By Neil Gonzales
ngonzales@bayareanewsgroup.com
Posted: 06/06/2011 10:48:12 PM PDT
Updated: 06/06/2011 11:30:32 PM PDT
The San Mateo County Community College District failed to adequately inform the public of its plans to build a fitness center that was funded by taxpayer money but is being operated in part as a private enterprise, the county civil grand jury concluded in a new report.
In the report, released Monday, the grand jury took aim at the San Mateo Athletic Club at College of San Mateo, a fitness center built with funds from the $468 million Measure A bond approved by voters in 2005.
The center is run not only as a venue to teach about or prepare students for the fitness field but also as a health club available to the larger community on a membership-fee basis.
"The board of trustees, the authors of Measure A, did not include on the ballot its proposed use of bond funds to construct an athletic facility that would be operated as an athletic club as well as a teaching facility," the grand jury said in the report.
In addition, the measure's project list was so broad it "permitted generous interpretation in the purpose of the funds," the grand jury said. "For example, college district officials stated that the bond language 'workforce development center' was the basis for the construction of the wellness-fitness center."
The grand jury recommended that the district "communicate clearly to the public" and have an oversight committee track bond spending and the planned uses of the funds before the start and during the course of projects,especially when major construction is not specifically identified in the ballot measure.
The district already does that kind of communicating and mentioned the center in its 2006 Facilities Master Plan, agency spokeswoman Barbara Christensen said. That document described a new building at CSM that would include "facilities for a community-oriented Fitness and Wellness Center. The Wellness Center would house workout space, locker rooms and a lobby in a model similar to athletic clubs."
Such information is also available for public review on the district's website, Christensen said. "We have been updating (online) what's happening and what the next steps are," she added.
As for ballot language that allows for broad interpretation of projects, she said, "You need to be comprehensive yet allow room for changes that might take place. There's no way in 2005 you can write a project list that will be exactly the way it turns out in 2011 because of the length of time and conditions change."
The grand jury did note that the district's athletic club is similar to other revenue-generating fitness centers at other higher-education campuses such as San Francisco State University.
But David Wolfe, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, contended that such spending is questionable, particularly in a time of tight budgets and the potential for increased taxes.
"It's inappropriate to use bond money for capital projects that don't directly affect the academic success of students," Wolfe said. "I would not characterize a fitness center as fitting that description".
The grand jury also found that several members of the district's bond oversight committee served beyond their statutory limit of two consecutive two-year terms. But the district fixed that problem in October with the appointment of new members, the report said.
For the full report, visit www.sanmateocourt.org.
Contact Neil Gonzales at 650-348-4338.
No comments:
Post a Comment