9,000 new homes planned in Patterson. Schools, city clash over how to pay for their impact
Editor’s note: This is one of several exclusive stories The Bee is producing in a special report.
The city of Patterson and the Patterson Joint Unified School District each say the other is publicly misrepresenting its actions regarding impacts of residential developments on schools.
The dispute stems from one critical issue: how schools are planned and paid for as the city of nearly 24,000 continues to grow.
Patterson could see four projects underway amid a housing shortage in the state and county.
Two housing projects are in progress. One, called Villages of Patterson, was approved in 2006 under different city and school administrations. Another, named Baldwin Ranch North, was confirmed in January after a pause of more than a year for the city to resolve issues with the county.
Two additional projects, known as Baldwin Ranch South and Zacharias, are working toward authorization in the coming months.
Altogether, the projects would add some 9,000 units that school leaders say would nearly double the district’s enrollment from about 6,200. They worry they won’t be able to collect enough money to finance the new schools they’ll need, which they say would lead to overcrowded facilities and widely disliked multitrack year-round school schedules.
Multitrack year-round schedules rotate groups of students with staggered vacations throughout the year to increase capacity by up to one-third.
According to public meetings and interviews with The Bee, the city and school district seem to disagree on: the nature of their interactions, the city’s authority to pause approval of a development project until the school district and developer agree on the amount and timing of fees, $12 million related to housing approved 15 years ago, and the city’s overall management of growth.
The school district has made its grievances public. Over the past month and a half, staff have led presentations before the school board on different aspects of school construction and residential development. The school board sent letters to the City Council and the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors laying out multiple concerns, principally that the Baldwin Ranch North project was “rushed through” over school officials’ “strenuous objections.”
An ad hoc committee planned a rally before the City Council’s most recent meeting April 5, urging the city to work with the school district and force developers to “pay their fair share.” (California law sets the dollar amount developers must pay school districts to offset construction costs of new schools for their developments.)
City officials acknowledged the rally in the council meeting that followed. In a period after public comment that was not on the agenda, city attorney Nubia Goldstein said misinformation shared in the community was scaring people. The council is planning its own informational session on residential development but has not announced a date.
“The city doesn’t have the ability to force the developer to do certain things that ... there seems to be a sentiment that somehow the city can,” Goldstein said.
District and city officials both told The Bee they’re hopeful their relations can improve.
What’s a typical city/school district relationship?
A city’s role in planning for new schools and its authority to reject development proposals because of impacts on schools vary by jurisdiction, according to responses to questions emailed to the California Department of General Services.
Though a city might facilitate a school district’s negotiations with developers, it’s not required to.
Ideally, a school district and city would work collaboratively to plan their community’s future, said John Affeldt, managing attorney with Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm in San Francisco. In reality, he said, relationships vary depending on local politics.
What are the arguments about?
PJUSD Assistant Superintendent Jeff Menge has said his biggest request of the city is to include the district early on in its consideration of residential development projects. “We’re not asking the city to advocate for us or to do anything other than to allow us to be at the table,” he said.
City Manager Ken Irwin said government officials have met with school leaders to discuss future development for “weeks, months and years,” according to a statement provided to The Bee on Tuesday.
“I can say affirmatively that the City of Patterson has been working with our local school district regularly and kept school district administration aware of all projects within the City that may impact local schools,” Irwin said in the statement. “The development of adequate school facilities for a growing community is of the utmost importance to the City.”
In the statement, Irwin said “maintaining a solid working relationship” with the district is “critical,” and city staff will continue to work with the district to ensure its concerns are addressed.
In addition to communication, Menge and school district Superintendent Phil Alfano have asked the city to not approve additional developments until the school district can finalize negotiations through a “mitigation agreement.”
“This is within the rights of council if they value our schools and our students above the demands of developers,” Menge said at the council’s April 5 meeting.
California law sets a scheme of fees school districts can charge developers to help offset the costs of constructing schools for new residential developments. The state’s Education Code sets three levels of fees a school district can charge if it meets certain criteria. Fees are levied per square foot of housing.
A mitigation agreement could help the district secure additional provisions, such as receiving a portion of a developer’s fees paid upfront so the district can begin the planning process for building a new school, which can take more than a year alone.
But if the city grants approval to a housing development before the district has finished negotiating, the argument goes, the district loses its leverage.
The city isn’t able to force developers to pay more than they’re required by California law, nor can it condition approval of a project on an agreement for schools that goes beyond its state-mandated obligations, deputy city attorney Doug White said. Any issues with fee amounts should be taken to the state Legislature, he said.
“The city has strict legal requirements it operates under,” White said. “It cannot require developers to pay more than their fair share.”
Patterson school officials have accused the city of ushering in growth too quickly for the community to responsibly manage. Administrators, school board members, teachers and parents told The Bee they don’t oppose growth in Patterson; they view it as inevitable. However, they fear the city will grow too quickly for infrastructure like schools to keep up.
“If we can get ourselves in sync,” Alfano said, “the development can happen in a way that’s responsible and accountable to our community.”
Grayson Elementary School Principal Sandra Villaseñor, who is vice chair of the Patterson Education Advocacy Committee created in February, echoed these sentiments at the April 5 council meeting. “We are not against growth of our community, but believe it should be done responsibly,” she said. “Four simultaneous development projects is not an example of responsible growth, and our entire community will pay the price in many ways if these projects continue as currently proposed.”
White said growth projections actually fall short of those in the city’s general plan. “There’s nothing that we’ve done from a growth perspective that’s exceeded any standard that we’ve set in place and planned for for over 10 years.”
Adding residential development would help Patterson attract businesses, White said. The city wants to maximize its economic base and provide strong jobs for its residents, in addition to offering varying types of housing, he said.
“I think it’s important that people understand that we have recently lost out on several significant multimillion-dollar-a-year tax opportunities because companies have decided not to locate because we don’t quite have the local workforce or local housing to be able to support those businesses in a way that they’ve been meaningful,” White said.
The pace of future building is difficult to predict because of uncertain economic factors, but White said Patterson has historically seen 150 to 250 homes built per year.
Finally, Menge and Alfano have said the city owes the school district $12 million from the Villages of Patterson project.
“We’ve had ongoing conversations with the school district on the timing of when they would receive those funds, and we have set aside the amount of money that they requested,” White said.
An email provided by White shows Menge agreeing to the city’s proposed timeline in April, in which the school district would receive $1 million pending approval of a funding agreement and the remainder of the funds down the road. However, Menge said the city later found out its proposal wouldn’t work.
White said the city has never been told the proposals discussed would not work. The city has heard of the district’s issues only through its public school board workshops, he said.
The differences between the school district and the city were on display at the City Council’s April 5 meeting. Goldstein, the city attorney, said “conflicting information provided to the public” suggests the city is intentionally pushing the school district out of talks about development. “That is simply not true,” she said.
This story was originally published April 18, 2022 at 6:00 AM.
