WILL LAUSD REGRET DEAL WITH CORPS?

Byline: Greg Gittrich Staff Writer

The Army Corps of Engineers - designated to run Los Angeles Unified's billion-dollar school construction program - has suffered failures and missteps on dozens of occasions in recent years, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Daily News.

Although experienced and largely successful in massive building projects and heralded for its emergency work after natural disasters, the corps' snafus include missed deadlines, million-dollar cost overruns and blatant stealing by employees.

Like the tales of the corps' good deeds, the horror stories come from all over the country, as far away as New Jersey, as close as Hansen Dam.

When L.A. Unified's Chief Operating Officer Howard Miller rolled out his agreement with the Army last week and later endorsed the corps to handle a crucial final review of the troubled Belmont Learning Center, he described the agency as ``unimpeachable.''

He praised the federal engineers for having the ``highest integrity'' - a crucial endorsement in the face of growing concern about corruption and favoritism in LAUSD contracting.

But questions about the corps' performance abound.

The corps' problems include allegations that its employees deflated contractor bids in North Carolina, that its officials sidestepped public processes in Florida when managing a wetland, and that it wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in Idaho in a failed attempt to save salmon in the Columbia River.

Locally, the corps exceeded the original budget for restoring Hansen Dam Recreation Area by $5 million, despite creating a lake a fraction of the size originally approved. The money problems tied up the project for two years.

``The notion of the Army Corps being a part of saving Belmont is a bit baffling to me,'' said state Assemblyman Tony Cardenas, D-Panorama City.

``We asked them to put in a couple of swimming pools at the recreation area and it turned out to be amazingly costly and time consuming. They are a huge bureaucracy. I wonder how they could be any solution.''

State Sen. Tom Hayden, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee, questioned the Army's accountability.

``The school district is trying to say they want an agency above politics. But this agency is generally above democracy,'' said Hayden, D-Los Angeles, who favors abandoning Belmont because of costly and potentially dangerous environmental problems.

``If you oppose the corps, they act as if they are under attack from an enemy. There is no way to influence them,'' he said.

``My fear is that this is pushing forward a construction program that won't be deterred by the little things, like the environment, public health, public participation, public input and public comment.''

Those concerns are shared by Barbara Mastrangelo and many of her neighbors in Paterson, N.J. where the corps' $40 million flood-control project was supposed to eliminate flooding yet scores of residents suffered property losses last September after a tropical storm. The corps was months behind on the flood-control project but blamed the damage on clogged catch basins and run-off from a nearby river, residents said.

In July, a corps field manager, John Seldler, pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting a $25,000 bribe from a contractor competing for a $250,000 contract in Puerto Rico to provide hurricane relief.

Investigators charged the case was tied to other misdeeds by corps employees in Miami and similar to alleged bribery schemes by corps employees in Mississippi.

The Los Angeles office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has about 750 employees, mostly civilians, with training and expertise in architecture, engineering, planning, real estate, research and environmental regulation.

Fred-Otto Egeler, the chief spokesman for the L.A. office, would not respond directly to Hayden's criticism.

``We are environmentally friendly by an act of Congress,'' Egeler said. ``We have environmentalists here who look at each and every project that we are involved in.''

Noting the corps has more than 32,000 employees worldwide, Egeler would not comment on problems elsewhere. He said there was only one incident during the last five years where a Los Angeles employee was arrested for misappropriating money.

Egeler admitted the corps has never tackled school construction locally, but argued such projects are not new to the agency, which builds and maintains many military campuses overseas.

``I think we will be able to turn a lot of people's opinions about the corps around. We're doing things to make people's lives in Los Angeles better.''

The corps also has overseen public school construction and renovations in Washington D.C. for nearly two years, according to U.S. Army Col. John Carroll, who signed the school construction agreement with Los Angeles Unified.

Through special congressional legislation, the corps now manages the school district's $619 million, six-year capital improvement program.

``We have a lot of work on our plates and it seems to be a pretty good partnership,'' said David Morrow, program manager for the project. ``We're looking at roughly $100 million a year at 147 active schools.''

The corps also repaired public schools in south Florida after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Georges last year.

Egeler and other corps officers would not comment on Belmont, which sits partially completed in downtown Los Angeles atop an oil field seeping potentially explosive and deadly gases.

Miller and incoming Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines plan to use the corps at the complex and several school board members have indicated support, but no agreement has been signed with the district or approved by the board.

Miller has proposed paying the corps $200,000 for six weeks work at Belmont, and $1.2 million for other construction management services through March 31.

The cost estimates for Belmont are the district's figures since no deal has been struck, Egeler said.

More facts needed

At Tuesday's school board meeting, Miller and Cortines intend to recommend that the Army evaluate Belmont and help guide the district toward a final decision on the fate of the complex.

If their plan is approved, the corps would be asked to determine how much it would cost to complete the school and whether state funding would be available.

The corps also would be asked to determine how long it would take to finish Belmont and to seek alternative sites for campuses in the downtown attendance area.

The board shut down construction at Belmont last month and fired the developer two weeks ago. It was expected to decide whether to scrap the project or go forward last week, but delayed the vote to wait for Miller and Cortines to resolve questions about its safety and cost.

Miller said a 60-day evaluation of the project by a citizens commission appointed by the board in August failed to resolve several issues.

The commission voted by a narrow margin to advise the board to complete Belmont, but submitted a final report raising many questions about the district's ability to build and operate a campus safely atop the oil field.

The four commissioners who endorsed moving forward did not respond to requests for comment. Those opposed criticized the proposed involvement of the Army.

``The use of the Army Corps of Engineers in the construction of the new schools sounds like a good idea. I don't see any downside to it,'' said former District Attorney Ira Reiner, the commission's executive director and legal counsel.

``In terms of Belmont, it doesn't change that equation at all. The task is not to `save' Belmont. . . . If the school board tries to make right a project that everyone agrees was monumental mistake from the beginning, they will be consumed for the better part of 10 years with making this one project right and not with building the other 150 desperately needed schools.''

Commissioner Craig Perkins, director of Environmental and Public Works Management in Santa Monica, agreed.

``The Army Corps of Engineers is very good within their area of core competency,'' Perkins said. ``Building high schools is not in their area of core competency.''