L.A. District Sets Sights on State Bond Funds

Determined to claim the lion’s share of a giant school bond measure on the November ballot, Los Angeles school officials are mounting an aggressive campaign to capture nearly a fourth of the funds earmarked for elementary and secondary schools.

District officials contend that their ambitious goal is realistic because of two key developments: a two-year lobbying effort to insert “L.A.-friendly” provisions in the bond and last year’s passage of Proposition BB, a local school bond measure that has given the district the matching funds needed to qualify for state funds.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is determined to avoid the debacle of 1996, when lack of capital and poor planning resulted in the district reaping only about 1% of the last statewide bond, despite having about 12% of the state’s public school enrollment.

Although people outside the district may object to the district’s hefty requests this time, local officials argue that the district has been shortchanged in every statewide bond since the early 1980s by rules that favored new suburbs over older urban areas.

“I suppose somebody’s going to look at that and say, ‘L.A.’s going to take 25% of the money, I’m not going to vote for it,’ ” said Lyle A. Smoot, the district’s bond program coordinator in Sacramento. “But if 50 districts that have the same [combined enrollment] come in and take 25%, nobody pays any attention to it.”

*

If approved by a majority of the voters Nov. 3, the bond measure would generate $9.2 billion, of which $6.7 billion would be for the state’s public elementary and secondary schools. The measure, the largest bond in the state’s history, was placed on the ballot by the Legislature.

“The big sucking sound you hear will be money going into L.A. Unified,” said state Sen. Jim Brulte (R-Rancho Cucamonga), who was among the minority opposed to placing the bond measure on the November ballot because he thought it would shift responsibility for new school construction entirely to the state.

But Brulte, like others, said he doubted that the prospect of the district snagging such a significant portion of the bond would turn voters against the measure.

“I think a credible case can be made that L.A. Unified has not gotten its fair share in the past,” he said.

Since 1982, Los Angeles Unified has obtained only about 9% of all funds distributed by state bonds, said Santiago Jackson, a lobbyist for the district. In 1996, the district gained about $16 million from a $2-billion bond.

Political strategists said the Los Angeles district’s hefty demands present an interesting challenge to supporters of the bond measure.

“The irony of it is it could have a positive effect in L.A. but it could have a negative effect outside of L.A. because there is a good deal of resentment against the L.A. district,” Arnold Steinberg, a San Fernando Valley political strategist, said. “The trick is that the pro side has to find a way to reach the [district] people without reaching a larger number of people.”

Los Angeles Unified officials are counting on the state bond to pay half the cost of building 51 schools in the next 10 years.

*

The district expected to pay its half of the $1.8-billion construction program from Proposition BB. Last month, however, the committee that oversees Proposition BB spending warned that money earmarked for new construction may have to be used for school repairs, which are proving more extensive and more costly than anticipated.

The committee has insisted that the repairs take precedence over new construction.

But Smoot told the oversight committee last week that he expected the state bond to provide $1.6 billion--more than enough money to finance both new construction and repairs. That represents about 24% of the funds for elementary and secondary schools in the proposed bond measure.

Smoot is a pivotal player in the district’s effort to capture the bond money. He was hired by the district last summer after working 14 years as the chief staff member of the state board that parcels out school funds. He is expected to be especially effective in moving the applications for bond money through the approval process.

The application process has been compared to an “Oklahoma land race” in which districts can only get in line for funds after having construction plans approved by the state architect.

Proposition BB has helped on that front by allowing the district to gear up its development plans. “The way you prevail is you get your application in on time,” said Jackon, the district lobbyist.

Smoot also expects to apply for state matching funds for millions of dollars worth of Proposition BB repairs, air conditioning projects and additions for class-size reduction.

Smoot said Los Angeles Unified strengthened its hand by lobbying for several provisions that benefit urban school districts. Those provisions, written into the bill authorizing the bond measure, include supplemental grants for multistory buildings, an agreement the state will pay 80% for modernization costs and special funds for “landlocked” school sites with nowhere to expand.