News

Voters backing bond measure for community college district while parcel tax is falling short

Foothill-De Anza Community College District's Measure G bond to fund infrastructure projects; Measure H parcel tax needs two-thirds yes vote to pass

Unofficial election results show a Foothill-De Anza Community College District bond measure with sufficient votes for approval, while the campaign has acknowledged it appears unlikely a separate parcel tax will pass.

Just over 57% of voters — which surpasses the 55% threshold for passage — have supported the $898 million Measure G, the largest school bond in Santa Clara County's history. The bond will cover about 60% of the estimated $1.5 billion in infrastructure and capital needs at the community colleges in Los Altos Hills and Cupertino, from student and staff housing to technology and security upgrades.

About half of ballots have been counted so far, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

As of late Tuesday evening, over 60% had voted "yes" on Measure H, a $48 parcel tax that would provide the two community colleges with approximately $5.6 million annually over five years to help fund housing assistance for students and staff, mental health services, tutoring and services to address student food insecurity and homelessness. Support for Measure H has been inching up since early results were first released on Tuesday night but is still falling short of the two-thirds, or 66.6%, in support to pass.

About half of ballots have been counted so far, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

While Chancellor Judy Miner, reached Tuesday night at an election party for measures G and H at the campaign's headquarters in Cupertino, was "cautiously optimistic," about the early election results, by Wednesday morning she said it "doesn't appear likely" that the parcel tax will pass.

"On the other hand, having reached 57.18% for the bond makes us very happy that we will have some great resources to help not just our students but our larger region," she said.

Regardless of the election outcome, Miner said, the community college district's campaign had the result of prompting several housing initiatives, including a Joint Powers Authority agreement with the Fremont Union, Cupertino Union and Sunnyvale Union school districts (to be voted on by the board of trustees this Monday) and a potential opportunity to co-invest in a housing initiative with the city of Los Altos.

"The opportunity to help with housing production and many years down the road, even generating income for our district, is just a win-win in many ways," Miner said. "Since we are in this for the long game we are so interested in what can help our students and ultimately be an asset that the district has for many, many years to come."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Voters backing bond measure for community college district while parcel tax is falling short

Foothill-De Anza Community College District's Measure G bond to fund infrastructure projects; Measure H parcel tax needs two-thirds yes vote to pass

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Mar 3, 2020, 10:36 pm
Updated: Wed, Mar 4, 2020, 9:20 am

Unofficial election results show a Foothill-De Anza Community College District bond measure with sufficient votes for approval, while the campaign has acknowledged it appears unlikely a separate parcel tax will pass.

Just over 57% of voters — which surpasses the 55% threshold for passage — have supported the $898 million Measure G, the largest school bond in Santa Clara County's history. The bond will cover about 60% of the estimated $1.5 billion in infrastructure and capital needs at the community colleges in Los Altos Hills and Cupertino, from student and staff housing to technology and security upgrades.

About half of ballots have been counted so far, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

As of late Tuesday evening, over 60% had voted "yes" on Measure H, a $48 parcel tax that would provide the two community colleges with approximately $5.6 million annually over five years to help fund housing assistance for students and staff, mental health services, tutoring and services to address student food insecurity and homelessness. Support for Measure H has been inching up since early results were first released on Tuesday night but is still falling short of the two-thirds, or 66.6%, in support to pass.

About half of ballots have been counted so far, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

While Chancellor Judy Miner, reached Tuesday night at an election party for measures G and H at the campaign's headquarters in Cupertino, was "cautiously optimistic," about the early election results, by Wednesday morning she said it "doesn't appear likely" that the parcel tax will pass.

"On the other hand, having reached 57.18% for the bond makes us very happy that we will have some great resources to help not just our students but our larger region," she said.

Regardless of the election outcome, Miner said, the community college district's campaign had the result of prompting several housing initiatives, including a Joint Powers Authority agreement with the Fremont Union, Cupertino Union and Sunnyvale Union school districts (to be voted on by the board of trustees this Monday) and a potential opportunity to co-invest in a housing initiative with the city of Los Altos.

"The opportunity to help with housing production and many years down the road, even generating income for our district, is just a win-win in many ways," Miner said. "Since we are in this for the long game we are so interested in what can help our students and ultimately be an asset that the district has for many, many years to come."

Comments

Gary
Sylvan Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 9:05 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Mar 4, 2020 at 9:05 am
12 people like this

As I read the SCC Registrar of Voters account so far, only 25% of registered voters have had their ballots counted. I don't see a total turnout figure. Maybe it is not reported except when all ballots have been counted. But can we figure over 50% voted? If so, counting is no more than HALF done. A 2% lead may not hold up.


Punxsutawney
another community
on Mar 4, 2020 at 5:00 pm
Punxsutawney, another community
on Mar 4, 2020 at 5:00 pm
6 people like this

The same percentage of idiots voted for both. It's just that parcel taxes have a higher threshold to "pass".


Richard Michael 909-378-5401
another community
on Mar 5, 2020 at 10:46 pm
Richard Michael 909-378-5401, another community
on Mar 5, 2020 at 10:46 pm
2 people like this

The district cheated by putting a sales pitch on the ballot in violation of AB-195 (Elections Code 13119).

The registrar printed and circulated the ballots in violation of Elections Code 18401. That opens the door to an election contest (Elections Code 16101) to set the election aside, as a matter of law.

Housing is not a school facility permitted to be funded with Proposition 39 bond proceeds. How could voters know that they were voting for that?


Gary
Sylvan Park
on Mar 6, 2020 at 12:12 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
on Mar 6, 2020 at 12:12 am
2 people like this

Interesting points from Richard above. The deadline for filing a lawsuit to invalidate passage of bonds measures T and G (if it passes) could be 60 days from March 3. A threatened expenditure that is unlawful despite passage might be challenged later. Teacher or other employee housing may not qualify for the use of bond proceeds. If housing does qualify, such a use of bond money as a form of employee compensation would "free up" a lot of money otherwise spent on employee compensation for whatever the Superintendent and his school board fancy - such as more and higher paid administrators.


drekin
another community
on Mar 6, 2020 at 9:42 am
drekin, another community
on Mar 6, 2020 at 9:42 am
Like this comment

Richard I pinged you on your site. At this point, what can we do? I feel like the voters were misled here, and a 2% margin of passing (its looking like this is the number) is not particularly high. Not to mention the tacky use of "8", chinese lucky numbers.

As a recent home buyer in this district who will face a ~$20k bill over time for this tax, especially since its largely supporting students who enroll outside of my district, I'm frustrated. What's the next step?


Voting for the future
Castro City
on Mar 6, 2020 at 12:45 pm
Voting for the future, Castro City
on Mar 6, 2020 at 12:45 pm
Like this comment

*57-43

"What's the next step?"

Move to a low tax, low service state. I hear Kansas has decimated their school systems, as have a number of states.

These schools support the business community, we could raise business taxes, of course.


drekin
another community
on Mar 6, 2020 at 1:24 pm
drekin, another community
on Mar 6, 2020 at 1:24 pm
Like this comment

I am not against taxes, but I don't believe giving the district nearly $1 billion dollars after they already raised $700 million in the past 20 years that support 77% students outside of the college district with overall declining numbers in enrollment and no direct plan on how to use the funds is the right way to spend money.

Funds for schools have already increased ~60-80% since 2012 due to rising assessed values, yet we need more bonds?


Never
North Whisman
on Mar 6, 2020 at 1:31 pm
Never, North Whisman
on Mar 6, 2020 at 1:31 pm
Like this comment

Don't vote for funds if they send fancy mail. They obviously don't need it. (Don't send fancy-glossy mail asking for $$, duh.) And never vote Yes if you can't understand the thing.


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

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Not sure?