BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 111
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Fuller |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------|
|Version: |March 4, 2015 |Hearing |March 11, 2015 |
| | |Date: | |
|--------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant: |Kathleen Chavira |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: School facilities: military installations
SUMMARY
This bill appropriates $61 million from the General Fund (GF) to
the California Department of Education (CDE) for apportionment
to school districts to meet the matching share requirements of a
specified federal school construction grant program.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the School Facility Program (SFP) under
which the state provides general obligation bond funding for
various school construction projects. AB 127 (Nunez and Perata),
the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act
of 2006, authorized Proposition 1D a statewide general
obligation bond proposal for $10.4 billion. Proposition 1D,
approved, by the voters in November 2006, provided $7.3 billion
for K-12 education facilities and allocated specified amounts
from the sale of these bonds for modernization, new
construction, charter schools, Career Technical Education
Facilities, joint use projects, new construction on severely
overcrowded school sites, and high performance incentive grants
to promote energy efficient design and materials. In addition,
portions of the amounts allocated for new construction and
modernization were authorized for purposes of funding smaller
learning communities and small high schools and for seismic
retrofit projects.
(Education Code § 17078.70-17078.72)
SB 111 (Fuller) Page 2
of ?
ANALYSIS
This bill appropriates $61 million from the General Fund (GF) to
the CDE for apportionment to school districts to meet the
matching share requirements of the United States Department of
Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment school construction grant
program.
STAFF COMMENTS
1. Need for the bill. According to the author, California has
11 schools in six districts that are on a priority list for
funds from the federal government to address the "serious
condition or capacity deficiencies" of public schools on
military installations. These schools are eligible to
receive funds for this purpose
through the Public Schools on Military Installations
Program (PSMI). The program requires a 20
percent non-federal match in order to receive federal
funding.
According to the author, about $61 million is necessary to
cover the 20 percent match for the 11 California schools on
the list. This bill would appropriate these funds to the
California Department of Education for apportionment to the
affected school districts and leverage approximately $240
million in federal funds for the renovation, repair, or
reconstruction of these schools.
2. Public Schools on Military Installations Program (PSMI).
According to the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), in
2010 the Department of Defense (DOD) evaluated and reviewed
the physical condition of the 160 public schools on
military installations in the United States. Based on the
findings of this assessment, the DOD developed a "Priority
List" of public schools on military installations with the
most serious condition and/or capacity deficiencies. The
OEA was tasked with administering the PSMI program to
provide funds to these schools to address these
deficiencies.
Between 2011 and 2015, Congress has provided $945 million to the
SB 111 (Fuller) Page 3
of ?
OEA for the purposes of the PSMI. The last increase in funding
for the PSMI ($175 million) was provided in 2015 by House
Resolution 83 (H.R. 83 Section 8017). In addition to the
funding increase, H.R. 83 established the 20 percent match as a
congressionally mandated requirement and stipulated that the
non-federal match was the responsibility of the local education
authority (LEA) and the State. The DOD has interpreted the new
language to mean that the matching share must be provided by the
local education authority (LEA) and or the State in which the
school is located and that the OEA may skip eligible school
projects on the Priority List if the match is not provided.
According to the OEA, once a project on the list has been
skipped it will no longer be considered for funding.
According to the OEA, there is approximately $464 million
remaining in the PSMI. The OEA estimates that as many as 33
schools on the list could be assisted.
3. Which school districts? According to information provided
by the OEA, California has 11 schools in six districts that
are within the top 33 on the Priority List. These include:
A. Murray Middle School at China Lake Naval Air
Weapons Station, Sierra Sands Unified School District.
B. Forbes Elementary (Currently Branch
Elementary) at Edwards Air Force Base, Muroc Joint
Unified School District.
C. Sherman E. Burroughs High School at China Lake
Naval Air Weapons Station, Sierra Sands Unified School
District.
D. Mary Fay Pendleton Elementary at Marine Corp
Base Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook Union Elementary School
District.
E. San Onofre Elementary School at Marine Corp
Base Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook Union Elementary School
District.
F. Miller Elementary School at Naval Base San
Diego, San Diego Unified School District.
SB 111 (Fuller) Page 4
of ?
G. Scandia Elementary at Travis Air Force Base,
Travis School District.
H. Akers Elementary School at Naval Air Station
Lemoore, Central Union High School.
I. Hancock Elementary School at Naval Base San
Diego, San Diego Unified School District.
J. Desert Junior-Senior High School at Edwards
Air Force Base, Muroc Joint Unified School District.
AA. Irving L. Branch Elementary School at Edwards
Air Force Base, Muroc Joint Unified School District.
1. Should GF monies be used for construction/modernization of
school facilities? Since about 1978, after the passage of
Proposition 13, the state has assisted school districts
with their school facility projects through the issuance of
voter approved state general obligation bonds. This bill
proposes the use of General Fund dollars for the purpose of
having the California Department of Education (CDE)
apportion funds to meet the facilities needs of a subset of
schools.
The committee may wish consider:
A. Does the committee support a policy to shift
the source of state funding for facilities needs from
general obligation bonds to the general fund?
B. Is the use of GF dollars for the purpose of
meeting the facilities needs of this subset of schools
a priority for the use of GF monies in the 2015-16
budget?
1. Related Governor's budget activity. In his 2015-16 Budget
Summary, the Governor notes concerns about the complexity
and structure of the current School Facility Program and
the state's increasing debt service obligations. The
Governor has proposed significant changes to the way school
facilities are funded with the intent that districts be
better able to meet their facilities needs at the local
level. The Governor proposes to expand local revenue
SB 111 (Fuller) Page 5
of ?
generation tools by increasing caps on local bond
indebtedness, restructuring developer fees, and expanding
the allowable uses of Routine Restricted Maintenance
Funding. The Governor has also indicated interest in a
future state program focused on districts with the greatest
need, including communities with low property values and
few borrowing options, as well as overcrowded schools.
2. Related State Allocation Board activity. After an April
2012 briefing on this topic, the SAB took action to
establish the Department of Defense
Sub-Committee, convened in June 2012, to explore
alternatives for assisting districts with providing the
required 20 percent local match for projects on the DOD
Priority List.
Among other things, the sub-committee found that:
A. Program funding from the federal government is
based on a cost estimate of the actual work, whereas
the School Facility Program (SFP) provides funding in
the form of per pupil grants, with some supplemental
grants.
B. Based on the method of calculation, the 20
percent required is based upon a higher amount than
the SFP calculations.
Options considered by the sub-committee included
reservation of bond authority, transfer of bond authority,
loans for the matching share, waiver of the local matching
share requirement, and facility hardship funding. Each of
these were determined not to be viable.
In August 2012, the State Allocation Board (SAB) considered
the recommendations of the sub-committee. The SAB elected
to recommend to the Legislature that funding be provided
for military base schools in California in the next bond
proposal in order to cover the total need for these types
of projects.
3. Related/Prior Legislation. SB 121 (Fuller) also on the
committee's agenda today, requires that school construction
projects on military installations that are eligible for
SB 111 (Fuller) Page 6
of ?
specified federal grants be given priority for funding
under the State School Facility program.
SUPPORT
Antelope Valley Board of Trade
Brigadier General, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
Central Union School District
Muroc Joint Unified School District
Sierra Sands Unified School District
Travis Unified School District
Numerous individual letters
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --