Savvy Campaign Finance Policy

[Anonymous]

In order to prime the pump for 2005 campaign contributions, the Cary Council is considering another 30% cut in impact fees. However, their staff report shows that the last cut in March 2004 has increased growth and building permits?!? What's that sound? The rapid uncontrolled growth train coming to run you over.

http://www.townofcary.org/pd/en05028.htm

[Brent]

I'm quite surprised by this...NOT.

Let's see...Staff recommended, and Council approved, a 30% reduction in development fees. Staff also looked into changing the methodology used in determining road needs and calculating fees, and determined that maybe we should go from an improvements-driven system to a demand-driven system. And surprise (NOT!), going to the new methodology means, well, we need to reduce fees an additional 30% or so (Staff also notes that "While staff calculated an additional 30% reduction, the reduction could be greater if that were Town Council’s direction."). Geesh.

Some of the reasons for this would be funny if they weren't so sad:

"if the fees are not reduced and the ordinance is changed, the road cost to a developer will go up."

"Several things result as fees go down such as more developers requesting waivers and less cash to distribute among developers requesting cash reimbursement."

Coupled with the significantly reduced investment in transportation infrastructure (roads), this is a very scary situation. It is indeed the out of control growth train ready to run us over...but we'll be stuck in traffic at the crossing. Apparently the lessons of the not-so-distant past have not been learned.

And who benefits from this? The development community, of course, but who else? That's right: Staff.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Don]

Sitting through the council meeting, I remember staff saying that fees could be reduced UP TO 30% Council seemed to ignore the up to part. I also remeber staff sounding somewhat hesitant also? Anyone else remember it this way?

[johnb]

What happens above 30%? They eliminate from the budget all road projects?

[Brent]

Don, yes, I remember it this way.

John, these are two different things. At least theoretically, the development fees charged for roads should not relate to how much Cary spends on building roads. However, reducing the development fees will encourage more rapid growth at the same time that Cary has just decided to drastically reduce road spending. Doesn't sound like a good combination to me.

[johnb]

Brent,

Do you think perhaps McMayor, the Soccer Mommy, JULIEFORCARY!, et al have developed an accute allergic reaction to asphalt perhaps?

They certainly have no problem blowing huge wads of cash so we know it's not that they're spendthrifts.

Maybe we should push to have roads designated as pieces of ongoing performance art and all curbs as statues. I'll bet McMayor would bust the bank on spending, especially if one of those new pieces of performance art would meander towards a new city funded golf course.

[Brent]

Brent,

Do you think perhaps McMayor, the Soccer Mommy, JULIEFORCARY!, et al have developed an accute allergic reaction to asphalt perhaps?

No, I think that "Guest's" original topic post was pretty accurate...campaign contributions. The development community is one of a few constituencies that run Cary. They convinced Cary voters to elect a regime that is friendly to them. They expect their payback.

I repeat: "Be afraid, be very afraid". Even though hardly anyone pays attention, this is one of the most signficant issues facing Cary right now. You and I and the rest of the ordinary citizens will continue to pay our hard-earned dollars to be siphoned to the benefit of a few. All because there's big money to be made and almost no one in Cary is paying attention.

And that, sir, is the gospel according to the Church of the Painful Disgusting Situation That We Now Face. :-X

[johnb]

You are hereby directed by your Bishop to refrain from creating alternative religions. The Church of the Painful Truth is an exclusive religion. All other religions, are, by definition, false. The Truth is Painful enough without having to contend with competing world views.

The City Council is bought and paid for, where's the mystery?

[Anonymous]

During the period the old schedule for transportation impact fees were in force they generated funds equal to only 15% of the money spent on roads. The remainder came from the the general fund, i.e. the property tax base. The question is - to what extent did our non-competitive fees drive away the tax base that could otherwise have been Cary's? Two examples - the shopping center on Lake Pine and Tryon across the street from Cary in Apex. About three years after it was built we get a Houlihans....loss in tax base...hundreds of thousands over the years. Or take the shopping center with the Stonewood Grille just over the border in Morrissville...more money lost. Without the facts at hand my guess is that far more was lost in taxes than gained iin fees.

Now tell me how the traffic in Cary was reduced by these locations not being in Cary.

Growth relates to the growth in jobs and to the local quality of life. Do you propose to reduce traffic by discouraging the growth in jobs?...or by reducing the local quality of life? How about passing a law saying Apex, Morrissville, Holly Springs, the UA, etc cannot grow?

We are going to get more traffic congestion from growth regardless of what the CTC does to impact fees. We need road improvements. The best way to get them is to increase the tax base...or raise taxes. We can attempt to shape growth so that it is near existing road infrastructure or counter-current to existing traffic flows or in the NWA so that peak vehicle miles traveelled will be minimized - but I for one don't want to see growth slowed....just the opposite.

"Growth paying for growth" has visceral appeal and may be a sound concept...but only if applied on a regional basis..and only if the premium is in proportion to an increased QOL.

Rather than debate transportation impact fees for Cary we should be debating school impact fees for Wake..Orange and Chatham have them. Onley the short-sightedness and resistance of the development community keeps Wake from enacting them...and Durham is challenging the state's power to withhold them.

stan

[johnb]

I'm with you all the way on the growth side Stan. What I object to is the the city council's crazy priorities with regards to roads and utilities. If we have traffic problems of a magnitude that is causing people to fight growth that tells me the city council should not be spending a damned dime on Inconsequential Art, Regency, or any of these other schemes. We have road problems that need to be dealt with right now. We don't need Regency, fake metal trees, water squirters at Ritter Park, or $40,000-$50,000 blown on some dog park facility. That money needs to be spent widening 54, dealing with Walnut at Crossroads, and fixing the roads in downtown. Priorities are being ignored so the council can shovel cash at their friends causes.

[Brent]

Stan, I agree with you that we should be debating school impact fees.

Now, please explain to me how transportation development fees drive development across borders but school development fees don't (last time I checked, Wake County had a lot of edges, too).

[Anonymous]

Brent,

To answer your question...
1. Orange and Chatham Counties already have school impact fees. Durham is collecting them without NCGA approval (thus challenging the law). In effect school impact fees are already quasi-regional. Growth in Chatham is likely to be explosive despite the school impact fee. This shows growth is not necessarily stiffled by the presence of a school impact fee.

2. Other then Chapel Hill, Wake is widely considered to have the best schools in the region and the state...and among the best of the muni's in the country. This contibutes to the fact that Wake draws 25% of the net (over births less deaths) migration into the state - with only 9% of the population. Johnston is the only county in the region capable of attracting the growth that does not have school impact fees.

3. A shift of growth to Chapel Hill is unlikely as they have a very strong slo-growth ethic.

4. Although Wake's unemployment/under-employment picture leaves much room for improvement, it is the best shape of any county in the state. Growth will go where the jobs are.

5. Johnston County is the only county in the MSA to which growth could shift as a result of an impact fee.Their schools are already over-loaded by their high growth - reducing their attraction.

6. The combination of poor governance by the Wake County Commissioners, the pervasiveness of the "no tax increase" mentality and the 10,000 net new enrollments into Wake's schools over the last two years is putting tremendous pressure on Wake's schools. New enrollments are running 30% over the WCC's projections while they cut the four year construction budget from $860M requested by the school board to $450M.
This is becoming a replay of the mid 1990's when trailers and over-crowded classrooms were the norm. I calculate that Wake is building more than two fewer elementary school equivalents each year than it should to keep up with the growth. How quickly we forget! To add insult to injury the County's contribution to funds for teachers is not keeping up with the growth. Wake spends less per student than any urban area with similar demographics. Instead of rewarding the remarkable results the WCC's penalize them further.

7. The school board is reacting to the vise they have been put in by the WCC's considering schoolrooms in storefronts and by building larger, more cost-efficient schools. The latter are the wrong way to go educationally and add to busing and reassignment disruptions. Naturally, the school board gets the heat while the WCC stays under the radar or gets plaudits for keeping our tax rate lower than comparable urban areas. No wonder I'm grumpy!!

8. Ask yourself what responsible potential employer is going to want to move here and see their employees kids put in trailers and storefronts? Wake's employment has not kept up with the growth in population. Over the last four years population has gone up 100K and the number of empoyed is up only 20K. A 50K increase in employment would be the norm. 30K jobs have disappeared due to globalization and produtivity. In addition, average income in the region and the county is headed down as high paying high-tech jobs are replaced with lower paying ones.

Conclusions:

Their may be a shift in growth to Johnston if Wake imposes a school impact fee or a property transfer tax earmarked for schools. So what!

Sooner or later the development community will "wake" up to the fact that it is shooting itself in the foot by their continued (and effective) opposition to school impact fees or a property transfer tax. Developers, builders and realtors must choose between continued growth or continued opposition to itaking a greater role in boosting funds for Wake's schools.

We need county commissioners who are less beholden to developers and who will put education and jobs above rennovating their offices, new convention centers, subsidies to luxury hotels, subsidizing Raleigh's future water supply, etc. etc. Carefully consider the track-record and values of the candidates for county commissioner up for re-election this November.

By far-and-away , improved funding of Wake's public education system is the #1 problem in the area. We will all be worse off if we do not solve this problem.

Stan

[Brent]

OK, Stan, so just go back and insert "school" where you say "road" or "transportation" in your post about how nasty Cary's TDF is, and then insert "road" or "transportation" where you say "school" in your post about how marvelous a schools impact fee would be, and perhaps you will realize how specious your argument is. Does it seem the least bit strange to you that you lament a couple of restaurants being built just outside Cary, in theory because of Cary's impact fees, yet you say that if a schools impact fee were to drive growth to Johnston County, that conclusion is "So what!" (BTW, did you talk to the developers of Houlihan's and Stonewood and verify your theory that it was Cary's impact fees that caused them to build where they did? I always figured that it was just plain old location, and those areas would develop anyway, and town borders have to be somewhere).

I'll bet that much of the next few paragraphs will sound quite familiar:

------------------------------------------------


Would you really expect school impact fees to pay for more than 15% of new school construction? Do you propose to reduce school enrollment by discouraging growth in jobs?

We are going to get school growth regardless what the WCC do with school impact fees. We need new schools. The best way to get them is to increase the tax base...or raise taxes. We can attempt to shape growth so that it is near existing schools infrastructure or counter-current to existing school growth or in the NWA so that peak school enrollment will be minimized - but I for one don't want to see growth slowed....just the opposite.

"Growth paying for growth" may have visceral appeal as a nice slogan for Chris Sinclair and his buddies, but it can be a sound concept only if new development pays for a reasonable share of its impact, and after Cary caves, that will not be the case anywhere in the region..and if Cary continues to set its fees by comparing itself to its neighbors, then Cary will not be able to demand any premium in proportion to an increased QOL...because there will be no premium QOL in Cary.

Rather than debate school impact fees for Wake County we should be debating transportation impact fees for Cary..Most othe municipalities have them, but everyone else's are ridiculously low, and Cary is bearing the associated cost. Onley [sic] the short-sightedness and resistance of the development community keeps Cary from having a TDF that is at an appropriate level.

1. Many other municipalities already have transportation, water/sewer and other impact fees. In effect most impact fees are already quasi-regional. Growth in Cary is likely to be explosive despite the transportation impact fee. This shows growth is not necessarily stiffled by the presence of a transportation impact fee.

2. Cary is widely considered to have the most desirable location for housing in the area. This contibutes to the fact that Cary has thousands of new housing units already approved, currently in the pipeline, and is looking at a growth rate of 6% in a few years, even in the absence of bones being thrown to the development community. Other municipalities in the area can attract growth, too, but most of them have impact fees; they just are even more artifically low than Cary's. Of course, some of those municipalities are have raised their fees or are looking at doing so..

3. A shift of growth to Chapel Hill is unlikely as they have a very strong slo-growth ethic.

4. Although Wake's unemployment/under-employment picture leaves much room for improvement, it is the best shape of any county in the state. Growth will go where the jobs are, and as usual, Cary will benefit from that.

5. There are several other areas to which growth could shift as a result of an impact fee.Their roads are already over-loaded by their high growth - reducing their attraction.

6. The combination of poor governance by the Cary Town Council, the pervasiveness of the "no tax increase" mentality and the thousands of new homes being built in Cary over the last two years is putting tremendous pressure on Cary's roads. New housing is already on the rise and heating up while they cut the road construction budget from $20M $6M.
This is becoming a replay of the mid 1990's when traffic jams were the norm. I calculate that Cary is building more than two fewer road lane-mile equivalents each year than it should to keep up with the growth. How quickly we forget! To add insult to injury the state's contribution to road construction is not keeping up with the growth.

8. Ask yourself what responsible potential employer is going to want to move here and see their employees sit in traffic for hours trying to get to and from work?

Conclusions:

There may be a shift in growth to Raleigh, Morrisville and Apex if Cary keeps a reasonable transportation impact fee or water/sewer impact fee. So what!

Sooner or later the development community will "wake" up to the fact that it is shooting itself in the foot by their continued (and effective) opposition to all impact fees or a property transfer tax. Developers, builders and realtors must choose between continued growth or continued opposition to taking a greater role in boosting funds for Wake's infrastructure.

We need town council members who are less beholden to developers and who will put infrastructure and jobs above a new town hall palace, new world-class specialized sports centers, subsidies to the soccer park, squandering Cary's future water supply, etc. etc. Carefully consider the track-record and values of the candidates for town council up for re-election next November.

By far-and-away , improved funding of Wake's public education system is the #1 problem in the area. We will all be worse off if we do not solve this problem.

At the same time, the #1 issue mentioned by citizens of Cary in every survey that the town takes is ROADS. We will all be worse off if we cave in to the development community and make our roads situation even worse by fueling growth that the tax base has to subsidize even more than we currently do.

------------------------------------------------

YOU'RE RIGHT, STAN! It's just that you can't have it both ways. How can you POSSIBLY wring your hands over a TDF that theoretically drives growth out of Cary and then say that a theoretical schools impact fee that would drive growth out of Wake County merits the action "so what"?

There are differences in the governing bodies and the scope of their governance, but the underlying issue is that the infrastructure needs to keep up with growth In the case of both schools and roads, that is not happening, and we are paying for it dearly and it apparently will continue to get worse. Wake and Cary should stand up to the development community and impose a schools impact fee and restore Cary's impact fees to the level they were this February. Eventually, other governing bodies in the area will finally catch on -- indeed, some of them have already started, which is why it has been so important for the development community to go kicking and screaming to Cary and Wake Co. and pony up big bucks to keep friendly viewpoints on the governing bodies.

Otherwise, the ordinary citizens might take over the governments and start demanding that the taxes we pay start being spent on the things we really needs, like roads and schools, rather than to benefit a few small special interests.

And we can't have that, now, can we?

[Anonymous]

1. In your rebuttal one can read an implicit assumption of an equivalence between deterioration of the local road infrastructure and public school infastructure. I don't accept that. At least in my value system a deterioration in the quality of our schools impacting 108,000 children as well as our ability to attract new jobs across the county is far more critical than the deterioration of our local road infrastructure.

A big technical/legal difference is that the County is 100% responsible for building new schools and rennovating old ones. There is no other source of funds. Cary has zero legal responsibility for building and maintaining the major, local arterial roads - which are owned by the state. Some of the road funds are supplied by the state, (Powell Bill funds) and Cary supplies the shortfall to advance Cary's economy. Also the state allocates the funds for highways such as 40 and 55. But I'll agree that both are important and are basic, core functions of local government.

2. How "marvelous" would a school impact fee be? Lets see. BOE, Wake's population growth is ~ 30K/yr., indicating ~ 12K New residential units. About a $5000 SIF would be needed to pay for the shortfall between what the County Commissioners have chosen to allow us ( ~ $112M/yr.) and what is actually needed by the new demand for seats. (If I recall correctly Chatham's fee is $3000 - and Wake's schools are considerably better, justifying a premium.)

Yes, a $5K impact fee would have a significant impact in keeping us away from storefronts and trailers, and would be "marvelous".

3. Regarding "lamenting" two shopping centers (not restaurants) across the street from Cary, I never meant to imply that was the total effect of our TIF's. While the CTC has chosen not to collect better information, (typical of our management info. system) it is reasonable to assume a much wider impact. There is other anecdotal evidence supporting the fact that Cary's non-competitive TIF's have a wide reaching effect. Take a look at the intrinsic growth rate versus that of the region.

4. I'll agree that it would be wonderful to have impact fees that were uniform across the region. But we live in the real world. What is indisputable is that Cary has by far the highest TIF's in the region while Wake has the lowest SIF's, i.e. zero. Cary's fees likely push growth away while Wake's draw growth in. Neither is desireable. I'd rather have a level playing field regarding fees and let muni's and counties compete on QOL. Employing that principal Cary should lower its TIF and Wake should raise its SIF. In the real world Cary can lower its TIF but Wake cannot impose one without the uniform agreement of its NCGA delegation (forgetabo
utit) or through the courts..as in Durham. Do you think the CTC should go on record in favor of a SIF for Wake? Might be interesting to see what Raleigh would do.

5. If Wake had a SIF, how long would you think it would take the voters of Johnston County (or Durham) to rise up and demand one from the NCGA. I believe we agree on that point. It is the power of BIG MONEY interests in the NCGA and in County government that prevents the right thing being done for all the people. On the other hand we keep voting for the representatives of BIG MONEY, especially here in Cary. Beats me! It must be that the voters believe all their BS. Who's to blame?

6. I recollect "Growth paying for growth" was initially GDL's campaign theme. Chris must have stole it.

stan

[johnb]

We need town council members who are less beholden to developers and who will put infrastructure and jobs above a new town hall palace, new world-class specialized sports centers, subsidies to the soccer park, squandering Cary's future water supply, etc. etc. Carefully consider the track-record and values of the candidates for town council up for re-election next November.

I don't believe the second results from or is denied by the first. We get the City Hall Acropolis, the Aquatics Palace, the handouts to CASL, et al, because the city council is out buying votes. The two are not necessarily connected. The primary problem is this council, like it's predecessors, is out of control when it comes to shovelling cash towards narrow special interest groups. Many of the people in those organizations may not care about growth or in fact be slow growthers/no growthers. The council critters are just ladelling out pork from the public treasury/trough in order to buy friends/voters.

[Brent]

Stan, I believe that all of the critical infrastructure elements need to keep pace with development -- roads, schools, water/sewer, public safety.

A schools impact fee for Wake absolutely ought to be debated. At the same time, I believe that, using many of the same arguments you have used to support SIFs, Cary should not be rapidly slashing our impact fees that apply to other elements of the infrastructure...especially when some of our neighbors are showing signs of adjusting theirs.

And yes, we certainly do agree about the reasons for same.

[Anonymous]

The Great Debate Continues :) :

Stan, I appreciate your well-thought out arguments about impact fees. Nevertheless, I part ways a bit (I am sure you are not surprised) on the school issue.

Those counties that have school impact fees still face growth challenges, and the impact fees are not the end all be all solution to the great school debate.

The demand for schools is not solely dictated by the number of new developments or SF permits, rather by the number of folks moving to the area and about 60% of the existing residents. For example, the number of SF permits in Wake County did not rise in proportion to the number of school kids entering the system. Where did all the kids come from? How many parents are pulling their kids out of private and into public?

Also, let's not forget that everyone benefits from a good school system, and everyone should share in the community costs.

Finally, as an alternative, we should look more towards working with large-scale master planned communities to form public private partnerships to get good deals on land from developers---or even donations. There are good examples all over the Triangle where developers have stepped up to the plate to give sites, or sold land at a discount to the school system.
But we should also look at how we build schools as well.

About a month ago, the American Planning Association put out an article about building schools that also serve as community centers, recreation parks, libraries, etc...a sort of multi-purpose building that saves money and mixes uses. We should explore this concept more in Wake County---heck why not build a school in the same building as say, a Aquatics Center?

In short, we must do a better job of planning for our growth in schools, and look at how we can save money through mixed use schools, and public private partnerships with the development community---versus a school impact fee which is (1) an unpredictible source of revenue, and (2) singles out one sector of the community when we ALL benefit from good schools.

CHRIS

PS The Durham school impact fee will ONLY pay the debt service on the bond just passed by voters. The county needed the fee because they had not invested the $ from growth back into the schools. Per capita, they have spent a very small sum on CAPITAL projects over the last ten years. Good planning and good spending would have negated the need for $$ from the illegal fee in Durham.

[johnb]

We should explore this concept more in Wake County---heck why not build a school in the same building as say, a Aquatics Center?

That is NOT what the TSC and the CSC want. If the high schools were equiped with swimming pools those facilities would be primarily for school use (swimming class as a part of the phys ed requirement) and for the school swimming / diving teams. The school's athletic director would control access and use.

That is NOT what the TSC and the CSC want. They want their own pool where they control access and use. That type of facility would be of little value to them since the public would have equal access rights to the facility. The current proposal gives them the keys to the door and control of the schedule. If it were their own money going into the project and only their money that would not be a problem, in fact, it would be laudatory.

IF the city deems a pool a worthwhile public policy goal, ie, teaching kids to swim. It should be built at each HS in Cary and deeded to the WCPSS for use by the school. Make that proposal to the city council and see if you get out of the parking lot unscathed. ;)

That specific issue is a template for the problems with government budgets. True priorities are abused in the chase to spend cash on non-essentials used by politicians to buy votes. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the various local governments spent the available cash only on those issues that are it's particular legitimate priorities. The convention center isn't, the Aquatics Palace isn't, Inconsequential Public Art isn't, etc...

In Cary that translates to police, fire, utilities, and roads. Those are the priorities.

[TheBalancer]

JB---
Just trying to throw out some creative thinking...I agree it would get no traction in Cary... :) but is it a bad idea to have multi-purpose buildings that serve different sectors of the communitiy at different times during the day? It must not be all that bad of an idea as other parts of the country have had good success with the concept.

[Don]

JB---
Just trying to throw out some creative thinking...I agree it would get no traction in Cary... :) but is it a bad idea to have multi-purpose buildings that serve different sectors of the communitiy at different times during the day? It must not be all that bad of an idea as other parts of the country have had good success with the concept.

Chris,
No it's not a bad idea at all - and I think Cary is working towards this - ie. the tennis center/Green Hope H.S. The kids at school use the facility for their tennis team, and the public gets to use it as well.......or at least they are able to - since it's losing money I would assume not many are using it OR poor management?

Definitely need more of this kind of thinking.

[johnb]

Chris,

Depends what the building is. *IF* you are talking about a pool at Cary HS for the school under control of the Athletic Director, that would be a legitimate city function since the WCPSS isn't going to fund it.

It should never divert money from police, fire, utilities, or roads though.

*IF* you're talking about some "multipurpose" building that one slips so far down on the priority list as be behind more of those bent steel beams such as the one's near the entrance to Regency.

There are a lot of "multipurpose" rooms available in Cary, many are located at churches spread throughout the city. Already built and available at low or no cost.

Government does not need to duplicate the efforts of every private sector group/entity in the city. That's just plain foolish.

[StanN]

Chris,

There is much where we agree:
*Large, master planned communities with developers contributing land;
*Having schools serve multiple functions, e.g. libraries;
*Everyone benefits from schools and everyone should pay.
(including developers and builders?)

But you are adressing only the fringes of what has grown to be a serious problem - we are tremendously behind in constructing new schools and maintaining older ones in Wake County.

One can argue about the causes: misgovernance on the part of county commissioners; demagogues like Russell Capps who promote the idea that the schools are wasting money and build up resistance among the public to picking up the bill in the form of property taxes; the recession, which has made many resistant to higher property taxes; even the great performance of the school system which leads some to believe we can go on indefinitely without sufficient funding; or the enormous lobbying power of the development community to avoid paying fees that are common elsewhere.

But the fact remains when the WCPSS is forced to buy more trailers, defer maintainenance on our high percentage of older schools, and even consider classrooms in storefronts - something is wrong.

WCPSS's official budget for 2004-2008 calls for 16K new seats. (50% of the budget is for new construction, the remainder for rennovating older schools and a tad for preparing for the next four year phase). But enrollments increased 10,000 in only the last two years and we are just coming out of a recession. Extrapolating from the current rate of growth we are at least 25% behind the eight ball - and perhaps more.

You say that single family units are not growing rapidly. But according to NC Demographics, Wake, wiith only ~9% of the NC's population, over the last three years accounted for 48K of NC's 219K net migration into the state (22%). The growth must be going somewhere - into multiplefamily housing most likely. Why is Wake growing so rapidly? Durham, Chatham and Orange grew only 13K units over the same time period.

There are likely many reasons for the disproportionate growth of Wake - including a greater availability of jobs than elsewhere in the state.
Two other possibilities are: better schools (excepting Chapel Hill) and lower school impact fees. This raises the question of whether the development communities success in preventing impact fees in Wake is artificially increasing the growth here? And is the growth largely in lower cost housing, including apartments - which add to the tax burden of all?

I am sure there are many answers to these questions - but I know that the answer of making our schools less attractive is not one of them. Certainly you would agree that putting kids into trailers and storefronts is not a good way to grow jobs in Wake. And I'm sure you would agree that the economic success of Wake is of prime importance to the development community. (To inform all - In the two decades 145,000 new residential units were built in Wake and in the last decade 60,000 new detatched SF units were added.)

I don't expect or propose that school impact fees be the total answer to our under funding of school construction - but they would certainly help - and currently the lack of them is probably exacerbating the problem of coping with the growth. Wouldn't it be a great day for developers to actually propose something constructive that in the long run would help themselves, rather than being the primary voice of obstruction. Why not propose a uniform school impact fee for the entire Triangle area? But I'm just an impractical dreamer.

stan

[TheBalancer]

Perhaps we should ask those counties like Chatham and Orange whether school impact fees have made a difference.

In orange I doubt it with so few homes built per year...Chatham I have no idea...probably helpful but again I don't think they have as many permits as other counties .

What happens when a county's growth slows down---yet students keep coming? Permits in Wake fell last year yet enrollment increased.

Somewhere, there's a solution---and laying most of the burden on new homeowners (who may or may not have kids in the system) is not the answer.

The TCC's own survey research underscores how Wake County residents feel about impact fees. In fact, a clear majority of voters reject higher costs and fees for developers. Only a little over one third (35.7%) support the idea that developers should pay MORE for the cost of infrastructure. Citizens (voters) seem to understand that these costs are ULTIMATELY passed on to them in various forms, and thereby they will bear the burden.


I think the solution to the problem is to look at ways to combine facilities and cut down on land costs and development charges to the school system.

Why don't we build multi-story schools like when I was a kid? Why does the school system need 20 acres of land for one school? Is the current building model good for our region---is it time to visit the model and see if we should adjust it-----BEFORE WE DIG DEEPER IN FOLKS' wallets?


But hey, if there is the will of the community for school impact fees, they can unite and approach the legislature to get the authority.

[Brent]

Perhaps we should ask those counties like Chatham and Orange whether school impact fees have made a difference.

In orange I doubt it with so few homes built per year...Chatham I have no idea...probably helpful but again I don't think they have as many permits as other counties .

From http://reflector.com (http://www.reflector.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/08/22/1093150949.18121.9088.7242.html;COXnetJSessionID=B F4eFnEKkRiFTGBCzmL4bIMsKEWzeBO2KQ4rxl0sflaPpYju4bd N!-427842779?urac=n&urvf=10951047343780.6371230385112399) (which, by the way, notes that Pitt County is considering a schools impact fee):

"But such taxes and fees are not hurting growth in the North Carolina counties where they're currently collected, officials in those counties say...Orange County gets about $1.1 million a year for its impact fee; Chapel Hill-Carrboro gets about $2.3 million, he said."

Although the raw numbers for Chatham Co. are low compared to more urban counties, its growth rate is one of the fastest in the state, I believe.


What happens when a county's growth slows down---yet students keep coming? Permits in Wake fell last year yet enrollment increased.

Do you think that the school population would continue to grow as rapidly as it has if growth slowed in a sustainable fashion? Permits are for future development. I don't think your question is realistic.


Somewhere, there's a solution---and laying most of the burden on new homeowners (who may or may not have kids in the system) is not the answer.

"Most" of the burden is on the taxpayers, who may or may not have kids in the system. Do you think that everyone should pay only for what they use, or for the "burden" that they place on the community, or are schools something that benefits the entire community and the cost should be shared? Are schools part of the infrastructure that are burdened by growth? Should the source of that growth help pay for schools?


The TCC's own survey research underscores how Wake County residents feel about impact fees. In fact, a clear majority of voters reject higher costs and fees for developers. Only a little over one third (35.7%) support the idea that developers should pay MORE for the cost of infrastructure. Citizens (voters) seem to understand that these costs are ULTIMATELY passed on to them in various forms, and thereby they will bear the burden.

I would love to hear how this survey was conducted and the exact wording of the questions that were asked.



I think the solution to the problem is to look at ways to combine facilities and cut down on land costs and development charges to the school system. Why don't we build multi-story schools like when I was a kid? Why does the school system need 20 acres of land for one school? Is the current building model good for our region---is it time to visit the model and see if we should adjust it-----BEFORE WE DIG DEEPER IN FOLKS' wallets?

I agree that this is part of the solution. I have no idea why multi-story schools aren't pursued. I would love to see smarter school construction so we could afford more school capacity. I also partially agree that shared use could be part of the solution, but working out the details can get hairy. I think this needs to be approached very early in the planning cycle and with a long-term commitment from all involved parties.


But hey, if there is the will of the community for school impact fees, they can unite and approach the legislature to get the authority.

Indeed. I think that this was one of the things Cary was considering for its legislative agenda. I hope Wake Co. seeks the authority. Of course, only 3 counties have such authority, and the general assembly hasn't granted new authority since 1990...perhaps because of what Stan has observed in a separate thread about who really runs NC. I'm sure the TCC and the HBA would support this for Wake Co. if it was the will of the community, right? :wink:

[StanN]

Chris,

How about doing your survey over again and ask the public if they would prefer impact fees or higher property taxes? In fact, that is the choice to closing the gap between school capacity (cut by the decision of the County Commissioners to avoid raising taxes). The only practical way I can see to do it is to spend the 2004 - 2008 bond money by 2007 and start a new program in 2007 instead of 2008. If that doesn't precipitate a tax hike I'll eat my hat. Looking back, if we had built sufficent schools on a regular basis over the past four years, the bill would have been lower as now we see tremendous double digit increases for nearly all building materials. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

And from the developer's point of view - do they really want kids in trailers, tents and storefronts? How is that going to attract new companies to move here? Don't developers benefit from growth? Suppose we call them "Developer's profit builders" instead of impact fees? Would the develpers let us have "impact fees" then?

Incidentally, I would totally support taller school buildings. (But remember with todays accessibility regs they would require elevators.) There have been more Nobel Prize winners that have come out of NYC's premier multi-story high schools than from all of NC. http://www2.bxscience.edu/alum/#nobel
http://www.bthsalum.org/hall_of_fame.htm

Put the money into educating kids, like in NYC's Brooklyn Tech or the Bronx high School of Arts and Sciences, rather than buying more land. Or build a tall vocational school. Put the schools near the rail stations instead of busing the kids all over the place. Would the WHBA support impact fees for a vocational school that turned out competent plumbers, electricians and carpenters? But there I go, fantasizing again. The Moore Square magnet school is a step in the right direction.

Stan