REAL ANSWERS TO THOSE FAQs PROFFERED BY THE CITIZENS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE FOR CAMPBELL UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE G!

Welcome to the Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association - Real Answers to Those FAQs Proffered by Measure G’s Proponents portion of our Web Site.

The proponents of Measure C [“Citizens for Foothill-De Anza Committee for Measure C” (“the Committee”)] have created a FAQ page on their pro Measure C web site they assert warrants your “yes” vote on Measure C. They’re counting on the fact you’ll blindly believe the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s [“the district’s”] “needs” and asserted “conscientiousness” simply because “it’s education.” But if you take the time to discover the rest of the story, you’ll discover proponents are either stunningly ignorant or outright dishonest! 

The purpose of this page is to share the real answers to the questions raised by the the district’s President and Committee member Betsy Bechtel [also, one of the the district’s “official” ballot argument authors] on the Committee’s FAQ page.

Below please find Ms. Bechtel’s questions in red; her answers in green; what we assert are the real answers in blue; and, thanks for looking.

Introduction:

Although proponents frame the district’s needs in terms of its most “urgent and critical facility repair” requirements, in-truth-and-in-fact its facilities are not the issue! Each year the public gives $186 Million or more so the district can preserve two of our community’s most valuable assets. Notwithstanding, the district admits that for the last 50 years it has used little if any of this money to modernize classrooms, science labs or to address its aging infrastructure. Although the district points to: “many ceilings [being] water stained and damaged due to aging roofs;” “aging electrical equipment [being]...inadequate;” “aging sinks [and]...pipes [being] part of...major plumbing renovations that are needed;” “cracks in pavement [and]...asbestos insulat[ed]...vent[s being]...safety hazards; and concludes these repairs are necessary notwithstanding its “ongoing maintenance and facility improvement” program; no such program currently exists, nor has it ever existed! Unbelievably less than 2% of the district’s budget is spent on maintenance and repair, and it has never budgeted for long term capital reserves so that inevitable facility repairs and renovations like the ones described can be addressed!

Furthermore 6 years ago the district made similar pleas for more money, and local property owners gave another nearly $300 Million. Now the district claims that wasn’t enough because it only represented “the first phase of upgrades” [implying more phases are yet to come (even proponents admit the $490.8 Million requested represents nothing more than the district’s “plan” for just the next 15 years)]. Although proponents admit delaying repairs only adds to the maintenance budget and takes away from instructional funds, the real question to be asked is why, given construction costs continue to increase making future repairs more expensive, the district continues to: spend 86% of its budget on employee salaries and benefits, and essentially nothing towards its second and further “phases of upgrades?”

What is Measure C?

The Real Answer: As we observe, Measure C neglects to detail the “list of the specific school facilities projects [proposed] to be funded.” Nor does the “Facilities Master Plan” to which the Committee refers [if you don’t believe us, take a look for yourself]! In truth-and-in-fact few Measure C proponents have any idea what specific projects Measure C will fund. In fact according to the district’s vice chancellor for finance and college services, the district doesn’t even know: “each time bonds are issued the Board of Trustees will have to authorize a specific list of projects” to be funded.

If the district and proponents don’t even have a clue as to the specific facility kinds of projects which will be funded by Measure C, how are you supposed to be equipped to make an informed decision? 

What was the planning process for the bond project list?

The District’s Answer: “In-depth planning occurred at the college level, with each campus forwarding needs to the college leadership, which analyzed and prioritized the needs. The college needs were combined and refined by district leadership. The board of trustees then approved the list.”

The Real Answer: If such an “in-depth” evaluation had taken place, don’t you think the district could have detailed the “list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded” in the voters’ pamphlet, rather than referring to the generic “wish list” set forth in its “Facilities Master Plan?” And don’t you think the district would know how much all of its “needs” as detailed in that “Plan” would ultimately cost? 

And just so we’re clear, the district’s board of trustees did not approve any “Facilities Master Plan” list! Rather, it approved that February 21, 2006 “Bond Measure Cost Summary” [on file in the Chancellor's Office]. The district doesn’t want to share that “Summary” because as we observe, it designates funding for so many specific non-facility and other questionable kinds of projects!   

How did Foothill-De Anza arrive at the proposed bond amount?

The District’s Answer: “The figure represents a detailed, long-term facilities plan for the district—one that would be built out over the next 15 years.”

The Real Answer: The district would have you believe it painstakingly determined the cost to address its most “urgent and critical” facility repairs outlined in its so called “Facilities Master Plan.” Wrong! 

According to the district’s political consultant, “the [maximum] tax rate [which can by law be] levied as a result of any single [bond] election must be less than...$25 per $100,000 of assessed property value!” Armed with this knowledge, the district asked its bond underwriter, Morgan Stanley, to estimate the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness it could service at a tax rate of less than $25 per $100,000 of assessed property value? In response, on February 6, 2006, Morgan Stanley made its formal written “Presentation to the [district’s] Board of Trustees” wherein it concluded: “the district has the capacity to issue $490 million to $515 million in general obligation bonds and still maintain a tax rate of $24/$100,000 of AV.”

So just like its failure to “list...the specific school facilities projects to be funded” by Measure C, there is no “detailed, long-term facilities plan” that supports its alleged urgent and critical “need” for $490.8 Million! In reality the district has done nothing more than proffer the maximum amount of indebtedness permitted by law to be extracted from local homeowners!

How can we be sure that the money will be spent properly?

The District’s Answer: “Measure C requires mandatory annual audits and an independent Citizens' Oversight Committee to review the use of all bond funds. The committee must be comprised of at least one representative from business, a senior citizens organization, a taxpayers' organization, a current student active in a college group such as student government, and a person active in the support and organization of the district, such as a member of the Foundation. The publicly elected board of trustees will approve each bond-funded project and the issuance of all bonds.”

The Real Answer: The simple answer, as we observe, is you can’t be sure because the so called “protections” of Measure C are illusory! And insofar as relying upon your “publicly elected board of trustees,” please understand these are the same group of people who: impermissibly laundered $75,000 of public funds to the former Measure E campaign; were fined [paid for with public funds] by the Fair Political Practices Commission for this impropriety; have already again agreed to pay high powered political consultant Larry Tramutola $45,000 [in public funds] to assist in the passage of Measure C [he was paid to assist in the passage of Measure E]; impermissibly diverted millions of Measure E funds for “current maintenance, operation or repairs;” and, have admittedly [see above] allowed two of our community’s most valuable assets to fall into their current states of disrepair. 

So you tell us; do you really feel comfortable trusting your publicly elected board of trustees with another $490.8 Million? 

I have never attended Foothill College or De Anza College. How does Measure C benefit me?

The District’s Answer: “Foothill College and De Anza College rank among the best community colleges state—and nationwide in preparing students for the workforce and transferring students to four—year colleges and universities. More Silicon Valley healthcare professionals—including nurses and paramedics—are trained at Foothill College and De Anza College than anywhere else. Technical training programs have very high employment rates—approaching 100 percent—for graduates. More than one million students have attended the Foothill-De Anza Community College District since its founding. Our college district is one of the largest local employers in Silicon Valley and has a significant positive impact on the local economy: $800 million in direct and indirect spending. This bond measure will ensure that we have safe and modern classrooms, labs, libraries and other college facilities that are needed to adequately train and upgrade the local workforce.”

The Real Answer: As we observe, over 70% of the district’s students are NOT even local residents! And community college system wide, nearly 20% are NOT even citizens [see ¶(I)(C)(i)(h) - “who are our students”]! So if you’re a nonresident or non-citizen college aged individual asking yourself why you should attend an institution of higher learning where so much of your tuition [$17/unit for the 37,000 California residents] will be subsidized by local homeowners, our question to you is why shouldn’t you attend?

And insofar as Measure C having “a significant positive impact on [our] local economy,” as we observe, the San Jose Mercury Newspaper has reported that high housing costs fueled by the $1.8 BILLION in Measures C’s and E’s new taxes [not just the $490.8 Million represented by the district] are squeezing worker salaries; threaten the Bay Area’s ability to attract talented workers; and, end up increasing Bay Area living costs [all of which are all bad for the economy]!

Furthermore if 70% of the district’s students don’t live in “our community,” isn’t it likely they won’t make our community their new home after graduation [thus they will take their new skills elsewhere]? Therefore although in the short term their “economic impact” may be “good for the economy,” in the long run it’s really good for some other community’s economy which benefits at local property owners’ expense! 

Wasn’t there a previous bond measure for our community colleges?

The District’s Answer: “In 1999, local voters approved a bond measure to fund the first phase of facility repairs at our community colleges. Rapidly rising construction costs and the discovery of an earthquake fault at Foothill College made it impossible to complete all projects. This measure will fund the next phase of facility improvements and keep our colleges current with advancing educational technology.”

The Real Answer: When the district asked for the nearly $300 Million it did in Measure E funding, do you remember anyone representing it would just be “the first phase of facility repairs?” Now that the subject is again before voters, are you comfortable with Measure C being just “the second phase?” And given the district has no idea [take a look for yourself] how many billions [and yes we’re talking BILLIONS] all of the generic “wish list” projects included in its “Facilities Master Plan” will ultimately cost, how many more “phases” does the district propose imposing on local property owners only? And are you prepared to buy into a program that guarantees the district will be back asking for more?

The district paints the picture of innocence when it comes to answering why it must now ask for more. First it suggests it “unexpectedly” discovered an earthquake fault. However as we observe, when the district first proffered Measure E it knew about the fault because it represented funds were needed “to retrofit for seismic safety.” Thus Measure C really asks for more for the very same purpose [presumably] because retrofitting never took place! Thus the real question which should be asked is where did the money go if not for retrofitting [could it be the district’s diversion of millions for “routine & state…ongoing…scheduled maintenance…and facility improvements” left nothing for seismic retrofitting]?

Next the district points to rapidly rising construction costs being the reason why it must now ask for more. But this is a manufactured excuse given the district now admits Measure E was always intended to be just “the first phase of facility repairs.” Moreover rising construction costs come as no surprise to the district! If you examine the district’s February 21, 2006 “Bond Measure Cost Summary,” you’ll discover today’s construction costs have already been adjusted by 7.59%-32.89% to reflect their so called “rapid rise” over the next 3-10 years [and the same thing was done with respect to Measure E]! Nor do rapidly rising construction costs come as any surprise to proponents as they argue: “construction costs...continue to increase, making future repairs more expensive.”

We hope you see that the reasons for Measure C have nothing to do with “rapidly rising construction costs” nor “discovery of an earthquake fault!” Rather these reasons suggest two completely different kinds of inquiries. First, when the district purportedly learned of an unexpected earthquake fault and rapidly rising costs of construction, how come it didn’t immediately start putting away capital reserves from its $186 Million annual budget to fund its “second phase” of needed upgrades? And second, how does one reconcile proponents’ current manufactured justification with their prior ballot argument assertion that Measure E “projects were completed on time and on budget?”

Fool us once, shame on the district. Fool us twice, shame on us!

What about other sources of funding?

The District’s Answer: “The district has sought and will continue to seek all sources of revenue. Unfortunately, the state continues to contribute less and less to the district. Foothill-De Anza continues to get fewer dollars per student—in the school year 2004-05, UC received $19,883 per student, CSU received $10,623, the average K through 12 received $7,032, the average Community College District receives $4,559,and Foothill De Anza receives $4,026. Bond measures are the only major funding source available to schools and community colleges for the repairs and renovations that 40-to 50-year-old buildings require.”

The Real Answer: As we observe district revenues are UP and because of “equalization,” it now realizes millions more from the State! Although proponents assert “bond measures are the only major funding source available to community colleges for repairs and renovations;” and that, “the district seeks all sources of revenue;" these assertions are just further examples of either ignorance or outright misrepresentation [and you thought the public was being protected by the district’s “publicly elected board of trustees?”]!

As we observe, the reason why district facilities have fallen into their current states of disrepair is because for the last 50 years, the district has ignored the consequences of spending 86% of the hundreds of millions we’ve given on employee salaries and benefits [47% of whom are NOT even instructors]; only a paltry 1.9% on deferred facility maintenance; and, ZERO on actual infrastructure repairs [e.g., roofs, plumbing, electrical, HVAC systems]! When you pay: 73 of your administrators $110,500 annually PLUS benefits; your Chancellor $180,000 annually PLUS benefits [which is more than Governor Schwarzenegger and nearly as much as Vice-President Cheney]; 310 of your employees in excess of $96,000 annually [including benefits]; and, a single political consultant [Larry Tramutola] the equivalent of $90,000 annually; it isn’t a lack of funding that’s the problem—it’s irresponsibility and mismanagement!

Another reason why district facilities have fallen into their current states of disrepair is because 37,000 California students pay the district just $17/unit [$12.5 Million annually] in tuition, whereas local property owners already pay $70 Million plus the $248 Million of Measure E! If students and resident non-landowners started paying their fair share of the district’s costs, there would be no need to keep coming back to property owners for more!

Finally proponents’ assertion “bond measures are the only major funding source available to schools and community colleges” is an outright misrepresentation! As an alternative to bonds, California law [Government Code, §50079.1] allows community college districts to impose new special taxes [as long as imposed uniformly on all taxpayers (note that one of the problems with Measure C, is it will be applied nonuniformly as was Measure E)]. California law also allows community college districts to impose new general taxes [Government Code, §53723]. And if the district asked the county to increase the sales tax to provide more for higher education [instead of BART], that too would result in added funding. And if completely in lieu of an increase in the sales tax, the district asked the county to impose a new “transactions and use tax” [see California Attorney General Opinion 97-1205], that too would result in added funding! Therefore so much for proponents’ assertion “the district continues to pursue all sources of revenue!”

Why continue to pursue new “bonds” if other major funding sources like the ones suggested exist? Because as we observe, the only persons who will repay the bonds of Measure C are local property owners which represents less than 50% of all voters! The district knows that although voters may be reluctant to further tax themselves, in the words of California Bldg. Industry Assn. v. Governing Bd. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3rd 212, 237-38, they will “gladly impose taxes which the[y]...themselves do not have to pay!” Since all of the alternative funding sources we’ve suggested involve taxing all residents [not just property owners], to the district “the means justify the ends!” 

What will happen if Measure C does not pass?

The District’s Answer: “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.”

The Real Answer: Hopefully a “wake-up call” to the district so it finally starts:

Making do [like the rest of us] with the hundreds of Millions we’ve already given;

Taxing EVERYONE [NOT just homeowners (as aforesaid, Measure C taxes property owners only)], or NO ONE;

Budgeting capital reserves so future bond measures like Measure C are UNNECESSARY;

Spending more on maintenance and repair, and less on administrative overhead; and,

Taxing judiciously and intelligently [Measures C and E unnecessarily waste $1.1 BILLION of taxes], or not at all!

What will Measure C cost me?

The District’s Answer: “This measure will cost taxpayers $24 per $100,000 of assessed value (not market value). The cost of the measure is deductible on state and federal income taxes.”

The Real Answer: As we observe, the district’s representation of the cost of Measure C is nothing more than an estimate which for the reasons we’ve outlined is very likely wrong! Even if accurate, the cost, when combined with Measure E, will likely total $14,000 or more to the average homeowner over the 40 year [and because of issuance in phases, not the 25-30 year represented] life of these bonds. In contrast a one-time special, general, increased sales or transaction and use tax would cost the average taxpayer thousands less!

Also contrary to proponents’ representation and as we observe, most residents will not be able to deduct the new taxes of Measure C on their state and federal income tax returns! Even if you happen to be one of the very few who will, it will still cost you more because your actual tax savings will only be a small percentage of the actual new taxes you end up paying to the district!

So does this really sound to you like “less than $10 monthly?”

What if I have more questions?

The District’s Answer: “For more information or to get involved with the campaign, please call the Adam at 650.518.0987 or e-mail at adamjoem@yahoo.com.”

The Real Answer: Yes, we recommend you contact Adam Montgomery to find out why the Committee has not shared the truth concerning Measure C? Could it be because Adam may be employed by the district’s high-powered political consultant, Larry Tramutola [on page 7 of a campaign financing statement filed by the Committee with the County Registrar of Voters on March 20, 2006, its Treasurer (Robert A. Grimm) represents moneys were paid to Adam Montgomery c/o the Tramutola Company for “campaign paraphernalia”]?

Conclusion:

If you agree Measure C represents proponents’ attempt to “trick” voters [by “playing the education card”] into passing a new, wasteful and unnecessary tax measure ONLY local property owners end up repaying; and, you want to put a stop to the never-ending merry-go-round of irresponsibility, mismanagement and misrepresentation; we urge you to VOTE NO!

Should you have questions or comments, please address them to Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association at:

© Silicon Valley Property Taxpayers’ Association, 2006 [Revised Monday, September 11, 2006] - Terms and Conditions of your use of this Web Site.

june 6, 2006 santa clara county measure c, $490.8 Million bond measure, foothill de anza community college district, parcel tax opposition, general obligation bond opposition, special assessment opposition, property tax opposition, parcel tax election, bond election, proposition 13, proposition 218, june 6, 2006 santa clara county measure c, $490.8 Million bond measure, foothill de anza community college district, parcel tax opposition, general obligation bond opposition, special assessment opposition, property tax opposition, parcel tax election, bond election, proposition 13, proposition 218, june 6, 2006 santa clara county measure c, $490.8 Million bond measure, foothill de anza community college district, parcel tax opposition, general obligation bond opposition, special assessment opposition, property tax opposition, june 6, 2006 santa clara county measure c, $490.8 Million bond measure, foothill de anza community college district, parcel tax election, bond election, proposition 13, proposition 218, june 6, 2006 santa clara county measure c, $490.8 Million bond measure, foothill de anza community college district, parcel tax opposition, general obligation bond opposition, special assessment opposition, property tax opposition, parcel tax election, bond election, proposition 13, proposition 218, june 6, 2006 santa clara county measure c, $490.8 Million bond measure, foothill de anza community college district, parcel tax opposition, general obligation bond opposition, special assessment opposition, property tax opposition, parcel tax election, bond election, proposition 13, proposition 218