Redwoods Community College District
BUDGET PLANNING COMMITTEE (BPC)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
LRC 105 (DE Room)
NOTES
PRESENT
MEETING NOTES
FINALIZE
NUMBERS FOR 1.4
MIL SAVINGS
SPECIFICS FOR
SAVINGS ON
OPERATING SIDE
Ron Waters, Utpal Goswami, Carla Spalding, Ken Strangfeld, Ed Weaver,
(student treasurer), Michael Dennis, Michael Burns, Sharrie King, Mary Grace
Barrick, Bob Brown, Susan Mindus, Tim Flanagan, Dan Calderwood; Tami
Matsumoto, Steve Stratton, Anita Janis
Anna Duffy-guest, Joe Hash-guest
Meeting Called to Order at 3:30pm.
Utpal summarized what was discussed by the BPC so far (see BPC
worksheet):
• The 4.5% cut equals $1.4 million dollars
• The IR position must be funded
• Carla provided PERS costs, but there will be other mandatory
costs/increases yet unknown. The open, funded positions are listed on the
spreadsheet
• A possible revenue source included reinstating health fees
• Ken clarified it is permissible to charge expenses to Measure Q: all costs
related to continuing Measure Q projects can be charged to Measure Q.
These costs must be legal, ethical and justifiable. Once a project is
completed, no further expenses can be charged. There must be an open
contract and the funding must be available within the Measure Q project
budget
• Closing the Arcata office (move to other locations) and confirming an
Arcata staff person is leaving, will realize a savings
• Putting holds on staff and faculty positions: hiring delays may save us
approximately $100,000 (not a solid number). There could be 8 or 9
retirements and a savings is realized if we can hold on replacing five of
those. Because we have to fill TLUs with associate faculty, actual cuts to
associate faculty won’t be so high
• The district will reduce FTEs by 250, a $400,000 savings, (90sections)
• A $200,000 cut in discretionary spending, not identified. If the BPC
agrees, what and where must be agreed upon in the next 2 weeks
• Still a need to cut about $44,500, possibly more
• Upon agreement of this initial worksheet, the next step is to identify what
four staff positions to hold. There might be categorical monies to fund a
student services staff position
• Discussion involved possible step freezes. The 1.4 mil cut is based on this
year’s budget.
• Carla suggested looking opting out of the job market contract, of which
fund 15 pays $50,000 to staff
•
It was discussed the CRFO contract has a February 1 deadline for faculty
and programs being cut, but we can reduce a number of TLUs without
cancelling a program. Associate faculty aren’t guaranteed a job, but are
•
accorded same rights as full-time faculty under contract. Maybe this is a
question for CRFO and the district lawyer
It is felt the 1.4 mil cut is basically covered but the district needs to think
ahead in case of further cuts; it is better to begin brainstorming now. Dan
would like BPC members to go to departments and begin discussions, ask
faculty to be proactive, and have a voice in what programs or courses will
be eliminated
Athletics has already identified some areas to cut and Bob is thankful to
Joe they could already have this discussion. They are trying to save people,
not necessarily programs
We must remember we need to meet our FTE target to keep the maximum
funding from state
It was discussed that some faculty might be proactive and volunteer to take
a year furlough, as long as they can keep their benefits. This could be a
long term fix, if, for example, 2 full timers took a furlough each year.
Initially the administration did not want to look at negotiable scenarios, but
Dan will talk to Utpal. This type of scenarios involves various layers, such
as CRFO and PERS
It was suggested to approach cuts by looking at the governor’s possible
areas of choice to cut funding (i.e. no payments for repeat classes)
Some classes could be moved to community ed rather than credit courses.
Ask the question, do students need college credit or is this for other reasons
Carla will get numbers on site leases
There was discussion about charging and/or increasing facility use fees . It
was noted that when our fees went up several years ago, use went down.
The issue becomes are we recovering the costs of other people using CR
facilities or not? The message to the community, “if we can’t cover our
costs for you to use the facility, then we might not be here for you in the
future.” An example, Relay for Life is a large loss to CR.
2.5 mil and 3.84 other worst case scenario cuts
•
Tabled
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PROCESS FOR
PROGRAM
DISCONTINUANCE
IN FISCAL CRISES
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 23, 3:30pm
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm
SUBMITTED
cp