BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 891
AUTHOR: Lowenthal
AMENDED: March 24, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: May 4, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : School Facilities Construction Ombudsman
SUMMARY
This bill requires the State Allocation Board to appoint an
ombudsman to provide assistance and guidance to school
districts as their construction projects proceed through
approvals from various state agencies.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the School Facility Program (SFP)
under which the state provides general obligation bond
funding for various school construction projects.
(Education Code � 17070.10 - � 17079)
Current law establishes the 10-member State Allocation
Board (SAB), provides for its membership, and authorizes
the SAB to apportion funds for the construction of school
facilities and to establish any qualifications, procedures
and policies, and rules and regulations it deems necessary
to administer and expend funds made available for school
facility construction purposes. (Government Code Section
15490, Education Code � 17070.35)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the SAB to appoint an ombudsman to provide
assistance and guidance to school districts as their
construction projects proceed through approvals from
the California Department of Education, the Department
of Toxic Substances Control, the Division of the State
Architect and the Office of Public School
SB 891
Page 2
Construction.
2) Requires that the ombudsman report directly to the
SAB.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Intent of the bill . According to the author, this
bill seeks to improve the construction of California
public schools by streamlining the process. In
addition, the author reports that it is the intent to
use this bill to address other issues around the
governance structure of the SAB.
2) Related efforts . A number of efforts to review the
current process and governance structure surrounding
school facility construction have recently been
undertaken. According to the author, it is the intent
to incorporate suggestions and concepts from these
efforts in order to realize a more streamlined
approach to school facility construction. These
include the following:
a) Expert Working Group (EWG) . In the summer
of 2010, in response to a series of concerns
regarding the duration and complexity of the
state agency approval process, the Department of
General Services (DGS) initiated the California
Public School Construction Process Review and in
an effort to improve and streamline the process.
The DGS, in partnership with the California
Department of Education created an Expert
Workgroup (EWG), comprised of various customer
and stakeholder subject matter experts, to
provide input into the review. In October 2010,
the DGS issued the report of the EWG. It was
noted that not all members of the EWG were in
full agreement on each of the solutions proposed
in the report. However, one of the critical
issues in the school construction process noted
by all parties was the lack of communication and
coordination. The report noted a need for
enhanced, more efficient communication and
responsiveness between each of the involved State
agencies, as well as with the agencies' customers
and stakeholders. One of the recommendations, for
SB 891
Page 3
addressing this concern was the creation of an
ombudsman for guidance and project assistance.
b) Schools of the Future Initiative . In
January 2011, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction announced his Schools of the Future
Initiative to focus on key issues concerning
California's school facilities. The
Superintendent composed working groups comprised
of education, state, labor, and business leaders
to to make recommendations in the areas of school
facility legislation, regulation and policy
necessary for green and energy efficient schools,
and streamlined school construction. The group
met for the first time on March 4, 2011, and is
expected to develop strategic recommendations for
the Superintendent by June 1, 2011.
c) Little Hoover Commission Report. In August
2006, the legislative members of the State
Allocation Board submitted a written request to
the Little Hoover Commission to conduct a study
of the SAB and its interaction with the Office of
Public School Construction (OPSC) and the
Department of General Services (DGS). In August
2007, the Commission issued its report, which,
among other things, recommended the composition
of SAB be: changed, that the staff and functions
of the OPSC be transferred from the DGS to the
SAB and that the SAB develop and submit its own
budget and hire its own executive officer.
3) Prior legislation . SB 365 (Ducheny, 2009) would have
implemented some of the structural changes proposed by
the report of the Little Hoover Commission. SB 365
passed this committee by a vote of 6-3 in April 2009,
but was subsequently held under submission in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson
OPPOSITION
None received.
SB 891
Page 4