LAO
The 2026-27 Budget: Community College Facilities
The 2026-27 Budget: Community College Facilities
Translate Our Website
This Google ™ translation feature provided on the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) website is for informational purposes only.
The LAO is unable to guarantee the accuracy of this translation and is therefore not liable for any inaccurate information resulting from the translation application tool.
Choose your language:
×
Skip to main content
Home -->
Policy Areas
Capital Outlay, Infrastructure
Criminal Justice
Economy and Taxes
Education
Environment and Natural Resources
Health and Human Services
Local Government
State Budget Condition
Transportation
Other Government Areas
Publications
The Budget
Propositions and Initiatives
Staff
Careers
About Us
Search
LAO Contact
Lisa Qing
See More Publications Like This
Back to the Top
-->
Tweet
March 17, 2026
The 2026-27 Budget
Community College Facilities
Summary
The Governor s budget proposes providing Proposition 2 bond funding for ten new capital outlay projects at the California Community Colleges (CCC) in 2026-27. The CCC Chancellor s Office selected these projects using a scoring system it developed several years ago. Although we think this scoring system is generally reasonable, we identify a few potential issues with it. First, the share of funding allocated toward modernization projects is low relative to the system s identified modernization needs. Second, the scoring system does not account for whether campuses have already received Proposition 2 funding, resulting in several campuses having multiple projects funded while other campuses have no projects funded. Third, although the scoring system grants more points to projects with higher local contributions, half of the projects selected this year have relatively low local contributions (less than 35 percent). Fourth, unlike the previous scoring system, this one does not prioritize traditional instructional facilities over other types of space, such as gymnasiums and performing arts centers. If any of these issues raise notable concerns for the Legislature, it could direct the Chancellor s Office to adjust its scoring system accordingly and work with the administration to propose a new set of projects at the May Revision.
Introduction
Post Focuses on Community College Capital Outlay Projects. In this post, we first provide background on facilities and capital outlay financing at CCC. We then describe the Governor s proposals to provide Proposition 2 bond funding for many new and continuing CCC capital outlay projects, assess those proposals, and provide an associated recommendation.
Background
CCC Has Many Facilities. The CCC system includes 72 local community college districts that operate 115 college campuses, as well as a number of off-campus centers and district offices. Based on the system s most recent five-year capital outlay plan, these sites have a combined 87 million square feet of building space. This includes academic space (such as classrooms, laboratories, and libraries) as well as nonacademic space (such as parking structures, bookstores, and cafeterias). In general, academic space is eligible for state support, including funding from state general obligation bonds.
Recent General Obligation Bond Provides State Funding for CCC Facilities. In the November 2024 election, voters approved Proposition 2, a state general obligation bond that provides $1.5 billion for community college facilities. (The measure also provides $8.5 billion for K-12 school facilities.) These funds may be used for various purposes, including constructing new buildings, renovating existing buildings, acquiring land, and purchasing equipment. The measure does not specify how the funds are to be allocated among these specific purposes. In addition to this state bond, voters in the same election approved 14 local general obligation bonds totaling $9.9 billion for community college facilities.
Chancellor s Office Uses Scoring System to Select Projects for Bond Funding. To receive state bond funding, a community college district must first submit a project proposal to the Chancellor s Office. Each year, the Chancellor s Office requests state funding for a subset of these project proposals, using a scoring system to prioritize among them. The Chancellor s Office generally develops its scoring systems without legislative involvement. The CCC Board of Governors adopted the current scoring system in September 2020.
Scoring System Includes Three Project Categories. Under its current scoring system, the Chancellor s Office allocates available bond funding across three project categories: life safety, modernization, and growth. It first designates funding for life safety projects. These projects must be accompanied by a third-party study identifying imminent health or safety risks, seismic risks, or failing infrastructure. The Chancellor s Office may designate up to 50 percent of state funding each year for life safety projects, though the amount needed to fund all project proposals in this category is typically much lower. After addressing life safety projects, the Chancellor s Office then allocates 65 percent of the remaining funding for modernization projects that renovate existing space and 35 percent for growth projects that add new space.
Projects Are Ranked Within Modernization and Growth Categories. The Chancellor s Office uses certain scoring metrics to rank projects within these two categories. As Figure 1 shows, modernization projects receive points based on the age and condition of the facility. Meanwhile, growth projects receive points based on projected enrollment growth at the campus, as well as how its existing capacity compares to its enrollment level. Projects in both categories also receive points based on the amount of the local contribution, with districts generally required to cover at least 25 percent of total project costs and receiving more points for covering a larger share. In addition, projects in both categories receive points for certain other metrics, including campus size and region.
Figure 1
CCC Uses Certain Scoring Metrics to Rank Project Proposals
Metric
Description
Points
Modernization Projects
Facility age
Provides points based on the age of the facility, with older facilities receiving more points.
60
Local contribution
Provides points based on the share of project costs covered by local funds, with larger local contributions receiving more points.
50
Facility condition
Provides points based on facility condition, with facilities in worse conditions receiving more points.
40
CTE status
Provides points to projects that modernize space for CTE programs.
25
Campus size
Provides points based on campus size, with larger campuses receiving more points.
20
Region
Provides points to projects in the Central Valley, Sierras, Inland Empire, and Far North.
5
Total
200
Growth Projects
Enrollment growth
Provides points based on projected enrollment growth over the next five years, with faster growing campuses receiving more points.
50
Existing capacity
Provides points to campuses that have enrollment in excess of their existing capacity, with points based on the extent to which campuses exceed their capacity.
50
Local contribution
Provides points based on the share of project costs covered by local funds, with larger local contributions receiving more points.
50
CTE status
Provides points to projects that add space for CTE programs.
25
Campus size
Provides points based on campus size, with larger campuses receiving more points.
20
Region
Provides points to projects in the Central Valley, Sierras, Inland Empire, and Far North.
5
Total
200
CTE = career technical education.
State Allocated First Round of Proposition 2 Bond Funds in 2025-26. The 2025-26 budget provided $142 million in Proposition 2 bond funding for community college capital outlay projects. Of this amount, $55 million was for the preliminary plans and working drawings phases of 29 new projects selected using the above scoring system. The other $87 million was for the construction phase of a previously approved student housing project. This EdBudget table lists all of the Proposition 2 projects funded in 2025-26.
Districts Have Submitted Many New Project Proposals for 2026-27. The Chancellor s Office indicates that districts submitted 35 eligible new project proposals for Proposition 2 bond funding in 2026-27. This includes 27 modernization projects and 8 growth projects. (Districts did not submit any new life safety projects.) Using its scoring system, the Chancellor s Office selected ten of these projects consisting of seven modernization projects and three growth projects to request state funding for in the 2026-27 budget.
Proposals
Governor Proposes Funding Ten New Capital Outlay Projects. As Figure 2 shows, the Governor proposes to fund all ten projects selected by the Chancellor s Office. The Governor s budget includes $28 million Proposition 2 bond funds for the preliminary plans and working drawings phases of these projects. The total cost across all project phases is $748 million, with the state covering $399 million (53 percent) and districts covering $348 million (47 percent).
Figure 2
Governor’s Budget Funds New CCC Capital Outlay Projects
Proposition 2 Bond Funds (In Thousands)
College
Project
2026 27
All Years
Phase
State Cost
State Cost
Total Cost a
Modernization
El Camino
Interdisciplinary science center replacement
P, W
$4,259
$64,089
$146,927
Los Angeles City
Communications cinema building replacement
P, W
2,441
36,570
81,231
Bakersfield
Fine arts building replacement
P, W
1,861
40,278
52,925
Reedley
Vocational technical complex renovation
P, W
2,647
34,106
51,316
Merced
Gym complex replacement
P, W
2,461
35,626
50,571
Golden West
Performing arts building replacement
P, W
1,542
21,782
42,824
Chaffey
Theater renovation
P, W
1,489
17,848
25,041
Subtotals
($16,700)
($250,299)
($450,835)
Growth b
Riverside
Advanced technology building replacement
P, W
$4,677
$71,925
$178,825
Hanford Center c
New science building
P, W
4,182
51,137
67,082
Porterville
Career technology building replacement
P, W
2,250
26,067
50,944
Subtotals
($11,109)
($149,129)
($296,851)
Totals
$27,809
$399,428
$747,686
a Community college districts issue local general obligation bonds to pay for a share of project costs.
b Replacement buildings listed in this category involve adding space.
c Center operated by Sequoias Community College District.
P = preliminary plans and W = working drawings.
Governor Also Proposes Continuing All New Projects Funded Last Year. As Figure 3 shows, the Governor also proposes to continue funding for all 29 capital outlay projects initiated in 2025-26. The Governor s budget includes $709 million Proposition 2 bond funds for the construction phase of these projects. The total cost across all project phases is $1.6 billion, with the state covering $764 million (48 percent) and districts covering $834 million (52 percent). As of the Governor s budget, all but two of these projects were scheduled to complete working drawings in 2026-27, with the remaining projects expected to do so by August 2027. Assuming no project delays emerge this spring, we have no concerns with the proposed funding for these continuing projects.
Figure 3
Governor’s Budget Funds Continuing CCC Capital Outlay Projects
Proposition 2 Bond Funds (In Thousands)
College
Project
2026 27
All Years
Phase
State Cost
State Cost
Total Cost a
Life Safety
American River
Davies Hall replacement
C
$55,655
$59,984
$79,749
El Camino
Hydronic line replacement
C
8,530
9,343
12,457
Los Angeles Pierce
Sewer utility infrastructure replacement
C
6,576
7,268
9,692
Skyline
Boiler plant replacement
C
5,519
5,973
7,925
Los Angeles Valley
Sewer utility infrastructure replacement
C
5,203
5,794
7,726
Subtotals
($81,483)
($88,362)
($117,549)
Modernization
Los Angeles Trade Tech
Advanced transportation and manufacturing building replacement
C
$83,567
$89,614
$215,809
Citrus
Career technical education building replacement
C
43,784
47,010
114,887
Golden West
Physical education gym replacement
C
26,907
28,909
56,801
Bakersfield
Center for Student Success replacement
C
26,363
28,297
55,336
Merritt
Gymnasium and locker room replacement
C
20,769
22,445
53,877
De Anza
Physical education complex renovation
C
36,999
40,385
53,487
Long Beach (Liberal Arts Campus)
Building B replacement
DB
24,400
24,782
51,639
Merced
Music Art Theater Complex renovation
C
22,604
24,073
47,206
Antelope Valley
Gymnasium replacement
C
22,562
24,184
45,927
Rio Hondo
Business and art building replacement
C
21,133
22,727
45,016
Los Angeles City
Kinesiology South building replacement
C
16,008
17,302
41,270
Hartnell
Gymnasium renovation
C
17,501
19,265
37,648
Reedley
Agriculture instruction complex renovation
C
15,204
16,499
31,825
Orange Coast
Skills lab replacement
C
12,086
13,196
25,998
Imperial Valley
Gymnasium renovation
C
11,736
12,775
25,373
Shasta
Life sciences building renovation
C
7,757
8,437
16,560
Subtotals
($409,380)
($439,900)
($918,659)
Growth b
Mt. San Antonio
Library replacement
C
$53,066
$56,962
$157,509
Moreno Valley
New Library Learning Resource Center
C
40,665
43,662
104,628
Norco
Library Learning Resource Center and student services center replacement
C
31,247
33,759
81,389
Fullerton
STEM vocational center replacement
C
25,092
27,014
55,471
Riverside
Cosmetology building replacement
C
18,240
19,857
47,989
Clovis
New kinesiology and wellness center
C
22,251
23,933
47,752
Ben Clark Training Center c
New Education Center Building 2, Phase 1
C
14,634
15,969
38,844
Willits Center d
Willits Center expansion, Phase 2
C
13,022
14,365
28,181
Subtotals
($218,217)
($235,521)
($561,763)
Totals
$709,080
$763,783
$1,597,971
a Community college districts issue local general obligation bonds to pay for a share of project costs.
b Replacement buildings listed in this category involve adding space.
c Center operated by Riverside Community College District.
d Center operated by Mendocino Lake Community College District.
C = construction; DB = design Bbild; and STEM = science, technology, engineering, and math.
Assessment
Trade-Offs in Deciding How Much Funding to Allocate in 2026-27. Under the Governor s budget, the state would be committing nearly $1.3 billion (83 percent) of total Proposition 2 bond funding through 2026-27, leaving $249 million (17 percent) available for future years. While this is a reasonable starting point, the Legislature could choose to allocate a different amount by adjusting the new project proposals for 2026-27. In deciding how much funding to allocate, the Legislature faces a basic trade-off. On the one hand, allocating more funding now would allow more projects to begin in 2026-27, avoiding the construction cost escalation associated with waiting until a future year. On the other hand, allocating less funding now would leave more available for high-priority projects (including life safety projects) that could emerge over the next year or two.
Scoring System Used to Select Projects Has Some Positive Aspects. Overall, the scoring system the Chancellor s Office uses to select projects is a consistent and transparent way of reviewing districts proposals. Having clear standards in evaluating projects can help guide the Legislature in identifying which projects have the strongest justification. The scoring system also places highest priority on life safety projects, with requirements in place to ensure that districts submit only immediate needs under this category. Moreover, the scoring system uses several relevant metrics to rank other projects (namely facility age and condition for modernization projects and enrollment and capacity for growth projects).
Share of Funding Allocated Toward Modernization Projects Is Likely Too Low. Though we think the scoring system is generally reasonable, it has a few shortcomings. One of these shortcomings is that it weights modernization and growth projects in a way that does not align tightly with identified project needs. While modernization projects account for 84 percent of the facility needs identified in CCC s most recent five-year capital outlay plan, they receive only 65 percent of funding each year under the Chancellor s Office s scoring system. Under the current split of funds between modernization and growth projects, modernization projects are somewhat less likely to be selected for funding. Of the project proposals that districts submitted for 2026-27, 7 out of 27 eligible modernization projects (26 percent) are included in the Governor s budget, compared to 3 out of 8 eligible growth projects (38 percent). Providing insufficient funding for modernization can lead to higher project costs in the future, as well as potential programmatic disruptions when aging building components fail.
Several Campuses Are Receiving Multiple Proposition 2 Projects. Another shortcoming of the current scoring system is it does not take into account if a campus already has received funding for another project. Of the ten new projects included in the Governor s budget, seven are at campuses that already received Proposition 2 funding for a different project in 2025-26. While these campuses may have significant facility needs, they are likely also benefiting from certain other scoring metrics. For example, five of these campuses enroll at least 10,000 full-time equivalent students, placing them in the highest two tiers of points based on campus size. In addition, four of these campuses are located in geographic regions that qualify for additional points. While these campuses would receive a second Proposition 2 project, many other campuses have not yet received any Proposition 2 funding. To address this issue, the Chancellor s Office intends to begin limiting each campus to one new project every two years. However, it does not plan to implement this rule until 2027-28 (at which point the bulk of Proposition 2 funding will likely have been committed).
Half of New Projects Have Low Local Contributions. Though the scoring system grants more points to districts with higher local contributions, projects can still be selected with relatively low local contributions. Of the ten new projects included in the Governor s budget, five have local contributions of between 25 percent and 35 percent the low end of the allowable range. This is a departure from previous years, in which most projects have had local contributions covering roughly half of total project costs. A few of the projects with low local contributions are located in districts with sizable capital reserves. These districts might be putting forth smaller local contributions in part because their projects can still qualify for funding based on other scoring metrics. When districts provide smaller local contributions, the available state bond funding cannot stretch across as many projects.
Some New Projects Are Not Traditional Instructional Facilities. Under the old scoring system the Chancellor s Office used prior to 2020, the majority of funding allocated each year was designated for instructional space, mainly classrooms and laboratories. In addition, 15 percent of funding each year was designated for other facilities that promote a complete campus concept, including gymnasiums, performing arts centers, and child development centers. Of the ten new projects included in the Governor s budget, four of them consisting of one gymnasium and three performing arts centers would have fallen into that latter category. (That category similarly accounted for a large share of the new projects approved last year, including eight gymnasiums.) Facilities in that category do support instruction in physical education, music, theater, and other programs. Nonetheless, they differ from the instructional spaces the state has traditionally prioritized for bond funding. For example, these types of facilities can generate revenue from activities such as athletic events and concerts.
Recommendation
Consider Directing Chancellor s Office to Adjust Scoring System. The Chancellor s Office s scoring system has significant implications for which projects receive state funding. While we think this scoring system is generally reasonable, we have also identified a few potential issues with it. If any of the issues above raise notable concerns for the Legislature, it could direct the Chancellor s Office to adjust its scoring system. For example, this might mean allocating a larger share of funding toward modernization projects, limiting each campus to one Proposition 2 project across all years, or capping the share of funding going toward complete campus concept projects. The Legislature could direct the Chancellor s Office to make any changes to its scoring system in the spring and work with the administration to propose a new set of projects at the May Revision. Though we understand community college districts submitted their project proposals assuming the current scoring system, we think it may be worth addressing any notable concerns with that system now while Proposition 2 funding remains available. If the Legislature waits to implement changes until some future year, Proposition 2 funding likely will already have been exhausted.
Subscribe
| California State Legislature
| Online Voter Registration
| Privacy Policy
| Accessibility
Legislative Analyst's Office | The California Legislature's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor
925 L Street, Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95814 | (916) 445-4656