Urban3 tells Athens-Clarke County commissioners downtown produces outsized tax revenue while county faces infrastructure shortfall and tax-equity questions

Urban3 principal Joe Minicozzi presented a parcel-level fiscal analysis to the Athens-Clarke County Commission during a public meeting, showing that downtown Athens produces a disproportionately large share of property and sales tax revenue while countywide infrastructure needs leave an estimated budget shortfall.

The analysis, which Urban3 said the county provided data for and asked to be used as a recurring tool, maps tax and sales revenue per acre, public-utility replacement costs, and scenarios for infill projects. Minicozzi told commissioners the analysis is intended to give elected officials a simple, repeatable way to see how land use choices affect the county’s finances.

Minicozzi said the county’s downtown takes up about 0.2% of the county’s land area but produces roughly 8% of property tax revenue, and that downtown parcels have much higher “value per acre” than lower-density suburban or rural parcels. He also highlighted that a large share of downtown land is non‑taxable — Urban3’s materials put countywide non‑taxable acreage at about 17% and downtown non‑taxable at 56% — and said those non‑taxable parcels reduce the pool of revenue-producing property in areas that otherwise produce large per‑acre returns for the tax base.

The firm also mapped infrastructure replacement costs and said the county is underinvesting in road maintenance. Minicozzi reported that, by Urban3’s calculation, the county should be spending about $47 million a year on roads to meet long‑term maintenance needs but is spending about $26 million, leaving a gap. Urban3’s roll‑up for all capitalized utilities identified a general annual shortfall in the county budget; the presentation cited a $12 million overall gap on the county’s capital and utility reserve needs after current revenue and expenditures were considered.

Minicozzi argued the fiscal picture is driven by land‑use patterns: denser, mixed‑use or multi‑story parcels tend to produce more tax revenue per acre than auto‑oriented, single‑story commercial strips or large parking fields. He urged commissioners to use parcel‑level data to evaluate land‑use decisions and noted that relatively small infill or mixed‑use projects can meaningfully reduce the county’s structural deficit. “It’s fifth grade division, just dividing the value into the acres and that’s it,” Minicozzi said, describing his firm’s basic method for generating “value per acre” metrics.

He also flagged tax‑assessment and equity questions drawn from Urban3’s work in other communities, saying assessment systems can produce uneven tax burdens across neighborhoods. Minicozzi cited examples from other jurisdictions where automated assessment models and historical valuation practices created patterns that undercharge some large properties while increasing effective tax burdens on lower‑value neighborhoods. He told the commission that those patterns can be corrected only after local officials and assessors examine assessment rules and the data behind them.

County staff said they provided Urban3 with the county’s parcel and revenue data for the analysis and that the county has contracted with Urban3 on a “train‑the‑trainer” basis so staff can maintain and update the model. Staff also said the county steering committee and other stakeholders have already seen the analysis as part of the future‑land‑use update, and that the county will distribute a PDF of the full presentation and additional materials to commissioners and the public.

Commissioners and attendees used the presentation to raise follow‑up requests. Several commissioners asked for parcel‑level reports for individual commission districts, a breakdown of projected revenue and costs for candidate redevelopment sites, and a clearer schedule for when staff will provide the analysis to districts and the public. Staff said they would provide district‑level exports and that the county will consider making the Urban3 analysis a recurring tool for budget and planning decisions.

The presentation also prompted discussion about the relationship between the university and the municipal tax base, student housing and neighborhood change, and whether some short‑term development choices shift costs to the county over decades. Minicozzi showed examples of how small downtown buildings can outperform large single‑use developments in revenue per acre; he also noted downtown’s financial productivity is balanced against trade‑offs such as non‑taxable institutional property and public amenities.

Minicozzi closed by recommending steps the commission could take to use the data: request district‑level printouts, integrate the model into routine budget and future‑land‑use work, and use targeted redevelopment on underutilized corridors to increase long‑term revenue productivity. The county manager’s office and planning staff told the commission they will produce follow‑up materials — including the full PDF and selected district extracts — and discuss whether to run the Urban3 fiscal scan on a regular basis.