Governor Sent $5-Billion Plan for Classrooms

Major elements of a five-year, $5-billion plan to build thousands of school classrooms throughout the state were passed by both houses of the Legislature on Friday and sent to Gov. George Deukmejian.

The bipartisan package of legislation would make sweeping changes in the state’s system of financing school construction, giving local school boards new power to levy fees on home builders while placing a limit on the amount developers can be required to pay.

The legislation, which has the support of Deukmejian, developers and school administrators, could provide the Los Angeles Unified School District with an estimated $1 billion that it says it needs to carry out its five-year construction program. The package would also provide financial incentives to districts, such as Los Angeles, that operate year-round schools as a way of easing overcrowding.

“It’s probably the largest, most important educational bill to be passed in the history of California,” Assemblyman Robert J. Campbell (D-Richmond), a key negotiator of the proposal, told his colleagues in a burst of enthusiasm.

However, one of the four bills in the package, which would have placed an $800-million bond measure on the 1988 ballot, was defeated by the Senate as it rushed to complete action on hundreds of bills before adjourning this weekend. Senators argued that the measure could easily be taken up next year.

Both houses agreed to send three bills to the governor: A financing plan that would include future bond measures, tideland oil revenue and developer fees; a measure to overhaul state school construction policy, and a measure to correct errors in the other two bills.

Each of the four bills passed by overwhelming margins in the 80-member Assembly, receiving vote totals ranging from 63 to 74. In the Senate, the votes ranged from 31 to 22 in favor. The bond measure was defeated by a vote of 23 to 8 with 27 needed for passage.

Deukmejian, who vetoed a Democratic-sponsored school construction plan last year, “is expected to look upon them favorably,” said Deukmejian spokesman Kevin Brett.

The compromise legislation, the result of intense negotiations during the past several weeks, incorporated a number of key elements sought by the Republican governor, including the limit on developer fees and a requirement that local school districts provide a share of the construction money.

‘Major Reform Effort’

“This is a major reform effort in a very complicated area,” said John B. Mockler, a lobbyist for the Los Angeles Unified School District. “It is the most profound switch in school-facility funding statewide that has ever been passed. It is of immense importance, especially in growing school districts like Los Angeles, which is growing by about 15,000 kids a year.”

Mockler noted that the number of new students in the Los Angeles district each year equals the total enrollment of many school districts elsewhere in the state.

Statewide, the enrollment in public schools from kindergarten through high school is expected to increase by 600,000 students, to a total of 5 million by 1994.

The legislation counts on winning the voters’ approval of an $800-million bond measure on the Nov. 4 ballot and a second $800-million bond measure in 1988. Another $600 million over four years would come from the state’s tideland oil revenues.

Even with the limit on developer fees, legislators expect this source of revenue to produce $1.6 billion.

The measure would place a limit on housing development fees of $1.50 per square foot while permitting a new fee of up to 25 cents a square foot on commercial and industrial development. For a home of 1,500 square feet, that would mean a fee of $2,250.

Limit Could Be Lifted

If voters refuse to approve the bonds, the limit on development fees would be lifted.

Developers support the legislation because in some areas of the state, including Orange and San Diego counties, home builders have been charged as much as $8,000 per home.

The legislation would give the authority to levy the fees to the school boards, taking it away from cities and counties. The cities and counties would retain the power to levy fees on developers for other purposes such as road and sewer construction.

It would also require school districts to provide matching funds for school construction although the state could help districts meet that requirement under certain circumstances. School districts would have the option of raising their share from other sources, such as selling land or levying property taxes.

Included in the package is $600 million that the state has already set aside for school construction. It also envisions an estimated net savings of $650 million by providing an incentive of $150 a student per year to districts that shift schools to a year-round schedule.

Opposition to the plan came from Senate Education Committee Chairman Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), who argued that it does not provide a sufficient up-front commitment of state funds and could hamper school construction in districts that rely on large development fees.

“This bill just does not cut it in terms of providing the necessary resources to meet this need,” he said.

In a separate action, the Assembly sent to Deukmejian a bill by Hart that would provide $60 million to reduce the size of high school classes. The measure is similar to one vetoed by the governor last year and could face the same fate this time around.