BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 38
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Medina, Chair
AB
38 (Eggman) - As Amended March 23, 2015
SUBJECT: California State University: Legislative Analyst's
Office: initial analysis to assess need for new campus
SUMMARY: Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
conduct an initial analysis to assess the need for a new campus
of the California State University (CSU). Specifically, this
bill:
1)Declares the following findings of the Legislature:
a) The Master Plan for Higher Education in California
established the following criteria for determining the need
for a new public university campus: i) the relative
numbers of high school graduates, the location of existing
institutions in the various areas of the state, and the
relation between their capacities and the estimate
enrollment in the area served by each institution; and, ii)
the relative numbers of potential students within
reasonable commuting distance of each of the proposed
sites;
b) The need to accommodate students in excess of the
physical capacities of existing California Community
Colleges (CCC), CSU and University of California (UC)
campuses; and,
AB 38
Page 2
c) The Master Plan designates CSU to draw its freshman
class from the top third of the state's public high school
graduates and admit transfer-prepared applicants with a
minimum grade point average of 2.0.
2)Requires the LAO to conduct an initial analysis to assess the
need for a new CSU campus, specifying the analysis shall
consist of the following elements:
a) An analysis of the need within certain regions for a CSU
campus, which shall include all of the following to the
extent applicable data is available:
i) Consideration of enrollment demand based on relative
demographic levels and eligible students for each county,
including all of the following: (1) five to 10 year
projections of the college-age population and public high
school graduates, and (2) data for the most recent year
available on college preparedness, including the number
and share of high school graduates completing the "A-G"
admissions requirements and the number and share of
transfer-prepared community college students,
ii) For each county, data on CSU applicants, admissions,
and enrollment for the most recent year available to
estimate college-going rates to CSU, and,
iii) Data on adult educational attainment by county for
the most recent year available.
b) An analysis of the physical capacities of existing CSU
campuses, as outlined in their master plans, relative to
current enrollment; specifying which CSU campuses are
already at maximum capacity and those with remaining
physical capacity; and, identifying which CSU campuses no
longer provide enrollment priority for local applicants.
3)Requires the CSU to provide whatever data is needed in order
to meet the requirements, as specified, to the LAO upon the
LAO's request.
4)Requires the LAO with submitting a report containing their
AB 38
Page 3
analysis to the Legislature and the Department of Finance on
or before January 1, 2017.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Declares the intent of the Legislature that sites for new
institutions or branches of the CSU shall not be authorized or
acquired unless recommended by the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (CPEC) and that CPEC should advise the
Legislature and the Governor regarding the need for, and
location of, new institutions and campuses of public higher
education (Education Code Sections 66900 and 66904).
2)Establishes the CSU administered by the Board of Trustees, and
provides that the Trustees shall have the full power over the
construction and development of any CSU campus and any
buildings or other facilities or improvements (EC Section
89030, et seq.).
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC).
There is currently no coordinating entity for higher education
in California. Existing law establishes CPEC to be responsible
for coordinating public, independent, and private postsecondary
education in California and to provide independent policy
analyses and recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor
on postsecondary education issues. However, over time, CPEC's
budget was reduced, resulting in its inability to perform all of
its responsibilities, casting doubt on its effectiveness and
triggering calls for its restructuring. As part of his 2011-12
Budget, Governor Brown proposed eliminating CPEC. Both Houses
rejected this proposal, but the Governor exercised his line item
veto to remove all General Fund support for CPEC, describing the
commission as "ineffective." In his veto message, however, the
Governor acknowledged the need for coordinating and guiding
state higher education policy and requested that stakeholders
explore alternative ways these functions could be fulfilled.
CPEC shut down in Fall 2011, transferring its federal Teacher
Quality Improvement grant program to the California Department
of Education and extensive data resources to the CCC
Chancellor's Office.
AB 38
Page 4
Purpose of this bill. According to the author, "There is
currently no coordinating body that assesses the needs for a new
CSU or UC campuses. Instead, we have almost ad hoc expansion
that results in an unequal distribution of infrastructure and
educational services statewide. For example, Stockton,
California, is the only city with 300,000 or more people in
California without a public university in its proximity." To
note, the nearest CSU campuses - Sacramento State, CSU
Stanislaus, and CSU East Bay - are at least 45 miles away from
Stockton, without public transportation linkages for students
who do not own a vehicle. The author contends that this is an
example of a regional inequality of services and infrastructure
that contributes to poor educational attainment and
unemployment.
The author contends this measure is a necessary first step in
establishing an objective process for evaluating California's
needs for a new public university campus - through a statewide
study that examines various factors in determining what areas
are the best locations for the establishment of a new CSU
campus.
Review process for new campus. California Postsecondary
Education Commission's review process for a potential new campus
of the UC, CSU, and/or CCC was very layered and structured,
including the need for the asking segment to submit a
preliminary notice at the beginning of the segment's planning
process for a new campus or off-site center. The preliminary
notice had to include information on the proposed institution's
general location, type of operations, time frame for
development, projected enrollment, and near-term capital outlay
plan.
The next step in CPEC's process was for the asking segment to
submit a letter of intent when they were within five years (two
for a CCC) of requesting state funds for capital outlay. To
note, the letter of intent had to contain similar information as
AB 38
Page 5
the preliminary notice but with greater specificity. CPEC then
responded to the letter of intent within 60 days and would
include any concerns with the proposal and opined as to if the
segment should proceed with development plans.
The last step in the review process was for the asking segment
to submit to CPEC a study that provided a justification for the
campus or center on the site identified. The needs study
included nine different areas (enrollment, alternatives,
academic planning, student services, costs, accessibility,
effects on other institutions, environmental impact, and
economic efficiency) according to which the proposal was
evaluated. CPEC responded to the needs study within one year
for the new campus and within six months for a new center; their
response included a formal recommendation to the Governor and
the Legislature as it if a new campus and/or center should be
created.
Committee considerations. Appropriate entity to fill the role
of CPEC? With the state no longer having a coordinating body
for higher education, how is the state going to fulfill the
former CPEC functions? This measure tasks the LAO, in
conjunction with the CSU to conduct a detailed analysis as to
the need for an additional CSU campus; is the LAO the correct
entity to conduct the analysis?
This Committee may want to consider whether or not it tasks
various entities with fulfilling the work of the former CPEC or
halting all projects that would otherwise be under the
jurisdiction of the former CPEC until the state creates a new
higher education coordinating body.
Previous legislation. AB 736 (Fox, 2013), which died in the
Senate Appropriations Committee, required the CSU to conduct a
study, as specified, regarding the feasibility of a CSU
satellite program, and ultimately, an independent CSU campus in
the Antelope Valley. AB 24 (Block, 2009), which was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, proposed a study regarding the
AB 38
Page 6
feasibility of establishing a CSU satellite program and campus
at Chula Vista. AB 500 (Conway, 2009), which died in the Higher
Education Committee, was virtually identical to this measure
except it called for a CSU campus in the high desert. SCR 92
(Peace), Resolution Chapter 104, Statutes of 1998, resolved that
the Legislature endorse a proposed City site for possible future
use as a UC campus.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared
by: Jeanice Warden/HIGHER ED./(916) 319-3960
AB 38
Page 7