Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Education Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill to waive campus-level fees for eligible veterans' dependents; fiscal impact questioned
Summary
Assemblymember Patterson's bill to waive campus-level mandatory fees for certain veterans' dependents was advanced and re-referred to Appropriations after testimony highlighting need and concerns about CSU fiscal impacts.
Assemblymember Patterson presented a proposal to ensure that the existing California tuition-and-fee waiver for dependents of veterans includes campus-level mandatory fees that some campuses have excluded. The author said the intent is to "fulfill the promise" to dependents of disabled veterans and those killed in the line of duty by waiving fees that can amount to "several thousands of dollars" on some campuses. "When our oldest son Eddie was accepted into San Diego State back in 2023 we were taken aback by the number of mandatory fees that were excluded from the tuition and fee waiver program," witness Andy Sheehy, a U.S. Marine veteran and constituent, told the committee.
Supporters included county VSOs, veteran service organizations and military associations. Yolanda Benson and Steve Johnson testified in support, and several veterans and veterans' family members described how mandatory campus fees can undermine the value of the waiver for families surviving on fixed incomes.
Members asked detailed fiscal questions. Assemblymember Avila Farias expressed concern about the potential fiscal impact on California State University (CSU) campuses and cited a preliminary estimate of over $20 million; she asked where funding would come from given enrollment declines and campus budget pressures. Assemblymember Patterson said he had discussed the proposal with campus presidents and did not believe the CSU estimate was accurate; he said he would seek more precise fiscal numbers in Appropriations and intends to request campus-level fiscal data.
Committee members signaled broad policy support for the bill's intent but noted fiscal trade-offs. Assemblymember Gonzales disclosed a potential conflict and abstained from the roll call on this item. The committee moved the bill forward and re-referred AB 556 to the Committee on Appropriations for further fiscal analysis.
Ending: AB 556 advances to Appropriations, where members requested more precise campus-level fiscal estimates before any final approval.
