(1)The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 2/3 ²/₃ vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election.

This bill would set forth the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $____ to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at an undefined statewide election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election.

(2)Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as 2 of the segments of public postsecondary education in the state.

This bill would require the Trustees and the Regents to comply with certain conditions, as provided, before receiving funds from the 2026 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund established pursuant to the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026.

(3)This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become operative upon the adoption of the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 by the voters at an undefined statewide election.

(3)The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 2/3 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election.

This bill would set forth the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $____ to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the ____, an undefined statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election.

(5)This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become effective operative upon the adoption of the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 by the voters at the ____, an undefined statewide primary election.

(1)The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 2/3 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election.

This bill would set forth the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $____ to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the ____, statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election.

(2)Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to impose, as specified, an alternative fee, charge, dedication, or requirement on developers to fund school facilities, until the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the Preschool-College Public Education Bond Act of 2016 are expended, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier.

This bill would remove this authority beginning the earlier of an unspecified date or the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the 2016 bond act are expended or apportioned, until an unspecified date. The bill would also exempt multifamily housing developments that are located no further than ¹/₂ mile from a major transit stop, and reduce by 20% from specified amounts for any other multifamily housing developments, as specified, from any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, as provided.

(3)This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become effective upon the adoption of the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 by the voters at the ____, statewide primary election.

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 48

Author:(Alvarez)

As Amended Ver:May 29, 2025

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Enacts the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026.

Major Provisions

1. Establishes the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026. Requires the Legislature to prioritize repayment of bonds issued under this bond act from revenue sources outside of the moneys to be applied by the state for support of school districts and community college districts.
2. Creates the 2026 California Community Colleges (CCC) Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee (Committee), created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
3. Creates the 2026 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Committee, created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
4. States the purpose of this measure, in part, includes assisting in meeting the capital outlay financing needs of the CCC, the California State University (CSU), and the University of California (UC), including the development of affordable student and employee housing.
5. Includes the following definitions:
6. "Affordable student housing" means housing for low-income students for which the rental rate is either below the local market rate or the rent could be paid with the equivalent of 15 hours per week of federal work student wages in conjunction with financial aid.
7. "Low-income student" means a full-time student that meets the family income and asset qualifications to receive either a Cal Grant A financial aid award or Cal Grant B financial aid award.
8. Directs the Committee to authorize the issuance of bonds only to the extent necessary to fund the related apportionments for the purposes described in this bill that are expressly authorized by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Pursuant to that legislative direction, the Committee determines by resolution whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds.
9. Conditions the receipt of funding from its proposed bond by requiring the CSU Board of Trustees and the UC Board of Regents to adopt a five-year affordable student housing plan for each campus with specified contents, as well as updated reports for each campus by October 15 of each year. The CSU Board of Trustees and UC Board of Regents must use its affordable student housing plan as a key input in prioritizing projects from campuses it determines are improving, or will improve, access to affordable student housing, in addition to other key inputs.

COMMENTS

Background. Since the late 1980s, the Legislature has placed on the ballot, and voters have approved bonds for public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education every two to four years. Over time, this rate was reduced, bringing us to 2006, when obligation bond Proposition 1D (AB 127, Núñez and Perata, Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), was approved by voters in November 2006, authorizing the sale of $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds of which $3.087 billion was earmarked for higher education facilities. Of this amount, $1.5 billion was provided for CCC facilities, $890 million was provided for the UC, and $690 million was provided for the CSU. All Proposition 1D higher education facilities funds have since been depleted.

This was the last time that the UC and CSU received funds from a statewide bond initiative.

Ten years would pass before the passage of the next statewide general obligation bond, Proposition 51; approved by voters in November 2016. Proposition 51 authorized a total of $9 billion in state general obligation bond funds with $7 billion for K-12 education facilities and $2 billion for CCC facilities.

Of the $7 billion for K-12 education, $3 billion was set aside for new construction, $3 billion for modernization, and $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities.

Due to the Great Recession and the deterioration of the state's fiscal condition, legislation needed to authorize the education bonds was not enacted. Instead, since 2008, the higher education segments have received capital funding from lease-revenue bonds through the Annual Budget Acts; however, these funds have met less than half of the segments' capital needs. Bond funds, whether lease-revenue or general obligation, are allocated through the budget process in accordance with the segments' five-year capital facility plans.

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

Proposition 13 (AB 48, O'Donnell and Glazer, Chapter 530, Statutes of 2019), placed the $15 billion Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 on the March 2020 statewide ballot. California voters did not adopt Proposition 13 during the Statewide Primary Election on March 3, 2020; the provisions did not take effect.

Lastly, Proposition 2 (AB 247, Muratsuchi and Mike Fong, et al., Chapter 81, Statutes of 2024), placed the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 in the amount of $10 billion on the November 2024 statewide ballot.

Summary of Capital Needs. The CCC. The 2025-26 Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan (Five-Year Plan) for the CCC covers the period from 2025-26 through 2029-30, and totals $28.3 billion. This amount includes $5.7 billion for construction of new facilities for enrollment growth and $22.6 billion for modernization of existing facilities.

In addition to capital facility needs, the CCC has deferred needs to future years totaling $5.2 billion. This amount includes $628 million of out-year costs for continuing phases of projects started within the Five-Year Plan period and $4.5 billion carried over into subsequent plan years, primarily for modernization projects.

Currently, the total unmet facilities needs for the CCC are approximately $33.5 billion for the five-year period of this plan.

The CSU. The primary objective of the Five-Year Plan for the CSU is to provide facilities appropriate to the CSU's approved educational programs to create environments conducive to learning, and to ensure that the quality and quantity of facilities at the 23 campuses serve the students equally well. The campuses and the CSU Office of the Chancellor have enlisted broad participation by administrators, faculty, and students in the development of the Five-Year Plan.

The CSU has an aging infrastructure in dire need of renovation and replacement, with more than half of the CSU facility spaces being 40 years or older and a third being over 50 years old. The CSU's Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan reflects more than $23.9 billion in academic and self-support infrastructure projects and $7 billion in critical facilities renewal needs.

Between 2017-18 to 2022-23, the CSU backlog for academic facilities and infrastructure grew by $2.4 billion or 60%.

The UC. The 2023-29 Capital Financial Plan (CFP) has been developed based on the needs at each UC location for buildings and other physical infrastructure to achieve the following overarching plans:

1. Strategic and Academic Plans that define priority areas and goals and other institutional aspirations.
2. Physical Design Frameworks that identify planning principles and objectives for the design of the physical environment.
3. Long Range Development Plans, as approved by the UC Regents, that guide future physical planning and describe the proposed future development of the campuses and medical centers.

The CFP presents proposed capital projects, public private partnerships, and the acquisition of real property that support these plans. The CFP identifies $30 billion in funding to meet UC's most urgent capital needs over this year and the next five fiscal years (through 2028-29). The campuses and medical centers have identified over $46 billion of capital need that does not have a funding plan.

Further, this state bond adds student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure. According to various stakeholders, while they support student housing grant programs, it may not be judicious to include affordable student and employee housing to a state bond unless adequate polling demonstrates that it will be a net benefit to the proposal.

Please refer the Assembly Committee on Higher Education Committee's policy analysis for further discussion.

According to the Author

According to the author, "AB 48 is a critical investment in California's future. By addressing the urgent infrastructure and housing crises plaguing public higher education, this bill safeguards students, promotes equity, and strengthens communities. Outdated facilities riddled with seismic risks, lead-contaminated water, and hazardous materials endanger the health and safety of students and educators. Meanwhile, skyrocketing housing costs disproportionately force low-income students—many from underrepresented backgrounds—to choose between basic needs and their education."

The author contends that, "AB 48 confronts these challenges head-on. It unlocks funding to modernize classrooms, remove environmental hazards, and expand access to affordable student housing, ensuring campuses are safe, inclusive, and equipped to support learning. By mandating accountability measures like public hearings, audits, and transparent reporting, the bill ensures taxpayer dollars directly benefit those most in need."

Lastly, the author states that, "this legislation is not just about bricks and mortar—it's about equity. Safe, affordable housing and modernized facilities are foundational to closing opportunity gaps and empowering students of all backgrounds to succeed. AB 48 reaffirms California's commitment to accessible, high-quality education as a pathway to economic mobility and a stronger, more equitable society. Its enactment is vital to building a higher education system that truly serves all Californians."

Arguments in Support

According to the Student Senate for California Community Colleges (SSCCC), "AB 48 aims to improve facilities at community colleges and universities by providing bond funding for safety upgrades, disaster recovery, and modernization of vocational facilities at community colleges, while universities will receive investments in health sciences and campus safety. The measure includes accountability through independent audits and public hearings for projects, setting a 5% limit on administrative costs to ensure more funding goes toward infrastructure."

Further, SSCCC contends that, "additionally, it enhances housing affordability by waiving school facility fees for multifamily homes near transit and reducing fees by 20% elsewhere. Institutions will also be required to submit five-year capital plans to prioritize their needs. AB 48 will appear on the 2026 statewide primary election ballot, and if approved, funds will be managed by established oversight bodies with strict transparency requirements."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), "AB 48 would sharply raise the limit on debt issuance by community college districts to 4% of the taxable property of the district. This is unnecessary. The bonding capacity of community college districts rises with the increase in the taxable value of property. In 2024, the rising value of county-assessed property was sufficient to produce a 7.1% increase in property taxes statewide, according to the Board of Equalization. BOE Chair Sally J. Lieber stated in an April 2024 press release, 'Property values statewide have steadily increased year over year since 2011.'"

Additionally, HJTA contends that, "roll values increased significantly across the state in 2024 compared to 2023 values: up 4.85% in Los Angeles County, up 5.41% in Orange County, up 4.17% in Contra Costa County, up 5.39% in Santa Clara County, up 2.12% in San Francisco County, up 5.58% in San Diego County, up 5.75% in San Mateo County, and up 7.11% in Riverside County. Lifting the debt cap in current law would further raise the cost of living for property owners as well as for tenants and consumers, who bear the cost of property tax increases in the form of higher rents and retail prices."

To note, HJTA's opposition to this measure was based on increasing the CCC local bonding capacity. This version of the measure removes CCC local bonding capacity; it is presently unclear if the current version of this measure removes HJTA's opposition.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. Assuming a 2024 statewide general obligation bond of $15 billion, total principal and interest costs of $29 billion ($15 billion in principal and $14 billion in interest). Annual General Fund debt service of $967 million annually beginning in 2026, after all bonds are sold, assuming they are sold in two years. This assumes an interest rate of 5% and a 30-year maturity.

The bond amount assumption is based on the amount of the last K-12 and higher education facilities bond placed on the statewide ballot, described in more detail below.

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.6 million General Fund to the Secretary of State's office for printing and mailing should this bond measure be placed on an unspecified statewide election 2026 ballot. It costs approximately $123,000 per page for printing costs related to the Voter Information Guide and the text of proposed laws for each new ballot measure.
2. Minor, ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the low thousands of dollars per community college district (CCD) to gather the necessary information and apply for capital outlay projects.
3. Ongoing General Fund costs of up to $35,000 for the CCC Chancellor's Office to provide technical assistance to districts interested in applying for bond funds.

VOTES

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 6-2-2

YES: Fong, Boerner, Jackson, Muratsuchi, Patel, Celeste Rodriguez

NO: DeMaio, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jeff Gonzalez, Sharp-Collins

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 9-1-2

YES: Haney, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Wicks, Wilson

NO: Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson, Tangipa

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-3-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: May 29, 2025

CONSULTANT: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0000950

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 48

Author:(Alvarez)

As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Enacts the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026.

Major Provisions

1. Increases the local bond capacity for California Community College (CCC) districts (CCD) from 1.25% to 2%.
2. Authorizes CCDs to issue bonds that, as specified, must not exceed 4% of the taxable property of the CCD, as specified.
3. Establishes the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026. Requires the Legislature to prioritize repayment of bonds issued under this bond act from revenue sources outside of the moneys to be applied by the state for support of school districts and community college districts.
4. Creates the 2026 CCC Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee (Committee), created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
5. Creates the 2026 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Committee, created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
6. States the purpose of this measure, in part, includes assisting in meeting the capital outlay financing needs of the CCC, CSU, and UC, including the development of affordable student and employee housing.
7. Directs the Committee to authorize the issuance of bonds only to the extent necessary to fund the related apportionments for the purposes described in this bill that are expressly authorized by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Pursuant to that legislative direction, the Committee determines by resolution whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds.
8. Conditions the receipt of funding from its proposed bond by requiring the CSU Board of Trustees and the UC Board of Regents to adopt a five-year affordable student housing plan for each campus with specified contents, as well as updated reports for each campus by October 15 of each year. The CSU Board of Trustees and UC Board of Regents must use its affordable student housing plan as a key input in prioritizing projects from campuses it determines are improving, or will improve, access to affordable student housing, in addition to other key inputs.

Please refer the Assembly Committee on Higher Education Committee's policy analysis for further discussion.

COMMENTS

Background. Since the late 1980s, the Legislature has placed on the ballot, and voters have approved bonds for public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education every two to four years. Over time, this rate was reduced, bringing us to 2006, when obligation bond Proposition 1D (AB 127, Núñez and Perata, Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), was approved by voters in November 2006, authorizing the sale of $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds of which $3.087 billion was earmarked for higher education facilities. Of this amount, $1.5 billion was provided for CCC facilities, $890 million was provided for the UC, and $690 million was provided for the CSU. All Proposition 1D higher education facilities funds have since been depleted.

This was the last time that the UC and CSU received funds from a statewide bond initiative.

Ten years would pass before the passage of the next statewide general obligation bond, Proposition 51; approved by voters in November 2016. Proposition 51 authorized a total of $9 billion in state general obligation bond funds with $7 billion for K-12 education facilities and $2 billion for CCC facilities.

Of the $7 billion for K-12 education, $3 billion was set aside for new construction, $3 billion for modernization, and $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities.

Due to the Great Recession and the deterioration of the state's fiscal condition, legislation needed to authorize the education bonds was not enacted. Instead, since 2008, the higher education segments have received capital funding from lease-revenue bonds through the Annual Budget Acts; however, these funds have met less than half of the segments' capital needs. Bond funds, whether lease-revenue or general obligation, are allocated through the budget process in accordance with the segments' five-year capital facility plans.

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

Proposition 13 (AB 48, O'Donnell and Glazer, Chapter 530, Statutes of 2019), placed the $15 billion Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 on the March 2020 statewide ballot. California voters did not adopt Proposition 13 during the Statewide Primary Election on March 3, 2020; the provisions did not take effect.

Lastly, Proposition 2 (AB 247, Muratsuchi and Mike Fong, et al., Chapter 81, Statutes of 2024), placed the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 in the amount of $10 billion on the November 2024 statewide ballot.

Summary of Capital Needs. The CCC. The 2025-26 Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan (Five-Year Plan) for the CCC covers the period from 2025-26 through 2029-30, and totals $28.3 billion. This amount includes $5.7 billion for construction of new facilities for enrollment growth and $22.6 billion for modernization of existing facilities.

In addition to capital facility needs, the CCC has deferred needs to future years totaling $5.2 billion. This amount includes $628 million of out-year costs for continuing phases of projects started within the Five-Year Plan period and $4.5 billion carried over into subsequent plan years, primarily for modernization projects.

Currently, the total unmet facilities needs for the CCC are approximately $33.5 billion for the five-year period of this plan.

The CSU. The primary objective of the Five-Year Plan for the CSU is to provide facilities appropriate to the CSU's approved educational programs to create environments conducive to learning, and to ensure that the quality and quantity of facilities at the 23 campuses serve the students equally well. The campuses and the CSU Office of the Chancellor have enlisted broad participation by administrators, faculty, and students in the development of the Five-Year Plan.

The CSU has an aging infrastructure in dire need of renovation and replacement, with more than half of the CSU facility spaces being 40 years or older and a third being over 50 years old. The CSU's Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan reflects more than $23.9 billion in academic and self-support infrastructure projects and $7 billion in critical facilities renewal needs.

Between 2017-18 to 2022-23, the CSU backlog for academic facilities and infrastructure grew by $2.4 billion or 60%.

The UC. The 2023-29 Capital Financial Plan (CFP) has been developed based on the needs at each UC location for buildings and other physical infrastructure to achieve the following overarching plans:

1. Strategic and Academic Plans that define priority areas and goals and other institutional aspirations.
2. Physical Design Frameworks that identify planning principles and objectives for the design of the physical environment.
3. Long Range Development Plans, as approved by the UC Regents, that guide future physical planning and describe the proposed future development of the campuses and medical centers.

The CFP presents proposed capital projects, public private partnerships, and the acquisition of real property that support these plans. The CFP identifies $30 billion in funding to meet UC's most urgent capital needs over this year and the next five fiscal years (through 2028-29). The campuses and medical centers have identified over $46 billion of capital need that does not have a funding plan.

As currently drafted, this measure increases the local bonding capacity. Various stakeholder groups have expressed concerns that this same provision was included in Proposition 13 which the failed March 2020 K-University School bond. The stakeholders believe that this was one of the primary components that led to the bond's defeat. 

State school bonds are not tax increases, as the state uses existing General Fund revenue to pay debt service on the bonds, with no impact on tax rates. However, local bonds do have a direct impact on a voter's taxes. Increasing these tax limits could jeopardize the success of the school bond. Additionally it is unclear why local bonding capacity for CCC was included in this measure, as amended on April 10, 2025. If there are CCC districts that are up against their local bonding capacity limit, it may be more prudent to solve their situation in a separate legislative measure, not a state bond measure.

Further, this state bond adds student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure. According to various stakeholders, while they support student housing grant programs, it may not be judicious to include affordable student and employee housing to a state bond unless adequate polling demonstrates that it will be a net benefit to the proposal.

Please refer the Assembly Committee on Higher Education Committee's policy analysis for further discussion.

According to the Author

According to the author, "AB 48 is a critical investment in California's future. By addressing the urgent infrastructure and housing crises plaguing public higher education, this bill safeguards students, promotes equity, and strengthens communities. Outdated facilities riddled with seismic risks, lead-contaminated water, and hazardous materials endanger the health and safety of students and educators. Meanwhile, skyrocketing housing costs disproportionately force low-income students—many from underrepresented backgrounds—to choose between basic needs and their education."

The author contends that, "AB 48 confronts these challenges head-on. It unlocks funding to modernize classrooms, remove environmental hazards, and expand access to affordable student housing, ensuring campuses are safe, inclusive, and equipped to support learning. By mandating accountability measures like public hearings, audits, and transparent reporting, the bill ensures taxpayer dollars directly benefit those most in need."

Lastly, the author states that, "this legislation is not just about bricks and mortar—it's about equity. Safe, affordable housing and modernized facilities are foundational to closing opportunity gaps and empowering students of all backgrounds to succeed. AB 48 reaffirms California's commitment to accessible, high-quality education as a pathway to economic mobility and a stronger, more equitable society. Its enactment is vital to building a higher education system that truly serves all Californians."

Arguments in Support

According to the Student Senate for California Community Colleges (SSCCC), "AB 48 aims to improve facilities at community colleges and universities by providing bond funding for safety upgrades, disaster recovery, and modernization of vocational facilities at community colleges, while universities will receive investments in health sciences and campus safety. The measure includes accountability through independent audits and public hearings for projects, setting a 5% limit on administrative costs to ensure more funding goes toward infrastructure."

Further, SSCCC contends that, "additionally, it enhances housing affordability by waiving school facility fees for multifamily homes near transit and reducing fees by 20% elsewhere. Institutions will also be required to submit five-year capital plans to prioritize their needs. AB 48 will appear on the 2026 statewide primary election ballot, and if approved, funds will be managed by established oversight bodies with strict transparency requirements."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), "AB 48 would sharply raise the limit on debt issuance by community college districts to 4% of the taxable property of the district. This is unnecessary. The bonding capacity of community college districts rises with the increase in the taxable value of property. In 2024, the rising value of county-assessed property was sufficient to produce a 7.1% increase in property taxes statewide, according to the Board of Equalization. BOE Chair Sally J. Lieber stated in an April 2024 press release, 'Property values statewide have steadily increased year over year since 2011.'"

Additionally, HJTA contends that, "roll values increased significantly across the state in 2024 compared to 2023 values: up 4.85% in Los Angeles County, up 5.41% in Orange County, up 4.17% in Contra Costa County, up 5.39% in Santa Clara County, up 2.12% in San Francisco County, up 5.58% in San Diego County, up 5.75% in San Mateo County, and up 7.11% in Riverside County. Lifting the debt cap in current law would further raise the cost of living for property owners as well as for tenants and consumers, who bear the cost of property tax increases in the form of higher rents and retail prices."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

1. Assuming a 2024 statewide general obligation bond of $15 billion, total principal and interest costs of $29 billion ($15 billion in principal and $14 billion in interest). Annual General Fund debt service of $967 million annually beginning in 2026, after all bonds are sold, assuming they are sold in two years. This assumes an interest rate of 5% and a 30-year maturity.

The bond amount assumption is based on the amount of the last K-12 and higher education facilities bond placed on the statewide ballot, described in more detail below.

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.6 million General Fund to the Secretary of State's office for printing and mailing should this bond measure be placed on an unspecified statewide election 2026 ballot. It costs approximately $123,000 per page for printing costs related to the Voter Information Guide and the text of proposed laws for each new ballot measure.
2. Minor, ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the low thousands of dollars per community college district (CCD) to gather the necessary information and apply for capital outlay projects.
3. Ongoing General Fund costs of up to $35,000 for the CCC Chancellor's Office to provide technical assistance to districts interested in applying for bond funds.

VOTES

ASM HIGHER EDUCATION: 6-2-2

YES: Fong, Boerner, Jackson, Muratsuchi, Patel, Celeste Rodriguez

NO: DeMaio, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jeff Gonzalez, Sharp-Collins

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 9-1-2

YES: Haney, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Wicks, Wilson

NO: Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Patterson, Tangipa

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-3-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: April 10, 2025

CONSULTANT: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0000762

Date of Hearing: May 14, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 48

Author:(Alvarez) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

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

SUMMARY:

This bill enacts the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026, which authorizes an unspecified dollar amount in general obligation bonds to fund the construction and modernization of higher education facilities of the California Community Colleges (CCC), the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), upon approval by voters in an unspecified statewide election in 2026.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Assuming a 2024 statewide general obligation bond of $15 billion, total principal and interest costs of $29 billion ($15 billion in principal and $14 billion in interest). Annual General Fund debt service of $967 million annually beginning in 2026, after all bonds are sold, assuming they are sold in two years. This assumes an interest rate of 5% and a 30-year maturity.

The bond amount assumption is based on the amount of the last K-12 and higher education facilities bond placed on the statewide ballot, described in more detail below.

1. One-time costs of approximately $1.6 million General Fund to the Secretary of State’s office for printing and mailing should this bond measure be placed on an unspecified statewide election 2026 ballot. It costs approximately $123,000 per page for printing costs related to the Voter Information Guide and the text of proposed laws for each new ballot measure.
2. Minor, ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the low thousands of dollars per community college district (CCD) to gather the necessary information and apply for capital outlay projects.
3. Ongoing General Fund costs of up to $35,000 for the CCC Chancellor’s Office to provide technical assistance to districts interested in applying for bond funds.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 48 is a critical investment in California’s future. By addressing the urgent infrastructure and housing crises plaguing public higher education, this bill safeguards students, promotes equity, and strengthens communities. Outdated facilities riddled with seismic risks, lead-contaminated water, and hazardous materials endanger the health and safety of students and educators. Meanwhile, skyrocketing housing costs disproportionately force low-income students—many from underrepresented backgrounds—to choose between basic needs and their education.

1. Background. The UC and CSU have not received funds from a statewide bond initiative since Proposition 1D in 2006. Proposition 51 in 2016 authorized a total of $9 billion in state general obligation bond funds with $7 billion for K-12 education facilities and $2 billion for CCC facilities. Additionally, in November 2012, California voters approved Proposition 39 to close a corporate tax loophole and increase the state’s annual corporate tax revenues by as much as $1.1 billion. Proposition 39 specified that half of the revenue generated from 2013 to 2018, up to $550 million, should support energy efficiency and alternative energy projects at public schools, colleges, universities and other public buildings, as well as related public-private partnerships and workforce training.

AB 48 (O’Donnell and Glazer), Chapter 530, Statutes of 2019, placed a $15 billion bond, known as Proposition 13, or the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020, on the March 2020 statewide ballot. The measure would have provided $9 billion to improve school facilities and $6 billion for public universities and community colleges. The measure received 47% of the vote and, therefore, did not pass.

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Heredia / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 48 (

Author:Alvarez) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

[Note: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. The analysis prepared by that committee deals with issues that pertain to their jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Education finance: postsecondary education facilities: College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026

SUMMARY: Enacts the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires California State University (CSU) and Regents of the University of California (UC) to adopt a five year strategy plan for student housing for each campus covering the 2026-27 to 2023-31 fiscal years. Each plan shall include all of the following:
2. A description of current student housing capacity, including the number of on-campus housing units, the demonstrated demand for those units, and the availability of off-campus alternatives for students who are denied student housing or are otherwise unable to access student housing. Requires this data to be disaggregated to detail the number of units in demand by, and occupied by, low-income students;
3. The cost of on-campus and off-campus student housing, including how on-campus housing compares to local market rates and the availability of affordable off-campus housing located near the main campus;
4. A description of campus efforts, over the last five years, to increase the availability of affordable student housing to a larger percentage of the campus’ student body;
5. A goal for additional affordable student housing units and a detailed plan for campus efforts within the next five years to prospectively construct, acquire, or develop collaboratively with their local communities, including their local community colleges, additional affordable student housing; and
6. A description of campus institutional aid distribution policies to assist full-time students that meet the family income and asset qualifications to receive either a Cal Grant A financial aid award or Cal Grant B financial aid award to afford student housing.
7. Requires CSU and UC to submit a report to the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Legislature each year beginning in October 1, 2026 for each campus on the progress toward reaching the goals in the strategy plan.
8. Requires CSU and UC to use the campus housing plans in determining how to prioritize projects that are proposed to be funded using bond funds.
9. Includes the following definitions:
10. “Affordable student housing” means housing for low-income students for which the rental rate is either below the local market rate or the rent could be paid with the equivalent of 15 hours per week of federal work student wages in conjunction with financial aid.
11. “Low-income student” means a full-time student that meets the family income and asset qualifications to receive either a Cal Grant A financial aid award or Cal Grant B financial aid award.
12. Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that each campus reflect local conditions, such as the percentage of local commuter students and the availability of affordable off-campus housing located near the campus, when developing the campus’ five-year affordable student housing plan.
13. States that the Legislature intends to address the crisis of school facilities for all California students attending public community colleges and universities in order to:
    1. Upgrade public school facilities for earthquakes and other emergencies;
    2. Provide emergency funding to reopen schools following major disasters, including fires;
    3. Remove mold, asbestos, and other hazardous materials from classrooms and lead from school drinking water;
    4. Repair and replace aging public school buildings;
    5. Provide space for school nurses and counselors to increase student access to health care and mental health services;
    6. Modernize job, career, and vocational training facilities, including for veterans returning from duty;
    7. Construct, renovate, and expand affordable student and employee housing at public universities and community colleges to address critical shortages;
    8. Modernize existing student housing facilities to meet health, safety, and accessibility standards;
    9. Require independent audits and public hearings to provide accountability for taxpayer dollars; and,
    10. Cap administrative costs at 5%.
14. Increases the local bond capacity for California Community College (CCC) districts (CCDs) from 1.25% to 2%.
15. Authorizes CCDs to issue bonds that, as specified, must not exceed 4% of the taxable property of the CCD, as specified.
16. Establishes the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026. Requires the Legislature to prioritize repayment of bonds issued under this bond act from revenue sources outside of the moneys to be applied by the state for support of school districts and community college districts.
17. Creates the 2026 CCC Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee (Committee), created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
18. Creates the 2026 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Committee, created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
19. States the purpose of this measure, in part, includes assisting in meeting the capital outlay financing needs of the CCC, CSU, and UC, including the development of affordable student and employee housing.
20. Directs the Committee to authorize the issuance of bonds only to the extent necessary to fund the related apportionments for the purposes described in this bill that are expressly authorized by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Pursuant to that legislative direction, the Committee determines by resolution whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds.
21. Conditions the receipt of funding from its proposed bond by requiring the CSU Board of Trustees and the UC Board of Regents to adopt a five-year affordable student housing plan for each campus with specified contents, as well as updated reports for each campus by October 15 of each year. The CSU Board of Trustees and UC Board of Regents must use its affordable student housing plan as a key input in prioritizing projects from campuses it determines are improving, or will improve, access to affordable student housing, in addition to other key inputs.
22. Makes funds available to UC and CSU for assisting in meeting its capital outlay financing needs, including:
    1. Construction, reconstruction, and remodeling of existing or new facilities and related fixtures;
    2. Equipping of new, renovated, or reconstructed facilities;
    3. Funding for the payment of preconstruction costs; and,
    4. Construction of off-campus facilities, so long as the respective governing board approved the construction.
23. Authorizes proceeds from the sale of bonds issued and sold for purposes of the measure to be used to fund any of the following at the CCC:
24. Student and employee housing projects on or near CCC campuses, with priority given for affordability and proximity to transit;
25. Construction on existing campuses, including the construction of buildings and the acquisition of related fixtures;
26. Construction of intersegmental facilities; and
27. Renovation and reconstruction of facilities, site acquisition, the equipping of new, renovated, or reconstructed facilities, which equipment shall have an average useful life of 10 years, and to provide funds for the payment of preconstruction costs, including, but not limited to, preliminary plans and working drawings for facilities of the CCC.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Stipulates that the Legislature shall not, in any manner create any debt or debts, liability or liabilities, which shall, singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed $300,000 unless enactment has been passed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house of the Legislature and until, at a general election or at a direct primary, it shall have been submitted to the people and shall have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at such election (California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1).
2. Requires the CCC Chancellor’s Office to prepare a five-year capital outlay plan identifying the CCC’s statewide needs and priorities (Education Code (EC) Section 67501).
3. Authorizes CSU to use up to 12% of its General Fund support budget, less the amount required to fund general obligation bond payments and State Public Works Board rental payments, to fund capital outlay projects, either on a pay-as-you-go approach or to pay principal and interest on university-issued revenue bonds (EC Section 89770, et seq.).
4. Under the State University Revenue Bond Act of 1947, authorizes the CSU Board of Trustees to construct operate and control certain facilities, including student housing and boarding facilities, and to establish charges for use of such facilities (EC Section 90010, et seq.).
5. Under the UC Dormitory Revenue Bond Act of 1947, authorizes the UC Board of Regents to construct operate and control certain facilities, including student housing and boarding facilities, and to establish charges for use of such facilities (EC Section 92400, et seq.).
6. Authorizes UC to use up to 15% of its General Fund support budget, less the amount required to fund general obligation bond payments and State Public Works Board rental payments, to fund capital outlay projects, either on a pay-as-you-go approach or to pay principal and interest on university-issued revenue bonds (EC Section 92495, et seq.).
7. Establishes the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006, authorized $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds, including $3.1 billion for higher education facilities, of which UC received $890 million and CSU received $690 million (EC Section 101000, et seq.).
8. Establishes the Kindergarten Through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016, approved by the voters in November 2016 (Proposition 51), which authorized $9 billion state general obligation bonds for K-12 facilities ($7 billion) and CCC facilities ($2 billion) (EC Section 101110, et seq.).
9. Establishes the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024, approved by the voters in November 2024 (Proposition 2), which authorized $10 billion state general obligation bonds for K-12 facilities ($8.5 billion) and CCC facilities ($1.5 billion) (EC Section 101400, et seq.).
10. Requires the Governor to annually submit to the Legislature, in conjunction with the Governor's Budget, a proposed five-year infrastructure plan, which among other things, shall include the instructional and support facilities needs of the CCC (Government Code Section 13102).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “AB 48 is a critical investment in California’s future. By addressing the urgent infrastructure and housing crises plaguing public higher education, this bill safeguards students, promotes equity, and strengthens communities. Outdated facilities riddled with seismic risks, lead-contaminated water, and hazardous materials endanger the health and safety of students and educators. Meanwhile, skyrocketing housing costs disproportionately force low-income students—many from underrepresented backgrounds—to choose between basic needs and their education.”

The author contends that, “AB 48 confronts these challenges head-on. It unlocks funding to modernize classrooms, remove environmental hazards, and expand access to affordable student housing, ensuring campuses are safe, inclusive, and equipped to support learning. By mandating accountability measures like public hearings, audits, and transparent reporting, the bill ensures taxpayer dollars directly benefit those most in need.”

Lastly, the author states that, “this legislation is not just about bricks and mortar—it’s about equity. Safe, affordable housing and modernized facilities are foundational to closing opportunity gaps and empowering students of all backgrounds to succeed. AB 48 reaffirms California’s commitment to accessible, high-quality education as a pathway to economic mobility and a stronger, more equitable society. Its enactment is vital to building a higher education system that truly serves all Californians.”

Student Housing Need: California’s housing crisis is a half-century in the making. ^[1] After decades of underproduction, supply is far behind need and housing and rental costs are soaring. As a result, millions of Californians must make hard decisions about paying for housing at the expense of food, health care, child care, and transportation, directly impacting the quality of life in the state. One in three households in the state doesn’t earn enough money to meet their basic needs. In 2024, over 187,000 Californians experienced homelessness on a given night.^[2]

To meet this housing need, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined that California must plan for more than 2.5 million new homes, and no less than one million of those homes must be affordable to lower-income households, in the 6^th Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). By contrast, housing production in the past decade has been under 100,000 units per year – including less than 10,000 units of affordable housing per year.^[3]

A recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) shows that students spend more on housing than tuition while attending public university.^[4] While public colleges have made significant efforts to house students on campus in recent years, the vast majority of California’s college students still rely on a limited number of increasingly unaffordable and inaccessible off-campus housing units available through the private market.

According to a 2023 survey from the California Student Aid Commission, a majority of California college students experience rent burdens and housing insecurity due to high housing costs.^[5] Nearly 24% of CCC, 11% of CSU, and 8% of UC students are unable to keep up with the high cost of housing and are forced into homelessness in a given year.^[6] The largest representative study of homelessness since the 1990s found that the most common reason for leaseholders leaving their last housing was economic.^[7]

Student Housing: All three of the higher education segments operate self‑supporting facilities. Both UC and CSU have longstanding student housing programs with all of their campuses offering some housing. Most community colleges do not offer student housing. Student housing is financed using general obligation bonds or fee-revenue bonds. To get a self‑supported student housing project approved, a CSU or UC campus develops a proposal and submits it for board approval at the system level. A CSU campus submits a new student housing project proposal to the CSU Chancellor’s Office. A UC campus submits its housing proposals to the UC Office of the President for approval by the UC Board of Regents. A community college submits its proposal to its local governing board, with no approval required by the system wide Board of Governors. Proposals are reviewed to determine if they are financially viable. The revenue from rent payments must be sufficient to cover the cost of the debt service and the rents must be affordable enough for students to pay. At the universities, CSU and UC may sell university bonds. Community colleges may sell local general obligation bonds or lease revenue bonds. Campuses across all three segments also may engage in public‑private partnerships.

UC houses the greatest share of its students (more than one‑third). Among UC campuses, the share of students housed in fall 2022 ranged from 21% (at the Berkeley campus) to 49% (at the Los Angeles campus). At CSU, the number of on‑campus beds system wide equated to 13% of all students in fall 2022, with the share ranging from 4% (at the Fresno campus) to 50% (at the Sonoma campus).

At CCC, the number of on‑campus beds systemwide in fall 2022 equated to less than 0.5% of CCC headcount. Of the 12 colleges that have on‑campus housing, beds as a share of headcount ranged from 0.7% (at the Sierra campus) to 17% (at the Feather River campus). Compared to UC students, students at CSU and CCC are much more likely to live at home with families or in off‑campus housing.

In 2019‑20, the state provided all three segments with ongoing General Fund augmentations to create rapid rehousing programs in partnership with community organizations. As of 2022‑23, the state provided a total of $29 million ongoing ($19 million Proposition 98 General Fund and $10 million non‑Proposition 98 General Fund) for these programs. These programs provide students who are homeless or at risk of homelessness with various services, including case management, emergency housing, and emergency grants. Beyond rapid rehousing programs, all three public segments also have received ongoing state funds in recent years to address students’ basic needs, including food and housing insecurity.

In addition to these ongoing program expansions, the state provided a substantial amount of one‑time funding two years ago for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant program. As part of the 2022‑23 budget agreement, the state provided a total of $1.5 billion one‑time non‑Proposition 98 General Fund for the first round of student housing grants. $565 million was provided for CCC projects, $498 million for CSU projects, and $389 million for UC projects. The funding supported 25 student housing construction projects across the three segments—11 CCC projects, eight CSU projects, five UC projects, and one intersegmental CCC/CSU project. The program also funded 75 community college planning grants.

Past Higher Education Bonds: Since the late 1980s, the Legislature has placed on the ballot and voters have approved bonds for public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education every two to four years. The last bond with funds for UC and CSU approved by the voters, Proposition 1D (AB 127, Núñez and Perata, Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), authorized $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds of which $3.087 billion was earmarked for higher education facilities. Of this amount, $1.5 billion was provided for CCC facilities, $890 million was provided for the UC, and $690 million was provided for the CSU. All Proposition 1D higher education facilities funds have since been depleted. This was the last time that the UC and CSU received funds from a statewide bond initiative.

Due to the Great Recession and the deterioration of the state’s fiscal condition, no legislation needed to authorize the education bonds was enacted. Instead, since 2008, the higher education segments have received capital funding from lease-revenue bonds through the Annual Budget Acts; however, these funds have met less than half of the segments' capital needs. Bond funds, whether lease-revenue or general obligation, are allocated through the budget process in accordance with the segments' five-year capital facility plans.

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

Proposition 51 was approved by voters in November 2016. Proposition 51 authorized a total of $9 billion in state general obligation bond funds with $7 billion for K-12 education facilities and $2 billion for CCC facilities. Of the $7 billion for K-12 education, $3 billion was set aside for new construction, $3 billion for modernization, and $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities.

Proposition 13 (AB 48, O’Donnell and Glazer, Chapter 530, Statutes of 2019), placed the $15 billion Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 on the March 2020 statewide ballot. California voters did not approve Proposition 13 during the Statewide Primary Election on March 3, 2020.

Lastly, Proposition 2 (AB 247, Muratsuchi and Mike Fong, Chapter 81, Statutes of 2024), placed the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 in the amount of $10 billion on the November 2024 statewide ballot. This measure was approved by the voters.

Student Housing Components of College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026: This bill would place the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 with an unspecified amount of funding on a statewide 2026 election to pay for capital projects on UC, CSU, and community college land, including student and employee housing, construction on existing campuses, construction of intersegmental facilities, renovations, and reconstructions of facilities.

UC and CSU would be required to create a five-year strategy for each campus that sets out a goal for additional affordable student housing units and a detailed plan for how to construct, acquire, or develop additional student housing. The plan must include the demand for housing for low-income students. UC and CSU would be required to use the 5-year strategy to inform how bond funds are spent, but are not required to spend a specific amount on student housing. Community colleges could also prioritize student housing from the bond funds but would not be required to develop a five year strategy plan.

Arguments in Support: According to UC, “UC campuses face significant long-term capital needs. Over 60 percent of UC’s over 150 million gross square feet of built space across the system was constructed in the last century. The University last received state GO bond funds in 2006 as part of Prop. The University’s Capital Financial Plan 2024-2030–which provides the system-wide blueprint for developing and maintaining appropriate and necessary facilities–identifies tens of billions in unfunded capital needs in state-eligible education and general facilities within the University. A GO bond for public higher education could assist campuses in developing these unfunded projects with a focus on capacity expansion and student housing to accommodate enrollment increases.”

Arguments in Opposition: According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, “AB 48 would sharply raise the limit on debt issuance by community college districts to 4% of the taxable property of the district. This is unnecessary. The bonding capacity of community college districts rises with the increase in the taxable value of property. In 2024, the rising value of county-assessed property was sufficient to produce a 7.1% increase in property taxes statewide, according to the Board of Equalization. BOE Chair Sally J. Lieber stated in an April 2024 press release, “Property values statewide have steadily increased year over year since 2011.” Roll values increased significantly across the state in 2024 compared to 2023 values: up 4.85% in Los Angeles County, up 5.41% in Orange County, up 4.17% in Contra Costa County, up 5.39% in Santa Clara County, up 2.12% in San Francisco County, up 5.58% in San Diego County, up 5.75% in San Mateo County and up 7.11% in Riverside County. Bond debt burdens taxpayers for decades. In the Los Angeles Community College District, voters approved four bond measures totaling $9.5 billion between 2001 and 2016. The district sought and voters approved another $5.3 billion in 2022. Property owners in the district are currently paying $40 per $100,000 of assessed value for the two most recent bond measures alone, adding $391 per year to the tax bill for a home valued at the average price in Los Angeles, $978,157 (per Zillow).”

Related Legislation:

SB 28 (Glazer) of 2023, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, in part, would have authorized a $15 billion bond measure for the construction and modernization of public preschool, K-12, CCC, UC, and CSU facilities to be placed on the ballot for the March 2024 statewide primary election.

SB 22 (Glazer), of 2021, which was held by the Assembly Committee on Education, would have placed the Public Preschool, K–12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2022 on an unspecified statewide election in 2022. The Bond Act would be for $15 billion.

AB 75 (O’Donnell) of 2021, which was held in the Senate Committee on Education, would have placed the Kindergarten-Community Colleges Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2022 on the 2022 statewide ballot, to be operative only if approved by voters at the election.

AB 48 (O’Donnell and Glazer), Chapter 530, Statutes of 2019: Placed the $15 billion Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 on the March 2020 statewide ballot. California voters rejected the measure during the Statewide Primary Election on March 3, 2020.

AB 13 (Eggman) of 2019 would have placed the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2020 on the November 3, 2020, Statewide General Election. The measure proposed $2 billion for UC facilities, $2 billion for CSU facilities and $3 billion for new CSU campuses. The measure was held in the Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

SB 14 (Glazer) of 2019, which died in the Assembly Rules Committee, placed the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2020 on the March 3, 2020 Statewide Primary Election. The measure proposed $4 billion each for UC and CSU facilities.

AB 2771 (Eggman, et al.) of 2018, which died on the Senate Floor, in part, would have enacted a $7 billion general obligation bond for higher education facilities, to be considered by the voters at the November 2018 ballot.

SB 1225 (Glazer and Allen) of 2018, which died on the Assembly Floor, proposed a $4 billion general obligation bond measure for UC, CSU, and UC Law San Francisco (previously named UC Hastings) to be placed on the November 2018 statewide ballot.

SB 483 (Glazer and Allen) of 2017, which was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, proposed a $2 billion bond for the November 2018 ballot facilities at UC, CSU, and UC Law San Francisco (previously named UC Hastings).

AB 148 (Holden) of 2015, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would have placed the K–14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016 with unspecified dollar amounts on the November 8, 2016 statewide ballot.

AB 1088 (O'Donnell) of 2015, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, authorized an unspecified amount of bonds for school districts, county superintendents of schools, county boards of education, charter schools, the CCC, CSU, Hastings, and UC.

AB 1433 (Gray) of 2015, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, would have placed the Recommitment to Higher Education Bond Act of 2016 with unspecified amounts for higher education facilities on the November 8, 2016 Statewide General Election.

Double-referred: This bill is double referred. It was heard in the Assembly Committee on Higher Education and passed on a vote of 6-2 on April 22, 2025.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Faculty Association

California State University, Office of the Chancellor

Faculty Association of California Community Colleges

Student Senate for California Community Colleges

Opposition

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Analysis Prepared by: Lisa Engel / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

1. California Department of Housing and Community Development, A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan. March 2022, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/94729ab1648d43b1811c1698a748c136 ↑

2. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Point in Time Counts. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html ↑

3. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/housing-challenges.shtml ↑

4. https://www.ppic.org/publication/keeping-college-affordable-for-california-students/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20for%20a%20majority,community%20college%20(Figure%201). ↑

5. https://www.csac.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/food_and_housing_basic_needs_survey_2023.pdf?1700100691&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=California+Democrats+gather+to+pick+favorites+-+and+party&utm_campaign=WhatMatters ↑

6. https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2024/4898/Update-on-Student-Housing-Assistance-050724.pdf ↑

7. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/our-impact/studies/california-statewide-study-people-experiencing-homelessness ↑

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Mike Fong, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 48 (

Author:Alvarez) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

[Note: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development and will be heard by that Committee as it relates to issues under its jurisdiction.]

SUBJECT: Education finance: postsecondary education facilities: College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026.

SUMMARY: Enacts the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026. Specifically, this bill:

1. States that the Legislature intends to address the crisis of school facilities for all California students attending public community colleges and universities in order to:
   1. Upgrade public school facilities for earthquakes and other emergencies;
   2. Provide emergency funding to reopen schools following major disasters, including fires;
   3. Remove mold, asbestos, and other hazardous materials from classrooms and lead from school drinking water;
   4. Repair and replace aging public school buildings;
   5. Provide space for school nurses and counselors to increase student access to health care and mental health services;
   6. Modernize job, career, and vocational training facilities, including for veterans returning from duty;
   7. Construct, renovate, and expand affordable student and employee housing at public universities and community colleges to address critical shortages;
   8. Modernize existing student housing facilities to meet health, safety, and accessibility standards;
   9. Require independent audits and public hearings to provide accountability for taxpayer dollars; and,
   10. Cap administrative costs at 5%.
2. Increases the local bond capacity for California Community College (CCC) districts (CCD) from 1.25% to 2%.
3. Authorizes CCDs to issue bonds that, as specified, must not exceed 4% of the taxable property of the CCD, as specified.
4. Establishes the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide an unspecified dollar amount to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. The bond act would only become operative if approved by the voters at an unspecified statewide election in 2026. Requires the Legislature to prioritize repayment of bonds issued under this bond act from revenue sources outside of the moneys to be applied by the state for support of school districts and community college districts.
5. Creates the 2026 CCC Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Higher Education Facilities Finance Committee (Committee), created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
6. Creates the 2026 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund, and also uses the Committee, created by the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 1986.
7. States the purpose of this measure, in part, includes assisting in meeting the capital outlay financing needs of the CCC, CSU, and UC, including the development of affordable student and employee housing.
8. Directs the Committee to authorize the issuance of bonds only to the extent necessary to fund the related apportionments for the purposes described in this bill that are expressly authorized by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Pursuant to that legislative direction, the Committee determines by resolution whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds.
9. Conditions the receipt of funding from its proposed bond by requiring the CSU Board of Trustees and the UC Board of Regents to adopt a five-year affordable student housing plan for each campus with specified contents, as well as updated reports for each campus by October 15 of each year. The CSU Board of Trustees and UC Board of Regents must use its affordable student housing plan as a key input in prioritizing projects from campuses it determines are improving, or will improve, access to affordable student housing, in addition to other key inputs.
10. Makes funds available to UC and CSU for assisting in meeting its capital outlay financing needs, including:
    1. Construction, reconstruction, and remodeling of existing or new facilities and related fixtures;
    2. Equipping of new, renovated, or reconstructed facilities;
    3. Funding for the payment of preconstruction costs; and,
    4. Construction of off-campus facilities, so long as the respective governing board approved the construction.
11. Authorizes proceeds from the sale of bonds issued and sold for purposes of measure may be used to fund any of the following at the CCC:
    1. Student and employee housing projects on or near CCC campuses, with priority given for affordability and proximity to transit;
    2. Construction on existing campuses, including the construction of buildings and the acquisition of related fixtures;
    3. Construction of intersegmental facilities; and,
    4. Renovation and reconstruction of facilities, site acquisition, the equipping of new, renovated, or reconstructed facilities, which equipment shall have an average useful life of 10 years, and to provide funds for the payment of preconstruction costs, including, but not limited to, preliminary plans and working drawings for facilities of the CCC.
12. Makes technical and clarifying changes to existing law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Stipulates that the Legislature shall not, in any manner create any debt or debts, liability or liabilities, which shall, singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed $300,000 unless enactment has been passed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to each house of the Legislature and until, at a general election or at a direct primary, it shall have been submitted to the people and shall have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at such election (California Constitution, Article XVI, Section 1).
2. Requires the CCC Chancellor’s Office to prepare a five-year capital outlay plan identifying the CCC’s statewide needs and priorities (Education Code (EC) Section 67501).
3. Authorizes CSU to use up to 12% of its General Fund support budget, less the amount required to fund general obligation bond payments and State Public Works Board rental payments, to fund capital outlay projects, either on a pay-as-you-go approach or to pay principal and interest on university-issued revenue bonds (EC Section 89770, et seq.).
4. Under the State University Revenue Bond Act of 1947, authorizes the CSU Board of Trustees to construct operate and control certain facilities, including student housing and boarding facilities, and to establish charges for use of such facilities (EC Section 90010, et seq.).
5. Under the UC Dormitory Revenue Bond Act of 1947, authorizes the UC Board of Regents to construct operate and control certain facilities, including student housing and boarding facilities, and to establish charges for use of such facilities (EC Section 92400, et seq.).
6. Authorizes UC to use up to 15% of its General Fund support budget, less the amount required to fund general obligation bond payments and State Public Works Board rental payments, to fund capital outlay projects, either on a pay-as-you-go approach or to pay principal and interest on university-issued revenue bonds (EC Section 92495, et seq.).
7. Establishes the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006, authorized $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds, including $3.1 billion for higher education facilities, of which UC received $890 million and CSU received $690 million (EC Section 101000, et seq.).
8. Establishes the Kindergarten Through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016, approved by the voters in November 2016 (Proposition 51), authorized $9 billion state general obligation bonds for K-12 facilities ($7 billion) and CCC facilities ($2 billion) (EC Section 101110, et seq.).
9. Establishes the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024, approved by the voters in November 2024 (Proposition 2), authorized $10 billion state general obligation bonds for K-12 facilities ($8.5 billion) and CCC facilities ($1.5 billion) (EC Section 101400, et seq.).
10. Requires the Governor to annually submit to the Legislature, in conjunction with the Governor's Budget, a proposed five-year infrastructure plan, which among other things, shall include the instructional and support facilities needs of the CCC (Government Code Section 13102).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: Need for the measure. According to the author, “AB 48 is a critical investment in California’s future. By addressing the urgent infrastructure and housing crises plaguing public higher education, this bill safeguards students, promotes equity, and strengthens communities. Outdated facilities riddled with seismic risks, lead-contaminated water, and hazardous materials endanger the health and safety of students and educators. Meanwhile, skyrocketing housing costs disproportionately force low-income students—many from underrepresented backgrounds—to choose between basic needs and their education.”

The author contends that, “AB 48 confronts these challenges head-on. It unlocks funding to modernize classrooms, remove environmental hazards, and expand access to affordable student housing, ensuring campuses are safe, inclusive, and equipped to support learning. By mandating accountability measures like public hearings, audits, and transparent reporting, the bill ensures taxpayer dollars directly benefit those most in need.”

Lastly, the author states that, “this legislation is not just about bricks and mortar—it’s about equity. Safe, affordable housing and modernized facilities are foundational to closing opportunity gaps and empowering students of all backgrounds to succeed. AB 48 reaffirms California’s commitment to accessible, high-quality education as a pathway to economic mobility and a stronger, more equitable society. Its enactment is vital to building a higher education system that truly serves all Californians.”

Background. Since the late 1980s, the Legislature has placed on the ballot, and voters have approved bonds for public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education every two to four years. Over time, this rate was reduced, bringing us to 2006, when obligation bond Proposition 1D (AB 127, Núñez and Perata, Chapter 35, Statutes of 2006), was approved by voters in November 2006, authorizing the sale of $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds of which $3.087 billion was earmarked for higher education facilities. Of this amount, $1.5 billion was provided for CCC facilities, $890 million was provided for the UC, and $690 million was provided for the CSU. All Proposition 1D higher education facilities funds have since been depleted.

This was the last time that the UC and CSU received funds from a statewide bond initiative.

Ten years would pass before the passage of the next statewide general obligation bond, Proposition 51; approved by voters in November 2016. Proposition 51 authorized a total of $9 billion in state general obligation bond funds with $7 billion for K-12 education facilities and $2 billion for CCC facilities.

Of the $7 billion for K-12 education, $3 billion was set aside for new construction, $3 billion for modernization, and $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities.

Due to the Great Recession and the deterioration of the state’s fiscal condition, legislation needed to authorize the education bonds was not enacted. Instead, since 2008, the higher education segments have received capital funding from lease-revenue bonds through the Annual Budget Acts; however, these funds have met less than half of the segments' capital needs. Bond funds, whether lease-revenue or general obligation, are allocated through the budget process in accordance with the segments' five-year capital facility plans.

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

Proposition 13 (AB 48, O’Donnell and Glazer, Chapter 530, Statutes of 2019), placed the $15 billion Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 on the March 2020 statewide ballot. California voters did not adopt Proposition 13 during the Statewide Primary Election on March 3, 2020; the provisions did not take effect.

Lastly, Proposition 2 (AB 247, Muratsuchi and Mike Fong, et al., Chapter 81, Statutes of 2024, placed the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 in the amount of $10 billion on the November 2024 statewide ballot.

The chart below depicts the outcomes of the most recent obligation bonds for public elementary, secondary (K-12), and postsecondary (higher education) education facilities:

Summary of Capital Needs. The CCC. The 2025-26 Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan (Five-Year Plan) for the CCC covers the period from 2025-26 through 2029-30, and totals $28.3 billion. This amount includes $5.7 billion for construction of new facilities for enrollment growth and $22.6 billion for modernization of existing facilities.

In addition to capital facility needs, the CCC has deferred needs to future years totaling $5.2 billion. This amount includes $628 million of out-year costs for continuing phases of projects started within the Five-Year Plan period and $4.5 billion carried over into subsequent plan years, primarily for modernization projects.

Currently, the total unmet facilities needs for the CCC are approximately $33.5 billion for the five-year period of this plan.

The CSU. The primary objective of the Five-Year Plan for the CSU is to provide facilities appropriate to the CSU’s approved educational programs to create environments conducive to learning, and to ensure that the quality and quantity of facilities at the 23 campuses serve the students equally well. The campuses and the CSU Office of the Chancellor have enlisted broad participation by administrators, faculty, and students in the development of the Five-Year Plan.

The CSU has an aging infrastructure in dire need of renovation and replacement, with more than half of the CSU facility spaces being 40 years or older and a third being over 50 years old. The CSU’s Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan reflects more than $23.9 billion in academic and self-support infrastructure projects and $7 billion in critical facilities renewal needs.

Between 2017-18 to 2022-23, the CSU backlog for academic facilities and infrastructure grew by $2.4 billion or 60%.

The UC. The 2023-29 Capital Financial Plan (CFP) has been developed based on the needs at each UC location for buildings and other physical infrastructure to achieve the following overarching plans:

1. Strategic and Academic Plans that define priority areas and goals and other institutional aspirations.
2. Physical Design Frameworks that identify planning principles and objectives for the design of the physical environment.
3. Long Range Development Plans, as approved by the UC Regents, that guide future physical planning and describe the proposed future development of the campuses and medical centers.

The CFP presents proposed capital projects, public private partnerships, and the acquisition of real property that support these plans. As summarized in Display 1 (below), the CFP identifies $30 billion in funding to meet UC’s most urgent capital needs over this year and the next five fiscal years (through 2028-29). The campuses and medical centers have identified over $46 billion of capital need that does not have a funding plan.

Committee comments. As currently drafted, this measure increases the local bonding capacity. Committee Staff understands from various stakeholder groups who expressed concerns that this same provision was included in Proposition 13 which the failed March 2020 K-University School bond. The stakeholders believe that this was one of the primary components that led to the bond’s defeat. 

State school bonds are not tax increases, as the state uses existing General Fund revenue to pay debt service on the bonds, with no impact on tax rates. However, local bonds do have a direct impact on a voter’s taxes. Increasing these tax limits could jeopardize the success of the school bond. Additionally it is unclear why local bonding capacity for CCC was included in this measure, as amended on April 10, 2025. If there are CCC districts that are up against their local bonding capacity limit, it may be more prudent to solve their situation in a separate legislative measure, not a state bond measure.

Moving forward, the author may wish to delete all references to local boding capacities and not include it in this state bond.

Further, this state bond adds student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure. Committee Staff understands from various stakeholders that while they support student housing grant programs, it may not be judicious to include affordable student and employee housing to a state bond unless adequate polling demonstrates that it will be a net benefit to the proposal.

Moving forward, the author may wish to work with appropriate stakeholders in order to determine if student and employee housing should remain in the bond proposal.

Arguments in support. According to the Student Senate for California Community Colleges (SSCCC), “AB 48 aims to improve facilities at community colleges and universities by providing bond funding for safety upgrades, disaster recovery, and modernization of vocational facilities at community colleges, while universities will receive investments in health sciences and campus safety. The measure includes accountability through independent audits and public hearings for projects, setting a 5% limit on administrative costs to ensure more funding goes toward infrastructure.”

Further, SSCCC contends that, “additionally, it enhances housing affordability by waiving school facility fees for multifamily homes near transit and reducing fees by 20% elsewhere. Institutions will also be required to submit 5-year capital plans to prioritize their needs. AB 48 will appear on the 2026 statewide primary election ballot, and if approved, funds will be managed by established oversight bodies with strict transparency requirements.”

Arguments in opposition. According to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), “AB 48 would sharply raise the limit on debt issuance by community college districts to 4% of the taxable property of the district. This is unnecessary. The bonding capacity of community college districts rises with the increase in the taxable value of property. In 2024, the rising value of county-assessed property was sufficient to produce a 7.1% increase in property taxes statewide, according to the Board of Equalization. BOE Chair Sally J. Lieber stated in an April 2024 press release, ‘Property values statewide have steadily increased year over year since 2011.’”

Additionally, HJTA contends that, “roll values increased significantly across the state in 2024 compared to 2023 values: up 4.85% in Los Angeles County, up 5.41% in Orange County, up 4.17% in Contra Costa County, up 5.39% in Santa Clara County, up 2.12% in San Francisco County, up 5.58% in San Diego County, up 5.75% in San Mateo County, and up 7.11% in Riverside County. Lifting the debt cap in current law would further raise the cost of living for property owners as well as for tenants and consumers, who bear the cost of property tax increases in the form of higher rents and retail prices.”

Prior legislation. Several bond measures have been proposed since 2006 to fund higher education facilities. The most recent besides those referenced in the Background section of this analysis, include:

SB 28 (Glazer) of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, in part, would have authorized a $15 billion bond measure for the construction and modernization of public preschool, K-12, CCC, UC, and CSU facilities to be placed on the ballot for the March 2024 statewide primary election

AB 75 (O’Donnell) of 2021, which was held in the Senate Committee on Education, placed the Kindergarten-Community Colleges Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2022 on the 2022 statewide ballot, to be operative only if approved by voters at the election

AB 48 (O’Donnell and Glazer), Chapter 530, Statutes of 2019, which was substantially similar to SB 22 (as referenced below), placed the $15 billion Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 on the March 2020 statewide ballot.

California voters did not adopt the measure during the Statewide Primary Election on March 3, 2020; the provisions did not take effect.

SB 22 (Glazer), of 2021, which, was held by the Assembly Committee on Education, would place the Public Preschool, K–12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2022 on an unspecified statewide election in 2022. The Bond Act would be for $15 billion.

AB 13 (Eggman) of 2019, which was held by this Committee, placed the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2020 on the November 3, 2020, Statewide General Election. The measure proposed $2 billion for UC facilities, $2 billion for CSU facilities and $3 billion for new CSU campuses.

SB 14 (Glazer) of 2019, which died in the Assembly Rules Committee, placed the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2020 on the March 3, 2020 Statewide Primary Election. The measure proposed $4 billion each for UC and CSU facilities.

AB 2771 (Eggman, et al.) of 2018, which died on the Senate Floor, in part, enacted a $7 billion general obligation bond for higher education facilities, to be considered by the voters at the November 2018 ballot.

SB 1225 (Glazer and Allen) of 2018, which died on the Assembly Floor, proposed a $4 billion general obligation bond measure for UC, CSU, and UC Law San Francisco (previously named UC Hastings) to be placed on the November 2018 statewide ballot.

SB 483 (Glazer and Allen) of 2017, which was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, proposed a $2 billion bond for the November 2018 ballot facilities at UC, CSU, and UC Law San Francisco (previously named UC Hastings).

AB 148 (Holden) of 2015, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would have placed the K–14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016 with unspecified dollar amounts on the November 8, 2016 statewide ballot.

AB 1088 (O'Donnell) of 2015, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, authorized an unspecified amount of bonds for school districts, county superintendents of schools, county boards of education, charter schools, the CCC, CSU, Hastings, and UC.

AB 1433 (Gray) of 2015, which was held on the Suspense File in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, would have placed the Recommitment to Higher Education Bond Act of 2016 with unspecified amounts for higher education facilities on the November 8, 2016 Statewide General Election.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California State University, Office of the Chancellor
Community College Facility Coalition
Student Senate for California Community Colleges
University of California

Opposition

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

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