Existing law requires the State Department of Education to take specified actions relating to the construction of school facilities, including to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.

This bill would require those standards to also ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The bill would also require the department to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. The bill would require the department, the Division of the State Architect, and the Office of Public School Construction to, on or before July 1, 2018, submit a report to the Legislature, as provided, relating to the construction of school facilities that addresses the feasibility of streamlining their application processes, as specified. The bill would require the department and the Office of Public School Construction to each develop regulations that provide local educational agencies with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities, as specified, for consideration by the State Board of Education and the State Allocation Board.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education to take specified actions relating to the construction of school facilities, including to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.

This bill would require those standards to also ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The bill would also require the department to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. The bill would require the department, the Division of the State Architect, and the Office of Public School Construction to, on or before July 1, 2018, submit a report to the Legislature, as provided, relating to the construction of school facilities that addresses the feasibility of streamlining their application processes, as specified. The bill would require the department and the Office of Public School Construction to each develop regulations that provide local educational agencies with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities, as specified, for consideration by the State Board of Education and the State Allocation Board.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education to take specified actions relating to the construction of school facilities, including to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.

This bill would require those standards to also ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The bill would require the department to adopt regulations that allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities and to collaborate with the Office of Public School Construction to develop regulations for consideration by the State Allocation Board that would align specified regulations adopted by the board with the regulations adopted by the department pursuant to this bill. The bill would also require the department to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. The bill would require the department, the Division of the State Architect, and the Office of Public School Construction to, on or before July 1, 2018, submit a report to the Legislature, as provided, relating to the construction of school facilities that addresses the feasibility of streamlining their application processes, as specified. The bill would require the department and the Office of Public School Construction to each develop regulations that provide local educational agencies with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities, as specified, for consideration by the State Board of Education and the State Allocation Board.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education to take specified actions relating to the construction of school facilities, including to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.

This bill would require those standards to also ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The bill would require the department to work adopt regulations that allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities and to collaborate with the Office of Public School Construction to ensure that specified regulations adopted develop regulations for consideration by the State Allocation Board allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities, and that would align specified regulations adopted by the board with the regulations adopted by the department pursuant to this bill. The bill would require the department to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. The bill would require the department, the Division of the State Architect, and the Office of Public School Construction to, on or before July 1, 2018, submit a report to the Legislature, as provided, relating to the construction of school facilities that addresses the feasibility of streamlining their application processes, as specified.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education to take specified actions relating to the construction of school facilities, including to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.

This bill would also require those standards to also ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The bill would require the department to work with the Office of Public School Construction to ensure that specified regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities, and to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. The bill would require the department, the Division of the State Architect, and the Office of Public School Construction to, on or before July 1, 2018, submit a report to the Legislature, as provided, relating to the construction of school facilities that addresses the feasibility of streamlining their application processes, as specified.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.

This bill would also require those standards to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 203

Author:(O'Donnell)

As Amended Ver:September 8, 2017

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: ED.

SUMMARY: Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to develop regulations that will provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. Requires the CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts in navigating the school construction and funding processes. Requires CDE, OPSC and the Division of State Architect (DSA) to report to the Legislature on how their respective applications can be better aligned. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CDE to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities.
2. Requires the CDE and the OPSC to each develop regulations that provide local educational agencies (LEAs) with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities for consideration by the State Board of Education (SBE) and the State Allocation Board (SAB). Requires the regulations to be consistent with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 17070.10) of Part 10 of the Education Code), as it read on January 1, 2015.
3. Requires the CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. Specifies that the strategies may include informing the districts of how to receive the approval required for school construction, including the requirements of the DSA and how to secure state funding, including from the state bond funds made available through the School Facility Program (SFP).
4. Defines "small school district" as a school district with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance (ADA).
5. Requires, on or before July 1, 2018, the CDE, DSA, and the OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:
   1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required of their applications.
   2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.
6. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to identify ways to streamline the school construction process, assist small school districts to navigate the entities and requirements relating to state bond funding, and allow school districts to design classrooms that accommodate 21st century learning. Further states the intent of the Legislature for the three main state entities involved in the School Facility Program – the CDE, DSA and OPSC – to work together to streamline their application processes to avoid duplicative information being required of their applications.

The Senate amendments strike the provision requiring the CDE to work with the OPSC to ensure that regulations adopted by the SAB allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities and instead require the CDE and the OPSC to each develop regulations that provide LEAs with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities for consideration by the SBE and the SAB.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The CDE indicates ongoing General Fund costs of $60,000 to provide technical support to small school districts and additional one-time General Fund costs of $75,000 to complete the bill's reporting requirement.
2. The OPSC estimates approximately $31,000 to draft the regulations required by this measure and $14,000 for the reporting requirement. However, these costs are expected to be absorbed within existing resources.
3. The DSA anticipates $10,000 to contribute to the bill's reporting requirement which is also expected to be absorbed within existing resources.

COMMENTS: Background. The construction and modernization of public kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) facilities are funded by a combination of state and local general obligation (GO) bonds, developer's fees and local assessments such as Mello Roos community facilities districts. California voters have approved $42.4 billion in state GO bonds since 1998 for the SFP, including $7 billion for K-12 and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities approved by voters last November through Proposition 51.

The SAB, a ten member body, oversees state bond funds administered by the OPSC. Constructing a new school or even modernizing schools can take many years. In order to be eligible for funding, LEAs must receive approval from several state agencies, including the CDE, DSA and OPSC, and work with local agencies. The CDE reviews plans to ensure that the site and the proposed facility are safe and meet the educational program of the school.

All K-14 proposed public school construction and modernization projects must also receive approval from the DSA, which reviews architectural plans for compliance with the Field Act (seismic safety); fire, life and safety requirements; and access requirements under the Americans with Disability Act. DSA grants approvals based on the requirements specified by Title 24 regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code.

For a long time, entities involved in school construction and the Legislature have expressed concerns that the process takes a long time, part of which is due to how long it takes to receive approval from state agencies.

In February, the Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on how the school construction and school facilities funding processes can be streamlined. The author states, "The hearing highlighted several common themes. Speakers talked about the need to provide technical assistance to small school districts, and expressed frustrations over how long it takes to receive state agency approvals and the amount of duplicative information required by each agency."

Lack of coordination by state agencies. School districts have long complained of a lack of coordination between the major state agencies involved in school construction and funding. Each requires a separate application that requests similar information to be provided. This bill directs the three agencies (CDE, DSA and OPSC) to explore the feasibility of using one application, using one common number, using the same technology for submission of application and architectural plans, or otherwise reducing the duplication of information required.

Small school districts. Small school districts, defined as those with 2500 or fewer ADA, face additional challenges in navigating the school construction and facility funding processes. Small school districts may not have facility staff. In many districts, facilities may be handled by the district superintendent, who may also be the principal of a school. Speakers at the Committee's informational hearing supported the establishment of an ombudsman to provide technical assistance to small school districts, or agencies establishing regional offices throughout the state. This bill requires CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts.

Instructional facilities flexibility. Current law requires CDE to establish standards for location of sites for schools and designs of facilities, established under Title 5 regulations. Based on these regulations and regulations adopted by the SAB, the SFP generally funds classrooms that are 960 square foot spaces. Teaching and learning have changed over time. Teachers do not stand in front of a classroom with a blackboard six hours a day anymore. Today, teachers may utilize more project based learning, with students working in small groups, which require larger common areas with movable walls and/or furniture. In 2013 and 2014, a subcommittee formed by the SAB made a number of recommendations to reform and streamline the program. One of the recommendations was to align the SFP and CDE regulations to give LEAs more flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The Governor's proposed 2015-16 and 2016-17 budgets also expressed concerns that the SFP does not provide flexibility, stating, in 2015-16, "The current program does not provide adequate local control for districts designing school facilities plans. Program eligibility is largely based on standardized facility definitions and classroom loading standards. As a result, districts are discouraged from utilizing modern educational delivery methods."

This bill requires CDE and the OPSC to each develop regulations for consideration by the SBE and the SAB, respectively. The CDE's regulations affect the standards for school facilities adopted under Title 5 and the OPSC's regulations deal with regulations governing the SFP. The bill also requires the regulations to be consistent with Proposition 51, which provides $9 billion in state General Obligation bonds for K-12 and California Community Colleges facilities.

The Central Valley Education Coalition, writing in support of the bill, states, "AB 203 addresses recognized shortcomings in the state's school facilities program, including those faced by small districts. The measure promotes common sense improvements that move the program into the 21st Century by recognizing the need for some flexibility in the design of instructional facilities and in developing a more coherent and efficient project approval process….As state agencies, local school districts and county offices of education gear up for implementation of Proposition 51 and allocation of much-needed funding for school modernization and construction, the program improvements called for in AB 203 are essential."

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0002227

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 203

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/21/17

AYES: Allen, Galgiani, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Wilk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/17

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/30/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: School facilities: design and construction: report: regulations

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to ensure its standards for designing and constructing school facilities provide district flexibility and to develop strategies to assist small school districts with their school facilities projects. The bill also requires CDE, the Division of the State Architect (DSA), and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to report on how to streamline the school facility funding application process. Finally, the bill requires CDE and OPSC to each develop regulations that provide flexibility in the design of instructional facilities for consideration by the State Board of Education (SBE) and the State Allocation Board (SAB).

Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/17 delete the requirements that the CDE adopt regulations that allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities, and that the CDE collaborate with the OPSC to develop regulations that align the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act regulations with regulations adopted by the CDE. The amendments instead require CDE and OPSC to each develop regulations for consideration by the SBE and the SAB.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, the SAB to allocate to applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction and modernization of school facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental funding for site development and acquisition.
2. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district unless the applicant school district has certified to the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the CDE that the site selection, and the building plans and specifications, comply with the standards adopted by CDE.
3. Requires CDE to establish standards for use by a school district in the selection of schoolsites and standards to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.
4. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district that has not received approval from DSA that the project meets Field Act requirements.
5. Requires DSA, under the police power of the state, to supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply with existing law and Title 24 regulations.

This bill:

1. Requires the CDE to establish standards for use by school districts that ensure the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate, promote school safety, and provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities.
2. Requires CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts, those with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance, with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. Specifies that the strategies may include informing the districts of how to receive the approval required for school construction, including the requirements of the DSA and how to secure state funding, including from the state bond funds made available through the School Facility Program.
3. Requires, on or before July 1, 2018, CDE, DSA, and OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:
   1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required for their applications.
   2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.
4. Requires the CDE and OPSC to each develop regulations that provide local educational agencies with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities for consideration by the SBE and the SAB.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. In February 2017, the Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on how the school construction and school facilities funding processes could be streamlined. According to the author, “The hearing highlighted several common themes. Speakers talked about the need to provide technical assistance to small school districts, and expressed frustrations over how long it takes to receive state agency approvals and the amount of duplicative information required by each agency.”
2. The School Facility Program. The state created the School Facility Program (SFP) in 1998 in response to concerns about the complexity of the Lease-Purchase Program, its immediate predecessor. The SFP has two core programs: new construction and modernization. For both programs, the state provides per-student grants to participating school districts, with school districts required to provide local matching funds. The state also has created a number of smaller facilities programs to fund other state priorities, including charter schools, seismic upgrades, reducing overcrowding, and energy-efficient schools. The SFP is administered by OPSC, with bond funds being overseen by the SAB, a 10-member body. The OPSC processes applications for the program, subject to approval by the SAB, on a first-come, first-served basis. School districts are required to submit specific projects for approval by several state agencies to receive state funding, including the CDE, the DSA, the OPSC, and local agencies, which can take several years.

Since 1998, voters have approved approximately $42 billion in statewide general obligation bonds—including $7 billion approved by Proposition 51 in November 2016—to construct or renovate public school classrooms used by the state’s roughly six million elementary, middle and high school students. In addition to general obligation bonds, school districts may use developer fees, local bonds, certificates of participation, and Mello‑Roos bonds to construct additional classrooms or renovate existing classrooms.

1. Governor has been calling for program reform since 2013. Beginning with his 2013-14 proposed budget, the Governor has been critical of the state’s school facilities program, stating “…now is an appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities funding.” Along with rising debt service costs supported by the state’s general fund, the budget summary cited that “The current School Facilities Program is overly complex and administered by multiple control agencies with fragmented responsibilities. The current program is also largely state-driven, restricting local flexibility and control.”

Each of the 2014-15 through 2016-17 proposed budgets continued to cite concerns and request that stakeholders come together to design significant reforms addressing each of the Governor’s concerns. However, in November 2016, before the Governor and the Legislature could come to an agreement on a new program, Proposition 51 was passed by the voters. The measure authorizes $7 billion of new general obligation bonds for the state’s existing program as its statutes read on January 1, 2015.

1. Small school district facilities challenges. Small school districts face additional challenges compared to medium or large-sized districts in navigating the school construction and facility funding processes. The state’s school facilities program funds projects on a first-come, first-served basis, which tends to favor large school districts with dedicated facilities personnel. In many small school districts, facilities may be handled by the district superintendent, who may also be the principal of a school. Additionally, when passing local bonds for the state program’s required matching funds, smaller school districts tend to pay more in bond issuance costs.
2. Charter schools also face unique facilities challenges. Within the state’s facilities funding system, charter schools can face unique challenges, because: (a) unlike school districts, they cannot independently issue local general obligation bonds to finance their facility needs, (b) many are start-ups lacking access to public school facilities, resulting in the charter school leasing space in office buildings and other commercial sites, and (c) lending institutions tend to view charter schools as high-risk investments, making it difficult to obtain the loans necessary to finance school facilities. While a number of statutory measures have aimed to address these challenges, charter advocates claim that an inadequate supply of school facilities may be the single largest stumbling block to the growth of charter schools. Would charter schools also benefit from strategies being developed by the State to assist with obtaining school facilities funding and pursuing school construction projects? If so, should these strategies be developed by the CDE, or a separate agency involved with charter school facilities, such as the OPSC or the California School Finance Authority?

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The CDE indicates ongoing General Fund costs of $60,000 to provide technical support to small school districts and additional one-time General Fund costs of $75,000 to complete the bill’s reporting requirement.
• OPSC estimates approximately $31,000 to draft the regulations required by this bill and $14,000 for the reporting requirement. However, these costs are expected to be absorbed within existing resources.
• The DSA anticipates $10,000 to contribute to the bill’s reporting requirement which is also expected to be absorbed within existing resources.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/17)

California Association of School Business Officials

California Association of Suburban School Districts

California School Boards Association

Central Valley Education Coalition

Coalition for Adequate School Housing

Los Angeles Unified School District

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

Small School Districts’ Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/11/17)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/30/17

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chau, Chen, Choi, Eggman

Prepared by:

9/11/17 20:07:33

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 203

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/21/17

AYES: Allen, Galgiani, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Wilk

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/17

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/30/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to (1) ensure its standards for designing and constructing school facilities provide district flexibility, (2) work with the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to ensure regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board (SAB) provide district flexibility, and (3) develop strategies to assist small school districts with their school facilities projects. Further, the bill requires CDE, the Division of the State Architect (DSA), and OPSC to report on how to streamline the school facility funding application process.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, the SAB to allocate to applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction and modernization of school facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental funding for site development and acquisition.
2. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district unless the applicant school district has certified to the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the CDE that the site selection, and the building plans and specifications, comply with the standards adopted by CDE.
3. Requires CDE to establish standards for use by a school district in the selection of schoolsites and standards to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.
4. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district that has not received approval from DSA that the project meets Field Act requirements.
5. Requires DSA, under the police power of the state, to supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply with existing law and Title 24 regulations.

This bill:

1. Requires the CDE to establish standards for use by school districts and to develop regulation that ensure the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. Further, CDE would be required to collaborate with the OPSC to develop regulations for consideration by the SAB that are aligned.
2. Requires CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts, those with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance, with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. Specifies that the strategies may include informing the districts of how to receive the approval required for school construction, including the requirements of the DSA and how to secure state funding, including from the state bond funds made available through the School Facility Program.
3. Requires, on or before July 1, 2018, CDE, DSA, and OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:
   1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required for their applications.
   2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. In February 2017, the Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on how the school construction and school facilities funding processes could be streamlined. According to the author, “The hearing highlighted several common themes. Speakers talked about the need to provide technical assistance to small school districts, and expressed frustrations over how long it takes to receive state agency approvals and the amount of duplicative information required by each agency.”
2. The School Facility Program. The state created the School Facility Program (SFP) in 1998 in response to concerns about the complexity of the Lease-Purchase Program, its immediate predecessor. The SFP has two core programs: new construction and modernization. For both programs, the state provides per-student grants to participating school districts, with school districts required to provide local matching funds. The state also has created a number of smaller facilities programs to fund other state priorities, including charter schools, seismic upgrades, reducing overcrowding, and energy-efficient schools. The SFP is administered by OPSC, with bond funds being overseen by the SAB, a 10-member body. The OPSC processes applications for the program, subject to approval by the SAB, on a first-come, first-served basis. School districts are required to submit specific projects for approval by several state agencies to receive state funding, including the CDE, the DSA, the OPSC, and local agencies, which can take several years.

Since 1998, voters have approved approximately $42 billion in statewide general obligation bonds—including $7 billion approved by Proposition 51 in November 2016—to construct or renovate public school classrooms used by the state’s roughly six million elementary, middle and high school students. In addition to general obligation bonds, school districts may use developer fees, local bonds, certificates of participation, and Mello‑Roos bonds to construct additional classrooms or renovate existing classrooms.

1. Governor has been calling for program reform since 2013. Beginning with his 2013-14 proposed budget, the Governor has been critical of the state’s school facilities program, stating “…now is an appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities funding.” Along with rising debt service costs supported by the state’s general fund, the budget summary cited that “The current School Facilities Program is overly complex and administered by multiple control agencies with fragmented responsibilities. The current program is also largely state-driven, restricting local flexibility and control.”

Each of the 2014-15 through 2016-17 proposed budgets continued to cite concerns and request that stakeholders come together to design significant reforms addressing each of the Governor’s concerns. However, in November 2016, before the Governor and the Legislature could come to an agreement on a new program, Proposition 51 was passed by the voters. The measure authorizes $7 billion of new general obligation bonds for the state’s existing program as its statutes read on January 1, 2015.

1. Small school district facilities challenges. Small school districts face additional challenges compared to medium or large-sized districts in navigating the school construction and facility funding processes. The state’s school facilities program funds projects on a first-come, first-served basis, which tends to favor large school districts with dedicated facilities personnel. In many small school districts, facilities may be handled by the district superintendent, who may also be the principal of a school. Additionally, when passing local bonds for the state program’s required matching funds, smaller school districts tend to pay more in bond issuance costs.
2. Charter schools also face unique facilities challenges. Within the state’s facilities funding system, charter schools can face unique challenges, because: (a) unlike school districts, they cannot independently issue local general obligation bonds to finance their facility needs, (b) many are start-ups lacking access to public school facilities, resulting in the charter school leasing space in office buildings and other commercial sites, and (c) lending institutions tend to view charter schools as high-risk investments, making it difficult to obtain the loans necessary to finance school facilities. While a number of statutory measures have aimed to address these challenges, charter advocates claim that an inadequate supply of school facilities may be the single largest stumbling block to the growth of charter schools. Would charter schools also benefit from strategies being developed by the State to assist with obtaining school facilities funding and pursuing school construction projects? If so, should these strategies be developed by the CDE, or a separate agency involved with charter school facilities, such as the OPSC or the California School Finance Authority?

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The CDE indicates ongoing General Fund costs of $60,000 to provide technical support to small school districts and additional one-time General Fund costs of $75,000 to complete the bill’s reporting requirement.
• OPSC estimates approximately $31,000 to draft the regulations required by this bill and $14,000 for the reporting requirement. However, these costs are expected to be absorbed within existing resources.
• The DSA anticipates $10,000 to contribute to the bill’s reporting requirement which is also expected to be absorbed within existing resources.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/31/17)

California Association of School Business Officials

California Association of Suburban School Districts

California School Boards Association

Central Valley Education Coalition

Coalition for Adequate School Housing

Los Angeles Unified School District

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

Small School Districts’ Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/31/17)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/30/17

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chau, Chen, Choi, Eggman

Prepared by:

9/3/17 18:18:26

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 203 (O'Donnell) - School facilities: design and construction

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to ensure that its standards for designing and constructing school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities and to adopt regulations that allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities. This bill also requires CDE to collaborate with the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) on the development of these regulations. Further, this bill requires the CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts with their school facilities projects.

Fiscal Impact:

• The CDE indicates ongoing General Fund costs of $60,000 to provide technical support to small school districts and additional one-time General Fund costs of $75,000 to complete the bill’s reporting requirement.
• OPSC estimates approximately $31,000 to draft the regulations required by this measure and $14,000 for the reporting requirement. However, these costs are expected to be absorbed within existing resources.
• The Division of the State Architect anticipates $10,000 to contribute to the bill’s reporting requirement which is also expected to be absorbed within existing resources.

Background:

Existing law establishes the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, whereby the SAB allocates to applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction and modernization of school facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental funding for site development and acquisition.

Existing law prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district unless the applicant school district has certified to the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the CDE that the site selection, and the building plans and specifications, comply with the standards adopted by CDE. Further, it requires the CDE to establish standards for use by a school district in the selection of schoolsites and standards to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety. The law also prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district that has not received approval from DSA that the project meets Field Act requirements.

Existing law requires the DSA, under the police power of the state, to supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply with existing law and Title 24 regulations.

Proposed Law:

This bill requires the CDE to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities. This bill also requires the CDE to collaborate with OPSC on the development of regulations for consideration by the SAB to align the School Facility Program regulations to those developed by CDE that allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities.

This bill requires CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts, those with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance, with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. These strategies may include informing the districts of how to receive the approval required for school construction, including the requirements of the DSA and how to secure state funding, including from the state bond funds made available through the School Facility Program.

Further, this bill requires, on or before July 1, 2018, the CDE, DSA, and OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:

1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required for their applications.
2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 21, 2017

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to (1) ensure its standards for designing and constructing school facilities provide district flexibility, (2) work with the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to ensure regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board (SAB) provide district flexibility, and (3) develop strategies to assist small school districts with their school facilities projects. Further, the bill requires CDE, the Division of the State Architect (DSA), and OPSC to report on how to streamline the school facility funding application process.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, the SAB to allocate to applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction and modernization of school facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental funding for site development and acquisition.
2. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district unless the applicant school district has certified to the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the CDE that the site selection, and the building plans and specifications, comply with the standards adopted by CDE.
3. Requires CDE to establish standards for use by a school district in the selection of schoolsites and standards to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.
4. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district that has not received approval from DSA that the project meets Field Act requirements.
5. Requires DSA, under the police power of the state, to supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply with existing law and Title 24 regulations.

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities and requires CDE to work with the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) to ensure that regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board (SAB) allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities.
2. Requires CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts, those with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance, with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. Specifies that the strategies may include informing the districts of how to receive the approval required for school construction, including the requirements of the Division of the State Architect (DSA) and how to secure state funding, including from the state bond funds made available through the School Facility Program.
3. Requires, on or before July 1, 2018, CDE, DSA, and OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:
   1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required for their applications.
   2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. In February 2017, the Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on how the school construction and school facilities funding processes could be streamlined. According to the author, “The hearing highlighted several common themes. Speakers talked about the need to provide technical assistance to small school districts, and expressed frustrations over how long it takes to receive state agency approvals and the amount of duplicative information required by each agency.”
2. The School Facility Program. The state created the School Facility Program (SFP) in 1998 in response to concerns about the complexity of the Lease-Purchase Program, its immediate predecessor. The SFP has two core programs: new construction and modernization. For both programs, the state provides per-student grants to participating school districts, with school districts required to provide local matching funds. The state also has created a number of smaller facilities programs to fund other state priorities, including charter schools, seismic upgrades, reducing overcrowding, and energy-efficient schools. The SFP is administered by OPSC, with bond funds being overseen by the SAB, a ten member body. The OPSC processes applications for the program, subject to approval by the SAB, on a first-come, first-served basis. School districts are required to submit specific projects for approval by several state agencies to receive state funding, including the California Department of Education (CDE), the Division of the State Architect (DSA), the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and local agencies, which can take several years.

Since 1998, voters have approved approximately $42 billion in statewide general obligation bonds—including $7 billion approved by Proposition 51 in November 2016—to construct or renovate public school classrooms used by the state’s roughly six million elementary, middle and high school students. In addition to general obligation bonds, school districts may use developer fees, local bonds, certificates of participation, and Mello‑Roos bonds to construct additional classrooms or renovate existing classrooms.

1. Governor has been calling for program reform since 2013. Beginning with his 2013-14 proposed budget, the Governor has been critical of the state’s school facilities program, stating “…now is an appropriate time to engage in a dialogue on the future of school facilities funding.” Along with rising debt service costs supported by the state’s general fund, the budget summary cited that “The current School Facilities Program is overly complex and administered by multiple control agencies with fragmented responsibilities. The current program is also largely state-driven, restricting local flexibility and control.”

Each of the 2014-15 through 2016-17 proposed budgets continued to cite concerns and request that stakeholders come together to design significant reforms addressing each of the Governor’s concerns. However, in November 2016, before the Governor and the Legislature could come to an agreement on a new program, Proposition 51 was passed by the voters. The measure authorizes $7 billion of new general obligation bonds for the state’s existing program as its statutes read on January 1, 2015.

1. Small school district facilities challenges. Small school districts face additional challenges compared to medium or large-sized districts in navigating the school construction and facility funding processes. The state’s school facilities program funds projects on a first-come, first-served basis, which tends to favor large school districts with dedicated facilities personnel. In many small school districts, facilities may be handled by the district superintendent, who may also be the principal of a school. Additionally, when passing local bonds for the state program’s required matching funds, smaller school districts tend to pay more in bond issuance costs.
2. Charter schools also face unique facilities challenges. Within the state’s facilities funding system, charter schools can face unique challenges, because: (1) unlike school districts, they cannot independently issue local general obligation bonds to finance their facility needs, (2) many are start-ups lacking access to public school facilities, resulting in the charter school leasing space in office buildings and other commercial sites, and (3) lending institutions tend to view charter schools as high-risk investments, making it difficult to obtain the loans necessary to finance school facilities. While a number of statutory measures have aimed to address these challenges, charter advocates claim that an inadequate supply of school facilities may be the single largest stumbling block to the growth of charter schools. Would charter schools also benefit from strategies being developed by the State to assist with obtaining school facilities funding and pursuing school construction projects? If so, should these strategies be developed by the California Department of Education (CDE), or a separate agency involved with charter school facilities, such as the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) or the California School Finance Authority?
3. Flexibility in the design and construction standards for school districts. This bill requires CDE to “work with” OPSC to ensure that regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board (SAB) allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities. As currently drafted, it is unclear what specific role is envisioned for CDE in the regulatory process and whether this bill requires new regulations to be adopted by the State Allocation Board related to district flexibility. In its January 2014 report, the SAB’s Program Review Subcommittee expressed concern that the current program model does not allow for flexibility in designing different types of learning areas. If it is the desire of the Committee to pass this measure, staff recommends that the bill be amended to delete the requirement of CDE to work with OPSC and, instead, require: (1) CDE to develop and adopt regulations allowing for the funding of flexible instructional facilities, and (2) CDE to collaborate with OPSC on the development of regulations for consideration by the SAB to align the School Facility Program regulations to those developed by CDE.
4. Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill will create the following state costs:
   1. Approximately $50,000 in on-going costs to CDE to provide technical support to small school districts, and one-time costs of $62,000 to complete and submit a report to the Legislature.
   2. OPSC estimates $31,000 to draft regulation amendments and $14,000 to contribute to the report to the Legislature. The OPSC believes these cost can be absorbed in the current year.
   3. Division of the State Architect (DSA), anticipates $10,000 in costs to participate in discussions and contribute to the Legislature’s report. DSA believes these costs are absorbable within the current year.

SUPPORT

California Association of School Business Officials

California Association of Suburban School Districts

California School Boards Association

Central Valley Education Coalition

Coalition for Adequate School Housing

Los Angeles Unified School District

Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

Small School Districts’ Association

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 203

Author:(O'Donnell)

As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), in establishing standards for school facilities, to provide school districts with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities and to develop strategies to assist small school districts in navigating the school construction and funding processes. Requires CDE, the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the Division of State Architect (DSA) to report to the Legislature on how their respective applications can be better aligned. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CDE to ensure that the standards for design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities and requires the CDE to work with the OPSC to ensure that regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board (SAB) allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities.
2. Requires the CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. Specifies that the strategies may include informing the districts of how to receive the approval required for school construction, including the requirements of the DSA and how to secure state funding, including from the state bond funds made available through the School Facility Program (SFP).
3. Defines "small school district" as a school district with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance (ADA).
4. Requires, on or before July 1, 2018, the CDE, DSA, and the OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:
   1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required of their applications.
   2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.
5. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to identify ways to streamline the school construction process, assist small school districts to navigate the entities and requirements relating to state bond funding, and allow school districts to design classrooms that accommodate 21st century learning. Further states the intent of the Legislature for the three main state entities involved in the School Facility Program – the CDE, DSA and OPSC – to work together to streamline their application processes to avoid duplicative information being required of their applications.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Approximately $50,000 in on-going costs to CDE to provide technical support to small school districts, and one-time costs of $62,000 to complete and submit a report to the Legislature.
2. OPSC estimates $31,000 to draft regulation amendments and $14,000 to contribute to the report to the Legislature. The OPSC believes these cost can be absorbed in the current year.
3. DSA anticipates $10,000 in costs to participate in discussions and contribute to the Legislatures report. DSA believes these costs are absorbable within the current year.

COMMENTS: Background. The construction and modernization of public kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) facilities are funded by a combination of state and local general obligation (GO) bonds, developer's fees and local assessments such as Mello Roos community facilities districts. California voters have approved $42.4 billion in state GO bonds since 1998 for the SFP, including $7 billion for K-12 and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities approved by voters last November through Proposition 51.

The SAB, a ten member body, oversees state bond funds administered by the OPSC. Constructing a new school or even modernizing schools can take many years. In order to be eligible for funding, local educational agencies (LEAs) must receive approval from several state agencies, including the CDE, DSA and OPSC, and work with local governmental agencies.

The CDE reviews plans to ensure that the proposed site and facility are safe and meet the educational program of the school. All K-14 proposed public school construction and modernization projects must also receive approval from the DSA, which reviews architectural plans for compliance with the Field Act (seismic safety); fire, life and safety requirements; and access requirements under the Americans with Disability Act. DSA grants approvals based on the requirements specified by Title 24 regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, with some exemptions based on the cost of a project.

For a long time, entities involved in school construction and the Legislature have expressed concerns that the process takes a long time, part of which is due to how long it takes to receive approval from state agencies.

In February, the Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on how the school construction and school facilities funding processes can be streamlined. The author states, "The hearing highlighted several common themes. Speakers talked about the need to provide technical assistance to small school districts, and expressed frustrations over how long it takes to receive state agency approvals and the amount of duplicative information required by each agency."

Lack of coordination by state agencies. School districts have long complained of a lack of coordination between the major state agencies involved in school construction and funding. Each requires a separate application that requests similar information to be provided. This bill directs the three agencies to explore the feasibility of using one application, using one common number, using the same technology for submission of application and architectural plans, or otherwise reducing the duplication of information required.

Small school districts. Small school districts, defined as those with 2500 or fewer ADA, face additional challenges in navigating the school construction and facility funding processes. Small school districts may not have facility staff. In many districts, facilities may be handled by the district superintendent, who may also be the principal of a school. Speakers at the Committee's informational hearing supported the establishment of an ombudsman to provide technical assistance to small school districts, or agencies establishing regional offices throughout the state. This bill requires CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts.

Instructional facilities flexibility. Current law requires CDE to establish standards for location of sites for schools and designs of facilities, established under Title 5 regulations. Based on these regulations and regulations adopted by the SAB, the SFP generally funds classrooms that are 960 square foot spaces. Teaching and learning have changed over time. Teachers do not stand in front of a classroom with a blackboard six hours a day anymore. Today, teachers may utilize more project based learning, with students working in small groups, which require larger common areas with movable walls and/or furniture. In 2013 and 2014, a subcommittee formed by the SAB made a number of recommendations to reform and streamline the program. One of the recommendations was to align the SFP and CDE regulations to give LEAs more flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The Governor's proposed 2015-16 and 2016-17 budgets also expressed concerns that the SFP does not provide flexibility, stating, in 2015-16, "The current program does not provide adequate local control for districts designing school facilities plans. Program eligibility is largely based on standardized facility definitions and classroom loading standards. As a result, districts are discouraged from utilizing modern educational delivery methods."

This bill requires CDE to develop standards that allow flexibility in the design of classrooms. The bill also requires CDE to work with OPSC to ensure that regulations adopted by the SAB allow different configurations of classrooms to be funded.

The Central Valley Education Coalition, writing in support of the bill, states, "AB 203 addresses recognized shortcomings in the state's school facilities program, including those faced by small districts. The measure promotes common sense improvements that move the program into the 21st Century by recognizing the need for some flexibility in the design of instructional facilities and in developing a more coherent and efficient project approval process….As state agencies, local school districts and county offices of education gear up for implementation of Proposition 51 and allocation of much-needed funding for school modernization and construction, the program improvements called for in AB 203 are essential."

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0000788

Date of Hearing: May 17, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 203

Author:(O'Donnell) – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the California Department of Education (CDE), in establishing standards for school facilities, to provide school districts with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities, and requires CDE, the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), and the Division of State Architect (DSA) to submit a report to the Legislature on how their respective applications can be better aligned. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities; and to work with OPSC to ensure that regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board (SAB) allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities.
2. Requires, on or before July 1, 2018, the CDE, DSA, and the OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:
   1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required of their applications.
   2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Approximately $50,000 in on-going costs to CDE to provide technical support to small school districts, and one-time costs of $62,000 to complete and submit a report to the Legislature.
2. OPSC estimates $31,000 to draft regulation amendments and $14,000 to contribute to the report to the Legislature. The OPSC believes these cost can be absorbed in the current year.
3. DSA anticipates $10,000 in costs to participate in discussions and contribute to the Legislatures report. DSA believes these costs are absorbable within the current year.

COMMENTS:

1. Background and Purpose. The construction and modernization of public kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) facilities are funded by a combination of state and local general obligation (GO) bonds, developer's fees and local assessments such as Mello Roos community facilities districts. California voters have approved $42.4 billion in state GO bonds since 1998, including $7 billion for K-12 and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities—approved by voters last November through Proposition 51.

Existing law requires the CDE to establish standards for use by a school district in the selection of schoolsites and standards to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety. The DSA must supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply with existing law and Title 24 regulations, known as the California Building Standards Code. State law also prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district that has not received approval from the DSA.

The SAB, a ten member body, oversees state bond funds administered by the OPSC. Constructing a new school or even modernizing schools can take many years. In order to be eligible for funding, local educational agencies (LEAs) must receive approval from several state agencies, including the CDE, DSA and OPSC, and work with local agencies. The CDE reviews plans to ensure that the site and the proposed facility are safe and meet the educational program of the school.

For a long time, entities involved in school construction and the Legislature have expressed concerns that the process takes a long time, part of which is due to how long it takes to receive approval from state agencies. In February, the Assembly Education Committee held an informational hearing on how the school construction and school facilities funding processes can be streamlined. The author states, “The hearing highlighted several common themes. Speakers talked about the need to provide technical assistance to small school districts, and expressed frustrations over how long it takes to receive state agency approvals and the amount of duplicative information required by each agency.” School districts have long complained of a lack of coordination between the major state agencies involved in school construction and funding. Each requires a separate application that requests similar information to be provided. This bill directs the three agencies to explore the feasibility of using one application, using one common number, using the same technology for submission of application and architectural plans, or otherwise reducing the duplication of information required.

1. Staff Comments. According to the OPSC, the Kindergarten Through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016(Proposition 51), as approved by the voters in November 2016, limits the States authority to increase its flexibility in the School Facility Program’s funding structure. According to the OPSC, “changing the framework for the design of educational spaces while the statute governing the funding formula for those spaces is frozen could further complicate an approval process that is already perceived as complicated to navigate.”

Analysis Prepared by: Daisy Gonzales / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 203 (

Author:O'Donnell) – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2017

SUBJECT: School facilities: design and construction

SUMMARY: Requires the California Department of Education (CDE), in establishing standards for school facilities, to provide school districts with flexibility in the design of instructional facilities and to develop strategies to assist small school districts in navigating the school construction and funding processes. Requires CDE, the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and the Division of State Architect (DSA) to report to the Legislature on how their respective applications can be better aligned. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CDE to establish standards for use by school districts to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities provide school districts with flexibility in designing instructional facilities and requires the CDE to work with the OPSC to ensure that regulations adopted by the State Allocation Board (SAB) allow for the funding of flexible instructional facilities.
2. Requires the CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts with technical assistance relating to school construction and the funding of school facilities. Specifies that the strategies may include informing the districts of how to receive the approval required for school construction, including the requirements of the DSA and how to secure state funding, including from the state bond funds made available through the School Facility Program (SFP).
3. Defines “small school district” as a school district with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance (ADA).
4. Requires, on or before July 1, 2018, the CDE, DSA, and the OPSC to submit to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature a report that addresses the following relating to the construction of school facilities:
   1. The feasibility of using one application, or using a common application number, for all three entities. If those entities determine that neither is feasible, how to otherwise reduce duplicative information being required of their applications.
   2. The feasibility of using common software for the submission of multiple applications and architectural plans.
5. Expresses the intent of the Legislature to identify ways to streamline the school construction process, assist small school districts to navigate the entities and requirements relating to state bond funding, and allow school districts to design classrooms that accommodate 21st century learning. Further states the intent of the Legislature for the three main state entities involved in the School Facility Program – the CDE, DSA and OPSC – to work together to streamline their application processes to avoid duplicative information being required of their applications.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, the SAB to allocate to applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction and modernization of school facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental funding for site development and acquisition.
2. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district unless the applicant school district has certified to the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the CDE that the site selection, and the building plans and specifications, comply with the standards adopted by the CDE.
3. Requires the CDE to establish standards for use by a school district in the selection of schoolsites and standards to ensure that the design and construction of school facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school safety.
4. Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school district that has not received approval from the DSA that the project meets Field Act requirements.
5. Requires the DSA, under the police power of the state, to supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any school building to ensure that plans and specifications comply with existing law and Title 24 regulations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Background. The construction and modernization of public kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) facilities are funded by a combination of state and local general obligation (GO) bonds, developer's fees and local assessments such as Mello Roos community facilities districts. California voters have approved $42.4 billion in state GO bonds since 1998 for the SFP, including $7 billion for K-12 and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities approved by voters last November through Proposition 51.

The SAB, a ten member body, oversees state bond funds administered by the OPSC. Constructing a new school or even modernizing schools can take many years. In order to be eligible for funding, local educational agencies (LEAs) must receive approval from several state agencies, including the CDE, DSA and OPSC, and work with local agencies. The CDE reviews plans to ensure that the site and the proposed facility are safe and meet the educational program of the school.

All K-14 proposed public school construction and modernization projects must also receive approval from the DSA, which reviews architectural plans for compliance with the Field Act (seismic safety); fire, life and safety requirements; and access requirements under the Americans with Disability Act. DSA grants approvals based on the requirements specified by Title 24 regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code. However, there are some exemptions based on the cost of a project that are adjusted annually.

For a long time, entities involved in school construction and the Legislature have expressed concerns that the process takes a long time, part of which is due to how long it takes to receive approval from state agencies.

In February, this Committee held an informational hearing on how the school construction and school facilities funding processes can be streamlined. The author states, “The hearing highlighted several common themes. Speakers talked about the need to provide technical assistance to small school districts, and expressed frustrations over how long it takes to receive state agency approvals and the amount of duplicative information required by each agency.”

Lack of coordination by state agencies. School districts have long complained of a lack of coordination between the major state agencies involved in school construction and funding. Each requires a separate application that requests similar information to be provided. This bill directs the three agencies to explore the feasibility of using one application, using one common number, using the same technology for submission of application and architectural plans, or otherwise reducing the duplication of information required.

Small school districts. Small school districts, defined as those with 2500 or fewer ADA, face additional challenges in navigating the school construction and facility funding processes. Small school districts may not have facility staff. In many districts, facilities may be handled by the district superintendent, who may also be the principal of a school. Speakers at the Committee’s informational hearing supported the establishment of an ombudsman to provide technical assistance to small school districts, or agencies establishing regional offices throughout the state. This bill requires CDE to develop strategies to assist small school districts.

Instructional facilities flexibility. Current law requires CDE to establish standards for location of sites for schools and designs of facilities, established under Title 5 regulations. Based on these regulations and regulations adopted by the SAB, the SFP generally funds classrooms that are 960 square foot spaces. Teaching and learning have changed over time. Teachers do not stand in front of a classroom with a blackboard six hours a day anymore. Today, teachers may utilize more project based learning, with students working in small groups, which require larger common areas with movable walls and/or furniture. In 2013 and 2014, a subcommittee formed by the SAB made a number of recommendations to reform and streamline the program. One of the recommendations was to align the SFP and CDE regulations to give LEAs more flexibility in designing instructional facilities. The Governor’s proposed 2015-16 and 2016-17 budgets also expressed concerns that the SFP does not provide flexibility, stating, in 2015-16, “The current program does not provide adequate local control for districts designing school facilities plans. Program eligibility is largely based on standardized facility definitions and classroom loading standards. As a result, districts are discouraged from utilizing modern educational delivery methods.”

This bill requires CDE to develop standards that allow flexibility in the design of classrooms. The bill also requires CDE to work with OPSC to ensure that regulations adopted by the SAB allow different configurations of classrooms to be funded.

The Central Valley Education Coalition, writing in support of the bill, states, “AB 203 addresses recognized shortcomings in the state’s school facilities program, including those faced by small districts. The measure promotes common sense improvements that move the program into the 21^st Century by recognizing the need for some flexibility in the design of instructional facilities and in developing a more coherent and efficient project approval process….As state agencies, local school districts and county offices of education gear up for implementation of Proposition 51 and allocation of much-needed funding for school modernization and construction, the program improvements called for in AB 203 are essential.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Suburban School Districts

Central Valley Education Coalition

Coalition for Adequate School Housing

Los Angeles Unified School District

Small School Districts’ Association

Opposition

None on file

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