BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2297
AUTHOR: Brownley
AMENDED: April 29, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 23, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Community College Nonresident Fees
KEY POLICY ISSUE
Should local community college districts be given greater
discretion in establishing fee levels for nonresident students?
SUMMARY
This bill expands the options available to a local community
college governing board for setting nonresident tuition fees.
BACKGROUND
Current law authorizes a community college district to admit
nonresident students and requires that these students be
charged a tuition fee, with certain specified exemptions.
Current law requires that the tuition fee be set by the
governing board of each community college district by February
1 of each year for the succeeding fiscal year, that specified
notice of these fee changes be provided, and that any increase
in these fees be gradual, moderate, and predictable.
Current law prescribes a formula for the calculation of the
nonresident fee which, generally, is based upon the amount
expended by the district for the "expense of education",
adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, and divided by the total
full-time equivalent students (FTES) (including nonresident
students) that attend the district in the preceding fiscal
year. Current law also authorizes a tuition fee amount not to
exceed that established by any contiguous district, and
prohibits the fee from being less than the statewide average
fee for students. Special provision is made for the
calculation of the fee by districts that have greater than 10
AB 2297
Page 2
percent FTES from non-credit courses. (Education Code 76140)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Expands the options available to a local community college
governing board for setting nonresident tuition fees.
More specifically it authorizes a district to:
a) Set the nonresident tuition fee at the
greater of the fee for the current year or any of the
past four years if the statewide average fee,
calculated as specified, for the succeeding fiscal
year is less than the current fiscal year or any of
the prior four fiscal years.
b) Set the nonresident tuition fee in an
amount equal to or less than the average of the
nonresident tuition fees of public community colleges
of no less than 12 states comparable to California in
cost of living, to be determined as specified.
2) Makes a number of conforming changes.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, current law
provides a number of unintended benefits to nonresidents
attending California Community Colleges. Because the
formulaic statutory calculation for setting nonresident
tuition fees relies on the amount actually expended by the
community colleges, recent budget cuts have resulted in
nonresidents paying a lower amount than in prior years,
the first time reductions have occurred in the last ten
years (the state average nonresident tuition fee has
reportedly gone from $190 per unit in 2009-10 to
potentially $175 per unit in 2011-12. Additionally, there
is no mechanism for adjusting the level of benefit that
California taxpayers provide to nonresidents that allows
for parity with the level of benefit provided by
comparable states to California residents (the average
nonresident fee is reportedly $280 per unit in states with
comparable costs of living). According to the author,
this bill could result in additional funds which could
minimize the effect of budget cuts to the community
colleges, ostensibly, providing relief for, and
AB 2297
Page 3
benefiting, California taxpayers and residents.
2) Other public segments . Education Code 68050-68052
authorizes both the UC and the CSU to establish
nonresident student tuition policies and methodologies to
be developed by each institution's governing body. The
annual fee rate is prohibited from falling below the
marginal cost of instruction and the rates at comparison
institutions, as identified by the California
Postsecondary Education Commission, must be considered.
In addition, school districts are authorized to admit
students from adjoining states and the district is
required to collect nonresident tuition sufficient to
reimburse the district for the total cost of educating the
pupil.
3) Preserving California residents' access . According to the
Community College Chancellor's Office, although current
law does establish priority enrollment for members and
former members of the armed forces, and establishes lower
priority for special part-time or full-time students,
there is no specific statutory provision that requires
that resident students be given priority for admission on
a statewide basis. Would this bill create an incentive to
displace California residents enrolled at the community
colleges or otherwise prioritize the enrollment of higher
revenue nonresident students? Should the increased
funding generated by the nonresident students be
authorized if it does not benefit California taxpayers and
residents?
Staff recommends the bill be amended to include the
following to insure that the flexibility provided by the
bill does not result in an unintended incentive to
prioritize or displace California residents seeking to
enroll at the California Community Colleges:
"The additional revenue generated by the increased
nonresident tuition permitted under this bill shall be
used to expand and enhance services to resident students.
In no event shall the admission of nonresident students
come at the expense of resident enrollment."
"The Chancellor's Office shall provide a report to the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) by January 10,
annually, specifying for each district and for the two
AB 2297
Page 4
prior academic years (1) the number of resident students
(headcount and FTES), including an identification of any
resident enrollment above the district's cap, (2) the
number of nonresident students (headcount and FTES), (3)
the per-unit nonresident tuition rate, (4) the total
revenue received from nonresident tuition, and (5) the
total apportionment funding received by the district. The
LAO shall include a summary of this information, as well
as an analysis of the degree to which the colleges have
complied with the requirements of Education Code 76140 in
its analysis of the Governor's annual budget proposal."
4) Disturbing unchecked trend ? The UC Commission on the
Future recently issued its first round of recommendations
for developing a new vision for the University. These
recommendations are currently being disseminated for
review and feedback from the Academic Senate, staff,
students and the public prior to formal recommendation to
the Regents in July. Among the recommendations around
funding strategies is a proposal to increase the
enrollment of nonresident undergraduates with the
possibility of adding 7,600 nonresident students as
replacements for existing resident students enrolled above
the 2007-08 enrollment targets (the rationale being that
the state provides no funds for these "over-enrolled"
students).
Similarly, the CSU Board of Trustees will hold a special
meeting on June 18 to consider a proposal for potential
fee increases. Among other things, the proposal would
eliminate the cap on nonresident tuition, with nonresident
students paying $16,257 for 30 semester units rather than
the current $11,160.
Understandably, the pressures of the state's budget
situation are compelling the public postsecondary
education segments to consider sources of revenue outside
the general fund in order to meet their needs/priorities.
But how much of a publicly funded infrastructure should be
used for the education of individuals other than
California residents and taxpayers? What is necessary in
order to ensure that this strategy does not result in
reduced access for California residents? Should the
Legislature expect that a portion or all of this revenue
AB 2297
Page 5
be used to expand the ability to enroll and serve
California residents?
SUPPORT
California Community College League
Santa Monica College
OPPOSITION
None received.