Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 06-05-1995 - IX-A
r 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 5, 1995 Agenda Abstract Item # Y—A SUBJECT: PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC DARING: Yes X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 Summary Sheet - Impact Fee Calculation Building Permit Data PHONE NUMBERS: DRAFT 5/25/95 Public Hearing Minutes Hillsborough 732.8181 Written Comments, and Petitions Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a proposed increase in the public school impact fee from $750 to $1,500. BACKGROUND: On May 25, 1995, a public hearing was conducted on a proposed amendment to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. The proposed amendment to Section 3(School Impact Fees Imposed on New Residential Dwelling Units)would increase the amount of the public school impact fee from $750 to $1,500. The proposal was based on an updated Technical Report which indicated that the maximum allowable fee in both school districts was approximately $1,900 (see attached Summary Sheet). Public Comment. Comments received at the public hearing are summarized below: • Existing residents shouldn't have to pay, particularly when moving from an existing house to a newly constructed home. • New schools should be financed with bonds,utilizing the tax base instead of impact fees. Economic development should be encouraged as a means of increasing the tax base. • The Technical Report should be revised, with particular emphasis given to the use of up-to-date data; e.g., public school age children per household, housing values, etc. • Need to address the issue of affordable housing,particularly through the use of a sliding scale of fees. Otherwise, fee is regressive, and lower- income people will be hurt. • Need to develop uniform school construction standards, encouraging School Boards to design/construct more modest schools. • Growth in school systems should be considered; e.g., where is it coming from? 2 • Zero base budgeting and reduced school administration costs should be used as means to reduce overall costs and provide funding for schools. • Housing costs are up due ((primarily to increased lumber and labor costs. Fee is not equitable, since up to 50% of new homes are built for existing residents. • A$1,500 impact fee means an additional$1,500 in interest payments if the fee is paid for through a loan. • Impact fees are simply q means of growth control, not a means of financing school capital needs. • Pursue real estate transfer tax as means of financing school capital needs instead of impact fees. • Consider increasing impact fee in Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District on an interim basis until the Technical Report is updated. Options. The Board of Commissioners may choose from among the following options: • Keep public school impacti fees at their current levels; e.g., $750 in both the Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Districts, at least until completion of the updated Technical Report and the sliding scale of fees; or • Increase public school impact fees(as advertised)in both School Districts to$1,500; or • Differentiate between School Districts by keeping the impact fee at$750 in the Orange County system and increasing the fee to $1,500 in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system. One basis for differentiated fees may be the positions of the two School Boards. The Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board supports the fee increase, whereas the Orange County School Board does not (see attached correspondence). Another basis for such differentiation may be the types of housing units being constructed in the two School Districts. However, housing type must be related to numbers of school age children per dwelling unit (by type), and data to accomplish this is absent. A final basis for differentiating between the two School Districts may be the identified need.The Chapel Hill-Carrboro system has an identified need for three new schools (e.g., elementary, middle, and high school) whereas the Orange County system has an identified need for only an elementary school. RECOMMENDATION: As the Board decides. f I 3 SUMMARY PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS,AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY,N.C. IMPACT FEES: CAPITAL COSTS LESS ADJUSTMENTS School District Costs/Adjustments Orange Chapel Hill— County Carrboro Public School Children Per Dwelling Unit Elementary School 0.220 0.140 Middle School 0.110 0.070 High School 0.120 0.080 Total 0.450 0.290 Total Capital Cost Per Student Elementary School $13,278 $13,278 Middle School $14,294 $14,294 High School $14,491 $14,491 Capital Cost Per Dwelling Unit Elementary School $2,921 $1,859 Middle School $1,572 $1,001 High School $1,793 $1,195 Total $6,286 $4,055 Adjustments Per Dwelling Units Property Tax $1,090 $1,346 Sales Tax $819 $702 PSBF Funds $133 $86 Total $2,042 $2,134 Adjustment Allocation By School Type Elementary School $1,016 $1,019 Middle School $474 $515 High School $553 $600 Total $2,042 $2,134 Impact Fees — All School Types Elementary School $1,905 $840 Middle School $1,098 $486 High School $1,240 $595 Total $4,244 $1,921 Impact Fees — Identified Need Elementary School $1,905 $840 Middle School $486 High School $595 Total 1 $1,9051 $1,921 4 , RESIDENTIAL PERMITS ISSUED - ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. 1994 Single-Family Multi-Family Location Units Units Mobile Homes Total Units ORANGE COUNTY- TOTAL Bingham 50 (75%) 0 17 (25%) 67 Cedar Grove 23 (45%) 0 28 (55%) 51 Chapel Hill 477 (59%) 311 (38%) 15 (2%) 803 Cheeks 45 (53%) 0 40 (47%) 85 Eno 57 (55%) 2 (20/11) 44 (43%) 103 Hillsborough 43 (39%) 35 (3217c) 32 (29%) 110 Little River 20 (57%) 0 15 (43%) 35 TOTAL 715 (57%) 348 (28%) 191 (15%) 1254 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT Chapel Hill Township 477 (59%) 311 (38%) 15 (2%)= 803 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Remainder of County 238 (53%) 37 (8%) 176 (39%) 451 Source: 1994 Housing Permit Data Sheet - Orange County,Planning Department. I' I 5 DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS 1987 —1993 Orange County Planning& Zoning Jurisdiction Single—Famil Residential Building Permits Issued — Total Township 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 Bingham 36 41 32 38 28 68 65 Cedar Grove 31 20 12 17 17 16 26 Chapel Hill 54 74 75 53 45 133 138 Cheeks 31 25 24 18 19 27 32 Eno 57 46 18 16 27 36 38 Hillsborough 47 20 27 22 45 61 90 Little River 43 291 341 31 1 301 271 55 Total 2991 2551 2221 1951 2111 368 444 Single—Famil Residential Building Permits Issued — Rural Buffer Township 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 Bingham 9 17 10 7 12 10 N/A Cedar Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Chapel Hill 48 67 67 50 29 29 N/A Cheeks 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Eno 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Little River 01 01 01 01 0 0 N/A Total 571 841 771 571 411 39 N/A Single—Famil Residential Building Permits Issued — Remainder Township 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 Bingham 27 24 22 31 16 58 N/A Cedar Grove 31 20 12 17 17 16 N/A Chapel Hill b. 7 8 3 16 104 N/A Cheeks 31 25 24 18 .19 27 N/A Eno .57 46 .. 18 16 27 36 N/A Hillsborough 47 20 27 22 45 61 N/A Little River 43 291 341 311 30 27 N/A Total 2421 1711 1451 1381 1701 329 N/A 6 DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS 1987 —1993 (CONTINUED) Orange County Planning& Zoning Jurisdiction Mobile Home Building Permits Issued — Total Township 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 Bingham 46 52 49 44 54 71 69 Cedar Grove 35 29 19 29 24 43 39 Chapel Hill 55 54 55 47 .26 59 48 Cheeks 29 40 43 34 28 49 52 Eno 62 53 41 40 39 48 73 Hillsborough 47 46 42 44 35 63 62 Little R i v e r 17 15 19 21 16 28 22 Total 291 289 268 259 222 361 365 Mobile Home Building Permits Issued — Rural Buffer Township 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 ]N/A Bingham 10 8 9 11 5 7 12 Cedar Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chapel Hill 23 38 31 33 21 27 Cheeks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eno 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0 Little River 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 33 46 40 38 28 39 Mobile Home Building Permits Issued — Remainder Township 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 Bingham 36 44 40 39 47 59 N/A. Cedar Grove 35 29 19 29 24 43 N/A Chapel Hill 32 16 24 14 5 32 N/A Cheeks 29 40 43 34 28 49 N/A Eno 62 53 41 40 39 48 N/A Hillsborough 47 46 42 44 35 63 N/A Little River 17 15 . 19 21 16 28 N/A Total 258 243 228 221 194 322 N/A I JUN-01-1995 13:41 FROM ORANGE OTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.01-'08 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF C SSIONERS BUDGET PRESENTATI AND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SCH L IMPACT FEE MAY 25, 2945 The Orange County Board of Commissio rs met in regular session on Thursday, May 25, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in Su for Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpos of the meeting was to hear a presentation from John Link on his recomm ded budget and to hold a Public hearing on Public School Impact Fe COUNTY - - -MMUTt Chair rey and Commissioners William L. Crowther, Alice N. Gordon, St an H. Halkiotis and Don Willhoit SQD38ff AZtQRM VWW=T1 Geoffrey G ill BsAFt p County Manager John Link, Jr. , Assistant County Managers Albert Kittrell and Rod visser, Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (other staff members are identi ed appropriately below) NOTE: All documents referred to in these linutes are in the permanent agenda file in the Clerk's office. VRZBMM"XCN OF ]=_UU=,S 1995-21 ED BUDGET John M. Link gave an overview of his ecommended budget. The highlights are listed below: 1. General Fund Budget of $71,871,9 2. An increase of $69 per pupil all ation for Education 3. Increase in Debt Service for Sch 1 Construction totaling 2.8 million 4. A "hold the line" County budget th the County departments increase totaling just 1.5% 5. Establishes a General Fund tax r e of 92.5 cents per $140 assessed valuation - a 4 cent increase 6. An interim increase in the CKCCS istrict tax rate by one cent from 15.4 cents to 16.4 cents to ddress school start-up costs John Link said that there are f ure challenges for efficiency, schools and human servi In conclusion, he said that no service reductions that dir ly or adversely impact citizens were made. The budget cont es the trend to require tough decisions on service levels. emphasized that the County Department Heads and the Budget Team orked collectively to "Hold- the-line". He thanked Sally Kost her staff and the Department Heads for working together on this get and also Angela Bowling for designing the cover of the budge document. Commissioner Halkiotis feels th the student enrollment projections are not correct from the nt of Public Instruction in Raleigh. Commissioner Willhoit asked wha one cent on the tax rate would generate -- both the County the Special District tax. JUN-01-1995 13:42 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIOtERS TO 3002 P.02/08 D � C 2 8 PUBLIC KNOOL _ 8 Pluming Director Marvin Coll presented for receipt of Public comments a proposed increase n the public school impact fee from $750 to $2,500. He noted t the $1,500 fee is based on the calculation of the maximum allow le fees which the County can charge for public school capital .ne The maximum allowable fee as verified in the updated Technical sport, was approximately $1,900 in both school districts. He xplained how the maximum allowable fee was calculated and whi variables were used as a basis for the calculation. He noted hat in late summer or early fall a new Technical Report will be ' esented using the latest information they can get. This will' elude a sliding scale for fees based an different factors, lik bedrooms, type of structure, cost of construction or square foots . In answer to a question from the audience, Mr. Collins said ' at the tax base does not factor into the calculation of impal fees except when giving credits. PUBLYC doffs NANCY SALMON spoke in support of the increase in public school impact fees. She asked thatItte Planning Department use representative data and values for parameters in their calculations of the financial impact f new construction. She hopes that the research being done s summer will not only be used for establishing a basis for th sliding scale but to more accurately assess the true impact of ew construction in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District. DAVID C. HURLBERT spoke against a impact fee and for alternative financing methods such a bonds and other traditional means of funding schools. He feels are is a disparity of the impact of impact fees on a class of ople attempting the achieve the American dream of owning a home. He said that a person buying a $75,000 house is paying a 10% tax sus a person buying a $300,000 house and pays a .5% tax. said that good public schools are a benefit to the entire ity, County, State and to the nation as a whole so the ity as a whole should bear these burdens. He does not feel the only new homeowners should be the ones paying for schools. He ked that the Board of County Commissioners do the right thing. is in favor of good schools but feels that he should not have to' y a fee when he builds his house since he has lived here all hi life. KU TOUW, Chair of the Chapel H 1-Carrboro School Board, spoke in support of the increase, H perspective is due to the fact that there are sore students in ch classroom and there is no room available for additional stu nts. He noted that construction costa have increased co iderably since the setting of the original impact fee. Also, Town of Chapel Hill sees the impact tax as an important reuse source for funding now schools. The best they can hope for rom developers is that they will donate some land and then the d elopers may want a decrease on the impact fee. He said that at $ ,500, a developer building I JUN-01-1995 13:44 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.03i08 LnI � U 3 s 1,000 homes would contribute 1.5 mil ion and from these 1,000 homes generate enough children for elementary school. it is unfortunately that the average home es more services than the tax on that home pays. It is only economic tax base increase that helps the County keep up with schools. He would favor a different fee structure for the two hool districts. JOYCE PRZSLAR, resident of Oran County for twelve years and works in a local daycare said she 1 ed about the impact fee when she bought a mobile home for $3 00. She is in a lower income bracket and cannot afford the mpact fee. She thinks that a-sliding scale should be considered She is willing to pay taxes but does not think an impact fee is itable. There are a lot of rental units with children. She as that the Board keep their perspective and consider those who in the low income bracket. THOMAS PHILLIPS, resident of 1 dill for a short period of time said he moved from Batavia ch is one hour west of Chicago. In eight years Batavia we from a small community to a suburb of Chicago. They built thous a of new homes in that area and the schools became overcrowded. ey passed a bond issue every other year to build new school The taxes became so high that the people who originally lived n Batavia were forced to move. The result of losing a bond r erendum was to impose an impact fee - one for operating expen s and one for infrastructure. The same arguments re heard there. The real test of fairness is to ask if the i ct fee taxes original residents out of their homes. He d not believe that the impact fee is going to affect the affordabi ty of new homes. He feels that the developer will bring down price of land. He is in favor of this increase in the impact ee because he will know that in the future additional constructio of new schools will not raise his property tax. STS B. MORIARTY said that only reason he is against the impact fee is because he cannot ford it. He may have to default on a piece of property he pu ased because he does not have the money to pay the impact fee o move his trailer onto the property. He feels that the fact t he only makes $17,000 should not keep his from buying a ho or moving a trailer onto a piece of property. He would like to as a sliding scale. %KITH C00% spoke in favor of i easing the impact fee. He feels that something needs to be don for those individuals who don't make a lot of money -� 6ag of median income which would Probably be no more than 104 of the pulation. The impact fee should be for those individuals comi into the County who have not previously helped pay for school He favors a sliding scale and asked that the Board of County ssioners help people who are not making a lot of money -- peo a who live in small houses or trailers. NICK TEriRYSM, Executive vice Pr ident of Durham and orange Counties, read a prepared statement. In summary the Home Builders JUN-01-1995 13:46 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.04%08 IUD, 1 8TV 4 10 Association is opposed to school imp&ot fees because they deny the fundaaental truth that the public sc 1 system is an indivisible benefit of life in the community. singling out one class of citizen new home buyers -- for ad 'tional expense, the County is inferring that new home buyers gel a larger share of benefit from the school system than do other itizens. He listed several problematic areas in the letter. KA1TTHW E. BARTON spoke on behall of Stop Overcrowding Schools (SOS) . He said that they do support n increase in the impact fee to $1,500. He feels that increasing' the impact fee will be a stop in the right direction toward solvi the schools overcrowding problems by providing additional mone to plan new schools. SOS believes that the housing survey tha the County will conduct will show that the actual capital cost tq a County to provide the capacity for the students due to newt esidential construction averages well over $9,000 per dwelli SOS believe that the Impact Fee should be set at a reason le and substantial proportion of the capital cost to pr ides the money for planning, engineering and constructing new Bch Is. They support a sliding scale where the fee would be adjust according to the size of the house. This addresses the concerns ut affordable housing and places the burden on four and five room homes which typically do bring more students to the school He asked that the Board of County Commissioners support this i ease. PETffit NORCONSE, parent of a chi in Carrboro Elementary School, said that he is in favor of a money being spent in the classroom and more money spent for i truction. However, hw feels there is no need to raise taxes -- to just eliminate the waste. He noted that American publi schools spend more than any Other country and yet rank near the ttom in scholastic achievement. Private schools get th job done with half the dollars per student. He feels that til some progress is made to close the gap, the Board of County issioners should not even think of raising the taxes. His wri on comments are in the permanent agenda file. He asked tha the Board of County Commissioners reduce the size of qov nment at the local level. He presented a chart which compared a number of administrators in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Sch 1 District to private schools with the same student enroll t' He noted that the school budgets presented to the Boar of County Commissioners hide 904 of the expenditures in the conti atIon budget that they rubber-stamp every year. He favors ro-based budgeting so that all programs are reviewed annually. DANIEL D. ESEEMX stated he is n favor of an increase in the public school impact fee. He re a letter from Susan and Alan Spalt which is in the permanent Benda file. In summary, they support an increase in the inpa fee. They feel that substantial increases in local revere are needed to pay for the impact of new rapid development on Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School System and that an increased act fee is an important JUN-01-1995 13-47 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.05/08 part of the revenue six. They su raising the fee to $1,500 and separating Chapel Hill/Carrboro d Orange County fees. They support the. impact fee study which i being done at this time. ALAN BELCH talked about bets be made on how high the impact fee will be raised. He said at new schools are needed and there is no question that they t be paid for. What increases the need for schools is ch dren and unless there is a head tax on every new child coming i o either of the school systems, there is no fairness to wha is really happening. A $1,500 impact fee will cost homebuy $3,000 in payments. The cost of housing will continue to ri while the real issue which is creating a bigger business base w 1 suffer. He said that it concerns many in the county that sig 'ficantly inappropriate figures have been used by various ci zens groups to justify a larger increase and the press and th public seem to bay the numbers without question. GLORIA FRLEY, resident for sev years and a volunteer in the schools, supports the Board of C ty Commissioner& ten-point plan. She supports the $1,500 ispae fee and encourages implementing a sliding scale based o number of bedrooms per square footage which will insure the iversity and richness of the community. She said that the bulk o the homes being built and sold in Chapel Hill are not affordab housing but $150,000 plus. She supports building and maintaini a working teas of the Chapel Hill Council, the Carrboro Board of dermen and the School Boards to insure that any land use plan inc des the children's education and a plan that requires responsibil for existing and new residents of the schools and respons ility of the developers who will sell their hoses because of the igh quality of our schools. The roots of the American dream lie a good public education. KU SCOTT said he feels that $1, 00 is a large figure. Orange County has 5400 students now red to twenty-five years ago when they had 5,000 students. 10►RIK BAMMS spoke in support the impact fee. She fools it is good budget management and tha developers will absorb some of the cost as well as citizens. Sh noted that borrowed money cost more. She supports a sliding s le. Education cost more money today as well as constructinq w schools cost more today. EARL DAVIS is against the imps fee and against any more taxes in this County. He feels the ty does not care about the low income population. KARY JO BATOM, parent of thr children in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro schools, read a letter from ivy Ludington who supports the increase to $1,500 for the schoo impact fee. In summary, she said that the schools are severely o owded and action must be taken to pay for new schools. She f is that quality education should be one of the County's highhes priorities. She fools that the burden of paying for new schools hould be put on those who JUN-01-1995 13:49 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.06%08 Ln] 6 12 move into the County. Ns. Bateman sipports a sliding scale because she does not want to see any a overburdened by this fee. She also submitted a petition with i signatures which read as follows: We, the undersigned suppor following strategies for ensuring that future residential gr is linked to responsible and timely expansion in school capac y. 1. The areas' school boar , school administrations, and elected officials must accept mu al responsibility for joint planning, 2. Higher revenues from 13 mct fees are needed, and other funding sources must be found. 3. A school impact study should be required for proposed developments. 4. Concurrence should be considered as an effective planning tool. S. Developers of sizable subdivisions could be required to donate land. 6. Residential growth sui., not be allowed to outpace and overwhelm our schools' capacity lo provide high quality education. RON WEBER stated he has been bu dine homes in Chapel Hill for ten years. The price of housing as increased drastically over the last two years because of 1 costs. Although the target of school impact fees is new sidents, it is actually affecting everyone who builds a home He feels the Board of County Commissioners need a broad-based pla The current proposal is the easiest but not adequate or fair, He feels there must be a better Way. HARVEY GOLDSTEIN, President of a Chapel Hill-Carrboro PTA, stated that the PTA fully supports increase in the impact fee. They do not believe that $1,500 come close to the average cost each additional housing unit imposes n school capital facilities, especially in the southern half of County. Hopefully, the study being conducted will yield a e accurate estimate of these costs. They continue to support a s ding scale so the fee does not have an adverse impact on afford le housing in the County. He urged the Board of County Commies Hers to vote to approve the ProP06ed increase for the Chapel Nil rrboro potion of the County, even if the Orange County Sc le do not support the increase. This is justified by the losion of residential growth in the southern portion of th County and the strain it has placed on education. _ TERM B. MCPHBRSON spoke agai the proposed increase in the school impact fee. she feels it alizes the people who have lived in the area all their life. S is a single head of household with two children and litt money. She wants a good education for her children but she w is to be able to provide them a home. she asked that the iXPa t fee be made fair to all residents in orange County. JUN-01-1995 13:50 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.07/08 LN 7 13 DUBIE WASLBN supports the pro increase and asked that the Board of County Commissioners ap ve $1,500. She presented a petition with 57 signatures which r as follows: We, the undersigned, althoigh unable to attend the public hearing on May 25, 2995, urge the orange county Commissioners to: 1. increase the impact f on new residential construction to $1,500 immediately; 2. carry out a survey thi summer to establish representative student-generation ra s for new residences; and 3. establish an appropria sliding scale for impact fees as anon as possible thereafter, o incorporate local school construction standards and newly estaDlished student-generation rates. She feels it is not unfair to aic new residential growth to share the cost of the impact on the ools. She asked that the fee be increased to $1,500 for the C pel Hill-Carrboro District. she presented an article which expl how Atlanta plays the impact-fee game. The article says t t the fees have been a major way for then to do things they coul t have done otherwise. LEON NEYERS spoke against finan public education with an impact fee. He feels that public ed tion is part of government and benefits the entire community an should be funded by the entire community. He urged the Boar of County Commissioners to be honest and rational in their deci on on impact fees. He asked that the Board take advantage all the hard work done by the Planning Department and make the ight decision. PATRICK MULKEY spoke against th impact fee as it is currently designed. He will remain mint the impact fee until County spending is brought under con of including both school systems. He fools that increasing impact fee is the easy way out, cutting the budget and setting a money aside for future capital needs takes some action by Board of County Commissioners. He questioned which d the Board of County Commissioners will take. LISA WARREN is more against the ay that the fee is a flat fee. Her and her husband are looki into building a house and must reduce the size of the house be use of the impact fee. She feels that a lot of children are in entso. she asked that the Board of County Commissioners m the fee more fair and look at incwsmmes and other children in the ystem who are not included in the foe. SIN LLOYD feels, that orange Co should have enough money to do whatever it wants. In 1983, Economic Development Commission was created. However, tx ve years later there has not been a brick laid in the US70, 145 s thorn railway corridor. The plan should be to create some iadus al and economic growth in e JUN-01-1995 13:52 FROM ORANGE CTY COMMISSIONERS TO 3002 P.08/08 U ( 14 this County to provide the money ne d for new schools. He told of a new school built in Caswell Co y for 600 students for $4,525,624 compared to McDougle for 0 students at a cost of 11.5 million. He feels the school board eeds to consider the most economical and viable way to provide one new schools. ZND OY PUPLIQ Chair Carey acknowledged that l4tters have been received from Jill Blackburn in support of the pr sed increase in the school impact fee. He received a letter fr Harry Jacobs asking that the Board make some tangible efforts o address several equity and procedural concerns before raising t impact fee. Also, a letter was received on May 26 from Joan C. ith asking that the Board of County Commissioners strongly oppose ssing the facilities impact fee. Chair Carey announced that the and of County Commissioners will consider a decision on this it at their June 5, 1995 regular meeting. Commissioner Willhoit made refe nce to a table Mr. Collins had a year ago showing the number of wilding permits in the County's planning jurisdiction. It s broken down by mobile homes and site building. To the ext d that this data is available, he would like to have an ate of this table. He recalls that about 50% of the build permits in the County were for mobile homes and most of the bui ing permits in Chapel Hill were for multibedroom homes. This c ld provide a basis for a differential fee. With no further consents, Chair grey, Jr. adjourned the meeting. The next regular meeting o the Board will be on Nonday, June 5, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Or a Grove Community Center in Bingham Township. Cha r Carey, Jr. Beverly A. Blythe TOTAL P.08 From:JIB or Dkk 8lwkoum To.Orange Courrty Commisionars nun:aa rage e or� ; ,may Yaa,ix76 Lu t7 e 15 TO: Orange County Commissioners DATE: May 25,1995 FROM: Jill Blackburn 405 Lyons Road Chapel Hill,Nc 27514-7632 RE:TONIGHT'S MEETING Unfortunately I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting. However,I would like to take this opportunity to relay my feelings about the proposed increase of the impact fees. Our public school system is in a crisis. As has been discussed many times over the last year by teachers,taxpayers and school children we'need to desperately get our schools on track Orange County,the flag ship county of our state should have schools with adequate space for foreign languages,art and music rooms and adequate daily teaching space.We do not have this at the present and our children are being taught in"make-do"facilities. Please help to solve this problem One solution is to increase the impact fees. Of course,this will not fund the complete cost for building new schools but it WILL help.The slight increase will not impact the price of new homes to the extent of affordability problems. Please vote yes for the increase in impact fees. Barry Jacobs 9197324541 F. 02 L 16 2201 Moorefields Road Hillsborough,,N.C.27278 May 25,1995 Mr. Moses Carey,Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners. 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough,N.C.27278 Dear Mr. Carey: I will be unable to attend tonight's hearing due to a conflicting board meeting,so I've asked that this letter be read aloud and entered into the public record concerning your deliberations on impact fees. I applaud the efforts of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County to meet school needs in a responsible,timely fashion,, and-to seek alternative funding sources to lessen the impacts of growth. However,before raising impact fees from their current level of$750 per new house,I urge you to consider,and make some tangible efforts to address,several equity and procedural concerns. Modern Orange County government has taken especial care to protect the interests of the disadvantaged in formulating public policy.To that end,there has been discussion of modifying the fee structure to lessen the burden on lower- income homeowners. But no mechanism to achieve that goal is in place.Such a scale should be in place prior to raising fees.Citizens also should have an opportunity to discuss this graduated scale prior to its implementation. Another equity question regards the taxation of long-ti me residents for the supposed impact their new houses will create.In fact,those citizens have long paid taxes that went to address school and other county needs.Now that th" able to move out of a rental situation,manufactured home or other limited living arrangement,it is excessive to make them pay an equivalent amount to that collected from a county newcomer.(For the record,I will fall into this category If you proceed on your current course.) Ftocedurally,too,I urge you to do more work before committing to higher fees. A full,aspen discussion should be held on the advisability of levying impact fees on new industry locating in the county.We may choose not to pumue this avenue;to not even explore it prior to raising residential taxes is unwise. Barry Jacobs 9197324941 P. 03 17 Further,the position taken by the Orange County Board of Education apposing an impact fee increase highlights the need for better coordination in the planning process. I'm certain much effort has been expended in this regard;at one time I was among those expending it.Clearly, though,the need remains. Thank you for year consideration Sincerely, Presentation to Orange County Commissioners by Peter Morcombe at the Orange County Courtroom on May 25, 1995 18 I am a parent with a child attending the Carrboro elementary school. It will therefore be no surprise that I want to see more money spent in the classroom and more schools constructed. However, there is no need to raise our taxes. Just eliminate the waste. Some weeks ago I called one of the Commissioners to ask why he was so eager to raise taxes and yet had shown no interest in cutting waste. He replied that expenditures in our public schools are in line with others in North Carolina. He is right. We are in line with public schools across the state and across the nation. American public schools spend more than any other country and yet rank near the bottom in scholastic achievement. Private schools get the job done with half the dollars per student. Until some progress has been made to close this gap, you should not even think of raising taxes. Three months ago, grass roots organizations from all over North Carolina made presentations on education to state legislators. State House members did not restrict us to three minutes. They listened to us and they are acting to reduce the size of government at state level. Now I ask you to follow their lead and reduce the size of government at the local level. In Raleigh, our presentation had fifteen charts. To comply with your time limit, the presentation has been condensed to a single chart. This chart compares the number of administrators in the CHCCS system to private schools with the same student enrollment. Ask yourselves whether the extra administrators in the public schools help or hinder academic achievement. Comparisons of service personnel show a similar picture. Public education in North Carolina accounts for 95% of the market. This constitutes a monopoly. When you have a monopoly, the management is always right and the customers are always wrong. The result is widespread discontent with our public schools. For example, taxpayers are frustrated because there is no meaningful fiscal oversight. The budgets presented to you hide 90% of the expenditures in the continuation budget which you rubber stamp every year. The continuation budget includes all of the programs from previous years, even if they have failed. We need zero based budgets to permit all expenditures to be reviewed. Today, you are being asked to approve the purchase of more deck chairs for the Titanic. You are not given any information on what is happening on the bridge or below the main deck. Our education administrators expect you to trust them because they are professionals. Just remember that the Titanic was built by professionals and the Ark was built by amateurs. Attachment: Administrators: Public vs. Private x ;. 19 Pm ,.•`.tj.;:Y•:Z, `Z:'.vY::v'•:'••;,:;t. ..t. ,: ;i6i£" w 9::.. ��Ln'irvj>.ji:•N!.v•.}��,' �n vYk}k•: n`y>},.. w:ti?kfk•22t;.jv:<2t•;h �":".. �ki�.t•:Yy��1yy:, .G:2 ::'' ,#��,,44�`".r.::a;:YF .:�'vv>t;�.v:'i'„'7�"•`»+:ki:: �:vk7c;2:: ""v f� kY,'vr.4•::}„EY.-•`•,r'` .}'{, C.;n"'+•'"ir '•,�'.,:n:x:i' •..�.:?,`.'yY �.`.t•}:::?w•:ikw.`•:•`.'s' :vf.•'::n,;•+'•�,`.`'�•. ''22,E"J'G.$:^•. ;;: gj:E•s> ''~2 ;3wiy,?2YXn.;t• 2:;•."'�,,;:;^::;;. ;;,.: �\ '.^..xv,x :,.},:�.r••;��,:titjs'sti".•`.'�it�iii�:'�;;; •:,:�'�`h� l N'�� £<}2~:'�,,2.tGt2•'',.Y•:'•k.�,£Y'r�.n:'�2:•2.�':•`E ter 2:3`;x:::•2:.txt ,}:}^k•;2«rL�...v;,i•.�cy .•.`„Yw�.;;n.v.:Y•:y: ;;tY, vi:T!££;9:ktr{.bj:9.,aiL?ji jj<ikiri•`.2:j:7. £:ii:??Y�i^` :i{Y7:•}:;it{.•.{•.ythf,•Y:iiY:'{3•:i:{::LY•}i!i'ttrL4:•j:ti+� <�xYr:: �a,,,v.'<�{':i'i;v..x:,•.xzn....,}...:.,. .#_:`';^::3 <:�^:�%:. :F:.a?' n*r. %!s7.3 :.9rxr:L:v. xx.jwi• C%2%Y..:'4fi??••:?7:F �2?•,:;;::£c•ct'9;G:k:^:`?.::'.:nY�'C.•Y .:•LY e£:•n2.�»,vnL,•::n:,v.??Y..v3.•y}.j:xti:::;••;:y":L• _ :E•`.'27>° .Qi:r:•.w+.k3;C: '',a:,'c:2:'; ,;Y;ik?iY•:L9;2Y +::7,•'y:>.2%v'�^:E:"'t::�`: :Fnf .t:•v,.''.'`f`2 v..•+M1'v4`.":v:+"�•+`.:,"'.E,')1Yv .(`L•,kY'£�t'%"£?LY :iC::;`.�:"��r'•.','��::y:;.4•• Y: ":fi�''::;�:i:<�:MY•Y�::2�:" ttt':A+3#v r••r.^•�•;,E::EY•`:,:3/:: .4 i'i'i.vlxf.v E C:C .,,L",•,:};ZE2?, •kr.n.%li fr�j+• yY>yr::22YL:,.A;y<2,}r..;:.A ;f .ti�%2:`5?"'?'` ..;;.£�'�• .YYh;.,2>.3o:7:•t::r 2<..,�.YY:E��,+L', C �;"''.vT::t �.� .F.;:Y:..;;,,..M1•:E;; xv?? r,yi, �3+'Ej •.+r!xt;: kii• �.jYµ.':^;:.,.1..G.}rn,}tx.,?}_;'nt:li:tyn`..2:;•:'"Y,:+Y L..n•:'N%,�•;.ivt' �::t:.:l'i/N'..•c"^a ti'v.;G:.,::Y,.}3J r:d•.:.+......;.:4 v 'YY 1}.i v.. ;:F:'y:{Q%`iY M• �• . i...}L f,t .}.iY•:.'.••w.:i`6�k•';''uYY/t xt.i.'l,i.,?r••?.Y:.:t:,.,..::Y.M::2Y••J�Y.E.;:�.::Y.: .i /M „ , rµAM% .4:>4�£:{:•h.. :+:iv'ry%`S,2:; :L iv ,•, }rt:2 .. .is'C�•••}:n'i?'.L.j:'?�'>.j?'c nor •�."ii•.i::y j�'+.::Y:,"�:;f,•.;t:%?i:-. vRr•:� •.:$;r £:.trt `2;`y::f •:3;vi»<;.ii ;� •:i'•Lt:v::•.v;....4r:!Y',�?' h,A.nf9.v:.:•.. :•:,{{ ' rSSY:.;i:;:'.+7'£'it<y � i:T::?'•'.LS:P:�.., ��:EY?rt2r`j:Y. :;n:L+" fi..;£ ,.,:.:..v,,`.Y.y:: :. .?:„^w•.:k,:L:. ,..,•y �! •y ::tEi:s Yxn}Y ?`{•.w• M:r::;Y :E ice.`!�9�W„k};.•.; :?} 3i:':•'Y. : Y•+.2, ,v,•:s'r,E2E'tiiYfi,i�•k:t?xL.'t•`k>:�: ,2}nYiY •r!c• +t9.Y•27.•, ,,.:. R;t92:•. iiS.2:Rr" n,i:i.?27: r.•:.::n,Y?z^'C.'2v .v^.•..ti.?.:. .:.�' :,3}r>"`^r:+'t,:^;^5�+,,,} �:v n:•�Y`x$^v',:,yn`J....:y:: "�}'�.`*£.';tiay'�Y;Y:i'•'.•'i�,x. +ii::k: : .•E pL' :`'rty:• , : '"•• "¢.tiE:?�<>r; •., :t zi>z223 zr z Y: !! t'r Y 'zvxYiz> . •'•; ;a•wx,.�'"m , ,•!t.,'}'!:` .iiiiw.';?`.+ :i^•..:22?,L.,,2i�yx::Z�^ ' ,�,.}";•,•�.. ::^ern•` .n r.',��.}.E: ziii{��+'�`"��''•,'-;• .i£a!x �.; t�y:>;� ,�`� . ;�„ :% •:. .x. •: ,•:v ;;;:t?•":e;.•�,:•?y 2'.^.?i;i;,;y?;'.?;: •.:,YY�x'xY^'. ;;•;•;iY:z:.Y: '^Yr,x.,tr"r^a;x;•`#i2µ:sY•• :.,L!"!,: z..A:nw:.ny:??::x„:tv u: r}sY7;9Yir,°iv,yi?>.s%” �,!�N� r r:���::`:y}}:•r}•; n:£�:C'y,:' ::E�:•`.'Eki:•,':YJ' .c:;k'•`."::kL::` j...4CfY•L;tY.jj•i 23i�'`Y ;,vz�.r�%:uz�;rjgEi, ;d:'r•'.w,x •wY ,xiY,az;i .,�:%;VE:>r• :.;My:;zi;!�,•. .9'•j::r.;yt!f;:'v'iyi,: ;:;�vv`y•u •:;y.,•:.,;v uY't: t`^•.;;"'G:22{: ,} .h.,L•n nv...,.,:..nm n ''ri:{•::i•: :Yr{Y•:i � m•\,,::..v:x•.:.Y:vn,..:{vktry• x.ivt.£f�'Yf..�hri•.Ex: r::i:4:4:L:tL ^..2vS2:`:`y^vnx:rYiEi::'`t:••'c''rxyt:: .::.LY:.s:.•::n•::..Y t'v✓. v:"{;;•;v+.t;i?rn ::2"ti� '.'{227Y:4:}xnvnv:iv ?•`:`,tY' :::n ,.:,22..,::rt..,v:A:�r,`.":..v :•`.�`�>.�:L':�:�:?vi``�:J' ::..t2..:'�.: ix`�:;G:.w^ki>:'^nom' :'r%•i''E•r�Ii::•w .wl.nv :^w9r:.. :tfiq:nw,.•n;. tt.Y.};.;;•x;t•:;977s97r:•77:•� ...2.7i.,y; ;:...,.,:. ,;t iii,•.,•xvt:ttutx•:t;;.:i:;LO' •tt:y'•#:•:^ Yw ,. > +�:*£'' ,�2'• ::.Y ':`` S.w.;•.,:•n:.Ytix:j^.,::;::n'ts':?t.,^t.:t;•:S ay.•::.:J 977>i+7+Y }? im iE%,a.n.f:.. _ '?�E•`'.'•ji:2:Y?.,�:.2?Y2:9.2 tk ?:+.:r!•?YY::YYt.:oxL: v.•/Y r••^x9r.}:t•:.......*�x}•+7£:Y •is 2:'222':�:�i+'2:�" ,:r?•+.::E:j:iiii:j:iiE 2r:•.`.L";'•,:!:E:;;r:•r:•:t:Gj::S;:' ';.i.n ...wy ..�.::.::;rw:;:•:::::is r•:;:...: ,'•ii k;�y`:r:Yrk;j;;::.:f:r:v:::.J,:{Z"YNi9;{t:.}9+.•:�.:yn.: •:•,•;2:•,••ij iiij:9;.:::.,i•:. },.r...v :>•Y:Y+Y•::}}:.}.:;.•.::,:..;}.},r:.;:}:• :•`:•':r�>:i?i';';::r•' cL:k:n i•.vn;Y.•.., ...L :.:u..:. y};: +.vu.•n,x•n,vnvv:nx,:•. .:::: .v:!•i;•:jj jtr:; .. .»-::::.w:::nv::;:•n.:.:t.x..:,vY:,,,:,::L•:,9r n: �tv: Q1 Ei'trtY iilY 2iisi::E:':SEE::EE��%': :••` yiY: :f:' ':':;.',• ..::£:?Y.Yi££:222:2:£222r:.....J....:............. O ........:.:.........: L::Yii::�Y:;{:: i:YYtYl •^r}':":•':j-:i:;ji{rtititi±<•....... .sti:3�t }:•n::•;:::nr£ti-:t::..t•�••i'9Yi•97:•7777• •-.+::nth d7f::n:L :•:bx :..:'f.:: 9•} £ki•::Cv:.L•.vn,Y ...,....£:iEiY:j:YYi: A.Ez r 2`r 2•„ VI V" . xw vYn k VA,:v: x ns �ii.iY v{.£;YiYii n `S:22r.Q •2YcY' ;:;:�?rY,t?r,.;jyw:;>itiii•:,2.:YY T :nx9:.v:9,bs3'•''•jr:}ii 2:.Y:,'!^;i•},3:2.., ^ :;i:•:v !:t::t`>k32,`XYC'+T+n.,X,^•.. v.:,:,ot;:}o `•`'`.�•F.2>.2'.; -`��`L'` �r,�? :k`lbkhPi'2Ct,•k..Jf'�';::`%::Ei! �` m9'4:t»v 0 Poo ct v>v'vv y �1 Mo ' :i rky ,Y:LiY ..j2µN:{t,.y., i'•Y Y.:.,is vki�,,Y, �� iY>•• < : 4Y:4. 1y��1 : ,2%X2•sss•-si£iy ::::.. y......,., ENO f •iiiiii;i�2 Y•" n, 03 V e Cd O e 0 U t-, O a, O N a May 26, 1995 Dear Commissioner Carey: 20 I wanted to write and tell you that I strongly oppose raising the facilities impact fee from $750 to $1500. I attended the public hearing last night, but cannot speak in public and prefer to write this letter. As a matter of fact, I think the $750 fee should be eliminated altogether. This fee is unfair to the citizens of Orange County. I feel that those dwellings having children should pay for those children. My son graduated from the Orange High School. I have been a tax-paying citizen all my life and have more than paid my dues for his education. We are being"taxed to death" and this has got to stop somewhere. The cost to build a home in this county is already outrageous. The existing building fees, inspection fees, and permits we have now already put a financial hardship on the citizens, and now this impact fee! This will raise the cost of housing in this county even more and eliminate many citizens from realizing the American dream of owning their own home. I work in Durham and hear many of my co-workers refer to the"high Orange county taxes". Newcomers are choosing Chatham, Durham and Alamance over Orange due to these high taxes. I own property in the White Cross community that has been in my family for over one-hundred years. Can you imagine how much my family and I have paid in taxes on this same property year after year after year? We plan to build a modest home there sometime next year. This impact fee will put a financial hardship on my husband and me. We do not plan to have anymore children and do not feel that we should have to pay this impact fee. I feel that a serious investigation needs to be done regarding wasteful spending. Also, thousands and thousands of dollars could be saved on the actual building of these schools if"plain" buildings were erected instead of fancy elaborate buildings resembling hotels and shopping centers. I have seen both New Hope Elementary and McDougal. There is no justification for this type of architectural structure. A child would receive just as good an education in a plain"A-framed" building. It is not what is on the outside, but what is in the inside that counts. If this fee is to remain in effect, some sort of sliding scale needs to be worked out whereas the dwellings having children accept the responsibility for these children and pay for their education. I would like a list of the commissioners who are"for" raising this impact fee. Can you send me this information or call me at(919) 932-6923. I want to make note of this and remember it at the next election and pass it along to everyone I can. Please vote NO to this fee increase and encourage the other commissioners to do the same!!! I would appreciate it if you could share this letter with the other commissioners as well as Mr. Marvin Collins,the Planning Director. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joan C. Smith 2416 Borland Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 ARCi Car rboro ALLEN & SUSAN SPALT 300 James Street 21 Carrboro, North Carolina 27510 Home: 919/967-1886 Work: 919/967-1 86 May 24, 1995 Moses Carey, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Hillsborough, NC BY FAX: 644-3004 Dear Moses: Because of conflicts, we may not be able to appear at the rheeting of the Board of Commissioners meeting on May 25th when you consider the . impact fee for new development to pay for school construction. Please allow us to express our support for an increase by letter. We would appreciate your sharing this letter, with other Board members and enter ng it;into the' record. We are convinced that substantial increases in local revenue are needed to pay for the impact of new rapid development on the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School System. An increased impact fee is an, important part of the revenue mix. INCREASE CHAPEL HILL/CARRBORO IMPACT FEE TO AT LEAST $11500. A couple of years ago the Commissioners wisely established ark Impact fed for new residgntial construction as a part of a plan to pay for needed n facilities. The fee was set at $750 for new houses throughout the coup . The fee has been an important source of revenue, but it Is now clear tha it�is too low. We urge you to raise it to at least $1,5 00 per new residen ce for the Chapel Hilt/Carrboro school district. i $FPARATE CHAPEL•HIWCARRBORO AND ORANGE COUNTY FEES, IF NECESSARY. If-the increase is not needed and/or desired in the Orange County school district, then we urge you to increase the fee only for the C�apel Hill/Carrboro district. IMPACT FEE STUDY ALSO NEEDED. it is clear to us that the situation wo Id justify a substantially different fee producing greater revenue. It cout be a larger flat fee or one scaled to the size and impact of.particular types of houses. Given the importance of having a sound basis for this type of fee, we urge the Board to proceed'with a study over the summer of the most appropriate and effective type and size of impart fee. ARC,,Car rboro j� Orange County Commissioners 22 : HARDSHIP MEASURES DESIRA$LE, We support whatever reasonable. measures can be taken to mitigate the impact of any fee in cases of tru hardship and in the interests of affordable housing. Unfortunately, littl affordable housing is being built now and not because of the present or proposed impact fees. A developer in Carrboro recently tried,to present $200,000 housing as "affordable"! OTHER REVENUE ALSO NEEDED. Unfortunately, it is likely that other revenue sources are also needed to meet school needs. Fortunately, the e ate several options available to reduce the need to depend on any single source. We expect that increases in the general property tax, the speci if Chapel Hill/Carrboro District tax, and the sales tax, if available, at we I as a bond issue, may ali be necessary. Get TER COORDINATION CAN HELP IN THE LONGER TERM. This is not an easy time, but we are experiencing the consequences of rapid growth. iAe ate encouraged that Orange County, the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrbor , the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board, and interested citizens including Shop Overcrowding Schools (SOS) are all beginning to talk together about hOw efforts can be better coordinated and managed. It is certainly not fair to have the costs of growth born by the.children in inadequate schools. In summary, while we work out longer term solutions, please take the important step of Increasing the impact fee to at least $1,500. ; Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Ath-t ---. S `. Allen & Susan Spalt �IBR 23 l� Home Builders Association of Durham and Chapel Hill dDurtum88ChapelHill 20 W.Colony Place•Suite 180• Durham, North Carolina 27705 •Phone 919/493-8899• FAX 919/490-5905 COMMENTS AT PUBLIC HEARING MAY 25, 1995 The Home Builders Association of Durham& Orange Counties is opposed to school impact fees because they deny the fundamental truth that the public school system is an indivisible benefit of life in the community. By singling out one class of citizen--new home buyers--for additional expense, the County is inferring that new home buyers get a larger share of benefit from the school system than do other citizens. Starting down the road of trying to determine who gets the greatest benefit from schools leads almost immediately to assertions that childless citizens should not be paying for school capital facilities because they have no impact on the school system. Such a proposal would be considered preposterous in a community that understands the broad range of contributions and needs of its population and rises above attempts to calculate the value of an intangible like good education for the next generation. One need not consider for very long the alternatives to realize that a healthy construction industry is a critical component of a healthy community. A community which is not experiencing new construction is a community that is experiencing declining property values, declining tax base, and declining services. We find the study that justifies the proposed increase to be problematic on several grounds: a. There is no 0 growth scenario against which school capital expenditures are measured. What would be the effect if there were no new residences built in Orange County for the next 3 years? Would we still need the new school buildings that have been proposed? If so, doesn't it stand to reason that the community will be buying the schools in any case and that the cost of new students is less than the per capita share of the new building? In fact,the new students will increase the efficiency of the schools. If not, shouldn't the alternative of more temporary arrangements be analyzed as a possible school site answer? Are we making a wise choice when we build large, traditional school buildings, with no planned future conversion? Or,would we be better off utilizing agreements to lease buildings for a set period of time, after which the private owners would have the right to convert the property to other uses? � � —4n :—{"i&,tc of tQ c -4ssoei.uon of v4o—c lKild-, 24 ' 3 9� oZ, - - - 1 ' t•�--" l.r ...w„r„ ...,tee.un,. -- negod _ ECONOMIC FOCUS cal oil enor 25 the .Makin Developers Pay : � te-J big sal s Impact Fees ain F ar An' G avar As they S 3/SS intent By JACQUELINE,BUENO lanta developers usually paid the cost of Wing Staff Repnrter of Tim WALL STREF,T JOURNAL growth solely through the value of such control Leon Eplan, Atlanta's commissioner improvements,called"exactions.” The of planning and development, has be- But the$2.9 million cash windfall can tints' come a believer. be used in ways exactions couldn't,says Brav( Just two years ago, Mr. Eplan was Mr.Eplan.For example,to receive some GiJ skeptical of the city's decision to charge federal grants, municipalities must con- critics. developers a fee for every new project tribute some of their own money toward they built.Worried that such a levy would to be Projects. t t ,drive builders out to the suburbs and slow c;ra the city's growth, he thought it best to That explains w ."just forget the whole idea." instance, is using$ But city officials implemented the fees pact-fee funds to he anyway, citing a need to raise funds for the 1996 Olympic G public improvements government is kicki (� Now, Mr. Eplan is all the happier for transportation grant .it.Not only have the fees generated about lion in cash�has gene $5.8 million in cash and services for At lanta, but the city has multiplied the million in grants. So,with the fees gether,the total bene lovr Atlala Player . N a million in two years.' 1+ �Impai: •Fi Qa�11 more than the$6 mill Fees charged deveipersiiiy+�aje city received in the h ciiy titliirtj of tne funds,end_matcitili plementing the impac gcahtS�eilerztted by iltosE tiiitfBy Rpdt:r , r Still,the fees have t88�to lyafch 1895> a than the$9 million a nally estimated it wou son is the large num Gish�` mitlierf that have been grant t�tr 1a1Silmpro{iment $ ;.. ., far.Exemptions are m public schools, low-ins • r ah Yl�sfttati+drt. d tftrllfc projects in underdeveloped areas. pgrs '6474,2!3° � �� And not everyone is in favor of impact fees. Because of the complicated fee for- Matching Grants mulas, some developers complain about l'caijpoitatieit�"` 3, s lid ° huge amounts of paperwork. "There's so much effort and time and ant W i+hrBLr IiittP ii Y, Nt- bookkeeping required that sometimes = � you wonder if it's not better to go out and .value of the money, using it to attract build the road"instead of paying a fee to -matching federal grants for road con- build It,says George Barry, senior vice •struction and park renovations. president of Cousins Properties Inc., a The fees,Mr.Eplan says, "have been commercial and residential builder in At- a major way for us to do things we lanta. couldn't have done otherwise." But some developers applaud the im- Those are encouraging words for a Pact-fee system for other reasons.Under growing number of officials throughout the old system, some developers com- the Southeast,who are considering simi- plained that local governments weren't .lar fee programs in their municipalities. demanding equal payment from all The levies,called impact fees,are used to builders.The local officials merely asked pay for roads, parks, libraries, schools, for whatever exactions seemed appropri- sewers, public-safety programs and ate.Some developers had to make major other such things that growing communi- contributions, while others—smaller ties demand. ones in particular—made none. Atlanta was one of the first municipal- So, in 1990, the Georgia Legislature sties in the Southeast to charge impact outlawed the old method. Local govern- =fees, but now such fees are becoming ments had to develop a more equitable "the strategy for collecting funds" method of payment,or forgo payment at among local governments, says Marty all. Municipalities began deciding to im- Leitner, a Kansas City, Mo.,lawyer who pose impact fees. "Now every developer is helping Beaufort County, S.C., create is on a level playing field." says Barry an impact tee program. Finkelstein, spokesman for Atlanta de- Chatham and Orange counties in veloper John Wieland Homes. North Carolina recently received legisla- Possibly the biggest losers are con- tive a r roval to implement the fees to r {P { snorers, who:u e finding the (ees n;isset{ Fees charged developers for new projects, city received in the two years before im- city spending of the funds,ind matching plementing the impact fees. grants generated those outl ''A April,-;by ��. P Still, tl;�tees have generated far less 95: 1993.to March 19 .y 1 ..„ than the$9 illion a year the city origi _ nally estimated it ould receive.One rea- �• son is the large n ber of exemptions 26 Cesh ESesS-$2.9 milhon� �, ., ;, .: that have been gran —$7.3 million so ' Vefii irriprovementsi$2.9 rttiflio far.Exemptions are ma for builders of ;R .. � ©� \public schools, low-incom hou ing and Trai3""" Zii3i1: $1.4mfilioti.:<;~ t'�. projects in underdeveloped eas. Parks:', 4,299:�'��'0"` ' And not everyone is ill favo f impact "'°'"� "" 71 fees Because of the edmplicate fee for- = mull , some devel6pers complain about Titiiiiisjioftati i_$9.9 million_ ":nx huge dMounts of paperwork. "Th�(e's so much effort and time and 5oiiiCaiAflartbtfureau Planning :'° ' ::}±r bookkeepltlg required that sometimes ` \\ you w6nde if it's not better to go out and .value of the money, uS g it to attract build the roa "instead of paying a fee to matching federal grants or road con- '6uild it, says eorge Barry, senior vice struction and park renovati s. president of Co sins Properties Inc., a The fees,Mr.Eplan says, avg been commercial and r idential builder in At- major way for us to do t rigs we At- lanta. uldn't have done otherwise. But some develop applaud the im- Those are encouraging,words r a pact-fee system for othe reasons.Under gro ing number of officials through ut the old•system, some d elopers com- the utheast.who are considering sim plained that local governor ts-aren't lar 1,jr in their municipalities. demanding equal paymQnr rom all The levy ,cald impact fees,are used to uilders.The local officials mere asked pay for r ds, parks, libraries, schools, f whatever exactiofis seemed appropri- sewers, p" lic-safety programs and ate. ome developers had to make major other such thi that growing communi contrr tions, while others—sm r -ties demand. ones in fticular—made none. Atlanta;as on f the first municipal- So, in 0, the Georgia gislature ities in the Southea i to charge impact outlawed the Id method..Local govern- fees, but now such f are becoming . rnents had to elop.a'more equitable "the strategy for col ting funds method of paymen �forgo payment at among local governments, ays Marty all. Municipaliti s e an deciding t - Leitrim a Kansas City,Mo.,l yef who pose impact s. "Now every d Loper is helping Beaufort County, S.C:, create is on a le playing field,"dar Barry an im act fe a Finkels rn, spokesman for t de- Chatham and Orange counties ft velop John Wieland Homes. North Carolina recently received legisla ossi� y61 the biggest losers are con-- tive approval to implement the fees to sumers,who are finding the fees passed help build new schools. In Georgia, the on to them.At Wieland, Mr. Finkelstein city of Fayetteville, located just south of says,impact fees have raised the cost of Atlanta, implemented impact fees two building a luxury home by as much as weeks ago. $3,000,which the company tacks on to the And in Tennessee, six counties are price. Ultimately, newcomers, rather considering the idea.Among them is Wil- than existing residents, end up funding son County,where County Executive Val most of the cost. Similarly, commercial Kelley has proposed charging home tenants in new buildings are likely to find builders 98 cents for every square foot they build. The county needs about $62 the impact fees reflected in higher rents. f million for projects ranging from a new Even so, the impact fees haven't landfill to new roads. stalled growth,as Mr.Eplan—and many "We could take [the debtl and load it developers—originally feared. Atlanta onto the existing property owners," by last year issued permits for a record $1 raising property taxes,says Mr. Kelley. billion in new construction, a 25916 in- "But that's not fair. All we're saying is, crease over the amount for each of the let the growth pay its way." He also previous two years. And this year, ac- wants to use the cash to obtain matching cording to the city's planning depart- federal grants,as Atlanta does. ment,the city expects to issue permits for Almost exactly half of the$5.8 million about$800 million. Atlanta reaped within the past two years Though last year's increase may be a was in cash. The other half was in the temporary surge sparked by the form of improvements, such as road re- Olympics, Mr. Eplan's enthusiasm for pairs and school construction,that devel- impact fees remains undiminished. The opers made to public areas. Before the fees, he says, "have gone way beyond implementation of the iqipact fees, At- their monettary value." 27 WE, the undersigned, although unable to attend the public hearing on May 25, 1995, urge the Orange County Commissioners to: (1) increase the impact fee on new residential construction to $1, 500 immediately; (2) carry out a survey this summer to establish representative student-generation rates for new residences; and (3 ) establish an appropriate sliding scale for impact fees as soon as possible thereafter, to incoporate local school construction standards and newly established student- generation rates . NAME ADDRESS PHONE (J �X/2 H n•� ��'/'...., r, _ �-��l- � �f/-/Lu�r•,�� �'j `�.-�. � '� C`1!��� Cl��c�� -,C/�7 t'. I < � �! r 1 c"'�\ ��"l ��c 1 -� �(_ ✓ �� �' �� ,�- -t'� "�-. I r ��/' �-'�. - - � �G 7 7 I lJ 1 ICU 3!-4 —1 r� IL nsi'/ GF,f-0<; QL/ - C fir,_ r- r )q L q //� r`i� �,•..1 _� ��/I. / /� H%r/r_ •I' C .� _ `' i� 7t:� (�r �' I�✓1 (—f'- �1'-�� t_-L i..�� �/ k-j-�t ( ..� L 1- �_� � T � �_r - l(,,`� - Z Ljj= f) Z -199 1 28 WE, the undersigned, although unable to attend the public hearing on May 25, 1995, urge the Orange County Commissioners to: (1) increase the impact fee on new residential construction to $1, 500 immediately; (2) carry out a survey this summer to establish representative student-generation rates for new residences; and (3 ) establish an appropriate sliding scale for impact fees as soon as possible thereafter, to incoporate local school construction standards and newly established student- generation rates . AS PHONE C (z0� */ 1367-77-37 sc�u2 AL, 4 4 L- Lis 2 9�9 glZ h r C _f a8 N/ �/ ;y CA-- J33 S ;r-- 29 WE, the undersigned, although unable to attend the public hearing on May 25, 1995, urge the Orange County Commissioners to: (1) increase the impact fee on new residential construction to $1, 500 immediately; (2) carry out a survey this summer to establish representative student-generation rates for new residences; and (3 ) establish an appropriate sliding scale for impact fees as soon as possible thereafter, to incorporate local school construction standards and newly established student- generation rates . NAME / ADDRESS PHONE I o Cr cc ks A;4e Irl vc �' 9 K2- 92 3 (� S0 m-e i-se7- pr , C H `�G'7_7 3? t� - 30? ' j,3 ESQ 10-O t-f - ��° S boa .Ells- 9'33-���4� S` R 2- �- 30 WE, the undersigned, although unable to attend the public hearing on May 25, 1995, urge the Orange County Commissioners to: (1) increase the impact fee on new residential construction to $1, 500 immediately; (2) carry out a survey this summer to establish representative student-generation rates for new residences; and (3 ) establish an appropriate sliding scale for impact fees as soon as possible thereafter, to incoporate local school construction standards and newly established student- generation rates . NAME ADDRESS PHONE _Jep UCWZtn Z3 t 0e&y Ze_e$ 400 1ftirX&M AAf Coe1 AIC ��'940;v � � 3 5 `1 14Aimck n 31 WE, the undersigned, although unable to attend the public hearing on May 25, 1995 , urge the Orange County Commissioners to: ( 1) increase the impact fee on new residential construction to $1, 500 immediately; (2) carry out a survey this summer to establish representative student-generation rates for new residences; and (3 ) establish an appropriate sliding scale for impact fees as soon as possible thereafter, to incoporate local school construction standards and newly established student- generation rates . NAME //i ADDRESS PHONE 16 to s ue- t % .? U {o� D 11 q33 h� =32 We, the undersigned support following strategies for ensuring that future residential growth is linked to responsible and timely expansion in school capacity. L The areas' school boards_ school administrations, and elected officials must accept mutual responsibility for ioint planning. Higher revenues from impact fees are needed, and other funding sources must be foun+. A school impact study should be required for. proposed developments. 4. Concurr:ne}•should be considered as an effectiVre plannirl tool. �. Developers of sizable subdivisions could be required to donate land. 6. Residential grovvth must not be allowed to outpace and oven;-helm our schools' capacity to provide high quality education. Name Address Phone 3. acv o c I - 4. 5. 6. 9 yo 6 6lEr,�,�y�✓��.� C'�` >3/0/ 10. Z-711-4,4,",,M PL CK 13. G'C) wPd k, , o27s/ 14. �/Gl G a-, ' c H z>�i 15, a,w Yo z A,?,6 6-7"' c 16. n cvo �,�d 17 —� -el 7S k 1-9. y0 20. Ittu 21. 4 91d r/q ,�-� 22. '�- ✓ ; 33 2311 2-1. K Lam._._ Z Z w cl J v,. P C I-f C 2-"7 1j(, 27. 1 28. l o t sll 29. D tA&/c. /d r- CN S% 30. Is i 1 32. 33. 34. - a-7si — 39. 40. U o � 42. 7400 Tan=, O.V Z 7B 1 C. A 45. a,,. c 47. S� Lzueg_ -e 48. r nkzu' I 49. L L�,,L (.� CM 50 �` s� 8-R";9—CC 51. (90 h M-&I(V o-o Stay filo Q 7-7576 52. o,4 l 53. " (4*.4�_ i nor V, r 54. CW 55. 56; , � • � � . / �/��. r✓ ate. M • � I OEM MW WA MAN®R i u . . I ffI VA,l� WA-WR- Wi' t 35 A7 o5 J�Z' C P, 2 s J Dc\v 75, 1/ log IY�cjr�cf- gj ,?_ Oc.rr-In, :I 51 L. 9s o 93 1 C' a- b'5 ��a ckA Ioq ed, C W '21 P6 `3 A-1 .rvl �27 ol i(WhZg 2-704 5 4d:2' c 9 RL 7 .4 SiG -Tz pu� JILL, 11I)v4X6 S�) 36 May 22, 1995 Stop overcrowding schools To the Orange County Commissioners: We the undersigned, urge the Orange County Commissioners to: 1. Increase the Impact Fees on new residential housing to $1500.00 as currently proposed 2.To carry out the summer study of student generation numbers (in order to:) 3. Recalculate impact fees to an appropriate SLIDING SCALE (so as to prevent a regressive fee) Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust you will implement this fee in the fairest way possible to benefit our overcrowded schools. NAME ADDRESS PHON 44 Lc�f\ Pr U n Nome A!ddress Phone 37 IV --� t 1 2 (�rttrtgP Touu#U *r4unts coax" 38 �. fV t 200 EAST KING STREET •w E HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278-2570 °j PHONE 919-732-8126 ,.Sd ftq tm C"M fat sac=" March 21, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: John.Link, County Manager ` � r�-- FROM: William C. Harrison (� Superintendent REFERENCE: Orange County Board of Education Position on Impact Fees Based on a motion by Ralph Warren, seconded by Susan Dovenbarger, and approved by a vote of 6 to 1 (Keith Cook voting against the motion), the Orange County Board of Education has taken the following position on impact fees: 1 . The Board does not support impact fees as the solution to the school district's capital needs, 2. The Board opposes an increase to the impact fee, 3. The Board proposes keeping the fees as they presently exist for a year, during which time alternative mechanisms to address this issue are considered with a recommendation to broaden the non-residential tax base, and 4. Encourage the Commissioners to recruit business and industry as a means of expanding the tax base. /ha c: Orange County Board of Education