|
<br />Wilmington / New Hanover County (...continuedfrom page 1)
<br />
<br />that are not receiving urban services from the City,
<br />The proxy for Nonurban services are the levels of
<br />service provided for Countywide services. The
<br />costlO provide certain Sheriff services (patrol) and
<br />General Government services (Planning and En-
<br />gineering) will decrease as the City provides
<br />urban services to rapidly urbanizing parts of
<br />the County.
<br />
<br />Tax payers will have to subsidize new
<br />growth's demand for Countywide se1Vices
<br />
<br />Urban: The City of Wilmington, three proposed
<br />annexation areas and an urbanized portion of the
<br />County comprise the Urban Service Area. The
<br />services include General Government, Parks and
<br />Recreation, Roads, Fire, Police, and Development
<br />Services.
<br />
<br />Fiscal Impact Results
<br />
<br />The fiscal impacts of providing services to the
<br />Countywide, Nonurban and Urban service areas in
<br />1998 and 20 I 0 are shown in the chart on page I.
<br />
<br />Fiscal Impact Highlights
<br />
<br />Urban Service Area
<br />
<br />. Although the results for the Urban Service Area
<br />are fiscally neutral in 1998, the analysis clearly
<br />shows that in 2010 the City benefits from ex-
<br />isting economies of scale that allow the provi-
<br />sion of urban services to contiguous geogra-
<br />phies, The individual service areas that com-
<br />prise the Urban Service Area generate com-
<br />bined net revenues of $25.4 million in 2010,
<br />
<br />Countywide Service Area
<br />
<br />. The County's provision of current levels of
<br />service to new growth results in net revenues
<br />of $20,000 in 1998, A major reason is that there
<br />are no major capital facilities constructed in
<br />1998. In 2010, a net deficit of$1 0.1 million is
<br />generated. The debt service payment alone in
<br />2010 for schools, community college, parks
<br />and libraries are more than total revenues gen-
<br />erated from new growth.
<br />
<br />. The analysis shows that under existing leve]s
<br />of service, the existing County tax base will
<br />have to subsidize new growth's demands for
<br />Countywide services.
<br />
<br />Nonurban Service Area
<br />
<br />. When it is assumed that the County loses a
<br />portion of it's unincorporated area (Phase I, II,
<br />and III annexation areas) to the City in 1998,
<br />revenues of $1.4 million are generated,
<br />
<br />. In 20 I 0, the Nonurban County generates a net
<br />deficit of almost $8.7 million. This deficit
<br />would be about $10.1 million if urban services
<br />assumed provided by the City were not ex-
<br />
<br />Growth generates fiscal deficits
<br />outside the City
<br />
<br />tended to an additional portion of the unincor-
<br />porated County in 2010. The result of the
<br />County no longer having to provide certain
<br />services in this area results in cost savings of
<br />$1.3 million in 2010,
<br />
<br />Net Fiscal Results in 1998 and 2010
<br />City and Urban Service Areas
<br />
<br />
<br />$15,000
<br />
<br />$10,000
<br />iii
<br />C
<br />o
<br />ct $5,000
<br />.....
<br />~
<br />
<br />$0
<br />
<br />($5.000)
<br />
<br />D 1998
<br />
<br />~2010
<br />
<br />($1,378)
<br />
<br />Existing Phase I Phase II Phase III Urban
<br />City Remainder*
<br />
<br />. Does not become urban service area until 2010.
<br />
<br />Summary
<br />
<br />. Both the City and County benefit from the City
<br />providing urban services in lieu of the
<br />Nonurban services (certain Sheriff and Gen-
<br />eral Government services) provided by the
<br />County. One major reason is the cost econo-
<br />mies from the City providing these same ser-
<br />vices previously provided by the County. The
<br />second major reason is that although the
<br />County no longer provides these Sheriff and
<br />General Government services, it receives the
<br />same tax revenue, thereby realizing a signifi-
<br />cant cost savings of about $1.4 million in 20 I O.
<br />
<br />. The fiscal findings for the Countywide and
<br />Nonurban Service Areas indicate the need for
<br />New Hanover County to consider new sources
<br />of revenue to subsidize new growth. If addi-
<br />tional sources are not found, or existing sources
<br />increased, new growth in the County will be
<br />subsidized by the existing development base.
<br />A continuation of this trend could lead to de-
<br />creased levels of service in the future.
<br />
<br />Metro Council
<br />
<br />(...continuedfrom page J)
<br />
<br />In approving the study, the Council authorized a
<br />contract with Tischler & Associates, Inc., of
<br />Bethesda, Maryland-known nationa[Jy' fo'r con.'
<br />dueting fiscal impact studies in King County,
<br />Washington, San Diego, California, and Howard
<br />County, Maryland, for example. Other contribu-
<br />tors include the Builders Association of the Twin
<br />Cities, the McKnight Foundation, and the cities
<br />and school districts participating in the study.
<br />
<br />'This is a comprehensive search for hard data and
<br />rock-solid answers," said Council Chair Curt
<br />Johnson. "The Council's growth plan seems sen-
<br />sible enough. But, right now, we can't prove the
<br />results are lower, long-tenn costs to the public.
<br />This study will produce the facts we need to shape
<br />the region's growth."
<br />
<br />We need to show whether the "results
<br />are lower, long-term costs to the public"
<br />
<br />To assess the costs of growth under the Metro 2040
<br />plan, versus current low-density trends, Tischler
<br />& Associates, Inc. will conduct fiscal impact stud-
<br />ies on eight communities and two school districts
<br />in the metro area. The results will be used to esti-
<br />mate the overall fiscal impacts for the region, and
<br />provide the Council with a better idea of the costs
<br />associated with new development in suburban
<br />areas and the costs of redevelopment and reinvest-
<br />ment in the central cities and fully developed
<br />communities.
<br />
<br />
|