Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb226 Yolo Community College Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Cabaldon urges correction to Yolo Community College boundary in SB 226; committee places bill on suspense
Summary
Senator Cabaldon said SB 226 would allow the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to address a split in Yolo County’s community college district dating to 1972; the bill was placed on the appropriations committee’s suspense file.
Senator Bill Cabaldon (author) told the Senate Committee on Appropriations the fiscal analysis for SB 226 is accurate but argued local districts’ cost estimates submitted in opposition are inflated and politically motivated. Cabaldon said the bill authorizes—but does not require—the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to correct a 1972 boundary placement that he described as having placed Woodland and Winters into the Yuba Community College District over the objections of local voters.
“I'm here on behalf of SB 226, purely on the fiscal issues,” Cabaldon said, adding the proposal “would simply allow the Board of Governors to rectify that Yolo County is the only one that's been divided this way.” He told the committee the bill applies only to Yolo County and, per the panel’s staff analysis, would impose only minor and absorbable costs on the state as estimated by the Board of Governors.
Cabaldon criticized fiscal estimates submitted by the affected districts, saying some claimed multi‑million‑dollar costs—one district estimated $12 million related to unfunded pension obligations—while other district submissions did not report corresponding savings or consistent treatment of personnel and facility responsibilities. He said the districts’ submissions “are absurd” and intended to undermine the bill. Cabaldon cited two precedent statutes he said were analogous: a bill by Assemblymember Stan Statham and a bill by a prior senator that split other community college districts, and he said those earlier changes imposed no state budget appropriation.
Committee members took no further action other than to place SB 226 on the suspense file. The chair announced, “So, without objection, SB 226 will move to suspense.”
SB 226’s next steps will depend on further fiscal review and committee scheduling; the author said he agreed with the committee’s suspense recommendation while disputing the local cost estimates filed in opposition.
