Senate Standing Committee on Education

We do not yet have a quorum. We will begin. We might. We might. We do. We do have a quorum. So seeing we do have a quorum, mademoiselle, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Excellent. Quorum has now been established. So welcome Assemblymember Muratsuchi. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much Mister chair. Senators, we have a deal. After two years of working on AB 247, I want to thank the chair for being a joint author of this measure together with Senator Glazer, who introduced the original Senate vehicle for the school bond negotiations.

I also want to thank Assemblymember Mike Fong, Chair of the Higher Education Committee in the Assembly, who is also a joint author and would like, with your permission, Mister chair, to also co present this Bill. And I believe Assembly Member Lori Wilson, the chair of the Black Caucus, will be joining us also as a joint author of this measure. So after many negotiations, we have landed on the following school bond that the speaker and the pro tem have agreed upon.

This bond is proposing $3.3 billion in new construction for schools, 4 billion for modernization. These are all for k through 12. Within the modernization, there is $115 million set aside for lead remediation and drinking water at our schools.

And we also have a set aside of $600 million for career technical education, a priority championed by the pro tem, as well as $600 million for charter schools. This Bill, this proposal is centered on considerations of equity. We wanted to make sure that we achieved the greatest good for the greatest number with those with the greatest need.

To that end, there are three major provisions to address communities that either have the highest percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students and or they may have low bonding capacity, that they may have low property values, more often than not, small rural school districts in the State of California.

So number one, this Bill is increasing the maximum bonding capacity to qualify for the financial hardship program. The financial hardship program is the key program to address concerns about serving districts that have Low bonding capacity and the financial hardship program.

It allows for up to 100% of a facility's needs to be addressed through the state funds that would be provided through this bond. For example, I sit on the state allocation board and just a few months ago we allocated 100% of the school facility costs for the Jacobi Creek School District in Humboldt County.

As one of many examples of how this financial hardship program is designed to address districts that have the low bonding capacity to have with the funds from this bond proposed bond, up to 100% of state funds to cover low districts with low bonding capacity.

In addition to that, we heard loud and clear that many districts, especially the small, again, the small rural districts as well as, you know, urban districts that have the Low bonding capacity to provide technical assistance for these smaller districts that don't have like full time facilities, folks that are necessary to submit these bond applications that will be provided in this Bill.

And last but not least is the sliding scale. The sliding scale provides more money for districts that have higher percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students through a point system where new construction, they can receive up to 55% of state funds to address the overall project costs and for modernization or repair and upgrades, up to 65% of state funds would cover the facility upgrade costs.

I wanted to touch on a few specific areas that this Bill touches upon before I, I turn it over to our joint authors, Assemblymember Fong, as well as Assemblymember Wilson, to present on this first this supplement. The Bill provides for several supplemental grants to address areas of particular needs.

For example, number one, we know that with the budget that we recently passed, that we had to cut out school facilities, funds that were originally set aside in the governor's January budget proposal for transitional kindergarten and early childhood education facilities.

This Bill will provide a supplemental grant, additional funding for the modernization of school facilities in order to make sure that all of our districts have the facilities necessary to accommodate our ongoing efforts to achieve universal access to transitional kindergarten.

Number two, we heard a lot from communities, especially in areas of Los Angeles County, dealing with issues of extreme heat, issues of school greening, the desire to replace asphalt playgrounds with more natural services with more shade in order to address the ongoing realities of climate change. This Bill provides supplemental grants for extreme heat and school greening measures.

It also incentivizes schools to incorporate energy efficiency measures in order to achieve the state's energy goals. And last but certainly not least, this Bill, again, something championed by the pro tem supplemental grants for career technical education so that we're making sure that, that our schools are training our students to meet the workforce needs of the 21st century.

So I'll stop there. There's a lot more details, but I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I'd like to now turn it over to Assemblymember Fong, joint author of AB 247.

Welcome Assemblymember Fong.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon Mister chair and Senators. I'm proud to join chairmer Suchie Laurie Wilson, yourself Mister chair and Senator Glazer as a joint author of Assembly Bill 247. Chair Murisuch has already done a great job in laying out why we need this bond.

As a former trustee for the Los Angeles Community College District, facilities and upgrades to facilities is always a big priority for myself. The California Community College Chancellor's office estimates a $20 billion need over the next few years, and in this bond, $1.5 billion is being proposed for our California community colleges.

The $20 billion needs is not surprising since California's community colleges serve the most number of students in higher education in our state and in fact is the largest public higher education system in the nation. From kindergarten through community colleges.

This bond is needed to ensure that our students are learning in a safe and learning environment that are conducive for learning. We know the need is greater than what is available, but the last bond that was passed was in 2016 and we are now out of funds.

I respect to give voters a chance to support our students and community colleges and schools throughout the great State of California at this time. Now it's my distinct honor and privilege to introduce Senator Lori Wilson.

Mister Chair. Senators, thank you to my colleagues, Assemblymember Muratsuchi and Fong for their continued leadership on this issue. Schools and housing are essential to the well being of local communities and are a key element in the social and economic progress of California.

The state School Facilities Program, also known as SFP, is a program that this bond helps to Fund and it has been a successful partnership between local school districts, the state and the home building community for a quarter of a century. SFP is extremely important to home building in California as the state's contribution is critical to keeping the program funding and not passing on these costs to new home buyers.

Over the years, SFP has been flexible in its ability to adapt to the changing educational needs of our communities and to the economic realities of the times, as emphasis is focused on addressing the needs of disadvantaged communities.

AB 247 responds to this by providing even greater support to disadvantaged and lower wealth communities by doing the enhancing the financial hardship assistance program for districts with Low or insufficient bonding capacity, reducing the required local match and increasing the state share for districts with lower assessed valuations and with higher levels of families that qualify for free and reduced lunch programs providing enhanced support for small school districts, remediating the presence of lead in school drinking water stations, funding the replacement of buildings over 75 years old.

The last successful state school facilities bond the Legislature placed on the ballot was in 2006. It really is time that we all come together, support AB 247 and ensure that voters are fully informed of the pressing need come this November 5.

With us today to testify in support are Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators and Rebekah Kalleen, Executive Director, Community College Facility Coalition.

Welcome Miss Johnson, Miss Kalleen, please proceed when you're ready. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you Mister chair and Members Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators and the more than 18,000 public school education leaders we serve throughout the state, pleased to be in support of AB 247.

We want to start by expressing our sincere appreciation to the authors and co authors for their leadership on this critical issue and the collaboration between the houses to reach an agreement on the language that is before you here today. This Bill provides a necessary framework to ensure students, our teachers and staff have high quality and dependable facilities.

As you heard, for nearly four decades the state has shared the responsibility for building new schools and modernizing facilities with local districts and the developer community to maximize funding and resources. The need for a bond is undeniable and a solution is overdue. AB 247 acknowledges the diversity of our state school districts and their local communities.

It thoughtfully includes supports for small and priority need districts resources to help them secure the funding and make plans for their use in the application and design process.

In addition, AB 247 means more schools are eligible under the fiscal hardship provision to receive the 100% state grant match, despite their inability to provide a local match so more schools will have access to these critical modernization improvement dollars.

It's also important to note that even though there are updates to the school facility program and additional considerations granted in this proposal, it will not upset the current list of projects that are already approved who have been in the queue waiting desperately for funding in closing acts.

Looks forward to our continued collaboration so Californians can say yes in November to save secure, dependable schools where every student can realize their full potential. We respectfully request your aye vote thank you.

Thank you Miss Kalleen

Good afternoon Rebekah Kalleen on behalf of the Community College Facility Coalition in support of this Bill, AB 247 provides $1.5 billion for community college capital outlay projects and we know the need is great. Assemblymember Fong spoke about that. We have already seen $3.7 billion in applications submitted by community colleges that require a new bond in order to be funded.

Facilities are vital to providing hands on job training in fields that meet California's workforce needs today and in the future. This includes jobs like healthcare, nursing, green energy, technology, first responders and more. Facilities are critical to student success. They help increase degree, certificate and transfer rates.

Facilities support student basic needs, providing spaces to access important services like food, healthcare, counseling and financial aid. AB 247 funds the existing capital outlay program for community colleges. This means we prioritize projects that address health and safety first, such as seismic retrofits, utility infrastructure upgrades and more. We then target dollars to modernize, renovate and update existing facilities.

And we also Fund new construction of facilities at campuses that have growth in and their programs. Community colleges are the primary point of access to higher education in California and facilities are core to meeting that mission. This bond will continue and extend that legacy. We thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Thank you for your testimony at this point. Are there any other Members of the public who'd like to come forward and express their support for the measure? So please come to the microphone. Your name, your organization, your position, please.

Mister chair and Members of the Committee, Mike West, on behalf of the state Building and Construction Trades Council in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yuri Calderon, I'm the new Executive Director for the Small School Districts Association in support of AB 247. This Bill has some very good funding enhancements. The sliding scale, the set asides, these are all great things for our small school districts. In particular, the support that it gives small school districts is something that we very much appreciate and are in support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Again, you just name. You're good, you're good, you're good. Name. Organization, Position.

Christina Marcellus, on behalf of the 19 community colleges that make up the Los Angeles Regional Consortium in the thank you.

Good afternoon. Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nancy Chaires Espinoza on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing or CASH, we want to thank the authors, the co authors and the leaders of both houses for protecting the access of all students in California to this critical program and we urge your support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Ian Padilla with the Association of Construction Managers, the County School Facilities Consortia, the School Energy Coalition and one more and the School Facility Manufacturers Association in support. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Mark MacDonald, on behalf of the Antelope Valley, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego Community College districts and support. Thank you.

Xong Lor with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Thank you Mister chair Members Andrea Ball here for three organizations in support, the Central Valley Education Coalition which is a coalition of 128 LEAs in the Central Valley, the Long Beach Unified School District and the Association of Suburban School Districts. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon Mister chair and Committee Members and authors Mishaal Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in support.

Thank you, thank you Mister chair and Members Jeff Vaca representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and support.

Thank you. Next please.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members Carlos Rojas representing the Kern County Superintendent School's office as well as the 46 school districts in Kern County in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Good afternoon. Patty Herrera on behalf of the Corona-Norco, and San Diego Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Ella Conley on behalf of Oakland Unified, in support, thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Linda Vasquez, on behalf of the California Community College Chancellor's office in strong support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California in support

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education and we support the Bill.

Thank you. Next please.

Juano Tamidiano with the Trust in Public Ed ,,,want to thank the author and co authors on this and staff for working very diligently on this issue. In particular, we were very supportive of the language that was included in the Bill related to green schoolyards. So we want to thank the author and everyone else for working hard on this. We're in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Caitlin Jung. On behalf of the San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools, California IT in Education, and the School Employers Association of California in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Afternoon. Stella Johnson, on behalf of Pasadena City College, El Camino College and Santa Monica College in support.

Bella Curran, on behalf of Clovis Unified School District and Elk Grove Unified School District in support.

Hi, Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association and support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dan Dunmoyer, President and CEO of the California Building Industry Association in support of this true partnership. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members John Winger, on behalf of the California Charter School Association, appreciate the set aside for charter schools in getting us closer to equitable funding facilities. We do support the Bill. Thank you. Next please.

Kasia Hunt here with Nossman here on behalf of three organizations, Citrus College, North Orange Community College District, and also. Mount. San Antonio School District as well. Community college, I'm sorry, they call them Mount Sac that's why I'm getting confused. But it's Mount sac, but San Antonio

In my district. Thank you. Well done. Thank you. Next, please.

Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association. Proud to support this Bill today and join the home builders with commercial real estate on this side of things. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's now move to opposition. We should have, I think, two Members of the public to speak in opposition as lead witnesses. Please come forward. Forward. And you can come to the table. And each of you will have two minutes. If you can hand it to the sergeant, he'll bring those to us.

And each of you has two minutes. And welcome in any order you like.

Oh, thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Nicole Gon Ochi and I'm an attorney with Public Advocates. Public Advocates and more than 30 allied equity community based organizations and impacted school districts are on record as opposing AB 247 because it utterly fails to make any meaningful progress on equity, despite what you have heard today.

As study after study has demonstrated, over the past 25 years, California's universal 60% match for modernization funds has delivered more than four times as much state bond funds per student to wealthy districts as Low wealth districts, even with the financial hardship provision in place.

As we explained in the legal demand letter that we sent in February, this system is unconstitutional because it treats students differently based on their wealth, excuse me, based on the wealth of their local school districts. If you have more local wealth, you will get more funding from the state, which violates well settled equal protection principles under the California constitution.

Over the past four months, as reflected in the chart that we have provided you, we and others have repeatedly demonstrated that AB 247's proposed point system will do nothing to reverse the regressive distribution of state bonds, nor will the minor changes to the financial hardship program, which do nothing to address the punitive and burdensome nature of that system.

Instead of making any of the proposed meaningful equity fixes, the current Bill doubles down on maintaining a discriminatory system that distributes most of the funding under the current rules and only offers a nominal increase in state matched dollars to higher need communities in the state. A sliding scale of 60% to 65% is not a meaningful equity adjustment.

This is equity in name and not substance. Moreover, the Bill before you does nothing to change the first come, first serve system that advantages wealthier districts, according to the State Auditor. In short, we absolutely need an education bond. But this bond is not it. We need an equitable bond, not one that says to low wealth communities, from Del Norte to Salinas to Linwood to San Bernardino, that no one cares if students in your communities are educated in substandard facilities.

Voting yes on AB 247 as is is voting yes to continued disinvestment in low wealth communities of color and unnecessarily inviting litigation that could complicate support for the bond. We have presented an easy language fix that addresses the constitutional issue which you have before you. It would provide the wealthiest districts a 5% match based on their ample local resources and the poorest districts up to a 95% state match. Do you have time?

Finish. May I ask you to finish, please?

Yes, you have time to adopt this language before July 3. We urge you to do so.

Thank you. Next witness please. Mister Hardie.

Good afternoon Mister chair and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Gary Hardie, representing the Social Justice Learning Institute and the California Association of Black School Educators and also as a Member of the Linwood Unified School District Board of Education. I appreciate the author and co authors efforts to move towards equity, but we are here today to ask for an even greater investment to address the systemic inequities that are found in some of the language in our current system.

Educational equity is the fundamental right to justice and proportional fairness in education, rooted in the natural law of right that everyone deserves an opportunity to learn and grow. Our current school facilities funding system is perpetuating deep rooted inequities that rob countless students of their potential property.

Poor districts face an uphill battle and struggling to raise matching funds due to low property values, often the result of decades of systemic discrimination under investment in communities of color. This creates a vicious cycle where wealthy districts areas easily can modernize schools while underserved communities are left with crumbling and inadequate facilities.

This isn't just unfair, it is morally unacceptable. The quality of a student's learning environment shouldn't depend on their zip code. Yet that's exactly what the system we have in place persists. We're sending a devastating message to our most vulnerable students that their education and future somehow are worth less.

Climate change is how it's also now exacerbating these inequities where extreme weather events are battering our aging infrastructure. With underserved communities bearing the brunt of the damage from unbearable heat waves to destructive storms, these climate related incidents are widening the gap between well resourced and struggling districts.

I urge this Committee to make equity the cornerstone of AB 247 and adopt additional language that meets the needs of the most in need districts. This is not just about buildings, but about justice, about opportunity and correcting historical wrongs.

And we must create a system where every student, regardless of background or community wealth, has access to safe, modern learning environments that inspire and enable their success. By implementing an equity focused program, we can send a powerful message to all our students future matter equally.

And just in closing, I know I'm kind of rounding because I was jet lagged a fluent from New York a couple hours ago. Just wanted to make sure that it's clearly understand that even in Linwood, we talked about this as a school board.

Whether or not we would put a bond on the ballot, we hesitate to do so because we don't want to further tax our overly cost burden district. We also know that if we don't put a bond on the ballot, then we're sort of left to our own devices to really address our agency.

And I have to ask you to finish up.

So again, just urging the authors, co authors to consider more additional language around equity to ensure that the districts that need the most support receive the support that they need.

Thank you, Mister Hardie. Other witnesses in opposition here in the hearing room, please come forward to the microphone, your name, your organization, and your position.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman. Members. Richard Markson, representing the Western Electrical Contractors Association, the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of California, the California Chapters of the American Fire Sprinkler Association, the Independent Roofing Contractors of California, and the Northern California chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors.

In opposition to the two points given to school districts that adopt a project labor agreement, PLA's cost school districts 15% to 18% for construction cost. It's not necessary in this measure. Thank you.

Welcome.

Hello, Chair and Members. Thank you so much. My name is ... in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, everyone. Allison Osorio with the California Partnership for Future of Learning. In opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Raquel Morales, on behalf of ED Trust west. In opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Any tweeners? Do we have any tweeners here seeing now? Let's come back to the Deus colleagues. Questions or comments? Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

I just wanted to ask the authors if they want to address some of the comments that have been made about equity. And I also want to say that particularly when we look at some of our facilities in places like south central, places like Inglewood, we see how there has not been any true investment in those campuses, which I think does add to the level of absenteeism.

We want to create centers that draw our students, that inspire our students to come back into the public school system. But I am very curious about the concerns that have been raised about equity and where is there? Where do these two proposals intersect, and how are you working with the opposition on this? Sure.

So, first of all, thank you, Senator. You know, we've engaged with Public Advocates as soon as they issued their letters raising concerns about the school bond.

And let me just say, you know, it just breaks my heart that to hear some of the over the top rhetoric that they're using, you know, when they're talking about wealthy districts, they're talking about districts like Los Angeles Unified, you know, with close to 90% unduplicated student count.

The districts that Public Advocates is trying to focus on are the districts that have the lowest bonding capacity, which is why I started off by focusing on the provisions to increase the districts that qualify for up to 100% state funds to cover their school facility funds.

So under Public Advocates proposal, they want districts like Linwood and mostly small rural districts to be able to get most, if not all, of the bond funds that are being proposed in this measure.

And I would say that, with all due respect, if our goal is to serve the greatest good with the greatest number, the greatest number of socio economically disadvantaged students are in those districts that they're calling wealthy districts like Los Angeles Unified, like Oakland Unified, like Long Beach unified, districts that lined up in support of this measure, because they know that they stand to benefit from this school bond.

I absolutely respect Public Advocates and what they're trying to do, and we try to. This is like every statewide initiative, this is a compromise. It's a compromise to make sure that we are providing funding to the large urban districts like Los Angeles Unified, like Oakland Unified, you know, that have these large populations. And Senator, you know, I mean, we both represent Los Angeles.

You know, I think we know that in order to make sure that these local and state funds, you know, get spent, invested in communities like South Los Angeles, you know, that is on the school district, that is on their school board to make sure that they are serving all of their. Their neighborhoods.

But the basic architecture of this statewide school bond measure is to let local districts identify the priorities and the state match the locally defined priorities. I hope that helped answer the question.

If I could echo, please. And then part of my testimony was noting that we do provide greater support to disadvantaged and lower wealth communities. And I think that the advancements that we've been able to make because of the communication received regarding equity, as well as the California Legislative Black Caucus, which you're a part of, noting that any of the bonds have to address the issue of equity, I believe that there was a great deal of job, a great job done in that particular area.

And I note the Committee analysis. There was a question number six, does this Bill enhance equity in school facility funding? The Committee did a great job of showing the ways that this particular bond has improved in comparison to last bonds directly related to that issue.

But also recognizing what my co author and colleague has said is that when you look at there are some smaller rural districts that could feel disadvantage in comparison, but that is to say that there are larger districts that has a definite need. You noted one that has a definite need.

We're not going to have one student benefit at the expense of another student. And so throughout this process, equity is at the forefront, and it runs through it. It's improved.

And I think this does a great job of balancing the fact that wealthier districts have a need for students within their district that are in great need, and then so do our rules. And so I think it balances that need. Thank you.

Thank you. And I just have one follow up question, and this has to do with whenever I see infrastructure investments, I often think about the labor standards and the equity standards. And too often we don't see these dollars as multipliers, meaning we have this money to help balance sort of the socioeconomic disparities in terms of facilities.

But we could also use that money to reach some of those adult ed students to come in to do the actual work on the facilities. Can you say more about the labor and equity standards that are connected? I did see that you saw a number of the trades here in support.

But what about the workforce equity piece and who's actually going to be doing this work, and has that been taken into consideration?

Yes, absolutely. So the point system that I and our joint authors have been talking about, it gives additional point preference to projects that involve project labor agreements. That is the reason why the state building construction trades are in support of this.

We want to recognize that if we are going to be building our schools, fixing our schools with skilled and trained labor, that we want to support and incentivize that by providing additional funding for those proposed projects.

Thank you, and I appreciate that. I think that is a model, and I think there are some advances in the ways that unions are building these agreements to bring in disadvantaged communities like formerly incarcerated, emancipated foster youth, single parents.

We want to make sure that we see that kind of language and the partnership so that all of the communities and all of the districts get a chance to multiply these dollars. So thank you very much for answering the questions and looking forward to supporting.

Thank you, Senator. Let's go now to Senator Glazer.

I have a comment, not question. The needs are great. You've identified them in your testimony today, and I'm certainly pleased to join with you in advancing this Bill for those clear reasons.

And I know these measures are a result of compromises with a lot of different opinions from a lot of different places. But it's important for me to note my disappointment that our higher education institutions, the California State University and the University of California, are not included in this bond.

That is as a point of deep disappointment, given the fact that their facilities are very, very old, plumbing, failing electrical, failing labs that aren't safe. And we could go on and on. And I think the evidence that those systems have been presented to you and to us are pretty compelling to have made the case that any kind of compromise on this education facility bond should have included those institutions. And I'll close my remarks with this point.

They can't continue to have that circumstance and still have a safe environment for our students. The last standalone bond for these four year institutions was in 2006, and their facilities aren't getting any younger. And the warning to me and hopefully to you and others here on the DEus is that who's going to pay for those upgrades when they happen to? And it's going to be the students and their families in the form of tuition increases. That's what's going to happen.

And I'm sure you and others here are aware that the state universities announced earlier this year a 24% increase in tuition over the next four years. And I'm sure nobody up here is happy about that and would have ever voted for it.

But without state support, what are they to do and what are they to do with these facilities that are decrepit on their campuses today if they're not included in bond investments like the Bill that's before us? So that's not a good situation. When these institutions were created in the 1950s and the 1960s, who paid for those facilities?

All of California paid for those facilities. They didn't put it on the backs of the students and their families. We all took a responsibility to pay for these higher education institutions because we knew there how important they were to our people. So it's a state investment that has sustained and built and sustained these institutions.

And I think it's incumbent upon us to continue that promise and that commitment and not have it be on the backs of students and their families. And that's the potential result if we don't give it our attention in years to come, because those institutions are going to come back and they're going to do things, they're going to put it in revenue bonds. And who's going to pay for that? The students and their families. They're going to do other borrowing schemes.

Who's going to pay for that? It's the students and their families. Unless this Legislature is paying attention and intervenes. And I know it's tough when operating budgets are up and down, but investments like with these bonds is what can provide for that.

And if it's not happening this year, I hope that consideration will be given by our great leaders here today in future years. But that's the disappointment. It comes, though, in a very good measure, a strong measure that will do a lot for k through 14, and that's why I'm pleased to support it today.

Thank you, Senator Glazer. Senator Wilk.

Well, Mister chair, I think Senator Glazer talked me out of supporting it. Not really. I just want to thank you for your leadership on this. You and I, along with Senator Newman, sent on state allocation board. The needs are so great.

And I know we've been frustrated because we don't have the funds to disperse to improve these young people's lives. And it is about compromise, and I think you've done a wonderful job.

So I see this list from the opposition on that is one of my school districts, and I will tell you, it's a school district, frankly, that probably shouldn't even be in existence. We have a High School District in this particular region, and then we have six elementary school districts, and it just doesn't make economic sense.

So that's another issue we ought to look at down the road in terms of consolidating districts. But this is as good as you're going to get in this kind of environment with all the things you have to balance from all the competing interests. And happy to support you today.

Mister Chair, if I may through the chair. I wanted to, first of all, thank Senator Glazer for not only championing the school bond cause on the Senate side, but most specifically championing our University of California system and our California State University system.

And, you know, you're hitting a real tough spot in my heart, because, you know, I've always tried to be a champion for our public higher education system. And, you know, ideally, I would have liked to see a higher, a bigger school bond that would have included our University of California, of our California State University.

You know, I'm a proud Cal Bear and UCLA Bruin, and I, I know that, like so many in the State of California, the impact of our UCs and our CSUs are much larger than just the number of students that the two systems combined educate year by year.

And so I know that there were strong arguments made in particular for not only for the deferred maintenance challenges that are UCs and CSUs face, but also, you know, the desire to have student housing funding for our UCs and CSUs. You know, I mean, an ideal world, absolutely. We should have had that in there.

But like you said, I mean, this is a collective, the product of a collective discussion of hard choices that had to be made. I want to give a chance for our chair of higher education, if you wanted to add anything to that.

Thank you so much. Just to appreciate the Senator for bringing that forward. I know that these were very tough negotiations and discussions on the compromise and in terms of the needs of the UC and CSU system, as I think Senator Glazer mentioned going forward, looking at how we can see and assess needs and to really look at the future bonding capacity as well.

I know that there's revenue bonds available, but I know that when we look at this particular bond, as Mister Muratsuchi has mentioned, originally we were looking at $14 billion and now at the 10 billion and at this compromise to really look at these numbers, I think this is the best case scenario at this point.

And so would love to continue to advocate on the issues that we've already laid out here and on our k 14 school facilities bond. But points well taken. Thank you Senator Glazer for your advocacy and leadership in terms of a CSU and UC system and with your measure as well. So thank you.

And I know Senator Ochoa Bogh...

Yes, thank you, Mister chair. So I curiosity because I did up until this year was on budget one and have heard too much concern the needs for the CSUs and the UC. My question lies into one, how and who decided that the 10 billion rather than the 14?

And number two, why did we not include the UC's and the CSUs considering all the concerns that have been mentioned and have been on record with the in committees?

Thank you Senator, for the question. Really, it was about bonding capacity, recognizing we are in a challenging year and none of this money is free. Right. And so there is a debt service obligation related to that.

And so through leadership, it was determined and leadership and the governor's, in consultation with the governor's office that 20 billion would be an appropriate amount for bonds this year. And so there are two bonds going forward. They were thought of three, housing, climate and school facilities.

Because of the budget wins that we were able to get through the legislative agreement with the governor's office, housing did get a restoration of funds and so we went forward with two bonds, climate and education. Both bonds totaled well more than $20 billion. Right.

And so as noted, there was a, you know, $15 billion bond or $14 billion bond on the Assembly side. There was, I think a $16 billion bond on the Senate side of that included higher ed. And then the Assembly side there was about 20 billion worth of climate bonds.

And then there was another $15.5 billion of climate bonds on the Senate side. And so through the full negotiations, determining what were the priorities as it relates to school facilities and climate resilience for California, it was determined a $20 billion bond. And that allowed both sides, both people working on each bond, to narrow to the highest priority.

And as noted when talking about the UC and our CSU system, there is definitely a great need there, but there's also a great need in our k through 14 and ensuring that we start with k 14, which require every young child in California to go through that system to ensure that there was proper resources there, and then tackle the UC CSU requirement or the needs on the next time around. And so that's where the 20 billion came out. And that was part of why the decision was there was made there.

So in those discussions, when you folks decided to prioritize k 12 and not the UC's and the CSUs, what were the conversations with regards to addressing the CSUs and the UC's needs in the future?

Well, there's through our normal budget process, and so everybody has that as a. We know it's a priority. The need has been identified and as well as in future bond capacity, when we deal with bond on school facilities in a future years, incorporating, ensure that it incorporates UC CSU, because they were cut out of the bonds this time around.

So for my part, let me also express my disappointment in the failure to include higher ed in this bond. But to be clear, there was a negotiation, but there was a very clear consensus on the Senate side that we should include higher education. So find, you know, a little disappointed. And to your point, and to Senator Glazer's point, those needs not only remain, they intensify over time. We'll have to address them.

Let me ask a question to the witnesses in pointing out that by virtue of the legislative process, if we were to amend this Bill today, it would effectively preclude the ability to put this on the ballot. You understand that, right? And you're okay with that? This is by all intents and purposes not an amendable Bill at this point.

So, from my part, as I shared before, the issue that we took in... for example, and it wasn't an effort to say that we were opposing LAUSD, it wasn't that. It was what happens oftentimes in small districts, even with technical assistance, it becomes a more first to the application.

I appreciate your comments were very clear, but to make. I just want to ask a question, yes or no? It is an unfortunate truth of the mechanics of this process that if we were to decide to amend this Bill today. It would mean that we could not meet the deadline to place this on the ballot as a Proposition, which means we'd wait another two years at least, to make the kind of investments that were talking about.

Right. And I hear you. So I would say to that, that I wouldn't want to see the Bill not move forward. What we're asking for, again, is additional nuance to the approach to equity to ensure it is not first come, first serve, but it is need based. And again, it's not an effort to get all the money for the small district, but make sure that there's a fair shot of getting the funding. So I would say, in my opinion, know that I think that the Bill should move forward.

And from our perspective. Thank you. From our perspective, there's a lot of things that have been unconventional. Sorry, that's not a word. Unconventional about how this process has moved forward. So we thought, we think it could still be possible for you to amend it and get it on the ballot. I mean, you can. You're the expert, so you could tell us otherwise. But I think I do. Many things happened that weren't supposed to happen.

Let me just tell you otherwise. So that is the truth. I mean, you know, if we were to amend this Bill today, we would miss our deadline.

That is correct. It has to be in print 72 hours before. And July 30.

Wasn't it supposed to be done by last Thursday?

Different question. That's a different question. If there's deadlines, then there's final finals. So again, I appreciate your just wanted to point that out and get your input, and while taking into account, I think you're otherwise, you know, very valid concerns. I guess I'll move on from there.

Sorry, just a follow up with your question.

You're okay. Briefly. Go ahead.

So I just want to confirm that your concerns, your opposition to this Proposition is based on the language, and those that you represent are based on the language that was currently print in print as of last or Saturday. Correct?

I mean, I can speak to that. That's correct. I mean, you've proposed amendments which, if we were to consider them now, we would miss the deadline for this particular measure, which will, you know, will turn into the Proposition of the ballot. And that's an unfortunate fact. I don't know.

Go ahead, Senator. I mean, part of the paradox here is everyone was working to try to get 100% consensus, even to the point of taking advantage of an extended, quote, unquote, extended deadline.

Still obviously didn't quite get to 100% consensus, but now we're up against Wednesday, you know, midnight, and it's going to be everything we can do to get this past Wednesday, midnight, or we get nothing. I mean, that's just where we're at. But I just wanted to give that perspective on reality.

It doesn't mean anybody should have stopped opposing or trying to get what they wanted, but these negotiations just go right down to the wire sometimes. I certainly appreciate you being here. I think we all do.

I do as well. I just did not want to leave any ambiguity with respect to this conversation that there was an opportunity in this moment to make the kinds of changes you proposed for this Bill and this ballot measure. So, having said that, let me say a few things in response to some of your criticisms.

Let me also, let me thank Public Advocates and everybody, including everybody on your list, all of the stakeholders, for their passionate advocacy as it relates to, again, your very valid concerns, your admirable concerns around equity and school facility funding. As Senator Maricci pointed out. Senator Wilk PI we sit on the state allocations board.

There's a massive backlog what we have to address, and we'd have to do that sooner rather than later. Let me also respectfully contest the assertion that the current school facility program is unconstitutional. It's been in place since 1998. It's enjoyed widespread spread support. It's never been contested in court.

But the progress framework is built on principles of equity and fairness, and over time it has evolved. It's been updated to better serve California's diverse school districts.

Regarding the proposal for a sliding scale approach, while we understand to commend the intent to further support lower wealth districts, if we were to implement such a drastic redistribution of funds, that's really not feasible given our current financial constraints therein, the need for this bond and so this Bill overall, and the bond measure which it will create and there was strike what I regard as an important balance by implementing a sliding scale which increases state grant amounts based on a combination of a district's ability to generate local funds and the percentages of Low income foster care and English learner students as contained in the language.

And this balanced approach provides additional support to high need districts while maintaining a sustainable and broadly supported funding model statewide. Further, the existing financial hardship assistance within the SFP is designed to aid Low wealth districts, which continue to face challenges, as pointed out in January, local funds, and there are provisions specifically to address those needs. And to that end, a crucial component of the measure is the inclusion of a new technical assistance initiative.

As Mister Hardie pointed out, many schools lack either the resources, the expertise to compete, and this leverages a recent federal grant, but it will provide in person and ongoing regional support to as many priority school districts as possible, particularly those which have not previously participated in school facility program efforts before, and are therefore unlikely to have the kind of in house expertise that participation generally entails.

This targeted support will ensure that these districts can successfully navigate the application process and eventually access the funds that they'll need to modernize improve their facilities. And so, as a joint author, you know, it's clearly my strong view that AB 247 represents a significant step forward, and a necessary one at this time, given the state's fiscal condition.

So I do appreciate all of the input and I'd ask this many headed beasts that are the joint authors from the Assembly, if you'd like to close. Please do.

Well again, thank you to everyone for all of your work on this measure. Mister Scherer, I absolutely agree with your closing comments that, like we often say in the Legislature, don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. This is not completely what Public Advocates was asking for, but it addresses many of their concerns.

I know that their legal analysis focused on the Serana versus priest and having funding based on local property values. This Bill goes beyond Serrano versus priest because of the financial hardship programs.

I don't want to get too much into the weeds on that, but the bottom line, what I want to emphasize is that this is a equity centered measure that prioritizes financial hardship districts, prioritizes the additional state matching dollars for the socioeconomic disadvantaged districts on top of all the great things, the absolutely necessary things that we need in this measure. And so, for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any other words from the joint authors? This is your chance.

I think the same. I think, to echo the remarks of my colleague, is that this really does address a lot of the equity concerns to ensure that there is greater support for our disadvantaged and lower wealth communities.

And I appreciate the work that has been done so far between both of our houses to ensure we have a school facility, bonds that support students, and ensures that the State of California continues to provide a first class education. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much to all my colleagues for their comments. We know the need is greater than what is currently available, but the work and efforts to get to this point has been tremendous and really appreciate everyone's comments and herds. And I vote. Thank you sir.

Got a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Stone, please call the roll file.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The measure passes seven votes to zero. Thank you, everybody. Thank you to staff, especially to Mister Ian Johnson, for his very good work on this measure. This meeting of the Senate Education Committee is adjourned.