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