Local News - April 2003

County officials seek new growth strategies

Published April 04, 2003

Alternate sources of revenue considered

By ALICE SMITH, LTN Staff Writer

Lincoln County commissioners and planning board members want to be proactive, and not reactive, when it comes to growth and its effect on county facilities.

“The groundwork we lay for this … will affect the citizens of Lincoln County from now on,” said Dean Lutz, planning board member.

The two boards met Thursday afternoon to discuss alternative growth strategies and revenue sources.

And while no final decision was made, the planning session provided both boards with information and ideas that will be used to shape Lincoln’s growth.

“I know we see each other a lot, but it’s rare that we get together to talk about things,” Commission Chairman Jerry Cochrane said.

An issue that has recently hit the county hard is school funding. And that’s not going to go away, officials said.

“One thing that keeps coming to my attention is the dire need the schools have for new facilities and to keep the ones they’ve got in good condition,” said Kelly Atkins, director of Building and Land Development.

Officials used figures from the Lincoln County tax office, the 2000 U.S. Census and the Lincoln Economic Development Association to “look into the crystal ball,” said Jeff Vernon, plans reviewer for BALD.

Population estimates and growth rates differ from source to source, but one thing’s for sure — the county is growing, and quickly.

It is important when dealing with growth issues to look not only at the numbers, but the people, Vernon said.

By combining statistics on categories of people — including race, age, gender, income and more — Vernon presented the boards with the median person in Lincoln County.

The median person is a white female, between the ages of 35 and 54, who owns her own home and has a high school diploma. She lives in the east, most likely Ironton Township and works in manufacturing, Vernon said.

Taking that into account, and also considering other factors like what effect the aging baby boomer population will have on the county, is essential when making decisions concerning growth.

“We’re not only looking at people, we’re looking at what kind of services they need,” Vernon said. “Do we need schools or do we need rest homes?”

Based on needs and estimations, BALD officials came up with eight alternative growth strategies and/or revenue sources.

The most discussed options were:

· Impact fees. Impact fees are charged directly to new development. They are designed to directly offset the capital costs that the development has caused or impacted. These fees could offset some of the costs associated with building new schools, but it difficult to achieve since the N.C. General Assembly would have to approve it. Legislators have axed this option before, officials said.

· Real estate transfer taxes. This tax is a percentage of all land transfers paid by the seller at the time of the recordation of deeds. It is paid at property closing, so the seller will have more available cash flow, but permission from the General Assembly is required. It would take up to three years to establish the tax.

· Decreased residential density. Zoning requirements will establish larger minimum lot sizes, which would reduce res idential density. This could result in fewer families, fewer children and less traffic and also reduce septic system problems. Catawba County implemented a minimum 2-acre lot size under this plan.

· Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). An APFO is an ordinance that sets a level of service standard for one or more growth-related facility needs, such as schools, roads and police protection. It would not be a tax or fee, but would slow down development until facilities could catch up. An APFO could slow growth significantly. Developers who want to bypass the wait for facilities to become adequate have the option of making a contribution that could help the situation.

A lot of talk centered around the APFO and its effect on development.

“It’s going to be an accounting nightmare,” said planning board member Mike Baker. “It looks like to me this is no more than justifying an impact fee … It’s a procedure that means nothing other than determining what it’s going to cost, which can be determined very simply.”

Baker called the APFO “meaningless” and suggested just determining what each lot is going to cost.

Planning board member John Pagel questioned whether county facilities would ever catch up and become adequate.

Adequacy is based on a pre-determined capital improvement plan that the county would put in place, Atkins said.

Cochrane noted a concern about the fairness of an APFO, saying if a developer came in and made a contribution to help get facilities up to standard, other developers could get the benefit without the cost.

Cochrane spoke in favor of an impact fee — a fee for each home — and suggested sending a resolution to the General Assembly. If the General Assembly turned it down, the county should make that publicly known, he said.

Minimum lot sizes are another option, one that Commissioner Carrol Mitchem favors.

“The only way you stop growth is don’t let it happen to begin with,” Mitchem said. “I never understood why anybody would want to put a $250,000 or $300,000 house on a half-acre lot.”

Commissioner Larry Craig said that while a minimum lot size is not a end-all solution, it would help.

“I believe that mechanism in itself would help control growth,” Craig said.

But Cochrane wasn’t convinced, saying schools would still be seriously affected. Even if the county went to an acre or larger rule, it would still not take away those problems.

“The schools are our real challenge,” Cochrane said.

The planning board and commission will continue to explore these options in the coming months.

© 2001 Lincoln Times-News  

Terms and Conditions