>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
WELCOME TO OUR ASSEMBLY BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE
NUMBER THREE ON EDUCATION
FINANCE.
I AM CHAIR DAVID ALVAREZ, AND WE
WILL GET STARTED
WITH TODAY'S HEARING ON THE UC
AND CSU BUDGET.
UH, WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THE
MAIN BUDGET
ISSUES FOR BOTH THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.
UH, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S AN IMPORTANT
DISCUSSION,
AS THE STATE FACES, AS WE ALL
KNOW,
SOME MAJOR BUDGET DEFICIT ISSUES
THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH.
UH, YOU PROBABLY HAVE ALL HEARD
BY NOW THE LEGISLATURE
IS BEGINNING TO TAKE SOME STEPS
TOWARDS,
UM, UH, DEFERRING FUNDING FOR
BOTH UC AND CSU
FROM THE 2425 FISCAL YEAR TO THE
2526 YEAR.
UH, ACTION WILL BE TAKEN, I
BELIEVE,
IN THE ASSEMBLY LATER THIS WEEK.
AND WHILE IT'S DIFFICULT,
UNFORTUNATELY,
IT IS ALSO NECESSARY.
WE MAY ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT
FURTHER, UH,
LOOK FURTHER AT BOTH THE
SEGMENTS BUDGETS,
DEPENDING ON HOW THE REVENUES
LOOK IN A FEW WEEKS IN MAY.
SO TODAY WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE
DIFFICULT
DECISIONS WE ARE FACED WITH.
AND MY HOPE IS THAT THE
SUBCOMMITTEE CAN
REVIEW BOTH SEGMENTS CORE
BUDGETS,
PREVIOUS STATE APPROPRIATIONS,
AND OTHER AREAS
IN WHICH THE STATE FUNDS ARE
BEING USED.
I HOPE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND BOTH
SEGMENTS RESERVES.
WE HAVE, UH, A WHOLE ITEM SET
ASIDE
FOR THAT AND ON HOW CAMPUSES
AND SYSTEM OFFICES ARE THINKING
ABOUT THIS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.
WE'LL NEED TO ASK HOW STATE
DOLLARS
ARE BEING USED TO SUPPORT THESE.
THE PRIORITIES INCLUDING ACCESS,
AFFORDABILITY AND SUPPORTING
STUDENT SUCCESS.
AS WE DISCUSSED FROM DAY ONE IN
THIS COMMITTEE.
UM, ARE THERE EFFICIENCIES AND
EFFICIENCIES OR
OTHER WAYS TO CUT COSTS OR
INCREASE REVENUE?
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY LOOKING FOR
CREATIVE
IDEAS AND THINKING OUTSIDE THE
BOX.
WE KNOW THAT THE SEGMENTS FACE
MULTIPLE COST PRESSURES,
SUCH AS SUPPORTING APPROPRIATE
COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES,
WHICH IS IMPORTANT, BUT WE FACE
A FEW
YEARS OF PROJECTED BAD BUDGETS.
SO WE MUST TALK ABOUT HOW THESE
SYSTEMS
WILL WEATHER THIS SITUATION,
AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS.
SO, UM, AS WE'VE BEEN DOING,
I DON'T SEE A LOT OF MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC HERE TODAY,
BUT WE'LL GIVE PEOPLE WHO MAY
WISH TO SPEAK.
UM, FIRST, UH, PRIOR TO THE
AGENDA, UM,
FINISHING OR COMPLETING TODAY
INSTEAD OF GOING AT THE END,
ALLOWING ANYBODY TO SPEAK NOW.
UM, MAYBE A LITTLE BRIEF.
UH 30S POSSIBLE IF ANYBODY WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK ON.
TODAY'S AGENDA BEFORE WE HEAR
TODAY'S AGENDA,
WELCOME TO COME FORWARD.
IF NOT, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY
JUMPING UP.
SO WE WILL START WITH THE ITEMS
ON THE AGENDA.
SO FIRST WE WILL HAVE THE
UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA WILL BE DISCUSSING
FOUR SEPARATE ISSUES CORE
OPERATIONS
AND DEFERRAL PROPOSAL,
UC MERCED MEDICAL SCHOOL, PAST
APPROPRIATIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE,
AND THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.
SO WE WILL KICK IT OFF WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE LAO
AND THE UCP.
UH, WELCOME.
AND THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
UH, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR ALVAREZ.
AND, UM, SOME MEMBER FONG
GABRIELA CHAVEZ
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
THE GOVERNANCE BUDGET REFLECTS
THE THIRD YEAR OF THE MULTI
YEAR COMPACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA.
AND DESPITE THE STATE'S CURRENT
FISCAL CONDITION,
THE ADMINISTRATION REMAINS
COMMITTED
TO THE SHARED GOALS OF
INCREASING
ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA
AND IMPROVING STUDENT
SUCCESS TO ADDRESS THE PROJECTED
BUDGET SHORTFALL.
THE GOVERNANCE BUDGET PROPOSES A
ONE
TIME DEFERRAL FOR THE PLANNED
227.8
MILLION ONGOING GENERAL FUND UM
INCREASE IN 20 2425,
AS PART OF THE MULTI YEAR
COMPACT
INVESTMENT AND THE PLANNED
INVESTMENT OF 31 MILLION ONGOING
GENERAL FUND IN 20 2425,
TO OFFSET THE REVENUE REDUCTION
ASSOCIATED WITH THE REPLACEMENT
OF 902 NONRESIDENT UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS,
ONGOING GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR
THE UC WILL
REMIND APPROXIMATELY THE 20 2324
BASELINE
LEVELS WILL ENABLING THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
TO USE INTERIM FINANCING
STRUCTURES,
OTHER INTERNAL BORROWING OR CASH
RESERVES TO SUPPORT
PLANNED OPERATING EXPENDITURES
IN 20 2425.
THIS APPROACH WILL ENABLE
THE UC TO CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS
TO MEET THE COMPACT GOALS TO
EXPAND STUDENT ACCESS,
EQUITY AND AFFORDABILITY, AND TO
CREATE PATHWAYS
TO HIGH DEMAND CAREER
OPPORTUNITIES.
THE ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTINUE
TO MONITOR THE UCI'S
ACTIONS TOWARDS MEETING THE
COMPACT GOALS.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR.
ALVAREZ.
MEMBER.
FONG.
IAN KLEIN WITH THE LAO.
YOU'VE HEARD DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
EXPLAIN WHAT THE DEFERRALS ARE.
AND WE DO HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS
WITH THESE DEFERRALS.
WE'VE WRITTEN ABOUT THOSE
CONCERNS IN OUR REPORTS,
AND THOSE ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN
YOUR AGENDA.
THESE CONCERNS INCLUDE THAT
PAYING BILLS LATE
IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED POOR
FISCAL PRACTICE,
AND THE DEFERRALS NOTABLY WORSEN
THE STATE'S
PROJECTED BUDGET DEFICIT IN
2526.
THIS APPROACH IS RISKY,
AS NEITHER UC NOR THE STATE CAN
BE
SURE THAT THE ASSOCIATED FUNDING
WILL BE PROVIDED IN 2526.
FURTHERMORE, INCREASING SPENDING
WHEN FACING MULTI-YEAR BUDGET
DEFICITS GENERALLY IS CONSIDERED
POOR FISCAL PRACTICE,
MAKING BALANCING THE BUDGET THE
NEXT
YEAR THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
OUR RECOMMENDATION TO HOLD
FUNDING
FLAT IS LESS DISRUPTIVE
PROGRAMMATICALLY THAN EXPANDING
FUNDING IN 2425,
ONLY TO POTENTIALLY HAVE TO CUT
IT IN 2526,
WHERE THE STATE'S BUDGET
CONDITION TO IMPROVE.
AT THAT TIME, THE STATE COULD
FUND HIGHER
BASE INCREASES THAT IT COULD
AFFORD.
FINALLY, YOU SEE, WE'LL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE
IN 2425 FROM INCREASES IN THEIR
TUITION CHARGES.
IT CAN USE THESE NON STATE FUNDS
TO SUPPORT
SOME OF THEIR SPENDING
INCREASES.
IN THIS REGARD.
YOU SEE AS ADVANTAGED RELATIVE
TO THOSE
NON OR RELATIVE TO THOSE STATE
AGENCIES
THAT WON'T HAVE ACCESS TO NON
STATE
FUNDING AUGMENTATIONS IN 2425.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE
CONSIDERING
THE DEFERRALS IN YOUR EARLY
ACTION PACKAGE.
SO I WILL CLOSE HERE, BUT I AM
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
REMAINING QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE ON THAT SUBJECT.
THANK YOU.
USE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR ALVAREZ AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FONG I'M SARAH
TANNIN FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE
TODAY.
UM, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
IS A MULTIFACETED ORGANIZATION
WITH OPERATIONS RANGING FROM
TRADITIONAL
CAMPUS INSTRUCTION TO HOSPITALS
TO NUCLEAR LABORATORIES
TO STUDENT HOUSING OPERATIONS.
THE TOTAL BUDGET IN THE CURRENT
YEAR OF
THE UNIVERSITY IS ESTIMATED AT
$50 BILLION.
TODAY, I WILL FOCUS ON THE
UNIVERSITY'S
CORE OPERATIONS,
WHICH ARE TO TRADITIONAL CAMPUS
INSTRUCTION AND STUDENT
SERVICES THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE
FAMILIAR WITH.
THE UNIVERSITY'S CORE FUNDS
PAY FOR CAMPUS OPERATIONS.
THESE CORE FUNDS INCLUDE STATE
GENERAL
FUND TUITION AND STUDENT
SERVICES FEE,
NONRESIDENT SUPPLEMENTAL
TUITION, AND A FEW SMALLER
REVENUE STREAMS SUCH AS PATENT
REVENUE.
CORE FUNDS PROVIDE PERMANENT
SUPPORT FOR
THE CORE MISSION ACTIVITIES OF
THE UNIVERSITY,
AS WELL AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AND SUPPORT
SERVICES NEEDED TO PERFORM THEM.
CORE FUNDS TOTAL 10.4
BILLION IN 20 2324 AND REPRESENT
ABOUT 21% OF THE UNIVERSITY'S
TOTAL BUDGET.
IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, THE UC
BOARD OF REGENTS
APPROVED A BUDGET PLAN FOR THE
20 2425
YEAR THAT ESTIMATED THE CAMPUS
OPERATIONS
COST WOULD INCREASE BY $650
MILLION.
ABOUT 500 MILLION OF THIS AMOUNT
IS
FOR SUSTAINING CORE OPERATIONS.
ALMOST ALL OF IT FOR SALARIES
AND BENEFITS
OF EXISTING CAMPUS EMPLOYEES.
THE REMAINDER WAS FOR COSTS
RELATED TO INCREASED
ENROLLMENT AND FINANCIAL AID.
THE REGION'S BUDGET PLAN
ANTICIPATED
THAT NEW REVENUES FROM SEVERAL
CORE
FUNDING SOURCES WOULD HELP COVER
A PORTION OF THESE COST
INCREASES.
THE THIRD YEAR OF THE COMPACT
FUNDING, A 5% OR 227.8
MILLION BASED BUDGET INCREASE,
WOULD HAVE HELPED COVER A
PORTION
OF THESE EXPENDITURES.
MODEST ADJUSTMENTS TO TUITION
FEES AND NONRESIDENT
SUPPLEMENTAL TUITION REVENUES
IN 20 2425 WILL COVER JUST OVER
$200
MILLION OF THE ANTICIPATED
COSTS.
AS YOUR AGENDA NOTES, THE
UNIVERSITY INTENDS
TO MANAGE OUR FINANCIAL ASSETS
AND SAVE ON
PROCUREMENT COSTS TO COVER
APPROXIMATELY $100
MILLION IN NEW CORE CAMPUS
EXPENDITURES.
THE EARLY ACTION BUDGET PROPOSED
BY THE LEGISLATURE
DEFERS THE 5% BASED BUDGET
INCREASE
AND NONRESIDENT REPLACEMENT
FUNDING FOR
THE UNIVERSITY FROM 2024 25 TO
20 2526.
THIS WOULD HOLD THE UNIVERSITY'S
STATE GENERAL
FUND OPERATING BUDGET FLAT FROM
THE CURRENT YEAR TO THE BUDGET
YEAR,
AS WAS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNOR.
THE UNIVERSITY IS GRATEFUL THAT
THESE FUNDS
WOULD BE DEFERRED RATHER THAN
ELIMINATED.
THE COMPACT SETS UP EXPECTATIONS
FOR
THE UNIVERSITY TO INCREASE
ENROLLMENT,
TO REPLACE NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS
WITH CALIFORNIA
UNDERGRADUATES AT OUR MOST
IN-DEMAND CAMPUSES,
TO REDUCE GAPS IN GRADUATION
RATES,
TO INCREASE FINANCIAL AID
AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS,
AND INCREASE COLLABORATION WITH
OTHER
PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION
SEGMENTS.
THE UNIVERSITY INTENDS TO
CONTINUE THIS
WORK DESPITE THE FUNDING
DEFERRAL.
THIS WORK, ESPECIALLY IN
INCREASING CALIFORNIA
UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT,
PLACES REAL, INCREASED COSTS ON
OUR CAMPUSES.
WHILE THE UNIVERSITY IS STILL
DETERMINING
THE EXACT STEPS THAT WILL
BE TAKEN TO ADDRESS THE NEW COST
GROWTH IN THE BUDGET YEAR,
THE USE OF RESERVES AND
BORROWING
FROM THE UNIVERSITY'S
OWN FUNDS ARE BEING CONSIDERED.
CAMPUSES ARE ALSO LOOKING AT
WAYS TO CONTAIN COSTS.
THE UNIVERSITY'S CORE FUNDS
BUDGET IS PEOPLE ORIENTED.
69% OF THE CAMPUS EXPENDITURES
ARE SALARIES AND BENEFITS.
THE INCREASE IN THESE CATEGORIES
IN SOME CASES IS MANDATORY,
AS THEY ARE DETERMINED BY
REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS OR NECESSARY
FOR
THE UNIVERSITY TO EXCEL, SUCH AS
FACULTY.
MERIT INCREASES.
CONTAINING EMPLOYEE COSTS CAN
MEAN IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES
SUCH AS HIRING FREEZES OR CHILLS
OR FURLOUGHS.
THE REMAINING CORE FUND
EXPENDITURES INCLUDE
NEARLY 15% FOR STUDENT FINANCIAL
AID,
WHICH REFLECTS THE UNIVERSITY'S
COMMITMENT
TO MAKING EDUCATION AFFORDABLE.
WE HAVE NO INTENTION TO REDUCE
FINANCIAL AID.
BOND DEBT FINANCING, WHICH
CANNOT
BE REDUCED BY THE UNIVERSITY,
CURRENTLY TAKES UP ABOUT 7% OF
THE CORE OPERATING BUDGET,
WITH THE REMAINING 9% FOR
EQUIPMENT AND UTILITIES.
I WANT TO STRESS THAT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
CAMPUSES DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT
UNALLOCATED
RESERVES TO COVER THE KNOWN CORE
OPERATING
BUDGET COST GROWTH FOR 20 2425.
SINCE THE CAMPUS ONGOING COSTS
WILL
INCREASE IN THE BUDGET YEAR,
THE UNIVERSITY IS REQUESTING
THAT THE LEGISLATURE
APPROVE THE ONE TIME BACKFILL
OF $258 MILLION ON JULY 1ST OF
2025,
AS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNOR.
THE CAMPUS COST WILL INCREASE IN
20 2425,
PARTIALLY DUE TO INCREASED
ENROLLMENT,
AND IF THE BACKFILL FUNDING IS
NOT RECEIVED,
CAMPUSES WOULD HAVE TO SPEND THE
20 2526 FUNDING
TO CATCH UP ON THE BUDGET YEAR
EXPENDITURES.
THIS WOULD MEAN THAT CAMPUSES
WOULD BE SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED
TO KEEP HIRING TALENTED FACULTY,
GROWING STUDENT SERVICES,
AND SUSTAINING THE EDUCATIONAL
INVESTMENTS NECESSARY
TO DELIVER HIGH QUALITY
EXPERIENCE THAT BOTH MEET
THE ENROLLMENT GROWTH DEMANDS
FOR 20 2526 AND CONTINUE
TO SERVE EXISTING UC STUDENTS
ACROSS THE SYSTEM.
IT WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT IN ORDER
TO REPAY ANY LOANS TAKEN,
CAMPUSES WOULD HAVE TO FURTHER
REDUCE
EXPENDITURES IN 20 2526,
EVEN IF THEY RECEIVE A BASE
BUDGET
ADJUSTMENT DURING THAT YEAR.
THIS IS WHY WE ARE REQUESTING
THE ONE TIME
BACKFILL TO MAKE CAMPUS BUDGETS
WHOLE.
PRESERVING FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL
SO THAT
THE UNIVERSITY CAN CONTINUE TO
EXPAND ACCESS,
IMPROVE OUR OFFERINGS AND SERVE
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WELL.
AS PART OF THE UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS,
THE BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
ARE IMPORTANT THAT MAKE UP THOSE
CAMPUSES.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS
OVER $12 BILLION IN IDENTIFIED
SEISMIC SAFETY REPAIRS THAT NEED
TO BE DONE,
AND OVER $7 BILLION IN DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE,
FOR WHICH THERE CURRENTLY IS NO
FUNDING SOURCE IDENTIFIED.
ADDITIONALLY, CAMPUSES HAVE
IDENTIFIED $35
BILLION IN CLASSROOMS, STUDENT
SERVICES,
AND GENERAL CAMPUS
INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS THEY WOULD
LIKE TO BUILD IF THERE WAS
AVAILABLE FUNDING.
THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED A
GENERAL OBLIGATION
BOND FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES,
AND THE UNIVERSITY WOULD LIKE TO
BE INCLUDED
IN THAT BOND FOR $2 BILLION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE ALL THREE OF YOU.
UH, I'LL JUST KICK IT OFF WITH
SOME QUESTIONS.
UH, MY MY QUESTIONS ARE KIND OF
IN TWO THEMES.
ONE IS ON THIS CONVERSATION
ABOUT THE DEFERRALS
AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE
OPERATIONS.
I THINK TOWARDS THE END OF YOUR
COMMENTS, UM,
UC OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
REALLY,
I THINK CLARIFIED,
BUT I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR
ON
THE RECORD WHAT WHAT THIS MEANS.
AND THEN THE SECOND SORT OF
THEME WILL BE ON, UM,
ON THE RESERVES AND TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND IT GOES ALSO FOR THE CSU
SYSTEM,
YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF
AND IT'S
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE STATE
DOES,
AND IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DOES IN TERMS OF HOW YOU,
UH, THE RESERVES, UH, POLICIES.
AND SO JUST TRYING TO GET A
BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THAT.
UM.
LET'S START JUST WITH THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET THAT NOW, UM, HAS TAKEN
A,
UH, LEGISLATIVE FORM, IF YOU
WILL,
FOR POTENTIAL ACTION LATER THIS
WEEK.
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL IS ON
DEFERRING FUNDING.
UM, AND I HEARD, UH.
I HEARD MENTION THAT IF.
THERE IS A DEFERRAL THAT THE
EXPECTATION
IS THAT THE DEFERRAL
GETS PAID ON JULY 1ST OF 2025,
IN ORDER TO AVOID.
UH, FURTHER DECISIONS.
AND I DON'T THINK YOU WERE TOO
CLEAR ON WHAT THOSE WERE,
BUT CAN YOU JUST, UM, CLARIFY
THAT ON THE RECORD?
JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE
ESSENTIALLY TAKING
ON ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES
OF, UH.
AS IF YOU WERE RECEIVING THIS
AUGMENTATION
FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT YOU'RE NOT.
AND SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW
YOU'RE
GOING TO PAY FOR THAT IN A
SECOND.
BUT CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY THAT
THAT'S WHAT THE UC IS DOING.
WE'RE NOT CUTTING BACK ON THE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING
PROGRAMMATICALLY ANYTHING.
AT THE MOMENT, THE UNIVERSITY IS
PLANNING ON
INCREASING UNDERGRADUATE
ENROLLMENT BY 1%,
AS REQUIRED BY THE COMPACT,
AND REPLACING 902 NON-RESIDENT
STUDENTS WITH RESIDENT
STUDENTS AT BERKELEY, LA AND SAN
DIEGO.
SO THE 1% JUST TO LET'S TRY TO
BREAK IT DOWN.
THE 1% GROWTH IS THE WHAT YOU
IN THE COMPACT REFER TO.
THAT'S ABOUT ROUGHLY $250
MILLION IS THE COST.
THE COST OF THE ENROLLMENT
GROWTH IS, UM,
CLOSER TO I IT I THINK IT'S
ABOUT.
$30 MILLION.
HANG ON A SECOND.
UM, BUT.
SO IT'S NOT THE FULL 250.
MOST THE REST OF THAT, UH, COST
IS FOR
THE CURRENT EMPLOYEE SALARIES
AND BENEFITS.
SO IT IS THIS CURRENT THE COST
GROWTH TO
THE CURRENT OPERATIONS OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
AND, UM, BUT THIS IS NOT A ONE
TIME AUGMENTATION.
THIS IS, BECOMES, UH, BASE
BUDGET.
>> THAT THAT.
IS CORRECT.
SO THE UNIVERSITY IS TAKING
ON NEW COSTS DURING THE 24,
25 YEAR THAT WE'RE NOT RECEIVING
NEW MONEY FOR.
UM, WE HAVE TO COVER THAT FROM
OUR
INTERNAL RESOURCES IN SOME WAY.
WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GET THOSE
INTERNAL RESOURCES PAID BACK.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE TAKE ON A
LOAN,
WE WOULD LIKE THE ONE TIME
BACKFILL
SO WE COULD PAY OFF THE LOAN,
UM, OR REPLENISH OUR RESERVES,
OR IF WE END UP HAVING TO, UM,
LET GO, IF WE END UP HAVING TO
HAVE A HIRING
FREEZE AND THUS LOSE ACTUAL
WORKER
FTE IN ORDER TO HAVE THE FUNDS
TO HIRE NEW
FACULTY TO TEACH THOSE NEW
STUDENTS.
UH, WE WOULD LIKE THE BACKFILL
SO WE CAN REHIRE PEOPLE.
SO, UM, IF THERE'S BEEN TWO
YEARS OF,
UH, 250 MILLION,
ROUGHLY, UM, IN THE COMPACT
AUGMENTATION,
YOU ARE NOW RECEIVING A TOTAL OF
$500 MILLION MORE THAN YOU WERE.
UM, I GUESS THREE YEARS AGO.
UM, BUT ONLY THE GROWTH OF
STUDENTS
ONLY COST AT THIS POINT.
UH, 60 MILLION.
WHAT WAS THE OTHER ADDITIONAL
GROWTH OF THE ROUGHLY 200 OR.
SORRY.
UM.
$440 MILLION THAT HAS BEEN GROWN
IN TERMS OF HOW
MUCH THE STATE HAS CONTRIBUTED
TO THE UC.
THE NON-RESIDENT REPLACEMENT
GROWTH FOR
THOSE TWO YEARS WAS ABOUT 60
MILLION,
BUT WE ACTUALLY GREW MORE
UNDERGRADUATE NONRESIDENT
UNDERGRADUATE CALIFORNIA
STUDENTS.
UH, PARDON ME, ABOUT 7300 OF
THEM.
WHICH COST AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
OF MONEY. THE REMAINDER WAS FOR
SUSTAINING CORE OPERATIONS. WE
PROVIDED OUR FACULTY WITH A
SALARY INCREASE. WE ALSO HAD
CONTRACTUALLY COMMITTED OR UNION
CONTRACTS THAT HAD NEGOTIATED
INCREASES. AND WE PROVIDED OUR
NON-REPRESENTED STAFF SALARY
INCREASES DURING THOSE TWO YEARS
THAT ENDED UP TAKING UP THE
REMAINDER OF THOSE FUNDS. AND I
WAS GOING TO GET TO THE
NONRESIDENT. THAT TO ME IS LIKE
A SEPARATE ITEM THAT THAT IS THE
30 WHAT I THOUGHT $31 MILLION
FOR THE 900 STUDENTS PER YEAR.
I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE, THE
COMPACT, FIGURE, WHICH WAS THE
$250 MILLION FIGURE, IF I MAY
PLEASE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY
FOR THE RECORD, THE AMOUNT ON
THE COMPACT, THE 240.8, THAT'S
WHAT IS ESTIMATED FOR 2025. BUT
IN 2022 WAS 200.5, 2023 WAS
215.6, AND 2024 IS 227.8. SO
IT'S A LITTLE LESS. THANK YOU,
SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT
415 MILLION OVER THE TWO YEARS,
NOT 500, BUT BUT STILL I'M
TRYING TO DO THE ROUGH MATH AND
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THERE'S
BEEN COST INCREASES AND
EVERYTHING, AND THERE WAS
NEGOTIATIONS RECENTLY AND
FURTHER BACK ON, EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION. THÀNH, BUT I'M
TRYING TO BREAK THAT DOWN, AND
MAYBE, MAYBE THERE'S SOMEONE AT
THE TABLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD
SOMETHING TO THE CONVERSATION.
SO, JENNIFER, ELIO. SO IAN'S
COLLEAGUE, I WAS ACTUALLY JUST
HERE, IN CASE YOU DID NEED
FURTHER CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE I
THINK THE BASICS IS EVER SINCE
THE COMPACT STARTED, THE COMPACT
HAS PROFFERED 5% ANNUAL
INCREASES. FINANCE JUST SHARED
THOSE ALLOCATIONS WITH YOU
WITHIN THOSE AMOUNTS UNDER THE
COMPACT ENROLLMENT, 1%
ENROLLMENT GROWTH WAS TO BE
COVERED. NOW, THE LEGISLATURE
HAS TAKEN A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
APPROACH. SO IN YEAR ONE OF THE
COMPACT, IT PAID FOR ENROLLMENT
ON TOP OF THAT 5% BASE INCREASE.
AND IN YEAR TWO, IT PAID FOR
MOST OF THE ADDITIONAL
ENROLLMENT GROWTH. ON TOP OF THE
COMPACT, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT
THAT WAS, THERE WAS A THE RIGHT
WAY TO SAY IT IS IN YEAR TWO,
THE LEGISLATURE FUNDED MORE THAN
1% GROWTH. THE 1% GROWTH WAS
STILL FUNDED WITHIN THE COMPACT.
IF YOU, ACCESS
TO ONLINE COURSES, OF COURSE,
AND NONRESIDENT PARTS. SO IT'S A
LOT OF DIFFERENT GOALS. ALL
CONNECTED WITHIN THAT FUNDING.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. FURTHER
CLARIFICATION. WHO IS MEASURING
THE OUTCOMES OF ALL OF THOSE. SO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IS
REPORTING ANNUALLY TO THE
LEGISLATURE. WE ALSO HAVE A
DASHBOARD ON ON THE UCP WEBSITE
THAT HAS ALL OF THESE METRICS.
AS WELL AS DISCUSSION OF THE
PROGRESS THAT WE'RE MAKING
TOWARDS THEM, THE CHANCELLORS
ARE MEETING EVERY OTHER MONTH TO
DISCUSS, THESE GOALS AND HOW
THEIR CAMPUSES ARE ADDRESSING
THEM AND WHAT KIND OF PROGRESS
THEY'RE MAKING TOWARDS THEM.
AND, APPRECIATE THE HISTORY,
BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE WHEN THE
COMPACT WAS AGREED UPON, OR AT
LEAST INTRODUCED BY THE GOVERNOR
AND THE LEGISLATURE, AGREED, FOR
THE FIRST TWO YEARS, WERE THERE
SPECIFIC, METRICS ASSIGNED, OR
WAS IT JUST GENERALLY INCREASE
IN THOSE FIVE? I THINK IT WAS
FIVE, PROGRAM GOALS. WAS WAS
THERE A SOME NUMBER THAT WAS
EXPECTED? WE DO HAVE SOME
METRICS I CAN GET BACK TO YOU IN
THE SPECIFICS. UNLESS DELEGATE
WILL WANT TO PROVIDE THEM. THE
LAO HAD A CHANCE TO THIS ANNUAL
REPORT IS IMPORTANT. I'M GLAD
SOMEBODY, THOUGHT OF DOING THAT,
AT LEAST WITH THIS PROGRAM. AND
HAVE YOU DONE ANY, REPORTS ON ON
THAT? I'M I WELL, THIS MIGHT
HAVE BEEN WHAT UC WAS ABOUT TO
SHARE. THEY DO PREPARE THAT
REPORT. WE DO READ IT EACH YEAR.
THERE ARE MANY. THERE'S THOSE
FIVE BASIC PERFORMANCE DOMAINS
LIKE COLLABORATION, ACCESS,
WORKFORCE GOALS. WITHIN EACH,
THERE ARE SEVERAL PERFORMANCE
DATA THAT THE PIECES OF DATA
THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING SOME
THEIR MEETINGS, SOME THEY'RE NOT
. AND I THINK IN THE TOTALITY OF
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCLUDED
THEY'RE MAKING PROGRESS, WHICH
IS WHY THEY CONTINUE TO FUND THE
COMPACT, BUT IT'S NOT AS
SPECIFIC AS AND I'M SORRY, I
DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS LIKE,
THEY'VE MET HALF OF THEM OR A
QUARTER OF THEM, THERE ARE THERE
ARE SOME WORKFORCE GOALS, THAT I
THINK MAYBE THEY'RE FALLING A
BIT SHORT ON, AND OTHERS THEY'RE
PROBABLY DOING A LITTLE BIT
BETTER ON, AS I RECALL. WELL, IT
CERTAINLY GIVES ME HOMEWORK TO
GO AND REVIEW THE. WHEN WAS THE
LAST REPORT PUT OUT, LAST
NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER OKAY, I'LL
DEFINITELY BE TAKING A LOOK AT
THAT. AND CERTAINLY IN CONTEXT
OF WHAT OUR DECISION IS.
FURTHER, FOR THE BUDGET, I THINK
I MAY BE REVISITING WHAT THAT IS
AND MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE,
HAVING THAT PROGRESS AND THAT
WE'RE MEASURING IT
APPROPRIATELY. SO, WHY DON'T WE
STOP WITH THAT FOR RIGHT NOW
ANYWAY, IN TERMS OF RESERVES,
I'M THIS ONE. I DID SPEND SOME
TIME TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, AND
IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE, I'LL
JUST SAY, CONFUSING TO ME.
ANYWAY, THERE ARE SOME RESERVES
FROM THE UCS PERSPECTIVE THAT
ARE HELD, I GUESS, BY CAMPUSES.
AND THEN I'D LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT
WHAT IS HELD BY THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT, OR IF IT'S ALL
HELD IN THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT FOR THE CAMPUSES. AND
THEN THERE'S COMMITTED, AS YOU
SAW IN THE REPORT, THERE'S
COMMITTED RESERVES, AND THEN
THERE IS UNCOMMITTED RESERVES.
AND IT VARIES ALL SORTS OF
LEVELS, CAMPUS TO CAMPUS AND I'M
JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, WHAT
THE DIRECTION OR POLICY OR BEST
PRACTICES THAT ARE BEING,
RECOMMENDED EITHER BY CAMPUS OR
JUST SHARE WITH ME MORE ABOUT
THE APPROACH FROM èC ON
RESERVES, ABSOLUTELY, SIR. AND
IF I MAY, ON THE LAST ITEM, JUST
FOR THE RECORD, THE STATE, THAT
WE ARE EXPECTING THE COMPACT
ENROLLMENT GROWTH TO COST THE
CAMPUSES 55.5 MILLION IN 2024,
25, PLUS THE ADDITIONAL 31
MILLION FROM THE NONRESIDENT
REPLACEMENT. THAT'S THE
ENROLLMENT COST. WITHOUT THE
FINANCIAL AID, WE'RE EXPECTING
NEXT YEAR, THEN MOVING ON TO THE
RESERVES, THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA IMPLEMENTED BACK IN
2013 A FUNDING SYSTEM CALLED
FUNDING STREAMS, BY WHERE THE
CAMPUSES GET TO KEEP THE REVENUE
THAT THEY GENERATE. SO THE
TUITION DOLLARS AND THE
NONRESIDENT SUPPLEMENTAL
TUITION, THE PATENT REVENUE,
THOSE ALL STAY WITH THE CAMPUS
THAT GENERATES THAT REVENUE, IF
THE CAMPUS IS NOT SPENDING ALL
OF THAT MONEY, THEY ARE ALLOWED
TO PUT IT IN RESERVES FOR FUTURE
USES, CAMPUSES HAVE VARIOUS
GUIDELINES AND POLICIES ON THEIR
RESERVES. THEY ARE NOT TOTALLY
STANDARD AND CONSISTENT ACROSS
THE SYSTEM. WE DID EXAMINE IF
THERE WAS A HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTION, ACCEPTED RESERVE
POLICY IN THE NATION. THERE IS
NOT. RESERVES ARE HANDLED VERY
DIFFERENTLY FROM ONE INSTITUTION
TO THE NEXT. IN GENERAL, STUDENT
FEES OUGHT TO HAVE A MUCH LOWER
RESERVE THAN OTHER KINDS OF
REVENUES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE,
STUDENT FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE A
RESERVE GREATER THAN 10, OTHER
REVENUES, LIKE DORMITORIES, CAN
HAVE A 25% RESERVE, BECAUSE
THEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT WE'RE
PLANNING FOR FUTURE BUILDINGS AS
PART OF THOSE RESERVES, AS THE
RESERVES ARE THEN SET ASIDE AND
DETERMINED BY THE CAMPUS. BUT
THOSE REVENUES ARE PLACED INTO A
FUND AND INVESTED ON BEHALF OF
THE CAMPUSES BY èC ALRP. WE
HAVE A CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER
THERE, WHO INVESTS MONEY IN A
FUND. WE CALL IT STIP, IT'S A
TEMPORARY ACCOUNT THAT HOLDS A
LOT OF, TÂM SHORT TERME FUNDS
THAT CAMPUSES MAY NEED IN THE
NEXT 12 MONTHS. THEY GET PLACED
IN THEIR IN VESTED BY A
PROFESSIONAL STAFF, AND THOSE
INVESTMENT RETURNS THEN ARE
RETURNED TO THE CAMPUS TO HELP
THEM SUPPLEMENT THEIR BUDGETS,
WHICH IS WHAT I REFERRED TO
EARLIER WHEN I SAID WE HAVE SOME
SAVINGS FROM PROCUREMENT AND
INVESTMENT RETURNS THAT WILL
COVER ABOUT $100 MILLION OF
CAMPUS EXPENDITURES NEXT YEAR.
THAT'S COMING FROM ALL THOSE
RESERVES BEING INVESTED AS
PARTLY WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM.
I DO WANT TO DRAW A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE RESERVE INVESTING
AND ENDOWMENTS IN DOWN PAYMENTS
HAVE TO BE RETURNED BACK TO THAT
ENDOWMENT FUND, AND THE PURPOSE
SET BY THE ENDOWMENT DONOR. 99%
OF èC ENDOWMENTS HAVE A LEGAL
PURPOSE THAT IS SET BY THE
DONOR, AND WE CANNOT SHIFT IT
AWAY, BUT THEY CAN SOMETIMES
HELP SUPPLEMENT BUDGETS. IF THE
DONOR GAVE IT FOR GENERAL
OPERATIONS OR SOME OTHER PURPOSE
. èC GO AHEAD. Ó èC ALRP HAS
A RESERVE POLICY. THE REGENTS
ADOPTED ONE BACK IN 28, 2017.
AND THE POLICY WAS FULLY
IMPLEMENTED BY 2018. èC OP WAS
AUDITED AND FOUND THAT THERE
WERE FUND BALANCES THAT PROBABLY
SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO
CAMPUSES. THOSE WERE RETURNED TO
CAMPUSES AT THAT TIME AS PART OF
THE STATE AUDITOR'S REQUIREMENT.
SO THE RESERVES AT èC OP RIGHT
NOW ARE EITHER, FOR SPECIFIC
PROGRAMS AND THERE'S A $15
MILLION RESERVE FOR èC OP
PURPOSES, THAT $15 MILLION
RESERVE IS I'LL TALK IN MY èC
OP PRESENTATION LATER TODAY, IS
NOT SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE
CAMPUS EXPENDITURES, BUT IT
MIGHT BE ENOUGH TO COVER èC OP
COST INCREASES FOR 2425 SO THAT
WE DON'T END UP PLACING AN
ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE
CAMPUSES. OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FLUID
BUDGET SITUATION AND YOUR
EXPECTATION TO RECEIVE THE,
AUGMENTATION FOR, IN FISCAL YEAR
25, 26, JULY 1ST, BECAUSE THAT'S
A THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING FOR
US TO NOTE. IF OUR SITUATION IS
THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO
THAT. AND THERE ARE MANY WHO
WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT IS, IN
FACT, WHERE WE STAND TODAY. AND
MANY WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S WHERE
WE WILL BE. WHAT WHAT IS UC'S
PLAN AT THAT POINT? HOW WOULD
YOU HANDLE THE SITUATION IF YOU
WERE NOT TO RECEIVE THE 227
MILLION THAT IS BEING DEFERRED?
IF WE WERE NOT TO GET THE
DEFERRED BASE BUDGET FUNDING, WE
WOULD HAVE TO IMPLEMENT DOUBLE
THE CUTS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE
ARE PLANNING ON USING OTHER
FUNDING SOURCES TO GROW OUR
CAMPUSES IN 2425. IF WE THEN
DIDN'T GET THE MONEY IN 2526, WE
WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE
EXPENDITURES BY THAT AMOUNT. BUT
THEN WE ALSO ARE ANTICIPATING
NEW COST INCREASES FOR 2526,
DRIVEN BOTH BY BY OUR
REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS,
THE DESIRE TO TAKE ON EVEN MORE
ENROLLMENT, THAT WE'D HAVE TO
HAVE A QUESTION MARK. BIG
QUESTION MARK WITH THE
LEGISLATURE ON COULD WE TAKE ON
MORE ENROLLMENT IN 25, 26 IF
THERE'S NO MONEY, HOW WOULD WE
TAKE CARE OF THOSE STUDENTS, BUT
WE WOULD HAVE TO THEN REDUCE
CAMPUS BUDGETS BELOW WHERE THEY
ARE IN 2023, 24. I THINK I'D BE
INTERESTED AS A FOLLOW UP ON,
BECAUSE THAT'S CERTAINLY BEEN A
THEME FROM THIS COMMITTEE ON THE
IMPACTS TO STUDENT ENROLLMENT
GROWTH, GIVEN THAT AND NOTHING
IS OCCURS IN A VACUUM, THERE'S
EXPENSES COMPLETELY GET THAT
RIGHT. SO THE FUNDING ON JUST
THE GROWTH IS SIGNIFICANT AND
IT'S MEANINGFUL. BUT UNDERSTAND
THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL COSTS
THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH.
SO LET'S JUST I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR. BUT I
THINK GIVEN THE SITUATION THAT
WE'RE IN, I THINK THERE'S A
DESIRE FOR GROWTH AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE STUDENTS.
AND SO UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT
IS ON A LONG TERME BASIS, AS A
STANDALONE ITEM WOULD BE
IMPORTANT. NOW, WE JUST HEARD
FROM, YOU KNOW, THE LAO THAT WE
DO FUND THAT AND WE ARE
CONTINUING TO FUND THAT IN THIS
YEAR'S BUDGET. IS THAT THE CASE?
THE 1, THE 1% IS PART OF THE
COMPACT FUNDING THAT'S PROPOSED
TO BE DEFERRED AS PART OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PACKAGE. SO, YEAH, SO
MAYBE I'M STILL CONFUSED BECAUSE
I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT THE
COMPACT FUNDING, THE, WHAT WAS
200IN YEAR ONE, THAT'S GROWN TO
227 NOW WAS SEPARATE THEN OR
SEPARATE TO THE GROWTH. IS IT
NOT WITHIN THE CLARITY ON THIS
WITHIN THE GABRIEL CHÁVEZ
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, WITHIN
THE COMPACT? WE DO INCLUDE THAT
1% GROWTH IN THAT AMOUNT. I
THINK THAT LEO WAS REFERRING TO
PREVIOUS BUDGET ACTS WHERE THERE
WAS INVESTMENT FOR JUST
ENROLLMENT. BUT TO REITERATE,
THE COMPACT PROVIDES FUNDING FOR
A 5% GROWTH, AND THERE, IN THEIR
FUNDING, WHICH INCLUDES A 1%
ENROLLMENT GROWTH EACH YEAR
DURING THE DURATION OF THE
COMPACT. SO IF I CAN MAKE IT
CLEAR AS MUD. YES. BACK, TWO
YEARS AGO, IN THE, IN THE BUDGET
ACT OF 2022, THE LEGISLATURE
FUNDED, ABOUT 4700 STUDENTS OVER
TWO YEARS, IN ADDITION TO THAT
GROWTH, THE GOVERNOR'S COMPACT
REQUIRED AND ANOTHER 1% UNDER
CALIFORNIA UNDERGRADUATE GROWTH.
SO THERE WERE THERE WERE TWO
DIFFERENT POOLS OF MONEY, ONE
COMING OUT OF THE 5, THE OTHER
ON TOP OF THAT. OKAY. WE WILL,
SORT OUT THE EXACT NUMBERS ON
THAT, BUT I THINK YOU GET THE
POINT. THE POINT IS SUPPORTING
HOW DO WE CREATE MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR, STUDENTS,
SPECIFICALLY CALIFORNIA
STUDENTS. SO IT'LL TAKE ME
PROBABLY MY LAST QUESTION. THEN
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO, MR. FONG,
WHO'S HERE? WHEN WE SPOKE ABOUT
ENROLLMENT A FEW WEEKS BACK NOW,
WE TALKED ABOUT THE NONRESIDENT
ISSUE. IS THE UC AT THIS POINT
CONSIDERING AN INCREASE IN
NONRESIDENT TUITION AS A WAY TO
GENERATE MORE REVENUE TO HELP
COVER THE COST OF THE INCREASED
CALIFORNIA STUDENTS? THAT WAS
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I, PROPOSED
OR MAYBE ONE OF THE IDEAS I
PROPOSED AT THAT HEARING A
COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS
WHAT WE CALL A TUITION STABILITY
PLAN, AND THAT SETS TUITION
STUDENT SERVICES FEE AND
NONRESIDENT SUPPLEMENTAL TUITION
, FLAT FOR ALL CURRENT STUDENTS.
AND THEN RAISES IT FOR THAT
INCOMING CLASS, THE INCOMING
CLASS RAISES ARE SET AT 5% OR
LESS, THE TUITION INCREASE WILL
BE 0.5% PLUS INFLATION. SO, BUT
WITH A CAP AT 5, AND THE
NONRESIDENT STUDENTS WHO ARE
ALREADY HERE, THEIR TUITION IS
NOW SET. SO WE HAVE PROMISED
THEM IT WILL NOT INCREASE.
CGRTS, WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO
INCREASE THAT INCOMING COHORT,
BUT BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY SO
CLOSE TO THE COMING SCHOOL YEAR,
WE DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN EVEN
INCREASE IT FOR 20, 24, 25, WE
HAVE PREVIOUSLY LOST TWO COURT
CASES ON RAISING FEES TOO EARLY
TO CLOSE TO THE START OF THE
SCHOOL YEAR, THESE WERE THE
KASHMIRI AND LICHTER LAWSUITS
ENDED UP COSTING US MANY, MANY
MILLIONS, I CAN SEND THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT INFORMATION
ON THEM, BUT THE BUT THE POINT
OF THOSE LAWSUITS WAS THAT THE
UNIVERSITY HAD TOLD STUDENTS
THEY WOULD HAVE ONE FEE. AND
THEN WHEN SCHOOL YEAR STARTED,
IT WAS INCREASED. AND THE COURT
FOUND THAT ACTION, NOT SOMETHING
THE UNIVERSITY COULD DO, THE
REGENTS CAN ALWAYS EXAMINE AND
REEXAMINE THE TUITION STABILITY
PLAN. BUT AT THIS POINT, WE
THINK THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO DO SO UNTIL 25, 26.
OKAY. DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR
BACK ON FEEDBACK FROM THE,
REGENTS AND SPECIFICALLY AS IT
RELATES TO THE THREE CAMPUSES
THAT ARE IN QUESTION. RIGHT?
THOSE ARE THE HIGHEST IN DEMAND
FROM NOT JUST CALIFORNIA
STUDENTS, BUT FROM STUDENTS OUT
OF THE STATE. AND SO, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE POLICY AT
THE REGENTS IS TO DO THE SAME.
TUITION RATES, NO MATTER WHICH
CAMPUS STUDENTS ARE AT, JUST AS
AS A AS A COURTESY. YOU KNOW,
ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE'LL
MAKE IS CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT
POLICY AND LOOK AT CHANGING THAT
POLICY FOR THE THREE CAMPUSES
EXCLUSIVELY? WHO ARE DEALING
WITH THIS, THIS SITUATION, WHO
ARE, IMPACTED BY THE, THE ASK
BEING MADE, AND THAT UC IS
PARTICIPATING IN, WHICH IS TO
INCREASE CALIFORNIANS AND
REDUCING THE OUT OF STATE
STUDENTS. AND SO I WOULD HOPE
THAT AS YOU COMMUNICATE BACK TO,
THE PRESIDENT, LET THEM KNOW
THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
WE'RE INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE
ABOUT HOW TO INSTITUTE A PLAN TO
, TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN GOING
FORWARD. SO, I'LL PAUSE THERE
WITH MY QUESTIONS AND TURN IT
OVER TO MR. FONG. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MR. CHAIR, AND, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.
AND TO FOLLOW UP ON THE
CHAIRMAN'S, QUESTIONING ON THE
NONRESIDENT SUPPLEMENTAL
TUITION. I ALSO WANTED TO ASK
THAT QUESTION. SO JUST TO
AMPLIFY THAT, I THINK WHEN WE
LOOK AT OUR MOST IMPACTED
CAMPUSES, UCLA, BERKELEY AND SAN
DIEGO WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE THE
REGENTS TO LOOK AT THE POLICY ON
THE NONRESIDENT SUPPLEMENTAL
TUITION TO HELP GENERATE MORE
REVENUE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT I WANT TO AMPLIFY THOSE
EFFORTS AS YOU CAN RELAY THAT.
THANK YOU, SECONDLY, ON THE
RESERVES AS WELL, WHEN I WAS
LOOKING AT THE CHART ON PAGE
EIGHT, THERE'S A WIDE VARIATION
IN TERMS OF THE RESERVES WE
HAVE. UC RIVERSIDE WAS CLOSE TO
SIX MONTHS, AND SAN DIEGO WITH
PROBABLY LOOKS LIKE A FEW DAYS
OF RESERVES OR MUCH LESS THAN
ONE MONTH. SO THERE'S A WIDE
DISCREPANCY IN TERMS OF THE
RESERVES ON EACH OF THE
CAMPUSES. AND SO THIS QUESTION
IS TO THE LAO OR UC OR BOTH. ARE
YOU CONCERNED ABOUT HOW SO? ARE
YOU CONCERNED ABOUT HOW LOW SOME
OF THE CAMPUS RESERVES ARE? AND
SECONDLY, SHOULD THERE BE A
SYSTEM WIDE POLICY ON RESERVES
AS. YEAH, SURE. I'LL GO FIRST,
SO AS YOU HIGHLIGHTED, AS OF
JUNE 2023, UC REPORTED THAT THEY
HAD. AND
I THINK THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
GUIDANCE USED TO ONLY BE SCENT.
AND THEY'VE RECENTLY, I THINK
CHANGED IT TO ALIGN WITH THE
GOVERNOR OF FINANCE OFFICER'S
MINIMUM OF TWO MONTHS. SO IT IS
GENERALLY GOOD PRACTICE TO SET
THESE AT LEAST MINIMUM RESERVE
REQUIREMENTS AT SOMETHING LIKE
TWO MONTHS, TWO MONTHS. THANK
YOU. WE I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD
BE GOOD FOR THE SYSTEM TO HAVE,
GUIDANCE FOR THE CAMPUSES ON
THEIR RESERVE POLICIES, AND I
WILL TAKE THAT GUIDANCE BACK AND
WE'LL CONSIDER DEVELOPING A
POLICY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, WE
WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THE REPORT
BACK ON THAT. I THINK AS WE JUST
HEARD FROM ELIO, CONSISTENT
POLICY AND THE CSU TO REALLY
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
TWO MONTHS AND ON THIS GRAPH
HERE ONLY, I THINK ONLY SANTA
CRUZ, SANTA BARBARA AND
RIVERSIDE, AT LEAST HAD THE TWO
MONTHS RESERVE WITH A NUMBER OF
THE CAMPUSES OVER A MONTH, AND
THEN A FEW CAMPUSES LOWER THAN A
MONTH. SO I THINK ANYTHING WE
CAN DO TO BOLSTER, TO REALLY
LOOK AT THAT SYSTEMWIDE POLICY
WOULD BE, CRITICAL GOING FORWARD
. AND THEN SECONDLY, IN TERMS OF
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES, WE
HEARD FROM OUR CHAIR ABOUT
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX,
LOOKING AT DIFFERENT AREAS. ARE
THERE ANY SUGGESTIONS OR HAS THE
UC IDENTIFIED ANY ADDITIONAL
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES GOING
FORWARD? THE CAMPUSES ARE
LOOKING AT OPERATING
EFFICIENCIES, RIGHT NOW TO SEE
IF THEY CAN REDUCE COST FOR THIS
COMING YEAR, SOME OF THE ACTIONS
THAT THE UC THAT UCOP HAS TAKEN
SYSTEM WIDE OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS HAVE BEEN, OUR
PROCUREMENT EFFICIENCIES, WHICH
WE THINK ARE SAVING THE CAMPUSES
ABOUT $200 MILLION ANNUALLY,
THAT EFFORT HAS BEEN GOING ON
FOR MULTIPLE YEARS NOW. WE HAVE
ALSO BECOME SELF-INSURED. SO WE
NOW INSURE OUR OWN BUILDINGS AND
DO A LOT OF THE MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE INSURANCE IN-HOUSE,
WHICH IS CURRENTLY SAVING US
MONEY, WE ALSO TRY TO SAVE ON
OUR EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PLANS BY
OFFERING OUR MEDICAL CENTERS AND
OUR CLINICS AS A LESS EXPENSIVE
WAY FOR OUR EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE
CARE, AND THAT HELPS US KEEP
SOME OF THOSE PLAN COSTS DOWN.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO FUTURE CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT THE SYSTEM WIDE POLICY ON
RESERVES AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE
SUPPLEMENTAL TUITION FOR NON
RESIDENTS. SO THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOU
SHARING ABOUT THE EFFICIENCIES
AND CONSOLIDATION. I THINK IT
MAKES TOTAL SENSE FROM A SYSTEM
WIDE I COMING FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, BUT A LARGE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WAS FRUSTRATING EVEN
WITHIN DEPARTMENTS. IN YOUR
CASE, YOU'VE GOT SCHOOLS WITHIN
THE SYSTEM, BUT THAT THEY
WEREN'T WORKING TOGETHER TO DO
SIMPLE THINGS LIKE PROCUREMENT.
AND SO I WAS GOOD TO HEAR. I'D
BE INTERESTED IN, HEARING ABOUT
HOW THAT COULD BE MAYBE
FURTHERED WITH OTHER OUR OTHER
LARGE SYSTEM, THE CSU SYSTEM,
MAYBE THERE'S SOME MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT THAT COULD HAPPEN AT
THAT SCALE. I KNOW OUR SYSTEMS.
YOU KNOW, WORK WELL, CERTAINLY,
WITH STUDENTS, BUT MAYBE AS
SYSTEMS, MAYBE NOT SO MUCH. SO I
WOULD BE INTERESTED IN ANY OTHER
MORE IDEAS. THIS IS THE YEAR OF
THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO DO THINGS
A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO ANY
THOUGHTS YOU'VE GOT ON THAT
GOING FORWARD? WE'D LOVE TO HEAR
AS WELL, SO ANY ANY OTHER LAST
COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON?
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ON
THAT ONE. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT CONVERSATION, WHICH IS THE
UC MERCED MEDICAL SCHOOL.
DISCUSS THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
OF 14.5 MILLION OF ONGOING
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT DEBT
SERVICE FOR THE MEDICAL
EDUCATION BUILDING AT UC MERCED.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
GABRIELA CHÁVEZ WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
CONSISTENT WITH THE 2019 BUDGET
ACT, THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
INCLUDES AN INCREASE OF 14.5
MILLION. ONGOING GENERAL FUND TIMELINE
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UC
MERCED MEDICAL SCHOOL IS
RELATIVELY LONG, WITH UC
INDICATING THAT IT WILL NEED AT
LEAST ANOTHER TEN YEARS BEFORE
HAVING THE NEW MEDICAL SCHOOL
RECEIVE ACCREDITATION. GIVEN
THESE POINTS, THIS PROJECT COULD
BE PAUSED WITHOUT IMMEDIATE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR ALVAREZ AND MR.
FONG, I'M SEIYA VIRTANEN FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA'S CENTRAL VALLEY IS
STRUGGLING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
HEALTH CARE TO ITS RESIDENTS,
RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR
ADDITIONAL DOCTORS IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, THE BUDGET ACT
OF 20 1516, THE LEGISLATURE
DIRECTED UC TO REDIRECT 1
MILLION FROM EXISTING FUNDS TO
COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PROCESS TO CREATE A MEDICAL
SCHOOL AT MERCED IN THE BUDGET
ACT OF 2019, THE LEGISLATURE
AUTHORIZED UC TO CONSTRUCT A
MEDICAL EDUCATION BUILDING AT UC
MERCED. THE CAMPUS IS ABOUT TO
BREAK GROUND ON THIS IMPORTANT
BUILDING THAT WILL SERVE AS THE
FUTURE HOME OF THE MEDICAL
SCHOOL AT UC MERCED. THE
BUILDING WILL HOUSE MEDICAL
EDUCATION AND ALLIED HEALTH CARE
PROGRAMS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED
INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES TO
ALLIED HEALTH DEPARTMENTS. THESE
ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND
PUBLIC HEALTH. IT WILL HOUSE A
HEALTH RESEARCH SCIENCE
INSTITUTE AND GENERAL ASSIGNMENT
CLASSROOMS TO SUPPORT INCREASED
STUDENT ENROLLMENT. IT WILL
ALLOW THE CAMPUS TO CONTINUE TO
EXPAND OVERALL ENROLLMENT BY
HOUSING, GROWING DEPARTMENTS,
ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
SPACE TO IN-DEMAND MAJORS IS
CRUCIAL TO UC MERCED. TO
CONTINUE TO GROW ENROLLMENT. THE
PROPOSED BUILDING IS MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN MANY OF THESE
PROJECTS. THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED FOR SEVERAL
REASONS. FIRST, THE BUILDING
CONTAINS UNIQUE FEATURES NOT
FOUND IN MOST CLASSROOM
BUILDINGS, SUCH AS SIMULATION
LABS AND FREEZERS FOR STORING
CADAVERS. SECOND, THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY IS EXPENSIVE TO
CONSTRUCT AND HAS FEW COMPANIES
ARE CAPABLE OF CONSTRUCTING A
MULTI-STORY CONCRETE BUILDING
WITH COMPLICATED FEATURES AND
ARE WILLING TO TAKE ON THE
PROJECT. THE RELATIVELY REMOTE
LOCATION DRIVES UP THE COST OF
THIS PROJECT. THIRD, THE
BUILDING WILL BE BUILT TO BE
ENERGY EFFICIENT AND LASTLY,
FOURTH, WHEN COMPARED TO THE
MOST RECENT UC RIVERSIDE
BUILDING, THE UC MERCED BUILDING
HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED THE AMOUNT
OF ASSIGNABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THE UC RIVERSIDE SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE HAS TWO SEPARATE
BUILDINGS BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE,
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE SCHOOL
OPENING, TURNED OUT TO BE TOO
SMALL FOR THEIR NEEDS. THE
MERCED PROJECT INTENDS TO BYPASS
THIS PROBLEM AND BUILD A SINGLE
BUILDING LARGE ENOUGH TO HOUSE
THE FUTURE UC MERCED SCHOOL OF
MEDICINE. THE UNIVERSITY
REQUESTS THAT YOU ALLOW THIS
BUILDING TO CONTINUE TO
CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT IS
NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A MEDICAL EDUCATION AT UC
MERCED. UC MERCED CANNOT RECEIVE
ACCREDITATION FOR A MEDICAL
SCHOOL WITHOUT THE PROPER
INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES. THE
COHORTS OF STUDENTS WHO WILL
RECEIVE THEIR MEDICAL EDUCATION
AT MERCED HAVE BEEN SELECTED
BASED ON THE STUDENT'S INTEREST
IN WORKING WITH UNDERSERVED
POPULATIONS. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
REPEATEDLY ENDORSED AND FUNDED
MEDICAL EDUCATION AT UC MERCED,
AND STOPPING NOW WOULD NOT BE
COST EFFECTIVE IN THE LONG RUN.
CONSTRUCTION INFLATION. IT'S
MUCH HIGHER THAN NATIONAL
INFLATION. CONSTRUCTION
INFLATION IN CALIFORNIA WAS 9.6%
IN FEBRUARY OF 2004, ACCORDING
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
SERVICES, WHICH TRACKS THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION INDEX.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE
UNIVERSITY REQUESTS THAT THE
MERCED MEDICAL EDUCATION
BUILDING WILL BE ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR
QUESTIONS ON THIS PROJECT, AS
WELL AS THE UC RIVERSIDE SCHOOL
OF MEDICINE. THANK YOU, YOU
KNOW, I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO,
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE, THE VALLEY
AND CERTAINLY THE VALLEY OF
MEDICAL PROGRAMS. AND I'M GLAD
THE STATE IS THINKING ABOUT THIS
REGION OF THE STATE, AND
ASSISTING IN PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THIS. SO I'M
JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE
WE ACTUALLY ARE AT WITH THE
PROJECT ITSELF. SO IN NOVEMBER,
THE REGENTS, APPROVED THE
PROJECT FROM MOVING FORWARD IN
WHICH WAY DID THEY SELECT A
CONTRACTOR? WHAT WAS WHAT WAS
THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN IN
NOVEMBER BY THE REGENTS? THE UC
REGENTS AUTHORIZED THE THEY
APPROVED THE DESIGN, AND THEY
AUTHORIZED THE CAMPUS TO GO OUT
FOR BID. AND THEY SAY THAT THE
REGENTS APPROVED THE SPENDING OF
THESE FUNDS. SO THEY APPROVED
THE TOTAL BUDGET, AND ONCE THE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BID HAS
BEEN AWARDED, WE ARE EXPECTING
THIS WILL START CONSTRUCTION
BETWEEN SOMETIME BETWEEN NOW AND
EARLY MAY, SO WE'RE LIKE
LITERALLY WITHIN TWO WEEKS AWAY
FROM STARTING CONSTRUCTION ON
THIS PROJECT. SO IT'S ALREADY
BEEN AWARDED, I BELIEVE IT'S
ABOUT TO BE AWARDED OR HAS BEEN
AWARDED. OKAY. THIS PROJECTS
USUALLY THE REASON I'M ASKING IS
THERE'S JUST QUESTIONS THAT ARE
LEGITIMATE BEING ASKED ABOUT
TIMING AND USUALLY AT LEAST
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. YOU MIGHT
SELECT A BIDDER. YOU NEGOTIATE
IT. THAT TAKES SOME TIME. THEN
YOU AWARD, THEN PROJECT DOESN'T
START LIKE THAT QUICKLY WITHIN A
COUPLE OF WEEKS. SO I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE IN
THE PHASE TO SEE IF THE LÀ THOSE
CONCERNS ABOUT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN,
INITIATED, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN
PARTS OF A PROCESS INCLUDING,
DRAWING ANY COMMERCIAL PAPER
LOANING INSTRUMENT FOR THIS. HAS
THAT HAPPENED ALREADY? THAT WILL
HAPPEN ONCE THE GROUND HAS BEEN
BROKEN. WE START ISSUING
COMMERCIAL PAPER AND THE BONDS
WILL BE ISSUED LATER IN THE
PROCESS. SO FAR, THE UNIVERSITY
HAS SPENT ABOUT $20 MILLION ON
THE PRELIMINARY PLANS AND
WORKING DRAWINGS. THE RFP FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION WAS WENT OUT IN
JANUARY, SO WE ARE WE'RE VERY
FAR ALONG ON THE. SO YOU DO YOU
HAVE A PRE-APPROVED COMMERCIAL
PAPER PROGRAM OR IS WAS THAT
APPROVED AS PART OF THE NOVEMBER
REGENTS BOARD MEETING WHEN THE
REGENTS APPROVED THE PROJECT,
THEY ARE AUTHORIZING UCOP TO
SELL THE COMMERCIAL PAPER AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. UCOP HAS, A
SMALL TEAM OF PEOPLE WHO HANDLE
OUR BOND SALES AND COMMERCIAL
PAPER SALES. OKAY SO YOU EXPECT
THAT TO THEN THE FIRST SALE TO
OCCUR BY MAY OF THIS YEAR?
THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, WE'LL JUST
CONFIRM THAT PROBABLY IN MAY
WITH YOU. AND THEN SO THIS
APPROPRIATIONS IS MEANT TO COVER
THE, MAYBE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. IS IT TO COVER THE, THE
OPERATIONS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS OR
IS IT TO COVER THE FINANCING
THAT THAT FINANCING? YES AND SO
THAT'S EXPECTED TO CONTINUE FOR
HOW LONG, THE APPROXIMATE TIME
IS ABOUT, THE MY APOLOGIES. YOU
SEE WHAT TYPICALLY YOU SEE WHAT
TYPICALLY TAKE OUT A 30 YEAR
BOND, TYPICALLY 30 YEARS. THAT'S
CORRECT. OKAY. SO IT'S A 30
YEAR, SO THE STATE WOULD BE
PROVIDING THE 14.5 MILLION
ONGOING EACH YEAR ANNUALLY FOR
THE 30 YEAR PERIOD. SO MY
RECOLLECTION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
OF COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAMS IS
THAT THOSE ARE SHORT TUM NOTES.
AND SO HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE
14.5 MILLION DO WE EXPECT
FINANCE LEO OR EVEN èC THAT
THIS FIGURE WILL INCREASE? THEN
OR IS IT THIS IS THE HEIGHT OF
INTEREST RATES. SO I ASSUME
MAYBE WE REFUND WHAT WE CALL
REFUND OR REFINANCE LOAN. WHAT
WHAT IS WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION
ON THE ANNUAL, COMMITMENT GOING
FORWARD? THE PROJECT COST ABOVE
THE $14.5 MILLION OF FINANCING
WILL BE COVERED BY èC. THEY
WILL BE COVERED BY EITHER THE
CAMPUS AND THE CAMPUS IS
FUNDRAISING FOR A PORTION OF THE
BUILDING COSTS. SO THE STATE IS
COVERING ABOUT $243 MILLION OF
THE BUILDING COST, WHICH IS
TOTAL 300 MILLION. BUT ANOTHER
WAY, I THINK IF YOU HAVE
EXPERIENCE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OR ANY EVEN OTHER STATE
AGENCIES, UC AND CSU ARE
EXCEPTIONAL IN THAT MOST OF THE
TIME YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE
COST OF THE COMMERCIAL PAPER AND
THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICES. AND
IT'S BUDGETED IN THE FINANCE.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHERE
IT SORT OF MAKES AN ESTIMATE OF
THE DEBT SERVICE. IT DOES THAT
BY LOOKING AT THE PROJECT COST.
IN THIS CASE, THIS. THE PROJECT
IS 243 MILLION. IT USES A SORT
OF RATIO AND IT MAKES A
APPROXIMATE AN ASSUMPTION.
THAT'S HOW YOU GET TO THE 14.5.
IF IT COMES IN A LITTLE HIGHER
OR LOWER. ONCE THEY SELL THE 30
YEAR BOND AT THIS POINT, THERE'S
NO, EXPECTATION AND ADJUSTMENT
WILL BE MADE IF THERE ARE SHORT
TERME COSTS FOR COMMERCIAL PAPER
èC WILL COVER THAT. OKAY, OKAY.
SO JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR FOR
EVERYBODY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE BOND, DEBT, OBLIGATION, THE
COST SERVICE, SERVICE COSTS FOR
THAT NOT COMMERCIAL PAPER.
THAT'S THE SHORT TERME TO GET
YOU STARTED. AND WE ANTICIPATE
AGAIN, JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR,
IT'S THE 243 MILLION, ROUGHLY AT
WHATEVER BONDS ARE GOING TODAY
OF A 14.5 MILLION ANNUAL, DEBT
SERVICE. YES. THAT IS DO WE ALL
AGREE WITH THAT OR WE ALL AGREE
WITH THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THE UNIVERSITY
CANNOT SELL BONDS WITHOUT HAVING
THE BUDGETARY AUTHORITY FOR THE
FUNDS THAT WILL REPAY THOSE
BONDS. SO IF THESE FUNDS ARE
REMOVED FROM THE BUDGET ACT, WE
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SELL THE
BONDS AND WE MAY HAVE TO HALT
THE PROJECT ENTIRELY BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT CERTAIN IF THOSE FUNDS
WILL RETURN. SO WHEN DO YOU
ANTICIPATE TO SELL THE BOND? I
DON'T HAVE THAT DATE AT THE
MOMENT. WE EXPECT THE PROJECT TO
BE COMPLETED IN FALL OF 2026.
OKAY. SO SOMETIMES. SO THIS IS
REALLY TO THE QUESTION OF ARE WE
READY TO COMMIT TO THIS
EXPENDITURE OF 14.5 THIS YEAR OR
IS 14.5 A PARTIAL OF AN ANNUAL
SERVICE DEBT, SO IT'S 14.5 FOR
THE UC MERCED CAMPUS. SO WHAT'S
WHAT WHAT WHAT VERY LIKELY WILL
HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY WON'T
COMPLETE THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW
IT'S A TWO YEAR CONSTRUCTION
WINDOW. IT WOULD OPEN IN 26.
STUDENTS ARRIVE IN 27. AS THEY
GET FURTHER ALONG IN THE
PROJECT, YOU SEE, WE'LL SELL THE
30 YEAR BOND. IN THE INTERIM,
THEY'LL USE COMMERCIAL PAPER IN
THE INTERIM ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
THEIR COST IS PROBABLY GOING TO
BE LESS THAN 14.5 MILLION. NOW
OUT OF THAT, THEY I SAID THEY'LL
COVER IT. BUT IF THE STATE
PROVIDES $14.5 MILLION ONGOING
IN 2425 BEFORE THE 30 YEAR BONDS
ARE SOLD, THERE WILL BE MORE
THAN ENOUGH FOR YOU TO SEE, TO
COVER WHATEVER SHORT TERME COSTS
THAT IT HAS. THAT 14.5 IS
INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE FULL
ANNUAL COST. ONCE THE 30 YEAR
BOND HAS BEEN SOLD, IT'S ALMOST
AS IF THE STATE IS PROBABLY
PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH
IN THE NEAR TERME, BECAUSE THEY
USED A PROXY WAY TO BUDGET FOR
IT, AND IT SOUNDED ABOUT RIGHT
AT THE TIME. SO FINANCE THAT
THAT IT CONFLICTS WITH WHAT THE
PROPOSAL IS TO COVER THE DEBT
SERVICE FOR THE BOND, WHICH WILL
THERE WILL BE NO BOND FOR A FEW
YEARS. OR DO YOU HAVE A
DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT? THE
DEBT SERVICE FUNDING WAS
PROVIDED AHEAD OF THE ISSUING OF
BONDS TO PROVIDE THE UNIVERSITY
WITH A LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT
THE RESOURCES WILL BE AVAILABLE
TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF THE
BONDS. LIKE èC MENTIONED, THEY
CANNOT ISSUE THE BONES IF
THERE'S NO, LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR
THEM TO GET THE DEBT FINANCING
RIGHT. SO THAT WAS ONE PURPOSE.
BUT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
REGARDING IF THERE'S ANY EXTRA
FUNDS NOT USED FOR THIS DEBT
SERVICE. SO WE ARE IN
CONVERSATION ON THAT. SO DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT THESE CONVERSATIONS
THAT YOU'RE HAVING, YOU MIGHT
HAVE AN UPDATE FOR THE MAY
REVISION, IS THAT THOSE
CONVERSATIONS ARE ABOUT OR ARE
THEY ABOUT THE 30 YEAR
CONVERSATION? WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT THE BONDS,
THE, THE FUNDING HAS NOT BEEN
ISSUED AND THAT THEY COULD BE
SOME SAVINGS. AND THE LAST
SENATE HEARING THERE WAS THAT
CONVERSATION BROUGHT UP LIKE,
OKAY, IF YOU SEE HAS NOT ISSUED
THE BONDS, THERE'S POSSIBLY SOME
SAVINGS. SO WE STARTED A
CONVERSATION OF WHAT WOULD THAT
LOOK LIKE? THAT'S FAIR. YES LET
ME JUST BE REALLY CLEAR, AT
LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS
PROJECT IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR IT
NOT TO MOVE FORWARD. SO WE BUT
WE I THINK IN A TIME LIKE THIS,
YOU'VE GOT TO IDENTIFY WHAT ARE
THE THINGS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY
NEEDED IN ORDER FOR THE PROJECT
TO MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T THINK
THAT WE PROVIDE TWO, MAYBE THREE
YEARS IN ADVANCE OF POTENTIALLY,
FUNDING TO COVER DEBT SERVICE
FOR, FOR MANY OTHER PROJECTS.
AND IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT, I
MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT, BUT I HEAR
WHAT FINANCE SAYS. I THINK THAT
SOUNDS LIKE THE APPROPRIATE
APPROACH. WE WANT TO HEAR BACK
ON THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AND
WE'LL HOLD THE ISSUE UNTIL.
UNTIL THEN. MR. FONG, DO YOU
HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST A
QUICK QUESTION. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MR. CHAIR, TO èC, I KNOW
YOU MENTIONED THE UNIQUE FACTORS
, SIMULATION LABS AND OTHER
FEATURES THAT MAKE THIS PROJECT
A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN
UC RIVERSIDE. ARE THERE
ADDITIONAL FEATURES ON THERE
THAT COMPARE TO UC RIVERSIDE
THAT THIS PROJECT COSTS A
CERTAIN AMOUNT? OTHER, REASONS
ARE THE REMOTE LOCATION. IT
THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES IN THE
STATE THAT CAN HANDLE A PROJECT
LIKE THAT, AND THEY, DO CHARGE
US EXTRA FOR TRUCKING ALL THE
SUPPLIES OUT TO MERCED, ALSO,
THE SITE NEEDS WORK AND IT NEEDS
UTILITIES. SO BECAUSE MERCED IS
STILL EXPANDING AND IT IS STILL,
YOU KNOW, DEVELOPING ALL OF
THESE SITES, IT'S CURRENTLY A
FIELD. SO WE NEED TO PULL IN THE
UTILITIES. THOSE THINGS ADD
COSTS. THANK YOU FOR THAT,
INFORMATION. AND I THINK TO ECHO
THE CHAIR'S COMMENTS, WE KNOW
THE CENTRAL VALLEY HAS BEEN
UNDERSERVED FOR MANY YEARS. AND
THIS MEDICAL SCHOOL IS A
TREMENDOUS THERE'S A TREMENDOUS
NEED FOR THE UC MERCED MEDICAL
SCHOOL. AND I APPRECIATE THE,
CHANCELLOR'S ENGAGEMENT ON THIS
AS WELL. FOR MERCED, IN TERMS OF
THE ONGOING COMMITMENT THAT WILL
SUPPORT THE MEDICAL EDUCATION
BUILDING GOING FORWARD, THE
CENTRAL VALLEY IS DEFINITELY IN
NEED OF ADDITIONAL HEALTH CARE
PRACTITIONERS AND PROVIDE HOURS.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I
SUPPORT. AND I WANT TO ECHO THE
COMMENTS MADE HERE, THAT THIS IS
A VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT, AND IT
WAS A VERY CHALLENGING BUDGET
TIMES. BUT I'M GLAD WE'RE ASKING
THE TOUGH QUESTIONS AS WELL ON
THIS. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S VERY CRITICAL, FOR THE
CENTRAL VALLEY. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU AGAIN. WE'LL
HOLD THE ISSUE OPEN AND MOVE ON
TO ITEM OR ISSUE THREE, WHICH
IS, PREVIOUS APPROPRIATIONS
REVIEW, WE WILL BE DISCUSSING
PREVIOUS èC APPROPRIATIONS,
INCLUDING THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSAL TO FOREGO $300 MILLION
OF ONE TIME GENERAL FUND FOR THE
UCLA INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY
PROJECT, THE ITEM IS INTENDED TO
PROVOKE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
STATE SUPPORT FOR UC DURING THIS
BUDGET DOWNTURN. WE HAVE THE
SAME PANELISTS, SO WE'LL TURN IT
OVER TO THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
ANALYST'S OFFICE FIRST ON THIS
ONE, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. CHAIR
ALVAREZ NHIÀU KLEIN WITH THE
LAO. SO BEYOND THE GOVERNOR'S
DEFERRAL, AS AS YOU MENTIONED,
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET HAS ONE
ADDITIONAL BUDGET SOLUTION,
WHICH IS FORGOING ADDITIONAL
FUNDING OF 300 MILLION FOR THE
UCLA IMMUNOLOGY AND
IMMUNOTHERAPY INSTITUTE. WE
RECOMMEND ADOPTING THIS
PROPOSAL, AS THE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING IS NO LONGER NEEDED DUE
TO A SCOPE CHANGE OF THE
PROJECT. ADDITIONALLY TO TRY TO
HELP THE LEGISLATURE BALANCE THE
BUDGET, WE WORKED WITH UC OVER
THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO IDENTIFY
IF THERE WERE OTHER BUDGET
SOLUTION OPPORTUNITIES. WE
FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON FUNDS THAT
EITHER HADN'T BEEN SPENT OR
ENCUMBERED FROM RECENT
INITIATIVES THAT RECEIVED ONE
TIME FUNDING. OVER THE PAST
THREE YEARS, THE STATE PROVIDED
UC WITH 1.3 BILLION ONE TIME
GENERAL FUND FOR ABOUT 50
INITIATIVES, ROUGHLY ABOUT 600
MILLION IN PROGRAMMATIC FUNDS
AND 700 MILLION IN CAPITAL FUNDS
. ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE
PROGRAMMATIC INITIATIVES HAD
SOME FUNDING REMAINING, WHICH
TOTALED ABOUT 325 MILLION AS OF
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. WE
RECOMMEND REVERTING THIS UNSPENT
ONE TIME PROGRAMMATIC FUNDING.
REVERTING ONE TIME FUNDING IS
GENERALLY LESS DISRUPTIVE THAN
CUTTING ONGOING PROGRAMS, AS IT
ALLOWS THE STATE TO RETAIN MORE
OF ITS RESERVES FOR NEXT YEAR.
AND AS YOU HEARD IN THE HOUSING
HEARING EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE
RECOMMEND PAUSING SOME DEBT
FINANCED PROJECTS THAT HAD NOT
ENTERED LATER CONSTRUCTION
PHASES. WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING
PAUSING ONE ACADEMIC PROJECT.
THIS IS THE UC MERCED CAMPUS
EXPANSION PROJECT. THIS PROJECT,
LIKE THE STUDENT HOUSING
PROJECTS, REMAINS IN THE EARLY
PLANNING PHASES AS UC HAS NOT
YET SOLD THE BONDS FOR THIS
PROJECT. ALL OF THESE PROJECTS
ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS,
SO THERE ARE ONLY NOT SO THERE
ARE NOT ONLY NEAR FIRM COSTS,
BUT ALSO LONG TERME FACILITY
UPKEEP COSTS AS WELL. THE
OBJECTIVE OF PAUSING THESE
PROJECTS IS TO HELP THE STATE
ADDRESS THE BUDGET SITUATION.
THE PROJECTS COULD BE REVISITED
ONCE THE STATE'S BUDGET
CONDITION IMPROVES. FINALLY, AS
WE JUST HAD THE CONVERSATION, WE
RECOMMEND THE STATE CONSIDER
ALIGNING DEBT SERVICE COSTS WITH
THE ACADEMIC PROJECTS FOR THE
ACTUAL DEBT SERVICE COSTS. THIS
ACTION WOULD PROVIDE THE STATE
WITH NEAR FIRM BUDGET SOLUTION,
AS UC ISSUES THEIR BONDS OVER
THE NEXT FEW YEARS. IF THE
LEGISLATURE WERE INTERESTED IN
THIS OPTION, WE WOULD BE HAPPY
TO WORK WITH UC TO OBTAIN THE
MOST RECENT DEBT SERVICE COST
ESTIMATES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS GABRIELA
CHÁVEZ WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. THE GOVERNOR'S THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSES TO
FOREGO A PLANNED INVESTMENT OF
300,000,001 TIME GENERAL FUND TO
SUPPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AN INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY Kò
IMMUNOTHERAPY AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES. I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. CHAIR ALVAREZ,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FONG, FOR THE
RECORD, I'M SARAH TANNIN. I WILL
START WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL FOR THE UCLA INSTITUTE
FOR IMMUNOLOGY AND
IMMUNOTHERAPY, AND THEN MOVE ON
TO THE, ONE TIME APPROPRIATIONS,
UCLA ACQUIRED THE WEST SIDE
PAVILION IN DECEMBER OF 2023.
THE WEST SIDE PAVILION IS A
700,000 SQUARE FOOT PROPERTY
LOCATED TWO MILES FROM THE MAIN
UCLA CAMPUS. THE SITE WILL BE
RENAMED THE UCLA RESEARCH PARK.
THE UCLA RESEARCH PARK WILL
HOUSE THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE
FOR IMMUNOLOGY AND
IMMUNOTHERAPY, THE UCLA CENTER
FOR QUANTUM SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING, AS WELL AS PROGRAMS
ACROSS MANY DISCIPLINES. THE
RESEARCH PARK WILL BRING
TOGETHER SCHOLARS AND INDUSTRY
EXPERTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD.
IT WILL SERVE AS A CENTER FOR
INNOVATION AND SCIENTIFIC
DISCOVERY, AND WILL PROVIDE AN
ENGINE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND BEYOND.
IN AUGUST OF 2023, THE UC
REGENTS APPROVED A TERMS SHEET
AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY AND
IMMUNOTHERAPY. THE INSTITUTE IS
A PRIVATE, NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT WILL RENT
SPACE FROM THE RESEARCH PARK
FROM THE CAMPUS. FOR THE TERMS
SHEET, THE INSTITUTE WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR TENANT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SPACE THAT
THEY WILL OCCUPY. THE TERMS
SHEET ALSO ADDRESSES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND
REQUIRES THE INSTITUTE TO PAY
UCLA 7.5% IN PROFITS FOR THEIR
INVENTIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY,
DID NOT CONTRIBUTE FUNDING
TOWARDS OTHER DETAILS OF THE
AFFILIATION AGREEMENT ARE STILL
BEING DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
THE UNIVERSITY ESTIMATES THE
RESEARCH PARK RENOVATION COST
WILL BE $560 MILLION. THIS IS AN
EARLY COST ESTIMATE AND IT WILL
CHANGE. THE CENTER FOR QUANTUM
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IS
EXPECTED TO MOVE INTO THE SPACE
IN 24 MONTHS. THE REMAINING
RENOVATIONS WILL BE COMPLETED
SOON AFTER, BARRING ANY DELAYS,
AND NOW I WILL MOVE ON TO THE
ONE TIME APPROPRIATIONS AND
LISTED IN YOUR AGENDA. I WANT TO
THANK THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
GOVERNOR FOR LOOKING TO THE èC.
WHEN YOU WANT TO ADDRESS A
POLICY PROBLEM OR PROVIDE A
STATEWIDE PUBLIC SERVICE, THE
EXPERT FACULTY AND STAFF AT THE
UNIVERSITY ARE READY TO WORK ON
ISSUES THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM
THE UNIVERSITY PERSPECTIVE. THE
LIST OF ONE TIME APPROPRIATIONS
IN THE AGENDA INCLUDES THREE
ITEMS THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE
UC REGENTS. THESE ARE THE
CLIMATE CHANGE FUNDS, CPAP AND
FACULTY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. THE
REMAINDER WERE LEGISLATIVE
ADDITIONS. THE MAJORITY OF THESE
ONE TIME APPROPRIATIONS ARE FOR
PROGRAM FUNDING. WHEN THE
UNIVERSITY RECEIVES PROGRAM
FUNDING APPROPRIATED TO A
SPECIFIC PROJECT IN THE BUDGET
ACT, THOSE FUNDS ARE PROVIDED TO
THE UNIVERSITY AS A
REIMBURSEMENT BY THE STATE
RATHER THAN A DIRECT ALLOCATION.
THE PROCESS IS AT èC. ÁP FIRST
NOTIFIES THE CAMPUS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS MADE AN
APPROPRIATION. THE PROGRAM
RECEIVES AN APPROPRIATE FUND
NUMBER AND OTHER INFORMATION
NECESSARY TO TRACK EXPENDITURES
FROM THE CAMPUS BUDGET OFFICE.
THE PROGRAM BEGINS TO SPEND
FUNDS ON A DEFICIT BASIS, AND
THE RECEIPTS ARE SENT TO èC
NHP ACCOUNTING, WHICH SUBMITS
THEM TO THE STATE COMPTROLLER
FOR REIMBURSEMENT. THAT PROCESS
OF INFORMATION FLOW FROM THE
PROGRAM TO THE COMPTROLLER CAN
TAKE MONTHS, WHICH IS WHY IT IS
LIKELY THAT MORE FUNDS HAVE BEEN
SPENT ALREADY THAN ARE SHOWN IN
THE AGENDA. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE
THAT MANY OF THE PROGRAMS LISTED
WERE PROVIDED BETWEEN 3 AND 5
YEARS TO SPEND. THE FUNDS
RECEIVED THESE PROGRAMS ARE
BEING DELIVERED WITH THE LONGER
TIME HORIZONS IN MIND, AND STAFF
SALARIES WILL NOT BE FULLY SPENT
UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THAT
ORIGINAL TIME WINDOW. I'LL
BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE LARGEST
APPROPRIATIONS IN YOUR AGENDA
THE CAMPUS SPECIFIC CLIMATE
CHANGE INITIATIVE, WHERE FUNDS
PROVIDED TO THREE UC CAMPUSES,
UC RIVERSIDE WAS PROVIDED
AUTHORITY TO USE THE FUNDS FOR
CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTS IN A
POLICY BILL, AB 2046, UC
RIVERSIDE IS PLACING THE $47
MILLION TOWARDS A LARGER PROJECT
, THE OASIS CLEAN TECHNOLOGY
PARK PROJECT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY
IN THE DESIGN PHASE. THESE FUNDS
WILL HELP THE CAMPUS COMPLETE
THAT PROJECT. UC SANTA CRUZ
RECEIVED $20 MILLION FROM THE
CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES AND
HAS ALREADY COMMITTED $14.5
MILLION OF THOSE FUNDS TO GRANTS
AND HIRING RESEARCH POSTDOCS AND
STUDENTS. THE FUNDS ARE BEING
USED TO ADVANCE RESEARCH POLICY,
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, EDUCATION
AND TRAINING TO IDENTIFY
SOLUTIONS FOR BUILDING
RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN
CALIFORNIA AND HELPING
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES TO ADAPT
TO CLIMATE CHANGE. IN
CALIFORNIA. UC MERCED RECEIVED
$18 MILLION FROM THE CLIMATE
CHANGE INITIATIVES AND HAS
PROVIDED $9 MILLION TO FACULTY
FOR RESEARCH GRANTS, 6 MILLION
TO START A CLIMATE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, AND 3 MILLION TO SET
UP A FIELD EDUCATION RESERVE.
THE UC SAN DIEGO SCRIPPS RESERVE
VESSEL HAS JUST PUT OUT THE RFP
FOR THE SHIP. THE VESSEL WILL
CONDUCT RESEARCH ON, AND WILL
SERVE AS A PLATFORM FOR
ESSENTIAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
DEDICATED TO UNDERSTANDING THE
CALIFORNIA COAST AND CLIMATE
CHANGE IMPACTS THE COASTAL
ECOSYSTEM. THE CAMPUS TOOK TIME
TO SECURE NON-STATE FUNDS FOR
THE VESSEL AS WELL, AND HAVE A
$20 MILLION MATCHING FUND
COMMITMENT FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THAT WILL BE LOST IF
THE STATE FUNDS ARE WITHDRAWN. I
AM AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THE
APPROPRIATIONS AND CONSIDERATION
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
TODAY. THANK YOU. I THOUGHT YOU
WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH
ONE OF THEM. I'LL SPARE YOU. IT
WOULD PROBABLY BE USEFUL BECAUSE
THERE'S SOME CONTEXT THAT IS
MISSING, LIKE THE FACT THAT
THERE'S IF THERE'S MATCHING
FUNDS THAT THERE IS A, THAT IS
VERY IMPORTANT CONTEXT FOR US TO
KNOW, I THINK WHEN YOU FIRST
STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE
CLIMATE AND I APOLOGIZE, I MIGHT
HAVE MISSED THIS. I WAS ASKING A
QUESTION. THE CLIMATE CHANGE
INITIATIVES, THERE'S TWO ITEMS
IN THIS DOCUMENT. THERE'S THE
CAMPUS SPECIFIC AND THEN THERE'S
THE GRANTS LINE. SO TWO
DIFFERENT LINES, I THINK YOU
THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. FOR ONE OF
THEM, THE GRANTS, THOSE SEEM TO
HAVE GONE OUT ALMOST ENTIRELY
FOR THE CAMPUS SPECIFIC ONES.
THEY HAVE NOT. OR CAN YOU TELL
ME, GIVE ME AN UPDATE OF WHERE
WHAT WHY THAT WERE THEY
DIFFERENT PROGRAMS? WERE THEY
THE SAME? WHY HAS SOME OF WHY
HAVE SOME OF THE, SOME OF THIS
FUNDING HAS BEEN UTILIZED AND
THE OTHER HAS NOT? THE, THE MAIN
GRANTS, THE $100 MILLION FOR
CLIMATE RESILIENCY GRANTS WERE
SENT OUT AND WERE AWARDED. SO WE
ARE THOSE ARE LEGALLY ENCUMBERED
AND HAVE BEEN PROMISED TO. AND
THE GRANTEES HAVE EITHER ALREADY
FULLY CLAIMED THE FUNDS OR ARE
IN THE PROCESS OF SPENDING THEM.
WHEN THE FUNDS WERE GIVEN TO THE
THREE CAMPUSES, THEY DEVELOPED
SPENDING PLANS FOR THOSE, BUT
THEY HAVE BEEN VERY SLOW TO
CLAIM THE FUNDS. UC RIVERSIDE
HAS THE LARGEST CHUNK AT $47
MILLION, AND THEY ARE HOLDING IT
FOR THE BUILDING THAT THEY WILL
BE CONSTRUCTING AND THEIR
BUILDING IS CURRENTLY IN THE
DESIGN PHASE. THEY'RE USING A
DIFFERENT SET OF FUNDING FOR THE
DESIGN AND INTEND TO USE THE 47
MILLION FOR THE ACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT HAS NOT YET BEEN
AWARDED, SO PULLING BACK THOSE
FUNDS WOULD HALT THAT PROJECT
FOR THE OASIS CLEAN RESEARCH
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PARK AT UC
RIVERSIDE. WAS THIS SORRY? AND
YOU STARTED BY SAYING THIS AND I
COULDN'T IDENTIFY THEM. WAS THIS
ONE OF THE, èC. APPROVED OR
REQUESTED? CORRECT THIS WAS A
REGIONAL REQUEST TO THE GOVERNOR
AND TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR
CLIMATE RESILIENCY FUNDING. IT
WAS TO RESPOND TO, IT WAS TO
OFFER THE UNIVERSITY'S EXPERTISE
TO RESPOND TO THE MOST RECENT
CLIMATE CRISIS. IT WAS IN THE
MIDDLE OF THOSE MASSIVE
WILDFIRES WE WERE HAVING. SO WE
HAD RIVERSIDE, SANTA CRUZ, AND
IT WAS THE THIRD CAMPUS FOR THAT
FIRST, SANTA CRUZ. SANTA CRUZ
RECEIVED 20 MILLION, OF WHICH
THEY LET ME KNOW THAT THEY HAVE
COMMITTED 14.5 MILLION AT THE
MOMENT. THEY HAVE NOW HIRED
STAFF AND ARE MOVING FORWARD
WITH ESTABLISHING A RESEARCH
CENTER. AND UC MERCED RECEIVED
MERCED RECEIVED $18 MILLION.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED GRANTS
INTERNALLY TO THEIR CAMPUS FOR 9
MILLION OF THAT, BUT HAVE NOT
RECORDED THOSE FUNDS AS
ENCUMBERED. BUT THEY TOLD ME
THEY HAVE ACTUALLY AWARDED, THEY
SPENT $3 MILLION TO SET UP A
NATURE EDUCATION RESERVE, WHICH
WILL BE USED BY BOTH THEIR
STUDENTS AND ALSO STUDENTS FROM
THE K-12 SYSTEM IN THE NEARBY
AREA TO LEARN ABOUT, ABOUT THE
ENVIRONMENT. AND THEY ARE
SPENDING $6 MILLION TO SET UP A
CLIMATE RESILIENCY CENTER
PERMANENTLY ON THE CAMPUS. OKAY,
WE COULD GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE
LINE ITEM. THOSE ARE THE THOSE
THAT WAS THE MAJOR ONE, AND
THAT'S WHY I ASKED. BUT I THINK
I'M CERTAINLY INTERESTED IN SORT
OF THE STATUS OF THE ONES THAT
HAVE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE
AMOUNTS THAT WERE APPROPRIATED
UNSPENT. AND SO I THINK WE'LL
FOLLOW UP, ON THAT. I'M HAPPY TO
PROVIDE YOUR OFFICE A WRITTEN
EXPLANATION. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT. FIGURE 12 IN
THE AGENDA ON PAGE 18, YOU KNOW,
WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT
ISSUANCE OF BONDS WITH THE
PREVIOUS ITEM. THE LAO HAS
RAISED IT. I THINK THE SAME
QUESTIONS REMAIN HERE, AND I'M
NOT SURE IF, THE SAME
CONVERSATION OCCURRED AT, IN THE
SENATE ABOUT, WHETHER THERE'S
SOME POTENTIAL SAVINGS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LACK OF THE
ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS ON. I SEE
SANTA CRUZ AND MERCED, THE TWO
THAT ARE LISTED HERE AS THE NON,
NON ISSUANCE OF BONDS. YET THAT
IS CORRECT. THOSE PROGRAMS HAVE
NOT YET ISSUED THE BONDS.
THEY'RE STILL IN THE PLANNING
PHASES. WE WILL BE ISSUING THE
BONDS LATER. AS I STATED
PREVIOUSLY IN ORDER TO ISSUE THE
BONDS WE DO NEED THE
APPROPRIATION IN OUR BUDGET, IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROVE TO THE
BOND PURCHASERS THAT WE HAVE THE
FUNDS TO REPAY THE BONDS.
HOWEVER, WE ARE IN CONVERSATION
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
ON IF THOSE BONDS ARE NOT SOLD.
IF THEY ARE NOT SOLD AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR,
BUT RATHER LATER, AND THERE
TURNS OUT TO BE SOME ONE TIME
SAVINGS THAT WE COULD RETURN
THOSE TO THE STATE. I, YOU KNOW,
AN INTERESTING YOU MENTIONED THE
FACT THE APPROPRIATIONS HAPPENED
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. SO I'M
INTERESTED HOW THE MARKETS, YOU
KNOW, REACT. WE'RE ONLY
BUDGETING ONE YEAR AND I GET
THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE WILLING TO
OFFER DEBT SERVICE. AND MAYBE
THIS IS FOR ANOTHER
CONVERSATION. I DON'T WANT TO
TAKE OVER TODAY, BUT, OF HOW
IMMEDIATE IT NEEDS TO BE IN IN
THE LEDGER IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE
TO, APPROVE A BOND, GIVEN THAT
IT'S IF I'M IN THE MARKET, IF
I'M AN INVESTOR, AND I'M LOOKING
AT, YOU KNOW, THE SITUATION IN
TERMS OF FINANCES IN, IN OUR
STATE, AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE
STATE APPROPRIATES ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS. I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO
WHY ONE YEAR PREPARATION IS SO
SIGNIFICANT VERSUS THIS IS A 30
YEAR COMMITMENT TO, TO PAY BACK.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO LEARN MORE
ABOUT THAT. NOT NOT HERE, BUT
BUT DEFINITELY JUST, POINT THAT
OUT. THE OTHER ONE, SO I GUESS
THE SAME THING IS WITH THE OTHER
. THERE'S ANOTHER MISS MERCED
PROJECT. MERCED GOT A LOT OF
LOVE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE NEED
TO GIVE SOME LOVE TO OUR CENTRAL
VALLEY, FOLKS. BUT THERE WAS
ANOTHER PROJECT HERE, AN
EXPANSION OF THE CAMPUS ALSO,
NO, NO ISSUANCE OF DEBT. SO I
THINK THE SAME ANSWER THAT YOU
GAVE TO THE PREVIOUS ONES IS FOR
THIS ONE, THAT'S CORRECT. DURING
THE PLANNING PHASE. THANK YOU,
ON THE LET ME JUST THINK, THE
LAST ONE I'LL ASK AT THE UCLA
BECAUSE THAT ONE I ASKED ABOUT
LAST YEAR AND IT WAS VERY, IT
WASN'T A VERY DIRECT ANSWER ON
WHAT THE FUNDING WAS FOR JUST TO
BE VERY FRANK AND HONEST, AND
NOW IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS FOR ONE
THING. AND NOW IT WAS ROLLED
INTO SOMETHING, DIFFERENT, MAYBE
THE SAME MISSION AND PURPOSE,
BUT A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. IT WAS
GOING TO BE FOR AN EXPANSION ON
CAMPUS, THIS WENT NOW TO THIS,
WEST SIDE PAVILION IS THE NAME
OF THE FACILITY THAT WAS,
PURCHASED, OF WHICH 200 MILLION
FROM PREVIOUS ALLOCATIONS CAME
FROM THE STATE, AND THEN 357
MILLION, IT SAYS IS COVERED BY
SELLER CREDITS. WHAT DOES THAT
REFER? IS THAT A 1031 EXCHANGE?
WHAT IS THAT? WHAT ARE SELLER
CREDITS? I WOULD REFER TO èC TO
TALK SPECIFICS ABOUT THE
PROJECT. THE, SELLER OF THE
PROPERTY, I'M NOT EXACTLY
CERTAIN WHAT THAT ITEM THAT YOU
WERE REFERRING TO WAS, BUT THE
SELLER CREDITS WERE A DEDUCTION
ON THE PRICE THAT WE RECEIVED.
OKAY. SO WE DIDN'T END UP HAVING
TO PAY THAT AS CASH OUT OF
POCKET, BUT WE DID USE THE $200
MILLION FROM THE STATE TO
PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. SO JUST
TO CONFIRM, THIS HAS BEEN FULLY
BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. THAT IS
CORRECT. SO EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A
700 MILLION PRICE TAG, YOU HAD
SOME DEDUCTION. 200 MILLION CAME
FROM PRIOR YEAR APPROPRIATIONS,
143 THROUGH A LOAN THAT UCLA.
THAT'S CORRECT ENTERED INTO. SO
A TOTAL OF $343 MILLION FOR THAT
PROJECT FOR A VERY LARGE
PROPERTY. YES. YEAH. OKAY OKAY.
I WILL SEE IF MR. FONG HAS SOME
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU.
EVERYONE, FOR THE PRESENTATIONS
HERE TODAY ON PAGE 17. FOR THE
ONE TIME APPROPRIATIONS, A LOT
OF GREAT PROJECTS HERE. JUST A
SIMILAR QUESTION. IT'S DOES THE
UC OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT GET
REGULAR UPDATES ON THE STATUS OF
THE PROJECTS AND HOW THE FUNDS
ARE BEING ENCUMBERED, HOW DO HOW
DOES HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE
FUNDS ARE BEING SPENT? THE
MAJORITY OF THE CAMPUSES CHOOSE
TO SEND IN THEIR RECEIPTS ON A
QUARTERLY BASIS, THAT IS REALLY
THE ONLY UPDATE THAT UCOP GETS
ACROSS THE BOARD IS OUR
ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT RECEIVES
THE RECEIPTS FROM THE CENTRAL
CAMPUS BUDGET OFFICE, AND THEN
MAKES A CLAIM THAT THE STATE
COMPTROLLER ON THE FUNDS, THEY
HAVE TO CHECK THAT THE FUNDS ARE
BEING SPENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BILL
LANGUAGE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT,
WE DO NOT EXERCISE AN ACROSS THE
BOARD OVERSIGHT FOR THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THESE PROGRAMS.
THANK YOU FOR THOSE THAT UPDATE.
SO ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, THE UC
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT FINANCE
TEAM WILL GET UPDATES IN TERMS
OF THE EXPENDITURES ON THIS
RESPECTIVE PROJECTS. ARE THERE
IS THERE A FOLLOW UP SAYING ON
THE TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS
UNSPENT, HOW THOSE FUNDS CAN BE
ENCUMBERED GOING FORWARD? THE
PROGRAMS ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE
THEIR CAMPUS BUDGET OFFICE AN
EXPLANATION OF HOW THEY WILL
SPEND THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE
FUNDS, BUT WE DO NOT COLLECT
THOSE EXPLANATIONS NECESSARILY
CENTRALLY. OKAY. SO IT GOES TO
THE CAMPUS, ON THE RESPECTIVE
CAMPUS DIRECTLY AS TO HOW THE
FUNDS ARE BEING ENCUMBERED GOING
FORWARD. I REALLY WANT TO MAKE
SURE WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT
THAT THESE FUNDS ARE BEING SPENT
AND THAT IT SEEMS THAT AT LEAST
ON THIS CHART, IT SHOWS 325
MILLION UNSPENT OR UNENCUMBERED
VERSUS 273 MILLION. SO MORE THAN
HALF IS CURRENTLY UNSPENT OR
UNENCUMBERED. IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT THAT IS CORRECT. THIS LIST
WAS PUT TOGETHER IN JANUARY Kò.
SO BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, SOME OF
SOME MORE OF THESE FUNDS MAY
HAVE BEEN SPENT ALREADY, THE
ENCUMBRANCE DEFINITION IS RATHER
STRICT, AS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT
TO PAY THE FUNDS IN FULL. IF A,
AND SO MANY OF THE PROGRAMS AND
CAMPUSES HAVE A PLAN FOR WHAT
THEY WOULD DO WITH THOSE FUNDS,
THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE
CONSIDERED A LEGAL ENCUMBRANCE
BY THE STATE. OKAY. THANK YOU
FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. IT'S A
LOT OF GREAT, IMPORTANT WORK
BEING DONE HERE, AND I
APPRECIATE THAT CONTEXT. AND
THEN SECONDLY, JUST WANTED TO,
THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE ON THE
UCLA RESEARCH PARK. I THINK
THAT'S A TRANSFORMATIVE PROJECT
FOR THE LÀ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AREA AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE
UPDATES THERE. AND PLEASE KEEP
ME POSTED ON THE PROGRESS THERE
AS WELL. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU,
MR. FONG. I THINK THIS IS THE
LAST ITEM, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT
WITH, THE CONVERSATIONS AND THE
AGREEMENTS ON ALL UNENCUMBERED
EXPENDITURES. I THINK WE WANT TO
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY, WHAT OUR
OPTIONS ARE FOR, MAY. AND SO
KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE IN THE
PROCESS THESE ARE AND WHAT,
POTENTIAL FUNDING IS LIKE
MATCHING FUNDS, AS YOU
MENTIONED, FOR ONE OF THE
EXAMPLES IS JEOPARDIZE IS
IMPORTANT TO KNOW, ON AN
ITEMIZED BASIS. SO I APPRECIATE
THE FOLLOW UP LATER ON THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WITH THAT,
WE'LL MOVE TO ISSUE ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT BUDGET REVIEW, WE HAVE
MISS BURTON FROM THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AS OUR, ONE PANELIST
FOR THIS ITEM. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, CHAIR ALVAREZ AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FONG, FOR THE
RECORD AGAIN, I'M SIYA BURTON,
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. BUDGET
IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS THE
UCP BUDGET, THE UC PATH BUDGET,
AND THE UC AGRICULTURAL AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, OR UCR. AND
OUR BUDGET. IN 2000 2122, THE
LEGISLATURE RETURNED THE FUNDING
METHODOLOGY FOR UCP AND UC PATH
TO THE SAME CAMPUS ASSESSMENT
THAT WAS USED PRIOR TO 2017.
BEFORE THE UCP LINE ITEM, THE
STATE HAS DECIDED TO RETAIN UC
A&R AS ITS OWN LINE ITEM. THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT. BUDGET IN 20
2324 IS 1,000,000,228.1 MILLION
IS THE TOTAL BUDGET IS TWO IS.
SORRY, THE TOTAL BUDGET IS 192.3
MILLION, OR 18.6% HIGHER THAN
THE 20 2223 UCP BUDGET. THIS
REFLECTS ALL OF THE FUNDING THAT
MOVES THROUGH UCP. THE UCP
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH IS WHAT
MOST PEOPLE THINK OF AS UCP AND
WHICH IS FUNDED THROUGH AN
ASSESSMENT ON THE CAMPUSES,
INCREASED BY 3.9% IN 20 2324.
THE ANNUAL INCREASE TO UCP
ADMINISTRATION WAS LESS THAN THE
5% BASE BUDGET INCREASE RECEIVED
BY THE CAMPUSES. THE UCP BUDGET
INCLUDES OVER 893 MILLION, OR
72% IN PASS THROUGH OR FEE FOR
SERVICE FUNDING. THIS IS OVER
27% INCREASE IN PASS THROUGH
FUNDING FROM THE PRIOR YEAR,
MOSTLY DUE TO ADDITIONAL STATE
SUPPORT OR FEDERAL PROGRAMMATIC
FUNDING. EXAMPLES OF THESE KINDS
OF FUNDS ARE THE BREAST CANCER
RESEARCH FUNDS, UC RECEIVES
THROUGH PROPOSITION FUNDING. THE
NATIONAL LABORATORY PROGRAMS,
AND THE UC A&R PROGRAMS WITH
FARMERS AND COMMUNITIES. THESE
PASS THROUGH FUNDS ARE NOT SPENT
AT UCP, BUT RATHER SENT TO THE
CAMPUS OR OTHER OTHER CALIFORNIA
RESEARCH LOCATIONS. THE UC
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT RECEIVES
293.5 MILLION IN UNRESTRICTED
FUNDING. THESE FUNDS ARE USED
FOR SYSTEM WIDE AND CORE
SERVICES, PROGRAMS AND
INITIATIVES, AND STRATEGIC
PRIORITIES. TODAY, I'M GOING TO
FOCUS MY COMMENTS ON THE UCP
BUDGET AND RESERVES. WHEN UCP
RETURNED TO THE CAMPUS
ASSESSMENT IN 20 2122, THE
CAMPUS ASSESSMENT REMAINED THE
SAME AS THE STATE APPROPRIATION
FOR UC HAD BEEN UCP HAD BEEN
SINCE THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
DIRECT APPROPRIATION TO IN 20
2223. WE SAW THE FIRST INCREASE
TO UCP ADMINISTRATION SINCE 20
1718, WHEN THE DIRECT
APPROPRIATION WAS PUT IN PLACE.
THE 20 2324 CAMPUS ASSESSMENT IS
232.4 MILLION OF THE TOTAL UCP
BUDGET. THIS IS AN 8.8 MILLION,
OR 3.9, INCREASE OVER THE PRIOR
YEAR. AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY,
THIS INCREASE WAS SMALLER THAN
THE BASE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
RECEIVED BY UC CAMPUSES. MUCH OF
THE 20 2324 INCREASE HAS BEEN
USED TO FUND SYSTEM WIDE SALARY
PROGRAM FOR UCP EMPLOYEES,
CONTRACTED COST INCREASES, AND
LIMITED NEW INVESTMENTS. THE
SALARY PROGRAM INVESTS IN ALL UC
EMPLOYEES AND ADDRESSES THE
LABOR MARKET TRENDS. AS UCP AND
CAMPUSES FOCUS ON MAINTAINING
KEY HUMAN CAPITAL RESOURCES, THE
UC CHANCELLORS REQUESTED THE
RETURN TO THE CAMPUS ASSESSMENT,
AND THEY DECIDE FOR THEIR CAMPUS
WHICH FUNDING SOURCES ARE USED
TO PAY THE ASSESSMENT FOR 20
2223, WHICH IS THE LAST FULL
YEAR OF DATA AVAILABLE. THE
CAMPUSES REPORTED THAT 35% OF
THE ASSESSMENT WAS PAID FROM
CAMPUS CORE FUNDS. DURING THE
LINE ITEM, 100% OF THE UCP
ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET WAS PAID
FOR WITH STATE FUNDS.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE TO THE
UCP BUDGET PROCESS IN RESPONSE
TO THE STATE AUDIT ARE STILL IN
PLACE TODAY. IMPORTANT CHANGES
TO TRANSPARENCY, DOCUMENTATION
AND DECISION MAKING HAVE BEEN
MADE. THESE REFORMS INCLUDE THE
FORMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, WHO REVIEWED
THE UCP EXPENDITURE AND PROVIDE
GUIDANCE TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE
UCP PROGRAMS AND EXPENDITURES.
THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE
IS COMPOSED OF CHANCELLORS, VICE
CHANCELLORS OF FINANCE AND OTHER
CAMPUS LEADERS. IN 2018, UCP
IMPLEMENTED AN ENTIRELY NEW
BUDGET AND PLANNING SYSTEM AND
COMPLETED A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
OF EACH UCP FUND AND ITS USE.
THERE WAS ALSO AN EXTENSIVE
PROCESS TO DOCUMENT EACH PROGRAM
AND INITIATIVE, AND PROVIDE
CLEAR DEFINITIONS OF EACH. UCP
REPORTS ANNUALLY TO THE
LEGISLATURE ON ALL UCP PROGRAMS
AND INITIATIVES IN ADDITION, UCP
HAS DEVELOPED AND DOCUMENTED A
RESERVE POLICY, AND RESERVES ARE
NOW REPORTED REGULARLY TO THE UC
REGIONS, ALONG WITH BUDGETED
AMOUNTS TO ACTUAL EXPENDITURES.
THE UCP RESERVE POLICY CALLS FOR
AN UNALLOCATED RESERVE OF $15
MILLION, OR 3.5% OF COVERED
FUNDS AND EXPENSES, WHICHEVER IS
GREATER. CURRENTLY, THE UCP
RESERVE IS SET AT 15 MILLION.
UNFORTUNATELY THE 15 MILLION
UNALLOCATED RESERVE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE
ANTICIPATED CAMPUS. STATE
GENERAL FUND COST GROWTH FOR 20
2425, WHICH IS CURRENTLY
ESTIMATED AT OVER 258 MILLION.
THE CAMPUS ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN
GROWING AT LESS THAN THE UCP
RESERVE AMOUNT FOR THE LAST TWO
YEARS, SO THERE MAY BE
OPPORTUNITY TO COVER SOME OF THE
UCP EXPENDITURE GROWTH FROM THE
UCP RESERVE IN 20 2425. SHOULD
THE REGENTS CHOOSE THAT ROUTE.
IF THE CAMPUS ASSESSMENT IS
INCREASED FOR 20 2425, THAT
RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE MADE BY
THE PRESIDENT WITH REVIEW AND
SUPPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, AND VOTED ON
BY THE UC REGENTS. THE
UNIVERSITY BELIEVES THAT THE
CAMPUS ASSESSMENT FUNDING MODEL
ALLOWS FOR THE HIGHEST
COLLABORATION WITH THE CAMPUSES
TO DETERMINE THE SYSTEM WIDE
PRIORITIES AND RESOURCE
ALLOCATIONS. THE UC REGENTS WILL
APPROVE THE 20 2425 UCP BUDGET
PROPOSAL IN MAY, IF THE
LEGISLATURE TAKES ACTIONS THAT
WILL IMPACT THE UCP BUDGET, THE
REGIONS WOULD APPROVE THE FINAL
UCP BUDGET IN JULY. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU.
AND JUST A PROGRAMING NOTE AFTER
THIS ITEM WILL TAKE A SHORT
RECESS TO ALLOW US TO GO TO
OTHER COMMITTEES, AND THEN WE'LL
RETURN FOR OUR SECOND ITEM, BUT
I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO KEEP MINE
REALLY BRIEF. I WILL ADMIT ON
THIS ONE AS WELL. I'M TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WHERE EXACTLY WE ARE
WITH RESERVES. YOU MENTIONED
EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION
ABOUT THE $15 MILLION POLICY.
UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THERE IS
$151 MILLION IN RESERVES,
ACCORDING TO OUR, THE
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE
US. AND SO OF WHICH 15 MILLION
IS THAT AND THEN 136 MILLION IS
NOT. AND SO COULD YOU,
SUCCINCTLY TRY TO SHARE
GENERALLY WHAT THAT IS, AND
MAYBE THAT REQUIRES A FOLLOW UP
AS WELL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAPPY
TO TAKE THAT ALSO. SO SOME OF
THOSE RESERVES, OTHER RESERVES
HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN DECLINING.
AND WE'RE ESTIMATING THAT THE
JUNE THAT THE BALANCE WILL DROP
TO 90 MILLION ON THOSE OTHER
RESERVES, SIX, 80 MILLION OF
THAT IS FROM THE FEDERAL
LABORATORIES, THE NUCLEAR
LABORATORIES THAT I DISCUSSED.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED
TO SHIFT ANY OF THOSE FUNDS TO
OTHER PURPOSES. THEY CAN ONLY BE
SPENT ON THE LAB OR RETURN TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEN
THERE ARE OTHER SOME
PROGRAMMATIC HEALTH, RESERVES,
WE HAVE ABOUT $2.4 MILLION AT UC
HEALTH FOR HEALTH COLLABORATION
RESERVES, THE CALIFORNIA DIGITAL
LIBRARY HAS A LITTLE BIT OF
RESERVE. THEY ARE CURRENTLY
CONVERTING MUCH OF THE UC,
WRITTEN MATERIALS TO BE
DIGITALLY AVAILABLE. IT'S A
MASSIVE PROCESS, ATTEMPTING TO
BRING OUR PAPER LIBRARIES TO THE
21ST CENTURY. WE HAVE ABOUT $2.8
MILLION THERE, ANOTHER, $3
MILLION IN, FOR OPERATIONS ON
ENDOWMENT THAT ARE DESIGNATED.
AND THEN WE HAVE $1 MILLION
WAITING FOR ENERGY
SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS. SO
THERE ARE FUNDS THERE, BUT THEY
ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR
SPECIFIC PURPOSES. THE 15
MILLION IS UNALLOCATED. OKAY
WE'LL WE'LL GET THAT FROM YOU IN
WRITING, BECAUSE I THINK YOU
WENT THROUGH THAT AND APPRECIATE
THAT, THE ONE THAT WAS
SURPRISING TO ME AS YOU SORT OF
TO THIS ROLE IS THE ASSESSMENTS
TO THE INDIVIDUAL CAMPUSES THAT
ARE MADE AND THAT ARE VARYING
AMOUNTS AND IN VARIOUS
CATEGORIES. AND THAT WAS ALSO IN
THE AGENDA ON PAGE 22. I GUESS
I'M JUST JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S
A, A POLICY OR MORE OF A
PRACTICE ON DETERMINING WHAT
THESE AMOUNTS ARE. AND, AND THEN
THERE'S BEEN INCREASES FROM
PREVIOUS YEARS IS THAT IS THERE
A POLICY ON WHAT THE INCREASES
ARE, BASED ON SOME FIGURE OR
SOME METRIC? JUST WHAT IS THE
GENERAL EXPLANATION OF HOW THESE
ASSESSMENTS ARE DETERMINED,
INCLUDING CORE FUNDS AND THEN A
QUITE SUBSTANTIAL, ALMOST EQUAL
AMOUNT OF UNRESTRICTED FUNDS?
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I
THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ONE.
TO èC ÁP ASSESSMENT AS BASED ON
THE NUMBER OF W-2'S GENERATED BY
EACH CAMPUS AND ALSO THE NUMBER
OF STUDENTS ON EACH CAMPUS. SO
WE LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE
CAMPUS, THEIR STAFF AND THEIR
STUDENT POPULATION TO, MAKE A
ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF
SERVICES THAT CAMPUS MIGHT
REQUIRE FROM UCOP AND THE STAFF
RESOURCES THAT UCP REQUIRED TO
SERVE THAT CAMPUS, THE UCP, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET, WHICH IS
NOW PAID FOR WITH THE
ASSESSMENT, WAS HELD FLAT FROM
2017 ALL THE WAY THROUGH, UNTIL
THE NEXT INCREASE WAS IN 2022,
23. SO FOR A LONG TIME, UCP WAS
SHRINKING AND BEING HELD FLAT,
THE GROWTH IN THE ASSESSMENT IS
DETERMINED BY THE EXECUTIVE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE
CHANCELLORS AND THE CAMPUS CFOS.
THEY CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE ALL
THE PROGRAMS THAT UCP AND DECIDE
WHICH ONES THEY VALUE AND WANT
TO FUND. AND THEN THEY ALLOCATE
AN INCREASE TO THOSE. FOR THE
LAST TWO YEARS, THEY HAVE
ALLOCATED AN INCREASE OF 3.9,
WHILE THE CAMPUSES HAVE RECEIVED
A 5% INCREASE. SO THEY HAVE
DECIDED THAT THEY DO WANT UCP
SERVICES TO INCREASE, BUT NOT
QUITE AS MUCH AS THEIR OWN. THE
FUNDING MIX WAS INTENDED TO
ACTUALLY RETURN STATE GENERAL
FUND TO THE CAMPUSES. SO IN
2017, WHEN UCP GOT MOVED TO ITS
OWN LINE ITEM IN THE STATE
BUDGET, 100% OF THOSE FUNDS CAME
FROM STATE GENERAL FUNDS. BY
RETURNING THAT STATE GENERAL
FUND TO THE CAMPUSES AND
ALLOWING THE CHANCELLOR TO
CHANGE THE MIX OF FUNDING THAT
PAYS FOR UCP SERVICES, THE
CAMPUS HAS GOT TO RETAIN MORE
STATE GENERAL FUND, BECAUSE
ALMOST A THIRD OF UCP
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES ARE
HELPING TO SERVE THE MEDICAL
CENTERS, IT MAKES SENSE THAT THE
MEDICAL CENTERS PAY A
SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT, OF UCP
EMPLOYEES, OR THAT THEY THAT
THEY HELP PAY FOR A LOT OF THOSE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. AND
THAT'S WHY THERE IS A MIX OF
STATE GENERAL FUND AND CORE
FUNDS AND OTHER FUNDS. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR WALKING THROUGH
THAT, TURN OVER TO MR. FONG.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR AND
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
IN TERMS OF THE RESERVES FROM
THE UCP, CAN UCP USE SOME OF ITS
RESERVES OR FUND BALANCES TO
HELP ADDRESS THE DEFERRAL OR ANY
OTHER CAMPUS SHORTFALLS?
UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE NOT ABLE TO
SHIFT OUR FUND BALANCES OR THE
VAST MAJORITY OF THEM, TO THE
CAMPUSES. WE ARE REQUIRED TO
HAVE THEM FOR THE PROGRAMMATIC,
PURPOSES. AT UCP, WE COULD SHIFT
THE $15 MILLION IN UNALLOCATED
RESERVE OUT, BUT WE WOULD HAVE
TO REBUILD IT AGAIN. IT'S NOT
VERY PRUDENT FOR AN ORGANIZATION
TO HAVE ZERO RESERVES THAT THEY
CAN SPEND ON ANY EMERGENCY Kò,
ESPECIALLY ONE IN CHARGE OF
DIRECTING LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE
ENTIRE UC SYSTEM. FOR EXAMPLE,
WE MAY NEED, WE MAY HAVE SOME
NEED FOR THOSE FUNDS, BACK IN
2017, THE STATE AUDITOR FOUND
THAT UCP HAD BALANCES THAT IT,
DIDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE
HELD AT UCP. AT THAT POINT, UCP
RETURNED. WELL OVER $100 MILLION
IN FUND BALANCES TO THE CAMPUSES
. AND AFTER THAT, WE HAVE
SELECTED, TO MOVE SOME PROGRAMS
AND THEIR BALANCES TO THE
CAMPUSES. SO WE NO LONGER HAVE
THE SAME KIND OF FUND BALANCES
FOR PROGRAMS AT UCP. WE'VE DONE
SOME RESTRUCTURING TO ADDRESS
THE STATE AUDITOR'S CONCERNS
THAT UCP WAS NOT, MOVING ALL THE
FUNDS IN THROUGH IN THE MOST
EFFICIENT MANNER. AND WE'VE
CHANGED THAT NOW. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AND THEN THIS IS A LAST
QUESTION ON THE, CAMPUS
ASSESSMENTS. WE JUST HEARD THAT
IT'S A CHALLENGING TIMES IN
TERMS OF WE DON'T WANT ANY
ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
FOR OUR STUDENTS, AT THE CAMPUS
LEVEL, IS UCP WILLING TO TAKE
CAMPUS ASSESSMENT TO DECREASE
CAMPUS ASSESSMENTS GOING FORWARD
IN THESE TOUGHER BUDGET TIMES IN
ORDER TO DECREASE, THE
ASSESSMENT, WE WOULD HAVE TO
CONSTRAIN UCP COSTS. WE WOULD
LEAVE THAT UP TO THE REGENTS AND
THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE,
THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET COMMITTEE
IS GOING TO BRING THEIR
RECOMMENDATION ON THE UCP BUDGET
TO THE REGENTS AT THE MAY
MEETING. OKAY, I'M NOT AWARE IF
THEY ARE WHAT WHAT THEY WANT TO
RECOMMEND ON THAT, BUT THE
CHANCELLORS WILL PLACE THAT, YOU
KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT VALUE
THEY PLACE ON THOSE UCP
SERVICES. GREAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE èC, OBVIOUSLY SOME FOLLOW
UP. HOLD THE ISSUES OPEN. UNTIL
MAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY. I SAID EARLIER,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROGRAMING
CHANGE. JUST A SHORT RECESS.
LIKELY, I ASSUME 10 TO 15
MINUTES AS WE GET TO OTHER
COMMITTEES THAT ARE EITHER
HEARING BILLS OR REQUIRING VOTES
OF SOME OF US, BUT WE'LL BE BACK
AND DO THE SAME EXACT ROUTINE
WITH THE CSU. SO WE WILL BE BACK
IN A FEW MINUTES. THANK YOU
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY,
FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE ARE GOING
TO TRY AND WORK, EFFICIENTLY AND
GET THROUGH, THE FOUR ITEMS THAT
ARE BEFORE US REMAINING FROM THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. SO
WE WILL GET RIGHT TO IT. I'D
ASK, FOR THOSE PANELISTS FOR
ISSUE NUMBER FIVE, THE CSU CORE
OPERATIONS REVIEW FOR REVIEW AND
DEFERRAL PROPOSAL. IF YOU CAN,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. AND, WE
WILL HEAR FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE, AND THE CSU CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE ON THESE ITEMS. SO, IF
YOU ARE READY, PLEASE, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR ALVAREZ.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FONG DEVIN
MITCHELL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU
HEARD EARLIER ABOUT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET DEFERS TO 20
2526. THE PLANNED INVESTMENT OF
240.2 MILLION GENERAL FUND FOR
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY.
THE BUDGET REFLECTS THE THIRD
YEAR OF THE MULTIYEAR COMPACT
BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
THE CSU. THIS AGREEMENT IS
FOCUSED ON ACHIEVING SHARED
PRIORITIES TO BENEFIT THE
SYSTEM'S MORE THAN 457,000
STUDENTS. THE BUDGET MAINTAINS
ONGOING STATE SUPPORT FOR THE
CSU AT THE CURRENT YEAR. THAT'S
FISCAL YEAR 20 2324 LEVEL, WHILE
THE DEFERRAL ENABLES THE CSU TO
USE INTERIM FINANCING STRUCTURES
OR OTHER INTERNAL BORROWING,
THIS APPROACH ALLOWS THE SEGMENT
TO STICK WITH THE OPERATING
BUDGET PLAN APPROVED BY THE CSU
BOARD OF TRUSTEES LAST YEAR.
THAT FACTORED IN THE COMPACT
INVESTMENT. THANK YOU, AND I CAN
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT
HAVE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THANK YOU. ELIO. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR ALVAREZ, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PONG LISA KING WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE.
I'LL BE BRIEF ON THIS ISSUE AS
OUR CONCERNS WITH THE CSU
DEFERRAL LARGELY MIRROR WHAT WE
SHARED EARLIER THIS MORNING ON
THE USE OF DEFERRAL, TYPICALLY
WHEN THE STATE FACES A MULTIYEAR
BUDGET DEFICIT, IT SEEKS TO
CONTAIN SPENDING AT THE
UNIVERSITIES. BUT UNDER THE
PROPOSED APPROACH, CSU WOULD
INCREASE SPENDING IN 20 2425,
WITH THE STATE PAYING FOR THE
HIGHER COST IN 20 2526. THIS
APPROACH WORSENS THE STATE'S
PROJECTED DEFICIT FOR 20 2526,
MAKING THE BUDGET HARDER TO
BALANCE IN THAT YEAR. IT DOES
ALSO COME WITH SOME RISKS FOR
CSU, AS THERE IS NO GUARANTEE
THE STATE WILL BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE THE FUNDS AT THE PLANNED
TIME. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE
QUESTIONS ON THE DEFERRAL OR
OTHER ASPECTS OF CSU'S CORE
OPERATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR ALVAREZ.
AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER FONG. I AM
RYAN STORM. I'M WITH THE
CHANCELLORS CSU CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE. SO THESE ARE DIFFICULT
FISCAL TIMES FOR THE STATE. AND
YOU ARE FACED WITH MANY
COMPETING NEEDS AND AN EQUAL
NUMBER OF DIFFICULT CHOICES. BUT
THE STATE'S ONGOING INVESTMENT
IN THE CSU IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR
SEVERAL REASONS. AND I WILL
MENTION TWO OF THEM. FIRST, THE
CSU IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON
STATE FUNDING. SO ON PAGE 25 OF
YOUR AGENDA, IT CORRECTLY NOTES
THAT WE ESSENTIALLY RELY ON TWO
AND ONLY TWO REVENUE SOURCES FOR
OUR CORE OPERATIONS. THAT'S THE
STATE'S GENERAL FUND THAT MAKES
UP ABOUT 60% OF OUR OPERATIONS.
AND THEN STUDENT TUITION AND
FEES ARE THE SECOND REASON FOR,
FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
STATE'S ONGOING INVESTMENT IN
THE CSU IS THAT WE ARE FACING
MANY INCREASED COSTS THAT TOTAL
MORE THAN $300 MILLION OF
ONGOING COSTS FOR 2425. THESE
INCLUDE RECENT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, RISING
HEALTH LIABILITY AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE, PREMIUM COSTS. WE'D
ALSO LIKE TO STRENGTHEN OUR
TITLE NINE AND OTHER
ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PROGRAMS, AS
WELL AS FULLY COMPLY WITH NAGPRA
AND NAGPRA, ACTIVITIES. SO WE
PLAN FOR THESE ADDITIONAL
EXPENSES IN RELIANCE ON
SUSTAINED STATE INVESTMENT. SO
WITHOUT THAT FUNDING, WITHOUT
THE FUNDING IDENTIFIED IN THE
GOVERNOR'S JANUARY BUDGET
PROPOSAL, THE ONLY SOURCE OF
ADDED REVENUE WE COULD COUNT ON
FOR OUR OPERATING COSTS IS ABOUT
$98 MILLION FROM OUR NEW TUITION
PLAN. THE BALANCE OF OUR NEW
TUITION REVENUE, OR ANOTHER 49
MILLION ON TOP OF THAT, IS
COMMITTED TO FINANCIAL AID SO
THAT ELIGIBLE STUDENTS WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE THE FULL COST
OF TUITION COVERED. AND IT
DOVETAILS WELL WITH THE GOALS OF
THE MULTI YEAR COMPACT. NOW, THE
IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINED STATE
FUNDING IS NOT JUST ABOUT
DOLLARS AND CENTS. IT'S ALSO
ABOUT PREDICTABILITY. AND OUR
ABILITY TO APPROPRIATELY PLAN TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR STUDENTS.
SO CONSIDERING BOTH THE
GOVERNOR'S MULTI YEAR COMPACT AS
WELL AS THAT FIVE YEAR TUITION
PLAN, I JUST DESCRIBED AND THAT
WE ADOPTED LAST SEPTEMBER, OUR
REVENUE PROJECTIONS ENABLED US
TO REACH MULTI-YEAR, CONTRACTS
WITH OUR LABOR UNIONS. AND AS
YOU KNOW, THESE AGREEMENTS WERE
REACHED AFTER SOME DIFFICULT
NEGOTIATIONS. BUT WE BELIEVE
THEY ARE REASONABLE AND THAT
THEY PROVIDE FAIR AND
COMPETITIVE COMPENSATION TO OUR
FACULTY AND STAFF WHO ARE
FOUNDATIONAL TO STUDENT SUCCESS.
SO THESE CONTRACTS ALSO INCLUDE
INCREASED PARENTAL LEAVE AND A
RETURN TO SALARY STEPS FOR STAFF
UNIONS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE A
PRIORITY FOR THE LEGISLATURE. SO
WE MUST BRING OUR COSTS IN LINE
WITH REVENUES. THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE IN EACH OF OUR
UNIVERSITIES HAVE ALREADY BEGUN
THE CHALLENGING PROCESS OF
FINDING WAYS TO COVER OUR OUR
ADDITIONAL COSTS, SUCH AS USING
RESERVES IF REQUIRED AND
APPROPRIATE, BUT MORE OFTEN BY
MAKING THE HARD DECISIONS THAT
WILL TRANSLATE INTO ONGOING
SAVINGS. SO IN ADDITION TO THE
DEPLOYING THE DIFFICULT COST
CONTAINMENT STRATEGIES, WE'VE
ALSO INTRODUCED KEY EFFICIENCY
STRATEGIES. SO ONE EXAMPLE IS
OUR ENROLLMENT TARGET AND BUDGET
REALLOCATION PLAN THAT BETTER
ALIGNS FUNDING AND ENROLLMENT
RESOURCES WITH THE REALITIES OF
SHIFTING DEMOGRAPHICS AND
STUDENT DEMAND. ANOTHER EXAMPLE
IS IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL
COLLABORATION OPPORTUNITIES
AMONG OUR UNIVERSITIES AND TO
FURTHER REDUCE COSTS AND DOING
SO WITH THE HELP OF DELOITTE
CONSULTING. RECENTLY BUT WITHOUT
SUSTAINED STATE FUNDING, OUR
WORK BECOMES EXCEEDINGLY
DIFFICULT. OUR PROGRESS IN
MISSION CRITICAL AREAS WILL BE
SLOWED TO THE DETRIMENT OF OUR
STUDENTS AND WHEN STUDENTS
ENROLL AT THE CSU, THEY EXPECT
TO RECEIVE THE QUALITY ACADEMIC
PROGRAMING AND STUDENT SUPPORT
THEY NEED TO GRADUATE TO
GRADUATE IN A TIMELY MANNER. SO
THESE CAN'T BE TURNED ON AND
OFF. DUE TO THE VOLATILITY OF
OUR ABILITY TO PAY. SO IN
CONCLUSION, THE CSU ASKS FOR
SUPPORT IN TWO KEY AREAS. FIRST,
BECAUSE OF THE REASONS I
OUTLINED EARLIER, WE ASK THAT
YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND
CONTINUING TO HONOR THE FUNDING
SET FORTH IN THE MULTI-YEAR
COMPACT, EITHER AS ORIGINALLY
STRUCTURED OR AS MODIFIED IN THE
GOVERNOR'S JANUARY PROPOSAL. AND
RECENTLY, WE WERE VERY PLEASED
TO SEE THE INCLUSION OF THE
DEFERRAL PROPOSAL AND THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE ASSEMBLY AND
THE SENATE'S EARLY ACTION PLAN.
THE OTHER SECOND REQUEST IS THAT
YOU SUPPORT, EDUCATION
FACILITIES BOND THAT INCLUDES
HIGHER EDUCATION SO THAT WE CAN
BRING OUR BUILDINGS, UP TO
MODERN ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND
ADDRESS SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
ISSUES, TOO. AND TO REITERATE,
CHANCELLOR GARCIA'S COMMENTS
FROM FEBRUARY, THE CSU WILL
CONTINUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
RESOURCES ENTRUSTED TO US ARE
NOT AN EXPENDITURE, BUT AN
INVESTMENT, AN INVESTMENT WITH
DIVIDENDS MEASURED IN SOCIAL
MOBILITY. IN MORE VITAL
COMMUNITIES AND EMPOWERING
CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE. DIVERSE AND
EDUCATED WORKFORCE AT A SCALE
ONLY THE CSU CAN PROVIDE THOSE.
IN MY OPENING COMMENTS, HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, SO IN INTEREST OF
TIME, I WON'T GO THROUGH THIS. I
HAVE THE SAME SIMILAR QUESTIONS
THAT WE HAD FOR èC ON THE
ENROLLMENT GROWTH AND THE 5%
GROWTH AND, YOU ALSO SUBMIT A
REPORT, WHICH IN MY HOMEWORK IS
TO READ BOTH OF THOSE. BUT I
THINK IN CONTEXT OF WHERE WE
WHERE WE'RE AT FROM A BUDGET
STANDPOINT, THAT AS YOU POINTED
OUT, THE AGREEMENT IS TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE DEFERMENT, BUT
ALSO LEAVES OPEN THE
CONVERSATION OF PERHAPS, NEEDING
TO TAKE MORE ACTION DEPENDING ON
WHAT HAPPENS IN MAY. AND SO THE
CONCERN WITH THAT BEING SAID,
THE CONCERN STILL REMAINS, OF
WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY HEADED AND
WHERE WE WILL BE IN TERMS OF
BEING ABLE TO, TO PAY BACK THAT
DEFERRAL AND WHAT THE. I'D LIKE
TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT
THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE FROM
YOUR END, AS YOU INTEND TO
IMPLEMENT GROWTH AND IMPLEMENT,
COMPONENT PARTS OF THE COMPACT.
AND I ASSUME OTHER, PROGRAMS AND
PROJECTS THAT, THAT, THE
TRUSTEES HAVE, PERHAPS,
SUPPORTED GOING FORWARD, WHAT
ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT
HAVING A IN JANUARY, JULY 1ST OF
2025, THAT 200? AND, IN YOUR
CASE, HOW MUCH IS IT,
40,000,240. YES. PLEASE TELL US
WHAT THAT WOULD BE. SURE, SO
RIGHT NOW, AS AS I ALLUDED TO IN
MY COMMENTS, WE HAVE SOME
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
THAT ACTUALLY ARE CREATING SOME,
SOME STRUCTURAL DEFICITS WITHIN
THE UNIVERSITY RIGHT NOW. TODAY,
WE HAVE A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT OF
ABOUT 138 MILLION IN THE CURRENT
YEAR. IN THE BUDGET YEAR, WE'LL
HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.
IF THE COMPACT DOES NOT, IT IS
NOT REIMBURSED OR OR FULFILLED
WITH A DEFERRAL. YOU'RE LOOKING
AT ABOUT Ã. WE'RE LOOKING AT
ABOUT A $345 MILLION OPERATING
DEFICIT IN THE 2425 YEAR THAT,
AND WITH THE UNIVERSITY BEING
HEAVILY, HEAVILY, WE USE OUR
RESOURCES ON PEOPLE BOTH TO, TO
FUND SALARIES AND BENEFITS OF
STAFF, BUT TO ALSO TO SUPPORT
FINANCIAL AID, SO THAT 345 OF
ONGOING FUNDING WILL REQUIRE
SOME PRETTY DIFFICULT
CHALLENGES. IF THAT'S NOT
REIMBURSED IN 2526,
STRUCTURALLY, IT WILL BE A
CHALLENGE. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT
POTENTIAL HIRING FREEZES,
LAYOFFS AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF
THINGS, THOSE MITIGATION
MEASURES THAT YOU'VE ALREADY
DESCRIBED EARLIER. OKAY. AND,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE MIGHT
CORRECT ME, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S
ROUGHLY FROM BETWEEN 200 AND 240
THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED FOR TWO
YEARS IN TERMS OF THAT COMPACT
RIGHT, OF WHICH NOT ALL OF THAT
HAS GONE TO STUDENT GROWTH, THE
COMMITMENT FOR STUDENT GROWTH IS
ONLY A PORTION OF THAT. AND SO,
AGAIN, SIMILAR QUESTIONS TO THE
èC. I THINK WE'LL BE LOOKING TO
CONTINUE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU AS
TO HOW DO WE SUCCESSFULLY
CONTINUE TO INCREASE STUDENT
ACCESS, WITHOUT PERHAPS HAVING
THE FULL AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN,
COMMITTED IN TERMS OF THE
COMPACT FROM THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL? SO LET'S NOT GET INTO
DETAILS ON THAT. I THINK I WANT
TO ASK YOU CERTAINLY ABOUT
RESERVES AND ABOUT A MINUTE
HERE, BUT ONE THING THAT I JUST
I THINK WE HAVE TO DEFINITELY
MENTION IS, FIGURE FOUR AND PAGE
27 OF THE REPORT ON THE STAFFING
LEVELS IS SOMETHING THAT
DEFINITELY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION
WITH THE NUMBER OF, FTE STUDENTS
PER EMPLOYEE, YOU KNOW,
SIGNIFICANTLY DECLINING, WHICH
ALSO INDICATES A GROWTH OF SOME
AMOUNT, ROUGHLY A COUPLE
THOUSAND OF STAFF WHEN WE HAVE
DECLINING ENROLLMENT. AND HOW DO
YOU, I GUESS WHAT DO YOU
ATTRIBUTE THAT GROWTH IN STAFF
DECLINE IN STUDENTS, AND WHAT
HAS THAT WHAT KIND OF,
PRIORITIES HAVE THOSE
INDIVIDUALS BEEN ASSIGNED TO, OR
WHAT IS THAT HEADCOUNT? IT'S
FTE, SO IT'S NOT PART TIME,
FOLKS. WHAT ARE THEY DOING?
YEAH, A LITTLE BIT. I'D SAY
ABOUT 15 MONTHS AGO, WHEN WE
REALIZED THAT WE WERE HAVING A
PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN OUR
ENROLLMENT ON OUR CAMPUSES,
REMEMBER, RIGHT BEFORE THE RIGHT
, EVEN DURING THE PANDEMIC, OUR
ENROLLMENT WAS ACTUALLY STILL 5%
ABOVE OUR FUNDED ENROLLMENT. AND
THEN OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD,
THAT ENROLLMENT DECLINED BY
COLLECTIVELY ABOUT 5. SO THEN WE
BECAME ABOUT 5% UNDER ENROLLED.
ABOUT 15 MONTHS AGO. WE WORKED
THROUGH A POTENTIAL PLAN,
ADOPTED A PLAN WHERE WE WOULD
REALLOCATE RESOURCES FROM
CAMPUSES THAT WERE SIGNIFICANTLY
UNDER RULED TO OVERRULE. WE
TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE
ENROLLMENT HEARING. CORRECT. SO
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE
DOING MIDSTREAM RIGHT NOW IS, IS
WE'RE ADDRESSING OUR OPERATIONAL
DEFICIT, BUT THEN WE'RE ALSO
ALSO AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO
BALANCE OUR ENROLLMENTS AMONG
THE CAMPUSES. SO ALL OF OUR
CAMPUSES ARE INSTITUTING A
VARIETY OF THOSE COST MITIGATION
AND REALLOCATION, MEASURES THAT
YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE, TO TRY TO
GET US IN THE RIGHT STUDENT
FACULTY AND STUDENT TO STAFF
RATIOS AS WE GO FORWARD. WE'RE
IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING THAT
DIRECTION. RIGHT. WE'RE NOT ABLE
TO IMPLEMENT IT. LET ME TRY TO
GET MAYBE MORE CLARITY, SIMPLIFY
IT FOR ME, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
MOVING, STAFF FROM ONE CAMPUS TO
ANOTHER CAMPUS TO THE CAMPUSES
WITH THE HIGHER ENROLLMENT
GROWTH OR PROJECTED GROWTH? IS
THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
OR AM I MISSING? NO, NO. WE'RE
JUST WHAT WHAT WHAT THAT PLAN
DOES. IS IT IT REALLOCATES
ENROLLMENT TARGETS AND FUNDING
TO CAMPUSES THAT ARE IN DEMAND
AND GROWING. SO IN REALITY, WHAT
YOU END UP HAVING IS IF A CAMPUS
IS UNDER-ENROLLED, THEY'RE
HAVING TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT THE APPROPRIATE
STAFFING LEVELS ARE, BOTH
FACULTY AND STAFF LEVELS ON
THOSE CAMPUSES. AND THEN OVER
TIME, THE OTHER CAMPUS, THE
RECIPIENT CAMPUS, IS DIALING UP
FACULTY AND STAFF IN ORDER TO
EDUCATE THOSE ADDITIONAL
STUDENTS. SO I SEE SO AS YOU
EXPLAINED, THERE WAS GROWTH
HAPPENING AND YOU THOUGHT THAT
WOULD CONTINUE. SO YOU RAMPED UP
FOR THAT GROWTH THAT HAS CLEARLY
, IN SOME INSTANCES, NOT
CONTINUED. AND ALSO ACTUALLY
DECLINED IN SOME CAMPUSES. WHILE
YOU HAVE SEEN SOME OTHER
CAMPUSES WITH SOME GROWTH AND SO
AS A AS A SYSTEM, YOU ARE
CURRENTLY ANALYZING MOVING THE
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES BY
CAMPUS, WHICH WILL THEN ALSO
LEAD HOPEFULLY TO ENSURING THAT
THEY HAVE THE FULL TIME STAFF
FACULTY AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE
STUDENTS AT THOSE CAMPUSES.
YEAH, THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF
STAFFING ON THE CAMPUSES IS
DETERMINED BY CAMPUSES. IT'S
SOMETHING THAT THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE DOESN'T DIRECT OR MAKE
DECISIONS ON CAMPUSES. AND THERE
ARE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM
MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. BUT IF
THERE ARE MORE STUDENTS AT SOME
CAMPUSES, HOW DO THEY GET MORE
RESOURCES TO SERVE THOSE
STUDENTS WITH MORE FACULTY AND
MORE STAFF? WELL, IT'S GRADUAL.
OVER TIME, THIS MULTI-YEAR PLAN
SHIFTS RESOURCES TO CAMPUSES
WHERE THERE IS MORE DEMAND AND
GROWTH HAPPENING. SO THAT'S PART
OF THE THAT'S PART OF THE SO
THEY CAN PLAN TO BRING ON MORE
FACULTY AND CORRECT, CORRECT,
LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE
RESERVES, BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT
FROM WHAT YOU SEE IS IT'S
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE STATE IS
, YOU TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH
ON THIS AND CERTAINLY, I WANT TO
DEFINITELY, CALL OUT, YOU KNOW,
DURING NEGOTIATIONS, WE SAW,
FIGURES ABOUT RESERVES AND WHERE
THINGS STAND. AND SO I WANT TO I
REALLY WANT TO USE THIS
OPPORTUNITY AS A HOPEFULLY A, A,
A POINT IN TIME WHEN WE ARE VERY
CLEAR ABOUT WHERE WE STAND WITH
RESERVES. SO YOU'LL GET SOME
QUESTIONS AROUND THAT, TELL ME
ABOUT WHAT THE RESERVES POLICIES
ARE FROM THE CSU SYSTEM, HOW
CAMPUSES INDIVIDUALLY ADOPT THAT
OR OR NOT. TELL ME, WALK ME
THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND SURE.
AND SHARE THAT WITH ME. YEAH. SO
IN 2015, THE EXECUTIVE VICE
CHANCELLOR AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, WE DEVELOPED THE
RESERVES POLICY, THAT POWER IS
NOT THAT POWER WAS DELEGATED TO
THE CHANCELLOR. SO THE TRUSTEES
HAVE DELEGATED TO THE CHANCELLOR
THE AUTHORITY TO MANAGE BUDGETS.
AND SO THAT WAS FURTHER
DELEGATED TO THE CFO TO
ESTABLISH A POLICY ON RESERVES.
SO THAT WAS DONE IN 2015. AND
THE POLICY IS THIS THAT WHEN YOU
HAVE A PARTICULAR FUND SOURCE,
THAT THE GOAL IS TO ESTABLISH
BETWEEN 3 AND 6 MONTHS OF
RESERVES FOR THAT PARTICULAR
FUND SOURCE, EACH INDIVIDUAL
FUND SOURCE, SO WE COULD IN THIS
IN THIS ARENA, WE'RE PROBABLY
WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THE
OPERATING FUND. RIGHT. THIS IS
THE CORE FUNDING OF THE
UNIVERSITY RIGHT NOW WHERE IT'S
WELL, NOT RIGHT NOW. I'M SORRY.
JUNE 30TH OF 2023. WE HAD
RESERVES FOR ECONOMIC
UNCERTAINTY. AND THESE ARE
RESERVES THAT ARE FOR ANY USE
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY COME UP
COLLECTIVELY. WE HAD $766
MILLION OF RESERVES FOR ECONOMIC
UNCERTAINTY, ONE TIME MONEY, OF
COURSE, WE'LL HAVE TO SEE COME
JULY 30TH WHAT THOSE NEW NUMBERS
ARE LIKE. I WAS DESCRIBING
EARLIER, WE HAVE CAMPUSES THAT
ARE IMPLEMENTING, MITIGATION
STRATEGIES IN ORDER TO KEEP
THEIR TO REDUCE THEIR COSTS OVER
THE LONG TERME. PART OF THAT
STRATEGY WILL BE UTILIZING ONE
TIME FUNDS IN ORDER TO BRIDGE
UNTIL ONGOING SOLUTIONS CAN
OCCUR. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU
HAVE A HIRING FREEZE, YOU'RE NOT
NECESSARILY GOING TO BE
ACHIEVING ONGOING SAVINGS RIGHT
AWAY. YOU MIGHT NEED TO USE ONE
TIME MONEY TO COVER COSTS UNTIL
YOU ACHIEVE THAT FULL TIME
SAVINGS LATER ON. SO THAT'S THE
SITUATION IN RESERVES RIGHT NOW.
SO $766 MILLION IS APPROXIMATELY
33 DAYS OF RESERVES FOR THE
UNIVERSITY, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER
TIER OF RESERVES, BUT THEY'RE WE
CALL THEM DESIGNATED BALANCES.
AND THOSE ARE MONIES THAT
CAMPUSES HAVE DETERMINED NEED TO
BE USED FOR SHORT TUM
OBLIGATIONS FOR POTENTIAL
CAPITAL NEEDS, AND ALSO FOR
CATASTROPHIC EVENTS WHEN
INSURANCE DOESN'T COVER THE COST
OF THOSE. SO WE HAVE ABOUT $1.7
BILLION TIED UP IN THOSE
DESIGNATED RESERVES. OF COURSE,
THOSE TYPES OF RESERVES ARE
REALLY, FOR THINGS THAT WE
ANTICIPATE WILL HAVE TO COVER.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE
FINANCIAL AID OBLIGATIONS FOR
THE UPCOMING YEAR THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN BOOKED YET, WE ALSO HAVE
CAPITAL, SHORT TERME DEBT
SERVICE THAT CAMPUSES HAVE
ANTICIPATED. THOSE ARE THAT'S
KIND OF THE LAY OF THE LAND
THERE IN TERMS OF HOW CAMPUSES
MANAGES, MANAGE THEIR RESERVES
AND DESIGNATED BALANCES. IT'S
LARGELY LEFT UP TO THEM TO
DECIDE HOW MUCH TO DESIGNATE IN
EACH OF THOSE AREAS. FIRST, IN
RESERVES FOR ECONOMIC
UNCERTAINTY, AND THEN WHETHER TO
DESIGNATE MONEY FOR CAPITAL FOR
SHORT TERME OBLIGATIONS OR THE
OR THE CATASTROPHIC EVENTS. WE
ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FINE
TUNING THAT POLICY JUST A TINY
BIT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE BETTER DEFINING, THE
AMOUNTS THAT CAMPUSES SHOULD BE
DEDICATING AND FOR WHAT
DEFINITIONAL CATEGORIES THERE.
IT WAS PROBABLY A LITTLE TOO
OPEN ENDED, BASED ON WHAT WE HAD
ESTABLISHED EARLIER. SO WE'RE
FINE TUNING THAT JUST A TINY
BIT, BUT NOT NOT SUBSTANTIALLY,
JUST SO THAT THERE'S GREATER
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT TYPE OF
RESERVES CAMPUSES HAVE AVAILABLE
TO THEM. OKAY. I'LL SEE IF MR.
FONG HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR,
AND, THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS, AS A FOLLOW UP ON
THE RESERVE POLICY, I KNOW THAT
WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE UC SYSTEM,
THERE WAS A CAMPUS BY CAMPUS.
NUMERICAL INFORMATION FOR CSU.
Dð IS THAT. DO WE HAVE THAT
INFORMATION AVAILABLE? YOU
CERTAINLY DO, IT'S NOT IN YOUR
AGENDA. IT'S VERY HARD TO PRINT
OUT. IT'S ACTUALLY A WEB PAGE
THAT WE DEVELOPED, I WOULD SAY
MAYBE FIVE YEARS AGO. IT'S
CALLED, IT'S THROUGH THE OPEN
GOV. COM WEBSITE ESSENTIALLY.
BUT YOU CAN LINK TO IT THROUGH
CAL STATE.EDU. OUR WEB PAGE. I
CAN SEND A LINK TO IT TO THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT. YOU CAN
DRILL DOWN AND GET VERY LOST IN
THERE. I'M SURE MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES HERE SITTING AT THE
TABLE HAVE BEEN HAVE GOTTEN LOST
IN THERE TRYING TO, BUT IT'S
VERY TRANSPARENT IN TERMS OF ALL
THE FUNDING BY CAMPUS, BY
CATEGORY, ETC, ETC. SO AND WE
HAVE MANY YEARS OF DATA LOADED
ALREADY IN THERE SO THAT YOU CAN
SEE FROM A RETROSPECTIVELY WHAT
WHAT'S OUT THERE. SO THANK YOU,
DEFINITELY, PLEASE SEND THE LINK
OVER AND WE'D LOVE TO TAKE A
LOOK. AND THEN IN TERMS OF WHICH
CAMPUSES ARE DOING IT BETTER IN
TERMS OF THE RESERVE, POLICY.
WELL, I WOULD SAY OVERALL IT'S
YOU HAVE 23 UNIVERSITIES AND
IT'S GOING TO BE A MIXED BAG,
AND IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON
WHERE THEY ARE FINANCIALLY AND
WHERE THEY ARE STRUCTURALLY
RIGHT. SOME CAMPUSES ARE DOING
VERY WELL, OTHERS IT'S MORE
CHALLENGING. BUT I WOULD SAY
OVERALL THE BEAUTY OF HAVING
SYSTEMS AND I DON'T THINK YOU
GUYS COVERED THIS ISSUE EARLIER,
BUT THE BEAUTY OF HAVING SYSTEMS
VERSUS INDIVIDUAL CAMPUSES IS
THAT YOU AS LEGISLATORS OR WE AS
UNIVERSITY HEADS, ARE NOT
NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO HAVE TO
GO AND PERHAPS, MAYBE BAIL OUT A
PARTICULAR UNIVERSITY BECAUSE A
PARTICULAR UNIVERSITY IS
UNDERWATER IN RESERVES, AS A
SYSTEM, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO
WORK TOGETHER IN TERMS OF MAKING
SURE THAT, NO, NONE OF OUR
CAMPUSES ARE UNDERWATER. FOR
OBVIOUSLY, MITIGATION WISE, THE
FIRST THING TO DO IS TO WORK
THROUGH THAT CAMPUS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THOSE RESERVES ARE IN
APPROPRIATE LEVELS. AND THEN IF
IT EVER BECOMES A CASE WHERE WE
NEED TO ASSIST WITH THE OTHER 23
UNIVERSITIES AND THE SYSTEM TO
CONTRIBUTE TO RESERVES, THAN WE
WOULD NEED TO STEP IN AND DO
THAT. BUT THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF
HAVING A SYSTEM, IS THAT YOU CAN
MANAGE THESE, THESE MITIGATIONS
AS A SYSTEM VERSUS INDIVIDUALLY.
THANK YOU FOR THE CONTEXT. I
THINK THAT'S THE FLEXIBILITY
THAT, LEADS INTO THE NEXT
QUESTION. SO IN TERMS OF
FLEXIBILITY, IN TERMS OF THE
FUNDS THAT THE CSU SYSTEM HAS IN
RESERVES, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S
$1.7 BILLION IN RESERVES
DESIGNATED FOR SPECIFIC
FUNCTIONS. AND IF A CAMPUS IS
HAPPENING TO NEED ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES OF THE STATE'S BUDGET,
SITUATION WAS TO WORSEN WITH THE
CSU SYSTEM BE ABLE TO BACKFILL
AND HELP ASSIST THESE CAMPUSES
AS WELL. THE FIRST TRANCHE OF
MONEY THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO
ASSIST IN ANY, STATE BUDGET
DEFICIT OR ANY FISCAL CRISIS
WOULD BE THAT 766 MILLION THAT I
MENTIONED OF RESERVES FOR
ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY. THEY'RE
NOT DESIGNATED FOR ANYTHING.
THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THAT $1.7
BILLION THAT I MENTIONED THAT
ARE DESIGNATED BALANCES AND
RESERVES, THAT'S WHEN IT GETS A
LITTLE BIT TRICKIER. AND THAT'S
WHEN IT BECOMES WHERE YOU REALLY
HAVE TO TALK TO THE CAMPUS ABOUT
WHAT THOSE EXACT AMOUNTS ARE
DESIGNATED FOR. AS I MENTIONED
BEFORE, SOME OF THAT MONEY MAY
BE FOR UPCOMING DEBT SERVICE,
SHORT TERME DEBT SERVICE ON
PARTICULAR THINGS. IT COULD BE
FOR THE WE NEED TO PAY BILLS ON
THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY ARE
UNDER CONTRACT FOR, OR IT'S
FINANCIAL AID THAT YOU'VE
ALREADY REALIZED THAT YOU WILL
BE PAYING IN THE UPCOMING YEAR.
SO THOSE TYPES OF IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE FLEXIBLE AND BE ABLE TO
FLEX IT TO HELP WITH THE BUDGET
DEFICIT ARE LIMITED, BUT I WILL
I WOULD NOT LIMIT THAT 1.7
MILLION IN ITS TOTALITY TO
SAYING, OH, IT'S OFFHAND, YOU
CAN'T. IT'S NOT FLEXIBLE IN ANY
WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. THERE ARE,
CATEGORIES IN THAT WEBSITE I'LL
BE SHARING WITH YOU CALLED,
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A
POTENTIAL AREA WHERE YOU COULD
REDIRECT WHERE A CAMPUS COULD
REDIRECT FROM PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZE THAT TO
HELP BRIDGE A FUNDING CRISIS. SO
THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY IN
THAT 1.7 BILLION, BUT IT'S GOING
TO BE FAR LESS OBVIOUSLY THAN
THE 766 MILLION THAT I MENTIONED
EARLIER, WHERE IT'S FULLY
DISCRETIONARY. GREAT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR THAT CONTEXT AND
INFORMATION. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU AGAIN. WE'LL
HOLD THIS ISSUE OPEN AND
CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO
RECEIVING SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED EITHER
EARLIER OR IN THIS SESSION. NOW,
WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM
OR ISSUE SIX. THE CSU LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM. WE'LL DISCUSS
THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSAL
TO REDUCE SUPPORT FOR THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT. SO WE
HAVE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OFFICE,
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. AND JOINING
ALSO THE PANEL WILL BE THE
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE, WE WILL
KICK OFF WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. HI AGAIN, DEVIN
MITCHELL WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS
ITEM IS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET, NOT THE
CSU, THE BUDGET REVERTS 5.2
MILLION GENERAL FUND IN THE
CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. AND REDUCES
5.2 MILLION IN 2024, 25 AND
ONGOING FOR IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, THE IMMIGRATION
SERVICES PROJECT, WHICH SERVES
STUDENTS, FACULTY, STAFF AND
THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS,
ALUMNI WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
GRADUATION, AND STUDENTS WHO
INTEND TO ENROLL, WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 2019. WITH THE
REDUCTION, 1.8 MILLION ON GOING
GENERAL FUND WOULD REMAIN IN THE
BUDGET FOR THIS PROGRAM. ALL THE
OTHERS ON THE PANEL. THANK YOU.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. PLEASE. THE
KING WITH THE LAO. UNDER THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, WE'RE
TRACKING THAT THE CSU
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM HAS 8.8 MILLION IN
UNSPENT FUNDS CONSISTING OF 7
MILLION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
ALLOCATED IN 2022, 23 AND 1.8
MILLION THAT REMAINS IN THE
CURRENT YEAR 20 2324. OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
INTENDS TO USE THESE REMAINING
FUNDS TO COVER SERVICES UNDER
THIS PROGRAM THROUGH JUNE OF
2025, THE LEGISLATURE COULD USE
THE TIME IN THE MEANTIME TO GET
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED ONGOING
REDUCTION, AND TO CONSIDER AN
APPROPRIATE FUNDING LEVEL FOR
THIS PROGRAM MOVING FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, RYAN STORM
WITH CSU AGAIN, SO MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
DID A GREAT JOB OF SUMMARIZING
THE PROGRAM, ONE OTHER THING
I'LL ADD IS, IS THAT SOCIAL
SERVICES, THE CSU CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE, AND NONPROFIT LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDE COLLABORATION
ON THIS WORK, SOME OF THE
EXAMPLES OF THE SERVICES
PROVIDED UNDER THE PROJECT
INCLUDE LEGAL CONSULTATIONS,
APPLICATION ASSISTANCE FOR,
DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD
ARRIVALS, OR DACA, AS AN
ASSISTANT FOR NATURALIZATION AND
REMOVAL CONSULTATION AND
DEFENSE. JUST SOME OF THE
EXAMPLES. A LITTLE FACTOID THAT
I HAVE FROM MY COLLEAGUES IN THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE IS, IS THAT
APPROXIMATELY 21,000 STUDENTS,
FAMILY MEMBERS, STAFF AND
FACULTY, RECEIVED SERVICES IN
2022, THE PREPONDERANCE OF THOSE
SERVICES WERE TO STUDENTS, ARE,
WE ARE NOT TAKING A POSITION ON
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL WITH THE
CSU. WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THE
IMMIGRATION OAN LEGAL SERVICES
HAVE MERIT, THIS IS A
CHALLENGING BUDGET. YEAR AND WE
KNOW THAT TOUGH BUDGET DECISIONS
SOON WILL BE MADE BY THE
GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE,
BUT ONE THING THAT WE WANTED TO
ALSO POINT OUT IS THAT IF AN
ALTERNATIVE WERE INTRODUCED TO
REDUCE CSU'S CORE OPERATING
BUDGET TO RESTORE THE LEGAL
SERVICES FUNDING, THE CSU WOULD
NOT SUPPORT SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE
SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT WOULD TAKE
FUNDING AWAY FROM OUR ACADEMIC
PROGRAMS, OUR CORE MISSION. SO
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR ALVAREZ AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M
BARBARA PINTO. I'M THE
CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
CO-FOUNDER OF IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE, THE CSU IMMIGRATION
LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM PROVIDES
FREE IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES,
ALONG WITH EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH PROGRAMS TO CSU
STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, THEIR
IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, AND
RECENT ALUMNI AT ALL 23 CSU
CAMPUSES. THE CSU SYSTEM HAS
NEARLY 10,000 UNDOCUMENTED
STUDENTS AND THOUSANDS MORE
UNDOCUMENTED AND MIXED STATUS
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS FROM 2019
THROUGH AUGUST 2023. THE FOUR
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
IN THIS PROJECT IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE AND LÀ CHIRLA AND JEWISH
FAMILY SERVICE OF SAN DIEGO HAVE
PROVIDED OVER 11,000 INDIVIDUALS
WITH ONE ON ONE CONSULTATIONS
ACCEPTED OVER 7000 CASES FOR
FULL SCOPE REPRESENTATION
REPRESENTED OVER 4000
INDIVIDUALS IN DACA
APPLICATIONS, AND REACHED OVER
20,000 INDIVIDUALS THROUGH
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH EVENTS
AND PRESENTATIONS IN OVER FOUR
AND A HALF YEARS, THIS PROGRAM
HAS PROVEN TO BE A SUCCESSFUL
MODEL IN SERVING IMMIGRANT
STUDENTS AND FAMILIES IN
CALIFORNIA. GIVEN THE
GEOGRAPHICAL REACH OF THE CSU
CAMPUSES FROM HUMBOLDT STATE
DOWN TO SAN DIEGO STATE, THIS
PROJECT HAS BEEN ABLE TO REACH
IMMIGRANTS IN POCKETS OF
CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE BEEN
HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED. THAT
INCLUDES STUDENTS AND FAMILIES
IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, CENTRAL
COAST, AND THE INLAND EMPIRE.
PART OF THE LONG STANDING
CHALLENGE IN WORKING WITH
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES IS
BUILDING TRUST AND PROVIDING
THEM WITH SUPPORT AND SERVICES
THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE. THROUGH
THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO BECOME TRUSTED MEMBERS OF
THESE COMMUNITIES AND DELIVER
THESE ACCESSIBLE SERVICES WITH A
HUGE CREDIT TO THE CSU EMPLOYEE,
STUDENT LEADERS AND ALLIES THAT
HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN THE
PROGRAM'S SUCCESS. SINCE 2018,
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS
FULLY FUNDED THIS PROGRAM, BUT
THIS YEAR, THE GOVERNOR IS
PROPOSING SLASHING THIS PROGRAM
BY 75% FROM AN ANNUAL INVESTMENT
OF 7 MILLION TO 1.8 MILLION. AND
THIS WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR OUR
CSU AND IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES
ACROSS THE STATE. A FUNDING
REDUCTION WILL MEAN THAT THIS
INFRASTRUCTURE IS DISMANTLED
RIGHT WHEN IT'S ACHIEVING ITS
ESTABLISHED GOAL. CREATING A
PARTNERSHIP TO PROVIDE
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES TO
UNDERSERVED, UNDER-RESOURCED
CALIFORNIANS SO THAT THEY CAN
FOCUS ON THEIR EDUCATION AND
EXPERIENCE STABILITY FOR
THEMSELVES, THEIR FAMILIES AND
ENTIRE COMMUNITIES. AND I WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW REASONS WHY
SHRINKING THIS PROGRAM WOULD
IMMEDIATELY HARM IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA.
FIRST, TYING LEGAL SERVICES TO A
STATEWIDE EDUCATIONAL
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NATION'S
LARGEST PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
IS A HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL MODEL
THAT PROVIDES QUALITY LEGAL
SERVICES IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER,
COVERING THE MAJORITY OF OUR
STATE AND INFUSING RESOURCES IN
HARD TO REACH IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA. A
REDUCTION IN FUNDING WILL MEAN
THAT OUR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TO
IMMEDIATELY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
ATTORNEYS. WE WILL SOON HAVE TO
STOP CONDUCTING INTAKE AND WILL
STOP BEING ABLE TO ACCEPT NEW
CASES FOR REPRESENTATION. AS WE
HAVE THOUSANDS OF PENDING CASES
THROUGH OUR CSU PARTNERSHIPS,
ANY REMAINING RESOURCES WILL BE
FOCUSED ON MEETING OUR LEGAL AND
ETHICAL REPRESENTATION
OBLIGATIONS FOR EXISTING
CLIENTS. THIS WILL ERODE THE
YEARS OF WORK IT TOOK FOR US TO
BECOME PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE
CSU COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE.
SECOND, IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE
IT PROVIDES LEGAL RESOURCES IN A
HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM THAT
ULTIMATELY LEADS TO ECONOMIC
EMPOWERMENT AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, GUARANTEEING THAT
IMMIGRANT STUDENTS OBTAINING
THEIR EDUCATION HAVE ACCESS TO
LEGAL SERVICES, ENSURES THAT
THEY HAVE THE TOOLS THAT THEY
NEED TO COMPLETE THEIR
EDUCATION. ENTER THE WORKFORCE,
AND OBTAIN ECONOMIC MOBILITY.
MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE
FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE
STUDENTS WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO
GIVE BACK TO THEIR FAMILIES AND
THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THIS
CRITICAL SERVICE CAN RADICALLY
CHANGE THEIR LIVES, NOT ONLY
ALLOWING THEM TO COMPLETE THEIR
EDUCATION, BUT PROVIDING THEM
AND THEIR FAMILY WITH A PATHWAY
TO LEGALIZATION AND ECONOMIC
STABILITY. THIRD, INDIVIDUALS
NEED FULL SCOPE REPRESENTATION
NOW MORE THAN EVER, DEFUNDING
THIS PROGRAM NOW, WHEN
IMMIGRATION PROCESSES AND
POLICIES HAVE INCREASINGLY
GOTTEN MORE COMPLEX AND
DIFFICULT TO ACCESS FOR
IMMIGRANTS, WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL
FOR OUR COMMUNITIES. SOME OF
THESE AREAS WE SERVE THROUGH
THIS PROJECT ARE HISTORICALLY
THE FIRST TO BE TARGETED BY
AGGRESSIVE IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT, BUT THE LEAST ABLE
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES DUE TO A
LACK OF LEGAL SERVICES,
PROVIDING IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES
WITH STABILITY AND FOUNDATIONAL
PROGRAMS THAT THEY CAN TRUST AND
RELY ON ALLOWS THEM AND ALL OUR
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA TO BE UNITED AND
PREPARED FOR WHATEVER THE FUTURE
HOLDS, AND NOW I WANT TO SHARE A
FEW OF THE EXAMPLES OF CLIENTS
THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SERVE
THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. AT ONE OF
THE FIRST CLINICS THAT WE HAD
UNDER THIS PROJECT, WE MET WITH
A STUDENT AND HER FATHER WHO
WANTED TO SEE IF THEY HAD ANY
OPTION FOR LEGAL STATUS IN THE
US. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE
UNDOCUMENTED, BUT WE DETERMINED
IN MEETING WITH THEM THAT THEY
WERE IN FACT BOTH US CITIZENS,
BOTH FATHER AND DAUGHTER, HAD
BEEN LIVING AS IF THEY WERE
UNDOCUMENTED IN THE US FOR THEIR
ENTIRE LIVES, OVER 40 AND 20
YEARS, RESPECTIVELY. AND THIS
WAS THE FIRST TIME THEY RECEIVED
A FULL SCREENING BY AN ATTORNEY
WHO EXPLAINED THAT THEY WERE
CITIZENS AS A RESULT OF THE
STUDENTS, US CITIZEN GRANDMOTHER
AT ANOTHER CLINIC THAT WE DID AT
CSU MONTEREY BAY, WE MET WITH AN
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT WHO WAS
ONLY ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR DACA
AT THE TIME. BUT THROUGH THIS
PROJECT, WE LATER DID
CONSULTATIONS WITH HIS SISTER
AND PARENTS, AND AFTER MEETING
WITH THE PARENTS, WE DETERMINED
THAT THEY WERE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY
FOR THEIR GREEN CARDS THROUGH
THEIR YOUNGER US CITIZEN
DAUGHTER. THE TWIN SISTER ALSO
MARRIED HER US CITIZEN PARTNER
AND ILD REPRESENTED ALL THREE OF
THEM IN THEIR GREEN CARD
APPLICATIONS. SO NOW THEY ARE
ALL THREE LAWFUL PERMANENT
RESIDENTS AND ONE OF THE PARENTS
HAS NOW PETITIONED FOR THE
STUDENT. THESE STORIES ARE JUST
A FEW OF THE THOUSANDS OF
STUDENTS AND FAMILIES WE'VE BEEN
ABLE TO SERVE, AND WE NEED THIS
PROJECT TO REMAIN FULLY FUNDED,
TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THOUSANDS
MORE. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS
VERY SPECIAL TO ME AND HITS
CLOSE TO HOME. I'M ALSO A PROUD
CSU AND ALUM, AND WHEN I WAS
STUDYING AT SAN FRANCISCO STATE
UNIVERSITY, I WAS ALSO
UNDOCUMENTED AND MY PARENTS AND
I DESPERATELY NEEDED LEGAL
SERVICES AT THE TIME. AS WE
BECAME ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR OUR
GREEN CARDS, BUT COULD NOT
AFFORD TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY. I AM
INCREDIBLY FORTUNATE TO HAVE
HELPED DESIGN AND LAUNCH THIS
PROGRAM AT SF STATE AND OTHER
CSU CAMPUSES, SO THAT STUDENTS
AND FAMILIES CAN CONTINUE TO
HAVE ACCESS TO THE LEGAL
SERVICES THEY NEED TO OBTAIN
STATUS, REMAIN UNITED WITH THEIR
FAMILIES, AND CONTINUE TO
CONTRIBUTE TO OUR STATE'S
ECONOMY. WE ASK THAT THE
COMMITTEE REJECT THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL AND FULLY FUND THE CSU
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
PROGRAM. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
SHARING YOUR STORY. APPRECIATE
THAT, I HAVE A QUESTION, ON THIS
ITEM AS IT RELATES TO THE YOU
KNOW, WE'RE GOING THROUGH ALL OF
THESE PROPOSALS AND, AND WHY,
THE TIMING OF IT AND, YOU KNOW,
THE LAW DOES RAISE A POINT THAT
I'D LIKE TO JUST TRY TO GET TO
THE BOTTOM OF THAT. THERE IS
ABOUT 8.8 MILLION IN UNSPENT
FUND US. AND I'M JUST WONDERING
IF THAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR THE
GOVERNOR'S, REDUCTION FOR THIS
YEAR OR IF THIS IS A REDUCTION
ONGOING, MAYBE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. IS THIS
AN ONGOING, REDUCTION PROPOSAL
OR JUST A ONE TIME? SO IT'S
ONGOING. WE THE POINT IS
IMPORTANT, THOUGH, THAT THERE IS
THERE ARE UNSPENT FUNDS IN THE
PROGRAM THAT WOULD ALLOW CURRENT
SERVICE, YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE
THROUGH THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR
UNTIL 2025. SO, MAYBE TO HELP US
UNDERSTAND WHETHER THAT'S
SUFFICIENT OR NOT, BECAUSE
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO
FIGURE OUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO
WANT TO MAINTAIN THIS PROGRAM
FUNDED, SO THERE'S BEEN HOW MANY
YEARS OF FUNDING FOR THIS
PROGRAM HAS IT BEEN TWO YEARS?
SO I THINK THERE WAS ONE TIME
FUNDING IN THE BUDGET ACT OF
2018, AND THEN IT WAS MADE
ONGOING IN 2019, SO 19, 20, 21,
IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN LIKE FIVE
YEARS. AND IT'S BEEN AT THE
AMOUNT OF ABOUT 7 MILLION EVERY
YEAR SINCE 19. THAT'S RIGHT. I
BELIEVE 2018 TWO, THOUGH. DON'T
QUOTE ME ON THAT. IS THAT
CORRECT? LEO DO YOU DO YOU KNOW
THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING. GOT
IT. SO THEN THERE'S BEEN A
RESERVE THAT'S BEEN BUILT, BUT
IT'S BEEN A RESERVE, OVER THE
COURSE OF FIVE, FIVE YEARS. IT
SOUNDS LIKE THE 8.8 MILLION THAT
WE'RE TRACKING IS ATTRIBUTED TO
PRIOR YEAR 20 2223 AND THE
CURRENT YEAR 20 2324. OKAY, IN
THE PREVIOUS YEARS, THE OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ABOUT 27
MILLION IN FUNDS FROM THOSE
FIRST SEVERAL YEARS HAS GONE OUT
TO THE NONPROFIT PARTNERS TO
PROVIDE SERVICES. OKAY I'M JUST
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF LIKE, IS
THIS LIKE A RIGHT SIZING OF A
PROGRAM OR MAYBE MORE CONTEXT
FROM THE DEPARTMENT AS TO WHY
THIS? IT'S A PRETTY DRASTIC
REDUCTION IN A SPECIFIC PROGRAM,
SURE. SO I MEAN, IT IS INTENDED
TO ADDRESS THE SHORTFALL, WHICH
ALL DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE STATE
ARE, ARE BEING ASKED TO DO. AND
THE OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE IS
THAT IT'S ALIGNING WITH THE
AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT THAT THE
UCR RECEIVES FOR THESE SERVICES.
SO YOU BRING UP A POINT, AND I
NOTED THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, AS WE
SIT HERE AND DISCUSS THE TWO
SYSTEMS AND THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE SYSTEM, WELL, LET'S JUST
TALK ABOUT èC IT'S ALIGNING TO
THAT. BUT WE'VE SEEN SOME DATA
ON THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED
AND THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS
SERVED AT THE CSU IS,
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS AT THE UC. OR
IS THAT DO YOU HAVE DIFFERENT
DATA THAT SHOWS THAT THEY'RE
MORE SIMILAR? NO, I WOULDN'T
DISPUTE THAT. OKAY, OKAY, SO I
GUESS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT
DOES BEG THE QUESTION, WHY DO WE
BRING IT DOWN TO THE SAME LEVEL
WHEN ONE SYSTEM IS PROVIDING
MORE SERVICES THAN, THAN THE
OTHER? AND IF IT'S ABOUT
RIGHTSIZING, WHICH IN A YEAR
LIKE THIS HAS TO BE ON THE
TABLE, WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT IS
THE RIGHT SIZE TO SERVE THE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT WE KNOW
CONTINUE TO HAVE A NEED AT THE
CSU SYSTEM, ENOUGH TO SERVE THE
STUDENTS AT THE UC SYSTEM, AND
ENOUGH TO SERVE THE STUDENTS AT
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM. SO
I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT
REMAINS UNRESOLVED AND THAT WE
NEED TO HEAR MORE DATA ABOUT
BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION.
CERTAINLY ON, ON, ON CUTTING AND
COGNIZANT THAT, UNSPENT FUNDS
COULD BE UTILIZED. I THINK, YOU
KNOW, THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT TO
SET A NEW PRECEDENT OF SUCH A
SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN A
SERVICE THAT'S BEING UTILIZED,
AND THAT WILL DEFINITELY LEAVE
IT WITH A SHORTFALL IN THE OUT
YEARS. IT'S NOT THE I THINK THE
RIGHT APPROACH. SO WE NEED TO
REVISIT THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER
NOW TO, TO MR. FONG FOR
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MR. CHAIR, AND, THANK YOU FOR,
THE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN
TERMS OF THE PROJECTION FOR,
WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE DATA,
DO WE HAVE DATA UP UNTIL THE END
OF 2023, I SAW THAT THE REPORTED
DATA WAS FOR THE FIRST NINE
MONTHS OF THE YEAR. ON PAGE 36.
IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL
CONSULTATIONS, CORRECT? YES. THE
DATA IS UNTIL AUGUST 2023 THAT
WE HAVE. OKAY. BUT DO YOU HAVE
DATA UP UNTIL THE END OF 2023?
I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE THIS IS
2364. AND THEN THE PRIOR YEAR
WAS 3078. I'M PRETTY SURE THE
NUMBERS HAVE GONE UP, BUT REALLY
WANTED TO GET A SENSE AS TO THE
NEED OF THE SERVICES. THERE'S A
TREMENDOUS NEED OUT THERE, I
BELIEVE, RIGHT? YES NO,
DEFINITELY. THE NEED HAS ONLY
INCREASED FROM WHAT OUR
PERSPECTIVE IS, AND WE CAN
DEFINITELY GET THAT DATA TO YOU
ALL. IT JUST TAKES SOME TIME FOR
THE DEPARTMENT TO PUT TOGETHER
THE DATA FROM ALL FOUR
ORGANIZATIONS TO THEN BE ABLE TO
, PROVIDE THAT. OKAY. BUT IT'S A
TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT PROGRAM.
I THINK THE WORK HERE IS,
TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT IN TERMS
OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S
PROPOSAL. HOW DID IT COME TO THE
75% NUMBER? I MEAN, THERE'S NO
THAT WAS THAT WAS JUST THE
AMOUNT THAT WAS ARRIVED AT FOR
THE FOR THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET.
AND YOU SAID SIMILAR TO THE èC,
WHAT'S THE UK'S PROPOSAL IN
TERMS OF THEIR CUT? RIGHT. SO
IT'S ALSO 1.8 MILLION IN ONGOING
FUNDING AT THE UC AT THE UC, BUT
THE CSU, THERE SEEMS TO BE A
MUCH GREATER NEED IN TERMS OF
THE NUMBER OF FOLKS BEING
SERVED. YES. SO LET'S GET
CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE I MIGHT
BE WRONG TO WHAT IS THE UC
CURRENT LEVEL VERSUS, PROPOSAL?
CURRENT LEVEL IS 1.8 MILLION NOW
AT UC, AND THAT IS MAINTAINED.
THERE IS NO REDUCTION TO THE UC,
CORRECT? YEAH, IT'S ALSO IT'S
NOT THROUGH DSS. SO OKAY. BUT TO
MR. CHAIRMAN'S POINT. SO UC HAS
1.8 MILLION. THE PROPOSED CUTS
WOULD CUT THE CSU TO 1.8
MILLION. BUT THERE'S A MUCH
GREATER NEED AT THE CSU. CORRECT
I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION. I CAN'T SPEAK TO
THAT. YES THERE IS. SO THE UC
SYSTEM, FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING,
SERVES ONLY NINE CAMPUSES VERSUS
THE CSU SYSTEM. WE SERVE ALL 23
CAMPUSES, AND THERE'S AN
ESTIMATE THAT IT IN TERMS OF
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS, IT'S
PROBABLY AROUND 4000 FOR THE UC
SYSTEM VERSUS NEARLY 10,000 FOR
THE CSU SYSTEM, PLUS, THROUGH
THIS PROGRAM, WE'RE ALSO ABLE TO
SERVE ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS, WHICH
HELPS WITH WORKFORCE WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC MOBILITY,
AND IN TERMS OF THE PRIOR
QUESTION, AND, IN REGARDS TO THE
BUDGET. SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THE REDUCTION ALREADY TOOK
PLACE. THERE WAS 7 MILLION OF
UNSPENT FUNDS, PLUS 1.8 MILLION
THAT, TO COVER HALF OF THE YEAR
OF NEXT YEAR. SO THERE'S 7
MILLION TO COVER ONE YEAR AND
THEN ONE, 1.8 TO COVER HALF A
YEAR, A TOTAL OF 8.8 MILLION
VERSUS FOR THIS PROJECT, IS
NORMALLY BEEN FUNDED FOR A YEAR
AND A HALF AT THE LEVEL OF 10
MILLION. SO THERE'S BEEN ALREADY
SOMEWHAT OF A REDUCTION. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND YOU
MENTIONED SERVING THE WHOLE
FAMILY. SO IF SOMEBODY HAS
SIBLINGS THEY MIGHT POTENTIALLY
HAVE A COMMUNITY COLLEGE. AND
WANTING TO TRANSFER AND CONTINUE
THEIR HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNEY
AT THE CSU. YES. SO WE SERVE,
SIBLINGS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE
ATTENDING THE CSU SYSTEM, AS
LONG AS THERE ARE OTHER SIBLING
IS ATTENDING. SO THIS HAS REALLY
, BEEN HELPFUL IN TERMS OF WHEN
WE'VE MET WITH THE STUDENT EARLY
ON IN THE PROGRAM WHERE WHERE
FAMILY MEMBERS WERE NOT COVERED,
WE FOUND THAT A LOT OF THE
IMMIGRATION RELIEF WAS TIED TO
FAMILY MEMBERS, AND IT WAS VERY
DIFFICULT TO JUST SERVE THE
STUDENT WITHOUT SERVING THE
PARENT OR THE SIBLING. SO FOR
EXAMPLE, IN ONE OF THE CASES I
MENTIONED, IT WAS NOT IT WAS
BEING ABLE TO SERVE THE PARENT
AND GETTING THEM STATUS WAS THEN
HELPFUL FOR THE STUDENT, BECAUSE
THEN THE PARENT COULD PETITION
FOR THE STUDENT, OR SOMETIMES IN
TERMS OF SPECIAL IMMIGRANT
JUVENILE STATUS, IT WAS THE
STUDENT AND ALSO THE SIBLING
THAT WERE ELIGIBLE FOR A GREEN
CARD. DO THE DUE TO THEIR
PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. SO IT
WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO SORT OF
SEVER IT. AND, IT, IT'S ONE OF
THE REASONS WHY IT MAKES THIS
PROJECT SO, SO GREAT. AND UNIQUE
AND WE'RE ABLE TO HELP SO MANY
MORE PEOPLE. ABSOLUTELY. SO THE
IMPACT IS JUST NOT JUST CSU.
IT'S IT COULD ALSO BE THE ENTIRE
FAMILY AND OTHER STUDENTS
ATTENDING OUR HIGHER EDUCATION
SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
OUR COMMUNITY COLLEGES. AND WE,
I BELIEVE THERE'S OVER 60,000
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS IN OUR
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES AS
WELL. AND SO THE WORK THAT
YOU'RE DOING IS IMPACTING THOSE
STUDENTS AS WELL, POSSIBLY AS
WELL. SO, EXACTLY. AND THE CSU,
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, HAS A
REALLY LARGE NUMBER OF STUDENTS
COMING FROM CALIFORNIA. SO THESE
ARE STUDENTS AND FAMILIES THAT
ARE IN CALIFORNIA THAT WILL
REMAIN IN CALIFORNIA, MOST
LIKELY, SO THE INVESTMENT, IS
DEFINITELY TO OUR STATE'S
BENEFIT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, YOU KNOW,
WE'LL HOLD THE ISSUE OPEN,
OBVIOUSLY. WELL, ACTUALLY, IT'S
S¼ ISSUE, BUT I THINK AT LEAST
ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT
WE'LL NEED IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE
ARE RIGHTSIZING OR CREATING SOME
EQUILIBRIUM BETWEEN èC THE DATA
THAT I'M SEEING FROM UC PUT OUT
BY THE UC, IMMIGRANT LEGAL LEGAL
SERVICES CENTER IS, FOR EXAMPLE,
IN 20 LET'S TAKE A YEAR. THAT'S
THAT'S ACTUALLY EQUIVALENT 2022,
THEY SERVE 1276 STUDENTS, CSU
ALONE HAD 3078 LEGAL
CONSULTATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE DATA
THAT WE HAVE IN OUR AGENDA IS
YOUR DACA, DATA FOR ADDITIONAL
TO THE LEGAL CONSULTATIONS, OR
IS IT PART OF THE LEGAL
CONSULTATIONS? IT'S IN ADDITION
TO AS WELL AS THE OTHER FORMS OF
THESE ARE ALL ADDITIVE. YES. SO,
IF YOU JUST LIKE, WERE TO REMOVE
THE BIG NUMBER OF EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH, WHICH IS IMPORTANT
WORK, BUT LET'S SAY IT'S
PROBABLY NOT WHAT'S BEING
CAPTURED BY THE DATA POINT. AND
UC, THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT
MORE STUDENTS BEING SERVED. AND
SO, THERE'S A LACK OF
EQUILIBRIUM IN THE FUNDING THERE
FOR SURE. SO THANK YOU ALL.
APPRECIATE IT. WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ISSUE ITEM.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.
THIS IS A REVIEW OF PAST
APPROPRIATIONS, FROM THE CSU,
AGAIN, JUST LIKE IN THE èC WANT
TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S, BEEN
ALLOCATED AND SPENT AND WHAT'S
AVAILABLE, AS SOLUTIONS GOING
FORWARD. SO WE HAVE, IN THIS
CASE, A LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OFFICE WILL GO FIRST, FOLLOWED
BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND CSU
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. THANK YOU.
LISA KING. WITH THE LAO THIS
ISSUE REVIEWS RECENT
APPROPRIATIONS TO CSU AND IT
PROVIDES SOME OPTIONS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER IF
ADDITIONAL SAVINGS ARE NEEDED TO
BALANCE THE BUDGET. IF YOU TURN
TO PAGE 39 OF YOUR AGENDA,
YOU'LL SEE A TABLE THAT
SUMMARIZES A NUMBER OF RECENT
ONE TIME APPROPRIATIONS TO CSU
OVER THE PAST THREE BUDGETS,
BASED ON A DATA REQUEST TO CSU
AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR,
THESE INITIATIVES HAD A COMBINED
$423 MILLION IN UNSPENT ONE TIME
FUNDS. IN GENERAL, WE ARE
RECOMMENDING REVERTING UNSPENT
ONE TIME FUNDS THIS YEAR, AS
THIS IS AMONG THE LEAST
DISRUPTIVE WAYS TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS
AN EXCEPTION AS IT RELATES TO
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE FUNDS,
WHICH ARE SHOWN IN THE VERY
BOTTOM OF THIS TABLE. WE AREN'T
AT THIS TIME RECOMMENDING
REVERTING UNSPENT FUNDS FOR
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AS PUTTING
OFF THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS
TENDS TO LEAD TO HIGHER FACILITY
COSTS IN THE LONG RUN. IN
ADDITION TO THE ONE TIME
APPROPRIATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN IN
THIS TABLE, THE STATE HAS ALSO
PROVIDED ONGOING AUGMENTATIONS
TO CSU TO SUPPORT CERTAIN
CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE DEBT
FINANCED. AND IF YOU TURN THE
PAGE TO PAGE 40 OF YOUR AGENDA,
YOU'LL SEE A LIST OF THOSE DEBT
FINANCED PROJECTS BASED ON DATA
FROM CSU. ACTUAL DEBT SERVICE
COSTS FOR THESE PROJECTS ARE
COMING IN SOMEWHAT LOWER THAN
BUDGETED IN THESE FIRST COUPLE
OF YEARS. FOR THE SAME REASON WE
DISCUSSED IN THE RELATED èC
ITEM. DUE TO THE TIMING OF BOND
SALES, NOT ALL OF THE BONDS HAVE
BEEN ISSUED, AND THEREFORE NOT
ALL OF THE DEBT COSTS HAVE BEEN
INCURRED. WE RECOMMEND ALIGNING
THE AUGMENTATION THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO CSU WITH THE MOST
RECENT ESTIMATES OF ACTUAL DEBT
SERVICE COSTS. WE ESTIMATE THAT
THAT WOULD YIELD APPROXIMATELY
75,000,000 IN 1 TIME SAVINGS FOR
20 2324, AND APPROXIMATELY
32,000,000 IN 1 TIME SAVINGS FOR
20 2425. IN ADDITION, YOU'LL SEE
IN THIS FIGURE THAT THERE ARE A
FEW PROJECTS FOR WHICH NO BONDS
HAVE BEEN ISSUED. THE
LEGISLATURE COULD CONSIDER
PAUSING THOSE PROJECTS AT THIS
TIME AND REMOVING THE ASSOCIATED
DEBT SERVICE FOR AN UP TO 12
MILLION IN ADDITIONAL ONGOING
SAVINGS. THANK YOU. I'D BE HAPPY
TO TAKE QUESTIONS AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.
LISA THANK YOU AGAIN. RYAN STERN
WITH CSU. SO FOR BACKGROUND, THE
CSU RECEIVED ONE TIME AND
ONGOING APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN
2122 AND 2324 FOR APPROXIMATELY
75 DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND
PROGRAMS, TOTALING ABOUT $2
BILLION. ABOUT 100 MILLION OF
THAT WAS ONGOING. SO THE
PREPONDERANCE OF IT WAS ONE TIME
FUNDING. SO IN GENERAL, THESE
APPROPRIATIONS ARE GROUPED AS
FOLLOWS. FIRST, MANY OF THE CAP
OUTLAY PROJECTS ARE SUPPORTED BY
ONE TIME STATE FUNDING OR WORSE,
FUNDED BY ONE TIME STATE
FUNDING. THESE ARE CAMPUS
SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
FOR ACADEMIC FACILITIES AS WELL
AS STUDENT HOUSING. ANOTHER
GROUP IS SHORT TERME PROGRAM,
SUPPORTED BY ONE TIME FUNDING,
SO THESE ARE SYSTEMWIDE AND
CAMPUS SPECIFIC PROGRAMS AND
EXAMPLES ARE EMERGENCY GRANT AID
TO STUDENTS. RIGHT AFTER THE
PANDEMIC. WE HAVE STARTUP
FUNDING FOR CERTAIN ACADEMIC
PROGRAMS, AMONG SOME OTHERS. AND
THEN THIRD, THE THIRD GROUP ARE
SEVERAL LONG TERME PROGRAMS
SUPPORTED BY ONGOING FUNDING,
AND THESE ARE ALSO SYSTEM WIDE
AS WELL AS CAMPUS SPECIFIC
PROGRAMS. EXAMPLES ARE FOSTER
YOUTH SERVICES, PROJECT REBOUND,
AND SUMMER TERME FINANCIAL AID
SUPPORT. SO HERE ARE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM. SO IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE
APPROPRIATIONS WERE SELECTED BY
STATE LEADERS BASED ON THEIR
PRIORITIES AND COMMITMENTS TO
THEIR CONSTITUENTS. THE LAO
RECOMMENDS PULLING BACK SOME
UNSPENT ONE TIME FUNDS, PAUSING
SOME PROJECTS, AND ADJUSTING
APPROPRIATIONS TO ALIGN WITH
DEBT SERVICE COST ESTIMATES. AND
THE CSU DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
LAOS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TWO
REASONS. FIRST, SWEEPING ONE
TIME FUNDS FROM PRIOR BUDGETS
WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT SEVERAL
CAPITAL AND PROGRAMMATIC
PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT MANY OF
THE STATE'S MOST CRITICAL NEEDS
IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND
AGRICULTURE. THESE PROJECTS ALSO
SUPPORT CSU ENROLLMENT AND
PROVIDE DEGREE PATHWAYS IN
IMPORTANT FIELDS. THE OTHER
SECOND REASON, OR THE SECOND
REASON, TO BE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE LEO'S RECOMMENDATION, IS
PULLING BACK FUNDING IN A
FLUCTUATING CONSTRUCTION AND
BOND MARKET IS REALLY RISKY TO
THE UNIVERSITY, SINCE THESE
PROJECTS WERE APPROVED, MORE
DIFFICULT BUDGET AND COST
ESCALATION CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE
DEVELOPED, CREATING MORE RISK
FOR THE UNIVERSITY AND BEING
ABLE TO APPROPRIATELY DESIGN,
FINANCE AND CONSTRUCT THESE
PROJECTS AS ORIGINALLY
ENVISIONED BY STATE LEADERS. SO,
TO BE MORE DIRECT ABOUT IT, WE
ARE CONCERNED SWEEPING FUNDING
WOULD LEAVE US WITH INSUFFICIENT
RESOURCES TO FULLY CONSTRUCT
THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN
VARIOUS STAGES OF PLANNING AND
CONSTRUCTION, AND IN PARTICULAR,
HAVING ISSUED BONDS FOR THESE
FOR MANY OF THESE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS, BOTH STUDENT HOUSING
AND ACADEMIC FACILITIES. SO
CONSEQUENTLY, THE CSU CONCLUDES
THAT THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY
RISKS AND POTENTIAL NEGATIVE
IMPACTS FOR ANY OF THIS FUNDING
TO BE RETURNED TO THE STATE,
EITHER ONE TIME OR ONGOING IN
NATURE, AND WE'D BE CONCERNED
THAT IT WOULD UPEND SEVERAL OF
THE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS. THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO COMMENT,
DEVIN MITCHELL WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, NOTHING
TO ADD AT THIS TIME, THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET DID NOT
INCLUDE ANY ACTIONS RELATED TO
THE CSU APPROPRIATIONS OUTLINED
IN THE AGENDA. THANK YOU, AGAIN,
SIMILAR QUESTIONS. MAYBE WE'LL
HAVE CSU GO FIRST THE NEXT TIME,
BUT SOME OTHER QUESTIONS TO THE
èC IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THE
FUNDS THAT ARE HAVEN'T BEEN
SPENT AND, WHAT STATUS OR WHAT
STATE THEY'RE IN IF THERE ARE
MATCHING FUNDS THAT WOULD BE IN
JEOPARDY, WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO
KNOW, AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR TO èC
FOR THOSE PROJECTS WHERE THERE
HAS NOT BEEN BOND ISSUANCE,
CERTAINLY AREAS FOR US TO, TO,
HOLD THE ISSUES OPEN TO FURTHER
GET CLARITY AS WE MAKE FINAL
DECISIONS FOR THE JUNE BUDGET,
AS WE HAVE MORE CLARITY IN MAY,
AS TO WHERE WE STAND. SO, AGAIN,
VERY SIMILAR COMMENTS IN THAT
REGARD. THANK THAT MIGHT BE IT
FOR ME ON THIS ISSUE. GO ON TO
MR. FONG, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR.
ALVAREZ. AND SOMEWHERE IN THE
ONE TIME PROGRAMS, I JUST WOULD
LOVE TO GET ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THEY ARE
AND THE REPORT BACK. AND KIND OF
LIKE THE EXPENDITURE PROCESS
THERE AND THE ENCUMBRANCES
SIMILAR TO WHAT I BROUGHT UP AT
THE èC AS WELL. AND THE ONLY
QUESTION I HAVE ON THIS AS WELL
IS, WHEN WE LOOK AT PAGE 40, THE
HOUSING PROJECTS, WE KNOW
STUDENT HOUSING IS CRITICAL. SO
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE
HOUSING PROJECTS BEING PROPOSED
IN SAN JOSE, SACRAMENTO AND
STANISLAUS IN TERMS OF THE TIME
FRAME THERE? RIGHT, SAN JOSE IS
IN A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE
THEY HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF AN OPPORTUNITY
RIGHT NEXT TO ITS CAMPUS,
ORIGINALLY, THAT PROJECT WAS
DESIGNED TO BE A BRAND NEW
CONSTRUCTION ON A ON A SITE THAT
HAD BEEN THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
IDENTIFIED. BUT NOW THERE'S A
PARTNERSHIP WITH A COMMERCIAL
REAL ESTATE, ENTITY TO
ESSENTIALLY TAKE OVER A TOWER OF
A, OF A HOTEL AND CONVERT THAT
TO A DORM. DORM ROOMS,
ESSENTIALLY IT'S CHEAPER, IT'S
QUICKER. IT'S REALLY GREAT.
ADVANTAGEOUS PROJECT IN TERMS OF
WHAT THE GOALS OF THE PROJECT
ARE. SO THAT'S A VERY LIMITED
IT'S A VERY LIMITED TIME LEASE
TO BEGIN WITH, BUT THEN WITH THE
OPTION TO BUY LATER, AND THE
GOAL WOULD BE FOR US TO ISSUE
BONDS TO BE ABLE TO, TAKE, TAKE
THAT PROJECT OVER. SO WE THINK
IT'S A REALLY GOOD PROJECT IN
TERMS OF THOSE OTHER TWO
PROJECTS, THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT
BEHIND BECAUSE THEY'RE THEY WERE
IN KIND OF THE THIRD WAVE OF
THOSE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECTS.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE
ISSUE ABOUT STUDENT HOUSING. ONE
THING TO THAT DOVETAILS IN WITH
WHAT THE CHAIR WAS MENTIONING
WAS THE KIND OF THE MATCHING
FUNDS OR OTHER MONEY THAT'S
INVOLVED IN THESE PROJECTS. MANY
OF THESE STUDENT HOUSING
PROJECTS ARE TIED IN WITH OUR
SYSTEM WIDE REVENUE BOND PROJECT
TO PROVIDE MORE BEDS AT LARGE.
SO A PROJECT WHERE THE
AFFORDABLE STUDENT HOUSING MAY
BE MADE, 300 BEDS. WE WOULD
BUILD THE PROJECT AT 500 BEDS
AND USE OUR OWN REVENUE SOURCE,
OUR OWN BONDS TO DO THAT. SO IN
A WAY, IF YOU WERE TO PULL BACK
MONEY FOR ANY OF THE AFFORDABLE
STUDENT HOUSING PROJECTS, IT
WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE TOTALITY OF
THE PROJECT. BOTH THE
UNSUBSIDIZED BEDS VERSUS
SUBSIDIZED. SO MANY OF OUR
HOUSING PROJECTS ARE SITUATED IN
THAT WAY WHERE THEY'RE COMBINED.
THEY'RE NOT JUST ALL, AFFORDABLE
STUDENT HOUSING BETS, IF THAT
MAKES ANY SENSE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. AND WE'LL HOLD, THE
ISSUE OPEN AND WE'LL REVISIT AND
LOOK FORWARD TO THE RESPONSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FINAL ITEM,
ISSUE EIGHT. OUR GRADUATION
INITIATIVE 2025 UPDATE, REALLY
LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS. I
REALLY WANT TO THANK, CSU SYSTEM
FOR BEING HERE AND TALKING ABOUT
THIS. IT IS, IT IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE AS WE'VE MADE
COMMITMENTS OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS TO PARTICULARLY
THE CSU SYSTEM, CERTAINLY WITH
THE NOT JUST HOPE, BUT REALLY
EXPECTATION THAT WE SEE THE
GAPS, CLOSE AMONG SOME OF OUR,
THE STUDENT GROUPS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN AS SUCCESSFUL IN ACHIEVING
GRADUATION. SO I'M PERSONALLY
VERY, PLEASED. AND THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE TO SPECIFICALLY FOCUS
ON THIS ISSUE TODAY. SO I THINK
WE HAVE, TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE AND ALLOW
YOU TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND
PRESENT, GOOD AFTERNOON. NOW AND
THANK YOU, CHAIR ALVAREZ AND
MEMBER FONG, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY. MY
NAME IS JENNIFER BAZILE, AND I
SERVE AS ASSOCIATE VICE
CHANCELLOR FOR STUDENT SUCCESS
AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE AT THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF ACADEMIC AND STUDENT
AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE
CHANCELLOR. GRADUATION
INITIATIVE 2025 HAS CONTRIBUTED
TO RECORD HIGH GRADUATION RATES
AND NUMBER OF DEGREES AWARDED,
RESULTING IN ENHANCED EARNINGS
AND IMPROVED SOCIOECONOMIC
OUTCOMES FOR THOUSANDS OF
STUDENTS. I'LL BRIEFLY UPDATE
YOU ON OUR ONGOING WORK AND THE
PROGRESS THAT WE'VE MADE TO
DATE. GRADUATION INITIATIVE 2025
SET OUT BOLD AND AMBITIOUS
GRADUATION GOALS WITH ITS LAUNCH
IN 2015, AND SINCE THEN, THE CSU
HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN
REACHING THOSE TARGETS. THE CSU
HAS NEARLY DOUBLED THE FOUR YEAR
GRADUATION RATE FOR FIRST YEAR
STUDENTS, AND MOST OF MOST CSU'S
HAVE ACHIEVED ALL TIME HIGHS AND
GRADUATION RATES FOR STUDENTS OF
ALL BACKGROUNDS. JAI 2025 HAS
DELIVERED SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGES FOR STUDENTS,
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING THEIR
EDUCATIONAL, FINANCIAL BURDENS
AND ENHANCING THEIR FUTURE
EARNING POTENTIAL. WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME, WE RECOGNIZE THAT
CRITICAL WORK REMAINS TO BE DONE
AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO
ACHIEVING EVEN GREATER RESULTS
FOR OUR STUDENTS AND THE STATE.
EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT GAPS
PERSIST FOR HISTORICALLY
UNDERSERVED STUDENTS, MEANING
THESE STUDENTS ARE GRADUATING AT
LOWER RATES, PROGRESSING MORE
SLOWLY, OR NOT COMPLETING THEIR
DEGREES. WE CAN AND MUST NARROW
AND EVENTUALLY CLOSE THESE GAPS.
WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO
REMOVE BARRIERS FOR ALL
STUDENTS. WHILE THESE GAPS
EXISTED BEFORE THE PANDEMIC
NATIONWIDE, THEY HAVE WIDENED
SINCE COVID 19 AS UNDERSERVED
STUDENTS HAVE BEEN
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED BY
INTERRUPTED LEARNING, FINANCIAL
HARDSHIPS, AND SOCIAL AND
COMMUNITY IMPACTS. THE CSU IS
LEVERAGING THE IDENTIFIED
STRATEGIES FOR STUDENT SUCCESS
ACROSS ITS 23 CAMPUSES AND IS
SEEKING TO SCALE UP THOSE
PRACTICES THAT HAVE THE GREATEST
IMPACT ON RECRUITING AND
RETAINING STUDENTS FROM
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. WE ARE
ALSO LOOKING AHEAD TO BOLDLY
REIMAGINE THE WORK OF STUDENT
SUCCESS MOVING FORWARD. THE CSU
IS ENGAGING IN THE YEAR OF
ENGAGEMENT AND UNPRECEDENTED
CONSULTATION PROCESS THAT WILL
INCLUDE A COMPREHENSIVE SPECTRUM
OF STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING
FACULTY, STUDENTS, ALUMNI, BY
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITIES OF OUR
UNIVERSITY SERVE TO DEVELOP THE
SUCCESSOR TO GRADUATION
INITIATIVE 2025. THE CSU
CONTINUES TO MAKE PROGRESS IN
INCREASING GRADUATION RATES FOR
FIRST TIME FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
AND TRANSFER STUDENTS, AND IN
REALIZING ITS GRADUATION
INITIATIVE, 2025 GOALS. DESPITE
A CHALLENGING LANDSCAPE AND
HIGHER EDUCATION, ENROLLMENT AND
RETENTION TO MAINTAIN A POSITIVE
TRAJECTORY, SUSTAINED,
PREDICTABLE AND SUFFICIENT STATE
FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL. HOWEVER,
INCREASING GRADUATION RATES IS
ONLY PART OF THE EQUATION.
MEETING CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE
WORKFORCE NEEDS ALSO REQUIRES
INVESTMENT TO EXPAND ACCESS TO
THE CSU, PROVIDING THE LIFE
CHANGING BENEFITS OF A COLLEGE
DEGREE TO MORE CALIFORNIANS. THE
CSU'S ROLE IN CALIFORNIA'S
HIGHER EDUCATION FRAMEWORK HAS
NEVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN
IT IS TODAY. IN THE CURRENT
GLOBAL ECONOMY, MORE STUDENTS
NEED A DEGREE OR CREDENTIAL
BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL AS A
NECESSARY ENTRY POINT TO A
CAREER. THIS SHIFT COINCIDES
WITH AN INCREASE IN THE
DIVERSITY OF THE STATE'S COLLEGE
GOING POPULATION. THE CSU IS
UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO MEET
THESE CHALLENGES DUE TO THE
BREADTH AND DEPTH OF OUR
EXPERTISE IN OFFERING BACHELOR'S
DEGREES AND APPLIED GRADUATE
DEGREES TO HELP CREATE A MORE
THRIVING AND PROSPEROUS FUTURE
FOR CALIFORNIA. THIS CONCLUDES
MY OPENING REMARKS, AND I'M
PLEASED TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS
THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THE
FIRST QUESTION I'D ASK IS WHEN
WILL THE 2023 DATA? WE HAVE A
TABLE FOR ON PAGE 44, IS THE
2023 DATA AVAILABLE YET ON THE
SYSTEM WIDE GRADUATION RATES?
THE 23 DATA WAS RELEASED IN
OCTOBER. IT WAS PUBLICLY
RELEASED IN OCTOBER OF 2023 AT
OUR GRADUATION INITIATIVE 2025
SYMPOSIUM. SO IT'S AVAILABLE ON
OUR DASHBOARDS. YES. THANK YOU.
HOW DIFFERENT THAN JUST YOU
KNOW, TO GIVE ME ALL THE
NUMBERS, BUT, HOW DIFFERENT IS
IT FROM 2022? IS IT DOES IT HOLD
PRETTY STEADY OR IS THERE IN THE
FIRST TIME STUDENTS AND TRANSFER
STUDENTS GRADUATION RATES HAVE
THAT THOSE GONE UP. SO IN THE
FIRST TIME, FOUR YEAR GRADUATION
RATES FOR 2023, THE NUMBER WAS
35.5% FOR FOUR YEARS. FOR FOUR
YEARS, YES, THE SIX YEAR GOAL
WAS 70. IN 2023, WE WERE AT
62.2. TRANSFER STUDENTS. THE
GOAL WAS 45. AND WE WERE AT THE
TWO YEAR GRADUATION RATE OF
41.5. AND THE FOUR YEAR TRANSFER
GOAL WAS IS 85% AND THE 2023
RATE WAS 79.4. PROBABLY THE
PLACE WHERE YOU'RE MOST
INTERESTED ACTUALLY HAS TO DO
WITH OUR EQUITY GAP. YES. AND
OUR EQUITY GAP ACTUALLY WAS AT
13.4. SO WE SAW AN UNFORTUNATE
INCREASE OF 1.5% FOR STUDENTS OF
COLOR AND ALSO FOR PELL GRANT,
FOR PELL GRANT, THE GAP WAS AT
12.3. OKAY YEAH. REALLY SOBERING
RIGHT? INDEED TEN YEARS, SINCE
THE DATA HAS BEEN MEASURED, AND
THE COMMITMENT, THOUGH, BEGAN.
REMIND ME OF WHEN BECAUSE I
OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT HERE IN 2015.
YES. SO WE'RE TEN YEARS IN. SO I
JUST WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, VERY
REAL HERE AND, TEN YEARS IN,
WE'RE GRADUATING PEOPLE, AT A
MUCH BETTER RATE, IN SOME
REGARDS, LIKE FIRST TIME
STUDENTS THERE, I MEAN, YOU'RE
DOING PRETTY WELL. PROBABLY
GOING TO HIT THE GOAL, EVEN WITH
TRANSFER STUDENTS, YOU KNOW,
DOING DOING BETTER AND CERTAINLY
ON TARGET. SO THAT ONLY MEANS IF
THE EQUITY GAP IS, IS WHAT IT
IS, THAT SOME STUDENTS ARE DOING
GREAT, AND WE'RE SUCCESSFUL WITH
THEM AND THE STUDENTS WE REALLY
WANT TO FOCUS ON BECAUSE THAT
GAP EXISTS. JUST JUST ARE NOT.
THAT'S THE REALITY. SO TEN YEARS
IN THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE A
COMMITMENT, BUT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT THE CSU SYSTEM, AS A WHOLE,
MAKES A COMMITMENT ABOVE AND
BEYOND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS,
DONE, YET WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT
SEEING THAT GAP, CLOSE. SO THAT
IS A LARGE NUMBER OF OUR
STUDENTS AS WELL, RIGHT? IT'S
NOT JUST THAT IT'S SUBGROUPS.
IT'S THAT IT IS A LARGE
PERCENTAGE OF OUR TOTAL NUMBER
OF STUDENTS THAT ARE IN THOSE
SUBGROUPS. SO THAT JUST MEANS IT
IS PROPORTIONATELY EVEN HIGHER.
AND SO, THE QUESTION IS TEN
YEARS IN WITH ONE ESSENTIALLY
ONE YEAR TO GO, WHAT ARE THE
DRASTIC MEASURES THAT ARE BEING
TAKEN NOW TO, TO TRY AND DO
SOMETHING THAT NOW ALMOST
APPEARS MIRACULOUS, IN THE NEXT
YEAR OR TWO TO, TO HIT THE GOAL
OR WHAT WHAT IS HAPPENING THAT
IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S
HAPPENED IN THE LAST NINE YEARS
OR EIGHT YEARS WHERE THIS HAS
NOT BEEN, AS SUCCESSFUL AS
EXPECTED. SO AT THE RISK OF
STATING THE OBVIOUS, BUT MAYBE
NOT THE OBVIOUS, I WOULD OFFER
THE FOLLOWING CONTEXT. WHEN THIS
INITIATIVE STARTED. AND WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE DEMOGRAPHIC
COMPOSITION OF THE CSU STUDENT
POPULATION, WHEN THE INITIATIVE
STARTED AND THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF
THE CSU POPULATION FOR THE LAST
YEAR THAT WE RELEASED OUR DATA,
THE NUMBER, THE PERCENTAGE OF
THE CSU POPULATION THAT WAS
EITHER UNDERSERVED OR PELL
ELIGIBLE INCREASED BY 15. THE
STUDENT POPULATION IS CHANGING
AND IT IS CHANGING
SIGNIFICANTLY. TYPICALLY WHAT WE
SEE FOR THOSE STUDENT
POPULATIONS IS THAT THE SERVICES
AND SUPPORTS THAT WE KNOW WORK
TO HELP THOSE STUDENTS SUCCEED.
THOSE SERVICES AND SUPPORTS ARE
PARTICULAR, AND THEY DO NEED TO
GROW. SO THAT'S ONE SET OF
CONTEXTS THAT I WOULD OFFER. AND
THE OTHER ACTUALLY ALSO DOES
HAVE TO DO WITH THE PANDEMIC AND
THE LEARNING LOSS AND THE OTHER
KINDS OF IMPACTS THAT STUDENTS
HAD IN TERMS OF CAREGIVING, IN
TERMS OF WORK, IN TERMS OF HOURS
THAT WE ARE GOING TO SEE PLAY
OUT. SO THAT'S THE CONTEXT. THE
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ABOUT
WHAT WE ARE DOING IS I WILL
OFFER TWO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. ONE
HAS TO DO WITH THE WORK AROUND
BLACK STUDENT SUCCESS AS THE
CHANCELLOR COMMISSION, THE
INTERIM CHANCELLOR, KESTER
COMMISSIONED A WORK GROUP AROUND
BLACK STUDENT SUCCESS. THAT WORK
GROUP HAS CREATED A REPORT AND
THE CSU HAS BEEN WORKING TO
IMPLEMENT 13 RECOMMENDATIONS TO
IMPROVE BLACK STUDENT SUCCESS
FOR THE OVERALL STUDENT
POPULATION. WE ARE ENGAGED IN A
PROJECT NOW CALLED FINISH STRONG
AND GRADUATE 365 THAT DOES TWO
THINGS. ONE, IT PUTS IN THE
HANDS OF CAMPUS LEADERS AND
DECISION MAKERS REAL TIME AND
NEAR TIME DATA ABOUT STUDENTS
WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO GRADUATE UP
TO A SEMESTER EARLY. AND WE CAN
DISAGGREGATE THAT DATA, AND WE
CAN IDENTIFY THAT DATA DOWN TO
THE STUDENT RECORD LEVEL. THE
OTHER THING THAT WE ARE DOING IS
WE ARE SUPPORTING A COMMUNITY OF
PRACTICE WHERE LEADERS, DECISION
MAKERS AND ADMINISTRATORS ARE
COMING TOGETHER ON A MONTHLY AND
ROUTINE BASIS TO EVALUATE THAT
INFORMATION, APPLY IT IN THEIR
CONTEXT, AND LEVERAGE BEST
PRACTICES OR PROMISING PRACTICES
FROM OTHER CAMPUSES THAT THEY
ARE IMPLEMENTING NOW, TODAY. SO
WE ARE STILL FOCUSED ON AS
STRONG A FINISH TO THE CURRENT
INITIATIVE AS WE CAN. WE ARE
DISAGGREGATING THE DATA IN ORDER
TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN THE
HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO CAN IMPACT
CHANGE ON CAMPUSES, AND WE'RE
ACTIVELY WORKING TO FIND
SOLUTIONS. MY RESPONSE WILL JUST
BE THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE ALL
SOUND LIKE WORTHWHILE BEALL,
INITIATIVES TO TAKE ON, I AM
CONCERNED THAT WE WILL CONTINUE
TO THE GAPS WILL CONTINUE TO
PERSIST. IT DOESN'T NONE OF
THOSE INITIATIVES ARE ARE AS,
INTENSE AS I THINK THEY NEED TO
BE. WE KNOW STUDENTS IN AFTER
THEIR SECOND YEAR, THIRD YEAR
WHERE WHERE THEY'RE HEADED IN
TERMS OF HOW MUCH COMPLETION HAS
OCCURRED WITH CREDITS LIKE
SHOULD BE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
DISAGGREGATING DATA, LIKE
IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS AND
SOMEONE NEEDS TO FIND THOSE
INDIVIDUALS, AND THOSE
INDIVIDUALS NEED TO BE BROUGHT
IN TO PROVIDE BE PROVIDED WITH
THE RESOURCES, WITH THE
COUNSELING, WITH THE SUPPORT
SYSTEMS. THAT IS LIKE THE LEVEL
OF, I THINK, INTENSITY THAT IS
REQUIRED FOR US TO EVEN MAKE A
DENT IN THIS PERSISTENT AND
UNFORTUNATELY GROWING GAP. AND
AND THAT DOESN'T REALLY SOUND
LIKE IT'S IN ANY OF THOSE
INITIATIVES. SO I WOULD I WOULD
JUST ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS, AS
YOU'RE REVIEWING, WHAT ARE THE
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THAT WE, WE
GET TO THAT LEVEL AND THAT YOU
GIVE US SOME PROOF OF CONCEPT OF
SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY IS I'M
JUST GOING TO SAY IT THIS WAY,
THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO
WORK BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN
WORKING, AND, YOU KNOW, AT SOME
POINT WITH AS A FATHER OF TWO AT
ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL AND
LEARNING LOSS IS REAL. IT
HAPPENS TO EVERY KID. BUT AT
SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO NOT WE WILL NOT HAVE THAT
AVAILABLE AS A REASON AS TO WHY
SOME OF THESE ISSUES,
PARTICULARLY AMONG OUR STUDENTS
OF COLOR. CONTINUE TO PERSIST,
AND WE'VE GOT TO GET GET TO
THAT, SOONER THAN LATER. I ALSO
BELIEVE THAT, WE NEED TO, PEOPLE
TOOK ON A LOT OF
RESPONSIBILITIES. I GET THAT, I
LIKE TO SEE WHETHER WAS THAT
DISPROPORTIONATELY THE SAME
STUDENTS, YOU KNOW, WAS IT THE
STUDENTS OF COLOR WHO WERE THE
ONES WHO WERE HAVING TO BECOME
THE CAREGIVERS? I THINK FROM AN
ANECDOTAL PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD
SAY, YES, THAT'S WHAT I SEE IN
MY COMMUNITY. BUT, BUT, BUT BUT
IT'S THAT'S THE CASE. AND IF
THAT'S NOT THE CASE AND THERE
WERE OTHER STUDENTS OF OTHER
SUBGROUPS WHO ARE ALSO TAKING ON
ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, YET
THEY ARE GRADUATING AT HIGHER
LEVELS THEN THEN THAT'S NOT THE
ANSWER EITHER, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT
THE REASON WHY. SO WE HAD THIS
AGENDIZE BECAUSE IT IS IT IS
SIGNIFICANT. IT IS THE FUTURE,
AS YOU SAID, MORE OF YOUR
STUDENTS ARE STUDENTS OF COLOR
AND SO THAT MEANS
PROPORTIONATELY, WE ARE BEING
LESS SUCCESSFUL, EVEN MORE WITH
MORE OF YOUR STUDENTS. THAT IS
NOT ACCEPTABLE, I KNOW, I KNOW,
IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU.
CERTAINLY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO
THE STATE. SO, THERE IS
DEFINITELY MORE WORK TO BE DONE
ON THIS INITIATIVE, AND WE
SHOULD PROBABLY TRY TO SPEND,
SOME MORE TIME HEARING FROM YOU
ON THE PRECISE INITIATIVES, THE
ALMOST SURGICAL LEVEL
INITIATIVES THAT NEED TO TAKE
PLACE IN ORDER TO REALLY REDUCE
THIS, THIS GAP. I'LL TURN IT
OVER TO MR. FONG FOR QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR THIS
PRESENTATION. I THINK WHEN WE
LOOK AT, AS MR. CHAIRMAN SAID, A
FUTURE PRESENTATION, I THINK
HIGHLIGHTING THE BEST PRACTICES
FROM THE CAMPUSES WHEN WE LOOK
AT THE DATA AND YOU MIGHT HAVE
THE DATA HERE, CAMPUS BY CAMPUS,
BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS IN AN
INCIDENT, A REPORT WHICH
CAMPUSES ARE DOING BETTER. AND
YOU MENTIONED SHARING BEST
PRACTICES THAT INTENTIONAL K¾T
THAT I HEAR FROM THE CHAIR
MYSELF IS REALLY LOOKING AT HOW
WE MEET THIS GOAL, 40, 70, 45,
85 AND LITERALLY AROUND THE
CORNER. YES, THE PANDEMIC
HAPPENED. YES, LEARNING LOSS
HAPPENED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
THE INTENTIONALITY OF THIS
PROGRAM IS SO CRITICAL TO
HELPING OUR UNDERSERVED STUDENTS
OF COLOR, MEET THEIR TO MEET
THESE GOALS AND TO REALLY
EMBRACE THEIR HOPES AND
ASPIRATIONS IN HERE, IN HIGHER
EDUCATION HERE AT THE CSU. SO I
THINK AND THIS SOUNDS LIKE THERE
WILL BE A FUTURE PRESENTATION ON
THIS, BUT HOW WE CAN SHARE THOSE
BEST PRACTICES TO ADDRESS AND
CLOSE THE EQUITY GAP IS
SOMETHING I'D BE VERY,
INTERESTED IN HEARING, BUT ALSO
THE CAMPUS BY CAMPUS SCENARIO
BECAUSE I ASSUME SOME CAMPUSES
ARE HOPEFULLY MEETING THE
THRESHOLD. NOW, ARE VERY CLOSE
TO IT. AND OTHER CAMPUSES, AS WE
HEARD, THE, THE GAPS HAVE
INCREASED. SO REALLY GETTING
THAT CAMPUS BY CAMPUS ANALYSIS
AND SEEING WHAT IS BEING DONE AT
THOSE CAMPUSES THAT MAKE THOSE
PROGRAMS, AND HOW WE CAN
REPLICATE THOSE BEST PRACTICES.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT
COMMENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR
THE WORK YOU DO. WE WANT YOU TO
SUCCEED, OBVIOUSLY, SO WE ARE
HOPEFUL TO HEAR FROM YOU. WHAT
ARE THOSE THINGS? WHAT ARE THE
BEST PRACTICES THAT CAMPUSES
WHAT ARE THE NEW INITIATIVES?
WHAT ARE THE AGAIN SURGICAL
LEVEL ON THE GROUND HELPING
STUDENTS INDIVIDUALLY.
CONVERSATIONS ARE IMPORTANT
AMONG EDUCATIONAL LEADERS, DON'T
GET ME WRONG. BUT WE ARE NOW AT
THE STATE WHERE LIKE WE NEED TO
GET INTO THE WEEDS WITH THESE
KIDS. SO I'LL LET YOU MAKE A
FINAL COMMENT. JUST TWO BRIEF
OBSERVATIONS. ONE TO THE
OBSERVATION AROUND THE COVID 19
IMPACTS, IN FACT, THE DATA DOES
SHOW THAT THERE WAS A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT BOTH IN
TERMS OF HEALTH AND IN TERMS OF,
FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PRECISELY THE STUDENTS WHO OR WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT. SO THERE WAS
A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE
UNDERSERVED STUDENTS WHO ARE AT
THE CSU AND THE IMPACTS THAT
THEY EXPERIENCED DURING COVID
19. AND TO YOUR POINT AND YOUR
QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ABOUT
TACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION AND
SPECIFIC OUTREACH AND
ENGAGEMENT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT
IS HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY OF
PRACTICE. IT IS TO THE RECORD
LEVEL, THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT
LEVEL, WHERE THEN THE OUTREACH
AND THE ENGAGEMENT CAN BE MADE
ON THE CAMPUSES. A STUDENT AT A
TIME. SO ABSOLUTELY, THAT IS
HAPPENING AND WE CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THAT. AND TAKE YOUR
POINTS ABOUT DEEPENING THAT
WORK. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU
AGAIN. WE'LL HOLD THE ISSUE OPEN
AND WE WILL, LIKELY DISCUSS
THIS, IN THE FUTURE. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, WITH
THAT WE WILL NOW OPEN UP TO
PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE ASK YOU TO
PLEASE LINE UP, AT THE,
MICROPHONE HERE AND WE'LL GIVE
YOU A MINUTE. PLEASE GIVE US
YOUR NAME, WHO YOU REPRESENT,
AND, BRIEF REMARKS ON AN ITEM
THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE, YOUR
COMMENTS ON. THANK YOU. BEGIN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
MEGAN SUBERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS, AND I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON ITEM
NUMBER THREE. UNDER THE èC
BUDGET, CPF WORKED WITH THE SLAM
MEMBER GRAYSON LAST YEAR ON AB
700, WHICH SET UP THE
FIREFIGHTER CANCER RESEARCH
PROGRAM AT THE UCS, AND IT CAME
WITH IT. A BUDGET ALLOCATION OF
$7 MILLION LAST YEAR TO GO TO
THE UCS. WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL
AND VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
PROGRAM. CANCER IS THE NUMBER
ONE KILLER OF OUR MEMBERS, BOTH
ACTIVE AND RETIRED. RIGHT NOW,
AND SO SINCE THE CHAIR HAD ASKED
ABOUT A STATUS UPDATE AND WHY
MAYBE SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS HAVE
NOT BEEN SPENT YET, WE WOULD
JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE
UCS HAVE BEEN VERY DILIGENT
ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM,
AND RFP WENT OUT IN JANUARY,
REQUEST, INTENTIONS TO APPLY
WERE DUE IN MARCH, AND AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT, APPLICATIONS ARE
DUE IN JUNE FOR MONEY TO ROLL
OUT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.
SO WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF
THAT PROGRAM AND HOPE TO SEE IT
CONTINUE. AND THEN JUST VERY
BRIEFLY, ON BEHALF OF THE CSU
EMPLOYEES UNION, JUST WANT TO
YOU KNOW, STRESS THE IMPORTANCE
OF MAINTAINING THE COMPACT IN
THE LONG TERME. WE RECOGNIZE THE
NEED FOR THE DEFERRAL IN 2024
AND 2025. BUT WANT TO SUPPORT
CSU'S BARGAINED AGREEMENT TO
INCREASE WAGES AND ESTABLISH
MERIT SALARY. THANK YOU. HI, I'M
MOLLY MCGUIRE WITH THE CAMPAIGN
FOR COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY. WE
APPRECIATE THE RICH DISCUSSION
HERE TODAY REGARDING STATE
SUPPORT FOR THE UC AND CSU
SYSTEMS. AND WE AGREE THAT THERE
IS GREAT VALUE IN RELIABLE,
SUSTAINED FUNDING FOR THE
SYSTEMS. BUT IN THE CURRENT
ENVIRONMENT, A DEFERRAL IS THE
BEST OPTION. AND WHILE WE
APPRECIATE THE TIMELY REPORTING
INCLUDED IN THE UC AND CSU
PROGRESS REPORTS, AS YOU NOTED,
CHAIR ALVAREZ, WHAT'S MISSING IS
AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE
SYSTEM'S PROGRESS IN MEETING
COMPACT GOALS, WHICH IS CRITICAL
TO THE LEGISLATURE'S ABILITY TO
UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHETHER
COMPACT GOALS ARE BEING MET. WE
STAND READY TO ASSIST THE
LEGISLATURE TO DESIGN TOOLS FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY, TO ENSURE THE
COMPACTS AS A TOOL FOR
INCENTIVIZING AND IMPROVING
OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS ARE BETTER
UNDERSTOOD AND EVALUATED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. MY NAME IS ANDREA TERRY
AND I'M A PROFESSOR AT
SACRAMENTO STATE IN
COMMUNICATION STUDIES. I'M ALSO
A DOUBLE ALUMNA OF THE CSU
SYSTEM. EACH DOLLAR THAT YOU
SPEND TO SUPPORT STUDENTS, STAFF
AND FACULTY AT THE CSU HAS
DRASTIC MULTIPLIER EFFECTS AS
THE CSU EDUCATES AND EQUIPS OUR
TEACHERS, NURSES, FARMERS,
ENGINEERS, AND YES, EVEN FUTURE
LEGISLATORS IN OUR INCREASINGLY
DIVERSE STATE, THE CSU IS VITAL
TO PROVIDING HIGHER EDUCATION
FOR SOME OF OUR MOST
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, AND IT
IS IN SUPPORT OF THOSE STUDENTS
AND THOSE COMMUNITIES. I SPEAK
ADVISING YOU TO FUND THE
COMPACT. THE CSU SERVES FIRST
GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS,
STUDENT PARENTS, STUDENT
VETERANS, AND MORE, AND THEY
NEED THIS FUNDING. ALTHOUGH THIS
IS A DIFFICULT BUDGET YEAR,
MULTIPLE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT
DURING TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES,
PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO ENROLL
IN COLLEGE TO IMPROVE THEIR JOB
PROSPECTS. FULLY. FUNDING THE
CSU IS THEREFORE EVEN MORE
IMPORTANT. RESEARCH THANK YOU.
GOT A MINUTE? YES. OKAY WELL, IF
YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WORK
THAT WE ARE DOING TO DECREASE
ACHIEVEMENT GAPS, I'M DOING SOME
OF THAT WORK RIGHT NOW AND I AM
HAPPY TO SHARE MORE WITH YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS WHO
ARE HERE, TIFFANY MOCK WITH CFT,
A UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS HEARING. I
WANT TO JUST ECHO THE POINTS
THAT UC MADE ABOUT FULLY FUNDING
THE COMPACT AND THOSE
IMPORTANCES. I WANT TO POINT
THAT EFFICIENCIES, WHILE THEY
SOUND GREAT, DO NOT COME FREE
AND ARE MOST OFTEN BORNE BY
STUDENTS AND STAFF. FOR
INSTANCE, WHEN SASHA MENTIONED
THAT THIS UC ENCOURAGED AND
ENCOURAGED HEALTH CARE PLANS,
WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANT WAS
ENSURING THAT THE OTHER PLAN
OPTIONS WERE INCREASING FEES TO
ENSURE THAT THE UC PLAN, WHICH
WAS PREVIOUSLY MORE EXPENSIVE,
WAS NOW THE SAME PRICE AS OTHER
PLANS. THIS MEANT THAT UC STAFF
IS NOW PAYING MORE FOR THEIR
HEALTH INSURANCE THAN PREVIOUS
YEARS, AND OVER THE PAST 20
YEARS OR SINCE 2000, UC TUITION
FOR UNDERGRADS HAS INCREASED
109, WHILE THE AMOUNT SPENT ON
UNDERGRAD STUDENTS HAS DECREASED
49. WHILE THE CHART IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ON PAGE
THREE, I BELIEVE, INDICATED THAT
PER PUPIL FUNDING HAS INCREASED
7% THIS YEAR, IT INCLUDES DEBT
SERVICE PAYMENTS, RETIREMENT AND
OTHER COSTS THAT DON'T DIRECTLY
BOARD BORNE ON ACTUAL COSTS FOR
THE STUDENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. I KNOW THE MINUTE
GOES BY FAST. YES IT DOES. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MY NAME IS DAVE
KOLNIK. I'M A PROFESSOR AT AND
DEPARTMENT CHAIR AT, STAN STATE.
I'M ALSO A CFR CAMPUS PRESIDENT
AND OFFICER, CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
TODAY, ON THE ACHIEVEMENT GAPS
ON GRADUATION 25, THE,
IMMIGRATION SUPPORT AS WELL.
THOSE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES, BUT
I'D LIKE TO JUST, REITERATE
WHAT'S BEEN STATED, URGE FULL
FUNDING OF THE CSU WITH THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL REGARDING
ADDING THE COMPACT DEFERRAL FOR
ONE YEAR. THAT'S ESSENTIAL FOR
US TO BE ABLE TO DO OUR JOBS TO
HELP STUDENTS, MEET THOSE
GRADUATION GOALS, HAVE SUCCESS.
YOU CAN SEE IT HAPPENING ON OUR
CAMPUS WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THOSE
RESOURCES. IT MOVES IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS AARTHI
SARKAR. I'M AN INTERNATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE FOR UAW WORKING
IN REGION SIX, WHICH REPRESENTS
OVER 60,000 WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC HIGHER
EDUCATION SECTOR AND THE UC AND
CSU SYSTEMS. UAW MEMBERS PERFORM
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH AND CARRY
OUT THE EDUCATIONAL MISSIONS OF
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES. WORKERS RELY ON
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC EDUCATION
SYSTEM IN ORDER TO GET A WORLD
CLASS EDUCATION, AND ARE
ESSENTIAL WAYS FOR WORKERS AND
THEIR FAMILIES TO GAIN THE
EDUCATION THEY NEED TO ENTER THE
MIDDLE CLASS. THE COMPACT
BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR AND UC AND
CSU GUARANTEES 5% ANNUAL
INCREASES TO THE UNIVERSITY'S
GENERAL FUNDS FOR THE 2026 TO
2027 SCHOOL YEAR. HISTORY HAS
SHOWN US. WHEN THE UC AND CSU
FACE FINANCIAL CHALLENGES, THOSE
BURDENS ARE PUSHED ONTO STUDENTS
AND WORKERS, REDUCING OR
ELIMINATING THE COMPACTS WOULD
BE A STEP BACKWARDS FOR
ACHIEVING CALIFORNIA'S EQUITY
GOALS. WORKERS AND STUDENTS
CANNOT WAIT. WE URGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO STAND WITH
WORKERS AND STUDENTS AND
PRIORITIZE MAINTAINING UC AND
CSU SCHEDULED FUNDING LEVELS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA
LEE. I'M A MANAGING ATTORNEY AT
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE, AND I'M
JUST HERE TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT
OF THE CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICE PROJECT OF, REGARDING
HOW MANY STUDENTS I'VE MET WHO
HAVE WHO ARE CSU STUDENTS WHO
HAVE COME TO ME AND SAID THAT
THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN
CONTINUE WITH THEIR EDUCATION
BECAUSE OF THEIR IMMIGRATION
STATUS. AND FOR ME TO TELL THEM
THAT THERE'S OPTIONS FOR THEM TO
LOOK INTO AND TO GIVE THEM HOPE,
TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR EDUCATION
HAS BEEN REALLY JUST PROFOUND.
AND THAT THEY CAN, CONTINUE TO
HELP THEIR FAMILIES HAS BEEN
REALLY IMPACTFUL. AND THE
TENACITY OF THIS YOUNG STUDENTS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA WHO REALLY,
HAVE OVERCOME THEIR IMMIGRATION
STATUS TO REALLY FIGHT FOR THEIR
EDUCATION HAS BEEN REALLY
INSPIRING. AND I HOPE THAT THIS
COMMITTEE WILL HELP, OPPOSE THE
GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET CUTS TO THE
CSU IMMIGRATION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
ELISE SCHUGEL, AND I'M A
MANAGING ATTORNEY AT IMMIGRANT
LEGAL DEFENSE. I OPPOSE THE
BUDGET CUTS TO THE CSU
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES
FUNDING. I REPRESENT DOZENS OF
CRIME VICTIMS THROUGH OUR CSU
PROGRAM. THE FUNDING ALLOWS OUR
CLIENTS TO CONTINUE THEIR HIGHER
EDUCATION, CONTRIBUTE TO THE
ECONOMY WORKING IN THEIR FIELDS
WHILE ALSO GETTING THE SUPPORT
THEY NEED TO GAIN STABILITY AND
RECOVER FROM TRAUMA. FOR
EXAMPLE, TODAY WE ARE FILING A
U-VISA APPLICATION FOR A FRESNO
STATE STUDENT AND HIS PARENTS,
WHICH WILL PROVIDE STABILITY TO
THE ENTIRE FAMILY. THE STUDENT
IS STUDYING BIOLOGY AT FRESNO
STATE, PLANS TO GO TO MEDICAL
SCHOOL, AND HOPES TO WORK AS A
DOCTOR IN FRESNO. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS
SIOBHAN WALDRON. I'M A
CO-FOUNDER AND A MANAGING
ATTORNEY AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE. I'M HERE TO STATE MY
OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS TO THE
FUNDING FOR THE CSU IMMIGRANT
IMMIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM
, AND ASKED THAT THE PROGRAM BE
FULLY, FULLY FUNDED. LIKE MY
COLLEAGUES ELISE AND CHRISTINA,
I REGULARLY WORK NOT JUST WITH
STUDENTS, STAFF AND FACULTY, BUT
THEIR ENTIRE FAMILIES TO HELP
PROVIDE THAT. NOT ONLY
IMMIGRATION STABILITY, BUT THE
ABILITY TO KEEP STUDYING AND
THEN LATER PUT THEIR STUDIES TO
USE TO STAY IN CALIFORNIA TO AND
HELP THE ENTIRE WORKFORCE AND
THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY THRIVE. FOR
EXAMPLE, I RECENTLY JUST FILED
GREEN CARD APPLICATIONS FOR FOUR
SISTERS WHO UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN
THEY WERE VERY YOUNG, JUST
INFANTS. THEIR PARENTS WORKED
WITH UNSCRUPULOUS ATTORNEYS. AT
THE TIME, THEY HAD OUTSTANDING
IMMIGRATION ORDERS, DEPORTATION
ORDERS AGAINST THEM, BUT THEY
HAVE DACA. WE ASSISTED THEM IN
TRAVELING OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED
STATES. THEY HAVE RETURNED.
THEY'RE SEEKING THEIR GREEN
CARDS, AND THEY'RE CONNECTED TO
THE CSU MONTEREY BAY CAMPUS,
SOME OF THEM HAVE MASTER'S
DEGREES IN ENGINEERING AND ONE
IS CURRENTLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
DRUGS TO FIGHT CANCER. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. HELLO. MY NAME IS GRISELDA
GONZALEZ. SAME OPPOSITION, AND I
AM A FORMER UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT
AND A STUDENT THAT BENEFITED
FROM THESE SERVICES. THESE
SERVICES HELPED MY PARENTS AND I
OBTAIN LEGAL STATUS AFTER 27
YEARS. I THEN IMMEDIATELY JOINED
THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD
AND SERVED THIS GREAT STATE
DURING COVID AND WILDFIRE STATE
MISSIONS. TODAY, I STAND BEFORE
YOU, A PROUD CALIFORNIAN AND AS
AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY
PROVIDING THESE LEGAL SERVICES
THAT ARE CRUCIAL FOR THE
CONTINUED GROWTH OF CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. CYNTHIA GÓMEZ, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICY AND
ADVOCACY FOR THE COALITION FOR
HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS, CHIRLA
HERE TO SPEAK ON THE CSU LEGAL
SERVICES FUNDING. THE PROPOSED
CUTS TO THE CSU LEGAL SERVICES
WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL FOR
STUDENTS, FACULTY AND STAFF AT
CSU CAMPUSES. THIS FUNDING
ALLOWS FOR A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN
CSU'S AND NONPROFITS TO PROVIDE
QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES AND
RESOURCES TO STUDENTS, FACULTY,
ALUMNI, AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND
OFTENTIMES, THESE SERVICES ARE
THE ONLY AFFORDABLE LEGAL
OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS
AND THEIR FAMILIES. REDUCING
THIS FUNDING WOULD HAVE A
CRITICAL, IMPACT ON STUDENTS AND
WOULD HAVE NEGATIVE
REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE IMMIGRANT
AND UNDOCUMENTED COMMUNITY IN
CALIFORNIA. WE UNDERSTAND
DIFFICULT DECISIONS MUST BE MADE
DURING OUR DEFICIT, BUT WE URGE
THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO REDUCE
OR TO REJECT THIS REDUCTION IN
THE FUNDING. THANK YOU. HELLO,
MY NAME IS ALEX FREITAG. I'M A
DOJ ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE AT
CHIRLA OR COALITION OF HUMANE
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS. I WORK WITHIN
CHIRLA LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTING LEGAL
SERVICES AT THE NORTHERN CSU
CAMPUSES OF SACRAMENTO, CHICO,
SONOMA AND HUMBOLDT. AND VERY
BRIEFLY, I WANT TO TOUCH ON THE
CRITICAL NATURE OF OUR SERVICES.
HØI WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
TO THE PRIORITIES OF THE
ASSEMBLY. TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROPOSED CUT TO OUR GRANT FROM
$7 MILLION TO $1.8 MILLION,
IMMIGRATION STATUS IS A MASSIVE
BARRIER TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN
THE UNITED STATES, AND THANKS TO
THIS GRANT, WE CAN OFFER FREE
IMMIGRATION LEGAL SERVICES TO
ALL STUDENTS, STAFF AND FACULTY.
A RECENT ALUMNI, AND THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS. THE LEGAL
APPLICATIONS WE PREPARE WOULD
NORMALLY COST THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS WITH A PRIVATE ATTORNEY,
A COST THAT MANY OF OUR CSU
COMMUNITY MEMBERS CANNOT AFFORD.
OVER THE COURSE OF OUR PROGRAM'S
EXISTENCE, WE HAVE NOT ONLY
ASSISTED THOUSANDS OF CSU'S
STUDENTS, STAFF, AND FACULTY TO
OBTAIN IMMIGRATION STATUS, WE'VE
ALSO DEVELOPED CRITICAL
ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN
NEGLECTED AREAS OF CALIFORNIA,
SPECIFICALLY COUNTIES IN THE
EASTERN AND NORTHERN PORTIONS,
WHERE THERE ARE OFTEN NO
IMMIGRATION LAWYERS OR
IMMIGRATION NONPROFITS AT ALL,
LEAVING RESIDENTS WITHOUT ANY
RESOURCES AT ALL TO NAVIGATE THE
IMMIGRATION SYSTEM. THESE CUTS
WOULD DRASTICALLY REDUCE ACCESS
TO LEGAL SERVICES IN OFTEN
UNDERSERVED AREAS. THE PROPOSED
CUT WOULD ADDRESS APPROXIMATELY
0.01% OF THE SHORTFALL, BUT
WOULD CRIPPLE THE SERVICES WE
PROVIDE BY REMOVING 75% OF OUR
FUNDING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
JENNY HERNANDEZ. I WORK AT THE
SACRAMENTO STATE DREAMER
RESOURCE CENTER AS AN OUTREACH
FELLOW AND A PEER MENTOR, WHICH
MEANS THAT I WORK VERY CLOSELY
WITH THE STUDENTS THAT BENEFIT
FROM THE LEGAL SERVICES THAT THE
CSU PROVIDES. GETTING RID OF
THESE SERVICES WOULD BE A
DETRIMENTAL EFFECT TO THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH AND THEIR
EDUCATIONAL CAREERS. MANY OF
THEM ARE FIGHTING JUST TO BE
ABLE TO WORK HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES. SO PROVIDING THIS RELIEF
WOULD BE A HUGE HELP TO THEIR
EDUCATIONAL GOALS. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS SHARON. I AM A
TRANSFER STUDENT AND A SENIOR AT
CAL POLY POMONA. I HAVE BEEN
UNDOCUMENTED AND WITHOUT A PATH
TO CITIZENSHIP SINCE I FIRST
CAME TO CALIFORNIA WHEN I WAS
NINE YEARS OLD. I AM IN THE
PROCESS OF APPLYING TO LAW
SCHOOL, AND I'M ENCOUNTERING
HIGH FEES AT EVERY TURN. THE LAW
SCHOOL ADMISSIONS COUNCIL OFFERS
FINANCIAL HELP FOR LOW INCOME
STUDENTS, BUT NOT FOR FULLY
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS LIKE
MYSELF, UNLESS THEY HAVE A DACA
APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM. I AM
COUNTING ON THE CAL STATE
UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES TO
HELP ME WITH THIS PROCESS SO
THAT I CAN MEET THE ELIGIBILITY.
I URGE YOU TO PLEASE REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS GLORIA BELEN. I'M THE
CENTRAL VALLEY ORGANIZER FOR THE
COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRATION
CHIRLA. I'M ALSO A CSU
STANISLAUS ALUMNI, AND I OPPOSE
THE PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS. THANK
YOU. HELLO THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS CESAR SALINAS. I'M A
SECOND YEAR, MECHANICAL ENGINEER
AT SAN DIEGO STATE. AND THEN I
REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO CUT
BUDGETS TO LEGAL SERVICES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY NAME
IS NATALIA MEDRANO, AND I AM A
STUDENT FROM BAKERSFIELD
COLLEGE. AND I POST THE 5.2
MILLION BUDGET CUT. SO SEEING AS
HOW SOME OF THESE FAMILIES, THE
ONLY WAY WE EVER GET LEGAL
SERVICES IS FROM THESE PROGRAMS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY
NAME IS SUE TORRES. I ATTEND
BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE AND I OPPOSE
THE 5.2 MILLION BUDGET CUT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. I
ATTEND COLLEGE AND ALEJANDRO
GALINDO AND I OPPOSE THE BEALL
BEALL CUT. THANK YOU. THE BUDGET
CUTS? YES. THANK YOU. HI. MY
NAME IS ALISON PENNINGTON. I'M A
MANAGING ATTORNEY WITH IMMIGRANT
LEGAL DEFENSE IN OPPOSITION HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO THE FUNDING
CUTS. I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU
A STORY OF ONE OF MY CLIENTS, WE
AS ATTORNEYS, WE HAVE A FRONT
ROW SEAT TO THE IMPACT OF THIS
PROGRAM, AND ONE OF MY CSU
BAKERSFIELD CLIENTS WHO WAS
STUDYING TO BE A NURSE AND ON
THE VERGE OF GRADUATING, FOUND
HERSELF ALL OF A SUDDEN WITH AN
EXPIRED U VISA BECAUSE SHE
DIDN'T HAVE LEGAL SERVICES IN
THE AREA. SHE HAD TURNED TO A
NOTARIO WHO HAD LET HER U VISA
EXPIRE WITHOUT APPLYING FOR A
GREEN CARD. SHE CAME TO US. WE
ASSISTED HER WITH HER GREEN
CARD. SHE'S NOW WORKING AS A
NURSE. HER YOUNGER BROTHER WAS
IN THE SAME SITUATION. WE
ASSISTED HIM. HE NOW IS FULLY
EMPLOYED AND WORKING AND WE'RE
ALSO HELPING HER PETITION FOR
HER UNDOCUMENTED HUSBAND. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS LAURA PERLSTEIN. I'M
A MANAGING ATTORNEY WITH
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE, AND I'M
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS
TO THE CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES, LIKE MANY OF THE FOLKS
WHO'VE ALSO SPOKE, I HAVE
CLIENTS I'VE WORKED WITH, ONE IN
PARTICULAR, WHO WAS A FORMER
FARM WORKER, OBTAINED A SPECIAL
SCHOLARSHIP, MERIT BASED FOR
FARM WORKERS TO ATTEND FRESNO
STATE. WHEN WE MET HIM, HE HAD
DACA. WE HELPED HIM IDENTIFY
THAT HE WAS ABLE TO GET A GREEN
CARD THROUGH HIS SPOUSE,
ASSISTED HIM WITH THAT AND HE
WAS ABLE TO PURSUE A GRADUATE
DEGREE AND ULTIMATELY IS WORKING
HIMSELF IN THE FIELD OF
EDUCATION. AND BECAUSE WE DO
SERVE THE ENTIRE FAMILY, WE ALSO
REPRESENT HIS BROTHER, WHO'S NOT
A STUDENT, IN HIS DACA RENEWAL
APPLICATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
MISHA K. I'M ALSO A MANAGING
ATTORNEY AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE. AND I WANTED TO SHARE
ONE QUICK ANECDOTE OF A CLIENT
OF MINE, SHE SHE GREW UP MOST OF
HER LIFE IN CALIFORNIA AFTER
HAVING BEEN BROUGHT HERE AS A
YOUNG CHILD. SHE STARTED HER
EDUCATIONAL CAREER IN THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM. SHE
WAS ABLE TO TRANSFER TO CSU IN
STANISLAUS, WHERE SHE OBTAINED
HER BACHELOR'S DEGREE. BUT SHE
DIDN'T STOP THERE. SHE WENT ON
TO BECOME A STAFF PERSON AND
CONTINUES TO WORK AT CSU
STANISLAUS TODAY. IT WAS THROUGH
HER THAT WE MET HER HUSBAND, WHO
ENDED UP BEING HER TICKET TO
GETTING LEGAL STATUS IN THE
UNITED STATES. WE HELPED HER
HUSBAND WITH HIS GREEN CARD
APPLICATION. LATER, HIS US
CITIZENSHIP. HE THEN PETITIONED
FOR HER THE ALUMNI, NOW STAFF
MEMBER OF CSU STANISLAUS. WE
EXPECT HER GREEN CARD TO BE
PROVED, QUITE LITERALLY, ANY DAY
OR WEEK NOW, SHE IS ONE OF THE
STUDENTS SERVED UNDER THIS
PROJECT, AND WE URGE YOU TO
REJECT THE BUDGET CUTS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ADAM
ROMERO, ALSO A MANAGING ATTORNEY
AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE. AND
I REJECT OR I, ASK YOU TO REJECT
THE PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS TO CSU,
IMMIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES PROJECT
THAT I CURRENTLY REPRESENT
HUNDREDS OF OUR, APPLICANTS WHO
ARE RENEWING THEIR DACA
APPLICATION, MANY OF WHOM ARE
SPEAKING TO AN ATTORNEY FOR THE
VERY FIRST TIME, MANY OF THEM
ARE VERY SURPRISED THAT I ASKED
THEM SO MANY QUESTIONS AND
WONDERING WHY I JUST DON'T DO
THEIR APPLICATION LIKE EVERYBODY
ELSE. THE CURRENT OF THE CURRENT
AVAILABLE, SERVICES THAT THEY
USUALLY GO TO, IT'S THROUGH
MEETING THESE CLIENTS THAT WE
DISCOVER, THAT THEY ACTUALLY
HAVE OR THAT THEY DISCOVER THAT
THEY HAVE RELIEF FOR SOMETHING
ELSE. I WOULD DO WANT TO SHARE A
CLIENT STORY, A SIBLING OF A
STAFF MEMBER AT CSU MONTEREY BAY
CAME TO US, AND I HAD TO SHARE
WITH HER THE BAD NEWS THAT SHE
ACTUALLY MISSED A DEADLINE
BECAUSE SHE HAD ALREADY TURNED
21, FOR THE ABILITY TO GET A
GREEN CARD, BUT IN SPEAKING TO
HER, DISCOVERED ANOTHER FORM OF
RELIEF, THAT WAS ALSO AVAILABLE
TO HER SISTER, WHO WAS A CSU
STAFF MEMBER AND THE AND
ACTUALLY HER MOTHER. SO WE
CURRENTLY REPRESENT THEIR ENTIRE
FAMILY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AFTERNOON. CHAIR.
ALVAREZ. STEVEN FILLINGIM,
PROFESSOR OF ACCOUNTING AT
STANISLAUS STATE. WE ASK THE
ASSEMBLY TO CONCUR WITH THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR CSU TO
DEFER 240 MILLION IN COMPACT
FUNDING GIVEN THE STATE'S
FINANCIAL SITUATION, WE FEEL
THAT'S A MEASURED AND REASONED
APPROACH. THE RECOMMENDATION TO
REJECT THAT DEFERRAL IS A CASE
OF CUT NOW, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO
CUT LATER. THEIR APPROACH FAILS
TO RECOGNIZE THE VERY REAL
DIFFERENCE. THOSE RESOURCES CAN
MAKE TO STUDENTS, FACULTY AND
STAFF TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORT ARE
MOST AT RISK. STUDENTS NEED TO
SUCCEED. PROGRAMS THAT OPEN NEW
POSSIBILITIES, AND CLASSES THAT
ENABLE THEM TO MAKE PROGRESS
TOWARD DEGREE. IN OTHER WORDS,
THE VERY SUCCESS THAT THE LAW
SEEKS TO MEASURE OUR EFFORTS ON.
AGAIN, WE ASK YOU TO CONCUR WITH
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS RONALD SANTIAGO. I'M
THE STATEWIDE ORGANIZER FOR THE
CALIFORNIA DREAM NETWORK WITH
CHIRLA, AND I'M HERE TO, ASK YOU
ALL TO, DENY THE PROPOSED BUDGET
CUTS BY THE GOVERNOR. MY
ORGANIZED, UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT
AT THE CSU, èC AND COMMUNITY
COLLEGE LEVEL. AND UNDERSTANDING
THAT CSU MAKES UP ONE OF THE
LARGEST POPULATION OF
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS THROUGHOUT
THE STATEWIDE, AND A BUDGET CUT
TO THEM WOULD LEAD TO DRASTIC
MEASURES, LEAVING THEM ABANDONED
WITHOUT THE SUPPORT AND NEED
THAT THEY NEED FOR THEIR
PERSONAL FUTURE, ACADEMIC FUTURE
AND OVERALL SUCCESS AS HUMAN
BEINGS. RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS FERNANDO
LORENZANA. I'M A STUDENT AT CAL
STATE DOMINGUEZ HILLS, AND I'M
ALSO A FELLOW AT THE IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE CENTER, WHICH IS A DREAM
CENTER ON MY CAMPUS. BASED ON
THE BUDGET CUT, I CAN TELL YOU
THAT MANY STUDENTS ARE GOING TO
BE IMPACTED BY IT, THEREFORE, I
IMPOSED A PROPOSED BUDGET CUT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS SANDRA CRUZ. I'M A
SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT WITH THE
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE, AND I'M
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S BUDGET CUTS TO THE
CSU IMMIGRANT LEGAL SERVICE,
LEGAL SERVICES PROJECTS, BEFORE
MY ROLE IN IMMIGRANT LEGAL
DEFENSE, I WAS A COLLEGE ADVISOR
WITH DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS,
FROM 2020, 2012 TO 2018. AND
SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT
I HAD WITH THOSE STUDENTS WERE
UNDOCUMENTED, WERE REALLY
DIFFICULT UNTIL 2019, WHERE I
WAS ABLE TO BASICALLY BE ABLE TO
ADVISE THEM TO GO TO THEIR
CAMPUS AND BE ABLE TO BE
CONNECTED TO SOME RESOURCES.
NOW, AS A AS A SENIOR ASSISTANT,
ILD, I'M SUPER HAPPY TO BE ABLE
TO SEE THOSE STUDENTS COME TO
OUR DOORS AND BE ABLE TO HELP
THEM NOT ONLY THEM, BUT THEIR
FAMILIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HI, MY NAME IS ROSA LUNA. I'M A
STUDENT AT BAKERSFIELD COMMUNITY
COLLEGE AND I OPPOSE THE BUDGET
CUT BECAUSE AS A STUDENT
PLANNING TO TRANSFER TO A UC, I
DEPEND A LOT ON THE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE THAT THEY GIVE US. SO
I OPPOSE THE BUDGET CUT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS ANA LUNA. I GO TO
BAKERSFIELD COMMUNITY COLLEGE
AND I'M AN UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT.
I OPPOSE THE BUDGET, CUT FUNDING
FOR CSUS EVEN THOUGH I GO TO
COMMUNITY COLLEGE RIGHT NOW, IT
WILL AFFECT ME A LOT ONCE I
TRANSFER TO A CSU, ESPECIALLY
BECAUSE I'M UNDOCUMENTED STUDENT
AND LIKE ME AND OTHER STUDENTS,
WE RELY ON THESE, BUDGET FUNDS,
SO I OPPOSE. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SARA, AND
I GO TO CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD. I
OPPOSED THE BUDGET CUTTING AS IT
WILL AFFECT MANY UNDOCUMENTED
STUDENTS AS MYSELF, AND MANY
BENEFIT FOR THESE SERVICES THAT
ALLOW US OPPORTUNITIES TO HELP
THEM. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
FATIMA ZEFERINO AND I AM A
STUDENT AT CAL STATE LONG BEACH.
MY FAMILY AND I HAVE BENEFITED
FROM THESE SERVICES AS AN
IMMIGRANT HOUSEHOLD, AND I ALSO
SERVE AS THE GODDESS IN LEGAL
ADVOCACY FELLOW AT CSULB, WHERE
I HAVE RECOGNIZED HOW CRUCIAL
THE CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES IS FOR STUDENTS. I WORK
WITH GARRISON TO HELP THESE
STUDENTS AT THE CSU, AND THE
BUDGET CUT WILL HURT THOUSANDS
OF STUDENTS. CSU WIDE TO CUT THE
CSU BUDGET SO THAT IT MATCHES
THE UC IS UNJUST BECAUSE THE CSU
HAS MORE UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS
THAN THE UC. I OPPOSE THE BUDGET
CUTS AND URGE YOU ALL TO HELP
SAVE ALL THE FUNDING SO THAT
THESE SERVICES CAN CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY
AND ALUMNI OF CAL STATE
UNIVERSITIES. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ WITH THE
MESA VERDE GROUP REPRESENTING
GREECE AND THE CENTRAL AMERICAN
RESOURCE CENTER OF CALIFORNIA.
ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS
FUNDING, WHO ALSO PROVIDES
SERVICES FROM FROM CHANNEL CSU,
CHANNEL ISLANDS, IN THE LOS
ANGELES REGION, ORANGE COUNTY
AND THE SAN BERNARDINO REGION, I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A, YOU
KNOW, ECHO ALL THE COMMENTS OF
MY COLLEAGUES AND MAKE A FINE
POINT THAT CALIFORNIA'S
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE BUILT FOR
UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS AT THE
CAMPUSES IS NOW BEING REPLICATED
ACROSS THE NATION, IN STATES
LIKE ILLINOIS AND OTHERS. AND IT
WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO NATIONAL
MOVEMENT TO HAVE THESE, SERVICES
CUT AT THE CSU. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS SERGIO MARTIN.
I'M A CURRENT STUDENT AT CSU
EAST BAY, SO I'M HERE TO SUPPORT
THE LEGAL DEFENSE. SO I'M HERE
AS A RECOMMEND. STUDENTS I WAS
VERY WORRIED. WHAT I HAVE TO DO
WITH MY DEGREE AFTER GRADUATING.
SO THANKS TO THIS PROJECT THAT
I'M, I'M ABLE TO WORK AND TO A
OVERCOME MYSELF AND BE SOMEONE
IN LIFE BECAUSE I'M HERE TO THIS
COUNTRY. BUT WITH ALL THE
HONESTLY. THANKS TO THIS
COUNTRY, I'M HAVING A GOOD
EDUCATION AND I'M HERE TO ASKING
YOU GUYS, PLEASE. I'M HERE
ASKING YOU GUYS TO REJECT THE
BUDGET CUTS BECAUSE MANY DREAMS
ARE TAKEN AWAY AND WE JUST WANT
A SINGLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE IN
THIS COUNTRY AND TO ABLE TO BE
SOME SOMEONE IN THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. MY
NAME IS WILLIAM MARTIN PAVLO.
I'M A FRESHMAN STUDENT AT CSU
EAST BAY. I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THE CSU IMMIGRATION LEGAL
SERVICES PROJECT. FOR THIS
PROJECT, I WAS ABLE TO GET A
LEGAL HELP. AND NOW I'M A
SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE
APPLICANT. I WAS ABLE TO GET A
WORK PERMIT. AND IN A FEW YEARS,
I'LL BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR. TO
BECOME A PERMANENT RESIDENT. I'M
VERY THANKFUL FOR THIS SERVICE.
I ASK YOU TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING
THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS GUADALUPE
BARRON, DELEON. I AM FROM
BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE. I GO TO,
BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE. I'M ALSO
PART OF CHIRLA AS A K¾T AND
STEERING LEADER, I AM A PART OF
A GROUP CALLED LUPE AT
BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE, WHICH IS
LATINOS UNIDOS POR EDUCACION. WE
HAVE LOTS OF STUDENTS THAT WOULD
BENEFIT, THAT HAVE BENEFITED, WE
HAVE STUDENTS THAT HAVE GONE TO
BERKELEY. THEY'VE GONE TO LIKE,
ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT SCHOOLS,
THEIR DREAM SCHOOLS THAT IF THIS
WAS CUT, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE
TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, BE THE
FIRST IN THEIR FAMILIES TO GO TO
SCHOOL, TO GO TO, LIKE
UNIVERSITIES THAT THEY DREAMED
OF SINCE THEY WERE LITTLE, I
JUST URGE YOU TO DENY THE BUDGET
CUTS FOR THIS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HI, MY NAME IS ELENI. I'M
THE CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT
IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE,
OBVIOUSLY HERE TO ASK YOU TO
SUPPORT US IN OPPOSING THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED CUTS. THIS
PROJECT HAS REACHED PARTS OF
CALIFORNIA THAT WE NEVER BEFORE
EXPECTED WE COULD REACH AS LEGAL
SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND THAT HAVE
BEEN LEGAL DESERTS FOR
IMMIGRANTS FOR YEARS. I'LL SHARE
WITH YOU JUST ONE BRIEF STORY.
THE FIRST CLIENT WE EVER INTAKT
UNDER THIS PROJECT WAS AT CSU
FRESNO. SHE HAD WORKED IN THE
FIELDS AS A CHILD FOR YEARS. HER
WHOLE FAMILY HAD. TODAY SHE IS A
US CITIZEN. HER MOM AND SIBLINGS
ARE ON THEIR WAY TO BEING
GRANTED ASYLUM AND A COUSIN WHO
GOT INSPIRED BY HER NOW ALSO IS
A CSU STUDENT WHO'S GRADUATING
THIS YEAR. THIS PROJECT WORKS
AND IT HOLDS TRUE. OUR VALUES AS
CALIFORNIANS, SO PLEASE HELP US
IN SUPPORTING IT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
YOSHIRA MENDEZ AND I ALSO WORK
AT IMMIGRANT LEGAL DEFENSE. I'M
ASKING YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THE
CSU IMMIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
PROJECT. IT REALLY MAKES A
DIFFERENCE, HOPEFULLY WE WON'T
HAVE THAT OTHER PERSON IN THE
WHITE HOUSE. BUT IF WE DO NOW,
WE HAVE THE SYSTEM. THAT IS
WORKING, THAT IS HELPING
IMMIGRANTS, WE DON'T WANT TO
JUST REACT TO WHAT HAPPENS.
HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT,
NOW WE HAVE THE SYSTEM, AND I
ASK YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT, THE
CSU PROGRAM. THANK YOU. HI.
JACKIE GONZALEZ, POLICY DIRECTOR
AT IMMIGRANT DEFENSE ADVOCATES,
TWO POINTS. THE FIRST TO CUT
BACK TO 1.8 TO ALIGN WITH THE UC
SYSTEM IS A VERY BASIC WAY TO
CUT BACK IN A TOUGH FUNDING
YEAR. THE CSU CAMPUS'S 22
CAMPUSES ACROSS THE STATE, THE
UC NINE, THE UNDOCUMENTED
POPULATION IS 4000. THAT THE UCS
. IT'S ABOUT 10,000 AT THE CSU'S
, JUST TO BUILD ON THE PRIOR
COMMENT, IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION, THE
MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO BE
PROACTIVE IN PROTECTING
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES IS TO HAVE
AN INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. IF
YOU LOOK AT THE MAP OF WHERE THE
23 CSU CAMPUSES ARE LOCATED,
IT'S PERHAPS ONE OF THE BEST
WAYS TO PROVIDE COVERAGE OVER A
REALLY VAST STATE. KHÓ
INCIDENTALLY, IT ALSO REACHES
LEGAL DESERTS, WHICH ISN'T JUST
PLACES WHERE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO INFORMATION. IT'S THE
PLACE WHERE ENFORCEMENT BEGINS
BECAUSE ICE AND PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO HARM IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES
KNOW THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE
ACCESS THANKS TO THE
INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE SYSTEM AND
THE MONEY. CALIFORNIA IS
INVESTED, IT WOULD BE
IRRESPONSIBLE TO CUT BACK,
CONSIDERING THAT WE REALLY DON'T
KNOW WHAT'S COMING DOWN, FROM A
FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU ALL FOR
YOUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY, WE WILL
ADJOURN TO OUR NEXT MEETING