ATTACHMENT 3
Working Paper on Fiscal Equity Issues
1. General infrastructure needed to support University development.
It is obvious that proposed development of University land will generate off-site infrastructure needs.
Parking will be limited on campus so park-ride lots and decks will be needed at the edge of the community. Water and wastewater treatment demands will require enlargement of existing and construction of new facilities. Existing roadways in some areas may be inadequate to carry expected traffic at acceptable operating levels. There will be a need for sidewalks and other pedestrian system improvements, as well as improved bicycle facilities. Existing storm water facilities, already inadequate to meet modern standards, will need to be reconstructed and new control facilities will need to be built to address both quality and quantity issues. Traffic control systems will need to be expanded, adjusted, and made more sophisticated in order to allow the most efficient management of new traffic volumes.
As a matter of general principle, we believe that the University, rather than the community, should pay the costs of off-site improvements that are necessitated by development on the University’s property.
a. We request that the University agree to pay the costs of off-site infrastructure improvements necessitated principally by development on the University’s property.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University’s proposed Development Plan will include specific plans for the avoidance or mitigation of adverse impacts from the proposed development, consistent with the requirements of the Office-Institutional 4 zoning district; and, the University will be responsible for the costs of necessary mitigation efforts. |
|
Comment:
Proposed stipulations in the draft Resolution Approving an Application for a Development Plan address this issue. |
2. Private development on University property.
The University has stated that it intends to promote partnerships with the private sector at the Horace Williams tract, to bring complementary resources and create opportunities for both faculty and students. Such private development will generate service demands that the Town must meet on the site (e.g. fire protection, bus service) and service demands throughout the community (e.g. recreation facilities, traffic law enforcement).
The UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel final report of January 13, 1997 was submitted to the University with the request that the report become a reference document to be included with the University’s plans and used as any future development is contemplated on the Horace Williams and Mason Farm properties. The section of the report on fiscal goals and principles includes a statement that all new development at the Horace Williams site should be revenue neutral or positive to the Town.
Earlier, in a letter dated January 25, 1996 Michael Hooker, Chancellor of the University, stated:
“For future University development on the Horace Williams and the Mason Farm tracts, the University agrees generally to support to the extent feasible and permitted by law the Town’s goal of recovering the capital and operating costs of municipal services required by and directly provided to University development.”
We are concerned that the service load created by the large-scale development anticipated by the University could create a substantial cost burden for the rest of the community. While University land and buildings used to further the University’s academic and service missions are, of course, exempt from taxes, we believe that there would be a basic unfairness if the University allowed private businesses to build facilities and carry out enterprises on public land in a manner that allowed them to escape taxation to which they otherwise would have been subject.
a. We request that the University cause any private development or commercial operation on the Horace Williams tract (or other part of the campus) to pay taxes customarily paid for the support of Town government and local schools by any similar development or operation when it occurs on private property, or to pay an equivalent amount in lieu of taxes.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
Improvements on the Main Campus, the Mason Farm Property, or the Horace Williams Tract that are developed for non-governmental use will pay property taxes or an equivalent payment in lieu of taxes based on the value of the improvements. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. |
b. Further, we request that the University cause the owner or occupant of any private development on University land to make a payment in lieu of taxes that would be equivalent to the amount of tax that would be assessed against the land if the land were taxable.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
Further, the owner or occupant of such improvements will make a payment in lieu of taxes equivalent to the amount of property tax that would be assessed against the land used if the land were taxable. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. |
3. Properties owned or leased by the University in off-campus areas.
The University now owns or leases a significant number of properties inside the corporate limits of Chapel Hill that are in off-campus areas. The campus is defined for purposes here as the main campus, the Mason Farm tract and the Horace Williams tract.
Properties owned by the University are not taxable under North Carolina law. Off-campus properties owned by the University reduce the Town’s tax base.
In addition, University ownership and leasing of off-campus properties reduces developed space available for private business use. Adverse effects of such reduction include: loss of street-level retail locations in the downtown; loss of office space in several business districts; loss of business expansion space; and upward pressure on rents.
a. We request that the University adopt a schedule to restore off-campus properties to the tax base by sale of such properties.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University will develop a plan to dispose of certain off-campus properties, subject to donor restrictions and approval of the Board of Trustees and State authorities, including some or all of its properties on Franklin Street, so that they will be restored to the tax base. Work on this plan is currently underway. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. Further, based on a market study of the downtown conducted by UniDev LLC, we understand that the University is a key office tenant in several buildings. |
b. We request that the University refrain from purchasing or leasing additional off-campus properties.
c. We further request that the University refrain from purchasing property in residential neighborhoods.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The Town acknowledges that the University intends to acquire properties north of Mason Farm Road adjacent to the South Campus in order to develop these properties into apartment style student family housing. Additionally, the Town acknowledges that the University intends to acquire properties over time in the triangular areas east of Oteys Road. |
|
Comment:
The proposed language acknowledges planned property acquisition in two limited areas. |
4. Faculty and staff housing.
The University is well aware of the difficulty that its staff and entry-level faculty have in finding housing that they can afford near their places of employment. The Town recognizes that its employees have the same difficulty.
A shared interest in addressing this problem brought representatives of the University and the Town together to work toward the development of employer-employee housing that could be afforded by employees because of subsidy. We continue to believe that development of such housing is feasible and desirable.
a. We request that the University cooperate with the Town in development of employer-employee housing on suitable University or Town land in the downtown and on University land at the Horace Williams tract. We request that a formal agreement can be reached no later than the fall of this year.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University and the Town agree to cooperate in developing specific strategies for the development of employer-employee housing. |
|
Comment:
The Council held discussions at a recent Council Work session on this issue. It is unlikely that any agreement will be reached soon. |
We understand that the University may also wish to develop a range of housing for faculty at the Horace Williams tract in a manner that would be different from the proposed employer-employee housing program, perhaps to be used as a recruitment tool. We believe it would be reasonable for the University to make a payment in lieu of taxes to help pay for Town service demand generated by such housing.
b. We request that the University make a payment in lieu of taxes to the Town for housing developed on the Horace Williams tract that is intended to meet needs different from the proposed employer-employee housing program.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University agrees to make a payment in lieu of taxes to the Town for housing developed on the Horace Williams tract that is intended to meet needs different from the proposed employer-employee housing, with the exception of any University-owned student housing. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. |
As we understand it, Duke University raised funds as a part of their endowment campaign that was specifically earmarked for development of affordable housing. We ask that the University consider a similar approach.
c. We request that the University consider earmarking funds raised through the endowment campaign for development of affordable housing.
|
Comment:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
5. Student housing.
The University has stated its intent to provide a “bed for every head”, at least for growth in the number of undergraduate students. We applaud this policy and challenge the University to provide additional student housing to relieve the pressure on the small amount of moderate-cost housing near the campus that remains in family occupancy. This would also serve to reduce traffic and parking problems in neighborhoods and have other positive affects on residential areas near the University. We are concerned particularly that housing in the Northside neighborhood too frequently is being converted from family to student occupancy. We believe the University should address the present deficit of student housing on the campus, not just the anticipated future deficit.
a. We request that the University construct 1,000 additional units of student housing on the campus (south campus, Horace Williams tract, or some other part of the campus) in addition to the number of units that would be need to provide a bed for every projected additional undergraduate head.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University is committed to providing a bed for every additional undergraduate head. Based on present plans, the university expects to build ___ units of replacement student housing and ___ units of new student housing by 20__.
|
|
Comment:
Unit data is included in the University’s proposed development plan and can be included in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding after confirmation by the University. |
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University also expects to build ___ units of replacement student family housing and ____ units of new student family housing by 20__.
|
|
Comment: This item was not originally requested by the Town, but was offered by the University. Unit data is included in the University’s proposed development plan and can be included in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding after confirmation by the University. |
6. Recreation facilities for University students.
We believe that it is important for the University to provide adequate recreation facilities for students and that recreation facilities should be appropriately expanded to meet the needs of the student body as total enrollment grows. If the University fails to provide adequate facilities for its students, then the load on the Town’s recreation and park facilities will increase.
a. We request that the University provide additional recreational facilities for students to meet the needs of an expanded student enrollment.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University will construct additional recreational facilities for students at both the Main Campus and the Horace Williams tract so that Town parks and recreation facilities are less likely to be burdened by student use. For the Main Campus, such facilities will be included in the University’s Development Plan. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. |
7. The Horace Williams tract lease.
In March 1977, the Council of State approved the lease of a 24-acre tract of land at the University’s Horace Williams Airport property to the Town for development of a public works facility, bus garage and other municipal uses. The charge for the lease was $1.00 per year.
The lease will expire on December 31, 2006. Town officials have requested extension of the lease on several occasions over the past several years. In prior years, University officials have stated that they would recommend a two-year extension of the lease; however, no extension has been granted to date. In addition, it is clear from the University’s plans for development of the Horace Williams tract that the Town’s municipal facilities will not be allowed to remain. Therefore, the Town is in the process of seeking to acquire other land that may be developed as a replacement facility.
The lease agreement states that the University may, at the expiration of the lease, require the Town to remove, at the Town’s expense, any improvements constructed on the leased premised by the Town. Further, the lease states that any improvements not removed at the request of the University shall become the property of the University.
The Town Council and Chancellor Michael Hooker appointed a Task Force on Fiscal Relationships in 1997. In its 1999 final report, the task force noted that the estimated value of the Horace Williams property lease was then $348,000 annually. The report also stated that this contribution should be taken into account in any balancing of costs and payments between the Town and the University and noted that a reasonable balance then existed in regard to a list of key services.
If the University is to take credit for the market value of the annual lease in its calculation of the balance of costs and payments for various services provided by the Town, it would seem unreasonable that it also would claim the full value of the improvements developed by the Town at the Horace Williams site by taking them without compensation at the end of the lease.
Additionally, we note the financial burden that will be imposed on Town taxpayers by the necessity of the Town purchasing land and developing a replacement facility in a short period.
We also are concerned about the difficulty that we may encounter in getting federal and State assistance for purchasing land and building a replacement transit operations facility; and, we point out that both the University and the Town of Carrboro will have to join in paying for the new facility as partners in the bus system.
a. We request that the University extend the Town’s lease at the Horace Williams site for 10 years so that the Town will have a reasonable opportunity to plan, finance, and develop replacement public works and transit facilities.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University intends to initiate development at Horace Williams in 2007 and therefore cannot extend the Town’s lease. |
|
Comment:
The Council recently adopted a motion to request exploration of Carrboro’s interest in seeking a joint-use public works site at the Horace Williams Tract. |
b. We request that the University not require the Town to demolish improvements at the end of the lease, but that such demolition be included in the cost of future projects developed at the site. (Here, we note especially that the University has indicated that much of the development will be paid for by the private sector.)
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
|
Comment:
Costs for demolition and removal of debris will have to be included in future Town budgets. |
c. We request that the University pay the Town the fair market value of any improvements on the site that it chooses to use rather than abandon at the time the Town relocates its operations.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University has no plans to utilize any of the Town-constructed improvements, but if its plans change will provide reasonable compensation to the Town for such improvements. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. |
|
Additions from Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University will accept financial responsibility (estimated at $7 million in 2001 dollars) for the clean-up of the former landfill at the Horace Williams tract that was used for many years by the Town and the University. |
|
Comment:
The University initiated this proposal, and it is included in the draft Memorandum of Understanding. |
8. School Sites.
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system recently went through a process to identify potential sites for future schools. There are few available and, as development continues, the importance of preserving potential sites will increase.
The number of new employees likely to be associated with the University’s planned development will generate demand for additional housing. Construction of additional housing will contribute toward the ultimate build-out of the land remaining in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro urban service area. The University also plans to build new housing on the Horace Williams tract.
New housing eventually will mean new students in the schools, and new schools will be needed to house them. Because of the scarcity of suitable land, we believe it would be reasonable for the University to provide sites for an elementary and middle school on the Horace Williams tract or other University property.
a. We request that the University provide sites for construction of elementary and middle schools on the Horace Williams tract or on other University property.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University confirms its willingness to consider mutually acceptable sites for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro School System, for the construction of new schools, including possible sites at the Horace Williams tract and Glen Lennox properties, subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees and State authorities. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. |
9. Fire protection service and first-responder medical service.
The University receives fire protection service and first-responder medical service from the Town in the same manner as they are provided to all other properties inside the corporate limits of Chapel Hill.
The Town has received varying levels of compensation for fire protection services for a number of years, through payments made by the State and through contributions for equipment made directly by the University. The level of compensation provided by the State and the University seldom has equaled the level of cost incurred by the Town for fire protection services provided to the University.
There has been no compensation from the University for first-responder medical service provided by the Town.
We believe that the University should pay its fair share of fire protection service costs. The need for fire protection services is determined largely by the amount of property exposed to particular types of fire hazards within a specified area. The value of University properties as a proportion of the total value of all properties within the Town limits can be determined with reasonable effort and reliability.
a. We request that the University pay the Town annually for its fair share of fire protection service cost. The cost assessed to the University would be based on the value of University properties as a proportion of the total value of all properties within the Town limits.
b. We further request that the amount to be paid be adjusted annually based on this formula.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University recognizes that its recent and future growth will force the Town to be prepared for and respond to a substantially larger number of fire service and first-responder medical emergency service calls. The University and Town will together seek to have the State fairly compensate the Town for fire service to the University and the Hospital. |
|
Comment:
Cost of Fire Department services provided to the University is estimated to be roughly $1.4 million annually, based on the proportion of total Fire Department services that is received by the University (about 30%). |
We believe that the cost of providing first-responder medical service could be separately calculated, but that it would be reasonable to include such cost in the assessment for fire protection service.
10. Transit Services.
The University relies upon the Town-operated bus system for transportation of many students, faculty, staff and visitors to and from campus.
Net local costs of operating the bus system now are shared among the Town of Chapel Hill, the University and the Town of Carrboro based on what is known as the “population formula”. The population formula counts population for the two towns as the latest annual population figures published by the Office of State Planning. For the University, population is the total of all registered students, plus full-time and part-time faculty and staff. Net local cost of transit services is shared in the same proportions as the population that each local partner represents of the total population derived under the population formula.
In the spring of 2000, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and University representatives proposed a fare-free bus system in which the University would have paid the full costs of fixed-route services that are used almost exclusively by University students, faculty, and staff. Specifically, these services were routes on the campus and express services from park-and-ride lots. Each of the transit partners would have shared in the remaining costs based on the population formula. The proposal was not adopted.
We believe it is reasonable for the University to pay the full net local costs of bus services that are provided principally to transport University students, faculty, staff and visitors to and from park-ride lots and the campus and to and from University facilities.
a. We request that the University pay the net local cost of present and future transit services that are provided principally to transport University students, faculty, staff to and from park-ride lots and the campus and to and from University facilities.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
|
Comment:
Proposed stipulations in the draft Resolution Approving an Application for a Development Plan address this issue as to future services. |
11. Park-ride lots.
The Town has developed park-ride lots with substantial financial assistance from the federal government and support of the State, the Town of Carrboro and the University. The principal purpose of the park-and-ride lots is to meet the commuting needs of University students, faculty, staff, and visitors. We note that the category of visitors includes persons attending events at the Smith Center and Kenan Stadium.
Last week the University provided the Town information about its projection of parking and transportation needs for the next 5-7 years and in relation to its master plan. As of this writing, we have not had time to evaluate the information provided; however, it appears from the University’s discussion with the Town that there will be a greater reliance on park-ride lots in coming years. We understand that the University will not be able to meet demand for parking on the campus, and that thousands of students, faculty, staff and visitors will have little choice except to use park-ride lots and the transit system. (We recognize that needs of UNC Hospitals are different because of patient needs.)
It will be necessary to develop additional park-ride facilities, including other locations and creation of parking structures to meet the University’s needs. We believe it is reasonable for the University to pay the local share of costs for development and maintenance of all park-ride facilities, because they exist now and will in the future principally for the University’s benefit.
a. We request that the University pay the local share of costs for development and maintenance of park-ride facilities that principally benefit the University, including present and future facilities.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
|
Comment:
Proposed stipulations in the draft Resolution Approving an Application for a Development Plan address this issue as to future facilities. |
12. Stormwater management utility.
Most of the land in the Town and much of the University’s property was developed over a 200 year period without substantial concern for controlling storm water runoff quantity and quality. The needs for management of storm water were not as well understood in prior years as they are today.
The magnitude of proposed additional development on the University’s properties could result in significant additional storm water runoff problems unless the University manages development to hold runoff to present levels. We also think that it is desirable to mitigate current storm water runoff problems that stem from the University’s existing development.
The Town is working toward the creation of a storm water management utility that would generate funds necessary to pay for mitigation of existing storm water management problems through construction of quantity and quality control systems.
a. We request that the University join with the Town in creation of a storm water management utility that not only would address storm water runoff problems but that also would be a leader in advancing the state of the art of storm water management.
b. We request that the University commit to pay its fair share of the costs of operating a storm water management utility, paying for research and engineering, and funding capital improvements through an acreage fee, or other fee structure as ultimately adopted by the utility, similar to that which would be charged to other landowners, or an equivalent sum as a payment in lieu of such fee.
c. We request that the University control total storm water runoff on new development so that present total runoff levels are reduced and the associated stream water quality improved to acceptable levels.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University’s Development Plan will include measures to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts of stormwater runoff consistent with the requirements of the Office-Institutional 4 zoning district.
The University and the Town agree to collaborate on mutually supportive strategies to improve stormwater management, although the University will continue to manage its own program for compliance with all applicable laws. |
|
Comment:
Proposed stipulations in the draft Resolution Approving an Application for a Development Plan address these issues in part. |
13. Refuse Collection Service
The University has for many years engaged private contractors to collect, transport, and dispose of solid waste generated at its facilities. We believe such a practice is reasonable and that it should apply to all new facilities, as well.
a. We request that the University continue to engage private contractors to collect, transport and dispose of solid waste generated at its existing facilities and at any new facilities.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University will continue to engage private contractors to collect, transport and dispose of solid waste generated at its existing facilities and at any new facilities. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language directly addresses the issue. |
14. Maintenance of on-campus streets.
The Town maintains certain streets (e.g. Cameron Avenue, Raleigh Street, Ridge Road, Friday Center Drive, Airport Drive, and others) having segments that go through and principally serve the University campus. Such street segments function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties rather than as through streets.
a. We request that the University maintain all on-campus street segments that function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
|
Comment:
Proposed stipulations in the draft Resolution Approving an Application for a Development Plan address this issue as to new streets to be constructed as a part of the Development Plan. |
15. Traffic signal system maintenance.
Traffic signals on the campus are maintained by the Town. In the case of signals that are on State roads, such as South Columbia Street, the State Department of Transportation reimburses much of the cost of signal maintenance. In the case of signals that are not on State Roads, such as Raleigh Street, the Town now pays the costs of signal maintenance.
We believe that it would be reasonable for the University to pay the cost of maintaining traffic signals that are not on the State road system and that are on campus or on streets that function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties.
The Town maintains traffic signals for the Town of Carrboro on a contract basis, with Carrboro paying a proportional share (based on the number of signals) of total costs incurred for signal system maintenance.
a. We request that the University contract with the Town to pay the costs of maintaining traffic signals that are not on the State road system and that are on campus or on streets that function mainly as “driveways” to provide access to University properties.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
|
Comment:
Proposed stipulations in the draft Resolution Approving an Application for a Development Plan address this issue as to new streets to be constructed as a part of the Development Plan. |
16. Basketball victory celebrations.
With increasing frequency, University students and fans of the University’s basketball teams have conducted disruptive and costly celebrations on Franklin Street and environs in downtown Chapel Hill. The Town has received little assistance from the University in past years in planning for, controlling and cleaning-up after these events.
We are grateful for the recent offers of assistance from the University and look forward to working with University staff in the future.
Costs of victory celebrations include outlays for employee overtime work, rental of equipment, replacement of damaged landscape materials, removal of trash and other costs. The range of costs varies by the nature of the event, from a few thousand dollars for a “Beat Dook” celebration to as much as $75,000 or more if the Tar Heels win the national championship.
It is unquestionable that the basketball program has a business element to it. The basketball victory celebrations are a cost of doing business that the Town should not have to pay.
a. We request that the University continue its new policy of collaborating with the Town in planning for, controlling and cleaning-up after basketball victory celebrations.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University will continue its recent policy of collaborating with the Town in planning for, controlling and cleaning up after sports celebrations and will plan alternative celebration events and sites to keep students on campus and minimize disruption downtown. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language addresses the issue. |
b. We request the University reimburse the Town for all out-of-pocket costs of such basketball victory celebrations.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
|
Comment:
The Town will have to continue to pay the costs of such events, ranging from $30,000 to $100,000 depending on the success of teams in a particular year. |
17. Football Games.
Systems are in place for management of most of the traffic and parking control problems associated with University football games. There still are a few neighborhoods in which fans of the University’s football team will park their cars and take up all of the spaces normally used by neighbors, unless the Town barricades the neighborhood entrance and posts parking monitors at the sites.
Clearly, there is an element of business in the football program, and this is a business expense that we believe the University should pay.
a. We request that the University pay the costs of neighborhood parking control necessitated by football games.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
|
Comment:
These costs total about $6,000 annually. |
18. Parking meters on certain streets.
Over a long period, a de facto agreement has been reached between the University and the Town that the University is allowed to regulate parking on certain street segments bordering the University (e.g., Country Club Road) and obtain the revenue associated with such regulation. The Town is authorized by statute to regulate parking on such street segments, and the University may do so if the Town chooses not to do so, as we understand it.
The streets and the associated parking areas are maintained by the Town, in some cases, and by the State in others. We believe it is time to reconsider the present arrangements.
a. We request that the Chancellor authorize the appropriate University official to meet with the Town Manager or his representative to review options for parking regulation on street segments bordering the University, including the options of Town regulation, shared enforcement, revenue sharing, and maintenance cost sharing.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University and the Town agree to appoint staff representatives to address options for regulation, enforcement, revenue sharing, and maintenance cost sharing for parking control on street segments bordering the University. Work will be initiated no later than January 2002. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language addresses the issue. |
19. On-street parking regulation in neighborhoods adjacent to the campus.
The demand for parking on and near the University campus is so strong that the Town must post signs, issue permits to residents, and employ staff to regulate parking in neighborhoods adjacent the campus and in certain areas adjacent bus stops that have direct transit connections to the University.
We recognize that the University cannot prevent its students, staff, faculty, or visitors from seeking to park in such areas; however, we believe it would be reasonable for the University to pay the costs of enforcing parking regulations in such areas.
a. We request that the University pay the costs of enforcing parking regulations in neighborhoods adjacent the campus and in other neighborhoods where it is demonstrated that neighborhood parking near bus stops is generated principally by University students, faculty, staff and visitors.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
20. Storage of student cars.
A significant number of students bring cars to the community and do not have a place to store them that is both secure and convenient to reach at all times. In many cases such vehicles end up being stored in residential neighborhoods and obtained for use on week-ends and other occasions, while the students regularly use the bus system, walk or bike to class. Storage of student vehicles in residential neighborhoods creates unwanted parking in some areas.
a. We request that the University provide free and secure storage lots for student vehicles that are well served by public transit or special University transit.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University will continue the operation of and expand the student car storage lot. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language substantially addresses the issue. |
21. Registration of student vehicles.
Thousands of students bring vehicles to the community each year. The students who live in the community use the streets and other public facilities for much of the year, in the same manner as residents. Many of the vehicles brought to Town by students are not registered locally and, therefore; do not pay the Town motor vehicle registration fee that other residents of the community pay annually.
In those cases in which the University issues parking permits to students who reside on campus or elsewhere in the Town, we believe it would be reasonable for the University to require proof of payment of the local car registration fee or to collect an equivalent fee and transmit it to the Town. If legislation is needed to permit such a practice, we believe it should be sought.
a. We request that the University require proof of payment of the Town motor vehicle registration fee, or collect an equivalent fee for transmittal to the Town, at the time of issuing any parking permit to a student in residence in the community.
b. If the University believes that legislation would be needed to permit the above practice, we request that the University take the lead in seeking it.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University will explore the feasibility of and make a good faith effort to devise a means of requiring students to prove payment of the Town motor vehicle registration fee, or of collecting an equivalent fee for transmittal to the Town, at the time of issuing any parking permit to a student in residence in the community. This work will be conducted no later than January 2002.
The University will take the lead in seeking legislation to permit such a practice if it determines that legislation is needed. |
|
Comment:
We believe that the proposed language addresses the issue. |
22. Hotel/motel occupancy taxes.
Several years ago, the Town gained from the General Assembly the authority to levy an occupancy tax on receipts from rental of hotel/motel rooms. A principal purpose of the tax is to obtain revenue from visitors to help pay the costs of services from which they benefit while in the community. Certain occupancies in University lodging are exempt from the occupancy tax, because of the University’s tax-exempt status.
a. We request that the University assess the occupancy tax against all occupancies at University lodging facilities, treating the payment for occupancies which are formally exempt as a payment in lieu of taxes.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
There is no language about this issue in the Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions. |
NOTE: The following issues were not included in the Town’s original request and were proposed by the University.
|
From Draft Summary of Fiscal Equity Discussions:
The University and the Town, along with other interested municipalities and agencies will jointly plan for a “metropolitan area network” that has the potential to reduce greatly the cost of providing high speed connectivity between government and educational facilities. The University will pledge its expertise and high performance networking to enable sharing economies of scale and other mutual benefits in the acquisition and operation of such infrastructure.
The University and the Town will establish a joint committee to communicate regularly regarding student matters and collaborate on strategies to address Town, neighborhood, and student concerns.
The University pledges to examine the feasibility of certain sites as possible recreation or parklands for community use.
The University will invite the Town Council to appoint two representatives from Town government to serve on the Horace Williams Advisory Committee. The University and the Town will jointly identify and invite two other community residents to serve on the committee. |
|
Comment:
We believe that these proposals are beneficial. |