BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 128
AUTHOR: Lowenthal
INTRODUCED: January 27, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: March 16, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kathleen
Chavira
SUBJECT : School Facilities funding: high performance
schools.
SUMMARY
This bill expands the use of modernization funding under
the School Facility Program to include the cost of designs
and materials that promote the characteristics of
high-performance schools, and also expands eligibility for
funding from the High Performance Incentive Grant program
to include projects approved to receive a Career Technical
Education Facilities Program grant.
BACKGROUND
School Facility Program
Current law establishes the School Facility Program (SFP)
under which the state provides general obligation bond
funding for various school construction projects. AB 127
(Nunez and Perata), the Kindergarten-University Public
Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006, authorized
Proposition 1D a statewide general obligation bond proposal
for $10.4 billion. Proposition 1D, approved by the voters
in November 2006, provided $7.3 billion for K-12 education
facilities and allocated specified amounts from the sale of
these bonds for modernization, new construction, charter
schools, Career Technical Education Facilities, joint use
projects, new construction on severely overcrowded
schoolsites, and high performance incentive grants to
promote energy efficient design and materials. In
addition, portions of the amounts allocated for new
construction and modernization were authorized for purposes
of funding smaller learning communities and small high
SB 128
Page 2
schools and for seismic retrofit projects.
High Performance Incentive Grant Program
Proposition 1D provided $100 million for high performance
incentive grants to promote the use of designs and
materials in school facility new construction and
modernization projects that include the attributes of high
performance schools, pursuant to regulations adopted by the
State Allocation Board. (Education Code �101012)
Current law defines high performance attributes as
including the use of designs and materials that promote
energy and water efficiency, maximize the use of natural
lighting, improve indoor air quality, utilize recycled
materials and materials that emit a minimum of toxic
substances, and employ acoustics conducive to teaching and
learning. (EC �17070.96)
Career Technical Education Facilities Program
Proposition 1D established the Career Technical Education
Facilities Program (CTEFP) within the School Facility
Program (SFP) and provided $500 million for school
districts and joint powers authorities to construct or
modernize facilities and to purchase equipment with an
average useful life expectancy of at least 10 years for
career technical education programs at existing high
schools. Current law 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. Local
agencies may enter into a loan agreement with the Office of
Public School Construction to cover their share of the
project costs. Grants are calculated on a square foot
basis, with a maximum of $3 million for each new facility
and $1.5 million for each modernization project purpose.
(Education Code � 17078.70-17078.72)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Expands the authorized use of modernization grant
funds by school districts for the cost of designs and
SB 128
Page 3
materials that promote:
a) The efficient use of energy and water.
b) The maximum use of natural lighting and
indoor quality.
c) The use of recycled materials.
d) The use of materials that emit a minimum of
toxic substances.
e) The use of acoustics conducive to teaching
and learning.
f) Other characteristics of high performance
schools.
2) Expands eligibility for High Performance Incentive
Grant funding to include projects approved for funding
under the Career Technical Education Facilities
Program.
3) Makes a technical conforming change.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to information provided
by the author, certain high performance components
have been deemed ineligible costs in the School
Facility Program (SFP) modernization program because
they were not a "like for like" replacement.
Generally, according to the Office of Public School
Construction, modernization apportionments may only be
used to extend the useful life of existing systems or
components. As a result, for example, modernization
projects that proposed installation of a new
solar/photovoltaic system were denied if they didn't
already have existing similar systems. This bill would
clarify that modernization apportionments could be
used for these purposes and other costs that promote
high performance attributes. Additionally, the author
SB 128
Page 4
notes that Career Technical Education Facilities
Program (CTEFP) funded projects have been deemed
ineligible to apply for the High Performance Incentive
Grant Program. This bill would ensure that school
districts could also receive incentive funding to
incorporate high performance attributes into their
CTEFP projects.
2) Inequity in the School Facilities Program ? Current
law specifically authorizes the use of new
construction apportionments for the exact purposes
proposed in this bill. (Education Code 17072.35) This
bill would authorize the use of modernization funds
for the same high performance attributes supported in
new construction projects. Under the current program,
school districts are arguably able to construct new
facilities that make better use of day lighting,
promote clean and well-circulated air, and use good
acoustics, as well as realize the operational savings
that can result from the use of more energy efficient
systems, while potentially unable to use state funding
for these purposes for modernized schools. What is
the logic of supporting the use of funds for these
purposes in one program, and not the other? Does the
current program create an incentive for districts to
pursue new construction to meet facility needs rather
than maximize the continued use of facilities in which
the state has already invested? Should students
educated in buildings and school districts that use
older, modernized facilities receive instruction in
facilities that meet lower/different environmental
standards than those instructed in newly built
facilities?
3) Clarification of the bill's impact . This bill expands
the list of costs eligible to be covered from the
state's share of funding for modernization projects.
The bill does not increase the amount of the
modernization apportionment received by a school
district, but rather, grants districts greater
flexibility in determining how to use the state funds
received for this purpose. However, to the extent
that existing modernization apportionments are already
purported to be insufficient to meet the real costs of
modernizing a facility, the bill may create pressure
to expand the funding provided for modernization
SB 128
Page 5
purposes.
4) Current status of the Career Technical Education
Facilities Program (CTEFP) . Current SFP regulations
established two funding cycles for the program and
authorized subsequent funding cycles to continue every
six months thereafter at the discretion of the SAB. A
third cycle of funding was established and the last
apportionment of funds for the program occurred in
October 2010. As of its February meeting, the SAB
reports that most of the $500 million in bond
authority provided for the CTEFP has been apportioned,
with about $23 million in bond authority remaining.
This amount may increase as a result of funds being
rescinded or returned to the program as well as the
repayment of program loans extended to school
districts. However, at this point it is unclear how
much more funding may become available and when/if an
additional funding round for the program will be
established.
5) History/Status of High Performance Incentive Grant
Program . The SAB first adopted regulations for the
implementation of the High Performance Incentive (HPI)
grant program on October 1, 2007, and first
apportioned these funds at its February 2008 meeting.
However, as of early 2010 almost three-fourths of the
$100 million available since 2007 had gone
undistributed. Among other things, districts cited
the lack of a link between the number of points
obtained for incorporating high performance attributes
and the cost of those elements within a project as a
reason for the limited funding requests for these
monies.
At its February 2010 meeting, the SAB requested that
the Office of Public School Construction staff convene
a workgroup to examine the HPI grant program. In
November the SAB reviewed, approved, and authorized
the filing of new emergency regulations for the
program. The "new" program provides a base grant of
$150,000 for new construction projects and $250,000
for modernization projects meeting the minimum
criteria outlined, as well as funding on the basis of
points achieved using established criteria in five
categories (Sustainable Sites, Energy, Water,
SB 128
Page 6
Materials, Indoor Environmental Quality) to determine
the high performance attributes in a project. These
new emergency regulations become effective in February
2011.
This bill expands eligibility for funding from this
program to include CTEFP funded projects. It is
unclear how much demand the recent changes in the
funding for the program will generate. Would it make
more sense to gauge interest/participation prior to
expanding eligibility for limited funds?
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California School Boards Association
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
OPPOSITION
None received.