Desk Item.SAWN OF
08 6A3ps
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REMARKS:
MEETING DATE: 09/15/15
ITEM NO: 5
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
I. E\•[ e]"W4111,41 � 7 I f i l I r I L4 [ KG1 � 1X W 11
ROBERT SCHULTZ, TOWN ATTORNEY 0
DISCUSSION ON SCHOOL FACILITIES FEES:
A. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADDING SECTION 25.60 TO THE LOS
GATOS TOWN CODE RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF
MITIGATION FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65970 TO RELIEVE CONDITIONS OF
OVERCROWDING IN THE LOS GATOS UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT; AND
B. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE LOS GATOS UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCURRING
WITH THE FINDINGS OF OVERCROWDING MADE BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOS GATOS UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND DENYING THE SETTING OF AN INTERIM
SCHOOL FACILITIES FEE
After the Staff Report was distributed on September 10, 2015 the attached communications
(Attachment 8) were received.
In addition, a Council Member asked the following questions:
LGUSD's most recent letter requests the Resolution be separated into two separate
Resolutions. The first would include sections 1 -6 and the second include sections 7 -11. Do
you know why? Is there any reason why we shouldn't? The letter also references Morgan
Hill adopting ordinance in 2006 and 2004. Can we create an ordinance general enough?
The Los Gatos Unified School District's letter does not explain why it would like to separate the
Resolution into two separate Resolutions. Although Council could separate the Resolution into
two, both resolutions would need to be amended to make certain that the action is not interpreted
to prevent the Town from issuing permits as explained in the Addendum and revised Resolution
(Attachment 7).
Reviewed by: L" Town Manager[ U.Assistant Town Manager N/A Finance
N- WGRWdminWorkFiles\2015 Council Reports \Sept 15 \9 15 15 School Facilities Fees Desk Item.doc
112013
Updated:
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON SCHOOL FACILITIES FEES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
REMARKS (cont'd):
The Morgan Hill Ordinance was not adopted by the City Council. This Ordinance was a citizen
initiative that has never been implemented. Further research would need to be conducted on its
applicability.
Attachments 1 -5 (Previously received with Staff Report September 10 2015)•
1. Ordinance
2. LGUSD Letter and Findings dated April 17, 2015
3. CBIA/BIA Letter dated September 1, 2015
4. LGUSD Letter dated September 9, 2105
5. Resolution
Attachment 6 -7 (Previously received with Addendum on September 14 2015)•
6. Public comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, September 10, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, September 14, 2015
7. Revised Resolution
Attachment 8 received with this Desk Item:
8. Communications received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, September 14, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP
September 14, 2015
VIA E -MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members
c/o Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Email: LPrevettiglosgatosca.eov
Re: Town Council Agenda for Meeting of September 1, 2015
Agenda Item No. 5: "Discussion of School Facilities Fees"
David P. Lanferman
Direct Dial: (650) 320 -1507
E -mail: dlanferman @mtan.com
Objections to Proposed Resolution "Concurring in School District's
Findings of Overcrowding" and
Comments on Proposed Ordinance
Dear Honorable Mayor Jensen and Members of the Town Council:
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (`BIABA "), we appreciate
this opportunity to submit our comments on Agenda Item No. 5 — involving consideration of a
legally- inappropriate request by the Los Gatos Union School District ( "the District ") for the Town
Council take action to establish unlawful new development exactions and fees.
The School District's requests that the Town Council take any action under the purported
"authority" of the 1977 School Facilities Act (Government Code Sections 65970 et seq.) are
unfounded and misguided, for all of the reasons set forth in the 19 -page letter dated September 1,
2015, from the CBIA and BIABA, as well as for the reasons summarized by the Staff Report and
as further detailed below. The Town Attorney has accurately and appropriately concluded that
"the proposed Ordinance and Resolution, [as suggested by the District] in its current form, is
legally problematic" -- at the least.
Even if the 1977 Act were still operative, the District has not even complied with all of its
requirements (e.g., failure to provide the schedule for use of land or fees, as required by Gov. Code
§ 65974). And, when it was operative, the 1977 Act required that school districts had to provide
towns and cities with "clear and convincing evidence" sufficient to support the findings
specifically required (Gov. Code § 65971(a).) The 1977 Act thus imposed very heavy evidentiary
burdens on school districts to justify their requests for interim facilities or fees in lieu — evidentiary
burdens that the District here failed to meet.
ATTACHMENT 8
Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94306
650.320.1500 1 Fax 650.320.9905 2644/030577 -0003
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 8841906.2 a09/14115
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP
Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members
September 14, 2015
Page 2
SUMMARY OF BIABA'S POSITIONS
We therefore strongly support the recommendation by the Town Staff that the Council
should not adopt any proposed Ordinance to establish new exactions of property or monetary fees
under old and superseded Government Code Section 65970 et seq., and that the Council decline to
concur in the findings submitted pursuant to the 1997 Act. As described in the Staff Report, there
are other — lawful -- approaches the School District can pursue in order to address its perceived
needs for additional school facilities.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The Staff Report accurately summarizes the legislative history of State regulation of school
facilities finance in California, and the facts that the District's efforts to have the Town Council
take action under the old 1977 Act are inconsistent with current law, and that no other town or city
has followed the approach urged by the District.
It has long been recognized that the 1977 School Facilities Act has been superseded by
more recent, more comprehensive, and more effective legislative enactments authorizing public
school districts themselves to directly establish and impose facilities fees on new development,
subject to specific State -wide processes and limitations. Throughout California, most school
districts experiencing need for new school facilities simply comply with the procedure established
in 1998 (commonly referred to as "SB — 50 "). There is no good reason that the District should not
attempt to do so, nor is there any reason for the Town Council to take action that would
unnecessarily make Los Gatos a "test case" because of the District's disregard of current law.
Even if the 1977 Act were, arguably, still somehow operative in this situation, the District has
failed to comply with the requirements of that 1977 Act (e.g., Gov. Code §§ 65971, 65974).
In 1998, the Legislature and the voters of California established new means of financing school
facilities, and enacted specific procedures, and limits, governing the establishment and imposition of
"school facilities fees" on new residential construction, following the enactment of SB 50 (stats. 1998,
ch. 407, "the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 ") and statewide voter approval of
Proposition 1 -A in November 1998. By that action, the State fully preempted, regulated, and limited
the types and amounts of "fees" or "mitigation measures" that may be imposed on new development
for the purpose of funding school facilities. (Government Code §§ 65995- 65996; Education Code §§
17620, et seq.). As the Legislature stated in enacting new Section 65995(e) [emph. added]:
The Legislature finds and declares that the financing of school facilities and the
mitigation of the impacts of land use approvals, whether legislative or adjudicative,
or both, on the need for school facilities are matters of statewide concern. For this
reason, the Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of requirements related
2644/030577 -0003
8841906.2 a09/14/15
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP
Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members
September 14, 2015
Page 3
to school facilities levied or imposed in connection with, or made a condition of,
any land use approval, whether legislative or adjudicative act, or both, and the
mitigation of the impacts of land use approvals, whether legislative or adjudicative,
or both, on the need for school facilities, to the exclusion of all other measures,
financial or nonfinancial, on the subjects.
These actions together established a comprehensive approach to funding school facilities
— which preempted other or older approaches, including the 1977 Act. SB 50 provided for a three -
way sharing of responsibility between local school districts, the State, and contributions of fees
from new development for the funding of new or modernized school facilities. Fees on new
development were allowed but are subject to a carefully- described series of eligibility
requirements, procedures, and caps. (See, e.g., Cresta Bella v. Poway Unif. School District (2013)
218 Cal.App.41h 438; Warmington Old Town Associates v. Tustin Unif. School District (2002) 101
Cal.App.41h 840.)
As the Staff Report confirms, the District has not even tried to bring itself into compliance
with the approach embodied in State law since 1998, and has not demonstrated its eligibility to
receive such development fees, nor undertaken the type of "school facilities needs analysis" that
is specifically required by SB 50. "Section 65995.5 provides for a Level 2 fee that may be used when
the school district meets certain statutorily specified criteria that show a particular need for additional
funds for school construction." (Cresta Bella v. Poway Unified, supra, 218 Cal.AppAth at 445.)
(1) Council Should NOT Adopt A Resolution Concurring in the District's Findings:
As previously stated, we strongly support the recommendation that the Council NOT adopt
the proposed Ordinance, and should also decline to adopt any Resolution concurring in the
District's findings. As the Staff Report correctly observes, if the Council were to adopt the
Resolution concurring in the District's findings, such action could unnecessarily create a confusing
situation giving the misleading appearance of triggering other provisions embedded elsewhere in
the old 1977 Act that would severely curtail the Town's authority to exercise its police power
authority in reviewing and approving many forms of land use applications. For example, if the
Council takes action to concur in the District's (unsupported) findings of overcrowding, it might
then be argued that the Council would be barred under the 1977 Act from approving any rezoning
or development permit for residential uses, or from approving a tentative subdivision map for
residential purposes (with a few exceptions) unless it imposes fees or exactions for "interim"
school facilities — despite the fact that the more recent and more specific school facilities legislation
(in "SB 50," discussed below) makes it explicit that "a state or local agency may not deny or refuse
to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving... the planning, use, or development
2644/030577 -0003
8841906.2 a09/14115
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP
Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members
September 14, 2015
Page 4
of real property..." on the basis of failure to provide "school facilities mitigation that exceeds the
amounts" authorized and limited by SB 50. (Gov. Code § 65995(i).)
Since the provisions of SB 50 have superseded the 1977 Act with regard to the imposition
of fees for school facilities, and since the District's findings of overcrowding were not legally or
factually supported as required by State law, it would be pointless, unnecessarily confusing, and
counterproductive for the Council to take any action concurring in the District's findings. The
Council should, instead, respectfully decline to concur in the findings of overcrowding for all of
the reasons stated, and urge the District to pursue more constructive — and lawful -- approaches to
funding any needed school facilities.
(2) The District's Letter of 9/14/2015 Is Misleading and Should Be Disregarded
We have just received a copy of a letter from the Superintendent of the Los Gatos Union
School District, dated today (September 14, 2015). That letter was presumably intended to respond
to the specific questions previously raised by the Town Council, or to otherwise demonstrate that
the District's request for adoption of a fee ordinance under the 1977 Act was still prevalent in
California. However, the District's letter clearly fails to do so.
For example, the Council specifically asked if the District could identify any towns or cities
that have adopted an ordinance under the 1977 Act "since SB 50 "? The District's letter does not
provide a straight answer, but merely lists about a dozen places where there are purportedly still
ordinances on the books that make some reference to a school district's "ability to determine
overcrowding" and require mitigation. That is obviously not the same as identifying a town or
city that has, since SB 50 in 1998, adopted an ordinance imposing fees under the purported
authority of the 1977 Act. The District's reference to distinct ordinances addressing "emergency
situations" in Morgan Hill and vaguely directing the city to "work with" the school district to seek
"appropriate mitigation" are not on point to what the District has asked of the Town Council in
this case.
Similarly, the references in the District's letter to supposed practices under unspecified
"mitigation agreements" in Roseville and other communities are not responsive to the Council's
questions and are of no relevance to the proposed ordinance and resolution here. I have more than
20 years of personal experience in negotiating a wide variety of school facility "mitigation
agreements" throughout California, and such agreements are quite different than what the District
is seeking from the Town. Such mitigation agreements are the exception, rather than the rule, and
to the extent they are occasionally negotiated in some situations, they all involve the school district
undertaking some special commitment or obligation in return for a developer offering to contribute
something other than State - capped mitigation fees (e.g., assignments to particular attendance areas,
2644 /030577-0003
8841906.2 a09 /14/15
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP
Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members
September 14, 2015
Page 5
scheduling of school construction, reimbursements to the developer once the district obtains State
funding grants, etc). Although such mitigation agreements differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
they typically do not simply call for developers to pay money (in excess of State - capped amounts)
into unrestricted school district facilities accounts, with nothing in return.
The District's letter of 9/14/2015 thus appears to give a grossly misleading impression as
to the current state of play with regard to school facilities fees. By its omissions of any current
illustrations of other cities, or towns enacting ordinances under the 1977 Act, the District tacitly
concedes the virtually universal recognition by all astute California local governments that the
1977 Act no longer provides a valid and effective basis for enacting or imposing property exactions
or fees on developers, following the passage of SB 50 in 1998. A good local illustration of this
fact is provided by the City of San Jose, which formally rescinded its own local school mitigation
policy (Chapter 20.42 of the SJMC enacted in 1994) in recognition of SB 50. (See the attached
City of San Jose staff report explaining that San Jose repealed its former, inconsistent, local school
mitigation requirements "as a result of changes in State law" i.e. SB 50.)
CONCLUSION
As the School District now admits, and as the Staff Report properly emphasizes, "there is
no other Town, City or School District in the State of California" that is collecting development
fees under the 1977 Act as the School District has urged the Town to do here.
Indeed, the District's letter of 9/14/2015 once again makes this telling admission: "we
could not find a town or city implementing interim facilities fees" under the 1977 Act.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and objections.
Very truly yours,
RUTA Z�_ LLP
--
vi�� anfe an
DPL:aa
cc: Robert Schultz, Town Attorney (RSchultz&los atg osca.gov)
Mayor Marcia Jensen (MJensen los atg osca.gov)
Barbara Spector (BSpector@los atosca.gov)
Steven Leonardis (SLeonardis llosgatosca.gov)
2644/030577 -0003
8841906.2 a09 /14/15
RUTAN
RVTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP
Honorable Mayor Jensen and Council Members
September 14, 2015
Page 6
Marico Sayoc (MSayoc@losgatosca.eov)
Rob Rennie (RRennie@los atg osca.gov)
Town Clerk (Clerk@losgatosca.gov)
1644/030577 -0003
8841906.2 a09114/15
CnY OF A=
SANJosE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
RULES COMMITTEE: 11 -07 -07
ITEM: 1(4)
Memorandum
TO: RULES COMMITTEE FROM: Deanna J. Santana
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: November 1, 2007
Approved: Date:
SUBJECT: Approval to validate and rescind selected policies contained in the Council
Policy Manual.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Validate the following policies as contained iri the Council Policy Manual and forward to
the full Council for adoption of a resolution:
a. Policy 2 -6: Inventory, Storage and Display Gifts
b. Policy 3 -2: Employee Safety
2. Rescind the following policies as contained in the Council Policy Manual and forward to
t ie full Council for adoption of a resolution:
a. Policy 0 -23: Policy Analysis Program
�—'o b. Policy 6 -28: School Facility Authority
c. Policy 8 -3: Frontage Roads and Minor Streets Adjacent to Public Parks and Open
Spaces
d. Policy 8 -3: Installation of Traffic Restraint Devices
OUTCOME
The Rules and Open Government Committee will have the opportunity to review, validate and
rescind six Council Policies. Approval of the above recommendations completes staff work to
update the Council Policy Manual and Reed Reform #12: Post the Council Policy Manual online.
BACKGROUND
The Council Policy Manual has been in existence since August 3, 1970. The Council policies are
intended to provide direction and/or guidance to staff on how the City Council wishes to have
certain issues and procedures addressed. The City Manager is responsible for ensuring that the
Administration adheres to the established Council Policies.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Approval to validate and rescind selected policies contained in the City Council Policy Manual
November 1, 2007
Page 2 of 5
As part of the Sunshine Reforms related to posting of the Council Policy Manual on the
Internet, the Administration recommended a comprehensive review of all the policies concurrent
with the Office of the City Clerk's web posting process. This recommendation was based on an
acknowledgement that the Council Policy Manual contains policies that do not reflect current
practices and/or are no longer current. The City Council approved the Administration's
recommendation and directed the Rules and Open Government Committee (Rules Committee) to
oversee the Council Policy Manual revision process.
On October 11, 2006, the Rules Committee approved the framework for updating over 120
policies contained in the Council Policy Manual. This framework provided for policies to fall
into three categories: (1) Revise, (2) Validate, and (3) Rescind. Each policy was placed in a
category based on the following approach:
• Research of current/revised laws governing practices or City policies in conjunction with
the City Attorney's Office.
• Review of superseding Council policies.
• Identification of any policy redundancy.
• Review of current applicability of policies as they relate to current City programs,
process and procedures.
On November 8, 2006 the Rule Committee approved rescission of 26 policies_ On April 18,
2007, the Rules and Open Government Committee approved the process and methodology to
validate 31 policies contained in the Council Policy Manual; and validated the first group of 18
Council Policies. The validation process for the remaining 13 policies was completed in June
2007.
The following summarizes the different actions the Rules Committee may take relevant to
Council Policies:
Category 1: Rescind Policy - This category includes a set of policies that were identified as
outdated, obsolete, redundant, or superseded by other Council action or policy and have been
forwarded to the Rules Committee for approval to rescind and delete from the Council Policy
Manual. These policies will not be posted on the City's website but will be listed on the Table of
Contents (grayed out) so to preserve a historical record of past Council Policies.
Category 2: Validate Policy - This category includes policies that have recently been updated,
created, newly developed, or do not require any changes. These policies have been posted on the
City Clerk's website. New policies or policies revised since January 2007 will not be brought
forward for Council validation.
Category 3: Revise Policy - This category includes policies that need moderate to significant
revisions and may require multiple department participation, coordination of changes with other
policies, or creation of a new policy. Current policies have been posted onto the City's website
by the Office of the City Clerk.
The policy revision phase is an ongoing process and in an effort to balance this work against
other department priorities, this work will be folded into the City's Administrative Project
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Approval to validate and rescind selected policies contained in the City Council Policy Manual
November 1, 2007
Page 3 of 5
System (CAPS). Department(s) responsible for upholding each Council Policy will ensure the
timely revisions of policies and their presentation to the Rules Committee and Council for
approval. Revised policies will be posted online upon Council approval.
ANALYSIS
In June 2007, Council validated the last group of Council policies. Since then, additional staff
work has identified six policies for Council validation or deletion. Below is discussion on these
policies including brief policy descriptions and justification for Council validation or rescission.
Additionally, Attachment A is a packet of the six policies, as currently contained in the Council
Policy Manual.
Policies to be Validated
1. Policy 2 -6: Inventory, Storage and Display Gifts — The purpose of this policy is to
establish a procedure covering the inventory, storage, and display of all non - monetary
gifts to the City organization as a whole. These would generally consist of
commemorative items such as plaques, certificates, small art works, etc. Justification
for Council Validation: This Policy is current with City practice and procedures as well
as Council direction.
2. Policy 3 -2: Employee Safety — In order for a safety program to work, every manager,
supervisor and employee must meet certain responsibilities. This Policy outlines
individuals' responsibility for a safe work environment. Justification for Council
Validation: This Policy is current with City practice and procedures as well as Council
direction.
Policies to be Rescinded
I. Policy 0 -23: Policy Analysis Program -This policy provides guidelines governing the
relations between the City Council and the Office of Policy Analysis, as well as certain
other situations that determine the effectiveness of the Policy Analysis Program.
Justification for Rescission: The reconsideration of the Policy Analyst Office was not
pursued and therefore this policy is being recommended to be rescinded.
2. Policy 6-28: School Facility Authority - In order to insure that the City's future growth
will proceed in an orderly planned manner to achieve a balanced composition of
industrial, commercial, residential and public uses preserving and advancing the quality
of the existing environment the following policy is established: Justification for
Rescission: This Policy references Municipal Code sections that have been deleted as a
result of changes in State law. Schools remain an issue and the City is having discussions
with school districts within the scope of the existing State law, including consideration of
school issues in the recently launched General Plan update.
3. Policy 8 -3: Frontage Roads and Mjnor Streets Adjacent to Public Parks and Open
Spaces - It is the purpose of this policy to: (A) Establish uniform and reasonable
dedication and improvement standards with respect to frontage roads and minor streets
adjacent to public parks and open spaces. (B) Upgrade previous dedication and
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Approval to validate and rescind selected policies contained in the City Council Policy Manual
November 1, 2007
Page 4 of 5
improvement requirements adjacent to such public areas in order to insure the public
safety, convenience and general welfare by insuring full street improvements at time of
private development. Justification for Rescission: This is covered by the San Jose
Municipal Code (Chapter 19) and a separate policy is not needed.
4. Policy 8 -3: Installation of Traffic Restraint Devices - To state Council policy relative
to the installation of traffic restraints on City residential streets. Justification for
Rescission: This policy has been superseded by Council Policy 5 -6: Traffic Calming
Policy for Residential Neighborhoods which states the general processes, responsibilities
and outreach related to traffic calming so that interested parties can effectively access this
City service.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
❑ Criteria 1: Requires Council action on the use of public funds equal to $1 million or
greater; (Required: Website Posting)
❑ Criteria 2: Adoption of a new or revised policy that may have implications for public
health, safety, quality of life, or financial /economic vitality of the City. (Required: Email
and Website Posting)
❑ Criteria 3: Consideration of proposed changes to service delivery,.programs, staffing
that may have impacts to community services and have been identified by staff, Council
or a Community group that requires special outreach. (Required: E -mail, Website
Posting, Community Meetings, Notice in appropriate newspapers)
This item does not meet any of the criteria above; however, Information will be posted on the
City's website for the November 7, 2007 Rules Committee Agenda per the Agenda process. The
complete Council Policy Manual is also now available online on the Office of the Clerk's
website.
COORDINATION
This memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney's Office, City Clerk's Office and
departments responsible for upholding each Council Policy.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Approval to validate and rescind selected policies contained in the City Council Policy Manual
November 1, 2007
Page 5 of 5
BUDGET
Not applicable.
UR0�
Deanna J. Santana
Deputy City Manager
For questions, please contact Vilcia Rodriguez, City Manager's Office at 408 -535 -8253.
Attachment: Council Policies
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Kelly Duvall <kellyaiduvall.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:56 PM
Subject: tomorrow night's meeting - school overcrowding
To: MJensenCaloseatosca.cov
Hi Marcia,
I'm a current member of the Board of Directors on the Los Gatos Education
Foundation. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tomorrow night's Town Council Meeting to
speak on behalf of the schools regarding new developments in town and the impact on
schools. Specifically, as those developments pertain to overcrowding at our facilities.
Since I cannot attend, I am writing, instead.
I just completed a year of being President of the Home & School Club at Blossom Hill
Elementary School. I can say with complete certainty that our school is not only at capacity, but
beyond it. Our financial burdens as a Home & School Club are tremendous. The money we must
raise in order to bridge the gap between what comes from the state and the education that parents
in Los Gatos expect for their children is non - trivial. Long gone are the days of paying for paper
plates, treats for classrooms, and crafts for class parties. At Blossom Hill, our Home & School
Club pays for MacBooks, iPads, ChromeBooks, aides, assistants, classroom supplies for each
student, and many more mission - crititcal items.
We operate against a nearly $400,000 budget. Each year, our fundraising burden increases,
necessitated by our increasing enrollment.
I told anyone who would listen last year that it is a constant struggle to raise money for the
students that we already DO have in our care. With the increasing development in the town, so
will the fundraising efforts have to increase. And even more importantly is my very real concern
about the lack of space the district has to accommodate the students coming into the district.
We cannot seat our entire student population in Blossom Hill's Multipurpose Room, built with
the intention of accommodating all students at the school.
During my younger child's second grade year at Blossom Hill, her class was located in an
overflow art room, because there were so many second grade classes that year and not enough
classrooms to hold them all.
As a parent, and a sitting member of two Boards, I am writing from a non - partisan, perspective
to request that the Council adopt an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos, modifying Town code
to adopt mitigation fees to relieve conditions of overcrowding in the District. A healthy school
district is a key component of a great town.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Very best,
Kelly Duvall
Parliamentarian, Blossom Hill Elementary Home & School Club
Advisory Board Member, Los Gatos Education Foundation
From: Kim Simon [mailto kimisimon@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:05 AM
To: Council
Subject: School Overcrowding
Dear Mayor and Town Council,
Thank you all very much for keeping Los Gatos the BEST place to buy a home, raise my
children, and plan my retirement along with my husband. We bought our home 8 years
ago, and find that we fall more in love with Los Gatos with every year that passes. We
can't imagine being anywhere else!
I am writing to you because I am unable to attend tonight's Town Council Meeting to
speak on the issue of school overcrowding and the concern with more developments
planned.
I am writing this letter to ask you to support the LGUSD's notice of findings of
overcrowding and support an Ordinance that would allow a special mitigation of school
overcrowding on development.
I have been involved at various levels with the school district: I was a member on the
committee for the most recent Parcel Tax campaign; I sit on the Daves Avenue Home
and School Club Board as Treasurer; I have chaired our school's largest fundraising
event two years in a row; I co -chair our community sponsorship program, soliciting
financial support from our local businesses. I also have coached both of my children in
the LGUSL.
From my perspective, the fundraising BURDEN we face as members of this community is
DAUNTING at the current enrollment level. Since we receive essentially no meaningful
dollars from the state, we parents face rising financial demands in order to keep up with
current teaching methods, resources and facilities (for example: computers AND the
professional development to support sustainability.) The schools no longer pay for even
some essentials as PE specialists, Health Clerks, Math and Reading specialists. These
are things we raise money from our parent community and pay for.
We know all to well how critical the strength of a school system is to property values, so
there is a multi- faceted interest in us meeting the financial needs a 21st century
education requires, and property tax revenue is not enough. At Daves Avenue alone, we
manage nearly $300,000 annually to help meet these needs.
The fundraising "job" is NON STOP. It starts before school even begins and does not
end before planning commences for the next year. It is a constant struggle to raise
money for the students that we already DO have in our care. With the increasing
1
development in the town, so will the fundraising efforts have to increase. And even more
importantly is a very real concern about the lack of space the district has to
accommodate the students coming into the district.
I am writing to request that the Council adopt an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos,
modifying Town code to adopt mitigation fees to relieve conditions of overcrowding in
the District.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my letter and to consider it in your
process.
All my best,
Kim Simon
Treasurer, Daves Avenue Elementary Home & School Club
PA