HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-06-1991MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MARCH 6, 1991
Approved April 1, 1991
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Joint Session
with the Chapel Hill Town Council at 5:30 p.m. in the Council
Meeting Room, Municipal Building, Chapel Hill, North Carolina to
discuss legislative matters.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., and
Commissioners Alice Gordon, Verla Insko and Don Willhoit.
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jonathan Howes, and Council
Members Nancy Preston, Joseph Herzenberg, Joyce Brown, and Julie
Andresen.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Members Alan Rimer, James Wallace,
Arthur Werner, and Roosevelt Wilkerson.
ORANGE COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: John Link, County Manger, Ted
Abernathy, EDC Director and Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk to the Board
of County Commissioners.
ORANGE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Geoff Gledhill
CHAPEL HILL STAFF PRESENT: Cal Horton, Town Manager, Pete
Richardson, Clerk to the Town Council and Greg Feller, Assistant
to the Manager.
CHAPEL HILL ATTORNEY: Ralph Karpinos
1. INTRODUCTIONS
Mayor Howes called the meeting to order and stated that the
meeting focus would be discussion of the proposed Orange County
Visitor Development Authority, as well as the Orange County Impact
Tax.
Mr. Horton indicated that the information provided by the
proposed Visitor's Center Task Force had been evaluated. Staff has
researched the idea, and citizen comments have been solicited and
received. From an economic standpoint it has been decided that a
break -even analysis would be the most effective one to be used.
In essence, in carrying out the proposal enough funds would be
generated to cover operating costs. The review of potential
contributions indicates that this venture could very well be self -
supporting. Discussion on the particular services and arrangements
for creation would be beneficial. He suggested that "service
Fa
bureau" or "commissioner" would be a more descriptive title. He
also indicated that the details do not need to be worked out before
presenting the request for authority to establish this Bureau to
the General Assembly.
In response to a question from Council Member Preston,
Chairman Carey indicated the EDC's suggestion was that the we
request authority for a maximum of a 3% tax. The details of how
much would actually be put into effect initially is not necessary
for the enabling legislation.
Council Member Brown asked if it was possible to request an
increase in the tax without indicating the intended use. Chairman
Carey indicated that the request could be handled that way.
Council Member Andresen indicated that she was interested in
discussing what vision the county had for this bureau. She also
expressed concern about the bureau's accountability in terms of
performance agreements.
Chairman Carey indicated that this bureau would capitalize on
the "clean industry" which already exists in the county and
municipalities with emphasis on getting people who are already
coming here to stay longer, as well as to attract small conferences
to this area. The details will be worked out after the authority
has been granted by the General Assembly. Attracting large
conventions to Chapel Hill is not a part of the vision.
In response to a question about what this Bureau could do that
the Downtown Commission and /or the Chamber of Commerce could not
do, Mr. Abernathy indicated that the Bureau would have an expert
on visitor services. Also, their entire focus would be enhancing
the visitors experience and encouraging more visitor to stay
longer.
Mayor Howes indicated that the expertise of the staff at the
visitor's bureau was the critical issue, not layering on another
level of bureaucarcy. This bureau would not have its own facility
and would have a staff of probably two people and certainly no more
than three people.
Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the request for a 3% tax
is not an unreasonable amount compared with what other communities
have requested. Seeking the authorization for 3% gives flexibility
for the future although 1% may be designated initially.
Council Member Brown stated that she felt having the money
earmarked for visitors might not be in the Town's best interest.
It may be that people will not travel as much in the future and
the money could be better spent for purposes other than trying to
promote travel to Chapel Hill.
Mayor Howes stated that this proposed Bureau would be
accountable to the Board of Commissioners and the Town Council.
.,M
This item will be discussed and voted upon at upcoming
meetings of the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County
Board of Commissioners. If passed, the General Assembly will be
asked to pass enabling legislation.
ORANGE COUNTY IMPACT TAX
Mr. Gledhill mentioned that the Impact Tax would be much more
manageable than trying to administer an Impact Fee. The Impact Fee
would require a nexus be established between the development which
is occurring and the infrastructure which that development would
require. It is a complicated process to keep that nexus in place.
That would not be required with an Impact Tax. The tax money
would be used for the same purposes. It would be held in capital
trusts and would be reserved to be used for the infrastructure that
the development creates, however, the calculations would not need
to be done. He indicated that this would be a tax on current
construction and would not be retroactive.
Council Member Preston stated that there is a great deal
already required of developers in Chapel Hill. They must pave the
roads, landscape, dedicate recreation land, and protect trees.
This Impact Tax could place an undue burden on them.
Commissioner Willhoit agreed that they are required to do
those things, however, they are not required to do anything for the
schools. The two systems are requesting upwards of $90,000,000 in
capital improvements which could be a property tax impact unless
other action is taken. He pointed out that if it were a fee it
would be relatively simple to define the impact on water and sewer
for residential development. Establishing the impact on the
schools would require changing the wording so that it was clearly
applicable within all of Orange County.
Mr. Gledhill indicated that the Impact Fee authority that the
Town has covers their planning jurisdiction. The County's Impact
Fee authority covers its planning jurisdiction. There is no
overlap. The Impact Tax would be imposed on all development in the
County, not just in on section.
Commissioner Willhoit remarked that the real impact is in
providing the additional classrooms. The largest percentage of the
increase in property taxes over the years has been for the schools.
The Impact Tax could help offset that increase in the future.
Council Member Andresen indicated that she believes further
study of the issue isneeded to determine the consequences this tax
will have on local developers.
Mr. Gledhill indicated that the Impact Tax proposal had two
features. It has a district in which the revenue is divided
between the town and county, with the town getting the tax
collected on development within the Town's jplanning jurisdiction.
1� -.
The rate will be decided jointly by the town and the county. The
other feature of the proposal is a county -wide impact tax for
school capital which would be retained 1006 by the County. The
only modification which has been made to the proposal, which was
approved by Carrboro /Chapel Hill and Orange County, is a feature
which allows the County to have impact fees. This would override
the section which states that if we have impact tax authority the
impact fee authority is repealed. The only change that has been
made would allow the impact fee authority to remain for the county
for water and sewer purposes. That is to address the eventuality
that the county will have to get into some kind of a governmental
monitoring program for alternative water and sewer. If that
happens, then the county is going to want to have fees so that
there will be a source of money to handle the costs involved.
Mr. Link indicated that the intergovernmental work group sent
a memorandum to the local jurisdictions, dated February 7,
1989,which addresses many of the questions which have been raised.
That memorandum would be a departure point for discussion on this
issue. That memorandum is attached.
Discussion on this issue was ended.
Mayor Howes indicated that the Town of Chapel Hill is pursuing
a stable revenue source to support the Triangle Transit Authority.
Some of the possible sources they are considering are taxes on
rental cars and /or parking. He requested that the county support
this request. They are also supporting state wide legislation
encouraging beverage container recycling.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was
adjourned.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman
Kathy Baker, Deputy Clerk
w
Moses Carey,
CL ange County
P.O. Box 8181
Hi l lskkorough ,
Dear Moses
r nK'
T011'N OF CHAPEL HILL
3013 N'OR'TH COLUMBIA STREET
�.IIAFE1. H11,I„ Nowi'Ii CAROLINA 27.516
February 27, 1991
Chairman
Board of Cotmnissioners
N.C. 27278
The Joint Meeting between the Chapel. Hill Town
County Board of Commissioners has been set for
fx -om 5:30 -7:00 p.m. in the Town Council Meeting
Town Hall. Food will not be served.
(9 19) 94h�M4
FAX 919 - 96744406
Council and orange
Wednesday, March 6
Room, Chapel. Hill
The agenda will be limited to possible joint legislative items
which require approval by the N.C. General Assembly, including
the Impact Tax and the visitors' Services Authority. Other items
might .include discussion of support for a statewide bottle bill
and funding for the Triangle Transportation Authority. There may
be other issues that members of the Board and Council wish to
discuss.
We look forward to this opportunity to discuss significant
wc:gislative matters with your Board.
Sincerely,
Aa,14-, Xe44,1
Jonathan B. Howes
Mayor
Post -It "brand fax transmittal memo 7671' N of Ne9ew
j r jTA from 5'J. ? r
�pxpt. Phoney
IFnr a
L [7q _Tfr, Y
_ i
Town of Chapel Hill
Council Agenda
Wednesday, March 6, 1991 at 5:30 p.m.
Notic• to 200210 with impaired hearing: Interpreter services
and /or infra -red sound equipment are available on request. If you
need this assistance, please call the Town Manager's Office at
968 - 2700 /TDD before the meeting.
Information on many agenda-items is available for citizens to
read in the Town Manager's Office in the Municipal Building and
at the Reference Desk in the Chapel Hill Public Library. Citizens
may also obtain copies of agenda materials by calling the Town
Manager's Office at 968 -2743 or 682 -8636, ext. 2743.
��100%
recycled
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA
Wednesday, March 6, 1991 at 5:30 p.m.
Town Council Meeting Room
Joint Meeting with the orange County Board of Commissioners
1. Introduction. Mayor Hawes.
2. Discussion of legislative matters.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Legislative matters for discussion with the Orange County
Board of Commissioners
DATE: March 6, 1991
Attached is background information regarding legislative matters
which the Council may wish to discuss with the Board of
Commissioners:
1. Proposed Orange County visitor Development Authority, proposed
Orange County hotel /motel tax and the request for an allocation
of 20% of the Chapel Hill hotel /motel taxes.
2. Orange County Impact Tax
Also attached is the agenda item regarding several legislative
matters on the Council's March 4 agenda.
Orange County visitor Development Authority
m•
The Orange County Economic Development Commission's Strategic Plan
includes the goal of attracting visitors along with preserving
historic, cultural and natural resources.
A visitor Service Task Force of the Public- Private Partnership has
proposed establishing an Orange County Visitor Development
Authority with funding sources including a County -wide hotel /motel
tax and a requested allocation of 20% or about $50,000 from the
Chapel Hill hotel /motel tax.
The proposed County hotel /motel tax would generate an estimated
$115,000 annually from a 1% tax. The proposal is to seek
legislative authorization for a 3% occupancy tax and to initially
levy 1% to support the proposed Authority. Such a County -wide tax
would be in addition to and would not alter the Chapel Hill
hotel /motel tax.
The Chapel Hill hotel /motel tax of 3% generates about $280,000
annually. In past years, the Council has allocated $50,000 for
visitor information services and support of cultural events. The
remainder helps pay for services of General Fund departments, and
is equivalent to revenue from about 1.4 cents of the property tax
rate.
Almost 80% of the hotel rooms in Orange County are in Chapel Hill.
ISSUES
Oraanization
The Visitor Task Force proposal (attached) does not specify whether
the proposed authority would be a non - profit private entity, an
independent public authority or a part of the County government,
or what the specific make -up of an advisory or governing board
would be.
We believe that the visitor development agency would benefit from
being an agency of County government with general administrative
and support services available from the County, and suggest this
approach.
If the County agency approach were pursued, we believe an advisory
board composed primarily of visitor and tourism- related
businesspeople would be appropriate. In addition, we suggest that
the make -up of a board take into account the large percentage of
hotel /motel rooms in Chapel Hill.
return
a visor Development Authority
As discussed in previous reports to the Council, we have looked for
an analysis by a non- industry entity of how much municipal revenue
might result from the marketing and promotion efforts of a tourism
or visitor development agency.
We have discussed this issue with Dave Peterson, formerly national
director for sports and convention facilities with Laventhol and
Horvath, an accounting firm which specialized in hotel and
conference -- related feasibility studies; Mark Lomanno, also formerly
with Laventhol and Horvath; Michael Dunn of the Greensboro office
of Pannell Kerr Forster, an accounting firm which specializes in
hotel matters; and Bryan Mihalik, assistant professor of tourism
at Georgia State University.
None was able to refer us to a report or study of the type we seek.
Their key observations included:
* A study of local revenue returns on spending for convention and
visitor bureaus in other cities may have little meaning for Chapel
Hill. (Peterson)
* A break -even analysis of the amount of hotel business necessary
to recover funding of a convention and visitor bureau is one way
to approach this issue. (Peterson)
* A study of the type we seek would involve review of tourism
related business income before and after establishment of a tourism
bureau, and of other factors affecting tourism /visitor business
activity. Such a study could be performed by a firm with the
specialized data base necessary. (Dunn /Pannell Kerr Forster)
* An economic impact multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5 may be reasonable as
an indication of the extent to which tourism dollars recirculate
in a local economy. (Lomanno)
* The economic multiplier for tourism /visitor income is probably
2.0 to 2.1. (Mihalik)
In addition, we contacted Robert Gittler of the Planning Department
at the University of Illinois at Champaign and received an income
multiplier factor of 1.5884 for Orange County as of 1987. This
multiplier was calculated from the University's Economic Impact
Forecasting System (EIFS), which is used to generate multipliers
for each County in the US from data on business types and
employment.
As previously discussed, we believe a visitor development authority
clearly has the potential to recover a Town funding allocation
after a start -up period which could be a few years. An 18% increase
in hotel /motel room rental income would recover $25,000 annually
in Chapel Hill occupancy taxes without considering multiplier
effects.
Because of sales tax distribution formulas, we believe most of the
return to the Town would be in occupancy taxes with a limited
sales tax revenue increase.
In addition, the Orange County Tax office staff has advised us that
two hotels in Chapel Hill each received reductions of about $2
million in their taxable valuation due to reduced income. At the
current property tax rate, these valuation reductions reduce Town
property tax revenues by about $25,000 annually. Tax records
indicate these valuation reductions occurred in 1990.
A future increase in valuation and related property tax revenue
from these hotels is therefore a potential benefit from increased
visitor /tourism promotion and marketing. The Tax Office staff
advised that it assigns valuations to most hotels and motels on the
basis of construction costs and land value rather than income.
Programs of the 2roposed visitor
development authority
The proposal by the Visitor Task Force includes suggested annual
budgets and a list of marketing and promotion programs (pages 5
through 8 of the report). Generally, the approach is that the
authority would serve as an umbrella agency that would supplement
the work of the four existing visitor service agencies in Chapel
Hill, including the University, and Hillsborough.
Examples of programs suggested in the Task Force proposal include
a county -wide visitor guide, meeting planners guide, calendar of
events, media /marketing kits, video, VIP host program, tour
packages, speakers' bureau, signage program and telephone hotlines.
We believe these service are logical additions and enhancements to
the existing local programs.
CONCLUSION
We suggest the following as a general approach to visitor services
issues:
1. We recommend allocating 10% of the Town's hotel /motel tax for
a visitor /tourism promotion agency on a performance agreement
basis, subject to annual review by the Council.
2. We believe the agency would benefit from being a County entity
with related administrative and support services.
3. We suggest an advisory board for the agency have representation
with emphasis on businesspeople with interests and skills related
to visitor services, and that the composition of the board take
into account the distribution of hotels and motels within the
county.
4. We would recommend endorsing a County -wide hotel /motel tax as
the primary source of funding for visitor services.
Orange County development impact tax.
BACKGROUND
Discussions in 1988
Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro representatives proposed
in 1988 that the governments request a local bill for a development
impact tax as an alternative to impact fees possibly: under 1985
and 1987 local bills. The impact tax would be easier to administer
than impact fees.
summary of current proygsg1
The Orange County Commissioners are considering making a request
for authorization to levy this tax in a proposed impact tax
district including Chapel Hill, Carrboro and unincorporated areas
of the County.
Impact taxes would be allocated to the Towns based on developments
in the Towns and their respective extraterritorial and Joint
Planning transition areas. The County would retain collection and
administration costs.
Hillsborough and Mebane could request to be added to the district
area subject to the impact tax.
Under the draft prepared for the Commissioners' consideration, the
Towns could use impact fee revenue for various capital purposes
including roads, drainage and police and fire stations.
Once effective, the impact tax would preclude establishment of
impact fees in Chapel Hill and Carrboro except for water and sewer
purposes.
The County Commissioners would be the governing board of the impact
tax district and would set the impact tax rates per square foot of
dwelling space and enclosed commercial floor space. However, the
proposal provides that the Commissioners would consult with the
Chapel Hill and Carrboro governing boards in setting the tax rates.
DISCUSSION
This proposal is very similar to that prepared in 1988. The use of
a district is intended to make the tax workable if Hillsborough and
Mebane choose not to participate.
As discussed in 1988, we believe the impact tax is more practical
to apply than impact fees, which must be spent with a clear
relationship to development from which they are generated.
ORANGE COUNTY
VISITOR TASK FORCE
Chairman's Report
December 5,1990
FORWARD
The following programs, interim and long -term funding recommendations, mission statement and budget
model are the result of many hours of work by the marketing, research and funding committees of the
Orange County Visitor Task Force since August 1, 1990.
These recommendations will best serve the diverse needs of Orange County's visitor industry and
provide for enhanced revenues through the broadening of the county tax base. Additionally, these
recommendations have taken into consideration the existing staff and budgets of organizations currently
providing visitor services. In this respect, this proposal has been designed to enhance, not duplicate,
effective ongoing visitor efforts.
The primary mission of an Orange County Visitor Development Authority would be to attract
additional compatible visitor business and provide an organized, central "voice" for the visitor
industry for more cost -efficient and impactful marketing of the county externally and locally with
county organizations and residents. Cooperative marketing of the county's attractions and
accommodations and improved internal public relations within the hospitality industry are vital to
successful economic impact with regard to visitor services.
This program will be the basis of a strategic plan for a series of public forums and for formal
presentations to elected officials at a county and municipal level.
Sharon Finch
Chair Orange County Visitor Task Force
Mike Pales
Chair, Marketing Committee
R. Bruce Holsten
Chair, Finance Committee
Ed Rehkopf
Chair, Research Committee
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. MISSION
3. OBJECTIVES
4. RELATED VISITOR FACTS
5. RECOMMENDED MARKETING PROGRAMS AND LITERATURE
6. PROPOSED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT 1991 -1993
7. INTERIM AND PERMANENT FUN ING SOURCES
8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
L 1=012L1=QN 1Q.1HE ORANGE CQL=VISEEQR DEMOMMSTALMMEM
Why Market Orange County to Visitors?
A frequently asked question is "Why should we spend money to attract visitors we already have ?"
• Area visitors' facilities and services are underutilized. City -wide hotel occupancy in Chapel Hill
last year was around 63%. County -wide the occupancy was 53%.
• Visitors are unfamiliar with our area and need information.
• Visitors often become repeat visitors if their experience in our communities is positive. People like
to go where they are made to feel welcome.
• Conference and event planners need help coordinating their visits. Planners appreciate the
availability of information and the convenience of a local community's efforts to attract them.
They know full well the economic impact of their event on the local economy and they have come to
expect professional and efficient response to their queries. Organizations planning conferences and
events are no different than people shopping - they want information, value, convenience and
service. The community that can provide these gets their business.
• Other communities recognize the importance of actively seeking visitor groups and provide a
central point of contact to disseminate information and facilitate the planning of events. Our area
and economy is often in direct competition with these other communities.
• While we have premiere educational, research and medical institutions that are a natural magnet
for conferences and visitors, we must remember that other communities have them too. There is
often competition for conferences and events. Central dissemination of information and efficient
facilitation and coordination of needs, makes a difference when trying to attract groups.
Is It Worth the Trouble and Expense?
The answer is an emphatic yes. Would Raleigh, Durham, Charlotte and a host of other cities across
the country be operating Visitor Services Authorities were it not deemed advantageous? Each dollar
spent by a visitor in our communities has a ripple effect throughout the local economy. Primary
recipients of visitors' expenditures must themselves pay taxes, support payrolls and buy goods and
services for their businesses. To the extent that this "outside" money is churned through the local
economy, it provides more sales tax revenues to provide for goverrunent services, thereby lessening the
pressure to increase property taxes.
Doesn't this Idea Benefit Just a Few?
This is not a plan to spend tax dollars just to help local hotels. While hotels are obvious recipients of
increased visitor traffic, many other businesses also benefit - restaurants, gas stations, retail shops and
the host of businesses that supply their needs for goods and services. In Chapel Hill, hotels are subject
to a 3% occupancy tax on room revenues, so increases in room business directly impacts on local govern-
ments' revenues. Last year, Chapel Hill hotels sold close to 200,000 room nights, generating approxi-
mately 5250,000 in occupancy tax. For each 1% increase in hotel occupancy city-wide, an additional
$4,730 is raised in occupancy tax revenues. Total hotel sales topped S15"=, making the lodging
industry one of the largest in the co=unity.
What Can We Do to Attract Visitor-?
Project a conscious official attitude that we want visitors - that we are willing to extend ourselves to
help them and to bring them to our communities. We each can't assume that someone else is doing it.
We've all got to do it and our community leaders need to stand squarely behind it.
Offer gracious hospitality to those who already come. Let's make them fee; welcome with an official
voice - someone representing our communities who will say 'Thanks for coming ", "How can we help
you ? -, and "Please come again ".
Provide better service, information and assistance to those who want to come. We need to make it
easier for conference and event planners who are trying to bring their business to our communities.
Instead of having them burn up the phone lines to many individual providers of visitor facilities and
services, give them a central point of contact to facilitate and coordinate the many details of their
event.
What Will It Cost to Establish a Visitor Development Authority?
Based upon the Boulder, CO, example and those of other communities, a new organization could cost
approximately $150,000 in startup for each of the first two years of operation to establish a permanent
infrastructure. After startup, it will cost an estimated $200,000 per year for a full time, permanently
funded program with the principal increase being for programs and marketing. These figures could be
significantly lowered by "piggybacking" the Visitor Development Authority with existing represent-
ational organizations such as the Chapel Hill /Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the Hillsborough
Chamber of Commerce, the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Downtown Commission or the UNC Visitors' Center.
Where Will the Money Come From?
There are a number of possibilities:
• Provide a larger allocation of the current hotel occupancy tax to fund a Visitor Development
Authority.
• Increase the hotel occupancy tax, with the full increase going to fund a Visitor Development
Authority.
• Institute a prepared meal tax with some or all of it going to fund a Visitor Development Authority.
• Set up a sliding scale on either occupancy tax or prepared meal tax where the first so many dollars
of tax revenue goes to a Visitor Development Authority and all proceeds above that are split
between the Visitor Development Authority and other governmental needs on a percentage basis.
• Convince local hotels, restaurants and other interested businesses to contribute matching or seed
money for several years to get the program off the ground.
All of these alternatives are seen as a way to "prime the pump" - to increase visitor expenditures in our
communities - by offering better visitor services.
2. Ml`S1Q_'N .AIEYELa
An Orange Cw:.nty Visitor Development Authority would be a county -wide, not - for - profit, umbrella
organization: formed by local government and the visitor industry to attract and serve visitors to
Orange County. It will enhance and promote the social, cultural, and economic benefits of visitors to
Orange County, including increased county revenue, new jobs, and a better quality of life.
i. g�rFC-rrvEs
• Generate positive awareness of Orange County as a destination for pleasure and business visitors.
• Stimulate interest and desire in groups and individuals to visit Orange County.
• Increase the extent and length' of stay of visitors to Orange County.
• Provide a liaison between visitors and the facilities, services, events, activities, agencies and
organizations that serve and satisfy them.
• Develop market research and target descriptions of existing and prospective visitors to guide and
measure new marketing activities for the Orange County visitor industry.
• Generate positive community awareness of Orange County visitors and provide opportunities for
county-wide support and participation.
• Provide a vehicle to merge resources from private business, government agencies, r.on- profit
organizations and individuals into a cohesive, county -wide effort to market Orange County as a
visitor destination.
9.
• Chapel Hill dedicates approximately S17,.5W or 7% of its hotel -motel occupancy tax to visitor
services. The average across the state is 50 -100%. An average of S250,000 is collected annually
from this tax. Where it is directly reinvested in visitor services/ tourism, the economic impact is
five dollars generated for every dollar invested.
• $7.8 million will be spent in Orange County by the end of July 1991 by visitors for events of the
NCHAA and the Junior Olympics in track.
• if every visitor for home college football games stayed an extra night or spent another S47, it would
generate over S200,000 in occupancy and sales taxes.
• Over 35,000 prospective undergraduate and graduate students visit UNC each year. Most duster
then visits around several schools in the area and travel with friends and parents.
• The Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Hillsborough Chambers of Commerce average 3,000 visitor
information requests per month.
• There are approximately 12 million visitors to Orange County annually generating $72 million in
sales revenues.
H
• Downtown merchants credit out -of - towners for over 50% of their business (one merchant credits
visitors for over 90% of his business - with receipts to prove it!).
• The top two reasons retirees travel is natural scenic beauty (639'x) and historic sites (52%).
• Vacation travel is more oriented to long weekends than extended vacations and over 50% of
inquiries about the Triangle result in actual travel to the area. (This is much higher than the
industry average.)
• Over 40% of local visitors stay in private homes and visit friends. (The national average is less
than 24 %.)
• 91% of the county tax base is residential property taxes.
• There are under 1,000 hotel, motel, and bed and breLkfast rooms in Orange County. The average
occupancy for the past year was 53 %. (Every room night has direct impact on restaurants,
merchants, and attractions, concerts and sporting events.)
• The county, as a whole, cvzrently has an investment of approximately $50,000 in direct visitor
services. This includes Chambers of Commerce, the Downtown Commission and the Preservations
Societies.
• There are currently four primary providers of visitor services: Chapel Hill /Carrboro Chamber of
Commerce (5 days a week), Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce /Visitor Center (6 days a week),
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Downtown Commission (5 days a week), and the UNC Visitor Center (5 days
a week).
A permanently funded Orange County Visitor Development Authority would develop programs to:
• attract new visitors, as well as
• service existing visitors and visitor programs.
This will be achieved with existing organization visitor service staff and through newly appointed
professional management. The Authority would coordinate existing programs, provide comprehensive
and aggressive marketing organization and serve as a central point of contact for visitor service
information with a centrally located staff and facility. Its three most critical roles would be:
• external marketing,
• development of coordinated marketing materials, and
• establishing county needs with a single authoritative voice via improved marketing and
communications.
PROPOSED PROGRAMS AND LITERATURE
A coordinated marketing program would include:
5.1 County Visitor Quide
Including hotels, country inns, motels, restaurants, attractions, retail outlets, etc. and county
map with highlights.
5? Meeting Planners Guide
With a services directory, meeting space information, usages /inventory of UNC meeting spaces.
5.3 Motorcoach Guide
With developed itineraries and packages for Orange County including representation at trade
shows to solicit business.
5.4 Cgntralized Marketine FacilitylStaff
Coordinated inventory county -wide, using existing and new staff. One central point of contact
for organizers for press conferences, mayor appearances, accommodations, area tours, customized
agendas, facilities information, advertising and public relations activities.
5.5 Calendar of Events
A monthly or quarterly calendar to serve all county organizations and eliminate the overlap of
events, hotel bookings and to spread business over the year for more economic impact and berte:
servicing of visitors.
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.I2
Mem hi Travel Pr am
Pro - active solicitation of desirable group and association business via membership in key trade
groups, such as NC Travel and Tourism Council, Triangle hotel and restaurant associations, NC
Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus (NCACVB), US Association of Convention and
Visitor Bureaus, and others. Establishment of a central facility and contact person would
facilitate our ability to piggyback state mailings to prospects and participate in cooperative
trade show booths and match grant ad and PR funds from the state. It also enables Orange
County to be a "player" in the development of compatible business with a resource bank of
experienced professionals nation and state wide.
Press /Marketing Kit
A coordinated and complete marketing kit is necessary for travel writers, meeting organizers
and unifying the facts and figures from which the area is "sold" to prospective visitor groups.
This is different from the mass produced overall brochure which would be available locally for
use by the Chambers, Downtown Commission, UNC Welcome Center, hotels and motels, and
state welcome centers.
Information Hot - lines:
• Hotel Hot -line for ease of booking groups and coordinating efforts.
• Visitor Hot -line toll-free number for updated visitor information.
• CINET Hot -line national hot -line access for prospects looking to set up
meetings and conferences making inquiries through the
US Conventions and Visitors Bureau hot -line.
Tour Packages
Packaging of Christmas historic tours, concerts, Christmas parades, shopping and sightseeing
with tour operators and with sponsoring organizations, travel agencies, hotels and airlines.
An example is "Christmas in Orange County" theme, booking Orange County rooms with
Messiah tickets, P1ayMaker's Nutcracker, and local area attractions.
LWC Tray el and T un
�gM 6-D ..Ay October Blitz to Neighboring Sto
Participation in joint marketing activities for the state marketing theme with literature and
manpower.
Used for speaker engagements and group use, featuring county attractions and history to be
produced with copies available for purchase by local organization and individuals /tourists.
(This project could be an opportunity for corporate sponsorship.)
VIP Ho §t Prggram and Convention Services
Coordination of hosting any dignitaries that require special itinerary, arrangements, airport
pick -up, welcome gifts or entertaining in conjunction with special requests from town, UNC, or
area organizations. - #iandliag all arrangements, transport and coordinating details.
5.13 beakers Bureau
Industry professionals available to address civic groups, give media interviews or perform as a
spokesperson for the visitor industry.
5.14 Research and Photographic Library+
On -going inventory updating, usage fees and rules, for all facilities and related services to
visitors.
5.15 Editorial Placements /FAM Tour Hosting
Pro - active inclusion of Orange County area with state and national media and hosting of travel
writers via inviting groups to see the county's sites and natural beauty. Solicitation of
advertising usage of our area as a back -drop and local homes, attractions, and locales.
5.16 Emplovee Hospitality „Training
A training program for hotel concierge desks and key contact sales persons on the history and
attractions of the towns and county and a guided tour of the area's key attractions.
5.17 Coordinated County Signage Program
Special signage for Visitor Development Authority, Welcome Center, area attractions and
special event directional signage. Me single largest complaint from attendees of the Summer
Olympic Festival in the Triangle was insufficiently marked venues. With the heavily
forested areas, clarity of signage is critical for visitor success.)
5.18 Welcome Center /Visitor Center $uQnort Program
Umbrella program serving existing facllities located in Hillsborough, downtown Chapel Hill,
UNC and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce; funding and human resources would
be dedicated to these facilities.
7,
6. Proposed Income and Expenditure Statement 1991 -1993
1990 -1991 % 1991 -1992 % 1992 -1993 % I
SUBSIDY
* Orange County 20,000 115,000 115,000
Municipalities 17500 50,000 50,000
Private 12,500 - -
550,000 $165,000 5165,000
REVENUE
Sponsorship - 251000 35,000
550.000 $190000 5200,000
EXPENSES
Personnel
($12
25.0 (_$80000) 42.1
($90,000) 45.0
Director
(12,500)
(38,000)
(40,000)
*' Admin Assistant(s)
-
(20,000)
(25,000)
Benefits
-
(15,750)
(18,750)
Furniture & Equip.
-
(6,250)
(6,250)
anon
($20,000)
40.0 (S40,000) 21.1
(540,000) 20.0
Rent
-
(10,000)
(10,000)
Administration
(201000)
(10,000)
(10,000)
Tele & C1NET
-
(51000)
(5,000)
Postage
-
(61000)
(6,000)
Dues
-
(3,500)
(3500)
Auto /Gas
-
(2,500)
(2500)
Supplies
-
(3,000)
(3,000)
** *Marketin¢
(517,500)
35.0 (570.000) 36.8
(570,000) 35.0
Guide (s)
-
(10,000)
(10,000)
Brochure (s)
(10,000)
(15,000)
(10,000)
Video (s)
-
(8,000)
-
Media Advertising
-
(4,500)
(10,000)
Conference (s)
-
(7500)
(7.500)
Welcome Center (s)
-
(20,000)
(25,000)
Tour Program (s)
(7,500)
(5,000)
(51000)
Contract Services
-
-
(2500)
TOTAL EXPENSES
(550000)
($190000)
(5200,000)
* This budget assumes permanent funding from fiscal year 1991 - 92.
This assumes an initial staff of one with an uv=ease to three in
fiscal year 1992 -1993.
The marketing expenditure totals assume line item allocations
based on the program priorities determined by the new
Executive Director.
8
The financial recommendations are based on the evaluation of both existing sources of funds and state
legislative precedent for new forms of revenue. The various options that are available to Orange
County to establish and fund a suitable infrastructure for the provision of visitor services, will be
assessed based on the efficiency with which they can be secured and the ability to access existing .
revenue sources that could be dedicated to a visitor initiative.
In this respect, the financial objectives of the authority are:
• To utilize the information that is generated from the research and marketing sub-committees, in
identifying the most readily achievable source of existing or new funds with which to implement
initial programs and infrastructure;
• In conjunction with the appropriate government bodies and agencies of Orange County, to provide
for the formation of an authority and financial guidelines to administer the funding of a
county wide program;
• To identify a permanent source of funding to implement the recommended programs on an ongoing
basis.
At present, there are three identified sources of existing and new funding, which have been discussed
and evaluated informally by the Task Force; these being:
• Chapel Hill Occupancy Tax (Existing)
• County Occupancy Tax (Overlay)
• Prepared Food and Beverage Tax (Meals Tax)
An Entertainment Tax and Sales and Use Tax were both evaluated and deemed inappropriate or not
feasible for either interim or permanent funding at this point in time.
7.1 Existing OccuRgncy Tax (Q2apgl Hill ® 3%
The town of Chapel Hill appropriates approximately 20% of its existing occupancy tax to
visitor and cultural activities. If this percentage tax were applied to a visitors initiative at a
county level, it would provide a minimum of $50,000 to a dedicated county program that would
be responsible for the administration and allocation of the funds to the designated areas.
_• �z -
This new county -wide tax, requested as an overlay of up to 3 %, would generate as much as
5345,000 annually. Initially, only 1% would be applied, generating approximately 5115,000
per annum for a county program for visitors. There is a legislative precedent for this tax being
levied on a county-wide basis (Mecklenberg).
73 Countv Pre red Food and Beverage Tax (Meals Tax
There is only one example of this tax at present, which is in Me klenberg County, and it is
totally dedicated to visitor services and the building of a new convention center. This is a 1 %
tax levied on all prepared foods and beverages including restaurants, cafeterias, caterers, bars
and delicatessens. The Prepared Meals Tax, if levied in Orange County, would generate the
following revenue historically:
GROSS RETAIL SALES AND SALES TAX COLLECTIONS IN BUSINESS
CLASS OF 306 FOR ORANGE COUNTY FOR SELECTED FISCAL YEARS
FISCAL GROSS GROSS PER PER
YEAR• COLLECTIONS RETAIL SALES 0.1% 1.0°x6
1985 -86
$1.925,661
$69,541.722
$69,541
$695,417
1986 -87
$1. 669,648
$61,516,923
$61,516
$615,169
$66,227 _
$662.273
1988 -89
$1. 815,537
$65.588,106
$65,588
$655,881
1989 -90
$2, 008,740
$69,619,092
$69,619
$696,190
• Fiscal year runs from July 1st through June 30th.
Therefore, a 05% tax would generate between 5330,000 and $350,000. These funds would constitute
a new source of revenue and, like the Occupancy Tax, would require legislative approval i ''.Ic
coaling General Assembly.
This revenue source, if approved, could only be implemented in fiscal year 1992 -1993. In addition,
the NC Restaurant Association has identified seven specific criteria that must apply prior to their
legislative support for the legislation. The most important of these being a 90% dedication of all
revenues generated to an approved visitor services program.
Although the concept of imposirng-Oy`new caxesright -now is- politically sensitive and problematic,
public opinion indicates that any newly identified revenue sources for visitor services should be
allocated to a new program. It is the consensus of the Task Force that an educational program be
initiated to brief our state, county and municipal officials of the direct benefits attributable to a
professionally managed Visitor i7evelopmenrAutllority In addition, the Visitor Development
Authorit y. will rxndertadte a minimum of two public forums to evaluate public sentiment regarding a
county-wide visitor program and will make contact with the local hotel /motel association and
local restauranteurs to build a consensus for any new tax based. initiatives.
10 l
) a i UV El i •W„I
A svnthesis of the investigation into visitors services in Orange County has led to the following
summary and recommendations on the impact of increased visitors on our towns and county.
The Task Force has found that the visitor industry is a strong, clean industry which will have an
increasing benefit for economic development and growth in Orange County. It is viewed as an important
contributor to both increased revenue and employment in the county. It is anticipated that it will
develop into one of the principal industries in the county in the next ten years.
The Task Force has ascertained that a county-wide visitors program is:
• growing and will be good few the county's economy,
• of critical importance and needs more attention to professional development,
• a sound investment and positive revenue source, and
• should--I�q_de-yeloped-acc=dingtormticmaI
As an employer, the visitor industry is seen as very important in an establishment of new and better job
opportunities.
In this respect, the visitor industry is perceived to provide above average wages and should not have a
negative impact on the environment or quality of life.
County and municipal funding as well as public support should be committed to increasing efforts to
promote Orange County as a travel destination. Specifically, funding should be committed to the
..jr .,ation of a professionally managed visitor development authority and for county promotional and
marketing activities.
In addition, the industry should be involved with issues which directly and indirectly impact on itself,
its constituents and the citizens of Orange County. The industry should be actively involved in issues of:
• environmental quality
• economic development
• transportation
• education
• public safety, and
• cultural resources.
In general, the Task Force believes that the Orange County visitor industry should unify and
consolidate its resources and current efforts designed to enlist and encourage support from legislatco and
the public. Unification and consolidation will not only result in a better return on investment, but it will
ensure that �' ! ] �n haf@ eovP=M »p ficLajs, as well as. Visitors to
the county.
Proposed
' 1/31/91
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO LEVY A TAX ON
THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF' GENERATING REVENUES TO PAY PART OF THE COSTS
OF SCHOOL CAPITAL FACILITIES AND
TO CREATE AN ORANGE COUNTY IMPACT TAX
DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DISTRICT TO
LEVY A TAX ON THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING REVENUES TO
PAY PART OF THE COSTS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES
REQUIRED BY GROWTH
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA ENACTS:
Part 1. Definitions.
Section 1. The following definitions apply to Parts 2, 3 and
4 of this Act:
(1) Commercial building enclosed floor space. All enclosed
floor space used for any purpose except:
a. Dwelling units and accessory structures to dwelling
units.
b. Recreational facilities constructed as part of a
residential development and used primarily by
residents of the development.
C. Buildings owned by the United States, the State of
North Carolina, any county or any municipal
corporation.
d. Buildings owned and operated by non - profit entities
for noncommercial and nonresidential purposes.
e. Schools or day care centers.
1
(2) District. The Orange County Impact Tax District estab-
lished by this Act.
(3) Dwelling Unit. An enclosure containing sleeping,
kitchen, and bathroom facilities desig..ed for and used
or held ready for use as a permanent residence by one
family.
(4) Land development.
a. Land development shall mean:
1. Construction of any dwelling unit (other than
one excluded under subsections (b) and (c) of
this section) for which a building permit was
issued or should have been issued after the
effective date of an ordinance adopted under
this Act;
2. Construction of any commercial building
enclosed floor space for which a building per-
mit was issued or should have been issued after
the effective date of an ordinance adopted
under this Act;
3. Conversion of a building that adds one.or more
new dwelling units or that creates new commer-
cial building enclosed floor space; or
4. The initial location of a manufactured home or
other dwelling or commercial structure within
Orange County for the school capital impact tax
2
j
or within the District for the District impact
tax.
b. For purposes of determining the impact of land
development for Part 2 of this Act, land development
shall not include:
1. Construction of an addition to a dwelling unit;
2. The relocation within the District of any
structure located within the District on the
effective date of an ordinance adopted pursuant
to Part 2 of this Act or any structure with
respect to which an impact tax adopted pursuant
to Part 2 of this Act has been paid;
3. Within the District, the reconstruction or re-
placement of one dwelling unit by another or
the replacement or reconstruction of commercial
building enclosed floor space that was in
existence on the effective date of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to Part 2 of this Act or of
any such floor space with respect to which an
impact tax pursuant to Part 2 of this Act has
been paid.
C. For purposes of determining the impact of land
development for Part 3 of this Act, land development
shall not include:
1. Construction of an addition to a dwelling unit;
3
2. The relocation within Orange County of any
i
structure located within the County on the ef-
fective date of an ordinance adopted pursuant
to Part 3 of this Act or any structure with
respect to which an impact tax pursuant to Part
3 of this Act has been paid;
3. Within the County, the reconstruction or re-
placement of one dwelling unit by another or
the replacement or reconstruction of commercial
building enclosed floor space that was in
existence on the effective date of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to Part 3 of this Act or of
any such floor space with respect to which an
impact tax adopted pursuant to Part 3 of this
Act has been paid.
(5) Person. An individual, partnership, corporation, or
other legal entity.
(6) Person responsible for the impact of land development.
The owner of any dwelling unit or commercial building
enclosed floor space on the date an occupancy permit is
issued for such dwelling unit or commercial floor space
or, if no such permit is issued, the date the dwelling
unit or commercial floor space is occupied.
Part 2. The Impact Tax District.
Section 1. There shall be an Orange County Impact Tax Dis-
trict which shall include all of Orange County outside the cor-
4
porate limits of the Town of Hillsborough, the Town of Mebane, and
the City of Durham.
Section 2. The District shall be deemed to be a body politic
and corporate and authorized and empowered:
(1) To adopt an official seal and alter the same at will;
(2) To sue and be sued in its own name;
(3) To contract and be contracted with;
(4) To levy and collect a tax on the impact of land
development within the District;
(5) And required to keep its accounts on the basis of a
fiscal year commencing on the first day of July and en-
ding on the thirtieth day of June of the following year.
Section 3. The Board of Commissioners of Orange County shall
be the governing body of the District.
O
Section 4. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the
governing body of the District may adopt an ordinance levying a
tax on the impact of land development within the District
(hereinafter referred to as an "impact tax ") . Orange County shall,
on behalf of the District, provide for the administration,
enforcement and collection of the tax.
(b) The District may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to this
Part if any ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 357
of the 1985 Session Laws (Carrboro), Section 1 of Chapter 936 of
the 1985 Session Laws (Chapel Hill), or Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter
460 of the 1987 Session Laws (Orange County) is in effect.
x.
..........
an _pr 4"RPq;SUatVt0
5
..s,.:rt : :,.. ;: an;orda,rarxce:;.,8dc� ted;;', i�rsuanG,.,tv;Secton::2. o.: Ghavter.
:................. " :...... ..F.........
37ofh x.9..85 : Sess.irn :;La:a s'': ar baro> eet' on' >v
( %:�.::a. ?�...:::: . Cha to ::!:;9.3;6
::8:::::;Se Lames::ha Sec.t�.cns:: >:::'1 > -1$' »; <`' of
..
,..:
vr� :f a . 'f3tar :.e ;" Ctivin: .:.:. , t" "'I
......
.:. .. n: ;vri:
Y
Section 5. The purpose of the tax authorized by this Part is
to generate funds to partially offset the cost of constructing new
capital facilities or replacing, expanding or improving existing
capital facilities necessitated in part by new growth within Orange
County. Accordingly, the net proceeds generated by the tax
authorized by this Part and distributed pursuant to Section 8 to
Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, respectively, shall be
deposited by each local government in 'its capital reserve
improvements fund or funds established under Part 2 of Article 3
of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes and may be expended only as
follows:
(1) Orange County 'may expend these funds to the extent
otherwise authorized by law on capital improvements
projects related to libraries, stormwater drainage, open
space and recreation, and on emergency and public safety
facilities, including jails.
(2) The Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro may
expend these funds on capital improvements related to
roads and other transportation systems, stormwater
drainage, open space and recreation, and police and fire
stations. The funds may be spent by each municipality
6
only for improvements that are located within the
1
corporate limits of that municipality or within its
extra- territorial planning jurisdiction or transition
area(s) as established under a joint planning agreement
with Orange County, except that Chapel Hill and Carrboro
may by agreement expend funds on joint projects that
transcend each other's jurisdictional boundaries, such
as road or drainage improvement projects.
Section 6. An ordinance adopted under this Part shall
provide that:
(1) A person responsible for the impact of land development
shall pay an impact tax for each square foot of dwelling
space and commercial building enclosed floor space for
which an occupancy permit is issued or, if no such permit
is issued, for each square foot of dwelling space in an
occupied dwelling and for each square foot of occupied
enclosed floor space in a commercial building.
(2) The tax shall be due on or before the date an occupancy
permit is initially issued for the dwelling unit or
commercial building enclosed floor space in question or,
if no such permit is issued, the date such dwelling unit
or commercial floor space is initially occupied.
However, no tax due shall be considered delinquent until
sixty (60) days after the tax becomes due. There shall
be added to delinquent taxes interest at the legal rate.
7
(3) Taxes authorized by this Part may be collected pursuant
to G.S. 153A -147 or G.S. 160A --207. In addition. taxes
authorized by this Part may be recovered in a civil ac-
tion in the nature of debt including an award of
reasonable attorney fees as part of costs.
Section 7. The governing body of the District, after con-
sultation with Orange County, the Town of Carrboro and the Town of
Chapel Hill, shall establish annually at the time of the adoption
of the annual budget of Orange County the tax rate to be levied
per square foot of dwelling space and per square foot of commercial
building enclosed floor space for the ensuing fiscal year.
Different tax rates may be established for different types of
commercial construction.
I Section 8. As soon as reasonably practicable after the close
of each quarter of the fiscal year, the District shall distribute
to Chapel Hill and Carrboro the net proceeds of the tax received
by the District based upon development that has taken place within
each respective municipality's corporate limits, extra - territorial
planning jurisdiction and transition area(s), as established in
joint planning agreements. The remainder of the net proceeds, plus
the cost incurred by Orange County in collecting and administering
the tax, shall be remitted to Orange County. As used in this Part,
the term "net proceeds" means the gross proceeds of the tax less
the cost to the county of collection and administering the tax.
Section 4. The boundaries of the District may be expanded to
include portions of Orange County within the corporate limits of
C3
J
the Town of Hillsborough, the Town of Mebane, or the City of Durham
in accordance with the provisiorG of this section.
(a) Upon a favorable vote of the majority of the membership
of the governing body of the municipalities listed in
this section, the entire area of that municipality that
is located within Orange County shall be annexed (the
"annexed area ") to the District on the first day of the
next quarterly period that follows the month in which
the vote took place.
(b) Consistent with Section 5 of this Part, if any of the
municipalities referenced in this section vote to be in
the District, the net proceeds generated by the tax
authorized by this Part and distributed to any such
a municipality shall be deposited in a capital reserve
a
F.�
improvements fund and may be expended only for the pur-
poses authorized in subsection 5 of this Part.
(c) When the District is expanded to include an annexed area,
the consultation required under Section 7 of this Part
shall include consultation with the governing body of the
municipality within those corporate limits the annexed
area lies.
(d) When the District is expanded to include an annexed area,
the District shall distribute to the governing body of
the municipality within whose corporate limits the
annexed area lies the net proceeds of the tax received
by the District due to development that has taken place
0
within that municipality's corporate limits, extra -
territorial planning jurisdiction, and transition area(s)
as established in joint planning agreements.
(e) The governing body of a municipality covered under this
section may not vote to become part of the District if
an impact fee ordinance authorized under special legis-
lation comparable to that listed in Section 4(b) of this
Part is in effect within such municipality and may not
adopt such an impact fee ordinance applicable to the area
within the District while it remains within the District.
Section 10. This Part shall apply only to the District
created herein.
Part 3. The Orange County School Capital Impact Tax.
Section 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), Orange
County may adopt an ordinance levying a tax on the impact of land
development within the County and provide for the administration,
enforcement and collection of the tax.
(b) Orange County may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to this
Part if any ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 357
of the 1965 Session Laws (Carrboro), Section 1 of the Chapter 936
of the 1965 Session Laws (Chapel Hill), or Sections 17 -18.1 of
Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws (Orange County) is in effect.
10
.:...t..:Y:�:.....n.,...o rt'...and serera� .Za.t�.e::..;IIrange..::County may.
itoxzant. to, this mart .::
Section 2. The purpose of the tax authorized by this Part is
to generate funds to partially offset the cost of constructing new
school capital facilities or replacing, expanding or improving
existing school capital facilities necessitated in part by new
growth within Orange County. Accordingly, the net proceeds
generated by the tax authorized by this Part shall be deposited by
Orange County in its capital reserve improvements fund or funds
established under Part 2 of Article 3 of Chapter 159 of the General
Statutes and may be expended, to the extent otherwise authorized
by law, only for capital improvements projects related to schools.
Section 3. A person responsible for the impact of land
development shall pay an impact tax for each square foot of
dwelling space and commercial building enclosed floor space for
which an occupancy permit is issued or, if no such permit is such
issued, for each square foot of dwelling space in an occupied
dwelling and for each square foot of occupied enclosed floor space
in a commercial building.
(2) The tax shall be due on or before the date an occupancy
permit is initially issued for the dwelling unit or
commercial building enclosed floor space in question or,
if no such permit is issued, the date such dwelling unit
or commercial floor space is initially occupied.
However, no tax due shall be considered delinquent until
001
sixty (60) days after tho tax becomes due. There shall
i
be added to delinquent taxes interest at the legal rate.
(3) Taxes authorized by this Part may be collected pursuant
to G.S. 153A -147 or G.S. 160A -207. In addition, taxez
authorized by
this Part may be
recovered
in a
cavil
ac-
tion in the
nature of debt
including
an
award
of
reasonable attorney fees as part of costs.
Section 4. Orange County shall establish annually at the time
of the adoption of its annual budget the tax rate to be levied per
square foot of dwelling space and per square foot of commercial
building enclosed floor space for the ensuing fiscal year.
Different tax rates may 'be established for different types of
commercial construction.
: Section 5. As used in this Part, the term "net proceeds"
means the gross proceeds of the tax less the cost to the County of
collection and administering the tax.
Section 6. This Part shall apply only to Orange County.
Part 4. Provisions for repeal of other local acts, disclosure
requirements and effective date.
Section 1. Orange County may repeal ` ° "' ° "' " "`` an
ordinance adopted pursuant to Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter 460 of
the 1987 Session Laws4a
"fi'. Orange County may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to
Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws while an
ordinance adopted pursuant to this Act is in effect. Chapel Hill
may repeal a !T o " .. an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section
12
1 of Chapter 936 of the 1985 Session Laws. Except _as_`:;iia
>: »> - .
er. sew,rer:::;:;faci:: .tares:'::: Chapel Hill may not adopt
an ordinance pursuant to Section 1 of Chapter 936 of the 1985
Session Laws while an ordinance adopted pursuant to this Act is in
effect. Carrboro may repeal` `z<at of an ordinance adopted
pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 357 of the 1985 Session Laws.
�... :.. : :W'i... i Carrboro
may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 357 of
the 1985 Session Laws while an ordinance adopted pursuant to this
Act is in effect.
Section 2. Whenever the sale of real property located in
Orange County involves new construction, the seller shall prepare
and sign, and the buyer shall receive and sign, a disclosure
statement. The disclosure statement shall either be included in
a contract of sale or contained in a separate document executed
prior to the execution of a sales contract. This disclosure
statement shall fully and completely disclose that the owner of
the property at the time an occupancy permit is issued for the new
construction or, if no occupancy permit is issued, the date the
new construction is occupied, may be subject to a tax levied by
the County and /or the District on the impact of land development.
if a seller fails to make such a disclosure and the buyer suffers
injury as a result of the seller's failure to disclose, the seller
shall be liable to the buyer to the extent of the buyer's injury.
Section 3. This Act is effective upon ratification.
13
AGENDA #9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Legislative matters
DATE: March 4, 1991
Attached for your consideration are resolutions regarding:
1. Request for a local bill authorizing a vehicle license tax
of up to $15 per year.
2. The need for a permanent, stable revenue source instead of
the present appropriations to reimburse localities for past
repeal of some local revenues.
3. State -wide enabling legislation authorizing local option
revenues as alternatives to the property tax.
4. Support for continuation of State funding to help offset
Town costs of fire protection services to University and
University Hospitals properties.
5. The need for a revenue source to support the Triangle
Transportation Authority.
6. Support for State -wide legislation to encourage recycling of
beverage containers through deposit and refund requirements.
7. A request for a local bill authorizing an entertainment tax.
Items 1 through 6 are included in resolution R -3. Resolution
R -4 incorporates item 7.
BACKGROUND
In the January 12th retreat meeting, the Council discussed
legislative matters for the 1991 General Assembly session. On
January 28th, the Council scheduled a public forum on February 4th
on potential local bill requests, and the proposed Orange County
Visitor Development Authority.
The public forum included the potential request for authorization
to increase the vehicle license tax up to a maximum of $20 annually
from the present $5, and the proposal for an entertainment tax.
On February 22, the Council met with Senator Howard N. Lee and
Representative Anne Barnes to discuss legislative matters. The
deadline for introducing local bills is April 4th. However, making
requests to the legislative delegation before then would be helpful
to the Senators and Representatives whose districts include Chapel
Hill areas.
DISCUSSION
The attached materials provide a general discussion of several
legislative matters. Below is a summary of key points.
1. Request for a local bill authorizing a vehicle license tax
of up to $15 per year.
• Present vehicle license tax authorization for Chapel Hill is
limited to $5.
• An increase to $10 would generate an additional $90,000 annually.
• Several cities have authorization for an annual vehicle license
tax greater than $5. The City of Charlotte has authorization for
a $20 license tax.
• I recommend requesting authorization up to a maximum of $15 based
on the discussion with representatives of the legislative
delegation.
2. Reimbursements for past repeal of local revenue sources
including inventory property taxes
• The Town now receives about $300,000 in State reimbursement
funds.
• The Governor has proposed repealing the appropriation of State
funds for reimbursements, and authorizing additional local option
sales taxes instead.
• The NC League of Municipalities supports replacing reimbursements
with local option sales taxes distributed so that no locality
would receive less than the present reimbursements.
3. State -wide enabling legislation authorizing local option
revenues as alternatives to the property tax.
* A legislative study commission has proposed and the League has
supported State -wide authority for local option real estate
transfer, hotel /motel, admissions, prepared meals and payroll
taxes.
* I recommend supporting State -wide legislation authorizing local
option admission taxes such as a 3% tax for entertainment and
sports events as a reasonable alternative to the property tax.
4. Continuation of State funding to help offset local costs of fire
protection services to State facilities including University and
University Hospitals properties.
• The Town receives about $300,000 annually in State funds
allocated to local fire departments which protect State property.
• These funds help offset the Town's costs of protecting the
state's facilities, which benefit citizens of North Carolina.
5. Need for a revenue source to support the Triangle
Transportation Authority.
* Bills authorizing local option County taxes on off- street parking
and rental car use are under consideration.
* We suggest the Council support the need for a funding source for
the authority without specifying a particular type of revenue.
6. Support for State -wide legislation to encourage recycling of
beverage containers through deposit and refund requirements.
* A few states have enacted this type of legislation.
* Increased recycling of glass is needed to meet solid waste
management objectives in Chapel Hill as in other cities.
7. Potential request for a local bill authorizing an entertainment
tax.
* As noted above, I recommend the Council support State -wide
legislation for local option admission taxes.
* The attached resolution R -5 would request a local bill
authorizing an entertainment tax of $1 for paid tickets to events
in facilities with more than 15,000 sets.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution
R- i
g ncorporating items 1 through 6 above.
A RESOLUTION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE MATTERS INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR
A LOCAL BILL REGARDING MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE TAXES (91- 3- 4/R -3)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council hereby requests the Senators and Representatives
representing Chapel Hill areas to introduce and to support:
1. A local bill authorizing a vehicle license tax of up to $15 per
year in the Town of Chapel Hill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town
Attorney to prepare a draft bill regarding the requested motor
vehicle license tax authorization for transmittal with this
resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL requests the legislative
delegation to support:
2. The need for a permanent, stable revenue source instead of
the present appropriations to reimburse localities for past
repeal of some local revenues.
3. State -wide enabling legislation authorizing local option
revenues including admissions, real estate transfer, occupancy
(hotel /motel), prepared meals and payroll taxes as alternatives to
the property tax.
4. Continuation of State funding to help offset local costs of fire
protection services to State facilities including University and
University Hospitals properties.
5. The need for a revenue source to support the Triangle
Transportation Authority.
6. State -wide legislation to encourage recycling of beverage
containers through deposit and refund requirements.
This the 4th day of March, 1991.
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A LOCAL BILL AUTHORIZING AN ENTERTAINMENT
TAX (91-3-4/R-4)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council hereby requests the Senators and Representatives
representing Chapel Hill areas. to introduce and to support a local
bill authorizing an entertainment tax of up to $1 per paid ticket
for admissions to entertainment and sports events in facilities
with 15,000 or more seats in the Town of Chapel Hill, excluding
high school events in such facilities.
This the 4th day of March, 1991.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Meeting on February 22nd with Legislators
DATE: February 21, 1991
Below is background information and a summary of suggested items
for discussion with the legislative delegation in the breakfast
meeting at 7:30 am Friday at the Carolina Inn Ballroom, Section C.
461"', :iXZU
Suggested items for discussion with legislators include:
* Need for a permanent, stable revenue source in lieu of State
reimbursements for past repeal of some local revenue sources.
* Alternatives to the property tax through State -wide authorization
of local option payroll, hotel /motel, admissions, real estate
transfer and prepared meals taxes as proposed by a legislative
study commission.
* Requesting a local bill authorizing higher motor vehicle license
fees, which are now limited to $5. An increase to $10 would
generate about $90,000, which equals revenue from slightly more
than 1/2 of one cent of the property tax rate.
• Orange County Development Impact Tax.
• Need for continued State funding support for Town fire protection
of the University and University Hospitals properties. The Town now
receives about $300,000, the equivalent of revenue from about 2
cents of the property tax rate.
Additional information and topics are discussed below.
M Y.WZief lif"Em
The deadline for introducing local bills is April 4th. As a follow -
up to the Council's public forum on February 4th and the discussion
with legislators, we plan to make recommendations for consideration
in the March 25 Council meeting.
Information from the NC League of Municipalities regarding likely
issues in this year's General Assembly session are attached.
KEY ISSUES
1. Permanent revenue source in lieu of certain State reimbursements
for past repeal of local revenue sources.
An appropriations bill has been introduced to eliminate State
reimbursements to localities for the past repeal of business
inventory property taxes, some intangibles taxes, food stamp sales
taxes and for the "homestead" property tax exemption of low- income
elderly and disabled citizens. The Governor has supported replacing
these reimbursements with a 1/2 % sales tax.
The League supports the additional sales tax as a more stable and
permanent revenue source in lieu of the reimbursements. The League
strongly supports allocation of such additional sales taxes so that
each locality will receive no net reduction.
The Town receives about $300,000 annually in State reimbursements
under current formulas. This amount equals revenue from about 2
cents of the property tax rate. Without the reimbursements, a
replacement funding source will be very important in addressing our
1991 -92 budget.
2. Alternatives to the property tax.
The League is supporting a legislative study commission's proposal
for State -wide enabling legislation for local option payroll,
hotel /motel, real estate transfer, admissions and prepared meals
taxes.
I recommend supporting State -wide authorization for these local
option revenues. The General Assembly's actions and the local
legislative delegation's support for new revenue sources such as
our occupancy tax have been a very important in helping the Town
have stable tax rates for several years.
3. Vehicle license fee
In the January retreat meeting, the council discussed seeking
authorization to increase vehicle license fees, which are now $5.
An increase from $5 to $10 would generate about $90,000 annually
or the equivalent of slightly more than 1/2 of one cent of the
property tax rate.
I recommend the council request authorization for a maximum vehicle
license fee of $20 per year.
A recently introduced bill would provide for more efficient and
equitable property taxation of vehicles by requiring the Division
of Motor vehicles to provide timely vehicle registration
information to County Tax Offices.
4. Continued State funding for Town fire protection services to
the University and University Hospitals.
The Town now receives $296,000 annually from the State, which is
equivalent to almost.2 cents of the property tax rate. The
legislators have been sensitive to the importance of this funding
to the Town and supported us when there were proposals to eliminate
this funding to offset our costs of protecting State property.
5. Admissions tax
A citizen has suggested an entertainment tax of $1 per ticket for
events in large facilities. If authorized by the legislature, a $1
per ticket tax could generate more than $600,000 annually.
An admissions tax on a percentage basis might apply more broadly
to entertainment and sports events.
In addition to supporting the League of Municipalities' position
on the need for State -wide enabling legislation, the Council may
wish to work toward authorization of an admissions tax through a
local bill.
6. Proposed hotel /motel tax for orange County visitor Development
Authority.
The Council may wish to indicate there will be a meeting and
discussion with the County Commissioners before the Council takes
action on this proposal.
We plan to make recommendations to you on March 25th.
7. Development impact tax.
Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro representatives proposed
in 1988 that the governments request a local bill for a development
impact tax as an alternative to impact fees possible under a 1985
and 1987 local bills. The impact tax would be easier to administer
than impact fees.
The orange County Commissioners are considering making a request
for authorization to levy this tax in a proposed impact tax
district including Chapel Hill, Carrboro and unincorporated areas
of the County.
Impact taxes would be allocated to the Towns based on developments
in the Towns and their respective extraterritorial and Joint
Planning transition areas. Hillsborough and Mebane could request
to be added to the district area subject to the impact tax.
Under the draft prepared for the Commissioners' consideration, the
Towns could use impact fee revenue for various capital purposes
including roads, drainage and police and fire stations.
I recommend the Council discuss this matter with the Board of
County Commissioners before taking action. We will provide
additional analysis and recommendations at a later date.
8. Revenue source(s) for the Triangle Transportation Authority.
Representatives of the Authority have indicated in January they
would seek the Town's support of revenue authorizations such as a
tax on rental cars.
9. Annexation statutes.
The League staff is concerned that there may be bills introduced
to restrict annexation initiated by cities and towns. The League
would oppose such a proposal.
Y believe annexation is appropriate and equitable for areas which
have become urban or are in the process of becoming urban. The
value of property just outside a city or town tends to reflect the
amenities including public services in an urban area.
THE FACTS ON
State Reimbursements to Local Governments
Whst are reimbursements?
0 Funds to replace certain local
taxes that the General Assembly
eliminated:
• The property tax on business
inventories;
• Some of the intangibles tax
(gone are taxes on cash on de-
posit in banks or insurance
companies and cash on hand);
• The homestead exemption —
Some low - income older or dis-
abled residents have a partial
property tax exemption; and
• Sales taxes on food stamp pur-
chases -•- Purchases made with
food stamps are exempt from
local sales taxes.
How much money is involved?
0 In 1990 -91, Tar Heel cities and
towns will get $75 million in re-
imburseamsts. Counties will get
about $163 million. Together local
goverranatts will receive about
WS m2iion in reimbursements.
0 EMImates are that municipalities
would get $765 million in rdm-
bu:sements in FY914Z and coun-
ties would get $165.5 million in
FY914Z
Why does the General Assembly pro-
vide reimbursements 1
When the General Assembly re-
paled the business inventory tax and
eliminated part of the intangibles tax, it
committed to replacing those reve-
nues. Why? Because these were local
revenues that the General Assembly
chose to repeal to help businesses, and
individuals. Local governments still
needed the revenues these taxes
brought in, so legislators provided re-
imbursements.
For the same reason, there are par-
tial reimbursements for the homestead
exemption and replacement of reve-
nues lost because sales taxes are not
charged on food stamp purchases.
Can the General Assembly cut reirn-
burwments T
Yea The General Assembly must
vote each year to appropriate the reim,
bursements for local governments. In
1990 there were proposals to cut reim-
bursements because of a tight state
budget. This year, the state's gap be-
tween revenues and expected spend-
ing is even wider. Some are already
talking of cutting reimbursements.
Are there alternatives?
Local officials believe that munici-
palities and counties need a stable al-
ternative to the reimbursements. Mu-
nicipal legislative goals call for an
additional local option sales tax to re-
place the reimbursements — provided
that every local government gets 'at
least as much revenue from this source
as from the reimbursements. Lord of-
ficials are willing to consider other al-
ternatives.
Governor James G. Martin has pro-
posed an additional one -half cent local
option sales tax to replace reimburse-
ments.
What can local officials do?
Look closely at the listing of reim-
bursement amount and property tax
replacement impact for each munici-
pality. The League maiM this infor-
mation out to all cities and towns on
Feb. 7.
Talk with legislators. Let them
know how much reimbursements your
city or town gets and what would hap-
pen --- in tens of increases in your tax
rate — if reimbunsements were cut.
Support an additional local option
sales tax.
Prepared by
the North Carolina
League of Municipalities;
P.Q. Box 3069,
Raleigh, NC 27602 ---
(919) 834 - 1311.2191
THE FACTS ON
How HB2377 affects local revenues
W1tat is 102377 all abort?
Last year the General Assembly
passed a bill, HB2377, that made cer-
tain long - standing local revenues sub -
ject to annual appropriation. This was
done to balance the state's budget on an
acarval accounting basis. Before this,
these revenues had been distributed
automatically, by state statute. These
funds did not have to go through the
state budget process. Now, they do.
Now, each year, legislators must vote
to send us these tax revenues -- from
taxes that have long been local reve-
nues sources.
What revenues are affected?
O The remaining tax on intangible
preppy
O The excise tax on the sale of beer
and wine
O The franchise tax on electricity,
natural gas and telephone sales
Isom ntwA survey is involved?
For municipalities, these revenue
are expected to bring in $167.2 million
for FY 1990 -91. For 1991 -92, the munic-
ipal snare is estimated at $175 million.
In total, municipalities and counties
will receive an eatimated $240.4 million
in HB2377 funds for. FY1990 -91. The
estimate for local governments for
M991 -92 is about $250 million.
Are these local taxes or state-shared
revenues?
The intangibles tax orginally was a
local tax. Intangible property was part
of the local property tax base, subject to
the ad valorem property tax.
The General Assembly passed leg-
islation in 1937 for the state to adminis-
ter the intangibles tax. This was done to
establish a uniform tax rate and to im-
prove collection of the tax. The tax was
to be collected by the state on behalf of
local governments.
Before 1949, there were local fran-
chise taxes on sale of electricity, natural
gas and telephone service within a mu-
nicipality. The state's franchise tax re-
placed the local taxes, again applying a
uniform rate across the state. The state
keeps the franchise taxes from sales
within unincorporated areas and re-
turns to cities and towns part of the tax
proceeds from sales within municipal-
ities:
The state began levying an excise
tax on beer and wire back in 1933. In
1947, the General. Assembly raised the
tax and shared the increase with cities
and counties that allowed sales within
their boundaries.
Are these revenues at risk?
Yes. The General Assembly could
decide to cut the appropriation of
HB2377 funds. There already has been
talk of keeping the 1991 -92 appropria-
tion the same as the 90-91 appropria-
tion, thus cutting out the natural
growth of these local revenues.
What's the alternative?
Municipal legislative policy calls
for the repeal of HB2377, returning
these funds to the previous statutory
method of distribution. Municipal offi-
cials also would be happy with statu-
tory language that stops short of restor-
ing the previous status as local
government money, but gets these
funds out of the annual appropriations
Process.
What can local officials do?
Contact your legislators and ask
them to support repeal of HB2377 or
alternative language that gets this local
government money off the table.
Prepared by
the North Carolina
League of Municipali.
P.O. Box 3069,
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 834 - 1311.2/91
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA
Wednesday, March 6, 1991 at 5:30 p.m.
Town Council Meeting Room
Joint Meeting with the orange County Board of Commissioners
1. Introduction. Mayor Howes.
2. Discussion of legislative matters.
w
■
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Legislative matters for discussion with the Orange County
Board of Commissioners
DATE: March 6, 1991
Attached is background information regarding legislative matters
which the Council may wish to discuss with the Board of
commissioners:
1. Proposed Orange County Visitor Development Authority, proposed
Orange County hotel /motel tax and the request for an allocation
of 20% of the Chapel Hill hotel /motel taxes.
2. Orange County Impact Tax
Also attached is the agenda item regarding several legislative
matters on the Council's March 4 agenda.
P
-0range County Visitor Development Authority
BACKGROUND
The Orange County Economic Development Commission's Strategic Plan
includes the goal of attracting visitors along with preserving
historic, cultural and natural resources.
A Visitor service Task Force of the Public- Private Partnership has
proposed establishing an Orange County Visitor Development
Authority with funding sources including a County -wide hotel /motel
tax and a requested allocation of 20$ or about $50,000 from the
Chapel Hill hotel /motel tax.
The proposed County hotel /motel tax would generate an estimated
$115,000 annually from a 1% tax. The proposal is to seek
legislative authorization for a 3% occupancy tax and to initially
levy 1% to support the proposed Authority. Such a County -wide tax
would be in addition to and would not alter the Chapel Hill
hotel /motel tax.
The Chapel Hill hotel /motel tax of 3% generates about $280,000
annually. In past years, the Council has allocated $50,000 for
visitor information services and support of cultural events. The
remainder helps pay for services of General Fund departments, and
is equivalent to revenue from about 1.4 cents of the property tax
rate.
Almost 80% of the hotel rooms in Orange County are in Chapel Hill.
ISSUES
organization
The Visitor Task Force proposal (attached) does not specify whether
the proposed authority would be a non - profit private entity; an
independent public authority or a part of the County government,
or what the specific make -up of an advisory or governing board
would be.
We believe that the visitor development agency would benefit from
being an agency of County government with general administrative
and support services available from the County, and suggest this
approach.
If the County agency approach were pursued, we believe an advisory
board composed primarily of visitor and tourism - related
businesspeople would be appropriate. In addition, we suggest that
the make -up of a board take into account the large percentage of
hotel /motel rooms in Chapel Hill.
Potential return „on investment in
a Visitor Development Authority
P
As discussed-ir previous reports to the Council, we have looked for
an analysis by a non - industry entity of how much municipal revenue
might result from the marketing and promotion efforts of a tourism
or visitor development agency.
we have discussed this issue with Dave Peterson, formerly national
director for sports and convention facilities with Laventhol and
Horvath, an accounting firm which specialized in hotel and
conference- related feasibility studies; Mark Lomanno, also formerly
with Laventhol and Horvath; Michael Dunn of the.Greensboro office
of Pannell Kerr Forster, an accounting firm which specializes in
hotel matters; and Bryan Mihalik, assistant professor of tourism
at Georgia State University.
None was able to refer us to a report or study of the type we seek.
Their key observations included:
* A study of local revenue returns on spending -.ar convention and
visitor bureaus in other cities may have little meaning for Chapel
Hill. (Peterson)
* A break -even analysis of the amount of hotel business necessary
to recover funding of a convention and visitor bureau is one way
to approach this issue. (Peterson)
* A study of the type we seek would involve review of tourism
related business income before and after establishment of a tourism
bureau, and of other factors affecting tourism /visitor business
activity. Such a study could be performed by a firm with the
specialized data base necessary. (Dunn /Pannell Kerr Forster)
* An economic impact multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5 may be reasonable as
an indication of the extent to which tourism dollars recirculate
in a local economy. (Lomanno)
* The economic multiplier for tourism /visitor income is probably
2.0 to 2.1. (Mihalik)
In addition, we contacted Robert Gittler of the Planning Department
at the University of Illinois at Champaign and received an income
multiplier factor of 1.5884 for Orange County as of 1987. This
multiplier was calculated from the University's Economic Impact
Forecasting System (EIFS), which is used to generate multipliers
for each County in the US from data on business types and
employment.
As previously discussed, we believe a visitor development authority
clearly has the potential to recover a Town funding allocation
after a start -up period which could be a few years. An 18% increase
in hotel /motel room rental income would recover $25,000 annually
in Chapel Hill occupancy taxes without considering multiplier
effects.
Because of sales tax distribution formulas,' we believe most of the
w
return to-the-Town would be in our occupancy taxes with a limited
sales tax revenue increase.
In addition, the Orange County Tax Office staff has advised us that
two hotels in Chapel Hill each received reductions of about $2
million in their taxable valuation due to reduced income. At the
current property tax rate, these valuation reductions reduce Town
property tax -svenues by about $25,000 annually. Tax records
indicate these valuation reductions occurred in 1990.
A future increase in valuation and related property tax revenue
from these hotels is therefore a potential benefit from increased
visitor /tourism promotion and marketing. The Tax Office staff
advised that it assigns valuations to most hotels and motels on the
basis of construction costs and land value rather than income.
Programs of the groppsed visitor
development authority
The proposal by the Visitor Task Force includes suggested annual
budgets and a list of marketing and promotion programs (pages 5
through 8 of the report) . Generally, the approach is that the
authority would serve as an umbrella agency that would supplement
the work of the four existing visitor service agencies in Chapel
Hill, including the University, and Hillsborough.
Examples of programs suggested in the Task Force proposal include
a county -wide visitor guide, meeting planners guide, calendar of
events, media /marketing kits, video, VIP host program, tour
packages, speakers' bureau, signage program and telephone hotlines.
We believe these service are logical additions and enhancements to
the existing local programs.
10101zEd@rM,M07:1
We suggest the following as a general approach to visitor services
issues:
1. We recommend allocating 10% of the Town's hotel /motel tax for
a visitor /tourism promotion agency on a performance agreement
basis, subject.to annual review by the Council.
2. We believe the agency would benefit from being a County entity
with related administrative and support services.
3. We suggest an advisory board for the agency have representation
with emphasis on businesspeople with interests and skills related
to visitor services, and that the composition of the board take
into account the distribution of hotels and motels within the
County.
4. We would recommend endorsing a County -wide hotel /motel tax as
the primary source of funding for visitor services.
orange County development impact tax.
BACKGROUND
Discussions in 1988
Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro representatives proposed
in 1988 that the governments request a local bill for a development
impact tax as an alternative to impact fees possible under 1985
and 1987 local bills. The impact tax would be easier to administer
than impact fees.
Summary of current proposal
The Orange County Commissioners are considering making a request
for authorization to levy this tax in a proposed impact tax
district including Chapel Hill, Carrboro and unincorporated areas
of the County.
Impact taxes would be allocated to the Towns based on developments
in the Towns and their respective extraterritorial and Joint
Planning transition areas. The County would retain collection and
administration costs.
Hillsborough and Mebane could request to be added to the district
area subject to the impact tax.
Under the draft prepared for the Commissioners' consideration, the
Towns could use impact fee revenue for various capital purposes
including roads, drainage and police and fire stations.
Once effective, the impact tax would preclude establishment of
impact fees in Chapel Hill and Carrboro except for water and sewer
purposes.
The County Commissioners would be the governing board of the impact
tax district and would set-the impact tax rates per square foot of
dwelling space and enclosed commercial floor space. However, the
proposal provides that the Commissioners would consult with the
Chapel Hill and Carrboro governing boards in setting the tax rates.
This proposal is very similar to that prepared in 1988. The use of
a district is intended to make the tax workable if Hillsborough and
Mebane choose not to participate.
As discussed in 1988, we believe the impact tax is more practical
to apply than impact fees, which must be spent with a clear
relationship to development from which they are generated.
ORANGE COUNTY
VISITOR TASK FORCE
Chairman's Report
December 5, 1990
FORWARD
The following programs, interim and long -term funding recommendations, mission statement and budget
model are the result of many hours of work by the marketing, research and funding committees of the
Orange County Visitor Task Force.since August 1, 1990.
These recommendations will best serve the diverse needs of Orange County's visitor industry and
provide for enhanced revenues through the broadening of the county tax base. Additionally, these
recommendations have taken into consideration the existing staff and budgets of organizations currently
providing visitor services. In this respect, this proposal has been designed to enhance, not duplicate,
effective ongoing visitor efforts.
The primary mission of an Orange County Visitor Development Authority would be to attract
additional compatible visitor business and provide an organized, central "voice" for the visitor
industry for more cost -efficient and impactful marketing'of the county externally and locally with
county organizations and residents. Cooperative marketing of the county's attractions and
accommodations and improved internal public relations within the hospitality industry a{e vital to
successful economic impact with regard to visitor services.
This program will be the basis of a strategic plan for a series of public forums and for formal
presentations to elected officials at a county and municipal level.
Sharon Finch
Chair Orange County Visitor Task Force
Mike Fales
Chair, Marketing Committee
R. Bruce Holsten
Chair, Finance Committee
Ed Rehkopf
Chair, Research Committee
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. MISSION
3. OBJECTIVES
4. RELATED VISITOR FACTS
5. RECOMMENDED MARKETING PROGRAMS AND LITERATURE
6. PROPOSED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT 1991 -1993
7. INTERIM ERIM AND i ERIMANENT r I JN DING SOURCES
S. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
�N:•� 4 • • :1 •: • ! •' D MMJ�aejlp
Why Market Orange County to Visitors?
A frequently asked question is "Why should we spend money to attract visitors we already have ?"
• Area visitors' facilities and services are underutilized. City -wide hotel occupancy in Chapel Hill
last year was around 63 %. County -wide the occupancy was 53%.
• Visitors are unfamiliar with our area and need information.
• Visitors often become repeat visitors if their experience in our communities is positive. People like
to go where they are made to feel welcome.
• Conference and event planners need help coordinating their visits. Planners appreciate the
availability of information and the convenience of a local community's efforts to attract them.
They know full well the economic impact of their event on the local economy and they have come to
expect professional and efficient response to their queries. Organizations planning conferences and
events are no different than people shopping - they want information, value, convenience and
service. The community that can provide these gets their business.
• Other communities recognize the importance of actively seeking visitor groups and provide a
central point of contact to disseminate information and facilitate the planning of events. Our area
and economy is often in direct competition with these other communities.
• While we have premiere educational, research and medical institutions that are a natural magnet
for conferences and visitors, we must remember that other communities have them too. There is
often competition for conferences and events. Central dissemination of information and efficient
facilitation and coordination of needs, makes a difference when trying to attract groups.
Is It Worth the Trouble and Expense?
The answer is an emphatic yes. Would Raleigh, Durham, Charlotte and a host of other cities across
the country be operating Visitor Services Authorities were it not deemed advantageous? Each dollar
spent by a visitor in our communities has a ripple effect throughout the local economy. Primary
recipients of visitors' expenditures must themselves pay taxes, support payrolls and buy goods and
services for their businesses. To the extent that this "outside" money is churned through the local
economy, it provides more sales tax revenues to provide for government services, thereby lessening the
pressure to increase property taxes.
Doesn't this Idea Benefit Just a Few?
This is not a plan to spend tax dollars just to help local hotels. While hotels are obvious recipients of
increased visitor traffic, many other businesses also benefit - restaurants, gas stations, retail shops and
the host of businesses that supply their needs for goods and services. In Chapel Hill, hotels are subject
to a 3% occupancy tax on room revenues, so increases in room business directly impacts on local govern-
ments' revenues. Last year, Chapel Hill hotels sold close to 200,000 room nights, generating approxi-
mately $250,000 in occupancy tax. For each 1 % increase in hotel occupancy city-wide, an additional
$4,730 is raised in occupancy tax revenues. Total hotel sales topped $15,000,000, making the lodging
industry one of the largest in the community.
What Can We-Do to Attract Visitors?
Project a conscious official attitude that we want visitors - that we are willing to extend ourselves to
help them and to bring them to our communities. We each can't assume that someone else is doing it
We've all got to do it and our community leaders need to stand squarely behind it.
Offer gracious hospitality to those who already come. Let's make them feel welcome with an official
voice - someone representing our communities who will say 'Thanks for coming ", "How can we help
you ? ", and "Please come again ".
Provide better service, information and assistance to those who want to come. We need to make it
easier for conference and event planners who are trying to bring their business to our communities.
Instead of having them burn up the phone lines to many individual providers of visitor facilities and
services, give them a central point of contact to facilitate and coordinate the many details of their
event.
What Will It Cost to Establish a Visitor Development Authority?
Based upon the Boulder, CO, example and those of other communities, a new organization could cost
approximately 5150,000 in startup for each of the first two years of operation to establish a permanent
infrastructure. After startup, it will cost an estimated 5200,000 per year for a full time, permanently
funded program with the principal increase being for programs and marketing. These figures could be
significantly lowered by "piggybacking" the Visitor Development Authority with existing represent-
ational organizations such as the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, the Hillsborough
Chamber of Commerce, the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Downtown Commission or the UNC Visitors' Center.
Where Will the Money Come From?
There are a number of possibilities:
• Provide a larger allocation of the current hotel occupancy tax to fund a Visitor Development
Authority.
• Increase the hotel occupancy tax, with the full increase going to fund a Visitor Development
Authority.
• institute a prepared meal tax with some or all of it going to fund a Visitor Development Authority.
• Set up a sliding scale on either occupancy tax or prepared meal tax where the first so many dollars
of tax revenue goes to a Visitor Development Authority and all proceeds above that are split
between the Visitor Development Authority and other governmental needs on a percentage basis.
• Convince local hotels, restaurants and other interested businesses to contribute matching or seed
money for several years to get the program off the ground.
All of these alternatives are seen as a way to "prime the pump" - to increase visitor expenditures in our
communities - by offering better visitor services.
An Orange County Visitor Development Authority would be a county -wide, not -for- profit, umbrella
organization formed by local government and the visitor industry to attract and serve visitors to
Orange County. It will enhance and promote the social, cultural, and economic benefits of visitors to
Orange County, including increased county revenue, new jobs, and a better quality of life.
I OBIECMIS
• Generate positive awareness of Orange County as a destination for pleasure and business visitors.
• Stimulate interest and desire in groups and individuals to visit Orange County.
• increase the extent and length of stay of visitors to Orange County.
• Provide a liaison between visitors and the facilities, services, events, activities, agencies and
organizations that serve and satisfy them.
• Develop market research and target descriptions of existing and prospective visitors to guide and
measure new marketing activities for the Orange County visitor industry.
• Generate positive community awareness of Orange County visitors and provide opportunities for
county-wide support and participation.
• Provide a vehicle to merge resources from? private business, government agencies, non- profit
organizations and individuals into a cohesive, county -wide effort to market Orange County as a
visitor destination.
1 RELATED VISITOR FACTS
• Chapel Hill dedicates approximately 517,500 or 7% of its hotel -motel occupancy tax to visitor
services. The average across the state is 50 -100 %. An average of $250,000 is collected annually
from this tax. Where it is directly reinvested in visitor services/ tourism, the economic impact is
five dollars generated for every dollar invested.
•
$7.8 million will be spent in Orange County by the end of July 1991 by visitors for events of the
NCHAA and the junior Olympics in track.
• If every visitor for home college football games stayed an extra night or spent another S47, it would
generate over;S200,000 in occupancy and sales taxes.
• Over 35,000 prospective undergraduate and graduate students visit UNC each year. Most duster
their visits around several schools in the area and travel with friends and parents.
• The Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Hillsborough Chambers of Commerce average 3,000 visitor
information requests per month.
• There are approximately 1.2 million visitors to Orange County annually generating $72 million in
sales revenues.
H
• Downtov, n merchants credit out -of- towners for over 50% of their business (one merchant credits
visitors fdMver 90% of his business - with receipts to prove it!).
• The top two reasons retirees travel is natural scenic beauty (63%) and historic sites (52 %).
• Vacation travel is more oriented to long weekends than extended vacations and over 50% of
inquiries about the Triangle result in actual travel to the area. (This is much higher than the
industry average.)
• Over 40% of local visitors stay in private homes and visit friends. (The national average is less
than 24 %.)
• 91 % of the county tax base is residential property taxes.
• There are under 1,000 hotel, motel, and bed and breakfast rooms in Orange County. The average
occupancy for the past year was 53%. (Every room night has direct impact on restaurants,
merchants, and attractions, concerts and sporting events.)
• The county, as a whole, currently has an investment of approximately $50,000 in direct visitor
services. This includes Chambers of Commerce, the Downtown Commission and the Preservations
Societies.
• There are currently four primary providers of visitor services: Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of
Commerce (5 days a week), Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce /Visitor Center (6 days a week),
Chapel Hill /Carrboro Downtown Commission (5 days a week), and the UNC Visitor Center (5 days
a week).
4
A permanently funded Orange County Visitor Development Authority would develop programs to:
• attract new visitors, as well as
• service existing visitors and visitor programs.
This will be achieved with existing organization visitor service staff and through newly appointed
professional management. The Authority would coordinate existing programs, provide comprehensive
and aggressive marketing organization and serve as a central point of contact for visitor service
information with a centrally located staff and facility. Its three most critical roles would be:
• external marketing,
• development of coordinated marketing materials, and
• establishing county needs with a single authoritative voice via improved marketing and
communications.
PROPOSED PROGRAMS AND I.TPERATURE
A coordinated marketing program would include:
5.1 County Visitor Guide
Including hotels, .vuntry inns, motels, restaurants, a�?ctions, retail outlets, etc. and county
map with highlights.
5.2 Meeting Planners Guide
With a services directory, meeting space information, usages /inventory of UNC meeting spaces.
5.3 Motorcoach Guide
With developed itineraries and packages for Orange County including representation at trade
shows to solicit business.
5.4 . Centralized Marketing Facility /Staff
Coordinated inventory county-wide, using existing and new staff. One central point of contact
for organizers for press conferences, mayor appearances, accommodations, area tours, customized
agendas, facilities information, advertising and public relations activities.
5.5 Calendar of Events
A monthly or quarterly calendar to serve all county organizations and eliminate the overlap of
events, hotel bookings and to spread business over the year for more economic impact and better
servicing of visitors.
5.6
5.7
4?
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
MembershiRI/Travel Program
Pro- atiN,e solicitation of desirable group and association business via membership in key trade
groups, such as NC Travel and Tourism Council, Triangle hotel and restaurant associations, NC
Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus (NCACVB), US Association of Convention and
Visitor Bureaus, and others. Establishment of a central facility and contact person would
facilitate our ability to piggyback state mailings to prospects and participate in cooperative
trade show booths and match grant ad and PR funds from the state. It also enables Orange
County to be a "player" in the development of compatible business with a resource bank of
experienced professionals nation and state wide.
PressIMarketing Kit
A coordinated and complete marketing kit is necessary for travel writers, meeting organizers
and unifying the facts and figures from which the area is "sold" to prospective visitor groups.
This is different from the mass produced overall brochure which would be available locally for
use by the Chambers, Downtown Commission, UNC Welcome Center, hotels and motels, and
state welcome centers.
Information Hot - lines:
• Hotel Hot -line for ease of booking groups and coordinating efforts.
• Visitor Hot -line toll-free number for updated visitor information.
• CINET Hot -line national hot -line access for prospects looking to set up
meetings and conferences making inquiries through the
US Conventions and Visitors Bureau hot -line.
Tour Packages
Packaging of Christmas historic tours, concerts, Christmas parades, shopping and sightseeing
with tour operators and with sponsoring organizations, travel agencies, hotels and airlines.
An example is "Christmas in Orange County" theme, booking Orange County rooms with
Messiah tickets, PlayMaker's Nutcracker, and local area attractions.
NC Travel and Tourism Day October Blitz to Neighboring States
Participation in joint marketing activities for the state marketing theme with literature and
manpower.
Destination Video
Used for speaker engagements and group use, featuring county attractions and history to be
produced with copies available for purchase by local organization and individuals/ tourists.
(This project could be an opportunity for corporate sponsorship.)
VIP Host Program and Convention Services
Coordination of hosting any dignitaries that require special itinerary, arrangements, airport
pick -up, welcome gifts or entertaining in conjunction with special requests from town, UNC, or
area organizations. 44andling all arrangements, transport and coordinating details.
CO- Crd., v, /,, )
5.13 Sneakers Bureau
Industry professionals available to address civic groups, give media interviews or perform as a
spokesperson for the visitor industry.
5.14 Research and Photographic Library
On -going inventory updating, usage fees and rules, for all facilities and related services to
visitors.
5.15 Editorial Placements PAM Tour Hostin
Pro- active inclusion of Orange County area with state and national media and hosting of travel
writers via inviting groups to see the county's sites and natural beauty. Solicitation of
advertising usage of our area as a backdrop and local homes, attractions, and locales.
5.16 Employee Hospitality TraiWn
A training program for hotel concierge desks and key contact sales persons on the history and
attractions of the towns and county and a guided tour of the area's key attractions.
5.17 Coordinated County Si na a Pro am
Special signage for Visitor Development Authority, Welcome Center, area attractions and
special event directional signage. (The single largest complaint from attendees of the Summer
Olympic Festival in the Triangle was insufficiently marked venues. With the heavily
forested areas, clarity of signage is critical for visitor success.)
5.18 Welcome_Center /Visitor Center Support Program
Umbrella program serving existing facilities located in HaLlsborough, downtown Chapel Hill,
UNC and the Chapel Hill /Carrboro Chamber of Commerce; funding and human resources woald
be dedicated to these facilities.
7
6, Proposed Income and Expenditure Statement 1991 -1993
" This budget assumes permanent funding from fiscal year 1991 - 92.
'* This assumes an initial staff of one with an increase to three in
fiscal year 1992 -1993.
The marketing expenditure totals assume line item allocations
based on the program priorities determined by the new
Executive Director.
8
1990 -1991
%
1991 -1992
%
1992 -1993
%
SUBSIDY
* Orange County
20,000
115,000
115,000
Municipalities
17500
501000
50,000
Private
_ 12,500
1
_
550,000
S1.65,000
S165,000
REVENUE
Sponsorship
25 000
35,000
550,000
5190,000
5200,000
EXPENSES
P r� aonnel
(512,500)
25.0
(S80,000)
42.1
(590,000)
45.0
Director
(12,500)
(38,000)
(40,000)
** Admin Assistant(s)
-
(20,000)
(25,000)
Benefits
-
(15,750)
(18,750)
Furniture & Equip.
-
(6,250)
(6,250)
rati ns
(S20,000)
40.0
(540,000)
21.1
($40,000)
20.0
Rent
-
(10,000)
(10,000)
Administration
(20,000)
(10,000)
(10,000)
Tele 8- CIVET
-
(51000)
(51000)
Postage
-
(6,000)
(6:000)
Dues
-
(3,500)
(3,500)
Auto /Gas
-
(2,500)
(2,500)
Supplies
-
(3,000)
(3,000)
"" *Marketing
($17,500)
35.0
(S70,000)
36.8
(570,000)
35.0
Guide (s)
-
(10,000)
(101000)
Brochure (s)
(10,000)
(15,000)
(10,000)
Video (s)
-
(81000)
Media Advertising
-
(4500)
(10,000)
Conference (s)
-
(7,500)
(7,500)
Welcome Center (s)
-
(20,000)
(25,000)
Tour Program (s)
(7,500)
(5,000)
(5,000)
Contract Services
-
(2,500)
TOTAL EXPENSES
(55o=)
($190=)
($200,000)
" This budget assumes permanent funding from fiscal year 1991 - 92.
'* This assumes an initial staff of one with an increase to three in
fiscal year 1992 -1993.
The marketing expenditure totals assume line item allocations
based on the program priorities determined by the new
Executive Director.
8
11211 M Klal""&FA IN0 01 a am) ZIP3 •
The financial recommendations are based on the evaluation of both existing sources of funds and state
legislative precedent for new forms of revenue. The various options that are available to Orange
County to establish and fund a suitable infrastructure for the provision of visitor services, will be
assessed based on the efficiency with which they can be secured and the ability to access existing
revenue sources that could be dedicated to a visitor initiative.
In this respect, the financial objectives of the authority are:
• To utilize the information that is generated from the research and marketing sub - committees, in
identifying the most readily achievable source of existing or new funds with which to implement
initial programs and infrastructure;
• In conjunction with the appropriate government bodies and agencies of Orange County, to provide
for the formation of an authority and financial guidelines to administer the funding of a
county wide program;
• To identify a permanent source of funding to implement the recommended programs on an ongoing
basis.
At present, there are three identified sources of existing and new funding, which have been discussed
and evaluated informally by the Task Force; these being:
• Chapel Hill Occupancy Tax (Existing)
• County Occupancy Tax (Overlay)
• Prepared Food and Beverage Tax (Meals Tax)
An Entertainment Tax and Sales and Use Tax were both evaluated and deemed inappropriate or not
feasible for either interim or permanent funding at this point in time.
7.1 Existin Occu Rgncy Tax (ChaRtl Hill ® 3%
The town of Chapel Hill appropriates approximately 20% of its existing occupancy tax to
visitor and cultural activities. If this percentage tax were applied to a visitors initiative at a
county level, it would provide a minimum of 550,000 to a dedicated county program that would
be responsible for the administration and allocation of the funds to the designated areas.
72 County OccuRmgy -Tax
This new county -wide tax, requested as an overlay of up to 3 %, would generate as much as
5345,000 annually. Initially, only 1% would be applied, generating approximately $115,000
per annum for a county program for visitors. There is a legislative precedent for this tax being
levied on a county-wide basis (Mecklenberg). .
7.3 Coun Pre ared F d and $every a Tax eals Tax
There is only one example of this tax at present, which is in Mecklenberg County, and it is
totally dedicated to visitor services and the building of a new convention center. This is a 1%
tax levied on all prepared foods and beverages including restaurants, Cafeterias, caterers, bars
and delicatessens. The Prepared Meals Tax, if levied in Orange County, would generate the
following revenue historically:
GROSS RETAIL SALES AND SALES TAX COLLECTIONS IN BUSINESS
CLASS OF 306 FOR ORANGE COUNTY FOR SELECTED FISCAL YEARS
FISCAL GROSS GROSS PER PER
PEAR' COLLECTIONS RETAIL SALES 0.1% 1.00/b
1985 -86
$1, 925 ,661
$69,541,722
$69,541
$695,417
1986 -87
$1; 669 ,648
$61,516,923
$61,516
$615,169
1987 -88
$1, 876 ,078
$66,227,328
$66,227
$662,273
1988 -89
$1. 815 ,537
$65,588,106
$65,588
$655,881
1989 -90
$2, 008 ,740
$69,619,092
$69,619
$696,190
• Fiscal year runs from July 1st through June 30th.
Therefore, a 0.5% tax would generate between 5330,000 and 5350,000. These funds would constitute
a new source of revenue and, like the Occupancy Tax, would require legislative approval��_
coming General Assembly.
This revenue source, if approved, could only be implemented in fiscal year 1992 -1993. In addition,
the NC Restaurant Association has identified seven specific criteria that must apply prior to their
legislative support for the legislation. The most important of these being a 90% dedication of all
revenues generated to an approved visitor services program.
Although the concept of imposing any new taxes right now is politically sensitive and problematic,
public opinion indicates that any newly identified revenue sources for visitor services should be
allocated to a new program. It is the consensus of the Task Force that an educational program be
initiated to brief our state, county and municipal officials of the direct benefits attributable to a
professionally managed Visitor Development Authority. In addition, the Visitor Development
Authority will undertake a minimum of two public forums to evaluate public sentiment regarding a
county-wide visitor program and will make contact with the local hotel /motel association and
local restauranteurs to build a consensus for any new tax based initiatives.
10
FINFAM161, ' ►1• i • uI I ►1• ' r •
A synthesis of the investigation into visitors services in Orange County has led to the following
summary and recommendations on the impact of increased visitors on our towns and county.
The Task Force has found that the visitor industry is a strong, dean industry which will have an
increasing benefit for economic development and growth in Orange County. It is viewed as an important
contributor to both increased revenue and employment in the county. It is anticipated that it will
develop into one of the principal industries in the county in the next ten years.
The Task Force has ascertained that a county-wide visitors program is:
• growing and will be good for the county's economy,
• of critical importance and needs more attention to professional development,
• a sound investment and positive revenue source, and
• should be developed according to national industry standards.
As an employer, the visitor industry is seen as very important in an establishment of new and better job
opportunities.
In this respect, the visitor industry is perceived to provide above average wages and should not have a
negative impact on the environment or quality of life.
County and municipal funding as well as public support should be committed to increasing efforts to
promote Orange County as a travel destination. Specifically, funding should be committed to the
A ...tion of a professionally managed visitors development authority and for county promotional and
marketing activities:
In addition, the industry should be involved with issues which directly and indirectly impact on itself,
its constituents and the citizens of Orange County. The industry should be actively involved in issues of:
• environmental quality
• economic development
• transportation
• education
• public safety, and
• cultural resources.
In general, the Task Force believes that the Orange County visitor industry should unify and
consolidate its resources and current efforts designed to enlist and encourage support from legislators and
the public. Unification and consolidation will not only result in a better return on investment, but it will
ensure that a common message is heard by our local and state government officials, as well as visitors to
the county.
11
Proposed
1/31/91
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO LEVY A TAX ON
THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE
01' GENERATING REVENUES TO PAY PART OF THE COSTS
OF SCHOOL CAPITAL FACILITIES AND
TO CREATE AN ORANGE COUNTY IMPACT TAX
DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE DISTRICT TO
LEVY A TAX ON THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING REVENUES TO
PAY PART OF THE COSTS OF CAPITAL FACILITIES
REQUIRED BY GROWTH
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA ENACTS:
Part 1. Definitions.
Section 1. The following definitions apply to Parts Z, 3 and
4 of this Act:
(1) Commercial building enclosed floor space. All enclosed
floor space used for any purpose except:
a. Dwelling units and accessory structures to dwelling
units.
b. Recreational facilities constructed as part of a
residential development and used primarily. by
residents of the development.
C. Buildings owned by the United States, the State of
North Carolina, any county or any municipal
corporation.
d. Buildings owned and operated by non -- profit entities
for noncommercial and nonresidential purposes.
e. Schools or day care centers.
1
(2) Dl_-Strict. The Orange County Impact Tax District estab-
lished by this Act.
(3) Dwelling Unit. An enclosure containing sleeping,
kitchen, and bathroom facilities desig,,ed for and used
or held ready for use as a permanent residence by one
family.
(4) Land development.
a. Land
development shall mean:
1.
Construction of any dwelling unit (other than
one excluded under subsections (b) and (c) of
this section) for which a building permit was
issued or should have been issued after the
effective date of an ordinance adopted under
this Act;
2.
Construction of any commercial building
enclosed floor space for which a building per-
mit was issued or should have been issued after
the effective date of an ordinance adopted
under this Act;
3.
Conversion of a building that adds one or more
new dwelling units or that creates new commer-
cial building enclosed floor space; or
4.
The initial location of a manufactured home or
other dwelling or commercial structure within
Orange County .for the school c _ pital impact tax
2
M
or within the District for the District impact
tax.
b. For purposes of determining the impact of land
development for Part 2 of this Act, land development
shall not include:
1. Construction of an addition to a dwelling unit;
2. The relocation within the District of any
structure located within the District on the
effective date of an ordinance adopted pursuant
to Part 2 of this Act or any structure with
respect to which an impact tax adopted pursuant
to Part 2 of this Act has been paid;
3. Within the District, the reconstruction or re-
placement of one dwelling unit by another or
the replacement or reconstruction of commercial
building enclosed floor space that was in
existence on the effective date of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to Part 2 of this Act or of
any such floor space with respect to which an
impact tax pursuant to Part .2 of this Act has
been paid.
C. For purposes of determining the impact of land
development for Part 3 of this Act, land development
shall not include:
1. Construction of an addition to a dwelling unit;
3
2. The relocation within Orange County of any
structure located within the County on the ef-
fective date of an ordinance adopted pursuant
to Part 3 of this Act or any structure with
respect to which an impact tax pursuant to Part
3 of this Act has been paid;
3. Within the County, the reconstruction or re-
placement of one dwelling unit by another or
the replacemen -. r reconstruction of commercial
building enclosed floor space that was in
existence on the effective date of an ordinance
adopted pursuant to Part 3 of this Act or of
any such floor space with respect to which an
impact.tax adopted pursuant to Part 3 of this
Act has been paid.
(5) Person. An individual, partnership, corporation, or
other legal entity.
(6) Person responsible for the impact of land development.
The owner of any dwelling unit or commercial building
enclosed floor space on the date an occupancy permit is
issued for such dwelling unit or commercial floor space
or, if no such permit is issued, the date the dwelling
unit or commercial floor space is occupied.
Part 2. The Impact Tax District.
Section 1. There shall be an Orange County Impact Tax Dis-
trict which shall include all of Orange County outside the cor-
4
porate limits -of the Town of Hillsborough, the Town of Mebane, and
the City of Durham.
Section 2. The District shall be deemed to be a body politic
and corporate and authorized and empowered:
(1) To adopt an official seal and alter the same at will;
(2) To sue and be sued in its own name;
(3) To contract and be contracted with;
(4) To levy and collect a tax on the impact of land
development within the District;
(5) And required to keep its accounts on the basis of a
fiscal year commencing on the first day of July and en-
ding on the thirtieth day of June of the following year.
Section 3. The Board of Commissioners of Orange County shall
a be the governing body of the District.
Section 4. (a.) Except as provided in subsection (b), the
governing body of the District may adopt an ordinance levying a
tax on the impact of land development within the District
(hereinafter referred to as an "impact tax "). Orange County shall,
on behalf of the District, provide for the administration,
enforcement and collection of the tax.
(b) The District may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to this
Part if any ordinance adopted pursuant to Section 2 of Chapter 357
of the 1985 Session Laws (Carrboro), Section 1 of Chapter 936 of
the 1985 Session Laws (Chapel Hill), or Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter
460 of the 1987 Session Laws (Orange County) is in effect.
�L ydp rd?c;;:.suat; °r
61
follows:
(1) Orange County may expend these funds to the extent
otherwise authorized by law on capital improvements
projects related to libraries, stormwater drainage, open
space and recreation, and on emergency and public safety
facilities, including jails.
(2) The Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro may
expend these funds on capital improvements related to
roads and other transportation systems, stormwatey
drainage, open space,and recreation, and police and fir.
stations. The funds may be spent by each municipality
6
omly for improvements that are located within the
i
corporate limits of that municipality or within its
extra - territorial planning jurisdiction or transition
area(s) as established under a joint planning agreement
with Orange County, except that Chapel Hill and Carrboro
may by agreement expend funds on joint projects that
transcend each other's jurisdictional boundaries, such
as road or drainage improvement projects.
Section 6. An ordinance adopted under this Part shall
provide that:
(1) A person responsible for the impact of land development
shall pay an impact tax for each square foot of dwelling
space and commercial building enclosed floor space for
which an occupancy permit is issued or, if no such permit
is issued, for each square foot of dwelling space in an
occupied dwelling and for each square foot of occupied
enclosed floor space in a commercial building.
(2) The tax shall be due on or before the date an occupancy
permit is initially issued for the dwelling unit or
commercial building enclosed floor space in question or,
if no such permit is issued, the date such dwelling unit
or commercial floor space is initially occupied.
However, no tax due shall be considered delinquent until
sixty (60) days after the tax becomes due. There shall
be added to delinquent taxes interest at the legal rate.
!,I
7
(3) Taxes authorized by this Part may be collected pursuant
to G.S. 153A -147 or G.S. 160A -207. In addition, taxes
authorized by this Part may be recovered in a civil ac-
tion in the nature of debt includina an award of
reasonable attorney fees as part of costs.
Section 7. The governing body of the District, after con-
sultation with Orange County, the Town of Carrboro and the Town of
Chapel Hill, shall establish annually at the time of the adoption
of the annual budget of Orange County the tax rate to be levied
per square foot of dwelling space and per square foot of commercial
building enclosed floor space for the ensuing fiscal year.
Different tax rates may be established for different types of
commercial construction.
Section 8. As soon as reasonably practicable after the close
of each quarter of the fiscal year, the District shall distribute
to Chapel Hill and Carrboro the net proceeds of the tax received
by the District based upon development that has taken place within
each respective municipality's corporate limits, extra - territorial
planning jurisdiction and transition area(s), as established in
joint planning agreements. The remainder of the net proceeds, plus
the cost incurred by Orange County in collecting and administering
the tax, shall be remitted to Orange County. As used in this Part,
the term "net proceeds" means the gross proceeds of the tax less
the cost to the county of collection and administering the tax.
Section'9. The boundaries of the District may be expanded to
include portions of Orange County within the corporate limits of
r
the Town of-- ILillsborough, the Town of Mebane, or the City of Durham
in accordance with the provision- of this section.
(a) Upon a favorable vote of the majority of the membership
of the governing body of the municipalities listed in
this section, the entire area of that municipality that
is located within Orange County shall be annexed (the
"annexed area ") to the District on the first day of the
next quarterly period that follows the month in which
the vote took place.
(b) Consistent with Section 5 of this Part, if any of the
municipalities referenced in this section vote to be in
the District, the net proceeds generated by the tax
authorized by this Part and distributed to any such
r municipality shall be deposited in a capital reserve
E
improvements fund and may be expended only for the pur-
poses authorized in subsection 5 of this Part.
(c) When the District is expanded to include an annexed area,
the consultation required under Section 7 of this Part
shall include consultation with the governing body of the
municipality within those corporate limits the annexed
area lies.
(d) When the District is expanded to include an annexed area,
the District shall distribute to the governing body of
the municipality within whose corporate limits the
annexed area lies the net proceeds of the tax received
by the District due to development that has taken place
�J
F
within that municipality's corporate limits, extra-
s
territorial planning jurisdiction, and transition area(s)
as established in joint planning agreements.
(e) The governing body of a municipality covered under this
section may not vote to become part of the District if
an impact fee ordinance authorized under special legis-
lation comparable to that listed in Section 4(b) of this
Part is in effect within such municipality and may not
adopt such an impact fee ordinance applicable to the area
within the District while it remains within the District.
Section 10. This Part shall apply only to the District
created herein.
Part 3. The Orange County School Capital Impact Tax.
Section 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), Orange
County may adopt an ordinance levying a tax on the impact of land
development within the County and provide for the administration,
enforcement and collection of the tax.
10
ri
r
P. r�F.:..:.;:: »,,te.;;;;:n�d.; ew:::.;.iti.s,..:.:a e;.unta .
:.±....::,:., .:::.::.... ..:y........
4 Y
a pgt a orda.nance . p ;g- ht .to this
Section 2. The purpose of the tax authorized by this Part is
to generate funds to partially off_:et the cost of constructing new
school capital facilities or replacing, expanding or improving
existing school capital facilities necessitated in part by new
growth within Orange County. Accordingly, the net proceeds
generated by the tax authorized by this Part shall be deposited by
Orange County in its capital reserve improvements fund or funds
established under Part 2 of Article 3 of Chapter 159 of the General
Statutes and may be expended, to the extent otherwise authorized
by law, only for capital improvements projects related to schools.
Section 3. A person responsible for the impact of land
development shall pay an impact tax for each square foot of
dwelling space and commercial building enclosed floor space for
which an occupancy permit is issued or, if no such permit is such
issued, for each square foot of dwelling space in an occupied
dwelling and for each square foot of occupied enclosed floor space
in a commercial building.
(2) The tax shall be due on or before the date an occupancy
permit is initially issued for the dwelling unit or
commercial building enclosed floor space in question or,
if no such permit is issued, the date such dwelling unit
or commercial floor space is initially occupied.
However, no tax due shall be considered delinquent until
11
4
sixty (60) days after tho tax becomes due. There shall
be added to delinquent taxes interest at the legal rate.
(3) Taxes authorized by this Part may be collected pursuant
to G.S. 153A -147 or G.S. 160A -207. In addition, taxeL
authorized by this Part may be recovered in a civil ac-
tion in the nature of debt including an award of
reasonable attorney fees as part of costs.
Section 4. Orange County shall establish annually at the time
of the adoption of its annual budget the tax rate to be levied per
square foot of dwelling space and per square foot of commercial
building enclosed floor space for the ensuing fiscal year.
Different tax rates may be established for different types of
commercial construction.
Section 5. As used in this Part, the term "net proceeds"
means the gross proceeds of the tax less the cost to the County of
collection and administering the tax.
Section 6. This Part shall apply only to Orange County.
Part 4. Provisions for repeal of other local acts, disclosure
requirements and effective date.
Section 1. Orange County may repeal c`$''rii an
ordinance adopted pursuant to Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter 460 of
the 1987 Session Laws. 8 > ::::: eat:::t >+??: >::;:sre
.::.K............. .......... .:::..: :.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .
°€ Orange County may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to
Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws while an
ordinance adopted pursuant to this Act is in effect. Chapel Hill
may repeal an ordinance adopted pursuant to Section
12
Section 2. Whenever the sale of real property located in
Orange County involves new construction, the seller shall prepare
and sign, and the buyer shall receive and sign, a disclosure
f statement. The disclosure statement shall either be included in
a contract of sale or contained in a separate document executed
prior to the execution of a sales contract. This disclosure
statement shall fully and completely disclose that the owner of
the property at the time an occupancy permit is issued for the new
construction or, if no occupancy permit is issued, the date the
new construction is occupied, may be subject to a tax levied by
the County and /or the District on the impact of land development.
If a seller fails to make such a disclosure and the buyer suffers
injury as a result of the seller's failure to disclose, the seller
shall be liable to the buyer to the extent of the buyer's injury.
Section 3. This Act is effective upon ratification.
13
I
If
AGENDA #9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Legislative matters
DATE: March 4, 1991
Attached for your consideration are resolutions regarding:
1. Request for a local bill authorizing a vehicle license tax
of up to $15 per year.
2. The need for a permanent, stable revenue source instead of
the present appropriations to reimburse localities for past
repeal of some local revenues.
3. State -wide enabling legislation authorizing local option
revenues as alternatives to the property tax.
4. Support for continuation of State funding to help offset
Town costs of fire protection services to University and
University Hospitals properties.
5. The need for a revenue source to support the Triangle
Transportation Authority.
6. Support for State -wide legislation to encourage recycling of
beverage containers through deposit and refund requirements.
7. A request for a local bill authorizing an entertainment tax.
Items 1 through 6 are included in resolution R -3. Resolution
R -4 incorporates item 7.
BACKGROUND
In the January 12th retreat meeting, the Council discussed
legislative matters for the 1991 General Assembly session. On
January 28th, the Council scheduled a public forum on February 4th
on potential local bill requests, and the proposed Orange County
Visitor Development Authority.
The public forum included the potential request for authorization
to increase the vehicle license tax up to a maximum of $20 annually
from the present $5; and the proposal for an entertainment tax.
On February 22, the Council met with Senator Howard N. Lee and
Representative Anne Barnes to discuss legislative matters. The
deadline for introducing local bills is April 4th. However, making
a
requests to the legislative delegation before then would be helpful
to the Senators and Representatives whose districts include Chapel
Hill areas.
DISCUSSION
The attached materials provide a general discussion of several
legislative matters. Below is a summary of key points.
1. Request for a local bill authorizing a vehicle license tax
of up to $15 per year.
• Present vehicle- license tax authorization for Chapel Hill is
limited to $5.
• An increase to $10 would generate an additional $90,000 annually.
• Several cities have authorization for.an annual vehicle license
tax greater than $5. The city of Charlotte has authorization for
a $20 license tax.
• I recommend requesting authorization up to a maximum of $15 based
on the discussion with representatives of the legislative
delegation.
2. Reimbursements for past repeal of local revenue sources
including inventory property taxes
• The Town now receives about $300,000 in State reimbursement
funds.
• The Governor has proposed repealing the appropriation of State
funds for reimbursements, and authorizing additional local option
sales taxes instead.
• The NC League of Municipalities supports replacing reimbursements
with local option sales taxes distributed so that no locality
would receive less than the present reimbursements.
3. State -wide enabling legislation authorizing local option
revenues as alternatives to the property tax.
• A legislative study commission has proposed and the League has
supported state -wide authority for local option real estate
transfer, hotel /motel, admissions, prepared meals and payroll
taxes.
• I recommend supporting State -wide legislation authorizing local
option admission taxes such as a 3% tax for entertainment and
sports events as a reasonable alternative to the property tax.
4. Continuation of State funding to help offset local costs of fire
protection services to State facilities including University and
University Hospitals properties.
• The Town receives about $300,000 annually in State funds
allocated to local fire departments which protect State property.
• These funds help offset the Town's costs of protecting the
State's facilities, which benefit citizens of North Carolina.
5. Need f(ir a revenue source to support the Triangle
Transportation Authority.
* Pills authorizing local option County taxes on off - street parking
and rental car use are under consideration.
* we suggest the Council support the need for a funding source for
the authority without specifying a particular type of revenue.
6. Support for State -wide legislation to encourage recycling of
beverage containers through deposit and refund requirements.
* A few states have enacted this type of legislation.
* Increased recycling of glass is needed to meet solid waste
management objectives in Chapel Hill as in other cities.
7. Potential request for a local bill authorizing an entertainment
tax.
* As noted. above, I recommend the Council support State -wide
legislation for local option admission taxes.
* The attached resolution R -5 would request a local bill
authorizing an entertainment tax of $1 for paid tickets to events
in facilities with more than 15,000 sets.
Recommendation: That the Council adopt the following resolution
R -} incorporating items 1 through 6 above.
A RESOLUTION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE MATTERS INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR
A LOCAL BILL REGARDING MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE TAXES (91- 3- 4/R -3)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council hereby requests the Senators and Representatives
representing Chapel Hill areas to introduce and to support:
1. A local bill authorizing a vehicle license tax of up to $15 per
year in the Town of Chapel Hill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town
Attorney to prepare a draft bill regarding the requested motor
vehicle license tax authorization for transmittal with this
resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL requests the legislative
delegation to support:
2. The need for a permanent, stable revenue source instead of
the present appropriations to reimburse localities for past
repeal of some local revenues.
3. State -wide enabling legislation authorizing local option
revenues including admissions, real estate transfer, occupancy
(hotel /motel), prepared meals and payroll taxes as alternatives to
the property tax.
4. Continuation of State funding to help offset local costs of fire
protection services to State facilities including University and
University Hospitals properties.
5. The need for a revenue source to support the Triangle
Transportation Authority.
6. State -wide legislation to encourage recycling of beverage
containers through deposit and refund requirements.
This the 4th day of March, 1991.
n
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A LOCAL BILL AUTHORIZING AN ENTERTAINMENT
TAX (91- 3- 4/R -4)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council hereby requests the Senators and
representing Chapel Hill Representatives areas to introduce and to support a local
bill authorizing an entertainment tax of up to $1 per paid ticket
for admissions to entertainment and sports events in facilities
with 15,000 or more seats in the Town of Chapel Hill, excluding
high school events in such facilities.
This the 4th day of March, 1991.
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Meeting on February 22nd with Legislators
DATE: February 21, 1991
Below is background information and a summary of suggested items
for discussion with the legislative delegation in the breakfast
meeting at 7 :30 am Friday at the Carolina Inn Ballroom, Section C.
SUMMARY
Suggested items for discussion with legislators include:
* Need for a permanent, stable revenue source in lieu of State
reimbursements for past repeal of some local revenue sources.
* Alternatives to the property tax through State -wide authorization
of local option payroll, hotel /motel, admissions, real estate
transfer and prepared meals taxes as proposed by a legislative
study commission.
* Requesting a local bill authorizing higher motor vehicle license
fees, which are now limited to $5. An increase to $10 would
generate about $90,000, which equals revenue from slightly more
than 1/2 of one cent of the property tax rate.
* Orange County Development Impact Tax.
* Need for continued State funding support for Town fire protection
Of the University and University Hospitals properties. The Town now
receives about $300,000, the equivalent of revenue from a
cents of the property tax rate. bout 2
Additional information and topics are discussed below.
BACKGROUND
The deadline for introducing local bills is April 4th. As a follow -
up to the Council's public forum on February 4th and the discussion
with legislators, we plan to make recommendations for consideration
in the March 25 Council meeting.
Information from the NC League of Municipalities regarding likely
issues in this year's General Assembly session are attached.
KEY ISSUES
I. Permanent revenue source in lieu of certain State reimbursements
for past repeal of local revenue sources.
r
An appropriations bill has been introduced to eliminate State
reimbursements to localities for the past repeal of business
inventory property taxes, some intangibles taxes, food stamp sales
taxes and for the "homestead" property tax exemption of low- income
elderly and disabled citizens. The Governor has supported replacing
these reimbursements with a 1/2 % sales tax.
The League supports the additional sales tax as a more stable and
permanent revenue source in lieu of the reimbursements. The League
strongly supports allocation of such additional sales taxes so that
each locality will receive no net reduction.
The Town receives about $300,000 annually in State reimbursements
under current formulas. This amount equals revenue from about 2
cents of the property tax rate. Without the reimbursements, a
replacement funding source will be very important in addressing our
1991 -92 budget.
2. Alternatives to the property tax.
The League is supporting a legislative study commission's proposal
for State -wide enabling legislation for local option payroll,
hotel /motel, real estate transfer, admissions and prepared meals
taxes.
I recommend supporting State -wide authorization for these local
option revenues. The General Assembly's actions and the local
legislative delegation's support for new revenue sources such as
our occupancy tax have been a very important in helping the Town
have stable tax rates for several years.
3. vehicle license fee
In the January retreat meeting, the Council discussed seeking
authorization to increase vehicle license fees, which are now $5.
An increase from $5 to $10 would generate about $90,000 annually
or the equivalent of slightly more than 1/2 of. one cent of the
property tax rate.
I recommend the Council request authorization for a maximum vehicle
license fee of $20 per year.
A recently introduced bill would provide for more efficient and
equitable property taxation of vehicles by requiring the Division
of. Motor vehicles to provide timely vehicle registration
information to County Tax Offices.
4. Continued State funding for Town fire protection services to
the University and University Hospitals.
The Town now receives $296,000 annually from the State, which is
equivalent to almost 2 cents of the property tax rate. The
legislators have been sensitive'to the importance of this funding
T
to the Towd_and supported us when there were Proosals to this funding to offset our costs of protecting State property.
5. Admissions tax
A citizen has suggested an entertainment tax of $1 per ticket
events in large facilities. If authorized by the legislature, a for
Per ticket tax could generate more than $600,000 annually.
An admissions tax on a percentage basis might apply more broadly
to entertainment and sports events.
In addition to supporting the League of Municipalities'
on the need for State -wide enabling legislation, the Council osition
wish to work toward authorization of an admissions tax through a
local bill.
6. Proposed hotel /motel tax for Orange County visitor Development
Authority.
The Council may wish to indicate there will be a meeting and
discussion with the County Commissioners before the Council takes
action on this proposal.
We plan to make recommendations to you on March 25th.
7. Development impact tax.
Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro representatives proposed
in 1988 that the governments request a local bill for a development
impact tax as an alternative to impact fees possible under a 1985
and 1987 local bills. The impact tax would be easier to administer
than impact fees.
The Orange County Commissioners are considering making a request
for authorization to levy this tax in a ro
district including Chapel Hill, Carrboro and unincorporated areas
of the County.
Impact taxes would be allocated to the Towns based on developments
in the Towns and their respective extraterritorial and Joint
Planning transition areas. Hillsborough and Mebane could request
to be added to the district area subject to the impact tax.
Under the draft prepared for the commissioners' consideration, the
Towns could use impact fee revenue for various capital purposes
including roads, drainage and police and fire stations.
I recommend the Council discuss this matter with the Board of
County Commissioners before taking action. We will provide
additional analysis and recommendations at a later date.
8. Revenue- -mDurce(s) for the Triangle Transportation Authority.
Representatives of the Authority
would seek the Town's support of
tax on rental cars.
9. Annexation statutes.
a
have indicated in January they
revenue authorizations such as a
The' League staff is concerned that there may be bills introduced
to restrict annexation initiated by cities and towns. The League
would oppose such a proposal.
Y believe annexation is appropriate and equitable for areas which
have become urban or are in the process of becoming urban. The
value of property just outside a city or town tends to reflect the
amenities including public services in an urban area.
1
Approved April 1, 1991
SPECIAL MEETING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MARCH 5, 1991
7:30 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in Special
Session on Tuesday, March 5, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of
going into Executive Session to discuss personnel.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr., Vice- -
Chair Stephen Halkiotis, Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C.
Insko and Don Willhoit.
STAFF PRESENT: Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by
Commissioner Insko to go into Executive Session to discuss
personnel.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by
Commissioner Willhoit to adjourn the Executive Session and to
reconvene into Special Session.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting. The next regular
meeting of the Board will be held on March 20, 1991 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Board Room at Lincoln Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk