$3 MILLION WASTED; BELMONT COOLER CRITICISM HEATS UP.

Byline: Greg Gittrich Staff Writer

To keep down initial construction costs on the controversial Belmont Learning Center, LAUSD officials bought 157 separate air-conditioning units rather than a central system - a decision that will waste more than $3 million in the long term, according to a financial report obtained by the Daily News.

Los Angeles Unified officials chose to purchase individual air-conditioning units for the nation's costliest high school despite advice from a financial consultant that they were noisier and more expensive to operate and maintain than a central system, wiping out any initial savings.

District officials offered no explanation for the costly decision.

But one well-placed administrator, who has been involved in the Belmont deal for several years, said the individual units were used for one reason: to keep the cost of the project down on the front end.

``It's simple,'' the source explained. ``They had to keep the cost low or it could have killed the whole deal. What it cost in the long term didn't matter.''

When asked about the air-conditioning decision, Ray Rodriguez, a project coordinator for the $200 million construction project, refused comment. Rodriguez, who recently was reassigned, said he was abiding by the school board's ``nonmandatory'' gag order on information regarding Belmont. He referred inquiries to top-level management.

School board President Genethia Hayes, who recently took office, said she was unaware of the purchase.

Richard K. Mason, the district's longtime top legal counsel who oversaw many decisions related to Belmont, also said he knew nothing about the air-conditioning decision. Both pledged to look into the matter.

Reached at home, Dominic Shambra, the retired director of the LAUSD Planning and Development Office, who dreamed up the Belmont project, said he saw the air-conditioning report, but passed it along to the facilities department shortly before leaving the district.

Shambra added he believed the facilities division decided to ignore the recommendation and use the individual air-conditioning units because ``they were district standard at the time for maintenance reasons.''

Former Superintendent Sid Thompson could not be reached for comment. However, his then-spokesman Brad Sales, who continues to work for the district, said Thompson likely wasn't informed of the two options.

``It was never brought to his attention in a meeting that that type of trade-off was being considered,'' Sales said. ``It's not the type of thing that was normally brought to the superintendent, but it probably should have been.''

In a document titled ``Value Engineering Study Report,'' Hanscom Inc., a private project management firm, described the proposed central air-conditioning system as ``more energy-efficient'' and noted it would require ``less maintenance'' and provide ``longer equipment life.''

The central system would allow thermostats to be placed in every classroom and would be quieter than individual units.

Hanscom backed up those descriptions with a detailed financial portrait of the potential savings, presented to district officials Jan. 5, 1998.

The document notes the central system would have cost an extra $1.7 million to install, but would have saved the district $4.9 million in operations and maintenance expenses over the lifetime of the school.

The savings were calculated by Hanscom in present-value figures, discounting each year's savings by 8 percent to factor in inflation and other potential shifts in the economy during the school's estimated 30-year lifetime.

``The Belmont boondoggle continues to show there has been no construction wisdom,'' said board member David Tokofsky.

``In their efforts to keep the project's upfront costs from rising to $300 million, district officials were shortsighted and wasted money,'' Tokofsky said. ``As a former classroom teacher who experienced those vibrating, loud individual air-conditioning units, I can tell you this is not something you put in a school of the future. It's a mistake from the past.''

The district purchased the equipment from ACCO of Glendale on a $2.5 million contract, said Shel Erlich, a district spokesman.

In early July, dozens of the units were delivered to the Belmont site, a 35-acre, methane-marred parcel, located atop the Los Angeles City Oil Field downtown on Temple Avenue and Beaudry Street, officials said.

Despite the school board's July 20 vote to slow construction and secure the site until an advisory commission can determine whether the complex should be completed, the developers, Temple Beaudry Partners, used a helicopter to ferry the units from the site's football field to the roof of a classroom building. Workers began installing the equipment after the vote.

District officials said the air-lift operation had been approved prior to the board decision and was allowed to go forward to protect the air-conditioning units, not to hurry completion of the complex.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: The Belmont air-conditioning plan shows a lack of construction wisdom, complains David Tokofsky.

Evan Yee/Staff Photographer