Logo horizontal ruler
   

$175 Million Bond May Not Be a Walk in the Park

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

June 9 -- The president of Santa Monica College asked a cautious Board of Trustees Monday to take a “leap of faith” in considering one of the largest proposed bonds in the school’s history despite a lack of details and a rapidly approaching November ballot deadline.

The $175 million proposed measure comes after a study by the college found the City’s park and recreation space to be severely limited, while the school’s own physical education, recreation and social welfare facilities are increasingly dilapidated and hemmed in.

The bond -- which requires 55 percent approval by voters -- calls for $100 million in “cooperative partnership projects” with the cities of Santa Monica and Malibu, as well as with the School District. To pay for the bond, Santa Monica and Malibu homeowners would have to pay about $6.40 per month, while renters would pay about $1.12.

Debating the item for the first time Monday, most board members acknowledged the need to expand and upgrade the facilities to assure the fitness and well being of its students and the larger community.

However, many said the timing, lack of precise accounting and sheer size of the bond gave them pause.

“This is the biggest bond I’ve ever worked with,” said Board President Margaret Quinones. “When I see money like this, it scares me. As of late last night, I still wasn’t too keen on it.”

By meeting time, however, Quinones indicated she was leaning in favor of the bond.

The proposed measure would take up a significant portion of the school’s $560 million bond capacity, noted Board Member Carol Currey.

“For us, last year was very difficult,” Currey said. “There were cuts in programs and faculty, and I’m worried that this will be viewed by my constituents as us taking our eyes off the ball and going after other endeavors.”

Despite the huge dollar amount, College President Dr. Piedad F. Robertson asked the board to “take a leap of faith,” trusting that the specific accounting of the projects -- such as a five-acre, coastal physical fitness and marine biology facility, a childhood development center and a children’s fitness outdoor park at the college -- would become clearer over time.

“We have a big brush painting,” said Robertson, “but we’ll have to go back later and add in the details.”

Those details, however, were of great concern to Board Member Graham Pope, who is an accountant.

“As this comes down the road, there will be a need to specifically identify operational and other costs involved,” Pope said.

Pope worried that even the amount of time it would take to repay the bond remained unclear. Rather than the ten or 12 years outlined in proposal papers, the bond could reasonably be around 25 years after it is approved, making it more expensive.

The absence of concrete accounting figures, said Robertson, is partially the result of partnering with the two cities and the district.

City officials told the board that the measure’s impact on the municipal budget was not yet clear.

“The City is still in recovery mode from the recession and the aftermath of 9/11,” said Santa Monica City Manager Susan McCarthy, who attended the session with Malibu’s mayor and city manager “We will need to find out how this will figure into the City’s budget… since it will require a continuing obligation on the part of the City.”

California’s larger fiscal uncertainty could impact the budget, since the state has a tendency to close deficits by taking municipal monies, McCarthy said.

Board members also worried that placing the bond on the November ballot may not give enough time to evaluate the measure and gather input from the public.

“I think we will have quite a task before us,” said Pope. “One of the main concerns I have is the timeline and the number of hoops we’ll have to go through before we can put this on the ballot.”

“So this board has a month to digest this, go out to the entities, and gather input from the public?” Board Member Annette Shamey asked rhetorically, describing the entire schedule as “breathtaking.”

Robertson said that a series of meetings with Santa Monica and Malibu will take place before the issue comes back to the board in July for further discussion, or even a possible vote.

In the meantime, Roberson said the college plans to move forward with “a whole series of things” to elicit the public’s input on the item, including direct mailers, survey groups and extensive polling.

Feedback from those polls will likely determine which way the Board of Trustees will stand on the measure.

“I’ll need a realistic barometer that our residents want this, meaning polls,” said Quinones. “That for me is the mustard of what this represents.”

Currey, however, expressed alarm that the rushed schedule and momentum behind the bond could squelch dissenting voices.

“I’m really concerned about the voters who don’t want this,” she said. “It’s going to feel like a steamroller is going over them when you have four agencies pushing for this.”

Comments made by Board Member Nancy Greenstein indicated that the college’s faculty were upset they have not been consulted on the bond.

That slight may add even more fuel to a burning feud between faculty and the college’s administration. The groups have remained at odds ever since the school cut programs and staff over the last year.

The faculty association responded by handing the board and president a vote of no confidence, and last week backed challengers in November’s election for three open seats on the college board.

The board also did not shy away from questioning the wisdom of adding park space to one of the most densely populated cities in the nation.

“If you implement everything in the plan for parks and recreation, what will the effects be on the traffic congestion, circulation and parking?” Currey asked.

Shamey, who, along with Pope, announced she would not be running for reelection in November, shared that concern.

“This little town has not planned appropriately for physical education, but I know you can’t just create space, and also know this dream will take a lot of work to accomplish,” Shamey said. “Yes, have a vision, but be realistic about this.”

Santa Monica’s City Council is expected to discuss the item June 22, while Malibu will consider it June 28.

Lookout Logo footer image
Copyright 1999-2008 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved.
Footer Email icon