Browse
Search
IPRWG memo 012401
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Intergovernmental Parks Work Group
>
Other documents
>
IPRWG memo 012401
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2020 3:47:40 PM
Creation date
2/5/2020 3:45:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
30 5/ 26/ 99 <br /> 2 . Impact Fees and Impact Taxes <br /> An impact fee requires the developer to pay a fee representing the <br /> prorated cost of providing community - wide and area - wide recreational <br /> facilities required by this new development . The use of the fee <br /> requires authority from the legislature through enabling legislation , <br /> and Orange County currently has the authority to levy such impact <br /> fees . Orange County also has a Public School Facilities Impact Fee , but <br /> no other impact fee is currently in use in the county for any other <br /> services . In using these fees , there must be exhibited a correlation <br /> showing the ( 1 ) actual need created by the impact of the development <br /> and ( 2 ) benefits provided to the particular subdivision . <br /> By contrast , an impact tax allows for recognition that all impacts are <br /> not equal . Impact taxes may be assessed in graduated levels and do <br /> not require the " one size fits all " regressive nature fee scale that exists <br /> for impact fees . Orange County has , in previous years , sought impact <br /> tax legislation from the State to provide for possible reassessment of <br /> the Public School Impact Fee program . <br /> C . Current Status of Payment- in - Lieu Throughout <br /> the County <br /> Methods of assessing a development 's recreation impact vary across <br /> the different jurisdictions within Orange County . Appendix G indicates <br /> the method by which Orange County and Carrboro calculate their <br /> payment required for the payment - in - lieu program . Orange County <br /> also has special legislation which allows payments to be collected and <br /> spent on a " district " basis . Instead of using a set schedule of <br /> payments , Chapel Hill negotiates based on individual development <br /> proposals while Hillsborough seeks dedication of land instead of <br /> payments . The appendix also shows the efforts of other selected <br /> jurisdictions throughout the country in acquiring land for recreation <br /> and open space needs . <br /> In terms of the reality of the programs , in Carrboro , many <br /> developments choose to provide private recreation facilities rather <br /> than payment - in4eu . Carrboro has collected $ 453 , 000 to date . Both <br /> Chapel Hill and Hillsborough do not have detailed central records of the <br /> results of payments or individually negotiated fees and land donations . <br /> Orange County has required payments since 1988 , and has <br /> accumulated these payments in a fund totaling $ 488 , 000 . <br /> It is clear in a broad overview , however, that the current system of <br /> land acquisition has been insufficient to meet citizens ' needs . Several <br /> problems arise in assessing the current adequacy of our parklands and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.