CITIES TO KEEP CONTROL OF SCHOOL BUILDING FEES.

Byline: Sherry Joe Crosby Daily News Staff Writer

Local school officials rejoiced Friday after learning that state legislators defeated a bill that would have capped development fees for building new schools.

The bill, by Assemblyman James Brulte, R-Rancho Cucamonga, was rejected last week by the Senate Committee on Housing and Land Use despite strong bipartisan support in the Assembly. It may be reconsidered by the committee July 1.

Educators said the bill, which called for a statewide standard school development fee, would have removed local control over an important funding source and led to overcrowded schools.

``It certainly is encouraging to know they are going to have to look at changes in the bill,'' said Lew White, coordinator of facilities for the William S. Hart Union High School District.

But school officials aren't breathing a sigh of relief yet.

``We're skeptical about the ability to build schools even without the restrictions that would have come from the bill,'' said White, who projects his district schools must find room for 2,300 more students - or a total 15,000 - by 2000.

``We still have a crisis housing students here now and in the future,'' said White, adding that the district will need to build a new junior high and high school during the next seven years to house the future students.

City leaders hailed the bill's defeat.

``It would have limited the city's ability to obtain the school fees that are necessary to allow school districts to build the new schools that are desperately needed in Santa Clarita,'' said Assistant City Manager Ken Pulskamp.

Two weeks ago, the City Council voted to oppose the bill that would have set school development fees at $1.84 a square foot after Jan. 1, 1997. The bill also would have repealed three court decisions, including a 1991 case involving the William S. Hart Union High School District that enabled school systems to seek greater compensation than allowed by a 1986 state law.

Under state law, local school districts can charge developers $1.72 a square foot to offset the impact of students from new housing developments.

In Santa Clarita, school districts formed an areawide agreement with developers, city and county officials that forced developers to pay $1 more a square foot than the state fee.

That agreement began unraveling last year when the Newhall Elementary School District left to seek greater compensation in a separate agreement with Newhall Land and Farming Co.

Brulte's legislation would have restored the intent of the 1986 state bill, which placed limitations on local developer fees and forced school districts to seek local bonds rather than rely on the state and developers to finance needed capital improvements.

``It is easier to extort developers who then pass those costs onto new home buyers,'' Brulte said. ``And it's easier to come to the state of California and beg for new construction money than it is to go to local voters and ask to pay for new school construction.''

Local administrators said schools, like roads and sewer systems, should receive full compensation to offset impacts from new development. Without adequate compensation, educators said they are left with grossly underfunded school districts.

``The message it delivers to schools is that the provision of adequate school facilities is not as important as gutters, streets and lights,'' said J. Michael McGrath, superintendent of the Newhall Elementary School District.

Pulskamp said the Senate committee realized the burden placed on schools when faced with new developments.

``I think the Senate realized that if they put the cap on school fees that it doesn't even begin to cover the cost of building schools,'' he said. ``The school districts are financially strapped already and their limited ability to negotiate with developers would be catastrophic.''