Minutes - 20020417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Joint Planning Agreement Timeline NOTE: This item was to discuss whether or not it would be desirable to initiate a time extension of the annexation provisions of the Joint Planning Agreement. Chapel Hill Planning staff member Chris Berndt quickly reviewed this information. There are two issues. The annexation provisions have a time limit of 20 years and the agreement itself does remain in effect until it is terminated and does not have a time limit. The staff is suggesting that the boards discuss whether the staff should proceed with the process to initiate amendments to the agreement to extend the 20-year period. If so, a fall, 2002 joint public hearing could be scheduled. The annexation provisions are that we agreed not to annex into each other's jurisdictions and also not into the rural buffer. A motion was made by Bill Strom, seconded by Mayor Nelson to refer this to the Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro Managers and staff to bring back an amendment for consideration at the next JPA meeting in fall 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance NOTE: This item was to discuss decision options an the seven issues to be decided before the Schools APFO ordinance can go into effect. In addition, to discuss guidance regarding who will be responsible and when the seven key issues can be organized and recommended (see agenda abstract} Craig Benedict said that many of the jurisdictions have discussed this item extensively. The Town of Chapel Hill has approved the memorandum of understanding, which includes a model APFO. There are issues within the APFO that will be addressed in some manner before it is implemented. He listed the seven issues that have been discussed at various times. 1) Level of service limits at each school level (MOU Section 1) -level of service means what percentage of the capacity of the school is reasonable for children to attend. The first sat of numbers discussed with the various boards has been 105°~ for elementary, 107% for middle, and 110°~ for high school. All parties must agree to the percentages before they are implemented. 2) Membership determination date (MOU Section 1 a) -historical membership dates could be used for school projection into the future. 3) Building capacity (MOU Section 1 b} -building capacity should be standardized as much as possible. 4) Capital Improvement Plan (MOU Section 1c[i)) -the capital improvement plan needs to support the student projections. The Capital Improvement Plan will be used as the basis for when capacity is added into the APFO model in future years. 5) Student Growth Rate (MOU Section 1 c(ii)} -this number can be different in each school district because of changing growth trends. The PlannerslSchool Representatives Work Group could bring recommendations forward on this. 6) Student Projection Method (MOU Section 1 c(iii)} -there are many different methods for student projection. By standardizing the information in items 1-3, a model can be chosen that fits the information best. These issues can be reexamined each year. The PlannerslSchool Representatives Work Group could bring recommendations about this. 7) Student Generation Rate per Dwelling Unit {MOU Section 1c(iv)) -this rate is for new development dwelling units. The Planners/School Representatives Work Group could bring recommendations forward on this. The SAPFO formula is as follows: Available capacity =building capacity minus membership plus new development.