My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 1996 04 04
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1996
>
AG 1996 04 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 6:58:09 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:55:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
4/4/1996
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
Presentation of the 1995 ButldinK and Growth Data for Cabarrus County - Mr. <br />Jonathan Marshall & Ms. Mary O'Donnell <br /> <br /> Mr. Marshall and Ms. Mary O'Donnell presented the Cabarrus County growth <br />and population statistics for 1995. Ms. O'Donnell reviewed a number of charts <br />and graphs showing the type and amount of growth in Cabarrus County, including <br />construction values, number of residential building permits and a compilation of <br />building permits by type and distributed to census tracts. Current population was <br />estimated at slightly over 118,000 people. The total estimated value of <br />construction for the county in 1995 was $182,131,536. <br /> <br />Presentation of the Fiscal Impacts of Growth Report - Tischler & Associates <br /> <br /> Mr. Paul Tlschler of Tischler & Associates presented a summary of findings <br />of capital costs due to growth in Cabarrus County. The report classified Cabarrus <br />County in the three geographic areas of rural, transitional and urban with <br />capital costs to the County for providing residential services in each of the <br />areas as follows: Multifamlly Unit - Urban (assumes 50 Units) - $3,332.00 per <br />unit; Single Family Unit - Rural (Assumes 250 units) - $7,163.00 per unit; and <br />Single Family Unit - Transitional (Assumes 1,500 units) - $18,522.00 per unit. <br />Mr. Tlschler sug&eared that the County consider a full fiscal analysis in order <br />to calculate operating expenses along with the capital costs. He further <br />su~ested that the County evaluate revenue alternatives for school construction, <br />including such items as a supplemental school property tax, a school impact fee, <br />a dedicated real estate transfer tax and aR interim service fee for new houses. <br /> <br /> Mr. Douglas Porter, with Tischler & Associates, §ave a brief overview of <br />growth management techniques, including residential downstzing in selected areas, <br />the development of an adequate public facilities ordinance and developer <br />contributions/exactions. He stressed the importance of public/private <br />cooperation to meet the needs associated with the rapid growth in the county. <br /> <br /> Mr. Clifton suggested the appointment of a task force to pursue the issue <br />of growth management and to build consensus relative to the best approach to meet <br />the needs of the county. The task force would include representatives from the <br />county, the municipalities, homebullders, realtors and others directly impacted <br />by growth management. <br /> <br /> There was general discussion by the Board about the need to develop <br />alternative revenue sources to meet the school construction needs. The Board <br />discussed the two options of school impact fees and interim service fees for new <br />homes. Mr. Hartsell explained the difficulty in determining the appropriate fee <br />to be imposed as a school impact fee. Also, it was noted during discussion that <br />the services of a consultant could be required to provide appropriate statistical <br />analysis in determining the appropriate school impact fee. <br /> <br /> After discussion, there was general consensus for the Chairman and the <br />County Manager to make recommendations to the Board regarding the composition of <br />the proposed task force to study the issue of ~rowth management. Also, Board <br />members were asked to think about who should serve on the task force. <br /> <br />Proposal by Lake Concord Venture~ LLC <br /> <br /> Mr. Ken Argo, ~hairman of the Kannapolis Economic Development Commission, <br />presented an overview of work completed during the past year involving a proposal <br />by Lake Concord Venture to build a signature golf course on the Lake Concord <br />property. He sta~ed tha~ the Kannapolts Economic Development Commission and the <br />Kannapolis City Council have agreed in principle to the proposal, <br /> <br /> Ms. Sheryl Bayko, partner of Lake Concord Venture, LLC, presented the <br />proposal for Lake Concord Venture to purchase approximately 221 acres of County <br />property surrounding Lake Concord at a cost of approximately $10,000.00 per acre. <br />This property would be used along with an additional 340 acres for the <br />development of a Nick Price signature championship golf course and residential <br />community. The project is expected to add $1 million to the County's tax base <br />and provide 65 new Jobs in the county. Ms. Bayko reported that alternative si=es <br />are currently being sought for a public park and school which had been planned <br />for the Lake Concord property. Also, she stated that the company will contribute <br />$500,000.00 for park development and $120,000.00 towards the purchase of the new <br />school site. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.