Johnston County moves to hire consultant for cost-of-community-services and fiscal-impact model

Johnston County commissioners directed staff Sept. 15 to pursue a contract with Creative Economic Consulting to produce a cost-of-community-services study and a local fiscal-impact model intended to help planners, school officials and elected leaders evaluate the long-term fiscal effects of land-use and development.

The consultants presented a two-part engagement at the county's regular meeting. Crystal Morphis, principal of Creative Economic Consulting, told commissioners the two studies would provide a high-level ratio analysis by land-use type and a separate, more granular model for proposed development projects. "If we started these projects in October, complete the cost of services around January, the fiscal impact model a little bit later around February," Morphis said.

The studies: why commissioners asked for them

The board and staff have pursued the work to give decisionmakers a clearer numeric basis for land-use, zoning and incentives decisions. Morphis said the cost-of-community-services study measures the ratio of county spending to revenues by land-use category (residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture), which helps show whether new development types generally pay for the services they require. "We would then develop a ratio that would say for every dollar Johnston County spends on services for residential areas, then those land uses return X number of dollars back to the county," she said.

The second product, the fiscal-impact model, will be project-level and intended for "what-if" testing: for a proposed mixed-use or residential subdivision, the model will estimate school impacts, infrastructure costs and other long-term fiscal consequences. Morphis said the firm will deliver a model that county staff can update and run in-house, likely an advanced Excel tool with embedded macros, and will provide a year of retainer support so the county can use the product rather than letting it sit on a shelf. "When we started the company, we include a 1 year retainer in every project," Morphis said.

Method, assumptions and limits

Morphis said the firm uses nationally recognized tools and local data. For broader economic-impact work the consultant uses IMPLAN; the fiscal-impact model will incorporate local assumptions such as children-per-residential-unit and infrastructure-service boundaries. "For economic impact modeling, we use a national, nationally recognized software called ImPlan," Morphis said.

She told the board the team would calibrate assumptions with county staff, school officials and utility managers, and that the model's geographic granularity would be set to balance local accuracy and practical usefulness. "At some point, the model will become too many exceptions to be relevant," she said, and recommended dividing the county into a small number of study districts rather than modeling property-by-property.

Board reaction and next steps

Commissioners who spoke described the studies as consistent with priorities adopted at the board's planning session and with recommendations from a citizens advisory committee on land use. One commissioner who had served on that advisory committee said the group strongly recommended the county have this type of information before approving large new developments.

Board members asked for the county tool to be compatible with upcoming regulatory work, including the Unified Development Ordinance update and any dashboard or software the county may use for planning. Commissioners also pressed that utilities be included, noting the recent change in how developers and site selectors view electric service (capacity, not only cost or distance, can limit development opportunities).

County staff and the consultant said they would start data collection and assumption-setting immediately if the board authorizes a contract. Morphis said the firm plans to divide the county into study districts, deliver an executive summary for public distribution and train staff to run the model after project delivery.

Scope, budget and timing

The consultant presented a proposed schedule but not a fixed contract price at the public presentation; commissioners and staff discussed beginning the engagement in October. Morphis described the expected delivery timing as the cost-of-services report in January and the fiscal-impact model in February, with the firm including one year of retainer support after delivery.

No formal purchase vote was recorded at the meeting. The board's consensus to have staff pursue a contract and negotiate terms was captured on the record; staff will return to the board with a proposed contract for approval.

Ending

County leaders said the studies should help the board and staff weigh infrastructure needs, school capacity and long-term fiscal health when evaluating growth proposals. Staff will pursue contract negotiations and present a formal agreement for the board's consideration in a future meeting.