League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Alameda County, CA November 4, 2008 Election
	Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues Board Member; Ohlone Community College District; Trustee Area 1, Seat 4

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Fremont, Newark, Union City and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on Land Use Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest. 1. What are your thoughts about the development of the frontage property at Ohlone’s Main Campus? Answer from Robert "Bob" Brunton: The current situation of the frontage property is this. Despite several years of discussion and district expense of over $500,000 currently the board is not considering any proposals for development of any portion of the surplus property. I am very disappointed with this current situation and it is a top goal of mine that during this next term that the board make significant progress in this area. Background + I have had an interest in the better use of the frontage property and the property to the south of the main campus for years. The land is currently being used as parking lot or unused land. Under the leadership of then College President Dr. Floyd Hogue and two trustees (of which I was one) discussion began on how to better use this property. The goals were to have the property developed in such a way as to compliment the main campus. Provide facilities that the students and employees would find useful for the college. Provide for partnerships in development of those facilities that the college could not do alone and to provide an income stream through enrollment growth and stability as well as rental income. These funds would be used to help improve and maintain the Fremont Campus. In order that these funds would not be used as payroll or in lieu of payroll, the income generated would be matched by our general fund. The board then under College President Dr. Doug Treadway determined the amount and location of the surplus property. I supported and voted to surplus or make available property for consideration of development. The board also needed to decide whether to sell or lease the property. To sell the property requires a super majority (5 votes instead of 4). I did not support the sale of the property. And this vote has been the most contentious of all the votes I have cast while as a member of the board. I did support the lease of the property. Current Position + I still believe in the original goals of this property. The property should be viewed in the context of asset management. I believe that any development should add value to the college. Value is more than just income. Value is more than a quick buck. When this property is developed it should be under the following guidelines 1.Review of the Ohlone Campus master plan. One key question that needs an answer is How Big do we want Ohlone College to be and where to want this growth to be? This is important since now we have a center and land in Newark and the college needs to decide if more growth should happen at that site or the Fremont campus. We need to make sure that the property that is surplus is in fact not needed. As an example parking and athletic field planning needs to be finalized and funding needs to be identified. 2.Joint Use Facilities should be explored. Are there ways to leverage the use of the facilities so as to benefit our students and employees along with resident groups and uses? 3.Coordination with Fremont Unified School District. Some discussion has a portion of the property to be used for housing and if so this needs to coordinate so as to understand and prepare for the impact. 4.Coordination with the local business district. Again this needs to be coordinated and fully understood the impact and preparation. The historical and visual character of the Mission District needs to be considered. 5.Ensure that future boards will have use of the funds and flexibility to provide input on use of the property. Answer from Teresa Cox: For almost 20 years the Ohlone College trustees have discussed developing the frontage property as an income source to improve the college facilities due to the lack of support from the State. This is common practice. Two surveys were taken of the Ohlone college students. There was no strong interest in housing. Students wanted a campus activity center to serve all students and not housing to serve only 300-400 students out of 20,000 who come to college. If elected to the Board of Trustees, we must evaluate this in near term and long-term and how the impact will affect the college for the rest of its life. We are not going to settle the frontage property on this website. What we can do is to consult with the various constituent groups to obtain their feedback and do a consensus team building to reach a decision. We will need to review the facts and the tradeoffs to ensure that if I am a board member that I must understand the actions we take and what are the impacts. You as the community are holding us accountable for our actions. Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' responses are not edited or corrected by the League. The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.