BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 38
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
38 (Eggman) - As Amended March 23, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Higher Education |Vote:|12 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
conduct an initial analysis assessing the need for a new
California State University (CSU) campus and report its findings
to the Legislature and the Department of Finance by January 1,
AB 38
Page 2
2017. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the analysis to include the following:
a) The need within certain regions for a CSU campus,
including all of the following to the extent applicable
data is available:
i) Enrollment demand, as specified, based on relative
demographic levels and eligible students for each county.
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.
1)Requires CSU to provide whatever data the LAO requests to
complete its analysis.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The LAO indicates it can prepare the required analysis within
AB 38
Page 3
its existing resources. Given that this is an initial, somewhat
high-level analysis, CSU's costs to provide LAO with needed data
should be minor and absorbable. CSU's costs will be more
significant if regional market analyses, sphere of influence
studies, or assessments of the potential academic and fiscal
impacts on other CSU institutions were to be requested.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. 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.
2)Background. Current law declares legislative intent that sites
for new institutions or branches of the CSU 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. After several years of declining budgets and then
elimination of all funding by the Governor in 2011-12,
however, CPEC ceased operations in the Fall 2011.
CPEC's review process for a potential new campus of the CSU
(or for the University of California or the community
colleges) involved several stages. The last step in the review
process required the segment to submit to CPEC a study
providing a justification for the campus or center on the site
identified. This needs study encompassed nine different areas
(enrollment, alternatives, academic planning, student
AB 38
Page 4
services, costs, accessibility, effects on other institutions,
environmental impact, and economic efficiency) according to
which the proposal was evaluated.
The study called for in this bill appears to be preliminary in
nature, specifically looking at enrollment demand, educational
attainment, and planned physical capacity of existing CSU
campuses. It should be noted that the Department of Finance's
most recent demographic projections show only a 0.6% increase
in high school graduates over the next 10 years, and only a
10% growth in the college age population through 2060.
3)Prior Legislation. AB 736 (Fox) of 2013, which required CSU to
study the feasibility of a CSU satellite program, and
ultimately, an independent CSU campus in the Antelope Valley,
was held on Suspense in Senate Appropriations.
AB 24 (Block) of 2009, which was a similar bill regarding a
new campus in Chula Vista, was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, who argued that the bill was unnecessary.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 38
Page 5