Officials deny city acted improperly regarding fees
CALEXICO – City officials deny the Calexico Unified School District’s claim that it failed to ensure construction project applicants paid the district’s school impact fees as required by law.
Under California law, the district must first present a claim to the city for their consideration prior to filing a lawsuit.
Calexico Councilman Morris Reisin said the school district’s claim is just an accusation they have been making for three years.
“People come out with accusations all the time,” Reisin said.
He said when someone wants to construct a building, like the CUSD, they need to come to Calexico City Hall to file the paperwork and for the developers or contractors to file the impact fees of 7 percent, which in this case is well more than $1 million that is paid to the district.
The school district maintains has issued a certain number of building permits without verifying or requiring payment of impact fees, although the district said it has not yet verified the amount of fees in dispute.
“From our review, the city issued building permits without following the legal mandate to first direct the property owners/developers to the district for a determination by the district as to whether such parties needed to pay school impact fees,” the district wrote in a press release.
Calexico Councilman Bill Hodge said it’s not that simple, as the district wants more impact fees than it is entitled to receive.
For example, he said, if a studio is added onto a house, the impact fees would be for the studio, not both the house and studio because the house had already had an impact fee when it was originally built.
“It seems like the school district wants to hold the city responsible for more impact fees to be paid, when they shouldn’t be,” Hodge said. “The city believes the school district does not make that distinction.”
He conceded the school district likely has a whole different perspective than the city on these impact fees.
The developer pays the impact fees to the school district before the city issues the permit to proceed, if everything has been done right, Hodge said.
“As a council member I think we need to put the brakes on a lawsuit and work together,” he said.
If the information shows the city is wrong, it will make it right moving forward, he said.
However, the district said the city is not the party that is supposed to decide any waiver under the law. The district said only it can decide the applicability of school fees to a project.
Reisin said the city will and has opened up to show its documents to the district to answer any questions it might have. CUSD has admitted that in fact is now happening, but a public information request had to be filed to ensure this occurred.
“They are open to them,” Reisin said. “We try to get along with (the district).”
School impact fees are charges paid to school districts by property owners and developers to mitigate the impact on school facilities of new development and construction projects within that district’s boundaries.
The fees are used to fund the construction and reconstruction of school facilities necessary to address the impacts to school facilities.
Under the law, a city is required to have directed everyone who was seeking a building permit to the district to determine if they should first pay school impact fees or if they were exempt from paying them.
The district, CUSD Public Information Officer Alejandra Limon wrote in an email, has extremely limited options for obtaining funding for its school facilities. School impact fees are one of those options.
If the city unilaterally eliminates that option from the school district by not following legal requirements, then it will be at a great disadvantage when trying to provide needed facilities for Calexico students, she wrote.
Limon said these fees are based on a statutorily calculated and legally justified amount in relation to the construction project’s square footage, though Hodge said this is for new projects.
Limon, in response to the city saying they should work together, said the city rejected the district’s offer to enter into a tolling agreement multiple times.
According to the CUSD press release, the district’s claim was amended on Oct. 21 to include further details that were discovered by the district.
The district claims it recently discovered and confirmed the discrepancies between records of building permits issued by the city and district records through a Public Records Act request for approved building permits and related information.
According to the press release, documents reviewed by the school district show that the city issued building permits, but neglected to require certification that it had received the required fee payment for the project or a specific exemption from fee payment.
The city disagrees with the school district accusation that it failed to follow its legal obligations when issuing building permits.
CUSD’s press release stated it requested to enter an agreement, so that the parties could work to resolve the issues without litigation to no avail.
According to the press release, the district is prepared to file a lawsuit if the city does not grant the district’s Oct.1 claim as amended on Oct. 21.