3 School Bond Measures Fail in Assembly : Education: Two parties are unable to agree on how much funding is needed and how much of the burden developers should bear.

Two statewide school construction bond issues and another proposal making it easier to pass local school bond measures went down to defeat in the Assembly Thursday, adding up to a bad day for schools in the Legislature.

In a battle between developer interests and the educational establishment, the Assembly refused first to accept Senate changes in an Assembly-passed $1.9-billion school bonds construction bill. Then it voted on another bond measure--$2.9 billion, also for school construction--but failed to muster a big enough majority for passage.

While there was disagreement over the size of the bond issue, the biggest fight was over the insistence of Assembly Democrats and educators that residential developers pay a larger share of the cost of school construction if voters reject the bond measure. Republicans sided with the developers.

The $1.9-billion bill was left in the hands of a two-house conference committee to try to work out a compromise in time to get it on the June primary ballot. The other bond measure could come back to the Assembly for a vote next week.

Gov. Pete Wilson issued a statement saying that he was “extremely disappointed” that Assembly Democrats “acted as roadblocks” to delay the statewide school bond issue.

“The school bond is crucial if we’re to provide classrooms for a grade school population that is increasing by 213,000 students a year,” the governor said. “Additionally, the bond will create jobs by bolstering the construction industry, which is in its worst slump since the 1982 recession.”

Also on Thursday, the Assembly, for the second time, rejected Wilson’s proposal to reduce from two-thirds to a simple majority the popular vote required for the passage of local school bond issues, many of which fail because of the two-thirds requirement.

Blocking passage of the bond measures adds new burdens to the state’s overcrowded public schools, proponents said.

“We need to build 20 classrooms a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, for most of the next decade,” said Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria), the author of measure reducing the vote requirement.

O’Connell said the cost of school construction and modernization for the next decade would run between $15 billion and $20 billion.

The State Allocation Board currently has a backlog of $6 billion in approved applications from local school districts for school construction projects that are awaiting funding.

This board is composed of two assemblymen, two senators, the state superintendent of public instruction and the directors of the state departments of Finance and General Services.

The key issue in the controversy over the bonds is a 1986 law that allowed school districts to charge property developer fees to pay for schools, but limited the fees to $1.65 per square foot of residential development. One feature of the law was that if a statewide school bond issue failed, this limitation was to be removed, allowing local governments to charge developers more than the $1.65 cap in order to finance school construction.

However, the provision removing the cap, known as the “blow-up clause,” was suspended for school bond elections held in 1988 and 1990. Both bond issues were approved by voters.

Siding with developers, Wilson and Assembly Republicans want the suspension continued, but Assembly Democrats want to retain existing law.

“Who do you think is going to build schools, the tooth fairy?” complained Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin (D-Union City), the chairwoman of the Education Committee, regarding the exemption for developers. “There is no tooth fairy and Tinkerbell is dead.”

Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) was frustrated that the Assembly did not pass the $1.9-billion school bond bill.

Roberti agreed to put the issue before the two-house conference committee on Monday to work out a last-ditch compromise. But he warned that he opposed putting the issue before the voters if it required costly printing and mailing of a supplemental ballot pamphlet.

Secretary of State March Fong Eu previously said that the Legislature had to approve June ballot measures by March 7 or she might have to print an expensive supplemental voter ballot pamphlet. “I think Monday is the really real deadline,” said Roberti.