Which might be hard to do with a school superintendent who’s already been going around and telling people that there’s plenty of room for all those new kids


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.



Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Which might be hard to do with a school superintendent who’s already been going around and telling people that there’s plenty of room for all those new kids

  1. Anonymous

    Looks like someone brought this up at the City of Burbank FB page

    Did you reach out to Matt Hill on this? He answered a question I had regarding schools having space for the potential influx of students. I was told that there are 1,000 families on permit in Burbank. Rather than increase the number of students the permits would not be issued to make room for Burbank residents. I am curious to see if that changed. It was my understanding that the revenue from development would go to enhancing the existing schools and not building new ones.

    • semichorus


      The political pressures alone would prevent this. Many of these outsider permits go to well-connected parents, like studio people and even city employees. Jefferson alone is full of them. Never happen.

      His admission here of space available will though INDEED make it more difficult for the BUSD to justify top developers fees. Which can yes be used for enlargement purposes.

  2. Irwin Fletcher

    Larry Applebaum declared, in public, that both high schools are full, and there is no room to expand the high school campuses into adjacent properties. Looking around, you can see that the elementary campuses installed “modular” (can you say trailer?) classrooms, which is a stopgap until they can build more permanent structures (a new bond?). I don’t think we can afford to add more kids- we can barely contain what we have. Permit kids with discipline problems get kicked out first, but the well behaved children of Burbank-employed parents will stay.

    • semichorus

      Both school bonds were sold with the promise that the money would be used for “permanent” classrooms.

      The next one will be too. And all these Burbank saps will fall for it again.

      If Gordon loses his seat there will be no outspoken voices out there. The others are all too easily flattered. These proposals will sail through, and they’ll treat cutting down IKEA from 1500 to 800 units as some huge triumph.

      I agree as well. Revoking permits to create more room in the schools ain’t gonna happen. It’ll be used as a rationale for development, and then afterwards we’re gonna hear that, “People, we need a bond issue…

      “For the kids.”

  3. Irwin Fletcher

    Many local kids go to private schools or home school, although I have no idea what the numbers are, other than what I know around my area, so if the rents are really high on these new buildings, maybe they are hoping those kids will also opt for a private education as well.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s