My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1999 06 21
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1999
>
AG 1999 06 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 6:00:16 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:49:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
6/21/1999
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
487
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
bedrooms translate into dwelling units that are larger and cost more, fees would <br /> be greater for those who could afford more expensive housing. As ultimately <br /> enacted by the board of commissioners, the impact fee ordinance does not <br /> recognize variations in housing type or the number of bedrooms. However, <br /> projections based on these variations were made by the county staff and are <br /> likely to be reviewed further. <br /> <br /> An important methodological step was to select appropriate "service <br />standards" that could be used to define the nature of the school building and <br />capital equipment that should be provided to serve new growth. In order to <br />estimate school construction costs, such service standards were expressed in <br />terms of student capacity for a prototype school, building square footage, and <br />land area per student. The county discovered that most of the schools in both <br />the Orange County and the Chapel HilI-Carrboro districts provided facilities that <br />exceeded the minimum service standards for public schools set by the Office of <br />School Planning of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; <br />Indeed, the respective school boards had recommended standards for new <br />schools that exceeded even the "local averages" of existing schools in the two <br />districts. However, because no formal service standards had been adopted by <br />the districts, and Using the state standards would result in lower, more <br />conservative estimates of the costs that could be assigned to new residents, the <br />state's standards were used in the calculation to make fees more legally <br />defensible.44 <br /> <br /> The costs of acquiring sites for and constructing elementary, middle, and <br />hfgh schools were then estimated. The same cost figures were used for <br />facilities in both districts. The estimates revealed a total capital cost per student <br /> <br /> 48 <br /> <br />44. /d. at 4-5. <br /> <br />43 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.