LTCC banking on Measure F to pay for upgrades
Lake Tahoe Community College is seeking its first general obligation bond. Photos/Kathryn Reed
By Kathryn Reed
Lake Tahoe Community College is going to be different in the coming years. How different depends on voters.
Measure F – as in facilities – is on the Nov. 4 ballot. It is a $55 million general obligation bond that property owners in the district would pay back over the course of about 30 years. The amount owed cannot exceed $25 per $100,000 of assessed valued. That means owners of a house valued at $300,000 would pay $75 per year. To pass, it must receive at least 55 percent approval.
The college expects to deliver $107 million worth of projects over 10 years. The other $52 million will come from matching dollars from the state or other grants.
No argument in opposition to Measure F has been filed with the El Dorado County Elections Department.
The money is entirely for facilities. No money can go toward salaries or benefits.
While the South Lake Tahoe institution has been putting some money away for major repairs, those dollars are not enough to keep up with the major maintenance costs and ongoing technology upgrades that are needed. Nor does it come close to being able to cover expenses associated with new facilities. Plus, LTCC has been contending with five years of budget cuts.
Informational signs are scattered throughout the campus.
LTCC, while it turned 40 this year, has been at the current location for 25 years. To the untrained eye, the outside still looks fairly new. But President Kindred Murillo said closer inspection reveals the wear and tear on the facilities through the years, especially because of being located in a harsh climate like Lake Tahoe.
But the college is also contending with science labs that are 25 years old, a campus that doesn’t have adequate wireless capabilities for a generation of students who have their own mobile devices, and safety issues that decades ago were not even on the radar – like protecting people on campus if there were a gunman.
For students coming to LTCC from South Tahoe High School, the facilities are like taking a step backward after the multi-million upgrades delivered from the 2008-voter approved Measure G bond.
The college bond is designed to bring LTCC into the 21st century “to give students and teachers the best environment.”
“I hate to send a highly qualified instructor into a classroom where they have to fight with heating, cooling and technology,” Murillo told Lake Tahoe News.
Plus, some of the upgrades will actually reduce some bills – like electrical and heating.
And if the bond doesn’t pass?
“We will probably have to downsize classes and programs because we will need to shift money to things that need to be fixed,” Murillo said.
She said the vision of the college – to be California’s premier destination college – wouldn’t change. What will change is the time line to accomplish that goal. Murillo wouldn’t say how many years it would put the college behind, but said it would take a lot longer to get to where the staff and board want to go.
With passage of the bond, what people would notice right away is the main building would be modernized, which includes being retrofitted for energy efficient lighting; crumbled sidewalks near the gym replaced; and the patchwork of roof repairs gone.
Broken concrete in front the physical education building gives the campus a rundown look.
The college is seeking matching money from the state to build a public safety training facility. This would tie into the school’s fire academy. This would also act at the community’s office of emergency services.
LTCC is also planning to create a university center. Senate Bill 850 is on the governor’ desk. This would allow community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees that don’t compete with those that are available in the CSU and UC systems.
Murillo said staff is discussing a program that would be Tahoe specific. The college could either offer its own four-year degree or partner with an established institution.
Friends of Lake Tahoe Community College has been established to be the advocacy group for Measure F. A website will be launched in September with more information.
Sorry, I’m taxed to death I vote no. We are in a new era, live within your budget.
None of the money can go toward salaries or benefits? Really? So will they simply pull the same bait-and-switch the state did with the fire fund? The money that used to be in the budget for facility improvements will now go to salaries while the NEW money goes to the facilities?
Either way, that tax will add at least $100 bucks a year to the average homeowner’s tax bill here in Tahoe. Every time we homeowners turn around, you’re socking us with another one. Just because we happen to own a house doesn’t mean we can keep supporting the whole basin’s list of wants.
Vote ‘no’. The state is taking more, the county is taking more, the basin is taking more. Where are WE supposed to get the money to pay for all this? WE are not making more.
I don’t take academic classes at the college. I don’t plan on taking academic classes at the college.
If you want me to add to my tax bill, you will need to explain to me how the $100 to $200 per year, out of my pocket, makes life better for me. I know how it improves things for students and staff, just don’t see where the return of investment is for me.
Please don’t play the, “you should be thinking of others” card. I would be much more comfortable paying more for our elementary, middle and high school kids like we did with the track than the college.
The advocates better get busy because the naysayers are out in force.
Strong opinions posted on LTN.net about how things need to change in SLT and no buy-in to actually participate in that change. Depressingly familiar.
I also am tired of everything being put on home owners. I have no kids and don’t see why we should bear the burden of school bonds, etc. I’d like to see a law passed that unless you own a home you can’t vote on propositions that tax home owners. How often does a persons rent increase because of a tax issue?
“Naysayers”? Really, Julie? How much money do you want us give? Those of us in the private sector are still making LESS than we were in 2008. Yet every time somebody in government decides to start a new project we’re supposed to jump up and down and say goody-goody, we’re happy to give you more money??? You got your library tax in June. Now you want more in November. Will it EVER be enough?? Please.
Being fiscally responsible means not voting for long term bond debt. These costs proposed must be included in tuition or paid through state/federal grants. Parcel taxes should be strictly for emergencies and for short periods of time. They could consider an increase in the transient or hotel occupancy taxes as another idea, but punishing homeowners who may not use the college is not the right proposal.
Hey, it’s for the kids. How could you struggling homeowners be so cruel to the education establishment?
Ya all better take your blood pressure meds. I can hear the growling miles away. LOL
“I’d like to see a law passed that unless you own a home you can’t vote on propositions that tax home owners. How often does a persons rent increase because of a tax issue?”
As often as any homeowner feels like he needs to recover the money!
I think that people are being extremely short-sighted, in this situation. Yes, this bond will probably cost the average homeowner $75ish/year. HOWEVER, think about the number of new students who will be able to attend LTCC, once there is housing, and the impact they will have on the local economy. Think about the possibility of small conferences being hosted at the college, when the facilities are updated and capable of hosting… If you consider the benefit of that $75/year translating into thousands of dollars in new tenant/visitor spending, who in this town is NOT benefiting?
A strong college here would attract residents and business- I vote yes!
This tax is over the top, $25 per $100,000 assessed value!!! Give me a break. LTCC, have more snowglobes aka rave parties. You let the city destroy the field that you own. Its time to get the vote out, lots of people to vote for, listen to them and vote!!!! No on F!
I believe this one is a hard sell for ltcc. As opposed to high school and middle school education bonds that have passed that will benifit the children of the community, this bond is being floated so ltcc may be “California’s premier destination college”. This would be a big benifit for other peoples children who would have no cost increase on their property taxes and would not have to shoulder the cost of increased tuition. The benifits for local homeowners will be less. Good luck ltcc
The college facility is used by our entire community on a regular basis. Service Clubs know this best as they host their Community Fair, Egg Hunts, and events such as The Drug Store Project. Many events get our kids to the campus through an activity for the very first time. The seed of “Perhaps one day I’ll go to school here” is planted. Our college has grown incredibly over the years. It’s such a gem for our community. This year alone more foreign students are coming to live and learn here than ever before. Schools are a reason people move to areas to live. Whether you have kids or not, your schools are an investment in your property value and the community at large. I hope shortsightedness doesn’t become a disease in Tahoe.
I don’t understand how local children, whose parents are probably economically dependent on the tourism industry, are not benefiting from a measure which brings in more long-term visitors…
Marc, well said.
Mrs. T, do you have any evidence that specifically what LTCC will do, will attract residents and businesses?
Lisa, you’re a smart person, but show me the proof. If someone can guarantee this and show me a timeline of when and a chart of how much, you’ll get my vote.
LTCC, I hope you are reading all of this. You need to sell us on why we should vote to pay for this. It sounds good won’t be good enough.
I would love to see a ROI on some of the proposals, like how many more students will be attracted to the public safety training facility. Will it be just a handful? How much does it cost to build? If it cost millions to build and only say 30 more students will be going thru the system, then don’t do it. Also how many classes would be cut if the bonds don’t go thru and what type, will it be basic classes or ones like wilderness education? LTCC should know which classes will be affected right now.
Calling for fiscal responsibility is short sighted?
We are going without necessities in this town, yet some of you want to raise taxes for what is indeed a luxury. This town can barely support a 2 year college. How would it support a 4 year? With taxes what they are, compared to wages, what student can live here? Some of you say that rents will go up to compensate property owners. What about those of us who LIVE in our properties? How do we compensate? What kid in college can afford the commensurate rental increases that must be passed on by landlords?
I know the people who are floating this idea are counting on the fact that at least half the property owners in this town don’t get to vote here. That the renters, who think they will not pay for this bond, will vote for it. And that may happen. But it’s sneaky, dishonest, and it is an extravagance that the working people in this town cannot afford.
How is it possible that South Lake Tahoe has so much opposition to progress? You guys are quipping about $100 per year?
Do you all have a clue what this would do for our economy? It’s going to create a ton of construction and technology jobs over the course of 10 years. Not to mention the staffing jobs it would create as we would need to staff the programs that would be created from this bond measure. We’d also see an increase in students who would come from all over to participate in the 4 year degree programs.
Guess what, these kids would all help our businesses by spending money at our shops! They’d also help the rental market fill homes. We’d all see the $100 back in SPADES over the long run.
I’d urge you all to think with a long term mind set. Education is one of the key factors in driving a vibrant economy. It always has been, and always will. Just look at other communities that have 4years present.
To become the “premier destination college”, the bond will have to cover exemplary offerings, as quite a few young local professionals note that the college did not offer what they needed – therefore had to go elsewhere to get same. . .
In this case exemplary’ means innovation, as those coming from elsewhere (noting that locals go “there” for what they think they need) will be looking for something other than ‘recreation’ time as a motivating force. . .
And, thinking that there is enough teaching capacity just because there’s a certain number of accumulated Master’s & PhD’s already there will not solve the dilemma. . .
Exemplary is also thought of as being in a ‘lead-by-example’ mode, so it will be a programmatic mode that will be the draw, not necessarily ‘brand-new’ facilities. . .
The best investment any community can make is in its education system. And higher education, community colleges in particular, can play a role in the economic vitality of a region more than any other entity out there. The working people of this town can’t afford to not invest in the college – it will create jobs, train the workforce, provide for the community, attract businesses and families, bring in millions of additional dollars in matching state funds that they couldn’t get without the Measure F and allow for our kids to stay here and thrive here while still getting a high-caliber college education. Would we rather they ship off to Reno or Sacramento or farther for college and have those local working families bear the costs of a university education, or let them stay here, work here, and contribute to the local economy while saving their families thousands of dollars during those first 2 years?
Taxpayers have very little impact on the decisions that the academics make. If they make policy mistakes, they still get paid. If they decide that the community doesn’t get to take certain classes without passing through the academic gauntlet, they still get paid. If they squander their resources, they still get paid. Why should we always have to pay for their poor choices?
The taxpayers are weary of seeing their money spent in ways that no one would spend their own money. In South Lake Tahoe, most government employees make far more than those who do not work for the government. We can’t afford your pay, your perks or your pensions any longer. I would like a more compelling argument than is presented here regarding why the infrastructure at this relatively new (I remember the motel campus) college should be improved when my streets are actually crumbling. Simply calling anyone who disagrees with the arguments presented “shortsighted” is not compelling, IMHO.
LTCC offers over forty associate degree options in addition to career and technical certificates. Students can pursue a wide variety of interests such as a fire academy program and offerings in allied health, business administration, commercial music, criminal justice, digital media, and wilderness education, all of which an individual can then use as the basis for employment right here in Tahoe. With the outrageous cost of university paths, the community college system is becoming more important each and every year. Transfer degrees from LTCC prepare our students for admission to California State University campuses where AA-T and AS-Ts can also be earned. I too want to see what the entire bond is supporting. A lot of time and money has gone in to the development of LTCC over the last 40 years. We’ve been lucky to have the campus itself for the past 25. Buildings also need to be maintained properly to last. As with EVERYTHING on the ballot, it’s important for all of us to do our homework. I’ll vote based on what I learn. It’s everyone’s responsibility to learn about the issues and then actually vote. I was so saddened by the low turn out for our last opportunity to vote. A shout out to the Rotarians in town and their four-way test I heard at their meeting. I’m using it to evaluate concerns I have in our community. Is it the TRUTH?, Is it FAIR to all concerned?, Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? And Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Is it a high priority NEED for a financially strapped population? Or is it a luxury that very few people here actually will use?
“The college facility is used by our entire community on a regular basis” I don’t believe that’s true. I think a small, regular group of people do use it often. Most residents do not. Yes, it’s nice to have a small, 2 year community college. Is it supporting itself now? No. Is it really worth taking more money away from other businesses in town? Because that’s what happens when you increase taxes. It reduces discretionary spending.
I’m willing to bet that the people writing in support of this tax all get government paychecks. They do not worry where the next check will come from. Those of us who do, those of us who weigh EVERY expenditure we make, don’t see the justification for this.
Like I pointed out before, in June these same people were saying we just HAD to support the library tax. We did. They got their tax. Now they want more, just a few months later. They will always want more.
Undoubtedly a state of the art college would improve our community all around, but what makes me reserved about voting yes for F is:
1. The 30 year bond, this seems like a very long time.
2. Vagueness of what the plan for facility improvement would be. Measure F seems premature, not yet totally formulated, kind of a throw it out there and get a feel for what needs to be done to get a measure to pass in the future.
Dogula, education is not a luxury, its a necessity. How do you propose helping families get ahead? Letting them continue struggling? Or maybe have them take some courses to improve their skills? I’d say the latter.
Getting educated is exactly how you increase your lot. And it won’t hurt business, if anything it will help drive a stronger year round economy.
And no I don’t work for the government. I’m a private business owner in town.
OK, better arguments have been presented. Thank you. How about putting some language into the measure that will hold the LTCC administration accountable for the results that they claim will occur? In other words, if the economy doesn’t take off, enrollment doesn’t increase, graduation and transfer rates don’t materialize and so on, they lose their pensions, pay and perks? If those provisions were there, I would vote for the measure. We call it “skin in the game” in the private sector. Pay for results not for rhetoric. What say you, supporters?
Lake Tahoe Community College is one of our community’s major assets. Every homeowner has an increase in their property value and quality of life value by supporting its success. Sociopathic greedheads are the real blight on our town’s future.
In the effort to continue to improve our town, to diversify our economic base and improve wages I believe that a strong educational system is a cornerstone of our “infrastructure”. I agree with Julie – for all of the rhetoric about how to make SLT a stronger community that is not so heavily based in gaming; it is amazing how much resistance there can be from the beneficiaries. Personally I think the negative sentiments here represent a vocal minority. I vote Yes.
Truthfully none of us know what the plan is, since nothing has been published yet. So we are all making a bunch of assumptions. At this point all of our arguments are baseless. You can’t honestly claim they are going to fail, just like I can’t honestly claim they are going to succeed.
However it’s worth noting that a citizen oversight committee is required on any type of bond measure like this. So there will be some checks and balances.
I’d be happy to pay to take the chance for things in this town to get better even if it resulted in a failure. At least we tried.
Vote yes on Measure F.
SC Tahoe, I agree with your comments.
The greatest gift we can give to the children of our community is a good education. The children of our community deserve the best. A first-class college must include an updated infrastructure.
Lake Tahoe Community College is important for the overall image of our community. An investment in our college, is an investment in the future of our community.
Vote yes!!!
Has anyone read the Senate Bill LTCC is claiming will allow them to offer a baccalaureate program? SB850 is allowing only 15 campus among 112 California Community Colleges to offer ONE program each by 2017-18! Do you really think LTCC is going to rise to the top of the 112 schools and even if they do, how many students are really going to come for ONE program? Read the facts here http://www.dailybreeze.com/social-affairs/20140621/california-community-colleges-may-soon-offer-bachelors-degrees. Isn’t LTCC one of the smallest of 112? With all the on-line learning taking place these days, how many new students do we really expect to capture here in little Lake Tahoe? Many of the students currently enrolled at LTCC are online, out of towners. They don’t benefit from new facilities. I love living (and owning a home) here in South Lake Tahoe, but I do not see this being a “Destination College” town. The cost of living is way too high, we have insufficient public transporation, and enrollment has been declining. There are LOTS of educational options when it comes to California Community Colleges and I’m just not seeing the interest here at LTCC. I have taken classes in the past, but most people I know are taking exercise classes to escape the high fees charged by local gyms. If the community can’t afford to pay for gym fees for their own health and benefit, do they really have the funds to cough up for taxes? Give me a break, LTCC – I’m voting NO!
For those of us who either aren’t employed or on a fixed income – and don’t have children this continued bombardment from local educational system bonds are getting annoying.
Let’s look at the high school construction recently …… more than slightly way over the top in design I would say. Purlins and open beam structures that aren’t efficient to heat and way more expensive design than necessary. Aside from that – I’m sick of paying for everyone’s created new “community responsibilities” that don’t benefit me. If you have children and want to educate them – you pay for it !
Crank the tuition fees LTCC because I vote NO !
So to everyone that has commented…. Yes, LTCC employees and the Board of Trustee members are reading your comments. For over a year we have been working on a fiscal stability plan to ensure LTCC will serve this community for many years to come. This was after an enrollment drop due to the loss of local residents in the community and state statute changes, and a complete facility and technology assessment. Both Chambers in our area are sponsoring information sessions at the College. The first, sponsored by the Tahoe Chamber is September 18, 2014 in the Aspen/Board room. The second is sponsored by the South Tahoe Chamber on September 24, 2014, in the Aspen/Board room. Both are at 5:30 p.m. and will provide information regarding Measure F, the proposed projects, and costs. We sincerely hope you will attend and ask questions. The questions you have raised will be addressed. We will also have an information website up next week and will post the site on the LTN. Thank you, Kindred Murillo
Kindred,
Thank you for the note and information. I am the first to vote against most ballot measures after Measure S and others that were poorly written and mostly a money grab.
In the case of the college, I will vote yes. I have seen you put your money where your mouth is when it comes to the management of the college, as well your support for the community.
This town has few opportunities to revitalize. In my humble opinion, I believe those to be:
1. A four year institution of higher education.
2. Recreation and sports based events.
3. Attracting tech companies and Eco friendly business to town.
All of these can be accomplished, starting with the LTCC. It is very well managed, as Kindred is forward thinking! The Board is behind her, and they are one of the least politically motivated Board of Trustee’s in the area, when it comes to making decisions.
I have read all the comments for yes and no. I have two born and raised South Tahoe Grandchildren. When they graduated STHS, one went to Arizona and one to Montana for collage. It’s expensive to live here let alone go to school here. My vote will still be NO! Small town with limited economic opportunity and a lot of big fish in a small pond. Heck, how many terms have the same old city council members served?
I would like to also thank Kindred Murillo for the information she provided and agree 100-percent with Joby Cefalu’s analysis on this topic and voting YES on this measure. Doing nothing only guarantees more of the same and that isn’t good enough for our community, its residents, or its future. I believe we must be proactive if we want positive changes that ultimately improve the economics of the South Shore so that individuals can make a living wage.
Swim, although a four year option for local kids would be great, it’s really not the local kids we want to attract. It’s kids from all over the state, country and world. Their families and friends and all of the different employees and support staff that goes with it. I went to Chico State, if Chico solely relied on its residents the enrollment would be 2,000, instead of 25,000. That’s a guess on current enrollment but it would sure be nice to bring even 10,000 students to Tahoe. Believe it or not I’m certain kids from all over the world would love to be educated in Lake Tahoe.
“The college is seeking matching money from the state to build a public safety training facility. This would tie into the school’s fire academy. This would also act at the community’s office of emergency services.”
I guess most of the pro LTCC bond people here aren’t already paying the new fire tax fee that the state imposed upon some of us. This fee money should be going towards programs like the one stated above.
Instead that new fire tax money is being spread out over other agencies that don’t provide fire protection.
Ok, so that’s state and this is local …….. but where do we draw the line with how much property owners should finance with excess bond assessments ?
I think you people should look for some other source for all your newly created dreams.
Some with common sense would say the local junior college’s goal to “be California’s premier destination college”, thereby bypassing Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, and other acclaimed institutes of higher learning, is a lofty goal bordering on fantasy. Moreover, these other institutions do not rely on local bonds for their funding.
And if the secondary goal of attracting students to the area should be the financial responsibility of local property owners, then why not multi-million dollar general obligation bonds funded by taxpayers for Heavenly, Sierra at Tahoe, the casinos, Burning Man, and Whiskey Dick’s.
At some point, the taxpayer spigot has got to be turned off before it runs dry. As some of the most heavily taxed citizens in the country, California taxpayers are beyond that point now.
So if I read correctly those that are in favor of the measure or god forbid disagree with you lack common sense. I hate to get personal but your argument clearly lacks any form of common sense.
Sir, just to help you out, the entities you mention are private business. Their income flow is their customer base.
To compare the efforts of LTCC to the elite college/universities in the state is ridiculous! What about Csl State East Bay or Chico State.
I would love to change the way things are done in CA. Elect politicians that would like to see a reduction in taxes! We are taxed at the rates we are because of an extremely liberal tax and spend State Legislature and Governor. The voter base doesn’t seem to care. Moderation, trickle down economics all bad words in Cali. Just some simple common sense!
Joby, if you call Gerry Brown a “tax and spend liberal governor”, you sir have not been paying very close attention to the current state of the California budget and financial situation as compared to when Arnold left office!
First off, as previously stated, to say that no money can go to salaries or benefits, is outright baloney! More money in, means more money for all! Things just get shifted around, accounting-wise.
Secondly, many get frustrated in hearing that particular govt. entities can’t make do with the money already coming in and/or discover, there apparently has been no true long-range financial planning for maintenance & improvements. Well other than, “At some point we can just go to the taxpayers for more money.”
And being a broken record here, all these little nickel & dime tax and fee increases add up!
Now watch. What I just said will get all twisted and attacked. To question LTCC’s needs and budgeting, and to try to limit taxation, DOES NOT MEAN!, I’m opposed to education, that I don’t want our Community College to be respected and a desireable place to attend, nor that I’m opposed to taxes paying for any govt. services!
It just means I’m sick of the answer to the question of, “How much money is enough?” always being, “More!”
Liberal, I mean level….I spend very close attention! Who signs the bills?
Subject: DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU July 1, 2014?
Here is what happened on July 1, 2014:
Top Income Tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income Payroll Tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains Tax went from 15 % to 28%
Dividend Tax went from 15% to 39.6%
Estate Tax went from 0% to 55%
These taxes were all passed under the Affordable Care Act,
otherwise known as ObamaCare.
All these taxes were passed with only Democrat votes.
Not one Republican voted to do these taxes.
Add all of that to the California Tax codes what do you get? Has your buddy Gerry lowered any taxes?
All you do is blame the last guy. Arnold was left of center. Assembly and Senate Democrat Majority in California and has been for years. Pay attention Liberal, I mean level.
Oh ya, check the record on Governor Browns last stint as governor Mr/Ms informed how much did taxes go up then. Democrat or Republican, state tax reform is needed or we will be much worse off then we currently are.
As I promised, there are two websites for further information. One is strictly information and the other is the Friends of LTCC website.
Information – Lake Tahoe Community College
http://www.ltcc.edu/web/ltcc/measuref
Friends of LTCC – Yes on F 2014 Website
http://www.yesforltcc.com/
Please contact me directly if you have questions at 530-541-4660 ext. 715. We are happy to meet with anyone who has questions or concerns. We also have two information forums on the campus Thursday, September 18, at 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. Both are in the Board/Aspen room.
Thank you,
Kindred