Browse
Search
Agenda 02-17-22; 7-a - Development Fiscal Impact Study
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2022
>
Agenda - 02-17-2022 Virtual Business Meeting
>
Agenda 02-17-22; 7-a - Development Fiscal Impact Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2022 1:15:17 PM
Creation date
2/10/2022 1:06:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/17/2022
Meeting Type
Business
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7-a
Document Relationships
Agenda for February 17, 2022 BOCC Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\BOCC Archives\Agendas\Agendas\2022\Agenda - 02-17-2022 Virtual Business Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
1 <br /> ORANGE COUNTY <br /> BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: February 17, 2022 <br /> Action Agenda <br /> Item No. 7-a <br /> SUBJECT: Development Fiscal Impact Study <br /> DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections <br /> ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br /> UNDER SEPARATE COVER Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections <br /> PowerPoint Presentation Director, 919-245-2585 <br /> (To be provided prior to or at the Perdita Holtz, Planner 111, 919-245-2575 <br /> meeting) <br /> PURPOSE: To receive information on a study and hear a presentation from the consultant <br /> TischlerBise, Inc. <br /> BACKGROUND: Orange County has informally understood the fiscal impacts of new <br /> development and what general land uses provided a net positive or negative revenue and <br /> expenditure (cost of services). <br /> Studies from over ten years ago made some generalizations that the combined categories of <br /> residential (different densities), non-residential (combined office, industrial retail) and agricultural. <br /> Results of that generalized study showed residential development cost more in government <br /> services than monies received in Tax and other revenue sources, and contrastingly, non- <br /> residential and agricultural were net positive in the revenue/expenditure balance. <br /> However, this type of study had its limitations because it did not analyze the varied land use types <br /> with varying density or intensity, so a new study was commissioned through Tischler-Bise, a <br /> national firm with expertise in this research area. This new study provides a higher resolution of <br /> analysis with more land use types and also by different areas. It should be noted that both studies <br /> (past and present) only related to the County revenue/expenditure program and not the cost <br /> revenue benefit realized in municipalities. This study could also be modified to include the <br /> municipalities at additional expense. <br /> This study and its findings do not have a direct relationship in the Unified Development Ordinance <br /> (UDO). Whether a project has a net positive or negative is not the basis of an approval or denial, <br /> but may be considered in some legislative decisions. <br /> Julie Herlands of TischlerBise, Inc. will provide a PowerPoint on the findings and address any <br /> comments and questions, and County staff will also assist with questions and answers. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.