Minutes - 19960129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

to update the technical report and present it at public hearing in May. This would be enough time to implement a new system for 1996-97 fiscal year. Land for Future School Sites The fifth item requesting municipalities to consider limiting the rate of approval of new residential development so as not to out-pace the ability of the County to provide additional schools has not been addressed yet. John Link indicated that this item will be discussed later. Commissioner Gordon asked that this item be added to the Assembly of Governments meeting on February 29 or the municipalities could be requested to consider this item and start thinking about it. Mark Royster said that a developer cannot be denied the right to develop because of a lack of schools. That is why it is more important than ever to collaborate with other governmental bodies. In answer to a question about enabling legislation, Geoffrey Gledhill said that someone cannot be denied the right to build a house because the County cannot provide the schools for education. Local governments can place development moratorium for a specific period of time. However, he is not sure it is legal to use a moratorium to slow down development. Haverland indicated he would not like to limit the growth in the northern end of the County. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested further discussion on this item before asking the municipalities to do anything. Commissioner Willhoit mentioned that in the Joint Planning Area they have no rezonings until 75% of the land is developed. Maybe this could work in other areas. Item number 6 to request the Town of Chapel Hill to reserve a school site in the proposed Meadowmont development has been accomplished. School Facility Construction & Utilization Neil Pedersen made reference to multi-track schools and said that they are doing a survey which is due back this Friday. The Board will discuss the results of that survey at their Planning Conference scheduled for February 15. William Harrison said they are looking at a single-track school at the old A.L. Stanback School for 300-350 students. This will be available to all students in the County School District. Capital Funding Options In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about his plan for funding two schools, Neil Pedersen said that they have not decided they don't need a middle school. They just feel that an elementary school and an addition to the new high school needs to be done first. They feel that they can work out some financial options to pay for these two items. The plan is not perfect and they will need to make some sacrifices the first five years of the plan. However, they feel they can meet their current renovation needs and make payments on the new elementary and high school addition. They need the new elementary and high school addition for year 1999-2000 and they will need a new middle school for 2000-2001. Larry Haverland said that with developments like University Manor and a possible release of 200 students from Alamance County, the Orange County Schools may soon need a new elementary school. 5. AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE BUILDING RETROFIT AS A POSSIBLE USE OF IMPACT FEE PROCEEDS With regard to the amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance, Geoffrey Gledhill indicated that public comments will be received on February 26 at which time the Board of County Commissioners can vote to approve the amendment effective immediately. This will allow Orange County Schools to use their impact fee proceeds for renovations. In answer to a question from Keith Cook, John Link said that the impact fee may be increased after the technical report is finished and the increase is justified in that report. Right now it could be increased from $750 to $1200 in the Orange County School District.