Schools May Find Way to Keep Funds : Education: District proposal aims to use $13.6 million in state money that otherwise would have been returned.

The Los Angeles Unified School District staff has come up with a way to use $13.6 million in state money earmarked for long-planned school renovation projects, rather than returning the funds because the district could not meet the spending deadline.

The financially troubled district also will try to recoup $18.6 million lost last year under the state’s use-it-or-lose-it requirement, although hopes of immediate success were not high, according to Bonnie James, administrator for new facilities.

In an effort to keep the $13.6 million alloted this year, James told the Board of Education’s building committee Thursday that he has devised a proposal to restructure his department’s workload to make sure the system uses the money.

The plan comes in response to criticism from some board members, particularly Westside representative Mark Slavkin, who has led the fight over the last several weeks to find a way to keep the state funds.

Among the biggest beneficiaries from the change in policy will be two high schools in Slavkin’s district, University and Venice, which would receive $5.3 million in renovation funds.

At University High, a $1.1-million overhaul would concentrate on the library and on the school’s antiquated and makeshift science laboratories. At Venice, most of the money--$4.2 million in all--is earmarked for new floors, a new heating system and other structural improvements.

The renovation money was made available to school systems under a state school construction and modernization bond issue.

But in Los Angeles, the district emphasizes building classrooms over renovating existing facilities, and officials said there is not adequate staff to do both at once. Because the state money is earmarked for specific schools, it cannot be used for projects rated more pressing by the board.

“I find it outrageous that we would turn back money that we probably won’t get again,” Slavkin said Thursday. He said the board will lose credibility with the Legislature and parents if it does not spend the money allocated to it, especially in a year when it has already had to cut more than $200 million from the budget and must cut at least $50 million more.

But board member Rita Walters said she opposes any plan that would delay building new classrooms just because district staff was needed to oversee renovations at schools that are not overcrowded.

Walters accused Slavkin of trying to change a carefully crafted policy to benefit schools in the area he represents.

Slavkin said after the meeting that under the proposal presented by James, projects at 32 schools could be salvaged without interfering with any new school construction projects. Slavkin said the proposal, which faces board action on Monday, is supported by Supt. Bill Anton.

The debate over returning the unused funds first arose in mid-July when the board was routinely notified that the renovation projects had been bumped to the district’s inactive list in accordance with the policy to emphasize new construction.

At that time, James said the downgrading was necessary because he does not have sufficient staff to oversee all the renovation projects.