Fallbrook Backs Off Tax That Circumvents Voters : Budget: School district votes down proposal after four hours of protest from property owners. It will put another bond issue on next year’s ballot.

After more than four hours of testimony from angry property owners, the Fallbrook Union High School District backed down from a proposed special assessment, opting instead to place another general bond issue on the ballot to finance school construction.

On a 3-2 vote late Monday night, the board of the small, rural school district became the second in the county this month to reject a maintenance assessment district, a fund-raising method only recently adopted by financially strapped school districts in California. Earlier this month, the board of Escondido Union High School District rejected an assessment district proposal.

The Fallbrook proposal had received sharp criticism from property owners who felt the tax was unfair because it did not require voter approval. Two bond measures put to the Fallbrook electorate in the last year have failed to muster the needed two-thirds majority.

“The track record for supporting education in Fallbrook, despite what you say, has not been good. And the fact that it has not been good is the reason why we are here today,” board member Tal Cowan told more than 350 protesters, mostly senior citizens, Monday night at the Fallbrook High School gymnasium.

The assessment district, which would have been formed under the state’s Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, would have taxed homeowners up to $24 a year and commercial property $12 a year for up to 30 years. About 21,000 properties would have been in the district.

“We are not thrilled at all with this Landscaping and Lighting Act, but the funds that it would provide along with the developers’ fees will provide us with a beautiful campus, more than adequate sports facilities and more classrooms,” said board president Patrick Miller, who voted against the proposal.

“The voters (in Fallbrook) have said no to two bond elections in the past year, and they also said no to a hospital bond. It makes me wonder if they say yes to anything,” Miller said.

Despite his and other board members’ skepticism and Fallbrook’s history of rejecting bond issues, the trustees voted, 4 to 1, to place a general obligation bond measure on the June, 1992, ballot. The size and intent of the bond were not stipulated.

Under the Landscaping and Lighting Act, public agencies can, without consent from the voters, form assessment districts to raise money for upgrading publicly used recreational facilities. Funds from the district could not, however, be used for things such as books or salaries.

Revenue would have paid for maintaining and operating soccer field lights, new baseball backstops, an improved track, new stadium bleachers and gym and swimming pool improvements.

But many at the meeting felt that Fallbrook Union High’s most pressing need is to ease crowding by building a new high school, which could not be paid for by the assessment district, but would require the voters approving a general bond.

Fallbrook Union High board members said they are willing to give the voters another chance at a general bond election, but, if it does not pass, the issue of an assessment district will rise again.

Even some who opposed the assessment district agreed that the school board would be forced to impose it if a general bond election failed.

“They need to do something, and, while I feel it’s a stopgap measure, I don’t see any other way that we can go that makes any sense,” said Ralph Enander, a former school board member who organized opposition to the landscaping and lighting district.