OCPB minutes 110216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12/7/2016 5 Paul Guthrie: The price of land in this county, especially in the bottom half or two thirds, is one of the biggest 212 problems in getting any kind of modest housing. Because you can’t build without a huge land cost and then on top 213 of that, because there’s largely not environmental systems in place of more density for smaller houses you get an 214 extra cost for trying to build a smaller house because of the changing dynamic of this county. I don’t know if this 215 says anything about that in great detail but you’ve heard my sermon about what I think is a dangerous thing to 216 continue the limitation of the extension of public utility lines to unbuilt areas of the county. They’re not going to stop 217 it and that’s a rolling cost over time. If you build these smaller places that are on a septic system or even a common 218 septic system 10-15 years from now they’re going to have to have public water or sewage system and that’s going 219 to immediately throw the market out of kilter again. Those are the kinds of things that worry me. 220 221 Craig Benedict: There have been discussions about what creates the higher cost of housing and higher cost of 222 land. And the urban service boundary and restriction, when the demand’s high and the supply’s low that’s what 223 creates it. Now in other parts of the United States where you’ve had these urban service boundaries they were 224 interim urban service boundaries until you built, supposedly as efficiently as you could, inside there and then said, 225 “Hey, we still have another 20,000 people coming, let’s pop the boundary out” after you had preserved whatever 226 green belts. It won’t be me proposing that, to move the rural buffer line. 227 228 Lisa Stuckey: We tried. We tried for a school. You have to get all the jurisdictions to agree and it went nowhere. 229 230 Tony Blake: Yeah, it’s a little like trying to combine the school system. 231 232 Craig Benedict: So with that in mind the intensification of the remaining land is necessary. Probably less single-233 family in the municipal areas; they’re going to have to go. We’re predicting 65% multi-family will probably be 234 occurring on the remaining land. Now in the rural parts of the county there will be single-family and I think there are 235 some opportunities. But we’re trying to still be as efficient as possible and if new housing is put on, well and septic, 236 there needs to be some of those things in mind in case there are failures. This topic we could have a little ORC 237 meeting on it, in the coming months because I think that’s going to be coming up. 238 239 Craig Benedict continued presentation. 240 241 Lydia Wegman: Do you think there’s any chance of consistency? 242 243 Craig Benedict: I think there is. We have an Efland implementation focus group, we might have to bring back that 244 community group and say this is what our goal is. I think that will be a challenge but we might have some that could 245 fit across. We might have some opportunities there. Fiscal impact analysis, maybe not as much activity with this 246 Board, but the idea is to find out all of the different services that are provided by the County. There’s probably not 247 too many Board members here that used to see the fiscal impact template that was included as part of our 248 subdivision analysis. We had it for many years. It got so far out of date and it has really had a lot of weaknesses. It 249 had a lot of good ideas but one of fallacies was that no matter what the school costs were there was going to be 250 revenues coming in to pay for the school cost. So we got rid of that and we don’t make the decision on a 251 subdivision project if it pays for itself. That’s just not our role. 252 253 Tony Blake: I have one comment because we’re voting on a bond now to fix the schools that have been neglected 254 for the last 15 years that weren’t paid for and I don’t know the problems in the school budget or the problems in 255 planning but I think our impact fee structure is not sufficient to maintain the schools or something is not sufficient to 256 maintain the schools. And the bond seems kind of like a backdoor tax increase. I’m not against spending money on 257 schools but I want to make sure that if they have a maintenance item that it should be covered and planned for and 258 that’s the linkage back to here. 259 260 Craig Benedict: That’s a big topic. Our school impact fees are for new development and increasing the capacity for 261 schools and capital costs like buses. The maintenance of the existing schools, we can’t use the money for those 262 purposes. There has been mention of the transfer tax for people that buy and sell houses but that has other 263 consequences. And then the funding formula from the state has changed and leaves the school district short. 264