The first important issue that received significant discussion was the $4.8 billion higher education Intersegmental Agreement. Legislative staff questions focused on whether the agreement was equitable for community colleges and what the higher education community would agree to for a $3 billion allocation. The representatives of community colleges explained that the Intersegmental Agreement, not only provided 1/3 of $4 billion, but also gave community colleges a specific $200 million set aside for overall growth as well as access to each of the other three $200 million categories. All of the higher education segments were clear that the consensus agreement recognized that the $4.8 billion was far less than the actual need for higher education facilities and that we opposed last minute reductions without time to seriously evaluate the implications for all higher education segments.

The second important issue was whether community colleges should be required to utilize the Proposition 39 bonding provisions. Fred Harris made the arguments shared by CCFC that a "match" proposal fails to recognize the system's overwhelming facility needs, over $1 billion per year, and that a statewide ballot initiative can only address a fraction of these facility needs. Despite the local authority, many districts remain unable to pass a local bond measure. At times, community college districts will be competing with K-12 districts for voter approval of local bond measures. In addition, community college districts do not have access to developer and fees that K-12 districts have to meet their local contribution match requirements.

The Chancellor’s office also pointed out that the new priority criteria for capital outlay projects adopted by the Board of Governors in November 1999, which go into effect in 2003-04, will help our system to encourage a local contribution. These criteria provide funds for new projects on a priority basis to districts that contribute up to 50% from non-state resources towards the cost of their project.

As we speak, the Conference Committee and the working group are waiting for an announcement from the Governor’s office on what level of school facility bond funding he will support. At its first Conference Committee meeting, Senator Alpert pointed out that in order to qualify for the March ballot, the legislature would need to have a bond package to the legislative floor by September 11. It is now September 5. We have a long way to go, in six days.