⚠️ Translation Notice:
This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected:
F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Findings and Recommendations
4 findings
The failure of school districts to provide the required written notice to developers of their right to protest may extend the period in which a developer is allowed to file a suit challenging a fee and may expose the districts to potential future liability. Response: LMUSD agrees with this finding and the general suggestion to the extent that, in some cases, when school districts may find fees challenged, failure to give timely notice may be alleged to excuse an otherwise untimely challenge resulting in exposure to potential liability. However, to date, the failure to give the required notice has not been ruled an effective excuse from the separate and distinct limitations on the time for a legal challenge to developer fees.
No recommendations for this finding
All of the sampled districts take a permissive view of the restrictions on the sort of expenditures which are allowed for developer fees. Response: LMUSD disagrees with this finding due to the use of the term "permissive" and its unclear, possible misleading description. LMUSD reviews its expenditures of developer fees carefully, in accordance with statute, for allowable uses and exercises due diligence to determine the lawfulness of each expenditure of developer fees. It is difficult to determine whether developer fees are being maintained in a separate
No recommendations for this finding
fund as required by law. LMUSD disagrees with this finding as a general statement. LMUSD does provide for Response: clearly separate funds, not comingled with other funds, and regularly reports same, in accordance with statute. These separate funds are maintained and reported on a regular basis through public notice advertisements and publicly held meetings. Most of the districts in the County either do not publish the required annual and
No recommendations for this finding
5-year reports on their use of developer fees, or provide such information in a difficult to access and understand format on their websites. LMUSD disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to Lucia Mar USD Response: practice regarding public reporting. LMUSD provides an annual notice, generally published in the San Luis Obispo Tribune, giving the public advance notification of the annual Public Hearing for the Annual Developer Fee Report prepared in accordance with Government Codes. This information is also shared in a narrative report, with clearly indicated expenditures, uses and amounts. In addition to the report, a
No recommendations for this finding
