BILL ANALYSIS
Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
264 (Mullin)
Hearing Date: 8/28/03 Amended: 6/2/03
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: Ed 9-0
____________________________________________________________
___
BILL SUMMARY: AB 264 would, notwithstanding contrary
provisions of law, do the following:
- Authorize a school district meeting specified criteria to
deposit up to 25 percent of the proceeds of the sale of
surplus property into the school district general fund for
use for any one-time expenditure of the school district
including, but not limited to, the costs of temporary
employees, as specified.
- Preclude that transfer from disqualifying the school
district from state school construction or deferred
maintenance funding.
- Define "sale" to include a lease of surplus property with
an option to purchase.
- Repeal the above provisions on 1/1/05.
- Require the State Allocation Board to reduce an
apportionment of hardship assistance awarded to a school
district by an amount equal to the amount of any proceeds
from the sale of surplus property used for a one-time
expenditure by the district for five years following that
expenditure.
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2003-04 2004-05
2005-06 Fund
Increased school Unknown, potentially multi-million dollarBond/
construction/ cost pressure between 1/1/04 and 1/1/05General*
modernization and
deferred maintenance
eligibility
* Counts toward meeting the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee
(deferred maintenance)
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Under the provisions of this bill, a school district must
meet the following criteria in order to be eligible to
redirect the proceeds from the sale of surplus property
into its general fund to be used for specified purposes:
- Have enrollment of fewer than 11,000 students.
- Have declining enrollment for each school year from
1999-00 to 2002-03.
- Use proceeds from the sale of property that occurred
between 7/1/97 and 6/30/00.
To the extent that a school district meets the specified
criteria and can still maintain eligibility for new
construction and modernization funding, the bill could
result in unknown, potentially multi-million dollar cost
pressure on school facilities bonds since current law
generally requires surplus property proceeds to be used for
school capital outlay.