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
Setting the Fees <br /> <br /> Concerns about equity arose when the fee calculations were complete. <br />According to the calculations, new residents located in the county school <br />administrative unit could be charged more than new residents in the city school <br />administrative unit even though, by most measures, the city unit was the <br />wealthier unit._.The county decided to address the inter-unit equity question in <br />two ways. First, any fee adopted would be set at amounts substantially lower <br />than the amounts that could be justified by the analysis. Fees in the range <br />$500-$750 were analyzed. Second, the board of county commissioners <br />decided that the impact fee per dwelling unit would be the same for new <br />residential development regardless of whether it was located within the <br />jurisdiction of the city schools or the county schools. Some county residents, <br />however, believed that even if the impact fee were identical for both districts, <br />equity could be achieved only if the county divided all of the impact fee <br />proceeds equally between the county district and the city district. The county <br />refused to do so, however', since spending funds collected in one district for the <br />benefit of those living in another district would violate the benefit and <br />proportionality principles of impact fee jurisprudence and jeopardize the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Other Legal Issues <br /> <br />Exemptions <br /> <br /> From the beginning of its consideration of impact fees, the county was <br />concerned about how the fees would affect the affordability of housing. It was <br />widely assumed that the developers and builders of residential housing would <br />shift the cost of the fee forward to the purchaser of a new ho0se or to the tenant <br /> <br />53 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.