Internal city staff have racked up at least $47,562 in time and money reviewing the project—expenses that weren't reported to the public. Instead of billing the Almaden Youth Association—the private nonprofit organization that applied to build the complex—as most project applicants would be billed, the city simply absorbed the costs. The fees are related to public hearing notices, record retention fees, FedEx costs, time spent reviewing the EIR and more.

When asked for the current total—which must be higher now after 12 more months of work, including a second round of EIR reviews—San Jose Planning Director Stephen Haase said that since the city was technically the applicant for the McKean Road Sports Complex, it didn't track those expenses.

But Haase's assertion that the city is the applicant to build the sports complex contradicts the facts. The AYA has received $300,000 in city grants to conduct environmental studies on the feasibility of the project. If the AYA isn't the applicant, why give that money away?

That the city is the applicant is also news to the law firm representing the South Almaden Valley Rural Alliance and the Committee for Green Foothills. The firm filed a lawsuit on their behalf on Jan. 13 against the city, the AYA and San Jose Unified School District asking that the certification of the McKean Road Sports Complex EIR be overturned and names the AYA as the project's applicant.

And city planning staff working on the project were tracking internal expenses.

Environmental project manager Janis Moore and principal planner Stan Ketchum complained in several emails over the past year that no one was paying the staff costs.

Who's footing the bill?

Internal city hall emails—obtained by the Almaden Resident through the Freedom of Information Act—show how various city staffers intentionally hid the complete cost of doing work on the AYA project. They also show that because the sports complex was not covered in any of the city's budgets, no one wanted to pay the bill.

On Nov. 18, 2003, Ketchum emailed eight city staffers in the parks and recreation and public works departments and the city manager's office about a project cost summary he had just delivered to District 10 City Councilwoman Pat Dando's office.

"Unfortunately I already delivered the cost summary to Pat's office. Per [assistant director of public works] Dave Sykes, 'There needs to be another big asterisk regarding internal City staff costs which continue to not be included or addressed,' "Ketchum wrote.

Although Moore's boss, Haase, said no one was tracking the cost, she was doing exactly that.

She calculated the internal tab at $47,562 as of January 2003. She sent an email on Jan. 20, 2004, to fellow planning employees Mark Gerhardt and Jodie Clark: "I just found out we haven't collected the EIR fees for the AYA EIR. I just talked with Stan Ketchum a little while ago about the outstanding fees—only the new fees for the soon-to-be revised AYA EIR (see new fee calculations below) That would mean all the work we did last year was for FREE!!! I think that's outrageous!!! Doesn't it take a vote of the Council to 'waive fees' since the fees are established by Council vote??????" Moore wrote.

Gerhardt responded to Moore that since the city had not budgeted a nickel in 2003 to pay the AYA-related fees, the city would just have to eat the cost. "Council only budgeted $50,000 for AYA this year so I doubt we will be able to collect the full $47,562 because they are charging other expenses to the appropriation also," he added.

According to the city's EIR review process, Moore was correct—only the city council can waive fees.

But Haase told the Resident no council vote was needed in this case because the city was the applicant for the project. "We don't charge ourselves," he said.

Hushed money

When asked why those expenses weren't disclosed when the sports complex came under scrutiny by the media, Haase had no answer. Neither did Moore, Ketchum, or deputy city attorney Renee Gurza.

The city had multiple opportunities to respond. On May 24, 2004, the Resident asked how much city money had been invested in the sports complex. As Haase gathered information to respond, he told Ketchum and John Cannon, assistant to the city manager, not to include the internal expenses.

"I recommend we focus on any funds allocated to the AYA through appropriations, grants, etc. Staff costs are sunk costs from a budget standpoint and I suggest we leave them out," Haase wrote.

The city manager's office in August began compiling a report allegedly detailing how the sports complex has been funded in response to an audit request from then-city council candidate Nancy Pyle.

Those internal staff costs were again left out. Ketchum said in another project-wide email that he wanted to "keep it simple."

Both times the staff costs were deliberately left out.

The city paid $294,000 to the consulting firm, RBF, which conducted the McKean Road Sports Complex EIR. On Dec. 7, at the urging of former District 10 Councilwoman Pat Dando, the city council pumped even more money into the project: $739,000 from the District 10 Construction Tax and Property Conveyance Tax Fund along with another $500,000 from the district's Parksite Acquisition Fund.

Then on Dec. 14 the council approved another $20,194 to pay RBF from District 10 Construction Tax and Property Conveyance Tax funds.

The newly revealed information about staff costs through January 2004 increases the total amount of taxpayer money invested in the AYA's private sports complex to more than $2 million. The cost of fighting SAVRA's lawsuit will drive that total even higher.

Dando's records could probably reveal the actual amount of taxpayer dollars spent on the McKean Road Sports Complex. But she took those records with her upon leaving office in December.