Browse
Search
CFE 081301
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Commission for the Environment
>
Agendas
>
2001
>
CFE 081301
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2019 4:10:02 PM
Creation date
1/7/2019 3:51:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
150
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
As has been found in other COOS studies , the answers to these questions are negative for <br /> Chatham County . Despite being taxed on the basis of current land uses , the farm sector is found <br /> to be a net contributor to the local budget , receiving $ 0 . 92 in public services for eve dollar every that <br /> it generates in revenues . Conversely , for every dollar contributed to the county budget by <br /> residential sector, the county spent somewhere between $ 1 . 07 and $ 1 . 12 in services to that <br /> sector. Commercial/industnal land uses are found to be the largest net contributors to the public <br /> purse , receiving somewhere between $ 0 . 47 and $ 0 . 76 worth of publicly provided services for <br /> each dollar in revenues that they generate , <br /> At the outset , it is important to recognize two important limitations of analyses such as the <br /> one presented here . First , COCS studies highlight the relative demands of various land uses on <br /> local fiscal resources given the current pattern of development. As such , one should be cautious <br /> in extrapolating from the results of studies such as this in order to gauge the impact of future <br /> patterns of development on local public finance . Nonetheless , the results of studies such as this <br /> are useful in informing debates over such issues as whether or not alternative types of land uses <br /> are likely to contribute more in tax dollars than they demand in the way of support services . <br /> Second, the current study in no way deals with the social value of each of these forms of <br /> development — i . e . , their contribution (positive or negative ) to the well -being of the county ' s <br /> citizens . Rather it focuses on the more narrow issue of whether or not these land uses "pay their . <br /> own way . " It is important to bear in mind that there is nothing particularly sacred reQardina an <br /> exact balance between revenues and expenditures associated with a particular land use — even <br /> when balancing the local budget is an overriding priority . Indeed, one of the rim functions <br /> primary <br /> tribute local financial resources such that services desired by <br /> of a local Government is to redis <br /> citizens are supplied even when those services cannot pay for themselves. Determining the <br /> optimal distribution of those resources is a public policy issue resolved in the political arena. A <br /> study such as this fits into the process wherein such issues are resolved by shedding light on the <br /> relative costs and benefits of specific distribution of financial resources implicit in the existincr <br /> pattern of development. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.