Redwoods Community College District
BUDGET PLANNING COMMITTEE (BPC)
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
LRC 105 (DE Room)
NOTES
PRESENT
Michael Dennis, Utpal Goswami, Carla Spalding, Dan Calderwood, Tim
Flanagan, Bob Brown, Mary Grace Barrick, Tami Matsumoto, Anita Janis,
Michael Burns, Steve Stratton
MEETING NOTES
Meeting Called to Order at 3:30pm.
•
•
•
•
•
•
CONTINUE
BUDGET
BUILDING
DISCUSSION
•
•
•
•
Keith received some responses from his area, where cuts could be made,
Utpal did not. Since Utpal has not heard anything back from Jeff, do we
earmark some areas for cuts?
Bob Brown noted, per Joe, there is no option in athletics to reduce without
cutting programs
Per Tim, maintenance is in the same place; they took a significant cut last
year. Also they are shy three positions, which are not on the open positions
list. They can make cuts but it will be really tough. There are mandated
requirements coming from the state that have to be funded or CR gets fined
Carla mentioned it is difficult to know where to make cuts yet, especially in
printing services where many charges not yet in
For now we will work with the potential $200,000 cut from discretionary
and see how gently we can make operational budget cuts
Ken (Business Office) noted is permissible to use Measure Q money,
provided it falls within the parameters of Measure Q requirements. For
example, we can use Measure Q to fund Mike Wells position, which will
result in savings of roughly $125,000
BOG fee waivers – Keith thinks if we don’t waive the health fee (most
schools do not) we can generate about $100,000. (Cheryl will verify
numbers and clarify what fees CR currently waives). Utpal noted that even
if we charge more for fees, students who need financial aid will get it
through Pell Grants and Federal Financial aide. This will hurt full paying
students. It was suggested we leave this possibility on the table as revenue
enhancement
Another idea is to look at options where we tie funds to specific activities in
labs and can charge extra.
There was discussion about charging all students for parking; not allowing
fee waivers or reductions. Tami suggested charging parking fees for fulltime faculty and staff, as well. Additional revenue equals $25,000
Other brainstorming:
o hold functions such as the athletics auction
o Jeff is looking at charging a residence hall fees
o Facility use fees, at both Eureka campus and the downtown site
o rent space to outside businesses wanting to provide services to
students (can’t violate dining services agreements)
o faculty and staff contribute to medical benefits; but noted we are not
looking at changes requiring negotiations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o sort faculty and staff positions over the long term and create a
process that shifts people to the right place (easy on staff side, more
difficult on faculty side to cross positions)
o Carla noted in her experience with non-public organizations, they
would brain storm, put everything on the table, determined the
absolute must dos, discussed the risk factor and cost involved to
determine what can or can not be reasonably done
Even if we do a little of all these suggestions we are still looking at
$500,000 or $600,000 in personnel cuts – not filling positions
Per Utpal, if we have revenue enhancement and agreement to delay hiring
faculty and staff up to $600,000, we are close to meeting the necessary cuts
for the $1.4 mil. At the next meeting, we will come up with more specifics
on the operating side, where to find money. We need to work with Keith on
student fees to do what we can within policy timelines
Utpal feels that even though it is not our charge, we should also have
conversations as to next steps should funding be cut in addition to the $1.4
million. We should educate ourselves as to which areas are protected
because of categorical funding, which areas were cut hardest last year, etc.
Utpal would like the BPC make broad recommendations and let the
administration make final decisions
Discussion went to program discontinuation, but CR does not yet have an
adequate process. Draft policy is going through the process, but is one that
deals with programs slowly becoming nonessential and is a two year
process. We don’t have a process for fiscal emergencies, but need to create
one. It was asked if we can ask the college to look at this sooner rather than
later. Utpal will take to Dean’s council and College Council
Utpal suggested that when it comes to eliminating programs, the BPC will
not specify what programs but may offer guidance in making the decisions
by providing dollar targets.
It is noted that community education fees go to supporting the program first,
and then surplus goes into the general fund. The same with the bookstore
and dining services
Clarification was made that not-for-credit courses are fee-based and noncredit courses are reimbursable by the state
MECHANICS TO
RANK BUDGET
REQUESTS FROM
IPFC’S
•
PRELIMINARY
REVIEW OF
BUDGET
REQUESTS
•
•
Utpal compiled example requests from Tech, furniture and facilities, and
realized that we must go through the same process as done in Fall 2010;
send out a request for funding for items in addition to what is already in
budget, but not included in program review, including why and tying to
objectives and goals
Utpal will send out soon, with a one-week turnaround.
Regarding Facilities, Utpal suggests the committee consolidate smaller
items into blocks of $5000 and more. The same for the Technology piece
and Furniture committees: go down list and allocate money in blocks for
specific purposes; combine like items into $5,000 or $10,000 to keep
manageable. BPC cannot realistically rank so many small items. In
•
allocating funds, discussion last fall was to allot specific dollars to
categories which can then be cut into smaller portions (not chosen) or ask
for the top ten rankings to fund. The concern is, as we evaluate our planning
process how do we justify giving each group a dollar amount? Utpal stated
we just need a process by which we allocate funding by looking at various
factors and come to a determination. He wants to shorten the lists to make
ranking more realistic. After discussion, it was decided that items be
consolidated into more manageable groups, which are then ranked and
detail as to why can be submitted as well
Next week we will finalize numbers for the operating side. Only nonmandatory budgets will be considered in BPC
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 16, 3:30pm
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm
SUBMITTED
cp