Agenda - 09-23-2002 - 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 9119102 John noted the important outcome as it relates to this task force and SLUC is that there be a specific recommendation as to what approach will be used for the future—there must be something in place. There is self-interest that would lead one entity to favor a projection methodology over another. Craig noted that the Tischler contract required them to leave us their formulas. They had 4 different models themselves that reflect different conditions in the community. They used two different methodologies for calculating two separate sets of school district impact fees. If there are large buildouts, then planning directors can bring in local knowledge and other constraints to those models. Lisa observed that the goal is to remove subjectivity from the process—any change to formulas must be based on empirical data. Craig says they will explain the linear and cohort survival methods. Dana wants to see the formulas. Craig says some of those are simple, if you define things (e.g. building capacity) and stick with those over time. We are starting to standardize data better, and are getting better ideas working with school systems as to where the students are coming from. Dana asked whether we have tested the accuracy of these. Gloria thinks the performance of various models is important. Alice noted that SLUC has looked at all of these things and made recommendations. They decided last night that both systems should use the linear Tischler model. SLUC was charged at a Joint Planning Area meeting to make recommendations on these. Alice pointed out that its not just the Board of Commissioners, but all parties, that must approve these things. Alice noted that some of these models work in a way that requires adjustments each year, like DPI's. All of us need to understand the models' working, and those that want the nitty gritty can go deeper. Craig plans to do analysis so CIP preparers can understand the predictive value of methodologies. Gloria asked Steve Scroggs to explain his handout on which models were most accurate for 2001-02 for various levels (elementary, middle, high school). Alice surmised that there would not be statistical significance because of the small sample size. Alice then pointed out info from the May 15 SLUC meeting and Apr 2001 SFTF report comparing student membership numbers by school. She noted that with bond funded projects coming, we ought to be in good shape for SAPFO at both school systems and all levels, once the need for CHCCS high school space is addressed.