Redwoods Community College District
BUDGET PLANNING COMMITTEE (BPC)
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Draft
NOTES
PRESENT
Michael Burns, Dan Calderwood, Shari King, Mike Dennis, Bob Brown, Keith
Snow-Flamer, Tammy Matsumoto, Carla Spalding, Tim Flanagan, Utpal
Goswami, Mary Grace Barrick, Steve Stratton, Susan Mindus
MEETING
NOTES
Called to order at 3:30pm.
PRESENTATION
OF PLANNING
DATA
Utpal provided a handout, Critical Issues/Areas of Focus Regarding Budget
Development, developed in cabinet for the BPC to follow. He emphasized that
these are guidelines only, a place from which to begin.
Utpal clarified how the number of “lost students” was determined in the
District Budget Impact scenarios from the Community College League of
California: Divide the net reduction by the $4565. (The state is assuming the
average student carries a ½ load.)
Utpal noted that Cabinet is not in favor of cross-the-board cuts, but would
rather look at value added units. There will be no changes to contractual
obligations. It was noted, regarding item 9, that new initiatives would be
funded only from fund 15, if it exists. Discussion:
• If we target less FTEs, we need less resources and we can do scenarios
based on this.
• BPC will work with funding and EMC will choose courses. The dollar
allocations to the EMC will be based on an allocation of target FTEs
and how much we will get funded per FTE
• The base target scenario for budget assumptions is 4.5% for all
institutions (approx $1.4 million to CR). Because we are looking to
lower our FTE target, we already saved $400,000
• This is the best case scenario and depends on whether the deferred taxes
are put on ballot (District Budget Impact scenarios from the Community
College League of California)
ORDERING
POTENTIAL
CHOICES
RELATING TO
BUDGET CUTS
Utpal provided a short-list handout and emphasized these ideas are placeholders
for thoughts regarding enhancing revenues. (Italicized items are non
negotiable.) Several others ideas were discussed prior to the committee coming
to consensus on three options to pursue initially and request budget information
for the next meeting.
• Employees loan a portion of pay back to the college
• It was noted a 4 day work week is a negotiable issue with CSEA
• Also noted that changes we make need to last several years, so the
committee should consider what CR will look like down road with less
funding. Are the suggestions going to be effective both long and short
term. Our current budget 98% is people – turnover in the sense of long
term employees becomes an important part of budget considerations
• Hiring delays
• A furlough is involuntary time off work without pay
• Increase health fee
• Increase parking to state code allowable maximum
• Parcel tax would be a board decision for long term discussion. Basically
it is asking the community for financial assistance to protect certain
things
Consensus, from list, for initial budget considerations, based on 12 members
present, each choosing their top 3 choices:
• Hiring freeze (9 votes): open and funded positions. Carla will provide
budget information using random months
• Sites (6 votes): the costs to maintain (mandatory’s); FTES generated
(this year many FTES from sites were not generated by student choice,
but because it was the only choice); Cost to support the site(s)
• Reducing programs (5 votes): which - instructional or services
OPEN
DISCUSSION
Regarding the furlough option, for serious consideration, the college must look
at all definitions, such as with PERS, and STRS
It was noted that by reducing classes, through the focus on enrollment and cuts
might have an end result of eliminating programs
In making determinations it was noted that cutting sites doesn’t necessarily cut
programs. It was also noted that when crunching numbers, sites can look
profitable when looking at mandatory costs, but services remain on the Eureka
campus. We must consider a certain portion of FTE money goes to
administrative and student services
Another question to consider is are we doing students a service, really
providing access and offering success by having a satellite site without having
library and student services
The student board representative recently commented on how it created a
hardship for students having so many sites and their schedules spread out
The committee would like Zach to track:
• where students live vs. where they are taking classes
• by using student id numbers track number of sites attending
• do we have/can we get penetration data prior to opening a site?
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is Wednesday, February 2, at 3:30pm in the Lakeview room
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00p.m.
SUBMITTED
cp