Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1985/07/31 JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL DISTRICTS July 31, 1985 Council Conference Room 8:00 a.m. City Hall CITY OF CHULA VISTA PRESENT: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Malcolm, McCandliss, Moore ABSENT: Councilman Scott STAFF: Assistant City Manager Asmus, City Attorney Harron CHULA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT: Board of Education Dr. Joseph Cummings - President Sharon Giles - Vice President Opal Fuller - Clerk Penny Allen, Judith Bauer Members Dr. Louis L. Beall - Superintendent John E. Linn - Assistant Superintendent for Business Management SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Steve Hogan, President Lita David, Nick Aguilar, Ruth Chapman - Members Judith Bauer - Vice President/Clerk Superintendent, Anthony J. Trujillo Larry Hendee, Controller 1. MAYOR'S OPENING REMARKS Mayor Cox welcomed the members of the two School Districts to the meeting this morning stating the Council has some concerns regarding developers" fees: their legality--how they can be applied--the programs available--and whether they are used for temporary facilities. City Attorney Harron stated there are two legal bases for collecting the fees: 1. SB 201 this bill introduced in 1979 provides for interim facilities which the City has never utilized. JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL - 2 - July 31, 1985 DISTRICT MEETING 2. SB 1711 - which is an informal system now being challenged in the Supreme Court. A decision on this bill will be issued sometime this year. In answer to Councilman Malcolm's questions, Mr. Harron stated the Superior Court, the Appellate Court and the Attorney General have all ruled SB 1711 invalid. It is now being heard by the Supreme Court. Under SB 201, the provision is called "if the schools could not find some alternative method of dealing with the condition of overcrowding," then they should implement this procedure. Mr. Harron added the question is: does the City's informal practice of requiring the school letter before issuing a building permit or accepting a tentative map approval constitute some procedures to mitigate school overcrowding? The City Attorney's Office has taken the position that it does and that this is a valid procedure. Mayor Cox noted that most of the discussion will be centering around all of the questions on the agenda and that either school district could answer the questions at random. President Steve Hogan referred to question No. 7, stating it is his own personal opinion the school district can spend the money anywhere within the sphere of influence of Chula Vista. Inasmuch as the Sweet~ater Union High District covers several cities, the money is spent where it is needed. The Board has not established an official policy on this, however. Pres. Hogan answered that not every resident of Chula Vista attends schools within the City limits. Students are transferred throughout the school districts and to restrict fees solely within the boundaries of the City would not be practical. Mrs. Bauer declared the quality of the education of the children should not be based on the residence of the parents--it is philosophically improper. Councilman Malcolm responded he agrees with this philosophy; however, he still maintains monies collected in Chula Vista should be spent in this City where it is collected and it should be done on an even basis. He does not want the citizens of Chula Vista to fund other people's problems. Mr. Aguilar invited the Council to either amend or create legislation which would give the Sweetwater Union High School District the authority to impose such fees to other entities within the County. Councilman Malcolm commented the City of San Diego has not adopted this process. They do not believe in the County's 1-43 process. JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL - 3 - July 31, 1985 DISTRICT MEETING Mrs. Bauer stated the Real Estate Task Force Committee recommended the SB 201 process be adopted to compel collection from San Diego for apartments, etc. Councilman Moore noted the following issues are before the Districts and Council this morning: 1. The use of the development fees. 2. The use of the fees throughout the District. 3. To what degree should new home buyers support the schools' constructions. 4. Are the fees fair as they pertain to single-family, multiple-family and apartment units. Mr. Hogan explained the fees are used for temporary facilities, classroom spaces and for their furnishings. Councilman Moore reiterated he was concerned about the uniform fees within the School District. If they cannot collect fees from any other entities, then they should drop down to whatever the entities are now requiring at that level. Mr. Hogan said there are five sites and facilities needed now which would be in excess of $25 million dollars. The school has on deposit $2,300,000 collected previously from the developers. Building a brand new school at a cost of $15 million dollars is unlikely. Mrs. Bauer reported the developer's fees were used to purchase 29 portable classrooms last year; the same number will be maintained this year. She added the Sweetwater Union District has property reserved in the Gersten area. They were told to either buy or release the property. They have not released the property and they have no funds to purchase it. Mrs. Bauer noted that prior to Proposition 13, the schools could bond to build schools; however, that method is not available now. In the 16 years she has been on the Schools Districts, the following schools have been built: Montgomery Junior High School, Palomar High School, Del Rey High School and Music and Drama additions added to certain school buildings. Currently, Sweetwater gets approximately 1,000 new students each year. Chula Vista will be generating 300-500 additional students per year. Although the District owns three sites in the City, no new schools are proposed to be built in the City of Chula Vista in the near future. Mayor Cox asked if the school districts had a chance to respond to the questions sent to them last week. Both School Districts stated they had responded and had delivered material to the City JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL - 4 July 31, 1985 DISTRICT MEETING yesterday. (It was noted that no material was received from either school district and Chula Vista Elementary School confirmed they had not delivered the material). Mayor Cox asked for the material to be reproduced and this was handed out to the members of both School Districts and the audience. A discussion ensued regarding how to resolve the problem of building new schools. Mrs. Bauer declared one alternative would be to stop growth. SB-201 could be filed; however, this would, in her opinion "generate a lot more mess in lawsuits". Mayor Cox stated the City Council has always gone on record to assist the schools in any way they can in a cohesive program which could be taken to Sacramento. There are, however, some inequity issues. The Council is most concerned about confining the developers' fees in Chula Vista's Sphere of Influence and to have similar fees collected from the Cities of National City and Imperial Beach also. The Mayor commented that SB 201 has now been in ~'orce for over six years and questioned how many contacts the School Districts have made in order to get other entities to come up with the developers' fees. Mrs. Fuller asked the Mayor what he and the Council were doing; whether they, in fact, were contacting other Mayors in the other cities in the County and having dialogue with them over this issue. Councilman Malcolm declared he has offered his services for the last six months to any member of any school district to work with them in contacting the members of the Council in the City of San Diego and the State Legislators. Not one member has taken up this offer. Mr. Larry Hendee said he met with the staff of San Diego and appeared before the Land Transportation Use Committee. There will be an ordinance proposed in August which will go before the City Council of San Diego for adoption. He has also contacted the cities of National City and Imperial Beach but nothing formally has come of this. Mayor Cox remarked he is now President of the Executive Committee of the San Diego Division of the League of California Cities which is comprised of all the Mayors in the County and he will bring this matter to their attention. JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL - 5 July 31, 1985 DISTRICT MEETING Mrs. Allen said what they are talking about now is the people picking up the fees, local people. The school districts need to take steps to address the real issue: that adequate facilities are made available on a local level--this should be done through the State Legislature. Mrs. Giles discussed AB 115 (Sterling bill)--the proposed legislation regarding the State Allocation Formula used to qualify schools for State aid. AB 1551 was passed out of the State Education Committee and will next be reviewed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. She added Senator Deddeh was extremely helpful in getting the bill passed through the committees. Mrs. Giles added currently there are currently $4-6 billion dollars needed for school facilities. Chula Vista District will have to be put on the list for funding. The Leonard Bill (AB 1495) gives the School Districts the ability to set up special assessment districts. Mrs. Chapman commented on billboards advertising subdivisions throughout the City, that perhaps another line should be put in stating "no schools available." Councilman Malcolm said the problem is not totally the growth area. It is the demographic change and the Districts should be aware of this. He does not want to see apartments and mobile homes have to pay about $100 in school and City fees per month. These people cannot afford it and it is "governmental garbage". He would be in favor of voting for a complete moratorium in Chula Vista area for any further annexations of EastLake until such time as the solution to the school problem in the City is solved. School fees should remain reasonable; increasing them is not the answer. Mayor Cox referred to the letter received from the Sweetwater Union High School District stating a Task Force is being set up with the first meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 7, at 7 p.m. at the Sweetwater Union High School District Board Room. They are asking that a member of the City Council be appointed to sit on this Committee. Councilman Moore volunteered to serve. MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to designate Councilman Moore to serve on this Task Force. Councilman Malcolm stated he would refer to the Legislative Committee AB 1151 and AB 1495 for a report back to the City Council. Superintendent Trujillo said there is a lot of activity going out in the area and most of the legislation being passed is for the South Bay. What is needed in this issue is a rethinking of the JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL - 6 ' July 31, 1985 DISTRICT MEETING public policy. The State of California requires youngsters from the ages of 5-15 to attend school; however, they do not provide the facilities for them to attend. Superintendent Trujillo added that proportionately less and less is being spent for children and more and more for senior citizens. This is because the senior citizens can vote - the children cannot. There must be a rethinking of public policy and one of the ways is to work through the Task Force. Councilwoman McCandliss stated this is the first opportunity to get together with the County, City of San Diego, Legislators, PTA, Schools, Building and Industry. All of them have different responsibilities and one of the ways to bring them all together would be to address the State Legislature on this matter. (Mayor Cox left the meeting at 9:10 a.m. Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm presided over balance of the meeting.) Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm stated there should be a growth management plan in the City. School facilities are needed before any development is approved. He has strong feelings against the Elementary School District charging $1,690 for a one bedroom apartment and having the same charge for a five bedroom home, declaring this was grossly unfair. Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm added the schools are punishing the poor people and placing the burden on them--the ones that cannot afford it. Councilwoman McCandliss stated the Council looks at overall planned unit developments and subdivisions and the School Districts look at a formula. The dollar amounts come out the same but the Council is concerned with the equity and how this is applied. Superintendent Beall explained that when the fees were established, the District Board considered three alternatives: 1. The flat fee. 2. The number of bedrooms in the units. 3. The fee schedule based on the number of units per acre. The Board recognized it was not a final conclusion and they asked the Task Force to study the fee schedule noting it may be revised based on the Task Force's recommendation. JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL - 7 July 31, 1985 DISTRICT MEETING Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm asked the School Districts to address future correspondence to the City Clerk who will disseminate the information to the Council. Mr. Dick Zogob, developer, stated the question is certainly one of inequity. He stated it was very important to touch base with the developers as to their cost and what their profits are as some of the developers' profits are just not there. Mr. Zogob discussed the downtown redevelopment district development, noting the tax increments developed in the past eight years and the differential is still being paid to the school district. Mr. Zogob cautioned that the equity formula should be studied very carefully. Mr. Don Lindberg, Attorney, stated he has been arguing this issue since 1970. Every time the issue comes up, the only thing the schools do is increase the fees which is not the proper way to attack the problem. The problem is the failure of the state to go with their own mandate. Mr. Lindberg noted that Mrs. Bauer admitted the Sweetwater District would lower the fee scale as long as they felt the state would take over the funding of the schools. However, when that did not happen, they increased the fees. Mrs. Allen stated raising the fees was not a good approach; however, it was the only one they had. Mr. Brian Mettler representing Mrs. Bundon, 522 Flower Street, said she is a senior citizen who has lived there for over 30 years. She is planning to build a four unit apartment on her property. On July 1, she was told to come up with $2,700 in fees. Mr. Mettler questioned whether the higher fees will still be applied to those developments that were in the planning stage. Mr. Hendee explained the district policy is to collect the fees at the time the building permit is issued unless there is a commitment made prior to July 1. Mr. Mettler noted there are a lot of people who have lived in this town for a great number of years and if they want to build units for their families, they should not be categorized as developers. Mrs. Allen said the Task Force would be considering this issue. (Superintendent Trujillo left the meeting at this time, 9:45 a.m.) In answer to the Council's questions, Mr. Lindberg stated the solution to the entire problem is a constitutional amendment so that the schools will share equally in funding to provide education for the students; they should not expect a new home buyer to foot this bill. JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL - 8 July 31, 1985 DISTRICT MEETING Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm noted how many times he has voted against new developments in the City. He added that the 1-43 Policy mechanism has real dangers: the Courts and the Attorney General have ruled it illegal and he does not foresee the State Supreme Court coming up with an answer this year. Councilwoman McCandliss stated her concern is that there will be two Task Forces operating concurrently. Mrs. Allen indicated the Task Forces would be combined. Discussion followed regarding the school fees not being collected in the San Ysidro area; the School District not being cognizant of this fact until six or nine months ago; the developers being issued building permits without notification to the School Districts; and Councilman Moore's comment for the School Districts not to send notices to the Council for meetings but to "invite them to attend". Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm thanked everyone for attending the meeting this morning. ADJOURNMENT AT 10:00 a.m. to the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 6, 1985 at 4:00 p.m. ~enni~ M. Fulasz, k WPG:0619C PAG