JUDGE REMOVES BAN ON BELMONT PROJECT.

Byline: Terri Hardy Daily News Staff Writer

A Los Angeles judge lifted an injunction Friday against the controversial Belmont Learning Complex, giving the Los Angeles Unified School District the green light to proceed with the pricey project.

Superior Court Judge Diane Wayne, who has insisted that the school board fulfill its commitment to the public for real oversight on bond-money spending, issued the ruling after reviewing a unanimous recommendation by the Blue Ribbon Citizens Oversight Committee against using Proposition BB money to fund the $87 million high school.

Wayne had issued an injunction last month halting the Belmont project until the citizens committee reviewed whether voter-approved bond funds should be used.

``I hope the public's interest has been served,'' Wayne said in court. ``At least the committee is doing what voters thought they would do.''

Public outrage erupted in late April when the board announced that it intended to use $43.5 million from a $2.4 billion pool of school-repair bond funds - without input from the specially created oversight committee.

The school board, now faced with a virtually no-win funding scenario, is expected to vote Monday on how to pay for the Belmont complex.

If the board flouts the citizens panel's recommendation and votes to use BB funds, it faces further public outrage. And if the board proceeds with the project using certificates of participation or COPs, it would cost an additional $18 million, increasing already high costs and requiring use of money from the general fund. As currently proposed, Belmont - with its high school campus, retail shops and housing units - already would be the costliest school in the state.

``The board is caught in the biggest boondoggle ever created by the district,'' school board member David Tokofsky said of the board's funding quandary.

Chief Financial Officer Henry Jones said the real difference is that, by using COPs, ``You're using money you could have used for other instructional purposes.''

Jones said he would recommend the school board use COPs ``only if no other alternative is available.''

District officials say that, given the citizens committee's recommendation and the political realities, the four board members who have consistently voted for the Belmont project will lean toward using COPs.

``They want to push this through, but I think they'll eventually go back to BB funds,'' Tokofsky said.

Board President Jeff Horton, a supporter of Belmont, said he is inclined to take the oversight committee's advice and vote to fund the project with COPs.

``I don't think COPs are the best way to go, but if that's what it takes, then we'll do it,'' Horton said.

The oversight committee has said it would consider revisiting the issue if the state agrees to provide matching funds for Belmont.

Meanwhile, Tokofsky and union officials are pushing for reconsideration of the project.

``The board needs to review the circumstances behind the vote of no confidence issued by the oversight committee,'' said Jesus Quinonez, an attorney for United Teachers - Los Angeles, one of the parties that filed the suit seeking an injunction against the district.

Quinonez said that other parts of the envisioned Belmont project - including retail space, low-income housing and recreational facilities - have not been firmed-up.

``Deadline after deadline has passed,'' Quinonez said. ``The board is obligated to take a hard look at that. . . . They need to re-evaluate the project.''

Dom Shambra, director of the LAUSD's planning and development office, acknowledged that the district missed Friday's deadline to put together the project's retail plan. And, he said, the housing and recreation components had not yet solidified.

The 40-day injunction has taken a toll on the project, he added.

``Everything's so thrown off I don't know where we are,'' Shambra said.

Board member Tokofsky, a longtime critic of the Belmont proposal, wants his colleagues to take a deeper look at the project.

The district would have to pay penalty costs if it terminated its development agreement with Kajima International and rebid the project, but could still get a high school ``for $20 million less,'' said Tokofsky.

``It's just not a choice of one type of funding or another,'' he said.