BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 375
AUTHOR: Hancock
INTRODUCED: February 26, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 1, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Seismic Mitigation of School Facilities
SUMMARY
This bill requires the State Allocation Board (SAB) to
review regulations and criteria for funding eligibility and
to adopt new regulations for apportioning funds provided
under the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP), requires that
the apportionments fund specified expenses, and requires
that the SAB create an unfunded approval list of applicants
with school buildings determined to be seismically at risk.
BACKGROUND
AB 300 (Corbett, Chapter 622, Statutes of 1999) required
the Department of General Services (DGS) to conduct a
seismic safety inventory of California's K-12 school
buildings. In 2002, DGS and the Division of the State
Architect released the report "Seismic Safety Inventory of
California Schools." The report identified 7,537 buildings
that were of 12 construction types, collectively known as
Category 2 construction that would not perform well in an
earthquake.
Current law establishes the School Facility Program (SFP)
under which the state provides general obligation bond
funding for various school construction projects, including
new construction, modernization, joint-use facilities, and
programs to specifically address the construction needs of
overcrowded schools, charter schools, and career technical
education facilities. Proposition 1D, (AB 127, Nunez,
Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), passed by voters in November
2006, among other things, provided up to $199.5 million for
seismic mitigation of school facilities that are the most
SB 375
Page 2
vulnerable Category 2 buildings (as defined in the report
submitted pursuant to AB 300) and that pose an unacceptable
risk of injury to students during a seismic event.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the State Allocation Board (SAB) to review
the regulations and criteria for funding eligibility
under the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP).
2) Requires the State Allocation Board (SAB) adopt
regulations to provide districts and county offices
with greater access to funding under the Seismic
Mitigation Program (SMP).
3) Requires the SAB to review and adopt new regulations
for apportioning funds provided by Proposition 1D.
4) Requires that apportionments from the SMP fund:
a) Evaluations by a structural
engineer or equivalent professional.
b) Repair, reconstruction, or
replacement of seismically at-risk buildings.
c) Interim housing for displaced students.
5) Requires the SAB to create an unfunded approval list
of applications with school buildings determined to be
seismically at risk.
6) Makes a number of related findings and declarations.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) What is the problem ? The SAB adopted regulations for
the implementation of the Seismic Mitigation Program
(SMP) and became effective in April 2008. These
regulations establish the specific Category 2
construction types, specify ground shaking factor
criteria, require building occupancy by students and
teachers, and require districts to submit a structural
engineering report identifying building deficiencies
SB 375
Page 3
in order to be eligible for this funding. As of March
2009, only two buildings with a total estimated
retrofitting cost of $14 million were determined to
meet the requirements to qualify for state funding
under the SMP. According to the author, the
eligibility criteria for this program are too
stringent, and some districts have reported that the
related costs of structural evaluations and interim
housing (which are not currently funded under the
program) are prohibitive. This bill proposes
statutory changes to broaden the eligibility criteria
and to specifically authorize the use of these funds
to include the specified costs.
2) Fiscal implications . The AB 300 report estimated the
cost for retrofitting school buildings that are not
expected to perform well in future earthquakes at $4.7
billion, with the cost for retrofitting the most
vulnerable buildings estimated at $800 million.
However, according to DGS, the survey of information
for completion of the AB 300 report was conducted from
archival records of the Division of the State
Architect approved file sets for new construction
projects and may contain a number of buildings that
may have been demolished, retrofitted or sold.
Arguably, the provision of $199.5 million in
Proposition 1D was an effort to identify the cost and
scope of the retrofitting necessary for some of the
most vulnerable buildings and to inform the
Legislature regarding the need and magnitude of funds
it might consider making available for this purpose in
future bond proposals. While there is clearly a need
to facilitate the flow of funds from the Seismic
Mitigation Program (SMP) program, broadening
eligibility criteria and expanding the use of these
funds for specified costs could result in a reduced
number of projects receiving funding for these
purposes.
3) Administrative vs. statutory solutions . At its last
meeting (March 25, 2009), the State Allocation Board
(SAB), cognizant of the limited participation in the
SMP, reviewed several policy options for facilitating
the distribution of these funds to eligible districts.
The Division of the State Architect expressed a
willingness to work with the Office of Public School
SB 375
Page 4
Construction (OPSC) to develop recommendations for
changes to the eligibility criteria for consideration
by the SAB at its next meeting (April 22, 2009).
Modifying eligibility criteria and creation of an
unfunded list were both acknowledged as issues that
could be addressed via the regulatory process by the
SAB.
The SAB is the policy level body for the school
facility programs administered through the OPSC and
regulations adopted by this body generally undergo
extensive review and discussion by districts and other
interested parties prior to coming before the SAB. It
appears that such a process has been initiated, and
that some of the changes proposed by this bill are
already under consideration and can be accomplished
via the SAB regulatory process. In contrast, the
staff of the OPSC has opined that provision of funds
for interim housing and structural engineering reports
requires statutory authorization. In order to ensure
that the SAB has the opportunity to fully consider the
policy implications of the proposed changes staff
recommends the bill be amended to delete the
provisions that require modification of criteria and
create an unfunded list, and that the bill authorize
the SAB to provide funding for structural reports and
interim housing.
4) Technical Amendments .
a) Page 2, line 3, replace "an" with "a."
b) Page 2, lines 19 and 20, strike out
"eligibility under the Seismic Mitigation
Program" and insert, "seismic repair,
reconstruction, or replacement projects pursuant
to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
101012."
c) Page 3, lines 7 and 7, strike out "made
pursuant to the Seismic Mitigation Program" and
insert, "granted pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 101012 for seismic
repair, reconstruction, or replacement of school
facilities."
SB 375
Page 5
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFL-CIO)
California School Boards Association
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
OPPOSITION
None received.