BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE Senator Lois Wolk, Chair BILL NO: AB 2235 HEARING: 6/25/14 AUTHOR: Buchanan FISCAL: Yes VERSION: 6/19/14 TAX LEVY: No CONSULTANT: Grinnell THE KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2014 Proposes the Kindergarten-University Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014, a $9 billion bond act for the November, 2014 Ballot. Background and Existing Law I. Bond Acts. When public agencies issue bonds, they essentially borrow money from investors, who provide cash in exchange for the agencies' commitment to repay the principal amount of the bond plus interest. Bonds are usually either revenue bonds, which repay investors out of revenue generated from the project the agency buys with bond proceeds, or general obligation bonds, which the public agency pays out of general revenues and are guaranteed by its full faith and credit. Section 1 of Article XVI of the California Constitution and the state's General Obligation Bond Law guide the issuance of the state's general obligation debt. The Constitution allows the Legislature to place general obligation bonds on the ballot for specific purposes with a two-thirds vote of the Assembly and Senate. Voters also can place bonds on the ballot by initiative, as they have for parks, water projects, high-speed rail, and stem cell research, among others. Either way, general obligation bonds must be ratified by majority vote of the state's electorate. Unlike local general obligation bonds, the state's electorate doesn't automatically trigger an increased tax to repay the bonds when they approve a state general obligation bond. Article XVI of the California Constitution commits the state to repay investors from general revenues above all other claims, except payments to public education. California voters approved $38.4 billion of general obligation bonds between 1974 and 1999, AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageB but approximately $95 billion since 2000. Bond acts have standard provisions that authorize the Treasurer to sell a specified amount of bonds, and generally include several uniform provisions that: Establish the state's obligation to repay them, and pledge its full faith and credit to repayment, Set forth issuance procedures, and link the bond act to the state's General Obligation Bond Law, Create a finance committee with specified membership, chaired by the State Treasurer, Charge the committee to determine whether it is "necessary or desirable" to issue the bonds, Add other mechanisms necessary for the Treasurer and the Department of Finance to implement the bond act, including allowing the board to request a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Board to advance funds for bond-funded programs prior to the bond sale, among others. In bond acts, the Legislature generally: Sets forth categories of projects eligible for bond funds, such as library construction or school facility modernization, Chooses an administrative agency to award the funds, such as the State Librarian or the State Allocation Board, Details the criteria to guide the administrative agency's funding in each category, Enacts enforcement and audit provisions, and Provide for an election to approve the bond act. Should the voters approve the bond act, the Legislature then appropriates funds to the chosen agencies to fund projects consistent with the criteria, generally as part of the Budget Act. The Department of Finance then surveys agencies to determine need for bond funds based on a project's readiness, and then asks the Treasurer to sell bonds in a specified amount. After the bond sale, the Department of Finance determines which bond acts and agencies receive bond proceeds. The Legislature generally proposed, and voters enacted one bond act every two years to finance school construction from 1982-1992. After voters rejected one in 1994, there have been three bond acts in the following total amounts: The Public Education Facilities Bond Act, a $2.065 AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageC billion bond (AB 1168, Campbell, 1996), The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Construction Act of 1998, a $9.2 billion bond (SB 50, Greene), The Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002, a $12.15 billion bond, (AB 16, Hertzberg), The Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004, a $12.3 billion bond (AB 16, Hertzberg), The Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006, a $10.4 billion bond (AB 197, Nunez). II. K-12 School Construction Finance. School construction in California often uses the metaphor of the "three legged stool," where the state provides bond funds, local government pays with special taxes, general obligation, Mello-Roos and other bond proceeds, and the private sector would provide funds through developer fees. The Legislature created the State Allocation Board in 1947 to allocate state funds for school construction. The board consists of: Two members of the Senate appointed by the Senate Rules Committee, Two members of the Assembly appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, The Director of the Department of General Services or his/her designee, The Director of Finance or his/her designee; and the Superintendent of Public Instruction or his/her designee. SAB is responsible for determining the allocation of State resources used for the construction, modernization and maintenance of local public school facilities. SAB is charged with the administration of the State School Facility Program, and serves as the policy level body for the programs administered by the Office of Public School Construction. Constructing or modernizing a school building begins with the school district, which determines the type and size of the school building needed using criteria set forth from the California Department of Education (CDE). Site selection, approval and acquisition can take longer than a AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageD year, during which time the school district should have passed a local bond or secured alternative funding for its share of the project. Without this funding, the school district cannot meet the 50 percent local funding requirement for new construction projects or the 40 percent local funding requirement for modernization projects. During this time, CDE reviews and approves the site selection and construction plans. Districts then submit an application to the OPSC. While OPSC determines eligibility, the district can hire an architect to develop plans and specifications for the school. Once the architect completes the plans and specifications, the district sends them to the Division of State Architects DSA for processing, and districts must obtain DSA's written approval prior to signing the project's construction contract to obtain state funding. The district then applies to OPSC, and must include a verification of the local 50 or 40 percent share of the project cost, stamped DSA plans, and approval of the site and plans by the CDE. OPSC then presents the application to the SAB for an unfunded approval, which if granted, SAB funds as the Treasurer sells bonds, assuming bond authorization exists. In addition to new construction and modernization funding, SAB also operates the charter school facilities program, which provides a charter school with funding to construct new facilities or to rehabilitate existing district-owned facilities for charter school use. To qualify for funding, a charter must be deemed financially sound by the California School Finance Authority and meet the eligibility criteria outlined in law. Title to the project facilities may be held by the local school district a local agency, or the charter school itself. A charter, or school district filing on behalf of a charter under this program, may receive a reservation of funding by submitting a preliminary application prior to receiving the necessary approvals from other State entities. Once those approvals are received, the preliminary apportionment must be converted to a final apportionment within four years, with a possible one-year extension. The local share of school construction facilities is made up for with district funds, local bonds, and fees on new home construction. Like most local agencies, school districts can levy fees to fund infrastructure, but school AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageE district fees can depend on the amount of state aid for new school construction. SB 50 allowed school district governing boards that assess Level I fees, currently $3.20 per square foot, but also allowed districts to impose Level II fees under specified circumstances. Additionally, when SAB is no longer approving apportionments for new construction, districts that have been assessing Level II fees can assess Level III fees, which are double the Level II fees. However, the Legislature suspended Level III fees from January 1, 2013 until January 1, 2015, but the suspension ends unless the voters enact a new school facilities construction bond on the November, 2014 ballot (SB 1016, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, 2012). III. Higher Education Facility Finance. Having historically relied on General Obligation Bonds, capital funding for higher education has been provided since 2008 in the annual Budget Act through lease revenue bonds, as the bond authority authorized for higher education in the 2006 bond has long been exhausted. The Legislature appropriates bond funds in the State Budget Act in accordance with the segments' five-year capital facility plans; however, these funds have met less than half of the segments' capital needs. In April 2014, the University of California (UC) identified four-year needs of $550 million per year, the California State University (CSU) has identified a need of $400-$500 million per year, and the California Community Colleges (CCC) estimates a need of about $35 billion over the next 10 years. The CCC Office of the Chancellor estimates that $19.1 billion of local bond funds remain available, leaving over $15.9 billion in unmet need, meaning approximately $3.2 billion is needed from a state bond every two years. Proposed Law Assembly Bill 2235 enacts the Kindergarten-University Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014, which places a bond of an unspecified amount on the November, 2014 ballot. The Bond funds K-12 Facilities, Community College Facilities, and University Facilities in unspecified shares. I. K-12 Bond. The bill establishes the 2014 State School Facilities Fund, into which proceeds of bonds must be deposited. Moneys in the fund shall be available to provide aid to school districts, county superintendents of AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageF schools, and county boards of education, to provide funds to repay any funds advanced or loaned before the sale of the bonds by an act of the Legislature. AB 2235 funds the following K-12 facilities programs: New School Construction, Charter School Facilities, School Facility Modernization. School districts can only use modernization funds for: Purchasing and installing air conditioning equipment, Constructing projects, Purchasing furniture or equipment designed to increase school security or playground safety, Identifying, assessing, or abating hazardous asbestos, Project funding for high-priority roof replacement, Any modernization under the 1998 Bond Act The bill creates the State School Building Finance Committee to determine whether it's necessary and desirable for the Treasurer to sell bonds that fund its K-12 programs. The Treasurer can sell the bonds at any different times necessary to service expenditures required by SAB apportionments. The Committee is composed of: The Governor, The Controller, The Treasurer, as chair, The Director of Finance, who must provide assistance to the Committee, The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, The bill also provided that two members of the Senate, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules, and two members of the Assembly, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly, must meet and provide advice to the Committee to the extent that advisory participations doesn't conflict with their current office. The measure states that the members of the Legislature constitute an interim investigating committee. The Attorney General must serves as legal adviser. The bill allows the State Allocation Board to request a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Board. The measure requires SAB to support the request with a statement of apportionments. AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageG II. Community College Bond. AB 2235 also creates the California Community College Capital Outlay Bond Fund in the State Treasury, into which an unspecified amount of the proceeds of bonds authorized by the bill must be deposited. Bond proceeds may be appropriated for: Construction on existing campuses, Construction used by more than one segment of public higher education, Renovation and reconstruction of facilities, Site acquisition, Equipping new, renovated, or reconstructed facilities with equipment with a useful life of more than ten years, and Providing funds for the payment of preconstruction costs. The bill creates the Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee to authorize bond issuance only to the extent necessary to fund appropriations made by the Legislature in the Budget Act, and determine whether it's necessary and desirable for the Treasurer to sell bonds pursuant to this legislative direction. The Treasurer can sell the bonds at any different times necessary to service expenditures required by the apportionments. The Committee is composed of: The Governor, The Controller, The Treasurer, as chair, The Director of Finance, who must provide assistance to the Committee, The President of the University of California, The Chancellor of the California State University, The Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. The bill allows each state agency administering an appropriation may request a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Board. The measure also requires any request forwarded to the Legislature and the Department of Finance for funding to include the five-year capital outlay plan that reflects the needs and priorities of the community college system on a statewide basis. Requests must include a schedule that prioritizes the seismic retrofitting needed to significantly reduce seismic hazards identified as high priority. The measure also makes a legislative finding and declaration that the California Community Colleges annually consider the inclusion of facilities of intersegmental use, AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageH and report their findings to the Budget Committee of each house of the Legislature on or before May 15th of each year. III. University Bond. AB 2235 also creates the University Capital Outlay Bond Fund in the State Treasury, into which an unspecified amount of the proceeds of bonds authorized by the bill must be deposited, an unspecified amount for the University of California and the Hastings College of the Law, and an unspecified amount for the California State University. Funds may be appropriated for: Construction on existing campuses, Construction used by more than one segment of public higher education, Renovation and reconstruction of facilities, Site acquisition, Equipping new, renovated, or reconstructed facilities with equipment with a useful life of more than ten years, and Providing funds for the payment of preconstruction costs. The bill copies the same provisions from the Community College component of the bond described above, including directing the Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee to authorize bond issuance only to the extent necessary to fund appropriations made by the Legislature in the Budget Act, and determine whether it's necessary and desirable for the Treasurer to sell bonds pursuant to this legislative direction. The bill allows each state agency administering an appropriation may request a loan from the Pooled Money Investment Board. The measure also requires any request forwarded to the Legislature and the Department of Finance for funding to include the five-year capital outlay plan that reflects the needs and priorities of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and the California State University on a statewide basis. Request must include a schedule that prioritizes the seismic retrofitting needed to significantly reduce seismic hazards identified as high priority. The measure also makes a legislative finding and declaration that the University of California and the California State University should annually consider the inclusion of facilities of intersegmental use, and report their findings to the Budget Committee of each house of the Legislature on or before May AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageI 15th of each year. AB 2235 imports all the standard provisions for general obligation bonds explicitly or by reference, except it doesn't allow amounts derived from premium to be reserved and use to pay the cost of bond issuance prior to any transfer to the General Fund. Instead, they must be reserved as a credit for expenditures for bond interest. Additionally, the measure does not allow the Treasurer's cost of issuance to be paid out of bond proceeds. IV. Other Provisions. AB 2235 includes standard provisions from bond acts, and incorporates other provisions from the General Obligation Bond Law by reference. The bill makes a conforming change to the 1998 Bond Act to ensure that all moneys from the Fund are continuously appropriated to SAB to apportion to districts in an amount of bonds authorized by the finance committee, but not yet sold by the Treasurer. The measure also deletes obsolete provisions added by prior bond acts. The Office of Public School Construction must recommend to SAB regulations that provide districts with flexibility in designing facilities. SAB may require each district that participates in the new construction or modernization program funded by any future bond to reestablish eligibility for each school site pursuant to its regulations. SAB must also adopt regulations to adjust per pupil amounts in current law for projects with school buildings more than 50 years old. The bill also includes a severability clause. State Revenue Impact No estimate. Comments 1. Purpose of the bill . According to the author, "the state is an important partner with school districts and the developer community in ensuring that students have adequate and safe school facilities. Voters understand this and AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageJ have consistently shown support for school bonds, and voters pass local bonds with the expectation of receiving state matching funds. The $35 billion in K-12 bonds passed since 1998 has been matched by over $70 billion in local bonds and developer fees. Together, these funds have built new schools, modernized aging schools to ensure that they are safe and updated, and relieved overcrowding. Additionally, these funds help the economy by generating tens of thousands of jobs." 2. Sixteen tons . Debt is an essential part of almost every government, business, and personal balance sheet, as borrowers seek funds from lenders in exchange for a future commitment to repay them. However, evaluating the State's general obligation debt is difficult; both the State Treasurer and the Legislative Analyst's Office suggest there's no correct amount. Instead, experts suggest that states should look at three criteria: affordability, comparability, and optimality<1>: California's debt is affordable. The State Treasurer estimates that the state will spend 7.7% of General Fund revenues on debt service in 2012-13. However, these costs reduce the funding that is available for other priorities. Debt service is one of the fastest growing state costs, expected to reach $8.6 billion in 2017-18 assuming no new authorizations, according to the Governor's Five-Year Infrastructure Plan. The Plan proposes no new general obligation bonds, instead relying on more limited lease-revenue bonds because of this increased debt burden. California's comparability to other states is less favorable. The State Treasurer's Debt Affordability Report contains the following chart: ------------------------------------------------------------ |Debt Ratios Of 10 Most Populous States, Ranked By Ratio Of | |Debt To Personal Income | | | ------------------------------------------------------------ |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| ------------------------- <1> Robert Wassmer and Ronald Fisher "Debt Burdens of California State and Local Governments: Past, Present and Future." As requested and supported by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. July 2011. AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageK | State | Moody's/ |Debt To |Debt Per | Debt As A | | | S&P/ |Personal|Capita(b)| % | | | Fitch(a) | | | Of State | | | |Income(b| | GDP(b)(c) | | | | ) | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |Texas |Aaa/AA+/AAA| 1.5% | $580 | 1.16% | | | | | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |Michigan |Aa2/AA-/AA | 2.2% | $800 | 2.05% | | | | | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |North Carolina |Aaa/AAA/AAA| 2.4% | $853 | 1.89% | | | | | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |Pennsylvania |Aa2/AA/AA+ | 2.8% | $1,208 | 2.66% | | | | | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |Ohio |Aa1/AA+/AA+| 2.8% | $1,047 | 2.50% | | | | | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |Florida |Aa1/AAA/AAA| 2.8% | $1,087 | 2.78% | | | | | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |Georgia |Aaa/AAA/AAA| 3.0% | $1,061 | 2.51% | | | | | | | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |Illinois | A3/A-/A- | 5.7% | $2,526 | 4.85% | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |California | A1/A/A | 5.8% | $2,565 | 4.98% | |----------------+-----------+--------+---------+-----------| |New York |Aa2/AA/AA | 6.3% | $3,174 | 5.36% | ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | |Moody's Median All States | 2.8% | $1,074 | 2.47% | | | | | | |-----------------------------+--------+---------+-----------| | | | | | |Median For The 10 Most | 2.8% | $1,074 | 2.59% | |Populous States | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ | | |(a) Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings as of | |September 2012. | AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageL | | |(b) Figures as reported by Moody's in its 2012 State Debt | |Medians Report released May 2012. As of calendar year end | |2011. | | | |(c) State GDP numbers have a one-year lag. | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------ Determining optimality or whether government is investing in the quantity and quality of public capital desired by residents, and financing the appropriate share with debt, is very difficult. LAO recommends that the Legislature consider the recently released Five-Year Infrastructure Plan as a starting point to developing a coordinated approach to infrastructure funding, and establish a committee to focus on statewide infrastructure. 3. Need . The Senate Committee on Education notes: "According to the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), as of March 26, 2014, approximately $351.1 million remained in bond authority in the SFP. At its March, 2014 meeting, the State Allocation Board (SAB) took action to reserve $52.7 million of existing bond authority for the ongoing administration of the program over the next five years, reducing the remaining bond authority to $298.4 million. The majority of this bond authority exists for the Seismic Mitigation and Charter School programs (about $259 million). Bond authority for new construction and modernizations programs has essentially been depleted, respectively, since July 2012 and May 2012. In addition, since November 1, 2012, the SAB has maintained an "Applications Received Beyond Bond Authority" list. This list is presented to SAB for acknowledgement, but not approval. Because the applications are not fully processed for final grant determination, the project funding amounts on the list are only estimates. As of March 31, 2014, the list indicated new construction applications totaling $237 million and modernizations applications of $198 million. These applications are currently unable to be funded unless projects are rescinded or monies revert back to the fund." 4. The good news . Investors ultimately determine a state's creditworthiness and the interest rate paid on a bond when they bid to purchase one. However, ratings AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageM issued from the three major ratings agencies often inform investors and the public regarding the investment risk of purchasing a California general obligation bond. These ratings change over time in response to a state's fiscal situation and economy, among other factors. In January, ratings agency Standard and Poor's raised the outlook on the state's general obligation debt from stable to positive, which often portends an upgrade, following on the agency's boost for California from A- to A last year, as well as Fitch's upgrade last August. However, the state still has the second lowest rating in the nation. 5. The bad news . California has a distinct problem: of the $127 billion that voters have authorized, almost $25 billion hasn't been issued yet. The state hasn't issued almost $7 billion in transportation bonds, and $9.2 billion in high speed rail bonds, because the projects haven't yet received the needed approvals. Should the voters approve new general obligation debt for school, community college, and university construction, the state would either have to sell sufficient debt to fund everything, and increase debt service costs accordingly, or choose which of these projects should be funded first. Additionally, the Committee approved SB 848 (Wolk), which would reduce the current $11.1 billion water bond, and SB 1086 (DeLeon) which calls for bonds in unspecified amounts for parks. However, school bonds are generally spent in steady amounts over a long period of time as projects get the necessary approvals, so AB 2235's debt impacts could be less acute than other kinds of bonds. 6. Local bonds . State Treasurer Bill Lockyer wrote in his April 28th weekly update that some $30 billion of K-12 bonds approved by local voters that school districts have yet to sell, questioning the need for a State bond measure. The update notes that provided the Board in January, placed the total statewide construction/modernization need through 2021 at $21.03 billion. That's about $9 billion less than the amount of unused local bonds. Proponents respond by stating that many districts have seen assessed value declines prevent districts that prevent them from selling bonds up to currently authorized amounts given tax limits. Proponents also add that the $30 billion is evenly distributed: many districts don't have the political will or tax base to approve a local bond. 7. Upstairs, downstairs . In his 2014-15 Budget, the AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageN Governor proposed to continue a dialogue on the future of school facilities funding, including consideration of what role, if any, the state should play. The Governor noted that this infrastructure discussion should include the growing debt service costs associated with the state's increased reliance on debt financing, and issued several concerns with the existing program, including, the complex, cumbersome and costly nature of the current program, the first-come, first serve allocation process which provides a competitive advantage to larger districts with dedicated facilities personnel, and the lack of adequate local control over school facility design and its impact on modern educational delivery methods. The Governor also stated that any future program should be designed to provide districts with the tools and resources to address their core facility gaps, but should also avoid the unsustainable reliance on debt issuance that characterizes the current school facilities program. 8. Recent amendments . When the Committee on Education heard AB 2235 at its June 18th hearing, it adopted amendments striking the overall bond amount, as well as the bill's individual allocations for each category of facilities. As such, it's difficult to assess AB 2235's impacts on state debt. Assembly Actions Assembly Floor 75-0 Assembly Appropriations 16-0 Assembly Higher Education 13-0 Assembly Education 7-0 Support and Opposition (06/14/14) Support : Advancement Project; All American Inspection, Inc.; American Council of Engineering Companies California; Antelope Valley College; Associated General Contractors; Association of California Construction Managers; Association of California School Administrators; Bakersfield City School District; Baldwin Park Unified School District; Barstow Community College District; BCA Architects; BlueGreen Alliance; Board of Governors, California Community Colleges; BSK Associates; Butte County Office of Education; Cabrillo Community College; California AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageO Apartment Association; California Association of School Business Officials; California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association; California Association of Suburban School Districts; California Building Industry Association; California Chamber of Commerce; California Federation of Teachers; California School Boards Association; California State PTA; California State University; California Teachers Association; California Workforce Association; Central Valley Education Coalition; Central Valley Higher Education Consortium; Chaffey Community College District; Citrus College; Coalition for Adequate School Housing; College of the Desert; College of the Redwoods; Community College Facility Coalition; Community College League of California; Contra Costa County Office of Education; County School Facilities Consortium; Dougherty + Dougherty Architects LLP; El Dorado County Office of Education; Elk Grove Unified School District; Foothill-De Anza Community College District; Fresno Unified School District; Glendale Community College District; Higginson + Cartozian Architects, Inc.; Imperial County Office of Education; John Swett Unified School District; Kern Community College District; Kern County Superintendent of Schools; Lake Tahoe Community College; Los Angeles Community College District; Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools; Los Angeles Unified School District; Los Rios Community College District; Madera County Office of Education; Martinez Unified School District Merced County Office of Education; Monterey Peninsula Community College District; Monterey County Office of Education; Napa County Office of Education; Palm Springs Unified School District; Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District; Paramount Unified School District; Pasadena City College; Peralta Community College District; Place Works; PMSM Architects; Public Advocates; Rancho Santiago Community College District; Regional Asthma Management and Prevention; RGM and Associates; Rio Hondo Community College District; Riverside Community College District; Riverside County Superintendent of Schools; San Benito County Office of Education; San Bernardino Community College District; San Diego County Superintendent of Schools; Dr. Randy Ward; San Diego Unified School District; San Francisco Unified School District; San Leandro Unified School District; San Luis Obispo County Office of Education; Santa Ana Unified School District; Santa Barbara County Office of Education; Santa Clara County Office of Education; San Clarita Community College District; Santa Cruz County Office of Education; AB 2235 - 6/19/14 -- PageP School Air; School Employers Association of California; School Energy Coalition; Sierra College; Siskiyou Joint Community College District; Small School Districts; Association; Solano Community College District; Sonoma County Office of Education; South Orange County Community College District; St. Helena Unified School District; State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO; State Center Community College District; Stockton Unified School District; Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson; Tracy Unified School District; University of California; Visalia Unified School District; West Hills Community; West Kern Community College District; William S. Hart Union High School District; Wiseburn School District; Yosemite Community College District; Yuba Community College District. Opposition : None received.