|
20
<br /> within municipalities.The next largest share would come from residential and non-residential development
<br /> in rural portions of the county.Properties participating in the Preferential Assessment/Deferred Taxation
<br /> Program; e.g., farms and managed forest, would only contribute two percent of the total cost.
<br /> TABLE 3.9
<br /> DISTRIBUTION OF PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM COST
<br /> Percent of Peak Tax Rate
<br /> Total FY 1993.94 for Debt
<br /> Assessed Assessed Service Estimated
<br /> Location Valuation Valuation Payment Revenue
<br /> All Property 100% $4,408,709,951 $0.01110 $479,579
<br /> Municipalities 55% $2,424,790,473 $0.01110 $263,769
<br /> Town of Carrboro 10% $440,870,995 $0.01110 $47,958
<br /> Town of 41% $1,807,571,080 $0.01110 $196,628
<br /> Chapel Hill
<br /> Torn of 4% $176,348,398 $0.01110 $19,183
<br /> Hillsborough
<br /> Use Value 2% $88,174,199 $0.01110 $9,592
<br /> Property
<br /> Remainder* 43% $1,895,745,279 1 $0.01110 1 $236,219
<br /> NOTE: * "Remainder" includes residential and non-residential properties located in unincorporated
<br /> portions of county.
<br /> 7. Given the cost of a Purchase of Development Rights Program, does farmland
<br /> preservation pay?
<br /> In communities across the country,a common claim is that residential development increases the
<br /> local tax base, thereby lowering the tax rate. Other assertions are that resource conservation is too
<br /> expensive, and farmland does not make a significant contribution to the tax base.
<br /> Studies conducted by the American Farmland Trust (AFT), a private, national conservation
<br /> organization, show that although residential development increases the local tax base,it does not pay for
<br /> itself. On the other hand, while farm lands do not raise nearly as much gross income, their need for
<br /> services is so modest, their net effect on the tax base is a surplus.
<br /> Shown on Table 3.10 below are the results of six AFT studies in the Northeast. The figures
<br /> represent the ratio of dollars generated by various types of land uses to the services required. For
<br /> example,for every dollar of revenue raised by residential development in Hebron,Connecticut,the locality
<br /> spent an extra six cents in direct services (1 : 1.06). For farm, forest, and open land, the ratio was $1 to
<br /> 36 cents; e.g., for every dollar raised after the locality provided services, 64 cents remained.
<br /> To determine if similar ratios existed in Orange County, a spreadsheet template developed to
<br /> conduct fiscal impact analyses of residential development was used to examine the effects of converting
<br />
|