|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As Contra Costa County’s community college district approaches its 80th anniversary with its three main campuses following not far behind, the district and its supporters are asking voters to approve a new bond measure aimed at funding infrastructure and safety upgrades.
The district’s governing board voted unanimously in January to place the $920 million bond Measure G on the ballot for the June 2 primary election, with the goal of closing the gap between existing funds and more than $1 billion in high-priority capital improvement projects across all three colleges, which include Contra Costa College, Diablo Valley College and Los Medanos College.
Those projects include renovations and replacement of buildings, classroom renovations, earthquake and fire safety, and overall infrastructure upgrades at the three aging main campuses – all things that likely voters surveyed in a study conducted on the plausibility of the ballot measure last year voiced support for, according to a report presented to the governing board in December.
A steady stream of endorsements and hefty donations to the Yes on G campaign in the months since appears to align with predicted support for the measure, making it one of the most well-funded campaigns in the county for this year’s primary election.
If the measure passes with 55% or more of the vote next month, interest and principal on the bond funding would be paid for with an additional $10 levy per $100,000 assessed value of properties in the county.
Bond measures to fund ongoing infrastructure needs at California’s community colleges have a precedent in Contra Costa and other districts. County voters most recently passed the $450 million Measure E in 2014, with the final projects set for funding by that measure currently underway, according to the December staff report.
Between that and two other previous bond measures that remain outstanding, taxable property is currently assessed at $14.20 per $100,000 according to a tax information statement prepared by CCCCD Chancellor Mojdeh Mehdizadeh, which estimates that number would increase to a maximum of $27 across the existing bonds and the proposed new ones.
The total debt cost of the proposed bond is estimated at $1.9 billion, with the final year of the levy projected to be 2058.
That and other factors have attracted the ire of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, which is serving as the primary force behind the “no” campaign for Measure G as well as the other two county measures on the ballot for San Ramon Valley voters next month.
“How many bond measures will it take to complete fundamental ‘deferred maintenance’ projects that are included repeatedly in 4CD’s bond summaries? Roofing repairs, seismic retrofits, electrical re-wiring, HVAC, etc. appear over and over in 4CD bond-project summary lists,” opponents wrote in the rebuttal to the argument for the measure.
Other critiques from the opposition campaign include allegations that the district’s contracts with union workers increase costs in exchange for “no-strike promises,” the lack of an exemption to the levy specifically for seniors, and a call for the district to spend a greater portion of its general operating budget for ongoing maintenance costs.
“4CD should rely less on successive large bond measures, and more on its existing budget to maintain its existing buildings,” opponents wrote.
Nonetheless, the “yes” campaign has already garnered a strong showing of support from local officials, including the entire board of supervisors, Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, Asm. Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Sen. Tim Grayson, and San Ramon councilmembers Richard Adler and Marisol Rubio, plus local groups including the Diablo Valley League of Women Voters and the San Ramon Chamber of Commerce.
“Community colleges cannot take funds away from students and instruction to repair leaky roofs or replace equipment that no longer meets industry standards,” supporters wrote in the rebuttal to the argument against the measure.
“Without investment, students training for careers in healthcare, technology, and the trades are doing so in facilities that haven’t kept pace with the demands of those fields,” they continued. “Measure G closes that gap, keeping Contra Costa’s colleges competitive, safe, and accessible for the next generation.”
Although a majority of the projects listed as candidates for funding from Measure G are centered on the district’s 50+ year-old main campuses, that list includes renovations to STEM facilities at Diablo Valley College’s more recently established San Ramon campus.
The proposed $920 million in bond funding isn’t the only money on the line. The Yes on G campaign had raked in nearly $250,000 in cash contributions by April 18 and spent more than $135,000, primarily on campaign consultants and workers, and advertising.
That war chest was bolstered by a $100,000 donation from the Contra Costa College Foundation, $50,000 from the IBEW Local 302 PAC, and $30,000 from the district’s faculty union.
Since the campaign finance reporting period ending April 18, the “yes” campaign has received a number of other big donations, including $50,000 from the Diablo Valley College Foundation and $25,000 from the Operating Engineers Local 3 PAC. The top San Ramon Valley contributor was Sunset Development CEO Alex Mehran Jr., who donated $5,000.
“Professors, students, public safety professionals, labor leaders and business leaders support Measure G because it will modernize community college facilities and safeguard affordable, high-quality education at Contra Costa College, Diablo Valley College and Los Medanos College,” supporters wrote in the argument in favor of the measure.
While that funding bodes well for the campaign’s operations in the final weeks ahead of Election Day, it’s another factor that has come under fire by the “no” campaign from CCTA.
“So two of the tax-exempt Contra Costa Community College District’s Foundations are using their donated dollars to push for new taxes,” opponents wrote on the “no” campaign’s website. “And construction unions are themselves contributing large amounts to 4CD’s bond promotion, presumably expecting large-dollar contracts to result. This arrangement has the odor of shakedowns and kickbacks.”
For their part, supporters of the measure pointed to safeguards on bond funds that have already been in place for previous measures, including a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee and regular financial audits “to verify that every dollar is spent responsibly and as promised.”
“These protections continue the same oversight framework used for Measure E, which delivered 46 completed projects with clean audits, no waste, and no misuse of funds,” supporters wrote on the Yes on G website. “The district also demonstrated strong fiscal stewardship by refinancing prior bonds, saving taxpayers $44 million. This track record reflects a long-standing commitment to transparency and responsible management.”
More about the “yes” campaign is available at yeson4cdbond.com, and more on the “no” campaign is available at noonmeasureg.info.
