It might partner with Santa Monica College on controversial measure
CITY HALL — Despite deep-seeded reservations and an often tumultuous relationship, elected leaders here agreed Tuesday evening to consider partnering with Santa Monica College in its push for a $175 million bond on the November ballot.
If passed, the college bond could be used to fund several city projects with educational bents, such as the former Discovery Center aquarium at the Santa Monica Pier, the Marion Davies estate at 415 Pacific Coast Highway, botanical gardens at the planned civic center downtown, or new soccer fields and other open space around Santa Monica.
The bond, which would cost the average homeowner $6.40 a month and the average renter $1.12 a month, follows on the heels of a $160 million bond called Measure U that was passed in 2002. Money from the new bond would be used to fund various SMC projects, such as an improved athletic center and the Madison Project, a $17 million theater.
Members of the City Council expressed frustration at their Tuesday meeting that college officials hadn’t raised the issue earlier, but ultimately decided the bond proposal warranted further consideration. Because it would be overseen by officials at SMC, the college bond would require only 55 percent approval from voters.
The City of Malibu has indicated its eagerness to partner on the bond in exchange for some targeted spending, including expenditures on open space. The local school district is considered by some a fourth partner because it could benefit from many of the bond projects.
During her presentation to council, Dr. Piedad F. Robertson, president of SMC, urged City Hall to make a leap of faith and partner with the college to support the proposed bond, on which the SMC board of trustees was scheduled to make a final decision on July 7. That cramped timeline left several council members feeling wary.
“I understand it’s a leap of faith, but this is $175 million in public money,” said Mayor Richard Bloom. “I don’t see how we can, as a responsible body, take a leap of faith with $175 million of public money in a period of three weeks...
“I’m kind of surprised that council direction we made a year ago — a year ago — is coming back now, to us,” Bloom added later during the two-and-a-half-hour discussion. “It’s as if the college is saying, ‘We talked about working together and partnerships, and here we are — and, by the way, we’re taking this forward 17 days from now.’ Trust is built over time. Trust is built step by step, brick by brick, item by item. I don’t believe trust is built by saying, ‘Here we are. We have a concept. You ought to like this concept …’”
Other council members said City Hall couldn’t afford to miss the bonding opportunity. They pointed out that the college still would go forward without city support.
“If we indicate our willingness to partner, then the city benefits from the college bond, if it passes. If the bond passes, and we choose not to partner, then we get nothing,” said City Councilman Bob Holbrook. “It’s really not a leap of faith. It comes down to, basically, trust and integrity. I heard the college president and her senior staff stand before us tonight on radio and television, pledging trust, integrity and partnership.
“It’d be awfully hard for me to believe that they don’t mean that. And I accept that as a genuine expression of what they’d like to do and how they’d like to partner.”
In response to the council’s concerns, the SMC board of trustees is expected to consider delaying a final decision on the bond until its August meeting. City Hall staffers were told to draft such a request, alongside specific language for how the city would partner with the college, and a list of the types of projects deserving of bond money.
Tom Donner, the college’s executive vice president of business and administration, said officials waited to make the proposed bond public until City Hall resolved negotiations with the cash-poor local school district, which ended up receiving an additional $3 million annually from the city, starting next year. That agreement averted an unprecedented and controversial charter amendment that a parent group threatened to place on the November ballot. Had it gone to a vote, the SMC bond would have been held.
“You’ve got the city being torn apart by that initiative and people being torn apart about whether to support education or not support education,” Donner said on Wednesday. “It would have made the (SMC) bond a low priority, to voters.”
Still, some on the council said much more public process is needed.
“I don’t see how there can be any excuse for not having adequate public process,” Bloom said Wednesday. “The question is, ‘Is there going to be a significant public process, prior to the time that the agencies are being asked to commit?’And it appears as though there’s not going to be. And to say that hasn’t happened because there was another issue in the city does nothing to satisfy the need for process. It just sounds like an excuse to me.”
Also raised by several members of the council was whether SMC could be trusted to spend part of the bond revenues in a way that benefits City Hall and local residents. The two agencies, by far the largest landowners in Santa Monica, have feuded in the past over parking issues and the development of the Madison Theater, among other issues. Some have accused the college of operating behind closed doors without input from residents or the city.
Donner dismissed the notion that SMC hoped to use the bond money to enter into a bidding war with City Hall over various properties in Santa Monica. He said SMC had never bought a property on which the city had made an offer or in which it had shown serious interest.
Ed Moosbrugger, one of only two members of the public to speak on the subject at the Tuesday meeting, said SMC hadn’t notified the local neighborhood group of its plans, despite the group’s deep concern with the ongoing growth of the college.
“Our neighborhood group, which surrounds the college, was not contacted for any input before the plan was presented to the board of trustees,” said Moosbrugger, a co-chair of the SMC committee of Friends of Sunset Park. “I think the basic point is the short time frame to try to really assess this and get input from the community.”
The next step in the process is for officials from City Hall, SMC and the local school district to meet June 30 in a liaison committee meeting to work on details. SMC officials also will be conducting a phone poll later this month to gauge interest in the bond.
Meanwhile, Robertson said she hopes for a stronger relationship with City Hall.
“I want to thank all of you,” she told the council. “Very good questions, we appreciate them. The only way that we can get to any kind of sort of partnership is by asking clear questions, and making sure that we all are nervous about this — and I am the most nervous of all of them.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 24, 2004. Read the original PDF.