HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-17-2006-9bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 17, 2006
Action Agen~al
Item No. l~
SUBJECT: Consultant Contract -Education Facilities Impact Fees
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Purchasing
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Scope of Work
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, AICP, Planning
Director, 245-2592
Pam Jones, Purchasing
Director, 245-2652
PURPOSE: To authorize the negotiation of a contract with Tischler and Associates, Inc. for
professional services related to analyzing and updating the County's Education Facilities Impact
Fee Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Education Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance
Orange County is one of the few counties in North Carolina that has legislative authority to
assess impact fees through State legislation passed in 1987 with additional legislation in 1991.
In late 2000, Orange County contracted with Tischler and Associates to develop Student
Generation Rates and Impact Fee Studies. Tischler produced a study in early 2001 which
provided the basis for adopted impact fee levels. Student generation rates were also a product
of the study and are now used in the annual SAPFOTAC (Schools Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance Technical Advisory Committee) report to projecfi the number of students expected in
each school district from new development in the coming years.
The BOCC adopted a new Education Facilities Impact Fee Schedule at the June 25, 2001
meeting which became effective July 1, 2001. The adopted impact fee level was 56% of the
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee (MSIF) for Orange County Schools and 60% of the MSIF for
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools.
School Impact Fees in each school district currently are as follows:
Oran a Count School District
Sin le Famil and Multi-wide Manufactured Homes $3,000 er unit
Other Residential Units $1,420 er unit
Cha el Hill-Carrboro School District
Sin le Famil and Multi-wide Manufactured Homes $4,407 er unit
.Other Residential Units $1,979 er unit
Given inflationary increases in land and school construction costs, there is a need to re-
evaluate the current impact fees to determine if they are set at reasonable levels since the
existing study used school costs from the 1990's. Additionally, the School Collaboration work
group has been working on school construction standards (school land area, capacity, size, and
cost) which are prerequisite data to include in the new analysis.
Because Tischler and Associates is familiar with Orange County, the consulting firm leader in
fiscal impact analysis, and will be updating and expanding upon their previous work, staff is
recommending that negotiations with Tischler and Associates be permitted to proceed.
The attached document "Exhibit A, Scope of Work" is an excerpt from the prevous Tischler
contract and represents the work that is contemplated in this agreement. It is notable, however,
that the recent planning staff data collection may make the student generation rate analysis
easier for the consultant.
Tischler and Associates may also be able to conduct Park Dedication and Payment in Lieu
Fees analysis, once the County develops certain parks standard criteria. Staff would bring the
addendum back to the BOCC at that time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The School Impact Fee study is expected to cost between $50,000 to
$60,OOOAs the Board may recall, a reserve was included in the 2006-2007 operating budget to
cover three studies, to the extent $145,000 would allow: School Impact Fees, Phase III TDR
Development Ordinance and Park Dedication and Payment-in-Lieu Analysis. The TDR Phase
III work program will be presented for consideration at the next Board meeting.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board direct staff to negotiate a
contract with Tischler and Associates to perform the outlined scope of work for an amount not
to exceed $60,000; and authorize the Manager to sign the resulting contract.
"E;~fI23IT A~
.SCOPE OF ~"ORK
Student Generatio ~ Rate Scope of ~~'ork
ne su~ested tzshs ara discus .ed below.
Task 1: biscuss and A; ,tee an Public School Student Generation )Efate hXethodology.
TA ;;~ili meet with the cliern to discuss the various approaches to calculating public school
student generation rates. Asp uming mutual a~rerment as to the methodology and. data to be
utilized, TA v~-ili prepare a mE mor~~dum sur*.3ma~-izing ~e public school student generation rate
~~thodolo~v.
Ti'or.-:Producl_ ~lemorc.'I.~iicrr :Strrr2mar~.FT~ r~.t~}IZt Sd2oD1 STild°rt C_tenL'rDsio?2 ?~,2
tlerho~ +Io~ L
Task ?: Public School student Generation Rate Memoranda.
Based on the aboUe task, TA ~ Hill review the data provided by the Caunry by District and by t}rpe
of school and by t}ape of hou >e. TA ~~ill raise any questions regarding data and supplemental
information ~;~ith appropriate ~ounty staff. TA ti;-ill then prepare a memorandum reformatting
the datz for inclusion in the in .pact fey report. The ;nzrnorandum for eack~ school district;;ill list
the public school student gene-anon rite by n-pe of bo'.~~r_g unit for each Type of school.
T3'crr ProG:rCt: Public : 'drool S::cdert Ger~~t:or .Rate .'tfemor~n~
S. Impact Fee Scope ~f ~'~'"ork
As noted in our cover letter, c t-r scope of work is comprehensive. The proposed tasks are noted
below.
Task 1. assess Cu tree t Impact Fee Prograrn_
Tire iritial aUrssrnent of th;, ~v~~~~'s current a~~pzct =e.: progra,-n pe i~+~ing to tl:e i<tio vcLool
di~ic~s Lt•ill ~clude revic;~n~ exisi~~?g impact f:.~; methodoIogies. This ;;-iII nol::do the
°_E~gr?.~;:iC S_iJ3r~25 curentl~ IIt1LL~ i~ rt,1;,i10n io ~~le =2t30i1~1 neXLS ic~LT?'~r?'+°??t5. ~i;.°. ~L'~ ?n
~_
Tiscn(er & Associates, lne.
this t~k tivill be based on onsi~ ;, interviews. ~TiTe u-ill rt;commend tivhat changes should bo made
to the exis~:ng school imp; ct fees. '~~'~ ~~-i11 prc+pzre a draft me:norandpm disc~:ss=ng
r~.o--~~endod ilm~act fee chi 7es, dating to me-~odological or policy issues: fifer mt:~:~ll}-
a~~ ~~-~ chan6~ are mace. u,yv,,~ ;sage z ~~ ~~?°mor~dum~
;~rsr ~ €~rc~ucl: ~ferrvriz td~j .~isCZrS5ir81?Gc~mmsnded lrrr~acr Fee ~hur=Qe~
Task?. Ascertain Level of Service for Each School Districts
Once zne County and school e istricts agree on the various choices, we wi11 begin Task 2. Orte
iinpo2~t subtask is calculatin ~ tl3e appropriate Ievel of sen-ice. Impact few w ,a ly reflect the
e~s:i;-~~ Te;•es of s:.rtzce fcr a~npnses of clc~,ig-,;ng the ner~~ demand, unless ?here ~e
e~.,~'1:,.-?-.i~i?~ Ci~.lu~-`u~c~. ~~ e sti71~ C~: t~~3.iII~ ~~~ 2ppropriatC cT~?1-ert le~-e1 of s~i~"?C~ tiy~L~~
addidon?1 on$ito interviews wi h the s..~ce praY:c~s and anal}pis of local d~~. ~s roved ~ th;.
tZ.~'?. ~~~lsiin~ sCi700I CORStr ICiIOII SL2:`?d~.rd 1'+-71 bt:. 2IlalyZ:Cl 8S VYCII 2S the Ca:~SI°i:CuOII
sE~darcls for nets schools. TI is information r,-ilI be used to proj~t school capi~l improven:ert_;
costs .o Z00~ and 2t?1t).
The above will enable us to ~ nsure that two important impact fee legal requirements are met;
namely the proportional benef .t and the rational ne~-us relationships. The irefor~ation ~otn this
task ~-i11 be prpared in a writ en iornat «•hiclt ~~~ then be submitted to the Count} and Schaal
aiJ-~icts for its res~iew_
.=~; p~_ of this aslL ~-z also ~:-i11 ~-ie•:.- cost ~'~~~_es prepa~ci by each schoc~I dis~ct ihr all
co~?e:ed and pla-,~~i iufrst uc`~ ianprot ~w ~_
l{%ork Product: See l3elrw
Task 3. Review Capita .heeds and Costs and allocate to Growth.,
ini:s Lark ~s7?1 dete~ire rcle giant capit~l oe~., mod' ~sacia*.ed capital faciiit~- costs Qu~ 'th h~
p-opes~ e~•eIopment_
~. i Ana ~2an~e Capital ~7e. ds. ~ this subta..:~,. T:~ ;rill -=urd~er ~~~icc~~ the ~~ions s:~~di~ anc~
o:h~ data. germane to the rel.v~-lt school categories. TA rill work with sta = to foreczst -tee
capital facility needs due to < eveIopment to 2d0~ and 2t}10. The discussions tray include not
only a~n understanding of the specific costs to pro~-ide the schools, but also include discussions
pertaining to whether these c< pital facilities needs were due to normal replacement, catch-up, ar
new demand.
i sct~3er ~ Asscci~tes, Inc.....
5
• B. Revicjv Cost Estimates. In ibis subtask we will review, as relevant, the various capital
cos+s .For facilities. As part o f his subt?sk, we wxill asr. rtaitt whether the facilities are li~e15T Lobe
bonded, and i3 so, the asnortiz~ lion sch~~:le;
_T? i~ Of i.21CL:.lal???~ the 17Ti1 ZCi i~:s. t~2~ Colfi~iv i~~~i' II4C~L'de t~i° COns~~CL2i??? Ct}Z2tF~a.. ~'~'Ce;
th:, cost of acq~ring land} improve-n~ts, r_?zie=:.?s ~d ~.~:tures; the cost for pja~~-37~a.
stare}=:rg. an3 ~~nee.:ing fey s for s~7c~ pro~-id~ ?or and directly related to the ccansr-~ctiad,
s}~=te~:n ia-nLrd ~-e-ne~+t; artd deb , s.-r~~c: ~natges, if impact fees are used ~o pay ~kte debt s.~ ~c : to
finance the cost of the system mpro~ ~-m nts.
~s requested iiZ t<he RFP,
"the work product will r iflect tha appropriate +drange County construction and.. space'.,.
standards for public eleme ltarg, middle and high school building''areas and costs and the
proj°:.tion of school capital improti-ement costs to 2005 to 2010."'
I~~rk ?'r~iduct ~ Capital FniprOV2lr-'ent i'~~eeds r#ccommodating ~e~u Gro3srth
Tall: 4. Calculate "Cr ~d~" to be ~pplieci ~;ainst Cagiial +~osts.
considera,`ion of "credits" i ~ an ;-~tegraal .part to the dei~elopment c-f a legally ~~alid impact-fee
calculation methodology. Thy re is considerable com~`usion among those ~vho a_rc: not imm~vd in
impact fee law about the dcfin itian of a credit and ti~~hy it may be legally or equitably regt;ir~l_
There are, in fact, t~~,~o (2) typ ,s of "credits," each ti;nth specific, distinct characteristics, but both
of ivh.ich ~-i11 be included (o~ , at least considered} in. the development of all impact fe.~s. The
?irst is a credit clue fo poss ble double pa}~nent rituat?ons. This could occur ztih~,~ futtcrc;
contributions ~e made by tl e proprrt}' o~~rrr to.v~d the capital costs of the public i?Sil3t},
~.lready cov~,~ b}~ the impac fer. The s~:o::d, :;;icl? ~~°e «-i11 call an adjLStnacnt {zs cppos d to
a cr~it}, is a credit totivard he pa}~r.~t of an :;np~ct f~ dt~e for the rPqu~-ed declirdo~ of
public sites ~d.~`or public imp;-ovem~ts pro~ddeti 't~~ tie deti~eloper ar:d for «Thzch 'tee i~~.t fee
is ~~DOS~I.
~s indicated in the ~FP, this :ask w-iil credit, as appropriate, new development based ou naLSina
t}rpe and value ~;-ith public s< hool facilities costs already incurred. through property. takes, sales
taxes and other sources of fun ling.
i3jark Product:. See .Irnpa ;t :l{'ee Report Below;
6
Tr~chler & Assoc~aies, inG.
Task a: Conduct Fut:din ; Source and Cash Fio~ ~inalyses.
t~ older to calculate the feast ale eapit?i iarpac: =r~nts ~e~ls ~ti~d by each school aist~iet
o ti ~~ '~~e as aeveiopmeut occ-:rs, it s ~poa~t to evaluate the ~ticipaied fu~?ding =o..,.=c~. ' z~
pus sLbaas?;, u-e ri-ill preparE a c~c1, ~o„- ~~y~s v~-hich indicates the souk of funilina
indepe~d~:t of impact fees. ' _'his calculation v+-iii allover the County and each district to beu:-r
uud.;rstand the various revers .te sources available,' including impact .fees and the additional
amouat which might be neede ~ if the impact fees were not adopted or were. discounted. It will
also pro~~ide a good understan~ ling of tbt~ cash :flog needed #o cover the:capital facilities both for
cxis~~g and new de~~eIopment
the ~tial cash t~o~} azaal3=sis vill iadiczte wliethe; additional funds might be n°ed°d or;v~hether
tl~e capital il-ntaro~~e*~+~?ts schl.dul~ might r:~ tQ be'changed. This could also aiiect the tort:
c-edr~ ca?L~lat~ in fhe previ~~~:s task. Th.,,e~'o ~ ?~ ~ lik..e1= the a r_umber ofis.iors u~l=tie`
coud~~e~ in order to reime ih ; ca~i, r'1o~,~ anai~-ss _e;?ecting i~° ~=_tal in2proventctzt rtes. ~~_"~ -
beliec-e mat this is an extrem.ly ~ _~ortart co~po-~e-~t o= an impact fee ac~'.;~ais; ancl, than ~.e
able:~c: of this analysis freque ~tl~r distorts the intn~ct see analysis and fee sched~lc~.
Work.Fi-oduct Cash FIoV• ~Inalyses Reflecting Fublic School Capital Improvement 1tie~ds
aizd Applic zble Impact Fees
Ta<l: 5: Complete Iinp pct Fee ?~Iethodflla~ and Calculation.
ire co-nale-~on of -fie move t sks ~;~11 ~aole die inm~t fee ine~odology to be ~propratel}T aL~d
equi~b15- deterni~ed aid ftn21 zed per the Ri~t-,'dte impact fee that results from tbs g?e~odoIo~ T
ti~ sIl be the r:taximum legally d ~ferL~~ble fee for iiev~• d~=eloprnent in the rivo Ora~~e Cotz~ty school
distract; that could be charged. ~-hile meeting all ofthe statutory requirements for ~pac fees. {The
Client ~;rill subsequently deeidt what percentage of the maximum justifiable fee it wants to charge.)
YYor~:.~'roduci: See Iizzpaa Fee Report Betozsl
Tas)~ % Preparation o "Public school Itupact; Fee Reports.
~t'e kill prepare a'drafi report fnr each distric~ v+~hich summarizes the need for the ir_tpace feesfor
the appropriate district and ti rhich pro~-ides the relevant methodology .for determining the f8e
a~-riount..The report «rill inclu 3e at a minimum the following information:.
Executive Summary
o ~ deaailed description of t ie rnetiiodalogie~ T-P du.~:ne me study
_~ d~:ailed ciescrintian of: ll xoimul2s used anal acroinpany-in~ rationale
IESCi1Icf $c AsSOGIataS, lnC.
~ ~ detailed scb~dule of prOF osed fees listed by land use t}pe and acti~~ity
• S~~mary of capital iznprot eznert nee: s QenerGted by the neti~° development
• O'~n~ in=ar~~oa which o~~la~ aid ~~~?~es 'fie resul~ag reoom~end~i_ i~-~p2ct', {w
. _ _ _
sLyxules
:~_ cheat rev~etiv ~e will m ~-e ttzLy a~'erd >r~C,n c~znQes ar~d produce iz.~ e co~i~ of tea
ua~ -mart for each' district.
The impact fee report will have flow diagrams clea~l}~ indicating rho methodology ar_d approach,
a series of tables for each a ;tivity showing all of the data assumptions and figures, and, a
narrative explaining all of the ~ iota assumptions, sourcES aald methodologies. The report will be a
s`~and-mono document which u-ii1 be clezr, c~onc-se and readil}F understood by ail inter~~i
p~~_ Because of our exte asi~°e e?~;oerience „ c?~cula#iag impact fee; and, prepar~g s~.~ca„
rem ~, ive i:ave de~-cloDed a ~ ery ~=c.:--Sncl tvritt~ prOC11ICt which provides ire client Rti uh a w:,ll-
'~d~tood p: prr ti 'Gil.. _ _
if err t~rodzcct: t~u$Iie Sch o! Impact r ee r2~parss
Task S. 1VlectingslPreser tations.
Sind r,~e intend to ~-ork as p in of a izatn and vier;= oursel~res not only as' l~ch~cal consu'ttaLt;
but ho zs facilitator, eve ant cipa:e zed h::.1°e included in this ~vorkprograzn seve_T~Gl onsi:e sty
m .i::Cs du~:~~ his a.ssi~r.enz. ~~~ 21so v,-iI1 anend '~~,° public heasirags to e~~lain t:~e
.:~al.~is and coach-ia*~.s_
~ydr%~ro~uet: ~ppropria'e :1!I~terials anr~ trraphics
Task 9. Provide Revised Impact Fee Automated Spreadsheet-Based NIodels '
eve utill pro«de an automate i spr:.adshr.°F model to allow Qach district to calculate the ~paci
f~s_ The model u-ifi be con pa~`ble «~:th each di~-~ict'S ~xistiilg coffiputer s~~~:e-n. ~ env to .
t;nd~-~-~d raaauaI u=ill be p-aS-ia~'- as pa~~ of t;~a €zs~. «~~ bare provided ~:~ilaz mc~de~ to
~.~ r ~ T t~l 'L' t^l
o'.:-..r corn~r;~-u~es zrZd they h .ve proi-cn .a gk r;-G~1. ~:~pletnenied and utili.c~
Tr'or~Praduci: frrpact 1 'ee ~uromated` , Spreadsheet-Based .~fodets ;~s7tiz' Suppflrtir~
~ocumertt ziion
i~scnl~r 8~ Assocl~tes, inc.