Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Extension, finance present county-level cost-of-community-services study showing farmland cost advantage
Summary
Pender County Cooperative Extension and the finance office presented an internal cost-of-community-services study quantifying how service costs vary by land use. The study found agriculture imposes lower per-dollar service costs than residential development and recommended using such data to inform preservation strategies.
Mark Sites, the county Cooperative Extension director, and Jacob Ormond from the finance department presented a county-prepared cost-of-community-services study during the Jan. 21 meeting. The study adapts established methodologies to quantify how county revenues and expenditures are distributed across residential, commercial and agricultural land uses.
Sites said the study was developed in-house after reviewing university methodologies and that the county could update the figures quickly using current fiscal-year data. He said the analysis confirms a commonly held view: residential development typically requires more county services per dollar of revenue than agricultural land. Sites summarized the study's method: where services were clearly attributable to a land-use category they were allocated directly; where services overlapped, the study used percentage splits derived from prior-year financial statements.
Key findings and examples - Pull factor: the study reports a pull factor of 0.77 for Pender County, meaning that for every dollar of per-capita spending the county retains about 77 cents due to retail leakage to adjacent counties. - Agriculture vs. residential costs: the study placed the county in the mid-range compared to other counties that have done similar analyses, and Sites said the county's ratio shows agriculture is less costly to support than residential development on a per-dollar basis. - Data caveat: Sites flagged a likely reporting duplication in USDA census data showing a 15,000-acre increase in farmland area, which he called implausible and attributed to double-counting when land is leased and reported by both owner and operator.
Why commissioners asked about the study Commissioners discussed how the study could inform policy choices about farmland preservation and growth. Sites said the point was to quantify trade-offs and support decisions about land-use policy and incentives.
Ending The board received the study and staff said the methodology can be updated to incorporate the most recent fiscal-year numbers; commissioners expressed appreciation for an internally produced study rather than an outside contract for the same analysis.
