HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03111986 - X.16 (2) TO: '490ARD OF SUPERVISORS X ��
Contra
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson
COSta
DATE: March 11 , 1986 County
SUBJECT: SCHOOL FEES - SB 201
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECQMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED!' ACTION: Refer to County Counsel and to the Community
Development Department to review the court ruling sited below and our
own SB 201 fee "policy and then consider revising our school fee
structure to give school districts the option to use the money for
permanent facilities.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: It has come to my attention recently
that a unanimous decision of the California Supereme Court reversed
the court of appeals and affirmed that a fee charged by San Diego
County on behalf of local school districts was legal. The statute on
201 fees does not conflict with the ability of a local county to
impose the fee for the proper provision of this important
infrastructure. The fee is justified under county authority granted
by the Subdivision Map Act.
I have longcontended that the SB 201 process is illogical and
irrational in many aspects yet we have not been able to obtain
legislative reform. It has forced the school districts in the eastern
part of the county to invest money in interim facilities sometimes in
effect wasting the funds.
I urge the Board and our departments to consider revising our fee
structure to allow school districts the option to use the money
collected from current levies on new construction for permanent
facilities. I envision -that we would maintain a parallel - or similar
process as the 1201 guidelines require for justifying and demonstrating
the need for a certain level of fees to finance a certain specific set
of needed schoo'l facilities.
We would simply be providing an option which is now apparently
ours to utilize under the law to allow the school districts to spend
this money on permanent facilities rather than on portables. It is
clear that in facing the need to build a new junior highschool or
certain specialized technical classrooms at the high school level
(such as science classrooms) that portable facilities are either
non-existent or are not a wise investment.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY,ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF/BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE
OTHER
a
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 11, 1986 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
_X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I & III > I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: ^ AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County AdministratI •or ATTESTED O_AA // l q 9'i"G
County Counsel PH 8&heFor_,1Te_r1,e1 me Boam
Community Development Director SYper*mAAdCmatyAGmWrdK.
M382/7-e3 BY �� DEPUTY
` Y
r
SCHOOL FEES - SB 201
March 11, 1986
Page TWO
Even in elementary schools the question of building a cafeteria
or a set of appropriate administrative offices for the core facilities
of a school cannot be efficiently addressed by portable buildings and
temporary buildings in my opinion. This matter should be reviewed in
the context of our East County School Facilities Master Plan.
I am forwarding a copy of this recommendation to each of the East
County school districts for their opinion as well as to the Building
Industries Association which has followed this matter carefully over
the years.
TT:gro
( \PEI\SCHFEES.PEI)
I.
�r
I