Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09231986 - IO.2 �v Z TO. B®ARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE /�tra September 22, 1986 Vesal DATE'. �� Draft Permanent School Facilities I ll�/ SUBJECT: Fee Ordinance SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . In view of the Governor' s approval of AB 2926 ( Stirling) and SB 327 (Leroy Greene) on September 18, 1986, take no further action on the draft school facilities fee ordinance, and remove this item as a referral to our Committee. 2. Direct County Counsel to prepare an amendment to the County' s interim school fee ordinance that will clarify that school districts which certify that they are levying the maximum fee permitted under AB -2926 will serve to meet the requirements of the County'-s _interim school fee ordinance. BACKGROUND: On August 12, 1986, the, Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee a request to pursue the issue of the State' s obligation to finance school construction and the feasibility of , establishing a development fee to assist school districts in providing permanent school facilities. Our Committee met with County Counsel and representatives from the County Administrator' s Office on September 22. The County Administrator's Office presented a report summarizing various methods which had been utilized to finance -permanent school construction over the last several years, particularly since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 . it is clear in reviewing this information that while the State has assumed some responsibility for financing the construction of permanent school facilities primarily through bond issues, much responsibility remains at the local level. At the request of the Board of Supervisors, County Counsel prepared a draft permanent school fee ordinance designed to be consistent with the decision of the California Supreme Court in the case of Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School District. County Counsel has circulated this- draft ordinance and reviewed it with our Committee. However, since CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE s/ : N�an�c Fanden Sueak fvf ACTION OF BOARD ON September 23, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County Administrator CC: ATTESTED September 23, _196 County Counsel .8 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 Page 2 this item was referred to our Committee, the State Legislature has given considerable attention to the issue of development fees to finance school facilities. A series of school facility bills were placed into a Conference Committee just before the end of the legislative session. Two bills were reported out of that Conference Committee--AB 2926 and SB 327 . AB 2926 authorizes school districts to impose fees on residential and commercial development for school construction up to $1.50 per sq. ft. for residential construction and 25 cents per sq. ft. for commercial construction. The Board of Supervisors will not have authority to impose fees for permanent school facilities, although they will retain the authority to impose SB 201 fees which can be utilized for interim school facilities. However, the maximum fee of $1. 50 per sq. ft. for residential construction and 25 cents per sq. ft. for commercial construction includes both permanent school facility construction fees and interim fees. We would expect that any school district which has a need for either interim or permanent school facilities would exercise their right under AB 2926 to impose a fee since it can be used for either interim or permanent facilities. The enforcement authority for these provisions is that the County will not be able to issue a building permit until the Building Inspector receives certification from the appropriate school district that any development fees imposed by that district have been paid by the applicant and that, therefore, the building permit can be issued. The recommended amendment to the County' s interim school fee ordinance is necessary in order to conform our ordinance to AB 2926 and clarify that if a school district is imposing the maximum fee permitted under AB 2926 that that will serve to meet the requirements of our interim school facility fee ordinance. one additional provision of AB 2926 provides that if a statewide school bond measure is defeated by the voters at any time after January 1, 1987, the cap on development fees is removed and boards of supervisors would also again have the authority to impose development fees for permanent school facilities in addition to the authority of school districts.