BC 2006 02 27 RECESSED - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 27, 2006 - Recessed Meeting Page 518 Current inventory of 11,000 approved lots; (3) Vesting or grandfathering of approved lots; (4) Student generation rate of .6 student for a single family home; (5) Enforcement of the APFO within the cities of Concord and Kannapolis; and (6) Determination of existing school capacity. Jim Amendutn, Assistant the formula for determining capacity. He stated it should School Superintendent, expressed concern that school adequacy is based on 110 percent of be 100 percent. Mr. Marshall explained the Board had set the capacity at 110 percent in reviewing adequacy, but stated it could be changed to 100 percent. He also addressed issues regarding the core capacity of schools. Commissioner Privette questioned the current $4,034.00 per single family residence. He stated the per lot proposed in union County would be more in line mitigation payment of fee of over $20,000.00 with school costs. Mr. Marshall explained the current payment of $4,034.00 is 50 percent of the incurred capital cost for single family units as determined by the 1996 fiscal impact analysis. He stated the Board could increase that amount to 100 percent. Also, he suggested the County update the 1996 Capital Costs study by Tischler and Associates to reflect current construction costs. He further suggested an annual inflation factor with the amount to be recalculated each year. There was general consensus that the Tischler study should be updated. Mr. Marshall also responded to questions regarding the review process to determine school adequacy. He stated the schools provide the core capacity information and the primary source of the Student Generation Rate is the Commerce Department. Also, the Commerce Department currently serves as the reviewing agency to determine if adequacy exists. Commissioner Privette suggested that the Schools should be the reviewing agency to determine school adequacy for subdivisions. Mr. Marshall advised that a standard formula and methodology could be put into place to test adequacy on the Student Generation Rate, the existing facili ties, the Schools 15-year Facilities Plan, the planned developments, etc. Mr. Amendum stated it approve subdivisions and it said the Schools provide enrollment figures to assist was not the public schools' place to deny or was their responsibility to plan schools. He information regarding capacity and current the County in considering new developments. After discussion, it was generally agreed that the County would work together to develop the specifics of determine school capacity and address school adequacy issues. Schools and the the process to Liz Poole, Cabarrus County School Board Chair, stated the Schools do not need to vote on developments. She said that was the County's responsibility, not the Schools. She pointed out it would not matter which agency reviewed the developments when the specific data and methodology is established. It was generally agreed that County and Schools staff will proceed with addressing the issues identified during the meeting. These included the Student Generation Rate and development of a statistical model to better predict the number of school aged children predicted from various housing units along with the calculation of school adequacy. A proposal to update the 1996 Capital Costs Study by Tischler and Associates will be brought to the Board for consideration. Chairman Carruth stated the three boards would be meeting on and 22, 2006, for a retreat to address interdependency and ways together for the future of the community. March 21 to work Recess of Meeting Chairman Carruth recessed the meeting at 7:50 p.m. for 10 minutes to be reconvened in Cabarrus Room B. Members of the two School Boards, with the exception of the County School Board Chair, left the meting at this time. Chairman Carruth reconvened the meeting at 8:11 p.m. in Cabarrus Room B at the Arena.