HomeMy WebLinkAboutR20-Redevelopment Agency
- -
. RmiVELOPMENT AGENCY...&u.ST FOR a....../COUNCIL A~ION
c::rm: Glenda Saul, Executive Director
Dept: Redevelopment Agency
Subject:
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF SCHOOL
DISTRICT FEE - RESOLUTION -
ITEM #12 ON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Date: AUGUST 1, 1985
Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council action:
6-20-83
6-20-83
Ordinance No. MC-283 adopted Tri-City Redevelopment Area
Resolution 4478 adopted providing for Cooperative Agreement with San
Bernardino Unified School District
6-6-85
Legislative Review recommended preparation of Reeolution by City Attorney
establishing requirement for School Fees
6-17-85
City Council instructed City Attorney to prepare eaid reeolution
7-15-85
City Council continued adoption of said Reeolution to 8-5-85
Recommended motion:
(MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCn.)
c:> Move continuance of Resolution establishing requirement for payment of school feee by
Developer until Redevelopment Agency and School District reach an agreement regarding
financial impact of the Scbool District of Sub-Area I of the Tri-City Project Area.
#M.~/
( Signatu re
Contact person:
GLENDA SAUL
Phone:
383-5081
N/A
Supporting data sttached:
YES
Wsrd:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $
N/A
Projact:
All
No edverse Impact on City:
Oncil Notes:
Date:
AUGUST 5, 1985
Agenda Item No~d
. Clft OF SAN BERNARDlio - REQU8T FOR COUNCIL AcRoN
c
()
c
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
On 8-5-85 the Council will be considering adoption of a resolution establishing school
fees for new residential developments.
Staff seeks your continuance of this item until an agreement can be reached between
the Agency and the School District regarding the Tri-City Redevelopment Project Area.
Pursuant to Co_unity Redevelopment Law, redevelopment agencies must meet with
affected taxing agencies within proposed project areas to determine if the taxing
district will suffer an adverse financial impact due to the creation of the project.
Tbrough this Fiscal Review Procees, the Collllll1ssion approved the execution of an
Agreement in June of 1983 with San Bernardino Unified School District. Under the
terms of thie Agreement, once a developer has been selected for Sub-Area I of the
Tri-City Project, the RDA and School District would enter into a "specific" agreement
as to the ways and means of providing adequate portable school facilities to eerve the
increase in etudents created by the Project (Sub Area I).
Tbis agreement set forth a maximUlll RDA contribution of $1,200,000. Tbis figure was
determined by dividing the proposed nUlllber of residential units (1000) by the nUlllber
of students allowed to occupy a portable unit (32) times the estimated coet of each
unit ($60,000). Tbe agreement further provided that the Redevelopment Agency would
pay the operation expenses of these portable classrooms, at approximately $6,000 per
year per unit.
During the latter part of 1984, the Agency entered
Developers for Sub Area I of the Tri-City Project.
units over a five year period.
into an agreement with Nutech
Nutech will be constructing 21
Staff and the School District resUllled negotiations the beginning of this year in an
attempt to draft the "specific" agreement required to alleviate any financial burden
to the District due to the increased nUlllber of students to be generated from the
Nutech Development, i.e. 721 dwelling units.
Tbe District anticipates 524 school age children from the proposed 721 units. Tbey
are seeking from the RDA $1,220,999. Staff and developer dispute their fomula
calculation of .71 children per multifamily unit and .78 per single family unit. No
consideration has been given for one bedroom unite nor for anticipated vacancies. It
is our understanding that the Dietrict's detemination of etudente per dwelling unit
was determined by an "in-house" survey. Our agreement for Tri-City is based on impact
of that project along (No. of studente to be generated).
Staff believes that the adoption of the proposed reeolution will weaken our
negotiation position with the school dietrict. Tbe financial impact to the Tri-City
Project could be devastating. Any increment generated over the life of the plan might
be used only to repay the district's involved. Tbe euit with Muni-Water has not yet
been settled and they too are seeking an absorbent amount of financing from the Agency.
l277J/SL
8-5-85