Bond Measure A and the San Mateo County
Community College District
Were the $468,000,000 in bond funds from Measure A, approved by San Mateo County voters
on November 8, 2005, used for the purpose(s) stated in the San Mateo County Community
College District bond measure?
Summary
The 2011 San Mateo County Grand Jury conducted an inquiry into the expenditures of
$468,000,000 in Measure A bond funds approved by the voters in November of 2005 for the
purpose of new construction, building renovation and upgrading of facilities and equipment at
the three campuses of the San Mateo County Community College District (College District).
Particular attention was directed to the construction and equipping of an athletic facility that
would be open to the public as a membership fitness center in addition to use as a teaching
facility at the College of San Mateo.
Measure A funds were used for new construction projects, extensive renovation of existing
buildings and procurement of upgraded technology and equipment that dramatically improved
campus facilities.
It was the conclusion of the Grand Jury that the expenditures of Measure A funds conformed to
the project list itemized in the ballot measure, while noting that the language was sufficiently
vague to allow for broad interpretation. The Grand Jury found that operating a private athletic
club on campus was consistent with other College District enterprise activities, and that the
private use of public facilities on a fee basis is a widespread and generally accepted practice in
San Mateo County.
The 2011 Grand Jury validated the findings of the 2010 Grand Jury that there may be an
erroneous public perception that the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) has the authority to
approve plans or expenditures before they are completed, rather than simply reporting on the
expenditures after the fact.
The Grand Jury recommends that the College District communicate clearly to the public and to
its Bond Oversight Committee the College District’s intended uses of Measure A bond funds
prior to and during the course of expenditures and to ensure that all bond funds are spent in
compliance with the project list in Measure A.
2
Background
The College District’s Board of Trustees placed Measure A before the voters as a "Proposition
39" bond measure which requires a 55% vote for passage rather than the 66% required by a
standard bond measure. "Proposition 39" bond measures (Education Code 15282(a)) require that
the language of the ballot include a list of the proposed projects to be completed with bond
funds. Proposition 39 also establishes the requirement for a "citizens' oversight committee" to
oversee how bond funds were expended, to conduct and/or review performance and financial
audits, and to report to the public on their findings. The College District refers to its “citizens’
oversight committee” as the “Bond Oversight Committee” (BOC).
Proposition 39 also establishes the composition and terms of office for BOC members. Members
are appointed to serve for a term of two years, and for no more than two consecutive terms.
Proposition 39 further requires that the BOC be composed of members representing specified
groups. These include one active member of a business organization, one active member of a
senior citizens' organization, one active member of a bona-fide taxpayers' organization and one
student in the district active in a college group such as student government. (Education Code
15282(a).)
On November 8, 2005 Measure A passed with a 64% vote. The short ballot version of Measure
A stated:
"To prepare College of San Mateo, Canada College, and Skyline College
students for universities and high demand jobs: upgrade nursing, health career,
science, computer, and biotechnology labs; improve accessibility for disabled
students; make earthquake safety improvements; repair/modernize libraries,
classrooms and aging facilities; and other projects in the Bond Projects List,
shall San Mateo County Community College District be authorized to issue
$468,000,000 bonds at interest rates within legal limits and with oversight by a
Citizens' Advisory Committee?"
Measure A funds were subsequently used, on all three campuses, for new construction projects,
extensive renovation of existing buildings and procurement of upgraded technology and
equipment that improved campus facilities.
One of the projects completed using Measure A bond funds is an 88,300 square foot “Health and
Wellness Center” on the campus of the College of San Mateo (CSM). This houses a fitness
center, two swimming pools, and space for physical and vocational training programs. A portion
of this facility (approximately 24,500 square feet) is available to the public, as an enterprise
activity, through membership in the "San Mateo Athletic Club." The San Mateo Athletic Club is
being developed as a "teaching health club" which will provide internships and student job
placement opportunities in the high demand fitness industry and generate revenue through its
membership fees. The San Mateo Athletic Club is similar to enterprise campus fitness centers on
other college campus such as San Francisco State University and California State University,
Long Beach both of which are open to members on a fee basis.
3
Other enterprises activities exist within the College District include the cafeteria, theater,
planetarium, bookstore and the cosmetology program. Administrators plan to rent various new
meeting facilities, the new dining complex at CSM and other College District venues for private
functions.
Members of the public raised concerns over the operation of a private club on campus, and the
use of public funds for the construction and operation of this facility were questioned in the press
in June 2010. The article reflected the objections of some local citizens and certain private fitness
club owners who believed that it constituted unfair competition by a publicly funded institution.
Much of the Grand Jury's investigation centered on whether this use of Measure A funds
conformed to the stated purpose and list of projects set forth in Bond Measure A.
As the investigation of the use of Measure A funds proceeded, the role of the BOC came into
question in assessing the adequacy of oversight of bond money expenditures. The 2010 Grand
Jury questioned the efficacy of Citizens’ Oversight Committees in the report School Bond
Citizens' Oversight Committees, Prop 39. While this investigation limited itself to Measure A,
concerns highlighted in last year's investigation were encountered, along with some concerns
specific to the BOC overseeing Measure A.
Investigation
This report has been compiled from numerous sources including comprehensive tours of the
three College District campuses and in-person interviews of key College District personnel
including administrators, elected officials and appointed members of the Bond Oversight
Committee.
Documentary Items reviewed:
• Full text of Measure A including ballot language
• California State Constitution, Article 13A
• California Education Code, Sections 15278-15282
• Pre-ballot market surveys conducted for Bond Measures
• Market Study of Fitness, Health and Wellness Center, 2007
• Minutes of the College District Board of Trustees meetings
• Minutes of Bond Oversight Committee meetings
• Newspaper articles
• Planning and building documents
• 2009-2010 San Mateo Grand Jury report School Bond Citizens’ Oversight Committees,
Prop 39.
Findings
1. A 2001 pre-election research study commissioned by the College District determined that
the shared use of sports fields and recreation facilities by students and the community would
be well received.
2. Market research commissioned by the College District in 2007 to determine the viability of
opening a campus fitness center to the public indicated it would be well received.
4
3. College District administrators stated to the Grand Jury that they intended to
design/construct a multi-use “wellness/fitness” center before the Board of Trustees placed
Measure A on the ballot.
4. Bond Measure A does not list a “wellness/fitness” center in its project list, nor does it refer
to using the College District facilities for public/private partnership or enterprise activities.
It does refer to a "Workforce Development Center".
5. Deteriorating economic conditions between the passage of Measure A in 2005 and the
commencement of construction of the Health and Wellness Center created an emphasis on
programs and activities that could generate revenue for the College District.
6. The minutes of the BOC do not document any objections by the BOC to any of the
expenditures by the College District from Bond Measure A funds.
7. Several members of the BOC exceeded their statutory limit of two consecutive two-year
terms (4-year maximum). On October 13, 2010, this was corrected by the appointment of
eight new members.
8. The BOC has no representative of a bona fide taxpayer group as required by State Law,
[California Education Code 15282(a)], despite a reasonable effort by the College District to
identify and appoint such a member.
9. The BOC membership remained substantially the same for both Bond Measure A (2005)
and Measure C (2001). The BOC was chaired for seven years by a former senior
administrator of the College District. The members of the BOC are selected by the College
District.
10. The BOC did not issue an annual report for the year 2009 but did submit a report for 2010.
Conclusions
1. The San Mateo Community College District Board of Trustees used Bond Measure A funds
to continue the transformation of San Mateo County’s three community colleges into stateof-
the-art institutions through safety and seismic upgrades, new and renovated facilities, and
enhanced campus environments.
2. 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 project list for Measure A is so broad it permitted
generous interpretation in the purpose of the funds. For example, College District officials
stated that the bond language "workforce development center" was the basis for the
construction of the wellness/fitness center.
3. The private use of public facilities on a fee basis is a common and generally accepted
practice in San Mateo County, and is similar to other public school facilities (e.g. athletic
fields, gymnasiums, classrooms, meeting space, planetarium, etc.) that are made available to
the public on a fee basis. However, selling membership to a facility appears to be unique
within the College District.
4. The role of the BOC has been limited to review expenditures after the fact, to conduct
and/or review performance and financial audits, and to report to the public on their findings.
5
Recommendations
The 2011 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends the San Mateo County Community
College District Board of Trustees:
1. Communicate clearly to the public and to the BOC the intended uses of bond funds prior to
and during the course of expenditures, particularly when major projects are not identified
specifically in the bond project list contained in the ballot measure.
2. Ensure that all bond funds are spent in compliance with the project list in Measure A.
3. Require that the Bond Oversight Committee publish timely reports to inform the public
regarding the use of bond funds on the District web site and issue a press release as new
reports become available.
4. Regularly, Identify members of the Bond Oversight Committee in the official meeting
minutes by their term and affiliation specified in California Education Code 15282(a).
5. Create and publish on the College District website a detailed and specific list of the
remaining projects to be funded by Measure A bond funds and update it on a regular basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment