Comm No 0021.009 - Testimony - CA-7 - PONC fund and Maintenance fund

Home

FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 $1.20 $1.00 $.80 $.60 $.40 $.20 $.00 IIS IIIIIII IIIIIII IIII I219III :910 1297_0119991111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 01 10111 VI[1] 010110l'l IIIN01II 1 0 DulI I I II II II II II IIIpum IRe^Iuaseium9tlualV $1.18 li uuus li lamess $.38 Average cost, using standard assumptions, to provide public services for each dollar of revenue raised. The full study, including alternate assumptions, is posted on the FIC website. IIIIIIII a hi 11ctIlii Ilial s hi 11 d VIII'' a II'mmllll s Communities pay a high price for unplanned growth. Scat- tered development frequently causes traffic congestion, air and water pollution, loss of open space and increased demand for costly public services. This is why it is important for citizens and local leaders to understand the relationships between residential and commercial growth, agricultural land use, conservation and their community's bottom line. COCS studies help address three misperceptions that are commonly made in rural or suburban communities facing growth pressures: 1. Open lands—including productive farms and forests— are an interim land use that should be developed to their "highest and best use." 2. Agricultural land gets an unfair tax break when it is assessed at its current use value for farming or ranching instead of at its potential use value for residential or commercial development. 3. Residential development will lower property taxes by increasing the tax base. While it is true that an acre of land with a new house gener- ates more total revenue than an acre of hay or corn, this tells us little about a community's bottom line. In areas where agriculture or forestry are major industries, it is especially important to consider the real property tax contribution of privately owned working lands. Working and other open lands may generate less revenue than residen- tial, commercial or industrial properties, but they require little public infrastructure and few services. COCS studies conducted over the last 30 years show work- ing lands generate more public revenues than they receive back in public services. Their impact on community coffers is similar to that of other commercial and industrial land uses. On average, because residential land uses do not cover their costs, they must be subsidized by other community land uses. Converting agricultural land to residential land use should not be seen as a way to balance local budgets. The findings of COCS studies are consistent with those of conventional fiscal impact analyses, which document the high cost of residential development and recommend com- mercial and industrial development to help balance local budgets. What is unique about COCS studies is that they show that agricultural land is similar to other commercial and industrial uses. In nearly every community studied, farm- land has generated a fiscal surplus to help offset the short- fall created by residential demand for public services. This is true even when the land is assessed at its current, agricul- tural use. However as more communities invest in agriculture this tendency may change. For example, if a community creates a purchase of agricultural conservation easement program, the local government may spend more on working and open lands than these lands generate in revenue. Communities need reliable information to help them see the full picture of their land uses. COCS studies are an inexpen- sive way to evaluate the net contribution of working and open lands. They can help local leaders discard the notion that natural resources must be converted to other uses to ensure fiscal stability. They also dispel the myths that resi- dential development leads to lower taxes, that differential assessment programs give landowners an "unfair" tax break and that farmland is an interim land use just waiting around for development. One type of land use is not intrinsically better than another, and COCS studies are not meant to judge the overall public good or long-term merits of any land use or taxing structure. It is up to communities to balance goals such as maintaining affordable housing, creating jobs and conserving land. With good planning, these goals can complement rather than compete with each other. COCS studies give communities another tool to make decisions about their futures. © September 2016 For more information on COCS, see the COCS publications on the Farmland Information Center (FIC) website. The FIC is a clear- inghouse for information about farmland protection and stewardship. The FIC is a public/private partnership between the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trust. 111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 .At 6wwrwr.far mrn.11.anc or (800) 370-4879 www.farmlandinfo.org @farmlandinfo USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service www.nrcs.usda.gov