Council Race, $47-Million Bond Measure Top Lancaster Ballot : Education: Money from Measure A would be used to build two middle schools, two elementary schools and upgrade three existing schools.

Lancaster-area voters will be faced next week with a tough choice--whether to favor their pocketbooks or the community’s children--as they decide a $47-million school bond measure on the April 10 ballot.

Officials in the 10,700-student Lancaster School District, which sponsored the measure, say they need the money to build schools and upgrade current facilities in the growing area. But to get it, they have to persuade two-thirds of those voting to accept a property tax hike.

Under Measure A, the school improvements would cost the owner of a home with an assessed value of $100,000 an average of nearly $50 per year in higher taxes for a 30-year period.

The average cost for a home with an assessed value of $150,000 would be nearly $77 more a year. That rate would nearly double by 1994, then drop off gradually over the next 25 years, according to district projections.

Officials in the district, which now has 14 schools, said most of the bond money would be used to build two middle schools and two elementary schools. Three existing schools would be modernized, and computer labs would be added to all the district’s sites.

“We need the bond. Our children need the opportunity to be educated in uncrowded conditions,” said Jean Dinsmoor, president of the Teachers Association of Lancaster, which is backing the measure.

For years, the Lancaster district had little growth. Last fall it opened its first new permanent school in 30 years. But enrollment began swelling in the late 1980s. District officials found that state money, which historically has paid for schools, was in short supply.

State officials have placed an $800-million state school bond measure on the June ballot that will require only a majority vote. But Lancaster officials said even if that passes, they do not expect to get enough state money to meet the district’s needs.

Just since last year, the district’s enrollment has increased by about 13%, or about 1,200 students. That is enough students to fill two elementary schools. And district officials said they expect similar growth rates to continue in coming years.

The bond measure has drawn no organized opposition since the district’s Board of Trustees voted in December to place it on the ballot. And it is being supported by local lawmakers and schools officials. But that doesn’t mean there has been a lack of controversy or of a campaign.

In February, a political consultant who was helping the district organize the campaign for the measure dropped out of an $80,000 district contract. That move came amid questions about the legality of the district using its public funds to promote a partisan election issue.

The company, San Ramon-based Price Research Consultants, is still managing the campaign for the measure through Lancaster Citizens for Classrooms, a private campaign committee.

According to campaign finance statements, developers have contributed much of the money raised for the measure. They already pay limited fees to support schools but apparently feel that the tax measure would relieve growing pressure on them to contribute even more money.

Turnout in the election is considered crucial, because nearly 68% of the voters surveyed in a district poll last November said they did not have children attending the district’s schools. So the district has been focusing on turning out the parents of its students.

The poll, conducted on a larger $52-million proposal, showed a close race. Only 64.3% of the voters polled said they would support the amount on the ballot when first asked. The measure needs 66.7% or two-thirds of the vote to pass. But after voters heard arguments for the measure, the response increased to a 75.3% rate in favor of the measure.

The school district has permitted the distribution of absentee voter applications in its classrooms. Students were to take them home for their parents to sign and then return to the schools. Campaigns often use absentee voting to encourage turnout.

But the practice drew criticism last week, as Lancaster City Clerk Carla Johnson complained about the cost and difficulty of processing hundreds of absentee forms being delivered by the campaign. She and a representative for the secretary of state’s office said the campaign also was using an improper form.

“I think this is just a campaign. I don’t think this is an attempt to have people legitimately vote by absentee ballot,” Johnson said, adding that many of the district’s applications appeared to have been signed by people who were not registered to vote.

Campaign spokesman Paul Bignardi said the applications were being handled properly, and he insisted the campaign was using the correct application form. But Johnson said they lacked a return address for the city clerk, as required by state law.