Search

Burbank Viewpoints

Burbank, California – Information and opinion on the most crucial issues facing our city.

Category

Public Funds

No on Measures P & QS (LINK)

CLICK HERE for a well-reasoned argument against our local tax hike Measures by the I Luv Burbank folks. Here’s a highlight:

The City has basically cut-&-paste their Ballot language from Measure T and will no doubt engage in a similar “fear-based” campaign threatening Service Cuts if this massive Sales Tax Hike doesn’t pass. 

And CLICK HERE to read arguments against Measure QS: What it boils down to is giving teachers a raise on the backs of homeowners who already pay plenty of state taxes to fund education! Instead of passing a measure that will ultimately raise rents and not pay for any additional infrastructure – take this up with your local representatives and get some changes at the state level. Measure QS is a band-aid approach that will not benefit students in any measurable way. Finally, the BTA’s tactics during contract negotiations earlier this year were completely unprofessional and damaging to students. I won’t reward them by supporting this measure. 

The Tax places an unfair burden on Burbank Property Owners & Renters who are still paying for previous School Bonds (until 2032), while approx. 1300 Students who live outside the district pay nothing. Businesses with larger footprints are also disproportionally hit.

Why I am Voting NO on Y [UPDATED]

[UPDATE: I based my research below on some out of date numbers from a prior city council meeting presentation. I just learned about the error and wanted to make this correction to the post. The revised numbers would not cost the school district millions per election but still hundreds of thousands of dollars each cycle. More exact numbers aren’t possible to calculate because they are based on a number of factors. For example, how many candidates file for how many seats. The current estimates hover around $150,000 per election. Certainly not millions of dollars, unless you add them up over the years. I apologize for the error. However, this doesn’t change my position at all. The Council still wants to offload the election costs they’ve alway covered. Which will take away valuable resources from the district and will ultimately hurt students.]

I’ve followed and researched this issue and will be posting a bit more in the coming days on the other local measures on the June 5th ballot. But this one is a no brainer. 

The State of California is forcing smaller cities with poor voter participation to move their elections times to align with statewide elections. That’s a noble effort that makes a lot of sense on its face. But there’s a catch: This is going to cost the Burbank Unified School District millions hundreds of thousands of dollars each election, by forcing them to pay for the cost of county elections!

You see, the city has long wanted to offload the expense of school board elections onto the BUSD. Currently, the City administers and handles the school board elections. The cost for these elections is small compared to County-run elections. Moving school board elections to align with statewide elections will put an expensive burden on our school district. Guess who will get hurt by this?

You’ll notice no one from the school board stepped up to write an argument in favor of voting yes on Y. They are between a rock and a hard place. Urging voters to mark yes will cost them millions. Urging a no vote suggests “We hate Democracy!” It’s a sticky situation. As I have come to learn in my research, the repercussions of voting No on Y and thereby sticking with our current system, are not very serious. Literally, the worst thing that could happen if Y doesn’t pass, is that a judge could force us to comply one day.

Why should we burden our school district? It’s an expensive strategy that will ultimately hurt students.

Goodbye, Burbank.

The author’s children compete in the Buena Vista Library summer reading program’s annual costume contest — July 2010.

Twenty years ago, Burbank was just about the last place I thought I’d live. I was 29, with an unpublished novel under my belt, living in a 5-story walk-up in what was starting to be called the Upper Upper East Side, but was really Spanish Harlem, when my husband was offered a job on the writing staff of a new late night talk show — a job that came with union wages and, better yet, health insurance. When you compared it to selling monologue jokes to Letterman and earning $25 a night for MC-ing at Boston Comedy Club, it seemed like the opportunity of a lifetime (and I suppose it was). We jammed everything we owned into a Penske truck and headed to Hollywood.

After a week of driving, listening to the audiotape of Jack Kerouac’s “On the Road” a friend had given us as a going-away present, and staying in motels so crappy I made sure to keep my shoes on in the bathroom, we wound up in a two-bedroom apartment off Ventura Blvd. in Studio City. After our New York apartment, it seemed ridiculously spacious and downright luxurious, despite the flimsy fixtures and predominance of beige industrial-grade carpet. We had an extra room — I could have my own office! — and it even had a hot tub and a pool. We decided we wouldn’t need a car. We could walk to work. And when it turned out the job wasn’t on the CBS Radford lot but in Television City, we bought an unpretentious Honda (because city people don’t care about what kind of car they drive) and agreed we’d only buy just this one car for commuting to work — because most of the time we’d just walk wherever we wanted to go.

Two years later I was driving my own used Volvo station wagon. We’d had our first child — a daughter — and she’d started to walk. Overnight, our apartment had become a death trap. A balcony? A pool? Why not just hand the baby a razor blade and end the suspense. We needed a house — preferably one with a backyard.

And, one sleep-deprived afternoon — after taking a wrong turn driving back to the apartment from the dirty Target in North Hollywood — I found just the one. It was nestled in a quiet tree-lined neighborhood that looked like something out of a 1960s sitcom. The houses were neat behind perfect squares of green lawn and there were actual children playing in the streets. Our house, a two-bedroom bungalow, had a palm tree in the backyard — a Queen Date Palm apparently — and even an orange tree. We were knocked out. Could you get more “California” than that?

Our realtor had grown up around the block from the place and he knew everyone in town. He walked us through the process and before we knew it we were holding the keys to the house on Evergreen Street where we’d raise our family.

It was 2000.

This was before there was a Costco or an Empire Center or even a big multiplex in the middle of downtown. This was when you could still get from one end of Burbank to the other in less than a half hour. This was when people understood that the Airport Authority was not their friend.

Our neighbors had young children too and they played together, running in and out of each other’s homes even crossing the street to play in each other’s yards (something that seems unthinkable to me now that speeders have discovered our street’s a convenient shortcut when traffic backs up on Burbank Blvd and Hollywood Way). One of our neighbors dressed as Santa at Christmas. On the Fourth of July we had a bike parade down our block with a real live marching band (because one of the dads played the trombone at Disneyland). We knew everyone on the block. Once, when a new family moved in, we held an ice cream social to welcome them and had the kids go door-to-door handing out the invitations they’d made. Another time we found a baby squirrel we named Sweet-Tart and all the neighbor kids delivered her, by wagon, to a squirrel rescue lady who lived a few blocks over.

With my daughter, and later my son, I spent countless hours at the park down the street, and each week we loaded up the bike stroller and pedaled down the Chandler Bike path to the Buena Vista Library for story time. As they got older, they took craft classes and drama classes, gymnastics classes and team sports classes — all offered through Parks and Rec. They swam in the pools, learned to play tennis, learned to play golf, took riding lessons at the Equestrian Center and learned to skate at the Pickwick. They won bags of candy at the annual Glow-Ball tournament at the DeBell Par-3 and held a snake at the Stough Canyon Nature Center. At the week-long camps offered each summer, my son sampled volleyball, football, track, baseball and soccer before turning his attention to golf. They went all-out for the costume contest put on by the library’s summer reading program, where on the last day, you got cupcakes from Martinos if you read enough books.

We were so lucky to land in Burbank. It was a great place to raise a family. And the thing is — I don’t think that was an accident. The people making decisions about Burbank at that time must have realized something I didn’t fully appreciate until recently. Burbank had something special to offer. It was an oasis away from the bustle of Los Angeles. It wasn’t hip like Silver Lake or the Hollywood Hills. It wasn’t fancy like Santa Monica. It wasn’t like Glendale. It wasn’t like anyplace else, really. Burbank was just a sleepy little town where you could come home from work and throw a ball with your son, or sit under the stars and watch your daughter pitch a softball game, or ride your bike to the donut shop on a Sunday morning. It was a place where you could take your kids to MacCambridge to play floor hockey and see seniors swing dancing and enjoying a hot lunch. It was a place where, when you called the fire department because you smelled something funny, they showed up in minutes — and were nice about it when it turned out to be your neighbor’s barbeque.

I wasn’t paying attention — there were dinners to make and baths to give and bedtime stories to read — but it seems to me now that our elected officials, back then, must have known that Burbank was different. And at City Council meetings they must have been doing whatever they could to protect our city and fend off those forces that would try to turn it into something else. They fought hard to keep the airport from expanding, realizing that the additional revenue would come at too great a cost. They must have cared enough about young families like mine to stand up for us and make sure Burbank remained the kind of place where anyone would be lucky to raise a family.

Now, when I see new families moving into my neighborhood, I wonder: will Burbank be that for them? Or will it become just another LA neighborhood surrounded by freeways and dotted by high-rises? Because that is essentially the question our city is facing right now.

And, I know it’s complicated. The finances are different, the money just isn’t there anymore. I get that. But with all this talk of cutting services to balance the budget, of building our way into the black, and with a City Council that votes repeatedly and unanimously to sell our city off to outside developers piece-by-piece — can we expect to retain even a fraction of what makes Burbank Burbank? With that fancy new airport, more flights in and out of Burbank and hundreds of additional hotel rooms about to get green-lit — can we expect our city to remain a place where people live their lives — not a place they pass through on their way to Harry Potter’s Wizarding World?

The problem, it seems to me, is that our elected officials seem to have a very different vision for our city than a lot of us who’ve raised families here. With each new massive development project they rally behind (and there have already been a few rubber-stamped with more in the pipeline), they boast about creating a new Burbank — a modern, 21st-century city designed for a new generation. For my daughter’s generation. Burbank, they tell us, has to change with the times.

They are not entirely wrong. Change is inevitable and we can’t stay rooted in the past. Nobody understands that better than a mother with one child away at college and another retreating behind headphones and a closed bedroom door. But what we need, in my view, is sensible change. Change that recognizes the unique character of our city. Change that puts families first.

As we talk about budget cuts and plans to make Burbank bigger and better, let’s not forget the little things that make our city what it is — a place where kids can play in the streets and the parks, where seniors can get the services they need to lead healthy active lives, and where families feel safe and protected. And let’s make sure we send a message to developers who come here to line their pockets: this is not your playground. This is not an “untapped market.” This is our home.

And I know life is busy — especially for those young families who will be impacted most by what is lost. But now is the time to start paying attention — to start contacting your elected officials, to start going to City Council meetings, to make sure you vote — to remind your neighbors to vote — the next time we have a chance to weigh in on the leadership of our city.

Maybe it’s not too late. Maybe our city can be saved. Maybe — just maybe — we don’t have to say goodbye to Burbank just yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did the Mayor keep quiet about the $50,000 to Yes on B? [UPDATED]

This image has been retouched and is intended as satire.

UPDATE: The Mayor just announced he has stage 4 liver cancer but curiously, will not step down as a member of the council. This news was leaked already and it’s been a poorly kept secret around town for months. None of us really knew for sure though. I’m sure the Mayor feels a bit better now that he’s revealed his illness. I sincerely wish him and his family the best but that will not change anything I have to post here on the blog regarding the 50k.


If you’ve been following this story you know I’ve always contended that the architects of this illegal donation were the “buddies” of the City Council. Burbank luminaries, mostly from the Chamber of Commerce.  But I was wrong about who the City Council have been protecting this whole time. Public records I received last April suggest that City Manager Ron Davis, Community Development Director Patrick Prescott and Vice-Mayor (at the time) Will Rogers all knew about and discussed this illegal activity BEFORE the November Election. On December 6th when i brought our team’s research to the Council, Will Rogers was insulting and dismissive about the whole affair and confirmed he had known about this and was “disappointed” in the donation. He wasn’t sorry in the slightest. The following week he apologized for “missing” the violation of the Brown Act when reviewing the BHA’s minutes. You have to assume someone (the City Attorney?) told him to change his tone and he certainly did.

Why didn’t the Mayor call out this illegal activity ahead of the election? He clearly knew a violation of the Brown Act had occurred from the very beginning. (see #1 below)

The Semichorus blog broke part of the story back in June but I’ve been patiently waiting for the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Los Angeles District Attorney to rule on the case. At this point, I’m deeply concerned the Los Angeles District Attorney will not take legal action against a sitting city government, even though they did find the BHA had violated the Brown Act. (See #5 below) The FPPC investigation is still ongoing but I have no idea when a ruling will be made.

Will Rogers’ angry letter and Patrick Prescott’s reply. Both forwarded to the City Manager.

I wonder what Patrick told Will in order to calm him down? (see #5 below) For now, I want the public to know what’s going on in City Hall. That’s my motivation. There’s much more to the story and I hope to do a complete video that explains where we are and how we got here. People need to know this stuff or it will just continue. If you or I broke the law we’d have to pay for our actions. You can use the contact page and I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have in the meantime.  Or just post a comment below.

You can read more about this illegal use of public funds here and here. Here are additional videos:

Burbank Mom on I Heart Burbank

I wish I could have made this event at the old Ikea. I didn’t get home from work until 7:15 that evening. So hopeful they will do something similar again. But here’s an interesting viewpoint from Burbankmom.com. This is the blog that always seems to be in lockstep with the development class in our city. This time she’s a bit “sad.” Which is telling. I’m neutral on this project but very concerned for the congestion it WILL bring. I already avoid the Empire Center and downtown is already pretty bad. You can justify this massive development any way you want but the fact remains: I HEART BURBANK will further transform the downtown area into the congested, zoo-like atmosphere of the Santa Monica 3rd Street promenade when it’s completed. No one can argue against that. But of course Burbank Mom makes it sound like any dissent would be akin to “panic”. Do we want all this for a measly one-time 2.5 million increase to the city’s coffers? Remember the sales taxes go to the region not directly to our city. And the idea that Macy’s “owns” San Fernando Blvd. That one sounds pretty fishy to me. Will have to check that out and report back. The best course is to pay attention to the project and keep getting the word out so the people who live in the area can weigh in.

Yes the “50k BHA” Board broke the law

A misdemeanor no one will be punished for – but it’s a start and again – we were right. A few months ago we’ve shared further information with the District Attorney that will hopefully prod them to continue their investigation about how this all came about and who was involved.

More to come but here’s the Leader article: http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank-leader/news/tn-blr-me-bha-donation-20170607-story.html

The $50,000 Question Remains Unanswered

I’m posting this Jack Sprat video because the election is over.  Now that we have more information about what really occurred and who knew about it ahead of time, I’ll be stoking the fires again and demanding the City Council call for a disestablishment hearing for the BHA. You can read more about this illegal use of public funds here and here. I fully intend on briefing the public and the newest member of the City Council, Ms. Sharon Springer on our latest discoveries soon. I’d like to hear how she responds to our findings and if “trust” between “our city government and our community” is really something she values as she stated on her campaign website.  Here are additional videos that explain this criminal activity in a bit more detail.

When It Comes To Bikes, Burbank Is On The Wrong Path

Empty bike lane on Verdugo near Hollywood Way at rush hour. March of 2017.

Written by Amanda Biers-Melcher

The Burbank City Council’s decision to extend the Verdugo Avenue bike path to Victory Boulevard and add some safety enhancements earlier this week was hailed as a victory for Burbank bike enthusiasts and those who envision a less car dependent future for our city. Indeed, since its inception the painted bike lane that hugs Verdugo’s curb in both directions has — like virtually all the bike lanes, paths and routes in Burbank –  been little more than a road to nowhere.

Now — if the map of Burbank’s bike routes posted on the city’s web site is accurate (linked below) — the Verdugo bike lane will narrow to a bike route (this is a biking area alongside cars without a designated lane — marked in green) before connecting to another proposed bike path on Victory Blvd (a designated path like the one on Chandler Blvd shown with a blue dotted line). Riders would presumably then be able to reach downtown Burbank via another proposed bike route on Olive (designated by the green dotted line).

BurbankBikeMap2016

The problem with this plan should be immediately apparent to anyone who has actually attempted to ride a bicycle on the streets of Burbank — either on its bike routes or even the Verdugo bike path (as this author has).

It doesn’t feel safe. At all.

And that, transportation experts say, is the number one obstacle to creating communities where residents choose to commute by bike.

To see a spike in bike riding a city must be willing to make a commitment to protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes are on-street lanes that are physically separated from automobile traffic by curbs, planters, parked cars or posts. They look like this:

Example of a protected bike lane that could actually increase ridership.

A 2014 study by researchers at Portland State University, which was partially funded by the Department of Transportation, looked at eight cities and found that when protected bike lanes are added to a street, bike traffic rises by an average of 75 percent in the first year alone. Ninety-six percent of respondents in the study said protected bike lanes made them feels safer — even in areas where they’d previously had unprotected painted lanes (like the one on Verdugo).

Cities around the country are getting the message that unprotected bike lanes are insufficient. For example, in response to an increase in bike-related accidents New York City is in the process of converting some of its bike lanes to protected lanes. If Burbank is serious about encouraging biking it needs to make a similar commitment. Half measures — like extending the painted lanes along Verdugo and adding a green bike route sign where that road narrows — will do little to address the fundamental problem and can, in fact, instill a false sense of security among those who do decide to bike in this city.

Likewise, if Burbank wants to make a commitment to car-free transportation, it needs to adopt a sensible overall plan instead of greenlighting individual projects in a haphazard manner. (There is a City of Burbank Bike Master Plan but, after eight years, it seems hopelessly out-of-date). Bicycle safety experts say that having huge gaps in cycling networks — and bike lanes that abruptly end, as Burbank does now — are particularly dangerous as they unexpectedly dump riders onto busy streets. There is little point in approving bike lanes for individual streets without addressing the overall connectivity issue.

For example, last year the city added a painted bike lane along Edison Blvd from Burbank Blvd to the North Hollywood border in response to resident complaints about speeding and limited visibility when drivers attempted to enter or exit from neighboring side streets (including the author’s). While the stop signs were a welcome addition, the new bike lanes create a baffling situation for the journeyman cyclist.

Setting aside the fact that having cars park along the curb to the right of the bike lane increases the likelihood that one riding past will be hit or at the very least “door-ed”  — or the fact that the city bus is apt to careen thoughtlessly through the bike lane to the bus stop at the corner of Maple Street without warning — the worst thing about the new bike lane is that it abruptly ends where Burbank Blvd. meets Hollywood Way. As a result, the rider is suddenly left with no choice but to join the busy stream of traffic along that artery (again, dodging parked cars and weaving buses) — or to ride on sidewalks to access the bike path at Chandler.

This same lack of regard for connectivity was apparent when the city greenlighted a new bike path on Leland Way earlier this month (although, in this case, planners did seem to recognize that a protected lane — in this case by plastic barriers — was preferable to the unprotected lanes proposed in the past). Like the bike lane on Edison, the proposed path on Leland also ends abruptly without providing a connection to any other bike routes, lanes or paths.

Photo and rendering of approved Leland Way protected bike path (Courtesy of Semichorus Blog)

All of which begs the much larger question: as much as “sustainability” has become a buzzword in Burbank as of late, do we actually want our city to values bikes over cars? Indeed, the very question of whether creating a car-free Burbank is possible or even desirable is up for debate.

Even if cost is not the primary issue — since much of the cost of creating a bike-friendly infrastructure will be born by outside funds (like, for example, the Measure R funds provided by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority) — there can be no denying that making Burbank more bike-friendly by replacing car lanes with bike lanes will have a significant impact on those who live and work in the city by adding to an already significant traffic burden. And, tensions will only worsen with the upcoming boom in mega-development and endless construction projects. Blocked roads, slowed traffic and the sudden population surge will make the city’s streets more congested than ever.

So why aren’t we having this politically-contentious conversation?

Perhaps it is because Burbank’s elected officials believe taking half-measures, like extending the fundamentally-flawed Verdugo bike lane — which allow them to appear environmentally conscious without making an actual commitment to wholesale change. — is enough to satisfy most of the city’s residents. And if this seems like the political equivalent to calling yourself an environmentalist while driving an SUV, well, it is. But when only sixteen percent of residents even bother to vote maybe our representatives are not wrong in believing they can get away with it.

Unfortunately, this approach is likely to create a lose-lose situation for everyone — making day-to day life that much harder for those of us who need to get to work and school and get our kids to practices and games and dentist appointments — and endangering those intrepid enough to attempt to ride their bikes by failing to make the kinds of upgrades that could make cycling a safe and practical choice.

http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=7841&meta_id=320132

http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank-leader/news/tn-blr-me-leland-way-20170421-story.ht

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/essentially-everyone-who-sees-protected-bike-lanes-agrees-that-they-are-saf

http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=7845&meta_id=320447

http://www.tpg1.com/protest/city/nobike/van_bikelanesbad.htm

https://patch.com/new-york/chelsea-ny/nyc-outlines-plan-chelsea-bike-lane

http://www.burbankca.gov/departments/community-development/transportation/burbank-bike

Mega-Developments Could Cost Burbank Schools Millions

Thanks to a 30-year-old California law which imposes a so-called “developer’s tax” on new construction in the state — money that’s earmarked to pay for school construction and facility upgrades and maintenance — Burbank’s schools will reap additional funds from the city’s development boom. But will it be enough to offset the impact of all those new students that will result from the new development?

An April 2016 analysis prepared for the school district suggests maybe not.

The School Fee Justification Study,” prepared for the district by the consulting firm Koppel & Gruber Public Finance, examined what impact an increase in new residential housing might have on the city’s schools, which serve more than 15,000 students in grades K-12. It determined that each additional square foot of construction would cost Burbank schools $4.10. However, developers of residential housing in Burbank will only have to pay $3.48 per square foot — the maximum set by the state.

As a result, Burbank schools could be left with a shortfall of $.62 for each square foot of new residential construction. And the district could be left high and dry when it comes to commercial development too, according to the study.

State law caps the tax on new commercial construction at $.56 per square foot. With the exception of hotels, the bulk of the commercial construction projects proposed for Burbank also fell short of covering projected costs, sometimes by more than 150 percent, according to the school fee study, which set the impact construction of a standard commercial office space at $2.07 per square foot, a large high-rise commercial office space at $1.97 a square foot, and shopping center at $.85 a square foot.

The school district says it plans to use the money it collects on new development to cover roughly $124 million in facilities costs over the next decade, including an almost $40 million-dollar renovation project which would “include modernization of existing classrooms and the replacement of portable classrooms with permanent classrooms,” the report said.

A rudimentary review of five projects currently in development in Burbank — Burbank Town Center/I Heart Burbank, Premiere on First, 115 N. Screenland, First Street Village, and The Avion (airport adjacent property) — indicates that the discrepancy between how much tax the schools can force developers to pay and how much the district says it needs to blunt the impact of new construction could rob Burbank of almost $2.3 million dollars.

How we got the numbers:

We obtained estimates of the potential square footage and use of each project from City of Burbank Planning Board’s website. For residential units, unless a more accurate figure was provided in the developer’s plan, we used 1,173 square feet as the weighted average square footage of the proposed units (an estimate based on information obtained from LA County, according to the district study). We determined the cost impact of each project on school facilities using the BUSD report’s numbers ($4.10), and then compared this to the total revenues the school fees would generate as a result of the developers tax at a rate of $3.48 per square foot.

Because the impact on schools by commercial development varied according to the type of development (shopping centers compared to banks compared to commercial offices, etc.) we relied on the BUSD’s numbers to determine an average commercial cost impact ($1.40 per square foot) and compared it to the maximum school fee assessed on commercial properties ($.56).

Since the BUSD report determined the impact from hotels would be $.49 (below the minimum), and the district can not assess more fees than the cost of impact — we determined each square foot of hotel space should be taxed at a rate of $.49 per square foot. We used 300 square feet (slightly less than the average US hotel room size according to USA Today) to determine the overall square footage of hotel projects proposed.

Burbank Town Center/I Heart Burbank
70,000 square feet of new commercial square footage, approximately 200 hotel rooms and approximately 1,100 housing units

Residential
Total square footage: 1,290,300
BUSD impact ($4.10): $5,290,230
School Fee ($3.48): $4,490,244

Shortfall: $799,986

Commercial
Total square footage 70,000
BUSD impact ($1.40) $98,000
School Fee ($.56) $39,200

Shortfall: $58,800

Hotels
Total square footage 60,000
School Fee ($.49) $29,400

TOTAL SHORTFALL – $888,186

Premiere on First
Two options have been proposed. Both would include 154 residential units. One would include 181,517 square feet of commercial space; the other proposes 126,000 square feet in hotel space and 15,589 square feet of commercial space.

Residential
Total square footage: 180,642
BUSD impact ($4.10) $740,632
School fee ($3.48) $628,634

Shortfall: $111,998

Commercial

Option One – Commercial/No Hotel

Total square footage 181,517
BUSD impact ($1.40) $254,124
School Fee ($.56) $101,646

Shortfall: $152,478

Option Two – Commercial & 230 room hotel

Commercial sq. footage 15,589
BUSD impact ($1.40) $21,825
School Fee ($.56) $8,730

Shortfall: $13,094

Hotel square footage 126,000
School Fee/impact ($.49) $61,740

TOTAL SHORTFALL $165,573

115 N. Screenland
40 residential units with an average size of 1,284. 3000 square feet of commercial use.

Residential
Total square footage 51,360
BUSD impact ($4.10) $210,576
School Fee ($3.48) $178,732

Shortfall: $31,844

Commercial
Total square footage 3,000
BUSD impact ($1.40) $4,200
School Fee ($.56) $1,680

Shortfall: $2,520

TOTAL SHORTFALL: $34,364

First Street Village
261 residential units and 21,265 square feet of commercial space

Residential
Total square footage 306,153
BUSD impact ($4.10) $1,255,227
School Fee ($3.48) $1,065,412

Shortfall: $189,815

Commercial
Total square footage 21,265
BUSD impact ($1.40) $29,771
School Fee ($.56) $11,908

Shortfall: $17,863

TOTAL SHORTFALL: $207,678

The Avion
1,177,489 in commercial construction. 150 room hotel.

Commercial
Total square footage 1,177,489
BUSD impact ($1.40) $1,648,485
School Fee ($.56) $659,394

Hotel sq. footage 45,000
School Fee/impact ($.49) $22,050

TOTAL SHORTFALL: $989,091

COMBINED SHORTFALL FOR ALL PROJECTS CONSIDERED: $2,284,892

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.
So, in fairness, the report prepared for the district should be read in light of the fact that the school district has an impetus to, perhaps, provide the “worst case scenario” in calculating, the potential impact of the new development on schools. After all, it may only assess the developer’s fee if it can show that its needs are equal to or greater than the amount of revenue it would collect from the tax.

But the potential impact of building residences for thousands more families whose children may use the district’s 19 schools should not be discounted either. It is one other important factor residents need to examine as we head to the polls next month. We need a city council that thinks before acting and considers all the ramifications of its decisions. We need a council that puts Burbank families first and won’t greenlight projects that allow outside developers to turn a quick profit and stick Burbank schools with the bill.

http://www.burbankusd.org/files/user/3/file/Developer%20Fees%20-%20Notice%20of%20Public%20Hearing.pdf

http://www.burbankca.gov/departments/community-development/planning
https://www.fixr.com/costs/build-hotel

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑