 |
Legislative Analyst's OfficeAnalysis of the 2003-04 Budget Bill |
California Community Colleges (6870)
The California Community Colleges (CCCs) consists of 108 community colleges organized into 72 districts. The proposed capital outlay program for CCCs totals $562.2 million from the Higher Education Capital Outlay Bond Fund of 2002. The budget bill proposes funding for 97 projects—35 new and 62 continuing. Eleven projects are renovations and the remaining 86 are new construction. Figure 1 shows the types of projects proposed in the budget bill. It indicates that the future costs to complete these projects would be $328 million.
Many Community College Districts Have Large Excess Capacity
A significant number of community colleges have excess instructional facilities capacity. We recommend the Legislature adopt supplemental report language directing community colleges having excess instructional capacity to delete from their capital outlay plans unnecessary new instructional space.
A significant number of community college districts (CCDs) have substantially more instructional capacity (classrooms and teaching laboratories) than enrollment. A lesser number of districts have substantial space deficiencies. Overall, CCCs have a total enrollment of about 908,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) students and instructional capacity (classrooms and teaching laboratories) for about 1,048,000 FTE students. This means existing CCC facilities have instructional capacity for up to about 140,000 FTE additional students. This does not take into account additional instructional capacity that would be available if instructional facilities were fully utilized in summer term. (Year-round operation can add almost one-third to facilities capacity.)
Of the 72 CCDs, 14 (19 percent) have 25 percent or more excess instructional capacity. These are shown in Figure 2. Six districts have significant deficiencies in instructional space. These are shown in Figure 3.
The figures show that instructional facility needs vary substantially from campus to campus. Campuses with excess space can use it to meet some of their facility needs. Campuses with excess instructional space, for example, may be able to meet enrollment growth and programmatic needs by renovating and converting, say, classrooms to teaching laboratories. This may eliminate the need to construct new buildings, which will free up scarce state resources for other high priority projects. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature adopt supplemental report language directing CCCs with excess instructional capacity to delete from their capital outlay plans new instructional space that is justified on the basis of enrollment growth, if that enrollment could be accommodated in appropriately renovated existing facilities. This will free up funds for projects at campuses with instructional space deficiencies and other high priority projects.
Community Colleges Have Not Reported Utilization
We recommend the Legislature withhold action on items in the community colleges capital outlay budget until the required report on utilization of facilities is submitted to the Legislature and reviewed.
The extent to which CCCs are utilizing existing instructional facilities is an important indicator of whether there is a need for the state to fund the construction of new instructional facilities. The Legislature has established utilization standards for the CCCs of 35 hours per week for classrooms and 23.4 hours per week for teaching laboratory stations. (A station is a desk in a classroom or workspace in a laboratory.) To determine if a project to construct new instructional space at a community college campus is justified, the state should first compare the utilization of existing facilities to the standards. The CCCs, however, have not been reporting their utilization to the Legislature. This denies the Legislature important information needed to make informed decisions about capital outlay proposals.
To correct for this lack of information, the Supplemental Report of the 2002 Budget Act directed the CCCs to report their utilization of instructional facilities biennially starting in November 2002. The CCCs did not meet this deadline and the required report had not been received as of the time of this Analysis. Because this information is needed to evaluate a number projects proposed in the budget, we recommend the Legislature withhold action on community college capital outlay budget items until the required utilization report has been submitted to the Legislature and reviewed.
Better Facilities Planning Information Is Needed
One of the most pressing facilities management needs of the Chancellor's Office is for a comprehensive facilities information system that can provide the administration and the Legislature with timely and accurate information on campus facility conditions, utilization, planning and development. The community colleges have taken the first steps to develop such a system, and it may prove useful in a number of ways when completed.
The Chancellor's Office and the districts have taken initial steps to develop an Internet-based facilities information system called "Fusion," intended to allow facilities to be planned, developed and managed with improved efficiency. The system is being developed initially around the needs of 10 to 15 CCDs, but is planned to be extended to all districts after development. If implemented as planned, the system will provide the Legislature with useful information about utilization of facilities, future funding needs, and progress of funded projects.
We believe this system can provide a number of important benefits for the 72 districts and the state. If properly developed, it would ensure the information generated by the system will meet legislative and administration needs as well as those of the districts and Chancellor's Office.
Projects Recommended for Deletion
Contra Costa CCD, Los Medanos College: Math, Science and Technology Building
We recommend the Legislature delete $716,000 for development of preliminary plans for the Math, Science and Technology Building at the Los Medanos College campus and recognize a reduction of future costs of $21,281,000 because the campus has substantial underutilized instructional capacity in summer term and has not adequately evaluated the alternative of renovating existing facilities to meet programmatic needs. (Delete $716,000 from Item 6870-301-6028(13).)
The budget contains $716,000 for development of a 50,520 assignable square feet (asf) mathematics and science building containing 12,440 asf of classrooms, 30,030 asf of teaching laboratories, 5,130 asf of offices and 2,920 asf for other uses. Future cost for the project is $21.3 million for development of working drawings, construction and equipment. The district says this project is needed primarily to meet enrollment growth projections. We have several concerns with this project.
Surplus Classroom Space at Campus. The project contains 12,440 asf for classrooms but the campus has 56 percent more classroom space than justified by current legislatively approved space standards. This surplus exists without taking into account additional instructional capacity that might be available if existing classrooms were fully utilized in summer term.
Underutilized Instructional Capacity Available in Summer Term. The campus has substantial underutilized capacity in summer term that could accommodate enrollment growth without the need to construct this new building. The campus has the physical capacity to accommodate about 4,700 FTE students at a time, but enrolls only about 1,500 FTE students (32 percent of capacity) in the summer. This means up to 3,200 FTE additional students could be accommodated in summer term.
Assumption of Large Increase in Classroom Demand in One Year. Information submitted by the district in support of this proposal assumes enrollment in courses held in classroom facilities will increase from about 1,900 FTE students in 2002-03 to 2,700 in 2003-04—a 42 percent increase in demand for classroom space in just one year. This is a very large assumed increase. This assumed increase is cited to justify construction of the 12,440 asf of classroom space in the proposed building, but no information has been provided to justify the assumption.
Renovation Alternative Not Adequately Evaluated. The district has not adequately evaluated the alternative of meeting programmatic needs by renovation of existing facilities rather than construction of a new building. The information submitted in support of this proposal indicates that the cost of a renovation alternative was estimated by assuming a renovation cost per square foot equal to 50 percent of the community college cost guidelines for construction of a new building. Many buildings can be renovated for less than this assumed amount. The cost of renovating a building should be determined by an engineering investigation to determine the actual work that will be needed. The district has not provided information to show that this was done.
The district has not provided information to justify this project based on either enrollment growth or programmatic needs. In addition, the renovation of existing facilities may meet campus needs more cost-effectively. Accordingly, we recommend deletion of funding for preliminary plans for this project. If a project to renovate existing facilities in order to meet the same programmatic need is submitted in the future, it may warrant legislative consideration at that time.
Long Beach CCD, Long Beach City College: Industrial Technology Center, Manufacturing
We recommend the Legislature delete $698,000 for development of preliminary plans and working drawings for the Industrial Technology Center, Manufacturing at the Long Beach City College campus and recognize a reduction of future costs of $9,897,000 because the campus (1) could meet any capacity needs through fuller utilization of the summer term and (2) has not adequately evaluated the alternative of renovating existing facilities to meet programmatic needs. (Delete $698,000 from Item 6870-301-6028(31).)
The budget provides $698,000 for development of a 22,119 asf instructional building with 20,483 asf of laboratories, 915 asf of offices and 721 asf of library for welding and machine tool technology, and a computer skill/study center. Future cost for the project is $9.9 million for construction and equipment. The district says this project is needed to replace three existing buildings in which these programs are currently delivered. The three existing buildings, which were constructed in the 1950s, would be demolished as part of this project. Our concerns with this project are as follows.
Renovation of Existing Facilities Not Adequately Considered. The district indicates it evaluated the alternative of remodeling existing facilities to meet the programmatic need and estimated the cost of renovation to be $6.9 million, compared to $9.1 million for construction of the proposed new facility. Since the cost of renovating existing facilities was estimated to be about three-fourths of the cost of constructing a new building, the district concluded constructing the new building would be more cost-effective in the long term. (When renovation cost is over 60 percent of the cost of new construction, it is frequently assumed to be more cost- effective to construct a new building). However, the district did not prepare an engineering estimate of the cost of renovation but simply assumed the "unit cost" would be $295 per gross square foot (gsf).
This estimate of the cost of renovation is questionable for two reasons. First, $295 per gsf is a very high unit cost for renovation. For example, the community colleges construction cost guideline for construction of new industrial arts buildings is $191 per gsf. This means the district has assumed the cost of renovation of the existing facilities would be over 50 percent higher than the community colleges guideline for new construction costs. The district has provided no information to justify such a high unit cost assumption for a renovation project.
Second, we do not recommend the Legislature make funding decisions for renovation projects based on unit cost estimates because they do not take into account the actual renovation work that is needed in a specific building. Unit costs are only approximations of historical costs for a large number of renovation projects of widely varying degrees of complexity. Many renovation projects are completed for less than typical unit costs that might be assumed—and some are more expensive. For a renovation cost estimate to be reliable, an engineering estimate must be prepared for the actual building that identifies the material and labor quantities for the specific renovation work that needs to be completed. The district did not provide an engineering cost estimate to support its estimate of the cost of renovating existing facilities to meet the programmatic need.
Underutilized Instructional Capacity. The Long Beach campus has substantial underutilized instructional capacity in summer term. The campus has the physical capacity to accommodate about 18,600 FTE students at a time, but enrolls about 13,600 FTE students in fall and spring semesters and 4,000 FTE in the summer (24 percent of capacity). Utilization of existing facilities more intensively during the summer—with renovations that may be needed—may accommodate programmatic needs more cost effectively than adding new space in a proposed new building.
We recommend the Legislature fund construction of new instructional facilities only when a district has shown the academic program cannot be accommodated within existing facilities that are renovated as necessary and well utilized year-round. The district has not shown this, and we therefore recommend deletion of funding for this project. If a project to renovate existing facilities in order to meet the same programmatic need is submitted in the future, it may warrant legislative consideration at that time.
Los Angeles CCD, East Los Angeles College: Fine & Performing Arts Center
We recommend the Legislature delete $15,882,000 for development of preliminary plans, working drawings, construction and equipment for the Fine & Performing Arts Center at East Los Angeles College because the alternative of renovating existing facilities to accommodate programmatic needs has not been fully evaluated and may be substantially more cost-effective. (Delete $15,882,000 from Item 6870-301-6028[32].)
The budget provides $15.9 million for partial funding of an 80,030 asf performing and fine arts complex containing 24,974 asf of classroom space, 17,900 asf for teaching laboratories, 5,124 asf for offices and 32,032 asf of other space. The district plans to provide an additional $15,883,000 of non-state funds for the project. This means the total cost of the project is about $31.8 million.
The district says the project is needed to consolidate in adjoining locations programs in the arts that are currently housed in seven buildings elsewhere on campus. It could also provide a new 250-seat little theater. The campus has an existing 2,100-seat main theater.
Renovation Alternative Not Fully Evaluated. Our concern with this project is that the district has not shown that existing facilities could not serve programmatic needs if they were renovated and perhaps expanded. For example, the campus has a free-standing lecture hall (Building F-7) that seats 120. Since lecture halls and little theaters have some similar architectural characteristics, it may be possible to renovate and expand Building F-7 to meet the programmatic need for a little theater. Also, the campus indicates the existing 2100-seat main theater is too large for most of its productions. Since theater complexes comprised of both a "main" and "little" theater are common, it may be possible to renovate and expand the main theater to incorporate a "little" theater into the same facility. This might be particularly cost-effective since back-stage and lobby facilities could serve both venues.
The district estimates the cost to renovate existing fine and performing arts classroom and teaching laboratory facilities to keep them serviceable for the near future is only $3.3 million. This is only about 10 percent of the total proposed project cost. The district indicates renovation would not permit it to consolidate various arts programs in one location, but it has not presented convincing information to show why the different programs need to be located together.
Since renovation of existing facilities rather than constructing an entirely new complex would free-up over $12 million for high priority projects elsewhere, we recommend deletion of funding for this project. If a project to renovate existing facilities in order to meet the same programmatic need were submitted in the future, it might warrant legislative consideration at that time.
Los Angeles CCD, Los Angeles Harbor College: Applied Technology Building
We recommend the Legislature delete $613,000 for development of preliminary plans and working drawings for the Applied Technology Building at the Los Angeles Harbor College campus and recognize a reduction of future costs of $8,198,000 because the alternative of meeting programmatic needs by renovating existing facilities has not been adequately evaluated and the campus has underutilized instructional capacity in summer term. (Delete $613,000 from Item 6870-301-6028[33].)
The budget proposes $613,000 for development of a 41,066 asf applied technology building containing 7,860 asf of classrooms, 22,496 asf of laboratories, 6,910 asf of offices and 3,800 asf of other space. The project also includes demolition of 36,566 asf of existing buildings and renovation of 3,171 asf of existing Technology Building No. 1. The district proposes to provide $8,810,000 of nonstate funds for the project. This means the total project cost is $17.6 million. The district says this project is needed to replace existing buildings in which some of the technology programs are currently delivered. The existing buildings would be demolished as part of this project.
We are concerned with this project because the alternative of renovating the existing buildings has not been adequately evaluated. We are also concerned that it would consume scare state resources for a project at a campus with excess instructional facilities, a declining enrollment, and small enrollment in technology programs.
Renovation Alternative Not Fully Evaluated. Renovation of existing facilities may be more cost-effective than constructing a new technology building, and we recommend a more thorough evaluation. The district has indicated it would cost $17.2 million to renovate existing facilities but has not provided an engineering estimate to support this cost. The district arrived at this $17.2 million cost by assuming "unit" costs for renovation such as "seismic retrofit/life safety upgrade—$56.50/sf", "typical interior remodel construction - $40/sf" and "laboratory construction—$42.00/sf". However unit renovation costs are only a rough guide, based on historical costs of many projects of varying complexity. They do not reflect the cost of renovation work that will actually need to be done to meet the programmatic need in a specific building. Many renovation projects are completed for less than what typical unit costs would indicate—and there are others that are more expensive. Without an engineering estimate showing the details and quantities of actual renovation work to be done, there is no basis for verifying the accuracy of the district's estimate of $17.2 million to renovate existing facilities. We do not recommend the Legislature base funding decisions on estimates for renovation alternatives that are not supported by an engineering estimate.
Underutilized Facilities. The Harbor campus has over 200 percent as much classroom and 120 percent as much teaching laboratory instructional capacity as justified by enrollment in fall and spring semesters. In summer term there is even more underused instructional capacity because the campus utilizes only about 20 percent of its physical capacity during the summer. This underutilized space may offer a more cost-effective opportunity to meet some of the programmatic needs cited to justify the proposed new building.
Declining Campus Enrollment and Small Enrollment in Technology Programs. Total enrollment at the Harbor campus has declined from about 4,000 FTE students in 1981 to 3,000 in 2001. The technology division, which would be the primary occupant of the proposed building, has an enrollment of less than 100 FTE students. Enrollments in the other ten functional academic divisions at the campus range from about 250 to 450 FTE students. For the above reasons, we recommend the Legislature delete funding for this project. If a project to renovate existing facilities in order to meet the same programmatic need is submitted in the future, it may warrant legislative consideration at that time.