Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Comm No 0021.009 - Testimony - CA-7 - PONC fund and Maintenance fund
Richard H. Bennett Ph.D., Chairman Hawaii Island Council, Hawaiian Islands Land Trust P. 0. Box 895 Honaunau, HI 96726 December 13, 2018 County of Hawaii, Charter Commission Dear Commissioners, Please hear this passionate appeal. On behalf of the land conservation community of our island, I want to go on record as unyieldingly opposing any reduction in the funding formula for the Open Space Fund (Public Access, Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation) including the maintenance portion. I make this plea for all of us that cherish the many unique lands that sustain us physically and spiritually. Moreover, I make this plea to maintain the land fund. Lands that are protected by private and public funds is a cost-effective measure that conserves county financial resources. On first blush, this may seem counter -intuitive, but please allow me to elaborate. Over the decades I have had the honor to serve in leadership positions in several land trusts, including the Hawaiian Island Land Trust. There are about 1500 Land Trusts in the United States and several in the state of Hawai`i, and they have worked most effectively with the county. Land Trusts are nonprofit corporations that work to protect lands in a wholly voluntary and cost- effective manner. Lands in trust are a great benefit to their communities at minimal cost to the operations of government. The Hawaiian Islands Land Trust (HILT) has worked with PONC on numerous project lands and assisted this all important mission. We look forward to continuing this partnership. As a Trustee of the Sonoma Land Trust in California in 1995, a friend and co-founder of the Marin Agricultural Land Trust became the CEO of the American Farmland Trust. Ralph Grossi working with the economists of the USDA Economic Research Service, began analyses called Cost of Services Studies. These now include over 151 county -based studies. These studies project the costs to local government that is incurred when undeveloped lands are developed for residential, commercial or agriculture use. The studies compare the property tax revenues each major land uses incur and contrast that to the costs of government services required for each. In summary agricultural land use, and commercial land use generate more tax revenue than the services they require. In distinct contrast, residential and especially rural residential development incurs about $1.27 dollars or more, in some counties over two dollars, for the cost of services for each one dollar in tax revenue paid by the land owner. That is an average 27% government revenue deficit accross 151 communities, for residential lands and its people that require services. An example county, Skagit in Washington State is similar to Hawaii County in that is mostly rural undeveloped forest and agriculture farmlands, dotted by small communities. It has a population of 125,000 and a land area of 1.7 thousand square miles. Comm. No. 21.9 Richard H. Bennett Ph.D., Chairman Hawaii Island Council, Hawaiian Islands Land Trust P. 0. Box 895 Honaunau, HI 96726 The Cost of Service Data for almost 200 counties is provided in the attachment. For Skagit County, Revenue to Services Ratio (dollars): Residential Commercial Working & Including Farms Open land Source Skagit 1 : 1.25 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.51 American Farmland County Trust, 1999 All 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.37 AFT 2016 Studies The ratio for Hawai`i more than likely is not somehow unique where the ratio for residential is 1:1. Rather it is more likely to be similar to Skagit County as it has a similar economic base. The proverbial "bottom line" for our county is simple. Public investment in land conservation helps conserve county revenue while protecting the land. It has multiple benefits and at a lesser cost than residential development. Again, with reasoned economic assurances, the Charter Commission would be well advised to withdraw the proposal to reduce funding for open space conservation and in so doing help to protect the county's tax base. Malama Pono, /s R.H. Bennett FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies are a case study approach used to determine the fiscal contribution of existing local land uses. A subset of the much larger field of fiscal analysis, COCS studies have emerged as an inexpensive and reliable tool to measure direct fiscal relationships. Their par- ticular niche is to evaluate working and open lands on equal ground with residential, commercial and industrial land uses. COCS studies are a snapshot in time of costs versus revenues for each type of land use. They do not predict future costs or revenues or the impact of future growth. They do provide a baseline of current information to help local officials and citi- zens make informed land use and policy decisions. 111114 A11111 d IIII y In a COCS study, researchers organize financial records to assign the cost of municipal services to working and open lands, as well as to residential, commercial and industrial development. Researchers meet with local sponsors to define the scope of the project and identify land use catego- ries to study. For example, working lands may include farm, forest and/or ranch lands. Residential development includes all housing, including rentals, but if there is a migrant ag- ricultural work force, temporary housing for these workers would be considered part of agricultural land use. Often in rural communities, commercial and industrial land uses are combined. COCS studies findings are displayed as a set of ratios that compare annual revenues to annual expenditures for a community's unique mix of land uses. COCS studies involve three basic steps: 1. Collect data on local revenues and expenditures. 2. Group revenues and expenditures and allocate them to the community's major land use categories. 3. Analyze the data and calculate revenue -to -expenditure ratios for each land use category. The process is straightforward, but ensuring reliable figures requires local oversight. The most complicated task is inter- preting existing records to reflect COCS land use categories. Allocating revenues and expenses requires a significant amount of research, including extensive interviews with financial officers and public administrators. ry Communities often evaluate the impact of growth on local budgets by conducting or commissioning fiscal impact analyses. Fiscal impact studies project public costs and revenues from different land development patterns. They generally show that residential development is a net fiscal loss for communities and recommend commercial and indus- trial development as a strategy to balance local budgets. Rural towns and counties that would benefit from fiscal impact analysis may not have the expertise or resources to conduct a study. Also, fiscal impact analyses rarely consider the contribution of working and other open lands, which is very important to rural economies. American Farmland Trust (AFT) developed COCS studies in the mid-1980s to provide communities with a straight- forward and inexpensive way to measure the contribution of agricultural lands to the local tax base. Since then, COCS studies have been conducted in at least 151 communities in the United States. $1.25 $1.00 $.75 $.50 $.25 $.00 III 1111111111111111111111111111111111 uuilllpuuui I 111111 CONTINUED ON PAGE 6 VIII I III llfill 11111111111 111111 ltesluaaein9tluaIV li us lu lamess $.30 A rlicuudtuuure $.37 Median cost to provide public services for each dollar of revenue raised. q00 111111111111111111111111111 00 11111111111111111111111111111111111 :.m ,:.... Ti ust www.farmlland.org (800) 370-4879 www.farmlandinfo.orq @farmlandinfo USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service www.nrcs.usda.gov 11, SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES Residential Commercial Working including & & Community farm houses Industrial Open Land Source Colorado Custer County 1 :1.16 1 : 0.71 1 : 0.54 Haggerty, 2000 Sagauche County 1 : 1.17 1 : 0.53 1 : 0.35 Dirt, Inc., 2001 Connecticut Bolton 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.50 Geisler, 1998 Brooklyn 1 : 1.09 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.30 Green Valley Institute, 2002 Colchester 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.18 Stahl, 2013 Coventry 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.25 Green Valley Institute, 2008 Durham 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.23 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Farmington 1 : 1.33 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Hebron 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.47 1 : 0.43 American Farmland Trust, 1986 Lebanon 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.17 Green Valley Institute, 2007 Litchfield 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.34 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Pomfret 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.86 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Windham 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.19 Green Valley Institute, 2002 Florida Leon County 1 : 1.39 1 : 0.36 1 : 0.42 Dorfman, 2004 Georgia Appling County 1 : 2.27 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.35 Dorfman, 2004 Athens -Clarke County 1 : 1.39 1 : 0.41 1 : 2.04 Dorfman, 2004 Brooks County 1 : 1.56 1 : 0.42 1 : 0.39 Dorfman, 2004 Carroll County 1 : 1.29 1 : 0.37 1 : 0.55 Dorfman and Black, 2002 Cherokee County 1 : 1.59 1 : 0.12 1 : 0.20 Dorfman, 2004 Colquitt County 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.45 1 : 0.80 Dorfman, 2004 Columbia County 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.48 1 : 0.52 Dorfman, 2006 Dooly County 1 : 2.04 1 : 0.50 1 : 0.27 Dorfman, 2004 Grady County 1 : 1.72 1 : 0.10 1 : 0.38 Dorfman, 2003 Hall County 1 : 1.25 1 : 0.66 1 : 0.22 Dorfman, 2004 Jackson County 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.58 1 : 0.15 Dorfman, 2008 Jones County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.65 1 : 0.35 Dorfman, 2004 Miller County 1 : 1.54 1 : 0.52 1 : 0.53 Dorfman, 2004 Mitchell County 1 : 1.39 1 : 0.46 1 : 0.60 Dorfman, 2004 Morgan County 1 : 1.42 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.38 Dorfman, 2008 Thomas County 1 : 1.64 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.67 Dorfman, 2003 Union County 1 : 1.13 1 : 0.43 1 : 0.72 Dorfman and Lavigno, 2006 Indiana See chart on page 6 for details. Idaho Booneville County 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.84 1 : 0.23 Hartsmans and Meyer, 1997 Canyon County 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.79 1 : 0.54 Hartsmans and Meyer, 1997 Cassia County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.87 1 : 0.41 Hartsmans and Meyer, 1997 Kootenai County 1 : 1.09 1 : 0.86 1 : 0.28 Hartsmans and Meyer, 1997 Kentucky Campbell County 1 : 1.21 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.38 American Farmland Trust, 2005 Kenton County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.19 1 : 0.51 American Farmland Trust, 2005 Lexington -Fayette County 1 : 1.64 1 : 0.22 1 : 0.93 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Oldham County 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.44 American Farmland Trust, 2003 Shelby County 1 : 1.21 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.41 American Farmland Trust, 2005 2 FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER REVENUE -TO -EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Residential Commercial Working including & & Community farm houses Industrial Open Land Source Maine Bethel 1 : 1.29 1 : 0.59 1 : 0.06 Good, 1994 Maryland Carroll County 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.48 1 : 0.45 Carroll County Dept. of Management & Budget, 1994 Cecil County 1 : 1.17 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.66 American Farmland Trust, 2001 Cecil County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.37 Cecil County Office of Economic Development Frederick County 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.50 1 : 0.53 American Farmland Trust, 1997 Harford County 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.91 American Farmland Trust, 2003 Kent County 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.64 1 : 0.42 American Farmland Trust, 2002 Wicomico County 1 : 1.21 1 : 0.33 1 : 0.96 American Farmland Trust, 2001 Massachusetts Agawam 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.44 1 : 0.31 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Becket 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.83 1 : 0.72 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Dartmouth 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.51 1 : 0.26 American Farmland Trust, 2009 Deerfield 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.29 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Deerfield 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.51 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 2009 Franklin 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.58 1 : 0.40 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Gill 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.43 1 : 0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1992 Leverett 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.25 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Middleboro 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.47 1 : 0.70 American Farmland Trust, 2001 Southborough 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.45 Adams and Hines, 1997 Sterling 1 : 1.09 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.34 American Farmland Trust, 2009 Westford 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.53 1 : 0.39 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Williamstown 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.40 Hazier et al., 1992 Michigan Marshall Township, Calhoun County 1 : 1.47 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.27 American Farmland Trust, 2001 Newton Township, Calhoun County 1 : 1.20 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.24 American Farmland Trust, 2001 Scio Township, Washtenaw County 1 : 1.40 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.62 University of Michigan, 1994 Minnesota Farmington 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.79 1 : 0.77 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Independence 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.19 1 : 0.47 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Lake Elmo 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.27 American Farmland Trust, 1994 Montana Carbon County 1 : 1.60 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.34 Prinzing, 1997 Flathead County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.34 Citizens for a Better Flathead, 1999 Gallatin County 1 : 1.45 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.25 Haggerty, 1996 New Hampshire Brentwood 1 : 1.17 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.83 Brentwood Open Space Task Force, 2002 Deerfield 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.22 1 : 0.35 Auger, 1994 Dover 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.63 1 : 0.94 Kingsley, et al., 1993 Exeter 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.82 Niebling, 1997 Fremont 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.94 1 : 0.36 Auger, 1994 Groton 1 : 1.01 1 : 0.12 1 : 0.88 New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, 2001 Hookset 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.43 1 : 0.55 Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2008 Lyme 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.23 Pickard, 2000 Milton 1 : 1.30 1 : 0.35 1 : 0.72 Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2005 Mont Vernon 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.04 1 : 0.08 Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, 2002 Stratham 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.19 1 : 0.40 Auger, 1994 FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER SUMMARY OF COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES Residential Commercial Working including & & Community farm houses Industrial Open Land Source New Jersey Freehold Township 1 : 1.51 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Holmdel Township 1 : 1.38 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.66 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Middletown Township 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.34 1 : 0.36 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Upper Freehold Township 1 : 1.18 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.35 American Farmland Trust, 1998 Wall Township 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.54 American Farmland Trust, 1998 New York Amenia 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.17 Bucknall, 1989 Beekman 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.48 American Farmland Trust, 1989 Dix 1 : 1.51 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.31 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1993 Farmington 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.72 Kinsman et al., 1991 Fishkill 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.74 Bucknall, 1989 Hector 1 : 1.30 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.28 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1993 Kinderhook 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.17 Concerned Citizens of Kinderh000k, 1996 Montour 1 : 1.50 1 : 0.28 1 : 0.29 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992 North East 1 : 1.36 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.21 American Farmland Trust, 1989 Reading 1 : 1.88 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.32 Schuyler County League of Women Voters, 1992 Red Hook 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.22 Bucknall, 1989 Rochester 1 : 1.27 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.18 Bonner and Gray, 2005 North Carolina Alamance County 1 : 1.46 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.59 Renkow, 2006 Catawba County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.54 1 : 0.75 Renkow, 2013 Chatham County 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.33 1 : 0.58 Renkow, 2007 Davie County 1 : 1.14 1 : 0.50 1 : 0.67 Renkow, 2014 Durham County 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.33 1 : 0.59 Renkow, 2010 Franklin County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.53 1 : 0.77 Renkow, 2009 Gaston County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.41 1 : 0.89 Renkow, 2008 Guilford County 1 : 1.35 1 : 0.29 1 : 0.62 Renkow, 2010 Henderson County 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.97 Renkow, 2008 Iredalell County 1: 1.35 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.47 Renkow, 2015 Orange County 1 : 1.31 1 : 0.24 1 : 0.72 Renkow, 2006 Pitt County 1 : 1.29 1 : 0.36 1 : 0.62 Renkow, 2013 Union County 1 : 1.30 1 : 0.41 1 : 0.24 Dorfman, 2004 Wake County 1 : 1.54 1 : 0.18 1 : 0.49 Renkow, 2001 Yadkin County 1: 1.12 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.61 Renkow, 2011 Ohio Butler County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.45 1 : 0.49 American Farmland Trust, 2003 Clark County 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.30 American Farmland Trust, 2003 Hocking Township 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.27 1 : 0.17 Prindle, 2002 Knox County 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.38 1 : 0.29 American Farmland Trust, 2003 Liberty Township 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.51 1 : 0.05 Prindle, 2002 Madison Village, Lake County 1 : 1.67 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.38 American Farmland Trust, 1993 Madison Township, Lake County 1 : 1.40 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.30 American Farmland Trust, 1993 Madison Village, Lake County 1 : 1.16 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.37 American Farmland Trust, 2008 Madison Township, Lake County 1 : 1.24 1 : 0.33 1 : 0.30 American Farmland Trust, 2008 Shalersville Township 1 : 1.58 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.31 Postage County Regional Planning Commission, 1997 Pennsylvania Allegheny Township, Westmoreland County 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.14 1 : 0.13 Kelsey, 1997 Bedminster Township, Bucks County 1 : 1.12 1 : 0.05 1 : 0.04 Kelsey, 1997 4 FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER REVENUE -TO -EXPENDITURE RATIOS IN DOLLARS Residential Commercial Working including & & Community farm houses Industrial Open Land Source Pennsylvania (continued) Bethel Township, Lebanon County 1 : 1.08 1 : 0.17 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1992 Bingham Township, Potter County 1 : 1.56 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.15 Kelsey, 1994 Buckingham Township, Bucks County 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.08 Kelsey, 1996 Carroll Township, Perry County 1 : 1.03 1 : 0.06 1 : 0.02 Kelsey, 1992 Hopewell Township, York County 1 : 1.27 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.59 The South Central Assembly for Effective Government, 2002 Kelly, Township, Pike County 1 : 1.48 1 : 0.07 1 : 0.07 Kelsey, 2006 Lehman Township, Pike County 1 : 0.94 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.27 Kelsey, 2006 Maiden Creek Township, Berks County 1 : 1.28 1 : 0.11 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1998 Richmond Township, Berks County 1 : 1.24 1 : 0.09 1 : 0.04 Kelsey, 1998 Shrewsbury Township, York County 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.15 1 : 0.17 The South Central Assembly for Effective Government, 2002 Stewarson Township, Potter County 1 : 2.11 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.31 Kelsey, 1994 Straban Township, Adams County 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.16 1 : 0.06 Kelsey, 1992 Sweden Township, Potter County 1 : 1.38 1 : 0.07 1: 0.08 Kelsey, 1994 Rhode Island Hopkinton 1 : 1.08 1 ; 0.31 1 : 0.31 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Little Compton 1 : 1.05 1 : 0.56 1 : 0.37 Southern New England Forest consortium, 1995 West Greenwich 1 : 1.46 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.46 Southern New England Forest Consortium, 1995 Tennessee Blount County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.41 American Farmland Trust, 2006 Robertson County 1 : 1.13 1 : 0.22 1 : 0.57 American Farmland Trust, 2006 Tipton County 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.32 1 : 0.57 American Farmland Trust, 2006 Texas Bandera County 1 : 1.10 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.26 American Farmland Trust, 2002 Bexar County 1 : 1.15 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.18 American Farmland Trust, 2004 Hays County 1 : 1.26 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 2000 Utah Cache County 1 : 1.27 1 : 0.25 1 : 0.57 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Sevier County 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.99 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Utah County 1 : 1.23 1 : 0.26 1 : 0.82 Snyder and Ferguson, 1994 Virginia August County 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.20 1 : 0.80 Valley Conservation Council, 1997 Bedford County 1 : 1.07 1 : 0.40 1 : 0.25 American Farmland Trust, 2005 Clarke County 1 : 1.26 1 : 0.21 1 : 0.15 Piedmont Environmental Trust, 1994 Culpepper County 1 : 1.22 1 : 0.41 1 : 0.32 American Farmland Trust, 2003 Frederick County 1 : 1.19 1 : 0.23 1 : 0.33 American Farmland Trust, 2003 Northampton County 1 : 1.13 1 : 0.97 1 : 0.23 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Washington Okanogan County 1 : 1.06 1 : 0.59 1 : 0.56 American Farmland Trust, 2007 Skagit County 1 : 1.25 1 : 0.30 1 : 0.51 American Farmland Trust, 1999 Wisconsin Dunn 1 : 1.02 1 : 0.55 1 : 0.15 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 Perry 1 : 1.20 1 : 1.04 1 : 0.41 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 Westport 1 : 1.11 1 : 0.31 1 : 0.13 Wisconsin Land Use Research Program, 1999 Note: Some studies break out land uses into more than three distinct categories. For these studies, AFT requested data from the researcher and recalculated the final ratios for the land use categories listed in this table. The Okanogan County, Wash., study is unique in that it analyzed the fiscal contribution of tax-exempt state, federal and tribal lands. American Farmland Trust's Farmland Information Center acts as a clearinghouse for information about Cost of Community Services studies. Inclusion in this table does not necessarily signify review or endorsement by American Farmland Trust. FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER 5 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