In a lively meeting Tuesday night, the Culver City Unified School District Board of Education heard an update on capital projects in the works, while trying to reassure the members of the public attending that none of the projects are being withdrawn from consideration.

The board also recognized the district's 15 new teachers and approved a Memo of Understanding that will enable the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health continue to provide mental health services for special education students in the district.

But with a crowd of parents, students and residents filling the Culver City Council chamber to overflowing, the main point of interest was the update on four capital improvement projects currently wending their way through the various processes needed to get construction underway.

The projects include extensive improvements to the athletic fields at Culver City High School, installing elevators in Culver City Middle School and in the high school, improvements to the high school's Robert Frost Auditorium, and the installation of solar panels on the rooves of the high school, middle school and Farragut Elementary School.

"It worries me greatly that this has become an 'us versus them,'" said Board Vice President Karlo Silbiger, adding that no one on the board wants to drop any of the four projects.

The problem, however, is that without various different grants, rebates and other money from the state, the combined cost of the project will be approximately $4 million more than the $12 million the district has in the various building funds that can only be used for building improvements and cannot be used for teacher salaries.

"It's just a matter of divvying up the money," Silbiger said.

All of the projects are in the earliest stages of the approval/construction process. An architect has been engaged for the sports complex and a Request For Proposal has gone out, seeking potential contractors for the solar panel project, which received four responses, only one of which was in full compliance with the what the RFP requested.

More than 16 people chose to speak on the various projects during the comment session after the presentation by Ali Delawalla, assistant superintendent of business services for the district.

Community members spoke in favor of all four projects, but voiced numerous concerns about the lack of detailed data or specific parts of each project and the lack of cost/benefit analyses in the plans outlined by Delawalla.

"What's missing are the specifics," resident Howard Mencken told the board. "What's the process for coming to completion?"

"I'd like to propose to slow down," said Jane Steinberg, requesting that the board offer up a full cost/benefit analysis for the projects and that they "seek the input of the parents."

On the other hand, Jerry Chabola, head of athletics at the high school pointed out that new turf on the fields is critically necessary, as students are getting injured from the uneven field.

"Education is the primary purpose of the field," Chabola said. "It's now time to step up and spend the money. Our facilities are not in good shape."

Chabola's remarks received a standing ovation from the many student athletes filling the chamber.

Many of the speakers expressed concerns about the delays in the project to install solar panels on school rooftops, including one unnamed man who expressed fear that the solar project would get lost among the other three projects.

The board, in turn, asked Delawalla to provide more specific breakdowns on project costs. Board member Katherine Paspalis also expressed concern that a potentially non-refundable deposit for a rebate from the California Solar Initiative had not been sent in, despite board requests to do so.

"I'm not thrilled about the $20,000 not being put in for the CSI," she said.

Delawalla had earlier said, answering Silbiger's question about it, that the deposit, or reservation fee, had not been sent in because the fee is only refundable if the project moves forward. Given that the project is not officially approved, the districts risks losing the $20,000.

The board's main concern, however, was to reassure the public that no one project was being favored over another.

"We're here for all the students," said Board member Professor Patricia Siever.

"Every single one of these projects is doable even with the money we have," Paspalis said, adding that the board might have to find extra grants to fund them, but that there were grants and other funds available. "We just have to be creative about it."

Board member Steven Gourley also epressed concern repeatedly that the board's Sustainability Committee appeared to have been left out of a key part of the Request For Proposal process on the solar panel project and insisted repeatedly that the committe be included at all phases of all of the projects.

"Are we using the Sustainability Committee as much as we could?" Gourley asked early in the meeting, insisting that the committee be involved not just on the solar panel project, but on all of the capital projects being considered and worked on, a request that was echoed by the other board members, as well.