Survey: Voters open to LTCC bond measure
By Kathryn Reed
Voters would approve a $55 million bond for Lake Tahoe Community College, according to a phone survey.
Shakari Byerly, vice president of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, on Tuesday went over the survey results with the board of trustees. The survey was taken by 350 randomly selected voters between March 20 and March 30. Landlines and cell phones were called.
The college is looking at asking voters in November to approve a facilities bond. This would be the first bond the college has issued in its 40-year existence. The board is likely to vote on bond language at the end of May.
“The primary objective was to assess the community’s attitude toward the bond issue,” Byerly told the board April 8. “Many of the voters have a direct connection to the college. Eight in 10 households have taken a course.”
Sixty-eight percent of respondents say LTCC has a great or some need for additional funding.
Asked if they would vote for a $55 million bond – 36 percent said definitely yes, 23 percent said probably yes, and 5 percent said they lean that way. On the flip side, the total no votes were at 28 percent. Eight percent are not sure.
“We asked about lower bond level amounts and we didn’t see much change,” Byerly said.
The college has a slew of projects it would like to come to fruition.
Ideas include:
• The three capital outlay projects have been submitted to the state. The first priority is a remodel for efficiency that would include an overhaul of the science labs, student services and technology. This will include a university center. This is needed as the college looks at offering four-year baccalaureate degrees. The next project is for a regional public safety training facility. This could include having a city fire station on campus. The third idea is either an adaptive physical education or a sustainability center to go with environmental studies.
• Safety improvements would be made throughout the campus.
• Technology upgrades.
• Improving the trails people use so they are clearly marked and in good condition.
• Dorms.
This might be a huge asset to south shore at minimum. Wonder what will happen to the wilderness ed. dept. in an expansion. Environmental studies looks to be a natural for the area.
Go back to being a community college that allows members of the community to take classes at their college without preconditions (pursuit of a degree, for instance) and you might get a few more votes. Right now, not a chance.
the college might get the votes if they allowed community members to take p.e. classes. as of right now, the rule is you can take 3 classes within a “family” of classes, then you are done. I would support the college bond if I could continue taking p.e. classes. the gyms around town charge too much for memberships and/or classes. the college provides an affordable way to stay in shape, thus benefiting this community, keeping our health and mental health costs down. come on ltcc, figure this out…then I will vote for the bond.
Max, that doesn’t make sense. You’d vote for everybody else to pay more taxes so that you can pay less for a workout? Illogical.
I can not support the tax when they let rave parties on campus and get paid for doing so!
” You’d vote for everybody else to pay more taxes so that you can pay less for a workout?”
Straw Man.
And conveniently leaving out:
“thus benefiting this community, keeping our health and mental health costs down”
Speaking of community college, do they offer Intro to Philosophy? I think the community needs that more than a gym.
Buck, I think the good outweighs the bad as far as the LTCC bond measure goes. Lots of good ideas to expand and upgrade the LTCC campus and possibly turning it into a 4 year college offering baccalaureate degrees.
Sure, I don’t want my taxes going up and I ain’t no fan of Snow Globe! But then again in 1968 we had the Fun House, at was is now the Fremont Mall. The raves at LTCC got nothing on this old boy!
I say vote for the bond measure and lets have a fully accredited college here. Beats the heck out of Gerkins motel where the college started! OLS
Yeah, the people of California need more debt. Every town should have its own 4 year university, whether there’s a market for it or not. Let’s just keep spending other people’s money for EVERY good cause we can think of, whether we can afford it or not.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I’m with DumbMax, a community college should not forget about the community that supports it. More classes for those of us that would like to continue broadening our horizons. They are asking us to pay for it, we should get some value for our dollar, otherwise it would not get my vote. Also, they are going forward on a 36% yes of a 350 participant survey? Really? Seems to be a very slim margin of a extremely small cross section.
I question the survey results that 8 in 10 households have taken a course at LTCC.
Most of the properties in SLT are owned by people who don’t live and vote here. These are the people paying the taxes to pay off the bonds. If they don’t live here I doubt they go to school here.
A valid survey would be one sent to the taxpayers.
WorldCycle, if you agree with him, why do you belittle him by calling him “Dumbmax”? How to win friends and influence people! Mock them. Yeah.
Tahoe Advocate has a very valid point. There’s no way 8 in 10 households here have taken courses. Half of them do not live here. They pay the taxes (and the bond payments) but don’t get to vote. Taxation without representation. And that’s what the college is counting on. People who rent, and so do not directly PAY those taxes, will vote to raise taxes on the people who do.
Some valid arguements regarding the LTCC bond. As I said earlier I don’t want higher taxes but sometimes it is necessary if we want to better our community.
Do we want better education? Of course we do! Road Repair? Most definetly! More firemen with a new station and more cops on the street? You bet!
All these things cost us, the taxpayer. I own three properties here so these tax increases effect me triple. I’m retired and living on very little money, way below the poverty level.
Why spend more? Because I’m willing to pony up the extra bucks to better my home town! Yes, it will mean even more cutting back on personal expenses , yes it will mean some more sacrifice from me personally and all of you!.
Is it worth it? Hell yes!!! I ain’t about to watch this old town stagnate as more homes become vacant, schools closing , empty store fronts. All because people refuse to pitch in to keep this place alive!!! Thank You, Old Long Skiis
I understand your points, OLS. And yes, we all want better for our town. But better for whom and at what price?
I’ve watched too many political animals USE our town as their own personal stepping stones on
their way to bigger and better things. City managers, especially, but also College presidents. It looks real good on the resume to achieve increased funding. And can you imagine the cache in turning a 2 year community college into a 4 year college? We’ve had a revolving door of city police chiefs, fire chiefs, city managers, forest service heads, etc., who have used us as little more than resume enhancements on their way to somewhere else.
Is this for US? Or is it for the legacy?
Anything that has City of SLT attached I will vote NO.
I think the admin needs to talk to business owners and ask them what skills are needed in job applicants.
Mr. Tarwater promised tele commuters would relocate here because of the improvements to our schools. So far this hasn’t happened.
In the mean time the businesses he hoped for have quietly moved into the Stateline and Round Hill area.
I don’t know why they’re so secretive but I respect their privacy.
It wouldn’t take long to find them if they spent a little time knocking on doors.
Dog, DumbMax was a combination of putting dumbfounded and Max Dog together for I was agreeing with both. No harm, slight or belittlement intended.
Also, to speak for myself as a landlord (and hopefully all the rest) in South Lake Tahoe, my tenants DO pay the taxes in the city. If not directly by a check to C.L Raffety, they pay every month with their rent for my property taxes are very much incorporated into the rent that I charge.
To the record straight, I support LTCC. I support keeping it a viable Community College. I support dorms at this 2 year school.
I do not support trying to grow it into a 4 year institution with local taxes funding it. If the State needs another 4 year University, then they should fund it.
Now let’s take a random survey and answer this question:
Do you or anyone in your household have a direct connection to LTCC through having taken at least one class?
We should expect 80% of the answers to be positive for the survey above to be valid.
My answer is that no one in my household has ever taken a class at LTCC.
I would think this college would be struggling to find enough students to complete 2 year programs, let alone 4 year, since our population is so small, or would the goal be to grow our population, by offering unique 4 year programs?