BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 148|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 148
Author: McGuire (D), et al.
Amended: 8/27/15
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 9-0, 9/3/15 (pursuant to Senate
Rule 29.10)
AYES: Liu, Runner, Block, Hancock, Leyva, Mendoza, Monning,
Pan, Vidak
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 9/2/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: School districts: reorganization: local control
funding formula
SOURCE: Superintendent of Public Instruction
DIGEST: This bill updates statutory provisions and financial
calculations regarding school district reorganization to reflect
the state funding transition from revenue limit funding to the
local control funding formula (LCFF).
Assembly Amendments are substantive and replace the previous
contents of this bill regarding the establishment of a career
technical education program with provisions dealing with school
district reorganizations.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
SB 148
Page 2
1) Allows for school district reorganizations, which is the
process of forming one or more districts from one or more
existing districts and can take many forms. For example, two
or more districts can combine to form a single district, a
single district can annex a portion of a neighboring district
(in which case the neighboring district also loses
territory), or a single district is broken into two or more
smaller districts.
2) Provides that the amount of funding that the reorganized
districts are entitled to be computed by taking into account
existing funding formulas and the historical funding levels
of the former districts.
This bill updates the various statutory provisions governing
school district reorganization to reflect the change from
revenue limit funding to the LCFF. Specifically, this bill:
1) Defines "affected district" to mean a district that has
been, or is proposed to be, affected by an action to
reorganize or before an action to lapse a district.
2) Defines "original district" to mean a district as it existed
prior to an action to reorganize or before an action to lapse
a district.
3) Defines "former district" to mean a district that has been
wholly included in another district or has had all of its
territory made part of two or more other districts through
any action to reorganize or through a lapsation.
4) Defines "new district" to mean a district that is formed
from all or portions of one or more other districts by an
action to reorganize.
5) Defines "acquiring district" to mean a district that has all
or portions of one or more other districts transferred into,
or lapsed into, its boundaries.
6) Defines "divided district" to mean a district that has had a
portion of its territory become part of a new district or
transferred into one or more other districts by an action to
SB 148
Page 3
reorganize.
7) Defines the "reorganized portion of a divided district" to
mean the portion of the divided district's territory that
becomes part of a new district or is transferred into one or
more other districts.
8) Defines the "remaining portion of a divided district" to
mean the portion of the divided district's territory that
does not become part of a new district or that is not
transferred into one or more other districts.
9) Defines "reorganized district" to mean a district that is a
"new district," an "acquiring district," or a "divided
district."
10)Defines "component district" to mean an elementary school
district which is included within a high school district or
an elementary school district excluded from an action to
unify a high school district but which continues to feed into
the high schools of the new unified school district.
11)Replaces references to "base revenue limit" with references
to "local control funding formula (LCFF) entitlement."
12)Repeals the procedures for the computation of adjustments
for employee salaries and benefits for a newly reorganized
district based on revenue limit differences between the
former districts.
13)Specifies procedures for making the following calculations
for reorganized districts:
a) The LCFF entitlement;
b) The percentage of unduplicated pupils;
c) Categorical program funding;
d) Economic recovery target;
e) Transition funding (from revenue limits to the LCFF),
including the calculation of revenue limit funding rates
used to determine base funding during transition;
f) Prior year funding gap; and
g) Necessary small school add-on.
SB 148
Page 4
Comments
Need for the bill. According to the author's office, "the
passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013-14
replaced the former school finance system under revenue limits
that had been in existence for nearly 40 years. The statutes
associated with the former revenue limit funding system were
voluminous and complex, in part because revenue limits were used
for a variety of ancillary purposes, not just for funding (e.g.
class size penalties).
"In the adoption of LCFF, an attempt was made to provide a
methodology to blend LCFF funding for newly organized school
districts. Unfortunately, that language as written does not
address the specific categories of LCFF funding and how they
should be calculated for each affected school district.
Therefore, the current LCFF statutes relating to district
reorganization is not necessarily revenue neutral for either the
school districts or the state."
Local Control Funding Formula. Chapter 47, Statutes of 2013 (AB
97, Committee on Budget), and subsequent legislation created the
LCFF, which consolidated most of the state's categorical
programs with general purpose revenue limit funding and would be
phased in over the coming years. One of the main principles
behind the LCFF is that English learners and low-income students
require more attention and resources in the classroom than
students who do not have these same challenges. By providing
more services (and in turn, additional funding) to these student
populations, it is widely believed that this will help close the
achievement gap and help all students perform better.
District reorganizations under LCFF. According to the
California Department of Education (CDE), about a dozen
districts are currently in the process of reorganization and
that in the upcoming 2015-16 school year, there will be a
lapsation of the Citrus South Tule Elementary School District
into the Porterville Unified School District in Tulare County.
The current LCFF statutes relating to district reorganization
are not revenue neutral for some school districts or the state.
This bill specifies how LCFF funding components will be
SB 148
Page 5
calculated for various types of district reorganizations in a
manner that is revenue neutral to the state and is equitable for
all of the affected school districts.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the CDE
indicates no additional administrative costs as a result of this
bill. School district reorganization is a voluntary activity;
therefore, any costs associated with this bill will not
constitute a state mandate. The impact to individual school
districts is unknown. The intent of this bill is to ensure
funding for reorganizing school districts is calculated in a
manner that is revenue neutral to the state and equitable to all
affected school districts.
SUPPORT: (Verified9/2/15)
Superintendent of Public Instruction (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified9/2/15)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 79-0, 9/02/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
SB 148
Page 6
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones-Sawyer
Prepared by: Lenin Del Castillo / ED. / (916) 651-4105
9/3/15 18:27:07
**** END ****