Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 1 governments were all part of the model showing the growth that will come into communities. <br /> 2 She said that Chapel Hill and Carrboro were very involved in this process. <br /> 3 Chair Price said that over the years she has come to understand more of what TJCOG <br /> 4 does and while it is hard to estimate, looking at census data and economic development here <br /> 5 and surrounding counties, more and more people are coming to NC. She asked if heavy rains <br /> 6 really replenish the water tables and aquifers. She suggested OWASA also engage the Chinese <br /> 7 School and the Interfaith Food Council, in addition to El Centro and NAACP, regarding the open <br /> 8 positions on the OWASA Board of Directors. <br /> 9 Commissioner Hamilton asked what percentage of Chapel Hill/Carrboro residences have <br /> 10 well water and septic. She asked what would happen if everyone had OWASA water and if that <br /> 11 went into the models. <br /> 12 Ruth Rouse said the model assumed that the service area would not change. She said <br /> 13 that if service areas changed then it would change those models. <br /> 14 Todd Taylor said the model is accounting for this as best it can based on zoning for <br /> 15 future areas. He said that it is not a huge additional demand. <br /> 16 Commissioner Hamilton said it came to mind thinking about potential future flooding and <br /> 17 wells becoming unsafe. <br /> 18 Chair Price said if there is a significant recharge then some people may need to join the <br /> 19 OWASA system. <br /> 20 Ruth Rouse said single residential units would not put a huge strain on the system, but <br /> 21 larger developments would. <br /> 22 Chair Price said they will work to get information out about the available payment plans <br /> 23 and thanked OWASA staff for their presentation. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 5. Public Hearings <br /> 26 None. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 6. Regular Agenda <br /> 29 None. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 7. Reports <br /> 32 a. Development Fiscal Impact Study <br /> 33 The Board received information on a study and hear a presentation from the consultant <br /> 34 TischlerBise, Inc. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 BACKGROUND: Orange County has informally understood the fiscal impacts of new <br /> 37 development and what general land uses provided a net positive or negative revenue and <br /> 38 expenditure (cost of services). <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Studies from over ten years ago made some generalizations that the combined categories of <br /> 41 residential (different densities), non-residential (combined office, industrial retail) and <br /> 42 agricultural. Results of that generalized study showed residential development cost more in <br /> 43 government services than monies received in Tax and other revenue sources, and <br /> 44 contrastingly, non-residential and agricultural were net positive in the revenue/expenditure <br /> 45 balance. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 However, this type of study had its limitations because it did not analyze the varied land use <br /> 48 types with varying density or intensity, so a new study was commissioned through Tischler-Bise, <br /> 49 a national firm with expertise in this research area. This new study provides a higher resolution <br /> 50 of analysis with more land use types and by different areas. It should be noted that both studies <br /> 51 (past and present) only related to the County revenue/expenditure program and not the cost <br />