Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fiscal Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County consultant warns rooftops alone don’t pay for services; COCS study and dynamic fiscal-impact model presented
Summary
Consultants presented a cost-of-community-services (COCS) study using FY24–25 data and a dynamic fiscal-impact Excel model. The analysis shows residential development generally costs more in services than it generates in property-tax revenue under current ratios and provided a break-even example home value of $371,400; staff will host follow-up sessions and provide math clarifications.
A consultant presented Johnston County’s cost-of-community-services (COCS) study and a new, updateable fiscal-impact model at the June 15 commissioners meeting, giving commissioners a tool to estimate how proposed development will affect county revenues, schools and infrastructure.
The consultant said the COCS analysis used FY2024–25 actual revenues and expenditures and the American Farmland Trust methodology to allocate county revenues and costs among residential, commercial and agricultural land uses. The study’s default ad valorem split is roughly 73% residential, 26% commercial and 0.9% agriculture for property-tax revenue, with more complete allocation by department where department data were available.
Model and sample findings: Using the county’s FY24–25 data the consultant presented common results: commercial land typically yields net-positive revenue per dollar of property tax while residential commonly costs more in services than it contributes in property tax alone. The consultant gave a high-level example: a 100-house development averaging $400,000 per home would generate about $268,000 in property-tax revenue while the county’s generalized expenditure estimate for that subdivision example would be roughly $383,000 under the study’s ratios. The consultant also calculated a break-even home value using FY24–25 data at about $371,400 (a snapshot, she emphasized, that can be updated as tax rates and service levels change).
How the tool will be used: The fiscal-impact model is an Excel workbook staff can update with local tax rates, household counts, student-generation rates, retail-spend assumptions and utility-use assumptions for water and sewer. The model can check district-level school capacity and water/sewer capacity to indicate when proposed development will trigger capital needs or service shortfalls. The presenter said staff will be trained to run scenarios and that she will provide follow-up math and clarifications requested by commissioners.
Public and board reaction: Commissioners asked whether the model discourages affordable housing, how out-commuting affects the tax base, and whether intangible quality-of-life values (open spaces and farmland) are captured; the consultant responded that the model focuses on fiscal effects and that some intangible benefits are not monetized in the COCS ratios. Commissioners requested more granular student-generation rates from the school system to refine projections.
Next steps: Staff and the consultant agreed to provide the requested supplemental calculations and to train county staff on the model so it can be used for project review and long-range planning.
