent of current housing development takes place near existing development. As shown in Table m-19, 59% of this housing is single-family detached, and the remainder is evenly S!CTION Ill distributed among single-family attached, multifamily, and mobile homes. Recent home sales ranged in price from $40.000 for mobile homes to $105.000 for single-family detached units. Nearly all of the nonresidential uses are developed near existing development Commerdal development generally has been limited by the Jack of available vacant commercial land. Commercial uses are concentrated in the northern part of the dty, espedally in the Woodland and Eastbrook Malls. Recently commercial development has been spilling over to 29th Street, and some older commercial sites are also being redeveloped. Table m-19 shows that floor area ratios for nonresidential uses average 0.3 Although the standardized construction project sizes are shown in the table, recent of&e and retail developments have been small, ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. Industrial and warehouse projects have been somewhat larger, ranging from about 25,000 to 30,000 square feet. Between 1995 and 2020, the dty of Kentwood will experience a 24% increase in households and a 30% increase in employment This growth will increase demand for residentially zoned acreage. When Kentwood updated its comprehensive plan in 1996, approximately 300 acres of agricultural land were rezoned to include a combination of 70% single-family attached and detached units and 30% multifamily units. Several other large tracts of agricultural and undeveloped land were zoned for residential and of&e development, zesu1ting in approximately 1,100 developable acres for residential uses. Still more SrcnoHIII

PAGE 180

M IOII GAN FISCAl IMPACTS Figure 111-10 City of Kentwood, K ent County, MJ KEY y ....... /'..:./-' .... ''-l Dlnflp lswiB# ::::J--c:::::J Ptri,a..I P. r=t SfCIIONW SI!COONUI N

PAGE 181

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111 City of Kentwood SKnOt< Ill 1995-2020 Development Characterlatlcs-Current Development Trends Realdentlal Percent DUa Per NPattem oiDUa Acre Sale/Rent Detached 59. 0 2.5 $ 105 000 Attached (Condos) 12.0 7.0 $ 60,000 14 0 12.0 $ 500 Homes 15. 0 8.0 $ 40, 000 of 70. 0 It of Nonresidential Land Uses 100. 0 FAR Commercial Office Industrial Construction Costa IF existing 2ane gravel road !Widen 2-lane paved road to 4 lanes pav.ed road ISawer & Water/100 linear It IPil)tl Size Qnches) IExl:end into New Area lln!Etmal Subdivision Costs (pipe size) s-F Detached unn $-F Attached Unh Wnr 6 $4,000 8 $2,700 $1,700 0.3 0.3 of Development 0.90 Coste/Lane Mile NIA $578,000 $715 000 Percent DUs Per oiDUa Acre Sale/Rent 100 0 0.50 $ 125,000 30.0 Percent FAR of Development 0.90 Coata/LIIne Mile NIA $578,000 $715, 000 Size (112) 25,000 10 000 20,000 eo.urr $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 35.00 Legend: OUDweUing Uni!; FAR=Fioor Area Ratio to lot Size; ROWRight..()f-Way; 5-F=Single Fllllily SICIION Ill

PAGE 182

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111 20 City of Kentwood 1995 Compact Growth . Areas of Existing Development Lese Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Pattern of Non -Residentia l Uses Commercial Office Industrial More in northem and western areas of city Less in southeast comer of city Avoid wetlands and floodplains along Plasler Creek ofDUs 65.0 20.0 15.0 Percent 75.0 Acre 2.85 7.75 14.0 0 FAR 0.40 0.40 oiDUs Acre 100.0 0.30 Percent FAR 25.0 0.5 0.5 SECTION Ill and Fragile Land Loss ol Development of Development Lands of CUrrently Vacant & Lands Family Detached Family Attached Homes of Residential Acreage of Fragne Lands lor Other Uses 0.90 0.10 Acres Percent 294 19.2 50 3.2 113 7.4 457 29.9 153 10.0 920 60.1 Property Tax Assessments (Mila) aovernment Muncipal County Special Assessments Lagend: DUsOwelling Unit; FAR--Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size SECIION Ill Acies 572 96 0.90 Percent 20.7 3.5 Rate 1 .4380 5.1014

PAGE 183

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS developable acreage may be necessary to meet the projections of residential demand. The lands remaining for development are generally of a type that has been difficult to develop in the past, either because they are not served by utilities or because they include wetland or floodplain areas. The city feels, therefore, that it is at a aossroads regarding the best approach to development. As shown in Table m-20, each aae of new development would consume 9/10 of an aae of agricultural land and 1/10 of an aae of sensitive environmental land. The recent reduction in vacant lands has increased the city's concern for preservation of public open space. Citizens have a desire to retain open space, which will continue to influence the city's decision making in the future. Public lrrfnnfrvcture ond S.rviceC<>sfs Table ill-19 shows that widening a two lane road to four lanes would cost around $578,000 per lane mile and a new two-lane road would cost $715,000 The cost of developing new internal subdivision roads is around $385,000 per mile. As a rule, developers must pay for these new subcllvision roads; however, if the new street is wider than two lanes, the city contributes funds. The entire community is served by public sewer and water lines. Extending lines into a new area costs about $4,000 per 100 linear feet. Developers also pay the costs of sewer and water lines within the subdivisions. Kentwood is a fiscally conservative community, with a low municipal tax rate of 1.4 mils. However, the city is reaching a point where adclltional S!C110NUI S!cnot< Ill revenues are needed. Additional money can be obtained from the state, but some will have to come from local sources. A proposed adclltional millage of 2.75 mils was defeated in 1996. The $6 million revenue anticipated from the tax was earmarked for constructing the second phase of a safety center for the police and fire departments, as well as for moving the municipal court. In 1997, the dty plans to introduce a revised proposition; any funds collected would be decllcated to the police and fire departments. in the past, Kentwood used federal revenue sharing for capital improvements and resisted using it for operations funds. Now, it must use the state revenue sharing for operations, as well as capital improvements. The county property tax rate is 5.1 mils. (See Table ill-20.) Future Development A Future Will. Cu,.,.,t O.V.Io,..,.nt Trend Currently, average residential densities in Kentwood range from 2.5 units per acre for single-family detached homes to 12.0 units per aae for multifamily units. Given the projected growth in households, the city of Kentwood should experience significant demand for new housing. If development takes place according to the historic densities pattern. Kentwood will be unable to ac:conunodate the demand with the approximately 1,100 acres zoned for future residential development The growth will aeate pressure to rezone remaining agricultural aaeage and tracts zoned for nonresidential uses. (See Table m-19.) A Future Will. Compact Growtft Under the compact growth altemative shown in Table m-20, Kentwood would

PAGE 184

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS inaease densities in areas of existing development, while at the same time promoting a higher proportion of ._,, single-family residential units and substantially decreasing the proportion of mobile home units. Densities in the peripheral development area would also decrease. Some acreage would have to be rezoned from nonresidential to residential uses. Nonresidential growth in office uses would be encouraged. Higher density development (i.e., floor area ratios) o f both office and industrial uses would also be encouraged in order to maintain public open space and agricultural uses. Macomb Charter Township ExisHng Development ol Existing Development Although Macomb haS an area of 36 square miles, most of its development is concentrated in the southern portion of the township. As shown in Figure m-11, the area of existing development is west of the Midqle Branch Ointon River and south of 22 Mile Road. Most of the population is clustered in the southwest comer of the township. Industrial uses are a little farther to the north, around 22 Mile and 23 Mile Roads, west of the Middle Branch Clinton River. MajOr commercial uses are strung along the southern boundary in the vicinity of Hall Road. The central, northern, and eastern areas of the township comprise the peripheral area, with about 200 homes, as well as several golf courses, scattered throughout. Areas of protection include some extensive floodplains and wetlands in the peripheral area, which have also been a barrier to development. About one-third of the township, or 7,500 acres, Is impacted by 100 to 500-year floodplains. SliC110N Ill SECnON Ill Housing within Macomb's area of existing development is about 70% single-family detached or attached, 5% multifamily, and 25% mobile homes. Recent sale prices range from $60,000 for a !llobile home to $175,000 for a singlefamily detached unit, with housing values slightly higher in the peripheral development area. (See Table m-21.) The Lakeside Mall in nearby Starling Heights, just beyond the southwest comer of the Macomb, is a mega mall built in the mid-1970s which helped to generate substantial residential and commercial development between 1975 and 1990. The southeast comer of the township, near the Selfridge Air National Guard Base, has also been a recent focus of residential development. Jn the 1990's, however, the growth area has shifted to 23 Mile Road, where some PUD and condominium developments have been constructed. Macomb's Master Plan discourages strip commercial uses and encourages . commercial uses at major road intarsections. As a result, these intersections are .the sites of existing commerdal development, and very little nonresidential development can occur in peripheral development areas. As shown in Table lii--21, approximately 70"k of nonresidential !fevelopment currently takes place near existing development, and recent years have seen little growth in office or retail space. Some Industrial growth is still occurring in the west and southem edge of the township, where nearly 80,000 square feet of new Industrial buildings are in various stages of development. The average FAR is 0.3 near existing development and somewhat lower, 0.1, in the peripheral area due to the existence of wetlands and floodplains.

PAGE 185

MICHIGAN Pl1 ure lll-11 Macom b Charter Township, Mcomb C ounty, MI 1 KEY N w .... 6/-....... .A .......... .f'\.# J u flpnO' I t J E3 IJII*s e ..... tsnlp. I 0 t ', ( I .. ' \ 0 I --A H l Nil c.rr..tO.?Ihpeltl,_.MJCa rtGreweO.a l a11 1t'A-_..., 11..0

PAGE 186

PAGE 187

MICHIGAN fiSCA L IMPACTS TABLE 111-22 Macomb Charter Township S!cnoNIII 1995-2020 Development CharacterlsUcs -Compact Growth Areas of Existing Development Leas Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Araaa Pattem Detached Attached (Condos ) Homes More I n southem and westem bo undaries of townsh ip Less jn central, northem and eastem portions of township Avoid weUands i n peripheral areas oiDUa 40.0 30.0 30.0 65.0 Percent 90.0 Acre 3.50 3.50 7.50 FAR 0 .40 0 .40 of Development 0.53 oiDUa 60. 0 20.0 20. 0 35.0 Percent 1 0.0 Acre 1 .00 2 .00 4.00 FAR 0 06 0.06 of Development 0.27 Legend : OUDwelling Unit; FAR=Fioor Area Ratio to Lot Size SKliOHIU

PAGE 188

MICHI GAN R SCAllM PACTS Macomb Township will experience rapid growth between 1 99 5 and 202 ( k: ... Employment will triple, ft:om a job base of 2.300 to a job base of 7 .000, and households will increase by 164%. Current residential demand is primarily for single-family units, and developers through variances have built single family homes on land originally zoned for multifamily units. Table ID-22 shows that a relatively high proportion of Macomb's undeveloped land is environmentally sensitive. In the area of existing development, each acre of new development would consume about half an aae each of agricultural and sensitive envirorunentalland. In the peripheral development area, 3/4 of an acre of sensitive environmental land would be consumed for each aa-e of new development. Public lnfrasfrvcfuN OJtd SetViceCam Table m-21 shows that roadway construction costs in Macomb; range from about $330,000 to $715,000 per lane mile for widening. paving or constructing new roads Roads are under public jurisdiction. except for multiPle zones, which have singlefamily condominium units with private roads. Provision of sewer and water lines are the developer's responsibility for new residential development. The typical costs are $2,500 per 100 linear feet for water lines and $4,000 for sewer lines that are extended into a new area. The property tax includa 3.4 mils for municipal servkes and 4.8 mils for the co\U\ty. Macomb Is a genera! law township with limited ability to tax, and Its residents are very tax conscious. A vote in 1992 for additional millage for parks and recreation was rejected. &talONm StCTION Ill However, a 0.93 millage fo r the fire .department is included in the township property tax rate. Macomb is served b y both full and part-time firefighters, with a countywide mutual aid agreement. Three additional fire stations tiave been proposed. A law enforcement millage, paased about two years ago, to help pay for contract police from McComb County, is also included in the township property tax. One issue prompting significant local interest is whether to provide services on an individual community basis or develop regional service areas. The current township supervisor feels that It is cheaper to provide regional services than for each community to provide its own services. future O.Wiopment H current development trends continue, agricultural and vacant lands in peripheral areas in Macomb will be converted to single-family homes a t an average density of two to three dwelling units per aae.. CUrrent densities for housing of all types range from 3 t o 6 units per acre.. In the peripheral development area, all housing is single family detached at a density of 2 units per aae. Because most of the current coaunercial development Is along the southern boundary of the township, extending current development trends would also increase the demand for scattered strip commercial development in the peripheral area to serve new residential development. A f\dwe Wllft Compod Growfll Under compact growth, the area of existing development will see an increase in densities for all types of residential units, with the result that

PAGE 189

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS 65% of the township's housing will be in the area o f existing development-up from 45%. A wider variety of housing types will be constructed in the peripheral development area and the densities will be lower than they woUld be following current trends. The proportion of multifamily residential units will increase substantially, reaching 30% in the existing development area, and 20% in peripheral areas Mobile homes will be phasedouL Meridian Charter ToWMhlp ElOsling O.Velopmen t The western half of Meridian Township the area closest to Michigan State University, is considered to be its area of existing developmenL It falls inside the urban services boundary/ within which water and sewer lines are provided. Growth is moving to the east, however, and those areas in the eastern half of the township that fall outside the wban services boundary are considered to be the peripheral development area. (See Figure m-12 .) As shown in Table III-23, the majority of Meridian's housing units about 80%, are located near existing development Within this area, 2% of the units are multifamily and the rest are single family. Homes in the peripheral area are single-family detached units. Housing prices for single-family homes are relatively low-about $139,000 in the existing development area and $166,000 in the peripheral development area. Residents favor low density, single family units. Between 1995 and 2020, houaeholds in Meridian will increase by 1So/o and Src:noN Ill employment by 21 o/o. As shown in Tabl e m 24, each acre of new development will consume about9 / 1 0 of an acre of farmland and 1/10 of an acre of sensitive environmental lands in both existing and peripheral development areas. Since the township desines to limit development in the peripheral area, Meridian offers rural open space zoning as an alternative to conventional zoning to encourage preservation of rural lands. Rural open space zoning allows for the grouping of new homes onto part of a parcel so the remainder (woodlands, farmlands, wetlands, I!Cienic vistas, etc.) can be preserved as open space. This process does not increase the density of development; rather it allows for development at the same density as permitted under conventional zoning. Meridian is typical of many other communities to which people have moved in order to escape the congestion of older dties and enjoy lower tax only to find that congestion follows them, and the need for costly new roads, schools, and more police causes a rise in taxes. Any rezoning for commerdal or higher density residential uses is greeted with a SIOIUI of protest from neighboring residences A number of township board membeiS have not been reelected because they approved higher density developments. Roadway construction costs in Meridian range from $330,000 per lane mile to pave an existing 2-lane gravel road, to $715,000 to widen a 2-lane road to 4 lanes. (See Table m-23.) Roadway maintenance is tedmlcally the respcmsibWty of the Ingham County Road Commission. but funding from StaloNIH ewr..tO.alapntT,...daaedCc ; l h-U

PAGE 190

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Meridian SI!CTION Ill Figure IU-12 Charter Township, Ingham County, M1 A N s..r.eo Calot lio< UrbiD l'btiey Rotoudo auc,.,. Uaivenity. Now Jeney

PAGE 191

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111-23 Meridian Charter Township SfCTION Ill 1995-2020 Development Charecterlatlca-Current Development Trends Areaa of Existing Development Leas Developed Peripheral Areas Protection Areaa Residential Pattern Detached I Attached (Condos) Westem haH of townshlp Eastem haH of township beyond urban service boundary Wetlands over .25 acre and around natural water features Percent DUa Par New DUa Per ofDUa Acre Sele/Rent ofDUa Acre 86.0 1.50 s 139,416 100.0 0.25 12.0 5.00 s 81,565 2.0 8.00 s 675 New Sale/Rent s 165,644 Percent II of Nonl'8sidential Lend Uses 100.0 FAR FAR Commercial Office Conatructlon Costa 2-lane gravel road 2-lane paved road to 4 lanes paved road Subdivision Roads & Water/100 llneer ft. Size (inches) into New Area Subdivision Costs (pipe size) 5-F Detached Unit 5-FAttachadUnit unn Water 10 S3,n5 8 $2,700 $1,700 0 1 0.1 0.1 of Development 0.89 Coatall.ane Mile $ 330,000 $ 578,000 $ 715,000 Sawar 10 s 3,n5 8 $ 3,400 s 2,900 of Development 0.90 Coats/Lane Mile $330,000 $578,000 $715,000 Size (ft2) Coatlft' 25,000 $ 60.00 10,000 $ 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 Legend: DUDwel&ng Unit, FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lof Size; ROWaRight-ot-Way; 5-F.Single Family SECnOH Ill

PAGE 192

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS SOCTION Ill TABLE 111 Meridian C harter Township 1 995-2020 Development Char8cterlatlcaCompact Growth I .. ': 1 Antaa 01 Existing Development O.V.Iopecl Periphera l Areas Protection Arus Planned Rnidentlal Development Patte rn Single-Family Detached Single Family Auached (Condos) MukHamily Mobile Homes Tolal Resldenlla l Distribution of HousJng Units (%) Planned NoD-Rnidential Development Pattern Distrlbutlon o f Non-Residential Uses Commercial Office Industrial Agricultural and F r agile Land Loss Agricultural Lands Fragile Lands (woodedlweUand areas) Zoning of C u rrently Vacant & Agricultural Landi Single Family Detached Single Family A uached Family Mobile Homes Subtotal of Residential Acreage At;rn of Fragile Lands Acreage for Other Uses Total More In weslem han or township less )n eastem half of township beyond urban service boundal)' Avoid weUands over .25 am and around natura l w ater f eatures Near Exlating P eripheral Development Develo Per cent D U a Par Percent DUa Per ofDUI Acre ofDUs Acre 84. 0 1 .75 100.0 0.15 16.0 7.50 100.0 100.0 90.0 10.0 Percent FAR Percent FAR 90.0 10.0 0.20 0.08 0. 1 5 0.08 0 .15 0.08 AcrufAcnt Acnn/Aent of Development o f Deve l o p ment 0 .89 0.90 0.11 0.10 AciH Percent Acres Percent 1,529 76.6 1,612 65.3 . -207 1 0.4 -.a 20 -1,778 89.0 1,612 65.3 220 11.0 245 9.9 612 24.8 1,996 100 .0 2,469 100.0 P rgperty Tax Aoaogmtnta (Mila) Gove r nment Rate Municipal 18.7000 County 8.5000 Special Aasessmenta Legend: DU.:Dwetling Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size SKlQOUI

PAGE 193

MICHIGAN RSCALIMPACTS gas taxes, weight taxes, and monies designated for resurfacing are not sufficient to maintain the toW11Ship's 190 miles of roads. Additional millage may be necessary to prevent further deterioration of Meridian's public thoroughfares. Controversy has developed over the widening of Haslett Road. The Township's couunissioners want to widen the road and modify the alignment to reduce the grade on some hills and dips, as well as straighten out the road's dangerous curves. Local residents oppose the project, however, because it would remove 270 large trees, move the traffic lanes closer to their homes, and encourage even more heavy truck traffic. The costs of extending sewer or water service into a new area in Meridian are $3,7'75 per 100 linear feet. Meridian is studying the long-range reliability of its water and sewer operations. Water supply, in particular, is an issue. During a warm. dry period in the summer of 1995, the East Lansing Water Plant operated at near capacity, and residents were asked to observe an even/odd day watering schedule to help conserve water. The Department of Public Works is investigating additional conservation measures, such as education and enforcement of the odd/even irrigation regulation; the introduction of low water usage demonstration areas; and development of an aggressive outreach program. Construction of additional water storage and a new raw water well is also planned. Property taxes in Meridian are relatively high compared to the other study communities. The municipal rate is 18.7 mils and the county rate is 8.5 mils. Fu!vre Development A Future Willi Cur,..nt Development r .. nJs SE:cnoN 111 Under current development trends, new development would occur largely In the peripheral area of Meridian following the existing pattern of development. Single-family housing at a density of one to two dwelling units per acre would predominate. Development would also extend into the peripheral area, consuming agricultural and sensitive environmental lands there. A Futv,.. Wrlh C4mpod Growllt Meridian's comprehensive development plan establishes the framework for a predominantly single-family residential community, and allows for limited expansion of nonresidential uses to satisfy projected community and economk development needs. This compact growth alternative allows only low-density single-family homes and agricultural uses in the eastern (peripheral) portion of the township, and specifies two low-density residential classifications (0.0..05 and 0.5-1.25 units per acre) for the area beyond the urban service boundary. As shown in Table m-24, residential densities and nonresidential F ARs within the existing development area would increase slightly to accommodate future growth. City of Montague Existing O.V.Iopment location or Development area of existing development covers about two-thirds of SfcnoNID ecm..t Ori'lfoptllt T,_. ond eo.poct Growtf, DttaJaptffl Ahntcltiw IH-48

PAGE 194

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS the city, primarily the eastern and central portions of the city along the, White Lake (See Figure II:I-13). of existing development encompasses all the city's commercial and industrial uses. and most (70%) of its residential uses. The north, northwest, and sOuthwest portions of the city comprise the less developed peripheral area and include agricultural and vacant lands, as well as some uses. Areas of protection are agricultural areas and shoreline areas along the White Lake and Wet River. Eighty percent of the city's residential units near existing development are single-family detached and most of the remaining units are multifamily. In the peripheral development area, all of the homes are single-family detached. Typical housing costs are relatively low, ranging from $35,000 for a mobile home to $80,000-100,000 for a single-family detached home. (See Table ID-25. ) Montague is finally emerging from a period of slow growth that began approximately ten years ago when a large industrial facility employing numerous local residents ceased operation. During the past two years, the city has seen a steady increase in residential construction, and the value of new homes has been rising. Construction of multifamily units has also increased over the past three years. The city manager feels the increase in construction reflects a new interest among people to Jive in the White Lake Area and commute to larger urban areas such as Muskegon, Grand Rapids, Grand Haven, and Holland. The market for second homes is also strong; approximately 15% of the homes in Montague are second homes. Almost all nonresidential uses lie within the area of existing development, with SOCIION Ill SEcnoN Ul FAR's ranging from 0.4 for industrial uses to 0.6 for commercial and office tises. Much of the city's industrial development has relocated to the new Montague Industrial Park, which is located in a heavily wooded area and governed by strict building and site development covenants. During the past two years, two new businesses moved into the industrial park and one other expanded, creating approximately 100 new jobs as a result. At present, most of the city's employment is dominated by several large employers, including CMI Industries and the public school system. About 36% of the city's jobs are currently in manufacturing, and land devoted to industrial uses increased from 11 acres in 1975 to 154 acres in 1995. Montague is expected to increase its households by 25% and its job base by 37% between 1995 and 2020. Of its 350 developable vacant and agricultural acres near existing development, 225 are zoned for single-family detached units, and 40 acres each are zoned for multifamily units and mobile homes. According to the city manager, Montague stands to benefit from the fact that the area to the south (e.g., Muskegon and environs) is well developed, and additional workers are becoming scarce In expectation of new demand for industrial growth, Montague is considering converting an existing residential zone (bounded by Whitbeck, Wilcox, and Hancock) to an industrial zone. Tourism is also growing, and the city manager has stated that the retail market appears to be growing in line with the tourism industry. The city is p lanning to develop additional aJrienities for tourists such as a small inn, a farmer's market, and new retail space linking the downtown with the waterfront.

PAGE 195

MICHIGAN fiSCAliMPACfS SfCTION Ill Figure 01-13 Montague City, Muskegon County, Ml Eilers Road A N SOC1D
PAGE 196

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS .. : .. TABLE lll-25 City of Montague 1995-2020 Development Characteristics Current Development Trends area northwest, and southwest areas Shoreline Whhe Lake and Wet the SECfiONUI Residential Percent DUe Per New DUs Per New Pattern ofDUs Acre Sale/Rent ofDUs Acre Sale/Rent Detached 80. 0 1.5 $ 80 000 100.0 0.50 $' 100,000 Attached (Condos) 19.0 2 0 $ 500 Homes 1 0 2.0 $ 35,000 of 70 0 30.0 Percent IE of Nonresidential Land Uses 100.0 FAR Commercial Office Construction Costs It existing 2ane g ravel road 2-lane paved road to 41anes lr 2ane paved road Roads 0 6 0.6 of Development 0.36 Costs/Lane MBa $330,000 $576,000 N/A Percent FAR of Development 0 .70 Costs/Lane Mile $330,000 $578,000 N/A & Water/1 00 linear ft Water Sewer Size (ft2) Cost/If Size (Inches) 8 8 25 000 $ 60 00 into New Area $3,000 $ 2,600 10 000 $ 50.00 Subdivision Costs (pipe size) 8 8 20,000 $ 35.00 SF Detached Unit $2,700 $ 3,400 35.00 S-F Attached Unit $1,700 $ 2 900 Legend : DU..Dwelling Unh; F AR=Fioor Area Ratio to Lot Size; ROW:Right-OfWay ; S-F--Single Family StcnoNIII c.,..;t o...lopmonf Trend. anrl Cooopocf Growflt o. .. rop.. .. r

PAGE 197

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111-28 City of Montague SKTION Ill 1995-2020 Development Cheracterlstlcs Compact Growth Areaa of ExlaUng Development Leaa Developed Peripheral Araaa Protactlon Areas Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Homes and Fragile Land Loea Lands of Currentty Vacant & Landa Family Detached Family Attached Homes of Residential Acreage of Fragile Lands lor Other Uses More in central areas and eastem area along WMe Lake Less in north, northwest, and southwest areas Avoid shoreline a l ong White L. and Wet R. and the agricultural areas oiDUa 75.0 24 0 1.0 Acre 1.75 3 00 2.50 FAR 0.70 0.70 o1 Development 0.38 AcNe Percent 225 84.3 40 11.4 11.4 305 87.1 45 12.9 Pmperty Tax Auuaments (Mill) Government Muncipel County Special Assessments oiDUa 100.0 Paroen1 AcNe 140 140 80 Acre 0.30 FAR pi Development 0.70 0.30 Percent 70 0 70.0 30.0 Rete 18.7000 8.5000 Legend: DUOwelling Unn; FAR=oFloor Area Ratio to Lot Size

PAGE 198

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS The only category of land that is decreasing in Montague is land u.sedJqr agriculture. Approximately 50% of an agricultural lands were converted to other uses between 1975 and 1995. Cwrently, only about 125 acres are devoted to agricultural purposes. The dty would like to preserve its remaining agricultural lands; however, as Table m-25 shows, new growth could result in continued farmland loss at a rate of 0.36 aaes per aae of new development near existing development and 0.70 aaes per acre of new development in the peripheral area. Fragile lands would be lost at a rate of 0.3 acres per aae of development in the peripheral area. Preservation of the environment is a concern of the !=Qmmunity. Unique zoning and regulatory tools are in place to protect the existing shoreline and residential areas. The community is currently divided over the platUled expansion of the downtown Ellenwood Landing Marina. The owner, Parkland Development of West Michigan, wants to add 41 slips to the marina, but opponents are concerned about potential damage to the river flow into White Lake and a fish habitat adjacent to the marina, and worry about congestion on the lake from the growing number of water uses. The nearby dty of Whitehall also fears that expanding the marina would cause silt to fill in Whitehall's Municipal Marina at a faster rate than normal. Public /nfraslructure anJ Service Cosls Table m-25 shows the costs of new infrastructure in Montague. Roadway construction costs range from $330,000 per lane mile to pave an existing 2-lane gravel road to $578,000 per lane mile to widen a two-lane road to four lanes. Extending sewer and water lines oasts Sfc!IONIH .. SfCTION Ill around $2,600 to $3,000 per 100 linear feet Unlike some other communities, which place the costs of new infrastructure on the developer Montague has historically paid for new sewer lines, water lines, and roadways-considering the cost as an investment to attract growth. In the future, the dty expects to extend infrastructure to undeveloped properties, but would like to consider development patterns that minimize public expenditures. Montague's property tax assessments, shown in Table W-26, include 18 7 mils for the municipal tax and 8.5 mils for the county tax. Future Development A fulure Will! Cu,.,f Deve/op, r..,J, Under cwrent development trends, residential growth would continue to consume both agricultural and vacant lands in the existing development area. Housing densities in the peripheral area, currently 0.5 units per acre, would likely inaease due to development demand. A Future Wilh Compact Growfh The compact growth alternative envisioned by Montague would limit development in the peripheral areas, and accommodate growth via infill and higher development densities in existing areas of development. Residential development densities near existing development would inaease from 1.5 to 1.75 dwelling units per acre for singlefamily detached units, to 3.0 units per acre for multifalnlly housing, and 2.5 units per acre for mobile homes. Nonresidential development would inaease to an FAR of :70 fw

PAGE 199

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS office uses and .50 for industrial uses. Peripheral residential development densities would decrease to help preserve environmental l y sensitive lands. City of Mt. PleaMnt loc:olion ol O....lopmenf Mt. Pleasant is almost completely developed, as shown in Figure m -14. The northern area contains most of the city's COD\IJiercial and industrial uses Low-density residential uses are found along the western boundaries; high density uses are found in the central areas; and Central Michigan University occupies a large section of the south central portion of the city. The peripheral development area is the southwest comer of the city, and is zoned for residential uses. Mt. Pleasant, while pursuing development, would also like to preserve the undeveloped land along the Chippewa River. Ninety percent of the city's housing lies within the area of existing development, and is exclusively single-family housing. Single-family detached and attached units account for 60% of the total, and townhouse units, 40%. (See Table ill-27.) In the area of peripheral development, all residential units are single-family detached. The Soaring Eagle Casino, located just east of the dty, has created a demand for all kinds of housing. The Eastpointe subdivision currently under development contains 30 single-family units; and the city recently approved 400 new housing units. Even with this growth, a housing shortage is developing. Nonresidential growth has been focused almost exclusively in the area of existing S
PAGE 200

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS -Figure m-14 City of Mount Pleasant, Isabella County, MI KEY N ....... /'\/-"',.: waa. .'! ,l DrMdo... . s ) .......... .... S!CIIONIQ SECTION Ill N

PAGE 201

M ICHIGAN flSCAliM,ACfS TABLE 11127 City of Ml Pleaunt $ tenoN Ill 1995-2020 Development Chuacterlatlcto cu ... nt Development Trenda Area of Exllllng Development le .. Developed Perlphenll Are .. Protection Areae Panem Detached Attached (Condos) Homes Roaclw.y Conatructlon Coeta I Pave existing 2..Jane graveii'OIId 2..Jane paved road to 4 lanee road !Sewer & Weter/1 00 linear ft Size (inches) Extend into New Area Internal Subdivision Costs (pipe a lze) S.F Detached Unit S.FAitadledUnlt Unit Throughout city except for SW and SE comers Southwes t and southnst comers Undeve land along Chippewa River Percent DUaPer Acre 4.0 9.0 New SaiiiiRent $ 140,000 s 80,000 ofDUa 60.0 40. 0 Weier 6 $3,000 8 $2,700 $1,700 FAR 0 4 0 4 of Development eoet.llane Mile $450,000 $788,000 N/A ofDUI 100.0 DUaPw Acre 0.50 FAR New Sa -...Rent $ 160,000 of Development 1 .00 Coeii/Une Mile $450, 000 $787,000 N/A SID (112) 25,000 10,000 20,000 Collllt' $ 80.00 $ 50.00 $ 35.00 legend: OUaOweling Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size ; S.F-Single F amily SfCIIOH Ill laplfttT ....... ..JCaFJfdGtowtl. D a w siOfJMe-'A.hrMfn 111

PAGE 202

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABLE 111 City of ML Pleasant StCTIOH Ill 1995-2020 ;.II!IJ.a.cilerlstles-Compact Growth ; . . Areas of Existing Development Lesa Developad Peripheral Areas Protection Areas Planned Residential Development Pattern Single-Family Detached Single-Family Attached (Condos) MultilamHy Mobile Homes Total Residential Distribution of Housing Un i ts (%) Planned Non-Residential Development Pattern Distribution of Non-Residentia l Uses Commercial Office Industrial Agricultural and Fragile Land Loss AgricuHural Lands Fragile Lands (wooded/wetland areas) Zoning of Currently Vacant & Agricultural Lands Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Mobile Homes Subtotal ol Residential Acreage Acres of Fragile Lands Acreage for Other Uses Total . More throughout city except for SW and SE comers Less in southwest and southeast corners Avoid undeveloped land along Chippewa River Near Existing Peripheral Development Development Percent DUs Per Percent DUsPer ofDUs A ere ofDUs Aere 40.0 4.50 100.0 0.30 40.0 10.50 20.0 13.50 100.0 100.0 95.0 5.0 Percent FAR Percent FAR 100.0 0 .40 0.40 0.40 Aeres/Aere Acres/Acre of Development of Development . 1 .00 Acres Percent Acres Percent 345 52.4 . . 30 4.6 --. .. . 375 56.9 --306 100.0 284 43.1 -659 100.0 306 100 .0 PrQpertv Tax Auessments (MUs) Government Rate Muncipal 14.6000 County 6.4605 Spacial Assessmen!s G IRSD 2.6130 Oiai-ARide 0.6000 Legend: DUaOwelllng Unit; FAR=Fioor Area Rallo to Lot Size $tenON Ill

PAGE 203

MICHIGAN FISCALIMPACIS Pul>lic Service anc/ lnframuclvre C<>m Table ID-27 shows that roadway construction costs in Mt. Pleasant range from $450,000 per lane mile for paving an existing two-lane road to $788,000 per lane-mile for widening a two-lane road to four lanes. At present. there is need for additional rights-of-way along roads on the perimeter of the dty, where agricultural land is under conversion to other uses. Extending water servke in Mt. Pleasant costs $3,000 per linear 100 feet, and extending sewer service into an unsewered area is more than twice as much. Table ID-28 shows the local property tax rates. Mwlidpal taxes in Mt Pleasant are 14.6 mils, while county taxes are 6.48 mils. The dty also has a special assessment for Dial-a-ride, 0.6 mils. Future o .... lapment A Future Wrf!t C.....m O....lapmenf r .... cl. 1f current development trends continue, the dty' s existing pattern of mostly single-family homes would have to change. Single-family Wlits currently account for 100% of the dty'& housing. Residential densities in the existing development area are about 4.0 Wlits per aae for single-family detached homes and 9.0 Wlits per aae for attached Wlits. 1n the peripheral development areas, densities are much lower-around one home for every two acres. In the future, however, numerous mobile home and multifamily Wlits would have to be scattered on lots throughout the dty to meet the demand for more housing. Overall housing density would increAse, and undesirable SK!IONIII couunerdal uses (e.g., nude bars) may develop. The character of the dty would change. A Future Willt C<>mpacf Growlh Under a compact growth alternative, the dty will prevent intrusion of undesirable nonresidential uses. Multifamily Wlits will be developed and account for 20% of the dty' s housing. Overall housing densities within the existing development area will increase to help preserve fragile or wooded lands. Residential densities within the peripheral development area will decrease slightly to one Wlit for every three acres. City of Muakegon Location ol O.velopmenf Muskegon (Figure ID-15) is a fully developed dty; it has no peripheral areas of development. High-density residential and commercial development, including an enclosed downtown mall, occupy the central area of the dty. Vacant land and industrial uses are found on sites scattered throughout the dty and along the Muskegon La1ce waterfront. Some of the abandoned lakefront sites are suitable for redevelopment. Much of the La1ce Michigan watet&ont is devoted to park land, which the dty would like to preserve. The dty also has several other parks; one is on the Muskegon La1ce watet&ont Muskegon has a varied mix of housing, but the majority of the Wlits are either single-family detached (69%) or multifamily (28%), as shown in Table In-29. Danand for new housing began several years ago. Although no new SECIION Ill ..... 0fMIC..,.cfGtvwfft0.:11DflfAhnMifio 111

PAGE 204

MICHIGAN ASCAllMPACT$ SI!CTIClH Ill .'S. Figure Dl-15 City of Muskegon, Muskegon Cou nty Ml KEY N-/V-/' ... : ..... a 'J c::::J--r::=J ... ,..... De ....... Stc:JICNIII A N I 0 I 2 Milos ----

PAGE 205

MICHIGAN F I SCAliMrACTS TABLE 111-29 City of Muakegon SICilOH Ill 1995-2020 Development Charactariatlco -Development Trend& Areaa of Existing Devalopment Leaa Developed Perlphentl Areal Protec11on Areas Residential Pattam Detached Attached (Condo$) Homes Entire city None, Muskegon II a mature, fully developed city Land alona lake Michigan waterfront Percent DUaPer New Percent DUaPer ofDUa Acre Sale.'Rent oiDUa Acre 68.8 5.0 s 104 ,000 1.6 9.0 s 85,000 28.2 12.0 $ 600 1.4 16.0 $ 35,000 Percent FAR FAR New Sale/Rent IDitrtrilluticonol Nonreaidential Land Uses 100 .0 Commen:ial Olllce and Fragile Lend Lon Lands 0.4 0 4 of Development of O.Velopment Coels IF exis tin g 2-lane gravel road NIA eo.t8/l.anaMI1e IWiclen 2-lane paved road 10 4 lane& $788,000 NIA ;:;....---'---------t l&awar a Waternoo linear It "'"'"' Size (Inches) New Area 111 Subdivision Costs (pipe size) S.FDetachedUnit S.FAtlachedUnit Water 8 $2,700 $1,700 Sawer SID (112) Coat/ff 25,000 s 60.00 10 ,000 s 50 00 8 Jlnclust rial 20,000 S 35.00 S 3,400 s 2,900 Legend: DUsDwe!ling Unit; FARaFloor Araa Ratio to Lot Size; ROWRigtlt.Qf-Way; S.F-slngle Family S1C1100t Ill

PAGE 206

PAGE 207

MICHIGAN FtSCAL I M,ACTS multifamily housing has been constructed in recent years, several proposals have been put forth for senior citizen housing, some with market rental rates of $SOO to $700 per month. Some of the projeds would involve redeveloped buildings; others would require new construction The city is espec:ially interested in developing the Marquette neighborhood, 1n urban renewal area where most of the 400 lots are currently vacant IJ\d owned by the city. The homes were datroyed long ago, IJ\d banks have been reluctant to finance new housing in the turning down proposed single-family units of $125,000. Demand for new housing along the waterfront, on the other hand, is fairly strong. New condominiums on the entry canal to Lake Mual
PAGE 208

MICHIGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS Table ni-29, since the city is fully built up and all areas have utility service: : Property taxes include 10.10 mils for the municipal government and 8.44 for the county government. Muskegon has a municipal income tax of 1% for city residents and 0.5% for nonresidents. There are also several special taxing jurisdictions in the dty, including a Downtown Development Authority (DO A), a Tax Inaement Finance Authority (TIFA), and two Local Development Finance Authorities (LDFAs). Future Development A Future With Current Deve/opiiHinl r .... J. . Under the current development trends alternative, future demand for residential and nonresidential buildings would be accommodated through redevelopment and infill. Both residential and nonresidential development would occur on vacant and developable land at the edges of the dty, particularly along the waterfront Demand for low-income housing would be satisfied with additional mobile home units. Densities would vary from 5.0 units per acre for single-family detached units to 16.0 units per acre for mobile homes. (See Table In-29.) A Future Witlo Compad Growth Under a compact growth alternative, Muskegon would encourage new tourist attractions in the downtown area as a focal point for secondary development Land would be used more efficiently. Residential housing densities would be higher than at present, ranging from 55 units per acre for single-family detached units to 13.0 units per acre for multifamily units (see Table ID-30). SECIIONIII SECTION Ill New multifamily units would be encouraged, and multifamily housing would account for 34% of the city's total housing. New mobile homes would be discouraged. For nonresidential development, floor area ratios would increase to 0 .6, from the current average of 0.4. CityofNovi Existing Development Location of Development The city of Novi covers nearly 31 square miles or 20,417 acres, approximately half of which is developed as shown in Figure m -16. The central and southeastern sections of Novi constitute the area of existing development. Tracts of peripheral land are agricultural areas in the west, southwest, northeast, and northwest areas of the dty, most of which are zoned for residential uses. Areas to be protected are the watercourses, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat areas found along the shoreline and at scattered s ites within the city. According to the city's master plan, 83% of the city is zoned for residential uses, 7% is zoned commercially, and 17% is zoned for industry. Industrial, retsil, and office development are found along the major highway corridors. However, the Town Center at the intersection of Grand River Avenue and Novi Road is the intended focal point for regionwide commercial, office, and public uses. It has a Main Street, open plazas, pedestrianways, and River Stroll access. Sixty percent of Novi's housing is within the existing development area. (See Table ID-31.) Throughout the city about 90% of the homes are single family detached or attached units and the remainder are mobile homes. Near

PAGE 209

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Figure 111 City of Novl, Oakland Couaty, Ml KEY N'-""w_. .,,...,., De*: as I c:J t..illill DliialsJ I .. .... $tenON Ill SEC110N Ill

PAGE 210

MICHI GAN FISCAl IMPACTS SECTION Ill TAEILE 111 CitY of Novl 1995-2020 Development Chliral:le1fiiic8Current Development Trends Areas or Existing Development Less Developed Peripheral Araaa Protection Areas Residential Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Central and southeastern ponions or city West, southwest northeast, and northwest sections Open space along shoreline and at sHes within citv Percent DUsPer New Percent DUsPer ofDUs Acre Sale/Rent ofDUs Acre 45.0 2 5 $ 200 000 89.0 1.50 44.0 8.9 $ 140,000 2.00 1 1. 0 5 6 $ 60,000 11.0 2.00 New Sale/Rent $ 250 000 $ 170, 000 $ 70,000 Pattern Percent 11 of Nonresidential Land Uses 90.0 FAR FAR 10.0 Commeroia l Office and Fragile Land Lose Lands Lands Conatrucllon Coats IF existing 2-lane gravel road !Widen paved road to 4 lanes INew 2lane paved road & Water/100 linear ft. IF Size (Inches) New Area II SubdiVision Costs (pipe size) SF Detached Un" S F Attached UnH Water 0.3 0.3 of Development 0.55 Costa/Lane MUe $ 330,000 $ 518,000 $ 715,000 8 $4,000 $ 8 $2,700 $1,700 0 .30 0.30 Costs/Lane MUe $ 330,000 $ 518,000 $ 715, 000 Size (112) 25,000 10,000 20,000 Costllf $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 35.00 Legend: DU=Dwelling Unit; FAfi,.Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size ; ROW = Right.()fWay; S F=Single FamUy SECTION Ill

PAGE 211

MICHIG"-N f1SC"-LIMP"-CTS TABLE 111-32 City of Novl SrC'fiOH Ill 1e9S.2020 Development Characterlatlc:a-Comptoct G rowth Areu of EJ
PAGE 212

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS existing development, recent home sales ranged in price hom $60,000 for mob).te homes to $200,000 for single-family detached units. Prices were 11bout 25% higher in the peripheral area. Nonresidential development is largely within the area of existing development; only 10% is in the peripheral development area. TheaverllgeFARis 0.3 for all types of nonruldential uses in both the existing and peripheral development areas. Recent developments have ranged in size hom 100,000 to 500,000 square feet. The dty of Novi is projected to increase its households by and Its job base by 44% during the 1995-2020 period. To assist in the city's growth. Novi has created an Economic Development Corporation (EDC) that issues tax exempt bonds which, in tum, provide low interest r11tes to borrowers. Since its inception in 1979, the BDC has provided more than $18 million in financing, participating in seven projects that have generated more than 1,000 jobs and $400,000 in property taxea. As shown in Table m-.32, adlfitional development in Novi would amtinue to amvert agricultural lands to other uses. Within the area of existing development each new. acre of development would consume about half an acre of agricultural land; almost a full acre of agricultural land would be consumed for each acre of new development in the peripheral area. Potential loss of sensitive environmental lands as a result of neW development would be low, around 2-3% of developed acreage in both existing and peripheral development areas. $11t1101< IU l'uboc lnfr<>Strvdure ond s.rvi .. Cosls Table ID-31 shows that roadway construction in Novi is expensive compared to the other study communities. Paving an existing 2-lane gravel road would cost $330,000 per lane mile and widening a two-lane road to four lanes would -cost $518,000. Traffic and roadway improvements are primary concerns for Novi. Traffic amgeslion on the Mile Road corridors continues to worsen, but many citizens are opposed to widening them. Several key intersections in the city are operating at poor levels of service during peak periods; other problems Include skewed intersections, poor sight lines, at-grade rail crossings, and highaccident intersections. The city is Ktively pursuing fedenol and state funds for the needed improvements. llxlending new water or sewer lines in Novi would cost $4,000 per 100 linear feet. For new single-family detached and multifamily units, however, provilfing water service is less expensive than providing sewer service. The dty has resolved some of i ts drainage problems. In 1983 a citizens couunlttee developed a drainage plan which called for retention ponds for storm waters and requested $4-5 million t o acquire land for critical basins and main drains. 1n 1984, the Michigan Municipal League gave Novi an award for Its drainage pian, which included a Sl million charter provision for drains in addition to contributions from developen. Table m-32 shows that Novi's property taxes Include 102 mils for municipal government and 4.95 mils for county government.

PAGE 213

MICHIGAN FISCAL IM,ACTS A Fvfure Wiflt Current Oevelop,.nl Trencl1 Housing densities in the existing development area currently range from 25 to 8 9 units per acre, and are higher than in the peripheral development area where densities range hom 15 to 2.0 units per acre, even for mobile homes. Under cunent development trend$, single-family detached houaing at densities of 1 to 2 units per acre would predominate, as agricultural land is converted to other uses. About 10% of the new housing units would be mobile homes, also at low densities of 2 units per acre. New nomesidential uses would grow up in the peripheral area to serve the residences. A. Fvlure Wlllt Co.poct Gtowflt Under a compact growth plan, Novi would eru:xnuage growth in the existing development area. Housing in the existing development area would reach 80% of the city's total housing. (See Table Jn-32.) The dty would also modify the overall development densities. In the existing development area. densities would be alighlly higher for aingle-family detached homes and slightly lower for aingl&-family detached homes. Mobile homes would be discouraged; and additlonal nonresidential growth in the peripheral development area would be W:nlted. CollUJieldal uses would be encouraged to locate primarily in the existing Town Center area. The city would continue to proted currently designated woodlands and wetlands. s fC"'"tC)H Ill l'lttafielcl Townthip Exilting Development l.ocalion of O.Velopmenl Pittsfield still has thousands of acres of agricultural land, but farmland uses are gradually being converted to residentia l and collUJieldal uses. No large farms remain to provide the townaiUp with a rural letting The area of existing development in Pittsfield Is in the northern two-thirds of the township, as shown in Figure m-17 Large areas of the township are environmentally sensitive. including wetlands and wet soUs as well as extensive areas of pot>ential groundwater recharge. According to Pittsfield's master plan. a southern limit to public water and sanitary sewer services has been established and Is the same as the boundary between the wban and rural/subwban area. The township does not intend to extend water and sanitary_,. services south of this line, but all puu of the planning area north of this line will eventually be connected to the township' a water mains and sanitary_,.,, Table ID-33 shows the varied mix of houaing in Pittsfield. Historically Pittsfield was a rural community of aingle-family homes. During the 1960s and 1970s, however, more than 50% of Pittsfield's housing units were multifamily. Based on recent developments and site plans, singlefamily units again CCIIlltitute the majority Bighty-4ive c.per!rCieiOI!I\'It of the residenti.ll units are in the

PAGE 214

M I OIIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Figure JD-17 Pitt s field Township, Washtenaw Cou nty MJ KEY N ...... /':\/-........ ,.,.._, Is t 1 lllltlll c:::J ....... usu . SrcnoNa : I 0 I -$fC110N Ill A N

PAGE 215

MICHIG!-2020 Development CharaclertaUc. Cumtnl Development Trenda Arua Reeldenlllll Percent Pattern oiDUa Oei4Ched 70.0 AII4Ched (Condos) 17.0 10. 0 Homes 3 0 Perc.nt 11 of Nonresidential Land Uses 100.0 Commercial Office Watarfl 00 linear It Waw Size (inclles) 8 Into New Area $3,000 Internal Subdivision Costs (pipe size) 8 SF Detached $2,700 SF Anached UnH $1,700 UnH DU1 Per Acre Sale/Rent 2.5 $ 200,000 8.0 $ 135,000 8 0 6 0 FAR 0.2 0.2 s s Coatall.ene Mila $330,000 $578,000 $ 715,000 Sewer 12 $ 3,000 8 $ 3,<400 s 2,900 750 70,000 oua Per New ofDUa Acre Bale/Rent 99.0 0.65 $ 175 ,000 1.0 2 .50 $ 900 Pen:ent FAR ec..te/Une Mlle $330,000 $578,000 $715,000 Sla( ft2 ) Coa1ltt' 25,000 $ 80.00 10,000 s 50.00 20,000 $ 35.00 Legend : OUDwelling URH; FARFioor Area Ral lo to Lol Slze; ROW-Right.()fWay; 5-F.Single FamMy SlclQ
PAGE 216

MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS TABLE 111-34 Pittsfield Township Compact Growth More m northern 213 of township Less in southern 113 of township S!CIION Ill Areas of Existing Development Less Developed Periphera l Areas Protection Areas Avoid wetlands and areas of potential oroundwater recharae Pettern Detached Attached (Condos) Homes oiDUs 80.0 5.0 15.0 Acre 2.85 6.75 9.00 Pattern Percent of Non-Residential Uses 100.0 FAR Commercial Office 0.3 0.3 Property Tax Assessments (Mils) Government Muncipal County Special Assessments Legend:. OU.Dwelling Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size oiDUs 100.0 Percent Acre 0.40 FAR Rate 5.1491 0.2119 5.7255 SC110NIII c.n...t""ont r,..dt ond Compod Growth Development Altorncmvo...JU-Pt

PAGE 217

MICHIGAN existing development area In the peripheral development area, 99% of the homes are single-famil y detached. Sales of homes during the past few years have ranged in price from $70.000 for mobile homes to $200.000 for single-family detached homes. Nonresidential uses in Pittsfield 1M! almost exclusively within the area of existing development, a t an average FAR of 0.2. Recen t developments have varied in size from 8,000 square feet for office space to 100,000 square feet for a Big Boy retail center The township expects to tee a 47% increase in employment and an 89% increase in households between 1995 and 2020. About 30 aaes remain for development in the northwest area a 1,38.!>-acre triangle bounded by Lodi Township, Ellsworth Road, the Airport Plaza and 1-94. This area hu been a focal point for development during the past six years, and growth hu proceeded according to the township's master plan for mixed residential Wlits, office space, ronunercial establishments, a school, and open space As land has been oonsumed for new development, the c:haracter of Pittsfield hu changed &om a quiet nuaJ CIOIIUI\UI\ity to a suburban one. As a result, some residents have complained about the noise from loading docks and delivery truclcs at mall sites Much of the remaining developable land is either farmland or aensitiVe environmental land The township still has thousands of acres in some form of agticultural use but thelle gradually giving way to residential and ocher uses. An area of reasonably large agricultural parcels concentrated In the 1011thern tier of sections north of 'Be!nW Road could be preserved for agricultural operaticms. Table m-34 shows that each new aae of Sr.cnONIII development in either the existing or peripheral areas of development would consume 0.85 acres of farmland and 0.15 acres of sensitiv e environmen tal land. Public /nlrorlrvctvr. and Service Com Table m-33 shows the costs of developing new infrastructure in Pittsfield including design materials and project oversight. Roadway construction costs are $330,000 per lane mile to pave an existing 2-lane gravel road and $578,000 for roadway widening. The costs of extending sewer and water servioe are about $3,000 per 100 linear feet for 8-inch pipes, but some larger developments may require 12 lnc:h pipes, which would cost $4,000-4..500 per 100 linear feet. The township does not maintain a stutut sewer system. Storu sewers are either UJtCie2' the jw:iadiction of the road commission, drain commission. or are private. The costs for paving wban roads which were formerly gravel include the cost of constructing storm sewers Ploperty taxes include a munldpalrate of 5 1 mils a county rate of .21 mils and as!IEwnent of 5 7 mils. Under current development trends demand for single-family hcnnes would result in amtinued loss of agricultural acrease and aensitive environmental amqe in the both the existing and Nor existing developmen t, densities currently range &om 2.5 unita per acre for aingle-famlly detached Wlits to 8 Wlits per aae for multifamily Wlita. In the peripheral area. densities for aingJ.e-ew.-to. r;, ..,r,.,...-c,.,...ctGr..e o. .. J,, ...... ,2

PAGE 218

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS family units average 0.7 units per acre and for multifamily units, 2.5 units ,par aae. Although the township seeks to maintain a balanced mix of housing, the development trend would shift in favor of single-family homes. Sttip malls and other nonresidential uses would extend into the peripheral development area. (See Table ID-33.) A Fufu"' Wrlh CompaCt Growllt Under the compact growth alternative shown in Table ID-34, Pittsfield would encourage slightly higher densities in the existing development area and lower densities in the peripheral area to help reduce the loss of farmland and sensitive environmental lands. Both multifamily and single-family uses would be encouraged in the existing development area to maintain a varied mix of housing. Additional mobile homes would be discouraged. Rural re&dential/ agricultural and suburban residential uses-would belocated in the designated development area. All nonresidential uses would be located in the urban area, which coincides with the public water I sanitary sewer service area. The commercial uses would be concentrated in nine centers with definite edges. Commercial uses outside the urban area would be permitted only where public water and sanitary sewer services are available. The township would preserve parks and open spaoe, as well as some rural fannland. CityofPortage Existing Development Location oF Development The entire city of Portage is developed, as shown in Figure ID-18; the sunounding townships, therefore are considered to be the peripheral area. SECffON Ill The focus of shopping and offioe space i s the downtown Portage Square area. Agricultural land within the city is minimal. Portage would like to protect its wetlands, which are found all over the city, especially at the south end around Gourdneck Lake and the state of Michigan game area, as well as around Austen Lake. Nearly three-quarters of the housing units in Portage are single-farnily detached, and about one-fifth are multifamily. (See Table ID-35.) The majority of the multifarnily units are in Portage Commerce Square. Mobile homes represent 3% of the housing units in Portage. Residential growth trends are strong; during the 1990-1994 period, Portage authorized more building permits for new housing units than any other municipality in the county. The average sale prioe of homes ranged from $55,000 for mobile homes to $175,000 for single-family detached homes. Many of the city's nonresidential uses are located within Portage Commerce Square-the community's central business area-and in areas along Portage Road, Sprinkle Road, and Shaver Road. Nonresidential development opportunities consist of the redevelopment of existing sites in Portage Commerce Square as well as new development in a high-tech research area along West Centre Avenue Boulevard near Route US 131. Some redevelopment is occurring in smaller malls which are attractive to stores with a defined market, such as Barnes & Noble, Penny Home Store, or Pep Boys. At present, the city desires to limit new strip development along major streets in order to maintain a strong downtown commercial oenter. Nonresidential developmenthasanaverageFARof 0.25 for all types of uses.

PAGE 219

F!cure ill-18 City of Pon.ce, J
PAGE 220

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS ... : .. : : TABLE 111 City of Portage 1995 Development ': Current Development Trends .... ....... Areas ol Existing DevelOpment Entire cHy less Developed Peripheral Areas None, peft1iphery Is In surrounding townships S!C110N Ill Protection Areas Wetlands near Gourdrieck slate game area, & Austen Lake ResidenUal Percent DUsPer New Percent DUsPer Pattern ofDUs Acre Sale/Rent oiDUs Acre Sale/Rent Detached 72.0 2.0 $ 175,000 100.0 0.50 $ 200,000 Attached (Condos) 4.0 7.0 $ 155,000 21.0 8.0 $ 650 Homes 3.0 5.0 $ 55,000 Percent 11 of Nonresidential Land Uses 100.0 FAR FAR Commercial OHice and Fragile Land loss Lands Lands 0.25 0.25 of Development Costs/Lane MOe N/A $518,000 N/A of Development Costs/Lane Mile & Water/100 linear It. Water Sewer Nonresidential Size (112) Costllt" Size (inches) 12 8 25,000 $ 60.00 Into New Area $6,500 $ 6,500 10 ,000 $ 50.00 Subdivision Costs (pipe size) 8 8 20,000 $ 35.00 SF Detached Unit $2,700 $ 3,400 SF Attached Unn $1,700 $ 2,900 Legend: QU,DweUing UnH; FAR=Fioor Area Ratio to lot Size; ROW=Right-OfWay; 5-F=Singie Family Sfe!ION Ill Cononf Do..loP"'onl Trena&let-111-95

PAGE 221

MICI11GAN fiSCAl IMPACTS TABLE 111-38 City of PoN&e 111115-2020 Development Cheract.rtallca -Compact Growth Entire cily None perhlphery Is in surrounding townships SfCTION Ill AtNe of Exlallng Development LAM Develof*l Protection AI'MI Wetlands around Gourdned< Lake, state game area. Austen Lake Pattern Detached Attached (Condos) Homes ofDUa 60.0 2.0 38.0 Acre 1.88 6.50 11.50 flnu!tr1y TIX AIIIII!!!I!J!I(MIII) Government Munclpal County Special Asllnmen!l Legend: DUaDwel ing Unit; FAR-Floor Area Ratio to Lot Size SICIIOOIU1 o f DUe 100.0 Acre 0.40 Ra 11.0000 8.1405

PAGE 222

. :MICHIGAN fiSCAl IMPACTS Portage is projected to increase its households by 37% and its by 26% between 1995 and 2020. Since there is little vacant land to develop, most of the be in redevelopment. The city is preparing a new master plan to manage this growth, which will focus on maintaining a strong central business district aroWtd Portage Square and also plan for neighborhood nodes. .As shown in Table ID-36, new development could consume up to half an acre of environmentally sensitive land for eadl acre of growth. PubliC lnfrostrvcture ond Service Cosls The city's investment in infrastructure is represented by its 10-year $90 million capital improvement program (CJP). Table ID-35 shows that the cost of widening a 2-Iane road to 41anes is $518,000. Although the costs of constructing internal subdivision roads shown in Table III-35, $385,000 per mile, reflect the standardized values, the actual costs to developers could be higher. Portage has higher standards (e.g., concrete curbs and gutters) than neighboring oommunities-'Standards which some developers consider too expensive to meet. Extending sewer and water service into a new area costs $6,500 per 100 linear feet. As sewer lines are extended into new areas, existing residents will be requined to hook up to them. New development is expected to pay its own way. For example, a developer who asked for a sewer waiver until the CIP program extended the sewer line was requined to put in dry internal sewer lines and septic tanks until the main line was built. AU of the intervening SECIION Ill SfCTION Ill properties were assessed to help pay for main line extension. Table ID-36 shows the city's property tax rates. The assessments include 11.0 mils for mW\lcipal government and 6.1 mils for county government. Future Development A Fulure Wrth Current Trends Currently, residential densities range from 2.0 to 8.0 units per acre near existing development and average 0.5 units per acre in the peripheral area. (See Table m-35.) An extension of current development trends would result in strip development encroaching upon residential streets, which in turn would diminish the viablllty of the central business district ( CBD) :New residential growth would be primarily single-family units at low densities. Wetland areas would be filled in to accommodate some of the growth: A Fvfure With Compact Growfh Under the compact growth alternative shown in Table ID-36, Portage would limit strip c:ommercial development along major streets and encourage nonresidential growth in the CBD. The dtywould also encourage denser redevelopment of residential uses rather than a switch to c:ommercial uses along older major streets. Densities of singlefamily units would decrease. Densities of multifamily units would Increase and multifamily housing would be encouraged to reach 38% of the city's housing in order to aooommodate growth with minimal loss of environmentally sensitive lands.

PAGE 223

MICHIGAN FISCAli M,ACTS IDIRINCIS Burchell, Robert W., et al. 1992. lmplld /lSStSS111e11t af the New Jersey Interim State Devdopmenltmd Redevelopment Pllln, rqxm II: march findings. Report prepared f o r New Jeney Office of State Planning, Trenton. NJ. February 20th. C ervero Robert. 1986 S uburllrm gridlJ:. New Brunswick, NJ: C enter for Urban Po li cy Research, Rutgers University Ctizens Research Council of Michigan. 1995. Outline af the Midtigtm TIIX System. Report No 315. Lansing, MI. Delaware Estuary Program (DEU!P). 1995 Ct:mrprdren$itl ctltllmJIIJiDn 11114 m111111gmrenl p/lm. J anuazy Downs, Anthony. 1m. Nt!D l>ilions for Mdropolit.ln Amtrlc4. Washington, OC: The Brookings Institution, Uncoln Institute of Land Policy. Duncan, James, et al. 1989. The S
PAGE 224

MICHIGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS Michigan Society of Planning Officials. 1995e. Water, sewer, and other infrastructure trends working paper. Rochester, MI. August. Mills, Edwin S and John F McDonald. 1992. Editors' introduction In Edwin s Mills and John F McDonald (eds.), Sources of Metropolitan Growth. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. Rutgers University communication 1996. Emmet County. Peterson, George B., and Wayne Vroman (eds.) 1992. Foreword. Urban Iabar markets and job opportunims. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press. Putters, Max Personal communication 1997. Emmet COIDlty. Rycenga, Roger communication 1996. Allendale Township. Southeast Michigan Coundl of Governments (SEMCOG). 1990. Regional develupment forecast: population, households and empluyrnmt IJy minor citTi/ diufsion. Detroit, MI. June. Southeast Michigan Cotmdl of Governments (SEMCOG). 1993. Regional profile of soulheast Michigan. Detroit, MI. December. SrcnoNIII Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Regional Development Initiative Oversight Committee 1993. Regional development initiative: final report of the RDI oversight CQmmittee. Detroit, MI. Southeast Michigan Cotmdl of Governments (SEMCOG). 1994a. Patterns of diversity and change in southeast Michigan. Detroit, MI. August. Southeast Michigan COIDlcil o f Governments (SBMCOG) 1994b. Population and occupied housing units in southeast Michigan, 1993. Detroit, MI. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), 1995. 199391 Annual report and 1995 calendar. Detroit, MI. Stilwell, Neil 1996. Rep says chances are good that beltway law will change. In Petoskey News-Relliew. March 28 1996. US Department of CoiJIDleroe, Bureau of the Census. 1994. County and city dl1la l1ook. Washington, D.C. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1992. Tollll fulltime and part-time employment IJy major industries. Washington D.C.

PAGE 225


PAGE 226

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS II(TRODUCFION This section of the report deals with the specific effects of growth undercurrent development conditions ver5us growth in more compact development forms in the 18 study commUnities of the state of Michigan. Current conditions rellect development patterns occurring over the past several years. These have been reported to the study team by knowledgeable professionals in the area. Usually this is the clerk or business administrator of the township or city. Compact development conditions embody the desired goals of local development as articulated by planners and political officials. This has been discussed in detail in Section m and will be summarized here. This alternative involves more and somewhat higherdensity growth around established areas in conunwlities, and less growth and lower densities in peripheral areas of commUnities. It also involves goals of agricultural and fragile environmental land savings; protection of open water and other natural habitats; promotion of infrastructure, cost-revenue, and housing cost reductions; and land development that is undertaken in an overall more responsible way. In Section I, the literature of the field was discussed as it related to: (1) lmul takings; (2) infrastruclure rt4!Jirements; (3) housing costs; and (4) cost-revenue impacts under current versus compact development. The literature findings indicated that cost differences could indeed be observed. For the most part, they favored compact development or managed growth: more compact development required less land and infrastructure and resulted in somewhat better overall housing costs and cost revenue impacts. . SECIIONIV SeeHon IV In this section, the current growth trends of 18 Michigan commUnities will be compared to those that would evolve under more compact development schemes to determine whether these same types of findings emerge. The analysis draws on the format and modeling of the analysis of the New Jersey State Deuelopment aruJ Redevelopment Plan and similar efforts in Maryland; Lexington, Kentucky; the Delaware Estuary; and the state of South Carolina to assesS the effects of these two alternative development scenarios on the eighteen study commUnities in Michigan (Burchell et al. 1992a). The analysis begins with projections of population and employment developed by the Michigan Department of Management and Budget and revised by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments for its commUnities, and by the Planning and Zoning Center, Inc., of Lansing, Michigan for all other study commUnities. These projections, augmented and extended by the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, are converted to the demand for stnlctures and land by specific study commUnity within the state (see Section m for specific data source citations). The amount of land consumed by a development scenario in each conunwlity is then used with models sensitive to density and patterns of development, developed by the Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, to determine infrastructure requirements for several classes of roads and for water and sewer. Land consumption (to the degree that it affects the land share of housing costs) is also used to determine the impact of the two alternative growth scenarios on future housing costs within each cozrunwlity. Finally, information from mwlicipal budgets, !Ogether with the

PAGE 227

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS household and employment projections described earlier, is used to determine the differing cost revenues of cunent and compact development in the 18 study CODlDlunities. Impacts are further refined by both infrastructure reductions and economies of scale in providing public services at the munidpallevel, as will be described shortly. From these analyses, statements can be made about the effects of current versus compact growth on future land consumption, infrastructure requirements, housing costs, and cost revenue impacts in the study 18 CODlDlunities of Michigan. 1HE ASSESSMENT MODEL and Employm-ProjediOftl Population and employment projections were obtained for the state of Michigan and its fourteen regions as well as for select study CODlDlunities for the twenty-five-year period 1995 to 2020. The beginning date is usually the most current population or employment estimate for the jurisdiction; the ending date encompasses the time period that various governmental agencies have used for their projections Because population projections usually overestimate growth (especially if not limited by a state control), an attempt was made to use projections from state sources that use these controls. Another aiterion employed for the aelection of Section rv population projections was that they evidence a consistent coverage of the areas subject to analysis and be linked to employment projections also evidencing consistent coverage of areas analyzed Thus, population projections for the state of Michigan are coordinated with projections for Nat p!aceN employment at the county level. Further, where it was determined that local sources had more accurate information that linked population projections with additional land-holding capacity, this data was used. Population projections were put through several iterations to ensure that the population that emerged from differing housing type projections was the same under current development as under compact growth, and that both agreed with the original population projections. Household projections for the period 1995 to 2020 were provided by SEMCOG for its munidpalities and by the Planning and Zoning Center, Inc., of Lansing, MI (PZC) for munidpalities located in regions other than the Southeast Michigan Region. Household projections for the 18 study communities use detailed field information obtained on future housing types to emerge as projections of residential units in these co=unities. The following household sizes (including school-age children) were used to develop water I sewer and public service demand: Hou.oina HouaebolciSize Scbooi.Aft ChilclleD Sin cleta<:hed (3.5\ 3.!M ().8() Slngle-family atta<:hed I !townhouses and d""lexesll2.5l 2.34 026 Multifamily I !three or more units) (1 2.01 0.23 Mobile Homes !2.51 2.40 0.33 5ert W. llun:hell one! David Li11okin (1996) at CUPR. SrcnoNfV

PAGE 228

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS Employment projections at the municipal level from the Universit)[ of Michigan Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations were analyzed. by type according to host county projections disaggregated by type. Data on employment growth by type were available at the county but not at the municipal level These were taken from a 1994 Michigan Department of Transportatilln study by the Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations at the University of Michigan. Historical employment concentrations of specific municipalities were also taken into account as employment was projected by type. & Required For Residential and Space Demands Resirlontial Structures hy Type Household projections for the 18 study communities for the period 1995 to 2020 are divided by municipal-spec:ific vacancy rates to obtain gross housing unit projections by type for the above period. These estimates of units to be produced are allocated to "near existing development" or "peripheral areas according to estimates provided by local professionals. (See the tables in Section m for each community.) As an example, it is reported that 80 peroent of the development in Bedford Township (SEMCOG Region) is taking place in areas near existing development south of Consear Road and west of the Ann Aibor Railroad traclor Railroad, the predominant type would be single-family units, on 2.5-acre lots. Estimates and projections of residential growth are determined for the years 1995 and 2020. The former is subtracted from the latter to derive 1995 to 2020 housing-unit change. In the compact development scenario only 10 percent of development is allowed to extend to the periphery; close-in densities are increased by 10 percent, and peripheral densities are decreased by 40 percent. Oustering is encouraged in 20 pen:ent of the community's peripheral development area. Through this process, land is preserved in the periphery with only "design" increases in density for the development that takes place close-in. Nonreritlentiol Structures Employment growth is translated to the demand for nonresidential structures by folding employment growth by SIC into employment growth by type of structure.

PAGE 229

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Emolovment Tvoe Manufacturinst Wholesale/retail Services Govemment Fire Minin2/ construd:ion Public on Fannia lure Conversion to structure type generates the aggregate number of employees to be housed in certain types of structures. s.ction rv Structure Tvoe Nentive 2r0wth Retail warehouse 120o/ol office {I ()'Yo) Retail..!Z!!:'# office (30o/o) Office {l()l)o/o Office (l()l)o/o Distribution/warehouse 160%1. office 140%1 office 130%1 Nestative Growth Employees detennine the size of the structure according to the following relationships (Bun:hell et al. 1994): Spue per Employee Nonresidential structures are assumed to be developed as specification constructed buildings of the size indicated above. Recognizing the high vacancy rates associated with nonresidential structures, to obtain the Office Retail 0.80 0.95 flriclenfial In order to convert residential structures to the demand for raw land, dmsities and pl41ting CjficinrJs are used. Den6ity is the number of units that c:an be developed on an aae of Janel. For example, one hundred aaes developed (square feet) actual space of structures required to acx:ouunodate particular growth of em ployees, the employee-determined building size is divided by the following occupancy characteristics: DIAributlon/WuehOIIIe 0.'/0 at a density of five units to the acre aUows for 500 single-family homes. This would provide each homeowner with a building lot. of approximately 7,500 squue feet. Information on historical development densities by types of units both-existing development and in peripheral development ueas was obtained from knowledgeable I This does not include land taken for plaiting .-Is;--

PAGE 230

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS professionals in each community. These are found in the tables of Section m of this study for each of the 18 communities. To the land required for residential units must be added an amount of land for roads, street hardware, utilities, and open space. This additional amount of land, which encompasses inefficiencies .. Section IV that occur in dividing up lots the extra space o f cui-de-sacs, and other rights-ofway requirements, is encompassed in a pWting coefficient that usually varies from a low of 10 percent for multifamily .units to a high of 20 percent for single family units. Platting coefficients by housing type used in this study are as follows: Single-family Single-family Multifamily Detached Attach 0.20 0.15 Non,..idenliaf Nonresidential structures are converted to land demand for nonresidential development using ajloor-iut12 ratw (FAR). A floor-area ratw is the relationship between the amount of floor space in a building and the aggregate area of a developed land parcel. A 10.000-square-foot building on a one-aae lot (43,260 ft.') has a floor area ratio of approximately 0.23. Floor area ratios for the Michigan study communities have been obtained from local planners and, in some cases; from regional commercial realtors. They vary significantly by type of community (wban, suburban, rural) and less so by Office Retail 0.20 o.os SraiONi'l lex (S+ units) 0.10 type of nonresidential use (retail, office, distribution/warehouse). Once the building size is known, it can be divided by the approximate floor area ratio to determine the aggregate lot size per structure. Again, a platting coefficient is used to account for road and utility land consumption, inefficiencies in land design, required public open space, and so on, to allow this potential nonresidential parcel to become a developed office, retail, or industrial use. These. platting coefficients obtained from Ulban Design Architects in Pittsburgh PA are as follows: Distn"buticml Warehwae 0.15

PAGE 231

MICHIGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT Residential and Nonreiclentlal Growth Table TV-A describes the current growth patterns of the 18 study communities as well as what they would like to achieve under more compact Usually a conununity desires to control development at its periphery to preserve unique landscapes or natural resources and to reduce the loss of environmental or fragile lands (wetlands, flood fringe, watersheds, natural habitats, coastal lands and forests). To accomplish this, communities often are willing to increase density slightly. When implemented sensibly, slight increases in density need not have an adverse effect on the conununity. In striking an appropriate balance for the density increase in the 18 study communities, half the development originally directed to peripheral areas is diverted to areas of existing development. The development that does take place in the periphery occurs at only two-thirds of its original intensity level. (This is explained further in the discussion of Table TV-1.) The amount of vacant developable land controls near existing development and also in the periphery. Table rv-B shows the amount of developable land for each study community as well as the share of this land that is in agricultural use or is environmentally sensitive. This information has been obtained from local tax records. Based on current trends in residential growth. several conununities will find housing development constricted due to the SfCIIONIV s.cno.IV amount or location of developable land. These include Harrison Charter Township, City of Hartford, City of Kentwood, Meridian Charter Township, the City of Montague, the City of Mount Pleasant, and the City of Petoskey. CurNnt venus Compad Development I!Hi
PAGE 232

I < I i i I j f.i i r l Community Allendale 33 sq. mi. area; IS% developed Bearem.k 40sq. mi. area; 20% deve l oped Bedford 39sq. mi. area; 6!1% deve l oped Canto n 36 sq mi. area;6S% de\'doped Garfield 'J:7 sq. ml area; 75% deve l oped TABLE IV-A Summary or Alterna lhe D e...topmenl Futores for lbe S tud y CommuDIIIes Developme n t Pattern Current or Trend Growth Compac t or Managed Growth J2iltins de\'dopmenc more in central The trend is toward conversion of open space and Allenda l e is encouraging ne w de\'dopm e nt within the area, with in Downtown Development agricultural areas outside of the core to sing l e family Downtown Development A u thori t y (DDA) district, as Authority (DDA) boundar i es. residential uses at re l ative l y low densities the commun i ty would l ike to maintain its quality of life and preserve rural character The communit y also PeriR heral deve logment: less in desires t o protect approximarely 1,135 acres of n orthern. western and southern areas wetlands in the undevelooed areas of thetownshio. lhistin g develog m ent more in Bear i s experienci n g pressure to co n vert agrieul The township would like to accommodate some growth nOrthwest corner of townsh ip. tural l ands along the p roposed beltway conid or just in the peripheral area, but at a lower density than that beyond existing development to residential and com-in the existing area. A wid er variety or residential units Peril!l!eral d e \'d!lj!ment less in lower mercial uses. Demand is for hig h -price d single-family is desired i n the area o f existing development 4/S of towns h ip. east of Boyer Road and homes. as the current service structure cannot provide sou th of A iki ns Road. economic rotum on infrastructure develOI)Illent cOOlS. .:; ... d eve)QR!!!!!n t more in soolbem Development is proceed i ng outward from developed Bedford desires to s l ow the pac e and amount of half or township below Consear Rd. and aroas into remaining agric u ltural lands in ihe nonhero development north o f Consear Road and east of the Temperance Rd. and west of Ann Arbor and eastern areas. Demand is for l ow-de n sity housing Ann Arbor Railroad lracks. Bedford atso desires RR. with small homes oo large lots u si n g septic tanks. protection of wetl ands and preservation oflgric u l tural Lands at the edge of development are being l eaped lands in these areas. Perioberal !!e\'dooment: less in over. nortbem half or township Exia&i !ll de:velggmen&: more in eastern Devel opment is proceeding steadi l y westward Canton is encouraging higher resid e ntia l development and cemral areas c overing 2J3 of encrnacbing on remaini n g agricultura l lands and densities in the periphe r al area and retaini n g other lands township. forested areas. Substantial demand for low-density in their natural state in order t o preserve agricultural residential uses is occuning a n d i s creating cooftict lands and open space. Peripberal d e \'d!lj!m ent: less in western with aiiport developme n t p l a n s and preservation 113 of townshil> obiectives E&iltiDI ds;:B)ggm= more in north-Increasing demand for low-density, s i ngle-family Garfiel d seeks to control growth by enc ourag ing highe r central areas in Traverse City v i cinity, residen tial developme n t wiU e xtend into asncu l tural reside n tial densities in both existi n g and selected as well as southwestern area around areas Unle commercial growth is occurring because pOflions of peripheral deve lopm ent areas: peripheral Silver Lake. farmers prefer Ill s ell l arger tracu of land for densiti es would still be lower than core densities. subd ivision s rather than smaller tracts for commerc ial Multifami l y developments would be encouraged, so as Ppjpheral dCl!$)QS>I!!W: l ess in uses. Traffic consestion has resulted due to tile limited to maintai n a variety of housing type s The township northwestern, s o u th-central, and number o f locations for nonresidential uses. also seeks to protect local wetland s and creek and river southeastern areas. setbacks, most of whi ch are in per i pheral areas. S! :!! f r t <

PAGE 233

I J J K f f f 1! Community H orrison 14 sq. ml. area; 8$91> -90'JI, developed Honford I.Osq. mi. area;9S'il> developed Kentwood 21 sq. mi. area; 1Q'il> developed MIIOOCIIb 36sq. mi. developed Meridian 32 sq. mi. area; !IO'il> de>eloped De>el I Pallen! all but a small tnc:t of 1 000 actes in the centralwestern portion of township. Peripheql!kveloRIJ!liol: a tract of 1 .000 acres In central western area between Ointon Riva wl Me itan Way. lililllullndostmoqt all but 213 acres ofrec=tly lftneaed land between city's _....... bouftclory and 1-94. 213 -=res between city'aoouthem boundaty and J 94. more i n notthem ond western portions of township. PaiQbculdew!lllJllmal: pcotioe of tho chy & IF ckydopmm t more in toud1t111 cor-wl boundlries of IO'Imship. Peripbcqlyclopment less in central, notthem and ..-.. portions of township, eapecioll y east of Middle Branch Oin ton River and nord! o Mile RC*I. &jlljna vckgncot: DKR in western holf of townsllip. bljpbcgl dewiii!!T!CIIl= less in Cl.dern holf of township outside the urban ..,.,ices boundary Current or Trend Growth The cunent development trend is IOwan! larger lots end lower densities than historic growlh, which occuned on smal l residential l ots Small homes are continuously being raz.ed for constnJetlon of larger homes. In some northern non-sewered areas, large lOIS are being subdivided. Due t o lhe lack of developoble land, Hartford's resi-cleotial ROill'eSidenual arowth 1s conslric:ted: the chy is losinJ polenlial residentiJII and nonresidential developnenlto surrounding communities. With few rmbles, the citY's tax base is insufficient to suppoct of public semce and inmslnlelure provisiOfl. Commereial development has been limited by the lack of avalloble vacant land, and infill developments are occurring. Projected rcsidentiol growth can occur only if opiculturallands and 1r1cts zoned for """""id0111ial u,.. ... rezoned forresidentioluses Historic de\'Ciopment i n Macomb's oouthwestem comer spuned by the lokeside Moll built in the 19701. Cunmdy, is occurrinl alon& the western ond southern edses of the township, stippina over lhe central MaJ. Demand is for slnale-family units, and developen are building homes on land zoned for multifamily units. Nonresidentia l demand is primarily for industriol uses 1111her lhan ofl'oce or reuil space. The western holf of the township closest to M ichigan sUni\'Crsity is built up. and growth is moving steadily to the east. Residents aeek 10 maintain low-density residential uses of approximately I dwelling unit per acte and 10 diSCOUl"IJC multifamily and commerciol development or Menued Growth Harrison desires t o encourage more single-fomily attached and PUD developments as a way of increasing single-family densily. At the same time, the township would like to decrease the density of multifamily units. Horrison would also like to preserve wetlands in the vicinity of the Huron-Clinton Metropark Authority Hartford sedcsto ottrac:t nonresidential and residential growth. respect iv ely. by developing the 213 acres or anneed land and rehabililation and redevelopment of .. istin g slnJCIUreS downtown. In addition to 1091> or the cit y's nonresidential ..... the anneed acreage would include low-density, sing lefamily detached unit$. A desirable plan would encouraie higher nonresidential densities in lhe edsting area. Some developable noaresident lolt rocts would be rezoned to provide more resldentiol aere&JO. Kentwood seeks to protect flooclplains ond wetlands along Plutet Creek &S well os to aamer odditionol """" Macomb would like to develOP 11101e multifamily housing to _.,.modale ""idential growth at a hi&ber density. Tbe township seeks to discout11ge strip commercial uses. limitin,g them to major road interteelions. Industrial uses would continue to be concentrated in the areu where lhey already exist Meridian seeks to maintain its low-density, predominandy family residenlial nature. Pmnitted uses in the periJ>ber-1 area beyond the designated Urban Service Boundary include low-density residential and agricultural uses. Rwal open spaoe zonins provides for olusterina new housing to preserve open space. Some expansion of nonrcsidentiol uses would be permitted to I accommodate fl9_onomic_d:evelopment needs. :!I i J <

PAGE 234

!5! !! :;;:: Q J I :::' !. .,I il f 1 1 "' { Montague 2 7 sq. mi. area; 6S% developed Mt. Pleasant 7 sq. mi. area; 90% developed Muskegon 14 sq. mi. area; 95% deY<:! oped No vi 30 sq. mi. area: SO% developed Pocosby 3.3 sq. mi. PIUsfJeld 28sq. mi. arca;6S% Develooment Pattern EaiiliD& develoomml: more in eentraJ portion of city and eastern areas along White Lake. Peripheo:a) !kxcloom,m: remaining northwestern, and southwestern portions of ci t y liaWiDI !kxtlww,or. northern central and southern portions of city. l'l;doheral doV<:Iopment: p rimarily east and southwest come< of the city Existigg develogme!JI: throughout the entire city. Podoheral none BxisJiQg skvelooment more in eastern and central portions of city. PeriJihll.ll !kxci!!J!mem: less in western, southwestern, nortbwost em, and northeastern sections l!lt develop except for 340 acres of land annexed in 1987-88. Currently, the Soaring Eagle Casino just east of the city bas created both jobs and demand for retail, as well as a housing shortage. Demand for both multifamily units and mobile homes Is increaslnt. Muakegon, full y developed, is losing both residential at1d job growth to surrounding co mmunities; however, demand for new housing along the waterfront a1ea is rclaliV<:Iy strong. Farm l and has undergone rapid conversion to commercia) uses, some of which arc of regional significance The focal po int for noiu:sidentlal uses Is between Grand Rivu AV<:n.., and 12 M'J!e Road along Novi Road, whicb includes the Town Center, 12 oalcs Regional Shopping Center and West Oaks Shopping Center. Many rema ining agricultural tracts are zoned for residential uses. Petoskey is losing boch jobs and population t o newer, more attractive locations in surrounding communities. Recent rapid residential growth has crealed demand for single-family uni ts and development of agricultural l ands. A tract of 2.2 square miles in the extreme sooth western comer has grown especially rapidly CornDIICt or Manlll!ed Growth Montague seeks to limit deve lopment in the peripheral areas and accommodale growth via infill and higher densities for multifamily housing and nonresidential development in e.dsting areas. Unique zoning and regulatory t<>ols emphasize prOiection of the existing shoreline and residential areas. The city seeks to limit mobile homes to their current area and increase the proportion and density of multifamily units to accoriunodate new residential growth. The city is also interested i n protecting land . along the not owned by the city or currontlv undevelo Muskegon seeks to attract growth with downtown tourist attractions (e.g, the aquarium) as " encourage singl<>-family units, which can be ac h ie ved with higher densities in the existing development area. It also seeks to preserve parks and open spa c e via clustering and higher I nerinheral densities. i5 2 i: a J < :.i . :

PAGE 235

I ::!: l Jl i [I 'i! ol Community Poctase 32 sq. mi. area; developed Resoct 21 sq. mi. developed Dew:looment Paltem Bxillina throughout entire city. fsripbm! deveiQj!!!!e!!!: none; periphuy is sunounding townships. IWIIiD& develoomeor. more in upper quaner of township norlh of Sterzik Road. PleriDhenl skivelomteol: less in areas SOUlh of Stenik Rood. Cunent or Trend Growtb Compoct or Manaaed Growth Although Portage is expected to experience growth in Portage seeks to protect Wdlands throughout the city, "' jobs and households, there is little vocant land to especially at the southern end, around Gourdnetk Lake. develop. The focus or commerc ial dew:lopment is the Austen Lake. and the $late of Michigan game area. It Portage Square M all in the central oosiness also seeks to limit strip commercial dew:lopment along district, and it is economically suble. Without controls, major streets while encouraging nonresidential growth however, strip development would encroach upon in the CBD. The city seeks denser redeve l opment of I residential streets and thneaten the CBD. Residential residential rather than commercial uses along older growtb is generally strong. major streets. Single-family densities i n the e1isting area would deerease, while multifamily densities would I increase. "' i: Development demand is for conversion of agricultural Resort seeks to limit development density in the I lands in the proposed beltway area to residential and peripheral area to one-half the density of e.isting strip commen:ial uses. The trend is toward high-priced, development. Multifam ily and mobile homes would be s ingle -family homes and uncoordinated shopping discouraged. The township also seeks to preserve the node$. sgricultural lands. parks, and recreallonal aress within its boundaries. J. <

PAGE 236

.,, Bl < < I fl I ,., { :::1 COIIIIIIUIIhy Allendale BearQcck Bedford Canton OarfiCid Harrison Hanford Kentwood Macomb Meridian Montague Mt. Plc8sant Muskcson Novi Petosl:ey Pittsfield Portage -Total TABLEIVB lnnntorles of Developable Agrlcaltural and FracUe Earuonmental Lands by Study Community CrftOI Estimated Ac:ra of Laadln % of Developable % of Developable TotaiV-nt& Land In Agrfcultural Emlronmeatally Acreaae Ia A grlcullural Acreaaebt Amcultural Aclti Uses Senslt!Ye Uses Use Envlton....,tal Use Oose Pelfpberaf Oose PerfpberaJ aose Perfpberal Oose PeriDheral aose Perlpberal 3,330 IS,I7S 672 13,634 1,135 20% 90% 0% 7% 1 ,000 11,000 700 9,350 300 1.650 70% 85% 30% IS% 2.240 16.282 1 ,734 13,840 200 2,442 7 7 % 8 5% 9% IS% 3,450 3,590 2.760 2.334 690 1,257 80% 65% 20% 3S% 6.627 7,788 6.227 6.957 400 831 94% 89% 6% II% 1,005 454 600 4S4 405 60% 100% 40% 0% 40 214 . . 0% 0% 0% 0% I,S30 2,7S7 1,377 2.481 153 276 90% 90% 10% 10% 4,428 7,044 2,327 1,917 2,101 5,127 S3% 27% 47% 73% 1 .996 2,469 1 ,776 2.224 220 245 89% 90% II% 10% 3SO 200 126 140 60 36% 70% 0% 30% 659 306 . 306 0% 0% 0% 100% 4,SOO 0 . 765 0% 0% 17% 0% 6.535 S 630 3,626 5,440 127 191 SS% 97% 2% 3% 12 0 . . 0% 0% 0% 0% 7,500 2.500 6,375 2.125 1,125 315 85% 85% 15% IS% 5,082 0 . 2,557 0% 0% SO% 0% 1,500 8,000 700 1,200 800 6,800 47% IS% S3% 85% 51,784 83,410 29.000 62095 9843 20694 56% 74% 19% 25% 3:: Q 3:: g <

PAGE 237

MICHIGAN nSCAt IMPACTS s.ctlon IV TAIU I V I Rasicknliol Unih 1 oncl Nonre.W...tiol Squore f-(OOOs) Cu11ent (Trend) Versu s Cempad (M anaged Growth) S.leded Mlchltan CemmuniMs Current c ..... pact Difference (Current minus Cernpoct) Neo:r lass Near leu Near Leu Exi1ting D eveloped Dl ment Ate as Total Cernmunlty S.11theoot Michigan R egion Hatrilon 3,705 251 3,956 3 831 125 3,956 125 125 0 Macomb 9.535 10.2 .89 19,825 13.500 6 324 19,825 -3,965 3,965 0 8edford 5,227 799 6,026 5,627 400 6,026 -400 400 0 Novi 12,1 15 5,100 17,215 13 ,474 3.741 17,215 -1,360 1,360 0 Pilhfield 10 ,366 1,268 11,634 11,000 63A 11,63A -<134 634 0 Canton 15,612 3,580 19,092 17,302 1,790 19,092 ,790 1,790 0 Gron d R opld1/Mulkegon R egion Kenlwood 8,642 1,100 9,742 7,674 2,069 9)'A2 969 -969 0 AAendole 3,506 1,895 5,A02 A,802 599 5,A02 -1,296 1,296 0 Montagve 394 73 468 431 37 468 -37 37 0 Muskegon 2,116 0 2 ,116 2,116 0 2,116 0 0 0 Tr-er City Region loorC:r .. k 509 2-"4 753 602 15 1 753 93 93 0 Pel01key 221 0 221 221 0 221 0 0 0 Roo ott 733 A57 1,190 918 271 1,190 -116 186 0 Gatfleld 9,596 3,915 13,511 10,436 3 075 13,511 .-4o 840 0 c-munm.. in Other Regiol\l Pottage 10,827 0 10,827 10,827 0 10,827 0 0 0 H0<1ford u 10 104 96 8 104 2 2 0 Meridian 3,338 491 3,829 3,A46 383 3,829 08 108 0 MI. Ploooont 5,893 119 6,011 5,952 59 6,011 -59 59 0 Total 102,329 29,5 9 3 131,921 112,256 19,666 13 1,921 -9,927 9,927 0 _,.,

PAGE 238

MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS S.ctl o n W Ell.( IV 1 IIUI n tlol Units (I) CUTTen! (Tren d ) Verws Compa
PAGE 239

$edlon IV TAILIIV1 Nonroliclontlel Sq.,.. '"' (OOOo) Current (Trencl ) v....,, Compoct (Managecl Growth) Sea.ctecl Mich igan C....munili Current Compoct Difference (C..rrent minu Compact) Nea r Leu Neo r lea s Neor Lon E xisting Devol oped E.otltlng De .. loped Existing Dovelopod Develop. Peripheral Develop-Poriphorol Develop-P e ripheral ment Areas Total ment AteoJ Totol rntnl Areos Toto! Com munity Southecut Mi
PAGE 240

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS S.C.icn IV Near Existintt DeveloDIIlent Existin2DeveloDtnent CWTent 26 300 units 3.3mlllionft.2 55 000 units 47.3 million ft. 2 Compact 14 400units 5.3 million ft.2 67 000 units 45.3 million ft. 2 Land Consumption Land Consumpfion Calculalions A land-capaCity computer model is available that will convert all of the previous information on location and type of structure, density I floor area of development, and platting coefficients to the demand for residential and non residential developable land in a region. nus model is fed by two individual development futures (current and compact) specific to each community and is controlled by development standards related to eadl of these futures. As indicated previously, standards (density, type of development, and so on) for current development derive from historical trends usually observed during the past five years. Development standards for compact development reflect an alteration of current development, usually to include a smaller share of overall development in the peripheral rural areas, and higher and lower densities in the closer-in and peripheral areas, respectively. Compact development standards also include a larger share of clustering (20 percent) in peripheral areas under compact development than is the case for current development. CUJTent versus Compact Development GTOJs Acres Taken (Table IV-2) Current development for a twenty-five year future consumes 63,000 acres of land for development in the 18 SCIIONrl Michigan study communities. Of this amount, 56,400 acres, nearly 90 percent, accommodates residential development. The remaining 6,400 acres responds to the needs of employment growth discussed in Section n of this report. Of the. land consumed for residential and nonresidential purposes in the study communities, almost 52 percent takes place in the Southeast Michigan Region, 15 percent in the Grand Rapids/Muskegon Regions, 19 percent in the Traverse Qty Region, and 14 percent in other regions. Within these regions, significant BmOWlts of land are consumed in Macomb, Novi, Pittsfield, and Canton (SEMCOG), Kentwood, and Allendale (Grand Rapids/Muskegon), Garfield (Traverse City), and Meridian (other regions). Under compact development, the increased densities on buildable sites around existing development reflect either slight movements to different housing types or some increases in development density. This generates a savings of about 9,700 acres compared to current development trends. Even considering the larger lots per developed residential unit under the compact development alternative in the peripheral areas, the overall land saving is greater than 15 percent for this alternative. More compact development in the vicinity of existing development, and select and more limited development in peripheral areas, can save significant amounts of undeveloped land.

PAGE 241

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS Sooral Develop-Poripl>oral DeveloP"' Poriphoral Mini Artoa Total ment Artot Total mont At tot Total Community Soulheost Michigan Region Harrison 792 209 1,001 681 1.(0 821 111 69 180 Maoomb 2 ,896 6, 160 9,057 3 ,356 5 ,718 9,07.( ..(60 .... 17 8odiD
PAGE 242

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS kdion N du ilnilol Acre Current {Trend) v.,..,, Compact (M-ged Growth) Selected Mlc hl..,n CommunltieJ Current Compact Difference (Current minus Compact) Near Less NoO< ltll Noar lou bisJing OonJoped Exltlna DoY111oped f>
PAGE 243

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS TAILUV-2 NonrelicfentiaJ Aets Comenr (Trend) Ver..,o eo...,..d (Managed Growth) S.lecNd Mkhl .... totnmunltiu Cvrrent eom,..d Diff-ee Near Lon Neor .. ( CUfrent mlnuo Com,..d) Neor leu fxiling Developed ling Dtvtlopod Exlllng Dovtlopod Develop-Peripheral Dtvtlop-Peripheral Dove lop-Peripheral ment Areos Tolol ment A,eot Torol ment Areal Torol Community SolllheoJI M ichigan Region Holrison 127 0 127 57 0 57 71 0 71 Maeotnb 178 190 368 104 106 209 71. 85 159 Bedford 199 0 199 73 0 73 126 0 126 Novi 1.65 52 517 155 155 310 310 207 Pilhfiold 1.19 0 1.19 153 0 153 267 0 267 Conl0<1 939 0 939 1.62 0 1.62 J.n 0 J.n Grand Roplclo / Muolcegon Region Kenrwood 634 0 634 173 79 252 1.61 -79 382 Anondalo 132 52 181. 51 0 58 74 52 126 Monlogvo 11 0 11 J. 0 J. 7 0 7 MuW.tgon 60 0 60 2J. 0 21. 36 0 36 TraverM City lt .. lon ltarCrttk 45 7 51 16 17 33 29 18 Pt!OJkty 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Rtorl 80 8 88 0 5 5 80 3 82 God;o l d 1,023 511 1,531. 205 1,065 1,270 818 ..SSJ. 26.C Collllllunftias In Other Region Porlogt 1.74 0 A7J. 195 0 195 279 0 279 Hatlford 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 Meridian 1.51 0 458 105 61 166 353 -41 293 MI. Plta .. nl 312 0 312 171 0 171 1.C1 0 11.1 Total 5,557 820 6,377 1,953 1,1.90 3,J..c3 3,60.C -470 2,931. SocncHIV

PAGE 244

. MICHIGAN ASCALIMPACTS Two observations about land consumption are clear for both current and compact development. First, a significant amount of land oonversipn will occur over the next two and one half decades in the eighteen communities (63,000 wtder current trends or 53,000 acres under compact development). Second, for the eighteen community area as a whole, four out of every seven acres outside existing development areas will be consumed if current trends are allowed to continue. Thus, of the 63,000 acres taken to accommodate residential and nonresidential development wtder current trend development, about 58 percent (36,630 acres) would be consumed in peripheral areas. Dominant in this pattern are Macomb, Novi, and Canton (SEMCOG), Allendale and Kentwood (Grand Rapids/Muskegon), and Garfield (Traverse City) wherein large amounts of development (2,.500 acres or more) are taking place outside existing development areas at relatively low densities. On the other hand, if compact development is followed, new development outside existing development areas (in peripheral areas) will consume 7,500 acres less than would be the case under current development trends. Of the overall land saved by compact development, 77 percent would be in peripheral development areas. Agricvlturol Land Talc!' (Table IVA) Agricultural land loss reflects the degree to which agricultural land and developable land pre aiterminous. Agricultural land is less coterminous in locations of existing development (60%); it is more coterminous in rural, undeveloped areas (74%). Of the 63,000 SICIIONIV Section IV total acres in the 18 study communities projected for land development under the current development trend scenario, about 68 peroent, or 42,800 acres, is converted agricultural land. 1his percentage parallels what has been found in most other national analyses of lost agricultural because the study communities outside the developed portion of major cities oontinue to have agricultural land uses (Coughlin and I
PAGE 245

MlCHIG ... FISCALIMPACIS TAIU IVA A gricul!v rolloM Con..,...o d Cunont (T,.M) V o r..,1 Compact 1 M-god Growth) Sol o ctecl Michigan Commllft!M Cunont Compact DiH e r e nc (Cuno n t mlnu 1 C o mpact) Neot l e n Ne..-Lu o N ear ltn bitting Dove loped bitting D..., loped bia ling Developed Devel op-Periphe ra l Develop-Ptriphtrol Develop-Peripheral ment Atea o Total men I Areot Total men1 Atea Tolol Community Southoa1t Michig a n R e gk>n Horriton A13 209 682 A07 lAO 547 66 69 135 Macomb 1 ,522 1 ,677 3 199 1 764 1.556 3,320 -242 1 21 -121 Iedf ord 967 2.123 3 ,089 8A2 2 123 2,965 125 0 1 25 Novi 1 ,402 3.544 4 9A5 1, 623 2,496 4 119 221 1,0A7 826 Pifllliol d 2 8 1 6 2 ,057 4 ,873 2 643 1 684 4,327 174 373 546 Can!Ofl 2 ,Al0 2 ,327 4 ,758 2 072 1 3 1 2 3,385 358 1,015 1 373 Grand Ra pldo/Muokegon Region Konlwood 1,377 2,476 3,852 1 074 2,134 3,208 303 34 1 6AA Allendale 173 3,412 3.585 217 2,244 2,461 -A4 1,169 1,12-' Monlogvo 52 128 180 49 107 156 3 21 25 Mvokegan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Traverse City R egion Boorv .. k 213 293 505 214 208 A22 2 85 u Potooko y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reort 258 163 4 21 253 125 378 5 31 AA Garfie l d 2,405 6,392 8 ,797 1 749 5 108 6,857 656 1.284 1 ,939 ea ...... unltlea In Other ....... Portage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hotlford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meridian 1 ,717 2,213 3,930 1 32 1 1 899 3,220 396 314 711 Mt. Pleaa.ant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 15,804 27,013 4 2,817 14,227 21,136 35,363 1,.577 5,877 7,45 4 '"""""IV I 'c...C u :c..-tYL Cr fld rv.20

PAGE 246

MICHIGAN FISCALIMP4CFS Section rv TldiLE IYB traii i:ana Coriiumod Current (Trend) Versus Compact (Managed Growth) Selected Michigan Communities Current Compact DiHerenco (Current minus Compact) Near lou No or loos Near lou &dsting O.volopod Existing Dove loped Exb-tirtg Developed DevelopPeripheral Dove lop-Peripheral Develop-Peripheral mel'\t Areas Total ment Areas ToloJ ment AreOJ Total Community Southeast Michigan Region Harri son .319 0 319 275 0 275 45 0 45 Macomb 1,374 4,484 5,858 1,593 4,162 5,754 322 104 Bedford 111 375 486 97 375 472 14 0 14 Novi 49 124 173 57 88 144 .a 37 29 PiH>6eld 497 363 860 466 297 764 31 66 96 Canton 608 1,253 1,86 1 518 707 1,225 90 546 636 Grcmd Rapids/Muskegon Regjon Kentwood 153 275 428 119 237 356 34 72 Allendale 0 284 284 0 187 187 0 97 97 Montague 0 55 55 0 46 46 0 9 9 Muskegon 51 0 51 40 0 ..40 11 0 11 Traverse City Region Bear Creek 91 52 143 92 37 128 1 1 5 14 Petakey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resort 295 925 1,220 289 709 997 6 216 222 Garfield 154 764 918 112 610 723 42 153 195 Communities in Other Regions Portage 1,791 0 1,791 1,486 0 1,486 305 0 305 Hartford 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Meridian 213 244 457 16 4 209 373 <19 35 8<1 Mt. Pleasant 0 296 296 0 247 .u7 0 49 49 Tatal 5,707 9,493 15,200 5,397 7,909 13,216 <100 1,584 1,984 SECIIONIV

PAGE 247

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS plains, wetlands, and critically sensitive watersheds; those that are geologically based include steep slopes, sinkholes, and erosion-prone lands (Burchell et al. 1992a). Other fragile lands include forests and special plant or animal habitats. Fragile lands are more prevalent per acre of development in rural areas because these lands are, for the most part, undisturbed. Tallies of fragile lands as a share of land available for development have been obtained from the tax and planning offices in the respective study communiti es. For the most part, those lands likely to be lost are forests, natural habitats, and some portions of marginal wetlands. Compact management results in a savings of 2,000 acres of fragile lands for the 18 study communities. Current development trends, given the quantity of land consumed for development, could create a loss of over 15,200 acres of environmentally sensitive land, nearly 40 percent of which could ocxur in Macomb Charter Township. For compact development, fragile land loss of 13,200 acres is approximately 87 percent of the current trend develop ment figure, again with about 40% of this amount coming from Macomb. Because less land is consumed overall under compact growth, developers can more easily avoid areas of fragile lands. Road lnlraotructure a ... uir-ts and Com In&astructure is the publicly owned and maintained land, hardware or structures through, from. or on which public services emerge (Creighton 1970). The infrastructure analysis involves development's demand for roads (local and state) and water-baaed (water and sewer ) utilities. It draws heavily on model results from trend versus plan evaluations in the Impact Assessmtnt tf SIIC110N IV S.
PAGE 248

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACT$ analysis initially ignores any distinction between arterial and subdivision roads; it uses total street length in the analysis. The correlation between local street length and total street length (including both local and major streets) for the 1% cities is almost perfect (rz.994). As background,. a correlation analysis was done on the 196 Michigan cities exploring the relationships between city size in square miles, population, employment levels, population density, and total street density. The strongest relationship was between total street density and population density (....a35) and between population and total street length (r-.968). Total street density correlates poorly with employment density (r=.486) and square miles (r.1605). Following the CUPR ROAD model, total road density Is projeded as a function of population density. A variety of mathematical models were explored using the 196 cities as a dataset. These models included logarithm, quadratic, cubic, power, and linear equations. After careful analysis it was discovered that different city sizes have different relationships between population density and street density. As cities become larger the non-linear power relationships found in New Jersey also hold in Michigan; however, for small cities, the best model is linear. Hence, the following relationships predicting Section IV total street density based on population 4ensity pertain: Far cilies l1elwn 2,000 and 10,000 population, the linear equation estimates reasonably well: Total Street Density"' 4.2695 + .0025 Population Density R .588 F 151.25, df=106, sig.level = .000 For cities betwmt 10))00 popubllion and 50,000 population, the non-lintar power equation works well: Total Street Density= .0465 Population Density R' .820 p 281.63, dl. a 62, sig. level s .000 Far cilits 50,(}()0 population, IM nonpower equation works weli: Total Street Density .1175 Population Density R'-.609 F=34.30, d.f. = 22, sig.level .000 Local road costs per lane-mile ue shown below. 110% of these costs are for suburban areas. For rural areas, costs are SO percent of the costs Usted below; for urban areas, 150 percent. Information on costs was obtained from county transportation offices and from local town engineers.

PAGE 249

CurNnt venus Compact Development Local I.GnMil.s Requirecl (TableiV.J} To accommodate a growth in residential units of 81,300 from 1995 to 2020, and a corresponding growth of 50 6 million square feet of employment space in the 18 study communities 1,530 Jane.mi1es wi11 be required under current development trends. They are divided relatively equally between near (725) and peripheral (803) development areas This should be viewed within the context that housing is built near existing development at a rate of 2.5:1 versus that which occurs periphe rally; further, most of the new employment space growth is found near existing development. Thus, theft is a relationship between density and lanemiles. The relationship dearly recognizes that local roads are required in close-in areas even when development occurs at high densities there. Compact development (1,340 Jane.. miles) reduces roadway construction by about 190 lane-miles when mmpared to current development trends (1,530 lane of the savlng cxnuring in peripheral rural are Near existing mmpact ment requires more Jane-miles o f local roads than current trends because It accommodates 12.000 more dwelling units in these lo cations Since lane-miles rather than road-miles are used, these caleulations already account for widening of roads to accommodate higher-density development close to existing development. Costs ol Local i.oft e Mil.s (Tobie N-3} Under current development trends, to provide tor the construction of local roads to acx:ommodate local residential and nonresidential growth over the next S.ction rv two and one-half decades $450 million w ould be required. Under mmpact development, the figure is reduced to $40 5 million. Overall, there is a saving of $45 million, or 10 percent in local road msts due to more compact development patterns. In the state of Michigan. since developers pay for some share of two-lane local roads this saving would be shared by the home buying as weJJ as the tax"Paying public. None1heless there are significan t local road-<051 savings regardless o f who pays for these costs. Slut. Lone-Miles Requirecl (Tobie IV-4} As would be expected, differing land use patterns at the community level affect state road demand only slightl y Molt state roads are throughroads Jinldng existing population centers. Whe1her in-between locations are more compact or population growth is more dlspened does not significantly affect the sc:ale or direction of these center Jinldng roads. Under current development trends, about 45. 4 Jane..miles of state roads would to be provided or to 8CICOII'lmnd.ate the twenty five-year growth for the study communities ; under mrnpact development the figure would be 36.6 lanHniles The differenoe is approximately 9.0 Jane-miles and relates largely to development differences in less developed, peripheral are. Coot of Slulw ian..Mil. (Toi>Se N-4} The difference between current and compact development in state roads in Mld\igan would amount to $8.8 millioa. Current development trends would requJm $49.2 million to construct or augment necessary &tate roads; compact

PAGE 250

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACT'S ... TAIIU IV-3 Local ...... L.M Miles c.m-t (Trend) Venus Compact (M ......... Growth) Solo doling Develop-ment 35.5 .1.1. 3 71.7 10.1.5 161.7 82.2 17.5 .19 .1 3.1 16 7 7 2 2 9 10.0 e.l 2 97. 6 1.4 .1.1.7 13.4 845.1 Lass O.volopod Periphe ral Areas 2 9 21.1. 1 1 U 61.1 13 6 77.5 19.7 2.4.9 0.6 .1.4 .19.5 0.1 7 9 1.5 <193.2 Tolol 38..ol 25U 85.3 165 6 17 5.2 159.6 37.2 74 .1. 3.7 16.7 9.1 2 9 1.1..1. 133.7 97. 6 1.5 .19.6 1.ol.9 1,338..ol Difftore n .. (CurNnt mlnuo Compcod) Noor Lau E>dmns Dovolopod Develop-P oriphoral men1 Areas Toto] (1..1) (13 6) (6 .8) (29.0) (15.0 ) (1o.9) (6. 3) (17 .3) (0.5) 0 .1 (1.7) 0 1 (2.7) (16 9) 5 1 (0.1) (3.8) 0.5 (119.8) 3.3 94.1 1 2 7 35. 8 12..ol 59.5 11.5 31. 7 0 6 2 9 34. 3 0.1 7 2 1.3 309. 3 1.9 80.5 6 0 6 8 (2.6) 48 6 5.1 u._J. 0.1 O.J. 0.1 0.1 0.2 17 4 5.1 0 0 3 .ol 1 9 189.5 -IV '-cfC... ;Na .... W......., AGes' ; eo., ea.,., r\'25

PAGE 251

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACfS TABLEIV-3 Local Road Costs (000$) 0 c--t (T..-.1) V..-Conopa
PAGE 252

TABLEIV-4 Lane Miles Current (Trend) Versus Compact (Managed GroW1h} Selected Michigan Communities Current Compact D.,_,_ Near Lon Nocw Le .. (Currant m inus Comp-) N.or Len EUting O...lopod Existing Dowlopod E>UJiing D...!opod O....lap-Pripheral Dewlap-Dewlap-Poriphorvl -""-Total ...... ""-Tclal """" -Totol Community Southacut Michigan Reeion Honison 0 .8 5 0.21 1.06 0.71 0 :12 0.83 0 14 0 .09 0.24 Macomb 0.77 10.48 11:25 0 89 8.56 9.45 (0 .12} 1.92 1.80 B o dford 1.62 0.89 2.52 1..43 0 .5 4 1.98 0.19 0 .35 0.54 NOYi 1.89 3.29 5 .18 2 .09 2 .44 4.53 (0 20) 0.85 0.65 Piltofiold 3 .67 0.88 4.55 3.23 0.54 3.78 0 .43 0 .34 0 .77 Coolon 1.78 4 .66 6 44 1.64 3.10 4.74 O .IA 1.5 6 1.70 Gra11d Rapltls/ Mutlc.egon Raglon KeNwood 0.28 1 06 1.34 0 .35 0.79 1.14 (0. 07) 0 .27 0.20 Allendale 0 .80 'l'f3 2.73 0.99 1 .00 1.99 (0.19} 0 93 0.74 M ontagu e 0.07 0 .04 0.11 0 06 0 02 0.09 0 .00 0 02 0.02 Muakogon 0.43 O.A3 0.33 0.33 0 .09 0.09 Trover City Reelon a ... c, .. k 0.14 0 .13 0.26 O .IA 0 .07 0 .22 (0 01) 0 .05 0.05 Potookoy 0.08 0.08 0 .06 0.06 0.02 0.02 RasOit 0.18 0 .25 0 .43 0.20 0 .18 0.38 (0.02) 0 .07 0 .05 Gaofiold 1.68 2 .85 4 .53 1.68 1.98 3.66 (0.00) 0 .87 0 87 c:a-nllies In Other ,J ....... Portae2.57 2.57 1.95 1.95 0.61 0.61 Hartford 0.03 0.01 0.04 0 .03 0 .00 0.03 0 .01 0 .00 0.01 Moridi.., 0.95 0.51 1.46 0.83 0 32 1.15 0.11 0.31 MI. Ploaaanl 0 .35 0 .10 0 .44 0.27 0 .06 0 .33 0.08 0.12 T.-1 18.13 27.29 45.42 16.90 19. 73 36.63 1.23 7.56 / 8.79

PAGE 253

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS S.etion IV TAILEIV-4 ....... CoJt (000$) cu..-(T,_.,) v....,. Compact (Managed O.Owth) Selected Michigan Communltleo Cunwnt Conct Diffetoence (eun-t mlnuo Compact) Near ..... Noar ..... Noo r ..... Exisling DovolafM
PAGE 254

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS development would require $40.5 million for the same purposes. Obviously, the savings in state road :. costs are only about one-fifth as much as those observed for local roadS. Utility lnfrastnlcture Requitemenls ond Cosls Water-based utility requirements vary dlrectly with water and sewer demand (Ramer 1990). Water demand relates to the number of people in a dwelling Wlit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential space and to the degree that the properties they occupy have lawns that are regularly watered (Boland 1983). Water service is people and property-driven. and models or standards of use by type taice both of these types of demand into aocount. WateHervice hookups An! primarily an urban service ; those peripheral to existing development areas use well water. Sewer4 demand is a function of the number of gallons of occupant-driven water consumption that is retained in the system and ultimately must be disposed of (New ]etsey Office of State Planning 1990). This usually varies from 50 to 70 percent of total water consumption for residentiAl and non residential uses. Sewer hookups are also an urban service, with packaged sewer treatment plants available to larger, peripheral subdivisions and septic systems to rural development on individual large lots. Thus, for the most part, water and sewer service is fully 4 This section involves only aaniwy-. kc:nONfl/ Socllon fl/ available near existing development. Sewer service is often also available to lllrge subdivisions not far from existing development, where water service may be in the form of drilled wells In very rural areas, water demand is predominantly answered by drilled wells and sewer treatment is responded to in the form of septic systems Wolw DftJ S. ... r Demand Water demand in millions of gaUons per day is less under compact versus current development due to differences in density (smaller lots under compact development near existing development) and also due to somewhat dlfferent housing typespossibly more townhouse and multifamily development under compact development, at least in the more developed commwlities. Water demand by type of residential Wlit and nonresidential use is shown below. Sewer demand parallels water demand and involves lower amounts consumed because aU of the water used is not retained in the system. Housing-type differences and densities in cum!nt versus compact development also affect sewer demand. Differences in water and sewer demand by residential and nonresidential type are shown in the following chart.

PAGE 255

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS s.ction I V Structure Tvoe Water Demand Sewer Dematd RESIDENTIAL (gallons/person / day) (gallons/person / day) Single-family 100 65 Townhouse/Duplex 85 56 75 52 Multifamily NONRESIDENTIAL (gallons/1,000 tt.2) (gallons/1,000 ft .2) Office 93 80 Retail 106 90 Industrial 22St 195 Warehouse 22St 195 A ture 22St 195 t Process water is not calculated in this analyais W
PAGE 256

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS per hookup. It is an estimate of future distribution costs to the provider. Current estimates obtained from municipal/county engineers for water and sewer hookups are: Type of Unit SF Detached SF Attached Multifamily Water Sewer $2,700 $3,400 $1,700 $2,900 $1,600 $3,100 Current venus CompCKt Development Water Demand and Hookups (Table IV-5) Water demand under current development trends is 11.4 billion gallons per year; Iinder compact development, it is 8.6 billion gallons per year. The difference in consumption is 2.8 billion gallons per year. Under current development trends, 76,000 hook ups are required; under compact development, 65,600 hookups-a difference of about 10,400 hookups. Tilis overall difference is primarily related to compact and current development differences in peripheral locations. Only half as many hookups are required in peripheral areas if compact development is utilized. Water Co.ts (Table IV-5) Water infrastructure costs amount to $212 million under current development trends and $194 million under compact development--a savings of $18 million. Tilis cost difference also relates primarily to development differences of the two scenarios in peripheral locations. Sewer Demond and Hoolcvp (Tobie IV-6) Sewer demand in billions of gallons per year is 7.2 under current development trends and 4.9 under compact development--a difference of 2.3 billion ScnoHrv S.
PAGE 257

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS TABUIV Water Demond (KGY) Current (Trend) Versus Campa Rold 919,792 153,956 1,073,748 75,71.0 966,114 29,418 78,216 107 ,634 Canton 1,217,313 1,653,779 1,059,938 184,029 157,375 .409,812 Grone! Rapids/Muskegon ResJon Kentwood 576,113 355,263 73,733 220,850 60,400 281,251 ADen dale 271,299 204,372 475,671 263,393 71,607 335,000 7,906 132,765 140,671 Montague 29,605 8,949 23,208 27,593 6,397 4,564 10,96 1 MU1kegon 170,801 0 170 ,801 126 ,111 0 126,111 U,690 0 U,690 Tr-erse City Region Bear Creelc 48,517 27,857 53,789 13,622 67,411 -5,272 14,235 8,963 Petokey 23,A66 0 23,466 21 ,203 0 21,203 2,263 0 2,263 Reaort 66,965 53,971 120,936 75,791 31,742 107,533 -8,826 22,229 13,403 Gomeld 638,732 360,047 998,779 511,903 670,651 12 6,829 201,299 328,128 Communities in Other Regions Portage 891,697 0 891,697 658,786 0 658,786 232,911 0 232,911 Hartford 10,393 1,155 11,548 10,250 547 10,797 143 608 751 Meridian 290,976 59,904 350,879 268,826 2,106 270,932 22,150 57,797 79,947 Mt. Pt.cnanl 317,600 14,454 332,054 121,979 7,082 12 9,061 195,622 7,372 202,993 ,_, 8,099,153 3,339.242 li,A38,396 ,_.,2.851 1,520,$15 1,483,373 936,295 1,118,727 2.755A22 $!C!OIIV

PAGE 258

MJOGGAN fiSCAl. IMPACTS S.ction IV TABU: IV 1 cu ..... nt ( T .. nd) Versus Compact (Managed Growth) Solettod Mlchigon Communities C.....nt Compact Difference (o.n-t minus Compact) Noot lou Near L Ntor leu Exiating Developed E>Citling Developed Exitting Developed Develop-Peripheral DevelopPeriphorol Dove lopPeripheral '"""t Areas Total ment Area Total lnlnl Area Toto! Community Southeast Michlgon Region Hand on 1,685 251 1,936 too 1,8-58 151 93 Macomb 7,451 9,605 17,056 7.215 4,577 11,792 2 36 5,029 5,265 Bodford 3,190 799 3,989 3,490 0 3,490 .301 799 498 Novi 5,631 4,5 ,45 10,176 7.508 2,127 9,635 ,8n 2,418 541 PiHtfleld 6,2A7 1,258 7,505 6,955 634 7,589 624 Conlon 6,874 3,580 10,454 7,605 1,343 8,947 -731 2,238 1 ,507 O.C.ncl Rapicls/Musk-.o n Region Kentwood 2,523 1,100 3,623 2,739 U5 3,384 455 239 Allendale 1,457 1,521 2,978 2,148 599 2.748 -691 921 230 M-gue 162 73 235 185 37 222 4 37 13 993 0 993 933 0 933 60 0 60 Trove,. City Region Boar Creek 349 226 575 435 115 550 -86 111 25 Petoskey 174 0 174 161 0 161 12 0 12 lteoott 461 904 604 265 870 43 1n 34 Garfiolcf 3.534 2.529 6,062 4 ,050 1,348 5,398 -517 1,181 664 Communities In Other Regions Potfoge 5,463 0 5,463 4,727 0 4 ,727 736 0 736 HD
PAGE 259

MICI!IGAN FISCAl. IMPACTS Section IV r.uu 1v.s Watw Coot (000$) C....e n t (Trend) v.....,. c-pect ( M-gecl Growth) Selected Mlchl g., Communlrieo C:.W..nt Compect DIHe renc e (C.'"ont mlnuo Compec l ) No or ..... No or ..... Near ..... Exbling O.veloped Existing Don loped Exioting Developed Develop-Periphorol O...lop-Peripheral O.velopPeripheral ment Area s Total mont ....... Total ment Art o t Toto! Community Southoaol Michlg., R egion Honiaon 5,329 678 6,007 5.506 289 5,79.4 176 389 2 1 3 Macomlo 20,5"9 25,906 "6,.454 23,712 13 ,898 37,610 -3,1U 12,008 8 845 8odford 8 ,716 2 ,158 1 0 873 9 ,649 0 9 ,6"9 -934 2, 158 1.22" Novi 1 6 ,050 1 2,249 28,299 21,371 5 ,847 27,218 ..5,32 1 6 ,"02 1,081 PilhGeld 17, 845 3,409 21,254 19,117 1,712 21,599 2 ,042 1,698 -345 Co niOtt 20, 177 9 ,667 29,843 23,202 4 081 27,213 -3,025 5,585 2,560 Groncl Ropiclo /Muolc oeon R .. ion Kentwood 7 ,0"7 2,971 10.017 7 893 1,690 9,583 -8"6 1 ,281 .ol34 Allondalo 4 ,017 4 ,094 8,111 6,169 1 ,618 7,787 152 2,.175 323 Montague A$9 198 657 539 99 638 -80 99 19 Mutltogon 2,967 0 2,967 2,87" 0 2,874 93 0 93 r,..,.,,. City R .. lon Bear Creek 936 610 1.5"6 1,199 309 1,509 26" 301 37 Potokoy 494 0 A9" A7A 0 A74 20 0 20 ltooort 1,235 1 ,195 2,.130 1,655 717 2,371 -420 "78 58 Garfield 9,927 6 m 1U99 12,1.ol0 3 ,682 15,822 .213 3 ,090 877 Cammunllleo lnO!h -P0<1age 15 888 0 15,888 14 842 0 14, 842 1 ,046 0 1 ,046 Hortlord 218 2A 2"3 230 13 2"3 12 0 Meridian 5,2 1 0 1,327 6,537 5 746 18 5,764 ..535 1,308 773 Mt. Ple .. ont 3 2 1 320 3.53" 3,103 160 3,263 111 160 272 Total 140 ,277 71,577 211,15 160,19 1 3.ol,l33 19",3 23 ,914 37,""4 17,531 a..tlte:a ;r ""w;_.......,Hs s t :c.n-tw.C ,,;r\Lu

PAGE 260

FISCAL IMPACTS S dtoft IV SewW lieoi;i_, ( KG Y) a...-rr,_,l v ....... eom..-IM-t" Growth) CoM-Ities c:un-t Co....,...t Difference (Cim'ent minus Compact ) Neor Lou Near Lost Neor loll Exioting Developed billing' o .... lopad Exioting Deve loped Dowlop-Peripheral DeYOiop-P eripheral Develop-Peripheral mont Areas Total m.nt Aro01 Total ment Aroos Total c-unlly SouthMit M lchl .. n Region Honiton 20A ,78 3 19,885 22 .. ,668 159,93 .. 2,731 162,665 ........ 9 17,155 62,003 M-b 618,719 7U,613 1,.403,332 706,293 123,629 829,921 -87,574 660,985 573,.411 8oclord 325,817 0 325, .817 275,115 0 275,115 50,702 0 50,702 NcM 657,959 369,209 1,027,168 635,U3 29,073 66.(,916 22.117 3 .. 0, 135 362,252 Piltollold 625,321 605 625,925 512,356 0 582,356 42 964 605 43,569 ContOft 861,803 283,703 698,015 36,210 7U,225 163,789 2 .. 7, .. 93 .. 11,281 O...nol Rapida /Mutkepn Retlon Kontwood .. 38,532 0 A38,532 235,965 6,886 202,567 -6,886 195,6 8 0 Allondole 199,.407 18,663 218 ,070 172,730 0 1 72.730 26,677 18,663 Montoguo 21,.419 0 21,.419 15,206 0 15,206 6,213 0 6,213 Mutbgon 120,018 0 120 ,01 8 82,560 0 82,560 37,.458 0 37, .. 58 ,....., .... Clly elon lloar Crook 33,232 1,5 .. 0 3 .. ,773 35,277 636 35,913 905 -1,1AO Potookoy 15,522 0 15,522 13,793 0 13, 793 1,72 8 0 1,728 Reoort .. 6 ... 07 621 .. 7,028 50,033 64 50,098 -3,626 557 -3,070 Gaofiold .. 70,656 59,563 530,219 3 .. 0,371 16,098 356,.476 130,278 4 3,465 173,743 In Other ......... Ponog. 623,164 0 623,164 A32,755 0 432,755 190,.409 0 190, 409 Hortfonl 6,888 60 6,948 6,672 13 6,686 2 15 47 262 Moridian 202,129 0 202, 129 178,718 1,112 180,529 23,411 -1, 812 21,599 Mt. Ploooanl 2 .. 9,090 0 2 .. 9,090 82 ,0A7 0 82.047 167,043 0 16 7,043 T-1 5)'20,146 1,531 ;162 7,2$,,321 A ,703169l 2 17, 151 4 ,920,142 1,017,17.5 1,321,311 2,531,A14 s..-IV

PAGE 261

MICHIGAN FISCALIM,ACTS SodlooiV TABLE IV-6 S o w o r Hookups (I) "'"'"'(Trend) Vorsus Compocl (Monoged Growth) solocted Mlchlgon c....-Compoct Difference I"'""' minus Compoct ) Neor Less Near lu NoO< Loss bisting DoYOioped Existing Developed E lollng D .. oloped Develop-Peripheral Develop-Peripheral Dove lap-Peripheral mont Altos Tolol mont Area Total mtnt Are at Total Community Southeost M l chleon Rogion HorrUon 1,685 251 1,'136 1,743 1,768 -58 226 168 Macomb 7,.151 9,605 17,056 7,215 930 8,1.44 236 8,676 8,912 Iedford 3,190 0 3,190 3,4'10 0 3,.490 -301 0 -301 Novi 6,631 .4,545 10,176 7,508 325 7,833 .J,an .4,220 2,3.13 PlHoAeld 6,247 3 6,955 0 6,955 3 -705 Conlon 6,874 3,580 10,45 4 7 605 269 7,873 3 1 3,312 2,581 Grand ltopids/Mulkogon Region Ke-ood 2.523 0 2.523 2,739 95 2,834 .:.! 17 -95 -311 Allendale 1,457 22 1,479 2.U8 0 2,148 -691 22 -669 Monlogue 162 0 162 185 0 185 -2.4 0 .:.!4 Muskegon 993 0 993 933 0 933 60 0 60 Traverso City R eelon ...... er.ek 349 15 364 .435 4.43 -86 7 -79 Pototltoy 174 0 174 161 0 161 12 0 12 Rolorl 461 1 462 604 0 605 143 1 -143 Gorfield 3,534 152 3,616 4 ,050 160 4_210 -517 -8 ..524 Communitie s In Other R egions Portage 5,.163 0 5,463 .1,727 0 .1,727 736 0 736 Horlfotd 81 0 81 85 0 86 ..( 0 ... Meridian 1,903 0 1,903 2,022 2,030 119 -8 21 MI. l'toosant 1_205 0 1,205 1,08.1 0 l,OS.C 122 0 122 Totol .19,382 18,175 67,556 53,692 1 ,8 20 55,512 ..(,3 10 16,354 12,0.14 Sealoo
PAGE 262

MICHIGAN fiSCAL JMPACJS Section IV .To\IU I V-6 Sewer Cos t (OOO$) CU,.,. n t ( T r e n d ) Versus Com pact (Managed Growth) Selected M ichigan Communities Current Compact Difference (CUrren t mlnuo Compact) Noor Leu Near lu Near loiS Existing Developed Existing Do .. loped &;sting D ... lopod Develop-Poriph.rol Develop. hriphoral O...lop. Poripl>orol menl Areos Total men I A,. a s Total rnenl Area Totol Commu nity Mic:hiSila n Region Honison 7,691 853 8,544 8,019 146 8,165 -328 708 380 Macomb 26,597 32,622 59,219 36,107 7,343 43,449 -9,510 25,279 15,770 Bodford 11,183 0 11,183 12,502 0 12,502 ,319 0 -1,319 Novi 22,468 15,425 37,893 29,648 1,579 31,226 -7,179 13,847 6,667 Pinfiold 24,178 39 24,217 26,613 0 26,613 ,AU 39 2 ,395 Canton 28,353 12 ,173 40,526 33,n9 2,148 35,878 -6,376 10,025 4 ,648 Grand laplcb/Muskego n legion Kentwood 9,498 0 9,.498 10,920 258 11,178 -1,A2:i -258 -1,680 Allondor. 5,287 60 5,347 8,328 0 8,328 -3,041 60 -2,980 Montagu 613 0 613 733 0 733 120 0 -120 Muskegon 4,116 0 4,116 4,087 0 4,087 29 0 29 Traver .. City Regio n Bear Creek 1 ,178 49 1,228 1,547 26 1,573 -369 23 -346 Petoky 654 0 654 646 0 6A6 0 8 leJott 1,555 3 1.557 2,134 1 2,135 -680 2 -678 Garfield 13,255 446 13,701 17,014 728 17,742 -3,759 -281 -4,040 Com m u nltieo In Other Regions Portage 2 1 ,625 0 2 1 ,625 21,368 0 21,368 257 0 257 .Hor1fotd 275. 0 275 290 1 2 90 16 0 1 5 Meridian 6,783 0 6,783 7,619 23 7,642 -836 23 -859 Mt. Plea10nt 4,371 0 4,37 1 4,.493 0 4,.493 0 -122 Total 189,681 61,672 251,353 225,7.97 12,251 238,049 -36,116 49,420 13,304

PAGE 263

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS and 1.25 times this amount peripheral to existing development. Monthly costs for new rental units are $600 $200 for a one-bedroom unit near existing development. Nonresidential costs are $60 per square foot for office, $SO for retail. and $35 for distribution/ warehouse. Components of aiclllfltlal and Nonreliclentlal Coats The cost of residential and nonresidential space involves land and processing costs as well as structure costs. 1n the average case, for a single family home the land and processing cost is about 25 percent of total costs; for a townhouse/ duplex, it is 20 percent; and for a multifamily unit, land represents 10 percent of total costs. For nonresidential space, land and processing costs represent 20 percent of total costs. Residential and nonresidential cost changes relative to growth management impacts comprise primarily the land component of overall costs (Pollakowski and Wachter 1990). H density is increased near existing development under compact development, theoretically, residential and nonresidential costs will decrease. On the other hand, If housing density is reduced in the peripheral rural areas, housing costs will rise. To calculate the effects of compact versus dev t trends on housin the val of various types ho ere established for ea the 18 s y communities. This was input from knowledgeable professlonals in each community and checking the relationships of housing value across communities reported by these professionals in 1996 against Sectiot1 IV relationships of housing value across communities observed by the U.S Census in 1990. The 1996 values by structure type, including the value of multifamily units determined by multiplying monthly rent by 100, were disaggregated into land and structure components accordin ps discussed abo us, if a new sing family the Grand Rapids/ on was $150.000, $112,500 as 8581ul!u!d to be structure cost an $37,500 land cost. U the density w increased by 25 percent near existin development under the compact development scenario, the land PCJ on was decretzstd per unit by that t, a new price was calcula 1n this it would be $112 structure) + $28, >62.5 (total value). U, on the other hancL density was decretzstd from three units per acre to two units per acre, the land component cost of the developed unit was increased by one-third. A cap of three times was applied, as in each case the resulting land parcel would yield the same number of units and the extra land would be worth marginally less. This adjustment was done for all units of all types in the study communities for compact development, and the results were averaged and compared to average selling prices or values for current development in the study communities. Curnntv ....... Compact Develop......t Coals (T..W.IV-7) Aaoss the 18 study communities of Michigan. housing costs are typically lower near existing development than in peripheral areas. The exa!plions are Bedford, Bear Creek. and Resort. In SrcnoNIV iOOIIJ CoAI7 .,.. w. ........ Hou., eo., c ......... : m ft. co;pc;c;i: 1-at

PAGE 264

' FISCAl IMPACTS S e ctlon rv TABU I V 7 Houllng Costs($ ) Curroftt (Jrend ) v.,...,. Compoct ( Man aeecf Growth) S.lect.d Michla Communities C..rrent CompD JHerence (Current minus C""'pDCI) Ntor len Near ltll Near lo Existing Developed E xlllng Developed Exisllng Dt'ltloped Otvelop-Porlphoral Weighted Develop. Peripheral Weight e d Deve lop-,.ripherol Weighted ment Araos Average m enl Areas Aver ag e men I Areas Average S0<11heast M ichigan Regio n Hcmlson 162,000 2 1 6,000 167,400 153,003 201,900 155,.4-48 8,997 1 4,100 11,952 Macomb 12 8,150 1 75,000 153,9 1 8 113,89 6 174,969 135.272 14,25 4 31 18,6 4 6 Bodford 1 83,800 150,000 177,040 1 74,320 187,500 175,638 9,480 -37,500 1 ,402 N
PAGE 265

MICHIGAN fiSCAL IMPACTS S.diooiV T.UUIV Avarago N...,a.W...Iiel Coots C.W..nt (T,..,.,) VeriUI Compod (M-gad Gn>wth) s.Mdacl MJctu.,.n c .... -lti Current Compod DiHerence (C.......,t m l n uo Compod) Near lou Near leu Near leu Exilling o .. elop.d Ebling o ... l o ped bi1ting Developed Dtvelo p-Poriphorol Weighlod Develop-Peripheral Wei ghted Develop-Poriph. ral Wolghlod ment Areos Average ment Antos Av.roge m ent Area Av.roge Community Soulhaoot M ic h igan legion Harrison 50.511 50, 571 2,107 2,107 Moeomb 50,571 50,571 50,511 58,999 2,107 ... Bodford 39,182 39,1 82 37,550 37,550 1,633 1,633 N ovi 50,106 50,106 50,106 52,611 2,088 .2,505 939 l'ilbGold 52 ,700 52,700 2 196 2 ,196 41,909 46,871 2,038 2 ,031 Grond lapldo/ Muolcagon Rag ion Konlwood 48,014 48.0 1 4 46,014 41,014 46,514 2,001 1,500 Allondalo 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 0 0 Montag u e A 9,638 49,638 47,821 A7,821 1 ,816 1,816 M .. kegon 62,047 62,0A7 59,A62 59,462 2,585 2,585 TravarH City Region 8oorCreok 39,391 39,391 39,391 3 7 750 43,176 38,855 1,6A1 -3,885 536 Petoskey 61,548 61,548 58,984 58,98A 2,565 2,565 Re>ort 39,391 39,391 39,391 37,750 A5, 9 5 6 37,914 1,6A1 -4,565 1.477 Gorfio ld 50,.A9A 50.494 50,.A9A A8,390 58,909 51,020 2,10A -8.416 -526 Comm unitla o In Other ........ Portage 50,021 50,021 47,936 A7,936 2,0U 2 ,0U Hottford A9,363 49,363 49,363 A7,306 57,590 49,877 2,057 -8,227 .S14 Meridia n 51,025 51,025 4 8,89 9 51,025 49,111 2, 1 26 1,913 Mt. Ple oaant 64,20A 0 0 Weighted A-11 48,677 50,358 48,71 3 53,690 A9,235 1 761 -5,0 13 1 124 a.IJC..11 r--. illludt N. Hu 1 Clll*f t .......... c:;r;;;;,._ Cu.,ct IVAO

PAGE 266

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS general. because a majority of units are built near existing development (i.e., eight out of every ten units), housing costs reflect this distribution and are, on average $10,900 less under compact development than under current development trends. This, applied against an average new housing cost of $161,877 under current development trends, results in an aver.-ge savin8s of just nearly 7 percent. Nonn!Sidential saVings of $1,100 on a current average of $50.000 per 1.000 square feet represent a savings of about 2.2 peramt. USULTS Of THE ASSISSMINT 1 COST.uvENUE IMPACfS A number of procedures may be used to undertake a cost-revenue analysis. Inherent to all, however, is a basic measurement of development-generated costs versus revenues to the host jurisdiction that will be impacted by the development. Locationally, cost-revenue analyses usually project Impact to the local provid ers of basic services, i.e., the local mwlidpallty, for public safety, public workers, administration, reaeation services and so on. s Cost-tevenue procedwes typlcally apply avetage-costing techniques. Average-costing techniques concentrate on demand units as the source of future costs. Public service demand units in the form of future residents and wor kers are projected, and these are multiplied by the current average cost per unit to provide such services. This produces the cost associated with the development. Revenue impacts are derived by estimating the value of newly improved ptopetty to the service district and multiplying this figure by the current tax rate that this district levies. Together _, . s.ctiai'IIV with non-tax revenues these constitute locally generated revenues. The approach desaibed here is the Per Capita Multiplier Method developed by Rutgers University and currently used thrOughout the United States as the most basic form of cost-revenue evaluation (Burchell et a1. 1994). This method is employed in the Michigan atudy. The demand for municipal services Is primarily related to the number of people in a dwelling unit and workers per square foot of nonresidential space. Both future residents and workers can be predicted by surveys of similar types of structures. These surveys yield demographic multipliers, i.e., the number of people and workers for various types of residential and nonresidential structures. The primary source of survey data for demographic multipliers is the US. Census of Population and Housing and the Censuses of Business Manufacturing, and Agriculture. This information is based on large and relisble surveys and is available by size of structure. Earlier In lledion, demographic multipliers for hou.sebo.ld size (future residents) derived &om the 1990 u.s. Census (Public Use Miaodata Sample {PUMSJ), and updated to 1997, were presented. The demand for municipal services is not only related to the number of persons who reside in the community but also to the number of employees who work there. Future public service demand must take Into account both typa of these newly aniving structure ClC.'CUJ*1b..

PAGE 267

MICHIGAN FISCAl IMPACTS Cu'"'nt Versus Compact Development Munic:ipol Public Ccnls (Tob/ IV-8} The resulting total municipal costs to the study communities, obtained by applying the per capita/per worker servicing costs to the projections of future residents and workers under current and compact development scenarios, are shown in Table IV-$. For the current development alternative, arutual municipal costs in the year 2020 amount to $52..7 million. For the compact development scenario, municipal costs are projected at $49.1 million for the same year. In both cases, the municipal expenditures are generated predominantly by the residential uses and much less so by nonresidential uses. The costs indicated above are annually recurring expenditures expressed in 1996 dollars. They contain within them both statutory or benefit packages, as well as debt service outlays for capital expenditures. MIHlieipol Public 11-ues (Tol>l N-8) Municipal revenues focus on two basic sources: property tax" revenues and non property tax revenues. Property tax revenues are based on equalized property values and property tax rates across study communities. Non property tax revenues for the municipality consist of payments for licenses, permits, fines, interest on investment, fees, public utility revenues, delinquent taxes collected, and numerous other SOIUCii!S. The current levels are expressed per $1,000 valuation or per capita and are either projected into the future relative to the development-generated growth of property value or new S......IV residents/workers or left unchanged by either. For the current development trends scenario, total public revenues accruing to the municipalities as a result of development by the year 2020 are $48.6 million annually. Compact development generates $46.9 million in arutual municipal revenues at 2020. Net Con-11-nue lmpodSummaty (Tobie IV-8) The bottom line of a cost-revenue analysis is the net cost versus revenue of a development scenario. This is presented for the Michigan study communities for the two scenarios in the last column of Table IV-$. The final column of this exhibit shows the difference in aggregate cost revenue impacts ($1.9 million) for the two scenarios. This number is determined by subtracting growth-generated costs from growth-generated revenues under each development scenario and further subtracting the net cost-revenue impact observed under compact development from that observed under current development. Under current development trends, growth generated costs exceed revenues by $4.1 million; under compact development, the figure is only 52.2 million. The overall difference, favoring compact development is $1.9 million annually (about 3.9 percent of current costs) at 2020. impGcts are ovmzll negatirlt under both der1eJopmenl sanmios. The net fiscal deficit is $2.2 milllon arutually to the 18 study communities. SUMMAilY: CONQ.USIONS IN CONIEXT What is the bottom line of the analyses undertalcen in this section? First, across a variety of impacts of current versus compact growth. compact growth in the

PAGE 268

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Section rv TABLE IVol Annual Revenue Impact($) 2020 Current (Trend) Venus Compact (Managed Growth) S.lechcl Michipn Communllieo . ..... nt Compact Difference (Compact mlnuo Current) Added COif Revenue Added Coat Revenue Added Coslt RevenuN lmpad Added Coslt Revenuet lmpod Community Soutt.east Mlchlg Region Harrison 1,542,388 861,076 -681,312 1,490,966 823,467 -667,.499 13,813 Macomb 5,091,515 4,379,449 -712,067 4,053,520 3,973,323 -80,197 631,869 Bodford 996,846 1, 134,165 13 7,319 965,328 1,124,234 1 58,906 21,587 Novi 11,234,458 9,320,649 1,9 13,810 11,14 2,077 9,367,617 -1,774,459 139,350 Piltafiold 4,543,903 7,.490,948 2 ,9A7,0A5 .1,573,123 7,537,5 1 0 2,964,387 17,341 CantOfl 9,275,327 5,419,323 -3,856,004 7,924,363 4,955,.46.4 -2,968,899 887,106 Grand Rapids/Muskegon Region Kentwood 3,572,421 1,998,038 .574,383 3,390,637 1,975,242 ,415,395 158,988 Allenclat. 912,787 1,113,150 200,363 845,180 1,058,339 213,159 12,796 Montogue 339,AAO 330,129 -9,311 327,076 313,966 ,110 -3,799 Mudcegon 1,632,708 2,505,778 873,070 1,585,668 2,433,914 848,246 -24 ,824 Traverse City Region BoarC..ek 221,193 27.1,641 53,448 215,853 271,589 55,736 2,289 Petosl
PAGE 269

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS Michigan study communities can perform demonstrably better. The results for the 18 Michigan study communities are summarized in Tables So...,. IV IV--9 and IV-10. Table IV9 compares the Michigan results with results found elsewhere nationally. Table IV--9 Planned Ve!SU8 Trend Growth: Findillp of the Field Nationally A rt11 of /mpllct Sailings: Pia1JmdOM" Trmt! Developable Land 20.5-24.2% Agricultural Land lS-19% F Land 20-27% ln&astructure Roads (local lane lfti.les) 14.&-19.7% Utilities 6.7-8.2% (water/sewer) Housing Coats 2.5-8.4% Coat-revenue bn 6.9% What is obvious from the above table is that compact development, if implemented according to the descriptions contained herein, has the capacity to save about 16 percent in developable land, 12 percent In local roads, and an average of 15 percent in water-based development utilities. There is also a possibility of a moderate to small savings in overall housing costs and cost-revenue impacts. What is the significance of these savings, and what do they mean when distributed over eighteen study communities that could be close to 650,000 in population, or 240,000 households, by the year 2020? It does not mean that each existing household could be saved 2,300 square feet of land, or $230 in local road costs (regardless of who pays for them); it means much more. The significance of these savings is that a group of citizens making SICIIOHIV Compact O'laruled) venus CUJTent Growth: Findina in the Mlchisran Studv Comlllunlti .. Arm of Impact Sailings: 0mrpoctt1fJC" c.,...,t Developable Land 15.5% Agricultural Land 17.4% Fnlrile Land 13.1% ln&astructure Roads (local lane lfti.les) 124% Utilities (water/sewer) 13.7%/17.8% Residential/ 6.8% Noruesidential Costs 2.2% Coat-revenue bn 3.5% decisions about future public policy could reduce land consumption and road building in their living environment by 16 and 12 percent, respectively One-eighth of all l ocal roads to be built need not be built. Oneseventh of an land need not be consumed. These are very significant physical and economic accomplishments by any measure. Further, there are ongoing operating costs for roads and infrastructure that would be reduced if these capital commitments were ultimately reduced. Additionally, by preserving land in the process of development, there is less need to acquire land for parks and recreation as it becomes less plentilul and more costly. Finally, by containing future development around existing development, these areas can be maintained as healthy, tax-paying entities. All of this contributes to lower taxpayer costs in the future.

PAGE 270

TABLE IV I ARYCOMP liUMM OF CURRENT VERSUS COMPACT GROWTH Acres of Land Saved Lane Miles Saved Developable Agricultural Fraalle Lands Location Land Land Local State I Southeaat Michigan Region 1 Harmon 180 135 45 1.9 0.2 I Macomb (17) (121) 104 80. 5 1.8 I Bedford 161 125 1 4 6.0 0.5 ' Nov! 665 826 2.9 6.8 0 6 Pittsfield 643 546 96 (2.6) 0.8 C&n!on 2,009 1,373 636 48.6 1.7 Grind Raplds/MUabgon Region I t Kentwood 716 644 72 5 1 02 Allendale 1,081 1,124 97 14.4 0 7 I I' Montague 40 25 9 0.1 0.0 I 1 Muskegon 66 -11 0.4 0.1 f T-City Region BearCreek 98 84 14 0.1 0.0 Petoskey 12 0.1 0.0 I -! Resort 266 44 222 0.2 0.1 1 Glllfleld 2 ,135 1 ,939 195 17. 4 0.9 I Other Regions I Portage 606 305 5 1 0 .6 -[ Harttonl 6 -0.0 0.0 Meridian 794 711 84 3.4 0.3 Mt. Pleasant 252 49 1.9 0.1 Grand Total 9733 7454 1984 189 8.8 Roadw:'r cos: Saved $-OOOs Local State (183) 281 25,730 1,739 698 408 (272) 574 (1,663) . 908 11,302 1,726 1,538 . 175 1,643 461 (12) 21 212 170 (36) 29 53 31 (66) 32 3,165 858 V55 812 (26) 9 589 345 734 195 45162 8776 i: 3: a :r f <

PAGE 271

f. -281,251 239 434 195,680 (311) (1, 680) 798 1.500 I 158,988 Allendale 140 871 230 323 45,340 (669) (2 980) 9,585 (0) 1 2,796 Montagu8 10,961 13 19 6.213 (24) (120) 5,384 1 f,_ Muskegon 44,890 60 93 37,458 60 29 3.767 2,585 -City Region I Creek 8 963 25 37 (1,140) (79) (346) (118) 536 2,289 ... .. _-.&._. 2.263 12 20 1,728 12 8 6.221 2 .585 14.114 13,403 34 58 (3,070) (143) (578) (5,258) 1 ,477 7,840 IGerfleld I 328,126 884 877 173,743 (524) (4,040) 5,964 (528) 95 ,473 [ Ponage 232,911 738 1,046 190,409 736 257 14.770 2 .084 { Hartford 751 0 262 (4) (15) 2,604 Meridian 79.947 384 773 21,599 (128) (859) 7 ,764 1 ,913 10,988 MI. PIN8anl 202,993 161 272 167,043 122 (122) 19,870 (15,656) f t Grand Tollll 2.755.023 10.377 17.531 2..331.486 12.044 13. 3o.l 10.930 1 .124 1.914 .3&3 <

PAGE 272

MICHIGAN FISCAL IMPACTS One of the clearest messages that an analysis of this type can convey is that the various effects of development polides are interrelated. H densities are not increased in the close-in areas to more than compensate for rural area density deaeases, regional housing costs will rise. H some development is not clustered in the periphery, road costs will rise. Ii too much growth is redirected to existing development areas, regional infrastructure costs will rise. Even though there are environmental consequences of septic systems in rural areas, they remain an inexpensive way to deliver a portion of regional sewage disposal services. The analysis that has been undertaken here has sought to view the potential effects of two different growth scenarios in Michigan study communities. The importance of the analysis is severalfold First, it is an analysis that flows from beginning to end to estimate effects. The initial projections of population and employment, linked with differing standards of land consumption under current or compact development alternatives, ultimately detetadrte differences in housing costs and fiscal impacts in the study communities. Second, the analysis provides a handhold on the orders of magnitude of change that compact versus current development can introduce, as well as where these two alternative forms of development have their most significant impacts. For instance, more significant results of enhanced growth management will occur either in locations where significant growth will take place or where coordinated land management efforts have not been made previously. SlCIIONIV Sec&n I V Finally, the analysis can provide some insight into the amounts of natural '{land) and cultural (infrastructure) capital that are required to service future development for the foieseeable future. Discussions of adequate land availability can be put Into the context of the actual demand for that land. The analysis thus is able to Introduce a little more rationality into the debates of managed versus traditional growth in the development of a region. REFERENCES Beaton, w Patrick. 1991. The impact of regional land-use controls on property values: The case of the New Jersey Pinelands lAnd Economics 67. Boland, John J. 1983. A research agenda for municipal water demand forecasting. JouNUil A WWA. January. . Burchell, Robert W eta!. 1992a. Impact assessment of the New Jersey Interim State DwelopmenJ and RederJelopmenJ Pllln, report I: rtSeiiTch strategy. Report prepared for New Jersey Office of State Planning, Trenton. February 15. _. 1992b.Impact assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Dwelopment and Redeoelopment Pllln, report ll: restilTch findings. Report prepared for New Jersey Office of State Planning, Trenton. February 20. BurchelL Robert W., David Ustokin, and WllllamR. Dolphin. 1994. DwtJopment impact assessment handbook. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

PAGE 273

MICHIGAN ASCAL IMPACTS Coughlin, Robert E., and John C. Keene. 1981. The protectitm of farmland: a reference guidebook for state and IOC41 governments. Study prepared for the Nationm Agricultural lAnds Study. Amherst, MA: Regional Science Research Ins ti tute. Creighton, Roger 1970. Urban tr1171Sp11rl41ion pllmning. Urbana, IL: University of Dlinois Press. DahL T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses i n the UniJed States: 1780s-1980s Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, US. Fish and Wildlife Service Michigan Employment Security Commission, Division of Research and Statistics. 1996. Pe:sonal communication with Michael W llll ams. March 25th and 29th. Michigan Emp l oyment Security CODIDiission, Division of Research and Statistics. 1996 Qwzrterly employmmt sumtrtAries l7y anmty Michigan Society of Planning Officials (MSPO). 1995a. Demognzplric trends working paper. Rochester, MI. August. Michigan Society of Planning Offic:ials. 1995b./obs & the lnlilt environment working paper. Rochester, MI. August. Michigan Society of Planning Officials. 1995c. Patterns on the land: our choico-our jilture. Rochester, MI. September. Michigan Society of Planning Officials. 199Sd. Tnmsporllltion trends working paper. Roc:bester:, MI. Auguat. $ecnoNIV S.dion IV Michigan Society of Planning Officials. 1995e. Water, sewer, and other infrastructure trends working paper. Rochester, MI. Augusl Mills, Edwin S., and John F. McDonald. 1992 Editors' introduction. In Edwin S. Mills and John F. McDonald (eds.), Suurces of Mdrapolillln Growth. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Pollakowski, H.O., and S.M. Wachter. 1990. The effects of land-use amstraints on housing prices. lAnd Econo7rbcs 66. Rainer George. 1990. Undtrsfllnding injrGstructure: A guide fur architects and planners. New York: John Wiley &Sons. Sc:hultz, Marilyn. and Vivian .Kasen. 19M. Encyclopt4ia of community planning and emnronmental m4nllgemertt. New York: Facts on File. Southeast Michigan Coundl of Governments (SEMCOG). 1994b. Papulation and occupied housing unil$ in Southeast Michigan, 1993. Detroit, MI. Southeast Michigan Coundl of Governments (SEMCOG), 1995. 1993-94 Annual report and 1995 Detroit, MI. Southeast Michigan Coundl of Governments (SEMCOG). 1990. Reglmrai fortcast: papulation, lloustholds and employmmt l7y minor cir1i1 dit1isitm. Detroit, MI. June.

PAGE 274

MICHIGAN FISCAI.IMPACIS Stopher, Peter, and Amim Meyberg. 1975. Urban transpcr14tion modeling and planning. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press. UDA Architects. 1994. Bluegrass hand/Jook; a guide for cmnmumty design. Lexington, KY: Bluegrass Tomorrow. December. StCIIONW Section fV US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1994. County and city data book. Washington, D.C. 'us Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1992. Total fuUtime and employment by major industries. Washington, D.C . .. -

PAGE 275

: . : 'sEMC:oo Is a n:aioMI p' 7 ill! .--sllitJ, accOdllalllt 10 eO licit pea lis s< P 7!7 Mic!!iaa liS ps-.y miaiI ?Ell aovuw _, 2) iatcrJroub iiS 11JC1n!1ca1, dill. llicl i-uca mal .. . . SEMCQO's IIICIIIbeo1bl!> ilododos cities, villages, 1ownsbip&, aJG!i!lez, --.lim 8CIIbol dlilllcts iad COIUHIIIII)i CQISctes ill Liviog51011. Macomb, Moaroe, Ollklai>d, Cia, SEMCOO' s prflocipei plomina actividts include adopcJoo af .... ..we 181 pollcla illllle oweas. colO_.,. a ecooomic w -a air quality. FDd cdlor e!Nir\JM'C"CCI COIIC:a DS a well a public safety 181 laodl*. SEMCQG lha E ?hiRS die rqi(Ds mo5l UIC'Diive pf I h&h' 'we, for clt.IDol'lpbic, ttaDSpOrlllioe. IDtnilnoclwe -.1 bod! CC>OiiciDic _, t*Ysical. 11 Is a Oeposilofy ra u.s. dala well'lslk volume or dala gcoeoM/ld 1st .,. .,.,, .:Uvil.les ra --3Syan. SEMcoo ..,._ diRa services lllmusb RldeSiwe. ..P.' carlvmpool maiCIIisf setvic:e; tile c-tor 1* Pabllc SerVices. a lt80iml rcr "-'govemmeocaJ isle 594COO lillflfY.'s 1oca1 Oldm.>ce 01>-lloe govemmeow problem oolvilla service. . . . 'lbn!e Piizlcl ... -of"'-supp()n SEMCOG fiodclai1'81>1S .., cooaso:ca, Ell& ..-cs l7ld ...,.soar. -.1 rees. . .. AH sa.scoo dco:iskJDs '" boy 1oca1 -omc 111a1 ..,....., .,.;.rc'es IK_-e&e af ... commwldts. 1btte-hOO boclioa; 1bo 'A.56sl)ly-' E.azli e ec.umaee. wh' ed MOFIJa ec A 'at ocp .MWd oa .... .... ---.. lk 'JOt "-lily. . .. . :. : dellballive _.. iDctudes _,"-"" n:proot-i

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00084
2 110
Fiscal Impact Land Use Change Advisory Committee. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
0 245
Fiscal impacts of alternative land development patterns in Michigan :
Detroit, Mich
c 1997 March
Land use--Economic aspects--Michigan
Community development--Michigan
Land use--Michigan--Planning
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856