BILL ANALYSIS
SB 334
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 334 (Ducheny) - As Amended: July 15, 2009
Policy Committee: Education Vote:8-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires any increase made to per-pupil new
construction grants on or after January 1, 2010, to include an
increase in the per-pupil grant for special education pupils, as
specified.
Specifically, this bill:
Requires the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to
recommend to the State Allocation Board (SAB), within 60 days of
an increase made to new construction grants based on school type
(i.e., elementary, middle, or high school), a methodology for
adjusting the per-pupil grant by school type for special
education pupils.
FISCAL EFFECT
Beginning in 2010, annual state school construction bond costs,
of at least $3 million, to meet the requirements of this bill.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Proposition 1D: Kindergarten-University Education
Facilities Bond was passed by the voters in November 2006 and
authorized $10.416 billion in general obligations bonds. Of
this amount, $7.329 billion is earmarked for K-12 education,
including $1.9 billion for new construction. As of June 2009,
there is $499.3 million in new construction funding available.
Of this amount, $199.5 million is reserved for the seismic
repair of school facilities.
Proposition 1D also increased the per-pupil grants for K-12
new construction by 7% for elementary and middle schools and
SB 334
Page 2
by 4% for high schools, effective July 1, 2006.
Chapter 35 also required the SAB to conduct an analysis of the
new construction grant levels in relation to the cost of
school construction. On or after January 1, 2008, the SAB,
based on this analysis, is required to decrease or increase
(by no more than 6% annually) the grant levels to more
accurately correspond to the costs of construction schools in
California. In May 2008, it increased new construction grant
levels by 6%, which equals: $9,369 per pupil for elementary
school; $9,909 per pupil for middle school; and $12,607 per
pupil for high school. Per pupil grants for special education
pupils were not increased.
The Office of Public School Construction has determined that
Chapter 35 only provided authority to increase non-special
education per pupil new construction grants. This bill
requires any increase made to per-pupil new construction
grants on or after January 1, 2010, to include an increase in
the per-pupil grant for special education pupils, as
specified.
2)Current law provides the SAB with regulatory authority to
adjust the amount of per-pupil new construction grants for
students with the exception of grants for special education
pupils.
Likewise, Chapter 35 increased the new construction per-pupil
grant amounts based on grade level (i.e., middle, elementary,
and high school). For special education students new
construction grants are provided based upon the level of
disability (severe vs. non-severe), without regard to grade
level. These grant amounts are at a significantly higher level
than those for non-special education pupils. The special
education new construction grants are higher to provide
enhanced electrical and plumbing fixtures, more accessible
doors and grab bars, extra sinks, restrooms, changing areas,
and other facilities for special education students.
3)Previous legislation .
a) AB 100 (Mullin) increased the per pupil grants for new
SB 334
Page 3
construction and special pupils by specified amounts. The
governor vetoed this bill in October 2008 with the
following message:
"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), which was similar to the current
measure, was held on this committee's suspense file in
August 2007.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081