Community college district deserves financial credit

Lefteris Lavrakas

It may be of paramount interest to the voting public that the

biggest selling point for the Coast Community College District board

to be voted on in November is the fact that the board has been able

to budget for district needs to date without resorting to an earlier

appeal (“Bond and determined to get money for colleges,” Aug. 12).

This was made possible initially prior to Proposition 13 because

the district received more than ample property tax funds and later by

a willingness to invest some of its state-allocated funds in

expanding Coastline Community College’s structural needs,

headquarters in Fountain Valley and a sizable learning center, now

shared with a state four-year institution at Garden Grove.

By acquiring certificates of participation, the district has been

able to use a kind of “installment plan” in the loan’s payoff.

Thus, credit should be given our local governing board for its

ability to budget for its various building and academic needs to

date.

However, the only “fly in the ointment” in asking the taxpayers of

the district to approve the pending bond is represented by the fact

that only 55% to 60% of the students attending the three Coast

colleges are actually residents of the Coast district.

This situation is attributed to the policy of “free flow” approved

by the state Legislature that permits student enrollment in any of

the 108 California community colleges.

It appears, therefore, that the state community college

authorities in Sacramento should take into account the impact of

“free flow” on districts, like Coast, which are asking its district

voters to support 40% to 45% of its enrolled students who reside

outside of the district.

It’s possible and feasible to adjust the award of local property

taxes to compensate for these out-of-district expenditures.

* LEFTERIS LAVRAKAS is a Costa Mesa resident.