SOME OFFICIALS WORRIED ABOUT SCHOOL BOND.

Byline: Mary Schubert and Jim Skeen Daily News Staff Writers

A proposed $9 billion bond measure for California's public schools would undermine the way that local developers and school districts have been paying for new construction, officials said.

Although Santa Clarita Valley schools desperately need funds to build more schools to accommodate the region's burgeoning enrollment, some officials were wary of the strings attached to the money that would be distributed to school districts if the proposed bond were approved by voters. The state Legislature is trying to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

``We recommended to the (school) board that it's not in our best interest,'' said Art Clark, assistant superintendent of business services for the Saugus Union School District. With about 8,000 students, the Saugus district will open a new school - its 12th - on Wednesday and will break ground for its 13th on Friday.

Clark said the Saugus district's main concern about the proposal, in its current form, is that it would suspend a court decision that pertained to how developers must compensate growing school districts for the enrollment ramifications of the housing they build.

If the proposed bond were to pass, the Saugus district conceivably would receive $2.5 million in state funding for Plum Canyon Elementary School, which will open Wednesday, and $4.5 million for North Park Elementary, scheduled to begin construction Friday, Clark said. In all, North Park will cost about $9.5 million to build.

The state Assembly has passed a version of the $9 billion school construction bond measure and has forwarded it to the state Senate. The proposal calls for $6.5 billion of that sum to be used for kindergarten through 12th grade, and the balance for colleges and universities, said Assemblyman George Runner, R-Lancaster.

A conference committee with representatives from both aisles of the Legislature has been negotiating on the proposal.

The bond measure would impose a cap of $1.93 per square foot on residential housing for school fees. The Assembly version also would permit districts to increase fees to 50 percent of the cost of campus construction if a district meets two of the following requirements:

The district must have at least 30 percent of its pupils on multitrack, year-round education.

The district has placed a local general obligation bond on the ballot and received more than 50 percent of the vote.

The district must issue local general obligation bonds to at least 15 percent of the district's local bonding capacity.

At least 20 percent of the district's classrooms must be portables.

The proposal includes a number of other changes, such as allowing districts to pick their own architects rather than being required to use a state division.

``We think it's a good plan because it lowers the cost of building schools,'' Runner said. ``It's a big bond but that's what we had to do to get funding for schools.''

Patricia Hanrion, a board member in the William S. Hart Union High School District, had a different outlook. She was concerned about potentially undoing the court decision in which the Hart district was involved.

While the district needs money to build an additional high school and junior high, the caveats and conditions that would accompany this proposed bond measure give reason for pause, she said.

``It concerns me that there are so many strings attached to a bond measure that will limit how we can use the funds - the hoops that we have to jump through to get the money. That concerns me,'' Hanrion said. ``We're sitting in a position where we need two to three schools immediately, if not yesterday.''