Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-17-2000-9b ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 Action Agenda ~, I Item No. SUBJECT: Draft Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Memorandum of Understandin Transmittal DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): SLUC Resolution Recommending and Transmitting the Schools APFO and Memorandum of Understanding Draft Memorandum of Understanding Draft Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Tables -Debt Service; Future Capital Needs Gledhill to BOCC 9/29/00 'Talking Points' Letter Response to Commissioner Cordon's comments Responsibility Chart INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig N. Benedict, ext. 2592 Geoff Gledhill, County Attorney TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss and transmit the proposed School Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding and ordinance including the forwarding of a resolution of support from the Schools and Land Use Councils. BACKGROUND: Orange County Planning staff has been collaborating with the Schools and Land Use Councils (SLUC), school and municipal staffs, and the attorneys for more than a year on the development of a schools adequate public facilities ordinance (School APFO). The fundamental purpose of such an ordinance would be to ensure, to the maximum extent practical, that new residential development be synchronized and approved only when it can reasonably be expected that adequate public school facilities will be available to accommodate students who live in the new residential developments. The SLUC -have worked long and diligently to examine this issue in detail during 2000. At their meeting on September 13, they approved a resolution recommending that the proposed Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance be formally transmitted to the County Commissioners for review in general and specifically fiscal impacts, and then to the governing boards of the municipalities and school systems for comment and suggested revisions. The work session on October 2, 2000 provided an opportunity for the BOCC to discuss the main provisions of the proposed School APFO, to review the process to date, and to discuss possible next steps that would ultimately lead to adoption and implementation of a School APFO in Orange County. Staff presented information regarding fiscal considerations of 2 School APFO implementation, and set forth talking points that focused BOCC discussion on several important decisions the Board must make regarding the elements of the School APFO to be enacted. Based on comment from the Board on October 2 and further written comment from Commissioner Gordon, Craig N. Benedict, the Planning Director, and Geoffrey Gledhill, County Attorney have made clarifications to the School APFO documents as underlined. In addition, as an attachment to this abstract, some responses to Commissioner Cordon's memo of October 2, 2000 to the BOCC are made. The BOCC may provide direction on any needed refinements to the draft ordinance and related interlocal memorandum of understanding (MOU), and then staff will transmit those documents to the school systems and towns for review, comment and possibly adoption later this year. County Planning Director Craig Benedict will be available to the municipal and school governing boards over the next few months for presentations. and/or to respond to questions about the proposed School APFO. Orange County can schedule the School APFO for public hearing on November 27, 2000 and adopt the ordinance thereafter in concert with the other districts and jurisdictions. FINANCIAL,IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the adoption and implementation of a School APFO has been explained to the degree that is possible at this time. There will be an inter- relationship between the School APFO and~the funds set aside in the County's annual 10 year Capital Investments Plan for school and County capital projects. The relationships are noted in the material attached to this abstract. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the proposed ordinance and related memorandum of understanding, and transmit them to the school systems and municipalities for review, comment and possible adoption. r. A RESOLUTION BY THE SCHOOLS AND LAND USE COUNCILS ~ (SLUG) TO RECONIIl~iEND AND TRANSMIT THE SCHOOLS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE (SCHOOLS APFO) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and municipal governing boards make land use, zoning, and development decisions that can increase the numbers of school children; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Schools Board of Education and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education are responsible for school policy and school buildings; and '~, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners with approval of the other jurisdictions has established Schools and Land Use Councils (one for each school district) to advise on issues concerning growth and land use issues relating to schools; and WHEREAS, the Schools and Land Use Councils are charged with developing a coordinated plan for approving developments, accounting for the impact of the developments on school capacity, siting schools, and-building schools to meet demonstrated need in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, the Schools and Land Use Councils (SLUG) are composed of elected representatives from the Orange County Commissioners, Canrboro Board of Aldermen, Chapel Hill Town Council, Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners, Chapel Hill- . Carrboro City Schools Board of Education, and Orange County Schools Board of Education; and WHEREAS, the SLUG has met on primarily a monthly basis to develop and review a Schools APFO since April of 1999; and WHEREAS, the SLUG referred the development of legal and technical matters and parameters for policy decisions to a ~vorkgroup of attorneys and planning director and school representatives from all member agencies and a draft was submitted to the SLUG; and WHEREAS, the various aspects of a Schools APFO was explained to each of the elected bodies in the latter part of 1999 early 2000 by the Orange County Planning Department where questions and answers were explored; and WHEREAS, On March 27 and 30, 2000 joint meetings with school districts and Assembly of Governments were held to further elaborate on the implications of a Schools APFO and receive direction to pursue finalization of the Memorandum of Understanding and ordinance from the SLUG; and WHEREAS, the SLUG finds the Memorandum of Understanding and ordinance to be supportive of the goals and responsibilities of the councils and strongly believes the ordinance to be in the best interests of the community; NO`V, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SLUC have approved the Schools APFO ~ Memorandum of Understanding and ordinance and hereby transmit the memorandum and ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners for comment and review of fiscal im act and then to the respective entities to: a. Review and make comment, if necessary, on the Memorandum of Understanding and ordinance; b. Approve, approve with conditions/comments or refer back to the SLUG for further research and analysis; c. Acknowledge that the Memorandum of Understanding and ordinance is not construed to be the final adoption of implementing land development regulations ~'' that will process through a later public hearing germane to the applicable entity. Approved by the members of the councils: Schools and Land Use Council for the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools District Schools and Land Use Council for'the Orange County Schools District L, c.~.~.. ~'i'I . L~,..,s {y Alice Gordon ' Orange u rd of Commissioners ~~ ~ ~ f Nick Didow Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board '~.',G !.c L ti ~~~` .~G'I, pct:! y~-, Teresa Williams ~~ Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board Edith Wiggins Chapel Hill Town Council ` ~ 1 r ~- f ee Pavao Chapel Hill Town Council _,~J ~ :~a~l~ Allen Spalt Carrboro Board of Aldermen Diana McDuffee Carrboro Board of Aldermen ~~ ~ ~ .~-ua~~ JCL G~~c. ~: ar aret rown Orange ounty Board of Commissiariers Stephen Halkiotis Orange County Board of Commissioners Susan Halkiotis Oran e County School Boar r i 7 L ~ ~- Brian Lowen Hillsborough wn Board c - LAW OFFICES COLEMAN, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE n rxs~r-~ssl~~w~ coaFORAnox 129 E, TRYON SiItEEf r. i). DMWER 1529 HIII.SDC7ROU(7ti, Ni)ATH CJ~RnLINA 27_+78 919.731~2I9G FAX 919.771-79`17 ~YJEASCIE W W W.CGANOH COM October 11, 20DQ ,, Mr. Michael B. Brough Carrboro Tawn Attorney The Braugh Law Firm 7.829 East Franklin Street, 800A Chapel Hill, North Carolira 27514 Mr. Ralph D, Karpi,noa Chapel Hi11 Town Attorney 306 North Columbia StreEt Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Mr. Johri'G. McCormick Chapel Hzll-Carrboro Soard of Education Attorney Suzte 150, 976 Airport Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. D, Michael Parker Orange County Board o~E EducaL•ior>. Attorney Cheshire & Parker Post Office Box 100 Fiillsboz:ough, North Carolina 27278 RE: Schools Adequate Public FalCilf ties Dear Mike, Ralph, John and Mike: FROtr/ TH1_ I)FSK OF GEOFFREY tr faLEL7HlLL Enclosed are the drafts of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding and Ordinance whictl will be recnrnmended to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. The Orange County Board of Commissioners wi1.1 considex' Chese 6 Mr. Michae]. s. Brough Mx-. Ralph D. Karpinos Mr. John C: McCormick Mr. D. Michael Parker Page 2 Qctober 11, 2000 - documents on October 17, 2000. The'."blacklining" represents staff and indav.idual Board of Commissioner recommended revisions 'to the documents from their form as recommended by the Schools and Land Use councils. Thank you for any comments as soon as possible.. .Very txuly yours, COLEMAN GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE, P.C. off"'rey/E. Gle~hiJ.l GEG/lsg / Enclosures xc: Craig Benedict John M. Link, Jz. 17g:ler.Cere\brokarmccpar.ltr Undcrliac -added Iaagun~e 5trlkethroagh ~ deleted language MEM~RANDUl1~i Ok' CJNDERSTANDING by and This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this ~ _ day of , 2000, between the Tawn of ,the City of Urange County, and the (the "School District'. WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County, served by the [name of school disiricl] has for the past decade been experiencing rapid growth in population; and ,, W1~YEREAS, this growth, and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and WHEREAS, the responsibility forplaruYing for and constructing new school facilities lies primarily with the (Qrangc County School District ur Chapel Hill/Can-boro School District), with funding provided by Orange County; acid WHEREAS, ,Orange County and the School District have recognized the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the School District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school .facilities to serve the children within such new developments; .WHEREAS, parties have worked cooperatively and developed a system wherein school facilities are currently adequate to meet the needs of the citizens of the county and will continue to maintain a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that is financially feasible and synchronised with historical growth patterns; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this memorandum hereby agree as follows: Section 1, The. parties will work cooperatively to develop a realistic capital facilities program for the construction of schools such that, from the effective date of this Memorandum; a. No school level (i.c. elementary, middle or high) is more than 1. Elementary School ~5% of Building Capacily 2: Middle School ~% of Building Capacity 3. High Schaal l 1~(% of Building Capacity (if number of schools within a level is very low the district may initiatr; a higher percentage limit and step down in percentage to the number above as new schools open) h. The term "the school districts building capacity" will be determined by rcfcrcn..o to State guidelines and the school district guidelines (consistent with CLP School Construction Guidelines/policies developed by the school districts and the $oard of County Commissioners) and ~llt determined hyjoint action of the School Board~nd thc_„~~~j a Coun~v 13. oar~~' C'ommis~ioners. ~$s used herein t refers to pcrmanerit buildings. Mobile classrooms and other 8 temporary student accommodating classroom spaces are not permanent buildings. and may not be counted in determining. the school districts building capacity. Section 2. ,, Section 3. c. The capital facilities program shall utilize a projected growth rate for student enrollment agreed upon by the parties, which growth rate may differ from pne school lever to another. (i.e., number of students per level per year.) The towns and the county. will adopt amertdments to their respective ordinances, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to coordinate the approval of residential developments within the Schnol District with the adequacy of existing and proposed school facilities. The School District will establish an administrative process to receive and take action upon applications for Certificates of Adequacy ofPublic Schools racilities ("CAPS") submitted by developers who are required by an implementing ordinance conceptually similar to that attached as Exhibit A to have such certificates before obtaini.n.g development permission from the town or the county. The School District will issue a CAPS for a proposed development if it concludes that, given the number of school age children projected to reside in that development, and considering all of the factors listed immediately below, the number of students projected to attend the applicable, school district elementary, middle, grid high school levels will not exceed the capacities noted in Section.l of this memorandum. rectors to be considered by the School District in making this determination include the following: a. The number of'students attending elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools and the building capacity at each school level. b. Projected ar ongoing construction of new schools or permanent expansion of existing schools as planned ira the adopted C1P, 1f the completion of such school construction is necessary for a CAPS to be issued far a particular development project, then there must be a reasonable expectation that such construction will .be completed in time to be of benefit to such project. A "reasonable expectation" of a proposed completion date requires, at the very least, that construction of a proposed new school has received all necessary governmental approvals and that funding is in place, ar that such approvals and. funding appear "reasonably certain." e. Projected increases in enrollment due to residential growth. The following will be taken into consideration in determitairtg projected enrollment increases: (i) Single-family residential building lots that have received final plat approval, or have been created by a plat exempt frotn subdivision regulation approval, but that do not contain a completed dwelling; (ii) Single-family or multi-family residential building lots far which: (1) preliminary subdivision plat approval, (2) minor subdivision final plat, (3) zoning compliance permit approval or special or conditional use 9, permit approval have been granted sa long as such approvals have nat expired; (iii) Developments for which subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat or site plan approval applications. have been submitted but not yet granted, so long as CAPS for such projects have been issued and remain unexpired or special exceptions that have been granted; (iv) Any phasing and tirnc schedule for project development consistent with preliminary plat and/or master plan application and, if applicable, approval_ d. Any other factors deemed relevant by the School District in determining whether each school level will meet the level of service described herein if .the proposed project is constructed. 5cction 4. A CAPS that has. been obtained before an application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit has been submitted shall expire unless the developer submits and the [TownlCounty] accepts as complete an applieatlon for its approval witltirl 90 days of the date of the CAPS and receives the requested approval within two years of the date of the CAPS. A CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit shall expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat, plan, or pernut approval. Section 5. The towns and the county will provide to the School District all information xeasonably requested by the School District to assist the District in making its determination as to whether the CAPS should be issued, including without litriitation all information the other parties to this agreement have regarding the . matters specified in Section 3.c.(i) through (iv) above. Section 6. The School district will use its best efforts to construct schools and/or permanent expansion/additions in accordance with the C]P referenced in Section I above. Section 7, Orange County will use its best efforts to provide the funding to carry out the capital facilities program referenced in Section 1 above. Section 8: The affordable housing element shall be incorporated into the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Qrdinance agreed upon by all parties, which shall provide an accommodation for affordable. housing. Affordable housing as defined in ~gi Orange County Affordable Housing Ppolicy and ~+}~ meets all ~~ criteria jp that, PolicX is an important goal ,ter t~^.,1 ^,,,r~-~-~~-~~n within Orange County. ~}thet Th nt v en ntai ~ affordable housing ~e ~ subject to the S~$ S2, ~a ~ ~sounty, ~a~ jr~, its d ~T decisions, to nd nEVtir school construction will o ..,,a,.,~~~ v Ament • i~ n ~ o on r evelo m n t n w Section 9. ~,:-~-ter ~. motes In rec i ~ v w' v a Y4~ CAPS shall not be required under the following circumstances: (a) for a.residential .development restricted to housing for the elderly and/or ,adult care living and/or s~llll; special needs facilities, (b) far residential development ~~ .restricted to dormitory housing for 1]]33Y~~]L, students. Section 10. The parties acknowledl;e that this Memorandum of Understanding is not intended ' to and does not create legally binding obligations on any of the parties to act in accordance with its provisions. Rather, it constitutes a good faith statement of the intent of the parties to cooperate in a manner designed to meet the mutual objective of all the parties that the children who reside within the School District are. able to attend school levels that satisfy the level of service standards set forth herein. . 10 11 Underline ~ added language 5trikrlhrough =deleted language AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO REQCITRE'I"iIIAT THE ADEQl1ACY OF PUSi.1C SCHOOL FACILITIES TO ACCOMMOJ]ATE NEW DEVEI~OPMENT BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS WHEREAS, the portion of Orange County served by the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro] [Orange County] school system, has for. the past decade been experiencing rapid growth , in population; and WHEREAS, this rapid growth; and that which is anticipated, creates a demand for additional ~ school facilities to accommodate the children who reside within new developments; and . WHEREAS, the responsibility for plarlriing for and constructing new school facilities lies primarily with the [Chapel Hill/Carrboro School Board] {Qrangc County School Board], with funding provided by Orange County; and WHEREAS, [Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange Caunty School District] have recogrli~ed the need to work together to ensure that new growth within the SchQOI District occurs at a pace that allows Orange County and the School District to provide adequate school facilities to serve the children within such new developments; and WHEREAS, to implement the Memorandum of Understanding between {Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro; and the Chapel Hi1UCarrboro School Board] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School Hoard], the [governing body] desires to provide a mechanism to assort .that, to the extent possible, new development will take place only when there are adequate public school facilities available, or planned, which will accommodate such new development; NOW 'l'iiEREFORE, [THE GOVERNfNC BODY] pRDAINS: Section ] . Section ~ of the Development Ordinance is amended by adding a new _ to read as follows: ADF,QUATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES 1 • Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that, to the ma.`~.imum extent practical, new residential development will be approved only when it can reasonably be expected that adequate public school facilities will be available to accommodate such new development. 2. Certificate of Adequacy of Public Schools Facilities. {a) No application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit for a Drolect Gnnfainins, -, 12 residential use. may be accepted as complete unless on the date of such accept;,ttce there exists a valid and current Certificate of Adequacy of 1?ubIic Schools Facilities (CAPS) applicable to the project for which such approval is sought. (b) A CAPS 5ha11 not be required for. a general use or conditional use rezoning or for approval of a master land use plan.. However, if a rezoting ar master plan is approved, a CAPS will be required before .any residential development of the property is authorised pursuant to arty of the approvals specified in subsection (a) of this sectiort, and the rezoning of the property ar approval of a master plan provides no indication as io whether the CAPS will be issued. The application for rezoning or master plan approval shall contain a statement to this effect. ' (c) A CAPS must be obtained from .the School District. The School District will issue or deny a CAPS in accardaatce with the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between [Chapel Hill,. Garrboro, Qrange County; and the Chapel Hill Carrboro Schoo) District] [Orange County, Hillsborough, and the Orange County School District] dated (d) An applicant shall seek from the School District a CAPS for a .proposed residential development before an application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat,' minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permits submitted. to the [town] [county]. The .CAPS, if issued, shall expire as provided in Section 4. (e) A CAPS attaches to the land in the same way that development permission attaches to the land. A CAPS may be transferred along .with other interests in the property with respect to which such CAPS is issued, but may. not be severed or transferred separately. 3. Service Levels. (a) This section describes the service levels. regarded as ader~uate by the parties to the Memorandum o.f Understanding described in subsection (b) with respect to public school facilities. (b) As provided in the Memorandum of,Understanding between [Orange County, Chapel Hi11, Carrboro, and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School District] [Orange Coustty, Hillsborough,.and the Orazrge County School District], adequate service levels for public schools shall be deemed to exist with respect to a proposed new residential development if, given the ztumber of school age children projected to reside in that development, grad considering all the factors listed in the lvl.emorandum of Understanding, the number of students projected to attend the elementary schools, the middle schools, and the high school[s] .within the [Chapel F•Zi1UCarrboro] [Orange County] school District will not exceed the following percentabcs of the building capacities of each of the following three school levels: elementary school level 1 ~% middle school level ~°/, high school level 11 ~'or purposes of this ordinance, the term "building capacity" means the capacity of permanent buildings, not mobile units or trailers in v' r h 1' ill ' t n o 13 a _ ^l~ard of Education_ 4, Expiration a#' Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools Facilities. (a) A CAPS that has been obtained pursuant to Subsection 2(d) before an application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision (anal plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit has been submitted shall expire unless the developer submits and the [Town] [County] accepts as complete an application for approval of that subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use permit within ~0 days of the date of the CAPS and receives the requested ' ' approval within two years of the dale of the CAPS. (b) A .CAPS issued in connection with approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan, or conditional or special use perntit shall expire automatically upon the expiration of such plat, plan, or permit approval. 5. Applicability to . Previously ~-pproved Projects and Projects Pending Approval. (a} This ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding between the [governing body], Orange County and the Schovl District are general in nature and applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the [governins body]. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this ordinance shall apply in applications for approval of subdivision preliminary plats, site plans and conditional or special use permits that are submitted for approval after ( _ ~). the eff~,ckive date_Qf~~~_ordinai~c~ (b) The provisions of fhis ordinance shall apply to subdivision preliminary plats, site plans and conditional or special use permits that have expired. (c) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to amendments to subdivision preliminary plat, site plan, or special or conditional use. permit approvals issued prior to the effective dale of this ordinance so long as the approvals have not expired and the proposed amendments do not increase the number of dwelling units authorized within the development by more than five percent ps five dwelli ~ ~ nits whit ~'ver is 1~,, (d) The [governing body] shall issue a special exception to the CAPS requirement to an applicant whose application for approval of a subdivision preliminary plat, minor subdivision final plat, site plan or conditional or special use permit covering property within a planned unit development or master plan project that was approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance, if the [governing body] finds, after an evidentiary hearing, that the applicant has (1) applied to the School District for a CAPS attd the application has been denied, (2) in. good faith made substantial expenditures or incurred substantial binding obligations in reaspnable reliance on the previously obtained planned unit development or master plan approval, and (3) would be unreasonably prejudiced if development in accordance with the previously approved developnrtent or plan is delayed 14 due to the provisions of this ordinance. In deciding whether these. findings can be made, the [governing body] shall consider the following, among other relevant factors: . (1) Whether the developer has installed streets, utilities, or other facilities or expended substantial Sums in the planning and preparatiozz for installation of such facilities ,which were designed to serve or to lae paid .for in part by the development of portions of the planned unit development or'master planned project that have not yet been approved for construction; (2) Whether the developer has installed streets,. utilities, or other facilities or expended substantial sums in the planning and preparation for installation of such facilities that directly benefit other properties outside the development in question ' ~ or the general public; (3) Whether the developer. has donated land to the School 1~istrict for the construction of school facilities or otherwise dedicated land or made improvements deemed to benefit the School nistrict and its public school system; (4) Whether the developer. has load .development approval for a substantial amount of time and has in good .faith worked to timely implement the plan in reasonable reliance an the previwusly obtained approval.; (5) The duration of the delay that will occur until public school facilikies are improved or exist to such an extent that a CAPS can be issued far the project, and ahe effect of such delay an the development and the developer. The decision of the [governing body] is subject to review by the Orange County Superior Court by praccedinga in the nature of certiorari. Any petition far review by the Superior Court shall be filed with the Clerk of Superior .Court within 30 days after a written copy of the decision [af the governing body] is delivered to every aggrieved party who has filed a written request for such copy with the Clerk to tlic jgoveming body] at the tizne of its hearing on the application for a special exception. The written copy of the decision of the [governing body]. may be delivered to the aggrieved party either by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested. The [chair or the mayor] of the [governing body] or any member temporarily acting as [chair or mayor] may, in his or her official capacity; administer oakhs to witnesses in any hearing before the [governing body] concerning a special exception. 6. Exemption Fram Certifcation I~tequirement for ~i~~s Development with Negligible Student Generations bates A CAPS shall not be required under the following cixcurnstances: ~31~1 Far residential development permanently restricted as dormitory housing 'v 't ~}~ For a residential development permanently restricted by ~~€e~e~al ~r~es law and/or covena~X to housing for the elderly and/or adult care living and/~ri special needs facilities_ 15 7. Appeal of School District Denial of a. CAPS. The applicant for a CAPS which is denied by the School District may, within 30 days of the date of the denial, appeal the denial to the [governing body] of [local government from which development permit is sought]. Any such appeal shall be heard by the [governing body] at an evidentiary hearing before it. At this hearing the School District will piesent its reasons for the denial of the CAPS and the evidence it relied on in denying the CAPS. The applicant appealing the denial may present its reasons why the CAPS application should have, in its view, been approved and the evidentiary basis it contends supports approval. The •[governing body] may (1) ~ concur with the ' decision of the School District, (2) remand to the School District for further proceedings in the event evidence is presented at the hearing before the [governing body] not brought before the School District or, (3) r t the School District -t decisi .The [governing hody] will only • im nd rec if it I`inds that~}~r the CAPS should have been issued by the 5ehool District as prescribed in the Memorandum of l;Jnderstanding among the School District, Orange County and the [-governing body]. A decision of the [governing body] affirming the School District may be appealed by the applicant for a CAPS by proceedings in the nature of certiorari and: as prescribed for an appeal under Scetiori 5(d) of this .ordinance- l3- lnformation Reciuired From Applicaets, The applicant fox a CAPS shall submit to the School District all information reasonably deemed necessary by the School District to determine whether a CAPS should be issued urider the provisions of the .Memorandum of Understanding between the [governing body], Orange County, and the School District_ An applicant for a CAPS special exception or an applicant appealing a CAPS denial by the.School District shall submit to the [governing body] all information reasonably deemed necessary by the [governing body] to determine whether a special exception should be granted as provided in Section b(d) of this ordinance or for the hearing of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS as provided in. Section 7 of this ordinance. A copy of a request for a C~1.PS special exception or of an appeal of a School District denial of a CAPS shall be served on the superintendent of the School District. Service may be made by persona] delivery. or certified mail, return receipt requested. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective The foregoing ordinance, having been submitted to g vote, received the fallowing vote and was duly adopted this • day of ~_ - 2004. ~,~__~ Ayes: Noes: Absent or Excused: 16 w ~ ~ O ~ ~ .~; ~ G ~ "~ ~ }C a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ o o h ~ ~ v "" °~ ~ '-a ~ v ~, fi ~ y~ N ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ bq s.' ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O py ~' _ ~' N O oo ~' ~ a "tY V ~ ~ a- --~ ~ '~ ~, ~ ~ ~ fi is ~ . fi . . 0 ~ ~ .~ o era ~ ~ y ~ ~ C ? ~ o i .~ • V ~ ~, ~ o .~ °~ ~ ~ ~ .~ V ~ . ~ ~ .~ ~ , o o ~ .~ ~ ~ .~ y ~, o N ~ ~ ~ ' '~ C1 ~ F 't; ~ ~ O ~ ~ p "C5 •. i ~. ~ b ~ ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~~ ,C ~ ~ ~ . v ~ ~ ~. ~ "C ~ C ~ ~ fi '~ ~ y O m •... ~ ~ d ~ ••r v fi V ~ O .~ ~' ~ ~. ' ~ " CV v ~ -• ~ ~ o t~ ~ y ~ ~ o o ~ as . ~ [-, U sy .~ ..o ~, 17 o r ~ N N ~ ~ N O • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O N O N N Gi 117 N tD !A Qf m N O A ~ 64 ~ N tD N "` ~ Q ~ 69 bg 6q ~ O ~ r ~ r w ~ .~ r~ Q ti ° o 0 ~ ~C 4 p U N Z v Z 3 H ~ r d c 'ib v `o C fi O C a ~ ~ ~ r 3 m $ ° c o O. ~ 'm o O ~ C ~ p D p ~ ~ N ~ _ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ N H N ~ N ~ ~ w G [ tl1 ~ y ~ O ~ ~ G G C h in .dJ N U N D b 9 lCq rC.. N ~ ~ m _ O C d O O 4 O O Q O O r N r7 ~ 4] 1D 1~ W Ch O N e'~7 '7 47 t0 Iti Q O¢ ~ C] .m a 3 .~ „ O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N p O 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O p N N N N N N N N C7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N H ~ m N N N N N N N N N a i U v ~ ~ ~ N L ~ ~ N pdj N q9 ~! O A Q O U • ti N N tb A n O M n ~ N ~ ' ~ ~ N M ^ iR N l` 7 yq yy ~ Q 1 y} ~ O r . Y T ~ ai O 4 t ~ ~ z y ~ Q d r .q ~ a ~ ~ y V 3 y r h 01 '~ C ~ C ~ ~ C ~ ~ fi O O O D . V y ~ U V ~ L ~ H ~ d °' a i w 3 ~ 3 3 3 n ,, ~ ~ ~ d ~ c ~ o a h y .y tll O _ U C d O ~ lC f O d ~ O Q O 0 0 0 6 0 Q O C O _ +- N M I u7 iD I~ Q p O N M tt 47 CD 1~ p p O C L N r d `$ ~ p r C 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N r r N N N N N N N N N N I"1 0 g O 0 0 0 p p O O p O 0 0 D O 0 0 Q O N N N N N yJ 6f N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N z b ~ C7 V C ~ F lp H 18 C jO CI C O U O V h w N 41 C ~' d y a N +u{. U C 6l ~ 'r -7 Ill b 61 m ~ ~ v° C~ c O U °o fi N ~ ~ ~ C ~ O ~ y I h cqi C ro~, 61 3 b N ~' ~ i v7 m u7 v r•l In r7 ca o eo rl p i tD O r cv en u7 eD lt7 e"1 m cD o v n n r o r G7 ID . t0 ~ N N <D ~ C7 c`1 ~ Q to N © M N Of ~ O • n t~7 n N N Cl CC O v u7 N ~p U O N!: O> t-ri N rn M ~ Q e'7 N V7 CC C'7 n Q ~ Ql in N 1~ In n r ~ ~ N N N iF} i4 64 6 4 69 b 4. W 6 9 kR 4 4 ~ O p • r r r e~- r r r r r N r r F- O O O O u h N f ll 3 y 3 6 1 C C q j C ~ ~ ~ O ~ Ste` .b U ~ u V 'I.7 ~ ~ ~ ~ C C G [ tC O ~ O O O~~ O O ~ O~ O O 41 y N Yl N ~ ill N N Yl ~ N W d 3 ~ d d 3 d W qt 1 6 ~ ~ 6 1 C C C C~ C C C C C ~ O 4f LA O N tl7 O 4 O 0 uy tD h cO O) O r N e+7 ~' 1C7 ~D n 6o Q O' N M ~ In w n Ep rn O 4 0 0 0 0 0 r N N N N N N N N N N P7 ~ m +~ O C 0 4 g 0 0 0 0 0 q C7 O O C O O O O O O O C 4 4 0 0 0 O O Q N N N N N N N N~ N N N N N N N N N N 'N N N N N N N N N N N N N m ~ ~ F o p ~ H Vi ~ N O O t V llJ H a3i U z ~ ~ ~ ~°. • ' ~ to O N ~ r ~ Q lCl Epp N to o * IO n r m v m Q7 tp n ~ tD rv N M ~ ~ m ~ o 47 N o v () O Q M ~ M N N ~ C M n Q '1T le7 LD d' ep 60 O' O N ~' d l(j !A tPr 6N9 ~ ~ H! ffY ~ bNh ~ M N p • r ~ r r r r r r N I O O O N N N S i ~ m , ~' m a i ¢ c c O p p q ' y O O O O ~ ~ 3 N 3 ~ N 3 47 3 C ~ C C F O C O O O O O O O N ~ N Y y N N H N ~ N ~ ~ d ~ d d 3 d y LL! ~ 6 7 ~ - W I C C C C C C C C t6 Ql O N(7aQ7pnt0QlOrNC"7~1gtDtiCOO)O Ne'7 vttltDnQQ)O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 r N N N N N N N N N N c] ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N' N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~+ 47 ~` rn n e+i ti W ~ h y d 0 u N H a~i y ~ ~ v ~ ro H 19 'O h O _v `U h ` D ~ p }' '~ ~- O d` ha h ~' Cbl d 7 h b ~ b C y ~ N V ' ~ ~'7 ~vj ~ ~ ~ N0 O O CD ~ O ~ ~n n ui ~ ~ 64 bN4 M 0 tNA Q CO QOi n co of o 6q 6~4 <<7 Or ~ c07 N ~ N (gyp r ~ c+i ~ M ~ ~ N M u i ~ O n ~ ~ ~ bN9 IO b " ~ r r .-~ w - ~ . •~ .- O G ~ ~ O r O V V Z ~ N ~ y ~ ~ N ~ D O p p ~ t y ~ O ~ y ~ ~ ~ C C ~ C ep D p p O~ O O C ~ L ~ Z O s ~ O ~ N y N N H N N ~ . W C c C C C C ~ ~p ~ ~ Of ' O NM~~!]ln Q O O O O O p nrornO O 0 O ,-Nt+f~O tDneo 4~OrN l~ef u'f eD nco bfC ~ Q i ^" 0 4 0 O O p O N N N N N N N 0 0 0 ~ N N N N Q Q 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N 6 0 0 0 0 "O O N N N N N O O O Q N N N l'~] C. O 4 0 .N N N N N N. N N N N N N N N ~ n L1'] {gyp as Q, N ~ 4q T t+ N D O V ~ r.. N d V z ,, e'n ~ ~ N n ~ ~ 407 40] ~ ~ p N '~ 4 m n 47 W n ~`! ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O KN7 O ~ ~ ~ O N M O n O d ~ 4i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ t~lj N IYnf N N ~ 6'4 64 Vi 64 (/~ N W fd b. ~ w ~ ~- r t' r r r Cq 1 D a 47 V ~ z 3 H T m 3 c ~ o °' ~ o ' ° o Q C C C U 4 N D ~ ~ O p D b D p G' U y y ~ 7 y v ~ v ~ i'. y t ~ E N N ~ 1i'! o m w a O t ~ ~ y - d C~ m y ~ ~ O O W O r O O d O N M t7 llf LO n eo C) O O d 0 4 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 ,- N c+) 7 0 47 cD n ao Q) O N N Cr> ~ u7 cD n N N N N N N N m O O N N Ih v N ~ r N N C 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N 4 0 0 N N N N 0 0 0 4 0 0 N C O O Q O 0 0 Q 0 0 H ~ W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ U C D ~ i Q fiC ~ N ~ ~ 'y .d v ~ ~ C 6 [! O V h 4 ~, m a, c o m` y Na h rs U p~j 'q. b W `r ~ ~ ~ ~ V 4 ~' ~ O_ U ~C N c 0 V D O U N L m ~ C ~' a. ~ O D ~ a oN .~ U C b ti tC0 "' m N ~ d w ~ ~ v 6 4 4'i h s't ~. 4 t0 ~ c7 ~ t7 w N t0 O tt7 f~f '7 tD pj D/ 1. W fD N O) .tD O 1+ fp f~ O N O • m O N (O t. 4 47 r. C W u7 f) N O~ tC1 q t0 Of ~ O N O C) I~ t! O 1~ tb ~ n t : Q1 6 g tp N ~ ~ 41 ~ b t H r7 tH ~ tR V}' ' V 64 69 t[7 64 N fR !A t fl 64 N Ff} '~ ~ 19 • +-' N r N r N r .- N r M O p O ~ Of U v _ v _ 2 N w' h ~ . y m y ~ . C c C ~ C o °o °o °o °o a ~ ~ V a ~ to YO tll ~ h y . y N C ~ 07 C ~ ~ tl7 C ~ ~ d ~ C C W e ~' b O ~ O ~ p~ O O ~ O O O O p m ~ 4 ~. O L O L p ~ t O t~ ~ O .C ~ O L O L O L O r O L W E V y V V! ~ V ~ H V N V ~ y p N V W V ~ Y1 ' U N V N V IA m 3 3 3 ~ 3., 3 3 ~ 3 3 3 ~ m C m C w G m d m m m w m m C~ c C R c C C C ~ t0 'T 0 O N M 0 0 C7 0 ~ i[1 0 4 !O 1~ CO Qf 0 0 0 0 O r N r-~ M ^7 to t0 ti~ W b O N L"I ~ tf) fD I~ W d O ~ IT 0 4 0 4 6 0 0 4 4 0 ~O O'C O Q G w N N G O O Q O b N N N O O 4 N .N N Q p 0 N N M ~ '- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~N N CV N N N N N N O p p N N N t'9 Fr '~ N tWO ~ N W M ~~.. KJ /g H O O L N N 41 Ll . ~ ~ W N 5^ O 47 W 07 M M W d Ir fp 1~ m ~~. W ~ O N~ N { '~ N (D ~ C1 <O ~ t D Q1 ~+) d Q ~ p O O. N H O • W .~ O O1 c"'i l~ 1 6 M1 lCl N Qi O lO 4 r h~ N O N l[) W N 4 ~ [d O 11] Qj 7 U ! ~ c0 r O c0 P7 47 1- C'f 1~ N r- CD ~ cD w ~ l`J 1~ ~ m ti 4 , 4) N 69 W 4 7 Y N N 1 (j ~ ~ N N M N 6 FH fA 6q iR fA 64 fA ~! K 64 Vl f6 - r r r ~ .-~ r r r .- N r r r r .-- ° o o U V ~ 4f ~ Z N y N d ~ ~ C C C O O O O O V L L L ~ ~ N N ~ N 3 ~ V 1 ~ d O C N C C C c ~' d D O O b O O p O O O t0 D D O D ~ O O ~ O O O p O G .C L L F L L L L .C L t y V V V V V V W V . V V O Y! fq N N N YI N H H N N m ~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~ 3 3 3 W d d> m W 01 d N d m d d C C c G C C C C C . C c ~ Q7 O r h- r7 ~ W t0 I~ W b O r N M~ u7 i0 N W O1 O r N C'1 ~ tty tD h oo W O O) O C? 6 0 Q O 0 0 0 0 +^ r r r r N N N N N N N N N N crj ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I1j !'1 ti h C9 F~- W ~ N Q O L V N ++ W a3i V ~ ~ ~a zo zi Projected cpsts of elementary, middle and high schools Assuming 2.5% yearly increase in construction cost 2D00 2001 2002 2003 '2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Elementary $14, 000, 000 $14,350,000 $14,708,750 $15,076,469 $15,453,380 $15,839,715 $16,235,708 $16,641,601 $17,057,641 $17,484,082 $17,921,184 $18,369,213 $18,828,444 $19,299,155 $19,781,633 $20,276,174 $20,783,079 $21,302,656 $21,$35,222 $22,3$1,103 $22,940,630 $23,514,146 $24,102,000 $24,7D4,550 $25,322,163 $25,955,217 $26,604,098 $27,269,200 $27,950,930 $2$,649,704 $29,365,946 Middle $20,000,000 $20,500,000 $21,012,500 $21,537,813 $22,076,258 $22,628,164 $23,193, 868 $23,773,715 $24,368,058 $24,977,259 $25,601,691 $26,241,733 $26,s97,ns $27,570,221 $28,259,476 $28,965,963 $29,690,112 $30,432,365 $31,193,174 $31,973,004 $32,772,329 $33,591,637' $34,431,428 $35,292,214 $36,174,519 $37,078,882 $38,005,854 $38,956,000 $39,929,900 $40,928,148 $41,951,352 High $35,000,000 $35,$75,000 $36,771, 875 $37,691,172 $38,633,451 $39,599,287 $40,589,270 $41,604,001 $42,644,101 $43,710,204 $44,802,959 $45,923,033 $47,071,109 $48,247,887 $49,454,084 $50,690,436 $51,957,697 $53,256,639 $54,588,055 $55,952,756 $57,351,575 $58,785,365 $60,254,999 $61,761,374 $63,305,408 $64,888,043 $66,510,245 $68,173,001 $69,877,326 $71,624,259 $73,414,865 $75,250,237 $77,131,493 $79,059,78D $81,036,275 $83,062,182 2032 2033 2034 2035 zz .-, N L d ^~ L 's `- •rr r~. V d Z .•w V ,i~+ LL a i ~ d .' 47 U ~ ~ ~ °o z axe ~ '~ UJ .~ ~' ~ ~tA ~~ N '~ ~ a :~ U N ;. N d ~ 41?~'~ ~ Y y ~~fl1« ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi ~ ~ r C ~ ~ 7 LL Wi r~+ ~ 0 V ~' ~ ~~ 0= O ~' ~' . p 0. ~ Q. C V~ U fG C C C "' O "r ~ f/) 0 a`y~a a~mco~ ~~' ~C)~ ' EEE~a~ N N ' ~~p~ O w (~ ^t ~ w 2~ -p a U W W 0 0 0 ~ U V~ Q U F- v O » d .' {d N p d V d 2 ~ {i a ,~ = G H ~ d V .` N ~~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~~ cn ~°' LL O ~ . 4t O' 'p 1 ~ d 2 N D ~ ~. ~ C . ~ ~ s ~ ~ m . U ~ ~~ u ~ ~ aaU N 7 U ~ ~ vi N N C C C T C U 'o a o. E ca a X V W c N m ~ ~ ~ c C ti ~ Q1 it ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 'o o~ ~• c ~. c r ca O O H C LL U ~, ~ Nom-' C N H O N ~ ~ ~ ~ m E 'p p 7 7 U °' w cn E o a ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ .,y. ~ ~ o 0 ~ ro ~ ~ .~ U C C ~ ~ ~+ C N O O N ~ y N -p fp ~ "O C ~ ~ ~ U N ~ ~~ o 0 ~+ ~ .C7 V E E h E '~ ° ~ o 0 c m cn U U C7 O O C O ~ ~ ~~~ n~ U H F c c .mac ~ _ ~ a~ t E ~ ~ O ~ E U U ~. ^ v I.~w c~hH~c~,s COL.EMA,N, GLEDHILL & HARGRAVE A PRAF'ES5fONAL CARPORA7IC~N 119E 7R1'gN STREET It p. DR~,WER 1524 H1LL590feollClH, NORTH GROl1NA Z7Z96 919.732•ZI9b FROM. TH$ DESK OF FAX 913772.7997 GEOFFREY L• GLF~HILL WFa3SiTE WWW.CGANDH.CAM September 2 9, 2 Q Q ~ +, Moses Carey, Jr. , Chaa.r Margaret, W. Bx'own Alice M. Gordon • Stephen Halkiotis Harry Jacobs Orange County Board of Commissioners Post Office Box 8181 .Hillsborough, North Carolina 2727 8 REe Zs~ues related to the proposed Orange County Adequate Public school. Faci].itiies Program Dear Board Members: This letter is intended to frame several a.aBUe6 arising from the excellent work completed by the School and Land U$e Councils , The issues arise from my review cif the minutes of the meetings.of.the Councils and from my attendance at some of the meetings of the Councils. i The adequate public schools facilities proposed memorandum of understanding and related ordinances create a system whereby the schools issue certificates of adequacy af.public schools facilities based on school service levels. The proposed ordinance provides that, after reviewing cr~rtain criteria, the schools make a determination that there is adequate capacity at the elementary school level, middle school level and high school .level. If the project of the applicant for the certificate would cause qtly of the three school levels to exceed the sertrice levels in the ordinance, the certificates would not be issued. 23 24 Orange County Board of Cornmiasionera Page 2 September 29, 2000 The memoranduiri of undexstanding also incorporates the service levels and .requires the schools to consider a number of factors, including: number of s~.udents presentJ.y enrolled; projected ar ongoing construction of schools ox'.permarient expansion of existing schools; projected a.ncreases in enrollment 'due to residential growth as determined by approved building lots and other developments in pxogress and "any other f ac,tora deemed relevant by the school district in determining whether each. school lever of service [will be exceeded if the] project is constructed." Issue Number 1 To what degree C.an the County's financial ability to respond to school needs and projected school needs be one of the "other factors" considered by the schools a.n making certificate decisions? Put another way, Can the Adequate Public Schaal Faci7;itiea Program be used to limit. the amount of residential development..k~y budget decisions to allocate ar not money for school constxuCta.on? It is not contemp7.ated by an adequate public facilities program that .the tools, the ordinances and the MQU, are growth- limiting devices. Rather, the chief objective of these tao].s is to provide a x'easonable amount of time for tkie County a8 the ~is,~l„.agPn~t, and the schools as the_ ~d~_~~t~~-s~c~.9ent to respond to the impact of residential growth on the schoale. That is, they allow both the County and the schools to reasonably respond to the pace of development.. Therefore, the degree to which the County is willing to spend money on school construction is not' an`"other".factor to be considered by the schools in issuing certificates. On the other hand; the County does not have to bankrupt itself and its citizens to keep SChOO1 construction current with population increases. That is to say, 'the County can establish, in some broad sense debt service goals which if exceeded would have the impact of severely weakening Orange County's financial Condition. Frank~.y, before the County reaches that .level of fiscal despair, there must be a loud hue and cry for residential development land use limitation changes. If land use regulations 25 Orange County goazd of Commissioners Page 3 September 29, 2000 permit residential growth; the County must fund sufficient facilities and the schools must educate the children resulting from that residential.growth. -The only sound approach to balancing school facilities and 'residential growth student generata.on would be to regularly chart the school children "generated" by growth projections to see what school Construction will be required. This can be compared with a fiscal limiting chart. If the twa charted lines "cross," work needs to br? done. More money must be found for school cons~.ruction or County-wide growth limiting land use regulations must be implemented. To what degree is school Capacity affected by student- teacher ratio decisions? In the context of an adequate public school facilities program, any student-teacher. ratio change that changes school Capacity must be approved by the schools That is, if the certificates can be impacted by student-teacher ratio decisions of the school boards,. the County must be on board. That is not to say that the schools cannot .create their own teacher-pupil ratios. However, those unilateral school board decisions cannot .affect the adequate public school facilities program until and unless the County is on board with the changes. And, whether the County is on board on school board ..approved student-teacher ratios beyond the adequate public school facilities .program is, in my opinion, in Orange County, a political one. On the other hand, the County cannot arbitrarily say no to school capacity changes that are the result of teacher-student ratio changes that are mandated at State and federal levels, IAA t~~ This "issue" doss nat prompt a question. Rather it prompts a comment. There are several places in the draft ordinance that need .some."wordsmithing." Particularly the section dealing with exemptiorza, the section dealing with appeals of denials of a CAPS, particularly the part about the governing board making a "recommendation," and the section of the MoU related to 26 orange County Board of Commissioners Page 4 September 29, 20.00 -affordable housing. This latter area;, as written in the documents, needs the most work. A commitment by the County .to provide additional school facility funding to accommodate one or more affordable housing projects cannot °tranalate" in the ordinance to a de facto certificate exemption for affordable 'housing projects.. very truly yours, ;COLEMAN. LEDHTLL.& HARGRAVE. P.C. G ff~cey E. .Gle i.ll GEG/lsg xc : ~ Cr'aa,g Benedict ! Donna Dean John M. Link, Jr. Rod visser leg:lett.arg\bdoEcomadegpubEac-l.~r ORANGE COUNTY PL~-NNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTIVIE~iT Craig N. Benedict, AlCP, Director Administration b~` , A;. ~ . 306E Reuere Road (919) 245-2575 ./ ~;~~s ;~ P O Box 8181 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ~~.'~ a Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us "°~/~ ~.t°<~p North Carolina, 27278 TO: Commissioner Alice M. Gordon .FROM: Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Planning Director DATE: October 12, 2000 SUB.TECT: SAPFO Tl~e following responses track the outline in the attached memo from Commissioner Gordon. These issues were discussed and responses formulated by Geoffrey Gledhill and I. Additional Information Please send the "Talking Points" mentioned in the agenda abstract. Also, please send the charts presented at a previous meeting by Craig Benedict that show costs associated with different levels of school seats added each year. I believe these charts show, for example, that an additiona1450 students per year would .cost $14.5 million a year. (This is the information that I asked John Link about on September 25.) The "Talking Points" are attached in the fore: of the letter dated 9/25/00 from Geo,,(fi-ey Gledhill, County Attorney. The "Charts"are attached from previous docarments presented to the Schools and Land Use Coarncil and Assembly of Governments by Craig N. Benedict, County Planning Director that note potential fiscal impacts based on student projections that are agreed upon to reflect 10 year historical patterns with annual updates to create a "moving average" (i.e. a 1990-2000 trend will be updated to delete 1990 and add 2001 thereby developing a 1991 to 2001 trend for the next ten years of projections). II. Comments A. The "Financial Impact" section of the agenda abstract states that the fiscal impact of the adoption and implementation of a Schools APFO cannot be clearly articulated at this time. If that is true, then we must do mare work because it is essential that the fiscal impact be clearly articulated. z MEMORANDUM INCORPORATING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER ALICE GORDON AND ANSWERS FROM CRAIG BENEDICT 28 The "Financial b~zpact" of the Schools APFO was estimated by the "Charts "noted above. Hotivever, as disczssed at the October Z BOCC tivork session and October 10 BOCC nzeetirzg, the fiscal inrpact as it relates to the variety of competing commissioners goals will need to be fzrrther analyzed. The developing list of capital needs is attached as tivell as the tentative bond development schedarle. B. We should add language to the Memorandum of Understanding that more clearly spells out the financial obligations that the County, Towns, and School Boards expect the County to undertake. h'or example, we should have clear answers to the following questions: 1. (a) Is the County expected to fund school construction at an unlimited rate to keep up with whatever development is approved? OR (b) Is the County allowed to set limits on the amount of money that is to be ~. allocated for school construction (based on reasonable considerations - ~ such as debt service limits, competing needs, reasonable .tax rate increases, and: so forth). Please refer, to Issue #1 noted in Genf Gledhidl's letter dated 9/29/00 to BOCC. Also see Responsibility Chart. 2. Is the County expected to fund school construction if a school bond referendum fails? Tf a school bond referer7dzrnz fails, the BOCC ~ have to develop other firnding mechar7isnzs that wozrld affect the balance and order of fiscal goals and capital needs. C. The Schools APFO documents assume that we have "caught up" with current development, and now must just "keep up." Is that true? What are the percentages at each level (elementary, middle, high school) for each school district? The idea that the school districts have "caught zrp" is a very dynamic concept. Besides . the variables in determining school bzilding capacity, ongoing enrollment increases and accelerating development proposals, what can be stated is that it is better to proceed with dire speed to adopt a Schools APFO becazrse over-capacity situations shozrld be manageable at this time. Many other jzrrisdictions that attempt Schools APFO have extreme.di~culty meeting adequirte level of service standards because they have lapsed in their effort to address capacity problems sooner than later where major capacity increases are fiscal improbabilities. Orange Cozrnty. has addressed school capacity on a planned and prudent basis with the bond programs in 1988; 1992.and 1997. The Schools APFD will assist in creating structzrre and process and ident~ing capital needs through stzrdent projections and enhanced intergovernmental and school district coordination. D. As stated on September 25, we must address the definition of "building capacity." What would you suggest? . See revision in Menzarandzrm of Understanding and Ordinance. E. I will bring to the work session my other comments and suggestions concerning the Schools APFO (not SAPFO). As discussed and incorporated in the tLiOU. 24 .SCHOOL AI~EQIJA'~'E PTJBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE R,ESPONS~BILITY CHART A. Orange County Board of County Commissioners 1. Adequate Level of Service 2. Student Projections 3. School Standards 4. Capital Investment Plan 5. Funding B: Municipalities and Orange County 1. .Adequate Level of Service Z. Student Projections 3. Land Use Decisions 4. Zoning Decisions 5. Subdivision and other Residential Development Permitting 6. Subdivision and Housing Data Base Creation and Maintenance C. School Boards 1. Adequate Level of Service ~. Student Projections 3. School Standards 4. Education 5. Recommend CIP 6. Administration of School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Issuance of Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS)] 7. School Enrollment Feedback for Data Base Maintenance