The 2022-23 Budget: Student Housing

2022-23 BUDGET The 2022-23 Budget: Student Housing Summary Governor Proposes First-Round Grants for New Student Housing Program. Trailer legislation enacted in 2021-22 established the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program to support the construction of affordable student housing at the state’s public higher education segments. The program is to receive a total of $2 billion over three years for three rounds of grants, with specified shares for each of the three public segments. The Legislature and Governor, rather than a state agency, are tasked with implementing the program and awarding grants. As required by statute, the administration recently submitted to the Legislature a proposed list of projects totaling $488 million for the first round of funding. Recommend Legislature Weigh Administration’s Approach Against Other Approaches. The administration selected projects primarily based on the proposed state funding per bed and proposed rent as a share of the statutory maximum rent (30 percent of 50 percent of a campus’s area median income). This approach is one reasonable way to award first-round grants. That said, the Legislature could consider other reasonable approaches that also would be consistent with the program’s intent. Modifications the Legislature could consider include: (1) adopting different measures of affordability (such as the proposed on-campus rent compared to the average off-campus rent), (2) including other key measures (such as unmet housing demand) in ranking projects, (3) encouraging projects to match state funds with nonstate funds, and (4) approving more projects in the first round. Recommend Legislature Adopt Measures to Mitigate Project Risks. Many of the projects originally submitted by campuses ultimately could experience cost overruns or scope changes. We recommend the Legislature take three steps to help mitigate these risks: (1) require a minimum amount of contingency funding be built into each project and require nonstate funds be identified for covering any further cost overruns, (2) adopt a notification process to the Legislature for project cost or scope changes, and (3) strengthen the grant program’s existing reporting requirements. Recommend Legislature Keep in Mind Key Unresolved Issues. The state lacks an integrated framework to consider affordable housing within the context of college affordability and student financial aid. Also, even after awarding all of the affordable student housing grants, many low-income students will continue to experience a gap between their financial need and the level of financial aid they receive. Moreover, this housing grant program comes at a time when the state faces significant outstanding issues with the segments’ academic facilities, including billions of dollars in deferred maintenance. We think reflecting now on the difficult trade-offs inherent in these issues will help focus the Legislature’s higher education budget decisions in the coming years. GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST APRIL 2022 www.lao.ca.gov 1 2022-23 BUDGET INTRODUCTION As part of the 2021-22 budget package, the state The Legislature and Governor ultimately must created the Higher Education Student Housing decide on the final list of projects to award Grant Program to promote the construction of first-round grants. In this brief, we provide affordable on-campus housing. Campuses at background, then describe the first-round the University of California (UC), California State applications as well as the Governor’s proposed University (CSU), and California Community Colleges list of projects, and conclude with several issues (CCC) may apply for grants. The Governor recently for the Legislature to consider. Additionally, the submitted to the Legislature a list of campus brief contains an Appendix of tables containing projects proposed for first-round grant funding. project-level detail. BACKGROUND In this section, we provide background on they in turn can use to help cover housing operating student housing and the newly established shortfalls in a given year or support a portion of state-funded grant program. housing capital costs. On-Campus Living Costs Are Higher at Student Housing UC Than at CSU. According to student survey On-Campus Housing Is Most Common at data, on-campus living costs (consisting of both UC. All UC and CSU campuses have on-campus housing and food costs) average $17,259 across housing programs, whereas only 12 (of 115) UC campuses, with costs ranging from $16,145 community colleges have student housing (San Diego) to $20,236 (Berkeley). At CSU, programs. Systemwide, UC houses the greatest the systemwide average cost is $14,401, with share of its undergraduate students—37 percent costs ranging from $10,758 (Fresno) to $19,330 in 2021-22. Among UC campuses, the share of (San Diego). All UC campuses report on-campus undergraduate students housed ranges from housing as costlier than living in off-campus 22 percent (Irvine) to 51 percent (Los Angeles). housing (typically apartments or houses in the Based on the number of on-campus beds at each community) or with parents. By contrast, 16 of segment, we estimate approximately 15 percent CSU’s 23 campuses report living off campus (not of all CSU students systemwide and less than with parents) as costlier than living on campus. 1 percent of CCC students systemwide live in (Comparable data is not readily available for on-campus housing. community colleges.) On-Campus Student Housing Traditionally Student Housing Grant Program Is a Self-Supporting Program. Traditionally, the state does not directly approve, oversee, or State Adopted Grant Program in 2021-22 provide funding for campuses’ housing programs. Budget. Adopted in 2021-22 budget trailer Rather, campuses support their housing programs legislation—Chapter 262 of 2021 (SB 169, by charging students rent when they live in an Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)—the on-campus housing facility. The revenue generated purpose of the new grant program is to provide from these rents cover the annual cost to operate “affordable, low-cost housing options for students housing programs. Additionally, campuses typically enrolled in public postsecondary education in fund housing construction and renovation projects California.” The budget package committed by issuing bonds and paying the associated debt $2 billion General Fund for the program spread service costs using rental revenue. Campuses also over three years ($500 million in 2021-22 and build reserves in their housing programs, which $750 million each in 2022-23 and 2023-24). 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET Of the total $2 billion, statute specifies $400 million supporting low-income students and facilitating (20 percent) is for UC, $600 million (30 percent) low-income student access to higher education.” is for CSU, and $1 billion (50 percent) is for CCC. Beyond this basic direction, statute suggests Additionally, up to $25 million of the total $2 billion seven additional factors to prioritize projects, such is available for initial planning and feasibility studies as unmet student housing demand for a campus at community colleges. or service area and whether the projects are State Funds Must Be Used to Add Affordable intersegmental. Figure 1 lists these seven factors. Student Housing Units. Statute sets forth a Legislature and Governor Determine Grant number of requirements for projects to qualify Awards. In contrast to most other grant programs, for grant funding. Most notably, rents for the the Legislature and Governor, rather than a state state-funded on-campus housing units cannot agency, are tasked with administering the program exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of a campus’s and awarding grants. As specified in statute, this area median income. This is a measure used process begins with campuses submitting their in various federal and state affordable housing applications to the Department of Finance (DOF). programs to gauge housing affordability for DOF then reviews the applications and submits its low-income residents. (Prior to the state adopting proposed list of projects to the Legislature. For the the new student housing grant program, campuses first round, statute required campuses to submit did not use this measure to set on-campus housing their applications to DOF by October 31, 2021, rental rates.) Campuses can co-locate units with and DOF to submit its proposed list of projects to rents above the statutory limit in the new buildings, the Legislature by March 1, 2022. Due dates for so long as these standard-rent units are supported subsequent rounds are not specified in statute. with nonstate funds. Other grant requirements Ultimately, both the Governor and Legislature must include prioritizing affordable beds for low-income agree to the final list of projects and appropriate students and requiring students renting the funds for each project in the annual budget act. affordable beds to enroll full time. Thereafter, the segments must report annually on Statute Suggests Several Factors to the status of their approved projects. For completed Consider When Prioritizing Projects. Statutory projects, the segments must also report annually for intent language indicates that the grants are a five-year period on each project’s “public benefit” to be allocated “to increase the current stock as related to the selection criteria described earlier. of affordable student housing, for purposes of Figure 1 Seven Additional Factors May Be Used to Prioritize Housing Projects Higher Priority May Be Given to the Following Types of Projects • Commercial Space Renovations. Projects that convert commercial space into student housing. • Share of Low-Income Students. Projects serving higher shares of a campus’s low-income student population. • Housing Demand. Projects at campuses with relatively higher unmet demand for student housing. • Construction Time Line. Projects with earlier construction start dates. • Geographical Coverage. Projects that ensure representation of the state’s various regions and campuses. • Intersegmental Housing. Projects affecting at least two campuses from different segments. • Enrollment Capacity. Projects that expand enrollment capacity at the universities. www.lao.ca.gov 3 2022-23 BUDGET FIRST-ROUND APPLICATIONS AND PROPOSED AWARDS In this section, we provide an overview of the The share of cost covered by nonstate funds at UC first-round applications that campuses submitted and CCC varied by campus, with the share generally to DOF, as well as the administration’s proposed greater for projects with a mix of affordable and project list submitted to the Legislature in standard-rent beds. March 2022. Governor’s Proposed Project List Overview of Applications Administration Proposes Allocating State Received More Applications Than $488 Million for First Round. This amount consists Available Funding. DOF received 115 applications of $18 million for initial planning at CCC and for the first round of funding, consisting of $470 million for construction projects. According 73 planning grant applications and 42 construction to DOF, it selected construction projects based grant applications. As Figure 2 shows, the on three factors: (1) whether the project was applications in total requested $3 billion in intersegmental (with all eligible intersegmental grant funding, surpassing both the $500 million projects automatically receiving top rank), (2) state designated for the first round and the $2 billion funding per bed (with a lower amount yielding a designated for all three funding rounds combined. higher rank), and (3) proposed rents of the new State Share of Cost Varies Across Projects. housing facilities relative to the statutory limit (with Of the 42 applications submitted for construction a lower share yielding a higher rank). As Figure 3 grants, 23 proposed covering all project costs shows, the administration used this approach to sort using state funding and constructing only units projects into three groups: (1) projects proposed for that met the statutory affordability requirement. first-round funding, (2) projects that were eligible for The remaining 19 projects proposed covering first-round funding but lower priority, and (3) projects a portion of project costs with nonstate funds that were ineligible for funding. On the next page, we (generally housing reserves or, describe each group of projects. for some CCC projects, local Figure 2 revenues), with 12 proposing to construct affordable beds only Housing Applications Exceeded Program Funding and 7 proposing to construct a mix First Round of Applications (Dollars in Millions) of affordable and standard-rent beds. The share of project costs Number of State Funding Total Statutory Applications Requested Allotment covered by nonstate funds varied considerably by segment. For Planning Grants example, all ten CSU applicants CCC 71 $187 $25 Intersegmentala 2 4 — (including one intersegmental Subtotals (73) ($191) ($25) project between Imperial Valley Construction Grants College and CSU San Diego) CCC 22 $1,382 $975c proposed covering 65 percent of CSU 9 526 600 project costs from state funding UCb 9 816 400 and 35 percent from nonstate Intersegmentala 2 108 — funding, regardless of whether the Subtotals (42) ($2,832) ($1,975) project consisted of 100 percent Totals 115 $3,023 $2,000 affordable beds or a mix of a Funding for intersegmental projects are split evenly between the participating segments’ statutory allotments. affordable and standard-rent beds. b Includes one application from Hastings College of the Law ($219 million state funding). c Assumes planning grant allotment comes out of the CCC total program allotment. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET All Campus Planning Grant Figure 3 Applicants Would Receive Administration Sorted Projects Into Three Groups Funding for Initial Planning Activities. As part of the first First-Round Applications by Category (Dollars in Millions) round, DOF proposes awarding Proposed Lower Priority Ineligible grants to all community colleges that submitted a planning grant State State State Projects Cost Projects Cost Projects Cost application. (DOF proposes not to fund one planning grant application Planning Grants CCC 73a $17 — — 1 —b submitted by the CCC Chancellor’s Intersegmental 2 1 — — — — Office.) Under DOF’s proposal, Subtotals (75) ($18) (—) (—) (1) (—)b first-round grants would cover Construction Grants early planning activities, such as CCC 4 $210 7 $332 11 $861 feasibility studies, engineering CSU 1 116 7 378 1 32 studies, financing studies, and UC 2 135 3 254 4c 427c environmental impact studies. Intersegmental 1 9 — — 1 102 Subtotals (8) ($470) (17) ($964) (17) ($1,423) Other later planning activities Totals 83 $488 17 $964 18 $1,423 for which colleges requested a Number is greater than the 71 applications reported in previous figure because: (1) the funds, such as preparing administration proposes providing separate grants to six colleges that were originally aggregated architectural working drawings in three districtwide applications and (2) the administration deemed one planning grant application submitted by the CCC Chancellor’s Office to be ineligible. or covering legal fees, would be b Less than $500,000. excluded. Appendix Figure 1 c Includes one project from the Hastings College of the Law. lists these 75 proposed planning grant awards. the proposed first-round projects. DOF plans to A Subset of the Construction Projects Would consider these projects for future funding rounds Receive First-Round Funding. In addition to the without the requirement that campuses resubmit planning grants, DOF proposes selecting 8 of the their applications (though applicants can choose 42 submitted construction projects for first-round voluntarily to change and resubmit their proposals). grant funding. The construction projects would Appendix Figure 3 lists these 17 lower-priority add a total of 3,572 new affordable beds and construction projects. 208 standard rent beds, with beds added in several Remaining Construction Projects Deemed areas of the state. For CCC construction projects Ineligible. DOF deemed the remaining 17 projects only, DOF built in construction contingency funding ineligible and excluded them from the project amounting to 10 percent of project construction ranking process. Reasons why these projects costs, adjusting a project’s award amount when were deemed ineligible include: (1) the campus it did not include those funds in its application. applied for both planning and construction grants (UC and CSU report that campuses also included (thus signaling the project was not yet ready for contingency funding in their requests, generally construction), (2) the campus did not demonstrate equating to 5 percent of project construction the project would be financially feasible, (3) the costs.) Appendix Figure 2 lists these eight proposed project did not meet required parameters (such as construction grant awards. by proposing rents above the statutory maximum), Many Construction Projects Deemed Lower or (4) the application was submitted to DOF past Priority. Of the remaining 34 construction project the October 31 deadline. Projects initially deemed applications, 17 were considered eligible for a ineligible may address any identified shortcomings grant but deemed lower priority. That is, they and resubmit their applications for future rounds of met the statutory requirements of the program funding. Appendix Figure 4 lists these 17 projects, but were not intersegmental and had higher and Appendix Figure 5 provides more detail on the combined costs per affordable bed and rents than reasons DOF deemed them ineligible. www.lao.ca.gov 5 2022-23 BUDGET ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS We think the new grant program and the Legislature Could Consider Other administration’s recommended list of projects Approaches to Measure Project Affordability. raise three main areas of consideration for the Because 13 (of the 25) eligible projects proposed Legislature. The first area revolves around the charging rents at 100 percent of the statutory approach the Legislature could take to prioritize limit, they all ranked equally affordable under the among projects. The second area involves administration’s approach. One alternative that project risks. Many proposed projects could would yield more nuanced rankings would be to face higher-than-expected costs, potentially compare a project’s proposed on-campus rent to undermining their impact, affordability, and off-campus housing costs in the nearby community. even feasibility. The third area involves the many Based on an initial review of data on off-campus substantial issues that remain unresolved around rental rates submitted by the universities, we student affordability and higher education facilities. found that this alternative approach could boost In this section, we discuss each of these areas and the rankings of a few projects at campuses in offer associated recommendations. particularly expensive housing markets, such as those at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz. It also Alternative Approaches to lowers the rankings of several projects in lower-cost Selecting Projects Exist areas of the state. (As of the timing of this brief, only Administration’s Approach to Selecting a few community colleges had submitted to our Projects Is Reasonable. We think the office data on off-campus housing costs.) administration’s approach to selecting first-round Legislature Could Consider Other Factors projects generally is reasonable. The factors Too. DOF only directly considered one of the DOF uses to rank projects (primarily state seven additional prioritization factors specified in funding per bed and the proposed rents) align statute—whether the project is intersegmental. with the program’s intent. We further think the (As DOF’s approach yields projects located administration’s approach of funding only the initial throughout the state, it also aligns with the statutory planning activities of the planning grant applications factor of ensuring geographic coverage.) The is reasonable, as most college applicants are in Legislature might wish to incorporate other factors the very early stages of developing their projects. in lieu of or in addition to the factors used by the Moreover, we think the administration’s approach administration. For example, the Legislature might appropriately excludes projects from the first round wish to prioritize projects in areas with particularly that do not meet the statutory requirements or are constrained housing markets and high unmet not yet at the construction stage. demand for student housing. If so, the Legislature Recommend Legislature Weigh Governor’s could use measures of unmet housing demand Approach Against Alternative Approaches. to rank projects, such as waitlists for on-campus Although we think the administration’s approach is housing or off-campus housing vacancy rates in the reasonable, it is only one of many approaches the surrounding area. The Legislature might also prefer Legislature could take to select projects. Given the prioritizing projects with relatively early construction broad and varied guidance offered in statute, the start dates. For example, the joint Imperial Valley Legislature could take many other approaches College-CSU San Diego project, which DOF ranks to selecting projects that still meet the program’s first in its list, is not scheduled to begin construction objectives. Ultimately, the Legislature’s goals and until early 2024, whereas other lower-ranked priorities will determine whether modifications to the projects are scheduled to begin construction as Governor’s prioritization approach are warranted. early as 2022. Below, we offer four ways the Legislature could consider modifying the Governor’s approach. 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET Legislature Could Prioritize Projects That as particularly salient for the proposed student Leverage Nonstate Funds. Though several housing projects. These risks are highest for CCC, applicants proposed covering a portion of their as most community colleges have no experience project costs with nonstate funds, more than half constructing and operating any on-campus housing of applicants did not do so. Encouraging more facilities. Given this lack of experience, campuses nonstate funding contributions could permit might be more likely to misjudge their projects’ some projects to construct additional affordable financial feasibility, construction costs, or student beds. It also might encourage some projects to demand. Cost overruns could put campuses construct more standard-rent beds. In either case, and the state in a difficult situation. Campuses the overall stock of on-campus housing could might face pressure to cover the higher costs be increased. Were the Legislature interested by raising rents or constructing fewer affordable in encouraging more nonstate funding, it could beds, thereby undermining the program’s intent. provide higher ranking for projects with nonstate Alternatively, the state could face pressure to cover funding. Alternatively, it could direct first-round cost overruns to preserve a project’s feasibility and grantees to submit an adjusted proposal that affordability, thereby potentially increasing program meets some minimum threshold (for example, costs significantly. 10 percent of project costs covered with nonstate Recommend Requiring Projects to Have funds). Given the end of this year’s budget cycle Contingency Plans. Given the risks present is just a few months away, the Legislature would with these projects, we think the administration’s want initiate this request soon if it were interested approach of ensuring minimum funding amounts in pursuing it. The Legislature also could influence for contingency is warranted. To further protect the applications in future rounds by amending statute state, we recommend requiring first-round award to include specific expectations regarding nonstate recipients to submit plans documenting nonstate funding contributions. fund sources they would use to cover any further Legislature Could Award More Grant Funding cost overruns. This action would better signal This Budget Cycle. The Legislature could alter legislative intent that campuses, rather than the statute to support more than $500 million in state, bear the risks of their projects. (We also projects this year. On the one hand, approving note that UC, CSU, and CCC campuses already more projects this year would enable campuses to tend to cover cost overruns from nonstate sources commence with projects sooner, thereby increasing for their state-funded academic facility projects.) housing stock more quickly and avoiding higher Looking ahead to the remaining grant rounds, construction costs in future years. The Legislature we recommend the Legislature adopt in statute might find this approach particularly appealing minimum project contingency expectations (for given the relatively high inflation the state currently example, 5 percent for UC and CSU and 10 percent is experiencing. On the other hand, the Legislature for CCC) and intent language specifying that might prefer to hold off on approving more projects campuses cover any further cost overruns from and instead allow campuses more time to submit nonstate sources. better applications in future rounds. According Recommend Adopting Notification Process. to the segments, some campuses already have We further recommend the Legislature take expressed interest in revising their projects to measures to improve its oversight of project cost make them more competitive and correct for and scope changes. Specifically, we recommend any deficiencies. granting the administration the ability to authorize changes to a project’s cost or scope, but only with Proposed Housing Projects 30-days advance notification to the Legislature. Come With Risks To ensure campuses have adequate flexibility Cost Overruns Could Undermine Objectives to manage their projects, we recommend only of Grant Program. Though all capital projects triggering this notification process when the are susceptible to cost overruns, we view this risk change is greater than 10 percent over what was www.lao.ca.gov 7 2022-23 BUDGET projected in the original application (that is, if costs income to house their respective college students are more than 10 percent higher than expected on campus. Moreover, housing is only one of and/or affordable beds are 10 percent lower than the costs that traditionally have been embedded expected). This process would allow both the within the concept of college affordability. In the Legislature and the administration to be active college context, policymakers have long focused participants in the project implementation process, on students’ total cost of attendance (tuition and ensuring that the selected projects continue to align living costs). Moving forward, the Legislature may with program goals. We also note that other state wish to work with the segments, student groups, capital outlay programs have similar notification policy experts, and other stakeholders to develop a processes for cost and scope changes. more integrated framework that considers student Recommend Strengthening Reporting housing affordability within the broader context of Requirements. Finally, we recommend the overall college affordability and student financial Legislature strengthen the program’s existing aid programs. statutory reporting requirements in two ways. Difficult to Assess Initiative’s Impact on First, we recommend specifying what the College Affordability. Many UC, CSU, and CCC segments must include in their annual program campuses are located in areas with particularly reports. Currently, statute offers little guidance constrained housing markets and relatively high on the content of the reports, instead giving the housing costs. Efforts to construct housing in segments flexibility to determine the content and these areas—whether on-campus student housing thus potentially undermining the Legislature’s or off-campus housing—will help mitigate these ability to compare progress across segments constraints. Based on the low thousands of and projects. At a minimum, the Legislature affordable beds to be constructed in the first round, could require these annual reports to include relatively few of the millions of students across the updated project construction costs, updated three systems, however, are likely to benefit directly project time lines, projected or actual rents of from the program. That said, as the cost and scope the new housing facilities, the projected or actual of many projects likely will change, it is too early to number of affordable beds, and occupancy rates assess how many students ultimately will benefit for completed projects. In addition to providing from the program or measure the overall reduction consistent project-level information, this information in living costs for low-income students. would provide the Legislature better data moving Low-Income Students Likely Will Continue to forward on the kinds of projects that are particularly Have Substantial Unmet Financial Need. Even susceptible to cost and scope changes. Second, if the new affordable housing units successfully we recommend requiring the segments to submit offer some students lower-cost housing options, their reports each November, ahead of the many low-income students at CSU and CCC upcoming legislative session. likely will continue to face affordability challenges. This is because financial aid at these segments Many Notable Issues primarily focuses on covering the cost of tuition, Remain Unresolved providing substantially less coverage for living State Lacks Integrated Framework for costs. (In contrast to CSU and CCC, UC fully covers Assessing Housing Affordability in College financial need for its students, after assuming Context. The new student housing grant program students cover a portion of total attendance costs is modeled off of programs generally intended to from parent contributions, working part time, and gauge housing affordability for low-income families borrowing.) Previous analyses have estimated the living in the community. College students, however, cost to cover remaining financial need to be in the can be dependents of their parents. In these cases, low billions of dollars. Though the state recently households already must cover housing costs for revamped the Middle Class Scholarship program their primary residences and thus likely cannot to substantially increase living cost aid for low- and afford to allocate an additional 30 percent of their middle-income students at UC and CSU, the 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET revamped program has no set time line for reaching to state programs, and minimizing future escalation full implementation. (We describe this program in repair costs. Funding student housing projects in our post The 2022-23 Budget: Middle Class leaves less budget capacity to support these and Scholarship Program.) other high-priority academic facility issues. Legislature Also Faces Substantial Academic Recommend Legislature Keep Key Trade-Offs Facility Issues. Traditionally, the state has focused in Mind Moving Forward. The Legislature likely its higher education capital funding on academic does not have enough budget capacity to fully facilities (such as classrooms, lecture halls, and address all of the above issues over the coming laboratories), which are not self-funded from years. We therefore recommend the Legislature student charges but rely primarily on state funding. begin thinking about which of its higher education The state continues to face many substantial objectives are of highest priority relative to other academic facility budget priorities. For example, areas of the state budget, then pursue the most all three segments report substantial academic cost-effective, efficient, and equitable activities facility maintenance backlogs (UC with $7.3 billion, to accomplish these objectives. For example, CSU with $5.8 billion, and CCC with $1.2 billion). should the Legislature spend its next dollar to Moreover, the segments have billions of dollars in support more affordable housing projects, expand seismic safety upgrades they could make. As we need-based financial aid, or address the segments’ have noted previously, campuses at all three substantial maintenance backlogs? We think segments also do not spend enough money to keep reflecting now on the difficult trade-offs raised their facilities in good condition and prevent their by these choices will help focus the Legislature’s backlogs from growing. Addressing these existing higher education budget decisions in the critical capital issues is important—potentially coming years. mitigating life-safety hazards, avoiding disruptions www.lao.ca.gov 9 2022-23 BUDGET APPENDIX Appendix Figure 1 Administration’s Proposed Planning Grant Awards (In Thousands) District Campus Proposed Grant Intersegmental Butte Butte College/CSU Chico $500 Merced Merced College/UC Merced 564 Subtotal ($1,064) CCC Only Allan Hancock Allan Hancock $185 Antelope Valley Antelope Valley 200 Cabrillo Cabrillo 242 Cerritos Cerritos 225 Chabot-Las Positas Chabot 155 Chabot-Las Positas Las Positas 155 Contra Costa Contra Costa 180 Contra Costa Diablo Valley 180 Contra Costa Los Medanos 180 Copper Mountain Copper Mountain 70 El Camino El Camino 110 Feather River Feather River 349 Foothill-De Anza De Anza 132 Foothill-De Anza Foothill 132 Grossmont-Cuyamaca Cuyamaca 155 Grossmont-Cuyamaca Grossmont 155 Hartnell Hartnell 325 Kern Cerro Coso 314 Kern Porterville 314 Long Beach Long Beach City 120 Los Angeles East Los Angeles 110 Los Angeles Los Angeles City 110 Los Angeles Los Angeles Harbor 110 Los Angeles Los Angeles Mission 110 Los Angeles Los Angeles Pierce 110 Los Angeles Los Angeles Southwest 110 Los Angeles Los Angeles Trade Technical 110 Los Angeles Los Angeles Valley 110 Los Angeles West Los Angeles 110 Los Rios American River 110 Los Rios Cosumnes River 110 Los Rios Folsom Lake 110 Los Rios Sacramento City 110 Mendocino-Lake Mendocino-Lake 250 Merced Merced 145 MiraCosta MiraCosta 150 Mt. San Jacinto Mt. San Jacinto 155 North Orange County Cypress 150 Ohlone Ohlone (Fremont) 290 Ohlone Ohlone (Newark) 290 Palomar Palomar 820 Pasadena Area Pasadena 50 Peralta Alameda 110 (Continued) 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET District Campus Proposed Grant Peralta Berkeley City 110 Peralta Laney 110 Peralta Merritt 110 Rancho Santiago Rancho Santiago 500 Rio Hondo Rio Hondo 522 Riverside Moreno Valley 540 Riverside Norco 590 Riverside Riverside City 470 San Bernardino Crafton Hills 845 San Bernardino San Bernardino Valley 845 San Diego San Diego City 344 San Jose-Evergreen Evergreen Valley 235 San Jose-Evergreen San Jose City 235 San Mateo San Mateo 200 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara City 150 Santa Monica Santa Monica City 110 Shasta Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint 155a Solano Solano 150 South Orange County Irvine Valley 323 South Orange County Saddleback 483 Southwestern Southwestern (Chula Vista 861 148 Elmhurst Avenue) Southwestern Southwestern (Chula Vista) 60 Southwestern Southwestern (National City) 290 Southwestern Southwestern (Otay Mesa) 60 Southwestern Southwestern (San Ysidro) 60 State Center Fresno City 449 State Center Madera 449 Ventura County Moorpark 250 Ventura County Oxnard 249 West Hills West Hills Coalinga 150a Subtotal ($16,910) Total $17,974 a Reflects corrected amount to Department of Finance’s March 2022 letter. www.lao.ca.gov 11 2022-23 BUDGET Appendix Figure 2 Administration’s Proposed Construction Grant Awards Reflects Department of Finance’s Ranking (Dollars in Millions) Funding Beds Segment Campus State Nonstate Affordable Standard Intersegmental Imperial Valley College/CSU San Diego $9 $5 78a — CCC Fresno City 34 — 360 — CCC Siskiyous 33 — 252 — CSU San Francisco 116 63 750 — CCC Ventura 63 — 320 — UC Los Angeles 35 29 358 — UC San Diego 100 236 1,100 208 CCC Sierra 80 — 354 — Totals $470 $332 3,572 208 a Assumes all of project’s proposed beds are affordable. Appendix Figure 3 Construction Projects Deemed Eligible but Lower Priority by Administration Reflects Department of Finance’s Ranking (Dollars in Millions) Funding Beds Segment Campus State Nonstate Affordable Standard CSU Long Beach $53 $29 403 — CSU Fresnoa 31 17 175 — CCC Napa Valley 31 97 124 404 CCC Santa Rosa 15 63 70 282 CSU Northridge 38 20 200 — CSU Humboldta 27a 15 138 — CSU Dominguez Hills 49 26 238 127 UC Irvine 65 1 300 — CCC Cosumnes River 44 — 145 — CSU Fullerton 89 48 390 210 CSU San Marcos 91 49 390 210 CCC Compton 80 — 250 — CCC Lake Tahoe 39 — 100 — UC Santa Cruz 89 — 320 — UC Berkeley 100 212 310 803 CCC Bakersfield 60 3 154 — CCC Canyons 62 — 100 — Totals $964 $580 3,807 2,036 a Reflects corrected amount and revised rank to Department of Finance’s March 2022 letter. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET Appendix Figure 4 Construction Projects Deemed Ineligible for Grant Awards by Administration (Dollars in Millions) Funding Beds Segment Campus State Nonstate Affordable Standard CCC Antelope Valley $169 — 500 — CCC Cabrillo 47 — 298 — CCC Cerritos 10 — —a — CCC Cypress 40 — 186 — CCC Fresno City (West Fresno campus) 8 — 300 — CCC Long Beach City 84 $5 340 — CCC Ohlone (Fremont campus) 112 — 314 — CCC Ohlone (Newark campus) 137 — 226 — CCC Redwoods 36 — 250 — CCC San Diego City 130 — 613 — CCC San Mateo 89 10 495 — CSU Sacramento 32 17 285 — Intersegmental Merced College/UC Merced 102 — 348 — UC Hastings College of the Law 219 — 257 — UC Merced (graduate students) 59 — 200 — UC Merced (undergraduate students) 99 — 348 — UC Riverside 51 — 375 — Totals $1,423 $32 5,335 — a Application did not specify. www.lao.ca.gov 13 2022-23 BUDGET Appendix Figure 5 Reasons Administration Deemed Projects Ineligible for Grant Awards Segment Campus Requested Planning and Construction Grantsa CCC Antelope Valley CCC Cabrillob CCC Cerritos CCC Long Beach City CCC Ohlone (Newark campus) CCC Ohlone (Fremont campus) CCC San Diego City CCC San Mateo Intersegmental Merced College/UC Merced Did Not Demonstrate Financial Feasibility CCC Redwoods CCC Cypress UC Merced (graduate students) UC Merced (undergraduate students) Proposed Rent Exceeded Statutory Limit UC Riverside Submitted Past Statutory Due Date CSU Sacramento Did Not Meet Other Statutory Requirements CCC Fresno City (West Fresno campus)c UC Hastings College of the Lawd a Administration proposes to give these projects planning grants but deemed them ineligible for receiving construction grants simultaneously. b Also deemed ineligible because its proposed rent exceeded the statutory limit. c Supports emergency housing for up to 16 students at a time and construction of a wraparound service center. d Supports seismic retrofit of an existing mixed academic and housing facility. 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2022-23 BUDGET www.lao.ca.gov 15 2022-23 BUDGET LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Jason Constantouros, with assistance from Lisa Qing and Paul Steenhausen, and reviewed by Jennifer Pacella and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE