The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOroville City Elementary School District hearing results { OROVILLE CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT = » q n, , � ri 'Mu9Yn?1v€ et6 {3r t�etr, I'll. v ;0Y. 0"M��gr,Y.�YaC ^j 9 Tai:NN,r cHaaTrperintend�xT>R,Ed.D. )Nll ,fl'r"f lIJ ION March 31, 2016 Superintendent Extension 3001 A (530):532-3050 FAX ��2P 1 3 � 20 rDREA ateSuprinten Re: Developer Fees UNN Associate Superintendent nf,Educatlonal Servicee Extension 3013 (530)532-3050 FAX ANDREW Jt,Bu Asst.;Srtlrerintenrlent Business Gear Butte County Board of Supervisors, Fxtenslan 3005 (530)532-3030 FAX DEBBIE BLAKE A public hearing was held by the Governing Board of the Oroville City Director of SpecialErducatian Elementary School District, at its regular meeting on March 301, 2016, in (530)532-3007,Ext.214 (530)532-3047 FAX which the 'Board approved a resolution implementing school facilities fees in BOARD(?F" RUSTEES: accordance with Education Code Section 17620 beginning June 1, 2016. 1 CAROL SUTHEIt1.ND have attached the resolution„ developer fee study and district boundary President ERIC:,.SM17H map. Vice President E 'EDRA C-erk BARNES If you have any questions regarding the above„ please feel free to .rHMBERDIJU31N contact me. Member HILL I AGRCINE,JR. Member SCHOOLS: BIRD STREET SC1400L Sincerely, APR Lori Strieby„ principal 1421 Bir(1 Street' QUILL Orovdlle, CA 95965-4 78 3 ,�;t „ (530) 532-3001 „.r•" ,„,,..--m. "'d (930) 532-3041 FAX C E N T R.A L MIDDLE SCHOCtL Mikeial Willtamson, Principal .✓"` "'m �,'.^'�' """A .»��"'"'""..-W 2565 Mesa Avenue L" /" . ., (Yroville', CA 95966-6000 ✓'� "• a'.,,.'":.: r^"' (530) 532-3002 (5.30) 532-3042 FAX „„-`" N.•. Jr LSIT7 f111.LS MIDDLE SCHOOL Andrew B. James, MBA Chris Renzullo, Principal d...,�, I I:shi Halls Wiry Assistant Superintendent,, Business 01-ovrlte, CA 95966-5519 (530) 532-30 78 (5'30) 932-3040 FAX OAKDALE HEIGHTS SCHOOL Rick Desi menti, Principal 2235 Las Pluma's A,er ue (Irowlle, CA 95966-6420 (530) 53'.2'-3004 (5.3('X) 532-3014 FAX OPHIR SCHOOL Rita Costa, Principal 210Oakeal'e Avenue llrnuille' CA 95966-9494 (530) 532-3005 (530) 531-304.5 FAX SIERRA DEI. ORO SCHOOL (Temporarily Closed) Debbie Rlak,e, Principal (530) 592-3!'107, L'.rf. 214 (530) 511-3047 F'A'X STANFORD AVENUE SCH00L Patricia Garrison, Principal I80I Ston,farci Avenue Orn,011e, C,A 93966-5231 (530) 532-3006 (530) 532-3046 FAX WYANDOTTE ACADEME' ,. Lynne Vincent, Ed.D., principal 2800 Gdrj,andr)Yae Avanoe 0rnvi1le. CA 95966-4538 {530,! 531-30I1 J (, (" 0 (530) 532-311x7 PAX ' �"@ i 5 RESOLUTION NO. 15.16,05 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE OROVILLE CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT TO INCREASE LEVEL I RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIALIINDUSTRLAL DEVELOPER FEES FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES WHEREAS, Education Code section 17620 et seq, and Government Code section 65995 et`seq. authorize the governing board of any school district within the state of California("State") to:levy a`fee against new residential, commercial and industrial development projects within the school district for the purpose of funding the construction and,reconstruction of school facilities; WHEREAS, the Oroville City Elementary 'School District ("District") has previously adopted and imposed statutory school..feesfor new residential, commercial and industrial developrnent.pursuant to Education Code section 17620; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65995(b)(3), the State Allocation Boar d, atits January 27, 2016, meeting.increased the maximum amount of statutory fees that . may'be imposed by unified',school districts and amended those fees. at its February 24 2016 meeting, to $148 per;squaid foot of assessable.space for residential developments and $0.56 per Square foot for commercial and industrial developments ("School Fees"); WHEREAS, the District has an agreement with the Uroville Union High'School District ('``Fee Sharing Agreement") through which the:District is entitled to collect 58.2% of its justified fee amount, which adjusted amount is equal to Two Dollars and Three Cents ($2.03) per square foot.of assessable space for residential development and Thirty=Three Cents ($0.33) per square foot for commercial and industrial developments; WHEREAS, the Board reviewed and considered the findings in the March 1, 2016, Level I Developer Fee Study prepared by Jack Schreder, & Associates, Inc., attached hereto as Attachment "1" (the. "Study"); which analyzes the District's current school facilities, the estimated number of students which will be generated by new residential, commercial and industrial development within the District, and the estimated costs which will be required for the reconstruction of school facilities to accommodate the students generated by such new development; WHEREAS, the Study justifies the District's imposition of School Fees on residential construction as set forth in this Resolution by analyzing student generation data for residential development projects and by demonstrating that reconstruction of school facilities in the District is necessary to accommodate increased enrollment resulting from such development; WHEREAS, the Study further justifies the District's imposition of School Fees on new commercial and industrial construction as set forth in this Resolution by analyzing specific categories of commercial and industrial development which were determined to impact the district's school facilities based upon the square footage.of the construction, the anticipated number of employees and the number of new students generated by such employees; 1 WHEREAS, the findings in the Study demonstrate that the estimated coats of providing school facilities for students generated by new development will exceed.the maximum arnount of revenue_which will be collected from school fees levied pursuant to Education Code section 17620 et seq. and Government Code section 65995 et seq.; WHEREAS, based on the findings in the Study, this Board deems it to be necessary, justified; and.in;the;best interest of the students, teachers, parents and electorate of the'District to increase ;the School Fees amount authorized by Education Code section 17620, et seq.' and Government Code section 65995 et seq. to Two Dollars and Three Cents ($2;03),per, square foot of new residential development and to Thirty-Three Cents ($0.33) per square foot of new commerciallindustria1 development (said amounts.adjusted to the maximum amount that may be collected under the Fee Sharing Agreement); WHEREAS,. the mini storage category of commercial/industrial justification'_hu less impact than the statutory $0.56 per square foot commercial/indust.dal justification and.should be collected at the justified rate of Six Cents ($.06)per square foot. WHEREAS, the increased.School.Fees levied.against .new residential,: cornmercral and industrial development will be used for reconstruction of'school facilities as identified rn the, Study; WHEREAS, no city or county may issue a building permit for any new resxden ial, commercial or.industrial development within the District absent a:certiicatron by the;District of compliance by,'the awner/developer with the requirements regarding school facilities-'fees as set forth in Education Code section 17620 et seq. and Government Code section 65995 et seq, . WHEREAS, the District has: (1) made available to the public ten.(10) days:; ionto its: public meeting the. Study and data indicating the estimated cost required to provide ;the facilities for which the:increased School Fees are levied and the revenue,sources anticipated to provide fire facilities as demonstrated in the Study; (2)n has mailed notice at least fourteen:(14) days prior to this meeting to all interested parties who have requested in writing notice of themeeting on new or increased fees, and:(3) has held a duly,noticed; regularly scheduled public rirneetizzg on IV arch 30, 2016 at which-oral and written testimony was received regarding the Study and the proposed increase in School Fees; and WfiEREA;S, the apparopriate land use jurisdictions will be notified of the increased School Fees,levied by the District and will be requested to continue to'vork with the District to assure that the school facilities fee program benefits the residents and students of the community. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Trustees of the O roville City School District ("Board") hereby resolves, determines, and finds the following: Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are true. Section 2. That the Board hereby increases the statutory School Fees levied against all new residential development and additions resulting in an increase of assessable space in excess of five hundred (500) square feet pursuant to Education Code section 17620 et seq. and 2 Government Code section 65995(b)(1) to an amount of Two Dollars and Three Cents ($2.03)per square.foot. Section 3. That the Board hereby increases the statutory School Fees levied against all new commercial and industrial development pursuant to Education Code section 1.7620 et seq. and Government Code section 65995(b)(2) to Thirty-Tlaree Cents ($0.33) per square foot. The mini- storage category of commercial/industrial justification has less impact than the statutory $.56 per square foot commercial/industrial justification and shall be collected at the justified rate of Six Cents ($006).per square foot. Section 4. That the Board has reviewed the Study as it relates to proposed and potential . development, the resulting school facilities needs, the cost thereof, and the available sources of revenue;':including the,fees:provided by this Resolution, and based upon the,Study, information anal' testimony presented in"conjunction with these proceedings, hereby makes the following findings: Section 4.1. Additional development projects within the District, whether new residential construction or residential reconstruction involving increases in assessable area greater than 500 square feet; or new commercial or industrial construction will increase the,need for reconstruction of school facilities; Section 4 2. Without- reconstruction of present school facilities, any further residential development projects or,commercial.or industrial development projects within the District will result in a significant ficant decrease in the quality;of education presently offered by the District; Section 4.3. The School Fees proposed in the. Study and the School Fees hriplemerited pursuant to this Resolution are for the purposes of providing adequate school facilities to maintain the quality of educationoffered by the District; Section.4.4. The School Fees proposed in the Study and implemented pursuant to this Resolution will be used for. the reconstruction of school facilities as identified in the Study; Section 4.5. The. uses of the School Fees proposed in the Study and implemented pursuant to this Resolution are reasonably related to the types of development projects on which the fees.are iniposed Section 4.6.. The School Fees proposed in the Study and implemented pursuant to this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship to the need for reconstructed school facilities created by the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed; Section 4.7. The School Fees proposed in the Study and implemented pursuant to. this Resolution do not exceed the estimated amount required to provide funding for the reconstruction of school facilities for which the fees are levied; and in making this finding; the Board declares that it has considered the availability of revenue sources anticipated to provide such facilities, including general fund revenues; 3 Section.4.8. The School Fees imposed' 'on commercial . or industrial development Bear a reasonable relationship and are'limited to the needs of the community for schools.arid are reasonably related and limited to the need for reconstructed school facilities caused by the development; and Section 4.9. The School Fees will be collected for.school facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for Which the district has adopted a reconstruction schedule and/or to reimburse the Districtfor expenditures.previously made. Sectlort. That the Board directs staff to ensure that the School Fees collected by the District are deposited in a separate account and.that said account shall be'separately' maintained. except fortemporary investments. from other funds of the District. Section 6: The Board finds that the funds of the account,- described above in Section 5, eonSis, ting of the proceeds of School Fees, have,been imposed"for thepurposes. of construction and reconstruction of those school facilities necessitated by new residential and commercial/industrial: development, and.that these f4i d 9 may be expended for those purposes. The School Fees may also be"expended';ly the District for the costs of performing any study or otherwise',rnalcrrig the findings and determinations "requx�red" under Government Code section 66001, subdivisions (a), (b) and"(d) in;addition, the,District may also"retain, as appropriate,an . amount not to exceed rn any fiscal year, three percent OYO:of the "School Fees collected in that fiscal year" pursuant to Education Code section, 17620(a)"(5) for "rei nbuxsement of the administrative"cosu incurred`by the District in collecting the School Fees: ectron 7 That in accordance with Education Code section 17621(e)(2), per Administrative Regulation 7.211 the Board has established a process for a party.against"whom School Fees are imposed to appeal the imposition of the School.Fees. - Section 8; That no statement or provision"set forth in this Resolution, or referred to herein, shall be construed to repeal any pre-existing School Fee previously imposed by the District on any residential'or nonresidential.development. Section.9 That the Board finds and determines that the adoption or imposition of the xncreased'School Fees in accordance"with Government Code section 65.995 is statutorily.exenmt frons CEQApursuant to Education Code section 17621(a). Section 10 That District:staff is hereby instructed to work with the appropriate land use jurisdictions to ensure compliance with Education Code section 17620(c), which provides that no city or county may issue a building permit for any development project within the District without certification by the District of compliance by that development project with the school facilities fee-requirements of this Resolution. The Board determines that the School Fees are not subject to Government Code section 66007 and that a certificate of compliance is required prior to.the, issuance of any building permit. Section.11. That in accordance with Education Code section 17621(c), District staff is hereby instructed to transmit certified copies of this Resolution, accompanied by all relevant supporting documentation including the Study and a map of the boundary area of the District subject to the 4 School Fees, to all appropriate land use jurisdictions issuing building permits within the District, informing'each of them o f;the District's current sehool facilities fee for,development projects, which jurisdictions shall include the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of Butte County and the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Oroville Section 12. That pursuant to Education Cade "section 17621(a), the increased : laoi,'Fec designated herein shall take effect sixty (6a) days after the date of this Resolution APPROVED, PASSED.and:ADO �y the Governing Board of the QroVille City Elemontary School District this 30th day of;March, 2016"by the foilou+ing vote: A3'ES J I bEs v AMENT �13 A N President;Go crning B and Ville Cit Element . Scliool District Oro Y ATt"Ef'. oz ecretary;'GoVernxn card' Oroville City Elementary School District 5 Level I Developer Fee Study for Oroville City Elementary School District March 1, 2016 Penny Chennell-Carter, Ed.D., Superintendent Board of Trustees Carol Sutherland, President Amber Durbin, Vice President Eric J. Smith, Clerk Sandra Barnes, Member Bill LaGrone, Member Prepared by: Jack Schreder & Associates, Inc. 2230 K Street Sacramento, CA 95816 916-441-0986 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 1: DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION ................................................................... 6 Modernization and Reconstruction....................................................................................... 6 ModernizationNeed ............................................................................................................... 6 Residential Development and Fee Projections ....................................................................9 Commercial/Industrial Development and Fee Projections.............................................10 Summary.................................................................................................................................13 SECTION II: BACKGROUND OF DEVELOPER FEE LEGISLATION............................. 15 SECTION III: REQUIREMENTS OF AB 1600.......................................................................19 SECTION IV: REVENUE SOURCES FOR FUNDING FACILITIES..................................22 StateSources........................................................................................................................... 22 LocalSources .......................................................................................................................... 22 SECTION V: ESTABLISHING THE COST, BENEFIT AND BURDEN NEXUS..............24 SECTION VI: FACILITY FUNDING ALTERNATIVES...................................................... 25 STATEMENT TO IDENTIFY PURPOSE OF FEE.................................................................. 26 ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL ACCOUNT...................................................................26 RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................. 26 SOURCES.................................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX A: CONSTRUCTION COSTS......................................................................APP 1 APPENDIX B: PER PUPIL GRANT AMOUNTS ..........................................................APP 2 APPENDIX C: DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY ...............................................................APP 3 LIST OF TABLES Pale Table 1: Construction Costs........................................................................................................ S Table 2: 20 Year Modernization Need....................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Facilities Cost per SF from Proposed Residential Construction........................... 10 Table 4: Commercial and Industrial Generation Factors ..................................................... 11 Table 5: Projected Commercial/Industrial Fee Square Footage ......................................... 12 Table b: Projected Employees/District Households from Commercial/Industrial Development ...................................................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Facilities Cost per SF from Proposed Commercial/Industrial Construction..... 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Education Code Section 17620 authorizes school districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement against any development project for the construction or modernization of school facilities provided the District can show justification for levying of fees. • In February 2016, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $3.48 per square foot for residential construction and $0.56 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. • The Oroville City Elementary School District shares developer fees with the Oroville Union High School District. The developer fee sharing arrangement between the two school districts is currently 58.2 percent for the elementary school district and 38.8 percent to the high school district. • The Oroville City Elementary School District is justified in collecting $2.03 (58.2 percent of $3.48) per square foot for residential construction and $0.33 (58.2 percent of $0.56) per square foot of commercial/industrial construction with the exception of mini storage. The mini storage category of construction should be collected at a rate of$0.06 per square foot. • In general, it is fiscally more prudent to extend the useful life of an existing facility than to construct new facilities when possible. The cost to modernize facilities is approximately 41.1 percent of the cost to construct new facilities. • The residential justification is based on the Oroville City Elementary School District's projected modernization need of $33,473,484 for students generated from residential development over the next 20 years and the projected residential square footage of 9,090,224. • Based on the modernization need for students generated from projected residential development and the projected residential square footage, each square foot of residential construction will create a school facilities cost of at least$3.68 ($33,473,484/9,090,224). lack Schreder&Associates,Inc. Oroville City Elementaq School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 1 • The commercial/industrial justification is based on the Oroville City Elementary School District's projected modernization need of $1,743,642 for students generated from commercial/industrial development over the next 20 years and the projected commercial/industrial square footage of 454,511. • Based on the modernization need for students generated from projected commercial/industrial development and the projected commercial/industrial square footage, each square foot of commercial/industrial construction will create a school facilities cost of at least $3.84 {$1,743,642/454,511} with the exception of mini storage. The mini storage category of construction will create a school facilities cost of$0.06 per square foot. jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. OroviIle City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 2 INTRODUCTION In September, 1986, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 2926 (Chapter 887/Statutes 1986) which granted school district governing boards the authority to impose developer fees. This authority is codified in Education Code Section 17620 which states in part "...the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication or other form of requirement against any development project for the construction or modernization of school facilities." The Level I fee that can be levied is adjusted every two years according to the inflation rate, as listed by the state-wide index for Class B construction set by the State Allocation Board. In January of 1992, the State Allocation Board increased the Level 1 fee to $1.65 per square foot for residential construction and $.27 per square foot for commercial and industrial construction. Senate Bili 1287 (Chapter 1354/Statutes of 1992) effective January 1, 1993" affected the facility mitigation requirements a school district could impose on developers. Senate Bill 1287 allowed school districts to levy an additional $1.00 per square foot of residential construction (Government Code Section 65995.3). The authority to levy the additional $1.00 was rescinded by the failure of Proposition 170 on the November 1993 ballot. In January 1994, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $1.72 per square foot for residential construction and $.28 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 1996, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $1.84 per square foot for residential construction and $.30 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 1998, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $1.93 per square foot for residential construction and $.31 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. Jack Schreder&Associates,Inc. Oroville City Elenentanj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 3 In January 2000, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $2.05 per square foot for residential construction and $0.33 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 2002, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $2.14 per square foot for residential construction and $0.34 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 2004, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $2.24 per square foot for residential construction and $0.36 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 2006, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $2.63 per square foot for residential construction and $0.42 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 2008, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $2.97 per square foot for residential construction and $0.47 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 2010, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment maintained the fee at $2.97 per square foot for residential construction and $0.47 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 2012, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $3.20 per square foot for residential construction and $0.51 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. In January 2014, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $3.36 per square foot for residential construction and $0.54 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville Cih Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 4 In February 2016, the State Allocation Board's biennial inflation adjustment changed the fee to $3.48 per square foot for residential construction and $0.56 per square foot for commercial/industrial construction. The next adjustment to the fee will occur at the January 2018 State Allocation Board meeting. In order to levy a fee, a district must make a finding that the fee to be paid bears a reasonable relationship and be limited to the needs of the community for elementary or high school facilities and be reasonably related to the need for schools caused by the development. Fees are different from taxes and do not require a vote of the electorate. Fees may be used only for specific purposes and there must be a reasonable relationship between the levying of fees and the impact created by development. In accordance with the recent decision in the Cresta Bella LP v. Poway Unified School District (2013 WL 3942961) court Case, school districts are now required to demonstrate that reconstruction projects will generate an increase in the student population thereby creating an impact on the school district's facilities. School districts must establish a reasonable relationship between an increase in student facilities needs and the reconstruction project in order to levy developer fees. Purpose of Study This study will demonstrate the relationship between residential, commercial and industrial growth and the need for the modernization of school facilities in the Oroville City Elementary School District. Jack Schreder&A ssocia fes,Inc. Oroville City Elementanj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 5 SECTION I: DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION Developer fee law requires that before fees can be levied a district must find that justification exists for the fee. Government Code Section 66001 (g) states that a fee shall not include the costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities, but may include the costs attributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with a general plan. This section of the study will show that justification does exist for levying developer fees in the Oroville City Elementary School District. Modernization and Reconstruction Extending the useful life of a school is a cost effective and prudent way to house students generated from future development. The state of California recognizes the need to extend the life of existing schools and provides modernization funding through the State School Facility Program. For the purpose of this report, modernization and reconstruction are used interchangeably since many of the improvements are common to both programs, i.e. roofing, plumbing, heating, cooling, dry rot repair, infrastructure improvement, etc. Developer fees may not be used for regular maintenance, routine repair of school buildings and facilities or deferred maintenance. The authorization to justify modernization and modernization of school facilities and extend the useful life of existing schools is contained in Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Section 66001 (g). Modernization Need As new students are generated by new development, the need to increase the useful life of school facilities will be necessary. In order to calculate the District's estimated modernization need generated by students from new development, it is necessary to determine the following factors. the number of units included in proposed developments, the District student yield factor, and the per pupil cost to modernize facilities. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elernentanj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 6 Proposed Development According to the City of Oroville Planning Department, there is the potential for 30,141 units to be constructed within District boundaries in the next 20 years. Development information provided by the City of Oroville Planning Department is included as Appendix C. As a conservative estimate, a total of 6,028 (20% of 30,141) housing were included as a 20 year development projection. The School Facility Program allows districts to apply for modernization funding for classrooms over 20 years old, meaning that school facilities are presumed to be eligible for, and therefore need, modernization after that time period. It is therefore generally presumed that school facilities have a useful life span of 20 years before modernization is needed in order to maintain the same level of service as previously existed. The same would be true for modernization of buildings 20 years after their initial modernization. Therefore, the District's modernization needs are considered over a 20 year period, and a 20 year projection has been included in the Study when considering the homes that will generate students for the facilities in question. Student Yield To identify the number of students anticipated to be generated by new residential development, a student yield factor of .5 has been utilized for the Oroville City Elementary School District. The yield factor is based on State wide student yield averages calculated by the Office of Public School Construction. Construction Cost The construction cost per K-8 pupil is $27,023 (Appendix A). Table 1 shows the weighted average to construct facilities per K-8 pupil. Jack Schreder&Associates,Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 7 Table 1: Construction Costs Grade Level Construction Costs K-6 $26,165 7-8 $30,027 Weighted Average {($26,165 x 7) + ($30,027 x 2) / 9) = $27,023 Source: California Department of Education,Jack Schreder&Associates. Modernization Cost The cost to modernize facilities is 41.1 percent of new construction costs. The percentage is based on the comparison of the State per pupil modernization grant (including 3% for Americans with Disabilities and Fire, Life Safety improvements) and the State per pupil new construction grant. For example, the State provides $10,634 per K-6 pupil to construct new facilities and $4,049 to modernize facilities, which is 38.1 percent ($4,049 / $10,634) of the new construction grant amount. In addition, the State provides a minimum of three percent for ADA/FLS improvements which are required by the Department of State Arch'itect's (DSA) office. Based on the per pupil grant amounts and the ADA/FLS costs, the estimated cost to modernize facilities is 41.1 percent of the cost to construct facilities. The School Facility Program per pupil grant amounts are included in Appendix B. The construction cost per K-8 pupil is $27,023 and is outlined in Table 1 and included in Appendix A. Therefore, the per pupil cost to modernize facilities per K-8 pupil is $11,106 ($27,023 x .411). 20 Year Modernization Need The District's estimated modernization need generated by students generated from new residential development is $33,473,484. The calculation is included in Table 2. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc, Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 8 Table 2: 20 Year Modernization Need Proposed Development 6,028 Student Yield xX5 Students Generated 3,014 Per Pupil Modernization Cost $11,106 Students Generated x 3,014 Modernization Need $33,473,484 Source: Oroville City Elementary School District, Office of Public School Construction, and Jack Schreder & Associates. Residential Devela ment and Fee Projections To show a reasonable relationship exists between the construction of new housing units and the need for modernized school facilities, it will be shown that residential construction will create a school facility cost impact on the Oroville City Elementary School District by students generated from new development. Based on information from the City of Oroville Planning Department, an estimated 6,028 residential units may be constructed within District boundaries in the next 20 years. Based on five years of developer fee records, residential units average 1,508 square feet per unit. Based on the projected development, approximately 6,028 housing units totaling 9,090,224 (6,028 x 1,508) square feet may be constructed in the District over the next 20 years. The amount of residential fees to be collected can be estimated based on the housing unit projections. Based on the District's modernization need of $33,473,484 generated by students from residential construction and the total projected residential square footage of 9,090,224, residential construction will create a facilities cost of $3.68 per square foot. The calculation is included in Table 3. However, the statutory Level I fee for residential construction is $3.48 per square foot and the District has a fee sharing Jack Schreder&Associates,Inc. Oroville City Elententany School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 9 arrangement with the high school district. The high school district collects 38.8% of the fee and the Oroville City Elementary School District collects 58.2% of the fee. Therefore, the District is justified to collect $2.03 (58.2 percent of $3.48) per square foot of residential construction. Table 3: Facilities Cost per SF from Proposed Residential Construction Modernization Need Total Square Footage Facilities Cost $33,473,484 /9,090,224 $3.68 Source: OroviIle City Elementary School District, Jack Schreder & Associates, Office of Public School Construction. Commerciaondustrial Development and Fee Projections In order to levy developer fees on commercial and industrial development, Assembly Bill 181 provides that a district "... must determine the impact of the increased number of employees anticipated to result from commercial and industrial development upon the cost of providing school facilities within the district. For the purposes of making this determination, the [developer fee justification] study shall utilize employee generation estimates that are based on commercial and industrial factors within the district, as calculated on either an individual project or categorical basis". The passage of Assembly Bill AB 530 (Chapter 633/Statutes 1990) modified the requirements of AB 181 by allowing the use of a set of state-wide employee generation factors. Assembly Bill 530 allows the use of the employee generation factors identified in the San Diego Association of Governments report entitled, San Diego Traffic Generators. This study, which was completed in January of 1990, identifies the number of employees generated for every 1,000 square feet of floor area for several development categories. These generation factors are shown in Table 4. Table 4 indicates the number of employees generated for every 1,000 square feet of development and the number of district households generated for every employee in 11 categories of commercial and industrial development. The number of district Jack Schreder&A ssocia tes, Inc. Oroville City Elementanj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 10 households is calculated by adjusting the number of employees for the percentage of employees that live in the district and are heads of households. Table 4: Commercial and Industrial Generation Factors Type of Employees Per District Households Development 1,000 5 . Ft.* Per Em to ee** Medical Offices 4.27 •2 Corporate Offices 2.68 •2 Commercial Offices 4.78 .2 Lodging 1.55 .3 Scientific R&D 3.04 .2 Industrial Parks 1.68 .2 Industrial/Business Parks 2.21 •2 Neighborhood Shopping Centers 3.62 .3 Community Shopping Centers 1.09 .3 Banks 2.82 .3 Agriculture .31 .51 Average 2.55 .27 Source: San Diego Association of Governments. ** Source: Jack Schreder and Associates. Based on data available for the purpose of determining the impact of mini- storage construction on the Oroville City Elementary School District, it has been determined that mini storage construction has significantly less impact than other commercial/industrial construction. Mini storage construction generates .06 employees per 1,000 square feet of school construction. This information was provided by the San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Generators January 1990, and is cited for use in Education Code Section 17621(e)(1)(B). The generation of .06 employees per 1,000 square feet and the utilization of the student generation rate per household, yields an impact of $0.06 per square foot of mini-storage construction. It is recommended that the Oroville City Elementary School District levy a fee for mini-storage not to exceed $0.06 per square foot. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville Citlj Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 11 Historical data shows that commercial/industrial square footage represents approximately five percent of residential square footage. District residential projections indicate that 9,090,224 (Table 3) square feet of residential space will be constructed in the next 20 years. The five percent ratio represents 454,511 square feet of commercial and industrial development. Table 5 illustrates this calculation. Table 5: Projected Commercial/Industrial Fee Square Footage Ratio Residential SF Commercial SF .05 x 9,090,224 sf = 454,511 sf Source: Oroville City Elementary School District,Jack Schreder&Associates, original research. According to the average employee generation factors in Table 4, commercial and industrial development will yield 1,159 new employees and 313 new district households over the next 20 years. Table 6 illustrates this calculation. Table 6: Projected Employees/District Households from Commercial/Industrial Development Commercial/ Average Employees New New Industrial SF Per 1,000 SF Employees Households 454,511/1,000 x 2.55 — 1,159 x .27 = Number of Households = 313 Source : San Diego Association of Governments, Oroville City Elementary School District, Jack Schreder & Associates. The addition of 313 new households created by commercial and industrial development will impact Oroville City Elementary School District with an estimated Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 12 157 (313 x .5) additional students. Based on the per pupil K-8 modernization cost of $11,106, the estimated cost to house 157 students generated from commercial/industrial construction is $1,743,642 ($11,106 x 157). Based on the District's modernization need of $1,743,642, generated by students from commercial/industrial construction and the total projected square footage of 454,511, commercial/industrial construction will create a facilities cost of $3.84 per square foot with the exception of mini storage. However, the statutory Level I fee for commercial/industrial construction is $0.56 per square foot and the District has a fee sharing arrangement with the high school district. The high school district collects 38.8% of the fee and the Oroville City Elementary School District collects 58.2% of the fee. Therefore, the District is justified to collect $0.33 (58.2 percent of $0.56) per square foot of commercial/industrial construction with the exception of mini storage. The mini storage category should be collected at a rate of $0.06 per square foot. The commercial/industrial calculation is included in Table 7. Table 7: Facilities Cost per SF from Proposed Commercial Industrial Construction Modernization Need Total Square Footage Level 1 Fee $1,743,642 / 454,511 — $3•84 Source: Oroville City Elementary School District, Jack Schreder & Associates, Office of Public School Construction. Summa Based on the District's modernization need of $33,473,484 generated by students from residential construction and the total projected residential square footage of 9,090,224, residential construction will create a facilities cost of $3.68 per square foot. However, the statutory Level I fee for residential construction is $3.48 per square foot and the District has a fee sharing arrangement with the high school district. The high school district collects 37% of the fee and the Oroville City Elementary School District Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 13 collects 58.2% of the fee. Therefore, the District is justified to collect $2.03 (58.2 percent of$3.48) per square foot of residential construction. Based on the District's modernization need of $1,743,642 generated by students from commercial/industrial construction and the total projected square footage of 454,511, commercial/industrial construction will create a facilities cost of $3.84 per square foot with the exception of mini storage. However, the statutory Level 1 fee for commercial/industrial construction is $0.56 per square foot and the District has a fee sharing arrangement with the high school district. The high school district collects 38.8% of the fee and the Oroville City Elementary School District collects 58.2% of the fee. Therefore, the District is justified to collect $0.33 (58.2 percent of $0.56) per square foot of commercial/industrial construction with the exception of mini storage. The mini storage category should be collected at a rate of$0.06 per square foot. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 14 SECTION II: BACKGROUND OF DEVELOPER FEE LEGISLATION Initially, the allowable developer fee was limited by Government Code Section 65995 to $1.50 per square foot of covered or enclosed space for residential development and $.25 per square foot of covered or enclosed space of commercial or industrial development. The Level 1 fee that can be levied is adjusted every two years, according to the inflation rate as listed by the state-wide index for Class B construction set by the State Allocation Board. In February of 2016, the State Allocation Board changed the Level I fee to $3.48 per square foot of residential construction and $0.56 per square foot of commercial and industrial construction. The fees collected are to be used by the school district for the construction or modernization of school facilities and may be used by the district to pay bonds, notes, loans, leases or other installment agreements for temporary as well as permanent facilities. Assembly Bill 3228 (Chapter 1602/Statutes of 1990) added Government Code Section 66016 requiring districts adopting or increasing any fee to first hold a public hearing as part of a regularly scheduled meeting and publish notice of this meeting twice, with the first notice published at least ten days prior to the meeting. Assembly Bill 3980 (Chapter 418/Statutes of 1988) added Government Code Section 66006 to require segregation of school facilities fees into a separate capital facilities account or fund and specifies that those fees and the interest earned on those fees can only be expended for the purposes for which they were collected. Senate Bill 519 (Chapter 1346/Statutes of 1987) added Section 17625 to the Education Code. It provides that a school district can charge a fee on manufactured or mobile homes only in compliance with all of the following: 1. The fee, charge, dedication, or other form of requirement is applied to the initial location, installation, or occupancy of the manufactured home or mobile home within the school district. lack Schreder&Associates,Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 15 2. The manufactured home or mobile home is to be located, installed, or occupied on a space or site on which no other manufactured home or mobile home was previously located, installed, or occupied. 3. The manufactured home or mobile home is to be located, installed, or occupied on a space in a mobile home park, on which the construction of the pad or foundation system commenced after September 1, 1986. Senate Sill 1151 (Chapter 1037/Statutes of 1987) concerns agricultural buildings and adds Section 17622 to the Education Code. It provides that no school fee may be imposed and collected on a greenhouse or other space covered or enclosed for agricultural purposes unless the school district has made findings supported by substantial evidence as follows: 1. The amount of the fees bears a reasonable relationship and is limited to the needs for school facilities created by the greenhouse or other space covered or enclosed for agricultural purposes. 2. The amount of the fee does not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of the school facilities necessitated by the structures as to which the fees are to be collected. 3. In determining the amount of the fees, the school district shall consider the relationship between the proposed increase in the number of employees, if any, the size and specific use of the structure, as well as the cost of construction. In order to levy developer fees, a study is required to assess the impact of new growth and the ability of the local school district to accommodate that growth. The need for new school construction and modernization must be determined along with the costs involved. The sources of revenue need to be evaluated to determine if the district can fund the new construction and modernization. Finally, a relationship between needs and funding raised by the fee must be quantified. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementanj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 16 Assembly Bill 181 (Chapter 1109/Statutes of 1989) which became effective October 2, 1989, was enacted to clarify several areas of developer fee law. Assembly Bill 181 provisions include the following: 1. Exempts residential remodels of less than 500 square feet from fees. 2. Prohibits the use of developer fee revenue for routine maintenance and repair, most asbestos work, and deferred maintenance. 3. Allows the fees to be used to pay for the cost of performing developer fee justification studies. 4. States that fees are to be collected at the time of occupancy, unless the district can justify earlier collection. The fees can be collected at the time the building permit is issued if the district has established a developer fee account and funds have been appropriated for which the district has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5. Clarifies that the establishment or increase of fees is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. 6. Clarifies that the impact of commercial and industrial development may be analyzed by categories of development as well as an individual project- by-project basis. An appeal process for individual projects would be required if analysis was done by categories. 7. Changes the frequency of the annual inflation adjustment on the Level I fee to every two years. 8. Exempts from fees - development used exclusively for religious purposes, private schools, and government-owned development. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City EIernentary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 17 9. Expands the definition of senior housing, which is limited to the commercial/industrial fee and requires the conversion from senior housing to be approved by the city/county after notification of the school district. 10. Extends the commercial/industrial fee to mobile home parks limited to older persons. Jack Schreder&A ssocia tes, Inc. Oroville City Elementanj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 18 SECTION III: REQUIREMENTS OF AB 1600 Assembly Bill 1600 (Chapter 927/Statutes of 1987) adds Section 66000 through 66003 to the Government Code: Section 66000 defines various terms used in AB 1600: "Fee" is defined as monetary exaction (except a tax or a special assessment) which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with the approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of public facilities related to the development project. "Development project" is defined broadly to mean any project undertaken for purposes of development. This would include residential, commercial, or industrial projects. "Public facilities" is defined to include public improvements, public services, and community amenities. Section 66001 (a) sets forth the requirements for establishing, increasing or imposing fees. Local agencies are required to do the following: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. 2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 19 Section 66001 (c) requires that any fee subject to AB 1600 be deposited in an account established pursuant to Government Code Section 66006. Section 66006 requires that development fees be deposited in a capital facilities account or fund. To avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, the fees can only be expended for the purpose for which they were collected. Any income earned on the fees should be deposited in the account and expended only for the purposes for which the fee was collected. Section 66001 (d) as amended by Senate Bill 1693 (Monteith/Statutes of 1996, Chapter 569), requires that for the fifth year following the first deposit into a developer fee fund, and for every five years thereafter, a school district must make certain findings as to such funds. These findings are required regardless of whether the funds are committed or uncommitted. Formerly only remaining unexpended or uncommitted fees were subject to the mandatory findings and potential refund process. Under this section as amended, relating to unexpended fee revenue, two specific findings must be made as a part of the public information required to be formulated and made available to the public. These findings are: 1. Identification of all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to provide adequate revenue to complete any incomplete improvements identified pursuant to the requirements of Section 66001 (a)(2). 2. A designation of the approximate date upon which the anticipated funding will be received by the school district to complete the identified but as yet, incomplete improvements. If the two findings are not made, a school district must refund the developer fee revenue on account in the manner provided in Section 66001 (e). Section 66001 (e) provides that the local agency shall refund to the current record owners of the development project or projects on a prorated basis the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the fees and any accrued interest for which the local agency is unable to make the findings required by Section 66001 (d) that it still needs the fees. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 20 Section 66002 provides that any local agency which levies a development fee subject to Section 66001 may adopt a capital improvement plan which shall be updated annually and which shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed by the fees. Assembly Bill 1600 and the justification for Levying Developer Fees Effective January 1, 1989, Assembly Bill 1600 requires that any school district which establishes, increases or imposes a fee as a condition of approval of development shall make specific findings as follows: 1. A cost nexus must be established. A cost nexus means that the amount of the fee cannot exceed the cost of providing adequate school facilities for students generated by development. Essentially, it prohibits a school district from charging a fee greater than their cost to construct or modernize facilities for use by students generated by development. 2. A benefit nexus must be established. A benefit nexus is established if the fee is used to construct or modernize school facilities benefiting students to be generated from development projects. 3. A burden nexus must be established. A burden nexus is established if a project, by the generation of students, creates a need for additional facilities or a need to modernize existing facilities. Jack Schreder&Associates,Inc. Oroville Cittj Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 21 SECTION IV: REVENUE SOURCES FOR FUNDING FACILITIES Two general sources exist for funding facility construction and modernization - state sources and local sources. The District has considered the following available sources: State Sources State School Facility Program Senate Bill 50 reformed the State School Building Lease-Purchase Program in August of 1998. The new program, entitled the School Facility Program, provides funding under a "grant" program once a school district establishes eligibility. Funding required from districts will be a 50/50 match for construction projects and 60/40 (District/State) match for modernization projects. Districts may levy the current statutory developer fee as long as a district can justify collecting that fee. If a district desires to collect more than the statutory fee (Level 2 or Level 3), that district must meet certain requirements outlined in the law, as well as conduct a needs assessment to enable a higher fee to be calculated. Local Sources Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows school districts to establish a community facilities district in order to impose a special tax to raise funds to finance the construction of school facilities. 1. The voter approved tax levy requires a two-thirds vote by the voters of the proposed Mello-Roos district. 2. If a Mello-Roos district is established in an area in which fewer than twelve registered voters reside, the property owners may elect to establish a Mello-Roos district. 3. Should a Mello-Roos district be formed subsequent to the levying of developer fees, the Mello-Roos district may be exempt from such fees. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 22 General Obligation Bonds General Obligation (GO) bonds may be issued by any school district for the purposes of purchasing real property or constructing or purchasing buildings or equipment "of a permanent nature." Because GO bonds are secured by an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the district, their issuance is subject to two-thirds voter approval or 55% majority vote under Proposition 39 in an election. School districts are obligated, in the event of delinquent payments on the part of the property owners, to raise the amount of tax levied against the non-delinquent properties to a level sufficient to pay the principal and interest coming due on the bonds. Developer Fees The District's developer fees are dedicated to the current needs related directly to modernization and new construction of school facilities. School District General Funds The district's general funds are needed by the district to provide for the operation of its instructional program. There are no unencumbered funds that could be used to construct new facilities or modernize existing facilities. Expenditure of Lottery Funds Government Code Section 8880.5 states: "It is the intent of this chapter that all funds allocated from the California State Lottery Education Fund shall be used exclusively for the education of pupils and students and no funds shall be spent for acquisition of real property, construction of facilities, financing research, or any other non-instructional purpose." lack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementanj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 23 SECTION V: ESTABLISHING THE COST, BENEFIT AND BURDEN NEXUS In accordance with Government Code Section 66001, the District has established a cost nexus and identified the purpose of the fee, established a benefit nexus, and a burden nexus: Establishment of a Cost Nexus &Identify Purpose of the Fee The Oroville City Elementary School District chooses to construct and/or modernize facilities for the additional students created by development in the district and the cost for providing new and/or modernized facilities exceeds the amount of developer fees to be collected. It is clear that when educational facilities are provided for students generated by new residential, commercial and industrial development that the cost of new facilities exceeds developer fee generation, thereby establishing a cost nexus. Establishment of a Benefit Nexus Students generated by new residential, commercial and industrial development will be attending district schools. Housing District students in new and/or modernized facilities will directly benefit those students from the new development projects upon which the fee is imposed, therefore, a benefit nexus is established. Establishment of a Burden Nexus The generation of new students by development will create a need for additional and/or modernized school facilities. The District must carry the burden of constructing new facilities required by the students generated by future developments and the need for facilities will be, in part, satisfied by the levying of developer fees, therefore, a burden nexus is established. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. QroviIle City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 24 SECTION VI: FACILITY FUNDING ALTERNATIVES The District does not currently have funds to provide for the shortfall in modernization costs. We suggest the District continue to consider the following possible funding alternatives: 1. Participate in the State School Facility Program. 2. Explore voter approved General Obligation Bond election. Jack Schreder&Associates,Inc. OroviIle City Elementarrtj School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2026 Page 25 STATEMENT TO IDENTIFY PURPOSE OF FEE It is a requirement of AB 1600 that the District identify the purpose of the fee. The purpose of fees being levied shall be used for the construction and/or modernization of school facilities. The District will provide for the construction and/or modernization of school facilities, in part, with developer fees. ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIAL ACCOUNT Pursuant to Government Code section 66006, the District has established a special account in which fees for capital facilities are deposited. The fees collected in this account will be expended only for the purpose for which they were collected. Any interest income earned on the fees that are deposited in such an account must remain with the principal. The school district must make specific information available to the public within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year pertaining to each developer fee fund. The information required to be made available to the public by Section 66006 (b) (1) was amended by SB 1693 and includes specific information on fees expended and refunds made during the year. RECOMMENDATION Based on the fee justification provided in this report, it is recommended that the Oroville City Elementary School District levy residential development fees and commercial/industrial fees up to the statutory fee for which justification has been determined. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 26 SOURCES California Basic Educational Data System. California State Department of Education. October Enrollments, 2011-2014. California State Department of Education. California Public School Directory, 2010. Chennel-Carter,Penny, Ed.D. Superintenddent, Oroville City Elementary School District. Collard, Gary. Lead Housing Analyst for Southern California. California State Department of Housing and Community Development. James, Andrew, MBA. Assistant Superintendent, Business, Oroville City Elementary School District. Office of Public School Construction. Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act, 1998. Rust, Donald. Director, City of Oroville Community Development Department. San Diego Association of Governments. Traffic Generators January 1990. Schreder,Jack and Associates. Original research. Topete, Luis. Associate Planner, City of Oroville Planning Department. Jack Schreder&Associates, Inc. Oroville City Elementary School District-Developer Fee Study/March 2016 Page 27 .....^. ee• "^"^^" ee::r^.t:.<tt...:e_5....8.':e'38..:6:;:tit>.c ee!'deN>1>1 '4:.➢6^E.^.a:tb:'�.'.::.�:�""^,.°.:.�':.:'"ry'•`",`"^ry".`•=^<Y':',':=''w'",�.»:<':.f:t.:.;p�.^.E.°:•^"e°'•'e:,t e,.6�6sts�:PF.;m:.':6:>:i:w.t.;��»:w'si'siiS;:'s�`au=.'i:i'sa:,^"^^G,¢�:ve¢:.:;°trek.rs:...c...^�i,._:.•.te°E-�'¢:¢¢°ver"err::t 'si's =ri;;:":id;�"sir::. .:.�kPe:°°et�1:.9.e.3�."i.?E$I"^�s,'16°:::s:,�^,^:6:>Y:t:s',...:".,°��:°..�.;'»$'.^:e:i:^<-'•.e.a:e'.'°ekP"'>:.6'.»�4:E '.:;$;:;:is.:';L":;Y>s>.`.tl:�s`::.....^3e.::.:t?°.re.-•:^.-°"r:°`:�".t:t.3^is.:!q.rr.:;Y t :.�q.q£gs!a.«::;es aCtsls C,'p^'s:°:6P°»"t:s-.°:;:6:t::':et:te::..e¢=1;'.^::°."Y;'.i3^.R::».e.¢vEti..tt:s::t.:s.'.'f:�..s:tt.^.:.;=.":S,e'Ss':>:;:"=e°»":;1"::^";s:,",:€.a8;¢�'::":°:a6k:8:%'•.°d:v'x..I^?13e»:aG:':6G':':°.^....^':>st �`&s:e^:BSde.$R%"E•I>Y;Y:Y.3¢?:::.¢-`:Rw w°-tb;;1=:,•6it::e.F°t-."..9.x'.�:>..".:;rol>;el,�.�°:ee:ee=tEP«e°es»',.:"i::s6:`aPt.Y:^.::E;.":;i;:;:>':;:".�;s:.'.e':kss."'"atstb°e6..�.9.a.8:R�;1�tE�.t::E�e°e.:::],xs;st :q:e...........,....«..............»".<.,.<...,., e:6eet:tt." ":::.: :6;. ."`Y;:;:;:;".3;"."..,w..ei"t.:°:�>»:.e eE..�°.,8:•.e..v.:�3�:;3aM'::°en6°.=6F�:did»Y>�>':. _.(_G'."" E"..,..,.^..,.G"....�,.�.:6.:.:...,.. :^x.e.,.:.^..e..."......... G"::......... ry .,_Y;:^,.,^,s�s.''.1-1.s,=.�^..".^^°6:,•b>^M;roe'�.Cet4b>:it:°:�:t:t d=:e`[:Y;:',t:::Y:Y;_;::Y;'*._:'ee:".°:t.',e.:":'es:°:d:::t:t:t.»Y.',.;.^"";Y;W',Y;1.»".".:°.^.66^--,'.x�^»t:^:t::^'.�::;kP^.x`:11%s;:^..�e°et:.:`::^R;'.::::' :-¢#•:�.:s:::e;«s%Y:.My.^eni:::::.e:,..:,"..:.e¢.^..^:°et...".¢.¢h;s::::;Y;:::;:;s;'.::.;Y`Y"::"» te.e.e¢E:::s' d.,L...F"."..,"..s^..s.,..,;".".^....^,"..,"............................".,.,"..".".".,^,.,s,1%`".M..........,^,...;et................,^.".".,,.,.".".,....._»......_,.".. li."1....."....1"s .....^,»...,...",.p". t.^. -1.^.:t::<-.'°»<.d::t:t:t�IG.;tw,:'Y;s;.^,,^:.;,".,".,tbt6°.m:a,:i:.t^�^$...".'.,e ..F.s.F;.s'1'Em:•_'s:s:T<P6°::66,:.Mdl»•ry....^..,.6...a^,......^,"..".w,�":%^;1"I:°"ltd.ro^,M...°:.etR>.:^.tb".".°ro"':'itbt_R:t:.^.III:=''1'"";.^»`».°:IB`.»t:]::::::ro':.:il�:$s'�k:;e�::s%:::"`_.-.,e°e$.e.:$;'»":;Y;:::s .:"e,[Y:els s,..,..,.".,.,.._6..,..8°»._.,",.".e°»^.:..9;::(:sb°•et.^..^.:R':'t'.";s;£'>:$...".t.,^..is?i>�^:Pt3d'.;v:"»Ye:>^':.:::::`:It":t»w"',�"t:Yfl:EY::....^,8.^y^".".,^,^,»^.,.,3"«,..,^ LS 1°.se°:':':dR'a:^Y:�" .,.s„::€%1:t i6t ro".'."$�i�;:^M 4:>.°:':�>»'.•^:''.':::>:>:��°."'tm.,,."_".t"... t:'I.:Li'r E3ii>^.�::s;'::P::::^'P:3!lfsv«..6'k^�:'�'::::Y;s:'. .=et:::^:::;W1'.:;«»- .':•:It st.^1'1-i}s%t',:':;�s;li:^%%s'si?:..e..,.�%1 st»e":':..'^.;:;3'":1'1',5` '•.»nL^>::t:'a.'.ee°P"�:.i.$1'Y;s.l;1^;1"".;=et.1;:'E^1>^S:Y;::t �'Yi°<:;�� .�9':�•""".>:�V` v".i,.ill>F'Y}::Lk.�l.;eY%¢[Y;;s-i'e;Yls%SfY;s%:ae°e°m"..-.�«4'111:'f-R= .. ��':yFe.e6:Ptt�.s..,,,"•il�Y:c:Y;:;'»",.".,.",.1"L.�,.^,',"..]:^,.d...,.<^E,.,,,:,."�¢}s-s[¢:een'�€e..y.,.,:e�..t e6,.,.e:Y��"�,Y?.$.:.s."ll..l� �1,11;L1s$s:3:s��:s:�z':.E's 1":t:":.:..,.,�1,.^icE e,:#.F6°`tctez°re°°"„tea:n:e;d�`Ys':,:`:::rls.."1,"^rl%Y»;1=IA=.t:d:dd�!s:�5^T^3'c::z;,.?w•€;a;le=ii;iiilY:irl:i's=;'.E?:d:¢e"s¢e sr.:°:e_?%"sl.�.r:=.^1"ssElzt.le-ii%Y%YE':.�ssi:••e-�•^»1}s;�1:Y;�<#s a%�¢s¢gete,q.i.�te.,".�.,..Y•1':1':.,',".:SRx'd,'3�11`:`".^:'S',5«'l:t¢:<:IbtE.<3I6°tti"t;:".^:f'::F:":3:.$'1::.1':^>l;s fs:li:"t;;=e°.:=:t.:i6:6.34,,eE.'.°b]>"is%«3.','^::":1:';I¢s31 xEP¢i: ,:.:Y:'a�T..k�.•1 Yfl:s::"°e; ?e?€'ce#e,%'.-�,:°.�-'.as;"?1-1s:d:°:?:;s:s�Fs°;l:ws�css:st:,:!:.:::e:ck c°'.tr:rres:;>1:Er.�;l:l:::l:l:a`�`i;ro.:l;t:t:t:tc°e=fir.=t�::}�?Y?»"'^'s::l;s•r'%.:•_°"�?:«ti•%",^?lttc.}1}l;s'�s; !s: [ �?^sil;:s��p'i:E^:"wn a 3�-�.:^�;:.:�......:.:;°mac€.Gt^EEd.,. :.m E`�':s:s`1?l;�3:�.rtee¢�•-:e�:,_e;::42c"s%rrsi:.w;�..%^Y;.:r,.,'�,:.,%«m�:,.,..s'.s#"�ysls`;lx:::^,:n°: v...,a.....^,......°;:»v—.v., '•}:Atl'�:'2": �s:�i y PE #6 1 6. 6 ��.111 °si y yy 1 PAS.1�Z.."'"�.�.�.�� E, _�e.. i�.:3z,%;:s •.S6sk:Ear-�°:, =�^:?:?;La%i 4.i.Eii��`,•Y"..:t°e:��Fec#;,^ ..r=�`�%':y. .;�:;�;M:1:i:;�%�'•#=�e� afe_�r`;�E�^ �ke#�vae�aR#�-:°n.^«�:',:' #;;•, .�qhs:;':=; ^_C,."^8 : ,'s E,._F�' `t.....,e.a.e.eL',4°^e,^m._`�_-�''.,:^°.,�_>^:,.,,,. g „�r.. �;;,:;:•�.m =¢.3:.€ �.".�.. ,�."g8=#•:=:^"k:�'�a.s:¢ai�,.:�•.,.!�,��€=i°s€<%_�;:#E13�1;a,E°s�_a�.��,a161:.B�Ez.d: °':E:�:.��e., _.<.,#.s:,}_ F,¢m,,,..,..."$m..al:,a,a¢.,.,.,z;:� =°a�gz°e3�$6va8e?e?%:aie;°�.,m'•:,1,",¢_«.?;::°e,4?:.rears°e,°°p;#i�°i 4ass�ia6?a..c.,_.¢ ` ak`€:Ei -;";:<::�r;F#F¢?-.,:r: m :m-E•var"e:°e::;:�.a"r�.- re.;°aikE%:;:e:e.:tee._;,.^,r,,�Y:�`Y%eda?r's:�,a.g•`�::.reaae�e:°: r<¢" �a�;-:k€c€s:E3 _...E^.r#.,¢.,r._ g� t:e�:%°;°^��•�'•'�='rae;% :,i.e_[� ¢°_x..'x..Fs..,'•;_ .$_3. e° ra.�r�a°:::a€.€a..�.,.,.+ ,._i.'Fa;ir.�,,.,$?¢r$.Y.�i'=-6° «=,'fFT;@z@-;�.C¢z�'.,e:�%res d.:._�.,:%Y:?¢;;«`�°ie�'ee=e�:e€:€ae.€W.;:€s°e:€a€aC�:kia�€:•6:.m.�.xx€°:Ie=#s 3e - g$::�:.�.. 9ti �s $Yp3Ar e: Elementary School Facility Construction Costs I.Allowable Building Area A.Total Student Capacity B. Building Area 600 students @ 71 sflstudent 42,600 Speech/Resource Specialist 600 Total 43,200 II. Site Requirements A. Purchase Price of Property(10 Acres) Cost per Acre $0 $0 B.Appraisals $0 C.Costs Incurred in Escrow $0 D.Surveys $0 E. Other Costs, Geo. and Soils Reports §_0 Total-Acquisition of Site $0 Ill, Plans A.Architect's Fee for Plans $909,290 B. DSA Plans Check Fee $73,934 C. School Planning, Plans Check Fee $6,266 D. Preliminary Tests $4,805 E. Other Costs, Energy Cons. &Advertising JAL187 $1,036,482 IV. Construction Requirements A. Utility Services $403,501 B. Off-site Development $605,250 C. Site Development, Service $968,399 D. Site Development, General $645,599 E. New Construction $9,830,960 F. Unconventional Energy Source $549,645 Total Construction $13,003,354 Total Items II, Ill and IV $14,039,836 Contingency 10% $1,403,984 Construction Tests $149,746 Inspection $105,261 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $15,698,827 ESTIMATED COST PER STUDENT $26,165 *Source:California Department of Education,Jack Schreder&Associates. Middle School Facility Construction Costs I.Allowable Building Area A.Total Student Capacity B. Building Area 1000 students @ 85sf/student 85,000 Speech/Resource Specialist 1.360 Total 86,360 II. Site Requirements A. Purchase Price of Property(20 Acres) Cost per Acre $0 $0 B.Appraisals $0 C. Costs Incurred in Escrow $0 D. Surveys 1 $0 E. Other Costs, Geo. and Soils Reports LO Total-Acquisition of Site $0 III. Plans A.Architect's Fee for Plans $1,735,733 B. OSA Plans Check Fee $114,306 C. School Planning, Plans Check Fee $7,194 D. Preliminary Tests $7,993 E. Other Costs, Energy Cons. &Advertising JE 549 $1,926,775 IV.Construction Requirements A. Utility Services $591,993 B. Off-site Development $666,248 C. Site Development, Service $1,840,317 D. Site Development, General $1,312,675 E. New Construction $19,716,240 F. Unconventional Energy Source 124O 022 Total Construction $25,067,495 Total Items II, Ill and IV $26,994,270 Contingency $2,699,427 Construction Tests $210,425 Inspection $122,458 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $30,026,580 ESTIMATED COST PER STUDENT $30,027 'Source:California Department of Education, Jack Schreder&Associates. a a E k 'a�• -ae -`�� '"cc �� '�k �.�r�¢ �_ s _ s�ii'sis=zS P-PIE16"',"', OEMN'U s r i g s ess .r s 6 -s c g �d ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO SCHOOL FACILITY PROGRAM GRANTS State Allocation Board Meeting, February 24,2016 Grant Amount Adjustments Regulation Current Adjusted Current Adjusted Section Grant Per Pupil Grant Per Pupil Effective 1-1-15 Effective 1-1-16 Elementary 1859.71 $10,345 $10,634 Middle 1859.71 $10,942 $11,247 High 1859.71 $13,923 $14,311 Special Day Class-Severe 1859.71.1 $29,070 $29,881 Special Day Class-Non-Severe 1859.71.1 $19,442 $19,984 Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Elementary 1859.71.2 $12 $12 L Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Middle 1859.71.2 $17 $17 j Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-High 1859.71.2 $28 $29 C VAutomatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Special Day Class-Severe 1859.71.2 $53 $54 Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Special Day Class-Non- 1859.71.2 $36 $37 O Severe Z Automatic Sprinkler System-Elementary 1859.71.2 $173 $178 Automatic Sprinkler System-Middle 1859.71.2 $206 $212 Automatic Sprinkler System-High 1859.71.2 $214 $220 Automatic Sprinkler System-Special Day Class-Severe 1859.71.2 $548 $563 Automatic Sprinkler System-Special Day Class-Non-Severe 1859.71.2 $368 $378 Elementary 1859.78 $3,939 $4,049 Middle 1859.78 $4,167 $4,283 High 1859.78 $5,455 $5,607 Special Day Class-Severe 1859.78.3 $12,555 $12,905 Special Day Class-Non-Severe 1859.78.3 $8,399 $8,633 State Special School-Severe 1859.78 $20,925 $21,509 C Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Elementary 1859.78.4 $127 $131 O Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Middle 1859.78.4 $127 $131 N Automatic Fire Delection/Alarm System-High 1859.78.4 $127 $131 N Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Special Day Class-Severe 1859.78.4 $352 $362 p Automatic Fire Detection/Alarm System-Special Day Class-Non- 1859.78.4 $235 $242 Severe Over 50 Years Old-Elementary 1859.78.6 $5,472 $5,625 Over 50 Years Old-Middle 1859.78.6 $5,788 $5,949 Over 50 Years Old-High 1859.78.6 $7,577 $7,788 Over 50 Years Old-Special Day Class-Severe 1859.78.6 $17,442 $17,929 Over 50 Years Old-Special Day Class-Non-Severe 1859.78.6 $11,664 $11,989 Over 50 Years Old-State Special School-Severe 1859.78.6 $29,069 $29,880 ers jaG iTETE yrr^ NF mg t s. {s & RMk e¢g P3? a s3 of _ d�7y }PI; 's¢sitT$ r C * ty of Orovffle Donald Rust COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT-DEPARTMENTS.----� cisEeroR .--_ _--. 17351Vl0ntgomerySfreet _ Oroville, 6A 95965-4897 (530)538-2402 FAX(530)538-2426 www.citvo foro ville.org January27, 2016 Elona Cunningham Associate with Jack Schreder &Associates, Inc. 2230 K Street Sacramento, CA 95816 RE: RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNT FOR THE OROVILLE CITY ELEMENTARY AND THERMALITO SCHOOL DISTRICTS Ms. Cunningham, Per the City of Oroville 2014-2022 Housing Element adopted in June 3, 2014, the City of Oroville had 6,405 total housing units as of 2013: Structure Type Units % Single-family detached 3,786 59.1% -Single-familyattached 221 3.5% Multi-family 2-4 units 790 12.3% Multi-family 5+ units 1,227 19.2% Mobile Homes 381 5.9% Total units 6,405 100% Source:Department of Finance,2013 Per the City's Housing Element, the total housing growth need for the City of Oroville during the 2014-2022 projection period is 1,793 units. However, per the current zoning regulations..-adopted bytheCity--Council.-on March 3.1, -2015, the .potential -number of units which may be constructed by school district, is as seen below based on the following assumptions: • Details that could _affect the development potential of properties, such as topography, site access, existing - structures, protected biological species, protected ecological systems and other environmental constraints, soil characteristics, number of stories, airport influence overlay restrictions, or other project specific information and site constraints are not considered; • Full build out of the maximum residential density permitted is assumed; Page I ® The provision allowing owners of properties zoned only for single family residential units to apply for the construction of a second dwelling, unit if applicable requirements are met, was not taken into account; Mixed Use Zoning designations permit and encourage, but do not require, that residential units be constructed;' o Any fraction for the maximum potential number of units was rounded up to the next whole number; a Tentative parcel/subdivision maps are not accounted for; • The potential for a developer to apply for residential density bonuses was not accounted for. ®roville CityElementary School District Multi-Family Max Potential Zones # of Parcels Acres Allowed Max Density Units MXC 568 594.33 Yes 30 du/acre 17,830 MXD 282 65.38 Yes 70 du/acre 4,577 MXN 64 57.24 Yes 30 du/acre 1,718 R-1 2,251 332.72 No 1 unit/parcel 2,251 R-2 11 3.37 Yes 14 du/acre 48 R-3 130 53.61 Yes 20 du/acre 1,073 R-4 5 34.29 Yes 30 du/acre 1,029 RL 1,557 1,235.81 No 1 unit/parcel 1,557 RP 3 0.37 Yes 20 dulacre 8 RR-10 1 0.3 No 1 unit/parcel 1 RR-20 49 222.43 No 1 unit/parcel 49 Total 30,14 Thermalito Union School District - Multii-Family- - .Max Potential- Zones # of Parcels Acres Allowed Max Density Units MXN 54 96.67 Yes 30 du/acre 2,901 R-1 353 147.73 No 1 unit/parcel 353 R-2 266 99.78 Yes 14 du/acre 1,397 R-3 172 91.99 Yes 20 du/acre 1,840 R-4 15 18.44 Yes 30 du/acre 554 RA 4 15.27 No 1 unit(parcel 4 RL 421 360.87 No 1 unit/parcel 421 RRA 5 9.94 No 1 unit/parcel 5 RR-20 7 46.98 No 1 unit/parcel 7 Total 7,482 Page 2 The applicable land use zoning designations identified above are abbreviated as follows: •... Corridor.Mixed-Use (MXC) • Downtown Mixed-Use (MXD) • Neighborhood Mixed-Use (MXN) • Single Family Residential (R-1) • Medium-Density Residential (R-2) • High-Density Residential (R-3) • Urban-Density Residential (R-4) • Agricultural Residential (RA) • Large-Lot Residential (RL) • High-Density Residential / Professional (RP) • Rural Residential 1 Acre (RR-1) • Rural Residential 10,000 Square Feet (RR-10) • Rural Residential 20,000 Square Feet (RR-20) The numbers provided in this letter are based on what could be built per the allowable land uses in the City's 2030 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Due to economic cycles and the numetous volatile factors that can affect residential development; the City does not have the ability to provide an accurate number of potential units which may be constructed in the next 20 years. The numbers provided herein are approximations. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter please contact Donald Rust at (530) 538-2433 or at rustdl cit oforoville.or . Sincerely, nald L. Rus Director Community De elopment Department Page 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OROVI:LLE ELEMENTARY :SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTYOF BUTTE COM ENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF. ZEGTION 4r T1.9N, R4E, M.D.M. ; THENCE WES ''RbN TOWNSHIP LINE ONE. AND ONE-QUARTER MILES TO 'THE'.CE:NTER OF THE FEATHER RIYER} THENCE MEAND�k 'N'6.,000 N. TfiE CENT ft THE FEATHER FIVER To INTERSECT WITH THE LINE BETWEEN $0CT.ION 25:'AND, �,4. T1.5N, R3.E, M �,M THENCE EAST ON SECT I0N,;4INE_ 'S.EVEN-E�GHT5 OF A' M3.�,.E=.,T�l Tk OST $A�Tt 6�rE�$ _. FF SAID SECTION 251 THENCE NORTH ON 1�kme LINE EIGHT° CHAINS ,MORE 04 LESS - - 6 TQ Tti SOUTH EST CORNER ECTIpN 3a, T14N, E 4E., M, D M�,:f SESCTtbN LINES TWO�'MILES TO TMS !L;OVTHE4,1 CORNER &iF �ECT1£dN 29, SAID-TO WNSH�Fi THENCE` NORIFi ON SECTION L3"NE ONE MILE to ff ;�OUTF1'4 GORNEf� . F 'c i, P THENCE AST ON SECTION LINE T '6' 'fO �1 H1 NDRTHWE$i GflF i1E SAID '',0WNSiHI i _. OF S CrIC IJ 26", SAME TOWNS h{jE .i THENCE SOUTH THREE MIS E,S T1� THE SOUTNIti��ST �ti��ll F2 . OF SE-CTICN 2, T'I.BN, R4E,a THENCE EAST ON3.;sicTTON LI8 Q ; k 4O g,NltH P', MILE Tr] .;r HALF Mid'SECT3CIN BE'.TWEEN..SECTI;ONS i. AND lt, SAME TOWaN1P THNCE SOUTH [1NE OUA"P'TE LLE 70, CENTER OF SAID EGTd4iJ 12j ItHEt C WEST NE HAt�F MIt T,h tFC - QUARTER CORNER OF SAID. S5cripN 123 THENCE SOUTH ONEt" t�IL TO QU{1RTEIt .SE�TIDN3 CORNER BETWEEN SECTIpN,S:',13 AND 14,' SAME.jOl(N$HJPi THENC ,WE$'I`,ONE MILE fHE OVOTER SECTION CORNER atWEt=h 'Slct: ON 14 AND S. SAME 7 wNSHIPp THENCE-"' SOUTH_°t.9 gNLl L3NE =HRLCx` MILES TO SOUTHW 5..T 1f?SER ► SE�CT,I iN , $AIS T wN tOWNSH'IF';: THENCE Ni7RFN ONE-HALF MILE TO QI�AAT�R SECT ,'ON,C,(I N R�T��Ai4I SkNIF�i TMEfi�GE EASTt4dC1_ MILES TO THE SOUTHER T CORNER OF SECTIQI 24, EN SECTION 24,, TIM, R4E) AND SECTION i9, JV Nr ::R5E1 T�[��1��„.EAST"-DNE�HALF MILE TO THE CENTER, OF ''SAID SECTION 19; ".THENClK_,40RtH F�ONE-HAL' 'MILE TO THE,s = QUARTER CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS 18 AND 19 SAME TOWNSHIP:3 THENCE EAST ONE* ;HALF E..;T:p THrz, QUTN.EAPT CORNER :;Q.F SAID C .ID SEf,lDN 183 TNONCE eNORTH ONE MIE E TO: THE NORTHEAST CORNER" OF SA SECTION' l II ENCE;�EA F TWO �A'h�C7 ONE-HALF'-MILEr;” TO QUARTER SECTION CORNERS.':B'ETWEEN,',:$tCTI;O'NS ;:10,.'ANL3"i;��,, 'SA:ME Tbv"SHIPs THENCE NORTH ON NORTH AND SOUTH HAL:F. SECTION 'LINA" TkiREE h�.'l T TH:QUARTER SEGTiDtJ CORNER BETWEEN SECTIONS. 27 AND 3'4'; THENCE EAST-'. THREE' AND ONE-HALF MILES TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER Iii SECTION" 2.9, 7194,, 96'E. IN THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN BUTTE, AND YU"BA 'C.OUNTIli THENCE Nf1RTHEA. LY ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE BET4fEE.N THE' SAID BUTTE ANCA YU6;A: COUNTIES, .'A11'yS` 31'Q.W ESTABLISHED BY LAW, FOUR AND ONE-HALF "MILES TO THE QUARTER SeCT"ipN C {qER BETWEEN SECTIONS 9 AND 15, SAID TOWNSHIPI T,,HENCE WEST ;ONE-HALF. MILE;;`:' Cl XHi a6t rHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 8, T19N, R6EI '1'HENCE .NORTH ON SECTIOIf k�NF 'TWO .ANP .ONE--HALF MILES, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTE'RL I NE OF THE SOUTH FaRk ,O:F THE` FEATHER R I VEIL i. THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE Tp;"THk aOQTHEAST CORNER`:QF "SECTION 33, T2oN, R5Et THENCE NORTH ONE-HALF MILE TO THE QUARTER StCt' CORNER .BETWEEN SECTIONS 33 AND 34, T20N, R5'Ei THENCE WEST THREE AND ONE" HALF 1ItE5 P"N HALF SECTION LINES TO THE CENTER CORNER OF SECTION 36, T20;N, R'4E1 THENCE SOUTH ONE-HALF MILE ON HALF SECTION LINE TO THE SOUTH GUAR-f'4`n5'SE,CTION CORNER OF SAID SECTION 361 THENCE WEST ON TOWNSHIP LINE, TWO AND ONE4RA ,F MILES TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING.