Taxpayers group opposes college bond

Organized opposition to Measure H – Santa Rosa Junior College’s $410 million bond measure appearing on the upcoming ballot - has not been overwhelming. But a local taxpayers group is making a case against it by accusing the college district of not being forthright the last time it put a measure on the ballot.

That was 12 years ago, when Measure A, a $251.7 million general obligation bond, passed countywide with virtually no opposition. At the time, college district leaders said they would use the money to build a new library and parking facilities in Santa Rosa, plus expand the Petaluma campus and renovate other structures.

“And indeed, they built all this stuff,” said Dan Drummond, executive director of the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association. “And they were stressing the fact that this was the first bond the college system had ever asked for in the history of its existence. … But they were also saying that this was basically a one-time, long-term fix.”

But now, said Drummond, with Measure H on the November ballot, voters are finding out that’s not the case. The new measure, which needs 55 percent approval to pass, would generate millions of dollars to renovate or replace 16 structures in both Santa Rosa and Petaluma.

The upgrades are much needed, say district leaders, given the new emphasis on teaching science, technology, engineering and math - not to mention the leaky roofs, poor lighting, poor ventilation and other problems they say still plague the college’s older structures.

Drummond pointed to language in the Measure A ballot argument stating that the old bond “will provide the necessary funds … to meet the needs of this district for the 21st century.” The measure passed in 2002 with more than two-thirds voter approval.

Asked whether he expected Measure A to last the entire century, Drummond said he didn’t. “I do, however, expect it to meet the (district’s) needs for longer than 12 years.”

Drummond also accused the college of another oversight. Back in 2002, he said, the district, run by then-president Robert Agrella, never made it clear that state matching funds for its wish-list projects, including the library, were contingent on another, multibillion-dollar statewide bond that needed to be passed by California voters. That bond eventually did pass, and the matching funds were granted - but not before a certain amount of dismay was expressed, even by the college’s supporters.

“I have a really positive feeling about the community college,” Drummond said. But when it comes to its history with bond measures, “It’s a matter of, ‘You lied to me. How do I know that what you’re telling me is true now?’”

District leaders, such as trustee Kathleen Doyle, strongly disagree.

Doyle, a certified public accountant whose name graces a building on the Petaluma campus, has a long history on the Santa Rosa Junior College board of trustees, serving back in 2002 when the first bond measure was proposed. She since left the board but was reappointed in March following the resignation of another board member. She is herself running for reelection in November.

“Both then and now, it’s pretty clear that some of the things that we want to do are contingent on state funds,” Doyle said, adding that in 2002, “We were very clear when we were going for that bond, as we are in this one, that we are expecting and praying for state money.”

Without the local bond, said Doyle and other school leaders, there is no chance at all for matching state funds - and so it should be seen as a necessary first step, not a guarantee, that improvements to the college campuses can be made. (Sonoma Valley residents travel to both campuses to attend classes. According to the district, 6 percent of students enrolled in classes in Petaluma in the fall of last year came from the Valley.)

Frank Chong, the college district’s president, said as much in a seven-page letter to the Taxpayers Association dated Aug. 12. The letter was sent ahead of a meeting between the two groups as district leaders tried to convince the 400-member, countywide group of the need for its bond measure.

“The state expects us to pass local bond measures to care for our facilities,” Chong wrote, “and in fact, local bond measures are the only available source of funding for the local ‘match’ required to leverage state facility funds, when they do become available.”

Chong also stated in the letter that, “At the time the 2002 Measure A Bond was originally contemplated, no one expected that a single bond measure would address all of the district’s capital improvement needs.” He pointed to growing enrollment, deferred maintenance and new technologies as reasons Measure H is needed, and he added that in past years, “The district has been a good shepherd of the funds it received.”

The November bond measure would require 55 percent approval to pass from voters throughout the district, which includes all of Sonoma County and small slivers of Mendocino and Marin counties. If approved, it would cost property owners an estimated $25 per $100,000 of assessed value, with all revenue dedicated to infrastructure.

Whether the district really does need the new bond money today, Drummond said he doesn’t know. But he remained focused on perceived past untruths, as well as the sheer size of the college district’s bonds, both past and present.

Gloria Colter, Sonoma County’s assistant registrar of voters, verified that in its day, Measure A was the largest bond in county history and that Measure H is the largest in county history to date.

For Drummond and the taxpayers group, that’s bad enough.

“Of the $251 million authorized by Measure A, $175 million remains unpaid and won’t be paid off for another 15 years,” he said. “They’re adding $410 million on top of existing debt.”

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.