The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 11141995 - D.6 0. b TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: NOVEMBER 1.4, 1995 SUBJECT: EAST COUNTY SCHOOLS' FACILITIES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: DETERMINE East County Schools' Facilities' policy requirements and compliance criteria; and DETERMINE appropriate fees to be paid to schools consistent with "will serve" letter intentions, following the hearing that enables individual applicants and respective school districts to speak. The Board may indicate appropriate amount based on testimony. FISCAL IMPACT: May result in additional application processing responsibilities. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The purpose of this item is to resolve school fees for projects approved between September 1992 and September 1995. The fee set by the State is $1.72 per square foot ($2580 for a 1500 square foot home), which the schools feel is inadequate. The schools have adopted $12,466 as a one-time fee for a 1500 square foot home for high school and elementary districts. Attachment A represents a series of background documents in prior staff reports. Attachment B includes the appropriate County General Plan provisions and facility needs' reports submitted by the school districts. Attachment C includes the September 19, 1995 school facilities funding and mitigation agreement. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATtim,,: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE, APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATUREN: ACTION OF BOARD ON ��PPROVED AS RECONINIENDED_ OTHER X See addendum for speakers list and Board action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THF. UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE, DATE SHOW AYES: NOES: A'T'TESTED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: a _4VtL,_Amr PHIL BATCHEL, ,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPE, 'I ORS ('OUNTl' IINISTItATOR VA:dg BY DEPUTY schlhrg.bo Contact: Val Alexeeff(646-1620) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Depaf4ments School Districts(via GMEDA) BIA(via GMEDA) ATTACHMENT A-1 PROJECT LIST File # Name & Name & Consultant/ When Elementary Address of Address of Engineer Approved School Applicant Property District Owner -2736.-RZ 3-C Dev. Patricia John Wyro 6-8-93 Oakley DP 3048-8!'- Co. Fraser, TRE The Wyro School SD 6963 1160 Crow 1320 N. Co. District Canyon Manzanita 105 Alta 236 Lots Place, Ste. Orange, CA Haciendas Version 4 100 92667 Orinda, CA San 94563 Ramon, CA PH #254- 94583 5246 Ph #830-8700 Engineer - D.K. Assoc. 1440 Maria Lane, Ste. 200 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 Ph #932- 6868 2917-RZ KLA-Bryan Lesher .. Patricia ------- Oakley DP 3031-90 & Murphy, Communica Curtin School SD 7588 Inc. tions, Inc. Gagen, District (Lesher 5000 C/o John McCoy, Lakes) Executive Zenai McMahon & Parkway, 2640 Armstrong (571 Lots) Ste 125 Shadelands P.O.Box San . Drive 218 Ramon, CA Walnut Danville, 94583 Creek, CA CA 94526- 94596 0218 Ph 867- 3380 Ph 935- Ph #837- 5900 0585 2918-RZ Three A. J. Engineer - 6-8-93 Oakley DP3032-90 Sisters Solomon/ D. K. School SD 7562 Trust Chartered Associates District (Cypress 101 Land & 1440 Maria Lakes) Ygnacio Cattle Co. Lane, Ste. Version 1 Valley 101 200 Version 5 (1,330 lots) Road, #400 Ygnacio Walnut Walnut Valley Rd. Creek, CA Creek, CA Walnut 94596 94596 Creek, CA 94596 Ph 932- PH 947- 6868 1047 Ph 947- 1047 699117 -589 Hd 9991176 b'0 '6ingsll!d OM76 `d0 an!aa `pioouo0 I uotsaa� ap!s�ooJ8 001# "PM8 s101 6£ 180E puowe!a J0uIs!a Isnil 06ZZ 189L (IS IooyoS Al!wed saIe!oossy 16-££OEda Aql�e0 t76-81-1 --------- ou!ln0 12 !0091198 Z�J-OL6Z (slol ZZEO bZE - Aluo -998 Hd I 9se4d) (panoidde }0!ijs!Q E851176 OM7 Ted) IooyoS VO 'uowe-d -Z89 4d s}!un 000`Z uasly6!uy1 ties E 1,9t76 d0 (`ddO UI t7/l, 4lJoN OSZ# 'a0eld `poOmlu9J8 ZZ9b6 d0 seH) (}saM uoAue0 L5L `pioouo0 Ae8 o0s!a) J0uIs!a sl!un moj0 OOOZ Xo8'O'd Z06 IooyoS bZE (Aluo -oul `uosq!O uewlled 'N xo8*0'd 589L CIS uojAq I aseyd) R aagje8 euPB '8 '00 '00 16-9ZOE da u! AI}solN 56-SZ-L `uoslje0 uueu.wJOH uuewJOH Z�I-E96Z t7180 -886 4d 565b6 slot SLS 585b6 `d0 b'0 VaJ0 'A}!0 u!nsnS InuleM (a9ni>{ u-1 sajoy E 1ZZ 41noS) uaaJO L5L 1 X08 '0 'd �0u�s!a s6618 0ul `'�aa 88tiL (IS IooyoS al}olaey0 CBIS auol 16-9ZOE da uasjy6!u>{ ---------- --------- 2 paennp8 sauo8 w!f ZH-996Z 0058-E8E (916) 4d 695117 -589 4d 92856 VO oluaweJoeS OZSb6 `d0 _ 091# "PA18 4pjo0uo0 I uozsJaA woslo,I 001# "P^18 s}ol OZZ 616L puowe!a J0!JIs!a .00 -Isuo0 06ZZ L99L (IS IooyoS 18 'naa s91e!0ossy 16-01,0Eda Agl�e0 E6-6-Z ---------- Aeawe0 IR !0091198 Z21-156Z iaumo Aliedoid lue0!Iddy looyoS panaddy a99ui6u8 10 ssaJppy 10 ssaippy Aiejuawa18 u9L4AA /luellnsuo0 'g aweN '8 8WEN # 9lld File # Name & Name & Consultant/ When Elementary Address of Address of Engineer Approved School Applicant Property District Owner 2985-RZ Bellecci & Monte & --------- 5-18-93 Byron DP 3005-92 Associates Lucia School SD 7679 2290 Albers District (Albers- Diamond 1400 Deer Centex 1) Blvd., #100 Valley Road Version 4 Had GPA Concord, Brentwood, Version 6 CA 94520 CA 94513 288 Lots PH 685- PH 779- 4569 0397 2987-RZ Bellecci & CBM, et al ---------- 1-24-95 Oakley DP 3008-92 Associates 351-C St. School SD 7689 2290 Mary's St. District Diamond Pleasanton, 225 lots Blvd., #100 CA 94566 Version 3 Concord, CA 94520 PH 685- 4569 2991-RZ 3C Dev. Co. Gary & Bellecci & 7-1-94 Oakley DP 3011-92 Bishop Clair Chase Associates School SD 7797 Ranch #8 246 Las 2290 District 500 Quebradas Diamond 114 lots Executive Alamo, CA Blvd., #100 Version 2 Parkway, 94507 Concord, Ste. 490 CA94520 San Ramon, CA 94583 PH 685- 4569 Ph 830- 8700 2998-RZ Bellecci & SEECON ------------ 12-14-93 Oakley DP 3024-92 Associates P.O.Box School SD 7662 2290 4113 District Diamond Concord, 251 lots Blvd., #100 CA 94524 Version 2 Concord, CA 94520 PH 685- 4569 3003-RZ Hofmann Same --------- 6-7-94 Oakley DP 3007-93 Co. School SD 7837 P.O.Box District (GPA) 907 Version 2 Concord, 81 Lots CA 94522 PH 682- 4830 OO 9 -LZ9 yd OZ9t76 VO 'pioouoo 099# '*PAIG AemajeE) SGWOH xGlueo L60 69917 -6LL Hd -929 Hd SIOI L6 C 69t76 VO OZ9t76 VO (VdS) PON\OIU9J8 I Pio0uoo (1) xel -pal AelleA OOL# '*PAle uao/sjaqlV) 17 UOTGJ@A J990 OOt76 puoweic] sjaqlV 06zz ML (IS looqos eionj sele'OOSsV MOWS dC1 uojAe 176-C 6-Z ---------- a eluovi ? !0081198 Z2I-L60C 99ZO-L6E (960 Hd VO L t76 VO toosiouej-i shun 000-9 Ues OLGZ (P914 VdO) UOTSJaA (Ljoue� Ajawo6juoV4 119moo) joijlst(] OZ ML (IS IOOLIOS uoilepuno_A MMC dG poomivaJI3 ---------- --------- 9weS 119mOO'H'S ZU-j7 WS J9UtAo lolalsiQ AljedOJd jueoilddV 10OL40S p9AoiddV J99ul6U3 10 SSGJPPV 10 ss9JPPV AJeluGWG13 u9L4AA /luellnsuoo 'R 9weN IR GWBN #91!-A D D n � 3 2 C's45 0 3 Cd ct cn 00 cd � 3 a � � "6 � �. M M 00 C� b 'd N N C7 64 W W U U U U V1 4 Q Q Q cd 4:1IL) N O � 4; .--+ U cz WSW � W aW p, + � o ami � Irl M i U U i U ' 0 Q+ rn c 0 i p v� O00 o 00 kr) 00 00 C> CIN rn (� Q °° � � Q � NQS cn Q Q N N ^�.^ N N ,^�, N . ' ' � J tydC/� d0�o vn CD d b , d b , n d b , � w � C4 o n o a 0000 N 8 1�0 00 CD "o v, w o� v, a N CD � CD t--i cn c N A Vi `" N p , N 00 �D r- W rr N �-r O c� 00 n O n `CD `CC CD C O t7 O O CD �Ct- r„ < b CD CD CD CD CD CDa n C 'TI d � C n cD `� 'd `d cD �. o o �' a o 'd o ,CD p CD C4 a <» P. w d d Gr �• �' O N O •P o dbcl� n CD to o 0 CD d ' pCD CD rr In ^ 'da CD CD v' v' ►da b t--' O NCD CD p CD CDCD O p, w O , CD p� O O {�.i d'G N CD 'CJ �. `� p,, to p }^p0:1 00 00 �O W CD 0 O 9 C� o � a aha C; o- ►+� o. CD CD o ' 'd ►d d> cD cC� G C .d C�•b O0 b y v' "o 5 0 o 00 0 a. ''< < CD CD oCD CD ► CD n ,�- ''d CD d O J .; O vii o. O ' , > > � 00 �En r� CCD C ~ p . 'C A� O CD , 'C3 �--� CD H Q «» > <> a W 0 'd 03 00 t[ a� 7b a, o a� d v, oo U r � M ............ M cu ° a) > O W U U U "V 4--' U R r. N c� Q Q Q a U o 1-4 0 0 � w a w a w o O a~ r. 0 0 o a� M O � � O ,� a) rt oo ct F••-1 O N Nall ON Nt C114 00 7� O M cn 0 C14 00 aQ ooA-4 �, a, Q � � P1Q 3Q � P-4 rn o rn 0 0 O C7 U C7 C C) tzl Cdi ao O WCD w p W (D W N W a pp tzLn v, zzm b C� Oo� n O �* o ht� C1 � � o ld d C) -+, x a' En �. o � o .o cu CDD � � � o c� � o .° � cr� CD 0 CD CD CCD CD CD CD �C '� CD CCD CD CCD CD En IID tzg t g • up (rQ CL al CD _ a CDo ►s ►� CD CD o y CD CL b � ZO y CL P- a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 ><> CL a P. Q >' �-. O n v, v, ►"" > 0 n ' C17 O o m o: H; N O N O N U U U U U U 4. C% ►U, C/� ice, V] iU-a ss Xi i i '= � Ln � b ab a a, � b ct � a 0 Z a� o vj a� C,3 71 W... ° rA o v, 0 " . ``i C2 cd co � 3on 0 a ATTACHMENT A-3 The school facilities -general plan.amendment adopted on December 15, 1992. Since that time, projects had"will-serve"conditions. There are several versions of the conditions as indicated below. Version 1: Prior to recording a final map for Phase I of this development, "will-serve" letters from the Oakley Elementary School District and Liberty Union High School District shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. This condition was given to 2736-RZ, 2918-RZ, 2970-RZ, 295 1-RZ. Version 2: The applicant shall secure a "will-serve" letter from the Liberty Union High School District and the Oakley Union Elementary School District prior to filing the final map. This condition was given to 3003-RZ, 2991-RZ, 2998-RZ, 2951-RZ, 2970-RZ. Version 3: Accommodation must be made of the additional enrollment of students that may be added to the Liberty Union High School District and the Oakley Union Elementary School District due to the changes that would be allowed by the site rezoning. This can be accomplished by several arrangements or combinations thereof, such as payment of school impact fees plus other contributions from the developer, provision of new facilities or formation of a funding mechanism such as a Mello-Roos District. Payment of school impact fees alone would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level because such fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of constructing new facilities. The contribution from the developer could take the form of portable classrooms, construction of facilities, or an additional fee, as is satisfactory to the Liberty Union High School District and the Oakley Union Elementary School District that has been agreed upon with the development community. This'shall be accomplished prior to recording the final map for the project or any phase of the project. This condition was given to 2987-RZ. Version 4: Prior to recording the final map for this development, a"will-serve" letter from the Liberty Union High School District shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. In the alternative, submit evidence satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator that the applicant has complied with all legally established school facilities funding requirements. Prior to issuance of the building permit for each residential unit, applicant shall pay to Byron Union School District a fee of$2.75 per square foot of Assessable Space within the residential unit. the fee would be full satisfaction of the applicant's obligation to the School District pursuant to Sections 65995 et seq. of the Government Code for that unit. This condition was given to 2985-RZ (RZ933017) (FDP93020) 3017-RZ, Version 5: Prior to recording the final map for Phase I of this development "will-serve" letters from the Oakley Elementary School District and the Liberty Union High School District shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The applicant and the Oakley Elementary School District are encouraged to enter into a short-term funding agreement prior to recordation of the subdivision map for Phase 1. The .igreement could ensure that matching funds are provided for the completion of construction documents necessary for the District's application for State funding. The amount of short-term funding would be credited to the applicant's fall school impact fees which are paid upon issuance of building pen-nits. The school site shall be acceptable to the Oa kley Elementary School District. This condition was given to 2918-RZ. Version 6: Prior to recording the final map for this development, "will-se(we" letters from the Byron Elementary School District and the Liberty Union High School District shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. In the alternative, submit evidence satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator that the applicant has complied with all legally e,,tablished school facilities funding requirements. This condition was given to 2985-RZ. VA:dg school.con (8/95) ATTACHMENT A-4 CONTEXT FOR EAST COUNTY SCHOOLS FEE On July 25, 1995, the Board of Supervisors accepted the agreement reached by the East County school districts and the BIA as a means to satisfy school mitigation conditions for the present Hofinamn approval, fiiture entitlements, and entitlement approvals that carried the condition of "will-serve". Since the development community and the school districts in East Contra Costa County have come to an agreement regarding school fees. The responsibility of the County and the Brentwood School District will be to incorporate this agreement within the process of development approval as permitted by law. The purpose of this paper is to provide an outline of issues and procedures for the circumstances pertaining to this agreement. An overview, prepared by the school district, is attached. CURRENT PRACTICE State law (Section 53080) has established the current rate of school reimbursement at $1.72 per square foot. It is acknowledged by all parties familiar with capital facility needs of a growing school district that this amount is inadequate. A growing district describes a situation that there is inadequate capacity districtwide rather than a shift in population from one area within the district to another. Disagreement remains regarding who should fund the district capital facilities and at what amount. Most agree that the State has accepted primary responsibility, but does not have the funds to back it up. The demand for new facilities due to the growth of school age population has overwhelmed the financial resources coni pitted to schools. Sentiment exists that this is the State's problem, let the State solve it. While such a posture may be appealing, not many are willing to sacrifice their community or their children to prove a point. The problem in growth areas has been 'left to the local interests. A major hurdle faced by local entities is the politization of the process on the State level. There exists no clear procedure in statute or in case law for adequate school finance though specific points can be found in statutes and decisions. Representatives of different positions extract specific aspects of the law that may defend particular positions, but do not provide a definitive solution, process for school development, or complete rebuttal of other positions. CEQA has become the forum for identifying mitigation concerns and implementing general plan policies. Countywide general plan policies are insufficiently detailed to set procedures for each district, therefore, they must be worked out on the district level. SCHOOL DISTRICTS The school districts' perspective is oriented to seats in the school facility. There are practical limits to classroom size and school capacity. Experience with overcrowding demonstrates rapidly diminishing quality of education and safety on campus. Evaluation of campus and classroom capacity can be made to determine what are the limits of this factor. Double sessions and year-round schools also expand capacity. In each case, the cost of operation increases substantially due to State educational VA:dg schools.fec (8/95) 1 Z (56/8) 00TS10040s BP�HA TOM LIaAmg u mipm S.IadojaAap jsSuouIE 4mllgulmba almbaI OI aIgELIOSEam Si iI 'SIOaga popualinun anutl lou op IEtil siuoum nsui Sinouuug als mo of alquuosua.i si II •saulgouj JO UO1i3nlisuo3 anlloajJa-Isoo pUu guiulul2oid lum!Ua puEmap of algEuosual si II '(UOilnlos alqumA u IOU SI Lualgo.id aql 2LIUOLI2I 10 2LIIpIOAE Imp 2UiumsSE) Slouisip �Sail[IiOEj 10 Saab auIOii M2U LIEgI lomSUE .iailaq E tilim do owoo IOU aAuq aM `luTod Sigl id 'SauUl osoill OI uInla.i P guiloipa.Id SI ou0 OR •Slotilsip Itmatussossu PUB SuOIlouxo `soaj Imp .iaipE.i Samsuoui puoq puu saxul Spodold g2no iLp otauo 2umouuug £I do id-aid imp a" st II •sluopnis Mau asnoq of soiliiiouj alunbopu 2uunsua OI aAtlEtuallu mu apiAoid Xotp ssopm sloogos ioj Xud oI aAuq 1,Llpinogs Xoill XEs of s.ioplmgatuoq Mau loj olquid000mim uoaq sEq II %iomsuu , .joioupilus u tnutua.i lou il!m �4i1iqulim000u jo uoily i2olui uoilEuip.i000 aliiq pm Soaj BUISua.Ioui 2um2.iutlo slopisip luapuadapui jo aAilEtuollu luasa.id aril inq `«ou„ luot.ioiagm u si .iomsuu oqs Lciipqupioju of uoilnlos aql `saililiouj puu saminias a1mbopum grim sluoutoual jo smoi aju `uoilsanb oa3 anlua aql Lit Lslooqos JO aouasgE oy ui pa.Insuoui oq XIiliqup.mojjE two Moq `Xiiouduo IoOLioS olunboputli Xlrul si a.iagl.II •ss000id aLll to Iougsqu sauiooaq 2uisnoil olqup.iojju jo uoilou oqZ sisuq Isoo-Isual u UO paloalaS aq llim Xagl uagl `aAiiiladtuoo o iow on puu s ialuoo Iumaolduma of smil oinwwoo .mupuns i(IaAQUI0 I aAuq uolEosg JO `uOS.iailud `uox'G `SOUEg SOI `31MBOEA A 'pannbai oq oslE Xuw soaj uoiiuStlitu ogpods `U011ippE uI •soaj aSumvip ptmu `soaj ono pligo `soa3 plied `soaj Iopisc) Diu `saaj ooilod `soaj do xooq .Tomas pUE .iomm `saaj omwu q pasua moui OI uOmlmppu ui aumoo saai lootlos aqZ •puolsui Ilos IIIM sosnoq angiloduioo a.mow `popaaoxo st ogtmi imp jI •asuu.i ootid Limpoo u unpim Ilos Ipm lonpoid .nagl .maglatlm si siaplmgauioL3o tuaouoo aql UINl1L N0,9,LN7NJ07-7AHG •ouil tIi sisoo daaN of f ressaoou an soilipouj mau 3o luatudolanap LTi sluouoduioo luouio2uuuui uoilorulsuoo tll!m sluouodtuoo umEBo'ld lootlos jo Sui2iaui V •loiluoo .iapun sisoo dooN of Xjgqu sl! Xq SOAL ms ,,l!Lmtutuoo luouidolanap atls •suomldo aAiSuodxa .ioj somsap of aouuluq puu ltl2is.iano alunbopu apiAoid of litupodumi sI Il •sun-uz)Ao Isoo �jgpuj lootlos to punogE saouauadxo olduid •uoporulsuoo ut aouauadxa alipil inq `uminoumo Buiilas ui aouauadxa iuuog!dhs aAuq sloulsip loogoS L03U01I SROX )4WMI ua.IE Sail UI IUOUIISDAUm all Ol uodduil ll!m I t,M •LIOIIEIndod aqI jo ft!h' of anp umop paSOlo aAEtl sloUlSip fqunoD ioLlio LII SloogoS aouiS ulooUOO u Oslu Si UOquogpluoq •paau Iuiluaiod salugop to salugui XISsO12 Jogltau IEip Bolopoillaui E Olui pod0lanap aq Ism sopupimoq uoju puu `salu.i IajSUU.4 `salu.I IEAiA.mns pogoo `solus Inoplmg •Nonl oumos puu IpNs alqujopisuoo swinboi `aminj oql ui .ialsauuos UOAl2 XUU Ul SatliiioEj asagi ap!Ao id of suuaum atll 2uilEnluna puE saTliliouJ .i0J paau IMIJOE atp 21,11100fb id LIOIASIp U2Ad? E LII UOIIEOnpo Ol LIOEO.iddu otp tit iolouj 2Umploop aqi aq sonssi Xjlpouj pinoLIS •Saijipouj UO mol puu inm pau `suoijoillsai XIiunlioddo Iunbo `sluot maimbol } It is reasonable to seek other solutions and have new homebuyers a last resort rather than first impulse. CONTRA COST4 COUNTY If inadequate school facilities exist,, development carinot be supported. The ultimate response is for the County is to declare a moratorium until facility solutions occur. The County wants to avoid such a response since it will effect everyone in the given area. The position of the County is strengthened with CEQA. An impact of inadequate school facilities begs a clear mitigation, particularly at the time of legislative entitlement. The school districts provide the expertise in this area. They are a responsible agency and their solutions must be considered. The County looks for needs' assessment and alternatives to be judged for efficiency. Non-school solutions are also considered provided the matter is not s Imply deferred to the State or future legislation. The County is concerned about the effect of the fees on new homebuyers and is looking for the most efficient solution possible in facility development and use. The County procedures are affected by State statute, which, as mentioned previously, are clear on some points, but not on others. Should an applicant come in for a General plan amendment or rezoning, the envirortmental impact analysis will indicate an impact, overcrowding, and a mitigation, through joining the community facilities district. In order to proceed with the entitlement, the district must be joined. hi the event there is a final map recorded with no conditions, building pen-nits can be obtained with no legal requirements. In situations where there exists a "will serve letter" condition or a tentative map that requires revision, a number of possibilities exist that must be evaluated on a case-by-base basis. Broader participation will reduce costs for everyone, but various stages of approval offer varying rights and obligations. The following represents the basic processing response. Contra Costa Procedures 1. In the event a general plan or zoning is requested that may result in increased units in the Liberty High School District attendance area, the application will not be brought to final hearing, unless otherwise required by law or direction, until a satisfactory agreement has been reached with the school district. 2. hi the event that a final map has been approved with no conditions for schools, any fees required by State law will be collected by the involved school district at time of building permit. 3. For projects that have a "will-serve" letter requirement, it will be assumed, unless conditions of approval state otherwise, that the "will-serve" requirement can be satisfied by entering into agreement with the respective school districts. VA:dg schools.fee (8/95) 3 ATTACHMENT A-5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF,DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1995 SUBJECT: "WILL SERVE" LETTERS FROM SCHOOL DISTRICTS SPFCIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMFNDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICA'I'lON RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCEPT update report as requested on October 10, 1995 in preparation for tile hearings on November 14, 1995. FISCAL IMP-ACT: Commitment of staff time to reconcile issues. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On October 10, 1995, the Board of Supervisors requested a series of hearings to be set for the November 14 Board meeting, as well as a staff report on October 24 as an update in preparation for the hearings. The specific direction of the Board for the two meetings is as follows: To set for a hearing on November 14, consideration of vesting tentative map approvals which have as conditions of approval, the securing of"will serve" letters from school districts. The Board also requested from staff, a status report to be delivered in two weeks which will preview the November 14 hearing and report on any progress that has been made between now and then with the parties or issues. Options should include a possible ordinance to deal with different aspects of 1 he issue. (continued on Page 2) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD commiTTFE. —APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S); ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED— OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ATRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AN!) ENTERED ON THE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF St.11ERVISORS ON THE, DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF Tit I BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR VA:dg BY DEPUTY W1113Cr2.bo Contact: Val Alezeeff(646-1620) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments East County School Districts(via GMEDA) BIA(via GMEDA) .Iaaw lou pip sloulsip Ioogos pug slado[anap `sass o laglo ul -sloulsip joogos puu sladolanap uamgaq pagovoi alarm sivawooiSg `sasuo autos ul -spaau loilisip puu ioafold 1tagl of Suiumllad sansst Aii[iou3 anjos0.1 of sjuioggjo Ioul,ip pops Slim. Iaaw of s.iadoianap altnbw of sun. Iuowi aqZ •papullu suns uotlipuoo «:►Alas [jinn„ u Ing `panolddu mann sluawaliiiug -aouujgq u jonos,ClunoD aqZ 'paAJosal sum anssi aqI jpun slgnolddu uo wnuoiulow u paiugn.ouo ON 'i -glA.o1S mou olupoww000u of gSnoua IOU suns lips li Inq `Suipunj loops a;elS3o slugs liogl Suiutuigo ui Irgss000ns flaA alarm sioulstp joogoS .q .gW018 Mau aigpoutw000t,. oI papaou sapipu3 l03 Ard of aignbopgui sum ioo3 airnbs lad (!do giiM) 99'1$3o aai loogos aqi `uoiiu[nolgo s,Xlunoo pug s jouisip joogos oql Ag I 'paAlosal suns anss i loops aqI [pun loafold aqI SuLCUap of louadns sum astwoldwoo siq.L •p�lsanbal suns log anilujsiSaj ou alogm . suor wpgns loj posodold uaaq IOU snug suoilipuoo ,0A10s ll!M„ .lotllsip loops aqI pug ladolanap oql mom laq possalppu aq oI SutpMololaAo tiguiplouma oql l03 `uoilipuoo oql Suildnou Aq `poau aqI paSpajn.o"ou Inq `paaoold of uotlgoilddu oql paluum. sluuoilddu `sasuo osogl ul -sSumozol pug `uu[d julauaS `slog aAQVISIR I Suilsonbal suotluoijddu poloagu luo uoilunlis ,OAlas [[inn„ aqZ 3 -palnlonas aq p[non. IuawaalSu aA►suagaldwoo L, m.og Irto painSg `slagio puu XjunoD oql `sloTilsip loops aql apgAm, do pjaq sjunc>lddu ltagl luum. lou pip slappq puu `slaun.o A:padold `sladojanaQ •a -siotllsip laglo oql ioj IOU Ir q `soilgiouj IoulsiQ loogoS f iuluawalg poonnlua.ig loj sladolanap Put, sjuio tjj0 Ioilisi(I joogoS siviowo AliD Suowu ivacuawsu ug sun. alaq L p .sloulsip junpinipui aql Aq pagiluapi alarm spaau Xlgiouj `1:)Aan.oq `lauugw aAtsuagaldwoo u ui signs sluotudojanap m.au puu `Suiputg 'spuiop luug agl Ino pwpon. IOU puq sloillsip loops XiunoD Isug •o -spuuwap Algiouj n.au glinn do dowl IOU p[noo Suipunj alelS -q *Ijmq sl m. pasodold luawdo[anap oql Iluj! swj!pou.3 loogos l03 puuwap aqi alupoww )oou of algg oq lou pjnon. sloops XiunoD Isug lugs un.ou3l suns II T :siuiod Suimollo3 oql jo Suilsisuoo uwwajip u Slim. paou3 suns pnog aqI `5661 `5Z Ajnf of Z661 `ZZ 'DgwojdaS'wolf poilad aqi Sui1n(I Z .,, IuawgovnV ui an sldlaoxa uujd juinof) olgildolddu pug salnpaoold •pagsijqulsa an, salnpaoold `salnsuaw uotluluawaldwl pug saioijod `sluo0 aqI uo pang •saili[iouj loops of piuSal ,.Ilim. uuld julaua0 AjunoD aqi popuawg pluog aqI `Z66I `ZZ lagwaidaS u0 I :sanssi bX -suoiluoijddg ogioads of uoiiujal ui pluog oql Aq uaNul uotaou aqi Slim suoiluoilddu ogioads uo uotlipuoo ,,aAlas jj!m,,agI;)pouooal oL :Ioofgns Suin.ollo3 aqi loj sSuuuaq las oI siBuis jo lualui aqZ (ponuiluoo) :SAIOI.LHQMgL1IW00aU UO3 SK0SVT&(j If100?I3dg Z aSud 5661 `bZ lagolo0 slalla'I ,OAJOS ll!M„ "Will Serve" Letters October 24, 1995 Page 3 3. On July 25, 1995, a solution was reached with the Hofmann Company wl ich was applied to the recent approvals for Discovery Bay West. The solution was intended to encompass five school districts and all facilities for the foreseeable future. The notion t]iat the plan only considered the Hofmann project ignores every detail of the agreement, the process for attaining the agreement, and the participation in the agreement. While it's clear that the requirement would apply prospectively, it was necessary to develop the mechanisms to fairly reconcile the agreement with approvals in 1993, 1994 and early 1995. 4. On September 19, 1995, the Board accepted the agreement developed for :he East County school districts as adequate mitigation to discharge the conditions of i he "will serve" requirement. This meant that the Board would accept the agreement reache I with Hofmann as satisfactory for other projects as well. 5. It is necessary to expedite resolution of the "will serve" condition to enabe developers to proceed with their projects. 6. Criteria for"will serve" enforcement. a. Exclusions I Project is designated for senior housing, very low-income housing as designated by the Contra Costa County Housing Element, or studio and one bedroom apartments. ` 2) An agreement has been reached previously between the d-1vel'oper and school district to satisfy impact. 3) Need for school facilities was not provided at the time of project review and approval. 4) There was no mitigation required at the time of approval. 5) No relationship was established between project impact and project mitigation, ATTACHMENT A-b WILL SERVE" LETTERS (14124/95) SCHOOL FACILITY IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES COUNTY PROCESS 1. Review applications and other information to ensure there are adequate school facilities to meet needs of development. (Burden of proof on schools to demonstrate need.) 2. Use environmental review process to monitor ability of schools to serve development. 3. Where nature and extent of need is demonstrated and justified, require General Plan Amendments and rezonings ro incorporate adequate mitigation for primary and secondary facilities prior to entitlement. 4. Review school facility inventories, facility plans, and capacity projections prior to project determination. Recommend denial of entitlement if impact can be demonstrated and inadequate mitigation provided. 5. Coordinate review of new development with appropriate districts, cities and service providers in the review and approval process. 6. Provide method for adequate school notification of project application and review. 7. Incorporate residential unit description in project review to enable assessment of school impact. 8. Review and ensure adequacy of district facility information to be used to ascertain impact, including classroom size and opportunities for district boundary reorganization. SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTIONS 1. Encourage multipurpose use of school facilities. 2. Demonstrate maximum use of existing educational resources and school facilities. 3. Demonstrate.efforts to seek State and Federal funds. 4. Demonstrate efforts to raise funds within the district by passing a bond issue, selling surplus property, and other measures. 5. Develop facility plan for future needs, including: a. Inventory of current facilities, capacities and uses. b. Consideration of scheduling alternatives. C. Use of portables. d. Opportunities for boundary readjustments. e. Evaluation of other means to demonstrate most efficient use of facilities. f. Designation of future school sites. g. Efforts to achieve designation of future sites. 6. Provide notification of inadequate facilities supported by sufficient facility information to justify County action. QUALIFICATION FOR FEES Develop alternate mitigation requirements for the following: I. Senior housing. 2. Very low-income households. 3. Studio and one bedroom units. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6 NOVEMBER 14, 1995 On this date the Board considered the hearing on the"Will Serve" condition for East County School Districts. Val Alexeeff, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, presented the staff report on the matter. The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented testimony: Eric Hasseltine, 3182 Old Tunnel Road#E, Lafayette; Wendy Wiles, 4920 Campus Drive,Newport Beach, representing Liberty Union High School District; Robert Kingsley, 601 University Avenue, Sacramento, representing East Contra Costa School Financing Authority; Frank Bellecci, no speaker card submitted; Maria Rivera, P.O. Box V, representing Fraiser Development. The Board discussed the matter and took the following actions: 1. CONTINUED to November 28, 1995, consideration of the Will Serve condition and a further report from staff on the status of discussions and agreements between the parties; 2. DIRECTED the Zoning Administrator to review the involved application files with the developers and the school district and determine which projects meet the criteria for exclusion. REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND/OR COPIES OF RECORDS OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Name ) %? oi d�A 6, Date Address City /� GGA State Zip yS�vZ �'-- Telephone No. o� ^ X31) — Booking Review of; if Lw (l�P t Requests for copies. Requests for copies will be accommodated in accordance with workload priorities and the availability of staff. Charges for copies: so cents per page; S1.00 for certifying documents. I request copies of the following (List below the Board agenda Wate, the agenda item number, and the subject matter pertinent to the documents you desire copies of) : (Signature) HASSELTINE BEST Consultants in Planning, Development and 3182 Old Tunnel Road Government Relations Suite E Lafayette,CA 94549 (510)938-7870 (510)938-8045 FAX November 13, 1995 Re: Agenda Item No. 6-D RZ-2736, FDP-3048-87 and TR-6963 Applicant: Concept 82 To the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County: In June, 1993 the County approved a rezoning, final development plan and vesting tentative map for a 236-unit subdivision in Oakley, described as "entry-level" housing. The condition of approval relating to schools provides that "prior to recording a final map for Phase 1 of this development, will serve letters from [the school districts] shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator." The vesting date for the Map was February 24, 1993. The project was approved on a negative declaration, and the initial study indicated there were no significant impacts on schools. The School Districts' Facilities Plan Indicates the Project Is Obligated to Pay Only the Statutory Fees: Some question has been raised as to how the "will serve" condition should be interpreted. With respect to this project there can be only one interpretation: that the District will issue a "will serve" letter upon payment of the statutory fees. The Districts' own document agrees with this interpretation of the condition. According to the April, 1995 School District Facility Plan, vesting tentative and final maps approved prior to that date "are obligated to pay only the State mandated $1.72 per square foot Developer Impact Fee." Despite this acknowledgment by the districts, it has been suggested that the "will serve" condition should be interpreted to mean that the Board intended the fee to remain open, and the developer would be required to satisfy whatever the districts demanded at the time the final map was to be recorded. However, this interpretation would not be lawful. An Open-Ended "Will Serve" Condition Constitutes an Unlawful Delegation of Authority: Only the County has the authority to condition development projects. If the "will serve" condition were interpreted as has been suggested, this would effectively turn over to the school districts unfettered authority to establish the mitigation to be imposed on a development project, there being no approval or oversight mechanism by which the County would review or approve the chosen mitigation. Accordingly, under this interpretation, the district would be acting outside of its authority and the Board would be abdicating its fundamental responsibility to ensure that conditions bear a reasonable relationship to impacts. November 13, 1995 Page 2 An Open-Ended "Will Serve" Condition Imposed on a Vesting Tentative Map Violates State Law: The law also requires adequate notice of either the amount of the fee or the method and/or mechanism for imposing or calculating the fee to be imposed on a vesting tentative map. Therefore, the condition requiring a "will-serve" letter cannot be interpreted to impose an unidentified, open-ended condition to be determined in the future. The purpose of a vesting tentative map is to lock in place the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when the application is deemed complete. As stated in the applicable statute: "The private sector should be able to rely upon an approved vesting tentative map prior to expending resources and incurring liabilities without the risk of having the project frustrated by subsequent action by the approving local agency . . . ." Reading this requirement together with the nexus statute, the courts have held that "a local agency seeking to pass along a fee increase imposed after a developer's rights have vested . . . must provide reasonable notice of the nature of the fee and the manner of its calculation." The rationale for this is to allow a developer, who will commit substantial time and resources to a project, "to be able to predict with at least some degree of assurance what the fee will be when the time comes to pay it." Neither the condition of approval nor the record for this project contain any documents or other information that would provide the applicant with adequate data from which to determine the nature of the fee or the manner of its calculation. Except for a general suggestion concerning the formation of a Community Facilities District, nothing in the record presents or discusses any estimate, formula, cap or methodology for calculating a future impact fee.1 Nothing in the County's General Plan Would Justify the Imposition of Additional School Mitigations: The County's General Plan policies do not justify an attempt to impose additional fees because the school districts did not satisfy the General Plan requirements that would entitle them to imposition of additional mitigation under the General Plan policies. For example, the policies include the following: 7-150 The County expects that all growth impacted school districts, where appropriate, shall actively pursue state and/or Federal funds for school facilities. 7-151 School Districts shall demonstrate, in the school facility plan, efficient utilization of its facilities. The school facility plan shall consider scheduling alternatives, use of relocatable facilities and boundary adjustments. Apparently a"Revised Demographic Analysis and Facility Study"dated October 30, 1991 was prepared by the Oakley Union School District and submitted to the County at some unknown time. But the mere fact that a"Study"was prepared and submitted to the County is irrelevant because there is no reliance on or reference to that"Study" in connection with the approval of this project. In any event, the Study does not even begin to meet minimal requirements for a proper facilities study. Indeed, the study itself notes that in calculating the"per unit impact" it does not take into account the students being generated by existing housing nor the changes in student generation rates. November 13, 1995 Page 3 7-cv. The procedures provided in School Implementation Measures 7-cp [which provides that the County will work with the districts to ensure that new development contributes its "fair and full share of the cost of additional facilities which are necessary"] 7-cs, 7-ct and 7-cu are to be applied to those school districts . . . who provide both evidence of diligent participation in all state and/or Federal funding programs for school facilities and sufficient district facility information so that the County may determine the impact of a proposed residential project on a district and determine any appropriate facility mitigation. The record of this approval does not contain any documentation whatsoever that would satisfy any of these requirements. Clearly, the General Plan contemplates, at minimum, that the County will have adequate information before it to impose a fee that is reasonably related to the impact of the project, as the law requires. This kind of information was not before the County or available to the applicant either when this subdivision map was deemed complete or when it was approved and the "will serve" condition accepted. Nor does the record contain any school facilities plans or references to such plans that demonstrate efficient use of the facilities, consideration of alternatives or active pursuit of state and federal funding. It has been suggested that the districts did not have time to develop the data necessary to comply with those relatively new General Plan policies before the map was approved, and that such information would be provided in due course, before the mitigation was imposed. Whether or not that is correct as a historical statement, it does not relieve the districts of the responsibility of providing at least adequate information pertaining to calculation of a fee at the time the map was approved. Moreover, after three years the requirements still have not been satisfied; even the facilities plan which was recently prepared and disseminated as support for the proposed "Fee Agreement" does not contain the all the necessary information. The Project Was Approved Under a Negative Declaration and No Significant Adverse Impacts on Schools Were Identified: The environmental review for this project included an Initial Study which did not identify any significant impacts on schools. As a result, no mitigation measures for school impacts were crafted or imposed under CEQA. The statute of limitations for challenging that action has long since run. Accordingly, there is no basis for the districts to claim that additional mitigations should be required under CEQA. With Respect to This Project, The School Districts Have no Basis for Demanding Mitigation Other Than Statutory Fees. As the earlier staff report pointed out, "in situations where there exists a 'will serve letter' condition . . . a number of possibilities exist that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." One of the noted "exclusions" for enforcement of the "will serve" condition is that "no relationship was established between project impact and project mitigation." That is clearly the case here. The districts were aware of the project but presented nothing that established any quantifiable relationship between project impact and project mitigation. November 13, 1995 Page 4 In sum, based on the unique combination of facts and circumstances of this project, the applicant respectfully requests that the County's resolution be clarified to reflect that, based upon the record of the approval for RZ-2736, FDP-3048-87, and TR-6963 [236 entry-level units], the "will serve" condition is satisfied by payment to the School Districts of statutory fees. Very truly yours, Eric Hasseltine ATTACHMENT B BACKUP DOCUMENTS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' HEARING NOVEMBER 14, 1995 EAST COUNTY SCHOOLS' FACILITIES t� SCHOOL FACILITIES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (AS AMENDED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SEPTEMBER 22, 1992) 7.13 SCHOOLS INTRODUCTION The provision of adequate school facilities and an effective education program is necessary to the long range economic health and vitality of the County. The financing and implementation of the school facilities is shared by the State, local school boards, and the Contra Costa County Community College District. Although the State of California has preempted the field of provision of school facilities through exactions on development projects, it is the responsibility of local government to ensure that the timing of growth is coordinated with the efforts of the school districts to provide school facilities. For this reason, the Contra Costa County General Plan addresses the provision of the school facilities. It is well recognized in California that all children have a right to equal access to quality educational opportunities. It is therefore appropriate that the County General Plan address the changing needs for educational facilities generated by the growth in population envisioned by this plan. Private schools also exist in the County which provide an alternative to public schools for those that can afford this option. Such institutions add vitality to the overall educational community. Map of School Facilities There are 18 school districts and one community college district in the County as indicated in Figure 7-9. Figure 7-9 also indicates sites for proposed new schools. Information was gathered from the individual school districts which are autonomous and prepare their own district facilities plans. The information is incomplete because not all districts have made long term plans for new schools, but, instead, take part in planning for new developments when they occur. However, this General Plan is designed to accommodate, through the growth management and land use review process the new school sites as proposed by each district. Currently, overcrowded attendance areas have been identified in many school districts in the County. For example, in the East County area of Oakley, where much of the unincorporated growth will occur, schools are presently severely overcrowded. Adoption of the General Plan will increase existing overcrowding in the schools substantially. In order to accommodate the projected population growth in the Plan and achieve State-adopted standards in the provision of school facilities in all areas in the County, the following goals, policies and implementation measures were developed. SCHOOLS GOALS 7-AO. To assure the provision of adequate primary, secondary, and college facilities in the County. 7-AP. To provide new schools in optimal locations to serve planned growth. :ck 7-7-73 ckcp1.schools.gpa 7-AQ. To encourage the efficient multi-purpose uses of school facilities. 7-AR. To assure that primary and secondary school facilities are adequate or committed to be adequate, prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth. 7-AS. To maximize the use of existing educational resources and school facilities. 7-AT. To assure that school districts are seeking and receiving their fair share of state and/or federal funds for school facilities. SCHOOLS POLICIES 7-140. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools to serve development. 7-141. To the extent possible, new residential development General Plan Amendments or Rezonings shall,in the absence of the Planning Agency's satisfaction that there are overriding considerations (e.g. provision of low or moderate cost housing), be required to adequately mitigate impacts on primary and secondary school facilities. 7-142. The development of quality schools shall be supported by coordinating development review with local school districts including such activities as designating school sites, obtaining dedications of school sites, and supporting local fees, special taxes, and bond issues intended for school construction. 7-143. The hearing body in reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of educational facility capacity. 7-144. School site donation by developers shall be encouraged through the use of density transfer or other appropriate land use alternatives. 7-145. To the extent possible, the development of school facilities should be provided in conjunction with and adjacent to local parks and trailways. 7-146. Adequate provision of schools and other public facilities and services shall be assisted by coordinating review of new development with school districts, the cities and other service providers through the Growth Management Program (see Chapter IV), and the environmental review process and other means. 7-147. The county shall support efforts to create a branch state college on the Ygnacio Valley site. 7-148. The County shall support efforts to build a new Community college in the South County. 7-150. The County expects that all growth impacted school districts, where appropriate, shall actively pursue state and/or Federal funds for school facilities. ck 7.7-74 ckcpl schools gpa 7-151. School Districts shall demonstrate, in the school facility plan, efficient utilization of its facilities. The school facility plan shall consider scheduling alternatives, use of relocatable facilities and boundary adjustments. SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES 7-cm. Revise the Cdunty CEQA Guidelines to require that the impacts of proposed new developments on school districts be identified. 7-cn. Lobby for State financing of new schools within the County. 7-co. In concert with the school districts, prepare an education facilities plan amendment to this General Plan which recommends locations for future school facilities. 7-cp. Work with the interested school districts to ensure that new development contributes, to the extent allowable under State law, its fair and full share of the cost of additional facilities which are necessary, irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. 7-cq. To the extent allowable under State law, specify in the County's list(s) and criteria for development entitlement application's determination of completeness procedure, that a development entitlement application is not complete unless it contains satisfactory written evidence that any involved school district has been advised of and provided with the proposed application and requested to provide its recommendations thereon to the applicant and the County planning agency. 7-cr. The procedure provided in School Implementation Measure 7-cq. is to be applied in those school districts indicating to the County their current concern about education facilities and desire to participate in the development entitlement review process. Upon the receipt of any such indication, the involved and interested school district shall be appropriately designated in the planning agency's notification and contacts list for development entitlement applications pending in the district's area. 7-cs. To the extent allowable under State law, specify in the County's list(s) and criteria for development entitlement application's determination of completeness procedure, that a development entitlement application for a Rezoning or a General Plan Amendment is not complete unless it contains an identification of the number of residential units which will be subject to school facility mitigation. All residential units except senior housing, housing for very low-income households, studio and one-bedroom units shall be included. 7-ct. Develop, in conjunction with interested school districts and residential developers, the content and format of district facility ck 7-7-75 ckcp1.schools.gpa information which will be used to identify the impact of a proposed residential project on the district and possible appropriate facility mitigation. The facility information shall utilize state classroom size standards as a basis for determining the adequacy of area schools. The facility information should include consideration of district reorganization of boundaries to the extent possible. 7-cu. To the extent allowable under State Law, specify in the County's list(s) and criteria for development entitlement application's determination of completeness procedure, that a residential development General Plan Amendment or Rezoning application is not complete unless it indicates the manner in which adequate mitigation for primary and secondary school facilities needed to serve children generated by the new development is proposed to be provided. 7-cv. The procedures provided in School Implementation Measures 7-cp, 7-cs, 7-ct and 7-cu are to be applied to those school districts which notify the County that they may have inadequate facilities to handle additional residential development and which provide both evidence of diligent participation in all State and/or Federal funding programs for school facilities and sufficient district facility information so that the County may determine the impact of a proposed residential project on district and determine any appropriate facility mitigation. .ck 7-7-75 ckcp1.schoo1s.Qpa • 1! PLand Consultants INCORPORATED Real estate & facilities consulting for public entities EAST COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY PLAN dated May, 1995 239 Main Street, Suite E, Pleasanton CA 94566 ■ (510) 846-7007 Fax: 846.5314 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary i Introduction 1 School Funding 3 Background 4 Current Conditions 5 District Capacity and Enrollments 6 Enrollment Projections 9 New Facility Needs 16 Elementary Facility Costs 21 Secondary Facility Costs 23 Funding Sources 24 Conclusion 27 Recommendation 28 Attachments 30 f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to evaluate enrollment growth generated by new residential development in the East County School Districts. The amount of development described in this document is based on information supplied by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, the City of Brentwood Planning Department, and the City of Brentwood's General Plan. Summary of Findings 1. All of the school districts included in this study have facilities that are presently overcrowded by students that were generated from new residential development or will be in the near future. 2. New residential development in the East Contra Costa County region, based on active development approvals and pending applications, total 20,506 units. Most of these units are Iocated in the Brentwood school district. in addition, this report identifies 868 potential units in the Knightsen school district based on the City of Brentwood's General Plan. 3. Based on the County's and City of Brentwood's General Plan, additional development may occur other than what has been identified in this report. 4. The school districts have determined that all future schools, built to accommodate enrollment growth from new residential development, will have the following capacities: East County School District Facility Plan i _ 600 Student Elementary (grade levels K-5) 800 Student Middle (grade levels 6-8) 2,200 Secondary (grade levels 9-12) 5. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 3,954 elementary and 1,717 middle grade level unhoused students for the Brentwood Union School District resulting in the need for 6.59 elementary and 2.15 middle schools. 6. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 722 elementary and 322 middle grade level unhoused students for the Byron Elementary School District resulting in the need for 1.20 elementary and 0.40 middle schools. 7. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 692 elementary and 285 middle grade level unhoused students for the Knightsen Elementary School District resulting in the need for 1.15 elementary and 0.36 middle schools. 8. Enrollment growth from new residential development is .estimated to generate 2,023 elementary and 867 middle grade level unhoused students for the Oakley Union Elementary School District resulting in the need for 3.37 elementary and 1.08 middle schools. 9. The estimated cost for facilities per housing unit is $8,287 including land acquisition costs for the elementary school districts. East County School District Facility Plan ft--- ' . r 10. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 4,032 secondary grade level students for the Liberty Union High School District resulting in a need to construct Phase III of school number two, currently under construction, and'all of school number three. 11. The estimated cost for facilities per housing unit is $4,737 including land acquisition costs for the Liberty Union High School District. 12. The Districts should form a Community Facilities District to develop a mechanism to fund construction of new school facilities. This can be accomplished either by a mitigation payment or tax charged on new residential development. East County School District Facility Plan iii INTRODUCTION Preparation of the East County School District Facility Plan provides a strategy to ensure that current and future students will have access to the facilities necessary for a quality education. The purpose of the Plan is to communicate information regarding school facilities not only to the local community but also,to the governing planning jurisdictions, both local and not local, whose policies and decisions affect those of a school district's Board of Education. The quality of a community is a reflective component of the quality of the public education provided in that community. Overcrowded conditions in schools diminish the ability to provide a quality education. The objectives and the needs of a school district become the objectives and needs of the community. This Plan includes the facility needs of four elementary "feeder" school districts, grades K-8, located in east Contra Costa County and the secondary school district(high school),grades 9-12, they feed in to. These school districts are as follows: Brentwood Union School District (Brentwood) Byron Union Elementary School District (Byron) Knightsen Elementary School District (Knightsen) Liberty Union High School District (Liberty) Oakley Union Elementary School District (Oakley) Facility needs are most impacted by enrollment growth created from the existing housing stock and by the development of new housing stock. Facility needs are also affected by the educational program and policies established by each district's Board of Education. The educational program, although established by each district, is generated through interaction with the community. The educational program and policies include the curriculum that is offered East County School District Facility Plan J which impacts school size, classroom configuration, technology, class size and enrollment schedules, i.e. year-round education. Education curriculum is consistently changing to meet new reform initiatives, such as technology. These changes will impact school facilities. To meet these projected facility needs 'will require reconstruction of existing facilities as well as construction of new facilities. This Plan analyzes the need for facilities and associated costs. The Plan provides facility costs in a uniform manner to create a level field for mitigation of these needs for all school districts. The Plan model is as follows: East County School District Facility Plan Model *Residential Development Projections *Facility Costs Projected New Housing Units Cost Per Student Current Approved Projects Cost Per Unit Proposed Projects General Plan •Enrollment Projections *Revenue Options Student Yields Building Programs Developer Fee Mello-Roos *Facility Needs General Obligation Bonds Building Specifications Asset Management Site Requirements Redevelopment Class Size Standards Parcel Tax Capacity Certificate of Participation Mitigation Payment Often a Facilities Plan is referred to as a Long Range Facilities Plan and is set forth under guidelines established by the School Facilities and Transportation Division of the California State Department of Education. These guidelines were published in 1972 and revised in 1973, 1976, 1986, and were established to; a) assist school districts in organizing and developing a long- range facility plan; b) viewing a total educational system and using a systems approach to East County School District Facility Plan 2 planning; and c) applying for State school building assistance funds. These issues apply to both the Education Code of the State of California and to the Building Aid Law of 1952 and the Leroy F. Greene State Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976. The Guidelines illustrate... "[A long-range facilities plan] is a compilation of information, policies, and statistical data about a school district. It is organized to provide (1) a continuous basis for planning educational facilities that will meet the changing needs of a community; and (2) alternatives in allocation facility resources to achieve the District's goals and objectives. It is used for planning facilities needs for either pupil enrollment growth or decline." SCHOOL FUNDING The emphasis of this study is on facility needs and not operational funding needs although they are related. The more facilities a district has the more operational costs are realized. Operational costs are subject to the Revenue Limits set forth by the State, based on each school district's average daily attendance. Each school district must consider the impact operational costs have on their future budget. School districts receive funding for new school facilities either by the collection of Developer Impact Fees (estimated to provide 25%-30% of funding needed), the passage of local General Obligation Bonds, State Funding with local matching funds (50%), by the formation of Community Facility District(i.e. Mello-Roos),by Mitigation Agreements with the development community, or by the combination of the above. Timing of the funding is critical. School districts are required to have all funding needed prior to awarding construction contracts. The school districts analyzed in this Plan currently collect the maximum Developer Impact Fee per square foot allowed by law on residential ($1.72)and non-residential development($0.28). The elementary school districts split this fee with the high school district. The ability to implement these funding sources continually changes based on the legislation process and legal challenges. A funding source that is implemented today, allowing a school district to plan for the future, East County School District Facility Plan 3 may not be available tomorrow, altering a school district's future planning. BACKGROUND The five school districts serve students living in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. The service boundaries include the unincorporated areas of Oakley, Bethel Island, Byron, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, and the City of Brentwood. Land uses in this area of the county have been predominantly agricultural in the past. Residential housing development is being experienced in east Contra Costa County, specifically in the Brentwood, Oakley and Discovery Bay areas. This area is undergoing a transition from that of a rural agricultural community to a community serving the growing commercial and industrial centers throughout the East Bay. Brentwood's General Plan illustrates substantial residential, commercial/industrial development. This economic growth will result in a need for more workers and population growth for the entire region. Ongoing residential development in Oakley, Brentwood and Discovery Bay reflect this growth. The planned Delta Expressway and the realignment of Vasco Road, when constructed, will enhance the region's housing growth. New residential development is controlled by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Brentwood City Council. These jurisdictions are approving significant amounts of new residential development. Students generated from these developments will impact these school districts beyond their current capacities. The school districts, except Knightsen, have realized enrollment growth from new residential development. Knightsen also has realized enrollment growth, 38% since enrollment year 1987/88, however, it has not been from new residential development. It is estimated that enrollment growth in Knightsen is due to child bearing families moving back with parents living in the area due to the economy. As the economy strengthens this trend will change. Based on the State of California, Department of General Services SAB 411 Enrollment Projections, actual East County School District Facility Plan 4 enrollments in East County have increased by 18% since enrollment year 1991/92. The State projects enrollments will increase by 35% between this enrollment year and enrollment year 2000/01. CURRENT CONDITIONS All of the school districts have built or are building new school facilities to accommodate enrollment growth, except for Knightsen. In addition, portable classrooms have been installed as a compromise to building new schools due to the lack of funding sources to construct new schools resulting in overcrowding conditions. Portable classrooms have also been utilized for interim housing. Byron and Knightsen each have an old facility that will not meet future educational program or facility needs to house students. Byron: Byron's facility is located on 7.43 acres of land. Suggested acreage for an elementary school of 600 students is ten acres and for a middle school of 800 students, including physical education programs, is twenty acres. The size of the site is too small for either grade level schools. The district owns property directly north of the site that is suitable for a middle school of this size. The current facility includes portable classrooms that the district leases. These classrooms were added to accommodate enrollment growth. These spaces are not counted in the optimum capacity of the school for these reasons. A permanent structure on campus is in extremely poor condition as a result of water damage and dryrot. This structure should be demolished. Utility services are not sufficient to accommodate and support computer and technology needs. None of the structures can accommodate and support adequate computer and technology needs. East County School District Facility Place 5 • r Heating and air conditioning services are out of date and have operated beyond their expected life. These units need to be replaced. For the reasons stated above, this facility is not considered to meet long term elementary or middle school enrollment growth of the district. Knightsen: Knightsen's facility is located on 9.2 acres of land adjacent to an active railroad. The State would not approve this site for a school under current policies. The acreage includes one acre for a community swimming pool and one acre for the school district's transportation and bus garage. Additionally, the facility houses the district's administration offices. Suggested acreage for an elementary school of 600 students is ten acres and for a middle school of 800 students including physical education programs is twenty acres. The size of the site is too small for either grade level schools. The main structure was constructed in 1935 with portable classrooms added as needed to house the enrollment growth. With the amount of enrollment growth anticipated for the above reasons, this facility is not considered to meet long term elementary or middle school enrollment growth of the district. DISTRICT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENTS Not all of the elementary school districts currently operate their facilities under the same grade level configurations. Oakley and Brentwood are the only districts that operate all facilities under the preferred grade level configuration; elementary school grade levels K-5 and middle school grade levels 6-8. Byron splits grade levels between facilities as an interim measure while new facilities are built and/or a funding resource to build new facilities can be established. Knightsen has one school facility and serves grade levels K-8. Brentwood is planning to split grade levels next year as an interim measure. East County School District Facility Plan 6 .,_ • M TABLE I lists current enrollments and optimum capacities for each school district. The optimum capacity is that capacity established by the Board of Education based on their policies. The last column lists the difference between current enrollment and optimum capacity. A number in parenthesis identifies a school district with a larger student enrollment than, facility optimum capacity. In these cases,enrollments are accommodated in portable classrooms making the school size larger than the school district's Board of Education set as policy. For the purpose of this report, enrollments and facility capacities will be modified to match preferred grade level configurations. For this reason, the same school name may be listed as accommodating elementary and middle school enrollments (i.e. Byron Elementary School). Student capacity for Byron's Discovery Bay Elementary School includes new classrooms expected to be constructed by December, 1995. East County School IlisMct Facility Plan 7 TABLE I SCHOOL CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENT 1994/95 1994/95 Enrollment Capacity Difference ElementaryK 5 Brentwood Union Brentwood Elem./Garin/ 1,589 1,650 61 Ron Nunn Byron Union Byron/Discovery Bay 597 625 28 Knightsen Elementary Dist. Knightsen 220 213 (7) Oakley Union Gehringer/Laurel/ 2,618 2,400 (218) Oakley/Vintage Middle fi 8 Brentwood Union Edna Hill 716 600 (116) Byron Union 285 225 (60) Byron Knightsen Elementary Dist. Knightsen 108 120 12 Oakley Union O'Hara 1,048 800 77 (248) Senior High Liberty Union Liberty 2,387 1,800 (587) East County School District Facility Plan 8 As can be seen in Table I, Brentwood, Byron, Oakley and Liberty have a significant student enrollment housed in portable classrooms. Liberty, Byron and Brentwood have new facilities under construction to help relieve overcrowding conditions. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Students From New Development As stated previously, new residential development within these districts is prescribed by the County Board of Supervisors and the Brentwood City Council. The City of Brentwood's General Plan identifies a significant amount of new housing being planned. New residential developments are conditioned to form a Capital Improvement Financing Program (CIFP) to develop the infrastructure serving the community needs (i.e., sewer and roads). The CIFP does not include school facilities. An Assessment District that includes the units to be developed becomes the financing tool to achieve the goals of the C1FP. : The City has two CIFP's; CIFP 92-1 (aka CIFP 88-1) estimated to have 1,651 units remaining to be built, based on Brentwood School District's Facility Plan, and CIFP 94-1 planned for 5,203 units. There are 1,383 units in CIFP 94-1 that are planned for elderly housing. Contra Costa County Community Development Department, in an August 1994 memorandum, identified 5,953 residential units in developments that either have final or tentative map approvals. Nearly all of these units are within the Oakley School District boundary. Because they have these approvals, these developments are obligated to pay only the State mandated $1.72 per square foot Developer Impact Fee. The same report listed 9,082 non-senior residential units in developments that have pending applications. Of these developments, 473 units are located within Oakley's boundary, 1,110 units within Knightsen's, 6000 units within Brentwood's, and 1,499 units are within Byron's boundary. It should be noted that since the County's document was produced, 570 units listed as having pending applications were granted approval by the Board of Supervisors. The two largest pending developments are Discovery Bay East County School District Facility Plan 9 West (2,000 units) and Cowell Foundation (6,000). If conditioned to do so by the Board of Supervisors and Brentwood's City Council,these project and future projects should fully mitigate their adverse impact on school facilities. TABLE II illustrates the projected new residential units per school district based on the County's Memorandum and the City of Brentwood's CIFP 92-1 and 94-1. In addition, 868 units have been identified by Brentwood's General Plan Land Use as being possible within Knightsen's boundary. Based on the County's and City's General Plan,more units are possible than what is shown in Table II. East County School District Facility Plan 10 TABLE H PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Brentwood CIFP 92-1 1,651 single family units* CIFP 94-1 3,524 single family units Cowell Foundation 296 multi-family units 6,000 mixed units TOTAL 11,471 units Byron Discovery Bay 345 single family units Discovery Bay West 1,402 single family units Centex 397 single family units TOTAL 2,144 units Knightsen Discovery Bay West 535 single family units Brentwood (General Plan) 868 single family units Sandmound Developers 575 single family units TOTAL 1,978 Units Oakley Contra Costa County Memo. 5,781 single family units TOTAL 5,781 Units Liberty All areas 21,374 Units TOTAL 21,374 Units Based on Brentwood School District's Facility Plan East County School District Facility Plan Student Yields Student yield rates represent the average number of students generated by newly constructed homes. The yield rates that were derived for the previous facility plans still appear to be valid and therefore continue to be used based on a Building Industry Association survey. These yields are illustrated in TABLE III as follows: TABLE III STUDENT YIELDS uigle Family Multi Painily Grade Level Student Yield Student Yield Elementary (K-5) 0.35 0.35 Middle (6-8) 0.15 0.14 High School (9-12) 0.19 0.09 TOTAL 0.69 0.58 The statewide average student yield is 0.70 for each new single family home. Growth From New Residential Development Utilizing the student yields described in Table III the estimated student enrollment can be determined for each school district by grade level grouping. TABLE IV illustrates these calculations. East County School District Facility Plan 12 TABLE IV PROJECTED NEW DEVELOPMENT AND NEW STUDENTS Elementary (K-5) Brentwood New single family units 11,175 New multi family units 296 New Students 4,015 Byron New single family units 2,144 ..:New.Students 750 Knightsen New single family units 1,978 New Students X92 Oakley New single family units 5,781 New Students 2;023 Middle (6-8) Brentwood New single family units 11,175 New Multi family units 296 :.New Students 1,717 Byron New single family units 2,144 New`:Students 322 East County School District Facility Plan 13 Knightsen New single family units 1,978 New students. 297 Oakley New single family units 5,781 New Students 867 Senior High Liberty New single family units 21,078 New multi family units 296 New Students 4,032 East County School District Facility Plan 14 TABLE V illustrates the enrollment summary by school district. TABLE V ENROLLMENT SUNEMARY BY DISTRICT Students Brentwood Elementary (K-5) 4,015 Middle (6-8) 1,717 TOTAL 59732 Byron Elementary (K-5) 750 Middle (6-8) 322 TOTAL 1,072 Knightsen Elementary (K-5) 692 Middle (6-8) 297 TOTAL 989 Oakley Elementary (K-5) 2,023 Middle (6-8) 867 TOTAL 2,890 Liberty TOTAL 4,032 East County School District Facility Plan 15 TABLE VI illustrates the east county enrollment summary. TABLE VI EAST COUNTY ENROLLMENT SUM IARY Students Elementary (K-5) 7,480 Middle (6-8) 3,203 SUBTOTAL 109683 Senior High (9-12) 4,032 TOTAL 14,715 NEW FACILITY NEEDS School facilities are analyzed for each district at each grade level configuration to determine availability of classroom space, or available capacity for new students entering the district. Any excess capacity, after students from the existing housing stock have been accommodated can then .be utilized to house those students generated by new housing. TABLEs VII-M illustrate each district's enrollment growth compared to capacity. East County School District Facility Plan 16 TABLE VII BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) students students Enrollment Capacity (adjusted for fifth grade) 1,650 600 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 1,589 716 Available Capacity 61 (116) Available Capacity for New Housing 61 0 Projected Growth From New Housing 4,015 1,717 Unhoused Students From New Housing 3,954 1,717 TABLE VIII BYRON UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) Students Students Enrollment Capacity (adjusted for fifth grade) 625 225 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 597 285 Available Capacity 28 (60) Available Capacity for New Housing 28 0 Projected Growth From New Housing 750 322 Unhoused Students From New Housing 722 322 East County School District Facility Plan 17 TABLE IX KNIGHTSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) Students Students Enrollment Capacity (adjusted for fifth grade) 213 120 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 220 108 Available Capacity (7) 12 Available Capacity for New Housing 0 12 Projected Growth From New Housing 692 297 Unhoused Students From New Housing 692 285 TABLE X OAKLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) Students Students Enrollment Capacity 2,400 800 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 2,618 1,048 Available Capacity (218) (248) Available Capacity for New Housing 0 0 Projected Growth From New Housing 2,023 1 867 Unhoused Students From New Housing 2,023 867 East County School District Facility Plan -.18 TABLE XI LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SENIOR HIGH ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Enrollment Capacity 1,800 students 1994/95 Enrollment 2,387 students Available Capacity' (587) students Available Capacity for New Housing 0 students Projected Growth From New Housing 4,032 students Unhoused Students From New Housing 4,032 students Based on the above tables the need for new school facilities is a direct result of new residential development. New school facilities that are needed for each school district based on residential development illustrated in this report, assuming no other properties develop, are shown on TABLE XII. New school enrollment capacities are established at 600 student elementary, a 800 student middle school, and 2,200 student senior high school. TABLE XII NEW SCHOOL NEEDS BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 3,954 Unhoused students 6.59 schools 600 Student School Middle (6-8) 1,717 Unhoused_students 2.15 schools 800 Student School East County School District Facility Plan ,9:—=-- BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 722 Unhoused students 1.20 schools 600 Student School Middle (6-8) 322 Unhoused students 0.40 schools 800 Student School KNIGHTSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 692 Unhoused students 1.15 schools 600 Student School Middle (6-8) 285 Unhoused students 0.36 schools 800 Student School OAKLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 2,023 Unhoused students 3.37 schools 600 Student School Middle (6-8) 867 Unhoused students 1.08 schools 800 Student School East County School District Facility Plan _-..20 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Senior High 4.032 Unhoused students 1.83 schools 2,200 Student School Brentwood's General Plan allows for more residential development than what this report identifies. Additional new residential development is anticipated in the county as well. Therefore, the new facilities calculated in this report will not meet the need for the school districts at buildout of the City's or County's General Plan. More facilities will be needed. ELEMENTARY FACILITY COSTS School costs are estimated based on State Department of Education and Office of Local Assistance standards. Estimated elementary costs, including land, are in TABLE XIII. Detailed estimates of these costs are in the attachments of this report. TABLE XIII ELEMENTARY FACILITY COSTS Elementary $9,189,617 Cost per Student $15,316 Cost per Unit $5,361 Middle $13,683,542 Cost per Student $17,104 Cost per Unit $2,566 Not included in these costs are interim housing costs. These costs are estimated at$180 per unit per grade level school division. East County School District Facility Plan 21 f Based on the above costs, a Summary of Facilities Costs per elementary school district are depicted in TABLE XIV. TABLE XIV ELEMENTARY FACILITY COST SUMMARY Costs Brentwood Elementary $60,559,576 Middle $29,419,615 SUBTOTAL $8999799191 Byron Elementary $11,027,540 Middle $5,473,417 SUBTOTAL $16,5009957 Knightsen Elementary $10,568,060 Middle $4,926,075 SUBTOTAL $15,494,135 Oakley Elementary $30,969,009 Middle $14,778,225 SUBTOTAL $45,7479234 GRAND TOTAL $167,721,517 Not included in these costs are interim housing costs. These costs are estimated at$180 per unit per grade level school division. East Counjy School District Facility Plan 22 SECONDARY FACILITY COSTS As stated previously, Liberty's second high school is under construction. Construction of Phase II of this facility is funded by a.General Obligation Bond. This phase will house 1,600 students including some of the current enrollment and future enrollment generated by new residential development. A funding source for Phase III has not been established. Phase III will house 600 additional students. Therefore, a portion of the future facility needs for Liberty have been funded by the General Obligation Bond. The portion of future facility needs that have not been funded is Phase III of school number two and all of school number three. TABLE XV illustrates the estimated facility costs for Phase III school number two and all of school number three including interim housing costs. TABLE XV ESTIMATED LIBERTY FACILITY COSTS Phase III of School #2 $12,703,152 Interim Housing $ 1,308,800 School #3 $52,785,555 Support Facilities $ 3,000,000 TOTAL $69,797,507 The capacity of Phase III school number two and all of school number three equals 2,800 students. Based on Liberty's student yield of 0.19 it would take 14,737 housing units to generate 2,800 students (2,800 capacity divided by 0.19). Based on the total facility cost of $69,797,507 the cost per unit is $4,737 ($69,797,507 divided by 14,737 housing units). East County School District Facility Plan 23 FUNDING SOURCES State Funding Building Programs: The State Building Program still exists, however, its basic resource is the passage of State-wide General Obligation Bonds by a majority voter approval. Although these ballots have been successful in the past, they have not passed by a comfortable margin. Additionally, the amount of the bonds does not meet, or is it believed that they will ever meet, the funding need across the State for new facilities. The State has established a policy as to what district is approved for funding over other school districts. They have determined that no school district will be granted State funding unless they meet these policies. One policy is that the school district implement Multi-Track Year-Round enrollment schedules to limit the need for additional facilities. Additionally, the school district must be severely overcrowded in order to qualify. State assistance for funding new facilities in the future is uncertain. Since 1984, school districts received a small percentage of revenue collected from the California State Lottery Act, however this revenue cannot be used for capital improvements such as the construction of school buildings. Local Funding Developer Fees: In September 1986, Assembly Bill 2926 (Chapter 887/Statutes 1986) was signed into law granting school district's governing boards the authority to impose developer fees. This authority is codified in Government Code Section 53080 which states in part "... the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement against any development project for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities." The original fee was established at $1.50 per square foot on residential construction and $0.25 per square foot on commercial construction. The current allowable fee is $1.72 per square foot on residential construction and $0.28 per square foot on commercial development. East County School District Facility Plan 24 . In order for school districts to levy the Developer Fees, a school district must establish a connection, or nexus, between new development and the need for new schools. Developer Fees can only be imposed on new development to mitigate the adverse impact that development will have on the school district's fagilities. A Developer Fee can not be imposed to mitigate the adverse impact the existing housing stock will have on the school district's facilities. Developer Fees, even though a significant funding resource, are insufficient to cover the cost of new school facilities associated with new development. Developer Fees generally cover approximately 26% - 36% of the funding need for new school facilities. Mello-Roos: Another source of funding mentioned earlier in this section is a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. A Mello-Roos is a tax assessed on homeowners, much like a property tax, for financing specific improvements such as the construction of a school. A Mello- Roos requires a two-thirds voter approval for passage. Since the voters are often the land developers within the proposed Mello-Roos District, if approved the tax is placed on the housing lot prior to the homeowner purchasing the property. It is believed that a home within a Mello- Roos District is less marketable compared to a home within the same community that does not have a Mello-Roos tax. For this reason, many land developers are not willing to establish a Mello-Roos District for school facilities on their property. General Obligation Bonds: School districts are now able to place local bond measures, General Obligation Bonds, on local ballot elections for the construction of school facilities. If successful, a tax would be collected on the property tax assessment for all properties within the school district. These measures require a two-thirds voter approval. In many cases a local bond measure can not be large enough to fund the entire need of the school district based on the assessed value of the properties within the District and the outstanding bond obligations. Additionally,the passage of a local bond measure is difficult due to the economic constraints of the taxpayer. East County School District Facility Plan 25 Asset Management: Asset management is another funding source. Asset management consists of a school district either selling, leasing, or joint venturing surplus school property. In the ideal environment, developing an asset management plan would provide the school district with a long term revenue source. :In reality, most surplus school sites are not located in the appropriate areas of a City or County with land use designations that allow for equitable lease agreements. Due to school sites being located in residential neighborhoods, commercial activities are not allowed. Residential development of the site is often the highest and best alternative. Redevelopment: Redevelopment Agencies are created by Cities and Counties to improve blighted areas of the community. A Redevelopment Agency fixes property taxes and land values within a specific boundary at a level established by a base year. As time passes, that fixed amount is distributed to various agencies under a normal tax distribution formula plan. As property values increase, and therefore taxes, the difference between the fixed tax and the real tax is utilized to pay bonds that were issued by the Agency to make improvements in the blighted areas. Redevelopment Agency, by law, is obligated to fully mitigate any adverse impact it causes, including impacts to a school district. School districts, if successful in establishing an adverse impact, can receive funds collected by the Agency for construction of schools, equipment, or other capital improvements through pass through agreements. Certificates of Participation: School districts have the option of participating in a Certificates of Participation (COP) which is a form of lease financing. The Certificates can be used for construction and equipment. The Certificates are secured by the district's revenue sources and include: General Fund Developer Fees Developer Agreements Special Funds Investment Income Redevelopment Funds Lease Revenue Parcel Tax East County School District Facility Plan 26 Since a COP is secured by funding sources that in time may diminish, the school district's General Fund is the underlying security for the COP. Mitigation Payment: Absent of any previously described funding programs, or in combination with, a Mitigation Payment per residential unit is an option to fund new school facilities. This would be a fee paid at issuance of a building permit providing the school district with that residential unit's funding share for school facilities. These payments may not be collected in a timely manner to construct new schools when they are needed. CONCLUSION All five school districts are or will in the future realize a need for additional school facilities as a result of new residential development. The timing of this development is uncertain and is a function of the market place. This report only identifies development that has approval or is in the process of gaining approval, except for 868 units located in Knightsen based on a mid-range development potential on the City of Brentwood's General Plan. More development will occur other than what this report identifies. All of the school districts have impacted facilities with little or no room for additional students. Any excess available capacity can easily be used by enrollment growth from the existing housing stock. This report is conservative in that it allows new residential development access to this excess capacity, lowering the need for new facilities created by new residential development. All of the school districts need new facilities to meet their future enrollments except for Knightsen and Byron. Based on the general findings of this report, Knightsen and Byron would only need to expand their middle schools in some manner since the amount of development described in this report does not generate enough students for a new middle school. There are two fundamental difficulties in this conclusion. First, there will be more residential development built within these district boundaries.than what this report identifies. Therefore, there will be more elementary, middle, and high school aged children generated than the amounts shown East County School District Facility Plan 27 requiring additional facilities, beyond expansion of existing facilities. Both of the "existing" middle schools are small, old, and located on limited acres of land not sufficient for expansion or for a middle school program. Knightsen's facility is located adjacent to an active railroad. The State Department of Education would not approve a school site, based on today's standards, adjacent to a railroad for student safety reasons. For these reasons, the existing facilities should be utilized as interim housing facilities until such time a new facility can be built. Knightsen does not currently have a site for a new facility. Byron has a property for such a facility. There is no known source of funds for remaining construction of the Oakley high school or for high school number three. RECOM ENDATION It is the recommendation of this report that the school districts participate in forming Community Facilities Districts to develop a funding mechanism to fund construction of new school facilities as needed. This can be accomplished either by a combination of fees, Mitigation Payments or taxes charged on new residential construction based on each district's cash flow requirements in relation to students generated and related school facilities mitigation amounts. The findings in this report support the following base payments per unit: East County School District Facility Plan 28 Elementary School Districts: Elementary Schools Grades K-5 Cost of Facilities $5,361 Cost of Interim Housing, Support Facilities 180 SUBTOTAL $5,541 Middle Schools Grades 6-8 Cost of Facilities $2,566 Cost of Interim Housing, Support Facilities 180 SUBTOTAL $2,746 TOTAL ELEMENTARY MITIGATION $ 8,287 Secondary School District: Cost of Facilities Including Interim Housing, Support Facilities $4,737 TOTAL SECONDARY MITIGATION $ 4,737 TOTAL MITIGATION PER UNIT $139024 East County School District Facility Plan 29 ATTACHMENTS 600 Student Elementary School 800 Student Middle School Phase III High School Number Two High School Number Three East County School District Facility Plan 30 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 600 Student Elementa School A. SITE e 800 000 price $ 1. Purchase ce ofro P i I 000 3. Surveys 2. Appraisals $5 , z3 1 0 000 4. Geotechnical Report $10,000 :................. . 5. EIR/CEQA $ 5 000 s•':. <»> `:' '>>>» < <`> '`......... 1 50 >�<< > > <�_< >`. >. 6. Other Costs(flood fees) $ 000 ::..::::.:..::::..:.......:....:......:.......:.......:.:. SITE SUBTOTAL $980,000 B. PLANS 1. Architect's fee for plans $425509 " 5:::;:r;:;::i• 2. ORS plan check fee $ 33 298 3. CDE plan check fee $2843 4. Preliminary test $5000 5. Other $25.000 .,,::::::� PLANS SUBTOTAL $491,650 C CONSTRUCTION 1. Utility services $ , 2. Off-site development $ 200 000 > '><»< '«<>>>>r>>` >`:> >' `>><><'•, 3. On-site development, service $200,000 4. On-site development,general $600,000 »' 5. New construction $4,485,838 366 265 »`````< '` <><`< <>«` `'> ><'s>< > 6. Technology $ ,.._,..,;.� 209 292 >>liw$ 7. Unconventional ever $ 8. Other $0 :.;:.::: .::::...........::....::........................ CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $6,661,395 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $85,288 E. INSPECTION $85,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $313,070 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $154,661 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $8,771,064 H. CONTINGENCIES $418,553 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $9,189,617 COST PER STUDENT $15,316 COST PER DWELLING UNIT(35 SYF) $5,361 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 800 Student Middle School A. SITE 1 Purchase Price of property $1,600,000 0 2. APP I raise s $5,000 3. ry Su e s $10,000 <i 4. i I Geotechn ca Report $10,000 5. IR/ E A $ , E C Q 5 000 6. Other Costs(flood fees) $300,000 ::>:::<::>:::»>:::::»: ..... : .... SITE SUBTOTAL $1,930,000 B. PLANS >! 1. Architect's fee for plans $596,701 7 2. ORS plan check fee 582 p a $4 , 243 `'<`''> >'>`<'> '><»>`>} "''><? >><< > > 3. CDE plan check fee $4, ....:..,..:, 1. . 4. Preliminary test $5,000 5. Other $ 0 ... >`< PLANS SUBTOTAL $678,526 C. CONSTRU T C ION 1. Utility services $600,0 rvi 00 :> v $200,000 2. Off-site detoment e P 3. On-site development, service $200,000 4. On-site development,general n I $ 750 000 ent e e 5. New construction 6936,n tion 691 c $ 6. Technology $529,412 412 , 7. Unconventional en r9Y $ 336, 835 s> >< » 8. Other $0 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $9,552,938 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $127,300 E. INSPECTION $98,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $467,647 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $187,058 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $13,041,469 H. CONTINGENCIES $642,073 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $13,683,542 COST PER STUDENT $17,104 COST PER DWELLING UNIT(15 SYF) $2,566 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 600 Student Phase III Second School A. SITE 1. Purr hase «`rice of property 0 <; P Pe 2. Appraisals $0 0 Surveys $ 3. Su s 4. Geotechnical Report 0 <�� > >> <�' > P $ ...... 5. EIR/CEQA so 6. Other Costs flood fees 0 $ SITE SUBTOTAL $o B. PLANS 1. Architect's fee for plans $564,662 2. ORS plan check fee $44,859 3. CDE plan check fee $ 3 976 , r li ina test 0 ` 4. Preliminary $ 5. Other $ 15:0-00j':::: PLANS SUBTOTAL $628,497 C CONSTRUCTION 1. Utility services $ 2. Off-site development $ 3. On-site development, service $88,500 4. On-site development, general $512,757 5. New construction $n 8,823,950 t 6. Technology $433,498 7. Unconventional energy $ 236 000 € '€<a 11 8. Other $112,000 >'< ' >> > << <<«<` '><`<< <>'>`< CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $10,206,705 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $119,291 E. INSPECTION $132,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $602,201 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $170,000 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $11,858,694 H. CONTINGENCIES $844,458 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $12,703,152 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 2,200 student High School Third School A. SITE o $ 2r33509 7 < r 1. Purchase P rice of e 2. Appraisals $0, 3. Surveys $0 4. Geotechnical Report $0 5. EIRICEQA $0 ''><::>::»::::::::::::>:::>::::.<:»:;:::::>:::;;::<:>::::;;::;>:>:<:::>::::>::; a 6. Other Costs((floodod fees) $ (V SITE SUBTOTAL $2,335,097 B. PLANS 1 2 44 729 r tans $ fee for >_'<> >_ <>`'� 1. Architects , 2. ORSp lan check fee $189,235 :::::: ::>: :::<><; 3. CDE plan check fee $17,244 4 Preliminaryt est $0 5. Other $68,250 `=> :r <>•::::::::::.r::::::;::>.:::::..:::.:;,.:..., PLANS SUBTOTAL $2,419,458 C. CONSTRUCTION 1 Utilitys ices $105,000 00 0 2. Off-site development $ 250 00 0 ' 'sa 3. On-site development,service $2,491,218 4 91, 218 4. Onsite development,general $2,060,566 5, New construction $31,117,781 6. Technology $2,440,490 7. Unconventional ever $916,00 .. 8. Other , 14 0 ' 5 00 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $39,895,055 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $517,306 E. INSPECTION $429,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $1,860,071 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $750,000 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $48,205,987 H. CONTINGENCIES $4,579,568 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $52,785,555 BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FACILITIES STATUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FULL MITIGATION IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Dated: June, 1994 Land Planning Consultants, Inc. 0 Real Estate do Consulting For Public Entities 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS PACE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXISTING FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PROJECTED NEED FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I SCHOOL STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Inventory of Existing Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Classroom Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Development Impact on District Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Student Impact from Residential Development Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 New or Expansion of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Budget for New Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 II FINANCING OF SCHOOL FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Source of Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Effect of Financing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Alternative Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 III MEANS FOR UPDATING SCHOOL IMPACTS ON A PERIODIC BASIS . . . . 9 INTRODUCTION Byron Union School District(District) serves elementary and middle grade students living in far east Contra Costa County in the unincorporated area of Byron. Senior grade level students residing in the District, attend Liberty Union High School in the city of Brentwood. The District's boundaries extend north to Balfour Road, east to the county line, south to the county line and west to Seller's Avenue, Vasco Road and beyond. The county's General Plan describes the majority of properties within the District's boundaries as having agricultural land uses, however portions of the District's boundary are being developed for residential use. This clearly illustrates a transition from that of a rural agricultural community to a community serving the rapidly growing commercial and industrial centers throughout the East Bay. Residential growth is generally isolated in the Discovery Bay area where an estimated 200 units remain unbuilt. However, the developer of Discovery Bay has proposed a new project, Discovery Bay West. Discovery Bay West as proposed will include 2,000 residential units, 1,465 of which will be within the District's boundary. In addition to these projects, other projects have been proposed and are currently being reviewed. These proposals contain several hundred additional housing units. Including the Discovery Bay projects, the total estimated number of new residential units is 2,140. Buildout of these projects is anticipated to occur within ten to fifteen years. Along with economic growth occurring, student enrollment growth will occur simultaneously. The District has reviewed its existing school facilities in order to determine those facilities that can accommodate new students after existing students have been accounted. Based on the District's analysis of future enrollment growth, the District will need additional facilities. School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 1 EXISTING FACILITIES The Byron Union School District currently operates two school facilities. Discovery Bay Elementary is a K-4 grade level school located at 14401 Byron Highway. The District's second facility,Byron Elementary School,accommodates 5-8 grade levels and is located at 1700 Willow Lake Road. School facilities are analyzed to determine available student capacity for existing and future students. In order to analyze student capacity, the District has established a classroom loading standard for each classroom. Student capacity is then compared to current student enrollment to determine an available student capacity or deficit, whatever the case may be. The District has established a classroom loading standard of 25 students per classroom. Therefore, the District's student capacity is 850 students. The District's 1993/94 enrollment is 857 students or 7 students above capacity. Based on this analysis, the District does not have available student capacity for students generated by new residential development. ENROLLNUENT PROJECTIONS Enrollment in the District has increased steadily over several years. Most of this increase is a result of new residential development. As stated above, the 1993-94 school year enrollment is 857 students, an increase of 127 students over the past year. Enrollment is projected to grow by 1,017 students in the next ten to fifteen years based on the estimated number of new residential units to be built. Enrollment could exceed the enrollment projection should additional subdivisions gain approvals and build beyond what this report identifies, which is likely. PROJECTED NEED FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES As can be seen by the projected enrollment growth and new residential development within the District's boundary, additional school facilities will need to be constructed. The developer of the Discovery Bay West project has an agreement with the District to provide a school facility consisting of 10 classrooms and core facilities. Therefore, a ten acre parcel is designated within School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 2 the development plan as a school site. The agreement does not indicate whether the developer has an obligation toward a middle school. Based on the District's loading.standards of 25 students and the 10 classroom commitment by the developer, 250 elementary school students can be accommodated under the agreement. A 250 elementary student school will not be sufficient to house all of the elementary students generated by this project. It is estimated that the District will need one additional elementary and middle school. I SCHOOL STANDARDS A. Inventory of Existing Schools: DI O: B :;::::....:: SC VERY. AY ELE »:: ::>:............ :> MENfiARY Location: 1700 Willow Lake Road, Byron Grade Level: K-4 School Year: Traditional Classrooms: 19 Current Capacity: 470 students B.YRON ELEMENTARY.SCHOOL Location: 14401 Byron Highway., Byron Grade Level: 5-8 School Year: Traditional Classrooms: 15 Current Capacity: 380 students School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 3 B. Classroom Data: District State Loading Loading Standards Standards Byron classrooms 25 33 laboratories - - Discovery Bay classrooms 25 31 laboratories - - C. Enrollment: School 93/94 Enrollment Capacity Difference Byron 375 380 -5 Discovery Bay 482 470 12 TOTAL 857 850 7 D. Development Impact on District Boundary: Approved/Proposed Tentative/Final Map County 2,140 City nia TOTAL 2,140 School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 4 E. Student Impact from Residential Development Growth: Development occurring within the District's boundary mainly comprises of single- family dwelling.units. As a result, this report will assume this trend will continue. The District's Student Generation Factor (SGF) for single-family units is 0.35 for K-5 grades and 0.15 for 6-8 grades. However, should multi-family units be constructed, the SGF would be 0.25 for K-8 grades. The SGF will vary over time based on housing mix, size, birthrates, and economics. Based on the SGF and the development impact projected in Section D, the following student impact can be anticipated. Total # SGF SGF of Description Units K-5 6-8 Students Total Approved Tent/Fin. Map 2,033* 1 712 1 305 1 1,017 11 TOTAL 2,033 712 305 1,017 *This assumes a 5% vacancy rate. The chart below depicts student impact that new residential development will have on the District. School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 5 CAPACITY AND FUTURE ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS Current Enrollment (1993-94) 857 Projected Enrollment Growth 1,017 Subtotal Enrollment 1,874 Current Student Capacity 850 Subtotal Enrollment 1,874 Unhoused Students 1,024 F. New or Expansion of Facilities: Expansion to the existing facilities has recently been completed. Further expansion can not be done due to site constraint issues. Therefore, a 10 acre site has been identified within the Discovery Bay West project. In addition, the developer of Discovery Bay West is committed under an agreement with the District to provide a 10 classroom facility with core facilities. Based on a 10 classroom facility and the District's classroom loading standards of 25 students, the additional classrooms would accommodate 250 students. The additional classrooms are not sufficient to accommodate future student impacts. Additional elementary school facilities will be required. In addition to the elementary school identified within the Discovery Bay West project, the District has a need for one additional elementary and middle school. Location of these schools has not yet been determined. School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 6 G. Budget for New Facilities: Construction costs for a new elementary school is $4,300,000.00. The construction costs for a middle school is estimated to be $5,500,000.00. These costs include land costs. II FINANCING OF SCHOOL FACILITIES A. Source of F'mancing (a) State Funding (b) Developer Fees (c) General Obligation Bond (d) Special Community Facility Districts (Mello-Roos) (e) Up Front Fee B. Effect of Fimancing Methods: (a) State Funding. Prior to the passage of proposition 13, placing an escalation cap on property taxes, school districts generally looked to the State for funding assistance for their facility needs. Since the passage of Proposition 13, the State has realized an increasing obligation in providing services with a decreasing revenue stream. Although the State provides funding for school facilities through the passage of State-wide school bond measures, future success for these measures is unknown and will not accommodate all of the need. Additionally, school districts are required to qualify for State funds and not all districts are able to meet the State's qualifying guidelines. (b) Developer Fees. The authority of school districts to impose development fees derives from Section 53080 of the Government Code, and dates back to the passage of AB 2926 in 1986. AB 2926 authorizes school districts to levy development fees to pay for new school construction. The original School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 7 Y maximum fees that could be collected under this authority were $1.50/square foot for residential development, since adjusted for inflation to$1.65, and $0.27 square foot for commercial and industrial space; these figures can be adjusted upward to compensate for inflation. The District, since it is not unified, shares these fees with the high school district on a 70/30 percent level, whereas the elementary district collects 70%. It should be noted that the impact fees authorized under AB 2926 are usually insufficient to cover the cost of new school facilities associated with new development; school districts generally find that fees cover approximately 26% of the cost of new school facilities associated with new development. (c) General Obligation Bond: As a result of the passage of Proposition 46 in 1986, cities, counties, and school districts are again empowered, subject to voter approval, to issue General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds to finance land acquisition and capital improvements. G.O. Bonds are repaid with the revenues from increased property taxes (authorized by local voters as part of the G.O. Bond measure). Approval by two-thirds of the voters within the school district is required for passage of a bond measure, a percentage which is often difficult to achieve, particularly in the current economic climate. (d) Mello-Roos: Establishing Mello-Roos Districts to fund expansion of school facilities has been successful for many school districts in the State. A Mello-Roos may be a tax on new homeowners as an addition to their property tax, or the developer may pay off the tax upon close of escrow. Forming a Mello-Roos District either requires the cooperation of the development community or the conditioning and policing power of the School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 8 government jurisdiction approving new developments. This is one source of financing identified in the agreement between the developer and the school district for funding the new elementary school in Discovery Bay West. (e) Up front, An Up Front Fee is a fee that matches each new residential units fair share cost of the new school. This fee would be in lieu of the Developer Fee. As in the case of the Developer Fee, this fee would be collected at the issuance of the building permit, not allowing the District to collect enough revenue in a timely manner. C. Alternative Funding: "Turn key" construction is a means for developers to construct a new school themselves, turning over the keys to the school district when construction is complete. The advantage to the developer is that the construction costs would be less for the developer than for the school district. III MEANS FOR UPDATING SCHOOL IMPACTS ON A PERIODIC BASIS: Updating school impacts will occur as the State of California requires. School Facilities Status for the Purpose of Full Mitigation 9 I. W. +•y+ .r - t r - ySr -.0 vh„f3:txt!' _u� J„�~,aa..♦�k4, !F e .aj.. 1 �S�'� t r it `d s z.c { .r t Jcj 9' 3 �4 ♦ t i.I°.Jfi I y ✓ x. 1 K, tl y .- _i��!: +s'}i.-6 ..j1,,•,' 1.►. ,.J'.h ,l;F' ' r .'` J� f r7♦'^, ,' -° h `;v rr( r` l t Tr l;: T ' ._, �s,Hwy'? r r� , .1 y,, x.rr t 1_,rr 'y rx 'jr}'}-6 �r mt .> , 3'` _? ?x'� i rf tit \ i i 3 � .j' i. ' e Irk `1 o> 1' „'y ,'*\ 11. ,.1 fyr,i - '>? f /-s ,r '�yy t' ,7 ;s ay .n q•k,e r� .. 3 �' >' �. s} ,+Y Tt t �1, ��f- !�,!-�,.", v r a I` .f i t sly •t4 cs S; ?t. i� 7rrba yf yt_ ,T ;; <sry r d r, Y, k> 51i./ x3`1"t,,a.x'>'S'•,T d.a,a Ji �:t L iv- 6• 'Fr'S,x r }- , '�' k S\•.dj '� jj•., r� rt"� Z° r t�xr= d, f-yam,,'rt:? 1 'i:1.1 p�\+: '}r MU• 3,n ,u p '"l 1 It rY R. J'1:" . ((c, .`. ° '�` w Lf� .r i' {w� ..t Yf',i •rb..',."�7 'y s i•;t�'R-r'ar.-?Eyy • ,}r~rr'{�? ' r 13 "� i�I:A - stn T; . .j. `t•Y > 'T7 F i •'k r. .,IL 1 y�.a�S.�1 s `' r l r� ru fi '>l �v .�`..._� F TG:r t 1} I y, JAk_i O f .1 A !.- N.•,, is str 1 JJJ r r r a s y c ri fr+ )a i 'N.�,ry`Y')'4' ,,j. 1.-;.'t-� �a �-'' V F1 T5{' :- 'j d.'*rt .�'.ty�'i't^u.. ni t 4 f iS 1 tii�{.� „♦.fi;6 «t JC'�_ I, i , 1' 1t. z,"'` \" F Ap t )� 7F." •:� lr«t4�(EJ ' ➢ +r,�# ..+a_r' ' '.f,,.:��yrK :4 t ^�!z;F.(Y ufJ 'Y , :.p '*» a.. `> t-�?' 1^_e�:31'p>n `y„.':f °` 3t �4a1. `d'�4S.'`7'., g'rhr�-:,r '' .ol'� r!. �'� tkri:�LzyYCi'� :� 5 �ai '�' iLL+� '1 �h+ 11 Ut t�. i 1 i, a -� `Sti t.' S- 77' :X••• �,,.. n:. 6�?�"y.'ln�t �., c s�a1 4 k � y p !'<S i°�/'-•,;l rrt ,g .i y� ra Gtr Id'�i`WJtAxl• � 'S��kxe; t � i-4_L<.sdA � 'i^f �y�a '�S t# n+ +t Y'�` v + ix`�? •�x �r ya,#, t: 1 L � ` � a ry yT3r• F, n(^q J t � � T' .-'S s :> r,Q T 'F < G i r �' a t F Sl h T -*,Y+'i ��rr ♦♦ 1R.r 1 ;rF s E1n1 :'arc.. '. f..J t`( �'C.. R s'.y ° w'r ' L�' rpt f r ,y ',{V r rs,. '' ' F, I& !�.tW�.s � x� .1}. 34 ?hn.�T'� m ,1 A• , c .. 7 .:-{J �1.-,: ?5.�.4rKl Y�,Yvi g .,1 ."."' Y> T 1 s kr ).' '. ' rf.: i�. .�r:i` 5... -rri; r'�.r y4'�.yF^ - ...4` <-j+v. 3 L 9-ic•�� yY;lu >Jti-,.Ftp' ,a it' v-`I.? ;"p� t + s M1, �y>I'�-•'v, '� '{. ',.+,r'"f av �:�. v�+ ! 'zt ii.�r'A' c - 1"r .:E. 7. ::').r T ,J \ Yd` a r. '-a } P , f. 5F- J'ter ) �� > u :" f�i�4�-.r i 'S G Ray i, «r,Igd =/';r..; 14 mak {.Y,i :YS 4v`y.P"s'`i :r t�,. F•kr'f.',Y ''.�/.�t."4 :1;''.�u- �7•r :'ti'^s. t•''s' :,;t1',sCy s.. «r+iY -, :'.N; X xix`t-;•ti ✓tG, ,- �� . I f, 11% b. ��"�"„6'-W "C,JJY' j,ft �' I '" V43±1 4e' .1 * + �. _ ^� 'Ua 1 r - �fM s1J S., `fr4s ,fit` . II I /. , a' � r r ,Y �)"' .{ � r. a 1�:=>" F t.-Ii,r' 'fi 1+.��:J.,7t `�'ft6�f. 3 1 - - f' Yt•i.: 1 *1. .� L".10-. .1�� r•+.}r~,I -3'is 'ri.'1 \ y r 't` � F X .rq s 1 F �Cyt-.. 1 .�- V yf v� t V 4 ..1•� i, .. E .r. '- ,� s' I.Y� :tel ` Y' s'1'�' { !t < t Y.f w i J.tNy��(. tx r+ r� .' :1.' c �� i,• t j.sj'�fsp �rY } }Q < ''.w{ n. r '�,,`'+�� -, '�'j''1! Y'ert t " `r>;x'3}'j T 3's��rr aT(n.. 1-�' art r Rte. < fJ"' '��'�,'�t.ri,•F��.FJF4 �-1�i!1�3/.fir=:.}J �- :.:.,�.,'. rL :� x..Jt.f t.;t°` j.,j7•'f'+`;t..t f +f. J.A� ��. 'ryy."' •c i c ".+{"C✓ t; -:2e �i� ),aY,t,g'�+ `7 _ ¢ y .: ,. ,r •'['srE"'s yt Q. L F ..l�° •f @.'h„'. 4. e. >L Y;.'�* 4'.. 1,0r % 1,,- '` 2y F"s yipRf g{F� < q7a L .o-_ { r R f C d � � f r1R1( � .:: y `jf> y - .. 1 ` \ fs ;Y y", , r. )iuJ{' � s sirr�' ♦. -'J ter ' ` h ( � _I . �,y �. r i r,'r.'k-.y^ +E F 1 W K"•.,r \ ,j,,; { - P :i > r.. a .'r, r1 T 7 rrk:i r.. /� L,- I - rY �'--i - r�ij ♦cT+� 3i':;' d.k�=t•F'3 t t.Z r--•?r;..4 r Fj.r Y '•' , :. 11 ;:. ' �y,aX'➢I x'^Llir�.J J.K.k +b S:r>;! .. R• _1�{ i. y, J #(r T"y r: } s`rT F wj r I t Y Y h i . L .i' t �1•: S i \r� .a3 � �*: "`Y'.. 4' '- r ``^ ' �`t ;= r� Ar`!c' .'fir P�"`��., '`}'�� r"r p� ;r°'r9,` b .-N fi p + �'_wt{ a.,Li?^+7�x ""° ..:.a+'� .BT z t, r,dyrh -x >Y � t't r .$;an titif•-'A f'jC/c,T� 1t��} ti 1,at " .' ry� a�' :q _o: t5 r `_'4.Ms �`" '$ - ,,,,n, .r ,1li�t, +,"} p'i `°cad. "{/ �•,+�•` L)\."n�f 7s 7t C'.t",I,..�y�' J, 'pk i , i K } r r^A f Y t$, .F d 6:�� L:vY' ': ♦ . ? w 1 Jti1 ?s '{w --.�'' 1.f \ d'j ,>-r rr l:4 r rt` 'l,J ,!t'' l lf,,, tr , ,�� 'L I7.' tl, r? � k t; ?,�;,,,�'x-`. >t` t �l -:.Fid'".f '.' � ,"'- ^.I +. - is�"�:,"�,'°�-�' -P�J��,v-'''><��v�r y,S.'�.""':Y"��t�J'1,--,4 �, lv_r,, `'e�' �S p�1939. 1�1 \"!ILAr° .� "0a i ,�Yc L.�►) `r'� x T.t. :A � elk(3.k w9�9'' r Q?ti rfi . ! r$. ��pp, A. LL��..cr�c.. `y ,, _.4.S• ,'f1`,; 4 ,'•t,'1 �t� rat,.s ` :. -C�'�K1_. ^�`ZSJt a -KI . r '. ,: W�.`, r rJ ! 1 z. C a. T C FF.Y K 7 F } l f/6� i.. I: `CH7'. t�� ..1� S�-'t�''-';t.^� r dy�y f +.} or»-tf�`y,ry. -A� .s+a„ 5.... - V, y+Fy-i N.•1�}( .t .',� .{. }. k:' ,v,, ��, `.'�"iF'i(.'lAt �� s .t' ar`'rW. y >c t rp`�F>7 rr v iE" ,_� 4. xl.> E y a F," s(`4 ! �'<. RF. F "'. ,'r7,;F�• i `S,i'-- „ •.�-t +Jys ,,t ° r' `M tK,•�r �}�, =i t,E :�+4+� ( 4 di. ., ��s' v r tiK •L�v. .eC,f r-✓' , v"' S .J''s�F"i't-: "y''e w't•'•i 2 +i tP r> �U°s J:-�' 3 t��a Y �X 'f+,y t l -,g,_"," td�4fS47' i r^r'4? y+..1>'.1.: . rt+yp `e� y;', -i Y„ �}`� 1 Ta r!. y. L :7�.: S e ) r- e'-i' '1'.r �''�i j�•f' * W,'4, x.tf't Y ,,- h r 1.^ `ft' °` + :'.'h r '`- (> r 'r -F' i.. pf / /' '4' { 4 ry. ➢ ��// _t .a l ;. ..� r:I--a;.1 :"•.,r� c + ;r ';y r +'" v i ,' t a .d+_ / d'. h a« �.,5.:x' •� '`aK') z�`i r1 r _,Y 4 r " N z! 'i'�L `': r, .,i ST f �* y., �+ t� 3 �' :rr_- ' `./+,ty_',' !' Y 4 .r.df r' t't_2 Ji,,�+� °k- °iri '. x7�,..e••c, 7. } + ,� a t� Q'2 i;t` d l 'Sf iA+.4w 1 I ! /,�°' F.s.}k�.j /` K11�'s ` .K;,K r^t,'�4 t.•;.. '-S 7 -Y a ; ;. -t•'n�•.t.+{� .t • ;t c' ,) t.rt• 1 ..}, Q. .S T� :k 4 •r' 'qp%J vv-- / -r- -i�:'x-f-1-}' ''i '�'t3 i y s\ :> k"�, Y- }:r'Y' s` >=-V- , ^r -, S` .;- LY 1p,"- ♦!ky s .� r� 'f .7 'ry l., h ' - Nt F�. 1 ! : {� qy"f' Y,3' 1' Y - 3. .1�. �,��, Y I l (/'..yT di 1•>; - - .k {{��f,�\;f -o."' `A�.Y z, '1�raf {£. vt i n`'a,l z t7 -"v�d' 'I .`� ._s�, yI'��' ^b--xy ' \ 'di vW +' ,1(v -r h ,, �''�'- �.k ,t J. 1 < 5,..-,�' r#'.,.�' "' Y, -.ter` .sr, •r, ,...: p }*^t :r. ,.s " i t,s ;r i t:r yy"'F } <• �'.• t z. ��ra+ > .t, tom. cri .- ,� f l f�, 7 ay",;, r: rvI Y c }i :},� m t x> ,.ty x E.r F 1 y<f F, f,A 5t'� f 1 f `� �"y x u a� ' e.�x t'h `�. '=>"3'+' ) ..r.Y 1' Y > e•� .d,1 A st .P" Vii% -:,t +4 Y•t }T.+r' ', a>e a,.-t,}^f`^.'><°nth !-..+5 �r yly(`r+,�i+ `.,tSC _su',..-_L� '� f*1�'Gnr:�'t'�7E.�` e•Y+S�.. ,�:' ,� 5 :1!`� ..' - ...�',7�ne h i:' +#�1 N1. - , ,Yr1'..K..",1kr,:;. �11�'. nT 9 y<'-i<t'� rC•�1T»:r.. 'Y.7. ?I�,,�y+ '� cA^'`l'Y C" ra'L -� ,5 '. ,~ �'..q' ''.{y� •`.�t «, { S•y.` t f.J,r^�'� .y�>=il'i +', .''t' ,c+ s h 4+'- l ., Ja y. ,• F' Y p� ? °'i'.`+�k' + issEc :i.•. ,irr c 'Stt,;`. <• :`-... I,.,. 1- t} � � Vii'" �ri f`� �' + i e''� a} �`°-,7�"4y *... 'Arm .�6 " r fr.a1 r,r>',, 3 t '` '..-1`.."�' _ x! 1.,1 ,X30 ^;' �y A. :f.1' ,^.- _2°"> `5'r^-. at` Sx+ 'i t '32' -r- ,'I [> ti-;T;'� •r x" r}1' L _:Li.n,5y. l�+r-t 1Y Y:t �s a?. f n.k.,. :, !�-, ,>\ r { ,. t) .. 2r}` ""5�'t -.f t�"� ! t F. J♦ `+ i_� Ji;�`�,y ?% Ir r.' r F:'� iY +y r.�l.ei�." -.-.- : "'� . is i °;#>'t 3-7;A Ctq -1�'{- }> -�..t 1�t f-`s- �.;e.'`).r. 4,Y,t. ).�1}�,: t l �` 4 'u'£`n - .,- c-�, f"'."_�''�✓y. ,- '_l I'lltiF S_y, 4 .+ 6jwi :f:F r'[` s j tj r. ,`,.`Y; ^ f ti. t4,; . .� 1' i� :s t > 'r•C�' ,. K,`.t 1>~=rat. ✓� 'fi g�1 f. ,sw. 7= s' ,.,. �d •,�-_ .y y. \ z;_Y tx1 ,'St,rr,��i��>?'.,y fi'-4, '''i z'Y ?-t-v.�"�r 3�" ',i 4`1f.> .: �t' ,,�rk'T.r 1 .t -_ v��, �� a F,}�`:. ri'. r .i� .r, ,.;�; , J �.r}c Er:y., S{} ,. -.'r `'?Y.;� Yr.t,-C.��i�`^' ;�:�! 1.,,�,�.7� r F � ,,; .� y,''i� .-a; - \,y,.-, '�' // r. 1 N f ` \ Y -r + .'1 r Y .�, •4 t ) L Y k v s�a 4 t \R ~ ;�;4 a LJ \ a�:.,_ a� -.+a " F a s[,,-.s i S a-". ,tt, .,.tt'.�:,� �.d-':c /< r n <>�r..'1's ^r^ tLL Xu '�v -'1- t rs, j +:.t57 ,' , ) v ' �!. , a<-. / .�/��] ` Via- ' :' ^,)r� f a s;7� '�� i o c , "'tr�.. f''r `+ D tiJ' yY 3,I:;S ?,.w -r,brr r} t ,T F"" 4 t-,?•/tr`c Tui+ =C'F ti�^�>,�,. �. 11 + a.'ri..7 T F 'fr x � +...1:s.^; i ")cT..1,y ..:/'�' ,.I' , y ri^ F .1'�,� t {' 4��e_'. .A, : S u �- � L a A. . a .t r ti wt. ��. � c f' 3 4 ) M t +, l 1 '1�+ /t T`!l .r c,.a,l 1 _ 1 't _ys -.j, 4 _ �'•` �,3 y !- A _/1 )'� :.9 't�1.iz1. � Y_ 33t�.,. S ('iF,r Y /�i..i s\6 .> --. w.+� y ` M " . n-.t'G� {2 4..^ �, lt, '.jh >{ r� :.-, F 3� ., -i' y' - -i H'�,IF J R 'f' .^ .l fi.•�` 3 f"", jF '.' :r _ .? ,� -.jamI. :�; X > Yf 1._rte 3:` S',� f Niel *F,.'ff �,1�.-2 E i C 1r �Lj^F<, �*�' r,�., \Y ",�,y :tit_r, pt 'a a+�:ti ', t;^/ \ ..�C i,rf c5 +��.' �, d. / ;q,•'( > r >� (:1' 1 a -jt., } ♦ + Y r TI— I s t \ {r r r/ a �� k + "11i s t i. r r r d 1 C154 tooY- '7`.;a r s !`Y `•Y r t t� Z S» xr r.r.,�i'I, r„' 6'r 71- t 1 I �o -^�Fc`'�R�' s '� �s(y �,hyI.,�� +h. �rYpyr`.c - '1 7R• -`�� '� 'i m,T' "' ,,-a. 1. Y'% v_ { K '.yit y(/''Y} `{• ,`c' J' ^! a „S„ t / .lk+�w�Tr 1s-v �•+l ��` � -y '^,+:sy�i,, c{,. hu,. ,. a:bre 7�t '�'`' b-•� >2?e;.R`y:3S'F ,� ',[r " .r ''�` .:,wk`s i-r+ > (�"" c r.F ", ..:v t5t�:3';ry�,' ti �,,.,,, �'' ', S-Ja; '#` d" :. +r ^, EI. s-/ � �'• r.a '.! 1' 3..d t ,.,r �$ -,d.J.ti-:.h_ .l e ; - .r: r 4 :•'7_ l:`,� `,•'... ' �s� '°'� : rr ..k n. t �, \..,.r-�('-x�''-Vk fx .Fy -i. ,.-' r r4.=.� oc �:1� ct i �'�.53 �` r ..\ .r. 'Y.., .r Vic. �, w' >-�' r �ttt-�-J a'-;. } K' r., { ".. E ""' ,s'a "�,_ t ::1f7. �_-v ti.ra" h�-.G+s as?^E".: ,{ x-tI rye, h 4'4F-t , ;' ,' "� r ` `+`'T' ,�aM'er'i '�vy�1 r Z. .p-+t.:af'"�+3'�' >„�•. -"'�„ '�7 ,� .57+.,lx'.'E , .'`ar.+ �t-t, ;,e.(�°�t'Y �+ /Y' ' +�",r-`+�$:(^.*y':�y .. `x'1. ,�..� ,r. `i.-ti- EKG i' '� -"�l+" , '"� s{,, ! z, ',u6 > tt' fi i;.ni.,1) tet,:)c\',-. -F,yf \�.. --.x{. _L.:^: 9S`'h1'-. 'A.' ,,�_ ++ d.`c'�,r`s-�YS .+ x ' �h!',r^L''1 i':c:.+ .h - ++r V., .cr, /."e1.: •'i • t F:. 5:"). F r f"•'+'r �.RZ-'c, - 'S) A -" 'r J` �N-M\,y=': 'F" , r'vr f r, ,r7 �' a.`.?tut+f v,,y. ,;.r>,-z , s�i-'�,'„`'vs��cy'��,'d,t'....e `,. i.�• r' i- '%' t }" .t f� j, ,'s �7 r�: I r '�yt , '2_ .�1--, t f h'1'. . f-1:;i-`' 9g* ��`.ci•. <.._ :,i'sif`a'Sr:, 'k4 f'F'>.c ^P'=# @ct{g.�'t•.{4d `'�.5r., � i1 `,ih. �J3j + t'4sY tti�:,`ra ,r ''h„ '�.�°%'4 1• '•'�i'f h'"-,' f T. J i - tF r\ .J+' :;) o f E w f '�' •F yl- "12SI.•.F y-4 3 c i Z 1'.Lr r )XN._ .:�•r` `r' j-�a r� 'L' ✓> - rl 1s? }��tk :t-+ �r V, ' �: f.y w11 - '. ,;�. ). r,' -;` / Y S f :y,y, t. �'- - i•-x�-; 'L- .y-VI j �E,i,:w -.� `; �. r i'•'�1�i, r as �7 �; i ,r ;._' `f� 2'._ flu�, 4 ti ,' YON �,. 1 {- ' ;, r, S ' r' 7-. �, l q%. 3,�'a� + a",'t' /a�dl -t' l {: r� ,�.c ✓ t \1.'++ :,;\ 1.. ""' -�� .j;';h`.i .tt- k1,+ .r,.;;.V t - iF -i.-rp. +, >.J�;"� ` '' t'3 fy ,,�+.z:�y d' u',t�.'S' :�+�'. '. ,P ••` w.ylyy�-.�-+,. t, .. T,ai.r, , r ��. ft rl:: J. lxtc': \ , e-r •jf, `'�v l' ,i,'N ts.Ay w 4;,i,. r. 1' ti;. $.�e �,�t ..Y"�P'j lhs'r y `�i';�ata, C.4 fi:';',^ yy,'21'.". .}A'rf .it 4 •+ �'f1,,9r�"+ t11!\,+r-'� 'f'�,.k:T 1:' .-♦wo-SF.x"ir 7'r{ -.`rri�JY It 10- �h' `, �\'"5 F4 �r1.M;f:1 C r 1?` .k. J,C♦i% R 1P ,1-4-111 a.r _-� , l:•r J. ✓,7•` .,e y } -rr t - y- >r `�„ s rJ- �A' e \':. 'S 1' 1 i at,. t,,:4 t (' U .. i y y Lk e 7r r�{�(�y( *�r ark r p a r,-, a � ' F2:'� 1 <Y r �r fi{Y...k. r. ,hX tom` . , '. ':1>.T7Y ." fc J .%.��uF rjt x' T'lo. -"E,r; '"+• CN, r ," l7 1.F . t t k% 3'i'I1.rr.:`s•l Et> y.r-lit\n�.�R il�e"t,5 T.x-,:'C" ._�'F < ,.T" --r 4' `z. J) W '41-it,� 1 . i.. "-.;,�. y`q � 7 .' tri x h •r" f''7 �'ti lT x'}r� t' T° K 1 J._ .f -LVO� F l '} I y F , % n 1 - ( �> - r .,� f tk c:• ` _;, �- '� rR:.. \t-` ;*to n L -'-% S �: Nr r-•9 As "T, .'i1 .i^•+ ,, a '>r �. ,..a.!5,'Y �, y L .'' dti F�`."�,� 3' 4 W'. h , 4••1d r ^ -.. �-.t 1. { >9 ?•r`t Jr +., K"r ..F lYl f�}_:.r. ri t ,..�'_ p F a :t Yht ' 'r}-e'�✓t'y, >•( � '�A�r '� :Vzfl Y+' `'t c Y 3�,. � r :.s ` ^'A, y " A ?s '� _>-. �:Fl�., +x11 >1 `� P� '<J w'•'� ,etlt7 �.�d�{ i�'�zr ��4 :h �'r ;`_f �fiJ 4♦ t Ys + 1-'Y�r a: }, ',rA t 11il l'C ,.-.4 � .%-_� j, ='� f w i. r� �y7• L-.�� t r -F� f �`'s�„�tt��-dR ��c-:"is F.?,4•;,iA _t(I l' �.. hF r1,% x FSs}1��♦C.�r�� 4r _ -,41 "I i 1^ ��Fa�. yi r� i ,Fr) -ir f� as g�. ,v} a• "yY '' '''..�k YtS't,'r�{�. '-a� ee '"� /♦y' I .. "tf`'v'c• ?l t'�,.. .\...,--.5 ' I-, j - f ;t l:fsr`' r t�. '. ✓ { 1�{'-r -^! ', "F x '451 { X _.o 1. <� 4 ,t,- ,� �, _}' -."-- t ' sj _IIIZI�.,,r.i. sl 3 y_d r t T-.-.SAYt b r T-r ��.M rr -d.y3n"'� •u .c+ r }q.- )'3 rY.;,' s �� a r ,hp r \ Y rl 51,x+ a l t l.' �t ',tet.:�,>r 9 `�. {♦ t .��•} ✓:',K h1�:;r 4"YFS .C:4+•-r'ci-+ t•,r-?µ /�•�nd %y;'"h• 't�4�f'rx 'Jb ti y-�F i n S.}h J\ T 1 k_i `S'-i-�^S ti.'i s s `f:.r.'i '• }>' + .r,. t +,•_.e':' +` ti 's\r -+{' o". s 9......�,c31 1`.4 "�' a, r� .% ,..lo t,ry tr5`�. _ ti .��',T J• �.'}'\' a.�.,S"'X4 '� r:i.. T\, ,-i„ ,�a rf� ?b- -, ` ...lfd• '7 F, yf.✓". T- .;,r t i l/ Y 1G'j- 'ii;tib v1.3�:3,.b' r" 1.,;:,'Ln�' )c., N CIt, 1 �'.: 'l t_;+i .. 'y f t�'•1.,.. f r �y f 1 T j ( I c j y�� y�r *►� A�'( S } 7s Cif r I \ i a i '?2y.y? l <_4r r s--G`�Y' sN 'ka't'lc /tc y,f ",7..e?ss�P�V' �VLTi''t*..�'� }..- ^� .7 \, J? •mit ;F {, ,x,t, ; ,_;.,`i- qw.c r J:" �1� r f r Ate, 4 j 5 `F'1t-11f `ii+�R(� -`�-�`"iL�U3�AMR,I B;Mtiool 4 I._�. K,r. z �ltr y�!t ''� z}, \ �-v�� Sh 1. - y n > k !•.r T .5 r"2 C`. 'i r t 1- 'j`. +� a �"'"' 1 1 '`. -00�f ,y. ( .a zA-ti.)'_ '}S 5C2�" a ^i „`.-Lf) c k trl f!^l-. t 3.:. r .�;u�.'%, .�,.' Sr�',�% t 'L. r �y �' (1 t.. y: 4.. F rpt `_ *J c t -?r c r 3 .S J.. i 7S r . 1.t = r �.� ty _ •"1•(,lF., �'..-�a «i - zlw :,`- rtRcl+..•:., Y >, , 1 ;1� w r' < a r 'v - �+,t 1'1117h''�'.,r,.,.y y rt' >r'e t` Ht0 y� 'P v •�L'�t,`7 Y �l ro t1 A,y 3s:•��i�C�',.01, ;.'t.tf• `t'�...rs; , ; -� 'e a ,,a« y »c. �. i't�''�. +"i" is s�-�..F'1a t'r,is 3� ,- K Z',? . 3' i•. � -.!^ `jJ{M'^i ;Y:I..-Lk�'k- r'4•k t"'.!'y"l.t 1`'':_.V ��,•c r�- s _, Ft''r�`�k _cgr:Y{y?•r ,.;-3t, f� jtl .l •. y}.C :jz'.4��(' ,'i., ;:r Lj�J +i+ ,. ,7:.'tri, ftp'. � "� 3a ° ) e'S�Y'+' 'vS fi. 6 \< } .a �r cs_.�..a` ,.�'J 'c, Gt'...}-r' s. , '? . r5 ra w.. .x� P _ ti a ; . / + a .I. ,'t li)1 Z , _4 r °- i 1 j F u r T"„ rv.�+`' �\ r rL ijta - , _'. a ,C.' l 1- , f z k t t- .i ..-, s -f- >, 1•z r _ �. ,i 1 1c-• ...b r J t ti t i' <.,, ..`.t c , r. * 'v, * `2 v.r-e i`�4 }d �� '' '.c.. ) r \ �.� .sY."'j%, •{"c�"'T,.Fek "_•, ,:.`�.{ ' .�,,�7'"- f C;Y'�1.. .�>f Y'Z' � J'. 4 Y.. y,�, .,�-.t>=. , .`L 3�.irr y rJ, r . K + { i._.o r 4 -c a .,�.. ": f, :.'i ,7 = r.:` re} it4`'r'.,i 'r� ' , ' -+":c Z 5.>_.,--- '>r`� r•}. ,.. 3'. v1.y". '�";( 1, �:r^,,.�t .'"t'- `�rY r _4i � `f , t^ P . , zv- i ^, "h t_1 kkR,A3 ♦' 1 -� fi .S`'">:� a � z r c q,J Jp t. b4. _M '{i 1:1�'S s ..`Ji.r1. - .. ti'.: ,;;V rJ ,w ..`c_1 F-z--.}}. ,�.� �...�4, .! :r,t .':1'i..u4S::_, Fl., er.;a ,1-,`y_.o, :.Y� ..��.�,';... �r .. �•...1... w Plan designations for this land, it is possible that more units can be built. Assuming a five percent vacancy rate, combining the units identified in the county and city, the District will realize 1,078 new residential units within the next plus or minus fifteen years, representing 539 students. EXISTING FACILITIES The District currently operates one facility for general education programs, grades K-8, located on Delta Road, Knightsen. The 1993-94 enrollment is 304 students which represents an increase of 10 students from last year. The facility has been expanded with the addition of portable classrooms and has a capacity of 380 students. The facility also serves as the District's administration office. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS 1 The District has expereinced an increasing enrollment for the past several years. Enrollment increased by 10 students in 1993/94 from the total in 1992/93. It is estimated that the District will realize an increase in student enrollment from the existing housing stock of 48 students within the next several years. The District's facility can accomodate this growth. New development described in this report represents a significant impact to the District, estimated to be 539 students. This assumes development in the city of Brentwood that has to date not been proposed. For the purpose of this report, only that development that has been approved or is proposed will be analyzed, i.e. Discovery Bay West. The District does not have the capacity to accomodate this amount of enrollment growth from the new residential development. PROJECTED NEED FOR DISTRICT'S SECOND FACILITY As can be seen by the aforementioned projected enrollment growth and the amount of new residential development within the district's boundary, the District will need to construct a second school facility in the future. The District does not have a funding source for the construction of the facility other than the collection of Developers Impact Fees on new residential and commercial development. The facility is estimated to cost$7,600,000 and the estimated revenue from these fees is $2,284,153 representing a shortfall in funding of $4,175,847. Additional development other than that described in this report will assist in the funding, however,will also increase the amount of impact to the District. Developer Impact Fees are collected at the time of issuance of a building permit. School Facilities Status For the Purpose of Full Mitigation In Contra Costa County 2 I SCHOOL STANDARDS AND NEW RESIDENTIAL IMPACT A_ Inventory of Existing Schools KNIGHTSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Location: Delta Road, Knightsen Grade Level: K-8 School Year: Traditional Teaching stations: 13 Current Capacity: 380 students B. Classroom Data AVERAGE LOADING STANDARDS District State Knightsen Elementary Classrooms 30 31 C. Development Impact on District Boundary Approved Approved Proposed. Final Map Tentative Map Tentative Map Brentwood 7/93 0 0 0 County 6/93 0 0 535 TOTAL 0 0 535 D. Student Impact from New Residential Development Student Generation Factor (SGF) for elementary grade level students is 0.50. This means for every one hundred new residential units built the District will realize 100 additional students. Using this SGF and the information from Section C, the student impact can be seen in TABLE I. School Facilities Status For the Purpose of Full Mitigation In Contra Costa County 3 TABLE I PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS FROM NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Units SGF Total Total Approved Final Map 0 0.50 0 Total Approved Tentative Map 0 0.50 0 Total Proposed Tentative Map 535 units x 95% (vacancy rates) x 0.50 = 254 TOTAL = 254 The above table does not take into account the 600 potential new residential units in the city of Brentwood only those projects that have been proposed. E. CAPACITY/ENROLLMENT Available capacity is first used to house enrollment growth from the existing housing stock. Any excess capacity available at that time is used by students generated by new residential development. TABLE R illustrates this process. TABLE 11 CAPACITY AND FUTURE ENROLLMENT ANALYSIS Current Enrollment (1993-94) 304 Projected Enrollment Growth From Existing House 48 Projected Enrollment Growth From New Housing 254 Sub-Total Enrollment 606 Current Capacity 380 Current Students 226 If the 600 potential new residential units in Brentwood were included there would be 511 unhoused students. School Facilities Status For the Purpose of Full Mitigation In Contra Costa County 4 F. New Facilities School: School Number Two Location: Unknown School year: Traditional , Grade Level: 6-8 Current Capacity: 600 ± G. Budget for New School Facilities School: School Number Two Estimated Cost: $7,600,000 III FINANCING FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES A. Source of Financing (a) State Funding (b) Developer Fees (c) General Obligation Bond (d) Special Community Facility Districts - (Mello-Roos) (e) Up Front Fee B. Financing Methods (a) State Funding: The school district has not applied for State assistance. It is uncertain whether the District would qualify. The State currently does not have funding available. If there was funding available and the District qualified, the District would be required to provide funding for a 50% match. The District's only source currently is the Developers Impact Fee, which in total would not provide the match needed. Additionally, the fees would not be received in a timely manner since they are paid at time of issuance of building permit. (b) Developer Fees: State Government Code allows for unified school districts to collect a $1.72 per square foot fee on new residential construction and a $0.28 per square foot fee on commercial/industrial construction if these fees can be justified. The District has justified both of these fees and collects the School Facilities Status For the Purpose of Full Mitigation In Contra Costa County 5 maximum amount allowed although there is limited commercial/industrial development. The district, since it is not unified, shares these fees with the high school district 70/30 percent level, whereas the elementary school district collects 70%. (c) General Obligation Bond: Bond measures require a two-third's voter approval. It is uncertain whether the existing registered voters within the district boundary would vote for a bond measure to construct a new school needed by future students generated by new residential development. It is not anticipated, even with an approving vote of the registered voters, the bonding capacity would be large enough to fund the entire school. (d) Mello-Roos: Establishing Mello-Roos Districts to fund future school facilities has been successful for many school districts in the State. A Mello-Roos tax on new homeowners is an addition to their property tax, or the developer may payoff the tax upon close of escrow. To form a Mello-Roos District either requires the cooperation of the development community or the conditioning i and policing power of the government jurisdiction approving new developments. The City of Brentwood has approved Ordinances requiring school mitigation from new development and the County has adopted General Plan language that would allow for such conditioning of new development approvals. (e) Up Front Fee: An Up Front Fee is a fee that matches each new residential units fair share of the cost of the new school. This fee would be in lieu of the Developer Impact Fee. As in the case of the impact fee this fee would be collect at the issuance of the building permit, not allowing the district to collect enough revenue in a timely manner as to award construction contracts. I C. Alternative Funding '"Turn key" construction is a means for developers to construct a new school themselves, turning over the keys to the school district when construction is complete. The advantage to the developer is that the construction costs would be less for the developer than for the school district. III MEANS FOR UPDATING SCHOOL IMPACT'S ON A PERIODIC BASIS Updating school impacts will occur as the State of California requires. School Facilities Status For the Purpose of Full Mitigation In Contra Costa County 6 °o i"'3aN y4 w ys rF,+s h`t +c I aYe t -f t e a •ras'� 2f�F• i`Sy, , x K ` t G. �� '`� �{i ?�' d�� .,..- P� t .`` y r� fi�Y i rfis N':� i J � §}-.� �Y.:Ci ;v J r R ty � y "`�, s•sGj i if. i ;y,1 ra y.. � , � r S 7••°i a ;..t h 3��.b k �' t. 'S �e� � � `t :.',n' i y"d i :> I a.y. 4 �{ s} .o� � �- z t r - w..:. t f "\.> _: " s'•K � � + J t y- r. � C R _ "��,, rk�7..� SFJ14, }�{ ,} '�y¢Y '. I +, �ra � Y 4 ��,� � f r��.ait } + t 4 a� t t t 'P•1' y:: y •I s:_C fi{+...w.Y 7 S A t '`�`!,z t, a ,si7R -`Z �+it t,.r a s '��:" r •-i v M 4 < T'z m :. 's•tT 3t r :��:, •a q g-r r r tet- e�q ,•u •oty, T >l. ,�, t •S° 3r'tws t rSi 3 r ¢ a t J'Sf' + y a r ._- r ; ' °.✓`k S^ .�j"�1-"!^�9'� '•sm, -!•e a cYyc�..s� S .i.�•� ;`� ��'. •t'i} %. � as `+a.+t'S:,� ; c`'rS.��' 4 �yj't a;�� t,,y� _ -t 't^R� r_ �#,� � "a``•a'r�4''"..•� 'r'e+a•1Y' � <2 .tB°.t� 's '� a '�.'t �'t.R r+i,.:s''.'�f,.y„ i-ssk`� {'1 >�avY {�+'y„7*• 'IR�'�,.w r� 'Ssµ'r,r^;s{,y.r+N� .,q 'e Z x i�f�?- F• 'p ,SN s +'" s� �..� ••s x t ti Y' .,r {,�Y.., s 94 rw 'So-° .k i>v ""*�$y5.i'� F+�7/�,'7Lef rr�x � �`��`cs�'ii�t�^2a�'i�-S' !'k''{°+ySP± i��'�'��h t�r � �.?"..t-wk� Fu}.�` f a''4 dp, u'�t^y�` - - •. 4�t# °T6 [. 5.T 5 .? 2 �7�i0 ..h' L_ ,� "S 5 f f !'T SF^•S.P�"� 4 : � f ->. �! .,� �. �, sYC.�{� '�'�N ?"tk "'s.V�b� G '�•1^ ,,,,. r •F �, •�' � ..- C 5 �.�a,, � -;"1 y � cY ei>r D'"� �' t u � t .:. � �F t„ .{� ., yT r 7< *t•9 �r: iy+P �i->4-7z t�t`,�` ti 1 f,��4` � L •..rt{ �s��y� Q'. °ai's- :Ffi .1R k� •��G�a X58 a ,r,il".. ,r �° yi � d 5 'z "`int" `�4s� ;dx j �ggbh' �'� �j i a iCs "'{ .ti,° r <.�IS A � pu Y a-,�r.'.:v;#e,�+ti'` �j'4 r. � .. �. �• � � x.L �� i �u :IM r��kAmwm gi t•f- d�^� @ �:.srrr ��l< r'f:,•3S�s,& a- :1 u kk'��i ��t`i *'i` �+t f•{*r�y�."�fi R4 tfi � ^ ,�"� 9�y y ,s - ; �'��". a .r!+s� Uc k g�'z: s e ',�t.c1":si - g� � �+'i'Y�,y, .✓': _ !<Z- 2 a S.,r r5 ;r; s,`"' n .,y aY dint h 1iKT 4 .y. •i� 5.t is .� �',.. +. ., t_` 6. ; 1 � .. ",�,i's' � ��ra�;a `e �' t Y ' yq- s{= -F•d,� ... ♦ k'�:%�, �f fs ski- r :.K,i �apx f sTa��'� L c i� fi"","�"F. ,�,4�� .�' "' ]psi t :�S4" �jls� �� 1^�-�`'•s.Az� � F� .qq s"`e�,Y`: �� `�� a'`a�y p��c.� .r "�` >tr }t'"��.. ,s ��.k- a � - " ' r�� °r' ;�uf',r c¢��7'•rr��i_• �._ ytr;�c+r �. _ �.;tip �;.:y. �t� Tr � :y1r#r i._ •_,� 3",. d i ''J _ •. s�'�"�='E. h. E7.Y�++'tt rA� ,�at'�j :•.� 1' ��a{{�� y;,a. . } yf4, �ry.`r•: .•i+' ' ox i i, �f% 'f t�;�;��f�.. { ,;4i-C.,s i.y r �;�-*4.__ _ �,•� � ,ga.t,g� s � +'sir t ,�,yrtr,�:z.�...a�,,� �4'+�-�t�^�'��;�, �`" �+ �q•"` - M1..tl"�"'�'`. R �.F�i'�yd YatiC'"`°',.�J:�. fe Ip y�!� 1. - �.T.;.`. ' V7��:�j',,. .z •'�` �"-# g��L6...�_`d� � ��+�� J - 4E= .Y i'�`{ •{ ".�{' �°i;'��ir. l-. ._:."+ro..{ _,y+� y,` Y, yJ,� ''.2r�� :i Y�' 7-*;0�� ; d'.: �}"�c�zvs/^`�'r x?�£'fC �+k'W� `t>a�� "�'{,'Sh\ .q,`.rY:S }� s� e .st �..w�c.ya �•iE �-� � �:: � -�- Ri .,�,.k��,,tt„ _ •F. INAK f > { E +N".0 „`� ,� z+. a >:; •�"�' ' t,w''�" 's"7 ��„}� �-� _ rIl 1 i t v.•�.rr •t.i�r y1� yy��.. s� a' ,�''r "." '�,�" {4� yk��. '�.,.5 w-t �.f` ��'tit ![P jXi� •.8' ��mt� �CTS�K •?1 itti�Yh,�'Gv t.'�# "'Y / x ? $S ti�.JY. ��'•L.w" '.- �1�S.y'••. L6'. � �AY ��.�y'�'f<or_d` X] � r�'R�� e. �� A'i �+ 1 "§•fix k.�'[� �Y..(�•R •f'.'C.. - � i - iY �l i `r �ifi,e� � T, tLt• . ate �•,�,,.a.,, »a�n��ti��11„Tn-�-� F� . r. r :� iF z� r i � t � t 'f �itit•,,`'� }��'ca F�'�`�.s�v{�4�3d�v"'l � � �•� ar a '� �r - ��% l,, . +F•�1= yl 'S!.�..Y.� �1' ci � �'i� b n{ °l i \,i 3 „2* b � *i�r i.eY"t i t ,�,. �,7�y� �f-d .. ay `+ £ s-.� ,�-t 4 4 '�A��"ft# t'�t"w.. r c. a:<tj� c-,, `�5�,j��a3� 3 't;��3•�iA. # dF•�-<f-:�' -. c {{.�` '�£ �_ °t'��:.f� ��:f a�.�°•�: ` " 5 � ti '�$�R.�•.,Fi a�'c3r y''s`' � x s. ;,�. - '��''"'`a,}, r"�„�`''�� 3-`��i,-. fi{e�.-t.. � FC.v:.a*'�f.eA k•�` �ty�"3 �'��.d� tic. c ,Z � ..2,,,�. y�: ''� � �'3.o---r�8�. -p -�C"Sj�•. - � Y � � i r''� �' 5-a r 7 a� „s.. SUMMARY This report documents findings that justify the Liberty Union High School District's collection of Developer Impact Fees pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080. Developer Impact Fees can be collected on both residential and non-residential development. This report identifies that enrollment growth will occur due to both types of development creating a need for additional school facilities. Growth is analyzed for the next fifteen years. ENROLLMENT GROWTH During the next fifteen years the Liberty Union School District is expected to realize an increase of 4,256 students,both from existing housing and new housing, requiring new school facilities. New housing development is expected to create 3,124 students. Developer Impact Fees on residential development will attribute 27% of the funding needed for facilities due to students generated by new residential construction. Enrollment growth will be realized from new residential construction beyond fifteen years requiring additional facilities not addressed in this report. i . 2 NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT It is estimated in this report that there will be approximately 19,522 new residential units built within the next fifteen years depending on economic market conditions. This number includes projects that have approval within the city of Brentwood and/or are proposed based on their Project Status Report. Projects in the county are also included. Brentwood's General Plan outlines that at buildout, the city will have approximately 25,000 more residential units than currently exist, therefore, this report is conservative in the analysis of impacts to the District. The total does include units from the Cowell Foundation Project, a residential development proposal currently in the county. COMMERCLAIANDUSTRLAL DEVELOPMENT This report estimates, that at buildout of the city of Brentwood and the Cowell Foundation project, 13,206,860 square feet of commercial/industrial space will be developed. Employment growth is a sign of economic growth, either by the expansion of existing business or the development of a new business.As economic growth occurs more employees will decide to remain in the area or move to the area,resulting in added population and new housing. Growth in both areas will increase the enrollment for the local school district, creating a need for additional school facilities. 3 Developer Impact Fees on residential development are not sufficient to fund the entire need for new school facilities generated by new residential development. Therefore, fees on commercial/industrial development are reviewed to fund the unfunded portion of the residential fee based on land use categories. COST OF NEW FACILITIES The total cost of new school facilities is estimated to be $65,500,000 for the 19,522 new residential units contained in this report and the increase in students generated by the existing housing stock. The facility cost associated with the students generated by new residential development is 71 percent of the total, or $46,505.000. These costs include the Architect's estimated cost for the new Oakley High School, without land cost, and one i additional high school that includes land acquisition. i CONCLUSION r The law has established the maximum school impact fee at $1.72 per square foot on {{ residential development and $0.28 per square foot on commercial/industrial development. i .New residential development is expected to generate$12,810,087 in fees with a facility need of$46,505,000, or a short fall in funding of$1,817 per unit. Therefore, fees are justified on residential development. Fees on commercial/industrial development are expected to generate approximately $1,109,376. AB 181 states that school districts must base findings 4 L 1. that justify impact fees on commercialrndustrial development on either: 1) individual basis, ti or 2) land use categories. This report evaluated the latter. This report established that the fee is justified in all land use categories except self storage. The findings of this report support the District imposing the maximum fee per square foot for residential ($1.72) and commercial/industrial ($0.28)development. The District must determine a fee on a case-by- case ase-bycase basis for land uses with the similar employee per 1000 square foot category as self storage. f i. 1 c . S i . TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary . ....................................................... 2 Enrollment Growth ....................................................... 2 New Housing Development ....................................................... 3 Commercial/Industrial Development ........................................... 3 Costof New Facilities ....................................................... 4 Conclusion ....................................................... 4 Table Of Contents ....................................................... ListOf Tables ....................................................... Section I. Introduction ....................................................... 6 Legislative History ....................................................... 7 Purpose Of The Study ....................................................... 9 Section II. Relationship Between Economic Growth And Enrollment ....................................................... 10 CommunityGrowth ....................................................... 10 Commercial/Industrial Land Use ........................................... 11 Economic Development ....................................................... 11 Employment ....................................................... 11 Employment Sites ....................................................... 11 Housing ....................................................... 11 Retail Services ....................................................... 12 lResidential ....................................................... 12 Summary 13 Section III. Housing and Enrollment Projections .................. 14 r ! ; Projection of Housing ....................................................... 14 StudentGeneration Factor ....................................................... 15 Demographic Analysis - Enrollment Projections .............................. 16 Cohort ....................................................... 16 Birthrates ....................................................... 17 i . New Housing ....................................................... 17 l- L Section IV. Facility Capacity and Need For Future Facilities ........................................... 19 r ExistingCapacity ....................................................... 19 Section V. Facility Costs ............................................ 21 Section VI. Projected Residential Fee Revenue ................. 23 Residential ....................................................... 24 Non-Residential Estimated Revenue,Commercial/Industrial ........ 25 Unfunded Cost of Facilities Per Worker .......................................... 27 Conclusion ....................................................... 29 Appendix ....................................................... s s I �1 UST OF TABLES III-I Projected New Residential Construction .................... 15 III-II Students Generated By New Housing .................... 16 III-IV Projected Enrollments .................... 18 IV-1 Enrollment Growth and Capacity .................... 20 V-I Estimated Facility Costs .................... 21 V-11 Cost of Facilities Per New Housing Unit .................... 22 VI-I Revenue From New Residential Development ....... 24 VI-11 Non-Residential Fee Revenue .................... 25 VI-III Total Projected Revenue From Development Impact Fee .................... 26 VI-IV Employment Density .................... 27 V-IV Mitigation Fee To Employment Density .................... 28 t r SECTION I INTRODUCTION The Liberty Union High School District (District) serves high school students living within the boundaries of the Brentwood, Byron, Knightsen and Oakley Union School Districts in East Contra Costa County. The District's boundaries encompass the city of Brentwood and its sphere of influence, a portion of the city of Antioch and its sphere of influence, Bethel Island, Oakley, Knightsen, Byron and other unincorporated territory. (Spheres of Influence are unincorporated areas surrounding the cities where annexations are expected to occur). The District is experiencing a transition from that of a rural agricultural community to a "bedroom" community serving the rapidly growing commercial and industrial centers throughout the East Bay. At the same time, the District is starting to experience local economic, commercial and industrial development. Availability of new quality housing at "affordable"prices could also result in higher percentages of current local employees moving into the district, thereby impacting enrollment and creating additional demand for housing. The District currently has an enrollment of 1,979 students, excluding special education and continuation students. To house its current enrollment, the District has one comprehensive high school (Liberty High School) and one continuation high school (La Paloma). Voters within the District approved a Measure A bond in 1988 in the amount of $10 million. Proceeds from this bond were used to purchase a new high school site, expand the present 6 campus located in the city of Brentwood with a Library/Instructional Media Center, a performing Arts Center, eleven additional classrooms, and rehabilitation of some existing r facilities. LEGISLATIVE HISTC)RY During the 1960's, 1970's and early 1980's, school districts primarily looked to the State for assistance in funding modernization, reconstruction, expansion, and new construction of schools to accommodate enrollment growth. With the passage of Proposition 13 placing an escalation cap on property taxes, the State's ability to meet funding obligations for schools and other services has been diminishing with increasing costs and decreasing revenues. The State has passed school bond measures, however, these bond measures will not, and were not intended to meet the need for funding new school facilities. Additionally, not all school districts can qualify for State funds based on qualification standards. In September, 1986 the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 2926 (Chapter 887/Statutes 1986)which granted school district's governing board the authority to impose developer fees. This authority is codified in Government Code Section 53080 which states in part "... the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement against any development project for the construction or reconstruction t . of school facilities." 7 i. Since the adoption of the 1986 code, AB 1600, AB 181, and AB 530 were adopted that further delineated the documentation requirements for school districts to impose a fee on new development. These development fee statutes limited a school district's authority to collect fees at $1.50 per square foot on residential developments and $0.25 per square foot on commercial non-residential development. These fees have increased to the current level of $1.72 per square foot on residential developments and $0.28 per square foot on non- residential development. The District currently collects $1.65 per square foot on residential development and $0.27 per square foot on non-residential development. The District is not a unified school district, therefore, splits the fees with the elementary school districts at 30%/70% rate. AB 181 requires that commercial/industrial fees be based on an analysis that is either (1) project by project or(2) categorical. Project by project requires the District to analyze each non-residential development individually to justify a fee based on employment density, and other factors. Categorical approach avoids individual analysis by classifying projects by land use. AB 530 specified that a District could either determine local employee generation rates or use data from the January 1990 edition of San Diego Traffic Generators (San Diego Association of Governments, 1990). The California Legislature found that the"levying of appropriate fees by the school district's governing board is a reasonable method of financing the expansion and construction of i school facilities resulting from new economic development within the district." The Legislature further stipulated that the fee to be paid bears a reasonable relationship and be limited to the needs of the community for elementary or high school facilities and be g L_ reasonably related to the need for schools caused by the development. These statues require findings be made establishing a "nexus"between the fee,enrollment growth and new development. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to show a reasonable relationship between residential, commercial and industrial growth and increased student enrollment in the District's facilities. This study will also compare the funds generated by impact fees on new development and the costs of the new construction and reconstruction needs of the District to meet their needs. The study analyzes growth for the next fifteen years. The study will identify the following: 1) The nexus between new residential and non-residential development and future student enrollment. 2) Identifies the capital facilities costs associated with the need for future facilities. 3) Determines the justifiable fee on residential development. 4) Determines the justifiable fee on non-residential development based on land use categories. 5) Identifies a fee for "full mitigation" of the District's capital facilities costs associated with new development. i f E 9 t SECTION 11 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENROLLMENT COMMUNITY GROWTH The city of Brentwood and the unincorporated area of Oakley has a rapidly increasing population. The city offers an increasing job base for retail,manufacturing, distribution,and service industries. The city's Commercial/Industrial July 1, 1993 Project Status Report illustrates 75,108 square feet of commercial/industrial space either under construction or planned for construction. As commercial/industrial economic expansion is realized,requiring an additional labor force more than the current population will support, workers will come from outside the city, increasing the city's population. This economic expansion may be the creation of a new business or the expansion of an existing business. As the city becomes an attractive employment center,in terms of population, available workers and housing, it may attract an existing business from outside the region for relocation purposes. As populations increase, demand for goods and services will increase, resulting in additional economic growth. Economic growth results in the development of new commercial/industrial space, whether i it is expansion space for an existing business or space for a new business to the city. In either case economic growth with new workers and an increased population results in a regional jobs to housing need. As the existing housing stock is used up new residential development will occur, increasing student enrollments for the District. 10 Commercial/Industrial Land Use•Based on the above analysis,economic growth represents an increase in commercial/industrial business resulting in an increased population. The city has significant land available to accommodate this economic growth. The city's newly adopted General Plan illustrates Economic Development Goals and are as follows: 1) Economic Development: Establish an economic development program and redevelopment strategy that supports existing programs and encourages or creates new activities which will support and induce balanced economic growth. 2) Employment: Retain existing employment and balance economic growth across a broad economic spectrum that includes service businesses, "clean" manufacturing, agricultural and other production oriented industries in order to promote a Jobs/Housing ratio of 1:1. 3) Employment Sites: Reserve and maintain adequate, appropriate areas for a variety of employment generating uses and minimize land use compatibility i issues. 4) Housing: Provide a broad base of housing stock and local employment i:. opportunities for all economic segments of the community to achieve a t Jobs/Housing balance. i 11 5) Retail Services. Encourage retail and service growth that corresponds with local and regional demands,generates tax revenues for the city,and maintains the historical commercial focus and vitality of the downtown. Supporting and encouraging these goals will be the development and construction of the planned Delta Expressway, a major circulation corridor that will ultimately connect this region with major population and employment centers to the north and south of the city. The city's General Plan illustrates several Professional and Business Office Parks as well as Thoroughfare and Neighborhood Commercial Centers to help meet the Economic Development Goals. Residential - Clearly economic growth in the city creates a larger population. As existing families mature, the young adults may decide remain in the community as economic growth makes employment opportunities desirable. As the quality of the goods and services industry increases, those who work outside of the city may choose to live in the city. This all results in additionally housing needs either by families new to the area, or by the upgrading of housing by existing families. The city has planned for this growth. The General Plan illustrates a buildout population in year 2010 of nearly 80,000. The 1990 Census listed a } population of 7,563. i 1 = 4 i I 12 1 . SAY The relationship between economic growth and enrollment is clear. As the employment center increases, stimulating economic growth and expansion, additional workers will be needed. As the need for additional workers increases beyond workers available,population growth will occur. Population growth increases the number households and as the existing housing stock is occupied, new housing is needed. As economic growth continues, making the community a desirable place to live, additional out-of-city workers will choose to live in the city, creating an additional need for new housing. As new housing growth occurs, increasing the number of child bearing families to the District, student enrollments will also increase creating the need for additional school facilities, forming the "nexus" between economic growth and the need for school facilities. i i.. r s z i i - 13 L_ SECTION III HOUSING AND ENR OIL.MP:NT PROJECTIONS PROJECTION OF HOUSING As stated in Section II of this report, the city is planning for several thousand new residential units. The city's Project Status Report, contained in the Appendix, illustrates 6,654 residential units either approved, proposed, or under construction. Nearly all of these units are listed as single family. The General Plan illustrates nearly 25,000 additional units will be built. County records are less complete. It is estimated that there are 1,000 units either under construction or approved for construction in the Oakley area. Bethel Island has 866 units approved for construction with an additional 2,500 units proposed for construction in F the east Cypress Road area. Construction in Discovery Bay is nearly complete, however, a proposal for Discovery Bay West suggests at least an additional 1,400 units. Due to County records it is uncertain if these are all the projects within the District boundary. These proposals and approvals suggest the District will realize 12,420 plus units within the next fifteen years, likely more. More are possible based on the city's General Plan. Cowell i Foundation is proposing up to 7,102 residential units, 4,764 single family and 2,338 multi- family. Although the Cowell Foundation project clearly illustrates a high percentage of multi-family units the other projects do not. For the purpose of this report, an assumption l: of a 5%vacancy rate will be used. Housing mixtures will be calculated at 85%single family i and 15% multi-family, except for the Cowell Foundation project. When these units are r : realized is a function of the economic market. TABLE III-I illustrates the anticipated housing within the District boundary. 14 TABLE M4 PROJEC 117ED NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Single Family: 12,420 total units X 85% X 95% (allowance for vacancy rate) =10,029 units Cowell Foundation 4,764 total units X 95%n (allowance for vacancy rate) = 4.526 units TOTAL 14,555 units Multi-Family: 12,420 total units X 15% X 95% (allowance for vacancy rate) = 1,770 units Cowell Foundation 2,338 total units X 95% (allowance for vacancy rate) = 2,221 units TOTAL 3,991 units STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR Student Generation Factor(SGF)is the average number of students generated by each new residential unit. The District's historic SGF is .19 for single family units and .09 for multi- family. The SGF represents that for every 100 single family homes that are built the District will realize 19 additional students. The SGF will vary over time based on housing mix, size, birthrates and economics. However, the District's SGF is a reasonable approximation to estimate the number of students new housing will generate over time. TABLE III-II illustrates the number of students projected from new housing. r i i '. 4 15 TABLE M-11 STUDENTS GENERATED BY NEW HOUSING Single Family: 14,555 units X .19 SGF = 2,765 students Multi-Family: 3,991 units X .09 SGF 359 students TOTAL 3,124 students DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS - ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Enrollment for the District has increased 539 students since the 1990/91 school year to the current enrollment of 2,193 students including continuation school and special education enrollments, (SAB 411 Report Date 2-1-94). In order to project total future enrollment including students from existing developments, a Cohort Survival Method was established for tracking the age of students on a year by year basis through the school system. In addition, students projected from new development by using the SGF were added to determine district-wide enrollment for each school year. The following discussion illustrates the factors used in formulating the enrollment projections. The methodology used to forecast future enrollments was the Cohort Survival Method (Cohort), with assumptions regarding birth rates, student yields, and new housing growth. Cohort: The Cohort is an ageing of existing grade level student enrollments to estimate future grade level student enrollments. For instance, students in the current years ninth grade class will form next years tenth grade class resulting in either additional students or L. 16 less. students based on the District's past enrollment trends. Each future year enrollment projection is based on the current enrollment less the senior grade class, however, adding a new kindergarten class. Each school district experiences their own Cohort based on historic trends. Cohort trends-will change over time as population and economic trends change. Age of housing can alter the trend in the District's Cohort as well as the influence of new housing. The projections made in this report assumed the average historic Cohort the District experienced. Birthrates: An increasing or decreasing kindergarten class will effect the District's Cohort significantly. The projections made in this report assumed the same birth rates the District has experienced during the past several years. As forecasts reach beyond the five year time span of available data, assumptions were made as to how birth rates would change over time. Birthrates need to be reviewed on a continual basis. New Housing: As previously stated in this report the District is expected to realize a significant number of new residential units in the next fifteen years and beyond. With the assumptions made in this report regarding housing mix and vacancy rates, new residential construction during this time period is expected to generate 3,124 students. Given this information projected student enrollments are identified. In August 1993 a demographic analysis was performed that identified growth without significant new housing. f 17 t TABLE III-IV illustrates projected enrollments from existing housing, utilizing the projections contained in the District's 1993 report. Table III-IV also illustrates projected students from new residential construction. TABLE III - IV PROJECTED ENROLLMENTS 1993/94 2008/09 Change Existing Housing 2,193 3,325 1,132 New Housing 0 3,124 3.124 TOTAL 4,256 i l i i 1 18 i . SECTION IV FACILITY CAPACITY AND NEED FOR FUTURE FACRIT][ES EXISTING CAPACITY School facilities are analyzed to determine availability of classroom space, or available capacity, for new students entering the District. Any excess capacity, after students from existing housing have been accommodated, can then be utilized to house those students generated by new housing. The District has two capacities for which to analyze, Emergency Maximum Capacity and Desired Capacity. Both utilize the District's student loading standard at each grade level for each teaching station type (classroom, laboratory). The Emergency Maximum Capacity is that capacity utilizing all available areas possible for the installation of portable classrooms. Due to enrollment growth the District has implemented construction to expand the campus to the Emergency Maximum Capacity level. Desired Capacity is that capacity that reflects the District's desired school size based the educational program. The District's Desired Capacity at their Brentwood campus is 2,078 students. For the purpose of this report Desired Capacity will be used when analyzing need for future facilities. TABLE IV-1 illustrates the District's enrollment growth compared to capacity. 19 TABLE IV-I ENROLLMENT GROVt`TH AND CAPACITY Enrollment Capacity 2,078 students 1993/94 Enrollment ZM students Unhoused Students Current Enrollment 115 students Projected Growth Existing Housing Stock 1.132 students Total Unhoused Students From Existing Housing 1,247 students Projected Capacity Available for New Housing 0 students Projected Growth From New Housing 3.124 students Unhoused Students From New Housing 3.124 students TOTAL UNHOUSED STUDENTS 4,371 students The District is currently planning for a second high school facility and would have a Desired Capacity for 2,200 students. Assuming this capacity for all future facilities, projected enrollment growth represents a need for 1.99 future schools. This number would increase if additional residential growth is realized. Based by Table IV-I, 71% of the need for future facilities is a result of new residential construction. 20 SECTION V FACILITY COSTS r As stated in previous sections of this report the District is currently planning for its second facility estimated to house 2,200 students. The Architect's estimated construction costs for this facility is $32,000,000, not including land cost. Estimated land cost for a 50 acre site suitable for a 2,200 student school is $1,500,000. . Based on the 1.99 need for future schools and the estimated facility costs, the total estimated cost for facilities is illustrated on TABLE V-I. TABLE V-I ESTIMATED FACILITY COSTS New School Number One $32,000,000 Land Cost School Number One 0 New School Number Two 32,000,000 Land Cost School Number Two 1,500,000 TOTAL $65,500,000 Table IV-I illustrated the number of unhoused students projected from the e3dsting housing stock and new residential development. Based on this table 71% of the need for new facilities, and therefore cost, is generated from new residential development, or$46,505,000. 21 As shown on TABLE V-II facility costs to accommodate anticipated future enrollment growth from new development is $2,508 per housing unit. • TABLE V-II COST OF FACULMES PER NEW HOUSING UNIT Total Facility Cost $46,505,000 New Housing Units 18,546 Cost Per Housing Unit $2,508 t . t i 22 SECTION VI TROJECIED RESIDENTIAL FEE REVENUE', School districts have a variety of sources for funding future school facilities. These sources range from, 1) State School Building Lease-Purchase Program, 2) Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, 3) School District General Funds, 4) General Obligation Bonds, S) Certificates of Participation, b) Asset Management Revenue, 7) Developers Fee Agreement. Residential developers within the District have not been interested in forming a Mello-Roos District or formulating a Developers Agreement to fund the entire facilities cost. The District is pursuing State Funding, however, it is uncertain if funding will be available. For these reasons the District has placed on the April ballot a General Obligation Bond measure to fund the first phase of school number one. Passage of this measure is based on a two-thirds vote of the registered voters within the District. Due to these uncertain funding sources the collection of the Developer Impact Fee on new residential and non-residential development is critical. r 23 RESIDENTIAL This report has identified 18,546 new residential units to be built within the next fifteen years. Government Code restricts the fee to be $1.72 per square foot on residential development. Of the total estimated new residential units, 14,555 are expected to be single family and 3,991 are to be multi-family. To estimate the amount of revenue these fees will generate, the size of the new units must be calculated. This report estimates each single family unit will average 1,500 square feet and the multi-family 725 square feet of"assessable space". TABLE V-I calculates the amount of revenue generated by new residential development. TABLE VI-I REVENUE FROM NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Single Family: 14,555 units X 1,500 square feet X $1.72 per square foot = $37,551,900 Multi-Family: 3,991 units X 750 square feet X $1.72 per square foot $ 5,148,390 Sub-total $42,700,290 District Split 30% TOTAL REVENUE $12,810,087 t.. Based on 18,546 units, this represents a revenue of$691 per unit. The facility cost per unit established in the report is $2,508 representing a short fall funding from residential developer impact fees of $1,817 per unit. t 24 i.. NON-RESIDENTIAL ESTIMATED REVENUE, COMMERCI,pLANDUSTRIAL Government Code allows the District to collect a $0.28 fee per square foot on commercial/industrial development, or non-residential development, if justified. The Brentwood General Plan 1993-2010 identifies land use calculations for this development, (Page II. 1-7). For the purpose of this report it is assumed that the Downtown area is built out and will not experience additional development, although redevelopment of these areas is expected. It is also assumed that the employment centers planned for the General Plan are 10% complete. Based on these assumptions and the General Plan there are 974 acres designated for non-residential development. Calculating a .25 Floor Area Ratio this represents 10,606,860 square feet of non-residential development. The Cowell Foundation project illustrates and additional 2,600,000 square feet for a total of 13,206,860 square feet, (Oakley development is not included in these totals). TABLE VI-II illustrates the anticipated revenue from the collection of non-residential development. TABLE VI-11 NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE REVENUE Non-residential Development 13,206,860 square feet Maximum Fee Per Square Foot x $0.28 Sub-Total $3,697,921 District Split 30% TOTAL REVENUE $1,109,376 TABLE VI-III illustrates the total projected revenue the District can anticipate from residential and non-residential development. i_ 25 L TABLE VI-III { TOTAL PROTECTED REVENUE FROM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Revenue From Residential Development $12,810,087 Revenue From Non-Residential Development X19%37.6 TOTAL REVENUE $13,919,463 Based on the calculation of facility costs associated with new residential construction shown in Section V compared to the total revenue shown on Table VI-III, the District will realize a short fall in funding of$32,585,537 or $1,757 per residential unit. Assembly Bill 181 states that school districts must either justify a non-residential Developer Impact Fee by(1)based on impacts on a project-by-project evaluation, or(2)determine the 4 ' impacts for various land use designations. The latter enables a school district to avoid a project-by-project analysis. This analysis on non-residential Developer Impact Fees provides fthe land use designations procedure. r The State legislature has approved the substitution of San Diego , Association of Governments(SANDAL)employment densities for employment densities if a school district chooses to do so. TABLE VI-IV lists the densities summarized in the SANDAG study. 1 t 26 TABLE V Til EMPLOYMENT DENSITY LAND USE/BURDING TYPE WORKERS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET Office 3.51 Retail/Service 1.87 Light Industrial 3.29 Heavy Industrial 2.22 Warehouse 1.30 Lodging 1.13 Hospitals 2.75 Self Storage 0.06 To justify the maximum $0.28 non-residential Developer Impact Fee, there must be a remaining cost of facilities per worker that is unfunded. The remaining cost of facilities is - allocated to non-residential development by the above employment densities. UNFUNDED COST OF FACILITIES PER WORKER New non-residential development will add local jobs. A percentage of the jobs in Brentwood will be filled by residents from outside the city, i.e. Antioch, Oakley, Discovery Bay, etc. With the construction of the Delta Expressway, a major influence to the projected growth in the employment base, workers can easily commute from outside the city. Research of r_. other districts and cities illustrate that approximately 36% of the workers in the city will live in the city. The General Plan illustrates, at buildout, there will be 28,419 residential units 27 in the city and 27,945 jobs, or 1.02 households per worker. If 36% of the local workers live in the city at buildout of the General Plan, this means that there will be .37 households per local worker. The unfunded facility cost per residential unit from residential fees contained in this report was $1,817 per unit. To determine the unfunded cost per worker , the unfunded cost per household is multiplied by the percent of households per local worker, or .37. Therefore, the unfunded cost per local worker for non-residential development is $672 per worker. To determine the full mitigated fee per land use/building type, the $ 672 unfunded cost of facilities per worker is multiplied by the density level per 1000 square fee for each land use/building type designation. The full mitigated per square foot fee is that amount divided by 1000 square feet. TABLE V-IV illustrates the full mitigation fee per square foot per land use/building type designation. TABLE V-IV MITIGATION FEE TO EMPLOYMENT DENSITY l LAND USE/BUR.DING TYPE WORKERS/1,000 SQ. FTG. RAPAG'T/SQ. �. Office 3.51 $2.36 RetaiUService 1.87 1.25 Light Industrial 3.29 2.21 Heavy Industrial 2.22 1.49 Warehouse 1.30 .87 Lodging 1.13 .76 Hospitals 2.75 1.85 t f Self Storage 0.06 0.04 t 1 . 28 t, r Based on this calculation the District can justify a $4.28 non-residential fee on all land use/building type designations except Self-Storage. s CONCLUSION Based on the evidence presented in this document, it is concluded that the district would be justified in levying the maximum fees permitted by law. It is therefore recommended, that the Board of Trustees of the District levy a fee of $1.72 per square foot on residential developments and a $.28 on all categories of commercial/industrial developments except Self-Storage splitting the fees with the elementary school districts in accordance with a separate agreement between the districts. 4 f t t t t . 29 C_ APPENDIX r i a s p, 00 film tJ! � O+ ••� d i � Q � C Go p eV GScoi O b G r z SA g z j +cr u -lam o • I M ta . t 1 . l tV 111ry�iii_+y1 N! Yf r C 00a a �^ a a a „ a a eo Go P9 S i 9 { i '15 pN cc «� N oho O N N C4 co li S ( a LL w w w w w w w w w w N N N N N 1i Mb � � ,p �'. .6 if � l! � Zf� ,p �'+ i! � .0 � ,1C � � .p �' m .s iia r7� � T �hw �' ria � > r!'i [- d� � �C e'� A, 2 i I M n 4 6 m m r 0 a m� mW O Q W a oo U d ob e� t%s vet •- oo CV oo vhf of 04 O. C. a V Ch oo t eRi vhf oo -�+ N a* 4M fn ob ( w p # Y d 4-71 h � Nom+ Chip p w LS w � w N S t, R P 9 0 v n U. w w w w w w w w w a va va va va to ua U rn ca va W va of w aG z �'naaax ova raa ?6 r !o9 a r � •� Z r QC C� t� CA ° 13 0 ao �' c+ r O ° h o - A a 118 a G c s abe U H r. o m a gn Q� < co � N C8 til i Z in Q tl i � O Z h i o 1 6 � U u - .a ! O� e fi los s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � � . . . . . . . �+� afi .ANS .M�ri��ti •� •.rrv► •NNn .2 .h .cc c.o� osi�.o a aa �enNv'�e(n.l vV�vNarvO'�rhhO�n'D w.�v.o.4Waov.Qen«ha va e Nn N�oy�Nsry�+�Nappva va vo�ovvn va Arvav N 06 NNNNpqN go-nm AAAAG*Qafqqmt-?p .M S k In 11 111 1 HIT l R t. i� r{ ti t i «� f t . J JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT woo Dated December, 1992 Prepared by. Land Planning Consultants 239 Main Street, Suite E Pleasanton, CA 94566 l JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Dated March, 1992 Prepared by: Lend Planigng Consu tants 239 Main Street, Sufte F Pleasanton, CA 94566 8 e 850 Second Meet, akentwood, Catijou a 94513 (415) 634-2166 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL DEVELOPER FEES JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT April 1990 AN MIAT. 0PP()M NITY!AFFIRMATIVE ACTION E)qplDyER TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . Residential Development and Enrollment Projections 5 3 . Commercial/Industrial Develooment Impart_ . . . . . 9 4 . School Construction Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Aooendi-xes A. City of Brentwood Proiect Status Report February 1990 B. Future School Facility and Funding October 1989 Requirements Necessary to Accommodate Projected Development , Economic and Planning Systems , Inc. � rye_7f 1 . FINDINGS The Liberty Union Hiqh School District serves high school students living within the boundaries of the Brentwood Union , Byron Union , Knightsen and Oaklev Union School Districts in East Contra Costa County. The district ' s boundaries encompass the City of Brentwood and its Sphere of Influence , a portion of the City of Antioch and its Sphere of Influence , Bethel Island , Oakley, F:niahtsen, Byron and other incorporated territory. (Spheres of Influence are unincorporated areas surrounding the cities where annexations are expected to occur . ) The district is undergoing a transition from that of a rural aaricultural community to a "bedroom community serving the rapidly arowina commercial and industrial centers throuahout the East Ba\ . At_ the same time , the district is starting to experience local commercial and industrial development . This local economic expansion could result in a higher percentage of its residents working in the community in which they° live . Availabilit.v of new quality housing at "affordable" prices could also result in higher percentages of current local employees moving into the district , t_herebv impacting enrollment and creating additional demand for housinq. The district currently has an enrollment of 1 , 448 (excluding special education and continuation students) , and has remaining at about that level over the past four years . The enrollment is projected to grow by over 1 , 600 students in the next six years , more than doubling its current student_ population. This enrollment cirowth is beina driven directly by residential developments and indirectly by commercial and industrial developments. During the next six years , it is projected that 8 ,720 residential housina units will be built. With an estimated single-family pupil yield rate of 0. 19 , and a multiple-family pupil yield rate of 0. 0.9 , it can be readily seen that there is a direct correlation between development and enrollment . -1- To house its current enrollment , the district has one comprehensive high school (Liberty High School) and one continuation high school (La Paloma) . Liberty High School is master planned for e.\pansion utilizing developer fees and the proceeds of a S10 million bond issue which passed in June 1988 . To meet the additional student housing needs of the district_ over the next 13 years , two additional high schools must be built . Interim housing will also be required for some of the growth that will occur between the time that new students will enter the schools and construction of new schools will be completed , including_ existing portables already at. Liberty High School . There is also a need for rehabilitation of some of the existing facilities in the district . The total price tag for the district ' s 13 year construction program , including the S10 million bond issue , is 553 . 9 million (in 1989 dollars) . Providina funds to enable the construction program to be carried out on schedule will require the cooperation of all aroups : the high school district , the feeder elementary school dist-_icts , the incorporated cities , the County, the developers , the State and the local electorate . Funds from a combination of many sources have been identified as essential to a successful building program: developer fees , the State , a Mello-Roos Community- Facilities District , and a General Obligation Bond issue . The district is malting every effort to secure State funds to carry out its building program, and has filed an application on a 50% match basis for a new high school . The State has currently exhausted its supply of funds , and future funds are conditional upon the State voters. Further , since the demand for State funds exceeds the funds that are potentially available , there is no assurance that the district will continue to be successful in funding future projects through the State. Finally, in the event that the district is successful in obtaining State funds , it would be obliq_ated to provide its local developer fees to the State as part of its 50% matching share. -2- '1 Levvinq the maximum permissible developer fees of $1 . 58 per square foot on residential developments and S .26 per square foot on commercial/industrial developments (with appropriate splits of the maximum fees between the elementary and high school districts) would result in the following percentages of construction funds to be available , assuming a continuation of the current '75%/25% split with the elementary districts :. Residential Developments 27% Commercial/Industrial Developments 2% - 11% Total 24 3 P 9f, From the above data it can be seen that developer fees would Generate about a third of the required amounts . The shortfall of funds from developer fees alone to meet the district ' s facilities needs is readily seen in the graph on the following paae . Based on the evidence presented in this document , it is concluded that the district would be iustified in levvina the maximum fees permitted by law , splitting the fees appropriately with the elementary school districts in accordance with a separate aareement between the districts . It is therefore recommended that the Board of Education of the district levy a fee of 51 . 58 Der sauare foot on residential developments and a fee of S .26 on all cateaories of commercial/industrial developments as permitted by law . Because cash shortfalls to meet the timely execution of the building program have been identified , it is further recommended that all developer fees be collected at the time of issuance of a building permit . -3- .^\•t\\ ��Z`\ +rYY,��l. �a .Frit Y. \\�\ \�\\'M+x#� 3 ��,7,x.\, ;�"�Y,'s•yj \,,� ,� y, \ �`�//! f \ >. MI r\r\,(•y' .�..a Mr ,t ,\ \,,,l,wl., . a\ s.MC •\\\\ ��\, �Cyt2`,�,,irk:� � QL • «�\i ca - E A;cn : ■ 4C> rifp co V. 100 VP IN- 42 N •.. �Q••?( r\ ro+�yeoa�, Y ]4v[ i�A 'iR iR fIR � 4�R.• �iR 'y '.�\�\ ,;l`f�\'v�\\�: U .Gl. 2. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Presented in the table on the following pages , and summarized below , are historical enrollments and projected residential units and enrollments . Residential Enrollment Historical 171-1 i t s (ENC. Sp.Ed. & Contin . ) 1985-86 1 , 429 1986-87 1 , 448 1987-88 1 , 452 1988-89 1 , 430 1989-90 1 , 448 Pro jerred 1990-91 840 1 , 625 1991-92 1 , 715 1 , 941 1992-93 1 , 747 2, 262 1993-94 1 , 478 2, 535 1994-95 1 , .170 2 , 799 1995-96 1 , 470 3 , 063 Bevond 1995-96 , residential development 'is expected to continue at the rate of 1 , 470 units per year, and enrollment is expected to increase steadily to 4 , 383 in the year 2000-01 and to 5, 703 in the year 2005-06 . The pupil-yield rate assumptions used to project the enrollments from the projected housing units were the follo-wing: Housinct Type 9-12 Total Single-Family 0 . 19 Multi-Family 0. 09 Because the district ' s enrollment has been level during the past five vears due to age distribution factors while significant residential development has occurred , the pupil-yield rates will probably increase in the future as larger 9th grade classes relative to 12th graders reach high school . If it had not been for residential growth during the past five years , the high school enrollment would have declined. -5- Based on an average single-family house of 2 , 000 square feet , a 51 . 58 fee per square foot would generate $3 , 160, and assuming a 75%/25% split between elementary and high school districts , the high school portion would be $790 . The 0. 19 students from a sinale-family_ house would require about 17 square feet of space in a new school at a cost of about 52 , 890. The residential fee would therefore Generate about 27% of the total funds required to meet the identified school facilities needs resulting from residential development . If the high school district received a larqer share of the si)lit , such as 4/13 . the 'nPr dwelling unit fee would increase to S972 , which would still be onl%- 34% of the total building funds needed. Based upon the abnve analvsis , it is concluded that levying the entire residential fee of 51 . 58 , with an appropriate split between the elementary and high school districts , is Justified. For an understanding of the residential development projects in the Brentwood area , refer to Appendix A, "City of Brentwood Project Status Report " . The residential development potential in the Byron, Oakley and Knicthtsen school districts is presented in summarized form in the attached table . -6- r O pp 00 N tt) NtOActi �j tD E t�Q tt) Ln N r- " C Flo (� st O '? t[t � a Lt) pp rMset� qpCsi c� 4TH c0 CNJ N r� 0) � N 0 c r Q uS x E CO Net Ott} CO Chi tCD� p0) N srt' tt) 3 p to t0 4'? N C10 Cli OUl) � C ' " Ln * � � � �! Ln �. to 01 Q V � � � E v CL1 as ay N_ C_0 O CD QO to Im ~' E r� xxx N c v 79O `n r„ '? c M h Ln m CO r t� E Q r CO - th Q� Q t c .SQ O _F D m eEo Eu. ts' ar � `° o co 0� 0L. to LL ° 24 -3 _ t 2 , x m E s 21p1 z i p . p � : � r Ftq to 2 cn i 1 s c W Al -t � � 91 � � = a nz 0 177 Izz I ZZ0 *G co co S N t�A�o Z.y 0 a zco V- 00 w 8 CY Go co ti W) uj n V- . CY c7 119 to 0 0 40 0 80 Ct Cl C) r4 CY C'j (D 0 0 a 0 0 N "Al ^ CY R 0 N V.: csi CY co to Ln 0 Cl OR 0 0 r- CY (7) 0 0) Q CY Lo CV) N 0 n q Ct N V5 Ln e W 00 0 CY in V- M � CO cl CO CY CY n IV vi r. w e v) 0 0 0 ?1- cq CO En Cq Ln (n P: � V- b-4 0. c'! qt r- cn > V- P„ I-- W V- N Ct O V-7 rz CY (V IV V- 0 0 U9 COO) NCY M CO V-- V- VP N CY m N ci W: ci ci toC cl E C e C c 0 EU. U- 0 c LL m w a st w 0 LL a M 0 zz o o >1 C en 2 3. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT As commercial and industrial properties develop, new jobs are created. Many of the people hired into these jobs move into the community, thereby increasina the need for residential development and adding to the impacts on the local schools . Because the MaNiMUM fee that can be levied aaainst residential development is insufficient to meet the identified needs , a separate fee may be levied aaainst commercial/industrial developments if supported by the evidence . In 0(-tober 1987 , a survey of business firms in the Brentwood area was conducted to establish base data on the number of employees in each business , the number of employees residing within the school district , the souare feet of sna(,e provided for each emolovee , and the number of srudents from the local-based employees . The results of that survev indicated that about 250 square feet of office space was reauired for each employee , a 1)o 11 t 500 square feet of retail space was reauired for each emnlovee , about: 50% of the employees lived within the school district , and that each employee li\,inq within the school district generated about 0 . 5 students . Based upon the survey, and by extrapolating data , the following estimated impacts by commercial /industrial development cateciory were compiled. Impact per 10 , 000 Square Feet of Space Sq. Ft . /per Total In-Dist . K-12 Cateaory e f:Mp I or e es Employees Students office 250 40 20 10 R & D 250 40 20 10 Retail 500 20 10 5 Liaht Ind . 1000 10 5 3 warehouse 2000 5 3 2 The impact on the school district can be determined from the number of students by calculating the sauare footage requirements for those students and then multiplyincr the cost of construction per square foot. For this calculation , it was estimated that about 75 square feet of space are required to house one student in a new sch��ot , and that the average cost of a new school is about 5160 per square foot . The resultant calculations and percent of the cost that would be provided by a $ . 26 commercial/industrial fee follows . Impact ner 10 , 000 Square Feet of Space F.-12 School deeds School Costs Dev . Fees Cateaory Students (Sa.Ft.,a 751 ( a $160) Total / Office 10 750 S120 , n00 541 , 600/ 20- R & D 10 750 5120 , 000 52 . 600/ 2% Retail 5 375 S 66 , 000 52 , 600/ 4?6 Light Ind. 3 225 S 36 , 000 S2 , 600/ 7 � Warehouse 2 150 S 24 , 000 S2 , 600/119f, Based upon the above analysis , office and R & D space would have the greatest impact on the school district , and a fee of S . 26 per square foot would contribute on1v 2`k of the total cost of providing space for the additional stridents . The least impact would occur with warehouse space , where a fee of S . 26 per square foot would contribute 11% of the total cost of orovidina space for the additional students , which , combined with residential fees , is still below the total cost of the facilities required. Based on the analysis , it is concluded that there is iustification to levy S.26 per square foot aaainst all cateaories of commercial/industrial developments . This S . 26 fee is . to be divided between the elementary districts and hiah school district in accordance with separate agreements among the participating districts . For an understanding of the commercial/industrial development projects to be developed in the Brentwood area and their general cateaories , refer to AppendiN a, "City of Brentwood Project Status Report" . -10- 4 . SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PLAN The facilities needs of the district fall into two categories : expansion and renovation of Liberty High School and La Paloma High School (continuation school ) : and the construction of new high schools to meet growth that cannot be accommodated by expanding existing schools . Based on growth projections , there will be a need for a new high school in the Oakley area at a cost of $20. 6 million (1989 dollars--buildings only as site has been purchased) , and a new site and high school at a cost of $23 . 2 million . Additionally , the enrollment projections do not include the potential development of about 9 , 000 housing units around Marsh Creek Reservoir or the potential development of about 4 , 000 housinq units on Bethel Island . If these developments were to be approved , the district would have the need for an additional high school . To determine the need for expansion of Liberty Hiah School to accommodate more students , a master plan was developed . That plan (see table) includes the addition of 19 teaching stations to house an additional 512 stiidents , increasing the capacity of the school from 1 , 705 to 2 , 217 . The plan indicates that existing portables , mane of which are being leased or lease-niirchased (see table) , Would remain or be replaced by new facilities . The district currently is expending in excess of $400 , 000 of its developers fees annually for portable leases or lease-purchase arrangements. The district passed a S10 milli-on General Obligation bond issue in June 1988 . The proceeds from those bonds are designated for the acquisition of a new school site in the Oaklev area (accomplished) and the completion of the Liberty High School master plan , as discussed above. Other than developer fees and the proceeds from the bond issue , the district has no financing secured for the construction of new schools . The projected funding shortfall , after deducting projected developer fees (see table) . is $17 million by 1996-97 and $41 . 5 million by 2003-04 . The district has filed an application with the State for a new high school on a 50% matching basis (the district contributes 50% of the cost with developer fees or other local revenues) to house 1 , 323 ADA in 129 , 132 square feet of space. While evidence indicates that the district is eligible for the new school , at this time it has not identified the source of its matching funds , and it has no assurance that the State will approve the project or , if approved , that the State will be able to fund it . J ; ti ryi To meet its facilities needs , the district will be considering all possible funding sources , including the State, General Obligation bonds , Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, and developer fees . For the district to accomplish its building program on schedule , it is clear that State funding must be available when needed , that district voters must approve any G. n. bond issue put before it , that Mello-Roos funds would be available , and that developer fees would continue to be levied. Based on the information presented in this section , it is clear that levying developer fees at the maximum permissible levels of S1 . 58 for residential developments and S . 26 for commercial/industrial developments (with appropriate splits between the elementary and high school districts) would still leave the district short of meeting its facilities needs . —12— VANIR/3D1 December 15, 1989 LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL MASTER PLAN PREVIOUS PROPOSED TEACHING TEACHING STUDENT EXISTING BUILDING STATIONS STATIONSLOADING 1. Gymnasium 0 0 2. Lang.-Soc. Science C.R. 19 19 19 x 28 = 532 3. Library 0 0 4. High Sch. Admin.`C Wing 0 0 5. District Admin. Bldg. 0 0 6. C.R. Building -Wing S 4 4 24 + (3x28) = 108 7. C.R. Building -Wing E 4 4 4 x 28 = 112 8. C.R. Building -Wing D 3 1 1 x 28 = 28 9. Student Center-Cafeteria 1 1 1 X28 = 28 10. Music Building 2 2 2 x 28 = 56 11. Art Building 3 3 3 x 24 = 72 12. Wood Shop 1 1 1 X 24 = 24 13. Metal Shop 1 1 1 x 24 = 24 14. Auto Shop/AG Bldg. 1 2 28 + 1(24+17) = 69 SUBTOTAL 39 39 1,053 RELOCATABLES 1. T -Complex 6 6 (3x24)+(3x28) = 156 2. P - Complex 16 16 (2x24)+(14x28) = 440 3. T7 &T8 2 2 2 x 28 56 SUBTOTAL 24 24 652 FUTURE NEW BUILDINGS A. Science Building -Phase 1 0 4 4 x 24 = 96 B. Library Addition 0 0 C. Classrooms 0 11 11 x28 = 308 D. Performing Arts Building 0 4 24 + (3x28) = 108 SUBTOTAL 0 19 512 GRAND TOTAL 63 82 2,217 —13— LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL LIST OF PORTABLES February 28, 1990 No. Ownership Status Usage OSA Status Size L1 District Owned Storage Non-Conforming 970 L2 District Owned Toilet Non-Conforming 320 P1 District Owned CR Conforming 960 P2 District Owned CR Conforming 960 P3 District Owned CR Conforming 960 P4 District Owned Office Non-Conforming 600 P5 District Owned Toilet Non-Conforming 320 P6 District Owned Dr.Ed. Non-Conforming 600 P7 District Lease-Purchase Lab Conforming 1280 P8 District State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 P9 District State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 P10 District State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 P11 District State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 P12 District State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 P13 District State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 P14 District State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 P15 Migrant Education Leased CR Conforming 952 P16 Migrant Education Leased CR Conforming 952 P17 District Lease-Purchase CR Conforming 960 P18 District Lease-Purchase Lab Conforming 1600 T1 District Lease-Purchase CR Conforming 960 T2 District Lease-Purchase Lab Conforming 1280 T3 District Lease-Purchase Lab Conforming 960 Toilet Conforming 640 T4 District Lease-Purchase Lab Conforming 1280 T5 District Lease-Purchase Lab Conforming 960 T6 District Lease-Purchase CR Conforming 960 T7 District Lease-Purchase CR Conforming 960 T8 District Lease-Purchase CR Conforming 960 Cl County State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 C2 County State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 C3 County State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 C4 County State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 C5 County State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 C6 County State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 C7 County State Portable Lease CR Conforming 960 C8 County Lease-Purchase Toilet Conforming 320 -14- Sol , x ° .O m o o $ E Eli c :° °c N c7 to u�5 c� R N O O c ao Q m o E cn C3 el: v A2_ p 06 A2 m p $ 0 m O O O O N m Q1 ` 2 r r m .- E aw o 0) V o N ° m U 0 ¢ � ao m Ct r m U o m ° �� E N O O O O $ N 0 >> -0 0 0 0 Co o m c 3 0. E C ' O vi .2 C d U r N Q (D V � H m LL '�' 2 ti g N 0 � m � a 8 •� N 7 r- N O O O O O N a :3 C 9 cD co to co- f�: C C m `r° c d9 H 0 LL cc o o c3 coo o a .0 ns S cG c0 4m x e`o c CQO� n co � c v m 3 Qcc � ci O Ln n N p R 44 IA N C� O .2 � E 0•a rc m _ cl Z 0 E c N 0 <4 5 Cl. 0 N o Q L r } G a 0 0 8 m a � 8 o p V V m H C Q� O 2 c0 �p 0 C � ; U r O C V- ax o 2 � � EE >,r LL E a °' � .2 c8 a� E -a 0 y CD C ° ° > O j C i �0± > .- N r- N N N � O ' .. tsn � _m fn N C N t0A N N ONo Z C C Q C pp e9 <C t4 U C N tII tU U 0 a a n a 8 ° l4 > S�2 > C L _ w8 8 v LL Nr C5 � i' E ... O u. am O O Z Z Z � Nch w -15- A4 O d OA 14 � x r 0 r r C N k rte., J1 � ice. a 4 G 5 QOM` el W w N to cs 41, W � N fD O p lot t N � '� t+ .D s e N N r p P %C �D O co 06 N P tD CD Q R 0 m Z -E OPO m 6. 0 CL t- C1. OLL Cac' -- � a a ✓� ao � IL Lo u CEO a b c P ao M cc ry N tfi 41 V 3 r, O N _ „ eC �' Q P N .. N C e e i 0 e atS • 0. W is. ti V6 t< :7. ta. b. Cs. 06 ti L6 lA H U) y N Jf L7 H to N to • • O n $• O�Pk LM N P n O pj NN c E D NgP i!it # Z e_ G c !Q a 9 ,,� 7 Q � O • Z cm Z.2 HU N H = Ham+ Vid y 4 N (� V y4 NOC ... tl! -� HCL ` i� P n r C% r co.fir lz ce Go P � . a o� c 5 5 mcocca a G' r ti e c c yccv r�jr m n co n aye ev h .m.. d b M N N r* N + 3 SA r � y A ,x{ N 4 .pf Y N ^ N a c • O a6 N N CA K cn t d d A < N « « V c• h Z ID • 4 a ML w CO a ,d Z iv H v� FSO ni x s vi z .c cn CA a A , A a° A V G oac n � 'g ; o {,� �. a N N N N N K epi e•I e�I tc CL cc ea Cc Ln a n 41 7y : N 0 r a 5r P Q j e Y E � E � a � o . LM go $ � i / § 6. in 0 co CK 40, C? Go cc Go c? 0 i17 N co f k [ % v , k 2 � � k � f LA C� Cl) � / \ � �� o � � o_ � � 94 co eq CO: 04 a, 00 5r t � C4 7� � � � J § J � � � 22 J § � CL k \ f c A � \ � \ � � f f ? � k n � | . � � § � ■ k � k 7 � @ � %_ $ � % k G b % � § t $ kk � � k � k / k3 \ kJ § � k\ § > 84 C: 3) sI R Ln t*l cn h ,n .n b •o O� r $ g Q N a 0 ,0 OD c'Y tV � ••a '' J a � C ry N M as � Q e Y 4 Q ~ O .. o 41 ZE Ln R 03 G V Q H tn y +v{� a 06 aC ni°+ � a p V � ° A A V t��-► CID IV P *� US Re ,! G w Q ,r 9 e^• r ✓ � iG Z Q1 4£� ' 1 V Q Q Or O be � C C LM N Ln en v a a C � + + o + + ; F o 4 po Id 3`� Q C P O N N c Q pp CA V � N N <�} N V �N V�9 �yC t� ydy to �., a >.�•,�3j m ' C^0 Cco CPO A CPO � CPO V CPO O4. ✓� Z IV i�A Uhf N thf! A } cr 72 IS cc : f s • • s : • . . • �®r a t ♦ • • •� W 196 owg & .S40p e P- f5 d N• "APPENDIX B V�� ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS MEMORANDUM Date: October 24,1989 To: Philip White,Superintendent Liberty Union High School District From: Tim Youmans Neal Parish Subject: Future school facility and funding requirements necessary to accommodate projected development;716 The attached figures present our analysis of the Liberty Union High School District's future school needs and funding requirements, based on projected residential development within the District's boundaries over the next twenty years. Each figure is summarized below along with the key issues and findings identified by our analysis. The first two figures are revised versions of tables which accompanied our memo of 9/21/89. The other figures represent new informa- tion. The District serves high school students living within the boundaries of the Brentwood Union, Byron Union, Knightsen and Oakley Union School Districts. The District's boundaries encompass the City of Brentwood and its Sphere of Influence, a portion of the City of Antioch and its Sphere of Influence,Bethel Island,Oakley, Knightsen,Byron and other incorporated terri- tory (Spheres of Influence are unincorporated areas surrounding the cities wherein annexations are expected to occur). Figure 1 shows projected residential development within the District over the next twenty years and the resulting increase in enrollment. More than 25,000 dwelling units are expected to be con- structed within the District over the next twenty years. Approximately half of these units will be constructed within the Brentwood Union School District. According to the City of Brentwood,development in the City's Marks-Roos district is expected to be somewhat slower than shown in the 9/21 memo. Accordingly, we have shifted the Marks- Roos development back by half a year from our previous estimates. This change in the projected build-out schedule has only a small impact on the timing of the'need for new school, and does not affect the level of total facilities needed over the next twenty years. I815B FOURTH STREET•BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94-10• PHONE (415)94 1.9 190 Philip White Odober 24,1989 Liberty Union High School Distrid Paget of 3 The development projections for the unincorporated portion of the District were developed by County staff in consultation with Economic and Planning Systems (BPS) as part of an on-going review of the County General Plan The projections are based on a detailed study of develop. ment activity over the past five to ten years,an in-depth analysis of development constraints and potential,and residential demand forecasts performed by EPS and County staff. Projections for the Oakley area assume that the new Oakley Area General Plan will be adopted by the County. Since a revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Plan has only recently been released,little or no residential development is assumed to occur in Oakley for the next two years. A delay in adopting the Plan, or a revision to the Plan after the public hearings may affect the development projections shown in Figure 1. South of the City of Brentwood within the Brentwood Union School Distrim the Cowell Founda- tion has proposed the construction of a planned community on 5,000 acres surrounding the exist- ing Marsh Creek Reservoir. This development would include up to 9,000 dwelling units. The project is not included in the proposed County General Plan,and would require an amendment to the General Plan after it is adopted by the County. It cannot be determined at this time if the County would grant the required amendment within the twenty year period shown in Figure L At the earliest, construction could begin on the Cowell Foundation project in the mid-1990s and would continue for the next fifteen years. It is likely that the project will not begin constriction until the 2000s or that the required amendment may not be granted by the County. Since the development schedule for this project is unknown, the Cowell Foundation's project was not included in the projections shown in Figure L If and when it is built, this project would result in the need for nearly one additional high school beyond the projections shown in this analysis. In the memo of 9/21, we showed the District's enrollment as having increased by 40 students between 1987/88 and 1988/89. In fact, using student counts for comparable periods, the Dis- trict's enrollment decreased by 22 students during this time period. Over the period from 1985/86 to 1988/89, the District's enrollment increased by one student. As shown in Figure 1, the District's enrollment is anticipated to expand annually by approximately 250 students over the next twenty years. By the end of the twenty years, the District's enrollment is projected to grow to more than 6,000 students,or more than four times the 1,430 students enrolled in 1988/89. Figure 2 compares the District's additional Average Daily Attendance (ADA) with the District's capacity in existing and new required facilities. The District's capacity at the existing campus and the proposed sizes of the new schools have been slightly revised since the 9/21 memo to reflect new information. Figure 2 shows a projected construction schedule for three new schools. Each school is assumed to be constructed in two phases which each provide capacity for 900 students. The two phases of the first new school, which is to be constructed on a site the District recently purchased in Oak- ley, akley, are needed in the 1993/94 and 1996/97 school years. The first phase of the second new school is needed by 1999/2000,with the second phase required four years later. By 2005/06,this school is overcrowded, and capacity for 400 students is required by the 2007/08 school year. This additional capacity may be provided in additional portables at the existing and two new Ph17ip Mite hhMtltll October 24,1989 Werty union High School District page 3 of3 schools, or a third new school may be constructed by the District. X the Cowell Foundation's project is built, the District would require another additional wbooL The actual construction schedule and size of the District's new and existing schools will be determined by the District's Board according to future enrollment growth and Board policy. Figure 3 shows the calculation of per dwelling unit costs of required school facilities. As this fig. ure shows, the high school facilities necessitated by an average single family home will cost $2,500 in 1989 dollars. Figure 4 shows the schools needed by the District over the next twenty years based on the projected development and increased enrollment shown in Figure 1. Since the availability of future State funding is uncertain, the District is assumed to pay 100% of all school costs. Not shown in this Figure is the additional cost of providing portables to house the 401 students shown as unhoused in the 2007/08 and 2008/09 school years on Figure 2 As shown in Figure 4, the District's costs to construct these new high schools are expected to be more than$61 million, assuming 5% annual inflation. It will cost the District another$8.4 million to provide the school buses and administrative office space required to adequately serve these students. An additional cost,which is not estimated here,will be incurred to replace existing buses as they wear out. Other than funds from the State, the District's main source of funding for these construction projects is development fees that are assessed on residential developments in the District's boundaries. The District also receives a small amount of revenue from similar fees charged to commercial/industrial developments. These revenues have not been estimated. It is assumed that the District uses $250,000 in fee revenues during each of the next two school years to pay lease payments for portable classrooms. As shown in Figure 4, the District will have collected only $19 million in residential fee revenues by the time the last phase of the second new school begins construction in the 2001/02 school year. This is less than one-third of the cost of these two schools,let alone the cost of required school buses and administrative office space. As discussed above,the availability of future State funding is uncertain However,even if the District were to receive 50% funding for each school through the State's Advanced Construction Program,the District's available revenues of$19 mil- lion illion would be insufficient to fund their share of school costs, which would equal approximately $30.5 million Figure 5 is a graph showing an annual comparison of cumulative facilities costs and residential development fee revenues,net of lease payments. Cf T Q T V- V. r T T 3 = pQpQ �j Q C1 1[1 sot {f> � LD r T T N 79 GR Q r LoT r CV CL r o N M C m N CO O co co of N r Qf T !-1 T T � O � � � a N c� �i a s co w w r- a m m m � � N CO O W0) T 1 v � aTo o 'rte 1 Z s VZ� � a T CO ep „ �$ as — V- W of '� E r u t � :L C C A D C = = 7E C C 7i tt LL t�p !1 Ute} ry► t� P Y flf £ a zzzz zztc3 cm ~ W 81 00 +OO OO CO C-4 $�} v; w; N i/} CO § V Vo r O Cv tJ CV) ttf r r. 00 00 Oaf Ct NCO)cOi ui 3 � r N cy Cl) ui O r /�� N r p C1j {V 0 to E N pp W tCS � � 9C I US Pi Mrt{fQ1 c'? r •g .- O " N N tri q � r W em0p0 O OOPN *' H CL a ca � h � pNj �.. � � � Qf W O r r N tV IV � r o0 10 otn V` r ' rr NCV qt O r Cp r Op op r v 0 O �I to N tl) n tp V- CO It � N � N Q U9 r CA r co r r OO O O f� Q O 1- N ' Cr3 r N H r rn C N z'z, E?, z►> > wr- Leeoti t� c i o s� c u. ao U- ifu. o 0D t _ E o _ va �e 1 ,0 co — $ W a N � to 04 N N c') a N N C '� .- 'N .� O N ty O tD �y s� tri N Q� �!cj � t07+•� N ty ' a N -� a �' M Q► N o 0 0 c� to Q r c� r ocEft a s► , o11 o W YEN j;, a ` U01- N CO Ili r I- V Ill 0 N cl; a tri = J ca r i t-. 04 N 00 O N {� N C. um r r r In O t D O n N p0 0 O N Cl tImQ1N 88 st N Ci L6 •- r u n CM 00 0 0 (� oo E p g N O r W N � C? N NtA r r r %n I 1 p $ . 9 W a N N a r 14 � O CY H W AG t� 000 N O O O 00 r N N 14 r r 'a O C rNV O r r df t0 t1Y N Q� O O to V n� t c� c t� r N Ch V- V- M N Q V a ac 1° Y cc (.) eo Ok c � Qm < E 78 m LU C,4 � � � u'�� o- � ii o g O m !a Figure 3 4;,,? Allocation of Facility Costs to Future Dwefling Units (all costs In 1989 dollars) Facility Costs and Capacities Facility Enrollment Facility Cost per Notes Type Capacity Cost Student High School Structure 1,856 $20,634,000 $11,119 (1) and Facilities High School Site 1,856 $2,600,000 $1,401 (2) School Bus 300 $100,000 $333 (3) Administrative Offices 1,856 $120,000 $65 (4) Cost Allocation Owelling Unit Type Notes Single Family Multi-Family New High School Students Per Dwelling Unit 0.19 0.09 Costs Per Dwelling Unit High school facilities $2,113 $1,001 (5) High school site $266 $126 (6) School buses $63 $30 (7) Administrative offices $12 $6 (8) Total cast per dwelling unit $2,455 $1,163 Potential fee revenues per DU $1,104 $408 (9) Cost per dwelling unit $1,351 $755 not covered by fees Notes: (1) New high schools,which will have an attendance capacity of 1,800 students,will have an enrollment capacity of 1,856,since attendance is approximately 97%of enrollment. (2) Estimated cost based on 62 acres and$42,000 per acre. The District has already purchased the site for the first new school in Oakley with revenues from the recent G.O.bond issue. (3) The District will need approximately 1 new bus for every 300 additional students enrolled. (4) The District will need approximately 1,000 square feet of additional District offices, at$120 per square foot, for each new high school. (5) Equals cost per student($11,119)times the number of students per unit(0.19 or 0.09). (6) Equals cost per student($1,401)times the number of students per unit(0.19 or 0.09). (7) Equals cost per student($333)times the number of students per unit(0.19 or 0.09). (8) Equals cost per student($65)times the number of students per unit(0.19 or 0.09). (9) Equals fee per square foot($1.56)multiplied by average dwelling unit size(2,300 square feet for single family,850 for multi-family) multiplied by 4/13 (LUHSD's assumed share). Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. 10/24/89 f:\716LUHSDIM-R\Summary.xis a Ent , to toar a�'S C r v c m 4 a� o r Qi 0 O � N: 4 E C) a o � v oo a a m 0 3 _ con t- c, 0 Z E =- c 0 t-- Uv coo 4 40) N LL $ q) C m U = N a *- cli a "a a o a cn a� E a.8 -10 o r •c o U c c > .. v 1'2 a = C) C) cC n Ca LL aa s Cl) w O Q .w N rn n co Q c� CD UT K 4 Q r (0 Z m = E N rn o 0 8 0 c. 8o a 'g R c� a 8 � sw 0t 0 O is en m 3 ci a o c 0 $iii X c u. E a 0v� 520 _�° ac.ag' ai z- ' moCD o E $ 4) c c 0 > o ff Nr o to" � 0) ($� a a a a $ o `1 .> � _ � `� U S i 3 ,c 0, o 'O M> e o U. _ to 4s o c0`A 0 CD L d 3 $ cm 0 u. am 0 0 z z zY vM S , r ` ` \�\\\\\\ :_ 1 1 1 I I I � cif•%�%. � '+ \� E MIME ow El sl, p � I co o 1 . I V C"E.J \ H 1 \ \ a l / � .�JA t ✓ r OAKLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Revised Demographic Ana] and Facility Study �P � October 30, 1991 Prepared By Land Planning Consultants, Inc. 239 Main Street, Suite E Pleasanton, CA 94565 (510) 846-7007 1 RECEIVED OCT :i 0 1991 OAKLEY r11001. DISTRICT 1.0 Introduction In October of 1990 the Oakley Union School District adopted a Demographic Analysis and Facility Study that evaluated and identified the need for future school facilities. In order to look into the future,the 1990 Study made several assumptions regarding the District's historic trends of the Cohort Progression of new births and existing students in the District. But more importantly, assumptions were identified that established amounts of new residential growth for the next ten years and the effect that growth would have on enrollment projections. The report referred to this as "peering into the future" and further stated . . . "The underlying premise should be that the future is unknowable; that, even putting forth our best efforts of logic and research, we may be in error." } At the time that report was written, limitations on future residential growth in the J Oakley area were being proposed by both the County and a Greenbelt Alliance group. Due to the uncertainty as to what limitations, if any, were going to be placed on residential development, the report analyzed three alternatives for projecting future enrollments based on different levels of residential development. In determining the need for fixture facilities, the report concentrated on the most restrictive scenario,or Alternative One. Alternative One assumed an urban limit line that would specifically address where development can and can not occur. In z reality, the urban limit line plan was not adopted and development potential is now based on the County's newly adopted General Plan's allowable densities. This condition is more closely aligned to the report's Alternative Two projections. Additionally,with the adoption of the County's new General Plan, some residential developments approved under the old General Plan are now able to re-apply for new development approvals at a higher density. in some cases this meant nearly 50% more units on the same amount of land. Due to what is now known regarding the assumptions made last year and the current slow down in the housing market, a revision to the 1990 report is warranted. Based on'the assumptions made in this revision, future review and adjustments may also be wan-anted, as is always the case in good planning. 2.0 Demographic Analysis As stated earlier, the 1990 report reviewed enrollment forecasts under three growth scenarios,however,evaluated facility needs under only the most restrictive. For the purpose of this revision, future facility needs will be based on what is referred to in the 1990 report as enrollment forecast Alternative Two. This scenario allowed for residential growth to occur south of Laurel Road where there are today nearly 1,000 units either approved and/or proposed for construction. Additional development beyond these units will likely occur in this area within the next ten 2 years due to the location of available utilities and the close proximity of other infrastructure services, i.e. schools and shopping. Long term future development, projected to be post 1996, will begin to occur at the eastern end of Cypress Road in the Hotchkiss Tract area where approximately 3,000 units are proposed, consistent with the Bethel Island Specific Plan. Development in this area,however, does not have available utility services and as a result will take longer to become reality. Projected Enrollment — The Alternative Two Table found in the 1990 report illustrated enrollment projections by grade level assuming 543 new residential units were to be built within the Oakley attendance boundary between 1990 and 1991. Past those two years an average of 583 units per year were projected to be built until the year 2000 for a total of 5,207 units. Based on the District's historical Cohort Progression rate and this amount of growth, the 1990 report projected that the District was to have 23,360 K-5 grade level students and 933 6-8 grade level students,- and 66 special education students, for a total of 3,359 students, enrolled by year 1991/92, the current enrollment year. Actual enrollments as of September 1991 were 2,096 K-5 grade level students and 860 6-8 grade level students, and 58 special education students, for a total of 3,014 students or 345 students less than projected. Current enrollments are 120 students higher than enrollments a year ago. The percentage difference between the actual 1990 and 1991 enrollments equates to an approximate 4.2% increase, significantly less than the percentage 3 f increase the District has realized in the past nine to ten years. As a point of fact, it was only between enrollment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 that the District realized less of a percentage increase in enrollment (3.3%). What these numbers suggest is that the difference in actual enrollment versus the projected enrollment is a difference in the amount of new housing projected to be built versus the amount of new housing actually constructed and occupied. The past years increase in enrollment amounted to a normal grade progression and birth rate influence with j a small amount of new housing. 2.1 Housing Stock Projections 1 As stated previously,enrollment projections made in the 1990 report were based on 543 new residential units being built in the years 1990 and 1991 within the Oakley attendance boundary. A continuation in the enrollment projections were based on an average of 583 new residential units per year being built up to the year 2000. Changes in economic trends and, therefore, changes in new housing construction are the basis for the differences in enrollment projections identified above. Actual units issued building permits in East County were 359 in 1990 and 124 as of August of 1991, substantially less in whole as was projected for the Oakley area alone. A significant drop in the number of County permits occurred between May and June of 1990, 92 to 18 respectively. The number of countywide permits have i remained relatively constant since then, in the low teens per month, until August of 1991 when the total rear-bed 38. it must be restated that these totals are East countywide including more than the Oakley School District area. County planning staff suggests that the slowdown in housing construction is temporary and once the market has been re-established, the school district will again experience substantial year-to-year increased student enrollments as in the past. It is interesting to note that the City of Brentwood will soon become more of a competing market for new housing than it has in the past. How this new market will influence Oakley's housing growth is uncertain. It has been described that the East County, (East County being that area east of Empire Road including the Oakley, Brentwood, Bethel Island, K:nightsen and Discovery Bay areas), can withstand up to 1,200 new residential units per year. What Oakley's share of this total will be with the introduction of Brentwood is uncertain. However, due to the difference in fees associated with construction in Brentwood and in the County and the difference in land acquisition costs, it is assumed that Oakley Will maintain a new housing growth of 500 plus units per year once market conditions readjust. For the basis of this revision, a gradual increase in housing growth is used to determine projected enrollments up to 583 units per year by the end of the decade. Total new housing units in the Oakley Union School District boundary between now and the end of the decade is projected to be 4,100 units, 1,000 units less than described in the 1990 report. 5 2.2 Adjustments to Enrollment Projections As when the 1990 report was prepared, there are uncertainties as to the assumptions that need to be made to project future enrollments. However, unlike in 1990, the possibility of growth on certain lands is known. If market conditions change, the Oakley Union School District will again be impacted by enrollment increases possibly as high as the 15% to 21% increases realized in 1986-87 and 1989-90 respectively. This amount of increase would be consistent with the projections made in the 1990 report. Due to this real growth potential, it is the recommendation of this report that the enrollment projections described in the 1990 report be revised to reflect the slow down in the housing market representing that new housing growth will again establish itself in the market place, however, it will take a short time to recover. Based on this finding, enrollment projections for the Oakley Union School District would be as follows: -5 Grade 6-8 Special Total Grade K Education 92/93 2,330 954 66 3,350 93/94 2,673 1,111 75 3,859 94/95 3,039 1,277 86 4,402 95/96 3,410 1,443 97 4,950 96/97 3,837 1,634 101 5,572 97/98 4,281 1,800 121 6,202 98/99 4,743 1,977 134 6,854 99/00 5,223 2,161 147 7,531 6 These totals reflect a slight slow down from the 1990 report's enrollment projections by nearly 1,000 students. This forecast is based on a certain growth rate in new housing and, therefore, if the housing market does not expand to a rate of 300 new units by October of 1992, adjustments to the above table may be warranted. 3.0 Future Facility Needs Currently, Oakley Union School District has three facilities with a total September 1991 enrollment of 3,014 students. Two of these facilities are elementary schools (K-5), Gehringer and Oakley Elementary, and the third school, O'Hara Park, is a j middle school (6-8). Current enrollments at these facilities are as follows: School Capacity Enrollment Available Capacity Gehringer 600 1,011 -411 Oakley 600 1,085 -485 O'Hara 1,000 860 140 Special Ed 58 -58 Based on the above enrollment listing, excluding special education, the district has 756 more students than optimum capacity. Based on a district average classroom size of 28.54 students per classroom,this equates to a shortage of 26.48 classrooms, 36.48 when you include classroom needs for current special education programs and resource specialists space. These needs are accelerating as indicated in the table on page six of this report. 7 The above chart illustrates that the school district is currently severely impacted by existing enrollments exclusive of the projected growth described in previous sections of this report. The district has two elementary schools under construction to assist in mitigating this situation. These schools are located on Laurel Road and Vintage Parkway and are scheduled to open in July 1992 and September 1992 respectively. Both schools will have a capacity of 600 students. Based on the enrollment projections above, when the second new school opens, it is projected that the district will have an elementary enrollment of 2,396 students, 4 students short of the optimum capacity of the four elementary schools, including special education needs. At the same time it is projected that the district will have 954 students enrolled at the middle school or 46 students short of capacity. The following tables reflect future facility needs based on the enrollment projections made above. These tables reflect all special education needs included within the elementary enrollments. E"ENTARY (K-5) FACHM NEEDS, 'TRADITIONAL ENROLLMENT School District District Year School Ca ad Capaci Enrollment 92/93 Laurel Road 600 1,800 2,396 92/93 Vintage Pkwy 600 2,400 2,396 95/96 School #5 600 3,000 3,507 96/97 School #6 600 3,600 3,946 97/98 School #7 600 4,200 4,402 99/00 School #8 600 4,800 5,370 8 ' The above table reflects that the district would be required to build a new school almost every year, after the housing market accelerates, in an effort to keep up with enrollment increases. With an unknown funding source to construct these facilities, this type of schedule may be unattainable. The above schedule assumes interim housing at all facilities (compare enrollment projection to district capacity). MIDDLE (6-8) FACU=NEEDS, TRADITIONAL ENROLLMENT (Exclusive of Special Education Enrollment) School District District Year School Ca aci Ca aci Enrollment 91/92 O'Hara 1,000 1,000 954 1 95/96 School #2 1,000 2,000 1,443 The second middle school should open when half of the student capacity for that school is enrolled in the district. This is especially true since the district only has one other middle school facility, leaving limited room for locating interim housing. 4.0 Funding Requirements 1 The following table reflects a construction schedule and estimated costs for each school based on 1991 dollars and then projected to the year of need including a 5% inflation figure. Each schools estimated cost includes$500,000.00 in extraordinary expenses for site improvements assuming utility access costs and flood hazard 9 mitigation costs. { Year School Estimated Cost Projected 95/96 Elementary #5 $7.5 Million $9.1 Million 95/96 Middle #2 $12.5 Million $15.2 Million 96/97 Elementary #6 $7.5 Million $9.6 Million 97/98 Elementary #7 $7.5 Million $10.0 Million 99/00 Elementary #8 $ 7.5 Million $11.1 Million Total $42.5 Million $55.0 Million 1 4.1 Fair Share Cost Per Unit 1 The need for new facilities is directly related to the new residential construction that rhas occurred in the past and that projected in the future. if all future new 1 residential construction was solely responsible for the funding of the above facilities, based on an estimated district Student Generation Factor, an elementary school would reach capacity after 1,200 units were built and the middle school after 5,800 ' units were built. This analysis does not take into account additional enrollments generated by a Cohort rate from existing homes. Based on this assumption and the iestimated construction costs above, each unit would have a fair share cost of$6,250 tfor the elementary school and $2,155 for the middle school, based only on 1991 dollars. Realizing that impacts to these schools are also being realized by existing homes and that the SGF is continually changing as housing types and age of thousing changes, this type of analysis would require further study. The district currently collects 70% of the $1.58 Developer Fee, sharing the remainder with the 10 high school district. Based on this collection,without inflation allowances and using 4,100 new residential units built in the next ten years, the estimated income from 1 the developer fee would be approximately $9,069,200. 5.0 Funding Alternatives UP Front Fee: Based on the analysis, a fair share cost per unit for these facilities, $8,405 per unit could be collected at the time a building permit is issued. This fee, however, will not provide sufficient funding to construct the first new facilities in the time line illustrated in this report. Additionally, if future units could be conditioned to pay this fee, many of the units built in the next five years would be units that already have development approvals and would not be subject to any fee beyond developer impact fee obligations. State Program: Although the District has been successful in the past in constructing new school facilities under State funding programs, future programs for State funding is not seen as a viable source of revenue. Funding for new facilities is now being viewed as a local concern. General Obligation Bond: The District has some capacity in Assessed Value for bonding. The District does not 11 ( currently have enough Assessed Value to meet the funding needs described above. I A General Obligation Bond would require a ballot measure with a supporting vote t of two-thirds of the registered voters. Mello-Roos District: A Mello-Roos Funding District for new residential construction could be formed if . agreed upon by the developers. However, as previously illustrated, most of the units that will be built in the next five years are not conditioned to join a Mello- Roos District. Therefore, these units would not be contributing toward the funding of the school. This would require the developments that are conditioned to pay an undeveloped land tax on the potential of development on their property. Developers will not agree to do this. 6.0 Conclusion Plan resented here projects school facilities and funding The revised Facilities P p p ) g requirements to the year 2000. Ten-year projections are just that; projections. Assumptions and projections made in this report should be reviewed periodically as to ensure that the conclusions continue to hold. ' 12 ATTACHMENT C Auc. 4.. - ,J� DAlt nu OVERVIEW OF EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES FUNDING AND MITIGATION AGREENfENT A. GENERAL The East Contra Costa County School Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement ("Agreement") has been negotiated to provide a method for financing the cost of new school facilities needed as a result of new development being approved in East Contra Costa County. The school districts participating in the Agreement are: Liberty Union high School District, Brentwood Union School District, Byron Union School District, Knightsen Elementary School District and Oakley Union Elementary School District. Financing of the school facilities will be coordinated with the East Contra Costa School Facilities Financing Authority, a joint powers agency comprised of the school districts in East Contra Costa County. Developers seeking legislative.development approvals through either the city or county would execute an aelmowledgment of their obligations whereby they would agree to be bound by the terms of the Agreement. Negotiation of the terms of the Agreement has included participation by developers, the Northern California Building Industry Association, Contra Costa County and City of Brentwood representatives. B. MITIGATION PAYMENTS Mitigation payments shall be paid to cover the anticipated costs of needed new school facilities. The mitigation payments shall be increased pursuant to a construction index and review by an oversight committee. 1. liberty Union High School District. The mitigation payment amounts vary depending upon the number of dwelling units which agree to the terms of the Agreement and the date such units are included in the Agreement. If less than 3,000 dwelling units agree to be bound by the Agreement by August 31, 1995, the mitigation payment will be based upon the square footage of the units constructed, with an average mitigation payment of$4,737. If 3,000 to 5,999 dwelling units agree to be bound by the Agreement, the mitigation payment will vary based on the number of units participating with a minimum amount of$2,500 per unit to a maximum of$4,737. If 6,000 dwelling units agree to be bound by August 31, s�v,. 22- 1995, those 6,000 units shall pay the sum of$2,500 per dwelling unit. Any units over the first 6,000 or those signing after August-H, 1995, shall pay the mitigation payment amount based on square footage with an average of 54,737. S&V7-. 2 2- 2. 2. Element Scho is . Mitigation payments shall be based on dwelling unit size.: There will be no annual special taxes on undeveloped property. There will be no ewxw&c/wh%-Ajdr2rn7 1 annual special taxes on developed property located with the City of Brmwood. Amnual special taxes on developed property in Zone 2 will be based on dwelling unit size. C. FORMATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT The school districts shall form a community facilities district to authorise the issuance of bonds and levy of special taxes on property participating in the Agreement. Developers may avoid the levy of special taxes on their developed property by paying the above-listed mitigation payments in advance. The Agreement also provides for the levy of special taxes on undeveloped property, if necessary, to trod shortfalls in needed school facilities. A summary of the rate and method of apportionment of the special taxes for the community facilities district is attached hereto as Attachment "I'. Financing assumptions include 5% for issuance costs, 10% set aside for a reserve fund and a 30-year amortization. Formation costs will be borne by the school districts. However, such amounts shall be refunded out of the proceeds of the bond sales. D. CREDIT FUNDS Provisions are included in the Agreement for reducing the school facility costs to be funded by the community facilities district. Monies received by the State of California, local funds from the sale of general obligation bonds or other similar financings and developer fee monies shall be used to reduce any unfunded construction requirements. Credit funds do not include the first $12.8 million of State funding received by Liberty Union High School District for Liberty's school facilities. E. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The Agreement provides for a school district/developer oversight committee to be formed. The committee shall consist of a representative of the school districts, a representative of the Financing Authority, a representative of the developers and a representative of the Northern California Building Industry Association. If necessary, a fifth representative, preferably from the county or city shall be appointed. The purpose of the _. committee shall be to meet on an annual basis prior to December 1 and review the costs of proposed school facilities, funding sources and timing for commencement of construction. 2AM&G/whwAjdM737 2 Records ng Requested by ) and when recorded mail to: ) Exempt: Government Code Section 6103 ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF PARTICIPATING DEVELOPER EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES FUNDING AND MITIGATION AGREEMENT This Acknowledgment of Obligations ("Acknowledgment") is entered into as of , 1995, by and between , hereinafter referred to as " " and School District(s), Participating School District(s). The real property of , which is the only property subject to this Acknowledgment, is the real property shown on Exhibit "1", attached hereto and incorporated herein, consisting of (" Property" which is also a "Participating Property" defined in the Agreement more particularly described hereafter). , by execution of this Acknowledgment, acts as one of the Participating Developers and agrees to the terms of the East Contra Costa County School Facilities Funding and Mitigation Agreement ("Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "2". Except as expressly contained herein, the remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. I hereby certify that I am authorized and directed to sign this Acknowledgment. SCHOOL DISTRICT By: BY: President Superintendent BAKW&G/whwlijd/22296- County i PROPERTY DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "I" Recording Requested by ) and when recorded mail to: } ) Liberty Union High ) School District ) 20 Oak Street ) Brentwood, California 94513 } } Attention: Mr. Dan Smith } } Exempt: Government Code § 6103 Space above this line for Recor er's use only EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES FUNDING AND MITIGATION AGREEMENT THIS EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES FUNDING AND MITIGATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made as of July 25, 1995, and is entered into between East Contra Costa School Facilities Financing Authority, a joint powers agency established and existing under the laws of the State of California ("Authority"); Liberty Union High School District ("Liberty"), Brentwood Union School District ("Brentwood"), Byron Union School District ("Byron"), Knightsen Elementary School District ("Knightsen"), and Oakley Union Elementary School District ("Oakley"), public school districts within the State of California (hereinafter collectively "Participating School Districts"); participating governmental agencies ("Agencies"), if any, as listed on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein. which may be amended to include additional Agencies: participating developer(s) ("Participating Developer" or "Participating Developers") as listed on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein. which may be amended to include additional developers. This Agreement is entered into to provide a method for financing the cost of new School Facilities (as hereinafter defined) needed as a result of new development approved within the boundaries of participating School Districts. This Agreement shall apply to those portions of real property of the Participating Developers at such times and to the extent that the Participating Developer agrees to the terms of this Agreement by way of execution of an Acknowledgment of Obligations as set forth herein on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS. the Authority has been established for the purpose of financing needed school facilities on a regional basis for the Participating School Districts in East Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS. the Authority and Participating School Districts propose to form one or more community facilities districts ("CFD") for financing School Facilities: and BAKW&G/AJDAOD975 0% 1 WHEREAS, the Participating Developers own certain real property which is proposed for approval by governmental agencies having jurisdiction over such property and which property Participating Developers intend to be subject to this Agreement (the "Participating Property"); and WHEREAS, development of the Participating Property may require the provision of additional School Facilities for the Participating School Districts necessary to serve the student population expected to be generated as a result of such development of the Participating Property; and WHEREAS, Participating School Districts, Authority, Agencies and Participating Developers wish to create a method (other than school impact fees authorized under Government Code Section 53080) to finance the cost of School Facilities for the Participating School Districts necessary to serve the student population to be generated by the development of the Participating Property, which will satisfy their obligation to fund School Facilities as required by the implementation of the General Plans of governmental agencies and conditions of approval of proposed development of the Participating Property; and WHEREAS, Authority and Participating School Districts have established a summary of the rate and method of apportionment ("RMA") for the special taxes ("Special Taxes") to be levied by the proposed CFD(s) in order to insure timely payment of the cost of the School Facilities at time of issuance of building permits as provided in.Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions herein set forth, Participating School Districts and Participating Developers hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are herein incorporated. 2. Definitions. Capitalized terms as used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth herein or as set forth in the RMA (Exhibits "D" and "E"): "City" means any incorporated City which elects to become one of the Agencies. "County" means the County of Contra Costa California. "Credit Funds" means the following, to be allocated to the Participating Property: (i) State Funds. Any and all funds. and in kind contributions. received from the State by Participating School Districts for the construction of the School Facilities subsequent to the date of this Agreement for students from future development of the Participating Property. State Funds does not include. but not by way of limitation. funds RAKW&G/ABJw20975 oe 07120M i received for technology, modernization or reconstruction of existing school facilities, or School Facilities for existing development. so long as such funding does not increase the capacity, of Participating School Districts to accommodate additional new students. State Funds also do not include monies received by Participating School Districts pursuant to Sections 53080 and 65995 of the Government Code presently in the amount, as to residential development, of$1.72 per square foot of assessable area. (ii) Local Funds. The proceeds of any certificates of participation or lease revenue bonds to be paid from general fund revenues for permanent financing of permanent facilities or general obligation bonds authorized and issued subsequent to the date of this Agreement for permanent financing of permanent School Facilities for Participating School Districts. This includes all funds excluded as subparagraphs (i), (ii) and(iii) of paragraph (d) of Section 3.3 of this Agreement. This excludes any revenues from or relating to the Mitigation Payments. Special Taxes or financing proceeds relating to Special Taxes of the CFD. Local Funds does not include, but not by way of limitation, funds received for technology, modernization or reconstruction of existing school facilities, or School Facilities for existing development so long as such funding does not increase the capacity of Participating School Districts to accommodate additional new students. (iii) Subsequent Government Mandates. If, notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, Participating School Districts, or any other subdivision of the State of California are mandated or permitted by existing law or future legislation to impose and collect any fee or charge, however denominated, for the financing of School Facilities for development of the Participating Property, the amount of any such fee or charge so collected. (iv) Facilities Credits. Amounts set forth in any facilities construction agreement for School Facilities constructed by Participating Developers conveyed to Participating School Districts in accordance with Section 4.3 of this Agreement. (v) Calculation of the Amount of Credit Funds from State Funds and Local Funds. The amount of Credit Funds from State Funds and/or Local Funds shall be identified on a facility by facility basis. The amount of any such Credit Funds shall be determined after first satisfying any unfunded construction requirement for a particular, School Facility. Thereafter. the amount of such Credit Funds shall be multiplied by the percentage that the Participating Property contributed to the total costs of the particular School Facility. The calculation of such Credit Funds shall not include the first $12.8 million of funding received by Liberty from the State for the School Facilities of Liberty. "Formation Proceedings of the CFD" shall be deemed to have occurred upon the occurrence of the formation of the CFD in accordance with Exhibits "D" and/or "E", as applicable. the expiration of the statute of limitations provided in Section 53359 of the. Mello Roos Act (hereinafter "Act"), and the entry of a final non-appealable judgment in a validating. action in the Superior Court of County validating the formation. levy of Special Taxes and the authorization of a bond issue for the CFD. This shall include the authorization by the qualified RAKW&GIA8fJW2O975 0E 3 47120/95 electors for the levy and collection by the CFD of the Special Taxes and the authorization by the qualified electors of the issuance of bonds,("Bond Issue"). Bonds shall not be sold prior to, or in amounts greater than, needed,by Participating School Districts. "General Obligation Bonds" means any local ballot proposition presented to and approved by the electorate of Participating School Districts after the date of this Agreement authorizing Participating School Districts to issue general obligation bonds. "Index" means the Lee Saylor Class D Construction Index. In the event the Lee Saylor Class D Construction Index ceases to be published; the index used by the State Allocation Board in place of the Lee Saylor Class D Construction Index shall be applied or any comparable index as reasonably determined by Participating School Districts. In the event the Index is not sufficient to cover increases in costs related to the School Facilities, such as increases in land costs or other unanticipated expenses, the applicable Participating School District shall present such documentation to the Oversight Committee, as defined in Section 7.6 herein, who shall review such documentation and, if appropriate, increase the Index for that year in an amount not to exceed 4% per annum. "Mitigation Payment" means a payment to be made as provided under Section 6 of this Agreement to Participating School Districts prior to the issuance of each residential building permit in the amounts set forth in Table 1 of Exhibits "D" and "E" for the benefit of Participating School Districts. The Mitigation Payment shall be increased pursuant to the Index commencing July 1, 1996, and each July Ist thereafter. In the event the Formation Proceedings of the CFD are not completed, for whatever reason, prior to the issuance of any residential building permit for structures on the Participating Property, the Mitigation Payment to Participating School Districts shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit in these initial amounts as adjusted annually as herein provided. If owners of Participating Property consist of 6,000 dwelling units prior to August 31, 1995, the Mitigation Payment shall be the Original Mitigation Agreement amount as set forth on Table 1 of the RMA. If owners of Participating Property consist of between 5,999 dwelling units and 3,000 dwelling units prior to August 31. 1-995, the Sliding Scale Amount as set forth on Table 1 of the RMA shall be the Mitigation Payment. If owners of Participating Property consist of less than 3,000 dwelling units on August 31, 1995, the Mitigation Payment applicable to such dwelling units shall be the Ordinary Dwelling Unit amount set forth on Table 1 of the RMA. If owners of Participating Property consist of more than 6,000 dwelling units, those dwelling units in excess of 6,000 shall pay the Ordinary Dwelling Unit amount set forth on Table 1 of the RMA. If more than 6,000 dwelling units execute the Agreement, for those dwelling units determined by Liberty to be in excess of 6,000 the One-Time Special Tax shall be the Ordinary Dwelling Unit amount which varies based on dwelling unit size as set forth on Table 1 of the RMA. "School Facilities" means the acquisition. construction and/or financing of land and capital school facilities consisting of interim and permanent School Facilities for grades K through 12. for Participating School Districts, including central support. administration. special education facilities, and special education busses, as is consistent with the Master Plans to be approved by the governing boards of the Participating School Districts, together with 9AKW&G/ABiu/20975 01 4 07120/95 S. 1 furniture, equipment and technology, to serve needs created by residential development of the Participating Property. "State" means the State of California. 3. Mitieation of School Facilities Impacts. 3.1 Formation Proceedings of the CFD. Subsequent to August 31, 1995, Authority, and/or applicable Participating School Districts, shall initiate and diligently pursue to completion the Formation Proceedings of CFD No. 95-1, or a comparable individual community facilities district or districts, to include the Participating Property. The Formation Proceedings of the CFD shall be accomplished on the basis of the provisions set forth in Exhibits "D" and/or IV, as applicable. Participating Developers agree to participate in such Formation Proceedings of the CFD as it relates to their property and execute all documents reasonably requested by Authority or Participating School Districts and required for the Formation Proceedings of the CFD in order to accomplish the Formation Proceedings on or before December 31. 1995 or as soon as practicable thereafter. Participating School Districts which pay the costs of formation of the CFD shall be reimbursed for such costs out of the proceeds of a Bond Issue. Participating..Developers which annex-into the CFD, shall pay the costs for annexation. 3.2 CFD Operation and Mitigation Authority. Provided Authority and applicable Participating School Districts are in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement, the CFD shall be authorized to finance the School Facilities required by development of the Participating Property as set forth in this Agreement. The CFD shall levv or collect only the Special Taxes as set forth in Exhibits "D" and/or "E", as applicable to this Agreement. as increased pursuant to the Index. 3.3 Prohibition of Additional Mitigation. Provided a Participating Developer is in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. the Participating Developer and their respective successors and assigns, shall be deemed to have fulfilled and mitigated their entire obligation to finance School Facilities to serve the student population to be generated by the residential development of the Participating Property upon the occurrence of the Formation Proceedings of the CFD or the payment of the Mitigation Payment described in Section 6 of this Agreement. The Authority and Participating School Districts agree that upon payment of the Mitigation Payment or the applicable Special Taxes for the period of time specified in the RMA as set forth in Exhibits "D" and/or "E" to record a notice absolving such property from any future obligations under this Agreement. Such notice shall be recorded with the County Recorder of County upon receipt of payment by Participating Developer of any actual reasonable costs of recording such notice. This Agreement. as to the School Facilities needs of the residential development of the Participating Property, shall be deemed to satisfy any and all present and future requirements and conditions of the entitlements for the residential development of the Participating Property. Participating School Districts. including their successors and assigns, hereby covenant that they will not under any circumstances at any time: B AK W&G/AB/W 20975 06 5 07!20/95 1 1 (a) exercise any power or authority (including, but not limited to, Section 53080 of the California Government Code or any other provision of applicable law) to levy a fee, charge, dedication. or other form of requirement against any development of the Participating Property (including any Senior Citizen Housing as defined in Section 65999.1 of the Government Code and any commercial or industrial property development) undertaken within the boundaries of the Participating Property for the purpose of funding or financing any School Facilities. If a Senior Citizen Housing dwelling unit is converted to use other than as specified in Section 65999.1 of the Government Code, it shall be subject to the Special Taxes for the remaining portion of a period of thirty (30) years from the date of the issuance of the building permits for such dwelling unit or units. (b) require the City or County or any other governmental entity to exercise. or cooperate with the City or County or any other governmental entity in the exercise of, the power under Title 7. Division 1, Chapter 4.7 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 65970) or any other provision of applicable law, to require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof. or both for School Facilities as a condition to the approval of residential development of the Participating Property (including any Senior Citizen Housing and any commercial or industrial development). (c) oppose or legally challenge any residential development including rezoning of the Participating Property on any basis or seek other forms of mitigation for any residential development of the Participating Property (including Senior Citizen Housing) with respect to the adequacy of School Facilities, including, but not limited to, the establishment of developer fees, the payment of any money by Developer (regardless of how denominated or labelled), or the dedication of land permitted by present or future State law, rulings, regulations or court decisions if the proceeds of such fees, assessments or requirements will be used to finance or fund the School Facilities. (d) issue bonds, except a Bond Issue. or incur any other form of indebtedness, payable from taxes or assessments of any kind applicable to the Participating Property (other than Participating School Districts' portion of the existing ad valorem property taxes including any ad valorem taxes for general obligation bonds of the Participating School Districts) levied on any property within the boundaries of the CFD. the proceeds of which are to be used in whole or in part. directly or indirectly, for funding or financing the School Facilities. The limitations contained in this clause (d) shall not be applicable to any (i) General Obligation Bonds. (ii) bonds of a community facilities district formed under the Act or other local financing. which may be approved by the registered voters within the boundaries of a Participating School District. or (iii) assessments pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. or other assessment proceedings available to Participating School Districts. providing for an assessment district encompassing the Participating School District. RAKW&QA$AV2097S Ot v '7'.20195 3.4 Other Properties. In order to equalize treatment of landowners seeking to develop within School Districts' boundaries, Participating School Districts agree to use their best efforts to enter into agreements comparable to this Agreement with Participating Developers in order to obtain financial commitments for School Facilities from them at least equal to the commitments for the amount of the Mitigation Payments and/or Special Taxes set forth in Exhibits "D" and "E" to this Agreement. However, if notwithstanding the use of such best efforts, Participating School Districts are unable to enter into any such other agreements with other Participating Developers, such inability shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, it is agreed that no other agreement shall be more favorable to any other Participating Developers. In the event Participating School Districts enter into any other agreement after the date of this Agreement relating to materially less burdensome Mitigation.Payment or One-Time Special Taxes per dwelling unit for the classes of property set forth in Exhibits "D" and "E" to this Agreement, or other material provisions, Participating School Districts shall give notice to Participating Developers of such other agreement by providing Participating Developers with a copy of such other agreement in the manner provided in Section 7.7 herein concurrently when Participating School Districts record such other agreement with the office of the County Recorder of the County. If any other agreement contains provisions which are materially less burdensome than those contained in this Agreement, Participating-School Districts shall promptly amend, upon request of Participating Developers, this Agreement to incorporate, on a prospective basis, such more favorable provisions. The effective date of any such amendment to this Agreement shall be the effective date of the other agreement containing such more favorable provisions. 3.5 Covenant to Construct School Facilities and Serve Students. At the time sufficient funds are received pursuant to this Agreement, and other agreements or from other sources, Participating School Districts covenant for the benefit of Participating Developers that they will use their best efforts to acquire or construct School Facilities sufficient to serve the students generated from development within the Participating Property. 3.6 Disclosure of Special Taxes. Participating Developers hereby covenant to Participating School Districts that Participating Developers shall provide. or by contract with any developer or merchant builder of any part of the Participating Property require to be provided. the "Notice of Special Tax" required by Section 53341.5 of the Act or any, similar successor statute. Developer expressly acknowledges that Participating School Districts, Authority and the CFD shall have no duty or obligation and shall incur no liability, jointly or severally, with respect to the foregoing covenant of Participating Developer. 4. Credit Funds. 4.1 State Aid Anplication. Participating School Districts, to the extent that it is realistic and feasible. shall apply for and utilize their best efforts to obtain approval of any State funding for School.Facilities for the area within the CFD or a comparable community facilities district that may become available to Participating School Districts. Subject to the ongoing obligations of Participating School Districts to reasonably seek to obtain State Funds, Participating Developers acknowledge that the risk of denial of any such application by the BAKW GIAanym9750e 7 0/20/95 4 ' State shall be borne by Participating Developers and by other payers of the Special Taxes within the CFD and shall not be a basis to lodge a protest of any Special Taxes payable or to file a claim for the recovery of any Special Taxes paid. The reasonable fees and charges of any consultant retained by Participating School Districts. and expenses to pursue such State funding for the School Facilities may be included in the Administrative Expenses for which the Special Taxes of the CFD may be expended. 4.2 Aonlication of Credit Funds. Developer and Participating School Districts agree that, to the extent legally permissible, the Participating Property's share of any Credit Funds received by a Participating School District shall be. applied as provided in Section 53313.9 of the Government Code. It is the intent of this Agreement, that Credit Funds shall be applied proportionately and prospectively to reduce the amount of outstanding bonds, reduce the rate of Special Taxes, and/or shorten the period of time during which Special Taxes are levied. However, the Participating School District, after making a finding that it is not judicious and prudent under all of the then existing circumstances, may apply the Credit Funds in another manner allowed by law. The parties agree that such application shall be made by Participating School District following a determination at a public meeting, notice of which pursuant to Section 6062 of the Government Code has been given, to owners and residents of the Participating Property who shall have an opportunity to appear and be heard as to such determination or determinations. 4.3 School Facilities Provided by Developer. Participating Developers may request alone, or in conjunction with one or more other Participating Developers, that it or they may acquire land and/or construct School Facilities as an alternative means, in whole or in part, for mitigation of its impacts on the School Facilities of Participating School Districts. Any such proposal shall conform to all applicable legal requirements for constructing School Facilities and the Educational Policies of the Participating School Districts, as reasonably determined by Participating School Districts. Participating School Districts shall reasonably accept or not accept such proposal. Any acceptance shall be conditioned on the execution of a facilities construction agreement which in detail covers,what is to be built by whom, identifies the assured sources of funding, performance, labor. and material bonds in the amount of 110% of an agreed project cost and the amount of the Facilities Credit. The amount of the Facilities Credit shall be based on a reasonable determination by the Participating School Districts as to what its cost of acquiring or constructing such School Facilities would have been which shall be the amount of the resulting Facilities Credit to Participating Developers. The Facilities Credit shall not be treated as a more favorable agreement as set forth in paragraph 3.4 herein. 5. Binding on Communitv Facilities District. Upon completion of the Formation Proceedings of the CFD, the governing board(s) of applicable Participating School Districts shall cause to be executed such documents as may reasonably be required to confirm that the CFD is bound by this Agreement. and copies of such documents shall be provided to owner(s) of the Participating Property. 6. Payment of Mitigation. If the CFD is not formed prior to the time residential building permits are requested by applicable Participating Developers or if the 9AKW&GIAR/W20975 01 8 OMOAS 1 Formation Proceedings of the CFD are initiated prior to the time when residential building permits are requested by applicable Participating Developers and Participating Developers either (i) protest the Formation Proceedings of the CFD, (ii) fail to vote at an election thereon, or (iii) vote "no" at an election thereon, Participating Developers shall pay to Participating School Districts the applicable Mitigation Payment per dwelling unit in the amounts as set forth in this Agreement prior to issuance of each building permit for the Participating Property. Upon payment of the Mitigation Payment, the Special Taxes shall not be levied on the applicable property,. 7. General Provisions. 7.1 Successors. All of the covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements contained in this Agreement by or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any of the parties hereto, shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors of the respective parties. This Agreement shall be a covenant and condition on the Participating Property. 7.2 Amendment and Waiver. This Agreement shall be amended only by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assignees. All waivers of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the parties hereto. 7.3 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining portions hereof shall not, in any way, be affected or impaired thereby. 7.4 Integration. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. --- - . 7.5 District/Developer Oversight Committee. A District/Developer Oversight Committee ("D/PDOC") shall be formed. The D/PDOC shall consist of a representative of the Participating School Districts, a representative of the Authority, a representative of the Participating Developers and a representative of the Northern California Building Industry Association ("NCBIA"). If necessary, the four representatives shall jointly appoint a fifth representative, preferably from County, City or Agencies. The D/PDOC shall exist until the School Facilities are substantially completed. Its purpose shall be. prior to December 1, on an annual basis, to review the reasonable costs of the proposed School Facilities, the funding sources, as well as the need for completion and commencement of School Facilities construction in the next fiscal year. The D/PDOC shall meet for the first time only prior to January 31, 1996 and thereafter, prior to December 1. The Participating School Districts in cooperation and good faith, after consultation with D/PDOC, shall annually increase or decrease and if reasonably determined appropriate, thereafter increase or decrease the projected costs of the School Facilities in accordance with reasonably equivalent School Facilities throughout Northern California. in accordance with applicable law. and the then BAK W&G/ARA aov7s o. 9 )7=195 applicable reasonable Education Policies of the applicable Participating School Districts but not to amounts greater than the Equivalent Amounts set forth and adjusted as provided in Exhibits "D" and "E". The objective shall be to assure the lowest reasonable cost for the School Facilities and costs to Participating Developers and taxpayers, while maintaining the Participating School Districts' objectives of availability of adequate School Facilities concurrent with development of the Participating Property, considering students generated by other development as well, consistent with applicable State area standards and cost limits. Participating School Districts will consider and, if appropriate, implement reasonable use of cost saving alternatives with regard to method of design, construction techniques, construction materials and construction management so as to assure the lowest, reasonable, feasible cost while still meeting the applicable legal requirements, reasonable Educational Policies of the Participating School Districts and not substantially increasing future operation and maintenance costs of the Participating School Districts. In the event that such determinations affect the cost of School Facilities, then the Mitigation Payments or Special Taxes of the CFD as herein specified, shall be adjusted proportionately with such determination. 7.6 Notices, Demands and Communication. Formal notices, demands and communications among Participating School Districts. Authority, Participating Developers and Agencies hereunder shall be sufficiently given if(i) personally delivered, (ii) mailed by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid. return receipt requested, or (iii) delivered by Federal Express or other reliable private express delivery service to the principal offices of .Participating School Districts, Authority, Participating Developers, or Agencies as set forth below. Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. Such notices demands or communications shall be deemed received upon delivery if personally served, or upon the expiration of three (3) business days if given by other approved means as specified above. If to Participating School Districts: To the Applicable Participating School District as set forth below: Liberty Union High School District 20 Oak Street Brentwood, California 94513 Brentwood Union School District 250 First Street Brentwood, California 94513 Byron Union School District 14401 Byron Highway Byron. California 94514 O&KWAG/AE/w20975 of 10 )7/20M Knightsen Elementary School District Delta Road. Post Office Box 265 Knightsen. California 94548 Oakley Union Elementary School District 91 Mercedes Lane, Post Office Box 7 Oakley, California 94561 If to Authority: East Contra Costa School Facilities Funding Authority c/o Knightsen Elementary School District Post Office Box 265 Knightsen. California 94548 If to Participating Developers: As set forth on Exhibit "B" If to Agencies: As set forth on Exhibit "A" 7.7 Arbitration. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach thereof shall be settled by binding arbitration in County in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 7.8 Intemretation. The terms of this Agreement, including all Exhibits hereto. shall not be construed for or against any party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement, but shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used. The Section headings are for purposes of convenience only, and shall not be construed to limit or extend the meaning of this Agreement. 7.9 Recordation. Subordination and Particivatine School Districts -- Certification. (a) Recordation. This Agreement or a notice describing the existence of this Agreement and the Participating Property shall be recorded by Participating Developers or by Participating School Districts. The parties hereby agree to execute such documents as may be needed to give such notice. (b) Subordination. Any existing monetary encumbrances of record shall be subordinated to this Agreement concurrent with its execution by the parties or completion of the formation.of the CFD, which ever shall first occur. prior to Participating School Districts certifying to County the availability of School Facilities for the Participating Property. (c) Participating School Districts Certification. Promptly upon receipt of confirmation of such recordation of the specified subordination. applicable B AKW&G/AB/W20975 09 11 97/20/95 Participating School Districts shall provide to Participating Developers written certification, in a form reasonably acceptable to Participating Developers as well as County, that all requirements of Participating School Districts with respect to mitigation of all school impacts from the development of the Participating Property will be satisfied upon performance of the terms of this Agreement. Provided Participating Developers are in compliance with this Agreement, and even though Formation Proceedings of the CFD are not completed. Participating School Districts shall promptly provide to County the certification required pursuant to Section 53080(b) of Government Code, or similar successor law, with respect to the issuance of any building permit required for residential development of the Participating Property. 7.10 Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. 7.11 Mutual Cooperation. Each party to this Agreement agrees to cooperate with the others, to act in good faith, to sign any other and further documents, and perforin such other acts, as may be reasonably necessary or proper in order to accomplish the intent of this Agreement. The parties shall refrainIrom doing anything which would render their performance under this Agreement impossible or impractical. 7.12 No Third Partv Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person or entity shall have any right of action based on any provision of this Agreement. 7.13 Existing Brentwood Agreement . The agreement regarding school facilities between Brentwood City Council. Brentwood Union School District and developers entered into on March 12, 1992, shall not be affected by this Agreement. BAKW&UAB/W20975 08 12 07f20/9S 7.14 Exhibits. All Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. LIBERTY UNION H SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Superintendent BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 2�( By: rk\2-, ta� Supenntend6nt BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,• By: S4 rin4ndent KNIGHTSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT By: -U� Superintenda OAKLEY UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT fj By: 'C2 Superintendent EAST CONTRA COSTA SCHOOL f-ACILITIES FINANCIN G AUTHORITY By: PrpfidEnt of the Board of Directors flAKW&r,/AB,jw20975 08 13 -)7120/95 PARTICIPATING GOVERN ZNIAL AGENCIES EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SCHOOL FACELMES FUNDING AND MITIGATION AGREEMENT 13AKW&G/wwiijda2339 EXHIBIT "A" SUMMARY OF RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES FOR LIBERTY ON HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT CFD I. UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TAXES ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 Undeveloped Property consists of all parcels in the CFD for which no building permits have been issued. A. One-Time Special Tax (i) If fewer than 3,000 Dwelling Units execute the Agreement before August 31, 1995, the.One-Time Special Tax shall be the Ordinary Dwelling Unit amount which varies based on Dwelling Unit size as set forth on Table 1. If 3,000 - 5.999 Dwelling Units execute the Agreement before August 31, 1995, the One-Time Special Tax shall be the Sliding Scale Amount, which shall be a minimum of$2.500 and a maximum of$4,737 per Dwelling Unit to be calculated based on the number of Dwelling Units as set forth on Table 1. If 6,000 Dwelling Units execute the Agreement before August 31, 1995, the One-Time Special Tax shall be the Original Mitigation Agreement - amount which is $2,500 per Dwelling Unit as set forth on Table 1. (iv) If more than 6,000 dwelling units execute the Agreement, for those Dwelling Units determined by the Liberty Union High School District ("Liberty") in excess of 6.000. the One-Time Special Tax shall be the Ordinary Dwelling Unit amount which varies based on Dwelling Unit size as set forth on Table 1. (v) For Dwelling Units which do not execute the Agreement before August 31, 1995, the One-Time Special Tax shall be the Ordinary Dwelling Unit amount which varies based on the Dwelling Unit size as set forth on Table 1. Payment of the One-Time Special Tax shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. B. Secured Interest-Bearing Note Option Instead of paying a One-Time Special Tax. the landowner can delay payment by executing a promissory note based on terms to be set by Liberty. If the terms are unacceptable to a landowner. he may appeal to an Administrative Panel. which can approve a different set of terms with a two-thirds vote. BAKW&G/whw/ijda1937 EXHIBIT "D-1" e C. Annual Special Tax Only occurs when there is a "Cashflow Shortfall" at the time that a School Facility is needed (the "Trigger Event"), as listed in Table 2. Cashflow Shortfall means that the accrued value of the One-Time Special Taxes collected by July 1 of the current Fiscal Year for Zones 1 and 2, plus the construction component of the bonds supportable by annual Special Taxes on existing Developed Property in Zone 2, plus monies received for new School Facilities from any source, including monies received pursuant to Sections 53080 and 65995 of the Government Code presently in the amount, as to residential development, of$1.72 per square foot of assessable area to pay for specific School Facilities for Liberty as listed in Table 2, is not sufficient to fund such School Facilities. The exact dollar amount of the Maximum Annual Special Tax per Undeveloped Property acre will be determined once the number of undeveloped acres included within the CFD is determined. The actual annual Special Tax levied per Undeveloped Property acre will be based upon the Cashflow Shortfall at that time. No annual Special Taxes may be levied on undeveloped property for which a One-Time Special Tax was previously paid or a Secured Interest-Bearing Note was executed. Those units executing the Agreement prior to August 31, 1995, up to a maximum of 6,000 units, may only be taxed to cover the Cashflow Shortfall in the amount of$12.8 million for the Third Phase of Second High School. If less than 3,000 Dwelling Units execute the Agreement prior to August 31, 1995, no Undeveloped Property annual Special Tax shall be levied on such undeveloped property included within the CFD. D. Increases in Undeveloped Property Special Taxes On each July 1, commencing July 1, 1996, the Maximum Annual Special Tax and the One-Time Special Tax for all Undeveloped Property in Zones I and 2 shall be increased from the previous Fiscal Year's Maximum Annual Special Taxes and One-Time Special Taxes by an amount equal to the annual percentage change in the Lee Saylor Class D Construction Index (the "Index"). In the event the Index is not sufficient to cover increases in costs related to the School Facilities. such as increases in land costs or other unanticipated expenses. Liberty shall present such documentation to the Oversight Committee, as defined in Section 7.6 of the Agreement, who shall review such documentation and, if appropriate, increase the Index for that year in an amount not to exceed 4% per annum. The percentage change in the Index shall be measured for the twelve month period ending May 31 of the previous Fiscal Year. II. DEVELOPED PROPERTY TAXES Developed Property consists of all parcels in the CFD for which one or more residential building permits have been issued. A. Annual Special Tax (1) Zone 1 No Annual Special Taxes shall be collected from Developed Property in Zone 1. BAKW&G/whw/ij&2I937 EXHIBIT "D-2" E C (2) Zone 2 (a) No Annual Special Taxes may be levied on Dwelling Units for which a One-Time Special Tax was paid prior to building permit issuance, or for which a Secured Interest Bearing Note was executed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. (b) All Dwelling Units for which a One-Time Special Tax was not paid, or for which a Secured Interest Bearing Note was not executed, shall pay Annual Special Taxes based on Dwelling Unit size as listed in Table 3. The figures in Table 3 represent the Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Taxes for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. An alternative Backup Special Tax based on lot size will also be determined, for use just in case the developer does not build enough dwelling units to cover all debt service payments. The Backup Special Tax shall not apply if the One- Time Special Tax amount was previously paid or a Secured Interest- Bearing Note was executed. B. Increases in the Developed Proverty Special Taxes On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 1996, the Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Taxes and the Backup Special Taxes for all Developed Property in Zone 2 shall be increased from the previous Fiscal Year's Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Taxes and Backup Special Taxes by an amount equal to the annual percentage change in the Index. In the event the Index is not sufficient to cover increases in costs related to the School Facilities, such as increases in land costs or other unanticipated expenses, Liberty shall present such documentation to the Oversight Committee, as defined in Section 7.6 of the Agreement. who shall review such documentation and, if appropriate. increase the Index for that year in an amount not to exceed 4% per annum. The percentage change in the Index shall be measured for the twelve month period ending May 31 of the previous Fiscal Year. III, METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX TO PROPERTY IN ZONES 1 AND 2 OF CFD NO. 95-1 Commencing Fiscal Year 1995-96 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, Annual Special Taxes for Liberty shall be levied as follows: First. The Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessors Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2. except for each Assessors Parcel for which the property owner paid the One-Time Special Tax or executed a Secured Interest-Bearing Note. in which case the Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be waived. If the JPA chooses to levy Annual Special Taxes at rates below 100 percent of the rates listed in Table 3. it shall do so Proportionately for all Land Use CIasses listed in these tables. DAKW&G/whw/iW21937 EXHIBIT "D-3" i Second: If additional monies are needed due to a Cashflow Shortfall after the first step has been completed, the Annual Special Tax shall be levied in equal percentages on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property in Zones 1 and 2, up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax for Undeveloped Property. Third: If additional monies are needed due to a Cashflow Shortfall after the fust two steps have been completed, then the levy of the Annual Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2 whose Maximum Annual Special Tax is determined through the application of the Backup Special Tax shall be increased in equal percentages from the Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. IV. LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX The Annual Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes. Assessor's Parcels in Zone 2 for which a residential building permit was issued prior to March 1 of a given Fiscal Year shall commence paying Developed Property Annual Special Taxes in the following Fiscal Year. The Developed Property Annual Special Tax shall be levied for a maximum of 35 years for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, or until the bonds assigned to that Assessor Parcel have been redeemed, whichever is sooner. BAKW&G/whw1ij&21937 EXHIBIT "D-4" E TABLE 1 Zones I and 2 One-Time Special Tax For Libertv Union High School District (1995-96 Fiscal Year) LIBERTY Dwelling Unit Types Description Land Use (Square Footage for Orig. Mit. Agrmnt. Sliding Scale Amount Ordinary Class(1) Detached Homes)(2) Dwlig. Units (SSA)** Dwelling (if 6.000 DUs)(3) (if 3AW5,999 DUs)(4) Units (5) 1 2,401 and above $2,500 SSA $7,398 2,301 - 2.400 $2,500 SSA $7,079 2,201 - 2,300 $2,500 SSA $6,812 4 2,101 - 2,200 $2,500 SSA $6,493 5 2,001 - 2,100 $2,500 SSA $6,227 6 1,901 - 2.000 $2,500 SSA $5,908 7 1,801 - 1,900 $2,500 SSA $5,641 8 1,701 - 1,800 $2,500 SSA $5,322 9 1,601 - 1,700 $2,500 SSA $5,003 10 1.501 - 1.600 $2.500 SSA $4,737 11 1.401 - 1,500 $2.500 SSA $4,418 12 1,301 - 1,400 $2,500 SSA $4,152 13 1,201 - 1,300 $2,500 SSA $3,833 14 1,101 - 1,200 $2,500 SSA $3,565 15 0 - 1.100 $2,500 SSA $3,247 16 Attached Homes $2,500 SSA $2,981 •• Sliding Scale Amount (SSA) equals $12,800,000 _ number of Original Mitigation Agreement Dwelling Units. but not less than $2.500. BAKW&G/whw/ijd/21937 EXHIBIT "D-5" TABLE 2 Undeveloped Property Maximum Annual Special Tax t�irst Financed with Annual Special Trigger Event for Annual Special Taxes from Undeveloped Property from Undeveloped Property se of Second High School 3,060 high school students Phases of Third High School 4,320 high school students se of Third High School 5,040 high school students The Trigger Event shall be determined by using CBEDS for student enrollment. At such time as the CBEDS state that the Trigger Event has occurred, the Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be levied in the next Fiscal Year. BAKW&G/whwiijda1937 EXHIBIT "D-6" 1 ' j . TABLE 3 Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Taxes for Developed Property for Liberty Union Hleh School District (1995-96 Fiscal Year) (Assumes No One-Time Special Tax or Secured Interest-Bearing Note) LEBERTY Dwelling Unit Types Description land Use (Square Footage for Orig. Mit. Agrmot. Orig. Mit. Agrmnt. Ordinary Gass(t) Detaebed Homes)(2) Dwllg. Units Dwelling Units Dwelling (if 6,000 DUs)(3) Sliding Scale Annual Units (5) . Special Tax (SSAST)** (if 3,000-5,999 DUs)(4) 1 2,401 and above $297 SSAST $860 2 2,301 - 2,400 $297 SSAST $824 3 2.201 - 2,300 $297 SSAST $793 4 2,101 - 2,200 $297 SSAST $756 5 2,001 - 2,100 $297 SSAST $726 6 1,901 - 2,000 $297 SSAST $689 7 1,801 - 1,900 $297 SSAST $658 8 1,701 - 1,800 $297 SSAST $621 9 1.601 - 1,700 $297 SSAST $585 10 1.501 - 1.600 $297 SSAST $565 11 1.401 - 1,500 $297 SSAST $518 12 1,301 - 1,400 $297 SSAST $487 13 1,201 - 1,300 $297 SSAST $451 14 1,101 - 1,200 $297 SSAST $420 15 0 - 1,100 $297 SSAST $383 16 Attached Homes $297 SSAST $352 •� SSAST equals the Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Tax necessary to pay debt service for an Original Mitigation Agreement Dwelling Unit for a bond amount based on the Sliding Scale Amount calculated in column (4) of Table 1, assuming level debt service, an annual interest rate of 8.0%. a 30-year bond term. 15.0% of bonds allocated for issuance costs and a reserve fund, and $10 per year for administration. BAKW&G/whwiij&21937 EXHIBIT "D-7" • • SIM MARY OF RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR FOUR PARTICIPATING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICI CCFDS BRENTWOOD MON SCHOOL DISTRICT BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT MGHTSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT OAKLEY UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT I. UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY TAXES ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 Undeveloped Property consists of all parcels in the CFD for which no building permits have been issued. A. One-Time Special Tax All Dwelling Units may pay One-Time Special Tax which varies based on Dwelling Unit size per Table 1. B Annual Special Tax No Annual Special Tax may be levied on Undeveloped Property. C. Increases in Undeveloped Property Special Taxes On each July 1, commencing July 1, 1996, the Maximum Annual Special Tax and the One-Time Special Tax for all Undeveloped Property in Zones I and 2 shall be increased from the previous Fiscal Year's Maximum Annual Special Taxes and One-Time Special Taxes by an amount equal to the annual percentage change in the Lee Saylor Class D Construction index (the "Index"). In the event the Index is not sufficient to cover increases in costs related to the School Facilities, such as increases in land costs or other unanticipated expenses, applicable school districts shall present such documentation to the Oversight Committee. as defined in Section 7.6 of the Agreement. who shall review such documentation and, if appropriate, increase the Index for that year in an amount not to exceed 4% per annum. The percentage change in the Index shall be measured for the twelve month period ending May 31 of the previous Fiscal Year. 11, DEVELOPED PROPERTY TAXES Developed Property consists of all parcels in the CFD for which one or more residential building permits have been issued. BAKW&G/whwAj&22424 EXHIBIT "E-1" 4 A. Annual Special Tax (1) Zone 1 No Annual Special Taxes shall be collected from Developed Property in Zone 1. (2) Zone 2 (a) No Annual Special Taxes may be levied on Dwelling Units for which a One-Time Special Tax was paid prior to building permit issuance. (b) All Dwelling Units for which a One-Time Special Tax was not paid shall pay Annual Special Taxes based on Dwelling Unit size as listed in Table 2. The figures in Table 2 represent the Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Taxes for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. An alternative Backup Special Tax based on lot size will also be determined, for use just in case the developer does not build enough dwelling units to cover all debt service payments. B. Increases in the Developed Property Special Taxes On each July 1, commencing on July 1, 1996, the Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Taxes and the Backup Special Taxes for all Developed Property in Zone 2 shall be increased from the previous Fiscal Year's Initial Maximum Annual Assigned Special Taxes and Backup Special Taxes by an amount equal to the annual percentage change in the Index. In the event the Index is not sufficient to cover increases in costs related to the School Facilities. such as increases in land costs or other unanticipated expenses, applicable school districts shall present such documentation to the Oversight Committee. as defined in Section 7.6 of the Agreement, who shall review such documentation and, if appropriate. increase the Index for that year in an amount not to exceed 4% per annum. The percentage change in the Index shall be measured for the twelve month period ending May 31 of the previous Fiscal Year. III. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX TO PROPERTY IN ZONES 1 AND 2 OF CFD NO. 95-1 Commencing Fiscal Year 1995-96 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, Annual Special Taxes for each of the four participating elementary school districts shall be levied as follows: First: The Maximum Annual Assigned Special Tax shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zone 2. except for each Assessor's Parcel for which the property owner paid the One-Time Special Tax, in which case the Maximum Annual Special Tax shall be waived. If the elementary school district chooses to levy Annual Special Taxes at rates below 100 percent of the rates listed in Table 2. it shall do so Proportionately for all Land Use Classes listed in these tables. BAKW&G/whwiij&22424 EXHIBIT "E-2" Second: if additional monies are needed after the first step has been completed, then the levy of the Special Tax on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property in Zones 2 whose Maximum Annual Special Tax is determined through the application of the Backup Special Tax shall be increased in equal percentages from the Maximum Annual Assigned Special Tax up to the Maximum Annual Special Tax for each such Assessor's Parcel. IV. LEVY AND COLLECTION QF ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX The Annual Special Tax will be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes. Assessor's Parcels in Zone 2 for which a residential building permit was issued prior to March i of a given Fiscal Year shall commence paying Developed Property Annual Special Taxes in the following Fiscal Year. The Developed Property Annual Special Tax shall be levied for a period of 35 years for each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property. BAKW&GtwhwriW22424 EXHIBIT "E-3" TABLE:.i Zones::a.and.2 .... Ono-Tlme::Special Tax.;:; ,_ ; . For ElementsawSchool DisMcts.,;..; �: � . (1995:96:Fiscal Year} Desaipdon Dwdling Unit Types Land Use (Square Footage Class (1) for Detached Homes) (2) Ali iOrlgmal;Mitigation Ordinary Dtivdlin�. AgtDwelliag.,t7nits(3) ts:( . 1 2,401 and above $12,943 $12,943 2 2,301 - 2,400 $12,385 $12,385 3 2,201 - 2,300 $11,919 $11,919 4 2,101 - 2,200 $11,360 $11,360 5 2,001 - 2,100 $10,895 $10,895 6 1,901 - 2,000 $10,337 510,337 7 1,801 - 1,900 $9,870 $9,870 8 1,701- 19800 $9,312 $9,312 9 1,601 - 1,700 $8,753 $8,753 10 1,501 - 1,600 $8,287 $8,287 11 1,401 - 1,500 $7,729 $7,729 12 1,301 - 1,400 $7,263 $7,263 13 1,201 - 1,300 $6,705 $6,705 14 1,101 - 1,200 $6,239 $6,239 15 0 - 1,100 -$5,680 $5,680 16 Attached Homes $5,215 $5,215 InIt1al.Maumimn:Aimual:S eaai:TAxes::foc:DeTdo p ' For Ele nentary �t�hnnl.Dlid icti I995•96�<Fiscal.. .> '(Aasumea:No>One-TLtte:Spec�st Taz) . Description ung Unit Types Land Use (Square Footage Class (1) for Detached Homes) (2) O�tigmal Mltigataoa Ag .:Dadlin$`Unl�(3j >: . :.: ;.•-�tlltir�4�"�. ...' 1 2,401 and above $1,498 $1,498 2 2,301 - 2,400 $1,434 $1,434 3 2,201. - 2,300 $1,380 $1,380 4 2,101 - 2,200 $1,316 $1,316 5 2,001 - 2,100 $1,262 $1,262 6 1,901 - 2,000 $1,198 $1,198 7 1,801 - 1,900 $1,145 $1,145 8 1,701- 1,800 $1,080 $1,080 9 1,601 - 1,700 $1,016 $1,016 10 1,501 - 1,600 $963 $963 11_ 1,401 - 1,500 $899 $899 12 1,301 - 1,400 $845 $845 I 13 1,201 - 1,300 $781 $781 14 1,101 - 1,200 $727 $727 15 0 - 1,100 $663 $663 16 Attached Homes $610 $610 EX=TT if=,_sIf f` PINNELL & KINGSLEY RECEIVED ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 UNIVERSITY AVENUE,SUITE 265 NOV — 7 1995 JAMES D.PINNELL SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825-6706 TELEPHONE: ROBERT E.KINGSLEY WEND[ L. ROSS CLERK 90A ORS C0NITKA Lb?`X1: DARWIN J. KINGHORN SONIA A. HEH1R PAUL N. BOYLAN GREGORY T. LYALL November 6, 1995 Mr. Val Alexeeff County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Alexeeff: The East Contra Costa School Financing Authority (hereinafter "Authority") asked this office to write a letter on their behalf regarding a hearing scheduled before the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (hereinafter "Board"). It is our understanding that the purpose of this hearing is to resolve,questions concerning the applicability of the mitigation payment established for the Discovery Bay West Project (hereinafter "Mitigation Payment") to projects (hereinafter "Will Serve Projects") approved between December, 1992, and September 19, 1995. Consistent with the County's General Plan, these projects are subject to a "will serve" condition which requires that there be adequate school capacity to meet the needs of the development. This hearing is not, however, intended to address issues regarding the applicability of the Mitigation Payment to projects requiring legislative acts after September 19, 1995. If we have misinterpreted the subject of the proposed hearing, please contact either this office or the Authority. Given the number of Will Serve Projects and the complexity of the issues regarding the application of the Mitigation Payment to those properties, a hearing on the subject should be beneficial to all interested parties. The Authority and its Member School Districts look forward to participating in this hearing. Prior to the hearing, the Authority will analyze the Will Serve Projects and determine which projects warrant application of the Mitigation Payment. Once prepared, representatives from the Authority would appreciate a meeting with you, prior to your proposed hearing, to outline its analysis. The Authority is concerned, however, about the date of the hearing. A thorough analysis of the Will Serve Projects will require a significant amount of research and legal analysis. Accordingly, the Board's November 14, 1995, hearing date does not provide the Authority with enough time to adequately prepare for this hearing. If this hearing is intended to develop a "mechanism" to reconcile the mitigation with the Will Serve Projects, the PINNELL &EINGSLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Val Alexeeff November 6, 1995 Page 2 Authority, its Member Districts and all interested parties should be given more time to thoroughly research the issues involved. There can be no doubt that the County's participation in school facilities planning is critical to the education of the area's youth. Your leadership in this area is appreciated by the both Authority and its Member Districts. Very truly yours, PINNELL & KINGSLEY C� t GOR:aYALL cc: Board_of_Supervsors East Contra Costa JPA Victor Westman Wendy Wiles B:Knightsen 110795 Alex-3.Lw r Land Planning Consultants INCORPORATED heal estate & facilities consulting for public entities EAST COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY PLAN dated May, 1995 239 Main Street, Suite E, Pleasanton CA 94566 ■ (510) 846-7007 Fax: 846-5314 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary i Introduction 1 School Funding 3 Background 4 Current Conditions 5 District Capacity and Enrollments 6 Enrollment Projections 9 New Facility Needs 16 Elementary Facility Costs 21 Secondary Facility Costs 23 Funding Sources 24 Conclusion 27 Recommendation 28 Attachments 30 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to evaluate enrollment growth generated by new residential development in the East County School Districts. The amount of development described in this document is based on information supplied by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, the City of Brentwood Planning Department, and the City of Brentwood's General Plan. Summary of Findings 1. All of the school districts included in this study have facilities that are presently overcrowded by students that were generated from new residential development or will be in the near future. 2. New residential development in the East Contra Costa County region, based on active development approvals and pending applications, total 20,506 units. Most of these units are located in the Brentwood school district. In addition, this report identifies 868 potential units in the Knightsen school district based on the City of Brentwood's General Plan. 3. Based on the County's and City of Brentwood's General Plan, additional development may occur other than what has been identified in this report. 4. The school districts have determined that all future schools, built to accommodate enrollment growth from new residential development, will have the following capacities: East County School District Facility Plan 600 Student Elementary (grade levels K-5) 800 Student Middle (grade levels 6-8) 2,200 Secondary (grade levels 9-12) 5. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 3,954 elementary and 1,717 middle grade level unhoused students for the Brentwood Union School District resulting in the need for 6.59 elementary and 2.15 middle schools. 6. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 722 elementary and 322 middle grade level unhoused students for the Byron Elementary School District resulting in the need for 1.20 elementary and 0.40 middle schools. 7. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 692 elementary and 285 middle grade level unhoused students for the Knightsen Elementary School District resulting in the need for 1.15 elementary and 0.36 middle schools. 8. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 2,023 elementary and 867 middle grade level unhoused students for the Oakley Union Elementary School District resulting in the need for 3.37 elementary and 1.08 middle schools. 9. The estimated cost for facilities per housing unit is $8,287 including land acquisition costs for the elementary school districts. East County School District Facility Plan ii - 10. Enrollment growth from new residential development is estimated to generate 4,032 secondary grade level students for the Liberty Union High School District resulting in a need to construct Phase III of school number two, currently under construction, and'all of school number three. 11. The estimated cost for facilities per housing unit is $4,737 including land acquisition costs for the Liberty Union High School District. 12. The Districts should form a Community Facilities District to develop a mechanism to fund construction of new school facilities. This can be accomplished either by a mitigation payment or tax charged on new residential development. East County School District Facility Plan INTRODUCTION Preparation of the East County School District Facility Plan provides a strategy to ensure that current and future students will have access to the facilities necessary for a quality education. The purpose of the Plan is to communicate information regarding school facilities not only to the local community but also,to the governing planning jurisdictions, both local and not local, whose policies and decisions affect those of a school district's Board of Education. The quality of a community is a reflective component of the quality of the public education provided in that community. Overcrowded conditions in schools diminish the ability to provide a quality education. The objectives and the needs of a school district become the objectives and needs of the community. This Plan includes the facility needs of four elementary "feeder" school districts, grades K-8, located in east Contra Costa County and the secondary school district(high school),grades 9-12, they feed in to. These school districts are as follows: Brentwood Union School District (Brentwood) Byron Union Elementary School District (Byron) Knightsen Elementary School District (Knightsen) Liberty Union High School District (Liberty) Oakley Union Elementary School District (Oakley) Facility needs are most impacted by enrollment growth created from the existing housing stock and by the development of new housing stock. Facility needs are also affected by the educational program and policies established by each district's Board of Education. The educational program, although established by each district, is generated through interaction with the community. The educational program and policies include the curriculum that is offered East County School District Facility Plan 1 _:Y which impacts school size, classroom configuration, technology, class size and enrollment schedules, i.e. year-round education. Education curriculum is consistently changing to meet new reform initiatives, such as technology. These changes will impact school facilities. To meet these projected facility needs will require reconstruction of existing facilities as well as construction of new facilities. This Plan analyzes the need for facilities and associated costs. The Plan provides facility costs in a uniform manner to create a level field for mitigation of these needs for all school districts. The Plan model is as follows: East County School District Facility Plan Model *Residential Development Projections *Facility Costs Projected New Housing Units Cost Per Student Current Approved Projects Cost Per Unit Proposed Projects General Plan *Enrollment Projections *Revenue Options Student Yields Building Programs Developer Fee Mello-Roos *Facility Needs General Obligation Bonds Building Specifications Asset Management Site Requirements Redevelopment Class Size Standards Parcel Tax Capacity Certificate of Participation Mitigation Payment Often a Facilities Plan is referred to as a Long Range Facilities Plan and is set forth under guidelines established by the School Facilities and Transportation Division of the California State Department of Education. These guidelines were published in 1972 and revised in 1973, 1976, 1986, and were established to; a) assist school districts in organizing and developing a long- range facility plan; b) viewing a total educational system and using a systems approach to East County School District Facility Plan 2 planning; and c) applying for State school building assistance funds. These issues apply to both the Education Code of the State of California and to the Building Aid Law of 1952 and the Leroy F. Greene State Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976. The Guidelines illustrate... "[A long-range facilities plan] is a compilation of information, policies, and statistical data about a school district. It is organized to provide (1) a continuous basis for planning educational facilities that will meet the changing needs of a community; and (2) alternatives in allocation facility resources to achieve the District's goals and objectives. It is used for planning facilities needs for either pupil enrollment growth or decline." SCHOOL FUNDING The emphasis of this study is on facility needs and not operational funding needs although they are related. The more facilities a district has the more operational costs are realized. Operational costs are subject to the Revenue Limits set forth by the State, based on each school district's average daily attendance. Each school district must consider the impact operational costs have on their future budget. School districts receive funding for new school facilities either by the collection of Developer Impact Fees (estimated to provide 25%-30% of funding needed), the passage of local General Obligation Bonds, State Funding with local matching funds (50%), by the formation of Community Facility District (i.e. Mello-Roos), by Mitigation Agreements with the development community, or by the combination of the above. Timing of the funding is critical. School districts are required to have all funding needed prior to awarding construction contracts. The school districts analyzed in this Plan currently collect the maximum Developer Impact Fee per square foot allowed by law on residential ($1.72)and non-residential development($0.28). The elementary school districts split this fee with the high school district. The ability to implement these funding sources continually changes based on the legislation process and legal challenges. A funding source that is implemented today, allowing a school district to plan for the future, East County School District Facility Plan 3 may not be available tomorrow, altering a school district's future planning. BACKGROUND The five school districts serve students living in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. The service boundaries include the unincorporated areas of Oakley, Bethel Island, Byron, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, and the City of Brentwood. Land uses in this area of the county have been predominantly agricultural in the past. Residential housing development is being experienced in east Contra Costa County, specifically in the Brentwood, Oakley and Discovery Bay areas. This area is undergoing a transition from that of a rural agricultural community to a community serving the growing commercial and industrial centers throughout the East Bay. Brentwood's General Plan illustrates substantial residential, commercial/industrial development. This economic growth will result in a need for more workers and population growth for the entire region. Ongoing residential development in Oakley, Brentwood and Discovery Bay reflect this growth. The planned Delta Expressway and the realignment of Vasco Road, when constructed, will enhance the region's housing growth. New residential development is controlled by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Brentwood City Council. These jurisdictions- are approving significant amounts of new residential development. Students generated from these developments will impact these school districts beyond their current capacities. The school districts, except Knightsen, have realized enrollment growth from new residential development. Knightsen also has realized enrollment growth, 38% since enrollment year 1987/88, however, it has not been from new residential development. It is estimated that enrollment growth in Knightsen is due to child bearing families moving back with parents living in the area due to the economy. As the economy strengthens this trend will change. Based on the State of California, Department of General Services SAB 411 Enrollment Projections, actual East County School District Facility Plan 4 . . enrollments in East County have increased by 18% since enrollment year 1991/92. The State projects enrollments will increase by 35% between this enrollment year and enrollment year 2000/01. CURRENT CONDITIONS All of the school districts have built or are building new school facilities to accommodate enrollment growth, except for Knightsen. In addition, portable classrooms have been installed as a compromise to building new schools due to the lack of funding sources to construct new schools resulting in overcrowding conditions. Portable classrooms have also been utilized for interim housing. Byron and Knightsen each have an old facility that will not meet future educational program or facility needs to house students. Byron: Byron's facility is located on 7.43 acres of land. Suggested acreage for an elementary school of 600 students is ten acres and for a middle school of 800 students, including physical education programs, is twenty acres. The size of the site is too small for either grade level schools. The district owns property directly north of the site that is suitable for a middle school of this size. The current facility includes portable classrooms that the district leases. These classrooms were added to accommodate enrollment growth. These spaces are not counted in the optimum capacity of the school for these reasons. A permanent structure on campus is in extremely poor condition as a result of water damage and dryrot. This structure should be demolished. Utility services are not sufficient to accommodate and support computer and technology needs. None of the structures can accommodate and support adequate computer and technology needs. East County School District Facility Plan 5 Heating and air conditioning services are out of date and have operated beyond their expected life. These units need to be replaced. For the reasons stated above, this facility is not considered to meet long term elementary or middle school enrollment growth of the district. Knightsen. Knightsen's facility is located on 9.2 acres of land adjacent to an active railroad. The State would not approve this site for a school under current policies. The acreage includes one acre for a community swimming pool and one acre for the school district's transportation and bus garage. Additionally, the facility houses the district's administration offices. Suggested acreage for an elementary school of 600 students is ten acres and for a middle school of 800 students including physical education programs is twenty acres. The size of the site is too small for either grade Ievel schools. The main structure was constructed in 1935 with portable classrooms added as needed to house the enrollment growth. With the amount of enrollment growth anticipated for the above reasons, this facility is not considered to meet long term elementary or middle school enrollment growth of the district. DISTRICT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENTS Not all of the elementary school districts currently operate their facilities under the same.grade level configurations. Oakley and Brentwood are the only districts that operate all facilities under the preferred grade level configuration; elementary school grade levels K-5 and middle school grade levels 6-8. Byron splits grade levels between facilities as an interim measure while new facilities are built and/or a funding resource to build new facilities can be established. Knightsen has one school facility and serves grade levels K-8. Brentwood is planning to split grade levels next year as an interim measure. East County School District Facility Plan . 6 ._ TABLE I lists current enrollments and optimum capacities for each school district. The optimum capacity is that capacity established by the Board of Education based on their policies. The last column lists the difference between current enrollment and optimum capacity. A number in parenthesis identifies a school district with a larger student enrollment than facility optimum capacity. In these cases, enrollments are accommodated in portable classrooms making the school size larger than the school district's Board of Education set as policy. For the purpose of this report, enrollments and facility capacities will be modified to match preferred grade level configurations. For this reason, the same school name may be listed as accommodating elementary and middle school enrollments (i.e. Byron Elementary School). Student capacity for Byron's Discovery Bay Elementary School includes new classrooms expected to be constructed by December, 1995. East County School District Facility Plan 7 :. TABLE I SCHOOL CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENT 1994/95 1994/95 Enrollment Capacity Difference Elementary K 5 -. Brentwood Union Brentwood Elem./Garin/ 1,589 1,650 61 Ron Nunn Byron Union Byron/Discovery Bay 597 625 28 Knightsen Elementary Dist. Knightsen 220 213 (7) Oakley Union Gehringer/Laurel/ 2,618 2,400 (218) OakleyNintage Middle fi 8 Brentwood Union Edna Hill 716 600 (116) Byron Union 285 225 (60) Byron Knightsen Elementary Dist. Knightsen 108 120 12 Oakley Union O'Hara 1,048 800 (248) Senor High Liberty Union Liberty 2,387 1,800 (587) East County School District Facility Plan 8 As can be seen in Table 1, Brentwood, Byron, Oakley and Liberty have a significant student enrollment housed in portable classrooms. Liberty, Byron and Brentwood have new facilities under construction to help relieve overcrowding conditions. ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS Students From New Development As stated previously, new residential development within these districts is prescribed by the County Board of Supervisors and the Brentwood City Council. The City of Brentwood's General Plan identifies a significant amount of new housing being planned. New residential developments are conditioned to form a Capital Improvement Financing Program (CIFP) to develop the infrastructure serving the community needs (i.e., sewer and roads). The CIFP does not include school facilities. An Assessment District that includes the units to be developed becomes the financing tool to achieve the goals of the CIFP. The City has two CIFP's; CIFP 92-1 (aka CIFP 88-1)estimated to have 1,651 units remaining to be built, based on Brentwood School District's Facility Plan, and CIFP 94-1 planned for 5,203 units. There are 1,383 units in CIFP 94-1 that are planned for elderly housing. Contra Costa County Community Development Department, in an August 1994 memorandum, identified 5,953 residential units in developments that either have final or tentative map approvals. Nearly all of these units are within the Oakley School District boundary. Because they have these approvals, these developments are obligated to pay only the State mandated $1.72 per square foot Developer Impact Fee. The same report listed 9,082 non-senior residential units in developments that have pending applications. Of these developments, 473 units are located within Oakley's boundary, 1,110 units within Knightsen's, 6000 units within Brentwood's, and 1,499 units are within Byron's boundary. It should be noted that since the County's document was produced, 570 units listed as having pending applications were granted approval by the Board of Supervisors. The two largest pending developments are Discovery Bay East County School District Facility Plan 9 West (2,000 units) and Cowell Foundation (6,000). If conditioned to do so by the Board of Supervisors and Brentwood's City Council,these project and future projects should fully mitigate their adverse impact on school facilities. z TABLE II illustrates the projected new residential units per school district based on the County's Memorandum and the City of Brentwood's CIFP 92-1 and 94-1. In addition, 868 units have been identified by Brentwood's General Plan Land Use as being possible within Knightsen's boundary. Based on the County's and City's General Plan, more units are possible than what is shown in Table II. East County School District Facility Plan 10 TABLE II PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Brentwood CIFP 92-1 1,651 single family units* CIFP 94-1 3,524 single family units Cowell Foundation 296 multi-family units 6,000 mixed units TOTAL 11,471 units Byron Discovery Bay 345 single family units Discovery Bay West 1,402 single family units Centex 397 single family units TOTAL 2,144 units Knightsen Discovery Bay West 535 single family units Brentwood (General Plan) 868 single family units Sandmound Developers 575 single family units TOTAL 1,978 Units Oakley Contra Costa County Memo. 5,781 single family units TOTAL 5,781 Units Liberty . All areas 21,374 Units TOTAL 21,374 Units * Based on Brentwood School District's Facility Plan East County School District Facility Plan �l Student Yields Student yield rates represent the average number of students generated by newly constructed homes. The yield rates that were derived for the previous facility plans still appear to be valid and therefore continue to be used based on a Building Industry Association survey. These yields are illustrated in TABLE III as follows: TABLE III STUDENT YIELDS Single Family Multi Fanuiy Grade Level StudehfYield Student'Yield Elementary (K-5) 0.35 0.35 Middle (6-8) 0.15 0.14 High School (9-12) 0.19 0.09 TOTAL 0.69 0.58 The statewide average student yield is 0.70 for each new single family home. Growth From New Residential Development Utilizing the student yields described in Table III the estimated student enrollment can be determined for each school district by grade level grouping. TABLE IV illustrates these calculations. East County School District Facility Plan 12 TABLE IV PROJECTED NEW DEVELOPMENT AND NEW STUDENTS Elementary (K-5) Brentwood New single family units 11,175 New multi family units 296 New students4,015 Byron New single family units 2,144 New Swdents 750 Knightsen New single family units 1,978 New Students fi92 Oakley New single family units 5,781 New Students 2;023 Middle (6-8) Brentwood New single family units 11,175 New Multi family units 296 New Students 1;'717 Byron New single family units 2,144 New Students 322 East County School District Facility Plan 13 Knightsen New single family units 1,978 New Students .297 Oakley New single family units 5,781 flew students 867 Senior High Liberty New single family units 21,078 New multi family units 296 I�1ew students 4, 32 East County School District Facility Plan 14 TABLE V illustrates the enrollment summary by school district. TABLE V ENROLLMENT SLWMARY BY DISTRICT .Students Brentwood Elementary (K-5) 4,015 Middle (6-8) 1,717 TOTAL 5,732 Byron Elementary (K-5) 750 Middle (6-8) 322 TOTAL 11072 Knightsen Elementary (K-5) 692 Middle (6-8) 297 TOTAL 989 Oakley EIementary (K-5) 2,023 Middle (6-8) 867 TOTAL 2,$90 Liberty TOTAL 4,032 East County School District Facility Plan 1 S TABLE VI illustrates the east county enrollment summary. TABLE VI EAST COUNTY ENROLLMENT SUMMARY Students Elementary (K-5) 7,480 Middle (6-8) 3,203 SUBTOTAL 10,683 Senior High (9-12) 4,032 TOTAL 149715 NEW FACILITY NEEDS School facilities are analyzed for each district at each grade level configuration to determine availability of classroom space, or available capacity for new students entering the district. Any excess capacity, after students from the existing housing stock have been accommodated can then .be utilized to house those students generated by new housing. TABLES VII-M illustrate each district's enrollment growth compared to capacity. East County School District Facility Plan 16 TABLE V11 BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) students students Enrollment Capacity (adjusted for fifth grade) 1,650 600 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 1,589 716 Available Capacity 61 (116) Available Capacity for New Housing 61 0 Projected Growth From New Housing 4,015 1,717 Unhoused Students From New Housing 3,954 1,717 TABLE VIII BYRON UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) Students Students Enrollment Capacity (adjusted for fifth grade) 625 225 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 597 285 Available Capacity 28 (60) Available Capacity for New Housing 28 0 Projected Growth From New Housing 750 322 Unhoused Students From New Housing 722 322 East County School District Facility Plan 17 e TABLE IX KNIGHTSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) Students Students Enrollment Capacity (adjusted for fifth grade) 213 120 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 220 108 Available Capacity (7) 12 Available Capacity for New Housing 0 12 Projected Growth From New Housing 692 297 Unhoused Students From New Housing 692 285 TABLE X OAKLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY and MIDDLE GRADE ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Elementary Middle (K-5) (6-8) Students Students Enrollment Capacity 2,400 800 1994/95 Enrollment (adjusted for fifth grade) 2,618 1,048 Available Capacity (218) (248) Available Capacity for New Housing 0 0 Projected Growth From New Housing 2,023 867 Unhoused Students From New Housing 2,023 867 East County School District Facility Plan 18 TABLE XI LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SENIOR HIGH ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND CAPACITY Enrollment Capacity 1,800 students 1994/95 Enrollment 2,387 students Available Capacity" (587) students Available Capacity for New Housing 0 students Projected Growth From New Housing 4,032 students Unhoused Students From New Housing 4,032 students Based on the above tables the need for new school facilities is a direct result of new residential development. New school facilities that are needed for each school district based on residential development illustrated in this report, assuming no other properties develop, are shown on TABLE XII. New school enrollment capacities are established at 600 student elementary, a 800 student middle school, and 2,200 student senior high school. TABLE XII NEW SCHOOL NEEDS BRENTWOOD UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 3,954 Unhoused_students 6.59 schools 600 Student School L e (6-8) 1,717 Unhoused students 2.15 schools 800 Student School East County School District Facility Plan BYRON UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 722 Unhoused students 1.20 schools 600 Student School Middle (6-8) 322 Unhoused students 0.40 schools 800 Student School KNIGHTSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 692 Unhoused students 1.15 schools 600 Student School Middle (6-8) 285 Unhoused students 0.36 schools 800 Student School OAKLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary (K-5) 2,023 Unhoused students 3.37 schools 600 Student School Middle (6-8) 867 Unhoused students 1.08 schools 800 Student School East County School District Facility Plan =- 2U _•= ;Y _ `,'' LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Senior High 4,032 Unhoused students 1.83 schools 2,200 Student School Brentwood's General Plan allows for more residential development than what this report identifies. Additional new residential development is anticipated in the county as well. Therefore, the new facilities calculated in this report will not meet the need for the school districts at buildout of the City's or County's General Plan. More facilities will be needed. ELEMENTARY FACILITY COSTS School costs are estimated based on State Department of Education and Office of Local Assistance standards. Estimated elementary costs, including land, are in TABLE XIII. Detailed estimates of these costs are in the attachments of this report. TABLE XIII ELEMENTARY FACILITY COSTS Elementary $9,189,617 Cost per Student $15,316 Cost per Unit $5,361 Middle $13,683,542 Cost per Student $17,104 Cost per Unit $2,566 Not included in these costs are interim housing costs. These costs are estimated at$180 per unit per grade level school division. East County School District Facility Plan 21 Based on the above costs, a Summary of Facilities Costs per elementary school district are depicted in TABLE XIV. TABLE XIV ELEMENTARY FACILITY COST SUMMIARY Costs Brentwood Elementary $60,559,576 Middle $29,419,615 SUBTOTAL $8999799191 Byron Elementary $11,027,540 Middle $5,473,417 SUBTOTAL $16,5009957 Knightsen Elementary $10,568,060 Middle $4,926,075 SUBTOTAL $1594949135 Oakley Elementary $30,969,009 Middle $14,778,225 SUBTOTAL $4597479234 GRAND TOTAL $167,721,517 Not included in these costs are interim housing costs. These costs are estimated at$180 per unit per grade level school division. East Counhy School District Facility Plan 22 SECONDARY FACILITY COSTS As stated previously, Liberty's second high school is under construction. Construction of Phase II of this facility is funded by a.General Obligation Bond. This phase will house 1,600 students including some of the current enrollment and future enrollment generated by new residential development. A funding source for Phase III has not been established. Phase III will house 600 additional students. Therefore, a portion of the future facility needs for Liberty have been funded by the General Obligation Bond. The portion of future facility needs that have not been funded is Phase III of school number two and all of school number three. TABLE XV illustrates the estimated facility costs for Phase III school number two and all of school number three including interim housing costs. TABLE XV ESTIMATED LIBERTY FACILITY COSTS Phase III of School #2 $12,703,152 Interim Housing $ 1,308,800 School #3 $52,785,555 Support Facilities $ 3,000,000 TOTAL $69,797,507 The capacity of Phase III school number two and all of school number three equals 2,800 students. Based on Liberty's student yield of 0.19 it would take 14,737 housing units to generate 2,800 students (2,800 capacity divided by 0.19). Based on the total facility cost of $69,797,507 the cost per unit is $4,737 ($69,797,507 divided by 14,737 housing units). East County School District Facility Plan 23 FUNDING SOURCES State Funding Building Programs: The State Building Program still exists, however, its basic resource is the passage of State-wide General Obligation Bonds by a majority voter approval. Although these ballots have been successful in the past, they have not passed by a comfortable margin. Additionally, the amount of the bonds does not meet, or is it believed that they will ever meet, the funding need across the State for new facilities. The State has established a policy as to what district is approved for funding over other school districts. They have determined that no school district will be granted State funding unless they meet these policies. One policy is that the school district implement Multi-Track Year-Round enrollment schedules to limit the need for additional facilities. Additionally, the school district must be severely overcrowded in order to qualify. State assistance for funding new facilities in the future is uncertain. Since 1984, school districts received a small percentage of revenue collected from the California State Lottery Act, however this revenue cannot be used for capital improvements such as the construction of school buildings. Local Funding Developer Fees: In September 1986, Assembly Bill 2926 (Chapter 887/Statutes 1986) was signed into law granting school district's governing boards the authority to impose developer fees. This authority is codified in Government Code Section 53080 which states in part "... the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement against any development project for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities." The original fee was established at $1.50 per square foot on residential construction and $0.25 per square foot on commercial construction. The current allowable fee is $1.72 per square foot on residential construction and $0.28 per square foot on commercial development. East County School District Facility Plan 24 In order for school districts to levy the Developer Fees, a school district must establish a connection, or nexus, between new development and the need for new schools. Developer Fees can only be imposed on new development to mitigate the adverse impact that development will have on the school district's facilities. A Developer Fee can not be imposed to mitigate the adverse impact the existing housing stock will have on the school district's facilities. Developer Fees, even though a significant funding resource, are insufficient to cover the cost of new school facilities associated with new development. Developer Fees generally cover approximately 26% - 36% of the funding need for new school facilities. Mello-Roos: Another source of funding mentioned earlier in this section is a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. A Mello-Roos is a tax assessed on homeowners, much like a property tax, for financing specific improvements such as the construction of a school. A Mello- Roos requires a two-thirds voter approval for passage. Since the voters are often the land developers within the proposed Mello-Roos District, if approved the tax is placed on the housing lot prior to the homeowner purchasing the property. It is believed that a home within a Mello- Roos District is less marketable compared to a home within the same community that does not have a Mello-Roos tax. For this reason, many land developers are not willing to establish a Mello-Roos District for school facilities on their property. General Obligation Bonds: School districts are now able to place local bond measures, General Obligation Bonds, on local ballot elections for the construction of school facilities. If successful, a tax would be collected on the property tax assessment for all properties within the school district. These measures require a two-thirds voter approval. In many cases a local bond measure can not be large enough to fund the entire need of the school district based on the assessed value of the properties within the District and the outstanding bond obligations. Additionally,the passage of a local bond measure is difficult due to the economic constraints of the taxpayer. East County School District Facility Plan 25 Asset Management: Asset management is another funding source. Asset management consists of a school district either selling, leasing, or joint venturing surplus school property. In the ideal environment, developing an asset management plan would provide the school district with a long term revenue source. .In reality, most surplus school sites are not located in the appropriate areas of a City or County with land use designations that allow for equitable lease agreements. Due to school sites being located in residential neighborhoods, commercial activities are not allowed. Residential development of the site is often the highest and best alternative. Redevelopment: Redevelopment Agencies are created by Cities and Counties to improve blighted areas of the community. A Redevelopment Agency fixes property taxes and land values within a specific boundary at a level established by a base year. As time passes, that fixed amount is distributed to various agencies under a normal tax distribution formula plan. As property values increase, and therefore taxes, the difference between the fixed tax and the real tax is utilized to pay bonds that were issued by the Agency to make improvements in the blighted areas. Redevelopment Agency, by law, is obligated to fully mitigate any adverse impact it causes, including impacts to a school district. School districts, if successful in establishing an adverse impact, can receive funds collected by the Agency for construction of schools, equipment, or other capital improvements through pass through agreements. Certificates of Participation: School districts have the option of participating in a Certificates of Participation (COP) which is a form of lease financing. The Certificates can be used for construction and equipment. The Certificates are secured by the district's revenue sources and include: General Fund Developer Fees Developer Agreements Special Funds Investment Income Redevelopment Funds Lease Revenue Parcel Tax East County School District Facility Plan 26 Since a COP is secured by funding sources that in time may diminish, the school district's General Fund is the underlying security for the COP. Mitigation Payment: Absent of any previously described funding programs, or in combination with, a Mitigation Payment per residential unit is an option to fund new school facilities. This would be a fee paid at issuance of a building permit providing the school district with that residential unit's funding share for school facilities. These payments may not be collected in a timely manner to construct new schools when they are needed. CONCLUSION All five school districts are or will in the future realize a need for additional school facilities as a result of new residential development. The timing of this development is uncertain and is a function of the market place. This report only identifies development that has approval or is in the process of gaining approval, except for 868 units located in Knightsen based on a mid-range development potential on the City of Brentwood's General Plan. More development will occur other than what this report identifies. All of the school districts have impacted facilities with little or no room for additional students. Any excess available capacity can easily be used by enrollment growth from the existing housing stock. This report is conservative in that it allows new residential development access to this excess capacity, lowering the need for new facilities created by new residential development. All of the school districts need new facilities to meet their future enrollments except for Knightsen and Byron. Based on the general findings,of this report, Knightsen and Byron would only need to expand their middle schools in some manner since the amount of development described in this report does not generate enough students for a new middle school. There are two fundamental difficulties in this conclusion. First,there will be more residential development built within these district boundaries than what this report identifies. Therefore, there will be more elementary, middle, and high school aged children generated than the amounts shown East County School District Facility Plan 27 requiring additional facilities, beyond expansion of existing facilities. Both of the "existing" middle schools are small, old, and located on limited acres of land not sufficient for expansion or for a middle school program. Knightsen's facility is located adjacent to an active railroad. The State Department of Education would not approve a school site, based on today's standards, adjacent to a railroad for student safety reasons. For these reasons, the existing facilities should be utilized as interim housing facilities until such time a new facility can be built. Knightsen does not currently have a site for a new facility. Byron has a property for such a facility. There is no known source of funds for remaining construction of the Oakley high school or for high school number three. RECOM ENDATION It is the recommendation of this report that the school districts participate in forming Community Facilities Districts to develop a funding mechanism to fund construction of new school facilities as needed. This can be accomplished either by a combination of fees, Mitigation Payments or taxes charged on new residential construction based on each district's cash flow requirements in relation to students generated and related school facilities mitigation amounts. The findings in this report support the following base payments per unit: East County School District Facility Plan 28 Elementary School Districts: Elementary Schools Grades K-5 Cost of Facilities $5,361 Cost of Interim Housing, Support Facilities S 180 SUBTOTAL $5,541 Middle Schools Grades 6-8 Cost of Facilities $2,566 Cost of Interim Housing, Support Facilities 180 SUBTOTAL $2,746 TOTAL ELEMENTARY MITIGATION $ 8,287 Secondary School District: Cost of Facilities Including Interim Housing, Support Facilities $4,737 TOTAL SECONDARY MITIGATION $ 4.737 TOTAL MITIGATION PER UNIT $13,024 East County School District Facility Plan 29 ATTACHMENTS 600 Student Elementary School 800 Student Middle School Phase III High School Number Two _ High School Number Three East County School District Facility Plan 30 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 600 Student Elementary,School A. SITE 1. Purchase price of property $ 800000 i I $ 5 000 2. Appraisals , p►PP 3. Surveys $10,000 00 4. Geotechnical Report $10,000 5. EIR/CEQA $5,00 ... 1 0 000 '< »< `>`> > `:>> ` > > .. 6. Other Costs(flood fees) $ 5 ::..:.....:::.......... .. ..{.........:.:.. SITE SUBTOTAL $980,000 •:#:a B. PLANS 1. Architect's fee for plans $425,509 2. ORS plan check fee $33298 3. CDE plan check fee $2,843 .. 5 000 4. Preliminarytest $ 5. Other $25, 000 ` `>``><>' >`> ... PLANS SUBTOTAL $491,650 C CONSTRUCTION TR CTIO N 1. Utility services $500,000 2. Off-site development $200,000 3. On-site development, service $ 200 000 4. On-site development,general $600,000 <» 5. New construction $4,485,838 838 6. Technology. $366,265 ,.:, ..� 7. Unconventional energy $209,2 >..:<.1 8. Other r $ 0 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $6,661,395 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $85,288 E. INSPECTION $85,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $313,070 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $154,661 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $8,771,064 H. CONTINGENCIES $418,553 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $9,189,617 COST PER STUDENT $15,316 COST PER DWELLING UNIT(35 SYF) $5,361 1-C1 ; SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 800 Student Middle School A. SITE 1 r f property $1,600,000 1. Purchase rice o $ P 2. Appraisals $ 5 000 UN 1 0 000 3. S es $ , i 4. GeotechnicalReport $10,000 5. EIR/CEQA $5,000 6. Other Costs(flood fees) $30 ..:::.:...::.:.::.........:........:..................... SITE SUBTOTAL $1,930,000 B. PLANS 1. Architect's fee for plans $596,701 2. ORS Ian check fee $47,582 4 2 3 plan checkfee $4 3. CDE a P 5 000 ><>`>>s>' >>>>` 4. Preliminarytest $ ;;.;..:.., > > 25 000 5. Other $ .::::::::.::::.::::::.:.................................... PLANS SUBTOTAL $678,526 C. CONSTRUCTION 1. Utilityservices $600,000 2 000 2. Off-site development $200,000 <> <" `<>`> <>`«'<> ><>`: > < > 3. On-site development, service $200,000 0 4. On-site development,general $750,00 .. 5. New construction $6,936,691 .. 6. Technology $529,412 <'> 7. Unconventional energy $336,835 o:a 8. Other so ................ CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $9,552,938 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $127,300 E. INSPECTION $98,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $467,647 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $187,058 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $13,041,469 H. CONTINGENCIES $642,073 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $13,683,542 COST PER STUDENT $17,104 COST PER DWELLING UNIT(15 SYF) $2,566 vo SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 600 Student Phase III Second School A. SITE 1. Purchase price f r arc ase c o 0 0 2. Appraisals $0 3. Surveys 0 4. Geotechnical Re rt so $ 6. Other Costs flood fees 0 » »>```' '><' ><sts SITE SUBTOTAL $0 B. PLANS laps 1. Architect s fee for564 662 P $ , R plan check fee 2. ORS a c e 859 P $44 3. CDE Ian check fee $3,9761» 4. Preliminary test 0 5. Other 15 000 PLANS SUBTOTAL $628,497 T C. CONSTRUCTION 1. till ry services $ 2. Off-sitement v I P $ 3. On-site devIoP ment service $8 8 500 4. On-site development, general $512,757 New construction 5 e con tract o s $8,823,950 �..'> .<�''> `` >> ' ><>`»>`>' ><'>> 6. Technology $433,498 7. Unconventional ever 23 6 000 s>> > >>>`» >>>' < >` 9Y $ <`> > > ::::. 8. Other $112,000 >><>>? >> > »<.. i>= CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $10,206,705 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $119,291 E. INSPECTION $132,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $602,201 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $170,000 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $11,858,694 H. CONTINGENCIES $844,458 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $12,703,152 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATE COST SCHOOL PROJECT NAME: 2,200 student High School (Third School A. SITE ti/ 7 is?.4:::i• :r ii? •;:'iii::;"+:::iii}ii:rii::i: v'::i:i::�::::� 1. Purchase price of property $2,335,097 2. Appraisals $3. Surveys $0 !:i�a yic :ia1 ii iX???•i::ii:bY^:di:•X 4. Geotechnical echnicai Report $0 a 5. ElR10EQA $0 6. Other Costs(flood fees) $0 SITE SUBTOTAL $2,335,097 B. PLANS 1. Architect's fee for plans $2,144,729 !an check fee $189,235 2. ORS `° ..:............. .... 3. CDE plan check fee $17,2441. 4. Preliminary test $O ::;,isi::i'ii>::.:.i:.>:?;i>::>::;>::.;:.;;:?:>:»;:>:»»:: : 5. Other $88,250 '? PLANS SUBTOTAL $2,419,458 C. CONSTRUCTION 1 5 000 ilservices $ 0 1. Utility U 2. Off-site development $2 50, 00 0 ` 3. On-site development, service $2,491,218 49 1, 18 } 4. On-site development,nt general $2,060,566 060, 56 6 5. New construction $31,117,781 6. Technology $2,440,490 7. Unconventional energy $916,000 .�;;;;r.;;.;;;;:;•,:;?,,;>:.;:.iii:;?.;;;;:::>::; ;::»:<::;:i::i::;:; $ 51 4 000 s B. Other , CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $39,895,055 D. TEST CONSTRUCTION $517,306 E. INSPECTION $429,000 F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $1,860,071 G. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $750,000 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH G $48,205,987 H. CONTINGENCIES $4,579,568 TOTAL: ITEMS A THROUGH H $52,785,555