The firm includes two influential former government officials. Council hears from the Santa Monica College District staff about a possible bond measure for the November ballot.
By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer
The City Council voted to increase its public relations costs
from $198,000 to $245,000 by directing the city manager to negotiate a contract with a firm whose managing partner was chief of staff for former Gov. Pete Wilson and worked on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s transition team. Also a partner in the firm, California Strategies, is former state Department of Parks and Recreation Director Rusty Areias, a former California Coastal Commissioner and state legislator.
California Strategies would replace the PR firm Edelman Inc., which the city hired in 2003. Also, the council voted for the city manager to negotiate a renewal of the city’s contract with its other PR representative, McCabe & Co., but only for the city’s relationship with the Coastal Commission regarding the Local Coastal Program.
Several councilmembers said they only expected McCabe’s services to be needed for the next year, expecting the LCP matter would be solved by then. But they said there were many more state issues that affect Malibu, and agreed they needed the best firm possible to deal with these issues. Mayor Sharon Barovsky said she was at first hesitant about the significant price increase but was later persuaded it was a good idea during the council discussion.
“Our fate right now hangs in Sacramento on so many matters,” Barovsky said. “I learned something from our Planning Commission- that we should hire the best to represent us, and California Strategies is the best.”
The city had approved a contract with McCabe in January 2003 for governmental relations and advocacy, including the LCP issue. But city staff recommended that McCabe’s services be limited to the LCP because the workload on that would be increased in the coming months. The city is awaiting a decision from the state Court of Appeal on whether it can put the Coastal Commission-drafted Malibu LCP on the ballot. Meanwhile, the city has also sent proposed amendments to that document to the Coastal Commission staff, which, regardless of the court decision, could be a method to creating a new LCP. Councilmember Jeff Jennings said Coastal Commission staff is expected to begin reviewing the amendments in August and will be ready for a recommendation to the commission in April, with a vote to take place in May.
The city’s contract with Edelman was also approved in early 2003. In the report to the council, city staff wrote that although the firm had been successful in getting information to the public, it had been unsuccessful in “garnering significant interest in the major daily print news outlets such as the Los Angeles Times.” According to the report, the most significant benefits from the relationship had been realized.
Also at the meeting, the council heard from the Santa Monica College District staff about a $175 million-bond measure proposed for the November ballot, with the money generated from it being used for capital projects. The measure must be approved by the SMC Board of Trustees prior to Aug. 5, and the board is expected to vote on it this month. It must get approval from 55 percent of voters to pass.
If approved, about $25 million would go toward capital projects in Malibu, which the college district has proposed to include the creation of an educational facility in the Civic Center area. The cost of the bond would be about $18 dollars per $100,000 of assessed property value per year.
A proposal had been made by the college district that it conduct the capital projects in Malibu through joint partnerships with the city. But the city would not be obligated to anything, even if the bond measure were approved. At its previous meeting, the council had instructed City Attorney Christi Hogin to meet with the college district’s bond committee. The council recommended on Monday that a community meeting take place sometime in the near future for college district and city officials to discuss the bond measure.
In addition, the council voted 4-1 not to further pursue placing a measure on the ballot in November for a 0.5 percent sales tax. Barovsky said with the SMC bond measure possibly being on the ballot, there was little likelihood of a successful city sales tax measure, which would require just less than 67 percent approval for passage. A county sales tax measure might also be placed on the ballot, further sinking the chances of the city measure succeeding.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich cast the dissenting vote. After the meeting, she said, “I had made a promise during my campaign to look for all possibilities to increase the city’s contribution to the school district, and this might have been one.”