School Construction Funding Package Elements

The School Facilities Conference Committee-developed package consists of four intertwined pieces: a constitutional amendment and three statutes. The only way the four measures can take effect is if the constitutional amendment, reducing the vote requirement for local school bonds, and a separate bond measure, are approved by statewide voters next June or November. 

Following descriptions are generally based on the conference committee's analyses and Senate Education Committee or Senate floor analyses of the measures as they were pending in mid-September when the Legislature recessed to conclude the first half of the two-year session.  

SCA 12. This Senate constitutional amendment, by Senator Jack O'Connell, would allow majority vote approval for local school bonds. It passed the Senate and is pending in the Assembly when the Legislature reconvenes in January. 

Requiring two-thirds votes of the Assembly and Senate, the measure was approved on September 10 on a 27-13 vote, the bare two-thirds majority of the 40-member Senate. Its Assembly future is uncertain, but supporters hope to get it through in time to win a spot on the June 2 statewide primary election ballot. 

Under the state Constitution, local school bonds require two-thirds voter approval, and although most local school bond measures in recent years have been successful, proponents note that nearly all gain at least majority voter support. 

SCA 12 would restrict the use of local school bond proceeds for capital expenditures only - not for school operations or administration. Districts would have to list the school facilities to be funded and establish citizens' advisory committees to monitor spending. Annual audits would be required on projects funded by the bonds. 

If voters rejected SCA 12 in June, it would automatically appear on the November 1998 general election ballot. In 1993, a similar measure, Proposition 170, was rejected by 69 percent of the vote. 

AB 755. Authored by Assembly Member Kerry Mazzoni, AB 755 is an $8.2 billion state school facility bond that would appear on the June 2 ballot. If approved, $4 billion would be available in 1998 and $4.2 billion in 2000. Of the total, $6 billion would go to K-12 schools and $2.2 billion to higher education. 

This conference report is pending on the floors of both houses for action in January. 

In March 1996, voters approved a $3 billion general obligation bond for K-12 and higher education facilities. 

This pending measure would be called the Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998. Up to $1 billion of the total could be used for class-size reduction. 

SB 250. State Program Reform is a bill by Senator Leroy Greene that would create a 50 percent state, 50 percent local program for allocating state bond funds. More funding from the state would be available if local tax efforts do not yield sufficient funds. The program would be named after the author of the bill, a veteran chair of legislative education policy committees. 

This conference report, pending on the floors of the Senate and Assembly, would, if voters approve bond and voter threshold measures at June or November statewide elections next year, provide the new program for projects still pending approval of the Division of State Architect under the current Lease Purchase Program. The Multi-Track Year-Round Education Program would be disconnected. Also, state liens on school property would be eliminated and new liens could not be placed. 

Districts would be eligible for grants for new construction equal to the total number of unhoused students multiplied by 50 percent of the cost of providing space for those students, or $6,500 per student in state funds. This amount-per-unhoused student may be exceeded if the district has issued bonds equal to one-half of its bonding capacity and still cannot contribute 50 percent from local funds. 

Students in year-round schools, not counted as unhoused under current law, would be eligible to generate funding for the district. 

The bill also contains a formula for grants to modernize older buildings that is equal to the number of students in buildings that are at least 30 years old multiplied by $1,625, which is roughly 12.5 percent of the building's replacement cost. 

Construction projects would need one approval from the State Allocation Board (SAB), instead of three under current practice. The schedule for actual allocation of funds would be based on the district's construction progress. The SAB would decide how to ration funds if state matching funds are inadequate. 

Districts that cannot provide the 50 percent match could rent state-owned buildings that can be relocated. 

Rather than dictate methods to reduce construction costs, this legislation would direct the SAB to convene a panel to identify cost-saving methods. (At this writing, Senator Greene was considering conducting an interim hearing on construction efficiencies. The Little Hoover Commission plans such a hearing next spring - editor.)  

AB 252. This measure, by Assembly Member Antonio Villaraigosa, deals with developer fee reform. It would increase statutory fees gradually from $1.84 to $3 per square foot by January 1, 2000, and allow fees to exceed $3 per square foot in specified circumstances, but not to exceed 50 percent of the needed school facilities. 

This conference committee report, pending on floors of both houses, would repeal three court decisions in the late 1980s and early 1990s that collectively acknowledge powers of cities and counties to deny construction permits if schools are considered inadequate as a consequence of the planned development.

More funding from the state would be available if local tax efforts do not yield sufficient funds.