Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
O R A N G E C O U N T Y 1 <br /> BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: April 20, 1993 <br /> Agenda Abstract <br /> Item # VIr- _. <br /> SUBJECT: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT <br /> DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Yes No <br /> ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: <br /> Sample Impact Analyses Planning Director X2592 <br /> [Refer to 4/5/93 Agenda Packet] <br /> Planning Director 4/6/93 Memo PHONE NUMBERS: <br /> Analyses Comparison Sheet Hillsborough 732-8181 <br /> Mebane 227-2031 <br /> Durham 688-7331 <br /> Chapel Hill 967-9251 <br /> PURPOSE: To present a report on the assumptions and <br /> methodology used in generating fiscal impact <br /> analyses for residential development. <br /> This item has been carried over from the April 5, <br /> 1993 Commissioners' meeting. <br /> BACKGROUND: At its goal setting retreat in December 1992 , the <br /> Board of Commissioners expressed a desire to receive <br /> a report on the assumptions and methodology used in <br /> generating fiscal impact analyses for residential <br /> development. In 1993, the staff has presented fiscal <br /> impact analyses for two subdivisions during the <br /> approval process. In addition, an analysis in <br /> connection with a Comprehensive Plan amendment has <br /> been prepared. It is thus appropriate to review the <br /> information at this time. This report provides the <br /> requested information and compares the newer <br /> methodology [service standard approach] being used <br /> now with the methodology [per capita multiplier <br /> approach] used for previous fiscal impact analyses, <br /> such as the ones included as part of the 1992 report <br /> on public school impact fees. <br /> Three analyses are provided for comparison. The <br /> first is an analysis of Mel Oaks Subdivision <br /> included as part of the Public School Impact Fee <br /> Report. It was prepared using the per capita <br /> multiplier approach and 1989-90 budget data. The <br /> second analysis is also of Mel Oaks Subdivision but <br /> substitutes the service standard approach. The last <br /> analysis is also of Mel Oaks Subdivision but <br /> utilizes 1992-93 budget data and the service <br /> standard approach. <br /> RECOMMENDATION: That the Board receive the report for information. <br />