HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07281992 - IO.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 .0.-2
Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE i
Costa
s.a
y fd�
DATE: June 15, 19 9 2 •�'°- �.='��
County'TA 't'
SUBJECT: REPORT ON CHILD CARE ISSUES, INCLUDING IMPOSITION OF A CHILD
CARE MITIGATION FEE ON DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
OF THE COUNTY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Acknowledge receipt of the attached data from the Community
Development Department providing documentation for a child
care mitigation fee for developments of fewer than 30 units in
the amount of at least $400 per unit.
2 . Direct the County Counsel ' s Office to prepare and submit to
the Board of Supervisors on August 4, 1992 an Ordinance
amending the existing Child Care Facilities Ordinance to
require that the Community Development Department verify the
need for child care facilities .and programs in each
unincorporated community in the County every three years and
providing for a fee to mitigate the child care needs created
by developments of between one and twenty-nine units in lieu
of undertaking the child care survey required in the existing
Ordinance.
3 . Fix September 8, 1992 at 11 : 00 a.m. for a hearing on an
Ordinance amending the existing Child Care Facilities
Ordinance to fix the Child Care Facilities Fee for
developments of fewer than 30 units at $400 per unit. Direct
the Clerk of the Board to comply with all applicable notice
requirements .
0
BACKGROUND:
On May 19 , 1992, the Board of Supervisors requested staff from the
Community Development Department to provide certain data to our
Committee which was determined to be important to determining the
need for and amount of a child care mitigation fee for developments
with 29 or fewer units . On June 15, 1992 our Committee met with
Kate Ertz-Berger, Executive Director of the Contra Costa Child Care
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY RATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE 66
w V'
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
�lui�r vv, i�
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I 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.
CC: Please see Page 2 . ATTESTED ,Ti /??;b
P BATCH LOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382DEPUTY
(10;89) BY
I .O.-2
Council and Linda Moulton from the Community Development
Department. Ms . Moulton reviewed the attached data with our
Committee which demonstrates that a very sound argument can be made
for a child care facilities mitigation fee for smaller developments
of as much as $722 per unit. The fee previously discussed was $400
per unit. In view of the data submitted, our Committee believes
that a fee of $400 per unit for developments of 29 or fewer units
can readily be justified.
We are, therefore, recommending that the above Ordinance be
prepared by the County Counsel ' s Office and submitted to the Board
of Supervisors on August 4, 1992 so it can be adopted on
August 11, 1992 .
The ordinance actually establishing the fee, however, must be
noticed in advance. It is unlikely that we can properly notice a
hearing for August 11 . We are, therefore, recommending that the
hearing be set for September 8, 1992 .
We plan to retain this issue in Committee for the time being to
continue to monitor the implementation of the Child Care Facilities
Ordinance and determine whether any further refinements to the
Ordinance are required.
cc: Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
Linda Moulton, Demographer, CDD
Guy Bjerke, Building Industry Association of California
Kate Ertz-Berger, Executive Director
Contra Costa Child Care Council
2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 11, 1992
TO: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: inda Moulton
SUBJECT: Child Care Ordinance and Other Child Care Issues
The discussion of several child care issues was continued from the May 11, 1992
Internal Operations Committee meeting to the meeting on June 15th.
I. DOCUMENTATION OF SHORTAGE OF CHILD CARE FACILITIES:
Kate Ertz-Berger of the Contra Costa Child Care Council has forwarded child care
supply and need data by area of the county to you. Analysis of this data confirms
that infant/toddler care is needed in virtually every community and most communities
need a larger supply of school age care. Many areas seem to have an adequate
supply of pre-school positions if you consider both center based care and family day
care slots. However, the level of need varies by community. For example, there is
a need for more child care positions for all age levels in Oakley and in the Danville area
while some communities, such as Alamo, have almost no school age care.
II. METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION OF CHILD CARE MITIGATION FEE FOR
SUBDIVISIONS HAVING LESS THAN 30 UNITS.
The cost of providing for child care facilities as mitigation for housing developments
is dependent on several factors. The child generation rate, the number of children age
0-12 per household, is a primary factor, but the following variables are also important:
the percent of children with working mothers; the percent of children needing child
care outside of the home; and the cost of providing child care facilities per child.
The number of children per household is quite variable within the county as is shown
by Tables 1 and 2. Among the incorporated cities the ratio of children age 0-12 per
household varies from a low of .25 per household in Walnut Creek to a high of .76 in
Brentwood. Overall, the ratio is .51 for the county and .53 for the unincorporated
part of the county. Table 2 shows the variation between ' unincorporated
communities. The lowest ratio was .13 in Pacheco to a high of 1 .02 children per
household in North Richmond. There are several factors that contribute to these
PAGE 2.
differences. Areas with high numbers of multiple units, an older age of housing, and
an older age of population tend to have much lower numbers of children per
household. For example, 46.6 percent of the housing units are multiple units and
22.8 percent of the population is over age 65 in Walnut Creek which helps to explain
the low ratio of children per household. On the other hand, Oakley which had a
relatively high child generation rate of .83 per household has only 9.5 percent multiple
units and 5.8 percent of the population over age 65. The unincorporated county has
19.6 of units in the multiple category and 10.1 of the population over 65.
Although, new housing would have even higher child generation rates than those
shown in Tables 1 and 2, it is impossible to calculate the number of children by age
of housing from census data. However, to illustrate this point, the Oakley area had
a child generation rate of .62 in 1980 and one of .83 in 1990. In an era of declining
children per household, these increases in children per household is a result of new,
single family housing in Oakley. No doubt the generation rate for new housing is
higher than .83, but there is no way to measure this without a special study.
The mix of children by age, such as the 0-4 year olds versus the 5-12 year olds, also
varies by area. The 0-4 year olds comprise 40 percent of the children 0-12 in the
unincorporated county but this does vary by community.
In Contra Costa County, 64.4 percent of all women with children are in the labor
force. Labor force participation rates vary by the age of children. Women with
children only below the age of 6 have a labor force participation rate of 57.5 percent
while women with children ages 6-17 have a rate of 73 percent. Women who have
children in both the under 6 and 6-17 age groups have the lowest rate of 52 percent.
In calculating the percent of children with working mothers, I proposed to use the
overall rate of 64.4 percent.
Studies have shown.that approximately half of all children with working mothers need
child care outside of the family.
The cost of providing child care facilities per child is related to the amount of land
needed per child, both inside and outside, the cost of the land, the cost of the
building, the cost of the classroom furnishings, play equipment and landscaping.
For child care centers, there needs to be 110 square feet of land per child (both inside
and outside). This does not include parking requirements, set backs and landscaping
outside of the play area. For example, a site in Oakley of almost exactly an acre could
accommodate 124 children (instead of 396 if you only considered interior and exterior
play area). The configuration of the lot could also affect the number of children which
could be accommodated.
PAGE 3.
Estimates for building costs for child care centers range from $65 per square foot to
$98 per square foot. Costs per acre of land suitable for a child care center range from
$125,000 (improved) in Oakley to $225,000 per acre in Martinez. Obviously, the
cost could be much higher per acre if the site was in a commercial or office area.
Using the following assumptions:
(1 ) $175,000 per acre for land (a conservative estimate);
(2) $80 per square foot for the building;
(3) $5 per square foot for classroom equipment;
(4) $3.50 per square foot for landscaping and
fences on the outside; and a
(5) 6000 square foot building capable of serving
125 children;
the original cost of a facility would be approximately $800,000 or $6,400 for
each child.
Assuming that:
(1 ) there are .53 children ages 0-12 in
households in the unincorporated county;
(2) 64.4 percent of children have working mothers
(ie: proxy for both parents working); and
(3) 50 percent of children need paid care outside the home;
there would be the need to provide care for an average of .17066 children for
each housing unit built.
Thus, the cost of providing space for .17066 children would be:
.17066 X $6,400 = $1,092
However, not all child care would need to be at a child care center. About 40 percent
of children ages 0-12, are under age 5. These children would be the most likely to
be served at a center except for infants. School age children would be more likely to
use the before and after school care provided at many school sites or other child care
arrangements. Facilities at school sites tend to be much less expensive because the
land cost is not included and outdoor play equipment is often not needed because the
school yard equipment can be used. If only building space has to be provided, than
the cost per child would be closer to $2,800. Sixty percent of the children would
need care at a facility where the cost was much Tess than at a center.
PAGE 4.
Thus, the overall cost for child care would be:
0-4 40% of .17066 X $6,400 = $436
5-12 60% of .17066 X $2,800 = $286
Using the above assumptions, the cost of mitigation would be $722 per housing unit.
The fee which had been previously discussed was $400 per unit. Since the policy of
the Child Care Ordinance was to assist and encourage the development of adequate
child care, a fee of $400 per unit would help leverage the development of child care
facilities. The exact amount of the fee can be set at the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors.
Apartments, condominimums and townhouses have fewer persons per unit. Whereas,
single family homes have close to 3 persons per unit. Attached units such as
condominimums and townhouses have less than 2.3 persons per unit while
apartments have an average of under 2 persons per unit. Unfortunately, census data
does not show how many children live in various types of housing. I would suggest
that condominimums and townhouses pay a fee of half of that for single family
homes, that studios and one bedrooms be exempt as in the current ordinance and that
other apartments pay a fee which is one-fourth of the fee of single family homes.
III. PROGRESS REPORT - CHILD CARE MITIGATION FOR SD 6922 AND SD 6935
With the cooperation of the Child Care Council, I have continued to try to identify
prospective child care providers who might be interested in building a child care center
on the site designated under the conditions of approval for Subdivisions 6922 and
6935. Kate Ertz-Berger is placing a notice in the Child Care Council's Bulletin
informing providers who are interested in either expanding their facilities or in building
new facilities of the possibility of cooperating with developers in satisfying the
developers' mitigation requirements. She has suggested that the providers contact
the child care broker. Kate has also drafted a letter explaining the Child Care
Ordinance and mitigations procedures which can be sent to providers. We hope to
identify providers who might be interested in building a facility in Oakley. At this
point, we do have 3 or 4 child care providers who have expressed interest in
establishing a facility. We plan to meet with them as soon as possible to explain
about the site, the architectural plans, and possible child care mitigation monies that
could be available to help facilitate the construction of a child care center. I believe
that we should make a concerted effort to locate a qualified child care provider who
is interested in building a new facility. Although The Wooldridge Organization, the
current owners of the subdivisions, did contact providers in the past, perhaps a new
effort will be more successful.
PAGE 5.
IV. PENDING MITIGATIONS
Due to the meeting being moved from June 22nd to June 15th, I request a
continuation of the presentation of the report on pending mitigations.
LM:sw
sw 1:childcar.lm
TABLE 1
Ratio of Children, Ages 0-4 and 5-12,
Per Household by City
0-4 5-12 0-12
Antioch .28 .41 .69
Brentwood .30 .46 .76
Clayton .18 .44 .62
Concord .20 .29 .49
Danville .18 .33 .51
EI Cerrito .12 .16 .28
Hercules .27 .44 .71
Lafayette .15 .27 .42
Martinez .18 .25 .43
Moraga .14 .27 .41
Orinda .16 .27 .43
Pinole .19 .37 .56
Pittsburg .31 .43 .74
Pleasant Hill .17 .21 .38
Richmond .23 .31 .54
San Pablo .29 .40 .69
San Ramon .20 .33 .53
Walnut Creek .09 .16 .25
Total Cities .20 .30 .50
Unincorporated County .21 .32 .53
Total County .20 .31 .51
CAWP51\SW\LM-TABLE
TABLE 2
Ratio of Children, Ages 0-4 and 5-12,
Per Household by Unincorporated Areas
0-4 5-12 0-12
Bethel Island .07 .12 .19
Discovery Bay .16 .24 .40
Oakley .34 .49 .83
Remainder "Far East Census Division" .22 .33 .55
West Pittsburg .32 .41 .73
Alamo .16 .33 .49
Blackhawk .20 .45 .65
Clyde .21 .29 .50
Pacheco .05 .08 .13
Vine Hill .22 .38 .60
Bayview - Montalvin .25 .53 .78
Crockett .16 .20 .36
East Richmond Heights .15 .25 .40
EI Sobrante .18 .27 .45
Kensington .11 .17 .28
North Richmond .36 .63 1 .02
Rodeo .23 .39 .62
Tara Hills .20 .29 .49
All Other Unincorporated .19 .27 . .46
TOTAL UNINCORPORATED .21 .32 .53
C:\WP51\SW\LM-TAB-2