BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2585
AUTHOR: Daly
AMENDED: March 25, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 11, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : School finance: annual budgets.
SUMMARY
This bill eliminates the dual budget adoption option for
school districts and county offices of education (COEs),
revises and recasts provisions related to approval of
conditional or disapproved budgets, and makes other
technical and clarifying changes.
BACKGROUND
Current law :
1) Provides for external financial oversight of COEs
by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and
of school districts by county superintendents.
2) Requires local educational agency's (LEAs) to adopt
a budget prior to July 1 of each year, and requires
that budget to be approved by the county
superintendent (for districts) or the SPI (for COEs)
by August 15. Under the dual budget cycle an LEA
needs to file a revised and readopted budget, at a
public hearing, based on projected income and expenses
budget by September 8; this differs from a single
budget cycle where the budget is readopted only if it
is disapproved or as needed, and no later than 45 days
after the Governor signs the Budget Act. Both single
and dual budget cycles processes require specified
oversight and interventions if the budget is not
approved by specified dates.
(Education Code § 42127)
3) Requires all LEAs to provide two interim reports
AB 2585
Page 2
each fiscal year by specified due dates, and requires
each LEA to self-certify as to whether the LEA will
meet or may not meet its financial obligations for the
current and two subsequent fiscal years, or will be
unable to do so for the current and one subsequent
year; also requires specified oversight and
interventions if a LEA may not meet or will be unable
to meet its financial obligations. (Education Code §
42130 et. seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill eliminates the dual budget adoption option for
school districts and county offices of education (COEs),
revises and recasts provisions related to approval of
conditional or disapproved budgets, and makes other
technical and clarifying changes.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
the number of school districts and county offices of
education electing to use the dual budget adoption
option has been dwindling for many years. For fiscal
year 2014-15, only 13 of the approximately 1,100
school districts and COEs that elected to use this
budget adoption option. Eliminating the dual budget
adoption option will not create new responsibilities
for districts or COEs, nor will it prohibit school
districts or COEs from modifying their budgets
throughout the year. In addition, this bill does not
prevent districts or COEs from holding additional
public hearings to elicit feedback from parents,
community leaders, and other important stakeholders.
2) According to California Department of Education , the
dual budget adoption is redundant and minimally used.
Currently, only 13 LEAs use this process. Districts
and COEs that choose the single adoption cycle are
subject to the same review and timeline used in dual
budget adoption. The difference is that single
adoption districts and COEs revise their budgets by
AB 2585
Page 3
September 8 and submit the revisions for review, but
do not formally re-adopt them.
CDE further notes that all districts and COEs
routinely revise their budgets throughout the year as
more accurate information becomes available. Within
45 days after the state budget is adopted, all
districts and COEs must make available for public
review any revisions to their budgets to reflect the
funding made available by the Budget Act. The budget
review process also requires all districts and COEs to
submit two interim budget reports per year, one as of
October 31 and another as of January 31.
The bill also revises and recasts portions of the
process for review and modification of conditionally
approved or disapproved budgets. Rather than hold a
separate hearing to address concerns, for example, a
school district or COE would instead address concerns
at a regularly scheduled meeting.
The number of districts and COEs selecting the dual
adoption option has declined over the years, and only
13 currently use it. They are:
a) Fairfax Elementary
b) Lost Hills Union Elementary
c) King City Union elementary
d) Orange County Department of Education
e) Coastline ROP JPA
f) Brea-Olinda Unified
g) Garden Grove Unified
h) Newport-Mesa Unified
i) Savanna Elementary
j) Tustin Unified
aa) Banning Unified
bb) Los Alamos Elementary
cc) Sonoma Valley Unified
1) Assembly Appropriations Committee indicates the
following fiscal impact:
a) One-time General Fund and Federal Fund
savings of $100,000 to the California Department
AB 2585
Page 4
of Education (CDE) related to not implementing a
software systems upgrade. Estimated annual
General Fund savings of $10,000 to CDE for
elimination of workload related to processing
dual budget adoption information.
b) Minor state-mandated costs to school
districts and COEs for activities related to
review and response of conditionally approved or
disapproved budget revisions.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
OPPOSITION
None on file.