Gov. Brown’s revised budget includes funding increase, tuition freeze

Gov. Jerry Brown released revisions to his proposed 2013-2014 state budget on Tuesday, which include a proposed tuition freeze at the University of California and California State University systems – though uncertainty remains as state revenue projections continue to fluctuate.

The governor releases a budget proposal every January, detailing plans for the following fiscal year. In May, the governor releases a “May Revise” that modifies the proposal based on economic feasibility or concerns from involved parties.

Brown’s initial state budget included $25.8 billion for higher education funding. In the budget revision he unveiled Tuesday, he proposed allocating $25.4 billion for higher education – $400 million less than his original proposal.

The revised proposal contains several stipulations for the UC, including a four-year tuition freeze and a multi-year funding plan.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Brown said decreases in economic growth in past months have led to changes in his budget across the board, including lower expected revenues than previously stated.

“For the first time in more than a decade, we have a balanced budget, and it’s solid,” Brown said at the press conference. “(But) there are risks.”

According to the text of the May Revise, the state budget remains stable by only a narrow margin.

“The state must begin to plan now to ensure that the budget will remain balanced after the temporary Proposition 30 tax revenues expire,” the revised budget proposal states.

The budget revision proposes a multi-year plan to maintain fiscal stability within the state’s public university systems. This primarily consists of a 20 percent general fund increase over a four-year period – amounting to a total of about $511 million each for the UC and California State University systems. The budget proposal also includes a four-year tuition freeze at the UC and CSU, starting next year.

Such a tuition freeze, however, would need to be approved by the UC Board of Regents, which plans to discuss the governor’s proposal at its board meeting today and Thursday.

Daniel Mitchell, a professor emeritus of the UCLA Anderson School of Management and UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said the revised budget contains mostly vague language about how the higher education systems are supposed to utilize their proposed funds.

The savings would provide increased fiscal stability and allow the University to invest in the governor’s proposed performance standards, said Patrick Lenz, UC vice president for budget and capital resources, in a statement.

Brooke Converse, a UC spokeswoman, said the UC is currently still reviewing the May Revise and its impact on the University. Lenz will speak with regents on the matter at the board’s meeting this week, she added.

Brown also outlined performance targets for the UC, including higher graduation rates, increased number of transfer students and increased number of degrees achieved by low-income individuals.

Mitchell said, however, the wording of the budget does not specify whether or not the UC’s funding is contingent upon meeting these standards.

Brown’s proposal in January included capping the number of units students at public universities could take. Because of concerns raised since then, the May Revise withdraws this proposal. The statement from the UC supports the administration’s decision to withdraw the credit cap.

The January proposal also specifically earmarked $10 million of the UC funding for development of online education and technologies. The May Revise so far gives no indication of whether this is still a concrete proposal, Mitchell said.

Even when the budget is finalized this summer, it is not an enforceable contract and is subject to change at any time, he added.

The California Legislature still has to review and approve the state budget, which is supposed to be finalized by mid-June.

In the meantime, legislators may change their minds, especially about some of the proposals that stretch over multiple years. Economic factors like changes in revenue and expenditures could also change many of the proposals.

“There’s no saying what the legislature or governor will do or say (before then),” Mitchell said. “It’s not final until it’s final.”