School Districts Still Debating Adoption of Plan for Builders’ Fees

A laboriously negotiated agreement that would raise more than $50 million for new schools in the Santa Clarita Valley still has not been adopted by five local school districts.

But officials who initially predicted that the agreement would be approved in September remain optimistic about its eventual passage early next year.

“I see nothing looming in the way of a deal-breaker,” said George Caravalho, Santa Clarita’s city manager.

The agreement would require developers to pay $2.50 per square foot for new residential development, 58% more than the state-mandated fee of $1.58 per square foot. The proceeds would pay for about half the cost of new school construction in the area for the next 20 years.

The fees, negotiated among representatives of the five school districts, builders and government, were approved in September by the city of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County.

But the school districts have refrained from endorsing the agreement for a variety of reasons, ranging from developers’ guarantees to some districts’ desire to wait and see if other revenue sources materialize before accepting the $2.50 fee.

The agreement will not go into effect until all five districts approve it. Earlier this fall, district officials agreed to wait until each district’s problems were resolved before approving the agreement, said Supt. J. Michael McGrath of the Newhall School District.

The thorniest problem--a dispute between a developer and the Castaic Union School District--is nearly resolved, said Dave Vanatta, planning deputy for Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who represents the valley.

“We’re just delighted because that was a big hang-up,” Vanatta said.

The developer, Larwin Co. of Encino, had said that 690 units in its Hillcrest Park project in Castaic were exempt from the proposed agreement because the project was approved five years ago. Castaic district officials threatened to reject the agreement because the Larwin exemption would cost about $700,000 in lost fees.

Castaic Supt. Scott Brown and Mike Keston, Larwin’s president, said last week that they are close to settling the dispute. Although neither would reveal the details, they said Larwin has agreed to discount a nine-acre parcel the district wants to purchase for a school site.

Other school districts are experiencing misgivings for a variety of reasons.

“Each and every one of us share the same fear--litigation a few years from now by a developer who says he wasn’t party to the agreement,” said Hamilton C. Smyth, superintendent of the William S. Hart Union High School District.

But despite the risks, the pact is “certainly a step in the right direction,” he said. The Hart school board is scheduled to approve the agreement Tuesday, and the other districts are expected to follow suit by mid-January, Smyth said.

Once the agreement is approved, the Hart district will drop lawsuits alleging that projects proposed by some developers adversely affect schools.

The Newhall School District and the Sulphur Springs district have been waiting to approve the agreement until they receive commitment letters from developers. Representatives of the Saugus School District did not return calls for comment.

“It’s more paperwork than anything else,” Newhall superintendent McGrath said. “But although we have every confidence in this agreement, our confidence doesn’t extend to proceeding without the letters.”

Jo Anne Darcy, a member of the Santa Clarita City Council and a field deputy for Antonovich, said the districts also wanted to wait until after the Nov. 5 election when voters decided whether to approve a $20-million bond measure for new schools in the Newhall district. The measure failed to win the two-thirds majority necessary for passage.

If the new fees had been adopted before the election, voters might have erroneously believed the bond measure was not necessary, Darcy said.

The new fees established by the pact would not compensate for a shortfall in state funds for education, school administrators say. The agreement would establish the same building fee in Santa Clarita as in the surrounding unincorporated sections of the valley.

The new fees would be about $4,200 per unit, less than the $6,000 per unit in the city of Santa Clarita but more than the $2,500 charged by the county in unincorporated areas.

Local school districts will still have to find other ways to drum up money. For example, the Sulphur Springs district is hoping to lease a former school site to a developer for a shopping center, but still needs permission from the Santa Clarita City Council. The project will bring the district at least $500,000 annually over the life of the 66-year lease.

Supt. Robert Nolet said the district is waiting to see if the council approves the project before it adopts the valleywide fee. If the project is rejected, the district may have to extract funds from developers by using the 1988 decision by the state Court of Appeal, which held that local governments may reject construction projects that adversely affect schools, Nolet said.

Last week, the Planning Commission approved the Sulphur Springs project, but the City Council may end up voting on it again because a local fast-food operator has threatened to appeal the commission’s decision.

The council rejected an earlier version of the proposal, but the district has since reduced the size of the center and realigned two streets.