BILL ANALYSIS
AB 220
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 220 (Brownley)
As Amended January 15, 2010
Majority vote
EDUCATION 9-0 APPROPRIATIONS 16-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, |Ayes:|De Leon, Conway, Ammiano, |
| |Ammiano, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Arambula, Buchanan, Eng, | |Calderon, Coto, Davis, |
| | Garrick, | |Fuentes, Hall, Harkey, |
| |Solorio, Torlakson | |Nielsen, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes changes to the provisions governing the School
Facility Program (SFP). Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that a school district using an alternative
projection method shall calculate enrollment projections for
the fifth or the 10th year beyond the fiscal year in which the
application is made.
2)Specifies that the number of pupils for whom permanent
facilities were provided and that are counted as "being
housed" are those projects paid for completely with a local
funding source. Requires the pupil loading formula to include
the calculation of the number of pupils housed in portable
buildings.
3)Specifies that a district must show that it has entered into a
binding contract for professional services or for
construction, or both, in order for the State Allocation Board
(SAB) to release funds.
4)Authorizes the SAB to extend the 18 month requirement for a
district to show that it is making substantial progress.
5)Makes minor, technical changes.
EXISTING LAW establishes the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities
AB 220
Page 2
Act of 1998 (SB 50, Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998), also known
as the SFP, which governs the administration, allocation, and
use of state education bond funds.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, between approximately $150,000 and $250,000 to
authorize school districts to receive school facility funds for
professional services.
COMMENTS : The construction and rehabilitation of public
kindergarten through grade 12 and higher education facilities
are funded by a combination of state and local general
obligation bonds, private funds, local assessments, and in some
instances, lease revenue bonds.
Previous versions of the bill contained intent language to place
an education bond on the next statewide general election. The
author removed the provision in policy committee and stated that
she intends to continue working on a bond and will reinstate
bond language if and when there is agreement to do so. The
current version of the bill contains technical amendments to the
SFP, which establishes the parameters for state education bond
allocations and the use of funds. According to the author, who
is a member of the SAB - the body responsible for administering
state bond funds - the proposed amendments are based on issues
that have been arisen at SAB meetings.
AB 1014 (Bass), Chapter 691, Statutes of 2007, provided
supplemental mechanisms to project student enrollment for
purposes of determining eligibility for SFP participation. One
of the supplemental mechanisms was the ability to project
student enrollment either on a 5-year or 10-year basis. Due to
the statutory construct and last-minute amendments to the bill,
the authorization to project student enrollment on a 10-year
basis was interpreted as limited to those districts that bases
enrollment on a high school attendance area. This bill is a
technical cleanup to achieve the intent of AB 1014 and the use
of a 10-year student enrollment projection.
Eligibility for state bond funds is based generally on projected
need after accounting for existing capacity (or seats). AB 695
(Mazzoni), Chapter 858, Statutes of 1999, was a SFP cleanup bill
that dealt with, among other things, how to account for
facilities built under the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Program or
AB 220
Page 3
built entirely from local funds in a district's existing
capacity. The bill sought to fully capture as added capacity or
existing seats in a district Prop. 1A (1998) CSR classrooms and
entirely locally-funded classrooms. Appeals by districts over
interpretation and application of the statute by the OPSC in
2009 raised questions regarding the intent of AB 695. Committee
staff has reviewed AB 695 material and documents and agree that
a statutory clarification is needed to fully carry out the
intent of AB 695. This bill clarifies that facilities built
from proceeds from any state source or permanent facilities
built entirely from local funds are to be captured in a
district's capacity.
SB 50 contemplated equity issues between and among school
districts and recognized that while some school districts would
be able to afford permanent construction, there would be others
with more limited resources that would invest significantly in
less costly portable classrooms. As a result, the SFP was
designed to level the funding field between the "haves" and the
"have-nots" through a program eligibility determination that did
not consider portable classrooms as chargeable space for
districts whose baseline capacity included 25% or more of their
classrooms as portable classrooms. Therefore, if such districts
acquired additional portable classrooms, those classrooms would
not be charged against their eligibility giving the districts
the opportunity to build off of their dependency on portable
classrooms. Supporters argue that the statute has not been
interpreted accurately, which has resulted in districts'
inability to replace portables with permanent buildings.
Referencing the portable exemption statute will guide the
necessary clarification in the governing regulations pertaining
to ongoing eligibility determination.
Under current law, school districts are eligible to request a
fund release when certain conditions are met, including the
condition that the district has entered into a binding contract
for the completion of that project. Current law does not
specify the types of contracts that are required to be in place.
The implementing regulations, however, specify that the binding
contract is a contract for construction for at least 50% of the
construction costs. Other types of contracts (e.g., contracts
for architects, construction managers, engineers) show just as
much commitment to the project as a contract for the
construction of the school. In addition, if a project is not
AB 220
Page 4
ultimately completed, the district is required to return the
funds with interest. This bill clarifies that the binding
contract can be for either professional services or for
construction, or both as such contracts represent a legal
obligation and commitment by the district to move forward with a
project.
Current law requires the SAB to rescind an apportionment if a
school district has not made substantial progress on the project
within 18 months of the apportionment. This provision restricts
the SAB's authority to consider extraordinary circumstances,
such as the State Treasurer's inability to sell bonds, that
inhibit a district from making substantial progress (e.g.,
entering a construction contract for at least 50% of the
project). Last year, the SAB adopted emergency regulations to
suspend specific time requirements. This bill provides the SAB
the discretion to extend the 18-month substantial progress
requirement in order to deal with extraordinary circumstances.
This bill also makes a minor technical amendment to a section
that identifies an incorrect section reference.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003616