History Museum officials bank on better times for fundraising. (Up Front).

Officials at the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum hope that time is on their side.

Unlike the board at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, which recently put a $300 million renovation project on hold due to the tepid fundraising climate, officials at the Exposition Park facility anticipate that an economic rebound in the next few years will loosen up donors for their project.

If that doesn't happen, there could be a "mid-course correction," according to museum spokeswoman Leslie Baer.

Natural History Museum officials had wanted to break ground in 2006 on a $300 million renovation to be designed by architect Steven Holl. It calls for replacing much of the 90-year-old main building, which is in dire need of repairs and seismic upgrading, and consolidating other facilities at the site.

They still expect to enter their "quiet phase" of fundraising in about a year, during which large private donors are tapped. Baer said museum officials believe the economic climate will have changed by 2004 or 2005 when most of the fundraising efforts are taking place.

Farther along than the Natural History project, LACMA officials had already entered their "quiet phase" of fundraising and had gotten only a few takers before they shelved their plan. "We haven't changed or delayed our schedule at all, nor have we contemplated downsizing the project," Baer said.

But it isn't going to be easy.

Last month, L.A. County voters rejected Measure A, a $250 million bond measure that would have provided $98 million in funds for the project. Renovations of the LACMA facility were also included in the measure.

The measure only received 60 percent support on Nov. 5, short of the two-thirds margin it needed for passage. Voters decided there were more pressing needs, such as funding for new schools and for the county's trauma care network.

Public funds scarce

County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, in whose district the Natural History museum sits, is openly skeptical of the museum's ability to tap into governmental funds.

"I don't think the county will have the money to do this," Burke said. "In fact, I don't see the money in the public sector at all right now."

Besides having to time their bid for donations just right, Natural History Museum officials must differentiate their plan from LACMA.

The LACMA project had been controversial from the start because there never was a consensus that the museum needed to be overhauled. Also, Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas' plan to tear down all the existing buildings and replace them with a huge tent-like structure drew mixed reviews.

There is, however, general agreement that the Natural History Museum needs a complete overhaul. What's more, public officials like Burke have said that if no action is taken to retrofit, portions of the facility might have to close within several years due to safety reasons.

"With LACMA, donors may be saying there are several options to pick from and this one may not be the best way to go," said Peter Manzo, executive director of the Center for Nonprofit Management, a Los Angeles advisor to non-proft organizations. "With the Natural History Museum, it's not a huge leap of faith for a potential donor to realize that the building needs major work."

Officials hope that recent increases in private donations for the museum's regular operations bode well for their capital campaign.

According to figures supplied by Baer, the museum has raised $11 million in private donations for operating costs in the first five months of the 2002-03 fiscal year, compared with $9.7 million raised for the entire 2001-02 fiscal year ended last June 30. What's more, Baer said, there has been a 52 percent increase in the number of donors giving at least $1,000.

In addition to private funding, museum officials are expected to pursue several options for public sector funding. While local, state and federal coffers are empty, there may be some historic building preservation funds or Federal Emergency Management Agency seismic safety funds that museum officials could go after, Manzo said.

Back to the ballot

But those would only cover a portion of the cost. The most likely source of public funding would be another bond measure, perhaps on the March 2004 ballot.

The measure would need to be smaller and focused exclusively on the Natural History Museum, where the strongest case for renovations can be made, Burke said.

But the bond route also carries the risk of another voter rejection, especially if, as now seems likely, there's a host of initiatives on the same ballot for programs deemed more essential.

Natural History Museum officials have only begun to consider whether to pursue another bond offering. But, Baer said, officials believe that the need for repairs is understood by the public. "After all, we did get 60 percent of the vote," she said.