1993-02 CRA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Conservation of revenues by a community colleges usually suggests cutbacks in, or deferral of, capital facility and deferred maintenance expenditures. The District has experienced these conditions in recent years. Although revenue limit funding can be used for deferred maintenance and capital facilities. the financial requirements of the operations and administration of the District does not result in a surplus of revenues that can be applied to such deferred maintenance or capital facilities requirements of the District. As a supplement to the revenue limit proceeds, the Community College Construction Act of 1980 and the Community College Revenue Bond Act of 1961, together with other provisions of the Education Code. provide a mechanism for the distribution of "available" and designated State revenues for new construction. reconstruction, modernization. land acquisition. emergency facilities, size related facilities. and reserves and contingencies required by community college districts throughout the State. Such revenue sources are generally made available as a result of State-wide bond election authorizations and financing vehicles. In April 1992, Proposition I S3 was approved, authorizing the allocation of $900 million in bonds for college systems of the State to finance capital facility improvements. Of the $900 million, $300 million was allocated to the community college system; however. much of the $300 million IS already committed and/or expended for community college capita! facilities in the State. . There are no additional community college bond propositions on the State ballot for June 1993. Even with the passage of Proposition 153. there is still inadequate funding resources throughout the State to meet the capital facility needs Statewide. It is unlikely that the State Legislature will initiate propositions for Statewide elections or legislative statutes in the future that will be able to meet the capital facility demands of the State, nor is there a realistic expectation that the electorate of the State will approve such large bond obligation authorizations with the tWo-thirds vote required by Proposition 13. More likely, the State will continue to redirect this financial obligation to districts and local communities. Unlike K-12 school districts, who can partly financed capital facilities through Development Fees as authorized by Section 53080 of the Health and Safety Code, community college districts do not have a similar legislative authorization. Development Fee authorization for K-12 school districts was approved by the State legislature to provide a vehicle whereby private development activity pays a fair share of the cost of capita! facilities required as a result of the private development activity. Further, it was implemented as a vehicle to complement available State capital facility revenues. These fees are generally applied to the new construction of residential and non-residential properties. Community college districts do not have development fee authorization, and therefore cannot obtain these revenue sources. . 8-6 Page 10 of 14