State Rejects $3 Million in Oxnard School Costs : Education: Officials call the elementary district’s $14-million air-conditioning system excessive. Board will borrow money from developer fees.

State officials have refused to pick up more than $3 million of the tab for Oxnard elementary schools’ new air-conditioning system, which they called far more elaborate and expensive than the 13 schools need.

Specifically, the State Allocation Board has told Oxnard School District officials it would not pay $1.1 million for what it called “overdesigned” and excessive aspects of the $14-million cooling system.

It also refused to pay $1 million for a heating unit installed during the project, $508,000 for the unauthorized use of a construction management firm and an additional $500,000 in cost overruns.

The district received $6.4 million from the State Allocation Board and $4 million from another state agency, leaving it responsible for about $3.6 million.

Board member Jack Fowler said the money to cover the shortfall would not come from the school district’s operating funds. Rather, he said, it would be borrowed from developer fees, a tax on city development that is earmarked for physical improvements to the school system.

At Oxnard School District meetings, board members have called the seven-year effort to install air conditioning in 13 elementary and intermediate schools a nightmare.

“It has been a disaster from beginning to end,” Fowler said. “We’ve had one problem after another. The costs went up exponentially.”

In addition to having to fund much of the project itself, the school district has received complaints from teachers who say the new air conditioners are not working properly.

While the board knew the state would not pay for the heating systems, Fowler said the state was unfair in the rest of its assessment. The board appealed to the state in late June, calling its $6.4-million allocation inadequate.

But the appeal was rejected.

A letter from the State Allocation Board says the district’s air-conditioning project was far more elaborate than necessary.

“Recent bid analyses for this program have revealed no evidence that ($6.4 million) is inadequate,” a state report says about Oxnard’s project. “Bids in excess of that allowance are an indication that projects are overdesigned.”

The state began funding air conditioning in year-round schools in 1986 as an incentive to operate during the summer. Oxnard was the first school district to apply for the program.

“Right from the beginning, we did not endear ourselves to the office of local assistance,” Fowler said. “They became known by most everyone as the office of local headaches.”

The state frequently changed the rules on the school board, promising money and then backtracking, said Ron Weinert, Oxnard School District’s director of facilities.

But Linda Rutherford, the local assistance office’s Southern California representative, said that of the roughly 400 schools that have been involved since 1986, only Oxnard and a handful of other districts have exceeded the state’s allowance of $15.50 for every square foot that is air-conditioned.

“Our program is set up to fund conventional air-conditioning systems,” Rutherford said. “Most districts choose a basic system, but Oxnard decided on a very elaborate, ice-plant system that costs more to put together.”

Oxnard’s system, Weinert says, is the largest of its kind in the western United States. The air conditioning for all 13 schools is programmed to go on and off from a single central computer. It makes ice at night, when energy costs are lower, then disperses the cool air during the day.

It is a complex system that Weinert admits “has had a few kinks.”

Ann McCarthy, president of the Oxnard Educators Assn., said she has received several complaints about the system.

“The teachers have said they have no control over the temperature in the classroom,” McCarthy said. “Some days it’s just right and others it’s like the Arctic.”

At Fremont Intermediate School, teachers and students worked in air-conditioned classrooms for the first time when school opened two weeks ago.

“It’s supposed to work that when it’s hot outside the air comes in cool and when it’s cold outside the air comes in hot, but that’s not the way it always happens,” said eighth-grader Shellie Cook. Several students, like eighth-grader Roy Johnson, now wear sweaters to class.

But most teachers and students said they much prefer having an air conditioner to not having one. “It gets very hot in those little classrooms,” said Fremont teacher Linda Barron. “Having it cool is much more conducive to learning. It’s a much better teaching environment.”

Rutherford said other schools are able to get by on window air conditioners or more standard ventilating systems.

Oxnard wanted something more energy-efficient than the window air conditioners and could not install a typical duct system because the roofs on some schools were not strong enough to hold the weight of the necessary equipment, Weinert said.

The weakness of the roof was only the first of several obstacles the construction teams encountered when they began work on the system in 1990.

“When we opened this project up, we found things we never expected to be there,” Weinert said. In the project’s first months, the district learned it could not work in the schools’ attics because of asbestos. Then they discovered that the architect’s drawings of the schools were inaccurate.

“At one school we dug up a section of ground and expected to find a gas line,” Weinert said. “We dug and dug and it wasn’t there. We were left with nothing but a big open hole in the ground.”

Once construction was underway, the crews had the added problem of working around the schedules of classes. “There were several instances when crews interrupted classes or caused problems, but they were always dealt with immediately,” said Assistant Supt. Bernard Korenstein. “But keep in mind, there were 100 contractors and 13 schools. There are bound to be problems.”

In one instance, McCarthy said, a construction crew began drilling outside a class and the drills came right through the blackboard.

“Obviously, that’s just unacceptable,” the teacher’s representative said.

“We all admit it was a difficult project,” said Supt. Norman Brekke. “But once we got started, there was no turning back. It was a massive project, and we’re all glad it’s over.”