Plan for New School Construction Agency Raises Questions

The bold initiative outlined by Los Angeles school officials and state legislators Friday to transfer the planning and construction of schools to a new agency raises a host of questions about how school sites would be chosen, where the money would come from and how residents would hold officials accountable when things go wrong.

The authors of the plan said they have no answers yet.

“This is very much a work in progress,” said state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), a key member of the team that framed the initiative. Hayden said it will be a “monumental task” to work out the details.

Immediate reaction to the proposal was mixed.

Although some of the district’s harshest critics lauded the concept, others warned that putting school construction into the wrong hands could lead to even greater nightmares than the school district has experienced.

Steve Soboroff, chairman of the committee that oversees the $2.4-billion Los Angeles school repair and construction bond, said he would oppose the use of bond money by any other bureaucratic agency.

“It can be done better than this district does,” he said. “But giving it to the state to do is a disastrous error.”

Soboroff said he prefers privatizing the district’s massive program to build 51 schools over the next 10 years.

“Target built 300 buildings last year,” Soboroff said. “It isn’t that tough.”

After coming under repeated attacks for its handling of school construction projects, district officials agreed late Thursday to give up powers to acquire land, clean up toxic sites and design and build schools. Three state legislators were particularly critical, and pushed the district to improve the system for school construction.

At a news conference Friday, Supt. Ruben Zacarias said the district will retain the authority to have the final say on where schools should be located. “It makes no sense to build schools in areas where children have to be bused to,” he said.

The proposal presented by Zacarias, Hayden and state Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) needs to be approved by the Board of Education. Parts of the plan would require state legislation.

While board member Julie Korenstein reserved judgment, her colleague Jeff Horton said he foresees smooth sailing for a motion he intends to introduce Monday authorizing Zacarias to proceed with the details.

Hayden said the first step in implementing the plan would be convening a panel of experts to determine over the next 30 to 60 days how best to relieve the district of school construction without creating a new set of bureaucratic problems.

The potential to only make matters worse is illustrated by the New York School Construction Authority, created to reform the school district’s reputedly corrupt and costly school building process. The authority has become enmeshed in allegations of excessive cost, shoddy work and poor decisions such as placing a school so close to the ocean that 1 million gallons of water flooded the basement each day during construction.

Those behind the proposal for the Los Angeles district said they are aware of New York’s problems and believe they can be avoided.

Most important, the new agency would assume that liability, leaving the school district to focus on educating children. “It should be somebody else’s controversy,” one source said.

Hayden said the options the committee will examine include using a local agency, such as the Los Angeles Housing Authority, or a state agency, such as the Department of General Services. A new entity could also be created, he said.

General Services, which builds, maintains and leases office buildings for state employees, would be a logical choice, spokesman Ken Hunt said. He added that the department would take on the job if directed by the Legislature, but he has not heard of such a proposal.

But a prominent Los Angeles homeowners leader said he would oppose any state encroachment in local land use decisions.

“The fundamental question is, would the decision on where schools are built be made in L.A. or Sacramento?” asked Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. and chairman of the San Fernando Valley secession movement. “It’s a big mistake to transfer that decision-making power to Sacramento. There is no accountability. They hide in Sacramento and we end up with the problems they create.”

Bob Scott, vice chairman of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., a business group that supports the breakup of the school district, said the district’s goal could be achieved without involving the state by forming a citizens committee much like the one that oversees Proposition BB repairs to guide school construction.

“School districts are a local affair,” Scott said. “I’m sure a committee could do a great job of taking some of the load away from L.A. Unified.”

Officials at two of the state’s largest school districts were skeptical about the wisdom of turning school construction over to any outside agency. A new layer of bureaucracy could drag out an already lengthy process indefinitely, they said.

“You’re at the mercy of another agency,” said Lisa Dutra, who oversees land purchases and school construction for the Long Beach Unified School District. “If their people are out sick or their contracts department is on overload, you lose control.”

Georgia Snodgrass, who buys land for the San Diego City Unified School District, said the Los Angeles district has run into environmental controversies because it prefers to build schools on vacant industrial land rather than condemn residential properties.

Snodgrass said her district avoids those problems by having the will to exercise eminent domain.

“I think about 80% of the problem could be resolved if the L.A. Unified board decided that they will displace people and property owners,” she said.

*

Times staff writer Ralph Frammolino contributed to this story.