The long awaited Science II building project will have to wait a little longer. Proposed budget cuts and a lack of funding have stalled the project, which was scheduled to be completed in 2010.

Ronald Richardson, facilities manager at Sacramento State, said funding for the project through general obligation bond measures will not be on the ballot in 2008-09. General obligation bonds are the most common bond measure used by CSU campuses for funding new construction.

Without these funds, the architectural firm selected last year can’t begin the design process. The earliest date new funding from the state could come is 2010.

The chancellor’s office is currently negotiating with the department of finance and the legislature to find new funding sources for the project.

Clara Potes-Fellow, spokesperson for the CSU Chancellor’s Office, said no progress has been made toward gaining funding for the Science II project.

“When something does happen, it will be with state legislation,” Potes-Fellow said. “The chancellor is looking for any opportunity to get funding.”

One option that is being explored by the chancellor’s office is leased revenue bonds. These bonds are repaid through income generated by the building. This is similar to the method used to obtain funds for the new residence halls and construction of the new bookstore.

In May, the Legislative Analyst Office released the May budget review. The review recommended that cutting $490,000 from planning funds and reducing future building costs would save more than $6 million.

The review found the increase in laboratory space was unnecessary and questioned the need of incorporating a museum and a planetarium into the Science II building project.

Initial plans included a museum and planetarium funded by private donations. The review states the university had scaled the initial project down and incorporated it into the science project due to a lack of donations.

A space and science center was initially designed as a separate part of the construction. Funding for the space and science center was to come from both donations and a federal grant the university received in 2006.

While these funds are still intact, Richardson said the remaining funds from the general obligation bond in 2006, which were being saved for the Science II project, have been spent.

“The funds were used to complete existing projects,” Richardson said. “These are projects that have been started or already completed. Some of the funds were used to pay for equipment so the buildings could be opened.”

The earliest date construction of the Science II classrooms and labs can be completed would be fall 2012, Richardson said.

The next step for the project will be meetings conducted between the architectural design firm working on the project and the university to develop site plan drawings.

The architectural firm hired for the project is WRNS Studio in San Francisco. Mitch Fine, WRNS Studio architect, is the head of the project.

“We will decide what types of spaces, how big the spaces need to be and how the different departments will interact with each other,” Fine said. “We will wrap up this year with spreadsheet data, and the project will go dormant again.”

The Science II building project began in 1999, when faculty at Sac State identified a need for more advanced labs and new science classrooms.

The building was initially expected to be approximately 135,000 square feet. The last projections were for an 81,490 square foot facility. Initial cost estimates for the project were $97 million. The current estimate of the price of the building is $87.6 million.

In addition to building the Science II expansion, Brighton Hall and Humboldt Hall will be demolished once the new building is open. Demolition costs will come from funds not included in the bonds needed for construction. The biological sciences and chemistry departments will move from Sequoia Hall to the new building.

Richardson said there have been no major projects funded through general obligation bonds since 2006. Sac State receives about $1 million per year from these types of bonds.

Richardson said the budget issues are “just the nature of the process.”

“We have to assume Science II is going to be built, because if we are not ready, we will lose out when funding is available,” Richardson said. “We will be in a better position after taking a closer look at the project.”

Derek Fleming can be reached at [email protected]