Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Colleges Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget panel debates TK rebenching, deferrals and program cuts for California Community Colleges
Summary
The May Revision proposes changes to how transitional kindergarten rebenching affects the Proposition 98 split, reduced funding for several CCC initiatives, and a $531.6 million apportionment deferral to July 2026. The LAO urged avoiding large deferrals and recommended alternative adjustments to preserve core apportionments and COLA.
Lawmakers and analysts spent much of the afternoon reviewing the California Community Colleges (CCC) portion of the governor’s May Revision, focusing on the TK re‑bench split, apportionment deferrals and reductions to several one‑time initiatives.
Department of Finance witnesses said the administration proposes removing TK expansion funding from the TK‑to‑12 / community college Proposition 98 split so the TK costs are not shared with the colleges. "The administration views this proposal as aligning the program funding with where those costs are being realized," Alex Schope told the committee. The action would reallocate about $492 million across the three‑year window; roughly $233 million of that is ongoing.
The May Revision contains several major CCC adjustments: a slight reduction to COLA assumptions, an increase in funding for enrollment growth based on recent FTES trends, but also a proposed $531.6 million apportionment deferral from May 2026 to July 2026 to shift cash flow. Justin Harris (DOF) also described smaller reductions and realignments to items such as the common cloud data platform and the collaborative ERP project; the administration withdrew the full $168 million collaborative ERP investment and scaled back the common cloud investment to $12 million one‑time.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged caution. LAO briefers said large deferrals increase long‑term fiscal risk and recommended avoiding them this year; they also recommended higher apportionment estimates (about $143 million higher than DOF’s figure) to reduce the risk of another shortfall next year. As part of an LAO alternative, analysts suggested rejecting $52 million in new one‑time spending (career passports, credit for prior learning and the cloud platform) and reducing ongoing funding for a program with a persistent surplus (part‑time faculty health) to free resources for apportionments and COLA.
The Chancellor’s Office and community college advocates pressed for funding to cover current‑year unfunded FTES and the statutory COLA for statutory funding formula components. Chancellor’s Office officials also asked the Legislature to consider reducing the proposed deferral and prioritizing funding that covers current‑year shortfalls and student support services.
Public commenters and community college and labor groups echoed concerns about the re‑bench shift and urged protection of core apportionments and the statutory COLA, and several districts noted fire‑related property‑tax backfill needs and local recovery costs.
Ending: The subcommittee voiced concern about large deferrals and the retroactive rebenching of TK funds; staff and members asked DOF, LAO and the Chancellor’s Office to continue negotiating alternatives ahead of final budget actions.
