SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 26, 1999
Senate Chambers, 3:00 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by John Roberts, Chair. Members present: Ed Buckley, Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Rob Cullen, Rosemary Darden, Paul Finn, Doug Garrison, Micca Gray, Ricardo Navarrette, Ben Partee, Rich Rose, Ron Schuelke, Caroline Tice.
Members absent: Maria Angel, Ken Fiori, Sally Heath, Steve Olson, Deborah Sweitzer, Sandi Tassano.
Staff to the Committee: E. Cichocki, R. Kyle (Recorder), Lamont Royer.
It was M/S/C to approve the minutes of the November 24, 1998 meeting.
Dr. Roberts attended the annual workshop in Sacramento on the governor's proposed budget, which included representatives from the Chancellor's Office, Department of Finance, CA State legislature, Legislative Analyst's office, and the Governor's Office. It is not a particularly good budget year. Dr. Roberts reported that the proposed 1.83% COLA is down from that expected in the range of 2.25 - 2.50%. While there is still some discussion going on, the 1.83% results in comparing different time periods now comparing the average over the past 12-month period. There will be another computation with the May revise, and there are no guarantees what way it will go. The governor is proposing that growth be funded at 2.5% statewide. Each district has its own growth rate, and that is the amount that will be funded. Some will be higher than 2.5%, others will be lower. It is a good indicator where the State's priorities lie. SRJC's enrollments have leveled off and may be marginally declining, which is problematic because there are two sources of unrestricted dollars, COLA and growth. Other than the COLA, the most disappointing item is the $10 million statewide Partnership for Excellence (P4E) allocation. The prospects for increasing it do not seem to be terribly bright. SRJC's anticipated portion of the allocation will be in the $150-$190,000 range.
An augmentation request for $40 million for new full time faculty hires, $28 million for non credit equalization, and $9 million for equalization was not funded. The governor had a few ideas of his own. He proposed $10.6 million for a new program for a High School Report Card initiative, and $10 million for Reading and Teacher Development Partnership. Also proposed by the governor is $1.8 million to fund 12 additional Middle College High Schools, and $2.5 million to enhance transfer activities with CSU and UC systems.
Other ongoing items like scheduled maintenance, instructional equipment, telecommunications and technology infrastructure have been funded at the same level. What is missing in the coming year is the substantial one-time funding that the District has received in past years. The catch up under Proposition 98 is complete. The proposed budget does not reduce any programs at the state level but it presents a challenge to continue to do business in the coming year with increasing costs. The prospect of this improving over the next few months until the May revise isn't out of the question, according to Dr. Roberts. The budget as it is now configured fully funds the obligation of Prop. 98. In order for the K-14 budget to increase the state budget revenue has to increase, and the governor would need to be willing to go outside of Prop. 98 for additional K-14 funding. Dr. Roberts predicts some modest changes, lobbying to try to increase the COLA, and lobbying to include the $20-30 million in governor's ideas with the P4E allocation since they could reasonably be considered P4E programs.
Questions/comments followed. Ricardo Navarrette asked for clarification as to how Proposition 98 catch up funding came to the District and the budgetary effects from no longer receiving these one-time funds. Dr. Roberts explained that the reason the District received one-time funds is because in prior years there was essentially an under funding of Proposition 98. The catch up never went back to base funding. The District is essentially back to base funding with none of the one time allocations.
A "Summary: Planned Allocation of 1998-99 Partnership for Excellence Funds" handout was distributed explaining how those funds have been allocated so far. Dr. Roberts asked committee members to keep in mind that these are one-time allocations. IPC recommended very strongly not to do too much as far as on going costs for the current academic year. One item of ongoing interest to this group is computers for faculty for a total of $500,000 funded partially by P4E, fund balance and the President's initiative. In response to Rosemary Darden's inquiry, Dr. Roberts reported it is estimated that the PC's will be delivered in March. The District had to go out to bid for the PC's whereas there was only one source for the Mac. Yesterday IPC discussed the remaining year with respect to P4E . Significant action has been taken in terms of recommendations for those dollars and as the collective bargaining process proceeds, it has become apparent that in order to keep with the college's commitment to stay at place 10 will take significant more funding than the college has anticipated. The question is how to fund that commitment to place 10. Dr. Roberts recommended a couple of things, and he prefaced his remarks by not being able to talk about specific numbers nor seek referral from any other body which would affect collective bargaining. There are two problems. First is the problem of cash to fund the salary program for 98-99 in which case authority to use reserves would be considered. Second is funding considerations for 99-00 and future years. A possible solution is to use P4E dollars to fund current programs and activities thereby freeing some general fund dollars which would then be available for the salary program. That scenario limits the college's options for innovative new programs. The comparison group of 10 moved considerably more than was anticipated due to other Districts using P4E dollars. While this was discussed with IPC, no action was requested.
Micca Gray asked the cost to maintain the faculty at place 10, and if the cost was close to 4.5%. She inquired whether the District is going to be using all of the $1.9 million P4E allocation to fund the increase. Micca further asked what is BAC's relationship to the budget and IPC in terms of recommendations for using funding. Dr. Roberts thinks that the 4.5% figure is close. He anticipated there would still be a substantial amount of P4E funding available for other purposes. He said the whole process was set in place to get the most inclusive process possible regarding P4E funds and try to put it into the planning process. The BAC/IPC question has not been answered fully yet. The intent is to make sure that there is a dialogue between IPC and BAC. There is interest and concern in making sure to link P4E funding to the student outcomes. BAC would be a significant part of reallocation of any of funds. The position of allocating $250,000 to hire four new full time faculty in areas demonstrating increased services to students and instructional quality was entertained and recommended by the IPC yesterday and is being set in motion. The Faculty Staffing Committee will be discussing this on Wednesday per Ed Buckley. Further, P4E reporting on expenditures, revenues, and planning will be coming to this group at future meetings. The P4E program is not over simply because it was not funded at the anticipated level, and there will be an equal amount of work required in the coming year.
Micca Gray asked if the District will have to make up the COLA for the four new positions somewhere else in the budget. Dr. Roberts responded that the intent is not for P4E dollars to be a part of the base budget for purposes of calculating the COLA.
4. Out-of-State Tuition
A copy of the "Non-Resident Tuition 1999-00" Board item was distributed and discussed. Dr. Roberts explained that the District has options for setting the rate as defined in Title 5 of the Education Code. Historically the District has set the rate with the lowest contiguous district. Last year the result was a $5/unit decrease, and this year there is an increase to $133 from $121. Typically this is taken to the Associated Students for information and endorsement. A.S. recommended not to endorse the $133 rate and leave it at the current rate. Their intent seemed to be to pick the lowest rate possible. This is not an option. Dr. Roberts indicated to Maria Angel that the Board will be informed that the students were not in agreement. Historically the reason the District uses the rate of the lowest contiguous district is so that we do not create the impression that we are trying to get attendance by under pricing the surrounding districts.
5. Other
Ed Buckley reported this has been a "surreal year" spending a lot of time talking about how to spent dollars on ourselves. While there are ongoing discussions about P4E, new faculty, new computers for faculty, etc., it is disturbing to Dr. Buckley that we are not growing. He mentioned this to the budget committee because there may be larger discussions next year involving productivity, class size, growth and COLA and the dynamics about approaching those items. As the fall semester nears, making the budget work is the challenge. Resources are not going to be at prior levels. Continuing with the salary program, covering increases in year-to-year costs, will take work and hard management, and growth is the key. The way to increase resources is growth, but Dr. Buckley stated that is not an endorsement of growth. He feels it is probably the wrong place for the state to put its priorities, but the state had a choice and the choice was made. Growth equals access. Paul Finn asked about enrollments comparing Fall 97 to Fall 98. Doug Garrison said that Fall 98 CR was down about 1.1%; NC up 6.7% but a combination of those resulted in about 10 FTE short of F97. Doug offered that fall guidelines continue to examine the distribution of the programs where appropriate growth is possible, but it has to be justified. The major drop has been in workforce training areas. Ed Buckley would like more discussions regarding these budgetary challenges.
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
FEBRUARY 23, 1999
3:00 P.M.
SENATE CHAMBERS
Posted by mlinford at January 26, 1999 12:00 PM