BILL ANALYSIS
SB 334
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 334 (Ducheny)
As Amended July 15, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-12
EDUCATION 8-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, |
| |Arambula, | |Charles Calderon, Coto, |
| |Buchanan, Carter, Eng, | |Davis, |
| |Solorio, | |Fuentes, Hall, John A. |
| |Torlakson | |Perez, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Hill |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Nestande, Garrick, Miller |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, |
| | | |Audra Strickland |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the State Allocation Board (SAB) to apply
increases to the per-unhoused-pupil grants for the construction
of new school facilities to the special education
per-unhoused-pupil grant amounts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that the increase shall include, but not be limited
to, increases made to the regular per-unhoused-pupil grants on
or after January 1, 2010, including, but not limited to,
increases made pursuant to AB 127 (Nu?ez and Senator Perata),
Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006 on or after January 1, 2010.
2)Specifies that if an increase to the regular
per-unhoused-pupil grant amount differentiates among the pupil
groups based on whether the pupils are elementary, middle, or
high school pupils, the Office of Public School Construction
(OPSC) shall recommend to the SAB, within 60 days of that
increase, a methodology to adjust the per-unhoused-pupil grant
amount for special education pupils.
EXISTING LAW :
SB 334
Page 2
1)Requires the SAB to determine new construction grant
eligibility by multiplying the number of unhoused pupils in a
school district by specified per-unhoused-pupil grant amounts
and requires the SAB to adjust the per-unhoused-pupil
apportionment annually to reflect construction cost changes,
as set forth in the statewide index for class B construction
as determined by the SAB.
2)Requires the SAB to increase the per-unhoused-pupil grant
amounts on and after July 1, 2006 by specified percentage
increases for elementary, middle and high school pupils.
3)Requires the SAB to conduct an analysis of the relationship
between current grant levels and the cost of new school
construction, and after January 1, 2008, requires the SAB to
increase or decrease the per-unhoused-pupil grant eligibility
by amounts it deems necessary to cause the grants to
correspond to costs of new school construction as long as
annual increases do not exceed 6%.
4)Authorizes the SAB to adopt regulations for per-unhoused
special education pupil grants.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, beginning in 2010, annual state school construction
bond costs of at least $3 million.
COMMENTS : SB 50 (Leroy Greene), Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998,
establishes the current School Facility Program (SFP) and
provides specific amounts for new construction and modernization
per-pupil apportionments. The grant levels are multiplied by
the number of unhoused pupils (the net of five year projected
need subtracted by existing pupil seats) for new construction
and per pupil for modernization to determine a district's
allocations. To adjust for inflation and changes in
construction costs, SB 50 requires the SAB to adjust the
per-unhoused-pupil amounts by a construction cost index for
class B construction annually.
Due to concerns expressed by local educational agencies that the
grant levels were insufficient to build adequate and complete
schools, AB 127, which authorized Proposition 1D, the
Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of
SB 334
Page 3
2006, passed by voters in November 2006, increased new
construction grant levels by 7% for elementary and middle
schools and 4% for high schools in January 2007. AB 127 also
requires the SAB to conduct an analysis of the grant levels in
relation to the cost of new school construction, and based on
the analysis, requires the SAB to increase or decrease the grant
levels to more accurately correspond to the cost of building
schools in California, provided that the increase is no more
than 6% annually. At its May 2008 meeting, the SAB increased
the new construction grants by 6% for 2008. The SAB is
deliberating an increase for 2009, but has not taken action yet.
Current grant levels are $9,369 for elementary school pupils,
$9,909 for middle school pupils and $12,607 for high school
pupils.
School facilities grants for special education pupils are
stipulated in SAB regulations rather than in statute. These
grant levels, based on recommendations by the Legislative
Analyst Office in 1999, are higher than the new construction
per-unhoused-pupil grants in order to provide accommodations
such as enhanced electrical and plumbing fixtures and more
accessible doors and grab bars. The grants are not based on
grade levels and instead are allocated according to whether a
pupil's disability is severe ($26,324 per pupil) or non-severe
($17,605 per pupil). The grants increase according to the
annual inflation adjustments but has not been increased
otherwise since the inception in 1999.
AB 127 did not provide special education pupil grants the same
increases as those provided to the regular new construction
grants in 2007, and the OPSC determined that the SAB did not
have authority to extend any increase to the regular new
construction grants provided on or after January 1, 2008, to
special education grants due to a technical amendment enacted by
SB 132 (Education Committee), Chapter 730, Statutes of 2007, the
annual omnibus education technical cleanup bill. SB 132 amended
the provision which authorizes the SAB to adjust new
construction grants up to 6% annually on or after January 1,
2008, in order to clarify that the increase is intended to be on
top of the 2007 increases provided by AB 127. This amendment
resulted in linking any increase authorized by the SAB in 2008
to the new construction per-unhoused-pupil grants specified in
Education Code 17072.10(a), which led to an interpretation by
OPSC staff that the SAB has authority to increase only the
SB 334
Page 4
regular new construction per-unhoused-pupil grants.
Last year, AB 100 (Mullin), vetoed by the Governor, would have
increased the regular and special education per-unhoused-pupil
grant amounts by 5% in 2009 and 4% in 2010, and authorized
districts that received special education per-unhoused-pupil
grants in 2008 the opportunity to apply for a supplemental grant
equal to the same increase of 6% provided to the regular grant
amounts in 2008. The Governor's veto message stated the
following:
"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."
This bill requires the increases to be provided to future
increases only. Because the regular per-unhoused-pupil grants
and the special education per-unhoused-pupil grants are not
provided in the same manner (elementary, middle, and high school
level grants v. severe and non-severe, respectively), this bill
requires the OPSC to develop a methodology to apply regular
grant increases to the special education grants if the increases
for regular new construction grants are differentiated based on
school levels, similar to the 2007 increases provided by
Proposition 1D where elementary and middle school grants
received a 7% increase and high school level grants received a
4% increase. If all regular new construction grants receive the
same percentage increase, as those proposed by AB 100 (Mullin),
the special education grants would simply receive the same
percentage increase as regular new construction grants and a
methodology would not be necessary.
According to the author, "Although the cost for concrete, steel
and labor are the same for any classroom - there has been a
failure to equitably realign Special Education grants up to this
point. This is happened, in part, because Special Education
facilities grants are located in a separate section of the
SB 334
Page 5
Education Code and must be specifically referenced in order to
be adjusted."
Proposition 1D provided $1.9 billion for the construction of new
facilities, of which approximately $240 million remain after
accounting for $262 million in unfunded approvals the SAB has
made in 2009 and $196 million for seismic retrofits.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0002602