AG 1999 06 21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be attributed to new residential development during the planning period within the county.. Some state legislatures and courts have authorized school impact fees to be imposed on forms of commercial and industrial development? The more common methodology, and the one chosen by Orange County, predicts the number of public school students from growth in the housing stock. (The choice was also influenced by the fact that Orange County has somewhat less commercial and industrial development than a county with its population would suggest.) One issue was the expected growth of the housing stock in the two school districts. The average annual growth rate of the housing stock during the period 1980-90 (3.08 percent in the Orange County district and 3.70 percent in the Chapel HilI-Carrboro district) was projected to continue through 1998.43In addition, the average number of children generated by a new dwelling unit during the 1993-98 period was assumed to be the same as that dudng the period 1980-90. These student generation rates we~'e then calculated .for elementary, middle, and high schools in both districts. Another issue concerned whether the expected growth in the housing stock and student generation rates should be projected by housing type and the number of bedrooms. According to one variation of the proportionality logic, a house with more bedrooms means a house with more children. Residents of houses with more children thus could justifiably be expected to pay proportionally more. Such an approach also appealed to those concerned with the regressive nature of a flat fee on all housing units: if dwelling units with more 42. CAL. GOVERNMENT CODE § 65995 (West 1983); Shapell Industries, I.nc. v. Governing Bd. of Milpitas Unified School District, I Cal. App. 4th 218 (Cal. App. 1991). 43. Revised Report on School Impact Fee Calculation, supra note 9, p. 16.1, Table 14. .,47