|
MEASURE C IS MERELY PHASE II OF WHAT IS DESTINED TO BECOME A NEVER-ENDING SERIES OF “ADDITIONALLY PHASED” BOND MEASURES! |
|
Welcome to the Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association - Measure C Isn’t Enough to Do the Job portion of our Web Site. The district implies $490.8 Million more will do the job insofar as addressing its most urgent and critical facility needs. But it will not! Proponents assert Measure C “provides...long-term facilities planning for the Foothill-De Anza Community College District” [“the district”]. But in its ballot argument rebuttal the district admits the $248 Million of Measure E was never “intended to address all [of its long-term] college facility renovation” needs. Rather, it only intended to fund “the first phase of upgrades.” Thus according to the district, Measure C only funds “the next phase of [its allegedly most urgent and] critical facility repairs.” Well our question is what about the third, fourth, fifth, etc. phases? To those of the opinion there won’t be additional phases, consider the following: In Vice-Chancellor Mike Brandy’s February 14, 2006 cover letter to the district’s Board of Trustees [which accompanies the district’s February 21, 2006 “Bond Measure Cost Summary”] he admits “the detailed listing of capital projects [identified are]...needed to support our district for about the next 15 years” only. Thus even if we are to believe the district, what happens starting in year 16? Remember we stated that rather than just facility maintenance and repairs, $73½ Million of Measure C is earmarked to fund ordinary personal property purchases like computers and office machines [click here]? Since most personal property we know doesn’t last 15 years, by definition, it too will have to be replaced in 15 years or less. In fact, take a look at the Board packet for the district’s May 1, 2006 regular Board meeting; especially the part [pages 74-114] that details the district’s proposed disposition of many millions of dollars worth of allegedly “obsolete” computers and equipment [which are far less than 15 years old] for virtually next to nothing. Given the district’s track record, do you really think $73½ Million is going to do “the personal property job” for even the next 15 years? Thus even if we are to believe the district, what happens when this and other personal property requires replacement? Page B-4 of the district’s formal Resolution Ordering an Election [which hopefully is included in the voter’s pamphlet] admits “certain of the projects described [therein] may [very well]...not be completed [which] in such case bond money will be spent on only the most essential...projects.” If Measure C funds were sufficient, there could be no possibility that the enumerated projects might not be completed; correct? So the fact such possibility exists, is another way of saying Measure C funds are insufficient. In its summary of the projects Measure C is earmarked to fund, the district refers to a “Master Facilities Plan” that allegedly prioritizes its “wish list” of projects. We’ve asked the district to come up with the total cost for all projects included in its Master Plan so we can get a better handle on how many more bond measures we’re going to be subjected to in future years [e.g., what’s the par on this hole]? Either it can’t [or won’t]! Notwithstanding, by examining the list of projects which are generalized in Exhibit “B” of the district’s formal Resolution Ordering an Election [which again is hopefully included in the voter’s pamphlet]; and using one’s common sense; one does not need to be a rocket scientist to quickly realize that the district’s “plans” are so comprehensive that if adopted, they will likely cost property owners many BILLIONS MORE!
Finally, and this is the real “eye-opener,” the district’s Chancellor has admitted that even if “100% of...funding...not required for...special purpose programs and personnel-related costs [i.e., employee salaries and benefits] were annually devoted to facility and equipment maintenance, renovation and replacement costs, the district could not [even] begin to cover the expense associated with these hard [facility] needs. Not 20 years ago. Not today!...[According to her,] the bottom line is that...the district’s only practical option for funding these needs [is]...through [a never-ending series of new]...local bond measure[s].” What the Chancellor is really telling the public is that because the district has chosen to spend 86% of the hundreds of Millions we’ve given on employee salaries and benefits, it has no money left over for facility maintenance and repairs. Therefore whenever major capital repairs and improvements can no longer be avoided, there will be a single source for the money; a new bond measure which is paid for by property owners ONLY! So what do you think about an agency of the State that views Measure C as merely “phase two” of a never-ending series of bond measure after bond measure? Is this the reason you voted for Measure E? Is it the program you intend to ratify by voting for Measure C? If your answer to these questions is “no,” we urge you to VOTE NO! Should you have questions or comments, please address them to Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association at: |
