Comments on: Fremont Council Wrap

By: Jim G.

Jim G. — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:17:19 +0000

found it right after I asked my own quetsion… if you follow the link to the Pleasanton school page I provided.

I looked at the chart they provide and I dont see anything that is anywhere as low as the 2.70 that Fremont Native indicated. In fact, it seems like for most common large-scale development they might be charging several multiples of what fremont does.

By: Jim G.

Jim G. — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 20:13:35 +0000

this is interesting, i had No idea how this works in Fremont.

It seems like FremontNative knows the Fremont charge per square foot of development. But, does anybody know what Pleasanton charges ?

By: Gus Morrison

Gus Morrison — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:14:15 +0000

Just to clarify, Jim G. posted a link to the Pleasanton School district page telling how the fees are processed, not how much is collected. The process is the same in both places.

As far as what FUSD charges developers, I do not know the amount, but if it isn’t the maximum the state law permits, the board and administration of the district are derelict.

By: Fremont Native

Fremont Native — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:54:05 +0000

Am I missing something, Mr. Morrison.
The Fremont Unified District process is not same as Pleasanton. Until recently, FUSD was charging only $2.70/sqft based on 1970′s law. The additional money generated via developer fees is good enough only for staff overheads. But the impacted schools do not get any money for infrastructure improvements. If FUSD Board and Staff had been pro-active for the past decade, they should have generated extra revenue from the developers and that should have helped facilities across the School District. But since majority of the current school board trustees and city council members are supported by developers for their campaigns and charities, they just did not bother to negotitate to get extra monies for schools all these years.

By: Gus Morrison

Gus Morrison — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:51:11 +0000

The Pleasanton process is exactly the same as the Fremont process. Developer pays the school district fees and shows the receipt to the city.

The ballot measure which set the fee arrangement maximum also reduced the requirement for passing bonds from 2/3 to 55%. School people generally supported the measure because of the bond vote change, with the current result.

By: Jim G

Jim G — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:44:10 +0000

Seems like Pleasanton has an interesting approach to the balancing of development and funding for schools.

Check out this -

http://www.pleasanton.k12.ca.us/BusinessServices/Purchasing/DeveloperFees.cfm

By: SuperDuper

SuperDuper — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:06:51 +0000

Thanks Andrew and I take your point that, by State Law, it is not possible for staff to deny a development simply because of perceived adequacy of available schools. I’ve read through the link you provided and it is englightening.

I think the issue that Matt Zinger raises goes beyond simple legality, though. And it is emphasized both in Matt’s posting AND the article you supplied -Matt states that “..the staff didn’t even care to listen..” and the article you supplied states repeatedly that the solution involves careful communication between city staff and school administration -it also acknowledged that the latter was not occurring, which seems to circle back around to the same point that Matt Zinger is making.

Concise open communications between constituency, council, and staff (and now school administration) helps. I think Matt is saying that he felt that his attempts to communicate were ineffectively handled.

BTW – as far as “carping from the sidelines” goes – you raise a good point, we certainy can all get more involved . . . but, last time I checked, I paid my taxes to the City of Fremont in full !

By: Andrew M.

Andrew M. — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:29:09 +0000

SuperDuper, it takes some time to sort through the chaff, but searching combinations of terms such as california, housing, schools, planning, deny comes up with a few. Here’s one…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/chulavista/20040201-9999_z1m31schools.html

That’s how I found the text of SB 50.

By: SuperDuper

SuperDuper — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:22:04 +0000

Andrew -

Tried to do a google on “SB 50″ + “california” and can’t seem to see the “complaints” you mention – not saying they aren’t there -but I cant get to them readily. Perhaps you have some specific links you can share ?

I do see references to the bill, analysis of impact, etc., but I have as of yet been unable to find where cities are complaining. . . . . Anecdotally, I *did* find one link where where some cities were reported as “openly defiant” about some aspects of SB 50 – Livermore was mentioned.

By: Andrew M.

Andrew M. — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:28:01 +0000

No, I am not on the city staff though over the years I have served on a few boards and commissions. I also attend occasional city council meetings, budget reviews and the occasional Ohlone and FUSD board meetings, sometimes speaking at them. I believe making an effort to understand and improve things is far better than complaining from the sidelines. And yes, I am saying that just because some state law makes it illegal it really does tie the city’s hands. By-the-way, if you search Google on the subject you will find the same complaint about SB 50 registered by many cities.