Council Upset Over Board Decision to Rebuild 2 Schools : Burbank: Officials say more alternatives to the $63.4-million project should have been explored, especially since the city is expected to help fund it.

The Burbank Unified School District board felt that it had taken a big step forward in solving a longstanding problem when it decided to rebuild and renovate the city’s two run-down high schools instead of replacing them with one new campus.

But members of the Burbank City Council have expressed doubts whether the board’s process in reaching the decision was a class act.

Mayor Michael R. Hastings and other members of the five-member council said they were puzzled and disappointed that they were left out of the decision--especially since the board has asked the city for assistance in solving the district’s budget problems.

Funding for the two high school projects, estimated at $64.3 million, is expected to come from the city’s Redevelopment Agency, the issuance of bonds and the sale of the district administrative office.

Hastings said alternatives should have been explored more thoroughly.

The controversy has sparked a special meeting between the two bodies tonight at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority meeting room.

“If you’re going to put all that money into restoration, then the question should be asked whether that’s the correct location for a high school in perpetuity,” Hastings said, adding that city planners should have been involved in coming up with alternative solutions.

“It was my understanding that we were a team that would come to these kinds of decisions jointly,” Hastings said. “It would have shown that we’re all bonded together to achieve the same thing. Not that we’re holding anything over anyone’s head, but if you want us to be your partner, then don’t take, take, take. There’s got to be some give.”

Councilman George Battey added: “I don’t think it should have turned out this way. For the board to do what they want to do, they will have to pass a bond issue, and they will need everyone in the community to support that issue. They should have done a better job of working with the council and staff to further explore other possibilities than to cut it off at this point.”

School board members said they were surprised at the council’s reaction.

“We did not understand that we had given any sort of message that the council would be consulted on this,” board President William Abbey said.

Abbey said he did not expect the board to change its mind about the decision, but said tonight’s joint meeting would serve as a forum at which the two panels could come to an understanding.

The board decided July 11 that rebuilding deteriorating Burbank High School on its present 16.5-acre site and funding extensive renovation of aging Burroughs High School would be more sensible than building one new state-of-the-art high school.

Faced with the high costs of rebuilding and refurbishing the two schools, district officials tried for years to decide whether it would be more efficient to demolish both and replace them.

However, board members indicated last week that they opposed that option, saying a combined school, which would have an enrollment of 4,000 to 5,000 students, would be too crowded.

The rebuilding of Burbank High will cost an estimated $51 million and the Burroughs renovation around $13.3 million, school officials said.

The council members said they recognized that the decision to rebuild and renovate the two schools was ultimately the board’s.

“It’s their responsibility,” Councilman Tom Flavin said. “I don’t pretend to know the educational parameters that led to their decision. But to discount the alternative to going to one high school contradicts fiscal reality. The city could have been of assistance in coming up with a site they could consider. You need to keep the options in play.”