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

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.

@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?
https://www.kqed.org/news/11791734/foothill-college-bets-on-cloud-computing-courses-to-help-students-get-ahead

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

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

Vote NO on all education BONDS!

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.

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?

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.

UBO = Universal Basic Out-go

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.

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.

https://www.deanza.edu/ir/deanza-research-projects/enrollment/Census_Enrollment_Comparison_Report_Winter2020.pdf

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%.

@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.

@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.

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. https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/CCCCO-Website/Students/Find-a-College/Year-College-Built/Files/CCC-Sites-Year-Built-pdf.ashx?la=en&hash=4BDBBF49B83BEF10B9F4911C3F70E92B7A3361B5

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.

@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.

@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.

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”.

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.

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.

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

https://lao.ca.gov/Education/EdBudget/Details/50

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.

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:

https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/fhda/Board.nsf/files/BJ52PW03336F/$file/Resolution_No_2019-36_Ordering_Election.pdf

….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.

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.

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.
https://foothill.edu/about/pdf/fh-fast-facts-fall2018.pdf

If you want more data about all CC in Calif but not at the level as the Researcher at De Anza is providing:
https://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/FTES_Summary.aspx

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.

@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 (https://www.deanza.edu/ir/deanza-research-projects/enrollment/Census_Enrollment_Comparison_Report_Winter2020.pdf) – 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/02/06/opinion-why-voters-should-approve-foothill-deanzas-measures-g-and-h/

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.

Nothing like people lecturing other people. 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.

And Local Parent has a lot to say – what is local Parents involvement in this whole activity?

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”.

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:
https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2020/02/18/guest-opinion-an-investment-in-local-higher-education

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.

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

https://www.casbo.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/SB14_Walking.pdf

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.

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.

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. “

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

@Local Parent

I would ask that you please stay away from ad hominem attacks. I never said I delighted in anything. Let’s be civil, please.

I have a different opinion then you, that’s all.

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.

Again, let’s avoid logical fallacies. Thanks!

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.

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?