|
HOW OUR PUBLIC STEWARDS HAVE MISMANAGED TWO OF OUR COMMUNITY’S MOST VALUABLE ASSETS! |
|
Welcome to the Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association - How Our Public Stewards Have Mismanaged Two of Our Community’s Most Valuable Assets portion of our Web Site. The district: Admits: “the need for repair and renovation will not go away. “Repair and renovation [is an ongoing requirement and]...delaying repairs...only add[s] to the maintenance budget and take[s] away from instructional funds.” Admits: “Construction costs...continue to increase, making future repairs more expensive;” Admits: that notwithstanding the foregoing, “ongoing management and facility improvements” have been ignored for decades; Admits “many classrooms…and…labs have not been modernized since they were built almost a half-century ago;” and, Admits to “many ceilings [being] water stained and damaged due to aging roofs;” “aging electrical equipment [being]...inadequate;” “aging sinks [and]...pipes [being] part of...needed...major plumbing renovations;” and, “cracks in pavement [and]...asbestos insulat[ed]...vent[s being]...safety hazards. In fact it has created a “facility tour” [in pictures] on proponents’ web site it asserts substantiates the current state of facility disrepair [interestingly, proponents point to “old and broken...furniture” as well implying it too will be the beneficiary of Measure C funding - contrast this with the district’s representation Measure C funding is necessary for facility repairs]. How did the public’s arguably responsible public stewards get themselves into this mess? The district asserts innocence responding with three excuses. First, it claims Measure C is “necessary” notwithstanding its purported “ongoing maintenance and facility improvement” program. But there neither is nor has there ever been such a “program!” If there were, one would expect to find evidence in the district’s financials, wouldn’t one? But that evidence simply doesn’t exist. According to the district it realizes yearly general revenues of $186 Million [if you’d like to review the district’s budget, you're invited to click here]. Isn’t this enough for instructors, computers, software, furniture, vehicles, facility maintenance and whatever else is reasonably necessary to operate a community college? Apparently not because 86% [this is the district’s figure, not ours] is spent on employee salaries/benefits [47% of whom are NOT even instructors]! Of the almost nothing left over, a paltry 1.9% is spent on deferred facility maintenance; and, ZERO on actual infrastructure repairs [e.g., roofs, plumbing, electrical, HVAC systems]! Does this kind of “attention” to “ongoing maintenance and facility improvements” sound to you like either a “program” or responsible management? Second, the district points to its purported “recent discovery of an earthquake fault under Foothill College [that] requires unanticipated retrofitting for safety.” But before you blindly accept this excuse as fact, we urge you examine the district’s November 1999 ballot arguments in favor of former Measure E. There you will discover the district represented those funds were necessary “to retrofit for seismic safety.” Why 6 years ago did the district ask for Measure E funds to retrofit Foothill College for seismic safety, if it didn’t know about an “earthquake fault?” And why does it now ask for twice as much more for the very same purpose? The district responds to this latter question by stating Measure E funds were never “intended to address all college facility renovations. [Rather they] funded [just] the first phase of [its Facilities Master Plan] upgrades.” If this is a true statement, then what has the district done, if anything, since Measure E was approved, to prepare for what it now describes as the NEXT PHASE of facility “upgrades;” what does it propose, if anything, to assure the public that never again will it neglect two of our community’s most valuable assets; and, when does the public finally put a stop to this nonsense? As we said before, fool us once, shame on the district. Fool us twice, SHAME ON US! Third, and this is the real “eye-opener,” the district’s Chancellor admits 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 begin to cover the expense associated with these hard needs. Not 20 years ago. Not today!” Translation: the lack of funds for ongoing facility maintenance and repair has nothing to do with its “ongoing maintenance and facility improvement” program, nor lack thereof; nor, the “recent discovery of an earthquake fault under Foothill College [that] requires unanticipated retrofitting for safety,” nor increased costs of construction! We believe one does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that roofs, plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems inevitably wear out and when they do, there had better be a source of funding to pay for their repair/replacement [after all, that’s the very reason why condominium homeowner associations budget capital reserves, isn’t it?]. Based upon the inference of Measure C, the district’s “smart plan” really turns out to be nothing more than an ongoing and never-ending series [in phases] of new taxes against local homeowners only which masks its mismanagement and irresponsibility! Is this the “program” you bought into when you voted for Measure E? Is it the one you’re prepared to buy into insofar as Measure C and future bond measures are concerned? If your answers are “yes,” then Measure C is for you! If they’re no, then why trust an agency of the state that for 50 years has admittedly neglected two of our community’s most valuable assets? If you agree the district is guilty of having shamefully ignored maintenance and repair of two of our community’s most valuable assets; that it can’t be trusted nor rewarded with the additional $1.15 Billion [these are the district’s figures, not ours] Measure C proposes; and, it should make due with the hundreds of millions we’ve already given; we urge you to VOTE NO! Should you have questions or comments, please address them to Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association at: |
