By Latonya Smith

The San Francisco Community College District Board of Trustees is pursuing a plan that would give a private high school priority use of athletic facilities being built with voter-approved bond money – $25 million of which was quietly diverted to the project earlier this year, even though voters intended for it to build a performing arts center.

To make matters even worse, the nearly $14 million in expected proceeds from leasing playing fields to private Lick-Wilmerding High School would go to a private athletic foundation beyond the reach of the board of trustees, rather than directly to the cash-starved public district that runs San Francisco City College.

Documents obtained by the Bay Guardian show the board of trustees is considering entering into a partnership with Lick-Wilmerding that would allow the high school's athletic teams to use the publicly funded Health and Wellness Center, planned to be completed at the Ocean Avenue campus in 2008, when it isn't in use by the City College Athletic Department.

In exchange, Lick-Wilmerding would pay nearly $3 million up front and $125,000 a year for 25 years into a Health and Wellness facilities enhancement endowment fund that would be set up to pay for continual upgrades to the school's programs and facilities, which will include a gymnasium, an Olympic-size swimming pool, and a year-round, all-weather practice field. The district estimates that those payments, adjusted for inflation and drawing interest, will eventually total nearly $14 million.

Julio Ramos, a trustee at the college, blew the whistle on a deal that he told us misuses funds that should be public and undermines the district's accountability.

"This is a big, huge monster set to engulf City College and start running the show," Ramos said of the foundation. "This sounds like a huge power grab."

The issue comes at a time when the college is resisting efforts to bring it under the Sunshine Ordinance, which would allow the public and the press greater access to its dealings, and planning to soon ask voters to approve even more bond money.

Whose fields?

The plan as it now stands would allow Lick-Wilmerding access to the complex when it isn't being used by City College teams and community groups that currently reserve space. Yet questions remain over whether the general public and other community groups will get squeezed out.

Chancellor Phillip Day, who spearheaded the deal, insists he can manage any scheduling conflicts. "We always accommodate, and we always adjust," he told us.

Trustee Milton Marks III has joined Ramos in challenging the deal, telling us he wants to ensure that students and community groups get priority. Furthermore, Marks worries this public-private partnership sets a bad precedent for the use of other campus buildings.

Ramos added that public entities should have access before private groups and suggested that an agreement should be entered into with a public school like Balboa High instead.

"No one should get special treatment because of money," Ramos said. "There should be no exclusivity."

Day said Lick-Wilmerding would use the fields only on weekdays between 3 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., when demand is lowest, and not on weekends, when the public wants them.

"The plan cannot interfere with plans and activities offered to the community," Day told us. "All groups that have traditionally accessed the facilities ... will get access over Lick-Wilmerding."

Yet that seems to only cover groups from youth soccer to the Police Athletic League that now reserve space on district fields, even though the expanded space would also likely expand community demand. The proposal doesn't spell out when Lick-Wilmerding would use the facilities, but it has 25 athletic teams that play during four different seasons.

The vote on the Lick-Wilmerding proposal is scheduled for late September or October, but no specific date was given by the chancellor (we'll post the information on our Alerts page at sfbg.com as soon as we know).

Moving money

The stage for the Lick-Wilmerding deal was set several months ago when the board of trustees quietly voted (with Ramos and Marks the only dissenters) to give the Health and Wellness Center $25 million that was originally slated for a new performing arts center.

The $195 million bond, approved as Proposition A in 2001, called for $25 million for a new community health and wellness center and $25 million for a new performing arts center, as well as money for the completion of a computer network and matching funds for a new Mission and Chinatown-North Beach campus, among other projects.

Chancellor Day defended the shift in funds by noting that the athletic project was ready to go, whereas the arts center still needed more preliminary work, and that the arts center might be able to tap other state funding sources because it will include classrooms and laboratories.

"Our commitment was to not sit on the money," Day said, arguing that the bond language was designed to give the district flexibility over how to use the funds. "We were very up front with our communications with taxpayers when we talked about Prop. A."

Yet Ramos said the clear will of voters has been subverted.

"The athletic department is getting first cut, and to hell with everyone else," Ramos said. "There is a compact with the city, and now we're switching priorities."

To compensate for the shift in funds, Day said the district would put another bond before the public in 2006 to fund the performing arts center, something voters may have thought they had already done in 2001. This one will be for at least $200 million, with $50 million supposedly set aside for the arts center.