Comments on: Redeveloping our schools – take 2

By: John Knox White

John Knox White — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:45:07 +0000

Sorry Mark, I fixed the error in the timecode, then entered a comment, which messed up the order. In adjusting all the times for the comments on this post, I inadvertently put yours in as 8am. It’s fixed now.

My bad.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:26:42 +0000

Not that it matters that much, but I am no less confused than last night. To make it worse, Michael’s comment to which I was responding now appears below my response. One thing I am sure of, my post above was written after 8 PM, not am.

By: Stop, Drop and Roll » Arra to the Rescue?

Stop, Drop and Roll » Arra to the Rescue? — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:22:40 +0000

[...] district should be receiving additional funds from the redevelopment tax increment spending (see: Redeveloping Our Schools Take 2) in order to close the budget gap that is currently being [...]

By: John Knox White

John Knox White — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:46:12 +0000

In FY ’06-07, AUSD received ~$200,000 in passthrough that had nothing to do with affordable housing. This was approx. $62,500 less than what they would have received had there been no redevelopment and property values had grown at the same rate.

They also received ~$350,0 in funds for Affordable Housing, which is the money they have been looking at using to build teacher housing.

The total passthrough in FY ’06-07 was ~$550,000.

The Pass through agreement for the BWIP (only the bwip) gives the schools 40% of the redevelopment tax increment for affordable housing and 4% of the non-affordable housing tax increment.

By: Mike McMahon

Mike McMahon — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:00:31 +0000

I have attempted to document what little I have come across regarding redevelopment and AUSD from BOE meetings. There was an agreement reached in 1991 between the city and AUSD when the redevelopment area was established. Not sure how much it clarifies what is explained above.

http://www.mikemcmahon.info/redevelopment.htm

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:26:51 +0000

Michael Kruger’s post is timed 11:00 pm and it’s just past 8 pm. ??

Michael. I am real bad at absorbing this stuff, but my understanding was that of the money AUSD did get from tax increments, $62,500 went to affordable housing, which I don’t understand at all. But essentially, as far as the state is concerned AUSD gets that money so it’s not back filled by the state, thus it is a net loss to the operating budget of AUSD. The state doesn’t get the money unless that’s part of the affordable housing thing of which I am entirely ignorant.

If I actually got that right, I want a gold star. If I’m wrong, I hope it warrants a D+ for the effort.

By: Michael Krueger

Michael Krueger — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 23:00:38 +0000

Thanks for spelling all of this out; it’s certainly complicated enough! So, when you say “the state actually makes up the difference,” does that mean that the schools always receive exactly what they would have received if the redevelopment area hadn’t existed?

If this is the case, then what the redevelopment district does is shift $62,500 in school funding from local to state sources. Is that right?