With or without Measure J, SCUSD gets >$107 million

from the redevelopment area, but the 49ers won't tell you that.

The Stadium and the 49ers are not giving money to the schools.

• The 49ers are trying to deceive Santa Clarans into thinking that either the team or the stadium will give money to the schools. That's not true.
  
• Here's Councilmember Will Kennedy telling the truth about schools funding at a debate at Peterson Middle School (video).
  
• A presentation made at the SCUSD board meeting by an expert in redevelopment economics on Feb. 11, 2010 showed that the stadium will not provide money to the school district.
  
• With or without the stadium, the city's consultant says that SCUSD gets more than $107 Million in property taxes from the area around Great America.
  
• Money for the schools from the redevelopment district comes at great expense to our city's budget.
  

The Stadium requires an extension of the Bayshore North Redevelopment District (RDA) in time to divert property tax dollars away from our city's General Fund towards stadium construction.

• The RDA extension will rob our General Fund of $67 million by 2016.
• The RDA extension will rob many other agencies (such as the Water District) of millions of dollars, resulting in higher fees to users to make up for lost funds.
• An analysis prepared by the city's consultant, KMA, shows that without the stadium, SCUSD would receive $107.1 million in property tax dollars from the Bayshore North RDA over 16 years, but with the stadium, SCUSD will rob some money from our General Fund and other agencies to increase its share of property tax dollars to $133.3 Million ($66.9 Million in today's dollars).
• Therefore, the RDA extension will give some additional property tax money to the schools ($21.7 million in today's dollars; $26 million in future dollars) - but those dollars are NOT from the stadium or from the 49ers.
• This is a 'Rob Peter to pay Paul' schools funding scheme, and it will increase the city's General Fund budget deficit, which our city manager says is the worst deficit she's seen in 30 years of working in the city' manager's office.
  
• The Bayshore North RDA is set to expire soon.  The RDA extension is from a "SB211 amendment", and the extension will be incurred simply to divert (rob) property tax dollars away from our General Fund and other agencies and give those dollars to stadium construction debt.

The 49ers are trying to create the false impression that the additional school money comes from them or from the stadium.

• They flat out state this in a graphic on the second to last page of the mailer which says "Stadium Revenues for Schools and Community." The graphic shows the stadium leading to additional money for the schools.
• In fact, the money doesn’t come from either the 49ers or the stadium. It comes from the Redevelopment Agency.
• The money for the schools is basically a transfer of money from one governmental entity to another - our General Fund and other agencies will be robbed by much more than the schools will recieve.
  
• Most of the RDA property tax dollars will be siphoned off for stadium construction debt ($42 million in RDA bonds plus tens of millions in interest).

There is also an issue of unfairness because the footprints of the City of Santa Clara and SCUSD are not identical.

• Santa Clara taxpayers located in the Campbell and Cupertino school districts will pay for the stadium, but not receive one penny for their schools.
• Conversely, residents of Sunnyvale and San Jose who live within SCUSD boundaries will receive money for their schools, but those cities have not offered any money towards the cost of the stadium.
• Only those taxpayers who live within the City of Santa Clara will be footing the bill.

Shouldn't SCUSD have a fiscal responsibility towards Santa Clarans whose property taxes pay for 75% of SCUSD's budget, $93 million this year?

• As a basic aid district, SCUSD has an extremely high degree of dependence on local property taxes and therefore should be concerned about preserving our city services and property values.
• According to the Community Budget presentations by Superintendent Steve Stavis, SCUSD is only $7 million above the threshold to become a Revenue Limit District supported by the State.
• A drop in property tax revenues to the school district of greater than $7 million will cause SCUSD to switch from being a Basic Aid District to being a Revenue Limit District.
  
• If SCUSD becomes a Revenue Limit District, with the RDA money the school district will pay a penalty larger than $21.7 million.
• The school district will already get $107 Million from the RDA area, shouldn't that be enough?
  
• Note that because the city will own the stadium, the 49ers Stadium LLC will not pay property taxes for the stadium, so the schools recieve no property tax dollars from the 49ers.

SCUSD Superintendent Steve Stavis has been campaigning for the stadium.

• He appeared at the 49ers rally in January.
• He appears in their t.v. commercial.
• He appears in their campaign mailers, and with the false campaign graphic that tells voters that 'Stadium Revenues' will go to the schools.
• He has conducted meetings with teachers and parents all over SCUSD to tell them that the stadium will bring money to the schools.
• He has not told teachers and parents that the RDA extension will cause a loss to our city's General Fund of $67 million.
• He does not discuss the stadium costs when telling parents that "with the stadium" the schools get more RDA money.
  

Sources:

(June 2, 2009 Term Sheet Presentation, Slide 48).

State of California Education Code:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=&hits=20

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=07001-08000&file=7050-7058

7054.  (a) No school district or community college district funds,

services, supplies, or equipment shall be used for the purpose of

urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate,

including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the

governing board of the district.

   (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of any of the

public resources described in subdivision (a) to provide information

to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other

ballot measure if both of the following conditions are met:

   (1) The informational activities are otherwise authorized by the

Constitution or laws of this state.

   (2) The information provided constitutes a fair and impartial

presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an

informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.

   (c) A violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor or felony

punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year

or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both,

or imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three

years.