BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 334
AUTHOR: Ducheny
INTRODUCED: February 25, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 15, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Special Education Students: Facilities
Construction Grants
SUMMARY
This bill requires the State Allocation Board (SAB) to
apply increases in the per pupil grant amount for new
construction funding authorized by Proposition 1D, (AB 127,
Nunez, Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), to the per pupil
grant amount for special day class students.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires that new construction grants be
adjusted annually to reflect construction cost changes, as
specified, and authorizes the SAB to adopt regulations that
adjust the new construction grant amounts for qualifying
individuals with exceptional needs.
Current law also specifies the methodology for determining
whether a school district is "eligible" for state school
construction funding. This method basically requires a
district to compare the numbers of students that it will
have five years in the future to the existing building
space. If the district's space is sufficient to house the
estimated number of students, it does not qualify for state
funds. If its space is insufficient, it qualifies for
state funding to house the "unhoused" students determined
in this calculation. New construction funds are provided
in the form of a per unhoused pupil grant. The amount
received is calculated based upon the assumed capacity per
classroom. Currently, the assumed capacity for grades K-6
is 25 pupils while the capacity for grades 7-12 is 27
pupils. For special day class students, the assumed
capacity is 13 for students with non-severe disabilities
SB 334
Page 2
and 9 for students with severe disabilities.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the State Allocation Board to apply new
construction grant increases authorized by Proposition
1D, (implemented by AB 127, Nunez, Chapter 35,
Statutes of 2006, and approved by voters in November
2006)
SB 334
Page 3
to the per pupil new construction grant amounts for
special day class students.
2) Makes other technical changes.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Further clarification . Proposition 1D, authorized by
AB 127 (Nunez and Perata) and approved by the voters
in November 2006, provided $7.3 billion for K-12
school facilities, $1.9 billion of which was earmarked
for new construction projects. Among other things, it
required, until January 1, 2008, a 7 percent increase
in the per pupil grant amount for elementary and
middle school pupils, and a 4 percent increase in the
per pupil grant amount for high school pupils.
Proposition 1D also required the SAB to conduct an
analysis comparing the per pupil grant amounts with
the per pupil cost of new school construction, and
authorized the SAB to increase the per pupil grant
amount up to 6% annually as necessary to align these
amounts on or after January 1, 2008.
The SAB took action to implement the 7 percent and 4
percent grant increases required by AB 127 beginning
July 1, 2006. In addition, the SAB authorized, a six
percent increase to the grant amount, retroactive to
January 1, 2008, at its May 2008 meeting. At this
meeting the OPSC staff reported that the SAB did not
have the authority to approve a six percent increase
to the new construction per un-housed pupil grant
amounts for special day class pupils and that such
authority would have to be provided through new
legislation.
This bill would prospectively extend these same
increases to the per pupil grant amount provided for
new facilities construction for special day class
students.
2) Apples and oranges ? Proposition 1D authorizes
specific adjustments to the per pupil grant amount
based upon grade level (elementary and middle vs. high
school). For special day class students new
construction grants are provided based upon the level
of disability (severe vs. non-severe), without regard
SB 334
Page 4
to grade level. The amount actually received is
calculated based upon the assumed capacity per
classroom.
The state's share (50%) of the current per pupil grant
amounts, effective as of February 1, 2009, are as
follows:
It is unclear how the SAB is to apply the 7 percent
and 4 percent grant increases provided on the basis of
grade level to new construction grant amounts for
special education students. Staff recommends the bill
be amended to direct the Office of Public School
Construction to study and recommend to the SAB the
appropriate adjustments which would need to be made to
apply the grant increases authorized in Proposition 1D
to new construction grants for special education
students, and to direct the SAB to adopt regulations
to implement these increases.
3) Fiscal impact . The cost associated with the changes
proposed by this bill would depend upon the number of
special education per pupil grants which are made at
the increased grant amount. According to an Assembly
Appropriations analysis of a nearly identical bill,
the bill would result in state construction bond
pressure of at least $4 million. Staff notes that
county offices, which are in many cases the providers
of special education services, would qualify for 100%
funding of their special education facilities projects
as a result of their automatic eligibility for
financial hardship funding.
4) Prior legislation .
a) AB 100 (Mullin, 2008) , among other things,
would have required specified increases to the
grant amount for all new construction grants,
including special day class construction grants,
and would have authorized districts and county
offices to apply for a supplemental grant to
retroactively provide the 6% increase to new
construction grants authorized by the SAB in 2008
for special day class students. AB 100 was
SB 334
Page 5
ultimately vetoed by the Governor whose veto
message read, in pertinent part:
Provisions in this bill would set an undesirable
precedent by providing a retroactive increase to
school district per-pupil construction grants.
This provision conflicts with the full and final
apportionment provision of the School Facilities
Program, which requires districts to certify that
the funding received is sufficient to complete
the project for which the grants are intended.
Furthermore, with California's current fiscal
climate, it is imprudent to increase construction
grants at this time, particularly considering it
is uncertain when the next school bond measure
may be approved by the voters.
b) SB 704 (Ducheny, 2007) , was essentially
identical to this bill.
SB 704 was ultimately held under submission in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Association of California Construction Managers
California School Boards Association
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
County Schools Facilities Consortium
Riverside County Schools Advocacy Association (RCSAA)
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Small School Districts' Association
OPPOSITION
None received.