Q&A with Chancellor about Measure G

The district’s nearly $1 billion bond measure did not pass in the 2024 election. The measure earned 51% of votes, falling short of the 55% needed to pass.

Measure G was Rancho Santiago Community College District’s third attempt to receive bond funds to repair and rebuild facilities at its two campuses, Santa Ana College and Santiago Canyon College.

The district’s last successful bond, Measure Q, was developed exclusively for Santa Ana College and passed in 2012. The renovation of the college’s main campus entrance, which is slated for completion Feb. 2026, is the last Measure Q-funded project.

We sat down with Rancho Santiago Community College District Chancellor Marvin Martinez to discuss Measure G’s failed performance and plans for a potential new measure.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

What was your initial reaction to the bond’s performance?

Well, of course, I was not happy at all. We worked very hard to ensure that it could pass because these are facilities that students and faculty need so they can deliver the best education they can. Out of everybody else on this campus, I was probably the most upset about it.

Were there any surprises to you this past election?

I was surprised in terms of the voter turnout. The Republican turnout was higher than ever, and there were fewer Democrats that turned out since Joe Biden ran for president. I thought there would be a higher turnout of Democratic voters who, for the most part, are supportive of bond measures. You can see that historically, throughout the state, with many bond measures, Democrats vote to support them. I was disappointed, and I was also surprised.

The data showed people don’t think we needed a bond. How would the need be communicated next time?

The consultants, of course, recommended that we start doing the public relations marketing of the college earlier. And that could be one answer. Another answer is whether we should run another campaign involving all the voters in a service area? So we always go for the “whole enchilada.” Maybe is it time to pivot to a different approach? We could consider running smaller bond measures. So maybe we want to do a bond measure just for the Centennial Education Center and create an area where the only people who vote are the people who are near the center. You could do the same thing for the Orange Education Center in SCC and run a bond measure just for that center. Or if SAC, for example, decides to do a bond measure for the campus, I would probably advise them not to do one for the entire campus but to be specific about which buildings. So maybe they want to do one just for a new CTE building and/or a new culinary arts building. So, the bond measures then become smaller, and the amounts become smaller. I think for the public who doesn’t like to get taxed, $720 million scared people, but a number of $200 million or less may not.

Is the district planning to go for a bond measure in the 2026 election?

It’s too early to tell. I think the board needs to engage in discussion so we can hear from them and see if they would be supportive. Do they have the appetite for another bond measure? But I think the onus is on all of us to tell the board you can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results. You got to try something different. I think we can and will, but we need to convince the board.

Is it possible to build without a bond?

Well, you do the bond if you don’t have the money. What the bond does is that it gives you the resources so you can build a Cadillac. We’re not gonna be able to do the Cadillac. With our money, we’ll be able to do a Toyota. Toyota is good, too. It’ll get you where you want to go. It won’t have all the bells and whistles, but it’s a good building. It’s not gonna have leaky roofs. It’s gonna have lights that work, so it’ll be in good shape. So I think we’re still in a good position as a district.

What would you have done differently in the whole process?

No. 1, I would’ve raised more money. You would think $1 million would be enough, but it’s amazing how expensive these things are. No. 2, I probably would have used a School Facility Improvement District (SFID) approach, a process in which you carve out voters who would not support the bond because there are certain communities that will always vote no. I’m not sure if our old approach is the best if they are always going to keep voting no. Even if you do go with an SFID, the voters won’t be happy because they’ll think, ‘Why does paying for this new building at SAC fall on us? ’ These are things to think about. There is no perfect solution. In the meantime, enrollment for both our campuses is really good, and it is generating revenue that we can dedicate to building new buildings, which may be enough. We definitely feel pretty good about it. But, the message that needs to be delivered is just because the bond didn’t pass, we are still well positioned to build facilities that students and faculty need and we will begin to have that discussion with the board at the meeting on March 24.