Has Gavilan Misspent Taxpayer Funds?
By Christine Breen
In March 2004, San Benito and Santa Clara County voters approved
Measure E, a $108 million capital-outlay bond intended to fund
Gavilan College’s Facilities Plan. According to the Working Draft
Plan (www.gavilan.edu/bond/108millionbond.html), $68,404,000 was
allocated to maximize use of existing facilities. The remaining
funds were to be allocated as follows:
Has Gavilan Misspent Taxpayer Funds?
By Christine Breen
In March 2004, San Benito and Santa Clara County voters approved Measure E, a $108 million capital-outlay bond intended to fund Gavilan College’s Facilities Plan. According to the Working Draft Plan (www.gavilan.edu/bond/108millionbond.html), $68,404,000 was allocated to maximize use of existing facilities. The remaining funds were to be allocated as follows:
Provide permanent and expanded facility, including a University Center, for San Benito County residents – $12,775,000
Expand the Gilroy campus site to include a University Center – $18,385,000
Acquire land for permanent, expanded facility for Morgan Hill and Coyote Valley residents (seek partnerships to complete construction) – $8,436,000
These figures are consistent with the Facilities Master Plan which the Gavilan Trustees subsequently adopted and published as “the comprehensive planning document that identifies, organizes, plans and records the capital-outlay Facilities Plan.” According to the Plan, the $108 million bond funds “represent the TOTAL to be spent over the life of this Program (estimated 8 years construction duration), ending 2014.
It was therefore with some degree of dismay and mystification that I read Steve Kinsella’s letter to the Free Lance editor, which ran on June 29. Dr. Kinsella is the President of Gavilan College, and was the chief proponent of Measure E. Yet very little of what he had to say in his letter last Tuesday is consistent with what Measure E was intended to accomplish.
Certainly, much has changed since March 2004. The Master Plan anticipated this: “When done properly, [the Plan] is sufficiently general to allow for change over time, yet specific enough to define realistic project/scopes/budgets/schedules.” What the Plan, and indeed San Benito County, failed to anticipate was that Dr. Kinsella and the Trustees would disregard the Plan altogether, and embark on a course of action entirely inconsistent with the tenets of Measure E and the needs of the local community.
Since site selection commenced, the president and Trustees have doggedly adhered to an 80-acre minimum full service campus in San Benito County. This “requirement” is not consistent with community needs, with the Facilities Planning Manual published by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, or with the (now defunct) Coyote Valley project. Moreover, the “requirement” significantly limited local options. Nevertheless, in his letter, Dr. Kinsella advises that an 80-acre campus on Fairview Road is “in [the County’s] future.”
Gavilin has Utilized A Land Acquisition Model that is Flawed and Inconsistent with its Own Master Plan.
Unfortunately, this site is the product of a failed acquisition model. What Kinsella and the Trustees did, with the assistance of well-compensated consultants, was to look for a large site, owned by a developer who wanted to get his development project approved. By partnering with the college, the developer piggybacks on the college’s approval process, lessening the expense and scrutiny to which it would otherwise be subjected. (This is because the community college district acts as its own “lead agency,” with final authority over approval of its environmental impact report.) In return, the college acquires its portion of the land at a reduced price, and the developer agrees to put in the infrastructure for both the development and the college.
Such a scheme requires a large piece of land so the developer can build homes next to the campus. Gavilan has attempted, and failed to implement this scheme in San Benito and Coyote Valley. The Coyote Valley died when Cisco Systems abandoned its plans for a new campus there, and Santa Clara County was no longer compelled to house 20,000 of Cisco’s workforce there. Gavilan is now sitting on a piece of land it cannot develop – one for which it overpaid, and for which there is no apparent source for infrastructure improvements. In San Benito, the developer is processing a development, but at a pace much slower than originally believed, thus leaving Gavilan with no source of infrastructure, and a campus that by Dr. Kinsella’s own admission, that is 20-30 years away. This is contrary to the principles and timeline set forth in the Master Plan.
Gavilan has Disregarded Its Allocations for Land Acquisition and Development Set Forth in Its Master Plan.
Also inconsistent and even more troubling, is Dr. Kinsella’s statement that Measure E bond funds only purchased the land on Fairview Road, and that construction will require millions of dollars in funding from the State of California. Again, according to the Master Plan, $12,775,000 of bond funds was intended to “provide a permanent and expanded facility, including a University Center, for San Benito County residents.” Based upon real property records, Gavilan expended approximately $8 million on the Fairview Road site. Where is the rest of the money?
One answer is Coyote Valley. The Master Plan states that $8,436,000 is allocated for Morgan Hill and Coyote Valley residents. Again, real property records indicate that Gavilan spent over $20 million for the 50-acre site in Coyote Valley. Ironically, given subsequent developments, the site is all but worthless.
Gavilan Continues to Disregard the Needs of this Community, and the Stated Objectives of the Chancellor’s Office, in Its Search for an Interim Campus Site.
The Fairview Road site and the Coyote Valley site are bought and paid for. The gross discrepancies between the Master Plan and what Gavilan chose to spend on the respective sites certainly require explanation, but most likely cannot be undone. There is, however, an opportunity for Gavilan to address the community’s immediate needs with its selection of an interim site. Thus far, it has faltered on that front as well.
Dr. Kinsella says that the Trustees are actively looking for interim space that can serve up to 500 students; will be available for the next 15-20 years; includes a building of at least 20,000 square feet; and adequate parking for 500 cars! Regrettably, this exposes an ideology inconsistent with not only the community, but also the Chancellor’s office. Based upon a model that is 30-years old, it fails to incorporate the trend for community college campuses to locate near urban centers, in order to take advantage of public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle paths.
According to Dr. Kinsella, the Board has investigated a number of interim locations close to the downtown, but so far “none have met all the requirements.” Given the failure of Dr. Kinsella and the Trustees to adhere to the requirements set forth in the Master Plan and the Chancellor’s Facilities Planning Manual, it is hard to guess to which requirements he now refers.
This failure is particularly disconcerting in light of the Board’s rejection of a recent proposal for an interim campus site. The site, on the old Leatherback facility, would have offered partnership with the local YMCA, a concept championed by the Chancellor’s office as well as state and local government. Requiring little capital outlay on the college’s part, the project would have enabled Gavilan to take advantage of federal and state grant funding. Given the apparent shortage of Measure E funds on hand, this would have seemed like an attractive solution.
Who is Accountable?
One of the most troubling aspects of Dr. Kinsella’s recent letter is its failure to acknowledge how far from the Master Plan the college has strayed, in terms of budget and timeline. These are, after all, taxpayer funds.
The full text of Measure E included the following:
FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY. THE EXPENDITURE OF BOND MONEY ON THESE PROJECTS ARE SUBJECT TO STRINGENT FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL AUDITS WILL BE PERFORMED ANNUALLY, AND ALL BOND EXPENDITURES WILL BE MONITORED BY AN INDEPENDENT CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNDS ARE SPENT AS PROMISED AND SPECIFIED.
Sadly, it would seem that this provision has been disregarded. Yes, there is a Citizens’ Oversight Committee. A review of the committee’s agenda and minutes evinces something less that the “stringent financial accountability” promised. Notably, the committee has several vacancies at present.
The problems which have arisen since Measure E’s passage can hardly be laid at the feet of a volunteer oversight committee. After all, their oversight is only as reliable as the information provided to them. If it is anything like the information provided to the general public over the last several years, they share the community’s collective frustration.
According to the Master Plan, there are inherent program goals for capital-outlay projects, which include:
Wise and effective use of public funds (State and Local) with appropriate accountability.
Decision-making in a collaborative process that includes opportunities for input from stakeholders at all levels.
Clear, accurate and responsive communications with Community, stakeholders, and governing agencies.
Open planning and decision-making process that is consistent and equitable across the college community.
Professionalism in conduct, communications and relationships at all levels, as hard decisions are made.
Implicit in these goals is an obligation on the part of Gavilan to actually listen to its stakeholders, and to account to the taxpayers who are underwriting this effort, not simply to pay lip service to what it views as “some community members'” dreams. This requires something more than forums or open letters to the community. It mandates a commitment on the part of the Trustees and President Kinsella of utmost candor and fiduciary responsibility. Moreover, it necessitates an immediate and conscious change in how Gavilan does business with this community.
Two upcoming events offer the college just such an opportunity for change. Dr. Kinsella will speak at the Chamber of Commerce Lunch with Leaders at 11:30 a.m. on July 21 at San Juan Oaks. Gavilan Trustees have scheduled a Community Forum at the Veterans Memorial Building on July 19, from 6 to 8 p.m. to further discuss expansion in San Benito County. San Benito County deserves accountability, and requires a solution. I encourage anyone who shares these concerns to attend.
Chris Breen is a local attorney and member of the New Urbanism Research Group.
