Department of Finance staff, Legislative Analyst's Office analysts and the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office briefed Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on the selection of projects for Proposition 2 funding and the scoring system that prioritized projects.

The proposal and selection
Alexandra Waldman of the Department of Finance described the governor's Proposition 2 implementation proposal: $1.5 billion was approved by voters for community college projects, and the administration proposed 29 projects in the governor's budget, with roughly $51.5 million state cost in the budget year and $728.8 million total state cost over the projects' lifetimes.

LAO concerns
Lisa King of the Legislative Analyst's Office said the Chancellor's Office uses a point‑based matrix that (after life‑safety projects are removed) currently allocates 65% of remaining funds to modernization and 35% to growth. The LAO told the committee that the Chancellor's Office five‑year plan shows roughly 80% of identified needs are modernization and only 20% growth, and suggested the Legislature consider whether the funding split should be adjusted. King also flagged that about one‑third of the proposed projects are gymnasiums, a high share compared with the previous bond implementation (Proposition 51) where gym projects were constrained to a separate 15% category. The LAO recommended that the Chancellor's Office explain the rationale for the matrix and consider adjustments if the Legislature disagrees with the priorities.

Chancellor's Office response
Chris Ferguson of the California Community Colleges said the scoring matrix was developed through a participatory governance process and reduced in complexity in 2020 to align with the Vision for Success. He said the current 65/35 split was built into the matrix and reflected system priorities at the time it was finalized. Ferguson said changes to the scoring system would require stakeholder consultation and could take one to two years.

Process and transparency requests
Committee members pressed for greater transparency about which projects are categorized as life safety, modernization or growth and asked the Chancellor's Office and Department of Finance to provide clearer public documentation. Department of Finance staff said they could provide a breakdown on request. Several members suggested the scoring system should be revisited to reflect the current balance of system needs, including the LAO suggestion that a larger share of funds go to modernization.

Ending note
The committee held the item open and requested follow‑up materials, including clearer project breakdowns and an explanation from the Chancellor's Office on the scoring rationale and potential changes.