Hemet Unified School District - … · Hemet Unified School District FEE JUSTIFICATION REPORT ... Student Generation Rate Analysis Appendix D: Elementary, ... Section 66001 et seq.,

Hemet Unified School District

FEE JUSTIFICATION REPORT FOR

NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT

March 18, 2016

Hemet Unified School District Professional Development Service Center

1791 W. Acacia Avenue Hemet, CA 92545

Tel: (951) 765-5100 Ext. 5000 Fax: (951) 766-0629 Contact:

Vincent Christakos; Assistant Superintendent, Business Services

SDFA

S P E C I A L D I S T R I C T F I N A N C I N G & A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

4 3 7 W e s t G r a n d A v e n u e

E s c o n d i d o C A 9 2 0 2 5

7 6 0 2 3 3 2 6 3 0 F a x 2 3 3 2 6 3 1

Table of Contents

i

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. iii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Description of the District ........................................................................................................... 1

Synopsis of Growth .................................................................................................................... 1

Legislative History ...................................................................................................................... 1

Reconstruction/Redevelopment ................................................................................................. 3

Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3

Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 4

Residential Development ........................................................................................................................... 5

Existing Facilities Capacity and Current Enrollment .................................................................. 5

Future Residential Unit Projections ............................................................................................ 6

Student Generation Rates ......................................................................................................... 7

Students Generated By New Development ............................................................................... 8

School Facilities Required to Serve New Development ............................................................ 9

Estimated School Facilities Costs .............................................................................................. 9

Interim Housing ........................................................................................................................ 10

Total Estimated Cost per Student ............................................................................................ 11

School Facilities Impact per Dwelling Unit ............................................................................... 11

Commercial/Industrial Development ........................................................................................................ 13

School Facilities Impacts from New Commercial and Industrial Development ........................ 13

Estimated Number of Employees per Square Foot ................................................................. 13

Estimated Number of Employees Living & Working within the School District ........................ 14

Estimated Household Rate per Resident Worker .................................................................... 16

School Facilities Costs from New Commercial & Industrial Development ............................... 17

Commercial/Industrial Development Impact ............................................................................ 20

Senior Citizen Housing ............................................................................................................. 20

Conclusions & Statement of Findings ...................................................................................................... 21

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix A: Capacity Analysis

Appendix B: SCAG – Residential Development Projections

Appendix C: Student Generation Rate Analysis

Appendix D: Elementary, Middle & High School Facilities Costs

Appendix E: Interim Housing Facilities Costs

Table of Contents

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Description Page

Table I FY 2015/16 Student Enrollment 5

Table II Existing School Facilities Capacity 6

Table III Projected Future Residential Units 6

Table IV Mitigated Developments 7

Table V Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units 7

Table VI District Wide Student Generation Rate 8

Table VII Student Generation by Projected Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units 8

Table VIII School Facilities Required for Projected Unmitigated Students 9

Table IX Estimated Facilities Costs (Excluding Interim Housing & Admin. Facilities) 10

Table X Costs for Interim Housing Facilities 10

Table XI Total Estimated Facilities Costs 11

Table XII Total Facilities Costs per Pupil 11

Table XIII Total Facilities Costs per New or Reconstructed Dwelling Unit 12

Table XIV Comparison of Facilities Costs To Currently Authorized Statutory (Level I) Fee 12

Table XV Region-wide Employment per 1,000 Square Feet by Development Type 14

Table XVI Estimated Resident Employees within the City of Hemet 15

Table XVII Resident Employee Generation Factors by Business Type 16

Table XVIII City of Hemet Household Rate per Resident Employee 16

Table XIX Household Generation for Commercial/Industrial Land Uses 17

Table XX Gross School Facilities Impact for Commercial/Industrial Land Uses 18

Table XXI Unmitigated Net Facilities Cost per Dwelling Unit 19

Table XXII Unmitigated Net School Facilities Impact for Commercial/Industrial Land Uses 19

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Fee Justification Report (“Report”) for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development has been prepared by Special District Financing & Administration (“SDFA”) for the purpose of identifying the impact of projected future development on the school facilities of the Hemet Unified School District (“HUSD” or “District”). Also considered is the ability of the District’s current facilities to accommodate the impact of projected demand from new development. Finally, this Report seeks to identify the actual costs associated with meeting the increased facilities needs that result from new residential and commercial/industrial development.

Specifically, this Report is intended to provide the Governing Board of the District with the required information to make the necessary findings set forth in Government Code Section 66001 et seq., and in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 et seq., to support the District’s collection of the statutory fees allowed by the State of California. For unified school districts the current statutory fee that may be imposed on residential construction is $3.48 per square foot of assessable space for new residential development pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 and Education Code Section 17620 and $0.56 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space of commercial/industrial development pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 and Education Code Section 17620 (referred to as the “Level I Fees”). The HUSD currently collects a fee per square foot of new residential construction pursuant to Government Code Section 65995.5 under the authority of the School Facility Needs Analysis adopted on April 21, 2015 referred to as the “Level II Fee” and the Level I Fee of $3.36 per square foot of residential additions in excess of 500 square feet. The HUSD currently collects $0.54 per square foot of new commercial/industrial construction.

The findings contained in this Report include the following:

The District currently has school capacity to house approximately 19,678 students as calculated by the District pursuant to Section 17071.25 of the Education Code. Elementary school facilities are sufficient to house 7,843 students in Kindergarten through fifth grade, middle school facilities are sufficient to house 4,525 students in sixth through eighth grade, and high school capacity is sufficient for 7,310 students in ninth through twelfth grade.

Current enrollment, based upon an October 2015 Enrollment Report, is 21,657 students with a shortage at the elementary and middle school levels.

Approximately 27,337 new dwelling units (“New Dwelling Units”) and 1,664 Reconstructed Dwelling units (as defined on page 2) are anticipated to be constructed within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District by the year 2035. Of these New Dwelling Units, approximately nine percent (8.90%) have mitigated the impact of their development through the participation in a community facilities district,

iv

a negotiated fee payment or some other mitigation measure (“Mitigated New Dwelling Units”).

Historical data indicates that over two elementary/middle/high school students are generated from every five homes constructed.

Approximately 6.12 additional elementary schools, 1.62 middle schools and 1.32 high schools will need to be constructed in order to provide adequate facilities to house students to be generated solely from unmitigated projected future developments. The estimated costs of these school facilities, excluding interim housing requirements, is over 458 million dollars.

Taking into account the cost of interim housing and administrative support facilities, the total cost of school facilities results in a cost of approximately $40,620 per elementary school student, $41,998 per middle school student and approximately $54,915 per high school student. Estimated school facilities costs per new dwelling unit is approximately $18,867.

Based on discussions with the planning staff at both the City of Hemet and the City of San Jacinto, the average size of a single family detached dwelling unit projected to be constructed within the HUSD for the coming five–year period is 2,053 square feet. Based upon this average square footage, the District would need to collect approximately $9.19 per square foot of new residential development to mitigate the school facilities impacts. This amount is well in excess of the currently authorized statutory fee (i.e., Level I Fee for residential new construction) of $3.48 per square foot. Thus, the District is justified in collecting the statutory fees for residential development as permitted by state law.

Utilizing estimates regarding employee generation and associated residential household generation provided by Sourcepoint, a non-profit entity of the San Diego Association of Governments (“SANDAG”), it was determined that the District would need to collect between $1.30 and $10.66 per square foot of commercial/industrial development to mitigate the net school facilities impacts resulting from new commercial and industrial development. This amount is in excess of the currently authorized statutory fee (i.e., Level I Fee for Commercial/Industrial Fees) of $0.56 per square foot. Thus, the District is justified in collecting the statutory fees for commercial/industrial development as permitted by state law.

Absent additional state or local funding, the District will not be able to provide adequate school facilities for new residential, commercial or industrial developments within the boundaries of the District which are currently unmitigated.

HUSD - FEE JUSTIFICATION REPORT

March 18, 2016 1

INTRODUCTION

This section of the Report sets forth the legislative history as well as the methodology employed and the data sources utilized in the analysis of the District’s school facilities impacts. Also included in this section is a brief description of the District.

Description of the District

The Hemet Unified School District was established in 1966; unifying with previously established elementary and secondary schools in the valley which were established in 1892. The District currently operates one preschool, eleven elementary schools, three K-8 schools, four middle schools, four high schools, one continuation high school, two charter schools, two independent study schools, and several alternative education programs. The District encompasses approximately 647 square miles in the western part of Riverside County and includes the City of Hemet, a portion of the City of San Jacinto and the communities of Idyllwild, Anza, Aguanga and Winchester along with unincorporated regions in Riverside County. The District employs approximately 3,619 certificated and classified professionals. The District’s current student enrollment is 21,657.

Synopsis of Growth

During the 1995/96 fiscal year, the CBEDS enrollment figure for the District was 14,910. In 2015/16, the enrollment figure for the District was 21,657. Enrollment during this time has shown an increase of approximately fourty-five percent (45.25%).

Legislative History

School districts have historically relied upon state funds and local bond measures to provide funding for the acquisition and construction of new school facilities. Prior to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, a school district’s share of local property taxes was typically sufficient to build necessary schools to accommodate new development. The rapid increase in real estate prices within California during the 1970’s and 1980’s ensured that revenues would expand as the “ad valorem” tax base grew. However, limitations on the growth of this funding source were significantly constrained by the passage of Proposition 13 which limited annual increases in real estate taxes, except in the case of ownership transfers, to two percent (2%). This action, combined with a compounding need for new construction monies caused significant hardships in many school districts during the early 1980’s.

Section

One


March 18, 2016 2

In 1986 the state legislature attempted to address this funding shortfall through the enactment of Assembly Bill 2926 (“School Fee Legislation”) which provided for the imposition of development fees on new residential and commercial/industrial construction. The School Fee Legislation provides that development fees are to be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit. Furthermore, no city or county is authorized to issue a building permit for new residential or commercial/industrial projects unless it first certifies with the appropriate school district that the developer of the project has complied with the development fee requirement.

Shortly thereafter, AB 1600 (“Mitigation Fee Act”) was enacted by the state legislature, which took effect on January 1, 1989. Government Code Section 66001 et seq. sets forth the requirements for establishing, imposing and increasing development fees initially authorized under AB 2926. Specifically, the Mitigation Fee Act requires that a reasonable relationship or “nexus” exists between the type and the amount of a development fee imposed and the cost of the benefit to be derived from the fee. Specifically, Section 66001 of the Government Code with respect to the imposition of development fees provides, in pertinent part, that any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee on new development shall do all of the following:

Identify the purpose of the fee.

Identify the use to which the fee is to be put.

Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

In June of 2006, Assembly Bill 2751 was passed which added the criteria that a fee is prohibited from including the cost attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities. In the case of a school district, this would mean that existing capacity deficits could not be added to the facilities funding required from future development. In the following Report, this is demonstrated in the calculations by not including any deficit which would be shown in Table II, if existent, to the School Facilities Required for New Development (Unmitigated) (Table VIII) or to the cost of such school facilities (Tables IX, X and XI).

The development fees currently authorized under Education Code Section 17620 as of February 24, 2016, for unified school districts are $3.48 per square foot of new residential construction and $0.56 per square foot of new commercial/industrial construction (Level I Fees). These development fees may again be increased by the SAB in 2018, and every two years thereafter.

Alternative Fees, also known as Level II and Level III Fees authorized by Section 65995.5 and 65995.7 of the Government Code allow districts to impose a fee that is higher than the Level I fee. The Alternative Level II Fee, a fee that is higher than the Statutory Level I Fee, which the HUSD may impose through April 21, 2016, is equal to $4.05 per square foot of new residential construction. The Level II and Level III Fees must be recalculated and readopted annually. The Level III Fee is currently suspended pursuant to Government Code Section 65995.7(a)(2). Currently, there are no provisions which authorize Alternative Fees to be imposed on commercial/industrial development.


March 18, 2016 3

Reconstruction/Redevelopment

Reconstruction/Redevelopment means the voluntary demolition of existing residential dwelling units or commercial or industrial construction and the subsequent construction of new residential dwelling units (“Reconstruction”).

The District currently is unaware of any Reconstruction projects, more specifically, the demolishing of existing residential dwelling units replaced with new residential dwelling units, within the next five-year period. In such a situation, the District may levy Statutory School Fees authorized pursuant to Education Code Section 17620 and Government Code Sections 65995 et seq. ("Statutory School Fees") if there is a nexus established between the fee to be levied and the impact of the new residential dwelling units in excess of the impact previously existing. In other words, the Statutory School Fees must bear a nexus to the burden caused by the Reconstruction project in terms of a net increase in students generated and the fee to be imposed.

The purpose of this section is to set forth a general policy for the levy of Statutory School Fees on future Reconstruction projects within the District. The District may levy the applicable Statutory School Fees if an unmitigated impact exists once an analysis has been done on the impact on school facilities from such new residential dwelling units and consideration has been given as to the applicability of giving credit for the previously existing impacts.

The analysis will include a review as to whether the Reconstruction project results in an additional impact to the District. This will be analyzed by comparing the impact from potential new students from future dwelling units after having considered the previously existing potential students from the loss of dwelling units as a result of Reconstruction.

Statutory School Fees will be assessed only to the extent of the net actual impact of the school facilities as determined above, but in no event will the Statutory School Fees assessed be greater than the applicable authorized Statutory School Fees. The District will complete a detailed analysis utilizing the above-mentioned criteria to determine the applicability of Statutory School Fees to each Reconstruction project presented to the District.

Methodology

In order to determine the impact of new residential development on HUSD facilities, the relationship between the construction of a new residential dwelling unit and its impact on the demand for school facilities must be identified. For residential development, this determination includes the following:

Projecting the number of future unmitigated residential dwelling units to be

constructed within HUSD boundaries.

Calculating a student generation rate (i.e., students expected to be generated from each new home) for each school type (i.e., elementary, middle and high school).

Determining the number of students to be generated from new development.

Identifying the “per student cost” for new elementary, middle and high school facilities.


March 18, 2016 4

Multiplying the per student costs for elementary, middle and high school facilities by the student generation rate to determine a cost per dwelling unit.

Dividing the cost per dwelling unit by the average square feet per dwelling unit to determine the impact per square foot.

The methodology for determining the impact of new commercial/industrial development is similar. However, instead of determining the number of students to be generated per new dwelling unit, the focus is on the number of households (and corresponding students) generated per employee.

This Report contains findings regarding the impact of commercial/industrial development on the need for school facilities utilizing an approach where student generation is derived from employee densities established for various types of commercial and industrial development.

Data Sources

The primary information required to establish a nexus between new development and school facilities impacts includes residential housing projections, employment impacts from new commercial/industrial development, student generation rates and facilities cost estimates. Primary information sources regarding future housing projections included Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), and the Planning Departments of the City of Hemet, the City of San Jacinto and the County of Riverside. Some of the data for determining commercial/industrial impacts was prepared by SANDAG, the 2006-2010 American Community Survey and the 2008-2012 American Community Survey both produced by the US Census Bureau. Data used to calculate student generation rates for this Report was provided by the SCAG, Certificate of Compliance issued by the District and an October 2015 enrollment report provided by the District. Facilities cost estimates were prepared using cost information obtained from the District’s Facilities Department.


March 18, 2016 5

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

This section of the Report identifies the school facilities impact from new residential construction.

Existing Facilities Capacity and Current Enrollment

Prior to examining the school facilities impacts from new development, the District’s current capacity and enrollment were reviewed to identify existing facilities that may be available to house future students. Student enrollment for the 2015/16 school year at each grade level of the District is as follows:

Table I Fiscal Year 2015/16 Student Enrollment

Grades

2015/16 Enrollment Figures (1)

Pre-School 135

Kindergarten 1,669

First 1,423

Second 1,419

Third 1,569

Fourth 1,573

Fifth 1,477

Sixth 1,586

Seventh 1,512

Eighth 1,524

Ninth 1,608

Tenth 1,652

Eleventh 1,660

Twelfth 1,688

Adult 21

Elementary (SDC) 381

Middle (SDC) 310

High (SDC) 450

Total 2015/16 Enrollment 21,657

(1) Source: October 2015 Enrollment Report.

Section

Two


March 18, 2016 6

The District conducted a capacity analysis which is contained as Appendix A. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table II below. A comparison of current student enrollment to current capacity demonstrates that the District is impacted and lacks excess capacity at the elementary and middle school facilities levels to accommodate students from new developments.

Table II

Existing School Facilities Capacity

School Type

2015/16 Capacity

2015/16 Enrollment

Existing Seat Surplus/(Deficit)

Elementary School (Grades K-5) 7,843 9,646 (1,803)

Middle School (Grades 6-8) 4,525 4,932 (407)

High School (Grades 9-12) 7,310 7,079 231

Total 19,678 21,657 (1,979)

Future Residential Unit Projections

New Dwelling Unit Projections

Based upon the most recent released population and housing estimates of SCAG and corroborated by the County of Riverside Assessors Office and certificates of compliance for the City of Hemet and the City of San Jacinto issued by the District, it is anticipated that the percentage of growth experienced by the District during the past decade will continue in the future. As summarized in Appendix B, the SCAG’s 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, released in April 2012 and provided in the current version in February of 2014, reflects projected housing units for the areas within the boundaries of the District for the years 2008, 2020 and 2035. Table III shows the increase in dwelling units expected to occur within the jurisdictions in which the HUSD provides school facilities.

Table III Projected Future Residential Units

Residential Units as of January 1, 2016

Residential Units as of January 1, 2035

Net Increase in Dwelling Units

Percent Increase in Dwelling Units

55,467 82,804 27,337 49.29%

Reconstructed Dwelling Unit Projects

Although the District has no knowledge of currently processing Reconstruction projects, it has been assumed such will occur. The American Community Survey for the City of Hemet was reviewed for the age of the existing housing stock and detailed that only about 8.5% of the existing housing stock was built prior to 1959. We assume that the majority of the units approaching 30 years old or newer were built in compliance with modern building standards and will not likely deteriorate rapidly. Using the U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey to determine the age of housing stock, a conservative relationship of


March 18, 2016 7

housing stock built in the year 1959 or older to the total number of occupied housing units in the City of Hemet was established and it was assumed this relationship was consistent with the remainder of the District. A percentage of 3%, or less than half of the older housing stock, was applied to the total number of existing dwelling units within the boundaries of the District as detailed above (55,467) to determine an estimate of the number of dwelling units projected to be Reconstructed through 2035 (55,467 times 0.03, or 1,664 Reconstructed Dwelling Units).

As the District’s current facilities are inadequate to house currently enrolled elementary and middle school students, and current high school facilities are close to capacity, additional facilities must be added to provide capacity for students that will be generated from new development. In recognition of this fact, the District and the development community have entered into various mitigation agreements in order to ensure the timely construction of school facilities to house students from new Mitigated Development (“Mitigated Units”). Both the impact from these units on school facilities and their mitigation payments are excluded from the fee calculation in this Report. A summary of these Mitigated Units by Jurisdiction is shown below:

Table IV Mitigated Developments

Jurisdiction Total Future

Dwelling Units

County of Riverside 202

City of Hemet 1,338

City of San Jacinto 893

Total 2,433

Total projected New Dwelling Units identified in Table III plus the projected Reconstructed Dwelling Units, less Mitigated New Dwelling Units results in the total projected Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units to be built within the District by 2035. This calculation is shown in the table below:

Table V Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units

Dwelling Units Total

Total Projected New Dwelling Units 27,337

Total Projected Reconstructed Dwelling Units 1,664

Total Projected Residential Dwelling Units 29,001

Total Mitigated Dwelling Units 2,433

Total Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units 26,568

Student Generation Rates

To establish a nexus between anticipated future residential development and a corresponding need for additional school facilities, the number of future students anticipated to be generated from the new residential development must be determined. This calculation results in a student


March 18, 2016 8

generation rate, or factor, which represents the number of students, or portion thereof, expected to attend District schools from each new house. In order to accurately determine the cost of school facilities impacts at each grade level, a distinct student generation rate must be ascertained for elementary, middle and high school levels because the facilities cost per student at the elementary, middle and high school levels vary. This difference exists because generally the square footage of educational facilities per student increases as students progress to higher grades.

Data used to calculate student generation rates was provided by SCAG and the District. A tabulation of this calculation by school level is included in Appendix C and is summarized in Table VI below:

Table VI District Wide Student Generation Rate

School Type Generation Rate

Elementary School 0.1843

Middle School 0.0942

High School 0.1352

Totals 0.4138

Students Generated By New Development

The number of students estimated to be generated from projected Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units is determined by multiplying the projected number of Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units (Table V) by the student generation rate (Table VI). This computation is reflected in Table VII:

Table VII Student Generation by Projected Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units

Type of Projected

Dwelling Unit

Unmitigated

Dwelling Units

School Type

Student Generation

Rate

Students

Generated

New Dwelling Unit 24,904 Elementary 0.1843 4,590

New Dwelling Unit 24,904 Middle 0.0942 2,346

New Dwelling Unit 24,904 High 0.1352 3,367

Subtotal New Dwelling Unit 10,303

Reconstructed Dwelling Unit 1,664 Elementary 0.1843 307

Reconstructed Dwelling Unit 1,664 Middle 0.0942 157

Reconstructed Dwelling Unit 1,664 High 0.1352 225

Subtotal Reconstructed Dwelling Unit 689

Total 26,568 10,992


March 18, 2016 9

School Facilities Required to Serve New Development

In order to determine the number of schools, or portions thereof, required to serve students generated from Unmitigated New Dwelling Units, the students generated by future Unmitigated New Dwelling Units shown in Table VII, are reduced by the portion of the portion of the Excess Capacity shown in Table II by the percent allocable to Unmitigated New Dwelling Units to a total New Dwelling Units, or 91.10%. Of the 231 excess high school seats, 21 seats (8.90%) are allocated to Mitigated Developments and the remainder, or 210 seats (91.10%), are available to lower the needs of future Unmitigated New Dwelling Units. The adjusted future students are divided by the school capacity (i.e., design population) for each school type. Table VIII shows the number of new elementary, middle and high school facilities required to serve students generated from future Unmitigated New Dwelling Units.

The students generated from projected Reconstructed Dwelling Units are not added into this calculation as it is conservatively assumed that this type of dwelling unit is currently generating students and the reconstruction of such unit will not cause an increase to the number of students enrolled in the District.

Table VIII School Facilities Required for Projected Unmitigated Students

School Type

Unmitigated Students (Table VII)

Excess Seats Allocated to

Unmitigated New Dwelling Units

Adjusted Unmitigated

Students School Facility

Capacity Required Schools

Elementary 4,590 0 4,590 750 6.12 Middle 2,346 0 2,346 1,450 1.62 High 3,367 210 3,157 2,400 1.32 Total 10,303 210 10,093

Estimated School Facilities Costs

To calculate the cost for elementary, middle and high school facilities, SDFA relied on actual historical costs and current estimates of costs associated with the construction of elementary, middle and high school facilities in the District. These numbers reflect the District’s estimate of land acquisition and construction costs, furniture, equipment costs and technology.

The estimated costs for elementary, middle and high school facilities are shown below. The aggregate facilities cost impact from Unmitigated New Dwelling Units is determined by multiplying the facilities cost by the required number of schools reflected in Table VIII. This resulting impact is shown in Table IX:


March 18, 2016 10

Table IX Estimated Facilities Costs (Excluding Interim Housing & Admin. Facilities)

School Type

Required Schools

Facilities Cost

Total Cost

Elementary 6.12 $29,822,830 $182,515,720

Middle 1.62 $59,133,217 $95,795,812

High 1.32 $136,882,157 $180,684,447

Total $458,995,979

Interim Housing

In addition to elementary, middle and high school facilities, new development imposes additional facilities impacts on school districts. The first of these impacts is because development fees are collected at the time a building permit is issued, funds to provide facilities accumulate over a period of time and revenues, particularly when other local or state funds are not available, are not sufficient to build a school when development so warrants. The solution to this problem is most often addressed through “interim housing” in which the District purchases or leases relocatable classrooms that are used to temporarily alleviate overcrowding at existing school sites. As shown in Appendix E, the HUSD has determined that currently it costs the District approximately $2,773 per elementary school student, $3,175 per middle school student and $4,395 per high school student, respectively, to provide interim housing until new facilities are available.

The second impact new development imposes, in addition to school facilities, is the need for additional central administrative facilities and support facilities. These are required as new students place incremental demands on school administration. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 341, SB1612, the SAB adopted a report on January 26, 1994, requiring approximately four (4) square feet of central support facilities for every student. Based on this report and the estimated cost per square foot to construct and furnish these types of facilities, a Central Administrative and Support Facilities cost impact of $800 per student has been utilized. The total cost of ancillary facilities is shown in Table X below.

Table X

Costs for Interim Housing Facilities

School Type

Adjusted Unhoused

Students from Unmitigated New

Dwelling Units

Interim Housing Cost

Per Student

Unadjusted Unhoused Students

Generated from Unmitigated

New Dwelling Units

Central Administration

and Support per Student Cost

Total Ancillary Facilities Cost

Elementary 4,590 $2,773 4,590 $800 $16,400,070 Middle 2,346 $3,175 2,346 $800 $9,325,350 High 3,157 $4,395 3,367 $800 $16,568,615


March 18, 2016 11

Total 10,093 10,303 $42,294,035

Thus, the estimated total cost of school facilities (Table IX) and ancillary facilities (Table X) necessary to accommodate students generated from New Unmitigated Dwelling Units is shown in Table XI:

Table XI Total Estimated Facilities Costs

School Type School

Facilities Ancillary Facilities

Total Cost

Elementary $182,515,720 $16,400,070 $198,915,790

Middle $95,795,812 $9,325,350 $105,121,162

High $180,684,447 $16,568,615 $197,253,062

Total $458,995,979 $42,294,035 $501,290,014

Total Estimated Cost per Student

The estimated facilities cost for each elementary, middle and high school student is derived by dividing the total estimated school facilities costs for elementary, middle and high school facilities (Table XI) by the respective number of elementary, middle and high school students expected to be generated from Unmitigated New Dwelling Units and projected Reconstructed Dwelling Units. For this calculation, students generated from both New Dwelling Units and Reconstructed Dwelling Units are included as both types of dwelling units are required to pay the Statutory Level I Fee. The total estimated facilities cost per student is shown below:

Table XII Total Facilities Costs per Pupil

School Level

School Facilities & Ancillary

Cost Future

Students Total Facilities Cost

per Student

Elementary $198,915,790 4,897 $40,620

Middle $105,121,162 2,503 $41,998

High $197,253,062 3,592 $54,915

Total $501,290,014 10,992 . School Facilities Impact per Dwelling Unit

The total estimated facilities cost for each Unmitigated New Dwelling Unit and projected Reconstructed Dwelling Unit is determined by multiplying the total facilities cost per student (Table XII) by the applicable student generation rate (Tables VI) and is shown below:


March 18, 2016 12

Table XIII Total Facilities Costs per New or Reconstructed Dwelling Unit

School Level Total Facilities Cost

per Student Student

Generation Rate Facilities Cost

per Dwelling Unit

Elementary School $40,620 0.1843 $7,486.27

Middle School $41,998 0.0942 $3,956.21

High School $54,915 0.1352 $7,424.51

Total 0.4137 $18,866.99

As determined through discussions with planning staff at the City of Hemet and the City of San Jacinto, the average size of a single family detached dwelling projected to be constructed within the HUSD for the coming five-year period is 2,053 square feet. Dividing the total facilities cost per dwelling unit by the average size of a dwelling unit yields a school facilities cost of $9.19 per square foot.

This Report demonstrates that the school facilities impact amount per square foot equals $9.19 for all Unmitigated New and Reconstructed Dwelling Units within the boundaries of the District. Thus, there is full justification for collecting the maximum Level I Fee allowed in the amount of $3.48 per square foot for a unified school district (K-12).

Since the District’s school facilities impact per square foot is greater than the allowable statutory fees, the District actually suffers unmitigated impacts from new residential development, which not only supports the collection of the statutory fee for residential developments, but also those fees for new commercial/industrial development as provided for in Section Three of this Report. Table XIV summarizes the true costs of new development and compares that cost to the amount the District is currently authorized to collect.

Table XIV Comparison of Facilities Cost to Currently Authorized Statutory (Level I) Fee

Facilities Cost per

Dwelling Unit

Facilities Cost

per Square Foot

Statutory Level I Fee

per Square Foot

Statutory Fee (Deficit)

per Square Foot

$18,866.99 $9.19 $3.48 ($5.71)


March 18, 2016 13

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

This section of the Report identifies the school facilities impact from new commercial and industrial development.

School Facilities Impacts from New Commercial and Industrial Development

Just as the District is required to identify the impact of new residential development on student enrollment and a corresponding need for additional school facilities, a similar nexus must be established between new commercial/industrial development and the corresponding need for additional school facilities. A four-step methodology was used to quantify the impact of new commercial and industrial development on the need for school facilities. This methodology incorporates “employment densities” for various commercial and industrial types which have been generated by SANDAG. The methodology includes the following actions:

1. Determine the number of employees required per square foot for specific types of commercial and industrial development (i.e., new jobs created within the school district).

2. Determine the number of new employees that would both live and work within the District.

3. Determine the number of occupied housing units that would be associated with new employees.

4. Determine the school facilities impact generated from these employees utilizing the “per dwelling unit” facilities costs computed in Section Two.

The following discussion incorporates the four-step methodology and identifies the school facilities impact for various commercial and industrial developments.

Estimated Number of Employees per Square Foot

Because the utilization of commercial and industrial buildings varies significantly, in order to estimate the number of employees and hence, the number of school age children generated by employees, it is important that the relationship between the size of any commercial/industrial development and its associated employee base, be established for various development or land use types. To do this, SDFA relied on survey results published in SANDAG’s report entitled Traffic Generators published in April of 2002. This report reflects data gleaned from a site specific employment inventory of diverse developments throughout San Diego County. Multiple

Section

Three


March 18, 2016 14

sites for 17 different development types are included in the survey data and the square footage and number of employees has been averaged for each development type yielding the average number of employees per 1,000 square feet as shown in the following table:

Table XV Region-Wide Employment per 1,000 Square Feet by Development Type(1)

Development Type

Square Feet of Development

Type Total

Employees Employees per

1,000 Square Feet(2)

Banks 9,203 26 2.825

Car Dealers* 28,433 57 2.005

Commercial Offices (<100,000 sqft) 27,100 130 4.797

Commercial Offices (>100,000 sqft) 135,433 625 4.615

Commercial Strip Center* 27,677 50 1.807

Community Shopping Center 151,525 363 2.396

Corporate Office (Single User) 127,331 342 2.686

Discount Retail Club 128,679 215 1.671

Industrial Parks (No Commercial) 351,266 733 2.087

Industrial Plants (Mult. Shift)* 456,000 1,120 2.456

Industrial/Business Parks 260,379 972 3.733

Lodging 165,200 184 1.114

Medical Offices 22,507 96 4.265

Neighborhood Shopping Center 69,509 178 2.561

Regional Shopping Center 1,496,927 2,777 1.855

Restaurants* 5,267 48 9.113

Scientific Research & Development 221,184 673 3.043 (1) Source: SANDAG Publication April 2002, Traffic Generators, except as noted by*. Asterisked development types were sourced from a previous Sourcepoint 1990 Study. (2) Employees/1000 Square Feet = Total Employment/Square Feet of Each Development Type

Estimated Number of Employees Living & Working within the School District

In order to determine the minimum number of students that will be generated as a result of new commercial/industrial development, an estimate of the number of employees (i.e., parents of the children expected to attend schools within the District) that will both work and live within the District must be determined. Data is only available at the city level, and as such, it was conservatively estimated that the relationship of residency to location of employment for the City of Hemet was consistent with that of the District. This is conservative because it only takes into account employees that both live and work in the City of Hemet, ignoring those employees that work and live in the District at large.

Hemet is a growing, thriving community. The City of Hemet (“the City”) has experienced an economic growth and has moved quickly to establish itself as a recognized retail growth area. Retail sales, although strained through the most recent economic cycle, grew consistently from 2002 to 2008. Information regarding resident employees (i.e., employees who work in their place of residence) for the City was derived from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey


March 18, 2016 15

published by the U.S. Census Bureau (the most current source of said information). Of the employees identified as residing within the City, approximately 37.87% (i.e., a Residential Employee Generation Rate of .3787 as reflected in Table XVI) reported working within their place of residence.

Table XVI

Estimated Resident Employees within the City of Hemet (1)

Jurisdiction Total Estimated Employees (2)

Estimated Number of Resident Employees

within the City of Hemet

Residential Employee Generation

Rate City of Hemet 23,251 8,806 0.3787

(1) Resident Employees are employees that both reside and work within the applicable jurisdiction. (2) Source: Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey.

It should be noted that by considering only those employees that both live and work within the City of Hemet, the District is again being conservative in its estimate of the impact of commercial/industrial development on student enrollment because the methodology identified herein does not take into account any students who may attend schools within the District as a result of Education Code Section 48204 (i.e., interdistrict transfers). Section 48204 of the Education Code permits employees working within the school district boundaries who do not reside within the boundaries of the school district to request that their children be permitted to attend a school within the boundaries of the District in which they work.

Nevertheless, by multiplying the number of employees per thousand square feet as shown in Table XV by the district-wide Residential Employee Generation Rate (“REGR”), one can derive a REGR for the various commercial/industrial development types. The following table indicates that for every 1,000 square feet of new commercial or industrial development, expected residential employee generation ranges from a low of 0.422 employees for Lodging to a high of 3.451 employees for Restaurants.


March 18, 2016 16

Table XVII Resident Employee Generation Factors by Business Type

Development Type

Employees per 1,000 Square Feet

Resident Employee

Generation Rate

Resident Employee

Generation Factors

Banks 2.825 0.3787 1.070

Car Dealers 2.005 0.3787 0.759

Commercial Offices (<100,000 sqft) 4.797 0.3787 1.817

Commercial Offices (>100,000 sqft) 4.615 0.3787 1.748

Commercial Strip Center 1.807 0.3787 0.684

Community Shopping Center 2.396 0.3787 0.907

Corporate Office (Single User) 2.686 0.3787 1.017

Discount Retail Club 1.671 0.3787 0.633

Industrial Parks (No Commercial) 2.087 0.3787 0.790

Industrial Plants (Mult. Shift) 2.456 0.3787 0.930

Industrial/Business Parks 3.733 0.3787 1.414

Lodging 1.114 0.3787 0.422

Medical Offices 4.265 0.3787 1.615

Neighborhood Shopping Center 2.561 0.3787 0.970

Regional Shopping Center 1.855 0.3787 0.702

Restaurants 9.113 0.3787 3.451

Scientific Research & Development 3.043 0.3787 1.152

Estimated Household Rate per Resident Worker

In order to quantify the impact of these residential workers on the District, two additional relationships must be established. The first of these is the number of households per resident worker.

By dividing the estimated number of residential workers within the City (Table XVI) by the estimated number of dwelling units within the City (U.S. Census – 2008-2012 American Community Survey), one can estimate the number of dwelling units produced per employee (i.e., the Household Rate). Although a more current figure exists for the number of occupied housing units (i.e. 30,585 sourced from the U.S. Census – 2010-2014 American Community Survey) the figure below is not updated to maintain the relationship to the Estimated Number of Resident Employees within the City of Hemet percentage determined and used above. The household rate shown in the following table shows the estimated resident employees within the City.

Table XVIII City of Hemet Household Rate Per Resident Employee

Resident Employees Within the City of Hemet

Occupied Housing

Units Household

Rate (1)

8,806 30,096 29.26%

(1) Household Rate = Resident Workers /Occupied Housing Units.


March 18, 2016 17

By applying the household generation rate of 29.26% to the Resident Employee Generation Factors shown in Table XVIII, housing units required per employee for each commercial/industrial land use category can be determined. Expected household generation per 1,000 square feet of commercial/industrial development appears in the following table:

Table XIX Household Generation for Commercial/Industrial Land Uses

Development Type

Resident Employee

Generation Factor

Household

Rate

District Households per

1,000 Square Feet

Banks 1.070 0.2926 0.313

Car Dealers 0.759 0.2926 0.222

Commercial Offices (<100,000 sqft) 1.817 0.2926 0.532

Commercial Offices (>100,000 sqft) 1.748 0.2926 0.511

Commercial Strip Center 0.684 0.2926 0.200

Community Shopping Center 0.907 0.2926 0.265

Corporate Office (Single User) 1.017 0.2926 0.298

Discount Retail Club 0.633 0.2926 0.185

Industrial Parks (No Commercial) 0.790 0.2926 0.231

Industrial Plants (Mult. Shift) 0.930 0.2926 0.272

Industrial/Business Parks 1.414 0.2926 0.414

Lodging 0.422 0.2926 0.123

Medical Offices 1.615 0.2926 0.473

Neighborhood Shopping Center 0.970 0.2926 0.284

Regional Shopping Center 0.702 0.2926 0.205

Restaurants 3.451 0.2926 1.010

Scientific Research & Development 1.152 0.2926 0.337

School Facilities Costs from New Commercial & Industrial Development

The final step involves applying the school facilities costs determined in Section Two to the Household Generation Rate. Since the school facilities cost per new home was already identified in Table XIV, by applying the total cost per dwelling unit to the Household Generation Rate shown in Table XIX, the gross school facilities impact of commercial/industrial development can be determined. The resulting facilities cost per square foot is shown in Table XX and ranges from approximately $2.32 to $19.06 per square foot of development.


March 18, 2016 18

Table XX Gross School Facilities Impact for Commercial/Industrial Land Uses

Development Type

District Households

per 1,000 Square Feet of

Non-Residential Development

School Facilities Cost per

Dwelling Unit

Gross Facilities Cost per Square Foot of

Commercial/Industrial Development

Banks 0.000313 $18,866.99 $5.91

Car Dealers 0.000222 $18,866.99 $4.19

Commercial Offices (<100,000 sqft) 0.000532 $18,866.99 $10.04

Commercial Offices (>100,000 sqft) 0.000511 $18,866.99 $9.64

Commercial Strip Center 0.000200 $18,866.99 $3.77

Community Shopping Center 0.000265 $18,866.99 $5.00

Corporate Office (Single User) 0.000298 $18,866.99 $5.62

Discount Retail Club 0.000185 $18,866.99 $3.49

Industrial Parks (No Commercial) 0.000231 $18,866.99 $4.36

Industrial Plants (Mult. Shift) 0.000272 $18,866.99 $5.13

Industrial/Business Parks 0.000414 $18,866.99 $7.81

Lodging 0.000123 $18,866.99 $2.32

Medical Offices 0.000473 $18,866.99 $8.92

Neighborhood Shopping Center 0.000284 $18,866.99 $5.36

Regional Shopping Center 0.000205 $18,866.99 $3.87

Restaurants 0.001010 $18,866.99 $19.06

Scientific Research & Development 0.000337 $18,866.99 $6.36

The amounts shown in Table XX represent the gross school facilities costs resulting from each square foot of new commercial and industrial construction. These amounts would need to be collected to fully mitigate the impact of new commercial and industrial developments where the employees are commuting from areas outside of the HUSD or are residing in existing housing within the boundaries of the District and for which no mitigation was received at the time that the dwelling units were constructed. However, a significant number of Resident Employees will reside in new dwelling units for which mitigation payments in the form of Level I Fees or Alternative (Level II and Level III) Fees will be paid. For those commercial and industrial developments that employ individuals who will reside in new unmitigated dwelling units located within the boundaries of the HUSD, the unmitigated or net facilities cost per square foot of commercial and industrial development should be computed.

To identify the unmitigated or net facilities cost per square foot of commercial and industrial development, the facilities fee per square foot of new, residential development is subtracted from the gross facilities cost shown in Table XX. The following tables show the unmitigated net facilities cost per dwelling unit under the two possible fee scenarios: statutory Level I Fee or Alternative Level II Fee.


March 18, 2016 19

Table XXI Unmitigated Net Facilities Cost per Dwelling Unit

Cost/Unit Item Statutory Level I Fee Alternative Level II Fee(1)

Residential Fee Per Square Foot $3.48 $4.05

Average Square Feet of Dwelling Unit 2,053 2,053

Facilities Cost Per Dwelling Unit $18,866.99 $18,866.99

Less Fee per D/U from New Residential Construction $7,144.44 $8,314.65

Net Deficit per D/U after Residential Fee $11,722.55 $10,552.34 (1) The Alternative Fee shown is valid as of the date of this report. A new Level II Fee is expected to be presented to the Board on

April 19, 2016.

By multiplying the net deficit per dwelling unit after the collection of Statutory or Alternative School Fees, as shown in Table XXI, by the number of households produced per square foot of new commercial and industrial development, the new net commercial and industrial school facilities impact can be determined for the various types of new commercial and industrial development under three possible scenarios. This computation is shown for each of the residential fee scenarios in Table XXII:

Table XXII Unmitigated Net School Facilities Impact for Commercial/Industrial Land Uses

Development Type

District Households

per 1,000 Square Feet of Non-Residential

Development

Required Commercial / Industrial Fee

(Per Square Feet) Statutory Level I Fee

Required Commercial / Industrial Fee

(Per Square Feet) Level II Fee

Banks 0.000313 $3.67 $3.30

Car Dealers 0.000222 $2.60 $2.34

Commercial Offices (<100,000 sqft) 0.000532 $6.24 $5.61

Commercial Offices (>100,000 sqft) 0.000511 $5.99 $5.39

Commercial Strip Center 0.000200 $2.34 $2.11

Community Shopping Center 0.000265 $3.11 $2.80

Corporate Office (Single User) 0.000298 $3.49 $3.14

Discount Retail Club 0.000185 $2.17 $1.95

Industrial Parks (No Commercial) 0.000231 $2.71 $2.44

Industrial Plants (Mult. Shift) 0.000272 $3.19 $2.87

Industrial/Business Parks 0.000414 $4.85 $4.37

Lodging 0.000123 $1.44 $1.30

Medical Offices 0.000473 $5.54 $4.99

Neighborhood Shopping Center 0.000284 $3.33 $3.00

Regional Shopping Center 0.000205 $2.40 $2.16

Restaurants 0.001010 $11.84 $10.66

Scientific Research & Development 0.000337 $3.95 $3.56


March 18, 2016 20

Commercial/Industrial Development Impact

The school facilities impact shown above represents the net cost to provide school facilities required to serve new students resulting from the construction of new commercial/industrial development assuming that a portion of the impact has already been mitigated by new residential construction. As previously noted, this amount does not reflect the gross impact of new commercial/industrial development where some portion of the new employees will be housed in existing housing (from which no additional residential impact fee may be collected) or from interdistrict transfers due to employment. However, as can be seen in Table XXII, assuming that the District received the proposed or currently adopted corresponding residential Statutory Level II Fees for all new residential development, it would still be justified in collecting between $1.30 and $10.66 per square foot per commercial/industrial development in order to fully mitigate the impact of new commercial and industrial development. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(b) (2), a unified school district is only authorized to collect $0.56 per square foot of new commercial/industrial development. Therefore, for all commercial/industrial development types shown in Table XXII, HUSD is justified in levying the maximum fee of $0.56 per square foot of commercial or industrial development.

Senior Citizen Housing

As it relates to the imposition of developer fees upon senior citizen housing projects, Section 65995.1(a) of the Government Code reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, as to any development project for the construction of senior citizen housing, as described in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, a residential care facility for the elderly as described in subdivision (k) of Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or a multilevel facility for the elderly as described in paragraph (9) of subdivision (d) of Section 15432, any fee charge, dedication or other requirement that is levied under Education Code Section 17620 may be applied only to new construction and is subject to the limits and conditions applicable to under subdivision (b) of Section 65995 in the case of commercial or industrial development.

The District acknowledges that students will not reside in senior citizen housing units. However, the development of such housing generally generates jobs for facilities maintenance and administration, and in the case of assisted care living situations, health professionals. These jobs may be filled by persons living either within the boundaries of the District or outside the boundaries of the District. In either case, the employees may enroll their students in the District. As a result, some students may be generated by the development of new senior citizen housing. The District acknowledges Section 65995.1 and will levy its share of developer fees on any senior citizen housing projects at the current commercial/industrial rate of $0.56 per square foot. The District will require proof that such senior units are indeed restricted to seniors i.e. a copy of recorded CC&Rs or deed(s).


March 18, 2016 21

CONCLUSIONS & STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

Based upon the data gathered by SDFA regarding future development within the boundaries of the HUSD, student generation, school facilities costs and the methodology employed to determine the school facilities impact from new residential and commercial development, HUSD makes the following findings pursuant to Section 66001 of the California Government Code:

The purpose of the fee is to pay for the construction and/or acquisition of new public school facilities necessary to serve students expected to be generated from new residential and commercial/industrial development.

The fees will be collected and may be used to repay debt service for financing issued for the purpose of providing new school facilities or to pay directly for the acquisition and/or construction of such facilities. The fees may also be used to pay for the leasing or acquisition of portable classrooms to meet the temporary needs of students generated from new development.

There is a reasonable relationship between the expected use of the fee (i.e., new school facilities) and the development on which the fee is imposed (i.e., new residential, commercial and industrial development) because additional students will be generated by new residential and commercial/industrial development.

There is a reasonable relationship between the number of new residential units constructed and the number of elementary, middle and high school students expected to be generated from the construction of such units. There is also a reasonable relationship between the construction of new commercial/industrial development and the number of students expected to be generated from the construction of such commercial/industrial development, as students and the parents of students will be employed by new businesses occupying the new commercial or industrial development and a portion of the students and/or the students’ parents will also choose to live within the boundaries of the District.

There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee identified in this Report and the cost of the school facilities to be constructed and deemed necessary to serve new residential and commercial/industrial developments.

As identified in Section Two, the District would need to collect approximately $9.19 per square foot of new residential development to mitigate the school facilities impacts. This amount is well in excess of the currently authorized statutory fee (i.e., Level I Fee) of $3.48 per square foot. Thus, the District is justified in collecting the statutory fees for residential development as permitted by state law.

Section

Four


March 18, 2016 22

As identified in Section Three, the District would need to collect between $1.30 and $10.66 per square foot of commercial/industrial development after collecting the Level II Fee to mitigate the net school facilities impacts resulting from new commercial and industrial development. This amount is in excess of the currently authorized statutory fee (i.e., Level I Fee on commercial or industrial development) of $0.56 per square foot. Thus, the District is justified in collecting the maximum statutory fees for commercial/industrial development as permitted by state law.


March 18, 2016 23

APPENDICES






Section

Five


March 18, 2016


Hemet Unified School DistrictUpdate to Existing School Building Capacity

The District conducted a capacity analysis pursuant to Section 17071.25 of the Education Code, which analysis was recalculated for this SFNAin accordance with Government Code Section 65995.6 as amended by Assembly Bill 695 of the 1999 Legislative Session (“AB 695”).

Part I. Classroom InventoryK-5 6-8 9-12 Severe Non-Severe Total

Line 1 Leased State Relocatable Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0Line 2 Portable Classrooms leased less than 5 years 0 0 0 0 0 0Line 3 Interim Housing Portables leased less than 5 years 0 0 0 0 0 0Line 4 Interim Housing Portables leased at least 5 years 0 0 0 0 0 0Line 5 Portable Classrooms leased at least 5 years 0 0 0 0 0 0Line 6 Portable Classrooms owned by the District 211 87 129 12 16 455Line 7 Permanent Classrooms 202 134 228 31 59 654Line 8 Total of Above: 413 221 357 43 75 1,109

Part II. Available Classrooms

Option A K-5 6-8 9-12 Severe Non-Severe Totala. Part I, Line 4 0 0 0 0 0 0b. Part I, Line 5 0 0 0 0 0 0c. Part I, Line 6 211 87 129 12 16 455d. Part I, Line 7 202 134 228 31 59 654e. Total of Above: 413 221 357 43 75 1,109

Option B K-5 6-8 9-12 Severe Non-Severe Totala. Part I, Line 8 413 221 357 43 75 1,109b. Part I, Lines 1, 2, 5 and 6 (total only) 455c. 25 percent of Part I, Line 7 (total only) 164d. Subtract c from b (enter 0 if negative) 121 65 105 0 0 291e. Total (a minus d) 292 156 252 43 75 818

Part III. Determination of Existing School Building CapacityK-5 6-8 9-12 Severe Non-Severe Total

Line 1 Classroom Capacity 7,300 4,212 6,804 387 975 19,678Line 2 SER Adjustment 0Line 3 Operational Grants 0Line 4 Greater of Lines 2 or 3 0Line 5 Total of Lines 1 and 4 7,300 4,212 6,804 387 975 19,678

Note: The Non-Severe and Severe capacity is divided among the school types as follows:K-5 6-8 9-12 Total

Non-Special Needs Capacity 7,300 4,212 6,804 18,316Proration of Non-Severe Capacity 389 224 362 975Proration of Severe Capacity 154 89 144 387Total 7,843 4,525 7,310 19,678

Fall 2015 Appendix A - Page 1


March 18, 2016



Source: Southern California Association of Governments

Integrated Growth Forecast Data to 2035 by Traffic Analysis Zone

SCAG's 2012‐2035 Regional Transportaton Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) adopted in April 2012

Data Date: February 2014 (Most recent as of January 2016)

Tier2 (TAZ) Location

Percent in

District**

2008

Households

2020

Households

2035

Households

43346200 Hemet 95.93% 1,144 1,193 2,012

43347300 Hemet 96.86% 4 41 871

43347400 Hemet 95.42% 0 107 203

43350100 Hemet 99.81% 0 0 0

43350200 Hemet 10.46% 2 2 3

43350300 Hemet 99.89% 0 25 316

43351100 Hemet 100.00% 291 711 1,805

43351200 Hemet 100.00% 861 952 1,188

43351400 Hemet 100.00% 355 355 454

43351500 Hemet 99.59% 164 354 843

43351600 Hemet 99.77% 340 528 1,177

43352100 Hemet 100.00% 661 704 748

43354100 Hemet 100.00% 1,654 1,654 1,672

43355100 Hemet 7.78% 2 3 6

43355200 Hemet 100.00% 1,274 1,274 1,370

43355300 Hemet 99.83% 388 426 817

43355400 Hemet 100.00% 651 651 655

43355500 Hemet 100.00% 1,611 1,657 2,090

43356100 Hemet 100.00% 700 759 815

43356200 Hemet 100.00% 1,094 1,100 1,112

43356300 Hemet 100.00% 223 272 467

43357100 Hemet 100.00% 347 367 413

43357300 Hemet 66.36% 171 271 725

43357400 Hemet 100.00% 311 315 323

43357600 Hemet 99.50% 315 457 669

43357700 Hemet 99.55% 380 547 923

43357800 Hemet 100.00% 164 177 229

43358100 Hemet 100.00% 933 933 940

43358200 Hemet 100.00% 681 683 698

43360100 Hemet 100.00% 429 429 437

43360200 Hemet 100.00% 1,306 1,310 1,402

43360300 Hemet 100.00% 129 256 302

43361100 Hemet 100.00% 1,329 1,329 1,369

43363100 Hemet 100.00% 606 690 856

43363200 Hemet 100.00% 1,507 1,543 2,084

43363300 Hemet 100.00% 209 322 487

43363400 Hemet 100.00% 126 350 692

43364100 Hemet 99.69% 425 464 501

43364200 Hemet 29.78% 208 224 309

43364600 Hemet 99.56% 331 331 331

43365100 Hemet 100.00% 266 275 291

43365200 Hemet 100.00% 75 92 282

43365300 Hemet 100.00% 219 219 222

43365400 Hemet 100.00% 274 330 469

43366100 Hemet 100.00% 449 452 467

43366200 Hemet 100.00% 533 583 592

43367100 Hemet 100.00% 958 964 991

43368100 Hemet 99.48% 496 501 522

43368200 Hemet 5.13% 14 16 24

43368300 Hemet 98.52% 372 372 376

43371100 Hemet 18.47% 128 144 148

43371200 Hemet 95.48% 228 228 243

HUSD ‐ Growth Forecast by TAZ ‐ Received Feburary 2014 Appendix B ‐ Page 1 of 4







Percent in

District**

2008

Households

2020

Households

2035

Households

43373100 Hemet 100.00% 552 743 959

43373200 Hemet 100.00% 413 451 479

43374100 Hemet 81.37% 743 753 1,107

43374200 Hemet 23.70% 38 65 94

43374300 Hemet 3.05% 15 15 16

43374400 Hemet 98.42% 174 174 184

43374500 Hemet 19.68% 95 116 165

43374800 Hemet 99.86% 0 6 624

43376100 Hemet 99.92% 162 170 184

43377100 Hemet 10.78% 33 46 57

43380100 Hemet 100.00% 335 366 416

43381200 Hemet 2.31% 15 17 19

43381300 Hemet 100.00% 52 52 52

43381400 Hemet 98.54% 308 437 860

43382100 Hemet 6.48% 17 53 107

43382700 Hemet 2.27% 14 17 20

43382800 Hemet 93.24% 284 367 648

43442100 Hemet 0.30% 1 1 2

43442600 Hemet 7.63% 3 4 5

43351300 San Jacinto 99.81% 21 95 988

43353700 San Jacinto 82.70% 21 37 558

43357200 San Jacinto 99.58% 34 108 608

43357300 San Jacinto 33.48% 86 137 366

43357500 San Jacinto 99.96% 369 511 598

43364300 San Jacinto 34.75% 79 153 227

43374100 San Jacinto 9.93% 91 92 135

43374200 San Jacinto 76.25% 124 209 301

43374300 San Jacinto 2.45% 12 12 13

43377100 San Jacinto 6.10% 19 26 32

43341400 Unincorporated 99.98% 128 217 618

43341500 Unincorporated 100.00% 128 173 265

43341600 Unincorporated 100.00% 132 168 256

43341800 Unincorporated 99.96% 95 432 969

43342100 Unincorporated 93.47% 17 178 523

43342200 Unincorporated 94.78% 1 112 329

43342300 Unincorporated 98.61% 1 148 421

43342400 Unincorporated 0.90% 3 3 3

43342700 Unincorporated 6.98% 1 18 56

43343100 Unincorporated 55.63% 211 311 452

43346100 Unincorporated 76.23% 111 213 445

43346200 Unincorporated 4.07% 49 51 85

43346300 Unincorporated 21.03% 77 103 140

43346400 Unincorporated 63.85% 25 59 121

43347100 Unincorporated 100.00% 23 148 402

43347200 Unincorporated 99.89% 29 74 145

43347300 Unincorporated 3.14% 0 1 28

43347400 Unincorporated 4.58% 0 5 10

43347500 Unincorporated 99.96% 212 391 762

43347600 Unincorporated 100.00% 64 93 165

43347700 Unincorporated 99.95% 68 68 68

43348100 Unincorporated 99.92% 24 155 674

43350200 Unincorporated 89.54% 17 19 26

43355100 Unincorporated 92.22% 20 35 66








Percent in

District**

2008

Households

2020

Households

2035

Households

43368200 Unincorporated 94.87% 263 298 442

43371100 Unincorporated 81.53% 567 635 651

43372100 Unincorporated 100.00% 223 295 480

43372200 Unincorporated 99.97% 750 807 835

43375100 Unincorporated 100.00% 408 444 506

43375200 Unincorporated 100.00% 698 738 894

43376200 Unincorporated 99.90% 825 953 1,254

43377100 Unincorporated 19.68% 60 85 104

43379100 Unincorporated 100.00% 674 841 1,195

43380200 Unincorporated 99.50% 347 393 478

43381100 Unincorporated 99.57% 485 651 942

43381200 Unincorporated 97.69% 628 729 807

43382100 Unincorporated 93.52% 239 766 1,536

43382200 Unincorporated 100.00% 287 312 386

43382300 Unincorporated 100.00% 108 128 151

43382400 Unincorporated 100.00% 54 62 76

43382500 Unincorporated 100.00% 58 67 82

43382600 Unincorporated 100.00% 119 142 171

43382700 Unincorporated 97.73% 625 722 869

43382800 Unincorporated 6.76% 21 27 47

43383100 Unincorporated 100.00% 76 93 120

43383200 Unincorporated 100.00% 208 262 394

43383300 Unincorporated 100.00% 426 517 691

43384100 Unincorporated 100.00% 869 921 945

43385100 Unincorporated 37.04% 79 87 91


43385300 Unincorporated 91.16% 489 499 512

43385400 Unincorporated 97.65% 581 625 719

43386100 Unincorporated 100.00% 308 413 641

43386200 Unincorporated 100.00% 720 843 1,268

43386300 Unincorporated 100.00% 457 563 770

43433100 Unincorporated 9.79% 63 70 79

43435500 Unincorporated 21.66% 533 559 607

43441200 Unincorporated 78.41% 35 70 180

43442100 Unincorporated 65.42% 190 244 349


43442600 Unincorporated 78.33% 27 36 47

43443100 Unincorporated 75.58% 522 602 701


43444100 Unincorporated 40.26% 92 133 175

43467100 Unincorporated 100.00% 313 389 500

43467200 Unincorporated 100.00% 725 898 1,136

43468100 Unincorporated 81.24% 1,376 1,823 2,218

43468200 Unincorporated 68.77% 5 8 10


43468400 Unincorporated 99.99% 35 60 73

43468500 Unincorporated 99.05% 27 52 67


43469100 Unincorporated 100.00% 628 872 1,249

43469200 Unincorporated 100.00% 385 496 558

43470100 Unincorporated 100.00% 608 732 820

43470200 Unincorporated 100.00% 256 366 520

43470300 Unincorporated 100.00% 214 267 416








Percent in

District**

2008

Households

2020

Households

2035

Households

43470400 Unincorporated 100.00% 418 495 887



43596100 Unincorporated 99.98% 21 49 121


43596300 Unincorporated 99.88% 104 123 173

43597200 Unincorporated 13.49% 9 24 62

49,124 58,640 82,804

Extrapolation of Five Year Projection based on Annual Averages:

Difference Current Year to Prior Year: 9,516 24,164

Number of Years within Years Estimated: 12 15

Annual Average Dwelling Units per Year Estimated:* 793.00 1,610.93

Estimated Number of Dwelling Units January 1, 2016 City of City of County of

Hemet San Jacinto Riverside Total

Existing Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Dwelling Units

As of January 1, 2008 28,592.00 856.00 19,676.00 49,124.00

Additional Dwelling Units Constructed 01/01/2008 to 01/01/2009 266.92 43.67 482.42 793.00








Estimated Dwelling Units to Exist on January 1, 2016:*** 30,727 1,205 23,535 55,468

**Percentage in District was provided by SCAG by GIS review.

***Totals may not sum due to rounding.

*The data provided by SCAG per TAZ was approved by each of the agencies in April of 2012 to be used in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan and

Sustainable Communities Strategy.



March 18, 2016


Number of Number of District-Wide Student

Grade Level Students (1) Dwelling Units (2) Generation RateK-5 9,646 52,342 0.18436-8 4,932 52,342 0.0942

9-12 7,079 52,342 0.1352Total 21,657 0.4138

(1) Source: Weekly Enrollment Report, Dated October 7, 2015.(2) Source: Southern California Associated of Governments - 2012-2035 Regional TransportaionPlan and Substainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) adopted in April 2012, data providedFebruary 2014. The total figure was reduced by the number of dwelling units issued a certificate ofcompliance by the District from approximately April 6, 1987 to February 1, 2016 for qualified seniordwelling units. The total dwelling units identified was 55,467 and the total senior units identified asdescribed is 3,125, which nets a non-senior dwelling unit count as of February 1, 2016 of 52,342.

Calculation of Student Generation Rate

Hemet Unified School DistrictDistrict-Wide Student Generation Rate Analysis

Appendix C - Page 1


March 18, 2016


STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE ALLOCATION BOARD

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OFFICE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CONSTRUCTIONSAB 506B (REV. 04/98)

SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTY

HEMET UNIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTYSCHOOL PROJECT NAME

TYPICAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLAPPLICATION NUMBER

GRADES K-5, 750 STUDENTS, 30 TEACHING STATIONS

A. SITE1. PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY (12 Acres) 720,000$ 2. APPRAISAL FEES 6,300$ 3. ESCROW FEES 5,890$

4. SURVEYS 5,775$ 5. SITE SUPPORT -$ 6. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE -$ 7. OTHER (ITEMIZE) CEQA AND DTSC 12,600$ SITE SUBTOTAL 750,565$

B. PLANS1. ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS 1,393,958$ 2. DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT PLAN CHECK FEE 204,283$ 3. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PLAN CHECK FEE 16,890$ 4. ENERGY ANALYSIS FEE 10,226$ 5. PRELIMINARY TESTS -$ 6. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS -$ 7. OTHER (ITEMIZE) -$ PLANS SUBTOTAL 1,625,357$

C. CONSTRUCTION

1. UTILITY SERVICES 667,800$ 2. OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT 529,200$ 3. SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT 1,184,400$ 4. GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT 1,008,000$ 5. MODERNIZATION -$ 6. DEMOLITION / INTERIM HOUSING -$ 7. UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY -$ 8. NEW CONSTRUCTION 20,739,750$ 9. OTHER (ITEMIZE) -$ CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 24,129,150$

D. TESTS (CONSTRUCTION) 301,614$

E. INSPECTION 361,937$

F. FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT 1,206,458$

G. CONTINGENCIES 1,447,749$

H. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (ITEMS A THROUGH G) 29,822,830$

February 4, 2016

PRELIMINARY FINAL





TYPICAL MIDDLE SCHOOLAPPLICATION NUMBER

GRADES 6-8, 1,450 STUDENTS, 52 TEACHING STATIONS

A. SITE1. PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY (24.17 Acres) 1,450,200$ 2. APPRAISAL FEES 7,614$ 3. ESCROW FEES 10,047$

4. SURVEYS 9,240$ 5. SITE SUPPORT -$ 6. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE -$ 7. OTHER (ITEMIZE) CEQA AND DTSC 19,034$ SITE SUBTOTAL 1,496,135$

B. PLANS1. ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS 2,188,988$ 2. DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT PLAN CHECK FEE 375,787$ 3. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PLAN CHECK FEE 33,278$ 4. ENERGY ANALYSIS FEE 12,232$ 5. PRELIMINARY TESTS -$ 6. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS -$ 7. OTHER (ITEMIZE) -$ PLANS SUBTOTAL 2,610,284$

C. CONSTRUCTION

1. UTILITY SERVICES 1,058,400$ 2. OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT 680,400$ 3. SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT 2,646,000$ 4. GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT 3,124,800$ 5. MODERNIZATION -$ 6. DEMOLITION / INTERIM HOUSING -$ 7. UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY -$ 8. NEW CONSTRUCTION 40,029,750$ 9. OTHER (ITEMIZE) -$ CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 47,539,350$

D. TESTS (CONSTRUCTION) 594,242$

E. INSPECTION 713,090$




February 4, 2016

PRELIMINARY FINAL





TYPICAL HIGH SCHOOL (w/ Pool and Stadium)APPLICATION NUMBER

GRADES 9-12, 2,400 STUDENTS, 90 TEACHING STATIONS

A. SITE1. PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY (60 Acres) 3,600,000$ 2. APPRAISAL FEES 10,080$ 3. ESCROW FEES 17,260$

4. SURVEYS 13,680$ 5. SITE SUPPORT -$ 6. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE -$ 7. OTHER (ITEMIZE) CEQA AND DTSC 25,200$ SITE SUBTOTAL 3,666,220$

B. PLANS1. ARCHITECT'S FEE FOR PLANS 5,658,581$ 2. DIVISION OF STATE ARCHITECT PLAN CHECK FEE 809,991$ 3. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PLAN CHECK FEE 76,595$ 4. ENERGY ANALYSIS FEE 15,239.43$ 5. PRELIMINARY TESTS -$ 6. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS -$ 7. OTHER (ITEMIZE) -$ PLANS SUBTOTAL 6,560,406$

C. CONSTRUCTION

1. UTILITY SERVICES 2,929,500$ 2. OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT 1,480,500$ 3. SERVICE SITE DEVELOPMENT 6,174,000$ 4. GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT 8,662,500$ 5. MODERNIZATION -$ 6. DEMOLITION / INTERIM HOUSING -$ 7. UNCONVENTIONAL ENERGY -$ 8. NEW CONSTRUCTION 90,175,125$ 9. OTHER (ITEMIZE) -$ CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 109,421,625$

D. TESTS (CONSTRUCTION) 1,367,770$

E. INSPECTION 1,641,324$




February 4, 2016

PRELIMINARY FINAL


March 18, 2016


Per Student Cost of Interim Facilities: Elementary Middle High

Per Classroom Costs:

Site/Prep Cost $12,705 $12,705 $12,705

Delivery/Installation $7,378 $7,378 $7,378

Dismantle/Return $4,450 $4,450 $4,450

Incidentals $12,128 $12,128 $12,128

Lease per Year $7,000 $6,200 $6,000

Total First Year Cost $43,661 $42,861 $42,661

Lease per Year: $7,000 $6,200 $6,000

Classroom Loading 25 27 27

Months Required 30 60 120

Total Classroom Cost $54,161 $67,661 $96,661

Cost per Student $2,166 $2,506 $3,580

Per Restroom Costs:

Site/Prep Cost $62,370 $62,370 $62,370

Delivery/Installation $5,450 $5,450 $5,450

Dismantle/Return $5,450 $5,450 $5,450

Incidentals $2,310 $2,310 $2,310

Lease per Year $18,300 $17,000 $12,000

Total First Year Cost $93,880 $92,580 $87,580

Lease per Year: $18,300 $17,000 $12,000

Restroom Loading 200 240 240

Months Required 30 60 120

Total Classroom Cost $121,330 $160,580 $195,580

Cost per Student $607 $669 $815

Total Interm Facilities

Cost per Student: $2,773 $3,175 $4,395

Appendix E


Interim Housing Facilities Costs

Appendix E ‐ Page 1

Documents

Hemet Unified School District - … · Hemet Unified School District FEE JUSTIFICATION REPORT ... Student Generation Rate Analysis Appendix D: Elementary, ... Section 66001 et seq.,