January 30, 2014
The following is an excerpt from an article that ran in the Sacramento Bee on Monday, January 27. The complete article can be found at the link below:
California school-construction needs as high as $12 billion, subcommittee reports
California needs as much as $12 billion in additional school-building money and almost $5 billion in modernization money, according to estimates in a report to the state board that oversees school-construction dollars. Continue reading
November 14, 2013
Following is the summary write-up of the 11/12/13 SAB Program Review Subcommittee
November 11, 2013
Present: Assembly Member Joan Buchanan (Chair), Assembly Member Curt Hagman, Esteban Almanza (DGS), Kathleen Moore (CDE), Cesar Diaz, Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian (not a Subcommittee member)
The SAB Program Review Subcommittee met on November 11, 2013 to discuss methodologies for quantifying the funding needed for future school facilities. They heard a report from OPSC staff and a presentation by Bill Savidge, Assistant Executive Officer. The item to discuss additional recommendations to the SAB was pulled from the agenda.
October 30, 2013
Details of the October 22, 2013 bond sale were released today, and K-12 school facilities received $234 million from the $2 billion sale. Of the $234 million, $36.8 million is for Proposition 55 (2004) and $198 million is for Proposition 1D (2006). The Official Statement for the bond sale includes a list of districts to which proceeds have been allocated. The proceeds will be used to backfill the apportionments made by the State Allocation Board (SAB) on October 14, which were initially funded by commercial paper notes. At that meeting, the SAB apportioned $285 million for 112 projects through the Priority Funding process. Therefore, we don’t believe that additional projects will be funded from this bond sale.
October 23, 2013
The following article was originally posted by School Services of California, Inc. on October 22 in The Fiscal Report and is reprinted here with their permission.
[Editor's Note: Periodically, we publish guest articles that we think inform readers on topics of interest. With local educational agencies (LEAs) continuing to work to understand the fiscal implications of the newly enacted Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), we thought that additional attention should also be paid to the programmatic and fiscal implications of this new model. The guest article below by Jay Chambers, Mahala Archer, and Jesse Levin of American Institute for Research (AIR) addresses the new opportunities presented to school boards, local education leaders, and community members to shape educational programs to meet local priorities. Necessarily, the views and opinions of the authors are their own, but we think the article below is interesting and informative.]
What the New Funding Formula Means for LEAs?
As California moves toward a more equitable, rational, and efficient approach to allocating resources to school districts, this is an important time for LEAs to consider how well they are doing in achieving equitable allocations of resources and improving outcomes for all students. LEA leaders need to think seriously about how they can achieve a more equitable distribution of resources across schools and to determine what they can do to facilitate better ways for the central office and school sites to connect resources to goals, elevate accountability for performance, and improve transparency by engaging a wide range of stakeholders in the process. Continue reading
October 7, 2013
The following article is re-posted with the permission of the California Budget Project. The article was posted to their website in October 2013.
California’s K-12 schools face a unique set of challenges. Not only does California educate more students than any other state, but economically disadvantaged students and English learners (ELs) account for a larger share of students in California than in the rest of the US. Yet, even though California has more financial resources per capita than the rest of the US, the state spends far less of its total personal income on K-12 schools. As a result, CaliforniaK-12 education spending continues to lag the nation by a number of key measures. Although Proposition 30, passed by California voters in November 2012, is expected to increase state revenues and boost school spending over the next few years, this revenue measure alone will not provide California schools with sufficient resources to meet the challenges of educating the state’s students.
September 3, 2013
Significant amendments are in print today (August 30, 2013) for AB 182 (Buchanan) – click here to view. The bill now maintains the existing Government Code authority to issue Current Interest Bonds (CIBs) with a 40-year maximum term. Previously, the bill would have sunset this authority on January 1, 2019, at which time CIBs would be limited to a maximum term of 30 years. Continue reading
August 13, 2013
Fred Harris from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office provided the following information.
Thanks to Vicenti, Lloyd, and Stutzman for providing this breaking news:
The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) is working to enforce a rule that has been on the books since the 90′s for bond issuers, and California districts are high on the list of those at risk for failure to comply. Rule 15c2-12 requires underwriters to verify that the state or local government issuing bonds will agree to regularly post financial reports about the securities on an on-going basis. Continue reading
July 10, 2013
Today the State Allocation Board (Board) met for a consent-only agenda. The Board unanimously approved $41.6 million in State apportionments for 17 projects in 14 school districts. These projects submitted Priority Funding requests in the filing period that ended June 6, 2013; requests submitted during that period are valid through December 31, 2013. There was nearly $55.5 million in available cash from Propositions 1A, 47, 55, and 1D.
The next State Allocation Board meeting is scheduled for August 28, 2013.
~ Rebekah Cearley