Community college district asks voters for new tax, bond funds to upgrade facilities, keep education accessible | News | Palo Alto Online |

News

Community college district asks voters for new tax, bond funds to upgrade facilities, keep education accessible

Measure G would raise $898M while Measure H would raise $28M

In order for all area residents to have important local information on the coronavirus health emergency, Palo Alto Online has lifted its pay meter and is providing unlimited access to its website. We need your support to continue our important work. Please join your neighbors and become a subscribing member today.

Mail-in ballots for the March 3 election went out to Santa Clara County voters on Tuesday, including two Foothill-De Anza Community College District measures aimed at upgrading campus facilities and maintaining access to affordable higher education.

The $898 million Measure G, the largest school bond in Santa Clara County's history, would cost property owners approximately 1.6 cents per $100 of assessed property value, for the next 34 years. An $800,000 property, for example, would be assessed $128 annually in taxes.

Measure H, a $48 parcel tax, would provide the two community colleges with approximately $5.6 million annually over five years. Unlike neighboring community college districts, which are fully funded through local tax revenue, Foothill-De Anza is subject to fluctuations in state funding based on enrollment — which has been declining for several years.

Both measures reflect the efforts of Foothill, De Anza and community colleges across the state to address the impact of what the parcel tax describes as an "unprecedented housing and affordability crisis," including by supporting student and employee housing, mental health services and teacher recruitment.

"As the educational institution that serves the largest number of undergraduates in Silicon Valley, Foothill-De Anza is an affordable gateway to good jobs and the middle class and beyond for many local families," Chancellor Judy Miner wrote in an email to the Weekly. "Our students enter trades, earn career-focused degrees and transfer to four-year universities. These graduates are a backbone of the workforce, providing essential services and contributing to the local economy."

The community college district noted that the cost to attend California's public universities has risen to almost five times that of attending a community college.

Measure G would cover about 60% of the estimated $1.5 billion in infrastructure and capital needs at the community colleges, Miner said. Potential districtlevel bond projects include student and staff housing (which could cost as much as $300 million), technology updates, infrastructure to support expanded online education, security upgrades and solar panels, among others.

The possible Foothill College projects include new instructional equipment for career technical programs and STEM laboratories, improving campus accessibility, expanding and improving classroom facilities, campuswide roof repairs and upgrading athletic facilities, among others.

"Our two colleges serve almost 60,000 students a year — they are like small cities," Miner said. "The state doesn't provide funds to maintain and upgrade them to preserve the community's investment."

She noted that the high cost of living in the Bay Area has made it difficult to recruit and retain quality teachers, particularly younger faculty.

At Foothill College, the parcel tax, if approved, would help fund housing assistance for students and staff, mental health services, tutoring and services to address student food insecurity and homelessness. According to a 2018 district survey, 52% of Foothill and De Anza students experienced food and housing security in the previous year and 16% had experienced homelessness.

The official ballot argument in favor of Measure H describes Foothill and De Anza students as those "who want to attend 4-year universities or get specialized job training to compete for better paying jobs in business, technology, nursing, manufacturing, first responders and other high-demand careers."

The Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association filed the official arguments against the two measures. The Cupertino-based organization criticized both measures as "blank" checks with insufficient detail on how the district will use the funds.

"The burden is properly upon proponents of the props borrowing to explain why so much is needed," the argument states.

While the taxpayers association also questioned whether funds would primarily benefit employees, both measures state that no funds can be used for administrators' salaries, pensions or benefits. All expenditures will be subject to review by a citizen oversight committee and annual reports.

The bond measure needs 55% of the vote to pass and the parcel tax requires 66.6% in support at the ballot box.

About 22 new vote centers will open on Saturday, Feb. 22, in locations throughout the county for any voter who wishes to cast a ballot in person. More will open starting on Feb. 29, with a total of more than 110 locations, the Registrar of Voters said. Voters no longer have to use a single polling place and can use any vote center in the county. Mail-in ballots can also be returned to any vote center or to any of nearly 100 drop boxes countywide, many of which are available 24 hours a day. To find a vote center, go to eservices.sccgov.org.

The last day to register to vote in the March 3 presidential primary election is Feb. 18.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

We need your support now more than ever. Can we count on you?

Comments

37 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 9:09 am

These educational gems are well-run and deserve our support. They offer many courses that are UC transferable - the same courses you get at UCs but smaller and less expensive.

Lack of consistent funding really affects what they can offer and how they can offer those things, and this in turn hurts enrollment. My kid wanted to get an arts AA in high school that isn’t commonly available before heading off to a major engineering program as a freshman. But the CC had to alternate between offering the required courses in the evening and daytime in order to reach different populations of students. The end result was that many found it difficult to get their courses in, but state rules and funding made it impossible for them to offer both. Funding and facilities limitations made it difficult for them to improve the course registration system to make scheduling more dynamic.

The value we already get for our taxpayer funds is incredible.

There are so many ways this funding will improve the colleges and our opportunities locally. Please vote yes on G and H.


22 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 10:31 am

Bond funds should support local CC students with new long-lived facilities where needed. That doesn't include equipping computer labs with stuff that will be obsolete in five years-- that should come from ongoing funding. Are we paying not enough, enough, or too much? From what I hear, salaries and benefits for instructors are not great, but, I have to wonder why there seem to be so many students from afar at Foothill. I don't think it makes sense for Foothill and De Anza to support very many students when so many small CC's are struggling to attract enough students.


26 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 10:50 am

@Anon,

We are talking about Foothill AND DeAnza. Foothill also has a relatively new campus in Sunnyvale (remember? we could have had it here in Palo Alto). Foothill and DeAnza have a partnership. In fact, they have an agreement not to duplicate their offerings to keep things efficient. They are already efficient in ways that hurt what they can do because they don't have stable funding.

Why do you think there are so many students from afar? I don't think there are, the schools primarily serve students in the area.

There are many community colleges around the Bay Area, but as the article points out, Foothill-DeAnza doesn't have the local stable tax base that the neighboring ones do.

To the north, we have Canada, to the south, we have San Jose City College. What is it that you consider "far away"? You are right, salaries and benefits aren't great. We do need to pay more.

The technology needs are not limited to computers. Foothill runs a maker space that educates local educators about how to set up and run maker spaces, and serves the students, and it's shoehorned in with the computer lab, all in an older space. They did a great job setting up and running it, but it really should be in a larger space where they can have a broader range of tools.

We get a lot of value already for what we pay for these colleges, and they are ranked among the best in the nation. They need us to invest in them. The nursing, physician assistant, emergency medical, and other programs have waiting lists, and we need more people with those skills. Did you hear about cloud computing courses at Foothill?
Web Link

Please learn more, and vote yet for G and H.


19 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 11:48 am

Sorry, correction: vote YES on G and H


38 people like this
Posted by More-Black-Hole-Spending
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 12:04 pm

More money down the drain. There will be no benefit to the taxpayers for this boondoggle.

Vote NO on all education BONDS!


31 people like this
Posted by no way
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 12:37 pm

DeAnza pays its administrators a rediculous amount already. How many Deans does one school need anyways?! When professors, who get paid well and get benefits, go on strike it is the supporting classified staff that has to work twice as hard without seeing any improvements for themselves. I'm pretty sure the bond money won't reach the workers who actually need it, so I'm voting NO on both G and H.


19 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 8, 2020 at 1:08 pm

How is state funding? I thought community colleges receive substantial funds, though seeing how many students are served is part of the equation. I don’t see it as part of their mission to provide free housing. CCs are commuter colleges.


23 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 1:23 pm

Posted by Local parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> (remember? we could have had it here in Palo Alto).

If the students were not from Palo Alto/Mtn View, Los Altos, LAH, then, we didn't need that campus here. We don't need more people commuting in here for any old reason. We don't need more jobs, students, or commuters. CC's are supposed to be as local as possible.

>> they don't have stable funding.

I'm in favor of stable funding. I'm not in favor of using bond money to provide funding for ongoing activities though, and, the vague justification seemed to imply that. Bonds should be for big-ticket items that have long lifetimes. Ongoing expenses should be paid for via ongoing funding.

>> Why do you think there are so many students from afar? I don't think there are, the schools primarily serve students in the area.

Because I've met a number of them. But, it could be a biased sample. And because of rhetoric regarding, e.g., why we need a homeless camp on the parking lots. But, that should be just empty talk. Where are the statistics? The fact is, though, that people are trying to *sell* Foothill-DeAnza on the bigness when the whole beauty of CC's is to keep them local and serving local students. That is what the word "community" is there for. Just skip the gargantuan justifications and the "Edifice Complex" nonsense. CC's should be simple, inexpensive, local, local control. The bigger you make it sound, the less likely I am to vote for it.


>> To the north, we have Canada, to the south, we have San Jose City College. What is it that you consider "far away"?

It could be, if that is where the student's families live. Cañada is primarily for students who live near Cañada Road in San Mateo County, not in Santa Clara County. CC's are supposed to be easy to get to for young people who just graduated from HS and are still living at home. Keep it local.

>> The technology needs are not limited to computers. Foothill runs a maker space [...]

You missed or are ignoring the point. "Maker" devices that produce small batches of plastic parts become obsolete quickly, also, just like personal computers &etc. Bonds make sense for flexible technology lab buildings that will last 30 years, not for devices that will become obsolete in 5 years. And, promotional materials for bond issues should preserve that distinction. Bond issues are like mortgages; if you are using bond issues like a home equity line of credit to pay for your food and clothing, you have big financial management problems.

>> We get a lot of value already for what we pay for these colleges, and they are ranked among the best in the nation. They need us to invest in them. The nursing, physician assistant, emergency medical, and other programs have waiting lists, and we need more people with those skills. Did you hear about cloud computing courses at Foothill?

These kinds of "rankings" are usually inappropriate for CC's. The important metrics are difficult to come by: are the graduates gainfully employed 10 years from now, or, are they in prison or in homeless shelters? We want them to be gainfully employed. CC's are not like graduate computer science programs that are "ranked" by how often the professor's papers are cited.

Please convince me that the money will be well-spent.


34 people like this
Posted by Colby
a resident of Gunn High School
on Feb 8, 2020 at 7:51 pm

If you review your tax bill, we are currently paying for FHDA's 2 prior bond measures (E: $248M and C: $491M). This bond measure will go until 2050! Each bond measure is twice the first. Under Measure C, FDA built 3 new instructional buildings and 1 administration for the district's oversight. Measure G bond offers a list of possible projects, but there is no actual defined need. Many upgrades listed were updated under Measure C. The Sunnyvale Facility funded under Measure C is grossly underutilized and an embarrassment for FHDA. Is there any new innovation projects listed to address workforce or advantages for transfer: NO. Foothill and De Anza have the largest decline in all the bay area colleges in enrollment except for Laney. The bond is a blank check to spend our money.

So who is FHDA serving? They have removed their data from the public websites but using De Anza as an example: 22% are from the FHDA distinct. Of the 78% students from outside our district we are paying for 7% are international students using our community college to reduce the price before transferring to a 4 year college. Why should we subsidize students from other community college districts?

The growth areas in enrollments at the two colleges in for online education. In the list projects is there any significant investments? The projects discuss physical facility maintenance. Why have brick and mortar suffered by Amazon and others?

Under the very generous Faculty Union contract an full time faculty needs to have 15 hours per week contact time to meet their salary obligation. The contact hours include those hours if they teach online.They also do not have to work over summer. Compare their salaries to our K-12 teachers in both hours and pay. The new faculty should be better paid which increase the number of applicants but a number of senior faculty make 6 figure salaries, great health and retirement benefits.

In summary: the FHDA community colleges are a valuable asset. My belief is the Bond at 50% the value with real projects could be approved. The parcel tax is ill defined. A friend noted that the two colleges have been registered as Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) and could be funded in the same manner as all of the neighbor districts are funded. Is the plan to double dip?


28 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2020 at 11:41 pm

@Black hole,
I've started voting no to local school district asks because those clearly have not been going to what they have promised and they use low tactics like special elections for lower turnout, they have major donors among the parent populations and don't use those funds equitably, and too many people I know pay tons of money in taxes to support our schools already and can't even use them because of their discriminatory and retaliatory behaviors from administrators.

From my perspective, as someone who has even taken classes at DeAnza and Foothill in recent years, they are a great value. I took classes that were better quality than the same subject from the Stanford extension, at a small fraction of the cost. I had classmates who were in high school, a few transfer students, single parents, tech/engineering/management workers taking classes at night, and a lot of students who were just regular, low-income college students getting an education in a field they wanted to work in, or students who otherwise also worked.

@Anon, I think both your sample and your opinion are highly biased and not based on much contact with what you are expressing such strong opinions about. I actually took courses, and had a child who took dual enrolled courses in the last several years, and the students are predominantly from the area. Do you not get that we could have homelessness among students?

I know about that maker space because I have helped students use it, and you are just wrong. We didn't pay for maker spaces at our local schools from operating expenses, either. The bond measure paid for computers at our middle schools, too. A lot of what created the one at Foothill was donations.

The level of funding at the community colleges is nowhere near as stable as what we spend on local schools, and we get a much greater diversity of educational and professional opportunities for it. I also know that the level of funding seriously restricts what they can offer. If people come from outside, they are paying full price, not the reduced tuition, and their presence helps ensure courses for locals can even be held, because the state set really high attendance minimums.

Many of the professional courses cover things like EMT training, nursing, physician assistant training, dental hygiene -- all things we need and that we want local students to stay here and practice. Many of the buildings are old an in need of renovation. Have you spent much time in the theater lately at Foothill? It could be a much better community asset if renovated or (preferably) rebuilt. The Flint Center at DeAnza is being closed because of earthquake safety, isn't it?

I hope you will not just make assumptions but make an effort to understand why the community colleges deserve and need these funds, and consider voting Yes on G and H.


21 people like this
Posted by Another Local Parent
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 9, 2020 at 8:18 am

The funding “need” for Measure G’s “potential projects” is too vaguely framed, especially for being the largest bond request, spanning over 3 decades. Many new facilities and solar panels have already been built (including replacing a parking garage at De Anza—a questionable need).

However, I will vote YES to Measure H to support our community colleges to continue offering affordable education for students, especially those who face food and/or housing insecurity, as well as much needed transfer and mental health services. To address an objection mentioned, funding will not go to administrators.


46 people like this
Posted by Local Parent 3
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Feb 9, 2020 at 10:34 am

Everyone should vote NO on both the bond and the parcel tax.

For the people who say they are good - they are, I agree. So why do they need a parcel tax and a $900 MILLION bond?

Find another community college with a parcel tax. You'll find ~2 in the whole state - San Francisco and Oakland (Peralta). That's it - the rest do just fine on state funding. In fact, FHDA tried a parcel tax that FAILED a few years ago, but seems to continue to do just fine.

Note that the parcel tax has NO SENIOR EXEMPTION - seniors on a fixed income all must pay. As for "not going for administrator salaries" - surely no one believes that. Once the money goes in the pot, it frees up funding for the LEAST IMPORTANT ITEM in their budget. This money will fund the luxuries, not the necessities.

As for funding housing, both for faculty and students - this has to be the craziest part. Community Colleges ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL - it's right in the name! If they become residential (like Stanford or UC Berkeley), everything about their costs and student relationships will change, and costs will skyrocket. Yes, we need housing policy - but funding a tiny slice through community college budgets is CRAZY.

This is just an over-reach. They won't even say what they'll do with the money - they just feel like it's a good time to grab it. Please vote NO.


13 people like this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 9, 2020 at 10:52 am

UBO = Universal Basic Out-go


18 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2020 at 12:00 pm

@Another local parent,

I don't think we should penalize DeAnza and Foothill for being honest about the need for flexibility. If you spend time on both campuses, you can see that there is a lot more need than there is funding.

Our own school district has done things like hit us over the head hard in the midst of a suicide epidemic and neverending malfeasance by administrators with the need for a tax to pay for extra counselors and reduced class sizes for the kids. No sooner did the money get approved, but they spent it on large raises including for arguably very poorly-performing administrators when they'd already just gotten large raises.

More to the point, the previous bond fund in the district laid out a lot of things it was going to be spent on, with specifications promised to the public, but if you go back and look at what they actually did, not only did they not really deliver but they never made any attempt to spend the money effectively. The "oversight committee" doesn't do that, they just make sure that if the school district says they are going to build a building for $30million, that building is there. They don't make sure the district builds the same building for $15 million and makes sure the rest goes to fulfill the promises they made -- that's not what the oversight committee does. If you talk to the district administration, they'll tell you the specifications and spelled-out projects in the bond are only suggestions and there is no leverage taxpayers have to force the district to do those things.

My point is not that voting for funding for either PAUSD or the CC's is bad. My point is that ultimately what's more important is who is doing the managing and what is it for. In my observation, they have to make do with a LOT less at the community college level. They also have to take all the kids who weren't adequately served or may have even been hurt in one way or other by the high schools. They accept community members of all ages. They have to deal with way more constraints in regards to class sizes and have to offer way more courses and kinds of courses. I think if you spend the time getting to know what they do, you will see that they are doing a good job managing a tough situation.

I support our local schools and our community colleges. Based on past behavior, I want to see asks for the school district include some kind of recourse for the community if the district doesn't use the money the way they say. But I will vote for them if they do. (My vote hardly counting because the district always gets what it wants anyway.) But community colleges are not funded nearly as consistently or as well, and they have a much more complicated and larger mandate.

And it overlaps with our schools, too -- students can take UC transferrable courses in high school, more advanced courses than the high school can offer. (This can mean less stressful yet more advanced work, on a more flexible schedule and more student control which can help those students who need it to reach their goals with less stress.)

High school students can enroll in middle college which is like a bridge to college and allows them often to enter college as freshmen (for scholarships and social reasons) but be promoted to junior year coursework immediately based on their community college coursework. This creates numerous opportunities for students who have lesser financial means for college or for those who want a "nontraditional" professional path (musician Molly Tuttle was in middle college) and is better for many than becoming a transfer student. Middle college programs are always full and waitlisted, they can't take all the students who want to enroll or even close to it. One of the problems is the way they are funded and the facility constraints makes it next to impossible for them to be flexible.

The community colleges have a lot of needs, and I personally don't think they should be penalized for the honesty about the need for flexibility. It's nothing like our school districts that promise one thing to get the money then spend it another way even if we supposedly have "oversight". What's more important here is to get involved, be a part of continuing this amazing asset for our community in the best way possible, and support the good work that is already being done. I will be voting yes on both G and H.



16 people like this
Posted by Senior Citizen
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 9, 2020 at 1:39 pm

I am a senior citizen that has taken classes at both Foothill and De Anza, and also contribute the the FHDA Foundation. The Parcel Tax is directed at Faculty who make and deliver the product and the students who are the customers. I am suspect of the opened ended list but will vote YES on H. It would have been nice if the parcel tax had a senior citizen waiver.

While at the colleges in the afternoon and evenings, they are mostly empty. The need for Measure G shopping list which will cost over $1.5 billion when done is crazy. You look at the list of "suggested" projects and it is hard to see how faculty and students will get a significant benefit. Also the ill defined housing for $200-300M seems in the same vague ether as the New Flint Center project. Once the district puts some meat on the bones and have a real list like in Measure C, they should come back to the voters. NO on Measure G.


15 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2020 at 4:16 pm

Posted by Colby, a resident of Gunn High School

>> If you review your tax bill, we are currently paying for FHDA's 2 prior bond measures [...]

Good points.

>> So who is FHDA serving? They have removed their data from the public websites

I'm confused. It they removed the data, then what is the source for this? Citation? ::

>> 22% are from the FHDA distinct. Of the 78% students from outside our district we are paying for 7% are international students

>> Why should we subsidize students from other community college districts?

Does the State equalize this in any way?


28 people like this
Posted by Colby
a resident of Gunn High School
on Feb 9, 2020 at 5:07 pm

HFDA, Foothill and De Anza had webpages which the community could access about quarterly enrollment, student success and other information. About 3 years ago FHDA and Foothill became opaque but De Anza has been very open and informative.

Web Link

Page 7 shows headcount by zip code and FHDA district is the first line. FHDA district student headcount is 4,033 out of 17,274 which is 23.4%. Page 9 shows International enrollment as 1,702 which is 9.9%.


17 people like this
Posted by Frank Lee
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Feb 9, 2020 at 6:28 pm

Community Colleges, as one of my colleagues has put it, are the last bastions of true democracy in this country--that anyone can enroll in courses to improve their lives and means rather than being locked out of a "gated community" is precisely the point of public higher education. The communities these institutions serve need to recognize them as the resource they are. They train students who will eventually work in our communities as nurses, paralegals, pharmacists--the very services our communities rely upon--and contribute back to the communities through their consumer activity and taxes.

Before being dismissive about presumed unnecessary need, wasteful spending and administrative dysfunction, readers should first learn something about the subject they write. Unlike the neighboring community college districts, which are funded primarily through property tax revenue, Foothill and De Anza receive state funding based primarily on the number of students they serve. That they serve a larger number of students is testament to the value of these institutions--they are cited both regionally and nationally as among the best performing two year colleges, period. By keeping educational affordable, they do attract students from outside of the area, who recognize their value. And the students who graduate from these colleges do better after transferring to four year institutions than students who enroll in four year schools straight out of high school. For that matter many local high school students begin taking courses in our colleges through concurrent enrollment agreements with their home institutions.

Both G and H have fulfilled all state requirements for general bond and parcel tax language, or they wouldn't be on the ballot; if you want more specificity, try Web Link. Among the lists of potential expenditures and other detailed information you'll find this among the "guiding principles": "If a parcel tax is passed by the voters and when funds become available to Foothill-De Anza Community College District, the applicable shared governance process will be used to discuss and decide actual uses of the funds. In other words, in addition to the community, faculty, staff and students will scrutinize expenditures and have say in what should be prioritized at the colleges, not just administrators. And while shrinking enrollment regionally and unstable state funding means the District may not have the means to pay instructors as much as they deserve, given the high cost of living in Silicon Valley, the faculty in this District have never gone on strike. Rather, they negotiate salary and other benefits as funding becomes available, subject to Board of Trustees approval.

If you want proof of fiscal responsibility with bond funding, ask those directly responsible for assessing the use of previous bond monies: The District's Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee, in their annual report released just this month, notes that "funding provided by our community through Measure C is an indispensable investment in supporting student success." And investment firm Morgan-Stanley has remarked that "over the years, the district has been prudent in refinancing higher rates to lower rates," resulting in "taxpayer savings of over $65.8 million." And this is in the face of a new state funding formula which diverts money from high priced areas like the Bay Area to more "needy" districts primarily to the South and in the Central Valley rather than infusing the entire system with desperately needed funding increases. G & H won't solve these state and regional problems, but they're sure a step in the right direction, something that local and state politicians will recognize that their communities support and therefore they should support in Sacramento. Vote yes.

Frank Lee


31 people like this
Posted by Another Parent
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 9, 2020 at 7:36 pm

@Frank Lee, there are so many mis-leading or mis-informed statements in your post, it's hard to know where to start:

On the bond - asking the Bond Oversight Committee and investment bank how they think you've done with your bond is like a boss asking his subordinates if they thinks he's a good boss! The CBOC is appointed by the board and its charter is not to judge bond effectiveness, but compliance - did they spend money on projects they were allowed to - that's it. Their opinion on anything else is outside their scope and expertise. And if you think Morgan Stanley, which would profit handsomely from a $900 MILLION new bond, will give you a honest answer, well ... I'm sure no one would.

On the parcel tax "guiding principles" - the fact is that community members will have virtually no visibility or input on new spending at all. Faculty unions and admins will split the pie, with benign neglect from the board. It is laughable to say that community members will have any ability to impact how the money is spent.

On fulfilling the state requirements - sure, but that's the absolute floor. The fact is that for both the tax and the bond, the FHDA board is far less specific than other districts are - these are virtual blank checks, with no way to hold them accountable. Will it be $200 MILLION for housing or none? Can't say. Will parcel taxes fund admin salaries or not - don't know yet.

The ONLY thing we can be certain of is that the money will be spent and taxes collected. Everything else is up to elected officials and staff members that almost no-one can even name!

The one thing you are right about is that yes, there are many out of area students who attend - which is why a parcel tax on local residents makes no sense at all! They are asking the local residents to fund the education of other people's children, including those from out of the country. This is crazy.

FHDA, get your act together, put together a sensible and honest proposal, and try again next time. This is just a money grab - it undermines your credibility - please, residents, vote NO.


39 people like this
Posted by Another Parent
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 9, 2020 at 7:50 pm

@Colby, great data, worth repeating:

Web Link

FHDA district student headcount 23.4% (e.g. only 23% of students live in the District)
International enrollment 9.9% (10% are from outside the COUNTRY)

ONLY 4K OUT OF 17K STUDENTS LIVE IN THE FHDA DISTRICT. So the vast majority live outside - 75% of the funding will go to fund STUDENTS FROM OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT. This is bananas. Come on @Frank Lee and FHDA, you can't argue this makes sense. And hiding from the the public on the FHDA web site is, well, embarrassing.


22 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2020 at 9:14 pm

@Another Parent,
You're mixing different kinds of data.

The link you provided shows the actual zip codes from which students come, and it's pretty much northern Santa Clara County and Alameda County. A lot of the out-of-immediate are students come from East Palo Alto, Newark, and similar, because there isn't such a community college there and this is where they can get an education to become dental hygienists, EMT's and paramedics, veterinary techs, diagnostic imaging techs, pharmacy and radiology techs, etc etc. Not every community college in the Bay Area offers the same programs. I know people from our area who attend West Valley and Canada colleges. Some attend Canada simply because they are on a semester system and that's what works for them. We are all better off for having educational opportunities for people who want to work in these very needed professions. These are Bay Area students.

Just because students come from outside the country, doesn't mean they don't live in the district. It takes time to establish residency in relationship to enrollment/fees. Nonresident students -- again, could be living in the district, it just indicates that they haven't established California residency -- pay quite a lot more. There are some states from which there is some rule that you can't even enroll until you establish CA residency, I don't know why.

By your calculation, someone who grew up in Los Altos but graduated from high school and moved to Newark to afford an apartment shouldn't have access to Foothill even if it's the most accessible place for them to get the training they need. We don't do things that way, even if someone never lived here, because different community colleges have different programs.

I use Los Altos' library because it's nearer and has better lending policies and inventory. I can use any library and I can get books from distant places if I need them. But I'm paying for Palo Alto libraries in my taxes. I think we shoot ourselves in the foot if we become as miserly and restrictive about learning and education as to make hard borders around the Bay Area when it really would be prohibitively expensive for every community college to offer every program that they offer collectively in our region. These supposed outsiders you are complaining about come from places like East Palo Alto where there isn't a similar community college.


29 people like this
Posted by Another Parent
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 9, 2020 at 9:52 pm

@Local Parent - wow, what a stretch. This is literally data from the DeAnza web site that shows the zips where students live, and you are saying "don't pay attention to that!" With that kind of hubris, you could be an FHDA administrator!

If you have other data, great, please share. This is the only data FHDA provides, and it is damning. They are proposing a huge bond plus parcel tax on RESIDENTS to serve students who are 75% NOT RESIDENTS. And oops, they failed to mention that in their ballot proposals or expensive mailers. Pretty bad.


21 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 10:19 am

Posted by Local Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> @Another Parent, You're mixing different kinds of data.

It is the only data we have, but, as stated above, it is *damning*. FHDA is drawing a large number of students who should be attending their local CC. It makes no sense to build up FHDA with larger facilities and more staff. Foothill and DeAnza are already very large, and, apparently mostly serve students from other districts (if you have better data, *post links to reliable sources*. !! ).

Students should attend their local CC unless they have some specific reason, and that reason better be something besides English and Algebra. There are approx. 73 community college districts and approx. 114 CC's. e.g., near FHDA, San Mateo CCD w/ Cañada, CSM, and Skyline, West-Valley/Mission, San Jose/Evergreen, Ohlone CCD, Peralta CCD w/ four CC's, and the list goes on. Web Link

For some reason, FHDA seems to have become a "brand" with a majority of students from outside the district, and, a large number of long-distance commuting students. IMHO, that is dumb. We have massive traffic problems around here already. Let's keep CC's local. If anything, students from here should be transferring to more rural schools with dorms when that makes sense. Those smaller CC's need enrollment. We don't, and we don't need the traffic.


25 people like this
Posted by Family Friendly
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 10, 2020 at 10:27 am

We seem to be getting away from the "community" purpose of community colleges. Why would anyone travel to an area where they don't have a job or family, just to attend a community college? The same classes are offered throughout the state -- and these days are even offered on-line by the State.

If the University of California and the California State college systems are constantly expanding. If we need more campuses for those, we should build them. Let's not mix apple and oranges, though.


15 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:27 am

@Anon,
The data that @Another Parent provided is not "damning". First of all, the data you're looking at is DEANZA data, not DeAnza and Foothill. The fact that DeAnza has so many students from Los Altos and Palo Alto doesn't say anything at all except that students will go to adjacent community colleges if they can't get what they need at the closest ones, including students IN OUR AREA.

Secondly, there are all these implications above of students coming from all over the state, the country, and the world. That is simply not the case. The vast majority of the kids in the DeAnza data are from the local area OR overlapping border areas that either don't have community colleges in their towns or who have community colleges that get reciprocal enrollment from our areas. Just because the students have to live in East Palo Alto or Newark while they go to community college says nothing about where they grew up, and nothing at all about whether their going to the local community college is a benefit to the community. Do you get your teeth cleaned in Palo Alto? The program is at Foothill. How easy do you think it would be to find a dental hygienist here if you rejected anyone from the program who wasn't from strictly from Palo Alto and Los Altos?

It's simply not realistic or economically viable to suggest that every community college everywhere has to offer such a program AND must draw a hard border and only train the kids who live there from cradle to grave. Sorry, but that's so impractical as to be idiotic. The community colleges are where people are getting the training for a vast array of professional and trade work, and even tech work, that isn't available anywhere else. Applying this kind of hard-border purity test is just nuts.

The colleges do NOT offer the same courses. That is simply not practical for anyone. The basics, sure, but the programs that are necessary for all kinds of professions that WE NEED everywhere, those are NOT offered everywhere. DeAnza has a unique Film/TV program that isn't offered anywhere else -- someone who won an Oscar last year credited it for his professional success (and said in interviews that many others from that film were educated there). West Valley College has Court Reporting which isn't available at either Foothill or DeAnza. You can become a massage therapist at DeAnza but not Foothill, and the professional EMT training is at Foothill not DeAnza. DeAnza has a crime lab program that Foothill does not. And on and on. The community colleges serve many people for individual course and online now. Only a fraction are full-time students.

Plus, these colleges have been funded exclusively from the state, with unstable funding, you've got a bit of a chicken and egg problem with your border-wall purity test.

The fact that the state has funded these mean they have to serve everyone, including people from adjacent towns. (Whose training, again, benefits YOU.) There was a time when local adults took a lot of PE, creative writing, arts, and other community college courses, but the state didn't want to keep underwriting that, so they stopped allowing people to repeat those. The result was decimating of things like PE offerings, which became sparser for the local younger students, and thus made it more difficult for them to plan to take them.

Because they get funding only from the state, they have really high enrollment minimums per class, every term, so any fluctuation quarter to quarter can destroy a local student’s trajectory. If we put up your wall, it doesn’t mean more courses for all the kids whose records were trashed by local high schools, it means most of those classes get cancelled. which is already contributing to fewer local zips attending. This has happened to me and my kid, it's not just speculation.

My local tax-paying kid lost numerous courses because of this, the CCmight have plenty of kids and still get cancelled because of high state minimums. I already mentioned that for other courses, the CC had to alternate between evening and daytime because they didn’t have the funding to do both, which would have brought in more local students. Because enrollment can vary quarter to quarter, this makes planning extremely difficult for both the colleges and the students.

Stable funding solves this. It will restore some of what had to be cut for locals BECAUSE we rely only on state funding. Vote YES on BOTH G and H.


15 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:32 am

@Family Friendly,
UC's do not educate the dental hygienists and EMT's (etc etc) we need. Not going to happen. CC's are where that education takes place. I find it stunning that people would criticize with criteria as if we had any kind of historical local funding like these ballots are proposing, ignoring all the limitations because we haven't had it.


25 people like this
Posted by Another Parent
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:51 am

@Local Parent, so good, it's clear that you don't dispute the numbers - from the limited data available, 75% of FHDA students are NOT RESIDENTS (based on DA students only, which is the only data anyone can find). That's fine if the College is funded by state money (as most are). But it makes NO SENSE to have $1.5 BILLION in RESIDENT-PROVIDED bond funding, plus a local parcel tax, when we are primarily serving NON RESIDENT STUDENTS.

That doesn't criticize how CC's work, or FHDA's approach. They seem to do good work. But local residents shouldn't have shoulder the cost for educating the vast majority of NON-RESIDENT students. That's not selfish, it is just fair and sensible.

I'm very disappointed with FHDA board and leadership for hiding this information and not talking openly about it. This seems like the most important thing people should know before voting - YOUR LOCAL DOLLARS WILL GO PRIMARILY TO SERVE NON-LOCAL STUDENTS. That they hid this fact suggests we probably should not trust them on how the funds will be deployed either.


33 people like this
Posted by Family Friendly
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:52 am

@Local Parent,

There are 115 different community college campuses in California, plus their on-line campus. There's no reason we should be locally funding a local campus differently from all of the others.

We don't need more dental hygienists per capita here than anywhere else in the state. The main things that make the peninsula special these days are traffic and urban sprawl -- the last thing we need is to encourage even more people to move here from out of the area.


24 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 12:09 pm

Posted by Local Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> @Anon,, The data that @Another Parent provided is not "damning".

It appears to be the most correct information that we have, and, yes, it is "damning". Not because I want a "border wall". But, FHDA appears to be evolving into a "self-licking ice cream cone" (Google it). These are Community colleges, and, bigger is not better. FHDA exists to serve a specific group of students, not for its own gargantuan benefit. Local is better. I see no evidence that all the existing students attending FHDA from other districts can't get their classes and training closer to home.

What rankles me in your arguments is that there is no limit to how big FHDA should grow (at the expense of nearby districts). We keep hearing "bigger is better" in *every* context now, from office buildings to schools to community colleges to whatever. Sometimes bigger is better -- small electrical grids are generally not as energy efficient for example -- but, bigger is not *necessarily* better. If FHDA is big, and can support creative writing classes, then another CC may not be big enough to support English composition. CC's are supposed to be a kind of super-HS that provides a bridge to 4-year colleges, and career training and certificates. Please stop making arguments that depend on "bigger is better". If that is the only argument in favor of something, I always vote "no".


11 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 12:20 pm

As to bigger is better - note that Foothill is in the City of Los Altos / Los Altos Hills. It is their land to manage - their security forces needed, their fire support. We do not seem to get any input from those city managers. Why Not? PA keeps rattling away as though that is your CC - it is a local CC but not PA's CC. Ultimately the city of PA has no control over what goes on there. No tax burden, no tax gain. And the dedicated land is built out. And built out to what could be described as a very fragile set of hillsides relative to fire protection. They have their hands full.


18 people like this
Posted by teacher advocate
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Feb 10, 2020 at 12:48 pm

All day, every day (yes, even from home and yes, over the summer), teachers are working to establish a fair and just future where young people of today can lead and thrive tomorrow. If we don't invest in local community colleges, if we just keep hoarding in the old tea-party spirit while property values soar and our young people are priced out & feel uncanny pressure just to survive, we destroy—ourselves. I would wager that none of the misinformed pedants dissing these two bond measures ever worked full time and went to school full time (simultaneously) in their lives—in fact, couldn't imagine it. Community college teachers see this every single day. These students are the real heroes, and they are often helping support parents and grandparents. And part time instructors (stop cherry picking top salaries to make your case) also struggle mightily to make it through each day. The paranoia among naysayers here has to end, not to mention the half-baked nitpicking. We need to stand up and end the glib pride of do-nothings who for no sound reason at all attack the motives of the FHDA board, spreading lies about self-serving ends, while complaining about investing in democracy. Enough is enough. Let's vote yes on G & H and give our students hope. Let’s make this the decade of students thriving, and then hire them to work in our businesses and lead in our communities. Let us once & for all declare the tightwad era over today. Tea Party, go home. Teachers, students, FHDA, we trust you, and have no reason not to. FHDA spaces are a beloved commons we rely on. No, administrators will not benefit from Measures G & H. Yes, oversight will be meticulous. And yes, students come from all over to De Anza, just like your maids and gardeners do, friends! Why? Stop looking at your 401K for five minutes and think about it. De Anza and Foothill are fighters. They fight hard each day to transfer students onward to success. And yes, battle-weary, they are asking for reinforcements. And yes, from you. Please grow up.It is time for the Newt Gingrich era to take a gallant step back. We're way too stratified. I read these comments. Just too much time on some people's hands, people sitting in their nice homes, people with terrific health insurance. I wish FHDA teachers and students had more time to flood these pages with their perspectives. These colleges are gems. Take a class. And learn, instead of pretending to know.


28 people like this
Posted by Family Friendly
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 10, 2020 at 1:00 pm

"teachers are working to establish a fair and just future"

This explains why kids can't do math anymore. Sounds like schoolteachers are trying to take on the role of judges and legislators. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose. No measurable goals, no accountability, and complete job security. Sure, let's tax the middle class even more so they can all live in the most expensive and congested place in the state.


26 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 1:13 pm

Posted by teacher advocate, a resident of Los Altos Hills

[a long series of irrelevant non-sequiturs deleted].

Advocates for G&H: if you have straightforward, logical arguments in favor of G and/or H, let's hear them. I'm leaning against them, for different reasons.

G -- I honestly don't see the need for new space, and the vague arguments and lack of specifics is convincing me to vote no. So, for now, no on G. I might be convinced by a specific list of long-term unmet Requirements. I won't be convinced by arguments using the words "Silicon Valley". If we need new or upgraded buildings to support students from within the district, let's hear what those are specifically.

H-- I wouldn't mind paying a small, steady tax to support faculty and staff, but, parcel taxes are so inherently unfair that I'm inclined to vote no for that reason. I realize that to some extent there isn't a viable alternative, so, I might still vote for H.

Supporters-- knock off the "you're not against *education* are you" arguments, as well as the "we must grow or die", "Silicon Valley, "award winning", &etc arguments. We voters need to understand specifically what has been going on with the budget and why this is necessary.


22 people like this
Posted by x-emplyee FHDA
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2020 at 1:27 pm

A friend notified me of this on going conversation.
With respect to the bigger is better dialogues; each college and the district have master plans that would identify any new developments/buildings. The issue with respect to the Measure G bond is they have not updated the documents to reflect the 5 year plan. The major developments for housing and Flint Center replacement are amorphous. The bond is open line of credit for when they have identified plans, not just a list of maybes.
With respect to salary: both colleges have been identified (over 25%) as Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) for several years , which shows they are serving a needed population. Many of the other community college districts in bay area are HSI and get funding from the tax base which is higher and more stable than from the state. It is unclear why FHDA has decided on a parcel tax versus changing the funding. New faculty should be provided increased starting salaries as will as student employees being paid $15/hr. The pay structure for faculty is dictated by the FHDA Faculty Union agreement. The parcel tax allotment will most likely be a percentage that provides a disproportionate amount to senior faculty that can be making 6 digit salaries for 15 contact hours per week and no summers. If the goal is to hire and retain new faculty, this is not the best vehicle.


15 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 1:48 pm

Here is a link to funding sources for California community colleges:

Web Link

State funding is the largest source of funding, which is why it's perfectly ok for students to attend any community college. The next highest source of funding is enrollment and other student fees. Local property taxes cover less than half of what is covered by state funding and about 20% of what is covered by combining state funding and student fees.


26 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 3:11 pm

Posted by Neighbor, a resident of Greenmeadow

>> Here is a link to funding sources for California community colleges: Web Link

Thank you.

> State funding is the largest source of funding, which is why it's perfectly ok for students to attend any community college.

Local taxes appear to be somewhere between 20-40%, but, the non-specific source is too vague to say exactly. But, the point that proponents of G&H are missing or ignoring is that even if the state paid 100%, FHDA doesn't need the growth, or, the traffic. There is no reason why students should commute an extra 10-20 miles to converge to FHDA when their local CC provides or could provide (if FHDA wasn't sucking up so much air) those classes locally. Any unmet need anywhere in the area doesn't have to be met by FHDA; it could just as easily be met by those other CCD's.

It seems to be a matter of pride to some of you that FHDA is so gargantuan, but, to me, it represents a *management failure* that so many student's requirements are not being met by their local CCD.


27 people like this
Posted by Chris Robell
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 10, 2020 at 5:12 pm

Many new, proposed tax increases for residents are in the works (sales tax increase, local school parcel tax, city parcel tax for affordable housing, Measure G bond measure, Measure H parcel tax, ....). Unless residents have unlimited funds, it seems that some sort of prioritization is appropriate. I would say any tax that is unspecific, massive, and unfair shouldn't make the cut. That means NO on Measure G.

While I am 100% in favor of supporting schools, this bond measure for Foothill/DeAnza Community College is (a) fiscally reckless and (b) an unfair and anti-housing tax.

Fiscally Reckless:

This bond measure is asking taxpayers to approve a tax that will last over 30 years to fund massive spending over decades on unspecified projects. You can read the bond measure resolution here:

Web Link

....and you can see it has pages of things the money COULD be spent on. It almost reads like there isn’t even a school in place today, citing potential new buildings, new parking lots, “technology”, etc. It can really be used for anything except a direct expenditure on administration salary increases (although we know cash is fungible so could easily argue it could indirectly be used for that as well). As a prior CFO, I can tell you that funding something with a useful life of 5 years (e.g., "technology) with a multi-decade debt instrument is reckless. Try financing a car with a 50 year loan. You won't like making payments on it after the first 10 years when your car poops out and you need another one.

The point is the “ask” is huge, non-specific (like a blank check), and long-lasting (irresponsible). The rationale of even why this is needed is not clear, given two previous district bond measures ($248 million in 1999 and $490.8 million in 2012). And don’t forget that enrollment at Foothill/DeAnza is DECLINING. Again, I’m all for investment in schools, but this need is not obvious, specific, nor reasonable.

Finally, the way the bond measure is proposed makes the cost particularly expensive. Money would be raised by selling bonds (debt) that must be repaid, with interest (up to 12%), over decades from higher property taxes. At current (low) interest, the total repayment amount would be at least double the $898 million. But the total repayment cost is likely to be even higher, since this cost depends upon the interest rate at the time the bonds are sold. The measure contemplates up to $48m of bond sales each year for about 20 years, and it is not hard to imagine interest rates being higher than they are today.

Unfair and Anti-Housing Tax Initiative:

A major point NOT broadly discussed is the unfair tax mechanism used to pay for this. If passed, every homeowner’s property taxes would be increased by an additional $160/year for every $1000k in ASSESSED value (not market value) until 2054. Measure G’s approach of doubling down on Prop 13 disproportionately burdens recent homebuyers and makes it even harder for would-be-buyers to afford a home. People who bought decades ago would pay very little tax for G, further incenting them to hold on and thus constraining supply of homes.

Example:

Resident A owns a house worth $3 million but bought the house decades ago so the assessed value is only $150k, thus would pay $24/year for Measure G . Resident A is happy he/she pays very little and certainly has no incentive to sell given the great tax break, thus constraining supply of homes on the market.

In contrast, Resident B rents and is trying to buy a similar house at market price but would be faced with an incremental tax of $480/year (20x as much!) for Measure G. Resident B would have a harder time to qualify for a mortgage on the house given these higher property taxes. Adding salt to injury: state and local taxes over $10k can no longer be deducted under recent tax law changes. Resident B may be forced to continue to rent or leave the area.

This example is common and should make it clear why doubling down on Prop 13, as Measure G would do, is anti-housing and the antithesis of promoting housing for young, diverse families in our region.

When I asked the Foothill school board why they chose a bond measure with this taxation approach (which they acknowledge is problematic for reasons above), their honest answer was because it only requires a 55% approval, whereas a more fair parcel tax approach (where everyone pays the same) is a higher 67% threshold requirement. I don’t think that’s a good reason to adopt an anti-housing tax initiative.

I am reaching out to legislators to get them to change the rules for how bonds are funded. There should be another way to raise funds for needed spending besides doubling down on Prop 13.

Please do not support a tax that is financially irresponsible and exacerbates the housing shortage. Please vote “NO” vote on Measure G.


15 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 7:20 pm

@Another Parent,
"% of FHDA students are"

Those are NOT FHDA numbers you are using, they are DEANZA numbers. Look at the total number of students at DeAnza and Foothill together, the report you cited is ONLY DeAnza numbers. You are drawing a conclusion about Palo Alto and Los Altos students at DEANZA, not FHDA. They are two different colleges. You are forming a conclusion that you want and twisted numbers that simply don't support that conclusion.

And your point about setting hard walls at the Palo Alto Los Altos border is just completely uninformed and wrong. These are state-funded institutions, and the ones IN THE BAY AREA (we are not talking the whole state of CA) don't all have the same classes. It is common for there to be overlap. Not all students have a community college in their town, i.e., East Palo Alto. Even so, in that report, the vast MAJORITY of the students do draw from the zip codes in the immediate AND adjacent areas. There is ZERO evidence of some mass influx from across the state or out of state.

"I see no evidence that all the existing students attending FHDA from other districts can't get their classes and training closer to home."

If you are from East Palo Alto and you want to be a dental hygienist, exactly what program in East Palo Alto is closer to home? There isn't one in East Palo Alto at all, and Foothill is closest. The state has been funding the community college, and they're not going to build another campus for every little town -- the students of East Palo Alto have every right to go there.

People keep talking like students will move from other states to attend our community colleges in mass numbers and there is just no evidence of that. This is nothing like the large wealthy tech whales importing way too many workers, in fact, this is the antidote, where residents of northern Santa Clara County who can't afford to send their kids to expensive colleges can get opportunities.

Creating a local funding source means the community colleges will have flexibility and funding to do more for locals, starting with making repeatable courses available again -- these were very heavily attended locally before the state stopped paying for them. If you don't see any facilities needs, then you haven't spent time in all the aging facilities in desperate need of update lately.

This is not the local school district drowning in money and screaming poverty every few months while they nastily "encourage" marginalized students to leave and board members look the other way. The disability services are totally the opposite, underfunded yet compassionate and life-saving from everything I have witnessed and heard.

As for math -- you do realize that DeAnza and Foothill teach advanced math courses, transferrable to UC's, including multi-variable calculus, and if I'm not mistaken, they've begun offering them at our local high school since the transportation between is so abysmal?

Why the disinformation by people who clearly have no familiarity with our community colleges? The article above says the parcel tax cannot be used for administrator salaries or pensions, and that "Unlike neighboring community college districts, which are fully funded through local tax revenue, Foothill-De Anza is subject to fluctuations in state funding based on enrollment "

Got that? 'UNLIKE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS WHICH ARE FULLY FUNDED THROUGH LOCAL TAX REVENUE". Approving this would not make us different, as is being claimed above, it would bring us in line with other neighboring districts, who, by the way, take our kids when their needs merit, too. These educational resources should be supported better, and voting YES on Measures G AND H will give them the support they deserve, so they can do better for our local communities.


17 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 10, 2020 at 8:23 pm

One thing that is very problematic is taxing those living in the CC district for the benefit of students living outside the CC district. I would like to see admission statistics that outline the percentage of students that live within the district.


22 people like this
Posted by Another Parent
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 8:35 pm

"@Another Parent, "% of FHDA students are"-Those are NOT FHDA numbers you are using, they are DEANZA numbers."

Yes, that's been agreed upon a couple of times, and you've been asked if you have any other numbers to provide. Without anything else, these are the best we have to work with - it does account for one of two campuses, so seems a decent proxy. And it shows, as has been said, that 75% OF STUDENTS ARE NON-RESIDENTS - so why should RESIDENTS ONLY pay for $1.5 BILLION in bonds plus a parcel tax?

If any state resident can (and does) attend any community college, then state funding is the right answer - we all pay equally and can go anywhere. But then LOCAL RESIDENTS should not be asked for ADDITIONAL FUNDING - any additional funding should come from EVERYONE.

Should Berkeley residents raise a special bond to for new buildings at UC Berkeley? Should Fresno have a parcel tax to increase salaries at Fresno State? Of course not. Then why should FHDA Community College District residents be taxed to pay for an institutions where 75% OF STUDENTS ARE NOT RESIDENTS?

If you want to propose regional or state-wide funding sources, that makes sense - but that is definitely NOT Measures G and H.

This kind of set up won't work - no wonder their parcel tax got voted down last time, and almost no other CCDs have them. And now $1.5 BILLION in bonds. This is bananas.


16 people like this
Posted by Fact not Opinion
a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2020 at 8:51 pm

Some comments make assertions about the headcount data. If you can find the data for Foothill or FHDA overall, please post it. The last time Foothill posted research was Fall 2018. It did not have the detail that De Anza provides on a regular basis. Foothill and FHDA have gone dark.... Plz note Foothill enrollment was down 7% in Fall 2018.
Web Link

If you want more data about all CC in Calif but not at the level as the Researcher at De Anza is providing:
Web Link

Dental Hygiene is a small program at Foothill. The community colleges offer unique associate degrees and in some case bachelors. The colleges try not to compete with each other within a small geographical area. De Anza has the automotive and manufacturing. This does not reflect a large out of area demand outside of the FHDA tax district.

Yes, Linear Algebra is taught at Paly this quarter. The advance math classes transfer to UC/CSU and most private 4 years. These typical are at the most 3 sections each quarter and also a small impact in overall headcount. Paly and Foothill both get attendance credit ($) for this arrangement. Foothill also offers select courses at Eastside Prep to prepare their unique population for transitioning to a 4 year college. These are interesting facts but do not really address either Measure. If you check any of the other bay area CC, they ALL offer the same general transfer courses.

Foothill College built the Physical Sciences (3 building) & Engineering Center (PSEC) for under $60M and opened in winter 2013. This is a state of the art complex better than some 4 year colleges. A large number of classrooms were remodeled, with new furniture. Also under Measure C, almost all of the classrooms have updated with multiport WiFi and the latest in digital projectors, computers and devices.

Foothill using grants and donations provide the astronomy speaker series, physics shows, STEM summer camps, dental hygiene to the needy, animal health to the community. There are many more examples. Neither Measure impacts the community outreach already provided by Foothill.

As far as funding, please review San Mateo or Evergreen districts. They are both Hispanic Speaking Institutions (HSI).

As one responder noted, please add facts not unsubstantiated notions.


15 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:27 pm

@Another Parent,

You just keep repeating something that is simply pulled out of a hat. It doesn't make it true. You cannot assume the things you are assuming from the information you are using. You are making many negative suppositions to feed a pre-existing bias. There was a lot of histrionic discussion about students coming from all over the place, other states/adding to traffic, and foreigners! Oh not! Nevermind that the data do show that the majority of those served come from the northern part of Santa Clara County. There is absolutely no evidence of people moving here to go to community college to take advantage of you instead of their own community college.

Secondly, you seem to be assuming that only people in Los Altos and Palo Alto and maybe Cupertino will be paying this tax. Is that what you are assuming? People in Sunnyvale, East Palo Alto, Mountain View will all be voting on the county-wide ballot. Why don't we BOTH check our underlying assumptions and come back and talk about it? The result of that doesn't change my opinion for all the reasons I gave above, but it will be interesting if you change yours or just come up with some other false reason to believe the same thing.

The community colleges are a major asset, and the amount being added to our taxes is way less than the school district ever asks for. We pay something to stabilize their funding locally, we will get a restoration of services that the state cut. Why should we pay for it? Because we get a huge and unique benefit from it and we can. Vote yes on G and H.


35 people like this
Posted by Another Parent
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 10, 2020 at 11:57 pm

@Local Parent, I've quoted one set of numbers, from the DeAnza College web site. 75% of their students do not live in the District. That's just a fact. Take a look at the document (Web Link) - it says only 23% of students live in "Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and Saratoga." That's the whole Community College District (CCD).

A couple of nits: "voting on the county-wide ballot" - no, only voters who live in the CCD get to vote, and they are the only ones who will get taxed. Lots of Santa Clara County is outside of the CCD.

"East Palo Alto" - EPA is in San Mateo County, and not in the CCD

Listen, you seem resistant to or uninterested in fact-based argument, so no need to continue. But I hope others will spread the word about the problems with these Measures. The colleges are good, which is great. This way for financing them is terrible - it's unfair, unsustainable, and unaccountable.


14 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2020 at 2:51 am

@Another Parent
It is you who seems to be uninterested in facts. The fact is that these community colleges have been financed through the state not through local funding. So why should you be so stuck on your border wall framing? People in other areas pay state taxes too, and yet we get the benefit of these gems close to us without our having to foot the bill. The question is more, why have we gotten these advantages when we didn’t really pay for it?

Why shouldn’t we pay something? Since the state has been doing the funding, your already unrealistic arguments for some kind of hard border wall purity test are just moot. Secondly, you benefit from the professionals trained there. The unrealistic hand waving about how all community colleges offer the same thing is just false. If you think we are flooded with too many people trained there you aren’t paying attention to nursing,EMT,and business services worker shortages.

The data you refer to are just not relevant because the DeAnza district was state funded. If we start paying we can have recurring classes for locals again. It is you who is arguing with no logic, no familiarity with facts, and no practical sense of how things work. I hope our citizens value the unique advantages of educational options like community colleges and vote YES on G and H.


16 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2020 at 9:15 am

Posted by Local Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> @Another Parent, You just keep repeating something that is simply pulled out of a hat. [...].
>> People in Sunnyvale, East Palo Alto, Mountain View will all be voting on the county-wide ballot. Why don't we BOTH check our underlying assumptions

As was pointed out, EPA is north of Palo Alto in San Mateo County, and is in the SMC CCD. CC's that serve EPA are normally Cañada and CSM. Your error was already pointed out above, but, I'm pointing it out again because it reflects one of several incorrect assumptions explicit or implicit in your posts. Yes-- please check your underlying assumptions.

I'm not against FHDA in particular, or, CC's in general. I have personally, and, within the family, benefitted from both FH and DA. I'm against measure G at this point, and, I'm on the fence about, leaning against, H. Explanations above.

But, I'm also questioning an underlying assumption about the growth of FHDA. I think they are too big already, and do not need further growth of either students or facilities. I think the programs in neighboring CCD's need to be expanded so that -most- students from neighboring districts have no need to commute in heavy traffic to DA or FH.

I'm in favor of seismic upgrades, and, I would like to see, for example, the replacement of Flint Center funded. Bond funding would make sense for that. I'm opposed to using bond funding to buy Macs, PCs, servers, routers, "maker" equipment, furniture, and/or anything else that is obsolete or wears out after 5 years. For all I know, we are still paying off bonds that funded the purchase of classic Macs in 1990, PCs that ran DOS or Windows 3.1 or whatever. It is dumb to pay for expendables with bond funds-- that would be like making car payments on a car that is already worn out and junked. People need to think much more carefully about what is funded with bonds. No, I'm not *against* a maker lab-- I just think funding it with bonds is unwise.

I also don't like parcel taxes, which are about as obtuse a form of taxation as has been invented. We need to fix this at the state level so that there are much more fair ways for people to fund things locally.


24 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2020 at 9:40 am

Why can't we simply demand to see data before voting.
Call them. Write them - the Trustees or board members.
Let them know it won't pass if they are not transparent with hard numbers.

We should demand to know how many out of state students/out of district students, and foreign visas holders are at Foothill.

This is relevant because we are being to ask to pay for this for decades.





14 people like this
Posted by Contacts at FHDA
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 11, 2020 at 11:20 am

Here are the emails for the Board of Trustees, the FHDA Chancellor and the President of Foothill (DeAnza we have data for). Please do write them. I don't think data will be forthcoming, but you never know.

ahrenspatrick@fhda.edu
casasfrierlaura@fhda.edu
chengpearl@fhda.edu
landsbergerpeter@fhda.edu
wonggilbert@fhda.edu
minerjudy@fhda.edu
nguyenthuy@fhda.edu


14 people like this
Posted by Plan B
a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2020 at 3:17 pm

I went to the Campaign Office for G&H which is across the street from De Anza the middle of last week. There were some very nice students there. They really could not answer the questions. I left my phone contact so a Board Member could contact me. No response.

Suggest you contact the head s district research and ask for 5 years of data on enrollments (FTES and Headcount).
Dr. David D. Ulate is the Executive Director of IR&P for the Foothill-De Anza Community College District.
ulatedavid@fhda.edu
650.949.6905


19 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 12, 2020 at 9:44 am

Reading all of the comments which bring up very good points. The taxpayer is getting very savvy about the business management of state projects. Unfortunately the people who are proposing these projects do not appear savvy concerning the very details which everyone is concerned with.

If someone is managing an educational institution then they need to have the skill set to explain clearly what they are trying to accomplish and how they project to do that. Is that where our problem is? We keep going around in circles over Foothill with legislative types who are angling for publicity and self-projection for a higher political position who are not bringing the required skill set to the job. And people who run districts which may have been voted in on identity politics but really don't have the skill set to do the job.

Constant vigilance is required to weed out these problems before they get put in place then snow ball into bigger problems. Why is it that educational institution problems keep falling into these quagmires. M. Thurmond at the top level needs to realign this whole activity so it makes sense to everyone. And our local school districts need to put more explanation into their going in positions since no one school district is operating on it's own but has a whole hierarchy of funding and responsibility at the state level.


22 people like this
Posted by Voters are not rich and dumb
a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 14, 2020 at 2:07 pm

Here are some reasons why I will vote against these measures, and I suspect many of my neighbors will also reject them:

1. Not seeing a clear plan on accountability and how the spending would take place. Can't just give $ to public officials assuming they will make good use of it. We all know what happens when bureaucrats get access to funds.

2. Students need to have some skin in the game to appreciate the opportunities they are presented with. I would favor some type of student fee to pay for any additional equipment/resources that might be important enough for some classes. Don't expect others to pay for your needs.

3. There might be a lot of wealthy people in this community, but the vast majority of us are worker bees who constantly make sacrifices to afford to live in this area. New taxes is the last thing I need at this point.


24 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 14, 2020 at 3:02 pm

I continue to have several concerns, as I have done a look at what data is available.

First, it looks like there is a general western-direction commute, with many students going to FHDA from the east. Possibly this is because there is a large gap in the Fremont/Milpitas/Berryessa side of the bay between Ohlone and Evergreen. With many CC students apparently "sliding west", that is just adding more traffic to the general commute traffic logjams. They really need to split off a new district centered around Milpitas and draw off local students who have far to travel right now. Rather than build up FHDA, the state should probably jump-start a new CCD in that area. There is a direct cost to students to commute significantly to the west, and, a hidden cost to everyone in traffic congestion. Let's build some new CC's closer to home for the students and reduce time-and-fuel-wasting commutes.

Second, for the bond issue (G), I see vague plans that include short-term funding; words like "equip" that imply furniture, personal computer systems, "maker" equipment, etc., These are items that have a short lifetime compared to bonds and bond funds. And the vagueness really bothers me. Bonds should be used to amortize the cost of long-lived things like buildings, not things that will wear out or become obsolete in 3-5 years. Short-life items should be paid for out of current spending. Would you buy a car with a 30-year mortgage?

Third, I really don't like parcel taxes (H). They are regressive, and, are not in proportion to the underlying income or wealth of a property owner. Parcel taxes are very irrational in being levied on a "parcel" which can be any size, location, and value.


25 people like this
Posted by Dick Fancher
a resident of Los Altos
on Feb 15, 2020 at 10:16 am

Foothill De Anza College District’s student population is rapidly shrinking. Current enrollment is just 71% percent of 2010’s. For the 3 years ending June 2019, enrollment dropped 14% while operating expenses increased slightly after taking out inflation. That means operating costs per student have increased about 19% beyond inflation.

Measures G and H ask us to increases taxes more than $1 Billion for new facilities and to augment its operating budget. The bond measure G will double the college districts physical assets! With declining enrollment increasingly served on-line, it is hard to understand why we need to increase our investment in physical plant by 175%. On an operating basis, the district has a self-acknowledged structural deficit – not surprising with huge drop in enrollment without a commensurate drop in operating spending. The district hopes to use Measure H to solve this problem instead cutting spending to reflect its drastically reduced student body.


11 people like this
Posted by TransparentCalifornia.Org
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 15, 2020 at 12:38 pm

Lots of good points here. But has anyone read the ballot arguments?


10 people like this
Posted by Palo Alto Sax
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Feb 15, 2020 at 5:14 pm

The biggest ‘resource extraction’ locally comes from the high-tech private sector, and it comes in many forms: the terrible commutes, the spiraling-out-of-control prices of housing and goods, the explosion in the ever-more-desperate-and-conspicuous homeless population.

As we speak, neuroscientists at Google, many of them PhDs and richly compensated, are working to get our kids even more addicted to their phones than they are already! How’s that for a “tax” on ordinary life?

By contrast, public institutions like community colleges—and Foothill/De Anza are among the best in the nation—make it possible for young adults to develop into themselves, temporarily insulated from competition for jobs, from the narrow utilitarian demands of career and livelihood, from survival-of-the-fittest market principles.

These schools offer enviably low cost, high quality education, at time when the costs of a four year college degree are also reaching stratospheric prices at many schools.

A “yes” on propositions G & H is an affirmation that everyone in our communities deserves a fair shot. Community colleges offer real value, and public goods bequeath rewards that are far-reaching. A yes vote is a chance to vote for—and an expression of recognition that there is—a “common good.”


8 people like this
Posted by jerry99
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 15, 2020 at 5:27 pm

Just another of the endless tax proposals to seperate Palo Alto residents from their money. There is at least one of these is EVERY election cycle. Promises the do the same things that were promised the last time education tax increases were put on the ballot in previous elections.
For Community Colleges just increase the tuition.
VOTE AGAINST THESE PROPOSALS.


14 people like this
Posted by Edifice Complex
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 15, 2020 at 5:36 pm

@Palo Alto Sax - I put your post in the category of, "Don't think about it, just give them money." I don't know anyone who disagrees about the value of community colleges. If it were $20 one-time, I'd say fine. But this is over $1.0 BILLION in new money.

The problem is these PARTICULAR colleges have plummeting enrollment and already serve students mostly (75%) from outside the area, while trying to raise LOCAL taxes to expand! This is the OPPOSITE of what "community" colleges should do.

They are trying to do something that literally doesn't make sense - EXPAND their facilities while enrollment shrinks, and have a LOCAL "community" college serve a whole region.

The board and leadership are confused - a classic "edifice complex." Please set them straight - VOTE NO on G & H.


9 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 15, 2020 at 5:57 pm

Foothill does not have the facility space to expand. It is tucked into an area surrounded by hills and residential housing and the freeway. I like the suggestion that more CC's should be built in other areas that are not already covered by a CC. They could be folded into the UC extension locations so the facility space is utilized completely. We need to be more creative about how existing buildings are being used. Or a portion of Cubberley could be converted into a Foothill Extension with some core classes required for an AA.


9 people like this
Posted by Family Friendly
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 15, 2020 at 6:11 pm

Combining community colleges with UC extensions is a great idea, particularly in light of Foothill’s falling enrollment.

Or perhaps Stanford could rent some of Foothilll’s unused space for its administrative offices.


6 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 16, 2020 at 10:09 am

Just like to add here that I got a Masters from St. Mary's College where these classes were provided at a UC Extension building on Steven's Creek. All of the participants were local Silicon Valley company employees so the commute to St. Mary's in Moraga would have been prohibitive. We had to take a class on campus taught on a Saturday. So St. Mary's graduate programs won and we won. I view that as a successful way for all educational groups to co-locate and share the costs of very expensive property. Especially since students who work cannot get around the bay after work. Also teachers who have regular jobs can work close to their jobs.

I do know that the kids who want to go to UC San Luis Obispo can start at a CC that is next door to that location. And housing in that area is more available.


18 people like this
Posted by Herb Masterson
a resident of another community
on Feb 17, 2020 at 6:42 pm

Everyone is in favor of education. But local measures G & H are the completely wrong approach to funding regional educational institutions.

If Foothill and De Anza Colleges were regular community colleges, with a large percentage of students coming from the FHDA district, then G & H would be reasonable, though inequitable, funding measures for the district.

Unfortunately, these two tax measures will only exacerbate the difficulties that the Foothill and De Anza College students face.

It is true that community colleges are both a good investment and a good value. They enable local students to attend college at very low cost while living at home. Students are able to save money and then transfer to a four-year institution.

Community colleges were never intended to become regional institutions where students travel long distances to attend. There are 115 community colleges in California, but many have multiple campuses in order to be accessible to even more local residents.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with a community college becoming so desirable that it becomes a regional institution, attracting mainly students from out of the area. But Measures G & H send a terrible message to the State, one that encourages the State to continue to provide inadequate funding to destination community colleges while expecting local residents to pick up the slack.

The State should be providing increased funding to community colleges. The funding should be coming from statewide income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. Extra efforts should be made to bring other community colleges up to the same standard of educational excellence as Foothill and De Anza. This would eliminate the need for students to travel long distances to Foothill and De Anza, and enable them to live at home without the problems of food insecurity and homelessness.

It is not sustainable for Foothill and De Anza to have so many out-of-the-area students with so little affordable housing available. There is sufficient land at Foothill and De Anza for student housing by getting rid of the surface parking lots and building parking garages for commuting students. The State should fund housing for more community colleges, including De Anza, if the mission of the Community Colleges is changing.

Student housing can be financed with loans that are paid back with the revenue from rent. That’s how CSUs and UCs finance new housing. But no one should ever think that on-campus housing is necessarily low cost housing, as anyone that’s sent their children to a CSU or UC is well aware, it’s often more costly than sharing an apartment.

We live in a state which is one of the leading economic and cultural capitals of the world. We can certainly afford to have the State fund a world-class educational system.

Say yes to a more equitable and robust community college system on March 3, by voting No on G and H.


8 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2020 at 9:07 am

The naysayers have one thing in common, a lack of familiarity with the colleges and facts.

The fact is that the state has been funding the CCs and because of this, they make the rules that in turn affect who goes there, what is offered, and from where. A huge chunk of local enrollment used to be for recurring classes like writing and sports. A senior, for example, might enroll in yoga or writing years on end. But since those courses are subsidized by the state, they ultimately refocused on educating young people, limit the number of times you can take those courses, and set high minimums for each course’s enrollment to hold any given class. This resulted in a spiral downward in many areas. The CCs had to answer to the state and had to just do what they were told

All the reasons naysayers expressed exist because of a lack of local funding. The fact is that East Palo Alto does not have a community college and the most cost effective way to educate EMT students is for them to attend Foothill. (A student from EPA isn’t any further away than one from south Cupertino, who is in the district.) East Palo Alto residents pay state taxes, too. The state is funding it. There is not, nor will there ever be, a move to put way more community colleges in every little town up and down the peninsula, speaking of expensive. And there would be no way to offer the diversity of courses if we started drawing hard lines.

But the fact remains, if you want more local enrollment, the answer is simple. Pass G and H to pay for it. We lost a huge chunk of local enrollment when the state decided to stop paying for recurring classes. We lose another huge chunk because of really high minimum enrollment numbers in various classes, which make it harder for students to get the courses they need when they need them, and harder to maintain enough faculty.

The criticisms of funding seem unaware of the ironies, that the solutions to those exact criticisms are local funding sources, which, as this article points out, is something all the other community colleges in the region do. If you want these resources to do more locally, first we must be willing to pay for them. The local community colleges are an incredible asset that deserve our support. Vote YES on G and H.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 18, 2020 at 9:57 am

I have a problem with the idea that we keep noodling around here on funding when we have a state supervisor of education that never gets into the mix. Tony Thurmond is suppose to oversee education in the state and make sure that each region is getting the money it needs to keep schools open and operating at a reasonable level. We keep electing people to go to SAC and then they somehow are not responsible for the job they were elected to.

In the note above an EPA student ends up at Foothill when they are in San Mateo county and they have a CC in their direct region. The distance to travel would be the same.

Have you all noticed that there are CC's very close to the north and south - and east bay. We are contorting ourselves to make Foothill the end all when in fact that is totally not the original intent of the CC system. As to foreign students there is a CC in SF which would be more logical for them to attend. There is no need to drive all over the state to go to a CC.

I went to Santa Monica CC and the major proportion of students were from the Santa Monica high school systems or surrounding areas - the beach cities. It was a super experience since everyone was cohesive in where they came from. That is what makes a successful CC - along with the city who added a performing arts center.


11 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2020 at 11:22 am

Posted by Local parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> The naysayers have one thing in common, a lack of familiarity with the colleges and facts. [...]
>> But the fact remains, if you want more local enrollment, the answer is simple. Pass G and H to pay for it.

Once again, I'm confused. If enrollment is seriously declining, then, why do we need a bond issue? If there are fewer classes and students, then, FHDA should be able to just -close- any seriously outdated or dangerous buildings. I don't like the "G and H" thing when the need for new long-life facilities has not been identified. Don't "G and H" me. The need for G simply has not been established by anything I've seen posted here or anywhere else. And leave "H" out of it-- "G" has to stand on its own.

As for "H"-- I specifically don't like parcel taxes and consider them to be regressive AND highly unfair. I'm not convinced that there isn't another, more fair, funding mechanism available. I also am not clear exactly what "H" funds will be used for. I see lists of things that have been lost during the last decade-- will "H" restore all of them, despite the current spending restrictions? What I have seen so far has been extremely vague. I'm NOT against education, or, Community Colleges. I've been the beneficiary of CC programs in the past. But, I don't understand why this is a parcel tax, OR, what the money will be spent for.


14 people like this
Posted by Obviously
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 18, 2020 at 12:06 pm

Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that enrollment is dropping. The demographics have this region have changed dramatically in the last thirty years. Someone with a masters degree from Caltech isn’t going to enroll in a CC job-training program.

Better to refocus our local tax dollars on programs that serve our actual current residents.


9 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2020 at 12:07 pm

Web Link

The above is a very good editorial on why you should vote YES on G and H, and answers much of the criticism above.

There is far too much obfuscation here by people who have no direct experience with our CC's. People bringing up 73 districts across the entire state, 114 CC's etc.

There are just 8 (eight) community colleges in all of Santa Clara County, which is a large area that includes Milpitas, San Jose, and Gilroy. (By contrast, there are around 75 high schools.) Unlike high schools, community colleges offer a much wider array of professional/educational programs and courses, and they do NOT all offer essentially the same programs, degrees or courses.

Students do cross district boundaries to go to them, but that is the efficient and realistic way to offer these educational opportunities -- if you look at even the data above posters are twisting around to claim our CC's aren't serving local students, they ARE, they're serving thousands upon thousands of local students, and the rest are almost entirely from the same county, ADJACENT districts. Our students cross boundaries to go to neighboring colleges, too.

The fact is that we have not been funding our local CC's locally, in contrast to other adjacent district, who have been. Thus, it is wrong to apply an immediate locality test and not expect the district to serve the nearby area (which is where the vast majority come from, since the state has been footing the bill.

We are fortunate to have these assets in our backyard, that we and our children benefit from. The state could easily say, why is the state subsidizing these rich people who don't want to pay anything and who want to block out students from adjacent districts from getting an affordable education for in-demand professions they use? I think in some respects the state did do that, which was in ending the recurring courses, such as the example of seniors taking enrichment writing courses or physical activity courses, which the state couldn't continue subsidizing and cost us a huge segment of local enrollment. If you want those back, you need to pay for it locally.


11 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2020 at 12:14 pm

@Resident-1,

The CC's do end up serving many unique roles, including trade and other professional education, community education, UC transfer students, second-chance education, adult education, senior enrichment, etc. This is reality. It makes no sense to not support that just because of some utopian and unrealistic idea about what you think should be.

One of the most unrealistic expectations is holding CC's responsible for the fact that they don't and couldn't realistically all offer the same professional educational opportunities and courses. Foothill and DeAnza, who aren't that close together, actually have an agreement NOT to offer the same programs beyond the basics. So if you want to get an education in screenwriting and film/TV studies, you have to go to DeAnza, you cannot get a screenwriting degree at Foothill (or San Jose City college, for that matter). The state sets such unrealistically high attendance minimums, if they both offered the courses, pretty quickly neither would be able to, and a really unusual and valuable program would disappear.

And again, holding them to a standard of conditions that you could only expect if there had been local funding all this time, as a condition for supporting local funding, is simply unrealistic, and by sheer ignorance, you end up promoting a way to defund a valuable educational asset that is already providing enormous value on a shoestring.

Again, if you think serving a higher percentage of very local students is desirable, then you have to pay for it locally. You can't expect the state to pony up in order to preference the rich people nearest by over people from just the adjacent areas (NOT from all over the state, as seems to be the exaggeration here), especially since the colleges do not all offer the same courses. Having students from adjacent areas WITHIN THE SAME COUNTY also makes it possible for our students to even get the courses and programs, which have really, really high attendance minimums to avoid cancellation, because of the state rules and funding.

The Community Colleges are a tremendous asset that we should fund. It's just not logical to hold the CC's responsible for the consequences of a LACK of local funding, in order avoiding providing the kind of important funding that the article says other localities nearby are doing.

Support this important and unique educational sector in our area. Vote YES on G and H.


11 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 18, 2020 at 12:53 pm

[Portion removed.] Santa Monica CC at the time was servicing a large Catholic population in which the families had a number of children - all heading to advanced degrees. So funnel the children through the AA degree at a reasonable rate then they all headed to good 4 year colleges with intentions for advanced degrees. If you look at the last two years plus advanced degrees - law school, dental school, etc. that is a lot of money since the majority then will be living on campus. And servicing the beach cities and communities in the LAX area. I understand how that works very well and applaud the strategy of getting the kids through school. That strategy means using the local CC at reduced rates with housing assumed to be at the family home. In no way is it all going to work when people try and make the CC be the end all and a social program to boot.

If you look at the listings of CC's that are available on the net they provide the cost per unit and program focus and amenities. Students then can make a choice which supports their intentions and financial conditions. The family then helps the student achieve those goals. Did we forget the family here who is footing the bill?
My big concern is that the state and districts do not have a good track record of financial management and tend to float funds through the "general fund" and somehow lose track of where the money and how it has been spent. This state has a poor track record to date and throwing more money at it is not an option.

[Portion removed.]


13 people like this
Posted by Obviously
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 18, 2020 at 2:19 pm

[Post removed.]


13 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2020 at 2:42 pm

Posted by Local parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

Web Link

>> The above is a very good editorial on why you should vote YES on G and H, and answers much of the criticism above.

So, I went back and looked at the "examples of potential bond projects" and, it looks like 8 out of 10 things on the list are INAPPROPRIATE spending for bonds. Bonds should be for long-term capital expenditures. But, most of things listed should be done under year-to-year funding, such as upgrading WiFi access points, and, doing normal maintenance. I guess FHDA is not doing nearly enough maintenance, so, they want to do that under bond spending? Bad, bad idea. I'm voting no on G for sure.

Moving most of the "G" spending to "H" -- yes, there certainly appears to be a need for more year-to-year funding. I have yet to see an explanation for why the only possibility is a parcel tax. No on "H".

Oh, and, @Local parent: when people raise legitimate issues, address those issues, instead of saying that motherhood, apple pie, housing, and education are good. After a string of non-answers, I'm ready to vote "No".


14 people like this
Posted by Obviously
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 18, 2020 at 3:14 pm

"Tim Shively" is the president of the Foothill - DeAnza Faculty Association, and an instructor in the English department. He wrote the pro-bond/pro-tax editorial in the Mercury News, and appears to have taught a class on film.

Obviously.


3 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 18, 2020 at 5:36 pm

The editorial answers all of the criticisms, and includes a link to a publicly-available and transparent proposal of projects. Given that no bond's list of projects can be enforced by the public regardless, this is as good as anything our school district ever provides. Nothing wrong with someone who knows what they're talking about writing an editorial.

In case that's not good enough, here is a link to an editorial by the Chair of the Santa Clara County Democratic Party, which has endorsed Measures G and H:
Web Link


15 people like this
Posted by Obviously
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 18, 2020 at 5:42 pm

[Post removed.]


14 people like this
Posted by Madness
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 18, 2020 at 5:44 pm

The facility master plan hasn't been updated in over 3 years, so any bond project list is meaningless. And then there's the housing piece, which will either be $300 million or nothing depending who and when you ask. This is a rushed and sloppy money grab.

And the parcel tax is worse. No senior exemption, to support declining enrollment, that is 75% outside the CCD.

The Board and staff are trying to create a regional college using the local tax base. This is wrong and ultimately must fail. Stop the madness now by voting no on both G and H.


29 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2020 at 6:15 pm

My friend contacted me about this very long discussion. I was the Academic Dean Physical Sciences, Math and Engineering at Foothill College for 9 years.Under Measure C,and responsible for the three building Physical Science and Engineering Center (PSEC) at Foothill which cost under $58M. This included chemistry and physics labs, classrooms and faculty offices. I am also a tax payer within the FHDA tax area. De Anza built the Mediated Learning Center for over $50M. $42M was spent on the Sunnyvale Facility that has the EMT and Early Child programs. Other than that Sunnyvale is empty except a couple of classes. The FHDA District spent $23M on a new building for themselves and took $2M from each campus'operational budget to achieve it.

The current Measure G list of potential projects is TOO vague. This is the same bond they were considering for the last election and polls said it would not pass. At the last moment they added the potential housing for faculty and maybe students for $200-300M. This is a sympathy maneuver. Were the projects on the list not really important? Would a real company decide to spend $300M at the last moment which they have not planned? Why provide student housing if local students aren't attending? The District is also looking at the Flint Center replacement which may have Faculty housing. There is NO real comprehensive plan for the campuses.

The positive comments in the list provide no facts but are well written to pull at the heart. The person that wrote the original article is the President of the Faculty Union. When the faculty union negotiated the latest contract it had provisions if Measure H pass. If the district was concerned about hiring new faculty, they would negotiate Measure H monies go to Faculty with 7 or less years of service. It will now be butter spread across everyone. Many senior faculty make over $200K for 10 month contracts. Providing student employees a $15/hour rate is the only upside.

Looking at numbers from Fall 2019, only 3% of Palo Alto attend FHDA campuses. This may be the students at Paly taking Linear Algebra since 1,000 headcount was from K-12. . In comparison 38% of the students come from San Jose which is just a sliver in the the FHDA tax area. 23% of the headcount comes from the FHDA service area. 10.&% are International.
Web Link


Summary: The bond for just under $900 Million and will cost well over $1.5 BILLION. The upside is I will probably be dead to payoff the bond for some maintenance projects. The enrollment within the District is declining; see web like below. The District has taken no steps but to layoff Classified and Administration as Full Time Faculty can't be laid off. Where are the new programs to stem the decline? I am voting NO on G & H. I believe in the community college system, but NOT the FHDA senior administrators and the board. Look at the site below to see the District is declining at significant rates. The headcount was much larger in late 1990s in the smaller facilities and without online education.

Web Link

The district should come back to the taxpaying voters with a REAL PLAN and possibly far less in dollars.


4 people like this
Posted by Neighboring district
a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2020 at 7:22 pm

Here's a slide show from CASBO 2018, the California school business expo:

Web Link

See the slides on pages 10 and 12. The slide on page 12 shows how $100 million of bond authorization can use a series of ten issues of roughly $10 million over thirty years to finance technology purchases every three years. Bond standards really don't allow equipment to be financed over a longer period than its useful life.


14 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Feb 18, 2020 at 7:24 pm

The correct link for FHDA Headcount
Web Link
Note the 2019 the headcount was 30,954.Fall which is always the largest of the quarters. FHDA is NOT 60,000.
To answer someone's question: who is paying for the flyers and support for Measures G & H.... The Foothill Foundation allocated $250K to support the measure which is legal but not disconnected from the FHDA Administration. This is similar to other politicians.


9 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 18, 2020 at 8:06 pm

Thank you Peter. Everyone is working hard to make the educational system work for everyone and available to all who want to advance their educational goals. CA is one of the highest tax states. We stay and pay the high tax because we want it to produce results which promote our children.

Our Governor crows on TV - The View - how much money we have and are the 6th biggest economy in the world. The taxes I am already paying in are suppose to be allocated to the respective "departments" in the state based on the states determined priorities. Somehow the "priorities' are being skewed sideways to social programs for undetermined people as opposed to our children and their educational progression. Is that because the legislators are suppose to push bond issues to supplement the give-aways?

Not going to happen. The state at the top level needs to get their act together as to their priorities. And Education is a top priority. Education through the whole system from K-12, CC, CSU and UC. Note that HP donated a computer lab to CSU - Chico. Thank you to the local companies who donate facility space and equipment - That is the way to manage the system and appreciate the help of local companies to provide help and assistance. Boeing donated a whole department to CSU Long beach concerning the engineering aspect of avionic.

The CC system needs to work their requirements through working the use of existing buildings - UC Extension, Cubberley, etc. The buildings are there and are more accessible on a day to day basis to working people.


1 person likes this
Posted by Aloha R
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 19, 2020 at 10:54 am

[Post removed.]


20 people like this
Posted by Colby
a resident of Gunn High School
on Feb 19, 2020 at 11:39 am

The Faculty Association Union continues to provide comments with no substance but just subjective motherhood. They admit there is NO PLAN! See below.

Here are notes from the FHDA Faculty Association December 4, 2019 minutes:
"Parcel Tax/Bond Measure: Both the Parcel Tax and the Bond Measure were approved at the
December 2 Board of Trustees meeting. If successful, the Parcel Tax will bring the district $25
million over five years and the Bond Measure will bring $900 million. Shively, who has been
asked to join the campaign committee, noted that there was no specific wish list for either.
Shively shared the lists of possible areas for spending the funds, noting that the campaign
committee members had been told how they should address complaints about the vagueness of
this list. Some suggestion has been made that funds could be used to form a private sector
partnership in order to purchase and develop The Oaks shopping center across from De Anza. "


8 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 19, 2020 at 4:08 pm

The more we talk about this the more angry I am getting that the state has allowed each district to fly their kites for what ever and everything. There is no management at the top level for consistency across the state. We are suppose to be the 6th biggest economy in the world - so they keep telling us - yet we cannot manage a major area of the state budget - Education - in an effective manner. The news has bond issues all over the place for schools. Tony Thurmond - where are you? Where is the governor of this state on this issue? What are our priorities? Tell us what your priorities are so we can comment or vote you out of office.


1 person likes this
Posted by help a voter decide
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 20, 2020 at 12:08 am

Does anyone have details on how their plan to spend their $300 million housing portion? Do they have certain land or existing properties already in mind? Thank you for any info.


3 people like this
Posted by Aloha R
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 20, 2020 at 6:58 am

I work hard and pay so much in taxes. FHDA DOES NOT SERVE THE COMMUNITY. The are focused on serving students outside their community. Why should we pay for this? If they are focused on serving the community that pays for them, why should pay for a bond?

[Portion removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Art
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 20, 2020 at 7:40 am

On the housing, sadly, there is no plan whatsoever. When the Board approved the ballot measure, it was not even clear that housing was a use of the bond. The plan is to figure it all out later. Very sad and wrong, shame on the board.


4 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:01 am

@Obvious,
"
I suspect that "Local Parent" is in fact "Local Community College Administrator," or perhaps "Local Part-Time Paid Instructor at Community College"."

No, I am in fact a local parent, and if the Weekly would like to provide which reporter I can call to verify who I am while remaining anonymous (given such illogical and nasty responses), I will be happy to do so.


1 person likes this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:09 am

Posted by Art, a resident of Adobe-Meadow

>> On the housing, sadly, there is no plan whatsoever.

I don't understand why urban CC's should have housing. I really don't. I get it when the CC is in a rural area where people would have to drive 20-30-50 miles one way to get to school. In an urban area where the CCs are generally less than 10 miles apart? It seems that this idea is part of a grander plan to make FHDA more than a CC.

How about instead of trying to turn FHDA into a CSU, we divert the foreign students, the long-distance commuters, the residential students, and the students needing much more than an ordinary CC, to a CSU that could use some growth? CSU Monterrey Bay still has a lot of room for growth. Instead of trying to grow FHDA into a quasi-CSU, let's grow a CSU whose job it is to fulfill these requirements. Humboldt, Sonoma, Monterrey Bay, Stanislaus, Bakersfield, and Channel Islands are all under 10,000 students. Monterrey Bay and Channel Islands are still in the "growth" stage.

And, regardless, all the evidence presented here leads to "No on G". There just isn't any demonstrated need for a major bond issue, and, worse, this is a particularly poorly structured and justified bond issue.

I'm also leaning heavily against "H" as well, because it looks like the majority of funding will go to full-time faculty, rather than everything else that is needed. They seem to keep forgetting that FHDA is a CCD, not a university.


1 person likes this
Posted by Aloha R
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:15 am

[Post removed.]


2 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:43 am

Not only am I a local parent and NOT a community college administrator, instructor, or employee, nor am I related to any, I have already provided a lot of personal experience above. My child and I, and many of my child’s friends (and my own friends) have taken classes at local community colleges in recent years and currently, and benefit from these unique resources that really do need better funding.

The community colleges have aligned their transferrable courses with the UC’s, so that now the transferrable courses are the same courses that students would take at UC’s, only in a smaller setting with a professor who is focused on teaching instead of their research, and far cheaper. Local community colleges have guaranteed transfer to most of the UC’s, and transfer HUNDREDS of students to UC’s and other colleges every year. Last time I looked (last year?), Foothill had 3 transfer students to Stanford that year. When students are emotionally not ready to go to a big campus, or they can’t afford four years at a UC (or elsewhere), community colleges are a unique and precious opportunity.

I can tell you unequivocally that my teen and my teen’s friends would have taken more classes if the funding were there to offer them in a more realistic and less restrictive way than the more limited state currently allows.

We have been through a lot in this K-12 school district, with so many student suicides it made national news. There are persistent calls for everyone to recognize alternative paths to success, and alternative learning styles and needs. The Middle College route is always oversubscribed many times over, but the CC can’t take the rest because of funding limitations, state rules, and course minimums. Many students from our district are burned out and not well-served by their high school educations, and need a place locally to go where they can rebuild their educations and futures. I know several local youth for whom this option, now, this year, has been nothing short of lifesaving.

Many more students, including those who could go on to Ivy League schools, would be better served during high school by taking dual enrollment community college classes because of the greater freedom, responsibility, and control of their schedules and lives. The community colleges also offer advanced courses and diverse courses students can’t get in high school. Community Colleges more than AP’s are looked at favorably by colleges, and give the same GPA bump, while also being worth twice as many units for the same amount of time. CSU equate's a whole year’s worth of high school credit for a one quarter CC course. One of the reasons our local district doesn’t send more kids is insularity in the district, probably acting out of a perceived (but incorrect) protectiveness, instead of acting on what is best for the kids and opening up greater opportunities for so many of them.

Critics’ bringing up and manipulating statistics resulting BECAUSE OF exclusive reliance on state funding, are cynical and destructive. If we had local funding and the district could offer many of the previous kinds of courses, such as recurring courses for senior citizens, very local numbers would quickly go back up. Focusing on what happened because of a lack of funding to justify continuing a lack of funding is unhelpful in the least.

These community colleges are local gems. I do see this personally, because my teen was not able to take all the courses either at Foothill or DeAnza because of constraints that always came down to how they are funded. There were some points when it just felt like it was so difficult to get the classes, we had to give up.

Those who are complaining that there aren’t specifics are just wrong. The link I provided to the first editorial from a Community College person has a link to the specifics. This is no less public or enforceable than the unenforceable promises the school district makes in their bonds. The community colleges also need to be able to plan and count on the funding over time. From what I have seen from copious direct experience, they are really efficient and effective on a shoestring.

The Santa Clara County Democratic Party endorses YES on G and H. Where do I get a lawn sign?


2 people like this
Posted by Local Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:47 am

"The Middle College route is always oversubscribed many times over, but the CC can’t take the rest because of funding limitations, state rules, and course minimums."

This one deserves particular focus. If we funded the local community colleges better, overnight the Middle College programs (which are, by definition, local students), could double or triple in size. There are that many students every year who can't get in because of the circumstances resulting from not enough funding on an ongoing basis.


9 people like this
Posted by Frustrated
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 20, 2020 at 10:51 am

I care about supporting the community, but let's be clear: the district does not currently support the community. It would be great if they did! Hey, I support teachers! The job is tough, and there are reasons it's a 10 month contract. It burns you out! (Former teacher here.)

But, many of the students are not from our community, yet they want to tax us for them. FHDA made a clear decision years ago--not to support the community. Instead, they decided to do outreach OUTSIDE the district. They have forsaken their actually community. And, now that they need help, suddenly they want us to help.

Make no mistake, this is not a xenophobic comment. I welcome international students. They pay A LOT in tuition. The college bilks them. The problem is, again, the district made the decision to do outreach to areas outside the district. They ignored the actually community.

See these facts:

Using data from De Anza college (FHDA and Foothill don't provide this data on their web pages) for Winter quarter 2020, only 23% of the students are from the FHDA tax area. Of the 77% not FHDA residents, 9% of the headcount are International students whose parents do not pay any taxes.


2 people like this
Posted by Local parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 11:08 am

@Frustrated,
[Portion removed.] [P]lease stop misusing the data. Data on international students says nothing about whether they are living locally or even paying taxes locally, it's just related to their status per California residency. Where do you think they are living? If they came from overseas and their parents are Stanford faculty, or they simply moved from out of state or the country to Silicon Valley within so many years and aren't considered California residents, they are listed as international students. This doesn't mean they aren't local, it doesn't mean their landlord or even THEY aren't paying taxes to the state, but it does mean they're paying substantially more in fees than their CA resident counterparts.

The community colleges DO serve our local youth and others, and they serve our local communities by providing a unique array of educational opportunities that we need locally.

Our local community colleges deserve our support and a Yes on G and H.


8 people like this
Posted by Frustrated
a resident of Mountain View
on Feb 20, 2020 at 11:34 am

@Local Parent

[Portion removed.]

I think you misunderstood and misread what I said. My comments, in fact if you look at what I wrote, are not about international students. They are about the data on who the colleges actually serve.


3 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 20, 2020 at 11:36 am

I have to agree with the comment above that someone(?) is trying to make FHCC into a CSU look alike. I get mailings from Canada College for classes to take which are not college AA requirements but help make their campus useful to the community and create more human traffic for the school. Likewise SU provides some classes for special topics that are not college requirements but are of interest and educational value to the local residents. FH also sends out mailings for special classes that are of interest to the local residents. I do know that these facilities like to rent out their facilities for special events - have attended a number, including meet and greet with local politicians and speaker series.

All of the schools are working their facilities to generate additional income and human traffic on campus. That is to the good. They are welcome to get more creative about creating income producing events.

However from my point of view this state designates a budget for the schools which they can be creative with but asking additional money from the taxpayers who have no direct involvement with the school is not appreciated. It reeks of overreach. It reeks of mismanagement. It reeks of people trying to utilize the presumed inflow of money for direction to the general funds for use elsewhere.


8 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Feb 20, 2020 at 11:37 am

I live in the Foothill De Anza (FHDA) Tax area. I was an academic Dean at Foothill College for 9 years.

The actual facts shown in the prior comments, especially from the Faculty Union on Dec 4, 2019 that there is no real plan to spend the bond (Measure G) monies. G when completed will cost us over $1.5 BILLION. This is a blank check for the college district to spend with very few restrictions.

The crux of the decision is whether the Foothill De Anza Administration and Board has shown they can allocate the monies effectively. They had the same bond prepared for the last election but polling data was negative. Did they spend the time between then and now to develop a real plan? NO. Did FHDA build a new classroom center in Sunnyvale for $41.5 Million on donated land which De Anza would not support and has gone virtually empty since fall 2016? Yes. Has FHDA, whose colleges are registered as Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) apply for additional funding like all of the neighboring districts? NO. Did FHDA at the last moment decide that they MAY use $200-300 Million for faculty and student housing. Yes. BTW: of the 112 California CC campuses, 11 offer student housing and all are in very rural areas. Has FHDA Administration and Board year after year watch the enrollment drop since 2009-10 fiscal year and offering up any major innovations? NO. Is FHDA also undecided on the functionality and funding of the building to replace the De Anza Flint Center; will it also have faculty housing? Yes.

Using the FHDA District Fall 2019 data: 927 students attended from Palo Alto (3%) while 3,304 (10.7%) are International students. Only 23% of the students come from the homes who will pay for Measure G.

So ask yourself: do you have faith the monies will be spent effectively? Shouldn't the state pay for Measure G since so many students are out of area? I am voting for Measure H, since they should increase the student salaries and hopefully increase employee salaries with less than 5 years working at FHDA.


3 people like this
Posted by Peter
a resident of another community
on Feb 20, 2020 at 12:03 pm

Correction. In an earlier comment I wrote " When the faculty union negotiated the latest contract it had provisions if Measure H pass." This is not correct. How it will be allocated is undefined at the moment. I am voting YES on H.
Regrets.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 20, 2020 at 1:32 pm

Posted by Local parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> The community colleges DO serve our local youth and others, and they serve our local communities by providing a unique array of educational opportunities that we need locally.

>> Our local community colleges deserve our support

Yes, our local community colleges deserve our support

>> and a Yes on G

I'm supporting FHDA by voting "No" on G. Your insistence on including "G" in the "Yes on G and H" conjunction is not logical. They are separate issues.

>> and H.

I'm thinking about it. Is there any reason to think that some of the H funds will be used to expand Middle College and similar programs?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

'A devastating impact:' The coronavirus claims Clarke's Charcoal Broiler, Mountain View's oldest operating restaurant
By Elena Kadvany | 29 comments | 11,495 views

Coronavirus Food Safety Update + New! Insider Tips
By Laura Stec | 7 comments | 4,581 views

A Pragmatic Approach to A Trillion Trees
By Sherry Listgarten | 1 comment | 3,058 views

The University of California’s flexible policies during COVID-19
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 6 comments | 2,202 views

Repairing a Disagreement with your Beloved & “Physical” vs. “Social” Distancing
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,788 views

 

DEADLINE EXTENDED

The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by April 10, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category. Sponsored by Kepler's Books, Linden Tree Books and Bell's Books.

Contest Details