SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY
JUNE 21, 2018
PREPARED FOR: South Fork Union School District 5225 Kelso Valley Road Weldon, CA 93283 T 760.378.4000x150
PREPARED BY: Cooperative Strategies 8955 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 T 844.654.2421
OUR MISSION
Cooperative Strategies is dedicated to assisting local educational agencies in providing quality facilities for America’s students. Our experienced and knowledgeable staff offers guidance throughout every step of the planning and financing of educational facilities—utilizing innovative technology, out-of-the-box problem solving methods, and inspiration from the best practices across the country.
It is our mission to build long-term relationships with our clients and provide them with resources and services for any and all of their needs along the way. This commitment allows our clients the peace of mind to focus on their core mission of educating students.
OUR EXPERTISE
FACILITIES PLANNING/ DEMOGRAPHIC SERVICES: • Annual and Five-Year Reports • Educational Specifications • Attendance Boundary Analyses • Enrollment Projections • Capacity Analyses • Facilities Assessments • Community Outreach • Facilities Master Planning • Design Standards & Guidelines • Facilities Usage Fee Justification Studies • Developer Fee Justification Studies • Geographic Information Systems Projects • Developer Impact Analyses • School Facilities & Funding Action Plans • Developer Negotiations • School Facilities Needs Analyses • Educational Adequacy Analyses • Trustee/Voting Areas
FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES:
• Bond Anticipation Notes • Lease Revenue Bonds
• Certificates of Participation • OPEB Benefits
• Continuing Disclosure • Redevelopment/Urban Renewal
• Debt Refunding/Restructuring • Special Tax Bonds • Funding Programs • Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes • General Obligation Bonds
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES: • Clean Energy/Energy Efficiency • Site Acquisition/Disposition
• Owner's Representation • State Funding Assistance • Project Management •
SPECIAL TAX/ASSESSMENT SERVICES: • Assessment District Administration • Community Facilities District Formation • Assessment District Formation • Delinquency/Foreclosure Assistance
• Community Facilities District Administration • Parcel Taxes
BROWSER BASED SOFTWARE: • CerTracsTM • Facility101TM
• TM • TM DisclosureCompliance myschoolLOCATION
TOC
SECTION PAGE
INTRODUCTION Letter of Interest
SECTION I Firm Overview ------1
SECTION II Scope of Services ------3
SECTION III Related Services ------10
SECTION IV Experienced Personnel ------13
SECTION V Past Projects ------16
SECTION VI References ------19
SECTION VII Fee Proposal ------21
INTRODUCTION – Letter of Interest
LETTER OF INTEREST
Debbie Kennedy Administrative Assistant South Fork Union School District 5225 Kelso Valley Road Weldon, CA 93283
RE: Proposal to Provide Developer Fee Justification Study
Dear Ms. Kennedy,
Cooperative Strategies, LLC is pleased to submit the enclosed proposal ("Proposal") to provide developer fee justification study services to South Fork Union School District ("SFUSD" or "School District") to justify statutory school fees ("Level I Fees") up to the maximum amount allowed by the State Allocation Board.
For more than 25 years, our firm has helped plan and finance school facilities for more than 2,000 Local Educational Agencies ("LEAs") across the nation. Our philosophy is to provide consulting services primarily to LEAs; we believe it is important to understand our clients' specific needs, which cannot be done as thoroughly as consultants that serve competing public sector entities. Furthermore, we believe in partnerships and building relationships to aid our clients in achieving their long-term goals and objectives.
We currently assist close to 150 school districts all across the State of California ("State") with developer fee services. Our experience includes aiding the smallest, rural districts, to some of the largest urban and suburban districts in the State. This wide range of expertise has allowed us to refine our approach to ensure nothing is missed when calculating Level I Fees, giving our clients the peace of mind that our reports can provide back up to developers and the community that the resulting fee is fully justified.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit the enclosed Proposal. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to the prospect of working with you and SFUSD!
Sincerely,
Michael Hobson Director, Client Solutions 949.250.8320 [email protected]
SECTION I – Firm Overview
FIRM OVERVIEW STATS: About Us: 25 + Cooperative Strategies was formed to offer premier YEARS consulting services to LEAs across the nation and has been OF aiding school districts in providing quality facilities for their EXPERIENCE students for over 25 years. In just the past few years, we've grown from a California-based company to a nationwide 3 firm, with 50 professionals seated in three (3) locations in U.S. California, Colorado, and Ohio. OFFICE LOCATIONS As our firm grows, we strive to continually expand our resources and offer fresh approaches to our clients with 30 + improved scale and capabilities. This includes a UNIQUE commitment to embrace technological advances and build SERVICE efficiencies so we can offer cost-effective consulting to school LINES districts all over the country, regardless of their distance from our offices. 2,000 + SCHOOL Having served more than 2,000 educational clients across 47 DISTRICTS states and several countries, we provide our clients a unique SERVED level of service that is based on the best practices in the industry. We focus on building long-term relationships, 15 + which means our services are not concentrated on a one-time BILLION transaction, but rather on the specific characteristics and DOLLARS IN future goals of our clients. BONDS
Our Services:
Our professionals are dedicated to providing school districts with unique planning solutions from an experienced perspective. We pride ourselves on focused expertise while maintaining the ability to offer a broad spectrum of customized services in the areas of facilities planning/demographics, financial advisory, program implementation and special tax/assessment services.
Our comprehensive services allow us to serve as the voice of a school district from initial planning to final construction while taking on a pivotal role in ensuring the overall educational vision is understood and accounted for at all times. By truly becoming a partner with our clients, we become an extension of the school district itself, effectively freeing up time and effort to allow administration to focus on their core mission of educating and serving students.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 1
SECTION I – Firm Overview
Our Office Locations:
OHIO 3325 Hilliard Rome Road Hilliard, OH 43026 T 614.798.8828
COLORADO 14142 Denver W. Pkwy., Ste. 280 Lakewood, CO 80401 T 720.466.8680
CALIFORNIA 8955 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 T 949.250.8300
Team Qualifications:
• Four (4) Recognized Educational Facility Planners ("REFP") by the Association for Learning Environments (formerly Council of Educational Facility Planners International ("CEFPI") • Six (6) Series 50 Qualified Municipal Advisors • Certified Geographic Information Systems Professional ("GISP") • National recognition as leaders in educational facility planning and for effective consensus-building activities • Backgrounds in education, technology, facilitation, and management • Professional training through and numerous presentations at state, national, and international organizations • Conducting and coordinating projects in 47 states and the District of Columbia, Canada, Kuwait, and Honduras • Involvement in developing prototypical elementary, middle, and high school facilities • Over 280 Educational Specifications for elementary, middle, high and other schools • Over 250 Facility Plans for urban, suburban, and rural communities • Over 3,000 Enrollment Projections • One (1) national and two (2) statewide facility assessments • Development of planning standards for state and local districts • Approximately 1,000 justification studies/impact mitigation plans
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 2
SECTION II – Scope of Services
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Developer Fee Justification Studies:
Over the past several years, we have completed one or more developer fee justification studies ("Fee Studies")/impact mitigation plans for over 150 LEAs. Not only is our approach to these analyses conceptually complete, but it has also undergone extensive legal review.
As a result, we believe that this approach provides our LEA clients with the highest available assurance that the resulting fee and/or mitigation payment structure will comply with all relevant requirements of Assembly Bill ("AB") 181, AB 1600, AB 2926, AB 2751, and other sections of the Government Code.
In addition, our methodology conforms to the findings of the Shapell Industries v. Milpitas Unified School District decision.
Our firm places a high value on timeliness, punctuality and engagement with our clients. Open communication and frequently participating in meetings in person is what has made our firm so successful in this industry. Once retained, we immediately schedule a kick-off conference call to address any potential staff concerns and answer questions regarding the fee justification process. During this call, we also provide an overview of the data needed to complete the reports and provide a proposed timeline.
Furthermore, our firm continues to provide progress updates throughout the duration of the project.
We also understand the sensitivities of the development community to the imposition of impact fees on new construction. Because of that sensitivity, we approach the preparation of Fee Studies with caution and are constantly looking out for the best interests of our clients.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 3
SECTION II – Scope of Services
Fee Studies Scope of Work:
Residential Development School Fee Justification Studies
ACTIVITY I. BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Task 1 Student Generation Factors
This task involves calculating student generation factors ("SGF") by housing category (i.e., single family detached and multi-family attached) and school level. SGFs will be calculated by comparing student enrollment of the School District to residential data provided from the County Office of the Assessor ("Assessor").
Task 2 Existing School Facilities Capacity
This task involves reviewing the school facilities capacity of the School District as reported on SAB Form 50-02 to determine the number of students that can be adequately housed at each school level. In the absence of SAB Form 50-02, Cooperative Strategies will work with the School District to calculate the school facilities capacity based on an inventory of classrooms being utilized by the School District and their corresponding student loading standards at each school level.
Task 3 Future Residential Units
This task involves reviewing general plans and specific plans of jurisdictions (e.g., city or county) served by the School District, as well as tentative and final tract maps in the School District and other data to estimate the number of future residential units by housing category that can be constructed within the School District.
ACTIVITY II. DETERMINE SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS
Task 4 Existing Capacity vs. Student Enrollment
This task involves comparing existing enrollment to facilities capacity as determined in Task 2 to determine whether any surplus seats exist to house students generated from future residential units. Cooperative Strategies will compare the enrollment to the capacity by school level.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 4
SECTION II – Scope of Services
Task 5 Student Enrollment Projections
This task involves projecting the number of students to be generated by housing category and school level from future residential units within the School District. Enrollment projections will be based on SGFs calculated in Task 1 and future units identified in Task 3.
Task 6 School Facility Needs
This task involves determining the number and type of school facilities by school level that will need to be expanded by the School District based on the projected enrollment calculated in Task 5 and the capacity of existing school facilities analyzed in Task 4. Cooperative Strategies will determine the amount of facility expansion needed to adequately house all of the students at build-out.
ACTIVITY III. SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT PER HOUSING CATEGORY
Task 7 School Facility Costs
This task involves reviewing and analyzing documents of the School District to estimate the cost of constructing or expanding the school facilities identified in Task 6. If the School District cannot provide Cooperative Strategies with sufficient/adequate cost information regarding the construction or expansion of school facilities, Cooperative Strategies will estimate school facility expansion costs based on square footage and cost allowances established by the Office of Public School Construction.
Task 8 School Facilities Impact Analysis for Residential Development
This task involves estimating the full school facilities impacts per unit and square foot of residential floor space that must be mitigated by each housing category. Residential housing impacts will be based on data and material assembled in Activities I, II, and III. If full school facilities impacts per square foot of residential floor space exceeds the new School Fee for a housing category, then the full new School Fee is justified for such housing category.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 5
SECTION II – Scope of Services
ACTIVITY IV. STUDY PREPARATION
Task 9 Study Preparation
This task involves preparing one (1) draft and one (1) final version of the report presenting the findings of the Residential Study. Cooperative Strategies shall provide the final version of the report in PDF format, in addition to bound copies in the quantity requested by the School District.
Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Studies
ACTIVITY V. SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT PER COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
Task 10 Employer Research
This task involves determining the employment generation rates per building square foot and per gross acre by commercial/industrial building and the employee migration factor for the School District. Cooperative Strategies will determine employment generation rates and employee migration factors by reviewing prior Studies prepared for the School District or analyzing data provided by the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") and the Bureau of the Census.
Task 11 Commercial/Industrial Fee Analysis
This task involves estimating the amount of developer impacts per square foot of floor space for each commercial/industrial building identified in Task 1, based on prototypical land use units of 1,000 square feet of floor space each. This task includes the following subtasks:
11.1 Employment Impacts
This subtask involves estimating the on-site employment impact of a prototypical land use unit. Employment impacts will be determined by land use and industry type, based on employment generation factors identified in Task 1.
11.2 Household Impacts
This subtask involves estimating, for each commercial/industrial building, the number of new households that will (i) locate within the School District, and (ii) generate additional demand for school facilities,
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 6
SECTION II – Scope of Services
based on the Employment Impacts per commercial/industrial building unit from Subtask 11.1. This subtask consists of six (6) additional duties, all but one of which will be applied separately to each commercial/industrial building identified in Subtask 11.1.
A. Estimate the current number of workers per household within the School District (if possible, by commercial/industrial building) based on current housing and employment estimates by state and county agencies, supplemented by the Census and other available data.
B. For each commercial/industrial building, project the number of new "total households" established by persons employed within the School District, wherever these households may reside, based on Subtasks 11.1 and 11.2.A. This is the total household impact.
C. For each commercial/industrial building, estimate the propensity to migrate, i.e., the percentage of new total households identified in Subtask 11.2.B that will reside within the School District, based on employee residence information from the Census and other sources.
D. For each commercial/industrial building, project the number of new "local households" that will locate within the School District as a direct result of commercial/industrial development within the School District, based on Subtasks 11.2.B and 11.2.C. This is the local household impact.
E. Estimate the propensity to occupy new housing, i.e., the percentage of new local households identified in Subtask 11.2.D that will reside in new housing units or displace existing households that will move into new housing units. The total percentage of new local households falling into these categories will be derived from the current ratios of new to existing home sales in the general School District area, as indicated by the State Department of Finance, Dataquick, and other sources.
F. For each commercial/industrial building, project the number of new "net local households" that will locate within the School District as a result of commercial/industrial development within the School District, based on Subtasks 11.2.D and 11.2.E. This is the net local household impact.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 7
SECTION II – Scope of Services
11.3 Student Generation Impacts by School Level
This subtask involves estimating student generation impacts by School Level for each commercial/industrial building. This subtask consists of two (2) additional duties:
A. Estimate student enrollment increases for each commercial/industrial building, based on SGFs calculated in Task 1 of the Residential Study and the net local household impacts per commercial/industrial building unit from Subtask 11.2.F.
B. Estimate additional student enrollment increases for each commercial/industrial building based on (i) employment-related interdistrict transfer rates and (ii) estimated student enrollment increases per commercial/industrial building from Subtask 11.3.A.
The sum of both student enrollment increases from Subtasks 11.3.A and 2.3.B is the student generation impact.
Task 12 School Facilities Impact Analysis for Commercial/Industrial Development
This task involves estimating the full school facilities impacts per 1,000 square feet of commercial/industrial floor space that must be mitigated by each commercial/industrial building. If the full school facilities impacts per square foot of commercial/industrial floor space for commercial/industrial building are less than the difference between the average Residential Impact per building square foot and the new Statutory School Fee, then the full impacts for that commercial/industrial building may be charged to the developer.
ACTIVITY VI. STUDY PREPARATION
Task 13 Study Preparation
This task involves preparing one (1) draft and one (1) final version of the report presenting the findings of the Commercial/Industrial Study. Cooperative Strategies shall provide the final version of the report in PDF format, in addition to bound copies in the quantity requested by the School District.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 8
SECTION II – Scope of Services
Studies Adoption Assistance
ACTIVITY VII. ASSISTANCE IN ADOPTION OF STUDIES
Task 14 Respond to Public Comments
This task involves reviewing any written comments received from members of the development community related to the Studies and assisting staff of the School District and legal counsel provide written responses to such comments.
Task 15 Preparation and Attendance at Meetings
This task involves working with staff of the School District and legal counsel to prepare for any meetings with members of the development community prior to or after the adoption of the Studies. Cooperative Strategies, at the request of the School District, will participate in such meetings to provide data or explanation for the Fee Studies.
Task 16 Attendance at Meetings of the Governing Board
This task involves attending one (1) meeting where the public hearing and/or consideration of the Studies occurs. Cooperative Strategies shall be prepared to present the Studies or answer any questions from members of the Governing Board or public related to the Studies.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 9
SECTION III – Related Services
RELATED SERVICES
School Facilities Needs Analyses:
SB 50, which Governor Wilson signed into law on August 27, 1998, radically changed the ways in which LEAs may legally seek to fund school facilities.
As voters have approved Proposition 1A, the $9.2 billion bond measure on the November 3, 1998 ballot and Proposition 1D on the November 7, 2006 ballot, the Mira-Hart- Murrieta Decisions are suspended.
In its place are now established a complex set of statutory requirements that all LEAs are forced to confront in order to obtain adequate State and local school facility funding.
Under SB 50, LEAs need to prepare school facilities needs analyses ("SFNA") on an annual basis in order to levy fees ("Level II/Level III Fees") in excess of the current residential statutory school fee on new development set by the State Allocation Board for unified school districts.
We are a leading firm in the in the preparation of SFNAs, as we have pioneered methods to ensure school districts are imposing the fees that most accurately reflect the costs of providing school facilities to accommodate growth from new residential construction.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 10
SECTION III – Related Services
School Facilities Needs Analyses (continued):
In order to qualify to charge Level II Fees, school districts must meet two (2) of the following four (4) statutory requirements:
1. The school district has "substantial enrollment" of its students on a multi-track year-round calendar. 2. The school district has placed at least one (1) general obligation bond on the ballot in the last four (4) years, and the measure received at least 50% plus one (1) of the votes cast. 3. The school district has issued debt or incurred obligations for capital outlay in an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of its bonding capacity. 4. At least 20% of the teaching stations within the school district are relocatable classrooms.
Cooperative Strategies helps school districts evaluate each of these requirements to determine if they are eligible to collect Level II Fees.
Annual and Five-Year Reports:
We prepare required developer fee annual reporting documents pursuant to Senate Bill ("SB") 1693 ("Monteith Studies").
SB 1693, which went into effect on January 1, 1997, requires all LEAs levying statutory school fees to prepare annual and five-year reports detailing the use of fees and quantifying the amount of fees which must be returned to developers, if any.
It is crucial for school districts that collect developer fees to be aware of all associated requirements. Many school districts have failed to comply in recent years. This has resulted in increased public scrutiny and in the worst case(s) school districts being forced to refund developer fees for being out of compliance.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 11
SECTION III – Related Services
Enrollment Projections:
Many school districts have experienced fluctuating enrollment in recent years. It is crucial for school districts to perform projections to understand how future enrollment will affect their staffing and facilities needs.
Since so many critical decisions are made based off enrollment, accurate projections allow school districts the ability to plan and make necessary facilities and staffing decisions.
Our firm has established a track record of assisting school districts with demographic work and demographic projections to plan for anticipated enrollment increases and decreases. We have created computer modeling mechanisms that take into account different demographic trends in different areas of school districts. These tools assist our clients in ensuring the provision of sufficient school facilities for their communities.
Cooperative Strategies' enrollment projection services include:
• Identifying Areas of Future Development • Projecting Student Enrollment for a Set Timeframe • Identifying Locations of Future School Sites • Projections by School of Attendance and/or School of Residence • Calculating Student Generation Rates • Creating/Adjusting School Attendance Boundaries
Through our extensive experience with enrollment projections, we understand such work is as much of an art as a science. There are many different variables that apply and it is important for a school district to retain a consultant with experience in creating different scenarios which encompass all possible variables.
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 12
SECTION IV – Experienced Personnel
EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL
LARRY FERCHAW SAMPLE PLANNING EXPERIENCE: Partner Anaheim Elementary School District, CA Fee Justification Studies; Mapping Services Larry Ferchaw has assisted a wide range of LEAs identify the impact of Anaheim Union High School District, new development, levy fees against CA Facilities Master Plan such development, and plan for future school facilities. Mr. Ferchaw Beaumont Unified School District, CA Facilities Master Plan has prepared various demographic and financial analyses and has assisted LEAs that range in size from Byron Union School District, CA Enrollment Projections small, rural elementary LEAs to some of the largest urban and suburban LEAs in the Country. Coachella Unified School District, CA Enrollment Projections
He specializes in projecting enrollment and analyzing Desert Sands Unified School District, CA capacities to determine future student impact on Enrollment Projections school facilities. He also aids LEAs in identifying new Fremont Unified School District, CA construction and modernization needs while Fee Justification Studies; Enrollment navigating the financial implications of such projects. Projections
Moreland School District, CA Education: Boundary Adjustments; Fee Justification Studies
• B.A., History, University of California, Los Norris School District, CA Facilities Master Plan Angeles • M.S., Journalism, Columbia University Palm Springs Unified School District, CA Enrollment Projections; Boundary Areas of Expertise: Adjustments
Redondo Beach Unified School District, • Boundary Planning & Redistricting CA • Community Outreach Fee Justification Studies; Enrollment Projections • Trustee Area Creation • Facilities Master Planning Rialto Unified School District, CA Boundary Adjustments
Notable Accomplishments: San Mateo County Community College District, CA Trustee Area Creation • Member, Coalition for Adequate School Housing Santa Clara Unified School District, CA Fee Justification Studies • Helped correct 2016 Level I developer fee rates resulting in higher fees school districts can Val Verde Unified School District, CA Fee Justification Studies; Facilities Action impose on new construction Plan
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 13
SECTION IV – Experienced Personnel
JASON MARTINEZ SAMPLE PLANNING EXPERIENCE: Senior Director Adelanto School District, CA Continuing Disclosure Jason Martinez has been assisting LEAs with a variety of services since Alvord Unified School District, CA Continuing Disclosure joining Cooperative Strategies in 2014. He specializes in identifying Bear Valley Unified School District, CA Fee Justification Studies and subsidizing the fiscal impact created by the use of a school district's facilities by Beaumont Unified School District, CA Continuing Disclosure outside organizations and has developed a number of Facilities Usage Fee Justification Studies which Campbell Union High School District, CA document the fees that an LEA can legally charge. Annual & Five-Year Reports, School Facilities Needs Analysis
Jason also performs a number of demographic studies El Segundo Unified School District, CA and voting pattern analyses, as well as oversees the Annual & Five-Year Reports, TM Fee Justification Study firm's DisclosureCompliance platform to help school districts stay in compliance with their continuing Escondido Union School District, CA Continuing Disclosure disclosure obligations. Franklin-McKinley School District School Facilities Needs Analysis Education: Manhattan Beach Unified School • B.A. in Political Science, University of District Annual & Five-Year Reports California, Riverside • J.D., Western State College of Law Menifee Union School District, CA Continuing Disclosure
Areas of Expertise: Moreland School District Fee Justification Study
• Developer Fee Justification Studies Murrieta Valley Unified School District, CA • School Facilities Needs Analyses Annual & Five-Year Reports, • CVRA Analysis & Voting Area Creation Enrollment Projections
• Facilities Usage Fee Justification Studies Oak View School District, CA • Continuing Disclosure Facilities Usage Fee Justification
Orange Unified School District, CA Notable Accomplishments: Fee Justification Study
Orcutt Union School District, CA • Member, National Association of Bond Lawyers Enrollment Projections
Richland School District, CA School Facilities Needs Analysis
Union School District, CA Enrollment Projections
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 14
SECTION IV – Experienced Personnel
ANDREW BISHOP SAMPLE PLANNING EXPERIENCE: Senior Associate Director Alum Rock Union Elementary School District, CA Andrew Bishop has provided Enrollment Projections
financial, demographic, and Anaheim Elementary School cartographic services to a wide District, CA Trustee/Voting Areas variety of LEAs since 2005. His expertise with Geographic Beverly Hills Unified School Information Systems has helped illustrate a variety of District, CA Developer Fee Justification demographic and facilities planning services for hundreds of school districts. Bonita Unified District, CA Developer Fee Justification, RIMD Administration Andrew also has extensive experience in calculating Byron Union School District, CA student generation rates to determine future student Developer Fee Justification, enrollment and the resulting impact on school facilities. Enrollment Projections
Capistrano Unified School District, Education: CA Annual and Five-Year Reports, Developer Fee Justification • B.A., Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Fremont Unified School District, CA Developer Fee Justification, Enrollment Projections, Areas of Expertise: School Facilities Needs Analysis
Hesperia Unified School District, • Developer Fee Justification Studies CA • School Facilities Needs Analyses Annual and Five-Year Reports Developer Fee Justification, • Enrollment Projections Enrollment Projections, • Capacity Analyses School Facilities Needs Analyses
• Geographic Information Systems Irvine Unified School District, CA • Assessment District Administration Annual and Five-Year Reports, • Trustee Area Redistricting Developer Fee Justification, RIMD Administration, School Facilities Needs Analyses Notable Accomplishments: Menifee Union School District, CA Annual and Five-Year Reports, • Finalist, NYC Department of Education Call for Developer Fee Justification, School Facilities Needs Analyses Innovations, Enhancing School Zoning Efforts by Predicting Population change Palm Springs Unified School District, CA Developer Fee Justification
Redondo Beach Unified School District, CA Attendance Boundary Analysis, Developer Fee Justification, Enrollment Projections
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 15
SECTION V – Past Projects
PAST PROJECTS
• ABC Unified School District • Acalanes Union High School District • Alhambra Unified School District • Alisal Union School District • Alvord Unified School District • Anaheim City School District • Apple Valley Unified School District • Arvin Union School District • Azusa Unified School District • Banning Unified School District • Barstow Unified School District • Beaumont Unified School District • Beverly Hills Unified School District • Bonita Unified School District • Brea Olinda Unified School District • Brentwood Union School District • Burbank Unified School District • Byron Union School District • Cambrian School District • Conejo Valley Unified School district • Campbell Union High School District • Coronado Unified School District • Capistrano Unified School District • Covina-Valley Unified School District • Carlsbad Unified School District • Cucamonga School District • Centralia School District • Curtis Creek School District • Claremont Unified School District • Cypress School District • Coaling-Huron Joint Unified School District • Del Mar Union School District • College School District • Delano Joint Union High School District • Delano Union School District • Downey Unified School District • Eastside Union School District • El Monte Union High School District • El Segundo Unified School district • Escondido Union School District • Escondido Union High School District • Evergreen School District • Fairfax School District • Fallbrook Union Elementary School District • Fallbrook Union High School District • Franklin-McKinley School District • Fremont Unified School District • Garvey School District • General Shafter School District • Geyserville Unified School District • Glendora Unified School District • Greenfield Union School District
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 16
SECTION V – Past Projects
• North Monterey County Unified School District
• Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District • Ocean View School District • Orange Unified School District • Orinda Union School District • Oxnard School District • Palm Springs Unified School District • Palmdale School District • Palo Verde Unified School District • Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School • Hesperia Unified School District District • Huntington Beach City School District • Pasadena Unified School District • Irvine Unified School District • Paso Robles Joint Unified School District • Jamul-Dulzura Union School District • Perris Elementary School District • Jefferson Elementary School District • Pittsburg Unified School District • Jurupa Unified School District • Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School • Kern Union High School District District • Lafayette School District • Placer Union High School District • Laguna Beach Unified School District • Poway Unified School District • Lake Elsinore Unified School District • Ramona Unified School District • Lakeside Union School District • Redondo Beach Unified School District • Las Virgenes Unified School District • Richland School District • Livermore Valley Joint Unified School • Rio Bravo-Greeley Union School District District • Long Beach Unified School District • Los Angeles Unified School District • Luther Burbank School District • Manhattan Beach Unified School District • Manteca Unified School District • Menifee Union School District • Monrovia Unified School District • Monterey Peninsula Unified School District • Moorpark Unified School District • Moreland School District • Morgan Hill Unified School District • Morongo Unified School District • Mount Pleasant School District • Mountain Empire Unified School District • Mountain View School District • Mt. Diablo Unified School District • Murrieta Valley Unified School District • Natomas Unified School District • Norris School District
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 17
SECTION V – Past Projects
• Rio School District • South Pasadena Unified School District • Romoland School District • Southern Kern Unified School District • Rosedale Union School District • Temple City Unified School District • Saddleback Valley Unified School District • Torrance Unified School District • San Bernardino City Unified School District • Tracy Unified School District • San Francisco Unified School District • Twin Hills Union School District • San Gabriel Unified School District • Twin Rivers Unified School District • San Jacinto Unified School District • Ukiah Unified School District • San Marcos Unified School District • Val Verde Unified School District • San Pasqual Union School District • Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District • Santa Ana Unified School District • Victor Valley Union High School District • Santa Clara Unified School District • Vista Del Mar Unified School District • Santa Rita Union School District • Walnut Creek School District • Santa Ynez Valley Union High School District • Wasco Union School District • Saugus Union School District • West Covina Unified School District • Savanna School District • West Sonoma County Union High School District • Scotts Valley Unified School District • Westminster School District • Sebastopol Union School District • William S. Hart Union High School District • Solvang Elementary School District • Woodland Joint Unified School District • South Monterey County Unified School District • Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 18
SECTION VI – References
REFERENCES
Entity Primary Contact Address Jason Vann Cambrian Chief Financial Officer 4115 Jacksol Drive School District 408.558.4912 San Jose, CA 95124 [email protected]
Raul Parungao Assistant Superintendent, Fremont Unified 4210 Technology Drive Business Services School District Fremont, CA 94538 510.659.2572 x12272 [email protected] George Landon Assistant Superintendent, Hesperia Unified 15576 Main Street Business Services School District Hesperia CA 92345 760.244.4411 x7238 [email protected] Kelvin Okino Executive Director, Facilities Irvine Unified 5050 Barranca Parkway Planning & Construction School District Irvine, CA 92604 949.936.5310 [email protected] James Bridges, Ed.D. 1219 Whispering Wind Jefferson Superintendent Drive School District 209.836.3422 Tracy, CA 95377 [email protected] Alan Reising Executive Director, Facilities Long Beach Unified 2425 Webster Avenue Development & Planning School District Long Beach, CA 90810 562.997.8000 [email protected] Ambur Borth Assistant Superintendent, Menifee Union 30205 Menifee Road Business Services School District Menifee, CA 92584 951.672.1851 x49120 [email protected]
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 19
SECTION VI – References
Entity Primary Contact Address Patti Ernsberger Assistant Superintendent, Moreland 4711 Campbell Avenue, Business Services School District San Jose, CA 95130 408.874.2922 [email protected] Bill Olien Assistant Superintendent, Murrieta Valley Unified 41870 McAlby Court Facilities & Operations School District Murrieta, CA 92562 951.696.1600 x1180 [email protected] Julie Arthur 980 E. Tahquitz Canyon Executive Director, Facilities, Palm Springs Unified Way Planning & Development School District Suite 202 760.416.6113 Palm Springs, CA 92262 [email protected] Janet Redella Assistant Superintendent, 1401 Inglewood Avenue Redondo Beach Unified Administrative Services Redondo Beach, CA School District 310.937.1241 92078 [email protected] Martin Rodriquez Richland CBO 300 N. Valley Street School District 661.746.8610 Shafter, CA 93263 [email protected] Shelly Morr Santa Rita Union Superintendent 57 Russell Road School District 831.443.7200 x202 Salinas, CA 93906 [email protected] Casey Goodall, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent, Tracy 1875 W. Lowell Ave. Business Services School District Tracy, CA 95376 209830.3230 [email protected]
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 20
SECTION VII – Fee Proposal
FEE PROPOSAL
The proposed fees for Cooperative Strategies to perform Fee Studies services as described in Section II of this Proposal are outlined in the table below.
Service Description Proposed Fee Developer Fee Justification Study $4,000 Performed in Fiscal Year 2018/19 (plus expenses, not to exceed $400) Multi-Year Discount: $3,600 per study Developer Fee Justification Study (plus expenses, not to exceed $360 per Performed in Fiscal Years 2018/19, year) 2019/20, & 2020/21
SOUTH FORK UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE DEVELOPER FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY PAGE 21