BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1483
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
1483 (Gatto) - As Amended May 6, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Higher Education |Vote:|8 - 3 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill:
1)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to conduct a
AB 1483
Page 2
study of, and report to the Legislature by January 1, 2017, on
the feasibility of establishing a campus of the University of
California (UC) devoted to science, technology, engineer,
arts, and mathematics (STEAM).
2)Appropriates $50 million from the General Fund for the
establishment of, and acquisition of land for, the UC STEAM
campus, to be allocated by the Controller to the UC Regents
upon the Regents approval to establish the new campus.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time $50 million GF appropriation.
Costs to the LAO are indeterminate. Since the term "feasible" is
undefined in the bill, the LAO might have to examine the need
for and cost of a new campus itself, as well the cost/benefit of
a new campus relative to expansion of existing campuses. The
breadth of analysis might not be absorbable to the LAO and
require outside contracts. Previous proposals for new campuses
have involved extensive research, analysis, and documentation,
and have been prepared largely by the higher education segments
themselves.
The cost of a new campus would be significant. UC estimates
that, thus far, $730 million in has been spent for acquisition
and capital outlays at UC Merced, including $500 million of
state funds. (UC Merced currently enrolls only about 6,300
students, and plans to enroll 10,000 by 2020, which will require
hundreds of million in additional capital costs. In addition,
scale economies make operating costs at a new campus higher than
at existing campuses. Finally, though the Berkeley and Los
Angeles campuses are near or close to capacity, the other UC
campuses, principally Merced, Irvine, and Riverside, have the
AB 1483
Page 3
ability, over the long-term, to accommodate many thousands of
additional students.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "This bill seeks to address
the rising demand for workers trained in science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) as well as the growing
inaccessibility of the University of California system." The
author contends, "In California, the growing demand for STEM
graduates and workers has been coupled with the increasing
inaccessibility of the state's premier public university
system. For years, the demand for UCs has outpaced the
capacity of UC campuses. The number of applications to UC
campuses has increased for 11 straight years and in 2015,
193,873 students applied for at least one campus (a 5.8%
increase from 2014). In 2014, UC accepted less than 90,000
of its 183,272 applicants and matriculated less than 45,000. "
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
AB 1483
Page 4
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
services, costs, accessibility, effects on other institutions,
environmental impact, and economic efficiency) according to
which the proposal was evaluated.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081