Using Bond for School Cheaper, Panel Agrees

Members of the citizens committee created to oversee spending of school repair and construction money from the recently passed Proposition BB said Thursday that using funds from the bond measure is probably the cheapest way to pay for a new downtown Los Angeles high school.

The Blue Ribbon Citizens Oversight Committee said it will be six weeks before it formally advises the Los Angeles Board of Education on whether to use more than $40 million of the $2.4 billion in bond proceeds to build the Belmont Learning Center.

Plans to build the school with Proposition BB money have been criticized by some who say voters were told that the bond funds would be used to repair dilapidated schools, not build new ones.

At the first formal meeting of the group Thursday, school district officials told committee members that building the high school with general funds rather than money from the bond would cost the school district tens of millions of additional dollars.

“People either didn’t read their materials carefully or were misled,” committee member Kenneth J. Ballard said of the April bond election, in which more than 70% of voters supported the measure. “But the political problems are completely unrelated to the kids’ needs.”

Ballard, appointed to the committee by the 10th District PTA, is one of 11 members appointed by groups ranging from the mayor’s office to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. The committee was created by bond supporters to build confidence among prospective voters. Its recommendations are not binding on the school board.

Steven Soboroff, who is Mayor Richard Riordan’s appointee to the panel and was elected chairman Thursday, asked if “the anger of the voters is to be taken out on the educational system?”

The new 3,600-student school, which will be built next to Belmont High School near Temple Street and Beaudry Avenue, is expected to cost more than $87 million. Thousands of students in that area are now bused to other schools.

Henry Jones, the district’s chief financial officer, told the panel that using bond funds for the Belmont project would not only allow general funds to be used for other expenses, but would also improve the district’s overall credit rating. Rating agencies, he said, look favorably on bond funds because they are secured by property taxes. The better credit rating could save the district millions of dollars by lowering the interest rates it receives on other loans, he said.

Soboroff added: “That’s a double reason for us to say we’re angry at the school board but let’s do what’s best for education.”

Despite his apparent support for using the bond money for Belmont, Soboroff cautioned that the committee has not made up its mind. “This is no slam-dunk,” he said, noting that the group needs to be convinced that spending bond money on the Belmont project will not slow down other repair and construction plans.

The committee decided to meet at 7 p.m. on the first Wednesday of the month at various schools to make the most contact with the public. It will establish a toll-free phone number and post information about bond-funded projects on the school district’s World Wide Web site.