BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2048|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 2048
Author: Torlakson (D)
Amended: 6/21/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/16/10
AYES: Romero, Huff, Emmerson, Hancock, Liu, Price
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alquist, Simitian, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 4/29/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : School facilities
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill prohibits the Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development from issuing a building
permit for any construction absent certification by a
school district of compliance with any fee, charge,
dedication, or other requirement levied by the governing
board of the school district, and makes other conforming
changes.
ANALYSIS : Current law authorizes the governing board of
any school district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or
other requirement against any new commercial and industrial
construction, new residential construction, as specified,
and against the location, installation or occupancy of
CONTINUED
AB 2048
Page
2
manufactured or mobile homes within the boundaries of the
district, for the purpose of funding the construction or
reconstruction of school facilities. In addition, a city
or county is prohibited from issuing a building permit for
any construction absent certification by the appropriate
school district that (1) the fee, charge, dedication, or
other requirement levied has been complied with, or (2) the
fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement is
inapplicable to the construction project.
The fees, charges, or dedications authorized by the
Education Code are subject to specified limitations. These
include prescribed calculation of fee amounts and their
annual adjustment, and specified exemptions from these fees
or facilities used for religious purposes, private
full-time day schools, and facilities owned and occupied by
federal, state, or local governments.
This bill:
1.Prohibits the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD) from issuing a building permit for
any construction absent certification by an appropriate
school district of compliance with any fee, charge,
dedication, or other requirement levied by the governing
board of that school district.
2.Prohibits application of these provisions to the OSHPD
unless, in accordance with existing law requirements, the
agency has been notified of the adoption of, or increase
in, fees or other requirements.
3.Makes other technical and conforming changes.
Comments
Is this a new fee ? No. As reflected in the background of
this analysis, current law authorizes the collection of
fees for school facility construction purposes for any
commercial, industrial, or residential construction within
a school district's boundaries. This bill provides a means
for ensuring compliance with current law requirements for
assessing developer fees on nonpublic hospitals.
CONTINUED
AB 2048
Page
3
Background
SB 50 (Green), Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998, in addition
to establishing the current School Facility Program,
revised developer fee procedures for school facility
purposes. SB 50 authorized three different levels of
developer fees to be assessed under specified conditions:
1.Level 1 - A district is authorized to levy per square
footage fees of $1.93 per square foot for residential
construction and $0.31 for commercial or industrial
construction to be adjusted for inflation every two years
according to the class B construction index as determined
by the SAB at its annual January meeting. This fee level
is currently at $2.97 per square foot for residential
construction, and is assessed if the district conducts a
Justification Study that establishes the connection
between the development coming into the district and the
assessment of fees to pay for the cost of the facilities
needed to house future students.
2.Level 2 - A district may levy Level 2 fees if it has
conducted a needs analysis, as specified, has SAB
approval of eligibility for state funding, and meets two
of the following four conditions:
A. The district has attempted to pass a local bond at
least once during the last four years and received
approval by the voters of 50 percent plus one.
B. For a K-6 district, it has at least 30 percent of
its enrollment on a multi-track year round schedule.
For a high school district, it has at least 30
percent of its enrollment or 40 percent of the K-12
students within the high school attendance area, in
multi-track year round schedule schools.
C. The district has issued debt or incurred
obligations for capital outlay equal to 15 percent of
the district's local bonding capacity for
indebtedness approved by voters before November 4, or
30 percent of capacity for indebtedness approved by
voters after November 4, 1998.
CONTINUED
AB 2048
Page
4
D. Twenty percent of the teaching stations in the
district are in relocatable classrooms.
The fee may not exceed 50 percent of construction and
site acquisition and development costs.
3.Level 3 - A district is authorized to seek 100 percent of
school facilities costs if the state has exhausted state
school bond funds and the SAB is no longer approving
apportionments for new construction projects.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/30/10)
California alliance of Boys & Girls Clubs
California School Boards Association
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
Elk Grove Unified School District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
due to the omission of OSHPD in Education Code Section
17620, the lengths to which school districts have to go to
levy and collect school impact fees on non-public hospitals
vary widely, with some having to engage legal counsel to
levy and collect these fees. Because OSHPD is not
explicitly prohibited from issuing a building permit,
school districts are not assured that school impact fees
will be paid by developers who construct non-public
hospitals. This bill, by prohibiting the issuance of a
building permit, creates a means of alerting districts to
the collection of fees to which they are entitled under
current law.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
CONTINUED
AB 2048
Page
5
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Ma,
Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin,
Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Tran, Villines,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Caballero, Jones, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Torrico, Vacancy
CPM:cm 6/30/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED