Meeting 061595 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

FISCAL IMPACT: The area of fiscal impact is one where the differences in approach among the four alternative scenarios is most apparent. As a result, the Rural Character design has significantly - different long -term impacts. Residential Impacts The 10 -year buildout assumption for this scenario shows a dramatic fiscal change from early in the development to the latter years of buildout. The Rural Character alternative begins with a positive net fiscal impact for the first four years, before turning sharply negative in the final six years of the analysis. To illustrate (Section 3), in 1999 the net fiscal impact of the design is + $6,227. However, by the time all of the lots are built (2005), the costs outweigh the revenues to the tune of $181,246. The ten -year fiscal impact of this alternative sharply differs from the results of the three previous alternatives, which had varying degrees of positive impact. This dramatic difference can be explained by a number of reasons and variables: o The previous impact analyses were not as specific about different land uses and housing types as the Rural Character alternative. Those analyses instead assumed universal "high- dollar" development, which produces a much larger revenue base. For example, the average sales price for all units in the Neo- Traditional alternative is $190,000, based on current market prices for single - family homes in Chapel Hill's Southern Village. However, a substantial number of the Neo - Traditional units would be multi- family units likely to have a significantly -lower average cost. The Rural Character average value includes 160 apartments at $26,375 and 80 townhomes at $83,000. o The most significant reason for the differential in net fiscal impact is the lower average value of units in the Rural Character design. The Rural Character design includes 379 smaller urban lots, an additional 99 urban affordable housing lots, the afore- mentioned townhomes and apartments, and many open -space development lots. Adding all of these together, the overall average value in the Rural Character design is $153,352. This is $30,000 less than the Conventional -H and Density - Neutral alternatives, and $37,000 less than the Neo - Traditional. The fiscal difference of $37,000 per lot multiplied by 1,770 lots over a 10 year period is substantial, and explains much of the difference. o Market adjustments were made in some cases to account for lower prices in the Hillsborough market. This was not done in previous alternatives. o The value of comparison units in the Rural Character alternative was based on tax value. The previous alternatives were adjusted in some cases with higher "market value." o The value of open space in the open -space developments is not factored in, as it was in the Density - Neutral alternative. o The final templates from the class report use a lower number of educational employees than the Rural Character design, affecting the amount of funding needed. The Rural Character alternative uses 744.5 employees based on recent information from the schools, while the previous analyses assume 619 employees to be funded. In summary, the specific nature of the Rural Character alternative about .affordable housing units, the lower value of smaller lots without open -space value, and the other factors outlined above explain the vast majority of the differences in the net fiscal impact of this alternative, as compared with previous designs. In subsequent months, further fiscal analyses will be undertaken which will make comparisons of the alternatives more consistent with each other, by adjusting for the different assumptions and factors inherent in each.