HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-03; City Council; 5452-3; School Fee OrdinanceCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO. 5452 Supplement No. 3 Initial:
Dept.Hd.DATE: October 3, 1978 C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT: City Manager . C. Mgr. J\_
Subject:.^SB 201 - School Fee Ordinance
Consideration of Establishing School Fees for New Developments
Statement of the Matter
Chapter 21.55 of the City Code becomes effective November 3, 1978.
Its purpose is to implement SB 201 which provides for fees and/or
land dedication in connection with new residential developments.
The school districts which have declared overcrowding in attendance
areas which are within the Carlsbad City boundaries and hav.e-isubmitted
recommendations on fees.
Exhibit
Memo to City Council from City Manager dated September 29, 1978
San Dieguito Union High School District Policy 7100/School Fees,
dated September 29, 1978.
Encinitas Union School District School Fee Policy dated February 21, 1978
•
San Marcos Unified School District School Fee Policy dated May 1, 1978.
Recommendation
That the Council set the matter to a work study session on October 10,
1978 and indicate any additional information wanted from the staff
or school districts.
Council Action: • ,
10-3-78 The matter was continued to the Adjourned Regular Meeting to
be held October 10, 1978, at 7:00 P.M.
10-10-78 Council di rected--the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
documents implementing school fees as set forth in the Agenda
Bill #5452 - Supplement #3. In addition, Council agreed that
the fee documents specifically provide that agreements entered
into between school districts and de.velopers prior to this
document will be honored in full.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1978
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT: SCHOOL FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Under City Ordinance No. 9505, which becomes effective
November 3, 1978 and implements Senate Bill 201 for school
districts which have attendance areas within the Carlsbad
City boundaries, have declared conditions of overcrowding
and forwarded to the City Council for consideration,
recommendations on the establishment of school fees for
new residential development.
In summary, the districts and the recommended fees are as
follows:
San Dieguito Unified High School District
Single or multiple family, 3 or more bedrooms or
equivalent rooms. $2,145
Single or multiple family, 2 bedrooms or
equivalent rooms. $ 931
Multi-family homes, 1 bedroom or equivalent rooms. $ 347
Encinitas Union School District
Per bedroom or like room. $ 400
San Marcos Unified School District
Single family dwelling unit, per bedroom to a $ 221
maximum of $664 per dwelling unit.
Attached dwelling units each bedroom. $ 104
The City of Vista has adopted a fee policy. That fee policy
is based on zoning considerations rather than directly on the
number of units or the number of bedrooms in a residential unit
and cannot be readily converted to the City of Carlsbad zoning.
The only areas affected by the Vista Unified School District
in the City of Carlsbad are the Palomar Airport Road racetrack,
portions of Calavera Hills open space, and SquiresDam. It is
not anticipated that any residential development will occur in
the near future.
SAN DIEGUITO
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 • 714-753-6491
September 29, 1978
Carlsbad City Council
Mr. Ronald C. Packard, Mayor
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Packard:
Attached please find a Resolution adopted by the San Dieguito Board of Trustees
regarding conditions of overcrowding in school attendance areas in the District.
Enrollment in the San Dieguito District has increased over 90% during the past
ten years and is expected to continue into the immediate future. The Board has
moved to accommodate this growth by a combination of permanent and portable/
temporary facilities that have been provided during that time.
Voters approved a bond issue in 1971 that provided a second high school in the
District as well as significant additions and renovation to the only other high
school in the District. Since 1972 the Board has encouraged developer contributions
to help offset the cost of providing facilities for students generated from new
housing developments. The District has added forty-four (44) temporary buildings
over a ten year period that have been utilized to supplement the permanent facilities
on each of the District's four school sites. The eighteen portable buildings
purchased since 1974 are being financed by contributions from developers.
In spite of the addition of new permanent and portable facilities, enrollment growth
in the District has continued to outstrip the District's ability to provide adequate
facilities. After a thorough evaluation of future facility needs last year, the
Board determined in December 1977 that placing additional portable buildings at
sites throughout the District would place an undue strain on permanent core facilities.
The Trustees modified the developer contribution schedule basing the rate on the
estimated cost of providing permanent facilities on existing school sites. Factors
taken into consideration when setting the schedule included:
1. The per student costs of constructing junior and senior high schools under a State
formula provided by the Office of Local Assistance
2. The number of students generated from new housing developments within the San
Dieguito Union High School District
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: William F. Howell Ann P. Senslbaugti R. Garry Shirts Don W. Mitchell David H. Thompson
President Vice President Clerk
ADMINISTRATION: William A. Berrier, Robert A. Morton, John J. Daily,
Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Business Manager
Letter to Carlsbad City Council
September 29 , 1978 - Page 2
3. Capacity at each campus in the San Dieguito Union High School District
Attached is a copy of the Board's Resolution along with Board policy and background
information on school construction costs. I will be pleased to provide additional
information upon request.
Sincerely,
William A. Berrier
Superintendent
bfs
cc: Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager
Attachments
RESOLUTION-RE: CONDlTlONf c OVERCROWDING '-
Itf SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAb
On motion of Member Thompson , seconded by Member
Shirts . , the following resolution is adopted:
WHEREAS, for some time past there has been a continuing and substantial
increase in population within the boundaries of the San Diequito Union High
School District to the extent that the school facilities of this district have
become overcrowded; and
WHEREAS, a very significant proportion of the increase in population in this
district results from construction of residential units in new housing develop-
ments within the district; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of assistance in the form of financial contributions
or dedications of land from the developers of such new residential developments
this district would not have financial resources adequate to provide proper ed-
ucational facilities for all the children residing in this district; and „ < •
WHEREAS, Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970; added by Stats. 1977,
Chap. 955), Division 1, Title 7 to the Government Code making provision for
financial or other assistance by developers to school districts if the governing
board of a school district has made a finding that conditions of overcrowding
exist in one or more attendance areas of the district including the specific
data specified in Government Code Section 65971; NOW THEREFORE
IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that, pursuant to Government Code Section
65971, this governing board makes the following findings:
'— "'•'**
(1) Conditions of overcrowding exist in the following attendance areas :
°^ the San Dieguito.Union High School District which will impair
the normal functioning of educational programs in'those areas:
San Dieguito High School - Grades 9-12
Torrey Pines High School - Grades 9-12 .
Oak Crest Junior High School - Grades 7-8
Earl Warren Junior High School - Grades 7-8 •. •' - ' . . .
(2) Reasons for the conditions of overcrowding in the above-mentioned
attendance areas include the following:
CURRENT CURRENT CAPACITY
• ENROLLMENT PERMANENT AND PORTABLE
San Dieguito High School 1943 ; 178.5
Torrey Pines High School 1955 ' 1734
Oak Crest Junior High School 950 "983
Earl Warren Junior High School 630 ,832
In addition to the students presently enrolled, the -County or the responsible
city has approved numerous developments in each of the above named attendance areas
that have potential for further impacting District schools. The annual increase
in student population has averaged approximately 4% per year over the past four years
and this rate is expected to continue in the immediate future. The students currently
enrolled, combined with those anticipated from new developments already approved, has
suited in an overcrowded condition at each of the schools listed above.
(3) All reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been
evaluated and no feasible method for reducing such conditions exists. Mitigation
measures considered by the governing board of this district to reduce the overcrowded
conditions include the following:
a) The District has entered into agreements with developers who have
contributed financial assistance toward the cost of providing temporary use buildings.
Other temporary buildings have been financed out of the District's general fund so
that each site contains a mix of temporary and permanent facilities.
b) District voters approved a bond measure that provided the first phase
of a new high school in 1974 that is seriously overcrowded in spite of the addition
of sixteen (16) portable classrooms at that site since the fall of 1975.
4
c) Student busing and boundary realignments are not feasible alternatives
at the high school level since both of the District's two comprehensive high schools
are overcrowded. These alternatives have been considered at the junior high level;
however, those campuses are projected to exceed capacity prior to the completion of
developments that have already received approval from the appropriate governmental
body.
d) Such alternatives as year-round operation and double sessions have been
examined by committees of parents and staff, but have been rejected due to what is
"^nsidered to be a negative impact on the instructional program.
e) The District has no "surplus" real property or "low priority school
facilities", therefore this is not a feasible alternative for increasing school
capacity.
f) Following a comprehensive study by a "Facilities Committee", the Board,
on June 1, 1978, identified the facilities required to keep pace with District growth.
One new junior high school was called for.plus additional permanent facilities on
each of the District's four existing campuses. Passage of Proposition 13 has made
it impossible to finance new school construction through bond issues that are repaid
by a tax on property.
Additional temporary buildings on the sites identified above would put a severe strain
on existing core facilities, thereby necessitating an expansion of permanent buildings
at both the high school and junior high level. Expansion of permanent facilities
appears to be the only logical alternative available to mitigate current conditions
of overcrowding.
(4) The conditions of overcrowding in this district and the explosive population
growth projected for this area can only be accommodated by the construction of new
permanent facilities. The use of temporary use buildings/relocatable structures
to accommodate future growth in the District has been exhausted. Support by developers
in the form of financial contributions or dedications of land is necessary in order
to try to keep abreast of population growth and even with such assistance, any sign-
"~ricant reduction in the conditions of overcrowding will be difficult until sufficient
funds can be generated to provide additional permanent classroom buildings.
BE IT. FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Secretary of this Board deliver
irtified copies of this resolution to the city councils and/or the Board of Super-
visors of all cities and County within whose boundaries the school district lies
together with copies of this District's policy on the subject of developers',
subdivides , and builders' contributions to mitigate impact on school facilities
to indicate the type and scale of assistance considered appropriate to meet theneeds of this district.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board of the San Dieguito Union High School
District of San Diego County, California, this 28th day of September
1978. ~
_ 'ClA/VM Q fc/A>g ^^^%Z?J?
of Jzfie Governing BoardSan^Dieguito Union Highof
Scfnool District.
NEW CONSTRUCTION . 7100
3110^-
c
Avail ability of Facilities
It is the goal of the San Dieguito Union High School District Board of Trustees to
provide the best possible learning environment for-all- of,the students who live
within the boundaries of the San Dieguito Union High School District.
Hopefully the District patrons and registered voters will continue to support the
school district through the authorization of bonds for the construction of permanent
school facilities, however rapid growth within the District may require alternative
solutions to the school housing problems on an interim basis. During this period,
temporary classrooms along wi.th other solutions will be utilized to the maximum
extent the District has the financial resources to devote to this end in order to
avoid the requirement to operate on double sessions. The Administration and Board '
of Trustees will explore every legally available avenue to secure such funds, and/or
financial assistance to provide the space needed to maintain a quality educational
program.
Because a high quality educational program benefits not only students and the
community but also benefits land developers and builders by facilitating the sale
of their homes, it shall be the policy of the Board to include property developers
and builders within the class of persons from whom financial and ctner contributions
will be vigorously solicited. .
* •
s It will be the policy of the Board of Trustees, within the legal limits of its
Q discretion, to extend cooperation'to developers and builders who assist the District
in the task of providing interim measures to maintain the high quality of the
educational program and such cooperation shall be in the same measure as the
assistance provided by the developer. .
The Superintendent is authorized to prepare administrative regulations that will
(a) provide guidelines for determining the availability of school facilities to meet
• the needs of the projected enrollment and (b) identify the level of developer support
required to mitigate conditions of overcrowding in District schools. Among the
factors to be considered are:
1. The availability of school facilities to accommodate the projected
enrollment.
2. The anticipated impact of proposed development on school enrollment.
3. The timing and certainty of the developer's building plans'.
*
4.' The type of school facility needed when conditions of overcrowding exist.
5. The provisions of local building ordinances with regard to residential
development.
Policy Adopted: December 1, 1977 (effective 12/2/77) 1/1
3110/AR-l
Availability of Facilities
I. Facility Capacity "
The following factors will be considered in determining-the availability of
facilities to meet the needs of the projected student population:
A. Projected Enrollment • . .
The administration will project the enrollment for each campus for the
• .'."'.- .." following school year by the beginning of the second semester. The -.. -. . ^;.^;
•'..""". ••'' projections will take into consideration such factors as: ;- :: " : 3"
1. Enrollment in the feeder elementary districts. . : ' v.:
2. Current enrollment at the secondary level. . ! - -."
3. Projected enrollees as as a result of new residential units.plahned
for each attendance area. . •' . . . .. .
- B. Current Capacity . ' •'" . ' ••"./''. -,." - ' •; ;-. • ..-• /* -V;;:.
.The capacity of each campus is determined by the number of students who :~^.~v^v
may be served by the existing facilities.. The following factors will be .:: "
taken into consideration in determining the capacity of a given campus: ' ":-.
- 1. Number of teaching stations in permanent facilities. ; : o •'-:""'-::'-^
2. Number of teaching stations in temporary facilities. . . .'•;
...... _3. The staffing'pattern and level of educational program offered ' '
-- at the school site. . . . . . ...-. , \--r
C. Maximum Capacity . . '• - . . .v' ' '. ;•':,;•
Maximum capacity is deemed to be the greatest number of students who can
be provided a quality educational program and school environment on a
conventional time schedule. The administration will monitor plant capacity •
.,.- annually and make recommendations to the Board with regard to maximum student
. '.--I-'; ^-.enrollment consistent w.ith a proper learning environment. . ; .;
II. School Availability ;-/''- :'.. :" V- ' -V' v-y .::..-';..
Facilities will be determined to be available at a particular school site if one
of the following circumstances exist: .
• - A. t Current capacity will accommodate the projected enrollment. .";-":: •""- ""-
B. Plant capacity is modified to accommodate the projected enrollment by a •
procedure acceptable to the Board of Trustees. .
t . - . ' • . .If the projected enrollment for the school is greater than the current capacity
but does not exceed the maximum considered acceptable by the Board of Trustees
to maintain a proper learning environment, interim steps are possible with
developer or other assistance to increase plant capacity.
' '• •' -•• ' • • • •-...'• •" •-•.'"' • -.'.' •
Administrative Regulation Issued: December 1, 1977 {effective 12/2/77) 1/2 .
. Revised:
r
c
NEW CONSTRUCTION „ ;- 7100/AR-1<~
. 3110/AR-l
III.'" Cooperation with Governmental Agency Responsible for Residential Development
The administration is to evaluate the impact of each proposed subdivision,
rezone, or special use permit, to determine the impact that will occur on
the District's ability to provide adequate school services and facilities
for area students. .
A. Sufficient Capacity - If it can be determined that the capacity of
the particular school is sufficient to accommodate the projected '..''_
enrollment, a letter of availability will be provided to the appropriate
- •; governmental agency. ' "• .- . - . -
• B. Insufficient Capacity - If it is determined that adequate services and ">
•'".••• facilities will not be available to serve the students projected from -"»;
• the proposed subdivision, rezone, or special use permit, the adminis- .. ;tration will so notify the appropriate governmental agency. -
.. IV. Increasing Enrollment Capacity ;. ... . .:
. The administration shall explore with developers and others, interim measures
• . to mitigate projected overcrowded conditions in District schools. Developers
shall be encouraged to assist the school district to accommodate students .
projected from new developments through such efforts as the donation of land : "
for school sites or through financial contributions for facilities.
Plant capacity will be considered adequate when the developer has entered into
a secured agreement with the District to provide assistance acceptable to the
Board of Trustees. When such conditions exist, the administration shall provide
a letter of availability to the appropriate governmental agency. .
V,,1 Monitoring System for Developer Contributions . -.
Any monies that accrue to the District as a result of agreements with developers
shall be placed in a special reserve fund for use in mitigating'overcrowded . ' ••:conditions in District schools. A report shall be filed with the appropriate ,.,
governmental agency that will account for the funds on an annual basis. . T ..- . :
Administrative Regulation Issued: December 1, 1977 (effective 12/2/77) 2/2
Revised:
- • - ATTACHMENT A
• 7100
3110
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
STUDENT HOUSING CAPACITY - FALL 1978
I. 9-12 High Schools - Regular Schedule
The capacity of a senior high school plant is calculated on a space utilization
factor of approximately 85% of the teaching stations at 30 students each. The
ability to fully utilize available instructional space depends on such factors
as properly balanced classes and a class size average close to the maximum.
1. San Dieguito currently has 70 teaching stations including six physical
education classes.
70 x 30 = 2100 x 85% = 1785
2. Torrey Pines has 68 teaching stations including six physical education , •
classes (includes lecture hall and I.A. room)
68 x 30 = 2040 x 85% - 1734
II. 7-8 Junior Highs - Regular Schedule
The c&nacity of a junior high plant is normally calculated on a utilization
factor of 90% with 28 students per teaching station.
— 1. Earl Warren now has 33 teaching stations.
33 x 28 = 924 x 90% = 832
2. Oak Crest now has 39 teaching stations.
39 x 28 = 1092 x 90% =983
III. Exceeding Capacity - It is possible to exceed projected capacity at both the
high school or junior high level by such procedures as:
A. Schedule modification - extending the school day to permit more
students to take advantage of specialized facilities such as shops
and laboratories.
B. Facility modification - utilization of space not specifically
designed for instructional pruposes, i.e., faculty lounges, storage
areas, etc.
While both procedures have been utilized to increase plant capacity, they do
not provide an optimum learning environment for students.
1/1
• • ~ ~ ATTACHMENT B: ' 7100
3110
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
SUGGESTED DEVELOPER FINANCIAL AIDE FORMULA
J. ESTIMATED COST OF PERMANENT FACILITIES/STATE-WIDE '
The State Department of General Services, Office of Local Assistance, provides
a formula for support of school building programs in districts eligible for
State assistance. This formula identifies an allowable base cost per square
foot for different types of buildings-at the high school and junior high level.
Although San Dieguito Union High School District is not eligible for this
assistance, the formula provides a guide for determining the cost of constructing
permanent buildings under the State aid formula..
In a report to the Legislature in 1975-76, the per pupil costs of constructing
permanent facilities was listed at $4,743 per pupil for high school and $3,390
for junior high. It is estimated that construction costs have increased .
between one and two percent per month during the two year period since'the
report was issued. Therefore, the estimated per pupil cost of providing
permanent school facilities is:
1% per month increase 2% per month increase
High School 54,738 x 124% = $5,875 High School 54,7^8 x 148% = $7,012
Junior High 3,390 x 124% = $4,204 - Junior High 3,3?0 x 148% = $5,017
II. ESTIMATED COST OF PERMANENT FACILITIES/SAN DIEGUITO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
The most current State aid formula has been applied to the actual buildings in
phase I and to those planned for construction during phase II at Torrey Pines
High School. An estimate has been made for providing a complete facility for
approximately 2,000 students including site work, furnishings, and fees. Similar
criteria was developed for 7-8 junior highs developed around the requirements of
an existing campus in the San Dieguito Union High School District. The cost of
.land is excluded from the cost estimates for providing facilities at both the
S,tate and local level.
The estimated cost of construction tabulated on a per pupil basis is as follows:
High School - $6,401
Junior High 4,544
III, ESTIMATED STUDENTS PER DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING TYPE Grades 7-8 Grades 9-12 Grades 7-12
Single or Multi-Family, 3 or more bedrooms
or equivalent rooms • .12 .25 .37
Single or Multi-Family Homes, 2 bedrooms
or equivalent rooms .05 .11 .16.
Multi-Family Homes, 1 bedroom or equivalent
room .02 .04 .06
1/2
IV. COST PER DWELLING UNIT
r<\CHMENT B
7100
3110
DWELLING TYPE
Single or Multi-Family,
3 or more bedrooms or
equivalent rooms
Single or Multi-Family Homes,
2 bedrooms or equivalent
rooms
Multi-Family Homes, 1
bedroom or equivalent room
PUPIL
7-8 GENERATION
FACTOR
$4,544
4,544
4,544
.12
.05
.02
TOTAL PUPIL TOTAL TOTAL
7-8 9-12 GENERATION 9-12 7-12
$545
227
91
$6401
6401i
1 6401iI:
(. FACTOR ,i
.25
•11
.04
$1600
704
256
$2145
931
347
I
2/2
HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS MODEL
2000 STUDENTS
ENR INDEX 2666.4
15 November 1977
I. BUILDINGS
A. Academic
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Science
Math
English
Language
Social Studies
Business
Library
Lecture
Toilets
Offices
Circulation
Subtotal
B. Administration
1. Complete
C. Vocational
1. Metal/Wood/Auto/
Drafting/Other
D. Art/Homemaking
1. Arts/Crafts
2. Homemaking
3. Subtotal
12,500 S.
9,000
12,600
200
300
7
12
7,800
,600
,500
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
S.F
16,200 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
3,
1,-
6,700 S.F.
10,400 S.F.
99.800 S.F.
7,600 S.F.
19,000 S.F.
6,000 S.F.
5.500 S.F.
11,500 S.F.
E. Physical Education (no stadium, no pool)
1. Gym/Aux. Gym
2. Shower/Locker
3. Subtotal
$ 64.28*
37.26*
37.26*
37.26*
37.26*
43.11*
43.88*
40.91*
106.72*
46.75*
35.40*
46.75*
40.57*
39.03*
47.41*
$ 803,500.
335,340.
469,476.
268,272.
458,298.
336,258.
710,856.
147,276.
160,080.
313,225.
368,160.
$3,576,185.
$355,300.
$770,830.
$234,180.
260,755.
$494,935.
26,800 S.F.
11,500 S.F.
38,300 S.F.
38.37*
52.26*
$1,028,316.
600,990.
$1,629,306.
Allowable Base Schedule for San Diego
HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS MODEL
2000 STUDENTS
ENR INDEX 2666.4
15 November 1977
page two
F. Food Services
1. Kitchen/Service
2. Shelter
3. Subtotal
G. Misc.
1. Student Center
2. Lockers
3. Storage/Custodian
4. Subtotal
H. Performing Arts Center
1. Theater Seating/
500/Stage/T.V.
Production
2. Band/Choral/
Storage/Offices
3. Toilets
4. Subtotal
4,000 S.F.
4,000 S.F.
8.000 S.F.
2,000 S.F.
6,000 S.F.
5,000 S.F.
13,000 S.F.
22,500 S.F.
6,000 S.F.
1,500 S.F.
30.000 S.F.
60.53*
14.11*
40.91*
14.11*
35.40*
242,120.
56,440.
$298.560.
81,820.
84,660.
177,000.
$343,480.
46.53* 1,046,925.
42.78* 256,680.
106.72* 160.808.
1,463.685.
TOTAL BUILDINGS 227.200 S.F.i.932.281
HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS MODEL
2000 STUDENTS
ENR INDEX 2666.4
15 November 1977
page three
II. SITE
A. Parking/Streets/800 cars 364,000 S.F. @ 90<fr/SF 327,600.
B. Concrete Walks/Paving 130,000 S.F. @ 1.45/SF 188,500.
C. Site Utilities L.S. 135,000.
D. Grading/Drainage L.S. 260,000.
E. Fields
1. PE Fields 12.85 acres @ 60$ 322,779.
2. Football 110,000 S.F. @ 1.25 140,000.
3. Track (400 meters) L.S. 45,000.
4. Fencing L.S. 36,000.
5. Misc. L.S. 40,000.
6. Subtotal 583,779.
F. Landscaping L.S. 240,000
G. Misc. 40.000.
H. Total Site 1.774,879.
III. OFF-SITE
A. Off-Site (Unknown) L.S. 320,000.
IV. FEES/TESTING/PERMITS/INSPECTION 8% 882,173.
V. FURNISHINGS @ 10% building cost 893,229.
VI. LAND - not included
VII. TOTAL CAMPUS COST $12.802,562.
(excluding land)
COST/STUDENT $ 6,401.
JR. HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS MODEL
1000 STUDENTS
ENR INDEX 2666.4
15 November 1977
I. BUILDINGS
1. General Classrooms 26,000
2. Library/Media Center 4,600
3. Homemaking 1,860 S.F.
4. Shops 2,100 S.F.
5. Multi-purpose
6. Kitchen
7. Shower/Locker
8. Administration/Teacher
9. Storage
10. Toilets
11. Janitor
12. Mech/Equip/Misc.
13. Circulation 18,000 S.F.
TOTAL BUILDINGS 73,660 S.F.
3,
2,
5,
2
2
2
000
000
200
800
000
800
900
2,400
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
40.57*
43.88*
47.41*
40.57*
38.37*
60.53*
52.26*
46.75*
35.40*
106.72*
35.40*
35.40*
25.50
1,054,820.
201,848.
88,183.
85,197.
115,110.
121,060.
271,752.
130,900.
70,800.
298,816.
31,860.
84,960.
459,000.
$3,014,306.
*OLA Allowable Base Schedule for San Diego
JR. HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS MODEL
1000 STUDENTS
ENR INDEX 2666.4
15 November 1977
page two
II. SITE
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
1. Parking/Streets
2. Walks/Pavement
3. Site Utilities
4. Grading & Drainage
5. Fields
a. PE Fields 1
b. - Football
c. Fencing/Backstops
d. Track
e. Misc.
6. Landscaping
7. Total Site
Off -site
Fees/Testing/Inspection @ 8%
30,000 S.F.
14,500 S.F.
76,441
80,576
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
Furnishings @ 10% building cost
Land, not included
Total
a. Total cost (not including
b. Cost per student
land)
@ 90* 27,000.
1.45 21,025.
L.S. 85,000.
L.S. 150,000.
@ 60* 105,865.
1.25 100,720.
20,000.
35,000.
22,000.
175,000.
741,610.
175,000.
298,000.
315,000.
-0-
$4,543,916.
$ 4,544.
o
o
ENCINIT. UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRIt
5.1 Consider recommendation pertaining to developers' fees.
BACKGROUND:
At the Board Meeting held February 7, 1978 the Superintendent
recommended that a Developer Fee Schedule be developed at the
rate of $400.00 per bedroom.
The Board asked whether the basis for this fee was the cost of
portables or the cost of permanent facilities. At the time the
recommendation was made it was made on the basis of information
given by the high school district and was on a cost of portable
classrooms.
Since that time, the Superintendent has reviewed SB 201 and is
of the opinion that the cost of taking care of mitigating cir-
cumstances, caused by overcrowded conditions, can be raised only
on a one-time basis. Furthermore, it is determined, using the
Flora Vista School as a basis, that the cost of permanent
facilities would be approximately 3 million dollars; that is,
$2,250,000 for the school facility and approximately $750,000
for the site.
The school should be built for approximately 600 students or
768 students on the year-round basis. At the rate of 3 million
dollars divided by 768 students, we find that the cost per child
is $3,904. The generation factor of homes currently in the San
Dleguito area is .34 per home. If you multiply the .34 times
•$3,904, you discover that the cost per unit is $1,328. If you
divide the $1,328 by 3, which is the average number of bedrooms
per house, it comes to $443.00 per bedroom.
We consider this to be a fair and reasonable amount to charge per
bedroom. The Superintendent realizes that the initial request
was for $400.00 per bedroom and would recommend that the $400.00
remain. We do have a number of houses that have four and five
bedrooms and this would offset the difference of $43.00 making
it a much easier package to recommend.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Superintendent recommends the following motion.
RESOLUTION;
Be it resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Encinitas Union
School District that the Developers' Fees under Senate Bill 201
for the Encinitas Union School District be set at the rate of
$400.00 per bedroom or like room, or the school district may
accept land for construction of the school facility in lieu of
fees providing that the land value is equal to an amount that
would be generated at the rate of $400.00 per bedroom or like room.
Agenda Item 5.1
February 21, 1978
.an marcos unified school district
270 san marcos boulevard
san marcos, California 92069
' ; phone (714) 744-4776
May 1, 1978
TO: Mrs. Porter D. Cremans
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego
FROM: James C. Ketcherside
Assistant Superintendent
San Marcos Unified School District
RATIONALE FOR FEE SCHEDULE FOR INTERIM FACILITIES/S.B. 201
It is assumed that in a period,of three years from the issuance of building
permits, the district would be able to obtain financing, plan and build
permanent facilities to house students generated by a new housing develop-
ment. Based upon this assumption, a three year lease of a standard sized
classroom with appurtenant costs including installation and return, site
preparation, utilities, engineering, walkways, furniture and equipment is
used as the basis for the fee schedule. The total cost for a classroom and
attached costs is $24,310 at the present time.
The district contract with the teaching personnel calls for a maximum average
class size of 31. This has been the practice in the district for some time.
Using 31 students per classroom as a divisor, the cost per student is $784.
It is assumed that this fee schedule will be in force for approximately
one year. The inflation rate in the construction industry is running }%
per month. Best indications at this point is that this rate will increase
in the near future. A modest 10% inflation factor is included.
The student generation factors computed by the San Diego Department of
Education for the San Marcos Unified School District are 0.77 students per
'dwelling unit in single family dwellings and 0.24 for attached dwelling
units (apartments, condominiums, etc.). Accordingly the cost to house the
students generated per dwelling unit becomes $664 for single family units
and $207 for attached units.
It is assumed that the average single family dwelling unit in San Marcos has
three bedrooms, so the cost per bedroom becomes $221. ($664 per dwelling
unit f 3 bedrooms per dwelling unit). It is assumed that the average attached
dwelling unit has two bedrooms, so the cost per bedroom is $104. The reason
for assessing the fee on a per bedroom basis is that the number of bedrooms
has some positive relation to the number of children in the family.
In some cases it is impossible to determine the number of bedrooms at the
time the fee is assessed. This would be true in a lot split or a sub-
division of land, other than a housing tract, in a jurisdiction that assesses
the fee at the time of tentative or final tract'or parcel map approval even
though the fee is not collected until building permits are issued. This
would not be a problem in a jurisdiction that assesses the fee at the time
building permits are issued.
It is assumed that a lot split or land subdivision will result in single
family residences as apartment houses or condominiums generally require
larger lots. The fee assessed, therefore, for lot splits or land subdivisions
where the number of bedrooms is not known is the fee for a single family
residence C$664) per lot.
Copy: Carlsbad City Council
Escondido City Council
San Marcos City Council
Vista City Council
san marcos unified school district
270 san marcos boulevard
san marcos, California 92069
phone (714) 744-4776
FEE SCHEDULE FOR INTERIM FACILITIES/S. B. 201
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
April 4, 1978
3 year lease (low quote - 24'x 38' relocatable)
Sales tax
'Installation and return
Site preparation, utilities, engineering, walkways
Furniture and equipment
31 students per classroom
•, plus 10% inflation
Total cost per student
$13,500
810
3,500
4,000
2,500
$24,310 per classroom
784 per student
78
$ 862
FEE SCHEDULE . '
1. Single Family Dwelling Units (0.77 student generation factor per D. U. =
$664 per D.U.)
Each bedroom = $221 to a maximum of $664 per dwelling unit.
2. Attached Dwelling Units (0.24 student generation factor = $207 per D.U.)
Each bedroom =$104 .
.3. Lot splits and land subdivisions where no building permit is involved
Per lot = $664
4. Retirement homes, convalescent hospitals, industrial, commercial and
professional
No fee
DIST. ~~Council and staff
Info only
LRCDStR
EXECUTIVE OFFICES September 13, 1978
Mr. William A. Berrier
Superintendent of Schools
San Diegurto Union High School District
2151 Newcastle
Cardiff, California 92007
Dear Bill:
Since the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will soon be required to establish
school fees in the area of La Costa in the San Dieguito School District, I thought
it would be a good idea to attempt to obtain some facts concerning the existing
situation which will help all of us in the forthcoming discussions.
In existing La Costa, i.e. the area where lots have actually been constructed, we
have a situation where there is a potential of about 409 single family homes and
1,216 multiple units. Of the single family homes, we have an agreement with the
High School District for 158 single family units but none for the multiple units.
In addition to the above, we have an agreement with the District for a Santa Fe
Knolls project (210 units) which have not yet been built.
It should be understood by all concerned that most of the single family and multiple
dwelling units that will be built in existing La Costa will be by individuals or small
builders. Very few of the existing lots are still owned by La Costa. OF the 499
vacant single family lots in existing La Costa, only 110 units (Cannon Park) will be
constructed by a major builder. OF the 1,216 multiple units, it appears that 96 will
be built by the La Costa Lend Company in the resort area and 200 by Shape!! in Vale 11.
Thus, it appears that about 920 of the multiple units will be built by smaller builders
or individuals. (Note attached material.)
We are aware that we should again proceed with negotiations as to a method by which
your school district could obtain the high school site in La Costa. However, we should
both understand that it is impractical to use existing La Costa as a basis for negotiations
since La Costa Land Company does not own most of the property.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA/AND COMPANY~>r~4
cc: Planning Dept., City of Carlsbad Fred J. M6rey
Messrs. Roston, Zenoff, Kramer Vice President
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNI£-92OO8 • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE -*38-9111oc/ flu.
HIGH SCHOOL SITUATION IN EXISTING LA COSTA ~
SOUTH OF GOLF COURSE
(SAN DIEGUITO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT)
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Much of the existing La Costa was developed before 1974. There were no high school
fee agreements until 1974. Therefore, all vacant lots will be required to make school
fee payments at building permit time under new State law and City of Carlsbad ordinance.
The amount of the fees is yet to be established by the City.
Below is described the situation, by area, in existing La Costa:
Resort Area - Potential of 96 studio or one bedroom condominium units. New City
ordinance will require payment of school fees at rate to be established by City Council.
Green Valley Knolls - Covered by a 1975 school agreement requiring payment at building
permit stage of $75 per one bedroom unit, $201 for two bedroom unit, and $377 for three
bedrooms or more. Dwelling units in this subdivision are practically completed - only 8
lots left. Assume that previous school agreement will cover this project. Whether new
ordinance supercedes this agreement should be reviewed.
Spanish Village 1 - Covered by a set 1974 agreement which provides for $350 a unit
payment at building permit stage. About 40 units are not yet started.
La Canada - 7 multiple lots left (none now owned by La Costa). Perhaps 70-100 units
could be built here. No previous contract.
All land south of La Costa Ave. except Santa Fe Glens (none now owned by La Costa).
About 225 more single family and duplex lots. Also 11 more multiple lots with a possibility
of 250 more dwelling units.
Land north of La Costa Ave. - west of Canon Park - No school agreements. 40 single
family units left to be started. 57 multiple lots, with about 570 potential dwelling units
left to be started.
Santa Fe Glens - Built under a 1975 school agreement. All built up.
CaTion Park - Built under a 1976 school agreement similar to Green Valley Knolls.
About 110 units not yet started.
Vale II - No school agreement. 17 multiple lots. Probably 200 multiple units to be
built (by Shapell Industries). Fee will be whatever is established by City of Carlsbad.
Vale III - No school agreement. About 76 single family lots yet to be built on. Fee
will be whatever is established by City.
Vale IV - Built under a 1976 school agreement. All built up.
Situation outside of existing La Costa:
Santa Fe Knolls - Phase 1 - 210 dwelling units. This project has not yet been built.
However, would be covered by a school agreement with the High School District,
with the same unit payments as described under Green Valley Knolls above.
No other La Costa tentative maps in San Dieguito District.
SUMMARY
Existing La Costa (plus Santa Fe Knolls - Phase I) San Dieguito High School District
Estimated Number of Dwelling Units Covered by New School Fee Ordinance:
No Previous Agreement
Single Family Multiple *
Resort - 96
La Canada - 100
South of La Costa Avenue 225 250
North of La Costa Avenue 40 570
Vale || - 200
Vale III 76 -_
Sub-Total 341 1,216
Previous Agreement
Green Valley Knolls 8
SP Village I 40
Canon Park 110 -
Sub-Total 158 1,216
^Outside of Existing(Previous Agreement Extsts)
Santa Fe Knolls 210
Grand Total 709 1,216
Multiples will probably be a combination of studio and 1 & 2 bedrooms, with
3 bedrooms the exception.
-2-
COMMENT
In considering the above, both the School District and the City Council should
realize that fees when established will be paid by a large number of individual
lot owners, plus large home building companies (Vale II and Canon Park). The
La Costa Land Co. will be affected with regard to fees for the resort condominiums,
some 45 lots in Vale III, and the 210 lots in Santa Fe Knolls — even in these cases
the fees will be passed on to individual and group buyers.
-3-
October 107 1978
LRCQStfl
To: City Council
City of Carlsbad
From; La Costa Land Company
Subject; Senate Bill 201 - School Fees
You have previously adopted an ordinance consistent with Senate Bill 201 - School
Fee Law - and are now in the process of determining the fees to be established in
the San Marcos and San Dieguito/Encinitas school districts. Since the school districts
involved operate in areas of the City in and around the La Costa Master Plan develop-
ment, it would seem appropriate for us to submit significant comments.
You should be aware that any school fees that are adopted rfthis time will not signifi-
cantly directly affect our company. The reason for this is that most of the developed
land in the La Costa area has been sold to others both individuals and corporations.
Insofar as our company's relationship with the school districts is concerned, SB 201
will probably involve the future land agreements rather than the payment of fees.
We do feel it appropriate that we express our concern for those persons that have pur-
chased our property. In addition we are very concerned as to precedence that may be
established by your discussions and actions.
Before directly commenting on the school districts' proposed fees, we think it appropriate
that we discuss school construction financing in general terms.
Until recently, school facilities have been provided through -
a) General Obligation Bond Issues - Since Genera! Obligation Bond Issues are
paid for through t!ra property tax, ail property, industrial, commercial, agricultural
and residential, has paid for the facilities.
While the ratio varies from district to district, in general terms, the payment through
tax on residences has borne a minority of the costs.
b) State and Federal Grants - whenever facilities are provided in this way, the costs
are borne by the general tax payer without relationship to the property tax.
c) State Loans and Current Property Taxes - schools have been built through long-
term state loans reimbursed from local property taxes and through the use of current
property taxes.
(Continued)
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92OOS • AREA CODE 714 - TELEPHON E -S3S - 9111
To: City of Carlsbad City Council Page ~2-
October 10, 1978
In recent- years, because of the failure of bond issues in rapidly developing areas, school
districts have, working with various local governments, obtained fees from developers through
extra legal arrangements with cities and counties. Generally speaking, the amount of these
fees has related somewhat to the provision of interim facilities.
Our observation is that because the fees were kept moderate that the question of equity was
not addressed in the past. The tendency has been for developers to add these fees to other
costs involved in development.
The passage of Proposition 13 has eliminated what has been the traditional source of school
financing, that it, the General Obligation Bond Issue. There is no question in our mind, but
that among other things that the legislature is going to have to face, in relationship to
Proposition 13, the establishment of a new method of financing school facility construction.
If the legislature were to determine that school facilities should be paid by new residences
as they are build, it would shift the cost of school facilities from commercial, industrial and
agricultural, and unimproved land to the home owner. We would question whether this would
be a constitutional provision. If It were constitutional, it would then seem reasonable to
charge the entire cost of eduction to home owners. This would be completely inconsistent
with the traditions of "free" eduction.
We believe that the factors discussed above were considered by the state legislature when it
passed Senate Bill 201.
It does appear that it might be considered reasonable to have fees paid for interim purposes,
that is, until permanent facilities can be provided. As indicated above, we point out that
after Proposition 13 the State wi II have to determine how permanent school facilities can
be provided.
All of the discussion above has been general in nature. We would now like to address the
specific fees suggested by the school districts.
In our opinion, the San Marcos School District proposal which provides for fees of $221.00 for
one bedroom, $442.00 for two bedrooms, $664.00 for three bedrooms single family houses and
something less than that for multiple houses, is based on the need for interim facilities and
insofar as we are concerned, are reasonable and acceptable. You should understand that for
our future subdivisions we will be negotiating with San Marcos to convey land in lieu of fees.
We believe that is the desire of the district.
Insofar as the San Dieguito/Enci nitas combined fees are concerned, which appear to be
$777.00 for one bedrooms, $1,731 for two bedrooms, $3,345 for three bedrooms, and $3,745
for four bedrooms, we believe these to be completely and admittedly inconsistent with the
terms of Senate Bill 201.
(Continued)
To: City of Carlsbad City Council Page -3-
October 10, 1978
It is obvious that the proposals indicate an attempt to have residential construction pay for
the entire cost of school facilities which, as indicated above, we believe to be unconstitutional,
inequitable and inconsistent with the California tradition of "free" education.
We hasten to add that we are as concerned as anyone else with the problems of the school
districts in a rapdily developing area. We have worked in the past with these districts and
intend to work with them in the future in terms of providing appropriate sites in our Master
Plan development.
We remind you that the San Dieguito Union High School District will be responsible for the
provision of junior and senior high school education in the City of San Diego's North City West.
I am sure that you are well aware of the very well publlsized differences of opinion in regard
to that development. The district, of course, is concerned as to how facilities wil! be pro-
vided in that area. We are persuaded that the San Dieguito district's proposals to you are
related to that district's concern with North City West.
We note that both the County and City of San Diego have so far accepted the San Dieguito
and Encinitas school districts' proposals insofar as fees are concerned. We are persuaded that
in both instances the governing bodies have failed to follow the provisions of SB 201. We would
suspect that if the County and City of San Diego continue to follow this practice that their
actions will be tested in court or made moot by new state legislation.
We will not attempt to comment on the method by which San Dieguito and Encinitas school
districts attempt to justify their fees, since we believe they started out on some erroneous
assumptions. We do suggest that child generation estimates may be appropriate for use in
estimating future total school population, but certainly not appropriate for use in determining
school fees. Establishing school facility fees by the number of bedrooms and child generation
factors is only one step away from determining school taxes by the number of children in a
family.
One of our big concerns in this overall issue is that behind all of this is a continuous impli-
cation that unless new homes pay all governmental costs that they must be subsidized by
present residents. We are, of course, persuaded that in general terms, governmental facilities
have been and should be paid for, as they have in the past, by all kinds of property in an area,
not just residences.
Because of this concern and because of the implications of San Dieguito/Encinitas proposals,
we decided to do an in-depth review of the costs that have been levied to home owners for
school facilities since 1950/51 in the Encinitas and San Dieguito school districts.
Attached, as Exhibit A and B, are tables showing the total estimated taxes paid for school
facilities by houses valued at $144,000 and $80,000 in 1977/78 by year of construction.
(Continued)
To: City of Carlsbad City Council Page -4-
October 10, 1978
Interestingly, we estimate that a house valued at $144,000 in 1977/78 would have been valued
at $21,830 in 1950/51 and that a house now valued at $80,000, would have been valued at
$12, 127 in 1950/51.
In any event, our studies show that a house built in the Encinitas/San Dieguito school areas in
1950/51 and worth $144,000 at present, by the year 1977/78 had paid a total of $1,778 for
high school and elementary school facilities. A house now worth $80,000 and built in 1950/51
has paid about $989.00 for high school and elementary school facilities.
Another example would be that a house built in 1971/72 now worth $144,000 has paid $573
and a house built' in 1971/72 and now worth $80,000 has paid $318.00 in school fees.
It is interesting to note that a house built during the recent period of school fees may have
already paid far in excess of those houses built 10 to 15 years ago.
We have a considerable volume of information backing up the attached Exhibits and we would
be glad to have it reviewed by City or school authorities.
We certainly think that the facts demonstrate some of our previous statements concerning the
way school facilities have really Lsen financed and the inequities which would exist if present
proposals are adopted. .
As a final statement, we remind you that new construction, residences, commercial and industrial,
will have the affect of continuing to reduce the property taxes of all persons in the districts.
This is because, in addition to the 1% limitation imposed by Proposition 13, there will be an
additional property tax levied for voter approved bond issues. Obviously, increases in the
assessed valuation will reduce this over 1% tax rate.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Fred J. Morey '
Vice President - Governmental Re lotions
FJM/eem
Enclosures
T SC.M
ruMUc.AT'V£ PAVHS.NTS huH£-SCHOOL Co NVT RUcTtpN
1
DW.£JLU-AJ&r-
VALUS
D \Efru! TO
TAfA COLU^CrgQ
_ttOh"t£__
YE.A^
J.AX5LS_£?s.'J5._
&ACM
SLO.U.S
PAO-V ve^fl.
E-M ci N i •
A«£ -••_
EACH HOMfr
J.OTA.1.
SCMOOt-
L.A n v
K «6-H- "SC HOC
!5b
2|3
Ii3o ro\
^sicj
i\/t
1«Z.
I.
^li/!?t
-!5!3 25 '2J3 l5 *i5!«S 11 25
2 21-f 55
ZlS Vi/i?i
z1/
•^-v5i:" !•*> -l"Ji?i-?!-- ;'?Slo IS • :o
- 60
^3 !2iJ £,N?35
315 o;o:^I i
54 :/o .iz;*-28
Ho #!o
OJO
14
!&;</>;0
33 213 !2i/
•//»LI
?fr^^!/I i6!5;J
£0
53
^T!Z
'Sl
3<7' i^
sMs fl<
3-5
#$
'ii:•3
45
-&?
'!?b
3.SJC
3iS!6
i
ds!i
12;?
J2J!
3;?:?3
i 3m:
^ / '^->;/ J
i '?!£. 3 i
3|6 v'r'K
15
s(J:_»
53
.13
\S&
o-
-\?L
-$\3
\SWVL
\l'?
&k
Z^i/j5
!3i2.3:3
3;0|5
63
m:
57I3
Sl2!V
76
i??
)Hk ':9
-^
2Ml
0:0-0
b!5
>3!7.
ojO
/iz!<
2!5!3
5 J
^h
Vblai
/ 0-011
?!t
113
V3U-S ' i
OVA .MlVipi
A
-.
i*5}W £|p-'U&
ifcih, uJ
0
4N
CvVl|
.re 'ii'd^vV^
IAI;'f c
ii-te-VK
>^;0g,Sj T^rinr tjw
ii^"ins|4sf
! | I M . •
frarTT^s
I
dlk.
I j)
1
M-
"Ctt- J_l fifr;
1 i
5tLi
ojf
liqasc;
U~
! !l i
I >55T
^^c
45-SOS EYE-EASE«.7OS ao/ao BU.
Q
UN'ON SCHOOL £MC
HOUSE VALUeO AT >n
ANNUAL TOTAL PAVM SKITS
C
j~T50 ~HOME SCHOO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
'7
. *j
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
"?6
38
39
40
FISCAL
50-
Sl-
51-
53-
5"4-
*5 -
s&-
5?-
£S-
•??-
4,0-
61 '
6Z-
63-
6^-
t5-
£6-
67 J
&&-
67-
70-
7/-
12-
73-
7</~
53"-
76-
??-
51
SZ
53
54
55
SC.
57
59
5?
40
(o\
£,2.
£3
M
45
•6t
67-
£8
69
TO
77
i*Z
7J
/V
73
7Z
77
75
DULLING-
UNIT VALU€
(2.OUNOED ^
^
•
-.
,
i
!
^ sVio
Vn \i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1
3
3
y
5
£,
?
g
f
*•(
21
23
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
v
v
V
5
7
f
/
3
5
7
9
3
5
«j?
/
0
?
&
7
7
6
5
V
3
2
3
3
¥
i
i
5
5
6
6
&
7
S
4
?
u
,
^ s hdvJ?.
P0<~ t
-ta>ie.d
life*
Noi«: T^x
157,
;
I
1
S
0
J
f
1C
•7
2
I
V
5
?
/
4
V
3
0
/
3
y
&
7-
/
6
0
H
&*
z
7
/
5
9
6
0
5
0
s
0
(e
§
0
2.
6
b
a
o
3
7
f
^'2
S
2
7
/
5
9
o
.• i
'•" •-'••• 1 — --J-5AN Olf6OIT*
TAX CaULEClJO
EACH j-ione
£ACH V£AR
!
,
t
! : '
?6
0 c,o
c
1
e
4,e i
-cu4
«>•
«,s
'
T~
rn
t 1
i
^
^I
1
J
1
1
1
/
1
j
2
2
2
j
/
/
i
;
3
y
3
3
2
Y
3
j
f
Z
3
/
<3
0
(i
O
5
Ha
/l6
/3
2
2
0
3
?
S
\i\i
2.5
f is
i' ' 1!
! '
J c
Jt
\ f
Va
'4
cur
TirfL
i
£
i
^' ' \" "
-&L.G11
«=?IR
t >c
i'4*1
2'
»-
nr
A
,c
c
^K>!
i
t^M^tAT^?
TAXES PAID
*
y
V
-y
V
V
3
5-
3
B
?
3
J
2
Z
2
Z
z
;
/
/
/
i
i
3
3
2
/
O
$
?
to
y
3
2
0
*
O
7
y
/
3
o
7
5
y
8
f
0
g
5
y
y v
2
/
f
7-
fo
V
3
2
?
7
' /^j *'
|l
^^/>,4
j
rv\
)QC
^v LSttVibc
"i]
o'
3^1
in
c
/
,1
00^
^ -f*
o ip
H^b<[-fvi
^
'c
f
^
0
5
7
1.
b
e
=\j
r>
6,
0
/
6
0
^
/
2
7
2
7
5
3
L«
31
pc
J
S
.-H
^a
^Jo
he
-fo
SVi<
reu'
TAX COLLEClEO
6ACH HO MS
EACH MEAR
i
V
fe
^
A
•<fl
^
.1
Z
1
1
1
2
/
2
/
3
2
2
2
j
/
/
/
3
2
/
2
6=
5
L
0
5
3
3
0
5
2
3
2
/
0
V
?
?
7
y
/
2
9
?
/a
.53
22
2.0
2
C C
t
1 ;
sui-s
0
s
d)
_j£iOrn^3le.'
CoiTiS"frui
E.NCINITAS
TAX&S PA>S
£/\CH HOME
-<
n<
c*
^>Scli «J55:1
^Pip
-i
n
I
>v
>(.
i<
)C
*
iC
>*-
<>
O
--I
5
S
S
5
5
5
y
V
v
y
v
^
3
3
3
3
i
z
2
2
2
/
/
/
/
e.
_f
>
d
Li
v
^
3
f
0
?
7
5
5
/
0
7
S
3
0
?
7
5
2
6
/
5
5
0
7
V
V
9
7
V
2
/
/
f
0
1
V
Vjo
0
8"
6
V
2
g
5
2
9
s
\r
_C
e~-
i
7
9
0
2
y
6
S
U—*•
y
Oc
^LQ*
10V
T
Pti
t
en
u
K
— 5^=^~
"AU Bo MQ
; CQLW5CJSD
H4 SCHOOL,
AMD
EL£NEN1Ri»;
O
f
S
na
T r
u,
D
,
i
\
LS
[[ T | -
J.iSC;r ASS
-. --
2-
11
d |
I
BJ,E' ' — i ur~
ds^'
||
^9
i
i
3
2
3
2
J
2
3
8
y
3
a
5
?-
•>>
<„
9
5
V
</
4
3
3
3
4
^j
I
5
^Y
5
Z.
Q
7
3
3
1
0
-7
5
?
7_
S
T,
^z
i5 3
5(s
€
K1
i
<2.C
M^<
J
S
ei
5.
L
^
[d
J«d
jj
Ifr
n
id
s
,nr
V
id
8
CcIMU
Hl&H
:6
U*^Tive
SCHOOL
TAXS-S PAIES*'
•i if
i T
.7
$
0
6
itJY
_jf/_
i 03
216
?S
go
j y* y
?
| L
|
i
4
4
5
5"
5
V
«/
V
3
3
i
/
5
/
7
3
0
h
3
0
5
/
z|f
2 5
! 1
'i5
/O
5
j
l
>o-e
ir
41!-
e-
LL«
c
4
TT
IS,
1
i
i..^j
9
0
1
3
S"
*i
5
2,
6
?
2
7
5
5
^
0
2
0
0
3
S
/
7
y
/
f
&
(
October 17, 1978
LRCDStO
Members of Carlsbad City Council
Members of San Dieguito High School District Board
Members of Encinitas Union School District Board
cc: See Attached List
Subject; School Fees - Senate Bill 201
On October 10, 1978, I made a verbal presentation before the City Council of
Carlsbad regarding the fee schedules that were proposed to be adopted for the
San Dieguito and Encinitas school districts. I submitted a written version of the
verbal presentation at that time. Attached (except for City Council Members,
who already have copies) is a copy of that presentation.
Because in that report we made it clear that we believe the adopted school fees
and the method by which they were adopted to be inconsistent with law and
probably unconstitutional, it has possibly been implied that our company might
choose to contest the teas in court. We have no such intention. We do not
think it in the best interest of the City, the school districts or our company to
get into such an adversary relationship. We suspect, however, that unless there
is action at state level to clarify the method of financing on a state-wide basis
that court suits will ensue.
We would prefer to use our energies in working with the City of Carlsbad and the
school districts in obtaining the legislature's attention to this matter.
We believe that the method of financing both the operation of and capital facilities
for schools (including community colleges) is one which falls directly on the state
legislature (particularly in view of Proposition 13 and the now moot Serrano decision).
We do not believe that this state could long accept a situation where 1,046 school
districts can establish their own policies regarding the provision of capital facilities.
We suspect that you would question our motives if we were to suggest that the operating
costs of public schools be paid by the owners of all residences (regardless of value) based
on the number of bedrooms in each residence (thereby eliminating any cost responsibility
for commercial, industrial, agricultural and unumproved lands).
(Continued)
COSTA DEU MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92OOS • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE 43S- 9111
Members of Carlsbad City Council Page -2-
Members of San Dieguito School Board October 17, 1978
Members of Encinitas School Board
And yet, in the school fee policy you are proposing to provide school facilities by
similar fee or tax. In other words, a new $500,000 three-bedroom home in Rancho
Santa Fe, a new $150,000 three-bedroom home in La Costa, or a new $70,000 three-
bedroom condominium in Leu cad ia would all pay the same towards the cost of school
facilities.
If the bedroom "fee or tax" concept prevails, the difficulties of administration should
be obvious . A finding that a house has two bedrooms as compared to one can cost a
new home owner $954.00 and a finding that a house has three bedrooms rather than two
can cost a new home owner $1,614.00. Rather obviously, in this day and age of con-
vertible rooms - bedrooms to dens, to libraries, etc. - the definition of a bedroom
would be subject to much judgment. Some appeal process will undoubtedly have to
be established, if the taxation by the bedroom concept prevails.
We know that there are many different ways that the legislature can approach in estab-
lishing a method for new and replacement school facilities. We will make a suggestion
as to one possible method which relates somewhat to your presently adopted policy;
1. Place a fee based on value on all construction projects; residential, commercial
and industrial, that take place in the State of California.
2. Establish a state-wide (or area-wide) school construction fund*.
3. Establish a state-wide (or area-wide) method of allocating the funds based on
needs.
4. Establish a modest fee to be assessed against new dwelling units (in addition to
that shown in 1. above) in areas such as Encinitas/San Dieguito where an interim
period is actually needed to provide permanent facilities.
This type of legislation might or might not be considered constitutional under the terms of
Proposition 13, and therefore might have to be submitted to the voters.
Because of our concern, we are sending copies of this correspondence to a significant
number of concerned persons and/or officials.
*Note that we do not beleive that the fund should be collected by or administered at a
district level because of the obvious ineuqities which could exist depending on the
location of new industrial or commercial facilities.
(Continued)
Members of Carlsbad City Council Page -3-
Members of San Dieguito School Board October 17, 1978
Members of Encinitas School Board
Not too incidentally, our company is now attempting to prepare some kind of an
equitable proposal for the conveyance of previously identified school sites to the
various school districts serving the La Costa area. The attempt will be to come up
with o program that will work under any kind of school facility financing that is
finally established.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
Fred J./Vice President
Governmental Relations
FJM/eem
Enclosures
LBCOStB
October 17, 1978
DISTRIBUTION;
Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager L>^
City of Carlsbad
City Attorney
City of Carlsbad
Superintendent of Schools
San Dieguito High School District
Superintendent of Schools
Encinitas Union School District
County Counsel
County of San Diego
City Attorney, City of San Diego
Attention: Fred Conrad
Construction Industry Federation
Attention: Bob Cozens
Supervisoral Candidate Eckert
Supervisoral Candidate Boyce
Superintendent of Schools Ted Dixon
San Diego County
Members, San Diego County Legislative
Delegation
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD - CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SHOOS • AREA CODE 714 • TELEPHONE 438-9111
October 10, 1978
LR CDSCB
To: City Council
City of Carlsbad
From: La Costa Land Company
4
Subject; Senate Bill 201 - School Fees
You have previously adopted an ordinance consistent with Senate Bill 201 - School
Fee Law - and are now in the process of determining the fees to be established in
the San Marcos and San Dieguito/Encinitas school districts. Since the school districts
involved operate in areas of the City in and around the La Costa Master Plan develop-
ment, it would seem appropriate for us to submit significant comments.
You should be aware that any school fees that are adopted at this time will not signifi-
cantly directly affect our company. The reason for this is that most of the developed
land in the La Costa area has been sold to others both individuals and corporations.
Insofar as our company's relationship with the school districts is concerned, SB 201
will probably involve the future land agreements rather than the payment of fees.
We do feel it appropriate that we express our concern for those persons that have pur-
chased our property. In addition we are very concerned as to precedence that may be
established by your discussions and actions.
Before directly commenting on the school districts' p-oposed fees, we think it appropriate
that we discuss school construction financing in general terms.
Until recently, school facilities have been provided through -
a) General Obligation Bond Issues - Since General Obligation Bond issues are
paid for through" the property tax, all property, industrial, commercial, agricultural
and residential, has paid for the facilities.
While the ratio varies from district to district, in general terms, the payment through
tax on residences has borne a minority of the costs.
b) State and Federal Grants - whenever facilities are provided in this way, the costs
are borne by the genera! tax payer without relationship to the property tax.
c) State Loans and Current Property Taxes - schools have bsen built through long-
term stare loans reimbursed from local property taxes and through the use of current
property taxes.
(Continued)
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CARLSBAD, CALI FORNIA 92OOS • AREA CODE 71-4 - TELEPHONE -»3e - Bill
To: City of Carlsbad City Council Page -2-
October 10, 1978
In recent years, because of the failure of bond issues in rapidly developing areas, school
districts havs, working with various local governments, obtained fees from developers through
extra legal arrangements with cities and counties. Generally speaking, the amount of these
fees has related somewhat to the provision of interim facilities.
Our observation is that because the fees were kept moderate that the question of equity was
not addressed in the past. The tendency has been for developers to add these fees to other
costs involved in development.
The passage of Proposition 13 has eliminated what has been the traditional source of school
financing, that it, the General Obligation Bond issue. There is no question In our mind, but
that among other things that the legislature is going to have to face, in relationship to
Proposition 13, the establishment of a new method of financing school facility construction.
If the legislature were to determine that school facilities should be paid by new residences
as they are build, it would shift the cost of school facilities from commercial, industrial and
agricultural, and unimproved land to the home owner. We would question whether this would
be a constitutional provision. If it were constitutional, it would then seem reasonable to
charge the entire cost of eduction to home owners. This would be completely inconsistent
with the traditions of "free" eduction.
We believe that the factors discussed above were considered by the state legislature when it
passed Senate Bill 201.
It does appear that it might be considered reasonable to have fees paid for interim purposes, .
that is, until permanent facilities can be provided. As indicated above, we point out that
after Proposition 13 the State wi 11 have to determine how permanent school facilities can
be provided.
All of the discussion above has bean general in nature. We would now like to address the
specific fees suggested by the school districts.
In our opinion, the San Marcos School District proposal which provides for fees of $221.00 for
one bedroom, $442.00 for two bedrooms, S664.00 For three bedrooms single family houses and
something less than that for multiple houses, is based on the need for interim facilities and
insofar as we are concerned, are reasonable and acceptable. You should understand that for
our future subdivisions we v/ill be negotiating with San Marcos to convey land in lieu of fees.
We believe that is ths desire of the district.
Insofar as tha San Dieguito/tnci nitas combined fees are concerned, which appear to be
$777.00 for one bedrooms, $1,731 for two bedrooms, $3,345 for three bedrooms, and $3,745
for four bedrooms, we believa these to be completely and admitredly inconsistent with the
terms of Senate Bill 201.
(Continued)
To: City of Carlsbad City Council Page -3-
October 10, 1978
It is obvious that the proposals indicate an attempt to have residantial construction pay for
the entire cost of school facilities which, as indicated above, v/e believe to be unconstitutional,
inequitable and inconsistent with the California tradition of "free" education.
We hasten to add that we are as corrcerned as anyone else with the problems of the school
districts in a rapdily developing area. We have worked in the past with these districts and
intend to work with them in the future in terms of providing appropriate sites in our Master
Plan development.
We remind you that the San Dieguito Union High School District will be responsible for the
provision of junior and senior high school education in the City of San Diego's North City West.
I am sure that you are well aware of the very well publisized differences of opinion in regard
to that development. The district, of course, is concerned as to how facilities will be pro-
vided in that area. We are persuaded that the San Dieguito district's proposals to you are
related to that district's concern with North City West.
We note that both the County and City of San Diego have so far accepted the San Dieguito
and Encinitas school districts' proposals insofar as fees are concerned. We are persuaded that
in both instances the governing bodies have failed to follow the provisions of SB 201. We would
suspect that if the County and City of San Diego continue to follow this practice that their
actions will be tested in court or made moot by new state legislation.
We will not attempt to comment on the method by which San Dieguito and Encinitas school
districts attempt to justify their fees, since we believe they started out on some erroneous
assumptions. We do suggest that child generation estimates may be appropriate for use in
estimating future total school population, but certainly not appropriate for use in determining
school fees. Establishing school facility fees by the number of bedrooms and child generation
factors is only one step away from determining school taxes by the number of children in a
family.
One of our big concerns in this overall issue is that behind all of this is a continuous impli-
cation that unless new homes pay all governmental costs that they must be subsidized by
present residents. We are, of course, persuaded that in general terms, governmental facilities
have bee.i and should be paid for, as they have in the past, by all kinds of property in an area,
not just residences.
Because of this concern and because of the implications of San Dieguito/Encinitas proposals,
we decided to do an in-depth review of the costs that have been levied to home owners for
school facilities since 1950/51 in the Encinifas and San Dieguito school districts.
Attached, as Exhibit A and B, are tables showing the total estimated taxes paTd for school
facilities by houses valued at $144,000 and $30,000 in 1977/78 by year of construction.
(Continued)
To: City of Carlsbad City Council Page -4-
October 10, 1978
Interestingly, we estimate that a house valued at $144,000 in 1977/78 would have been valued
at $21,830 in 1950/51 and that a house now valued at $80,000, would have been valued at
$12,127 in 1950/51.
In any event, our studies show that a house built in the Encinitas/San Dieguito school areas in
1950/51 and worth $144,000 at present, by the year 1977/78 had paid a total of $1,778 for
high school and elementary school facilities. A house now worth $80,000 and built in 1950/51
has paid about $989.00 for high school and elementary school facilities.
Another example would be that a house built in 1971/72 now worth $144,000 has paid $573
and a house bui.lt'in 1971/72 and now worth $80,000 has paid $318.00 in school fees.
It is interesting to note that a house built during the recent period of school fees may have
already paid far in excess of those houses built 10 to 15 years ago.
We have a considerable volume of information backing up the attached Exhibits and we would
be glad to have it reviewed by City or school authorities.
We certainly think that the facts demonstrate some of our previous statements concerning the
way school facilities have really been financed and the inequities which would exist if present
proposals are adopted. ,
As a final statement, we remind you that new construction, residences, commercial and industrial,
will have the affect of continuing to reduce the property taxes of all persons in the districts.
This is because, in addition to the 1% limitation imposed by Proposition 13, there will be an
additional property tax levied for voter approved bond issues. Obviously, increases in the
assessed valuation will reduce this over 1% tax rate.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY
O fi (\ \/|A
-7.W ^ / I/V~~\
Fred J. Mopy I \
Vice President - Governmental'Relations
Enclosures
OMlftM •ENctNtTAS £ LP T
OOP
.
CUMULATIVE PAYMENTS P£R HOME. Fog SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
\°(SO
(SI
.. D.W. £!.;_/AJ«=_
VAUU
SAN DIEOUira SAM
CJl.Q.LSyM_U LrtT'^E
SACK YEAr SACH
IAK SLO.I.L&
C-AC.K- Y£Af3.HaMS-
ANMUAl-
OT*.^ gCNCS
MKJ.H SCHOOI.HI&H- SCHOO
TAVSS PAiC
!!3|o is
*
•;S:5 i i.Hi T-T-:d
Tfdl"s/-Sz to iai1/yy 25 )23 /25
-siv 'i*ritil sk
I?6,
Isls JifcW 2W ?[&ss S 50 5 sio
5I33S izb 3i5 50 o
215 no j ,{.12:4
343
65 i3:o i iiM
28 &l
o £;?;o i/
Me -&
*2^?!2J rfslo
U'2
63
!&;</ils
415
V9PS2.
Oi03
;3;3
^zt la
-> !/3!<6:6:9 76
fi3s
I
Of 5
03;3j
68
!oL
i!_...
3,5 i
d3J3
!2h
t !
3i7i?
3«!fc 2!i
3uk
ilsll ?i5ii
:--M
^5
df^1
^!iL
shift
?!^
IA 3!^!G
^5^33 'vi?
£4-bi3!z^v"/bI J 3;0|S !?!:.IV
!?!'
iyi?33
?bkM?
/c|y|
bis
3M
/vk ;D!O
! i. Irs
~ L—r-(--
f[/_
15
I-SI2J ,2..
/Is!/
!s;o
H?L Wd.
'iO-O'i
'!/!•rr
, i
^9
•
V3l irk*"!"•v>M Vit» I *ll^!L^
slow
Kota Hft
M^'dN M°^
3 i
<L.|TCL<
o
*TO
.sj fdwif i«|h>
idfcifl U(
vhols
cLre
rut*
H*
we.
M odiv
re-^VVTi»
!
C^S«
-h
'W
^n^cic
KOn , k:
o^
m,
L -
- --43-7O* JO/i'J •.(UF?SAN
/7
H1&-H SCHOOL E.MCJM
NUAL TOTAL
HOUSE VALUSO AT
•S P£ R Ho MS
in
J C_0_
IEJ-S&
! SAN
4[ia*
I "^:2S=SH
UNIT 'gftCH HQM?TAXSS PAID
COUU-C150
tACH
S5H=
TOTAL. BlNQJI
'.i>crf OM
,^i£-— £ -.rmrr
MlOHSCHa^U
AMD
VH6M SCHOOL
AI-.O
51-SZ
S3
54 2J>5|3.5 I !?:V3
814 100
00 tfajyi
15^V?«!6i
SS- 5?IV'S W '5 I'o Sic
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
22 f!74
6
2r>P
2?2/3r2
J/
63 -
65
-35
2V 33
2 J9 £1
35 2.3 /'O' •u?00
£8 3S5 /S I 2.'l?
68 6?/ 3 /&>25 •i
67-70 2Vo
79 W C?f 3 513
?7 1?13*
73-7V 29 yivo ^s Ul3
25 7*f-
26 !5?
27
28!
29
30
31
32
33
34
35!!
i i i ^ r• b •• • : -
•i5/!7;/;3;
T"1~i H "^H"
j!B5L^l-. lL_L_LL
/!2j2
53
! L/15-Lkl^
! ! ! Islt
Hl—U16
^TFr
.-V '«.
r .1 ! i,! nL.j?4La[4s}riridi
4T1
_scViQ_4i
'..-.-r-:u--^-i_|2i0'-<-hi ioi
~""^yTPjT'L ;7Ti7t
.-..- fn r L ; / * LUW! i.
H t ID-^-Sl^
i'fesuk ipjat-rn frrt->tOi eCLC!
Ji.cTl'o»"> Ctoo'inei :VTS l^. ,-_T_j ._.^-j..j_. _,.
.. ~i ^jriC-itT i4?vS^ ^^ ,
(#.oooKoUie.!. As!sej;?«<H; vtk^e
'LLilll r HTI LrTTTi
October 27, 1978
Mr. William A. Craven, Assemblyman
76th Assembly District
5175 State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ref: 78-200
In response to your letter dated October 6, 1978, relating
to a branch campus of San Diego State University in North
County, I have enclosed a copy of Page 8 of the Council
minutes of the meeting held October 17, 1978.
As you will note, Council did not adopt a Resolution, but
did express support of the matter.
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ
City Clerk
ALR:ar
Enclosure (1)
SACRAMENTO ADDRESS5175 STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO 95B14
TELEPHONE: (916) 445-239O
DISTRICT OFFICE55O WEST VISTA WAY
SUITE 201
VISTA 92O83
TELEPHONE: (714) 726-7676 California
COMMITTEES
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND
RETIREMENT
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ONCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ref: 78-200
WILLIAM A. CRAVEN
ASSEMBLYMAN, SEVENTY-SIXTH DISTRICT
CHAIRMAN
ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
October 6, 1978
The Honorable Ronald Packard
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
92008
ackard:
Last year we introduced legislation dealing with the estab-
lishment of a branch campus at San Diego State University in
North County. There was overwhelming support from the com-
munities as well as the people of the North County for the
project. Despite the fact that we had managed to move the
legislation through the process it was re-evaluated following
the passage of Proposition 13 and, unfortunately, it became an
easy opportunity to reduce expenditures approximately $200,000.
There is no question in my mind that what we proposed is as
vital and necessary today as it was last year and we are
soliciting your help and opinion on this matter of prime
importance to the people of North San Diego County.
Will you kindly review the matter and advise me by resolution
of your support.
WAC:bf 0
WILLIAM A.ICRAVEN
* v-e. </ 7~/L /' $
f~* ' / •*.* /^L. a i*--^c £ | / /T^C / H T
l/< ^ J" «=-^-/ •£
( / . / ,
f
September 29, 1978
Page 2
Subject: School Fees for New Developments
Carlsbad Unified School District has not declared a condition
of overcrowding and, therefore, fees will not be established
under Ordinance No. 9505.
Ordinance No. 9505 also calls for establishment of standards
for the dedication of land. Several of the school districts
have indicated they are negotiating with property owners or
developers for school sites. However, they have not developed
specific standards for the dedication of land in lieu of fees.
It is anticipated that any resolution adopted to establish
fees will have to be amended at a later date to include
consideration for the dedication of land.
It is recommended that the City Council set this matter to a
work study session on October 10, 1978 with the intention of
having a resolution prepared establishing fees for the
October 17, 1978 Council meeting. These fees should be
established prior to November 3, 1978, the effective date
of Ordinance No. 9505.
The Council should also determine if they wish any further
staff input into the relevency of the recommended fees or
whether the material supplied by the districts is sufficient.
PAUL D. BUSSEY
City Manager
PDBrldg