BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1349
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1349 (Torlakson) - As Amended: May 5, 2009
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:11-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the After School Education and Safety (ASES)
program (Proposition 49) in the following manner:
1)Authorizes the continuous appropriation of ASES program
funding to be reduced by an equal percentage to the reduction
in the Proposition 98 (P98) minimum funding guarantee in any
fiscal year (FY) that P98 is funded below the "Test 2" level
(FYs with normal or strong GF revenue). This measure also
prohibits any reduction in ASES funding from being counted
toward the P98 maintenance factor obligation (see comment #3
below).
2)Extends the current authorization from one to two years by
which ASES grantees can utilize program funds, thereby
reducing the amount of time the state can capture any
reversion funding.
3)Places these changes to the ASES program before voters at the
June 8, 2010 direct primary election.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Potential loss of GF/98 savings, likely in the tens of
millions, by extending the amount of time ASES grantees can
utilize funding and only authorizing the Legislature to reduce
P49 spending in years when P98 funding is provided below the
"Test 2" level. Current law requires P49 funding to be
reduced when P98 is funded at a "Test 3" level (see comments
below). In 2008, the governor proposed to reduce P49 by $60
million GF/98 due to the state's fiscal crisis. This action
AB 1349
Page 2
required approval of the voters.
2)The 2009 Budget Act allocates $547 million GF/98 for the ASES
program. According to the State Department of Education
(SDE), 377 local education agencies received ASES grants
serving 3,800 schools in 2008-09.
3)One-time (GF) costs of about $220,000 to place this proposal
on the statewide ballot. The Secretary of State estimates a
cost of $55,000 per page.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . In 2002, the voters approved Proposition 49, which
expanded existing before and after school programs and renamed
them the ASES program. Proposition 49 has the effect of
requiring the state to allocate $550 million annually for
before and after school programs. State funding for the ASES
program is continuously appropriated and no longer requires
approval by the Legislature as part of the annual budget act.
The amount of additional funding pursuant to Proposition 49
will be added to the Proposition 98 base in future years.
ASES, as modified by Proposition 49, has two main goals:
keeping students safe after school and improving student
academic outcomes.
Under current law, P49 is required to be reduced in any FY
when the state provides funding for P98 at the "Test 3" level
(operative when GF revenues fall or grow slowly). This bill
removes this requirement and instead, authorizes the P49
funding to be reduced in any FY in which the state provides
funding below the "Test 2" level, including "Test 3" and
suspension. This measure also prohibits this reduction in
funding from being counted toward the P98 maintenance factor
obligation.
The author argues this measure, if approved by voters, would
provide the Legislature with flexibility in funding the ASES
program in difficult fiscal years when the state cannot meet
its minimum funding requirements under "Test 2" of P98.
2)AB 4xxx (Committee on Budget), Chapter 2, Statues of 2008 ,
clarified the definition of "continuous appropriation", for
purposes of the ASES program, to mean that funds are
appropriated on a fiscal year basis and are available for
AB 1349
Page 3
encumbrance for one year. This definition conforms to the use
of "continuous appropriation" as it applies to K-12 revenue
limit appropriations. This bill extends the length of time
that ASES funds are available to grantees form one to two
years, which will treat this program differently than the
majority of K-12 education program in terms of length of time
to utilize funds.
3)Proposition 98 , enacted by voters in 1998, provides K-14
schools with a guaranteed funding source that grows each year
with the economy and the number of students. The guaranteed
funding is provided through a combination of state GF and
local property tax revenues. Over the long run, the P98
calculation increases the prior year's P98 funding level by
the growth in K-12 attendance and growth in the economy (as
measured by per capita personal income). The actual amount the
state is required to spend on Proposition 98 each year,
however, depends on specific calculations or "tests" - see
below:
a) Test 1-Provides approximately 40% of GF revenues.
b) Test 2-Increases prior year funding by growth in
attendance and per capita personal income. Generally, this
test is operative in years with normal to strong GF revenue
growth
c) Test 3-Increases prior year funding by growth in
attendance and per capita GF revenues. Generally, this
test is operative when GF revenues fall or grow slowly.
The Legislature has the authority to suspend P98, with a
two-thirds vote. If this occurs, the Legislature can provide
any level of funding for P98, without respect to "tests."
This measure authorizes ASES program funding (P49) to be
reduced by an equal percentage to P98 reductions below the
"Test 2" level. It also prohibits the reduction to the ASES
program from counting toward the maintenance factor obligation
(i.e., difference in funding owed to K-14 schools if P98 is
not funded at the "Test 2" level).
4)Related legislation .
a) AB 434 (Block), pending in this committee, reduces the
AB 1349
Page 4
local match requirement for the ASES program from one-third
to 15% of the local agency's grant amount, for two fiscal
years.
b) AB 983 (Skinner), pending in this committee, authorizes
weekend activities in ASES program.
c) AB 1526 (Assembly Budget Committee) repealed the
continuous appropriation authority for the ASES) thus
allowing appropriation decisions to be made annually in the
budget act and removed the statutory minimum appropriation
level ($550 million) for the ASES program. This measure
was required to be placed before the voters; however, it
was vetoed with the following message:
"As the primary architect of Proposition 49, I have seen
first-hand the countless benefits of after-school programs.
In 2002, the voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 49
to significantly expand access to after-school programs and
this bill would contradict the will of the voters. The
voters supported the $550 million continuous appropriation
that provides California's elementary and middle school
children with a stable resource for tutoring, homework
assistance, and educational enrichment activities, such as
music, arts, and physical fitness, while providing working
parents with peace of mind that their children are in a
safe and nurturing environment."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081