S.D. District Gives Builders a Break : School Fees on Housing Due Only for Newest Projects

In a victory for developers, San Diego city school trustees Tuesday voted to exempt developers who filed building permits before Jan. 8 from paying special school district fees on new and remodeled dwellings. The Legislature sanctioned the fees so districts can raise money to build and refurbish schools.

The action, which was approved over the dissenting vote of board member Dorothy Smith, means that the San Diego Unified School District will forfeit about $3.7 million in revenue if every permit--filed before Jan. 8--that is currently under consideration by city officials is approved.

A state law that went into effect Jan. 1 allows the district to assess special fees of $1.50 per square foot for residential units and 25 cents per square foot for commercial and industrial units. Anyone building or expanding residential housing in San Diego must pay the new fee before acquiring a building permit.

Pat Zoller, a school district facility planner, said the district has collected about $186,000 since Jan. 8, when the new fees became effective in San Diego. Zoller said that the district will have to refund about $153,000 to developers whose permits were approved last month but who filed them before the cutoff date.

Cash-starved school officials said they expect the district to raise $11 million from the new fees in 1987, and $70 million by 1990. But trustees said Tuesday that they need $143 million to finance the district’s most pressing projects.

The board’s decision represented a victory for developers, who argued that it would be unfair to impose the new fee on builders whose permits “were in the pipeline” before the law became effective Jan. 1, or before Gov. George Deukmejian signed the bill into law Sept. 18.

“We believe there is an equity question on the pipeline side,” developer Max Strobel told the board. “And we believe Jan. 1 to be a fair cutoff date.”

Kim Kilkenny, legislative counsel for the Construction Industry Federation, said the law is unreasonable and unfair.

“The issue is one of fairness. . . . It’s unreasonable to expect that an applicant who filed for a permit on or before Sept. 18 would know the impact of this legislation,” said Kilkenny.

Most builders who addressed the board mentioned the long waits they have had to endure before city officials approve building plans and grant permits. One builder said he recently began work on an apartment project, after filing the necessary permits in December, 1984.

Trustee Jim Roache said that he saw a “real dilemma in terms of the law’s fairness and equity.”

“I reluctantly make a motion to amend the district’s recommendation . . . (for) projects on file prior to Jan. 8, 1987, I am requesting exemptions on the fees,” Roache said.

The board voted, 4-1, for the exemptions, Trustee Smith dissenting.

“There are people out there providing housing for children and making us provide (classroom) space for them,” Smith said. “ . . . I have difficulty exempting all projects prior to Jan. 8, knowing that we have to provide (classrooms) for these children who will be living in” the new dwellings.

The trustees will vote next week to set a deadline later in the year for developers, who filed their permits before Jan. 8, to begin construction. If they do not begin construction by the deadline, they will be required to pay the new fees.