BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  1


        ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
        AB 2235 (Buchanan and Hagman)
        As Amended  May 23, 2014
        2/3 vote. Urgency 

         EDUCATION           7-0         HIGHER EDUCATION    13-0        
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Buchanan, Olsen, Ch�vez,  |Ayes:|Williams, Ch�vez, Bloom,  |
        |     |Gonzalez, Nazarian,       |     |Fong, Fox, Jones-Sawyer,  |
        |     |Weber, Williams           |     |Levine, Achadjian,        |
        |     |                          |     |Medina, Olsen,            |
        |     |                          |     |Quirk-Silva, Weber, Wilk  |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         APPROPRIATIONS      16-0                                        
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow,           |     |                          |
        |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |     |                          |
        |     |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |     |                          |
        |     |Gomez, Holden, Jones,     |     |                          |
        |     |Linder, Pan, Quirk,       |     |                          |
        |     |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner,    |     |                          |
        |     |Weber                     |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         SUMMARY  :  Enacts the Kindergarten-University Public Education  
        Facilities Bond Act of 2014, to be operative only if approved by  
        voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election.  Makes  
        changes to the School Facility Program (SFP).  Specifically,  this  
        bill  : 

        1)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.  

        2)Authorizes $9 billion in 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  








                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  2


          follows:

           a)   $6 billion for kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12)  
             allocated to the following programs:

             i)     $2.25 billion for New Construction.

             ii)    $3.25 billion for Modernization.

             iii)   $500 million for the Charter School Facilities Program.

           b)   $3 billion for higher education facilities allocated to the  
             following:

             i)     $2 billion for the California Community Colleges (CCC).

             ii)    $500 million for the University of California (UC) and  
               the Hastings College of Law.

             iii)   $500 million for the California State University (CSU).

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

        4)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, CSU, and  
          Hastings College of Law.  

        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  








                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  3


             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 (OPSC), 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:

             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 (SPI) 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.

             iii)   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 (EC) Section 17071.35.









                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  4




         FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

        1)Assuming a 5% interest rate with a 30-year repayment period, the  
          state would pay approximately $585 million annually in principal  
          and interest costs for a $9 billion bond. 

        2)One-time General Fund costs to the Secretary of State of about  
          $200,000 for preparation of a statewide ballot pamphlet, assuming  
          four pages. 

         COMMENTS  :  The construction and rehabilitation of public K-12  
        facilities are funded by a combination of state and local G.O.  
        bonds, developer's fees and local assessments such as Mello-Roos  
        community facilities districts.  The New Construction program  
        requires a 50% match from local educational agencies (LEAs), unless  
        the LEA qualifies for financial hardship, which pays up to 100% of  
        project costs.  Modernization funds are awarded at 60% with a 40%  
        match.  Since the inception of the SFP in 1998, voters have approved  
        $35.4 billion in state G.O. bonds for K-12 schools. 

         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |   Ballot    |   Measure   |         Amount         | % Passage  |
        |-------------+-------------+------------------------+------------|
        |November     |Proposition  |$9.2 billion            |    62.5    |
        |1998         |1A           |  ($6.7 billion K-12 +  |            |
        |             |             |  $2.5 billion Higher   |            |
        |             |             |Education)              |            |
        |-------------+-------------+------------------------+------------|
        |November     |Proposition  |$13.05 billion          |    59.1    |
        |2002         |47           |  ($11.4 billion K-12 + |            |
        |             |             |                        |            |
        |             |             |  $1.65 billion Higher  |            |
        |             |             |Education)              |            |
        |-------------+-------------+------------------------+------------|
        |March 2004   |Proposition  |$12.3 billion           |    50.9    |
        |             |55           |  ($10 billion K-12 +   |            |
        |             |             |                        |            |
        |             |             |  $2.3 billion Higher   |            |
        |             |             |Education)              |            |
        |-------------+-------------+------------------------+------------|
        |November     |Proposition  |$10.416 billion         |56.9        |
        |2006         |1D           |  ($7.329 K-12 +        |            |








                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  5


        |             |             |  $3.087 billion Higher |            |
        |             |             |Education)              |            |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

        The last education bond on the statewide ballot was Proposition 1D,  
        which was passed by voters on the November 2006 ballot.  Proposition  
        1D provided $10.416 billion for K-12 and higher education facilities  
        and established new K-12 grant programs, specified through the  
        following allocations:

        1)$7.329 billion for K-12 facilities as follows:

           a)   $1.9 billion for new construction projects (of which up to  
             $199.5 million can be set aside for seismic repairs).

           b)   $3.3 billion for modernization projects.

           c)   $1 billion for overcrowding relief grants through the  
             removal of portables.

           d)   $500 million for charter school facilities.

           e)   $500 million for career technical education (CTE) facilities  
             and equipment.

           f)   $100 million for high performance (green) projects.

           g)   $29 million for joint-use projects.

        2)$3.087 billion for higher education facilities as follows:

           a)   $1.507 billion for CCC.

           b)   $890 million for UC, of which $200 million was available for  
             medical education programs.

           c)   $690 million for CSU.

        This bill will place a $9 billion K-12 and higher education school  
        facilities bond on the November 4, 2014, statewide ballot.  

        K-12 programs:  Contrary to the three prior bonds, this bill  
        proposes to fund three basic programs:  New Construction,  
        Modernization and the Charter School Facilities Program.       








                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  6



        The amount of funding needed for K-12 school facilities is hard to  
        calculate, as there is no statewide inventory or mechanism to  
        collect projected need information from LEAs and charter schools.   
        Eligibility for New Construction is done using the cohort survival  
        projection method, which, generally, is based on projected need  
        after accounting for existing capacity (or seats).  LEAs established  
        their baseline eligibility in 1999, and update the eligibility as  
        needed, usually prior to submitting an application for funding.  The  
        OPSC conducted an analysis of remaining eligibility and estimates a  
        need to $12.6 billion.  However, OPSC cautions that the eligibility  
        numbers may not be updated.  

        LEAs are eligible for Modernization funds based on the age of a  
        building - 25 years for permanent buildings and 20 years for  
        portable buildings - and enrollment at the schoolsites.  Based on  
        the number of schoolsites that have established eligibility, OPSC  
        estimates a need of $4.4 billion for Modernization.  However, OPSC  
        cautions that this estimate is based only on 36% of schoolsites that  
        have established eligibility.  The $4.4 billion estimate may be low.  
         

        Another factor to take into consideration is the amount in funding  
        requests submitted to the OPSC despite lack of funds for New  
        Construction or Modernization.  Since 1998, voters have authorized  
        $17.6 billion for New Construction and $11.23 billion for  
        Modernization projects.  Bond authority for the New Construction  
        program has been depleted since July, 2012 and Modernization since  
        May, 2012.  According to the OPSC, the annual average funding  
        approved by the SAB annual is $1.237.5 billion for New Construction  
        and $788 million for Modernization.  Applications received since  
        2012 were initially placed on an Unfunded "Lack of Authority" list.   
        Since November 1, 2012, the SAB established an "Application Received  
        Beyond Bond Authority" list.  More than $800 million have been  
        submitted between the "Lack of Authority" and the "Beyond Bond  
        Authority" lists.  There are likely many districts not submitting  
        applications because no funding is available and it is unclear  
        whether applications on either list will receive funding.     

        In 2012, the SAB formed a Program Review Subcommittee (Subcommittee)  
        that spent more than a year meeting monthly to review various  
        aspects of the SFP.  In January, 2014, the Subcommittee, of which  
        Assembly Member Buchanan was the chair and Assembly Member Hagman a  
        member, submitted recommendations to the SAB, including the  








                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  7


        following regarding a new bond, "There is demand for new  
        construction and modernization funding.  The Subcommittee recognizes  
        that the State has appropriately been a partner in building new  
        schools and modernizing aging facilities.  To date, the School  
        Facility Program has successfully provided $33.93 billion for 11,106  
        projects and should be continued."  The Subcommittee also made a  
        number of recommendations relating to New Construction,  
        Modernization, financial hardship, special programs, portable  
        buildings, facility maintenance, statewide school facilities  
        inventory, and county offices of education.  This bill incorporates  
        several of the recommendations made by the Subcommittee.

        The author states, "The state is an important partner with school  
        districts and the developer community in ensuring that students have  
        adequate and safe school facilities.  Voters understand this and  
        have consistently shown support for school bonds, and voters pass  
        local bonds with the expectation of receiving state matching funds.   
        This has been an extremely successful program.  The $35 billion in  
        K-12 bonds passed since 1998 has been matched by over $70 billion in  
        local bonds and developer fees.  These bonds also give a boost to  
        our state economy by creating thousands of jobs.  State bond funds  
        are depleted for New Construction and Modernization, and almost  
        depleted for the other programs.  Rarely do the Chamber of Commerce,  
        building industry, construction contractors, labor - both union and  
        non-union - and the education community agree on a bill.  They all  
        agree that it's time to put another school facilities bond on the  
        ballot."

        Higher education bonds:  Proposition 1D bond funds for higher  
        education institutions are also depleted.  Bond allocations are  
        based on 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.  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 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  








                                                                AB 2235
                                                                Page  8


          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. 


         Analysis Prepared by  :    Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 


                                                                  FN: 0003827