Top Officials Discuss Proposed $175 Million Facilities Bond

By Juliet McShannon
Staff Writer

July 1 -- In an atmosphere of geniality and spirited optimism, City, College and School District officials met Wednesday evening in an effort to move forward on a proposed $175 million bond measure to expand parks and civic facilities.

While members of the Liaison Committee did not discuss the specifics of the proposed site acquisitions and improvements or a potential Joint Use Agreement, they did focused on the vital need for open discussion and the pooling of resources in order to place the proposed measure on the November ballot.

The bond -- which bankrolls, among other things, more field space in Santa Monica and Malibu, as well as science and day care centers -- would require a 55 percent “Yes” vote and cost homeowners about $6.40 per month and renters $1.12.

“The problem in the past has been one of distrust,” said Councilman Herb Katz. “We need to go to the community as a team. If we sit and think of ways that an agreement can’t work, then it definitely won’t work.”

The sentiment was echoed by College Board of Trustees member Dr. Nancy Greenstein, who viewed the discussion at hand as being of a practical and philosophical nature.

“We need to look at the big picture,” Greenstein said. “This is the first time a proposal puts us together in one pot. This is not just about the people at the table today.

“We want those sitting here in fifteen years time to say ‘We have wonderful things because of the people who sat down at the table those years ago,’” she said. “It would be great if we could work together for the benefit of the community and for the future.”

Not all entities in the Liaison Committee felt adequately included in the dialogue over the bond, which would fund $75 million in college projects, another $75 million in partnership projects with the City of Santa Monica and $25 million in joint projects with the City of Mailu.

School Board member Julia Brownley felt that although the board welcomed community partnership, it was important that the district be given the opportunity to sit at the table.

“I’m concerned that the various entities are working towards their own individual agreements, but we are not in that discussion,” Brownley said.

“We haven’t had the same dialogue that the City Council has and I’m interested to see where we can go in opening the door for collective opportunity, and whether we can be equal partners,” she said.

Superintendent John Deasy stressed that discussion should be “community orientated as opposed to organization orientated,” and voiced a concern that voters will become exhausted voting on facilities issues.

“Would it all get to be too much and would the people then not support something else in a similar vein in the future?” he asked.

Skeptical City officials, who have voiced concerns that the approaching deadline to place the measure on the ballot would stifle community input, worried that the college would control the bond money and determine the list of projects funded by the measure.

Councilman Ken Genser questioned the overriding autonomy that the College Board of Trustees -- which will vote on August 2 on whether to place the proposed bond measure on the November ballot -- might have over the City.

“Santa Monica College is a state agency and as such could move forward unilaterally,” Genser said. “We have a situation here where the college raises money and decides how to spend it. So it’s partnership almost by gift, and what’s given can be taken away.”

Genser also expressed concern over the potential pressure on the City to match SMC’s financial input should a piece of land come up for sale that the college was interested in acquiring.

SMC President Dr. Piedad F. Robertson responded that “Nothing is perfect. There are no guarantees in life, but we can do things legally, such as in a Memorandum of Agreement.”

Robertson reiterated that the proposed measure was an “educational bond” and as such must benefit both education and the community.

“I cannot build parking garages, (but) only the things that the college needs,” she said. “There has to be a final list for an educational agenda.”

Dr. Robertson also announced that on July 27th the SMC Board is required to inform its attorneys of the final project list detailing the proposed facilities to be included in the measure.

The date coincides with the City Council meeting to discuss the proposed measure and the council’s viewpoint on the inclusion of various projects.

“The City’s priorities are important as we need operational funds,” said City Manager Susan McCarthy. “We want to be sure things on the list are joint priorities, so we can dedicate capital funds and, or, operational funds.”

Robertson concluded the meeting with a rallying call for unity.