BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1193
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1193 (Alan Lowenthal and Pavley)
As Amended August 16, 2010
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :27-4
EDUCATION 7-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Nestande, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford, |
| |Ammiano, | |Huffman, Coto, Davis, De |
| |Arambula, Carter, Eng, | |Leon, Gatto, Hall, |
| |Torlakson | |Skinner, |
| | | |Solorio, Torlakson, |
| | | |Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Augments a new construction project by $150,000 or
modernization project 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 a minimum certification or rating label from a
nationally recognized, third-party verified standard,
accepted by the SAB, for construction, renovation, or
retrofit of high performance schools. Requires the DSA to
confirm that the project has met the minimum certification
or rating level by a third-party verified standard.
SB 1193
Page 2
2)Requires the SAB to, in addition to the augmented base
funding, provide funding for construction and modernization
projects that exceed the criteria specified above based on a
high performance rating scale set forth in regulations.
3)Requires the SAB to adopt emergency regulations at the next
regularly scheduled SAB meeting following the effective date
of this bill. Specifies that if the effective date is within
fewer than 10 days of the next regularly scheduled SAB
meeting, the SAB shall adopt the emergency regulations at the
following meeting. 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.
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)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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, state school facilities bond cost pressure, likely in
SB 1193
Page 3
the tens of millions.
COMMENTS : SB 50 (L. Greene), Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998,
established the School Facility Program 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
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. 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
SB 1193
Page 4
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.
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 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
SB 1193
Page 5
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.
This bill essentially codifies the regulations adopted by the
SAB, with one difference. In addition to eligibility for the
grant increases based on meeting the required minimum number of
HPI points, the bill also awards the funds if the facility has
achieved a minimum certification or rating from a nationally
recognized, third-party verified standard, such as CHPS or LEED.
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." This bill requires the DSA to
confirm that the project meets the certification or rating level
by a third-party verified standard. Existing law also allows
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).
This bill 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.
SB 1193
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0006105