In early results, Napa County voters appeared ready to reject Napa Valley College’s request for a $178 million school bond, making it the only Bay Area school bond not to pass on Tuesday.

Measure L, the second bond measure for Napa Valley College since 2002, received 50.5 percent of votes tallied by 12:30 a.m., short of the 55 percent required to pass.

“I think (the results are) a good indicator of what the mood of the Napa Valley public has been,” said Leon Brauning of Napa, one of the most vocal critics of the bond measure. “They’re negative toward the uncertainty of the way the college has handled (2002’s) Measure N money … and they also are very concerned about their scarce tax dollars.”

NVC President Chris McCarthy said he was still “cautiously optimistic” that when all the votes are counted, the measure would succeed.

Reader Forum: What should NVC do now? Add your thoughts by clicking here

When Registrar of Voters John Tuteur released early results around 8 p.m. Tuesday, Measure L had support of only 46 percent of voters. As precinct tallies were added to the vote-by-mail totals, the “yes” percentage edged upward.

McCarthy also noted Tuteur’s comment last week that final election results will not be available until after Feb. 19.

The college’s request for additional funds came less than six years after voters approved a $133.8 million bond for upgrades to NVC, for which college officials say they are $70 million short in today’s dollars.

'Looking for value'

Measure L would have budgeted $115 million for the completion of previously approved projects and $65 million for new projects.

While college officials attribute the $70 million shortfall to the dramatic rise in construction costs across the nation, critics expressed concern over fiscal mismanagement at the college, questioning the college’s strategic and financial planning.

“The community is very, very much opposed to how the college has handled its money,” said Brauning, “and I think that’s coming out in this.”

McCarthy said that “every piece of evidence attests to” the college’s fiscal responsibility.

“The college has handled the money absolutely responsibly, and that is backed up by the oversight committee and audits,” he said.

Projects approved in 2002 for which the college fell short include a new technology lab, restrooms, and modernizations to the gym, art center and other campus facilities.

New projects included plans for an entrance to the college from Imola Avenue, an amphitheater, environmental education center, wind generator and elevated parking structures.

Each year, the bond would have cost homeowners $19.85 per $100,000 of assessed value of their homes.

The bottom line, said Brauning, is that Napa County taxpayers simply can’t afford another school bond, particularly in the face of what he said are other, more pressing community needs.

“People are looking for value for their scarce dollars,” he said, pointing out that Measure N cost overruns “would have paid off our flood project.”

Brauning also said the requested $178 million was “incredibly excessive for a small, rural county community college.” While voters “really respect the college,” he said, “it’s not the only asset of this community.”

McCarthy said “a thriving college is at the heart of a thriving community.”

“Education is at the core of a thriving community,” he said, “and we are the only public college in county. We are doing the training desperately needed by this county. … We are very grateful for all the support we’ve gotten from our students, from the community. It is clear that the education the college offers is valued.”

If Tuesday night’s preliminary results stand, the college will have to make some tough decisions about how to proceed with previously approved projects in the face of a $70 million shortfall. The college will be forced to either scale back the scope on some projects, said Campus Planning Director Dan TerAvest, or drop some plans completely, according to NVC Vice President JoAnn Busenbark.

College officials declined comment on whether they would return to the voters in the near future to seek another, smaller bond proposal.