1. Center for Land Use Education Understanding the Cost of Community Services Rebecca Roberts Center for Land Use Education

2. Tonight’s presentation: Introduction to COCS Introduction to COCS Methodology Methodology Results Results Resources Resources Limitations of method Limitations of method Policy implications Policy implications

3. Community Services Public safety - police, fire, ambulance, inspection Public safety - police, fire, ambulance, inspection Public works - gas/electric, water, sewer, solid waste, recycling Public works - gas/electric, water, sewer, solid waste, recycling Transportation - road construction, maintenance, mass transit Transportation - road construction, maintenance, mass transit Education - K-12, technical schools Education - K-12, technical schools

4. Community Services Culture and recreation - library, parks, community center Culture and recreation - library, parks, community center Health and human services - hospitals, elderly care, disability services, cemeteries Health and human services - hospitals, elderly care, disability services, cemeteries Local government Local government

5. Who pays for services? Direct charge for services Direct charge for services Licenses, fees, fines Licenses, fees, fines State and federal subsidies State and federal subsidies Local taxation Local taxation

6. Land Use Categories Residential Residential Agricultural-residences Agricultural-residences Commercial Commercial Manufacturing Manufacturing Agricultural Agricultural Forests Forests Undeveloped Undeveloped

7. COCS Studies at a particular point in time Case study approach to determine the fiscal contribution of existing land uses at a particular point in time across land use categories Results displayed as a set of ratios comparing annual revenues to annual expenditures across land use categories  Example: Residential 1.00 : 1.25

8. History Developed by American Farmland Trust in the mid-1980s   Designed as a straightforward and inexpensive way to measure the contribution of agricultural lands to the local tax base Conducted in over 100 communities throughout the U.S.

9. Methodology 1. Collect local data 2. Allocate revenues and expenditures by land use category 3. Compute revenue-to-expenditure ratios

10. Methodology 1. Collect data  Budget - DOR Municipal Financial Report  School district data - DPI  Other local records  Interviews

11. Methodology 2. Allocate revenues and expenditures

12. Methodology  Default percentage

13. Methodology 2. Allocate revenues and expenditures

14. Methodology 3. Calculate revenue-to-expenditure ratio  For every $1 in revenue generated from residential uses, $1.01 is spent on public services.

15. Typical Results United States (AFT, 2004): United States (AFT, 2004):

16. Typical Results Wisconsin (PATS, 2000): Wisconsin (PATS, 2000): Average Ratios:1.101.190.600.230.130.85

17. Resource requirements Time Time Money Money Staff Staff

18. Criticisms of Method Many underlying assumptions Many underlying assumptions  Default percentage  Data and interviewer accuracy  Objectiveness of analyst Too many land use types grouped together (i.e. agricultural land and residences, open space, etc.) Too many land use types grouped together (i.e. agricultural land and residences, open space, etc.) Results are often misinterpreted Results are often misinterpreted

19. Limitations COCS studies cannot… COCS studies cannot…  Predict future revenues or expenditures  Analyze specific development proposals  Measure non-economic costs or benefits derived from services (ex. aesthetics, traffic, environment, etc.)  Distinguish between different development types in a single land use category (ex. old vs. new neighborhood or single vs. multi-family housing)

20. Capabilities COCS studies can… COCS studies can…  Provide a snapshot in time of revenues and expenditures by land use category  Provide a relatively quick, straightforward and inexpensive method   Help local officials and citizens make informed land use and policy decisions

21. Policy Implications Will residential development result in a net fiscal gain for our community? Will residential development result in a net fiscal gain for our community? What types of development do we want? What types of development do we want? How much are we willing to pay to maintain working and other open lands? How much are we willing to pay to maintain working and other open lands?

22. Conclusions One type of land use is not intrinsically better than another COCS studies are not meant to judge the overall public good or long-term merits of any land use or taxing structure COCS studies provide communities with an inexpensive tool to make decisions about future land uses

23. Thank You! Questions? Questions?

24. Extra slides follow Extra slides follow

25. COCS vs. Impact Analysis COCS studies are a subset of fiscal impact analysis Findings are consistent:   Document high cost of residential development   Recommend commercial and industrial development to balance local budgets

26. COCS vs. Impact Analysis Impact analyses rarely consider contribution of working and open lands   COCS studies show that agricultural land can be used to subsidize residential demand for public services Impact analyses consider fiscal as well as broader social, environmental, and transportation impacts COCS studies require fewer resources/expertise

27. Methodology 2. Allocate revenues and expenditures

28. Methodology

29. Methodology

30. Methodology