|
WHAT MEASURE C COSTS THE FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT! |
|
Welcome to the Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association - What Measure C Costs the Public portion of our Web Site. Besides the cost to property owners, Measure C represents costs to the Foothill-De Anza Community College District [“the district].” For instance, this election costs the district [and NOT the County] at least $700,000 [assuming the district’s election materials take up no more than six pages in your voters’ pamphlet]! And assuming those materials take up more space [which they do - just look at your pamphlet], the cost to the district will likely exceed $1 Million! That’s money that could have been spent on the district’s most “urgent and critical facility repair” projects like [for instance] wireless internet! Then there’s the cost of gearing up for the election. The district spent $45,000 of public moneys with political consultant [Larry Tramutola] for an “informational campaign” [since it’s unlawful to spend public moneys on “political campaigns” (Education Code, §7054)]. Then in tandem with this expenditure the district spent tens of thousands of public money dollars more with pollster Gene Gregman & Associates so it could learn: the level of new taxes the public would support; and, how its intended ballot measure and arguments should be worded. Pursuant to the district’s “informational campaign,” its Chancellor then began sending letters to voters [as opposed to residents or landowners] priming them for what the district had pre-ordained would become Measure C. The Chancellor’s first letter was dated February 10, 2006, and it emphasized the district’s accomplishments as well as its alleged “aging facility needs.” Her second later was dated March 6, 2006, and it announced the district’s decision to place Measure C on the ballot together with the reasons why [“to raise the funds necessary to repair, improve and expand (its) educational facilities”]. Larry Tramutola’s “informational campaign” strategies dictate that the Chancellor send additional letters; each one emphasizing the subliminal “need” for Measure C funding [if Measure does not pass, “the need for repair and renovation will not go away. Delaying repairs will only add to the maintenance budget and take away from instructional funds. Construction costs will continue to increase, making future repairs more expensive”]. Ask yourself: until very recently, when was the last time you received a letter from the district’s Chancellor about anything? And what do you think about an agency of the state that only cares about communicating with you when it’s part of a carefully orchestrated campaign designed to circumvent the law’s prohibition against the use of public moneys for political purposes? Although in a vacuum we believe more communication is good, please understand there are roughly 210,000 voters in the district! Therefore the cost to the district to duplicate and bulk mail each letter to all voters totals several hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money! Multiply this number by at least three and possibly more mailings and you can very quickly see the cost. Parenthetically, we’ve asked the district to allow us to include [at no additional cost to the district] some Measure C “information” of our own in its next round of “communications,” and it has refused! What do you think about an agency of the state that spends public moneys on alleged “informational purposes,” and then censors that information in favor of its own agenda? Then there are the legal and underwriting costs [with Morgan Stanley] associated with Measure C. The public rarely sees these costs because they end up being incurred after an election, and typically they’re buried in the many projects funded with the proceeds realized from bond issuance. But the district’s February 21, 2006 “Bond Measure Cost Summary” gives the public a unique peak into at least two of these costs. Buried under a section labeled “overhead summary on new bond” you will discover a $750,000 figure for “legal fees.” What legal fees are associated with a bond after its issuance? The answer is simple; none! There are other bond costs which will be incurred by the district if Measure C is approved There is the fee with Standard & Poor’s or Moody’s Investors Service to have its bonds “rated.” Then there is a $250,000 premium for errors & omissions insurance coverage [like attorney’s fees, this figure appears in the district’s February 21, 2006 “Summary”]. And there are many additional costs as well; we’re just not sufficiently educated in the niceties of public bonds to know what they are. But all told, the district is looking at spending several millions of public dollars on this election even assuming it doesn’t again launder funds for campaign activities per se. What do you think about an agency of the state that claims to have no money for ongoing maintenance, yet several millions for wasteful elections that represent thinly veiled camouflage for more employee salaries/benefits? If you agree the likely cost of Measure C is higher than the district has estimated; and that cost is not warranted for the questionable rather than its most “urgent and critical” facility repair projects; we urge you to VOTE NO! Should you have questions or comments, please address them to Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association at: |
