text:
Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account
Policy Information
- Issue Date: August 1, 2002
- Primary Contact: Director of Human Resources
- Responsible Member of Directorate: President and Director
- Responsible Office: Human Resources
ContentsPolicy Information
OverviewI. General
The Institution offers a plan for an eligible employee to establish an account from which s/he can be reimbursed for eligible dependent care expenses with pre-tax dollars. The account is set-up with reductions of the participating employee's pay. Pre-tax salary reductions reduce income and FICA taxes. However, reduction in FICA wages may mean a small reduction in social security benefits.
II. Eligibility
A. An employee in regular status, scheduled to work more than 20 hours per week, is eligible to participate. Participation must be for a full year, starting on January 1. A newly eligible employee has 30 days in which to elect to participate. Otherwise, an employee must wait until the next Open Enrollment period to elect to participate.III. Participation
B. To set up a Dependent Care Reimbursement Account, a participant must have:1.at least one child under age 13, orC. If the participant is married, the spouse must either be:
2.an adult family member who is dependent on the participant because of a physical or mental disability and spends at least 8 hours a day in the participant's home.1.employed,
2.a full-time student, or
A. Each eligible employee can set aside up to $5,000 per year (or the lesser of $5,000 or the earned income of the lower-paid spouse). The limit for a married person filing separately is $2,500. Pre-tax salary reductions (contributions to an account) are prorated over the remaining pay periods in the year.
B. Reimbursement requests are submitted to Human Resources. Eligible expenses are reimbursed up to the amount that has been deposited into the account. Excess expenses are carried over until there is enough money in the account to cover the reimbursement.
C. A participant has until March 31 after the calendar year ends to submit reimbursement requests. As required by the IRS, if the total reimbursement requests are less than the amount of the contributions to the account, the balance is forfeited.
D. Generally, the salary reduction amount may not be increased, decreased, stopped or commenced during the year. The election may be amended or revoked on January 1st of each year, or when there is a change of family status (called a "Life Event"). The amount of the salary reduction must be deducted from the employee's pay through December 31 of each year unless a change in status occurs.
E. A Life Event is limited to:1.the marriage or divorce of the employee,G. Request for a change must be made within 30 days of the qualifying Life Event. Failure to notify Human Resources within 30 days of the Life Event will prohibit the employee from becoming a participant until the next calendar year, or until another Life Event occurs.
2.birth or adoption of a child,
3.disability or death of the employee's child or spouse, or
4.change in employment status by the employee or the employee's spouse.
H. Depending on household income, it may be advantageous to use the Federal Dependent Care Tax Credit instead of the Reimbursement Account. Consult your tax advisor for guidance.
[go back]


text:
Town Square
Judge rules in favor of Signature Properties over construction of Neal Elementary
Original post made on Jun 10, 2008
The ruling was released late today, and effectively makes an amended cooperative fee agreement signed seven years ago by the two feuding parties illegal and void, removing any obligation for the private developer to build the city's 10th elementary school in the Vineyard Corridor, to be named Neal Elementary School.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 5:47 PM
Comments (63)
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 10, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Those of us who read the Signature contract realized that both PUSD and the City of Pleasanton got "out lawyered." It was clear years ago that Neal would never be built.
The sad thing - how many millions of PUSD and City of Pleasanton (I know the City withdrew from this a while ago but they spent time and money on it for several years) taxpayer dollars were blown on this legal challenge?
That money is gone forever. What used to be a >$60M reserve in P-town City coffers in 2003 is now down to $26.6M (last Mayor's State of the City Report) - and who knows what we really have left in the PUSD lock box. Are we going the way of Vallejo?
No Neal School = more traffic, more pollution, more global warming. Blowing money on the lawsuit over the years meant less money for teachers, programs and school operating budgets.
Next time - get "real" contract lawyers and business negotiators to do the work properly up front PUSD and City of Pleasanton so this NEVER happens again! This situation was entirely preventable.
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 10, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I agree with Eco Doc that this situation was probably preventable with a proper contract up front. My understanding is that Signature paid less in school taxes for the agreement to build the school. I believe it was $2 per square foot less. Shouldn't they at least be obligated to pay those taxes now? Way to go Signature! Rape the land, weasel out of your tax obligations and walk away with a boat load of money and the city manager to boot! The mistake by the district started when they thought they were negotiating with honorable people. Once honest people head down that road they always get screwed by the lawyers. Lesson for all school districts and municipalities: Developer=Schiester. Always has, always will.
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 11, 2008 at 5:39 am
I learned a few years ago from a school board member that the contract was written by the school district's lawyers not by Signature. So the District has no one to blame but themselves for paying millions to lawyers who provided incompetent advice. This is a perfect example of Politics winning over intelligence. We deserve better from leaders who are supposed to be in charge of educating our kids. Who will educate them and how much will it cost us? When money is wasted like this, don't ask us for parcel taxes to fill the gap.
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 11, 2008 at 7:01 am
If you only knew how much gets wasted.
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 11, 2008 at 7:10 am
It is also kinda hard to not say "YEAH JUDGE!"
a resident of California Reflections
on Jun 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Isn't school trustee Pat Kernan a Land Trust Attorney? He was on the board through the negotiations and strongly supported this agreement. He advocated his fellow board members as well as the City Council to enter into this agreement. Kay Ayala and members of the public were advocating not to enter into the agreement.
I hope PUSD will make a commitment to the public that they will no longer use the Lazano Smith Law firm in the future. When Kay Ayala and other members of the public appealed to the district to not enter into this contract Harold Freidman representing PUSD publicly said it was an "ironclad agreement" and a good deal for the district, Pat Kernan agreed.
Our City Manager at the time was newly married to Signatures very clever attorney.
Signature Properties has been bad for Pleasanton.
Signature gives developers their bad name.
a resident of Highland Oaks
on Jun 11, 2008 at 4:04 pm
We elect public officials to not only represent our best interests, but also to see that those interests are realized. To wit: I certainly appreciate your thoughts and good intentions, but I expect results when my money is being thrown around.
Mistakes are an unfortunate reality; but when the cost of a potential mistake is significant, it calls for more effort to minimize the possibility of such a mistake occurring.
It appears that such effort was not made in this case.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Mike I agree what do you suggest should be done about it?
Not enough people pay attention.
A City Manager in bed with developers (then marries him), no one does anything.
Our Mayor rewrites the laws to suit herself, no one does anything.
City council ignores the guidelines of the Vineyard specific plan to accommodate special interests; no one does anything.
Elected officials that don't live in Pleasanton, no one does anything.
Incompetent attorneys (or are they?), but no one does anything.
And we thought national politic were bad!
Who wants to add to the list?
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Jun 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Who should be held accountable for this travesty?
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The judge ruled that the developer is right and instead of demanding accountability from the govt officials who had to know they did not have the law on their side and spent millions of our taxpayer money, we have people criticizing the developer, who obeyed the terms of the legal agreement.
The real issue is city government officials and the school board who aren't real leaders willing to tell the citizens the truth. If our local govt. keeps wasting money like this, not only will we not have a new school, we will have a second rate city and school district swimming in debt.
Let's focus on the people who squandered our tax $. $2.5m is $1000 per household. $5m is $2000 per household. Let's focus on accountability.
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 11, 2008 at 7:32 pm
The school district should send Signature a bill for the taxes they owe @ $2 per square foot. If the agreement is not valid, the tax laws still are valid. It violates equal protection if the school district doesn't go after those taxes. Every other developer and citizen pays school taxes up front before permits are issued. You owe us Signature now pay up you welcher!
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 11, 2008 at 7:35 pm
What a terrible waste of money.
This was the second trial! After loosing once in court, you better make sure you are on solid ground before you launch an appeal.
So now we are staring at a 5.5 million dollar hit.
That would have taken care of the projected budget shortfall for a couple of years.
Finally, I don't want to hear another word about building an elementery schoolin the Vineyard Corridor. It is not needed and PUSD can not afford it especially after this debacle.
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 11, 2008 at 8:47 pm
The above article says:
"To view a copy of the 15-page ruling by Judge Hernandez, visit www.pleasantonweekly.com. "
Oh yeah? where is it?
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 11, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Enough is ... says:
"Let's focus on the people who squandered our tax $. $2.5m is $1000 per household. $5m is $2000 per household. Let's focus on accountability."
The number sounds about right. Pleasanton population ~70K and 25K households (property parcels) sounds close.
Now, this school government group is singing the parcel tax song!!! More money to squander!!!
It matters not what political bent they are. Tax and spend democrats or borrow and spend republicans. Governments have become a worse-than-ever problem when it comes to inefficiency in spending the taxpayer's dollar. Time for change.
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Jun 11, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I have a suggestion. Why doesn't the District try to hire the "very clever attorney" that Signature has? Clearly that would give the District an advantage given the numbskulls they have been relying upon. Additionally, the District should adopt a new policy which would provide that they will only do business with those who have lawyers dumber than the ones the District has. I know that this would severely limit the companies they could do business with. On the other hand, it would level the playing field and perhaps allow the simpleminded members of the Board to make decisions that do not subject the District to losing millions of dollars.
Finally, I agree with Enough is Enough. I am not an expert but it looks like the Judge said that the Developers did nothing wrong. The Judge said that the District violated the Agreement. Let's focus on the real problem. The District evidently entered into an Agreement that they either didn't understand or never intended to follow. They have now learned that the laws apply to everyone--even them. Disgusted
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03 pm
The judge got it right. The whole thing was a money grab by the school district. PUSD never wanted the school, and never intended to open or operate the school. Like in Stoneridge, Del Prado and other neighborhoods over the years, they wanted the land, so they could sell it in the future for housing. That's why Signature said they would "build the school," not pay for a school. This city has had so much money for so long our leaders have had a financial "free ride."
Those days are over...
a resident of Foothill High School
on Jun 11, 2008 at 10:46 pm
It's clear that this entire deal was mishandled from start to finish by PUSD.
But what are the consequences? Will any of the top district administrators--up to and including Dr. John Casey, the PUSD Superintendent--lose their jobs over this multi-million dollar debacle?
I don't think so. Heckuva job, Dr. Casey, heckuva job.
I wonder what programs and equipment PUSD could have purchased for the $2 million in legal fees it used to pursue the "case" against Signature? A first-year law student could have told PUSD that the "contract" with Signature was so vague as to be unenforceable, and let's not forget the judge's ruling that even if there WAS an enforceable contract, PUSD violated the terms by not preparing the infrastructure (water, etc). Another "heckuva job" by Dr. Casey and his Merry Band.
And now Signature is suing PUSD for $2.5 million in legal fees? What if PUSD loses that suit? The district will be broke and have to lay off teachers. And even if doesn't lose, how many hundreds of thousands must PUSD spend to defend against that lawsuit?
Let's face it, folks: Pleasanton is a great community but Dr. John Casey and the people he has hired are mismanaging PUSD into bankruptcy. The School Board needs to oust Dr. Casey and all of the people he's hired. It's time to clean house and bring in competent administrators. This debacle over the never-to-be-built Neal Elementary School proves it.
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 11, 2008 at 11:31 pm
John Casey was not around when the contract was negotiated and agreed to. He has been handicapped with a school board that has mislead the community about building Neal school.
School trustee Pat Kernan, an attorney, has been involved with the agreement all the way through.
Anyone that was around saw Signature property deceive the district and the community when they refused to honor their previous agreement, but said they would compromise by offering this one.
The district has incompetent attorneys but Signature conned our community with the help of the then City Manager.
You are being made a fool also if you don't see Signature for their sleazy behavior.
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 11, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Do you suppose a parcel tax will be needed to pay the legal cost....:)
a resident of Foothill High School
on Jun 12, 2008 at 12:32 am
Perhaps legal fees and administrative raises...;]
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 12, 2008 at 5:24 am
John Casey was not in his position when the contract was negotiated and signed. He truly is not accountable for this one. However, Pat Kernan, an attorney and someone who DOES NOT LIVE IN PLEASANTON ANY LONGER, was involved.
Therein lies the REAL problem.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2008 at 6:07 am
Why does PUSD use Lozano and Smith? Web Link
Since the lawyers wrote the contract, which is invalid, can't the district recover its losses from the law firm?
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jun 12, 2008 at 6:33 am
You cannot absolve Casey; this was about greed to get more than $8.5 million to build the school. You can debate the effectiveness of the lawyers, but they only took on the task at the request of Casey. The statistics showed all along that the school didn't need to be built based on future enrollment. The discussion, however, stayed focused on "getting the money out of Signature" and side stepped the point that there was no interest or long-term funding in/for building that school. And we're skipping the travesty of the city getting the district to pay $4.5 million for the road changes on Vineyard. You can thank Ayala and McGovern there.
There is enough blame to go around. My concern now is the children in our community. There needs to be meaningful discussion about school size, class size, and limiting what a parcel tax can be spent on for the community's children. The hydraulics of a new money source without appropriate limitations can free up money in the general fund that can then, say, give a raise to a superintendent. I'd be for a parcel tax, just not in the hands of Casey.
I think Signature would have paid years ago as agreed, and the money wasted on lawyers could have paid years of operating costs, and clearer thinking would have put a parcel tax in place at the same time that would have helped all the schools have the programs that best serve the kids. But there's not a lot of that kind of thinking going on in the superintendent's office. No surprise here, I don't like the guy.
a resident of Danbury Park
on Jun 12, 2008 at 8:37 am
Interesting that the individual who was President of the Board of Trustees at the time the agreement was signed with Signature is now on the City Council. Hopefully, the City Council won't start agreeing to contracts like this one
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 12, 2008 at 9:03 am
It is interesting to read how everyone seems to hate the developer for violating an agreement makes disparaging remarks about his company, wife etc....
I'll bet that Ruby Hill which Signature Properties developed has brought more tax revenue to Pleasanton than almost all other communities combined.
The fact that the school district chose not to build the school is not the developers fault nor did they have anything to do with the decision to not build it.
Your school district administration are the sole ones responsible for this debocle.
a resident of Alisal Elementary School
on Jun 12, 2008 at 9:44 am
Signature and Standard Pacific agreed to pay over two dollars less in school impact fees per square foot in exchange for the 8.5 million advance to the District to build Neal, which probably should have been part of the original Ruby Hill approval in the first place. In the school district's 'fraud/deceit' claim a few years back, you would wonder if the developer all along knew they weren't going to ever build this school.
Now the developers in town have a 'bait and switch' tactic going on with the public. For example, Ponderosa agrees to give the District an option to buy 20 acres on Busch for a school, the housing is approved around it, then the 20 acres goes away (to build more houses on the very land the public was promised as a school) as the school board in closed session passes on the 20 acres. Now the developer wants to build over 100 houses on the phantom school site.
The Vineyard Avenue stretch is promised a school, then the city council majority approves a bunch of houses along that roadway, then no school that was promised ever materializes.
The public gets duped by these developers over and over. Now all we have are overcrowded schools and a huge traffic mess where parents have to ricochet all over town to get their kids to and from school.
The city council approves megamansions up to 12,500 sq ft, but the school district doesn't get a dime for any square footage over a 7,000 sq ft house for any house. Developers pay anywhere from $5.61 to $8.72 per square foot for schools, but it is capped at 7,000 sq ft. See the fee schedule right here--- Web Link
Now the city council is approving or has in process a slew of so-called senior housing, but this only brings in a meager .47 cents per square foot to schools.
The city council is approving bad projects in the form of huge mansions where the developers are not paying their fair share to schools (they should have to pay the fee for *all* the square feet on their mansions).
Something is terribly wrong in this community for this to be happening time and time again. Those in office keep getting elected, but its time that the public do something and have people in there that we can trust.
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Jun 12, 2008 at 9:57 am
It is important to note that the square footage rates paid in Pleasanton are well above what the state calls out and part of a special agreement between developers and the district. I believe the going rate is $2.97 per square foot for residential.
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 12, 2008 at 9:58 am
Mary, we're not getting duped by developers. We're getting duped by lightweight leadership...
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 12, 2008 at 11:03 am
Frank, and to anyone else who is interested, we have fixed a linking problem on the story. You can now view the 15-page PDF file that is Judge Hernandez's tentative ruling. The link is at the end of the story.
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Jun 12, 2008 at 11:33 am
The internet is a great communication tool but it also gives people the opportunity to say things they would never say in a letter or with their name attached to it. Instead, accusations get made with complete anonymity. Something is wrong with this.
I have followed this issue closely for years and asked a lot of questions. This was an issue between the school district and Signature - the City was not involved except to intervene for political reasons. As I have been told by staff and elected officials, the ex city manager did not attend a single meeting or discussion on this matter. She has more integrity than those who are writing in with wild accusations. She certainly had nothing to do with this school district contract.
While her husband was dying of cancer, with a little girl at home she worked helping our city - 7 days a week and late into the night. I lived in her neighborhood and watched this first hand. Keep in mind that happened about the time you are accusing her of things. She then moved on with her life and from the moment she had a new personal relationship she had nothing to do with any issue regarding Signature properties. Her integrity wouldn't allow it.
The City Attorney represented the City on this issue as he should have. It was a legal contract between the District and the developer. Eventually some of the politicians at the City wanted to tell the District what to do, so they had the City Attorney participate along with them. Seemed a reasonable and appropriate role for the City Attorney.
I simply went on line to see if there was an update of the case and found all of these hateful comments. When you have a problem with a decision that is being made, its appropriate to disagree. But the conversations should be focused on the facts. The personal attacks do not make the arguments stronger...they actually distract from them and discredit the writer. This web site asks that we be "respectful and truthful" in posting something. I have never posted before and will likely never post again. I just find all of the personal attacks sad and uncalled for. No wonder few decent, smart people want to be a politician or a government employee.
How sad! Pleasanton is better than this.... Aren't we?
a resident of Ruby Hill
on Jun 12, 2008 at 1:46 pm
The city manager's name was all over the documents with the school district and Signature Properties. I believe she was even at the Council meeting recommending that the city accept the agreement.
I remember the approval meeting well as Kay Ayala pulled the agreement from the consent calendar (this was in September of 2001) so it could be discussed as she had some concerns. Here is what the Weekly wrote about that meeting in the September 21, 2001 issue about Pat Kernan scolded Ayala:
"Clearly angry, Kernan also said that as an attorney and an active representative of the district, he was insulted that Ayala had held up the agreement "under the guise of wanting to help the district."
"To the best of my knowledge, Kay is not an attorney," he said. "I don't believe she has a graduate degree, a doctorate in school administration or finance, but somehow she thinks she's smarter than us."
Well Pat, it seems she was smarter than you and the district's lawyers.
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm
For the past 20 years, I have had an insider's view of school fees and facilities in Pleasanton. The simple truth is that Signature Properties has done far more for the Pleasanton Unified School District than could have ever been expected. In the early 1990"s they led the effort that resulted in the development community agreeing to pay a school fee that was twice the maximum fee permitted by State law. That agreement allowed Signature Properties to potentially receive a reimbursement from the State of California that grew to millions of dollars as the years passed. Signature Properties, in fact, did qualify for that reimbursement from the State. When Signature received the reimbursement, they donated the money to the District. Signature Properties was also instrumental in assisting the District to secure over $25 millon from the State for the construction of school facilities. The District would never have received this money without Signature using its resources and its influence at the State level. Signature then agreed to loan the District $8.5 million interest free for 2 years and to build them a school. The court decision made it clear that the only reason this did not occur, was the failure of the District to live up to the terms of the Agreement it had entered into. We should stop complaining about Signature Properties and focus on the real issues.
1. Where has all the money gone that the District has received from other Pleasanton developers for the construction of school facilities?
2. How can the Board have two lawyers (Kiernan and Polido) on it; hire a third (Harold Freiman) to write a contract; and a forth (Louis Leone)to litigate the issues and not be able to determine that they had no case? To me, the only answer is that the political pressure was so great that the lawyers were silenced or didn't have the backbone to tell the Board the truth.
3. Where is the money going to come from to pay what is owed to Signature Properties and Standard Pacific? Maybe the Board members could personally chip in to pay what is owed.
4. Who is leading the effort to settle this issue as painlessly as possible with Signature Properties and Standard Pacific? Hopefully it is not the same buffons who got us into this mess.
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 12, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Just did a quick read on the tentative ruling.
A poorly written (by PUSD lawyers) amended cooperative fee agreement (ACFA).
Rife with ambiguous language (this was written by lawyers?).
All principals present at the time expected a quick transition to the required "separate written agreement" (SWA) that was specified in the ACFA.
The SWA was required by the ACFA to proceed toward construction and to make what was agreed to in the ACFA meaningful and therefore enforceable.
And, guess, what. PUSD stopped the process, expecting that they had the CFDs (cooperative fee developers) on the hook for whatever the consequences the delay would produce.
Now we know the answer. WRONG!!!!
Typical greedy government bureaucrats. Under the umbrella of government they think they get away with anything.
Step back from the details and take note of the premise that has been in front of our faces throughout the whole time. The PUSD contends that the developers agreed to be on the hook for an open ended obligation to pay for the Neal school irrespective of what its cost rise to. Now, is it common sense to expect that to be the case?
Only in the minds of greedy bureaucrats. Thank goodness we have courts that enforce "common sense".
(Footnote: the CFDs did a good deed. They agreed to $8.5 MM, a sum that exceeded the state law mandated $1.94 per sq. ft. school subsidy. Another example of the rule that in politics no good deed goes unpunished!)
a resident of Foothill High School
on Jun 12, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Thanks to all the people who provided more of the background in this Titanic-sized fiasco. I got a new and deeper perspective on PUSD's legal problems and how badly-managed the district's financial and legal affairs are (as well as those of the city).
As for paying the millions in legal fees and so forth ensuing from this mess...well, the district's annual budget is a bit over $159 million annually.
Here's the bill so far:
$2 million in legal fees incurred by PUSD
$2.5 million in legal fees by Signature Properties (they're trying to get PUSD to pay for these fees)
And then there's the cost of an appeal. Apparently, PUSD and Signature both pay their developers in gold bullion, so an appeal could be hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars more, all thrown down a rathole.
I'm sure there are some other costs involved, so let's just say the price tag for Operation Titanic is $5 million or so. That's not going to drive the district into bankruptcy all by itself, but I wonder what programs, facilities, and services the district could have bought with $5 million? That's a lot of new computers for the students in our schools, for example.
What's really lost in all of this is public confidence in the management of our school district and our city. If people aren't mad about the outcome of this lawsuit they're just not paying attention.
For the record, I think the folks at Signature Properties are a bit too sharp for their own good. They may be legally in the right, but the way they do business leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 13, 2008 at 12:19 am
A grab bag of stupidity is what the entire mess is. However, the one thing out of all of this is that Kay Ayala proves again that she is indeed smarter and has more common sense than all involved with this.
I appreciate my memory being refreshed from the poster earlier. I found the old Weekly articles with some of Kernan's gems when Kay Ayala wanted to hold a hearing at the City Council meeting and ended up voting against the agreement: "To the best of my knowledge, Kay is not an attorney," he said. "I don't believe she has a graduate degree, a doctorate in school administration or finance, but somehow she thinks she's smarter than us."
Now the entire community knows she's smarter than everyone connected to this fiasco !! If only the school board and city council had listened to Kay, this entire mess would not have occurred.
a resident of Beratlis Place
on Jun 13, 2008 at 2:34 am
Are you kidding? Kay voted no on everything. When you vote no on everything - it doesn't make you smart - it just means eventually you get lucky - after the fact.... There was nothing wrong with the agreement. It just wasn't followed. The school could have been built - if it was built on time and the District would have had to pay only whatever cost was over 8.5 million...if there was a cost over 8.5 million.
History is amazing when it's rewritten. This was a long time ago. This was during Mary Frances and Buster McCurtain days. This was when Cindy McGovern, Pat Kernan, Chris Weaver, Juanita Haugin were Board members...
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2008 at 7:16 am
I was there for every meeting and had inside knowledge, Jim Guilmetti and Jim Mckeehan, of Signature, were playing everyone for fools. They had refused to honor the previous 1992 agreement that had provided them with the $2 sqft discount but had a much greater financial obligation for them. They said if the City/PUSD tried to hold them to it they would just tie it up in court for ten years and nothing would get built.
When they offered this agreement everyone in good faith wanted to believe they were willing to actually honor it. Everyone except Kay, she said the first agreement was enforceable and we should not enter into a new one. She said they were setting us up and they would never honor the new agreement either. Kay was also the only reason that the city manager who was newly married to Jim Mckeehan was eventually forced (not willingly) to recuse herself.
Deborah Kleffman was the fifth trustee. She was the only trustee that would not support the agreement. She stood strong with Kay.
Everyone else was wrong!!!! Kay was dead on right!!!!
Pat Kernan is now shown for what he is, he needs to resign.
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 13, 2008 at 8:15 am
PUSD's Legal Council: Dewey, Cheatum and Howe
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 13, 2008 at 9:55 am
Sounds like Lozano Smith has just been keeping the meter running on their billable hours.
From the PUSD's Legal Council (Lozano Smith) website. Web Link
"Developer Fees/Developer Built Schools
Lozano Smith has long been a leader in the areas of developer fees and developer built schools. We have negotiated numerous developer fee agreements throughout the State. We have also defended challenges to both "Level 1" and "Level 2" impact fees, including through litigation. Lozano Smith has literally written the book on developer fees, publishing the Developer Fee Handbook for School Facilities, which is updated annually.
A growing trend in the area of developer fees is agreements for developers to build, rather that just fund, new schools. Lozano Smith has been at the forefront of that trend, having negotiated developer-built school agreements throughout the State, including in the San Ramon Valley Unified School District where developers are building seven new schools, including a comprehensive high school that, with land included, has a value approaching $200 million. We also negotiated a developer agreement in Westside Union School District that has involved potential developer built schools, and have recently worked the Keppel School District in the Antelope Valley area towards a potential developer-built school there."
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2008 at 10:21 am
Dewey, Cheatum and Howe....I get it...LOL!!!
When I paid 20K in school fees to Buster McCurtains office there was a $25 charge that I questioned. There was no explanation for the fee so I did not want to pay it, but then they would not give me my permit. I had no choice so I paid it but requested that someone find out what it was for. I was later told it was a voluntary donation to Signature Properties legal fund, absolute fact! The district was collecting money from unknowing homebuilders on Signature Properties behalf for their legal fund. This had been going on for many years and was only stopped when I called them out on it.
The district should calculate how much had been collected and get a credit from Signature.
The public should also ask for an explanation of 36? homes that Signature Properties built in the nineties that fees were never paid for. Members of the public demanded that a bill be sent belatedly to them but the fees were still never paid. The public has never been given an answer of why.
Perhaps there is a credit owed there as well.
Did Signature ever pay their share of the Vineyard road?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2008 at 12:00 pm
"An Inconvenient Truth", You sound like Deborah Alcosta writing some spin on what happened. Deborah did have an insider's view. The information given is not correct. Signatured never did help the district in any of that stuff based on my insider's view.
To JT, Signature never has paid for the road. The city has been unable to collect on that. I also heard that Signature did not pay their water bill for a few years and that has not been collected either.
It does not appear that Signature acted in good faith in any of their dealings. They would sign anything to get approval with no intention of paying. If they thought these agreements were invalid, they should have challenged them at the time. Instead they gave the false pretense that they would pay and then later on litigate the matter after all of the development is done and they don't need city approval for anything. It almost looks like a conspiracy where they have all these agreements they are not paying up on all while their legal council marries the City Manager. I am sure she has been a great help to Signature Properties on how to avoid payment.
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 13, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Are you kidding, Are you kidding?
Kay Ayala was a rock star at the joint meeting in Oct, 2001. Deborah Kleffman as well. This was not just a lucky "no" vote by any stretch of the imagination. They both stood up to Cindy McGovern's tears, Pat Kernan's "this amended cooperative fee agreement is air tight and I know it because I'm an attorney" nonsense, and the now laughable advice from PUSD attorneys Harold Friedman and City of Pleasanton General Council Michael Rousch (Pat, Cindy, Harold and Michael are still plugging away for the taxpayers by the way!).
After meeting with Signature Properties in joint district/city impact fee meetings Kay and Deborah realized that there was absolutely no advantage in signing a new "amended" agreement with them (PUSD trustees minus Deborah had signed it in June of 2001) as they knew the district was not yet ready to build Neal (the site had not even been improved-water, power etc). They could also see the distinct disadvantage to throwing out the previous 1992 contract which would have provided the district needed cash for a shortfall declaration.
Signature Properties should in no way be absolved in this matter either. Their threats to litigate the first agreement along with their empty promises to build Neal School pushed the district into the shaky second contract.
And I agree, Pat Kernan should resign.
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 13, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Are you kidding, Are you kidding?
Kay Ayala was a rock star at the joint meeting in Oct, 2001. Deborah Kleffman as well. This was not just a lucky "no" vote by any stretch of the imagination. They both stood up to Cindy McGovern's tears, Pat Kernan's "this amended cooperative fee agreement is air tight and I know it because I'm an attorney" nonsense, and the now laughable advice from PUSD attorneys Harold Friedman and City of Pleasanton General Council Michael Rousch (Pat, Cindy, Harold and Michael are still plugging away for the taxpayers by the way!).
After meeting with Signature Properties in joint district/city impact fee meetings Kay and Deborah realized that there was absolutely no advantage in signing a new "amended" agreement with them (PUSD trustees minus Deborah had signed it in June of 2001) as they knew the district was not yet ready to build Neal (the site had not even been improved-water, power etc). They could also see the distinct disadvantage to throwing out the previous 1992 contract which would have provided the district needed cash for a shortfall declaration.
Signature Properties should in no way be absolved in this matter either. Their threats to litigate the first agreement along with their empty promises to build Neal School pushed the district into the shaky second contract.
And I agree, Pat Kernan should resign.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 13, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Before continuing to call for Pat Kernan's resignation, you may want to read an article in today's PW: "DA finds school board member within law"
Web Link
All board members should be held accountable for this mess, as well as others like the city manager.
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Jun 13, 2008 at 9:38 pm
It's funny to read about how Ayala supporters are trying to make her a hero. It was not the basic agreement that caused the problem, even though it was poorly written. Things went south when PUSD did not follow through and tried to delay and then stick the developer with the consequences. This is clearly described in the judge's tentative ruling. PUSD contended that the basic agreement obligated the developer in perpetuity to pay for the school whatever it cost. The judge said "NOT". All of this happened after Ayala's NAY vote.
If PUSD proceeded to a separate written agreement as specified in the agreement that was the center of the present litigation, Ayala's nay vote would today make her look "stupid". So, the bureaucrats greed now make her look like a hero! As if she were prescient.
Penso che lei ha saputo nessuna.
Let's be clear here. The basic agreement if followed by PUSD would have served its purpose. The "separate written agreement" would have been finalized by both parties and school construction with its final costs would have proceeded. Today there would be a Neal School. The PUSD reneged and then tried to use the first agreement as the forever binding agreement. It was not to be.
a resident of Foothill High School
on Jun 13, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Response to Anonymous:
The DA's decision to not to pursue a criminal investigation against Pat Kernan is in no way conclusive regarding a residency violation.
Criminal misconduct would only apply if it could be proven that Pat Kernan committed perjury when he signed his statement to run for office. If his residency status changed after that point it is a non-criminal violation out of the jurisdiction of the DA's office. The remedy being the Quo Warranto process through the Attorney General's office.
The question of a residency violation is not yet answered but you can look at the facts and determined whether you think the spirit of the law has been violated.
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 13, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Frank, You aren't quite getting it. The first agreement with the cooperative fee developers as written would have covered a cash deficit for the district which meant they could have had cash for whatever-including possibly Neal Elementary. Sig Properties threatened litigation when the PUSD gave their one year notice to declare the shortfall. They successfully talked themselves out of that contract-as it would have cost them $$$$$-by promising to build Neal.
Kay recognized the stupidity of that decision as it allowed no wiggle room for cash for any other projects, or other goodies in that first, fairy decent contract, and, as there was NO infrastructure on the Neal site she knew there couldn't be a school there any time soon (which would, and indeed did, make that agreement worthless to the district).
Recognizing that the PUSD would lose millions in development fees for nothing didn't make Kay a mind reader dear, she WAS just smarter than the rest.
a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 14, 2008 at 12:00 am
So did Kernan also know the agreement was worthless to the District? And that is why he went 'postal' when Ayala tried to question it? Of course, it now seems as if Kay Ayala was smarter than everyone. But my question is that was there a whole conspiracy where several knew the document was not worth the paper it was written on, including Kernan?
I remember at the time that Kernan, a land use attorney who represents developers in Pleasanton, was in hot water by using Jim McKeehan on Kernan's campaign letterhead as a supporter. When Kay Ayala pulled the cooperative fee agreement from the City Council 'consent' portion to have a public hearing, Kernan's wife blasted her and compared her terrorists, which also hit the papers.
"Has Kay acquired that much control over the rest of you that she can single-handedly destroy the whole of Pleasanton?...Are we now seeing the beginnings of a Pleasiban led by 'Ayala bin Laden'?" wrote Marcia Kernan. She noted that the e-mail expressed her personal dismay and her husband knew nothing about it.
Ayala's only comment was, "She may want to take a look at the community character traits that were adopted by the school district."
Go to the web link below to read the whole article Web Link
Publication Date: Friday, October 05, 2001
Memos draw attention to Kernan campaign
Supporter list, school fee agreement cause concern
by Dolores Fox Ciardelli
Two memos sent to the Pleasanton City Council have raised questions about school board Trustee Patrick Kernan's bid seeking re-election to another four-year term in the Nov. 6 election.
One memo, sent to the mayor and City Council members by City Manager Deborah Acosta McKeehan, stated that Kernan had included her husband, Jim McKeehan, as a supporter on his campaign letterhead. She said her husband had not agreed to have his name listed as a supporter.
"While my husband's name appears on the letter, permission was not given for this to occur," Acosta McKeehan wrote. "Jim has taken no position in the School Board election and does not intend to do so."
She stated that she makes it a practice to remain totally apolitical and this has not changed since she has remarried and changed her name. Jim McKeehan is vice president of Signature Properties, which has done extensive development in Pleasanton and has committed to fronting the costs and building Neal Elementary School on Vineyard Avenue.
"It is our decision and intent that our family name not be used in elections in any manner," she said in the memo dated Sept. 26.
Kernan explained Tuesday, "I work a lot with Jim and know him and he's a good friend. I left a message awhile back and when I didn't hear from him I assumed I could use his name."
Kernan said he offered to send out another explanatory letter but Jim McKeehan told him that was not necessary. Kernan's Web site at www.kernan4schoolboard.com does not include McKeehan as a supporter.
Also an e-mail was sent to the City Council on Sept. 20 by Kernan's wife Marcia, blasting Councilwoman Kay Ayala for delaying the school fee agreement that involves developers, the school district and the city.
"Has Kay acquired that much control over the rest of you that she can single-handedly destroy the whole of Pleasanton?...Are we now seeing the beginnings of a Pleasiban led by 'Ayala bin Laden'?" wrote Marcia Kernan. She noted that the e-mail expressed her personal dismay and her husband knew nothing about it.
Ayala's only comment was, "She may want to take a look at the community character traits that were adopted by the school district."
At the City Council meeting Sept. 18, Ayala removed an item from the routine consent calendar to OK the school fee agreement, which meant it was postponed until the next meeting. Any one council member can remove an item, in order to study an issue further. Trustee Kernan accused Ayala at the Sept. 18 meeting of holding up school construction.
At the Oct. 2 meeting, after two hours of public hearing and discussion, the council authorized the mayor to sign the Cooperative Fee Agreement by a 4-1 vote, with Ayala dissenting. Many speakers supported Ayala's decision to delay the item.
"I want to commend Councilwoman Ayala for her courage," said Mayor Tom Pico. "It was totally appropriate to make sure her questions were answered."
a resident of Foothill High School
on Jun 14, 2008 at 9:00 am
Kernan explained Tuesday, "I work a lot with Jim and know him and he's a good friend. I left a message awhile back and when I didn't hear from him I assumed I could use his name."
Kernan insisted that he be the board member representing PUSD in the negotiations with Signature Properties. When I questioned, at a televised school board meeting, if Kernan had a conflict of interest because of his close business relationships with developers, he was enraged and denied any conflict of interest.
At the break he told me I would hear from his wife. His wife then made multiple calls to my home leaving harassing messages on my answering machine, I still have the tape.
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 16, 2008 at 6:29 pm
You think the City Attorney is costing us money now, just wait until Kay Ayala's hillside protection initiative passes (god forbid). That thing is so poorly written it should be called the Land Use Lawyer Full Employment Initiative. The City is going to get is rear-end handed to them when the Developer's lawyers get done litigating that horribly drafted document.
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 16, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Stan, I just finished reading the staff report for that thing. It should be required reading if the initiative gets to the ballot box.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Could someone provide a link to the staff report?
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 16, 2008 at 9:14 pm
These last messages are off-topic but I had to comment on them.
I read the initiative report. The Council majority is fighting this so they can get another 114 mega-mansions of at least 7,000 square feet in the hills and they will be able to approve another 2,000 homes in Pleasanton. I thought we had a council that was concerned on congestion in Pleasanton, on our roads and in our schools, but now I see that they are greedy and want money from the developers.
Also, anything the Council does not agree with they call "poorly written" or at least that is the message that their paid consultant tells them (one of her messages was accidentally passed on to me). The Council majority that wants more development in Pleasanton is all organized by Angela Ramirez who works for James Tong. If you want to see a Tong development, you only need to look at the Dublin hills. Angela has committed all the Council Members great campaign financial support from the developers if they keep saying her mantra.
If this Council majority gets their way, Pleasanton will be looking just like Dublin.
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 16, 2008 at 9:45 pm
This is the link for the report "analyzing the impacts and effects of the Initiative" from the City's website: Web Link
Let's start a new thread if you want to discuss it.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Have you read the report? The initiative is poorly written and politically motivated! And what is this conspiracy theory? How can one person influence a council to such a degree? Besides she does not work for Jim Tong. Get your facts straight. Do you know any of the council members? Have you talked to them? Why don't you try that instead of unfounded speculation?
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm
If the same City lawyers who gave the thumbs-up on the three party Signature contract wrote the staff report mentioned above, it is better used to make paper airplanes than voting decisions.
Read the initiative document and think for yourself! Don't let incompetent lawyers with a bad track record do your thinking for you. That leads to "Titanic II!" Makes you wonder how the lawyers involved passed the bar exam.
Back to the subject at hand. How about some actions to prevent this multi-million dollar disaster from happening again instead of just complaining about it? We need the truth out, "lessons learned" sessions in public hearings and replacement of the people who made the expensive wrong decisions (or gave bad advice) in the first place and along the way.
Any ideas out there other than fire the lawyers and replace the poor decision makers?
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 17, 2008 at 10:02 am
Yes I read the initiative. It is short and to the point. It is just as clear and precise as the other recent initiatives in the city (Bernal Park, Bernal Sports Fields, Bernal Right to Vote). Anybody who is as smart as a 5th grader can read this and figure it out. Developers are investing a lot now to confuse the voters as they want to build a lot more in Pleasanton. Angela does work for Jim Tong on the Oak Grove development and Angela was hired by Hosterman to be her campaign and PR manager and Angela was Cheryl's campaign manager. This is all public information in the campaign filings. This is not "unfounded speculation" but is fact. And yes, I know the Council members; thank you.
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 17, 2008 at 10:39 am
Wasn't the question "did you read the report?" not "did you read the initiative"?
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 17, 2008 at 10:40 am
P.S. Lawyers do not write the City staff reports.
a resident of Harvest Park Middle School
on Jun 19, 2008 at 3:46 pm
What an absolute colossal failure on the part of our school board and superintendant. Let's do some quick math. $2M for current legal fees plus $2.5M for the builder attorney fees and court costs, not to mention at least $400k for design drawings. Oh, don't forget the $1M to remove the two traffic calming circles and how much do you think those circles cost us in the first place, hmm, let's just low-ball it and say $250k. Well , what does this simple addition problem add up to? That's correct, tax payers of Pleasanton, over $6,000, 000! I bet we could have paid for that school after all, if we would have agreed to work with the developers instead of trying to strong arm them. $6M + $8.5M would have built a nice school.
This is real money we're talking about -- accountability is called for. The thought that our board and superintendant would even think of appealing this ruling is beyond reason. Hmm, or is it simply insane!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
Developer Jim McKeehan said it best: "This is a classic example of what happens when small-minded politicians attempt to micromanage an issue that they don't understand or comprehend and run roughshod over the people on staff who do have the experience and knowledge to properly address the issue".
We're flat-out lucky McKeehan and Jim Ghielmetti don't plan to sue the district for slander.
Maybe it's time for Superintendant Casey to pack his bags and head back to Watsonville. He's clearly out of his league here. And I'm not seeing leadership from other board members either. Thanks for the lack of quality legal advise, Pat Kernan. Pat, you need to give up your seat and head back to the Sierra foothills, where your primary residence is. Now is a good time to make the move, Pat.
One more thing: What Next? You got all bent out of shape about the $2 per square foot tax discount. First, it's a developer fee. Second, who do you think pays for the fee? It's the home buyer, not the developer. All fees are always passed right along to the end user. Econ 101.
a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 19, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Dear Concerned Dad.
It appears in your post you have more "insider" information about our Board Members and Superintendent than you're willing to admit and a bone to pick...so that's leads one to believe you are closer to the situation than you're willing to admit....come on out from behind the screen and admit who you are and what your agenda is....it's really that simple. Honesty. Really, a core value...I'd hope you'd honor it.
a resident of Mission Park
on Jun 19, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Concerned Dad,
I don't care who pays it but it should be paid. Signature pulled all kinds of fancy legal tricks to avoid paying the fee that every other developer and homeowner pays BEFORE permits are issued. I know because I just payed 3,000+ to the school district in another county BEFORE they would even look at my plans. How does the homebuyer of a home not yet built or bought pay for a fee that is assessed BEFORE permits are even issued? They don't. Its paid by the developers, you see. You and "An Inconvienent Truth" are spreading disinformation to make it look like the tax cheats are the good guys. This whole fiasco is a classic con. The con men (Signature) appeal to the greed of the district in making them think they are getting something for nothing. Otherwise why would the district even consider a decrease in the fee? Then the con men switch the envelopes and disappear with the money. Would you enter into such an legal agreement with Signature now? I think most people would just have them pay their fair share.
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 19, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Dad: I'm not an insider. I don't know any board members, administrators or city council members or staff. I don't work for any government agency. My only axe to grind is that I'm a law abiding, tax paying citizen of Pleasanton and hate to see our hard earned tax dollars wasted. We hire intelligent people. We, the voting public, should put pressure on those not up to the job to leave. If they don't, we need to vote them out of office and vote out those that fail to remove underperforming administrators. This is not personal – it's like running a business. You perform or you move on (I've been on both sides of the performance equation).
What's Next?: It's important to know who pays the fees and taxes when it comes to businesses. The game, from a politician's perspective, is to have the public believe that there will be no cost to the common person. Don't believe it. If you run a business and the local, county, state or federal government charges you r business a fee or a tax, you can bet that that fee or tax will be paid for by the end user. This is basic business knowledge. Don't get caught up in confusing scenarios. Keep it simple and watch your wallet.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Livermore trustees demonstrating wisdom
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 1,185 views
The Great Divide, and What's Next?
By Tom Cushing | 38 comments | 904 views
2017 guide to summer camps
Looking for something for the kids to do this summer, learn something new and have fun? The 2017 Summer Camp Guide features local camps for all ages and interests.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
UTeach grew out of the conviction that public universities have a profound role to play in improving … Read more > about The UTeach Effect
It's more than a motto. It's what we prove each and every day.
What starts here changes the world.
The Collections
Enter the secret world of The Collections, a new book from the University of Texas Press, that … Read more > about The Collections
Take the World by the Horns
We say "what starts here changes the world," and Longhorns prove that every day. But the world also … Read more > about Take the World by the Horns
The University of What's Next
Longhorns are advancing discovery and innovation on a global stage.


text:
You are here:
The most comprehensive retrospective exhibition of the works of William Orpen (1878-1931) was organised in conjunction with the Imperial War Museum in London, and curated by Robert Upstone, Senior Curator of Tate Britain. It included 70 oil paintings drawn from public and private collections in Ireland, Great Britain, France, the USA and Australia.
The last major retrospective exhibition of Orpen's works was held at the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin in 1978. That show and the publication of the biography of William Orpen by Bruce Arnold saw the beginnings of a revival of an interest in the artist's work.
In curating the show Robert Upstone brought together the different strands of Orpen's paintings and drawings under three broad categories-politics, sex and death. The exhibition reappraised his career and showed the full variety of his work; his revitalisation of the nude, his spectacular career as the leading social portrait painter of his day to his brutally realistic depictions of the horrors of war as he experienced it as an official war artist in France during the Great War.
Upstone noted that Orpen, though born in Ireland, spent much of his life in England, first as a student and then as one of London's fashionable portraitists and went on to become one of the most successful painters of Edwardian England. He earned extraordinary sums of money and was knighted for his services as a war artist.
In his catalogue essay, 'Orpen and the new Ireland', Roy Foster wrote on the artist's ambiguous relationship to a changing Ireland of literary and artistic revival. He said: "Orpen's jaunty, mock-deprecatory style was at odds with the high tone adopted by the revival architects."Towards cultural nationalists in the Yeats circle Orpen's attitude was distinctly cool. Yeats was a constant butt in his memoirs and letters. In his memoirs, Stories of old Ireland, he shows a strong association with the writings of Synge. He was a close friend of Michael Davitt and his assistant in the Metropolitan School of Art in Dublin was Sean Keating.
Publication:William Orpen: Politics, Sex & DeathText © The Imperial War Museum 2005Editor Robert Upstone with contributions by Professor Roy F. Foster and David Fraser JenkinsISBN 1 904 897 215
Copyright © National Gallery of Ireland, Merrion Square West, Dublin 2, Ireland
Tel: +353 1 661 5133 | Fax: +353 1 661 5372 | E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Sitemap | Accessibility | Export Licences | Contact Us | About the site
Home | About Us | Plan a Visit | What's On | Exhibitions | Collection | Conservation | Learning | Research | Support Us


text:
Stay connected with us to get the latest health and fitness news, innovative workouts, healthy recipes and wellness tips.
Change Location
ACE Fit Share
Earl Grey tea is flavored with the peel of bergamot, a small citrus fruit grown in Italy. Bergamot flesh is very acidic, but the peel is prized for its fragrant oil. The tea adds a hint of citrus and tannins to make this cool chocolate sorbet even more refreshing.
Nutrition Profile:
Gluten Free Diet
Healthy Weight
Heart Healthy
Low Calorie
Low Cholesterol
Low Sat Fat
Low Sodium
Serves 6
Prep Time 10 min
Total Time 255 min.
Step 1
Bring water and sugar to a boil in a large saucepan. Add tea bags and remove from the heat. Cover the pan and steep for 15 minutes.
Step 2
Remove the tea bags and discard. Place the pan over medium-high heat and slowly add cocoa, whisking until smooth. Bring to a boil, reduce heat to low and simmer until the mixture thickens slightly, about 20 minutes.
Step 3
Remove the pan from the heat. Add chocolate and stir until completely melted and smooth. Pass through a strainer into a medium bowl. Cover and refrigerate until thoroughly chilled, at least 2 hours.
Step 4
Transfer the mixture to an ice cream maker and freeze according to manufacturer's directions. (Alternatively, freeze in a shallow metal pan until solid, about 6 hours. Break into chunks and process in a food processor until smooth.) The sorbet should be thick and icy after processing. If you prefer it firmer, place in the freezer for 30 minutes.
Featured Workouts
Check out our 12-week fitness plan designed to boost your strength, endurance, muscle definition, energy level and overall health.
Flatten your stomach and build strength in the muscles that provide stability and mobility for the spine, pelvis, ribs and hips.
Focus on pulling, rotating and building strength with workouts created alongside Olympic Gold Medalist Dominique Dawes.
This workout provides a challenging total-body workout that can be done from the comfort of home with no equipment other than bodyweight and space.


text:
Town Square
PAUSD: South Palo Alto kids/schools -- wow
Original post made by SouthPA Mom, Greendell/Walnut Grove, on Aug 9, 2013
At Palo Verde, 80% of 2nd graders scored advanced in math, and 68% in English. At Hoover, 86% scored advanced in math and 77% in English.
This is much higher than the rest of Palo Alto, though Palo Alto did well over all, with an average of 68% scoring advanced in math, and 54% in English. Duveneck, for example, had 51% scoring advanced in math, and 51% in English. Walter Hayes was 52/47 and Addison was 50/59.
So, two questions. (1) What's up with South Palo Alto kids/schools? And (2) Why do we persist in offering standard math curriculum to a set of kids who are so clearly exceeding the norm?
Comments (37)
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 9, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Being richer does not necessarily make you smarter? No stay-at-home moms north of here!!!
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 9, 2013 at 8:54 pm
More Asians?
a resident of Duveneck School
on Aug 9, 2013 at 10:28 pm
"Umm" is correct. It has nothing to do with teachers and everything to do with a culture which prioritizes education excessively. Many of the children are learning outside of the classroom too.
As far as "standard math curriculum", just because these students are testing well, doesn't give a public school a Carte Blanche to teach more vigorous academics. It's still a public school.
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 10, 2013 at 6:09 am
How sad that "vigorous academics" are something to be disparaged. I've never seen a Palo Alto parent complain about "vigorous sports".
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Aug 10, 2013 at 9:52 am
I really agree with Mom above.
It seems to me that the bar for the third-grade teachers should be to keep these kids at 80% in Advanced. I wonder if that's what PAUSD is aiming for. Somehow I doubt it.
Regarding learning outside the classroom, I'm guessing you mean academic instruction. (You can't possibly object to learning, right?) FWIW, I keep my son as far away as possible from math outside of school, because it will just make him even more bored in school, which is bad for everyone. So I specifically don't let him learn things he'd love.
How sad is that.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2013 at 10:34 am
Culture decides math achievement? What's next? Girls have a lower aptitude for math. My kid didn't get the coveted math score of 600 in her 6th grade. Nope, she missed one problem only. We don't know if that is her Latino culture or her gender that caused that. Palo Altans, a master's or doctorate, or a bunch of money, does not cause a rise in intelligence. PAUSD actually doesn't know how to teach math. Every school and every teacher is left to decide how they will use the books that are given to them. The leasership is too weak and the teachers' union is too strong. Simply compare our district to a whole bunch of other districts all over the Bay Area to see how poorly our poor and Latinos and African-Americans achieve in math and English, and keep in mind the extra thousands of dollars we spend on each child and the vast number of children who will do well no matter which school or teacher they get. Children like mine, who comes from a Latino culture, one that values education
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Aug 10, 2013 at 11:05 am
I've got news for you. STAR tests are easy.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2013 at 12:13 pm
[Post removed.]
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Aug 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Fairmeadow's report shows that while 83% of kids are "advanced" in math in 2nd grade, only 61% are "advanced" in math in 5th grade. The kids are starting off great, and finishing almost bottom of the pack among the Palo Alto 5th grades.
Not sure how PAUSD would explain this, or whether it's something they care about.
Of note: The other schools generally hold their ratings, with significant advances at schools like Duveneck (from 51% to 78%) and Walter Hayes (from 47% to 72%). Fairmeadow is the only school other than Barron Park to show such a precipitous drop, which goes from 46% to 33%.
I'd really like to know if PAUSD cares about this, and has some plan for it, or if the focus continues to be on the low-performing kids (which should not be confused with the under-performing kids).
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Each year is different. You can't assume the 4th grade results will match the current 5th grade results even in the same school. It's a completely different set of kids, don't read too much into it.
Other things to consider:
- Hoover teachers to the test, Ohlone doesnt't, don't know about Farimeadow.
- The difference between advanced and proficient is only a couple of questions.
- As noted above, the STAR tests are very basic. They are minimal acceptance.
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Aug 10, 2013 at 5:29 pm
To the above poster, I think you might be missing that the numbers in that last message were for *the same set of kids* (scores in 2nd vs scores three years later in 5th).
For example, let's look at kids who were in 2nd grade in 2010, and 5th grade in 2013.
Fairmeadow: 73% advanced as 2nd graders, 61% advanced as 5th graders
Ohlone: 48% advanced as 2nd graders, 54% advanced as 5th graders
Addison: 68% advanced as 2nd graders, 68% advanced as 5th graders
Duveneck: 81% advanced as 2nd graders, 78% advanced as 5th graders
Feel free to look at other schools. The data is here: Web Link
Let's try the kids who were in 2nd grade in 2009.
Fairmeadow: 73% advanced as 2nd graders, 58% advanced as 5th graders
Ohlone: 49% advanced as 2nd graders, 39% advanced as 5th graders
Addison: 59% advanced as 2nd graders, 68% advanced as 5th graders
Duveneck: 85% advanced as 2nd graders, 82% advanced as 5th graders
I understand the STAR test is super basic. But that doesn't mean a chronic pattern of under-achievement wrt these coarse buckets isn't meaningful.
I'd like to see an analysis like this done for every school in PAUSD. The data is readily available at Web Link
The district as a whole seems to be dropping about 10% from advanced to proficient through 2nd to 5th in elementary math over the last few years. Are we meeting these kids' needs? These kids who constitute the majority of kids in our district? Or do we prefer to speedily regress to the mean?
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm
SouthPA Mom, thank you for pointing out that these are matched sets of data for the same students. I would hope that the principals and Site Councils of the schools with decreasing performance by their students would look at the data and ask why.
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 10, 2013 at 6:06 pm
@ SouthPA Mom,
Apologies, thought you were comparing apples to oranges.
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Aug 10, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Settle down, young parents. As "devil" noted, there are only a couple questions between levels. Success in school is dependent on more than just STAR test scores. As "Parent" noted, this is a public school district. Those who want their children to focus solely on test scores and academics can send their children to Challenger or to China. Many Asians come here because they want their children to experience more than just academics.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2013 at 8:21 pm
I am so grateful that my three children have had teachers that do not teach to the test !!!! They are rock solid in math, and fairly strong in English. I could care less about their STAR scores. Getting less than "advanced" on the test is not a red flag to me as I see their skill building and learning throughout each school year. There are teachers who are more concerned about this test than others and dictate a large portion of time to "teach to the test". I'm just grateful that my kids have only come across that once!
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2013 at 8:27 pm
STAR tests mean nothing to the kids and they know it. It means a lot more to the teachers and the schools.
To anyone who is worrying about their individual child's scores, make sure that they didn't deliberately answer all the questions wrong, because that does happen.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2013 at 8:37 pm
GIve your kid the ISEE and then see where they hit. The Start Test is set for California PUBLIC SCHOOLS - which are ranked somewhere around 47th - 49th in the country.
600 on the STAR gets you about 50% on the ISEE. PAUSD is a mess.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2013 at 11:02 pm
If you really want to assess how your child is doing in math, have them take the Bay Area Math Olympiad test. Four problems in four hours. If they get two completely, they receive an honorable mention.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2013 at 12:11 am
That is not true for everyone. Some who get 600 on the STAR (the highest score on that test) will get the highest score on the ISEE too. You are assuming that all PAUSD students are in the top 99th percentile nationally but that is not true and you cannot pin the fact that they aren't on our schools.
That the STAR test is easier than the ISEE can't be pinned in PAUSD either. The state writes that test.
Your discontent will be refocused soon. This may be the last year of STAR testing now that California signed on to the Common Core test in 2015. Brace yourself; NY just gave its students the Common Core test and students fell from 55% to 31% proficient in just one year. Web Link;
Early reports are that it is the Common Core tests that are "a mess." Web Link and Web Link
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 11, 2013 at 6:06 am
I think if you want to compare how students & a school is doing, for a particular school,
* compare 5th grade results 2013 to
* 4th grade results 2012 to
* 3rth grade results 2011 to
* 2nd grade results in 2010
That way you are using mostly the same set of students to see if they are getting better in Math or Language Arts.
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Pamela's point is very true...we were stunned when our kids who aced every STAR test took their first ISSE practice tests and couldn't do most of the math problems. Many families who decide to apply to private schools for middle school discover the same problem too late.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 11, 2013 at 1:37 pm
The problem is Everyday Math is a defective math program and PAUSD got suckered into adopting it because Skelly allowed the former Barron Park principal to bully everyone into adopting it because she thought it would help Barron Park's low scores. The program is so bad that teachers have to interpret and tweek it so all elementary math learning is dependent upon the teacher. If the program is followed to a tee, as written, God help those children. Fortunately, PAUSD teachers don't have to follow the program and can simplify the teaching style so children are not frustrated. There was clear information on the internet that schools and parents disliked the program, even inner city schools (confusing for students, jumps to another category before everyone understands and circles back around later in attempt to reteach). Data proved that math scores went down after a few years of teaching Everyday Math. Everyday math sales and marketing are laughing all the way to the bank, and using "Palo Alto bought it" as a salespitch.
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2013 at 3:30 pm
I remember going the Everyday Math meeting at Nixon where Skelly framed the adoption of EDM as a matter of supporting the choice of the teachers on the textbook committee. I remember thinking "what about the students? what about all of the evidence that EDM has been a disaster in other districts?"
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm
I don't run into many startup or big company CEOs who are any better at math or English than the average Joe. Parents, know that tomorrow's leaders likely bear no resemblance to those achieving at the upper end of STAR, SAT or whatever other standardized test you can think of.
a resident of Walter Hays School
on Aug 11, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Hays scores were not: Walter Hayes was 52/47
For 2nd grade they were 52% English Language, 74% Math.
I read an email that made it sound as though Fairmeadow was giving 2nd grade students an unlimited amount of time to complete the tests. If this is true, it's a huge advantage over other students in the district, but also, and perhaps more importantly, against the rules and regulations of the test!
As for comparing schools, it's better to look at the district as a whole as opposed to select schools. If you're super-concerned about test scores, move to Hoover where they teach to the test.
After two years of subjecting my daughter to these ridiculous tests that help no one, I will be opting-out for the next two years.
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 11, 2013 at 8:14 pm
My child got a perfect score on the ISEE math test and he went to the school that everyone is saying is so bad (and no my child didn't prep for it either). The ISEE isn't the SAT. But the population taking it is generally going to be at the high achieving end, particularly nationally, which makes it feel more competitive than it is given the percentile ranking.
Everyday math isn't great but I think you have forgotten what we had before in PAUSD which was nothing. There was no math curriculum. None. Every teacher got to make their own curriculum and that was that. EDM is kind of dumb (and the lattice division method is crazy) but hey, at least there are standards now.
If you want to improve elementary math in PAUSD get rid of timed tests. They are making the kids anxious and do nothing for learning per a lot of research.
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2013 at 6:34 am
I'm not sure if I should dignify Hays Mom's posting with a response, but I will anyway. My son was a 2nd grader at Fairmeadow this past year. No, he was not given an "unlimited amount of time to complete the tests", and I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to come on here and spread false rumors about this.
I also know that his teacher spent some time each day in the week before the tests familiarizing the students with the format and going over some practice questions. She also stressed to them that although they should try to do well on the test, it wasn't something to get too worked up over. This was a far cry from "teaching to the test" all year and putting lots of pressure on the kids over this. It's nice to see that PA kids performed well on the tests despite this relatively laid back approach, and it's something we should all be happy about.
a resident of Walter Hays School
on Aug 12, 2013 at 8:59 am
Thank you for your response! I am so glad the Fairmeadow scores are true. It was information that I gathered from an email that one of your fellow 2nd grade Fairmeadow moms wrote so I was going on what I was told.
Hays also has a very laid-back approach to the test and I'm very happy with the way they have handled them.
a resident of Palo Verde
on Aug 12, 2013 at 9:17 am
It is my understanding that STAR/CST tests are not timed tests. The state provides a guideline of how long they expect the test to take an average student. This is just for planning purposes. I think students get whatever time they need to finish the test.
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 12, 2013 at 9:19 am
There were plenty of times that both of my kids either just filled in the bubbles or made designs on their STAR tests because they were so bored. Not a great way to truly judge how a school is doing.
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Hays Mom,
Thanks for your reply, and sorry for my indignant tone in my first post. When I saw the early posts about Asians and "a culture which prioritizes education excessively" and then saw your post about alleged cheating, I feared this was turning into yet another Asian-bashing thread.
I'm not sure what your friend was talking about, but at least things sounded above-board and laid back in my son's class and among others I spoke to at school.
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Aug 12, 2013 at 5:30 pm
As usual on these school related threads, some are writing from the perspective of elementary school parents, and some from relatively olden times, and some from perspective of parenting older teens. I heard there were big Math Wars in what, the late 1990's in PAUSD?!
In our experience, which was in higher grades, we witnessed most of the action in Math occurring outside of school: costly private tutoring and year-round efforts to move ahead kids of the curriculum. Then - when the stakes are much higher - high school - some kids who aren't even interested in Math are ahead one year in the highest lane, it most certainly is a competition between parents for: top college admissions. Make no mistake about it. It usually has little to do with an affinity with Math, though there are certain exceptions occasionally of (supposedly) naturally gifted youth prepped from age 3 (look up and read local news articles if you don't believe me).
Anything about the STAR test is totally irrelevant in the big picture of all this. Math holds major status in this community.
Some of us had kids who never had anything to do with "Everyday Math" for the little kids, either because they were older when it began or we moved here after that age, so like some, I can't speak to that except it sounds confusing to me. I prefer traditional, straightforward educational methods. I have someone in the field of Mathematics in my family. It is interesting to see the cycle that never ends of trying out one Math curriculum or another in the elementary level...
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 12, 2013 at 5:51 pm
@former Paly
I don't understand your thoughts on math tutoring. You seem to imply that math enrichment should only be reserved for kids who are somehow naturally talented at math. I don't believe there is any "natural talent" for math. It is developed through hard work and persistence. Anybody can be great at math if they just spend effort. I am certainly prepping my kid, who doesn't currently show any particular aptitude for math, because math is fundamentally important. Without math you cannot understand any aspect of the universe which we inhabit. Math can develop razor sharp logic.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm
@Mom: Yes, I was at the Everyday Math meeting at Nixon too. Superintendent Skelly asked parents to vote with their hands on whether they wanted Everyday Math or not. Instantly, the bullies squahed that idea and did not allow it. Someone from our school who was on the committee said they were bullied into agreeing to adopt the program.
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Aug 12, 2013 at 6:51 pm
I wasn't clear, sorry. I am cynical after witnessing what I witnessed here (and yes, it does go on in some other areas in these modern times in areas with family money), basically parents buying their kids grades, AP scores - especially Math, and entrance into top schools. There are some ethnic-only after-school, weekend programs that "promise" admissions to Harvard or equivalent upon receipt of thousands of dollars. It is appalling. I remember being handed a bilingual brag sheet (printed ad) when my first kid started at Paly and I was picking up afterwards, though it certainly wasn't aimed at my ethnic group - I don't think the school realized this was happening at the orientation - it showed names and faces, their scores, where they had been admitted, all with many exclamation points and vulgar bragging. Virtually the entire (top level) curriculum could be taken (paid for) in advance, according to the flier.
At the same time, most of these Tiger Moms are secretive and instruct their teens to do as they say for competitive advantage.
I did hedge since I am aware of certain gifted students who clearly were "math geniuses" - the most desired title around here. But many are way overblown in status, which they do enjoy in this age of oversharing of personal information - grades, scores, awards -- yet at the time, when the chips are down, they have a carefully build paper record reflecting major parental planning, money, backup.
I have known some teens to lord over other teens that they were ahead of the curriculum and could thereby receive an easy A (even for fairly difficult coursework). Some students either 1) don't have that kind of family money or 2)just do their own work -- all the way through school YET these students compete for limited university slots at certain coveted universities. Sometimes the one with the better match, really, does not get in owing to a minor paper record difference or test scores (even slight differences): like the kid whose parents had him/her start taking the SAT (not for a score) in 8th grade -- with sophisticated paid prepping, which may not occur to a fair percentage of parents to do OR such parents believe in free play, downtime, camp, sports, music, art and etc. -- and then when the srongly prepped kid takes it "for real" they can get greatly improved scores. It is well known that careful prepping can result in much raised SAT scores. Multiply that across AP curriculum, AP test taking, parent-planned/assisted obtained internships at the local university (recommend: medical or biomed or similar!) and especially the major math competitions and wow, you can build a super competitor for university admissions.
I have been heartened to read on occasion that Stanford is seeing through some of these projects and looking for genuine individuals. They have plenty to pick from, yet each year some parents angrily complain that "my kid, who got the perfect SAT scores (with great effort on the part of many people!!) did NOT get into Stanford whereas THAT KID (some other kid in the school or the HS across this city) DID get in and "had lower scores." Most university admissions are holistic and increasingly able to detect the packaged kids.
Such practices are legal but contrived and do not make for creativity, self-motivation, or a level playing field. I wish people would guide their teens but permit more choices, serendipity in their resume building...
STAR testing is nothing in this equation, believe me.
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 12, 2013 at 7:53 pm
You know you're living in an affluent community in the Bay Area when the incendiary racial code word is not "crime" or "poverty" but "math".
former Paly parent, I get where you're coming from, but if this board is any indication, very often, frustration with alleged "Tiger Mom" Asian parenting practices descends into simple racism.
And bear in mind that if you substitute "soccer"/"basketball"/etc. for "math" and substitute "coach" for "tutor", you have a pretty good description of extreme parenting techniques prevalent among some other ethnicities. But those who go to such lengths for athletics are often praised for their "work ethic" while Asians who study hard are criticized for "excessive emphasis on academics".
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Aug 12, 2013 at 9:02 pm
I have known what are in effect "Tiger Moms" of several ethnicities! In the end, it isn't about "studying hard" or higher IQ as is sometimes attributed to the supposed reason for one ethnic group's apparent superior testing performance around here.
In some cases, it's about recent changes in parental behavior leading to borderline cheating and misrepresentation and buying one's way into advantaged situations. But then, we are in a very specific high-income, high-education area and THAT skews the samples we are looking at (of various students, their ethnicities, supposed IQs and/or testing performance).
I have only commented on parent behavior I witnessed that I disagree with - such has been promoted in the 'Tiger Mom' book and, frankly, I don't admire that woman. Perhaps you do, and it's a free world here in America.
Some ethnic groups of the world really aren't represented here and are conveniently overlooked. As it happens, my ethnic group has very little representation around here and so is dismissed in the discussion (and no, I am not African-American).
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Palo Alto: Bon Vivant to be replaced by bakery
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 3,885 views
What's Wrong with This?
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,638 views
The first few weeks
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,107 views
One more week to vote!
Don't forget to cast your ballot online. Voting ends May 29th. Stay tuned for the results in the July 21st issue of the Palo Alto Weekly.


text:
Popular property highlights
Located in Williamsburg, Marriott's Grande Vista is within 2 miles (3 km) of popular attractions such as Discovery Cove and Aquatica. This 900-room, 4-star resort welcomes business and leisure travelers with 4 outdoor pools, a golf course, and a full-service spa. It's in central Orlando and also close to SeaWorld® Orlando and Orange County Convention Center.
This resort is home to 3 onsite restaurants, perfect for a quick bite to eat. Get a pick-me-up at the coffee shop/café. Start each morning off right with buffet breakfast served for a fee.
Marriott's Grande Vista's 900 air-conditioned rooms provide furnished balconies or patios, sofa beds, and microwaves. Guests can expect free WiFi and cable TV. Beds sport premium bedding and bathrooms offer hair dryers and free toiletries. Free weekday newspapers, ceiling fans, and phones are also standard.
Marriott's Grande Vista features a golf course, a full-service spa, and 4 outdoor pools. A stay here includes free parking. The 24-hour front desk has staff standing by to help with dry cleaning/laundry, concierge services, and luggage storage. Other amenities at this spa resort include a children's pool, a health club, and a sauna.
Property features
- Free WiFi in rooms and public areas
- Free parking
- Onsite dining
- Spa
HighlightsInformation missing or incorrect? Tell us!Opens in a new window
Marriott's Grande Vista
Renovations & Closures
- Select guestrooms
Hotel Amenities
Hotel Amenities
Guest facilities and services at this Marriott Condominium resort include a fitness center with massage and steam rooms and a clubhouse containing pool tables, pinball, and an aerobics/yoga area. Children enjoy a climbing playroom, a weekly live-animal show, and activities such as finger-painting. Teen and adult activities include fishing tournaments, poolside bingo, karaoke, hydrobike races, and basketball tournaments. (Some activities are complimentary. Fees are charged for others.)
The resort also features onsite 3 restaurants, 2 bar/lounges, 2 poolside bars, 2 meeting rooms, air-conditioned public areas, and concierge services. Complimentary high-speed Internet access is available.
This resort is entirely smoke-free. Designated smoking areas are provided for smokers.
- Spa services on site
- Number of outdoor pools - 4
- Full-service spa
- 24-hour front desk
- Children's club (free)
- Supervised childcare/activities (surcharge)
- Arcade/game room
- Total number of rooms - 900
- Number of floors - 6
- ATM/banking
- Golf course on site
- Number of bars/lounges - 2
- Number of poolside bars - 2
- Barbecue grill(s)
- Breakfast available (surcharge)
- Coffee shop or café
- Free newspapers in lobby
- Concierge services
- Express check-out
- Dry cleaning/laundry service
- Health club
- Designated smoking areas
- Grocery/convenience store
- Tours/ticket assistance
- Free WiFi
- Children's club
- Laundry facilities
- Spa treatment room(s)
- Meeting rooms 2
- Picnic area
- Luggage storage
- Number of restaurants - 3
- Conference space size (meters) - 72
- Outdoor tennis courts - 2
- Free self parking
- Sauna
- Children's pool
Family Friendly Amenities
- Family Hotel
- Outdoor pools
- Children's pool
- Free Wi-Fi
- Outdoor tennis courts
- Children's club (free)
- Grocery/convenience store
- Laundry facilities
- Arcade/game room
- Sofa bed
- Microwave
Available in all rooms: Free WiFi
Available in some public areas: Free WiFi
Free self parking
Room Amenities
Marriott's Grande Vista offers 900 air-conditioned accommodations with complimentary weekday newspapers and hair dryers. Rooms open to furnished balconies or patios. Beds feature premium bedding. Televisions come with cable channels.
Guests can surf the web using the complimentary wireless Internet access. Additionally, rooms include complimentary toiletries and ceiling fans. Housekeeping is provided daily.
- Premium bedding
- Furnished balcony or patio
- Air conditioning
- Ceiling fan
- In-room climate control (air conditioning)
- Free weekday newspaper
- Phone
- Microwave
- Daily housekeeping
- Free toiletries
- Hair dryer
- Cable TV service
- Sofa bed
- Free WiFi
Where to Eat
The Grill at Grande Vista - Located in golf course clubhouse. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Dinner menu features steak, lamb, duck, chicken, ribs, and pasta.
Copa Loca Bar & Grill - Located poolside. Serves American fare. Open for lunch and dinner.
Grande Cove Restaurant And Mist Pool Bar - Located in the food court. Pasta and rotisserie chicken. Open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
The Marketplace - Located in main building. Salads, sandwiches, Krispy Kreme doughnuts, groceries, and sundries. Open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Nearby Things to Do
This Florida Marriott contains the Grande Vista Golf Club, a 9-hole course with instructional facilities. Discount greens fees are offered to resort guests. Other recreational opportunities at the resort include 2 lighted tennis courts, beach volleyball, pools, and a fitness center. Rentals available for use on the resort's lake include paddleboats, hydrobikes, kayaks, and fishing gear.
Other recreational activities listed below are available near the resort; fees may apply.
- Fitness classes on site
- Basketball on site
- Golf lessons on site
- Golfing on site
- Volleyball on site
Spa Services
- Manicures and pedicures
- Body wraps
- Body scrubs
- Facial treatments
If you have requests for specific accessibility needs, please note them at check-out when you book your room.
- Accessible bathroom
- Roll-in shower
- In-room accessibility
Hotel Policies
Check-in time starts at 4 PM
Check-out time is 10 AM
Payment types
Children and extra beds
- Children are welcome.
- Pets not allowed
You need to know
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on property policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card or cash deposit are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
No rollaway/extra beds available
No cribs (infant beds) available
Hotel Name
- Grande Vista
- Marriott's Grande Vista
- Marriott's Grande Vista Condo
- Marriott's Grande Vista Condo Orlando
- Marriott's Grande Vista Orlando
- Marriott Grande Vista Orlando
- Marriott Orlando
- Marriott`s Grande Vista Hotel Orlando
- Marriott Vacation Club Orlando
- Orlando Marriott
- Marriott's Grande Vista Hotel Orlando
- Marriott's Grande Vista Hotel
- Marriotts Hotel Orlando
We should mention
Reservations are required for massage services and spa treatments. Reservations can be made by contacting the resort prior to arrival, using the contact information on the booking confirmation.
Awards & Affiliations
VIP Card
Book on this Web site now to receive a VIP discount card upon arrival.
Guests can pick up their VIP card at the concierge desk. The VIP card includes:
- 15% off merchandise or club rental at the Grande Pines Golf Club
- A complimentary bag of range balls with the purchase of 1 green fee at the Grande Vista Golf Club
- A complimentary appetizer with the purchase of 2 dinner entrees at The Grill at Grande Vista (Monday and Thursday evenings only)
- 2 complimentary fountain sodas with the purchase of one or more large pizzas at Pizza Hut
- USD 2 off the first frozen drink or draft beer at Copa Loca
- Complimentary Grande Vista wine opener with USD 25 purchase at MarketPlace
- Complimentary aromatherapy with the purchase of any on-site spa service at K C Massage


text:
Flora, fauna, and folks on San Luis Rey River bike trail
A quiet ride along the river
The Canyoneers 10 a.m., May 24
No partners needed, and no experience necessary. Calling by Martha Wild. Live music by Judge Jacquie and the Repeat Offenders. Teaching from 7:30-8:00. Dance starts at 8:00. Discounts for teens and children, college, and military. Soft soled shoes only, please.
3030 Thorn Street, San Diego, 92104
Get directions
Please log in to submit event corrections