Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County hears Urban3 fiscal sustainability analysis; county to adopt methodology by October
Summary
Consultants from Urban3 presented a fiscal sustainability analysis tool that maps taxable value per acre and public infrastructure costs across the county; commissioners directed staff to return with a resolution adopting the methodology and process, in keeping with a charter amendment deadline.
Orange County commissioners received a technical briefing Sept. 30 on a fiscal sustainability analysis methodology developed by Urban3 to estimate long‑term revenue and infrastructure costs by land‑use and location.
Lede: Urban3 presented a county‑wide model that converts property value and infrastructure inventory into a map of ‘value per acre’ and lifecycle costs for roads, water and stormwater infrastructure. The county intends to adopt the methodology and use it in evaluations of proposed comprehensive‑plan or Urban Service Area changes.
Nut graf: The tool is intended to support decisions required by a fiscal‑sustainability charter amendment adopted in 2024 that directs the county to adopt a methodology to evaluate impacts of proposed Urban Service Area expansions and development proposals in the rural service area. Urban3’s model translates property‑level value, infrastructure age and replacement costs into a consistent set of fiscal impact metrics.
Presentation highlights - Method: Urban3 uses parcel and infrastructure inventories plus standard life‑cycle replacement assumptions to calculate revenue (property tax and applicable sales tax capture) per acre and the public capital and operating cost per acre. The output is a visual, GIS‑based map showing where the county receives the most revenue per acre and where infrastructure costs are concentrated. - Findings for Orange County: Urban3 showed high potency (value per acre) in downtown Orlando, Lake Nona and several retail/urban centers; large swaths of the unincorporated county consume outsized infrastructure per resident. The presenters noted the county’s assessed‑value dynamics (homestead caps vs. market growth) that create budget constraints. - Use cases: Staff explained the methodology will be used to analyze proposed comprehensive‑plan changes and any requests to expand the county’s Urban Service Area or to permit new development patterns in rural settlements. The intended product is an analysis addendum for application packets and an annual update of cost variables.
Board action and next steps - Contract and calibration: Urban3 has been under contract; the consultant will complete calibration work after the methodology is adopted. Staff will return in October with a resolution and an Exhibit A that sets the methodology and process; the commission directed staff to bring the ordinance/resolution back as a consent item with an accompanying interlocal/legal framework where required. - Implementation: Once adopted, the county will require applicants proposing Urban Service Area expansions or rural‑area developments to submit the data needed for the fiscal analysis; the model will generate a standardized “fiscal scorecard” that planners and the commission can use when weighing those requests.
Why it matters: The tool aims to make tradeoffs explicit — for example, showing where higher density development produces dramatically more tax revenue per acre and where scattered low‑density growth creates ongoing capital burdens. Commissioners emphasized the need to use the tool to inform decisions about future growth, infrastructure investment and budget planning.
Ending: Staff will bring a formal resolution adopting the methodology and process for consideration in October; Urban3 will deliver calibrated models and staff will develop operational procedures for using the analysis in future development reviews.
