8-22-05 By Ron Bird One of the controversies in our district has been the proposal to move four modulars to Meadowlark and three modulars to High Desert from the closed Acton School. In the summer of 2004 it was discovered that to move modulars to either of these schools, each school would need additional restroom facilities. As a result the district purchased two relocatable restrooms for a cost of just over $100,000. The cost to install these two bathrooms is just under $200,000. This brought the total cost to add classrooms to Meadowlark and High Desert to about $500,000. This project has been cancelled simply because the district does not have the money to implement this plan.
Another controversy in our district has been developer fees. Since 2000 our district has been charging $2.05 per square foot in level I developer fees. In 2002 we could have raised this to $2.14, but chose not to and again in January 2004 the state level I maximum was raised to $2.24. Finally late this spring our district acted and we are now assessing the state level I fees of $2.24.
On the surface this sounds like progress, which it is, but lets look at our neighboring districts. All districts that surround us assess what is known as level II developer fees. As a result they all receive from $3.00 per square foot to over $5.00 per square foot in developer fees (example: Palmdale SD charges $2.88 plus AV High SD charges $1.49 for a total of $4.37). They all qualify for this special level II fee, but our district does not. How can this be? Look at our facilities and look at theirs. Our facility needs certainly are as substantial as theirs. Let's look at this.
To assess level II fees a district must meet two of four state defined criteria. The two that our district meet are: 1) a general obligation bond has been placed on the ballot within the last four years and has received at least 50% of the vote (prop S received over 50%) 2) at least 20% of the teaching stations are relocatable classrooms (our district has over 50% relocatables). So our district does meet the required two of the four criteria. In addition to these criteria requirements, a district must also perform a facility needs analysis (which we have not done) and must have a qualifying project (none are on file currently for our district). Given that most of our students are considered un-housed by state standards (a student housed in a relocatable is considered un-housed), a properly conducted needs analysis surely would justify level II fees. This leaves us with the only stumbling block being having a project.
What if rather than installing relocatable restrooms at Meadowlark and High Desert, we build permanent structures? That would not only meet the permanent project requirement, it would also be a project that qualifies for 50% matching funds. Rather than needing $300,000 for two temporary restrooms, a $600,000 permanent restroom project would qualify for 50% state bond money funding. In addition we can raise our district's $300,000 matching portion from the added level II developer fees. The prior temporary restroom proposal called for expending $300,000 in existing funding. This permanent restroom proposal requires zero dollars from existing funding and would be financed 100% by additional level II fees and state bond money. Since a level II needs analysis has not yet been done, it is only speculation as to how much additional revenue our district can collect. Looking at our neighboring districts a very conservative estimate of an additional one-dollar per square foot is not an unreasonable assumption.
This amounts to added facility revenue of between $200,000 and $250,000 per year to our district. If we simply take this additional revenue and apply it to the permanent restroom project, within 18 months our district would have the necessary matching funding to construct these restrooms. The relocatable restroom project consisted of two 500 square foot buildings. With $600,000 in funding, that gives us a budget of $600 per square foot to build permanent restrooms. Surely this can be accomplished within this budget. In addition permanent restrooms last much longer than temporary ones, are less costly to maintain and look so much better over time. Simply look at the five year old temporary restrooms at Vasquez and compare them to the 15-year-old permanent restrooms at High Desert and the answer to building permanent rather than temporary louvers is obvious.