GILROY
– Two vastly different appraisals of the site for a new
elementary school have triggered a process in negotiations between
the school district and a local developer that could eventually end
up in court.
Gilroy Unified School District and Glen Loma Group are unable to
agree on an appraisal of the site for a replacement Las Animas
Elementary School in southwest Gilroy called the Greenfield site.
Now, they will enter non-binding arbitration to get an independent
opinion on how much the property is worth.
Glen Loma Group, the developer of the most populous housing
development in Gilroy history, says the conflict is holding up his
project. And GUSD says it is looking for alternate sites to build
the new campus, although it has eyed Greenfield since last
year.
By Lori Stuenkel
GILROY – Two vastly different appraisals of the site for a new elementary school have triggered a process in negotiations between the school district and a local developer that could eventually end up in court.
Gilroy Unified School District and Glen Loma Group are unable to agree on an appraisal of the site for a replacement Las Animas Elementary School in southwest Gilroy called the Greenfield site. Now, they will enter non-binding arbitration to get an independent opinion on how much the property is worth.
Glen Loma Group, the developer of the most populous housing development in Gilroy history, says the conflict is holding up his project. And GUSD says it is looking for alternate sites to build the new campus, although it has eyed Greenfield since last year.
The two appraisals, both solicited by the district, vary tremendously.
John Filice, of the Glen Loma Group, said one of the appraisals is five times greater than the other.
“I’ve never heard of anything like that,” he said, of the difference between the values.
Steve Brinkman, assistant superintendent of administrative services for GUSD, did not confirm or deny that figure but echoed statements made last month that the gaping difference in appraisals is itself more money than the district originally planned to spend on the property.
“One of them’s right and one of them’s wrong,” Filice said. “We think the lower one is wrong, but rather than argue about it, we decided we should do a non-binding mediation so we can come together on a price.”
The Glen Loma Group, which has had a long-standing partnership with GUSD, says an extensive delay will hurt its 1,000-home project.
“The only thing that matters to us is, we need a decision from them,” Filice said. “If you are going to go, great, if you aren’t going to go, we need to know. … We can’t be waiting on this six months from now.”
Filice said the district’s decision will determine when and where the Glen Loma Group can begin building the next phase of housing. If GUSD chooses a different site, he will start construction on the Greenfield site. If GUSD stays with Greenfield, Glen Loma will build on a different parcel.
GUSD will submit its two appraisals to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, or JAMS. Filice said Glen Loma will get an appraisal, as well. Once the two parties agree on a day and time to meet, the process will move quickly, Brinkman said, emphasizing that the result will be non-binding and GUSD can accept or reject the judge’s recommendation.
If the two sides remain at an impasse, it’s possible the district could begin the eminent domain process, however Filice and Brinkman think it’s unlikely.
“It is something that we will investigate, so we are informed, but it hadn’t been discussed,” Brinkman said.
School board Trustee David McRae said entering arbitration was no cause for concern.
“I’m not worried about the non-binding arbitration because it’s non-binding,” he said. “It’ll be good to see what a third party thinks … and we’ll be able to walk away.”
McRae would not speak in detail about alternative sites being considered.
The district has positively identified two sites, Brinkman said, although he would not say where they are or who owns them.
Superintendent Edwin Diaz has repeatedly emphasized the need for an elementary school in south Gilroy.
“I’m comfortable with where we’re at, but we’re always open to better sites,” McRae said. “It’s never too late to suggest something better. If more sites become available, then they’ll need to be looked at.”
For now, timing is not an issue for the district. In the Facilities Master Plan, construction on the replacement Las Animas is scheduled to start this fall.
If it turns out that GUSD must build on an alternate site, Filice said it will not drastically affect his project, and he won’t have to re-submit an environmental impact report.
Glen Loma originally included an elementary school site on another parcel of the property that will be developed in future years. However, when GUSD began pursuing the site last year to open in 2006, it was relocated to the Greenfield parcel adjacent to the Villagio development and utilities services.
The district’s plan is to balance the purchase of the Greenfield site with the sale of the existing Las Animas site at 8450 Wren Ave., possibly by swapping the land with Glen Loma.
Last year, GUSD approached the city to allocate housing rights to the Las Animas site. Doing so would increase the potential value to a developer interested in acquiring that land.
During a joint GUSD-City Council meeting last month, City Administrator Jay Baksa recommended the district meet with South County Housing to discuss incorporating both senior citizen and low-income housing permits into the existing Las Animas site.
The questionable land-swap, reliant on the district obtaining more housing permits than the city has allocated, gave some trustees pause in early November, when they postponed soliciting architectural designs because negotiations to buy the Greenfield site had not yet begun. Later that month, the board decided to contract for general plans for the new Las Animas.
The schematic designs will not be tied to a specific site, so the plans can still be used, even if negotiations fall through and the district must find an alternative site. Adapting the preliminary designs to a new site would cost a maximum of $40,000 to $50,000, Diaz said.
