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.