Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-26-1992t ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JOINT PIIBLIC HEARING MAY 26, 1992 7:30 P.M. SUPERIOR COURTROOM ORANGE COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NEW) 106 EAST MARGARET LANE HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA A. B. PAGE C• 5 19 33 63 81 89 D. AGENDA . t4 NOTE: BACKGROUND MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOTICE TO PEOPLE WITH IMPAIRED HEARING: Audio amplification equipment is available on request. If you need this assistance, please call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181 or 966 -4501. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and any fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending member to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a geniune commitment to this public charge is observed. PIIBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Public School Impact Fees 2. Zoning Atlas Amendments a. Z -2 -92 P & S Sporting Goods b. PD -1 -92 Carolina Friends School 3. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Home Occupations (Articles 6.16.6 and 22) b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures (Article 2.2.14.3) 4. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment a. Certificates of Dedication & Maintenance (Section V- D -6 -b) ADJOURNMENT c 1 APPROVED 6 -29 -92 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING MAY 26, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board held a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 26, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice -Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko, and Don Willhoit. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Deputy Clerk Kathy Baker, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Cameron and Mary Scearbo, and County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Amanda Cantrell, and members Joan Jobsis, Betty Eidenier, Jim Gray, Bill Waddell, Kent Scott, Clint Burklin, and Jean Hamilton. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Hoecke, Virginia Boland, and Larry Reid. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOTE: THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING WILL BE LEFT OPEN UNTIL THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION IS RECEIVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. A. OPENING REMARKS Commissioner Halkiotis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He stated that everyone who wants to speak will be given an opportunity at the appropriate time. He requested that comments be limited to three minutes or less. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Commissioner Halkiotis read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PUBLIC SCHOOL impact feeS This item was chaired by Vice -Chair Halkiotis and presented by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a technical report and implementation procedure for a system of impact fees to help finance a portion of school capital needs in Orange County. For several years, Orange County has pursued an objective of helping to fund school capital needs created by growth. During the 1987 session, the General Assembly authorized the County to levy impact fees in its planning jurisdiction for a number of needs, including school capital. A joint governmental work group investigated the possibilities of an impact tax in the county in 1988 -89. The County proposed legislation in the 1991 Session of the General Assembly seeking authority to impose an impact tax for school capital needs. The legislation was withdrawn due to local opposition. K However, the County did receive authority in the 1991 Session to impose impact fees for school capital needs throughout the county, not just within. the County's planning jurisdiction. Impact fees are still a relatively new funding mechanism, and case law concerning them is still developing. There are some complicated statutory and constitutional considerations involving setting an impact fee. For this reason, the County staff prepared a technical report which outlined the methodology for calculating a system of fees. The initial draft of the report was presented to the Board of Commissioners in January of 1992. Subsequently, the draft report was distributed to the municipalities in the county, the two school boards, the Homebuilders Association, the Board of Realtors, the Community Housing Corporation, and the Chambers of Commerce. In March, 1992, meetings were held with representatives of the organizations to discuss impact fee levels, methods of collection, and other concerns. Upon request, presentations were also made to municipal governing boards. In April, 1992, a report summarizing the results of the meetings was presented to the Board of Commissioners, including options for raising specific amounts of capital to finance public school improvements. In May, 1992, a public hearing was held to give the citizens of Orange County an opportunity to voice their opinion on establishing a system of impact fees. The technical report provided with the agenda materials represents a revision to the initial draft. It seeks to address the discussion, debate, and concerns identified during the series of meetings held in March, April, and May of 1992. In addition, the methodology and calculations used in the initial draft have been reviewed to insure consistency and accuracy. At the conclusion of the hearing and upon receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may decide on whether or not to include a schedule of impact fees in the FY 1992 -93 budget. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD JAMES GRAY stated he understands a mobile home owner would be paying the largest percentage of impact fees. He feels the property tax is more equitable. Mr. Collins indicated that because the property tax is geared to a specific type of structure, it is a more equitable tax. The rationale for using an impact fee is that what a family actually uses in terms of services will determine the amount they pay. The assumption is that more children live in homes with a larger number of bedrooms. He also mentioned that the Courts have interpreted the law in such a way that the impact fee cannot address differences in the value of housing units. BILL WADDELL asked if a retirement community would be expected to pay impact fees if they did not allow children as residents? He feels that affordable housing will be even more difficult to achieve if the impact fee is approved. Also, capital expenditures in the school system are often used for replacement facilities as well as for new construction. He asked how that would be taken into account when the monies are allocated? Mr. Collins indicated that only skilled nursing care centers would be exempt from this fee. He also reiterated that the money collected from the impact fees would be used for new construction. He agreed that a system of impact fees would have some negative effect on affordable housing and that that issue needs to be discussed further. He also mentioned that residential communities do not pay for the full cost of services provided to them in Orange County. The 3 capital needs of the schools are extremely expensive. The expansion of existing facilities. would-be covered under sales taxes., public school trust funds and past bond issues._ New schools would be funded through future bond referendum and impact fees. In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Mr. Collins indicated that additional work needs to be done on the generation rates which were calculated from the census data. He also mentioned that this:fee would be charged for each occupancy. A quadplex would generate an impact fee for each unit in the quadplex. Commissioner Halkiotis explained that because the Board of Commissioners has an obligation to explore new revenue sources, the impact fee is being explored. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS ALEX ZAFFRON, a resident of Carrboro and a native of Orange County, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He stated that most of his friends have purchased homes in other counties because they could not afford to live here. He asked the Commissioners to return to the General Assembly and ask for a progressive impact tax with exemption for low income families. He also mentioned that the impact fee could become difficult to enforce because builders could increase the number of family rooms and dens and decrease the number of rooms designated as bedrooms. GARY WICKER, a building contractor and Orange County native, spoke against the impact fees. He believes it would cause a hardship for the very people who most need help. He indicated that he tries to keep his money in this county by using subcontractors who live here. He suggested cutting expenditures, expanding schools, and looking carefully at how money is currently being spent. He indicated that he is not opposed to raising taxes if it is equitable. MARY BUSHNELL, Chair of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Board of Education, indicated that the County Manager suggested that the technical needs of the new schools come from pay -as- you -go funds, including impact fees. She mentioned that projections are that enrollment will increase. Additional units of housing do increase the number of children, and, therefore, it seems fair to tie a portion of the cost of the increased need for school facilities to the building of those homes. VICTOR TRIPP spoke against the proposed impact fees. He asked that the Board of Commissioners use the property tax to increase revenue. GREG SHEPARD spoke against the proposed impact fee. He believes that most of the people who are buying new homes already live here. If the County needs to collect additional money they need to collect it from some other source. DOROTHY BAIN spoke against this proposal. She indicated that the residents in her mobile home park would not have been able to purchase their mobile homes if this fee had been in effect. ROGER STEPHENS, an Orange County resident, spoke against this proposal. He stated that this would discriminate against the lower income resident. The residents in his mobile home parks could not afford an additional fee of this magnitude. He stated that the housing industry is in 5 Commissioner Willhoit stated that it is clear that growth has outstripped resources. There is a need to address that issue. He, indicated that he was gratified to hear support for increased taxes as an alternative to the impact fee. Mr. Collins and Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that Mr. Radway would be contacted for further discussion on the statistics he presented. In response to a suggestion from Commissioner Halkiotis, Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the County has previously tried to tax the University facilities and the Court system declared it unlawful. Commissioners Insko and Gordon both indicated that there is a need to research innovative ways to increase revenue. It'was also suggested that the number of new homes which are being sold to buyers who are already Orange County residents be reflected in the statistics. Planning Board Chair Carol Cantrell indicated that she has lived here since 1976 and is actively involved in the schools as a teacher. For as long as she can remember the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School System has exceeded their student projections. She feels the County needs to plan for this growth. Commissioner Gordon stated that the school needs have been documented and already exist. Mr. Radway's information needs to be reviewed. She noted that documentation at the end of the technical report on impact fees shows that what residents pay on taxes is less than the value of the county services they receive. Several comments were made which suggested the Planning Board consider capping the fee, as well as, give very serious consideration to whether or not this is an appropriate fee. A motion was made by Commissioner Znsko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z -2 -92 P AND S SPORTING GOODS, INC. - ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron. The property in question is located on the south side of NC highway 54 between Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). The total area proposed for rezoning contains 3.98 acres and is described as part of Lot 28 Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The current zoning is Agricultural Residential. The proposed zoning districts are Local commercial -1 for 2.06 acres and Neighborhood Commercial -2 for 1.92 acres. In the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the property is designated Agricultural Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The proposed rezoning will maximize the five -acre allotments of NC -2 and LC -1 zoning at this activity node. Each of the proposed zoning lots will have direct access to NC Highway 54, an arterial. Each lot also has suitable area for ground absorption sewage treatment as proposed by Orange County Environmental Health. Adjacent property to the south and west is undeveloped and zoned Agricultural ri Residential. To the east is PHE, Inc., a mail order facility zoned General Commercial -4. Across NC Highway 54 to the north is undeveloped land.zoned AR and LC -1. The Planning Staff has made positive findings on the application for rezoning to LC -1 and NC -2 as required by Article 20 and Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The list of permitted uses in the proposed districts is included in the attachments. The applicant has no plans for developing the property in question. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS MADELINE CURL, ,a White Cross resident with property adjoining P and S Sporting Goods, spoke in opposition to this request. A copy of her comments are in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerks Office. GREG SHEPHARD, a representative of P. and S Sporting, spoke in support of this request. He indicated that all of the Planning regulations and requirements have been met. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. PD -1 -92 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board, swore in Planner Emily Cameron who presented this item. It was presented for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School which would allow expansion of the existing private school approved as a planned development in 1990. Carolina Friends School is an existing private school located on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) and west of Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 32.94 acres and is zoned PD -RB, Planned Development -Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a Class A Special Use Permit was issued for Carolina Friends School to allow construction of a wastewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer. Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a large ground absoption system with a design capacity over 3000 gallons per day may be allowed in the RB district only through approval of a planned development. The Board of Directors of Carolina Friends School adopted a five -year master plan in 1991 for development of the school. The plan calls for expansion of the facility with a 9500 square foot resource center adjacent to the upper School, a 200 square foot office addition, four 120 square foot storage sheds, handicapped accessible bathrooms, and road widening with additional parking. Student enrollment is projected to increase by twenty students. The proposed construction constitutes a major modification to the Special Use Permit issued in 1990. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that such a change be considered by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing. The proposed expansion of the school complies with most of the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance that are attached to the current Special Use Permit. Conditions have been included in the Planning Staff's recommendation to address deviations from the approved findings and to insure 1 APPROVED 6 -29 -92 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING MAY 26, 1992 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board held a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 26, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in Superior Courtroom, New County Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Vice -Chair Stephen H. Halkiotis and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Verla C. Insko, and Don Willhoit. COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Chairman Moses Carey, Jr. STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Clerk to the Board Beverly Blythe, Deputy Clerk Kathy Baker, Planning Director Marvin Collins, Planners Emily Cameron and Mary Scearbo, and County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Amanda Cantrell, and members Joan Jobsis, Betty Eidenier, Jim Gray, Bill Waddell, Kent Scott, Clint Burklin, and Jean Hamilton. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Hoecke, Virginia Boland, and Larry Reid. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE NOTE: THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING WILL BE LEFT OPEN UNTIL THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION IS RECEIVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. A. OPENING REMARKS Commissioner Halkiotis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He stated that everyone who wants to speak will be given an opportunity at the appropriate time. He requested that comments be limited to three minutes or less. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Commissioner Halkiotis read the Public Charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. PUBLIC SCHOOL impact feeS This item was chaired by Vice -Chair Halkiotis and presented by Marvin Collins. In summary this item was presented to receive citizen comment on a technical report and implementation procedure for a system of impact fees to help finance a portion of school capital needs in Orange County. For several years, Orange County has pursued an objective of helping to fund school capital needs created by growth. During the 1987 session, the General Assembly authorized the County to levy impact fees in its planning jurisdiction for a number of needs, including school capital. A joint governmental work group investigated the possibilities of an impact tax in the county in 1988 -89. The County proposed legislation in the 1991 Session of the General Assembly seeking authority to impose an impact tax for school capital needs. The legislation was withdrawn due to local opposition. 2 However, the County did receive authority in the 1991 Session to impose impact fees for school capital needs throughout the county, not just within the County's planning jurisdiction. Impact fees are still a relatively new funding mechanism, and case law concerning them is still developing. There are some complicated statutory and constitutional considerations involving setting an impact fee. For this reason, the County staff prepared a technical report which outlined the methodology for calculating a system of fees. The initial draft of the report was presented to the Board of Commissioners in January of 1992. Subsequently, the draft report was distributed to the municipalities in the county, the two school boards, the Homebuilders Association, the Board of Realtors, the Community Housing Corporation, and the Chambers of Commerce. In March, 1992, meetings were held with representatives of the organizations to discuss impact fee levels, methods of collection, and other concerns. Upon request, presentations were also made to municipal governing boards. In April, 1992, a report summarizing the results of the meetings was presented to the Board of Commissioners, including options for raising specific amounts of capital to finance public school improvements. In May, 1992, a public hearing was held to give the citizens of Orange County an opportunity to voice their opinion on establishing a system of impact fees. The technical report provided with the agenda materials represents a revision to the initial draft. It seeks to address the discussion, debate, and concerns identified during the series of meetings held in March, April, and May of 1992. In addition, the methodology and calculations used in the initial draft have been reviewed to insure consistency and accuracy. At the conclusion of the hearing and upon receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may decide on whether or not to include a schedule of impact fees in the FY 1992 -93 budget. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING BOARD JAMES GRAY stated he understands a mobile home owner would be paying the largest percentage of impact fees. He feels the property tax is more equitable. Mr. Collins indicated that because the property tax is geared to a specific type of structure, it is a more equitable tax. The rationale for using an impact fee is that what a family actually uses in terms of services will determine the amount they pay. The assumption is that more children live in homes with a larger number of bedrooms. He also mentioned that the Courts have interpreted the law in such a way that the impact fee cannot address differences in the value of housing units. BILL WADDELL asked if a retirement community would be expected to pay impact fees if they did not allow children as residents? He feels that affordable housing will be even more difficult to achieve if the impact fee is approved. Also, capital expenditures in the school system are often used for replacement facilities as well as for new construction. He asked how that would be taken into account when the monies are allocated? Mr. Collins indicated that only skilled nursing care centers would be exempt from this fee. He also reiterated that the money collected from the impact fees would be used for new construction. He agreed that a system of impact fees would have some negative effect on affordable housing and that that issue needs to be discussed further. He also mentioned that residential communities do not pay for the full cost of services provided to them in Orange County. The 3 capital needs of the schools are extremely expensive. The expansion of existing facilities would be covered under sales taxes, public school trust funds and past bond issues. New schools would be funded through future bond referendum and impact fees. In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit, Mr. Collins indicated that additional work needs to be done on the generation rates which were calculated from the census data. He also mentioned that this fee would be charged for each occupancy. A quadplex would generate an impact fee for each unit in the quadplex. Commissioner Halkiotis explained that because the Board of Commissioners has an obligation to explore new revenue sources, the impact fee is being explored. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPEN FOR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS ALEX ZAFFRON, a resident of Carrboro and a native of Orange County, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He stated that most of his friends have purchased homes in other counties because they could not afford to live here. He asked the Commissioners to return to the General Assembly and ask for a progressive impact tax with exemption for low income families. He also mentioned that the impact fee could become difficult to enforce because builders could increase the number of family rooms and dens and decrease the number of rooms designated as bedrooms. GARY WICKER, a building contractor and Orange County native, spoke against the impact fees. He believes it would cause a hardship for the very people who most need help. He indicated that he tries to keep his money in this county by using subcontractors who live here. He suggested cutting expenditures, expanding schools, and looking carefully at how money is currently being spent. He indicated that he is not opposed to raising taxes if it is equitable. MARY BUSHNELL, Chair of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Board of Education, indicated that the County Manager suggested that the technical needs of the new schools come from pay -as-- you -go funds, including impact fees. She mentioned that projections are that enrollment will increase. Additional units of housing do increase the number of children, and, therefore, it seems fair to tie a portion of the cost of the increased need for school facilities to the building of those homes. VICTOR TRIPP spoke against the proposed impact fees. He asked that the Board of Commissioners use the property tax to increase revenue. GREG SHEPARD spoke against the proposed impact fee. He believes that most of the people who are buying new homes already live here. If the County needs to collect additional money they need to collect it from some other source. DOROTHY BAIN spoke against this proposal. She indicated that the residents in her mobile home park would not have been able to purchase their mobile homes if this fee had been in effect. ROGER STEPHENS, an Orange County resident, spoke against this proposal. He stated that this would discriminate against the lower income resident. The residents in his mobile home parks could not afford an additional fee of this magnitude. He stated that the housing industry is in 4 trouble in this community and anything that adversely affects the housing industry also affects many other types of businesses. STEVE SHEPARD spoke against this proposal. He stated that not only are lower income residents adversely effected by this fee, but that middle income families may be forced to choose a neighboring county because of this additional cost. He mentioned that renters may be discouraged from becoming home owners. SCOTT RADWAY, of Radway & Weaver, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He is a resident of Orange County and a planning and development consultant. He submitted a report challenging the premise that new housing is the major influence in increased school enrollment. A copy of his report is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. ROBERT BRYAN spoke on behalf of the Chapel Hill Board of Realtors. He read a resolution endorsed by the Board stating their opposition to this fee. A copy of the resolution is in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's office. VIC KNIGHT spoke in opposition to this proposal. He mentioned that he agreed with many of the points already presented. He commented that increasing the price of new construction would cause an increase in the cost of older homes. MARK MARCOPLOS spoke against this proposal. He agrees that there are real needs in the school systems. However, this is not an equitable proposal for increasing the revenue source. He believes that there is a need to research a more equitable solution to these financial needs. He also stated there is a need to reevaluate the financial demands being made by both the State and Federal Government which he feels are unfair and unreasonable. EVERETT GREEN, an Orange County resident and building supply owner, spoke against this proposal. He indicated that the cost of lumber has increased 40% and that this is one of the factors removing home buyers from the market. Imposing an impact fee will only compound the difficulties that the building market is experiencing in this community. MR. MADDOX indicated that he relocated to Orange County several years ago. He now has three children and is planning to build a new home. If this proposal is implemented he may be forced to move to an adjacent county. LARRY CARROLL spoke on behalf of the Durham /Chapel Hill Builders Association. This Association is against this proposed fee. He stated that they believe this fee will cause fewer homes to be built which will have a major impact on employment in Orange County. In response to a question from Commissioner Willhoit he indicated that the Association does supports an impact fee for roads and other similar needs. They do not support this fee for schools. JEFF PELOQUIN spoke against this proposal. JOE PHELPS spoke in opposition to this fee BEN LLOYD spoke in opposition to this proposal. The following citizens wrote letters opposing these proposed impact fees: Gary Whicker of Whicker Enterprises; Dale'Martin, President of Capital Area Manufactured Housing Association; Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Tello; Kenneth Touw, and D. Tyson Clayton, of the Hillsborough Savings & Loan Association. 5 Commissioner Willhoit stated that it is clear that growth has outstripped resources. There is a need to address that issue. He indicated that he was gratified to hear support for increased taxes as an alternative to the impact fee. Mr. Collins and Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that Mr. Radway would be contacted for further discussion on the statistics he presented. In response to a suggestion from Commissioner Halkiotis, Commissioner Willhoit indicated that the County has previously tried to tax the University facilities and the Court system declared it unlawful. Commissioners Insko and Gordon both indicated that there is a need to research innovative ways to increase revenue. It was also suggested that the number of new homes which are being sold to buyers who are already Orange County residents be reflected in the statistics. Planning Board Chair Carol Cantrell indicated that she has lived here since 1976 and is actively involved in the schools as a teacher. For as long as she can remember the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School System has exceeded their student projections. She feels the County needs to plan for this growth. Commissioner Gordon stated that the school needs have been documented and already exist. Mr. Radway's information needs to be reviewed. She noted that documentation at the end of the technical report on impact fees shows that what residents pay on taxes is less than the value of the county services they receive. Several comments were made which suggested the Planning Board consider capping the fee, as well as, give very serious consideration to whether or not this is an appropriate fee. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS a. Z -2 -92 P AND S SPORTING GOODS INC. - ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT This item was presented by Planner Emily Cameron. The property in question is located on the south side of NC highway 54 between Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). The total area proposed for rezoning contains 3.98 acres and is described as part of Lot 28 Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The current zoning is Agricultural Residential. The proposed zoning districts are Local Commercial -1 for 2.06 acres and Neighborhood Commercial -2 for 1.92 acres. In the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the property is designated Agricultural Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The proposed rezoning will maximize the five -acre allotments of NC -2 and LC -1 zoning at this activity node. Each of the proposed zoning lots will have direct access to NC Highway 54, an arterial. Each lot also has suitable area for ground absorption sewage treatment as proposed by Orange County Environmental Health. Adjacent property to the south and west is undeveloped and zoned Agricultural 11 Residential. To the east is PHE, Inc., a mail order facility zoned General Commercial- -4. Across NC Highway 54 to the north is undeveloped land zoned AR and LC -1. The Planning Staff has made positive findings on the application for rezoning to LC -1 and NC -2 as required by Article 20 and Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The list of permitted uses in the proposed districts is included in the attachments. The applicant has no plans for developing the property in question. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS MADELINE CURL, a White Cross resident with property adjoining P and S Sporting Goods, spoke in opposition to this request. A copy of her comments are in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerks Office. GREG SHEPHARD, a representative of P. and S Sporting, spoke in support of this request. He indicated that all of the Planning regulations and requirements have been met. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of County Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. PD -1 -92 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board, swore in Planner Emily Cameron who presented this item. It was presented for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School which would allow expansion of the existing private school approved as a planned development in 1990. Carolina Friends School is an existing private school located on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) and west 'of Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 32.94 acres and is zoned PD -RB, Planned Development -Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a Class A Special Use Permit was issued for Carolina Friends School to allow construction of a wastewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer. Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a large ground absoption system with a design capacity over 3000 gallons per day may be allowed in the RB district only through approval of a planned development. The Board of Directors of Carolina Friends School adopted a five -year master plan in 1991 for development of the school. The plan calls for expansion of the facility with a 9500 square foot resource center adjacent to the upper School, a 200 square foot office addition, four 120 square foot storage sheds, handicapped accessible bathrooms, and road widening with additional parking. Student enrollment is projected to increase by twenty students. The proposed construction constitutes a major modification to the Special Use Permit issued in 1990. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that such a change be considered by the Board of Commissioners following a public hearing. The proposed expansion of the school complies with most of the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance that are attached to the current Special Use Permit. Conditions have been included in the Planning Staff's recommendation to address deviations from the approved findings and to insure compliance with all State and local regulations. The existing sewage disposal system has a capacity of 4000 gallons per day and is regulated by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Based on the State's standards, the potential system flow is 10 gallons per day per student. Current daily flow is about 2400 gallons for 368 students, or 6.5 gallons per student per day. Projected enrollment at Carolina Friends School will not exceed 394 students. The resulting potential for a 3940 gpd flow through the system is still within the 4000 gallon capacity permitted by DEM. THERE WERE NO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Insko, second by Commissioner Gordon, to refer this item to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners on August 3rd, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEST AMENDMENTS a. HOME OCCUPATIONS (ARTICLES 6.16.6 AND 22) This item was presented by Mary Scearbo for the purpose of receiving citizen comments. This proposed zoning ordinance text amendment will create more performance - oriented standards for home occupations. The substantive changes proposed in the amendment pertain to setbacks and square footage limits for accessory structures on lots larger than 200,000 square feet (Article 6.16.6.3). The proposed standards would allow greater flexibility in the location of home occupation accessory buildings if the site contained wooded areas or topographic features which provided effective screening. In contrast, the location of structures in open areas would be more restricted in some instances. Other proposed changes involve the use of large existing structures for home occupations activities. The amendment was originated by the Planning Staff to address problem situations which have been encountered in administering home occupation regulations. A recent example involved a deep lot about 11 acres in size, with the residence located almost 1000 feet from the road. Current regulations required the home occupation structure to be located in an unsuitable location to the rear of the residence. The desired location was in a wooded area, several hundred feet from the road. The home occupation could not be approved, even though the use would have been very heavily screened, and would not be visible from the roadway. These proposed amendments begin a more comprehensive overhaul of home occupation standards. The issues addressed at this time will resolve situations which are more commonly encountered. Staff will be proposing in a subsequent amendment changes to requirements for smaller lots, specific standards related to traffic impacts, and additional standards for home occupations which could potentially create nuisance impacts. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR PLANNING BOARD Commissioner Willhoit asked for clarification regarding the number of persons who would be allowed to be employed in the home. Ms. Scearbo indicated that the definition is interpreted to mean that two full -time persons (FTP) may be employed at any one time. That could include part -time positions equaling two full -time positions. N Commissioner Gordon provided written comments on this text amendment and will provide further details to the staff at a later date. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES This item was presented by Planning Director Marvin Collins for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations. This procedure would change the certificate required on a final subdivision plat by the owner of the property being subdivided. The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a required statement on the Final Plat and on the Declaration of Restrictions and Requirements which is signed by the owners) of the property being subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, rights -of -way, and common areas are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements/ common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that the person signing is the owner of the property. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Gordon, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. Commissioners Willhoit and Gordon withdrew their motion and second. No vote was taken. Betty Eidenier stated that this item was not presented to the Planning Board according to the established procedure. She indicated that she perceived this as a serious problem. The Ordinance Review Committee did not review this and send it to the Planning Board. The first mention she heard of this proposed amendment was at a Regular Board of County Commissioner's meeting. Marvin Collins indicated that he did not totally disagree with Ms. Eidenier's comments. However, this proposed project has great potential for a positive impact. Orange County has not had a project with this great a potential for positive results in quite some time. He indicated that the County needs to be more flexible in their attitude toward development. John Link indicated that staff was not trying to circumvent the procedures, however, he supports Mr. Collin's comment that the County needs to be more responsive. G7 After discussing various options, including hearing these amendments monthly, Commissioner Halkiotis indicated that hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendments quarterly rather than annually appears to be a reasonable compromise. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS== AMENDMENT a. CERTIFICATES OF DEDICATION & MAINTENANCE Section V -D -6 -b This presentation was made by Emily Cameron for the purpose of receiving citizen comment on the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would change the certificate required on a final subdivision plat by the owner of the property being subdivided. The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a statement required to be placed on the Final Plat and on the Declaration of Restrictions and Requirements which is signed by the owner(s) of the property being subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, right -of -way, and common areas are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements/ common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that the person signing is the owner of the property. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PLANNING BOARD OR CITIZENS. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Willhoit, to refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. VOTE: UNANIMOUS D. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Willhoit, seconded by Commissioner Insko, to adjourn the meeting. The next regular meeting will be held on June 1, 1992 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Old Courthouse, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 c u �. L• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ATLAS, ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Pursuant to the requirements of the General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 153A, Article 18, Sections 323, 331, 332, 340, and 343; Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws; Chapter 460 of the 1991 Session Laws; Article 20, Sections 20.5 and 20.6, of the Orange County Zoning ordinance; and Section VIII of the Orange County Subdivision Regulations, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held in the Superior Courtroom of the Orange County Courthouse (New), 106 East Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Tuesday, May 26, 1992, at 7 :30 P.M. for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following items: SCHOOL IMPACT FEES To help fund school capital needs created by growth in the county, Orange County is considering the adoption of an ordinance establishing a system of impact fees. If the ordinance is adopted, an impact fee would be collected for each new housing unit constructed in the county, including single - family homes, townhouses, two to four - family dwellings, apartments, and mobile homes. Impact fees would not be collected from existing housing units. Under the proposed system, impact fees would vary between the Chapel Hill - Carrboro and Orange County school districts. The amount of variation would depend on the projected number of students per household and the number, type, and cost of school facilities to be constructed in each school district. The number of bedrooms in a housing unit may also affect the amount of the fees. Funds raised through impact fees would pay only a portion of the total school capital costs, and the level at which impact fees are set will be dependent upon the amount of total capital costs financed from such fees. n ti The range of impact fees being considered is as follows: Range of Possible Impact Fees Housing Tyne Chapel Hill- Carrboro Orange County Number of Bedrooms School District School District Single- Family _._ $0 - $3 ,, _194 $0 - $2,747 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 913 $0 - $ 785 3 Bedroom $0 - $2,929 $0 - $2,520 4 Bedroom $0 - $6,403 $0 - $5,505 5 Bedroom $0 - $9,037 $0 - $7,771 Townhouse 0 - S1,597 $0-- 778 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 692 $0 - $ 339 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 754 $0 - $ 369 3 Bedroom $0 - $1,926 $0 - $ 939 Du lex Triylex, and , „$0 - _$_8,43 $4 - $ 772 uad lex 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 217 $0 - $ 198 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 538 $0 - $ 490 3 Bedroom $0 - $1,721 $0 - $1,578 Apartment ._ _ $0 - S 788 $0 - $ 504 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 146 $0'- $ 93 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 572 $0 - $ 366 3 Bedroom $0 - $2,591 $0 - $1,656 Mobile Home _ $0 -, $2,629 $0 - $2,011 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 984 $0 - $ 753 2 Bedroom $0 -- $1,088 $0 - $ 835 3 Bedroom $0 -- $5,059 $0 - $3,870 The methodology for derivation of the above fees, as well as various options available for financing school capital needs with impact fees, is contained in a report available for public inspection in the Planning & Inspections Department. The address and phone numbers for the department are listed below. ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the orange County Zoning Atlas are as follows: 1. 2-2 -92 P &S sporting Goods The property in question is located on the south side of N.C. Highway 54 between Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). The property contains 3.98 acres and is specifically described as part of Lot 28 of Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The property fronts on N.C. Highway 54 for a distance of 264 feet and has a depth of 483 feet. The current zoning designation of the property is AR - Agricultural Residential. Two zoning designations are proposed - LC -1 Local Commercial -1 (2.06 acres) and NC -2 Neighborhood Commercial -2 (1.92 acres). 2. PD -1 -92 Carolina Friends school The expansion of an existing planned development is proposed on property located on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) and west of Carolina Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 32.94 acres and is specifically described as lot numbers 20A, 20B, and 26A of Tax Map 7 in Chapel Hill Township. The property is currently zoned PD -RB - Planned Development -Rural Buffer. The proposed zoning of the property is the same. The planned development is not a new facility but represents the expansion of an existing private school. Approval of a planned development application and a Class A Special Use Permit is required, because the school expansion is considered a major modification to an existing planned development, and wastewater disposal is provided by a ground absorption system with a capacity of more than 3,000 gallons per day. The proposed school expansion involves a five -year plan to add a 9,500 square foot resource center, storage sheds, a 200 square foot office, handicapped accessible bathrooms, road widening, and additional parking. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance are as follows: 1. Home Occupations Under the proposal, Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance would be amended to change the definition of "home occupation ". Article 6.16.6, Home Occupation Regulations, would be amended to: (1) allow large accessory buildings to be used for home occupation purposes, provided certain conditions are met; (2) add a sliding scale of setbacks for accessory buildings, ranging from 40 to 300 feet for front yards, and 20 to 120 feet for side and rear yards; and (3) add a sliding scale of floor area requirements for accessory buildings (less than 1,000 feet to 2,000 square feet) and exterior storage areas (less than 500 sq.ft. to 1,000 sq.ft ). The proposed standards would apply only to lots five (5) acres or larger in size. 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures An amendment is proposed to Article 2, Section 2.2.14.3, of the Zoning Ordinance to reword the first sentence of the second paragraph to read as follows: It Principal amendments shall generally only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. The addition of the word "generally" is proposed to allow the Board of Commissioners discretion in calling special public hearings on principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENTS The proposed amendment to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations is as follows: 1. Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance Under the proposal, Section V -D -6 -b would be amended to change the wording on the Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance to clarify that the property being subdivided was owned by the person signing the Final Plat and require that the signature be acknowledged by a notary public. All interested citizens are invited to attend this hearing and be heard. Public comment will be received during the public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, only evidence received in writing by the date of the Planning Board meeting following the public hearing will be considered by the Board of Commissioners for decision. Changes may be made in the advertised proposals which reflect debate, objections and discussion at the hearing. Questions regarding the proposals may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located in the Planning & Agricultural Center, 306F Revere Road, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. You may also call 732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 688 -7331 (Durham) or 967 -9251 (Chapel Hill- Carrboro). Please ask for Extension 2585 or 2575. You will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: May 13, 1992 May 20, 1992 Marvin Collins, Planning Director N v O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 26, 1992 Agenda Abstract Item # C– / SUBJECT: IMPACT FEES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: —X —Yes No ATTACHMENT(8): INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical Report Planning Director X2592 (Separate enclosure) Proposed Ordinance PHONE NUMBERS: (Separate enclosure) 5/4/92 Chapel Hill Town Hillsborough 732 -8181 Council Correspondence Mebane 227 -2031 5/11/92 Hillsborough Town Durham 688 -7331 Board Resolution Chapel Hill 967 -9251 5/4/92 Draft Public Hearing Minutes Excerpts - FY 1992 --97 CIP PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a technical report and implementing ordinance concerning a system of impact fees to help finance a portion of school capital needs in Orange County. BACKGROUND: For several years, Orange County has pursued an objective of helping to fund school capital needs created by growth. During the 1987 Session, the General Assembly authorized the County to levy impact fees in its planning jurisdiction for a number of needs, including school capital. A joint governmental work group investigated the possibilities of an impact tax in the county in 1988 -89. The County proposed legislation in the 1991 Session of the General Assembly seeking authority to impose an impact tax for school capital needs. The legislation was withdrawn due to local opposition. However, the County did receive authority in the 1991 Session to impose impact fees for school capital needs throughout the county, not just within the County's planning jurisdiction. Impact fees are still a relatively new funding mechanism, and case law concerning them is still developing. There are some complicated statutory and constitutional considerations involving setting an impact fee. For this reason, the County staff 6 prepared a technical report which outlined the methodology for calculating a system of fees. The initial draft of the report was presented to the Board of Commissioners in January of 1992. Subsequently, the draft report was distributed to the municipalities in the county, the two school boards, the Homebuilders Association, the Board of Realtors, the Community Housing Corporation, and the Chambers of Commerce. In March, 1992, meetings were held with representatives of the organizations to discuss impact fee levels, methods of collection, and other concerns. Upon request, presentations were also made to municipal governing boards. In April, 1992, a report summarizing the results of the meetings was presented to the Board of Commissioners, including options for raising specific amounts of capital to finance public school improvements. In May, 1992, a public hearing was held to give the citizens of Orange County an opportunity to voice their opinion on establishing a system of impact fees. The technical report provided with the agenda materials represents a revision to the initial draft. It seeks to address the discussion, debate, and concerns identified during the series of meetings held in March, April, and May of 1992. In addition, the methodology and calculations used in the initial draft have been reviewed to insure consistency and accuracy. At the conclusion of the hearing and upon receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation, the Board of Commissioners may decide on whether or not to include a schedule of impact fees in the FY 1992 -93 budget. RECODMNDATION: The Administration recommends that the proposed ordinance and technical report be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no later than June 29, 1992. MAY -26 -1992 15:41 FROM CRAN5E CTY COMM :SSIONERS 70 PLANNING Post -It" brand fax transmittal memo 767t co. i s a. �'� `' XX0 I FIX N TowN OF CMk - OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 306 Nom COLUMBIA STREET CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 May 4, 1992 Mr . Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N C . 27278 Dear Chairman Carey: P.21 #o+"M' p� (919)96$-1714 FAX 919.967.8406 The Town. Council and I have several concerns about the County's proposed system of school impact fees. I am writing to convey the main comments and issues which were raised in our discussion at the Council Meeting on April 27, 1992. First, thank you for having your Planning Director,: Marvin Collins, come to our Council meeting to brief us. His presentation and answers to our questions were helpful. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposal. There are several areas of L con! cern that were raised: Impact on Affordability of Housin¢: All of us are concerned about the extra cost that this fee system would add to the price of a home; and the problems this could create for low and moderate - income families who are trying to purchase a home. We understand that the fee could be set as high as $3,300 for a single- family house; a fee at this level could tip the balance making an otherwise affordable home un- affordable for, some. families. I Several Council members indicated considerable concern about a -fee that high. If the school impact fee is adopted, we would strongly encourage the simultaneous adoption of a policy exempting housing developments that involve public assistance. Regre sive Nature of. a Fee.: Several members pointed out that a fee system is a regressive way to raise revenue for school construction -- the game fee is paid on a $6009000 house and a $60,000 house. There was interest in pursuing a financing mechanism that would vary with the cost of a dwelling. Process for Setting, Revisin Fee Schedule: We understand that this would be a countywide system, with, fees being set by the County Board of Commissioners. Several members pointed out a fee system of this nature would have indirect effects in a number of areas related to: new development in Chapel Hill, and that it would be desirable for the Town Council to have a role in thei setting or revising of a fee schedule applicable in the Town and our surrounding area of planning jurisdiction. The County may wish to discuss this with all of the municipal governing boards. 8 Mr. Moses Carey May 4, 1992 Conclusion im4 ct_Fee vs. IT Tax: We understand that an effort was made several years ago to obtain enabling legislation for a countywide impact tax. The effort was not successful, and this impact fee system was developed as an alternative. It was noted during our discussion that an impact tax would be a more flexible financing mechanism than an impact fee, and a suggestion was made that the General Assembly be approached again with this idea. Small Window of OpportunitZ for Comment Discussion: Related to these last three points, there was discussion of the need for a longer period of time to consider this idea. The current schedule allows limited time for exploration of alternatives to what has been proposed, and limited time for community -wide discussion and reaction. Several Council members asked that the County decide not to attempt to have a fee system in place by July 1, 1992, and that more time be allotted to discussion of the proposal and other alternatives. Systems: One Council Member expressed concern that no thought was being given in the proposal to the possibility of merger of the two school systems. It was suggested that the financing package be designed with flexibility to accommodate sharing of facilities-and possible merger of the two systems in the future. We appreciate your consideration of these comments and concerns as you hold your Public Hearings on the proposal. We have asked our staff to prepare some additional information for us, and expect to consider a formal resolution at our May 26 Council meeting. It is our intent to forward this to your Board for consideration immediately thereafter. Again, thank you for the briefing, and for considering our comments. Establishing an impact fee would be a significant step, and therefore we believe the proposal deserves an especially delliberate process of consideration. KSB / cyc Sincerely, enneth S. Broun Mayor -Z_ (Town of Nillsburuug4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 May 14, 1992 Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, N. C. 27278 Dear Chairman Carey: The Hillsborough Town Board adopted the attached resolution on Monday, May 11, 1992 in official session. 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429 (919) 732 -2104 If additional information is needed, please contact Town Hall. Sincerely, A • . AgathW Johnson, Town Clerk Enclosure cc: John Link, County Manager Marvin Collins, Planning Director 10 Xnwn of Eillshuruug4 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 R E S O L U T I O N 11 101 E. Orange Street P.O. Box 429' (919) 732 -2104 WHEREAS: The Orange.County Board of Commissioners and the Boards of Education from the two school systems have reached an agree- ment on a $55 million dollar proposal for school capital improvements, and WHEREAS: $52 million dollars would be funded through bonds and $3 million would come from school impact fees generated during the next six years through the construction of new housing, and WHEREAS: the Orange County Board of Commissioners must decide at what level impact fees should be set, and therefore have approached the Hillsborough Town Board for its view regarding the proposed fee, and WHEREAS: the impact fees have been discussed at Town Board meetings on three different occasions and the Town Board's position is as follows: 1. The impact fee is regressive in nature, levied with no regard to ability to pay. 2. Orange County has for years suffered from the lack of affordable housing and this fee adds other local legislation cost to the construction of a new house. 3. Mobile home purchasers would be required to pay the second highest fee after single family dwellings. The fee would make mobile home affordability less appealing. 4. The methodology used in calculating the fees is confusing and too complex for the general public to understand. NOW, THEREFORE, the Hillsborough Town Board voted in official session on Monday, May 11, 1992 to oppose the proposed impact fees as presented to the Hillsborough Town Board. Duly adopted this the 11th day of May, 1992. 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES FROM THE 5/4/92 REGULAR BOCC MEETING 2 3 C. PROPOSED SCHOOL IMPACT FEES 4 Planning Director Marvin Collins stated that this is the first of 5 two public hearings on impact fees to help assist in financing construction 6 of new school facilities necessitated by growth in Orange County. He stated 7 that impact fees are fees that will be paid by those moving into the county 8 because they create the need for the services. The purpose of these fees and 9 the schedule is to finance school capital cost which has been identified over 10 the next six years. He presented two options. Option #1 showed the impact 11 fee that would be necessary to raise $2 million and Option 2 showed the 12 impact fee that would be necessary to raise $3 million. The fees will apply 13 to new construction only and not existing housing. There are several 14 alternatives for when the fee may be collected. He said that one concern is 15 that this fee adds to the cost of low and moderate income housing and the 16 major concern is the regressive nature of the fee. 17 18 The Public Hearing was open for public comments. 19 20 VIC KNIGHT stated that he knows it is a difficult task to fund the 21 needs of the schools. He does not feel this is the way to pay for school 22 needs. This will impact on the sale of real estate. People will view this 23 as a tax. The Board of County' Commissioners has indicated that affordable 24 housing is a key issue. This impact fee is not a benefit to the majority in 25 this county and he is against the implementation of these fees. 26 27 JIM GRAY made reference to the News of Oran a and the article about 28 impact fees. He stated that usually fees are due at the time the plat is 29 submitted. Waivers are given but very few. When they were issued alternate 30 funds they had to find the money to pay these fees up front. These are set 31 up in a county ordinance. He made reference to how fees are levied in an 32 urban county adjacent to Washington, DC. The fee for a single family 33 dwelling is $2,096 - flat across the board. They allow no waivers even for 34 Habitat. Only the areas where development is occurring were included in this 35 program. Also the money was used in this specific area. The fee is added 36 to the mortgage which means that interest is paid on this fee. The price for 37 existing homes automatically goes up and they must pay more. It also 38 reduces the opportunity for first -time home buyers. It does raise the county 39 tax base because it raises the evaluation. He feels that there must be a 40 better way to raise money and that a lot more time is required to set up this 41 program. 42 43 JOHNNY KENNEDY spoke in opposition of this fee. 44 45 CONNIE SHUPING spoke as a member of the Chapel Hill Board of 46 Realtors. She stated that no one is against more or better schools but that 47 they should be paid for by all the people because it benefits all the people. 48 She opposes the fee. She referred to a city where these fees were 49 implemented and stated that housing starts fell drastically. This fee will 50 have an impact on affordable housing. Both existing and new home owners pay 51 property taxes. She asked that the Board of County Commissioners think about 52 this issue and provide enough time to study it thoroughly. lZ 2 R. ALEXANDER ZAFFRE asked that the Board of Commissioners take a 3 stand for fair and equitable housing. He asked how many will not be able to 4 own a home because of this fee. This systematically takes away the 5 opportunities for the middle class -- working class of people. 6 7 VERN MILLER stated that his parents worked and paid taxes to live 8 in the county to pay for the schools. He questioned taxing a person who has 9 lived here all their lives as well as one who is moving into the county. 10 Also, he feels that the County should fund the schools first and then 11 everything else. He feels that the implementation of impact fees is complex. 12 He asked how they justify placing the entire cost of a school on the first 13 500 students in that school. In terms of social programs, he has a problem 14 with what is his fair share. The table must take into account some of the 15general revenue that the County receives. 16 17 LARRY CARROLL spoke for the Homebuilders Association of 18 Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. He stated that impact fees will increase the 19 cost of housing. Construction workers do add to the tax base. Parents have 20 been paying taxes and if they decide to build a new home must-then pay 21 additional taxes. 22 23 HENRY WHITFIELD stated his support to raise taxes. He is upset 24 about impact fees. He made reference to OWASA and the high cost of 25 availability fees they charge. He asked the Board to forget impact fees 26 stating that they are inequity and do not spread out across the population 27 and provide equitability. He asked that the Board of County Commissioners 28 look at the expenditures for the schools and raise taxes but don't implement 29 impact fees. 30 31 MAX KENNEDY spoke against the impact fees. He understand that 32 there is about an $800,000 shortfall in the county budget this year. The 33 impact tax is regressive. The building industry is just coming out of a 34 depression. The fee is presented to raise money for the schools. This 35 discussion is another nail in the coffin for the school bond issue. 36 Nothing has happened with the one million dollar bond passed by the county 37 in 1988 for water. The economic impact of many of the fees and requirements 38 on the docket have caused housing costs to increase. There are less and less 39 opportunity for people to build houses. He urged them to find another way 40 to finance the schools. 41 42 JOE HERZENBERG read a prepared statement from Kenneth S. Brown about 43 the Town Council's concerns about the County's proposed system of school 44 impact fees. A copy of this statement is in the Permanent Agenda File in the 45 Clerk's Office. 46 47 Chair Carey announced that a second public hearing on school impact 48 fees will be held on May 26th as part of the Regular Quarterly Public 49 Hearing. 50 51 52 C �i'�/ 17. 13 ORAL -GE COUNT) t P 081-1 (9 a . x 52 199? -97 I d � Capital Improvements Plan Recommended I'll CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS The Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools have undertaken a Capital improvements program based on the Lona Rance Facilities Pfan for the Nineties. Funds available from bonds and pay -as- you -go sources for continuing projects for the period 1991 -92 through 1996 -97 total $21.7 million as shown on the appropriation schedule on the next page. An increasing number of children in schools continues to drive the capital needs of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro system. In this planning period, the State Department of Instruction is projecting that the District's student population will grow by an average of just over three hundred children per year. In order to help accommodate these children, the District is planning for the construction of four new schools by the end of this decade. Two of these schools, a high school and a middle school are part of the $52 million bond package which will go before the voter's in November 1992. The Schools are anticipating a second bond referendum to fund at least one additional elementary school. To partially offset the cost of new facilities, the Board of Commissioners plans to implement impact fees on new residential development effective July 1. The first two million dollars generated from these fees will go toward the construction of the two new schools contained in the November bond package. In order to ensure that planning for the middle school continues and to work toward a Fall of 1994 opening, the Chapel Hill- Carrboro Schools request that funds be transferred from the Chapel Hill High School Phase 11 project and from the Reserve for Future Projects account to the account, "Planning for New Middle School." During 1991 -92, $40,000 was transferred from the Phase II High School project and $180,000 from the reserve for future project. In this Capital Improvements Plan, the system is requesting that an additional 5375,000, which would otherwise go toward Phase II of the high school project, be allocates for the middle school. In addition to the projects identified to be funded by available pay -as- you -go funding, the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools have identified $67.6 million of projects which are not funded. Of this amount, S36 million would be paid by bond proceeds from the November election and $2 million from impact fees. The source of funds for the remaining projects has not been "identified. These projects are listed in the Appendix A of this document. ORANGE COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN APPENDIX A. UNFUNDED CAPITAL NEEDS CHAPEL HILL- CARRSORO CITY SCHOOLS PRIORITY! PROJECT BOND/ New Middle School IMPACT To construct a middle school with a FEES capacity of approximately 700 students on a 39.5 acre site. 51, 000, 000 from impact fee revenue will be used to support technology in this school. BOND/ New High School IMPACT To construct a high school with a FEES capacity of approximately i,000 students with core facilities for 1,500 students. Site to be approximately 60 -70 acres. $1,000,000 from impact fee revenues will be used to support technology in this school. 1 New Elementary School (one of two) To construct an elementary school with a capacity of approximately 640 students on a 20 -acre site. 2 New Elementary School (two of two) To construct an elementary school with a capacity of approximately 640 students on a 20 -acre site. 3 Technology To fund the balance of the technology project identifed in the C /P. 4 Renovation and Site Improvements To fund the balance of the renovation projects identified in the C/P. 5 Athletic Facilities/Playgrounds/ Swimming Facility To fund construction of a swimming facility to be shared by all schools in the distrct and completion of the unfunded projects in the C/P. 6 Mobile Classrooms To purchase or construct approximately 10 mobile classrooms of approximately 960 square feet each. TOTAL YEAR AMOUNT NEEDED $15,000,000 I 1994 523,000,000 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 1 1996 1 1994 1997 $1,500,000 1992 $650,000 1992 $2,925,000 1992 $500,000 1 $67,575,000 1 ORANGE COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 1994 16 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS The Orange County Schools' five year Capital Improvements Plan emphasizes new computer technology in the classroom, repairing and renovating existing facilities and energy improvements. The plan also includes two new schools: the middle school, which Is part of the 552 million bond package, and an additional elementary school to open in 1999. Funds available for projects through FY 1996 -97 total $21.2 million. This includes previously funded projects totaling $ 14.6 million and new funds from 1992 -93 through 1996 -97 totaling 56.6 million. For 1992 -93, all new funding, plus $123,000 in previously allocated but unappropriated funds, will go toward completing the window replacement and air conditioning project at Orange High School. To continue implementing the technology plan, Orange County Schools will supplement the S2 million (included in the November 1992 bond package) with 5600,000 in pay -as- you -go funds for each of the next five years. The Schools have identified $35 million in unfunded capital needs. This includes the two new schools cited above: a new middle school ($15 million) and an elementary school ($15.5 million). Also included is $2.6 million for technology, of which $2 million is planned to be funded by bond proceeds. A complete list of unfunded projects is shown in Appendix A of this document. ^M . ^ ""� I.vu41q " CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN APPENDIX A. UNFUNDED CAPITAL NEEDS ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS PRIORIT PROJECT !AMOUNT YEAR (NEEDED BOND/ New Middle School $15,000,000 1995 IMPACT ($1,000,000 from impact Fees, and FEES $14,000,000 from bond proceeds). BOND/ Balance of Technology Plan $2.600,000 1992 PAYG (S2, 000, 000 from bond proceeds and 5600,000 from pay -as- you -go funds). 1 New Elementary School $15,500,000 1999 New construction for 600 student facility. 2 Maintenance Facility Expansion $55,000 1997 Complete project started in FY 1996 -97. 3 Central Elementary Media Center $90,000 1998 Renovate and add space to present media center for computer lab and video station. 4 Playing Fields $175,000 1998 Add two fields at OHS/Stenford and make field improvements at all other schools. 5 Parking lot improvements $300,000 1998 Provide for parking lot expansion, curb work, repaving, improvements and add new entrances at 5 schools. 6 OHS Renovation $650,000 1998 Add locker room/showers in D -wing (S100,000) add ,100 student parking spaces ($150, 000), make stadium improvements ($75, 000), build new athletic re/dhouse ($325, 000). 7 Energy Management Systems $670,000 1998 Complete project started in FY 1996 -97. 8 Handicapped Access Complete project started in FY 1994 -95. $100,000 1999 9 Bus Garage Project $200,000 1999 Enlarge front parking area, improve drainage in rear, replace fencing, add bay to garage paint room. TOTAL $35,340,000 ORANGE COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Is 1;) O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 26 1992 Action Agenda Item # C'-2 -o SUBJECT: Z -2 -92 P AND S SPORTING GOODS, INC. - ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACHMENT(S): Site Plan Vicinity Map Staff Memorandum Findings of Fact Certificate of Mailing PUBLIC HEARING: XYes No INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967- 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Atlas amendment in Bingham Township. BACKGROUND: The property in question is located on the south side of NC highway 54 between Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958) and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). The total area proposed for rezoning contains 3.98 acres and is described as part of Lot 28 of Tax Map 26 in Bingham Township. The current zoning is Agricultural Residential. The zoning districts proposed are 2.06 acres of Local Commercial -1 and 1.92 acres of Neighborhood Commercial -2. In the adopted Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the property is designated Agricultural Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The proposed rezonings will maximize the five -acre allotments of NC -2 and LC -1 zoning at this activity node. Each of the proposed zoning lots will have direct access to NC Highway 54, an arterial. Each lot also has suitable area for ground absorption sewage treatment as evaluated by Orange County Environmental Health. Adjacent property to the south and west is undeveloped and zoned Agricultural Residential. To the east is PEE, Inc., a mail orer facility zoned General Commercial -4. Across NC Highway 54 to the north is undeveloped land zoned AR and LC -1. n The Planning Staff has made positive findings on the application for rezoning to U -1 and NC -2 as required by Article 20 and Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance. The list of permitted uses in the proposed districts is included in the attachments. The applicant has no plans for developing the property in question. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Article 20.3.3 of the Zoning ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of the receipt of an application to amend the Zoning Atlas. The 30 -day period may be extended up to a maximum of 60 days with the written consent of the applicant. The public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning officer's recommendation. Zoning Officer's Recommendation The Zoning Officer has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the application does comply with the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Provided the Planning Board and the County Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the request. No decision is made by either the Planning Board or the County Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has 60 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the application be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. �7 9 -RANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLI APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONING DISTRICT L7- _L 4-- Date: March 27 1992 TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA The undersigned do hereby make application to change the Zoning Atlas of Orange County as hereinafter requested. 1 . The property is located on the South side of SXAX1_ N. C. (__ Highway 54 _ Street /Road) between S.R,# 1958 �It and 1006 S.R.# . is known as Lot(s) 28 0 Block - of of Orange County Tax Map 26 - Bin ham Township. It has a of ±665 feet and a depth of ±480 feat, and contains 295,772 square feet or 6.79 .acres. 2. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from AR to NC -2 and LC -1 3. The foLLowing information has been attached in support of the application for changing the Zoning At Les (' - required on all eppLicatione). ✓"a. A fully dimeneloned map at a scale of not Lass then see (1) inch�T equal• one — hundred (1001 feet nor were then one (1) inch equals twenty 1201 feat showing- the land whien is proposed- to be rezoned. ✓•b. A Legal description of the Land proposed to be rezoned. •c. A statement of Justification addressing one or, more of the following: P /A,(1) The alleged error in the Zoning Ordinance, if any, which would be corrected by the proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such error in the Zoning Atlas end detailed reasons how the proposed amendment al LL correct the error. ` (2) The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the arse or in the County generally, which wake the proposed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public has lth, safety and general welfare. ''0(2) The manner in which the proposed amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the adopted Land Use Plan or part thereof. 6,/6(41 ALL other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed amendment including, but not limited to, documentation from service agencies (e.g. fl re, police, rescue and utilities agenciasI assuring services provision capability to the development. -/d. A list of all Individuels, fires or corporations owning property adjoining or within five hundred (5130) feet of the property sought for rezoning is attached. The List is current as of 3-24-92 (Date] I certify that ell information furnished in this application is accurate to the best of my knowledge. App Li cant IsI: Phili2 D. Harvey Address:_ P&S Sporting Goods Inc. Post Office Box 1500 Phone: Chapel Hill NC 27514 9.29 -2.143. _AGENT: G. Gregory Shepard _ _Shepard Design Associates 424 Waterside Drive Carrboro NC 27510 9 -6069 d) I) jc� A., ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306E REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, 'NORTH CAROLINA 27278 c 4 MEMORANDUM TO: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FROM: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 5, 1992 SUBJECT: Z -2 -92 P & S SPORTING GOODS, INC. APPLICATION FOR REZONING GENERAL RMORMATION Applicant: P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. c/o Philip D. Harvey P.O. Box 1500 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Location: South side of NC 54, 590 feet east of Morrow Mill Road (SR 1958). Lot size: 6.79 acres in total lot (exclusive of right -of -way), 2.06 acres requested to be rezoned from AR to LC -1, and 1.92 acres to be rezoned from AR to NC-2. Acreages proposed for rezoning include half of the right -of -way of NC Highway 54. Existing Land Use: The property proposed for rezoning is undeveloped. Surrounding Land Use: North - NC Highway 54 and undeveloped land zoned AR and LC -1. East - PHE, Inc., mail order facility, zoned GC -4. South - Undeveloped woodland zoned AR. West - Undeveloped residential land, 1 -acre lots, zoned AR. 24 MEMORANDUM Z -2 -92 P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. May 5, 1992 Page 2 Land Use Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential and Rural Neighborhood Activity Node Zoning: The property is presently zoned Agricultural Residential (AR). The intent of the Local Commercial -I (LC -1) District is provided in Article 4.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the Local Commercial -I (LC -1) District is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the immediate space occupied by the building. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Site is located within areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial Transition Activity Node, a Rural Commercial Activity Node or a Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. 2. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate d, area an would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but 5 acres shall apply in rural areas where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition area. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments. 5. All sites designated LC -1 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 25 MEMORANDUM Z -2 -92 P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. May 5, 1992 Page 3 The following is a list of permitted uses in LC -1: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single - Family dwelling w /wo efficiency apartment H3 Two - Family dwelling H5 Dwelling; Mobile Home H6 Family Care Home H8 Rehabilitative Care Facility Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P8 Community Center P14 Public & Non -Profit Parks P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P24 Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S4 Assembly Facility Less than 300 S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges S15 Health Services: Under 10,000 sq. ft. S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S35 Recreational Facilities: Golf Club S37 Repair Service Electronic & Appliance S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable and Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200 Trips/Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants 26 MEMORANDUM Z -2 -92 P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. May 5, 1992 Page 4 The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility P17 Radio & Television Transmitting & Receiving Towers & Elevated Water Storage Tanks P22 Transmission Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non - Profit) The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial -II (NC -2) District is provided in Article 4.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. a) Intent The purpose of the neighborhood Commercial -II (NC -2) District is to provide appropriately located and sized sites for limited commercial uses designed to serve a population at the neighborhood and rural level with convenience goods and personal services. Performance standards will be used to insure the absence of adverse impacts beyond the lot boundaries of the use. b) Application Criteria This district will usually be applied where the following conditions exist: 1. Located within areas designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan as either a Commercial Activity Node or Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. 2. Uses would serve a market area population confined to the immediate area and would generally not serve commuters or persons outside the surrounding neighborhood. I Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. 4. Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned NC -2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the Transition areas. Acreage limitations shall not apply to property zoned Existing Commercial -V (EC -5) or planned developments. 5. All sites designated NC -2 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. MEMORANDUM Z -2 -92 P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. May 5, 1992 Page 5 The following is a list of permitted uses in NC -2: H1 Day Nursery, Daycare, Private Kindergarten H2 Single - Family dwelling w /wo efficiency apartment H3 Two - Family dwelling H4 Multiple family H6 Family Care Home Accessory Uses P2 Botanical Gardens P4 Bus Passenger Shelter P7 Church P8 Community Center P10 Governmental Protective Services (Police and Fire Stations) Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments P13 Military Installations P14 Public & Non - Profit Parks P15 Parking as a principal use P21 Schools: Dance, Art and Music P24 Governmental Facilities & Office Buildings P25 Water and Sanitary Sewer Pumping Stations S6 Banks and Financial Institutions S7 Beauty and Barber Shops S8 Clubs or Lodges S13 Greenhouses (no on premises sales) S14 . Greenhouses (on premises sales) S21 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Services S22 Libraries S26 Motor Vehicle Services Stations S28 Offices and Personal Services That Attract Few Customers or Clients on Premises Other Than Employees, Generate Low Traffic Volumes, Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Space Occupied by the Building S29 Offices & Personal Services That Generate Medium Traffic Volumes and Have No Adverse Impacts Beyond the Lot Boundaries S35 Recreational Facilities: Golf Club S37 Repair Service Electronic & Appliance S38 Research Facility S39 Restaurants: Carry Out S41 Restaurants: General S42 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable and Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond Immediate Space Occupied By The Building Where: A) Operations Are Designed to Attract & Serve Few Customers Or Clients On Premises Other Than Employees Of The Principal Use. I i .1, Ar MEMORANDUM Z -2 -92 P & S Sporting Goods, Inc. May 5, 1992 Page 6 B) Low Volume Traffic Generation (0 -200 Trips /Day) C) All Operations Entirely Within A Fully Enclosed Building With No Outside Storage S43 Retail Trade, Sales, & Rental of Durable and Convenience Goods, Merchandise & Equipment Where No Adverse Impacts Occur Beyond the Boundaries of Lot Where The Use Is Located. A) Medium Traffic Generation (200 -300 Trips /Day) The following uses are allowed with a Class A Special Use Permit: P16 Public Utility Stations and Sub - stations, Switching Stations, Telephone Exchanges, Water and Sewage Treatment Plants The following uses are allowed with a Class B Special Use Permit: H7 Group Care Facility P3 Buildings; Portable P22 Transmission Lines S34 Recreational Facilities (Non- Profit) FINDINGS. OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: P & S SPORTING GOODS, INC. BASED ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED, THE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING ARTICLE 20 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /REZONING ( "Yes" indicates Compliance; "No" indicates Non-compliance) PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Reauirements The application must comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected property at scale of not less than 1 " =100' nor more than 1 ' = 20'. 20.3.2 b) Legal description of property. 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment. 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if any, which make amendment reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare. 20.3.2 e) Manner in which proposed amendment will carry out purpose and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan. —x—Yes No :x —Yes No Yes No Site plan provided at scale of 1 " =40'. Descriptions provided with application. Not applicable. Yes No Not applicable. _x—Yes No The property is located in BH -1 Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. The purpose of the node is to provide small scale commercial uses serving the population in the surrounding area. The proposed zones are consistent with the Rural Neighborhood Activity Node. 1 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 30 ARTICLE 4 - DISTRICT STATEMENTS OF INTENT AND APPLICATION CRITERIA ( "Yes" indicates Compliance: 'No" indicates Non- comoliancel PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Local Commercial -1 and Neighborhood Commercial -2 designation. The criteria for these districts are set forth in Article 4.2.8 and 4.2.9 as follows: (a) Located within areas designated _x—Yes No The property is located in a by the adopted Comprehensive Plan Rural Neighborhood Activity as either a Commercial Transition Node. Activity Node or Rural Neighborhood or Rural Community Activity Node. (b) Uses would serve a market area _x Yes No Permitted uses would be those population confined to the allowed in the LC -1 and NC -2 immediate area and would zoning districts, which are generally not serve commuters small scale commercial and or persons outside the service areas. surrounding neighborhood. (c) Lot size for individual uses shall be appropriate to the method of water supply and sewage disposal. (d) Normally, the maximum amount of land zoned LC -1 and NC -2 at any node shall not exceed nine acres, but a maximum of 5 acres shall apply where population density is lower and distributed more widely than in the transition areas. (e) All sites designated LC -1 and NC -2 shall have direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector as designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes Yes _x—yes No The Orange County Health Yes Department has determined that each proposed district has an area of suitable soils for ground absorption sewage treatment and disposal. Improvements permit issuance would be pending final survey, waste flow of proposed develop- ment and protection of the approved area of suitable soils. _x —Yes No The request to rezone the Yes property would not exceed the maximum of 5 acres of land zoned LC -1 and NC -2 at the BH -1 Activity Node. It would, however, complete the allotment for both zones within the Rural Neighborhood Node. _x—yes No The property has direct access Yes to NC Highway 54 which is designated as an arterial in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. .n Iil . (m No 2 -AM ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Emily Cameron, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about May 8, 1992, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the request for rezoning. in Bingham Township of a 2.06 acre parcel from Agricultural Residential to Local Commercial -1, and a 1.92 acre parcel from Agricultural Residential to Neighborhood Commercial -2, to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 8th day of May, 1992. , 6 .d ILY CAMERON ZONING OFFICER - 31 � �i �..' O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 26, 1992 SUBJECT: PD -1 -92 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL (MODIFICATION OF PD -3 -90) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ATTACBMENT(S): Site Plan Application Vicinity Map Special Use Permit Deed Book 880, Page 592 12/11/91 Letter from DEM Planning Staff Recommended Findings Certificate of Mailing Action Agenda Item # C- 2 -b PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No INFORMATION CONTACT:Emily Cameron Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School which would allow expansion of the existing private school approved as a planned development in 1990. BACKGROUND: Carolina Friends School is an existing private school located on the north side of Mt. Sinai Road (SR 1718) and west of Friends School Road (SR 1719). The property contains 32.94 acres and is zoned PD -RB, Planned Development - Rural Buffer. In August of 1990 a Class A Special Use Permit was issued for Carolina Friends School to allow the use of the school's wastewater disposal system in the Rural Buffer. Article 6.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a large ground absoption system with a design capacity over 3000 gallons per day may be allowed in the RB district only through approval of a planned development. The Board of Directors of Carolina Friends School adopted a five -year master plan in 1991 for development of the school. The plan calls for expansion of the facility with a 9500 square foot Resource Center adjacent to the Upper School, a 200 square foot office additon, four 120 square foot storage sheds, handicapped accessible bathrooms, and road widening with additional parking. Student 3-1 M, enrollment is projected to increase by twenty students. The proposed construction constitutes a major modification to the Special Use Permit issued in 1990. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that such a change be considered by the Board of commissioners following a public hearing. The proposed expansion of the school complies with almost all the findings (see attachment) required by the Zoning Ordinance that are attached to the current Special Use Permit. Conditions have been included in the Planning Staff's recommendation to address deviations from the approved findings and to insure compliance with all State and local regulations. The existing sewage disposal system has a capacity of 4000 gallons per day and is regulated by the NC Division of Environmental Management. Based on the State's standards, the potential system flow is to gallons per day per student. Current daily flow is about 2400 gallons for 368 students, or 6.5 gallons per student per day. Projected enrollment at Carolina Friends School will not exceed 394 students. The resulting potential for a 3940 gpd flow through the system is still within the 4000 gallon capacity permitted by DEM. RECOMMENDATION: Article 8.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 45 days of receipt of an application. The 45 -day period may be extended up to 60 days with the written consent of the applicant. The public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zoning Qfficer's Recommendation The Zoning Officer has not received information which would establish grounds for making a negative finding on the general standards. These standards include maintaining or promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare, maintaining or enhancing the value of contiguous property, and the use being in compliance with the general plan for the physical development of the County. The Zoning Officer has reviewed the application, the site plan and all supporting documentation and has found that the application does comply with the specific standards and required regulations concerning the modification. Provided the Planning Board and County Commissioners find in the affirmative on the general standards, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the request for modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School subject to the following conditions added to those placed on the Special Use Permit in 1990: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Resource Center, submit final grading /erosion control plans and storm drainage calculations for review and approval by Orange County Erosion Control; 2. Revise the site plan to: a. Remove parallel parking along the east side of the driveway between the basket- ball court and the creek. All proposed parking must be at least 75 feet from the lot boundaries; b. Indicate clearing limits and tree protection fencing for the expansion of the Upper School access, parking and the Resource Center. Provide a detail of the method of tree protection and add a note which states that no storage of construction materials or vehicles is to occur beyond the clearing limits; and c. Show the boundaries- of lot 7.6..2. No decision on the application is made by either the Planning Board or the Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has 60 days within which to prepare and submit a recommenda- tion to the Board of Commissioners. Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommendation within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation, without conditions. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the application be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. 31% Lill mo, ILI Fir i-v ri I tit F. Fl ba Sal =71�• 9 in Ing Eg 0 3 v a I =71�• 9 in Ing Eg 3 v a (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT - INK ONLY; S''6s APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE: 4/7 / 92 APPLICATION NUMBER: PD- 1 I (We) request a Class A Special Use Permit as provided for in Article of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance for the addition of a 9,500 s.f. buiWinLr and new stora a sheds to complete the Long Range r the Carolina Friends School. The following information is provided in support of this request: A. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Street Address or Location: 4809 Friends School Road, Durham, NC Orange County Tax Map __7 Block Lot(s) 20A, 20B Township Chapel Hil Zoning District(s): FwEAt. B11FFEt1 _ n 26A _ Lot /Parcel Size: 332.9 acres or square fe. Number of Existing Buildings: 12 Gross Floor Area:_ 45.120 square fe Number of Proposed Buildings: 4 Gross Floor Area: 9,860 square ff Water Supply: Public (Specify) Community Indivi6u Wastewater Disposal: Public (Specify) Community Individu, School District: Fire District:_Eno River General Land Uses in Area: Residential Critical Areas: ✓ Stream /Drainageway Flood Prone .4r Watershed (Specify) MISLOr1C S Other (Explain) B. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Twenty -six (26) copies of a Site Plan, prepared by a registered North Carolina ScT surveyor or engineer, are provided as required by Article 8.8 and which contain the following information: AL_L_ t...tr-,,:)rz",eM0AJ EF_c�utrzep 8`e 42.7-►cr_ir 14- C5M C. *EckLtsront sites FL, ✓ . north point, scale, and date. 4PPt- tC_A-r10A1 F02H7 �! Extent of area to be developed. Locations and widths of all easements and rights -of -way within or adjacent to the site. Location of all existing and proposed structures on the site. Location of all areas on the site subject to flood hazard or inundation as shown on flood maps or soils maps. Location of all water courses on the site, including direction of flow. Existing topography at a contour interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum. Existing and proposed fencing, screening, gates, parking, service, and storage areas. Access to site, including sight distances on all roads used for access. (PLEASE COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) 36 C. OTHER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION: Elevations of all structures proposed to be used in the development. r Two (2) full -size copies of the applicable Orange County Tax Map, one (1) copy with the property in question clearly marked. —.� - The names and addresses of the property owner(s) and /or applicant(s), and the names and addresses are all persons owning property within five hundred (500) feet of the property in question. Application fee as set by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Traffic impact study as required by Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional information regarding the proposed Special Use as required by Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Narrative (or letters from appropriate agencies) indicating: 1. Method and adequacy of provision of sewage disposal facilities, solid waste disposal, and water service. Where public sewer is not available, a letter from the Orange County Health Department certifying the suitability of the existing and /or proposed wastewater treatment system for the property. 2. Method and adequacy of police, fire, and rescue squad protection. 3. Method and adequacy of vehicular access to the site and traffic conditions around the site, I (We), the applicant(s), hereby certify that the foregoing application and supporting documentation is complete and accurate. I understand that it shall be my (our) responsibility to present evidence to the Board of Commissioners the form of testimoriv, exhibits, documents, models, plans, and the like to support the request for approval of the Class A Special Use Permit. APPLICANT SIGNATURE(S) DATE J NOTE: If title to the above mentioned property is not in the name of the applicant(s), please include a letter from the owner(s) signifying approval of the request. •• rrtrrrtrtsr• s• rwr• rtrr• rtw• rrt• rtrtrrtrt■ rrtrtrtrtsrrtrrrrrtrrrrtssr .rtrtrt••wrrrrrr•rrtrtrsrr.rw.r FEES: Amount $ A$9.66 Date Paid: 4 / 15' / 92 Receipt # 035 -7 19 Long -Range Plan for Carolina Friends School Durham, North Carolina Presented to the Board May 21, 1991 by the Committee: Jean O'Barr, Chair Matt Drake Greg Garneau Peter Klopfer Mark Kuhn John Baird, ex officio Martha Klopfer, ex officio z 40 11 Recommendation 419: School size. Issue: How large should each unit become? What is the optimum student /teacher ratio? Background: The original size of each unit was predicated on a somewhat ar- bitrary number that was believed to represent the maximum number of students that could interact effectively together as a unit. The number was based fur- ther on the School's economic ability to compensate staff, acquire supplies, and maintain buildings in a rural setting without municipal services. Considerations: School experience suggests that social factors differ between units. For example, older students need a larger pool of potential friends, and diversity among students may require larger numbers. Parental and staff opinion concur that any expansion should not alter significantly the present ratios of staff to students (1:8) or of teachers to students (1:12). Of course, these ratios vary across activities and subjects, and between units. Recommendations: We recommend that the Early Schools remain at their current ' sizes. The Lower School, and Middle School enrollments should not change sub- stantially from their present budgeted levels of 120 and 126 respectively. The enrollment of the Upper School should grow gradually by about 25 students, to reach approximately 130. We recommend that with these increases, addi- tional hiring take place as necessary order to maintain current student /staff ratios. Res onsibilit : School administration. Time Frame: As soon as the physical plant and school facilities allow. Solutions Originated From: Thursday Meeting, Parents Survey, Staff, Long-Range Planning Committee. Recommendation #10: Revenue sources. Issue: What are alternatives to raising tuition in order to meet the school's ever - growing financial needs? Back round: CFS' budget relies primarily on tuition. In 1990 -91, 94% came from tuition and fees, 4% from the annual fund, 12 from endowment and grants and lx from interest income. Our primary expenditures are staff compensation at 76 %, 6% to tuition aid, 5% to maintenance, and the remaining 13% allotted to supplies, utilities and other occupancy expenses. The Board's top priority is raising staff salaries. In addition, unforeseen expenses, such as deferred maintenance projects or capital acquisitions, necessitate tuition increases which exceed annual inflation rates. 41 �J DAIL DIXON & ASSOCIATES, Architects CAROLINA FRIE'N'DS SCHOOL__ - APRIL 7. _1992 APPLICATION FOR CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1. Long -- Ra-nge Plan for Carolina Friends School: Recommendation #9 regarding school size is enclosed and highlighted. The enrollment status will be held to +/- 376 students on the main campus. The enclosed letter from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources permits this increase in enrollment over the next five years. 2. Long -Range Master—Pjan_ The mater plan has been revised and updated to include additions to the campus completed over the past several years as well as proposed buildings for the next five years. 3. Public Water: Contact has been made with Charvis Adams and Bill Barlow of Public Water Supply. Mr. Barlow has indicated their involvement with the project will begin when construction documents are underway. The civil engineer for this project, Phil Post and Associates, will evaluate the current water supply at the Upper School and verify construction details with Mr. Barlow of Public Water. 4. Traffic Impact: Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Traffic Impact Study for developments which generate over 800 daily trips. This project generates less than 800 daily trips. However, the widening of roads as indicated on the Master Plan will improve site circulation and the ability of police, fire, and rescue squads to gain access to the campus. The proposed widening of the road was verified with Orange County Erosion Control per enclosed letter from Phil Post & Associates. 5. Sewage Dis ola sal: Included with this submittal is a letter from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources permitting the addition of flow resulting from the addition of 20 students to the campus sewage treatment facility. 6. SQtid Wa5= Di5ppsal: Carolina Friends School contract with BFI Waste Systems to collect garbage from the campus twice a week. 12 The Courtyard. 431 West Franklin Street. Chapel Hill, NC 27516, 9191968 -8333 Members of the American Institute of Architects ago a VZ as ..r ARM Ow miss % r His/ Sam" @ ; OL on peg r .•q w t . r\ .c y 'Cis �c 0.9 .a 1 4 .r {� r r ` r N • O NK "ir . 4WO J! r r r. .y • (D r wto � sK • ae f� ? *ad& Ing L Moo, car, oN of low qw •K O •K .~ =- as T cae.O L INa T= F— t E:M DS 5C40OL 8 �AIEP O ' . J OL "" an t , . O O Q \ .a{ are • f• K r0 K 1 fir,' o i o o o do. 0 • +r i ssa OWN arc rflL fwd © ^ f0 •r r ewe y TK !V G ` 1r1 M . • .y ■Mi \�,J ...0 MMrL to • K I Iw D .. MAN 1 64df. 9 Ar 1 yrYS• - • r at 40 As sac an e 1- • • r IoM to MIND 410s `�. Dag r N��T�•1 r r re. .jvk,,� Fr-lek . % 4'��9 Trl�'�,�/�- �c6�d �u.(� ))� NORTH CAROLINA 503 880 r'1 fE Sc72 ORANGE COUNTY RMED COUNTY OF ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL USE PERMIT KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned property owners, Carolina Friends School, Inc. and Peter and Martha Klopfer, having applied to Orange County for a Class A Special Use Permit for the use and development of the property hereinafter described, the same was granted by Orange County on August 30, 1990, the terms of which follow. Carolina Friends School, Inc. and Peter and Martha Klopfer, by their acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Special Use Permit, acknowledge and ratify the contents of their application for this permit and all representations made by their representatives in the application process for gg9a- 31 -os9�l �.� ••�A 989a 3� -07413 7.7.. �[.A this permit. gg91 -a1 -594 7• tea$ �189�.- 3a- 3coc9a �+, �,..a CtT9 �6- I 405a 1. Z .. a4 98q �, - c3 I - Sz 3a NAME OF PROJECT: Carolina Friends School TYPE OF SPECIAL USE: Class A Special Use Permit for a ground absorption system for sewage disposal with a design capacity of 4000 gallons per day in the Rural Buffer district NAME OF DEVELOPER: Carolina Friends School, Inc. 4809 Friends School Road Durham, NC 27705 _w PROPERTY OWNERS: Carolina Friends School, Inc. Peter and Martha Klopfer -- 44 50OX 880 ;g'E 593 DESCRIPTION OF PRE: M LOCATION: North side of Mount Sinai Road (SR 1718) west of Friends School Road (SR 1719) AREA OF PROPERTY: 32.94 acres or 1,434,866.4 square feet, more or less. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Chapel Hill Township, Tax Map 71 Lots 20A, 20B, 26, 26A and Tax Mao Q�,w� 6 Lots 2 and 43, and more 5 particularly described in the following deeds recorded at the Oraiige County Register of Deeds: Deed Book 196, Page 318 Deed Book 198, Page 171 Deed Book 192, Page 310 Deed Book 200, Page 319 Deed Book 200, Page 617 Deed Book 202, Page 203 Deed Book 701, Page 290 Deed Book 243, Page 1960 (TRACT 1) Deed Book 243, Page 1960 (TRACT 2) Deed Book 243, Page 1960 (TRACT 3) Deed Book 250, Page 1483 The Board of Commissioners of Orange County approved a Class A Special Use Permit on August 30, 1990. The property subject to this Special Use Permit is described above and is, in part, shown on the Site Plan prepared by Philip Post and Associates, dated 8/7/89 and revised 8/31/90. Carolina Friends School intends to build a modular classroom, a 10' x 12' storage shed, and a 2700 square foot classroom /art -music facility on the site as indicated on the site plan. The terms herein contained are binding on Carolina Friends School, Inc. and Peter and Martha Klopfer and their successors in title and in interest until the earlier of the expiration of this permit and any extension of its expiration date, or until such time as this permit is otherwise changed roo 880 Prcf 594 by governmental action. The modular classroom shall be located in accordance with the site plan dated August 7, 1989 and revised August 31, 1990. The conditions of approval of the Special Use Permit are as follows: 1. The sewage disposal system must at all times be operated and maintained according to the standards and conditions set forth by the NC Division of Environmen- tal Management in Permit WQ0002161 and as may be amended in the future. 2. Provide and maintain screening along the eastern boundary line to screen parking areas and dumpsters to meet the landscape requirements of Article 12.4 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. 3. With applications for building permits, provide documentation of how the proposed construction will access the existing sewage disposal system as well as estimates for any increase in daily flow through the system. Each application which will create additional demand on the system must be accompanied by an approval letter from the Division of Environmental Management. All information will be submitted to the County Engineer for review to determine that the system demand does not exceed 4000 gallons per day. No building 46 50 -jx 880 P'-' 59S permits will be approved for additions /renovations without prior approval from DEM and approval of an amendment to this Special Use Permit. 4. The final site plan and supporting documentation for the project, incorporating all changes, deletions, and additions through the final approval of the project, are incorporated herein and made a part of this Planned Development Special Use Permit. Copies of the final site plan and supporting documentation are on file in the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department. Any applicable permits, upon application, may be issued after approval and recordation of the Special Use Permit. 5. The development shall be built and operated according to the site plan and attachments supplied by the developer and in compliance with the above conditions. 6. If any of the above conditions is held invalid, the Special Use Permit shall become null and void. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Orange County has caused this instrument to be executed in its name as evidence of the issuance of said permit, and the undersigned being all of the property owners of the property above described, have executed this instrument in evidence of their acceptance of said Special Use Permit as a covenant running with the land. 5 ]1" 880 RKfE 596 ORANGE COUNTY By: Jo . M. 'Lik`ik, C my Manager ATTEST: [SEAL] Beverly ythe, lerk to the Board of Commissioners - - ACCEPTED: CAROLINA FRIENDS SCIHOOL, INC. Owner and Developer / / By: /- Martha S. Klopfer President ATTEST: leAner o► AA&-um Secretary NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY [ SEAL (SEAL] PETER LOPF . 2 ,�%i' `� [ SEP.L ] MARTHA KLOPFER I, Cam. a Notary Public in and for said ou ty and State do hereby certify that Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of Orange County the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by John M. Link, Jr., County Manager, and attested by herself as its Clerk. r 46 5J'Js $$U ="r, 597 WIT.:ESS m hand and official stamp or seal, this the d „o if 1990. N ARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires %/' 3D c%3 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, , a Notary Public of t e Co' 4y and State afo e aid certify that personally came before me this day and ac no ledged that he /she is the Secretary of Carolina Friends School, Inc. and that by authority duly given and as the act of Carolina Friends School, Inc., the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its President, sealed with its official seal attested by himself /herself as its Secretary. V1TT14�`SS my hand and off icial stamp or seal, th'_s the .day of 1990. Notary Public My Commission Expires: NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY a Notary Public for said County and State, a ereby certify that Peter and Martha Klonfer personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument. 0 � ;,W`trn s y hand and official seal., this the � day "o 1990. t :," NORTH CAROLINA — ORANGE COUNTY Notary Public My commission expires: The foregoing certificate(s) of Kathleen C, Baker and Hilda v. Chappell '**NKaU**W Notaries) Public of the aesignated Governmental units X (are) certified to be correct. Filed for registra- tion this the 8th day of �tober in Record Book Page S92 Return, 19 90 at 9.3$ o'clock, a.m. B� June Hayes, inter of De s J �xa+wDeput Register of Deeds -1 J �� � ,; tt ►s_91 DAIL DIXON & ASSOCIATES. Architects November 14, 1991 Ms. Emily Cameron, ASLA Orange County Planning Department P.O.Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: Carolina Friends School, Special Use Permit Dear Ms. Cameron: As we discussed earlier this week, the Carolina Friends School anticipates increasing their total enrollment by 20 students. The increase in enrollment will be as follows: The current sewage outflow consumption is 2,000 - 2,400 gallons each day. To improve their current facilities and provide for the additional students, we will be designing a 7,000 - square foot Resource Center. This building will include science labs, classrooms, a small library and art studios. The additional plumbing fixtures required for this new facility are as follows: • 1 sink in art room • 10 small science table sinks • 4lavatories • 5 water closets (1 - 1 -1/2 gallon) • 2 water fountains We would like to begin a submittal for the Special Use Permit required by the County and appreciate your interest in reviewing the current situation with the sewage treatment plant and its capacity. If there are further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, DAIL DIXON & ASSOCIATES Ellen Weinstein, AIA EW /nn cc: John McGovern, Assistant Principal Carolina Friends School 12 The Courtvard. 131 West Franklin Street. Chapel Hill. NC 2 7516. 919.'968 -8333 Members of the American Institute of architects Ex_ isting Proms Campus Early School 18 18 Lower School 120 120 Middle School 125 125 Upper School 105 125 Faculty /Staff 45 45 413 433 The current sewage outflow consumption is 2,000 - 2,400 gallons each day. To improve their current facilities and provide for the additional students, we will be designing a 7,000 - square foot Resource Center. This building will include science labs, classrooms, a small library and art studios. The additional plumbing fixtures required for this new facility are as follows: • 1 sink in art room • 10 small science table sinks • 4lavatories • 5 water closets (1 - 1 -1/2 gallon) • 2 water fountains We would like to begin a submittal for the Special Use Permit required by the County and appreciate your interest in reviewing the current situation with the sewage treatment plant and its capacity. If there are further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, DAIL DIXON & ASSOCIATES Ellen Weinstein, AIA EW /nn cc: John McGovern, Assistant Principal Carolina Friends School 12 The Courtvard. 131 West Franklin Street. Chapel Hill. NC 2 7516. 919.'968 -8333 Members of the American Institute of architects 9 ;X L JJ State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Raleigh Regional Office James G. Martin, Governor William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Ms. Ellen Weinstein, AIA Dail Dixon and Associates 431 West Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Dear Ms. Weinstein: Edmond John Magtrrre Regional Manager December 11, 1991 Subject: Carolina Friends School Durham, North Carolina Permit No. WQ0002161 Our office has received your request concerning the above named facility. The data which has been obtained by the school shows consistence with the permit as issued by our Division. Therefore, this office permits the addition of flow resulting from the addition of 20 students to the school. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Tim Donnelly at (919) 571 -4700. Sincerely, - vz~~ rthur Mouberry, P.E. Regional Supervisor 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101 • Raleigh, N.C. 27609 Telephone (919) 733.2314 • FAX Number (919) 733-7072 An Equal Orporruniry Affirmative Acnon Emplover r � I17 FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO APPLICATION: PO -1 -92 CAROLINA FRIENDS SCHOOL (MODIFICATION OF PD -3 -90) The Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School was approved in 1990. Article 8.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance states that modifications to Class A Special Use Permits (other than minor changes defined by 8.7.1) shall be considered by the Board of County Commissioners following a public hearing. The findings listed below are those required by the Zoning Ordinance and used in approval of the current Special Use Permit. Where a finding has been affected by the request for a modification, it has been noted by an asterisk ('). ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non-com oliancel PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements 8.5 - Application submitted on forms _x —Yes No Submittal includes application Yes No providing full and accurate description forms, site plan and supporting of proposed use, including location, documentation on the sewage appearance and operational disposal system. characteristics. • 8.8 a) - Seven (7) copies of the site No 215 copies of the overall site Yes No plan prepared by a registered N.C. land _x—Yes plan and schematic site plan of surveyor or engineer containing: the proposed Resource Center were provided by Philip Post & Associates and Dail Dixon & Associates. 1. North point, scale and date _x—Yes No Shown on the site plan. Yes No 2. Extent of area to be developed _x—Yes No Site plan indicates extent of Yes No area to be developed. 3. Location and width of all easements _X—Yes No The rights -of -way off Mt. Sinai Yes No and rights -of -way within or Road and Friends School Road and adjacent to the site required drainage easements are shown on the site plan. 4. Location of all existing or _x —Yes No All structures are shown. Yes No proposed structures on the site 5. Location of all areas on the site x Yes No The area south of the pond is not Yes No subject to flood hazard or inundation detailed on the Flood Insurance as shown on flood maps or soil maps Rate Maps. The Orange County Soil Survey does not indicate soils subject to flooding in this area. 5. Location of all water courses on _x—Yes No All intermittent streams and Yes No the site, including the direction direction of flows are provided. of flow A pond is also shown on neighboring property. • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 J F.: ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS Continued PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements • 7. Existing topography at a contour _x —Yes No interval of five (5) feet based on mean sea level datum 8. Proposed or existing fencing, _x—Yes No screening, gates, parking, service and storage areas 9. Access to site including sight Yes _x —No distances on all roads used for access • 10. Elevations of all structures Yes _x—No proposed to be used in the development 11. Names and addresses of owners _x —Yes No and applicants `12. A fee, as set by the Board of _x —Yes No County Commissioners • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 PLANNING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD TQ SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Topography is shown on the Yes No second sheet with the schematic site plan of the proposed Resource Center. Existing and proposed parking Yes No and service, and storage areas are indicated on the plan. Sight distances are not shown Yes No on the plan, but an on -site inspection proved the sight distance at the entrance on Friends School Road is adequate. Sections through the existing Yes No Upper School and the proposed Resource Center were submitted showing building heights and spacing. Elevations showing building materials and window spacing have not been prepared. Provided with application. Yes No $489.50 application fee paid Yes No on 4/15/92. M ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates, Non- compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant to address the following: • a) Method and adequacy of —x—Yes No Applicant has provided copies of Yes provision for sewage disposal permits and a letter approving facilities, solid waste and additional enrollment from the water service N.C. Division of Environmental Management as well as actual daily flow data for the existing sewage disposal system. The system includes a package treatment plant, storage lagoon and spray irrigation system with a design capacity of 4,000 gallons per day. The system's current flow is about 2400 gpd /for 388 students. Based on DEM's standards, proposed out flow is based on 10 gallons per day per student. Projected enrollment will not exceed 394 students resulting in 3940 gallons per day potential system flow, still within the design capacity permitted by the State. Dumpsters are shown for solid waste disposal, and a water tower for water supply. b) Method and adequacy of police, —x —Yes No Letters from the Orange County fire and rescue squad protection Sheriff, Emergency Services, and Eno Fire Department were provided. All agencies will be able to provide services to Carolina Friends School. • c) Method and adequacy of vehicle —x—Yes No The school has access to access to the site and traffic Friends School Road (SR 1719). conditions around the site A statement has been provided with the application which indicates that the proposed widening of internal roads will improve emergency access and internal circulation. • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 Yes Yes 3 ZIP. I.r.. M J ,l ARTICLE 8.8. 23 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Developments ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates Non - compliance) Ordinance Recuirements Article 7.4 indicates the application must first comply with all requirements specified in Article 20 - Amendments. Those requirements include: 20.3.2 a) Map showing affected property at scale of not less than 1 " = 100' nor more than 1 " = 20' • 20.3.2 b) Legal description of property 20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged error, if any, to be corrected by proposed amendment • 20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if any, which make amendment reasonably necessary to promote public health, safety and general welfare • 20.3.2 e) Manner in which Proposed amendment will carry out purpose and intent of adopted Comprehensive Plan ' Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS _x —Yes No Site plan provided at a scale Of 1" =1001. _x —Yes No The legal description is on the current Special Use Permit. The boundaries have not changed since the permit was issued in 1990. Yes No N/A - No error alleged. _x —Yes No A 5 -year plan for development was adopted by the school. Proposed expansion of the school facility required a modification to the Planned Development Special Use Permit. _x—Yes No Goal Fourteen of the Comprehensive Plan calls for "Full and equal educational opportunities for the residents of Orange County consistent with ... the needs of the County residents ". The applicant has requested a modification to the Special Use Permit in response to a need created by adoption of a 5 -year Master Plan for the school. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes M W 4 ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION / PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Re uirements Article 4.2 identifies the criteria which will normally be used to determine the application of a zoning district designation. The applicant has applied for a Planned Develo ment - Rural Buffer designation. The criteria for the Rural Buffer district are set forth in Article 4.2.1 and are as follows: a) Designated by the adopted _x —Yes No countywide Land Use Plan as Rural Buffer or by the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as Rural Residential or both. b) Urban services, including water —x—Yes No distribution and sewage collection mains are not likely within 10 -20 years. c) Yes No d) Yes No dl Yes No • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 The property is designated as Rural Buffer on the County Land Use Plan and Rural Residential on the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Orange County Water and Sewer Policy prohibits the extension of water and sewer lines into the Rural Buffer except to address public. health emergencies or for public facilities. Under those exceptions, water and /or sewer lines are sized to serve only the purposes for which they are extended. r 5 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Jb ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Continued Ordinance Re uirements Article 7.4 then indicates the application must comply with certain specific requirements common to all Planned Developments. These include: 7.4.1 So located with respect to major streets and mass transit facilities and designed so as not to create traffic on minor streets in residential districts. 7.4.2 So located with respect to water, sewer and storm drainage facilities that enlargement or extension will not result in higher net public cost or earlier incursion of public cost. and So located with respect to police, fire and rescue services, and schools and parks so as to have access in the same manner as Permitted under the existing zoning. 7.4.3 Site suitable for. development within hazard from flooding, erosion, and soil subsidence of slipping. • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS _x,Yes No Access is provided via a private drive off of Friends School Road (SR 1719). No minor residential streets will be affected by this project as Proposed. _x—Yes No The proposed development will not have access to public water, sewer or storm drainage facilities; therefore, no higher net public cost will result. _x —Yes No Letters regarding adequate service provision have been received from the Sheriff's Department, and fire, and rescue services. x,Yes No The area south of the pond is not detailed on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The Orange County Soil Survey does not indicate soils subject to flooding in this area. Slopes adjacent to the drainageways average 10% gradient. Drainage easements are provided to accommodate drainageways. PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes Yes IA . lfl M. ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Continued PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Recuirements Article 7.14.3 sets forth "site planning" standards with which an applicant must comply. Standards regarding "external relationships" are as follows: a) 1. Access points provided to encourage smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Use of minor streets by substantial traffic is discouraged. a) 2. Safe and convenient routes provided for pedestrians and motorcyclists. Crossings safely marked, located and controlled. a) 3. Visibility provided at intersections (pedestrian and vehicular) in accordance with Article 6.8. "a►4. 100 -foot open space provided along perimeter of PD -II district. Recreational use and off - street parking set back at least 75 feet of district boundary. _x —Yes No Access will be provided via a private drive to State Road 1719, Friends School Road. No minor streets will be affected by this development. _x —Yes No N/A Yes No _N /A_Yes No a) 5. Yards, fences, walks, or _X—Yes No vegetation provided to screen off undesirable views, lighting, noise, etc. Parking /loading areas and refuse collection/ storage areas screened. • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 Since there is no through traffic, vehicles speeds are slow, allowing for safe pedestrian circulation. Most of the existing structures/ facilities are located on the west side of the entrance drive which minimizes pedestrian crossings. There are no internal intersections. Sight distance is adequate at Friends School Road. N/A - 100 foot open space not required. Schools are permitted in all residential districts. Proposed parking at the upper school is at least 75 feet off lot boundaries. The parallel parking proposed along the east side of driveway between the basketball court and the upper school will not be allowed (Condition #21b). Most of the parking is screened by existing vegetation. Jr 7 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 5 j ARTICLE 7 --SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS Continued PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Re uirements •a)6. Maximum building height _x—Yes No Maximum building height in RB complies with standards set district is 25 feet. The height forth in Article 6.12.3 and of the proposed resource center Article 5.1.1. is 27 feet. According to Article 6.2.1, a height of 27 feet is allowed if one foot of additional front and side setbacks is provided. The proposed location of the Resource Center would meet the additional required setbacks. a) 7. Signs to be erected in _x —Yes No The existing sign meets the accordance with Article 9. requirements contained in Article 9. Standards regarding "internal relationships" are as follows: •b)1. Streets, drives and parking _x —Yes No The existing drive will be areas provide safe end widened to provide improved convenient access for dwellings access for emergency vehicles. and emergency vehicles, and do not create small block sizes. b) 2. Vehicular access controlled as follows: a) Streets serving 50 or less _x—Yes No The existing entrance drive dwellings provide direct access provides access to parking/ to parking /service areas. service areas. b) Streets serving greater than _N /A_Yes No Not applicable. 50 dwellings provide access to parking areas so located, designed and controlled as to channel traffic without interruption. b) 3. Walkways form safe, convenient _X—Yes No No system of walkways is system of access to dwellings, shown. The maximum distance facilities and off -site between a school building and designations. Maximum walking parking is approximately 75 distance between dwellings and feet. parking; delivery and refuse collection areas does not exceed 100 feet. • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 8 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes ` No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued) PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Walkways used as play areas _x—yes or school routes by children located and designed to minimize contact with vehicular traffic. Crossings appropriately marked and safeguarded. b) 4. Protection of visibility - See a)3. and b)3. above. b) 5. Open space and spacing between _x —Yes buildings - See Article 8 standards. No Since there is no through traffic, vehicle speeds are slow, allowing for safe pedestrian circulation. Most of the existing structures/ facilities are located on the west side of the entrance drive which minimizes pedestrian crossings. No Open space requirements are met. No standards are provided in Article 8 for spacing between non - residential buildings. 5;) 9 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No. ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance: "No" indicates non - compliance) PLANNING PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BOARD FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS Ordinance Reauirements Article 5 lists standards for minimum lot size, lot width, front, side and rear setbacks, maximum building height and lot coverage, and development intensity. The applicant has applied for a PD -H -RB designation. The standards for that district are set forth in Article 5.1.1 and are as follows: a) Minimum lot area per non- residential use - 87.120 sq. ft. b) Minimum lot width - 130 ft. _x—Yes No _x—Yes No c) Required front setback - 40 ft. _x —Yes No d) Required side and rear setbacks - _x—Yes No 20 ft. • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 The lot size shown on plan Yes No is 1,110,780 sq. ft. The lot width shown on plan Yes No is 240 feet. Typical 40 -foot front yard Yes No setback is noted on plan. Typical 20 -foot side and rear Yes No yard setbacks are noted on plan. 60 ARTICLE 5 - DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS continued Ordinance Requirements •e) Maximum building height - 25 ft. Compliance with lot coverage and development intensity standards is addressed in Article 6. • Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS —X —Yes EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT FINDINGS No Maximum building height is 25 feet. The height of the Resource Center is 27 feet. Additional front and side setbacks will be required in accordance with Article 6.2.1, 10 . PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (;,Yes' indicates oom liance; "No' indicates non- oomplience PLANNING STAFF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS Ordinance Requirements Article 8 lists specific standards which apply to various types of development applications. Article 8.12 contains those development intensity standards which apply to group developments controlled by the Land Use Intensity (LUI) system. a) Minimum gross land area - 174,240 sq. ft. b) Maximum gross land area - None specified sq. ft. •c) Maximum floor ratio - 0.100. Maximum floor area permitted - 111,808 sq. ft. •d) Required minimum open space ratio -.84. Required minimum open space - 937,490 sq. ft. "e) Required minimum pedestrian/ landscape ratio - 0.21. Required minimum pedestrian/ landscape space - 234.372 sq. ft. Note. See Appendix A for "Definitions ". x Yes No N/A Yes No _x —Yes No " Finding affected by modification, PD -1 -92 _x—Yes No _x—yes No Applicant's site contains 25.5 acres or 1,110,780 sq. ft. The gross land area is 1,118,080 sq. ft. Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Maximum permitted by ordinance is 111,806 sq. ft. The total proposed floor area for the 5 -year plan is 52,840 sq. ft. Applicant's plan indicates 1,057,940 sq. ft. of open space. Applicant's submission indicates 983,940 sq. ft. �l 11 PLANNING BOARD FINDINGS Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 6 1. ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 306F REVERE ROAD HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 V, M CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I, Emily Cameron, Zoning Officer, Orange County, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on or about May 8, 1992, I mailed, by certified mail, postage prepaid, a Notice of the Public Hearing to be held on the proposed modification to the Special Use Permit for Carolina Friends School in Chapel Hill Townshi to each property owner as required by Article 20 Section 20.6.3 of the. Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The notice mailed specified the date, time, place and subject of the Public Hearing on the zoning classification change. WITNESS my hand, this the 8th day of May, 1992 (a" EMILY CAMERON ZONING OFFICER C0 1 ORANGE C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 26, 1992 Action Agenda Item # C -3 - q- SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT ARTICLES 6 AND 22 - HOME OCCUPATIONS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING _x —yes No ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Amendment Illustrations INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Scearbo Extension 2583 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment, the purpose of which is to create more performance- oriented standards for home occupations. BACKGROUND: The substantive changes proposed in the amendment pertain to setbacks and square footage limits for accessory structures on lots larger than 200,000 square feet (Article 6.16.6.3). The proposed standards would allow greater flexibility in the location of home occupation accessory buildings if the site contained wooded areas or topographic features which provided effective screening. In contrast, the location of structures in open areas would be more restricted in some instances. Other proposed changes involve the use of large existing structures for home occupations activities. The amendment was originated by Planning Staff to address problem situations which have been encountered in administering home occupation regulations. A recent example involved a deep lot about 11 acres in size, with the residence located almost 1000 feet from the road. Current regulations required the home occupation structure to be located in an unsuitable location to the rear of the residence. The desired location was in a wooded area, several hundred feet from the road. The home occupation could not be approved, even though the use would have been very heavily screened, and would not be visible from the roadway. The proposed amendments are the first step in a more comprehensive overhaul of home occupation standards. The i issues addressed at this time will resolve situations which are more commonly encountered. Staff will be proposing changes to requirements for smaller lots, specific standards related to traffic impacts, and additional standards for home occupations which could potentially create nuisance impacts, in a subsequent amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Article 20.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application for amendment to the Zoning ordinance text by either the public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either case., though, the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zon -'D9 Officer Recommendation The Zoning Officer prepared the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment and presented it to the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board. Provided the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. No decision is made on the proposed amendment by either the Planning Board of Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Amendments initiated by the County are not subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of Commissioners. Administrative_ Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. Lid PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: ZONING ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ARTICLE 6.16.6 REGULATIONS CONCERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS, AS AN ACCESSORY USE ARTICLE 22 DEFINITIONS (HOME OCCUPATION) ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: `x_ Staff Planning Board BOCC Public Other: STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: x High Middle Low comment: EXPECTED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 26, 1992 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: The purpose of this amendment is to create standards which are more performance - oriented. Also, the text itself is being revised into a simpler format. The substantive changes proposed in this amendment pertain to setbacks and square footage limits for accessory structures used for home occupation purposes, on lots larger than 200,000 square feet (Article 6.3). Staff will be proposing changes to requirements for smaller lots, specific standards related to traffic impacts, and additional standards for home occupations which could potentially create nuisance impacts, in a subsequent amendment. Existing Provisions The existing home occupation regulations are contained in Articles 6.16.6.1 through 6.16.6.4. 6.16.6.1 provides standards for zoning districts with a minimum lot size of about 1/2 acre or less.. 6.16.6.2 provides standards for lots smaller than 200,000 square feet (4.6 acres) in the AR, R1 and RB zoning districts. 6.16.6.3 provides standards for lots larger than 200,000 square feet in the AR, R1 and RB zoning districts. 6.16.6.4 contains application and approval procedures. The underlying goal of home occupation standards is to minimize any impacts of the home occupation and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. 6b- Existing setback and square footage requirements are shown in the following table: HOME OCCUPATIONS EXISTING SETBACK AND SQUARE FOOTAGE STANDARDS Requirement Lot Size X200,000 of X200,000 of (4.6 acres) Square Structure 1000 sf 2000 sf Footage Outdoor 500 sf 1000 sf Storage Front 40' 30' behind Setbacks I residence Side and Rear 20' 40' Application of Standards to Large Lots Setback standards for accessory structures on large lots are more stringent than those for small lots. It is presumed that since more land is available, the accessory structure could be located even farther from adjoining properties. Also, there is potential for the accessory building to be larger. In many cases, however, the accessory building is less than 1000 square feet. The home - occupation building envelope may be significantly smaller for a 4.7 -acre lot than for a 4.5 -acre lot, even if all other factors are equal. This is illustrated in the following example. An applicant wishes to operate an accounting service in a 400 square foot accessory building. The residence is in the center of a lot which is heavily wooded on the south and west sides. The septic tank and drainfield are located to the rear of the house. In Figure a), the lot contains 4.5 acres. Figure b) assumes a lot size of 4.7 acres. The shaded area shows the area within which the home occupation may be located in each case. 443' a) 4.5 acres b) 4.7 acres F) f1 In Figure b), the accessory building is restricted to the rear of the property, most of which is open and highly visible from the rear adjoining property. The setbacks, low square footage, and screening requirements would serve to minimize impacts of the activity. There are other portions of the property, however, such as the southwest corner, within which the home occupation activity could be nestled within a wooded area, to be even less intrusive. Use of this area is not an option, however, because the home occupation must be located at least 30 feet behind the residence. It may be appropriate for larger accessory structures; i.e., those close to the 2,000 square foot limit, to be located to the rear of the residence or a substantial distance from the road to avoid a sense of crowding or business -like atmosphere along residential roads. However, structures smaller than 1,000 square feet, which would also be allowed on smaller lots, must meet the same setbacks as the structures larger than 1,000 square feet. Also, site features such as dense screening by existing vegetation are not taken into account. Size of Structure The existing regulations limit the square footage of the structure within which a home occupation is located, regardless of how much of the building is used for the home occupation. (Example - A large barn within which a small area is to be converted to a workshop.) This may eliminate the possibility of using existing structures for home occupation purposes, even if the area used for the home occupation and building setbacks meet applicable standards. Proposed Changes The following changes to standards for Home occupations in the AR, RB and R1 zoning districts are proposed: - Rounding of the break point between large and small lots from 200,000 square feet (4.5 acres) to an even 5 acres; Applying the same setback requirement to all home occupation accessory structures smaller than 1000 square feet, Requiring a minimum setback of 30 feet for home occupation accessory buildings between 1000 and 1099 square feet, and increasing that setback by 10 feet for each 100 square feet thereafter to the maximum size of 2000 square feet. (Accessory buildings larger than 1000 square feet would still require a lot size of at least 5 acres.) - Requiring a minimum setback of 30 feet for a 500 to 549 square -foot outdoor storage area and increasing that setback by 10 feet for each 50 square feet thereafter EO PC to the maximum size of 1000 square feet. (Outdoor storage areas larger than 1000 square feet would still required require a lot size of at least 5 acres.) Reducing the minimum setback to 40 feet, or up to one - half of the applicable sliding scale value, whichever is greater, along heavily wooded areas where existing vegetation effectively screens the use from view of the road or adjoining properties. Requiring the lesser setback of 300 feet from the right -of -way, or 30 feet behind residence (current requirement) when the front portion of the property is highly visible from the road. (A.home occupation on a 5 -acre lot with the standard dimension of length equals twice the width, placed roughly in the center of the property, would meet the 300 -foot setback.) The proposed amendment would allow larger accessory buildings to contain a home occupation, provided that: a) The area of the home occupation does not exceed square footage limits; b) The area used for the home occupation meets setbacks required for its area; and c) The structural design or other feature provides adequate assurance that only the designated portion of the building will be used for the home occupation. Examples of the application of the requirements are attached. These envelope within which an accessory given various combinations of lot location of treeline. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: proposed dimensional examples show the building structure should be located, shape, size of structure, and Article 6.16.6 Some gccupations Regulations Home Occupation - Incidental and subordinate use of residential property for business, production of goods, and provision of services. Article 6.16.6.1 General Provisions a) On -site sale or delivery of goods which are not produced on -site is not permitted, except where such delivery or sale is incidental to the provision of a service. b) Traffic generated by the home occupation shall not be significantly greater than that which would normally be expected in a residential F neighborhood. C) Off - street parking shall be provided. Parking area shall be located outside of building setbacks. d) No equipment or process shall be employed that will cause noise, glare, odor or electrical interference at the lot line (in the case of detached dwelling units), or outside or in the abutting dwelling unit (in the case of attached dwelling units). Article 6.16.6.2 Additional Provisions for All Residential Districts Except RB, AR and R -1. a) No external evidence of a home occupation shall be visible except for a single sign up to two (2) square feet in area. b) No more than thirty -five percent (35 %) of the total floor area or five hundred (500) square feet whichever is less, may be used for a home occupation. C) All activities associated with the home occupation must be conducted within the residence. d) No more than one (1) individual not living in the residence may work in the home occupation. Article 6.16.6.3 Additional Requirements for Some occupations in RB, AR and R -1 Districts Article 6.16.6.3.1 For All Lots a) No more than two (2) individuals not living in the residence may work in the home occupation. b) Accessory buildings, outdoor storage areas and parking areas shall be adequately screened from view of the roads and adjacent properties by a densely planted evergreen hedge, shrubs or trees, or a six (6) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant materials. C) Accessory buildings - Where a home occupation is located in an accessory structure. The floor area of an accessory structure used, in whole or part, for a home occupation shall generally not exceed the square footage limitation of the home occupation itself. A portion of a larger structure may be used to conduct a home occupation provided that all of the following are met: 1) The area of the home occupation does not 70 exceed square footage limits; 2) The area used for the home occupation meets setbacks required for its area; and 3) The structural design or other feature provides adequate assurance that only the designated portion of the building will be used for the home occupation. Article 6.16.6.3.2 For Lots Smaller Than Five (5) Acres a) A maximum of 1000 square feet of floor area may be used for a home occupation. This floor area may be located within the residence and /or in a detached accessory building; and b) A maximum of 500 square feet of floor area may be used for outdoor storage; and C) Minimum setbacks shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. Article 6.16.6.3.3 For Lots Which Are Five (5) Acres or Larger a) A maximum of 2000 square feet of floor area may be used for a home occupation. This floor area may be located within the residence or in a detached accessory building; and b) A maximum of 1000 square feet of floor area may be used for outdoor storage; and C) Side and rear setbacks for accessory buildings smaller than 1000 square feet and outdoor storage areas smaller than 500 square feet shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. For each additional 100 square feet (accessory building) or 50 square feet (outdoor storage) thereafter, the setback shall increase by 10 feet. An existing mature Type A or higher Land Use buffer, or topographic features which result in an equally effective buffering, may substitute for up to one -half of the required setback. In no such case however, shall such setback be less than 40 feet. d) Front setbacks for accessory buildings smaller than 1000 square feet shall be as required by the applicable zoning district. Buildings larger than 1000 square feet and /or storage areas larger than 500 square feet shall be located the lesser of: n 1) Thirty feet farther from the right -of -way than the residence; 2) 300 feet from the right -of -way, EXCEPT where an existing mature Type A or higher Land Use buffer; or 3) Topographic features effectively screen the structure from view. In no such case, however, shall such setback be less than 40 feet. HOME OCCUPATION ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (Lots 5 acres or larger) SQUARE FOOTAGE MINIMUM SETBACKS Accessory outdoor Side and Front Building Storage Rear* 1000 < 500 20' 40' 1000 -1099 500 --549 30 lesser of: 30 feet farther from the right -of -way than the residence 1100 -1199 550 -599 40' 1200 -1299 600 -649 50' 1300 -1399 650 -699 60' or 1400 -1499 700 -749 70' at least 300 feet from 1500 -1599 750 -799 80' the right -of -way or 1600 -1699 800 -849 90' 1700 -1799 850 -899 100' (effectively buffered) 1800 -1899 900 -949 110' 1/2 of the side /rear setback (but not less 1900 -2000 1 950 -1000 120' 1 than 401) * May be reduced by up to 112 (but may not be less than 40') if existing vegetation provides an equally effective buffer. e) one (1) on -site sign advertising the home occupation is permitted. The size of the sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet in the R -1 and AR zoning districts, and two (2) square feet in the RB zoning district. f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. t ' w� Article 22 - Definitions ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE: PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: BOCC REVIEW: HOME OCCUPATION BUILDING ENVELOPE 5-acre lot — 640' x 320' 0= Road Frontage SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1200 sf ❑ 1500 sf FAI 0 2000 sf ►AI ❑ TREELINE i BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR RESIDENCE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HOME OCCUPATION BUILDING ENVELOPE 5-acre loft — 450' x 450' �= Road Frontage SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1200 sf rI J. 1500 sf Cl r•I 6. 2000 sf ►•J ❑ L ❑ TREELINE ACCESSORYNSTRUCTURER � RESIDENCE �J HOME OCCUPATION BUILDING ENVELOPE 5 -acre lot 320` x 640' 0= Road Frontage S I ZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1200 s f 1500 s f 2000 s f �II TREE LINE , BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR RESIDENCE J ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TREE LINE , BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR RESIDENCE J ACCESSORY STRUCTURE C subject to the following conditions; a) All structures, buildings or enclosed areas, used for housing of poultry, hogs, cattle or other livestock, shail0e a minimum of one hundred feet from all property lines. . b) No structures, buildings or enclosed areas, housing Poultry, hogs, cattle or other livestock shall be less than one hundred twenty feet from any residence. C) Care shall be exercised that odor is kept to a minimum level through frequent cleaning of the area. d) Prior to making this exception, the applicant shall receive from the Orange County Health Department a letter stating that the applicant has reviewed the Health Department's requirements for operation of a feeder -type facility and understands the health requirements that must be met. Any violation of a Health Department regulation shall be considered a violation of this ordinance. *6.16.6 Regulations Concernk Home Occupations, Q An Accessory Use *Amended 2 -1 -88 6.16.6.1 home Occu atio s In All Residential Districts W ezat RS, FR and R -1 Amended 10 -5 -87 The following restrictions shall be applied to all home occupations in all residential districts, except R3, AR and R -1. a) No external evidence of its existence shall be visible except a sign as permitted by Article 9. b) No more than thirty -five percent (35 %) of the floor area of the dwelling unit or five hundred (500) square feet, whichever is less, can be used for the home occupation. C) No equipment cause noise, interference lines in the the dwelling units. or process shall be employed that will vibration, glare, odor or electrical detectable to the normal senses at the lot case of detached dwelling units or outside unit, in the case of attached dwelling d) The on-premises-sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e). All activities shall be conducted within the dwelling unit. f) No more than one (1) individual, not residing in the dwelling unit, may work in the home occupation. 6 -20 v g) No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in significantly greater volumes than would normally be expected,in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of the home occupation shall be met off the street and other than in a required yard area. 6.16.6.2 liome Occupations in the R, AR and R -1 Districts Amended The following restrictions shall be applied on home 10 -5 -87 occupations in the RB, AR and R -1 districts on lots less than 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 1,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be a detached accessory structure. When a detached accessory structure is used for the home occupation, the total floor area of the accessory structure cannot exceea 1,000 square feet. b) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home occupation, the following standard must be met: 1. The accessory building and any required off - street parking shall be adequately screened from view of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. In lieu of an evergreen hedge, a six (6) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant materials may be used for screening purposes. C) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9. d) The on- premises sale and delivery of goods which are nom produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will- generate noise, vibration, glare, odor or electrical interference detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. g) Any outside storace of materials for use in the home occupation shall be totally screened from the road and from adjacent prcperty.in the same manner as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 500 square feet. The setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building used as a home occupation. h) No traffic shall be generated by such home occupatic. ^. �n significantly greater volumes than would normally be exvec4ed in a residential neighborhood, and any need _or 6 -21 Parking generated by the conduct of the home shall be met off the street and other than in occupation a required yard area. *6.16.6.3 Horne O ctl tions in the RB, AR and R- : � ��.st�ic,,.s *Amended (M�n• 00 00 rs uare of lgts . 2 -1 -88 The following restrictions shall be applied to.home occupations in the RB, AR and R -1 districts on lots in excess of 200,000 square feet. a) A maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area may be used for the home occupation. This floor area can be in a detached accessory structure. b) If an accessory structure is to be used for the home occupation the following criteria must be met: 1. The accessory building shall be set back at least thirty (30) feet farther from the road than the residence. 2. The accessory building shall not be closer than forty (40) feet to the side and rear lot lines. 3. The accessory building and any required off- street parking shall be adequately screened from view of the road and adjacent property by a densely planted evergreen hedge of shrubs or trees. In lieu of an evergreen hedge, a six (6) foot stockade fence and deciduous plant materials may be used for screening purposes. 4. Any outside storage of materials for use in the home occupation shall be totally screened from the road and from adjacent property in the same manner as the accessory structures. The storage area shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. The setback from the side and rear property lines shall be the same as for an accessory building for use as a home occupation. C) Signs shall be as provided in Article 9. d) The on- premises sale and delivery of goods which are not produced on the premises is prohibited, except in the case of the delivery and sale of goods incidental to the provision of a service. e) No equipment or process shall be employed that will generate noise, vibration, glare, odor or electrical interference detectable at the lot lines of the lot on which the home occupation is located. f) No more than two (2) individuals not residing in the dwelling unit may work in the home occupation. 6 -22 .4 + i *6.16.6.4 Home Occu X-Mit = Application roc dire *Amended No home occupation may be operated in a residence except as Z. -1 -88 permitted under this Ordinance and only after Home Occupation Permit has been issued by the Zoning Officer. An application for a Home Occupation Permit shall be filed with the Zoning Officer and shall be submitted on forms provided by the Zoning Officer. Such forms shall be prepared so that when completed a full and accurate description of the proposed use, including its location, appearance, and operational characteristics are disclosed. In addition to the application, the applicant is required to submit a site plan of the property on which the home occupation is to be located. The site plan shall show the location of the residence or accessory building in which the home occupation is to be located in relation to existing property lines and adjacent homes; the location, number, and means of access to required off- street parking areas; and the location and type of required landscaping and /or screening. The applicant is also required to submit a floor plan of the residence or accessory building in which the home occupation is to be located. The plan shall show the location, size, and use of each room or area within the residence or accessory building. Upon a determination that the application is complete, the Zoning Officer shall cause a review of the application to be made. The review shall determine if the proposed home occupation conforms with all requirements of this ordinance. Based on the review, the application will be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. If conditions are attached to the approval of a permit, they may address deficiencies in meeting specific Ordinance requirements or they may address specific impacts which result from the operation of the home occupation. in the latter case, the conditions may include, but not be 1-4 mited to, limitations on the hours of operation, the number of vehicles to be parked on the premises, and the location of an accessory building, storage area or parking on the property. In addition, the Zoning Officer may require greater setbacks and /or additional landscaping or screening to adequately screen the home occupation from adjoining properties. If the application is approved, either with or without conditions, the Zoning Office= shall send the applicant a permit letter informing him of the approval and of the requirements of the Ordinance that apply to the home occupation. The permit letter must be signed by the applicant to indicate his /her willingness to operate the home occupation in conformance with the requirements and conditions set forth in the permit 1e — er. Each permit letter shall be kept on file by the Zoning Officer and shall constitute the Home Occupation Permit for the particular use in question. The home occupation may be operated by the 6 -23 JV applicant as long as it is operated in'conformance with the requirements and conditions set forth in the permit letter. If the application is denied, the Zoning Officer shall notify the applicant of the denial and shall state the reasons for denial in writing. The applicant may appeal the decision of the Zoning Officer to the Board of Adjustment as set forth in Article 21 of this Ordinance. 6. 16.7 Sto—_ raa_e 21 Junked oZ W wed oto M ye �l,icles Amended The storage of junked or wrecked motor vehicles is 2 -5 -86 specifically prohibited in all residential districts. This section does not apply to any motor vehicle in an enclosed building which building conforms to applicable building code and zoning regulations or which building lawfully exists as a non - conforming use under applicable building code and zoning regulations. 6.16.8 Temporary Yard Sale Temporary yard sales are permitted in all residential districts provided that these sales do not exceed two days per month. 6.16.9 Temporary Fund Raising Activity Temporary fund raising activities are permitted in all residential districts provided that these activities do not exceed two days per month. 6.16.10 Recreational Facilities (Profit/Non-Profit) The following restrictions shall be applied to profit or non - profit recreational facilities such as a golf course or country club with golf course: a) The minimum lot area shall be 50 acres. b) No building shall be closer than 20 feet to a property line or the minimum requirements of the districIZ: whichever is greater. c) No.more than 2 identification signs, not to exceed 16 square feet each and not located closer than 1 foot to the right -of -way. d) No adverse impacts such as noise or glare shall extend beyond the lot boundaries. 6.16.11 Recreational Fac i i`ies (Profit) The following restrictions shall be applied to for profit recreational facilities such as tennis clubs, swim clubs, racquet ball, squash clubs, pitch and putt courses, amuseme.^.-:� areas, bowling allies, skating rinks, shooting ranges, billiard and pool halls, indoor arhletic facilities and such similar uses; 6 -24 S11 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 26, 1992 Agenda Abstract Item # 0 -3 -,6 SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: —X—Yes No ATTACHMENT(S):' INFORMATION CONTACT: Proposed Amendment Planning Director X2592 PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732 -8181 Mebane 227 -2031 Durham 688 -7331 Chapel Hill 967 -9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment which would change Article 2.2.14.3 to provide greater flexibility to the Board of Commissioners in conducting public hearings involving principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND: In April of 1988, Article 2, Administration, of the Zoning Ordinance was amended to define the Comprehensive Plan and add procedures for its amendment. Prior to that time, procedures for amending the Land Use Plan (as referred to then) were contained in a policy statement approved by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. When the Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1988, the procedures were incorporated into Article 2 with little or no change. Section 2.2.14.3 of Article 2 requires that principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. Since the adoption of the amendment, few applications for principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan have been processed under the procedures. While applications for principal amendments have generally been held in February, there have been some exceptions. For example, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan involving four township components were considered at a May, 1988 public hearing. More recently, 1992 amendments to y � 1 'Vl the Eno and Chapel Hill township components incorporated the New Hope Open Space Corridor into the Comprehensive Plan. Insofar as other types of amendments are concerned, flexibility is available to the Board of Commissioners in calling special public hearings. While secondary amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning requests, special use permits, and planned development applications are generally heard at the quarterly public hearings, the language contained in the Zoning Ordinance allows lattitude in setting public hearing dates. Recently, an application was received for the University Station project, a proposed rural village to be located southeast of Hillsborough. The application involves a principal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and strict interpretation of Section 2.2.14.3 suggests that the application be considered at the February, 1993 public hearing. Because of difficulties associated with holding— multiple property owners together and retaining a major investor, the applicants have requested that a special public hearing be set. Rather than considering the University Station application at a public hearing other than that scheduled for February, 1993 hearing, an amendment to Section 2.2.14.3 is proposed to build in the flexibility needed by both private citizens and the County to consider principal amendments out of sequence. The proposed amendment to Section 2.2.14.3 affects only the first sentence of the second paragraph. That sentence would be reworded to read as follows: Principal amendments shall generally only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. The addition of the word "generally" would be sufficient to allow the Board of Commissioners discretion in calling special public hearings on principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Ordinance Review Committee met on May 14, 1992 and proposed that additional wording be added to allow more than one public hearing on principal amendments. However, the Committee felt that they should be restricted to other quarterly public hearings; e.g., May, August, and November. The proposed wording would be as follows: Si Principal amendments shall genet y only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February; ov' ed however if cial hearin s are called b the Board of Commissioners a licat'ons for rinci al amendments shall be considered in conjunction with another arterl ublic hearin RECOMMENDATION: Article 20.3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. However, Article 20.4 exempts any application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text by either the public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either case, though, the public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's recommendation. Zanjng Officer Recommendation The Zoning Officer prepared the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment and presented it to the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board. The proposal has been amended as recommended by that Committee, and the Zoning officer concurs with the changes as recommended. Provided the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendment. No decision is made on the proposed amendment by either the Planning Board or Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Amendments initiated by the County are not subject to time limitations other than those specified by the Board of Commissioners. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amendment be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. S4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Zoning Ordinance REFERENCE: Article 2 - Administration Section 2.2.14.3 - Consideration of Amendments ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: —X—Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: _$—High Middle Low PUBLIC HEARING DATE: May 26, 1992 PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To provide greater flexibility to the Board of Commissioners in conducting public hearings which involve principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portions thereof. IMPACTS /ISSUES: In April of 1988, Article 2, Administration, of the Zoning Ordinance was amended to define the Comprehensive Plan and add procedures for its amendment. Prior to that time, procedures for amending the Land Use Plan (as referred to then) were contained in a policy statement approved by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners. When the Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1988, the procedures were incorporated into Article 2 with little or no change. Section 2.2.14.3 of Article 2 requires that principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. Since the adoption of the amendment, few applications for principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan have been processed under the procedures. While applications for principal amendments have generally been held in February, there have been some exceptions. For example, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan involving four township components were considered at a May, 1988 public hearing. More recently, 1992 amendments to the Eno and Chapel Hill township components incorporated the New Hope Open Space Corridor into the Comprehensive Plan. Insofar as other types of amendments are concerned, flexibility is available to the Board of Commissioners in calling special public hearings. While secondary amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, rezoning requests, special use permits, and planned development applications are generally heard at the quarterly public hearings, the language contained in the Zoning Ordinance allows lattitude in setting public hearing dates. Recently, an application was received for the University Station project, a proposed rural village to be located southeast of Hillsborough. The application involves a principal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and strict interpretation of Section 2.2.14.3 suggests that the application be considered at the February, 1993 public hearing. Because of difficulties associated with holding 5 >I multiple property owners together and retaining a major investor, the applicants have requested that a special public hearing be set. Rather than considering the University Station application at a public hearing other than that scheduled for February, 1993, an amendment to Section 2.2.14.3 is proposed to build in the flexibility needed by both private citizens and the County to consider principal amendments out of sequence. EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: See attached provisions. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The proposed amendment to Section 2.2.14.3 affects only the first sentence of the second paragraph. That sentence would be reworded to read as follows: Principal amendments shall generally only be considered once each year at the quarterly public hearing in February. The addition of the word "generally" would be sufficient to allow the Board of Commissioners discretion in calling special public hearings on principal amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE: May 14, 1992 The Ordinance Review Committee proposed that additional wording be added to allow more than one public hearing on principal amendments. However, the Committee felt that they should be restricted to other quarterly public hearings; e.g., May, August, and November. The proposed wording would be as follows: Principal amendments shall g &&rally only be considered once.each year at the quarterly public hearing in February; provided, however, if special hearings are called by,_thre Board of PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: May 17, 1992 The Planning Board reviewed the proposed amendment and the Ordinance Review Committee recommendation. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: June 18, 1992 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION: August 3, 1992 *'2'22.14 Amendment of Adcoted Comprehensive Plan *Amended For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, 4 -4 -88 stable, and desirable development within Orange County, the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall not be amended except as follows: a) Because of changed or changing conditions in a Particular area or areas of the County; b) To correct an error or omission; or C) In response to a change in the policies, objectives, principles or standards governing the physical development of the County. 2.2.14.1 Init ation of Amendments An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof may be initiated by: a) The Board of Commissioners on its own motion; b) The Planning Board; or C) Application, by any person or agency, which accurately and completely sets forth the reason(s) for the proposed amendment as prescribed in Article 2.2.14 above. 2.2.14.2 Classification of Amendments Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof are classified as "principal" or "secondary" amendments. Principal amendments include: a) Additions to or modifications of policies, objectives, principles or standards; b) The creation of new activity nodes or additions to existing activity nodes which exceed ten (10) acres in land area; or C) Proposals for new freestanding plan areas or additions to existing areas that exceed one hundred (100) acres in land area. Secondary amendments include:_ a) The expansion of an activity node where the additional area is contiguous to an existing node and does not increase its land area by more than ten (10) acres; b) The expansion of a designated plan area where the additional area is contiguous to the existing plan designation and does not increase its land area by 2 -8 more than one hundred (100) acres; C) A correction of an error or omission; or d) Revisions to any factual or descriptive material. 2.2.14.3 Consider ation off, Amendments 2.2.15 2.3 2.3.1 S7 Except as noted herein, the submission and consideration of applications for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall be governed by the procedures contained in Article 20 of this Ordinance. Principal amendments shall only be considered once each year at the quarterly joint public hearing in February. Secondary amendments may be considered four (4) times each year at the quarterly joint public hearings in February, May, August, and November. No proposed amendment is to be considered in conjunction with a rezoning, planned development or special use permit request for the same property. Requests for a rezoning, planned development and /or special use permit may only be considered at subsequent hearings or meetings following approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Department To Act As Staff To Planning Board The Director of Planning, under the direction of the County Manager, shall provide staff service of the Planning Department to assist the Planning Board in carrying out its duties. Board of Adjustment oard of Adjustment, Establishment 21 2.3.1.1 A Board of Adjustment is hereby established. It shall consist of five members, and two alternates, all of who shall be residents of Orange County's Planning Jurisdiction. One of the regular members shall be a member ...of..thA Orange County - Planning Board, ex .officio, who shall . .have:full: rights,- privileges..and responsibilities. 2.3.1.2 _The members shall be appointed by the Board of Commissioners for terms of three years, and until their respective successors have been appointed and qualified; provided that the terms of the original members may be staggered so that all terms may not expire simultaneously. Each appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the unexpired term. 2.3.1.3 A member may be appointed for a second successive term, but after two consecutive terms a member shall be ineligible for reappointment until one calendar year has elapsed from the date of completion of the second term. P6'] 50 �!kmJ Now OR AN G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date May 26 1992 Action Agenda Item C -4 -a. SUBJECT: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TEXT AMENDMENT SECTION V -D -6 -b - CERTIFICATES OF DEDICATION AND MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Cameron Proposed Amendment Extension 2580 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough - 732 -8181 Durham - 688 -7331 Mebane - 227 -2031 Chapel Hill - 967 - 9251/968 -4501 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which would change the certificate required on a final subdivision plat by the owner of the property being subdivided. BACKGROUND: The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a statement required to be placed on the Final Plat and on the Declaration of Restrictions and Requirements which is signed by the owner(s) of the property being subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, rights -of -way, and common areas are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements /common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that the person signing is the owner of the property. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. RECOMMENDATION: Section VII -D -3 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that proposed amendments to the text of the Subdivision Regulations be presented at a joint public hearing involving the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board. It is at 9 1) that time that the Planning Department's recommendation is presented. Plannin Departmgnt Recomme dat'on The Planning Department prepared the proposed Subdivision Regulations text amendment and presented it to the Ordinance Review Committee of the Planning Board. The proposal has been recommended by that Committee, and the Planning Department concurs with the recommendation. Provided the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative, the Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed amendment to Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations. No decision is made on the proposed amendment by either the Planning Board or the Board of Commissioners at the public hearing. Instead, the Planning Board has 75 days within which to prepare and submit a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, Failure of the Planning Board to submit a recommenda- tion within the required time shall be considered a favorable recommendation. Administration Recommendation The Administration recommends that the proposed amend be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than August 3, 1992. 91 PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE: Subdivision Regulations REFERENCE: Section V -D -6 -b Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: Staff Planning Board BOCC Public X Other: County Attorney Expected Public Hearing Date: May 26, 1992 Purpose of Amendment: To make a technical correction to the certificate required on a final subdivision plat to be signed by the owner of the property being subdivided. Impacts /Issues: The Certificate of Dedication and Maintenance is a statement required to be placed on the Final Plat and on the Declaration of Development Restrictions and Requirements which is signed by the owner(s) of the property being subdivided. By signing the certificate, the owner certifies that he or she is the owner, that all easements, rights -of -way, and common areas are duly granted for the purposes stated on the plat, and that all improvements /common areas will be maintained until taken over by a public agency or homeowners association, etc. The current language in Section V -D -6 -b of the Subdivision Regulations for the certificate only implies that the person signing is in fact the owner of the property. The proposed amendment will expressly state the certification of ownership. Existing and Proposed Ordinance Text: V- D -6 -b. Certificates of Dedication and Maintenance (1) The following certification shall be printed on the Final Plat and shall be followed by the signature of the owner (s) of the property being subdivided as we;! the acknowledged by a notary public: "The undersigned —hereby certifies that the land shown hereon is owned by the undersigned and is located within the subdivision regulation jurisdiction of Orange County and hereby freely dedicates all rights-of-way, easements, streets, recreation area, open space, common area, utilities and other improvements to public or private common use as noted on this plat, and further assumes full responsibility for the maintenance and control of said improvements until they are accepted for maintenance and control by an appropriate public body or by an incorporated neighborhood or homeowners association or similar legal entity." Owner: Ordinance Review Committee: Planning Board: BOCC: Date: DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SECTION 1 - LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS The Orange County Board of Commissioners makes the following legislative findings: 1. Orange County public school facilities are vital to the health and economic prosperity of orange County; 2. That public school facilities in Orange County must be expanded in order to maintain current levels of service if new development is to be accommodated without decreasing current levels of service; 3. To finance the expansion of the public school facilities in Orange County necessary to maintain current levels of service while accommodating new residential growth, several methods of finance will be employed, one of which will require new residential development to pay an appropriate share of the reasonably anticipated new educational facilities in the form of impact fees; and 4. These impact fees will provide, in a reasonable manner, for the public health, safety, and welfare of persons residing within Orange County by providing a portion of the costs of new school facilities which bears a relationship to the benefits of the new school facilities to the new residential growth in Orange County. SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following definitions: Apartment. A detached building located on its own individual lot and containing five (5) or more dwelling units. Certificate of Occupancy_. A certificate issued by Orange County or a municipality located therein allowing the occupancy or use of a dwelling unit and certifying that the building or structure has been constructed and will be used in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 Condominium. A dwelling unit in which the ownership of the occupancy rights to the dwelling unit is individually owned and such ownership is not inclusive of any land. Duplex or Dwelling. Two - Family. A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot and containing two (2) dwelling units. Dwelling Unit. A room or group of rooms forming a single independent habitable unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating by one family. Dwelling, Single-Family. A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot containing one (1) dwelling unit. Fee a er. The person constructing or responsible for having constructed a new dwelling unit or new dwelling units. In the case of a mobile home, the person installing or responsible for having installed a new mobile home or new mobile homes. Mobile Home. A portable, manufactured dwelling unit composed of one or more components designed for transportation on its own chassis and placement on a temporary or semi- permanent foundation. A mobile home may be located on its own individual lot or on a mobile home space; e.g., a parcel of land in a mobile home park intended to be occupied by one (1) mobile home and for the use of the occupants of said space. Duadplex or Dwelling, Four - Family. A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot and containing four (4) dwelling units. Townhouse. A single - family dwelling that is connected to one (1) or more other single- family dwellings by means of common dividing walls, where each single - family dwelling is located on its own individual lot or is established as a condominium. Triplex or Dwelling,_ Three- Family. A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot and containing three (3) dwelling units. SECTION 3 - IMPACT FEES IMPOSED ON NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS In addition to all other charges prescribed by ordinance or resolution now or hereafter in effect, there shall be public school impact fees charged to new residential dwelling units located within Orange County, and within the municipalities and their extraterritorial planning jurisdictions located within Orange County. No person may occupy any new residential dwelling unit until all applicable public DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 school impact fees contained in the following schedule have been paid in full. No certificate of occupancy or other type of occupancy permit shall be issued for any new residential dwelling unit until the public school impact fees hereby required have been paid in full. Payment of such fees shall not relieve the feepayer from the obligation to comply with applicable land development regulations of Orange County or the municipalities located within Orange County. Schedule of Public School Impact Fees Note: The schedule of fees shown below represent the full range of impact fees being considered. Upon adoption of a schedule, it would be inserted in this space. Range of Possible Impact Fees Dwelling_TyRe Chapel Hill-Carrboro Orange County Number of Bedrooms School District School District Single - Family _. $0 - $3,194 $0 - $2,747 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 913 $0 - $ 785 3 Bedroom $0 - $2,929 $0 - $2,520 4 Bedroom $0 - $6,403 $0 - $5,505 5 Bedroom $0 - $9,037 $0 - $7,771 Townhouse $0 -_ „$1,597 $0 - $ 778 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 692 $0 - $ 339 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 754 $0 - $ 369 3 Bedroom $0 - $1,926 $0 - $ 939 Duplex, Triplex, and $0 - $ 843 $0 - $ 772 Quadplex 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 217 $0 - $ 198 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 538 $0 - $ 490 3 Bedroom $0 - $1,721 $0 - $1,578 Apartment _ $0_ - $ 788 $0 - $ 504 1 Bedroom $0 - _ $ 146 $0 -- $ 93 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 572 $0 - $ 366 3 Bedroom $0 - $2,591 $0 - $1,656 Mobile Home _ $0- $2,629 - $0 - $2,011 1 Bedroom $0 - -- $ 984 $0 - $ 753 2 Bedroom $0 - $1,088 $0 - $ 835 3 Bedroom $0 - $5,059 $0 - $3,870 DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 SECTION 4 - PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEE EXCEPTIONS Public school impact fees as provided in Section 3 shall not be imposed in the following circumstances: 1. Buildings or structures, including alterations, repairs, renovations or additions thereto, which are to be occupied and used solely for non - residential purposes. 2. Residential dwelling units for which a certificate of occupancy was obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 3. Alterations, repairs, renovations or additions to a residential dwelling unit where no additional residential dwelling units are created, and the use, as shown within the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees, is not changed. In the case of alterations, repairs, renovations or additions to a residential dwelling unit where additional residential dwelling units are created, public school impact fees would be levied based upon the net increase, if any, above that which the existing dwelling unit would pay. 4. Replacement of a building or structure or mobile home with a new building or structure or mobile home of the same dwelling type. In the case of the replacement of a building or structure or mobile home where additional residential dwelling units are created, public school impact fees would be levied based upon the net increase, if any, above that which the former dwelling unit would pay. 5. Accessory buildings and structures, including, but not limited to, garages, decks, storage buildings, and similar structures, provided they are not used for residential purposes. 6. Temporary buildings and structures, provided they are not used for residential purposes. However, public school impact fees would not be levied in the case of a mobile home being used to provide custodial care under the provisions of an approved Special Use Permit. Likewise, such fees would not be levied in the case of a mobile home being used as temporary residential space during the installation of a replacement mobile home or the construction of a stick -built dwelling unit. DRAFT 5 -1492 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 SECTION 5 - COLLECTION OF FEES A. CREATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL BENEFIT AREA TRUST FUNDS Public school impact fees collected by Orange County this ordinance shall be kept separate from other revenue There shall be one trust fund established for each of the shown on the map labeled Public School Benefit Areas and part of this ordinance. B. RESPONSIBILITY FOR FEE COLLECTION pursuant to of the County. benefit areas, included as a All public school impact fees are due to Orange County and shall be paid to Orange County prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for a dwelling unit. The fees will be collected by Orange County and /or by interlocal agreement between Orange County and a municipality located therein. All public school impact fees shall be properly identified by the appropriate benefit area and transferred for deposit in the appropriate trust account. If the type of new construction activity is not specified on the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees as contained in Section 3, the most nearly comparable type of housing on the Schedule shall determine the fee. Where there is an interlocal agreement in effect for collection of the public school impact fees by a municipality, the municipality must remit the fees to Orange County as provided in the agreement, including a report of the amount of funds collected and the benefit area from which the fees were collected. Upon receipt, the County shall deposit the fees in the appropriate trust fund. C. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS Funds withdrawn from public school impact fee trust accounts must be used solely in accordance with the following provisions: 1. Funds may be used for capital costs associated with the construction of new public schools, including actual building construction; design, engineering, and /or legal fees; land acquisition and site development; equipment and furnishings; and /or infrastructure improvements. 2. Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements within the benefit area from which the funds were collected. 3. Funds may be used for providing reimbursements as permitted in Section 5.E. DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 4. No funds shall be used for public school operating expenses, periodic or routine maintenance, or the administration of this public school impact fee program. 5. Following their collection, funds shall be expended within six (6) years, the time frame coinciding with the capital improvements program period identified in the Capital Improvements Plan updated annually by Orange County. The disbursal of public school impact fee funds shall require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners upon recommendation of the County Manager. D. INTEREST ON FEES Any public school impact fee funds on deposit and not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested as allowed in N.C. General Statute 159 -30 for other public monies. All income derived shall be deposited in the applicable trust fund. E. REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES Any funds not expended within the time frame established in Section 5.C.5. shall be returned to the feepayer, or the land owner if the address of the feepayer provided to Orange County is not current, with interest at a rate not to exceed that being paid on public school impact fees deposited in accordance with Section S.D. If the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees as contained in Section 3 is reduced, the difference between the old and new fees shall be returned to the feepayer, or the land owner if the address of the feepayer provided to Orange County is not current, with interest at a rate not to exceed that being paid on public school impact fees deposited in accordance with Section 5.D. If the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees as contained in Section 3 is increased, no additional fees shall be collected from new construction for which certificates of occupancy have been issued. F. ANNUAL REPORT A report shall be made to the Board of County Commissioners each year showing where public school impact fees have been collected, what projects have been constructed with such fees, and what reimbursements have been made. The report shall also include an evaluation of this ordinance, including its effectiveness and enforcement, and the methods and data used to calculate the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees contained in Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners shall review the report to determine if, within each benefit area, all areas of new construction are being benefitted by the fees. If the Board of County Commissioners DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 determines that areas of new construction are not being benefitted, then it shall readjust the capital improvements program to correct this condition. If, after review of the methods and data used to calculate the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees, the Board of County Commissioners determines that adjustments are required in the Schedule, then it shall direct the County Manager and his staff to prepare a report which outlines recommended changes for its consideration. SECTION 6 - CREDITS Any conveyance of land or construction of new school facilities received and accepted by Orange County, a municipality located in Orange County, and /or the Orange County or Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board from a developer shall be credited against the public school impact fee due if the conveyance or construction meets the same needs as the public school impact fee in providing new public school facilities. If the developer wishes to receive credit against the amount of the public school impact fee due for -such conveyance or construction, the developer shall enter into a fee agreement with the County. The fee agreement shall provide for the establishment of credits and payment of the fee in a specified manner and time. The value of land conveyed or facilities constructed by a developer and accepted by the County, municipality or school board for purposes of this section shall be determined by an appraisal based on the fair market value of the land or facilities as established by the County. Construction shall be in accordance with applicable County, municipal, school board, and /or State standards. Any land awarded credit under this section shall be conveyed no later than the time at which public school impact fees are required to be paid. The portion of the public school impact fee represented by a credit for construction shall be deemed paid when the construction is completed and accepted for maintenance or when adequate security for the completion of the construction has been provided. SECTION 7 - PENALTIES In addition to any other remedy allowed by N.C. General Statute 153A -123, the failure to pay a public school impact fee is hereby declared to be a civil penalty. The amount of the penalty shall be equal to the amount of the unpaid impact fee, plus an interest charge of one - half percent (1/2 %) per month compounded monthly and a service charge of one hundred dollars ($100.00). The County may assess this penalty against the land owner whereon new construction has occurred without payment of the public school impact fee. However, no service charge will be assessed when the County DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 staff has made an error in the fee determination. Furthermore, no penalty shall be assessed until the person or persons alleged to be in violation are served by registered mail, certified mail - return receipt requested, or personal service with notice to pay. The County Attorney is hereby authorized to institute a civil action in the name of Orange County in the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice in Orange County for recovery of the penalty. All monies recovered shall be deposited in the appropriate trust fund. SECTION 8 - LEGAL STATUS PROVISIONS All ordinances and clauses in to the extent of said conflict. If ordinance or application thereof to invalid, such invalidity shall not application of this ordinance which to this end, the provisions of this severable. conflict herewith are hereby repealed any clause or section of this any person or circumstance is held affect other provisions or can be given separate effect, and, ordinance are declared to be This ordinance shall not diminish any prior constructural or special or conditional use district zoning obligation to pay for or install road, park or other improvements required by Orange County or a municipality located therein, nor shall the fulfillment of those obligations diminish any applicable public school impact fee owed to the County. This ordinance shall not diminish any prior obligation of the County or a municipality located therein to reimburse persons for road, parks or other improvements, nor shall the fulfillment of those obligations by the County or a municipality diminish any applicable credit owed to the feepayer. SECTION 9 - APPEAL TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT [Reserved] DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 This ordinance shall be effective from and after 1992. Duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, this day of , 199_, following a duly advertised joint public hearing of the Board of Commissioners and the County Planning Board on May 26, 1992. ATTEST: Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ADOPTING THE ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE WHEREAS, new residential growth in Orange County, including the municipalities located therein, will create a need for additional public school facilities; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners finds that the relevant characteristic of new residential growth which gives rise to additional public schools is the number of school age children per household [and per bedroom per household] as expressed in dwelling unit type [and number of bedrooms]; and WHEREAS, a description of the anticipated costs to Orange County of additional public schools necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve new residential growth and development is provided in the report entitled Report_ to Board of County Commissioners - School Capital Needs Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the FY 1992 -97 Capital Improvements Plan outlines the timing of construction and method of financing additional public schools and was adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on , 1992; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that new residential development should assume a fair share of the cost of providing additional public schools; and WHEREAS, the proportionate share of the cost of providing public school facilities has been identified in the report entitled 1 A Technical Report on the Calculation of Proportionate Impact Fees for Financing Public School Ca ital Needs; and WHEREAS, Title VI, Chapter 450 of the 1987 Session Laws of North Carolina authorizes Orange County to fix, impose, and collect impact fees in its planning jurisdiction for capital needs, including public schools; and WHEREAS, Chapter 324 of the 1991 Session Laws of North Carolina authorizes Orange County to fix, impose, and collect impact fees for public school capital improvements throughout the county, including the municipalities located therein and their extraterritorial planning jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina that the ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE is hereby adopted. This the day of , 19 Commissioner resolution and Commissioner moved the passage of the foregoing seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: 2 f NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said. County at a meeting held as relates in any way to the Resolution for Adopting the Orange County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book containing the minutes of said Board for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the day of , 19 [SEAL] Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners M MAY -27 -1952 08.36 FROM TO 96443004 P.82 AV s,z.I -�a Kenner B. Tquw 2027 'VwavVWm CA&t,d ,dW 27y4 ,MO Tuesday, May LA, 199 sT The Cha % 101 1Yewsp�spel 305 Wed Franklin street Chapel Hill, HC 37514 To The Editor. No one likes the idea of an Impact Fee, but the alternatives for taxDayers are worse. Recent media reports seem to have lost sight of tfie 'big picture" and the historical perspective. As much as we all feel we pay too much in taxes, the property tax aid by the average homeowner is not enough to covert a of services provided to that home. For am le, In W-tse- rnp osed et for 1992 -93, the owner of a X11 o=' house wUI pa $ 45 property taxes. The education of just one child will cost he county $1,301 and education is only one part of the services provided. The county capital new in addition to operat%g expenses., homes mean that the county must have additional p facilities. The sheriff will need more patrol cars, the rescue squads will need more emergency vehicles, and the schools will need more classrooms. Should current residents pay the entire cost of growth? it seems fair to me to ask new residents to pay for a small portion of the added facilities their presence demands, How they pay is a problem. Inipose a tax whic Orange to hissaolue owthhee newel tm However, the &te Legislature at Its bast session would only permit them to charge a flat fee. Local state legislators have said that an impact tax, admittedl more table, will not be allowed by State Law in the foreseeabe futurc I am sure the Commissioners will set a fee in the low end of the range possible They are checking the legality of basing the fee on the number of bedrooms, but pp ps the number aT bathrooms would be better bees the�yare easier to count. hi@ grants to purchasers of afirdable housing would offset .� ' - � r6. .�f�t w' � e _i ". . .y' 7 ,e ,1 ,• ��, . '� MAY -27-1992 08 :37 FROM The Chape! MY NewspoW TO 96443004 P.03 2 May 26, 1992 The Orange County Commissioners want affordable housing in the county, they want'to be fair to all residents, they want to remove some of the burden of growth from theoperty but they have to work within the constraints of Sta te %aw. fthlmpactTee, as distasteful as it is for most of us, is one of the few means they have for providing the services and facilities required by the growth of our county. Sincerely, Kenneth B. 7buw r Ito) V. MWIP A;11Z,:saL 9.z HILLSBOROUGH SAVINGS Mr. Moses Carey, Chairman Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Carey, AND LOAN ASSOCIATION 260 SOUTH CHURTON STREET P.O. BOX 1000 HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 -1000 TEL. 919 - 732 -2143 FAX 919- 732-WI May 21, 1992 The Hillsborough Savings and Loan Association Board of Directors wishes to go on record as opposing the proposed impact fee. We oppose the impact fee for the following reasons; 1. The fee is another form of tax. Property tax, at best, is an unfair tax. The implementation of an impact fee would make the taxes in Orange County even more unfair. 2. The cost of living in Orange County is already above the North Carolina State average. To impose the fee would increase the cost of living even more for Orange County Citizens. 3. The implementation of the fee would impose a greater burden on existing Orange County Citizens rather than on new home - owners moving into the county. Why would anyone want to move to Orange County and build a home when one could move to an adjacent county and build a home for approximately $3,000.00 less? Many local real estate developers already develop in adjacent counties because of the burdensome process of developing home -sites in Orange County. 4. The Orange County Commissioners have previsously expressed an interest in "affordable" housing in the county. The implementation of the impact fee appears to be a step in the wrong direction. As the impact fee is across the board without regard to size, location, income, etc, the low income population would suffer the greatest burden. This also creates a "regressive tax" situation. 5. One of the criteria that an industry looks at is the cost of moving its employees. It appears that an industry ••,...... sr would be less inclined to locate in Orange County due to the higher cost of housing. 6. It has been said that the money received from the impact fee will be used for education. Is this fee fair to the people that build new homes, but have no children in the school system? 7. How does an appraiser, including the property tax appraiser, adjust for the differences in the cost of houses if the fee is implemented? There could very well be two similar houses side by side, one being built before implementation of the fee and the other after implementation of the fee. Does the market value of the first house increase or will the market value of the second house be less than actual cost due to the impact fee? If it is the latter, then the second house owner is being further penalized.because of the fee. Another example of how the impact fee may be unfair. 8. Finally, if the county absolutely needs more funds, it appears that at an increase in property taxes (as unpopular as it may be) is more fair than implementing the impact fee. Increasing the property tax would spread the cost among more people rather than targeting a specific group of people. For the reasons stated above the Hillsborough Savings and Loan Association respectfully requests that the Orange County Commissioners not implement the proposed impact fee. We also respectfully request that this letter be made a matter of record for the public hearing on June 26, 1992. cc: John Link County Manager (2) Sincerely, D. Tyson Clay on President r 1 1,992 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: DEAR COMMISSIONERS: JOSEPH W. & JOANNE B. TELLO FLINT RIDGE APTS. #45 600 S. CHURTON ST. HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. 27278 May 18, 1992 DISTRIBUTED - -/,3 /C I am carting this letter to express my astonishment of your consideration of "IMPACT FEES" on new housing construction in Orange County for the purpose of helping in the financing of new school construction. I would be attending the May 26 meeting of this issue except that my daughter will have had a rather serious operation the friday before the scheduled meeting. Elected goverment officials wounder why the genral public is so turned off and disgusted with the polititians and yet, it exactly this type of issue that Qutrages the general public. Some of you have just gone through an election and have used the word FAIR The word fair and the issue of impact fees is hypocrisy at its best. The financial support of the school system has always been the responsibility of ALL the tax payers,whether or not they had children. Taxes are the FAIR means of financially supporting our educational system which ALL of us have a common stake and interest. Impact fees are:* 1) discriminatory; #2) they punish people who have children, (is this the commissioners idea of enacting a birth control ordinance for Orange County ?); #3)they are anti- - growth; people at the lower end of the income spectrum will not be given the opportunity to partake in the ever increasing elusive American dream of owning a home in the location of thier choice (is this the commissioners way of dealing with the low income constiuency of the county ?. The article in THE NEWS OF ORANGE COUNTY Wed., April 22, 1992 stated that some housing would have to apply a for special waiver. I wounder if the commissioners have considered who else would qualify for special waivers. How about those couples who build who have no children, either by choice or other circumstances? How about those couples already living in orange county who are planning on building another house in Orange County but will not add any additional children to the school system? Are impact fees FAIR to them? For my wife and myself, our situation is one of a childless couple (we can not have children of our own) we have choosen to be foster parents to a severly handicapped child. We have just recently sold our house at 3906 Schley Rd., Hillsborough, N.C. to build a house again in Orange a� f County that will allow us to better care for our child. We certainly will not be adding to the school system. Have any of you considered any of the fairness issues of impact fees? Impact fees are not the answer, the only fair answer to the issue of funding the school system is through the use of taxes in which everyone shares the responsibility according to the fairness of the tax system. Sincerely Gv eph W. & Joanne B TellO ��. _.._.:. _. _..:- -�:..- - H - - -- -------- Xe JI-0 also 33 7, -q4- TABLE 33 STUDENT GENERATION RATES AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BY HOUSING TYPE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Impact Fees Footnotes: (1) Assumes one middle school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million funded from impact fees. (2) Assumes one middle school and one elementary school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total of $2.0 million funded from impact fees. Page - 2 1 .4 Student-------------------------------- - - - -- Generation Maximum Option #1 Option #2 Dwelling Type Rates (1) (2) Single-Family_ 0.497 $2,747 363 726 2 Bedroom 0.142 $785 $104 $207 3 Bedroom 0.456 $2,520 $333 $666 4 Bedroom 0.996 $5,505 $727 $1,455 5 Bedroom 1.406 $7,771 $1,027 $2,054 Duplex, Triplex, 0.,249 $772 $153 _ 306 and uad lex 1 Bedroom 0.064 $198 $39 $79 2 Bedroom 0.158 $490 $97 $194 3 Bedroom 0.509 $1,578 $313 $626 Garden Apartment 0.168 $504 _$147 $294__ 1 Bedroom 0.031 $93 $27 $54 2 Bedroom 0.122 $366 $107 $214 3 Bedroom 0.552 $1,656 $483 $966 Townhouse 0.266 $778 $98 197 1 Bedroom 0.116 $339 $43 $86 2 Bedroom 0.126 $369 $46 $93 3 Bedroom 0.321 $939 $118 $238 Mobile Home 0.318 $2,011 $241 $482_ 1 Bedroom 0.119 $753 $90 $180 2 Bedroom 0.132 $835 $100 $200 3 Bedroom 0.612 $3,870 $464 $928 Footnotes: (1) Assumes one middle school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million funded from impact fees. (2) Assumes one middle school and one elementary school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total of $2.0 million funded from impact fees. Page - 2 1 .4 TABLE 31 STUDENT. GENERATION RATES AND IMPACT FEES CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT BY HOUSING TYPE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Footnotes: (1) Assumes one high school and one middle school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total of $2.0 million funded from impact fees. (2) Assumes one high school, one middle school, and one elementary school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total of $3.0 million funded from impact fees. Page - 21.2 Impact Fees Student------------------------------------ Generation Maximum Option #1 Option #2 Dwelling Type Rates (1) (2) Single--Family _ 0.434„ $3,194 $768 2 Bedroom 0.124 $913 _$512 $146 $219 3 Bedroom 0.398 $2,929 $470 $704 4 Bedroom 0.870 $6,403 $1,026 $1,540 5 Bedroom 1.228 $9,037 $1,449 $2,173 Duo 1ex Tr i1p lex 0.218 843 258 386 and Quadplex 1 Bedroom 0.056 $217 $66 $99 2 Bedroom 0.139 $538 $165 $246 3 Bedroom 0.445 $1,721 $527 $788 Garden Apartment 0.146 788 204 305 1 Bedroom 0.027 $146 $38 $56 2 Bedroom 0.106 $572 $148 $221 3 Bedroom 0.480 $2,591 $671 $1,003 Townhouse 0.233 ---$1,597 140 210 1 Bedroom 0.101 $692 $61 $91 2 Bedroom 0.110 $754 $66 $99 3 Bedroom 0.281 $1,926 $169 $253 Mobile Home 0.278. $2,629 __$350 $525 1 Bedroom 0.104 $984 $131 $196 2 Bedroom 0.115 $1,088 $145 $217 3 Bedroom 0.535 $5,059 $674 $1,010 Footnotes: (1) Assumes one high school and one middle school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total of $2.0 million funded from impact fees. (2) Assumes one high school, one middle school, and one elementary school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total of $3.0 million funded from impact fees. Page - 21.2 A 'X-S� p pcC A�� la, ,L I C E G:o rip Ot• MAY ! °r 4l' . C, TI4E 1D_rr4 Pr.9FOKMANCE ST/�N6.7ie r 1s G-0d D 01\)E, I,F-Low A-4Z� J- 1C7EZ) COMMENT' tWD10R sTTFD C{'A(JG.4,5* Se, . 1Hj� 0 CZ- ICr ,;or. AS F0iC0 W-C [1 PRoPJGT +. r~1 C)F 6-oot) r �tJD 1-21Dtj OF v2E(2..)fCk S 4 tJp SULK dry Ir✓A ; USE. OF 74- PPOPCtz "�` 0� tl ti ( Cr' � d 1^r- C. � c C.. as .:. ��' i �''� �� r< <w► a �.. c ; A ` � `!'s.. '�-C � / Ye ��g� S�`�Crc� o'-•. C, in ,S. �� I^-`t f ��`Y a(-e I Uirc (o N E! H- r 1. P C L--fir R i r Y is C44 NtrEA� "ODE 4 �ATE 4DF, LC- 71oQSr ANO uJ0J40 C U N �1 I.J mac/ E c 17C !9-� M f "T b ;�7 Ld,- I CL l'c / _ t� c to it 1 f$ `- 1 ti t Owe tic-rL SQL iti.v r'i` 0 f..IlL� ! 1 -- Crc)rat S� UDC -fir F-0 04 Cie 16f, ?c) A r �� G, (G. L� I e —1—c ,1.i f .c d q r\ 0., C .S e -Z q• 4- ,4y 1 _ i L", a rr (com Ok r G �r , (� -v� a + a r< 4 ti 1'1 l�sdl� S�C. j i t� tiJS t4l I R dL , ✓� - I — �: s,i �:.a acres Fr ✓R- c��- o W 1 L. L E'' -e LA- r N "'fit+ i4S t o `� i !, F F" F i L -TH,;,:-- E r,� c a rJ S I a c �- f} j' f Ij ...�.. F-0 04 May 26, 1992 Orange County Commissioners Orange County Courthouse 106 East Margaret Lane Hillsborough, NC RE: Proposed Housing Impact Fees for School Funding Dear Commissioners: /w/1- S /a?d /9 2 RADWAY & WEAVER Planning and Development Consulting 147 Lake Ellen Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 942 -2021 I am opposed to the use of Impact Fees for the financing of part or all of the costs of capital facili- ties for either the Orange County or the Chapel Hill - Carrboro school districts. During the last 15 years I have been directly involved in many studies of the impact of new resi- dential development on public facilities - especially schools. Without exception, in communities similar to Orange County and Chapel Hill, my studies have shown that the most significant factor affecting increased school enrollments is demographic change in the existing housing, not the number of children in new housing. I have examined the data provided by the county planning department and collected further infor- mation from both school districts, the 1990 and 1980 census, the municipalities, and several pri- vate sources of building data. I have found no direct relationship and only a marginal indirect rela- tionship between housing development and increased enrollments. School specific enrollments seem to indicate larger increases in enrollment in existing neighborhoods with limited new hous- ing. This is consistent with my findings in about a dozen studies over the last 5 years. A look at the increases by cohort class shows unusual growth between specific grades rather than fairly evenly distributed increases. For Example: Grade I2 Grade 89-W IQ 90 -91 W-91 W 2L-22 K 1 29 63 5 6 66 35 6 7 41 54 8 9 50 40 Select Enrollment Change 186 192 Total Change in Enrollment 250 297 Attached to this letter are several tables and charts I prepared to help myself in understanding the information presented with the proposal for impact fees and the bond issue for new schools. Since there is no existing empirical data on the relationship between housing type and school en- rollment and no plans by any institution to develop such data I can not imagine that the proposal before you can be justified as an exercise of public policy based on a rational nexus connecting the cause of the problem to the effect of the problem to the proposed solution. With regard to the issue of school district needs, my attempt to determine or verify the suggested relationship of housing development to school enrollment growth has led me to conclude that the individual school districts have significantly overestimated the facilities needed during the remain- der of this decade. Orange County Commissioners May 26, 1992 Proposed Impact Fee Ordinance The separate school districts - according to the Impact Fee technical report - have identified the need for 3 elementary, 2 middle, and 1 high school for the period between now and 1997 -8. The enrollment estimates - when combined - show the need for 1 elementary, 1 middle, and 1 high school between now and the end of the decade. Three schools not 6. I have included graphs showing the information on enrollments, school capacities, etc with this letter. There may be reasons such as obsolete existing facilities and the need for expanded support facili- ties that make the provision of 4 to 6 schools desirable. But on the basis of growth in enrollments three schools, not 6 are needed. It seems obvious to me that the taxpayers and children of this county would be better served by three first class schools with all the needed facilities - rather than scaled back facilities as proposed for the new Chapel Hill - Carrboro middle school. And, it seems to me that we would be much better off doing so in a consolidated school district for the entire county. Lastly, with regard to raising funds for schools with impact fees. If impact fees are to be enacted, please note that you are projecting income from development activities that you have overestimated by at least 100%. Applying the growth rate of the 80's to the 90's is just plain silly. First the base for the rate has changed dramatically. Second, the rate of development of the last 5 years is less than half the rate projected in the Impact Fee report for the remainder of the decade. Again, I have included information & charts showing this data. As a resident taxpayer - I have bought two existing home during the last four years, not new homes, I do not want basic or optional parts of the school system financed by funds based on es- timates as specious as those in the Impact Fee report. Nor do I want to depend upon a cyclical housing market in general to be providing the extras I deem to be important for education. We can afford to do it the right way. If we need 50 Million lets vote for it, and lets have the nerve to put our needs and wants on the ballot. If we need 60 Million lets explain it. If we need 70 Million lets explain it. The difference between 50 and 70 Million is about $14 per year for the average home in the county. Lets not get sidetracked with trying to stick it to newcomers. The education of our children is too important to continue a system in which two school districts can request 100% more than necessary based on projected enrollments and in which county com- missioners with separate budget and tax authority don't have the ability or nerve to put the whole issue up for a vote. Professionally, I have gone through this town - county split district situation several times. If you want to continue with conflict, split loyalties, and political fences you can keep this system. But for me, I would rather try to build one better education community rather than two lesser education communities. Sincerely, Scott way SOR/rcc: Impact Fee File encl: misc N Q+ O OD v C p r O L C 4►I O H 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 V1 1 1 1 W W OD W W W W W t"t ; M V "r If) r,- to V) tori117inV)nnn � a, S , p Vn V) �°riv+r- vON'rn- a°ant8 r of OD0 1� W a1 8 S-D 8 OtiO+ Oti0 000 00+ N P N ' r, L >_ W } d+ 0 [A WODWOODDCDW�WO+ M O } W S 0% i 0 1 yG �� � � t t�} µ Ow a t r as GD CD + N W W ID O SD W O W W O 1 'D M J S r^ w r r p O J L A L i CL o A p 0Nn0% NDwVP- 0 o+ o+ a+ a+ a~ o+ a+ v+ a+ o+ U NM m U OC4 1 1 1 1 1 1 V1 1 1 1 W W OD W W W W W t"t ; M V "r If) r,- to V) tori117inV)nnn � a, S , p Vn V) �°riv+r- vON'rn- a°ant8 r of OD0 1� W a1 8 S-D 8 OtiO+ Oti0 000 00+ N M N ' r, L >_ W Ilk V dl WIL d+ 0 [A WODWOODDCDW�WO+ .Si i d (P. 0+ 0% i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 yG �� � � t t�} O NM4n�Dr -WOti Ow N N CD + N W W ID O SD W O W W O M 'D M W S r^ w r r p O U ui L A L i CL o A p 0Nn0% NDwVP- 0 o+ o+ a+ a+ a~ o+ a+ v+ a+ o+ U NM N OC4 Win•^ y Ors N at V) %D p W I't 'TLOinnn'T 4n n 1 M M 1 Apo+ in +_'�_�? r A r E M Oti n w ONO Ot0`� o U. d} loP C v w v N n N ^ v v W fwL M W T T C i — 2 � a i� A C O Z H s 0 + 0% M. V N V N � � 0 • • C < C -1c D 4A M r AW OD 0' (4 °COOD OD iiG gq N ' r, >_ W Ilk V dl WIL d+ 0 [A WODWOODDCDW�WO+ .Si i d L i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 yG �� � � t t�} O NM4n�Dr -WOti Ow N N M + N W W ID O SD W O W W O m W 0 M M S r^ w r r p O U ui L A L i CL o A p 0Nn0% NDwVP- 0 o+ o+ a+ a+ a~ o+ a+ v+ a+ o+ U U Ors N at V) %D p W I't 'TLOinnn'T 4n n V) A r E rWM�Nn0MPZ� 1v0 OND ONO Ot0`� o U. d} loP C v w v N n N ^ v v M T In- OND & w !�N +++ b O MwNN0�1�0 Q It W N %D w �� r n N Ob . r A co Z D N n N C N N N M M M M M M M M M r AW OD 0' 9�DT D• F W W a M a as ass. O+O Mqr v�0 •- A F 7 i �np�DNpWD OW+ OW+ !H �_ T N [n M m U D a (4 °COOD OD iiG gq N ' r, >_ W Ilk V dl WIL d+ 0 [A a000+AOOOOo .Si i d L yG �� � � C L6 OL } d'1If10►TNO�hM70� v v N v v N N Q p� U 3 1 O ODD r- n r~ Q+ N ID O O Q z r^ w r r p O U ui L A _ r- W p OD a) OD t g o+ o+ a+ a+ a~ o+ a+ v+ a+ o+ U U d+ 0 0% 14 y� i d N N Q O O Q W, U Ors N at V) %D p 9D r` • V) O M %D T In- OND & i 4 AW A�7 0' 9�DT D• F v s as Birt i thr *&Vk Mfk ScAV*l rr4ttiAW Fir COMPt! 89 -90 County School 90 -91 91 -92 Birth to 1990 Birth Fertility Births 1990 Enroll K Ratio Year Rate Census Both Dist 1991 111311 1990 37.3 1,110 (1,149 was esti mated) 0 -1 1989 41.2 1,166 938 1 1988 40.4 1,133 1141 2 1987 40.2 1,076 1140 3 1986 37.6 1,000 1055 905 K 90.5`$ 4 1985 37.9 986 1055 878 K 941 1 89.0% 5 1984 37.0 943 1064 871 K 900 1 899 2 92.498. 6 1983 654 1031 898 1 900 2 909 3 7 1982 928 1004 886 2 882 3 898 4 8 1981 903 1004 885 3 883 4 892 5 9 1980 906 1004 858 4 861 5 896 6 10 1979 858 983 827 5 893 6 947 7 11 1978 823 982 830 6 871 7 870 8 12 1977 853 907 852 7 852 8 891 9 13 1976 746 906 782 8 832 9 760 10 14 1975 758 880 847 9 768 10 675 11 15 1974 804 869 715 10 615 11 611 12 16 1973 821 862 670 11 674.12 17 1972 845 920 665 12 Total in All Grades 10,586 10,809 11,094 EXC and TMH 160 187 199 TOTAL SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS 10,746 10,996 11,293 I � Vo ALE MtNTAKY 5PA1A I ADpltlz)WAL "I I i ELVA - SCAOO - G� o l F.�Ci�l�ND �PF�ESUS CAP 6013 ADD NEW HOM - f W-,ITY 545 _,,v o � Elm- 4000 Ou 9M W-1 . av7 IW(ll MIDDLE -:564 DO � - GO Mb I NED VA-rA Mloww"ept I APD jsttAlVDL.1-- ITY Lo R- - C-, Z, 10 To by -Irr, Sri, 4v'i 4m ''�kr2 ZIcu -Lk CIL -Llct 't , EL q,K 0 1990-1997 pRoTELTr_z 14ous►NcA STWTS 15Y Yum, CDFA %e COQW Y I Mrar Mt PSM9t 1988 -1991 Au -movulm ,__ m 1106 191 1940 1911 1992 1193 1911 1995 196 M/ ORANGE GOUNfi`( sGNDO� bISiRI6T - - ---� I4wv naiion so"& : Coolly i Momk,ie4 *l". nwfawj foy : 15cm" 1990-1917 f�toTEC-= _ -j S-rMKTS Pyr Yew Lowe ca�nriY iMpaa -��� III2 I ibb -1991 Aurz FEiR t 5 501 :ii71, 1245 1199 fi77 L._ I I 1111111 1 I I I I 11 .l_l_L __.L 1 l 1 LL_._.1.1 L lE 111 Ll IL 140 11" Mo 1891 1912- 1`l93 (1" 1995 1996 1911 CHUB L 4I LL - AR?ZDRD SCHOOL t�sTRICF Informahoi Source: Cm" t Mt"► _. ("I eared 04. Scolr Rat"( J^ -,?6 -?g DRAFT 5- 14--92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE SECTION 1 - LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS The Orange County Board of Commissioners makes the following legislative findings: 1. Orange County public school facilities are vital to the health and economic prosperity of Orange County; 2. That public school facilities in Orange County must be expanded in order to maintain current levels of service if new development is to be accommodated without decreasing current levels of service; 3. To finance the expansion of the public school facilities in Orange County necessary to maintain current levels of service while accommodating new residential growth, several methods of finance will be employed, one of which will require new residential development to pay an appropriate share of the reasonably anticipated new educational facilities in the form of impact fees; and 4. These impact fees will provide, in a reasonable manner, for the public health, safety, and welfare of persons residing within orange County by providing a portion of the costs of new school facilities which bears a relationship to the benefits of the new school facilities to the new residential growth in Orange County. SECTION 2 -- DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following definitions: Apartment. A detached building located on its own individual lot and containing five (5) or more dwelling units. Certificate of Occupancy. A certificate issued by Orange County or a municipality located therein allowing the occupancy or use of a dwelling unit and certifying that the building or structure has been constructed and will be used in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 Condominium. A dwelling unit in which the ownership of the occupancy rights to the dwelling unit is individually owned and such ownership is not inclusive of any land. Duplex or Dwellin Two-Fain lly A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot and containing two (2) dwelling units. Dwelling Unit. A room or group of rooms forming a single independent habitable unit with facilities used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, and eating by one family. Dwellin Sin le -Famil . A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot containing one (1) dwelling unit. Fee a er. The person constructing or responsible for having constructed a new dwelling unit or new dwelling units. In the case of a mobile home, the person installing or responsible for having installed a new mobile home or new mobile homes. Mobile Home. A portable, manufactured dwelling unit composed of one or more components designed for transportation on its own chassis and placement on a temporary or semi- permanent foundation. A mobile home may be located on its own individual lot or on a mobile home space; e.g., a parcel of land in a mobile home park intended to be occupied by one (1) mobile home and for the use of the occupants of said space. uad 1ex or Dwellin Four-Family. A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot and containing four (4) dwelling units. Townhouse. A single - family dwelling that is connected to one (1) or more other single - family dwellings by means of common dividing walls, where each single- family dwelling is located on its own individual lot or is established as a condominium. Tri lex or Dwellin L Three-F . amilV. A detached building or structure located on its own individual lot and containing three (3) dwelling units. SECTION 3 - IMPACT FEES IMPOSED ON NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS In addition to all other charges prescribed by ordinance or resolution now or hereafter in effect, there shall be public school impact fees charged to new residential dwelling units located within Orange County, and within the municipalities and their extraterritorial planning jurisdictions located within Orange County. No person may occupy any new residential dwelling unit until all applicable public DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 school impact fees contained in the following schedule have been paid in full. No certificate of occupancy or other type of occupancy permit shall be issued for any new residential dwelling unit until the public school impact fees hereby required have been paid in full. Payment of such fees shall not relieve the feepayer from the obligation to comply with applicable land development regulations of Orange County or the municipalities located within Orange County. Schedule of Public School Impact Fees Note: The schedule of fees shown below represent the full range of impact fees being considered. Upon adoption of a schedule, it would be inserted in this space. Rancre of Possible Impact Fees Dwelling Type Chapel Hill - Carrboro Orange County Number of Bedrooms School District School District :Single - Family $0 - $3,194 $2,747 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 913 $0 - $ 785 3 Bedroom $0 - $2,929 $0 - $2,520 4 Bedroom $0 - $6,403 $0 - $5,505 5 Bedroom $0 - $9,037 $0 - $7,771 Townhouse 0 - $1,597 0 - 778 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 692 $0 - $ 339 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 754 $0 - $ 369 3 Bedroom $0 - $1,926 $0 - $ 939 Duplex, Triplex, and $0 - $ 843 - $ 772 Ouadplex 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 217 $0 - $ 198 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 538 $0 - $ 490 3 Bedroom $0 - $1,721 $0 - $1,578 Apartment $0 - $ 788 $0 - $ 504 1 Bedroom $0 - $ 146 $0 - $ 93 2 Bedroom $0 - $ 572 $0 - $ 366 3 Bedroom $0 - $2,591 $0 - $1,656 Mobile Home $0 - S2,629 $0 - $2,011 1 Bedroom $0 -- $ 984 $0 - $ 753 2 Bedroom $0 - $1,088 $0 - $ 835 3 Bedroom $0 - $5,059 $0 - $3,870 DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5- 21-92 SECTION .4 - PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACT FEE EXCEPTIONS Public school impact fees as provided in Section 3 shall not be imposed in the following circumstances: 1. Buildings or structures, including alterations, repairs, renovations or additions thereto, which are to be occupied and used solely for non - residential purposes. 2. Residential dwelling units for which a certificate of occupancy was obtained prior to the effective date of this ordinance. 3. Alterations, repairs, renovations or additions to a residential dwelling unit where no additional residential dwelling units are created, and the use, as shown within the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees, is not changed. In the case of alterations, repairs, renovations or additions to a residential dwelling unit where additional residential dwelling units are created, public school impact fees would be levied based upon the net increase, if any, above that which the existing dwelling unit would pay. 4. Replacement of a building or structure or mobile home with a new building or structure or mobile home of the same dwelling type. In the case of the replacement of a building or structure or mobile home where additional residential dwelling units are created, public school impact fees would be levied based upon the net increase, if any, above that which the former dwelling unit would pay. 5. Accessory buildings and structures, including, but not limited to, garages, decks, storage buildings, and similar structures, provided they are not used for residential purposes. 6. Temporary buildings and structures, provided they are not used for residential purposes. However, public school impact fees would not be levied in the case of a mobile home being used to provide custodial care under the provisions of an approved Special Use Permit. Likewise, such fees would not be levied in the case of a mobile home being used as temporary residential space during the installation of a replacement mobile home or the construction of a stick -built dwelling unit. DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 SECTION 5 - COLLECTION OF FEES A. CREATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL BENEFIT AREA TRUST FUNDS Public school impact fees collected by Orange County this ordinance shall be kept separate from other revenue There shall be one trust fund established for each of the shown on the map labeled Public School Benefit Areas and part of this ordinance. B. RESPONSIBILITY FOR FEE COLLECTION pursuant to of the County. benefit areas, included as a All public school impact fees are due to Orange County and shall be paid to Orange County prior to a certificate of occupancy being issued for a dwelling unit. The fees will be collected by Orange County and /or by interlocal agreement between Orange County and a municipality located therein. All public school impact fees shall be properly identified by the appropriate benefit area and transferred for deposit in the appropriate trust account. If the type of new construction activity is not specified on the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees as contained in Section 3, the most nearly comparable type of housing on the Schedule shall determine the fee. Where there is an interlocal agreement in effect for collection of the public school impact fees by a municipality, the municipality must remit the fees to Orange County as provided in the agreement, including a report of the amount of funds collected and the benefit area from which the fees were collected. Upon receipt, the County shall deposit the fees in the appropriate trust fund. C. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS Funds withdrawn from public school impact fee trust accounts must be used solely in accordance with the following provisions: I. Funds may be used for capital costs associated with the construction of new public schools, including actual building construction; design, engineering, and /or legal fees; land acquisition and site development; equipment and furnishings; and /or infrastructure improvements. 2. Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements within the benefit area from which the funds were collected. 3. Funds may be used for providing reimbursements as permitted in Section 5.E. DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 4. No funds shall be used for public school operating expenses, periodic or routine maintenance, or the administration of,this public school impact fee program. 5. Following their collection, funds shall be expended within six (6) years, the time frame coinciding with the capital improvements program period identified in the Capital Improvements Plan updated annually by orange County. The disbursal of public school impact fee funds s County Manager. hall require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners upon recommendation of the D. INTEREST ON FEES Any public school impact fee funds on deposit and not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested as allowed in N.C. General Statute 159 -30 for other public monies. All income derived shall be deposited in the applicable trust fund. E. REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES Any funds not expended within the time frame established in Section 5.C.5. shall be returned to the feepayer, or the land owner if the address of the feepayer provided to Orange County is not current, with interest at a rate not to exceed that being paid on public school impact fees deposited in accordance with Section 5.D. If the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees as contained in Section 3 is reduced, the difference between the old and new fees shall be returned to the feepayer, or the land owner if the address of the feepayer provided to Orange County is not current, with interest at a rate not to exceed that being paid on public school impact fees deposited in accordance with Section 5.D. If the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees as contained in Section 3 is increased, no additional fees shall be collected from new construction for which certificates of occupancy have been issued. F. ._ANNUAL REPORT A report shall be made to the Board of County Commissioners each year showing where public school impact fees have been collected, what projects have been constructed with such fees, and what reimbursements have been made. The report shall also include an evaluation of this ordinance, including its effectiveness and enforcement, and the methods and data used to calculate the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees contained in Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners shall review the report to determine if, within each benefit area, all areas of new construction are being benefitted by the fees. If the Board of County Commissioners DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 determines that areas of new construction are not being benefitted, then it shall readjust the capital improvements program to correct this condition. If, after review of the methods and data used to calculate the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees, the Board of County Commissioners determines that adjustments are required in the Schedule, then it shall direct the County Manager and his staff to prepare a report which outlines recommended changes for its consideration. SECTION 6 - CREDITS Any conveyance of land or construction of new school facilities received and accepted by Orange County, a municipality located in Orange County, and /or the Orange County or Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board from a developer shall be credited against the public school impact fee due if the conveyance or construction meets the same needs as the public school impact fee in providing new public school facilities. If the developer wishes to receive credit against the amount of the public school impact fee due for such conveyance or construction, the developer shall enter into a fee agreement with the County. The fee agreement shall provide for the establishment of credits and payment of the fee in a specified manner and time. The value of land conveyed or facilities constructed by a developer and accepted by the County, municipality or school board for purposes of this section shall be determined by an appraisal based on the fair market value of the land or facilities as established by the County. Construction shall be in accordance with applicable County, municipal, school board, and /or State standards. Any land awarded credit under this section shall be conveyed no later than the time at which public school impact fees are required to be paid. The portion of the public school impact fee represented by a credit for construction shall be deemed paid when the construction is completed and accepted for maintenance or when adequate security for the completion of the construction has been provided. SECTION 7 - PENALTIES In addition to any other remedy allowed by N.C. General Statute 153A -123, the failure to pay a public school impact fee is hereby declared to be a civil penalty. The amount of the penalty shall be equal to the amount of the unpaid impact fee, plus an interest charge of one - half percent (1/2 %) per month compounded monthly and a service charge of one hundred dollars ($100.00). The County may assess this penalty against the land owner whereon new construction has occurred without payment of the public school impact fee. However, no service charge will be assessed when the County DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 staff has made an error in the fee determination. Furthermore, no penalty shall be assessed until the person or persons alleged to be in violation are served by registered mail, certified mail - return receipt requested, or personal service with notice to pay. The County Attorney is hereby authorized to institute a civil action in the name of Orange County in the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice in Orange County for recovery of the penalty. All monies recovered shall be deposited in the appropriate trust fund. SECTION 8'- LEGAL STATUS PROVISIONS All ordinances and clauses in to the extent of said conflict. If ordinance or application thereof to invalid, such invalidity shall not application of this ordinance which to this end, the provisions of this severable. conflict herewith are hereby repealed any clause or section of this any person or circumstance is held affect other provisions or can be given separate effect, and, ordinance are declared to be This ordinance shall not diminish any prior constructural or special or conditional use district zoning obligation to pay for or install road, park or other improvements required by Orange County or a municipality located therein, nor shall the fulfillment of those obligations diminish any applicable public school impact fee owed to the County. This ordinance shall not diminish any prior obligation of the County or a municipality located therein to reimburse persons for road, parks or other improvements, nor shall the fulfillment of those obligations by the County or a municipality diminish any applicable credit owed to the feepayer. SECTION 9 - APPEAL TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT [Reserved] A DRAFT 5 -14 -92 /REVISED 5 -21 -92 This ordinance shall be effective from and after , 1992. Duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the County of Orange, North Carolina, this day of , 199_, following a duly advertised joint public hearing of the Board of Commissioners and the County Planning Board on may 25, 1992. ATTEST: Clerk to the Board Chairman of Commissioners Orange County Board of Commissioners A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ADOPTING THE ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE WHEREAS, new residential growth in Orange County, including the municipalities located therein, will create a need for additional public school facilities; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners finds that the relevant characteristic of new residential growth which gives rise to additional public schools is the number of school age children per household [and per bedroom per household] as expressed in dwelling unit type [and number of bedrooms]; and WHEREAS, a description of the anticipated costs to Orange County of additional public schools necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve new residential growth and development is provided in the report entitled Report to Board of Count Commissioners - School Capital Needs Advisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the FY 1992 -97 Capital Improvements Plan outlines the timing of construction and method of financing additional public schools and was adopted by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on , 1992; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has determined that. new residential development should assume a fair share of the cost of providing additional public schools; and WHEREAS, the proportionate share of the cost of providing public school facilities has been identified in the report entitled 1 A Technical Re ort on the Calculation of Proportionate Im act Fees for Financing Public School Ca ital Needs; and WHEREAS, Title VI, Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws of North Carolina authorizes Orange County to fix, impose, and collect impact fees in its planning jurisdiction for capital needs, including public schools; and WHEREAS, Chapter 324 of the 1991 Session Laws of North Carolina authorizes Orange County to fix, impose, and collect impact fees for public school capital improvements throughout the county, including the municipalities located therein and their extraterritorial planning jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina that the ORANGE COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE is hereby adopted. This the day of Commissioner resolution and Commissioner . 19 moved the passage of the foregoing seconded the motion, and the resolution was passed by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: PA NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of so much of the proceedings of the Board of Commissioners for said County at a meeting held as relates in any way to the Resolution for Adopting the Orange County Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance and that the said proceedings are recorded in the Minute Book containing the minutes of said Board for said date. WITNESS my hand and the common seal of said County, this the day of , 19 [SEAL] Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Orange County Board of Commissioners 3 A Technical Report on the Calculation of Proportionate Share Impact Fees for Financing Public School capital Needs grange County, N.C. 1 I 1 1 i i 1 A TECHNICAL REPORT ON THE CALCULATION OF PROPORTIONATE" SHARE IMPACT FEES FOR FINANCING PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS IN ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. Prepared by the ' orange County Planning i Inspections Department ' Draft - December, 1991 Revised - May, 1992 1 1 F, TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace Introduction 1 Basis For Impact Fees 2 Use of Impact Fees 3 Determining the Quantity of Needed Improvements 3 Demand Units 4 Service Standards 4 Determining the Cost of Accommodating Development 6 Proportionate'Share of Capital Costs 8 Payments By New Development Toward Capital Costs 8 Property Tax Revenues g Sales Tax Revenues 11' Grants 13 Projected Impact Fee Amounts 13 Benefit Considerations 14 Collection of Impact_ Fees 17 Affordability Issues 1g Impact Fees - Specific Issues 19 Impact Fees - Reduced Fee Schedules'. 19 Impact Fees - Number of Bedrooms 20 Impact Fee Waivers /Exemptions 21 Mortgage Payment Impacts 21 Impacts - Existing Residents 21 Offsets to Impact,Enes 22 Conclusion 23 APPENDIX A -] 1 [I 11 LJI IINTRODUCTION IPage - 1 For a number of years, Orange County has pursued an objective ' of helping to fund school capital needs created by growth in the county from financial contributions from the owners of development engendering those capital needs. During the 1987 Session, the General Assembly authorized Orange County to levy impact fees in ' its planning jurisdiction for a number of needs, including school capital [See Appendix A for Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws]. In 1988 -89, a joint governmental work group investigated the possibilities of levying an impact tax as opposed to a fee. ' Subsequently, Orange County proposed legislation in the 1991 Session of the General Assembly seeking the authority to impose an impact tax for school capital needs in the county. Although the legislation was withdrawn due to opposition in the legislature, ' Orange County did receive authority to impose impact fees for school capital needs throughout the county, not just within Orange ' County's planning jurisdiction [See Appendix B for Chapter 460 of the 1991 Session Laws]. The purpose for this report is to develop a recommended impact ' fee structure for financing school capital needs in Orange County. The methodology used to calculate the impact fees is based, in part, on similar techniques used by Anne Arundel County, Maryland and Broward County, Florida, two jurisdictions which have ' implemented a system of impact fees for financing school capital needs. These sources and others used in the preparation of this report include the following: Snyder, Thomas P., and Michael A. Stegman, Paying For Growth: Using Development Fees to Finance Infrastructure. ' .Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 1987. Nelson, Arthur C., ed., Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory, and Issues. Chicago: ' American Planning Association, 1988. ' Nicholas; James C., The Calculation of Proportionate -Share Impact Fees, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 408. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1988. ' Journal of the American Planning Association 54, no. 1 (1988). (A series of.articles on impact fee issues.) School Capital Needs Advisory Committee, Report to Board of ' County Commissioners. Hillsborough: Orange County, 1991. ' Stroud, Nancy E,, and James C. Nicholas, Impact Fee Summary and Technical Report: Roads and Schools, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Annapolis: Anne Arundel County, 1987. 1 IPage - 1 Lighthizer, James, Report of the Study Committee on Bill 27 -87 and Bill 46-87 Establishing Impact Fees. Annapolis: Anne Arundel County, 1987. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Development Impact Fee Ordinance, Bill 50 -87. Wolf, Audrey L., Broward County Educational Fee: An Evaluation of the Quantitative Adequacy of the Generation Rates. Fort Lauderdale: Broward County, 1987. School Board of Broward County, Florida, Recommended Standards and Procedures For An Educational Impact Fee. Fort Lauderdale: Broward County, 1987. Broward County, Florida, Land Development Code. Fort Lauderdale: Broward County, 1989. Broward County, Florida, Dedication /Payment In Lieu Provisions - School Sites, Ordinance 79 -1. The initial draft of this report was presented to the Board of Commissioners in January of 1992. Subsequently, the draft report was distributed to the municipalities in the county, the two school boards, the Homebuilders Association, the Board of Realtors, the Community Housing Corporation, and the Chambers of Commerce. In March, 1992, meetings were held with representatives of the organizations to discuss impact fee levels, methods of collection, and other concerns. Upon request, presentations were also made to municipal governing boards. In April, 1992, a report summarizing the results of the meetings was presented to the Board of Commissioners, including options for raising specific amounts of capital to finance public school improvements. In May, 1992, a public hearing was held to give the citizens of Orange County an opportunity to voice their opinion on establishing a system of impact fees. This report represents a revision to the initial draft. It seeks to address the discussion, debate, and concerns identified during the series of meetings held in March, April, and May of 1992. In addition, the methodology and calculations used in the initial draft have been reviewed to insure consistency and accuracy. The report, as well as a proposed ordinance to implement a schedule of impact fees, will be presented at a public hearing on May 26, 1992. At the conclusion of the hearing and upon receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation; the Board of Commissioners may decide on whether or not to include a.schedule of impact fees in the FY 1992 -93 budget. Basis for Im act Pegs Impact fees are generally imposed as a condition for some approval to proceed with development. The objective of such fees is not to raise money but to insure adequate public facilities. where such facilities are inadequate, permitting development runs counter Page - 2 to the responsibility of a local government to protect public health, safety, and welfare. i,f the question is one of adequate public facilities, the issue, then, is who should be financially responsible for such adequacy? The reality is that the community and the property owner are the only available candidates to bear such responsibility. It may be argued that the community should be financially responsible for needed facilities, because it is the community that benefits - new housing, job creation, and tax base enhancement. However, it may also be argued that imposing such costs upon the community is unfair, since it had no part in the decision to develop the property and may receive no direct benefits from the development. Increasingly, the answer is that a community need not absorb all costs but may impose a proportionate, or fair, share of such costs upon new development. Impact fees presuppose that new development should pay a proportionate share of facility costs. In this context, proportionate share would generally be less than total cost and more than nothing. Use of Impact Peep ' Impact fees are generally confined to payments for capital facilities and allow the community to provide the capital facilities that new development will require. Nationwide, impact ' fees have been established to pay for capital improvements to the following facilities and services: 1 Potable Water Solid Waste Arterial Roads Local Roads Parks Fire Protection Public Buildings Emergency Medical Services Sewers Drainage Collector Roads Public Schools Public Libraries Law Enforcement Public Cemeteries Under Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws, Orange county may impose impact fees within its planning jurisdiction for land acquisition for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets, schools, bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off - street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities, and public recreation facilities. Chapter 324 of the 1991 Session Laws enables Orange County to impose impact fees'for school capital improvements countywide. DETERMINING THE QUANTITY OF NEEDED IMPROVEMENT8 The objective of determining a proportionate share of costs is to insure a degree of fairness in impact fees. Proportionality calculations begin with a determination of physical quantities of facilities that new development will require. The need for such Page - 3 Lli facilities can be expressed mathematically in terms of demand units t and.Atandards of service: Needed Improvements = Demand Unit x Service Standard ' Demand Units A "demand unit" is a unit associated with new ' development that generates the need for improvements in public facilities. For purposes of identifying school capital outlay needs, the demand unit most often used is the average number of ' school -age children per residential housing unit, commonly referred to as a student generation rate. Student generation rates have been calculated using 1980 and ' 1990 census data adjusted to reflect conditions in orange County in 1990. The average number of school age children per dwelling unit ' for structures-built between 1975 and 1980 in the South Atlantic region are shown on Table 1. The figures in Table 1 were subsequently reduced by 6.4 ' Percent to reflect the decline in the average number of persons per household in Orange County from 2.50 in 1980 to 2.34 in 1990. The figures were further adjusted to factor out private school ' attendance and reflect the proportion of total students in Orange County that attended public schools in 1990; i.e., 87.6 percent. Specifically, the adjustment was based upon the ratio of the total size of the school age cohort in 1990 to public school enrollment - ' in the same year. Finally, the figures were checked against the enrollment in Orange County public schools, by elementary (49.27 percent), middle (23.98 percent), and high school (26.75 percent) ' categories, and adjusted accordingly. These calculations yielded the set of trial student generation rates shown in Table 2. In order to verify the accuracy of these rates, predicted 1 school membership was calculated by multiplying the above student generation rates of the appropriate housing type by the number of single- family, duplex, garden apartment, etc. units identified in , the 1990 Census. Finally, the results were compared with the actual 1990 membership in schools, and the rates adjusted downward to derive an adjusted set of student generation rates. These ' calculations and the rates derived are shown in Table 3. These overall generation rates were allocated to elementary, ' middle, and high school categories based on the distribution of students in the 1990 school year. The final student generation rates are shown in Table 4. ' Service Standards A "service standard" is generally expressed in terms related ' to land development. For example, a service standard for schools might be expressed in terms of square feet of building [or land) area per student. Standards used in determining need are best ' established within the comprehensive plan. In the absence of such Page - 4 1 TABLE 1 SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN - SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION BY GRADE CATEGORY AND HOUSING TYPE 1975 -1980 School Age Children Per Unit Elementary Middle High Dwelling Type School School School Total Single - Family 0.476 0.170. 0.136 0.782 Duplex, Triplex, 0.248 0.083 0.065 0.396 and Quadplex Garden Apartment 0.159 0.058 0.046 0.263 Townhouse 0.236 0.094 0.081 0.411 Mobile Home 0.325 0.115 0.072 0.512 --------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Robert W. Burchell, David Listokin, and William R. Dolphin, The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis (New Brunswick: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1985). Page - 4.1 TABLE 2 TRIAL STUDENT GENERATION RATES FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC BY GRADE CATEGORY AND HOUSING TYPE Page - 4 .2 School ----------------------------------- --------------- Age Children Per - unit Elementary Middle High - - Dwelling Type School School School Total Single - Family 0.315 0.152 0.175 0.643 Duplex, Triplex, 0.164 0.074 0.084 0.322 and Quadplex Garden Apartment 0.105 0.052 0.059 0.216 Townhouse 0.156 0.084 0.104 0.345 Mobile Home 0.215 0.103 0.093 0.411 Page - 4 .2 1-1 J 1 TABLE 3 CALCULATION OF FINAL STUDENT GENERATION RATES FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC BY HOUSING TYPE 1290-91Average Daily__School_ Attendance [7] - Orange County Schools - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools Totals 4991 6005 10996 Combined Average Daily School Attendance 10875 Variance from Projected Student Population - 36.22% ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: [1] Robert W. Burchell, David Listokin, and William R. Dolphin, The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis (New Brunswick: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1985); and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics - North Carolina, 1990. [2] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics. - North Carolina, 1990. [3] [2] x the percentage of occupied housing units. [4] Trial student generation rates from Table 2. [5] [3] x [4]. [6] [5] reduced by variance [- 36.22%] from projected students. [7] Office of School Planning, N.C. Department of Public Instruction. Page - 4.3 Trial Adjusted Occupancy Student Projected Student Number Rate Generation School Generation Housing Types of Units Adjustment Rates Children Rates [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Single - Family 19172 18309 0.643 11773 0.440 [1 Unit, Detached] Duplex, Triplex, 3091 2896 0.322 933 0.220 and Quadplex [2 to 4 Units] Garden Apartment 9546 8639 0.216 1866 0.148 [5 or More Units] Townhouse 1647 1481 0.345 511 0.236 [1 Unit, Attached] Mobile Home 5227 4788 0.411 1968 0.281 - -- Totals - 38683 36113 17050 1989 -90 Average Daily School Attendance [7] - Orange County Schools 4996 - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools 5758 Totals 10754 1290-91Average Daily__School_ Attendance [7] - Orange County Schools - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools Totals 4991 6005 10996 Combined Average Daily School Attendance 10875 Variance from Projected Student Population - 36.22% ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: [1] Robert W. Burchell, David Listokin, and William R. Dolphin, The New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis (New Brunswick: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1985); and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics - North Carolina, 1990. [2] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics. - North Carolina, 1990. [3] [2] x the percentage of occupied housing units. [4] Trial student generation rates from Table 2. [5] [3] x [4]. [6] [5] reduced by variance [- 36.22%] from projected students. [7] Office of School Planning, N.C. Department of Public Instruction. Page - 4.3 TABLE 4 FINAL STUDENT GENERATION RATES FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC BY GRADE CATEGORY AND HOUSING TYPE w School Age Children Per Unit Elementary ^- Middle High _.�, +- Dwelling Type School School School Total Single - Family 0.216 0.104 0.120 0.440 Duplex, Triplex, 0.112 0.051 0.057 0.220 and Quadplex Garden Apartment 0.072 0.035. 0.040 0.148 Townhouse 0.107 0.057 0.072 0.236 Mobile Home 0.147 0.070 0.064 0.281 Page - 4 .4 ' standards, those recommended by agencies such as the Division of School Planning of the N.C. Department of Public Instruction may be used. ' Care should be taken when using such standards for they would still have to be compared with the existing community standard. ' Moreover, such standards should relate to both existing developments and new developments. The application of the same standard to both components of the community means that new ' development cannot be required to raise the standard. If the community wants to raise the existing standard of service, it must identify the existing deficiency and make provisions to eliminate those deficiencies by means other than impact fees. ' In North Carolina, minimum service standards for public schools are set by the Office of School Planning of the N.C. ' Department of Public Instruction. These standards are contained in a "Theoretical Space Profile For School Facilities That Provide For A Modern Education Program" developed by that agency for school ' planning purposes. The profile includes space standards for the construction of elementary, middle, and high schools [see Table 5]. Shown in Table 6 are the standards of that agency which are ' closest to the school capacities proposed.for new public schools -in orange County; i.e., 640 for an elementary school, 700 for a middle school, and an average of 1250 for a high school. To determine if Orange County standards were higher or lower than those of the State, all public schools in the county were ' surveyed to identify building area, land area, and capacity characteristics. From the results of the survey, "local averages" were calculated, including figures for the number of square feet of building and land area per student, and .compared to the State ' standards. The calculations are shown in Table 7. As evidenced by the comparison, "local averages" exceed the ' State standards in all cases except one. The number of square feet of building area per student for local elementary schools [116) is practically identical to the State standard [117]. From the ' standpoint of-identifying a "service standard" for use in calculating impact fees, the comparison suggests that the "local averages" be used. Other standards have been proposed, however, which bear mentioning. Recent discussions between Orange County and School Board officials involving the public school facilities capital ' improvements program have revealed even higher standards. For an elementary school, 175 square feet of building area per student has been recommended by the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board. The ' Orange County School Board has indicated it would like an elementary school built to the same specifications. For middle and high schools, the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board has recommended building area standards of 211 and 179 square feet per student, respectively. IPage - 5 TP BLE 5 A THrO7_. ICAL SPACE PROFI',.E FOR SCHOOL FACI%ITIES THAI PROYiDE FOR MOZ RX MUCA210N PROGRJIM - ZMEN;ART SCHOOL K -5 23 S:VOENTS K -3 ` 26 S_ VE.^i =S 4 -5 AV,k,1 z 4 ER CLASSROOM Stu 7c +1t9 31,0 L_V 5no Teaching Stations 13 16 21 524 A 730 ' ' ' Classrooms K Classroom 6? 1,300 3,000 (3) 3,600 (3) ',,E00 (4) 1.'Aon (4) 6.000 (5) ' 1' -3 Classroom 1,000 6,000 (b) 9,g0q (9) 10,000 (10) 12,000 (1Z) 15,000 (15) 4 -5 Claassroom Q 850 3,400 (4) 3,480 (6) 5,950 (7) 6,800 (8) 8,500 ('10) Art -- 1,200 1,200 1,x00 1,200 mste .« 1,000 1.,000 1,000 1,000 , Dance (multi use -see mstrie) -- 2,000 2,000 2,000 2 000 Theater Arts -- -- -- -- 2,000 Small group roams (200- 450) 900 1,350 1,350 1,500 1,800 marn lap 450 45C 450 450 9oD ' =xceptional Cflildrer_ (resources) 450 450 43D 450 450 Exceptional Children (classroc+m) -- -- -- 1,200 1,200 Project room (art and ' cralt, - ' etc.) -,200 -- -- __ _. -----------------------------------•----------------«--_-_----------------- SUB -TOTAL 16,000 22,530 27,200 �--------- 31,400 - - -... 40,050 _ ' Media (n?.C) (we media ceart) 1,950 2,420 (5.E) '1,bZ5 (5.25) 2,975 (5.0) 3,170 (u,4) Media (s' part) 1,:00 1,200 1,200 1,200 '_,200 ' Computer rooms (1.000 wricinR to read, 850 around the Wall lab) 1,000 1,000 1,850 (2) 1,850 (2) 7.,850 (2) Dining (3 seatings unless noted) 1,800 1,800 2,000 2,300 2,880 , 1.0 aq.:_, per student (2 seatirims) plus circulation kitchen 1 300 1 ,500 1 ,500 1,500 i _.900 ?1ayroom (=sic on stage ' if noadod) 3,600 3,600 3,600 3.600 4,800 Stage 600 600 600 600 -- -�---------------------------------------------------------=-------------------------------------- SUB -TOTAL 1 -1,450 12,120 13,375 13,925 15,800 , Principal 200 200 200 200 200 Assistant Principal -- -- -_ 150 150 5ecrctary /reception x•00 400 400 4.00 400 53Z:S 120 170 120 120 1.50 ' Guidance s;:ite 250 450 1450 1150 450 ealtlh 100 200 200 200 200 C.S.S. (rsyc:i0logist, social aorkcr, cra.) -- ISO ':0 .5n 1;o , O:Lice workroom 200' 200 200 200 200 Cor.:erenee 200 200 200 ZOO 200 Of!ice records 6: storage 200 200 200 200 200 Soak a_erago 600 800 goo 300 5nn ' General storage 700 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Teacher's lounge 300 450 450 450 450 Teacher's �orkrocm 300 450 4500 450 450 ]tine -ayS = atahe- Of-'_ees -« «x_200 (2) (2) - 200 300 (4�_ ' SUB- 1CMX'.. 3,770 _200- -_ « - - - -- -5,020 -- «(2)- 5,020 _ - - -(3) - -- 5, -20 «- «....1100- 5,470 - -- =OSAL Circulation, toilets a 31,220 39,6'70 45,595 50,x•1.5 61,320 , mechanical 33% 10,303 _3,091 15,046 lfi,fi47 X ,235 GRAND TO ki, -1,SZ3 S2, 761 60,84. 67,042 61,536 Sq.F..; Student 134 123 121 117 ' 7,3 ' Note.. Multi Usa ::n C:i.c napes_a in e�oendix of N.C. ?tiblio Scheois eaeil:.tiae Standard Page - 5 1 School Plan.__ _ tia�e.�'�e� ,cam 'iachins TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) A THEORETICAL cPAM PRUFILE- FOF SCHOOL FACILITI: S THAT M0:5Rt+ EDUCA.10h FROw -R M SCHOOL 6 -8 STUDEh7S ?cF- �l:Fi3AiC S- AA2IOti ,(CpFZ SLYR.IEC7'S) u.._..�s 390 t 470 545 625 Stations 15 18 • 21 24 .ore 6uolec^s) PROY LDE FOR A 780 30 940 36 4 Classrooms 0 110 3,400 (4) 4,250 (5) 1,,250 (5) 5,100 (6) 5,950 (7) 7,650 (9) Classrooms 0 750 6,000 (8) 6,750 (9) 7,500 (10) 9,000 (12) 10,500 (14) 13,500 ( {6) '•8 ienee classroo= 1,000 ^11200 3,300 (3) 4,400 (4) 6,600 (6) 6,600 (6) 9,900 (9) 91900 (9) cal .*;usic ^- -- 1,000 1,000 1,200 ;,200 :sic 1,000 1,OOQ -- -- •- -- ' a n:raental Ifus:G 2,200 1,200 1, ;no 1,_00 sual ACts 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1.200 mediation (resC_:ce) 1,350 (3) 1,350 (3) 1,350 (3) 1,500 (4) 2,250 (5) 2,700 (6) Ch11d :en, ':ceptional resource) 4W 450 4:0 900 (2) goo (2) 1,'iso (3) :_eational Child -en .S.C. Classroom) 1,200 1,200 1.200 1,200 1,200 3,'�Oo (Z) :cutaticnal Infor-mation (In Media) (In Media) 850 850 850 650 -ereea.1na1 labs 2,500 (2) 2,800 (2) 2,800 (2) 2,300 (2)•' 4,900 (J4) 4.600 (L) �torium 8.500 10,000 10,000 12,000 12,100 12,000 yea :er Arts/Dance 2,000 - 2,000, 2,000 2,000 4,030 4,000 ' -TOTAL •- •--- ^ - - - -' 31,000 35,400 40,400 - - -^ 45,6 ;0 - : 5,950 -- - - 6:,750 . - sdia O� V) (see :ha-:t) 2,350 (6) 21700 (5.75) 3,050 (5.6) 3,375 (5.4) 3r820 (4.9) 4,,140 (4.4) 2dia Support x.500 1,800 1,800 -,Boo 1,E00 1,800 ].-.V ter room (850.1,000) 650 250 ti50 c5o 8 ;0 250 ' _afi (3 seatirp "lless noted) 2.000 (2) 2,000 2,200 2,500 3,100 3,700 irrhon 1,520 16,520 1,520 1000 2.,940 2,200 -- -------------------------- c%L - ----------------------- 8,220 8,870 --------- 9,420 - -_------ 10,225 11,510 q 200 200 200 200 200 250 :1ncipa1 200 200 200 200 200 200 ?rincipal -- --- 150 130 '_5D 300 (_) 'ssistant ece'p _ion 400 400 410 400 400 4.00 15n no 130 no no 300 (2) ISO 350 350 150 350 150 =:ice r:ark :oo.n 200 200 200 200 200 200 }cords 100 100 100 100 100 100 :crest (off_ °.ea) :.DO 100 100 100 100 :0 zalth room 150 ?50 200 200 200 20:1 :ude:it Services 200 200 200 200 200 _00 �id.'.:te 300 300 300 300 300 300 7unae: pr's Office -- -- 150 2.50 300 (2) 300 (Z) eache_'s lounge 400 490 450 450 1,50 600 _»: Of °ice /WorY.re02 ._900 (3) 900 (3) 900 (3) 1,350 (3) 1,350 (3) 1.350 (3) -Mara! stcrage Boo 810 800 1,000 1.000 1,000 •ok -vvw 600 600 600 300 900 900 �^t�s 1,000 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 '-35- T_O:AL 5,850 5,850 6,750 7,600 7,850 8111:00 3MAL 1,5,070_ 50,120 56,570 63,:75 75,310 83,840 -. ::lotion, toilets 8 ' ' ec;a,ical 30� 13,.20 15,040 16,970 #1?,a.o 22,590 25,1 =0 ' :='D TOTAL 58,590 65,160 73,540 62,51.5 97,900 7.08,990 ;.7t. /Student 1.50 139 135 132 126 1 "�0 ' �tal Iea:hins Stations 22 25 29 33 41 'Teaching Statiors 18 19 19 19 19 20 school K as -in Page - 5.2 Aovamt)er _. 1 TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) A VEDRTTCA1. CPAIM PRMTLF MR S000L FACILITIES MAA PROVIDE FOP. A '1. "10;1; RN EDU=IOh PROCRAM HIGH SCHOOL 9-12 -0 Sil+ ch .r Y'r CLASS'AOOM M •DMP,14INE ;MCULAR AND SCIENCE CLASSROOos Students Teaching Stations 400 6 906 1,260 1,600 �asbrooms 1,400 3,000 (2) 2,860 (2) 3,000 (2) bD 79 Regular 4 750 Sa.Ft. g,(11) 5g.FZ, 1b,750 SC.Ft (25) 24,75 (33) 5 r -, Science (physical. biology 7..6D0 11000 + 600 71,UM (44) , N11yb16;m) Q 1,200 Science (earth) @ 1,400 Science (chemistry/multipurpose) @ 1,500 Choral C 1,200 Land Q 1,600 Reading lab 0 050 hathematits lab @ 450 Speech G 200 "xceptionai utildren (resource) @ 450 Exceptional Ch-.ldren (self- contained) @ 1,200 Art 0 1,500 Dance (100 se.st /stuaent or i,suu sq..',. c' nimu;n) C 1.500 Dramaties @ 17000 Z'pin& C 1,200 Fiore Eccnomics @ 1,1.00 Market-I ng Education @ 1,200 Health OCCLpat'_ens C 1,000 Business S Office Education @,1,400 ICT 0 1,(100 Laboratories Q 3,000 (CarpertrY. cabinetmaking. !=L tune, textiles, machine shop, sheet metal, aerospace, auto mechanics, auto body, diesel mechanics; including lab, office and storage) Laboratories @ 2,500 (masonry, eonst:uction, plumbing, electri- cal, air manditicnis�& /refrige :s,ioa, welding, r =Lle occUpatioas, caLn:eaarce, upholsterti, graphics and industrial co m�vnicstions, pragraaaing and broadcast - i*+g, ap�1 j anr.►. rrh.:i r, i nriu� :ri a1 arts: =n_&di.n4 lab, c!iice and storage) 1,20/�0 x.,800 (4) 6,000 (5) i, "_00 (6) 1.1400 11500 1,400 3,000 (2) 2,860 (2) 3,000 (2) :,200 41500 (3) (3) -' 1,200 1,200 1,200 :,600 7..6D0 11000 + 600 450 LSO 450 900 (2) 450 450 450 200 200 200 200 +SSG 430 450 450 1,500 1,500 1,500 .1,000 1,5DO 1,500 1.500 �- 1,000 1;000 1,200 1,200 1,200 2,400 (2) 11400 .400 1,4UU 11dUU (2) -- 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,4 UO 1,400 1,400 3,000 3,000 3,000 6,000 {1) 2,500 2,500 5,000 (2) 51000 (2) Labc =to_ies CG 2.000 -- 2,000 (Srn11 c:�inQ rep_j -. tsilo� ag, business machine L< <nteaa ;ce, electrorwcs: _..clu3ing lab, office and storage) r [.1 1 - - 1 1.a1Po:atvrfma 0 1,500 1 D0 _,500 3,000 (2) 3,000 C3) (lechaical dr aft =mg, ccQercial aft, p iote- sVezhy, law e:.forcen,e.«: including lab and storage) ------------------------------------------------------------- I ------------------ SUB- 'z0!A*_ 27,550 46,300 61.300 -._------------- . $3,206 Page - 5.3 School ?l --nn r 1 1 11 Page - 5.4 ' school FIa. `ing TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) A ..L.OtL:TICAL SPACE pwFiu F43t scpo 7i. raC7I in-rs 7eAT PROVIDE FOR A MODERN EDUCA -11ON PRO"'FJ 6 ` HIGH SGi? CL 1,11 (Continued)' Students 400 900 11200 1,600 Teachins Stations -_ 26 _ 46_ 60 79 Administ:2ti0n and Suvuvrr Areaa Sg.Ft. 5g.Ft. Sa.Ft. Sc Ft. Principal C� 250 250 250 250 -2. 5 0- Assistant Principal 9 200 -- 200 x•00 (2) Lon (2) Secretary /receptionist 0 400 400 400 5C+0 500 Secretary @ 150 150 200 250 200 SV,5 C 200 200 200 200 200 Gu :dance /receptionist W 3110 Other student services @ 200 300 200 500 250 700 300 ?00 350 Workroom /storage @ 200 200 400 600 900 Conference room G 200 200 200 200 200 Record storage 0 100 100 100 100 100 Custodial spacer @ 300 300 350 400.. 500 ' General storage @ 1,D00 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,400 Book stora.ae @ 2,000 . - 600 700 11200 1,400 Media 04-6 sG.ft. /student or 1,600 sq.ft... minimum plus 2,000 sq.ft. ' for support areas +•E50 - 1,000 sq.!.. for computer lab) 5,250 (6) 7,575 (5.25) E,1-50 (4.5) 10,100(4)(2 labs) %ring room (113 7 student body X 12 sq.ft) 4,4C0 3,500 4,800 6,400 X.tchen areas '_.500 600 =,000 600 2.500 900 :,000 900 s.-Acher's lounge Teacher's Workroom @ 600 600 6D0 900 900 Floa :_ag 6 itinerant teacher o =frees 400 (4) 600 (6) S00 (S) 1,000 (10) 0ymnasium /1nrkar rooa /Offices 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 AuxliLary gym 9,D00 10,000 10,000 Auditorium (largest class X 8 ' �q. ./e wdars plus 4,000 rq.ft. for 6tage dressing, room&, storage and lobby 6,400 6,400 7.200 6,500 ' Commo -as a --- ----- --------------------------_.---n---------- 1,000 1,500 700----- ----------------------- 1,500 2,000 1 +DD0___- - - - - -- SUB -=4L 42,550 36,525 64.150 71,400 ' n. =x,1, 70,100 102,825 :.25,450 :34,6D0 Circulation, toilets & Mechanical 2,-,030 0,F, LIP, 31,537 46,380 CRAND ?r+.AI. 9 1,:?D 133,613 _ 163105: 200,950 Sq. ?t. /Student 276 149 =36 =6 Page - 5.4 ' school FIa. `ing TABLE 6 MINIMUM STATE STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ..------------------------------------------ IN NORTH CAROLINA - BY SCHOOL - - - - -- TYPE -- --------------- -- Minimum Minimum ' Student Building Area Land Area School Type Capacity Requirement Requirement --------------------------------------- - - - - -- -------------------- -» - - -- , Elementary School 575 117 Square Feet 10 Acres + One Acre Per Student Per 100 Students ' Middle School 780 126 Square Feet 15 Acres + One Acre Per Student Per 100 Students ' High School 1200 136 Square Feet 30 Acres + One Acre Per Student Per 100 Students ' Source: N.C. Department of Public Instruction, Division of School ' Planning, November, 1990. Page - 5.5 Page - 5.6 TABLE 7 ' COMPARISON OF CURRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILTIES WITH STATE STANDARDS ---------------....__-------------_------------------ - _---- �------ - - - - - -- Building Land School Sq Ft Per Student Size Area Capacity -------------------- _ ' School [SgFt] [Acres] [Students] Building Land _....-..---------------------- ------_---------- -----_,.------------------- ORANGE COUNTY [OC] AND CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO [CH -C] SCHOOLS ' Element----------------------------------------------------------------------- ary G.A.Brown [OC] 74016 20.00 572 129 1523 Cameron Park [OC] 70812 20.38 594 119 1495 ' Central [OC] 52492 25.62 506 104 2206 Efland Cheeks [OC] 64316 20.22 572 112 1540 New Hope [OC] 100164 28.54 594 169 2093 Carrboro [CH -C] 67537 20.81 607 111 1493 ' Ephesus [CH -C] 68661 13.36 471 146 1236 Estes Hills [CH -C] 42468 17.24 522 81 1439 ' F.P. Graham [CH -C] Glenwood [CH -C] 60968 43435 11.24 9.50 584 475 104 91 838 871 - Seawell [CH -C] 63873 28.96 608 105 2075 ' Local Average 64431 19.62 555 116 1540 State Standard 67275 15.75 575 117 1193 Middle ' A.L.Stanback [OC] 72872 13.12 506 144 1129 C.W.Stanford [OC] 107620 32.78 726 148 1967 Culbreth [CH -C] Phillips [CH -C] 112647 103251 35.66 25.00 720 156 2157 740 140 1472 Local Average.. 99098 26.64 673 147 1724 ' State Standard 98280 22.80 780 126 1273 High School ' Orange [OC] 213509 65.30 1518 141 1874 Chapel Hill [CH -C] 253926 75.20 1680 151 1950 ' Local Average 233718 70.25 1599 146 1914 State Standard 163200 42.00 1200 136 1525 ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Orange County School Board, Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board, Orange County Land Records System, and N.C. Department of t Public Instruction. Page - 5.6 Clearly, these standards are significantly higher than both the current "local averages" and the State standards. The higher standards raise the issue of whether the same standards are being applied to both components of the community; i.e., existing development and new development. As indicated previously, if the community wants to raise the existing standards of service, it must identify the existing deficiencies and make provisions to eliminate those deficiencies by means other than impact fees. For the purpose of calculating impact fees for public school facilities, the issue of higher standards suggests again that "local averages" be used. However, neither School Board has formally adopted service standards for public schools, and the use of "local averages" is more a case of historical circumstance than a clear decision on what standards are best for the county. Furthermore, as will be evidenced in this report, the use of State standards shown in Table 6 provides for a more legally defensible and financially affordable system of impact fees. DETERMINING THE COST OF ACCOMMODATING DEVELOPMENT Once physical quantities are established, costs must be determined. The manner in which cost information is obtained or expressed is an important factor in establishing standards because the objective is first to determine capital improvement cost per unit of development and then determine a proportionate share of those costs. It follows that standards, costs, and shares of costs must be in consistent units. The best sources of these data are actual local records. However, local records in terms of new school construction in Orange County are limited. The only new school built in recent years is the New Hope Elementary School,at a cost of approximately $78 per square foot. The same square foot-cost is recommended by the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board for its proposed new elementary schools. Another elementary school for the Orange County School Board would probably have a similar square foot cost. In addition, both Chapel Hill - Carrboro and Orange County School Boards want a new middle school, estimated to cost $80 per square foot. Finally, a new high school proposed by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro system is estimated to cost $92 per square foot. These construction costs are well above the $65 per square foot recommended by the N.C. Department of Public Instruction for school planning purposes. A major reason for this is that the new elementary school as well as the others proposed by the two School Boards are considered to be model schools, containing areas for public use such as auditoriums, gymnasiums, and playfields. Because these schools offer facilities which go beyond meeting the basic educational needs of the community, the cost of $65 per square foot recommended by the State was used in the impact fee calculation. Added to this cost were architectural and engineering fees equal to 10 percent of the construction cost. Also added was the cost of equipment and furnishings, estimated to be equal to 10 percent of Page - 6 fl L� 11 IPage - 7 the construction cost. Both of the additional costs are recommended by the State for school planning purposes. As was the case with building construction costs, limited data was available for land acquisition and site - related development costs. Land for the New Hope Elementary School cost approximately ' $11,000 per acre, while site improvements were approximately seven percent of the building construction cost, including design fees and furnishings. In the case of site development cost, the new elementary school required that public water and sewer service be 1 extended a considerable distance from the Town of Hillsborough system. These costs might be reasonable for a school located in a rural setting, but they could be considerably higher in the chapel ' Hill - Carrboro area. In preparing estimates of construction cost for its proposed new schools, the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School Board found that land prices in areas where schools might be located varied from $24,000 to $30,000 per-acre. Across the Durham County line, land price ' estimates for proposed new elementary schools ranged from $26,000 to $40,000 per-acre. Given the wide range of possible land prices, $25,000 per acre was selected for use in calculating impact fees. It not only represents the midpoint in the range of prices, but it ' reflects the low end of the price scale in urban settings. Site development costs include a wide array of improvements, ' ranging from playfields, entrance drives, car /bus parking lots, landscaping, and utility lines to new stadiums for high schools. For elementary and middle schools proposed by the Chapel Hill- ' Carrboro School Board. such costs represented 10 percent of the total building construction cost, including design fees and furnishings. For a high school, the cost increased to 25 percent, principally because of the need for a stadium. Across the Durham ' County line, site development costs represented 14 percent of total building construction cost. Because of the variation in site development cost, the midpoint of 15 percent was selected for use ' in calculating impact fees. Using the cost data outlined above and N.C. Department of ' Public Instruction standards for school capacity and square feet of building area per student, the construction cost of elementary, middle, and high schools as well as the capital cost per student for each type of facility may be calculated. These calculations are ' shown in Table S. Multiplying the service provision standards, per demand unit, by the capital cost per unit of service establishes the capital ' improvement cost per unit of development. This also may be expressed as a formula: ' Total Cost = Needed Improvements x Cost Per Unit Detailed calculations of the capital improvement cost associated with each type of housing unit are presented in Table 9. IPage - 7 TABLE 8 CALCULATION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES CAPITAL COST BY SCHOOL TYPE AND PER STUDENT ORANGE COUNTY, NC Elementary Middle High School School School Building Area [Square Feet] Site [Acres] Capacity [Students] Building Cost Per Square Foot Land Cost Per Acre Construction Cost Architectural br'Engineering Equipment & Furnishings Total Construction Cost Plus: Land Cost Site - Related Costs Total Cost Construction Cost, Per Student Total Construction Land & Site- Related Total Cost, Per Student 67275 98280 162000 15.75 22.80 42.00 575 780 1200 $65 $65 $65 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $4,372,875 $6,388,200 $10,530,000 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% $5,247,450 $7,665,840 $12,636,000 J 1 J Is $393,750 $570,000 $1,050,000 $787,118 $1,149,876 $1,895,400 $6,428,318 $9,385,716 $15,581,400 ' $9,126 $9,828 $10,530 ' $2,054 $2,205 $2,455 $11,180,• $12,033 $12,985 Page - 7. 1 Ll TABLE 9 PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS AND COSTS - ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. ' Building Area [SgFti, Per�„Student Elementary School 117 117 Middle School 126 126 ' High School 135 135 Land A ag S Ft Per Student ' Elementary School 1193 1193 Middle School 1273 1273 High School 1525 1525 Construction Cost Per Student Elementary School $9,126 $9,126 Middle School $9,828 $9,828 High School $10,530 $10,530 Site Cost. Per Student Elementary School $2,054 $2,054 Middle School $2,205 $2,205 High School $2,455 $2,455 ' Total Capital Cost Per Student Elementary School $11,180 $11,180 Middle School $12,033 $12,033 ' High School $12,985 $12,985 LI Capital Cost, Per Dwellina Uni Elementary School $2,415 $1,252 Middle School $1,251 $614 High School $1,558 $740 Total $5,225 $2,606 Page - 7.2 117 126 135 1193 1273 1525 $9,126 $9, 828 $10,530 $2,054 $2,205 $2,455 $11,180 $12,033 $12,985 $805 $421 $519 $1,746 117 117 126 126 135 135 1193 1193 1273 12'73 1525 1525 $9,126 $9,126 $9,828 $9,828 $10,530 $10,530 $2,054 $2,054 $2,205 $2,205 $2,455 $2,455 $11,180 $11,180 $12,033 $12,033 $12,985 $12,985 $1,196 $686 $935 $2,817 $1,643 $842 $831 $3,317 Type of Development Duplex - -- Single T Triplex G Garden M Mobile Family Q Quadplex A Apartment T Townhouse H Home Public School Children, P Per Dwelling Unit Elementary School 0 0.216 ^ 0.112 0 0.072 0 0.107 0 0.147 Middle School 0 0.104 0 0.051 0 0.035 0 0.057 0 0.070 High School 0 0.120 0 0.057 0 0.040 0 0.072 0 0.064 Total 0 0.440 0 0.220 0 0.147 0 0.236 0 0.281 Building Area [SgFti, Per�„Student Elementary School 117 117 Middle School 126 126 ' High School 135 135 Land A ag S Ft Per Student ' Elementary School 1193 1193 Middle School 1273 1273 High School 1525 1525 Construction Cost Per Student Elementary School $9,126 $9,126 Middle School $9,828 $9,828 High School $10,530 $10,530 Site Cost. Per Student Elementary School $2,054 $2,054 Middle School $2,205 $2,205 High School $2,455 $2,455 ' Total Capital Cost Per Student Elementary School $11,180 $11,180 Middle School $12,033 $12,033 ' High School $12,985 $12,985 LI Capital Cost, Per Dwellina Uni Elementary School $2,415 $1,252 Middle School $1,251 $614 High School $1,558 $740 Total $5,225 $2,606 Page - 7.2 117 126 135 1193 1273 1525 $9,126 $9, 828 $10,530 $2,054 $2,205 $2,455 $11,180 $12,033 $12,985 $805 $421 $519 $1,746 117 117 126 126 135 135 1193 1193 1273 12'73 1525 1525 $9,126 $9,126 $9,828 $9,828 $10,530 $10,530 $2,054 $2,054 $2,205 $2,205 $2,455 $2,455 $11,180 $11,180 $12,033 $12,033 $12,985 $12,985 $1,196 $686 $935 $2,817 $1,643 $842 $831 $3,317 LI Capital Cost, Per Dwellina Uni Elementary School $2,415 $1,252 Middle School $1,251 $614 High School $1,558 $740 Total $5,225 $2,606 Page - 7.2 117 126 135 1193 1273 1525 $9,126 $9, 828 $10,530 $2,054 $2,205 $2,455 $11,180 $12,033 $12,985 $805 $421 $519 $1,746 117 117 126 126 135 135 1193 1193 1273 12'73 1525 1525 $9,126 $9,126 $9,828 $9,828 $10,530 $10,530 $2,054 $2,054 $2,205 $2,205 $2,455 $2,455 $11,180 $11,180 $12,033 $12,033 $12,985 $12,985 $1,196 $686 $935 $2,817 $1,643 $842 $831 $3,317 $9,126 $9,126 $9,828 $9,828 $10,530 $10,530 $2,054 $2,054 $2,205 $2,205 $2,455 $2,455 $11,180 $11,180 $12,033 $12,033 $12,985 $12,985 $1,196 $686 $935 $2,817 $1,643 $842 $831 $3,317 $1,196 $686 $935 $2,817 $1,643 $842 $831 $3,317 The costs per dwelling unit are indicative of what impact fees for public school facilities would be before any adjustments are made. PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF CAPITAL COSTS The standard to which impact fees will be held is that the fees not exceed a proportionate share of the costs that local government will incur to accommodate new development. Normally, new development will pay towards capital improvements in the form of general taxation, debt service, and other payments. The task is to calculate how much of capital costs are covered by these payments. whatever is not paid would then be paid through impact fees. Among those factors which should be considered in establishing a proportionate share of capital costs are the following: 1. The cost of existing facilities; 2. The means by which existing facilities were financed; 3. The.extent to which new development has already contributed to the cost of providing existing facilities; 4. The extent to which new development will, in the future, contribute to the cost of constructing existing facilities (through debt service or other payments]; 5. The extent to which new development should receive credit for providing facilities required as a condition of development or construction approval; 6. Extraordinary costs'in serving the new development; and o 7. The time -price differential inherent in fair comparisons I of amounts paid at different times. Payments By NeM Development T2Xgr Capital Cost To determine how capital improvements have been financed, the fiscal structuring of the community must be examined. Each type of facility needs to be analyzed in terms of how it was financed and also in terms of how new development will contribute toward capital finance in the future. It would be unfair to require new development to pay some portion of either existing or future capital improvements and also require them to be totally responsible for the capital improvement costs that new development will need. Thus, a system of "credits" must be identified which recognizes the extent to which to which new developments have already contributed to and will pay for (in the future) the cost of existing capital improvements. Property Tau Revenues. Bonds, whether general obligation or revenue, are commonly used to finance infrastructure. Where general obligation bonds are used, the debt incurred by the approval and issuance of such bonds is generally retired through the use of Page - 8 ' property tax revenues. For example, of Orange County's outstanding general obligation bonds in FY 1991 -92, $31,400,000 had been issued for public schools. Total debt service payments on these bonds, ' including principal and interest, will amount to $2,961,400 in FY 1991 -92. Of that amount, $778,889 is to be paid using property tax revenues. The remainder is paid from sales tax proceeds [see ' discussion of "Sales Tax Revenues" below]. Assuming a 98 percent tax collection rate, the amount is equivalent to $.0216 of the current tax rate [$.805 per $100 valuation]. If applied to a single - family home with an average value of $135,674 in 1990, the ' debt service payment would be $29. The amounts of concern in impact fee calculation are not one- ' time payments. Rather, the amounts of concerns are annual payments. This means that there will be a payment in one year, in two years, in three years, etc. Thus, the time -price differential issue becomes one of how to deal with a stream of payments over a number ' of years in the future, resulting in a need to cut off the analysis at some point.-Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws ' establishes a cut off point by requiring Orange County to "estimate the total cost-of improvements ... that will be needed... during a reasonable planning period not to exceed 20 years." For purposes of this analysis, the cut off point is six years, the period of time used by Orange County in its annual Capital Improvements Plan [CIP] for financial planning purposes. Beginning with the FY 1992 -93 CIP, it is also the period of time within which the new school facilities identified by the School Bond Committee and listed below ' will be needed. ' Fiscal Year School Type School „Eoard FY 1994 -95 Middle Chapel Hill - Carrboro FY 1995 -96 Middle Orange County ' FY 1996 -97 High School Chapel Hill - Carrboro FY 1997 -98 Elementary Chapel Hill- Carrboro ' Elementary Orange County ' Based on the school capital needs above, the task then becomes the provision of fair and reasonable consideration for annual payments toward capital improvements costs over a period of six years. Shown on Tables 10 and 11 are the debt service requirements ' during the capital improvement program period. Three different debt service amounts from property taxes are identified. The first amount involves debt incurred prior'to 1988. When a bond issue was approved for school improvements in the late 19701s, the initial debt service payment to retire the bonds was approximately $800,000. The Board of Commissioners adopted a policy holding the amount constant even though the annual debt service payment would decrease. As shown on Table 11, the actual debt service on payment pre -1988 debt decreased from $602,100 in FY 1992 -93 to $490,500 in FY 1993 -94. The difference between the debt service payments and ' the $800,000 derived from property taxes is pledged to finance school capital projects. For the six -year capital improvement Page - 9 1 I 1 a 1 Sa rl 01 1 1 � 10 H I roroO+1 1 � i co i ,tim+ lmr a n 110 > 1 01De'1 1 OC 1 1 N N 41 1 1 1 V >V >V1• 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 O I I 1 01 I I 1 O1 I co 1 1 P4 1 01 1 1 I 01 1 I I r0i i i n 7+ I 1 11 1 W I 1 11 1 I 1 OI 1 E I 1 r0•I 1 I I I e•1 1 1 1 01 1 I 1 13, 1 1 10 I rl 1 1 O1 1 a+i roia W i am.' i .O1•l I irl x 1 0 1 1 a i ••m+ 1 41 i 1 Cr 1 O1 1 w i i v 0 r7 1 1 Im 1 ra •C 1 1 r4 1 W N I 1 1 aui i i 0 1 1 1 1 0% 1 O 1 1 1 U 1 1 1 M 1 ( 1 cG I 1 1 ai iol Q•i 1 1 N I W 1 1 0, 1 1 1 rl I 01 W 1 1 1 Ua 1 1 °1 1 wi al I x 1 I w 1 1 m U 0 y m a W a 1 1 1 1 I I 0% M N 41 N c0 1D co d' rl to co Go 04 a% O 0m N C1 In V> VY V! 41 41 O n 10 ar 1D rN CO 01 r1N rf n rt coon N N In I ccmr 0%D I In 0 w co m I nep4lavr I • l�1 1 la I: 100 I rI 0 C4 r1 1 rl 10 n I N H 11 V1• V> W. n�r•lvco 1 N01N�'l•'I I 1+10 Sri VY I 410410 1 co ri 01 rl 1 m cc 'i I N rla I Vl• W. Vl• I 0 01 01 10 n I ar0•mr1M 1 n al t0 c0 #A I r•l m IL') 0 1 n N 01 r1f 1 N n 0% 1 N rl c'1 I I m cc '•1 N 01 rl n 1a I 1 Ova 1DOnmm 1 I 1 al•7eo 41OM47VY 1 Re 1 d'1Pa mrIoo 1-1 I O M dv 1D dv 0 •-1 iJ I 1 nna ri1OCD MCM4i e1imcn i a � yrVrvr Vrvr� 1 � 1 1 O I 1 (1 41 tiv In n (4 1041 1 -A I 1 10 Rp rl e•1 N 10 a r1 1 41 I 1 10 a n In lO rl a1 Vl 1 0 1 4i lc ri on ao 1 rmi I Infl%af4 0te)%1"" I O I 1 NNIn NrIP'1 1 U I 1 Vi VJ• Vt VY Vf V} I dr I 1 I Cl) I mm la b'01r•1�a i 1 r•1 a 10 rl 1D W N en 1 1 1 00101 Ir rwuo44&I C 1 I C'n, N01rla 1 O 1 1 41 O m 10 co 41 rl I •H I 1 mv'.0 14J 1 1 N N rl l•1 1 0 1 1 V> V> Vt VY % 4" I ri I I I l0 I 1 WO Co 101aN CID gr 1 I 1 0W%D binC4co rf 1 b I 1 Nn O1 O1NN QI V> 1 m 1 1 n I to I I %ari01 co0inrn 1 to 1 I l•1 1D Q1 10 r1 co I m I 1 l•1 l') 10 cD ll N I 10 1 1 NN7 M r4 M I o, I 1 vrVr yr vs yr yr i G 1 10 I 1 1 4 r, b J 1 iml 1 0 1 W m 4 1 a 1 i 4J 1 NN O 1 3 1 i �� 1 m I C7 I 111 C roC 1 W .141 L7 1 rl N qJ m I ro l b l O 0 •C Om�' 1 1 O 1 dP N aM .••1 1 1 �6 1 COp � r0•I O I ref I 1 it 4.1 0 4x'f 1 0) 40 a rl •N.r UOJ I x l "i U qr amIE x l NNP4 m m mrl oil l I 1 m Z Z 0 ri r1 m •r�l •r�l 1 74 1 i a4l°"0"a •�•0 41 l41al04 1 ai N 1 IX it it Cw rr U 1 W 1 ad i � N � 0 o1"i 1 2 1 071 c4alal Page -400 co 00 41 O N noo OOH co co Vs O v N O 1p N0co aorl � � O co co W. M • ur V' V> N a 01 1-I o rl � � O 000 0 co W. V). N a yr 01on a O O1 O r1 N O a !+1 CD Vl• v> a vr• n O r1 rl O 4 noo f4 m V2 C; or a 41001 n00 00N - 0 O O co a O 01 co V} 40 07 r1 cow O O 'i 41 0 N N a Inca m co V} t/} n M v► m a ro V m r+ m m m m O -4 �mq' .P-1 rl ••-1 a to r-I of aUla 90� tea► y 41 Nm0a m O x ,114E 9.1 rfm0 eo0m 41 C0 N -o or°tio CC a v>• . yr O V► N n O N c0 C7 d' 0 N rl 01 0 0 W Q co 01 V► -vs r'7 d' N 010 N n l'1 C1 N N P'1 O a 0100 VJ- Vr N a at 00 V r•l M w c•1 N .p N N 1D In a e•1 a vt • yr r, a n41O rl In m n rl N 0 Inn OO r♦ m V3, V O IV Ic1 rl a n o1 r1 a n N .O CD CO cc n 0 o a yr cD y (•1 V> 00a%a0'1 InWN N 1.) 0 InIn0 a O W. n M 0 0 r1 I& m _ a r O •.I a •ri .a U v � U ro a m 41 m i1 Ia moa m @O@ x 4�CE ra n V . rl n 1D 0410 o%OW O a NOS NIn41 v1'1n rl rl � co v O co 41 V► m n d' V> V} N O n N1n N f•1 c•1 1D M t)• . 0010 %anVr N 1D a yr O1 0 a alma •i NW 1D r1 0 m o Vr ri 1D non M 41 rl na� O d� yr 1n O N nom 0On - W /a O co D1 O Q1 n Vi CO N 41 0 0 N 41 0 c0 V? n m Vr rI 0 a co co a v m I to 0m 01 1 nlno� 0 r- co Mv>N I O � 1 c Vr I � 1 N 0 0 0 1 NON O1 1 d O I.1 a 1 v1tn0N I aon0Ol co m Vr Vs 1 1 ri r•1 1 � � 1 � I NO000 1 N O N n l 1.1 O M M 1 +O N 1 0n001 1a M yr V!• 1 N rl 1 � � I � I I D1ornrN 1 v 0 l•1 In 1 b'a IIN 1 .O N 1 N 1n • • 1 1Dnoo 1 P1 r1 V► V1 1 rl rr 1 yr 1 1 no 010 1 rI0v0 1 r-0m01 . 1 C! n u1 N I 41no0 1 m e+1 to Vt 1 O rl 1 V1. i In00H I•o1Dm I a0¢rl 1 , 41 • • 1 con001 o n yr yr I I c0 r1 I M � I fA 1 00r11O 1 OOnr1 1 In 0 1"I co 1 •o a 1 N lc1 I ulnoo 1 CD Cl V!• V>' I I n ri I m V? 1 ur 1 u 1 1 vl a rt ro a _ _ m N m it m C o KL• 0 0 Vr d x aIa 4J .� m r♦ m arop v a m m +ml tr iml x mil ro r. my ro it x F wo am )0 4 Em C E 4 4J E u 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� eT m l M 1 i 1a r1g1i ir%ami.aiu�i 1 ro ro q+ l 1 +N 1 + 1 1 m7ro 1 I LL11i 1 1 I 'CO l 1 10 7 1 1 U► 1 1 1 rt 1 I I r l I 1 I I Ur 1 tll 1 1 1 I I 1 1+ I I 1 I N m m l 0 1 ro 1 I 1 I M N N I v l CO 1 I CD 1 I r 41 M I N I 1 I 1 1 1 0 m 1 0 1 -4 1 I r 1 1 01 I eCI 1 O 1 1 01 1 I en 1 r 1 O 1 11 1 vy 1 - 1 A 10 1 I H I 1 I n l U 4• 1 I I 1 1 Vt 1 y 11 1 1 I I I r l I I I 1 I O 01 1 1 1 1 n O r+ m I 1 0• C1 1 31 01 1 1 I I n N I 1 O H 1 I n I I 01 %0 U1 1 CD I A 1 I 01 1 I -M 1 - I L1 7e 1 1 1 1 I r1 I If1 1 1 i W 1 1 t0 1 I n 1 0 1 ro q i i rn i i M i L: i u �1 1 I rl 1 I I n l 1 OI I 1 1 1 I 1 x 1 I I I 1 m m m I co 1 N 1 I 1 I N If1 N 1 O 1 r4 01 I 1 10 1 I r N 411, I a 1 N 01 1 1 01 1 1 en 1 - 1 0. rl 1 I I I 1 0• -4 1 N 1 e0 1 11 1 1 1 110 1 CD 1 .0 7e 1 10 1 01 1 1 M I N I u W I m 1 C% 1 I fo 1 - 1 1 >4 1 rl 1 1 I r I r 'C 1 1 1 1 1 Iv�l roC C7 1 ro I I r+l 1 l a •'�x I U I I m 1 m d' CO I CO I 71 A H I m I 1 a I N a N 1 M 1 +1 +1 W 0 1 M1 1 1C1 1 iJ 1 .� CO v! 1 v I C C J 1 k1 1 01 1 ro I M Grr 1 1 H I 1D 1 m U E I 1 d1 1 y1 1 e'I 1 0 1 7 z 1 101 1 10 1 UY 1 -1 O m m I Is7 1 1 r 1 14 a1 P4 1 1 1 C I- I I H 1.1 r4iUi i iwin(C30fmvivir-lq 1 1 Rp 1 4) 1 01 M q" I r+1 1 OR W 1] 1 1 01 1 Iz 1 -N 1 + 1' O ►7 0 1 1 1 1 1 M 21 1 01 1 -.1 sa 030 I ( n 1 x 1 Ln 1 in 1 A" eS pC l I E U 1 I 0O1 t 1 E ro 11 VM 1 C- 1 1110 '0 N 1 I H 1 I 1 10 1 m 1 1 I m 1 1 N I r C U I I I� 1 1 I ate 1H.1 1 1 I U l ro r m 01 1 'n I N 41 Rl 1 1 I C I rl N N I M I a\ A M I M I 1f1 01 U! 1 01 1 Ot O a l I M I 1 - rI I + 1 r1 1 1 1 1 ql 1 a r1 1 01 1 a iJ I v I LL7 1 >1 {A W 1 1 01 I Ia 1 U>• I- I w b 1 1 rl 1 0 W I 1 1 L e 1 1� 1 b U 0 u l I U i i 1 s b 1 1 011 I I q� tq 1 1 r+ 1 1 I Oat Do iyi ro i i ai41 4U13 i ❑i 101 b i i00 ai ii m idlos i i i +4J+� i i e%12 i ixi >1 i ioi oo m al 9 I IaI 1�� I I M 1 A I H 1 0b I I D I UI 04 1 of 1 .4 1 I III I N G4 1 F! l y m 1 U l ri l >, w 1 Gi) 1 go 1 1 1 0 1 rl 1 a 1 O w 1 811211 1 +4 iJ 1 I A I roC I 1 107 QI I y 1 N 1 b 1 (i I E OC 1 a I 1 m J 1 to I •• 1 a l u 1 +1 a1 y1 I 1 0 1 C I H I C 4014 1 07 1 U 1 411.71 01)► 1 91 14 1 7 1 m I O W w I E 1 0 1 41 l b 1 a N I Q 1 0 I a I a 1 440. N fi Page - 9 . 2 cn aW a EO H 0 W G4 ?C W N "J N W CD Ewa x a+ rt 1 xa aaa oaxx EWE EN w DO+ u� a 0 0 x U N U M a m a (D C 109 7 .0 w .ro al ro' III w I 0\ 1 1 � I 1 rl 1 I I I I 1 1 I O► 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 I Cn I 1 rl 1 I 1 1 1 1 m I 1 IL1 1 I Q1 1 1 rl 1 a. 1 o+ H I It O+ 1 M O1 o+ 1 1 1 N 1 0 1 rl ' I , I n O M n O v 0 1 1 0 0 r10 n0 1 � � O WC10rly 1 1 m O01 mIn InM 1 I N Orllnnmv 1 I n ooO1�DMMO 1 110 U!•U► rl I 1 4* 1 1 1 I rl 0 n00N0 1 1 N OppinOc+1Q1 1 1 p' ooMOnln 1 I to OOtpinOV 1 1 O 000Vno+c+ 1 1 A OOIo MMN 1 1 U}Y> Vi In 1 1 I a n r1 1 vt vs as N 1 1 Vr 1 1 I OI OMOONtn 1 I 1 M or-OOnv 1 m O N M O O1 N I It1 OOvInvO 1 1 O OmO�nn0 1 1 0+ Co Mr-MMM t 1�+ In+M p1 1 U} V} V> rl 1 1 +A I I 1 I rl 0000Lnm 1 1 C- O 'i U1 O N LL1 1 1 M O M M 0 n n 1 1 Ln ONmOMM 1 10 OMMN%Dm I 1 CD WOOMMN 1 1 M W .4 M 1 1 U> U> U} M 1 U). i IN OMOONCO I I m OMMONO 1 1 r1 OrlpC e1 4 1 i Rr 0 m 0 m n m 1 N 0001ninin 1 I m w o r- M M M 1 i as M. .0 r4 i 1 yr 1 1 M ar100oa 1 1 0 0 M 0 O n v 1 LL1 onOO a\M r-4 OWWOMM 1 M On Mr. LA L9 1 I v coconMMm 1 N vinoonln I N 001U}OrIM N ar+ vina, I n OM Lei pO\ (0 0 to n p In N co co MMm 1A 1A .#J3- I M M b I 91. W. 9). 1 I CS 1 1 1 � al � I N• 1 1 O ar +•I• I E+ 1 a m b er i lyi i 1 +O •I a01 ~ A4 m 1 g (w) 1 0.4 N� U rl l a l O I E4 co 0 ,0 I N I W i E •I� rOI E 1 i$4 04 1� i O I w I CO N 'X 4 1 O1 0 d cc a1 U +1 E 1 1 1 0 a1'aM 0 OP40 1 E 1 I rI O W rI rt 9 A EI 1 10 1 I , 1 u1MnkDw I N Q rl N n I 1 In CO M M0 1 tn 1 �D C1m01rf I 1 LnMw 1 Vr4 1 1 VrVrU> I I � o n000 Ln i OCO4ION 1 toOr9n1• I OO+vInCn 1 O1 COpvm 1 V). O 1 V!• V1 w1 1 to 1 OrnO�nln OnInChN 1 O N M O n I C10p NO\ 1 rt m o► In rl 1 In a% cn 1 US• 1A . + I W � O 1 V} 40 U1 1 O O O In 1n O. -ILL1mN In M M In n In N 10 MM M M H M N In 01OrIm V3. I& + m r1 to fA Uh U1 0tn000 CDtn0NN Or1�N ao aouio'eoi In 001Nn 0o+nNp Vk U) + arin I U> UY U} I Or ccno I In O+ a 0 In I O n o OI n l 0 ao ri m I con0.1m I In COnM1n I 01, 01, I N rl In I N U► U> I a In, a v In 1 O 0% UJ• Cq n I rf rl • M. m I NM Mco I �m ac fA OP . I rl N 1 v >Vr 1 0 M al al mm a aH E+AOvx O O E 012,00 p, Co a) n 0 wr4 I' va G4 1 aD N ca /C dOM E+ e wmat e0 �ariri 4 Ok Page - 9.3 I I In o O v T l O l novnm 1 .n I aOnrIC1 I v I Mu1m Inc 1 M In n N m N I v NMLLf MM i M V!•1A Ur 1 rI I I tn• I OOMNIn 1 O 1 O o M M m 1 0 1 u'fOmnO 1 In I M M M O v 1 p 1 MMrIMN 1 N I rl M M I In 1 UJ• U> 1 rt I 1 Y► 1 a0Mno i In 11 O O v n N 1 p 1 O O In O1 In I N I nlciMRr0 0 1 Conpnm 1 a 1 NMOMO� 1 M 1 V> fA I - 1 a1 N v l v l t? to VY 1 rl 1 I � I OOIDU1rl 1 m I 000 NM 1 In I In0con0 1 n I p 11'I In C1 1n 1 CO 1 mnmmn 1 QI I N M m M m 1 N 1 U► + VI. 1 1 rl N p 1 M 1 sf!• U► UY I r1 1 I U! • I QaNrIM 1 CD 1 OOeN CIS m 1 co 1 00OIA0 I Co 1 NLL9nnN 1 r4 1 p n of In l• 1 In 1 NMMMM 1 CO 1 W- 4& 1 I .-1 N, v 1 rl 1 V2. W- U) 1 rl 1 1 10 1 ooaoaipi InannD,, 1 v 1 CI O It O1 In I M I +I +I M O M M O 1 0 I rInMInco 1 in 1 N MrIMO I m 1 rl N v 1 O1 I avMno 1 u1 1 OOprlm 1 M I O1 0 0 1L'I N 1 T I • 1 I n Ie� M p rI 1 a+ 1 a►nmpw I In I rIM eOMn I m I yr -vr • 1 - I rl rl M 1 m I 1A 1A yr 1 /A I I 1 N 1 1 N 1 I IO K, 1 i X 4J EE4 i +1 E >T a► r b i o 4 P r-1 O 41uroia aia Q. 0 I r7 I q A Id EI N 1 E 1 MAU IOi O I N I W 111W O C AO I rL' 1 w Co "4 14 I u 1 al OI LI 01 N ro U r n oibwdbr-I 1 s 1 6aa 6AE+ O� h l0n i a as rn E U W O a a E N a u W U ail wl °II ml a 1 1 1 r ro M r a 4J C a► r 7 O la Q. N ri r ro 04 ro U r n I N O� O rl w ro a, ro r C v ra C O ro 01 N ro A C O 41 ro M A ro E r ai u >a 0 0 r program period, the tax rate required to generate the $800,000 will decline from $.0216 to $.0186 per $100. The average annual tax rate is $.0200 per $100 valuation. The second amount results from a Board of Commissioners policy dedicating a portion [$.023 per $100 valuation] of the County's overall tax rate to debt service payments on bonds issued from 1988 to the present. As shown on Table 11, revenues received from this source will increase from $853,195 in FY 1992 -93 to $989,087 in FY 1997 -98, with average annual revenue of $919 803. Furthermore combined property tax revenues ax annual debt service requirements. sales tax revenues, a separate re below. e not sufficient to meet they This difference is made up from venue source which is discussed IPage - 10 The third amount would result from dedicating a portion ' [$.1164 per $100 valuation] of the County's overall tax rate to debt service payments on bonds which may be issued for new school improvements during the CIP period. A $50.0 million bond issue is to be voted on in November, 1992 to finance the construction cost of two new middle schools and a new high school. A second bond issue vote ($24.0 million) will be necessary in the latter part of ' the CIP period to finance the construction cost of two new elementary schools. The debt service requirements for these new schools during the capital improvement program period are shown on Tables 10 and 11. ' In addition to debt service payments, property tax revenues are also used to pay for recurring capital needs. In the FY 1991 -92 budget, $750,000 was appropriated to each school district for such ' items, including vehicle replacement, equipment and furnishings, and site development and building renovations. Of these items, all but vehicle replacement [$125,000] would -be considered as school ' building capital needs. Total appropriations were thus $1,375,000, an amount equivalent to $.0382 of the current tax rate [$.805 per $100 valuation]. Assuming the Board of Commissioners continues to ' appropriate similar amounts during the six -year capital improvement program period, the average annual tax rate required to generate these funds would be $.0344 per $100 valuation [see Table 101. ' Collectively, the average annual tax rate required to generate funding for debt service and recurring capital needs during the six -year capital improvement program period would be $.1938 per ' $100 valuation [see Table 10]. If applied to a single - family home with an average value of $135,674 in 1990, property taxes would amount to $263. However, payments received in the future have a ' lower value than in the present. The difference between the future and present value is interest. Using the current bond interest rate of seven percent (7 %), a property tax payment of $263 to be received one year from now is worth $246 in the present. The method for calculating the value is to divide the present future amount, $263, by one plus the interest rate (expressed in decimal form), or $263 divided by 1.07 equals $246. The difference, $17, is interest ' at 7 %. The general formulation is thus: IPage - 10 Present Value = Future Amount n (1 + i) where n is the number of years between the present.and when the amount is to be received, and i is the interest rate. Rather than the calculations above, the present value table shown in Table 12 provides "multipliers" or "factors" that may be multiplied by the annual payment to arrive at the present value of a stream of payments. In the example above, in which the interest rate is seven percent and the term is six years, the present value factor or multiplier is 4.76654. This means that the annual payment of $263 would be multiplied by 4.76654 to arrive at present value. Thus, the present value of $263 per year for six years would be $1,253. From Table 9, the capital cost per single- family unit for new schools is $5,225. The net cost for new schools would thus be $3,972, the total capital cost minus the present value of payments toward property taxes for debt service and recurring.capital. In order.'to calculate the credit due for debt service payments, it is necessary to have some basis for estimating the value of different types of dwelling units in Orange County. Using 1990 Census information from the N.C. State Data Center, it is - possible to calculate the average value of owner occupied homes, by housing type. This information is shown in Table 13. By multiplying that portion of the tax rate [$.1938 per $100 valuation] to be used for debt service and recurring capital by the average value of each housing type, it is possible to identify the amount of credit to be given to each type of housing unit. These calculations are shown on Table 14. It should be noted that due to data limitations, average values could not be calculated for all housing types. In the calculations in Table 14, the average value of two unit structures [$147,800] was assigned to the "Duplex, Triplex, Quadplex" category and the average value of three or more unit structures [$69,867] was assigned to the "Garden Apartment" category. sales Tax Rid venues. Owners of undeveloped land do not pay sales taxes on that land. However, they do pay property taxes. If property taxes have financed facilities, even in part, local governments should determine the value of those payments [see discussion of "Property Tax Revenues" above]. On the other hand, if payments for facilities came from State sales tax rebates, they probably cannot be attributed.to vacant land prior to development. Orange County offers a somewhat different situation. In 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a one -half cent local option sales tax based on the provisions of Article 40 of G.S. 105. Although the statute indicated that 40 percent of the proceeds from the sales tax could be used to finance public school capital projects and /or retire debt on such projects carried out within the five preceding years, Orange County elected to use 80 percent of the proceeds for these purposes. Two years later, in 1986, another 1 i� 11 Page - 11 1 1 ` Page 1 y Table 12 - Present Value Factors 1 Discount Rate ' Years 5 Percent 6 Percent 7 Percent 8 Percent 9 Percent 10 Percent 11 Percent 1 0.95238 0.94340 '• 0.93458 0.92593 0.91743 0.90909 0.90090 2 1.85941 1.53339 1.80502 1.78326 1.75911 1.73554 1.71252 3 .72325 2.67301 2.62432 2.57710 2.53129 2.48685 2.443:2 4 3.54595 3.46511 3.38T 1 3.31213 3.239;` 3.16957 3.10245 5 4.32948 4,21236 4.10020 3.99171 3.88965 3.79079 3.69590 6 5.07569 4.91732 4.76654 4.62185 4.48592 4.35526 4.23054 7 5.78637 5.55238 5.35929 5.20637 5.03195 4.86842 4.71220 8 6.46321 6.20979 5.97130 5.74664 5.53452 5.33493 5.14612 9 7.10782 6.80169 6.5157.3 6.24689 5.99525 5.75902 5.53705 10 7.72173 7.36009 7.01358 6.71008 6.41766 6.144'57 5.88923 11 6.30641 7.88657 7.49867 7.13896 6.50519 6.49506 6.20651 12 5.86325 8.3SSS4 7.93269 7.53608 7.16073 6.81369 6.49236 13 9.39357 8.85268 5,35765 7.90378 7.48690 7.10336 6.74957 14 9.89864 9.2 0498 Y 8.74547 8.24424 7.78615 7.36669 6.98187 15 10.37966 9.71_25 9.10791 S.55945 8.06069 7.60606 7.19057 ' 16 10.8377 .1.0,10590 9.43665 8.85137 8.3:256 7.S2371 7.37916 17 11.27407 10.47736 9.76322 9.12164 8.54363 8.02155 7.54579 18 11.68959 1C.S2760 10.05909 9.37159 5.75563 S ?0141 7.70161 19 12.03532 11,15S12 10.33560 9.60360 5.95011 8.36492 ;.83020 ' 20 L' . 4622 i 11.4 6991- 10.5194C1 9.5115 9.12555 5.51356 7.96333 21 11.51115 11.76405 10.53553 10.01650 9.29224 8.64569 5.07507 ' 23 23 13.16300 13.48557 12.04155 i2.30338 11.0612; 11.27219 10 ?0074 10.37106 9.44343 9.58021 8.77154 8.88522) 5.17574 6.26643 24 13.79864 11.55036 11.46933 10.52576 9.70661 8.98474 8.34814 25 14.09394 13.75336 11.65358 10.67475 9.121 9.07704 5.42174 ' 26 14.37519 13.00317 11.52575 10.80996 9.92597 9.16095 S.43S06 27 14.64303 13.11053 11.9867]. 10.935i6 10.02658 9.2377.2 8.54750 28 14.89813 13.40616 1.13711 11.05105 1,0.11613 9.30657 8.60162 1 29` 30 15.14107 15.37145 13.59072 13.76453 12.17767 12.40904 11.15541 10.19838 9.36961 8.65011 11.15775 10.27365 9.42691 5.69379 31 15.59151 13.92909 11.53151 11.34950 1C.34230 9.47901 8.73315 ' 31 33 15.80168 16.00255 14.0540-; 14.:3023 11.64656 11.75379 11.43500 ' ».51359 10.4062=, 1C.46444 9.52635 9.56943 5.76560 34 16.19390 i4.S6S14 11.55401 1_.5569S 10.51754 9.60557 8.80054 8.52931 35 16.57119 1 >.49525 72.94767 :1.65457 10.56661 9.64416 5.555'_4 ' 36 16.54685 14.61099 1 Oi2zz 7'- 719 10.61176 9.67651 S.S7359 37 16.71119 14.73678 13.11701 11.T51S 10.65299 9.7059? 6.89963 38 16.86789 14.84601 13.19347 ..1.82587 10.69051 9.73165 8.91859 39 40 17.01704 17.15909 14.94907 15.04630 13.26493 13.33171 11.67E5S 11.91461 10.72352 10.75736 9.75696 9.77905 8.93567 8.95105 1 ` Page 1 y Page - 11.2 1 TABLE 13 r CALCULATION OF AVERAGE VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE AND TOWNSHIP FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC -------------------------- - - - - -- 1990-- ' ____ - - -. -------------- Owner - - - --- Average Aggregate Occupied Value Housing Type Value Units Per Unit ' BINGHAM TOWNSHIP - __---- --- - -- 'Single Family 1, Detached $133,975,500 1190 $112,584 1, Attached $2,067,500 8 $258,438 , Multi Family 2 $0 0 3 or More Units $132,500 2 $66,250 Mobile Home $15,339,000 514 $29,842 , Other $1,562,500 12 $130,208 Total ------------ - - - - -$ 153_ 077_ 000----- 1726 $88,689 ' CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -------------- - - - - -- '. SingleFa mily---------___.....----------------- 1, Detached $75,243,000 791 $95,124 1, Attached $65,000 2 $32,500 Multi Family ' 2 $0 0 3 or More Units Mobile Home $142,500 $9,765,500 3 261 $47,500 $37,416 ' Other $947,500 10 $94,750 --------------------------------------- Total---------------- -$86, 163, 500----- - - ------------------------ - 1067-- $80,753- , - CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP -- - -- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Single Family , 1, Detached $1,394,024,000 8431 '$165,345 1, Attached $74,154,000 821 $90,322 Multi Family ' 2 $16,360,000 109 $150,092 3 or More Units $29,402,500 419 $70,173 Mobile Home $17,013,000 655 $25,974 Other $8,855,500 67 $132,172 ' Total $1,539,809,000 10502 -___- $146,621 __ Page - 11.2 1 1-1 TABLE 13 (CONTINUED) ' CALCULATION OF AVERAGE VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE AND TOWNSHIP FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC 1990 Ll ----------------------------------------------------------------- $72,000 Owner Average ' 3 or More Units Aggregate Occupied Value Housing Type Value Units Per Unit CHEEKS TOWNSHIP $545,000 8 ------- - - - - -- Single Family $142,763,500 --------------- - 1, Detached $91,998,500 1218 $75,532 1, Attached $637,500 5 $127,500 Multi Family $186,974,500 2610 $71,638 2 $0 0 3 or More Units $155,000 3 $51,667 Mobile Home $12,089,000 432 $27,984 Other $563,000 12 $46,917 Total $105,443,000 1670 $63,140 ENO TOWNSHIP Single Family 1, Detached 1, Attached Multi Family $126,078,000 $540,000 1003 $125,701 5 $108,000 2 $72,000 1 $72,000 ' 3 or More Units $0 0 $77,500 Mobile Home $15,528,500 689 $22,538 ' Other $545,000 8 $68,125 Total $142,763,500 1706 $83,683 F1 1 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP Single Family 1, Detached $167,778,000 1973 $85,037 1, Attached $1,395,000 18 $77,500 Multi Family 2 $565,000 5 $113,000 3 or More Units $420,000 6 $70,000 Mobile Home $15,494,000. 596 $25,997 Other $1,322,500 12 $110,208 Total $186,974,500 2610 $71,638 1 Page - 11.3 Page - 11.4 ' , TABLE 13 CONTINUED CALCULATION OF AVERAGE VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE AND TOWNSHIP FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC ' 1990 Owner Average -- , Aggregate Occupied Value Housing Type Value Units Per Unit LITTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP --- ' - - Single Family ------------------------- -,._____---- .,- _ -_ - 1, Detached $62,976,000 519 $121,341 ' 1, Attached $52,500 1 $52,500 Multi Family 2 $0 0 3 or More Units $0 0 Mobile Home $5,629,500 144 $39,094 other ---------------- - - - - -- .$262, 500-------------- 3----- - - -$$7 r -500- Total $68,920,500 667 $103,329 ORANGE COUNTY TOTAL .. ' - - - - Single Family -..,.------------------------------------ �_ -- -- 1, Detached $2,052,073,000 15125 $135,674 1, Attached $78,911.0500 860 $91,758 ' Multi Family 2 $16,997,000 115 $147,800 3 or More Units $30,252,500 433 $69,867 ' Mobile Home $90,858,500 3291 $27,608 Other $14,058,500 124 $113,375 Total $2,283,151,000 19948 $114,455 Source: Profile 1 - Characteristics of the Population, 1990 Census of Population & Housing - Summary Tape File 1, N.C. State Data Center. Page - 11.4 ' t u 1 fl TABLE 14 PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY, NC CALCULATION OF CAPITAL COSTS Type of Development ------------------------------------ Duplex Single Triplex Garden Mobile Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Public School Children..Per Dwellinc Uni Elementary School. 0.216 0.112 0.072 0.107 0.147 Middle School 0.104 0.051 0.035 0.057 0.070 High School 0.120 0.057 0.040 0.072 0.064 Total 0.440 0.220 0.147 0.236 0.281 Building Area S Ft Per Student Elementary School 117 117 117 117 117 Middle School 126 126 126 126 126 High School 135 135 135 135 135 Land Area S Ft Per Student Elementary School 1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 Middle School 1273 1273 1273 1273 1273 High School 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 Construction Cost. Per Student Elementary School $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 Middle School $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 High School $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 Site Cost Per Student Elementary School $2,054 $2,054 $2,054 $2,054 $2,054 Middle School $2,205 $2,205 $2,205 $2,205 $2,205 High School $2,455 $2,455 $2,455 $2,455 $2,455 Total Capital-Cost. Per, Student Elementary School $11,180 $11,180 $11,180 $11,180 $11,180 Middle School $12,033 $12,033 $12,033 $12,033 $12,033 High School $12,985 $12,985 $12,985 $12,985 $12,985 Capital Cost, Per, Dwelling Unit Elementary School $2,415 $1,252 $805 $1,196 $1,643 Middle School $1,251 $614 $421 $686 $842 High School $1,558 $740 $519 $935 $831 Total $5,225 $2,606 $1,746 $2,817 $3,317 Page - 11.5 1 LJ TABLE 14 [CONTINUED] PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY, NC --- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------- 2.65 2.03 1.83 2.07 - - - - -' ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPITAL COSTS $36 $36 $36 $36 -..---------- ----------- -------- ----- - -- - -- - -- ------ Type Development - - - - - -I 4.76654 4.76654 Duplex Term [Years] 6 6 Single Triplex Garden Mobile ' 7% Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Property Tax Contributions $172 $172 $172 $172 $172 Average Unit Value,' $135,674 $147,800 $69,867 $91,758 $27,608 , Tax Rate Per $100 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 Tax Per Unit $263 $286 $135 $178 $54 Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 ' Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 Interest Rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Property Tax Credit $1,253 $1,365 $645 $848 $2515 , Sales Tax Contributions Persons Per Household 2.65 2.03 1.83 2.07 2.41 Per Capita Payment $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 ' Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 Interest Rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7 %1 Per Capita Credit $172 $172 $172 $172 $172 Per Household Credit $455 $348 $314 $355 $414 1 Public School Building Fund Contributions Student Per Household 0.440 0.220 0.147 0.236 0.281 Per Student Revenue $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 Revenue Per Unit $12 $6 $4 $7 $8 , Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 Interest Rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7$' PSBF Credit $59 $29 $20 $31 $38 ------------------------------------------- _----- $-------- $- �----- = - - -$- Total Credits $1,767 $1,743 979 $1,234 706 ---------------------------..--------------------------•-------------------- I Page - 11.6 1 TABLE 14 [CONTINUED] PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY, NC IMPACT FEES: CAPITAL COSTS LESS ADJUSTMENTS - Type of Development Duplex Single Triplex Garden Mobile Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home CaRital Cost Rgr Dwelling Unit - Elementary School $2,415 $1,252 $805 $1,196 $1,643 Middle School $1,251 $614 $421 $686 $842 High School $1,558 $740 $519 $935 $831 Total $5,225 $2,606 $1,746 $2,817 $3,317 Adjustments, Per Dwellinq_Unit Property Tax $1,253 $1,365 $645 $848 $255 Sales Tax $455 $348 $314 $355 $414 PSBF Funds $59 $29 $20 $31 $38 Total $1,767 $1,743 $979 $1,234 $706 Impact Fees $3,458 $863 $766 $1,583 $2,611 Page - 11.7 one -half cent sales tax was adopted based on the provisions of ' Article 41 of G.S. 105. Under the statute and the approved local option, 60 percent of the proceeds could be used to finance public school capital projects and /or retire debt. , As shown in Table 10, Orange County expects to receive an average annual payment of $2,648,447 in Article 40 sales tax revenues from FY 1992 -93 to FY 1997 -98, the capital improvement ' program period. In addition, an average annual payment of $2,679,682 in Article 41 revenues is anticipated. Of these amounts, $2,118,758 are Article 40 revenues, and $10607,809 are Article 41 ' revenues. Combined, the average annual amount of sales tax revenues which can be used for public school capital needs is $3,726,567. Although Orange County does use a portion of these funds for debt r service payments and the remainder for capital needs, such distinctions are not considered in calculating the "credit" to be given for sales tax payments. , According to the 1990 Census, Orange County's population was 93,851. This represents a 21.8 percent increase from the 1980 population of.,77,055 or an annual growth rate of 2.18 percent. By ' applying this growth rate to the 1990 population, projections of the number of persons residing in the county during the FY 1992 -93 to FY 1997 -98 period can be made [see Table 10]. For the six -year ' period, the average annual population is 103,486. If the average annual sales tax revenue for public school capital needs [$3,726,567] is divided by this figure [103,486], the estimate of__ per capita sales tax revenue is $36. To calculate the present value of the per capita revenues, ' assumptions regarding the interest rate and term must be made. The current seven percent interest rate on bonds is used, since almost half of the sales tax revenues are used,to pay debt service on school capital needs. A six -year term is used, matching the capital ' improvement planning period and the time frame within which new school facilities are needed. The present value table in Table 12 indicates that the multiplier would be 4.76654. This means that the present value of the $36 annual per capita sales tax payment for r six years would be $172 [$36 x'4.76654]. The per capita figure of $172 is of little use by itself. It ' must be converted to a per household figure, permitting it to be deducted from the total capital cost per student for school capital needs. Using 1990 Census information from the N.C. State Data ' Center, it is possible to calculate the average number of persons per household,-by housing type. This information is shown in Table 15. By multiplying the per capita figure of $172 by the number of , persons per household, it is possible to identify the amount of credit to be given to each new housing unit for payment of sales taxes. As an example, the average number of persons per household in , a single- family dwelling is 2.65. Multiplied by the per capita figure of $172, a single -- family household would be expected to ' contribute $455 in sales tax revenues toward the construction of Page - 12 1 1 F] 1 1 1 1 TABLE 15 CALCULATION OF AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY HOUSING TYPE AND TOWNSHIP FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC 1990 -- - -- Average Aggregate Occupied Persons Per Housing Type Persons Units Household BINGHAM TOWNSHIP ------------------- Single Family ------------------- - - - - -- 1, Detached 3479 1394 2.50 1, Attached 25 11 2.27 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 48 23 2.09 5 or More Units 0 0 Mobile Home 1586 709 2.24 Other 39 19 2.05 Total ----------------------- 177 --5----- ----------- 2156 - - - - -- CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP - - - - -- ---------- -? -40- Single Family --------------- -- 1, Detached 2745 999 2.75 1, Attached 15 4 3.75 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 10 4 2.50 5 or More Units 3 2 1.50 Mobile Home 882 324 2.72 Other 21 12 1.75 Total 3676 1345 ------- - - - - -- 2.73 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP - Single Family ..----------------- 1, Detached 27040 10292 2.63 1, Attached 2924 1419 2.06 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 5327 2649 2.01 5 or More Units 15216 8343 1.82 Mobile Home 2150 988 2.18 Other 451 251 1.80 Total 53108 23942 2.22 Page - 12.1 Page - 12.2 1� I j 1 fl 1 fl L TABLE 15 (CONTINUED) CALCULATION OF AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY HOUSING TYPE AND TOWNSHIP FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC 1990 Average Aggregate Occupied Persons Per Housing Type Persons Units Household CHEEKS ..---------------- Single Family 1, Detached 3804 1401 2.72 1, Attached 19 8 2.38 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 50 19 2.63 5 or More Units 65 33 1.97 Mobile Home 1441 559 2.58 Other 43 16 2.69 Total 5422 2036 266. ENO TOWNSHIP - --------------------- Single Family ----- - - - - -- --------------- ---- 1, Detached 3200 1163 2.75 1, Attached 21 9 2.33 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 32 15 2.13 5 or More Units 0 0 Mobile Home 1960 839 2.34 Other 32 11 2.91 Total 5245 2037 2.57 HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP Single Family 1, Detached- 6551 2477 2.64 1, Attached 56 28 2.00 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 406 185 2.19 5 or More Units 560 258 2.17 Mobile Home 2182 844 2.59 Other 61'' 19 3.21 Total --------,.-------------------------------------------------- 9816 3811 2.58 - - - - -- Page - 12.2 1� I j 1 fl 1 fl L ' TABLE 15 (CONTINUED) CALCULATION OF AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD BY HOUSING TYPE AND TOWNSHIP FOR ORANGE COUNTY, NC 1990 Average Aggregate Occupied Persons Per Housing Type ------------------------------------------------------------- Persons Units Household LITTLE RIVER TOWNSHIP - Single Family ---------------------------- 1, Detached 1670 587 2.84 ' 1, Attached 2 1 2.00 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 5 or More Units 2 0 1 0 2.00 Mobile Home 494 183 2.70 Other 15 5 3.00 ' Total------------------- - - - - -- ,. - - - - -_ -_777 - �------- -2 -$1- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2183--- ' ORANGE - COUNTY TOTAL - - - ----------------------------------- Single Family _---- - - - - -_ ' 1, Detached 1, Attached 48489 3062 18313 1480 2.65 2.07 Multi Family 2 to 4 Units 5875 2896 2.03 5 or More Units 15844 8636 1.83 Mobile Home 10695 4446 2.41 Other 662 333 1.99 ' Total ------------------------ 84627 ---------- 36104 ----------- 2.34 ' Source: Profile 1 - Characteristics of Census of Population & Housing - the Population, 1990 - - - Summary Tape File 1, N.C. State Data Center. 1 IPage - 12.3 new schools. If the total capital cost per single - family dwelling for new public school needs is $5,225, the family would be credited with the payment of $455, thus reducing the impact fee to $4,770. The calculation of "credits" for sales tax contributions by other housing types is shown on Table 14. Grants. Grants from the State are provided to local governments in the form of Public School Building Funds. These funds come from corporate income taxes, a portion of which is returned to counties for school construction purposes. As shown in Table 10, Orange County expects to receive an annual average grant of $365,174 from FY 1992 -93 to FY 1997 -98, the capital improvement program period. For the same six -year period, the average daily school attendance in both school systems is expected to be 12,989 students. This figure is based on annual daily school membership projections and means that the average per student revenue 1 1 1 u anticipated from this source during the capital improvement program ' period is $28. To calculate the present value of the per student revenues, the same assumptions regarding interest rate and term are used as employed for sales tax revenues; i.e., a seven percent interest rate and six -year term. The multiplier from the present value table in Table 10 would again be 4.76654, resulting in a present' value of the $28 annual per capita sales tax payment for six years would be $133 [$28 x 4.76654]. The per capita figure of $133 can be converted to a per household figure by use of the student generation rates from Table 14. As an example, the number of students per household expected in a single - family dwelling is 0.440. Multiplied by the per capita figure of $133, a single - family household would be expected to generate $59 in Public School Building Fund revenues. If the total capital cost per single - family dwelling for new public school needs is $5,225, the family would be credited with the payment of $59, thus reducing the impact fee to $5,166. The calculation of "credits" for Public School Building Fund revenues by other housing types is shown on Table 14. Projected Impact Fee Amounts Based on the foregoing analysis, it is possible to calculate projected impact fees for different housing types in Orange County. These calculations are shown on Table 14 and simply involve subtracting credits for property tax, sales tax, and Public School Building Fund contributions from the total capital cost, per dwelling unit, of needed school improvements. The projected impact fees, by housing type, are as follows: Page - 13 fl fl 1 �_l 1 ' Single - Family $3,458 Duplex, Triplex, Quadplex $ 863 Garden Apartment $ 766 ' Townhouse $1,583 Mobile Home $2,611 ' In the sections that follow, final adjustments will be made to the fees, based on the benefit received by new development and credits to the developer for constructing capital improvements. 1 BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS ' The amount of an impact fee is only one factor considered in terms of the legality of any impact fee program. The sufficiency of t the benefits that are received by fee payers is another criterion for determining the reasonableness of an impact fee. There are three standards that may be used in determining ' sufficiency of benefit. The main difference among these standards is just who will benefit from (make use of) the facilities to be financed, in whole or in part, with the impact fees. The first 1 standard is exclusive benefit, the second is substantial benefit, and the third is reasonable benefit. In practice, the methods of implementing the latter two are almost identical. ' A benefit would be exclusive if no one other than the occupants of the development that paid the impact fee could use the facilities provided with those fees. Complying with this standard ' would imply that the improvements be on-site or in close proximity to the development. Minimal distance between facility and development becomes the indicator of the degree of benefit to the ' individuals in that development as opposed to those in other developments. ' When facilities such as public schools are provided, it is impossible to see how use could be confined to individual developments. To a great extent, the provision of exclusive benefit and impact fees are not compatible. However, few jurisdictions ' employ a strict exclusive benefit rule. Rather, the standard is what may be considered to be a preponderance of benefit going to the development paying the fees. In''such cases, consideration t should be given to the use of relatively small geographic areas for both the collection and expenditure of'impact fees. Such small areas would be the evidence of benefit (use). This would involve identifying a number of subareas of the community and establishing ' impact fee trust funds for each subarea. All receipts coming from such subareas would be spent within those areas. ' Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws addresses the issue of benefits and subareas through the following provision: IPage - 14 1 "In order to insure that impact fees paid by a particular development are expended on capital improvements that benefit that development, the County may establish for each category ' of capital improvement for which it collects an impact fee at least two geographical districts or zones, and impact fees generated by developments within those districts or zones must ' be spent on improvements that are located within or that benefit property located within those districts or zones." All the benefit tests look for is a rationale that establishes ' how the benefit is to be received. The greater the distance between the point of collection and the point of expenditure, the greater the chance that insufficient benefit will be found. Having ' improvements that are needed set forth in a capital improvements program is the best demonstration of benefit. Another benefit criterion is the timing of improvements. 1 Expected use is, the overwhelming criterion in matters of benefit. If improvements are in the remote future, benefits will be lessened t and perhaps insufficient. The benefit from improvements declines exponentially with respect to time. Facilities improvements usually require large expenditures ' that can only be met through gradual accumulation of funding resources. In small jurisdictions and those experiencing modest growth, the period of time may be substantial. Most impact fee ' ordinances have provisions that stipulate the maximum period of time within which the fees must be spent on facilities that benefit the particular development. Once this maximum period is reached, ' the fees would have to be refunded with interest to the fee payer or successor in title. The most common period is six years, which is based on the normal five -year capital,.improvements cycle, plus one year to integrate the receipts into the capital improvements ' program. For public schools in Orange County, geographic districts or ' zones already exist in the form of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District and the Orange County School District. In addition, the need for new. - school facilities has been identified as part of ' County's Capital Improvements Plan. A new elementary school, a new middle school, and a new high school are needed to serve future growth in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro school system. For the Orange County school system, a new elementary school and a new middle ' school are needed. Clearly, applying the system of impact fees in Table 14 would ' be unreasonable in view of the differing needs of each school district. For example, there is no identified need for a new high school in the Orange County school system. To impose an impact fee , which included the capital cost for such a facility would violate the benefit test. Likewise, school districts may vary in the number of persons per household, students per household, and cost of housing. Unless such differences are addressed, the residents of ' one school district may be paying impact fees for facilities they Page - 15 1 1 I Two final adjustments are necessary to address benefit considerations. First, the adjustments [credits] identified in Tables 16 and 17 reflect adjustments based on revenue sources. The sum of these adjustments must be allocated to individual school types. This was accomplished by analyzing the methods of financing public school capital needs from FY 1987 -88 through FY 1991 -92. The amounts spent on public school capital needs are identified on Table 18 by funding method, school type, and school district. The total proportion of funding spent on each school type was then multiplied by the sum of all adjustments [credits] to allocate the that amount to individual school types. Finally, only certain types of schools are needed by each school district during the FY 1992 -93 to FY 1997 -98 period. For the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District, elementary, middle, and high schools are needed. Thus, no further adjustment to the impact fees is required. For the Orange County School-District, however, only elementary and middle schools are needed. Thus, the capital costs and adjustments for a high school were deleted in determining the total amount of impact fees to be charged. The final impact fee calculations are shown on Tables 19 and 20 for the Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Orange County School Districts, respectively. The fees are summarized below and represent the maximum amounts that can reasonably be charged given the preceding analysis. IPage - 16 will never use or paying a higher proportion of impact fees than conditions warrant. ' To address these concerns, the methodology used to calculate impact fees for the county as a whole was employed to calculate separate impact fees for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District ' [Table 16] and the Orange County School District [Table 17]. One reason for differing impact fees stems from variations in persons per household, student generation rates, and housing values between school districts. Another reason is the variation in land cost. It ' should also be noted that the calculations for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District were based on 1990 Census data for Chapel ' Hill Township. While the township boundaries cover more area than those of the school district, the match is close, and the availability of recent census data for the township made separate school district calculations possible. I Two final adjustments are necessary to address benefit considerations. First, the adjustments [credits] identified in Tables 16 and 17 reflect adjustments based on revenue sources. The sum of these adjustments must be allocated to individual school types. This was accomplished by analyzing the methods of financing public school capital needs from FY 1987 -88 through FY 1991 -92. The amounts spent on public school capital needs are identified on Table 18 by funding method, school type, and school district. The total proportion of funding spent on each school type was then multiplied by the sum of all adjustments [credits] to allocate the that amount to individual school types. Finally, only certain types of schools are needed by each school district during the FY 1992 -93 to FY 1997 -98 period. For the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District, elementary, middle, and high schools are needed. Thus, no further adjustment to the impact fees is required. For the Orange County School-District, however, only elementary and middle schools are needed. Thus, the capital costs and adjustments for a high school were deleted in determining the total amount of impact fees to be charged. The final impact fee calculations are shown on Tables 19 and 20 for the Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Orange County School Districts, respectively. The fees are summarized below and represent the maximum amounts that can reasonably be charged given the preceding analysis. IPage - 16 TABLE 16 1 PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT ---------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -� CALCULATION OF CAPITAL COSTS Type of Development Page - 16.1 1 Duplex Single Triplex Garden Mobile ' Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Public Sc ool Children Pe Dwellin it --------------- - - - -- ' Elementary School- 0.212 0.110 0.071 0.105 0.145 Middle School 0.105 0.051 0.036 0.058 0071 High School 0.118 0.056 0.040 0.070 0..062 ' Total 0.435 0.217 0.147 0.233 0.278 Build' Area [SqFti. Per Student - Elementary School 117 117 117 117 117 Middle School. 126 126 126 126 126 High School 135 135 135 135 135 ' Land Area [SgFt], Per Student Elementary School 1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 Middle School 1273 1273 1273 1273 1273 ' High School 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 _Construction Costj,_pgr Student ' Elementary School $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 Middle School $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 High School $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 ' Site Cost, Per Student Elementary School $2,191 $2,191 $2,191 $2,191 $21054 Middle School $2,351 $2,351 $2,351 $2,351 $2,205 ' High School $2,630 $2,630 $2,630 $2,630 $2,455 Total Capital Per Student Elementary School $11,317 $11,317 $11,317 $11,317 $11,180 Middle School $12,179 $12,179 $12,179 $12,179 $12,033 High School $13,160 $13,160 $13,160 $13,160 $12,985 ' Capital Cost, Per,Dwelling Unit Elementary School $2,399 $1,245 $804 $1,188 $1,621 Middle School $1,279 $621 $438 $706 $854 ' High School $1,553 $737 $526 $921 $805 Total $5,231 $2,603 $1,768 $2,816 $3,281 ---------__..--------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -' Page - 16.1 1 r TABLE 16 [CONTINUED] PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT --------------------------- ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPITAL COSTS Type of Development - Duplex Sales Tax Contributions ' Persons Per Household Per Capita Payment Present Value Factor Term [Years] ' Interest Rate Per Capita Credit Per Household Credit 2.63 $36 4.76654 6 7% $172 $451 2.01 $36 4.76654 6 7% $172 $345 1.82 Single Triplex Garden $36 Mobile 4.76654 Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Pg2yerty Tax Sontributigns 7% ----------------------- $172 $172 Average Unit Value- $165,345 $150,092 $70,173 $90,322 $25,974 Tax Rate Per $100 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 Tax Per Unit $320 $291 $136 $175 $50 Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 Interest Rate 7% 7$ 7% 7% 7% Debt Service Credit $1,527 $1,386 $648 $834 $240 Sales Tax Contributions ' Persons Per Household Per Capita Payment Present Value Factor Term [Years] ' Interest Rate Per Capita Credit Per Household Credit 2.63 $36 4.76654 6 7% $172 $451 2.01 $36 4.76654 6 7% $172 $345 1.82 2.06 2.18 $36 $36 $36 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 6 6 6 7% 7% 7% $172 $172 $172 $312 $353 $374 Public School Building Contribu ions Student Per Household 0.435 0.217 0.147 0.233 0.278 Per Student Revenue $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 Revenue Per Unit $12 $6 $4 $7 $8 Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 Interest Rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% PSBF Credit $58 $29 $20 $31 $37 Total Credits $2,037 $1,760 ------------------------------ $980 $1,219 $651 IPage - 16.2 1 TABLE 16 [CONTINUED] PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES 1 CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT -------------------------------------------------------------------- _- -- - - -� IMPACT FEES: CAPITAL COSTS LESS ADJUSTMENTS Type of Development ---------------------------------------- -1 _- __--- - - - - Duplex Single Triplex Garden Mobile Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Capital _Cost, Per Dwelling Unit - Elementary School $2,399 $1,245 $804 $1,188 $11621 1 Middle School $1,279 $621 $438 $706 $854 High School $1,553 $737 $526 $921 $805 Total $5,231 $2,603 $1,768 $2,816 $3,281 1 Adjustments Per Dwglling Unit Property Tax $1,527 $1,386 $648 $834 $240 1 Sales Tax $451 $345 $312 $353 $374 PSBF Funds $58 $29 $20 $31 $37 Total $2,037 $1,760 $980 $1,219 $651 1 Impact Fees $3,194 $843 $788 $1,597 $2,629 L Page - 16.3 1 n ' TABLE 17 PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ' -- ------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------ CALCULATION OF CAPITAL COSTS ' _--_-_..____.. __.._------ `------------- - - - --- -Type- of_Development__r _- - Duplex - -- - -- ' Single Triplex Garden Mobile Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Public School Children Per Dwe linq Unit Elementary School 0.247 0.124 0.083 0.132 0.158 ' Middle School High School 0.117 0.134 0.058 0.067 0.039 0.045 0.063 0.072 0.075 0.086 Total 0.498 0.249 0.167 0.267 0.319 Building Area FSqFt1, Per Student _ ' Elementary School 117 117 117 117 117 Middle School 126 126 126 126 126 ' High School 135 135 135 135 135 Land Area S Ft P r Studen Elementary School 1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 ' Middle School 1273 1273 1273 1273 1273 High School 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 Construction Cogt, Per Student ' Elementary School $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 $9,126 Middle School $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 $9,828 ' High School $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 $10,530 Site Cost, Per, Student Elementary Schogl $1,643 $1,643 $1,643 $1,643 $2,054 ' Middle School $1,767 $1,767 $1,767 $1,767 $2,205 High School $1,930 $1,930 $1,930 $1,930 $2,455 Total Ca ital Cost er Student ' Elementary School $10,769 $10,769 $10,769 $10,769 $11,180 Middle School $11,595 $11,595 $11,595 $11,595 $12,033 High School $12,460 $12,460 $12,460 $12,460 - $12,985 Capital Cost Per Dwelling Unit Elementary School $2,660 $1,335 $894 $1,422 $1,766 Middle School $1,357 $673 $452 $730 $902 High School $1,670 $835 $561 $897 $1,117 Total $5,686 $2,843 $1,907 $30049 $3,786 ' -------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- IPage - 16.4 I 1 TABLE 17 [CONTINUED] ' PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ----_---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --' ADJUSTMENTS TO CAPITAL COSTS --------------- - - - - -- Type -of- Development ------ - - - - -� Duplex Single Triplex Garden Mobile ' Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Property Tax Contributions Average Unit Value. $98,304 $1060167 $60,714 $121,987 $28,014 Tax Rate Per $100 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 0.1938 Tax Per Unit $191 $206 $118 $236 $54 Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 , Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 Interest Rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Debt Service Credit $908 $981 $561 $1,127 $259 , Sales Tax_ Contributions Persons Per Household 2.67 2.22 2.14 2.26 2.57 Per Capita Payment $36 $36 $36 $36 $36 ' Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 interest Rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7 Per Capita Credit $172 $172 $172 $172 $1721 Per Household Credit $458 $381 $367 $388 $441 Public School Bu'ld'n u d Contribut' Student Per Household 0.498 0.249 0.167 0.267 0.319 Per Student Revenue $28 $28 $28 $28 $28 Revenue Per Unit $14 $7 $5 $7 $9 , Present Value Factor 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 4.76654 Term [Years] 6 6 6 6 6 Interest Rate 7% 7% 7% 7% 7 PSBF Credit $66 $33 $22 $36 $43 ---------------------------------------------- ---- - - - -- ------- - -- -- To $ $ $ Total Credits $1,433 $1,395 950 1 550 742 Page - 16.5 1 1 [l TABLE 17 [CONTINUED] ' PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEES: CAPITAL COSTS LESS ADJUSTMENTS C IPage - 16.6 -_ -- -Type of Development Duplex ' Single Family Triplex Quadplex Garden Apartment Townhouse Mobile Home ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -- Capital ,Cost, Per Dwelling Unit - ' Elementary School $2,660 $1,335 $894 $1,422 $1,766 Middle School $1,357 $673 $452 $730 $902 High School $1,670 $835 $561 $897 $1,117 ' Total $5,686 $2,843 $1,907 $3,049 $3, 786 Adjustments_,,. Per Dwelling Unit ' Property Tax $908 $981 $561 $1,127 $259 Sales Tax $458 $381 $367 $388 $441 PSBF Funds $66 $33 $22 $36 $43 ' Total $1,433 $1,395 $950 $1,550 $742 Impact Fees $4,253 $1,448 $956 $1,499 $3,043 C IPage - 16.6 I +.I I O r-1 I U V-1 4%I I >w00 1 a � 1 11 I r♦ 1 C m I I Uuw01 E+i v0l I I C4 7 1 I I y I 4J I I I K I 1 I 0 I I I 0 1 I I as dp do Cf LO rl co 00 dp do dp ap do dp OF do da do 10 rtu iv0 1070 00 VIVOOOO moo 00 (n rt rl a W m0 00 COq'�O0 vN 0�0O1yeD01 1n a� �c rl rl r warn N Ln0 romMLnve'i M10NV)Vh0 co '•I rl N VI• N V} rl V} cW 1 do 1 O I N I a l v l O 1 v I M I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I M r♦ M I I I I 1 1 I 01 N O e+t 1'•1 1 11'f 1 0\ 01 01 M e•'1 1 M I to � In n r 1 rl 1 0001 rirl 1 N 1 N 1.1 11') 1n m 1 v 1 V3. fA I I +1 1 V► V> 1 rl 1 I Vt 1 •T. 1 I I I 1 M I 1 I I eq eW dP I do 10 1 1 I 1 m r r4 1 0 1 0 1 I I m rot I aD �c lclioirl w 1 1 U W 4.1 1 I r N 1 a 1 Ln I w i i woEI i 1 1 Cy 1 1 I 1 I o 1 1 dp dp do do 0 do do dp do dp do i Q 1 0 1 4-1 r♦ 1 I COr N r10 re•�O QO I C to 1 rI 1 I I C9. I 1 I 1 E 1•'r I m +1 1 1 0tnr4 r 0.4a rN0 00 1 I 1 W N 1 0 1 UW 0 1 1 nrgrl 0 �0M0 00 I 1 1 EM 1 y0r 1 d O A 1 1 r1 rl rl M 1 1 1 7+ .•1 1 1 1 W C►Ch 1 fA 1 to t 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 to rl 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 o 0 v N V OD N '•1 r•I 1 I[1 1 1 O 00 1 r1 1 1 W 7+ I ro l I 1 LL1 tD 01 pI P'f r In ea v 01 0► 1 rt 1 1 z I 1 41 1 1 r (n 0► N to do Ii) �o N cc I N I 1 x I I G I 1 0r0 0 v 4 vf-Iw N N I a r 1 0 C9 1 1 0 1 1 0110 v irk #AN N 01 M 0 0 I v I 1 0 1 1 .93-91. V). Vl• V>• W. V> 1 I 1 E+Q 1 1 6 1 1 v 1 O "� 1 1 ON ' t° i S U E I I 1 I 1 I 1 cc E ►] i 1 i i e>r do dp I dr i dP O 1 1 t 0 1' 1 b v N I 0 1 01 1 O r 1 1 I» x o 1 1 m 10 1 1 v (A 1 0 1 0 1 C) 01 1 I U 4.1 a. 1 1 (0 l 0 1 q' 1 D7 m 1 1 it O O 1 1 I rl 1 1 U>• i i 04 14 w I I 1 1 do do do dp dp dp dp dp dr 1 1 I oq I 1 ai .•I I 1 .� N m O rf r 0 0 4 1 I I q 1 to 1 C ro l 1 1 I 1 W 113 I m +11 1 ree0 0 V4co0 00 1 1 1 I C I IJ%4 O 1 1 nrl o rN0 00 1 I I N 1 0 1 I.1 O 1 1 wl rl '•1 '•1 1 I 1 0 i°°i a �i i x i i W CM.) 1 1 1 1 O v 0 1n N 0 N N 1 0 n 0+ 1 I 1 1 I 1 0010 O k0 mm 1 0 1 1 1 ONn 07 OOrI epeD 1 0 1 I 1 1 11 1 1 rINCD N enq'r 00 1 0 1 1 M 1 1 .. I E+ 1 Ot N Ln n co r1 M e'1 1'•1 1 0 1 to 1 py 1 1 a l U l OI 0 r r N 14 N W m 1 0 1 a.1 1 VI• a). 4" V>• V} 1 1 U 1 1 1 p 1 GY I to .M n 1 QI 1 •rl I 1 1 �C 1 Ew 1 V>• Vs Vr 1 VY 1 6 1 4J I 1 1 I M 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 -4 1 1 1 I I 1 I q l 1 I a I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 .r 1 1 1' 1 1 1 0 1 I 1 x 1 1 1 0 1 i Itai °o m x'o i i ui I 1 1 x w U k 1 1 D7 1 1 1 N I U Ir m ro 0 1 1 I I 1 E.4 1 cn as m 01 O A w .a r♦ 1 1 1 I 1 1 W c to 0 >; !; ro to 1 I 1 1 1 1 m 3641 m m+j id 1 1 0 1 1 1 pp 1 geKrtO 0 0 +1000 0 1 1 as 1 I 1 U 1 ro o a 10 14'0 tnU1i1 my 1 1 1 I I 141 kwgAA AU01AI 14.1 1 l 0 +1 roa • OV1�a 1 1 01 I O 1 C7 1 m 0 K rt In .a 3 Vf ro .0 1 r+ 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 m as m W $4 1 0 1 do I 1 4 1 1 mxuu0w PC 0 1 ++ 1 I 1 N 1,0 1 1 E 14 1 Page — 16.7 1 I 1 � I UW4-) 1 }4OO 1 m E I a I I r1i [ roll -W 1 U W O O 1 1.1 0 4.) 1 E 1 m 1 a �I 1 � I 1 1 � I i a 1 O I � I I I C7 z M A z D cc- ow I - I 0 1 1 I 1 x I • CO 1 E I 1 1 Xrn 1 O 1 1 1 7+ 1 rT i to i ,70~' 1 ?11 1•x•1 w w i p, E z 1 1 RA'i 1 a roll 0W{J 1r O O 1 a EI a I C roI m 41 Ow 0 m0A PA N 4 r O dP ow oW N N %D 111 �D W a H P1 aw dP dP dP dP dP dB dA aW ow dP do 0! 1ca:0!I11►0 1111!0 Oo O1oe•1Ov00 Nn0 00 N N N N O N n 0 co H rt rt rt I OMrl Ino111O r1 r•IN I t'• oolnoov NON 1 rlulw.awno nv•a I rlm W owmO u5ItsH 1 0 01 w 0 m N w at K1 1 v w 01 V1 C1 Y1 N %D N 01 I N 1 N r1 I•i rl D N N 1 4L#1 V1 U1 to N V1 to 1 1 1 1 dP a7r I v M I I N IO I CO I dA O O O v v 1 w r1 rI 1 n oo1r1 +1 115 41 I 111 t'1 P7 1 N 00 1 N � 1 t► r 1 W v1 V1 I '-1 I N I I I dP I ale Mlo rl 1 0 M 1 O 1 rl 1 I 1 I aM dr dr dr dr aM aM dA dP dr a1P dP I NonuSaNQ e'1no 00 1 mNmr4vMo NnQ 00 1 v v o Inv0 00 1 N .4 r1 H O In r1 It1 IO 0 N O to It1 01 01 wvInu500-.4 f- rn ll wrt Orrl ll o av n v w m w l•5w Nr0 co eO m w v w m oo n In M CO co 1-1 4" 01 4A 0 W. m rl rl 1.1 111 in H � I nl w I N e'1 1 1 1 w 1 H rl 1 N In 1 n N 1 w N 1 to U C 0 1 1 O I 1 v1 - - 19 1 1 rl rl v 1 LL5 I D I H tt; 1 1 a I 1 N N fh I t!1 1 d I ca a x 1 1 I I I I V? I H�[•I I I 1 I 1 I I W V D .a 07 m 1 1 1 1 do AR dP 1 dW 1 coo 1 I I r 1 I 1 N N IC 1 0 1 oc 0 1 I 1 C r+ 1 1 1 I E x CO 1 1 m IO 1 1 0 O, T I D 1 0101 1 I UWi.1 I I r5 N v 1 0 1 W rt 1 1 m 0 E 1 1 1 H Q>0 I 1 W I 1 1 I H p4 I 1 1 1 1 I 04 I 1 1 1 dr dw dP dr do dr dr 11 1 I Rl I I y rt 1 1 Q O 0 n C1 0 D O 1 I p I rA I C m 1 1 I I a 1 0 1 m 41 1 1 aH O m V4 00 1 1 1 I C I UW O 1 1 Inv O ri000 OD I I ru 1 0 1 Id O 41 1 1 m rl ri H 1 I O z i i y ii i 1 I 1 1 M 1 1 11-1 1 Oo co Hwn MLn I D 1 o U 1 1 1 C4 1 r M N 0 W m e•1 1+1 1 0 1 0 1 I 1 I E•1 1 IO N CI 01 111 0 u5 to 1 0 1 0 I I 1 rn 1 -- z 1 1 V I H I 1.101 N Nrc ICIO 1 0 1 0 1 H 1 1 0 1 0 1 •�O N O1I'1m vv 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ON to -4 v�101oII I 1 R I 1 N r1 91 N N w w I e+1 1 N l N U I 1 1 1 1 1 y 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 a i 1 I I 1 0 1 1 1 1 C4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 � A rl rl .Hr rr 1 1 ,1 ro ro ro 14 ro 1 I ri 1 1 a 1 0 '+� .0 b a,l C m +1 x 4J 1 f ro 1 I H I r1�roxro O O W0.00 01 1 rl 1 1 x 1 ri O a w O 41 m ++ it 1-1 y 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 m mt9 3p w�A U mA 1 1 E 1 rt1a1 3s+mm ICS �rl� ail 1 I 1 0 1 w 1 yam N •� ••+ y ro t .i 1 �p 1 O 1 F4 1 m ro O.ro .a O� I ro 1 C v i x 1 muwwc.c� ua u i o 1 y 1 u 1 I E+ 1 0 Page - 16 .8 ow O tn I w m I 0 la 1 W ro 1 b Ul 1 v N 1 4.1 I row 1 O s4 to I � � 1 m I N 3 41 I C C O 1 O N C 1 b 00 v 1 m U 1 '•I IA 1 01 1 r�A z I b 1 to 1 7 wro 1 m C c 1 z q 4J u - +mi 1 7+ ro 1 C O 1 u 0 I I m m dP 1 C m H 1 ro 3 • I !w tn 1 4*a 1 -C 1 to W I ON I O rA 1 a o 1 to ,C 1 iJ U to o I O ra IA 1 a 0 3 yt 1 4J IA 1 •4 }1 •.+ 1 0,10 AI ro I u to ri 1 41 O 1 %0 C O 1 me oj to I rn 7 7T W 4J 4-1 1 rr a 0 0 i w •91 w ow f v dl- in 1 la 04 1 N Adjustments Per Dwelling Unit TABLE 19 ' PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES $834 $240 CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT $451 $345 $312 -------------------------------------------------------------------- $374 PSBF Funds $58 - - - - -� $20 IMPACT FEES: CAPITAL COSTS LESS ADJUSTMENTS Total $2,037 $1,760 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- - --» -- Type -of- Development------ - - - - -� Schogj TUe Duplex -------- - - - - -- $921 $796 Single Triplex Garden r Mobile ' $285 Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home High School CaRital Cost Per Dw in Unit $679 $378 -- - -- ' Elementary School" $21399 $1,245 $804 $1,188 $1,621 ' Middle School $1,279 $621 $438 $706 $854 High School $1,553 $737 $526 $921 $805 ' Total $5,231 $2,603 $1,768 $2,816 $3,281 ' Adjustments Per Dwelling Unit Property Tax $1,527 $1,386 $648 $834 $240 Sales Tax $451 $345 $312 $353 $374 PSBF Funds $58 $29 $20 $31 $37 Total $2,037 $1,760 $980 $1,219 $6571 ' Adjustment Allggltion, By Schogj TUe Elementary School $921 $796 $443 $551 $294 r Middle School $330 $285 $159 $197 $105 High School $786 $679 $378 $471 $251 Total $2,037 $1,760 $980 $1,219 $651 ' Im act Fees - AlL_gphool-TyResildentified Need Elementary School $1,479 $449 $360 $637 $1,327 Middle School $949 $336 $280 $509 $749 ' High School $767 $57 $148 $451 $554 Total - - - -- -------- - - - - -- $3,194 --- - 843 - - - -- --------- $ 788 - - - - --- -- 5 97 $2,629 t Page - 16.9 1 TABLE 20 PUBLIC SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS, COSTS, AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ------------------- - - - - -- IMPACT FEES: CAPITAL COSTS LESS ADJUSTMENTS Type of Development Duplex - - Single Triplex Garden Mobile Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Capital Cost. Per.Dwellinc Unit Elementary School $2,660 $1,335 $894 $1,422 $1,766 Middle School $1,357 $673 $452 $730 $902 High School $1,670 $835 $561 $897 $1,117 Total $5,686 $2,843 $1,907 $3,049 $3,786 Adjustments Per Dwelling Unit _ Property Tax $908 $981 $561 $1,127 $259 Sales Tax $458 $381 $367 $388 $441 PSBF Funds $66 $33 $22 $36 $43 Total $1,433 $1,395 $950 $1,550 $74-2 Adiustment_allocation, By School e Elementary School $1,193 $1,162 $792 $1,291 $618 Middle School $76 $74 $50 $82 $39 High School $163 $159 $108 $177 $85 Total $1,433 $1,395 $950 $1,550 $742 Impact Fees - All School T_yRes Elementary School $1,466 $173 $102 $130 $1,148 Middle School $1,281 $599 $402 $648 $863 High School $1,506 $676 $452 $720 $1,032 Total $4,253 $1,448 $956 $1,499 $3,043 Impact Fees - Ident' 'ed Need Elementary School $1,466 $173 $102 $130 $1,148 Middle School $1,281 $599 $402 $648 $863 Total $2,747 $772 $504 $778 $2,011 Page - 16. 10 School District Orange Chapel Hill - Ho T e County - Qrrbcro Single - Family $2,747 $3,194 Duplex, Triplex, Quadplex $ 772 $ 843 Garden Apartment $ 504 $ 788 Townhouse $ 778 $1,597 Mobile Home $2,011 $2,629 COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES The most widely used method for collecting impact fees is when application is made for a building permit. Prior to a-building permit being issued, all required impact fees must have been paid. This practice is not only administratively easier, it is also consistent with the County's current policy of collecting tap -on fees for the Efland sewer project. An alternative collection method proposed by representatives of the Homebuilders Association and Board of Realtors is to collect impact fees when a Certificate of Occupancy is requested. It is at- that time that a housing unit has been completed, final building inspections have been completed, and the prospective purchaser is ready to "close" on the unit and move in. The impact fees may be incorporated as part of closing costs or they may be included as part of the mortgage loan. The basic rationale behind this collection method is that the costs associated with school capital needs are paid directly by the new household creating the demand for additional facilities. A final collection method suggested recently and used by jurisdictions in other states is to collect the impact fees at the time of development plan approval; e.g., subdivision or planned development approval. While impact fees, or "development fees" as they are called, could be collected using this method, lots in a development may sit empty for years, and the County may find itself in the position of having to refund fees for lots that are not developed in the CIP period. In addition, collecting fees on lots in new developments does not address the issue of collecting fees for homes constructed on existing lots. To derive estimates of the amount of impact fees which might be collected during the FY 1992 -93 to FY 1997 -98 period, the growth in the Orange County housing stock was analyzed from 1980 to 1990 [see Table 21]. Because of inconsistencies in data sources, the range of housing types had to be narrowed somewhat, and census tract data had to be used to estimate the number and type of housing units in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District. Although Page - 17 1 1 C 1.1 TABLE 21 GROWTH IN ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING STOCK BY HOUSING TYPE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 1980 TO 1990 Orange County - % of $ of % - Change Housing Type 1980 Total 1990 Total 1980 -1990 Single - Family 16239 56.7% 20819 - 53.8% 28.2% [1 Unit, Detached and Attached] Duplex, Triplex, 2416 8.4% 3091 8.0% 27.9% and Quadplex [2 to 4 Units] Apartment 6744 23.5% 9546 24.7% 41.5% [5 or More Units] Mobile Home - 3238 - 11.3% 5227 13.5% 61.4% Total 28637 100.0% 38683 100.0% 35.1% Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District % of % of % Change Housing Type 1980* Total 1990* Total 1980 -1990 Single - Family 9242 49.9% 12242 48.3% 32.5% [1 Unit, Detached and Attached] Duplex, Triplex, 2118 11.4% 2826 11.1% 33.4% and Quadplex [2 to 4 Units] Apartment 6319 34.1% 9197 36.3% 45.5% [5 or More Units] Mobile Home 827 4.5% 1689 4.3% 31.7% Total 18506 100.0% 25354 100.0% 37.0% Orange County School District % of of % Change Housing Type 1980 Total 1990 Total 1980 -1990 Single- Family 6997 69.1% 8499 64.1% 21.5% [1 Unit, Detached and Attached] Duplex, Triplex, 298 2.9% 265 2.0% -11.1% and Quadplex [2 to 4 Units] Apartment 425 4.2% 349 2.6% -17.9% [5 or More Units] Mobile Home 2411 23.8% 4138 31.2% 71.6% Total 10131 100.0% 13251 100.0% - 30.8% Source: 1980 and 1990 Census of Population and Housing; * - indicates data compiled from census tract information. Page - 17.1 the numbers of units is important, the most critical data on Table 21 is the rate of growth in housing types between 1980 and 1990. By converting the 10 -year rates to annual figures and applying them to the 1990 housing stock, by type, estimates can be made of the number of new housing units constructed in each year of the capital improvement program period (see Tables 22 and 23]. Because the census data showed declines in the number of structures containing two to five units in the Orange County School District, it was assumed that structures of this type would be built during the CIP period, and the annual rate of increase for attached and detached single - family homes (2.15$) was used to project modest increases in such units. Finally, by multiplying the housing unit estimates by the schedule of impact fees derived in Tables 19 and 20, impact fee revenue projections can be prepared for each year of the capital improvement program period (see Tables 22 and 23]. For the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District, the total amount of impact fees that would be generated from FY 1992 -93 to FY 1997- 98 would be $12,0741650. As indicated previously, the School District has identified the need for one elementary school, one middle school;.and a high school. Based on the minimum standards and cost data contained in this report, these facilities would cost $31,395,434. Based on the projection of impact fee revenues, approximately 38 percent of the cost could be financed with such - revenues. If compared to the cost of the same school facilities proposed as part of future bond issues ($48.0 million), impact fee revenues would represent approximately 25 percent of the total capital costs. For the Orange County School District, projected impact fees amount to $9,936,989. A proposed middle school and elementary school would cost $15,235,784, based on the minimum standards and cost data. Of this cost, roughly 65 percent of the amount could be covered by impact fee revenues. If compared to the cost of the same school facilities proposed as part of future bond issues ($26.0 million), impact fee revenues would represent approximately 38 percent of the total capital costs. A final question related to the collection of impact fees is whether impact fees collected in a particular school district would be specifically earmarked for use in that district. The answer to this question is yes. For example, impact fees collected from the construction of a new home in the Orange County School District would be placed in a capital reserve fund, impact fee trust fund, or similar account earmarked specifically for that school district. As the construction of new schools'began in the school district, funds would be appropriated from the fund /account to cover a portion of the total school cost. The same procedure would hold true for the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District. AFFORDABILITY ISSUES In assessing whether or not to establish impact fees the impact fees at the maximum amount, the affordability fees is a major factor to be considered. Page - 18 [-,j 1 L or to set of the I U2 w I � I W I 7 a W I Ord I E � U I 14 E I � M 1 W q o 1 C�iaO1 i w O n 1 �xa avr~ 1 W In 1 C O oW 1 rn 1 �i� IJN I E�.3 E A o+ 1 w x .i I m a 1 1 x 1 H 1 � 1 1 � I x I 1 IwI co IEI to I 1 � 1 Iwl 1 1 E a I C7 1 xi 1 N 1 1 N I o 1 = 1 1 I I � 1 T o I � � 1 � 1 1 1 �D I � Irnr I .a 01 I �r 1 CTM 1 I I 1 1 IA 1 In 1 a.l 1 01 1 L7 1 I 1 I ?y t i N I ., 1 to I O 11 1 1 1 a 1 ' C 1 of In 1 r1 1 rl 01 1 J, 1 >r I 131 G" 1 O 1 1 C�19 1 1 rl 1 eel 1 1 m a 1 C." 1 ry QI i�iyyl 1 1 It. n �r QI rl v n ri n In I m N In %0 N N w .-1 �? In a -4 In O O m M rl N Io rl N In a rI In n co n O 0% M In o o a e+1 r•1 (n NP b qr co co CD LO O r v 11 r4 a 1 N 7 ry In 0 N 1 11 IT of 1 rl 01 1 1 1 ky I I 1 1 1 a r e•1 at CA IRF U 01 i W. � Rai 1 V► V► H 1 I 1 1 d► dr sr 1 Ir'1 In a 1 N N m Io 4J O 1 1'7 en m $ 41 1 1 In 1 v 1 N I � 1 I 1 I 1 � I I 01 I 1 ri I 1 rl I I a 1 I In 1 I rl 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I rNl 1 I ei l 1 I , I I 1 1 wl I of rl 1 nLn aIm v 1 O 1 ri m aI o N I n �I N I yr I ;w 40 in n In rl v n aAd0 1 qp n � rn n M O of 1 O rH N OI ey 000 co P4 I rl 1 10 O 1 01 to i u U . -�+ I 4J 4J 0 k AJJ „00 A1 e -4.4 M a we 'D E i g + d J E1 0 Clio CSC oloymgS.lx c 0510 yi 0 �, 94 IA 1 01 e4 0 r4 r1 O N $4 In -.4 1 O i 0 y C p —to —4 1 pG 1 W E O .0 I 0 0 r LL'1 i ry rl 1 y1 FI m w N y fri � 1 x1 1 a� W I °4 I E 1 1 G� ai H 1 Page - 18.1 i i i a1 O OD M n i eh I 1 1 1 In a T o n I Ln I I I n 1 u1 O m .i rl l o l I 10 o 1 In N 01 O N 1 01 1 I 1 .1 Im 1 01 O 01 Ln a I CD 1 I 1 I�r I .i � � V► 1 � 1 I 1 I I V>• 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I In N O r e•i I r l I I %0 1 %0 of kD to co I in I 1 1 G1 1 1 + I I 1 0l r 1 ri ao to o r 1 In I 1 1 rl rn I u1 IT T rh m I ry 1 I I 1 1 P"1 V>• eJr a ri 1 .a 1 I 1 W I rl '41 01, 1 I I 1 1 V} I I I 1 1 in o In In m I b 1 I 1 1 ea o N u1 T 1 n 1 1 Oi I In I o n In o u1 1 n I 1 O I 01 1 . . . 1 G 1 01 10 1 0l ul en r4 eh I m 1 I 01 1 rd rn 1 0 D+ of eti n i v l 1 9 1 1 1 en V). Vh a rl 1 0 1 aiw iri 1 I 1 f/t I N 1 I 12 1 1 fry 1 1 v o N cc 0 1 I 1 I I r 01 N N O I 1"1 I 1 V 1 a 1 m w In 01 In 1 In I I U I at 1 I Io 1 01 to I r N O e7 of l a l 1 CL 1 ri 01 1 w 01 (n T N l r l 1 H 1 ]e I I N V& alp en ri 1 01 1 1 1 p4 1 rl Vt l 1 I C I i n e•1 IV 4 01 I r I I C I 1 e•1 of cl DI O 1 (A I 1 r; 1 en 1 a r in r In 1 w 1 1 1 a+ I 1 1 01 d' I W QI r w In I r I 1 I rl 01 I N o o n N 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 N V> V! m e-1 1 m 1 1 i w 1 ri vt 1 1 I 1 1 i i 1 I I o at O a In 1 w 1 1 1 N 1 1 0l m In o r ri 1 I e•1 Q1 r a tD l I N I 1 1 1 01 1 I 10 M 1 1 ri 01 I co co o N l d' 1 I 1 7+ I I m V} Q). m 1-4 I co 1 V) VI. 1 � 1 I 1' 1 1 1 1 I I �I 1 1 1 1 1 i 7m 1 01 Gn 1 0 0h O %D r l 0 1 1 LL' f_4 1 to a �D �D o 1 In 1 1 11 Ili o a r 1111 1 I 01 W I r4 ID N n 0 1 IT 1 I W , Ir ID M N 01 I r I I o 1 r In Ln v x 1 0 1 I JJ 4j 1 V> N VY 1 + 1 I d.01 1 I VY 1 1 N N I 1 1 1 rl obi 1 I 1 I a r1 1 1 I 1 41 1 1 I 1 1 'O b 1 1 to r 0 I -4 a Ac ue•01.1 r. al o�i i E'I 1 a�4 � to "4 a °' c x0 I I a I cog goo k «40+8 0 01 1 i •A 1 'i fy' m 'O 1.1 ri 1 r1 1 m 1 QI r1 c rw A Ic N w o +I 1 tv 1 x 1 N E C ■C I E I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 O In N 1 I I I N tl� I O I 1 I n I N a l O I I 1 0l I 1 N n 1 1 O I I I 1 r10+ 1 I i 1 1 1 7+ 1 1 I 1 W 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I N n I O cc Ln 1 1 1 1 1 I I v 1 1 1 10 I N C I %0 w a 1 � W I 1 W 1 I U 1 1 � 1 1 I 1 0 1 1 E 1 I wpH;n a ra 1 1 qr]W r1Q0 1 I N g U E 1 aE�.NO+ o E-1 C14 1 1 EE001 I 1 vl 0 wu 1 1 xwP'4 i o0 t9 � 1 1 x 1 I a i i 1 1 � I 1 1 rz1 ' 1 IEI 1 � 1 1a1 1 O 1 Mi 1 O 1 1x1 I T I 1 I I 1 I 1 u1 Il1 e0 1 1 1 O In N I 1 I w o n 1 1 I 1 1 I (n co 1 rl I ON cc 1 111 n i i w N n 1 1 O I to 1 LO 1' N 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 �r 1 VY •.4JI 1 01 10 1 1 I W 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I O n O t 1 1w co 0 q I 1 •.d 1 1 10 to 1 1 7 1 I n N %0 O 1 1 O u1 x1 to CA k I m Lin 1 +i I rl C1 I P4 ol I I W 1 }I 1 W 1 1 I Q 1 0 E A 1C � E+ IS N 10 1 1 01 rl 1 e'f 1 r) 0 1 01 1 O J 1 m 1 1 0 1 01 I% % >~ 1 r1 01 1 I C I C1 ko 1 %0 N 111 H at 1 P4 1 V} I ,� 1 I ttn0 I 1 1 1 01 N to CO 1 N 1 rl m i i 1 01 1'7 1 101 o O Iw 1 1 I I11 1 L %0 1 n cc N ci I Cam] 1CIA* 1 C)m I tr- n n 10 m 1 • vl` fA LL1 H 01 wW i� v} I 1 1 do do d. in O i•I 1 r V4 ' a�y 1 tv N N O O 1tl I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I co O 1 N I Q1 1 r•1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 co a i 1 11 1+1 I LL1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 10 O 1 01 1 IV qr cn 1 111 1 1 1 CO n 1 N 1 1i I N 1 en 1 in ' I 1 a �4 1 1, 1 111 O 1 1 1 vNr 1 I 1 a• do 1 tn 110 cv 1► I 1 1 I ( 1 1 1 1 H 1 iT I p U1 N 01 41 1 11'1 1 IYi 1 m 0 OI F CO O I f H I 1 H I EH+ I 1 I rn 1 i v v •., •4J« to iv x to C pm, i� Am 41 p1,0 i "4 E %F 46) ', O 1 1 W 1 Iw•�m�+ a a x1 IWI m� op X0401 OH G m 1 m b y , 1 r1 1 I 01 F -;I + 1��ro�Aiam+ia O 1 +1 O O C4 d l O 1 7E 1 l E 1 H 1 Page- 18.2 1 1 a�i n C+ m ]+ li W W I aJ 4J Ito en a o+ I HN O r•1 01 I b 'M H pa I m OA E4 tr a .04 IA 7 O x N n I 1 .� I 1 10 O 1 u1 1 CO W 1 v 1 � nisi to n 1 n 1 '•I 1 O 1 '•1 1 '•I 1 N 1 f/Y I I 1 47 � I 10 1 N N I rl I n a�lal I 1 �D W 1 111 I Vr O1 1 eo 1 olnl ri 1 '•i 1 I 1 I I P'1 N 1 O 1 1nf1 111 1 rNl I • I 1 ka u1 1 n 1 V! N 1 T 1 '•1 I '•I I rOi rn i rn a O 1 a 1 1 1 �O 1D 1 rl 1 to IA 1 O 1 T 1 t0 1 ItAI 1 I O O 1 cn I C\ 1 to Q1 I N I W 1 to . I yr I + I 1 rl I I 1 n r1 1 n 1 ri 1"I ; C1 1 1D [•f 1 O I vs m I u1 I I '•i 1 1 Vs 1 1 I I 1 I 1 u1 Il1 e0 1 1 1 O In N 1 I n 1 '•I o n 1 1 kD 1.4 M (n co 1 rl I ON cc 1 111 n 1n Ln I O I I 1 1 1 1 47 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 �r 1 VY 1 I W 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I O n O 1 1 I n co 0 q I 1 O 10 I 1 O 1 I t a n 1 0 cv u1 1 I r 1 01 I n to fA ala0nx�VSO0 P4 ol I I W 1 1 1 I 1 0 E A 1C � E+ O a 1 0 1 01 I% % I C I C1 ko 1 %0 N 111 H at or V} I ,� 1 I ttn0 txi� i`h m i i o O in 1 1 I I11 u1 %0 o O ci I Cam] 1CIA* 1 1 to 1 0 In 1 C1 N LL1 H 01 4f v} 1 t I N W 1 r•1 1 1 1 O 1 1 co Ln I� 1 1+1 1 Ifl n N 1 1 OI 1 1 1 01 a l �0 N u1 1 1 rl O 1 'i �h fA 1 I 1 7i 1 t/t i 1 1 1 1 1 1 'O.1 r•1 � 1 I N I 47 n rl 1 1 0% c'1 1 c'1 N 111 I I H 01 1 O 'A yr I I W I a �4 1 1, 1 111 O 1 1 1 vNr 1 I 1 a• do 1 tn 110 cv 1► I 1 1 I ( 1 1 1 1 H 1 iT I p U1 N 01 41 1 11'1 1 IYi 1 m 0 OI F CO O I f H I 1 H I EH+ I 1 I rn 1 i v v •., •4J« to iv x to C pm, i� Am 41 p1,0 i "4 E %F 46) ', O 1 1 W 1 Iw•�m�+ a a x1 IWI m� op X0401 OH G m 1 m b y , 1 r1 1 I 01 F -;I + 1��ro�Aiam+ia O 1 +1 O O C4 d l O 1 7E 1 l E 1 H 1 Page- 18.2 1 1 a�i n C+ m ]+ li W W I aJ 4J Ito en a o+ I HN O r•1 01 I b 'M H pa I m OA E4 tr a .04 IA 7 O x N n I 1 .� I 1 10 O 1 u1 1 CO W 1 v 1 � nisi to n 1 n 1 '•I 1 O 1 '•1 1 '•I 1 N 1 f/Y I I 1 47 � I 10 1 N N I rl I n a�lal I 1 �D W 1 111 I Vr O1 1 eo 1 olnl ri 1 '•i 1 I 1 I I P'1 N 1 O 1 1nf1 111 1 rNl I • I 1 ka u1 1 n 1 V! N 1 T 1 '•1 I '•I I rOi rn i rn a O 1 a 1 1 1 �O 1D 1 rl 1 to IA 1 O 1 T 1 t0 1 ItAI 1 I O O 1 cn I C\ 1 to Q1 I N I W 1 to . I yr I + I 1 rl I I 1 n r1 1 n 1 ri 1"I ; C1 1 1D [•f 1 O I vs m I u1 I I '•i 1 1 Vs 1 1 I I 1 I 1 u1 Il1 e0 I I m M 1 0% 1 n 0 co 10 u1 I co 1 �a r1 u1 o r+ 1 al 1 N n N C1 LL1 1 kO I kD 1.4 M (n co 1 rl I O Q). [A �A 01 1 M 1 M Ln I O I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 41 1 I IVO 10 X O G 4J ++4) x4J q I 1 0 X96 wmi bJJ O 1 m+lE 00 QaJX 1 ala0nx�VSO0 P4 ol i 0 E A 1C � E+ 1 Impact Fees --specific Improvements one means of reducing the affect is to levy impact fees only for certain improvements. In Broward County, Florida, the $451 impact fee for a single- family home represents only the capital costs associated with school site acquisition. As a local example, Tables 24 and 24 show the capital cost per student and per household for land acquisition only. In the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District, an impact fee for this purpose would be $390 for a single - family home before any adjustments. In the orange County School District the impact fee would be $149, reflecting the lower land costs in that district. Im act Fees - RedUced Fee schedules Another means of reducing the affect of impact fees on housing affordability is to adopt a schedule lower than the calculated fees. In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, impact fees of $3,204 were initially adopted for a single- family home. That amount represented 56 percent of.,the calculated fee and was an attempt by the governing board of that jurisdiction to phase in impact fees over a period of years. Locally, several options are available for establishing a - lower impact fee schedule. In its deliberations, the School Bond Committee actually identified a need for $53.0 million to initially finance the cost of one new high school and two new middle schools - in the CIP period.(This amount does not include $2.0 million to be included as part of the bond issue and needed for technology; e.g., computerization, improvements.) However, the bond issue proposed for November, 1992 is limited to $50.0 million for the schools. To make up the shortfall, impact fee schedules could be set to raise the difference of $3.0 million. Of the total, $2.0 million is needed by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District and $1.0 million is needed by the Orange County School District. As indicated previously, another bond issue will have to be put up for voter approval near the end of the CIP period. Funding obtained through approval of the bond issue would be used to finance the cost of two new elementary schools, one for each school district. The actual need identified by the School Bond Committee, however, is for $26.0 million dollars, not the $24.0 million ($12.0 million per school) to be put up for voter approval. Again, to make up the shortfall, impact fee schedules could be set to raise the difference of $2.0 million. Of the total, $1.0 million is needed by each school district. Shown on Tables 26 and 27 are calculations yielding a schedule of impact fees which would raise $2.0 million and $3.0 million, respectively, to meet the funding shortfall in the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School District. Tables 28 and 29, respectively, identify what the schedule of impact fees would be to meet the $1.0 and $2.0 million shortfalls in the Orange County School District. Page - 19 TABLE 24 ' PUBLIC SCHOOL LAND NEEDS AND COSTS CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT Type of Development ----------------------------------------------- - - - - -I Duplex Single Triplex Garden Mobile Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home ------- --------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -� Public School Children. Per Dwellinc Unit Elementary School 0.212 0.110 0.071 Middle School 0.105 0.051 0.036 High School 0.118 0.056 0.040 Total 0.435 0.217 0.147 Lan Area [SQFt],., reK Student Elementary School 1193 Middle School 1273 High School 1525 Land Cost Per Student Elementary School $822 Middle School $877 High School $1,050 CaRital C st Per Dwell' U Elementary School $174 Middle School $92 High School $124 Total $390 1193 1273 1525 $822 $877 $1,050 1193 1273 1525 $822 $877 $1,050 0.105 0.058 0.070 0.233 1193 1273 1525 $822 $877 $1,050 0.145' 0.071 0.062 0.278' 1193 1273, 1525 $ 822' $877 $1,050 ' $90 ,, $58 $86 $119 $45 $32 $51 $62 , $59 $42 $74 $65 $194 $132 $211 $247 Page - 19.1 1 ' TABLE 25 0.247 0.124 PUBLIC SCHOOL LAND NEEDS AND COSTS 0.132 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT __-------------------------------------_----- 0.117 _-- __--- _----------- _- _-- - - - - -- 0.039 0.063 Type of Development ' --------------------------------------------------- Duplex 0.134 0.067 single Triplex Garden Mobile '------------------------------------------------------ Family Quadplex Apartment Townhouse Home Public School Children, Per Dwellina Unit 7 1I 1 Page - 19.2 Elementary School 0.247 0.124 0.083 0.132 0.158 ' Middle School 0.117 0.058 0.039 0.063 0.075 High School 0.134 0.067 0.045 0.072 0.086 ' Total 0.498 0.249 0.167 0.267 0.319 Land Area rsc t Per Student Elementary School 1193 1193 1193 1193 1193 ' Middle School 1273 1273 1273 1273 1273 High School 1525 1525 1525 1525 1525 7 1I 1 Page - 19.2 Land Cost, Per Student ' Elementary School $274 $274 $274 $274 $274 Middle School $292 $292 $292 $292 $292 ' High School $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 Capital Cost, Per Dwelling Unit Elementary School $68 $34 $23 $36 $43 Middle School $34 $17 $11 $18 $22 High School $47 $23 $16 $25 $30 Total $149 $74 $50 $80 $95 7 1I 1 Page - 19.2 I I n v 0 1 11 �Q 14 H � 1 1 I '1 I W I I 1h N u1 I N tp r•I 10 I m ri 111 I ,-4 C I r In 1 v In 1 N 1 rti W N 1. C1 V Ill I Ol In I r•1 1 ri 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1r1 ri I � N LL1 1 In in 1 I rl O Ot 1 N 1 4 a� 1 rM 1 Ln 1 ri I 1 ri I I I I I � 1 1 1 1 CC a i n 1 M 1 1 I 1 n 0 1 rl I 11'1 e' I M 1 v I Q I I ri I x 9 H rd 1 1 I N m 10 1 I I I W I I E x 1 1 I I (n O 1 1 I I 14 I 1 1 1 1 1 0 O r4 m 1 1 O c a •W I 1 I 1 to 1 Il"1 r4 c co C � 1 1 I O 1 + + •"rl i o01,w + 1 I I C 1 r1 CI 1 1 I 1 0 1 1 1 yr C I 1 CO I N I 1 I Ir I p. I N r r r m 1 I 1 I N V V>• V V> V V>• toi i i rn i i in o n i i 11 OM "I W i I x i a r0•1 W I 1 1 Ot 1 I 1 1 Ln LO O In n I 1 i -H i r4 Ch 1 trC, I rl I W 1 I I i1 I I 1 t0 I ul m W C'1 1 `a�.WE i 1 3 1 H E U 1 1 O I I V' M W E I 1 1 1 1 In 17�� co O E W I l 1 n I 1 e '1 1 ah r� U H H 1 1 1 01 1 f I in i 1 OlaRpi 1 V> V CO1 1 > ' ORH4011 1 1 ir�ia0 i' 1 I Wz0c1 I I I W I 1 1 1 1 1 1 zcr0001 M M M U r�►7N�+ I 1 1 1 N a d 10 H O W I 1 I I n tL1 O Ntn�".a I I I N 1 a� r4 c ,1! O 1 d� n r4 G1 n 1 0 1 E+ % 1 In 1 1 1 •rl U 01 I n In cc . 1 N 1 0 O 01 1 0 ri N Ol E o7 L1 W W N 1 I I I N W 1 I E 1 H Ia•1 0�i I 1 1 Vi V r In 1 v In 1 N 1 rti W N 1. C1 V Ill I Ol In I r•1 1 ri 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1r1 ri I � N LL1 1 In in 1 I rl O Ot 1 N 1 4 a� 1 rM 1 Ln 1 ri I 1 ri I I I I I � 1 1 1 1 CC a i n 1 M 1 1 I 1 n 0 1 rl I 11'1 e' I M 1 v I Q I I ri I x 9 H rd 1 1 I N m 10 O O 1 1 E x 1 1 iJ 1 1-1 (n O lw u1 1 1 , 14 I 1 0 0 I Ln N N r•1 m 1 1 O c a •W I 1 10 01 1 v r r4 c co C � 1 1 I O 1 + + + + + 1 0 1 W 1 to y yr C I 1 CO I N I I I cn I N r r4 N N r r r ri 1 lD 1 1 I 1 I N V V>• V V> V V>• zau i i i i i H H I 1 1 dr dr N N dr 1 1 to ,7 I 1 1 Ln LO O In n I 1 1 1 I 1 1 C' m m r rl I In 4 41 1 r4 1 I 1 t0 I ul m m C C'1 1 11 1 1'1 1 1n 1 1 m t'1 t•1 V' M 4mJ In r rl � I I O I o l ' Id I rl N N n n r ii f I W a I V1• V V> V 1 1 V>• 1 I ' I 71 1 1 I 1 i I I 1 1 1 1 M M M U 1 I N I I 1 1 01 I co N 01 n N I OJ I W cO I M 1 1 1 c ,1! O 1 d� n r4 G1 n 1 0 1 E+ % 1 In 1 1 1 •rl U 01 I n In cc . 1 N 1 0 O 01 1 0 ri N Ol N I In 1 1 01 1 ri 01 1 0 r r•I N N N I E 1 O y t VY V Vi V I I E+ V)• 1 C'1 I I a 1 N 1 I 1 I M I 1 ro b I I I E I 1 0 01 l0 1 I W I N 1 1 J: n t 4J 1 I p a 1 en 1 I 1 I N e ep I Ill p z Vv 1 ri I I 1 1 aid 4J 4)) X 40J p I 1 I E I 1 ?1 0 4J r•1 01-,4 1 1 N I Q I , 1 3 1 0) 1 r•1 a 0C Q r•1 r. 0 1 1 a n I n l l o l a 1 •.�1 •r�l a s W 01 1 1 m 1 N I I Q I I I N v vi- V V} 1 1? V V> 1 P9 1 1 0 1 E4 I ro4i m++E roams O 1 1 w I 1 I W•4mrl 0 q x.I I w 1 101 C11 1 Coq C,00IW I 1 I z l C 1 010095E 4J6o01 I I I H 1 •r+ 1 ry A O ro 4J r•I 1 r-I 1 UE I N 1 to 1 tr r+ c 01 ry q. N W 1n " 1 10 I N 1 O 1 , 1 U 1 0 1 C-3,MO-4 -4 1 4J 1 G4 d' O 1 0 1 0 1 •+ O p C1+ 0 1 0 1 z r I C 1 x 1 = 1 V1 E D .J; '. I E I M Page - 19.3 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I Ill d d' m m n n r 1 I I I I n 4 4 r r-I N N r rl 1 0 1 1 I n I ul v v r r4 c co C C% I 1 I O 1 + + + + + 1 1 1 1 I O1 CO I en t to y yr C C11 C CO I N I I I cn I N r r4 N N r r r ri 1 lD 1 1 I 1 I N V V>• V V> V V>• w I I IA I 1 I w I I I 1 I I In n n o o 1 1 I 1 1 C' m m r rl I In 4 41 1 r4 1 I 1 t0 I ul m m C C'1 1 11 1 1'1 1 1n 1 1 I a1 n 1 m I In r rl � �a O O I o l ' 1 1 rti � 1 r♦ r rl N N n n r rl 1 Ill I I I V1• V V> V V► V V>• 1 I ' I 71 1 1 1 W I I 1 I 1 M M M U Ul O I I I 1 I N P P9 C CO N N c cO I M 1 1 01 1 m er I In a a % % 1 In 1 m I . 01 t0 1 01 I In 1 01 1 ri 01 1 0 r r•I N N I .D 1 I I N V VY V Vi V V1 V V)• 1 C'1 I I a 1 N 1 I 1 d I I0 1 I I W I 14 n n t to 1 10 a a 1 en 1 I 1 I N e ep I Ill p p V Vv 1 ri I 10 1 C 01 e eo m m N Chi I N I Q I , 1 1n 1 at In 1 m C C r ry C C1 n n I n l , I 04 1 m 0% 1 0 r r-1 N N 1 10 m m 1 N I I Q I I I N v vi- V V} 1 1? V V> 1 P9 1 , I C I I C o o1 O O O O N N 1 O 1 , 1 A 1 1 m 1 1+ d d' O O r r•I I co I 1 a' 1 I•l 11 7 7 r r I C Co n n 1 m I I Ot 1 1 1 +1 1 1 01 a 1 1D v v r r•i 1 10 1 10 1 In 1 1 1 M 01 1 01 N N N N % %0 r r•1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 t tl► U UJl V Vr t to 1 m I v' i �i• w i v i � 1 i i I 1 I Co n n N N N N r r•I 1 4 1 , , I I I ri I 1 I rn I + + + + I I I 1 l 01 rl t o � � o o r rn 1 1A I u1 1 1 1 r•1 01 1 0\ r r•I N N W W r ri 14 1 I 1 1 1 r V Vi V V1• V VI• V VI• I Pl I ' I I 7� I V>• I I v> I I I W 1 I I 1 ' I 1 1 1 I i I I 1 1 1 0I n l I I 1 I 01 01 1 r•1 d d' m m N N 0 0 1 0 1 ' 1 a r+ l a r r o o I In m m 1 4 1 ' I I N N N I In n n N N I O I I 01 W I O r r•1 t t~I 0 01 I Ill 1 4 1 I Drq 1 v 0 01 1 1" 1 N N O O I O I I O I N ' '& A A - - r ri y 1 I U y 1 ¢ V>• I ¢101 1 1 V 1 H N 1 I I 1 1 Ct 1 t O 71 1 1 1 1 1 E•1 W 1 ( ( I I I 1 1 1 >rW * *3 1 1-4 0.4 1 1 1 1 w I r~ Q r r$ 1 1L r•1 C 0 01 I I 1 1 °'i•s • •ibo o o� i i 1 1 1 b4� 0 014JE b btl�yz O O I I I I W •rl N N •ri a a C C x x 1 I 1 r v ON '•I v 1 c l %D -4 n In n I v N ti to 1 01 I rI In 1 H 1 cn N �i 1 i .••1 ry rn 1 V) rI Di 1D 1 1 V) r1 V) 1 In I 1 R I rl 01 1 l0 In r1 w 1 1 5, I I d l 1 1 M I I 1 M N 111 �z N I N 1D '•I v In l0 1 v I rl ul N T 1 V) V} N I � N N 1 1 I rl (M I 1 •.i I I e•f O N I dt I I I ]c I N I 1 1 I V) 1 w I C 0-4 —. I 1 V) V1 I 1 I v 1 1 I N I I I n I r•I 1 I I 01 1 I 1 01 o 1 I '4 p1 1 I 1 1 1 1 w D1 I ON I 1-4 1 14 1 I I I 1 0 O rf m r1 I v l I 1 I I I 1-1 %D N N Ln 1 ul 1 I 1 1 I Ipn I v rI In 1 H 1 1 4) N �i 1 i .••1 ry C1 1 V) rI Di 1D I 1 ( M V) r1 V) 1 In I 1 R I rl 01 1 l0 In r1 I I 1 5, I I d l 1 1 M w o1 I I I, u1 v r� u1 v r N I I r w I r-I N C7 V) V} N I � N N 1 1 I I 1 •.i I I e•f O N I dt 1 1 I N I 1 1 I V) 1 7y I V) C 0-4 —. I 1 V) V1 n CD r O D+ I N I I p, W 1 1 0 1 I T u1 d O v l .a 1 1 P•1 I H rI in 1 rl 1 I JJ w I 1 1 01 1 N 14 lD I N 1' 1 1 I Cl 1 I C I 01 u1, I O 1 o Ol 1 1 1 11 ro Ern 1' I ail 1 rl H 4 1 1 I W U W 1 1 I I 1 O CV I n 1 1 N I I 1 iy rl 1 C 1 7y 1 N I 1 I H CIO w�r 1 I y 1 w 1 I 1 1 1 HEG 1 1 1 1 I N O N d 1 N 1 0 I N U M 1 1 Ir 1 1 M O 1 .- N I CO I I 1 0 CO a %D v co W I '•1 1 1 C W a [•r 1 1 1 1 CO to O n v I n 1 1 C E Z Cn 1 I H 1 c'1 1 c" 1 N 1 In rl a 1 0 1 1 e4 U H H 1 I ro 1 01 1 I H I 1 W 0 m 1 l a l D1 v 1 I I I I I I 1 h z 01 01 1 I I I O M a 1 I I t•. 1 1 1 I 1 1 aC n l I rZ 1 7+ 1 1 I r a x 01 1 1 I W I 1 1 1 0 1 OHUr4 1 1 1 1 I I 1 z A ca 1 I I 1 1 I I 14.' ►a 7'6 1 1 1 1 N v d n t0 I rl I I r H O w I 1 1 I n u1 O In v l m 1 1 N CA Ti, Qi I I N 1 m rl v I Q I 1 9 41 1 1 0+ 1 I rl I I W EOa1E 1 I 1 D1cn 1 1 1 1 .4 Ch 1 I ( I x1 e+1 eh 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I >+ I 1 1 I E E U I I 1 I w 1 1 1 I CAW I N I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I wlNaarn 1 I I i i i i i x H rl 1 I 1 WW 1D In O 1 I E x 1 I }1 1 lD co CD O ' •I N I I 4 1 x 7+ 1 1 0 CO I n f•^1 c'1 (4 u1 1 1 , I' 0 0 %3 w 1 1 ro m 1 vt v) v) to v) 1 1 1 EI W UOgg I 1 1�•Iw I I 1 1 zW4U a H H 1 I V1 d 1 1 O w xa 1 1 z 1 I 1 CA I 1 E I I I I I 1 E I U) 1 W 1 I 1 � 1 E I I C7 I I t7 I Izl 1 I••I I 1 N I 1 .7 I 1 = 1 dp eY d' dr d/ 1 u1 u1 v to r 1 N N NI u1 i rl .0 1 ICCO"o i eo 1 1 1 1 1 •.i U 01 I r In O r•1 n m O O1 1 O rl N 0% rl .1 0 ca I 1 01 N N 1 C 41 I ro IOtl k to G I ++ 41(1)x41 p p, i •��I A 41 1 E 1 Rc�y� m�'IE 0v Cox 011 1 Ca C -�0 GI51 I •r�l i -4io, o a�i�y4J 041 CA 1 IT .•1 C r1 rl Cr N 6 u1 •4 I O I C -+ 3— 7. 1 U) E+ O Page - I 1 I to I o 1 E nl l 41 1 I N I E-4 I 1 W I 1 1 I W 1 IW11 1 ,7 1 rl 1 u I E-1 I H I 19.4 10 T rnr �rn I � I w I Cn ri 0 ri %D ID co n n c•1 rr w 0 � 1 m I 01 aCi>4 i a' 1a o v I• cal N c"'I .••1 ry C1 V) V) rI y) I 1 ( M V) V) r1 V) 1 In rl N l0 In r1 rl O O N M w o1 O 1n u1 v r� u1 v r N N f`1 r-I N C7 V) V} N V) � N N Vr 41 1 0 rn v I � I � u1 V) In n n In N In to I I v 01 v co N I 10 I 1 0 P n n In I In rr w 0 � 1 m I 01 aCi>4 i a' 1a o v I• I T 1D I v cl tl O1 W I n I rl 01 1 r1 N cn O N I O I 1 ( M V) V) r1 V) 1 In V) 01 1 V) I V► I w I I I 4J 1 1 I I I I 1 O rl e'1 O I 1D I O I 1 CO N c0 r 1D 1 N v I 10 v n n Ca 1 u1 I T I 4J � 4)) -4 Oct �A 01 In I v N N ? 41 1 0 '•I 01 1 0 N e•f O N I dt 1 I r7 V) Vt r1 V) 1 7y I V) C 0-4 —. I 1 V) I V) w 1 1 I 1 1 I I H m N N 1 n 1 1-1 I o rl N 14 lD I N M I rl n n N O 1 o Ol 1 1 01 v I Ll rl H 4 u1 I P'1 rl 01 1 Ol N c'1 O CV I n 1 1 N V). V) rl tIr I v N V) V) W I I 1 1 1 1 1 I N O N d 1 N 1 0 I N v 01 M O 1 .- N I CO O l0 CO C'1 I r m I +1 T e•1 I tc rI O ul v l n l r1 01 1 to N th 0 N 1 In I I N or V) V) V) I v l 7+ I V) I Ur w I I I I I I 0) W 1 4C1 n Ot I a rOi 1 � rOi 111 N � 1 C"1 Qt N 1D Co aCi>4 i a' 1a o v I• w 1 lD n o a In °p iJ 4J 1 i vt � � U 1 A IV, V) T 1 � 1 I H N 1 01 1 r1 01 1 4J 1 E W 1 C 4) rn U U 1 •4Ji 1 ro ro k CA IC I 7 7, N 4J � 4)) -4 Oct �A 404 w C >, 1 1 , ; x 0 9 ed �14 �idgoaxa0l"om .1 I r-I 4 Q),0 4j H I to 1 01 rl O ry W C N w In ••� 0 C 0-4 —. I 1 E = W 0 sc = lal I O I I O I Io1 Io1 I o 1 Cl 1 qfl� 1 .+ 1 ro I p I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 n 01 01 t0 ri T I 7+ W Ln N n ri N 1 1 I I O N r I I I 1 ri N I 1 I 1 U) 1 I I ON I I I 1 k. I I I I I 1 1 1 1 t0 N b I I to 1 111 I N I I aJ I 01 1' I I ••i I d1 tD 1 1 I iT I fs. I to 1 1 1 I n N b w i ixia ir01i Gr i 19 1 (m 111 1 EW 1 I •.4 1 ri01 1. H U I I w 1 1 E x 1 1 ri 1 1 r�i WHE-4w i 0 l IH01 i i � i 17, a azE�iarii i41 cc 1.4 A DW 1 i 11 i co N � Nwz00 1 1 101 1 WEOMEI I 1 I d1N 1 t/Y N d ch I E E 7i 1 1 1 1 W 1 U) WEN 1 I 1 I W Ms� z m I 1 I I IXi E-4 C7 W 1 I go 0) 1 91. 91. V3. C9W� 1 I H� 1 H H 0 1 I 1 dP dP do kn ,7 Cl 1 1 1 rdl f-4 .di 0 w I 1 ri C 1 x 9z I 1 10 al 0) I m C4 N � 1 • 1 � M FC 1 z I I 1 1 ul w E 1 1 1 E to ix 1 C� 1 � o°c 1 (� 1 U' 1 0 1 = •A V 01 <A O of 0 41 ri 0 to x m1 EI •ri I OI 1 1 I v U1 N T 1 1 111 N [. n a U1 I n dV N m co 1 0% d m 1 N 1 ri 1 --� --� 1 b b 1 _ 41 1 r4 I a to k 01 c I Si m 'O.1 ) -M b 1 •W.I A • q C6 1°1i v W-w•-I w"4 0v Rz 1 0M00ka4J 000 i ri ,C 0.0 W H I ri OI A C rl ri c N W In „y I it I E 1 HI E 1 wi w 1 ❑1 a w w� Ei 1 C� 1 �i M 1 Page — 19.5 W p 4J 4J O a� I M N 01 I rl 01 411 «i O 96 I E•1 w I M W. V). d' 03P ON O I T I to r1 1 0 1 co O 1 rn 1 O I n I b 1 CO 1 1 N fj> I N 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I O N I U1 I c0 O 1 4 I Vj- +I I olrnl olnl Y'1 W 1 ri I N n 1 ri 1 m C 1 n I 01 I n 1 t1r I r+ I I � I t0 N O � m n t1r n� 00 yr I ri 1 r1 1 + 1 ri I �D I ri I � I d N 1 N 1 n C1 1 a% 1 ar i f-I i 1 v1. 1 N n I N l n v 1 01 1 us +I +1 U) I U) I V► I N I � I O1 O w co o 0 v 01 � a LO rh O 0 0 O O C I b b I I 1 C c +1 1 I I b to X N c 1 I 1 7tiW 41-4 � a 1 1 011 H0 4ari m 1 1 1 0 + I i i q, D O 1 i E 1 1�i -.�i tmp�iE 10 �zx i 1 tr 1 01AOAx�+ja00) 1 1 •� 1 ri .0 (1 b 41 �4 w l ON ri c M rl C N 1r in •i I 10 1 o f �yo`+a x°`•04 0 i a x l M E A 4 z 1 E 1 1 I I I I q- 1 c0 I I 1 I N ON m V 1 W l 1 I n 1 co N cm 1 I 1 1 01 I Vf N 1 I I I tl1 to 1 !•► 1 I HCA 1 1r� I I 1 1 I 1 I I I W I 1 I I 01 I 1 O 1 11'1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I V' n N M l v l I I I d 1b n � I t0 1 I 1 W I ri N 01 I I 1 I ON 1 I I 1 1 01 n l w 1 I I I d a1 I n 1 I I I 1 1 th I I I I 5+ 1 I I 1 1 W 1 i I I I I I d O I N I I 1 1 co 0 en on, It 1 W I v l 111 1 U1 N 01 I 1 1 7 1 01 I ql, +1 I I 1 I C 1 d �D I� I 1 I W I ri C I r' I 1 1 7 1 11V). 1 I a i w 1 I I I 1 1 v I I 1 I 1 01 1 1 W v I CO 1 1 W 1 1 to e'1 v C'I 1 U1 I 1 :A 1 .0 I U1 N C1 1 I I C3; 1 ri a� I n 1 1 1 0 1 1 CIO O 1ol 1 ar I a l 16 1 I 1'1 w ri N l in l O 1 1 m I tp 1 1 I 1 C1. 1 0 i 1 1 I 1 1 co n I N 1 1 1 1 to O to ri I N I I ( I U1 U) 01 m I Ul 1 1 I N I U1 N CO I 1 ( I o1 1 yr ar I 1 I I o+ r1 1 of I 1 I I ri T 1 U) 1 I I I W 1 1 I I I I 1 1 co 14 1 I U} N I I 1 1 to 1 1 1• 1 1 1 1 1 dP 0 1 1 1 .7 Im I U1 a I I 1 0) C1 I n 0 Rp 1.4 .H 1 I 1 Ix ri 10 �o �o • 1 I 1 I n 0 to N n 1 1 1 0) 7e 1 1 I 1 01 W 1 aD ri U1 1 1 I v U1 N T 1 1 111 N [. n a U1 I n dV N m co 1 0% d m 1 N 1 ri 1 --� --� 1 b b 1 _ 41 1 r4 I a to k 01 c I Si m 'O.1 ) -M b 1 •W.I A • q C6 1°1i v W-w•-I w"4 0v Rz 1 0M00ka4J 000 i ri ,C 0.0 W H I ri OI A C rl ri c N W In „y I it I E 1 HI E 1 wi w 1 ❑1 a w w� Ei 1 C� 1 �i M 1 Page — 19.5 W p 4J 4J O a� I M N 01 I rl 01 411 «i O 96 I E•1 w I M W. V). d' 03P ON O I T I to r1 1 0 1 co O 1 rn 1 O I n I b 1 CO 1 1 N fj> I N 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I O N I U1 I c0 O 1 4 I Vj- +I I olrnl olnl Y'1 W 1 ri I N n 1 ri 1 m C 1 n I 01 I n 1 t1r I r+ I I � I t0 N O � m n t1r n� 00 yr I ri 1 r1 1 + 1 ri I �D I ri I � I d N 1 N 1 n C1 1 a% 1 ar i f-I i 1 v1. 1 N n I N l n v 1 01 1 us +I +1 U) I U) I V► I N I � I O1 O w co o 0 v 01 � a LO rh O 0 0 O O C I b b I I 1 C c +1 1 I I b to X N c 1 I 1 7tiW 41-4 � a 1 1 011 H0 4ari m 1 1 1 0 + I i i q, D O 1 i E 1 1�i -.�i tmp�iE 10 �zx i 1 tr 1 01AOAx�+ja00) 1 1 •� 1 ri .0 (1 b 41 �4 w l ON ri c M rl C N 1r in •i I 10 1 o f �yo`+a x°`•04 0 i a x l M E A 4 z 1 E 1 y w w W �N W of Ike N E �W per (J Iy w E+ CO r� x u at QpIM I x an NxEEM °ac's OI�Mti7W Ntll"i;0 W 00 a E4 CC�Ntl1M E E ]e I u1WEN W cn 01 x ~Or4 �+ u ?y a�ww C7 q z ood r4 w N � a Ot OW a a 0 z I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 U2 1 a7 1 Ee 1 1 H 1 E- I W 1 I 1 O �i O a 01 x 1 n I rn I C1 O I rl O1 I 1 I 7+ I W I W I T I rnnI .a O1 I I I ]� I LL 411) 1 Oc 1 •.1 I 01 c0 I 1 rl CA 1 O I >4 I C1 I �. 1 � I I •.4 1 I 0 1 I 1 0% 1 1 1 I yip 3 1 I C7 1 rl i Ih ro 1 01 I0C i�ia�+ C 1 1 1 W N 01 O1 M rl 01 I wII 41 ro a awl H I rl 4 N JJ m : 3 4- ��al� a' G7 III b+ I 9; ..X O •.4 U 01 W 0 a O (4 x I Qe II E tI �I � I of xl In ry e:1 01 1 I I O r-I Co co n I O 4 111 a1 n I 1 � 1 I I O N n O1 I I I 1 Co I In 1.4 r4 N 1.4 1 a N Vi• VY I 1 tD I I 1 I 1 t0 N t0 co I I I 1 O I N O Ch 1 rl N M d O M 1 t4 I 1 1 1 I n N t0 Co I I 1 1. 1 W � In O1 t0 wln rl W. N Q M 1 111 I 1 N N rl rl 1 1 I I u1 In yr rh 1 I 1 m N co co O 1 O% n '4 rl N 1 M m O tD t0 e•1 1 In 1n to O c 1 1 1 I H lA T tp I I 1 1 I m N t0 cIO 1 n I N co eq 94 411 It& M I to n I � I � O I � � I I I 7+ I fs. I t0 O1 rnnl 1 I 7+ I w I I m I ul I GCI 1 � d1 1 1 7 1 1 1 aiw a1 W 1 I 1 I 1 U 1 01 1 ro l c+ln l 1 H 1 ?+ I � 1 1 1 � 1 I 01 de I 1 r4 01 1 1 I I 1 7+ 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I N I 1 I 01 1 1 1 I I W 1 1 I t I I to tc v n N I I 1 N O rn T CO I 1 I n M N r4 10 1 1 I I 1 1 dr do do dP dr 1 1 It1 In In Ln t0 1 I rl rl .4 rl .4 1 1 I I N N N N n I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 i� qF N n n v IInn I"I I E O N M O 1 01 1 co M 1 N 1 E w 0) a m i i w U U+ I I x y �mk41 I 1 �w7 -A a 6960 sm4 m 1 1 a I4� m+.E OvOZ 0 1 1 wW W.4 m+4 9 C x I I w I 1 �JC Clomr� I I I 4 C 0V ormi I rr 1 U c�3�Q� Mm A i 4J 1 a .+ o � a o 1 o I z I N E C oT Z I E 1 " 1 Page - 19 . 6 �r W e:1 co H I a Co co n D 1 4 111 a1 n o 1 � + . I LA r4 N to I ul Vi• VY m r N to O• M d O 1n 1 M In O1 t0 to M W. N Q 1 M I eT N N rl rl N u1 In yr rh o rl � N n '4 rl N 1 M 1n O tD t0 11'f 1n to O c ul H lA T tp rl v 411 It& Co rl r4 N n co N v o ul ca to 1r1 M m rl 1n a� us yr n N e-4 qjl- nl O1 1 ll+ 1 1 u1 1 n I f'1 I � I I 1 I 1 O 1 T I � 1 • 1 a7 1 u1 1 M I V7• I I I I I N 1 N I v I + I � I � I M I t? I en I co I �I N N m rl a O W N 1 In to n I'1 n I" 1 a 4 111 m In CO 1 co + . . 1 Oy V4 rl M 1 n q' 4/} NY c0 1 O rl .i 1 e'1 to 1 1 1 M Q N Q 1 M I eT rf N 0% V O7 I w r4 In n Ln CO I co � 1 n '4 rl N 1 M M f? Vf LLl 1 01 rl ri 1 N yr t1r I ur 1 m co I � a i 1 mnl Q>) 40m% i s o m n o 1 IZ r•1 I rl N N n t0 I I v M eh n rl I Co 74 1 I m W I n M '•1 Ot Co 4' o i m yr o 1 00 1 H 1 b M 1 vii p11 1 1 N N 1 1 01 I 1 b � 1 i o 71 i 1 Ew1 1 1 m m N 1 1 U U + ...I 41 4A a m 41 I to fa x to m 1 � 0 � Oe -4 m i •wbo o � 1 E'I i w�Im0•�iE���� -4 1 r0�m MIS 4J 01-m4 1 m I Oc N C rl rl C N N in •.4 0 1 C- 3— CLro —ro I —A 1 x i N E A FC z O a 0 O 0 a N II II I I I I I I � I 0 O a 0 O 0 a N II II I I I I I I � I 0 Housing Type Single - Family (1 Unit, Detached) Townhouse (1 Unit, Attached) Duplex, Triplex, and Quadplex (2 to 4 Units) Apartment (5 or More Units) Mobile Home The schedules implementing impact maximums. Chapel Hill - Carrboro Orange County , School District School District $482 Million Million - Million Million $512 -- $768 ---- - - - - -- $363 ---- - - - - -- $726 ' $258 $386 $153 $306 $204 $305 $147 $294 , $140 $210 $ 98 $197 $350 $525 $241 $482 summarized above represent one means of , fees at levels lower than the calculated Im act Fee - Number of Bedroom Another major issue identified in the discussion of affordability is the regressive nature of any kind of fee schedule; e.g., low- income families must pay a proportionately higher cost than upper income families. While setting impact fees based on the income of families seriously erodes the defensibility of the system, graduating housing types by the number of bedrooms in a unit addresses the regressive nature of any fee schedule. The rationale in using "number of bedrooms" is that the more bedrooms a home has, the higher the cost'of construction, and the higher the family income must be to pay the mortgage. In addition, there is a relationship between the number of bedrooms in a home and the number of children; e.g., more bedrooms equates with more children or students. To derive student generation rates by housing type and number of bedrooms, calculations were made using 1980 and 1990 census data, and the average number of school age children per dwelling unit for structures built between 1975 and 1980 in the South Atlantic region. The calculations are identical to those made at the beginning of this report except the additional variable of "number of bedrooms" was introduced. As was the case in the initial calculations, student generation rates were adjusted to reflect conditions in Orange County in 1990; e.g., decline in persons per household, public versus private school attendance, and enrollment by school type. On Tables 30 and 32, final student generation rates, by grade category, housing type, and number of bedrooms, are shown for the Chapel Hill- Carrboro and Orange County School Districts, respectively. Using these generation rates and the schedules of impact fees developed previously, an alternative series of fee schedules were calculated to reflect the number of bedrooms in each Page - 20 1 1 1 `J I ' housing type. The schedules are shown on Tables 31 and 33 for the Chapel Hill - Carrboro and orange County School Districts, respectively, and appear to provide a means of tailoring fee payments to the circumstances of individual families. Impact _ Fe• Waivers /Egemptions ' Suggestions have been made that fees be waived for housing projects which clearly benefit low and moderate - income families. Rather than granting such waivers or exempting these types of ' housing projects, organizations sponsoring or building such housing can request funding through County and municipal budgets to pay the impact fees. This technique is employed by other jurisdictions, and ' it is the same policy which Orange County has in effect with respect to building permit and development application fees. Xortgage„Xayment ZaRacts As mentioned previously, a suggestion was made to collect impact fees at the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ' or the "closing" on a home. However, concern has been expressed that inclusion of the impact fee in the mortgage loan would actually increase the long -term cost to the home purchaser. For ' example, a family wanting to purchase a new single- family home in the Orange County School District with a value of $98,000 would be required to make a minimum down payment of five percent or $4,900. ' if the family financed the mortgage, excluding taxes and insurance, for 30 years at the current interest rate of 8.5 percent, the monthly payments would be $716. if, however, a maximum impact fee ' of $2,747 were passed on to the family and added to the cost of the home, the minimum required down would be increased payment by $137, the monthly mortgage payments would rise to $775, and interest payments over the term of the loan would.be $4,857 more. However, ' if the lowest impact shown on Table 33 ($363) were enacted, the minimum required down payment would be increased by $18, the monthly mortgage payments would rise from $716 to $756, and interest payments over the term of the loan would be $642 more. For a single - family home valued at $165,000 and located in the Chapel Hill- Carrboro School District (impact fee of $3,194), the ' minimum required down payment would be increased by $159, the monthly mortgage payments would rise from $1,268 to $1,293, and interest payments over the term of the loan would be $5,646 more. ' However, if the lowest impact shown on Table 31 ($512) were enacted, the minimum required down payment would be increased by $25, the monthly mortgage payments'would rise from $1,268 to $1,273, and interest payments over the term of the loan would be ' $905 more. ' Impacts - Esistinq Relidents , A final concern related to the issue of affordability 1s the impact on existing residents. Specifically, questions have arisen as to whether an existing resident would have to pay an impact fee if he /she built a new home in the county. The answer to this ' Page - 21 f' TABLE 30 FINAL STUDENT GENERATION RATES CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT BY GRADE CATEGORY, HOUSING TYPE, AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN HOUSING UNIT y------------------- ------- School - Age - Children - Per - Unit - - - -- r Elementary Middle High Dwelling - Type --- - - -_ -- School - - -- School - -_- School - - -- Total - -- ' Single - Family 0.212 0.104 0.118 0.434 2 Bedroom 0.061 0.030 0.034 0.124 ' 3 Bedroom 0.194 0.096 0.108 0.398 4 Bedroom 5 Bedroom 0.424 0.599 0.209 0.296 0.236 0.334 0.870 1.228 ' Duplex, Triplex, 0.110 9a051 0.05,C 0.218 and Ouadplex 1 Bedroom 0.028 0.013 0.015 0.056 , 2 Bedroom 0.070 0.033 0.036 0.139 3 Bedroom 0.226 0.104 0.115 0.445 ' GaLden_Apartment 0.071 0.036 0.040 0.14§ 1 Bedroom 0.013 0.007 0.007 0.027 2 Bedroom 0.051 0.026 0.029 0.106 ' 3 Bedroom 0.232 0.117 0.131 0.480 Townhouse 0.105 9,05-8,.-. 0.070 0.233 1 Bedroom 0.046 0.025 0.031 0.101 ' 2 Bedroom 0.050 0.027 0.033 0.110 3 Bedroom 0.127 .0.070 0.085 0.281 ' Mobile Home 0.145 0.071 0._063 0.278 1 Bedroom 0.054 0.026 0.023 0.104 2 Bedroom 0.060 0.029 0.026 0.115 , 3 Bedroom 0.278 0.136 0.120 0.535 Page - 21.1 1 TABLE 31 STUDENT GENERATION RATES AND IMPACT FEES ' CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO SCHOOL DISTRICT BY HOUSING TYPE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ' ---------"'------------- Impact - Fees--- �- _- - - - - -- student __________ Generation Maximum option #1 Option 02 ' Dwelling-Type _ - - - - -- Rates `- , ( -------------------- --------- - i - - - -- ' 1 IPage - 21 .2 Single-Family. 2 Bedroom _ 0.434 0.124 $3,194 _ $913 $512 $146 ,768_ $219 3 Bedroom 0.398 $2,929 $470 $704 4 Bedroom 0,870 $6,403 $1,026 $1,540 ' 5 Bedroom 1.228 $9,037 $1,449 $2,173 Du 1 x TriRlex, 0.218 843 258 3$6 and Ouadplex 1 Bedroom 0.056 $217 $66 $99 2 Bedroom 0.139 $538 $155 $Z46 ' 3 Bedroom 0.445 $1,721 $527 $788 Garden A artme t -0. 4 78 20 30 1 Bedroom 0.027 $146 $38 $56 ' 2 Bedroom 0.106 $572 $148 $221 3 Bedroom 0.480 $2,591 $671 $1,003 To1 nhoMse 0.233 $1 $ $ ' Bedroom 0.101 $692 $61 $91 2 Bedroom 0.110 $754 $66 $99 1 3 Bedroom 0.281 $1,926, $169 $253 Mobile Home_ 0.278_ $2,529 $350 $525_ 1 Bedroom 0.104 $984 $131 $196 ' 2 Bedroom 0.115 $1,088 $145 $217 3 Bedroom 0.535 $5,059 $674 $1,010 ' ----------------r--------------------------------------------------- Footnotes: (1) Assumes one high school and one middle school ' built during CIP period, with school or total of $2.0 million $1.0 million per funded from impact fees. (2) Assumes one high school, one middle school, and ' one elementary school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total of $3.0 million funded from impact fees. 1 IPage - 21 .2 1 1 TABLE 32 , FINAL STUDENT GENERATION RATES ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BY GRADE CATEGORY, HOUSING TYPE, AND ' NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN HOUSING UNIT -� - ------ --- -------- --- ---- School -Age Children Per Unit 4 ' Elementary Middle High Dwelling Type School School School Total ' Single - Family 0.246 0.115 0.136 2 Bedroom 0.070 0.033 0.039 0.142 3 Bedroom 0.226 0.105 0.125 0.456 4 Bedroom 0.493 0.230 0.273 0.996 5 Bedroom 0.696 0.325 0.385 1.406 ' Duplex, Triplex. and_Ouadplex 0.128 Oeg§6 0.065 0.249 , 1 Bedroom 0.033 0.014 0.017 0.064 2 Bedroom 0.081 0.036 0.041 0.158 3 Bedroom 0.262 0.114 0.133 0.509 ' Garden Apartment _____0.082 _ 0.039 0.046„ 0.168 1 Bedroom 0.015 0.007 0.009 0.031 2 Bedroom 0.060, 0.029 0.034 0.122 ' 3 Bedroom 0.271 0.129 0.152 0.552 Townhouse 0.122 0.063 0.081 0.266 ' 1 Bedroom 0.053 0.028 0.035 0.116 2 Bedroom 0.057 0.030 0.038 0.126 3 Bedroom 0.147 0.077 0.098 0.321 ' Mobile Hom - 0.168 0.078 0.072 0.318 1 Bedroom.. 0.063 0.029 0.027 0.119 2 Bedroom 0.070 0.032 0.030 0.132 , 3 Bedroom 0.323 0.150 0.139 0.612 Page - 21.3 1 1 u fl I r� 1 TABLE 33 Page - 21.4 STUDENT GENERATION RATES AND IMPACT FEES ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BY HOUSING TYPE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Impact Impact Fees Fees------- - Student ------------ - - - - - -- Generation Maximum Option #1 Option #2 Dwelling Type Rates (1) (2) Single- Family 0.497 ._ $2,747 $363 5726 2 Bedroom 0.142 $785 $104 $207 3 Bedroom 0.456 $2,520 $333 $666 4 Bedroom 0.996 $5,505 $727 $1,455 5 Bedroom 1.406 $7,771 $1,027 $2,054 Du lex Triplex, Q.249 S772 $153 $306 and uad ex 1 Bedroom 0.064 $198 $39 $79 2 Bedroom 0.158 $490 $97 $194 3 Bedroom 0.509 $1,578 $313 $626 Gard n A a tment 0.168 $504- S14Z S2"L 1 Bedroom 0.031 $93 $27 $54 2 Bedroom 0.122 $366 $107 $214 3 Bedroom 0.552 $1,656 $483 $966 Townhouse _ 0.266 _ ,778 $28 $197 1 Bedroom 0.116 $339 $43 $86 2 Bedroom 0.126 $369 $46 $93 3 Bedroom 0.321 $939.. $118 $238 Mobile Ho _ 0.31$ $2,011 r $241, $482 1 Bedroom 0.119 $753 $90 $180 2 Bedroom 0.132 $835 $100 $200 3 Bedroom 0.612 $3,870 $464 $928 Footnotes: (1) Assumes one middle school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million funded from impact fees. (2) Assumes one middle school and one elementary _school built during CIP period, with $1.0 million per school or total'of $2.0 million funded from impact fees. Page - 21.4 1 question is yes, since the resident's move to a new home will probably free an existing home for a new resident moving in. While the existing resident and not the new one would pay the impact fee, , there is no simple way of dealing with such situations effectively. For example, the existing "resident" could be a young married couple with no children. The couple builds a new home and sells their existing residence to a retired couple from another state. , The couple who built the new home then decides to have children, and, in the long run, creates an additional demand for more schools. If the retired couple had to pay the impact fee as a "new , resident ", the cost of needed facilities would be passed to them and not the young married couple. The number of examples which could be provided to support or ' oppose payment of impact fees by existing residents is endless. Perhaps the important point to remember, though, is that over the long term, an individual home will be bought and sold many times. , Whether a new home is built by a couple with children from another state or by an existing family with no children, both the direct and indirect result is to set up a situation where a demand for ' additional school facilities is created. The demand may not be immediate, but it exists because of the opportunity for a home to be occupied by a family with school -age children. In this sense , then, the existing resident must share the responsibility for creating additional demand as well as payment of the impact fee. OFFSETS TO IMPACT FEES I One concern which has been expressed by developers and municipal representatives is that exactions in the form of water, ' sewer, street, and recreation facilities are already in place in local development approval processes. If developers must pay impact fees, the ability of local governments to "exact" other ' improvements may be affected. However, when developers dedicate or build needed facilities, it is a form of payment of impact fees. Thus, it follows that the amount of impact fees otherwise due would be reduced by the value of that construction or dedication. Most impact fee ordinances provide that construction or dedication is a means for payment of impact fees and provide for corresponding reductions.,guch a provision insures that a developer is not required to pay more than a proportionate share of capital costs. It makes no difference whether the cost is borne in kind (construction or dedication) or in cash. Title VI, Chapter 460, of the 1987 Session Laws allows provision to be made for credits against required impact fees when a developer installs improvements of a type that generally would be paid for by impact fees. The enabling legislation also gives the County the right to spell out the circumstances under which a developer would be allowed to install such improvements and receive credits. One obvious example of an offset would be the situation where a developer proposes a large residential development and dedicates land for a school site. Instead of utilizing all of the land for Page - 22 1 ' residential purposes, lots are reduced in size and clustered, creating sufficient land for the school site. The developer thus ' maintains the permitted density and receives a credit against the payment of impact fees equal to the appraised value of the land. ' Another example is the situation where a large residential development is proposed, and water and sewer lines must be extended to the site. In the process of extending the lines to serve his /her project, the developer also extends service by a proposed school ' site. Since the school board will not have to bear this expense, the developer receives a credit for impact fees equal to the cost of extending water and sewer service to the school site. ' CONCLUSION ' The rationale behind any system of impact fees is basic - those households or users generating the need for new facilities pay their proportionate share of the cost of the facilities. In the case of school impact fees, this report has shown that even if the ' maximum amount of impact fees were levied, the revenue derived from this source would not be enough to pay for the total cost of needed school improvements. Furthermore, the report has identified options which provide for lower schedules of impact fees. These lower ' schedules are based on funding a projected $5.0 million shortfall identified by the School Bond Committee (see Page 19). If these funds are not raised through impact fees, the alternatives are ' limited. Needed school improvements must be put off until later when their cost will be higher or existing home owners must bear a greater share of the cost through higher tax rates for debt service payments. Related to the need for school capital needs is the expense of operating new school facilities. Many people think that growth pays ' for itself; e.g., tax revenues received from new home construction pays for the cost of educating our children as well as other services. Shown on Table 34 are general fiscal impacts of four recent subdivisions on the operating budgets of the County and the Chapel Hill - Carrboro School Board. For each subdivision, there is a deficit balance in terms of taking in enough revenue to finance ' services to the development. In Appendix C, a fiscal analysis for the Mel Oaks Subdivision is provided to illustrate that education is the largest per capita expense for the County. While the County has a balanced budget each year, it must provide the level of education that its citizens demand. This can only be accomplished through increases in the tax rate, since ' revenues from other sources do not appear to be forthcoming. As growth occurs, it creates demands for facilities and services. While a system of impact fees cannot address deficits in operating budgets, it can insure that the some of cost of needed capital facilities can be borne directly by those individuals and families creating the demand. 1 Page - 23 I ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE: Analysis assumes all subdivisions are located in Chapel Hill- , Carrboro School District for comparative purpposes. 1 1 Page - 23.1 , TABLE 34 ' COMPARISON OF FISCAL IMPACTS OF ------------------------------------------------------------------ SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISIONS - - - - -' Subdivision ------ ----------------------------- - - - - -- Woodland Laurel Wildwood Heights Item Springs Mel PROJECT DATA Township Chapel Hill Chapel Hill Hillsborough Cheeks ' Total Lots 76 29 26 27 Developed Lots 59 22 25 23 Avg Sales Price $169,885 $175,905 $47,345 $73,498 , Build -Out 5 Years 5 Years 6 Years 3 Years SUMMARY OF PR J CTED IMPACTS At Project Bui - ut Housing Units.- 59 22 25 23 , Population 160 60 68 63 School Children 40 15 17 15 Tax Base $2,178,000 $3,957,000 $1,203,000 $1,5621-000 , County Government Revenues $87,763 $34,153 $18,467 $18,690 Expenditures $99,308 $37,030 $44,112 $35,228 Balance /Total ($11,545) ($2,877) ($25,645) ($16,53$) ' Balance /Per Lot ($196) ($131) ($1,026) .($719) School Board Revenues $183,204 $68,700 $75,819 $61,617 ' Expenditures $201,141 $75,002 $89,346 $71,352 Balance /Total ($17,937) ($6,302) ($13,527) ($9,735) Balance /Per Lot ($304) ($286)• ($541) ($423) , ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE: Analysis assumes all subdivisions are located in Chapel Hill- , Carrboro School District for comparative purpposes. 1 1 Page - 23.1 , FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Subdivision Location Map LAND USE PLAN SGaL.E PL CATEGORIES: MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION �"' Leos RURAL BUFFER A NODES: ,- _ _- 1 "' jVITY RURAL INDUSTRIAL !0 YEAR TRANSITION PUBLIC INTEREST AREA RURAL COMMUNITY 20 YEAR TRANSITION WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED RURAL NEIGHBORHOOD CARREORO TRANSITION CHAPEL HILL TRANSITION WATER QUALITY CRITICAL AREA F.71 COMMERCIAL TRANSITION ' COMM /IND TRANSITION RURAL RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL 1981 as amended _ �a+r�w r ow� m i..rwc ow ' Page - 23.2 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Subdivision Location Map 1 fl 1 1 [11 111 1 Page - 23.3 1 a APPENDIX A GY!~'BRAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA '.967 S SSION RATIFIED $ILL ' CHAPTER 460 HOUSE BILL 917 AN ACT MAl'1NG SUNDRY -,1 =— NDM= -NTS CONCERNING LOC. --'_ GOVB.RNMBNTS IN ORANGE 4,ND CHATHAM COUN71 —=S. ' The General Assembly of Earth Carolina enacts: f '771 —E V1. ORANG •COUN, i Y IMPACT FB=!S. Scc. 1 7. G.S. 1 is 2mendcd by identifying Lll-. cxistin; provisions as (a) and n(juillg nCty SuhsCCtlp1'S 10 read; ' "(b) Impart F ccs .="uIhorizcd. (1) Oran ,-e County may provlcie by ordinance for a system of impact fecc to he pales by dcvGlopers to help defray the Costs to the County. Of ConStruciin` Ccrinin capital improvements, the need for ' wh'ch'is Grculcd in substantial part by the new development L, t t3l;e5 place - vilhin the County. _ ' (2) -Gr purpos''s of this $v'bSect1pn, the term Capital i iarOvemC:�ts inCiucicS the necluisition Of ]and for ODen s:;ace Prid t-retnw'2 -s cnpiml i-mprovCmCnis t0 pu;+liC Strects, Schoois' brlQt-es, si6v'walk -s, - nll:c%voys. on and off street Surface' water dramcize ditches. )cs. ' culverts, o[i)cr drai ;.a+e :acilides, water and sever facih iYs and public recrcntion faciiitics. (_i) n ordinnnrt ado.plcd under this st1't+scclion rr,av l e anl)ii�ahic to all development [ nt occurs wlihin the County. ' (c) r�.;lount of , Cc�. in cstnhiishing the amount of any impart fce, the COLin,v s`.all cn(i %aw ar to a])nrcaril the ohiective o, ;.axing cvery development cm- ariout° to capital i,- ,11�ra�cmeilts fund :in amount of revenue that `,cars a reasonable relations ,-11D ' to that 1nc` rCtits o1 tnc Coplta] l,i,arovar cnis Li,ZL ar e nccded in art because of ilia cv fi •. ti e r• t d el�pmenl. In fulfillinD this obj..� ti th_ COL'-',T\, s;,all, anion•" other stcaS anti toiaPtiast of imnrovcmen ;s by Category (c.g.. Streets, side�.al ;ti. dr ;inaSc �.'ay5. e1C:� li:al ••ill be needed to prov)01-1 in a rcas:,na't�l,. ,:, ;trincr for tihe public ht ltn, safety and welfar_ of ' persons rsidlng wilhin the County durin�� c re�5pr.able ?]ar,: ^.i ;.Y :It ripd pat to °eec 20 years. I he Board of County CO3i.rnlSSipnerS ,.,t'y ~dlvl0e [,'1e COUniy lnlp:.iw.0 Or mpre 01St171CL5 and CSti,;.:lt°. L :C Costs of needed ea: -I \ -district. These estimates shall hu I'C"ie%\ed ;lad ul>c::tlLd and Ihu planning; 11eriUd uSc:L] nlu)' be Chaned it'o,u III 10 111M. (2) E.'aablish a perctntL-ce of the 10":.11 casts of c:w h c:lle -ory of improvement that, in ktcpinc v- 10i the ut \jvc6\ t >;a ford: .Ilia\ Should fairly' he hornC IW 11Io,C 1) -161)" ih,.• irllil :l:t fau. (;3) F.tit:IbIlSh :1 torrrlu!a 1!11:11 fair!\- 11111:1 ohjc:CtiVe_) ` al)llr„ •1ion5 I tot:! costs that zrc to he borne b), tltosu p:f\ ink intll:Ict fech :Into, vahuus typos of devclupmcn[;. By \\•ay of illuctrat 011 \,•itho� Ii III ita1;011: U. In the case of street improvanicnts, the impact fee nl:ly he relatcd to the nunlhcr of trips per day ­cner:ilcd by diffCI-V types of uses nccorchm, to rcco,_,nilud cstinlat�s; L). In tilt e:ICe: of drairtace inlltrn\elllcnt;, the impact fee ma) he rclnicd to the sire: of n duvalopi -ncnt, the :rnlount 111t1)CI' •iou� tits ctc\•clohmem h:,;, or other f:lcta _ th;11 bun upon the degree to \\ hich a dc\'c:lolanlc CUn11'IhUle� 10 OIL: IIGL:d fUr C1' :IIIl:1121C iIllpl'I,)\ ZMc:lt:1 111. 1I c: :,t PLIMIC txperl�u. ' (d) Capittll Improvcntunts l:tticrvc FLInJs: ExpcndlturcS. (1) lnl}t:Icl fcts 1_CCC1 \•CLI h�• tht Cot►n13' shall he deuosil-_d if') n c :Ihit;il iMP1,0vcnl;ltt, rc•tr\c. fund or fund; cNmWishud unclL;r Citaiticr 1 of the Gur.ur:ll Statutes, ,article 3, ?; iri ?. SJCh iunelti n:a)' Lip exltc:nClud only on the ivpc of eapit :Il improvurtl -tilts f ,)r SuCn intpnzi fees v.cre cs :ahlished, and then only in :iccord.incc \\'ith it pr-ovi:;ion of Subsr~Ction (3) of this suction. (2) In ord ur to Insure that impa—I ft pnid by :i •,a,ticul... cluvelnpmcm arc c.xpcniad on capit:fl inlprovcmcrai tl::It bvntf it th:11 J=VC:lol)mc:nt, the: C011nt)' rla) t3l:abli ;h for each c::t::cary rnpital imprava teal for \:-hick it tull;:cts :In % iml,:aci ;'uc :it lunsi i g�Co ,Irailhir:sl districts or zpnus, anJ `im1,;Ict ices 2Cncr:IteC1, by cJCVC10lanlurlts Within thou:• district.; or zones ML:st ~Dt sl;ent ON intprovtlll!ntS that arc located --within or thnt bcnCFit l,rop::ry loL%Itud \\ithirl those districts or •onus. (e) Crtdits for lrnJlru\ untun!s. r.n intlt:lCt f:::: L71•Llil:anCC s,^ ^.all mane I:,r0vi3iet0 ; crudILS a,nalnst reelt,lrc:d fGUs \\'null n nL:\•c:1e11tur Ins;:tlls improvannem.s of a 1:rl,e tl'i acnurally would bu paid for by the County out of a capim] rcaervc 3ccoLM1 funclurJ t intll:Icl F==s. The or�li:::tm:C r1:cl\� S1•I�11 out the circt:mst::I;CCs u,ldvr \high n dLcvc:l:ll�:I NA!Ih be allowuJ to install Such im:Drovumcmb and rat civc such crvdiu. ((� Apne3Is PI-OCCLlurc:. All orainitncc authorizing, irlllla�t fuc., .a .�r�t�.iuuLJ he -rcil may Llroviot that any pur ;on :1ggrievud by a decision rc::Ir:'Iin� it:l ir,ll:a� i ic4 al�y np }teal to tht Gran -c County Board of A*UJjuStmcllt. if the orfJira:tcc: tnuubii snts - aplte:als proctdurt, it shall spc11 out thc.timc within which tht zpp,tal must Lac 1111 } :t� to. 1111111 board :of :1LJ)1IS[IM:IIt, the na;sihlu zrottnd; for ;if) app=1 and iht board a authority in th4 rnzttur. tilt: fee MUSt Dt paid prior to rc5olution of appcal, and mhcr procedural or subs:antivtt M, alter.; related to appeals. Aoly dccisio� by the board of adiustnl --nt shall Lt. subi -et to rz\•ic \v by the. superior ' court b procctdin�rs in the; nature oi` CCrLSC ^ril in the " sa:n - nlznncr ra is' nrovidcd in C:.S. 153,-. -3 - (g) Payment of Irnpa t F=s. 14n o-dimanc e .auth'ori_ir,,z iazp:tct it u; _:; r,cr�ii pro\•idtd shall shell out whu-n in the uroc -_ss of d"'v-- lopnlcnt aporcwal .:nu construction impnci itts shall bt pnid and by w1lor,l. B)' v.•ay 0 ill- USU:,tiafl \viII)C) imitation, tile ordiManCe nl:s)• pro%'du that all apl:,li�anc fora builGinv p,trmit _ Ar2 ' SUbMit the imp-1ct fee alon- with the per mit 1111 lication. and that building permits i•�hall not bC issued until the impact fee has been paid. (h) Refunds. If this section or any ordinance adopted thereunder is declared to be ' uneonstitulior,al or otherwise invaitd, then any impact fees Collected shall be refunded to the person paying then touether with interest at the rate established under G.S. 105 - 241.1, helm the came rate paid by the Secretary of Revenue on ' refunds for tax Overpoymcntc. (i) Limitations 0n Actions. (1) Any action contesting the validity of an ordinance adopted as herein provicicd must be commenced not later than nine months ' after the effective date of such ordinance. (2) Any action sucking to recover an impact fee must be commenced not Inter than nine months Lifter the impact fee is paid," ' Sec. 17.1. Section 17 of this act shall npply only to orange County, and applies only µithin the pinnning jurisJ1ct1on of Orange County. See. 1S. G.S. 153A -340 is amencled by identifying the existing provisions as subsection (a) and by adding,: new subsections to read: "(L,) Impact Fees AulhoriLCd. (1) Orange County m,iy provide by Ordinance for a system of impact fC-S to bU paid by dcv-.lopurs to help defray the COSLS to the ' County of constructing certain capital improvements, the need for which -is creatcd in substantial part by the new development that lakes place within the County. ' (2) For purposts of this subsection, the tern; capital iMprO%'CMenis includcs the acquisition- of land for open space and (,re-_n,_vzys, capital improvements to public streets, schools. bricicts. sidewalks, ' bikeways, on and off street surface U'21.er drainage ditches, pines, cuivcrts, other drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities and public recrention facilities. (1) An ordinancc ncloplcd under this Subsection may be -.,ode anuiiCablc to all JC Llohmcnl that occurs within the County. (C) Amount of Fees. In establishing the amount of any imput fee, the County shall endeavor. to approach the ohjcctivc of having cvery development contribulC to a ' capital improvemems fund an amount of revenue that bears a reasonable relationship to that devcaopment's fair share of the costs of the capital improvements that are needed in fart because of 01.1t devclof+mcnt. In fulfilling this objective, the County shall, among other steps and aCliUr,S: ' (1) Z:stimatc the total COSt Of imt)rO%'tMznts by cat -gory (e.c., str eets, side��alla, cira1n01•c eLC.) that will bt needed to provide in a r•casor,ablc manner for Lhu pttbliC hcalth, safety and welfare of ' persons residing within the County during a reasonable planning period '' not to exceed 20 years. the Board of * County Commissioners may divide the.. County into two or' more districts ' and estimnit tht* %costs of - ndcded improvements within each disc- ri.Ct. Then` estir,:atcs s" r,all be periodically reviewed and updattLi and the planning period used cony be changed from time ' to time. - (_') Establish a purCCntage o, the total casts of each category o; : - improvemunt that, in keeping with -the* objective set forth above, should fairly he borne by those payin- the impa-ct1ee. ' (3) Ystabli•h a'formt.tla that fairly and objectively apportions- the total COSLS tl ;;st are to be borne by those pavir,g',irnpact fees among �. various types of develOnmcnts. By way of illustration w ithQUt ' limitation: ' A -3 .. House Bill ; � 7 t a. In the case of street improvements, the impact fee m:r h related to the: number of trips per clay gencrateJ j, diffc; nt Wes of uses acuorclinb to recotnixcd e;tit11,11cs• h. In the case of drainagbt inlprovcmcnts. the ii11)lact fcc rlla� he rclatcL) to the siir: of a developnlcnt, the :,111pun o "r impervious surface the devclopmcnt has, or other �r; that hear upon the dcyree to hiC a dttvclo)7mcn, CpnlribulcS tp the ne:cd for drainage improvcnlC;lts ;d a; public expense. (d) Capital Improvements Reserve Funds: Expenditures. (l) lnlpact fees received by the County $hall be deposited in a ca :,1 improvements reserve fund or funds established under Cll:ipter• 9 of the General Statutes, Article 3, Par, Such fund; m:r c expended only pn rile t�•pe of capital improvements for which such impact fees were estnblished, and then only in accorLl;ince Nk•ith c provision of Subsection (2) of thi; section. (3) In orcic:r to en,urc that impact fees paid by a particular clevGlopmcnt are ex}�cn�lcd oil capit:,l irrlprOveillents tll;.it bun ;t that LIGVel0pi11er1t, the County may c$tab)ish for each catc�,or �f cnwit :11 improver11ur1t for %which it collect; an im);:lct fee at )z� ;t �tW p rcoC":r:tuhical districts or zones, and impnct funs GCncratCd v duvelopmcnts within thL;e districts or zone; must bz stacnt irllpro�cnlcnts that are IOC:ItL:J within or that benefit prppci y IoC31t:d within IhOsc districts or zones. (c) Credits for InlpruvenlcnU. An immict fee: ordinancc shill make pr•oviSior, i r crcLlits ngainst rct)Lrircd fct:: %vilen a dev4loper install; inlprovcrllcnts of a tvt�Y tJ t generally would be paid for by the County out of a capital r- SCI-VC aCCOLrnI fu,�dLd U} inlp:iL't fees. Thc.nrcJirance may SDCII out the circulllstances under w),ic}1 a d;:�,CIO , 'will be alJOW-CCl 10 install such imprOverltents and receive such crudity. r (f7 Appe :tls Proc:cclLirc. An ordinance author; zin•T im �:1Gt may provide that any pc:rsorl ate, *ricved by a d,e ;eision re„ fees as provided hCr-in a., carding an inli.,=1 Ice 171' -- appeal to the Orange; County Beard of Adjustment. If the ordinance establishes r� ap.)lcals procedure, It shall spcII out the time \h.itiiitl wllich. the appeal mint be ta;:trl to the hoard of adjustment, the possible grounds for an appeal and the heard' authority in t))e matter, whether the fete mutt be paid prior to re:$alution of ti nom:al, :1nd other proCCdLir :il or substtantive matters related to a)_lneals. :tidy deeisio� by the board of aajustnlcnt shall be subject to review by the superior court b proccedin,s in thL: nature` of cc:-iia::r,i in the sans-! nncr ay is pro.idcd in G.. (a) °aymcnt of Impact Fees. An ordinance authorizing itnc;act fucs as herein Provided shall spell • Out when in thz process at dee:eloprlicnt approval an construction "'Pact fe %s shall be paid and by «horn. By way of illustration without limitation, the ordinance naay provide t.r,at an applicant fora building pCrnlit shall sullillit the impact fee $torso with the oetrrlit application and that building )I- tile not be issued until the inoact fee has been paid. (h) R- funds. If this s::Ction or any ordinance •adopted thereunder is declared to U uncorstitution:a or otherwise invalid, then any • *'impaCt fees collected sh:J! Uu, refunded to the person naying, then to -ether .wilh- ..interest at the rate estab:i ;ht• '.'.,under G.S. 1Q� -? ;1. ?, bein; the same r2te paid by file _ �.. refunds for tax over y- - r SzCrzl._rV o� 1��� eiltie _a (i) Limitation; oil Actions. _ (1) Any. action COntctitinp the vrilidity, of an ordinance ado,) A - herein provided must be Con1111Crlced not 12iCr than nine after the CUCCLive date of such ordinance:-'... A -4 1 ' (�) Any nctimi sucking, to rccover In iilip.l i fee mw;t be commencccl not later than ninr munth. alter the Imhau; fu;, is p :lid." Sec:. 18.1. Suction IS of this act shall apply only to Ora.:,c County, and ' at�nlies 0111)' within the jUriscllctlon of Grange County. 1 � ' (�) Any nctimi sucking, to rccover In iilip.l i fee mw;t be commencccl not later than ninr munth. alter the Imhau; fu;, is p :lid." Sec:. 18.1. Suction IS of this act shall apply only to Ora.:,c County, and ' at�nlies 0111)' within the jUriscllctlon of Grange County. 1 1 f -� I 1 A -6 1 APPENDIX B GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA 1991 SESSION RATIFIED BILL ' CHAPTER 324 SENATE BILL 549 AN ACT AMENDING ORANGE COUNTY'S AUTHORITY RELATING T ' IMPACT FEES. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:. ' rewritten: Section 1. Section 17.1 of Chapter 4¢0 of the 1987 Session Laws reads ; ' "Sec. 17.1. Section 17 of this act shall apply only to Or County, and applit only withi,rr the planning jurisdiction of Orange County. Provided however, ar anion of an Orange County ordinance that contains a system of impact fees r provide for capital im rovements to public schools within Orange County. aooli� ' everywhere in Orange County. including within the corporate limits and extraterritorial olanning. jurisdiction of any city. to�xn, or municipal cog orati within Orange County." ' Sec. 2. Section 18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws_ reads rewritten: -- "Sec. 18.1. Section 18 of this act shall apply only to Orange County, and applit ' only within the planning jurisdiction of Orange County. Provided. however an onion of an Orange County ordinance that contains a system of impact fees t provide for caoital imorovements to aublic schools within Orange County, aoolie even-vhe- in Orange County. including , within the cog orate limits and th ' extraterritorial planning iurisdictian of any. 'city. town. or munici a] cog oratio within Qrange Count." Sec. 3. This act is effective upon ratification and applies only to Orang ' County. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 19th day c June, 1991. JAMc"', G GARDNER -- ' James C. Gardner - _ - -: -- President of the Senate D�INlEL LA - - ULF, JR - �. Daniel Blue, Jr. - Speaker of the House of Representatives [I 1� 1 1 A -8 I APPENDIX C ' FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE MEL OAKS SUBDIVISION CHAPEL HELL TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NC Prepared by the Orange County Planning Department - May, 1991 1 Fiscal impact analysis is a projection of the direct, current, public costs and revenues associated with residential ' and non residential growth in the jurisdiction in which the growth is taking place. Fiscal impact analysis considers only direct impact in that it projects only the primary costs that will be incurred and the immediate revenues that will be generated. It calculates the financial effect of a planned development or new subdivision by ' considering the current costs and revenues such a development would generate if it were completed and occupied today. Fiscal impact analysis does not consider the private costs of public action. It is concerned only with public (governmental) costs and revenues. The method used in preparing the fiscal impact analysis of Mel Oaks Subdivision is the per capita multiplier approach. It is the most versatile and widely used fiscal impact analysis method, relying on average local government costs per person, average school costs per pupil, and the number of persons and pupils generated by a ' development to project future local government and school district costs. The basic assumption underlying the approach is that tomorrow's costs are not unlike today's. The per capita multiplier approach is particularly useful because it provides a fast approximation of the costs of new development based on readily - available data. ' Mel Oaks is a 29 -lot subdivision located on the north side of Jones Ferry Road in Chapel Hill Township west of Carrboro. Mel Oaks was developed during the period 1986 -1990. Of the total number of lots, 22 have had single - family homes constructed on them. The average sales price, including lot and dwelling, was $175,905 (See Attachment A). The ' remaining seven lots have been sold by the developer, but no homes have been constructed as of May, 1991. Since the fiscal impact template was calibrated with FY 1989 -90 Budget data, it was assumed that development of Mel ' Oaks was initiated in 1989. Using I.and Records System data, the number of units sold each year and the average sales price for these units was determined (See Attachment B). This information was used for the "Construction Schedule /Cost Data" portion of the template. On the following pages, an explanation is provided of the template used ' to analyze the fiscal impact of the Mel Oaks Subdivision on Orange County's operating budget. The actual calculations are shown on Attachment C. u 1 r A -9 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT FISCAL EKPACT ANALYSIS Section 1- Project Data Project Name Township School District Construction Schedule /Cost Data Household Characteristics Section 2 - County Government Data Budget Year Per Capita Revenues Per Capita Expenditures Per Student Expenditures Other Data Section 3 - Demographic Projections Based On Project Data Total Housing Units. Total Population School Children Section 4 - County Government/Projected Fiscal Impacts of Project Tax Base Revenues Expenditures Net Balance Section 5 - School Board/Projected Fiscal Impacts of Project Revenues Expenditures Net Balance Section 6 - Summary of Projected Impacts Housing Units Population School Children Tax Base County Government Balance School Board Balance A— 10 1 EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND DATA SOURCES - ATTACHMENT C 1 SECTION 1: PROJs r DATA Project data includes information about the specific development project. Much, if not all, of the information is ' supplied by the applicant. Data inputs include: Project Name: Name of the project. ' Township: Township in which the project is located. School District: School district in which the project is located. ' Beginning Year: The first year of the project in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. ' Ending Year: The last year in which dwelling units are completed and occupied. The template is set to calculate fiscal impacts for a ten -year period. Inflation Rate: Unless an inflation rate is entered, the template will calculate fiscal impacts based on constant ' dollars. Since the inflation rate.changes from month to month, the Finance Department must be contacted for the most recent figure. ' Persons/Household: The estimated average number of persons/household (dwelling unit). If this information is not supplied by the applicant, a figure will be supplied by the Orange County Planning Department based on 1980 Census data for the township in which the project is located. Children/Household: The estimated average number of children/household (dwelling unit). If this information is not - supplied by the applicant, a figure will be supplied by the Orange County Planning Department based on 1980 Census data for the township in which the project is located. % Non - Elderly: N.C. General Statutes permit an $11,000 exemption to the elderly and disabled who meet certain income criteria. In the event that elderly units are part of the project, the percentage of eligible non -elderly units is entered. The tax base will automatically be adjusted to reflect the exemption. Number of Homes: The number of dwelling units to be constructed in the project in each year. Average Sales Price: The average sales price of all dwelling units based on the number and sales price of dwelling unit types to be constructed in each year. SE TI N 1: LOCAL GOVERNMENT P,,. TA Local government data includes information regarding expenditures required to provide County services and revenues received based on the approved Orange County budget for the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All information derived from the approved budget remains constant throughout a fiscal year (July -June) and is changed only with the approval of a new budget. Local government revenue and expenditure information is compiled on a per capita (per person) basis. Per capita figures are derived by dividing the total expenditures for a particular service function or revenue source by the estimated population of Orange County for the year in which the project is considered for approval. Populations estimates are prepared by the Planning Department or obtained from U.S. Bureau of the Census. A— I 1 Data inputs include the following: , Budget Year: The current fiscal year, i.e., 1989 -90. P Cagita R v n : The sources of revenue by major category are as follows: ' Taxes - Other Than Property: Revenues from taxes other than property taxes include those from sales and use taxes, ' franchise taxes, and animal taxes. Intergovernmental Aid: Revenues from this source, in the form of categorical aid or shared -tax revenues, are provided through State and federal assistance programs. ' Service Charges: Service (or user) charges support numerous functions and are charged to those who voluntarily receive governmental services or use governmental facilities. ' Miscellaneous: Miscellaneous revenues include interest earnings on investments, proceeds from license and permit fees, and all other revenues. ' Per Capita Exnenditures: Expenditures -by major category are as follows: General Government: Services related to the legislative, administrative, financial, and legal functions of ' government. Public Safety: Law enforcement services and emergency medical services. ' Public Works: Efforts related to the maintenance of County -owned property and the provision of sanitation (solid waste disposal) services. ' Human Services: Departments responsible for the provision of health, social, and recreation - related services. Education: Orange County supports two school units, the Orange County school system and the Chapel Hill- Carrboro , school system. This category includes appropriations made to the designated school system for Recurring Capital items on a per pupil basis. Recurring Capital funds are used for general maintenance, purchase of new equipment/furnishings and vehicle maintenance. ' Non - Departmental: Contributions to agencies providing cultural and social services outside the formal structure of county government. Other expenditures include equipment replacement and contingency funds. ' Per Student Expenditures: Information regarding expenditures required to provide educational services and revenues received are based on the approved school system budgets for the fiscal year in which the project is considered for approval. All information derived from the approved budgets remains constant throughout a fiscal year (July -June) ' and is changed only with the approval of new budgets. Expenditure information is compiled on a per student basis for County Government Current Expense, School District ' and State appropriations. County Government Current Expanse funds are used for general operation purposes including Instruction and Support Services. Federal revenues and expenditures and other local revenues such as Fund Balance have not been included since they are not directly growth related. Per student figures are derived by dividing the , total appropriation for educational purposes from a particular source by the estimated number of students to be enrolled in the applicable school system for the year in which the project is considered for approval. Student enrollments are obtained from the approved school system budgets. County overnment: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations to the school systems by Orange County ' � 1� for Current Expense. The minimum level of per student appropriation is determined by the State Board of Education. A- 12 1 ' School District: Expenditures in this category are unique to the Chapel Hill- Carrboro school system and are based on the level of expenditures possible through assessment of a supplementary school tax. State: Expenditures in this category are based on appropriations from the State Board of Education. Other PR.IA: ' County Government Tax Rate: The County tart rate per $100 of assessed valuation. Since the per capita method focuses only on operating expenditures, the tax rate is reduced by an amount equal to the debt service payments for capital projects. ' School District Tax Rate: The supplementary tax assessed on behalf of the Chapel Hill pe - Carrboro school system. ' Assesstttent Ratio: The ratio of market (sales) value to assessed value based on information supplied by the Tax Office. The assessment ratio is used to convert market value to assessed value for the purpose of computing the tax base. ' Other Model Q_nqAnJj Elderly Exemption: For projects developed partially or exclusively for elderly (65 and older) or disabled ' individuals whose annual income does not exceed $12,000, an $11,000 tax exemption is used in projecting the tax base. ' SECTION 3 LDEM-199RA PHi C PROJECTIONS BARD ON PRQZCT DATA Demographic projections provide information about the number of new residents and school children anticipated in ' Orange County resulting from project development. The projections are cumulative from one year to the next. Total Housing Units: The cumulative total of new housing units added each year by project development. ' Total Population: The total population added each year by a project derived by multiplying the number of homes to be constructed by the number of persons per household (see Section 1). ' School Children: The total number of school children added each year by a project derived by multiplying the number of homes constructed by the number of children per household (see Section 1). ' SECTION 4 - ENERAL VE FISCAL IMPACTS F PROJECI ' Tax Base: The tax base represents the increase in assessed property value expected each year resulting from project development. The values shown are in $1,000's and are derived from a formula which includes the number and average sales price of homes, and the assessment ratio. Where applicable, the percentage of non -elderly units and elderly exemption are also used. 1 Revenues: All revenues are derived from a formula which multiplies the per capita revenues (Section 2) times the projected population (Section 3). The exception to this is the property tax which multiplies the tax base times the county government tax rate. Expenditures: All expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies the per capita expenditures per service function (Section 2) times the total projected population (Section 3). Net Balance: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and projected revenues. A negative net balance indicates that it costs Orange County more to provide services to a project than it receives in revenues. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive net A -13 balances in one project may thus be used to offset negative balances in another. I N BOARDMROJECTED FISCAL IMPA F T ' Revenues: The County contribution is derived by transferring education expenditures by County government (Section 4). Revenues derived from the school district tax are derived by multiplying the school district tax times the tax ' base. State revenues are derived by multiplying the per student expenditure figure times the total projected number of school children (Section 3). Expenditures: Expenditures are derived from a formula which multiplies each per student expenditure (Section 2) I times the total projected number of school children (Section 3) and adding the results. Net Balance: The net balance is the difference between projected expenditures and projected revenues. A negative net ' balance indicates that it costs the school system more to provide educational services for children in a project than it rives in revenues. A positive net balance indicates that more revenues are received than it costs to serve a project. Positive net balances in one project may thus be used to offset negative balances in another. ' SECTION 6 - SUMMARY_ OF PROJECTED IMPACT$ . 1 11 A- 14 I Attachment A A- 15 MEL OAKS SUBDIVISION - HOME SALES --------------------------- Chapel Hill Township Tax Subdivision - - -- Map /Lot Lot Sales Sales Reference Reference Price ------------------------- Date Comments 7.118F..9 24 1/86 --------------------- Lot Sold - Vacant 7.118E..20 14 2/86 Lot Sold - Vacant 7.118E..17 10 $162,500 7/86 7.118E..1 1 $152,000 8/86 7.118E..2 2 $169,000 8/86 7.118E..3 3 $167,000 8/86 7.118E..6 6 $162,500 8/86 7.118E..11 11 $168,200 8/86 7.118E..5 5 $181,000 9/86 7.118E..16 9 $173,500 10/86 7.118E..7 7 $174,500 11/86 7.118F..6 16 $169,600 12/86 7.118F..7 17 $212,700 1/87 7.118F..11 26 1/87 Lot. Sold - Vacant 7.118F..2 20 3/87 Lot Sold - Vacant 7.118E..18 -12 $175,000 8/87 7.118E..21. 23 $186,500 8/87 7.118E..8 8 $185,000 9/87 7.118F..10 25 $181,000 9/87 7.118F..3 21 $172,000 10/87 7.118F..1 19 $195,000 3/88 7.118F..5 15 $186,900 9/88 7.118F..13 28 10/88 Lot Sold - Vacant 7.118F..4 22 $168,000 10/89 7.118E..19 13 $142,500 1/90 7.118F..12 27 5/90 Lot Sold - Vacant 7.118F..14 29 $180,000 5/90 7.118E..4 4 $205,500 8/90 7.118F..8 18 __ 9/90 Lot'Sold - Vacant Total Lots 29 ---------------------------------------- - - - - -- Undeveloped Lots 7 Developed Lots 22 Total Value $3,869,900 Average Price $175,905 A- 15 Attachment B ' C L A-16 r ' MEL OAKS SUBDIVISION - HOME SALES Chapel Hill Township - - r Tax Subdivision -- - - - - -- Year of Sale /Sales Price -T -- , Map /Lot Lot ------------------------------------------------------- Reference Reference 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 7.118F.-9 24 7.118E..20 14 7.118E..17 10 $162,500 7.118E..1 1 $152,000 7.118E..2 2 $169,000 7.118E..3 3 $167,000 7.118E..6 6 $162,500 ' 7.118E..11 11 $168,200 7.118E..5 7.118E..16 5 9 $181,000 $173,500 ' 7.118E..7 7 $1.74,500 7.118F..6 16 $169,600. 7.118F..7 17 $212,700 7.118F..11 "26 7.118F..2 20 7.118E..18 12 $175,000 7.118E..21 23 $186,500 7.118E..8 8 $185,000 7.118F..10 7.118F..3 25 21 $181,000 $172,000 ' 7.118F..1 19 $195,000 7.118F..5 15 $186,900 7.118F..13 28 ' 7.118F..4 22 $168,000 7.118E..19 13 $142,500 7.118F..12 27 7.118F..14 29 $180,000 ' 7.118E..4 4 $205,500 7.118F..8 _--- - - -3 -1 Total Homes__ -----_--------- 10----------- 6----- 2--------- 1_----- Total. Sales $1,679,800 $1,112,200 $381,900 $168,000 $528,000 Average Sales Price $167,980 $185,367 $190,950 $168,000 $176,000 ' C L A-16 r FISCAL 114PACT TEMPLATE: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT /PER CAPITA MULTIPLIER METHOD Version 9/1/87 Print Bureau of Economic 6 Business Research - University of Florida Modified 9/11/89 - Orarge County NC Planning Department SECTION 1 - PROJECT DATA ENTER THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR EACH PROJECT: PROJECT NAME: Mel Oaks Subdivision TOWNSHIP: Chapel Hill SCHOOL DISTRICT: Chapel Mill- Carrboro CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE /COST DATA: BEGINNING YEAR: 1989 COMPLETION YEAR: 1993 . INFLATION RATE: 4.83% CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF AVG SALES YEAR HOMES PRICE (S) 1989 10 167980 1990 6 185367 1991 2 190950 1992 1 168000 1993 3 176000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS: PERSONS /HOUSEHOLD 2.7 CHILDREN /HOUSEHOLD 0.67 % NON- ELDERLY UNITS 0.00% POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR: 1989 ORANGE COUNTY - ALL PERSONS 94537 SCHOOL DISTRICT - STUDENTS 5717 A -17 Attachment r ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SECTION -2•-- COUNTY - GOVERNMENT • DATA ---------------------------------------------------- ---•------ ---- -- -- ------ ------ , BUDGET YEAR : 1989 -90 , COUNTY PER CAPITA REVENUES: REVENUES REVENUES (s) POPULATION PER CAPITA (S) I TAXES - OTHER THAN PROPERTY 3522800 94537 37.26 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AID 5181925 94537 54.81 SERVICE CHARGES 1637950 94537 17.33 MISCELLANEOUS 1287733 94537 13.62 COUNTY PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES: EXPENDITURES , EXPENDITURES POPULATION PER CAPITA (s) (s) ' GENERAL GOVERNMENT 4991446 94537 52.80 PUBLIC SAFETY 4057138 94537 42.92 PUBLIC FORKS 2218205 94537 23.46 ' HUMAN SERVICES 9159555 94537 %.89 EDUCATION 750000 94537 7.93 NON- DEPARTMENTAL 2651524 94537 28.05 , PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES: EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES # PUPILS PER PUPIL I ' (S) (S) COUNTY GOVERNMENT 6042669 5717 1057.00 , SCHOOL DISTRICT 4222458 5717 738.58 STATE 13638488 5717 2385.60 OTHER DATA: COUNTY GOVT TAX RATE 0.6550 Per 5100 Assessed valuation SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATE 0.1715 Per $100 Assessed Valuation , ASSESSMENT RATIO 86.99 ELDERLY EXEMPTION 0.00 511,000 where applicable -------------------------------------------------•------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- - - -� -- 1 1 A- 18 SECTION 3 - DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS BASED ON PROJECT DATA YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 0 0 0 0 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS TOTAL POPULATION SCHOOL CHILDREN 10 27 7 16 44 11 18 49 12 19 52 13 22 60 15 22 60 15 22 60 15 22 60 15 22 60 15 SECTION 4 - COUNTY GOVERNMENT /PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT ------------------------------------------ - YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 0 0 0 0 TAX BASE (310001S) 1461 2499 2952 3241 3857 4043 4238 4443 4658 REVENUES (S) PROPERTY TAX OTHER TAXES INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICE CHARGES MISCELLANEOUS 9571 1014 1491 471 371 16371 1700 2501 790 621 19337 2005 2949 932 733 21229 2219 3263 1032 811 25262 2693 3961 1252 984 26483 2823 4152 1313 1032 27762 2959 4353 1376 1082 29103 3102 4563 1442 1134 30508 3252 4784 1512 1189 SUBTOTAL- REVENUES 12918 21983 25957 28553 34153 35803 37532 39345 41245 EXPENDITURES (S) GENERAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HUMAN SERVICES EDUCATION * NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1436 1167 638 2635 7640 763 2409 1958 1070 4420 12240 1280 2841 2309 1262 5213 14435 1509 3143 2555 1397 5768 15973 1670 3816 '3101 1696 7002 19389 2027 4000 3251 1778 7340 20325 2125 4193 3408 1863 7694 21307 2227 4396 3573 1953 8066 22336 2335 4608 3745 2048 8456 23415 2448 SUBTOTAL- EXPENSES 14280 23377 27570 30507 37030 38819 40693 42659 44719 NET BALANCE (S) -1362 •1394 -1613 -1954 -2877 -3016 -3162 -3314 X3474 * - INCLUDES CURRENT EXPENSE + RECURRING CAPITAL A- 19 A -20 i --- _ SECTION 5 SCHOOL »- -- -- ------- ------- FISCAL IMPACTS 0 F PROJECT . - - -- YEAR 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 0 0 0 ' 0 REVENUES (S) COUNTY CONTRIBUTION 7640 12240 14435 15973 19389 20325 21307 22336 23415 SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX 2594 4436 5240 5753 6846 7177 7523 7887 STATE CONTRIBUTION 15984 26809 31617 34985 42466 44517 46667 48921 5 TOTAL- REVENUES 26217 43485 51292 56711 68700 72019 75497 79144 86 EXPENDITURES (S) COUNTY GOVERMENT 7298 12240 14435 15973 19389 20325 21307 22336 2 15 SCHOOL DISTRICT 4948 8300 9788 10831 13147 13782 14448 15146 1 STATE 15984 26809 31617 34985 42466 44517 46667 48921 5 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 28230 47349 55841 61790 75002 78624 82422 B6403 916 NET BALANCE (S) -2013 -3864 -4548 -5079 -6301 -6606 -6925 -7259 -7610 -•--------------------------------------------•-------------------------...----..........--------------------- ------ -- - - -- -� SECTION 6 . SUMMARY -OF- ....... . . PROJECTED. IMPACTS ------------------------------------- ----------- ------ - - - - -- ------ ------- -- - - --- YEAR 1989. 1990 1991 1992 1993 0 0 0 ' 0 HOUSING UNITS 10 16 18 19 22 22 22 22 22 POPULATION 27 44 49 52 60 60 60 60 0 SCHOOL CHILDREN 7 11 12 13 15 15 15 15 �5 TAX BASE ($10001S) 1461 2499 2952 3241 3857 4043 4238 4443 4658 COUNTY GOVT BALANCE -1362 -1394 -1613 -1954 -2877 -3016 -3162 -3314 4 SCHOOL BOARD BALANCE -2013 -3864 -4548 -5079 -6301 -6606 -6925 -7259 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- - - - - -- -- -- A -20 1 1 1 1 1 7 Is 1 1 1 1 .... ___- -- -- - -- • .J� -ti`s' _ ��.5"' °'--/ r.. � . + � �-'�/� -=-L�` �i�k V) r ractaVLtA �ar�a1 Ca� ba Yteaa`tO�LCO�C �►!'a �� P tel Of .A Aw l Q 1y °C6 � °w'Lag p � MABEL J. DORSEY, Executive Director 1216 Duplin Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 (919) 787 -5657 May 26, 1992 Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairperson Orange County Commission Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 We are writing to you in regard to the proposed impact fees to fund, the Orange County Schools. Capital Area Manufactured Housing Association is not opposed to financial support of public education by the citizens, both private and corporate. Public education in North Carolina needs much time, money and attention to improve the performance of our students. However, it appears that the Orange County proposal for impact fees singles out new residential construction as a way to pay for the education of all children. This certainly seems unfair and discriminatory. The manufactured housing industry works everyday to make safe, attractive and durable housing more affordable for people who want to own a home. It appears that impact fees, in the amounts being proposed, will certainly make it much more difficult for working people to qualify for a loan to purchase any home. We are also concerned that the proposed fee schedule showed a higher fee for a three bedroom manufactured home than for a three bedroom single family home. This seems odd and would appear to further discriminate against manufactured housing. We would like to register our opposition to the proposed fees as we understand them today. We do support public education and the opportunity for the citizens of Orange County to be able to afford a home of their own. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ale Martin CAMHA President Li \-j DISTRIBUTED WHICKER ENTERPRISES D II QUALITY HOMES /C 237 SOUTH CHURTON STREET v'-" • IQ J HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 �- �0�✓1 L /nk' (919) 732 -7532 Dear (�Orf\m\Ss � acw r: As an Orange County resident, parent and business person, I'm greatly concerned about the proposed impact fees. I believe these fees would cause serious hardship to large segments of the population in this county. I own and operate Whicker Enterprises i.n Hillsborough and sell manufactured homes: single -wide, double -wide and modular. Each year we help 40 to 50 families achieve the American dream of owning their own home. These are low- and moderate - income families, like the majority of Orange County residents. If the proposed impact fees had been in place, most of these families would not be in their homes today. They simply could not afford to pay the extra upfront cost. They're like so many families around here: it's all they can do to come up with enough money for the down payment and closing costs. Having to raise several thousand extra dollars would knock them out of the home market. What's more, denying home ownership to so many people would have a negative ripple effect on our area economy. It would hurt all businesses in one way or another and would stifle the economic growth and development of this county. Think how it would put Orange County at a competitive disadvantage with neighboring counties that don't have impact fees. If the proposed impact fees are adopted, I would be forced to move my business and,my family out of Orange County. My business couldn't survive here. Although only a small business, I paid out more than $485,000 in wages last year alone. Those are wages earned and spent by families here in Hillsborough. Also the county would lose more than $10,000 in permits each year- -just from my business moving out. I strongly support the need for having good educational facilities. My wife and I have three children in Orange County schools and are ourselves graduates of the school system here. It's everyone's responsibility to help provide for a good education for each child. But first, let's make sure we've explored all reasonable options - -such as cutting expenditures in other areas and expanding existing schools rather than building new ones. If new schools and additional revenues are truly needed, then let's raise that money in a fair and equitable way. I would favor an across -the -board tax hike, for example. But it's grossly unfair to shift the burden to those who can least afford to bear_it. And that's exactly what the proposed impact fees would do. So I urge you to consider the real im act of these impact fees. You'll see that the cure is worse than the disease. Surely, Orange County can find a better way! incerely, Z -:�4ro n3) � �)PPaS 2 an iJ -:01' 0, /* AV&0f r a'ta, pc'°' yca""o °` t�q,L OL& 9 MABEL 1. DORSEY, Executive Director 1216 DuE)lin Road R.ileigh, North Carolina 27607 cQ IQ) 7R7 -5as7 May 26, 1992 Mr. Moses Carey, Jr., Chairperson Orange County Commission Post office Sox 8181 Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 We are writing to you in regard to the proposed impact fees to fund the orange county Schools. Capital Area Manufactured Housing Association is not opposed to financial support: of public education by the citizense both private and corporate. public education in North Carolina needs much time, money and attention to improve the performance of our students. However, it appears that the Orange County proposal for impact fees singles out new residential construction as a way to pay for the education of all children.. This certainly seems unfair and discriminatory. The manufactured housing industry works everyday to make safe, attractive and durable housing more affordable for people who want to own a home. It appears that impact fees, in the amounts being proposed, will certainly make it much more difficult for working people to qualify for a loan to purchase any home. We are also concerned that the proposed fee schedule showed a higher fee for a three bedroom manufactured home than for a three bedroom single family home. This seems odd and would appear to further discriminate against manufactured housing. We would like to register our opposition to the proposed fees as we understand them today. We do support public education and the opportunity for the citizens of orange County to be able to afford a home of their own. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ale Martin CAMMA President T 0 d