BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 38
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
38 (Eggman)
As Amended March 23, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
|Higher |12-1 |Medina, Baker, Bloom, |Harper |
|Education | |Chávez, Irwin, | |
| | |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, | |
| | |Linder, Low, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, | |
| | |Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |16-1 |Gomez, Bonta, |Bigelow |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Gordon, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 38
Page 2
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; iii) 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, iv) 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; and, iv) an analysis of the physical
AB 38
Page 3
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
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 (EC) 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: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the
LAO indicates it can prepare the required analysis within 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
AB 38
Page 4
impacts on other CSU institutions were to be requested.
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.
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.
AB 38
Page 5
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 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.
Appropriate entity to fill the role of CPEC? With the state no
AB 38
Page 6
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?
The Legislature 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) of 2013, which was held 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) of 2009, which was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, proposed a study regarding the feasibility of
establishing a CSU satellite program and campus at Chula Vista.
AB 500 (Conway)of 2009, which was held 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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN:
0000751
AB 38
Page 7