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
station of $11,180 per elementary school student, $12,033 per middle school <br />student, and $12,985 per high school student? However, when these figures <br />were multiplied by the number of school children per dwelling (a figure that is <br />significantly higher in the county school system), the total capital cost per <br />dwelling unit differed significantly between'the two districts. The total capital <br />cost for elementary, middle, and high schools per dwelling unit in the Orange <br />County Schools was determined to be $5,341; the corresponding figure for the <br />Chapel HilI-Carrboro Schools was $3,5587. <br /> <br />Credits for Payments by New Development for Existing Capital Improvements <br /> <br /> The next step in the calculation of the impact fee was to determine what <br />credits should be applied to the capital costs per dwelling unit to account for the <br />fact that the owners of new development will be paying part of the capital costs <br />associated with already existing schools. When the rational nexus test began to <br />evolve over a decade ago, several courts recognized that in order for <br />development fees to be equitable the cost accounting necessary to justify them <br />would have to embrace a broader complex of public finance considerations <br />than had been the case in the past. In the very influential 1981 decision of <br />Banberry Development Corporation v. South Jordan City, the Utah Supreme <br />Court ruled that "to comply with standards of reasonableness, a municipal fee.. <br />· must not require newly developed properties to bear more .than their equitable <br />share of the.., costs in relation to the benefits conferred."47 The court then <br /> <br />45. Id. at 7.1, Table 4. <br /> <br />4s. Id. at 7.2, Table 5. <br /> <br />47. 631 P.2d 899,705 (Utah 1981). <br /> <br />~ 49 _ <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.