The College of the Canyons governing board is slated on Wednesday to revisit a previous directive telling interim college President David Andrus to rescind the letter sent to the California Community College Chancellor’s Office regarding state funding for a low-income student housing project.
The board recently met for the first time in 2025, and one of the first major actions was to undo a decision made by the previous board: getting the college out of a low-income student housing project that would have seen COC spend roughly $62 million via lease revenue bonds.
COC was chosen as one of 13 community colleges across the state to be awarded funds via the Affordable Student Housing Grant to be part of what was initially billed as the first phase of low-income student housing projects. That funding was later taken back temporarily and then restructured from a grant to lease-revenue bonds.
Fred Arnold, recently sworn in as a board member, made the motion to rescind the letter and attempt to recoup the funding, though the college’s legal counsel has since informed college administration that the motion may have violated the Brown Act, California’s law governing open meetings, due to it not being placed on the agenda.
Arnold’s motion was approved 3-2, with Edel Alonso and Carlos Guerrero, the two holdovers from the previous board, voting against it. Board President Sharlene Johnson and board member Darlene Trevino voted with Arnold.
“We’re talking $62 million, and we’re short by 3%,” Arnold said during the previous meeting. “As a community, we can’t figure that out? Yeah, certainly, when I look at those that object to it because they’re concerned about, ‘it’s going to take into the current instruction’ — let’s look at options where it doesn’t cut in at all, but it enhances it, because now we have students who are no longer couch surfing, living on the floor.”
The motion has been placed on Wednesday’s agenda for the board’s reconsideration.
“There is a question as to whether the public was properly notified of the potential action of the board of trustees,” the agenda states. “The Brown Act permits the (college) a cure to this potential violation by reconsidering the item after properly placing the item on a subsequent agenda. While the board does not believe and does not concede there was a Brown Act violation, to avoid any appearance of a violation, the board is considering the item again. The (college) and the board of trustees unconditionally commit to complying with the letter and the spirit of the Brown Act.”
In October, the board chose to return the funding to the state for the following reasons, as outlined in Wednesday’s agenda:
• Due to an increase in construction costs, the funding provided would no longer allow the college to build the same size facility as originally presented in 2021. The college had worked with architects to design a 209-bed facility, the cost of which would have exceeded the $61.8 million that was budgeted for the project. If the college were to go through with the 209-bed facility, funds would need to be raised or general fund money would need to be used to cover the cost of the increase, estimated at $5 million.
• The college could descope the facility to come in under the $61.8 million, which would mean fewer beds and fewer amenities for students. The operating costs would exceed the amount that would be generated through rents. Since rent is not a factor that can be increased due to it being low-income, the college would have to budget general funds to cover the annual costs of the building.
• The board and the college did not want to utilize two buildings as collateral for the lease revenue bonds. The original grant was awarded to the college through an application process, and did not require the college to work with multiple state entities through a lease revenue bond.
Prior to the board doing a “cure” vote, college officials recommend the board hear “a second comprehensive report on the student housing grant.”
At the previous meeting, Andrus called Arnold’s motion and its subsequent approval “premature.”
“I think when the motion was made tonight, and a second, there should have been a discussion about whether or not that motion is timely,” Andrus said, “or whether or not it could be made at a future board meeting after a secondary presentation about all the funding mechanisms, or whether or not some of that could have been presented tonight.”
Wednesday’s meeting is set to begin at 5 p.m. in room 301 at the COC University Center, located at 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road. To watch the meeting online, go to tinyurl.com/4u7vtcy5.
