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