|
Community
College Facility Coalition
Legislative
Update — March 3, 2005 — 1 Page
CCFC
Phone 916.446.3042 — Website: www.caccfc.org
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST RECOMMENDS NO
PROJECTS FOR DELETION — Continuing a
recent trend regarding analysis of the community college capital outlay projects
proposed in the Governor’s Budget, the kinder, gentler Legislative Analyst’s
recommendation for 2005-06 makes no recommendation for elimination of proposed
projects.
The original project list included in the Governor’s Budget calls for 50
projects costing $262.5 million in 2005-06.
The Analyst’s recommendations focus on the following six projects and
their future costs for completion:
|
DISTRICT
|
COLLEGE
|
PROJECT
|
2005-06
|
FUTURE
COST
|
|
Citrus
|
Citrus
|
Vocational
Technology
Building
|
866,000
|
11,064,000
|
|
Contra
Costa
|
Los
Medanos
|
Core
Building
Remodel
|
182,000
|
2,277,000
|
|
Palo
Verde
|
Palo
Verde
|
Fine
and Performing Arts Complex
|
1,071,000
|
14,469,000
|
|
Rio
Hondo
|
Rio
Hondo
|
Applied
Technology Bldg Reconst.
|
828,000
|
10,591,000
|
|
San Mateo
|
Skyline
Coll.
|
Allied
Health Voc/Tech Trng Ctr
|
276,000
|
7,577,000
|
|
Santa Barbara
|
Santa Barbara
|
Drama
Music Bldg Modernization
|
786,000
|
8,563,000
|
The Analyst’s concern is the lack of funds for project completion under the
Proposition 55 higher education allocation.
Seventeen projects are identified in this manner in the three segments of
higher education. The six projects
in the above table are the community college projects so identified by the
Analyst.
Based on the Analyst’s prioritization of projects she recommends that $40
million be set aside from the 2004 Higher Education Bond for completion of the
projects for Citrus, Contra Costa, Rio Hondo, San Mateo and Santa Barbara, and
recommends approval of the appropriations for the 2005-06 Budget Act.
For the Palo Verde project she recommends that the project be approved
contingent upon the commitment of the district to complete the project with non
state funds. The rationale for this
recommendation is that auditoriums are a lower priority for state funding than
are instructional facilities.
|
