183 replies to this topic

[bishmasterb]

...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.

Are you saying that land developers defaulted on a contract? That should be easy enough to resolve in the courts.

If you're just saying that land developers aren't being altruistic and selling land below the market price...do you expect them to behave differently than you yourself would?

[Robert Giacometti]

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.

Terry,

If we didn't build any more new homes we wouldn't need any more new schools!
Why shouldn't those who are creating the need for new schools to be built, be responsibile for paying for them?

The current funding formula for new school construction has to be one of the worst policies this state has! The existing residents have to raise their taxes to build schools that their children will not attend and our state, with its massive budget deficiets, contributes the other 1/3 to pay for schools with funds that make the deficiet larger. What a stupid policy!

Also, we force schools to be constructed in a way that artificially inflates the construction costs of schools.

Both of these policies need to be rethought, so that schools can be built more efficiently and those who are causing the need for new schools pay for their impacts.

Why, should existing residents subsidize for growth?

Why should the state incurr more debt to subsidize those who want to move here?

[Terry]

Terry,

If we didn't build any more new homes we wouldn't need any more new schools!
Why shouldn't those who are creating the need for new schools to be built, be responsibile for paying for them?

The current funding formula for new school construction has to be one of the worst policies this state has! The existing residents have to raise their taxes to build schools that their children will not attend and our state, with its massive budget deficiets, contributes the other 1/3 to pay for schools with funds that make the deficiet larger. What a stupid policy!

Also, we force schools to be constructed in a way that artificially inflates the construction costs of schools.

Both of these policies need to be rethought, so that schools can be built more efficiently and those who are causing the need for new schools pay for their impacts.

Why, should existing residents subsidize for growth?

Why should the state incurr more debt to subsidize those who want to move here?

Bob, see my previous posts on this subject. Even districts with NO growth moan and groan about not having money.

My opinion is my opinion, and I have yet to have anyone present information that would change it.

[benning]

Are you saying that land developers defaulted on a contract? That should be easy enough to resolve in the courts.

If you're just saying that land developers aren't being altruistic and selling land below the market price...do you expect them to behave differently than you yourself would?

1) No, there isn't an agreement on price up front. If that were the case, then the courts could handle it.

2) Not at all. This is how I would and do behave.

[benning]

Bob, see my previous posts on this subject.   Even districts with NO growth moan and groan about not having money. 

My opinion is my opinion, and I have yet to have anyone present information that would change it.

Your argument seems to be that because you hear moaning and groaning and witness inefficiency, that an objective review and possible revision to a current bad policy is off the table.

At my house, I don't have to be the perfect housekeeper to ask my kids to pick up their socks. In other words, people don't lose their entire right to complain about something just because they themselves are human, imperfect, and are working with other imperfect humans within an imperfect institution.

If you wait till everything is perfect, nothing will ever get done. Let's keep to specifics about schools buildings, the formulas for funding and, yes, cost control and accountability in the context of school buildings and maybe we'll get somewhere.

[bishmasterb]

2) Not at all.  This is how I would and do behave.

Awesome! I will have a cashier's check ready for you tomorrow for 75% of the market value of your house. Does a 30 day escrow work for you?

Pleasure doing business with you!

[benning]

Awesome! I will have a cashier's check ready for you tomorrow for 75% of the market value of your house. Does a 30 day escrow work for you?

Pleasure doing business with you!

I think you're a bit smarter than that, Bish. If you were a school district and I were in the position of receiving a windfall profit; particularly from a piece of land I intended for you all along, you would most certainly receive the benefit of a good portion if not all of my profit. It's good business practice, generous to the community, promotes good will and most likely provides me with a tax break.

Pay it forward, baby

[Robert Giacometti]

Bob, see my previous posts on this subject.  Even districts with NO growth moan and groan about not having money. 

My opinion is my opinion, and I have yet to have anyone present information that would change it.

Terry,

There may be 2 separate issues here. The one I am most concerned about is the source of funding for construction of new schools. There is another issue regarding funds for operations of existing schools.

The funding for operations of schools is an extremely complicated system with all different kinds of "categorioals" contributing to funding for operations. My limited understanding is that these funds are based upon enrollment, with all different caveats. ( IMHO,this is so complicated even some districts don't completely understand this process)

When you use the example of San Juan complaining about lack of funds, I'm assuming you are refering to their complaint about lack of funds for operations. Probably most Districts with declining enrollments are complaing about a lack of funds. There are many reasons why they are in this position and would agree with you to some extent that they haven't been effective in their administration of expenses. ( I am not convinced there is any Government agency at any level that has done a superior job of doing this. Most people who know me, knew this was my motivation for running for City Council)

I firmly believe our state has a very short sighted policy for new school funding, in that the existing residents in effect are subsidizing growth. This is what needs to change, IMHO!

I am curious, who do you think should pay for the costs of building new schools?

[bishmasterb]

I think you're a bit smarter than that, Bish.  If you were a school district and I were in the position of receiving a windfall profit; particularly  from a piece of land I intended for you all along, you would most certainly receive the benefit of a good portion if not all of my profit.  It's good business practice, generous to the community, promotes good will and most likely provides me with a tax break.

Pay it forward, baby

You can pay it forward and expect others to do so.

I live in a slightly different place where people operate from there own self-interest, and you have to negotiate with people...give them what they want in order to get what you want. I call this place "reality". It's not warm and fuzzy, there aren't cute little bunnies hopping around, but it works well and people end up getting what they want usually.

[tessieca]

Bish, if you pay Benning only 5 times what she paid for her house instead of 10 times her basis, she might just accept your offer!

[Terry]

Okay, I guess my point has been proved to some extent........

tessieca, I asked to be provided a figure for what Parker Development (or the entirety of the Parkway development's various builders) has paid to date to the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Just a total figure to date for the school fees being paid to the district. And if you can't provide it to date, how about for each of the last 4 or 5 fiscal years? You name the period of time, and provide the total figure.

If you can't obtain this figure from them, doesn't that say a lot about what happens in the beauraucracy that is our school district?

Please, my intent is not personal towards you tessieca, just would like to get an answer. I really believe it would be an eye-opener for the people who continue this discussion to have an idea of the total amount of cash funds allocated to the district, not to mention the property values of land set aside for schools.

[tessieca]

Ooh, en garde! Parker doesn't pay a dime into schools. **Okay, I might have to modify that. Usually, land developers don't pay a dime, but I've been told that Parker might have built a few models before selling to real builders, so it might be more than a dime in their case.

Builders pay when permits are pulled. Are you talking about Phase II (the development for whom this school site was to have been used)? 'Cause then we'll only have to look back a coupla years.

[tessieca]

Parkway II was expected to generate 1168 K-12 students from 2004 to buildout(per the 2004 Developer Fee Study).

The cost for those students (JUST FACILITIES, not including operations and NOT including land costs):
K-5 $8,271,600
6-8 $6,788,100
9-12 $9,745,800
TOTAL 24,805,400

Parkway II builders (not the developer/landowners) have paid $6,967,327.54 (as of 6/3/05). This was received from the facilities department at the district office. Most single family home permits have been pulled, but there are some multi-family permits yet to be pulled and paid.

Thus, for phase II, the builders are not quite up to their 1/3 share (per the state funding formula), but are on track.

The cost of the building just for the K-5 students in Parkway Phase II was projected to be around $12,000,000. The land cost was projected at $3,500,000 (one-third of what the developer now wants). The land cost was based on an actual appraisal that was done when the district first made an offer to purchase. The landowner delayed the process long enough that the district finally went into condemnation proceedings. That final appraisal in the condemnation proceedings came in at 3 times the original appraisal, making it irresponsible to continue with the purchase of the site. Whether you choose to blame the district or the developer, or simply market conditions in Folsom, it would not have been fiscally responsible to purchase the land for nearly $10,000,000.

[Terry]

Parkway II was expected to generate 1168 K-12 students from 2004 to buildout(per the 2004 Developer Fee Study). 

The cost for those students (JUST FACILITIES, not including operations and NOT including land costs):
K-5    $8,271,600
6-8    $6,788,100
9-12  $9,745,800
TOTAL 24,805,400

Parkway II builders (not the developer/landowners) have paid $6,967,327.54 (as of 6/3/05).  This was received from the facilities department at the district office.  Most single family home permits have been pulled, but there are some multi-family permits yet to be pulled and paid.

Thus, for phase II, the builders are not quite up to their 1/3 share (per the state funding formula), but are on track.

The cost of the building just for the K-5 students in Parkway Phase II was projected to be around $12,000,000.  The land cost was projected at $3,500,000 (one-third of what the developer now wants).  The land cost was based on an actual appraisal that was done when the district first made an offer to purchase.  The landowner delayed the process long enough that the district finally went into condemnation proceedings.  That final appraisal in the condemnation proceedings came in at 3 times the original appraisal, making it irresponsible to continue with the purchase of the site.  Whether you choose to blame the district or the developer, or simply market conditions in Folsom, it would not have been fiscally responsible to purchase the land for nearly $10,000,000.

Okay, so let me get this right, the builders are on track to pay their required 1/3.

And the school district wants 4 times that amount plus operations expenses plus land expenses.

Extremely poor planning in my opinion. I'd like to see ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT anywhere in California AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY say they have enough money.

My point is no matter what you get (assuming you get the other 2/3 funding from property taxes and state funds) it will never be enough.

[dave]

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.

Bishman, FCUSD cannot raise taxes one penny on their own. They need taxpayer or Legislative approval.

FCUSD is not a true monopoly as there are private alternatives, but I know what you mean. You are very wrong when you say there is no incentive for them to be efficient. In fact, they have much the same incentive as in the private sector. There are people in control who want to do well in their jobs in order to advance, or just because it is the right thing to do. Also, they are watched very closely.

FCUSD is, in fact, very efficient with taxpayer dollars. I have read their budget cover to cover for years as it is public information. I doubt there are many people on this forum that can say the same.

There are many private companies who are well known to be wasteful with company dollars. It is all a matter of how well people are watched.

Public entities have many more interests to balance than private companies. People have different priorities. For example, if someone has a kid in the district who has special needs, they often believe more $ should be spent in that area. Parents of gifted children think the district should spend more on those kind of kids. A private company has it much easier in many ways.