Schools Plan Fee Hikes for Residential Developers : Education: Districts hope a new state law on assessments will generate millions of dollars for capital improvements.

Several Ventura County school districts are planning to cash in on a new law that will allow them to increase the fees they assess residential developers by as much as $1 per square foot of construction.

School districts in the fast-growing cities of Oxnard, Camarillo and Moorpark are among those that plan to exercise this option, with hopes that it will generate millions of dollars for capital improvements.

Districts are now permitted to charge a maximum of $1.65 per square foot of construction. With the new law, which goes into effect next month, districts will be able to charge up to $2.65.

But the law may only be temporary because it is just one part of a complex legislative package that all hinges on the passage of a statewide ballot measure in June, 1994.

Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria), who sponsored the package, said if the ballot measure is approved by voters it will permit local school bond measures to be passed by a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds vote now required. It would also mean that any new developer fees imposed by school districts would become permanent.

However, if the ballot measure fails, new fees would have to be rescinded.

“It would mean that we would go back to Square 1,” O’Connell said.

But the assemblyman said he is confident that voters will support the ballot measure, which, combined with the new developer fees, would make it much easier for school districts to raise money locally for building projects.

“We need to help the education community,” O’Connell said. “This is an effort to help school districts meet their school facilities crisis.”

Moorpark Unified, Ventura Unified, Oxnard Union High, Oxnard Elementary and Pleasant Valley Elementary school districts are already moving to raise their fees. Some have even hired consultants to help them set new fees and to write reports to the state showing the adjustments are valid.

“Somebody has to pay,” said Sandra Herrera, assistant superintendent of the Oxnard elementary district. “The impact of residential development on schools is real. If we continue to develop, we’ve got to build schools. And we currently have no money to do that.”

Herrera said her 12,700-student district has had an annual growth rate of about 2%, or roughly 200 students, for several years. However, she said, this year the district saw enrollment jump by 400 students.

The Oxnard elementary district is now on a year-round, multitrack system--in which classes are staggered and students enter school at different times of the year--to help ease overcrowding.

Although a new $22-million intermediate school is under construction in La Colonia, school officials warn that the city is growing at a fast pace and more schools will be needed to keep up with the population growth.

The district now splits developer fees with the Oxnard Union High School District, which collects 74 cents per square foot of residential construction while the elementary system receives 90 cents.

Because their jurisdictions overlap, the two districts would evenly split whatever fee increase they decide to impose.

Some Oxnard city officials said while they support whatever action the two districts decide to take, they are wary of the effect new developer fees will have on growth and the economy in general.

“It’s going to mess up the economy,” said Councilman Michael Plisky. “It’s going to drive up housing prices, developers are going to build fewer homes and it’s going to put people out of work.”

Plisky said that the new fee amounts to nothing more than a new tax to pay for school building projects.

“I don’t blame the school districts,” he said. “I blame the state. All the state is doing is passing the buck because they don’t want to make the tough decision to raise taxes.”

Still, Plisky predicted that cities throughout the county, including Oxnard, will not interfere with the plans of their school districts.

“Cities aren’t going to say anything,” he said. “If we try to stop them, they’re going to say that we are against educating our children.”

Moorpark Mayor Paul Lawrason also expressed concerns about the effect new fees would have on the general economy in his city and throughout the state.

“It’s going to raise the cost of construction and make us less competitive in the housing market,” he said. “It’s just one more reason for industry and commerce to leave California for other states.”

Ironically, officials with the California Building Industry Assn. said they strongly support the fee increase, even though it will do nothing to stimulate new housing starts.

Dwight Hansen, a spokesman for the association, said the reason is that the fee increase could have been much worse. He said school districts and cities up and down the state have been entangled in court battles with developers for years over the amount of fees that they should pay.

He said some cities and school districts have demanded that builders pay the entire cost of new school facilities, which would involve charging $5 to $9 a square foot per construction, adding $8,000 to $15,000 on the price of a new home.

But Hansen said that those court cases have been dropped as a result of the new legislation. He said at $2.65 a square foot, the maximum allowed under the new law, the buyer of an average-sized, 1,700-square-foot home would be paying roughly $4,500 to cover those fees.

“It’s a compromise,” he said of the new law. “It could have been a disaster.”

Meanwhile, O’Connell rejected the notion that he was “passing the buck” by not raising taxes to help pay for more school facilities. He said California simply can no longer afford to meet all of the building needs of local districts.

Moreover, he said, school districts would have more say in the kinds of facilities they want to build by raising their own money.

“We should build schools to meet the needs of the local community and not the fiscal limitations of the state,” he said.

O’Connell also took issue with the charge that his measures will further weaken the state’s economy. He said instead of slowing down development, he believes his measures will encourage growth.

“The first thing realtors are asked by people looking to buy a home is about the community’s schools,” he said. “We have to provide quality education. If we don’t have good schools, modern facilities, there will be no economy in California. The economy is dependent on a well-educated, well-trained work force.”

Howard Hamilton, assistant superintendent of the Pleasant Valley Elementary School District in Camarillo, said his district is moving ahead with plans to raise its developer fees.

The 6,800-student district has long suffered from overcrowding and in the past 18 months has had two school bond measures rejected by voters. Students at Las Colinas School in the eastern part of the city are now being bused to schools at the west end.

“Thirty percent of our student population is in the eastern part of the city, where we only have two schools,” Hamilton said. “We desperately need another school.”

He said the 13-school district has grown an average of about 225 to 250 students a year for the past four years. However, this year, enrollment grew only by about 100 students, which was attributed to the recession.

“But we still grew,” Hamilton said. “The kids are still coming.”

Last week one developer in the city agreed to donate a site for a new school, but the district will still have to come up with $4 million to build it. Hamilton said the district is considering taking out a loan, but that will have to be paid back, mostly through developer fees.

All the more reason, he said, for the district to increase those fees.

“We really have no choice,” he said. “We can’t do a bake sale to build a school.”