Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />Page 2 <br />May 13, 1997 <br /> <br />Any fee system developed could be substantial in some areas of the county if based <br />upon school capacity needs alone. The March 1996 Tischler Report that <br />recommended the "APFO" approach estimated school capital costs in the heaviest <br />impacted development areas at: <br /> <br />Elementary_ School <br /> Single Family House <br /> Multi-Family Unit <br /> Mobile Home <br /> <br />$3,161 each <br />$1,853 each <br />$2,725 each <br /> <br />Middle School <br /> Single Family House <br /> Multi-Family Unit <br /> Mobile Home <br /> <br />$2,153 each <br />$ 615 each <br />$1,845 each <br /> <br />High School <br /> Single Family House <br /> Multi-Family Unit <br /> Mobile Home <br /> <br />$2,753 each <br />$ 608 each <br />$2,237 each <br /> <br />3. Development impacting all three types of school units could see "APFO" fees of: <br /> <br />Single Family House <br />Multi-Family Unit <br />Mobile Home <br /> <br />$8,067 each <br />$3,156 each <br />$6,807 each <br /> <br />Note: These numbers are based on school construction costs of Elementary <br />$10,900,000, Middle School $18,450,000 and High School $25,810,500. <br /> <br />Any "APFO" fee structure might be modified on the basis of a decision by the <br />County Commission to allocate revenues from other sources (i.e., a local sales tax) <br />to lower the level required in the "APFO." It would only impact new construction, <br />not existing housing which does place the cost of school building needs on new <br />construction. <br /> <br />If the purpose of a moratorium is to provide an extended period of time to address school <br />capital needs, then the parameters of this issue change dramatically. <br /> <br />A. Impacts <br /> <br />1. The longer a moratorium lasts, the more unpredictable the impacts. <br /> <br /> <br />