Backers of Tax for Santa Clarita Schools Gird for June 2 Rematch

Santa Clarita Valley school districts will try again June 2 to convince voters that developers, to pay for school construction, should be taxed about $6,000 for each new home they build.

Since the student population is expected to double to 40,000 by the year 2000 because of rapid housing construction, school administrators said, they want assurance there will be funds to build schools. At least 25 new schools must be built in the fast-growing area within the next 20 years, at a cost of $300 million, officials said.

Similar tax measures on November’s ballot narrowly failed to receive the two-thirds vote needed for passage. The measures on ballots in the Santa Clarita Valley’s five school districts--Castaic, Newhall, Saugus, Sulphur Springs and Hart--averaged 61% of the vote.

“We’re going to win this time,” predicted Rita Garasi, spokeswoman for the Santa Clarita Valley Taxpayers for Responsible Growth, a citizens group formed to support the tax. “The community is angry at itself for what happened last November.”

Garasi and school administrators said a series of mailers financed by developers misled many voters into voting against the tax in November. The Building Industry Assn. of Southern California spent $270,000 to defeat the ballot measures in that election.

2 Groups Sue

That association has been joined by the California Building Industry Assn. in opposing the June 2 ballot measures. A civil lawsuit filed by the two groups to block the election failed. The state Supreme Court two weeks ago decided not to review a state Court of Appeals ruling to allow the election to proceed.

But the groups will return to Los Angeles Superior Court, if the election is successful, to challenge its validity, said Richard Wirth, executive director of the Governmental Affairs Council of the Southern California association.

Developers assert that the election is illegal because, under state law, school districts do not have independent authority to pass special taxes, Wirth said. They also maintain that a statewide school-financing plan approved by voters last year set a maximum of $1.50 a square foot on charges that school districts can impose on housing developers.

However, Terry Dixon, attorney for four of the school districts, said the state financing plan--which went into effect Jan. 1--does not preclude the districts from levying more taxes to build schools. Moreover, he said, the 1978 Proposition 13 tax-reform measure authorized school districts and other taxing agencies to impose taxes for special purposes if approved by two-thirds of the voters.

Wirth pointed to a legislative counsel opinion issued April 3 for Assemblyman Charles Bader (R-Ontario) that concludes that a school district is not authorized under existing law to levy a new special tax.

Up to the Courts

“That’s just one man’s opinion,” Dixon said, adding that the election’s legality is up to the courts to decide.

Wirth said that if the school districts would hold a general obligation bond election to finance new schools, the building industry would spend $270,000 to help them win.

“Then, all residents would be paying their fair share for schools,” he said. “Why should only new home buyers shoulder the burden?”

Developers are assisting in the Fontana Unified School District’s campaign for a general obligation school bond election, also on June 2, Wirth said.

The Santa Clarita Valley tax, if approved, he said, will be passed on to new home buyers. With the additional interest it will cost to finance a more expensive house, the tax will add about $10,000 to the cost of a new home, Wirth said.

School administrators said they believe the building industry will absorb at least part of the tax to remain competitive with prices of new homes in other areas of Southern California.

Wirth said the proposed tax is regressive in that its rate is the same for all buyers.

“Buyers of affordable housing will pay the same as wealthier home buyers,” he said, adding that people who purchase smaller homes will pay more per square foot in taxes than those who buy larger, more expensive homes.

School administrators said they view the tax as a safety net to insure financing of new classrooms.

There are no assurances that state funds will become available to Santa Clarita Valley schools, Garasi said, despite an $800-million school bond construction measure approved by voters last year. Statewide, there are $2 billion in school projects waiting to be funded, she said.

Wirth noted that all five Santa Clarita Valley school districts collect the $1.50-a-square-foot fee authorized by voters last November. Even with that fee, Garasi said, the area’s school districts still lack $100 million needed to build new school facilities.

Trustees of the five school districts approved the propositions--shown as A through F on the ballot--and in January set maximum tax rates per residential unit. On the ballots of each of the area’s more than 52,000 registered voters will appear two tax proposals--one for the William S. Hart Union High School District, which serves the entire Santa Clarita Valley, and one for the elementary school district in which voters live.

The Hart district tax rate is $3,439 for each new housing unit in all areas except the Castaic district, where it is $2,418. The Hart rate in the Castaic district is lower because that district educates its own seventh- and eighth-grade students. The other districts send those grades to the Hart district.

Rates in the other school districts are: Sulphur Springs, $2,000 for each new housing unit; Castaic, $3,783; Newhall, $2,542, and Saugus, $2,861.

Schools at Capacity

Schools in all Santa Clarita Valley districts already are at capacity, Garasi said.

Clyde Smyth, superintendent of the Hart district, said every available space is being used for classrooms by the school districts. At Hart High School, he said, home-economics rooms are being converted to science classrooms.

“That means we have to cut out part of the home ec courses,” he said. “We’re replacing the floor in the small gymnasium at Hart so that it can be split into three classrooms. We’re simply running out of space. We’re even laying plans to use the auditorium at Hart for classrooms if we have to.”

J. Michael McGrath, superintendent of the Newhall Elementary School District, said one of his elementary schools had 900 students, about twice the number for which it was designed. Because of the crowding, there are problems with bathrooms, lunch lines and playgrounds.

“We have lunch in three or four shifts,” he said.

School Under Construction

McGrath said his district is building a school despite being about $200,000 short on funds needed for construction.

“We will open that school full in 1988,” he said. “We should open another in 1989 and another in 1990. But we barely have funds for the first one.”

The district ordered six double portable classrooms to accommodate new students next year, McGrath said.

The three other districts also are operating under similar conditions, Garasi said.

Smyth said he doubts that real-estate agents are telling new home buyers how serious the crowding problem is in the area’s schools.

“We’re now including facts about overcrowding in our new-registration material,” he said.

Alternatives to building new schools are cutting back in course offerings, going to year-round schools and/or split sessions, and splitting ninth-grade students between high school and junior high school campuses.

“Then, we’re not teaching,” Smyth said. “We’re just warehousing.”