BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 305
AUTHOR: Corbett
AMENDED: April 13, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 29, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Seismic Mitigation of School Facilities
SUMMARY
This bill establishes in statute (rather than regulation,
as is the case under existing law) the specific technical
criteria that must be met by a building in order to qualify
as a "most vulnerable Category 2 building," and to be
eligible for funding under the state Seismic Mitigation
Program.
BACKGROUND
AB 300 (Corbett, Chapter 622, Statutes of 1999) required
the Department of General Services (DGS) to conduct a
seismic safety inventory of California's K-12 school
buildings. In 2002, DGS and the Division of the State
Architect released the report "Seismic Safety Inventory of
California Schools." The report identified 7,537 buildings
that were of 12 construction types, collectively known as
Category 2 construction that would not perform well in an
earthquake.
Current law establishes the School Facility Program (SFP)
under which the state provides general obligation bond
funding for various school construction projects, including
new construction, modernization, joint-use facilities, and
programs to specifically address the construction needs of
overcrowded schools, charter schools, and career technical
education facilities. Proposition 1D, (AB 127, Nunez,
Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), passed by voters in November
2006, among other things, provided up to $199.5 million for
seismic mitigation of school facilities that are the most
vulnerable Category 2 buildings (as defined in the report
submitted pursuant to AB 300) and that pose an unacceptable
SB 305
Page 2
risk of injury to students during a seismic event.
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes the specific technical criteria which
must be met by a building in order to qualify as a "most
vulnerable Category 2 building" and to be eligible for
funding under the state Seismic Mitigation Program.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Similar legislation . This Committee recently heard SB
375 (Hancock) which required the State Allocation
Board (SAB), among other things, to review regulations
and criteria for funding eligibility and to adopt new
regulations for apportioning funds provided under the
Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP). This Committee
amended SB 375 to remove these provisions and to allow
the SAB the opportunity to fully consider the policy
implications of the proposed changes prior to adopting
new regulations. SB 375 passed this Committee by a
vote of 7-0 and it is currently awaiting action in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
2) What is the problem ? The SAB adopted regulations for
the implementation of the Seismic Mitigation Program
(SMP) which became effective in April 2008. These
regulations establish the specific Category 2
construction types, specify ground shaking factor
criteria, require building occupancy by students and
teachers, and require districts to submit a structural
engineering report identifying building deficiencies
in order to be eligible for this funding. As of March
2009, only two buildings with a total estimated
retrofitting cost of $14 million were determined to
meet the requirements to qualify for state funding
under the SMP. This bill reduces the ground shaking
factor threshold and places this criterion, along with
other existing regulatory provisions for determining
eligibility for the SMP, in statute, in order to
increase the number of districts which may be eligible
for this funding.
SB 305
Page 3
3) Related SAB activity . At its March 2009 meeting, the
State Allocation Board (SAB), cognizant of the limited
participation in the SMP, reviewed several policy
options for facilitating the distribution of these
funds to eligible districts. Modification of
eligibility criteria, such as ground shaking factors
and construction types, were acknowledged as issues
that could be addressed via the regulatory process by
the SAB. At its April 2009 meeting, the SAB was
presented with extensive analysis of the impact of
lowering the ground shaking factor on demand for the
SMP funds and staff indicated that while additional
analysis was necessary, staff would be prepared to
make a recommendation on this matter by the May 2009
SAB meeting.
4) Regulation vs. statute . The regulatory process
generally provides the flexibility to an administering
agency to modify a program as necessary in response to
changing conditions, new information, or other
concerns that might arise. What are the consequences
of eliminating that flexibility in this case? Is it
prudent to place such technical criteria in statute?
Regulations generally undergo extensive review and
discussion by districts and other interested parties
prior to coming before the SAB. It appears that such
a process has been initiated, and that the change
proposed by this bill is already under consideration
by the SAB. Should the statutory change proposed by
this bill be advanced without the extensive review and
discussion by districts and other interested parties
that generally occur prior to the development of
regulations for consideration by the State Allocation
Board (SAB)?
SUPPORT
None received.
OPPOSITION
None received.