agenda - seminole county public schools€¦ · impact fee study recommendations presented by...
TRANSCRIPT
AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
and Seminole County School Board
June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.
School Board Meeting Room
I. District Performance Update
II. 2017-18 District Budget
III. School Capacity Issues
IV. Alternative Impact Fee
V. Impact Fee Update Study
VI. Rosenwald/Yankee Lake Property
VII. Open Discussion
VIII. Adjourn
1
AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
and Seminole County School Board
June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.
School Board Meeting Room
I. District Performance Update
II. 2017-18 District Budget
a. Critical Operating Budget Factors b. Critical Capital Budget Factors c. Proposed 2017-18 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan
III. School Capacity Issues
IV. Alternative Impact Fee
V. Impact Fee Update Study
VI. Rosenwald/Yankee Lake Property
VII. Open Discussion
VIII. Adjourn
2
JOINT WORK SESSION
Seminole County Board of County Commissioners - Seminole County School Board
CRITICAL OPERATING BUDGET FACTORS
2017-18 projected growth of 701 students.
Seminole County Public Schools funding for 2017-18 increased by .86% or $59.86 per student.
A total FEFP funding increase of $8,909,674.
$5,000,000 of this funding was used to reduce the transfer to the General fund from the Capital Outlay fund for 2017-18.
$1,146,185 increase in funding for Charter Schools.
$1,181,000 Florida Retirement System (FRS) Contribution Rate Increase.
$2,324,000 increase in Instructional Staffing.
Impact of Controlled Open Enrollment:
o 686 Total Seats Available (157 ES, 181 MS, 348 HS) o 205 Requests Made o 66% Internal (137), 33% Outside Seminole (68)
3
JOINT WORK SESSION
Seminole County Board of County Commissioners - Seminole County School Board
CRITICAL CAPITAL BUDGET FACTORS
Estimated $586,000 Reduction of State Funding (PECO & CO/DS).
Approval of HB 7069 – Estimated Additional $500,000 Reduction/Reallocation to Charter Schools.
Estimated Ad Valorem Property Tax Increase $2,300,000.
Estimated Impact Fee Increase of $500,000 at Present Rates.
Estimated Recurring Maintenance Expenditures $14,900,000.
Scheduled Sales Tax Projects:
o Seminole High School Career Education Building $6,700,000 o Pine Crest Elem School Program/Design $1,000,000 o Endeavor School Program/Design $1,120,000
Scheduled Ad Valorem Projects:
o Lake Brantley Bldg 5 Replacement Program/Design $2,400,000 o Fire Alarm Upgrades District Wide $1,300,000 o Stadium Structure Upgrades $950,000
COPS 2016C Issue
o New Millennium Middle School o Longwood Elementary Reopening o ILC for Midway Elementary
State Imposed Construction Cost Limitations
4
PROPOSED 2017-2018 FIVE (5) YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANSEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
6/14/2017
CAPITAL REVENUE FUND 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
STATE
PECO NEW CONSTRUCTION $0
PECO MAINTENANCE 337 $1,100,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
CO&DS 310 $310,000 $310,000 $310,000 $310,000 $310,000
LOCAL
1.5 MIL CAP OUTLAY PROPERTY TAX 36x $47,504,613 $49,448,674 $50,932,134 $52,460,098 $54,033,901
1/4 CENT SALES TAX 381 $16,526,967 $16,702,153 $16,879,193 $17,058,116 $17,238,929
IMPACT FEES 348 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000
GASOLINE TAX REFUND 343 $110,000 $110,000 $107,800 $105,644 $103,531
INTEREST 340 $150,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000
SUB-TOTAL $69,401,580 $70,880,827 $72,539,127 $74,243,858 $75,996,361
PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVER $18,571,278 $27,219,359 $25,079,410 $20,442,913 $15,499,040
TOTAL REVENUE $87,972,858 $98,100,186 $97,618,537 $94,686,771 $91,495,401
EXPENDITURES PROJ 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
SUPPORT GENERAL FUND 100
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 8000 $4,973,000 $9,973,000 $9,973,000 $9,973,000 $9,973,000
RECURRING DISTRICT WIDE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
PORTABLE CLASSROOM LEASING 8001 $570,000 $570,000 $570,000 $570,000 $589,090
BUS REPLACEMENT 8100 $2,000,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000
VEHICLES & MATL HANDLING EQUIPT 8008 $430,000 $370,000 $315,000 $344,000 $344,000
CUSTODIAL EQUIPMENT 8320 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
FLOORING 8102 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
HVAC 8101 $2,500,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000
ROOFING 8104 $1,440,000 $1,283,700 $1,420,000 $2,968,965 $2,833,134
PAVEMENT 8103 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
TRACK REFURBISHMENT $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000
PE PAVILLION REFURBISHMENT $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $50,000
PAINTING 8105 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000
ELEVATOR REFURBISHMENT 8818 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000
SCHOOL CAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS 8240 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
MAGNET SCHOOL EQUIPMENT 8810 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
CROOMS TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT 8031 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
COMMUNICATIONS 8109 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS 6512 $400,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
BUS NEW GPS/VIDEO EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 8240 $67,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
DEBT SERVICE
COPS PAYMENT 8004 $21,407,256 $21,661,103 $16,993,154 $16,985,014 $14,649,030
2016C COPS PAYMENT $2,528,650 $2,527,750 $3,700,000 $3,183,500 $3,197,000
FACILITIES PLANNING
MISC. PLANNING 8410 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
DISTRICT WIDE RENOVATIONS 8300 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES/AUGMENTATION 8950 $2,200,000 $2,200,000
CLASSROOM PRESENTATION SYSTEMS 6520 $1,100,000 $1,100,000
BUILDING ADDITIONS/REMODELING/RENOVATIONS
STADIUM STRUCTURES $950,000
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - BUS LIFT REPLACEMENT 8815 $260,000 $260,000 $260,000
25TH PLACE REFURBISHMENT $300,000
PA PAGING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT 8242 $315,000 $345,000 $270,000 $275,000 $280,000
FIRE ALARM/EMERGENCY MASS NOTIFICATION 8244 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
PLAYGROUND SURFACES & EQUIPMENT (DISTRICT WIDE) 8122 $148,500 $236,250 $236,250 $283,500 $236,250
LAKE BRANTLEY HIGH-REMODEL BLDG 5. RENOV BLDGS 3 (AUD) & 4 (ST*) $2,413,060 $15,149,800 $6,564,746
KEETH ELEMENTARY-REMODEL 1982 BLDG 1 $1,460,077 $13,140,689
BEAR LAKE ELEMENTARY-REPLACEMENT/REMODELING (1962/1988) $1,676,006
WINTER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY-REMODEL 1988 BLDGS 3, 5, 6 & 7 $633,478
SALES TAX PROJECTS
SEMINOLE HIGH-VOCATIONAL BUILDINGS 7&9, MMS RENOV 8382 $6,757,200
PINE CREST SCHOOL OF INNOVATION 8280 $1,000,000 $1,419,676 $21,777,084
ELEMENTARY "M" (ADDITIONS & REMODELING) $1,123,833 $10,114,497
BALLOON DEBT SERVICE COPS 2016C $2,312,750
SOUTH SEMINOLE MIDDLE-ADDITION/REMODELING/GYM FLOOR $307,779 $2,770,015
CASSELBERRY ELEMENTARY $1,545,785 $13,912,062
IDYLLWILDE ELEMENTARY-REMODEL BLDG 1 & CAFETERIA $186,424
LAKE HOWELL HIGH-REMODELING/RENOVATIONS $1,342,389 $12,081,498
LYMAN HIGH-VOCATION BUILDINGS 9 & 10 $469,598 $4,226,378
LAWTON ELEMENTARY-ADDITIONS/REMODELING/RENOVATION $1,256,721
MISC.
CONTINGENCY 8400 $6,750,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $60,753,499 $73,020,776 $77,175,624 $79,187,731 $65,242,009
BUDGETED FUND BALANCE $27,219,359 $25,079,410 $20,442,913 $15,499,040 $26,253,392
Page 1 of 15
AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
and Seminole County School Board
June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.
School Board Meeting Room
I. District Performance Update
II. 2017-18 District Budget
III. School Capacity Issues
a. Enrollment b. CSA Capacity c. SCALD Reservations d. SIA Submittals
IV. Alternative Impact Fee
V. Impact Fee Update Study
VI. Rosenwald/Yankee Lake Property
VII. Open Discussion
VIII. Adjourn
6
•68000
66000
;64000
62000
160000
;58000
156000
54000
63
,10
8
61
,91
8
Pre
K-1
2S
tud
en
tE
nro
llm
en
tT
ren
d2
00
3-0
4/
20
16
-17
Pre
sen
tD
istr
ict
Per
man
ent
Cap
acit
y-
71
,00
3S
tud
ents
65,354
64,7
00m
64>4
56
63£4
263
,201
62
,88
162
,465
62,2
6762
,249
62,2
30
65
,80
1
2002
-03
2003
-04
2004
-05
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007
-08
2008
-09
2009
-10
2010
-11
2011
-12
2012
-13
2013
-14
2014
-15
2015
-16
2016
-17
7
SA
RE
MA
ININ
GP
ER
MA
NE
NT
CA
PA
CIT
Y
DE
VE
LO
PE
RR
ES
ER
VA
TIO
NS
INC
LU
DE
D
CS
AR
EM
AIN
ING
PE
RM
AN
EN
TC
AP
AC
ITY
-S
CA
LD
'sIN
CL
UD
ED
To
tal
cap
acit
yR
emai
nin
g7
03
To
tal
cap
acit
yre
mai
ning
278
To
tal
cap
acit
yre
mai
ning
79
/f//////////>
/y
f*
Sy
/'//////////O
*/
y/
yf
yy
y
y
8
"
Exp
ecte
dA
dd
itio
na
lS
tud
en
tsfr
om
Ap
pro
ved
Develo
pm
en
ts(S
CA
LD
Res
erva
tio
ns)
3,5
78
Ad
dit
ion
al
Stu
den
tsE
stim
ate
d
No
rth
west
So
uth
west
So
uth
Cen
tral
No
rth
east
Pro
po
sed
Ho
usi
ng
Un
its
2133
3400
2878
2097
10508
Gen
era
tio
nra
teb
ase
do
nS
ch
oo
lIm
pact
Fee
Stu
dy
Elm
Stu
den
t
Po
ten
tial*
36
2
49
2
48
3
40
5
1742
Mid
Stu
den
t
Po
ten
tial*
17
7
22
6
23
7
19
6
836
Hig
hS
tud
en
tP
ote
nti
al*
214
262
280
244
1000
9
cr~
•0«•°2.®
u-»^0)CO3omo
?ia •'aA
IDWUlUl
IV}OO
10
Exp
ecte
dA
dd
itio
na
lS
tud
ents
from
Ap
pro
ved
Dev
elo
pm
ents
Rezo
ned
an
dM
ovi
ng
For
war
d8
91
Ad
dit
ion
al
Stu
den
tsE
sti
ma
ted
No
rth
west
So
uth
west
So
uth
Cen
tral
No
rth
east
Pro
po
sed
Ho
usi
ng
Un
its
16
35
18
6
25
9
15
17
35
97
Gen
era
tio
nra
teb
ased
on
Sch
oo
lIm
pact
Fee
Stu
dy
Elm
Stu
den
t
Po
ten
tial*
20
4
24
49
19
8
47
5
Mid
Stu
den
t
Po
ten
tial*
76
10
26
86
19
8
Hig
hS
tud
en
tP
ote
nti
al*
11
to-••->i•**wa
2gr--*^o
lOCOUCD-»OCOoo
12
AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
and Seminole County School Board
June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.
School Board Meeting Room
I. District Performance Update
II. 2017-18 District Budget
III. School Capacity Issues
IV. Alternative Impact Fee
a. Timeline & Recommendations b. Alternative Impact Fee Study
V. Impact Fee Update Study
VI. Rosenwald/Yankee Lake Property
VII. Open Discussion
VIII. Adjourn
13
ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE TIMELINE 2015-2017
6/28/2016 Joint Work Session with BCC
7/2016 – 8/2016 Potential Members of Citizen’s Advisory Group
Recommended by Municipalities/Organizations.
9/13/2016 School Board Approval of Citizens Advisory Group.
9/22/2016 First Citizens Advisory Group Meeting – Role of Committee, District Growth & Trends, Impact Fee History, Alternative Impact Fee Process and Ordinances 92-14/2007-41
10/11/2016 Second Citizens Advisory Group Meeting– Draft Alternate Impact Fee Study recommendations presented by Tindale Oliver.
10/13/2016 J. Ranaldi & B. Kelly, SCPS Staff - meeting with Development Advisory Board (Seminole County)
10/27/2016 Third Citizens Advisory Group Meeting– Proposed Revision to Ordinance 92-14/2007-41 for Alternative Impact Fee process and language
2/7/2017 Educational System Advisory Committee Work Session – Status of Alternative Impact Fee process analysis presented and recommendations from study and committee reviewed.
2/13/2017 Meeting with BCC & SCPS staff to review Ordinance 92-
14/2007-41 Language Pertaining to Alternative Impact Fee. 5/22/2017 Meeting with SCPS/BCC Staff. 6/6/2017 BCC Establishes 120 Day Moratorium
14
RECOMMENDATIONS
Developed New Student Generation Rates Based on 2016 Data.
Utilize a Tiered System for Multi-Family Allowing Discounting for Smaller Units Balanced Against Higher Fees for Larger Units.
Look to Include Exemptions for Deed Restricted Developments (55+ Communities, Seasonal, Etc.).
Must be a New and Definable Dwelling/Housing Type Not Presently Considered.
Must have a Statistically Significant Lower SGR (Greater than 20% Lower).
Specific Criteria must be addressed (Unit Size Distribution, Unique Location Factors, Rental Rates, Cost of Construction, Amenities)
Land Use Designations and Zoning Appropriate for proposed Development Prior to Submitting.
Mature Comparison Study Sites (3-5 Years) and Similar in Setting (CBD, Suburbs, etc.)
15
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 23, 2016
To: Joseph Ranaldi, Seminole County Public Schools
From: Nilgün Kamp & Steve Tindale, Tindale Oliver
Subject: Seminole County Schools – Alternative Calculations for School Impact Fee Study
Tindale Oliver has been retained by the Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS) to prepare a study to
calculate student generation rates by size of home and provide guidance for methodology that should be
used for alternative studies. This memorandum provides a summary of findings.
Student Generation Rates by Type and Size of Home
Most school impact fee studies, including the adopted technical study for SCPS, use Census data to
estimate the student generation rates. This study employs a methodology using Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) to develop the student generation rate for Seminole County. Specifically, GIS was used to
link student addresses to parcels in the Seminole County Property Appraiser’s database in order to
generate the number of students per unit by school type and land use based on the latest tax roll. This
process is described in more detail in the following sections.
Determination of Total Housing Units by Residential Category
The Property Appraiser’s database is used to identify the number of housing units and housing size for
student generation rate calculations for the single family, townhouse, multi-family, condominium, and
mobile home/RV Park land uses. For all land uses, the total number of countywide units for the 2015 tax
year were extracted from the parcel database based on the appropriate use code.
For single family, townhouse, and condo units, the size of units (living square footage) was available in the
Property Appraiser database. In the case of apartment buildings, the available data included the
combined number of units by living area square footage. As such, an average size per unit for each
building was calculated and used in the calculations. In addition, the Property Appraiser’s Office provided
a separate file with bedroom information for apartments. This data was also analyzed.
16
Determination of Students by Residential Category
The determination of the number of students per residential category by size for traditional schools was
completed using the following process.
First, SCPS provided a GIS shapefile containing geocoded student addresses. Then, the student addresses
were linked to its respective parcel in the Property Appraiser database using address point data.
The student generation rates used in the estimation of demand for impact fee calculations include only
traditional school students. Therefore, the school code associated with each student record was used to
exclude students attending non-traditional schools, such as charter schools, virtual schools, etc.
As previously mentioned, once the GIS shapefile with the geocoded student addresses was provided, the
second step in the analysis was to link each student address to data from the parcel database. This allows
for determining which type of residential use is assigned to a given parcel (or address) where a student
lives. This was accomplished by spatially joining the student address to the respective parcel in the
database using GIS.
All of the traditional school students that reside in Seminole County were successfully linked to a parcel.
Of those, a portion of the addresses indicated a non-residential or vacant property, land uses that are not
included in the impact fee schedule. It was also noted that the total current enrollment is higher than the
number of student addresses provided. After subtracting the number of students that are linked to non-
residential land uses, the generation rate was increased by 7.9 percent for all land uses to account for this
difference.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1, which includes the student generation rates calculated
for the four residential categories included in the County’s school impact fee schedule, based on the
methodology described above. For all of the land uses, with the exception of mobile homes, the
generation rate is provided by size. As shown, in the case of multi-family apartments, the generation rate
is relatively low up to 850 square feet, and then increases significantly.
Table 1 also presents the comparison of each tier to the land use group’s weighted average. For example,
in the case of multi-family units, units up to 850 square feet generate 70 percent of the students generated
by all of multi-family homes. This percentage can be applied to the current adopted fee to calculate a
revised fee. In other words, the current multifamily fee of $2,100 would be reduced to $1,470 for homes
with one bedroom and up to 850 square feet of living space.
17
Table 1 Student Generation Rates by Size
(1) Source: Seminole County Property Appraiser (2) Source: Seminole County School District (adjusted by 7.9%) (3) Number of Students (Item 2) divided by the number of units (Item 1) for each residential type (4) Comparison of each sub-group (Item 3) to the weighted average of the entire land use category (5) Currently adopted impact fee rate multiplied by the ratio of each sub group to the average of the entire
category (Item 4)
In the case of apartments, a comparison of average number of bedrooms for each size category is provided
in Table 2. As presented, more than half of small apartments (0 to 850 square feet) tend to have a single
bedroom and the lowest generation rate. Apartments with between 851 and 1,000 square feet average
1.7 bedrooms, which suggest more of these units have two bedrooms, and those with more than 1,000
square feet average two bedrooms.
Residential Land Use
Total
Housing
Units(1)
Total
Students
(Adjusted)(2)
Student
Generation
Rate(3)
% of Group
Weighted
Avg.(4)
Alternative
Fee Rates(5)
Single Family (detached)
Less than 2,500 sf 86,232 34,055 0.395 97% $4,850
2,500 sf or more 25,619 11,605 0.453 111% $5,550
Single Family (Total/Weighted Avg.) 111,851 45,660 0.408 100% $5,000
Townhome/Condominium
Less than 1,500 sf 20,776 4,475 0.215 94% $2,303
1,500 sf or more 7,731 2,033 0.263 115% $2,818
Townhome/Condo (Total/Weighted Avg.) 28,507 6,508 0.228 100% $2,450
Multi-Family
0-850 sf 10,024 2,248 0.224 70% $1,470
851-1,000 sf 10,945 3,533 0.323 100% $2,100
1,001 sf or more 13,131 5,188 0.395 123% $2,583
Multi-Family (Total/Weighted Avg.) 34,100 10,969 0.322 100% $2,100
Mobile Homes
Mobile Homes 4,319 930 0.215 100% $1,924
Total/Weighted Average 178,777 64,067 0.358 - -
Traditional Schools
18
Table 2 Student Generation Rates
(1) Source: Seminole County Property Appraiser and
Seminole County School District (2) Source: Table 1
Finally, Tindale Oliver evaluated the generation rate of new homes compared to all homes. This
information is included in Table 3 and indicates that, overall, new homes generated approximately 8
percent more students compared to all homes.
Table 3
Student Generation Rates for New Homes
(1) Source: Seminole County Property Appraiser and Seminole County School District;
Homes built between 2002 and 2007 (2) Source: Table 1 (Item 3)
Guidelines for Alternative Studies
As part of this analysis, Tindale Oliver contacted other School Districts and Counties that implemented a
school impact fee regarding their policies and procedures on alternative studies. Most of the counties
allow for alternative studies; however, the methodology is not always clearly stated. There were a few
cases where a County and/or School District had to respond to an alternative study. In these cases, the
primary focus was the demand component, measured in terms of student generation rates. In one case,
the School District also included updated cost and credit information in the calculations. The following is
a summary of suggestions for alternative studies:
Residential Land Use
Average
Number of
Bedrooms(1)
Student
Generation
Rate(2)
Multi-Family
0-850 sf 1.47 0.224
851-1,000 sf 1.69 0.323
1,001 sf or more 1.91 0.395
Multi-Family (Total) 1.71 0.322
Residential Land Use New Homes(1) All Homes(2) % Change Difference
Single Family (detached) 0.451 0.408 11% 0.043
Townhome/Condominiums 0.263 0.229 15% 0.034
Multi-Family 0.341 0.322 6% 0.019
Mobile Homes 0.375 0.215 74% 0.160
Total/Weighted Average 0.387 0.358 8% 0.029
Traditional Schools
19
Alternative studies should not be completed until the proposed development acquires the
appropriate land use designation and subsequent zoning when the configuration of the
development and number and size of new homes can reasonably be determined.
Cost and credit calculations for a school impact fee are prepared for the entire service area and
the net cost per student does not vary by residential category. As such, the alternative study’s
focus should be the demand component, measured in terms of student generation rate.
Student generation rates represent the average rate for a given land use. Unless the new
development represents an entirely new category as opposed to a subset of an existing category,
it is important to measure whether the variation from the average is statistically significant.
At this time, the Seminole County School Impact Fee is not tiered by size or bedroom for any of
the land use categories. If there is a desire to recognize the variation of impact by size, the School
District and the County have the option to tier the fee, which would reduce the fee for some of
the tiers and increase them for others, consistent with the student generation rates shown in
Table 1. If the policy decision is to maintain a non-tiered schedule, then alternative studies
demonstrating a lesser impact for smaller homes should not be accepted.
If there is a consideration of accepting alternative studies for small homes, the variables
considered should not only include number of bedrooms per unit, but also the average size of
the unit. Given that the interior of a home can be reconfigured to add bedrooms after the initial
construction, a combination of number of bedrooms and living area size is likely to be a better
representation of the intended use of the unit over the life of the building.
Alternative studies should be completed at sites that are mature (built at least five years prior).
If the applicant believes the development has unique physical characteristics that result in a
different student generation rates, sites studied should be where development activity is
occurring. If the application is due to the location of the structure, such as location in a downtown
core, near rail stations, etc., the sites studied should also be located in areas with similar
characteristics.
If, as a result of the alternative study, a subcategory is separated from a larger residential
category, the generation rate for the remaining group needs to be adjusted as well. For example,
if the initial impact fee schedule had all single family homes grouped in one category, and as a
result of an alternative study, single family attached units were later separated; updated
generation rates would also be needed for the single family detached homes.
If a residential category is different in nature than those included in the schedule, such as aged
restricted homes or seasonal homes, these homes should either be deed-restricted or should be
under a system such that if the use changes, there will be a mechanism to capture this change.
In other words, if, for example, seasonal homes start to be occupied by permanent residents and
20
generate students, there should be a process to identify this difference for the County to collect
the applicable fee.
We appreciated the opportunity to present these findings to SCPS.
21
Appendix A Additional Student Generation Rate Detail
22
Table A-1 Student Generation Rates by School Level
(1) Source: Seminole County Property Appraiser (2) Source: Seminole County School District (adjusted by 7.9%) (3) Number of Students (Item 2) divided by the number of units (Item 1) for each residential type
Residential Land UseTotal Housing
Units(1)
Elem. Sch.
Students(2)
Middle Sch.
Students(2)
High Sch.
Students(2)
Elem. Sch.
Students per
Unit(3)
Middle Sch.
Students per
Unit(3)
High Sch.
Students per
Unit(3)
Single Family (detached)
Less than 2,500 sf 86,232 14,647 7,848 11,560 0.170 0.091 0.134
2,500 sf or more 25,619 4,321 2,810 4,474 0.169 0.110 0.175
Single Family (Total) 111,851 18,968 10,658 16,034 0.170 0.095 0.143
Townhome/Condominium
Less than 1,500 sf 20,776 2,134 987 1,354 0.103 0.048 0.065
1,500 sf or more 7,731 876 465 692 0.113 0.060 0.090
Townhome (Total) 28,507 3,010 1,452 2,046 0.106 0.051 0.072
Multi-Family
0-850 sf 10,024 1,224 428 596 0.122 0.043 0.059
851-1,000 sf 10,945 1,821 755 957 0.166 0.069 0.087
1,001 sf or more 13,131 2,645 1,111 1,432 0.201 0.085 0.109
Multi-Family (Total) 34,100 5,690 2,294 2,985 0.167 0.067 0.088
Mobile Homes
Mobile Homes 4,319 481 192 257 0.111 0.044 0.060
Total/Weighted Average 178,777 28,149 14,596 21,322 0.157 0.082 0.119
Traditional Schools
23
AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
and Seminole County School Board
June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.
School Board Meeting Room
I. District Performance Update
II. 2017-18 District Budget
III. School Capacity Issues
IV. Alternative Impact Fee
V. Impact Fee Update Study
a. Timeline & Critical Factors b. Independent Accountants Report c. School Impact Fee Study Update (Separate Handout)
VI. Rosenwald/Yankee Lake Property
VII. Open Discussion
VIII. Adjourn
24
IMPACT FEE UPDATE Study TIMELINE 2017
1/24/2017 Tindale Oliver Fee Proposal for Impact Fee Study Update Approved by School Board & Citizens Advisory Group Assistance Extended to Review Updated Study.
2/7/2017 Educational System Advisory Committee Work Session – Impact
Fee Update process, methodology, justification and history presented to School Board.
2/13/2017 Kick off Meeting on Impact Fee Documentation held with Tindale
Oliver and SCPS Staff. 3/2/2017 Private Business Association Seminole (Executive Committee)
Issues and Discussion on need to undertake Impact Fee Update. 3/2/2017 Citizens Advisory Group Meeting – Tindale Oliver Presented
Process, Methodology and Preliminary Calculations for Impact Fee Study Update.
3/3/2017 Seminole Chamber Meeting (Executive Committee) - Issues and
Discussion on Need to Undertake an Impact Fee Update. 4/11/2017 SCPS Work Session on Impact Fees – Associated Costs, Study
Methodology, and Impact Fee Preliminary Rates Discussed. 4/11/2017 Citizens Advisory Group Meeting – School Board Work Session
Review, Final Impact Fee Draft/Recommendations, and Impact Fee Preliminary Rates, and Next Steps Discussed.
4/12/2017 Private Business Association of Seminole (Full Membership
Meeting with Guests) Future School Capacity, Impact Fee History, and Proposed Impact Fee Changes Under Consideration.
5/22/2017 Kick Off Meeting – Independent Accountant Evaluation - Carolyn
Binder CPA 6/12/2017 Independent Accountant’s Report Delivered to SCPS 6/19/2017 Final Report Delivered by Tindale Oliver
25
CRITICAL FACTORS
Impact Fee Rates Have Not Been Updated for Ten Years
Update of Data Utilizing GIS.
Evaluation of Credits Including Sales Tax
Established new Impact Fee levels based on current Data
Decrease in Millage Rate from 2.0 Mill to 1,5 Mill – Property Value Decrease
Escalation in Construction Costs
Anticipated Growth County Wide
Feedback from Numerous Business, Industry and Community Groups
Feedback and Recommendations from Citizens Advisory Group
26
AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES REPORT
School Board of Seminole County, Florida
June 14, 2017
27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures 3
Exhibit I 4 - 9
28
9300 Conroy Windermere Road #2093 Windermere, Florida 34786
407-319-0301
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
School Board of Seminole County, Florida:
We have performed the procedures enumerated below, which were agreed to by the School Board of Seminole County, Florida (“SBSC”) solely to assist you with respect to the Seminole County Public School Impact Fee Study Update prepared by Tindale Oliver for SBSC as of April 5, 2017. The School Board of Seminole County, Florida’s management is responsible for the underlying information provided to Tindale Oliver. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.
The procedures and associated findings are enumerated on the attached Exhibit I.
We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the accounting records. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the School Board of Seminole County, Florida and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.
Windermere, Florida
June 14, 2017
29
EXHIBIT I
Procedure #1: Compare capacity data provided in Table A-1 ”The School Board of Seminole County Inventory” to the FISH report provided by SBSC. Document which FISH report was utilized by Tindale Oliver. Finding: We obtained a copy of the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) report dated 1/11/17 from SBSC, which SBSC confirmed was the report provided to Tindale Oliver for use in the School Impact Fee Study Update. There were no exceptions between the permanent and modular capacity in the FISH report and Table A-1 of the School Impact Fee Study Update for Elementary Schools. We noted variances in all of the middle and high school permanent capacity when comparing the FISH report to Table A-1 of the School Impact Fee Study Update, and nine variances in middle and high school modular capacity. Tindale Oliver confirmed that as a part of their methodology, capacity adjustments were made to middle school and high school permanent and modular capacity in the School Impact Fee Study Update report.
Procedure #2: Compare the current enrollment figure (2016-2017) presented in Table 1 to the data presented in Table A-1. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #3: Compare the Net Permanent Square Footage and Permanent Student Stations figures presented in Table 2 to the data presented in Table A-1. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #4: Mathematically recompute the net Permanent Square Feet per Student Station in Table 2. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
30
Procedure #5: Compare the Construction Cost per Net Sq Ft in Table 3 to Estimates Provided in Table B-1. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #6: Inquire and verify with Tindale Oliver the methodology used to formulate the Construction Cost per Net Sq Ft amounts in Table 3. Finding: We inquired of Tindale Oliver the methodology used to formulate the Construction Cost per Net Sq Ft amounts in Table 3 and noted the following: (Table B-1 provides further analysis of the Construction Cost per Net Sq Ft)
The cost estimate for Millennium Middle School was $198 per square foot. The insurance value for middle schools was $145 per square foot. The mid-point of these two amounts is $171.50 per square foot. Tindale Oliver rounded down to $170 per square foot, which they used as the Construction Cost per Net Sq Ft for middle schools.
Tindale Oliver noted that the $170 per square foot estimate for middle schools was approximately 15% higher than the insured value of middle schools.
Tindale Oliver applied a 15% increase to the insurance value of elementary and high schools, which resulted in $152 per square foot for elementary schools and $204 per square foot for high schools. Tindale Oliver rounded these figures to $150 per square foot for elementary schools and $205 per square foot for high schools.
The 2007 Study Construction Cost per Net Square Foot shown in Table B-1 was provided solely as a reference.
Procedure #7: Mathematically recompute the following School Facility Cost Components in Table 3:
a. Non-Construction Cost per Net Sq Ft – using 13% estimate noted in Footnote 3 b. FF&E Cost per Net Sq Ft – using 8% estimate noted in Footnote 5
Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #8: Mathematically recompute the Total Facility Cost per Student Station in Table 3.
31
Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #9: Compare the Total Current Value of Transportation Services amount in Table 5 to underlying SBSC data. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure. The supporting data provided by SBSC used an average current cost of a bus and white fleet (vans, truck, and trailers).
Procedure #10: Agree the 2016/2017 Enrollment figure in Table 5 to the data in Table 1 and adding 125 UCP students as noted in footnote 2. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #11: Mathematically recompute the Total Transportation Services Cost per Student in Table 5. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #12: Mathematically recompute the Building Value for Ancillary Facilities by obtaining the square footage inventory from SBSC and multiplying by $200 per net square foot (the rate noted in Table 5 as footnote 4). Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #13: Mathematically recompute the Land Value for Ancillary Facilities by obtaining the acreage from SBSC and multiplying by $75,000 per acre (the rate noted in Table 5 as footnote 5). Finding:
32
No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #14: Mathematically recompute the Total Ancillary Facility Cost per Student in Table 5. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #15: Compare expenditure data in Table 6 to SBSC records. Finding: In Table 6, expenditures for New Midway Elementary School in 2017-2023 are shown as $9,589,923. We noted a discrepancy that the Project Budget column in the supporting workbook (salestaxCOPsProjectsRec’d3-30-17.xlsx) does not agree with the sum of amounts budgeted for each year for the New Midway Elementary School. Upon inquiry of SBSC staff, the current anticipated budget for the Midway ES ELC Project is $6,130,000.
Procedure #16: Agree capitalization rate in Table 6 to 2016C COPs issuance. Finding: The capitalization rate noted in Table 6 is 3.5%. Footnote 5 states, “Interest rate the District is likely to pay for future bonds, based on the interest rate paid on the most recent COPs”. The 3.5% rate does not match the interest rate paid on the 2016C COPs issue. The capitalization rate of 3.5% was obtained from a market analysis provided by SBSC’s financial advisor in May 2017. SBSC confirmed the 3.5% capitalization rate is appropriate to use in this study.
Procedure #17: Compare the number of years of remaining payments and remaining payments due for expansion columns in Table 7 to SBSC debt service records. Finding: One exception was identified by SBSC staff prior to performing this procedure. SBSC staff noticed that the 2016C issue information in the original Table 7 had an incorrect amount being paid from a non-impact fee source, specifically sales taxes. Staff notified Tindale Oliver and a modification to Table 7 was made. We traced the number of years of remaining payments and remaining payments due for expansion from the modified Table 7 to SBSC debt service records with no exceptions.
33
Procedure #18: Agree each cost and credit amount in Table 8 to previous Tables in the report. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #19: Mathematically recompute the Net Impact Cost in Table 8. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #20: Compare the Total Housing Units Column in Table 9 to SBSC supporting data. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure. We noted there is a difference between the enrollment data used in the study and current enrollment. We confirmed with Tindale Oliver that the data for the Student Generation Rate calculation was from Fall 2015, which was derived from a previous review. The Housing Units data is also from Fall 2015.
Procedure #21: Compare the Total Students Column in Table 9 to SBSC supporting data. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure. We noted there is a difference between the enrollment data used in the study and current enrollment. We confirmed with Tindale Oliver that the data for the Student Generation Rate calculation was from Fall 2015, which was derived from a previous review. The Total Students data is also from Fall 2015.
Procedure #22: Mathematically recompute Total Students per Unit in Table 9. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
34
Procedure #23: Agree the Students per Unit and Net Impact Cost per Student in Tables 10 and 11 to previous source tables within the report. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #24: Mathematically recompute Total Impact Fee in Tables 10 and 11. Finding: No exceptions were found as a result of applying the procedure.
Procedure #25: Randomly select 25 parcel numbers from the StudentGenerationRate_SummaryAnalysis.xls spreadsheet created by Tindale Oliver and compare the number of students at the address to GIS data provided by SBSC. Finding: One out of 25 sampled parcel numbers had an exception. Parcel #22213150600000010, a multi-family complex, had 165 students listed on the StudentGenerationRate_SummaryAnalysis.xlsx worksheet utilized by Tindale Oliver. When tracing to the GIS data provided by SBSC by address, we noted 168 students associated with the parcel.
Procedure #26: Haphazardly select 25 parcel numbers from the Student Generation Rate_Summary Analysis spreadsheet created by Tindale Oliver and compare the Total Housing Units noted in the spreadsheet directly to Seminole County Property Appraiser records. The sample will consist of 20 multi-housing, 1 single family, 1 mobile home, and 3 from townhome/condo. Finding: One out of 25 sampled parcel numbers had an exception. Parcel #222130300006B0000, a multi-family complex, had 64 units listed on the StudentGenerationRate_SummaryAnalysis.xlsx worksheet utilized by Tindale Oliver. When tracing to the Seminole County Property Appraiser records, we noted 78 units associated with the parcel.
35
AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION Seminole County Board of County Commissioners
and Seminole County School Board
June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.
School Board Meeting Room
I. District Performance Update
II. 2017-18 District Budget
III. School Capacity Issues
IV. Alternative Impact Fee
V. Impact Fee Update Study
VI. Rosenwald/Yankee Lake Property
a. SCPS Letter 6/13/2017
VII. Open Discussion
VIII. Adjourn
36
37
38