|
| |
Per Capita Costs of Population Growth to Local Communities*
Appendix A
Method and Comprehensive Table
The following provides a more detailed description of the methodology as well
as a more comprehensive presentation in the accompanying table of the results of
this report on the public costs of population growth in major cities and urban
areas of the United States.
Method
This report builds upon a study, "The Real Cost of Growth in
Oregon," by Eben V. Fodor of Energy & Environmental Planning Associates
(EEPA), in the journal Population
and Environment, March 1997. The method used in
the EEPA study and its key findings are summarized as follows.1
The study is based on a representative three-bedroom, single-family house on
a modest 6,000 square foot lot (see Table 1). It is assumed that the house is
part of a larger development or subdivision that is located in an urban area on
previously undeveloped land with nearby utilities. In this manner, the house is
representative of the compact urban development that has minimum cost for urban
services.
Table 1 :
Profile of
Hypothetical House
|
Characteristic |
|
|
House Size |
3 Bedrooms |
|
Lot Size |
6,000 sq. ft. |
|
Land for Streets (21 % of lot) |
1,260 sq. ft. |
|
Development Density |
6 units/acre |
|
Occupancy: |
|
|
Total Persons |
3.09 |
|
School-Age Persons |
0.67 |
|
|
|
Source: Occupancy and public school-age children per house is the
national average based on the American Housing Survey for a three-bedroom
house from Burchell, 1994. 2 |
The cost summary in Table 5 provides a tally of all the
public infrastructure costs estimated in this study that are associated with the
construction of one three-bedroom single-family house. The cost total of $24,502
per house represents only a portion of the total costs .... It is, therefore,
only a partial estimate of the full public cost. The cost is representative and
is not intended to reflect the actual cost for any particular municipality.
Table 5 :
Growth Cost Summary*
New Single-Family House
|
Cost Item |
Amount |
|
School Facilities |
$11,377 |
|
Sanitary Sewerage |
$ 5,089 |
|
Transportation Facilities |
$ 4,193 |
|
Water System Facilities |
$ 2,066 |
|
Parks and Recreation Facilities |
$ 797 |
|
Storm Water Drainage |
$ 510 |
|
Fire Protection/EMS Facilities |
$ 470 |
|
Total: |
$24,502 |
|
* This is a summary of the costs
reviewed in this study and is not a complete listing of
growth-related costs. |
As indicated, the summary of costs listed above for new house construction
from the EEPA report covers the specified categories only, and is not a complete
listing of all population growth-related costs. For example, basic capital costs
for public facilities and infrastructure such as police facilities, hospitals
and clinics, set-asides for open space, libraries, government facilities, and
solid waste disposal plants would have to be calculated and factored in.
Environmental and other costs, including intangibles, such as air and water
quality, natural resource consumption, loss of wildlife habitat, increased noise
and traffic congestion, higher costs of housing and of living in general, public
safety and crime, as well as a diminished sense of community and loss of visual
and other amenity values, are also not included.
More specifically, for instance, other utility costs, such as
electricity, telephone, and television cable service are not included. An
example of costs of population growth which are not treated in the Oregon study
or this report is the cost of constructing new electric generating plants to
serve the needs of new people that are added to a community. The cost of
constructing new electric generating plants is approximately $1.50 per watt. 3
Utilities sometimes estimate that they must construct 1000 watts of new
generating capacity for each added person, but the average generating capacity
per person in place in the U.S. in 1995 was 2,700 watts. 4
This means that the cost of construction of
electric generating plants is between $1,500 and $4,000 per added person! For a
home with an average of 3.09 people, this cost per new home then lies in the
range of $4,600 to $12,300. These are the costs to purchase the electric
generating equipment and do not include operating costs. To these costs must be
added the costs of extending the electric distribution system to convey electric
power from the new generating plant to the new homes. These costs now are hidden
by being included in the electric bills paid by all of the existing rate payers.
By comparison, the EEPA report found that, assuming six houses per acre, the
public cost of a developed acre was over $147,000, whereas undeveloped land
within urban growth boundaries in Oregon typically ranged from $15,000-$35,000
per acre.
The second input is a report in Housing
News prepared by the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB).5 The
NAHB ranks the affordability of homes in any one specific area according to an
index referrer to as the housing opportunity index or HOI. This index takes into
account the proportion of homes sold in the specified area that a family earning
what constitutes the median income for that area, could afford.6
In the first quarter of 1996, the NAHB ranked 185 specific metropolitan
areas. Of these, Racine, Wisconsin was listed as the most affordable. According
to the NAHB data, a family in Racine, earning an income of $46,700 (the median
income) was able to purchase 89.4 percent of the homes that were actually sold
in Racine during the study period. To compare, a family in San Francisco was
found to have a higher median income ($61,300), but could only afford to
purchase 26.4 percent of the homes actually sold in San Francisco. Overall, the
national median income per household was found to be $41,600 and a family with
the national income was found to be able to afford 67.5 percent of the homes
actually sold throughout the nation.
The only Oregon communities listed in the NAHB study were Portland-Vancouver
and Salem. The public costs for new house construction of $24,502 in Oregon from
the EEPA report is approximately 21% of the average ($116,500) of the two listed
median sales prices in Oregon in the NAHB study.
Assumptions
Thus, for the purposes of the following table, it is assumed that the
representative public costs of the selected infrastructure factors, per house,
is 21% of the median sales price of homes in each community. The assumption
means that if it costs twice as much to build a house in community A as in
community B, then it costs twice as much to build a school, etc., in A as in B.
At best, this is only approximate. It is thought that the numbers arising from
the application of this assumption are more likely low than high. To obtain per
capita public costs, this 21% of the median sales price is divided by the
assumed number of 3.1 persons per home.
Table
Explanation of Columns:
- Column B is the name of the city or cluster of cities as listed by the
NAHB; if the cities involve regions in two or more states, cities are listed
in each state.
- Column C is the state.
- Column D is the National Affordability Rank given by the NAHB. Low numbers
indicate the most affordable locations.
- Column E is the percent of the houses that are affordable for the median
income in an area, as determined by the NAHB.
- Column F is the median household income in the city, as reported by the
NAHB.
- Column G is the median sales price of homes in the city, as reported by
the NAHB.
- Column H is 21 % of the median sales price, which is the estimated public
cost per home. The 21% was the ratio of public costs from the Oregon study
to the median sales price of homes in Oregon. Note that this percentage does
not include the costs of expanding electric, telephone and other utilities.
- Column I is the growth cost of column H as a percentage of the median
income.
- Column J is the growth cost of column H divided by the assumed number of
3.1 persons per home, to get the growth cost per person. It is probable that
the figures in columns H and J are lower than the actual total costs.
Table: Per Capita Costs of Population Growth to Local
Communities
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
G |
H |
I |
J |
|
|
Public Costs Per House |
State |
Nat |
% of H's |
Median |
Median |
21% of |
Growth |
Cost |
|
|
In Oregon, October 1995 |
|
Aff'd- |
Aff'dbl |
Income |
Sales |
Median |
Cost as |
Per |
|
|
$24,502 |
|
Ability |
For |
|
Price |
Sales |
% of |
Added |
|
|
Assume 3.1 People Per House |
|
Rank |
Median |
|
|
Price |
Median Income |
Person |
|
|
|
|
|
Income |
($000) |
($000) |
($000) |
|
($000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portland-Vancouver |
OR |
179 |
40.4% |
44.4 |
133.0 |
28.0 |
63% |
9.0 |
|
|
Salem |
OR |
165 |
53.0% |
37.8 |
100.0 |
21.0 |
56% |
6.8 |
|
|
Average |
OR |
|
|
|
116.5 |
24.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ $24,502 / $116,500 = 0.2103; 21.03% ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Birmingham |
AL |
128 |
65.1% |
38.2 |
103.0 |
21.7 |
57% |
7.0 |
|
2 |
Columbus, GA-AL |
AL |
110 |
69.2% |
34.3 |
89.0 |
18.7 |
55% |
6.0 |
|
3 |
Mobile |
AL |
150 |
59.5% |
33.4 |
100.0 |
21.0 |
63% |
6.8 |
|
4 |
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers |
AR |
158 |
56.5% |
36.0 |
100.0 |
21.0 |
58% |
6.8 |
|
5 |
Little Rock-North Little Rock |
AR |
104 |
70.5% |
39.0 |
95.0 |
20.0 |
51 % |
6.4 |
|
6 |
Memphis, TN-AR-MS |
AR |
76 |
74.5% |
39.5 |
83.0 |
17.5 |
44% |
5.6 |
|
7 |
Las Vegas, NV-AZ |
AZ |
70 |
75.0% |
45.0 |
118.0 |
24.8 |
55% |
8.0 |
|
8 |
Phoenix-Mesa |
AZ |
100 |
70.9% |
45.0 |
120.0 |
25.2 |
56% |
8.1 |
|
9 |
Tucson |
AZ |
152 |
58.7% |
37.8 |
112.0 |
23.6 |
62% |
7.6 |
|
10 |
Bakersfield |
CA |
93 |
71.8% |
36.9 |
90.0 |
18.9 |
51% |
6.1 |
|
11 |
Chico-Paradise |
CA |
164 |
53.6% |
32.8 |
101.0 |
21.2 |
65% |
6.9 |
|
12 |
Fresno |
CA |
157 |
56.8% |
35.0 |
105.0 |
22.1 |
63% |
7.1 |
|
13 |
Los Angeles-Long Beach |
CA |
166 |
52.9% |
46.9 |
158.0 |
33.2 |
71 % |
10.7 |
|
14 |
Merced |
CA |
133 |
63.6% |
33.5 |
96.0 |
20.2 |
60% |
6.5 |
|
15 |
Modesto |
CA |
48 |
78.0% |
39.8 |
106.0 |
22.3 |
56% |
7.2 |
|
16 |
Oakland |
CA |
168 |
51.6% |
58.4 |
195.0 |
41.0 |
70% |
13.2 |
|
17 |
Orange County |
CA |
142 |
61.3% |
61.3 |
188.0 |
39.5 |
64% |
12.8 |
|
18 |
Redding |
CA |
161 |
55.1 % |
34.8 |
107.0 |
22.5 |
65% |
7.3 |
|
19 |
Riverside-San Bernadino |
CA |
84 |
73.3% |
43.3 |
112.0 |
23.6 |
54% |
7.6 |
|
20 |
Sacramento |
CA |
125 |
65.6% |
46.4 |
135.0 |
28.4 |
61 % |
9.2 |
|
21 |
Salinas |
CA |
183 |
34.6% |
43.0 |
168.0 |
35.3 |
82% |
11.4 |
|
22 |
San Diego |
CA |
175 |
47.0% |
46.6 |
163.0 |
34.3 |
74% |
11.1 |
|
23 |
San Francisco |
CA |
185 |
26.4% |
61.3 |
275.0 |
57.8 |
94% |
18.7 |
|
24 |
San Jose |
CA |
173 |
48.3% |
67.4 |
237.0 |
49.8 |
74% |
16.1 |
|
25 |
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles |
CA |
176 |
45.3% |
43.3 |
153.0 |
32.2 |
74% |
10.4 |
|
26 |
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc |
CA |
169 |
50.4% |
48.3 |
165.5 |
34.8 |
72% |
11.2 |
|
27 |
Santa Cruz-Watsonville |
CA |
182 |
35.8% |
53.1 |
209.0 |
44.0 |
83% |
14.2 |
|
28 |
Santa Rosa |
CA |
180 |
40.1 % |
49.2 |
184.5 |
38.8 |
79% |
12.5 |
|
29 |
Stockton-Lodi |
CA |
149 |
59.9% |
41.5 |
129.0 |
27.1 |
65% |
8.8 |
|
30 |
Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa |
CA |
141 |
61.6% |
49.2 |
152.0 |
32.0 |
65% |
10.3 |
|
31 |
Ventura |
CA |
154 |
57.9% |
59.1 |
188.0 |
39.5 |
67% |
12.8 |
|
32 |
Visalia-Tulare-Porterville |
CA |
133 |
63.6% |
31.2 |
90.0 |
18.9 |
61 % |
6.1 |
|
33 |
Yolo |
CA |
148 |
60.2% |
46.2 |
144.0 |
30.3 |
66% |
9.8 |
|
34 |
Yuba City |
CA |
144 |
61.0% |
32.4 |
99.5 |
20.9 |
65% |
6.7 |
|
35 |
Boulder-Longmont |
CO |
116 |
58.3 |
58.3 |
151.0 |
31.8 |
54% |
10.2 |
|
36 |
Colorado Springs |
CO |
114 |
43.0 |
43.0 |
118.0 |
24.8 |
58% |
8.0 |
|
37 |
Denver |
CO |
77 |
53.1 |
53.1 |
126.0 |
26.5 |
50% |
8.5 |
|
38 |
Fort Collins-Loveland |
CO |
143 |
47.8 |
47.8 |
135.0 |
28.4 |
59% |
9.2 |
|
39 |
Greeley |
CO |
146 |
39.0 |
39.0 |
114.0 |
24.0 |
61 % |
7.7 |
|
40 |
Pueblo |
CO |
139 |
33.1 |
33.1 |
89.0 |
18.7 |
57% |
6.0 |
|
41 |
Danbury |
CT |
167 |
71.4 |
71.4 |
220.0 |
46.3 |
65% |
14.9 |
|
42 |
Hartford |
CT |
52 |
55.6 |
55.6 |
125.0 |
26.3 |
47% |
8.5 |
|
43 |
New Haven-Meriden |
CT |
48 |
54.3 |
54.3 |
122.0 |
25.7 |
47% |
8.3 |
|
44 |
New London-Norwich, CT-RI |
CT |
91 |
48.7 |
48.7 |
120.0 |
25.2 |
52% |
8.1 |
|
45 |
Waterbury |
CT |
122 |
52.0 |
52.0 |
128.5 |
27.0 |
52% |
8.7 |
|
46 |
Worcester, Ma-CT |
CT |
74 |
47.9 |
47.9 |
115.0 |
24.2 |
50% |
7.8 |
|
47 |
Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV |
DC |
30 |
68.3 |
68.3 |
144.0 |
30.3 |
44% |
9.8 |
|
48 |
Wilmington-Newark, De-MD |
DE |
11 |
55.5 |
55.5 |
118.0 |
24.8 |
45% |
8.0 |
|
49 |
Daytona Beach |
FL |
35 |
36.2 |
36.2 |
75.0 |
15.8 |
44% |
5.1 |
|
50 |
Fort Lauderdale |
FL |
79 |
46.6 |
46.6 |
100.0 |
21.0 |
45% |
6.8 |
|
51 |
Fort Myers-Cape Coral |
FL |
64 |
40.1 |
40.1 |
85.0 |
17.9 |
45% |
5.8 |
|
52 |
Fort Walton Beach |
FL |
46 |
39.2 |
39.2 |
86.0 |
18.1 |
46% |
5.8 |
|
53 |
Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie |
FL |
51 |
42.7 |
42.7 |
80.0 |
16.8 |
39% |
5.4 |
|
54 |
Gainesville |
FL |
45 |
38.4 |
38.4 |
77.0 |
16.2 |
42% |
5.2 |
|
55 |
Jacksonville |
FL |
28 |
43.0 |
43.0 |
89.0 |
18.7 |
44% |
6.0 |
|
56 |
Lakeland-Winter Haven |
FL |
7 |
35.9 |
35.9 |
70.0 |
14.7 |
41 % |
4.7 |
|
57 |
Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay |
FL |
5 |
43.9 |
43.9 |
80.0 |
16.8 |
38% |
5.4 |
|
58 |
Miami |
FL |
130 |
38.3 |
38.3 |
95.0 |
20.0 |
52% |
6.4 |
|
59 |
Naples |
FL |
123 |
48.8 |
48.8 |
120.0 |
25.2 |
52% |
8.1 |
|
60 |
Ocala |
FL |
18 |
31.9 |
31.9 |
65.0 |
13.7 |
43% |
4.4 |
|
61 |
Orlando |
FL |
37 |
41.9 |
41.9 |
90.0 |
18.9 |
45% |
6.1 |
|
62 |
Pensacola |
FL |
9 |
37.2 |
37.2 |
80.0 |
16.8 |
45% |
5.4 |
|
63 |
Punta Gorda |
FL |
23 |
35.7 |
35.7 |
71.0 |
14.9 |
42% |
4.8 |
|
64 |
Sarasota-Bradenton |
FL |
95 |
41.0 |
41.0 |
92.0 |
19.3 |
47% |
6.2 |
|
65 |
Tallahassee |
FL |
41 |
42.9 |
42.9 |
90.0 |
18.9 |
44% |
6.1 |
|
66 |
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater |
FL |
52 |
39.4 |
39.4 |
78.0 |
16.4 |
42% |
5.3 |
|
67 |
W. Palm Beach-Boca Raton |
FL |
92 |
48.0 |
48.0 |
113.0 |
23.8 |
50% |
7.7 |
|
68 |
Atlanta |
GA |
43 |
52.1 |
52.1 |
115.0 |
24.2 |
46% |
7.8 |
|
69 |
Columbus, GA-AL |
GA |
110 |
34.3 |
34.3 |
89.0 |
18.7 |
55% |
6.0 |
|
70 |
Macon |
GA |
16 |
40.1 |
40.1 |
86.0 |
18.1 |
45% |
5.8 |
|
71 |
Honolulu |
HI |
181 |
55.9 |
55.9 |
229.0 |
48.2 |
86% |
15.5 |
|
72 |
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL |
IA |
23 |
41.2 |
41.2 |
71.0 |
14.9 |
36% |
4.8 |
|
73 |
Des Moines |
IA |
26 |
48.3 |
48.3 |
87.0 |
18.3 |
38% |
5.9 |
|
74 |
Omaha, NE-LA |
IA |
90 |
45.9 |
45.9 |
91.5 |
19.2 |
42% |
6.2 |
|
75 |
Champaign-Urbana |
IL |
18 |
45.0 |
45.0 |
85.0 |
17.9 |
40% |
5.8 |
|
76 |
Chicago |
IL |
124 |
54.1 |
54.1 |
137.0 |
28.8 |
53% |
9.3 |
|
77 |
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL |
IL |
23 |
81.4% |
41.2 |
71.0 |
14.9 |
36% |
4.8 |
|
78 |
Peoria-Pekin |
IL |
12 |
82.9% |
43.6 |
75.0 |
15.8 |
36% |
5.1 |
|
79 |
Rockford |
IL |
27 |
80.7% |
44.0 |
87.0 |
18.3 |
42% |
5.9 |
|
80 |
Springfield |
IL |
37 |
79.3% |
47.7 |
87.0 |
18.3 |
38% |
5.9 |
|
(81 |
St. Louis, MO-IL |
IL |
58 |
77.0% |
46.9 |
96.0 |
20.2 |
43% |
6.5 |
|
82 |
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN |
IN |
62 |
76.4% |
46.7 |
96.0 |
20.2 |
43% |
6.5 |
|
83 |
Elkhart-Goshen |
IN |
3 |
88.3% |
43.5 |
90.0 |
18.9 |
44% |
6.1 |
|
84 |
Fort Wayne |
IN |
20 |
82.0% |
44.2 |
91.0 |
19.1 |
43% |
6.2 |
|
85 |
Indianapolis |
IN |
99 |
71.0% |
46.6 |
120.0 |
25.2 |
54% |
8.1 |
|
86 |
Louisville, KY-IN |
IN |
98 |
71.2% |
39.7 |
90.5 |
19.0 |
48% |
6.1 |
|
87 |
South Bend |
IN |
59 |
76.9% |
42.5 |
85.0 |
17.9 |
42% |
5.8 |
|
88 |
Kansas City, MO-KS |
KS |
6 |
85.4% |
47.7 |
91.0 |
19.1 |
40% |
6.2 |
|
89 |
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN |
KY |
62 |
76.4% |
46.7 |
96.0 |
20.2 |
43% |
6.5 |
|
90 |
Lexington |
KY |
72 |
74.8% |
39.6 |
90.0 |
18.9 |
48% |
6.1 |
|
91 |
Louisville, KY-IN |
KY |
98 |
71.2% |
39.7 |
90.5 |
19.0 |
48% |
6.1 |
|
92 |
Baton Rouge |
LA |
8 |
84.5% |
39.3 |
83.0 |
17.5 |
44% |
5.6 |
|
93 |
Houma |
LA |
34 |
79.5% |
29.6 |
73.0 |
15.4 |
52% |
5.0 |
|
94 |
Lafayette |
LA |
79 |
74.2% |
33.3 |
86.0 |
18.1 |
54% |
5.8 |
|
95 |
New Orleans |
LA |
81 |
74.1% |
35.5 |
80.0 |
16.8 |
47% |
5.4 |
|
96 |
Shreveport-Bossier City |
LA |
82 |
73.6% |
33.2 |
77.5 |
16.3 |
49% |
5.3 |
|
97 |
Barnstable-Yarmouth |
MA |
145 |
60.9% |
42.4 |
123.0 |
25.9 |
61 % |
8.3 |
|
98 |
Boston, MA-NH |
MA |
105 |
70.4% |
56.5 |
140.0 |
29.4 |
52% |
9.5 |
|
99 |
Lawrence, MA-NH |
MA |
126 |
65.4% |
52.7 |
144.5 |
30.4 |
58% |
9.8 </ | |
