A month after Mt. San Jacinto College's proposed $720 million bond failed, college officials say they have yet to determine what factors doomed the measure that would have helped fund the expansion of two existing campuses and build two others.

But in a recent interview, college President Mark Zacovic acknowledged that the three months available to campaign for the bond -- the largest ever proposed in Riverside County -- probably was too short a period. So, it's unlikely that the board will put a bond measure on the November ballot, he said.

The board voted in early March to hold the June 6 election. If -- or more likely, when -- the college proposes another bond, Zacovic said he would present it to local city councils and possibly area school boards.

That would please Temecula City Councilman Mike Naggar, who emerged as one of the bond's most outspoken critics in the weeks before the June 6 ballot. Prior to the election, Naggar sharply criticized college officials for failing to seek the approval of area councils.

"It's a community college," Naggar said in late June. "They should go to the communities they serve: Find out what the needs are and what the community is willing to embrace. Nobody knows my community better than I do and my other councilor colleagues."

Steve Beutz, who orchestrated the campaign against the bond, opposed it for a different reason: The college has sought to build a satellite campus near his home in Wildomar, which he contends would worsen area traffic. College officials had earmarked nearly $102 million of the bond, known as Measure G, for the proposed Wildomar campus's total construction budget, according to a college document.

"I figured, 'If I defeat this, they're not going to get the money'" to build the campus, said Beutz, who operates the anti-bond Web site, www.stopthemoneygrab.com.

Zacovic said, in an interview before the June 6 ballot, the 80-acre Wildomar campus would be built regardless of the bond's outcome -- only with state money, which he said would translate to a slow build-out of the campus.

But that was before a judge ruled on June 8 that the sale of the Wildomar open space from the county to the college district couldn't be processed unless local voters or state legislators approved it. That ruling was announced two days after voters nixed the bond.

Factors in its failure

A January poll conducted by Santa Monica opinion research firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates indicated that district residents favored expanded and new campuses. The results affirmed college officials' belief that residents supported such improvements in their district.

Yet, just 45.1 percent of the electorate supported the bond. To have gained passage, the bond would have needed 55 percent of the vote. Had it passed, property owners would have had to pay $19.49 per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation over 25 years.

Despite the polling, college consultant Ariane Lehew said the results didn't surprise her, though she didn't expect them, either.

"It disappoints, always," said Lehew, vice president of Ontario-based School Advisors, which served as the college's bond adviser. "I think that once election results statewide became clearer by the midnight hour, I think what I … recognized was that it was a very tough election day."

Lehew cited low voter turnout statewide, particularly in Riverside County, as a reason for the bond's failure. About 20 percent of the county's electorate voted June 6.

"I've been wondering when voter fatigue would set in -- and it did," she said.

She also contends that the residents who did vote weren't focused on education.

Naggar has other theories.

He contends that the $720 million figure was absurdly high, which prompted a majority of voters to nix it. The bond, according to college officials, included funds for site acquisition, equipment and furnishings, engineering and architectural fees, administration and management, contingency money and inflation.

"We didn't need a big campaign (against the bond)," said Naggar. "It was obvious on the face of it: the amount of money, the lack of detailed expenditures."

Naggar believes college officials failed to communicate their needs.

"Anytime people want to go out for a bond, it's because they don't have the money," Naggar said. "If monies are available to community colleges from the state, why aren't they getting them? That creates two subquestions: Either the state is failing or the community college board is failing. Before we say, 'Citizens, we want to tax you,' I want to know answers to those two questions. And those questions apply to any local bond measure. There's a third possibility: 'We want to do a little more.'"

Zacovic contends that community colleges statewide are underfunded, citing almost four dozen community college districts in California who have sought similar funding.

He then added: "I think it's insulting to the elected officials of this district to think they're willy-nilly about putting a bond on the ballot. We used a series of experts. It wasn't an easy decision."

Lessons learned

Considering the three-month window between the college board's vote and Election Day, Zacovic said he isn't inclined to recommend that the college board put a bond on the November ballot. He also doubts the board would vote to do so.

"But the board's the one that will make that decision," he said.

A bond could be proposed for the June or November 2008 ballot, college officials said.

Zacovic said he's come to appreciate the enormity of the district -- it encompasses 1,700 square miles -- which, he said, is varied and diverse. The district spans from Temecula to Beaumont.

"We want to make sure that people across our district know that we're their college," he said. "I'm not sure that's the case right now."

Zacovic acknowledged that he's given some thought to changing the college's name to one that may not appear to be exclusive to one part of the expansive district. But he added: "Go to the top of Mt. San Jacinto and look west. You'll see the district."

The real objective for him, he said, is to communicate the district's space needs to all communities in the district.

"We absolutely will go to city councils and school boards -- listen to what their needs are and to clarify what Mt. San Jacinto College is about," he said.

Those dialogues will include Naggar and other bond opponents, Zacovic said.

"I'd love to talk with those folks," he added. "I understand about taxes … but I also understand a high civic responsibility: to create capacity for the future. If we're only thinking about today, we wouldn't progress as a society."

Ultimately, a 12- to 18-month campaign for a bond may be enough to sway enough voters to approve a bond, officials believe.

"We didn't see the 45 percent (support) as a complete rejection," Zacovic said. "We need to communicate with a few more people."

Despite the election results and Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask's ruling, Zacovic said he has no regrets about accepting the president's position at Mt. San Jacinto College. Zacovic was hired March 9 -- the same day the college board voted to put the $720 million bond on the June 6 ballot.

"These situations, plus my background and experience … that just makes me sort of say, 'This is why I'm here: I'm here to help,'" he said. "I have no second thoughts."

Still, he acknowledged disappointment with the results of the June 6 ballot.

"I think in 20 years, we'll be kicking ourselves as a community for not solving this (capacity) problem in 2006," he said.

Bad month

It's unlikely that college officials will look back on June fondly.

The bond, which officials had anticipated would pass, failed. But considering the mounting campaign against the bond in the weeks leading up to the election, officials became a tad cautious in offering Election Day predictions.

The real shock, thus, may have been Trask's ruling. For more than two years, college officials, along with their outside consultants, have labored on an environmental impact statement for the Wildomar parkland, presuming that the land would eventually becomes theirs.

It may be for naught. Now, for a campus to be built in Wildomar, either area residents must approve it by a vote, or state legislators must pass a bill allowing the project to move forward.

"Putting a campus there is part of our master plan," Zacovic said. "Anything that threatens or affects that makes me nervous. If we weren't able to acquire that property, where do we go next? And what will that cost?"

While some residents were pleased that the college has made concessions on that site -- more athletic fields, for instance -- others have complained that a college, and its construction, would greatly affect their quality of life. The site is at the northeast corner of Clinton Keith Road and Salida del Sol.

According to an initial environmental impact report, the project's second, air quality at the Wildomar site could be significantly affected if a campus is built there. The project also could have an adverse effect on the site's protected wetlands and could substantially interfere with wildlife, the report states.

"The college bothered me in terms of how they were so arrogant about the campus site," Beutz said. "They didn't care about the traffic issues like everyone here does. Well, I care."

Zacovic, who only recently joined the college, disagrees that the college is, or has been arrogant.

"My experience is that the board or any of the staff at San Jacinto did not behave in an arrogant way," he said. "We want to be great neighbors, and huge contributors to the success of our communities in our district."

Contact staff writer Brian Eckhouse at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2626, or beckhouse@californian.com.