Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-07; City Council; 14368; MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAMb RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 7 7 * b/ 7 approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad Unified School District and the San Dieguii Union School District for the School Resource Officer (S.R.O.) Program for fiscal year ITEM EX PLAN AT1 ON : The City has agreed to provide the the Carlsbad Unified and San Dieguito Union High School Districts with the School Resource Officer Program for Carlsbad High School at La Costa Canyon High School respectively. The Police Department will staff one S.R.C each school in accordance with the M.O.U. Each school has agreed to pay one- half th cost of a full time police officer for their respective school terms. One officer will cost $60,434. The pro-rated cost for nine months would be $45,324, half of which is $22,66: Each district would therefore pay $22,662 for their share of the cost of an officer. Carlst Unified would pay an additional $3,777 for the summer session for a total of $26,439. 7 total would be $49,101 for both schools. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost sharing payments of $49,101 will be placed into the General Fund Revenue Account and will be used to offset the cost of the School Resource Officer Program to th 1. Resolution No. 99 4di 7 . 2. Memorandum of Understanding with Carlsbad Unified School District. 3, Memorandum of Understanding with San Dieguito Union High School District. 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 97-619 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAF&SBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SRO PROGRAM BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, THE CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the cost sharing agreement for the SRO Program between the City of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad Unified School District and Encinitas Union School District is hereby approved. 3. That the Mayor of the City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, California on the 7th day of October , 1997, by the following vote to wit: A=; Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin. and Hall NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: p AL((&iAN&Z&z+ (SEAL) // // g-z 7/4/9 P e 9 &&-&J a.4 2d Sun Marcos Unified School District I_--_._ . -I- - - I_ _--- _I..- - - -. 1 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300, San Marcos, CA 92069 (760) 744-4776 FAX (760) 471-49 August 26 ,1997 Lee Rautenkranz City of Carlsbad, City Clerk 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: Transmittal of Resolution of San Marcos Unified School District's Adoption of Mitigation Payments, Supporting Documentation, and Map Indicating the Boundaries of the Area Subject to Mitigation Payments. Dear Mr. Rautenkranz: The Governing Board ("Board") of the San Marcos Unified School District ("District"), on August 25, 1997, adopted a resolution regarding school mitigation payments ("Mitigation Payments"). Pursuant to Government Code Section 53080.1 (c), a district that has adopted statutory school fees ("Statutory School Fees") is required to forward a resolution, supporting documentation and a map to the city and county in which the District is located. Our legal counsel opine that this requirement should also be followed by school districts that have adopted Mitigation Payments. Therefore, we are forwarding to you a copy of such a resolution, a report entitled "Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justification Study for San Marcos Unified School District," dated August 9, 1997, and a map clearly indicating the boundaries of the area subject to the Mitigation Payments. This letter shall serve to advise you that pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 53080, no city or county, whether general law or chartered, may issue a building permit for any development absent certification by the appropriate school district of compliance by that development project with any fee requirement levied by the governing body of that school district. Consequently, the City shall not issue any building permit to a developer of a project within the District's boundaries unless and until the District has executed a Certificate of Compliance indicating that the developer has paid the required Mitigation Payments and/or Statutory School Fees. If you have any questions or comments with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned, or our attorney Deborah R.G. Cesario, with the law firm Bowie, Arneson, Kadi, Wiles and Giannone at 714/851-1300. Sincerely, $&9*& Lettie Boggs Director of Facilities Gouerning Board: Pam Bancells Mary Boreuitz Alan Brown Lucy Gross Mike F Larry B. Maw, Ed.D., Superintendent ar GUS uniirea xh@I District 1 -"W < 1. District Office 2. Ahrln Dunn Elementary 3, Knob HlJl Elementary 4. La Costa Meadows Elementary 5. Paloma Elementary 6. Richland Elementary 7. San Marcos Elementary 8. Woodland Park Elementary 9. San Marcos Middle School 10. San Marcos High School / Beginning July 1, 1997, the district will have new boundaries for all elementary and middle schools in order to accommodate the opening of Discovery Elementary, Woodland Park Middle School, San Marcos Academy, and in 1998, Twin Oaks Elementary. New boundary information is available from the Facilities Om=, 736-2236. -.- ' %:.,--- -- , -' 'c 'h ,-.*I- .- e e t .a RESOLUTION NO. # 1 0 - 9 7 L9 8 RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING ADOPTION OF MITIGATION PAYMENTS TO MITIGATE SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACTS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING LOCAL AGENCY LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL WHEREAS, the San Marcos Unified School District (“District”) provides for the education needs for students in grades K-12 within the Cities of San Marcos, Carlsbad, Vista and Escondido (“Cities”) and in San Diego County WE COW"^^^)); and WHEREAS, in recent years substantial new residential development has occurred within the District and substantial additional development has been or is proposed to be legislatively approved by the County and Cities); and WHEREAS, as a direct result of such new and proposed residential development there has been and will be an increase in the number of students attending the schools of the District, which has resulted and will result in overcrowding of the classrooms and related facilities of the District; and WHEREAS, overcrowded schools within the District have an impact on the District’s ability to provide an adequate quality education and negatively impacts the educational opportunities for the District’s students; and WHEREAS, statutory school fees (“Fees”), authorized by Government Code Section 53080 et seq. and 65995 et seq. presently in the current amount of $1.84 per square foot for residential development only provide a portion of the funding for the school facilities necessary BAKW&GIDClcc/37471 17001.1 1 < 0 0 f .4 to house students generated from new residential development within the District and the State and the District have been unable to provide the remaining required funds; and WHEREAS, the District desires to treat new residential development within the District consistently; and WHEREAS, new residential development will generate additional students for the District’s schools, the District is required to provide school facilities to accommodate those students when such new residential development has not executed a Mitigation Agreement with the District, which costs are in excess of the fees adopted by the District; and WHEREAS, the District does not have sufficient fhds available for the construction or reconstruction of the school facilities, including acquisition of sites, construction of permanent school facilities, including interim school facilities, as well as central administrative and support facilities to accommodate students from new development (“School Facilities”); and WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the District has received and considered a report entitled “Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justification Study for San Marcos Unified School District,” dated August 9, 1997 (“Report”), the Report includes information, documentation, and analysis of the School Facilities needs of the District, the purpose of the mitigation payments, the use to which the mitigation payments are to be put, and the nexus (roughly proportional and reasonable relationship) between new residential development and (1) the use for mitigation payments (“Mitigation Payments”), (2) the need for school facilities, (3) the cost of school facilities, and (4) the amount of mitigation payments per residential dwelling unit, and an evaluation and projection of the number of students that will be generated by new BAKW&GIM=lcc/3747 1 17001.1 2 a 0 t .4 residential development, the new facilities that will be required to serve such students, and the costs of such School Facilities; and WHEREAS, the Report sets forth proposed Mitigation Payments and the School Facilities needs of the District and has been available to the public as required by law before the Governing Board considers at a regularly scheduled public meeting the adoption of specified Mitigation Payments; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at a regular meeting of the District’s Governing Board relating to needs created by additional development as required by law and all required notices, if any, of the proposed adoption of Mitigation Payments have been given; and WHEREAS, the District’s Governing Board has found that this resolution adopting Mitigation Payments addresses only the activity of collecting money, not how and when to spend the money collected; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board’s determination does not fall within the meaning of the term “Project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and prior to the Governing Board making a decision as to how any facility will be bded fiom such sources, unless exempt or CEQA is satisfied by a previously completed environmental proceeding, the Governing Board will accomplish any necessary environmental proceedings consistent with CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Governing Board of the District as follows: 1. That the Governing Board finds that the purpose of the Mitigation Payments levied upon new residential development is to fund the additional School Facilities required to BAKW&G/DC/ccn7471 17001.1 3 * 0 e 14 serve the students generated by the new residential development upon which the Mitigation Payments are imposed. 2. That the Governing Board finds that the Mitigation Payments will be used only to finance those School Facilities described in the Report and related documents and that these School Facilities are required to serve the students generated by the new residential development; and that the use of the Mitigation Payments will include construction or acquisition of additional School Facilities, remodeling existing facilities to add additional classrooms and technology, as well as acquiring and installing additional portable classrooms and related facilities, with the specific location of new schools, remodeling of existing facilities, and additional portables to be determined based on the residence of the students being generated by such new residential development, as well as any required central administrative and support facilities. 3. That the Governing Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the new residential development, upon which the Mitigation Payments are levied, and the need for additional School Facilities in the District because new students will be generated from new residential development and the District does not have student capacity in the existing School Facilities to accommodate these students. 4. That the Governing Board finds that there is a roughly proportional, reasonable relationship between the use of Mitigation Payments and new residential development because the Mitigation Payments levied on new residential development, by this Resolution, will be used to fbnd School Facilities which will be used to serve the students generated by such new residential development. BAK W&GIDclcCI3 747 1 4 17001.1 t 0 0 .* 5. That the Governing Board finds that the amount of the Mitigation Payments levied on new residential development as set forth in this Resolution are roughly proportionately and reasonably related to and do not exceed the cost of providing the School Facilities required to serve the students generated by such new residential development. 6. That the Governing Board finds that a separate capital facilities account will be established for the deposit of Mitigation Payments imposed on new residential development and that said account will be at all ties separately maintained, except for temporary investments, from other funds of the District, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006. 7. That the Governing Board finds that the funds to be deposited in the account described in Section 6 above, consisting of the proceeds of Mitigation Payments will be expended solely for the purpose for which the Mitigation Payments are to be collected. 8. That the Governing Board hereby adopts the Mitigation Payments on new residential development and establishes the Mitigation Payments for payment of new residential development in the amount of $10,601 per single family detached dwelling unit (“DU”) and $9,126 per multi-family attached DU. 9. That the Governing Board hereby does not adopt the Mitigation Payments on any development project for the construction of senior citizen housing, as described in Government Code Section 65995.1 in its present form, or a residential care facility for the elderly as described in subdivision (k) of Section 1569.2 of the Health & Safety Code. 10. That the Governing Board hereby determines that the Mitigation Payments adopted pursuant to this Resolution are reasonably related and roughly proportional to: BAKW&GJDClwf37471 17001.1 5 i e 0 *\ A. The use of Mitigation Payments and the types of new residential development projects within the boundaries of the District upon which Mitigation Payments are imposed; and The need for new School Facilities and the types of new residential development projects upon which the Mitigation Payments are imposed. B. 1 1. That the Superintendent or its designee, is directed to cause a copy of this Resolution to be delivered to the building official of the Cities and County along with a copy of all the supporting documentation referenced herein and a map of the District clearly indicating the boundaries thereof advising the Cities and County that development therein is subject to the Mitigation Payments adopted pursuant to this Resolution and requesting that no legislative approval be given or no determination as to satisfaction of a prior such condition on a legislative approval of additional development be given unless a Mitigation Agreement is executed with the District providing for the payment of such Mitigation Payments to the District or as othedse agreed by the District, 12. That no statement or provision set forth in this Resolution, or referred to therein, shall be construed to repeal any preexisting Fees previously imposed by the District on any new residential development, or negate any Mitigation Agreements between the District and developers, or limit the ability of the District to pursue mitigation beyond the amounts in this Resolution when legislative approvals are sought by new residential development. 13. That the Governing Board hereby directs the Secretary of the Governing Board to execute and file with the Clerk of San Diego County a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15062. BAKW&G/DC/cd3747 1 17001.1 6 c 0 a, v ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 25th day of August, 1997. &fl.flm 32- President of the Governing Board for the San Marcos Unified School District ATTEST: BAKW&GfDCtcd37471 17001.1 7 < 4 m 0 ‘4 1 ss. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1 I, Larry Maw , Secy .of the Governing Board of the San Marcos Unified School District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the August, 1997, and that it was so adopted by the following vote: Governing Board of said District at a meeting of said Governing Board held on the 25th day of AYES: Trustees: BANCELLS , BOREVITZ , GROSS, PRESTON, BROWN NOES: Trustees: NONE ABSTAIN: Trustees: NONE ABSENT: Trustees: NONE BAKW&G/DClcd37471 17001.1 .I t 0 @ s RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PAYMENT JUSTIFICATION STUDY SAN h!hlXCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - FOR -. Prepared For San Marcos Unified School District 1 Civic Center Drive, Suite 300 San Marcos, California 92069 Prepared By David Taussig and Associates, Inc. 1301 Dove Street, Suite 600 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 752-1554 August 9,1997 < 0 0. .* . TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I EXECUTIVESUMMARY ........................................... I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ II. LEGISLATION ............................................. - A. AB2926 ........................................... B. AB1600 ........................................... METHODOLOGY OF REV~SED STUDY ............................... A. Overview of Methodology ................................ B. Residential Unit Projections ............................... D. School Facilities Cost Impacts ............................. E. Required Mitigation Payment Level .......................... IV. SMUSD FACILITIES CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT ..................... III. C. Student Generation Impacts ............................... 9. v. IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SCHOOL FACILITIES NEEDS ....... A. Projected Residential Development Within the District .............. B. Student Generation Factors Per Residential Unit .................. C. District Facility Requirements .............................. D. 1996-97 District Facilities Costs ............................ E. Total School Facilities Cost Impacts .......................... F. Total School Facilities Cost Impacts Per Unit .................... G. Mitigation Payment Levels for Residential Development ............ EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: School Facilities Cost by School Level Interim School Facilities Cost by School Level Central Administrative and Support Facilities Costs < a 0 * -& 1 b' ASSOCIATES, INC.] ExmrivE SUMMARY The Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justification Study ("Study") is intendc determine the extent to which a nexus can be established in San Marcos Unified School Di: ("SMUSD" or the "District") between residential development and (i) fie need for SL facilities, (ii) the cost of school facilities, and (iii) the amount of Mitigation Payments residential unit that may be justifiably levied on development currently seeking legislative appi from the Cities of Carlsbad, Escondido, San Marcos, and Vista (the "Cities") or the County ol Diego ("County ") . SMUSD provides grades K-12 public education for students residing within a portion of the ( and a small unincorporated portion of the County. The District's current facilities include s (7) elementary schools, one (1) middle school, and two (2) high schools (one (1) traditional school and one (1) continuation high school). Collectively, these facilities in school year 199 had a permanent capacity of 6,538 students. Of these seats, 4,206 were at the elementary sc level, 699 were at the middle school level', and 1,633 were at the high school level. Base enrollment data from the California Basic Educational Data Systems, SMUSD's Fall enroll1 for school year 1996-97 was 11,327 students (excluding continuation and alternative educs high school students). Comparing capacity to enrollment in school year 1996-97, SMUSD ha seats available to house students generated from future residential units. In fact, the Districl had to (i) lease interim portable classrooms and (ii) place some school facilities on multi-t year-round schedule to house all of the students being generated from existing units. To establish a nexus and a justifiable Mitigation Payment, the Study evaluated the number and of new facilities required to house students generated from future residential development w the District. Based on information provided by the San Diego Association of Governments the District, SMUSD can expect approximately 24,230 additional residential units tc constructed within its boundaries. Of these future residential units, 2,161 have mitigated t school facilities impacts on SMUSD and 22,069 have not mitigated their school facilities im on the District. To determine the impact on SMUSD from those future residential units which 1 generation factors ("SGFs") calculated by Davis Demographics & Planning in their updated ! report. The results were 5,966 new elementary students, 2,631 new middle school students, 2,798 new high school students. To adequately house all of the elementary, middle, and high school students generated f unmitigated future residential units, the District will need to construct 8.22 elementary schc 2.17 middle schools, and 1.17 high schools. Based on educational policies of SMUSD, sqi footage and cost allowances developed by the State Office of Public School Construction, estimated site costs provided by the District, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") estimated facilities costs of $12,505,906 for an elementary school, $25,050,320 for a mic - not mitigated their impact, the Study multiplied the number of future residentia1 units by stuc 'Current capacities are calculated based on the District's current school configuration with elementary sc€ serving grades K-6 and the middle school serving grades 7-8. The data analysis prepared for the Study analyze facilities impacts based on the District's plan to convert elementary school^ to grab K-5 and middle schools to g San Marcos Unified School LXstrict Page A Residential Develovmenl Miti@on Payment Justification Studv 6-8 in the 1997198 school year. I4 17 m,c+ r) . 0 e & ASSOCIATES, INC school, and $45,249,098 for a high school. In addition to the school facilities costs, DTA approximated that the interim facilities costs for an elementary school student is $686, a mi school student is $772, and a high school student is $852. As for the central administrative support facilities costs, the State Allocation Board approved a policy in January 1994 of fou square feet per student or roughly $600. Multiplying (i) the school facilities costs by additional school facilities needed and (ii) the interim and central administrative and SUI facilities costs by the number of students generated from future residential projects which havtl mitigated their impact on the District yields a total school facilities cost impact of $225,099,( Table ES-1 displays the projected school facilities cost impacts. TABLE ES-1 - TOTAL SCHOOL FACILITIES COST IMPACTS ON SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (1996-97$) Interim Facilities Central Administrative To calculate school facilities costs per future residential unit, the Study first apportioned the tl school facilities costs by the number of students generated from each residential land use. Tk figures are then divided by the number of future residential units in each land use. Table E below lists school facilities costs per residential unit for future single family detached and mu family attached units. San Marcos Unified School District Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justification Studv Page E Aupust9 1 0 0 ,.b I& 1 * ASSOCIATES, INC.] TABLE ES-2 SCHOOL FACILITIES COST IMPACTS PER RESIDENTIAL, UNIT SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (1996-97$) -- School Level Multi-family Attached 1 $4,958 I $2,160 I $2,007 1 $9,11 * ** School impacts include interim facilities and central administrative and support facilities. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. - The Mitigation Payment which is justified in being required by SMUSD for new reside construction within the District is $10,601 per single family detached unit and $9,121 multi-family attached unit. -. San Marcos Unified School Distrid page Residential Devetovment Mifimtahn Payment Justification St& A U WSt 9 .' 0 . 6 -& t' B ASSOCIATES, INC.] I. INTRODUCTION Throughout the State of California, school districts are seeking to finance the construc school facilities required by growing student enrollment. This is aIso the case in San I Unified School District ("SMUSD" or the "District"), where proposed residential units whic not mitigated their impact on the District are expected to generate approximately 11,395 sh A school district in California has several options available to frnance the construction of facilities, including the State School Building Program ("State Program"), local debt fin (such as General Obligation Bonds, Mello-Roos Bonds, Certificates of Participation, a allocation bonds based on tax increment revenues related to an existing project of i redevelopment agency), and statutory school fees ("School Fees"). Unfortunately, thc Program obtains a majority of its hnding through statewide school bond elections, wh proving inadequate for the State's school facilities needs. Even though a $3.0 billion schoc measure, of which only $2.025 billion was earmarked for grades K-12, was passed by the of California in March 1996, the estimated backlog of State funding applications totab ove billion. No statewide school bond measure was placed on the November 1996 ballot. considerations appear to preclude as a practical matter the next statewide bond measure before the voters of California until June 1998. Furthermore, due to the defeat of Propositic by the State's voters in November 1993, local general obligation bond measures will still r a two-thirds approval rather than the proposed simple majority approval. hcal debt fin; programs are proving inadequate in many cases, in part due to the difficulty of obtaini required two-thirds voter approval required for such programs. The only exception to thi: approval requirement is Certificates of Participation, but the sale of this facilities fint instrument is constrained by the need for a stream of revenues to cover lease service pay1 For these and other reasons, many school districts rely on School Fees and Mitigation Pay as a primary funding source for schooi facilities required by new development. However, 1 a school district can levy School Fees or Mitigation Payments on new development, Sta requires that certain "nexus" findings must be made and documented. The objective ( Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justificaton Study (the "Study ") is to pro rigorous basis for such findings. - San Marcos Unified School District A Aufust ! Residential Develovment Mitiration Payment Justificm'on Studv 0 0 ,'B & ASSOCIATES, 1~C.l 11. LEGZSLATION State legislation, specifically Assembly Bill ("AB") 2926 and AB 1600, provide guideli procedures and restrictions on the levy of School Fees for school facilities. In order to deterr the appropriate Mitigation Payments for residential development, the Study follows the same nc requirements as outlined by the ABS listed above. Certain provisions of this legislation summarized below: A. AB2926 - AB 2926 was enacted by the State of California in 1986. Among other things, AB 2 added various sections to the Government Code which authorize school districts to 1 School Fees on new residential and commercialhdustrial development in order to pay school facilities. In addition, AB 2926 provides for the following: 1. No City or County can issue a building permit for a development project un such School Fees have been paid. School Fees for commercial/industrial development must be supported by finding that such School Fees "are reasonably related and limited to the needs schools caused by the development. " School Fees for 1987 were limited to $1.50 per square foot of enclosed residea floor space, and $0.25 per square foot of encl6sed commercialhdustrial fl space where legislative development approvals exist without requirements payment of greater amounts. Every other year, School Fees are subject to annual increases based on Statewide cost index for Class B construction, as determined by the S Allocation Board at its January meeting. 2. 3. 4. The provisions of AB 2926 have since been expanded and revised by AB 1600. B. AB1600 AB 1600, which created Section 66OOO et. seq. of the Government Code, was enacted the State of California in 1987. AB 1600 requires that alI public agencies satisfy following requirements when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a conditior approval for a development project. 1. 2. Determine the purpose of the fee. Identify the facilities to which the fee will be put. San Marcos Unified School District pag Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justification Studv Aummt9 1 0 0 \ -& D ASSOCIATES, INC.~ 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for 1 facilities and the type of development on which a fee is imposed. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fi the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the develo on which the fee is imposed. 4. 5. Provide an annual accounting of any portion of the fee remaining unexpenr uncommitted in the District's accounts five or more years after it was colle In other words, AB 1600 limits the ability of a school district to levy a fee unless ($ is a need for the fee revenues generated and (ii) there is a nexus or relationship be the need for fee revenues and the type of development project on which the fee is in11 The same standard has been used in addressing the amount of the herein prG Mitigation Payments. The Study will provide information necessary to establish 5 nexus between the proposed Mitigation Payments, School Fees and future resid development within the District. - v. San Marcos Unified School LXsbict I AU FUSt 9 Residentid Develovment MifiQation Pmment Justification Study 0 ,’ -& b ASSOCIATES, INC.~ 111. METHODOLOGY OF REVISED STUDY SMUSD has experienced enrollment growth in recent years. This growth has created an incrt demand for new schooi facilities within the District and a need for funding to meet that der As a result, SMUSD has determined that Mitigation Payments should be levied on development projects requiring legislative approval from the Cities on Carlsbad, Escondido, Marcos, and Vista (the “Cities”) or the County of San Diego (the “County”) or projects \ prior legislative approvals or applicable environmental preceding have required such mitig: prior to development. In particular, the District has determined that Mitigation Payments 1 be levied on new residential projects if findings can be made that such projects will lead to hi student enrollment and increased facilities costs. The objective of the Study is to provide a I for such findings consistent with the requirements of AB 2926, AB 1600 and the provisio1 Section 66001 of the Government Code. A. Overview of Methodology - In order to evaluate the existence of such a nexus, the Study identifies and analyze! various connections or linkages between residential development and (i) the need for sc facilities, (ii) the cost of school facilities, and (5) the amount of the Reside Development Mitigation Payment that can justifiably be required by the District. primary linkages identified include the following: 1. Housing projections (i.e., the projected number of residential units to constructed within the District); Student generation (i.e., the number of students generated from a residential within the District); Facility requirements (i.e., the number of new school facilities required to hc students generated from new residential units); Facility cost (ie., the costs to the District associated with the construction of school facilities, as well as interim facilities and central administrative and sup facilities); and Funding requirements (i.e., the District’s need to levy Mitigation Payment cover the cost of new school facilities). -. 2. 3. 4. 5. The above linkages result in a series of impacts which (i) connect new resider development with increased school facilities costs, and (ii) connect Mitigation Pap( per residential unit with increased facilities costs. These impacts are identified for two residential land use classes: single family detac units and multi-family attached units (e.g., townhomes, condominiums, and apartmer: These “linkage impacts” include four major types: San Marcos Unified School District pad Residential DeveloDment hlitimfion Pavment Justificafion Stub A monrt 0 ,. 0 0 , \ -& 11 ASSOCIATES, INC.] 1. Residential Unit Projections; 2. Student Generation Factors; 3. School Facilities Impacts; and 4. Required Mitigation Payment Level. B. Residential Unit Projections Information used to estimate the number of proposed residential units to be constr within the boundaries of SMUSD was provided by San Diego Association of Govern ("SANDAG") and the District. C. Student Generation Impacts - Student Generation Factors ("SGFs") by school level (e.g., elementary school, m school, and high school) for each of the residential land use categories were calcuIatc Davis Demographics & Planning ("DDP"). D. School Facilities Cost Impacts School Facilities Cost Impacts were calculated by multiplying the additional SI facilities needed to adequately house students generated from hture residential units \ have not mitigated their impact on the District by estimated school facilities costs. SI facilities costs were estimated by David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") in accorc with educational policies of SMUSD, square footage and cost allowances establish1 the State Office of Public School Construction ("OPSC"), and site costs reaso determined by the District. In addition, DTA approxim&d the cost of providing in facilities and central administrative and support facilities to those students generated future residential units. E. Required Mitigation Payment Level Required Mitigation Payment Level for residential development shall be equal tc School Facilities Cost Impacts per unit. Mitigation Payment Levels will be calculate single family detached and multi-family attached units. San Marcos Unified School District P Aumsr 9 Residential DeveloDmeRt Mifi~aiio~ Pmment Justifi~ati~~ SrUdv 0 0 .' -& 1. 1 ASSOCIATES, INC.~ IV. SMUSD FACILITIES CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT In order to determine whether SMUSD's existing school facilities contain excess capacity to students generated by future residential development, current facilities and enroIlrnent da school year 1996-97 were evaluated. At the present time, SMUSD's facilities include seven (7) elementary schools, one (1) IT school). To determine the educational capacity in SMUSD's facilities, DTA reviewed 199 usage worksheets of the District and applied appropriate loading standards and utilization ra the number of classrooms at each school level. Collectively, the District's educational ca~ in school year 1996-97 consisted of seating for 6,538 students. Of these 6,538 existing 4,206 were at the elementary school level, 699 were at the middle school level, and 1,633 at the high school level. The District's Fall enrollment for school year 1996-97 was 1 students (excluding continuation and alternative education high school students). As sho Table 1 below, SMUSD's enrollment exceeded facility capacity at each school level in school school, and two (2) high schools (one (1) traditional high school and one (1) continuation - 1996-97. TABLE 1 EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT ~~ ' source: 2 Source: 3 San Marcos Unified School District. Includes permanent facilities and 30 percent interi portable facilities. Fall 1996 CBEDS enrollment. The District has had to (i) lease interim portable classrooms and (ii) place some school facilities on multi-track year-round schedule to house alI of the students being generated from existing units As a result of the voters support for a local bond to modernize existing school facilities, SMl has sufficient funds to convert Woodland Park Elementary School into a middle school facility modernize existing school facilities. Two new elementary schools, Discovery and Twin Oaks being funded by mitigation payments from CFD No. 2, redevelopment funds, developer paymc and State funding. Discovery Elementary School and Twin Oaks Elementary School are proje to be occupied in school years 1997-98 and 1998-99, respectively. In addition, the Districi San Marcos Unified School District Pa Residential Devdovment Mitipation Pavmetlr Justification Stmfi7 c tt'.lft.f 0 , 0 0 I& 1 ASSOCIATES, INC.] plans to convert the grade 7-8 middle school to a grade 6-8 middle school by having grade 6 i San Marcos and Woodland Park Middle Schools. Table 2 shows the projected facility capac the District in school year 1998-99. TABLE 2 FUTUREl SCHOOL FACILITIES CAPACITY AND EXISTING ENROLLMENT - The District does not have sufficient capacity to house all of the students generated residential units currently existing in the District. As a result, class size reduction was implemented in grade 1 during school year 1996-97. SMUSD intends to fully implement clas! reduction consistent with the State of California's funding of attendant operation costs t uncertain as to whether it will have funds for sufficient facilities in future school years to ex class size reduction to all grades 2 and 3 classrooms. San Marcos Unified School District Pa Residential Development Mitiination Pavment Justification Stumt Arnarrrf 0 0 0 ,' -& I b* ASSOCIATES, INc.1 V. IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON SCHOOL FACILZT NEEDS As discussed in Section 111, the objective of the Study is to determine the appropriateness 0, imposition of Mitigation Payments on future residential units which have not mitigated their scl facilities impact on the District. Section In outlined the methodology which was employed in Study to meet that objective. What follows is a step-by-step presentation of the results of analysis. A. Projected Residential Development Within the District The initial step in developing a nexus to the proposed Mitigation Payments is to deterr the number of future residential units to be constructed within the District's boundai Based on information obtained from SANDAG and the District, SMUSD could experic the construction of 24,230 additional residential units. Throughout the past few ye SMUSD has participated and formed a number of Mello-Roos Community Facili Districts ("CFDs") to mitigate school impacts. These CFDs are anticipated to incl approximately 2,161 of the future residential units to be constructed in the District. ' difference, 22,069 estimated future residential units, have not mitigated their impaci SMUSD. Table 3 below shows the total number of future single family detached multi-family attached units to be constructed in SMUSD, the total number of hi residential Units which have mitigated their impact through the CFDs, and the numbe future residential units which have not mitigated their impact on SMUSD. - T. TABLE 3 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL UNITS B. Student Generation Factors Per Residential Unit In order to analyze the impact on SMUSD's student enrollment from future residen units outside the boundaries of the existing CFDs, DDP determined SGFs for single fan detached and multi-family dttached Units. The process of determining SGFs involved cr referencing SMUSD's enrollment data against the County of San Diego Assessc residential data. San Marcos Unified School District Residential DeveloDmenf Mitipation Pavment Justificatjnn Stub Pag Arrmrrt 0 1 0 0 -& D I. ASSOCIATES, INC.~ Sorting and extracting Assessor's records by land use, DDP developed a databa 10,713 single family detached units. This database was then compared with SMX student enrollment database to identify address matches. Upon comparison of thc databases, 5,737 such matches were found, resulting in the following SGF: TABLE 4 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS - An identical procedure for calculating the SGF for single family detached units was to determine SGFs for multi-family attached units. The multi-family attached data consisted of 7,941 units. As with the single family deached database, the muIti-fa attached database was compared to the student enrollment database to identify adc matches. A total of 3,692 such matches were found. The resulting multi-family atta SGFs are shown in the table below. TABLE 5 STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Sari Marcos Unified School District pa4 Residential Development Mitigation Payment Justi$c&n StudV AuPust 9 , . 0 0 .* -& 1 :' ASSOCIATES, INC.~ C. District Facility Requirements By multiplying the information in Table 3 by the SGFs in Tables 4 and 5, the S projected the number of elementary, middle, and high school students to be generated future residential units which have not mitigated their impact on the District. projected student enrollment by land use and school level is listed in Table 6. TABLE 6 PROJECTED NEW STUDENT ENROLLMENT FROM FUTURE RESIDENTIAL UNITS (UNMITIGATED) II----- - In order to project the number of new schools necessary to adequately house stud generated from future residential units which have not mitigated their impact, SMUSD determined that an elementary school facility should house approximately 726 stud€ a middle school facility should house approximately 1,215 students, and a high scl facility should house approximately 2,400 students. As illustrated in Tables 2 and 3. existing school facilities and future school facilities funded by the local bond do not cor any excess capacity to house students generated from future residential units outside boundaries of the existing CFDs. Therefore, the Study has divided the projected student enrollment for future residential units by the assigned average school sizes st above. Table 7 on the following page shows the number of school facilities by scl level which will be required to adequately house students generated from future reside projects. San Marcos Unified School Disaict Pagc Residential DeveioDment MitiPation Pavment Justification Studv Ariuii~t 0 0 -& # Associ TABLE 7 ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS NEEDED TO HOUSE STUDENTS GENERATED FROM FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT D. 1996-97 District Facilities Costs To calculate estimated elementary, middle, and high school facilities costs for SMUSD, applied square footage and cost allowances developed by OPSC, educational policies estab by SMUSD, and site costs provided by the District. The school facilities costs represent tl cost of land, construction, hrniture and equipment, as well as technology. It must be interim facilities, central administrative and support facilities, or interest costs associated wit; incurred to finance facilities prior to receiving sufficient funds to construct permanent fac As to a given mitigation agreement, SMUSD may modi@ or waive any component thereof adequate fknding is being provided in advance of need. Also, the herein described school fat costs shown in Table 10 below may be bded by special taxes, proceeds of bonds of a corn facilities district, tax increment revenues, financing proceeds funded by such tax incr revenues or state funding net of any costs to District relating keto resulting fiom eligibilit). a given project. The estimated site acquisition, facility planning, and construction costs by s level are shown in Table 8, while the costs for each component of the site acquisition and fi construction are listed in Exhibit A. however, that the school facilities costs shown in Table 8 below do not include an amou - TABLE 8 ESTIMATED SCHOOL FACILITIES COSTS FOR San Marms Unified School Disaict p4 RdAPnfini fiv~l~nrnrnt Mthnthm Pmt ma m+ h-d~-~'..- rc. L 0 I% -& B. 1 ASSOCI As stated above, the costs in Table 8 do not include interim school facilities. In school facilities are the portable relocatable classrooms required by a school distx development absorption of a given project in the District, DTA has estimated the c SMUSD for providing interim school facilities for each new school facility. The esti interim school facilities costs by school level for a development project are illustra Table 9. The annual projections are listed in Exhibit B. house students prior to the next school being constructed. Based on projected resid TABLE 9 ESTIMATED INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES COSTS FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - In addition to interim school facilities, the costs listed in Table 8 do not include ce administrative and support facilities. As indicated in Tables 1 and 6, future residc units will cause the enrollment of SMUSD to double: This growth will demanc construction of new or additional central administrative and support facilities, as WI school facilities. In accordance with "District Administration Policy under the Provi of Chapter 341, Statutes of 1992, SB 1612", the State Allocation Board adopted on J~I 26, 1994, a report which identified that every student requires approximately fot square feet of central administrative and support facilities (see Exhibit C). Based 01 report and the estimated cost per square foot to construct and furnish these typ facilities, the Study includes a central administrative and support facilities cost imps $600 per student. E. Total School Facilities Cost Impacts To determine the total school facilities cost impacts caused by future single family deta and multi-family attached units which have not mitigated their impact on the Disi multiply (i) the school facilities costs (Table 8) by the additional school facilities ne (Table 7) and (ii) the number of elementary, middle and high school students ("able t the interim and central administrztive and suppcrt facilities costs (T.able 9 and parag above). The sum of these two products equals a total school facilities cost impac $225,099,040. Table 10 displays the projected school facilities cost impacts. Sari Marcos Un$ed School District Residentiul Development Mitigation Payment Justification Study pq Aueust 9, - I-- e .\ -& 11' ASSOCIA TABLE 10 TOTAL SCHOOL FACILITIES COST IMPACTS ON - Central Administrative F. Total School Facilities Cost Impacts Per Unit, To determine the school facilities cost impacts per single family detached and multi-far attached unit, the above total school facilities cost impacts were divided by the numbe students generated from each land use and the number of units in each land use which h, not mitigated their impact on the District. The schooi facilities cost impacts per sin family detached unit and multi-family attached unit are listed in Table 11 by school le and land use. page San Marcos Unified School Districl Residential Development MtXgaiion Payment Justification StUm, t- 1r7,r,l* E) rr 1 - School Level- --- I Elementary Middle High Land Use School School School Tota1 Single ~~ Family Detached $5,021 __ $2,794 $2,786 $io,6a Multi-family Attached t $4,958 $2,160 .$2,007 $9,121 ---- * ** School impacts include interim facilities and central administrative and support facilities. Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 0 0 ,' EXHIBIT A SCHOOL FACILITIES COSTS BY SCHOOL LEVEL - -. e @N MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DITRICT SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) *, A. SITE $4,472,313 Purchase Price of Property $4,445.3 13 Acres *: 10 CosVAcre **: $444,531 E1 WCEQ A b 10,Ooo Appraisals s7.OOo EscrowKitle 55,000 Surveys 55,000 * Assumes 10 Net Usable Acres ** Assumes a "Super Pad" or Improved Site B. PLANS $534,935 Architect's Fee (see Architect Fee Schedule worksheet) $454,935 Preliminary Tests 515,000 Energy Fee Analysis s 15,000 Other 55,Ooo Construction (see Cost Allowance Construction worksheet) $5,145,065 Utility Services NA Off-Site Development NA Service Site Development NA General Site Development (8% of Construction + 515,000 $56 1,605 Technology (5% of Construction) $257,253 - DSNSDE Plan Check $45,000 C. CONSTRUCTION $6,l23QU per acre) Unconventional Energy $16O,ooO *. D. TESTS $70,000 E. INSPECTION $M,OOO ($7,000 per month for 12 months) F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $351,041 ($5 x Regular Education SF + $10 x Special Education SF, includes Cost Index Adjustment of 32%) G. CONTINGENCY $176,543 ($2,000 + 1.5% of items A - E) H. ITEMS NOT FUNDED BY THE STATE $693,150 Start-up Expenses $120,000 Landscaping ($0.44 per square foot plus 8% Architect's fee) $206,997 Library Books $108,900 Technology $257,253 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $12,505,906 - Number of Students I24 Construction Cost per Student $17,22577 0 s. dN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DITRICT ESTIMATED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ALLOWANCE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE §QUARE FOOTAGE (ELEkfENTARY SCHOOL) - i I& 9N MARcos UNIFIED SCHOOL D ? TRIa OFFICE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST ALLOWANCE CONSTRUCTION (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) - *Includes Cost Index Adjustment 25% .t . a 0 .. SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DITRICT ARCHITECT FEE SCHEDULE (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) CONSTRUCTION FEES: $6,123,924 - -. Construction Cost per Student $20,61755 . 0 0 SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ESTIMATED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION ALLOWANCE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE (MIDDLE SCHOOL) I’ .. - T NA Corridors Closed NA Kitchen NA Food Service NA Office NA Multipurpose I ~~ 813 $8624 $70,111 968 $164.69 $159,418 389 $96.08 $37,373 5,122 $87.97 $450,582 2,808 $1 10.43 $3 10,073 Total NA I 96,234 I NA $10,399390 .* e a .. SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ARCHITECT FEE SCHEDULE (MIDDLE SCHOOL) $12,3362 10 CONSTRUCTION FEES: - * kNumber of Students 2,400 Construction Cost per Student $18,853.79 7% Bonus 3% Bonus RSP Allowance NA ~ NAP 1- NA 2,376 6 I NA NA NA 2,376 3 NA NA I NA NA NA I Grand Total NA 1 NA NA 2,400 I NA I . 0 0 .. SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION COST ALLOWANCE CONSTRUCTION (HIGH SCHOOL) - *Includes Cost Index Adjustment = 25% **Part of the Career and Vocational Education lab alIotment .* 0 0 4 SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ARCHITECT FEE SCHEDULE (HIGH SCHOOL) CONSTRUCTION FEES: $30,373,659 - . .' 0 0 EXHIBIT B INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES COST BY SCHOOL LEVEL - 't <' e 0 v. ,\ A zqs SliZ' 12;s z.212 nnnjg ggg$ 6' s! 30:s ao;? gojg ..o:r 000!0 : SSSI!s( !! qoi3 $"i§ EOIE #pg oooio c, $"j$ ao;a EOiE "Oig oooio : 351sjsI ,Y 20;: a*;# zoia -0;- oo0;o $8$jS 2 pq n"i3 ?-!,a ,%"j oooio : sstajs '* 553' j 8 n-- i i I mom m n y:ln gola pa oooio . s8Sl;Sl ~ 1s so$ 1 i i ! - ;- - j- 351s ;a - :- I .- - i- *. if n ;m - ;- 0 ;0 - - i- z qoit $a/$ poi: ?oia oomjn ; s"ig 2. ; 2- 23 '8 wm i i .. - ,- - 2 zoic . il .lo/- z iz "'iX io!~ ~--:a ; *gg:!$ see 18. : 888 i!$ j gggig i 25; :?J a f -0:- i* so;? 00;s so;:: -0n:o i owe i- i - .- = go$ sois $-;E -ai5 011 = go$ 80;s - ._ - != 2 00 i:: -w w - .- =o ;- :- 00i0 ~~*io 6;od z Eole ;o:; sois goi_s *n*jt- i xpgiz -. i nww m kg &: 8q E& aVb Eg8 Grin' in ZGZ * i ! i i 0): gZg ' ~oig 30ja BO!^ lafr rnnir f %@i8 I --e4 1:: ZXZ m a gois ZOiZ *N-l* i 9i3gig i sa3 i; i &w!$ ; XOiX %Of% nn-:. j i fja'Jii; 90;s i sogig *) is xOjg zojc 9013 +--in n : p $8' i f! i gg!$i!$ ;a3 ia i gggiq i i 513313 gas !a -.. * zo In sois 10 ;= 20 i:: ma- jn 0 -0'- -0:- IOia_ -piR n,-jn *I in 'c :- " Xoig poip co!a aolr -00 io i i i ii - pig ooio 00 io 00 io OOOjO sIa$j;8 t i i i ! dzz 829 358 00 ;,' .* 0 0 '* EXHIBIT C CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES COSTS - T. .. I 4' .\ rg 0 0 44 a REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER Asll State Allocation Board Meeting, Januaty 26 I-. A* TAW OF A DlSWCt w PO-€ PspY PF CHAPTEA 34~rn~~~~ SB 1612 - To provfde 8 mechanism by whfch dlstrlcts c8n generate eIlgibiMy fi csnstructlon of OIstrM Adm lnfstratlon faclfttles when teaching atatlons In 81 are sufflclent to house the Average Dally Attendance (ADA). BACKGRaUFlD - Under the provislons of SB 1612 ellglblllty Is dctennlned on a teaching ! basla. ff the teaching atatlons 8m SUfflCknt 00 house the ADA, then then eItg!biltty for tikttict wide admlnlstrathe facflltSes, - Staff recognizee that there are eftcumstances where a hardship would exfs ellawancs k made for these facllltles. - j. Allow four square feet per ADA for all admfnlstratlve facllltles Includin barns, war8hou~s, storage, etc. The dlstrlct'rr exlstlng adequate an be charged against the calculated ellglbillty. 2. Specify that ADA shall be deterrnlned usin0 B current 314 year enmi projectton, lncludlng 8peCJal day ch3sses and Continuatfon High Schc 3. Allow 5% of the building construction al~owance for general development which can be used for staff paridng and other genen 4. Provide an adequJste site for these lacflftles. 5. Stlputata that construction of thebe facflltles wifl be the dfstdct's last prl 6. Stlpulate that as long as the State has unhoused ADA, DL Adrnlnlstratlon proJe&i will be the i88t pt'forlty for fitndlng. Among 1 appllcatfons for Dlsmct Adm ldstratlon facliltles, 50150 prole& wflt hau prlortty. - work. Number of Square Feet Per Student 4 Estimated Cost Per Square Foot $150 Estimated Cost Per Student $600