The Laguna Beach school board refused to impose a hike in fees on new construction within the district Tuesday and also questioned the premise behind the recommendation, a forecast of a 27 percent jump in enrollment and the need for $24 million in campus improvements to accommodate new students over two decades.
As a way to start recouping some of the expected costs of an enrollment jump and justify the projected need for 38 more classrooms, district staff had recommended raising existing developer fees by 40 percent, but the board ultimately rejected the proposal.
The proposal called for fees of $2.86 per square foot on new homes, up from $2.05 per square foot. Typical costs on a 2,500 square foot home would go to $7,150 from $5,125, said Jeff Dixon, facilities director. Fees underwrite portable classrooms and additions to classrooms, he added.
Dixon based his recommendation on a study by Irvine-based Dolinka Group, which advises school districts on financing and planning school facilities. The study forecast that 3,530 new homes could be built within the district’s boundaries by 2035, based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) data. A study also predicted an 800-student jump in the district’s enrollment during the same period. This year, 2,990 students currently attend the district’s four schools.
Besides the city of Laguna Beach, the district includes portions of Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods and Newport Beach. To adequately house the rising student population, the district will need to expand every campus, the study says.
Local realtor-broker Frank Hufnagel, consulted about the study’s findings, doubted its veracity. “It certainly won’t happen in the existing city limit boundaries,” he said, noting just 36 land parcels are currently listed for sale in town. Only 12 land parcels sold in the last year, he said.
About 20 acres remain undeveloped in the section of Newport Coast included in the Laguna school district, says a July 2015 district study about tax revenue from the area by David Taussig.
At build-out, the area will have 619 homes, while 583 have already been built, Taussig’s study says. At present, 105 students who attend Laguna schools are Newport Coast residents, said district spokeswoman Leisa Winston. And because of a previously established Mello-Roos taxing agreement, new Newport Coast homes would not be subject to a hike in developer fees, Winston said.
Most board members were disbelieving of the study’s findings.
Board member Jan Vickers said but doubted the study’s housing growth projections. She also was skeptical of the study’s facilities forecast, which outlined classroom needs to maintain a 20 to 1 student-teacher ratio throughout the district. “Even if we could fill up our campuses with buildings, we could not sustain that ratio with the price of staffing,” said Vickers, who objected to committing to certain staffing levels – which are in part subject to contract negotiations — in a public document.
Board member Dee Perry agreed with her questions. “I’m very uncomfortable with the number of students; I don’t think that it is realistic.”
Board member Ketta Brown expressed uncertainty on how to proceed, since board members questioned the report’s underlying data. “How do we change that? Do we just go and change numbers?” asked Brown.
Dolinka Executive Director Larry Ferchaw, who was present at the meeting, said the study outlined an aggressive plan to ensure the district maintains a 20 to 1 student-teacher ratio, but that it was also intended to preserve enrollment capacity.
“If the board has concerns with the study, we want you to be satisfied with the document,” Ferchaw said. “If these are things you would like to change, we can go back and look at it.”
Brown asked that the stipulation of 20 to 1 student-teacher ratio be removed and “future educational needs” substituted. But ultimately the board supported Vickers motion to kill the item under consideration and postpone the proposal indefinitely. Ferchaw declined to comment on the board’s actions.
Asked afterwards about his feedback on the study, Dixon said “you gotta use the best data you can find.”
[…] “Schools Reject Fee Hike on New Building” (Indy, May 13) suggests our school board “refused to impose a hike on fees,” after “district staff” put the revenue increase for homeowners on the board’s agenda. But it was the board that set fee hikes in motion last December, by approving a contract for a consultant’s report to “justify” increased school facility fees for homeowners. Spending thousands in tax dollars for a report to rubberstamp higher fees was buried on the consent calendar for approval without public discussion. […]
[…] don’t believe in coincidence. I just read two Indy articles. One was “Schools Reject Fee Hikes on New Building.” The other one was “Water District Will Raise Rates.” In each article the number 27 appears. […]