Community College Facilities

Summary

The Governor’s budget proposes providing Proposition 2 bond funding for ten new capital outlay projects at the California Community Colleges (CCC) in 2026-27. The CCC Chancellor’s Office selected these projects using a scoring system it developed several years ago. Although we think this scoring system is generally reasonable, we identify a few potential issues with it. First, the share of funding allocated toward modernization projects is low relative to the system’s identified modernization needs. Second, the scoring system does not account for whether campuses have already received Proposition 2 funding, resulting in several campuses having multiple projects funded while other campuses have no projects funded. Third, although the scoring system grants more points to projects with higher local contributions, half of the projects selected this year have relatively low local contributions (less than 35 percent). Fourth, unlike the previous scoring system, this one does not prioritize traditional instructional facilities over other types of space, such as gymnasiums and performing arts centers. If any of these issues raise notable concerns for the Legislature, it could direct the Chancellor’s Office to adjust its scoring system accordingly and work with the administration to propose a new set of projects at the May Revision.

Introduction

Post Focuses on Community College Capital Outlay Projects. In this post, we first provide background on facilities and capital outlay financing at CCC. We then describe the Governor’s proposals to provide Proposition 2 bond funding for many new and continuing CCC capital outlay projects, assess those proposals, and provide an associated recommendation.

Background

CCC Has Many Facilities. The CCC system includes 72 local community college districts that operate 115 college campuses, as well as a number of off-campus centers and district offices. Based on the system’s most recent five-year capital outlay plan, these sites have a combined 87 million square feet of building space. This includes academic space (such as classrooms, laboratories, and libraries) as well as nonacademic space (such as parking structures, bookstores, and cafeterias). In general, academic space is eligible for state support, including funding from state general obligation bonds.

Recent General Obligation Bond Provides State Funding for CCC Facilities. In the November 2024 election, voters approved Proposition 2, a state general obligation bond that provides $1.5 billion for community college facilities. (The measure also provides $8.5 billion for K-12 school facilities.) These funds may be used for various purposes, including constructing new buildings, renovating existing buildings, acquiring land, and purchasing equipment. The measure does not specify how the funds are to be allocated among these specific purposes. In addition to this state bond, voters in the same election approved 14 local general obligation bonds totaling $9.9 billion for community college facilities.

Chancellor’s Office Uses Scoring System to Select Projects for Bond Funding. To receive state bond funding, a community college district must first submit a project proposal to the Chancellor’s Office. Each year, the Chancellor’s Office requests state funding for a subset of these project proposals, using a scoring system to prioritize among them. The Chancellor’s Office generally develops its scoring systems without legislative involvement. The CCC Board of Governors adopted the current scoring system in September 2020.

Scoring System Includes Three Project Categories. Under its current scoring system, the Chancellor’s Office allocates available bond funding across three project categories: life safety, modernization, and growth. It first designates funding for life safety projects. These projects must be accompanied by a third-party study identifying imminent health or safety risks, seismic risks, or failing infrastructure. The Chancellor’s Office may designate up to 50 percent of state funding each year for life safety projects, though the amount needed to fund all project proposals in this category is typically much lower. After addressing life safety projects, the Chancellor’s Office then allocates 65 percent of the remaining funding for modernization projects that renovate existing space and 35 percent for growth projects that add new space.

Projects Are Ranked Within Modernization and Growth Categories. The Chancellor’s Office uses certain scoring metrics to rank projects within these two categories. As Figure 1 shows, modernization projects receive points based on the age and condition of the facility. Meanwhile, growth projects receive points based on projected enrollment growth at the campus, as well as how its existing capacity compares to its enrollment level. Projects in both categories also receive points based on the amount of the local contribution, with districts generally required to cover at least 25 percent of total project costs and receiving more points for covering a larger share. In addition, projects in both categories receive points for certain other metrics, including campus size and region.

Figure 1

CCC Uses Certain Scoring Metrics to Rank Project Proposals

Metric	Description	Points
Modernization Projects
Facility age	Provides points based on the age of the facility, with older facilities receiving more points.	60
Local contribution	Provides points based on the share of project costs covered by local funds, with larger local contributions receiving more points.	50
Facility condition	Provides points based on facility condition, with facilities in worse conditions receiving more points.	40
CTE status	Provides points to projects that modernize space for CTE programs.	25
Campus size	Provides points based on campus size, with larger campuses receiving more points.	20
Region	Provides points to projects in the Central Valley, Sierras, Inland Empire, and Far North.	5
Total		200
Growth Projects
Enrollment growth	Provides points based on projected enrollment growth over the next five years, with faster‑growing campuses receiving more points.	50
Existing capacity	Provides points to campuses that have enrollment in excess of their existing capacity, with points based on the extent to which campuses exceed their capacity.	50
Local contribution	Provides points based on the share of project costs covered by local funds, with larger local contributions receiving more points.	50
CTE status	Provides points to projects that add space for CTE programs.	25
Campus size	Provides points based on campus size, with larger campuses receiving more points.	20
Region	Provides points to projects in the Central Valley, Sierras, Inland Empire, and Far North.	5
Total		200
CTE = career technical education.

State Allocated First Round of Proposition 2 Bond Funds in 2025-26. The 2025-26 budget provided $142 million in Proposition 2 bond funding for community college capital outlay projects. Of this amount, $55 million was for the preliminary plans and working drawings phases of 29 new projects selected using the above scoring system. The other $87 million was for the construction phase of a previously approved student housing project. This EdBudget table lists all of the Proposition 2 projects funded in 2025-26.

Districts Have Submitted Many New Project Proposals for 2026-27. The Chancellor’s Office indicates that districts submitted 35 eligible new project proposals for Proposition 2 bond funding in 2026-27. This includes 27 modernization projects and 8 growth projects. (Districts did not submit any new life safety projects.) Using its scoring system, the Chancellor’s Office selected ten of these projects—consisting of seven modernization projects and three growth projects—to request state funding for in the 2026-27 budget.

Proposals

Governor Proposes Funding Ten New Capital Outlay Projects. As Figure 2 shows, the Governor proposes to fund all ten projects selected by the Chancellor’s Office. The Governor’s budget includes $28 million Proposition 2 bond funds for the preliminary plans and working drawings phases of these projects. The total cost across all project phases is $748 million, with the state covering $399 million (53 percent) and districts covering $348 million (47 percent).

Figure 2

Governor’s Budget Funds New CCC Capital Outlay Projects

Proposition 2 Bond Funds (In Thousands)

College	Project	2026‑27		All Years
College	Project	Phase	State Cost	State Cost	Total Cost^a
Modernization
El Camino	Interdisciplinary science center replacement	P, W	$4,259	$64,089	$146,927
Los Angeles City	Communications cinema building replacement	P, W	2,441	36,570	81,231
Bakersfield	Fine arts building replacement	P, W	1,861	40,278	52,925
Reedley	Vocational‑technical complex renovation	P, W	2,647	34,106	51,316
Merced	Gym complex replacement	P, W	2,461	35,626	50,571
Golden West	Performing arts building replacement	P, W	1,542	21,782	42,824
Chaffey	Theater renovation	P, W	1,489	17,848	25,041
Subtotals			($16,700)	($250,299)	($450,835)
Growth^b
Riverside	Advanced technology building replacement	P, W	$4,677	$71,925	$178,825
Hanford Center^c	New science building	P, W	4,182	51,137	67,082
Porterville	Career technology building replacement	P, W	2,250	26,067	50,944
Subtotals			($11,109)	($149,129)	($296,851)
Totals			$27,809	$399,428	$747,686
^aCommunity college districts issue local general obligation bonds to pay for a share of project costs. ^bReplacement buildings listed in this category involve adding space. ^cCenter operated by Sequoias Community College District.
P = preliminary plans and W = working drawings.

Governor Also Proposes Continuing All New Projects Funded Last Year. As Figure 3 shows, the Governor also proposes to continue funding for all 29 capital outlay projects initiated in 2025-26. The Governor’s budget includes $709 million Proposition 2 bond funds for the construction phase of these projects. The total cost across all project phases is $1.6 billion, with the state covering $764 million (48 percent) and districts covering $834 million (52 percent). As of the Governor’s budget, all but two of these projects were scheduled to complete working drawings in 2026-27, with the remaining projects expected to do so by August 2027. Assuming no project delays emerge this spring, we have no concerns with the proposed funding for these continuing projects.

Figure 3

Governor’s Budget Funds Continuing CCC Capital Outlay Projects

Proposition 2 Bond Funds (In Thousands)

College	Project	2026‑27		All Years
College	Project	Phase	State Cost	State Cost	Total Cost^a
Life Safety
American River	Davies Hall replacement	C	$55,655	$59,984	$79,749
El Camino	Hydronic line replacement	C	8,530	9,343	12,457
Los Angeles Pierce	Sewer utility infrastructure replacement	C	6,576	7,268	9,692
Skyline	Boiler plant replacement	C	5,519	5,973	7,925
Los Angeles Valley	Sewer utility infrastructure replacement	C	5,203	5,794	7,726
Subtotals			($81,483)	($88,362)	($117,549)
Modernization
Los Angeles Trade‑Tech	Advanced transportation and manufacturing building replacement	C	$83,567	$89,614	$215,809
Citrus	Career technical education building replacement	C	43,784	47,010	114,887
Golden West	Physical education gym replacement	C	26,907	28,909	56,801
Bakersfield	Center for Student Success replacement	C	26,363	28,297	55,336
Merritt	Gymnasium and locker room replacement	C	20,769	22,445	53,877
De Anza	Physical education complex renovation	C	36,999	40,385	53,487
Long Beach (Liberal Arts Campus)	Building B replacement	DB	24,400	24,782	51,639
Merced	Music Art Theater Complex renovation	C	22,604	24,073	47,206
Antelope Valley	Gymnasium replacement	C	22,562	24,184	45,927
Rio Hondo	Business and art building replacement	C	21,133	22,727	45,016
Los Angeles City	Kinesiology South building replacement	C	16,008	17,302	41,270
Hartnell	Gymnasium renovation	C	17,501	19,265	37,648
Reedley	Agriculture instruction complex renovation	C	15,204	16,499	31,825
Orange Coast	Skills lab replacement	C	12,086	13,196	25,998
Imperial Valley	Gymnasium renovation	C	11,736	12,775	25,373
Shasta	Life sciences building renovation	C	7,757	8,437	16,560
Subtotals			($409,380)	($439,900)	($918,659)
Growth^b
Mt. San Antonio	Library replacement	C	$53,066	$56,962	$157,509
Moreno Valley	New Library Learning Resource Center	C	40,665	43,662	104,628
Norco	Library Learning Resource Center and student services center replacement	C	31,247	33,759	81,389
Fullerton	STEM vocational center replacement	C	25,092	27,014	55,471
Riverside	Cosmetology building replacement	C	18,240	19,857	47,989
Clovis	New kinesiology and wellness center	C	22,251	23,933	47,752
Ben Clark Training Center^c	New Education Center Building 2, Phase 1	C	14,634	15,969	38,844
Willits Center^d	Willits Center expansion, Phase 2	C	13,022	14,365	28,181
Subtotals			($218,217)	($235,521)	($561,763)
Totals			$709,080	$763,783	$1,597,971
^aCommunity college districts issue local general obligation bonds to pay for a share of project costs. ^bReplacement buildings listed in this category involve adding space. ^cCenter operated by Riverside Community College District. ^dCenter operated by Mendocino‑Lake Community College District.
C = construction; DB = design Bbild; and STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math.

Assessment

Trade-Offs in Deciding How Much Funding to Allocate in 2026-27. Under the Governor’s budget, the state would be committing nearly $1.3 billion (83 percent) of total Proposition 2 bond funding through 2026-27, leaving $249 million (17 percent) available for future years. While this is a reasonable starting point, the Legislature could choose to allocate a different amount by adjusting the new project proposals for 2026-27. In deciding how much funding to allocate, the Legislature faces a basic trade-off. On the one hand, allocating more funding now would allow more projects to begin in 2026-27, avoiding the construction cost escalation associated with waiting until a future year. On the other hand, allocating less funding now would leave more available for high-priority projects (including life safety projects) that could emerge over the next year or two.

Scoring System Used to Select Projects Has Some Positive Aspects. Overall, the scoring system the Chancellor’s Office uses to select projects is a consistent and transparent way of reviewing districts’ proposals. Having clear standards in evaluating projects can help guide the Legislature in identifying which projects have the strongest justification. The scoring system also places highest priority on life safety projects, with requirements in place to ensure that districts submit only immediate needs under this category. Moreover, the scoring system uses several relevant metrics to rank other projects (namely facility age and condition for modernization projects and enrollment and capacity for growth projects).

Share of Funding Allocated Toward Modernization Projects Is Likely Too Low. Though we think the scoring system is generally reasonable, it has a few shortcomings. One of these shortcomings is that it weights modernization and growth projects in a way that does not align tightly with identified project needs. While modernization projects account for 84 percent of the facility needs identified in CCC’s most recent five-year capital outlay plan, they receive only 65 percent of funding each year under the Chancellor’s Office’s scoring system. Under the current split of funds between modernization and growth projects, modernization projects are somewhat less likely to be selected for funding. Of the project proposals that districts submitted for 2026-27, 7 out of 27 eligible modernization projects (26 percent) are included in the Governor’s budget, compared to 3 out of 8 eligible growth projects (38 percent). Providing insufficient funding for modernization can lead to higher project costs in the future, as well as potential programmatic disruptions when aging building components fail.

Several Campuses Are Receiving Multiple Proposition 2 Projects. Another shortcoming of the current scoring system is it does not take into account if a campus already has received funding for another project. Of the ten new projects included in the Governor’s budget, seven are at campuses that already received Proposition 2 funding for a different project in 2025-26. While these campuses may have significant facility needs, they are likely also benefiting from certain other scoring metrics. For example, five of these campuses enroll at least 10,000 full-time equivalent students, placing them in the highest two tiers of points based on campus size. In addition, four of these campuses are located in geographic regions that qualify for additional points. While these campuses would receive a second Proposition 2 project, many other campuses have not yet received any Proposition 2 funding. To address this issue, the Chancellor’s Office intends to begin limiting each campus to one new project every two years. However, it does not plan to implement this rule until 2027-28 (at which point the bulk of Proposition 2 funding will likely have been committed).

Half of New Projects Have Low Local Contributions. Though the scoring system grants more points to districts with higher local contributions, projects can still be selected with relatively low local contributions. Of the ten new projects included in the Governor’s budget, five have local contributions of between 25 percent and 35 percent—the low end of the allowable range. This is a departure from previous years, in which most projects have had local contributions covering roughly half of total project costs. A few of the projects with low local contributions are located in districts with sizable capital reserves. These districts might be putting forth smaller local contributions in part because their projects can still qualify for funding based on other scoring metrics. When districts provide smaller local contributions, the available state bond funding cannot stretch across as many projects.

Some New Projects Are Not Traditional Instructional Facilities. Under the old scoring system the Chancellor’s Office used prior to 2020, the majority of funding allocated each year was designated for instructional space, mainly classrooms and laboratories. In addition, 15 percent of funding each year was designated for other facilities that “promote a complete campus concept,” including gymnasiums, performing arts centers, and child development centers. Of the ten new projects included in the Governor’s budget, four of them—consisting of one gymnasium and three performing arts centers—would have fallen into that latter category. (That category similarly accounted for a large share of the new projects approved last year, including eight gymnasiums.) Facilities in that category do support instruction in physical education, music, theater, and other programs. Nonetheless, they differ from the instructional spaces the state has traditionally prioritized for bond funding. For example, these types of facilities can generate revenue from activities such as athletic events and concerts.

Recommendation

Consider Directing Chancellor’s Office to Adjust Scoring System. The Chancellor’s Office’s scoring system has significant implications for which projects receive state funding. While we think this scoring system is generally reasonable, we have also identified a few potential issues with it. If any of the issues above raise notable concerns for the Legislature, it could direct the Chancellor’s Office to adjust its scoring system. For example, this might mean allocating a larger share of funding toward modernization projects, limiting each campus to one Proposition 2 project across all years, or capping the share of funding going toward “complete campus concept” projects. The Legislature could direct the Chancellor’s Office to make any changes to its scoring system in the spring and work with the administration to propose a new set of projects at the May Revision. Though we understand community college districts submitted their project proposals assuming the current scoring system, we think it may be worth addressing any notable concerns with that system now—while Proposition 2 funding remains available. If the Legislature waits to implement changes until some future year, Proposition 2 funding likely will already have been exhausted.