The Plumas Unified School District has adopted fees for all new development in Plumas County that will increase the cost of building a house by $5.17 per square foot. The fees will go into effect Nov. 10, 2024. The measure has been met with surprise and consternation by county and city of Portola officials, and dismay by those working to rebuild after the Dixie Fire.
A surprise to county officials
The news of the school board’s unanimous action Sept. 11 came as a shock to officials around the county, who were alarmed by the potential effects on building countywide.
“Your board has signed Greenville’s death warrant.”
Adam Cox, Indian Valley Community Services District manager
The reaction was particularly intense from officials in Greenville, where construction is underway to replace the nearly 800 homes lost in the Dixie Fire. In a letter to Melissa Leal, PUSD’s interim superintendent, Indian Valley Community Services District Manager Adam Cox said, “This fee will — without a doubt — completely halt the rebuilding of Greenville. Your board has signed Greenville’s death warrant.”
At the Oct. 1 meeting of the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Chairman Greg Hagwood said he had no knowledge of the school board’s action until he was informed Sept. 23 by Tracey Ferguson, county planning director. Ferguson told the county supervisors that she also learned of the school board’s approval of the fees in a Sept. 23 email from Chris Terry, who is the school district’s consultant with Capitol Public Finance Group.
“This is no small matter,” Hagwood said.
He polled the supervisors individually, asking if they had been contacted by school officials about the developer fee. Each supervisor said no.
The PUSD board adopted the developer fees based on a Level 1 Developer Fee Justification Study analyzing the need for construction and reconstruction of school facilities to accommodate students from new developments. Terry presented it to school officials July 17.
In addition to the impact on building new homes in the Dixie burn scar and elsewhere, the fees will impact county administration. Several county departments would be responsible for implementing, processing and administering the fee.
Hagwood said he was also bothered by the lack of “transparency and coordination.”
“I find it a bit troubling to become aware of this under these circumstances,” he said. His confusion over both the fee and the process used for adopting it are shared by other county supervisors and department heads, Hagwood said.
City of Portola officials were also surprised by the approval of the fees. They, too, learned about them in a telephone call from Ferguson, said Susan Scarlett, interim city manager. The developments cited in the PUSD study are both within the Portola city limits.
Leal, who was appointed PUSD’s interim superintendent Sept. 11, did not return calls from The Plumas Sun seeking her comment on the controversy. She was specifically invited to the board of supervisor’s Oct. 1 meeting but was not available, Ferguson said.
Effect on county departments
In addition to a $5.17 per square foot fee on new residential construction, the resolution imposes a $0.84 per square foot fee on commercial and industrial construction. New rental and storage space construction will require $0.17 per square foot.
“So fees associated with this resolution would fall squarely in the lap of our county departments.”
Tracey Ferguson, Plumas County planning director
The fees “materially affect” the way Plumas County processes residential, commercial and industrial building permits, Ferguson said. After Nov. 10, all permits would go through the school district for review and fee collection. The county could not issue applicable building permits until the fee has been collected, she said.
“So fees associated with this resolution would fall squarely in the lap of our county departments,” Ferguson said.
Are the funds necessary?
School officials discussed Terry’s fee justification study at their Aug. 14 meeting, when they held a public hearing that had been publicly noticed in The Mountain Messenger Aug. 1 and Aug. 8. They received no public comment during the public hearing, Ferguson said.
The PUSD board members held another discussion and public hearing Sept. 11, noticed in The Mountain Messenger Sept. 5. The resolution implementing developer fees cited the “continuous and urgent need for expansion and construction of school facilities due to the impact of new residential construction.”
The resolution includes giving notice to Portola, Plumas County and other “applicable agencies.” The school board approved it unanimously.
Plumas County has seen relatively little new development in recent years. The PUSD study cited two proposals, both within the Portola city limits. Portola Highlands plans to build 1,005 housing units; Portola 192 plans 189 units.
PUSD’s study estimated that approximately 836 new students would result from full buildout of the two Portola housing projects. To accommodate them, the district would need to build 10 new classrooms, the study states. At $500,000 for a new portable classroom, the study said the district would need $5 million.
“No one from PUSD contacted me during the study.”
Susan Scarlett, interim Portola city manager
That assumes the two Portola developments become a reality, which Scarlett said seems unlikely. Portola officials have had no contact with the Portola Highlands developers since 2019, she said. The development agreement for Portola 192 was enacted in 2003 and is inactive, Scarlett said.
Portola officials have had no contact with either development in a long time, she said.
“No one from PUSD contacted me during the study,” she added.
The study also contains internal inconsistencies that do not fully justify the need for developer fees based on enrollment figures. It calculates a current capacity for 2,300 students countywide, but also states that current student enrollment is 1,687.
Ferguson cited “inaccurate projected residential development within the district’s boundaries.” The number of units projected to be constructed over the next 10 years does not jibe with the maximum planned residential development capacity, she said.
County counsel to investigate legal options
Plumas County Supervisor Dwight Ceresola asked Interim County Counsel Josh Brechtel to investigate the county’s legal options. He was specifically interested in whether the resolution approved by the PUSD board was lawful.
The supervisors will continue their discussion of the school developer fees at their Oct. 8 meeting. They agreed to again ask Leal to attend. The Portola City Council will also discuss the fees and their approval process when it meets Oct. 9, Scarlett said. County officials also plan to attend the next school board meeting, scheduled for Oct. 9.
The Indian Valley Community Services District scheduled a special meeting Oct. 5. The agenda includes discussion of litigation against PUSD to seek injunctive relief.
County Administrative Officer Debra Lucero noted that the county supervisors have two regularly scheduled board of supervisors meetings Oct. 15 and Nov. 5. Both are prior to Nov. 10, when the developer fees become effective.
That gives the supervisors time to propose legal action, possibly in the form of an injunction temporarily suspending the fees, she said.
