Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 4, 1987 (31)TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE i c- tit ii. { 1 A t I st! :t ".x t fii.�: LJ • J� t, a v V V. i• : 4. a V� s a � v�- DATE February 4, 1987 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF LODI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT THE SCHOOL IMPACTION FEES AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF THE LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. PREPARED BY: City Manager NO RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council, by Resolution, authorize the Community Development Department to collect the School Impaction Fee as required by the State of California on behalf of the Lodi Unified School District and that the Cit;; retain 3% of said fees to cover administration costs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the very end of the 1986 Legislative year both the Senate and Assembly passed legislation which requires local school districts to collect mandatory impaction fees if they are using State Bond funds for new construction. This legislation was passed with the very strong support of the Governor because he felt local school districts should be paying for a portion of new school construction. Earlier this month the Trustees of the Lodi Unified School adopted the maximum fee which is $1.50 per square foot for residential and $.25 per square foot for commercial and industrial. The new fees are to be affective March 9, 1987. However, subdivisions with Final Maps or separate impaction agreements with LUSD before September 1, 1986 are exempted and these projects will pay the present district fee of $200 per bedroom. It appears that all residential projects in Lodi are exempted and possibly some commercial and industrial projects with Final Maps. As a convenience to contractors and other persons seeking Building Permits from the City of Lodi, it is the staff's recommendation that the Coasnunity Development Department collect all impaction fees on behalf of LUSD and charge the District a 3% fee to cover the City's cost. The County and the Cities of Stockton and Tracy have refused to collect the new fee because of the multiplicity of school districts in those jurisdictions. Manteca is refusing to collect the fee for reasons undetermined at this time. Since (1) there is only a single school district in Lodi; (2) our Building Division must determine the square -footage of all construction projects to determine building permit costs: and (3) the City already collects impaction fees, it appears to be in everyone's best interest to have the Community Development' Department collect the fees. I^ � C" 1 a es B. Schroe r unity Development Director CCI/TXTD.01B January 12, 1987 City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 blest Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Attention: Jim Schroeder and Roger Houston Re: AB 2925 Developer Fee Dear Jim and Roger, As you know, on January b, 1987, our Board adopted Resolution 87-4 imposing and implementing the new developer fee in the amount of $1.50 per square foot for residential and $.25 per - square foot for industrial and commercial construction within the City of Lodi and the Lodi Unified School District. The Board's action states that the fee is to be collected on all building permits to be issued on or after March 9, 1987, except in the case of qualifying subdivisions and existing agreements. Enclosed for your use and information is a packet of material which was presented to the Board. Also enclosed is a packet of handouts for your use declaring the imposition of the fee and a sample of the form which the Department of Housing and Community Development is requesting be completed by purchasers of mobile homes. Between now and March 9th, if there is no fee applicable under the old SB 201 provisions, we recommend just checking the second box, dating the certificate, sign it and noting City of Lodi. If a fee has been or is to be collected under the old SB 201, check the first box, sign, etc. After March 9th, the fee will be the $1.50 per square foot and if you are collecting the fee, you will need to make a note of the certifications and just check that they have met the provisions of Government Code 53080. May we ask that you send us a copy of any of the items that you certify so that we may use them in the compilation of information that we have to do for our funding agency. AB 2926 Developer Fee Page 2 At this time I would like to formally request on behalf of..our Board that the City of Lodi collect the requisite fees for us and transmit to us as has been done with the SB 201 fees. We understand that an administrative fee would be in order and hopeijily with the passage of new legislation, that can come from the proceeds. Until that time, I believe that we can take that from the interest earned on the funds on deposit with either the City or the school district. I am currently working to define the areas that will cause difficulty or question in the implementation of the fee. I concur with your suggestion that a meeting with the other building officials might be quite useful. I anticipate having my material together by the middle of next week and would hope to have spoken to our neighboring school districts within that time frame. I look forward to working. with you on the implementation of this new ff--C nd thank you both very much for your assistance and cooperation. Sit-p�eiy, i / 1 Joan Sta r Facility Planner MJS:cw Enc. GEFO [ THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Of THE LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ot THE COUN-1Y Qi SAN JOAQUIN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION 87-4 RESOLUTION ESTA6H��LICGNtSTRUCMIQNND MANnING AB 2926 fiECONSTRUCT�pNELQPER FEES FOR SC WHEREAS, this body is the legally constituted governing board for the Lodi Unified School District; and WHEREAS, the State has enacted Legislation (AB 2926, effective January 1, 1987) which provides local school boards the authority to enact fees on new building construction; and 7, the State requires local school districts to WHEREAS,, pursuant to SB 32 participate in the cost aofnew newand residentialreconstructed consstructionbuildings $0.25lperh`quareFTt of $1.50 per square foot rovision of receiving foot of new commercial and industrial construction as a p State aid for new and reconstructed school buildings through the Leroy F. Greene Program; and WHEREAS, the area comprising the Lodi Unified School District is experiencing commercial and industrial growth which attracts new persons to reside in the area; and WHEREAS the area comprising the Lodi ol DConstrsct.iont is eandrpopd�ng, and will continue to experience, lation growth; and WHEREAS, the area comprising the Lodi Unified School District is experiencing rapid, substantial, and continuing increases in the number of pupils enrolling in its school buildings; anti WHEREAS, most of the school buildings fulTthis capacity�byare prPvii:tusyactionused taf the maximum extent and have been declared this Board; and WHEREAS, this district opens the school buildings equally to all puPilsrowth within the district wse their neighbheor }�housing capacity ood school is lthroughout l, and sthe pdistrict; in any area of the drict and ult WHEREAS, any and all or new osbedents to the constructed through tthe sStateT'stLeroy he eF.fGreene classroom spaces, which aree tt Lease Purchase Program; and WHEREAS, many school buildings in the thisdistrict use ahavre e bbeen 'inn a cintinwhichuous use requires for 30 years or longer and as a result of renovation and reconstruction to ensure their continued effective usage for current and future enrollments; and will come from the Leroy F. Greene Program; WHEREAS, funds for reconstruction and n:lEREAS, Lodi Unified's current continued participation in t6;. Leroy F. Greene Program necessitates ficanc.ial participation in all bui?dings costs of the projects; and WHEREAS, Lodi Unified School District intends to fund the match/share with developer fees as provided by State law, and has scheduled the implementation hearing for January 6, 1987; and WHEREAS, notification of consideration of the new developer fees was given 14 clays in advance of January 6, 1987 by advertisement in the Lodi dews Sentinel and the Stockton Record, and by a 9( --neral mailing, and factual information supporting the need for the fee was available pursuant to State law; and WHEREAS, in addition to new construction and reconstruction needs, t4 -- district has a continuing need for interim student housing which the district currently funds through the SB 201 development fees and which tho district intends to fund with the AB2926 developer fee as provided by State law; and WHEREAS, when a fee has been imposed by a school district, AB 2926 prohibits cities and counties from issuing building permits unless the school district governing board certifies compliance with the developer fee requirement imposed by the school governinq board. WHEREAS, the fees are for public facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the school district has proposed construction plan in compliance with Government Code Section 53077.5(b) (AB 3314/Chapter 685,1986). NOW, THEREFORE, CE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of the -Lodi Unified School District, in a regular, public session on January 6, 1987 hereby enacts a fee schedule of $1.50 per square foot of new residential construction and 50.25 cents ;ler- square foot of new commercial and industrial construction for the provision of badly needed new and reconstructed school housing at all grade levels and throughout the District; and BE 1 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governing Board hereby requests that the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton and the County of San Joaquin not issue buildirj permits commencing March 9, 1987, without collecting such fee as is determined appropriate by this schedule; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governing Board hereby authorizes -the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and the County of San Joaquin to collect the requisite fee on behalf of the Lodi Unified School District and the Board hereby certifies that all developers paying the fee to the local building authority at the time of permit issuance are deemed in compliance with the Developer Fee requirement imposed by this board; and BE I? FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governing Board hereby declares that the fees enacted by this Resolution shall not be effective on structures for which permits have already been issued or on any development project for which a final map was approved and construction had commenced on or before September 1, 1986 or on permits to be issued for development projects covered by a pre-existing development fee agreement. As provided in State law, projects in existing subdivisions as defined above will be subject to the fee in the amount in existence on S,.ptember 1, 1986 and those covered by agreements will be subject to the fee in the amount in existence on September 1, 1986. BE :T FURTHER RESOLVED that. the District's Environment:,] Review Officer, t,ary Joai Starr, is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to section 21152 of the California Environmental Quality Act on the finding that the action to implement the fee pursuant to AB 2926 has no effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the provisions of the Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1986 by the Board of Trustees of the Lodi Unified School District of the County of San Joaquin, to wit: AYES: Johnston, Meyer, Todd, Derrick, Ball, Dale, Vatsula NOES: None ABSENT: None Flbd Daj�, resident of the Board of Trustees ATTEST: Ann Johnsto Clerk of the Board of Trustees CI i Y COUNCIL i HO:.MAS A. PETERSON �� F L O D amity A1arager FRED hi REiD. Mayor CITY At �.:. REtMCJ-iE EVE LYN M. OLSOti City Clerk Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET DAVID Y. HINCHMAN CALL BOX 3006 RONALD M. STEIN JAMES W. PINKERTON, Ir LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-191.0 City Attorney JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER (209) 334-5634 February 9, 1987 Mr. Ellerth Larson Superintendent of Schools 1300 West Lodi Avenue, Suite P Lodi, CA 952.40 Dear Mr. Larson: This letter will confirm action taken by the Lodi City Council at its regular meeting of February 4, 1987, whereby Council adopted Resolution No. 87-22 entitled "A Resolution of the Lodi City Council Authorizing the City of Lodi Ccenrnuiity Development Departrnent to Collect School Impaction Fees on behalf of Lodi Unified School District". Fuger, Resolution No. 87-22 provides that the City shall retain 3% of said fees to cover administrative costs in collecting such fees. A certified copy of Resolution No. 87-22 is enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR: Jj RESOLUTION NO. 87-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE IAD, CITY COU't L AU T HORI Z IN(7 17HE CITY OF LOD, 0-ai- N'LNITS' D OPhIEW- DEPS RTP�iF� Tp COLLECT SCHOOL IMPACTION FEES ON BEHALF OF LCAT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT wHEREAS, In 1986, AB2926 (Stirling) passed, Statutes of 1986, Chapter 887 which required local school districts, if they are using State Bond funds for new construction, to levy and collect school impaction fees up to $1.50 per square foot for residential developient and $.25 per square foot for commercial and industrial development; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi has been asked by the Lodi Unified School. District to collect the school impaction fees on behalf of the School District fra-n developers at the tine of collection of other develop:ient fees; and WTHERE,AS, in return for collecting said fees the City of Lodi will receive frcm the School District a 3 percent fee to cover the City's administrative costs in collecting these fees; NOW, TFzvpFMRE, BE IT RESOLD that the Community Development Department is hereby authorized to collect the school impaction fees as required by the State of California on tehalf of Lodi Unified School District, and that the City retain 3 percent of said fees to cover administrative costs in collecting said fees. Dated: February 4, 1987 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 87-22 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held February 4, 1987 by the following vote: Olson, Pinkerton, Hinc Ayes: Council yrs Snider and Reid ( yor)hman, Noes: Council Members - None Absent: Council members - None Alice M. Reimche City Clerk 87-22