Council Inches Toward College Bond Partnership; College Board to Vote Monday on Proposed Ballot Measure

By Susan Reines
Staff Writer

July 28 -- The Santa Monica City Council moved tentatively Tuesday in the direction of signing on to a proposed $175 million community college bond measure to fund new sports and educational facilities.

While directing city staff to explore how the city and Santa Monica College (SMC) could partner to purchase land and build facilities if bond funds are available, the council stopped short of pledging support for any specific project. Discussion of specific projects is expected to commence next week.

The bond funds would allow the two public agencies to work together to fill common needs -- such as purchasing land to create playing fields that would be used by both the college and community.

College staff members have been lobbying the cities of Santa Monica and Malibu -- and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education -- to partner on projects the college plans to include in a proposed bond measure slated for the November election. The college bond would require the approval of 55 percent of voters in Santa Monica and Malibu. In contrast, municipal bonds require two-thirds’ voter support.

It is still unclear, however, whether the SMC Board of Trustees' will follow its administration’s urgings and vote to place the bond on the ballot. The trustees are due to take up the matter Monday.

Several SMC board members have said they are reluctant to ask voters for money to pay for sports fields and facilities expansions when the college has been forced to cut faculty and academic programs over the past two years.

On Tuesday, city council members generally expressed support for the idea of a partnership with the college.

"There's the concept of partnership and then there's the bond measure itself, and I think at a minimum tonight we're hearing that we're very interested in developing the idea of the partnership -- and doing it soon," said Council member Mike Feinstein.

Council member Herb Katz and Mayor Pro Tem Kevin McKeown both referred to the bond as an "opportunity" for the city.

Council member Bob Holbrook said that, if the agencies could devise an agreement to jointly purchase land for playing fields and list their development as a top priority, "it would go a long way to us wholeheartedly voting to support the bond."

Even so, wariness about the exact legal arrangement lingered.

Council member Ken Genser suggested that the council hold off on pledging definite support until city staff can determine whether the city's interests would be protected.

"I think it would be better just to wait, ask [city] staff to continue to work with the college staff, and then, when we have something worked out, it would be the time to see if we support it or not. But I think we likely would," Genser said.

The generally positive tone of the council members' comments was somewhat of
a departure from the tenor of their last discussion of the bond. In June, the overriding sentiment seemed cautious at best.

Although the council voted at that time to continue exploring the possibility of participating in bond-funded projects, concerns arose that the timeline was too rushed for the council to responsibly support the bond in the next election, because there would not be time to collect public input prior to the ballot going forward.

Those concerns did not surface at Tuesday's meeting, after it became clear that the council did not need to make a final decision before the trustees vote on the matter.

Don Girard, SMC’s director of marketing, said the council was under no time constraint to seal a partnership.

Girard was careful to say that the bond "is a partnership, it's not a gift."

The bond fund proceeds would pay for the college's contribution to project expenses, and the city would need to find its own funds to pay its share -- half the cost. Both agencies would benefit by being able to share the cost of purchasing land.

Both agencies will now begin to formulate a legally binding agreement to clearly define both the city's and the college's roles. Next week, the council will determine which, if any, projects it wishes to join.

The college's preliminary polling of voters showed that between 65 and 75 percent of Santa Monica and Malibu voters would support such a bond -- substantially more than the 55 percent needed, despite the fact that voters had approved a $160 million college bond in 2002.

After meeting with three neighborhood associations, SMC officials stated that bond money would not be used to buy residential property, and promised that the college would comply with the city's zoning codes for partnership projects, even though as a state institution it is exempt from those regulations.

Last week, the Santa Monica-Malibu Board of Education decided not to sign on to any partnership projects before the election, though it left the door open for future collaborations. The City of Malibu has also not formally endorsed the bond.