MEMORANDUM

 

 

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Report on Proposed Growth Management Act of 1999

 

DATE:             January 10, 2000

 

 

This memorandum provides an analysis of the proposed House Bill 1468 - Growth Management Act of 1999 and a schedule for the State's new Smart Growth Commission. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

At its meeting on October 27th, the Council briefly discussed the draft Growth Management Act of 1999 (House Bill 1468) and referred comments to the Manager to return with a report.  The Council asked for a schedule for the Smart Growth Commission's efforts and an analysis of the effects of this proposed legislation on Chapel Hill.

 

House Bill 1468 is draft legislation entitled "Growth Management Act of 1999" and would grant authority to levy impact taxes to provide a "source of revenue to pay for public school capital needs caused by new development" to counties which adopt a growth Plan.  The Bill was originally proposed in May 1999 by Representatives Joe Hackney and Verla Insko and has been referred to the Smart Growth Commission.  At that time, we provided a summary of the proposed legislation (please see Attachment 1).

 

DISCUSSION

 

Smart Growth Commission

 

The proposed Growth Management Act of 1999 (House Bill 1468) has been referred to the General Assembly's Smart Growth Commission for further study and evaluation.  Initially, two bills were introduced in the Spring of 1999 to create commissions to study how other states have sought to stem the effects of uncontrolled growth.  Senator Howard Lee proposed a 27-member committee to study growth management strategies in nine other states.  Senator Beverly Perdue also introduced a bill to create a 30-member study commission on smart growth.  At the same time, Representative Joe Hackney was in the process of drafting a bill to study growth issues.  Senators Lee and Perdue agreed to combine their bills into a single package.  Senator Lee worked with David Godschalk (UNC Professor) and representatives from the Institute of Government and Triangle J  Council of Governments who had also been working on legislation of their own.  All agreed that instead of proposing one model to manage growth, it would make more sense to set up a commission to get a broader group of people involved.

 

The Smart Growth Commission was created this year by the General Assembly (please see Attachment 2:  House Bill 168, ratified on 6/30/99 and signed by the Governor on 7/1/99) to study growth issues and to recommend initiatives to promote coordinated responses among local, regional and state governments.  All 37 members, plus 4 ex officio members, have been appointed.  (Please see Attachment 3)  The goals of the Commission are to preserve natural and cultural resources, promote smarter infrastructure and transportation planning, foster more balanced economic development in rural and urban areas, foster compatible land-use patterns, preserve and improve air quality, protect housing affordability and assure consumer choice and enhance the quality of life for the citizens of North Carolina.

 

The Governor recently announced that the Commission's $200,000 budget will be given over to flood relief efforts.  However, the Governor's smart growth advisor has pledged that the Commission will be staffed with existing state employees.  The 37-member Commission plans to hold its first meeting in early 2000 and must make its final report to the legislature no later than January 15, 2001.

 

 

Analysis of Growth Management Act

 

The draft legislation would allow counties which elect to participate to develop a growth plan to identify urban growth boundaries for each municipality within that county, and to identify planned growth areas and rural areas within the county.

 

The proposed Growth Management Act of 1999 would create questions regarding possible impacts on Chapel Hill's authority to make land use decisions if the Bill were adopted, such as:

 

1)   How does this proposed bill affect the Joint Planning Agreement?

 

Possible impacts of the proposed Growth Management Act on Chapel Hill's authority to make land use decisions would likely be lessened due to the prior existence of the Joint Planning Agreement.  In 1987, the County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill entered into an agreement which set growth areas and established the Rural Buffer.  The proposed legislation would not repeal a valid pre-existing agreement.  The proposed legislation would greatly affect other localities in the county, such as Mebane and Hillsborough, with no pre-existing agreement with the county in place.

 

2)   What effects on the Durham County portion of Chapel Hill?

 

Both Durham County and Orange County would need to elect to participate in developing a growth management plan.  Then, any growth management plan for Chapel Hill would have to be approved by both Durham and Orange Counties regarding their respective portions.

 

3)   Can a town participate in creation of the growth plan?

 

The proposed bill would require participation by the municipalities within the County.  The towns would be given the opportunity to define their own Urban Growth boundaries which the county must take into consideration before finalizing the growth plan.  Before formally proposing urban growth boundaries to the County, municipalities would develop and report population growth projections, current and projected costs of core infrastructure, urban services, and public facilities as well as an estimate of future land use needs.  The County would be required to conduct at least two public hearings before adopting a recommended growth plan. 

 

4)   What happens in the case of a dispute over the growth plan?

 

A new role would be given to the Local Government Commission to mediate such disputes.  The proposed bill would also give citizens standing to seek judicial review of the growth plan.

 

5)   Orange County and Chapel Hill already have impact fee legislation.  What would be the effect of the new impact tax created by the proposed bill?

 

The proposed bill would create a new impact tax on both non-residential and residential land uses to be used for school capital facilities.  If this proposed bill were adopted, the County would need to repeal its current system of impact fees to be consistent with the new Act.  The proposed legislation would prohibit having an impact tax ordinance and an impact fee ordinance at the same time.  The draft legislation also would set a limit of $1 per square foot on both residential and non-residential development.

 

6)   What is the effect of the Transfer of Development Rights language in the proposed bill?

 

The proposed legislation would authorize the transfer of development rights for cities and counties.  However, it is not clear that the development rights could be sold. 

 

7)   What provisions are in the bill regarding Economic Development?

 

The draft legislation would create a joint economic and community development board to be established by interlocal agreement. 

 

8)   What provisions are included for Amendments to the Growth Plan?

 

The draft legislation does not include any provision for amending or repealing a growth plan.

 

NEXT STEPS

 

We will monitor discussions of the Smart Growth Commission as it meets and report to the Council regarding meetings and comment opportunities as the initiative unfolds.  We recommend that the Council discuss the proposed Growth Management Act of 1999 at its meeting with the Legislative delegation tentatively scheduled for February 25, 2000 (breakfast).

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

1.      Memorandum from Roger Waldon, Planning Director, to W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager, dated May 24, 1999 (page 5)

2.      House Bill 168, Creating a Commission to Address Smart Growth Management and Development Issues (begin new page 1)

3.      List of Members Appointed to Smart Growth Commission (begin new page 1)