Town Square

Post a New Topic

"Yes on D" ad says we would get 2 million for schools

Original post made by Wondering if it is true on Apr 30, 2010

Today's PW (Aril 30) has a yellow sticker on the cover. The sticker says:

"Yes on Measure D
-----------------
Means $2 Million for our schools And $300,000 More each year.

YES/D See our ad on page 2"

On page 2, tha ad says:

"$2 MILLION FOR OUR SCHOOLS

Oak Grove YES on D will bring $2 million in direct fees to the school district, money that can be put toward improving facilities and ensuring adequate capacity.

$300,000 MORE EVERY YEAR

And the property taxes from a mere 51 homes will contribute about $300,000 every year to our schools that can be used for programs, teachers and books.

Let's not let this opportunity slip away. Join me and help approve Oak Grove. Vote YES on D.

TANYA LUDDEN
Past President
Peralta District PTA
(includes Pleasanton schools) YES/D "


-----------


Does anyone know where I can get more information about measure D? I receive conflicting information all the time and I am not sure whether to vote YES or NO.


Comments (36)

Posted by fact checker, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2010 at 6:29 pm

For the school fee information check the school district website. The developer has put in writing that they will honor the $8.62 per sq ft gift tax and John Casey said he plans on executing that agreement at a school board meeting, I believe in late March.

The 2 million is arrived at by taking 5000 sg ft homes and multiplying that by 51. That actually comes to $2.2 million. If the homes are larger it will be more money up to 7000 sq ft. That figure does not include ADA on the projected student population already included in the school district future demographics. It also does not include bond money paid. That is how they arrived at the $300,000 more each year.

Glad you are asking questions! I asked too!
I am voting yes on Measure D


Posted by Joe, a resident of Downtown
on Apr 30, 2010 at 6:41 pm

"If you build it, they will come." And then they will pay.


Posted by letsgo, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2010 at 8:43 pm

I don't think money for the schools should in anyway affect your vote on this. It is not long lasting money and its not going to come in time to seriously help the schools in any meaningful way. So vote on the project on the merits of the project, not whether there is some little side affect (I never know whether to use affect or effect)


Posted by Do not be mislead!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 30, 2010 at 10:40 pm

Letter: School dollars from D?
Web Link

Growth does not pay for itself when it comes to schools. Do not be mislead!

"The property taxes do not go to the schools. The schools get paid by the state on a per student basis (ADA). We already know that is not enough per student and that is why the district is doing fundraising."

"If we think unlimited ADA dollars will benefit our district we do not need to build even one more home. PUSD can open its boundaries and allow the hundreds probably thousands of student from other districts to attend Pleasanton schools. Many from other districts try to come every year. Every student that attends who lives in Fremont, Hayward, Oakland Livermore or Dublin would bring ADA dollars. What would the 'quality of life impact' of our already overcrowded campuses be on our students?"

"No matter what the land developer says the only fee that the homebuilder is required to pay is a State required fee of $2.97 SQFT with a cap of 7000 (or 5000 according to the developers). Based on the developers cap this is $757,350. of capital only dollars that are probably 10 or more years away, NOT 2-3mm.

"The bond will not be receiving more money. As properties are added to the city, each property pays their percentage of the total value of the city bond debt."

Beware what you believe from a developer, once they get their approval promises mean very little. Remember that Signature promised to build a school in exchange for millions of dollars in discounted school mitigation fees. They got their approvals and their discount.....we will never have the school.


Posted by Do the math!, a resident of Foothill High School
on May 1, 2010 at 7:25 am

I keep hearing about money coming in, but how much will it COST to add these kids to our already crowded schools? I keep hearing stories of kids that have to go across town just to find a classroom that has space for them. More students is not the answer. Let me do the math here.... 51 homes, 3 kids per home (very large houses normally mean bigger families), 153 kids.. right? at 30 students per class (25 for younger grades). So we need:
*5 (or 6)more teachers
*5 (or 6)added new classrooms
*150 sets of books and materials
*Part of an administrator's time to manage the 5 teacher & classroom
*Subs as needed at $100 per day
*Benefits for the teachers, esp. insurance, training and sick time
*Sports coaches when they get to middle school
*Playground space
*Utilities,Heat & a/c for the classroom
*Janitor Support
*The school district office will keep a chunck
*and more.

That all adds up to a lot more $300,000 per year! Or spent differently, that might pay for just 1 Superintendent of schools + car/travel expenses. But will that person educate our students?

Don't be fooled. More students will NOT pay our bills.
Vote NO on D. Save Pleasanton Hills.com


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 1, 2010 at 7:50 am

The school district's own projection is 41 students spread across the grade levels. If you are going to make a point at least look up the data.

A teacher is hired for every 30 students. Sub costs are considered in the cost of a teacher.

The rest of the list is just made up stuff off the top of your head.

Do the math must have gone to school some place else!

The property is zoned rural residential and housed will be built there.

This project limits the numbers and gives some very nice amenities to the community.

500 acres of accessible open space for all of Pleasanton!

Vote YES on Measure D


Posted by Do not be mislead!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 1, 2010 at 9:01 am

Do not be mislead!
Tanya should be ashamed for her misleading statements.
Growth does not pay for itself when it comes to schools.


Posted by longtime parent, a resident of Birdland
on May 1, 2010 at 10:02 pm

I am surprised that Tanya was involved in this ad of deception. There are no fees from this development that will go into teachers, books, or any other operational costs. The bond money is not an increase to the school district either. The bond is for paying off a loan for previous capital improvements and the price is fixed as well as the payment. While new homes pay the bond, other property owners will see their property tax go down by a few pennies (when the property value of Pleasanton is over 17.2B, everybody's percentage is small so not much changes when a new house is added). The school district does not get any more money for the bond from these new houses.

There is also no additional money for operations except for the new students who go to the schools where the state pays ADA per student. Don't think the district would want this as the district is already telling people we do not get enough from the state on a per pupil basis; that is why they tried for a parcel tax and now a fundraiser. Simple economics is if you loose money selling one item, you don't make up for it in quantity.

A current school board member and three previous school board members signed the ballot arguments against this development. No school board members, past or current, signed the ballot arguments in favor. That says something!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 1, 2010 at 11:30 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Go ahead, vote no on D because you believe that 51 homebuilders will pay less than $8.62 per sq. foot even though you don't know for sure and can't predict what will actually be paid. You'll help Pleasanton lose NINETY PERCENT of the property.


Posted by You are kidding right?, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 2, 2010 at 6:53 am

Long time parent does NOT what he or she is talking about. Check the web page, look at the school board meeting tape. . .Fees will go to the school district and $2 million is an under estimation based on THEIR ad.

And go ahead and ask the other school board members what they would had done if they had been asked to sign the ballot statement. Ask if they support this!

There are fees from the developer that will go to buildings which can take care of maintenance issues. That DOES free up general fund money to go elsewhere. The ad does not maintain that it will go to teachers or class size.

The city will gain 500 acres of parkland forever!!!!!!

Check out the facts yourself.

Then vote YES on Measure D


Posted by Do not be mislead!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 2, 2010 at 10:04 am

If any developer mitigation fees make it to PUSD they will likely be used to pay the legal fees of the last developer who made false promises to this community.

Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me.....
I will vote NO on D!

And shame on Tanya.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 2, 2010 at 11:54 am

I don't think you can do the fool me twice thing here. Ruby Hill homeowners paid developer fees to mitigate growth. If Signature was promising Neal, they did not make the decision not to build it--that was the district. The reasons for the lawsuits that followed were a lousy choice over negotiating.

So the decision on Oak Grove is separate. My personal belief is that we cannot debate about OUR hills or our anything; it isn't ours unless we choose as a community to buy it from the Lins for our collective desires. Otherwise, I'll be over to hang out in your backyard, uninvited, because I hear its pretty nice.


Posted by Fact checker, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 2, 2010 at 5:13 pm

Ruby Hill and Oak Grove two different issues. If the district had built the school when they said they would there would NEVER have been an issue. They waited until the cost escalated and the original negotiated amount was never meant to be a blank check. The district refused the amount of money offered in a negotiated settlement. Bad choice. If you signed a contract for one thing and the amount rises due to inflation, what would you do?

The fact that Tanya, who has demonstrated her commitment to the children of this community, would come out in full support of Measure D should tell you something. People care about this city.

What I find reprehensible is the personal demonization that is going on. When did we, as a community, get to the point that a difference of opinion would result is this type of nastiness? Is this who we are? Is this what we have become?

That is where the shame lies!




Posted by Do not be mislead!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 2, 2010 at 5:54 pm

Fact checker you really need to change you moniker.

The cost of building the school did not change. From the begining Signature said being a builder they could build the school for 5 million less. That was to be their contribution for the 5 million dollars of mitigation fee discount. There is video at school board and city council meetings that shows very clearly what they wanted the district to believe their commitment was. Problem was the judge said what was said verbally in public did not match the contract that the very poor lawyers agreed to. Signatures lawyers clever, PUSD lawyers chumps.

There is a parallel here, the citizens of Pleasanton should have learned to beware of developersmaking misleading promises.

Tanya made a choice to become political using her PTA title. She made highly questionable statements that people have no choice but to challenge.


Posted by longtime parent, a resident of Birdland
on May 2, 2010 at 6:25 pm

The ad states that $300,000 annually to the schools for teachers and books. That is a lie.

The only truthful thing on the ad was on the $2M estimated for facilities but it did not state the rest of the story. Those fees are only for facilities. I don't think that can even be used for maintenance. It is the fee to support the additional students to the school district and the impact they have on the facilities. No money there for operations. Also, even though the developer says he is signing the agreement, he is not paying a dime to the school district. As each house is designed and ready for permits, the new homeowner will be paying the fees on a per square foot basis, up to a cap (about 1/2 the total allowed sizes of some of those houses). So this money will come to the district as each house has been designed and approved so don't expect this for many years and don't expect a check for $2M. It is not going to solve any immediate school issues. Also, Signature Properties also sued the district saying they cannot charge more than the mandated school fee amount from the state. That was all part of the suit with the district (along with the building the school). So since the district lost with Signature, I don't know if somebody else is told to pay this higher fee if they can sue the district with sever penalties for not following the orders from the judge. I don't have the final judgment letter from the judge available. The district has to be real careful on what they do now or they can loose all the developers fees.


Posted by Really?, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 2, 2010 at 6:31 pm

I love how Kathleen will use any opportunity to throw her sour grapes at the current administration when it was Mary Frances' reign that negotiated the faulty contracts. It was her tenure that did not get the school built. Then she abruptly left the district, with the current administration to resolve the already rising costs to build the school. Interesting also how she left PAUSD with pending threats of investigation. AND she was Kathleen's boss. Hmmmm.... it all seems to come together.


Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 2, 2010 at 8:58 pm

Hold on Really, I said it was "the districts decision," no more, no less. Plenty of culpability to go around on that one. What threatened investigation? AND . . . Nice try.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 2, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Who to believe?

The developer's "propaganda" is based upon the idea that all 51 home builders will pay $8.62 per sq. ft. @ average 5000 sq. ft.

The opponent's "propaganda" is based upon the idea that all 51 home builders will pay $2.97 per sq. ft. so the developer is wrong.

Who can predict how much all 51 home builders will actually pay? Who has the crystal ball? If you reject Oak Grove because you think the developer's estimate is misleading then you must also reject the opponent's argument because it is equally misleading. They don't know how much will actually be paid either. They have a fuzzy idea of how many homebuilders in Pleasanton actually pay less than $8.62 per sq. ft.

But look at the bigger picture and understand why the argument on school fees is a red herring:

If you vote no, there will be NO money for the schools.
If you vote yes, there will be $757,000 to $3MM (worst case to best case) money for the schools.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 2, 2010 at 9:03 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

If you vote no, there will be NO 500 acre public park with hiking and equestrian trails.

If you vote yes, 90% of the Oak Grove property will be put into a conservation easement and protected from development. It will be the beginnings preserving the southeast hills and opening them up to the public and it will be the largest City-owned park.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 2, 2010 at 9:16 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Here's the property from Google Earth, all within the voter-approved urban growth boundary: Web Link

The public trails are highlighted in red.


Posted by Jack, a resident of Downtown
on May 2, 2010 at 9:34 pm

Signature agreed to build a school. The school district never wanted the school. The school district enjoyed collecting fees in the name of the school. These facts are why the district lost in court...


Posted by longtime parent, a resident of Birdland
on May 2, 2010 at 9:39 pm

Stacey, the only money the school district will receive if for the impacts the new homes make our our school district. There is no money that will help the current budget situation. Our current problems are operations (teachers, etc.). There is nothing in this development plan that helps that situation.

Your statement indicates the city should approve every development plan it receives since every house pays developer impact fees.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 2, 2010 at 10:45 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

longtime parent wrote: "Your statement indicates the city should approve every development plan it receives since every house pays developer impact fees."

Follow what I've written on this subject in the other related threads. I indicate that voters should look at the Oak Grove plan in its entirety, the net effect. Personally for me, having 90% of the property put into a conservation easement to protect the hills from future development in exchange for half the legally allowed homes is the big plus. Now THAT is in writing, signed, and legal.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 2, 2010 at 10:49 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The Oak Grove plan arose out of a vision of preserving the southeast hills as outlined in the General Plan whereby the City should work with developers to get land dedications.

Along comes people who didn't want to work that way. What vision do they offer? That we'll use the power of government to legislate the land away from property owners by passing PP and referending Ordinance 1961? That's two birds in the bush that we're being asked to exchange for one in the hand.


Posted by Kim, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 3, 2010 at 10:52 am

"More students is not the answer. Let me do the math here.... 51 homes, 3 kids per home (very large houses normally mean bigger families), 153 kids.. right? at 30 students per class (25 for younger grades)."

Very large houses = more kids? I cry BS on this point. I know VERY few families with 3 or more children who could afford a 5000 SF house. They're more likely to be homes of couples with just 1 or 2 children or the wealthy childless among us.


Posted by DNBM, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 3, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Kim, have you been out to Ruby HIll? Your logic was used for that community. They said it would be homes for older families entering empty nest status. In reality it has be a community of young families with a lot of kids.

Bottom line is there is little to no benefit to our schools with Oak Grove, and in fact a small negative with additional crowding and more underfunded students.


Posted by DNBM, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 3, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Kim, have you been out to Ruby HIll? Your logic was used for that community. They said it would be homes for older families entering empty nest status. In reality it has be a community of young families with a lot of kids.

Bottom line is there is little to no benefit to our schools with Oak Grove, and in fact a small negative with additional crowding and more underfunded students.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm

Who are we to tell them not to build the homes? They own the land. It is zoned for residential real estate. Last time I checked Pleasanton was in the United States of America.


Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 4, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Thank you Patriot. I own a house on a large yard. I would like to tear down my house and put up a bunch of duplexes or townhouses. It is zoned residential, so why cannot I do what I want on my parcel. Since the Oak Grove houses can be up to three stories tall from what I have read, three story condos would be even better for my parcel. Shouldn't I be able to put 12 or so homes on my parcel if I can physically fit them there?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 4, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Overly simplistic example meant to distract from the actual issue...

The Oak Grove plan conforms to zoning as well as offering half the amount of housing than is legally allowed. A closer analogy would be if Anonymous above were to tear down their house and build one half the size.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 4, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Oh yea, forgot to mention...

Anonymous should place 90% of their large property into a conservation easement so we can all go enjoy the nice park.


Posted by I don't share their vision, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 5, 2010 at 7:34 am

Problem.. a few people sit in a circle and pow wow about how nice a vision of a trail from one side of town to the other would be for Pleasanton. The only way to get the land for the trail is to get it donated from developers.

The developers are happy to give the city unbuildable/unuseable land for a trail, in exchange for zoning changes and the right to flatten out the ridges and put houses on them.

The flaw is that only a few cooked up the trail idea. The citizens don't mind a trail, but the trade of hilltops is not worth it.

The majority council is out of touch. They receive donations and have discussions with the Chamber, lawyers and builders so often they start believing that is what is best for the city. Out of touch.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Danbury Park
on May 5, 2010 at 7:37 am

Great presentation from a guy at the council meeting on TV last night. He said only 10 lots have sold at the Calippe golf course, out of about 34. At that rate, the money to the schools will be going to my great grandkids! If it ever comes at all.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 5, 2010 at 7:59 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"a few people sit in a circle and pow wow about how nice a vision of a trail from one side of town to the other would be for Pleasanton"

Is that what you call the process that leads to the General Plan? A few people at a pow wow?

Here. I'll quote from the 1996 General Plan for you...
"In the future, the City will need additional
park sites and open space in the areas of
Pleasanton Ridge, Southeast Hills. El Charro
Road, Busch Road, San Francisco Water
Department Bernal Avenue site, Vineyard
Avenue Corridor area, and other areas shown
on the General Plan Map. The acquisition and
improvement of future community parks will
require means other than simply the Park
Dedication Ordinance. such as possible
outright public acquisition, developer
contributions, governmental agreements,
regional park funds, private donations, and
other means. In addition, the City will
continue to require the provision of private
open space within residential developments to
serve the needs of neighborhood residents."


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 5, 2010 at 8:03 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Additional facilities which are also desired in
the near future include: additional lighted
sport fields; a municipal golf course;
community center(s); a cultural arts facility;
a municipal arts facility; facilities to meet
youth needs; additional community park land
to meet active recreational needs;
neighborhood parks; a new or expanded City
Hall; additional recreation facilities to serve
the work force; and additional open space
parks on Pleasanton Ridge and in the
Southeast Hills.

Wildland areas are not isolated islands
surrounded by development, but rather a part
of a major linked system which allows
wildlife movement through a network of
regional open space. This is accomplished by
connecting the Pleasanton Ridge Regional
Park on the west to the Ohlone Wilderness
area and San Francisco Watershed lands to the
south and the Del Valle Regional Park to the
southeast. In this way, Pleasanton contributes
an important subregional resource that is much
more valuable than isolated pockets of open
space.


Posted by justwondering, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 5, 2010 at 8:32 am

Joe, more then 10 lots have been sold and plans approved by the City for Calippe--they just haven't been built yet. That is a deceitful statement to use the No on D rhetoric.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 1,359 views

David Brooks at his Best and Worst
By Tom Cushing | 11 comments | 911 views

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 29 comments | 816 views