HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-07-2008 - 4nORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 7, 2008
Action Agen a
Item No.
SUBJECT: Education Facilities Impact Fee Reports -Receipt
DEPARTMENT: Planning /Budget
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Letters from CHCCS and OCS
2. Adopted Student Generation Rates
and Educational Facilities Impact
Fees and Results of 2007 Study
3. Graphs of Historical Impact Fee
Collections for Both School Districts
4. Steps in Update Process and
Potential Timeline
5. Draft Report for CHCCS
6. Draft Report for OCS
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
This item was delayed from the
Board's September 16, 2008 meeting
due to time constraints.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 245-2592
Donna Coffey, 245-2151
Perdita Holtz, 245-2611
PURPOSE: To receive the Draft Education Facilities Impact Fee reports prepared by
TischlerBise and direct staff to set a public hearing for the October 21, 2008 BOCC meeting.
BACKGROUND: In May 2007, Orange County contracted with TischlerBise, Inc. to analyze
and update the County's adopted student generation rates and education facilities impact fee
levels for both school districts. TischlerBise completed its work and the resultant draft reports
are attached. By the time staff had completed its initial review of the draft, the County and the
school districts were well into the time-intensive budget process that occurs each Spring and
concludes at the end of June, so the reports were delayed for consideration until this time.
The draft reports were sent to the school districts for their review and comment on July 22, 2008
and comments were requested by August 22, 2008. A letter was received from Chapel Hill -
Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) on September 9, 2008 and from Orange County Schools
(OCS) on September 23, 2008 (see Attachment 1). The draft reports were also sent to the
BOCC and to the Planning Directors of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane for
their information on July 22.
The current contract with TischlerBise, Inc. can require the Consultant to attend two public
meetings (one of which is the public hearing) to explain the analysis and conclusions contained
2
in the reports. If additional meetings beyond these two are requested of the Consultant,
TischlerBise has indicated the charge would be $2,500 per meeting.
September 25 2008 Joint BOCC/School Boards Meeting
Educational Facilities Impact Fees were a topic for discussion at the September 25, 2008 Joint
BOCC/School Boards meeting. Meeting participants stressed the need to be mindful of how
impact fees could affect housing affordability. Additionally, the idea that impact fees should rise
each year in conjunction with an inflationary index rather than requiring a substantial increase
every few years was suggested. Answers to questions raised at the September 25 joint
BOCC/School Boards meeting will be provided during the planned discussion of this
item at the Board's October 14, 2008 work session.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact with receiving the draft technical reports and
setting a public hearing to hear public comments on the technical reports.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board:
1. Receive the draft reports.
2. Direct staff to set a public hearing for the October 21, 2008 BOCC meeting to have the
consultant present the draft technical reports and answer any technical questions, and
to hear public comments on the draft technical reports.
Attachment 1
-~
EL ~-iILL-
oRo
CITY SCHOOLS
September 8, 2008
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Board of County Commissioners
PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Commissioner Jacobs:
RFCF~t'~,TEL~-
S~~ b 9 2008
Y-
At its meeting on September 3, 2008, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of
Education approved the fallowing resolution:
Be it, therefore, resolved that the Board of Education urges the Orange
County Board of Commissioners to increase the school impact fees in
order to provide a source of funding to construct new schools to keep
pace with the district's growing student population and the escalating cost
of construction.
Be it further resolved that the Board of Education urges the Orange
County Board of Commissioners tv continue to reimburse the impact fee
for newly constructed affordable housing.
We look forward to further discussion on this important topic at our joint meeting
on September 25, 2008.
Sincerely,
Pamela S. Hemminger, Chair
Board of Education
C: Laura Blackmon
Neil Pedersen
Llncoin Center, 750 S. Merritt Mlil Road • Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2878 • (919) 96T-6211 • www.chccs.kl2.nc.us
.,.~„
G. Patrick Rhodes (919) 732-8126 Telephone
Superintendent (919) 732-8120 Fax
www.orange.kl2.nc.us
September 19, 2008
Mr. Craig Benedict, Director
Orange County Planning and Inspections Deparhnent
306 F Revere Road, PO Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Dear Mr. Benedict:
RE: School Impact Fees
The Orange County Board of Education held a discussion at their September 2, 2008 Board meeting regarding the
Draft School Impact Fees Report completed by TischlerBise. In response to the request for our Board to provide
comments pertaining to the report, I am providing the following excerpt from the approved minutes of the
September 2 meeting:
Board members agreed by consensus to reply to the County Commissioners stating the Board of
Education supports the County Commissioners in all their efforts to fully fund our school district.
Administration recantmends the percentage of the maximum supportable impact fee remain at SG°/a
The Orange County Board of Education fully supports the Board of County Commissioners' efforts to fund the
Orange County Schools and supports the current impact fee levels. Please let me know if you need any additional
information.
Sincerely,
G. Patrick Rhodes
Superintendent
/pmc
cc: Orange County Board of Education
Attachment 2
0
Adopted Student Generation Rates and Educational Facilities Impact Fees
and Results of 2007 Study
Student generation rates have increased in both school districts from the rates
calculated in 2001. The Adopted (2001) student generation rates are as follows:
Adopted Student Generati on Rates (2001
Ch a el Hill -Carrbo ro Schools Ora n a Coun Sch ools
Elem. Middle High All Elem. Middle High All
Grades Grades
Single- 168
0 0.095 0.123 0.386 0.150 0.075 0.084 0.309
Family .
Other 0.094 0.042 0.043 0.179 0.084 0.033 ~ 0.030 0.147
All
Housing 0.134 0.070 0.086 0.290 0.140 0.068 0.076 0.284
T pes
The analysis for the 2007 draft report found the student generation rates in the
following .table. Some data was aggregated slightly differently for the school
districts since the housing types found in each district vary (i.e., Single Family
Attached /Multifamily was combined for OCS since there is minimal single family
attached housing in the OCS district).
2007 Stud Student Generation Rates
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Oran a Cou nt Schools
Elem. Middle High All Elem. Middle High All
Grades Grades
Single-Family 0
263 0.143 0.197 0.603 0.168 0.090 0.126 0.384
Detached .
Single-Family 0.158 0.077 0.115 0.350 - - - -
Attached
Multifamil 0.038 0.015 0.017 0.070 - - - -
Single-Family
Attached / - - - - 0.066 0.022 0.034 0.122
Multifamil
Manufactured 0.141 0.066 0.061 0.268 0.096 0.041 0.049 0.186
Homes
All Housing 0
149 0.078 0.105 0.332 0.145 0.074 0.102 0.321
Types .
Impact fees were last updated in 2001 and were adopted at the following levels:
Adopted School Impact Fees (2001)
[NOTE: Fee levels were adopted at 60% of the Maximum Supportable
Impact Fee MSIF) for CHCCS and 56% of the MSIF for OCS]
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Orange County
Schools Schools
Single-Family & Multi-wide $4,407 $3,000
Manufactured Homes
Multi-Family & Single-wide $1 979 $1,420
Manufactured Homes
Since 2001, construction costs have risen dramatically and land prices have
appreciated. For example, as the chart on page 16 of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
City Schools draft report shows, when Scroggs Elementary was constructed in
Fall 2000 the project cost was slightly higher than $17.5 million (adjusted to 2007
dollars) while Morris Grove Elementary, constructed in the Fall of 2008, cost
slightly more than $24.6 million (adjusted to 2007 dollars). Additionally, land
costs have risen substantially in the CHCCS District and buildable parcels of a
size suitable for a school have gotten scarce. It is estimated that land acquisition
costs in the CHCCS will be $100,000 per acre for sites suitable for a school. The
2007 TischlerBise study has found the following Maximum Supportable Impact
Fee (MSIF) for each district:
2007 Stud Maximum Sup ortable Im pact Fees
Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Schools Orange County
Schools
Sin le-Famil Detached $19,039 $9,372
Sin le-Famil Attached $11,016 ~ -
Multifamil $2,144 -
Single-Family Attached /
Multifamil _ $2,905
Manufactured Homes $8,232 $4,463
Since 1995, Orange County has offered an impact fee reimbursement program
for_ school impact fees paid on afFordable housing units. From FY2002-03
through FY2007-08, $196,698 in collected impact fees has been reimbursed for
the 59 affordable housing units constructed in that time period.
As was done when the impact fees were updated in 2001 (adopted at 56% of the
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee [MSIF] in OCS and 60% MSIF in CHCCS),
the BOCC has discretion to adopt fee levels at less than 100% of the
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee.
.~+~~G~,I- 3.
(I,) o~oq~e~ pue 11!H
ladey~ ~o suw-ol I(q panssi s~u>aad 6u!pl!n8 lend
0 0
N O
r r 00 CO d' N O
W
LL O
Q N
E ~'
c U
O ~~
. i O
N ~
C V
V
0 ~
~ ~
V ~
(~
O
C7
• ~ ~.
ti
~O
•,1 • ~•
O
1°• .•'~
n
lt)
j ~ /.1 ~• '
~ C
^
-~
.
j
o m
p~ it
~ m
C ~
O
V m r
U O
N
t N
m c
D
L • • . •
(n I
N
O
• •
O
. .
N
h
O
111 '
° ° ° °
o o o o o 0
_
°
o ~ o ~°
~ ~ ~
~ ~
W
O
h
O
O
N
ti
O
CO ~
O =
N m
tD a,
O ~
tL) ~
O p~
O =
N ~
C
ti!
O p
O
N ~
~.
o ~. ~
o is =
N N Q.
~ ~
t
t*) V
O ~
O ~
N ~
H
O ~
O ~
O ~
N ~
Q.
cwde
r `V
o ~°
o ~
o
o m
N p_
O
C
O ~
01 m
rn
rn v
O
EF3
o~oq~~e~
pue p!H ladey~ ~o sumol l~q pa}oapo~ $ len~ad
(Z) 6uluueld /I~unop a6ueap
IIq panssi Kvuednoap ~o sa~eo16~a~ le3nob
m
0
O
N
tD
07
O
°o °o °o °o °o °o o°
f~ c0 tf) d' c0 N +-
0
O ~
ti =
O ~
O Q.
N
.~'
c .
~ m
o C
m
(D ~ m
O ~
N ~ O
0 ?,
~° U
m v .~
o ~o
o `~i is
N ~+m+.:
~ '~ N
O ~
O U m Q.
~'' N
O ~ ~ ~
N m v c
iC M c
~ ~ ~~ ~
a
° >- m ~ .~
0 00 U c o
N _N ~ 1: V
u. ~=urn
0
r~ m~~
N V ~ O
r ~,
O N ~ ~
N ~ V N
i O ~
O
ao
o cN
00 °a~°
N ~ tl C
N = Q
C ar ~
O U C V
0 om~
0
0
N ~ ~ y
~ m
y ~ v
m
o ~E~
d> ~ c. v
rn
rn ~o
T
v,.
0
,.~c.+
U
»~
O
~ m
~ O
a
(~ ® U
Q. O
~ V V
G ~ ~
O ~
s0. O ~
V ci
O ~o
~ V
~~
~ O C
t1 U
0
V
N
Z
D
O
CNO
0
~ m N
o ~
~ V N
m
c ~ ~
m
V ti m
O ~ U
V Q~
f!~ ~ W
co
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
° ° ° ° ° ° 0
o o o o o 0
_
° _
° ° ° ° °
o o o o o o o
d' N Q ~ N
T
T
T . ~. ~.. , ,
y3
~' ~'
0
cis
({.) panssl Kouednoap }o sa~eol~!IJaJ ~o~
6uluueld K}unop a6ueap Kq pa~aepo~ $ lend
0
ao
0
0
N
tC>
r_
0
m
o ~
~ .Q
m
°o ~
N 0
U
n o
0
N t~
C
O
d
G1
~.i..
V N
a°
~ V
C N
O ~'
f+ G
V ~
L ''o+
~ V
~ ~
G ~
0 G
V ~
s L
0 O
V
t0
O
117
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
'Q
m
d~ ~ m
o ~ o
.a
N W
u. m
N
W
M
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
r
0
0
Q
N
0
0
rn
rn
rn
r
O
N
.y
tt5
m
U
L
O
~H
C
.C
C
^^~
1.t..
C
O
U
m
m
c
co
L
O
^~
.~(
V
O
V
0 0 Q 0 0 Q 0 ~ v~T
0 0 ~ Q ~ Q 0
~ Q A am N
d N O O
O C
D d
'
r _
r r r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
Attachment 4
~a
Steps in Update Process and Potential Timeline
Updating the student generation rates to the levels determined by this recent
study would affect the CAPS (Certificate of Adequate Public Schools) system
that is part of the SAPFO (Schools ,Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance)
process. Per Section 1.d of the SAPFO Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
the BOCC
"may change the projected student membership growth rate, the
methodology used to determine this rate, or the student generation
rate if the Board concludes that such a change is necessary to
predict growth more accurately. Before making any such change,
the Board shall receive and consider the recommendation of a staff
committee consisting of the planning directors of the Town(s) and
the County and a representative of the School District appointed by
the Superintendent."
Staff note: the staff committee referred to above is the SAPFOTAC (Schools
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance technical Advisory Committee).
Additionally, the BOCC "shall provide an opportunity for those governing Boards
to comment on the recommendation." Finally, the BOCC shall inform the other
parties to the MOU "prior to February 1St in any year in which such change is
intended to become effective what change was made and why it was necessary."
Although related, SAPFO and the student generation rates used in SAPFO
processes are separate issues from the Educational Facilities Impact Fee
Ordinance.
Updating the Education Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance (EFIFO) would require
that proposed amendments be brought forward for adoption consideration at a
later date. Finalization of the draft technical reports needs to occur prior to any
amendments to the EFIFO.
As was done when the impact fees were updated in 2001 (adopted at 56% of the
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee [MSIF] in OCS and 60% MSIF in CHCCS),
the BOCC has the discretion to adopt fee levels at less than 100% of the
Maximum Supportable Impact Fee.
The following progression illustrates the potential steps in the process of
finalizing the draft technical reports, and updating the student generation rates
and Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance:
II
July 22, 2008 Draft reports sent to School Systems, BOCC, and municipal
Plannin Directors.
August 22, 2008 Date stated in transmittal letter for submittal of comments
from School Districts (letters have been received from both
school districts, see Attachment 1 .
September 16, Draft reports on BOCC agenda for formal receipt of reports
2008 and direction. Dela ed due to time constraints)
September 25, Educational Facilities Impact Fees (EFIF) discussed at the
2008 Joint BOCC/School Board meeting.
October 7, 2008 Draft reports on BOCC agenda for formal receipt of reports
and to set ublic hearin on draft technical re orts.
October 14, 2008 Educational Facilities Impact Fees on BOCC work session
a enda for discussion.
October 21, 2008 Public Hearing on Draft Reports (consultant attends to
present reports and answer questions). The purpose of this
public hearing is to provide the public the opportunity to
comment on the technical aspects of the reports so that the
consultant can finalize the technical reports; any proposed
specific fee level amendments would be a topic of
discussion at a subsequent meetin .
November 6, 2008 BOCC directs finalization of the draft technical reports by
the Consultant, directs staff to place a public hearing on
EFIFO fee levels on the November 18 BOCC agenda, and
asks the SAPFOTAC to make a recommendation on the
updated student generation rates in time for the steps
required by the SAPFO MOU to occur prior to the February
1St deadline for chan es stipulated in the MOU.
November 18, Public Hearing to hear public comments on the proposed
2008 EFIF level and BOCC discussion on fee levels.
December 11, BOCC adopts updated impact fee levels (new fee levels
2008 effective January 1, 2009). BOCC also receives
SAPFOTAC recommendation on student generation rates
update and directs staff to send the recommendation to
SAPFO partners for review and comment (comments due
back mid-Janua
Prior to February BOCC adopts updated student generation rate and informs
1, 2009 SAPFO partners of decision.
SCHOOLIMPACTFEES
CHAPEL HILL-CA.R.RBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Prepared For:
Orange County, North Carolina
December 31, 2007
Prepared By:
Tis~chl
l=s~a1 Econotnic`& Planning ~onsuitants
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO Ctn SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE Sif~~tMARY ..................................................................................................................................1
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................:.....................................................2
MA)QMIIM SUPPORTABLE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES ...................................................................................:.............3
Figure 1. Maximum Supportable School Impact Fees: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools ...........................3
OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES ..........................................................................................................................4
CHAPEL I IILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW .....................................................................7
STUDENT GENERATION RATES ................................................................................................................9
Figure 2. Student Generation Rates: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools ....................................... ......................10
IMPACT FEES: CHAPEL HILL-CA.ItIZBORO CITY SCHOOLS ....................................... ......................11
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. ......................11
Figure 3. Impact Fee Methodology Chart: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools ............................... ......................11
BUILDING AND SITE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ................................................................... ......................12
Figure 4. Level of Service Standards: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cittj Schools .............................. ......................12
Figure 5. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cit<j Elementan~ Schools ...................................................... ......................13
Figure 6. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cit<j Middle Schools ............................................................. ......................14
Figure 7. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cit<j High Schools ................:................................................ ......................15
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ................................................................................................... .........:............15
Figure 8. School Project Costs ................................................................................................. ......................16
LAND COSTS ...........................................................•--...............----................................................. ......................16
PORTABLE CLASSROOM COSTS ...................................................................................................... ......................16
SUPPORT FACR,ITIES ...................................................................................................................... ......................17
Figure 9. Support Facilities -Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cit<,/Schools ........................................... ......................17
Figure 10. Support Facilities -Serving Orange Countlj and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools . ......................17
BUS /VEHICLES COSTS ................................................................................................................... ......................17
Figure 11. Buses /Vehicles Levels of Service and Costs: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cihj Schools ......................18
ADJUSTIvIENT FOR NON-LOCAL FUNDING .................................................................................... ......................18
CREDTT FOR FUTURE PRINCII'AL PAYMENTS ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND .............. ......................18
Figure 12. Credit far Future Principal Pm,/ments: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools .................. ......................19
SCHOOL IIvII'ACT FEE INPUT' VARIABLES ....................................................................................... ......................20
Figure 13. Schools Impact Fee Input Variables: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools .............. ...........:..........21
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT-FEES FOR CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS ............ ......................22
Figure 14. Maximum Supportable Schools Impact Fees: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools ......................22
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................. ......................23
Figure 15. Cash Flow Projections: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cifi,/ Schools .................................. ......................24
Tischler~ise
fyG=, CcppOtliiC ar.Plaut{ug Ccn:utianti ~.
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .....................................................................................25
ACCOUNTING .......................................................................................................................................................25
COST UPDAT~S .....................................................................................................................................................25
CREDrrS AMID REIMBURSEIvIENTS ............................................................................................•••-----.....................25
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES ............................................................................................................26
IMPACT FEE AC'r ......................................................••..........................................................................---.............26
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA .................................................................................................. A-1
OVERVIEW .••••• .................•.•.....................••.......................................................................................---•--..... .. A-1
POPULATION AND HOUSING GROWTH .......................................................................................................... .. A-2
Figure A1. LI.S. Census 2000 Population and Housing Units ................................................................ ...A-2
Figure AZ. Housing Unit Growth 2000-2006: Orange County Schools ................................................. ...A-3
Figure A3. Housing Linn Growth 2000-2006: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cittj Schools ................................ ...A-4
ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES ................................................................................................... .. A-4
Figure A4. Orange Counh~ Schools Student Generation Rates ............................................................... ...A-6
Figure A5. Chapel Hill - Can•boro City/ Schools Student Generation Rates ............................................ ...A-8
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ......................................................... .. A-9
Figure A6. Historical Public School Enrollments: Orange Counh~ Schools ............................................ ...A-9
Figure A7. Projected Public School Enrollments: Orange County/ Schools ............................................. .A-10
Figure A8. Historical Public School Enrollments: Chapel Hill-Can•boro Cih~ Schools ........................... .A-71
Figure A9. Projected Public School Enrollments: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cih~ Schools ............................ .A-72
HOUSING UNrr PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................ A-12
Figure A10. Housing Unit Projections ............................................................:....................................... .A-13
SUIVUvIARY ................................................................................................................................................... A-13
Figure A12. Summand of Demand Projections ........................................................................................ .A-14
Figure A12. Growth Projections Chart ...........................................................
APPENDIX S: IMPACT FEE ACT ............................................................................................................ A-16
7~schler~is~ ii
fgts--', [crri~n;ic &Plinniq~ tcn:utiams..
»
Fiscal, Economic & Planning Consialtarits
4~t)l SANGi4M~RE 1tUAD l SUITS 5240 I BE7Hf:5~1A; MD 208:16
Te SQO:A2A.A3'18>1 F:301;320.A860
80 ANNANDACE ROAD t PASADENA, CA 41 T 05-T 404
1': ;618,79.0:6.170 T F: ;$ T 8:790:6235
W W W.TISCHLERBISE:GOM
TischlerBise was retained by Orange County, North Carolina, to calculate impact fees for public
schools to meet the demands generated by new residential development for school facilities in
the County. The County has been granted authority by the State to implement impact fees for
Schools.l The purpose of the legislation is to "help defray the costs to the County of constructing
certain capital improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new
development that takes place within the County."z
Impact fees are one-time payments used to defray the cost impacts of school facilities necessary
to accommodate new development. The payment amount represents new growth's fair share of
capital facility needs. TischlerBise evaluated possible methodologies and documented
appropriate demand indicators by type of development for the fee amounts. Specific capital
costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. Level of Service (LOS) standards
and cost factors are presented in this report and are the basis for the calculations. It should be
noted that although growth affects both capital and operating expenses incurred by schools, the
Impact Fee analysis addresses new development's impact on capital facilities only. It is further
limited to capital improvements that provide additional capacity as opposed to maintenance or
rehabilitation.
Orange County is served by two school systems, Orange County Schools and Chapel Hi]1-
Carrboro City Schools. TischlerBise analyzed and calculated School Impact Fees for each school
system. This report details the results of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Impact Fees. The
Orange County report is issued under separate cover.
1 S.L. 1987-460 ("An Act Making Sundry Amendments Concerning Local Governments Iri Orange And Chatham
Counties, Title VI: Orange County Impact Fees"). Iri addition to schools, other community service facility categories
are allowed such as: the acquisition of land for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets,
bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other drainage
facilities, water and sewer ,facilities and public recreation facilities. (See Appendix B for a copy of the applicable
section of the Act.)
2 Ibid, Sec. 17 (b) (1).
• Fiscal Impact Analysts • Impact Fees• Revenue Strategies • Economic ImpactAnalysis • Fiscal Softvi+are
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CHnre~ Hiu.-C~aotto Cmr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
'There are three basic methodologies used to calculate impact fees. The incremental expansion
method documents the current level of service for each type of public facility in both
quantitative and qualitative measures. The intent is to use fee revenue to expand or provide
additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the current cost to
provide capital improvements. The plan-based method is commonly used for public facilities
that have adopted plans or engineering studies to guide capital improvements, such as utility
systems. A third approach, lrnown as the cost recovery method, is based on the rationale that
new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining unused capacity of an
existing facility or land.
Maximum supportable school impact fees for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) are
derived using the incremental expansion approach. For school capital improvements, the most
common methodology employed is typically the incremental expansion method when future
capacity needs are anticipated. This approach allows for the greatest flexibility in providing
future capacity improvements. Under this methodology, the fees are based on current levels of
service (LOS) and project costs for each type of school facility (i.e., elementary, middle, and
high), land for school sites, support facilities, portable classrooms, and buses. The LOS is
documented. and the intent is to use fee revenue to provide additional or expanded public
school and related facilities as needed to accommodate new development.
The current LOS and capital costs for new or expanded facilities are used to derive a cost per
student for each type of school facility. Using the cost per student and the average CHCCS
student generation rate, a cost by type of residential unit is derived. The term "student
generation rate" refers to the average number of public school students per housing unit in the
CHCCS system. Further discussion on student generation rate calculations is provided in the
body of this report and in Appendix A.
A general requirement common to impact fee calculations is the evaluation of credits. Two types
of credits should be considered, future revenue credits and site-specific credits. Revenue
credits are necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the payment of
a one-time impact fee plus the payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related
capital improvements. Revenue credits are dependent upon the fee methodology used in the
cost analysis. To avoid this potential double payment situation, future revenue credits are
integrated into the fee to account for outstanding debt on CHCCS school facilities. A credit is
necessary since new residential units that will pay the fee will also contribute to future principal
payments on this remaining debt through property taxes. A credit is not necessary for interest
payments because interest costs are not included in the costs.
Tischler~is~ 2
tiscd,[~b:iomicahPlSanfn~; Craxutiomi.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw~eet Hiu.-Cr~xaORO Cm' SCHOOIS
Oronge County, North Carolina
The second type of credit, asite-specific credit, is for system improvements that have been
included in the fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for
system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the County's
impact fees. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific
credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the fee
calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval
process are not eligible for credits against impact fees.
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
Figure 1 provides the schedule of Maximum Supportable School Impact Fees for Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools, North Carolina. For asingle-family detached housing unit, the
maximum supportable fee amount is $19,039 per unit; for a single family attached unit, the
amount is $11,016 per unit; for a multifamily unit, the fee is $2,144; and for a manufactured
home, the amount is $8,232. The fees should be collected when building permits are issued.
School impact fees are applied only to residential development and are per housing unit,
reflecting the proportionate demand by type of unit. The amounts shown are "maximum
supportable" amounts based on the methodologies, level of service, and costs for the capital
improvements identified herein. The fees represent the highest amount feasible for each type of
applicable development, which represent new growth's fair share of the capital costs as detailed
in this report. The County can adopt amounts that are lower than the maximum amounts
shown. However, a reduction in fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a
decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service.
Figure 1. Maximum Supportable School Impact Fees: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SCHOOLIMPACT FEESs Chapel Hill.-Carrboro City Schools
Impact Fee Per Housing Unit Elementan,/ Middle High TOTAL
Single Family Detached $7,098 $4,809 $7,132 $19,039
Single Family Attached $4,264 $2,589 $4,163 $11,016
Multifamily $1,025 $504 $615 $2,144
Manufactured Homes $3,805 $2,219 $2,208 $8,232
A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted
using Excel software. Most results are discussed in the report using one, two, and three digit
places, which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to
their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may
not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in
the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
Yischler~<se 3
tlscvt,fco^_anicai.Plinning Cnat:uti~nti
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cwaee~ Hiu.-Cau~soeo Crrr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES
DEFINITION
Impact fees, also known as facility or development fees, are one-time payments used to fund
capital improvements necessitated by new growth. Impact fees have been utilized by local
goverrunents in various forms for at least fifty years. Impact fees do have limitations, and
should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure financing needs. Rather, they
should be considered one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate
provision of public facilities with the goal of maintaining current levels of service in a
community. Any community considering impact fees should note the following limitations:
^ Impact fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure and cannot be used to
finance ongoing operations and/or maintenance and rehabilitation costs;
^ Impact fees cannot be deposited in the ,local government's General Fund. The funds
must be accounted for separately in individual accounts and earmarked for the capital
expenses for which they were collected; and
^ Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies unless there is a
funding plan in place to correct the deficiency for all current residents and businesses in
the community.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions-including impact
fees-are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public
use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of
impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet
standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment,
development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental
interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public
services.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on
other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. Tn one of the most
important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing
exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the
YISCh~el'~tS~ 4
tlscd,[cotl~njic&. PlSnntng Chnwfl~nli.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ct~e~ Hiu-Ca~aORO Cf(Y SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
interest being protected. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.) In a more recent case
(Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly
proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to
set a higher standard of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions
such as impact fees.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related to
"rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state
courts. Although the term ~"dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by
which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S. Constitution, we
prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "impact or need;' "benefit,"
and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two,
although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Dolan case. T'he reasonable relationship language of the statute is
considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Individual
elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands on
some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not
increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the
entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees maybe used to recover the cost of development-
related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of
development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that
development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments
upon which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the
impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships
between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on
applicable level-of-service standards.
Demonstrating a Sene t. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be
segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were
charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must
serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the State
enabling Act authorizing Orange County's impact fees requires that facilities funded with fee
revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. Irt other words, existing
development may benefit from these improvements as well.
Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by the
State enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or
Tischlerl~is'e 5
tied,C[6rumi[bcPl]nningtcnwFtanti-
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CHnre~ tiiu-C~soeo Cmr SCHOOIS
Orange County, North Carolina
refunded..All of these requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the
fees they aze required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as
well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Proportionalitu. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of
development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the
relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to
establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify
development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various
types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms
of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the need for school
improvements is measured by the number of public school-age children generated by
development.
METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS
.Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a
particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements
for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a
particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility
costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves two main steps:
(1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those
costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact
fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the
relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss
three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be applied.
Plan-Based Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a speafied set of
improvements to a specified amount of development. 'The improvements are identified by a
facility plan and development is identified by a land use plan. In this method, the total cost of
relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the
cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g.
housing units or squaze feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit
of development (e.g., single family detached unit).
Cost Recovery Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new
development is paying for its shaze of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already
built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often
used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities. To calculate a fee using
Tischler~is~ 6
Nxc=,Cmr~nicSr.Pli, ~~u~Ccn:utianis
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CHnPet Hiu.-C~eoRO Cmr ScHOOLs
Orange Counfy, North Corolina
the cost recovery approach, the facility cost is divided by ultimate number of demand units the
facility will serve.
Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method documents the current
level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative
measures, based on an existing service standard (such as square feet per student). The level of
service standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach
used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, the fee
revenues would riot be for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, revenue
will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new
development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will
be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the
community.
Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of "credits" is integral to the
development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of "credits" each
with specific, distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the development
of impact fees. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur
when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public
facility covered by the impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the impact fee
calculation. The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of public sites or
improvements provided by the developer and for which the impact fee is imposed. This type of
credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a impact fee program.
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW
Orange County has seen significant residential growth over the past several years and with it
increased enrollment in both school systems. Growth is expected to continue in the future.
Appendix A provides detail on land use and demographic assumptions and projections. To
ensure that Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools have adequate capacity to accommodate growth,
Orange County is considering implementation of impact fees for schools. The County has been
granted authority by the State to implement impact fees for Schools.3 The purpose of the
legislation is to "help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital
a S.L. 1987-460 ("An Act Making Sundry Amendments Concerning Local Governments In Orange And Chatham
Counties, Title VI: Orange County Impact Fees"). In addition to schools, other community service facility categories
aze allowed such as: the acquisition of land for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets,
bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other drainage
facilities, water and sewer facilities and public recreation facilities. (See Appendix B for a copy of the applicable
section of the Act.)
Tischlerfise ~
Rust, [amamic a`r. Pihnninp ten:utunts.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw~e~ Hiu.-C~eoRO Cmr SCN0015
Orange County, North Carolina
improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new development that
takes place within the County."4
Orange County is served by two school systems, Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). TischlerBise analyzed and calculated school impact fees for
each school system. This report details the results of the Chapel Hill.-Carrboro City Schools
impact fees. The report for Orange County Schools is issued under separate cover. The reports
comply with relevant requirements for calculation of impact fees.
CHCCS impact fees are derived using the incremental approach. This approach determines
current level of service standards for school buildings. (elementary, middle, and high), land for
school sites, portable classrooms, support facilities, and buses. Level of service standards are
derived rising the adopted standards per the County's Schools Adequate Public Facility
Ordinance (SAPFO) and Memorandum of Understanding and are expressed as follows:
^ School buildings: Square feet per student by type of school,
^ Land: Acres per student by type of school;
^ Portable classrooms: Classrooms per student by type of school;
^ Support facilities: Cost per student; and
^ Buses/other vehicles: Number of vehicles per student.
A credit is included in the impact fee to account for outstanding debt on Chapel Hill-Carrboro
School improvements. Further detail on the approach, levels of service, costs, and credits is
provided in the body of this report.
a Ibid, Sec. 17 (b) (1).
T~chler~ise 8
fl>cd,[~r._~rrie&.PlinnLi~ Ccrrutianik
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw~et. Hiu.-C~ttaoeo Crrr $CHOOtS
Orange County, North Carolina
Demand for additional school capacity will come from new residential development. To
determine the level of this demand, student generation rates are used. The term "student
generation rate" refers to the number of public school students per housing unit in the Chapel
Hill-Carrboro City School System.5 Public school students are a subset of school-aged children,
which includes students in private schools and home-schooled children.
Student generation rates are important demographic factors that help account for variations in
demand for school facilities by type of housing. Students per housing unit are held constant
over the projection period since the impact fees represent a "snapshot approach" of current
levels of service and costs.
TischlerBise obtained student generation rate information for each school system in the County
from Orange County. The student generation rates provided by Orange County Planning are
from an analysis conducted in 2005. Student generation rates were provided by housing unit
type for the categories used in each district. That is, for Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools, rates are
provided for each type of unit: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family Attached, (3)
Multifamily, and (4) Manufachxred Homes. In addition, the rates reflect demand by type of
school level-elementary, middle, and high.
To reflect 2006-07 demand for school facilities by housing unit type, the rates are calibrated to
current conditions using data on housing units and enrollment in each school system provided
by the County. The result is updated student generation rates by type of unit by school level for
each school district. Student generation rates for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools are shown
below in Figure 2. (Further detail is provided in Appendix A.)
e Student generation rates aze calculated sepazately for each school system in the County. (See Appendix A for more
detail)
TischlerBise 9
fhc2,[ci~ortiicar. Piinn~n~ Cemm~i~nli.
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Chet Hiu.-GvUteoRO Crrv SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 2. Student Generation Rates: Chapel Bill-Carrboro Schools
iSummary: Average Public School Students Per Housing Unit, 2006-07
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High All Grades
Single Family Detached 0.263 ..
0.143
0.197
0.603
Single Family Attached '`D_158 0.077 0.115 ' 0.35D
Mrxltifamily 0.038 x.015 0.017 0.070
Manufactured Homes 0.141 0.066 0 061 D:268
All Housing T jpes (blended) 0.149 0.078 0.105 0.332
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTAC; TischlerBise
As shown above, a single family detached unit is estimated to generate a total of .603 students
(with .263 in elementary grades, .143 in middle school grades, and .197 in high school grades). A
single family attached unit is estimated to generate a total of .350 students; a multifamily unit is
estimated to generate a total of .070 students per unit; and a manufactured home is estimated to
generate a total of .268 students per unit.
Tischler~ise 10
FNC:==,[[oc.~nicS~.Piiruilngtan[uhants-
pRgFl' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw~re~ Mu-G~laoeo Crrv SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Caro-ina
METHODOLOGY
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools impact fee methodology is based on current average
public school student generation rates, level of service standards, and local costs. Figure 3
illustrates the methodology used to calculate the fee. The school impact fees use an incremental
expansion approach, which documents the current level of service for public facilities in both
quantitative and qualitative measures. The intent is to use impact fee revenue to expand or
provide additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the current
level of service and cost to provide capital improvements. All school levels are included in the
fees. Costs for school buildings, land for school sites, portable classrooms, support facilities, and
buses/vehicles are included in the fee. The costs are adjusted to account for estimated State
fiznding for capacity projects; therefore the fees reflect the County's share of the total costs.
Finally, a credit for future principal payments on existing debt is included.
Figure 3. Impact Fee Methodology Chard Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools
CIIA.['EL ILL-CARRIIORO SCHOOLS
Ib1PACT FF:E
Residential
Development
Sttrt~ents per Housing Unit by Mulfiplied By Net Local Capital
Type of Unit (Student Generation Rate) Cost per Student
School Construction
Cost per Student J
Plus Land
Cost per Student ~
Plus Portable Classroom
Cost per Student
Plus Support Facility
Costpcr5tudent
Plus Bus/Vehicle
Cost per Student
Minus Principal Paymenti Credit
Per Student
TischlerB~s~ 11
thad, [~osianiieai. Plalmiu~ Cc.ncu4~nit.
pRq~- SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CHnPe~ Hiu-Ga~soeo Cmr $CHOOI.s
Orange County, North Carolina
BUILDING AND SITE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
This section provides current inventories of elementary, middle, and high schools in the Chapel
Hill.-Carrboro City Schools System. The data contained in these tables are used to determine
infrastruMure standards for school buildings and sites on which the impact fees -are Based.
The Orange County Schools Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (SAPFO) and Memorandum of
Understanding (Annual Report 2007) provides current adopted levels of service by school type
that are used for the impact fee study. Level of service means the amount of students that can be
accommodated at a certain school system level. Figure 4 provides the adopted LOS standards.
Figure 4. Level of Service Standards: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS CHCCS
Elementary (K 5) - 105%
Middle (6-8) 107%
High (9-12) 110%
Source: Orange County, NC, Schools Adequafe Public Facilities Ordinance Annual Report 2007.
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
The inventory and current levels of service for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City elementary schools
are shown below in Figure 5. As indicated below, elementary school buildings have a total of
639,141 square feet of floor area on approximately 123.8 acres. Total enrollment in all
elementary schools is 4,980.
Level of service (LOS) factors for CHCCS elementary schools are also shown in Figure 5. T'he
Adopted LOS Standards (based on 105 percent capacity) for land, school buildings, and
portables are shown shaded in the figure below. As shown the LOS factors on which the impact
fees are based are• 025 acres 130 square feet and 0051 portable classrooms per student. It
should be noted that the capacity figures reflect mandated reduced class size for Grades K-3
from 1:23 to 1:21, reflecting actual current levels of service and the standards by which new
schools will be planned.
Tischler~tse 12
ih¢c,[[urnnicSi.PlSnrtiugCena?tanli.
pRgF]' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw+~e~ Hsu.-CAttitsoeo Cmt SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 5. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Elementary Schools
ELEMENrAxY SCHOOLS ojflZCial
Inventory, Enrollment, artd lI#lizatfon Site Building Portables SY 06-07 Level of
Fnrr7ihi Anease Sauare Feet Classmonis EnroIlntent II] Capacity (2] Service
Carrboro Elementary 20.8 60,832 1 533 533 100%
Ephesus Elementary 132 66,952 7 437 448 98%
Estes Bills Elementary [3] 112 56,299 1 512 527 97%
Glenwood Elementary 10.1 50,764 4 454 423 107%
FP Graham Elementary 10.8 66,689 2 562 538 104%
McDougle Elementary 11.7 98,000 2 581 564 103%
Rashkis Elementary 22.0 95,729 0 636 585 109%
Scroggs Elementary 13.1 90,980 2 706 575 123%
Seawall Elementary 11.0 52,896 6 559 466 120%
TOTALS 123.8 639,141 25 4,980 4,659 107%
Demand
ilnits Site Budding Portables
Elementary School Levels of Service (Students) Acreage Square Feet Classrooms
L05 based on Current Enrollment 4,980 0.024 128 0.0050
LOS based on Capacity 4,659 0.026 137 0.0053
;_LOSti'ased on':4douted LOS:Standardi105"/0) - - ~~ 4;892 : 0.025 130 0.005,1
Notes to Table:
(1) Daes not include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
(2] Capacity reflects reduced class size for Grades K-3 of 1:21.
(3] Site acreage is apportioned between Estes Hills and Phillips MS based on building size.
Source: Orange County; CHCCS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY MIDDLE SCHOOLS
The inventory and current levels of service for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City middle schools are
shown below in Figure 6. As indicated below, middle school buildings- have a total of 482,541
square feet of floor area on approximately 85.7 acres. Total enrollment in all middle schools is
2,592.
Level of service (LOS) factors for CHCCS middle schools are shown in Figure 6. The Adopted
LOS Standards (based on 107 percent capacity) for land, school buildings, and portables are
shown shaded in the figure below. As shown the LOS factors on which the impact fees are
based are• 028 acres 158 square feet and 0006 portable classrooms per student.
~1SCh~et'~ISt: 13
(hcd,haa~nieEr.Plinn(np tan:uttnnti.
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CI~eI Hiu.-C+vtltsoeo Crn(Sctlools
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 6. Chapel Bill-Carrboro City Middle Schools
MIDDLE SCHOOLS Official
Irmentory, Ern•oliment, and. Utilization Site Building Portables SY 06-07 Leael of
r..at:a.. Arran°v .Snunrv Fav+ Claaarnnms Enrollment 111 Gmacity Seroice
Culbreth Middle 35.7 108,058 0 628 670 94%
McDougle Middle 28.3 136,221 2 645 732 88%
Phillips Middle [2] 21.8 109,498 0 646 706 92%
Smith Middle [3] 20.4 128,764 0 673 732 92%
TOTALS 85.7 482,541 2 2,592 2,840 91%
Demand
Units Site Building Portables
e.r.,~,~rec,.u,..,tre„ot~.,fao.,,:~„ /R+vrlvn+c) Acreaoe SauareFeet Classrooms
LOS based on Current Enrollment 2,592 0.033 186 0.0007
LOS based on Capacity 2,840 0.03D 169 0.0007
:LOS based on Adopted LOS; Stazidard _(ltl7 ~~) 3,039 0.028 158 0.0006
Notes to Table:
I1] Does not include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
]2] Site acreage is apportioned between Estes Hills and Phillips MS based on building size.
(3] Site aaeage does not include UNC-owned lands (approx 16.6 acres)
Source: Orange County; CHCCS
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY HIGH SCHOOLS
The inventory and current levels of service for Chapel Hi]]-Carrboro City high schools are
shown below in Figure 7. As indicated below, high school buildings have a total of 666,877
square feet of floor area on approximately 222.4 acres. Total enrollment in all high schools is
3,520.
Level of service (LOS) factors for CHCCS high schools are shown in Figure 7. The Adopted LOS
Standards (based on 110 percent capacity) for land, school buildings, and portables are shown
shaded in the figure below. As shown the LOS factors on which the impact fees are based are:
052 acres 158 square feet and 0059 portable classrooms per student.
TISChier~iSe 14
thc~, [cinionic &Piinn(ng C°n:°fiinli-
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw,r'et Hiu-Cait~sORO Cmr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 7. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City High Schools
HIGH SCHOOLS Official
brventory, Emoliment, and Utilization Site Building Portables SY 06-07 Level of
Facility Acreage Square Feel Classrooms Enrollmenl(1] Capacity Service
Carrboro High [2] 62.3 148,073 0 na SOD na
Chapel Hill High [3] 85.3 259,869 17 1,778 1,520 117%
East Chapel Hill High 74.8 258,985 8 1,742 1,515 115%
TOTALS 222.4 666,877 25 3,520 3,835 92%
Demand
Units Site Building Portables
Hioh School Levels of Service (Students) AcrenAe Square Feet Classrooms
LOS based on Current Enrollment 3,520 0.063 189 0.0071
LOS based on Capacity
`LOS based onABopted LOSStandar'd;(11D°lo) 3,835
4,219 0.056
; D:052 173
158 0.0065
OOD59
Notes to Tables
(1] Does not Include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School.
(2] Carrboro HS opening far 2007-08; capacity is included in level of service calculation
(311ncludes the Phoenix Academy
Source: Orange County; CHCCS
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
TischlerBise analyzed costs for school construction in the Chapel Fill-Carrboro City School
System. Costs for completed and planned school projects in CHCCS were provided by the
Orange County Budget Office and CHCCS. TischlerBise adjusted previous costs to current
(200 dollars, where appropriate, using Marshall Valuation Service Comparative Cost
Multipliers.6 Planned project costs are shown in current dollars. Current school costs represent
the average costs to construct elementary, middle, and high schools in the CHCCS System. As
shown in Figure 8, construction costs average between $221 and $225 per square foot.
Specifically, the costs are as follows-Elementary: $221.44 per square foot; Middle: $224.99 per
square foot; and High: $223.62 per square foot.
s Marshall Valuation Service (Mazshall & Swift/Boeckh, LLC) Comparative Cost Multipliers aze used to convert
historical costs to present-day costs. The published indexes and multipliers aze specifically for construction costs
taking into account costs of building materials and labor. Multipliers used for CHCCS aze for Raleigh, NC and for
Class C properties (buildings with masonry or concrete exterior walls and wood or steel roof and floor structures,
except for concrete slab on grade).
rISCh~el"~I~' 15
tise~,CC6~°nic5i.C1inn0i~Cen:°9anls.
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CttAnlre~ Hiu-Cr~xasoeo CrtY $CHOOts
Oronge County, North Carolina
Figure 8. School Project Costs
S~~j Year (achtal Original Marshall Sza~ Project Cost Square Cost Capacity Cost
Project or planned) Cost (1] Cost Multiplier (21 (current $) (3] Feet Per Sq Ft (Students) Per Student
Elementary'
New Elementary #10 2008 (Fall) $24,632,751 na $24,632,751 90,229 $273.00 585 $42,107
Rashlds [4J 2003 (Fall) $14,134,936 1.35 $19,120,328 95,729 $199.73 585 $32,684
ScTOggs 2000 (Fall) $12,600,000 1.39 $17,574,278 90,980 $193.16 575 $30,564
' Totals $51,367,687 $61,327,357 276,938 , - $?21-44 ' , 1,745 $35,145
Middle
New Middle #5 2013-14 $30,976,000 na $30,976,000 128,000 $242.00 732 $42,317
Smith 2001 (Fall) $19,420,000 1.38 $26,794,823 128,764 $208.09 732 $36,605
Totals $50,396,000 $57,770,823 256,764 $224.99.- : 1,464 $39,461
High
Carrboro 2007 (Fall) $32,442,OOD na $32,442,000 148,023 $219.16 800 $40,553
East Chanel Hill (Phase 2) 1999 (Fall) $14,050,000 1.41 $19,836,043 85,748 $231.32......_. 495 $40,073
GRAND TOTAL $171,376,223 767,473 $223.29 4,504 $38,050
(i] Costs include school construction, site deoelopment, fees, equipment, technology, contingency, and start-up casts (land not included and addressed separately).
(2] Marshall Swift Valuation Seroire Comparotiae Cost Multiplier for Class C buildings (structures widr rwsonry burring zaalLs) for ]taleigh, NC.
(3] Adjusted to current dollars using the Marshall Swift Valuation Seroice Comparatiae Cost Multipliers.
(41 Cost ind~des $!50,000 contributfon from Town of Chapel Hill for joint-use gym
Sources: (Jrange County; Marshall Swr'Jt Valuation Seroic~ TischierBise
LAND COSTS
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools anticipates the need to purchase land for future school sites
to accommodate school capital needs brought about by growth in the County. Per the Orange
County Tax Assessor's office, suitable sites for public schools served by public water and sewer
in the CHCCS district currently average $100,000 per acre.
PORTABLE CLASSROOM COSTS
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools currently owns and uses portable classrooms for additional
classroom capacity with a total of 52 classrooms in use currently. The cost for each portable
classroom is $78,000, per CHCCS.
TischlerBise 16
tifc~,[m~niicar.PlirnineCci~.unanis
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw~ret Hiu-CA2esoRO Crnr $CHOOIS
Oronge County, North Carolina
SUPPORT FACILITIES
The impact fees also include costs to provide additional support facilities such as administrative
office space, maintenance facilities, and bus garages to accommodate future growth in
enrollment. For CHCCS, support facilities include office space at Lincoln Center and the
Transportation Center. T'he joint use transportation facility serves both school systems in the
County and therefore costs are allocated to current enrollment in both districts (see Figure 10).
Costs were confirmed with CHCCS. The following two figures reflect current levels of service
and cost factors for these facilities.
Figure 9. Support Facilities -Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Square Cost Total Bldg
Favt Prr Sn Ft Cost
Lincoln Center (Admin & Support) (CHCCS) [1] 46,683 $242 $11,273,945
Transportation Center (CHCCS) 5,089 $115 $585,235
1 OT[l[ Dl,//G ~LCy yii,oo~,iov
Current Total CHCCS Enrollment 11,092
Cost per Student $1,069.17
(11 Gym space (8,000 sq /tJ excluded
Source: CHCCS; TischlerBise
Figure 10. Support Facilities -Serving Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools
Square Cost Total
Feet Per Sq Ft Cost
Transportation Facility* 11,704 $139 $1,626,856
Total 11,704 $139 $1,626,856
Current Total OCS and CHCCS Enrollment 17,909
Cost per Student $90.84
"Seines both OCS amt CHCCS Districts
Source: Orange County Schools
BUS /VEHICLES COSTS
.Another infrastructure component included in the impact fee is buses and vehicles. New buses
and vehicles will need to be purchased to accommodate increased enrollment. Total current
value of the CHCCS fleet is estimated at approximately $6.4 million, which equates to a current
cost of approximately $572 per student. Levels of service and costs are provided below in Figure
11 for the CHCCS fleet.
TischlerBise 17
nset,[cc~onie&.eliepiOi~Cnn;pft~nts-
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ct-iaPe~ Hiu.-Gv~soRO Crrr ScHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 11. Buses /Vehicles Levels of Service and Costs: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Number of Units Cost/Bus Total Cosf
CHCCS Buses 55 $80,000 $4,400,000
CHCCS Activity Buses 18 $70,000 $1,260,000
Other vehicles 23 $30,000 $690,000
Total 96 $66,146 $6,350,000
CHCCS Enrollment (2006-07) 11,092
Buses/Vehicles per Student 0.009
Cost per Student $572.48
Source: CHCCS
ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-LOCAL FUNDING
To adequately reflect the local share of capacity costs, the impact fees need to be adjusted to
account for State funding for capacity improvements. Orange County estimates that the County
receives one percent of the costs for capacity improvements from the state, therefore the local
share is adjusted to represent 99 percent of the total. (Other contributions from the State are
used for maintenance and other non-capacity related improvements.)
CREDIT FOR FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS
AND LAN D
Because the County debt financed a portion of recent school capacity expansion construction
costs and land acquisition, a credit is included for future principal payments on outstanding
debt. A credit is necessary since new residential units that will pay the impact fee will also
contribute to future principal payments on this remaining debt through property taxes. A credit
is not necessary for interest payments because interest costs are not included in the costs.
Information on outstanding debt for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools was provided by
Orange County Finance staff. School improvements and applicable bond issues are indicated in
Figure 12 below. As shown, total outstanding debt from school capacity expansion projects for
CHCCS is estimated at approximately $114 million. Annual principal payments are divided by
student enrollment in each year to get a per student credit. (For example, in Fiscal Year 2007, the
total amount of projected principal to be paid of $6.3 million is divided by enrollment of 11,092
for a payment per student of $568.) To account for the time value of money, annual payments
per student are discounted using a net present value formula based on an average current
interest rate of 4.5 percent. The total net present value of future principal payments per student
is $6,127. This amount is subtracted from the gross capital cost per student amount to derive a
net capital cost per student for school facilities.
Tischler~ise 1g
tNC2,[ca9anicar.PlSViiyaC i~,u?imti.
~g
o~
oe
vU°
(/~ ~
p
VZ
~ '~
O ~
~U
~_ e
o= O ',,
s
v
to
W
W
C¢
G
J
O
U
t~
0
rn
m H l~ In y t~ y O~ L~ m O m M ~O W '~'N ~O W M N
~D H H h M O O M O~ m L~ L~ N H O O N ~O m m m m
p;~ y ~p h ~D y ~ 'W ~1' W eM W W eM 'W `W V~ LVV H fR Vl fR d3 y
y
l~ - n
~ji N
Ina ~•1
lA V) v! v3 Vj v~ v} v} Vi fPr v3 ti} v3 v3 v} y} V3 Hi
'tT
r ~ ~r ~i~
a in '1
w
N M h O m M N H m O m O~ M ~D O W L~ H W m N 111
h D\ m O N h 'W H m ~D N uI W O 1[1 H ~D H [~ N h M m ~ d
~:s .7
O [? ~D m O M ~O m H sM ~D m H O'; b m H M ~D m H M ~..~ ~
_
..C. ~^ ti ti ti eH-1 H rN+ N .N+ N 'M-r ~M+ ti N ~~i ti ~~i .y~ ~yi H H .~i em•~ "'_': ~/
E+ ~
.Q tl e+
~'" `:
y
t%) 3
v N
0 G
_? 0.
~
0 o
m ~n c. y M M O o t~ M M t~ M n n H w H o
h O m m O m N M O~ O~ O~ N M M y L~ N O~ 0 0 0 0
~D H H H H M
O~
L~ ,
q
m ~D O~ O~ m M l~ O~ W m m m O~ m m H
s}i ~rj ~D W ~ t+'i ~ t~ to W 'd~ O O L~ L~ O ~t1 L~ O O O O
O L~ M M H s0 N N H M H HT V~ <M 'W
O~ M N M m M
~
C
O
H z
~ ^ '
~
.
.,
p N rn M rn w N ~ y in m ~n o rn rn o M ut c*~ M M M N
~
F ~ ~ ao ~ ~ ~ ai vi ~o ~o ~ e ~ ui ui ~ ai N H .-+ H .-+
v3 V} vi dj ffl v3 U] v} V3 v3 d} d3 V3 v3 v3 v} V3 vi v3 VY v3 v3 ~
~
~ ~
I
,moo
~
o ~ m ~ °v~ov~o~ov3ova°tn°v~°urocs oEn t°n `°n ovr ov~ovr °vt ova ocn oN ~ .
H •~ M m o ~o o
` c
`"
°~^ ~ o
o ~i w°
e
c
w
n
~ .• n m m .n
p~ ~ v3 V3 fA v} m
~i g
g
m C
H ~ v3 H
~
s~
u W O rn rn ~ eN ~ 10H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ON- ~ ~ ~ ~
O
O ~
"~ ~ a
m
'Q
m W ~
y
~ .~ N[~ H
° ~ „
y
u e
'
pp .~ e ~ ~ ~n ~ ~» v'
N ~ ~ ~ V} v3 ~ y
• ~p ~p ~D ~O ~D ~D ~D ~ rn T T N ( W(~~ ( WN~ C WN.~ m O O O O O O
y ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ O O O ~ di W '~M ~ vS v3 v} fPr V} vi m
N ~ o
` C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H N N N y
~'1 M ~
H
'
p M M M M M M M M y y M y 0 0 0 m M h
N ~ fR v3 v3 Vi vi fPr fR ffT V! v3 v3 VJ ti H ~-i ~ 00 V1 ~ ti
~ vi V] to v] d0 V
N
f/J U N O h d~ M N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
NN N v3 v3 d3 fR fH fR H} d3 to (f3 V! E9 tH fR v3
ee
rn ti ~ rn
b
m
~ ~33
_ u
~
G
O
u
i
Q ~. L
O .~ ~D O u1' It) V~ ~ m
~. o c
p ~ ri N ri '•n d3 VS v3
N ri
~ •~ N
(y d3 Vi FR v3 ~A O N
N
W
Q m tt') y y y U'f If) y H H H M M M ~D O O O O O O
• O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ W W ~ O~ m m m m v3 v} v} v3 v3 v}
~ b m p~ m b~~ M M M h N y y d~ H
H
~D ~
o C
w
~
O y
•C ti N r-i N H ~-1 'W ~ W Oi O~ O~ O~ H
M C., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~D ~b ~O h y y In m
. w .n w w w w en w ~ ~ ~o ~o M M cn o
p ~
W
o ~
H y iC.
.. ~
~ -:
go " ~
.
L p V} VY N3 V3 f9 V} E9 H3 EA H} NY fR ~-i
^J
N a V3 f9 ~ HT ti
~ .
~"' ~. ~3 a
~ 3
~ '
~
V
f
U ^
_
o
.
b^^p a N ~~ C
oE
~.y T Q. Q~ O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ CT O~ O~ O~ h h l~ h m O O O O O
n.y m m m m m m m m m m m m O~ O~ O~ O~ O~ V3 <A V3 d3 Vi
y~ m m m m 00 m~ a0 m m ao m N N N N O~
~
y
G O
ti ff ti
D
O b
i
i
H m
In
m
~ D
.. TS ~?j .a ".~
~ '' ~ ~ + '~
Q C U~ a ~ •?
~"
FF
L'
il
~
~
~
~-
H
N ti r-
H
y 11] N y~ y N y~ y 0 0 0 0 V~
q„ y
y
m _ R
M v P
ry ~ C Vj
0 H H H H H H H H H y y y y N
e
-~
~I p v} V3 v3 d} v3 d} V3 Fl3 v3 EH iH Vi Vi fH vY V3 fl3 p
eH ~ ~ W •. ~ ~• v
p ...
C
Gl N ~ ~ ,, ~
+. C +C. v
~/ fy
R
l c ° a y
~ ~ •a ~ ~ ..~~
a
~+
Hwy ~ O~ m m m O H fN~ m h ~Ny m O~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C~ ~ uN) O~ ~ 0~0 ~ 4H E9 fi3 H3 iN tH fR iPr d3
U ~ N ti H O ~ R01 0
fA d, ,.
` ~ ~" c
+
b G ~ y ~ C 0
~
v •C M ~D T ti O~ h N L~ 00 ~ M h
~ m m m ~o m M n t~ M M w o
a
M
~
~ '
0
° w m° ..' ,~ : m° ~
,
m
v3 v3 v3 v3 m
m
M m m oO [ ~ ~
.~ oy O C T '°-` u y
u C
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H o0
m
y ~ ~ aT+c ~ G .
a u
N
Rr
H H H H H H H H H H O M M O~ ~O H O O O O
+ ~
m -,
h W y t ^~+ V ~ o ~ o
b P O ~ w~!~~ N N
1 Itf If) O N 01 v3 (f} v3 v3
ti m m OD m m m m m m m m t
u7 tt~ W n eM 'W ~D M N
t[
y u
u O~
O O G N "' `n c,, A.' r R
..
N
`
Z
;
Y y y
y •.~. u; y m
A . 00 aD a~ OD o0 oD oD m m oO o~ N ~ ~O b ~D ~ L~
M M m O O~ O~ ~O I!1 h ~
O~
O~ 2 r ~ m
op
"
=
.C ` ~ ~ ~ ~•'
:; u •p
^y O 3
Z
FY y (]. M M M M M M M M M
p .. W V~ eM W ~ ~ C~ T eM V~ T ~ l~ O O ~D L ~ H
p ti H} fH v3 V3 v3 vi v3 d3 V? Vi v3 (/3 V3 ~-± ti H ti l~
N ^
.
.,. .
•~
~ ., y Z •`+ ~ '~
.. a ~ a •l O., •~: ~ "O
_ N ~ fA V3 v} ~ 1fi
t
i
{ H~ ~ W c = ~": ~ y b o a. °~ w
N oa' ~.
C S
.
"V
l ~ .. O
.
U N 'en M N M m VJ vi v3 of v3 v3 vj fl3 fA HS vi v3 v] ft] .vi d3 ~O ~ C ~ +C- C .-. O U ~ P ~ ~ 2
y pr ~ N ~ ~ y b ~ C .. ~ Ow N p ~ ~ ~
u
O O H H N N O
N ~ C u ^` F ~ N ~ P
`• ~
W
W ~ ~ ~ vi ~ ~
1+~ ~ y O
~ w ~ m ~+ ~ ~ h m .~C.
N ,
U y o °'
M
,y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O~~~~~~
~~ O O O O O G
~ 0
O _ }`~Y
U v
'
~
`~'
~
N ~ P ~ fi
O
y
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
o
o
O r
.
.
p
j u
~
'~ b y o v y M
e °
U V x
°
~
01
O
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~ .
. o i• +.
p o
o
~
a. o m
W N a cH 4i3 v3 V3 43 t!} tH d3 V3 v} fil fA iH v3 V3 ~ q N N ry U ~r x cy W U O1 "'
*~ ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 0
O ~•r y h r W 'UC 'VC c O 'c ~ P~
"'^ y '^ _
q ., q d ~+ ,~ ^~ k
FI °+ C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
U `" W V~ W eH W W CN V~ M W V~ W eM W V~ W eH W <M V~
M M M M M cn M M c7 M M' M M M M M M M M M
a N
O
m ~
~ " ~y C C 6 C 6 y Y
_ ~ ~ \:. O v .:. "~ a
`9 o
~ ~~ -~.
w+
' .-. .-i .-i ti ri ri ti H ri ti ti ri r .-i ti ri ti ri
pp
/
Fy V3 v
(A fH V) ~
N y
^ y
c ~ ~• ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ W '3 .~ V
-
`•-
'
p W
}
J
N ry ~ v3 V3 fA fR V} v} H} ER v3 VJ v3 V~ f1} F
l1 Q' ~ • u~
~ ~
~
v~ O u y y
W o 4y1 ~S'' ~y~++ VI y ~+ ~0 ` c
W
•G 3
.S g
b ~ m O~ O H ~y M V~ ~D G~ m
l~ m O~ O H N
H tX
~
M
H7 y ~. l rC
N 3 ~
B Y O
U G ~ .C ~ •~• ~ w Q `C Q
u
U
~
~
N N N
e
~
O O p H H H H H H N N N N N
~ o 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d
H •-.
q A
~~~ C ~.. ~ a~~ y~ y F~
() U ~/
V h
`• -"
_~ r
O ]
O^ e~ N M
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES: CHAPEL HILL-CARReORO Crnr SCHOOIS
Orange County, North Carolina
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE INPUT VARIABLES
Factors used to derive the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools impact fee are summarized in
Figure 13. Impact fees for schools are based on student generation rates (i.e., public school
students per housing unit) and are only implemented on residential development. Level of
Service standards are based on current costs per student for school buildings, land, portable
classrooms, support facilities, and buses /vehicles as described in the previous sections and
summarized below. Also included in the fee is the cost for preparation of the impact fee study.
The consultant study cost per student is calculated based on the projected increase in student
enrollment over the next three years and is added to the capital cost per student to derive the
total cost per student. Three years reflect the typical length of time before the impact fees should
be reexamined to reflect changes in development and levels of service.
The total gross capital cost per student is the sum of the boxed cost components. For example,
for the elementary school portion, the calculation is as follows: $28,787 (building construction] +
$2,500 (land] + $398 (portables] + $1,160 (support facilities] + $572 (buses] + $36 (consultant cost] _
$33,453 total gross cost per student.
This cost is then adjusted to reflect the local share of the cost at 99 percent, or $33,119 per
student. The credit for future principal payments ($6,127) is then subtracted from the gross local
capital cost per student to derive the net local capital cost per student ($26,992) for elementary
schools. The same approach is followed for middle and high schools.
Tischler~~se 20
fhc=, [rmuniie ai.Plinnins Cai><.utian li-
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES: Ct~eet Hiu.-C~xeORO Cmr $CHOOIS
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 13. Schools Impact Fee Input Variables: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
INPUT VARIABL_E5: Chapel Hill-Carrbom City Schools
School Level
School Students Per Housing IInit (2006-07)
F.lementarv Middle High
TOTAL
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Manufactured Homes
0.263 0.143 0.197
0.158 0.077 0.115
0.038 0.015 0.017
0.141 0.066 0.061
Current Level of Sernice Standards
Elementary Middle High
Building Squaze Feet Per Student 130 158 158
Total Cost Per Squaze Foot $221.44 $224.99 $223.62
Total,Building Construction Cost Per Student $28,787 $35,548 $35,332
Acreage Per Student 0.025 0.028 0.052
Land Cost Per Acre $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Land Cost Per Student $2,500 $2,800 $5,200
Portable Classrooms Per Student 0.005 0.001 0.006
Cost Per Portable Classroom $78,000 $78,000 $78,000
Portable Classroom Cost Per Student $398 $47 $460
CHCCS Support Facilities Cost Per Student $1,069 $1,069 $1,069
OCS/CHCCS Transp. Facility Cost Per Student $91 $91 $91
Support Facility Cost Per Student $1,160 $1,160 $1,160
Buses/Vehicles per Student 0.009 0.009 0.009
Weighted Average Cost per Bus/Vehicle $66,146 ~ $66,146 $66,146
Bus/Vehicle Cost Per Student $572 $572 $572
Consultant Study Cost Per Student $36 $36 $36
Total Gross Capital Cost Per Student $33,453 $40,164 $42,761
r ,,,.ter ct,~ro „+ ra„a..;+~. C"ne+ 99.0% 99.0% 99.0%
Total Gross Local Capital Cost Per Student $33,119 $39,762 $42,333
Principal Payment Credit Per Student ($6,127) ($6,127) ($6,127)
Total Net Local Capital Cost Per Student $36,992 $33,635 $36,206
Tischletr~:' 21
ntc~',ub^_en;kai.e~Sa~tng Cbn:4h~n1Y-
pRA~- SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES: Cwwe~ Wu-Cn~ORO Cmr $CHOOIS
Orange County, North Caro-ino
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEES FOR CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY
SCHOOLS __
Figure 14 shows the schedule of maximum supportable impact fees for Chapel Hill-Carrboro
City Schools. The fees are calculated by multiplying the student generation rate for each
housing type (shown at the top of Figure 13) by the net capital cost per student for each type of
school. Each component is then added together to derive the total public school impact fee.
For example, for a single family detached unit, the elementary school portion of the fee is
calculated by multiplying the student generation rate of .263 by the net local capital cost per
elementary student of $26,992, which results in $7,098 per single family detached housing unit
for the elementary level. 'This is repeated for the other school levels. The three portions of the fee
are added together to calculate the total fee by type of residential unit (i.e., for single family
detached: $7,098 + $4,809 + $7,132 = $19,039.)
Figure 14. Maximum Supportable Schools Impact Fees: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
M11X1MUM ALLOWABLE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Impact Fee Per I3'ousing Unit Elementary Middle High TOTAL
Single Family Detached $7,098 $4,809 $7,132 $19,039
Single Family Attached $4,264 $2,589 $4,163 $11,016
Multiffam;ly $1,025 $504 $615 $2,144
ManufaMured Homes $3,805 $2,219 $2,208 $8,232
~ Because the analysis uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places, the sums and products shown may not
equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report
TischlerBise 22
tbvc, [crosamieai. Pio:uiln~ Cm~afinn is.
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES: CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to Orange County if impact fees are
implemented for Chapel Hill-Cazrboro City Schools at the maximum supportable amounts as
detailed in this report. Figure 15 provides a summary of the projected cash flow from the impact
fees and associated capital costs over afive- year period.
School impact fee revenue averages approximately $9.5 million per yeaz over the first five yeazs,
or almost $47.5 million, if the fees are implemented at the maximum supportable level. The
related school local capital costs average approximately $11.3 million per yeaz, or $56.7 million
over five years. Based on the projected impact fee revenues and associated costs, the fees are
projected to cover approximately 84 percent of the projected related capital costs. Funds can be
accumulated for several yeazs in order to construct a major project.
Since the school impact fee includes a credit for existing debt, an overall deficit for schools is
projected. The projected deficit, indicated by "( )" azound the numbers, will require
supplemental revenue of approximately $1.8 million per year. To the extent the rate of
development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the fee
revenue and related capital costs. See Appendix A of this report for discussion of the
development projections that drive the cash flow analysis.
TISChIerl~iSe 23
tbc2,[~hn~nieai.Plirn(np (9n:LtliMf
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES: Cw~rel Hut-C,ar~sORO CrtY $CHOOtS
Orange Courtly, North Carolina
Figure 15. Cash Flow Projections: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
5-Year 5-Yersr
1 2 3 4 5 Averrsge Cumulative
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annunt Total
SCHOOLS
1 Schools Fee - SFD
2 Schools Fee - SFA
3 Schools Fee -Multifamily
4 Schools Fee -Manufactured Hmc
Subtotal Schools Fees
TOTAL FEE REVENUE
SCHOOLS
Schools -Elementary
Schools -Middle
Schools -High
Subtotal Schools Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
NET CAPFTAL FACILTTIES CASHFLOW - Schools
Annual Surplus (or Deficit)
Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit)
$8,126 $7,248 $6,327 $7,664 $7,872 $7,447 $37,237
$1,625 $1,449 $1,265 $1,532 $1,574 $1,489 $7,445
$511 $4.55 $398 $482 $495 $468 $2,339
$95 $85 $74 $90 $92 $87 $435
$10,356 $9,237 $8,064 $9,767 $10,032 $9,491 $4.7,457
$10,356 $9,237 $8,064 $9,767 $10,032 $9,491 $47,457
$4,843 $4,320 $3,771 $4,568 $4,692 $4,438 $22,192
$3,050 $2,721 $2,375 $2,877 $2,955 $2,796 $13,979
$4,478 $3,995 $3,487 $4,224 $4,339 $4,105 $20,523
$12,371 $11,036 $9,634 $11,669 $11,985 $11,339 $56,695
$12,371 $11,036 $9,634 $11,669 $11,985 $11,339 .$56,695
($2,016) ($3,814) ($5,384) ($7,285) ($9,238)
($1,848)
TtSChler~,Se 24
PIS¢ti, CLP^~rtiiCEr. PI]iLiitl6 CCh!U?SilltL.
p~~ SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES: CwaPeL Hiu.-C~cxaORO CrrY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
ACCOUNTING
Impact fees should be paid at time of building permit. Certain accounting procedures should be
followed by the County. For example, monies received should be placed in a separate fund and
accounted for separately and may only be used for the purposes authorized in the impact fee
ordinance. Interest earned on monies in the separate fund should be credited to the fund.
COST UPDATES
All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation
over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual
evaluation and update of the fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs
by means of an index specific to construction as opposed to the consumer price index (CPI),
which is more general in nature. TischlerBise recommends using the Marshall Swift Valuation
Service, which provides comparative cost multipliers for various geographies and types of
construction. The multipliers can be applied against the calculated impact fee. If cost estimates
or other factors change significantly the County should redo the fee calculations. A full update
is recommended every 3 to 5 years to reflect changes in development trends, infrastructure
capacities, costs, funding formulas, etc.
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
FUTURE REVENUE CREDITS
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools impact fees are calculated using an incremental approach.
This method documents current factors and is best suited for public facilities that will be
expanded incrementally in the future. Because new development will provide front-end
funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future
principal payments on existing debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest
payments because interest costs are not included in the. fees. This type of credit is incorporated
into the CHCCS impact fees due to outstanding debt on CHCCS school capacity expansions and
land acquisition.
TischlerBis~ 25
Flsc2, krinnic&PlSnnhi~ Cca~.i+iianti
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT
FEES: CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
SITE-SPECIFIC CREDITS
A site-specific credit should be considered for contributions of system improvements that have
been included in the impact fee calculations: If a developer constructs the type of system
improvements included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the
developer or provide a credit against. the fees for that portion of the fee. The latter option is
more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based
on TischlerBise's experience, it is better for the County to establish a reimbursement agreement
with the developer constructing the system improvement. The reimbursement agreement
should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the County should not pay
interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of
the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The County should only agree to pay the
lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the
County pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue.
Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the County to reimburse developers annually
according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area.
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES
The reasonableness of impact fees is determined in part by their relationship to the local
government's burden to provide necessary public facilities. The need to show a substantial
benefit usually requires communities to evaluate collection and expenditure zones for public
facilities that have distinct geographic service areas.
TischlerBise analyzed school impact fees in the County separately for each school system that
serves residential development in Orange County-Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools. The end result is two separate fee studies with two impact fee schedules.
For the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system, one area within the school district is appropriate
because capacity improvements are needed at all levels throughout the system and CHCCS will
occasionally re-district to accommodate growth and available capacity.
IMPACT FEE ACT
The Act providing Orange County with the authority to collect school impact fees is provided
in Appendix B.
T~sch~eose 26
fbci, [cAd~mlcai.PlinnAp~CenmH~mi.
APPENDIX
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ct~EL Hiu.-Ca,~aORO CnY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
OVERVIEW
As part of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on demographic data and
development projections used in the Schools Impact Fee Studies. Two studies have been
conducted for Orange County: (1) Orange County Schools and (2) Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Schools. This Appendix covers both school systems in the County, while the body of the report
ieflects Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools only. (The Orange County Schools report is issued
under separate cover.) The demographic data estimates for the school year 2006-2007 are used
in the fee calculations.
Impact fees can be defined as new growth's fair share of the cost to provide necessary capital
facilities. Fee revenue must be used for capacity expansions and cannot be used for operations
or maintenance costs. In determining the reasonableness of these one-time fees, the fee must
meet three requirements: (1) Impact /Need: The needed capital facilities are a consequence of
new development; (2) Proportionality: Fees represent a proportionate share of the cost; and (3)
Benefit: Revenues are managed and expended in such a way that new development receives a
substantial benefit. The demographic data and analysis provided in this section provide the
foundation to meet the first two requirements listed above.
The development projections are used to establish a need for future infrastructure due to
growth as well as to have an understanding of the possible future pace of service demands,
revenues from impact fees, and projected capital expenditures. To the extent development
slows or accelerates, there will be virtually no effect on the fee amount.
Please note that calculations throughout are based on an analysis that was conducted using
Excel software. Results are discussed using whole numbers or one- to three-digit places, which
represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate
decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the
sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due
to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
A-1
Tischler~i~
Flsc~':Eeevmlc ff Platmirg con~u!tams
APPENDIX
pRq~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CtinPe~ Hiu-C~soeo CrtY $CHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
POPULATION AND HOUSING .GROWTH
To provide context for public school student enrollment growth in Orange County, the
following section provides information on population and housing growth in the County. Total
population residing in housing units in the County in 2000 according to the U.S. Census
(corrected) was 105,585. In addition, 9,946 persons were estimated to reside in group quarters
in the County. When added together, the total estimated County population in 2000 was
115,531. Estimated average household size for all types of units is 2.21, which is derived by
dividing persons residing in housing units by total number of housing units (105,585 / 47,706 =
2.21). Figure Al provides further detail from the 2000 Census (corrected) for Orange County.
Figure A1. U.S. Census 2000 Population and Housing Units
Population in Households 105,585
Group Quarters Population 9,946
Total County Population 115,531
Estimated Housing Units 47,706
Average Persons Per Housing Unit ~_ 2.21
Source: U.S. Census (Corrected Census 2000 as a result of the Count Question Resolution (CQR) Program)
TischlerBise obtained housing unit estimates for the 2006-07 school year from Orange County
for each school district. The estimates are from building permit data from Apri11, 2000, to June
30, 2006, reflecting new units by type of unit built within each school district in Oxange County.
For Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), the estimates reflect new housing units located
in Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the portion of Orange County that falls within. CHCCS. For
Orange County Schools, building permit data includes those units permitted in the County and
the Town of Hillsborough within the Orange County School System. Detail is provided below
by school district.
A-2
TSC~1~~t~iiS~
F1sc!. [ed: snOC Je Plannirg'ums~::ams
APPENDIX
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw4ee~ Hiu.-CaatxBORO CffY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Based on household characteristics, three housing unit types are recommended for the Orange
County Schools impact fees: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family
Attached/Multifamily, and (3) Manufactured Homes. Impact fees are calculated by type of unit.
As shown, a total of 3,055 new housing units were built from 2000 to 2006 for a current estimate
of 21,164. The majority of new units are single family detached (almost 75 percent), followed by
approximately 16 percent single family attached/multifamily, and the remainder manufactured
homes. Percentages of new units are used to project future housing unit growth. (Further detail
is provided below.)
Figure A2. Housing Unit Growth 2000-2006: Orange County Schools .
Orange County School District
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached/Multifamily
Manufactured Homes
Net Increase
2000* 2006** 2000-2006
12,705 14,978. 2,273
954 1,447 493
4,450 4,739 289
of New Units
74.4%
16.1%
9.5%
TOTAL 18,109 21,164 3,055 100.0%
*Source: The National Center for Education Statistics (via Orange County)
**Source: Orange County Planning
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS (CHCCS)
Based on household characteristics, four housing unit types are recommended for the impact
fees for CHCCS: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family Attached, (3) Multifamily, and (4)
Manufactured Homes. Unlike Orange County Schools, CHCCS has a significant number of
multifamily units due to the University of North Carolina, which do not generate a high
number of school-age children. To ensure that residential units pay their proportionate share of
the cost of school facilities, multifamily units are separated into two categories-single family
attached (i.e., townhouses and duplexes) and multifamily (i.e., apartments and condos in
multifamily structures). Impact fees are calculated by type of unit. As shown, a total of 2,302
new housing units were built from 2000 to 2006 for a current estimate of 33,402 housing units.
Approximately 52 percent are single family detached, almost 29 percent are multifamily units,
almost 18 percent are single family attached, and the remainder manufactured homes.
Percentages of new units are used to project future housing unit growth. (Further detail is
provided below.)
A-3
Tischleri~i~
FiSCi'.F.co.?~rtdt t. Plaunirg Gsntn!tanis
APPENDIX
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cf-wPe~ Hiu.-C~xsoRO Cmr ScHOO~s
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure A3. Housing Unit Growth 2000-2006: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School District
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Manufactured Homes
Net Increase
2000-2006
1,192
412
665
33
of New Units
51.8%
17.9%
28.9%
1.4%
2000* 2006**
13,705 14,897
2,025 2,437
14,695 15,360
675 708
---
TOTAL 31,100 33,402 2,302 100.0°°
*Source: The National Center for Education Statistics (via Orange Counhj)
**Source: Orange County Planning
ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES
TischlerBise obtained student generation rate information for each school system in the County
from Orange County. The term "student generation rate" refers to the number of public school
students per housing unit in each school system-Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro
City Schools. Public school students are a subset of school-aged children, which includes
students in private schools and home-schooled children.
Student generation rates are important demographic factors that help account for variations in
demand for school facilities by type of housing. Students per housing unit are held constant
over the projection period since the impact fees represent a "snapshot approach" of current
levels of service and costs.
The student generation rates provided by Orange County Planning are from an analysis
conducted in 2005. Student generation rates were provided by housing unit type for the
categories used in each district. That is, for Orange County, rates are provided for each type of
unit: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family Attached/Multifamily, and (3) Manufactured
Homes. For CHCCS, rates are provided for: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family
Attached, (3) Multifamily, and (4) Manufactured Homes. In addition, the rates reflect demand
by type of school level-elementary, middle, and high.
To reflect 2006-07 demand for school facilities by housing unit type, the rates need to be
calibrated to current conditions. TischlerBise calibrated the 2005 rates to current housing units
and enrollment in each school system. The result is updated student generation rates by type of
unit by school level for each school district. Details are provided by school system below.
A-4
Tischler~is~
-Fls[3'.Fc~wmlc is Plannin6u:mu!aMs
APPENDIX
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cwwe~ Hiu-Ca~sORO CITY SCHOOIs
Orange County, North Carolina
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
The 2005 student generation rates provided by Orange County for Orange County Schools
provide the foundation for the calibration. The top portion of Figure A4, "Orange County:
Student Generation Rates (2005)," reflects the rates provided by Orange County from an
analysis conducted in 2005. Rates are provided for each of the three housing unit types used in
the impact fee analysis for each level of school facility: (1) Elementary; (2) Middle; and (3) High.
These student generation rates are then calibrated to current conditions for Orange County
Schools using official enrollment data for Fall 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year (as reported in
the SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007) and estimated housing units as of July 1, 2006, for the area
served by the County Schools. The calibration process is as follows: The 2005 student generation
rates are multiplied by current housing unit estimates to generate an estimated number of
students. This figure is then compared to actual figures to determine if the estimate is high or
low. The student generation rate is adjusted accordingly.
For example, the 2005 elementary student generation rate of .159 for a single family detached
unit, as.shown in the top portion of Figure A4, is multiplied by current single family housing
units to derive an estimated enrollment. That is: 14,978 single family units x .159 to yield 2,379
estimated elementary students from single-family detached units. This is repeated for single
family attached/multifamily units (1,447 units x .062 = 90) and manufactured homes (4,739 units
x .091 = 431) to arrive at an estimated total of 2,900 elementary school students. Results are
shown in the "Estimated Students" column in the figure.
These results are then compared to actual elementary enrollment in Orange County Schools for
2006-07 of 3,072. Therefore, an adjustment of the 2005 rate is necessary to account for the higher
actual number of students in the County Schools. The adjusted rate is approximately 6 percent
higher than the 2005 rate. An example of the adjusted multiplier calculation is as follows for
single family unit: (3,072 actual stutdents / 2,900 estimated students) x .159 = .168. 'T'his is
repeated for the remaining school levels for each housing unit type.
T'he adjusted student generation rates (based on all housing units and current actual
enrollment) for Orange County Schools are shown at the bottom of Figure A4 under the
"Summary" section. Students per unit for all school levels by type of unit are as follows:
^ Single Family Detached:.384
^ Single Family Attached/Multifamily:.122
^ Manufactured Homes:.186
A-5
Tischler~is~
Flsc'7'.F.caymiC # i'.t,~mnirg SanwStdnii
APPENDIX
pRp,~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ctwret Hiu.-Ct~taoeo C1rY $CHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure A4.Orange County Schools Student Generation Rates
Orange County: Student Generation Rates (20l)5)*
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High Atl Grades
Single Family Detached 0.159 0.088 0.120 0.366
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 0.062 0.022 0.033 0.117
Manufactured Homes 0.091 0.040 0.046 0.177
Ali Housing Tomes (blended) 0.137 0.072 0.097 0306
*Arutlysis cmuiuded in summer 2005
Average Public School Students PerlIousingllnit 2006-07
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Elernerrtary School Students Per Housing Lb[it in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Achtal Adjusted
Units* Shtdents Shuients SY06-07"* Rates
Single Family Detached 14,978' 2,379 0.7.68
Single Family Attd/Multiflmily 1,4171 90 0.066
Manufactured Homes 4,734? 431 0.096
21,764 ! 2,900 , 3 D72`'
Middle School Studer[ts Per Housir[g th[it in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Achtal Adjusted
Units* Shtdents Shtdents SY06-07** Rates
Single Family Detached T 14 9'78 1,313 :0.090,
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 1,447 '; 31 0.022
Manufactured Homes 4,739 188 0.041
_ _._...: 21,764' 1,532 i _._.__~'Sib_i
High School Students Per Housing lhrit in 2006-07
Hattsing Estimated Achtal Adjusted
Units* Shtdents Shtdents SY06-07** Rates
Single Family Detached 14 9711 ' 1,79D -0.126
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 1,447 ~ 47 0.434
Manufactured Homes 4,739 ' 219 0.0,49
21,7G1z 2,056 2,1G9
Summaty_ Average,Public School Students Per Housing Unit, 20D6-07
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High All Grades
Single Family Detached 0.168 0.09D 0.126 _ 0.3&1
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 0.066 OA22 0.034 ? 0122
Manufactured Homes 0.096 0.041 0.049 ' 0.186
AlI Housing Tomes fbiended) 0.145 0.074 0.102 0321
* Estimate jor July 1, 2006, Orange County Panning
*' Adual Student Membership as of Nao.15, 2006, SAPFOTAC Am oral Report 2007.
Sourms: Ormtge Comrty; SAPFOTAC; TischlerBisc
A-6
~ISCh~et$iS-e
Flsu',tca: roils Tk Clan*~in;; CCmw~ols
APPENDIX
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ct~wee~ Hiu.-Ca,~sORO Cmr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
The calibration for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) follows the approach described
above for Orange County Schools. The 2005 student generation rates provided by Orange
County for CHCCS provide the foundation for the calibration. The top portion of Figure A5,
"Chapel Hill-Carrboro: Student Generation Rates (2005)," reflects the rates provided by Orange
County from the 2005 analysis. Rates are provided for each of the four housing unit types used
in the analysis for each level of school facility: (1) Elementary; (2) Middle; and (3) High.
These student generation rates are then calibrated to current conditions for CHCCS using
official enrollment data for Fall 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year (as reported in the
SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007) and estimated housing units as of Tiny 1, 2006, for the area
served by CHCCS. The calibration process is as follows: The 2005 student generation rates are
multiplied by current housing unit estimates to generate an estimated number of students. 'This
figure is then compared to actual figures to determine if the estimate is high or low. T'he strident
generation rate is adjusted accordingly.
For example, the 2005 elementary student generation rate of .230 for a single family detached
unit, as shown in the top portion of Figure A5, is multiplied by current single family housing
units to derive an estimated enrollment.. That is: 14,897 single family units x .230 to yield 3,419
estimated elementary students from these units. This is repeated for single family
attached/multifamily units (2,437 units x .138 = 336); multifamily units (15,360 units x .033 =
503); and manufactured homes (708 units x .123 = 87) to arrive at an estimated total of 4,345
elementary students. Results are shown in the "Estimated Students" column in the figure.
These results are then compared to actual elementary enrollment in CHCCS for 2006-07 of
4,980. Therefore, an adjustment of the 2005 rate is necessary to account for the higher actual
number of students in CHCCS. The adjusted rate is almost 15 percent higher than the 2005 rate.
An example of the adjusted multiplier calculation is as follows for single family unit: (4,980
actual students / 4,345 estimated students) x .230 = .263. This is repeated for the remaining
school levels for each housing unit type.
The adjusted student generation rates (based on all housing units in the school system and
current actual enrollment) for CHCCS are shown at the bottom of Figure A5 under the
"Summary" section. Total number of students per unit for all school levels by type of unit is as
follows:
^ Single Family Detachecl:.603
^ Single Family Attached:.350
^ Multifamily: .070
^ Manufactured Homes:.268
A-7
Tischler~ise
Fisq':.fca-vm1C lr rlaaning ~nudixrits
APPENDIX
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: CfwPel HILL-CARRBORO Crnr SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure A5. Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Student Generation Rates
Chapel Bill-Caaboro: Student Generation Rates (2fN15)'
CHAPELHILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High Alt Grades
Single Family Detadied 0.230 0.128 0.182 0.540
Single Family Attached"" 0.138 0.069 0.106 0.313
Multifamily 0.033 0.014 0.016 0.062
Manufactured Homes 0.723 0.059 0.056 0.239
All Housing Types (blended) 0.130 0.070 0.097 0.297
' Analysis wnductrd in summer 2005
""Townhouse and duplex units
Source: Orange County
Average Public Shcaipl Students Per IluFising Unit, 2006-07
CHAPELHILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS
Elementary Schaal Students Per Housing Unit in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Actuai Adjusted
Units' Students Students SY06-07" Rates
Single Family Detached 14,89 3,419 0.263
Single Family Attached ~ 2,4371 336 ..0.758
Multifamily 75~SGDi 503 0.038
Manufactured Homes 708! 87 0.141
33 402 i
i. __..,_.:cn 4,345 4,980
_:. __.:. __..3
Middle School Students Per Housing Unit in2006-07
Housing Estimated Actua! Adjusted
Units' Students Students SY06-07" Rates
Single Family Detached ( ...._...14,897! 1,912 0.743
Single Family Attached ( 2,437 ; 168 0.071
(( 15,360 i
Multifamily 210 D.015
!
Manufachued Homes 7tk3 j 42 0.066
~_ ; 33,402;;] 2,332 .:2.592.
High School Students Per Housing Unit in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Actua! Adjusted
Units' Students Students SY06-07" Rates
Single Family Detached - ---14,847' i 2,708 0.197
Single Family Attached 2,437 ', 256 0.115
Multifamily .15,360 240. D.p17
ManufaMuredHomes 708! 40 0.061'
---33,4D2 '. 3,246 _ ___ . 3,52D:
Summary: ?3verage Public School Students Per Housing Unit; 200fr07
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS
Elenrertlary Middle High All Grades
Single Family Detached 0.263 0.143 0.197 0.603
Single Family Attached `= 0.158 0.077 '- 0.115 0.350
Multifamily 0.038 0.015 ' `D.D17 0.070
Manufactured Homes 0.141 OA66 0.061 D268
A[l Housing Types (blended) 0.149 0.078 0.105 0.332
• Fstinwte for July 7, 2006, Orange County Planning
••ActualStudentMember;hipasofNoa.15,2006,SAPFOTACAnnualReport2007.
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTAC; TischlerBise
A-S
Tischler~i~
FISnL Fee:: un~iC is P.larnirt{; Cz;ntu!arits
APPENDIX
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ct~e~ Hiu.-C~sORO Cmr $CHOOtS
Orange County, North Carolina
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT ENROLI1vIENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
This section provides a summary of historical enrollment trends and projected enrollment
growth for each school district.
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Historical Enrollment
Since the 2000-01 school year, enrollment in Orange County Schools has increased by a total of
563 students with some fluctuation from year to year., Current total enrollment for the 2006-07
school year is 6,817. Yearly data for the past 6 years as well as the current actual enrollment are
shown below in Figure A6 for Orange County Schools.
Figure A6. Historical Public School Enrollments: Orange County Schools
!Actual*
Base Yr.'
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2D03-04 2DD4-05 2QU5-06 20D6-07
ENROLLMENTS
Orange County Schools
Elementary 3,078 2,893 2,901 2;945 3,016 3,006 3,072
Middle 1,504 1,527 1,631 1,671 1,593 1,590 1,576
High 1,672 1,753 1,828 1,887 2,057. 2,124 2,169
Total 6,254 6,173 6,360 6,503 6,666 6,720 6,817
Netlncrease -81 187 143 163 54 97
* Actual enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007: for 2006-07, actual as of Naoember 15, 2006, date of membership.
Student Enrollment Projections8
Enrollment projections for Orange County Schools are based on historical actual student growth
with an additional layer to account for approved yet undeveloped housing in the City of
Mebane within the Orange County School District. This is an additional level of analysis than is
currently provided as part of the County's current Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
(SAPFO). The SAPFO system projects enrollment for two separate functions or activities. One is
capital improvement planning (CII') and the other is growth or development management. One
projection methodology is used in capital planning and a separate projection system is used to
manage the impacts of new unbuilt development.
s Source: Orange County Planning.
A-9
Tischler~6~e
Fis W. [ccinmle Ia ~lar.*+ing eenw::ants
APPENDIX
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw~e~ Hut-CAaRSORO Crrv $CHOOtS
Oronge County, North Caro-ina
'This second system is known as the CAPS system or Certificate of Adequate Public Schools. T'he
SAPFO CAPS system records new development approvals and determines whether capacity
will be available in the prescribed year. If capacity is projected to be available then the
development is allowed to proceed; if capacity is not projected to be available, the certificate is
not issued until capacity is made available either by changes in enrollment or new capital
improvements.
This dual projection system works well because it helps synchronize capital needs and future
growth. In other words, it monitors the historic trends and. adds and reflects new growth
patterns that may match or exceed past growth. In established, constant growth school districts,
the SAPFO C1P system usually adequately reflects future growth. However, in a school district
where growth is occurring where it has not occurred before, such as the portion of the City of
Mebane located in the Orange County School District, then using just the SAPFO C1P projection
method underestimates future CIP needs since historical growth does not capture this new
development trend.
Therefore, in order to reflect more realistic capital planning needs for the Orange County School
District, it is suggested that the historical projections of the SAPFO CIP system be layered with
approved yet unbuilt development in the Mebane area (using the CAPS method). The CAPS
method employs student generation rates by type of housing unit to estimate future student
enrollment. This allows for a more realistic capital needs analysis to determine the need for
additional capacity from new growth.
As shown in Figure A7, current enrollment in Orange County Schools is 6,817. By the school
year 2016-17, County Schools are projected to have a total enrollment of 8,764, an increase of
1,947 students. This represents an average annual growth rate of approximately 2.9 percent.
Yearly detail by school level is provided below.
Figure A7. Projected Public School Enrollments: Orange County Schools
Victual" Projected '* - '
13&se Yr.
1 - 2
' 3
' 4
v
6'
7
A
9 _
10
Ang Gru~lh
2U06-07 2Qp7-OS 2DU13-09 2009-10 2U10-11 2011-12 2(ri2-13 2p13-14 201415 201516 201617: Rate
ENROLLMENTS
Orange County Schools
Elementary 3,072 3,150 3,311 3,368 3,450 3,532 3,615 3,697 3,779 3,861 3,944 2.8%
Middle 1,576 1,624 1,706 1,721 1,763 1,805 1,847 1,890 1,932 1,974 2,016 2.8%
High 2,169 . 2,223 2,330 2,395 2,453 2,512 2,570 2,629 2,687 2,746 2,804 2.9%
Total 6,817 6,997 7,347 7,484 7,667 7,850 8,033 8,215 8,398 8,581 8,764 2.9%
Netlncrease 97 180 350 137 183 183 183 183 183 183 183
Total Increase 1,947
*Achral enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annua! Report 2007; for 2006-07, achml as of November 15, 2006, date of membership).
**Orange County Planning
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTACAnnual Report 2007
A-10
Tischler~i~
Flsc~t.F.ca~vmlc T rlanning'unsWtants
APPENDIX
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ct~a,Pet Hiu.-C~sORO CRY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Historical Enrollment
Since the 2000-01 school year, enrollment has increased by a total of 1,507 students with some
fluctuation from year to year. Current total enrollment for the 2006-07 school year is 11,092.
Yearly data for the past 6 years as well as the current actual enrollment are shown below in
Figure A8 for CHCCS.
Figure A8. Historical Public School Enrollments: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
'Actual* Actunl**
Buse Yr:
2000-01 2001-02 `2002-03 2003-04 200-05 ' 2Q05-06 2006-07
ENROLLMIIV'TS
Chapel hill-Carrboro Schools***
Elementary 4,444 4,474 4,551 4,692 4,695 4,879 4,980
Middle 2,326 2,540 2,608 2,612 2560 2,572 2,592
~~ 2,815 2,963 3,162 3,360 3,422 3,514 3,520
--
Total 9,585 9,977 10,321 10,664 10,677 10,965 11,092
Net Increase
392 344 343 13 288 127
* Actual enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007; for 2006-07, actual as of November 15, 2006, date of membership.
** SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007
*** Figures do not include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007
Student Enrollment Projections
For CHCCS, projections are from the SAPFOTAC 2007 Annual Report. Unlike Orange County
Schools, the projections based on historic growth adequately capture new growth throughout
the school district. As shown, crxrrent enrollment in CHCCS is 11,092. By the school year 2016-
17, CHCCS is projected to have a total enrollment of 13,658. This represents an average annual
growth rate of approximately 2.3 percent and a growth of 2,566 students over the ten-year
period. Yearly detail by school level is provided in Figure A9 below.
A-11
Tischler~ise
flsci. [cavmlc h MaFning C13mu!~n1t
APPENDIX
pRq~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw,re~ Hlu.-C~sORO Cm($CHOOts
Orange County, Norfh Carolina
Figure A9. Projected Public School Enrollments: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
~Actunl** Projected
. l., Liasr Yn' ,.. Z 2 ,: 3 < 4 `S 6'. 7 S '- 9 .'~: 10 - Ar}; Grrtitl
2D06-07 2007-08 '-2008-09 2009-]0 2a1D-11 2011;12 1A12-13 2073-14 2014-]5 2DI5-16 2D16-17'. 1„}ir
IIVROLLMENTS
Chapel Full-Carrboro Schools***
Elementary 4,980 5,142 5,273 5,389 5,541 5,654 5,739 5,825 5,912 5,998 6,086 2.2%
Middle 2,592 2,622 2,686 2,772 2,833 2,902 2,989 3,108 3,185 3,226 3,267 2.6%
~~ 3,520 3,599 3,648 3,659 3,704. 3,787 .3,884 3,948 4,068 4,196 4,305 22%
Total 11,092 11,363 11,607 11,820 12,078 12,343 12,612 12,881 13,165 13,420 13,658 2.3%
Netlnaease 127 271 244 213 258 265 269 269 284 255 238
Totallncrease 2,566
*Actual enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007; for 2006-07, actual as ofNooenther 15, 2006, date of membership).
'* SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007
""Figures do not include CHCCS students attending fhe Hospital School
Sources: Orange Counh,/; SAPFOTACAtInual Report 2007
HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS
Projections of housing unit growth were derived from the student enrollment projections as
provided by Orange County Planning for Orange County Schools and from the SAPFOTAC for
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. These projections reflect anticipated growth throughout the
County including the Orange County side of the City of Mebane (within the Orange County
School System) and Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
Total housing units were derived for each school .system using total enrollment and student
generation rates by system. Total units were then allocated by type of unit based on trends in
new housing unit construction over the past six years. Distribution by type of unit for each
district is shown in Figures 2 and 3 above and repeated below. The percentages reflect share of
nezv units constructed as opposed to percent of total housing stock. (For example, the net
increase in units is allocated to each housing unit category according to the percentages shown.)
As shown in Figure A10, the County is anticipated to experience residential development
growth in both school systems. Orange County Schools is projected to increase by 6,13$ units
and CHCCS by x,737 units over the next ten years.
_ A-12
Tischler~is~
~FIf~.Ecd. snilc tPlnenirgansu!tants
APPENDIX
pRq~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ctv,~el Hitt-C~tsORO Cm' $CHOOIS
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure A10. Housing Unit Projections
~l~f«~i*
I7use Yr. 1 ; 2 3 4 $ G 7 8 ;, J- 10
:2406-07
-°°~°' -- 2p07-[IS
~- ~._ 2408-p9
~ - ~ 2pp9 ]p
___ _ _ 2p]4-17
_~ Zpl]-72
... 2p7Z 13 2013-]4 2lif 7-t 47.5-16 2476-77 i
OLLSING LIIVITS / of
Orange County Schools Nero units
Single Family Detached 7? 4 % 14,978 15,449 16,261 16,578 17,002 17,426 17,849 18,273 18,697 19,121 19,545
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 161 % 1,447 1,549 1,725 1,793 1,885 1,977 2,068 2,160 2,252 2,344 2,435
Manufactured Homes 9.5 % 4,739 4,799 4,903 4,943 4,997 5,052 5,106 5,160 5,214 5,268 5,322
Total 21,164 21,798 22,888 23,315 23,884 24,454 25,024 25,593. 26,163 26,732 27,302
Net lncrense in Llnffs 634 1,090 427 570 570 570 570 570 570 570
Total Increase 6,138
of
Chapel HilUCarrbom Schools Nem units
Single Family Detached S1:B % 14,897 15,324 15,704 16,037 16,439 16,853 17,273 17,692 18,135 18,533 18,905
Single Family Attached 17.9 % 2,437 2,584 2,716 2,831 2,970 3,113 3,258 3,403 3,556 3,694 3,822
Multifamily 28.9 % 15,360 15,598 15,811 15,996 16,221 16,451 16,685 16,919 17,167 17,389 17,596
Manufactured Homes L4 % 708 720 730 739 750 761 772 784 796 806 816
Total 33,402 34,226 34,961 35,602 36,380 37,178 37,988 38,798 39,654 40,422 41,139
Net tncrense in llnffs 824 735 642 777 798 810 810 855 768 717
Total Increase 7737
Total County
Total County Housing Units 54,566 56,023 57,849 .58,917 60,264 61,632 63,011 64,391 65,816 67,154 66,441
H
* Ornnge County
** TischlerBise
SUMMARY
Annual demographic, development, and enrollment prajections for the Schools Impact Fee
studies are summarized in Figure A11 below. Demographic data estimates for 2007 are used in
the fee calculations. As noted previously, the development and enrollment projections are used
for the purpose of having an understanding of the future pace of service demands and cash
flows resulting from revenues and expenditures associated with those service demands.
A-13
TISGh~et$IS~
FIS W.Eeavmlo:~~ Plaeroirg4+rouLargs
X ~ o
W O 'o
i
°- ~n U
~U o
OZ
m
~jU
m
~_ a
S ~
J O
U
N
W
W
}.{~~'
V
Q.
O
V
t/'7
o -
e
P ~ ?+
c
~ b H m M n n b M
' ~ O n m
~D h
~ ~ n H N
O~ N e~ M b m OMO
~ Ifs O~ 1!f 1e~~ O m~~
.y O l'~ f~` O {^~'~e~
O~ tf~
y
N N ~ ~"~ L~
~o A pp tp
T b j N
p
~.,j ~ ~
N ri eti H ~ W ~
l0 W ti N~ n
__ ~ M
~.:~
:•`+' 3 u>
~ ~
~ ~ ~
D:€
~ N- NN
r1:j m
'4~
~ ~h~ ~
N.
t^1. ~ H
~°.. M. °° .M+
cnir~
.~ ~ ti
~; ~ m
~.
h: ^~: m
N
0
t~f N
~!~ O ~O
~..~~3 ~
~ Ou
N,.
N :. O M
~ ~~j
N - ~ r1
o
^sj ~ o
~_ ~ H
~::
~ i 0~~0 N
^I:.'
O
:~
v
a~
~O
N
W
d
Q
0
CI1
r~i
v
W
w
V
j
M
h
m
m
n
m
H
',~ F y °
) ° ° ° ~ s
F+
h ~
p ~ ..
~
~ y
u
v ~
~ o o
x
-~ y
ii
O
a ~~
~" y~
»
r~ ~Fz m
c
° ~,
~ m
o
F
S3 v ~
~ N~ ~ ~° ~ W
~~ ~ o
0
0~~ ~J
~ m w a
y
~
to ° ~ ° ° N ~ A p
y W ~ A .~ .@ D e
?r U r~ U~ y U o ..~. ~ y W W m W w O
O/
` N
~ W
m
Oc'J ~ m .
".~ ~ ~ 'n m
O"crl ~Ow~~ 't7 m
m
~w~~ e ~ ~° °°
[-w~'~ "~~ ~ 5 .5 '~
pOv,~~
' m 5 .5 '~
~v,m~ m
~
y
~ a, '
L
~+
~'
'~3
~_.a
~`
x_ ~ o
Z O o
0
n°-„NU
~ ~
UZ
O
m c
~ ~
~U
~_ a
= o
a0
V
N
W
W
yW
V
CdC
L
J
O
U
N
0
I
I
1 I I 1 1 I I I
I I i i I i I
I I i i I i I
~
i
1
I
I
I I i I 1 1 I 1
i i I I 1 I I
~i I I I I I i
I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I ~
O
N
I
I I I I I I I I
I I I i I I I
1 I 1 1 I i I
1 1 I I i 1 I
O
~
~
1 1 1 1 I i I I
i I I I i I I
I I I I 1 I i N
I I I I I I 1
I I I i I I I
I I 1 1 I I I
~
~
I I i I I i I
I I i I I i I ~
Cy
I
I
I I I I I i I 1
I I I I i I i
I I I I I I i N
I
1
i I I I I I I I
I I 1 i I I I
I 1 1 1 I 1 I
~
H
I
I I i I 1 I I
i I I I 1 1 I ~
I
I
i I I I i I 1
I I I I I I 1 O
N
~
~ ~
O .^
O I
i
i
I
I I I I I I I i
I I i I I I
I 1 1 I I I
i I i I I I
1 1 I I i I
N
N
N
~
O ~
U I
I
I i I I i i I
1 I I i I I
I I I 1 I i ~
N
O
N x..l
~ ~ i
i
i I I I I I i
I I I i I I I
I i 1 i I I I
~
,p
0 Z I
I 1 1 1 1 I I I
i I I I 1 I
~
V ,
d ~
.~ I
I
I I I I I I i I
I I I I 1 1 I
I I I I I 'I 1
N
O ~
~ ~
O i
i
i I I I 1 I I i
I I 1 I I I i
I 1 1 1 I I I
~
r
'
U I 1 I I i I I I
I I I
3 ~
?Q
i ~ I
I
I
I i I i I I
1 I I I I I I
I I I I I i I
I I I I 1 1 I ~
N
.
~
O 1
I I I I I i I i
I I I I I I i
I
I I 1 I I I I 1
1 I I I I I O
y
'~ I
I
I
I 1 1 1 I I I
I I i I I I I
I I I I I I I
i I I I I 1 I O
p
N
1 I I I I i I
I I 1 i i
.~ ~ ~ i
I
I I
1 I I 1 I 1
i I i I I 1 ~
O
G ~ b
M •C ~
W R I
~ I
I I 1 1 I I I
I 1 I I I I
I I I I I I W
N
m O
O M~Or O
W ~ b I
~ i
~ I
~ I 1 I 1 1 I
I I I I 1 i I
I 1 I I 1 1 1
I i I 1
0
4 A ~
i+. U a I
.f.., I
I 1 1 1
1 1 I i I I i
I I 1 I I I 1 0
~
0
U ~
O I
U I
I I i I I I I
I I I I I I I 0
N
d
¢~ G pa d i
G I I I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I
~
O ~ ~ I
O I
I 1 I I I I i 1
i I I i i I I
I I i 1 I I i
I I n
O
~p
O
I
I
i I I i 1 I
I I i I I I I
I I I I I I I °
N
O O O O O O O O O O
O
~W O
W O O O O O O O
M M N N H ~ ~
U
y
O
.~
m
.O
W
0
tV
ri
d
w
Cli
• ~.
w+-
W ~:
-~
Y
~~. ~.
^
APPENDIX
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ct~,4Pe~ Hitt-C~xsORO Crnr $CHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Orange County has been granted authority by the State of North Carolina to implement impact fees for
schools, the acquisition of land for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets,
bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other
drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities and public recreation facilities. The County is pursuing
impact fees for schools at this time. A copy of the applicable sections of the Act is provided in this
Appendix.
TISChIer~iSe A-16
Neet',f[Lmamiei .PI].Lltn(~tenzu?lanti.
. APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cw4eE~ Hiu-Cau~aoeo CtrY SCHOOLS
Orange County, Norifi Carolina
Note: Only Title VI (Orange County Impact Fees) is shown.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
1987 SESSION
CHAPTER 460
HOUSE BILL 917
AN ACT MAKING SUNDRY AMENDMENTS CONCERNING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN
ORANGE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES.
///
TITLE VL ORANGE COUNTY IIVIPACT FEES.
Sec. 17. G.S. 153A-331 is amended by identifying the existing provisions as subsection (a)
and by adding new subsections to read:
"(b) Impact Fees Authorized.
(1) Orange County may provide by ordinance for a system of impact fees to be paid by
developers to .help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital
improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new
development that takes place within the County.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term capital improvements includes the
acquisition of land 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.
(3) An ordinance adopted under this subsection may be made applicable to all
development that occurs within the County.
(c) Amount of Fees. In establishing the amount of any impact fee, the County shall endeavor to
approach the objective of having every development contribute to a capital improvements fund an amount
of revenue that bears a reasonable relationship to that development's fair share of the costs of the capital
improvements that are needed in part because of that development. In fulfilling this objective, the County
shall, among other steps and actions:
(1) Estimate the total cost of improvements by category (e.g., streets, sidewalks, drainage
ways, etc.) that will be needed to provide in a reasonable manner for the public
health, 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 estimate the costs of needed
improvements within each district. These estimates shall be periodically reviewed
and updated and the planning period used may be changed from time to time.
(2) Establish a percentage of the total costs of each category of improvement that, in
keeping with the objective set forth above, should fairly be borne by those paying the
impact fee. .
(3) Establish a formula that fairly and objectively apportions the total costs that are to be
borne by those paying impact fees among various types of developments. By way of
illustration without limitation:
Tis~h~e"r~1s~ A-17
fhre',[c~pmieb.PiS ;nin~Cv~w?i~nli.
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ctt~rn. Hiu-C~aORO CITI' SCHOOLS
Orange County, Nortfi Carolina
a. In the case of street improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
number of trips per day generated by different Types of uses according to
recognized estimates;
b. In the case of drainage improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
size of a development, the amount of impervious surface the development
has, or other factors that bear upon the degree to which a development
contributes to the need for drainage improvements made at public expense.
(d) Capital Improvements Reserve Funds: Expenditures.
(1) Impact fees received by the County shall be deposited in a capital improvements
reserve fund or funds established under Chapter 159 of the General Statutes, Article
3, Part 2. Such funds may be expended only on the type of capital improvements for
which such impact fees were established, and then only in accordance with the
provision of subsection (2) of this section.
(2) In order to ensure that impact fees paid by a particulaz 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.
(e) Credits for Improvements. An impact fee ordinance shall make provision for credits against
required fees when a developer installs improvements of a type that generally would be paid for by the
County out of a capital reserve account funded by impact fees. The ordinance may spell out the
circumstances under which a developer will be allowed to install such improvements and receive such
credits.
(f) Appeals Procedure. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as provided herein may provide
that any person aggrieved by a decision regarding an impact fee may appeal to the Orange County Board
of Adjustment. If the ordinance establishes an appeals procedure, it shall spell out the time within which
the appeal must be taken to the board of adjustment, the possible grounds for an appeal and the board's
authority in the matter, whether the fee must be paid prior to resolution of the appeal, and other
procedural or substantive matters related to appeals. Any decision by the board of adjustment shall be
subject to review by the superior court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari in the same manner as .is
provided in G.S. 153A-345.
(g) Payment of Impact Fees. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as herein provided shall spell
out when in the process of development approval and construction impact fees shall be paid and by
whom. By way of illustration without limitation, the ordinance may provide that an applicant for a
building permit shall submit the impact fee along with the permit application and that building permits
shall not be issued until the impact fee has been paid.
(h) Refunds. If this section or any ordinance adopted thereunder is declared to be unconstitutional
or otherwise invalid, then any impact fees collected shall be refunded to the person paying them together
with interest at the rate established under G.S. 105-241.1, being the same rate paid by the Secretary of
Revenue on refunds for tax overpayments.
(i) Limitations on Actions.
(1) Any action contesting the validity of an ordinance adopted as herein provided must be
commenced not later than nine months after the effective date of such ordinance.
(2) Any action seeking to recover an impact fee must be commenced not later than nine
months after the impact fee is paid."
Sec. 17.1. Section 17 of this act shall apply only to Orange County, and applies only within
the planning jurisdiction of Orange County.
TISChIer~<S~: A-18
thcd,[ac~anic &.PlSnning CensoB~mi.
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cwaea Hiu-C~soao Cm' SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Sec. 18. G.S. 153A-340 is amended by identifying the existing provisions as subsection (a)
and by adding new subsections to read:
"(b) Impact Fees Authorized.
(1) Orange County may provide by ordinance for a system of impact fees to be paid by
developers to help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital
improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new
development that takes place within the County.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the .term capital improvements includes the
acquisition of land 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.
(3) An ordinance adopted under this subsection may be made applicable to all
development that occurs within the County.
(c) Amount of Fees. In establishing the amount of any impact fee, the County shall endeavor to
approach the objective of having every development contribute to a capital improvements fund an amount
of revenue that bears a reasonable relationship to that development's fair shaze of the costs of the capital
improvements that aze needed in part because of that development. In fulfilling this objective, the County
shall, among other steps and actions:
(1) Estimate the total cost of improvements by category (e.g., streets, sidewalks, drainage
ways, etc.) that will be needed to provide in a reasonable manner for the public
health, 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 estimate the costs of needed
improvements within each district. These estimates shall be periodically reviewed
and updated and the planning period used may be changed from time to time.
(2) Establish a percentage of the total costs of each category of improvement that, in
keeping with the objective set forth above, should fairly be borne by those paying the
impact fee.
(3) Establish a formula that fairly and objectively apportions the total costs that aze to be
borne by those paying impact fees among various types of developments. By way of
illustration without limitation:
a. In the case of street improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
number of trips per day generated by different types of uses according to
recognized estimates;
b. In the case of drainage improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
size of a development, the amount of impervious surface the development
has, or other factors that bear upon the degree to which a development
contributes to the need for drainagevnprovements made at public expense.
(d) Capital Improvements Reserve Funds: Expenditures.
(1) Impact fees received by the County shall be deposited in a capital improvements
reserve fund or funds established under Chapter 159 of the General Statutes, Article
3, Part 2. Such funds may be expended only on the type of capital improvements for
which such impact fees were established, and then only in accordance with the
provision of subsection (2) of this section.
(2) In order to ensure 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
Tischler~as~ A-19
tHc~,[~ddamica~.Plinnint,C ~mfi~nli~
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Cfwen. Hitt-Ca~soeo Cmr SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
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 properly located within those districts or zones.
(e) Credits for Improvements. An impact fee ordinance shall make provision for credits against
required fees when a developer installs improvements of a type that generally would be paid for by the
County out of a capital reserve account funded by impact fees. The ordinance may spell out the
circumstances under which a developer will be allowed to install such improvements and receive such
credits.
(f) Appeals Procedure. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as provided herein may provide
that any person aggrieved by a decision regarding an impact fee may appeal to the Orange County Board
of Adjustment. If the ordinance establishes an appeals procedure, it shall spell out the time within which
the appeal must be taken to the board of adjustment, the possible grounds for an appeal and the board's
authority in the matter, whether the fee must be paid prior to resolution of the appeal, and other
procedural or substantive matters related to appeals. Any decision by the board of adjustment shall be
subject to review by the superior court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari in the same manner as is
provided in G.S. 153A-345.
(g) Payment of Impact Fees. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as herein provided shall spell
out when. in the process of development approval and construction impact fees shall be paid and by
whom. By way of illustration without limitation, the ordinance may provide that an applicant for a
building permit shall submit the impact fee along with the permit application and that building permits
shall not be issued until the impact fee has been paid.
(h) Refunds. If this section or any ordinance adopted thereunder is declared to be unconstitutional
or otherwise invalid, then any impact fees collected shall be refunded to the person paying them together
with interest at the rate established under G.S. 105-241.1, being the same rate paid by the Secretary of
Revenue on refunds for tax overpayments.
(i) Limitations on Actions.
(1) Any action contesting the validity of an ordinance adopted as herein provided must be
commenced not later than nine months after the effective date of such ordinance.
(2) Any action seeking to recover an impact fee must be commenced not later than nine
months after the impact fee is paid."
Sec. 18.1. Section 18 of this act shall apply only to Orange County, and applies only within
the planning jurisdiction of Orange County.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 23rd day of June, 1987.
Tischlerise A-2o
Hsct', [[ntlnmic Si.Pli~,ning C_n:utianii
SCHOOLIMPACTFEES
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Prepared For:
Orange County, North Carolina
December 31, 2007
Prepared By:
1
Fiscal; Ecohamic 8i Piannin,g-Ciinsuitanfs
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................:............................................1
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................................2
MA)QMU2v1 SUPPORTABLE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES .................................................................................................3
Figure 1. Maximum Supportable School Impact Fees: Orange Counh~ Schools ............................................3
OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................................................4
INTRODLTCTION TO IMPACT FEES ..........................................................................................................................4
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................7
STUDENT GENERATION RATES .............................................................................................:..................9
Figure 2. Student Generation Rates: Orange Count}/ Schools ..................................................................... 10
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS .................................................................... 11
JVIETHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3. Impact Fee Methodology Chart: Orange Counh~ Schools ............................................................. 11
BUILDING AND SITE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ......................................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Level of Service Standards: Orange Counfij Schools ..................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Orange Count<j Elementary Scliools ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 6. Orange County Middle Schools ...........:........................................................................................ 13
Figure 7. Orange Counhj High Schools ........................................................................................................ 14
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ......................................................................................................................... 15
...........................................
Figure 8. School Project Costs ............................................................................
LAND COSTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
PORTABLE CLASSROOM COSTS ............................................................................................................................ 16
SUPPORT FACILITIES ......:..................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 9. Support Facilities -Orange Counhj Schools ................................................................................. 16
Figure 10. Support Facilities -Serving Orange Counh~ and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools ....................... 16
BUS /VEHICLES COSTS ......................................................................................................................................:.. 17
Figure 11. Buses /Vehicles Levels of Service and Costs: Orange Counftj Schools ....................................... 17
ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-LOCAL FUNDING .......................................................................................................... 17
CREDIT FOR FUTURE PRINCII'AL PAYMENTS ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND .................................... 17
Figure 12. Credit for Future Principal Payments: Orange County Schools ................................................. 18
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE INPUT VARIABLES ............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 13. Schools Impact Fee Input Variables: Orange County Schools ..................................................... 20
MAJQMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEES FOR ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS ....................................................... 21
Figure 14. Maximum Supportable Schools Impact Fees: Orange Counti~ Schools ....................................... 21
Tischler~~se Z
tlS~,C~b^.aniic&.Plinningten:pgants..
CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................22
Figure 15. Cash Flow Projections: Orange Count7j Schools .........................................................................23
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION .....................................................................................24
ACCOUNTING .......................................................................................................................................................24
CREDIT'S AND REIMBURSEMENTS .........................................................................................................................24
COST UPDATES .....................................................................................................................................................24
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES ............................................................................................................25
IMPACT FEE ACT ............................................................................................................:.....................................25
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA .................................................................................................. A-1
OVERVIEw ..................................................................................................................'-----............................. A-1
POPULATION AND HOUSING GROWTH ............................................................................................................ A-L
Figure A1. U.S. Census 2000 Population and Housing Units ...................................................................A-2
Figure AZ. Housing Unit Growth 2000-2006: Orange Countl~ Schools .................................................. ..A-3
Figure A3. Housing Unit Growth 2000-2006: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cit1j Schools ................................. ..A-4
ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES ......................................................................•---.....................---... A-4
Figure A4. Orange Counfij Schools Student Generation Rates ..................................................................A-6
Figure A5. Chapel Hill - Carrboro Citij Schools Student Generation Rates ...............................................A-8
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT ENROLLMENT' TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS ........................................................... A-9
Figure A6. Historical Public School Enrollments: Orange County Schools ............................................ ...A-9
Figure A7. Projected Public School Enrollments: Orange Counhj Schools ..............................................A-10
Figure A8. Historical Public School Enrollments: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Cit<~ Schools ............................A-11
Figure A9. Projected Public School Enrollments: Chapel Hill-Carrbora Cihj Schools .............................A-12
HOUSING UNTT PROJECTIONS ........................................................................................................................ A-12
Figure A10. Housing Unit Projections .....................................................................................................A-13
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... A-13
Figure A11. Summon,/ of Demand Projections .........................................................................................A-14
Figure A12. Growth Projections Chart .....................................................................................................A-15
APPENDIX B: IMPACT FEE ACT ............................................................................................................ A-16
Tischler~ise ii
Flyer, Uu~amicu. rlSnniu~ Gcn:uSan~i..
Fiscal; Economic $c Planning Consuitatits
47U1 SANG;AMORE ROAt7 1 SUITE 5240 ! BE'fHE5DA; MD 20816
Tc 800:42A.a3'1.8;t F: 301;320;At360
80 ANNANDALE ROAD 1 PASADENA, CA 97 10.5-1404
Te, 818,79.0:6,1, 70: F F:.818:740cb235
W W VJ.TI5CHLERtiiSE:CONS
TischlerBise was retained by Orange County, North Carolina, to calculate impact fees for public
schools to meet the demands generated by new residential development for school facilities in
the County. The County has been granted authority by the State to implement impact fees for
Schools.i The purpose of the legislation is to "help defray the costs to the County of constructing
certain capital improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new
development that takes place within the County."2
Impact fees are one-time payments used to defray the cost impacts of school facilities necessary
to accommodate new development. The payment amount represents new growth's fair share of
capital facility needs. TischlerBise evaluated possible. methodologies and documented
appropriate demand indicators by type of development for the fee amounts. Specific capital
costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. Level of Service (LOS) standards
and cost factors are presented in this report and are the basis for the calculations. It should be
noted that although growth affects both. capital and operating expenses incurred by schools, the
Impact Fee analysis addresses new development's impact on capital facilities only. It is further
limited to capital improvements that provide additional capacity as opposed to maintenance or
rehabilitation.
Orange County is served by two school systems, Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools. TischlerBise analyzed and calculated School Impact Fees for each school
system. This report details the results of the Orange County Schools Impact Fees. The Chapel
Hill-Carrboro report is issued under separate cover.
1 S.L. 1987-460 ("An Act Making Sundry Amendments Concerning Local Governments In Orange And Chatham
Counties, Title VI: Orange County Impact Fees"). In addition to schools, other community service facility categories
aze allowed such as: the acquisition of land for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets,
bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other drainage
facilities, water and sewer facilities and public recreation facilities. (See Appendix B for a copy of the applicable
section of the Act.)
z Ibid, Sec 17 (b) (1).
• Fiscal Impact Analysis - Impacfi Fees • Revenue-Strategies• EconomiclmpactAnalysis • Fiscaf5oftvi+are,
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe Courrrv SCHOOLS
Oronge County, North Carolina
APPROACH 'AND METHODOLOGY
There are three basic methodologies used to calculate impact fees. The incremental expansion
method documents the current level of service for each type of public facility in both
quantitative and qualitative measures. The intent is to use fee revenue to expand or provide
additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the current cost to
provide capital improvements. The plan-based method is commonly used for public facilities
that have adopted plans or engineering studies to guide capital improvements, such as utility
systems. A third approach, known as the cost recovery method, is based on the rationale that
new development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining unused capacity of an
existing facility or land.
Maximum supportable school impact fees for Orange County Schools are derived using the
incremental expansion approach. For school capital improvements, the most common
methodology employed is typically the incremental expansion method when future capacity
needs are anticipated. This approach allows for the greatest flexibility in providing future
capacity improvements. Under this methodology, the fees are based on current levels of service
(LOS) and project costs for each type of school facility (i.e., elementary, middle, and high), land
for school sites, support facilities, portable classrooms, and buses. The LOS is documented and
the intent is to use fee revenue to provide additional or expanded public school and related
facilities as needed to accommodate new development.
The current LOS and capital costs for new or expanded facilities are used to derive a cost per
student for each type of school facility. Using the cost per student and the average County
Schools student generation rate, a cost by type of residential unit is derived. The term "student
generation rate" refers to the average number of public school students per housing unit in the
Orange County School system. Further discussion on student generation rate calculations. is
provided in the body of this report and in Appendix A.
A general requirement common to impact fee calculations is the evaluation of credits. Two types
of credits should be considered, future revenue credits and site-specific credits. Revenue
credits are necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the payment of
a one-time impact fee plus the payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related
capital improvements. Revenue credits are dependent upon the fee methodology used in the
cost analysis. To avoid this potential double payment situation, future revenue credits are
integrated into the Orange County Schools fee to account for outstanding debt on County
school facilities. A credit is necessary since new residential units that will pay the fee will also
contribute to future principal payments on this remaining debt through property taxes. A credit
is not necessary for interest payments because interest costs are not included in the costs.
Tischler~[s~ 2
tlu:2, Uo~:+mie ai.Pli~nm~ tenwti~NS.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otu~rtoe COUtJiY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
The second type of credit, asite-specific cxedit, is for system improvements that have been
included in the fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for
system improvements should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the County's
impact fees. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific
credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the fee
calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval
process are not eligible for credits against impact fees.
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
Figure 1 provides the schedule of Maximum Supportable School Impact Fees for Orange County
Schools, North Carolina. For asingle-family detached housing unit, the maximum supportable
fee amount is $9,372 per unit; for a single family attached/multifamily unit, the maximum fee
amount is $2,905 per unit; and for a manufactured home; the maximum fee amount is $4,463 per
unit. The fees should be collected when building permits are issued.
School impact fees are applied only to residential development and are per housing unit,
reflecting the proportionate demand by type of unit. The amounts shown are "maximum
supportable" amounts based on the methodologies, level of service, and costs for the capital
improvements identified herein. The fees represent the highest amount feasible for each type of
applicable development, which represent new growth's fair share of the capital costs as detailed
in this report. T`he County can adopt amounts that are lower than the maximum amounts
shown. However, a reduction in fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other revenues, a
decrease in planned capital expenditures, 'and/or a decrease in the County's level of service.
Figure 1. Maximum Supportable School Impact Fees: Orange County Schools
MAXIMUM ALLOWAP,LE SCI~OOL'IMPACT FEESc'Orange County Schools
Impact Fee Per Housing knit Elementary Middle High TOTAL
Single Family Detached $3,581 $2,485 $3,306 $9,372
Single Family Attd/Multifamily $1,406 $607 $892 $2,905
Manufactured Homes $2,046 $1,132 $1,285 $4,463
A note on rounding: Calculations throughout this report are based on an analysis conducted
using Excel software. Most results are discussed in the report using one, two, and three digit
places, which represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to
their ultimate decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may
not equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in
the report (due to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
TischlerLise 3
tNC~,C~hdenieacPiinning Cm;uti~nti.
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe CourrtY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
INTRODUCTION TO IMPACT FEES
DEFINITION
Impact fees, also known as facility or development fees, are one-time payments used to fund
capital improvements necessitated by new growth. Impact fees have been utilized by local
governments in various forms for at least fifty years. Impact fees do have limitations, and
should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure financing needs. Rather, they
should be .considered one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate
provision of public facilities with the goal of maintaining current levels of service in a
community. Any community considering impact fees should note the following limitations:
^ Impact fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure and cannot be used to
finance ongoing operations and/or maintenance and rehabilitation costs;
^ Impact fees cannot be deposited in the local government's General Fund. The funds
must be accounted for separately in individual accounts and earmarked for the capital
expenses for which they were collected; and
^ Impact fees cannot be used to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies unless there is a
funding plan in place to correct the deficiency for all current residents and businesses in
the community.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions-including impact
fees-are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public
use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of
impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet
standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. To comply with the Fifth Amendment,
development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental
interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and
welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public
services.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on
other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most
important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing
Tischier~ise 4
flied, [[uaniica~.Pl~anln~ Cenvtl~nti.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otuwce Courrrr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolino
exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the
interest being protected. (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.) In a more recent case
(Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly
proportional" to the burden created by development. However, the Dolan decision appeared to
set a higher standazd of review for mandatory dedications of land than for monetary exactions
such as impact fees.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related to
"rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state
courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by
which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U. S. Constitution, we
prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "impact or need," "benefit; '
and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two,
although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Dolan case. The reasonable relationship language of the statute is
considered less strict than the rational nexus standard used by many courts. Individual
elements of the nexus standazd aze discussed further in the following paragraphs.
Demonstrating an Impact. All. new development in a community creates additional demands on
some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not
increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the
entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development-
related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of
development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that
development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments
upon which they aze imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the
impact of development on improvement needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships
between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on
applicable level-of-service standards.
Demonstrating a Bene t. A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be
segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were
charged. Fees must be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must
serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the State
enabling Act authorizing Orange County's impact fees requires that facilities funded with fee
revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, existing
development may benefit from these improvements as well.
Tischlerl~ise 5
tisc2,[ch ~niic&Plannh~gtm~:ufr~nti.
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Oruwoe Courrrv SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are typically mandated by the
State enabling act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are expended expeditiously or
refunded. All of these requirements are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the
fees they are required to pay. Thus, an adequate showing of benefit must address procedural as
well as substantive issues.
Demonstrating Proportionality. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of
development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case (although the
relevance of that decision to impact fees has been debated) and is logically necessary to
establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify
development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate unpact fees for various
types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in terms
of relevant and measurable attributes of development. For example, the need for school
improvements is measured by the number of public school-age children generated by
development.
METHODOLOGIES AND CREDITS
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a
particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements
for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a
particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility
costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves two main steps:
(1) detern,in;ng the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those
costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact
fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the
relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss
three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be applied.
Plan-Based Fee Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of
improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a
facility plan and development is identified by a land use plan. In this method, the total cost of
relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the
cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g.
housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit
of development (e.g., single family detached unit).
Cost Recovery Fee Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new
development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already
Tischler~as~ 6
Flxc=, [eoflanie Si. PI i nnins C'yt:>at`~n t s.
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwce Courrrr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often
used for systems that were oversized such as sewer and water facilities. To calculate a fee using
the cost recovery approach, the facility cost is divided by ultimate number of demand units the
facility will serve.
Incremental Expansion Fee Calculation. The incremental expansion method documents the current
level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative
measures, based on an existing service standard (such as square feet per student). T'he level of
service standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach
used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, the fee
revenues would not be for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, revenue
will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new
development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will
be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the
community.
Credits. Regardless of the methodology, a consideration of "credits" is integral to the
development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There are two types of "credits" each
with specific, distinct characteristics, but both of which should be addressed in the development
of impact fees. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur
when contributions are made by the property owner toward the capital costs of the public
facility covered by the impact fee. This type of credit is integrated into the impact fee
calculation. The second is a credit toward the payment of a fee for dedication of public sites or
improvements provided by the developer and for which the impact fee is imposed. This type of
credit is addressed in the administration and implementation of a impact fee program.
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS IMPACT FEE OVERVIEW
The County has seen significant residential growth over the past several years and with it
increased enrollment. Growth is expected to continue in the future. Appendix A provides detail
on land use and demographic assumptions and projections. To ensure that County Schools have
adequate capacity to accommodate growth, Orange County is considering implementation of
impact fees for schools. 'The County has been granted authority by the State to implement
impact fees for Schools s The purpose of the legislation is to "help defray the costs to the County
a S.L. 1987-460 ("An Act Making Sundry Amendments Concerning Local Governments In Orange And Chatham
Counties, Title VI: Orange County Impact Fees"). In addition to schools, other community service facility categories
aze allowed such as: the acquisition of land for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets,
bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other drainage
facilities, water and sewer facilities and public recreation facilities. (See Appendix B for a copy of the applicable
section of the Act.)
Tischier~~se ~
tbcB,[~raniica~.PiSnnu~g Ccna~ianti.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ow+t~oe Courrnr SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
of construcfing certain capital improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part
by the new development that takes place within the County."4
Orange County is served by two school systems, Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools. TischlerBise analyzed and calculated school impact fees for each school
system. This report details the results of the Orange County Schools impact fees. The report on
the other school system is issued under separate cover. The reports comply with relevant
requirements for calculation of impact fees.
Orange County School impact fees are derived using the incremental approach. This approach
determines current level of service standards for school buildings (elementary, middle, and
high), land for school sites, portable classrooms, support facilities, and buses. Level of service
standards are derived using the adopted standards per the County's Schools Adequate Public
Facility Ordinance (SAPFO) and Memorandum of Understanding and are expressed as follows:
^ School buildings: Square feet per student by type of school,
^ Land: Acres per student by type of school;
^ Portable classrooms: Classrooms per student by type of school;
^ Support facilities: Cost per student; and
^ Buses/other vehicles: Number of vehicles per student
A credit is included in the impact fee to account for outstanding debt on Orange County School
improvements. Further detail on the approach, levels of service, costs, and credits is provided in
the body of this report.
a IUid, Sec. 17 (b) (1).
Tischler~ise $
tlfce,Ccim~nicai.Pli?fNn~ Cc~~ a+tianli.
pRA~- SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: O~oe CouMV SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Demand for additional school capacity will come from new residential development. To
determine the level of this demand, student generation rates are used. The term "student
generation rate refers to the number of public school students per housing unit in fine Orange
County School System.5 Public school students are a subset of school-aged children, which
includes students in private schools and home-schooled children.
Student generation rates are important demographic factors that help account for variations in
demand for school facilities by type of housing. Students per housing unit are held constant
over the projection period since the impact fees represent a "snapshot approach" of current
levels of service and costs.
TischlerBise obtained student generation rate information for each school system in the County
from Orange County. T'he student generation rates provided by Orange County Planning are
from an analysis conducted in 2005. Student generation rates were provided by housing unit
type for the categories used in each district. That is, for Orange County, rates are provided for
each type of unit: (1) Single Fanvly Detached, (2) Single Family Attached/Multifamily, and (3)
Manufactured. Homes. In addition, the rates reflect demand by type of school level-
elementary, middle, and high.
To reflect 2006-07 demand for school facilities by housing unit type, the rates are calibrated to
current conditions using data on housing units and enrollment in each school system provided
by the County. The result is updated student generation rates by type of unit by school level for
each school district. Student generation rates for Orange County Schools are shown below in
Figure 2. (Further detail is provided in~Appendix A.)
s Student generation rates aze calculated sepazately for each school system in the County. (See Appendix A for more
detail)
Tischler~ise ~ 9
^~et.. [~ocomiea Plivtin~ CB.murianti.
pRgF(' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Oru~oe Courmr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 2. Student Generation Rates: Orange County Schools
Summary: Average Public School Sfudents Per Housing Unit, 2006-07
ORANGE COlINTY SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High .All Grades
gle Family Detached 0.168 '. 0.09D ; , Q.126 '•.0.384
gle Family Attd/Multifamily 0.066 0.022 ' 0:034 0.122
nufactured Homes 0:096 0.041 0.049 0.186
Housing T jpes (blended) 0.145 0.074 0.102 0.321
Sources: Orange Counfij; SAPFOTAC; TischlerBise
As shown above, a single family detached unit is estimated to generate a total of .384 students,
with .168 irL elementary grades, .090 in middle school grades, and .126 in high school grades. A
single family attached/multifamily unit is estimated to generate a total of .122 students, with
.066 in elementary grades, .022 in middle school grades, and .034 in high school grades. A
manufactured home is estimated to generate a total of .186 students per unit.
--
Tischler~ise 10
flsr2,[cod.nicb~.Chan~ng Cw.o?unti~
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Oruwoe Cour~v SCHOOIS
Orange County, Nortfi Carolina
METHODOLOGY
The Orange County Schools impact fee methodology is based on current average public school
student generation rates, level of service standards, and local costs. Figure 3 illustrates the
methodology used to calculate the fee. The school impact fees use an incremental expansion
approach, which documents the current level of service for public facilities in both quantitative
and qualitative measures. The intent is to use impact fee revenue to expand or provide
additional facilities, as needed to accommodate new development, based on the current level of
service and cost to provide capital improvements. All school levels are included in the fees.
Costs for school buildings, land for school sites, portable classrooms, support facilities, and
buses/vehicles are included, in the fee. The costs are adjusted to account for estimated State
funding for capacity projects; therefore the fees reflect the County's share of the total costs.
Finally, a credit for future principal payments on existing debt is included.
Figure 3. Impact Fee Methodology Charl~ Orange County Schools
IMPACT FEe
Residential
Development
Students per Housing tiiut by Multiplied I3y Net Local Capital
Type of unit (Student Generation Rate) Cost per Student
School ConsimcHon
Cost per5tudent
Plus Land
Cost per Student
Plus Portable Classroom
Cost per Student
Plus Support Faality
Cost per Student
Plus Bus/Vchicle
Cost per Student
Minus Prinopal Payment Credit
Per Student
Tischler~~~: ~ ~~
tlac2, Udo~nic&.PlSxnln~ Crnmtl~nR-
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owtwoe CoutJn' SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
BUILDING AND SITE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
This section provides current inventories of elementary, middle, and high schools in the Orange
County School System. T'he data contained in these tables are used to determine infrastructure
standards for school buildings and sites on which the impact fees are based.
The Orange County Schools Adequate Public Facility Ordinance (SAPFO) and Memorandum of
Understanding (Annual Report 2007) provides current adopted levels of service by school type
that are used for the impact fee study. Level of service means the amount of students that can be
accommodated at a certain school system level. Figure 4 provides the adopted LOS standards.
Figure 4. Level of Service Standards: Orange County Schools
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Orange Co
Elementary (K 5) -_ _ _ 105%
Middle (6-8) 107%
High (9-12) 110%
Source: Orattge County, NC, Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Annual Report 2007.
ORANGE COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
The. inventory and current levels of service for Orange County elementary schools are shown ,
below in Figure 5. As indicated below, elementary school buildings have a total of 498,188
square feet of floor area on approximately 144.1 acres. Total enrollment in all elementary
schools is 3,072.
Level of service (LOS) factors for Orange County Elementary Schools are also shown in Figure
5. The Adopted LOS Standards (based on 105 percent capacity) for land, school buildings, and
portables are shown shaded in the figure below. As shown the LOS factors on which the impact
fees are based are• 037 acres 128 square feet and 0007 portable classrooms per student It
should be noted that the capacity figures reflect mandated reduced class size for Grades K-3
from 1:23 to 1:21, reflecting actual current levels of service and the standards by which new
schools will be planned.
Tischler~ise 12
tium',[cu.^.nmic &.PlinnmR Cen:uti~nti.
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: O~uwct: CournY $CHOOts
Orange County, Nortfi Carolina
Figure 5.Orange County Elementary Schools
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Official Current
Inventory, Enrollment, and Levels of Seroice Sife Building Portables SY 06-07 Leoel of
Facilitu Acreage Square Feet Classrooms Enrollment Capacity (1] Seroice
Cameron Pazk Elementary 19.0 70,812 0 498 565 88%
Central Elementary 22.0 52,492 0 297 455 65%
Efland Cheeks Elementary 31.0 64,316 1 440 497 89%
Grady Brown Elementary 18.0 74,016 2 503 544 92%
Hillsborough Elementary 10.0 51,106 0 385 471 82%
New Hope Elementary 26.0 100,164 0 527 586 90%
Pathways Elementary 18.1 85,282 0 422 576 73%
TOTALS 144.1 498,188 3 3,072 3,694 83%
Demand
Units Acres per Building Portables per
Elementaru School Levels of Service (Students) Student SF per Student Student
LOS based on Current Enrollment 3,072 0.046 162 0.0009
LOS based on Capacity 3,694 0.039 134 0.0008
LOS based on Adopted L05 Sfandaril (105°h) . ' 3,879 (1.037 12$ ; 0,00(1,,.
Notes to Table:
(1] Capacity reflects reduced class size for Grades K-3 of 1:21.
Source: Orange County
ORANGE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOLS
The inventory and current levels of service for Orange County. middle schools are shown below
in Figure 6. As indicated below, middle school buildings have a total of 366,620 square feet of
floor area on approximately 145.9 acres. Total enrollment in all middle schools is 1,576.
Level of service (LOS) factors for Orange County middle schools are shown in Figure 6. The
Adopted LOS Standards (based on 107 percent capacity) for land, school buildings, and
portables are shown shaded in the figure below. As shown the LOS factors on which the impact
fees are based are• 062 acres 158 square feet and .0012 portable classrooms per student.
Figure 6.Orange County Middle Schools
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Inventory, Enrollment, and Utilization
Farilifv
Official
Site Building Portables SY 06-07 Leael of
Acreage Square FeeE Classrooms Enrollment Capacity Seroice
A.L. Stanback Middle 47.9 136,000 0 633 740 86%
C.W. Stanford Middle 57.0 107,620 3 679 726 94%
Gravelly Hill Middle 41.0 123,000 0 264 700 38%
TOTALS 145.9 366,620 3 1,576 2,166 73%
Demand
Units Acres per Building Portables
Middle School Levels of Seroice (Students) Student SF per Student per Sfudent
LOS based on Current Enrollment 1,576 0.092 232 0.0019
LOS based on Capacity 2,166 0.067 169 0.0013
LOS based on Adopted LOS Standard {107"e) .: 2;318 0:062 158 000],_
Source: Orange County
Tischleese 13
Fh4',jciramicfr.PlSnnfn~, CenmSomi~
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe CourrlY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Corolina
ORANGE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOLS
The inventory and current levels of service for Orange County high schools are shown below in
Figure 7. As indicated below, high school buildings have a total of 422,658 square feet of floor
area on approximately 165 acres. Total enrollment in all high schools is 2,184.
Level of service (LOS) factors for Orange County high schools are shown in Figure 7. The
Adopted LOS Standards (based on 110 percent capacity) for land, school buildings, and
portables are shown shaded in the figure below. As shown, the LOS factors on which the impact
fees are based are:.059 acres 151 square feet, and 0 portable classrooms per student.
Figure 7.Orange County High Schools
HIGH SCHOOLS Official
Inventory, Enrollment, arrd UNlizatiorr Site Bur7ding Portables SY 06-07 Level of
Facilid/ Aaeage Square Feet Classrooms Enrollment Capacity Service
Orange High 92.0 213,509 0 1,147 1,518 76%
Cedaz Ridge High 71.0 206,900 0 1,022 1,000 102%
Partnership Academy 2.0 2,249 0 15 15 lOD%
TOTALS 165.0 422,658 0 2,184 2,533 86%
Demand
Units Acres per Bur7ding Portables
High School Leoels of Service (Students) Student SF per Student per Student
LOS based on Current Enrollment ~ 2,184 0.075 193 0.0000
LOS based on Capacity 2,533 0.065 166 0.0000
LOS based orr Adapted LO5 Standard' (110%) 2;786 0.059 151 0:0000
Source: Orange County
Tischletse 14
t(sen', rcudnnie& Pli;usinp Can:uaan li-
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Oluw~e Courrrr SCHOOIS
Orange County, North Carolina
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
TischlerBise analyzed costs for school construction in the Orange County School District. Costs
for completed school projects in the Orange County School District were provided by the
Orange County Budget Office. TischlerBise adjusted the costs to current (2007) dollazs, where
appropriate, using Marshall Valuation Service Comparative Cost Multipliers.6 Current school
costs represent the average costs to construct elementary, middle, and high schools in the
Orange County System. As shown in Figure 8, construction costs average around $187 per
square foot. Specifically, the costs are as follows-Elementary: $186.85 per squaze foot; Middle:
$187.63 per squaze foot; and High: $187.76 per squaze foot.
Figure 8. School Project Costs
Schoo] Year (actual Original Marshall Sw~ Current Cost Square Cast Capacity Cost
Project or planned) Cost (1] Cost Multiplier !z1 (adj. $) I3) Feet Per Sq Ft (Students) Per Student
Total $11,425,220 $]5,935,714 85,282 $186:85 `: 576 $27,666
Middle
Higk
$32,969
--
Total $28,155,664 $38,847,890 206,90D ...$187.76 1,000 $38,848
GRAND TOTAL $77,862,193 415,182 $187.53 2,276 $34,210
(1] Costs include school construction, site deoelopment, fees, equipment, technology, contingency, and start-up casts (land not included and addressed separately).
I2] Marsha!( Valuation Service Comparatiae Cost Multiplier far Class C buildings (structures with nuuonry bearing wafts) for Raleigh, NC.
(3] Adjustrd to current dollars using the Marshall Valuation Service Comparatiae Cost MaI tiptiers.
Sources: Orange County; Marshall Valuation Seroice; ZischierBise
LAND COSTS
Orange County Schools anticipates the need to purchase land for futrxre school sites to
accommodate school capital needs brought about by growth in the County. Per Orange County
Tax Assessor's office, suitable sites for public schools served by public water and sewer
currently average $25,000 per acre.
e Marshall Valuation Service (Marshall & Swift/Boeckh, LLC) Comparative Cost Multipliers are used to convert
historical costs to present-day costs. 'The published indexes and multipliers are speciTically for construction costs
taking into account costs of building materials and labor. Multipliers used for Orange County are for Raleigh, NC
and for Class C properties (buildings with masonry or concrete exterior walls and wood or steel roof and floor
structures, except for concrete slab on grade).
TtSChler~ise 15
nse:~, [a+a~niea~.Pli»tnp tairuti~nti
pRq~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Oruwoe Courrnr $CHOOIS
Orange Counfy, North Carolina
PORTABLE CLASSROOM COSTS
Orange County currently leases and uses portable classrooms for additional classroom capacity
with a total of 6 classrooms in use currently. The one-time set-up cost for each portable
classroom is $10,000, per Orange County Schools.
SUPPORT FACILITIES
The ilnpact fees also include costs to provide support facilities such as administrative office
space, maintenance facilities, and bus garages. For OCS, support facilities include Board of
Education office space, maintenance shop, and transportation facility. Costs for land are
included for office space and maintenance shop as expansion of those facilities will require
additional land. The transportation facility serves both school systems in the County and
therefore costs are allocated to current enrollment in both districts (see Figure 10). Costs were
confirmed with Orange County Schools. The following two figures reflect current levels of
service and cost factors for these facilities.
Figure 9. Support Facilities -Orange County Schools
Square Cost Bldg Cost Total Totai
re„+ n~ c„ F+ r„~+ Arranoa Pvr Aire T.and Cnst Cost
Boazd of Education (OCS) 6,210 $150 $931,500 4 $25,000 $100,000 `; $1;031;50Q
Maintenance Shop (OCS) 17,559 $139 $2,440,701 2 $25,000 $50,000 $2,49U;7QI
total L.3,/bY Sfl4L ~q3,3/G,GUl a yvvvv ~i/v,vvv y..,,.~cc,<v+
Current Total OCS Enrollment 6,832
Cost per Student $515.54
Source: Orange County Schools
Figure 10. Support Facilities -Serving Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools
Square Cost Total
Feet Per Sq Ft Cost
Transportation Facility* 11,704 $139 $1,626,856
Total 11,704 $139 $1,626,856
Current Total OCS grid CHCCS Enrollment 17,909
Cost per Student $90.84
* Seraes both OCS and CHCCS Districts
Source: Orange County Schools
TISChIerB<S~ 16
ti~rs',Ccdn~micS~.PISnnvi~ [enw3anti~
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otvr~GE CouNTY SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
BUS /VEHICLES COSTS
Another infrastructure component included in the impact fee is buses and vehicles. New buses
and vehicles will need to be purchased to accommodate increased enrollment. Total current
value of the fleet is estimated at approximately $8.2 million, which equates to a current cost of
almost $1,200 per student. Levels of service and costs are provided below in Figure 11 for the
OCS fleet.
Figure 11. Buses /Vehicles Levels of Service and Costs: Orange County Schools
Number of Units Cost/Bus Total Cost
OCS Buses 79 $80,000 $6,320,000
OCS Activity Buses 15 $70,000 $1,050,000
Other vehicles 27 $30,000 $810,000
Total 121 $67,603 $8,180,000
OCS Enrollment (2006-07)
Buses/Vehicles per Student
6,817
0.018
Cost per Student $1,199.94
Source: Orange Counfij Schools
ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-LOCAL FUNDING
To adequately reflect the local share of capacity costs, the impact fees need to be adjusted to
account for State funding for capacity improvements. Orange County estimates that the County
receives one percent of the costs for capacity improvements from the state, therefore the local
share is adjusted to represent 99 percent of the total. (Other contributions from the State are
used for maintenance and other non-capacity related improvements.)
CREDIT FOR FUTURE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS
AND LAND
Because the County debt financed a portion of recent school capacity expansion construction
costs and land acquisition, a credit is included for future principal payments on outstanding
debt. A credit is necessary since new residential units that will pay the impact fee will also
contribute to future principal payments on this remaining debt through property taxes. A credit
is not necessary for interest payments because interest costs are not included in the costs.
Tischlera~ 17
thcti, [autlamic&.PlannL~~ Ce~u~rinnti.
pPgF-I• SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe Coutxmr SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Information on outstanding debt for Orange County Schools was provided by Orange County
Finance staff. School improvements and applicable bond issues aze indicated in Figure 12
below. As shown, total outstanding debt from school capacity expansion projects for Orange
County Schools is estimated at approximately $57 million. Annual printpal payments are
divided by student enrollment in each year to get a per student credit. (For example, iri Fiscal
Yeaz 2007, the total amount of projected principal to be paid of $4.5 million is divided by
enrollment of 6,817 for a payment per student of $667.) To account for the time value of money,
annual payments per student are discounted using a net present value formula based on an
average cutrrent interest rate of 4.5 percent. The total net present value of future principal
payments per student is $5,108. This amount is subtracted from the gross capital cost per
student amount to derive a net capital cost per student for school facilities.
Figure 12. Creclit for Future Principal Payments: Orange County Schools
Fiscal 2005 (1] 2005 (2] 2004 (3] 2003 !4] 2003 (5] 2001(6] 2001(71 2001 IS] 2000 I9] Total 1
Year Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ.. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Proj. Princ. Praj. Princ. Total Students (10]
2007 $441,494 $34,955 $237,617 $64,407 $881,697 $1,365,000 $143,715 $658,271 $718,487 $4,545,641 6,817
2008 $441,494 $37,644 $237,617 $64,407 $871,972 $1,365,000 $143,715 $658,271 $710,562 $4,530,681 6,997
2009 $441,494 $38,986 $237,617 $64,407 $860,627 $1,365,000 $143,715 $658,271 $701,317 $4,511,435 7,347
2010 $441,494 $40,332 $237,617 $64,407 $850,902 $1,365,000 $143,715 $658,271 $693,392 $4,495,130 7,484
2011 $441,494 $389,879 $237,617 $64,407 $317,670 $1,365,000 $143,715 $658,271 $258,866 $3,876,919 7,667
2012 $441,494 $364,502 $237,617 $64,407 $311,187 $0 $143,715 $658,271 $253,564 $2,494,775 7,850
2013 $441,494 $379,124 $237,617 $64,407 $304,704 $0 $143,715 $658,271 $248,301 $2,477,632 8,033
2014 $441,494 $1,074,184 $237,617 $64,407 $0 $0 $143,715 $656,271 $0 $2,619,687 8,215
2015 $441,494 $1,302,734 $237,617 $106,519 $0 $0 $237,682 $658,271 $0 $2,984,316 8,398
2016 $441,494 $1,285,257 $237,617 $106,519 $D $0 $237,662 $658,271 $0 $2,966,839 8,581
2017 $441,494 $1,285,257 $237,617 $106,519 $D $0 $237,682 $658,271 $0 $2,966,839 8,764
2018 $485,643 $1,242,236 $237,617 $108,996 $0 $0 $243,209 $658,271 $0 $2,975,972 8,947
2019 $706,390 $229,894 $792,055 $217,992 $0 $0 $486,419 $656,271 $0 $3,091,022 9,130
2020 $1,103,735 $0 $792,055 $217,992 $0 $0 $486,419 $654,694 $0 $3,254,894 9,312
2021 $1,103,735 $0 $792,055 $217,992 $0 $0 $486,419 $654,694 $0 $3,254,894 9,495
2022 $1,677,677 $0 $792,055 $173,403 $0 $0 $386,924 $0 $0 $3,030,058 9,678
2023 $1,765,976 $0 $377,018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $2,142,994 9,861
2024 $1,185,411 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,185,411 10,044
2025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10,227
TOTAL $12,884,997 $7,724,986 $6,396,638 $1,771,186 $4,398,760 $6,825,000 $3,952,154 $9,866,911 $3,584,509 $57,405,141
Student
$601
Uucount tLa{e 1111 -..
Net Present Value
[1] Graaelly Hill MS (new). Issued in 2005 (2001 Bonds (Installment #3))
(2] Pathways ES (new); rendaation carious. Issued in 2005 (1997 Bonds (Installment #1) 62000 Tura-Thirds Bonds (rejt in 2005)]
(3] Graaelly Hill MS (new). Issued in 2004 (2001 Bonds (Installment #Z)]
(4] Graoetiy Hill MS (new); Hillsborough ES (renoa). Issued in 2003 (2001 Bonds, (Installment #1)]
(51 New Hope ES (new), AL Stanback MS (new); rends: Cameron Pk ES, Central ES, Orange HS, Hillsborough ES. Issued in 2003 (2003 Refunding Bonds (#8); 1988 & 1992 Bonds (orig issue)]
I6] Cedar Ridge HS (nerd). Issued in 2001(/nstallmenf Note #21j
(7] AL Stanback MS (new). Issued in 2001(2001 Refunding Serial Bonds (#7); 1992 Bonds (orig issue)]
(8] Cedar Ridge H5 (renoal. Issued in ZODl [1997 Bonds (Installment #2))
(9] Pathways ES (new); renoaation carious. Issued in 2000 (1997 Bonds (Installment #1)]
(10) SeeAppendix for enrollment projections; starting in 2018, enrollment is projected based an historical aaerage growth rate of2.4%.
(11] To account for the tines ealue of money, total paynwnt per student is discounted using a net present aalue formula assuming the aaerage interest rate from outstanding debt as shown.
Sources: Orange County; Tischler8ise
$5,108
Tischlerl~ise 18
nxc2, [cAtlnnicSi.PlirnLl~tmeutianu.
pRA~' SCHOOL. IMPACT FEES: Ow4r~oe Cour~v SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE INPUT VARIABLES
Factors used to derive the Orange County School impact fee are summarized in Figure 13.
Impact fees for schools are based on student generation rates (i.e., public school students per
housing unit) and are only implemented on residential development. Level of Service standards
are based on current costs per student for school buildings, land, portable classrooms, support
facilities, and buses /vehicles as described in the previous sections and summarized below.
Also included in the fee is the cost for preparation of the impact fee study. The consultant study
cost per student is calculated based on the projected increase in student enrollment over the
next three years and is added to the capital cost per student to derive the total cost per student.
Three years reflect the typical length of time before the impact fees should be reexamined to
reflect changes in development and levels of service.
The total gross capital cost per student is the swn of the boxed cost components. For example,
for the elementary school portion, the calculation is as follows: $23,917 [buiiding construction] +
$925 (sand] + $7 (portabie] + $606 (support facilities] + $1,200 (buses] + $36 (consultant cost] _ $26,691
total gross cost per student:
'This cost is then adjusted to reflect the local share of the cost at 99 percent, or $26,424 per
student. The credit for future principal payments ($5,108) is then subtracted from the gross local
capital cost per student to derive the net local capital cost per student ($21,316) for elementary
schools. The same approach is followed for middle and high schools.
TtSChIer~3iSe 19
tiscE,[[6damicSr.Plinning [en:utianti.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: ORANGE Courriv $CHOOtS
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 13. Schools Impact Fee Input Variables: Orange County Schools
tI~1PUT VARIABLES: Orange County SchoaL~
School Level
Public School Students Per Housing Unit (2006-07) TOTAL
Elementary Middle High
Single Family Detached 0.384
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 0.122
Manufactured Homes 0.186
Current Level of Service Standards
Elemenaan,/ Middle High
Building Squaze Feet Per Student 128 158 151
Total Cost Per Squaze Foot $186.85 $187.63 $187.76
Total Building Construction Cost Per Student $23,917 $29,646 $28,352
Acreage Per Student 0.037 0.062 0.059
Land Cost Per Acre $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Land Cost Per Student $925 $1,550 $1,475
Portable Classrooms Per Student 0.001 0.001 0.000
Cost Per Portable Classroom $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Portable Classroom Cost Per Student $7 $12 $0
OCS Support Facilities Cost Per Student $516 $516 $516
OCS/CHCCS Transp. Facility Cost Per Student $91 $91 $91
Support Facility Cost Per Student $606 $606 $606
Buses/Vehicles per Student 0.018 0.018 0.018
Weighted Average Cost per Bus/Vehicle $67,603 $67,603 $67,603
Bus/Vehicle Cost Per Student $1,200 $1,200 $1,200
Consultant Study Cost Per Student $36 $36 $36
Total Gross Capital Cost Per Student $26,691 $33,050 $31,669
Local Share of Capacity Cost 99.0% 99.0% 99.0%
Total Gross Local Capital Cost Per Student $26,424 $32,719 $31,352
Principal Payment Credit Per Student ($5,108) ($5,108) ($5,108)
Total Net Local Capital Cost Per Sfodent $21,316 $27,6ll $26;244
0.168 0.090 0.126
0.066 0.022 0.034
0.096 0.041 0.049
Tischlerise 20
Iisc~, [cmonic bi.Plinninp Cdn:u'.i~nli .
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otu~oe Courm SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IMPACT FEES FOR ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Figure 14 shows the schedule of maximum supportable impact fees for Orange County Schools.
The fees are calculated by multiplying the student generation rate for each housing type (shown
at the top of Figure 13) by the net capital cost per student for each type of school. Each
component is then added together to derive the total public school impact fee.
For example, for a single family detached unit, the elementary school portion of the fee is
calculated by multiplying the student generation rate of .168 by the net local capital cost per
elementary student of $21,316, which results in $3,581 per single family detached housing unit
for the elementary level. This is repeated for the other school levels. The three portions of the fee
are added together to calculate the total fee by type of residential unit (i.e., for single family
detached: $3,581 + $2,485 + $3,306 = $9,372.)
Figure 14. Maximum Supportable Schools Impact Fees: Orange County Schools
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Orange County Schools
Impact Fee Per Housing Unit Elementary Middle High TOTAL
Single Family Detached $3,581 $2,485 $3,306 $9,372
Single Family Attd/Multifamily $1,406 $607 $892 $2,905
Manufachued Homes ~ $2,046 $1,132 $1,285 $4,463
~ Because the analysis uses figures carried to their ultimate decimal places, the sums and products shown may not
equal the sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report.
Tischler~as~ 21
thc~, [[h^,mKai. Piinnhig Cenwtianti
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe Courmr $CHOOtS
Orange County, North Carolina
This section summarizes the potential cash flow to Orange County if impact fees are
implemented for Orange County Schools at the maximum supportable amounts as detailed in
this report. Figure 15 provides a summary of the projected cash flow from the impact fees and
associated capital costs over afive- year period.
School impact fee revenue averages approximately $5.2 million per year over the first five years,
or almost $26 million, if the fees are implemented at the maximum supportable level. The
related school local capital costs average approximately $6 million per. year, or $30.4 million
over five years. Based on the projected impact fee revenues and associated costs, the fees are
projected to cover approximately 85 percent of the projected related capital costs. Funds can be
accumulated for several years in order to construct a major project.
Since the school impact fee includes a credit for existing debt, an overall deficit for schools is
projected. The projected deficit, indicated by "( )" around the numbers, will require
supplemental revenue of approximately $910,000 per year. To the extent the rate of
development either accelerates or slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the fee
revenue and related capital costs. See Appendix A of this report for discussion of the
development projections that drive the cash flow analysis.
Tischler~ise 22
Fhc2,U6^_omic ar.PlSgnhig tan:>atianti.
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ow,rioe Cout~ly SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure 15. Cash Flow Projections: Orange County Schools
1 2 3 4 5
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
e
SCHOOLS
1 Schools Fee - SFD $4,417 $7,603 $2,976 $3,972 $3,972
2 Schools Fee - SFA/Multifamily $296 $510 $200 $266 $266
3 Schools Fee -Manufactured Hms $269 $462 $181 $242 $242
Subtotal Schools Fees $4,982 $8,575 $3,356 $4,480 $4,480
TOTAL FEE REVENUE $4,982 $8,575 $3,356 $4,480 $4,480
e e e
SCHOOLS
Schools -Elementary $2,061 $4,254 $1,501 $2,174 $2,174
Schools -Middle $1,571 $2,683 $501 $1,376 $1,376
Schools -High $1,693 $3,355 $2,034 $1,834 $1,834
Subtotal Schools Costs $5,325 $10,292 $4,036 $5,385 $5,385
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $5,325 $10,292 $4,036 $5,385 $5,385
NET CAPITAL FACILITIES CASH FLOW Schools
Annual Surplus (or Deficit) ($342) ($1,717) ($680) ($905) ($905;
Cumulative Surplus (or Deficit) ($342) ($2,059) ($2,739) ($3,644) ($4,549;
5-Year 5-Year
Average Cumulative
Annual Total
$4,588 $22,940
$308 $1,539
$279 $1,395
$5,175 $25,873
$5,175 $25,873
$2,433 $12,165
$1,501 $7,507
$2,150 $10,751
$6,084 $30,422
$6,084 $30,422
($910)
($4,549)
Tischler9~ise 23
Clsee,Ce6r~mieai.elin»tng Censu9~nik
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otuw~e Courm $CHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
ACCOUNTING
Impact fees should be paid at time of building permit. Certain accounting procedures should be
followed by the County. For example, monies received should be placed in a separate fund and
accounted for separately and may only be used for the purposes authorized in the impact fee
ordinance. Interest earned on monies in the separate fund should be credited to the fund.
COST UPDATES
.All costs in the impact fee calculations are given in current dollars with no assumed inflation
over time. Necessary cost adjustments can be made as part of the recommended annual
evaluation and update of the fees. One approach is to adjust for inflation in construction costs
by means of an index specific to construction as opposed to the consumer price index (CPZ),
which is more general in nature. TischlerBise recommends using the Marshall Swift Valuation
Service, which provides comparative cost multipliers for various geographies and types of
construction. The multipliers can be applied against the calculated impact fee. If cost estimates
or other factors change significantly the County should redo the fee calculations. A full update
is recommended every 3 to 5 years to reflect changes in development trends, infrastructure
capacities, costs, funding formulas, etc.
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
FUTURE REVENUE CREDITS
Orange County Schools impact fees are calculated using an incremental approach. 'This method
documents current factors and is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded
incrementally in the future. Because new development will provide front-end funding of
infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal
payments on existing debt for public facilities. A credit is not necessary for interest payments
because interest costs are not included in the fees. This type of credit is incorporated into the
County Schools impact fees due to outstanding debt on OCS school capacity expansions and
land acquisition.
TISChier~iSe 24
f(~c~,[curamicS~.Pl~nn~ng Cm~.uNants
pRA~' SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otuw~e CoutJty SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
SrrE-SPECIFIC CREDITS
A site-specific credit should be considered for contributions of system improvements that have
been included in the impact fee calculations. If a developer constructs the type of system
improvements included in the fee calculations, it will be necessary to either reimburse the
developer or provide a credit against the fees for that portion of the fee. The latter option is
more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based .
on TischlerBise's experience, it is better for the County to establish a reimbursement agreement
with the developer constructing the system improvement. The reimbursement agreement
should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the County should not pay
interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of
the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The. County should only agree to pay the
lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the
County pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue.
Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the County to reimburse developers annually
according to actual fee collections from the benefiting area.
COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE ZONES
The reasonableness of impact fees is determined in part by their relationship to the local
government's burden to provide necessary public facilities. The need to show a substantial
benefit usually requires communities to evaluate collection and expenditure zones for public
facilities that have distinct geographic service areas.
TischlerBise analyzed school impact fees in the County separately for each school system that
serves residential development in Orange County-Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools. The end result is two separate fee studies with two impact fee schedules.
For the County School system, one area is appropriate because capacity improvements are
needed at all levels throughout the County system and County Schools will occasionally re-
district to accommodate growth and available capacity.
IMPACT FEE ACT
The Act providing Orange County with the authority to collect school impact fees is provided
in Appendix B.
Tischler~ise 2S
tlsc~,[Cocartk a~.PiynntnG Ca~~ aitunls.
APPENDIX
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otuw~e Courmr $CHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
OVERVIEW
As part of our Work Scope, TischlerBise has prepared documentation on demographic data and
development projections used in the Schools Impact Fee Studies. Two studies have been
conducted for Orange County: (1) Orange County Schools and (2) Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Schools. This Appendix covers both school systems in the County, while the body of the report
reflects Orange County Schools only. (The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools report is issued
under separate cover.) The demographic data estimates for the school year 2006-2007 are used
in the fee calculations.
Impact fees can be defined as new growth's fair share of the cost to provide necessary capital
facilities. Fee revenue must be used for capacity expansions and cannot be used for operations
or maintenance costs. In determining the reasonableness of these one-time fees, the fee must
meet three requirements: (1) Impact /Need: The needed capital facilities are a consequence of
new development; (2) Proportionality: Fees represent a proportionate share of the cost; and (3)
Benefit: Revenues are managed and expended in such a way that new development receives a
substantial benefit. The demographic data and analysis provided in this section provide the
foundation to meet the first two requirements listed above.
The development projections are used to establish a need for future infrastructure due to
growth as well as to have an understanding of the possible future pace of service demands,
revenues from impact fees, and projected capital expenditures. To the extent development
slows or accelerates, there will be virtually no effect on the fee amount.
Please note that calculations throughout are based on an analysis that was conducted using
Excel software. Results are discussed using whole numbers or one- to three-digit places, which
represent rounded figures. However, the analysis itself uses figures carried to their ultimate
decimal places; therefore the sums and products generated in the analysis may not equal the
sum or product if the reader replicates the calculation with the factors shown in the report (due
to the rounding of figures shown, not in the analysis).
A-1
Tischler~is~
-Flsri•,fca?rmic L. PlavnirgCC!+tu.anti
APPENDIX
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: O~oe Courtt~r SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
POPUIJ~TION AND HOUSING GROWTH
To provide context for public school student enrollment growth in Orange County, the
following section provides information on population and housing growth in the County. Total
population residing in housing units in the County in 2000 according to the U.S. Census
(corrected) was 105,585. In addition, 9,946. persons were estimated to reside in group quarters
in the County. When added together, the total estimated County population in 2000 was
115,531. Estimated average household size for all types of units is 2.21, which is derived by
dividing persons residing in housing units by total number of housing units (105,585 / 47,706 =
2.21). Figure Al provides further detail from the 2000 Census (corrected) for Orange County.
Figure A1. U.S. Census 2000 Population and Housing Units
Population in Households 105,585
Group Quarters Population 9,946
Total County Population 115,531
Estimated Housing Units 47,706
Average Persons Per Housing Unit ~ 2.21
Source: U.S. Census (Corrected Census 2000 as a result of the Count Question Resolution (CQR) Program)
TischlerBise obtained housing unit estimates for the 2006-07 school year from Orange County
for each school district. The estimates are from building permit data from April 1, 2000, to June
30, 2006, reflecting new units by type of unit built within each school district in Orange County.
For Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), the estimates reflect new housing units located
in Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the portion of Orange County that falls within CHCCS. For
Orange County Schools, building permit data includes those units permitted in the County and
the Town of Hillsborough within the Orange County School System. Detail is provided below
by school district.
A-2
Tischler~ise
' i l5q?. F.e6?m~1C L P.6lmnirg C~n)U?t:mtS
APPENDIX
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otu+r~oe Courrrr SCHOOts
Orange County, Norifi Carolina
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Based on household characteristics, three housing unit types are recommended for the Orange
County Schools impact fees: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family
Attached/Multifamily, and (3) Manufachxred Homes. Impact fees are calculated by type of unit.
As shown, a total of 3,055 new housing units were built from 2000 to 2006 for a current estimate
of 21,164. The majority of new units are single family detached (almost 75 percent), followed by
approximately 16 percent single family attached/multifamily, and the remainder manufactured
homes. Percentages of new units are used to project future housing unit growth. (Further detail
is provided below.)
Figure A2. Housing Unit Growth 2000-2006: Orange County Schools
Orange County School District Net Increase
2000* 2006** 2000-2006 % of New Units
Single Family Detached 12,705 14,978 2,273 74.4%
Single Family Attached/Multifamily 954 1,447 493 16.1%
Manufactured Homes 4,450 4,739 289 9.5%
TOTAL 18,109 21,164 3,055 100.0%
*Source: The National Center for Education Statistics (via Orange County)
** Source: Orange County Planning
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS (CHCCS)
Based on household characteristics, four housing unit types are recommended for the impact
fees for CHCCS: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family Attached, (3) Multifamily, and (4)
Manufactured Homes. Unlike Orange County Schools, CHCCS has a significant number of
multifamily units due to the University of North Carolina, which do not generate a high
number of school-age children. To ensure that residential units pay their proportionate share of
the cost of school facilities, multifamily units are separated into two categories-single family
attached (i.e., townhouses and duplexes) and multifamily (i.e., apartments and condos in
multifamily structures). Impact fees are calculated by type of unit. As shown, a total of 2,302
new housing units were built from 2000 to 2006 for a current estimate of 33,402 housing units.
Approximately 52 percent are single family detached, almost 29 percent are multifamily units,
almost 18 percent are single family attached, and the remainder manufactured homes.
Percentages of new units are used to project future housing unit growth. (Further detail is
provided below.)
A-3
Tischlerl~ise
Eitn:. Eca~nilc:a i'.IaanirgCC:ntWanti
APPENDIX
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otu~oe Courrrv SCHOOLS
Oronge County, North Carolina
Figure A3. Housing Unit Growth 2000-2006: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
Chapel HiI1ICarrboro City School District
Single Family Detached
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
2000* 2006**
13,705 14,897
2,025 2,437
14,695 15,360
Net Increase
2000-2006 % of New Units
1,192 51.8%
412 17.9%
665 28.9%
Manufactured Homes 675 708 33 1.4%
TOTAL 31,100 33,402 2,302 100.0%
*Source: The National Center for Education Statistics (via Orange Counhj)
**Source: Orange Counfij Planning
ESTIMATED STUDENT GENERATION RATES
TischlerBise obtained student generation rate information for each school system in the County
from Orange County. The term "student generation rate" refers to the number of public school
students per housing unit in each school system-Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro
City Schools. Public school students are a subset of school-aged children, which includes
students in private schools and home-schooled children.
Student generation rates are important demographic factors that help account for variations in
demand for school facilities by type of housing. Students per housing unit are held constant
over the projection period since the impact fees represent a "snapshot approach" of current
levels of service and costs..
The student generation rates provided by Orange County Planning are from an analysis
conducted in 2005. Student generation rates were provided by housing unit type for the
categories used in each district. That is, for Orange County, rates are provided for each type of
unit: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Family Attached/Multifamily, and (3) Manufactured
Homes. For CHCCS, rates are provided for: (1) Single Family Detached, (2) Single Fanvly
Attached, (3) Multifamily, and (4) Manufactured Homes. In addition, the rates reflect demand
by type of school level-elementary, middle, and high.
To reflect 2006-07 demand for school facilities by housing unit type, the rates need to be
calibrated to current conditions. TischlerBise calibrated the 2005 rates to current housing units
and enrollment in each school system. The result is updated student generation rates by type of
unit by school level for each school district. Details are provided by school system below.
A-4
Tischler~i~
8trx.F.eavnde T. Claemirg C.onx~fxms
APPENDIX
pRA~- SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ow~woe Courtrir SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
The 2005 student generation rates provided by Orange County for Orange County Schools
provide the foundation for the calibration. The top portion of Figure A4, "Orange County:
Student Generation Rates (2005);' reflects the rates provided by Orange County from an
analysis conducted in 2005. Rates are provided for each of the three housing unit types used in
the impact fee analysis for each level of school facility: (1) Elementary; (2) Middle; and (3) High.
These student generation rates are then calibrated to current conditions for Orange County
Schools using official enrollment data for Fall 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year (as reported in
the SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007) and estimated housing units as of July 1, 2006, for the area
served by the County Schools. The calibration process is as follows: The 2005 student generation
rates are multiplied by current housing unit estimates to generate an estimated number of
students. This figure is then compared to actual figures to determine if the estimate is high or
low. The student generation rate is adjusted accordingly.
For example, the 2005 elementary student generation rate of .159 for a single family detached
unit, as shown in the top portion of Figure A4, is multiplied by current single family housing
units to derive an estimated enrollment. That is: 14,978 single family units x .159 to yield 2,379
estimated elementary students from single-family detached units. This is repeated for single
family attached/multifamily units (1,447 units x .062 = 90) and manufactured homes (4,739 units
x .091 = 431) to arrive at an estimated total of 2,900 elementary school students. Results are
shown in the "Estimated Students" column in the figure.
These results are then compared to actual elementary enrollment in Orange County Schools for
2006-07 of 3,072. Therefore, an adjustment of the 2005 rate is necessary to account for the higher
actual number of students in the County Schools. The adjusted rate is approximately 6 percent
higher than the 2005 rate. An example of the adjusted multiplier calculation is as follows for
single family unit: (3,072 actual students / 2,900 estimated students) x .159 = .168. This is
repeated for the remaining school levels for each housing unit type.
The adjusted student generation rates (based on all housing units and current actual
enrollment) for Orange County Schools are shown at the bottom of Figure A4 under the
"Summary" section. Students per unit for all school levels by type of unit are as follows:
^ Single Family Detached:.384
^ Single Family Attached/Multifamily:.122
^ Manufactured Homes:.186
A-5
TSChf~l"~iiS~
't7tc?.[ea~vmlC:A P.IaeerirgGamu:Clnti
APPENDIX
pRA~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ow~w~e Courm SCHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure A4.Orange County Schools Student Generation Rates
Orange County: Student GenerationItates (2QD5)* --
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High AI! Grades
Single Family Detached 0.159 0.088 0.120 0.366
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 0.062 0.022 0.033 0.117
Manufactured Homes 0.091 0.040 0.046 0.177
All Housing Tomes (blended) 0.137 0.072 0.097 0306
"Arwlysis conducted in summer 2005
Source: Ormrge County
Average Public School Students Per Housing Unit, 2DQ6-D7
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Elementary School Students Per Housing Uffit in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Achal Adjusted
Units` Shrdents Shtdents SY06-07** Rates
Single Family Detached 14 9783 2,379 0.168
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 1,41T. 90 ' 0.066
Manufactured Homes 4,T.i9'' 431 O,D95
21,764 ` 2,900 : 3,072 f
Middle School Studeffts Per Housing Uffit in 2006-07
Housing Estfmated Achtal Adjusted
Units* Shtdents Shulents SY06-07** Rates
Single Family Detached 14,978.1 1,313 '0.090
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 1,447 ! 31 0.022
Manufactured Homes 4,739 ;~ 188 0.041
` 21,164 ; 1,532 : - 1,576:;
High Selfool Studerfts Per Housing Lbfit in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Achtai Adjusted
Units* Shtdents Shulents SY06-07** Rates
Single Family Detached 14,978 1,790 0:726
Single Family Attd/Muliifamily 1,447 ' 47 0.034
Manufactured Homes 4,739 219 ' 0.049
21;764:; 2,056 ~ 2,769:`
Summary: Average Public School Students Per Housing Unit, 2006-07
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Elementary Middte High All Grades
Single Family Detached 0.168 0.090 '' 0.126 ' 0.384
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 0;066 0.022 0.034 0.12?
Manufactured Homes 0.096 0.041 0.049 ' 0.16,6
All Housing Types !blended) 0.145 0.074 0.102 0321
"Estimate jm July 1, 2006, Orange County Planning
"`Actual Studnrt Membership as of Noa.15, 2006, SAPFOTAC Amr ual Report 2007.
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTAC; Tisd~lerBise
A-6
Tischler~is~
~FifG? F.ca?rnAC r.PlavnirgGmud„tMs
APPENDIX
pRA~ ~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe Courrrv SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS
The calibration for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) follows the approach described
above for Orange County Schools. The 2005 student generation rates provided by Orange
County for CHCCS provide the foundation for the calibration. The top portion of Figure A5,
"Chapel Hill-Carrboro: Student Generation Rates (2005)," reflects the rates provided by Orange
County from the 2005 analysis. Rates are provided for each of the four housing unit types used
in the analysis for each level of school facility: (1) Elementary; (2) Middle; and (3) High.
These student generation rates are then calibrated to current conditions for CHCCS using
official enrolhnent data for Fall 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year (as reported in the
SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007) and estimated housing units as of July 1, 2006, for the area
served by CHCCS. The calibration process is as follows: The 2005 student generation rates are
multiplied by current housing unit estimates to generate an estimated number of students. This
figure is then compared to actual figures to determine if the estimate is high or low. T'he student
generation rate is adjusted accordingly.
For example, the 2005 elementary student generation rate of .230 for a single family detached
unit, as shown. in the top portion of Figure A5, is multiplied by current single family housing
units to derive an estimated enrollment. That is: 14,897 single family units x .230 to yield 3,419
estimated elementary students from these units. This is repeated for single family
attached/multifamily units (2,437 units x .138 = 336); multifamily units (15,360 units x .033 =
503); and manufactured homes (708 units x .123 = 87) to arrive at an estimated total of 4,345
elementary students. Results are shown in the "Estimated Students" column in the figure.
These results are then compared to actual elementary enrollment in CHCCS for 2006-07 of
4,980. Therefore, an adjustment of the 2005 rate is necessary to account for the higher actual
number of students in CHCCS. The adjusted rate is almost 15 percent higher than the 2005 rate.
An example of the adjusted multiplier calculation is as follows for single family unit: (4,980
actual students / 4,345 estimated students) x .230 = .263. This is repeated for the remainung
school levels for each housing unit type.
The adjusted student generation rates (based on all housing units in the school system and
current actual enrollment) for CHCCS are shown at the bottom of Figure A5 under the
"Summary" section. Total number of students per unit for all school levels by type of unit is as
follows:
^ Single Family Detached:.603
^ Single Family Attached:.350
^ Multifamily: .070
^ Manufactured Homes:.268
A-7
Tschler~i~
FItnCra?tmt[ T.~ t'.6irnirg~ntu!#,tnts
DRAFT
APPENDIX
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Oluw~e Contra SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Fi>;ure A5. Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Student Generation Rates
Chapel Hill-Casboi~ Student Generation tlatc~s (20U5)'
QIAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High A!! Grades
Single Family Detached 0.230 0.128 0.182 0.540
Single Family Attached"` 0.138 0.069 0.106 0.313
Multifamily 0.033 0.014 0.016 0.062
Manufachued Homes 0.123 0.059 0.056 0.239
All Housing Types (blended) 0.130 0.070 0.097 0.297
• Analysis conducted in sununer 2005
"' Torvnhause and duplex units
Svuru: Orange County
Average Public School Shrdents Per housing Unit, 2A06-07
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS
Elementary School Students Per Housing Unit in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Actual Adjusted
Units* Students Students SY06-07** Rates
Single Family Detached '~ --14,89Z;~ 3,419 0.269
Single Family Attached -. 2,437~~ 336 0.756
Multifamily 75~360i 503 0.038
ManufaMured Homes 708j 87 0.141
._33402' 4,345 .},980
Middle School Students Per Housing Unit in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Actual Adjusted
Units* Students Students SY06-07** Rates
Single Family Detached 14,BTJ 11 1,972 0.143
Single Family Attarhed ~ 2, 337.! 168 '' O.OTi
Multifamily ~ '-15,360 i 210 0.07.5
Manufachued Homes f 708:'! 42 0.066
33 402 2,332 ` 259?
High School Students Per Housing Unit in 2006-07
Housing Estimated Actual Adjusted
Units* Studenk Students SY06-07"* Rates
Single Family Detached ~ -14,8971
i 2,708 0.797
'
Single Family Attached I 2 •}37 1 258 0.115
Multifamily ..15,360: 240 0.017
Manufactured Homes 708 ~ 40 0.061
33,302:! 3,24b ,_„ 3,520_;
.. :.
Summary: Average Ppbhc School Students Per Housing Unit, 2006-07
CHAPEL HILL-Ce1RRBORO SCHOOLS
Elementary Middle High All Grades
Single Pamily Detached 0.263 0.743 0.197 0:603
Single Family Attached 0.158 O.OTI ' 0.175 0.350
Multifamily 0.038 '. 0.075 -.0.017 0.070
Manufactured Homes 0.141 a.u6o 0.067 0268
All Housing Types (blended) 0.149 0.078 0.105 0.332
"Estinafe for July 1, 2006, Orange County Planning
•' Actual Student Membership as of Nav. 15, 2006, SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007.
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTAC; TrsdrlerBise
A-8
Tschler~ise
ilsciEeawmio 7, rlanning xumwants
APPENDIX
pRA~- SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe Courm SCHOOLS
Orange County, Norlfi Carolina
PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT ENROLLMENT TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
This section provides a summary of historical enrollment trends and projected enrollment
growth for each school district.
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Historical Enrollment
Since the 2000-01 school year, enrollment in Orange County Schools has increased by a total of
563 students with some fluctuation from year to year. Current total enrollment for the 2006-07
school year is 6,817. Yearly data for the past 6 years as well as the current actual enrollment are
shown below in Figure A6 for Orange County Schools.
Figure A6. Historical Public School Enrollments: Orange County Schools
Actual
- Base Yr.
L ,2000-01 2001-02 20112-03 i2UD3-04 _2004-d5 2005-06 2006-07
ENROLI.MF.NTS
Orange County Schools
Elementary 3,078 2,893 2,901 2,945 3,016 3,006 3,072
Middle 1,504 1,527 1,631 1,671 1,593 1,590 1,576
lEgh 1,672 1,753 1,828 1,887 2,057 2,124 2,169
Total 6,254 6,173 6,360 6,503 6,666 6,720 6,817
Net Increase
-81 187 143 163 54 97
* Actual enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007; for 2006-07, actual as of Naoember 15, 2006, date of membership.
Student Enrollment Projections8
Enrollment projections for Orange County Schools are based on historical actual student growth
with an additional layer to account for approved yet undeveloped housing in the City of
Mebane within the Orange County School District. This is an additional level of analysis than is
currently provided as part of the County's current Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
(SAPFO). The SAPFO system projects enrollment for two separate functions or activities. One is
capital improvement planning (C1P) and the other is growth or development management. One
projection methodology is used in capital planning and a separate projection system is used to
manage the impacts of new unbuilt development.
e Source: Orange County Planning.
A-9
Tischier~i~
Fltrif.Ecc.: r!n)C 1e t'.1.?n~~rg Conuiiants
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: O~uwoe Courm Scrloo~s
Orange County, North Carolina
This second system is known as the CAPS system or Certificate of Adequate Public Schools. The
SAPFO CAPS system records new development approvals and determines whether capacity
will be available in the prescribed year. If capacity is projected to be available then the
development is allowed to proceed; if capacity is not projected to be available, the certificate is
not issued until capacity is made available either by changes in enrollment or new capital
improvements.
This dual projection system works well because it helps synchronize capital needs and future
growth. In other words, it monitors the historic trends and adds and reflects new growth
patterns that may match or exceed past growth. In established, constant growth school districts,
the SAPFO CIP system usually adequately reflects future growth. However, in a school district
where growth is occurring where it has not occurred before, such as the portion of the City of
Mebane located in the Orange County School District, then using just the SAPFO CIP projection
method underestimates future CIl' needs since historical growth does not capture this new
development trend.
Therefore, in order to reflect more realistic capital planning needs for the Orange County School
District, it is suggested that the historical projections of the SAPFO CIl' system be layered with
approved yet unbuilt development in the Mebane area (using the CAPS method). The CAPS
method employs student generation rates by Type of housing unit to estimate future student
enrollment. This allows for a more realistic capital needs analysis to determine the need for
additional capacity from new growth.
As shown in Figure A7, current enrollment in Orange County Schools is 6,817. By the school
year 2016-17, County Schools are projected to have a total enrollment of 8,764, an increase of
1,947 students. This represents an average annual growth rate of approximately 2.9 percent.
Yearly detail by school level is provided below.
Figure A7. Projected Public School Enrollments: Orange County Schools
~_.,_...rv. ~__._ ..~..~., _--..... __.._..____ -----
;tictua]" Pmjecter] ,• --- --- ----- -,
73kreYr. 1 2 3 4 b 6 7 8 y 10 AvgGruUlr
2006-07 24D7-OS 200k?-09 2Qp9-10 201Ur11 2011-12 2012-13
.....,,..._.. ,.._, ...w ......... ........ ...... _>......~.. ,, .... ,,._. ~. 2033-14 2D1415 2015-16' 2016-17 Rate ,
ENROLLMENTS
orange County Schools
Elementary 3,072 3,150 3,311 3,368 3,450 3,532 3,615 3,697 3,779 3,861 3,944 2.8%
Middle 1,576 1,624 1,706 1,721 1,763 1,805 1,847 1,89D 1,932 1,974 2,016 2.8%
ugh 2,169 2,223 2,330 2,395 2,453 2,512 2,570 2,629 2,687 2,746 2,804 2.9%
Total 6,817 6,997 7,347 7,484 7,667 7,850 8,033 8,215 8,398 8,581 8,764 2.9%
Net Increase 97 180 350 137 183 183 183 183 183 183 183
Total Increase 1,947
* Ach+al enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annua! Report 2007; for 2006-07, ach+al as of November 15, 2006, date of membership).
** Orange County Planning
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTACAnnual Report 2007
A-10
Tischlerl~is~
iitW.Eca?rmlc ~ ~ Olannin~ G;mu!anti
APPENDIX
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe County $CHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
CHAPEL HILL-CARIZBORO CITY SCHOOLS
Historical Enrollment
Since the 2000-01 school year, enrollment has increased by a total of 1,507 students with some
fluctuation from year to year. Current total enrollment for the 2006-07 school year is 11,092.
Yearly data for the past 6 years as well as the current actual enrollment are shown below in
Figure A8 for CHCCS.
~ p ty ools
Fi a A8. Historical Public School Enrollments• Cha el Hill.-Carrboro Ci Sch
._
_ __
.._ _.___
~Actual* Actual"*
Buse Yrr
20U0-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-OS 2005-06 2006-07„
ENROLLMENTS
Chapel Bill-Carrboro Schools***
Elementary 4,444 4,474 4,551 4,692 4,695 4,879 4,980
Middle 2,326 2,540 2,608 2,612 2560 2,572 2,592
High 2,815 2,963 3,162 3,360 3,422 3,514 3,520
Total 9,585 9,977 .10,321 10,664 10,677 10,965 11,092
Nef Increase 392 344 343 13 288 127
* Actual enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007; for 2006-07, actual as of November 15, 2006, date of membership.
** SAPFOTACAnnual Report 2007
*** Figures do not include CHCCS students attending the Hospital School
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007
Student Enrollment Projections
For CHCCS, projections are from the SAPFOTAC 2007 Annual Report. Unlike Orange County
Schools, the projections based on historic growth adequately capture new growth throughout
the school district. As shown, current enrollment in CHCCS is 11,092. By the school year 2016-
17, CHCCS is projected to have a total enrollment of 13,658. This represents an average annual
growth rate of approximately 2.3 percent and a growth of 2,566 students over the ten-year
period. Yearly detail by school level is provided in Figure A9 below.
A-11
Tischlerl~i~
-F)su'.Ec0.Y+mlci P.Itrmirg ez;nku?anti
APPENDIX
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owarice Courtly $CHOOts
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure A9. Projected Public School Enrollments: Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
ActunI`" Yrnjected''
'
,. q,_:
;Z3asrYr. 1 2 3 4 `5 G 7 8 9 IO 1]e~gGriuth
'2006-07 2~U7-0B 2006-t1y 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-]5 2015-16. 2016-17_' " Rnte !.
IIVROLL11~1VT'S
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools***
Elementary 4,980 5,142 5,273 5,389 5,541 5,654 5,739 5,825 5,912 5,998 6,086 2.2%
Middle 2,592 2,622 2,686 2,772 2,833 2,902 2,989 3,108 3,185 3,226 3,267 2.6%
~~ 3,520 3,599 3,648 3,659 3,704 3,787 3,884 3,948 4,068 4,196 4,305 22%
Total 11,092 11,363 11,607 11,820 12,078 12,343 12,612 12,881 13,165 13,420 13,658 2.3%
Neflnerease 127 271 244 213 258 265 269 269 284 255 238
Totallntrease 2,566
'Actual enrollment figures (SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007; for 2006-07, actual as of Nooenther I5, 2006, date of membership).
•' SAPFOTAC Annual Report 2007
"'*Figures do not inctude CHCCS students attending the Hospital Schoo[
Sources: Orange County; SAPFOTACAt:nuai Report 2007
HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS
Projections of housing unit growth were derived from the student enrollment projections as
provided by Orange County Planning for Orange County Schools and from the SAPFOTAC for
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. These projections reflect anticipated growth throughout the
County including the Orange County side of the City of Mebane (within the Orange County
School System) and Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
Total housing units were derived for each school system using total enrollment and student
generation rates by system. Total units were then allocated by type of unit based on trends in
new housing unit construction over the past six years. Distribution by type of unit for each
district is shown in Figures 2 and 3 above and repeated below. The percentages reflect share of
new units constructed as opposed to percent of total housing stock. (For example, the net
increase in units is allocated to each housing unit category according to the percentages shown.)
As shown in Figure A10, the County is anticipated to experience residential development
growth in both school systems. Orange County Schools is projected to increase by 6,138 units
and CHCCS by 7,737 units over the next ten years.
A-12
Tischler~is~
rlrrx',F.ewa~mte~ Pla~ming CgnlU!ClntS
APPENDIX
p~ SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: O~uwoe Courriv SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Figure A10. Horsing Unit Projections
Achral"' Prajerted "
Base Yr. 1 2 3 4 ` 5 6 7 8 3 IO
20DG-07 2007-OS 'I 2008-09 . 2009,-10 20]0-11 20]1-]2 2D2-73 2013-14 201M15 2U7 Ali 2016-17
'JUSIlVG IIIVITS % of
Orange County Schools Nem UnBs
Single Family Detached _;:,...
744 %
14,978
15,449
16,261
16,578
17,002
17,426
17,849
18,273
18,697
19,121
,
Single Family Attd/Multifamily 16:1 % 1,447 1,549 1,725 1,793 1,885 1,977 2,068 2,160 2,252 2,344 2,435
Manufactured Homes 9.5'% 4,739 4,799 4,903 4,943 4,997 5,052 5,106 5,160 5,214 5,268 5,322
Total 21,164 21,798 22,888 23,315 23,884 24,454 25,024 25,593 26,163 26,732 27,302
Net Inerense in Units 634 1,090 427 570 570 570 570 570 570 570
Total Increase 6,138
of
Chapel Hill/Carrbom Schools Nero units
Single Family Detached 51.8% 14,897 15,324 15,704 16,037 16,439 16,853 17,273 17,692 18,135 18,533 18,905
Single Pamily Attached 17:9 % 2,437 2,584 2,716 2,831 2,970 3,113 3,258 3,403 3,556 3,694 3,822
Multifamily '28.9% 15,360 15,598 15,811 15,996 16,221 16,451 16,685 16,919 17,167 17,389 17,596.
IVtanufactured Homes 1.4 % 708 720 730 739 750 761 772 784 796 806 816
Total 33,402 34,226 34,961 35,602 36,380 37,178 37,988 38,798 39,654 40,422 41,139
Net Increase in Units 824 735 642 777 798 810 810 855 768 717
Total Increase 7,737
Total County
Total County Housing Units 54,566 56,023 57,849 58,917 60,264 61,632 63,011 64,391 65,816 67,154 68,441
* Ornnge County
** TischlerBise
SUMMARY
Annual demographic, development, and enrollment projections for the Schools Impact Fee
studies are summarized in Figure A11 below. Demographic data estimates for 2007 are used in
the fee calculations. As noted previously, the development and enrollment projections are. used
for the purpose of having an understanding of the future pace of service demands and cash
flows resulting from revenues and expenditures associated with those service demands.
A-13
Tischler~is~
-Flta!.[mivmlc Pr i'Jannirv6 crntu~:antt
x_~o
°Z °o
o~o~..,, o
~ N U
~~
z o
~Z
U
U' j
~U
O
C
W
O
CQ
C
~~
O
O
S
V
o~. 1f~1f~~ "~ r t`„. ~ m w v y N~ ~ ~ n .~i a "~ u~i a u00i
~
~ H o m `NN~ N
Vi N N ^~^
,~.. u ~:i N N ~ ~p l~ m M N N H N H V b n
x
P ~'" •~ ~(
•
a e
- ti m M ~ n °~ m ~ o n w
~
L b ~ r N
H E~ rM-~ v a°DO m
O~ y
tt ~ o m M~M p
O f
N M
n
;j O~ IIL
v O
; N N {2 N h
~D h pp GD ~D
j p
~
~ H
.j N ~
ry N ti H L
~
~ !M ~..~
2
~,y
~p ~ H N
~.... N y~ h
M ~
(J ~. ~.~
N r~--j
_ _ _
_. ._ ._ _.
0
v
d
~O
N
a
d
A
0
~'
l1
~d
..y
w
a
~ y Ey„
°
'
~ ~
~y ~2 F. F F H E ~
z ~ a
~ F
o ~,
N
~ r
U
v o
o o
x y
~
a r~ y
~
~ s~ a ¢
F
o " m
o ='
~ m
o e
F
a~ 8 °j no .@ W ' J .i„1- 'r~ O
~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ A
~ V O
o
Y~ U
~ ~
°
~ ~
v ~ ~
~ ,~' ys,
~ Z'
L° ~' v
a
~ j 5 5 ,2
~ ~'
~ ~ 8 ~ v
.~
O
w
H
m y
m
N ~ d G v
-~ ~tl v '~ Co ~ w
'O h0
m tJ
°:
o y 'b m m w w w
~ M
~ w w
~ ~ 5 'S w
m
,C
~ V ,,ft
O V ~ O W ~ ~ y
,t
V W ~ ~ H W ~ «"i~. 5 5
(~ O v] in ~ ,
V in in .~ .~ ~°n
y a
rt+
<C
Yd''
• af. u
~~++ ~
® ~.
'. ~.
~.
X ~ o
p O ~
Z O o
O
cn U
~Z
O
U ~.~'
C7 ~
~U
Oo
w a
~ ~
H
U
CdC
G
J
U
.1.1
U
0
.~
d
'o
R~
'~
r~
V
cV
.Q
w
I
I
I I I I i I i
I 1 I i I i
I I I I I I I
1
I
~
,
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I i
I I I I I I
I I I I i I
I I I 1 I I
I I I I i I
I I I I i I I
I
I
I
I
I' ~
°
N
~
I
i I I I I I I
I I I I i I
I I I I i I
I I I I i I
I I I I i I
I I I I i I I
I
I
I
I
I
O
N
I I I I i I
I I I I i I
I I I~ I I I I
I
I
~
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I
H
I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I
I N
I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I
I
~
'-I
I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I [n
H
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I i I I
I N
~
~ ~"
11 M I
I
I
I I I I I i I
I I I i I
I I I i I
I I I I I
I 1 I I
1
I
I
I
cn
H
N
N 0
O ~ I
I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 O
O U
I
I
I I I I I
I I I I I
i
I N
N ~
~
O I
I
I I I 1 I 1 I
I I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I
I
i
N
N
~ I I I I 1 I i ~
V
~ S.
.~.y •~+. I
I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I 1
I I i I I i i
I
i
N
0 ~
O I
I
I I I I I I i
I I i I I i
I I 1 1 I i i
i
I
U
++ ~
3 ~
I
I
I
I I i I I I
I I i I I I
I I i I I i
1
1
I ~
O
°
1~1 ~ I
I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I i I
I N
_
O I
I
I
I I I i I I I
I I I i I I
I I i I I I
I i i I I I
I
I
I
0
n
•~ I
I
I
I I I i I I
i I I i I I
1 I I i I I
I 1 I I i I I
I
I
I ~
°
0
N
"~,,,) 7 I I I i I I
~ H y I
I I I I 1 I
I I I ~i I
i I
I
I ~
°
~~ ~ ~
O ~
M ~
w •~ ~ I
I
^^ I
y l I I I
I
I I I i I
I I I i I
I I I i I
I
I
I ~
O
N
h O
O O O
C x ~ 'CS I
~ I
f/) I I 1 I i I
I I 1 I i I
I I I I i I I
I
I
W
,,. ~ ~
(`fj ~ u '~ I
I
I I I I i i I
I I I i i I
I I I i i I I
I
I °
~
°
O
U ~ O I
U I I I I I i I
1 I I I i I I
I N
`~ ~ `~
¢~r,~ ¢~ ~ I
G I I I I I I I
I I I I I I i
i
O ~ I
O I
I I I I I i I
I I I I i I
I I I I i I i
i
i L\
O
~
O
I
I
I I I I I i I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I
i °
N
°o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °o °
0
~W 0
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M M N N H ~ ~
Lf1
~--i
~ ~.u
~'
5:
~/~/~
•o
~~
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Owwoe Courrrv SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Orange County has been granted authority by the State of North Carolina to implement impact fees for
schools, the acquisition of land for open space and greenways, capital improvements to public streets,
bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, on and off street surface water drainage ditches, pipes, culverts, other
drainage facilities, water and sewer facilities and public recreation facilities: The County is pursuing
impact fees for schools at this time. A copy of the applicable sections of the Act is provided in this
Appendix.
TISChIer~~S~ A-i6
flxce,knvnnicar.PlSnnsn~Caswk~nts
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ow4t~GE CouMY SCHOOIS
Orange Counfy, North Carolina
Note: Only Title VI (Orange County Impact Fees) is shown.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
1987 SESSION
CHAPTER 460
HOUSE BILL 917
AN ACT MAKING SUNDRY AMENDMENTS CONCERNING LOCAL GOVERNIV~NTS IN
ORANGE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES.
///
TITLE VI. ORANGE COUNTY IlVIPACT FEES.
Sec. 17. G.S. 153A-331 is amended by identifying the existing provisions as subsection (a)
and by adding new subsections to read:
"(b) Impact Fees Authorized.
(1) Orange County may provide by ordinance for a system of impact fees to be paid by
developers to help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital
improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new
development that takes place within the County.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term capital improvements includes the
acquisition of land 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.
(3) An ordinance adopted under this subsection may be made applicable to all
development that occurs within the County.
(c) Amount of Fees. In establishing the amount of any impact fee, the County shall endeavor to
approach the objective of having every development contribute to a capital improvements fund an amount
of revenue that bears a reasonable relationship to that development's fair share of the costs of the capital
improvements that are needed in part because of that development. In fulfilling this objective; the County
shall; among other steps and actions:
(1) Estimate the total cost of improvements by category (e.g., streets, sidewalks, drainage
ways, etc.) that will be needed to provide in a reasonable manner for the public
health, 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 estimate the costs of needed
improvements within each district. These estimates shall be periodically reviewed
and updated and the planning period used may be changed from time to time.
(2) Establish a percentage of the total costs of each category of improvement that, in
keeping with the objective set forth above, should fairly be borne by those paying the
impact fee.
(3) Establish a formula that fairly and objectively apportions the total costs that are to be
borne by those paying impact fees among various types of developments. By way of
illustration without limitation:
Tischler~ise A-1~
Flact~,[cad~mie&.Plynn~n~Ccn:ulianti.
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Ow4r~oe County $CHOOts
Orange County, North Corolina
a. In the case of street improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
number of trips per day generated by different types of uses according to
recognized estimates;
b. In the case of drainage improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
size of a development, the amount of impervious surface the development
has, or other factors that bear upon the degree to which a development
contributes to the need for drainage improvements made at public expense.
(d) Capital Improvements Reserve Funds: Expenditures.
(1) Impact fees received by the County shall be deposited in a capital improvements
reserve fund or funds established under Chapter 159 of the General Statutes, Article
3, Part 2. Such funds may be expended only on the type of capital improvements for
which such impact fees were established, and then only in accordance with the
provision of subsection (2) of this section.
(2) In order to 'ensure 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.
(e) Credits for Improvements. An impact fee ordinance shall make provision for credits against
required fees when a developer installs improvements of a type that generally would be paid for by the
County out of a capital reserve account funded by impact fees. The ordinance may spell out the
circumstances under which a developer will be allowed to install such improvements and receive such
credits.
(f) Appeals Procedure. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as provided herein may provide
that any person aggrieved by a decision regarding an impact fee may appeal to the Orange County Board
of Adjustment. If the ordinance establishes an appeals procedure, it shall spell out the time within which
the appeal must be taken to the board of adjustment, the possible grounds for an appeal and the board's
authority in the matter, whether the fee must be paid prior to resolution of the appeal, and other
procedural or substantive matters related to appeals. Any decision by the board. of adjustment shall be
subject to review by the superior court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari in the same manner as is
provided in G.S. 153A-345.
(g) Payment of Impact Fees. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as herein provided shall spell
out when in the process of development approval-and construction impact fees shall be paid and by
whom. By way of illustration .without limitation, the ordinance may provide that an applicant for a
building permit shall submit the impact fee along with the permit application and that building permits
shall not be issued until the impact fee has been paid.
(h) Refunds. If this section or any ordinance adopted thereunder is declared to be unconstitutional
or otherwise invalid, then any impact fees collected shall be refunded to the person paying them together
with interest at the rate established under G.S. 105-241.1, being the same rate paid by the Secretary of
Revenue on refunds for tax overpayments.
(i) Limitations on Actions.
(1) Any action contesting the validity of an ordinance adopted as herein provided must be
commenced not later than nine months after the effective date of such ordinance.
(2) Any action seeking to recover an impact fee must be commenced not later than nine
months after the impact fee. is paid."
Sec. 17.1. Section 17 of this act shall apply only to Orange County, and applies only within
the planning jurisdiction of Orange County.
TISChIer~iS~ A-18
ilu:~'',[[uo~nicai.Plizntnp Cen:u~~nli.
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Or~oe Cout~n SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
Sec. 18. G.S. 153A-340 is amended by identifying the existing provisions as subsection (a)
and by adding new subsections to read:
"(b) Impact Fees Authorized.
(1) Orange County may provide by ordinance for a system of impact fees to be paid by
developers to help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital
improvements, the need for which is created in substantial part by the new
development that takes place within the County.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term capital improvements includes the
acquisition of land 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.
(3) An ordinance adopted under this subsection may be made applicable to all
development that occurs within the County.
(c) Amount of Fees. In establishing the amount of any impact fee, the County shall endeavor to
approach the objective of having every development contribute to a capital improvements fund an amount
of revenue that bears a reasonable relationship to that development's fair share of the costs of the capital
improvements that aze needed in part because of that development. In fulfilling this objective, the County
shall, among other steps and actions:
(1) Estimate the total cost of improvements by category (e.g., streets, sidewalks, drainage
ways, etc.) that will be needed to provide in a reasonable manner for the public
health, 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 estimate the costs of needed
improvements within each district. These estimates shall be periodically reviewed
and updated and the planning period used may be changed from time to time.
(2) Establish a percentage of the total costs of each category of improvement that, in
keeping with the objective set forth above, should fairly be borne by those paying the
impact fee.
(3) Establish a formula that fairly and objectively apportions the total costs that are to be
borne by those paying impact fees among various types of developments. By way of
illustration without limitation:
a. In the case of street. improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
number of trips per day generated by different types of uses according to
recognized estimates;
b. In the case of drainage improvements, the impact fee may be related to the
size of a development, the amount of impervious surface the development
has, or other factors that bear upon the degree to which a development
contributes to the need for drainage improvements made at public expense.
(d) Capital Improvements Reserve Funds: Expenditures.
(1) Impact fees received by the County shall be deposited in a capital improvements
reserve fund or funds established under Chapter 159 of the General Statutes, Article
3, Part 2. Such funds may be expended only on the type of capital improvements for
which such impact fees were established, and then only in accordance with the
provision of subsection (2) of this section.
(2) In order to ensure 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
TISChIGr~iSe A-19
Fiu:2,C[h~onie&.RlanninR Can:u?ianli.
APPENDIX
DRAFT SCHOOL IMPACT FEES: Otuw~e Courrrv SCHOOLS
Orange County, North Carolina
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.
(e) Credits for Improvements. An impact fee ordinance shall make provision for credits against
required fees when a developer installs improvements of a type that generally would be paid for by the
County out of a capital reserve account funded by impact fees. The ordinance may spell out the
circumstances under which a developer will be allowed to install such improvements and receive such
credits.
(f) Appeals Procedure. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as provided herein may provide
that any person aggrieved by a decision regarding an impact fee may appeal to the Orange County Board
of Adjustment. If the ordinance establishes an appeals procedure, it shall spell out the time within which
the appeal must be taken to the board of adjustment, the possible grounds for an appeal and the board's
authority in the matter, whether the fee must be paid prior to resolution of the appeal, and other
procedural or substantive matters related to appeals. Any decision by the board of adjustment shall be
subject to review by the superior court by proceedings in the nature of certiorari in the same manner as is
provided in G.S. 153A-345.
(g) Payment of Impact Fees. An ordinance authorizing impact fees as herein provided shall spell
out when in the process of development approval and construction impact fees shall be paid and by
whom. By way of illustration without limitation, the ordinance may provide that an applicant for a
building permit shall submit the impact fee along with the permit application and that building permits
shall not be issued until the impact fee has been paid.
(h) Refunds. If this section or any ordinance adopted thereunder is declared to be unconstitutional
or otherwise invalid, then any impact fees collected shall be refunded to the person paying them together
with interest at the rate established under G.S. 105-241.1, being the same rate paid by the Secretary of
Revenue on refunds for tax overpayments.
(i) Limitations on Actions.
(1) Any action contesting the validity of an ordinance adopted as herein provided must be
commenced not later than nine months after the effective date of such ordinance.
(2) Any action seeking to recover an impact fee must be commenced not later than nine
months after the impact fee is paid."
Sec. 18.1. Section 18 of this act shall apply only to Orange County, and applies only within
the planning jurisdiction of Orange County.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 23rd day of June, 1987.
Tischler~~se A-2o
t1acA,tcusnnilc5r.Plinfhq~C~~.uSanti-