Op-Ed: I am SB City College’s Longest-Serving Trustee. This is Why I’m Opposed to Measure P

By Marsha Croninger

I was first elected a Santa Barbara City College trustee in 2010, and am currently the longest-serving member of the SBCC board. I am a lifelong moderate Democrat.

I ran for trustee after retiring from a career in environmental law, because education has been central to my life – from the values I internalized and classes I took (and later taught) at a Quaker K-12 school in Philadelphia, to college in Connecticut and law school in California.

I want everyone to have excellent, affordable educational opportunities. I am committed to the success of SBCC and its students and to building a transparent positive relationship with our community.

Among the ways I have tried to contribute to SBCC’s success has been to work toward the revival of our free, noncredit programs after they were decimated in 2009.  Also. then-trustee Marianne Kugler and I in 2014 met with SBCC Foundation representatives and proposed a fundraising drive to support all local high school graduates attending SBCC by paying for their tuition, fees, books, supplies and a laptop for two years.

Geoff Green joined the Foundation as CEO that year, and soon after crafted and built such a program, now known as “the Promise.” Geoff deserves all the credit for making the Promise real for over 7000 local students since it began in 2016.

I believe that where, and how wisely, SBCC spends taxpayer money is public policy at its most fundamental level.

I also believe that transparency is something that SBCC, and all government agencies, owes everyone.  At the time I became a Trustee, the college refused to release audio tapes of Board meetings. Now we are on YouTube, audio and video. Our budgets are much more transparent although most people do not have the time to read and dissect them.

Measure P is not what SBCC needs

Talking at length about the importance of SBCC to our community, and the wonderful opportunities it provides, is easy. Facing the reality of where SBCC is now, its fiscal and facility challenges, and speaking with transparency is neither easy, nor popular.

Sadly, the campaign for Measure P is not transparent, instead driven by political polling.

SBCC is not prepared to spend your tax money wisely, and funding raised through Measure P would allow and encourage the college to continue avoiding the hard decisions it needs to make to be the future engine of opportunity we all want.  

All the information to support that view may be found in SBCC agendas, reports and public documents. Public records used and referenced in this article may be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Measure P is a proposed bond to build new buildings and fix older ones; in the face of falling student enrollment. However, district taxpayers deserve much better budgeting and planning from SBCC before the college asks for more public money.

Credit class enrollments at SBCC have declined continually, a more than 44 percent decrease, from 2009/10 to 2023/24. In addition, more of SBCC’s remaining students now choose credit classes online, instead of attending in main campus buildings.

Most recently, only 37 percent of credit classes were in-person, while 39 percent were online, with the balance primarily dual enrollment, off-campus at local high schools.

Revenue declines with lower enrollments.

Measure P springs from SBCC’s old, expansionist philosophy, from a time when enrollment was growing. This is no longer true.

Nor is future enrollment expected to grow. Local and national demographics, and rising housing costs in our district, militate against future enrollment increases. A long-forecast “demographic cliff” in 2025 predicts further declines.

Despite this dramatic enrollment decline since 2009/10, there has not been a corresponding reduction in the size of SBCC facilities or people. In 2022/23, average class size fell to less than half of statewide standards. This is fiscally unsustainable.

An overbuilt campus

Falling enrollment means SBCC is seriously overbuilt: the main campus has about three times the amount of class space it needs.  There are far too many classrooms and labs in large buildings, all expensive to maintain, but significantly underutilized according to statewide standards.

None of SBCC’s plans, including its recent draft 2024 Facility Plan, address the essential threshold questions we need to decide before asking for taxpayer bond money for facilities:

Which large buildings should go and which should be kept or repurposed?

Downsizing would lead to consolidation, and also require a hard look at the future skills and job trends, needed skilled trades, and student subject and modality choices upon which SBCC should focus.

These would be difficult, and very controversial decisions, but the community and college deserve clear answers.

A lack of building maintenance.

Improving unneeded buildings is wasteful. So is improving buildings with a local bond and then letting them deteriorate.  SBCC did not take care of your last bond investment.

After voters approved the Measure V bond issue for SBCC in 2008, the college spent the bond on:

  1. a major renovation of the Garvin Theater (without seismic assessment) that had cost overruns of one-third and is now in a physical condition rated only slightly better than the PE building at the center of Measure P debate;
  2. a major renovation of the Humanities Building, now a priority for a needed seismic evaluation and rated in worse physical condition than PE;
  3. the construction of new West Campus Classrooms in 2018, adding small classrooms we don’t need that now are in only fair condition;
  4. a rarely used press box at La Playa Stadium.

Why are SBCC’s facilities in such poor condition the college now seeks local funds for maintenance?

Because, instead of right-sizing to address reduced enrollment and revenue, SBCC chose  not to maintain its facilities in an effort to curb structural deficit spending in its budget.

SBCC should be budgeting — from its state revenue, not a bond — over $6.1 million annually for basic maintenance, plus more for larger items such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), roof replacements, and exterior painting, according to SBCC’s “Total Cost of Ownership” report of April 2024 p. 6.

SBCC receives $12.3 million annually in unrestricted state funding for the main campus, and two off-campus centers (Wake and Schott), plus intermittent, restricted state funding for maintenance. All this money is separate, and additional, from its largest state revenue stream, calculated on enrollment and student success.

In 2017, SBCC reacted to its declining revenues and structural budget deficits by “temporarily” reducing its, already inadequate, budget for building maintenance, from $2 million to $500,000- $650,000, covering emergency repairs only.

Budgeting for maintenance has continued at this level ever since – even though the state, during COVID, paid SBCC $12 million more than it earned in enrollment, as the federal government poured in even more funding.

Now, SBCC’s five-year future budget projections are based upon this same, impossible, level of funding.

The key purpose of Measure P

Measure P is not about removing hazardous materials like asbestos and lead pipes. That language is included in this and previous bond arguments because it polls well for passing bonds. No one is exposed, however; if there were exposure, the Board would direct that it be corrected immediately and certainly not wait for a bond.

The pro-Measure P campaign arguments deflect from its main purpose: an expensive new $100 million+ Physical Education Building.

Measure P is on the ballot now because the 5-to-2 board majority that advanced it wants to spend the new money, first and foremost, on an expensive showpiece new Physical Education building, recently estimated to cost $100 million.

This is to be paid for through a combination of $35 million in state taxpayer funds and at least $65 million in local taxpayer money, drawn almost entirely from Measure P. If actual bids and cost overruns increase the total cost, local Measure P funding must cover it.

This is not theoretical. As of Dec. 31, 2022, SBCC’s local costs for architectural preliminary plans and working drawings for the PE building were over budget by 44 percent. The state part of the budget does not increase.

State government requires that the $35 million must be fully encumbered in June 2025 – hence the timing to put Measure P on the ballot.

The $65 million in local money for the PE building would take precedence over all the projects listed in the bond pamphlet, SBCC’s “Fact Sheet,” and “Frequently Asked Questions” as the alleged “purpose” of Measure P. If Measure P passes,. constructing the new PE building will happen, regardless of community preferences.

Campaign arguments for Measure P omit or gloss over this – the primary purpose of Measure P.

The ballot description of Measure P says it is for engineering, nursing, technology/ skilled trades.  However, there is no indication on the actual, internal Bond Project list that any of these programs would benefit. Nor has the full Board discussed any such benefits.

As of this writing, the college webpages promoting Measure P, campaign websites, signs and literature all avoid mention of the PE building.  And the ballyhooed “Citizen’s Oversight Committee” has no authority to even suggest priorities.

This follows community polling, which rated a PE building as the lowest priority for bond funding of 15 choices. The failure to be transparent about SBCC’s specific plan to immediately build a new, $100 million PE building, erodes SBCC’s most valuable community asset — trust in the college.

A close look at the polling, performed for the college shows that the entire campaign for Measure P closely tracks the most favorable arguments from polling results without regard to the actual purposes of the bond itself and then legally defines bond projects as broadly as possible. This is not transparency.

How SBCC is funded

The PE building itself contributes very little revenue to the college because most PE classes are outside elsewhere – football, baseball fields, track, beach, pools, ocean, hiking – which, of course, incur other costs.

SBCC’s financing is based largely on the number of Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) it serves, as well as their academic success.

Fewer than 70 FTES, out of 9,127 total credit FTES for academic year 2023/24, are attributable to the PE building, according to SBCC’s draft “Facilities Vision Plan” dated Sept. 10, 2024.

It is true that SBCC does need better locker and shower rooms and should have a Life Fitness (Exercise) Center like the relatively new space it has now. But that is not a $100 million project.

SBCC’s sports teams require non-local players. Intercollegiate teams average 20 percent or fewer local students. Football, by far the largest intercollegiate team, with 70 student players enrolled, has only five in-District local players this year. This is not unusual.

Campaign arguments are misleading

SBCC is not prioritizing facilities for popular academic programs, including the nursing, healthcare, and skilled trades promoted in campaign material as the key purposes of Measure P.

Buildings for Biology, Occupational Education and Humanities are rated in worse physical condition than the PE building. PE needs seismic upgrades, but nine other large buildings on main campus, plus the West Campus Parking structure, are as bad or may be worse.

We don’t know for sure — because we have not seriously evaluated most of them — not to mention La Playa Stadium’s concrete and rebar seating, reportedly built in 1938 — for seismic safety, despite multiple requests and recommendations to do so over the last twelve years.

Seismic safety evaluations should cover all buildings of concern because all student, employee, and community member safety is equally important. This seismic information is also essential for prioritizing which buildings to keep.

The issue of budget management

SBCC needs to demonstrate it can responsibly manage its own budget before asking for $198 million in new property taxes.

Last month, between Sept. 2 and Sept. 12, when the 2024/25 budget was formally adopted, revenue, as reported by SBCC administration officials, changed by over $8 million for the previous, already concluded academic year. It was expected to be changed again by an additional $1.5 million the week of Oct. 7 but the agenda item was pulled, with no discussion by the Board allowed until after the election.

Further changes are expected next month; The previously adopted budget for 2024/25 is currently being significantly revised by the administration, and we will not know where it will land until November 6th or 14th.

These large sudden changes months into the following fiscal year are unprecedented in my experience. Whether in revenues or expenses, accuracy either way matters.

As of today, the deficit in the 2024/25 budget, adopted Sept. 12, is estimated at over $7.4 million. That $7.4 million shortfall does not include the minimum $6.1 million that should be budgeted for maintenance of SBCC’s facilities from annual revenue — not from a bond — according to statewide standards for routine upkeep and repairs of our current facilities at mid-level “managed care”.

The fact is that SBCC has money to make repairs to ADA access, bathrooms, damaged walls and ceilings — as pictured in the full-color brochures produced by the Measure P campaign — but chose for many years to skip them and use the money for operations, with salaries and benefits accounting for over 85 percent of SBCC’s unrestricted budget.

The decision not to maintain our facilities has allowed SBCC to put off reductions of both overbuilt facilities and employees — ideally through attrition — to align with our actual and projected long-term reduced enrollment.

In other words, Measure P asks the community to bail out poor budgeting and perpetuates unhealthy fiscal practices.

Measure P will raise tax bills and rents

Another serious concern with the pro-P campaign is the repeated assertion, on signs, literature and texts, that a yes vote comes “without increasing taxes.” This is false, further eroding trust.

Of course, Measure P increases property taxes, often passed on to renters. Tax rates and actual tax bills are entirely different things.

Measure P is a new bond, repaid with interest from property taxes — not $198 million in free money. The estimated total repayment from property taxes for Measure P is $451.6 million, with payments continuing until 2060-61, decades after the money has been spent.

Bottom line

SBCC needs to manage and balance its own budget responsibly and reliably; decide how to downsize its large buildings; budget adequately to maintain them; and prioritize skilled trades, academics, future job skills and students before it asks for your money.

SBCC can do this.  But it needs your help with tough love.

  • Please support SBCC and the SBCC Foundation by making a donation specifically to support the Foundation’s Promise program.
  • Insist on transparency, accountability and a realistic plan before agreeing to increase your property taxes or rent.
  • Vote No on Measure P.

Op-Ed’s are written by community members, not representatives of edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the author’s.
[Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.]

Edhat Reader

Written by Edhat Reader

Content submitted to edhat.com by its readers and subscribers

What do you think?

Comments

2 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

57 Comments

    • Are they planning to use a third of the funds for the Phys Ed building as we’ve heard? If so, why don’t the ads say so? If the citizens want to fund a gym, then fine. But I feel like I’m being misled. Proponents talk about valuable education for nurses, firefighters, dental hygienists, culinary workers, etc. Is the Phys Ed building crucial to those programs, and if so, how?

    • Ellen- you are a totally uninformed new trustee who knows little of SBCC’s internally operations, bond financing, or realities. You were elected by the Mesa District as a respected paid preschool program instructor of the Parent-Child Workshop. You were present at the 1/25/24 Trustee Meeting and you gave the green light to proceed with the $80-$90, now $100M PE Building despite being fully informed of SBCC’s deficit budget and the ship sinking quickly. You were one of the 4 “uncomfortable cutting spending” to reflect SBCC’s realities of drastic reductions in student enrollment and gross over staffing. Now you want to enable the further collapse of our beloved college because you lack courage to do what must be done to save the college others love by volunteering time and their voices to save. You have proven you are outside of your ‘comfort zone’ as a trustee. You’re incapable of tough love. Appealing to voter emotions by lying is not how approval ought to be won. Tell the truth, elected Trustee Ellen Stoddard. SBCC IS A NEEDED COMMUNITY ASSET NEEDING FIRST A MASTER PLAN for its 75 acre campus. Your response if for taxpayers to pay to improve buildings used by private East Coast Antioch University. Totally wrong!

  1. Anyone who wants to know what the issues are in the campaign must digest this analysis by the most informed commentator of the bunch. The bottom line is that SBCC needs to face reality and downsize to serve the coimmunity and stop trying to pad engrollment to protect itself from reality.

    • Who says she’s the most informed commentator? Is she more informed than Jonathan Abboud and the other trustees?

      You are certainly *not* the most informed commentator of the bunch, so who are you to say what the bottom line is? What makes your opinion any more valid than anyone else’s?

  2. The exact same thing can be said of the city and county — instead of spending their increase in revenue on infrastructure and maintenance they chose to skip them and use the money for operations, with salaries and benefits.
    Vote NO on P
    Vote NO on H
    Vote NO on I

    It is time for all of them to right size their headcount and expenses.

  3. Thank you so much for your honesty. I can’t imagine how difficult it is to stand up for what you believe is right to help your community when it would be so much easier to jeep your head down. I applaud you.

    Please run for office. We would benefit tremendously if our elected officials were well-informed, capable, reluctant leaders rather than career politicians.

  4. It’s disgusting that a board of trustee member wants to prove her point so much that she subverts the democratic process of the board, goes against the majority decision and actively denigrates the college. She’s acting like an adolescent who is used to getting her way and is now trying to get revenge because people didn’t agree with her. Get over yourself, Ms. Croninger. Don’t deny future students the safe and upgraded facilities that are sorely needed.

  5. I’ve heard both sides. Both have some points but the most important thing is what will help our future students and the community the most, saying no or yes.
    It’s clear to me: I want to help build a better future for the students and for our local community College.
    I get much more value than the $85 a year it will cost my husband and me. Heck, that’s almost what it costs for dinner and drinks for one night! And education for the community lasts a lot longer than dinner.

    • The problem is that if they spend the money on less essential projects then the college will suffer in the long run. I want great facilities for city college too, but there is only so much money available, and they need to be extremely wise how it is allocated.

        • Anonymous what’s your source? Vote NO! SBCC will NOT LEAVE MONEY ON THE TABLE! Look at recorded meetings whereby Trustees are told the state will give extensions. If desired, alternatively, the $25M Mackenzie (Bezos) can be matched by the state during the interim, while a master plan pursued that meets the present and future needs of our District community.

    • Average cost for a Median price district home over $8850; cost to a median City home about $11,500; for Montecito, Hope Ranch and unincorporated residential properties even higher. GADS! At these costs, you must dine at restaurants yet to be created; just as SBUSD is funded to ‘prepare students for “a world yet to be created”. There’s no wonder why K-14 public schools are failing here.

    • Andi: for the last 14 years Trustee Croninger has voted against the majority along with 12-year Trustee Gallardo who has been silenced by the Board majority. Moderate and if Mexican heritage Trustee Gallardo (R) must have her voice heard only as a citizen making ‘public comment’, not on the Dias where she belongs as an ELECTED Representative. Will the same censure happen to moderate Trustee Croninger (D)? Trustees are required to march in lock step. Period. Does the District Communitu care? NOPE!

    • Andi – I’m not a right-winger anti-tax person, but your rhetorical question isn’t fair. The SBCC board consists of multiple trustees and decisions must be voted on. You can’t blame the actions of a board on a single person.

  6. My name is Cornelia Alsheimer, and I have been a member of the SBCC community since Fall 2000, as a student, a teacher of Accounting & Finance, department chair and currently as the President of the Faculty Association. Hence, my history with the college goes
    back even farther than Trustee Croninger’s.

    I am writing, because there are important facts that are not mentioned in this op-ed.

    First, and perhaps most crucially, the State does NOT fully fund SBCC for the work we do. Santa Barbara is one of the most expensive places to live in the nation. Yet, SBCC is paid the same per student as colleges in Barstow or Visalia where the cost of
    living for employees and cost of construction is much, much lower. And yet, even these colleges can only afford large construction projects with the support of bond measures supported by their citizens.

    Secondly, the PE complex (classrooms, offices, meeting spaces, lab areas, gymnasium, etc) is not only used by our own students. SBCC has a joint-use agreement with the City of Santa Barbara. Our athletic facilities are heavily used by many community members. Local high school teams play here, as do local sports clubs.

    The PE complex area also serves as one of the county’s central disaster shelter areas.

    Third, Trustee Croninger misses to mention that Measure P will also finance a new Physical Science building. The current one is not seismically sound. Our students, employees and our community deserve a safe and up-to-date facility to educate future scientists and engineers.

    My family and I have lived in Santa Barbara for a quarter of a century. Two of my children graduated from SBCC. My youngest son plans to be a Vaquero. Santa Barbara families need SBCC, and it is in the interest of our community to support it. This is OUR College!!!
    Please join me and the SBCC educators in saying YES to Measure P.

    • Cornelia- you’re a $269,000+ tax paid political operative and SBCC UNION Leader. In the past you shared you’re not a citizen, you’re German like Assistant College President Carola Smith, and have said you are ineligible to vote. Has anything changed??

    • So why didn’t the Yes on P campaign explain all these great uses of the Phys Ed building to start with? Why give the impression that it’s all about academics and career training? I feel like they’ve lied to me, and why would they do that? You want my money, be honest and transparent. The Yes on P campaign has lost my trust. Also, your comments don’t address the problem of declining enrollment and excess classroom space. Shouldn’t that be part of an overall plan for funding decisions?

    • With a declining enrollment that continues to drop like a rock, SBCC is turning into a depreciating asset much like your car. The $450 million question is:

      Does SBCC have a financially viable and sustainable long term future? The downward trend of enrollment says it does not!

    • Cornelia – my family has been in SB for many generations and many members have attended SBCC. There’s no disagreement here on the value of SBCC or the need to maintain/update its physical infrastructure for future students. But I feel that work should be tailored to meet the upcoming challenges pointed out by Marsha.

      And yes, many of us already know the PE building is used for purposes other than supporting a relatively small percentage of full-time students. I’ve played many seasons of city leagues in the gym. And I realize it’s an emergency shelter, though there are other schools and facilities in the city that can serve that purpose.

      I just reviewed the bond’s “Project List” in the County’s Voter Information Guide. Some of the actions allowed are extremely broad/vague (probably on purpose for flexibility) while others are more specific. Three of the ~60 projects are related to specific building-level projects … Physical Science, Childrens Center, and PE buildings.

      Can you help me understand … why has the board decided that spending $100M on the PE building ($66M from P, $34M from the state) and $132M on everything else makes sense at this time?

      What if in the next 3 years, the board realizes (if it doesn’t already) that extensive right-sizing of the physical plant needs to be made? If boilers, HVAC, lighting, roofing, etc. are going to be upgraded, doesn’t it make sense to first plan out what the right-sized building/room footprints are going to be? That would provide the board with a better idea of how much bond funding is really required (if I’m reading Marsha correctly). More importantly, the board might discover after all that planning that the cost of updating and right-sizing is more than the $132M to be allocated. At that time, I wonder if the board would have wished $66M of bond funding wasn’t spent on the PE building?

      If the PE building funding were a zero-sum situation, then I’d say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. IOW, even if the board’s planning hasn’t been adequate to-date, it might be better to bite off a smaller chunk (work on the non-PE infrastructure, perhaps spend some funding for short-term roof patching to protect the PE building) to increase the chances of success given the sea change ahead.

      • Were you in the planning meetings where all these issues were hammered out? It’s absurd to come along later as a keyboard critic and ask Cornelia to justify all the individual decisions and pretend that your vote depends on getting the answers.

  7. Trustee Croninger’s depth of direct knowledge of the realities at SBCC and her COURAGE to speak out has earned her every word of gratitude that is expressed! Others may not be aware that BEFORE local candidates run for trustee positions at both SBCC and SBUSD they are expected to sign lock step agreements. AFTER elected, SBCC has another administrative Board policy that each Trustee MUST go along with the majority or be subjected to censure (and lawsuits) which is why there is silence from the other P2024 opponent school finance expert Trustee Veronica Gallardo. She’s already been SILENCED! To represent her D3 constituents the largest Mexican heritage component, Representative Gallardo speaks at public comment. The dictatorial behaviors at SBCC are shameful.

  8. BEFORE YOU VOTE, STUDY THE FINANCIAL FACTS ABOUT MEASURE P’s BONDS!
    IF PASSED, MEASURE P WILL INCREASE BOTH TAXES AND RENTS!

    Investigate before you invest in the Measure P Bonds!

    The Measure P Bonds advertising that has been paid for by the SBCC Foundation is not truthful. It states that Measure P will not increase taxes. The advertising also does not mention that Measure P is a series of bonds.

    Property owners from the Ventura County Line to Gaviota will be stuck with a total cost of approximately $450 million dollars that includes the funding and interest of the Bonds that will finance Measure P.

    The $450 million bond issue will result in an assessment of $8.50 per $100,000 of a property’s assessed valuation. The bonds will take decades to repay! They will also increase rents as the cost of the bonds is passed through to renters by landlords.

    • Trick or Treat no on P!

      Supporters of Measure P are removing many “no-on-P” signs and replacing them with “yes-on-P” signs. This group, capable of lying and misrepresenting, is also stealing signs.
      They are trying to trick voters into supporting a tax increase using lies and deceit, which will affect both property owners and renters in the form of rent increases.

      Santa Barbara City College has a continuing decline in enrollment, with only 40% of students attending in person, and an excess of facilities.
      Both current and previous administrations and Boards have a pattern of deficit spending and prioritize things that are not in the best interest of students or the community.
      Don’t be fooled, Vote “no” on Measure P!

  9. Hell must have frozen over. I find myself siding with Dale Francisco on this one so far. In this debate:

    https://www.edhat.com/news/the-great-debate-over-measure-p-lanny-and-wade-face-off-vs-marsha-and-dale-on-newsmakers-tv/

    … Marsha Croninger and Dale do a good job of pointing out what’s really ailing SBCC and why Measure P likely won’t address the most pressing problems without a plan to address all the challenges just around the bend. In contrast, Lanny Ebenstein and Wade Cowper don’t really offer any rebuttals to the flaws Marsha and Dale point out and seem to simply be counting on locals with good will towards SBCC (like me) to notch a win for P.

    It’s really interesting Lanny acknowledges “a large portion of the funds go to the PE building” (32:30 in the video). That really reinforces the contention by Marsha that the political consultants hired to design the Yes on P campaign knew their polling indicated voters would be turned off by that fact. So, they intentionally left that out in their flyers. Instead, they focused on making it sound like most of the funding would go towards things voters would of course want (e.g., nursing). As a voter, I don’t like being deceived and am wondering why the majority of the SBCC board allowed that to happen.

    In all fairness, the day after Marsha’s letter appeared here, the President of SBCC, Jonathan Abboud, wrote what appears to be a reply in the Indy:

    https://www.independent.com/2024/10/25/measure-p-is-not-just-necessary-it-is-long-overdue/

    I don’t know if he felt forced to say it, but in his letter, Jonathan acknowledges 30% of P’s bond funding (30% of $198M is $66M) *plus* $34M from the state will go towards the PE building. Effort obviously needs to be made to acquire state funding (or reacquire if you don’t accept the first time) but if you consider local and state funding to be fungible, that means $100M will be spent on the PE building and $132M will be spent on labs, classrooms, and other infrastructure. That’s uncomfortably close to a 1:1 ratio.

    My question for P supporters is, if you were required to have a plan in place *now* for how you’d spend the P funding, and you couldn’t have any more new bond funding in the next 10 years, is that still how you’d allocate your P funds? Especially knowing all the demographic challenges Marsha has pointed out and the relatively small number of students who are served by the PE building?

    I’m on board with funding SBCC because I believe education is important individually and societally. But working in the private sector, I’ve seen programs funded to the tune of 10’s to low 100’s of millions fail when proper planning safeguards aren’t in place first. In those circumstances, program management sometimes has a tendency to do what’s expedient and kick the can down the road, rather than make the hard choices up front to stay on target.

    Note: My city league volleyball team played in the SBCC gym for 6 seasons. It was a great community benefit but in the grand scheme of things, we could have done without. As for the PE building being an evacuation center, while that is valuable, that seems ancillary since other schools and public buildings are also available – I’d be temoted to focus on core/daily usage first in the face of financial and demographic challenges, then try to get funding for the gym later.

  10. SBCC could be ranked the number one community college in the US by any and all online sources but if they’re going to continue misuse and mismanage massive taxpayer dollars, well then I’d still be a no. And they’re not that. None of this is about rankings. It’s about fiscal management of a community college and whether they should be granted another giant taxpayer subsidy without changing their approach or realizing what they’ve been doing wrong.

Additional Charges of Weapon of Mass Destruction for Santa Maria Man who Bombed County Courthouse

Outside Groups are Spending Millions in California’s Swing U.S. House Races. Will it make a Difference?