|
Sierra College has a huge positive economic impact on the district it serves — especially in Placer County — and generates at least $5 for every $1 spent on its operation.
Bill Martin
Why, then, has Sierra been forced to operate its main campus in
Rocklin with at least $300 million less than statewide averages for
community colleges?
And why have Placer County voters been so
reluctant to support the college by providing the bond funding it needs
for the Rocklin campus, which remains in dire need of major renovation?
In fact, Placer voters’ “most recent” support of the Rocklin campus was
the $3.04 million bond approved in 1957 — a half-century ago! — for its
land acquisition and development.
These are some of the findings and questions contained in a
comprehensive report titled “Sierra College: Community Impact and
Funding Shortfall.”
Its author is Bill Martin of Auburn, who was elected last November to
the District 5 seat on the Sierra College Board of Trustees.
Martin is no dilettante when it comes to report writing — he did plenty
of it for years as a corporate executive who had earned an MBA degree
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after receiving bachelor’s
and master’s degrees in electronic engineering from Stanford University.
Martin was a member of the 2005-06 Placer County Grand Jury that took a
hard look at the Sierra College situation in the wake of the forced
retirement of Kevin Ramirez, its president. The panel’s report was
particularly critical of Trustee Aaron Klein’s role in the scenario,
declaring that Klein’s charges against Ramirez were “utterly without
merit.” Neither Klein nor any other Sierra trustee are mentioned in
Martin’s report, and there is no reference to Grand Jury actions.
Martin had this to say about his Sierra study, which was made public this week: “I do not speak for any other (Sierra) board member, and I have not
consulted with any in the preparation of this report. My hope is that
some or all (of the board members) will concur with the conclusions and
that there will be a constructive effect on the college. The board has
not decided on the timing or amount of future bond proposals, if any.”
Using a 2005 San Diego City College economic study as a model, Martin
rolled up his sleeves and spent scores of hours on research before
concluding that “the total economic activity generated by Sierra
College and its alumni approximates $1.6 billion annually. As such, the
college is a significant net generator of tax revenues to government at
all levels, returning at least $5 for every dollar that the college
spends.”
He notes that “almost two-thirds of the combined rosters of the Placer
County Board of Supervisors and the city councils of Roseville,
Lincoln, Rocklin and Auburn are Sierra alums, so (it’s quite apparent
that) the college has played a large, if not predominant, role in
helping produce community leaders.”
One such leader — and a Sierra College grad as well — is Jim Holmes,
the District 3 member of the Placer County Board of Supervisors. Holmes
commended Martin for the report, declaring: “At long last someone has
done an in-depth analysis of Sierra’s fiscal situation and what’s
needed at the Rocklin campus.”
Martin points out that while district voters, mostly in Nevada County,
approved two bond measures in 2004 for expansion of Sierra branch
campuses in Grass Valley and Truckee, Placer County voters have
rejected bond measures (in 2004 and 2006) for Rocklin improvements
despite the fact that only a 55 percent majority was needed for passage.
He states that while in recent years California voters have authorized
more than $17 billion in bonds to support their community colleges,
“Placer County stands virtually alone in its absence of investment in
its local community college.”
Martin adds: “Placer County ranks fourth in population growth in the
state over the past 50 years. Every other county among the top 21 (in
population growth) has passed a community college bond measure in
recent years.”
Could Placer’s aversion to Sierra bond proposals be the result of “no
new taxes” partisan politics? If it is, the county sticks out like a
sore thumb because, as Martin notes: “Placer County is a Republican-majority county. Yet of the 12 urbanized
counties (in the state) with Republican majorities, only Placer has not
supported its community college via a recent bond issue.”
While the area’s population continues to soar, “Sierra’s capacity to
support this growth is virtually non-existent,” the report states.
Martin quotes Bud Allen of Lincoln, a consultant who’s viewed as a
statewide expert on community college facilities, as saying: “Without a
significant injection of funds, Sierra College has no chance to support
the growth in its district.”
One of the myriad facts Martin emphasizes in his treatise is that
California community colleges provide taxpayers with a big bang for
their bucks.
“A year of higher education at a community college costs taxpayers
$5,461 as compared to $11,624 at California State University (CSU) and
$18,203 at the University of California (UC),” Martin writes, adding
that “more than 70 percent of undergraduates in the state attend
community colleges, and the state predicts that 77 percent of
(population) growth will be absorbed by them.”
Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)
Download the Full Report (42 pages - pdf format)
Download the Summary Report (5 pages - pdf format)
It is recommended that you Right-Click and select "Save As"
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
