The Brief

The University of California is eyeing a looming budget gap of half a billion dollars next year. To help balance the books it’s relying in part on its out-of-state undergraduates.

Meanwhile, the system is pouring tens of billions of dollars into construction projects for seismic retrofitting, new classrooms and medical centers — while also acknowledging it lacks the funding to build or renovate most of what it needs.

Out-of-state undergraduates at the UC are charged more than three times the total tuition in-state students are expected to pay. Now system leaders have increased the supplemental tuition for new non-resident undergraduates by $3,402 next fall, an amount that’s $2,208 more than what the supplemental tuition would increase by under existing UC policy.

A UC regents committee approved the new hike Wednesday; the full board voted to greenlight the measure today.

One regent, Jose M. Hernandez, voted no. Two elected state leaders on the board, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, abstained from voting.

“I just want to be on the record opposing the tuition increase, and also on the record recognizing the commitment of staff to continue to work to evaluate and understand these decisions to increase the cost of attendance for out of state students,” Kounalakis said today.

Under a model passed in 2021, each new cohort of undergraduates sees higher tuition and fees than the previous crop of new students but that tuition stays flat for their time at the UC. In-state students are charged tuition and a systemwide fee. Out-of-state students are charged that plus a much larger supplemental fee. The base tuition and fee would go up as planned under the 2022 model; only the supplemental fee would rise at a higher than expected amount.

All told, it would mean new nonresident undergraduates would pay $52,536 in total mandatory tuition next fall, excluding separate campus fees that are an average of $1,700. Current new nonresident undergraduates pay $48,636 annually, plus campus fees.

The move would affect the roughly 15% of UC undergraduates, including transfer students, who live outside of California and will begin their studies at the university system next fall. The increase wouldn’t affect current students or future graduate students.

“As UC prepares for an anticipated state budget cut that could impact student services across the entire system, we are proposing an increase to support core operations without raising costs for current students and California residents,” wrote UC spokesperson Omar Rodriguez in an email.

The hike would increase revenue by about $41 million for the system annually, Rodriguez wrote.

The impending half-billion shortfall next summer would occur if state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom make good on a deal to delay previously promised new money for the UC and apply a cut to its state support.

UC’s operating revenue is estimated to be about $53 billion in 2024-25. Most of that is from the system’s medical services work, including hospitals. Its core mission of educating students, largely faculty salary and benefits as well as financial aid, makes up about $11 billion of the system’s budget. That amount is almost evenly paid for with state dollars and a combination of tuition revenue and other university funds.

It’s among the numerous fiscal details that emerged at the regents’ regularly scheduled November meeting, including the revelation that the UC plans to spend $30 billion to repair or replace its increasingly aging stock of academic buildings, medical centers and dorms by decade’s end. And yet, that massive sum falls far short of the 10-campus system’s stated construction needs — a total of $53 billion in projects without a funding source.

The building spree is occurring as UC trundles toward a goal of adding 23,000 new California students by 2030 — fueled in part by lawmaker demands that the vaunted system make space for more California high schoolers.

The tuition hike in context

In some ways the emphasis on out-of-state students is a return to form for the UC, which both relies on these students for the much higher tuition they pay but also is under pressure by lawmakers to limit how many non-Californian undergraduates the system enrolls.

Eduardo Tapia Jr-Urbieta, an executive officer for the UC Student Association, which represents undergraduate students, said that the student association opposes the increase. “Opportunity to higher education should not face any more barriers. Instead of increasing the salaries of UC administrators, let’s make sure college is more affordable for all,” he told regents yesterday.

Those September raises came in two waves: 4.2% for senior UC officials, such as the system president and most campus chancellors, and extra raises, including for most of the chancellors — ranging from 16% to 33%. The extra chancellor raises are paid with private donations, not tuition or state support. The updated chancellor salaries range from $785,000 to nearly $1.2 million

Nonresident undergraduate students tend to have higher family incomes than resident students. In 2021, 45% of nonresident undergraduates had family incomes of above $185,000. The same was true for 25% of undergraduates from California. Nearly three-quarters of nonresident undergraduates came from households exceeding $93,000; for California-based undergrads, it was 45%.

Still, nonresident students on average pay much more to attend a UC campus, even after all financial aid is factored into their costs. The net price — which includes tuition, housing and other related costs minus grants and scholarships — for resident undergraduates with household incomes above $180,000 was around $37,000 a year last fall. For nonresident undergraduates, the average net price was $67,000.

“I support it (the nonresident tuition increase). I’ll get pushback for that, but here we are,” said Josiah Beharry, a student regent who can cast a vote on the board.

UC officials said that compared to some other major public universities, UC’s nonresident undergraduates pay lower nonresident fees. For example, University of Michigan nonresident students paid $11,500 more than their nonresident UC peers in 2023-24. University of Virginia nonresident undergraduate paid $7,000 more. Even when adjusting for living costs, nonresident Californians are charged less for their education, UC officials said.

UC policy permits 20% of new nonresident tuition revenue to be reserved for financial aid for nonresident undergraduates.

$30 billion in planned construction

The $30 billion construction plan — and $50 billion in projects without a funding source — were spelled out in a new, 207-page report detailing construction plans that UC budget officials presented to the system’s regents yesterday.

“The University’s enrollment growth and continuing needs for renewal, modernization and seismic correction of existing facilities are the key drivers of capital investments,” the report said.

Cranes have been soaring above the system’s campus skylines for years.

Since 2011, the UC has added beds for 42,000 students, growing from nearly 75,000 beds. The increase means the system can house 40% of its students, up from 32% a decade ago.

And UC isn’t done as it’s on track to build dorm space for 14,000 new beds at all nine undergraduate-serving campuses through 2030 — at a cost of $6.9 billion. That’s nearly half-a-million-dollars per bed.

But while student housing projects can largely pay for themselves over time through the rents campuses charge, classroom buildings have fewer sources of cash beyond system bonds and state dollars — which the UC says are hardly enough to meet campus needs.

Take for example all the seismic repairs UC says it must undergo to extend the life of its buildings, with structures built in the 1950s and 1960s representing the largest chunk of UC’s gargantuan building footprint. UC has $16 billion in seismic retrofit needs but only identified funding for 16% of that, or $2.5 billion, last academic year.

It’s not just finding money that’s a concern for UC. As buildings undergo remodeling, the classrooms, research and other activity core to the system’s mission has to continue. “The scope and complexity of planning required to minimize these disruptions can often necessitate the construction of temporary or replacement space,” the report read.

The scale of the need is vast. According to the UC, about 1,464 buildings require seismic upgrades across the system.

UC officials disclosed yesterday that the system is debuting a new plan in which campuses will reduce its backlog of structures that need seismic upgrades by 4% annually, with the structures most in need of an overhaul receiving priority.

And then there’s all the new construction UC needs. The system completed 139 projects at a cost of $1.4 billion last academic year — but has more than $20 billion in active construction plans for about 400 projects. More than half of those are for UC’s extensive medical care operation, in part to satisfy state rules on strengthening hospitals to better withstand earthquakes.

Through 2030, UC’s construction plans total $30 billion, with about $12 billion for its medical centers. Philanthropy helps pay for all those projects, but only a little. Just about $2 billion of the construction plan budget will come from gifts. About $300 million will come from state funds directly — a relatively tiny portion of the overall revenue picture for the system’s six-year building plan. Much of the projects will be paid for with external financing, such as bonds that the system sells to investors.

But that’s just projects with a funding source. UC Berkeley, for example, has more than $14 billion in construction needs but has identified the funding for just about $2.8 billion of that.

What is getting built at the system’s oldest campus? For starters, a new undergraduate academic building that’ll include 27 classrooms and a 400-seat auditorium with a rooftop terrace. All of that costs $137 million. It’s scheduled to open in the 2025-26 academic year.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.