BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 114|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 114
Author: Liu (D)
Amended: 6/3/15
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 3/25/15
AYES: Liu, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan
NO VOTE RECORDED: Huff, Vidak
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-1, 4/22/15
AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Pavley
NOES: Moorlach
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/28/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Education facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12
Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes changes to the existing School Facility
Program and authorizes the Kindergarten-Grade 12 Public
Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 to provide for the
issuance of an unspecified amount of general obligation bonds
for construction and modernization of education facilities to
become effective if approved by voters at the November 8, 2016,
statewide general election.
SB 114
Page 2
Senate Floor Amendments of 6/3/15 add an urgency clause.
ANALYSIS: Existing law establishes the School Facility Program
(SFP) under which the state provides general obligation (GO)
bond funding for various school construction projects, including
new construction, modernization, joint-use facilities, and
programs to specifically address the construction needs of
overcrowded schools, charter schools, career technical education
facilities, and seismic mitigation. (Education Code § 17070.10
- 17070.99)
The last statewide GO bond, Proposition 1D was approved by
voters in November 2006. Proposition 1D, authorized $7.3
billion for K-12 education facilities and $3.087 billion for
higher 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 for new construction on severely overcrowded
schoolsites, and high performance incentive grants to promote
energy efficient designs and materials. In addition, portions
of the amounts allocated for new construction and modernization
were authorized for purposes of funding smaller learning
communities and high schools and for seismic retrofit projects.
(EC §101010-101031)
This bill establishes the K-12 Public Education Facilities Bond
Act of 2016 (Act) to provide for the issuance of an unspecified
amount of GO bonds for construction and modernization of
education facilities, to take effect only if approved by voters.
More specifically it:
1)Requires submission of the Act to voters at the November 8,
2016, statewide general election.
2)As a condition of participation in the SFP, requires a school
district to:
a) Comply with existing deferred maintenance
provisions.
SB 114
Page 3
b) Certify that it has a long-range school
facilities master plan consistent with the regional
sustainable communities strategy plans established
pursuant to specified Government Code provisions.
c) Conduct an inventory of existing facilities and
submit this information to the State Allocation Board
(SAB) for purposes of maintaining a statewide school
facilities inventory.
3)Requires the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), in
consultation with the California Department of Education
(CDE), to recommend regulations to the SAB that provide
school districts with flexibility in designing instructional
facilities.
4)Requires that the SAB provide a school district with the maximum
flexibility in design, new construction, and modernization of
school facilities, and further:
a) Requires that an applicant who receives a new
construction grant ensure that the project incorporates
high performance attributes.
b) Modifies the use of modernization funds in the
following ways:
i) Authorizes the use of a modernization
apportionment for seismic mitigation purposes including
related design, study, and testing costs.
ii) Requires that an applicant who
receives a modernization grant ensure that the project
incorporates high performance attributes.
iii) Expands the definition of modernization to
include "replacement" as well as modification and
authorizes the use of the apportionment to demolish and
construct on the existing site if the total cost of
providing a new building, including land, would not
protect the economic interest of the state and school
district.
SB 114
Page 4
iv) Makes a replacement project eligible
for the same grant amount as that authorized for a new
construction project.
v) Authorizes the SAB to establish any
additional requirements deemed necessary to protect the
economic interests of the state and educational
interests of children.
5)Expands the allowable match for joint use funding to include
operational costs and, if the joint use agreement specifies
the partner will be responsible for 100% of the operational
costs for the project for a term of no less than 10 years,
eliminates the requirement that the partner contribute no
less than 25% of project costs.
6)Requires the CDE, Division of the State Architect, OPSC, and
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to develop an
interagency plan, by July 1, 2016, to streamline the school
facility construction application, review and audit processes
to reduce time and improve efficiency.
7)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, as part of
the interagency plan, to identify an entity within the CDE to
act as a full-service agency and to assist school districts
in navigating the school facilities construction process.
8)Declares the Legislature's intent that the SAB review and revise
operative regulatory language before July 1, 2016, to reduce
duplicative review, approval and audit processes.
9)Requires the SAB to assign priority for funding to school
districts that demonstrate participation in a community-based
effort to coordinate educational, developmental, family,
health, and other comprehensive services through public and
private partnerships and outlines the criteria that
demonstrate such participation.
10)Makes the following technical changes:
a) Repeals provisions requiring an evaluation of
the construction and modernization costs of small high
schools.
SB 114
Page 5
b) Repeals provisions establishing eligibility
calculation adjustments on the basis of multi-track
year-round operation.
c) Repeals other obsolete eligibility calculation
adjustments.
d) Corrects an erroneous cross-reference.
e) Makes various technical changes.
Comments
1)Need for the bill. Funding for the SFP is virtually gone and
there is a backlog in applications for state assistance. At
the same time there have been ongoing complaints about the
current program's complexity and design, as well as questions
about whether the program created in 1998 is aligned to the
state's current policy objectives. The "winding down" of the
current program, and the Governor's call for change (see
comment #2), present an opportunity to rethink the
administrative and programmatic structure of the SFP, learn
from its strengths and weaknesses, and better align program
design with the state's policy objectives. This bill begins
that process.
2)Related budget activity. Amid concerns about the complexity and
structure of the current program and the state's increasing
debt service obligations, the Governor has proposed
significant changes to the way school facilities are funded.
In order to allow districts to better meet their facilities
needs at the local level, the Governor's 2015-16 Budget
proposes to:
a) Expand revenue generation tools at the local level by
expanding local funding capacity and increasing caps on
local bond indebtedness;
b) Restructure developer fees to set one level for all
projects at a level between existing Level II and Level III
fees subject to local negotiation; and
c) Expand allowable uses of Routine Restricted Maintenance
Funding to authorize the pooling of these funds over
SB 114
Page 6
multiple years for modernization and new construction
projects.
The Governor has also noted that he is prepared to engage with
the Legislature and education stakeholders to shape a future
state program that is focused on districts with the greatest
need, including communities with low property values and few
borrowing options, as well as overcrowded schools.
3)Related joint informational hearing. On February 18, 2015, the
Senate Education Committee held a joint informational hearing
with the Budget Subcommittee on Education on K-12 SCHOOL
FACILITY PROGRAM: HISTORY, CURRENT STATUS, AND FUTURE OPTIONS
to review the Governor's school facilities proposals. Among
other things, the Committee heard testimony from several
participants about the need to simplify the current program
processes and regulations, the need for a "one-stop-shop" to
assist in navigating the program, and the need for greater
flexibility in design of school facilities as well as the use
of funding to incentivize and support joint use projects and
community schools. Additionally, while the state's growing
debt service is of concern, it was unclear whether local
districts have the capacity to generate sufficient revenue at
the local level to meet their ongoing facility needs for
deferred maintenance, modernization and new construction.
This bill begins to respond to some of these issues through
the proposal of various programmatic changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Bonds: Unknown, but assuming similar bond authority amounts
authorized in past measures, it will likely result in state
costs in the low tens of billions of dollars in principal and
interest over 30 years (mid hundreds of millions General Fund
annually).
Administration: Substantial new workload for the CDE and the
Department of General Services (DGS). The level of new work
would depend on the size of the bond. The DGS estimates that
its OPSC would require significant staffing increases of over
100 positions if assuming a $7.3 billion bond. This bill will
SB 114
Page 7
also drive significant workload at the CDE related to review
and approval of site selection and construction plans.
Administrative workload would likely be bond-funded.
Interagency agreement: DTSC estimates costs ranging from
$85,000 to $120,000 for its participation in developing an
interagency agreement as required by this bill.
Ballot costs: Likely $200,000 General Fund for a statewide
ballot pamphlet, assuming four pages.
SUPPORT: (Verified6/4/15)
California Faculty Association
California School Boards Association
County School Facilities Consortium
Los Angeles Unified School District
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/4/15)
None received
Prepared by:Kathleen Chavira / ED. / (916) 651-4105
6/4/15 14:47:21
**** END ****