California Community Colleges(6870) |
In our Crosscutting Issue "Funding Higher Education Capital Outlay" (earlier in this section of the Analysis), we indicate that there are insufficient funds available from the 1996 bond measure to complete all higher education projects proposed in the Governor's budget and all previously approved projects that are not in the budget. Consequently, we have recommended that, for projects proposed in the budget, the Legislature (1) fund specific projects that have been previously approved by the Legislature; (2) defer many projects; and (3) delete or modify several projects. We believe this approach will get the state on an appropriate course of funding and completing capital outlay projects within identified fund sources.
Based on this approach, we recommend that of the 93 projects in the budget for the community colleges, the Legislature take the following actions:
Previously Approved Projects. Approve all 41 previously approved projects (although as described below, we recommend approval of 16 projects contingent on completion of preliminary plans consistent with the scope and cost approved by the Legislature).
New Projects. Of the 52 new projects:
Approve three new projects related to health and safety and infrastructure improvements (see Figure 11, in "Funding Higher Education Capital Outlay" in the Crosscutting Issues portion of this section).
Delete 49 new projects. If, however, the Legislature does not adopt our approach and instead wishes to consider the proposed new projects, we have made recommendations for legislative action on 35 of these projects (as discussed below). We do not raise any issues regarding the remaining 14 projects.
Our analysis indicates that the amounts proposed in the budget for 16 projects previously funded for preliminary plans and working drawings are consistent with prior legislative action. These projects, which total $75.1 million, are listed in Figure 19. The preliminary plans for these projects, however, have not been completed. Therefore, we recommend approval contingent on completion of preliminary plans that are consistent with the legislatively approved scope and cost.
The budget proposes $518,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings to renovate the college's existing library (20,000 assignable square feet [asf]) and construct a 13,400 asf addition to the library. The estimated future cost for construction and equipment is $7.5 million. After completion of the library addition, the campus will have 73 percent of the state space standards for libraries. Our analysis indicates that the project is justified, but we have three concerns with the proposal.
Building Cost. As proposed by the Chancellor's Office the future construction costs would exceed current building cost guidelines by about $30 per asf. The Chancellor's Office indicates that the higher cost is for installing telecommunications infrastructure--such as cabling and conduit--into the library. We note, however, that the Chancellor's Office existing cost guidelines are very similar to the California State University's (CSU) guidelines. The CSU's guidelines, however, were adjusted in 1993 to provide an allowance for telecommunications infrastructure in new buildings. We therefore see no reason to increase the current community college guidelines for this project.
| Figure 19 | ||
| Item 6870-301-0658
Previously Funded Projects Preliminary Plans Not Completed | ||
| (In Thousands) | ||
| Sub-Item | Location | Amount |
| (3) | Cabrillo Community College District (CCD),
Cabrillo
College--Code Compliance |
$4,804 |
| (5) | Chabot-Las Positas CCD, Chabot
College--Chemistry/
Computer Science Renovation |
7,802 |
| (6) | Chabot-Las Positas CCD, Las Positas
College--Science
Center/Tech/Fine Arts, Secondary Effects |
779 |
| (13) | Compton CCD, Compton College--Health and
Safety
Math/Science |
8,932 |
| (17) | Contra Costa CCD, Diablo Valley
College--Physical
Science Building |
10,257 |
| (25) | Foothill-DeAnza CCD, Foothill College--Child
Care/
Development Center (Health and Safety) |
2,917 |
| (31) | Glendale CCD, Glendale College--Fire
Protection/Utility
System Upgrade |
2,139 |
| (40) | Los Angeles CCD, East Los Angeles
College--Child Care/
Development Center (Health and Safety) |
3,478 |
| (41) | Los Angeles CCD, Los Angeles City
College--Mechanical
System Conversion |
1,091 |
| (42) | Los Angeles CCC, Los Angeles Valley
College--
Ventilation System |
3,484 |
| (59) | Palomar CCD, Palomar College--Infrastructure
Code
Compliance |
11,571 |
| (64) | Rio Hondo CCD, Rio Hondo College--Science Building | 10,380 |
| (75) | San Mateo CCD, Skyline College--Learning
Resources
Center Secondary Effects |
2,974 |
| (77) | Santa Barbara CCD, Santa Barbara City
College--Life
Science/Geology Code Corrections |
2,610 |
| (86) | Ventura County CCD, Moorpark
College--Math/Science
Secondary Effects |
962 |
| (88) | Ventura County CCD, Ventura
College--Math/Science
Secondary Effects |
936 |
| Total | $75,116 | |
Site Development. The library addition will be a two-story structure that will occupy only about 9,000 square feet on the campus. The project includes $300,000 for site development work covering over 60,000 square feet of the campus, including 15,500 square feet of landscaping, 10,000 square feet of concrete paving, 5,000 square feet of asphalt paving, and 1,500 linear feet of block wall. We believe that these site costs are excessive for such a relatively small building addition. We recommend that, at a minimum, these costs can be reduced by one-half ($150,000) without affecting the project.
Temporary Building. The construction cost estimate includes $137,000 to set up a temporary library in the college's Earth Science building while the library renovation/addition is under construction. This proposal is based on the assumption that another capital outlay project for the college will replace the Earth Science building with a new building. The district plans to postpone demolishing the existing Earth Science building and instead use it for a temporary library. The new Earth Science building has not been funded and is not proposed for funding in the Governor's budget. Thus, the college will have to continue using the existing Earth Science building for instructional purposes. As a result, the $137,000 for temporary library facilities are not needed. The college should phase the library project by using the existing library until the addition is completed and then commence renovation of the existing library.
For the reasons discussed above, we recommend a reduction of $30,000 from the budget request for preliminary plans and working drawings. The estimated future construction costs, based on our recommendations will be $5.8 million--about $670,000 less than proposed by the district. Reduce Item 6870-301-0658 (11) by $30,000.
The budget proposes $427,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for two math and social science instructional buildings totaling 12,800 asf. The estimated future construction costs are $5.8 million. The project is meritorious because the district needs additional classroom space, but we have the following concerns with the district's proposal. First, the estimated construction costs for the building exceed the Chancellor's Office cost guidelines by about $360,000, or 12 percent. Second, the district proposes to serve the buildings with a new central heating and cooling plant (costing $474,000) rather than using individual heating and cooling units within each building. We believe that it is incumbent on the district to demonstrate that building a central plant is a cost-effective expenditure of state funds, and they have not yet done so. Finally, the project includes extensive site development--such as 22,000 square feet of concrete paving and 61,000 square feet of landscaping. It is not clear why state funding for such major work is necessary in order to provide two small buildings. Pending clarification of these issues, we withhold recommendation on the budget request.
The budget includes $850,000 for preliminary plans and working drawings for a new 32,500 asf building consisting mainly of computer laboratories. The estimated future cost for construction and equipment is $13.8 million. The new building would serve instructional programs such as English, mathematics, business and management, communications, and drafting. The project includes 21,000 asf of various laboratories, 1,600 asf of classrooms, 2,900 asf of faculty offices, 4,200 asf of reading/study space, and 2,800 asf of support areas. The district also indicates that instructional programs occupying about 8,600 asf in the college library will be relocated to the new building and thus "free up" this space for library use. We have the following concern with this proposal.
Excess Classroom Space Could Be Converted to Laboratories. Based on state space an utilization standards, the college has inadequate laboratory space and on this basis alone, a project to construct additional laboratories would be justified. However, the college also has an excess of about 18,000 asf of general classroom space when compared to the state standards. In addition, the college currently has sufficient space in its library (when compared to state space standards), thus there is no need to relocate programs in order to provide more space for library-related functions. It would be more cost-effective to convert a considerable portion of the excess classroom space into computer laboratories. We have visited many campuses throughout the state where similar conversions have been accomplished at very little cost.
We believe the campus could use its existing space to meet most of the objectives of the proposed project without an expenditure of almost $15 million in limited state capital outlay funds. The district should undertake a campus-wide assessment of its existing space to determine how it could be used more effectively. Based on this assessment, a project to alter existing space for laboratory use would warrant the Legislature's consideration. We therefore recommend deletion of $850,000 under Item 6870-301-0658 (27).
The budget proposes $3.4 million to develop preliminary plans and working drawings for a new campus within the Los Rios Community College District at Folsom. The proposal includes two projects: $2.2 million for development of the campus site and $1.2 million for the initial permanent facilities totaling 33,500 asf. These facilities would include 5,600 asf of classrooms, 12,000 asf of laboratories, 5,200 asf of faculty offices, and 10,700 asf for library and instructional services. The estimated future cost to complete both projects totals $23.8 million.
The district indicates that the new campus is needed to serve the growing population in the Folsom/Rancho Cordova area. The district acquired the site for the campus in 1967. In 1993 the district began offering classes at the site in 7,500 asf of portable structures.
Building New Campuses. This proposal raises a fundamental policy question for the Legislature. In an urban area, where students have the choice of attending several community college campuses, to what extent should the Legislature fund the development of a new campus in order to provide more convenient options for students near that campus, particularly when existing campuses can accommodate more students. Students residing in the Folsom have access to other community colleges, both within and outside the district, including American River College, Sacramento City College, and Sierra College in Rocklin. Given the huge capital outlay needs in higher education, it will be imperative to maximize utilization of the state's existing facilities and campuses before building additional facilities and campuses.
We reviewed the district's current inventory of instructional space and the Chancellor's Office enrollment projections for the district. Specifically, the district currently has a mismatch between its inventory of classroom and laboratory space and its enrollment in courses using these types of space. The district has about 45,000 asf of classroom space in excess of the state space standards and has a shortage of about 60,000 asf in laboratories. Even with projected enrollment growth in the district, there will still be an excess of classroom space by 2002, which is about two years after the proposed Folsom facilities would be completed. Rather than commence with the building of a new campus and its associated infrastructure, the district should evaluate the utilization of space on its existing campuses and determine whether (1) space could be renovated to address the mismatch between classroom and laboratory allocations and (2) additional space--especially laboratory space--needs to be built.
Consequently, we recommend deletion of the two projects discussed above. (Delete $2,228,000 under Item 6870-301-0658 [48] and $1,193,000 under Item 6870-301-0658 [49].) (Estimated future savings of $23.8 million.)
Technical Aspects of the Proposals. If the Legislature decides to approve state funding for the Folsom campus, it should not do so until the district justifies certain aspects of its proposal, such as:
$2.6 million proposed for a central heating and cooling plant and related equipment. The district needs to demonstrate that this is a cost effective proposal.
$1.7 million proposed to pay fees to the City of Folsom.
Installing utility service lines throughout the campus, including areas of future building development, rather that installing these utilities only to the two Phase 1A buildings.
The budget proposes $211,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings to renovate a 5,700 asf building and construct a 4,300 asf addition to provide additional space in order to accommodate enrollment in math, computer science, drafting, and interior design programs. The estimated future costs for construction and equipment are $2.9 million.
The district, which includes Las Positas College and Chabot College, currently has about 15,000 asf of excess classroom space and 32,000 asf of excess laboratory space when compared to state space standards. Limited state bond funds should therefore not be used to build additional space in this district. We therefore recommend deletion of the $211,000 proposed for this project. A project to renovate existing district space in order to accommodate the programs listed above would merit the Legislature's consideration.
The budget proposes $1,445,000 for construction and equipment for a 4,000 asf addition to the college's existing library. (The district has funded the preliminary plans and working drawings for this project with its own funds.) After completion of the library addition, the campus will have 57 percent of the state space standards for libraries. Our analysis indicates that the additional space is justified. The project building costs, however, are budgeted at a level that exceeds the Chancellor's Office cost guidelines for library buildings by almost 40 percent. There is no indication in the district's proposal why a higher cost would be required for this project. We therefore recommend a reduction of $278,000 from the budget proposal in order to bring the project into conformance with current building cost guidelines.
The budget includes $632,000 to prepare preliminary plans for a new 50,000 asf library and media service center and for renovation of the existing library after the new library is completed. The estimated future costs for working drawings, construction, and equipment are $23 million. Based on the existing state space standards for community college libraries, the college's library has about 40 percent of the library space that the standards indicate would be needed. The proposed new library project would include sufficient space to bring the college up to 100 percent of the library standard.
Most Libraries Are Below Standard. It should be noted that most community colleges have libraries that are below the state space standards. In a review done in 1995 of information submitted by all of the community college districts, we determined that 54 of the 71 community college districts reported that their library space was less than 90 percent of the state space standard, and 38 of these districts were below 70 percent of the standards.
Several new community college libraries have recently been completed to address such space deficiencies. These projects in general provided increased library space, but in several cases, the additional space did not bring the campuses to 100 percent of the library space standard. For three projects--a library addition at Fresno City College and new libraries at Pasadena City College and San Francisco City College--the new libraries resulted in the districts having, at most, two-thirds of the space allowed under the state standards. In our visits to these three campuses, library administrators indicated that, in general, their buildings provided sufficient space for books, student study areas, and other library operations.
Other 1997-98 Library Request Are Below Space Standard. In addition to these recently completed libraries, the budget proposes funding for several new community college libraries or library additions, including Citrus College, Imperial Valley College, the College of the Redwoods, and Mission College. Each of these campuses currently has a significant shortage of library space. Upon completion of the proposed projects, these campuses will have library space ranging from 57 percent of the space standard at Imperial Valley College to 80 percent of the standard at Mission College. In other words, colleges are not requesting all of the library space allowed under the state standards.
New Library Standards Will Be Needed. Technological advancements will change the space requirements for community college libraries. With increased opportunities to obtain information, such as via the Internet, student access to information will be less limited by time and location. Thus, students will be able to accomplish much of what they do in a community college library from other portions of the campus, from other libraries closer to their home, or from their home computer. There will, of course, always be a need for book stacks and reading/study areas in college libraries, but we believe that new space standards will have to be developed for community college libraries that take into account changing technology and changing patterns of student use.
Prior to the development of new space standards, we believe that new community college library projects should henceforth be built to about 70 percent of the current library space standards. Based on the experiences of the other campuses, this amount of space should be adequate to offer the appropriate services of a community college library for the foreseeable future. For San Diego City College, this would mean that the district would need a library space totaling 30,000 asf instead of the 43,000 asf proposed.
At this smaller size, other portions of the project (such as site development) also would be less costly. In addition, the district's proposal to renovate the old library building after the new library is completed (for computer laboratories and a tutoring center) does not need to be included as part of the new library proposal and instead should be considered for future funding after a new library is under construction.
For the reasons discussed above, we recommend that the Legislature not approve the $632,000 proposed for this project. The district can justify additional library space, however, and a proposal for a smaller project would warrant legislative consideration. Delete $632,000 under Item 6870-301-0658 (69).
The budget includes $421,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings to renovate 10,000 asf in the college's existing library and construct a 10,000 asf addition to the library. The estimated future cost for construction and equipment is $4.8 million.
With its existing library, the campus has almost 90 percent of the space that would be needed based on the state space standards for community college libraries. As discussed in the previous issue regarding the proposed library for San Diego City College, we believe that new community college library projects should be based on providing about 70 percent of the current space standard, which the Diablo Valley College library already exceeds. We therefore recommend deletion of the $421,000 proposed under Item 6870-301-0658 (20) for this project.
The budget proposes a total of $1,279,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for two new buildings at Cuesta College. The projects are: (1) a 15,000 asf addition for art and music programs and (2) a 30,500 asf building for classrooms, computer laboratories, and tutoring services. The estimated future costs for construction and equipment totals $19.1 million.
Based on the college's existing space inventory and projected enrollment growth, both of the projects would be justified. The district indicates, however, that one-half of its enrollment of 8,000 students comes from outside the district, with most coming from great distances throughout the state. Many of these students attend Cuesta College with the goal of transferring after two years to the nearby California State University campus in San Luis Obispo.
The policy question presented by these capital outlay proposals is whether the state should build facilities so a community college can in essence serve a statewide purpose. Most community colleges throughout the state currently have sufficient physical facilities to enroll additional students. The Legislature should consider, in this case, whether it is appropriate to build additional facilities at Cuesta in order to accommodate the location preferences of some community college students, most of whom could be accommodated at other campuses without the state incurring this cost to build more facilities. We believe this expenditure of $20 million in limited state bond funds is neither appropriate nor necessary. We therefore recommend deletion of the amounts proposed for both projects. Delete $458,000 under Item 6870-301-0658 (72) and $821,000 under Item 6870-301-0658 (73).
The budget proposes $599,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for a project to remodel 19,000 asf in the college's original library building and construct a 6,300 asf addition to the building. A new library has recently been completed and this renovation/addition project is to consolidate student services in the original library. The open floor space in the original library will be converted into individual offices for these college staff. A project to renovate the library may be meritorious, however, the amount proposed to be budgeted for renovation ($141 per gross square foot of building area) is almost equal to the Chancellor's Office cost guidelines for a new office building. The district should be able to remodel the space for less cost than it has estimated. Otherwise, renovation of the building is not a cost-effective alternative.
We recommend deletion of the budget proposal for this too costly renovation. An alternative project that contained more reasonable renovation costs--about one-half of those in the budget proposal--would warrant the Legislature's consideration. Delete $599,000 from Item 6870-301-0568 (81).
The budget includes $1,278,000 to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings for initial development of a new off-campus center in Madera County. The estimated future costs for construction and equipment are $15.8 million. The center is proposed to accommodate current and projected enrollment growth in the district--specifically in the northern part of the district between the cities of Fresno and Madera. The district has acquired property for the center and in the fall 1996 began providing instruction at the site in relocatable buildings. The project includes a permanent 17,000 asf building containing classrooms, laboratories, and offices for administration and faculty.
Based on the district's existing building space inventory and projected enrollment growth, state support for additional instructional facilities within the district is justified. Furthermore, the Fresno City College campus is fully developed and further expansion on that site does not appear to be practical. Therefore, given the projected population growth in the northern part of the district, the development of a new campus center in that area is meritorious. We have the following two concerns with the district's proposal, however.
Building Costs. The estimated construction costs for the building are $4.9 million. Based on the Chancellor's Office cost guidelines, building costs should be only about $3.8 million, or $1 million less than the district's estimate. In addition, the project includes $221,000 for a central heating and cooling plant to serve this building and which could be expanded to serve future buildings at the center. It is not clear that this is a cost-effective expenditure at this time in lieu of providing a heating and cooling unit immediately adjacent to or within the building.
Site Development Costs. The estimated costs to develop the site, including providing utility service to the new building, are $8.2 million. These are unusually high costs for the initial development of a small off-campus center. As a comparison, site development costs for the new center of the Sierra Community College District (in Grass Valley) were only about $2.6 million. Moreover, the initial facilities for that center were 43,000 asf--more than twice as large as the initial facility proposed for Madera. The Madera proposal includes such costs as $600,000 for 200,000 square feet (5 acres) of concrete walkways, $188,000 for 2,400 linear feet of concrete block fence, $186,000 for signage, and $724,000 for landscaping. We do not believe that all of these costs are necessary at this time in order to provide a needed educational facility in the Madera area. We will meet with district officials prior to budget hearings in order to clarify the proposal for these and other site improvements. We therefore withhold recommendation on the budget request.
The budget proposes $1,962,000 to prepare preliminary plans for child care/development centers at 22 community colleges. The estimated future cost of all 22 projects totals $64.8 million. Most community colleges have child care centers that provide day care services for students, faculty, and staff. Students are generally given the first priority for placing their children in these centers while they are attending classes at the college. In addition to providing day care for children, many of these centers also are used for instructional programs in early childhood education and development. Students in these programs receive at least a portion of their practical experience observing and caring for children at the campus center as part of their certification or degree requirements.
There are a variety of reasons why the 22 projects are proposed. In general, the campuses indicate the existing child care centers are too small to meet both students' demands for child care services and instructional programs. In addition, many indicate that their center is in a relocatable building (installed by the campus), and that they are in poor condition. We have the following concerns regarding these proposals.
Low Priority for Funding. To establish statewide funding priorities for district projects, the Chancellor's Office places projects within the three priority categories listed below:
Category A. Projects to activate existing space. This includes health and safety projects, equipment for previously funded projects, and infrastructure replacements and alterations to avoid failure or loss.
Category B. Projects to construct new space or remodel existing space for instruction and for academic and administrative support facilities.
Category C. Projects considered by the Chancellor's Office to be needed under a "complete campus" concept, which includes facilities such as physical education buildings, performing arts theaters, and child care centers.
Child care centers are included in the lowest priority category. In preparing a list of projects for inclusion in the Governor's budget, however, the Chancellor's Office allocates 20 percent of its request for new projects to low priority category C projects. This action has resulted in 22 projects for child care centers appearing in the budget in place of projects that are considered higher priority on a statewide basis. It is our understanding that the Chancellor's Office has taken this action in the belief that the lower priority projects would otherwise not be funded. While this may be the case, we believe that this is the purpose of establishing priorities--that is, to assure that limited funds are spent on the highest priority needs. The Chancellor's Office approach does just the opposite by proposing to use limited funds for low priority projects in lieu of higher priority projects. Therefore we recommend the Legislature delete $1.9 million for preliminary plans for these 22 projects. (Reduce Item 6870-301-0658 by $1,962,000. Future savings of $64.8 million.)
We note that the Governor's budget proposed $6 million from current-year Proposition 98 monies for community college child care facilities. These monies would be used to establish a revolving loan fund administered by the Chancellor's Office. Funds loaned to a district for facilities would be repaid by campus-based child care providers, with repayments deposited into the revolving fund to finance future campus expansions and improvements of child care facilities.
Other Issues. Even if there were sufficient funds available to fund child care projects that were appropriately placed in priority order, these projects would present other issues as outlined below:
State Funded Facilities. While the state is asked to fund facilities for providing child care at the community colleges, the other two segments of higher education develop their own facilities without state funds. The Legislature should consider whether there are unique circumstances for community colleges that would justify state funding for these facilities in lieu of district funding.
On-Site Training Versus Off-Site Training. We believe that the Legislature should consider whether on-campus training of child care providers, in facilities funded by the state, is cost effective. An alternative, which is currently used to some extent by several districts, is to send students to day care centers in the community to meet their practical training requirements. This method is similar to that used in preparing student teachers for K-12 instruction.
Department of Food and Agriculture(8570) |
The budget proposes $589,000 for acquisition ($259,000), preliminary plans ($130,000), and working drawings ($200,000) for a new border inspection station at Truckee. The estimated future construction cost is $4.9 million.
Last year, the DFA indicated that the new station is needed because:
The existing station (built in 1960) is in need of major repairs.
The location of the existing station allows travelers to use other roads in the area to bypass inspection.
The station is inadequate to handle the increased traffic volume at this location.
The new station would be along Interstate 80 at a site several miles east of the existing station, which would be demolished. The Legislature, in lieu of appropriating money last year for preliminary plans and working drawings, appropriated $100,000 to the DFA for a study to determine the costs and impacts of either (1) building a replacement inspection station in proximity to an existing California Highway Patrol weigh station (the DFA's proposed course of action) and (2) the costs of repairing the existing inspection station. The study is due to the Legislature by March 1, 1997. Thus, at this time, we recommend that the Legislature not approve the $589,000 request associated with relocating the Truckee Border Agricultural Inspection Station, pending receipt of the required study. When the study is available, we will review it and make recommendations to the Legislature.
Military Department(8940) |
The department's proposed capital outlay program for 1997-98 totals $26.4 million--$14 million from the General Fund and $12.4 million from federal funds. This amount would fund six major projects ($19.6 million), minor projects ($1.9 million), a facilities master plan ($0.5 million), and planning, design, supervision, and construction costs for projects in which construction is fully funded by the federal government ($4.4 million).
The budget proposes $12.5 million to construct an 86,000 gross square foot armory in the Los Angeles area. In the 1995-96 Budget Act, the Legislature provided $1 million from the General Fund and $147,000 in federal funds to (1) select a suitable site and (2) prepare preliminary plans. In the 1996-97 Budget Act, the Legislature appropriated $5.8 million from the General Fund and $140,000 from federal funds to acquire land and prepare working drawings.
Project Behind Schedule. At the time this analysis was written, the state had been unsuccessful in obtaining a site for the armory. Four separate acquisitions that the state expressed interested in purchasing did not materialize for various reasons. A project architect has been selected, but the first stages of project development--the environmental impact reviews and the preliminary plans--cannot begin until a site is secured. Thus, there is currently no established time frame for completing the preliminary plans and working drawings.
The Legislature will not have any more information on the project scope and cost than was available during budget hearings in 1995 and 1996. We therefore recommend that the Legislature delete funding for construction in 1997-98 and consider the merits of funding construction for 1998-99 after a site has been acquired and preliminary plans have been completed. Delete $5,569,000 from Item 8940-301-0001 (6) and $6,946,000 from Item 8940-301-0890 (3).
The budget proposes almost $4 million--$1,989,000 each from the General Fund and from federal funds--for projects to renovate eight armories throughout the state. The projects are intended to address existing deficiencies in plumbing, electrical, heating, and air conditioning systems in the armories. Roofs are also scheduled for replacement at four of the armories. The eight armories are 42 to 48 years old and the estimated project costs range from $305,000 to $775,000.
We believe that the proposals are meritorious, but note that the project at Petaluma includes replacement of the armory roof. Recent information from the department indicates that the roof is being replaced in the current year, however, so this cost (estimated at $127,000) can be reduced from the budget amount.
In addition, we are concerned that, unlike most major capital outlay projects, these eight projects are proposed to be funded in two lump sum appropriations from the General Fund and from federal funds. For purposes of legislative oversight, we believe that the budget should identify the eight projects and the amount to be provided by funding source, for each armory. We therefore recommend the Legislature schedule the projects under both Item 8940-301-0001 and Item 8940-301-0890, as shown below (the amount shown for the Petaluma armory project reflects the $127,000 reduction).
| Schedule: | |
| Bakersfield armory | $164,000 |
| Burbank armory | 292,500 |
| El Cajon armory | 152,500 |
| Inglewood armory | 387,500 |
| Manhattan Beach armory | 239,000 |
| Ontario armory | 292,500 |
| Petaluma armory | 105,000 |
| San Diego armory | 292,500 |
In response to increased incidents of vandalism and theft at the state's armories, the budget includes $5 million from the General Fund for projects to add outdoor lighting at 24 armories throughout the state. The projects involve installation of high pressure sodium security lights with motion detectors at outdoor areas where vehicles and equipment are stored. The 24 lighting projects consist of minor capital outlay projects (each installation costs less than $250,000) at 20 armories, and four major capital outlay projects (each project exceeds $250,000) at the following armories: San Diego ($1,653,000), Stockton ($288,000), and two armories in Long Beach ($503,000 and $643,000 respectively). In the future, the department plans to submit budget requests totaling $6.9 million to install lighting at 79 additional armories.
Projects Overbudgeted. While the projects are meritorious, the amount estimated by the department to prepare preliminary plans and working drawings is equal to the cost of construction. This percentage is significantly greater than usual for capital outlay projects. The proposed project involves relatively simple design efforts and the cost of these services should not exceed 12 percent of the construction cost. We therefore recommend that the Legislature reduce each project to provide a more reasonable amount for design costs. This would result in a total reduction of $2,201,000, as summarized in Figure 20.
| Figure 20 | |||
| Military Department
nded 8940-301-0001 Security Lighting Projects | |||
| (In Thousands) | |||
| Project | Budget
Bill
Amount |
Analyst's
Recommendation |
Reduction |
| Long Beach--Redondo | $503 | $282 | $221 |
| San Diego | 1,653 | 926 | 727 |
| Long Beach--Stearns | 643 | 360 | 283 |
| Stockton | 288 | 161 | 127 |
| Statewide--minor capital outlay | 1,917 | 1,074 | 843 |
| Totals | $5,004 | $2,803 | $2,201 |
Appropriations and reappropriations for minor capital outlay projects (those costing
$250,000 or less), for studies, and for the preliminary plan and working drawings phases of
major capital outlay projects are available for expenditure for only one year.
Appropriations and reappropriations for the construction phase of major capital outlay
projects are available for three fiscal years. The budget language places an additional
condition on construction appropriations: within the first year of the three-year period, the
project must receive approval by the Department of Finance to proceed to bid for purposes
of awarding a construction contract. If the project does not proceed to the bidding stage
within the first fiscal year, then the construction funding reverts and is no longer available
for expenditure. The intent behind this language is that projects not proceeding to bid
should be reviewed by the Legislature each year. As currently written, however, the
language allows reappropriations of construction funds that have not gone to bid within a
year to be available for three years.
In general, the time frames provided under Control Section 2.00 are necessary and
reasonable. We would, however, recommend a minor modification in the language to
address the inconsistency noted above. The following amended language would ensure that
all projects not proceeding as scheduled by the administration are reviewed annually.
Appropriations and reappropriations for capital outlay, unless otherwise provided herein,
shall be available for expenditure during the 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-00 fiscal years,
except that appropriations and reappropriations for studies, preliminary plans, working
drawings, and minor capital outlay, except as provided herein, shall be available for
expenditure only during the 1997-98 fiscal year. In addition, the balance of every
appropriation or reappropriation made in this act which contains funding for construction
that has not been allocated, through fund transfer or approval to proceed to bid, by the
Department of Finance on or before June 30, 1998, except as provided herein, shall revert
as of that date to the fund from which the appropriation was made.
We recommend the Legislature amend Control Section 2.00 to make reappropriations of
construction funding for capital outlay projects consistent with their original appropriation
terms.
Control Section 2.00
Background
Control Section 2.00 of the budget bill specifies the time periods for which appropriations are
available for expenditure. Paragraph (a) of this control section specifies that, in general,
appropriations must be spent within the fiscal year. Paragraph (b) of the control section pertains
only to the availability of appropriations for capital outlay projects as outlined below:
Return to 1997-98 Budget Analysis Table of Contents
Return to LAO Home Page