COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES

1
COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES

• OHIO Land Use Conference
• September 14, 2007
• Allen Prindle, Otterbein College
• Brian Williams, American Farmland Trust
• Randy Pore, Knox County Regional Planning

2
COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES (COCS) STUDIES

• For each land use category
• Residential
• Commercial/Industrial
• Farmland/Open Space
• 1. Calculate Revenues by Category
• 2. Calculate Expenditures by Category

3
CALCULATE RATIO

• Expenditure/ Revenue
• For each dollar of tax revenue collected by this
  land use category, what expenditures were paid?

4
COCS Studies

• Are a Snapshot
• Do not predict future
• Are not Site specific
• Inform Local Decision Makers
• Create Awareness in Community
• Make better, more-informed decisions

5
MORE INFORMATION

• Farmland Information Center, COCS Fact Sheet, Aug
  2006, http//www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/
  COCS_8-06.pdf
• Ohio State University Extension COCS Fact Sheet
  CDFS-1060-98
• http//ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1260.html

6
Conventional wisdom

• Farmland is open space.
• Developing it will generate tax revenue

7
Reality

• New housing adds tax revenue
• New housing requires water, sewer, roads, police
  fire protection, schools, etc. and adds to
  the size and cost of government

8
Reality

• Agriculture adds revenue to the local economy and
  also adds tax revenue
• Agriculture requires very little in costly public
  services
• Agriculture is a bargain
• Why?

9
Cows dont go to school
10
Cost of Community Services

• COCS studies enable us to weigh the benefits and
  costs of different land uses.
• Theres no hard-and-fast rules on the findings
  the studies are tools information that local
  officials need to consider as they make land-use
  decisions

11
Clark County COCS

• Residential land required 1.11 in public
  services for every 1 paid in property taxes
• Commercial land required 38 cents in services for
  1 in property taxes
• Farmland needed just 30 cents in service for
  every 1 in property taxes
• American Farmland Trust, 2003

12
National averages

• 29 cents in commercial/industrial services for
  every dollar in taxes
• 37 cents for farmland and open space
• 1.19 for residential
• Agriculture subsidizes subdivisions

13
Fiscal analysis

• Many local governments do their own fiscal-impact
  analysis others hire consultants
• But few of these studies look at working lands
  and open space

14
AFT studies

• Of 125 COCS in 125 communities since 1986, AFT
  conducted 42
• 5 of 6 in Ohio
• -- Clark, Butler and Knox counties
• -- Madison Village and Madison Township in
  Lake County (now updating 1993 studies)
• (Portage County Planning did Shalersville
  Township study)

15
Long-term impact

• If a local government establishes an
  easement-purchase program, the public dollars put
  into that program could change the
  tax-dollar/service ratio for farmland
• But farmers in Carroll County, Md., still
  consider their easement program a good deal

16
Our counties need growth

• Agriculture is economic development we need to
  ensure it can grow
• Our cities and towns need growth and
  redevelopment
• COCS helps us balance those needs and determine
  what growth goes where

17

• Farmland goes here

18

• New homes go here

19
Knox County, Ohio

• Cost of Community Services Study

20
Knox County Population (2006)

• Total 58,561
• Mount Vernon City 15,908
• Fredericktown Village 2,475
• Gambier Village 2,042
• Centerburg Village 1,486
• Danville Village 1,084
• Martinsburg Village 188
• Gann Village 140
• Balance of Knox County 35,222

21
Knox County PopulationAverage Annual Rate of
Change from 2000 to 2006

• Total 1.2
• Mount Vernon City 0.2
• Fredericktown Village -0.3
• Gambier Village 0.2
• Centerburg Village 0.4
• Danville Village -0.3
• Martinsburg Village 0.3
• Gann Village 0.1
• Balance of Knox County 1.9

22
Balance of Knox County 1.9Townships with
greater than 1.9 Average Annual Change
23
COCS Study Questions?

• When was it done?
• Who decided to do it?
• What were the numbers in Knox County?
• How has it been used since completion?

24
When was it done?

• The time periods investigated included two
  overlapping fiscal years
• 2001 (Jan 1 to Dec 31, 2001)
• For all services except public education
• 2002 (July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002)
• For public education

25
Who decided to do it?

• Farmland Preservation Committee of RPC

Sponsors
The Knox County Regional Planning
Commission Board of Knox County
Commissioners Area Development Foundation Heart
of Ohio R,C D, USDA Knox County Farm Bureau
Knox County Fish and Game Association Knox
County Park District Knox County Soil and Water
Conservation Philander Chase Corporation /
Kenyon College Owl Creek Conservancy The
Community Foundation of Mount Vernon and Knox
County
26
What were the numbers in Knox County?
27
How has it been used since completion?

• Incorporated into the update to the Knox County
  Comprehensive Plan
• Helped create funds for OAEPP
• Improved Regulations
• Started Township Revenue Project
• Helped start Exurban Committee

28
Knox County Comprehensive PlanJanuary 2006

• Chapter 5 Local Planning
• A Balance of land uses, including agricultural
  and open lands, is needed to supply adequate
  revenue to pay for community services. Without
  such a balance, new residential development is
  likely to create the need for tax increases.
• Differential property tax programs are justified
  as a way to provide an incentive to keep land
  open and in active agricultural use. Even with a
  reduced assessed value, agricultural properties
  contribute a surplus of revenue to pay for public
  services for residents of Knox County.
• Strategies to retain land in agricultural should
  be a good long-term investment.
• Land Use Goal
• Protect Knox Countys Farmland and Rural
  Character

29
OAEPP Funds

• On Thursday, January 15, 2004, the Knox County
  Commissioners voted to take 100,000 from the
  Countys general fund revenues to support Knox
  Countys applications to the Ohio Agriculture
  Easement Purchase Program in 2004. This makes
  Knox County one of a small handful of counties
  around the state that has earmarked specific
  funds to support farmland preservation.

30
Improved Regulations

• Subdivision Regulations
• Large Lot Review
• Date of Original Tract
• Floodplain Regulations
• Major Subdivision Floodplain Designation
• Stream Bank Buffer

31
Township Revenue Project
32
Township Revenue Project
Market Value 100,000 X 35 Assessed
Value 35,000 Assessed Value X Township Millage
(per 1,000) Township Revenue
33
EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT???

• Low-density residential development that occurs
  beyond incorporated city limits. Typically on
  lots form 10-40 acres in size, but sometimes
  smaller.

34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
Exurban Development Lots 1-10 acres.5,321
parcels (with a house)-17,446 acres
39
Exurban Development - Lots 10-40 acres.1,655
parcels (with a house) 33,568 acres
40
All Rural Residential Lots 1-40 acres.6,976
parcels - 51,014 acres (15 of the total land
area of Knox County)
41
Apple Valley LakeTotal Residential Parcels
6,658Vacant 4,256
42
Perspective..

• Just think, all of the homes constructed as a
  result of Exurban Development that has occurred
  in Knox County, consuming over 51,000 acres of
  land, could have fit in the space of one Apple
  Valley and consumed only 1/17 of the land area.

43

• The Cost of Community Services Study performed
  by the American Farmland Trust said that rural
  residential land consumes 5 more revenue than it
  generates in Knox County, (4 ¼ million dollars
  annually when the study was completed 4 years
  ago).

44
The only reason we havent bankrupt the County
already is that revenue generated from
agricultural and industrial land uses far
outweighs the cost of the public services that
they require.
45
Speaker Contact Info

• Allen Prindle, 614-823-1481
• amprindle_at_otterbein.edu
• Brian Williams, 614-469-9877
• bwilliams_at_farmland.org
• Randy Pore, 740-393-6718
• knoxplanning_at_ecr.net