New Schools--Who’s at Fault for Red Tape and Delays?

During two public hearings on solutions to school overcrowding, parents pleaded with the Los Angeles school board to forget year-round sessions, a controversial proposal that the board is expected to approve.

Instead, they urged the board to build new schools. In the best of all possible worlds, that is exactly what the board would do.

“What could be better than a new school?” said Roberta Weintraub, who represents the East San Fernando Valley and sits on the board’s building committee.

But it takes an average of five years to construct a school, from the time the need is identified to the day the doors are thrown open. The Los Angeles Unified School District would have to build 11 schools every year for the next five years, at a cost of $850 million, to provide the 55,000 seats needed. That number would be in addition to 16 schools already in the planning stages.

“We can’t build them fast enough,” one district official said. “That’s the bottom line.”

State Is Blamed

The blame, many district officials say, lies mostly with the state, which has been the primary source of school construction money since the passage of Proposition 13. That 1978 measure limiting local property taxes effectively eliminated a district’s ability to raise money. Thus a district has to apply for state aid, a time-consuming and complicated process that district officials wish could be substantially shortened.

“What is frustrating us the most is the lag time or lead time” required by the state to process the applications, said Byron Kimball, who supervises all Los Angeles district building.

But others say responsibility for school construction delays must be shared by the district itself.

“I’m not too sure that they’re planning far enough ahead,” said Lyle Smoot, assistant executive officer of the State Allocation Board, the agency that grants school building funds. “On average, school districts do not plan far enough ahead. They wait until the impact is starting to hit, and then it’s too late.”

Weintraub, a board member since 1979, agreed in part. “It’s certainly been our fault also. We sensed a crisis but we didn’t sense the magnitude of the crisis.”

But, she added, the state board has caused unnecessary delays through bureaucratic wrangling.

“No one up there seems to sense the urgency of our problem,” she said, “and that’s really disturbing.”

Last School Built in 1972

The last new school that the district built was Robert F. Kennedy Elementary School in East Los Angeles, completed in 1972. The district was prohibited from building any more schools during that decade, when it was under a court order to desegregate. Building a school in an inner-city neighborhood, where the need was greatest, could have been construed as an act of segregation.

When the desegregation order was lifted in 1981, the district immediately drafted plans to build facilities in the predominantly Latino and Asian communities, where crowding was most severe. In the meantime, the board had closed several underenrolled campuses, mostly in the West San Fernando Valley.

The 16 schools that the district plans to build will serve the central, southeast and Wilshire areas. Before the first shovelful of dirt can be turned, however, the projects have to pass innumerable reviews by the state board and its administrative arm, the Office of Local Assistance.

According to Kimball, the state application process takes two-and-a-half to three years to complete. That process involves surveying existing school buildings and forecasting enrollment to determine the need for a new facility, appointing an architect, developing a blueprint, completing environmental impact studies, acquiring property, relocating any tenants and soliciting bids. Once a bid is awarded, construction can begin. On average, Kimball said, it takes two years to build and furnish a school.

Of the 16 schools being planned, the one closest to breaking ground is South Gate Elementary School No. 2. It is one of five new campuses that will be built in the severely jammed southeast portion of the district, where schools are operating year-round to accommodate the area’s high birth rate and immigration. With 28 classrooms spread over five acres, the $10.8-million school will serve about 800 students. The clock started ticking on this project in 1982, when enrollment studies and building surveys confirmed the need for more seats.

The project’s history illustrates the trials and tribulations of school construction.

Most of 1982

According to project manager Rodger Friermuth, it took the district most of 1982 to gather the enrollment data and survey the buildings in the Huntington Park, South Gate and Bell high school complexes. Using a state-established formula, the district then calculated how many classrooms it was qualified to build. The figures had to be verified by the Office of Local Assistance and revised when fall enrollment figures were available in October.

In December, 1982, the district submitted an application containing the enrollment figures and school measurements to the state board.

Two months later, Friermuth said, the board gave the district preliminary approval to proceed but sent only $1 to cover the estimated $93,000 in initial planning fees. The state’s school construction fund was empty because then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. had borrowed from it to balance the state budget.

“The state said, ‘Here’s a dollar, that’s all we’ve got and if you want to go ahead with the project, you can,’ ” Friermuth recalled. “But you can’t hire an architect and appraiser for a dollar. So we had to wait.”

14 Months Later

Fourteen months later, the state construction fund was replenished and the district’s money was released. Meanwhile, an architect and an appraiser were appointed, and an environmental impact study was begun. Conducting that study and obtaining approval from the city Planning Commission took up the better part of last year.

In November, 1984, the district sent preliminary drawings and cost estimates to the Office of Local Assistance for review.

It took until February to obtain the state board’s approval to proceed with the next phase--negotiating with property owners to obtain the land.

The district has to acquire and demolish 44 properties in South Gate to make way for the new campus. According to Friermuth, the staff has spent the last 10 months negotiating with the owners. The Office of Local Assistance has committed the funds to purchase 43 of the parcels and to relocate about 60 families

But one owner has refused to sell. To obtain the remaining parcel, the district has filed condemnation proceedings. That proceeding requires that the district deposit the sale price with the court to obtain possession in 90 days. But the district wants the Office of Local Assistance to put up the money, which it has refused to do. The state agency does not want to take the risk that the court might ask for a higher price.

‘Does Create a Problem’

“I won’t argue that it does create a problem for the district,” Smoot said.

The district is going to appeal to the state board at its next meeting in January. Until then, Kimball said, “We’re dead in the water. If we didn’t have this one condemnation and (local assistance office’s) refusal to act, we could have been ready to start work in September or October. That’s for a new school that would house 800 children in a very overcrowded area in South Gate.”

If the state board grants the district’s request, construction could begin next spring.

Sometime in 1988 the school should be ready to open. Chances are that by that time the new school will immediately be filled to capacity, Friermuth said.

At its next meeting, the school board will hear about possible legislative solutions to the school-building delay. (The death Friday night of Weintraub’s son, Michael, in an auto accident led the school board to postpone a session set for Monday in which the vote on overcrowding solutions had been expected.)

One possible solution will seek the Legislature’s permission to use state lottery money for school construction. District officials say using the lottery funds could considerably speed up school building. And these officials say they would like to find ways to reduce the amount of checking and auditing required in the state application process, but they are not hopeful.

6 Months at Most

Smoot estimated that cutting the state out of the process would probably save school districts six months at most.

“There are no two or three years to cut out of the process” without endangering the state’s interests, he said.

In the meantime, the school board faces some tough decisions. Some board members who have opposed year-round sessions find themselves no longer able to cast aside that option as a districtwide solution. Others appear to have reached the conclusion that increasing class size or staggering school hours may be the best of the less-than-ideal alternatives.

OPTIONS FOR OVERCROWDING

These are options under study by the Los Angeles Unified School District to relieve current and anticipated school overcrowding.

OPENING YEAR-ROUND SCHOOLS

Would extend year-round operating schedule from 93 schools to all 618 schools over five or more years, adding upwards of 154,000 classroom seats. Installation of air conditioners would be well under way before a campus schedule was changed. There are several proposed calendars. Estimated cost: $290 million for air conditioning, additional operating costs of $86,000 per elementary, $216,000 per junior high and $256,000 per senior high school.

REOPENING CLOSED SCHOOLS

Would reopen eight campuses, where a total of 1,141 students could be housed under current integration guidelines. Estimated cost: $170,000 to reopen each school.

CHANGING INTEGRATION RATIOS

Would change ratio of minority-to-white students from 60%-40% to 70%-30%, thus allowing more students to be bused to schools with extra space. About 10,000 more students would be accommodated at designated schools. Such a change might require court approval. Estimated cost: Additional busing cost of about $1,000 per student.

CHANGING DEFINITION OF MINORITY SCHOOLS

Would change from 70% to 80% the proportion of minority students required to classify a school as minority, reducing the number of such schools. Declassifying them would allow increased class size, generating space for an additional 1,896 students. May require court approval. Staff has recommended against proposal.

ELIMINATING INTEGRATION RATIOS

Would eliminate integration ratios altogether, creating an additional 33,492 seats. The district notes that the action could result in a new desegregation lawsuit.

INCREASING STUDENT/TEACHER RATIOS

Would increase classes in minority schools from 27 to 29 per teacher, creating up to 16,000 more elementary classroom seats and 5,200 junior and senior high seats. May require court approval and negotiation with teachers’ union. Staff has recommended against this proposal.

INCREASING CLASS SIZE

Would increase class size at all schools, not only minority schools, thus creating upwards of 27,796 additional seats. Some transportation costs might be saved, but the district might be penalized for exceeding some state class-size guidelines.

RECONFIGURING MORE SCHOOLS

Would move sixth graders from some elementary schools to junior highs and ninth graders to senior highs to make room available as needed.

BUILDING MORE MODULAR SCHOOLS

Would use prefabricated buildings to create schools for 350 to 500 students, cutting usual construction time and cost in half. Normal construction is estimated at $3.5-$5 million exclusive of land and about four to five years in duration.

LEASING CLASSROOMS

Would have the district lease unused schools and classrooms from adjacent school districts and community colleges.

LEASING ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE

Would move some administrative offices from school buildings, providing additional classroom space. Could provide 25 additional classrooms in currently overcrowded areas.

ALLOWING OPEN-ATTENDANCE OPTION

Would allow students at schools at enrollment capacity to attend another school of their choice. By providing RTD transportation, there could be a savings over anticipated additional district busing costs.

DIVIDING OR STAGGERING SCHEDULES

Would divide students into groups that start and finish at different times of the day. Proposals include double sessions or splitting the student group into four groups. Additional costs for clerical and support personnel, reduced transportation costs anticipated.

ALLOWING MID-YEAR PROMOTIONS OR GRADUATIONS

Would return district to an old policy allowing promotions and graduations in mid-year and kindergarten enrollment at mid-year. An analysis shows there would be a net gain of 10,900 students, adding to overcrowding problems.

FINDING NEW SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MONEY

Would seek new revenues for construction, including floating a bond issue jointly with the Community Redevelopment Agency and seeking a legislative ruling on allowing use of school lottery revenues for construction.