What, me worry?

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “What, me worry?”.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

5 Comments

  1. George C

     /  August 15, 2016

    Hi Nancy,
    While it is certainly accurate to say that we are in year 3 of the E-F Zoning District, perhaps it is more informative for readers to mention that we are actually in month 26 of the E-F District. Year 3 can range from 25 to 36 months. We don’t know what might happen in the remaining 10 months of year 3 that might change some of the projections.

  2. Geoff Green

     /  August 15, 2016

    “Last year, Ram Realty bought Pavilion East, a mixed-use complex in Durham, and now is replacing it with 263 apartments.”

    The original owners of Pavilion East had planned a 14-story apartment building in addition to the existing mixed-use complex. They could’t get financing and decided to sell to Ram Realty, which is building 263 apartments IN ADDITION TO the existing mixed-use development. Nothing is being replaced. Details in this story: http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/real-estate/2015/12/luxury-apartment-project-in-durham-planned-with-41.html

  3. For those readers who may have missed it the first time around, back in January 2015 Orange County planning staff conducted a fiscal impact analysis of the entire 20-year Ephesus-Fordham projected redevelopment and found it to be net revenue negative.

    The staff memo containing the analysis can be downloaded here: http://www.orangecountync.gov/January_27__2015.pdf

    Here’s the key passage:

    “Based on information provided, the County would potentially receive incremental property tax revenues over three phases of the Project of approximately $14 million. County expenditures, based on current County financial policies and guidelines, would total $23 million prior to the requested debt contribution. After paying the requested debt contribution of $400,840 over 20 years, Attachment B-1 reflects Scenario 1 where the County would net a deficit of incremental tax revenues of $10.4 million. This scenario includes the cost impact of providing County services affected by the project, as well as the 48.1% target impact of General Fund revenues provided to Education, and the costs to fund the additional students in each phase of the project at the current per pupil amount of $3,571 per pupil.

    “After paying the requested debt contribution of $400,840 over 20 years, Attachment B-2 reflects Scenario 2 where the County would net a deficit of incremental tax revenues of $6.9 million.This scenario only includes the 48.1% target to Education and the costs of the additional students in each phase of the project.”

    The County analysis assumes that residential property will compose only ~60% of the total redevelopment. If the new construction in the EF district ends up being more than 60% residential—a likely outcome if current trends continue*—then the net fiscal impact of EF will be even more negative.

    If this is not the outcome Council members want, if they want the EF redevelopment to achieve its stated goal of reducing the residential property tax burden by expanding the commercial tax base, it may be necessary to modify the form-based code to place a ceiling on the amount of new residential construction in the district and to ensure that a certain minimum percentage of new construction is commercial.

  4. Plurimus

     /  August 16, 2016

    “You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train!” – A. E. Newman

  5. Del Snow

     /  August 22, 2016

    An additional factor is the reality that no costs for additional transit were included in the financial model presented to Council. Is that realistic? An influx of residents without expanded transit service will lead to serious traffic congestion and smog. And, if the transit service is increased, what will this do to the bottom line numbers? http://chapelhill.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=2056&meta_id=86447