Minutes - 20020417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Craig Benedict said that the timeframe would came from the elected bodies. In summary, the SAPFO can give us another tool to put in our land development toolbox. This tool would be used when a new development comes forward to gauge the impacts of the development upon our schools. Chair Jacobs asked for clarification an what the staff is asking the boards to do. Craig Benedict said that the seven issues are elements of the memorandum of understanding distributed by the Schools and Land Use Council. Some of the issues will be decided by certain task forces. This item is for general information tonight. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that the level of service and the membership determination date were in the MOU right now. There would have to be some agreement to change this. Craig Benedict agreed that there were some items already in the MOU, but there are also some items yet to be decided. Mark Kleinschmidt asked for clarification on the jurisdictions, which will consider this ordinance. Craig Benedict said that items 5, 6, 7 could be considered by the Planning Directors of the jurisdictions. The Capital Improvement Plan would be considered by the County Commissioners only. Building Capacity and Membership Data is primarily a product of the school districts with some input by the County Commissioners. He said that every jurisdiction would have to be happy with each issue, or it will not be incorporated into the respective land development codes. Ultimately, all of the local governments and all of the school districts have to be in agreement on all seven issues for the SAPFO to function. In the process, there is some delegation of responsibility. Mark Kleinschmidt asked if every jurisdiction would be involved in the yearly evaluations. Craig Benedict said that if any of the parties are not happy with the formula after the first year, that entity could decide to opt out of the agreement. Mayor Foy said that what it says in the MOU is if any change is going to be made, then the County Commissioners will consider it and refer it to all parties. Jim Ward read from the agenda as follows: "The County Commissioners are in a position to modify all of the variables based an their judgment and anything that they do change, the County Commissioners shall inform the other parties to this memorandum prior to February 15t, in which such change is intended to become effective, and why it was necessary." He said that it does not say anything about a public process that would allow elected officials and the general public to respond. Craig Benedict said that during the certification process of the new data, there would be discourse on any changes made. When the report comes back from the Planners/School Representatives work group, the information will be distributed to all parties, and if there is some difficulty, it can be expressed to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Gardon made reference to pages 25 and 26 of the agenda. The levels of service are already in the MOU. The membership date of November 15t" is also in the MOU. The building capacity is going to be determined by the school districts and by the County Commissioners. At the beginning, everyone must agree with the provisions of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. However, once the APFO is adopted, the Orange County Board of Commissioners 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 mare accurately. Before doing this, the Board must consider the recommendations of the staff committee. The County Commissioners will have to inform everyone if they decide to make a change. She pointed out that everyone had to agree on the CIP in the initiating phase, but in the recurring phase, it is up to the County Commissioners to decide on the CIP. She spoke about the capacities as set in the MOU and said that the only concern is the high school in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schaols district. In her judgment, if the building capacities and membership numbers are correct, then we can start the SAPFO without having an immediate moratorium and issuing of CAPS. Alex Zaffran said that the language that Commissioner Gordon sited earlier in section D refers to the idea that the County Commissioners may change the methodology of the student membership growth rate. He said that being able to change the methodology unilaterally affects every portion of the formula. The concern that has been raised is that even after the lengthy review and the input from the staff members and the representatives from the other governing boards, the lack of an advice and consent clause in the MOU to undertake that action may have the effect of undermining the effectiveness