Consultant tells council Des Moines is younger, less retail‑dependent; downtown mixed‑use yields modest net fiscal gains in model

Consultants from FCS presented two analytic tools to the Des Moines City Council: a new peer‑city benchmarking analysis and a development tax‑impact model to test how different land‑use typologies affect city finances.

Benchmarking: FCS compared Des Moines with a set of Puget Sound peer cities. Key findings included a median age of about 37.5 (the city has become about 2.4 years younger since 2010), population growth near 0.4% annually (below the peer average of about 0.7%), and a relatively low retail employment share (~6%), which contributes to below‑average sales tax revenue per resident (about $131 per resident versus a peer average near $269).

Development tax‑impact model: FCS tested three downtown typologies on selected catalyst sites. Example outputs for a Seascape parcel (24,000 sq. ft., existing assessed value ~ $642,000): mixed‑use development (49 apartments plus ~7,600 sq. ft. commercial) produced roughly $858,000 in projected 10‑year revenue against $841,000 in costs to serve (a small net positive over 10 years, excluding significant one‑time construction revenues). Surface‑parked multifamily scenarios showed a 10‑year net negative in the consultant’s example, while highway/commercial uses tended to produce larger net positive fiscal impacts because of sales‑tax drivers. The consultants emphasized the model is a planning tool, not a land‑use prescription, and noted second‑order effects (resident spending supporting downtown businesses) are difficult to quantify precisely.

Councilmembers asked about parcel size, parking assumptions (consultants used underground parking for the mixed‑use examples), how long traffic‑impact fees are amortized, and ways to normalize outliers such as SeaTac’s airport‑driven figures. Consultants said model inputs can be scaled by parcel size and that staff can request further scenario runs.

The council received the presentation and asked staff to refine assumptions and provide additional scenario analyses where needed; no policy decisions were made at the meeting.