BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2250
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 9, 2012

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                     AB 2250 (Gaines) - As Amended:  May 3, 2012 

          Policy Committee:                              Higher 
          EducationVote:9-0
                        Veterans Affairs                      8-0

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program: 
          Yes    Reimbursable:              Yes

           SUMMARY  

          This bill provides that a student, or their spouse, who served 
          in the Armed Forces for at least 36 months and received an 
          honorable discharge, is exempt from paying non-resident tuition 
          for their first full year of continuous enrollment at the 
          California Community Colleges (CCC), the California State 
          University (CSU), and the University of California (UC) if the 
          student files an affidavit with the college stating they intend 
          to establish residency in California.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          The bill will result in revenue losses and additional 
          administrative costs for each of the segments.

           1)UC  enrolled about 950 veterans in 2010-11. UC indicates that 
            18 of 752 undergraduate student veterans paid non-resident 
            tuition. The additional cost of non-resident tuition for these 
            students is $22,878. In the first year after this bill is 
            enacted, these students would be eligible for in-state 
            tuition, yielding a revenue loss of $412,000. Thereafter, it 
            is assumed that each cohort of first-year students would 
            benefit from this bill. Assuming five first-year students each 
            year, the annual revenue loss would be $115,000. Regarding 
            graduate students, UC indicates that 42 of 197 student 
            veterans paid non-resident tuition in 2010-11, at an 
            additional cost of between $12,245 and $15,102. Revenue losses 
            associated with these students would be between $514,000 and 
            $634,000 in the first year, and assuming 20 new qualifying 
            graduate students annually, would be $245,000 and $302,000. 








                                                                  AB 2250
                                                                  Page  2


            UC also indicates that it would incur significant 
            administrative costs to implement the bills requirements. UC's 
            applications for admissions do not include any questions to 
            determine if someone is the spouse of an eligible veteran and 
            would thus have to be changed. Those claiming the resident 
            tuition benefit would have to be verified as eligible. Given 
            the numerous different application forms for undergraduates, 
            graduates, and professional degrees, one-time administration 
            costs, including modification to information systems, are 
            estimated at around $100,000 per campus.

           2)CSU  enrolled about 6,450 veterans in 2010-11. The additional 
            cost of non-resident tuition at CSU is $11,160. CSU indicates 
            that 179 veterans or veteran's dependents were paying 
            non-resident tuition.  Assuming two-thirds of these were 
            veterans who could benefit under this bill, in the first year 
            after this bill is enacted, these students would be eligible 
            for in-state tuition, yielding a revenue loss of $1.3 million. 
            Thereafter, it is assumed that each cohort of first-year 
            students would benefit from this bill. Assuming 25 first-year 
            students each year, the annual revenue loss would be around 
            $280,000. 

          3)The  CCC  enrolled about 44,700 veterans in 2010-11. The 
            difference between resident and non-resident fees at the CCC 
            is $133 per unit. For a full-time student (30 units in an 
            academic year) the additional fee revenue to the CCC is 
            $4,000.  The number of these veterans currently paying 
            non-resident fees is unknown, but is believed to be quite low. 
            For every 100 full-time equivalent non-resident student 
            veterans who are able to benefit from this bill, the annual 
            revenue loss would be $400,000.

          CSU and CCC would also have unknown additional administrative 
          costs to comply with the bill. The CCC costs would be state 
          reimbursable.

          The assumptions above are probably low, as this benefit (a) 
          extends to spouses of veterans and (b) could over time attract 
          more non-resident veterans to California's public colleges and 
          universities, as only a few other states have a similar policy.

           COMMENTS  









                                                                  AB 2250
                                                                  Page  3

           1)Background  . Current law establishes the requirements for 
            determining residency in order to qualify for paying the 
            lower-cost in-state tuition and student fees at UC, CSU, and 
            CCC. To qualify for the California resident fees, students are 
            generally required to have resided in the state for more than 
            one year immediately preceding the residence determination 
            date and undertake other specified actions such as registering 
            to vote or registering one's car in California. 

            The Post 9/11 GI Bill will only pay the resident tuition cost 
            for a student, thus to use this benefit, out-of-state student 
            veterans are currently faced with the choice of waiting to 
            establish residency before enrolling in school or finding 
            another source of funds (including from out of pocket) to 
            cover the difference between resident and non-resident 
            tuition. Current law does allow students who were on active 
            duty in California for at least one year immediately prior to 
            their discharge to pay in-state tuition and fees.

           2)Purpose  . This bill would also allow out-of-state veterans and 
            their spouses to pay in-state tuition rates, as long as they 
            demonstrate intent to establish residency. According to the 
            author, "This legislation is necessary as a large amount of 
            soldiers are coming back from the War on Terror and we need to 
            make higher education for them a priority."

           3)Concern  . With the significant reductions in state support to 
            all three segments and the resulting tuition/fee increases and 
            enrollment reductions, is this the time to bestow a benefit on 
            non-resident veterans-and their spouses-that would result in 
            further revenue losses to the segments and competition with 
            California residents struggling to get courses?

           4)Related Legislation  . AB 2478 (Hayashi), also on today's 
            committee agenda, provides that a community college student 
            who was stationed in California for more than one year 
            immediately prior to being discharged is exempt from paying 
            nonresident fees for up to four years, instead of just one 
            year, upon filing an affidavit with the college stating their 
            intent to establish residency as soon as possible.
           
          5)Prior Legislation  . AB 2472 (Wyland) of 2006, which was similar 
            to this bill, was held on this committee's Suspense file.
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 









                                                                  AB 2250
                                                                  Page  4