BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1193
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 1193 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: June 23, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 27-4
SUBJECT : School facilities funding: high performance schools
SUMMARY : Augments a modernization grant for the rehabilitation
of school facilities by $250,000 per schoolsite for a school
district that incorporates the use of high performance design
and materials. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that the increase is provided if a school district
incorporates the use of high performance design and materials
specified in Education Code (EC) Section 17070.96 and if the
project is able to meet one of the following objectives:
a) Score the requisite number of points to meet the high
performance criteria set forth in regulations, as
determined by the State Allocation Board (SAB) and
certified by the Division of the State Architect (DSA); or,
b) Achieve Collaborative for High Performance Schools
(CHPS) "verified" status in accordance with the California
Edition of the Collaborative for High Performance Schools
criteria.
2)Requires the SAB to, in addition to the increased funding
provided by this bill, provide funding for modernization
projects that exceed the criteria specified above.
3)Requires the SAB to adopt emergency regulations within 14
calendar days of the operative date of this bill. Requires
the Office of Administrative Law to process these emergency
regulations within 14 calendar days of their adoption.
4)Requires a school district to provide matching funds, except
for projects eligible for hardship assistance.
5)Specifies that funds received pursuant to this bill do not
constitute a modernization apportionment and modernization
eligibility shall not be reduced.
SB 1193
Page 2
6)Provides that the energy efficiency and renewable energy
savings realized from a project pursuant to this bill, as
calculated annually over the useful life of the project, shall
be retained by the school district. Specifies that the state
funding shall not be reduced based on realized energy
efficiency and renewable energy savings.
7)Specifies that the increase provided pursuant to this bill
shall be provided from education bond funds provided for
incentive grants to promote designs and materials that include
the attributes of high performance schools.
8)Specifies that a project receiving funds from the Career
Technical Education Facilities Program (CTEFP) is eligible to
receive a grant increase pursuant to this bill, provided the
project meets the criteria specified by this bill.
9)Contains an urgency clause in order to quickly provide funding
from the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities
Bond Act of 2006 to school districts so that they may build
energy efficient and energy generation projects through a
streamlined green schools program that also will create
critically needed jobs, provide energy consumption savings to
fiscally strapped school districts, and ensure healthy
learning environments for our children.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of
1998, the SAB to allocate to applicant school districts,
prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction
and modernization of school facilities, including hardship
funding, and supplemental funding for site development and
acquisition. (EC 17070.35)
2)Requires a 50% local match for education bond funds for the
construction of new schools and a 40% local match for funds
for the modernization of school facilities. (EC 17072.30 and
17074.16)
3)Requires, as part of its application for funding, a school
district to certify that it has considered the feasibility of
using designs and materials for the construction or
modernization project that promote the efficient use of energy
SB 1193
Page 3
and water, the maximum use of natural lighting and indoor air
quality, the use of recycled materials and materials that emit
a minimum of toxic substances, the use of acoustics conducive
to teaching and learning, and other characteristics of high
performance schools. (EC 17070.96)
4)Authorizes, a grant for new construction to also be used for
the costs of designs and materials that promote the efficient
use of energy and water, the maximum use of natural lighting
and indoor air quality, the use of recycled materials and
materials that emit a minimum of toxic substances, the use of
acoustics conducive to teaching and learning, and other
characteristics of high performance schools. (EC 17072.35)
5)Establishes the CTEFP to provide funding to eligible local
educational agencies to construct or reconfigure existing
facilities, and to purchase equipment with an average useful
life expectancy of at least 10 years. (EC 17078.70)
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, potentially millions in pressure to bond funds,
depending on the level of increased participation.
COMMENTS : Background . SB 50 (L. Greene), Chapter 407, Statutes
of 1998, established the School Facility Program (SFP) which
governs the allocation of state education bond funds and the
construction and modernization of kindergarten through grade 12
school facilities. In November 2006, voters approved
Proposition 1D, the Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Act of 2006, which provided $10.416 billion for
the construction and rehabilitation of kindergarten through
grade 12 (K-12) and higher education school facilities.
Proposition 1D, for the first time, set aside $100 million for
High Performance Incentive (HPI) grants. The bond initiative
allocated HPI funds for incentive grants to promote the use of
designs and materials that include the attributes of
high-performance schools, including, but not limited to, the
efficient use of energy and water, the maximum use of natural
lighting and indoor air quality, the use of recycled materials
and materials that emit a minimum of toxic substances, and the
use of acoustics conducive to teaching and learning; and
pursuant to regulations adopted by the SAB.
After many months of discussions with stakeholders and
consultations with organizations that specialize in the design
SB 1193
Page 4
of high performance schools, such as CHPS and Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the HPI regulations took
effect in October 2007, and were modeled after CHPS' point
rating system.
What is CHPS ? CHPS is a nonprofit organization that was
initiated in California by an informal collaborative comprised
of representatives from state agencies, including the California
Department of Education, the DSA and California Integrated Waste
Management Board; investor-owned and municipal utilities,
including Pacific Gas and Electric, Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Sacramento
Municipal Utilities District; school districts; and
nongovernmental organizations. The goal of CHPS is to
facilitate the design of high performance schools, focusing on
elements that will provide learning environments that are energy
efficient, healthy, comfortable, and well lit.
CHPS requires designs that meet prerequisites (mandatory
requirements) and provides a menu of options to meet the minimum
criteria to be considered a CHPS school. Specifically, CHPS'
Best Practices Manual identifies seven categories for a high
performance school: leadership, education, and innovation
(e.g., adopt district resolution committing to constructing and
rehabilitating facilities based on CHPS standards); sustainable
sites; water; energy; climate; materials and waste management
(e.g., use of recyclable materials); and indoor environmental
quality. For each criterion, CHPS identifies prerequisites that
all facilities designs must meet and provides additional options
with assigned points that meet the goal of that criterion. For
example, under energy, the school design must exceed state
energy efficiency standards by 15% as a prerequisite and will
receive one point if it also includes installation of interlocks
to turn off air conditioning systems when windows or doors are
opened. To meet CHPS' minimum requirement, a newly constructed
school must meet prerequisites and receive 32 out of 116
possible points, with at least two points from the energy
category. A modernization project must meet prerequisites and
at least 25 points.
HPI program . The HPI program is substantially similar to CHPS'
rating scales. The HPI categories include sustainable sites,
water, energy, materials and indoor environmental quality, but
exclude the policy/education-oriented category. New
construction projects must meet HPI program prerequisites in all
SB 1193
Page 5
categories and a minimum of 27 points out of a total of 90
points. Modernization projects must meet all prerequisites that
are within the scope of the project and a minimum of 20 points.
Funding is based on the number of points achieved multiplied by
a percentage factor that provide an increase in the base grants
of between two to ten percent. The DSA reviews and verifies the
scores.
The first HPI grants were apportioned at the February 2008 SAB
meeting. According to the Office of Public School Construction
(OPSC), as of May, 2010, 82 projects totaling $19.1 million have
received grants or have been granted unfunded approvals in the
New Construction, Modernization, Critically Overcrowded Schools,
Charter Schools and Overcrowding Relief programs; almost all are
new construction projects. An additional 51 applications
totaling $8.1 million are being processed, of which 12 are
modernization projects. Districts indicate that the increase in
funding is insufficient in meeting the costs of high performance
designs, especially for modernization projects. Modernization
grant levels are lower than new construction grants and since
HPI grants are based on a percentage increase from the base
grants, HPI grants for modernization projects are inevitably
lower than new construction HPI grants. In February, the SAB,
concerned about the low level of interest in the program,
requested OPSC staff to convene a working group to re-evaluate
the program and develop proposals that will increase the
incentive funding. At the May, 2010 meeting, the SAB revised
the HPI regulations that increase the number of points in some
categories, add 16 additional points, increase the percentage
factors, and add a base grant of $250,000 for modernization
projects and $150,000 for new construction projects, provided
they meet minimum HPI points. Some of the SAB members did not
wish to require a match for the HPI base grants; however, due to
the construction of existing law, it was determined that the SAB
cannot waive the match requirement for new construction (50%)
and modernization (40%) projects.
Intent of this bill . This bill was introduced to address the
same issue in the event the SAB did not revise the HPI
regulations, but focuses only on providing the $250,000 base
grant for modernization projects that meet the requisite number
of points. The criteria for funding in this bill currently
differ from the regulations recently adopted by the SAB. In
addition to eligibility based on meeting the required minimum
number of HPI points, the bill also awards the funds if the
SB 1193
Page 6
facility has achieved the CHPS "verified" status (as a CHPS
school). The SAB discussed but did not adopt this option at the
May meeting, but intends to revisit the item at a future
meeting. There are some who question whether it is appropriate
to award public dollars based on certification by an external,
third-party. The Professional Engineers in California
Government (PECG), a labor organization that represents DSA
staff, states that "PECG believes that the HPI review and grant
award process is an inherently governmental function that must
be performed by the DSA and its highly trained engineers and
architects. The division is responsible solely to taxpayers and
as such must retain the authority of reviewing applications that
determine state bond grants." However, it can argued that using
CHPS verification status is no different that allowing the DSA
to contract with a qualified plan review firm (individuals,
firms or building officials of cities and counties with
expertise and knowledge of school building requirements) to
perform plan reviews (EC 17305). The HPI rating system is a
smaller scale version of the CHPS' rating system. If a project
achieves CHPS verification, the project has exceeded HPI minimum
standards.
CHPS verification is also consistent with Governor
Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-20-04 establishing the
state's Green Building Initiative that, among others, seeks to
attain the LEED standards for state buildings.
Why just modernization ? In addition to the modernization base
grant of $250,000, the regulations recently adopted by the SAB
also provides a base grant of $150,000 for new construction
projects. According to the author's office, this bill focuses
solely on modernization projects because applications submitted
thus far for HPI funds are New Construction projects and there
appears to be a need to provide increased incentives for
modernization. However, as this program has been in place for
over two years, and 80% of the funds still remain, incentives
should also be provided to New Construction projects. Staff
recommends adding $150,000 for New Construction projects to the
bill.
HPI grants for CTEFP projects . Proposition 1D, authorized by AB
127 (Nunez and Perata), Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006, and
approved by the voters in November 2006, provided $7.3 billion
for kindergarten through grade 12 school facilities, and
established the CTEFP, providing $500 million to construct or
SB 1193
Page 7
modernize facilities and to purchase equipment with an average
useful life expectancy of at least 10 years for career technical
education programs at existing comprehensive high schools.
The CTEFP authorizes a grant of $3 million per project per
schoolsite for new construction projects and $1.5 million per
project per schoolsite for modernization projects. The CTEFP
also requires a school district to contribute from local
resources a dollar amount equal to the amount of the state grant
provided and authorizes the contribution to come from private
industry groups, the school district, or a joint powers
authority. According to the OPSC, HPI grants can be given in
conjunction with New Construction, Modernization, Charter
Schools, Critically Overcrowded Schools and Overcrowding Relief
Grant programs, but cannot be applied to the CTEFP or Joint Use
programs due to the differences in the way CTEFP and Joint Use
programs are funded. The HPI grant is based on a percentage of
the New Construction and Modernization per pupil grants whereas
the CTEFP is based on the estimated cost of a project, subject
to a cap, and Joint Use is based on eligible square footage.
This bill extends eligibility for HPI grants to CTEFP projects.
This bill requires a local match for the HPI grant, but exempts
projects receiving hardship assistance funds (financial
hardship). Financial hardship is awarded when a district is
unable to secure local matching funds.
In subdivision (b), the bill requires the SAB to provide funding
for modernization projects that exceed the $250,000 base grant.
This provision is likely in reference to the percentage increase
based on the rating criteria currently established in
regulations. Staff recommends making this clarification.
This bill contains an urgency clause, requires the SAB to adopt
emergency regulations to administer this bill within 14 calendar
days of the operative date of the bill and the Office of
Administrative Law to process the emergency regulations within
14 calendar days of the adoption by the SAB. SAB meetings
usually take place at the end of a month. If this bill is
enacted at the beginning of a month, the SAB would have to call
a special meeting to adopt these regulations. Since SAB
regulations already contain most of the provisions in this bill,
it is unclear why the SAB must adopt emergency regulations in
such a short time period. Staff recommends amending the bill to
SB 1193
Page 8
require the SAB to adopt the regulations at its next meeting
following the enactment of the bill, unless the enactment date
is less than 10 days of the SAB meeting, in which case, the SAB
shall be required to adopt the regulations at the following
month's meeting.
The author states, "School districts have struggled to navigate
the layers of red tape required by that program, leaving
approximately $80 million in program funds unclaimed. SB 1193
offers a streamlined, efficient, incentive program that will get
the money on the streets to build high performance schools -
creating jobs, energy cost savings for districts and healthy
environments for our children."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Labor Federation
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
County School Facilities Consortium
Small School Districts' Association
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Opposition
Professional Engineers in California Government
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087