The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10091984 - 2.8 TO: —_ BOARD OF SUi ..RVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Contra CCou �`yo�s'ta�/ DATE: October 4 , 1984 SUBJECT: School Facilities - East County Area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS That the Board of Supervisors: 1. Accept this report indicating the County' s efforts to facilitate solution of the school facility problems in East County by: a. Obtaining conceptual agreement on adjusting the School Facilities Dedication Ordinance (SB 201) fee in the Oakley Union Elementary School District, Brentwood Union Elementary School District, Knightsen Union Elementary School District, Byron Union Elementary School District, and Liberty Union High School District from $427 to $700, contingent upon the failure of Proposition 36 at the November 6 General Election (if Proposition 36 passes the ability to increase the fee is nullified) , and final analyses of need taking into account accumulated SB 201 fee balances. b. Suggesting that the school boards of the Oakley Union Elementary School District and Liberty Union High School District each adopt a resolution signifying their support for efforts to develop long-range solutions to the school facilities problem in East County. 2. Authorize the Director of Planning to negotiate a contract with Ralph Anderson & Associates to explore all available options for financing public infrastructure improvements in the Oakley area, suggest the most viable option and design an action plan for its implementation. The estimated cost of this study is $25, 000, and it is suggested that it be financed cooperatively by the advance of funds from County and Special District sources with assistance from the Oakley Union Elementary School District and Liberty Union High School District. 3. Authorize establishment of an East County School Facilities Oversight Committee comprised of representatives of the school districts, developers, county and other concerned personnel to monitor progress of the consultant' s study and its implementation. BACKGROUND (see Page 2) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE: x RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) �uazc ACTION OF BOARD ON October 9. 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X URGED further exploration of the question of consolidation of school districts. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 00 1170 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: ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator M382/7•83 BY "tj_ . DEPUTY -2- BACKGROUND On August 28 , 1984 your Board considered a report from the County Planning Director on SB 201 fees and recommending that the fee be increased from $400 to $700 in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, John Swett Unified School District and the East County school districts cited above. Your Board took a number of actions on the report of the Planning Director, including approving an increase in the school fees based upon increases in the Consumers Price Index since the fees were last established, and referring other aspects of the proposal to the County Administrator for further review and analysis with the parties concerned. As a result, my office has held meetings with representatives of the East County builders and the Superintendents of the Oakley and Libery Union High School Districts to seek consensus on the facts relating to growth in the East County area, the need for interim and long-term school facilities, on, infrastructure requirements and costs involved. After the initial exploratory meeting, my staff prepared an analysis seeking to summarize the East County school situation. This analysis is attached as Appendix A. This study shows that growth in East County is real , that the need for additional classrooms is real, that both short- and long-term solutions are required to meet facility needs. In these meetings the need for improved cooperation by all parties involved was discussed, including the desirability of adoption of a resolution by the school districts showing their interest in long- range efforts towards solution of the East County schools problem. In these meetings also it was pointed out that a serious problem facing East County developers is that they are subject not to just the SB 201 fees , but a variety of other fees which are increasing the cost of housing and making it increasingly difficult for first- time home buyers. A tabulation of the total fees required of developers is shown as Appendix B. On September 11, 1984 the County Planning Director submitted additional items relating to East County school facilities; one item recommended that the SB 201 fee be fixed at $427 in line with the Board' s earlier action tying the increase to the increase in the Consumers Price Index. Another item provided a report on infrastructure financing for the Oakley area; that report recommended the employment of a consulting firm to prepare proposals to finance infrastructure needs. The scope of the work to be accomplished by the consultant was a subject of discussion at the time the report was submitted, and my office requested to furnish clarifying information and further recommendation. For this prupose there is attached a letter, Appendix C, dated June 8 , 1984 , outlining expectations of the firms submitting proposals. The finding from our review is that the most cost-effective submittal is by the firm of Ralph Anderson and Associates, and that the scope of work outlined by that firm is responsive to the work required for a long-range plan for meeting infrastructure requirements in the Oakley area. Another item discussed at the meetings was the need for the establish- ment of an Oversight Committee to monitor the Oakley study and continue cooperation among all parties, and possible further adjust- ment in the SB 201 fee. From these discussions, conceptual agreement on an increase in the SB 201 fee was obtained but the Jarvis Initiative (Proposition 26 on the November Ballot) and accumulated SB 201 fund balances are factors which must be further weighed prior to implementa- tion of a fee increase. The $700 figure is conservative from the perspective of the schools in that it excludes interest costs. and aspects of the higher quality classroom facilities that the schools really prefer, itemsthe developers feel are unwarranted for interim facilities. 00171 =3- '1 The meetings held, and analyses of needs and costs , related exclusively to the East County area . The need for a fee adjustment for the San Ramon Valley and John Swett Unified School Districts was not reviewed in these discussions . Recommendations in this report, therefore , apply solely to the East County area . After receipt of the consultant ' s report on infrastructure financing in early 1985 , a further review of these recommendations is suggested. Orig : County Administrator cc : Liberty Union High School District Byron Union Elementary School District Brentwood Union Elementary School District Oakley Union Elementary School District Knightsen Union Elementary School District Building Industry Association Standard Pacific Woodhill Development Co. Hofmann Co. Garrow & Cardinale Construction Co. Kaufman & Broad of Northern California, Inc . Albert D. Seeno Construction Co. County Superintendent of Schools Director of Planning Public Works Director County Counsel 00172 APPENDIX A EAST COUNTY COMMUNITY 00173 QUALITY OF LIFE Family Community Delta Access Clean Air Rural/Suburban Low Crime Good Climate DEVELOPERS Creative Land use Positive Publicity Attract Light Industry Community Awareness Quality Homes Open Minded Infrastructure Fees 00174 HOUSING NEEDS 1984-1985 1987-1988 Change Oakley 4, 243 51787 11544 Liberty 11, 903 13, 479 1, 576 STUDENT GENERATION RATE . 50 Per House - Elementary . 25 Per House - High School . 75 Total 2 Houses = 1 Elementary Student 4 Houses = 1 High School Student NUMBER OF STUDENTS 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 Oakley 1, 305 1, 537 11809 2,077 Liberty 1, 498 1, 688 1, 810 11892 00175 EXISTING FACILITIES - OAKLEY Regular - 30 x 30 = 900 Spec. Ed. - 3 x 10 = 30 Portable - 9 x 30 = 270 Total 1, 200 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 Need 1, 305 1, 537 1, 809 21077 Available 11200 1, 200 11200 1, 200 Shortage 105 337 609 877 + s 30 30 30 30 Additional Rooms Needed 3. 5 11. 2 20 . 3 29. 2 EXISTING FACILITIES - LIBERTY Regular - 33 x 30 = 990 Spec. Ed. - 4 x 12 = 48 Portable - 9 x 30 = 270 Con. Ed. - 1 x 96 = 96 Total 1, 404 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 Need 1, 498 11688 1, 810 1, 892 Available 1, 404 11404 1, 404 11404 Shortage 94 284 406 488 30 30 30 30 AdditiNeeded 3 .1 Rooms 3 .1 9 . 5 13. 5 16. 3 00176 SHORTAGE IMPACT - Loss of Education Quality - Loss of Student/Teacher Relationship - Overcrowding - Increased Class Size - Cafeteria - Transportaiton - Sanitation/Safety ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS Build Interim Facilities Busing New Development Moratorium Reduce Class Instruction Time Build New Schools *Public/Private Effort *Community Facilities District *Leroy Greene Bond Money ®District Bond Issues IMMEDIATE ACTION *Leroy Greene Funds - Districts have applied for more Classrooms: Oakley - 6 ) By 1986 Liberty - 4 ) oRehabilitation Funds - Liberty will gain 2 classrooms by 1987. *Proposition 26. 40akley infrastructure - consultant study ($25 , 000 ) . *Oakley to buy land with local funds . *Increase school facilities fee and review after 1/1/85. 00177 CLASSROOM SHORTAGE 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 Oakley 3. 5 11. 2 20 . 3 29 . 2 Liberty 3.1 9. 5 13 . 5 16. 3 Total - 6 . 6 20 . 7 33. 8 45. 5 Greene 10 10 Rehabilitation L!2 Net 6 . 6 20. 7 23. 8 33.5 COST ALTERNATIVE County County Oakley Liberty (Lease) (L/P) Ourch. ) (Purch. ) Classroom $7, 000/yr. $11, 000/yr. $49 , 920 $46, 800 $35 , 000 $55, 000 Restroom $1, 800/yr. $1, 800/yr. $7, 490 $12, 960 $9, 000 $9 , 000 Set Up Site Prep $2, 000 $2, 000 $8,500 $7,150 Utilities 5, 000 5 ,000 41620 41400 Furniture 2,500 2 , 500 31500 51000 Misc. 3, 500 3,500 9,530 11, 700 $13, 000 $13, 000 $261150 $28, 250 Total $57,000 $77,000 $83,560 $88,010 Fee $698 $943 $1, 024 $1,078 00178 APPENDIX B OTHER DEVELOPMENT FEES Planning Department Fees are levied for a variety of actions including: Agricultural Preserve Major Subdivision Certificate of Compliance Minor Subdivision Development Plan Permit Planned Unit District General Plan Amendment Rezoning Land Use Permit Variance Permit For any particular development one or more of the above fees may be levied depending on the circumstances . For example, a particular development may require a General Plan amendment, a rezoning or the cancellation of an Agricultural Preserve contract. Building Inspection Department Fees are levied for review of construction/grading plans, issuance of building/grading permits, field inspection and energy surcharge. Typically, for a single family dwelling fees would be levied for: Building Permit Electrical Plan Check Mechanical Plumbing Energy Surcharge Public Works Department The major portion of the fees levied by this department consists of a 7% levy on the cost of public improvements (roads, sidewalks, drains, etc. ) that the developer is required to install. A total of 2 .5% of this fee is for Plan Review and 4. 5% for Field Inspection. In addition, for a major subdivision, there is an Application Review Fee of $225 , a Map Check fee of $175 + $5/lot and fees for various encroachment permits which may be required, ' such as for driveways, excavation, and frontage improvements. School Facilities Fee A total of $427 per bedroom (first bedroom excluded) . Park Dedication Fee A Total of $400 per house. 00179 2. Example Assume: Single Family House 3 bedrooms 1700 square feet & Garage 200 House Subdivision Planning Department Major Subdivision Fee: $750 + $65 per unit through 50 units + $35 per unit, 51-250 units 50 x $65 = $3, 250 150 x $35 = $5 , 250 $8r500 +750 9 , 250 c 200 $4:6. 25 per unit average Building Inspection Department 1700 sq. ft. x $30 = $51, 000 house value 500 sq. ft. x $8 = $4, 000 garage value 55,000 Total Building Permit $303 Plan Check 197 Plumbing 44 Electrical 54 Mechanical 35 Energy Surcharge 125 Total $758 Total Fees Per House Planning $46 Bldg. Inspection 758 Schools 854 Park Ded. _ 400 $2,058 Plus Public Works Fees . NOTE: A road fee of $1, 312 per dwelling unit is currently levied in the Discovery Bay area only. The funds will be used to make improvements to Highway 4 in order to accommodate increased traffic volume resulting from residential develop- ment in this area. GEB/aa 00180 Plan.ning Departmet Contra Costa APPENDIX C County Administration Building, North Wing County P.O. Box 951 Cv Martinez, California 94553-0095 Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning ±� Phone: 372-2031 ...:� .;; June 8, 1984 Michael Majors 2500 Old Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 Dear Mr. Majors: On May 22, 1984, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized the solicitation of requests for proposals to prepare finance plans for public infrastructure improvements in the Oakley area. The County currently has approved and adopted location plans for fire stations, schools, parks, thoroughfares and flood control facilities. Methods of financing have been identified by the Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the detailed finance action plan to be developed. It is expected that a consulting team will be needed including a financial advisor, construction cost estimator, finance counsel and possibly a staff person with engineering background to be stationed part-time in the County offices for the purpose of researching and satisfying the consulting team's information needs. The consulting team will be required to perform all of the following services: a) Prepare the detailed cost information for thoroughfare and flood control facilities; refine the existing preliminary cost estimates for fire station, school and park facilities; prepare site selection, con- struction schedule and other information called for in the adopted implementation plans for fire and school facility financing (attached) and develop the same scope of information for parks, thoroughfares, and flood control facility needs; and prepare maintenance and operat- ing estimates for non-school facilities. b) Prepare a step by step, coordinated finance plan for fire, school, park thoroughfare and flood control facilities projected as needed within the next 5-7 years, including among other instruments, the use of the Community Facilities District and Kapiloff Assessment legislation and the coordination of these means of financing with Park Dedication Fees, School Impaction Fees, Assessment District and Drainage Area Fees. 00 8i c) Design an action plan in cooperation with affected special districts, to place any measures requiring voter approval on the March 1985 ballot and to otherwise establish a coordinated financing program (deadline for the March 1985 ballot is December 10th). d) Identify methods, if any, of consulting services cost recovery through these financing programs. Proposals must include the following items: 1) Describe the general background of your firm regarding: a) establish- ment of community facility districts, b) financing of schools, parks and fire stations and c) other areas of public facility finance expertise and available services. 2) Identify and describe the members of the proposed consulting team, their qualifications, experience in similar programs and financings and their time commitment to the program. 3) Provide a cost estimate for each task within categories a) through d) above including scope of work, i.e., a step by step breakdown of the tasks proposed to be carried out. Describe the amount and terms of compensation desired for professional time. Indicate the fee in terms of the amount desired or a non-contingent basis and on a contingent basis. Indicate further the amount and number of expense items subject to reimbursement. 4) Provide three references from clients for whom you have worked as financial advisor. 5) Discuss any other aspect of your firm's qualifications which may be helpful in the evaluation your proposal. Proposal must be submitted to: Contra Costa County Planning Department, attn: Daniel Vanderpriem, Senior Planner, P.O. Box 951, Martinez, CA 94553. Proposals must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, June 29, 1984. Please call if you have questions. SincereI yours, r i nth y A. Deha us - ire or of Planning AAD:plp 13c 00-182 �r wry THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 9, 1984 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, Schroder , Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: In the Matter of Setting ) Fees for Interim School ) RESOLUTION NO . 84/623 Facilities , East County Area ) (Ord . C . §18-2.002 & 812- 10.206) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: It has further reviewed reports from its Director of Planning recommending that (or concerning) the existing bedroom fee for interim school facilities and its possible increase to a new per bedroom fee of $700 (but not to exceed $2100 per dwelling unit ) . In addition , this Board has received an October 4, 1984 report from the County Administrator on this matter . This Board , having considered said reports and all other testimony (written and oral ) received concerning the proposed fee increase , HEREBY DETERMINES that its Resolution No . 84/552 is amended so that in the unincorporated area of this County contained within the Oakley Union Elementary, Brentwood Union Elementary, Knightsen Union Elementary, Byron Union Elementary, and Liberty Union High School Districts on and after November 9, 1984 the fees required to be paid pursuant to the "School Facilities Dedication Ordinance of Contra Costa County" (Ord . No . 78- 10) shall be , and paid as follows: (a ) $700 per bedroom in excess of one bedroom per dwelling unit not exceeding $2100; (b) $700 for each dwelling unit space or lot in a mobile home park. Except as amended herein , the provisions of Resolution No . 84/552 shall remain in full force and effect . If the review of the County Administrator and County Counsel reveals any significant legal or procedural problem with Libery Union or Oakley School Districts' fund balances or use of AB 201 funds , this Resolution shall not go into effect if modified as per recommendations of the County Admin- istrator by subsequent action of the Board of Supervisors . If Proposition 36 is adopted at the November 6, 1984 General Election , this resolution shall be repealed on that date but Resolution No . 84/552 shall thereafter remain in full force and effect throughout the entire unincorporated area of this County . 1 hereby cert°y tha;this!s a true and correct copy of an actio- taken and cn;erer, on the minutes of the Board of supervi;ors{orothe date shown. ATTESTED: PHIL CATCHcL +a, Clerk cf the E3oa,d Of Su;ervisors and County Administrator By Deputy RESOLUTION NO . 84/623 00183