HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 11-19 CC JT MINBook 66/Page 131
11 /19/85
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND THE
BOARD OF THE SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Main Conference Room, Civic Center
November 19, 1985
The meeting of the Sweetwater Union High School District was already in
session when joined by the City Council. (The members of the SUNS
District School Board: Rick Aguilar, Judy Bauer, Ruth Chapman, Lita
David, Steven Hogan were present, as was District Superintendent: Anthony
J. Trujillo.) Mayor Morgan called the City Council to order at
approximately 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Council members present: Cooper, Dalla, VanDeventer, Morgan. Absent:
Waters. Administrative Officials present: Bolint, Campbell, McCabe.
Mayor Morgan welcomed the school board to National City. Board Member
Hogan expressed the hopes of the Board that the meeting would be the
beginning of accomplishment.
DEVELOPER FEES
District Superintendent Trujillo spoke of developers' fees for school
facilities; the fact that Sweetwater Union High School District had to file
a 201, DECLARATION OF OVERCROWDEDNESS; saying that is part of
what they would like to discuss today; a phenomena in National City and
the older parts of the District is the need for additional school facilities
even though there has not been a tremendous amount of new homes built;
what is happening in National City and other older communities is that
older people are moving out of their homes and large families are moving
in; Sweetwater High School is one of the largest in terms of number of
students and yet has one of the smallest campuses. Mayor Morgan
suggested this be laid over to be an item on City Council agenda.
Councilman Dalla said he was talking about growth without building; there
is not much growth in National City.
District Superintendent Trujillo said when Proposition 13 came into being,
the schools lost their ability to tax; nobody wanted to use developers' fees
while there was no growth in the number of school attendees; the growth
began to hit the State selectively; the Board has tried to find ways to
deal with it; the only way available to the District now is to implement
developers' fees —or try to stop development; they were trying to find a
way to spread the costs as equitably as possible; they have made a study
of existing dwelling units and the number of students and have arrived at
a figure of 2.7 students per dwelling unit. Mr. Trujillo spoke of different
formulae for determining developers' fees and distributed copies of
"DEVELOPER FEE RECOMMENDATION" — See Exhibit "A" attached.
There was general discussion of the Recommendation distributed and the
fact that 184 units would be built in the Valley Road Developm ent
recently approved. Councilman Dalla inquired about use of the Lottery
monies to be allocated to the schools. Mr. Trujillo said the State has
prohibited the use of those funds for buildings. City Manager Mc Cabe
inquired if the lottery funds were used in another area, wouldn't that free
other funds? Mr. Trujillo said that would not do it; when they look at
their salaries, the utilities, etc. —they have control of only 5% of their
budget. City Manager McCabe suggested they use the lottery money for
salaries and go on double session. Mr. Trujillo said the schools will get
only 34% of the lottery gross; then you divide that amount by five million
(total number of students in the State) for the amount per student; and
multiply by the 24,000 students in the District.
REDEVELOPMENT
Mr. Trujillo spoke of REDEVELOPMENT Funds; City Council's interest in
schools and their continued support of the schools, particularly Sweetwater
High School, with the sm allest campus and the largest student body-24
acres and 1,800 students; and said there is a block of homes across from
the school, that would make a natural recreational park to join up with
the elementary school to the north—lf, they could be acquired; this Is
could be developed for joint use. Mr. Trujillo also spoke of the success
rate of minority students throughout the state which is devastating. Mr.
Trujillo distributed copies of CHAPTER ONE — WHY BE INTERESTED IN
REDEVELOPMENT? — see Exhibit "B" attached.
Book 66/Page 132
11 /19/85
Board Member Aguilar spoke of Redevelopment and the need for white
collar residents In National City.
Mayor Morgan spoke of some of the things Redevelopment funds have been
used for in the City. Councilman Dalla said there would not be any
Redevelopm ent funds available until the year 2000; the City has already
sold bonds and the tax increment money for 3/4 of the City is committed
for the next twenty to twenty—five years, or beyond the year 2000. Vice
Mayor VanDeventer said we are stuck with some of the action Council has
taken in the past; the biggest problem we have is that we have to tear
down the units in the Downtown area before developers will even look at
the land; we are lim ited in what we can do; we are concerned, but we
have no avenue either. Mayor Morgan spoke of the "good —will" money that
state law requires the Community Development Agency to pay over and
above the cost of buying the real property, this sometimes amounts to
more than the actual cost of the real property. Councilman Cooper said
the only benefit the District might derive from Redevelopment would be
user fees. Vice Mayor Van Deventer explained that for one furniture
company, within the Downtown Redevelopment area, the "good —will" is
going to cost the City at least one million dollars.
General discussion about the District's long range planning (at present non—
existent for Sweetwater High School); the presentation at this meeting is
what they hope to do; the District has the power of eminent domain to
acquire the properties mentioned, if they had the funds. Further discussion
about the possible acquisition of the properties which constitute about 18
acres, which would increase the Sweetwater campus to roughly 40 acres.
It was agreed (consensus, no vote taken) that City staff would meet with
the District's consultant and staff.
Each member of the District Board spoke briefly.
The joint meeting was adjourned at 6:43 p.m.
h
i/
L
CITY CLE�tK
The foregoing minutes were approved at the regular meeting of December 10, 1985.
Corrections No coruections
MAY
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA
attachment 1
DEVELOPER FEE RECONNENDATION
. 0efined area (11/2 miles from existing high schools)
Sq. ft. :
Phase I
Phase II ,"
Phase•III
Phase IV
r
7/1/85-
9/30/85
10/1/85-
12/31/85
1/1/86-
3/31/86
4/1/86-
6/30/86
7/1/86-
0-1,000
$1,060*
$1,370
$1,680
$1,990
$2,300
1,001-1,300
$1,385
$1,800
$2,190
$2,595
$3,000
1,300 +
$1,705
$2,220
$2,700
$3,200
$3,700
*All amounts to be adjusted automatically by the Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index.
II. Undefined area (in excess of 1i miles from existing high schools)
Sq. ft.
July 1, 1985
0-1,000
1,001-1,300
1,300 +
$2,300*
$3,000
$3,700
*Ail amounts to be adjusted automatically by the Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index.
III. It is also recommended that:
A. A task force be established to study alternative methods of funding for school
construction.
8. Fees scheduled for Phase II be studied in November, 1985, to determine if it
is necessary to implement Phase II, III, and/or Phase IV.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1
attachment 2
"You Get What You Pay For"
No additional facilities - Stop issuing
letters of availability.
750** Add temporary facilities to existing sites.*
1,500 Construct permanent facilities on existing sites.
2,000 Add temporary facilities on expanded sites..
3,000 Combination of construction of permanent and
adding of temporary facilities or new sites.
3,700 Construct permanent facilities on new sites.
-Cost to construct Sr. High School - 1800 students
$25,000,000
- Cost to construct Jr. High School - 1200 students
$15,000,000
- Pupil Generation Factor .27***
- Administrative charges (2.8%) $100 per unit
Formula
[($40,000,000 - 3,000 students) x .27 PGF] + $100 = $3,700
EXHIBIT"A"
Page 2
attachment 3
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 5 : r
) : Column 6
- Column .7
Total
Permanent
Projected
Projected
Available
Temporary
Permanent
Capacity
& Temporary
Capacity
Enrollment
1985-86
Growth
1985-86
Enrollment
Permanent
Capacity
Capacity
+ available
- overcrowded
Northern Area
Granger Junior High
National City Junior High
1,179
1,123
1,179
1,183
861
1,095
1
1
2
�862
1,091,096 6
+ 317 .::
+ + 2127
'
+ 60+ 26
Sweetwater High
1,803
2,027
1,933
East
Junior High
1,364
1,364 _
1,165
146 .'
1,311
+ + 5393 ..
Bonita Vista
Bonita Vista High
1,464
1,464.
- 1,420
136
1,556'
Central District
10
997
+ 345
Castle Park Middle
Chula Vista Junior High
Hilltop Junior High
Castle Park High
Chula Vista High �
Hilltop High
1,342
1,185
1,471
1,601
, 1389
1,421
1,342
1,545
1,471
1,713
1837.\
,
1,421
987
1,460
1,260
1,777
1,864
1,418
23
24
10
22
22
1,483
1,284
1,787•
1,886•
1,440•
- 298
+ 187
- 186
-, 497
-
19
+ 360
+ 112
+ 448
Southern Area
28
1,037+
+ 289
Mar Vista Middle
1,326
1,326
1,009
21
1,419
+ 183
Montgomery Junior High
Southwest Junior High
Mar Vista High
Montgomery High
Southwest High
1,602
885
1,358
1,335
1,239
1,602
1,035
1,414
1,503
1,687
1,398
1,066
1,514
1,779
1,793
55
26
19
51 -
1,121•
1,540•
1,798•
1,844•
236
- 182
- 463
- 605
+ 150
+ 56
+ 168
+ 448
rop
1
r-
a) w
wH
a ,ignetee ove
crowded conditions
including perma-
nent and temporary
capacity
Column 1 - represents school site/district capacity as determined by district's master plan and is representative of classroom capacity as
mandated by the State of California.
Column 2 - represents the addition of Columns 1 and 2. projected according to historical data
Column 3 - represents projection of site/district enrollments based upon actual sixth day enrollment, pro j
to end of first month (October 4, 1985).
Column 4 - represents projected "during school year" growth, i.e., these figures are developed from currently in -progress construction occurring
within site/district boundaries.
Column 5 - represents what site/district might expect as maximum enrollment for 1985-86.
Colusi 6 - represents available site/district student seats and is determined by subtracting Column 4 (projected 1985-86 enrollment) from
Column 1 (capacity).
Column 7-represents temporary capacity provided by trailer. and/or relocatable classrooms
•
1. UCVCIUJcI
1cc. . ..... ..-- r--
-;
Expense
New
S.G.F.
.27*
Cohort*
Total
Unhoused
Income _
Temporary
Facility
Balance
r
- 716,000
07-01-85
1
1
255,000
1985-86
2,000
540
200
740
2,040 :.
1,500,000 :,:
.
530,000
1,118,000
1986-87
2,000
540
200
740
2,780
' 1,500,000
637,000 :
1987-88
2,000
540
200
740
3,520
1,500,000
744,000
1,874,000
2,523,000
1988-89
2,000
540
200
740
4,260
1,500,000
851,000
'3,065,000
1989-90
2,000
540
200,
740
5,000
1,500,000
958,000
3,500,000
1990-91
1991-92
2,000
2,000
540
540
200 \
200
740
740
5,740
6,480
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,065,000 `
953,000
4,047,000
4,487,000
1992-93
2,000
540
200
740
7,220
.1,500,000
1,060,000
4,820,000
1993-94
2,000
540
200
740
7,960 -
1,500,000
1,167,000
5,046,000
1994-95
2,000
540
200
740
8,700
1,500,000,
1,274,000
5,165,000
1995-96
2,000
540
200 .
740
9,440
1,500,000
1,381,000
5,177,000
1996-97
2,000
540
200
740
10,180
1,500,000
1,488,000
5,082,000
1997-98
2,000
540
200
::740 ,
10,920
1,500,000
1,595,000
4,880,000
1998-99
2,000
540
200
740 ;1
11,660
1,500,000 >..
'1,500,000
1,702,000
4,571,000
1990-2000
2,000
540
200
740
12,400
1,809,000
*These are methods of determining number of students generated by new housing and moving up from the elementary
schools.
attachment 4
page 2 of
II. Developer Fee: Average of $2,500 first year and $3,000 second year '
New
•
S.G.F.
.27*
Cohort*
Total
Unhoused
Income
Expense
Temporary
Facilities
Balance
7-01-85
-
'
715,000
1985-86
2,000
540
200
740
2,040
5,000,000
530,000
3,755,000
1986-87
2,000
540
200
740
2,780
6,000,000
637,000
9,118,000
1987-88**
2,000
540
200
740
3,520
- 6.000,000
744,000
14,374,000
1988-89
2,000
540
200
740
3,060
6,000,000
851,000
4,523,000
III. Developer Fee: Flat $3,700 per unit.
,
New
S.G.F.
.27*
,
Cohort*
Total
Unhoused
Income
Expense
Temporary
Facilities
Balance
7-01-85
'
; - 715,000
1985-86
2,000
540
200
740
2,040
7,400,000
530,000
6,155,000
1986-87
2,000
540
200
740
2,780
7,400,000
637,000
12,918,000
1987-88**
2,000
540
200
740
3,520 ,
7,400,000
1 744,000
19,574,000
1988-89
2,000
540
200
740
3,060
,7,400,000
851,000
11,123,000
*These are methods of determining number of students generated by new housing and moving up from the elementary
schools.
**Sufficient fees collected to build a phase I high school to house 1,200 students.
EXHIBIT "B"
CHAPTER ONE
WHY BE INTERESTED IN REDEVELOPMENT?
As you have pondered the many problems confronting your local school
district, have you ever wondered how some cities and counties have been able to survive
under Proposition 13? Your district cannot maintain current facilities adequately or
construct new buildings. How can cities or counties do it? As a partial answer, some
California cities and counties are using the formation of community redevelopment agencies
more and more to provide for their capital outlay needs. A few alert school districts have
been able to become partners in this effort and have secured needed financial resources for
use in providing a more adequate education program.
Some Success Stories
Just look at what some enterprising districts have done:
o During the next 45 years, the San Jacinto Unified School District will receive
an estimated $20,000,000 to rehabilitate school facilities, construct needed
classrooms, and provide for landscaping and grounds improvements as
examples of some of the things that will be done.
o Pomona Unified School District was able to construct a twenty-four classroom
elementary school with an estimated cost of $3,200,000 at no cost to the
district.
-1-
EXHIBIT "B"
o One school district which requested not to be identified has approximately
$6,200.,000 on account with a redevelopment agency for which it is receiving
about $650,000 in annual interest. These funds were contributed by the agency
for "financial damages" to the district and for the purchase of certain school
property.
o The Capistrano Unified School District is in the process of securing an
agreement involving the allocation of additional funds to be used for school
housing purposes.
There are many other examples. These are just several illustrations of
benefits accruing to those school districts that have discovered community redevelopment
laws.
Redevelopment? What's That?
California community redevelopment laws authorize cities and counties to
establish an agency which has responsibility for eliminating blight. In the broadest terms,
the elimination of blight includes such things as construction of streets, improvement of
municipal water systems, development of shopping centers and industrial complexes,
construction of municipal offices and facilities, and sometimes the clearance of slums to
name but a few of the activities. Once these agencies go to work, they are able to divert
property tax monies away from all other local public agencies including school districts.
These redevelopment agencies are using in part local school district taxes for their capital
outlay purposes.
-2-
EXHIBIT "B"
To Turn Off or Turn On?
Redevelopment as a term sounds ominous. It is not referred to in university
course work, and it really relates to other public agencies, cities and counties, which are
strange stamping grounds for most of us school people. Because of this, the easiest thing is
to turn off and ignore this possible avenue of school finance.
As a school administrator or board member, you have a real challenge
providing and maintaining adequate school facilities during a time when dollars are short. If
you are interested in another option, seriously look at a partnership arrangement with a city
or county redevelopment agency. An investigation of this opportunity might lead to the
resolution of some severe capital outlay problems.
One of the obstacles that will confront school people in this effort will be the
resistance of city and county officials to any intrusion by others who may wish to share in
the division of this important source of revenue. Therefore, if you start on this avenue,
don't let the first "no" of a city or county redevelopment official turn you off. After all,
you may be introducing them to a new concept and some mutual education may be in order.
The intent of this treatise is to provide you with information to first turn you
on to an opportunity, and secondly, to provide you with the necessary knowledge to deal
effectively with city and county redevelopment officials to secure a fair share of these
revenues.
Other school districts are sharing in these revenues. Why not your district?
You honestly need to read on!
-3-
EXHIBIT "B"
Although the term school district is used throughout this document, it also
includes community college districts in precisely the same way. Most of the principles
outlined also have application to other local agencies that are dependent upon local tax
revenues.
-4-