Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
83-88 HOMEBUYER FEE TASK FORCE 4 OF 5
r jr., , i �� i • . 1 ✓,r'" r \` e{u►Y{�.aOInT lNllfl��;;Clyn I: 5YI Ci. ` i •' , i , 1 •cwt { ,+ iy �°'lir" I 1\i tt''w it+ i'• " i atiN Join! Unified School pislrlcQ _ {' 5:6 B Strri l,avl,. CA SSi11. v,enst ao-a r� r. I�a� ; +pit i351RUIiMt FN. p�tN ,,,\ 1 Draxel qre �p IC4t�' io.w ' Villinova Or; •i +1Ri1�i0l1 �1 �, •:i„w .Iay i •,N, '., 1 � ° '.tom vi - _--f. f:,,w,..,r.;., ,} i .//. F • � i of , •. , • i .+ i + ii a (. ` 1 • 1 It,n.l • tJ +, C •,� i/ i ~ r I.+.Y 1 ' 1 ' fl - ,.,. N ' • __ � 4.. ip+,; i :i {. , ii+r i. tl .iPi ij ! _I.1 • JAL lty OAK --� . . i 4...'i it ,' ° :•,Y11i —� � rh •�! RI 11. i� •`'c f i •+ } r c tr i j 1 r tlttRsay Ath Sci t t i1- -- ' ` •rij � . � d I� iii, 1.5 Y 4 JR, IIIGiI ,. C'.�tYVGras Me'i i � •;'±i «I rr tli' 1' +r +irr a + i rlaarn r t Jl ch+i.. tttN10 'Look * N+. .i i' �' `•. �+i3r T ,, •i1t�.. 1��` � iY1 1 ;�� , ;V i � : ii arll Y r •; ih + � � N thllY 1 � � r .,. nlSYgltT 5i1, ►f{i ,,itritl i' St re Ct i'i r,` 11 i,+� ,,♦ 1 / C1 gmotA— J a !t i I,i. J+ . i♦ r Ilio it li, c'-` / .. J !✓ alrqrlrtd id 5 '` Russell Olua r •��q IIA r iie l,, i ` is ,YM �+, M ie r ! � , i a t/ i i j i 1 + W ,yl• Ir r _. � "i,. ,l•, 1+, •y a i.,, Y ), x� ,, Il:,�� i .1H.i '1 1� x♦ Ye+ Y �. i �i i i y. 11 s�Yyl ,e y� ^j'� rv�I ♦�'��7 � .i.p• � 1 , t� Ili,r ; 1 -+. ,r T,ri '' Ir r � � �i �.It ✓ �% i +•t 's �, 5e.1tA`,� ` i •� I i1 i.,i: '`' rJ, ••' i1. rr ,� il, :_, Il ,�� I�lll' r,...ria Ilglyersll Y'i. ,, t}»,+: `t .Xc. ti i s i l S,�t�` � , . r �hd�Va'v •� �, 1•.�' 1, t+ °� .t ir, it N�� .Y Y .. �' . � �•••«,„ , G n S C (� s i i� V.it, i �, 1 erl . i L%..•. //,. } (� 1 i1" tr i K a t iu., +. i t `/ y � i; jil r �✓ � i'r_ ,. �) ...: , 1 Y + �t Y�ti.��ir � t, 1 ,Y• � , � ! '•t i I'.i.4 i• ii I`I Q .% .. + r. i WDEA401 Northnyeth DaViS► ... itt��,j( s t i�•:"�li � Ilii ,�Ic .��r t ` 1 r V(f I..'.; �•�1 Qat( y' l,I`!•, /li ` j' +�ri�'i�l ilii�Ji`1+'Y lr�.s+ `r .«.� Valley ;,,��i i i� r`..I it i �r / it Birch Latie µ r i suac intsndent X50-]3�0 'Unified School District Business. I/ 750�1� -362 D�,il1S c701Y11` ersonnet�strniCelc.ionel agrrice5 �a OiBo „ X Pup11 services 75o-o3B8 A inst^3;' a services 15o�U361 526 B Street Davis. CA 95616 Nosh Davis Ei'ementary School Boundaries Beginning at County Road 29 and the`Southern Pacific Railroad tracks; thence, south taking the west silo of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks; thence, west ,behind Eighth ;Street..., to yak Avenue, thence, north behind Oak Avenue,.. to C ovel l M Boulevard'; thence, West taking the north side; bf CovOVBoulevard 'to a.n imaginary line extending north from Hanover Drive taking thy_ east side of AII�a�rado Avenue;- , � t:hen,te, ;vest taking the north side of Alvarado Avi2nue to, Anderson Road; thence, `north taking the west side of Anderson Road to County Road 29; th�,Ace, east to the, . aoirt of beginning. Birch Lane Elementary School Boundaries 'Beginning at County Road,31 (Covell Boulevard) and Wilson Road; thence, south to an imaginary line from a point in alignment with the north boundary of the cemetery thence, west to Pole Line Road; thence, north taking the east side of Pole Line Road to a point in-line with Drexel Drive; thence, west taking the north side of • _ -' Drexel Drive to LStreet; thence, north taking the east side of L Street to the City Refuse Sitei, thoticej east to an imaginary point directly north and aligned with Mace Boulevard to the point of beginning. 11a11 ley Oak El eme��'ta. ry School _ Boundaries X Ereginriing at county Road 29; thence, south to an imaginary line extending oort from L Street to Drexel Drive; thence, east taking the south side of Drexel Crive to Pole Line Road; thence, south on Pole Line 'Road to the northern boundary of- tho, cemetery; thence, east a -long the northern boundary to the eastern boundary to Mace Boulevard.north of highwaY 80 to the point of beginning. i IP Y d ��N 756�n3a0 Sucar An Mit .`Eduaariicnal/tnsaruetionat Servi�as, 150-41�+� , �.d 9usinrs5, Sarr'ices laatite J�Int CJnifi�ed Schipial ptstr,d Pars�na�l ;er►icas ��- ..a-b780 li 7x6»0388 i pupil Services admins`cr'atava 5er�r_s ;' 756���61,• •, a, " i 7�� Street • DWAS- ass � • n' r Pioneer El emritary School Boum dates South boundary of Chiles (Road `-ginning southwest of the Davis Interchange eitending east, to the Yolo Causeway. All land lying south of this boundary will fall into the Pioneer attendance area. WOE and _�WDI School Boundaries Be'ino nq at County Road 29 and Anderson Road; thence, south takir,g the west 9 side of Anderson goad to Alvarado Avenue; thence, east taking the south side x Alvarado Avenue to an imaginary line extending south to Hanover Drive and o► Covell Boulevard, '; thence, east taking the south side of Covell Boulevard to ' Oak Avenue; thence, south taking both 'sides of Oak Avenue to West Eighth Street; thence, east taking both sides of ldest Eighth Street to Park; thence, south taking both sides of park to Russell Boulevard,, thence, west "taking the north r side of Russe1l Boulevard to LaRue Road; thence, south taking the West side of • LaRue into 'the University of California, Davis, propertY• SECTION I ELEMENTARY 3CHOOU CAPACITIES AN Q' UTILIZATI'QN The enclosed materials were presented to the Board of Education at its meeting on February 26, 1981, to provide background information with regard to,,.housina needs. w r The first attachment for this 'section, entitled "Elementary School Capacities,` establishes the student capacity at each elementary school, Taking Birch Lane, for example, the school contains a 'total of 21 classroom -size rooms. If all class- rooms were filled to capacity with '29 students, the school could house 609 students, Since some of the classrooms are used for programs such as mandated special education . (which can house only 8 to 10 studentsper classronm),,elementary school libraries, reading programs, and other types of pulli•out programs which are currently a part of the elementary program. curriculum, such asp speech classes, motor development classes, and. E<tglish-as-a-second language classes] all cla;ssr00%, are not available for full 29 -student classes. Again, taking Birch Lane School, for example, ithe current program capacity ,allows 15 regular classrooms. If each were occupied by 29 students, the school could accommodate 435 students, exclusive of special education. in the case of Birch Lane, there are two kindergarten classrooms and two classes of kindergarten stu- dents. Both of these Classes attend a morning kindergarten only. Therefore, if the kindergarten program were offered on a twice -a -day basis, one kindergarten rood could be used to house an a.m. and a p. -mo kindergarten while the other could be utilized for a regular clas4room thus providing 16 regular classrooms whi,�,Yi would house 464 students (1Y full classes). The current enrollment at Birth Lane as of January 1:9811, excluding special educa- tion students; is 431 students: This means' thAt there is space available at Birch Lane School for four additional students were the kindergarten to remain on a morn- ing basis only, or 33 students if the kindergartens were morning and aftbrnoon. The next column indicates the fluctuation in enrollment which has occurred at Birch Lane sinceschool opened in September 1980. Using, the maximum enrollment which oc curred during that period, Birch Lane actually enrolled three "ore students than space -Available wit11 the two mohii'ng kindergarten classes, or had space available for 26 students if the kindergartens were mcnrni'ng and afternooni toitotaleca capacity ifallclassrnomsmworeaavailable for 29 students ver us the as explanation tame p mentar school can be rev sst�ecur- rent program capacity. As can be seen from this chart,`NorthDavis Elemental^y School, West Davis. Elementary Schoot, and West Davis intermediate School are filled e -14- a 11 _' ....,_ ..♦ t .iii n,.". G V .. M1 .♦ 1 Da ntermedi ate shows that January, enrol • t X15 Y , to or beyond capacity. Although Wes mefit still prov 'the. student ided 'room for 11 students, ' i ► you use ohulationuext�e�dedmGapa'oi tyrbY M thus far this years it can bW $tepavistintermediate School is actually uti,j.": g' six students. 1 addition, The es plan prepai^ed by rooms as classroom space than were originally=:designed in the school. more the In addition, there school as designed and bacontained I5tclassroams.. urroundi'ng 'class'- tne Systems Planning Corporations n ressed into service as regular classrooms. There re- were several nteri'ar resource rooms which were available to the Please note the r°oms. 'These have now be p ansian. mains no room at West Davis Intermediate for further School emadeling purposes, the several annotat ions at the bottom of the Elementar'Yforr delis Capacities, chart. One of these indicates that with a commitment a fun s ro ram ar at West Davis Intermediate cTuis means there wouldto ebeenoslibraryspoo95 library raising the available space to 18� 't5chool has a_. complex of three small room av:ailat�le at the school, Valley s'room, thus increasing capacity - which'could be remodeled into a �9:'student clas school if`it were necessary. These actions would require additional' at that rogram at the funds as well as changes to the existing elementary educat'onal P schools. tion r, entitled "Elementary Program Space Utilization," Birch f ,The second chart under -sec the manner in which classrooms are used. Again, taking itch Lainh 'is 21 shows beam with the total number of regular size classrooms, wh example,, we bO ng Fifteen are being used for regular -size classes. There are 15 classes offehed at Birch Lane School,• column you Will note that Birch Lane is room- Soriegyears agc,� Going to the next col Y. ur os schools in that it does not have a multip p elementary an elementary library. , s remodeled into - - ns birch_bane School devotes one reguiar•sixe the roan w the next several .col um , ` ..,; n d a one half-size classroom to the MoV i ng to tam a classroom to an "intermediate reading g operated by the County. Under - _ reading program. Birch l.ane_�•�s onesspeacial education class, operate Y primary re 9 the District, and orzw special t. Bitch L clan , ►1 ssrooms," we see tb?at'Birch.Lane has devoted one classroom to student Other Cl a_ _ _ such aci""tiv i ti es , because the schotjl has no multipurpose: room for assembly, classroom has been devoted to the language and speech programa addition, one oses. + we see t}tai Birch Lane has allocated one classroom for staff lounge pure Piext, , ace allocation is the ane small room which is used for The last co I ttttin showing ram, the primal, ' reading ng p g ♦ same rogressiun:through the columns wpleasehnoteer cthat sinitwo aschools Fal loci ng the s p ,. the number of regular -size classes exceeds {fin how each school utilyzes its classroom space; `forth DaVis ande�arDsize classroom .i These two schools are operating both an the number of regu a.m. and a 0.m. kindergarten in each kindergarten roam, LaIENTARY SCIi001. CAPACIT,i S ; Total Capacity' (#f f ',Current Enrnl)ment Enrollment Maximum Fluctuation all _ • classrooms 'Enrollment Current Jan.,1�981, Compared Enrollment , Sept.p 980-_ CoMPared SCHOOL could be used for 29 Program 9 (Excluding Ca with Space Available Jan.,1961 With Space (Excluding students ac'it S ectal Ed. Under over AVai1able Siecial Ed. Under Over Birch Lane 609435** (261 classrooms) (15@.29) 43.1 4 429 - 438` ( ' 464** 33 1 North Davts ' lfi s3 29 435* 49 26 _ (19 K-6 classrooms) (15 @_29) 58 93 58 464* (29) Pioneer 580 (20 classrooms) 16 Q 29 377** (13 @ 29 399 28` 29 342 » 355 22 K-6 406** Palley Oak**** 522 14@ 29 348** 57 51 X16 classrooms) 27 12 @ 29) 21 --- - 32 34 4 406.** 79 _ WDE (20 5.80 classrooms) 14 @ 29) 406*** (14 @ 29) 109 62 51 - 639 133 K-3 464* - (51) *** s QDI 493 9 (1464 2) . 75) (17 classroom f i s) 453 (16 @ 29) 11 _.._' • _ 453 - 70 6Nofth _. 4-.6 srhovnf�r,'ingleandd WDE nse doublelt of titer kindergarten rantns for ,a morning and afternoon class. ( e -Usagekindo h refoee, figures are --------- Lane onesessionof classeirth On anmorning andaafternoon garten roans, kindergarten in each of two rooms. basis would ro dore Uti1'fizing ; one roa11 far, 2 kinder arte operate a.m. and p.nt kindergarten for the Linder arten ro ram, This classes onlypi tale kindergarten boom currentt tSL abein�it school. , 11ey Oak cnul�n u�od5ny, OPNS were * Entsiyl'Itnent for gWE includes students Would make two c`lassrooiits available at Fairfield School and rn the available to accommodate u n additional students. ** used at these facilivies currentl ;Ila Ile Oak has a and can house 5I3 students,tion peinnnstra'' Class at UCD, Two classrooms are coni yl ex of stital l ----�-~--�- 1 { class, raising available space to Classroom, rooms that i f raga° eled d could serge 19 classrooms. Tl1c tibi�ary at lib _ as a classroaln tato `I ole of housing a tldont en could be raisin available s ace g � tbl was 15 classrooms only (435 student to yH classrooms (522 studentsT` capacity): remodeled It should' be to serve as a 29�student noted that elle arigittal' lam far p u (lo. of ELrj1C11'ARLER-0 GRA11 SPACE I1MIZATIUN total Class- classes_liulti No. of i•uaas Being Pur-' Clash- (re.. Oper- Pose 51a11 SchnaT`�_ruans- "l.Se�ated rlat7;n .. Llbrar Read n� Special County + Other star Staff liursory Usuabieat Dircq Lane 2I is 15 -`-"`""W" — -__-) 1-- F.rlucatirin �_CLasse�iassrNs. _Loun�.1_ Q _Nur�k��.� 5chaol Vacent� fnr SI asses -0-(Used fa`r b.h.) 1.U(interj 1 -_� 4 Prirl) i 2 1 lA ----- -0_ (COCj (1 Student w0 1 (5halls is a Assembly, .5 room 1 Langua e b U1 read- Speech glorth Dayis 19 15 li 1 Nakur' 'ir1 n4,) 1.5 l� nter) .5 0 'Classna + -0 1 1+ -0. 0. g 11'raJrcC (trallarj 1 1 Sra,rm.sUlt- (Psych(natar Lrn.(TIlly) , able for Sp,Ed) Program) 1 EX/Storage 1 Elm!Aead: I'loneer 2i1 lZ 13 I added to Lib. added to CIL 2 1 {2 Classnns) lPriulalyj C 1 1+ 1+ _ -Oy class (COO OSL and `0- 6 1 Read,h►U 11191-alit i 11rujArn. Cducation) 1 Speech l added to cot �'al]ry (Irk 10�• 12 12 1 • _ t.5 1.UtPriln.) { 1 rooms 2 + 1 pschol, (1 Classnn. 4 .5 ) { ea. sm, Intar �seo 1 1+ -b- 6 1 M Id. 1 sm, nn, su i t- 5iya l l ) { 1 psyr,.11u,no for able for so.Fd,) sm II, b hath lab l Inter.Read., I Natio itesoUr"cu) + 1 "Ctr,llootp" I Sp. rd, lCts'U. E 20 14!f 1 (pullout pyuy.,l 1 (2' t+ assrylsp) (Reail.11 2 • -0 1 ESL Wn. UU).,1: 17"� Sp�!ecit) ' (I •E$L5°ry tlutol' (in the �0 3 I. Sp• Ed 16 ) lounge) t (iul lout proj;). Stu f Uak � � rm. 1 an,,, rti •, (t,nulrl hi used p- `�`; � 2+ -0- -0„ i' Ites.Ct'rs. - Ezn. ,that for Sp. Fd. Class not ex» l conf.,Cdonsel. Canhut ha ceerll�ig 6 to U , luJ b lndiv, Used for itudunts) r fi IUstr, •liut classreom size classes) I Sly. Ed. (u11= r •+ Wit lrny, I'liis one additional classe"I at dalic Osk if a e(»ilple of shall rook-is ynli•s rannduled ll AM one additional classroom at IIUI if�tllc Lib►ar yril � o, 1 1'SYrI1�.11rSglst 5poech tiler; J` l u y wnudolod try d classroaa I Nus it iG;y, - (lined fur 01.) 1� , , v � r epi• n�rxUc.nnal Sarvlcros,. 756•^-�aQ ' � y ' , \.., Sua • h�on�Anti 75a-1]'lW E�ucaCional/t" " 0352 750• , `3usiness SerVicss ?5a.oi8Ci •�`' • Davis Jc0intj Unified School tstnct ' Persannel Sdr�icros z.a-asb5 .• ., quail Serv449s 7%0341 AdministratIvit Sarvicei 526 B Street CA 05616 4 SECTION II' DISTRICT ENROLLMENTS May 6, 1982 . year since 1977 . . each This section of the report contains school district yata. The first ' sheet is a recap of district enrollments as of October et i 1a r These enrollments a"e district -Wide by grade. The last column throughro'ection.�' for enrollmen shows the first p ct itl 1982- , e district enrollment data is each elementary sOctochool's enrollment • eneral, Following th `an October 1977 through the projectee or0declinefslightly�inithe•school sery or fr attendance area enrollment Will continueil c and West. The housing of special •raw slightly in those jog the east area of Davis ws7in thewnol continue to 9 n . and. special a areas: being served by school o ulaton k district-vride classes; such as atotall increase�decre3semofsstucient p p Education, however! will of • in each school. he elementary schools. at this time! Individual school enrollment is shown only 'For the exists. These projections are. Iince' since that is that area ll entWhichp impaction curre Bents tend to fluctuate based cin a specific anroliment period in preV�ioussuchrenrolinh Was enrollment as of October each year. It should be remembered that over a given school year, as is shown on the elementary school capacity chart. eak occurred at 1975. At that time; the The Davis School District' s enrollment p at the 5 961 students. Enrollments have deotnekindergartenmenrollmentslevel District had , In addsi since 1975, with the' -exception of 1980. , -ase- 1980 and 1981,.althoe9h total elementary enrollment again decreased. increased in • Davis like many other distri�rts, however, will experience a 1eVeling it may be that o climb. of enrollment loss,and may begin i • 1�crease or (-122) (-138) (-193) (Decrease) -19- (-58) (-95) (-95) 1 r DAVI5T COMPARISbN SCHOOL DISTRICT - � E00LLMBN + Projected Grade 1977 1978 1979/980 , 1981 198 367 343 314 360 374 378, 374 384 370 316 372 386 408 352, 366 371 297 361 2. L 414 404 331 376 387 30.1 3 -�--' 4 370 433 393 357 360 39.2 .�, 434 360 408 406 351 35? 5 • _..._r . 396 425 3 62 423 390 34 _ ;3 6 Total 2,763 2,701 2,549 2,609 20631 Increase or (46) (-62) (-152) + 60 (.77) (-10) (Decrease) 7 409 411 420 382 415 400 512 416 411 429 383 409 482 506 427 411 411 y81 61 1403 1,333 1,258 1,222 1,21a 1,190 cease or _ (-119) (-70) (:-15),1 (-36) crease) 501 464 :500 436 425 415 10 472 477 446 478 423 421 11 423 439 4n6 418 455 409 12 62 65 65 63 65 6 King 1,458 ,445 1,477 1$95 1,368 --, 1,316 Total . 1�crease or (-122) (-138) (-193) (Decrease) -19- (-58) (-95) (-95) 1 • " � ; ` f3Y�?cit .LANE ELEMENTARY . , " pAV.`s`SCHOOL DISTAICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON - 1977 to 1'982 _t. Oct. Oct. Oct. 1980' Oct. 1981' Proj Oct. 1982 GRAUk 1.977 1978 1979 60 56, 60 59 57 7l � . 61 58 61 52 70 153 ,5a 90 : 5O 62 56. 8 2 , --� 7 6 7© 54 60 53r ..... 73 57 77 57 - 5.7 �...... `.. r^K. .ra .ir..._ e..r ww..• 70 52 . 70 72 L0 ; 5 - - ,.-- 59 50: 55 69 67 S ,. ,470 _ 435 434 99 a, Total, ------ +14 Increase ori (pecreasP.) �-14) y - - 06 6TH OAVIS ELEMENTARY ' Vi.a SCHOOL. p STRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON '' 1977 to 1982 Oct. Oct Oct Oct. 01981 Prof • Oct. 1982 GRADE 197'l 1978 11, x,979 1980 �.. ' 66 63 60 49 ._ 66 �.---- 68 57 70 664 .. 2.. 11 4. 6 79 63 50 68 3 68 , 74 70 77 79 47 4 78 80 69 77 79 18 5 54 84 77 69 78 �_..._._.�. 75 6 83 69 7993 '71 76 Total 52 537 8 485 478 493 472 _5�) (..g) 15 Increase or +10 +9 - (Decrease) :eMOW A � . PIONEER ELEMENTARY �., DAVIS SC11 HOOL DISTR'ICT•ENROLLMENT COMPARISON - 1977-.to`11982 ,. ' Oct. Oct. Oct. Oct. 1980 Oct. 1981 Proj Oct. 19$2 GRADE 197,7, 1978 1979 K 50 48 43 m _ 47 1 62 6.4 58 44 2 62 57 57 57 38 56 _... 3 ....,_. __ 58 65 51 54 69 39 4 61 60 56 53 56 66 56 5 55 � 57r' 56 42 4$ _ ,.._.._.. 60 56 55 54 ... Total 408 407 376 351 367 3.71 Increase or _ (Decrease) (-6) -1 ) Y x..31)-25) x•16 +4 VALLEY OAK ELEMENTARY DAVIS SCHOOL Y DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON - 1977 to 1982 . Oct. Oct. Oct Oct. 1980 Oct. 19$1 Proit Ott. 1982 GRADE 1977 1.978 1979 58 51 59 71 64 . 4 _ 55 35 56 ------- 65 1 63 45 6 2 58 43 52 34 _-- 53 _ 2 67 66 6 45 46 46 3 4 . 43 56 59 4$ 43 57 64 47 46 59, 55 54 5 _. 47 60 49 a9 65 52 6 414 _ 390 359 337 ;370 391 Total Yncrease or (-49) (�24) x•33 x•21 (Decrease) c _ _ , �2, Y L 756�G��0 �\ Pu EducationMI/.Cnxcr.+lctianal ServicQx... 7"s6-41162 77s756"41362-4aa�abz Unified School Business Sere S�r•�1ceS , 'S6»47lnJ^ tDav►s t personnel _ lupi r 5er11cex a 75b,t1�6T Administrative Services 526 �B Strt pavis. Cry 95516, t . k'; p - PROJEG"T®_ NE4l CONSTCtUCTION/PUPIL GENERATION i - i ...moi. OISTRYCTWIDE Generation E1 em2ntar Y its F� ,re Students Single -Family Oriel l i ng '770' 24 185 635> .14 89 Condom'Y nium� 25, 632 :Oa Apartments_ 2.99 Total. 2,037` i, -impACTEDINEAR IMPACTED SCHOOLS rendraton Elementary Units F 2uurre 5tudents � 736 24 177 tWai 1 Single- i y jDw� � 1 i ngs 635` 14 89 Condominiums 25 Apartments , 291.. 29003 Totals r 6 ,.23. 16 , r i ', Suoer�nCen�'ens � 755-43ao tducationailjI Services 755-91 Davis �J' '.nt Unified( School',Mtr"ict 8usinss serrvicifs zss-oI44 Personnel serAier r'S6-OiBo' avail Services 758-n3b8 526 8 Street. :Davis; CA 9'%)16 Administrative Serlicas 75o -t136> PROJECTED NEW CONS (RUCTION/CITY OF D , School Area P1annin Zone r_ Single Family 'Condominium i tem ; Apartments WOE/WOI PO -7-80 96 ,r - PD -1379 36 , R -3-M 26 y PO -X34-74 PD -12-75 15 PO -31-74 & 11-77 ;, 35 PO -1-8 2g 54 39 PO -7-81' 54 PO -21-80 10 PO -3-76 37 PO -10-80 105 PO` -18-80 100 80 'TOTAL 355' 346 532 rdrwr rr...rr.i—rrrr....r—rr—rr nc'+--rrww�._wr rrrrr..r--------r--------:--r+lr.wrrYar--r—wrrrwwrwHw-".. w..r NQRTH PO -5-77 3E' PO -9-81 36 PD. -25-80 52 TOTAL 90 36 'e•r,i.-r+..�r_---rrrr--------rr-r.w.r r�o.o-r----r.5..---r-s ------------ - , PIONEER' PD -6-77 za0 PO -6-79 27 , 1-76 16 t PD -5 -78 `6 f 50 No Planning Number 110 No Planning Number 100 P0 -4-7D 60 R-1-6 Z1 TOTAL 281 165 100 A r—wrr__rYsrr�.rr�wrrra-rrr—rr rrrrrr rr..—rr ww rr—rr.aerr ` ------ BIRCH LANE. PD -13-75 34 TOTAL -0- rr_rr_w.irrrrr.�rrrrirrrr�r.n__------s-swrw-.�wr.n «..o -r _.wr.if-�rw.w_4w.+ r_ -O --r rr-rr-.•rr r.G rw r -r1" VALLEY OA i� PD -9 76 10 • No Planning Number g '0-4-80 80 TOTAL 10 .88 rp�, , . WEST DAMS ELEMENTARY INTERMEDIATE mbei- Plann?ny Number , ' Nu Descri tion p Grid 31 -WO PD -7-80 Approximately 7 acres of land f, office buildings and 96 1,'2 and 3cb dr rcial apartments, plus swimn faci�;ies 9 Pool 'and recreation Environmental Impact Report No. e'.w80 was tiled vrith the City in Octo 1980. Project .has been approved. ber, (Taorinino and West) 35 -WD A SWIM and Tennis 31 -WD Club proposed. PD -i3-79 Thirty. -SIX condo units has commenced. (Whitcombe�ned. Construction 35 -WD PO -1-81 Covell Park West (Sends Nueva Impact Report No. 3- )• Environ mentaT ' Site is 72 acres. 80 filed in Novembbr, 1980. g The EIR cites 399 apartments single-fam�ln detachTly attached homes, 47 Units,, Y ed homes, and 54, condominium City has kIpproved the proposed project and an allocation_for 30 condos has been (ante In mid-April, the County will consider the d. ` annexation of this • No Grid POdel to the City of Davis. • NO this Number North of Covell Park West is reserve. Ana agricultural PpTication has been submitted to remove it acr tial builes from reserve for some resider dings above the'plahned development 20-72. (Whitcombe) 15 -WD New (on Adams St.) Oeigjna11y planned for 70 a artment unfitsN . P w application has beep filed for 26condos. No 4 -WD PD 34-74 aliocation praved'at yet. (Matt aphews) Planned for 114 single-family dwellings. Cur, rently, 35 have been allocated for (building:(Matthews) PD -12-75 • (Village Homes) There are 1.5 units left to be built; or ,are 5 -WD y currentl under construction. PR -21-80 (Corbett) Ten un Of condos ett) for senior citizens. Te - (C 14 -WD Approval granted for '28 single-family homes. Construction to start shortl ' 14 -Wo y• (Stanley Davis). R c g foreconstructi 2'�_ sin le family units, No `da on. (Romani) to ' 10-4lD PD 11-77 Approximately 35•a artme PD da P:_: nes or co •. (Northeast cornet- to for construction, ndos. No f�hn of Lake and Arlington) (Getz) -�5- , NEST DAVIS ELEMENTARY/INTERMEDIATE (continued) Grid Number Pl anni na Zone Dr.?�t? 364D,ilnivprsity housing Area across from; University 14all shopping=`. University anticipates building 200 student ' (South of Russell and East of Orchard family units, 1_0 2-, anO;,3-bui 1 di ng units s' Mal rooms for single student Park.) t and 4eindependent living groups housing 0 a persons each, and an international center. A request for negative declaration was filed by the University in February, 1982. No date on possible construction available. 340 PO -7G Thirty-seven apartment units approved., Starting date imminent.,:,�(Cantrell) 10 -WD PD -10-80 Approval granted for 105 condos. Construction spi` i ng I982, (A1 Smi th) to start n , 104D PD -18-8n Zoning and application approved for 100 si ngl e - 80 condos. Allocation granted family homes and for 80 single-family homes to be constructed in 1982, Construction to start in spring, 1982. (Al Smith) M al PIONEER ELEMENTARY Grid Number Planning ;Zone 124I PD -6-77 14 -PI PD -6-75 14 -PI P.0-1-76 10 -PI PD -5-78 + 9 -PI PO -1-77 2-PIPO4-78 Y 7 -PI PD -17-72 18 -PI No Planning Number 4 -PI PD -4-79 xS-PI No Planning Number 641 R-1-6 e Description El Cemontu Apartments - 100 units. Mix will be 1, 2,, and 3' bedroom. Nb estimated time on starting, Summer Tree (Glide Drive). There are 27 units of 1 and 2 bedroom condos.. Construction should commence at any time, (Broward) Approximately 16 condo unitsi) •construction estimated to be at least two years away. (Simmons) Sutton Condos,- appproximately, 62 attached condos. Const uct-foP time line unknown. It is anticipated that a plan to build 4-plex and 5-plex units will be submitted in the near future. Actual nw>!ber of units unknown. ' Willowbunk - 40 to 50 single-family dwellings proposed. Approval granted for 33 at the present titre, (Don Miller) Presently urban reserve. The Creekwood Development has been proposed for this area, incorporating 518 dwelling units of various types on 57 acres, plus 16 acres of office use and a park and school site. This. proposal will be considered by the City in June: This is for 110 single-family units, The area is located west of Cristy Court, west of Decatur Court, ,an extension of Cowel 1 Sl Vd. , west'of University Village. South Manor II. The Grove. This complex will consist of 60 units of condominiums (moderate cost), Con ` struction anticipated in the very near future: El Mace�'�o Country Club. This area is not in the City of Dais, but is in the Count of Yola and the Davis School District. Approximate 100 single-family detached dwelling lots had been sold and will be built. This, will cam- plete the El Macero County Club Development. North of Cowell. Single-family dwellings, 21 units have been apprQve:d: (Broward) .2g. . i t, 'VALLEY KELENTARY EM De._s. t�-�-on ' Planning Number Grid Number _. ann------�`- Kennedy Place. Them are 1Q single -,family` 14-V0 pp. -9-75 unitI4 estimated EX�t scheduled for City pDI C -C Ardan/Mayfair area. 198'x. Pro]ect Council review on April 8�t;s 2E condo traits• p 5-V4 proposes 'co mmerc�t a'1 use 7 , potential for 40 apartment units (Cit P° un -i 3-V0 po-4-80 Could be subsidized owned land. present. Development time line uncertain at There is a proposal for 80 condos of which approved. (Youmans) 28 have al ready been • " Nutrher Northwest Corner 5th and K. Application ��or (5hine) 8 condo units. `o Planning pending for i ♦ -30- 1 "rivn efforts of sta,lt ,fes theOavi's Jnat F 'Thu report re+pcasants ctle csl,lec, Doparmenc's Davrlopaont Ela:caiu8 Vail School Dis .ct and the .Com .t9 hovsiag Mes £or the aLec+aatazp d4 it:£os�aticn on students assd assist the disnri.cC stn=f. is :• division to I di Such i or c3azi l �ssc pxopass►l:sla the ; schools is tha dist:,-icL. for 'dav*lop . t0 FJYP� c7 aCai. p9C.L E@pOrts� iaass and Addxassitts:'the� i�oL� ponding tivs taciii. uti l,i•a,sian p_ 4 city, azalyzixg as of school cam•Cant , issue ct3on, the data T begwi disCumsian of tbds:-. s _ Vi x,pac. to Spa hitt :has al zasd is Pa�b ce:az'i : 1.1zlemaarar9 ' 71i iaaws 'around tvo repcsrri► Prepared by thea dis riZL staff .,. ' and Qt33i',.arioa,'. and "Aisc-ict Earol.1 Allt.a�" . gr2 aoL C'apmc tits and '?�aas�i-:g C'�ss�.oa gor revs.• -.r au'os+aciueat vers fox�aax'3ad to the C..t7 Couu'-• as the Council, Ca�iss:Wa* ano 5choaL Board. Cha stcc3eat to a joint �eetias3 tai ad t, �-cepazt, eaupLad v3.th r.'see marcer3..s aaa c4tcsa gaaaratas data can , aasild serve � tiha basin gar dis�•ct action. on =7zcso�.�x- other wo rapQrt3, ' Ar_a as. ` tion off' r M=ouitch, ar n Cha, o c' thi• wort aaa� B ax"'T The pr3,aeip .tits sta.i memb a QCT itterst, riatopar W�,ght. Disc .nt , ga vas assis�ted by Bua3-aess, and S��au Assaeiats planner. �:asocia=e Sugasiatendeat, , str.at aystivvd Ware S.�rnas 9ura., Sere=9 • taitz, Di:ecto:: o= o£ the , �- conte four =tor asetioue• than first out] inns the dasi= { ussea . he repos* 1. he it actually =r:.sd out; the secotd sec aitd a project along tltia third presents the cOuclusi.oas af'cl.ty- the analgs pa o .rad; p =rnri ad in the gital sect3rsa ssm,nadations is :sat, q� =eco ...._ ,..:.,: Zs pgGT DESG 1 ;sideacial be c'md"tped, al ~ roan ` s d�asic dasiSa� of the Saint CittlJSch�e� vas�vcL 5tudaat Gsaaratioavats. The ..ds gr_.d ass er o£ bndxcams, std a11. ;1egantly s �►i,tya'' a easd n 'meq a#acted unitsGtiat.i to be coded by I.ocatian,# Ie�amd _ zed school. It �� �is :then *.rotal.d vara to b n id.eatif3.ad by adcIvass, S utitg sus to ted corsr� that by osca enter�ts3 these data into soeza autcca, sas and cgapuca-- aeY'rr� a ar�tbar r:f xe].a .y S°phisr.�.ca:cedL aaalq a1.t�.ou_ da possible to of factli,t�.e util Eallo ed the basic tions haat might assist the dist: `..et is 7, wed, it cZaaaly` �, project oras no - ,t,�,sri`sd oa�c precisal.y as p dQsi,s u. school. atter dadr d vas plotted. Por the live �slemeata�, a total. ax 105 Eizse, the g-''� 'apnical. Sri % ete cocra3.ned) y id areas bo="ries (West Davis lntarmadiace as aside the tib' x.,�sits. hP.sa St :Lc areas eras estaalished including with the. atts��ce bO=aar as o�c the Sr' drawn to ensure compatibil iv y aare ca=fuLl.y d= 'federal cease -s txict bows .es, federal. eszunseratioa djstw3.ct sr. 3ddit3,aaa�1.'J.q. an effort oat made to al,emant9 laausisss3 redoc3aaatlq clad t?pa ax boundari.s.�; asuc�. cit? p le most grid areas cpntaiaed p arca bouadaxies• say that, whetn Possible, houg: _ school, grade Ievel, cant! rite 'denc�3.c3Cian: arta cnd3sig oz iurl:.� dual.. s�tdeats bq �. Se • r and grid area ran accomp l isE:ed . iipi•��� fw.U' a' r Sha coding of residential wd,ltt's proved to be the most diffi #U4 project. Originally , -a=ds d f:ezeat categories of 'housing typal ;ht beniv(` ident UieA as follows; 2. Caaventional., dupla�t 3. Split: -lot duplam " 4. Cando mizi s, tr,.ahouaas, and cooperatives 3.6biln homae cauxaurioval, nousubs d'rt td ap,artaant �. Subsidi: ad nona derly nw� l:tmaats Y W 8, App =*mts for tha al ! ' viag graupa a.g., tratetaie ..> sosari.ci.as, et�e.r) Li Along with this braakdawn,, it"Was, cha isttent',af the project to auabaz of: bedro�oma for' each unit. ' Thio would have rendered• tate data i.,Jve seaj t rt dor analytical- purposeat but it uas• aot onsidared to be craeial iib li:ga of .`the dir!i— cuItti,as experienc±d cola trying td bbtain it . Bedroom data VI.J: `most ipa==ants vera rs&di.l y avail abla . however, they veto not `for �a more zr 7, 00o non-agazt- taeMC gees .dit-inial. units. Tixra and labor comst�iacs precluded Kl door-`x�o-•door gu^my the only Debar practicable moans of obt�i.:g iasoraaricn or, C„adxoams,: This re • Sul -ad is the only dapart•=m arca the basic "project design. The "cumber of ' ;ausiag t: gel was, reducedfrog Wins .s u to seven anr,, to e Ards e#ended atte=pti=g co quantify bedrooms in 'non apart out u�si:,• A,ppand x A reflects the grid areas in relation to the five seAool actenv21u>re bounce da>riaa. Tablas l thzaugh 5 provide the grid area data for stat;h scho414 The unit coda used a those tables is desce-bed belotz. Cha= Single -f ata 3.q detached, atracho'l3 (splic-lot dupla4 and convent`—i coal dupiaz Candoaria3,ur�, towtaouses, .and woperarives (3) ;ion-aubeidizad apat=etc, aum ttie o beeizaoms ` unl+caowct Sub.4jaited a P'attzeac, nucber os bedrooms uakdd, (4) + A,pxrtsent, subside statue , and aembnr of bedrooms �6) `►iobile homes group such as frateraitp, soror•! t o etc. YOT:.` Glhere a seitand txumner is included With codec 3 and 4, is desigmatas t• autinber oz bearoom with0) (3 3'di+o��4�4� > •etc: � dXnariw, ,. moue bei=ooa 2 rro be • S1 NA 'TdF1� 1 - �" , FOR IAEST DAVZS AXTE�D A►'3 Coffibia�d) � I , (�,�maat�rv' & xttzez�ec�3att� Number Ratio o f; giants !, i,� S of Units tn._U,l,• to r Y 1 b7 262(1) 26 ' 2 is 177C1) .20 3 ],4 370(4) 34 " 4 0 0 .00 s 48 213(1) 223 ra caL . 22 37 242(1)' 244 tom +15 M 1 Y 7 31(3,2) 8(3,3) ., 8(4.3) 29 to Cal.0] 0 8 ; 9 27 8(2) 8s cocat 59 10 4 S9(2) .A7 , " 1� 125 103(1) .24 y 12 3' 388(3) 41. 1Q 57(1) .18 7 2(1) 184(5) 187 total .04 .17 1T 21 89 (1) 4 i 797(3) 798 tocAa 20 k ZiBZ(S) .az u .7a06 �x.20 22 a ztx ` 6{total' Qa23, p • pQ ,r as 13 69(1) , . .649 25 32 191CI) .17 25 46 .32 27 26 I43O .18 19 3(I) 193 to tal .06 29 6 4(3,Q) 2913,`x) 83(3,2) {3p3) 153 total 45 I,38 (3) .33 31 j 0, S AA 32 4 203(5) (9) •- 204 total. .02 33 74 231(x) :632 34 40 g2ICl) ZOT"total. MT.AL5 7 5. 12, a � * Based upon czaauaI Cotint or Djtrlb Gaza t WLZ 2 0 ?GRM DATA -FOR YORM DAMS ATT'JAANCE ,AM . Nui:ber of of Skudrdr, Grid 1 .38 I30(2) , 2 3tla N 107(3,2) . _„ 4(3,3' -- - _ 114 to Cal u 3 39 x4z(aa 1_ .til 76w .38 6 x8 110 (Z) .16 67(l) �.10 9 y59 -� s3(4,2) 4x(4,3) , 95 to Cly: .6I , 10 41 UI) 372(3) 375 total. Ji 31 27' 1961;1 .14 6L33i1) 71 total .d8 280(5) y 7.93 total .02 2.1 LOW .14 a goo 17 A rye/. .Y.OT LLS i =.SBL 4, (CO Uti it ed) S 16 } 263(6); .00 46(4) do 12 2 23 3 42(5) .l 24' :.: 33 tocale .05TOTAU .' 237 y b r i V , t i l � ' 1 == DATA TOR EIOmm &=="CC TA33T.Z s Ratio of w q el Number c f Students ' $ of * S tudesncsGrid to 206(1) '033 1 69 32 10x(1) .19 3 19 O 4° zsi(1 s Il lsats .24 T.05 0' to vil 9 O ' 0 .n0 .. 10 030 3.1 9 ,ao 12 0 ` ZS 30 3.3 T 364),4 14 sa(s) ..._ s� ~� .1 115(1) 32 as 43 280(x) , 16 i .00 0 ' 6 total Id2 - 144 TOT= 'I • TAUIX b C0111AR130N QM vvm Film sel.ECTED GROS, by 901100L BOUNDARY AREA " ' hredaMinantly Pradonwl2nanCly IPradaa�lmot� Y IPraAaM nantly of abiAndary Area School Cai,damiaiaia Grid tfabila lioa,s Grid Iladt Davis (110) -at „ dents ` 60a w .25 2l,794 59 ..O7 2.63 " �Q? "A --unite -grids i4 1 l4 tlurti► Davis 00) ' - a tudnnts .20 --39�5 . 150 6 132 962 NA ,j223 _ S' �• arida 9 1 Valley flak (v0) �. - a tuilenti� 172 .14 Nh 31 l 2633 n.ao r• _.aa m „ntts, 1,.203 a 1 SSM grid 9 Birch Lana, - e udantu uniiu �. 29 x a .21 1,272 27,' .10 . 272 PIA Nh n i . 'I�i�e�►esr SPY) ' -attid6nta _19 3 ,. 2 1e1QA NA 176 -unith Lu�cirlatri�l� 't'aTAI. .7+ 69. lb� „ . ' t " . 21.7 .04 572 11 Ol) 3 - iilitu 7,672 4111 tr -w d3 iaouid have Little g eaaratic ratios far 200 ver, Che wide Variatic"' atr�dent g ®s , we21. :,is and inCnrpreta;Cioa. ar housins ,Cpp W:Lc'•hcut soma a►nalyarias �I simil uentl71 tea Ci-17 areas far ; arsat vi.thia; sChodl ba wcd t housing t7p . shomLd be, .,. es and grids de serVf t * pr zolaina an. Qnseq :.a+n boundGti c Cats pr+sda �d 104"t »ot= of �1.•.,dr= 9 ,Ag1.tk'°'C3m3,j.�,e SGha' I boundarq - _w s�aia , detail aid mobile home �r be, h4LI ful �stcca- ' s�uul,d . �' of rattoe a citi7e .. 3aa).9sis of c • 3 ; 36 sad age Of taits. seagraph�.e• � ;Wh dracarrsivac 3°� wad Wi=t sssl.l3asg pr3,tb f tq�a which iseoitta -. asidar�►►t ate+ £afo r �=� aalg .. =bsi ' srsca,� (for ap ". 3t,zarrcd. » Vircasacal fact „ � mare �er,C � ' dant; trs tasriew the data• fram this praIect» it S!!e?4Ad @ru � ptddxtC3d C:�rtt 1 r in rsLacdan, to luso=•° d3 for• r 3alact�ad $!. � S using P of scaAmnt 3eaarat3o s xatt arjAgn pur?osas Tabjmj rovt•d Az r Grid selected £ar cqe� This apipro ch ezas a 3 of bouaws9 etance of one houeiras�, tip of the £�.�re schd ed a prep crcrast ct, All units» ,sacs rhAee cih3,ch coat 92 p a= �. verixi•tatioa st31]» incl udad a5 perm But of t'na students raged in p xa. the rasa a it prsvaatad astortica of eaa data p ro erly c�ACjj trp, ivea g>r3•d ae..�s v.chia a gcoaal, bauactsrY ar�sa tan a t Such a ,l6 that the muAb a roducad by combs8 a:atios crow•- 2an+3 Erma a>: "n £ c�tssd®nts T=rio P r art �a groes tb:s fora•.. bct 'issul.ess is averg "4-oubd ha isita lay Oa an Oak arca to .22 in ►iaach Dam sa£3ned aaP:s Chat tasereaddatar ,C7 ,ia tha Val 1a�t arad va•th the more ' grid areae " Tai that shauld not be ccczP as Couearm1=5 the latter* E an env"sixe► ana�yz1=g specific howix ��Iar ha�ss F c9 ea. In some �n1n chec.�c of tad IArge17 'Uy iac.I•ucL. 3 • nc Project caaxprisess the 8rl.d. eea3--'ds psa'vided verification oz'. the ur~i.z cad:irg4. apaut complex or developme s�uian,t adsi:ea$e� for aao of rkz; A ,ved to b4 basad on si: a i ce from t ries wara unprcduritive for the. marts to derive 5PTA: and sa31�3 p v�srifihale paGtarrt OL• �xaphi•c 10Catjan� Ao clear. br e,,,st1=111 at toga ;of ua-.ta, 6 �. e, rhetn res XL is `�ecced tsac then 19 SO mSt per» s tasted otha a n> rids a--ea of a;atip3 That could be , b=6d odu P ca a bat >: nad Candi 8 a 'cdwrzl Canaus , recoet•ortt3. h•,a e b da macs produced is al c are so low those ,� eaa�a'ri•s°n of �� at,t ratite • ucti,+xes. Tabus 7 shows that the cu= } the oth+ss t•,.-o doc=eairs, the ratae �3smd las ..he taxa ES,%'s are der3.ved The point of the 'campar3san is chat 5pacificr and ugh beloct fz'ota ditfarent sources, Cha? era rice, anti project as, rhe? are nor. out �f axe . -- faB the different hoissi8 +i 2AgL 7 - CO Akti3gY OE R-6 STUDENT :GM4MI TION RATIOS: : ;CUii MT, IZZIM JS RE=T EiIL' S -' Residence current E>� �l • �g ¢2, T"e C3. de i - Sizzler-Eamilg .14 ;49 A► • .14 . I6 • �► ConBominum Apartment 04 .13 .10 III'. CQNwZTiSIT,iS y While the aCrxracy at the :atics iu+ Tai�les Z t$rouSh 6 is nor "Waa � le .ram the seacdpaint of refleCt3ag tic eirrent- cicri dce student generation picide cauti= is advised is using these 'ratios. for grojactior. purposes. The vide :I,iattuaci.oa in predominan _t7. siagl e_f3= 7 grids from a ratio of .© to .76 provides an example 0,1 this problems. The muIti.tuda or variables within grid w_ areas further ComaliCatee matters. Eirs, conclus3.oas regarding these data area di,*,fide It to caka beyond a statement of "What is." Projecting "Wh2t will be is Even more dif£icu.1t. r Yavertheless, sortie general. obaesRas ions Can be mads from the infaz`atidzt--pravided hareiu: • . 1„ 'Tha aic7vida average ratio of .24 students for' pr*,dQmioantdly single- ds was realatively Constant throughput tha ci.t7 e%Cept.tag the t=jly Sri was su octad b Cha stay:: ?aiLer Oak attendancn area. gavever, the pp y ass p eian QfL f eWe't Children ger hcusehcl d wlt:! i n these boundaries because the Core Area is included. Z tit tin the ger-lot subdivistions +�i►ica also happen, to be in older, cars astabUshed neighborhoods, titers appears to taus a sl.igl:tl:l higher .am'o 'Thd `tudent Samerad.on ratio for Condominium units averaged siani i caarly • below that of single-caai.ly units.. [iovevcr, this ratio may not be s;.atis- tic.;ilxy reliable► becausa oz the �ei,da variatipa in the 1;�vited number as such aid;" it was tsurveyed (oalp 3) 4. Sizailarlp, the limitad sacspl.e of predominantly mobile hd ne grids maty Cause the zero ratio produced to eat be stati3tical.ly rel;iAlld- 3 Ttta average City�ri. ds student generation factor for predominantly apartment g3 .di •o~as extrazei'7 low thzrourftout the Five artazsdaadct ares oauadari.e i ext ;;tortli Davis is �rhiCh three grids rafleated ratios of :it X25, and is and subsidy progratas impact .61,. It is relati-vely clear that rent l.eva Student generation. ' C 1t *; 6. utile gevera3. calculations of P..asollrsent data tsag have provided additional information r=lativn to those =mads :fid pro;,eccions 0 tho absaacs of his - y torical housing data bg gsids as preaamcmi in"th's report ma & it ditfic°ult if not impossible, co develop sicsilat icfor^•..atir rL for studcut Seuarat cIt factors. Coavarbsly, the baar astabl3.shed by this report will be iavaluabls ,; for future related Work. . TV. RZCM'20=T.QNI = The* Davis :Soixtt t3aifiied School Dist~i.ct has iadicatad Chart. elamentarT� schaoZs, L. viehia t'.to of i'ts actandagea areas sre at or no ar capacity. „ Socrevar, the issu4 t ' of vera o�rded scaaal.s is, a coianlOM function of save. -a1 factors. including, but not li=:Lted to, th• fOUCwiagz, µ the, physical 4apaci=7 of affected s=Uctura attaadaccgne area bouzdarias; .,. th+a housing of spacial. ,progza= , _ . ndivi- Zits cite' ssca:esas b� � 3.raacedaud th poe a3, or de dual atter - Cion of laird' or pa7meut of fees im thasn areas on1.g. While i. appa�ars that ' Arti•r.1.n 31:x'9 =zctioa 25-1.21.1 at seq., of the UrLs Municipal Code would allow = =1 areas. Moreover, such *this n3,ressaa esssaS. aconomi,cndim��a3x of hausiag$ici �...1 plars�ia� ��a ciryy po!�ic ohiu�+ ' req 4 acti= would render implersaat tion of the city's Ecusing.,a loratiaa YXOcess aactremsl.y dilfizac. .. . T1��ras basic recocsaaadarf ons asn offered on th+a. basis of infor=tiaa produced is �a of the studmit gea��rac�?ors rat+os` re11 ctad herein as here is Concern ovex vn. .� L•t s ���ta davi.ce for pro j escticg• the w this repo" iaclud„g the. issues sais� 'a°oxtr.� • h:�t Secan427caste ahzt ui t occur, theles rar-iZ � acra_at p p g is ==cern regaziLlas possibill cna::lict vL�'h existing city' p"al .cg°and potsat3.a1. difficul•t.ies in it<p3.cuwez -4-,- the hous3W' ,r .« n equir sl? if innactioa is sacs tired iu Certain. areas rathe:C ;than citgerl&'- tea, a.'�.11.y1 ehera 3.s� a cleat coed £ar oYx-goia a:o. nitogj=g of both housing and studazLt res :da=ce activitq^ CO ev3lu3te chaagea to the data produced is this report,. 'fheitefore, the Cit?' tsraff re==andacions axe as follows 2. School impaction, if declared, should apple as reasQuablp as Posaiale ro the entire bo=Aariets of the dis=ct. 2 ' S fusser gesneration f acuate for grades r. -b should be no less than the following for designated housing t9pes; i gausing T9v ya.._. Single famiip .Z �, 'Condamintis .14 ' �pastxenth ;C�_ j • 1 i AVIS, G�'MENTARY 5CHOOL �iVIJ�R �'R� 9'6 . Q �•�'' I IND &RID / •-I 1 +,� M�fW a w von... GAIO DOUNDARIES ' w 1' + err t Jar 3. -� i t ,ittImo lj• NORTH DAV/5 ^ ND i ¢,�� p��' ,tf �y�lNw fil;.� tl I v 4� . . \ c VALLEY ON( :� •-- 3 �� t?�r��'.�,st= t''' Ctr i ,fit 't d �lilLlAallat:J�YY.t'�al)�'Y`�7t�"""'..."'.� " _ __. __ N _ 19lNI�A®lea• •�•• •SPP Y+��.� ... � , !Ict�, 4.1 t eY_ P I r F w ti . /� ♦ars � a3� i ,��4t�r, foe a 1j � • ♦ 1�;(tlt -.. - C7 w ••���•�ri ,}y'I`` 1 r � NIH►4e/r'Iri �.��,,;, '� A/�� � 1� �t�i�� ;t1 y LYA 4'jIw5�i{E�� 1 N000#4, *640Y^11r *004 ••*4ri+ �. A' y •?� ��' �r� r� ? Pal" '�'f�rl�•.1�`iy�l` 'i .a� i •�, �u }d�' p*�� Ali.: � t+.�;, w.. �., p14 I• i „ ••i�bRi�.rr.r•caa�4,i 141• •• OiA LINAll�e/iiiM�1 ��+L'�A � ♦iL �. dArl Jd�•ild 0t� r�+ 14,1Mr } \ , 1 • • r FIEME N rgRy �.NVOL�30C�/y�q�Y AR�r95 3 �Q 6�Ic) 5Y5r ► i �L Y le•n�'Fnf l�� � + . ' . 11� ff ��• trl�tllf/��!�� r t ( 3 Ni,W44A 1 i ',, ✓✓ Ulf l •r er•/i►• •l �� 4•�S1 fo r�sr • I • y P now-'; .^.�.r AP ACIP kyr Ji��ji1S��� � s� , O 4J .. r •r• �j� • J ".'°. 61 :, '" .iii: {® �!� 1.�+.�� �•1(1� ,..--. ,u _ Ip:. ,••e'sra•11d1� lk //� � „e!.-^ :..� (t�•r �.,�' �, a 1... w ��•�rr � r /� � � �J-- • .� „"' � , �•1 �J�i��'ri d/ 1�t1� f"IR;3�A 1• •shies• ,F i �a3.9�>� i °+���rer• 3 i . ri� �� .•fir'' ;*goo �.+! 'c' J•••i s j% a �• .� �tq� ''f J f% e• ` • rOil�rr1•r. rrl•s�� o.w�� lti •�••.� , A M-01619 ';` , � •Is••riio•••r01•r•Ilrr► rp�•N�••��i�irsensse�.lnres,�i°ire4osi Y � bAV'YS CIT coot GLCE3-°'Z w µ w 25—LZL S�t:..s=aas .aru 4t� A-vwzo • -+�,�x tri ��a ��, '� � ' T.nter Classroasc� CIS sJ-i.'yM�C(x1r�'/w���i �Y�I y�q ��i"� • wN+�Ywi a� • .. i • rya 5, �� � �M VF.®Jr�.r�x I �' �' -1 .�.f±.� rtiW\IF Iii � ♦ Y Qz�C��ar',SQ���r _ • ., YBo_ �y { Q ey •.« ..' .. 1 i•i.rrr. `V..+� �. bri�s4M� ..rat '� �.�. r t+a.1'7+�rM7 yy���+yy�« ev,, o'VT.�4SO _ M� 1wQT '-� r.,.�lM��tfo1Z3 Qi: o�'•TC� i _~,.�',. . ' i� R � Mat 9 aecla- _ ., • .,, .:. m fix,`"-�,`�"t d��: .'"a �"»�iLG��a.""',, « Lipublic edz=t.�v , : 41v SC..:ooZ Dss -. ��.�i •a y•i�er»��L detreLOocerwt� =A! Y �� 4rM•� •o'.�- �e r�w�w LR.g � � G� � �.;,51r y.ig0r .'r n � IgA OV )QGi�«'. 1°� 4 Cad or ca_ _ cewia,�.v ��� a set': cs? tae ava rt L y - W4 when o :ci�- e. 4 ,� erg cias:5 00= �.2:c11. 1 b.,.- c...s r.-�.c wia t �. t...... Ce- e_ that ccuca tier: na be r c a _ . _ . tio C n�:z�acts (Q=' - Yee-• thGde�.}..r�iticans ; , :.. • -, .' ZS�-I.�?, w 1]A rZ� w � 7 a or. -the GOV set x •; t SSS SY3G'C3 q. cS ..' Y ply • .a d Nr1rr • - .� 1:10 �w� • , ` "Deol .rat Cn a.. Sys^ y�. r�� �.a .• ,�. ; acL a :ia Cb) 1A ,�v7 t�++~i �+..i the bv:tr.� boa�� a..�c_-._ scboal.r �e==ca�s>--- s o �,�a • e Gc*rett GcZa. azo; .� � 6�g«PZ a� to b ar; •� ants o�. * aw NCH +1.r�ri �{ s Q.:..w+ r,�,:�•. r«N+r his �. OL is .i.. i+Y�53i•.7, br+ � V Y + (Otd. X10. �d�G��a'�r y • r► .. - �seci .- .y.y�yr a..T'w a�+-i ti Ch: C�..S. i.. )Vi • I... aei:.iy 4 a `+a .�wy G�4siii22w ,In; y q .. - •Y' (-•-Z Vr.�..Gra 4rOrt• bei- 4w�: :w..V b+t V �N,j' l��.0r. y � a 7 S 3 0 o..ix atY aZ% ,�y t j+»d017 Ott O»l"�.O'•'� �. ��t« C,3wSC��O�tO�rL_ .- - -I »C•:.�,5 ,5�y • G�~r� �f. r... r.w t-1 w y i�w.n I -act ..t -m r• b+.�. =Cii+. '. Y1(f CY A�V ♦ r� as•. �• yrr y L•w .�►�f�.�:Ir �iGs .w++ w+.•�J .moi �.b .�3r � �Gti� y..lKr rf.. yrrr V h01yM jt•�, r Q C�Ti �•r. • ,,. Y r•w C.wr �'r'"lu:w C,..^. •..... ho Ld $�C "'°' • cr'L.:.w • j+, ` ' 1Y�`, :r+—.aiw :rw :r a+ •+ . L :. q ,; ..w i w �; � a«Yr V• �wr'a /-y�".f �'r L.w CfiV «'�w..Mi� .'~..+�.+ �d" 1'...+ e �r �~� � 3 i �'• ♦ f� (atriw i� ie r.w•w+w«.+e:. � '•�. r+�""�� �,� •«.„�`►,. i� 1Vw :i�•YVi r.+wri.. Y y 1 y�.ri.+a�r� i��sfwa a•� I C'Tr • r A d Cada y l�avf Ci. µ 23 t2:ti, The ei•tl( o4ux�ci= yC _'•Zcat:. n zueat=as. Jew dave�.am=enZ. .Series • 2`a"�,x� �. r � v. , saa aru+rs, ,as.'a. cor.{ty� on or 3,,,•=�:ed schools W thin the a�t�daace a o8a Qent =of fees i n liet� t�,ereo1, or a �ec?ticat,.oa at jacc the Pa's yaw orovi,si•oAs ar �� atio o both. acco=d=ca wig e y section 6 � g r 4 of we � ove�.z't Ca�c� . �o accept 1a.:�:, ees coraer.:i:.g y�rhethss n con - b) theecssoa - A e aft..r ,.; a :� ' ' �,.atiaii`' spa;? beQ ���...n f the c 4 ar. ' apn.woo.,.._ Gard` �..a ___ zelad� t.:e hoa earc......3.n5 •. tati.on W_ :. 1 SCbloo�r� Sul v -e1at� to t�,a ~, aeta� sc..co � or as the„ be creseriaed by Ithe �=t of any fee shall c and sh l]w baa doll- aGs6Z, 5$ • issuan of. uo the e.ax= aTi-S � The saes arlc ;• 25w-1.ZS Use o� _ or •lane: salelV to a1r.iavwat�. .eieC LT3k C�7G '4SAS arM pis n �„t�.rLw.'s•-ciw:Ce �xicM shay_ wi.ti-.n c,.. , the conditi dms ©e over=owri�n areas,--cotz mclli t he Tho d �,.s {-- � proviZa to the c�"Y` 4 - shall tach~adY .Sac Noss -s 5�s7s and 6ag r' o iii „� wra6�t4G.�@ o.i+- Coda • �Crd• `o .$62., the C4 �r V bbal+ .� ve �\+f ♦ V � J. 7 VY . 4o4 H � a�w� wi 1� Sere. 2S -I, 'i:' c�.a s;saJ.l �e ., eae ,.o lig-- -o- azy Y bis 'a = =� y r . �' t~�. avyc J=ac . -» vo to d, s,at �prcvcl n1sw nt ras:da.; t ^gat city CZ=Cil T-�i+ n P but not _ac .,�` :.»r. t..e lawful reasnn, 3wwc,�u have an a schcal, or SanooZs r_Zaa nt =ay � �v�.at � by � e �ro�i.s±C3cs �y f - s b ' dis ..a wsc= « r 71 _y A _ s r A Y.' Donaldd R. Davis Eric Hasseltine Wesley 'Hyrlen Dean LaField M. J, 11rock & ;ions, Inc. The Hofmann Company Boyle Engineering Corp, Eastern Division Sacrablento Concord San Bernardino Building Industry Assn. of Northern California, Inc, Walnut Creek Brad Olson Pahl Stewart KACOR Realty Southern Division Temecula Building Industry Assn, of Northern California, Inc. Santa Clara ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research consultants for this report were Connerly & Associates, Inc., 22152 [st Street, Sacramento, CA 9581$, This document was n'iade possible through grants from. - Northern California Construction Industry Advancement Fund Southern California Construction Industry Advancem.:rit Fund Southern California Fund for Construction Industry Advancement San Diego Construction industry Advancement Fund ADDITIONAL COPIES Co p ocument may be obtained by 'sending $4 for the first cop,,° (or $2 each for additional copies) plus $1' for postage and handling for each Book ordered to the aiddress below, PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY ORDER, California Building Industry Associttion 1225 5th Strect, Shite 550 + Sacramento, CA 9-5814 • (916) 40-1988 Published by the California Building Industry Association (CMA), April 1083 FINANCING' FACILITIES 'THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTR'9t ASSOCIATION' 6 d4icEks .Dennis C'.0"Brien Walter W-,Keusder Stanley C, Swartz Forrest Mauer President First Vice President Second Vice President Treasurer Joseph A. Farina Robert H. Rivinius Sceretary Executive Vice President ►, PLANNING AND LAND USE COMMITTEE Steve Benson, Chairman W, Scott Biddle Jaynes Cashman Richard C, Chenoweth: Benson & Sedar The Biddle Group The Cashman Group M. J.,.Brock & Sons, Inc, Sacramento Irvine Rio*erside Los Angeles Ron'Earl Clare'Fickliii Stephen Frost Mike Gallagher l y ion Co Yale Construct, Belda & Ficklin Frc6t & Baker MCBail Company Modesto Fairfield Fair `Oaks Alamo Bob Kreis Eugene Wsciarelli Fred N, Rabe ' "Vic Roznovsky Terra. Industries Redwood Shores Fred N. Rabe Spano'Enterprises San Diego Redwood City Engineering, Inc.' Fresno Fresno Victoria J. SaA sch Stanley Scott Paul Tchang Dennis E', Wilson Salisch & Sal,isch San Diego Techbilt Homes; Inc, Mid -Valley Engineering .Fresno San Diego Modesto SCHOOL FACILITIES FINANCINGANFRASTRUTURE TASK FORCE Donald E. Reed, Chairman Steve Benson Kirk Bone Don V. Collin M. J' 'Srock & >ons, Inc. Benson & Sedar Pacitic Scene California ]Building Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Industry Association Sacramento Donaldd R. Davis Eric Hasseltine Wesley 'Hyrlen Dean LaField M. J, 11rock & ;ions, Inc. The Hofmann Company Boyle Engineering Corp, Eastern Division Sacrablento Concord San Bernardino Building Industry Assn. of Northern California, Inc, Walnut Creek Brad Olson Pahl Stewart KACOR Realty Southern Division Temecula Building Industry Assn, of Northern California, Inc. Santa Clara ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research consultants for this report were Connerly & Associates, Inc., 22152 [st Street, Sacramento, CA 9581$, This document was n'iade possible through grants from. - Northern California Construction Industry Advancement Fund Southern California Construction Industry Advancem.:rit Fund Southern California Fund for Construction Industry Advancement San Diego Construction industry Advancement Fund ADDITIONAL COPIES Co p ocument may be obtained by 'sending $4 for the first cop,,° (or $2 each for additional copies) plus $1' for postage and handling for each Book ordered to the aiddress below, PAYMENT MUST ACCOMPANY ORDER, California Building Industry Associttion 1225 5th Strect, Shite 550 + Sacramento, CA 9-5814 • (916) 40-1988 Published by the California Building Industry Association (CMA), April 1083 FINANCING SCHOOL FACILITIES, %41� x, Page Contents 3INTRODUCTION 3 AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF SCHOOL .FACILITIES FUNDING AND STATE SUPPORT 3' Serrano v, Priest 4 Proposition t3 of 1978. 4 The State's Deepening Fiscal Crisis 4 State Construction and Maintenance Programs 6 SB 201 6 THE PRESENT ''STATUS OF STATE AID FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION 11 Comparison of Assistance to Schools with Other Local Assistance 12, A REVIEW OF LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS 12 SB 201 Fees (1977) 13' Community Facilities Plans 13 Community Facilities Act of 1982 13 The "Poway' plan 13 Sale of Surplus Land/Property 14, Imposition of Special Taxes 14 Lease -Purchase of Relocatable Units 14 PrivateOwnership and Leaseback 14 Other Private Agreements 15' THE STATUS OF EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES 16 STRATEGIES TO MEET THE FUNDING CRISIS 16 Findings and Conclusions 17' State Strategies for Facilities Finance 17 Allocation of General Fund Money 17 Revenues from Surplus School Sites 17 The Local Match for Lease -Purchase Funds 17 . A Change, in the, Constitution 18 Local Strategies 18 SB 201 Fees 18 Use of Special Ta, 18 Revenues from Surplus School Sites 19 Private Agreements 19 Community Facilities District 19 Developer Rein►bursements 19 More Effective Use or Existing Facilities 19 Defining Facility Needs 20 Student Generation .Ra'tes 20 Calculating Facility Need 2.1 Legislation Needed INTRODUCTION unsporting students to existing faciiities, in the past decade, financing For school construe There are several high growth areas in the state overall enrollment increases. tion has changed dramatically, l3eEore 'tile Sei± rano v: , .Which are experiencing Priest decision in 1971, school districts supported their activities mainly by levying ad valorem taxes on CIHAPT)(rR O1viE: rWere eal property within their districts. School facilities- AN HISTORICAL, OVERVIEW those ad vlorem taxes, b local bonds IOW OF usually y repaid from OL FACILITIES: FUNDING es, although he state had sup- SCHOOL ported school construction since 1947, AND STATE SUPPORT Because school finance was predominantly a local issue great disparities existed between the highest and the lowest wealth districts. In the extreme, a The California Cnnsttttttion (Section 5, Article 9j high wealth district could ra}se many tames the requires the Legislature to'+provide for a system of revenue of a low wealth district and yet accomplish up and su chools by which a Free school shall be kept this with one-tenth or less of the taxing effort.' has y year, after he fiported in each rst .year nlwhich a school in ever i:3efore the Serrano decision, a local school district would t been,established." This provision implies a state typically derive about 6096 or more of its in- commitment to facilities in which thy:« public school come from local sources. A typical school district system can function. now derives about 30% of :its income from local sources. The state's contribution tens increased from For most of thstags histo the provision of a 'i history, about ane-third ten years ago'to over 60q{i today, commoprov dei system eans simply which tike Legislature g would The oils of this report are to address a com could form a school district, administer the district, Prehensive, long-term solution to financing new and finance the school facls ility construction and facility repair and through local taxa6 and lic oborrowing. in hSdistrict maintenance needs, to prescribe specific state ,and Facilities were, therefore t School local remedial actions, and to recommend general; tion or the proceeds from a�clocaiabondessiuet the legislative actions to carry out the proposed solo- g retired from local taxes.- tion. bonds ben To accomplish these goals, this report examines After the Second World War, however, the state. the historical nature of school facilities finance, ex. became increasingly in in assisting local istin - school districts in acquiring g Mate and local programs/options to finance facilities. This assistance g and maintaining Fa and the status of existing school facilities. grants to local districts (sed Low interest : loans and This report is written for school officials, local Past decade, several major events liavc pt..,)- finance, In the governitient oFFicials, legislators interested in school foundly affected school F}nancirig;, the Serrano v. ice, building industry officials, and other in, priest case in 1971, Proposition 13 in l9!$; and th terested parties. The need for this report stems from state's deepening financial crisis since 190, the incremental nature of financing school facil}t}es e since the end of 'the calamitous seventies. No com- Serrano V. Priiest preteens(ve method for -' r financing school Facilities or In the Serrano vj priest se (affirmed b the measuring facility needs yet exists. While the ma'or}- ty of schools are not experiencing an increase in California Supreme Court Inca 1976}, (tie court by the existing overall enrollments, and therefore school construe. Public school finance system was based tion is not generally of immediate concern, the issue on chi. wealth of district residents and therefore Of Facilities finance is important to all school resulted in large discrepancies }n the ability of local districts for these reasons; .districts to finance their school programs this `Jir ally ever�j school district in California is system violated the equal protection clause of tile • ' to ekper1.1 iencing 'problems in Funding the maintenance California Constitution, and/or repair of existing facilities, Although the Serrano case primarily addressed ex= • The children of the present "baby=booth" p ,ling i' i for public school programs, the cott`rt's generation may represent a hilhi-boom that b 1950 rul(hg rh}gFit at some future time CXtehd to the (viii sub stantiall � y P}hahce of school facilities as well, The Legislature j }hcrc.ase t.hroliments irr, man. « Parts of the state, �` began taking steps In the early 1970s to implement • Population (s shift►hg and tltereforc causiii con- the Serrano decisioh b g , p , cerns with the distribution of attendance, Man � y e �ablislun expenditure We�+et�e � lim b, based on average dill attendance, �' the e limits focused on progtatn/opeeatin x districts, while hat erperie'ncing net gains in atten dn- dance, Ecce questiohs of providing new facilit}es or di .�` 'es and not on capital expenditures for sefpool faeitties. ,:. � vw {¢ `!I x',roposition iia 0£ 1978 maintenance through the transfer of revenues frons Tile passage: of Proposition 13 by the electorate 'in a General Fund' and the Tidelands' Qil Itevehue 1978 i'educed local revenue Erorn property taxation. Fund, The Legislature initially nfena d to transfer by 57%. Schools were especially hurt by Proposition $208 million in 1989 80 100 million in 198081, and Bin two ways. First, schools depended'more;heavil $z00 million to 19ti1.82, and each year thereafter to a y fund for facility construdtion and maintenance, on property tares than most other local. agenices For ` their source of local revenue. 'Schools districts Instead, the state faced a deepening General lvuncl derive about 90% of their local revenue from ro er deficit as its pre Proposition 13 surplus was final y p p expended and a sharp recession severely reduced ty taxes; Second, the state adopted an allocation state revenues. The system for dividing remaining property tax revenues 982-83 Rnrt; acted deficit is among local agenices in a way that further reduced 'estimated at $1.5 billion, As a consequence, several school districts' share of the smaller "pie.'" Tile State, hundred million dollars originally intended for had to compensate for this loss by ncreasin its.5u school construction was �'unallotted'" and reverted Port of schools more than its supg p back to the General Fund; In the 1981=82 fiscal year governments, port of other local for example, nearly; $580 million was originally p. According to the Assembly, Education Committee, propriated for school construction, However, over nearly$430 million of this a $12.7 billion was spent on public schools appropriation was eventually generally during the 1981.8^ fiscal transferred Mack tu'the General Fund, leaving, about e year. of this amount, $7.9 billion (62%) came from state sources $i`15 mi.11ic�n iine•i aurth of the original allotment, for expenditures on school facility t. 'istruct x yn and $39 billion (30.'i'96) came from local sounes, and $0.9 billion (7,356) came from the federal govern= maintenance, * , p ment, This fiscal years the state will contribute $8.2 oriAgain appropriation yeas, .a substantial portion of thi billion to support public education. 'However, only a ,g.ppropriation for school construction has small portion of this state assistance goes to the con- been elimmated to help balance the budget. struction, repair, and maintenance of school Although $302 trillion is expected to be available for facilities. Of the estimated $5.2 billion of state school facilities in 1982-83 the Tidelands Revenue sup- port, about $300 int lion 3,6% will support set aside will be $52.8 million rafter than $2oo facilities, ( ) pport school earn • itionally, $125 milliot.. k�j the current Million. Add In the 1981.-82 fiscal year" dust over24; of al l e c en- y appropriation was to came from the proceeds of p .he $00 million school bond approved by the voters ditures ort primary- and tncondary education went toward school construction; about half of this moneylast November, The state's budget crisis forced the came from state sources. Unfortunately, there is, no from the $500 to postpone tide sale' In using the proceeds reliable source of information on how much of the $500'million bond to provide most of the Treasure local contribution statewide for school construction facility aid during the next two years, the' Legislature comes from non -tax sources (developer fees and 17'ay' be'contradicting voter expectations that the other income), $,5t)0 million bond would be in addition to the pre< bent level of aid, The State's Deepening ) seal Cr:sis Yr addition to state and local fiscal ' UCq, school, increasing After Pro osition 13 local school distracts were fors special ricts veducat chalprogtamst which require Proposition " s ch require left with few or no options to raise ,money fet con- p s �cial and sornatitnes cantly facilities. Only one struction qr i•epain Local bond measut'es are state aidprogram protides assistance specifically_ notoriously difficult to Pass, .and after Proposition p ` ion for special educational programs, 0 such measures would nvariably require the 'im position of an added tax, requiri g two=thirds ap- proval of the local voters. State Construction aild Maintenance Additionally, Proposition 13' prohibits ad valorem programs p p �' 4 except, reviousl authorized debt pro ert �taKes in excess of 1 eianes 4.irc f1hafte co 'lany, of the current state prograros, to aid School s n.ttruction an b localities have reached this 1 6/o limit,,school districts Q d facility txiaiht. fiance have their cannot raise propet ty tares eveh if two•thi ads of a root in legislatioh adopted in the late 1940s and ear distriet`s voters washed tti Cinanco school cohstruc• 1947N5o the chi F state ate Allocation oh acid e onsibl iF `lnizeil in pian. A school district can raise "special taxes,, 'by, ing aha covin a g� h y p or i'cvi4w- two-thirds votes ,1 pp B pp.ications rot; $tate aid Cod• but special taxation his been Successfully ae• In i 94� r ion and Facilities h�ttiritchtint i±,. siruct com Iished i ppt Oval Finance school C� c.illtiess, school can .155.5 trill p n only tG fe�v cases (see cl P r Three). lion G:'ni'ral l±�irld Cot schoolconst floc i to This i the tuns, The Ugismure in 1979'authoriied bion ,term sr• , 1' fallo�ted -by a botid authorithtion ih 1949 of $250 b stt�i►ctitih andmillion., � ` + NOVvever, the State 5zhool`,8uild,rtg Act OF r.3n ie.trtien to n+,sir; . t facility can •TZ2 provides the Foundation- .upon, which most cur- School Y3uildin Aid for Unsafe rent construction aid programs, were developed, a Schools .•.- `lie (State Allocation Board 1980 81 Annual Re ort. et• staple offers loans to school districts Far the repair= or ween 1952, and 1982 pearl $2.4 billion P ) replacement of unsafe buildings. School districts general obligads ool const bond issues were author, several must y rr�atch state contributions with a tax of up to orized to $,20 per $100 Of assessed value Cor $.05 per,$100 of ti .tion and maintenance. By June of property value), This 1982, over$1.8 billion (75%) had been re aid b local program began in 1971, P Y Because school districts do not have excess taxing the following years; occurred during' ' � power (that is, ►most localities have :reached the 1 �5 school di�tc•iets. The authorization Decolimit �""*tris r ), p ogram cannot be used on a widespread 1952 -- $185 million basis. LOnly $1.5 -million was made available during 1954 --.- $100 million the 19341 fiscal year, at which time funds for this 1957` $400 million program were. expended, 1958—." $200.. million Regional Occupational realning Canters -- As 1960 . $300 millionof June 1481, the�Ugislature authorized $12 Inillion, 1962 $200 million to assist in the construction of five regional centers 1964 $260 million for occupational. training, on�:each,>in Kern County, 4966 -• $275 million Monterey County, Stockton; Tulare County, and, $ here CaliForn'a.' Tile centers are operated by 1974 -- 150 'million coup 972 -- $350 million Soot y ty superintendents of sch-bols. The program TOTAL — $2.14 billion does not aid local school districts, Emergency School Classrooms -- Since 1979, State, bond sales foi• school aid are timed to meet [dt state has leased portable classrooms to school the rash needs of the State School Building Aid Pro- tricts to imeet emergency needs, Over. 400 portable grain. The state's credit rating is used to:.•provide ssroom-,s are placed in Over 70 school districts. In lower interest rates on bond repayments than could be arranged for local bond issues. Loans to school 9+ $13 million tvas allocated by the state to pur. districts are .repaid to the state over a 20 to 40. ear se portable classrooms: An additional $15 million period; depending on the aid ro ram. y s allocated in 1980, The program .currently p g Of the state rates on lease revenuesi wh��h totaled nearly bond debt accumulated up to the end of the 1982 �, fiscal 0 in 1981, .year (June), it is estimated the school districts have repaid about three-fourths of this debt to the Leroy Greene State School Building-Lease Pair- state, gram J,- Thi's prograim provided nearly c ase Pro P g gin 1979. The .Sta y Described below are several of the state's existing $400 million in asci stance in its first three ears o construction tine` maintenance aid programs: g ° eration be iiinin tic Allocation + State Building Aid Program -- This is the basic Board approved during the first three years over 220 construction aid program, enacted in 1952. Low projects in nearly 140 school districts. It is'expected wealth districts are assisted in financingschool that over $112 million will be allocated to local con school districts ftoim the ,Lease-Purchase bund in the are based through state loans. Terms of repayment 1982-83 fiscal year: leo new allocation to the fund [s aLoans re based on the school district's ability to pay, proposed by the Governer in the 1983.84 fiscal year, a generally y thirty years. At the end c►, the y r, p ymenteperod, an Linpaid principal is cancellers, State School Deferred Malaxtenanee -- This pro- position 13 in effect, requites the School contribution, ram is in meeting major mai assist school Pm districts ntenance and Aid use this program re vires a local contBwldtng repair 'nes also adopted in 1979 to Program to districts with excess borrrwin " needs. Each participating district establishes g 'a 5-year maintenance plan; In 1981, over 700 districts Pa ` y, This Program is not of practical use to lokv wealthtdistricts at the present Ume, Partipated in the program and rece-ked stater aid of • School 1lousi. g Aid for Exceptional. Chll&r n - This fiscal year $G5 million was allocated ion to accomplish the first Year of heir pia„� The Allocation Board makes loans from state school' From the building aid bond funds for facilities for handicap_- General Fund to the Deferred a'�cintenttttce Fund,. Ped children, Fift s p' and next year, tile proposed at! addit[oriai 'repaid, y 'pet`cent of the ,loan must be $81,3 trtil[ian `tran;fec, + Schoo; Rousing Aid for Districts Tmpacied by program, established in 1980 pro t Program -- Thi; child Cate rmd Develo nts� Seasonal Agricultural Einnloynneiit — The State vides assi,tartce Far Allocation Board leases portable classrooms to housing infants, preschool, and schobl-aged children $cKibl districts which e;tperience seasonal enroll• For child rate and developmerit services, Agencies t`n..ent changes duce to the tr►gration of farmtvorkets ..ontract with the bepartmeHf of ;Education to lease and thti� _ facilities an a yearly bas!;;, Facilities are pot•taelle revenues, which Were over 200,000grates from lease families, Program p and are located in areas without permanent atle= �� � $last year. quare facilities, An Initial subsidy of $2.5 million Was � , for the program in the 1.980-81: fiscal yeah voters last Nov. rnber, $3$0 million of which was ear - for newv'constrtictlon, But this issue (the first . 1E r� this money was not encumbered and marked in four years)y itself sloes not represent a corn - 1 ire not spent. prehensive and final solution to the problem of financing school facilities. At most, the'$500 inillic;n Would havereplaced the money originally ap- �&aopted in 1979, SB 201 allowed local govern- propriated over the last several years for school con - its on behalf of school districts to levy fees on struction and maintenance but diverted for other new,evidential development or require the dedica- it the district declared itself overcrowd -"frozen" purposes. At this writing; the Staff:d Treasurer has the sale of new general rbligation bonds un- tktR,tifSand eda a found that mitigation measures are not feasi- til "the budget deficit is adequately+ -eliminated. It is b� �e fees and/or dedict,tic�n can be used for in- uncertain that any part of the` ,500 million schoolwAi. m facilities only. The law clearly places the bond can be issued before: the rice of this fiscal year burden On residential builders to mitigate the effects on June 30, wools of grc;vth inducted by all community The revenue sources tht'l do remain for school con- aerpment, The law provides no uniform ' iefini• struction are as varied and curriplex as.the web of . Tion, of, 'overcrowding, and the requirement for transfers And "unallocations," figure A summarizes General se's to study mitigation measures is' weak: key financial data, relating to the state's Fund and education expenditures in general. Figure B compares appropriations and expenditures for .. school construction and maintenance during the cur- CHAPTER TWO: rent and two i Figure C summarizes iriGtthe fundscal s vliich support schoo 1 jIM PRESENT STATUS OF STATE AID priorst changes any building and maintenance, Finally, Figure D shows,,, SCH003: CONSTRUCTION' the changes in debt service for "the past two; current, 'FOR and the next fiscal years, These debt payments from Since the passage of Proposition 13, financing for local school districts are to repay the state for the school construction and facility maintenance has money it borrowed in past bond issues to finance beers a series of stop -gap, patchwork measures. long-term, comprehensive solu- school construction and maintenance, Following these figures is an explanation of the These still exists no tiva to the acute and chronic facilities financing budget changes. needsof local school districts. School districts are left an a weak financial condition as most are at, or n&Ar. their bonding ;capacity and cannot raise taxes b to support addition.o•,l borrowing, assumed the major responsibili- The state- now tyr for financing educational programs, providing n �y two-thirds of the revenue. Primary and secon- nary, education expenditures for programs and over 35% of the state's General faeilities represent Forint expenditures; or nearly $8.2 billion. Local d.istnict and federal funds will add about $5 biU.ioti for a- total primary tend secondary education expen- diture of about $13 billion in the 1982-83 fiscal year. As mentioned previously, the state's relative c on- finance is much less than for tribution for facilities program finance: e In the past several yerars; state-su o PP rtedsun- struction finance has rt aned as several hundred dollars originally allotted from General Fund ,l million and, Oil Tidelands revenues to finance school General Fund, facilities was re -turned to the Although Governor beukrmjian proposes an overall 6% ih support for education during increase of ,4tate the next fiscal year, lye proposes 16/6 less stat(l sup- por� for finantiti school facilities Gould have been met by the Part of the slhortfall ssoo million boned issue approved by Oalifornia , In .. - SCHOOL FINANCE -- KEY DATA (Figures in'Thousands) 1. Sources for Support of Public Schools Source 19,71`•72 1981.82' !. State $1,66200 (33.396) $ 7,860,400 (62V/16) Local 2,898,700 (58.0.96) 3;887,000 (30,7%)' Federal 435,000 ( 8,7%) 917,00.0 ( 7:306) TOTALS $4,996;500 $12;664,400 IY. State Revenue Sources Source 1972.73 `! 1982.83 Sales '& U,, -,e $2,110,000 (36' 60A) $ 8,900,000 (41.0%) Personal. income 1,880,000` (32.5%),, 8,060,000 (37.1 Vo) Bank & Corporate 770,000 (13,496) ". 3,630,000 (10.74%) Insurance 187;000 ( 3.2%) 660'0000 3.0%) Inheritance 291,000 ( 5,0%) + Other 539,000 ( 9.3%) 470,000 _ ( 2.20) TOTALS $5,777;000 $21,7!,0,000 111. State Expenditures — General 'Fund Program 1972.73 1982.83 1983.841 K-12 Education (Total) $1,867,000 (AM) $ 8,169,100 (35.24) $ 8,005,200 (36,9%) Health & Welfare 1,872,900 - (33.1 %) 7,865,200 (33.9%) 6;903,300 (3'a,99�o) Higher F-lucation 746,900 (13.2%) 3,425,900 (14796} 3,123;700 (14.496) Property Tax Relief 458,30G ( 8,1%) 1,397,700 ( 6,0°r6) 1,390,100' ( 6,496) Youth & Corrections 188,500' ( 3.3%) 7381900 (31,2%) 846,300 ( 19%) Resources 84,800 ( 1.54) 321,000' ( 1,496) 7.80,600 ( 143%)_ Consumer Services 85,100 ( 1,56A) 165,500 ( 0.74) 159,300 ( 0,7%) 8Us, & Transport, 22,600 ( 0,496) 54,600 ( 0.2%) 38,300 U%) Other 333,,1 A,o ( 5.0%) 1,074,900 ( 4.6%) 929,000 ,'4.3%) TOTALS $5,660,200 $23,202,800 $21,675,800 1,V: Othd-r Factors Affecting School Fundhig 1, Potential current year (1982•$3) state defit it of $1 billion, 2. Sin taxes and oil depletion taxes are also being sought, by other interest groups (law enforcement, etc.) , 3, Salability of tax increases to the Legislature fond the public, 4. Special Session of the Legislatures t Ctilitornhi $tate Asseinbly lEdueation Comatlttee, November 1982{ 2 Covernor'S Budget, 19' 91,83 figures ate ettimate5, 03.84 are proposed, e r c ,. FIGURE $ SU MMARY SHEET OF AP°PRO.I"ItIA'I'IUNS AND EXPENDITURES FOR FINANCING SCHOOL FACILITIES (in thousands OF dollars) 'SCHOOL FACILITIES AID PROGRAM FUND 1 _ Genernl 1980,81 (Actual) 1.981.82 (Actual) _ 1982.83 (Estid mate� 19E3-84 (Pro 1� (Proposed) Appropriations +2 Available Funds-' L Less Adjustments 269,509 $ 73,635 2 $ 65,000 $ 81,289 ;, Equals Total Available Funds Less U nallotted Funds Carried Over' - U $ 0 $173,635 U $ 65,U00 - o $ 8],289 - 208000 147,200 0 0 Equals Total Expenditure $ 61,509 $1 26 ,435 " r $ 65)000 t' $ $1,289 ` 2'. State School Building Lease Pii chase Hund - lPpropiations + Available Fundst Les.Ad'ustmeotsz $121;755 $393 "692 5112,496 $. 0 - 12,715 •321,990' - F�quals Total Available Funds Less Unallotted Funds Carried Oven $109,040 $ 71, 702 , $112,496 $ 0 100,000 - 5?,800 � fl U ;. 1Ego�a15 Total Expenditure ---_:� $ 9,041? .. _ _- $ 1$;902 ____Y,__ $112,496 ___. $ p 3.S&•te School Deferred Maintenance Fund Appropriations + Available Funds' 2 Less Adjustments' $ 48,794 $ 51,645 $ b5,DU0 $ $1,28 g E' taals Total Available q !able Funds, 48 790 - 4 - 51,64$ ------- 6x,000 81,289 _ _ _. . Les lnallotted Funds Carried Overs $ y 0 $ 0 $ U $ 0 Equ.,tis Total Exptliditure$ 0 0 0 -- -- _ 0 $ ., 0----`-�- 4. Spec al Capital Outlay' Account $ 0 $ 0 Appropriations + Available ?unds $ 15,750 $ 0 $ 0 $ Total Expenditures $ 15,750 - $ 0 $ 0 0 5, Lease-Pufth,!se Bond Proceeds A' ,count $ 0 Total prio.t ons �..._...� Expenditures $ 0 $ 0 $124,985 $199,985 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS- $ 0 9 $308 Q $345,337 $124,9$5 $302,51 $ 199,985 LESS LESS TOTAL UNALLOCATED' FUNDS: • Ot�iO •200,000 n $281,274 0 i EQUALS TOTAL EXPENDITURES- ESTIMATE!) DIS13t11tSE,MENT 5 $6,299 '90,977 $145,337 w $302,4814 $281,x74 STATE SCIEIOOL BUILDING SAFETY PROGRAM $ $154,808 $207,140 $ 83,089 School Building 8dety Fund tt A ro r' 'fins $860 `$683 $725 $755' (Repayments to fund on loans to local sch of districts) �- ! t l idu3es statutory approprlatiom, transfers frotm e,f,hcr Iuhds, =includes teahsrers from tither runds anti special r�zfuctiotis, tend prior year Wahcctis, il' any. �lntludes bhlani:c-s carried over tosubseque-hi year~, i(uny. E�cclud�s propt)Sud disburacntcnls to srltools rrotrt ihi $5010 itifilluil the L*?nd issue haq been genas' Obligatloh bond ttppt'uv_i`d by tiic, vutctit's hi Novernberrtr froAch and the dMutwhuht or its SOURCp: Governor's Budget, 1482 !33 anil'l�yi�•tt , proeeeds i4 ahedriahl at tins time, 1982, 9 F;riGURt 5L*r AlFtY OF C1IANGV,S Iii:' F1LTND CONDITION �- thousands of dollalrs) ,;Wk 1Q83.84 . 1980-81 a-8� r (Actual) in af4:d (Actual) Zr`e-�"urchuse 75 425 '84t29�6 �,��,4 $ 16,70 l0U uvU $ z�S60 � � ettaning Balance 112,715 790. � � 0�_ - r 0 -338,734 I`r , Pers- Out' ------= :. „-; '______-2,560 $.197,6#1$111,481. $116,37Q 1,560 "%tom, 'Resources 22,216 - 95,111` .113;810 Z �nditures'"$ $175,425 ��$ 16�,370 $ 2560 $ 1,000 n&ng Balance ,96 on to Local School $ 21,775 ,692 tacatl$: 93 $112,4 0 f it�icts Frotn Futt�`�' �+.. S,t'wool Building Safety from Local School Nstricts) 0 $ 0 g 0 t(Lo�n Repayments $ 0 ginning Balance 1,553 1,593 1,619 1,651, - 1,651 ived - 1,593 IntterestlPrincipal Rec%1,553 - 1,619 'T sEer'to General Fund ftr Debt Service) . 0 $ 0 $ 0 'En&tng Balance 3, Ix-ase-Purchnse B01i(A proceeds Accounts $ 0 $37$,CQQ 0 -Beginning Balance e-,v on& Authorized �'B 500,000 1250000 -200,000 Authorized Bonds Sold $375,000 $175,000' EndingBalance. and Othe W-r-Isters from Veneral Fund, State lands Revenue Fund, and tither resources. SiA Anepart.tnenttoE General Servicesr trans�i:rs dot, Special Capitol Outlay Account, a one-time — ers to General Fund, , � t Itc s)l construction and school maintettancc bnndt. -�TraaisEcr5 id local SChOoI aiStYiCtS, state De attin�nt of l;du�a � 1n 1982 of 'S500 million in heti ursuant to voter approval 44,is�ccount was established p the nu'thort%6 .ion to issue wt11 be unfrozen 6 the state 31'nebudget estimate assumes ygkc6: 1982,83 and 1983,8d Governor's Budset 10 FIGURE D SUMMARY SHEET OF DEBTSERVICE ON `S>I'A 1 E LOANS TO SCHOOIL DISTRICTS (in thousands of dollars) ANDD tiltINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON G)E' ZtAL nBLIGATION BONDS U4FT,ERJEST 1980.81 1981.82; 1982.88 jActual) " (Bstimuted) 1983.84 %, o osed (r P (Actual) $ 41,414 $ 37,746 36,208 $ 33,3;18 90,815 Interest94 92,165 , 215 91,115 987 0 Frintiipal Less Adjustments ` 988 988' $130,973• $126,336 ` $ 12%,698 TOTAL $132,591 `f,194,100 $190,225 $2021295 $198,092 Repapnents Froin School Districts , SLi:1i114AlKy 01: REPAYMENTS'TCYIF1tOM ALL FUNDS _$ 65,635 `$ 83 892 -$ 81"':v Gene,,ral Fundt Building Safety Fundi 1 ,593 3,461 1r G19 4,554 1,651' 3;,zF�l Building Loan Fund 190,225 202,995 198,02 Budding Aid Fund $129,W $125,276 $121,711 TOTAL CHANGES IN FUND CONDITION public School Building Loan Fund2 $ 0 $ 0 $ .0 $ 0 3,257 Beginning Balance 6,490 5,422 4,554 4,554 ` 3,257 Receipts • 6;490 5,422 Disbursetnunts �'� ,6 0 $ a O $ b Ending Balance $ State School Building Aid Fund $ $190,947 o9,94b $204,695 $ 40;$23 199,792 Adjusted Balance 35,543 235,54 .233,818 •200,797 Receipts -207o769,=200,h85 Disbursements $ 79,684 $ 69,946 .,1,823 18 39;818 Ending Balance 40,000 40,000 401000 .------- Plus Unissued. Bonds "�$119,bg4 � ----- $109,946 $ '80,8.23 $ 79,818 Adjusted Bala'af>C IlislnurseiYt�-nts fe,�n;t SdhoolBuildin g Aid Fund to Loc ► gehools $ 4+,023 $ 9,OOC? $ 1,800 Portable Classrooi s ;774 $12,b74 5,448 20,664 0 0 Loans for Facilities 0' 0 . 0 Building Safety �._-$20 _ . $ 9,471 $29,664 $ 1,800 TOTAL t`i tit± ncigative tli ure i8rre�ehts a p;►vhient Uuto the Gewm%l Fungi to Petit . $ihtc Schtxtl Building 13iitiJs 1%these ttixtM&red to the General Fund ti5yh1cmis arra SOUlti;t:, Guvi!rtissr's iludgei, Ig82 lj3 hhd 1.983.84, y. u Figure 33 summarizes the appropriations, of financing for school Facilities in the nett fiscal transfers, and expenditures for the five fund _sources year: eornprising the State Facilities Aid Program. In addi- otn., the State School Building. Aid Fund (Figure D), Coinparison of Assistance to Schools with w�hica derives its sources of income mainly from other Lecal Assistance szhool district loan repayments, disburses minor, IFiscal relief to .1n►�al scltaol districts, as a conse4 amounts for portablOrelocatable facilities and other school facilities, Estimated disbursements are derive quence of Proposii`'►on 13, has increased since ed from Changes in fund condition statements 1976.79 from $2.45 billion to $4.28 billion pe6posed teres C & D) in Lhe Budget. 'These statements list in 1,983-84, an increase of 74:3°r6. Part of this fiscal elle sources o£' 'revenue and the destination of relief' has been offset by the transfer of property disbar cements taxes from schools to other local governments, This for each Fund. Figure B shows estimated disbursement for the shift was $78.1 million in 1979»83 and is proposed ca 1982-83 (current) fiscal ;year and the 11983-84 (next) be $1.29 billion in 1983.484. However, funds available foe school construction final year to be significantly below total expen• have decreased `over the, past few years while other ditu«res estimated in the Budget for the State state aid has mostly increased. Figure la below conn• Facilities Aid Program. This is because the estimated e-cgenditures for 1982-83 and the proposed ekpen- paves annual percentage changes in the state funds ditures for 1983-84 rely ,heavily on the disbuesdment available (not expenditures) for school facilities and 01 the proceeds of the $5o0 million school bond issue other majtir local assistance p,rograrrts� approved by the voters last November. However, the tithing of the bond issue is now clouded, and without these proceeds to lend to local school districts, a FIGURE , sharp drop In state aid for school facilities would. PERCENT CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS YEAR IN result. LOCAL Figure }3 shows quite clearly the unallocated funds ASSISTANCE FOR VARIOUS STATE PROGRAMS originally Intended to aid school facility finance in the 'past two years. If this Fiscal year and the next 1982.83 1983.84 fiscal year end and with similar unt llocated funds; 1. School Buildini, Aid (funds actual disbursements will be significantly below the available) 12.4$ - 7;O% estimated 1982.83 expenditures and the proposed 2, Health & Welfare 3.983.84 expe�,aditures, - 5,30 - 9.7% Figure C shows the substantial car' hoverof Individual Assistance .. a,ione in the i.easc=Purchase Fated. Over $175 3, Tax'-Relief to SeniorCitizens and Others +4.8% + 1.3% mtilion remained unspent in the fond at the end of the 1980-81 fiscal year. Ho% ever. fund surpluses 4. Health & Welfare Service have been drawn upon substantially fn the past two Providers 1.1° -16.7 0/6 years so that only a nominalbalance is expected to 5, Local Governments to remain at the beginning of the 1983.84 fiscal year. General Purposes (exclud- Figure C alsrr shows tiro expected issue of general Ing education progra,tns) -i- 1.1oA -1.4,1% obligation bond.: to aid school fr,cilties (Lease= 6, Education Programs (less Purchase Bond Pt•oceeat, Account): Property Tax Transfers to 'Finally, Figure D shows the repayment. by school other Governmental Units) + 1,9� + O,b9�o districts of stage loans and also state retirement of general obligation school bonds, Payments received 7• Coverall change -1- nce • for school ol from school districts are transferred to the General Figure E shotes that local assistance • Fund to retire the state's general obligation borids, facilities finance has decreased more rapidly than Amounts receivedand less rapidly than in excess o i to the states debt are normally others. The neW budge p p steeper crop in transferred back , the Facilities Aid Program to local assistance overall than efn�sschool facilities, necessary to retire fund deferred school maintenance and the Lease- However, if actual n.sbursetn to local govern- Purchase_ Program, However, this excess money was ments fall short oV the Funds initially proposed foe limited this year to $65 million to provide cost-of- school facilities aid (as has been the case in the past), living increases for school progtanns, then the percent decline in actual local assistance for The Governor also proposes to defer the transfer schools could be much greater In 1983.84 than In- ,of instead rel on the proceeds 1' ,if Tidelands ©l revenue to fund school construction dicated by the Governor's budget, and malnt�n.., milllonboiid Issue fq provide the bulk o eilaaps school building aid has en3oyed less sup= y frtym the $.400 _ p" port. than other local assistance programs because It isnota highly visible isIPL, Construction aid tends to school'districts and beeclipsed by the grea'ler'attention,given to educa- 201 fee, The fee varied among education offices levied a lional programs, the perception that SB 201 affordsars to a localities from several schools' comprehensive relief, and the perception Finance, aAlStudy ons FiOnanclnis Public Ka1Zment of that school Facility aid has been cut n,a snore or no Cotzstruct on," February 1gg2; 2. School .less than many other state programs durin the p ) , recession, g Although the use of 201 impact fees may be a pro. miring short-term funding source; there are several drawbacks: • The ,!ee is not imposed in a uniform manner CHAT'T'ER THREE:based upon objective standards or criteria fordeter- inining the effect of O -new hou REsing on school enroll. REVIEWN F LOCALnlent: Few jurisdictions which levy this fee have r FUNDING OPTIONS develop ,a ed precise formula for its use,: In some _. cFi` es, only single-family units are; assessed, this '3trfore Proposition 13, school construction was `' raises the per unit cost of the fee for these ass fins need mainly in one of two ways: ' unity.. essed BY a local bond issue sa.tpported by ad valorem Fees are not necessarily commensurate with the property tares, true added cost of new residential develognient on l3nt L y the lThelfeehs levied repaid .vero20 too 40Years from'localttax sans ware Spat the time :building permits acre capacity, ond stare ism n have no excel bonding time d-. InseveralcdsPs, years elapsed between the g aid falls far slio of fee was collected and the time the faciliti need, Even if residents in the district wishe:i to of WAS actuall �^onstructed. Tn such cases, the school urease property tares to support a school :•bnstruc district had "banked" the fee, tion bond issue, the State Constitution would pro • The fee tends to divide the community into two hibit them from doing so groups: those with chi,d,ren moving into the coma munitY ,s most Localdistricts not �work on a t despread bft with asaoptions, po rase not Proposition 13, local taxation mmuno , Before n re notbased on the no. Presently feasible for many districts. These options tion that the value of property would, through taxa are described below and include special taxes (non- tion, provide a i11eans whereby the cUjnmu>caity at ad valorem Property or tither taxes), impact fees Targe �voulci su y public expenditaires pport Man t�on•pro£it corpgorations, facilil,ies districts, and, generally, even if ata particular time some residents lease -back arran em; ants, might benefit more from certain public expenditures nts than other residents, SB 201 and other post- SB Ba (1977) Proposition 13 fee and taxes have tended to target SB Ztlt l Fess Senate specific user groups who could be claimed as the unit fee .on new housing ucity oi• count to levy a ' er Bill 201 �Ilotvs a y • y P direct beneficiaries' of a particular public ,expen• nits, or to obtain a dedica- diture: tion of land from a residential developer to support The fallacy of this a}:pruach is two - Pronged: the UCquisition of temporary alassrootn facilities. pronged, x ;rst, many public expenditures, such as education The premise of the legislation is that new residential vide substantial; although indirect, coma pro - developments directly contribute to expanded � pro= p benefits =.`Ise SB 201 a community -wide school enrollments and developers should mitigate finance �tbtogates the general corrimuch `l approach to scF�ool facility this effect until a school district can arrange to ac- y respo.. quire Th fee 'stcollectead b t a local governmeet the ment andtleducated to its citizens are property trained needs, g nt at Sec to en {o tak art in society. the time a buildingmereial d` the entire, �niritnity benefits From com= pexmxt is issued, and ►t is as= tamed that most developers are able to pass this cost the newaresind ide tri whrialo move toea� 813 201 cotrimun t Raises alaing to consuiriers result of such development, Y a SB Ol fees are used throughout. -the state lint on a The fee is intended to provide tetnptirat bee not uniformly, This is partly facilities u y scattered basis . of . ease cif several c}a.11rnges tb the: coristitutioiaiity hent facilitiesl � scht?dl district cats acquire pet•ma an the Fee (the most recent being in Shasta County) compi'eherasiveSsBol tion201 oeto hot prol tetras sof nschool and Partly becauso only schools experiencing a sFacilities tina.t�ct:,substantial (or potential) incroase in enrollments can The feo is riot archil in those school districts of g to reduce ai'" make ale nate fintltn s las to the. need ni�,tcthwdin grid 'the lack oFaltrirnatives, osis with d�ciliitnr enrollirtettts but with substan g , ay bcginrling of ig82, 130 c.tt the suite's 1,100 nried`nmet Faciittwas phabiiltaton or ={=a=nte t,ance' n U q,y y.. IJ •, 4�btmthUnity Iracilities Mans The Local-State'Finaneial Coordination Act of 1.982 w(SB 1941) authorizes cities and counties to prepare plans which specify new public facilities, including schools, to serve development within a community, The facilities plan must include a financing compo- scent- The advantage of this planningprocess is that it allows local agencies to prepare a long-range, com- prehensive pre posal for facilities funding and target Wil, state, znd federal resources to' achieve the p'lan's objectives. i iowevcr, this planning process does not provide any, xew sources of funding for school construction or, rd0air, and it is therefore unlikely to solve the cur- rent problem of lack of funding for school: construe= tion. Gommunaty Facilities Act of 1982 This Art, established by AS 3564, allows local governinents to establish community facilities districts, designate the faciliti(.s and services to be financed in a districi, and designate the method of fin,aticng those services or f ac%lities. Districts must be approved by the voters, and any additional taxes necessary to finance district activities must be a'p- 'proved by p-'provedby at least two-thirds of the voters in the pro- posed district. The bill anticipates that these special districts would issue bonds to finance their activities and repay the debt through additional taxes. This Act and the Community Facilities Flan Legislation (SB 194 1) could complement each other ha that a jurisdic tion wishing to finance a particular project, such as a new school, could prepare a facilities plan and estoblish the district' (perhaps coterminous With an e;af sting school district), While community facilities legislation may not be of widespread use to school districts, it can be an op- tlon in sparsely populated, but growing, districts or in`specif;ically targeted areas of a school district; The tax to support a facilities district can be levied undbrtnly on property to provide a deductible item to property owners for income tax purposes. A facilities district could also be successful in a new growth, but pre�sant undeveloped, area,.tvhere a few large property owner/developers plan to build a large number of homes, ' The "Poway" Plan School districts may enter into a lease agreement for school facilities with non-profit corporations (Education Code 39327), The non-profit corporation would self bonds to finance the construction of the school facility, Revenue from the lease agreetiient with the school would retire the bonds, attd the bonds would be secured by owners, development liens. based on property sire, To date, this alternative. has been lamely unsuccessf tl for several reasons,, 1.3 • All property owners Inti district must approve ,the plan. ._ • The bonds are not always marketable, and given. the weak financial cpndition of many 'schools, the money to pay a lease4may be diff Ult to raise. • Administrative time and costs are high. ('`A Study on Financing Public K42 School Construe- `tion." P. 5) Sale of Surplus Land/Property The location of need ,d rehabilitation, replace• ment, or new construction does not always match the location of papulation growth or population centers in •a school district, Many school districts,., even ones experiencing overall growth in enrollment, may have "surplus land or facilities 'which, if sold, could help to finance new construction or rehabilita tion.. The Department of Finance estimz,es the value of surplus property statewide to be as high as $1, billion, Some school districts, such as Santa Clara Ulnfied, have realized significant pins by disposing of isurplusproperty_; For example, a 9.1 acre parcel originally appraised at $L1 million was eventually sold through competitive bi;iding for $5.2 million, Sites located in cominercial areas would be especially attractive for sale. In some cases, the. value of such commercially located property could be high enough that, even if the site is presently in use, a district could relocate the school; fund new construction from the sale of the old property, and still have remaining funds for future facility finance. Another option is to trade surplus land in one part of a school district for needed land in another part; Depending on the relative value of the site to be trad- ed and the new site, a district might negotiate as terms of a trade, development of the facilities on the new site. The sale of surplus land or property to finance school construction has several drawbacks: • In most cases where the facility was financed by a state 'loan, the funds frorn a sale must be returned to the state. • Local land use regulations can often restrict the value of surplus school property or create barriers to the sale aha reuse of such property: Palos Verdes, for example, has zoned school sites for open space, severely reducing their value and practically forcing schools: in that city to sell surplus property to the ci= ty at reduced rates. Other cities designate school sites as "park land," • State law (AB 2852) requires government ages cies with surplus land for sale and lease to give the first priority to focal recreation, housing, or redevelopment authorities within whose jurisdiction the property is located, Such authorities wishing to purchase land need not offer market value for the land, but neither Is a government agency requir-d to d spo, , of land at less than riittrlret value. 77 of surplus pro• land and leasing the land to` the corporation for $ l districts forced to dispose er ear. The schgal district would sign a long e. pert tea meet immediate financial. need may p Y $aeriFxe,flw bility in accoMmodating future popula lease with an option to purchase the facility, the. expected "mini-baby, boom" of the To investors such an arrangement could claim tion sMft's. elation three tax benefits --- a tax credit ora personal proper- ty (equipment, machinery), depredation deductions, 'later 19�3s. and 1990s, and unexpected pop Y . gmwtli. and interest cast reductions (if the facilit is fi nanced through a borrowing of money), according to , Illar�positaQn o Special Taxes the Department of Finance. Although, the California' Constitution forbids new This form of finance is procedurally complex and ad it,tern property taxes, school districts can raise ° may require the cooperation and patience of many tiddidowl. special tastes" with the approval of two- public 'and private officials. The lease-purchase at thirds of 'the voters in a district. `'Special taxes are rar,gernents Can therefore roily work if a school' district is serious about ;malting a long-term lease not defined in the Constitution, nor has legislation , clarified the use of uch taxes, ` According to the commitment; can show evidence of suf f ic'etit funds Depa.ent of Finance, at least one school district, to cover lease payments, can work with investors to Climes rndned, :has levied t pecial tax, but the use of reduce development costs, and can appreciate the such. a to will probably be limited until clarified by private profit incentive uniierlying the arrangement. the counts or the Legislature. An additional hurdle is garnering the two necessary support for such , Other Private ,agreements a tayc. Some y used, the err school districts forrr Ierl Lease-purchase of RelQcatable Units` vi o mental; >C.eas Yceview process to requite developers to Sections 39240 and, res 39290 of the Houcation Code mitigate the'adverse effects of ex•,- cted increases. I ^ school enrollment from iter ,ide�ntial establish procedure whereby a school district can,-t-, m developments. a,is mitigation t the YPI range to lease a relocatable facility from a prM is between a schooll dist�p and party. ten -year time limit is established. Imperini form of agreem County used such arrangement in the late `1970si h developer wereby the developer- would pay - the actor 'was retained to develop and a �' district a per unit Ee:e, provide lard fora school, cone A local contr bittation of the three. street a school fac,'lity, or a cam range financing fora $2 millili on relocatable facit'•. The. lease was for seven years, with an option to put Such an agreement might limit a, school district to chase ,at any time. The lease payment covered all. apply for state funds in conjunction with the financing charges. - developer's contribution. An agreement might also To be attractive to private investors and financial specif pa threshold beyond which •ilie construction of p y ,. institutions, the lease- urchase arrangement must new facilities `would occur. However, such have the following features; agreements depei d on the narrow revenue source of The agreement has to be a "leaseback" arrange' builder contributions. Two laws passed in 1982 1liniting the power of nientn order to qualify financial institutions for tax focal school district's to use CEQA as a means of ac break's: • An option to purchase must be provided, as re- quiring facilities, sit 1209 allows local irae land governments quired tinder s"tato i�w» to require developers to pay fees or dedicate land or . only relocatable units can be financed if a bank both on behalf of school districts, but for interim is involved as bank;; cannot 'lease real property, facilities v` p act only. , SB 2011 limited loeal governments` powers to only (Department of Finaree) im fees or impose other ly a11o�v costs �p those laws other than CEQA whichexpressly Private t3wnersktip and Leaseback iocaiities to levy legislature made it clear that CE= Schools may lease permanent facilities from oil developers. 'vote parties, but this option is not widely used. QA confers tit' oris, pendent au uschool to slevy cts cditid pri p some school districts can barely meet their opera rripase eka tion expenses and therefore would hot hive suff i• require developers to pay fees or dedicate land only cl eat more to fake lease paynXent on a facilityo mitigate adverse. environmental consequences only em to do so, sometimes the return to an investor or the taxuc to the. nothority for schools distat other laws rict (or ower lloc l go ern- vantage is not sufficient to warrant `interest in s n arrangement, inants on behalf ol'school districts) to levy fees orim6 a g �ictiom� colre$ from several laws, Of most impor One method to accomplish a leaseback arrange= p� ment would be to form a private corporation to puri, tance, are SB 201 (Section 65970et, sect, of the ,Qct section 66478 of tite Gnvernmeht Code). chasellease land and construct the faeility, Lease Government Code, 1977) and the Subdivision Map payments uin be kepi:' low by using vacant prxblir 72/73 13114 74115'15176 '76177 77178 78119 79180 80181 81182 Q ..Loh ill Source: CAlflarttla be'Oetmcrt 0f EdUG tion 15, b ,._ .,----=- r---�--- FIGURE F < . CHAPTER F OUR: OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION �E STATUS OEXISTING ' VALUE AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION SCHOOL FA CA � ES 1972 --� 1982, Bstatistics exist on the number, type, and con- (in millions of dollalamtn�rs) of publit: school facilities: Local records are-, comprehensive source of`' -_ and there exists no tar, . don on school fdcilities:= The Education preparing an inventory of -ent is currently s;;hooj'f�acilitres to provide,a comprehensive picture ,;b;2ure and condition of these facilities, of. Education estimates that bet P ar"tment 1973 and 1982, $3.2 billion in school facilities` constructed (based on, cost at the time of con- �,�,:� tsnl. See Figure F) In the nearly half century $10.5 billion in school . bem 1983 and 1482, about took place, the value being measured at „ i ,fiction re the facilites Were built, The 1982 replace. at $50 - UA M psi of these facilities is estimated on- No state records exist on the perceritage con- gBon- s t u n of various fift, x ri±�cr, :s0t.trr.P ll+�e l taxes, did, and develt}p�r contrtr��.irutt:;1� .w.� <.:<s--= .y,...� 72173 1304 7,t175 75176 76177 7717E 78179 79180 80181 81187 same A� _moi October, 1981 there were 268 unified school districts and ll4 F N N " N pp N N N o „D. a yds " bs9 elemetata. Lchool school districts, for a total of 1,041 school 7,403 public t� J, ;, �, La V.N to co "state eontr16utlon districts operate cts.'i'hese 1,041 is sols, tated gor ized below: 4;702 F (Cgriflnued) 1vlementary 689 intermediate 287 FIGURE VALUE OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION Junior High 826 (ict millions of 1977 dollars) High School 4.07 . Continut3tion 294 Special Education 198 County -Operated 7,403 'TOTAL. 72/73 13114 74115'15176 '76177 77178 78119 79180 80181 81182 Q ..Loh ill Source: CAlflarttla be'Oetmcrt 0f EdUG tion CHAPTER FIVE: STRATEGIES TO MEET THE FUNDING 'CRISIS The :past tour chapters have examined the historical nature of school facility finance, present state funding programs, and local options for financ ingschool facilities. The purpose of this chapter is to present state and local strategies for addressing the ltimiding ;crisis in school facilities construction and .riiaintenance, The strategies include both recom- mended actions for- financing school facilities and defining faci4ty needs. Well designed strategies trust follow fr;-tm findings and conclusions dr.3wi; man the previoias chapters; therefore, these findings and conclusions are presented first. Only 'a combin�i,tion of greater state;;into„'-cst in school facilities and greater loc=.1 porting schoux on ` . so� rlt v m Ly=wide basis will pro- vide a IonQ•term s0lu'tion to the problem of facility J8,,o z _ Dev6lopdr fees and ;private agreements wifb developers should be u,,,od ua an e. ccutiory��l 60,y,, after all other possible frink.ltr�o aurces lave been exhausted; Tj accomplish this. solution, the state should pro- vide aid .for school facilities from the General Fund on the same basis as it does now for school pro- gram;. The problem presemly with state aid is not a lackof programs, but a lack of commitment to fund them properly, Aid ;ihould be dispensed based on a nainim.mm state standard for school facilities. To increase local flexibility, SB 201 fees, special taxes, and excess reventie from surplus properties should be allowed as local matches for state loaas,- Article XIIIA of the California Constitution should be amended to allow local voters ko raise their ad valorem property Ux6s for specific purposes if a ma- jority of the voters approve. Fina.ily, more strict requirements for mitigation nieasutes should be adopted before school districts could levy fees or apply for state aid, Findii i s ant! Conclusiioris .kbsent substantial changes in the twit structure (Le, repeal of Proposition 13); the state will maintain. its tole as the primary supporter of the public school system. Th6'state will also continue to use its ere_ r it. rating when possible to bot -tow money on behalf of local schools to provide loans tit a lower rate of in terest than if school districts borrowed money on theirown, The prospects toe additional local borrow• ing ,are dine iii moat cases,. especially in geowlr g districts,as the tax base cannot suppoei incra tied taxation to rinanCl view bond issues without ex ceeding the constitutional °ad valorem tai; limit on property, Although ;the Serrano decision has never been ested;,againsf school facility expenditure disparities as it has been against education program expert diture disparities, it is reasonable to assume that a major state educational goal is to r, lduce such facill- ty dit'"�-rences so that all 'locaI distri