BOARD OKS BELMONT PLAN : BUT WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?

Byline: Sharline Chiang Daily News Staff Writer

The Los Angeles school board Monday narrowly approved construction of the lavish downtown Belmont Learning Center - leaving open the question of how to pay for the controversial project.

Monday's 4-3 vote for what critics call the ``Taj Mahal'' high school came after three hours of strained debate and discussion before a packed boardroom.

The dissenting board members said the project was too expensive.

The new school along 1st Street and Beaudry Avenue would accommodate 5,300 students on a year-round basis and is expected to cost $87 million. It would end the need to bus thousands of youngsters from the inner city's overcrowded schools to the San Fernando Valley.

The site also might include retail shops, housing and possibly a sports complex and could be completed as early as the summer of 1999.

The board is hoping that half of the estimated cost of the high school will be paid by matching funds from the state.

Under the proposal approved Monday, the Board of Education will be presented with a financing recommendation from an oversight committee by June 16.

When the decision finally came down, the room erupted in cheers and applause from Belmont-area families who came to support the plan. The project has been before the board for almost two years.

``The community is happy because now we can say we have the American Dream,'' said David Lugo, head of the United Neighbors of Temple Beaudry. ``Now children will have a better place and a better education.''

The project's approval came a week after the board was blasted by voters who said the district misled citizens by saying school repair bonds would be used only for repairs.

Others said they believed the Board of Education was reducing the role of a ``Blue Ribbon'' oversight committee set up to review bond expenditures to merely ``rubber-stamping.''

A $2.4 billion bond measure to repair and modernize schools was approved by voters April 8. In the bond measure, $900 million was reserved to build new schools.

Judge considers issue

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge declined Monday to issue a temporary restraining order sought by teachers to bar the Board of Education from approving a final contract on the Belmont center project.

Judge Diane Wayne is scheduled to decide May 2 whether to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the project until the matter is settled in court.

Wayne told attorneys that her ruling on the temporary restraining order would have no bearing on whether she grants the injunction. She also warned school district attorneys that they would be proceeding at their own risk if they go forward with the project.

If the project is deemed illegal in court, school officials might have to pay the developers $750,000 on top of the $5 million to $6 million cost of ending the contract.

Wayne appeared to share concerns by the United Teachers-Los Angeles union that school officials must go to the oversight committee if they plan to use Proposition BB funds for the Belmont project.

``They have to go to this committee,'' Wayne said after reviewing documents pointed out by the attorney for the teachers union. ``It's clear to me.''

But Peter James, one of the attorneys representing school officials in court, said the oversight committee's role is limited.

``It's just to review expenditures to make sure the expenditures are consistent with the contracts,'' James said. ``We're simply talking about a review of the expenditures to make sure there are no wasted funds.''

School board member David Tokofsky, who was at the court hearing, said voters expected the committee to have oversight powers.

Several payment options

Tokofsky, who voted against Belmont at the Board of Education meeting Monday, said the board was pressured to make a hasty decision.

The developers for the project, Temple-Beaudry Partners and Kajima International, had given the board until Tuesday to make a decision, he said.

``We were threatened by Kajima. They said they would pull out by tomorrow,'' Tokofsky said. ``We just signed a blank check contract.''

Steven Soboroff, a member of the Prop. BB oversight committee, said several options are available, including using certificates of participation or money from Prop. BB. The committee also may want to consider asking Kajima to finance the project.

``Because of the firestorm created on just one project, the public's belief in (the measure) has been eroded,'' said Soboroff, Mayor Richard Riordan's senior adviser.

Soboroff said the oversight committee will ``continue to serve as a watchdog on this project. ``Our group is also available to help in the event that BB dollars are used or if the public so demands, he said.

Soboroff said that after reviewing Belmont's plans he believes the project is ``well-conceived'' and ``not a Taj Mahal'' school. He may recommend the board first use certificates of participation and later bond money after they ``regain confidence of their use of Prop. BB,'' Soboroff said.

Financing costly

At Monday's meeting, Henry Jones, the district's chief financial officer, said financing through certificates of participation would cost the district up to $10 million annually and would come from the district's general fund.

The general fund pays for supplies, salaries, books and other basic costs.

Using Prop. BB funds would cost a total of $3 million to $5 million over the life of the 20-year bonds, officials said.

Board members Victoria Castro, Barbara Boudreaux, Jeff Horton and Mark Slavkin voted for the project, saying the Temple-Beaudry neighborhood has waited long enough for a new high school.

``I'm hoping children will be able to get off the buses,'' said Castro, who represents the Belmont area. ``I understand there is a group interested in breaking away (from the district) but that's not the issue of these children and this school.''

Board President Horton, who last week said Prop. BB money would not be used for Belmont, changed his mind.

``Since then it's become clear there's a disadvantage of (certificates of participation) and that the board should make a decision based on the oversight committee,'' Horton said.

Board members Julie Korenstein, George Kiriyama and Tokofsky voted against the proposal and expressed concern about high costs.

They also argued that Kajima was not the lowest bidder for the project and by hiring the developer, the district may be ineligible for matching state funds.

``There is no doubt we need a school there . . . but the problem is the board really doesn't know how much this will cost,'' Korenstein said.

HOW THEY VOTED:

Here is a list of LAUSD school board members and how they voted Monday on whether to approve the Belmont Learning Complex.

Jeff Horton, President: YES

District 3:Wilshire/Hollywood

[phone]

Barbara Boudreaux: YES

District 1: South-central and southwest Los Angeles

[phone]

Vickie Castro: YES

District 2: Southeast Los Angeles

[phone]

George Kiriyama: NO

District 7: South Los Angeles, Gardena, Carson and the Harbor area 

[phone]

Julie Korenstein: NO

District 6: West and central San Fernando Valley and the Sunland-Tujunga area.

[phone]

Mark Slavkin: YES

District 4: Westside and portions of the West San Fernando Valley

[phone]

David Tokofsky: NO

District 5: East and northeast Los Angeles and the east San Fernando Valley and San Fernando.

[phone]

CAPTION(S):

Photo, box

PHOTO Mauricia Miranda of United Neighbors of Temple-Beaudry shows her support of the project.

Myung J. Chun/Daily News

Box: How they voted (see text)