Board adopts resolution reviewing developer fees, cites declining collections and long‑term COP debt

The Tahoe‑Truckee Unified School District board on Jan. 8 adopted Resolution 18 (2024–25), a consolidated review of developer fee collections, expenditures and the district’s five‑year findings for fiscal year 2023–24.

Todd Rivera, assistant superintendent and chief business officer, presented the resolution and annual report. Rivera said the report incorporates historical resolutions authorizing current fee levels, the developer fee justification study (the nexus study), the annual accounting of collections and expenditures, and the statutorily required five‑year findings.

Key figures from the report: Rivera reported residential developer fees at $3.69 per square foot, commercial fees that vary by use (examples cited: lodging 26¢/sq ft, industrial parks 38¢/sq ft, community shopping centers 40¢/sq ft, restaurants 59¢/sq ft, and self‑storage at 1¢/sq ft), total fee collections in 2023–24 of just over $1,650,000, interest income of about $168,000, and total expenditures of $2,280,574.37. Rivera said the district’s ending developer fee fund balance was approximately $2,639,400.30.

Rivera said the largest single expenditure was debt service on the district’s 2019 certificates of participation (COPs), at just over $1.8 million for the year; he said developer fees are a continuing funding source for that debt. Rivera identified total remaining COP obligations of roughly $33.4 million out to June 2043. He also noted recent master‑planning and project planning costs and the Kings Beach lot lease as examples of other uses of fee proceeds.

Five‑year findings and outlook: Rivera reviewed the five‑year lookback requirement that fees collected must have a demonstrable nexus to capital improvements and, where fees remain unexpended beyond the lookback window, agencies must document the intended use. He said the district had expended fees collected in the prior five‑year window and therefore did not have a noncompliance finding, but staff included a forward‑looking table identifying expected uses: principal payments on COP debt, estimated contributions (a modest percentage) toward future campus projects such as portable removal and classroom additions at Glenshire Elementary and Alder Creek Middle School, and potential bond funding for major construction. Rivera said a future bond campaign (discussed internally for 2028–29) would be the primary funding source for large projects; developer fees generally would contribute a small share of project totals.

Rivera also discussed a recent state law cited in the report (referred to in the presentation as “Senate Bill 937”), which modifies timing rules for collecting certain development impact fees and in some cases requires collection at certificate of occupancy rather than at building permit. Rivera said school districts may qualify for an exemption if they have an adopted master plan and if fees are being used to repay previously issued debt for capital improvements—conditions the district asserts are met.

Board action and context: A board member moved to adopt Resolution 18 (2024–25) and the motion carried by voice vote. Trustee comments during and after the presentation highlighted the reliance of school facility work on developer fees, the declining trend in collections (historically $2–2.5 million annually, now lower), and legislative attention to development fees that could affect local revenue streams.

Why it matters: Developer fees provide one of the district’s primary non‑bond funding sources for capital improvements and debt service. The report documents current balances, planned uses and legal considerations that may affect cash‑flow timing and future capital planning.

Next steps: The board adopted the resolution as presented; staff will continue to monitor collections, manage COP debt service, and incorporate developer‑fee assumptions into future facilities planning and any prospective bond campaign.