The Department of Finance on Wednesday presented a Proposition 2 implementation plan that would allocate $1.5 billion for California community college projects, with an initial governor’s‑budget package proposing 29 projects and roughly $728.8 million in total state cost over time.

Alexandra Waldman of the Department of Finance said the department used the California Community Colleges Board of Governors’ scoring framework, which prioritizes life‑safety projects first and then splits remaining funds 65% for modernization and 35% for growth. "The governor's budget proposes 29 projects for the Proposition 2 funding," Waldman said.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office told the subcommittee it supports consistent metrics but recommended the Legislature examine the scoring system. Lisa King of the LAO noted that under the community college five‑year plan roughly 80% of identified needs are modernization and 20% growth, and that the scoring system’s 65/35 split could underprioritize modernization. King also flagged an unusually high share of gymnasium projects in the current package, saying nearly one‑third of proposed projects are gyms—largely because the newer matrix treats gym space the same as other academic space, whereas previous bond rules treated gyms separately and limited their share.

Chris Ferguson of the Community College Chancellor’s Office said the matrix was developed through the system’s consultative process and that changing it would require 12–24 months of stakeholder work. He confirmed the current selection included 17 modernization projects, eight growth projects and four life‑safety projects in the governor’s package. "We do operate under a participatory governance structure, and we did work with our stakeholders to develop the matrix," Ferguson said.

Committee members asked for greater transparency in future packages, including clearer public labeling of whether projects are modernization, growth or life safety, and urged the Chancellor’s Office and LAO to examine whether regional weighting and a campus‑size metric appropriately advance access in under‑served areas. The LAO recommended the Chancellor’s Office explain the rationale for metrics that favor larger campuses and specific regions, and suggested the Legislature could direct adjustments if the scoring criteria do not match legislative priorities.

Advocates who testified afterward urged the committee to treat project selections that were submitted under existing rules as final and prospective only: Rebecca Killeen, speaking for the Community College Facility Coalition, asked that changes be applied prospectively because districts submitted applications under the rules in effect at submission.

The subcommittee left the issue open and asked staff to follow up with supplemental materials identifying project types and how the scoring led to the selected package.