AB2006 requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to give priority to licensed child care providers seeking to use space in state office buildings when the state constructs, acquires, receives as a gift, or renovates such buildings on or after January 1, 2027. The bill directs DGS to set contract terms and rent—capped by a formula tied to actual or average state space costs and waivable for nonprofit providers that accept subsidies—and to ensure any center meets state and local day care building and program standards.
The measure is an explicit attempt to expand licensed child care near workplaces by reusing state real estate and, when appropriate, securing or retrofitting nearby off‑site space. It creates a new operational role for DGS, changes how state space planning, budgeting, and contracting will intersect with child care policy, and raises practical questions about funding, facility conversions, and enrollment priority for state employees and nearby residents.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires DGS to prioritize licensed child care providers for space in state office buildings constructed, acquired, gifted, or altered on or after January 1, 2027, and to set terms and rent for that space. DGS may charge rent based on actual or local/statewide averages (choosing the lowest) but can lower rates for viability; nonprofits that accept subsidies are exempt from rent.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Department of General Services, licensed day care providers (both nonprofit and for‑profit), state employees who work in or near state office buildings, and communities within a five‑mile radius of those buildings. Agencies that manage state property and contractors who handle renovations or retrofits will also encounter new requirements.
Why It Matters
AB2006 repurposes scarce state real estate as a policy lever to increase licensed child care capacity near workplaces, shifting facilities planning toward social service goals. For compliance officers and facilities managers, it creates new contracting, safety‑code, and funding considerations; for providers, it changes access to low‑cost sites and enrollment priorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB2006 creates a presumption in favor of licensed child care providers when the state brings new office space online or undertakes additions, alterations, or repairs to existing office buildings after January 1, 2027. The bill applies to buildings that can accommodate state employees; when those development or renovation opportunities arise, DGS must give priority to providers that want to contract to run a day care center in part of the building.
The statute does not mandate a specific procurement method, but it makes priority an explicit decision factor for DGS when allocating space.
DGS sets the commercial terms of any such arrangement. The director must establish a rental rate using a limiting formula—actual cost to the state, the average cost of state‑owned space in the area, or the statewide average, whichever is less—and retains discretion to charge less if necessary to make a center viable.
The bill also removes rent for nonprofit providers that accept subsidies. Those contractual arrangements will therefore vary by geography, the condition of the building, and DGS’s policy judgments about viability and subsidy usage.Any space intended for a day care center must meet prevailing local and state safety and building codes for child care facilities; indoor and outdoor activity spaces must comply with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
Where in‑building options are infeasible, DGS may secure off‑site space not physically attached to a state building if funds are available and certain conditions are met—such as infeasibility of on‑site development, cost efficiency, or security and facility benefits. The bill also authorizes retrofitting existing state buildings when funding is provided.On operations and access, AB2006 imposes an explicit enrollment priority: first to state employees who work in the building, then to other state employees, and finally to community members living within five miles.
The statute excludes facilities used for 24‑hour patient, inmate, or ward care (for example, state hospitals and correctional facilities) and relies on existing Health and Safety Code definitions for “day care center” and “licensed child care provider.” Implementation will require DGS to develop contracting templates, coordinate licensing and building inspections, and align capital and operating budgets to cover retrofits, security, and ongoing facility maintenance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The rule applies to state office buildings constructed, acquired, received as a gift, or altered on or after January 1, 2027.
DGS must set rent based on the lesser of: actual state cost, the local average cost of state space, or the statewide average cost, but may reduce rent further to keep a center viable.
Licensed nonprofit child care providers that accept subsidies are exempt from paying rent for space provided under this section.
If in‑building options are unusable or less efficient, DGS may secure equivalent off‑site space or retrofit existing buildings—only when funds are made available for those purposes.
Enrollment priority for centers established under the law is: (1) state employees who work in the building, (2) other state employees, (3) community members living within five miles.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings: child care need and state real estate opportunity
This short findings section frames the statute’s purpose: the Legislature identifies both a shortage of affordable, quality child care and the existence of underused state‑owned space near workplaces. Its legal effect is purely declarative, but it signals intent that facility and real estate decisions should account for child care access going forward—useful context for DGS when prioritizing space.
Triggers for priority — what kinds of projects are covered
This provision defines the triggering events that require DGS to give priority to child care providers: construction, acquisition, gifts of buildings, and additions/alterations/repairs to existing office buildings that can accommodate state employees. That language means routine capital projects and major renovations are the points at which space allocation decisions are revisited; ordinary maintenance projects that do not change usable space will likely fall outside its scope.
Contracting authority and rent rules
Subdivision (c) gives DGS the authority to set contract terms and the rental rate, and it prescribes a cap on that rate based on three metrics (actual state cost, local average, statewide average) with the director picking the least. Crucially, the director can charge less to ensure viability, and nonprofits that accept subsidies pay no rent. Practically, this creates a pricing regime that intentionally tilts toward affordability and may displace market rents; contract design will need to address maintenance, utilities, insurance, and liability to align expectations between DGS and providers.
Facility and program standards for centers
The bill requires that any space designed for a day care center meet prevailing local and state safety and building codes, and that indoor and outdoor activity space follow Title 22 standards. That pulls facility design into the regulatory orbit of the licensing authority and means many conversions will trigger capital upgrades—fire suppression, ingress/egress, restrooms, outdoor play surfaces, and fencing—that raise upfront costs and extend timelines before a provider can open.
Off‑site space as an alternative when on‑site doesn’t work
DGS may procure off‑site space not physically attached to a state building if funds exist and specific conditions are met: inability to utilize on‑site space, superior cost efficiency, or demonstrable benefits such as enhanced facilities or security mitigation. This gives the state flexibility to place centers nearby rather than inside every building, but it conditions that flexibility on budget availability and a DGS determination about relative cost and security benefits.
Retrofitting authority and enrollment priority
Subdivision (f) authorizes retrofitting existing buildings when state funds are available, explicitly tying implementation to appropriations. Subdivision (g) sets a clear enrollment hierarchy—first to employees in the building, then other state employees, then community residents within five miles—creating an operational rule for admissions that agencies and providers must implement and document in their enrollment policies.
Exclusions and statutory definitions
The statute excludes facilities that are part of state institutions providing 24‑hour care (e.g., hospitals and correctional facilities), and it adopts Health and Safety Code definitions for “day care center” and “licensed child care provider.” These limits narrow the scope to conventional day care operations and avoid applying the policy to residential or institutional care settings with different licensing regimes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State employees working in covered office buildings — they get prioritized enrollment and closer, licensed child care options that reduce commute‑time burdens and increase access during work hours.
- Licensed nonprofit child care providers that accept subsidies — they receive free use of state space, lowering operating costs and making subsidized care more financially viable.
- Licensed for‑profit and other licensed providers — they gain prioritized access to centrally located sites they might otherwise not be able to secure, expanding their facility options.
- Communities within a five‑mile radius of state office buildings — residents in those neighborhoods gain additional licensed child care capacity when centers admit community children after employee priority slots are filled.
- Children and families who rely on subsidized care — by lowering facility costs for nonprofits, the bill can expand slots for families who depend on subsidies.
Who Bears the Cost
- The state and taxpayers — retrofits, security changes, and potential below‑market rents represent direct fiscal costs that require appropriations or reduce asset revenue.
- Department of General Services — DGS takes on new planning, contracting, and oversight responsibilities, including site selection, leasing, and ensuring regulatory compliance.
- State agencies that manage facilities — agencies may lose rentable space or need to accommodate child care operations within existing footprint constraints, disrupting office layouts or future space planning.
- For‑profit providers that do not qualify for rent waivers — they may still pay below‑market but nonzero rent and absorb conversion costs, creating competitive differences between nonprofit and for‑profit providers.
- Local permitting authorities — increased conversions and retrofits may create additional inspection and permitting workloads without additional local funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to use scarce, revenue‑generating state real estate as a public subsidy to expand licensed child care (improving access for employees and nearby residents) or to preserve that real estate for state operational needs and market rental revenue; the bill hands DGS discretion to choose, but that discretion shifts the burden of reconciling fiscal responsibility, facility safety, and equitable access onto a single agency without a dedicated funding stream.
AB2006 creates clear priorities but leaves major implementation questions unresolved. The statute ties many actions—off‑site procurement and retrofitting—to the availability of funds, so the law’s impact depends on appropriations.
The rent formula caps rates against three benchmarks but permits the director to reduce rent further; that discretion introduces variability across regions and projects and risks uneven application or legal challenges from incumbent tenants or landlords if space is reallocated. The nonprofit rent exemption favors providers that accept subsidies, which may accelerate access for low‑income families but could skew provider selection and market competition.
Operationally, converting office space into licensed child care typically triggers significant capital work to meet building codes and Title 22 program standards—costs that the bill does not fund directly. DGS will need to develop contracting templates that address maintenance, utilities, liability, parking, security screening for children on state grounds, and staff access.
Enrollment priority rules favor state employees and nearby residents but may leave broader community needs unmet; the five‑mile radius is administrable but arbitrary, and the statute provides no appeals or exceptions process for enrollment disputes. Finally, the bill’s reliance on DGS determinations for feasibility, cost efficiency, and security creates a single managerial gatekeeper whose subjective judgments will shape geographic distribution and equity of access.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.