13 Measure C
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 06-076
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENDORSING MEASURE C
A BOND MEASURE FOR FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, more than one million students have attended the Foothill-De Anza
Community College District since its founding; and
WHEREAS, despite ongoing maintenance and facility improvements, aging college
facilities are unable to accommodate classes and training that students need and the job market
demands because the local community colleges were built in 1957 and 1967 for 8,000 students,
but now serve more than 44,000 students; and
WHEREAS, the student population seeking higher education will continue to grow in the
years ahead; and
WHEREAS, many classrooms on the Foothill and De Anza campuses do not meet
current earthquake safety standards and many science labs have not been modernized since they
were built almost a half-century ago; and
WHEREAS, Measure C contains provisions for strict fiscal accountability and citizen
oversight and provides that no funds can be used for administrators salaries; and
WHEREAS, if approved by 55 percent of the voters, Measure C would generate $490.8
million of improvement project funds to be spent in the Foothill-De Anza Community College
District within Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino supports the students of Cupertino
and neighboring cities and desires to enhance their opportunity to enter higher education and
receiye an excellent education at Foothill College and De Anza College; and
WHEREAS, this Council has determined to endorse Measure C to ensure safe and
upgraded classrooms at Foothill College and De Anza College,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE "ENTER GROUP
HERE" AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council supports the passage of Measure C on the June 6,
2006 ballot.
SECTION 2. That the City Council supports the repair and improvement of all Santa
Clara County schools.
SECTION 3. That this resolution shall become effective immediately following its
adoption.
IJ-I
Resolution No. 06-076
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 18th day of April 2006, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DOCSSF\34404vl \24500.000 I
APPROVED:
Mayor, City of Cupertino
2
Page 2
13-J...
Citizens for Foothill-De Anza
FACT SHEET
Foothill-De Anza Community College District
· Foothill College and De Anza College ranks among the top community colleges statewide in
training 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.
· The Foothill-De Anza Community College District is the 20" largest employer in Silicon Valley
and is responsible for $800 million in direct and indirect spending in the local economy. There is
a triple return on each dollar invested in the district by local taxpayers.
OUR AGING FACILITIES NEED TO BE UPGRADED.
· Despite ongoing maintenance and facility improvements, our aging college facilities are
unable to accommodate classes and training that students need and the job market
demands.
· Our colleges were created in 1957 and 1967 for 8,000 students but now serve more than
44,000 students each year.
· The student population is expected to grow by at least another 2,000 students in the
next five years.
· Many classrooms do not meet current earthquake safety standards and many science
labs have not been modernized since they were built almost a half-century ago.
· Electrical systems must be upgraded to handle technology. Lighting needs to be
improved for increased safety and security.
Rapidly rising construction costs and the discovery of an earthquake fault at Foothill
College have made it impossible to make all needed facility Improvements. This measure
will also keep our colleges up to date with educational technology.
MEASURE C, A BOND MEASURE ON THE JUNE 6 BALLOT, WOULD PROVIDE FOR
LONG-TERM FACILITIES PLANNING FOR FOOTHILL-DE ANZA:
· Bringing all classrooms and labs up to current earthquake standards
· Renovating and expanding classrooms, libraries and science and computer labs
· Upgrading wiring for technology and replacing old technology systems
· Installing energy-efficient heating and ventilation systems
· Improving lighting for campus safety
· Repairing leaky roofs
· Improving access for people with disabilities
All funds would remain in our community.
Citizens for Foothill-De Auza· 1001 Panna Way, Los Altos, CA 94024
IJ-J
esOD
Fur F. M ,thill-U"\lIz<I tullq!t· fb,,"11 mlll:-
THIS PROPOSITION 39 BOND MEASURE REQUIRES STRICT FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY:
o Mandatory annual audits
o An independent Citizens' Oversight Committee representing a cross-section of the
community to review the use of all bond funds
The publicly elected board of trustees would approve each bond-funded project and the
issuance of all bonds.
The bond measure would cost local taxpayers an average of $24 per $100,000 of assessed (not
market rate) property value-an average of $117 per year, or less than $10 monthly. The total
bond amount being put before voters is $490.8 million, the figure necessary for the fulfillment of
the district's carefully designed, long-term Facilities Master Plan and Educational Master Plan.
BOND MEASURES ARE THE ONLY MAJOR FUNDING SOURCE AVAILABLE TO
COMMUNITY COLLEGES FOR THE REPAIRS AND RENOVATIONS THAT 40- TO 50-
YEAR-OLD BUILDINGS REQUIRE.
o Foothill-De Anza is among the lowest-funded community college districts in the state,
and community colleges receive fewer dollars per full-time equivalent student than
California's other educational systems. For 2004-05, UC received $19,883 per student,
CSU $10,623, the average K-12 $6,788, the average California Community College
District $4,559, and Foothill-De Anza $4,026.
FOOTHILL-DE ANZA'S FACIUTIES AND EQUIPMENT NEEDS WILL NOT GO AWAY.
o Delaying repairs will only add to the maintenance budget and take away from
instructional funds.
o Construction costs will continue to increase, making future repairs more expensive.
WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
This bond measure is essential to educating and training Silicon Valley residents.
To get involved, you can
o Provide Foothill-De Anza bond information to your family, friends and neighbors.
o Make a donation to the campaign. Please send your check to Citizens for Foothill-
De Anza, 1001 Parma Way, Los Altos, CA, 94024.
o Arrange for speakers at your community group.
o Volunteer for voter outreach, including voter registration and phone banking.
o Display a lawn sign.
o Vote YES on the Foothill-De Anza College Repair/Job Training Measure!
To help, contact campaign coordinator Adam Montgomery at 650-518-0987 or
adamioem@yahoo.com.
Citizens for Foothill-De Auza· 1001 Panna Way, Los Altos, CA 94024
17-~
De.. L/ IID/Ob #/3
THE REAL ANSWERS TO THOSE FAQs
PROFFERED BY THE CITIZENS CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEE FOR FOOTHILL-DE ANZA MEASURE
C! r IBIIt'
Proponents of Measure C [ "Citizens for Foothill-De Anz i ~
Committee")] have created a F AQ page on their web site they assert warrants your yes vote. But
proponents are being stunningly dishonest with the public. The purpose of this page is to share
the real answers to the questions posed by the Foothill-De Anza Community College District's
["the district's"] President, Betsy Bechtel [Ms. Bechtel is one of the the district's "official" ballot
argument authors] on that FAQ page.
Below please find Ms. Bechtel's questions in red; her answers in green; and, what are the real
answers in blue.
I Choose a Question
.:J
.What is Measure C?
The District's Answer: "It is a Proposition 39 bond measure that would provide funds to expand
and improve classrooms, libraries, science labs, computer labs and other facilities at Foothill
College and De Anza College."
The Real Answer: Measure C is not a Proposition 39 bond measure because "proposition[s]
approved by...voters...[that as here] resuILin...bonded indebtedness [must] include...a list of
the specific school facilities projects to be funded." As we have observed, Measure C neglects
to include "a list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded."
Nor is Measure C a bond. In reality, it's nothing more than a new ad valorem tax to be levied
against all non-exempt property within the district's boundaries. As we have observed, the
Committee has been instructed by its political consultant, Larrv Tramutola, to not use the word
"tax."
Furthermore, Measure C represents the second such tax in just the last 6 years [and we're still
paying for the first one until 2033]! As we have observed and the Committee admits, in
November of 1999 voters approved Measure E which combined with State matching funds and
interest earned by the district between bond issuance and actual expenditure, netted close to
$300 Million! Now the district seeks an additional $490.8 Million!
Nor are Measure C funds limited to "facility" kinds of repairs as the district represents. 41 %
[$202 Million] is destined for non-facilitv kinds of expenditures [such as $1.6 Million to payoff
an outstanding loan against the district's current telephone system]; another 27%% [$80 Million]
is destined for projects not directly related to education per se [such as $1.15 Million facelift to
Flint Center's parking garage]; $32 Million is destined for "routine & state... ongoing... scheduled
maintenance...and facility improvements" which should be budgeted from general revenues;
and, $40 Million will be withheld so the district can earn interest income and possibly purchase
and renovate a yet-to-be-identified off campus office building. So much for "classrooms, libraries
and labs."
Why is Measure C needed?
The District's Answer: "Despite ongoing maintenance and facility improvements, aging college
facilities are unable to accommodate classes and training that students need and the job market
demands. Our colleges were created in 1957 and 1967 for 8,000 students but now serve more
than 44,000 students each year. The student population will grow by at least another 2,000
students in the next five years. Many classrooms do not meet current earthquake safety
standards and many science labs have not been modernized since they were built almost a half-
century ago. Electrical systems must be upgraded to handleJechnology. Lighting needs to be
improved for increased safety and security."
The Real Answer: As we have observed, there is no "ongoing maintenance and facility
improvement" program funded from general revenues, and there never has been one! Nor has
the district ever budgeted long term capital reserves for inevitable repairs [after all, responsible
public stewards understand roofs, plumbing, electrical and HVAC systems don't last forever:]!
Nor according to the district, has it done anything in the last fifty years to upgrade existing
facilities! Nor even though it now admits Measure E funds were never intended to pay for
anything other than phase one to its "Facilities Master Plan," it has made absolutely no provision
whatsoever to pay for phases two, three and who knows how many other phased upgrades [in
other words, what's the par on this course?]!
Therefore question to be answered isn't whether two of our community's most valuable assets
have fallen into states of disrepair but rather, what has the district been doing with the $186
Million or more each year we have already given; why did it allow its facilities to fall into this level
of disrepair [it doesn't occur overnight]; what happened to the nearly $300 Million taxpayers
gave the district only 6 years ago; why does it still have no plan to address its facility repair
needs for the next 50 years [other than even more phased bond measures which are destined to
come]; and, why would we ever give anything more to an agency of the State that has
demonstrated such irresponsibility, mismanagement and arrogance?
What will funds from Measure C be used for?
The District's Answer: "Every penny from the measure will remain locally with the Foothill-De
Anza Community College District and be used to complete the specific facility projects detailed
in the district's Facilities Master Plan, including:
. Bring all classrooms and labs up to current
earthquake standards
Make classrooms safe from asbestos and other
.
hazards
2
· Renovating and expanding classrooms, libraries,
science and computer labs
· Upgrading wiring for technology and replacing old
technology
· Installing energy-efficient heating and ventilation
systems
· Improving lighting for campus safety
· Repair leaky roofs
· Improve access for people with disabilities
· Provide up-to-date technology now and in the
future."
The Real Answer: As we have observed, Measure C neglects to detail "a 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 proponents of Measure C have any idea what specific projects Measure C will fund. If
proponents don't have a clue, how are you supposed to be able 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 facilities "needs" would cost? And
just so we're clear, the district's board of trustees approved no "Facilities Master Plan" list!
Instead 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" with you because 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 computed its most
"urgent and critical" facility repair needs outlined in its so called "plan." Wrong!
3
According to the district's political consultant Larry Tramutola, "the [maximum] tax rate [which by
law can be] levied as a result of any single [bond] election must be less than...$25 per $100,000
of assessed property value!" So the district asked its bond underwriters, Morqan Stanley, to
estimate the maximum amount of bond indebtedness that could be serviced at a tax rate not
exceeding $25 per $100,000 of assessed property value? In response, on February 6, 2006,
Morqan Stanley made its formal written "Presentation to the [district's] Board of Trustees"
wherein it concluded as follows: " 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 lack of a "list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded" by Measure
C, there was no "detailed, long-term facilities plan" that calculated its alleged "need" for $490.8
Million! 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 to the question, as we have observed, is that you can't
be sure as the so called "protections" of Measure C are illusory! And insofar as relying upon
your "publicly elected board of trustees," 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 with public funds] last year 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 with passage of Measure C [he was paid to assist the district in passing
Measure El; impermissibly diverted millions of Measure E funds for" current maintenance,
operation or repairs;" and, have admittedly allowed two of our community's most valuable assets
to fall into the state of disrepairrepresented.
Now 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
4
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 have observed, 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 asking yourself
why you would want to attend an institution of higher learning where so much of your tuition
[$17/unit for the 37,000 California residents] is being subsidized by local homeowners, our
question is why wouldn't you want to attend?
And insofar as Measure C having "a significant positive impact on [our] local economy," as we
have observed, the San Jose Mercury Newspaper reports that high housing costs fueled by the
$1.8 BILLION in Measures C's and E's new taxes [and not the $490.8 Million represented by the
district] are squeezing worker salaries; threaten the Bay Area's ability to attract talented workers;
and, increase 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? Therefore although their
"economic impact" may be "good for the economy" in the short term, in the long term it's really
good for some other community's economy which will benefit 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 funds,
do you ever remember anyone representing it was just" 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 its "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 which guarantees that in
short order the district will be back asking for more?
The district paints the picture of innocence insofar as why it now asks for more. However, let's
examine why Measure E funds weren't enough. As we have observed, when the district
proffered Measure E it represented funds were needed "to [purportedly] retrofit for seismic
safety." Yet now it disingenuously asks for more for the very same purpose [presumably
because that retrofitting did not take place]. Where did the money go if not for retrofitting [could
it be the district's diversion of millions of Measure E funds for "routine &
5
retrofitting]?
And since the district now admits Measure E was just" the first phase of facility repairs," how
come it didn't start a savings account by putting away capital reserves from its $186 Million
annual budget for" the second phase?" of upgrades?
We hope you can see that the reasons for Measure C have nothing to do with "rapidly rising
construction costs" nor" the discovery of an earthquake fault!"
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 have observed district revenues are UP and because of
"equalization," it now realizes millions more in funding from the State! Although proponents
assert "bond measures are the only major funding source available to community <;olleges for
repairs and renovations," this is just another misrepresentation [and you thought the public
was being protected by the district's "publicly elected board of trustees?"]!
As we have observed, the reason district facilities have fallen into the state of disrepair
represented is because for the last 50 years, it 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 unbelievably,
ZERO on actual infrastructure repairs [e.g., roofs, plumbing, electrical, HVAC systems]! When
you pay: 73 of your administrators $110,500 annually PLUS benefits; $180,000 annually PLUS
benefits to the Chancellor [which is more than Governor SchwarzeneQqer and nearly as much
as Vice-President Cheney are paid]; 310 of your employees in excess of $96,000 annually
[including benefits]; and, a single political consultant [Larry Tramutolal the equivalent of $90,000
annually; it isn't a lack of funding that is the problem-it's irresponsibility and
mismanagement to the nth degree!
Another reason district facilities have fallen into the state of disrepair represented 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 in addition to the $248 Million of
Measure E [only local property owners are repayinQ until 2033]! If students and resident non-
landowners started paying their fair share of of the district's costs, there would be no need for
the district to keep coming back for more!
Finally proponents' assertion "bond measures are the only major funding source available to
schools and community colleges" either represents another intentional misrepresentation, or
complete incompetence! As an alternative to bonds, California law [Government Code,
§50079.11 allows community college districts to impose new special taxes [as long as they are
6
imposed uniformly on all taxpayers (note that one of the problems with Measure C is it will be
applied nonuniformlyas Measure E is applied)]. It also allows community college districts to
impose new general taxes [Government Code, §537231. Furthermore if it asked the county, an
increase in the sales tax [instead of more for BART] could be pursued. Or completely in lieu
thereof, the district could ask the county to impose a new transactions and use tax [see
California Attorney General Opinion 97-12051!
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 that finally it must start:
.Making do with the hundreds of MiJlions we've already given [like the rest of us must make do];
.Taxing EVERYONE [NOT just homeowners (Measure C taxes property owners only)], or NO
ONE;
.Budgeting capital reserves so future bond measures like Measure C become UNNECESSARY;
.Spending more on maintenance and less on administrators; and,
.Taxing judiciously and intelligently [Measures C and E unnecessarily waste $1.1 BILLION of
taxpayer moneys], 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 have observed, 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 will likely total $13.000 or more to the average homeowner over the
25-30 life of these bonds [does this sound to you like "less than $10 monthly?"]. In contrast the
one-time cost of a special, general, increased sales or transaction and use tax would cost the
average taxpayer thousands less!
Also contrary to proponents' representation and as we have observed, most residents will not be
able to deduct the new taxes of Measure C on their state and federal income tax returns! And
even if you happen to be one of the few homeowners who is able to deduct the new taxes of
Measure C, 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!
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 atadamioem@yahoo.com...
7
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 is
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 Reqistrar of Voters on
March 20, 2006, its Treasurer, Robert A. Grimm, represents that moneys were paid to Adam
Montgomery clo the Tramutola Company for "campaign paraphernalia"]?
Conclusion:
If you agree Measure C represents the district's attempt to "trick" voters into passing a new,
wasteful and unnecessary tax measure ONLY local property owners will have to repay; and, you
want to put a stop to its 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:
measure c@svpta.net
8