AGENDA - Seminole County Public Schools€¦ · Impact Fee Study recommendations presented by Tindale Oliver. 10/13/2016 J. Ranaldi & B. Kelly, SCPS Staff - meeting with Development

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



June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.




a. Critical Operating Budget Factors b. Critical Capital Budget Factors c. Proposed 2017-18 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan






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



June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.





a. Enrollment b. CSA Capacity c. SCALD Reservations d. SIA Submittals





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



June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.






a. Timeline & Recommendations b. Alternative Impact Fee Study




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



June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.







a. Timeline & Critical Factors b. Independent Accountants Report c. School Impact Fee Study Update (Separate Handout)



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



June 20, 2017 10:00 a.m.








a. SCPS Letter 6/13/2017


VIII. Adjourn

36

37

38

Documents

AGENDA - Seminole County Public Schools€¦ · Impact Fee Study recommendations presented by Tindale Oliver. 10/13/2016 J. Ranaldi & B. Kelly, SCPS Staff - meeting with Development