Community College

Facility Coalition

Updated November 7, 2008

 

Updated November 10, 2008

Community College Facility Coalition

Legislative Update — May 9, 2001

CCFC Phone 916.446.3042

SCHOOL FACILITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LEGISLATION TO BE HEARD MAY 9TH — A few years ago legislation was enacted that enabled school and community college districts to create school facility improvement districts (SFIDs). This allows districts to create a general obligation bond area that is less than the entire district. Proponents saw this as a way to overcome highly resistant components of a district to any form of local bonding. The mechanism was viewed as a viable tool for community college districts since many districts are enormous and serve many disparate communities. Although a few school districts have attempted SFID elections, to date none of them have been successful. Many boards are reluctant to deal with potential problems of dividing districts in this fashion.

When Proposition 39 was approved by the electorate last November it enable school and community college districts to pass general obligation bonds with a 55% majority provided the election was held during a regularly scheduled local election or during a statewide primary or general election. So far 2 school districts and one community college district have attempted 55% elections (Clovis USD, Fresno USD and Los Angeles CCD). All three elections achieved the 55% goal, however the 2 school district elections are under a legal cloud because of the tenuous circumstance regarding the area of the "regularly scheduled local election."

SB 1129 (O’Connell) will be heard in the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday, May 9th. This measure deals with both SFIDs and Proposition 39. Proposition 39 did not include SFIDs in the 55% vote authorizations. SB 1129 will include the SFIDs in that mechanism.

CCFC is in support of SB 1129, as it provides an additional tool for districts to use in meeting their facility needs.

MARCH 2002 STATE BOND IN A STATE OF FLUX — Numerous factors are playing into the negotiations over a potential K-University facility bond for the March 2002 Election. The most significant is the impact of the energy crisis and stalled economy on the State’s finances. Budget subcommittees have not yet finished their actions on projects, so it is unclear whether the projects included in the Chancellor’s Office Budget request but omitted in the Governor’s Budget will find new life. The higher education sectors have agreed among themselves on a mechanism to fund these "new starts." We won’t know for about 2 weeks whether the Legislature and the Governor agree.

Recent downgrading of the State’s credit rating will probably cause the size of any bond issues approved by the Legislature to be smaller than they would otherwise have been. Rumors in the Capitol have the K-12 component in the $6 to $10 billion area. The only bill with any numbers is AB 1299 (Leonard) which provides $4.0 billion for higher education and $6.0 billion for K-12.

Mounting an adequate campaign will be next to impossible if the measure is not enacted before the Legislature adjourns this year. History shows that bonds are rarely passed by the Legislature until the 11th hour. Unfortunately, when the Legislature reconvenes next January it will be the 13th hour.

For more information, contact Paul Holmes or Shannon Mahoney.

1130 K Street, Suite 210, Sacramento, California   95814

Voice: 916.446.3042 --  Fax: 916.441.3893