BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 22, 2014

                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
                                 Das Williams, Chair
             AB 2235 (Buchanan and Hagman) - As Introduced:  February 21,  
                                        2014

          [Note:  This bill was double referred to the Assembly Committee  
          on Education and was heard by that committee as it relates to  
          issues under its jurisdiction.]
           
          SUBJECT  :   Education facilities: Kindergarten-University Public  
          Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014.

           SUMMARY  :   Enacts the Kindergarten-University Public Education  
          Facilities Bond Act of 2014, to become operative only if  
          approved by voters at the November 4, 2014 statewide general  
          election; and, makes changes to the School Facility Program  
          (SFP).  Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Authorizes an unspecified amount of general obligation (G.O.)  
            school facilities bond to be placed on the November 4, 2014  
            statewide general election and specifies the funds to be  
            allocated as follows:

             a)   An unspecified amount for higher education facilities  
               allocated to the following:

               i)     University of California (UC) and the Hastings  
                 College of Law; ii) California State University (CSU);  
                 and, iii) California Community Colleges (CCC).

             b)   An unspecified amount for kindergarten through grade 12  
               (K-12) allocated to the following programs:

               i)     New Construction; ii) Modernization; and, iii)  
                 Charter School Facilities Program.

          2)Establishes the 2014 CCC Capital Outlay Bond Fund and  
            authorizes the deposit of funds from the proceeds of bonds  
            issued and sold pursuant to this bill to be deposited into the  
            fund for the purposes of construction; renovation and  
            reconstruction of CCC facilities; site acquisition; the  
            equipping of new, renovated or reconstructed facilities; and  
            to provide funds for the payment of preconstruction costs,  








                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  2

            including, but not limited to, preliminary plans and working  
            drawings for CCC facilities.

          3)Establishes the 2014 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund and  
            authorizes the deposit of funds from the proceeds of bonds  
            issued and sold pursuant to this bill to be deposited into the  
            fund for the purposes of construction; renovation and  
            reconstruction of facilities; site acquisition; the equipping  
            of new, renovated or reconstructed facilities; and to provide  
            funds for the payment of preconstruction costs, including, but  
            not limited to, preliminary plans and working drawings for  
            facilities of the UC, Hastings College of Law, and CSU.  

          4)Establishes the 2014 State School Facilities Fund and  
            authorizes the State Allocation Board (SAB) to apportion funds  
            to school districts from funds transferred to the 2014 State  
            School Facilities Fund from any source for the purposes  
            specified in the SFP.  

          5)Makes the following changes to the SFP:

             a)   Strikes an obsolete provision requiring the SAB to  
               conduct an evaluation on the costs of new construction and  
               modernization of small high schools.

             b)   Authorizes the SAB to require each school district that  
               elects to participate in the new construction program  
               funded by the proceeds of any bond approved by voters after  
               November 1, 2014 to reestablish eligibility pursuant to  
               regulations adopted by the SAB.

             c)   Requires the Office of Public School Construction, in  
               consultation with the California Department of Education to  
               recommend to the SAB regulations that will provide school  
               districts with flexibility in designing instructional  
               facilities.

             d)   Authorizes the SAB to require each school district that  
               elects to participate in the modernization program funded  
               by the proceeds of any bond approved by voters after  
               November 1, 2014 to reestablish baseline eligibility for  
               each schoolsite pursuant to regulations adopted by the SAB.

             e)   Repeals the provisions that do the following:









                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  3

               i)     Requires, for the purpose of determining existing  
                 school building capacity, the calculation to be adjusted  
                 for first priority status as that calculation would have  
                 been made under the policies of the SAB in effected  
                 immediately preceding September 1, 1998.

               ii)    Requires the maximum school building capacity for  
                 each applicant district be increased by the number of  
                 pupils reported by the Superintendent of Public  
                 Instruction as excess capacity as a result of  
                 participation in the Year-Round School Grant Program.   
                 Repeals the requirement that the adjustment be calculated  
                 on the basis, at the district's option, of either the  
                 district as a whole or the appropriate attendance area.

          6)Requires each school on a multitrack year-round calendar that  
            has a density of 200 or more pupils enrolled per acre that is  
            located in a school district with 40% of its pupils attending  
            multitrack year-round schools be exempted from the increase in  
            school building capacity required by Education Code Section  
            17071.35.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :    Background  .  Since the late 1980s, the Legislature  
          has placed on the ballot and voters have approved bonds for  
          public higher education every two to four years.  The last  
          statewide general obligation bond, Proposition 1D (AB 127, N��ez  
          and Perata, Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), was approved by  
          voters in November 2006, authorizing the sale of $10.4 billion  
          in G.O. bonds of which $3.087 billion was earmarked for higher  
          education facilities.  Of this amount, $1.5 billion was provided  
          for CCC facilities, $890 million was provided for UC, and $690  
          million was provided for CSU.  All Proposition 1D higher  
          education facilities funds have been depleted and K-12 funds  
          have almost been exhausted.

          Since 2006, as the state's fiscal condition continued to  
          deteriorate, legislation needed to authorize education bonds was  
          not enacted.  Instead, since 2008 the higher education segments  
          have received capital funding from lease-revenue bonds through  
          the annual budget acts; however, these funds have met less than  
          half of the segments' capital needs.  Bond funds, whether  
          lease-revenue or G.O., are allocated through the budget process  
          in accordance with the segments' five-year capital facility  








                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  4

          plans.  

          Additionally, in November 2012, California voters approved  
          Proposition 39 to close a corporate tax loophole and increase  
          the state's annual corporate tax revenues by as much as $1.1  
          billion.  Proposition 39 specified that half of the revenue  
          generated from 2013-2018, up to $550 million, should support  
          energy efficiency and alternative energy projects at public  
          schools, colleges, universities and other public buildings, as  
          well as related public-private partnerships and workforce  
          training.  

           Need for this bill  .  According to the authors, the state has  
          been a strong partner with higher education segments and school  
          districts in order to ensure that students have adequate and  
          safe facilities.  Community college and school districts pass  
          local bonds to match state funds, while the UC and CSU issue  
          revenue bonds and incur other types of borrowing.  The authors  
          state that, "While enrollment is projected to decline in some  
          areas of the state, other parts are expecting growth.  New  
          facilities are needed in areas where there is growth, while all  
          school districts and higher education systems have modernization  
          needs."  The authors argue that it has been eight years since  
          the last bond.  While the economy suffered shortly after the  
          2006 bond passed and the development of new housing slowed,  
          which also slowed the construction of schools, the economy has  
          since improved.  The housing industry relies on new schools to  
          sell homes.  The authors state, "Voters pass local bonds to  
          build these schools with the expectation that there will be a  
          state match.  It is time to put another bond on the ballot."

           Approval process  .  School districts must submit applications to  
          the SAB in order for their construction and modernization  
          projects to be approved.  However, the process is different for  
          the higher education segments.  Each segment submits a 5-year  
          Capital Outlay proposal to the Department of Finance (DOF).   
          After the DOF approves their proposals, the segments then  
          prioritize which projects they will submit for funding to the  
          Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee (HEFFC).

           Capital needs  .  The segments report the following capital needs:

          1)UC:  Has identified four year needs of approximately $550  
            million per year.  This breaks down to approximately $450  
            million per year for campuses and $100 million for medical  








                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  5

            centers.

          2)CSU:  Has identified a five year total need of $7 billion for  
            renovation and/or replacement of existing infrastructure and  
            for new buildings to provide growth to increase lecture and  
            laboratory seating capacity.  This breaks down to  
            approximately $400 to $500 million per year.

            To note:  48% of their buildings are 40 years old and 34% are  
            over 50 years old; and, a backlog of their deferred  
            maintenance funding is nearly at $1.8 billion.

          3)CCC:  Has identified a need of approximately $35 billion over  
            the next 10 years for construction and modernization of  
            facilities.  

            To note:  Of the $35 billion needed, the CCC Office of the  
            Chancellor estimates that $19.1 billion of local bond funds  
            remain available, leaving over $15.9 billion in unmet need.   
            This breaks down to approximately $3.2 billion needed from a  
            state bond every two years. 

           Committee consideration  .  Based on projections, the total costs  
          of building projects of the public higher education segments  
          would exceed available bond funds.  Currently, a significant  
          amount of discretion is provided to the segments in determining  
          which projects to submit to HEFFC for funding.  AB 1953  
          (Skinner, 2014), which passed out of this committee on April 1,  
          2014, would provide grants to institutions for building  
          retrofits that reduce energy demands.  AB 1953 did not identify  
          a funding source for the grants.  Presently, it is unclear to  
          the extent that the segments give priority to their energy  
          efficiency projects when submitting their need for funding to  
          the HEFFC.  Consistent with the goals of the committee in  
          approving AB 1953, the committee may wish to consider whether  
          the segments should be directed to establish some level of  
          priority be given to projects that meet energy efficiency and  
          long term sustainability goals by the segments before they  
          present their funding needs to the HEFFC.
           
          Previous legislation  .  AB 41 (Buchanan, 2013), which was held by  
          the author in the Assembly Education Committee, expressed the  
          Legislature's intent to place a Kindergarten-University  
          facilities bond on the 2014 ballot.  SB 45 (Corbett, 2013),  
          which was held by the author in the Senate Rules Committee,  








                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  6

          expressed the Legislature's intent to place a  
          Kindergarten-University facilities bond on the next statewide  
          general election.  SB 301 (Liu, 2013), which was held by the  
          author in the Senate Rules Committee, expressed the  
          Legislature's intent to place a Kindergarten-University  
          facilities bond on the 2014 ballot.  AB 331 (Brownley, 2011),  
          which was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 2012,  
          expressed the Legislature's intent to place a  
          Kindergarten-University facilities bond on the 2012 ballot.  AB  
          822 (Block, 2011), which was held in the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee in 2012, would have placed a higher education  
          facilities bond on the November 2012 ballot.  AB 220 (Brownley,  
          2009), which was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee,  
          would have placed a $6.1 billion Kindergarten-University  
          facilities bond on the November 2010 ballot.  SB 271 (Ducheny,  
          2009), which was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee,  
          would have placed a $8.6 billion higher education facilities  
          bond on the November 2010 ballot.  
          
           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          Advancement Project
          Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Contractors Association
          Air Conditioning Sheet Metal Association
          American Council of Engineering Companies California
          Associated General Contractors
          Association of California Construction Managers
          Association of California School Administrators
          Baldwin Park Unified School District
          Barstow Community College District
          Butte County Office of Education
          Cabrillo Community College
          California Apartment Association
          California Association of School Business Officials
          California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning  
          Contractors' National Association
          California Association of Suburban School Districts
          California Building Industry Association
          California Chamber of Commerce
          California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
          California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Hearing and  
          Piping Industry
          California School Boards Association








                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  7

          California State University
          Central Valley Education Coalition
          Central Valley Higher Education Consortium
          Citrus College
          Coalition for Adequate School Housing
          College of the Desert
          College of the Redwoods
          Community College Facility Coalition
          Community College League of California
          Contra Costa County Office of Education
          County School Facilities Consortium
          El Dorado County Office of Education
          Elk Grove Unified School District
          Foothill-De Anza Community College District
          Fresno Unified School District
          Glendale Community College District
          Imperial County Office of Education
          John Swett Unified School District
          Kern Community College District
          Kern County Superintendent of Schools
          Lake Tahoe Community College
          Los Angeles Community College District
          Los Angeles Unified School District
          Los Rios Community College District
          Madera County Office of Education
          Martinez Unified School District
          Merced County Office of Education
          Monterey County Office of Education
          Napa County Office of Education 
          National Electrical Contractors Association - California  
          Chapters
          Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
          Paramount Unified School District
          Pasadena City College
          Pasadena Community College District
          Peralta Community College District
          Rancho Santiago Community College District
          Regional Asthma Management and Prevention
          Rio Hondo Community College District
          Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
          San Benito County Office of Education
          San Bernardino Community College District
          San Diego County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Randy Ward
          San Diego Unified School District
          San Francisco Unified School District








                                                                  AB 2235
                                                                  Page  8

          San Luis Obispo County Office of Education
          Santa Ana Unified School District
          Santa Barbara County Office of Education 
          Santa Clara County Office of Education 
          Santa Clarita Community College District
          Santa Cruz County Office of Education 
          School Employers Association of California
          School Energy Coalition
          Sierra College
          Siskiyou Joint Community College District
          Small School Districts' Association
          Solano Community College District
          Sonoma County Office of Education
          South Orange County Community College District
          St. Helena Unified School District
          State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
          Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson
          Visalia Unified School District
          West Hills Community College District
          West Kern Community College District
          William S. Hart Union High School District
          Yosemite Community College District
          Yuba Community College District

           Opposition 
           
          None on file.
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :    Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916)  
          319-3960