Both the Los Angeles and San Diego Community College Districts began issuing bonds in the early 2000s to fund construction – that is where the similarities end.
Recently uncovered oversights, failures and downright corruption in the LACCD’s overhaul of their nine campuses have brought millions of squandered taxpayer dollars to light. In contrast the SDCCD has won awards for “bond performance” and “value” from several independent organizations.
Standard and Poor’s gave the SDCCD bonds an AA+, the highest any community college in California has received. According to their website the score means that the district has a “very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.”
In a study by the San Diego Taxpayers Association in 2008 the SDCCD was found to still have 100% of the projects promised on the ballots still slated for completion – indicating no major overruns in spending.
Associated General Contractors of America San Diego Chapter awarded the district special recognition in 2009 for “excellence in project management; innovation in construction techniques or materials; excellence in client services; contractor’s contribution to the community; [and] meeting the challenges.”
Proposition S, passed in 2002, and Proposition N, passed in 2008, both state that the SDCCD can issue bonds “at legal interest rates, appoint Citizens Oversight Committee, perform annual audits, with no bond money for administrators’ salaries.” The $1.555 billion dollar project has followed regulations but has not been without some shortcomings.
“The initial absence of an FMP [Facilities Master Plan] has resulted in several Proposition S projects being altered, such as an increase in square footage or other modifications designed to meet changing student demand and academic requirements. This factor, combined with an unexpected rise in construction costs, has lead to a considerable number of Proposition S projects going unfinished to date. Consequently, there is an overlap between the Project Lists of Proposition S and its successor Proposition N,” said a report issued by the San Diego Taxpayers Association.
A “Facilities Master Plan” was formed, with approximately $1 million dollars from Proposition S. The plan has been made publicly available and details the estimated and actual completion times of all proposed projects within the district.
On Mesa College the two most pressing construction projects include the Student Services Facility in the lower lot on the North end of campus and the Math and Science building in the center of campus.
The master plan states that the Student Services Facility has approximately nine months left before completion after about six and a half months since the demolition of the old I-400 building. Estimates only put the project 21 days behind schedules. The awarding of the project to a bidder, however took almost 300 percent longer than the allotted 55day window.
The demolition of the J-100, F-100 and F-200 buildings is experiencing some delays. The project is due to be completed in a week but estimates place that date, and consequently the commencement of construction, about a month away – a 26 percent overrun. Actual construction of the building is projected to take about a year and a half.
Kristine Johnson and Christina Kovach, workers at Allied Health Espresso, are at a central location where they speak to both students and professors in the new Allied Health building and Mesa College Design Center.
Amid Rumors of shaky projectors attached to air conditioning units, Johnson said feedback about the two new areas is “mostly positive.”
Johnson and Kovach agreed that the biggest shortcoming is the lack of tables and seats in the lounge of the Allied Health Building – a far cry from LACCD’s multi-million dollar blunders such as a crooked clock tower and abandoned projects.