183 replies to this topic

[benning]

This already happens through the building permit fees.  There are fees assessed for impacts to public safety (police and fire), schools, sewers, water, etc., etc., etc.

Terry - your statement is an oversimplification. Mike has a very good point. Currently developers pay less than 1/3 of the demand for a new school building that development creates. In addition, they currently aren't required to donate or subsidize any land for the school building -- I believe they just have to indicate what land they'd be willing to sell if the price negotiations with the district go favorably. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'd be interested in seeing Tessica's information also.

[tessieca]

This already happens through the building permit fees.  There are fees assessed for impacts to public safety (police and fire), schools, sewers, water, etc., etc., etc.

Fees don't equate to donation of land as is done for parks in the Quimby Act.

Tessieca, can you provide information as to the total amount in school fees the Parker Company has paid to the City of Folsom for the Parkway development? 

Parkway's current assessment is $4.21 psf. It is paid to the district, by the way, and doesn't go through the city. It is only paid as permits are pulled, and I can't tell you how many of those have occurred. Since the assessments change from time to time, this may not be what Parkway builders have paid for all of their homes thus far. See below.

Terry - your statement is an oversimplification.  Currently developers pay less than 1/3 of the demand for a new school building that development creates.  In addition, they currently aren't required to donate or subsidize any land for the school building --  I believe they just have to indicate what land they'd be willing to sell if the price negotiations with the district go favorably. 

This is accurate!

Also, it is important to note that those fees that come from new developments don't just support 1/3 of an elementary school. Those new residents also have an impact at the middle and high school levels, so funds are spread out and not just dedicated to one elementary.

Try some of the math: average home size of 2000 sf = $8,420 per home. 100 homes would generate $842,000. Yet, the land alone for Parkway's proposed elementary would be closer to a million, with none left to build the school and none left to add middle and high school space. Our district doesn't dedicate funds to a particular site, BTW. Permit fees are added to a Folsom capital facilities fund that is used for growth throughout the city. By law, permit fees cannot be used for modernizing, but can be used for growth including portables and additional cafeteria space.

[Terry]

Fees don't equate to donation of land as is done for parks in the Quimby Act.
Parkway's current assessment is $4.21 psf.  It is paid to the district, by the way, and doesn't go through the city.  It is only paid as permits are pulled, and I can't tell you how many of those have occurred.  Since the assessments change from time to time, this may not be what Parkway builders have paid for all of their homes thus far.  See below.
This is accurate!

Also, it is important to note that those fees that come from new developments don't just support 1/3 of an elementary school.  Those new residents also have an impact at the middle and high school levels, so funds are spread out and not just dedicated to one elementary.

Try some of the math: average home size of 2000 sf = $8,420 per home.  100 homes would generate $842,000.  Yet, the land alone for Parkway's proposed elementary would be closer to a million, with none left to build the school and none left to add middle and high school space.  Our district doesn't dedicate funds to a particular site, BTW.  Permit fees are added to a Folsom capital facilities fund that is used for growth throughout the city.  By law, permit fees cannot be used for modernizing, but can be used for growth including portables and additional cafeteria space.

Developers are paying their fair share. If it's not enough then other changes needs to be made - state funds, local funds, and property taxes are the 3 pieces of the school funding pie. But I cringe everytime I hear that developers should pay more. Why? Just because they seem to have all the money? Why not have the schools and government better manage the funds they're already provided?

Sorry, you'll never get me to agree that developers aren't doing their fair share. It's simply that the schools can't manage their money.

[tessieca]

Well, Terry, I might have been able to agree with your property rights position; however, when you state that the lack of funding to build schools has anything to do with management of money you're just wrong and trying to inflame people.

New facilities are only needed because of growth (new students coming to the area). Districts just don't sit on pots of money just in case the community around them starts to grow. If you think 1/3 funding is a "fair share," that's fine. But the other 2/3 must come from somewhere, and it's taxpayers' pockets whether it's from state funding or from bond funding.

That means that those of us paying the 2/3 will probably continue to press the developers to pay more because it's they who are creating the need for new schools, and it's they who are making the huge bucks by doing so. A dollar in their pocket means two dollars out of our pockets to pay for what they have wreaked.

You see? They pay, but they profit -- LOTS! We pay, but we don't profit other than assuring our community's kids have a space in which to be educated.

[MikeinFolsom]

What about our Mello-Roos fees that are paid every month? I'm almost sure that with all of those fees, coupled with the kick in by the developer and the school board, we should get a school built. Each school receives federal funds for having a child in school each and every day. So why am I paying Mello-Roos funds to an existing school?

[benning]

If you think 1/3 funding is a "fair share," that's fine.  But the other 2/3 must come from somewhere, and it's taxpayers' pockets whether it's from state funding or from bond funding. 

That means that those of us paying the 2/3 will probably continue to press the developers to pay more because it's they who are creating the need for new schools

Terry -
probably wasting my typing fingers trying to affirm Tess's point but here it is and it's simple logic:

Development drives 100% of the demand for new school buildings.
Development pays 1/3 of these costs; those who profit from development call it 'fair share' and then divert attention by claiming the district's poor fiscal management (?) and also by claiming people like me don't want them to make a profit (??).
The actual current assessment is miniscule and each moment is continuing to shrink dramatically with respect to the overall property value, yet they somehow have convinced people like you to defend them.

Whatever happened to community responsibility?

[bishmasterb]

Development drives 100% of the demand for new school buildings. 

Actually, parenthood drives 100% of the demand for new school buildings.

[DavidH]

Actually, parenthood drives 100% of the demand for new school buildings.

Well played!

[Terry]

Well played! 

Then explain to me why school districts with almost zero development growth (relatively speaking for instance San Juan District) is in such dire trouble. I still say school districts and state government have been and will continue to be poor managers of money/assets.

Those of us were here back before Folsom's boom (say pre-1980) can attest to the Folsom-Cordova district caterwallering about no money back then, too.

So, in my experience, the school district(s) will always claim poverty, and if they can blame developers, they will.

I'm not trying to get allies for my position, simply stating my position. And like you who disagree, I also won't change my opinion unless the school district starts taking responsibility for its own misspent monies/opportunities.

[bishmasterb]

I agree with you Terry.

It's the nature of a monopoly to not be concerned with being fiscally sound. What's the point in being efficient if you can always raise prices and there is no competition to threaten you?

[tessieca]

What about our Mello-Roos fees that are paid every month? 

Mello Roos fees go to the City for things like highway interchanges, not to the schools.

Actually, parenthood drives 100% of the demand for new school buildings.

LOL, some of that is true, but we parents aren't growing Folsom's population at the rate the developers are able to.

It's the nature of a monopoly to not be concerned with being fiscally sound. What's the point in being efficient if you can always raise prices and there is no competition to threaten you?

How the he#ll can the district simply "raise prices"?? Please tell me the trick so I can educate everybody about how they've been avoiding the easy path.

Competition would be great if the same rules were applied to public schools as to their competing schools. For example, charters are exempt from many rules to which public schools have to adhere. Private schools often cater to those who are most easily educated and leave the lower-socioeconomic students (without the resources at home) and special education students to the public schools. It ain't competition if there's no equal student population, equal levels of funding, and equal rules of the game.

[tessieca]

Oh, and Terry, please educate us all with some examples of this supposed mismanagement of funds. Since education is public, the books are open to all. If you believe anything has been mismanaged, then it should have been brought to someone's attention. Or, do you maybe have a personal gripe?

[bishmasterb]

How the he#ll can the district simply "raise prices"??  Please tell me the trick so I can educate everybody about how they've been avoiding the easy path.

Simple, just raise taxes (income, property, developer fees, inflation, etc.) and borrow money. This is what the state has been doing for a long time, and the adjusted price of educating a child just continues to increase.

Tess, monopolies are not concerned with keeping costs contained or being efficient, it isn't in their interest to do so...there's nothing in it for them. Without competition, true competition, there is no incentive to be efficient.

None of this is the fault of the teachers or school district administrators, they are great individuals trapped in a fundamentally flawed system.

Competition would be great if the same rules were applied to public schools as to their competing schools.  For example, charters are exempt from many rules to which public schools have to adhere.  Private schools often cater to those who are most easily educated and leave the lower-socioeconomic students (without the resources at home) and special education students to the public schools.  It ain't competition if there's no equal student population, equal levels of funding, and equal rules of the game.

I agree that a comparison between current public education and private education is marginalized at best. Current private schools get the cream of the crop students. But the current private educational system is also perverted in the sense that the competition is "free" and they have to play by many of the same silly regulations that public schools do. They are not free to innovate.

You bring up a good point however. The lower-socioeconomic students are the ones who are fairing the worst in the current public educational system. If we allow the free market and entrepreneurs to come up with better, more efficient education, the lower-income students have the most to gain.

[Terry]

Oh, and Terry, please educate us all with some examples of this supposed mismanagement of funds.  Since education is public, the books are open to all.  If you believe anything has been mismanaged, then it should have been brought to someone's attention.  Or, do you maybe have a personal gripe?

How about administrator pay? Or how about poor budgeting for maintenance of schools. Don't administrators know that facilities need a maintenance budget instead of letting them get into such disrepair? How about the short useful life of some of the materials, equipment, supplies that in other environments would last a lot longer? And how about the sale of surplus property to fund staff parties (oh, I guess that stopped a few years back - or did they just stop doing it so publicly?).

Personal gripe? Well, I suppose if my PERSONAL tax dollars are being misused, I guess you could call it a PERSONAL gripe!

[benning]

People are taking the easy way out and are hand waving about bureaucracy, accountability and efficiency. The fact is, school land acquisition and construction is a completely distinct subset of the school system. Complain all you want (preferably on another topic) about how badly school's are broken in the context of their primary role --- to teach future generations. This topic is all about how to house the students -- where to put them while teaching them.

On building and purchasing land, you cannot compare private enterprise (such as home developers) with school construction and development departments. They have no speculative money, no risk tolerance (thank goodness) and therefore cannot put themselves in the position that development companies are in currently which is now quite a bull market. Their hands are tied and all they can do is watch while their patch of land earmaked for the local elementary is priced out of their reach by the people who agreed years ago to sell it to them.

True, asking developers to pony up might, at first glance, seem to be the easy way out. But, make no mistake, the 'out' that they're trying to get from was created by development, not by inefficiency. If anything, development is exacerbating the problem because they're demanding today's inflated prices on land that was promised to the district years ago. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be too big of a stretch for the district to have the power to ask developers to negotiate a not to exceed price on land BEFORE development is allowed. Unfortunately, we obviously can't count on goodwill as the public sector has in the past (think Rockefeller Plaza, Carnegie Hall).

It's just so annoying to walk into a subdivision sales office and hear them talk about the planned school that the developer is 'providing' and then, just a few short months later, to hear the homeowner's blame the school district, and not the developer, for the fact that the school may not be built and children may be bussed, etc.