Last week Gov. Jerry Brown approved a budget with a surplus for the second consecutive year.
And while the University of California did see a modest increase in state funding, it’s nowhere near enough to lessen the burden on students and maintain the high quality of the premier public university system in the U.S.
By refusing to meet the UC’s requested $124.9 million despite a hefty surplus, Brown sends the message that the state is not really prioritizing higher education funding, at least not for the state’s most prestigious university system.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of Brown’s budget is its potential $50 million allocation to the UC to pay down deferred maintenance costs, which would go toward paying for maintenance projects that have been delayed because of insufficient funds. The problems with this provision are twofold.
First, the UC will only receive this money if property tax revenues exceed current projections. Brown has gained some support from conservatives in the state for using cautious revenue projections, so this is likely to happen, but it is certainly not guaranteed.
Second, $50 million is a drop in the bucket when the deferred maintenance debt of the entire UC is in question. UCLA alone has $770 million in deferred maintenance costs. Even if the entirety of the $50 million went to our campus, it would leave a whopping $720 million in deferred maintenance.
If any of the $50 million does go to the UC, it would mark the first time in 20 years that the state dedicated money specifically for the UC’s rapidly growing deferred maintenance debt. But it will amount to little more than a symbolic gesture at a time when the UC needs concrete financial support.
The overall cost of deferred maintenance for the UC is not defined but is increasing swiftly as deferred projects become critical and can no longer be delayed.
Deferred maintenance is just one major cost driver for the University. An underfunded pension liability also poses financial woe for the UC. Unlike the California State University system, the UC’s pension liability is not directly funded by the state in any way.
And the pension liability continues to grow quickly while state revenues fail to keep up. So the UC must find a way to fund its pension plan with or without state revenue increases.
These kinds of major cost drivers that are largely unsupported by the state increase the strain on students in tandem with rising operating costs.
While the 5 percent base increases guaranteed in the state budget are a welcome change from previous years of cuts, the UC needs more to make up for the sacrifices it was forced to make since the economic downturn in 2008.
Brown and the state could do more by realistically acknowledging the UC’s dire long-term cost drivers and providing aid that covers more than 6.5 percent of the costs of just UCLA’s deferred maintenance.
The UC has nine other campuses, which all have some deferred maintenance costs. This means Brown’s offer of $50 million really doesn’t impact the University in any measurable way.
If he is re-elected, Brown would do well to substantially acknowledge the difficulties facing the UC and offer increases that have the capacity to make a lasting difference for the University’s financial state.