CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN SYSTEM OFFICE FACILITIES PLANNING & UTILIZATION UNIT January 2005

2 Members of the Board Kay Albiani Elk Grove Anthony J. Alvarado Coronado George T. Caplan Los Angeles Benita D. Haley Manhattan Beach Lance T. Izumi Sacramento Kristin Jackson Franklin Long Beach Julie Korenstein Northridge Pauline Larwood Bakersfield Richard H. Lieb Solana Beach Sara Martinez Tucker San Francisco Margaret R. Quiñones Santa Monica J. Steven Rhodes Los Angeles Carolyn Russell Long Beach Sondra Saterfield Los Altos Catherine L. Unger Los Angeles Leslie Wang Galt Officers of the Board Catherine L. Unger, President George T. Caplan, Vice President Anthony J. Alvarado, CPEC Representative Kay Albiani, CPEC Alternate System Office Marshall Drummond Chancellor Victoria P. Morrow Executive Vice Chancellor Steve Bruckman Interim General Counsel Dona A. Boatright Interim Vice Chancellor for Educational Services Helga Martin Assistant to the Chancellor/Board Liaison Linda Michalowski Interim Vice Chancellor for Student Services and Special Programs Jamillah Moore Senior Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations and External Affairs Patrick Perry Vice Chancellor for Technology, Research, and Information Services Robert Turnage Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Policy Fusako Yokotobi Vice Chancellor for Human Resources

3 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. IDENTIFY DRIVERS OF NEED... 8 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS... 8 FACTORS IMPACTING ENROLLMENT DEMAND... 9 ENROLLMENT PROJECTION METHODOLOGY TRANSLATE ENROLLMENT NEED INTO CAPITAL OUTLAY FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS III. INVENTORY AMOUNT AND TYPE OF EXISTING SPACE & INFRASTRUCTURE CURRENT CAPACITY EXCESS CAPACITY MODERNIZATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES IV. UNMET FACILITIES NEEDS NET ENROLLMENT NEED ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF DELIVERY NEW FACILITIES FOR ENROLLMENT GROWTH - IV TOTAL UNMET NEEDS AND COSTS V. FACILITIES TO MEET UNMET NEED FACILITIES PROPOSED IN FIVE-YEAR PLAN DEFERRED COSTS OF SYSTEM NEEDS SUMMARY VI. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED NEEDS ENROLLMENT PRESSURES MISSION CRITICAL IMPACTS FUNDING VII. RECONCILITATION TO PREVIOUS PLAN SUMMARY OF TOTAL COST INCREASE CHANGES TO FIRST TWO YEARS OF PLAN APPENDICES Appendix A: Assembly Bill 1473/Hertzberg (Chapter 606, Statutes of 1999) Appendix B: Capital Outlay Five-Year Plan Project List and Spending Plan Appendix C: Detailed Facilities Needs and Cost Estimate Appendix D: Board of Governors Priority Criteria for Funding Capital Outlay Projects Appendix E: Enrollment and WSCH Projections By District Appendix F: Temporary Buildings Report Appendix G: California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Space Standards (Title 5, Division 6, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1, Sections )

4 I. INTRODUCTION The (CCC) form the largest postsecondary educational system in the world. The CCC system serves over 2.5 million students -- over 70% of the state's public college students -- in both vocational and academic program offerings. The Department of Finance (DOF) projects significant increases in enrollment for higher education over the next decade. DOF s November 2003 enrollment projections for postsecondary enrollment project total enrollment growth of approximately 515,000 students over a ten-year period ( ), including approximately 346,000 students for the CCC system. Based on this projection, approximately 67% of the enrollment growth in higher education over the next decade will occur in the community college system. Background. Assembly Bill 1473/Hertzberg (Chapter 606, Statutes of 1999) requires the Governor to annually submit a five-year capital infrastructure plan to the Legislature in conjunction with the Governor s Budget. To accomplish this, the legislation required every entity of state government to provide to the Department of Finance (DOF) information related to capital infrastructure needs and costs for a five-year period beginning with the budget. Summary of Results. The Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan for the California Community Colleges is presented here in compliance with the requirements of AB This five-year plan -- covering the period from through includes $7.6 billion of capital facility needs for CCC as shown below in Table 1. This amount includes $4.6 billion for construction of new facilities for enrollment growth and $3 billion for modernization of existing facilities. An additional $7.1 billion of currently identified facilities needs are deferred to future years as shown in Table 2, with $1.1 billion of out-year costs for continuing phases of projects started within the five-year plan time frame and $6 billion of need carried over into subsequent plan years, primarily for modernization projects. At this time, the total unmet facilities needs for the community college system have been estimated at approximately $14.7 billion Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 1

5 Table 1 - TOTAL FACILITIES NEEDS & COSTS Assignable Square Feet (ASF) Costs A UNMET FACILITIES NEEDS: New Facilities for Enrollment Growth 9,553,000 $5,626,377,000 Modernization of Existing Facilities 28,871,000 $9,104,814,000 Total Unmet Needs 38,424,000 $14,731,191,000 B PROPOSED FACILITIES IN 5-YEAR PLAN: New Facilities For Enrollment Growth 9,553,000 $4,525,583,000 Modernization of Existing Facilities 11,747,000 $3,024,871,000 Total Proposed Facilities 21,300,000 $7,550,454,000 DEFERRED FACILITIES NEEDS: New Facilities For Enrollment Growth ,100,794,000 Modernization of Existing Facilities 17,124,000 $6,079,943,000 A-B = C Total Deferred Needs 17,124,000 $7,180,737,000 Table 2 - DEFERRED FACILITIES NEEDS & COSTS Assignable Square Feet (ASF) Costs C1 C2 CONTINUING PHASES OF PROJECTS STARTED IN PLAN: New Facilities For Enrollment Growth N/A $1,100,794,000 Modernization of Existing Facilities N/A $916,376,000 Total Continuing Phases $ 2,017,170,000 NEED CARRYOVER: New Facilities For Enrollment Growth $ Modernization of Existing Facilities 17,124,000 $5,163,567,000 Total Need Carryover 17,124,000 $5,163,567,000 C1+C2 = C Total Deferred Needs 17,124,000 $7,180,737, Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 2

6 Areas of Understatement. The $14.7 billion dollar need identified in this report is a conservative estimate of the total unmet facilities needs for the community college system. This estimate is likely to be considerably understated because the cost estimates utilized for estimating systemwide needs are understated for the following reasons (systemwide facilities needs and costs will be discussed in detail in the body of the report): The average cost for all space types is utilized to estimate costs. This assumption results in understated costs because the average includes the less expensive space types, while the facilities needed by the CCC system are projected to include the more expensive space types such as laboratory and library space. Site development costs are not included in the cost estimates because it is impossible to estimate the average site cost per assignable square foot since site development costs vary substantially from project to project. For the statewide modernization projects, it is assumed that the buildings over 25 years old will be modernized at seventy-five percent of the cost of a new building. Since many of the CCC systems buildings are over thirty years of age, it is likely that many of the buildings will need to be dropped and replaced at a significantly greater cost rather than remodeled. Characteristics of the Plan. This five-year plan has been developed to meet the requirements of AB Individual projects have been evaluated with respect to: funding priorities for the system per the CCC Board of Governors priority criteria; capacity/load ratios (i.e. existing facility capacity to enrollment load) for the various space types at each campus; and the district s ability to successfully complete projects within the time frame of the plan. The first year of the plan, , includes 244 projects totaling $1.008 billion, including 53 state funded projects at $256 million and 191 locally funded projects at $752 million. The projects in the last four years of the plan have been scheduled based on facility needs and logistics, irrespective of funding availability. This scheduling is a crucial step in moving toward a five-year plan that truly demonstrates the unmet facility needs of the entire CCC system rather than one that simply reflects available funding. Plan Constraints. The enclosed five-year plan quantifies and articulates all the capital infrastructure needs for the community college system to the greatest extent possible per the requirements of AB In this fourth year of submittal, the Chancellor s Office has continued to refine the comprehensive systemwide five-year plan. Districts have made progress in submitting five-year plans that more accurately reflect actual unmet capital needs, and these efforts have been included in this plan Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 3

7 Despite this progress, the local five-year plans still do not completely represent the unmet capital needs of the CCC system, and the current budgetary constraints have hindered comprehensive planning efforts. For this reason, the Chancellor s Office will continue to estimate a portion of the unmet needs throughout the system. In the long term, the Chancellor s Office, in consultation with the Association of Chief Business Officers Facilities Task Force, will seek to identify best practices and streamline existing processes in order to ensure high quality district capital outlay planning. This will result in more complete and meaningful data in the district five-year plans that can then be rolled up into a comprehensive systemwide five-year plan. FUSION. The Facility Utilization Space Inventory Options Net project (FUSION) is a webbased project planning and management tool. The development of this system was initiated by districts and will assist districts with their planning efforts. The core of the data system is the Facilities Condition Assessment that was completed for all buildings in the CCC system by This assessment will provide a wealth of data regarding the modernization needs of the system. Districts are also able to utilize other components of FUSION for project planning, project management and administration, and other activities that will assist in identifying needed facilities and bringing those facilities on-line in an efficient manner. Ready Access. The Ready Access program is a tool proposed by the Chancellor's Office to streamline the capital outlay process, thereby bringing facilities on-line faster and less expensively. The Ready Access program provides lump-sum state funding for all project phases in one Budget Act appropriation. The goal of Ready Access is to save state bond dollars with no cost to the General Fund while allowing local community college districts the ability to complete their projects faster in order to address growth and modernization facility needs. The program will save the state money because a local contribution to offset state supportable costs is required in order for districts to participate in the program and by shortening the period to complete projects by at least one year. There is no change to the administrative and legislative oversight of capital outlay projects under the Ready Access program. Design Build. The CCC system received approval to take advantage of opportunities that may be provided by the Design Build project delivery system to reduce costs and expedite projects. Design Build allows a district to enter into a single contract with a design build team for design and construction of a building. AB 1000 (Simitian) gave approval for three specific districts and five additional projects chosen by the Chancellor's Office to participate in a five-year Design Build pilot program. The program is only available for larger projects with costs over $10 million, and is already available to other governmental entities including K-12 school districts, the University of California, county governments, and the State. Government Code Section 5956 provides a modified Design Build option that may be useful for those districts not included in AB 1000 that have local funds to build projects. This option is more restrictive in that projects must be 100% locally funded and fee producing. CCC Project Submittal Process. To apply for state capital outlay funds, community college districts annually submit project proposals to the Chancellor s Office in two parts. The first part, an Initial Project Proposal (IPP), is a three-page concept paper and is used by the Chancellor s Office for systemwide need analysis and prioritization. The IPP step in the screening process Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 4

8 allows the Chancellor s Office to more accurately assess the district s capital outlay needs on a systemwide priority basis before there is a significant investment of time and money in projects by the districts. Projects are initially submitted to the Chancellor s Office for review by July 1 using the three-page IPP form. After evaluating the IPPs, the Chancellor s Office notifies the districts of those IPPs to be developed into Final Project Proposals, which are due the following year for possible submission to the BOG for project scope approval. The second part of the capital outlay process, a Final Project Proposal (FPP), is a fully developed project proposal that is to be considered for inclusion in the Governor s Budget. The FPP provides a justification for the project and budget detail, and describes the relationship of the proposed project to the district s comprehensive educational and facility master plans. It is also expected that the districts will explore why there are no viable alternatives to the proposed project. Board of Governors Priority Criteria. Project scope approval is defined as a project that meets the BOG criteria for prioritizing capital outlay projects and may be eligible for funding pursuant to the requirements, standards, and guidelines outlined in the Education Code, Title 5, California Code of Regulations, the State Administrative Manual/Capitalized Assets, Section 6800, and the Facilities Planning Manual. Final Project Proposals for funding consideration in were submitted to the Chancellor's Office in July Staff began ranking capital outlay projects using the Capital Outlay Priority Criteria adopted by the Board of Governors in November Requests for life-safety projects (A1) are of highest priority, followed by requests for equipment to complete projects (A2), followed by requests that address seismic deficiencies or potential seismic risk in existing buildings (A3), and infrastructure projects, when failure or loss would otherwise result (A4). The Capital Outlay Priority Criteria provides that no more than 50 percent of the state funds available for community college capital outlay are committed to address Category A projects. Once previously funded and new Category A projects are prioritized, projects in the remaining categories are prioritized based on various factors using the new priority criteria. The funding configuration in the other categories B-F is as follows: Category B Increase Instructional Capacity C Modernize Instructional Space D Complete Campus Concept E Increase Institutional Support Services Capacity F Modernize Institutional Support Services Space Funding Formula 50 percent of remaining funds after funding Category A projects. 25 percent of remaining funds after funding Category A projects. 15 percent of remaining funds after funding Category A projects. 5 percent of remaining funds after funding Category A projects. 5 percent of remaining funds after funding Category A projects Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 5

9 Based on the Chancellor s Office review of the FPPs, the district five-year capital outlay plans and projects previously approved by the BOG, the eligible new start (versus continuing) projects are prioritized and presented to the BOG annually for review and approval of project scope. This list of new start projects includes, at most, one qualified project from any Category B through F per authorized site. Funding Approval Process. From this prioritized list of scope-approved projects, the Chancellor s Office develops an annual capital outlay plan for submittal to the Department of Finance for consideration of funding in the next budget cycle. All projects in Categories B through F are ranked by eligibility points (highest to lowest). This plan includes a maximum of one project from any Category B through F per authorized site. This ensures that, with the exception of projects that address health and safety, seismic or infrastructure failure problems, only one new start project per year is funded per authorized site. If more than one project is eligible for potential funding from Categories B through F per authorized site, the project with the highest local ranking from the district s five-year plan is proposed for funding. Annual funding of these projects is contingent upon their ability to meet the Governor s priorities and the availability of funds to meet continuing needs. The Administration and legislative budget committees scrutinize all capital construction projects to determine if projects meet current priorities, i.e., seismic, life-safety, vital infrastructure, major code deficiencies, and increased instructional access. Future Capital Outlay Needs. It is evident that the state s unprecedented postsecondary student growth in the next decade will place a larger burden, relative to the other public postsecondary systems, on the community college system -- a burden the CCC cannot effectively bear without significant new, increased expenditures for facilities. The passage of AB16 (Hertzberg), which provides CCC with 40% of higher education bond funds, is a significant step toward meeting the facility needs of the community college system. This legislation, along with the efforts of the community college districts to pass local bonds via Proposition 39, have resulted in the state and local districts working together to take pressure off the system to provide necessary capital outlay facilities. The needs of the system at $14.7 billion are great, however, and the state must continue to work closely with the districts to appropriately allocate scarce resources to adequately address the needs of the burgeoning numbers of community college students in California. Statewide General Obligation Bonds / Lease-Revenue Bonds. The passage of Proposition 1A in November 1998 funded $9.2 billion for education facilities of which higher education received $2.5 billion. With the traditional three-way split among the higher education segments, this bond act provided community colleges approximately $186 million per year for four years, and an additional $55 million during the last two years of the bond for new campuses, small campuses and off-campus centers. Assembly Bill 16, Hertzberg (Chap. 33, Stats. 2002) included a four-year $25.3 billion statewide bond package for public educational facilities. This package provided community colleges with $170.5 million from lease-revenue bonds and $746 million in the first two-year general obligation bond (on the November 2002 ballot as Proposition 47, the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002) and $920 million in the second two-year bond (on Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 6

10 the March 2004 ballot as Proposition 55, the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004). Altogether, an unprecedented 40 percent of the higher education share goes to community colleges. Proposition 39 Local Funds. The funding for community college facilities is a responsibility shared by the state and local community college districts. The primary source of financing for the local share of construction costs is voter-approved local bonds. From June of 1998 through November 2000, when bond measures required two-thirds voter approval, only 10 community college district passed local bonds providing $875 million for community college facilities. Since passage of Proposition 39, voters have approved 44 of 48 (92 percent) of local bond measures, authorizing $10.7 billion in bonds for 42 community college districts. Voluntary Local Contribution. In November 1999, the BOG adopted new criteria for prioritizing capital outlay projects. The new priority criteria emphasize a least cost to the state policy. The least cost to the state policy stretches scarce state resources to help meet enrollment growth and modernization needs by providing an incentive for districts to contribute local dollars to projects. Thus far, the policy appears to be very successful in achieving that objective. In the capital outlay plan, 18 of 26 (69%) new projects and 5 of 28 continuing projects (18%) provided a local contribution to project costs. In total, local contributions will provide $79.2 million to support the state projects proposed for , for a system contribution of 23.6 percent. Organization of the Plan. The body of the plan provides a description of the methodology used to estimate the unmet needs of the community college system. The appendices at the back of this plan include the following: Appendix A Assembly Bill 1473/Hertzberg (Chapter 606, Statutes of 1999). Appendix B Capital Outlay Five-Year Plan Project List Appendix C More detailed information regarding methodology utilized to identify the facilities needs and estimate the costs associated with those facilities needs. Appendix D A summary of the updated BOG priority criteria for funding capital outlay projects. Appendix E Enrollment and Weekly Student Contact Hour Projections by District Appendix F Temporary Buildings Report Appendix G California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Space Standards (Title 5, Division 6, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1, Sections ) Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 7

11 II. IDENTIFY DRIVERS OF NEED The serve over 2.5 million students -- over 70% of the state's public college students -- in both vocational and academic program offerings. The Department of Finance (DOF) projects significant increases in enrollment for higher education over the next decade. DOF s November 2003 enrollment projections for postsecondary enrollment project total enrollment growth of approximately 515,000 students over a ten-year period ( ), including approximately 346,000 students for the CCC system, 111,000 for CSU, and 58,000 for UC. Based on this projection, approximately 67% of the enrollment growth in higher education over the next decade will occur in the community college system. Enrollment Projections The CCC system serves approximately 2.5 million students annually. This number is the Actual Unduplicated Enrollment for the system, and represents the sum of all students served over all school terms within an academic year. The need for new facilities is not based on this number; rather it is based on projected Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) for each educational category as defined in the California Code of Regulations (Title 5). This Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan is based on an enrollment of 1.9 million students in , growing to an enrollment of 2.1 million in , an increase of approximately 193,000 students (Appendix E). The projections are based on enrollment at the Fall census as traditionally used by DOF. The enrollment projections are calculated by the Research & Planning Unit of the Chancellor s Office, and provided to districts for utilization in the districts five-year plans. The results of the Chancellor s Office enrollment projections may be more conservative than the DOF projections discussed above because different methodologies and data are utilized. The Chancellor s Office projection model uses a linear regression that equally weighs all the data back to A linear regression provides an even growth line over time, and as such is minimally effected by the enrollment spikes experienced throughout the CCC system in the past several years. In addition, the adult county population is derived from the Department of Finance 1998 Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1970 to 2040 which is based upon the 1990 census. Future projections will utilize the 2000 census data once it has become incorporated into the DOF data. Table 3 below shows a projection of approximately 10% growth in enrollment over the five-year plan period, and a corresponding increase in Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH). As defined in California Code of Regulations (Title 5), WSCH means the product of the number of students and the scheduled class periods in which they are enrolled, in graded and ungraded community college classes convened prior to 10 o clock pm during a census week. A class period is not less than 50 minutes and not more than 60 minutes. Enrollment in is estimated to be approximately 1,931,000 students, growing to 2,125,000 in WSCH is estimated at approximately 17,742,000 in , increasing to 19,516,000 in Appendix E provides enrollment and WSCH projections by district Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 8

12 Table 3 --SUMMARY OF ENROLLMENT AND WSCH Difference % Difference Enrollment 1,931,000 2,125, ,000 10% WSCH 17,742,000 19,516,000 1,774,000 10% Factors Impacting Enrollment Demand The current economic and political environment has certainly had a negative impact on community college enrollments. Approximately 1.7 million students were enrolled in the community college system in Fall By Fall 2003, this number had dropped by 80,000 students to an estimated 1.6 million, a decrease of approximately 4%. This drop in enrollment represents only the difference between the estimated number of students that enrolled in Fall 2003 and those enrolled in Fall It does not take into account the additional students that were projected to enroll but did not due to budget constraints and reduced course offerings. The California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) estimates the total loss of students, including the difference between the Fall 2003 and Fall 2002 enrollments plus the students that simply did not show up, at approximately 116,000 students. This number is consistent with the Chancellor's Office current estimate of students lost at 114,000. Given the tremendous growth the system has been experiencing over the last decade, the capital outlay needs of the system are so great that this short-term drop in enrollment is likely to offset only a very small portion of that need. Further, there are factors that indicate that these enrollment losses will be short-term. DOF s 2003 Enrollment projections project an increase in community college enrollments from 1.66 million students in to 1.7 million students , an increase of 2.3 % in that year and an average 1.8 % increase in each subsequent year. Historical data shows that the community college system last experienced a decline in enrollment in the earlier 1990s, with the largest drop of 8% occurring in The next two years showed comparatively small enrollment losses of approximately 1%, with a rapid recovery occurring over the next seven years at an average of 4% growth per year. Finally, the Budget Act included 3.65% in growth funding to support increased enrollment in the community college system. This growth funding will help the colleges to recover a portion of the students lost due to budget constraints and reduced course offerings Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 9

13 It should be noted that the Education Code provides that students have free flow access to all community college sites. Students are therefore not restricted to any specific geographic area and can attend college at any campus in the state. While the overall system may appear to have excess facilities capacity, there are many individual campuses within the system that have severe capital facility shortages. Therefore, the capacity needs for the system have been estimated on a campus-by-campus basis. Enrollment Projection Methodology An econometric regression model is used to produce the fall enrollment forecast for each district. The independent variables that the model uses to explain and predict enrollments are: 1. Adult county population 2. College operating budgets 3. The apportionment growth cap (pre- and post- Proposition 13 factor) 4. Student out-of-pocket price of enrollment (tuition, fees, transportation, child care, books, and supplies) The assumptions, which drive future values for the model s independent variables, are: Student prices: enrollment fees along with components of the student s price index described above, rising at the rate of the California Consumer Price Index. Financing: current financing formulas continue with the apportionment growth cap. Budget outlays: follow from experience with Proposition 98 (1988), from a cycling California economy: slowing by 2001, rising in 2003, slowing again in This may be updated based upon the latest economic forecast. Adult population: as forecast by Department of Finance. Based upon the assumptions discussed above, the model projects future headcount enrollment for each district. The last year of actual enrollment and actual WSCH data is used to compute the enrollment to WSCH ratio. This enrollment/wsch ratio is assumed to be constant for future years and is applied to the projected headcount enrollments to calculate the future WSCH projections. This is consistent with the methodology used by the Department of Finance. The enrollment projections generated by the Chancellor s Office are then sent to the districts for inclusion in their annual five-year capital outlay plan submittal. It should be noted that the enrollment projections utilized in this plan were developed in early The assumptions discussed above will be reviewed in light of fee increases and changes in other economic factors in future enrollment projections Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 10

14 Translate Enrollment Need into Capital Outlay Facilities Requirements Table 4 below shows a total of 50.4 million assignable square feet (ASF), shown by space type per Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, is needed to accommodate the enrollment projected over the five years of the plan. The assignable square footage needs for these space types have been determined based on the enrollment projections, utilizing the formulas provided by Title 5. The total 50.4 million ASF amount includes 19.3 million ASF of Other space comprised of physical education, performing arts, child development, and other facilities that do not have capacity load implications. Because the formulas for these space types are not included in Title 5, this analysis assumes that this space will grow in the same proportion to the rest of the space types that currently exist in the inventory for established sites. Currently, Other space for established campuses represents approximately 65% of the sum of the Title 5 space. It should be noted that, although Other space does not have capacity load implications, it is comprised of both instructional (physical education, performing arts, and child development) and instructional support space that is essential to fulfill the educational mission at each campus. Table 4 - GROSS ENROLLMENT NEEDS Title 5 Category ASF Lecture 5,363,000 Lab 13,483,000 Office 5,932,000 Library 5,009,000 AV/TV 1,314,000 Other 19,330,000 TOTAL 50,431, Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 11

15 III. INVENTORY AMOUNT AND TYPE OF EXISTING SPACE & INFRASTRUCTURE Current Capacity The CCC system consists of 72 semi-autonomous districts encompassing 109 colleges, 58 approved off-campus centers, and 22 district offices. The CCC assets include 20,489 acres of land, 4,474 buildings, and 55.9 million gross square feet of space that includes 39 million assignable square feet (ASF) of space. In addition, the system has innumerable off-campus outreach centers at various facilities. These buildings provide the following assignable square feet in the various Title 5 categories as shown in the first column in the Table 5 below: TABLE 5 - NET CAPACITY Current Less Total Excess Net Title 5 Category ASF Capacity Capacity Lecture 5,788,000-1,138,000 4,650,000 Laboratory 11,934,000-1,137,000 10,797,000 Office 6,241,000-1,230,000 5,011,000 Library 3,551, ,000 3,368,000 AV/TV 722,000-38, ,000 Other 17,377,000-2,993,000 14,384,000 TOTAL 45,613,000-6,719,000 38,894,000 This total ASF information is from the systemwide Space Inventory annually submitted by the districts to the Chancellor's Office and adjusted to include projects currently in the pipeline. Excess Capacity Some campuses within the system have excess capacity in various Title 5 categories. As previously discussed, the Education Code provides that students have free flow access to all community college sites. While the overall system may appear to have excess facilities capacity, there are many individual campuses within the system that have severe capital facility shortages. Therefore, the capacity needs for the system have been estimated on a campus-by-campus basis, and capacity exceeding 100% at individual campuses, approximately 6.7 million ASF (second column), has been eliminated for the purpose of estimating the need for additional facilities. This was done so that campuses with excess capacity will not artificially decrease the true facilities needs on other campuses Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 12

16 In its publications CPEC describes, mismatch problems in the excess space capacity of the CCC. Examples of this mismatch are: improper size classrooms on a particular campus that do not fit courses planned to be offered in them; antiquated designs that cannot accommodate modern media presentations, insufficient wheelchair access, or improper wiring for computers or multi-media equipment. CPEC also points out that CCC space standards are the most restrictive of all the community college systems nationally. These restrictions cause the amount of excess capacity systemwide to be overstated. Excess capacity currently comprises approximately 14.7% of the total system capacity. Given the operating realities imposed by the free flow of students, this level of excess capacity is within reasonable bounds of facility standards. The excess capacity level drops to under 12.3% over the five-year timeframe of the plan. (Appendix C.5) The total net capacity for the system is therefore 38.9 million ASF as shown in the third column of the table. Modernization of Existing Facilities The five-year plans submitted by districts have generally not depicted the real facility needs of the districts. The plans were developed by the districts and primarily utilized by state control agencies as back-up documentation for budget requests. Typically, districts have included only projects that the state might fund. Thus, the five-year plans have been more of a five-year spending plan, however optimistic, rather than a true reflection of the capital needs of the districts and, therefore, the CCC system. Systemwide Facilities Needs For the purposes of submitting the five-year plan per the requirements of AB 1473, the Chancellor s Office has estimated some of these systemwide needs on a statewide basis. In the long term, the Chancellor s Office in consultation with the Association of Chief Business Officers Facilities Task Force will seek to identify best practices and streamline existing processes in order to ensure high quality for district capital outlay planning. This will result in more complete and meaningful data in the district five-year plans that can be rolled up into a comprehensive systemwide five-year plan. The systemwide facilities needs estimated in this section do not add or delete capacity from the system. However, these systemwide needs are in addition to the projects that have been submitted in the district five-year plans, and they must be included in this analysis to provide a more accurate picture of the CCC s facility needs. Specifically, the Chancellor s Office has estimated the systemwide need for modernization of existing facilities, including critical life safety renovations, modernization/renovation, and replacement of temporary facilities projects. The rules for estimating these needs are shown in Table 6. Fiscal years and contain actual projects submitted by districts for funding for these project types, while through contain the systemwide needs estimated by the Chancellor s Office Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 13

17 Table 6- SYSTEMWIDE FACILITIES NEEDS METHODOLOGY Text Basis for Projects CCCI 4100) No. Driver Goal Determining Need I Critical Life Safety Renovations To maintain Average statewide spending for the thru Projects identified by the districts with costs. (includes fire/life safety, ongoing funding last 5 years for critical projects. ASF thru systemwide need project per year. seismic and infrastructure) based on history. is not applicable. II Modernization/Renovation To modernize all ASF for buildings in bad condition plus thru Projects identified by the districts with costs. permanent ASF for buildings over 25 years old; thru systemwide need project per year; projects buildings over 25 projects address buildings over 40 years to start in each year. years old. old. Cost Formula = ASF $295 $295 = (PW=$34,C=$261) III IV Replacement of To minimize the ASF for temporary buildings over thru systemwide need project per year. Temporary Buildings use of temporary years old. Cost formula = ASF * $427 buildings. $427 = (PW=$45,C=$348, Demolition = $34) Enrollment To address 100% of Enrollment projections converted to thru Projects identified by the districts with costs. the enrollment need ASF using California Code of thru systemwide need project per year; (discussed in next section) at all sites excluding Regulations Title 5 formulas. projects to start in each year. needs met through Cost Formula = ASF * $432 alternative methods. $432 = (PW=$45, C=$348,E=$39) Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 14

18 Costs Estimates The costs for the additional systemwide needs were estimated based on the California Community Colleges building cost guidelines California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) The cost estimates include an allowance for preliminary plans, working drawings, and construction. Costs estimates for the replacement of relocatables with permanent facilities include an additional allowance for demolition. The cost estimates do not, however, include an allowance for site development costs because it is impossible to estimate the average site cost per ASF since site development costs vary substantially from project to project. Cost estimates for the statewide needs are therefore substantially underestimated. Based on the assumptions provided in Table 6, the Chancellor s Office estimates that the statewide need for modernization of existing facilities is approximately 28.9 million ASF at a cost of $9.1 billion. This estimate includes critical life safety renovation, modernization / renovation, and the replacement of temporary facilities projects. Due to the overwhelming need, this five-year plan proposal includes only 11.7 million ASF of the modernization of existing facility needs at a cost of $3 billion as shown in Table 7 below: Table 7 - MODERNIZATION OF EXISTING FACILTIES Modernization Of Existing Facilities Estimated Need 5-year Plan Proposal Deferred Facilities Needs ASF Costs ASF Costs Outyear Need Carryover Critical Life Safety Renovation N/A $40,100,000 N/A $40,100,000 $0 $0 Modernization /Renovation 27,041,000 $8,283,403,000 10,364,000 $2,552,669,000 $757,865,000 $4,972,869,000 Replace Temporary Buildings 1,830,000 $781,311,000 1,383,000 $432,101,000 $158,511,000 $190,699,000 TOTAL 28,871,000 $9,104,814,000 11,747,000 $3,024,870,000 $916,376,000 $5,163,568,000 Critical Life Safety Renovations - I Critical life safety means that a building poses imminent danger to the life or safety of the building occupants, has a potential seismic risk, or has potential for immediate infrastructure failure. Because of the immediacy of critical life safety issues, many of the projects are funded at the local level. If projects are submitted for state funding and are material enough to require state money to mitigate the critical life safety issues, those projects are as soon as possible. Therefore, district five-year plans typically would not contain unfunded critical life safety projects. For the purposes of this submittal, the Chancellor s Office has estimated the annual costs for critical life safety projects not yet identified on a statewide basis. Since the nature of these projects is such that they cannot be planned, the model includes a projection for Critical Life Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 15

19 Safety projects based on the average costs of these projects over the last 5-years. The model currently only assumes $7.7 million per year for critical life safety projects, $40.1 million total, when the average has been $30-$40 million per year over the last several years. This error in the model will be fixed in future plans. It should be noted that the scope of these projects is constrained to only those renovations that mitigate the critical life safety aspects of the facilities, and any building code upgrades required by the Division of the State Architect. Projects that completely modernize existing facilities are estimated below in the Modernization/Renovation category. Modernization/Renovation - II As shown in the chart in Exhibit 8A, approximately 76% of the CCC facilities are 25 years or older and in dire need of renovation and/or modernization. This includes 2,725 buildings totaling over 27 million ASF. Of the 2,725 buildings, 1,268 buildings are over 40 years old. Local districts have tried to maintain their structures to the extent possible utilizing the limited local resources and state funded local assistance facilities related programs. However, funds have been too little and too late to keep pace with the deterioration and outdated condition of the system s facilities. The BOG priority criteria utilized by the Chancellor s Office prior to the fiscal year emphasized construction of new facilities over renovation/modernization projects. For this reason, the district five-year plans do not include many of these project types even though there are substantial modernization/renovation needs throughout the system. Additionally, due to advances in technology there is a need to incorporate more sophisticated technology into the CCC structures to enable the system to deliver state-of-the-art instructional programs. In order to make buildings smarter by providing cabling and deliverance systems to the instructional space, major renovations will be required. Because of the magnitude of the system s modernization/renovation needs, the proposal in this five-year plan includes only a portion of the modernization/renovation needs of the system. As shown in Table 7, the plan includes a total of 10.4 million ASF to be modernized over the next five years and includes only those buildings over forty years old and buildings that have been reported by districts as being in need of major renovation. This would result in the renovation of the oldest buildings and those in the poorest condition first, while buildings twenty-five years or older but less than forty years old would be modernized in a subsequent five-year timeframe. Therefore, 10.4 million ASF of modernization/renovation needs are included in this five-year plan proposal at a cost of $2.6 billion, leaving $758 million in out-year costs for modernization/renovation projects started in the plan year and approximately $5 billion of modernization/renovation needs deferred beyond the plan timeframe. The cost estimate for modernization/renovation needs is based on 75% of the cost of a new building, excluding equipment ($295 per ASF). Replace Temporary Facilities - III The CCC system inventory includes temporary facilities that have in many cases been in operation far beyond their useful life. It is the policy of the Board of Governors that the districts provide permanent structures rather than relocatable buildings to meet student access Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 16

20 requirements. Temporary facilities are not as effective for providing certain instructional programs, and are more costly to operate and maintain than permanent structures. Exhibit 8B shows that many of the temporary structures on community college campuses were placed ten or more years ago. Based on the assumptions provided in Table 6 the Chancellor s Office estimates the statewide cost for replacing temporary facilities with permanent facilities at $432 million over the next five years, leaving $159 million in out-year costs. This cost assumes that the total ASF of temporary inventory over ten years in (1,383,000 ASF) will be replaced over the next five years at the average new building cost, with an added allowance for demolition ($427 per ASF: PW=$45, C=$348, Demolition=$34). Temporary buildings not yet ten years of age at the start of the plan, 446,601 ASF at a cost of $191 million, are deferred beyond the plan timeframe. Exhibit 8A PERMANENT ASF BY YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 ASF Over 25 Years 2,725 Buildings 76% of Inventory ASF 1,200,000 1,000, , , , , ASF Over 40 Years 1,268 Buildings 35% of Inventory Year Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 17

21 Exhibit 8B TEMPORARY ASF BY YEAR 160, , , ,000 Temporary ASF Over 10 Years ASF 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Year Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 18

22 IV. UNMET FACILITIES NEEDS Net Enrollment Need Table 9 below shows that 11.5 million ASF is needed to accommodate projected enrollment over the next five years. This estimate is based on the ASF needed to accommodate projected enrollment less the net capacity currently available to meet that enrollment demand, and includes 8.2 million ASF of current facilities deficiencies and 3.3 million ASF of capacity needed to accommodate enrollment growth over the next five years. Table 9 - NET ENROLLMENT NEED TOTAL ASF NEEDED Future Current Enrollment Title 5 Category Deficiency Growth Total Lecture 338, , ,000 Laboratory 1,703, ,000 2,686,000 Office 466, , ,000 Library 1,448, ,000 1,641,000 AV/TV 646,000-16, ,000 Other 3,607,000 1,338,000 4,945,000 TOTAL 8,208,000 3,328,000 11,536,000 Alternative Means of Delivery A portion of the capital facilities needs identified above can be offset by the use of alternative means of educational delivery. These alternative means of delivery involve modifying various components of the educational delivery process including scheduling, alternative instruction, and space utilization. The CCC is the most aggressive California postsecondary segment in the use of alternative scheduling. The system has been very successful in scheduling classes to maximize the use of existing facilities year-round. The average number of days of instruction for the 109 colleges has increased from 271 days per year in to 294 days for the current year. Additionally, community colleges schedule classes from pre-dawn through late evening as well as on weekends to provide for the required student access. The system also continues to expand traditional boundaries by offering courses in off-campus facilities such as leased storefronts, businesses, high schools and other joint-use facilities. Distance learning is also an important component in providing increased student access for the CCC system. Although the CCC system is making great strides in implementing alternative means of delivery, it is not possible to quantify to any degree of precision the extent to which these alternative Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 19

23 methods of delivery will reduce the capital facilities needs of the CCC system. Some of the larger districts report that reducing their facility needs by 9% via alternative means of delivery is challenging, while smaller districts report 2-3% is a stretch. For the purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that campuses with enrollment deficiencies will meet 5% of their total enrollment needs (1,729,000 ASF) through alternative means of delivery as shown in Table 10. Additionally, systemwide enrollment growth will lead to even greater efficiency in the use of existing capacity and, on average, excess capacity is anticipated to decline slightly over the five years of the plan. It has been assumed that the amount of the decrease in excess capacity within the five-year timeframe (255,000 ASF) has been offset against the estimate of total facilities needed to accommodate enrollment growth. Table 10- UNMET ENROLLMENT NEED Excess ASF Capacity Less To Meet Used to Alternative Unmet Enrollment Offset Means of Enrollment Title 5 Category Need Enrollment Delivery Need Need Lecture 713, , , ,000 Laboratory 2,686, , ,000 2,348,000 Office 921, , , ,000 Library 1,641,000 81, ,000 1,513,000 AV/TV 630,000 10,000-59, ,000 Other 4,946, , ,000 4,040,000 TOTAL 11,537, ,000-1,729,000 9,553,000 New Facilities for Enrollment Growth - IV Therefore, 9,553,000 ASF is needed at a cost of $5.6 billion to accommodate current and future enrollment as shown below in Table 11. In the previous section, Table 6 summarized the rules for estimating the costs of these new facilities per California Code of Regulations, Title 5 (Appendix G). An average building cost of $432 per ASF was utilized based on the California Community Colleges building cost guidelines at California Construction Cost Index 4100 and Equipment Price Index This amount represents the average building cost for all space types and also includes an allowance for preliminary plans, working drawings and equipment (PW=$45, C=$348, and E=$39 per ASF). The estimate does not, however, include site development costs because it is impossible to estimate the average site cost per ASF since site development costs vary substantially from project to project. Because site costs have not been included in this estimation of the systemwide needs, the cost estimate for the statewide need is substantially underestimated Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan Page 20