Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/02/19 - Minutes - Joint (School District)February 19, 1987 CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA JOINT CITY COUNCIL-SChOOL DISTRICT MEETING Adj ourned Meeting An adjourned joint meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and representatives from all the School District Board of Directors met on Thursday. February 19, 1987, in the Lions Park Community Canter, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were Councilme~bers: Deborah N. Brown, Jeffrey King, Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: City Clerk, Beverly A. Authe/et; City Attorney, James Markman; Community Development Director, Jack Lam; Community Services Director, W~lliam Holley; and City Engineer, Russell Maguire. Representing School Districts were: Central School District: Toni Shlpley, Debbie Baker, and Frank Cosca. Alte Loma School District: Sandie Oerly, Barbara Herrera, Bob Frost, and John McMurtry. Charley Joint Union High School District: Birt Martin, Kathy Kinlay, Jerry Wolf, and Mike Dirksen. Cucamonga School District: Loraine McMullen, David Ortega, Luis Gonzsles, Ken Bradshaw. Julian Rincon, and John Costsilo. Etiwanda School District: Dave Long and Gary Collins. 1. HOW CAN TEE CITY COUNCIL HELP TO SUPPORT STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS REGARD- ING SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FINANCING? (1405-03 SCHOOLS) Councilwoman Wright asked Mr. Dirksen to give some background on how the schools have been aligned with the City in the past to help achieve some legis- lation that has been beneficial to the school districts. Mr. Dirksen stated that school construction financing was not the most critical issue. He felt the more critical issue for the next year was school mainte- nance financing itself. The Governor's budget did not include enough to carry on the current progrins. They were looking at progrin reductions. They depend on the State entirely for school financing, and there siamply is not enough there. This may have an impact on school construction. It will have an impact to the extent that they all have to support school housing out of their general funds. As they build new schools, they staff thee and maintain thin as an on- going expense from the general funds. This is where the crunch comes. They wi/1 not be able to maintain the schools they have. Ken Bradshaw stated that the $1.50 per square foot was not really enough. Per- haps the group could have a united push for a special tin or do some type of unified lobbying. The Mayor asked for a clarification on the tax the Etiwanda School District was trying to levy. John Costello responded that they were asking for an additional fee on top of the developer's fee for avery house built in the community. That would bring the District up to the level they were before December 31, 1986. City Attorney Markman ree~arked that the history of the developers' fees in AB 2926 around the State i~ the converse of what happens in Rancho Cucamonga. Re represents several cities. Virtually all the school districts in those cities has levied the full $1.50 for various reasons. The one reason usually sited is the fact that if you don't levy it. you'll never qualify for State funding if (1) City Council Minutes February 19, 1987 Page 2 there is such a thing. And if you do qualify, they will deduct the amount that you did not get from a developer that you could have. The system in Rancho Cucsmonga for developer's fee, after the Candid Interprise case, which was virtually wide open. The real reason for BIA supporting AB 2926 was to shut it down and cap it. Present legislation says that is all that you can hit a de- velopment project with. If that is what the State legislation says, how can a local entity raise the tax to levy more on a development project? Why did they choose a course to do more by way of developers' fees. Mr. Costello stated their attorney, Clay Roller, gave them the information. They are going to try. Mr. Dirksen commented that the $1.50 was not enough. It probably isn't even 50% enough. The $1.50 to match State funding is the problem. Whether or not you qualify for State funding. What is happening in Etiwanda is simply growth is going to hit them so fast, but at this point in time they have a tough time being approved by the State for funding. So they have to do something else. Since the high school covers such a wide area, they are funded on the basis of the high school attendance area. If they can qualify in terms of the number of students that are going to be there three to six years down the road, (they are qualified right now to add an addition to Etiwanda High School). The problem is the time span and 811 of the red tape for State funding. They will have more kids they can house before they get the classrooms built. This is the problem they wish they could turn around. Bob Tangeman stated that if they could not adequately house students now, what is going to happen five or six years down the road. The quality of education throughout the City is in the best interest of both City Council and School Boards that we push to keep additional funds coming in. Mr. Dirksen stated that the Chaffey District hired a consultant who did a study of: (1) Cost of housing per student. This is how they dirived that the $1.50 is not enough and the 8.25 for industrlal/commerlcal is not enough. (2) Needs of various kinds of things that go into it. School construction at high school level is more expensive than it is at junior high level for example. Mr. Dirksen stated that Phase I is the very first step to help fund the proj- ect. It provides a very minimal sum of money. Phase II is the funding. This will help pay the architect. Phase III is when you go to bid and are ready to construct. The fees of $1.50 which are being collected (in our case .47 cents) from the William Lyon project, is transmitted in matching fund from Sacrsmen- to. The matching funds come from bonds. The $1.50 comes from developers. However, we do not get to keep the $1.50. Once you have entered that phase, then the developer fee which used to be the school districts and controlled by them, is no longer available. Mayor Stout stated there is legislation being considered to eliminate the col- lectlon of developer fees for flood control, streets, etc. He felt that if this haappened then all building would have to stop in Rancho Cucsmonga. Mr. Markman, City Attorney, concurred that there is a backlash and not just against AB 2926. They want to wipe out the Qulmby Act which was a source of all building fee funding for parks, flood control projects. In this community, the best thing that could happan is to see AB 2926 disappear in its entirety and fall back to the case 1~ where you are free under the Environmental Impact Process to help exact what you needed as you calculated it. Districts like this are fslling prey to State movements, BIA putting on a cap which is getting a negative backlash by cities where building need isn't justified. They are using it to rehab schools, fix asphalt, roofs. City Council Minutes February 19, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Cosca stated there was legislation either passed or pending that would pro- hibit a district from stopping construction if the fee were being contested. The builder could pay into an account whatever the amount would be and the dis- trict could not stop construction. Should that happen to a district, he could see no reason why this couldn't happen to the City as we/1. Mayor Stout responded that we already do that. We used to collect fees up front, now we collect at the end of the process or at time of occupancy. Mr. Tangsmart stated that their Board realize that they must become more politi- cal; this is a political issue which the group could address. Perhaps a repre- sentative from each group could meet together to come up with a statement. Councilman King felt that the City could help with this issue by contacting our local legislators. 2. HOW CAN CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS WORK COOPERATIVELY WHEN NEW SCHOOLS ARE BEING PLANNED AND CONSTRUCTED? TRAFFIC, VEHICULAR, AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ISSUES DESIGN FACTORS JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT/PARK USE AND DEV~r-OPMENT POLICY Jack Lsm, Community Developcent Director, went over the Design ProcesS. Gary Collins stated that they have difficulty getting the school buses down the winding streets because of the type of streets that are being built. It doesn't have anything to do with school sites, but they do have to transport the kids. Mr. Lam responded that these are some of the issues that we needed to know. Mr. Long stated that at their last for review. But because of the their plans and went to the State. many of the things. new school, they tried coming to the City damands being made on them, they pulled out They simply did not have the funds to do Mr. Tanngeman thanked Council for the help in the Deer Creek School traffic ac- cess problems with the park developed next to it. It turned out to be a nice facility and they liked having the park next to the school. Mr. Dirksen stated that the City could always plan on a 90 seat bus going down the streets. The streets need to be wide enough for the bus to stop and turn around. Councilman King asked if there were any other practical type problem the City should be aware of when reviewing the plans so we can take it into considera- tion. Mr. Lam stated that staff does meet with the superintendents on a regular basis and perhaps we can work with them and come up with some guidelines for the fu- ture. Mr. Tangeman pointed out there was a street which was being resurfaced tomor- row. It had been posted, but the school district had not been been notified of it. They have three bus stops on that street. It is things like this where the City could cooperate with the School Districts. Mr. Stout suggested that the City get a copy of the School's bus routes so that we could post certain streets as "no parking." City Council Minutes February 19, 1987 Page 4 Mr. Holley presented a report on the joint use of City and School park develop- ment. Mr. Dirksen stated that everyone in the room had needs that will not fund through the State. The High School District needed a football field. He felt that there was a way to tap the RDA funds which would be a joint effort to help them 811. Mr. Cosca stated it was not a concensus that the stadium was the best project. Mayor Stout stated it was a shame that the City has many fine schools. but did not even have a library. This might be sumething to look at. Mr. King expressed there were a lot of groups who use school facilities. He felt the restrooms should be left open when the schools were being used. Per- haps the school districts could arrange to have the restrooms open. Sandie Oerly stated that during the last two weeks there were restrooms at Carnelian School which were left open. Someone tried to burn them down. She did not know how you could leave them open with the vandalism today. 3. STATUS REPORT ON CITY, COUNTY, AND SCHOOL DISTRICT COORDINATION OF DISASTER PLANS. Staff report by William Holley, Community Services Director. Mayor Stout stated that a high priority with the City is public safe~y. A committee has been appointed who will address issues of Fire District, Police, and Disaster Planning. 4. SCHOOL PRfK~RAMS ~ FJ)UC, ATR STUDEI'[I'S AT ALL LE%'ELS ON RANCdO CI.I~O~A LOC. AL GO~RI~,fENT. Councilwoman Wright stated that Mr. Wasgerman was interested in having an interreletionshlp with the schools at the elementary through high school levels. The City was willing to work with the schools in helping to accomplish this. It was suggested that each school write down their ideas as to how this could be accomplished. 5. UPDATE ON CASA (CITIZENS AGAINST 1987 AT LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, Services Director. SUBSTANCE ABUSE) SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 24, Staff report by William Holley, Community Mayor Stout stated the importance in our City is that we are a City that has a problemwhich something can be done about it. He felt this City has a chance. 6. ADJOURI~4ENT. Most in attendance expressed an interest in continuing this type of meeting in the future. There being no further discussion, Mayor Stout adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet City Clerk Approved: April 15, 1987