Have questions about the budget cuts and the 9.6 percent fee hike proposal?
ask the daily cal
Go to ask.dailycal.org this Friday at 12p.m., and we’ll answer your questions via live chat. Independent Student Press Since 1971.
Berkeley’s Newspaper since 1871
24/7 News Coverage at dailycal.org
Berkeley, CA • Thursday, July 14, 2011 – Sunday, July 17, 2011
housing
UC Regents defer discussion of fee hikes to Thursday’s meeting While postponement of talks of a 9.6 percent fee increase, students continue to voice concerns over higher education costs as the board’s vote approaches
Budget Cuts & Fee Hikes July 15, 2009 UC anticipates reduction of $813 million in state support
cations, including high school grade point averages and standardized test scores, are “better in many respects.” “The UC is a very special place, and we have an obligation to attract and keep the brightest students in the world to our campuses,” said Regent George Marcus at the meeting. “I don’t think that it’s in conflict with any of our policies.” Board members were also concerned
Data: PAGE 4
Fee: PAGE 2
Nov. 19, 2009 UC Board of Regents approves a 32% fee hike Nov. 20, 2009 Students occupy Wheeler Hall in protest of budget cuts, fee hikes March 4, 2010 Thousands protest in statewide Day of Action Oct. 8, 2010 Then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger restores $305 million to UC Nov. 18, 2010 UC Board of Regents approves 8 percent fee hike
Regents George Marcus, Sherry Lansing and Charlene Zettel discussed administrative affairs at the UC Board of Regents meeting Wednesday. The board deferred most discussion of a proposed 9.6 fee hike to Thursday.
Check Online
By Damian Ortellado and Anjuli Sastry and True Shields newsdesk@dailycal.org
www.dailycal.org
Despite repeated expressions of concern regarding a proposed 9.6 percent fee hike throughout the Wednesday meeting of the UC Board of Regents, the board deferred most discussion regarding the increase to Thursday, instead choosing to address upcoming challenges to maintaining the university’s excellence in the face of deep budget cuts. Facing $650 million in state funding cuts, the board met to discuss a wide range of topics, including issues of student enrollment, long-term planning and administrative efficiencies. The board expressed surprise regarding the outcome of the state budget, emphasizing a need to collaborate with the entire UC community — students, faculty and staff — to generate solutions to avoid a fee increase. “We didn’t know there was going to be a budget passed. It was sprung on us as well, and only then did
The reporters look in-depth at the topics covered at the regents’ meeting, including enrollment, long-term planning and administrative efficiency.
we know we had to take action,” said Sherry Lansing, chair of the board, at the meeting. “Tomorrow we are going to look at every idea we can ... We are trying to find a way to have a consistent plan so that this doesn’t always happen.” At the start of the meeting, assembled students and workers voiced their concerns about the expedited nature of the increase in tuition. However, despite the fact that the board focused on the effect of cuts to the UC in its opening remarks, most of the meeting was focused on administrative affairs. Among the issues discussed at the meeting were admissions outcome data, with the board addressing the diversity of the incoming university student body and the growing number of transfer and out-of-state students. In addition, the board voted to approve a recommendation that Jonathan Stein — a UC Berkeley School of Law student and graduate student at the
Jan. 10, 2011 Gov. Jerry Brown releases state budget proposal March 24, 2011 Brown signs $500 million cut to UC into law May 16, 2011 UC spared additional cuts in revised state budget proposal June 27, 2011 Brown, Democrats compromise on state budget proposal, additional UC cuts June 30, 2011 State budget, $150 million additional cut signed into law June 30, 2011 Academic Council recommends fee hike July 1, 2011 UC officials announce 9.6 percent fee hike proposal July 14, 2011 UC Board of Regents to vote on 9.6 percent fee hike proposal
Regents: PAGE 2
UC regents
Enrollment data prompt debate over makeup of student body By True Shields | Staff tshields@dailycal.org At a meeting of the UC Board of Regents Wednesday, admissions and enrollment data generated debate among board members who were divided over how the university will determine the makeup of its student body in years to come, while balancing a need to increase revenue, decrease excess costs and serve the needs of as many students as possible.
At the meeting, some board members advocated for increased international and out-of-state enrollment in order to maintain a competitive academic climate and to generate revenue. However, others emphasized a need to remain committed to the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education, which has the intent of allowing Californians — including first-generation and lower-income students — access to higher education. A presentation by UC officials at
the meeting laid out several goals for the university in the coming enrollment cycles, including boosting the overall quality of incoming students, increasing the presence of underrepresented minorities and maintaining a sufficient level of access for disadvantaged students. In addition to the increased revenue international and out-of-state students generate through tuition, one of the Committee on Educational Policy’s agenda items states that nonresident students’ qualifi-
By J.D. Morris | Senior Staff jmorris@dailycal.org Despite the approval of an affordable housing ordinance by the Berkeley City Council last month, a fee that would be imposed on developers unless they create a certain amount of affordable units will not be implemented until at least the end of this year. The council decided at its meeting Tuesday night not to establish a fee until it can be assessed in the context of other fees — including fees for transportation and child care — with city staff in October, after which a public hearing will likely be held in December. “You can’t establish one fee out of context from other fees that you are considering,” said Councilmember Laurie Capitelli. “My position has been consistently that until we put the entire package together, we will not be able to give any certainty to a housing provider of what the fees will be.” At its June 14 meeting, the council approved an ordinance that allows for the creation of an affordable housing fee, though the amount of the fee was not determined at that time because city regulations prohibit the council from imposing a fee without a public hearing. In 1986, the city adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, which required that developers make 20 percent of their housing units affordable in new projects. However, this ordinance was struck down for apartments as the result of a 2009 state court ruling prohibiting the city of Los Angeles from mandating that developers provide affordable housing. In response to the ruling, Berkeley’s new ordinance requires developers to pay a mitigation fee — which could be as high as $34,000 per unit — unless the developers make 10 percent of their units accessible to low-income citizens, in which case the fee would be waived. Money generated from the fee will go toward the city’s Housing Trust Fund, which provides funds for the construction of affordable housing. Though the affordable unit requirement is lower than it was under the original ordinance, Councilmember Kriss Worthington said it could generate more low-income units because developers will need to make those units affordable to those making at or below 50 percent of the area’s median income, whereas the previous ordinance set the threshold at 80 percent. Yet Worthington said establishing a fee has been delayed too much. “There’s no way it should take this long,” Worthington said. “When a policy gets wiped out by a court, you should be able to replace the policy with a legally defensible alternative in a reasonable time.” Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, who advocated for immediate action on establishing a fee at the meeting, said he was disappointed with the decision. “The sky is not going to fall,” Arreguin said. “Yes, we certainly need to take into account feasibility, but I believe based on past practice, based on looking on the success of projects ... that we have enough info for us to make a decision on whether to proceed with a fee or not.” Additionally, the council approved the inclusion of conditional language into developers’ use permits stating that any new projects will be subject to
July 16, 2009 UC Board of Regents approves systemwide furloughs
Barbara Sullinger/Staff
Council delays enactment of fee promoting affordable units