While Associated Students Inc. legislation is demanding answers about the details of a proposed recreation facility, President Alexander Gonzalez says the legislation’s assertions are based on “faulty information.”

The campus president insists the next steps to cultivate the Recreation Wellness Events Center and Sports Complex will not center around student input.

“Remember, this is not an ASI project,” Gonzalez said. “This is not a consensus or a democracy.”

Gonzalez is set to speak at ASI’s board meeting today to address the legislation ?” authored by ASI President Angel Barajas and backed by the entire board of directors ?” which seeks to keep the integrity of the students’ 2004 referendum vote, Barajas said.

The legislation, to be voted on today, asks Gonzalez to “recognize the integral process and outcome of the student vote” and urges Gonzalez to pledge that the $25 million he fundraised for the project will not go toward the construction of the $8.9 million Broad Athletic Facility, replacing the old field house, according to the legislation.

The separately built athletic facility, which will be the first part of the project and is slated to be constructed by fall 2007, was originally included in the entire complex estimate of $73.2 million, Gonzalez said.

Barajas said the original plan did not include the construction of a new field house.

“I understand the urgency to build the new field house, however, we want to make Gonzalez understand it wasn’t a part of the original plan,” Barajas said.

According the referendum language, a recreation center, wellness center and events center totaling 236,000 square feet was to be built ?” but no specific mention of a proposed field house was included.

The second part of the legislation asks Gonzalez to promise that no additional student fee increases ?” on top of the current $110 semester fee and $56 summer fee ?” will be put on students because of the uncertainty surrounding the cost and construction timeline of the events center, which is included in the final phases of a roughly four-phase project, according to the legislation.

Clifford Hawley, ASI director of natural sciences and mathematics, said because the funding for the events center and Hornet Stadium renovations are now uncertain, he said he is concerned that the project tally ?” now at around $58 to $63 million with the athletic facility and recreation and wellness center estimate ?” should surpass the original figure. He said he worries students will pay the difference.

Hawley also said he does not think the events center should be built last because it is a pivotal part of the project, replacing the current gym, which he calls a “1,200-seat box,” and has the potential of holding “community-based conferences.”

Hawley said he thinks administration officials were “dangling the carrot” when throwing around different ideas about what amenities the project would offer students.

Sacramento State press releases have continually referred to the project as possibly housing “a student health center, fitness center, rock-climbing wall, swimming pool, athletic courts, bowling center, conference center and 8,000-seat arena.” Now, university officials will not release specific information about the project.

Leslie Davis, director of the University Union, said in an e-mail, “We are beginning the process of reconfirming what will go into the building.” Part of this reconfirming, she said, will involve a programming committee made up of three students and five faculty members to guide the project’s progress.

Barajas said that students, including ASI, were not properly informed of the change in construction plans. And when the University Union Board of Directors presented the plan to ASI on March 1, he said the university offered ASI two proposals and had not confirmed that they were splitting the project into several phases. Hawley agreed with Barajas’ depiction of events. Davis, who had a different account of the March 1 meeting, said ASI was updated of the new plans.

“The student’s were not informed of the change, which is why the research should be done before it’s put on the ballot,” Barajas. He asked why the university didn’t hire consultants and architects before the decision was made to put the referendum on the ballot.

Gonzalez said the $10 fee ?” put into effect after the referendum was passed ?” was necessary in hiring an architect, which sparked the conceptual phase of the project. He said there was no funding to hire project consultants before the referendum was passed.

Gonzalez said he thinks a lot of misinformation surrounds students’ understanding of the project and that all plans up until now have been tentative. The next phases, he said, will focus on solidifying the plans.

As a practical matter, Gonzalez said developing the plans will not include a lot of student input because it wouldn’t work to evaluate all students’ wants and needs on an even playing field.

“When it’s all said and done this is going to be a bunch of smoke,” Gonzalez said. “My concern is that we get something to the students as soon as possible.”

Gonzalez said he will work to keep the cost within the original estimate, but said that the rising prices of key resources such as steel will affect the project’s price.

Barajas said if the legislation passes, Gonzalez has until April 24 to issue a written response addressing the legislation’s key points. If Gonzalez is not responsive, Barajas said ASI might explore different avenues in getting its point across.

But Barajas expects to have an open dialogue with Gonzalez at today’s ASI meeting.

“I absolutely expect the president of the university to answer directly,” Barajas said. “The student body needs clarity ?” clear and concise answers from Gonzalez.”

Jessica Weidling can be reached at [email protected]