Governor OKs $5-Billion Plan for Classrooms

Gov. George Deukmejian signed landmark legislation Thursday that provides the first step of a five-year, $5-billion plan to ease school overcrowding and build thousands of new classrooms throughout the state.

“Today, I am signing a comprehensive school construction package which will meet California’s increasing demand for additional classroom space over the next five years,” Deukmejian said in a press release announcing his approval of the legislation.

The three-bill package overhauls the state’s system of financing school construction, and for the first time gives local school boards the power to levy fees on residential and business development to help pay for new classrooms. At the same time, the legislation places a limit on the amount that developers can be required to pay.

The bills passed the Legislature with bipartisan support and had the backing of school administrators and developers.

“We’re pretty excited about it,” said state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig. “This takes a lot of pressure off the districts. A lot of them couldn’t concentrate on anything else. It took all their energy just to deal with the facilities.”

Enrollment Has Skyrocketed

School enrollment has skyrocketed throughout the state in the past several years, and is expected to increase by 600,000 students by 1994, to a total of 5 million. Enrollment in the Los Angeles Unified School District alone is going up by 15,000 students annually--the equivalent of adding a new average-sized school district in the state each year.

Last year, Deukmejian vetoed a Democratic-sponsored package of school construction bills because he said he was uncertain how serious the problem was and because the spending package, which included money from the state’s general fund, was too expensive.

The bills approved by the Republican governor this year include several provisions he pushed for, including a limit on the amount of developer fees for school construction and a matching-fund arrangement under which local districts and the state will share the costs of new schools.

The school districts’ share will be equivalent to the amount of money they could raise by levying the maximum fee on development of $1.50 per square foot. However, if a school board objected to raising the money via developer fees, it could raise an equivalent sum by other means, such as selling surplus property or winning approval of a local bond measure.

In areas where there is little development, the districts would have to pay less toward their construction programs, with the state making up the difference. Conversely, in districts experiencing a building boom, the local share would be larger.

In a significant shift in power, the legislation gives school districts the authority to levy development fees for school facilities, taking it away from cities and counties. The cities and counties will keep the power to impose fees on builders for other purposes, such as road and sewer construction.

The financing plan set forth in the legislation includes an $800-million bond measure on the Nov. 4 ballot, a proposed $800-million bond in 1988, and $600 million over four years from tideland oil revenues. Another $1.6 billion would come from the fees charged developers.

Also included in the proposal is $600 million the state has already earmarked for school construction, and an estimated net savings of $650 million by paying districts $150 a student to switch to a year-round schedule.

$1 Billion for L.A.

The legislation could provide the Los Angeles district with an estimated $1 billion that officials say they need to carry out a five-year construction program.

But the financing plan was strongly opposed by Senate Education Committee Chairman Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), who argued that it did not include an up-front commitment from the state’s general fund budget, which generally pays the annual cost of state operations.

Hart said the package relies on bond funds that have not yet been approved by voters, and on tideland oil revenues that are unstable. This year, for example, oil earnings dropped below the $150-million figure that the legislation anticipates spending annually on school construction.

“This proposal does not really commit the governor to much of anything,” Hart said. “It commits the taxpayers through bonds if they want to pass them and it commits developers in terms of developer fees.”