Why I’m Opposed to Measure P

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 7,000 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, SBCCchose 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 December 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 September 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, health care, 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 12 years.

Seismic safety evaluations should cover all buildings of concern because all student, employee, and community member safety are 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 September 2 and September 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 October 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 6 or 14.

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 September 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.