The $250,000 Question.....and Answer about the Susan Adams Recall

For more information about the recall see www. MarinRecall.com

 

An often heard objection to the recall petition is the $250,000 it might cost to hold a recall election.  This amount is likely overstated.  Measure B, the recent vote by mail special election, ran $70k, and involved more eligible voters than all of District One combined.  For sake of argument, however, if the recall did in fact cost $250K, this amounts to $1 per resident of Marin County, a small cost for a vote regarding the fitness of a Supervisor who has supported her district shouldering 70% of the County’s unincorporated affordable housing allocation without a plan for how to pay for it. 

More importantly, the $250,000, when put in the proper context of increased taxpayer costs due to poorly planned development, is rendered as nothing more than a diversion.  Please read on…

 

Information:

 

First, consider the impact of the proposed Housing Element to the Dixie School District.

 

Marinwood Plaza represents 85 of the 546 units of high density affordable housing proposed for Marinwood/Lucas Valley.  BRIDGE Housing, the proposed non-profit developer, is exempt from certain property taxes and would therefore contribute only about $10,000/yr towards school funding (about the cost of 1 additional student in the Dixie District).

   

There are varying estimates on the number of children expected from the proposed Marinwood Plaza development, largely due to the mix of units actually built.  A rule of thumb for affordable housing occupancy is 2 people per bedroom + 1.  BRIDGE’s initial estimates of 1.8 children/unit average yields 153 additional children.  Assuming a uniform distribution of age, 111 of these children would be school age (with the remaining 42 children being less than 5 years old).

Dixie School District spends about $9800/yr per student, and San Rafael City High (which includes Terra Linda), currently spends $12,424/student.  See: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/currentexpense.asp  Under the same assumption above, approximately 77 new students would be added to the Dixie District and 34 would be added to the San Rafael City High District.  Since Terra Linda High School is a “revenue limit” school (paid per student/day attending), only the 77 students entering the Dixie District are considered.  The additional annual cost to educate these 77 students would be approximately $754,600 ($9,800 x 77) per year.

 

Infrastructure necessary for these 77 new students would be about $400k, based on $100k per portable classroom of 20 students (two elementary schools are currently at capacity and would lose state Class Reduction Size funding if this class size limit of 20 is exceeded for K-3).  For simplicity, any cost growth per student for other school services (transportation, counseling, ESL, etc.) is ignored, though likely not inconsequential.

If the numbers given above for Marinwood Plaza, are extended across the entire 546 proposed units proposed by the Housing Element, the total taxpayer funded costs are $4.9M/yr in recurring costs and $2.6M in one-time costs (although it is more likely fixed costs would be much higher since new schools would need to be constructed, instead of portables).

 

On top of this, taxpayer funds are to be used in the acquisition and development of the Marinwood Plaza site: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/pdf/federal/San%20Rafael%20Apps.pdf

Go to page 25 to review the Marinwood Plaza Sources and Uses section of the Block Grant Proposal submitted by BRIDGE Housing.  This chart reveals that $1.8M taxpayer-funded grants (CDBG and HOME) will be used to assist in purchasing the property.  Again, assuming a similar financing strategy will be used for the remaining 461 units (of the 546) as the Marinwood Plaza proposal, this total is $11.6M of taxpayer funding.

Commentary:

This rudimentary analysis neglects any cost growth for services outside of the schools, as well as any cost-saving tactics that might be put forth in a better plan devised by the County.  Unfortunately, such a plan does not exist.  The analysis does render the “$250k argument” against the recall petition as nothing more than a “sound bite” diversion, when the total costs facing taxpayers are considered. 

 

Sadly, this “250k diversion” is merely the latest in a long history of misinformation, diversion and division tactics employed by Supervisor Adams when confronted with facts.  Perhaps Supervisor Adams could demand a County plan to assess and address the impacts of the Housing Element to the schools and other services in her district, rather than merely offering hand-waving dismissals and diversions to her constituents who have lost patience and trust.