BILL ANALYSIS
AB 69
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 3, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Anthony Portantino, Chair
AB 69 (Duvall) - As Introduced: December 12, 2008
SUBJECT : Statewide student fee policy.
SUMMARY : Requires the University of California (UC) and
California State University (CSU) to set mandatory systemwide
fees and tuition for undergraduate students over a four-year
period. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the level of mandatory systemwide fees and tuition
for undergraduate students at UC and CSU to be set over a
four-year period, commencing with the 2010-11 fiscal year.
2)Provides UC and CSU the discretion to establish the set level
of fees and tuition for the four-year period.
3)Provides that this section shall only apply to UC to the
extent the UC Board of Regents makes its provisions
applicable.
4)Deletes a provision that required the systemwide fees and
tuition charged to resident undergraduate students at UC and
CSU be reduced in the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 fiscal years.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Refers to UC and CSU fee levels (to the extent UC adopts such
fee levels) for 1999-2000 and prior years; fee levels are
typically set in the annual Budget Act.
2)Establishes the Cal Grant Entitlement Programs to provide
grant assistance for fee payment in UC, CSU, and private
institutions in California, to the extent that students are
financially and academically eligible for such support.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : What is the problem ? California has no predictable,
moderate fee policy. The state sets UC and CSU fees each year
through the Budget Act with complementary actions on the part of
the UC Board of Regents and the CSU Board of Trustees to adopt
AB 69
Page 2
these fee policies. There is an implicit policy whereby
students and the state are expected to share educational costs,
but the relative proportions are dependent on the state's fiscal
situation. As a result, fees have increased steeply during
difficult budget years (as much as 37% at UC and 33% at CSU in
2003-04) and then gradually declined when the state's fiscal
situation improved (as much as 8% at UC and CSU in 1999-2000).
This volatility makes it difficult to plan for educational costs
and tends to move contrary to the average student's ability to
pay.
In 1985, the state adopted a long-term fee policy that, among
other things, limited fee increases to 10% per year when state
expenditures were expected to exceed revenues. UC adopted a
similar policy. However, this policy was routinely suspended
beginning with the 1991-92 budget deficit and was allowed to
sunset.
Could this bill contribute to unpredictable fee levels for
students ? This bill does not limit the fee amount UC and CSU
can set for incoming students. Thus, if the segments are faced
with significant reductions in General Fund support, they might
decide to significantly increase fees for incoming students to
make up for their inability to increase fees for current
students.
Could this bill inadvertently limit access to UC and CSU ? As
they have demonstrated this year, when faced with significant
reductions in General Fund support, UC and CSU might need to
reduce enrollments, course offerings, or make other service
reductions that would limit access to these institutions, as
well as prolong a student's time-to-degree.
Does this bill punish students who do not graduate in four
years ? Under this bill, the segments would be able to increase
fees for students who are enrolled after four years-a common
occurrence at both institutions: the time-to-degree is
approximately four years and one quarter at UC and five to six
years at CSU. There are many reasons for this: timely access to
classes, the need to work to support families or reduce the need
to borrow, part-time attendance, family and/or economic
hardship, and high-unit majors, such as engineering.
Impact on Cal Grants : Cal Grant awards cover mandatory
AB 69
Page 3
systemwide fees at UC and CSU. As discussed previously, this
bill could lead to significant fee increases from year to year
as new four-year cohorts enter UC and CSU, placing additional
fiscal pressures on the General Fund to cover those increases.
How would this bill affect transfer students ? This bill is
silent on the fee level that transfer students would be charged.
The Committee suggests that this bill be amended to clarify
that
transfer students would be charged the fees they would have paid
had they entered as freshmen.
Suggested amendment : Staff suggests deleting subsection (c),
which states legislative intent for what this bill is actually
doing.
Previous legislation : This bill is almost identical to AB 2722
(Duvall) of 2008, which failed passage in the Assembly Higher
Education Committee on April 10, 2008. In addition, the
Legislature has considered several bills that established a fee
policy for UC and CSU students. AB 1038 (Feuer) of 2007, which
was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, would have
tied student fee increases to increased state support for UC and
CSU and limited fee increases to 7% per year. AB 1072 (Liu) of
2006, which was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee,
would have required the UC and CSU to develop methodologies for
the adjustment of student fees in accordance with a prescribed
procedure.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Capitol Resource Family Impact
Opposition
California State University
University of California
Analysis Prepared by : Sandra Fried / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960