AG 2004 10 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Aug'ust 16, 2004 ~.-.~'/~'~'.'. r,,'.,.:r,:'i'>\. '. .r"""~,,... .¡r;.. ", , "IO~¡;¡.¡ ';'¡ ',:: "J "A iii]' "I ;:"j,'.>"'.','l". "m ~ [L~~ \rt~iì::';~~ tI Pag'e 606 'I1PON KOTIOl( of Chairman Freeman, leconcl.ed by Vice Chairman Suggs and unanimously carried, the Board named Commissioner Carpenter as alternate delegate to the NCACC Annual Conference. (G-,) Adequat. Public Faciliti.a Stanel.arda John Day, C:ounty Manager, reported Section 50f Session Law 2004-39, House Bill 224, which was effective June 30, 2004, authorized Cabarrus County to enforce its school adequacy requirement a countywide, including within the corporate limits ,of the municipalities. He stated the County's debt service is projected to increase to 23 percent of the County budget by 2007 and to 30 percent by 2012 with the continued funding of school construction projects. Stating the Local Government Commission would not allow the County to incur that much debt, Mr. Day said, the County would have to begin raising money through increased property taxes to fund pay-as-you-go projects. He stated the new legislation would offer an alternative for developers and builders to advance school adequacy and would allow flexibility to make the advancement value more closely resemble the actual impact. In 1996, he stated, the study by Tischler and Aasociates estimated the school capital coat at $8,067.00. Jonathan Marshall, Commerce Director, presented the following overview of the study by Tischler & Associates that was completed in 1996. Calculation of Capital Costa Due to School Growth The Board of Commissioners employed Tischler & Associates in 1996 to determine the approximate capital costs for various residential and non-residential uses. The capital costs that were examined included all of those public facilities necessary to support a growing community, including schools. Tischler & Associates studied three types of residential growth and estimated the school construction cOlts for each type. The following were their estimates of school capital costs by growth area: Tranaitional Area - $8067; Rural Area - $3161; Urban Area - $3332. These numbers should be considered in light of the following assumptions made by Tischler: The majority of new housing units, by value and number, are in the transition area. This is still true today. The rural areas were being served by achools that were not over dapacity and therefore the new construction needed for these homes was not as great. This fact would no longer hold true as almost all of the schools throughout the Cabarrus district have grown to capacity orabove. The urban area calculations were based on student generation rates from multi-family housing which are lower. There is a much lower rate of growth in areas defined as urban, and what growth haa' occurred is more of a mix of single. family and multi-family residential which produces a higher student per dwelling ratio. . Based on the factors discussed above it is still moat accurate to use the transition areal to determine the true costs of school capitalneecis due to growth;' In addition those costs have gone up since the Tischler study in 1996. . The capital cost of $8067 in 1996 had a value of $9320 based on a atraight consumer price index. Re-calculation of the construction costs used to determine the capital cOlts in the, Tischler study also indicates the cost experienced today is higher. The Turner Building Cost Index and ENR Building Cost Index botheltimate building costs have increased by 23% since the study was performed. Sased on that increase the capital cost for schools would be $9922 per unit. Mr. Day distributed a spreadsheet that was prepared by Pam Dubois, Deputy County Man~er, and showed the following three scenarios for funding the school renovationa/con8truction projects for the period FY 2004/05 through 2014/15. Option No. 1:pay-as-you Go through Adequate Facility Fee of $5,000.00 projected a shortfall beginning in FY 2007/08. Option No.2: Pay-as-you Go through Adequate Facility Fee of $8,000 projected a shortfall beginning in FY 2008/09. A-I .)