As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, we have completed an evaluation of the two applied technology centers constructed by Gateway Technical College: the Center for Advanced Technology and Innovation (CATI), and the Center for Bioscience and the Integration of Computer and Telecommunications Technology (BioCATT). These centers were constructed at a cost of $7.4 million. Construction funds were obtained from $5.0 million in bonds issued by Gateway, along with both cash and in-kind donations from area businesses.
Technical college construction projects of more than $1.0 million must typically be approved by referendum, but a statutory exception exists for technology centers. However, statutes require at least 30.0 percent of construction costs to be funded with private contributions. This statutory requirement was not met because the value of in-kind contributions has been less than initially projected, and private businesses provided $414,000 less than anticipated in cash donations.
Gateway's governing board chose to contract with two private, nonprofit corporations to manage daily operations of the two centers and provide other services. Contract agreements involving staffing, building maintenance and use, and programming are complex and have been amended frequently. Since the centers opened, Gateway has spent $2.3 million to support facility operations but has received operating revenues of only $106,800. The difference-$2.2 million-has been paid from Gateway funds. Gateway is also expected to incur $1.1 million in bond repayment costs through fiscal year 2005-06. The level of support provided suggests that Gateway should closely monitor the centers' ongoing operations to ensure costs are controlled and revenues maximized.
We reviewed detailed financial documentation and found no instances in which funds from Gateway or either of the nonprofit organizations were improperly paid to an employee of any other organization. However, we question Gateway's decision to enter into a contract with the private organization managing the BioCATT facility for use of four fiber-optic lines. One objective of the agreement was to reduce Gateway's telecommunications costs. However, this contract has not been cost-effective in the short-term. Future financial benefits will largely depend on the ability of BioCATT, Inc., to sell use of additional fiber optic lines.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by staff of Gateway Technical College, the Wisconsin Technical College System Board, and the nonprofit organizations associated with the applied technology centers.
Sincerely,
JANICE MUELLER
State Auditor
State of Wisconsin
Ethics Board
June 20, 2006
The Honorable, The Senate:
The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.
Cipriano, Renee Parsons
Gade, Mary Parsons
For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 2005 session of the legislature, visit the Ethics Board's web site at
http://ethics.state.wi.us
Also available from the Wisconsin Ethics Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by organizations that employ lobbyists.
Sincerely,
R. Roth Judd
Executive Director
__________________
Relating to allowing the operation of double bottoms and certain other vehicles on certain specified highways.
Submitted by Department of Transportation.
Withdrawn by Agency, June 20, 2006.
Relating to plant pest import controls and quarantines.
Submitted by Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Report received from Agency, June 20, 2006.
Referred to committee on Agriculture and Insurance, June 20, 2006
.
