CCFC Legislative Update: House of Origin Deadline

We are now at the mid-point of the first year in the two-year 2025-26 legislative session. Friday, June 6 is the deadline for bills to pass out of their house of origin. Bills that do not meet that deadline are not automatically “dead;” they become “two-year” bills and have a second opportunity to advance in early 2026, facing higher procedural hurdles. Below is an update on a selection of priority bills that may impact community college facilities.

AB 48 (Alvarez) – Higher Education Bond

AB 48 would place a higher education bond bill on the ballot in 2026. The bond would fund capital outlay projects at UC, CSU, and community colleges. The total dollar amount, as well as the split between higher education segments, is still to be determined. Assembly Member Alvarez is the chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance and recently dedicated an entire hearing to the state’s higher education facilities needs (for more information, click here for a recent CCFC update). CCFC has a support position on this bill, as it provides recognition of the need for additional state funding for community college capital outlay projects. Recent amendments include:

• Removal of problematic provisions related to K-12 developer fees and local bonding capacity increases, after CCFC raised significant concerns.
• Authorization to use bond proceeds for student housing. While this may help meet state and local policy goals, CCFC cautions that this should only be added if polling indicates it is supported by California voters.

AB 48 was passed by the Assembly and is now pending committee assignment in the Senate.

AB 90 (Jackson) – Overnight Student Parking Program

AB 90 requires the governing board of each community college district to include, as part of the annual campus safety plan, a plan of action to establish a student overnight parking program in designated parking lots on each campus. The governing board would be required to vote to establish the overnight parking program, and a vote would be conducted annually until the parking program is established at each campus. The plan should address campus security, access to bathroom and shower facilities, and the designation of at least one parking lot and at least 50 parking spots. Students should have access to the program until they are provided a sustainable alternative that provides stable housing for more than three weeks. CCFC is opposed to this bill due to impacts on facilities and because it mandates one specific approach to address housing insecurity. Recent amendments removed CSU from the bill and it now pertains only to community colleges. AB 90 was passed by the Assembly and is now pending committee assignment in the Senate.

AB 538 (Berman) – Certified Payroll Record Requests

AB 538 is sponsored by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Cal-Nevada Conference. Under current law, certified payroll records are required to be made available upon request by the public through the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) or the awarding body, and the contractor has 10 days to provide the record after a written request. AB 538 specifies that the awarding body must request the records from the contractor or subcontractor when the awarding body is not in possession of them. If the contractor or subcontractor fails to comply within 10 days, the awarding body shall notify DLSE, who may initiate existing penalties against the contractor or subcontractor. CCFC currently has a “watch” position on this bill but is following it closely. AB 538 was passed by the Assembly and is now pending committee assignment in the Senate.

AB 648 (Zbur) – Local Zoning Exemption for Housing

AB 648 is sponsored by Santa Monica College, Los Angeles Community College District, and two housing organizations (Abundant Housing LA, Student Homes Coalition), with the goal of removing barriers to quickly build housing for students. The bill exempts student and faculty/staff housing projects from “local zoning regulations” of a city or county when constructed on property owned or leased by a community college district. Recent amendments limit the exemption to parcels within a one-half mile radius of the main campus or a satellite campus that existed before July 1, 2025. Some legislators, as well as cities and counties, have raised concerns about a blanket exemption that bypasses the input of local jurisdictions. CCFC has a “watch” position on this bill. AB 648 was passed by the Assembly and is now pending committee assignment in the Senate.

AB 699 (Stefani) – Ballot Label Reform

AB 699 aims to address the negative effects created by AB 195 (Obernolte, 2017). The bill is sponsored by the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and supported by CCFC. Current law requires local bonds and other tax measures to state on the ballot label the rate, duration, and amount anticipated to be raised annually. This information is challenging to provide for bonds and creates voter confusion, making it more difficult for some schools to pass local bonds or place them on the ballot.

AB 699 provides the option to include an alternative fiscal disclosure directing voters to an enhanced Voter Guide for more information. Recent amendments were taken in Assembly Elections Committee to modify the alternative ballot label statement to “See County voter guide for detailed tax rate information.” AB 699 was passed by the Assembly and is now pending committee assignment in the Senate.

AB 905 (Pacheco) – Bond Oversight and Accountability

The first version of AB 905 created detailed reporting and disclosure requirements for local bonds that would be duplicative of the accountability and transparency mechanisms required by Proposition 39 (2000), which include annual independent financial and performance audits and Citizens’ Oversight Committees. CCFC adopted an “Oppose Unless Amended” position and requested an amendment to exempt community colleges. After CCFC worked with the author’s office, the bill was amended to no longer address local bonds and instead focus on goals, objectives, and performance indicators for state bonds. While the bulk of CCFC’s opposition was addressed, we still remained concerned about potential pitfalls and duplication of effort for state bonds. AB 905 was ultimately held on the suspense file in Assembly Appropriations Committee and will not move forward at this time.

Rebekah Kalleen
CCFC Executive Director