The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07221986 - X.6 TO., BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . Contra FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Costa . . DATE: July 22, 1986 Cour ly SUBJECT: ORDINANCE• REVISIONS TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY IN 201 FEES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) 8: BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED• ACTION: . , Refer the matter of ordinance revisions to the 201' guidelines to: the Community Development Department and County .Counsel: --to draft appropriate ' ordinance changes to -allow flexibility in the 201 fee policy; --to give a progress report to the Board'of Supervisors in early September with the goal of setting hearing in late September; -=to meet with interested parties including the school districts and building industry representatives to discuss these draft or and policy revisions prior to. setting them for public hearing. BACKGROUNV INFORMATION: On March 11, 1986, I recommended . that County Counsel and the Community Development .Development review the court ruling pertaining' .to a fee charged by San Diego County (copy attached) . , The Board approved this report and gave direction to consider revising our school fee structure. Since then, I met with East County school superintendents 'on July 14, . 1986,. to discuss this issue (please refer . to the attached letter inviting participation in this meeting as well as the meeting summary for further background) . This recent meeting- was extremely positive. A great willingness to cooperate was made. by all school superintendents present. Additional meetings will be held in the near future to look at possibilities of sharing facilities, adjusting boundaries and taking necessary legislative action to obtain greater funding for east county schools. A. consensus was reached on several options which is the basis for -the recommendations in- this report. Understanding that .the court decision favors the power. of. the county to apply school -fees in' 'a more flexible manner,. the consensus was reached that county ordinances should be changed to reflect this flexibility. The school district agreed that having , options to collect appropriate and reasonable school fees.. (back up by CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER . SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON July APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT IV ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND-ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Counsel ., ATTESTED July 22 , 1986 Community Development Department Phil 6whelff.ICE a We Wid Of Aupaviin aid C9A9y Admini*dv o Msec/�-ss BY DEPUTY 201 Fees July 22, 1986 Page TWO clear documentation of facility needs and demographic trends) is extremely important. Specifically, the schools would like the ability to designate a collection procedure either under the 201 guidelines or under similar guidelines that would not have the 201 restrictions mandating funds be spent on interim facilities. In other words, some school districts would like to have all or part of the monies collected available for permanent structures that would represent a long-term investment and benefit to the school campuses in question. I strongly agree with this policy direction. TT:gro ( \SCH\201FEES.PEI) Tom Torlakson as Civic Avenue J'_f Pittsburg.Califamia 94565 Supervisor,District Five ^` 14IS1439.4138 Contra Costa County :.. Board of Supervisors July 7, 1986 This letter sent to all est county school districts, City of Antioch !addressee! and City of Brentwood Dear !name! Planning for the future needs of our schools is one of the top priorities of mine in reviewing proposals for growth and development in East Contra Costa County. As most of you are aware, I called for the development of a coordinated master plan for the five East County School Districts on November 24, 1982, by resolution, and urged strongly for a major increase in the school fee for east county schools to accomplish the major capital program necessary to meet our future classroom needs. On March 11, - 1986, I recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the county revise its school -fee structure to include a provision to use the fees for permanent facilities. County Counsel is now in the process of amending the appropriate Code. I would like to call together a meeting of the five east county school districts and the Antioch School District as well as officials from the cities of Brentwood and Antioch to discuss further coordination of our school building and financing program. The Oakley General Plan amendment that is currently being reviewed has- many implications for the future impacts on our school systems. Furthermore, early this year I wrote a memo regarding the new legal flexibility we have in utilizing 241 fees and bedroom tax based on the Superior Court Decision on the San Diego school fee policy. I think it is critical that we sit down together and review this policy as it pertains to unincorporated community development and coordinate it with that of tail City CI Antioch and `a•iae policyof ti& vi�.Y va Brentwood. lname2!July 7, 1986 Page TWO It is my interpretation that we can now dedicate these fees for permanent school construction and facilities such as are needed in full campus development, like gymnasiums and cafeterias, once the County Code is amended. The county may still wish to use 201 guidelines for establishing need, but in working cooperatively with the school districts, develop a new policy that allows schools to spend money on identified needed new school structures. I would like to invite Superintendent !personi and yourself as president of your school board, as well as any other school board members to attend a meeting to discuss these important matters. This meeting has been scheduled for July 14, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. at the Delta Community Center in Brentwood. I would like to ask each school district to bring a status report on its classroom needs both for the next school year and projected into the next five year period as well as opportunities each school district sees of obtaining funds from the State of California school construction program. I look forward to meeting with you and discussing these issues in detail. Another issue which bears discussing is the need, the timing and the location for a second high school in east Contra Costa County. In discussing this issue, I believe it needs to be asked in the context of not just the needs of the Liberty Union High School District, but the combined needs of the Liberty Union High School District and the Antioch High School District. I am interested in exploring the possibility of inter-district cooperation on the development of the high school campus for the interim decade until we know for sure whether two campuses are supportable according to demographic trends past the year 2000 or whether one campus is all that will be needed between the two areas. Sincerely To,n Toriakson TT:gro i cc: lsupt! Phil Batchelor Harvey Bragdon Karl Wandry Dennis Barry East County Regional Planning Commission Leslie Davis