Budget Advisory Committee

Tuesday, January 25, 2000

Senate Chambers, 3 p.m.

The meeting was called to order by Ron Root, Chair.

Members present: Ed Buckley, Craig Butcher (for Deborah Sweitzer), Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Rosemary Darden, Paul Finn, Doug Garrison, Micca Gray, M. Lee, Ricardo Navarrette, Ben Partee, Ed Sikes, Sandi Tassano.

Members absent: LuAnn Campbell, Marty Carpenter (Ex Officio), Christopher Crystal, Danielle Edwards, Curt Groninga, Ron Schuelke.

Also present: Robert Agrella

Staff to the Committee: K. Bradbury, E. Cichocki, R. Kyle, Lamont Royer.

The minutes of the November 2, 1999 and December 7, 1999 meetings were unanimously approved.

Ricardo Navarrette provided three handouts covering P-1 (Period One Apportionment Report), Enrollment Comparison for S99/S00, and Enrollment Comparison for F98/F99. He explained that while some areas within the District have experienced growth, total District enrollment is not growing. The figures on the P-1 report show actual enrollment for S99 and F00 while S00 is a projection and Smr00 is a projection based on last year's numbers. The District goal is to fall within 1% of the estimation when the final report is submitted to the Chancellor's Office in July.

Ron Root shared some of the highlights of the ACCCA sponsored workshop on the proposed Governor's budget, which he recently attended in Sacramento. California's economy is growing at unprecedented rates. The consensus at the State level is that the Governor's forecast was very conservative, and the possibility for additional revenue exists if the economy holds. Approximately 80% of the funding for community colleges was targeted for inflation and student access (growth). Specifically, a 2.8% COLA was recommended which is subject to a downward adjustment at the May revise. The Governor is recommending 3% for growth. SRJC enrollments are flat and will not benefit from that funding. The original Partnership for Excellence (P4E) three-year proposal amount was $300M, but has not lived up to expectations. The current proposal of $25M leaves a total shortfall of $130M. In the past few strings have been attached to P4E funding, but there are indications that it will be tied more closely to performance categories. P4E remains one area of potential revenue for this college. There was nothing in the budget for equalization. Increased equalization funding will benefit low-income districts like ours, and in that regard Dr. Agrella asked for college support from representatives at meetings where equalization and better funding for Non Credit programs is being discussed.

Lamont Royer explained the Education Code requirement for districts to establish a non-resident tuition fee annually. The basis for the fee may be determined by statewide average expense of education, district expense of education, or no more than the district basis- no less than the statewide basis. The statewide average is $130, the district's calculated expense is $127, and the current fee for 1999-00 is $133 and an additional $11 for capital outlay (for foreign students). For the past several years the practice has been to set the tuition fee based on the lowest contiguous district. The recommendation for 2000-01 is $134 per semester unit based on Napa Community College's rate and an additional $11 per semester unit (for foreign students) for capital outlay. The Student Assembly reviewed and approved the recommendation on Monday. The recommendation will be presented at the February 8 Board meeting for approval.

Barbara Croteau spoke to the scope of the committee responsibilities listed on the agenda attachment, especially (e) fiscal priorities within funding parameters and (f) District goals and objectives related to the budget development process. Some possible issues of concern were mentioned, i.e., ideas to increase FTES (can we shorten the semester below 17 weeks, can we institute two 6-week summer sessions, how can programs be packaged to meet the needs of working adults), recommendations to enhance funding (statistical analysis of declining enrollments- modeling, forecasting, interpreting to increase FTES). Ideas generated here may need to be passed on to other committees. Ron Root encouraged committee members to contact him with their opinions on the charge of this committee.

The committee will discuss the need to meet on the first and fourth Tuesdays on each month and look at the seasons of the budget cycle at the next Budget Advisory Committee meeting.

Meeting adjourned 4:30 p.m.