pf_03625 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Revenue projections were based on long ten11 economic trends and ignored less predictable short term market fluctuations, The real estate bust of the early 1990s resulted in a real decline in assessed values, and a consequent reduction the taxable base soon after the adoption of the comprehensive plan, This base had to be offset by a comparable increase in tax rates, in order to keep revenue relatively constant on a per capita basis, While the model could not predict market it was useful in explaining the effects of the recession on county revenues. Howard County's model used both marginal and average cost approaches in projecting expenditures (Howard County 1989). Facilities needs are incremental, with substantial new expenditures needed at the threshold of the next increment, making the marginal cost approach preferable to the average cost approach in projecting capital costs (Nicholas, Nelson, and Juergensmeyer 1991), Capital expenditures were projected based on marginal costs while operating expenditures were based on per capita costs, Service or operating expenditures were allocated among 43 categories, The four largest categories were related to the costs of operating schools, and were based on enrollment projections derived from anticipated housing unit growth, Highway, development agency, and miscellaneous inspection costs were also based on marginal housing unit development. The great majority of the remaining costs were based on average, per capita, measures, According to the typology presented in the FisGaJ Il11paGt Hanclbook (Burchell and Listokin 1978), the costing approach used by Howard County was a combination of the per capita multiplier and the service standard approaches. The Howard County fiscal impact analysis model, and the comprehensive plan, assumed that service levels and real service costs would remain level over the tel111 of the plan, a period of twenty years, There was virtually no public debate or controversy on these assumptions, Application of the Model - Howard County used the fiscal impact analysis model to validate the affordability of the proposed comprehensive plan. By holding service costs constant, on a per capita basis, the model outputs verified that the tax rate would require only slight increases over the 20 year study period. Outputs also demonstrated the value of accelerating the construction of some of the needed capital facilities. Howard County's use of the model increased the confidence of both elected officials and general public in the fiscal soundness of the plan. The model was also used to calculate the "breakeven" value of a new home - the price required to generate taxes sufficient to cover all associated service and capital costs, In 1990, that value was approximately $300,000, an amount significantly above the average value of new units being built in the County, This number was widely publicized in order to demonstrate the need for economic development. Since non-residential development was seen to "subsidize" residential growth, attaining the projected levels of commercial and industrial development was imperative, Howard County was committed to remaining a diverse community with a wide variety of housing choices, A mix of housing, with an adequate supply of affordable units, was a premise of the plan, Available affordable housing units were important to employers in attracting labor, even though affordable units required more "subsidy" than executive housing. Fiscal arguments were used to link the plan's proposed housing and employment policies. Howard County development, business, and citizen interests have all been generally suppOliive of the file://\\metro-inet.us\Roseville\CommDev\PLANNING AND ZONING\PLANNING FI.., 02/17/2005