BurbankViewpoints has a good article this week about a possible discrepancy between potential BUSD building costs vs. the amount of developer fees the district is allowed to charge in order to recoup those same expenses under state law. The upshot is that our Burbank schools could end up losing money on all of the fancy condominiums and apartments that staff and a few of our city council members have no problem seeing get built.
That is, unless these new developments magically begin and end as Swinging Singles units without kids, which apparently is the dream of our current booster class.
The BUSD’s official outside analysis was glum on the matter. Viewpoints goes further:
It’s important to note that the analysis prepared for the district was a cost projection — the actual cost impact on schools could, in fact, turn out to be much less (or much more).
Also, the school district must meet certain legal requirements before imposing the fee on new construction in the first place. They must:
1. Determine the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put;
3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
4. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
5. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost, or portion of the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed; and
6. Provide an annual accounting of any portion of the fee remaining unspent or held for projects for more than five (5) years after collection.
With Matt Hill going around recently and claiming that the district already has room on the Hill for those 1,500 dream units at Old IKEA, this could be a touchy thing to accomplish.