BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 29, 2015


                           ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION


                              Patrick O'Donnell, Chair


          AB 1088  
          (O'Donnell) - As Amended April 22, 2015


          SUBJECT:  Education facilities:  bond act:  Greene Act


          SUMMARY:  Places the Kindergarten-University Public Education  
          Facilities Bond Act on an unspecified statewide general  
          election, to be operative only if approved by voters at the  
          unspecified statewide general election.  Makes changes to the  
          School Facility Program (SFP).  Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Establishes the ___ State School Facilities Fund and  
            authorizes the State Allocation Board (SAB) to apportion funds  
            to school districts from funds transferred to the ___ State  
            School Facilities Fund from any source for the purposes  
            specified in the SFP.  

          2)Authorizes an unspecified amount of general obligation (G.O.)  
            school facilities bond to be placed on an unspecified  
            statewide general election and specifies the funds to be  
            allocated as follows:

             a)   An unspecified amount for kindergarten through grade 12  
               (K-12) allocated to the following programs:

               i)     New Construction;
               ii)    Modernization; and, 








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  2





               iii)   Charter School Facilities Program.

             b)   An unspecified amount for higher education facilities  
               allocated to the following:

               i)     California Community Colleges (CCC);
               ii)    University of California (UC) and the Hastings  
                 College of Law; and, 
               iii)   California State University (CSU).

          3)Establishes the ___ California Community College Capital  
            Outlay Bond Fund and authorizes the deposit of funds from the  
            proceeds of bonds issued and sold pursuant to this bill to be  
            deposited into the fund for the purposes of construction;  
            renovation and reconstruction of CCC facilities; site  
            acquisition; the equipping of new, renovated or reconstructed  
            facilities; and to provide funds for the payment of  
            preconstruction costs, including, but not limited to,  
            preliminary plans and working drawings for CCC facilities.

          4)Establishes the ___ University Capital Outlay Bond Fund and  
            authorizes the deposit of funds from the proceeds of bonds  
            issued and sold pursuant to this bill to be deposited into the  
            fund for the purposes of construction; renovation and  
            reconstruction of facilities; site acquisition; the equipping  
            of new, renovated or reconstructed facilities; and to provide  
            funds for the payment of preconstruction costs, including, but  
            not limited to, preliminary plans and working drawings for  
            facilities of the UC, CSU, and Hastings College of Law.  

          5)Makes the following changes to the SFP:

             a)   Requires the SAB to convene a workgroup comprised of  
               representatives of the Office of Public School Construction  
               (OPSC), the Department of Finance (DOF), the Division of  
               State Architect (DSA), the California Department of  
               Education (CDE), other state agencies, and interested  
               stakeholders to recommend changes to the SFP that will  
               shorten and streamline the process for the construction and  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  3





               modernization of school facilities.  Requires the SAB to  
               submit a report with recommendations to the Legislature by  
               September 1, 2016.

             b)   Strikes an obsolete provision requiring the SAB to  
               conduct an evaluation on the costs of new construction and  
               modernization of small high schools.

             c)   Authorizes the SAB to require the following:

               i)     Each school district that elects to participate in  
                 the new construction program funded by the proceeds of  
                 any bond approved by voters after January 1, 2016 to  
                 reestablish eligibility pursuant to regulations adopted  
                 by the SAB; and,

               ii)    Submit information describing existing facilities in  
                 the school district for the purpose of establishing a  
                 statewide inventory pursuant to regulations adopted by  
                 the SAB.

             d)   Repeals the provisions that do the following:

               i)     Requires, for the purpose of determining existing  
                 school building capacity, the calculation to be adjusted  
                 for first priority status as that calculation would have  
                 been made under the policies of the SAB in effected  
                 immediately preceding September 1, 1998.

               ii)    Requires the maximum school building capacity for  
                 each applicant district be increased by the number of  
                 pupils reported by the Superintendent of Public  
                 Instruction (SPI) as excess capacity as a result of  
                 participation in the Year-Round School Grant Program.   
                 Repeals the requirement that the adjustment be calculated  
                 on the basis, at the district's option, of either the  
                 district as a whole or the appropriate attendance area.

               iii)   Requires each school on a multitrack year-round  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  4





                 calendar that has a density of 200 or more pupils  
                 enrolled per acre that is located in a school district  
                 with 40 percent of its pupils attending multitrack  
                 year-round schools be exempted from the increase in  
                 school building capacity required by Education Code (EC)  
                 Section 17071.35.

             e)   Expresses the intent of the Legislature to adjust the  
               local match requirements for a new construction or  
               modernization grant based on a school district's ability to  
               raise local revenue, beginning with the proceeds from any  
               bond approved by voters after January 1, 2016.

             f)   Authorizes, beginning with the proceeds from any bond  
               approved by voters after January 1, 2016, a new  
               construction grant to be used for career technical  
               education (CTE) facilities, joint use facilities, and  
               preschool facilities located at a schoolsite.

             g)   Requires the OPSC, in consultation with the CDE, to  
               recommend to the SAB regulations that will provide school  
               districts with flexibility in designing instructional  
               facilities.

             h)   Authorizes the SAB to require each school district that  
               elects to participate in the modernization program funded  
               by the proceeds of any bond approved by voters after  
               January 1, 2016 to reestablish baseline eligibility for  
               each schoolsite pursuant to regulations adopted by the SAB.

             i)   Expresses the intent of the Legislature to adjust the  
               local match requirements for a modernization grant based on  
               a school district's ability to raise local revenue,  
               beginning with the proceeds from any bond approved by  
               voters after January 1, 2016.

             j)   Authorizes, beginning with the proceeds from any bonds  
               approved by voters after January 1, 2016, a modernization  
               grant to be used for rehabilitating CTE facilities, seismic  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  5





               retrofits, and rehabilitating existing facility for use by  
               a preschool located at an existing schoolsite.

             aa)  Finds and declares that the state has an aging and  
               deteriorating school facilities inventory and in certain  
               circumstances, it would be prudent to replace those  
               facilities rather than to expend state and local  
               modernization bond funds.  Requires the OPSC to provide to  
               the SAB recommendations on the value of allowing school  
               districts to replace existing facilities on existing  
               schoolsite.  



          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of  
            1998, the SAB to allocate to applicant school districts  
            prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction  
            and modernization of school facilities, including hardship  
            funding, and supplemental funding for site development and  
            acquisition. 

          2)Provides that a school district's ongoing eligibility for new  
            construction funding is determined by making calculations  
            related to certain factors, including, but not limited to,  
            enrollment projections by utilizing a cohort survival  
            enrollment projection system, the number of students that may  
            be adequately housed in the existing school building capacity  
            of the district, and increases or decreases in enrollment  
            resulting from receipt of funding from the Year-Round School  
            Grant Program.  

          3)Provides that a school district is eligible to receive an  
            apportionment for the modernization of a permanent school  
            building that is more than 25 years old or a portable  
            classroom that is at least 20 years old.  A school district is  
            eligible to receive an additional apportionment for  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  6





            modernization of a permanent school building every 25 years  
            after the date of the previous apportionment or a portable  
            classroom every 20 years after the previous apportionment.



          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


          COMMENTS:  Background.  The construction and rehabilitation of  
          public kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) facilities are  
          funded by a combination of state and local G.O. bonds,  
          developer's fees and local assessments such as Mello Roos  
          community facilities districts.  The New Construction program  
          requires a 50% match from local educational agencies (LEAs),  
          unless the LEA qualifies for financial hardship, which pays up  
          to 100% of project costs.  Modernization funds are awarded at  
          60% with a 40% match.  Since the inception of the SFP in 1998,  
          voters have approved $35.4 billion in state G.O. bonds for K-12  
          schools. 





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |   Ballot    |   Measure   |        Amount         |  % Passage  |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |-------------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------|
          |November     |Proposition  |$9.2 billion           |    62.5     |
          |1998         |1A           |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |     ($6.7 billion     |             |
          |             |             |K-12 +                 |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |     $2.5 billion      |             |
          |             |             |Higher Ed)             |             |








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  7





          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |-------------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------|
          |November     |Proposition  |$13.05 billion         |    59.1     |
          |2002         |47           |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |     ($11.4 billion    |             |
          |             |             |K-12 +                 |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |     $1.65 billion     |             |
          |             |             |Higher Ed)             |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |-------------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------|
          |March 2004   |Proposition  |$12.3 billion          |50.9         |
          |             |55           |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |     ($10 billion K-12 |             |
          |             |             |+                      |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |     $2.3 billion      |             |
          |             |             |Higher Ed)             |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |-------------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------|
          |November     |Proposition  |$10.416 billion        |56.9         |
          |2006         |1D           |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |     ($7.329 K-12 +    |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |      $3.087 billion   |             |
          |             |             |Higher Ed)             |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
          |             |             |                       |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  8








          The last education bond on the statewide ballot was Proposition  
          1D, which was passed by voters on the November 2006 ballot.   
          Proposition 1D provided $10.416 billion for K-12 and higher  
          education facilities and established new K-12 grant programs,  
          specified through the following allocations:


          1)$7.329 billion for K-12 facilities as follows:

             a)   $1.9 billion for new construction projects (of which up  
               to $199.5 million can be set aside for seismic repairs);
             b)   $3.3 billion for modernization projects;
             c)   $1 billion for overcrowding relief grants through the  
               removal of  portables;
             d)   $500 million for charter school facilities;
             e)   $500 million for career technical education (CTE)  
               facilities and equipment;
             f)   $100 million for high performance (green) projects; and,
             g)   $29 million for joint-use projects.
          2)$3.087 billion for higher education facilities as follows:



             a)   $1.507 billion for CCC;
             b)   $890 million for UC, of which $200 million was available  
               for medical education programs; and, 
             c)   $690 million for CSU.



          K-12 remaining bond authority.  Due to the state's budget crisis  
          and poor credit ratings, the Pool Money Investment Board halted  
          the regular sale of all G.O. bonds in December 2008 and slowed  
          the disbursement of funds.  The SAB, comprised of ten members  
          that include appointments by the Governor, the Speaker of the  
          Assembly and the Senate President pro Tem, is the body that  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  9





          allocates bond funds and oversees the administration of the SFP  
          staffed by the OPSC, within the Department of General Services.   
          The SAB has been making unfunded approvals since 2009 to enable  
          districts to continue their facilities planning.  The unfunded  
          approvals are converted to apportionments when bonds are sold  
          and cash becomes available.  


          According to the OPSC, as of April 15, 2015, approximately  
          $195.4 million remains in bond authority from the 2002, 2004,  
          and 2006 bonds, as follows:





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |         Remaining Bond Authority - as of April 15, 2015         |
          |                                                                 |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Program                         |Amount in millions              |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |New Construction                |$17.8*                          |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |Modernization                   |$4.5*                           |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |Seismic Mitigation              |$141.2                          |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |Career Technical Education      |$2.3                            |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |Charter                         |$27.1                           |








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  10





          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |High Performance                |$.5                             |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |Overcrowding Relief             |$2                              |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
          |Total                           |$195.4                          |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |*Due to project rescissions     |                                |
          |                                |                                |
          |                                |                                |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          Source:  Office of Public School Construction


          The majority of remaining authority is derived from funds for  
          seismic projects.  Proposition 1D authorized up to 10.5% of New  
          Construction funds to be used for seismic repair,  
          reconstruction, or replacement.  Seismic dollars have gone out  
          slowly, partly due to fairly narrow eligibility criteria.  New  
          Construction and Modernization funds have been exhausted since  
          2012.  The funds currently available are due to funds returned  
          to the program.    


          What does this bill do?  This bill will place a K-12 and higher  
          education school facilities bond on an unspecified statewide  
          ballot.  The bill currently contains unspecified amounts for  
          K-12 and higher education.  According to the author, the amounts  
          will be determined pending further examinations of need and  
          discussions with the Administration and other parties.  Contrary  
          to the three prior bonds, this bill proposes to fund just the  
          basic programs:  New Construction, Modernization and Charter  
          School Facilities Program (charter Schools do not receive funds  
          from New Construction or Modernization).  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  11







          Need.  The amount of funding needed for K-12 school facilities  
          is hard to calculate, as there is no statewide inventory or  
          mechanism to collect projected need information from LEAs and  
          charter schools.  Eligibility for New Construction is done using  
          the cohort survival projection method, which, generally, is  
          based on projected need after accounting for existing capacity  
          (or seats).  LEAs established their baseline eligibility in  
          1999, and update the eligibility as needed, usually prior to  
          submitting an application for funding.  At the informational  
          hearing this Committee held on February 11, 2015, the assistance  
          Executive Officer of the State Allocation Board estimated a need  
          of $3.54 billion for New Construction over the next eight years.  
              


          LEAs are eligible for Modernization funds based on the age of a  
          building - 25 years for permanent buildings and 20 years for  
          portable buildings - and enrollment at the schoolsites.  Based  
          on the number of schoolsites that have established eligibility,  
          OPSC estimates a need of $4.4 billion for Modernization.   
          However, OPSC cautions that this estimate is based only on 36%  
          of schoolsites that have established eligibility.  The $4.4  
          billion estimate may be low.  


          Another factor to take into consideration is the amount in  
          funding requests submitted to the OPSC despite lack of funds for  
          New Construction or Modernization.  Since 1998, voters have  
          authorized $17.6 billion for New Construction and $11.23 billion  
          for Modernization projects.  Bond authority for the New  
          Construction program has been depleted since July, 2012 and  
          Modernization since May, 2012.  According to the OPSC, the  
          annual average funding approved by the SAB annual is $1.237.5  
          billion for New Construction and $788 million for Modernization.  
           Applications received since 2012 were initially placed on an  
          Unfunded "Lack of Authority" list.  Since November 1, 2012, the  
          SAB established an "Applications Received Past Existing  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  12





          Authority" list.  A total of $1.3 billion have been submitted  
          between the "Lack of Authority" and the "Past Existing  
          Authority" lists.  There are likely many districts not  
          submitting applications because no funding is available and it  
          is unclear whether applications on either list will receive  
          funding.     


          SFP changes.  State bond funds are allocated pursuant to the  
                                  SFP, also called the Leroy Greene School Facilities Act of 1998,  
          and administered by the SAB.  In 2012, the SAB formed a Program  
          Review Subcommittee that spent more than a year meeting monthly  
          to review various aspects of the SFP.  In January, 2014, the  
          Subcommittee, chaired by former Assemblymember Joan Buchanan  
          (D-Alamo), submitted recommendations to the SAB, including the  
          following regarding a new bond:  "There is demand for new  
          construction and modernization funding.  The Subcommittee  
          recognizes that the State has appropriately been a partner in  
          building new schools and modernizing aging facilities.  To date,  
          the School Facility Program has successfully provided $33.93  
          billion for 11,106 projects and should be continued."  The  
          Subcommittee also made a number of recommendations relating to  
          New Construction, Modernization, financial hardship, special  
          programs, portable buildings, facility maintenance, statewide  
          school facilities inventory, and county offices of education.   
          This bill incorporates several of the recommendations made by  
          the Subcommittee as well as additional provisions in response to  
          the Governor's concerns, as follows:


          1)New Construction.  As mentioned previously, the baseline  
            eligibility was established in 1999, after the enactment of  
            the SFP in 1998.  School districts update the baseline  
            eligibility on an ongoing basis, or when they are applying for  
            funding.  The Subcommittee members acknowledged that the  
            reported eligibility may be inaccurate.  School districts that  
            have not applied for funding have not updated their  
            eligibility.  School districts may have constructed facilities  
            using local funds that affect their eligibility for state  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  13





            funding.  New developments that may have been captured in the  
            eligibility calculation may have changed due to the housing  
            downturn.  This bill:

             a)   Gives the SAB the authority to require school districts  
               interested in seeking future bond funds (any bond passed  
               after January 1, 2016) to reestablish eligibility.  

             b)   Authorizes the SAB to require school districts to submit  
               data on existing school buildings in the district in order  
               to establish an inventory.  

             c)   Authorizes New Construction funds to be used to  
               incorporate CTE, joint use, and preschool facilities  
               operating on a schoolsite.  

          2)Modernization.  LEAs submit modernization eligibility for  
            specific schoolsites prior to or when seeking bond funding.   
            As mentioned previously, eligibility is based on the age of  
            the building and enrollment at the site.  The Subcommittee had  
            similar concerns that modernization eligibility may not be  
            updated.  This bill:

             a)    Gives the SAB authority to require LEAs seeking  
               modernization funds from any bonds passed by voters after  
               January 1, 2016 to reestablish modernization eligibility.   
               The bill does not include authorizing the SAB to require  
               school districts to submit data for the purposes of the  
               inventory.  Staff recommends an amendment to apply the  
               requirement on districts seeking modernization funds.  

             b)   Authorizes Modernization funds to be used to  
               rehabilitate facilities for CTE and seismic retrofits and  
               to rehabilitate existing facilities for use by a preschool  
               located at a schoolsite. 

             c)   Directs OPSC to provide a recommendation to the SAB on  
               the value of allowing school districts to replace existing  
               facilities on existing schoolsites.  This is to address  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  14





               school districts' concern that many of the existing  
               facilities are very old, and it may make more fiscal sense  
               to provide funding that will enable school district to  
               demolish and replace an existing building.     

          3)Instructional facilities flexibility.  Based on regulations  
            adopted by the CDE, the SFP generally funds classrooms that  
            are 960 square foot spaces.  Teaching and learning have  
            changed over time.  Teachers do not stand in front of a  
            classroom with a blackboard six hours a day anymore.  Today,  
            teachers may utilize more project based learning, with  
            students working in small groups, which require larger common  
            areas with movable furniture.  The Subcommittee recommends  
            aligning the SFP regulations with the CDE regulation to give  
            LEAs more flexibility.  This bill:

             a)   Directs the OPSC to make recommendations to the SAB that  
               will provide school districts with flexibility in designing  
               instructional facilities.  
           
           Governor's Budget.  The Governor has indicated concerns  
          regarding the use of bonds to fund school facilities and  
          questions whether the State should have any role in student  
          housing.  The Governor has also highlighted problems he sees  
          with the SFP, including the processes for plan approvals and  
          funding.  To address this concern, the bill includes a  
          provision requiring the SAB to form a workgroup that includes  
          state agencies, such as the DSA and CDE, the DOF, and  
          stakeholders to develop recommendations on how the process  
          for constructing and modernizing schools can be streamlined  
          and shortened.  The bill directs the workgroup to consider  
          requirements that can be done through self-certification.      
             


          The 2015-16 budget suggests increasing local contribution  
          while minimizing state participation.  Specifically, the  
          Governor proposes to provide limited state support for  
          districts that may not be able to generate local bond dollars  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  15





          due to low assessed valuations.  The proposal does not  
          specify the threshold for eligibility, level of funding or  
          source of funding (presumably General Fund).  The bill  
          expresses the intent of the Legislature to adjust the local  
          match (currently 50% for New Construction and 40% for  
          Modernization) based on a school district's ability to  
          generate local funds.  


          The Governor also proposes to lift Proposition 39 rate caps  
          to increase funds generated through local bonds (assuming  
          voter approval), adjust developer fees, and authorize  
          districts to use funds set aside for maintenance of  
          facilities for construction and modernization.  


          Impact of school facilities on student learning.  Studies have  
          found a positive relationship between condition of school  
          facilities and student achievement.  According to the CDE,  
          facility condition, design and utilization affect student and  
          staff attendance, retention of teachers, student disruptions,  
          time teachers and students spend on instruction/learning  
          activities, curriculum offerings, teacher and student time in  
          school (school calendar), participation by staff and students in  
          extra-curricular activities, parent visits, and extent of local  
          school program innovations.  Students cannot focus on learning  
          if they are too cold or too hot in a classroom.  They cannot  
          learn if poor air quality affects their health.  Students also  
          cannot focus on learning when classrooms are so overcrowded that  
          they do not have their own desks.  According to the CDE, a 2007  
          report indicates that half of school funding equity lawsuits  
          nationally have included or focused on conditions of school  
          facilities.    


          Arguments in support.  The author states, "I appreciate the  
          Governor's concerns regarding bonded indebtedness.  However,  
          from the overwhelming support for last year's bond bill authored  
          by the former chair of this Committee, AB 2235, and the support  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  16





          expressed by Members at the Assembly Education Committee at the  
          Committee's informational hearing in February, there is strong  
          sentiment in the Legislature that bond funding is an appropriate  
          tool for ensuring that our students have facilities that are  
          safe and conducive to learning.  With local matching funds and  
          developer's fees, state bond funds have the added benefit of  
          creating thousands of jobs and helping our economy."


          When should the bond be placed on the ballot?  While there is a  
          need to replenish school facilities funding through a bond as  
          soon as possible, there are other factors to take into  
          consideration.  The author may wish to consider placing the bond  
          on the 2018 statewide general election.   


          Related legislation.  AB 148 (Holden), also scheduled for the  
          April 29th hearing, places the K-14 School Investment Bond Act  
          of 2016 with unspecified dollar amounts on the November 8, 2016  
          statewide ballot.  The bill is substantially similar to the  
          introduced version of SB 114 (Liu), pending in the Senate  
          Appropriations Committee.


          AB 1433 (Gray), pending in the Assembly Higher Education  
          Committee, places the Recommitment to Higher Education Bond Act  
          of 2016 with unspecified amounts for higher education facilities  
          on the November 8, 2016 statewide general election.  


          SB 114 (Liu), pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee,  
          would place the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Public Education  
          Facilities Bond Act of 2016 with unspecified dollar amounts on  
          the November 8, 2016 ballot.


          Prior legislation.  AB 2235 (Buchanan), would have authorized  
          the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act  
          of 2014 to provide for the issuance of $4.3 billion in G.O.  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  17





          bonds for construction and modernization of school facilities,  
          to become effective only if approved by voters at the November  
          4, 2014, statewide general election.  The bill also made changes  
          to the SFP.  The bill was held on the Senate Floor by the  
          author.  


          AB 41 (Buchanan), introduced in 2013, expresses the  
          Legislature's intent to place a Kindergarten-University  
          facilities bond on the 2014 ballot.  The bill was held by the  
          author in the Assembly Education Committee.


          SB 45 (Corbett), introduced in 2013, expresses the Legislature's  
          intent to place a Kindergarten-University facilities bond on the  
          next statewide general election.  The bill was held by the  
          author in the Senate Rules Committee.


          SB 301 (Liu), introduced in 2013, expresses the Legislature's  
          intent to place a Kindergarten-University facilities bond on the  
          2014 ballot.  The bill was held by the author in the Senate  
          Rules Committee.


          AB 331 (Brownley), introduced in 2011, expressed the  
          Legislature's intent to place a Kindergarten-University  
          facilities bond on the 2012 ballot.  The bill was held in the  
          Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2012.


          AB 822 (Block), introduced in 2011, would have placed a higher  
          education facilities bond on the November 2012 ballot.  The bill  
          was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2012.  


          AB 220 (Brownley), introduced in 2009, would have placed a $6.1  
          billion Kindergarten-University facilities bond on the November  
          2010 ballot.  The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations  








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  18





          Committee. 


          SB 271 (Ducheny), introduced in 2009, would have placed an $8.6  
          billion higher education facilities bond on the November 2010  
          ballot.  The bill was held in the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee.


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          Association of California School Administrators


          California Association of Suburban School Districts


          California Association of School Business Officials


          California Community Colleges Board of Governors


          California School Boards Association


          Community College Facility Coalition


          County School Facilities Consortium


          Kern Community College District








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  19







          Los Angeles Community College District


          Los Angeles Unified School District


          Los Rios Community College District


          Mt. San Jacinto Community College District


          Pasadena Community College District


          Peralta Community College District


          Rio Hondo Community College District


          San Bernardino Community College District


          San Diego Community College District


          San Francisco Community College District


          South Orange County Community College District


          State Building and Construction Trades Council


          University of California








                                                                    AB 1088


                                                                    Page  20







          West Kern Community College District


          Yuba Community College District




          Opposition


          None on file




          Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087