Sunday, January 13, 2013

Officials hash out merger proposal

After the pomp and circumstance of the legislative session’s first day ended, Rio Grande Valley lawmakers began deliberating about what language should be included in the UT System’s bill to establish a long-sought medical school, their No. 1 priority for the 140-day session.

While broad support exists among local lawmakers for the merger of the University of Texas at Brownsville and the University of Texas-Pan American, divisions persist regarding the structure, financing and location of the medical school.

The negotiations over the entire proposal’s components will test the delegation’s regional cooperation at a time when they must gain statewide support for a measure that requires the backing of two-thirds of the Legislature.

Valley lawmakers met for several hours Wednesday, but no final agreement emerged from the discussions.

But there is “nothing insurmountable” in any disagreements about the universities’ merger and the medical school’s creation, said state Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville, the dean of the Valley’s House delegation who will file the bill and guide it through the legislative process. Oliveira, however, insisted that they not let regional rivalries sink the proposal, comparing it to cutting a pie when the flour hasn’t been made.

“We all have concerns and want to fight for our districts but that fight can come another day,” Oliveira said Friday. “There’s nothing to divide right now. We have to create something and then figure out what’s next.”

UT System Chancellor Francisco G. Cigarroa unveiled Dec. 6 the proposal to merge UTB and UTPA into a new, unnamed university, along with plans to fund the South Texas medical school. The UT Board of Regents unanimously approved the merger then, but the plan requires approval from two-thirds of the Legislature, which also will consider new medical school spending requests.

As a new higher education institution, the university would be eligible for Permanent University Funding — an endowment grown through revenues from state-owned land — and would match UT’s other regional universities in student population, research expenditures and endowments. Beyond creating the new university with locations across the Valley, regents also approved $100 million in funding for the next decade to develop a South Texas medical school.

The starting point for Valley lawmakers when they met this week was a UT-drafted bill that abolished the existing universities and created a new one with access to the Permanent University Funding, or PUF. But the bill also deferred to legislation passed in 2009 authorizing the creation of the South Texas medical school with its main campus and administrative offices in Cameron County.

That rankled Hidalgo County legislators, who felt they would not be given a fair shake from the start. Oliveira said he promised his House colleagues this past week that the existing law for the Cameron County-based school would be struck from the books, adding that the medical school’s location should be a “rational, business-based decision by the UT System.”

Longoria and other Hidalgo County legislators believe that Valley taxpayers will eventually have to pay a portion of the bill. Officials from both UTPA and the UT System, however, said they did not view a taxing entity as essential to the funding of the medical school and would not ask local leaders to pursue one.

“If they want to find ways to raise money locally, that’s a local decision. It’s not a UT decision anymore than it was a UT decision in Austin,” said Dr. Kenneth Shine, the vice chancellor for health affairs at the UT System.

In Travis County, where voters approved a property tax increase for a medical school in November, the board of regents told local leaders they would only put up $30 million toward $65 million needed for the school. Elected officials turned to local taxpayers to bridge the gap.

For the Rio Grande Valley, UT is seeking assistance from the state Legislature to the tune of $20 million annually — an option the system did not pursue for Austin, Shine said. The regents also agreed to put up $100 million over 10 years for the South Texas medical school with additional money to come from the Permanent University Fund.

Even if those funds were not available, Shine said, the Valley is not nearly as property wealthy as Central Texas. Hidalgo and Cameron counties have total taxable property valued at close to $43 billion, compared to more than $98 billion in Travis County.

But proponents of a local taxing district say adding a nickel to the tax levy on each $100 in property valuations would generate more than $13.6 million annually in Hidalgo alone.

With Texas struggling to fund essential state services, it’s unrealistic to expect state lawmakers to budget $20 million for the Valley’s medical school when those elsewhere are supported locally, said , listing Austin, El Paso and San Antonio as other areas that pay part of their medical schools’ costs.

Add in the persistent propensity for the Valley’s cities to compete with one another, and it’s resulted in sensitive negotiations — even as area lawmakers promote the need for regional cooperation in Austin. With Valley lawmakers coalescing behind the merger of the universities, the looming question is whether they can find common ground on the medical school.

UTPA President Robert Nelsen said the Valley’s lawmakers understand that the merger will require a “regional approach” but conceded “there are still concerns about how you finance it all.”

Nelsen said he did not see a taxing district as necessary given the support of the regents, expected legislative funding and savings from the university merger. He added that research at the new medical school and university will also generate significant revenue.

No comments:

Post a Comment