AICP exam prep: free practice questions, the 9 exam domains, and how to get certified

The proportional valuation method allocates a share of municipal costs to nonresidential development based on its share of total assessed value, adjusted for the higher value of those properties. The per capita multiplier is the tempting choice, but it spreads costs over residents, which suits housing and says little about an office park; the case study method estimates actual marginal costs from department interviews, and the comparable city method borrows cost patterns from similar communities.

1. AThe comparable city method borrows cost patterns from similar communities; it does not use the local tax base.
2. BThe case study method estimates actual marginal costs through department interviews, not tax-base shares.
3. CCorrect: proportional valuation assigns costs to nonresidential uses by their share of total assessed value.
4. DThe per capita multiplier spreads costs over residents, which suits housing but says little about an office park.

Partnering on each aspect of the decision is the Collaborate level, whose promise is to look to the public for advice and innovation and incorporate its recommendations into the decision to the maximum extent possible. Reflecting concerns in the alternatives is the Involve promise, reporting back on how input influenced the decision is Consult, and implementing what the public decides is Empower, which hands over the final decision.

1. ACorrect: partnering on every aspect of the decision, including alternatives and the preferred solution, is Collaborate, whose promise is to use the public's advice to the maximum extent possible.
2. BDirectly reflecting concerns in the alternatives is the Involve promise, a level below a full partnership.
3. CReporting back on how input influenced the decision is the Consult promise.
4. DImplementing what the public decides is Empower, which hands the final decision to the public; here the council keeps it.

Under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, a local hazard mitigation plan must be reviewed, revised and re-approved every five years to keep the jurisdiction eligible for mitigation grants. The 3-year figure is an outdated cycle that once applied to state plans, which are now also on a five-year cycle. Eligibility is tied to having a current plan, not to whether a disaster has occurred.

1. ACorrect: under the Disaster Mitigation Act, local plans must be updated and re-approved every five years to stay grant-eligible.
2. BThree years is an outdated cycle that once applied to state plans; local plans run on five years.
3. CEligibility depends on having a current approved plan, not on whether a disaster has been declared.
4. DTen years is far longer than the five-year update cycle the Act requires.

A development agreement, authorized by statute in many states, is a contract in which the city vests the applicable rules for a set term in exchange for negotiated public benefits and phasing commitments. A conditional use permit approves a use under existing criteria but does not lock in rules; a variance relieves a hardship from current standards and cannot waive future ones, and a rezoning can itself be changed later.

1. ACorrect: a development agreement vests the rules for a set term in exchange for negotiated benefits and phasing.
2. BA rezoning can itself be changed later, so it gives no protection from future changes.
3. CA variance relieves a hardship under current standards; it cannot waive rules adopted later.
4. DA conditional use permit approves a use under existing criteria but does not lock in rules or secure extra benefits.

A plan's findings must be reproducible and explainable, and lineage documents where the data came from and how it was processed, which a black-box proprietary model cannot show. Resolution and update frequency concern fitness for detail and currency, not whether the analysis can be audited. Licensing terms govern who may use the data, not its credibility.

1. AUpdate frequency concerns how current the data are, not whether the analysis can be audited.
2. BLicensing terms govern who may use the data, not how credible or reproducible it is.
3. CCorrect: lineage documents sources and processing, so findings can be reproduced and defended, which a black-box model cannot offer.
4. DResolution concerns the level of detail, not whether the analysis can be traced and defended.

The Code forbids soliciting clients or work through false or misleading claims about qualifications or experience, and calling a parking analyst the lead planner overstates the role. Real participation in the project does not justify inflating it. The violation occurs when the claim is made, whether or not anyone checks it.

1. ADoing some work on a project does not justify inflating the role played in it.
2. BCorrect: calling a parking analyst the lead planner is a misleading claim about experience used to win work.
3. CRoles must be described accurately; the Code forbids false or misleading claims about qualifications.
4. DThe violation occurs when the claim is made, whether or not anyone checks it.

Only the 20 days the applicant spends responding are excluded, so 5 + 30 + 15 + 10 = 60 days count against the clock. 80 days is the full elapsed time, including the applicant's response period. 45 days counts only the two review periods, and 65 days wrongly pauses the clock during the second review instead of the response period.

1. ACorrect: only the 20-day applicant response is excluded, so 5 + 30 + 15 + 10 = 60 days count.
2. B65 days wrongly pauses the clock during the 15-day second review instead of the applicant's response.
3. C80 days is the full elapsed time, including the 20 days the application sat with the applicant.
4. D45 days counts only the two review periods and leaves out the completeness check and approval step.

TIF freezes the base value and dedicates the GROWTH in property tax from redevelopment to the project, capturing value without a new levy or rate increase. A special assessment is an additional charge on benefiting owners, which they refused; GO bonds are repaid from all taxpayers; CDBG targets low- and moderate-income benefit and is not a rail capital source.

1. AA special assessment is a new charge on the benefiting owners, which they have refused.
2. BGO bonds are repaid from all taxpayers and would likely need a rate increase.
3. CCDBG targets low- and moderate-income benefit and is not a rail capital funding source.
4. DCorrect: TIF dedicates the growth in property tax from redevelopment to the project, without a new levy or rate increase.