school finance conference - mwhthe budget proposes the following recommendations for the design of a...

Hyatt Regency Indian Wells Resort and Spa

CONFERENCE HANDOUTS

January 14-15, 2015

School Finance Conference for Businesses

2015 SCHOOL FINANCE CONFERENCE FOR BUSINESSESHYATT REGENCY, INDIAN WELLS

AGENDA

MURDOCH, WALRATH & HOLMES1130 K STREET, SUITE 210 • SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA • 916-441-3300 • WWW.M-W-H.COM

Wednesday, January 14, 20151:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Registration Gardenia AB

2:00 p.m. 2:15 p.m. Welcome and IntroductionsDavid Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath Holmes

2:15 p.m. 3:30 p.m. Governor’s Budget Proposal K-14David Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath Holmes

3:30 p.m. 4:30 p.m. What’s Happening and What to Expect in the FinancialMarkets?

John Baracy, Stifel, Nicolaus Company, Inc.

5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Hosted Networking Reception Grand Salon Ballroom

Thursday, January 15, 2015

8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. Registration/Continental Breakfast Gardenia AB

9:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. Status of the State School Facility Program Gardenia ABTom Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath Holmes

10:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. BREAK

10:30 a.m. 11:15 a.m. Legislative and Political Issues UpdateDavid Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath Holmes

11:15 a.m. 12:15 a.m. Legal Issues Affecting School Operations and FacilitiesPhil Henderson, Orbach Huff Suarez Henderson LLP

12:15 a.m. 1:00 p.m. Lunch Verbena Terrace

1:00 p.m. 1:45 p.m. What’s New on School Energy Programs and Proposition 39Implementation?

Mike Kozlowski, Johnson Controls, Inc.

1:45 p.m. 2:00 p.m. Wrap-up, Evaluations and Adjourn

2015 SCHOOL FINANCE CONFERENCEFOR BUSINESSES

HYATT REGENCY, INDIAN WELLSATTENDEE LIST


Name Company

Ahmed, Elizabeth AECOM

Arevalo, Daniel Mobile Modular Management Corp.

Ashton, Patti DLR Group

Baracy, John Stifel, Nicolaus Company, Incorporated

Baranoff, Constantine Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann Girard

Beard, Greg Westberg White Architects Inc.

Dietz, Marty Darden Architects Inc.

Dominguez, John School Site Solutions, Inc

Duffy, Tom Murdoch Walrath Holmes

Gibbs, Alan Terraphase Engineering, Inc.

Gill, Paul Ruhnau Ruhnau Clarke

Kozlowski, Michael Johnson Controls Inc.

Larsen, Mary Stormwater Specialists Inc.

Martinez, Nancy DLR Group

Mears, Dwayne PlaceWorks

Parslow, Alex HMC Architects/School Advisors

Pregmon, Ron WLC Architects Inc.

Roess, Andrea David Taussig Associates Inc.

Ryker, Lisa WLC Architects Inc.

Spencer, Michael Harris Construction Co. Inc.

Vombaur, Jack Tandus-Centiva

Walrath, David Murdoch Walrath Holmes

Zinger, Terry California Construction Mgmt.

2015 SCHOOL FINANCE CONFERENCEFOR BUSINESSES

HYATT REGENCY, INDIAN WELLS


Presenters

John Baracy, Stifel, Nicolaus Company, Inc. [email protected]

Thomas Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath Holmes [email protected]

Phil Henderson, Orbach Huff Suarez Henderson LLP [email protected]

Mike Kozlowski, Johnson Controls, Inc. [email protected]

David Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath Holmes [email protected]

Murdoch, Walrath HolmesProfessional Staff

David Walrath [email protected]

Alexander Murdoch [email protected]

Thomas Duffy [email protected]

Cynthia McGanney [email protected]

Gregory Golik [email protected]

Ian Padilla [email protected]

Anna Ferrera [email protected]

Rebekah Cearley [email protected]

SCHOOL FINANCE CONFERENCE FOR BUSINESSES

JANUARY 14-15, 2015HYATT REGENCY, INDIAN WELLS


Governor’s Budget Proposal, K-14

David WalrathMurdoch, Walrath Holmes

1

Governor’s 2015-16 BudgetProposal – K-14 Funding andDemographics

2015 School Finance Conference for Businesses

David WalrathMurdoch, Walrath & Holmes

Overview

2Governor’sBudgetSummary–2015-16:www.ebudget.ca.gov

2

Overview


Overview


3

Overview


Overview

6

The2015Budget:California’sFiscalOutlook–LAO,November2014

4

Overview

7

Governor’sBudgetSummary–2015-16:www.ebudget.ca.gov

Overview


5

Implementing Major Initiatives• Local Control Funding Formula—The 2013 Budget overhauled

the state’s K-12 school financing system with the Local Control Funding Formula that targets the most new dollars to those districts serving English learners, students from low-income families, and youth in foster care— while giving all districts dramatically more flexibility to achieve their educational goals. The State Board of Education adopted significantly modified accountability procedures at its November 2014 meeting and will continue to review and revise spending regulations as necessary to improve student success.

9

Implementing Major Initiatives• Climate Change—The Budget proposes $1 billion in Cap and

Trade expenditures for the state’s continuing investments in low carbon transportation, sustainable communities, energy efficiency, urban forests and high-speed rail. The successful implementation of these projects and continued and even steeper reductions in carbon pollutants are necessary to address the ongoing threat posed by climate change.

• Water Action Plan—The Water Action Plan is the Administration’s five-year roadmap towards sustainable water management. The Budget includes the first $532 million in expenditures from the Proposition 1 water bond to continue the plan’s implementation.

10

6

Implementing Major Initiatives• Redevelopment Dissolution—By the end of the budget year,

the elimination of redevelopment agencies will have returned more than $4 billion to cities, counties, and special districts to fund police, fire, and other critical public services. An additional $5 billion will have been returned to K-14 schools. Administering the orderly dissolution of almost 400 redevelopment agencies has been complex and time consuming. Oversight of the dissolution process has progressed to the point where the Budget proposes legislation to streamline the state review process to continue the wind-down activities.

11

Continuing to Invest in Education


7

Saving Money and Paying DownDebts and Liabilities• Proposition 2 was designed to help the state save when times

are good. With a stock market that continues to surge, higher revenues from capital gains will both be saved and used to pay down debts. By the end of the year, the state’s Rainy Day Fund will have a total balance of $2.8 billion. The Budget spends an additional $1.2 billion from Proposition 2 funds on paying off loans from special funds and past liabilities from Proposition 98.

• In addition, the Budget repays the remaining $1 billion in deferrals to schools and community colleges, makes the last payment on the $15 billion in Economic Recovery Bonds that was borrowed to cover budget deficits from as far back as 2002, and repays local governments $533 million in mandate reimbursements.

13

Summary Charts


8

Summary Charts


Summary Charts


9

Summary Charts


Summary Charts


10

Summary Charts


Summary Charts


11

K-12 Education


K-12 Education


12

K-12 Education

23

The2015Budget:California’sFiscalOutlook–LAO,November2014

K-12 Education

24

The2014-15Budget:CaliforniaSpendingPlan–LAO,October2014

13

K-12 Education

25


K-12 Education


14

K-12 School FacilitiesOver the past two years, the Administration has noted the following significant shortcoming associated with the current School Facilities

Program:• The current program is overly complex with over ten different state

agencies providing fragmented oversight responsibility. The result is a structure that is cumbersome and costly for the state and local school districts.

• The current program does not compel districts to consider facilities funding within the context of other educational costs and priorities. For example, districts can generate and retain state facility program eligibility based on outdated or inconsistent enrollment projections. This often results in financial incentives for districts to build new schools to accommodate what is actually modest and absorbable enrollment growth. These incentives are exacerbated by the fact that general obligation bond debt is funded outside of Proposition 98. These bonds cost the General Fund approximately $2.4 billion in debt service annually.

27

K-12 School Facilities• The current program allocates funding on a first-come,

first-served basis, resulting in a substantial competitive advantage for large school districts with dedicated personnel to manage facilities programs.

• The current program does not provide adequate local control for districts designing school facilities plans. Program eligibility is largely based on standardized facility definitions and classroom loading standards. As a result, districts are discouraged from utilizing modern educational delivery methods.

• The current program was developed before the passage of Proposition 39 (which reduced the local bond vote threshold to 55 percent) in 2000, which has since allowed local school bonds to pass upwards of 80 percent of the time. It was also developed before the Local Control Funding Formula, which provides enhanced local funding flexibility.

28

15

K-12 School FacilitiesThe Budget proposes the following recommendations for the design of

a new program:• Increase Tools for Local Control:

• Expand Local Funding Capacity—While school districts can pass local bonds with 55-percent approval, assessed valuation caps for specific bond measures and total caps on local bonded indebtedness have not been adjusted since 2000. In order to provide greater access to local financing, these caps should be increased at minimum by the rate of inflation since 2000.

• Restructure Developer Fees—Current law authorizes the governing board of any school district to levy fees against construction within its boundaries to fund school facilities. There are three categories that determine the amount of fees a district can levy, which range from a fraction of project costs to 100 percent of the costs. A new program should establish one developer fee level for all districts and cap the amount of fees that can be levied for specific projects at a level between the existing Level II and Level III fees (50 to 100 percent of project costs), subject to local negotiation.

29

K-12 School Facilities• Increase Tools for Local Control:

• Expand Allowable Uses of Routine Restricted Maintenance Funding—Current law requires schools to deposit a percentage of their general fund expenditures into a restricted account for use in maintaining their facilities. Rather than requiring that these funds be used solely for routine maintenance, districts should have the ability to pool these funds over multiple years for modernization and new construction projects. Expanding the use of these funds will provide school districts with yet another funding stream to maintain, modernize, and construct new facilities.

30

16

K-12 School Facilities• Target State Funding for Districts Most in Need—State

funding for a new program should be targeted in a way that:• (1) limits eligibility to districts with such low

per-student assessed value they cannot issue bonds at the local level in amounts that allow them to meet student needs,

• (2) prioritizes funding for health and safety and severe overcrowding projects, and

• (3) establishes a sliding scale to determine the state share of project costs based on local capacity to finance projects. 31

K-12 School Facilities• Augment the Charter School Facility Grant Program—Most of

California’s charter schools lease facilities for instructional purposes. To assist charter schools in paying for rent and lease expenditures, the Charter School Facility Grant Program provides funding to charter schools either serving or located in attendance areas where at least 70 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price meals. To further assist charter schools with their facility needs, the state should permanently lower the free or reduced-price meal requirement to 55 percent (the concentration grant threshold under the Local Control Funding Formula) and provide additional funding to support this program expansion.

32

17

33The2015Budget:California’sFiscalOutlook–LAO,November2014

34SchoolFacilityProgram:C.A.S.H.NextSteps–September2014

State K-12 Debt Serviceas Percent of State General Fund

(in billions)

Fiscal Year Debt Service General Fund Percent

2015-16 $2.4 $113.8 2.1%

2016-17 $2.4 $119.0 2.0%

2017-18 $2.5 $124.2 2.0%

2018-19 $2.8 $125.8 2.2%

2019-20 $2.6 $128.9 2.0%

18

Local Control Funding Formula(LCFF) 2015-16

• Approximately $4 billion to close 32 percent of the

remaining gap between current funding and target.

• Growth amounts increased by 1.58 percent.

• No additional programs.

• No deleted program.

35

LCFF – Governor’s Budget Summary2015-16• A base grant for each local educational agency per unit of average daily

attendance (ADA), inclusive of an adjustment of 10.4 percent to the base grant to support lowering class sizes in grades K-3, and an adjustment of 2.6 percent to reflect the cost of operating career technical education programs in high schools.

• A 20-percent supplemental grant for English learners, students from low-income families, and youth in foster care to reflect increased costs associated with educating those students.

• An additional concentration grant of up to 22.5 percent of a local educational agency’s base grant, based on the number of English learners, students from low-income families, and youth in foster care served by the local agency that comprise more than 55 percent of enrollment.

• An Economic Recovery Target to ensure that almost every local educational agency receives at least their pre-recession funding level, adjusted for inflation, at full implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula.

36

19

Adult Education• The Budget provides $500 million Proposition 98 General Fund

for the Adult Education Block Grant, which is an integral component of the state’s workforce development strategy, as discussed in the Investing in California’s Workforce Chapter.

• The block grant will fund programs in elementary and secondary basic skills, classes and courses in citizenship and English as a second language for immigrants, education programs for adults with disabilities, short-term CTE programs linked to occupations with high employment potential, and programs for apprentices.

• The Administration proposes that each consortium designate an allocation board responsible for planning and allocating block grant funds. 37

Adult Education• The Chancellor of the Community Colleges and the

Superintendent of Public Instruction will jointly approve allocations of funds, with an emphasis on providing funding to those regions with the greatest adult education needs.

• Funding allocations approved by the Chancellor and Superintendent will be distributed to providers as determined by their allocation committees.

• Funding will be provided directly to K-12 school districts in the amount of the K-12 districts’ maintenance of effort for adult education—as jointly determined by the Chancellor and the Superintendent. Further allocations will be distributed according to the local allocation committees.

38

20

Career Technical Education• Given the complexity and relatively resource intensive nature

of starting and updating CTE programs, the Budget proposes $250 million in one-time Proposition 98 funding in each of the next three years to support a transitional CTE Incentive Grant Program.

• School districts, county offices of education and charter schools receiving funding from this new transitional program will be required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match.

• Priority for these state funds will be given to local educational agencies applying in partnership with other local educational agencies to offer regional programs.

• To maintain eligibility for funding under the CTE Incentive• Grant Program, recipients will need to demonstrate positive

results across a spectrum of outcome measures. 39

Other Reforms and InvestmentsCommon Core and Mandates• The 2013 Budget Act provided $1.25 billion in one-time

Proposition 98 General Fund to support the implementation of the Common Core state standards—new standards for evaluating student achievement in English-language arts and mathematics.

• The Budget proposes more than $1.1 billion in discretionary one-time Proposition 98 funding for school districts, charter schools and county offices of education to further their investments in the implementation of Common Core.

40

21

Other Reforms and InvestmentsCommon Core and Mandates• These new dollars will also help support implementation of

newly adopted English Language Development standards and California’s Next Generation Science standards, as well as make the investments necessary to support new responsibilities required under the evolving accountability structure of the Local Control Funding Formula.

• Of this amount, $20 million will be provided to county offices of education, distributed on the basis of countywide ADA and the number of school districts within the county office’s jurisdiction.

• The balance of this funding will be distributed to school districts and charter schools on the basis of ADA. 41

Other Reforms and InvestmentsTechnology Infrastructure• The Budget proposes $100 million in one-time

Proposition 98 funding to support additional investments in internet connectivity and infrastructure. This builds on $26.7 million in one-time Proposition 98 funding that was provided in the 2014 Budget Act

42

22

Other Reforms and InvestmentsEnergy Efficiency• The Budget proposes to allocate the $368 million of

energy efficiency funds available in 2015-16 as follows:• $320.1 million and $39.6 million to K-12 school and

community college districts, respectively, for energy efficiency project grants.

• $5.3 million to the California Conservation Corps for continued technical assistance to K-12 school districts.

• $3 million to the Workforce Investment Board for continued implementation of the job-training program.

43

K-12 Significant Budget Adjustments• K-12 Deferrals—An increase of almost $900 million in one-time

Proposition 98 General Fund in 2014-15 to eliminate all remaining outstanding deferral debt for K-12. Inter-year deferrals for K-12 had reached a high of $9.5 billion in the 2011-12 fiscal year.

• Emergency Repair Program—An increase of $273.4 million in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund resources for the Emergency Repair Program. This funding will retire the state’s facilities funding obligation under the terms of the Williams lawsuit settlement agreement.

• School District Local Control Funding Formula—Additional growth of approximately $4 billion in Proposition 98 General Fund for school districts and charter schools in 2015-16, an increase of 8.7 percent.

• County Offices of Education Local Control Funding Formula—An increase of $109,000 Proposition 98 General Fund to support a cost-of-living adjustment for those county offices of education at their target funding level under the formula. 44

23

K-12 Significant Budget Adjustments• Charter Schools—An increase of $59.5 million Proposition 98

General Fund to support projected charter school ADA growth.• Special Education—An increase of $15.3 million Proposition 98

General Fund to reflect a projected increase in Special Education ADA.

• Cost-of-Living Adjustment Increases—An increase of $71.1 million to support a 1.58-percent cost-of-living adjustment for categorical programs that remain outside of the Local Control Funding Formula, including Special Education, Child Nutrition, Foster Youth, Preschool, American Indian Education Centers, and the American Indian Early Childhood Education Program.

• Local Property Tax Adjustments—A decrease of $11.4 million Proposition 98 General Fund for the school district and county office of education in 2014-15 as a result of higher offsetting property tax revenues. A decrease of $1.7 billion in Proposition 98 General Fund for school districts and county offices of education in 2015-16 as a result of increased offsetting local property tax revenues.

45

K-12 Significant Budget Adjustments• Average Daily Attendance—An increase of $197.6 million in

2014-15 for school districts and county offices of education as a result of an increase in projected ADA from the 2014 Budget Act, and a decrease of $6.9 million in 2015-16 for school districts and county offices of education as a result of projected decline in ADA for 2015-16.

• Full-Day State Preschool Slots—An increase of $14.8 million Proposition 98 General Fund and $18.8 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund to support 4,000 State Preschool slots with full-day wraparound care. These slots were established in the 2014 Budget Act as of June 15, 2015 (for 15 days in the 2014-15 fiscal year) and these increases reflect the difference in full-year cost for these slots in 2015-16.

46

24

Attendance• Public school attendance grew in 2010-11 and 2011-12,

and then declined slightly in 2012-13. • Attendance began increasing again in 2013-14, and is

projected to grow further in 2014-15 and decline slightly during 2015-16.

• For 2014-15, K-12 ADA is estimated to be 6,000,733, an increase of 8,166 from 2013-14.

• For 2015-16, the Budget estimates that K-12 ADA will drop by 585 from the 2014-15 level, to 6,000,148.

47

Child Care – Significant Adjustments• Regional Market Rate (RMR) Full-Year Update—An increase

of $33.5 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund to reflect a full-year update of the RMR.

• Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA)—An increase of $9.2 million Proposition 98 General Fund and $12.3 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund to reflect a statutory COLA of 1.58 percent for capped child care programs.

• Stage 2—A decrease of $11.6 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund in 2015-16 to reflect a decrease in the number of CalWORKs Stage 2 cases and an increase in the cost per case. Total base cost for Stage 2 is $348.6 million.

• Stage 3—An increase of $38.6 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund in 2015-16 to reflect an increase in the number of CalWORKs Stage 3 cases and an increase in the cost per case. Total base cost for Stage 3 is $263.5 million.

48

25

One-Time ExpendituresK-12 and Community Colleges

49

Governor’s Budget Proposal2015-16 Community Colleges

50

26

California Community CollegeProposed Operational Funding

• $13.2 billion in total funding• $8.1 billion is from General Fund and Proposition 98

sources• Funds 2% Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment growth,

an increase of $106.9 million (Prop 98 GF)• 1.58% statutory cost-of-living adjustment, worth $92.4

million

51

CCC Facilities Funding ProposalsThe 2015 Five-Year Infrastructure Plan proposes to fund $99.6 million in 2015-16 (GO bonds) for seven projects over the next five years:• $33.1 million for College of the Redwoods Utility Infrastructure

Replacement.• $20.1 million for Rio Hondo College L Tower Seismic and Code

Upgrades.• $18.8 million for Santa Barbara City College Campus Center Seismic

and Code Upgrades.• $13.4 million for El Camino College Compton Center Instructional

Building Replacement.• $8.4 million for Los Rios Community College District Davis Center

Phase 2.• $4 million for Mt. San Jacinto College to replace a fire alarm system.• $1.7 million for Citrus College to renovate Hayden Hall.

52

27

CCC Facilities Funding Proposals, Cont’d.

• CCC facilities funding is tied to the fate of K-12:Funding to support future community college projects will be determined within the context of any decisions made by the Legislature and the Administration to create and provide dedicated funding for a new K-12 school facilities program. Any future funding for community college facilities will be allocated through a process developed in consultation with the Chancellor’s Office. [2015 Five-Year Infrastructure Plan]

53

Proposition 39:

• $39.6 million in 2015-16 for energy efficiency grants for

community colleges

• Up $2.1 million over the 2014-15 funding level of

$37.5 million

CCC Facilities Funding Proposals, Cont’d.

54

28

CCC – Other Proposals

Additional proposals with possible facilities implications:

• Increased operating expenses – $125 million (Prop 98 GF)

increase in base allocation funding

• To fund increases in operating expenses for facilities,

retirement benefits, professional development, etc.

55

CCC – Other Proposals, Cont’d

• Mandate backlog payments - $353.3 million (Prop 98 GF) to continue paying down mandate claims.• Provides one-time resources to address deferred

maintenance at facilities, instructional equipment needs, other one-time costs.

• In contrast to 2014-15 budget, which provided $148 million in one-time funds directly to deferred maintenance, instructional equipment, and library materials.

• Deferrals - $94.5 million (Prop 98 GF) to eliminate deferrals. 56

29

K-12 and CommunityCollege FundingDemographics

57

K-12 Enrollment Projections 2014-15

58

Top TenBy County

NumericChange

Top TenBy County

Percent Change

1. San Diego 2,826 1. Alpine 3.33%

2. Alameda 2,222 2. Colusa 1.79%

3. San Joaquin 2,125 3. Marin 1.76%

4. Kern 2,003 4. San Joaquin 1.50%

5. Santa Clara 1,936 5. Monterey 1.36%

6. Sacramento 1,929 6. Imperial 1.22%

7. Fresno 1,463 7. Tulare 1.18%

8. Contra Costa 1,459 8. Sutter 1.13%

9. Tulare 1,186 9. Kern 1.12%

10. Monterey 1,012 10. Napa 1.08%

California Department of Education- Demographic Research Unit, Dec. 2014

30


59

Bottom TenBy County

NumericChange

Bottom TenBy County

Percent Change

49. Calaveras -141 49. Tuolumne -0.72%

50. Solano -150 50. Mariposa -0.74%

51. Nevada -168 51. Shasta -1.04%

52. Shasta -280 52. Plumas -1.39%

53. Riverside -284 53. Nevada -1.59%

54. Stanislaus -363 54. El Dorado -1.64%

55. El Dorado -446 55. Modoc -1.86%

56. San Bernardino -814 56. Calaveras -2.43%

57. Orange -2,195 57. Sierra -2.92%

58. Los Angeles -7,171 58. Trinity -3.74%



60

Top TenBy County

NumericChange

Top TenBy County

Percent Change

1. San Diego 15,441 1. Kern 5.75%2. Kern 10,318 2. Imperial 5.69%3. Sacramento 8,505 3. San Francisco 5.30%4. Riverside 6,832 4. San Joaquin 3.84%5. Fresno 5,601 5. Sacramento 3.56%6. San Joaquin 5,432 6. Marin 3.48%7. Alameda 5,144 7. Yuba 3.40%8. San Bernardino 3,853 8. Lassen 3.37%

9. San Francisco 3,095 9. San Diego 3.07%10. Tulare 2,997 10. Mariposa 3.07%


31


61

Bottom TenBy County

NumericChange

Bottom TenBy County

Percent Change

49. Calaveras -355 49. Los Angeles -3.89%

50. Nevada -484 50. Orange -4.13%

51. Shasta -621 51. Alpine -4.44%

52. Sonoma -1,418 52. Trinity -4.50%

53. Solano -1,773 53. Nevada -4.58%

54. El Dorado -2,140 54. Modoc -5.64%

55. Stanislaus -2,162 55. Calaveras -6.13%

56. Ventura -3,362 56. Plumas -6.70%

57. Orange -20,629 57. El Dorado -7.86%

58. Los Angeles -60,438 58. Sierra -9.02%



62

Top TenBy County

NumericChange

Top TenBy County

Percent Change

1. Riverside 26,468 1. Kern 12.13%2. San Diego 23,203 2. Imperial 11.41%3. Kern 21,785 3. Lassen 10.26%4. San Bernardino 19,749 4. San Francisco 9.90%5. Sacramento 12,306 5. Mariposa 8.63%6. Fresno 10,097 6. San Joaquin 6.56%7. San Joaquin 9,287 7. Riverside 6.22%8. San Francisco 5,779 8. Yuba 5.78%

9. Tulare 5,220 9. Tulare 5.17%10. Imperial 4,213 10. Sacramento 5.15%


32


63

Bottom TenBy County

NumericChange

Bottom TenBy County

Percent Change

49. San Mateo -661 49. Alpine -3.33%

50. Stanislaus -1,185 50. Marin -3.93%

51. Marin -1,286 51. Tuolumne -4.23%

52. Sonoma -2,325 52. Ventura -4.61%

53. El Dorado -3,009 53. Solano -4.75%

54. Solano -3,023 54. Plumas -4.81%

55. Ventura -6,534 55. Nevada -5.37%

56. Santa Clara -7,112 56. Los Angeles -6.47%

57. Orange -45,709 57. Orange -9.15%

58. Los Angeles -100,384 58. El Dorado -11.05%


5,900,000

5,950,000

6,000,000

6,050,000

6,100,000

6,150,000

6,200,000

6,250,000

6,300,000

California Public K-12 Graded Enrollment


64

33

California State PopulationProjections By Age(For K-12)

AgeGroup 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total 37,309,382 38,801,063 39,159,891 39,524,684 39,868,899 40,219,937 40,643,643

0-4 2,521,012 2,602,240 2,635,854 2,657,928 2,676,229 2,693,313 2,713,450

5-9 2,497,147 2,514,778 2,515,456 2,523,683 2,537,352 2,570,468 2,618,264

10-14 2,586,000 2,504,638 2,515,673 2,546,607 2,566,544 2,567,604 2,562,087

15-19 2,827,906 2,697,006 2,679,363 2,661,322 2,652,637 2,651,484 2,656,737

65


For More Data…• California Public K-12 Graded Enrollment Projections, 2014

Series:

www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/k-12/view.php

66

34

California State PopulationProjections By Age(For Community Colleges)

AgeGroup 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Total 37,309,382 38,801,063 39,159,891 39,524,684 39,868,899 40,219,937 40,643,643

15-19 2,827,906 2,697,006 2,679,363 2,661,322 2,652,637 2,651,484 2,656,737

20-24 2,775,855 2,935,110 2,935,909 2,921,056 2,891,804 2,859,774 2,842,087

25-29 2,752,409 2,745,945 2,774,956 2,818,907 2,868,105 2,913,210 2,939,168

67


For More Data…

• Population Projections (5-year Age) - Demographic Research:www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-2/

• State and County Birth Projections, 2014 Series:http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projectio

ns/births/index.php

68

35

Demographic Outlook

69


Demographic Outlook

70


36

Demographic Outlook

71


72

Contact Information

David [email protected]

Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes1130 K Street, Suite 210Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 441-3300

Dave Walrath is President of Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes (MWH). He primarily focuses on school finance, state budget, teacher retirement and school facility issues. He provides general consulting as well as direct legislative, administrative and budgetary lobbying on these issue areas.

MWH has been instrumental in shaping statewide policy and implementing regulations for K-12 schools for almost five decades. Strategic relationships have been forged with the State Administration through agencies such as the Department of Education, the Office of Public School Construction, the State Allocation Board, and the Department of Finance; and, on the federal level, with key Congressional Members and the Executive Branch.




What’s Happening and What to Expect in the FinancialMarkets?

John BaracyStifel, Nicolaus Company, Inc.

1

2015 School Finance Conference for Businesses

What’s Happening and What to Expect in the Financial Markets

January 2015

John R BaracyManaging DirectorCalifornia K-12 Education GroupStifel, Nicolaus & Company, [email protected], 213-443-5025

Disclosure

1

These materials have been prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (“Stifel”) for the client or potential client to whomsuch materials are directly addressed and delivered (the “Issuer”) in connection with an actual or potential issuance of municipalsecurities or engagement. These materials contain proposed terms and conditions that are indicative and for discussion purposesonly. Finalized terms and conditions are subject to further discussion and negotiation. Stifel does not guarantee that all financingoptions will be available at the time of the contemplated transaction. These materials do not constitute an offer or solicitation tosell or purchase any securities and are not a commitment by Stifel to provide or arrange any financing for any transaction or topurchase any security in connection therewith. Where indicated, this presentation may contain information derived from sourcesother than Stifel. While we believe such information to be accurate and complete, Stifel does not guarantee the accuracy of thisinformation. This material is based on information currently available to Stifel or its sources and we do not undertake to update therecipient of this presentation of changes that may occur in the future. Stifel does not provide accounting, tax or legal advice;however, you should be aware that any proposed indicative transaction could have accounting, tax, legal or other implications thatshould be discussed with your advisors and /or counsel.

Stifel is providing information for discussion purposes and is declaring that it has done so within the regulatory framework ofMSRB Rule G-23 as an underwriter (by definition also including the role of placement agent) and not financial advisor, as definedtherein, to the issuer for this proposed issuance of municipal securities. The primary role of Stifel, as an underwriter, is to purchasesecurities for resale to investors in an arm’s- length commercial transaction. Serving in the role of underwriter Stifel has financialand other interests that differ from those of the issuer. The issuer should consult with its own financial and/or municipal, legal,accounting, tax and other advisors, as applicable, to the extent it deems appropriate.

2

Table of Contents

Sections

1. California K-12 School District Financing Overview

2. Municipal Market Performance and Current Economic Environment

3. Recent Legislation Impact and What’s Next for California K-12 School Finance?

2

Section 1

California K-12 School District Financing Overview

3

3

Summary Of Facility Funding Tools

General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds)District-wide BondsSchool Facility Improvement District (SFID) Bonds

Lease ObligationsCertificates of Participation (COPs)Lease Revenue Bonds (LRBs)Lease-purchase Obligations

Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs)Mello-Roos Community Facility District Bonds (CFD Bonds)

4

General Obligation Bonds

Most common local financingtool for funding school construction;

Debt service paid from property taxes levied according to the assessed value ofeach parcel;

Area taxed can be the entire District or any set of properties within theDistrict’s boundaries;

Authorized under the Education Code and the Government Code;

Requires voter approval of maximum principal amount and project descriptionor list;

Typically authorized in an amount that requires multiple issuances over time;and

Bond repayment term of 25 to 40 years depending on whether they are Issuedunder the Education Code or Government Code and types of bonds issued.

5

4

Traditional vs. Proposition 39 BondsBond Type Feature Traditional Proposition 39

Voter Approval Requirement 66.7% 55%

Election Date Restrictions Any election date, includingSpecial Elections

Regularly scheduledelections, primarily in evennumbered years

Use of Bond Proceeds Real Property Only Real Personal Property

Tax Rate Restrictions(Limits that can be approved by voters andlimits that prohibit additional issuances)

No Restrictions $30 per $100,000 (Union)$60 per $100,000 (Unified)

Debt Limitation(Total Principal Outstanding at Any GivenTime)

1.25% of AV (Union)2.50% of AV (Unified)

1.25% of AV (Union)2.50% of AV (Unified)

Citizens Oversight Committee Optional Mandatory

Performance and Financial Audits Optional(Note: annual reportsregarding collection andexpenditures mandatory)

Mandatory

6

PRIMARY PURPOSEProvides access to the LOWER annual tax revenues in the EARLYyears (1 to 25-years) available for repayment of each Bond Series

PRIMARY FEATURES•Investors receive SEMI-ANNUAL interest and ANNUAL principalpayments.

• Represents LOWER bond interest rates available at issuance.

• Represents LOWER total bond payments to principal amountissued ratio.

PRIMARY PURPOSEProvides access to the HIGHER annual tax revenues in the LATERyears (25 to 40-years) available for repayment of each BondSeries.

PRIMARY FEATURES• CABs pay BOTH the INTEREST & PRINCIPAL on scheduled

dates (Limited to 25 years after January 1, 2014)

• CCABs defer INTEREST for a period (10 to 20-years) and the CONVERT to CIBs.

What Types of Bond Securities are Issued for School Project Financing?

7

5

Bond Anticipation Notes

Can be issued in advance of the receipt of future GO bond issuance;

New Legislation does permit tax levy to pay interest until taken out by future GO issuance;

Maximum term of five years from date of original issuance;

A period of $0 payments up to three years can be created by capitalizing interest as is commonlydone in private sector construction lending or by using Capital Appreciation Notes to defer, accrueand compound interest;

BANs have a “date certain” by which they must be paid off with either rollover BANs or long-term GObonds, however, new law was passed to levy interest charge;

The full principal balance of the BAN will become due and payable on a single date comparable to a“balloon” payment obligation;

If the GO Bonds cannot be issued to redeem the BANs for legal or market access reasons, the Districtis obligated to use all legally available alternatives to raise sufficient funds to redeem the BANs –including the issuance of lease financing debt, if necessary;

Because of the “balloon” payment due at maturity, the BANs pose a greater risk of interest rateexposure than lease financings and comparable risk of market access and encroachment on theGeneral Fund; and

Less expensive bridge option than lease financing because of simple legal structure and short-termfinancing with how more cost-effective placement option.

8

Annual K-12 GO Bond Volume2005-2014

9Source: CDIAC

$6,925

$6,449 $6,624

$3,285

$7,344

$5,871

$5,361

$5,797

$6,188 $6,483

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mill

ions

6

Lease Financings

Second most common local financing tool for funding school construction;

No voter approval required;

Debt service paid from internal district sources including developer fees, RDA pass-throughs, mitigation agreements, pay-as-you-go special taxes from CFDs, lease incomefrom surplus properties and the general fund;

Obligation is a lease agreement that is typically sold “in pieces” to multiple investors;

District makes commitment of all “legally available funds” to repay investorsrepresenting a potential encroachment on the general fund;

The sale of the lease revenue stream can be legally structured as COPs, lease revenuebonds or lease-purchase obligations;

Proceeds can be used for real or personal property; and

Lease obligations require reporting and notice to the County Office of Education beforeissuance.

10

Lease Financings As Bridge Financing

Can be issued in advance of the receipt of State grant funding, GO bond issuance or inanticipation of any revenue stream such as surplus site sales, CFD bonds or city orcounty reimbursements;

A period of $0 payments up to three years can be created by capitalizing interest as iscommonly done in private sector construction lending;

Special prepayment provisions can be incorporated into the lease documents thatauthorize early prepayment of the financing from the intended take-out source;

An adjustable rate financing structure can be used to reduce the short term interest costand minimize the cost of early prepayment.

Can be structured so that there are no balloon payments or rollover risk;

If the revenue stream does not materialize, the district’s general fund may be impactedby the continuing obligation to make payments.

More expensive bridge option than General Obligation BANs because it is a moreinvolved legal structure and is a long-term financing.

11

7

Annual K-12 COPs Volume2005-2014

12Source: CDIAC

$770

$891

$1,114

$893

$465

$684

$233

$774

$501

$270

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mill

ions

Mello-Roos Community Facility District (CFD) Bonds

Local financing tool for funding school construction in communities with significant development ofmaster planned communities;

Debt service paid from property taxes levied according to a “rate and method of apportionment”other than assessed value of each parcel;

Area taxed can be any set of properties within the district and they do not need to be contiguous;

Requires approval of landowner prior to development or 66.7% voter approval of maximumprincipal amount, maximum tax amount and project descriptions in communities with 12 or moreregistered voters;

Typically authorized in an amount that requires multiple issuances over time;

Typically restricted to the construction and equipping of schools designed to serve the homeownersresiding in the CFD.

Bond repayment term of up to 40 years.

Typically lower rated and more expensive interest cost than GO bonds or COPs.

Could be a take-out source for bridge financing or BANs and Special Taxes Can be Used to make LeasePayments.

13

8

Annual K-12 Mello-Roos Bond Volume2005-2014

14Source: CDIAC

$854

$666

$370

$163 $126 $142

$212

$532 $556 $557

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mill

ions

Common Alternatives for Structuring GO Bonds, COPs, LRBS,BANs and CFDs

With special prepayment provisions that allow early prepayment from one ormore sources in exchange for a somewhat higher interest rate;

As taxable or tax-exempt bonds or notes;

Potentially as federal subsidy or tax credit bonds such as BABs, QZABs, QSCBs,etc;

As adjustable or fixed rate bonds or notes;

As bond insured or credit enhanced bonds or notes;

Various maturity dates according to the repayment plan;

As either CIBs or notes or Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) or notes;

Current interest bonds pay the investor interest every six months;

CABS provide a period of Non-Payment where interest accrues andcompounds until maturity like a U.S. savings bond;

All of These Financing Tools Can be Designed:

15

9

Technology Financing Tools and Options

Proposition 39 General Obligation Bonds – Short Term Amortization (3-10 Years)Provides a debt service repayment planned around the useful life of devices purchasedAllows for the District to take advantage of low interest ratesAvailable issuance amount will be determined by tax base, credit rating, outstanding parity debt,authorization, funding needs, and interest rate environment

Technology Endowment Fund3-10 year issuances that deposit money into an investment fundThe investment fund disperses money annually or periodically over the life of the bondSince bond proceeds are invested, rather than spent, interest earning are constrained per Federal taxregulationsFunding amount and disbursements are heavily dependent on market rates

Other Methods of IssuanceDistrict’s that do not have remaining authorization under Proposition 39 or do not have immediateplans to proceed with a Proposition 39 election can issue Tech Bonds with other available revenuestreamsCertificates of Participation (General Fund Obligation)Mello-Roos Special Tax Bonds (Special Tax Obligation)These methods are limited as many districts may not have available funds to pay debt service out ofthe General Fund and/or may not have community facilities districts within district boundaries

16

Tech Bond Case Study

In September 2013, Stifel assisted the Rosemead School District (the “District”) to issue bondsunder an existing Proposition 39 authorization (the “2008 Authorization”)

In preparing for the second issuance of bonds under the 2008 Authorization, the Districtdetermined a portion of the proceeds would be dedicated to fund technology

To avoid the scrutiny of funding technology with long term bonds, the District issued twoseries of bonds, Series B and Series T-1

Series B was issued as a 30 year bond to repay an outstanding bond anticipation note andSeries T-1 was issued as a five year bond to fund the cost of technology improvementsSeries T-1 was able to fund $760,000 in technology improvements

$- $5.00

$10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00

Estim

ated

Tax

Rat

e pe

r $10

0K

of A

V

Rosemead School District (Los Angeles County, California)Election of 2008, General Obligation Bond Program – Debt Service Schedule / Estimated Tax Rates

Election of 2008 Prior Bonds Election of 2008, Series B (Infrastructure) Election of 2008, Series T-1 (Technology)

17

10

Section 2

Municipal Market Performance and Current Economic Environment

18

Municipal Market Overview

Municipal rates near multi-year lows

30-year AAA-rated Municipal Market Data (MMD) index reached 18-month low of 2.75% on 10/15/2014

Recent interest rate volatility has calmed down in recent weeks

‘AAA’ Rated MMD for Select Dates in 2013/2014Changing Yield Curves30-Year and 10-Year ‘AAA’ MMD Yields

(12/1/2011 – 12/19/2014)

19

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28

2013 Low (5/1/13)

Current 12/18/2014

2013 High (9/3/13)

0.5%

1.5%

2.5%

3.5%

4.5%

5.5%

Dec-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Jun-13 Dec-13 Jun-14

30-Year MMD

10-Year MMD

2014 initially witnessed a slow glide down in yields – volatility returning at these lower levels

11

Investor Demand

Investors added $1.1 billion to Municipal mutual funds last week

Only weeks in 2014 have seen net outflows from tax-exempt funds

Year-to-datenet positive inflows of over $23 billion

High yield funds have been one of the larger beneficiaries

Source: Investment Company Institute

Bond fund investor redemptions weaken Muni market and limit further improvement

20

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Dec

-10

Feb-

11

Apr

-11

Jun-

11

Aug

-11

Oct

-11

Dec

-11

Feb-

12

Apr

-12

Jun-

12

Aug

-12

Oct

-12

Dec

-12

Feb-

13

Apr

-13

Jun-

13

Aug

-13

Oct

-13

Dec

-13

Feb-

14

Apr

-14

Jun-

14

Aug

-14

Oct

-14

Dec

-14

($ in Billions)

$45 billion in outflows (Nov. 2010-May 2011)

$61 billion ininflows

(Sep. 2011 -Dec 2012 ) $65 billion in

outflows ( May 2013 - Jan. 15,

2014)

$23.3 billion ininflows

(Jan. 15, 2014 -Dec. 2014 )

Source: Thomson Financial as of 10/9/2014.

30-Year AAA Municipal Market Data Index

Municipal Tax-Exempt Interest Rates

30-year rate reaches two year high of 4.49% on 9/5/2013; now 157 basis points lower

21

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Max = 5.94%

Min = 2.47%

Current = 2.94%

Average = 4.08%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

Dec-13 Feb-14 Apr-14 Jun-14 Aug-14 Oct-14 Dec-14

Average = 3.41%

12

New issue volume picking up towards the end of 2014

SIFMA Municipal Bond Issuance Survey had forecast approximately $310 billion primary supply in 2014, comparableto 2013 issuance

Year-to-date 2014 primary market volume higher by 1% compared to same period in 2013

“Negative net new issuance” possible as total redemptions from refundings and maturities outpace total new supply

Typical seasonal increases in issuance expected

Increase in volume in recent months relative to 2013 levels

Municipal Market Annual Supply

1Long term issues only. Weekly averages of estimated 30-day visible supply. Sources: SDC, The Bond Buyer. As of 10/9/2014.

Bond Buyer 30-Day Visible Supply1

Positive Theme in the Municipal Market

Supply remains very supportive technical factor

22

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Dec

-12

Feb-

13

Apr

-13

Jun-

13

Aug

-13

Oct

-13

Dec

-13

Feb-

14

Apr

-14

Jun-

14

Aug

-14

Oct

-14

($ in Billions)

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013(1/1-12/18)

2014(1/1-12/18)

($ in Billions)

New Money Refunding

Annual Average Issuance (Past 6 years): $363.3 bn

2014 Issuance (1/1-12/18): $313 bn (1% rise from 2013 same

period)

California 2014 Issuance Overview

Opportunities to issue new moneydepend on November elections

113 Prop 39 elections requiring 55%voter approval39 parcel tax elections requiring 2/3voter approval

23

0

50

100

150

200

$0$1$2$3$4$5$6$7$8

2012 2013 2014

Num

ber

ofFi

nanc

ings

Par

Amou

nt(b

illio

ns)

General Obligation BondsRefunding/New Money Issuance Trend

Ref (Par) New Money (Par)Ref (Fin.) New Money (Fin.)

0

5

10

15

20

25

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

2012 2013 2014

Num

ber

ofFi

nanc

ings

Par

Amou

nt(m

illio

ns)

Certificates of ParticipationRefunding/New Money Issuance Trend


0

5

10

15

20

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2012 2013 2014

Num

ber

ofFi

nanc

ings

Par

Amou

nt(m

illio

ns)

Communities Facilities DistrictRefunding/New Money Issuance Trend


Prop 39Elections

11374%

Parcel TaxElections

3926%

November 2014 Election Summary

Source: CDIAC

13

Source: School Services of California

(1) Proposition 39 elections commenced in Spring 2001.

45.6%

School District General Obligation Election Results:January 1986 – November 2014

527 Issues($23.2Authorization)

PASS FAIL

865 Issues($108.9 Authorization)

178 Issues($11.7 B Authorization)

447 Issues($19.5Authorization)

California School District General Obligation Bond Election Results

24

83%

17%

Prop 39

54%46%

Prop 46

Many local governments in the State of California saw double-digit growth inassessed valuations from 2003-2007This trend slowed or reduced to high single digit and double digit reductions duringthe recession but has bounced back in the last few yearsAs shown below, all of the top 15 populated Counties in California sustained anincrease (again) in assessed valuation from 2013-14 to 2014-15

County 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Alameda 4.77% -2.51% -1.58% 0.05% 2.14% 5.02% 5.96%Contra Costa 0.31% -6.97% -3.05% -0.37% 0.86% 3.73% 9.03%Fresno 1.49% -2.95% -0.76% 0.47% 0.00% 5.62% 3.75%Kern 5.89% -6.20% 4.63% 2.43% 7.50% 3.31% -Los Angeles 6.95% -0.53% -1.81% 1.41% 2.24% 4.61% 5.47%Orange 3.89% -1.38% -0.54% 0.98% 1.92% 3.43% 6.36%Riverside 1.44% -10.49% -4.40% -1.25% -0.02% 4.21% 8.31%Sacramento 1.81% -7.15% -1.84% -3.65% -2.66% 4.10% 6.40%San Bernardino 5.20% -6.01% -4.32% -0.47% 0.80% 6.20% 5.93%San Diego 4.42% -2.40% -1.42% 0.40% -0.14% 6.02% 5.78%San Francisco 8.63% 7.08% 4.32% 0.49% 4.20% 4.60% 5.46%San Joaquin -0.81% -10.22% -3.81% -3.70% -0.33% 5.79% 8.93%San Mateo 7.99% 0.68% -1.44% 0.96% 3.33% 6.01% 5.61%Santa Clara 6.98% 0.14% -2.40% 0.90% 3.25% 8.35% 6.80%Ventura 3.17% -2.42% -0.26% 0.00% 0.60% 3.20% 5.70%

*Source: County Assessor Websites/Urbics

California Statewide Assessed Valuation Trends

25

14

Difference in Bond Interest Rates By Type of Bonds

26

Current Interest Bonds and Capital Appreciation Bonds

Hypothetical Interest Rates as of October 10, 2014General Obligation Bonds rated A1/A+

Capital Appreciation Bonds

MaturityYear

CurrentInterestBonds

Non-CallableMaturities

CallableMaturities

Convertible CapitalAppreciation

Bonds*

5 1.35% 1.75% n.a. n.a.

10 2.50% 3.15% n.a. n.a.

15 3.00% 4.20% 4.40% n.a.

25 3.50% 4.75% 4.95% 4.65%

*Conversion from CABs to CIBs in 10 years from closing date of bonds.

All numbers are preliminary and are subject to change. Tax-exempt interest rates were derived from spreads to the 'AAA' ratedMMD Index of comparable recently priced financings and secondary market trades as of October 10, 2014. In no way does Stifelrepresent that the bonds would receive such pricing results.

Section 3

Recent Legislation Impact to California K-12 SchoolFinance and What’s Next?

27

15

AB 182 – Effective January 1, 2014

AB 182 does not ban the use of CABs

All CABS longer then 10 years must be callable

The legislation limits the repayment of CAB general obligation bonds (for schools only) to 25 years

The current maximum repayment period for school district general obligation bonds is 40 years

CIBS may be issued up to 40 years under the government code, but additional disclosure is needed forCIBS issued greater than 30 years

The debt service repayment ratio (of Total Debt Service to Principal) would be limited to 4-to-1

This requirement is not practical as the interest rate environment is constantly changing and itdisproportionately affects the use of CABs by lower rated districts and encourages the use of CABs inevery bond issuance rather than in the final series

Interest rates would be capped at 8% versus the current maximum rate of 12%Lowering the maximum interest rate would reduce or eliminate a district’s ability to generatepremium to provide needed debt service funds and certain costs of issuance and is already limited bythe repayment ratio test.

More disclosure on assumptions and cost comparisons to evaluate GO Bond issues in a public meeting

28

Existing Authorization Impact of AB 182

Impact will vary from District to District depending on these factors:

Assumptions used to plan and update ongoing Facility Program

Size/Durability of tax base and wealth levels of community

Tax Rate estimates (voter promised something less than $30 or $60 per $100,000statutory limit

Interest rate environment

Overall, AB 182 reduces any given school districts ability to access approvedauthorizations

Could vary from 20% to 100% of lost voter approved authorization

No grandfathering of existing authorization plan/structuresOnly grandfathering of old laws to BANS issued prior to January 1, 2014, but theymust be approved by a wavier process through the State Department of Education

29

16

AB 182 – The Wealth Divide

The table below summarizes the impacts on two California school districts that hadNovember 2012 bond elections and the impact of AB 182 on the respective bondprograms. The impacts are illustrated by showing the effect on the amount of bondproceeds from different bond repayment periods and by using capital appreciationbonds that could be redeemed or refinanced in 10 years.

Overview of Sample Districts:

District A District B

Location: Coastal Southern California Central Valley

2012-13 ADA: 12,500 13,500

Bond Authorization Amount: $449,000,000 $90,000,000

Reduction of Proceeds Based on Length of Bond Repayment & Use of Callable Capital Appreciation Bonds

District A District B

Maximum Length of Bonds (%) (%)

40 Years 0.00% 0.00%

35 Years -3.1% -13.3%

30 Years -13.8% -21.1%

25 Years -25.2% -28.9%

30

Recent History of CABs Issued by California School Districts

31

CABs as Percent of All School DistrictGeneral Obligation Bonds

Number ofAll School Number of Percentage of

New Money Issues with All IssuesYear GO Bonds CABs with CABs

1995 94 21 22.3%1996 92 19 20.7%1997 139 41 29.5%1998 193 51 26.4%1999 177 49 27.7%2000 175 53 30.3%2001 164 50 30.5%2002 213 82 38.5%2003 179 64 35.8%2004 250 91 36.4%2005 194 87 44.8%2006 196 93 47.4%2007 198 96 48.5%2008 168 83 49.4%2009 211 123 58.3%2010 142 77 54.2%2011 169 101 59.8%2012 120 49 40.8%2013 188 40 21.3%

2014* 93 17 18.3%

CABs have been component of schoolgeneral obligation bonds for many years

Increased use of CABs corresponds withapproval of Proposition 39 in November2000

Use of CABs rose in response to slowdown ordecline of assessed valuation duringrecession

Frequency of CAB maturities longer than 30years increased during the recession andlegislative approval of AB 1388 in 2009

CAB issuance fell in late 2012 through 2014partly due to media attention, politicalcriticism and passage of AB182 in 2013

Source: SDC as of 10/10/2014

Through 3rd quarter of 2014

17

Slower access to unissued bonds for existing bond authorizations?

Diminished purchasing power of bond proceeds?

Smaller bond authorizations for future bond measures?

Need to conduct multiple future bond elections to achieve adequate funding sourcefor facility needs?

Differential effects for low-wealth and high-wealth school districtsDistricts with smaller assessed valuations, more limited prospects for strongfuture assessed valuation growth, and lower credit ratings are likely to beaffected more by the requirement to limit the length of bond maturities thanlarger, wealthier districts?

AB 182 Impact Questions to Audience

32

What’s Next for California K-12 School Finance?

Revisit statutory bonding capacity limit2.50% of assessed value for unified districts1.25% of assessed valuation for all other districts

Revisit tax rate limitations for proposition 39 (2000)$60 per $100,000 of assessed value for unified districts$30 per $100,000 of assessed value for all other districts

How should technology and/or energy efficiency projects be fundedCurrent through bonds, and/or leases, other meansLevy taxes to cut out interest cost for short energy life projects

33

Areas to Increase Access to Local Funds

18

Bio – John R. Baracy

John R. BaracyManaging DirectorStifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporatedtel: 213-443-5025e-mail: [email protected]

John R. Baracy is a Managing Director in the Los Angeles public finance office of Stifel. Mr. Baracy began his publicfinance career in 1994 and has experience in all facets of the municipal finance business. He specializes in themanagement, structuring and sale of California and Arizona K-12 Education and Community College District newmoney and refunding general obligation bonds, certificates of participation, tax credit bonds, Mello-Roos bonds andtax and revenue anticipation notes. In addition to managing the introduction of these financings into the market, Mr.Baracy performs debt capacity, general obligation bond tax rate and credit analyses, charter school finance analyses,California K-12 education finance legislation analyses, and evaluates the investment of bond proceeds. Throughout hiscareer, he has completed more than 380 financings totaling over $8.5 billion.

Mr. Baracy graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from Arizona State University with an emphasis in Finance.Mr. Baracy maintains his Series 7 and 63 licenses with FINRA and frequently presents for California K-12 schooldistrict advocacy groups such as C.A.S.H., CASBO, CSBA and CALSA.

34




Status of the State School Facility Program

Tom DuffyMurdoch, Walrath Holmes

1

MWH 2015 SCHOOLFINANCECONFERENCEFOR BUSINESSES

Status of the State School FacilityProgram

Thomas G. DuffyMurdoch, Walrath & [email protected]

How We Got Here

Requirements to Serve Students in CaliforniaGiven

The Authority to Fund, Tax and Impose Feesand

The Utilization of CEQA Procedures and Case Lawto

Ensure K – 12 Capital Resources are Available to Meet Demands

2

2

Requirements to ServeStructurally Safe Schools

• Assembly Bill 2342 (Field) March 23, 1933

• The Long Beach earthquake occurred on March 10, 1933 at

5:54 PM.

3

“Gears Greased by Legislature”

Los Angeles Times on March 13, 1933:

“Whatever legislative relief is needed to ease conditions in the Southern California earthquake zone will be speeded through the lower house … will be dumped into the Senate, where fast action is assured. The Governor will complete the cycle by signing any measure in this respect as quickly as it reaches his desk.”

4

3


The California Lawmakers and Governor James Rudolph do respond quickly and within thirty days of the earthquake enact legislation to ensure the structural safety of K -12 school buildings.

The Republican governor signs AB 2342 – the “Field Act” –on April 10, 1933.

5


The measure is named for its author, Assemblyman C. Don Field, a Republican building contractor from Glendale who witnessed buildings crumple in the quake.

He stated that: “These [school] buildings will be erected, constructed and reconstructed at once and, accordingly, it is necessary that this act go into immediate effect in order that the lives and property of the people will be protected.”

6

4

7

Education Code 17280• 17280. (a) (1) The Department of General Services under the

police power of the state shall supervise the design and construction of any school building or the reconstruction or alteration of or addition to any school building … and … ensure that the work of construction has been performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, for the protection of life and property.

8

5

Compulsory AttendanceEducation Code 48200:

• Each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years … is subject to compulsory full-time education.

• Each person subject to compulsory full-time education and each person subject to compulsory continuation education shall attend the public full-time day school or continuation school or classes and for the full-time designated as the length of the school day …

9

Special Needs StudentsPublic Law 94-142

• Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 renamed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)

• In 1975, Congress passed Public Law 94-142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act), now codified as IDEA. In order to receive federal funds, states must develop and implement policies that assure a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities. The state plans must be consistent with the federal statute.

10

6

Special Needs Students• PL 94-142 contains a provision that disabled students

should be placed in the least restrictive environment, such that there is the maximum possible opportunity to interact with non-impaired students.

• Separate schooling may only occur when the nature or severity of the disability is such that instructional goalscannot be achieved in the regular classroom.

11

Special Needs Students• The law contains a due process clause that guarantees the

holding of “fair hearings” for purposes of resolving conflicts between the parents or guardians and the responsible school authority serving the special needs student.

• The original law established significant goals, and subsequent case law and legislation have strengthened student and parent’s rights.

12

7

Special Needs StudentsGoals:• Ensure that special education services are available to children

who need them; and,• Guarantee that decisions about services to disabled students

are fair and appropriate.

Rights of Students and Parents:• Bring a lawsuit against the school authority once the

administrative remedies had been exhausted if not satisfied; and,

• Collect attorney's fees upon winning a case against a school authority. 13

Summary of Requirements to ServeStudents

• Provide structurally safe schools through the oversight of a state agency, in order to –

• Guarantee that the district can provide adequate numbers of classrooms and related facilities to accommodate compulsory attendance for all students within the district that seek to enroll, including –

• Classrooms and adapted facilities on all school campuses as needed to meet the instructional goals of students with special needs within the “least restrictive environment,” including those unanticipated requirements that arise out of “fair hearings” or litigation.

14

8

Authority to Fund, Tax, Impose FeesOr Utilization of CEQA Proceduresand Case LawAUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO FUND SCHOOL BUILDINGS

• Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976: Commencement of state authority to fund facilities.

• 1998 State School Facilities Fund, November 1998: Continuation of state authority to fund facilities and linking that funding to fee levying authority of local governing boards of education.

15

State School Bonds Approvedby the Voters

16

9

Authority to Tax• 1978 Proposition 13:

• General Obligation Bond Authority Eliminated

• “Ad valorem” taxes seen as too costly

• Parcel Tax with 66% (2/3) Vote Replaces G.O. Authority

• “Non-ad valorem taxes” or flat taxes less powerful

• 1986 General Obligation Bond 66% (2/3) Vote: Proposition 46

• Restored the “Ad valorem” taxing authority/ 66% (2/3)

17

Authority to Tax

• 2000 General Obligation Bond 55% Vote: Proposition 39

• Limits of $30/$100,000 and $60/$100,000 AV

• Limits of 2.5 % and 1.25% of AV

• Assembly Bill 182 (Buchanan) limits bond management

18

10

Authority to Impose Fees1977 Senate Bill 201 – The School Facilities Act

• CEQA was new and some districts relied upon it

• Student enrollments increased with residential growth

Government Code 65971 – Findings by district/varying feeGovernment Code 65972 – City or county action

1987 Assembly Bill 2926 – A package of three bills

• Impetus was litigation and wide ranges of fees in state 19

Authority to Impose FeesGovernment Code 65995 – Now Referred to as Level 1

• $1.50/square foot for residential state-wide

• $0.25/square foot for commercial state-wide

• New authority for fee imposed by governing board

• No specific authority of city or county to intervene

• However, “Police Power” of city and county remained

• Litigation continued due to fee inadequacy

• The developer feared trinity: “MIRA, Hart and Murrieta” 20

11

1998 Senate Bill 50Impetus:• Litigation Continues• Developer fees inadequate to meet cost

Creation of the School Facility Program (SFP)• Linkage of developer fees to state funding• Simplified grant based state program• Plan was less state agency entanglement

21

Government Code 65995.5 –Level 2

• “MIRA” authority in case law suspended

• Districts access higher fees if SFP eligible

• Higher fees based upon state funding allowance

22

12

Government Code 65995.7 –Level 3

Level 3 Fees – Covering Local Fees and State Match

• Doubling of Level 2 fee

• Requires findings by State Allocation Board (SAB)

• Political issue impacts district fee mitigation

23

California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA)• School district prominence as public agency

• Use of Education Code 17211

• School site selection hearing by governing board

• Reverse consideration given to development

• Student safety

• Traffic

• Air quality

• Noise24

13

Reliance Upon Case Law• Serrano

• Equal access to a quality education• Property wealth as the foundation

• Butt• Closing school six weeks early• State compelled to provide emergency funding

• Godinez• Access to limited state funds• Impediments of local circumstances• No decision of the Superior Court• Settlement of issue by the SAB to hold funds• A priority for funding was created 25

Reliance Upon Case LawWilliams

• Three issues:

1. Lack of properly credentialed teachers

2. Lack of adequate numbers of text books

3. Lack of facilities “in good repair”

26

14

Summary of Authority to Ensure thatK-12 Capital Resources are Available toMeet Demands

1. The authority of the state to meet district facility needs remains unchanged in statute; districts may challenge the lack of state action by formal appeals or litigation.

2. The authority of governing boards to place local bond and parcel tax measures before the electorate remains unchanged and the use of existing bond authority is constrained by relatively new statute.

27

3. The authority of governing boards to impose fees is diminished by the effect of the inadequacy of existing statute and the inaction of the state.

4. The authority of governing boards to utilize CEQA remains in place.

5. The authority of governing boards and superintendents to rely upon case law is unchanged. 28

Summary of Authority to Ensure thatK-12 Capital Resources are Available toMeet Demands

15

29

30

16

Concluding Comment –From Our Pollster

“Keep the need for adequate K-12 facilities in front of the people.”

John Fairbank

31

A

Thomas G. DuffyMurdoch, Walrath & Holmes

[email protected](916) 441-3300

32




Legislative and Political Issues Updates

David WalrathMurdoch, Walrath Holmes

1

Legislative and PoliticalIssues Update2015 School Finance Conference For Businesses

David WalrathMurdoch, Walrath & Holmes

Possible Ballot Propositions for 2016

• Valid signatures needed to qualify:

• Statutory – 365,879

• Constitutional – 512,231

• 27.5% less than before November 2014

2

2


• Split Roll or Other Proposition 13

• Cigarette Tax Increase

• Extension of Proposition 30• Sales & Income• Just Income

• Oil Severance Tax

• Other tax proposals

• Pension Reform 3


• Single Use Plastic Bags (referendum November 2016)

• State School Bond

• Hospital Fees (already qualified in November 2016)

• Legislative Member Suspension (already qualified for

June 2016)

• English Language Instruction (already qualified for

November 2016) 4

3


• Bullet Train Funding

• CEQA Reform

• Redevelopment Restoration (55% vote on

redevelopment bonds)

• More, More, More

5

Governor Brown Initiatives

• Tax Reform?

• Pension Reform?

6

4

Litigation

• Instructional Equity Issues• Vergara - Teachers• Cruz - Instructional Quality Outcomes

• Fiscal Equity Issues• Funding Adequacy• State Mandates

• Capital Issues• LLB Continuing• Use of Local Bond Funds 7

Expected 2015 Legislation

• Teacher Retention and Dismissal

• Lease-Leaseback and Pre-Qualification

• Three Percent Routine Restricted Maintenance

• CalSTRS Contribution Rates

8

5

Expected 2015 Legislation

• Competitive Bidding for Energy Projects

• Contribution limitations for Local School Bond

Campaigns

• State School Bond

• School District Reserve Requirements

9

CalPERS/CalSTRS FundingUpdate

10

6

CalSTRS Member Contribution Increases

CalSTRS 2014 Funding Plan - www.calstrs.com/calstrs-2014-funding-plan

11

• Member contributions increase by an additional 2.25 percent for 2% at 60 members and an additional 1.205 percent for 2% at 62 (PEPRA) members phased in over the next three years, beginning July 1, 2014.

CalSTRS EmployerContributionIncreases


12

• Employer contributions of 8.25 percent increase by an additional 10.85 percent phased in over seven years, and continue through 2046 (unless adjusted according to the parameters of the bill). Total of 19.1 percent.

7

CalSTRS State Contribution Increases


13

• The state contribution increases by 4.311 percent above the Base Rate, in addition to 2.5 percent for the Supplemental Benefit Maintenance Account.

CalSTRS & CalPERS Contribution RateComparison


14

8

Contact Information

David [email protected]

Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes1130 K Street, Suite 210Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 441-3300

Dave Walrath is President of Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes (MWH). He primarily focuses on school finance, state budget, teacher retirement and school facility issues. He provides general consulting as well as direct legislative, administrative and budgetary lobbying on these issue areas.

MWH has been instrumental in shaping statewide policy and implementing regulations for K-12 schools for almost five decades. Strategic relationships have been forged with the State Administration through agencies such as the Department of Education, the Office of Public School Construction, the State Allocation Board, and the Department of Finance; and, on the federal level, with key Congressional Members and the Executive Branch.

15




Legal Issues Affecting School Operations and Facilities

Phil HendersonOrbach Huff Suarez Henderson LLP

1


Murdoch Walrath & Holmes2015 School Finance Conference for Businesses

Phil Henderson

OutlineSB 854

Prevailing Wage is Prevalent

AB 1705Limiting Exceptions to 5% Retention

Lease-LeasebackChallenges Continue to Lose

Client RelationsDinners & Gifts & Golf

Local LaborPromises to Communities by Boards

2

2

Senate Bill 854:Prevailing Wages (& Contracts & Services)

Senate Bill (SB) 854 became effective July 1, 2014.

Establishes a new public works contractor registration program for all public works projects.

SB 854 requires:Districts complete (on-line) a PWC 100 form for all public works projects of $1,000 or more.

All contractors (and subcontractors) on public works projects $1,000 or more must be registered with DIR.

3

Senate Bill 854:“Public Works” – It’s More Than You Think

This is not about “procurement.”Forget about bid limits and about how a “public project” is defined for procurement rules under the Public Contract Code or the Civil Code.

Forget about what is “construction,” what is a “repair,” what is “maintenance,” or what is “technology.”

Focus on what is being done.

Is it work that is considered a “public work” under the Labor Code?

In general, is it work that is performed under contract, paid for with public funds and comes within a classification issued by DIR that requires the payment of prevailing wages?

4

3

Senate Bill 854:“Public Works” – It’s More Than You Think

Public works = Any contract in excess of $1,000 which requires the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work of any owned, leased or operated District facility paid for either fully or partially with public funds. (See Labor Code sections 1720-1720.6)Maintenance. “This section is applicable to contracts let for maintenance work” (section 1771).

Excludes routine, recurring or usual janitorial or custodial work and security guards.

Testing as part of ongoing “service” contracts may be covered depending on scope of “fixing” or “maintaining” that is part of the testing.

5

Senate Bill 854:Key Dates

Now: Districts must submit a PWC-100 for all public works projects over $1000.March 1, 2015: Contractors and subcontractors must be registered to bid work let for bid on or after this date. April 1, 2015: Districts must utilize registered contractors and subcontractors for any new public works projects awardedon or after this date.All public works contractors on any new public works projects must furnish certified payroll (online) to DIR.

January 1, 2016:All public works contractors must furnish certified payroll (online) to DIR for new and ongoing projects.

6

4

Senate Bill 854:Contractor Requirements

Meet certain minimum requirements, Register with DIR using the new online application system, (https:apps.dir.ca.gov/eCPR/DAS/altlogin)Pay an annual fee of $300.00. What if a contractor fails to register?

Ineligible to bid or work on public works projects (with exception of joint ventures and federally funded projects).For first violation in 12-month period, may pay $2000 to register if otherwise qualified.For inadvertent lapsed renewal, 90 day grace period to pay double fee to re-register ($600).

7

Assembly Bill 1705:Legislation Regarding Retention

Amends Public Contract Code sections 7201.Extends the “5% retention” provisions to January 1, 2018.Requires bid documents include details explaining the basis for finding that a specific project is substantially complex in addition to including the actual retention amount.

To be substantially complex, a project must be unique and not regularly, customarily, or routinely performed by the agency or licensed contractors.In other words, a maintenance project cannot be substantially complex to enable Districts to withhold more than 5% retention.

8

5

Lease-Leaseback:Status of Recent Challenges

These cases usually arose (arise?) in response to District filing a “validation action.”

Some of the cases were “reverse” validation actions where an entity sued the school district.

Recent Cases:Solana Beach SD v. All PersonsSweetwater Union SD v. All Persons Davis v. Fresno USDMcGee v. Torrance USD Long Beach USD v. All PersonsLos Alamitos USD v. All Persons

9

Lease-Leaseback:Status of Recent Challenges

The Los Alamitos USD case was appealed and the school district won.

“Does Education Code section 17406 exempt school districts from obtaining competitive bids when entering into what are known as “lease-leaseback” agreements to improve school property? We conclude the answer is yes. More than 40 years ago, the California Attorney General concluded the language of the statute is plain, unambiguous, and explicit, and does not impose bid requirements on school districts. We agree, and nothing has occurred in the interim that would change our conclusion.” (Opinion, Los Alamitos USD v. Howard Contracting, Cal. Crt of App., Opinion, Pg. 1; Sept. 10, 2014.)

On December 10, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied the challengers request for certiorari and refused to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Therefore, the Los Alamitos USD v. Howard Contracting(9/17/14, No. 6049194) remains binding on all state trial courts.

10

6

Client Relations:Can I Take My Client (District CBO) to Dinner?

The Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code, § 87100 et seq. (“PRA”): Prohibits public employees from using their official positions to influence governmental decisions in which they have a financial interest.Government Code § 1090: Prohibits a public officer or employee from being financially interested in any contract made by the officer or employee in his or her official capacity;The common law conflict of interest doctrine (embodied in case law): Requires public employees to avoid placing personal interests above or in conflict with their duty to the public and to avoid creating the appearance or impression of impropriety.New Gift Limit Effective January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016: $460. State and local officials and employees are prohibited from receiving a gift or gifts in excess of the gift limit in a calendar year from certain sources. The gift limit is applicable only to individuals and entities that would have to be disclosed on the Form 700.

11


What does this mean to a Consultant?:Gifts from a consultant can form the basis for violation of Section 1090.Violation of Section 1090 means the contract is void.A void contract entitles public entity to seek “disgorgement” of all amounts paid on it.

Disgorgement means all the amounts paid by the public entity are “taken back” from the consultant , even if:

The District person(s) involved were just as dirty as the consultant(s) (the “gifter(s)”);Most of the money was paid to subconsultants.

Disgorgement action (lawsuit) can be brought by the public entity, or on its behalf.

12

7


ScenarioDistrict official participates in activities with a consultant that inured to his/her benefit:

Sports ticketsGolf outingsDinnersConcertsWine tastingTrip to Germany to see synthetic field installation

That official has input/decision making power over a contract with that consultant.The resulting contract may be void per the PRA, Gov’t. Code § 1090.

13

Client Relations:And Don’t Forget…

SweetwaterSouthwest College Carlsbad

14

8

Local Labor:What Can We Do?

School districts, especially when trying to pass local GO bonds, often want to give hiring preferences for local businesses on school district projects.Out-of-state companies argue that such favoritism conflicts with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Article 1, §8) and the equal protection and due process clauses of the l4th Amendment.

The basic tenet is that a resident/local business/labor preference on public construction contracts is prohibited under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, which provides in part: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States….” Courts have interpreted this to mean that states cannot discriminate against citizens or residents of other states with regard to such fundamental rights as the pursuit of a livelihood. (Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978) 437 U.S. 518.)

Even so, courts have upheld local preference statutes when the state or city can make a reasonable showing that the statutes will achieve a legitimate state or local interest (e.g., expanding the local economy).

15

Local Labor:What Can We Do?

Therefore, by making certain findings, public entities can strengthen the bases for their position if they can meet the test set forth in United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor of Camden (1984) 465 U.S. 208 (“Camden”), the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case on the issue

The jurisdiction must document “substantial reason” for preferential treatment;

It must be shown that non-residents “constitute a particular source of evil,” or can be held partly responsible for the documented problem; and

The suggested remedy must not sweep unnecessarily broad, but be narrowly tailored to address the problem.

16

9

Local Labor:What Actually Happens

Districts don’t always ask if they can do this.

We (you) need to ask that question.Not a “legal” question per se, but what’s the chance of a challenge?How strong are the factors if the District even does a Camden analysis and test?

17

Local Labor:It Makes the News and Makes Strange Bedfellows

18

10

Local Labor:It Makes the News and Makes Strange Bedfellows

19


Murdoch Walrath & Holmes2015 School Finance Conference for Businesses

Thank You.Phil Henderson

[email protected]




What’s New on School Energy Programs andProposition 39 Implementation?

Mike KozlowskiJohnson Controls, Inc.

2015 SCHOOL FINANCE CONFERENCE FOR BUSINESSESHYATT REGENCY, INDIAN WELLS

EVALUATION FORM


Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Governor’s Budget Proposal K-14 Excellent Good Fair Poor

What’s Happening and What to Expect in theFinancial Markets? Excellent Good Fair Poor

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Status of the State School Facility Program Excellent Good Fair Poor

Legislative and Political Issues Update Excellent Good Fair Poor

Legal Issues Affecting School Operations and Facilitates Excellent Good Fair Poor

What’s New on School Energy Programs andProposition 39 Implementation? Excellent Good Fair Poor

Did you find the topics and conference to be valuable? Yes NoWould you recommend this conference to your colleagues? Yes No

What new topics should be added?

Hotel Facilities Excellent Good Fair PoorComments about the facilities:

General comments about the Conference:

school finance conference - mwhthe budget proposes the following recommendations for the design of a...

Documents