The most significant cost difference appears on repairs to the roof-which became a principal part of the task force's argument when one of the University's experts testified he did not find structural damage there. The 1981 document called for resurfacing the roof at a cost of $30.000, while the current plan recommends completely rebuilding the area at a cost of $120.000.

Silverman said the roof example points out "the difference between the band-aid approach and a true rehabilitation."

He added that no other formal plan has been presented to the rent board by the task force or any other group.

Turk said the price differences for the roof repair demonstrate that the University is determined to renovate the building completely, regardless of cost or the effect on the market.

"In embryonic form, consideration of what work has to be done and what work doesn't is a proposal," he said. "It is not the question of the building and is it still there, but who lives there."

Another example is the estimates for window screen replacements. The 1981 report states the cost of replacing 94 screens as $1500. The current plan calls for a $16.000 expenditure for screens.

Silverman and Public Relations Director David Rosen. HRE's spokesman, said yesterday that the University is still pursuing the current plan, despite the rent board's December refusal and a subsequent vote not to reconsider the original decision.

"We feel the proposal we put forth is the most sensible and are very reluctant to abandon that approach," said Silverman.