Despite a recent grand jury report recommending that funding for
a facility in the northern part of the county be halted, the Santa
Clara Valley Water District board of directors today will take up a
vote on whether or not to approve the $1.4-million project.
Despite a recent grand jury report recommending that funding for a facility in the northern part of the county be halted, the Santa Clara Valley Water District board of directors today will take up a vote on whether or not to approve the $1.4-million project.
The vote includes possible approval of studies undertaken to consider the environmental effects of the Gold Street Educational Center in Alviso. District staff has recommended that the board adopt a resolution approving the studies, and approve the project as a whole.
Board Chair Sig Sanchez said the directors are not yet ready to put the project out to bid.
“We have to authorize the (Environmental Impact Report),” Sanchez said. “We’re proceeding with the project as originally designed and originally scheduled.”
A critical Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report filed in April singled out the proposed project as an example of wasteful spending and unauthorized decisions by the district’s board. The report noted the district proposed the project as an “environmental enhancement” effort, but concludes that the Gold Street facility does not serve the environment. Rather, its purpose is education, which is not part of the water district’s mission.
Furthermore, the report notes that similar outdoor classrooms owned by the district are underutilized, suggesting that more educational projects are not the best use of public funds.
The proposed Gold Street Educational Center is described as an outdoor gazebo with interpretive displays providing history lessons about Alviso.
The water district board approved $1.38 million in funding for the project, plus an annual expenditure of $30,000 for maintenance costs. The project was originally proposed in 2002.
In response to a grand jury recommendation that the district should not expend more funding or resources on the Gold Street project, the district said the board will conduct public outreach and seek public input prior to approval of the project.
Those outreach efforts include posting the meeting’s agenda and a lengthy staff report on the project on the district’s web site 10 days prior to the meeting, district spokeswoman Susan Siravo said. Plus, e-mails have been sent to the project’s stake holders, who include “people who are very active in the Alviso community, to let them know this will be discussed” Tuesday, Siravo said.
The district’s response to the grand jury report, presented at a board meeting earlier this month, also says the board will be “re-examining” its policy on environmental enhancement projects so it is more clearly defined what types of projects are authorized in that category.
Director Rosemary Kamei said she is a “big proponent” of education. She noted that an important part of Tuesday’s meeting is to present information to the public, and to accept input from the public, including citizens who are aware of the grand jury report.
“(The Gold Street facility) is not precedent setting,” Kamei added. “We’ve done other educational programs. In terms of trying to provide education it’s nothing new.”
Also on Tuesday’s meeting agenda is a request by directors for staff to produce a more detailed list of expenditures in water utility allocations.
“I think it’s important for people to see the value they get for the fees that they pay,” Kamei said.
