California Assembly Bill AB48

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/2/24
• Refer: 2/18/25
• Report Pass: 4/10/25
• Refer: 4/21/25
• Report Pass: 4/23/25
• Refer: 4/23/25
• Report Pass: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/1/25
• Refer: 5/14/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 6/4/25
• Refer: 6/5/25

Caption

An act to amend Sections 15102, 15106, 15268, and 15270 of, to add Article 8 (commencing with Section 89800) to Chapter 6 of Part 55 of Division 8 of Title 3 of, to add Article 7 (commencing with Section 92170) to Chapter 2 of Part 57 of Division 9 of Title 3 of, and to add Part 71 (commencing with Section 101200) to Division 14 of Title 3 of, the Education Code, relating to education finance, by providing the funds necessary therefor through an election for the issuance and sale of bonds of the State of California and for the handling and disposition of these funds.

Summary

AB 48 would place before voters the College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2026, a statewide general obligation bond measure intended to finance capital outlay projects for California’s public community colleges, the University of California, and the California State University. The bill authorizes bond proceeds for construction, reconstruction, renovation, and modernization of facilities; student and employee housing; off-campus and on-campus projects; intersegmental facilities; and preconstruction costs. It also states legislative intent to address facility needs tied to earthquakes, fires, hazardous materials, aging buildings, health and mental health space, vocational training, and student housing shortages. The measure also amends existing Education Code bond-capacity provisions for community college districts, increasing the bonding limits for those districts from 1.25 percent to 2 percent of taxable property in one provision, and from 2.5 percent to 4 percent in another. These changes would expand the borrowing capacity of community college districts if the bond act is approved by voters. The bill is structured to become operative only after voter approval of the bond act at a statewide election, and it includes standard bond-law provisions for repayment, refunding, interim financing, and treatment of bond proceeds.

Impact

If enacted by voters, AB 48 would create new state bond funds for community college and university capital projects and would direct how those funds may be spent. It would require the CSU and UC to adopt five-year affordable student housing plans for each campus, report annually on progress, and use those plans as a key factor in prioritizing bond-funded projects. It would also require independent performance audits, public hearings, public posting of project information, and retention of records for projects funded from the bond proceeds. In addition, the bill would raise community college district bonding limits in the Education Code, expanding the amount of local debt those districts may issue under existing school bond statutes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the Assembly, advancing through committee with solid margins and passing Assembly third reading by a wide vote. The structure of the measure, including its focus on facilities, housing, seismic safety, and accountability, suggests broad appeal among supporters of higher education infrastructure investment. No committee transcript was provided, so the record here reflects voting history more than detailed debate, but the vote pattern indicates the bill was not especially divisive in the Assembly.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the size and scope of the proposed state bond, the increase in community college district bonding capacity, and the use of state debt to finance higher education facilities and housing. Critics could also focus on the open-ended dollar amounts in the bill text, the long-term General Fund repayment obligations, and whether the bond priorities sufficiently balance housing, maintenance, seismic retrofit, and new construction. Supporters, by contrast, appear to emphasize affordability, student housing, safety upgrades, and stronger accountability requirements. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments of opponents and supporters are not documented in the provided materials.