BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 128|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 128
Author: Lowenthal (D), et al
Amended: 3/22/11
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-1, 3/16/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Vargas
NOES: Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee, Huff, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-2, 5/26/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Runner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson
SUBJECT : School facilities funding: high-performance
schools
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill expands the use of modernization
funding under the School Facility Program to include the
cost of designs and materials that promote the
characteristics of high-performance schools, and expands
eligibility for funding from the High Performance Incentive
Grant program to include projects approved to receive a
Career Technical Education Facilities Program grant.
ANALYSIS :
CONTINUED
SB 128
Page
2
School Facility Program
Current law establishes the School Facility Program (SFP)
under which the state provides general obligation bond
funding for various school construction projects. AB 127
(Nunez and Perata), the Kindergarten-University Public
Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006, authorized
Proposition 1D, a statewide general obligation bond
proposal for $10.4 billion. Proposition 1D, approved by
the voters in November 2006, provided $7.3 billion for K-12
education facilities and allocated specified amounts from
the sale of these bonds for modernization, new
construction, charter schools, Career Technical Education
Facilities, joint use projects, new construction on
severely overcrowded schoolsites, and high performance
incentive grants to promote energy efficient design and
materials. In addition, portions of the amounts allocated
for new construction and modernization were authorized for
purposes of funding smaller learning communities and small
high schools and for seismic retrofit projects.
High Performance Incentive Grant Program
Proposition 1D provided $100 million for high performance
incentive grants to promote the use of designs and
materials in school facility new construction and
modernization projects that include the attributes of high
performance schools, pursuant to regulations adopted by the
State Allocation Board.
Current law defines high performance attributes as
including the use of designs and materials that promote
energy and water efficiency, maximize the use of natural
lighting, improve indoor air quality, utilize recycled
materials and materials that emit a minimum of toxic
substances, and employ acoustics conducive to teaching and
learning.
Career Technical Education Facilities Program
Proposition 1D established the Career Technical Education
Facilities Program (CTEFP) within the School Facility
Program (SFP) and provided $500 million for school
CONTINUED
SB 128
Page
3
districts and joint powers authorities to construct or
modernize facilities and to purchase equipment with an
average useful life expectancy of at least 10 years for
career technical education programs at existing high
schools. Current law requires a school district to
contribute from local resources a dollar amount equal to
the amount of the state grant provided and authorizes the
contribution to come with private industry groups, the
school district, or a joint powers authority. Local
agencies may enter into a loan agreement with the Office of
Public School Construction to cover their share of the
project costs. Grants are calculated on a square foot
basis, with a maximum of $3 million for each new facility
and $1.5 million for each modernization project purpose.
This bill:
1.Expands the authorized use of modernization grant funds
by school districts for the cost of designs and materials
that promote:
A. The efficient use of energy and water.
B. The maximum use of natural lighting and indoor
quality.
C. The use of recycled materials.
D. The use of materials that emit a minimum of toxic
substances.
E. The use of acoustics conducive to teaching and
learning.
F. Other characteristics of high performance schools.
2.Expands eligibility for Higher Performance Incentive
Grant funding to include projects approved for funding
under the CTEFP.
3.Makes a technical conforming change.
Comments
CONTINUED
SB 128
Page
4
Inequity in School Facilities Program ? Current law
specifically authorizes the use of new construction
apportionments for the exact purposes proposed in this
bill. This bill authorizes the use of modernization funds
for the same high performance attributes supported in new
construction projects. Under the current program, school
districts are arguably able to construct new facilities
that make better use of day lighting, promote clean and
well-circulated air, and use good acoustics, as well as
realize the operational savings that can result from the
use of more energy efficient systems, while potentially
unable to use state funding for these purposes in one
program, and not the other. Does the current program
create an incentive for districts to pursue new
construction to meet facility needs rather than maximize
the continued use of facilities in which the state has
already invested?
Clarification of the Bill's Impact . This bill expands the
list of costs eligible to be covered from the state's share
of funding for modernization projects. The bill does not
increase the amount of the modernization apportionment
received by a school district, but rather, grants districts
greater flexibility in determining how to use the state
funds received for this purpose. However, to the extent
that existing modernization apportionments are already
purported to be insufficient to meet the real costs of
modernizing a facility, this bill may create pressure to
expand the funding provided for modernization purposes.
Current Status of the CTEFP . Current SFP regulations
established two funding cycles for the program and
authorized subsequent funding cycles to continue every six
months thereafter at the discretion of the State Allocation
Board (SAB). A third cycle of funding was established and
the last apportionment of funds for the program occurred in
October 2010. As of its February 2011 meeting, the SAB
reports that most of the $500 million in bond authority
provided for the CTEFP has been apportioned, with about $23
million in bond authority remaining. This amount may
increase as a result of funds being rescinded or returned
to the program, as well as the repayment of program loans
extended to school districts. However, at this point, it
is unclear how much more funding may become available and
CONTINUED
SB 128
Page
5
when /if an additional funding round for the program will
be established.
History/Status of High Performance Incentive Grant Program .
The SAB first adopted regulations for the implementation
of the High Performance Incentive grant program on October
1, 2007, and first apportioned these funds at its February
2008 meeting. However, as of early 2010, almost
three-fourths of the $100 million available since 2007 had
gone undistributed. Among other things, districts cited
the lack of a link between the number of points obtained
for incorporating high performance attributes and the cost
of those elements within a project as a reason for the
limited funding requests for these monies.
At is February 2010 meeting, the SB requested the Office of
Public School Construction staff to convene a workgroup to
examine the HIP grant program. In November, the SAB
reviewed, approved, and authorized the filing of new
emergency regulations for the program. The "new" program
provides base grant of $150,000 for new construction
projects and $250,000 for modernization projects meeting
the minimum criteria outlined, as well as funding on the
basis of points achieved using established criteria in five
categories (Sustainable Sites, Energy, Water, and Indoor
Environmental Quality) to determine the high performance
attributes in a project. These new emergency regulations
become effective February 2011.
This bill expands eligibility for funding from this program
to include CTEFP funded projects. It is unclear how much
demand for recent changes in the funding for the program
will generate.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13
2013-14 Fund
Expands SFP -- Potentially substantial cost
pressure -- General*
CONTINUED
SB 128
Page
6
eligibility
Expands HPI -- Potentially significant cost
pressure -- General*
eligibility
*Proposition 1D or other future K-12 construction bonds
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/26/11)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
California State PTA
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
Community Action to Fight Asthma
County School Facility Consortium
Natural Resources Defense Council
US Green Building Council California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to information provided
by the author's office, certain high performance components
have been deemed ineligible costs in the SFP modernization
program because they were not a "like for like"
replacement. Generally, according to the Office of Public
School Construction, modernization apportionments may only
be used to extend the useful life of existing systems or
components. As a result, for example, modernization
projects that proposed installation of a new
solar/photovoltaic system were denied if they didn't
already have existing similar systems. This bill clarifies
that modernization apportionments could be used for these
purposes and other costs that promote high performance
attributes. Additionally, the author's office notes that
CTEFP funded projects have been deemed ineligible to apply
for the High Performance Incentive Grant Program. This
bill ensures that school districts could also receive
incentive funding to incorporate high performance
attributes to their CTEFP projects.
CPM:cm 5/27/11 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
SB 128
Page
7
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED