AGENDA ITEM BACKGROUND
TO: GOVERNING BOARD
DATE
FROM: PRESIDENT
November 1, 2010
SUBJECT:
2010-11 and 2011-12 Budget Update & Planning
REASON FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
ENCLOSURE(S)
Page 1 of 13
ITEM NUMBER
E.1
INFORMATION
BACKGROUND:
2010-11 Budget Update:
The Governor signed the 2010-11 State Budget into law on October 8, 2010, one hundred days late.
Highlights include:








$7.8 billion in spending cuts (ongoing and one-time).
$1.2 billion in temporary revenues due to delayed tax breaks.
Optimistic revenue estimates- an increase of $1.4 billion.
Increased funding of $5.4 billion from the federal government; up from the $3.4 billion previously
projected.
$900 million from the sale of state properties that will be leased back to the state.
$2.7 billion from borrowing and funding shifts.
Pension reforms- raising the PERS retirement age for new state employees and end to “spiking”.
The creation of a “rainy day fund”.
Vetoes include the following:

$35 million to partially restore categorical programs. The funds were proposed as an across-theboard partial restoration of the cuts taken in 2009-10. These resources would have been provided to
districts in July 2011 as part of a new inter-year funding deferral.

$25 million for the Economic and Workforce Development program. Resources would have been
allocated to districts to maintain and expand workforce training and course offerings.
Highlights of the Community College budget include:



New Inter-Year Funding Deferrals of $129 million; additional Intra-Year Funding Deferrals
resulting in an increase of $1.3-$1.6 million for Cabrillo. The college’s current assumptions for
2010-11 include $1 million of this increase. The new deferral is provided to support current-year
enrollment growth funding. It should be noted that the state is pre-committing 2011-12 funds to
cover current year growth placing base apportionment allocations for 2011-12 at risk.
Enrollment growth funding of $126 million; potentially $1.2 million for Cabrillo.
No student fee increases
Administrator Initiating Item:
Victoria Lewis
Academic and Professional Matter
If yes, Faculty Senate Agreement
Senate President Signature
 Yes  No
 Yes  No
Final Disposition





No reductions to Cal Grants
Zero COLA- elimination of the .39% negative COLA; approximately $216,000 for Cabrillo.
High probability of mid-year budget reductions- new funding deferrals could become a mid-year
reduction.
Impact of property tax changes due to the uncertainty of the housing market remains unknown.
$68 million (an increase of $20 million over 2009-10 levels) for SB70 Career Technical Education
Programs.
The State Budget includes significant fiscal risk. Specifically: the possibility of mid-year cuts, increased
funding deferrals and uncertainty regarding local property taxes. The college will continue to evaluate the
state budget and adjust revenue estimates as appropriate. The complete budget update from Erik Skinner,
the Vice Chancellor of Fiscal Policy (October 20, 2010) is included as an attachment. (pages ____)
As a reminder, the Board approved the college’s 2010-11 Final Budget on September 13, 2010. The 201011 Final Budget is out of balance by $1.9 million. One-time reserves will be used to balance the budget.
The College did not budget 2.21% growth funds included in the governor’s budget. The college is assuming
other reductions of $641,000 for general apportionment and property tax shortfalls. In addition, one-time
reserves of $1,250,000 of reserves have been set aside for 2010-11 mid year budget reductions.
At this writing, the College is anticipating the release of some portion of state apportionment funds that have
accrued since July. Based on the last update from the state the college is scheduled to receive August and
September apportionment payments on October 25, and 26, 2010. The October apportionment payment is
expected on November 4, 2010.
2011-12 Budget Update:
The College is moving forward with budget planning for the 2011-12 fiscal year. The College is projecting
a $2.4 million deficit for 2011-12; net of one-time reserves of $1,250,000. The College Planning Council
reviewed the following documents:



Review Budget Reduction Process Commitments, Criteria and Strategies (pages
Budget Development Timeline (pages )
Budget Reduction Targets by Component (pages )
)
These documents are included as attachments. It should be noted that although budget reduction targets for
2011-12 are based on the 87% of the college’s budget (comprised of salaries and benefits), reductions in
other operating expenses are under review. Some of the areas under review include:


How to reduce the inter-fund transfer to the Transportation Fund- from the Base Budget, i.e. the Bus
Pass program and the daily parking fee
How to increase college-wide facility rental revenue to support the maintenance and efficient use of
the facility.
Although these items will not equate to $2.4 million in base budget reductions they may lessen the
college’s need for reductions to personnel.
The college will move forward with the development of a 2010-11 Base Budget Planning Assumption
document that includes a best, mid and worst case scenario. This document will be included in the
December budget materials for the Board.
The December Board meeting will include an in-depth study session on budget planning.
-------- Original Message -------Subject:Budget Update--October 20, 2010
Date:Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:18:24 +0000
From:Skinner, Erik <eskinner@CCCCO.EDU>
Reply-To:System Office Memos to CBOs <SO2CBO@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET>
To:SO2CBO@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET
Dear Colleagues:
On October 8, 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the 2010-11 State Budget. One
hundred days late, it was the most overdue state budget in California history (beating the earlier
record of 85 days set by the 2008-09 State Budget). The budget package, comprised of 26
separate pieces of legislation, was also one of the most complex California has ever seen. Having
exhausted all the easy and straightforward solutions in recent years, state leaders used a
combination of cuts, rosy assumptions, borrowing, and temporary revenues to bridge an
estimated $19.3 billion budget gap.
Last night, the Governor finalized action on the last of the budget trailer bills, including the
education trailer bill (Assembly Bill 1610). In doing so, he vetoed $60 million from the
community college budget package. It appears that his primary rationale for the vetoes was not
related to the specific programs, but rather a general concern with the way in which the funds
would have been provided. Specifically, the $60 million would have been disbursed to
community college districts in July 2011, in effect borrowing from next year’s budget in order to
support programs in the current year.
The Governor’s vetoes were as follows:
$35 million to partially restore categorical programs. These funds were proposed as an
across-the-board partial restoration of the cuts taken in 2009-10. These resources would
have been provided to districts in July 2011 as part of a new inter-year funding deferral.
An additional $25 million for the Economic and Workforce Development program. The
resources would have been allocated on a competitive basis to districts to maintain and
expand workforce training course offerings. These resources would have been provided
to districts in July 2011 as part of a new inter-year funding deferral.
Budget Overview
Major elements of the enacted budget package include:
$7.8 billion in budget cuts (ongoing and one-time)
$5.4 billion in federal funds (this represents an increase from Governor’s May Revision
estimates)
$2.7 billion in solutions from borrowing and funding shifts
$1.4 billion in increased revenues due to improved economic data
$1.2 billion in temporary revenues due to delayed tax breaks (Net Operating Loss suspended
for 2010-11; this revenue increase is offset by $132 million in new tax breaks negotiated
as part of the budget agreement)
$900 million in one-time revenues from the sale and lease back of state office buildings
The budget also included major reforms that had been championed by the Governor and
legislative Republicans. These include:
Pension reforms, including raising PERS retirement age for new state employees and end to
“spiking." These changes do not affect community college and school districts employees
covered by PERS.
State Budget reforms creating a stronger “rainy day fund.”
Education Funding
The 2010-11 State Budget provides a total of $49.7 billion for K-12 schools and community
colleges within Proposition 98. This funding level, which is essentially flat from 2009-10 levels,
is $4.1 billion less than called for by the Proposition 98 funding formula. Rather than fund at the
higher level, state leaders suspended Proposition 98 and, as a result, there is no minimum
funding level in place for 2010-11. However the amount of the funding shortfall compared to the
calculated minimum ($4.1 billion) will be counted as “maintenance factor” under the provisions
of Proposition 98 and will cause the funding guarantee to ratchet up further in coming years in
order to make up for this funding shortfall.
The 2010-11 State Budget relies heavily on expanded inter-year funding deferrals under
Proposition 98 in order to generate one-time budget savings. The budget includes almost $2
billion in additional funding deferrals to K-12 schools and community colleges, beyond the preexisting deferrals (see community college section for more details on deferrals). By deferring
2010-11 payments until the beginning of the next fiscal year, the state experiences one-time
savings. This funding deferral will then be repeated in future years, however no additional
savings will be generated.
California Community Colleges
For the California Community Colleges, the highlights are as follows:
Inter-Year Funding Deferrals. The 2010-11 incorporates $129 million in new inter-year
funding deferrals. While, unfortunately, funding deferrals have become a regular feature
in our budget, these new deferrals raise considerable concerns. Unlike past deferrals that
were used to avert cuts, the proposed new deferral is being provided to support a currentyear augmentation for enrollment funding. It is unclear whether cash-strapped
community colleges have the capacity to front the investment while waiting for the state
to make payments in the next fiscal year. In addition, we should be concerned that by precommitting funding in the 2011-12 fiscal year, the state may be left in a position of being
unable to fund base apportionments, enrollment growth, and COLA in the next fiscal
year. Please see attachment for a more complete description of the new deferrals, as well
as an overview of the deferrals previously built into the community college budget.
Intra-Year Funding Deferrals. The state budget package includes a six-day delay in the
October 2010 payment. Rather than being disbursed on or around October 28, the
payment will be made on November 4. This intra-year funding deferral is added to the
already significant intra-year deferrals already in place. The attachment, noted above,
describes these intra-year deferrals.
$126 million for community college enrollments. These resources will support
approximately 26,000 FTES (an increase of 2.21 percent). Funds will be allocated evenly
to all districts to partially restore the 3.3 percent workload reduction that was part of the
2009-10 State Budget. If a district fails to generate sufficient FTES to earn its share of
these funds, the remaining funds will be made available for other districts to earn. In
using these funds, the Chancellor’s Office strongly urges districts to continue to prioritize
transfer, basic skills, and career technical education course sections. As a system, we
must fully leverage available resources to provide access in these core areas if we are to
maintain the confidence of the public and state leaders.
Zero COLA. While the Administration had previously proposed a negative COLA (and a
related funding cut), the final budget package adopted a zero COLA and thus provided no
funds for this purpose.
$68 million for SB 70 Career Technical Education Programs. This represents an increase
of $20 million over 2009-10 levels.
Lowered estimates of local property taxes. The local property tax estimates included in the
2010-11 State Budget are $41 million lower than 2009-10 receipts. The budget includes a
commensurate increase in State General Fund payments in order to leave the colleges
whole.
Categorical Flexibility. In general, the categorical flexibility provisions established as part
of the 2009-10 State Budget remain in place. Notable exceptions include:
Language clarifying that SB 70 funding for both 2009-10 and 2010-11 are not subject
to flexibility.
Language clarifying that the Chancellor may restrict the use of funds provided for
statewide and regional projects under the Economic and Workforce Development
program, Academic Senate, and Transfer Education and Articulation.
Mandates
$9.5 million for current-year mandate claims.
$22.3 million for mandate claims from prior-years. These funds will be distributed to
community college districts on an equal per-FTES basis. Funding provided to
each district will be counted against outstanding mandate reimbursement claims,
with a district’s oldest claims retired first. To the extent funding provided to a
district exceeds a district’s outstanding mandate claims, the funds are available for
any purpose.
Suspension of five community college mandates for the 2010-11 fiscal year. When a
mandate is suspended, districts are relieved of the requirement to carry out the
specific activity and the state is not required to provide funding. Suspended
mandates include: Law Enforcement Jurisdiction Agreements; Health Benefits for
Survivors of Peace Officers and Firefighters; Integrated Waste Management; Law
Enforcement Sexual Harassment Training; and Grand Jury Proceedings. We are
still researching the implications of these suspensions on community college
districts and will provide additional guidance on this topic.
Mandate working group. The budget package establishes a working group comprised
of representatives from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Department of Finance,
Chancellor’s Office, Department of Education, and legislative committees that is
charged with considering changes to education mandates, including preservation,
modification, and elimination of particular mandates.
Rejection of an earlier proposal to allow community colleges and K-12 schools to
receive full repayment for prior-year mandate claims through a financing
authority. We have been told by parties involved in the budget negotiations that
the plan was rejected due to concerns over its legality.
No increase in student fees. Student fee increases were never seriously in play during this
year’s budget negotiations.
No cuts to Cal Grants.
Underlying Risks
While, on the surface, the 2010-11 State Budget appears to provide the community colleges with
a somewhat improved budget compared to 2009-10, districts should employ caution in their local
budget planning. The adopted budget presents a number of risks to the colleges that should be
taken into account:
Possibility of mid-year cuts. As noted above, the adopted state budget relies heavily upon
optimistic assumptions in order to close the budget gap. While the economy is in
recovery and those optimistic assumptions may prove accurate, there is considerable
down-side risk. If the state’s economic recovery lags, state revenues may not increase at
the assumed rate. Federal funds may not materialize at the estimated levels. If such events
occur, the state budget could easily fall out of balance, thus requiring some form of midyear corrections, most likely cuts.
Funding deferrals. If mid-year cuts were to occur, there is no way to predict what form they
would take. However, it is possible that the $129 million that is newly deferred to the
next fiscal year may be considered as an “easier” cut because the funds have not yet been
disbursed.
Local property taxes. While we have no reason to think that the local property tax estimates
in the adopted state budget are unreasonable, considerable uncertainty remains in the
housing market in general and in tax receipts in particular. Most centrally, the timing and
speed of a recovery in California property values is yet to be seen. Further, it is unclear to
what extent the drop in property values has already been reflected in local property tax
receipts and to what extent there are further negative impacts that are yet to work their
way through the process. A shortfall in local property tax revenues relative to the state
budget estimates would result in a cut to community colleges unless state leaders step in
to provide a funding backfill.
Conclusion
As state leaders built the 2010-11 State Budget, they had no easy choices. The fact that they
provided the California Community Colleges with funding to support increased enrollment
demonstrates the high value they place on the community colleges and our ability to deliver
education and training to Californians. In their public statements, press conferences, private
conversations with us, and now budget actions, Legislators and the Governor have voiced their
appreciation for all that the community colleges do to help Californians access the education and
training they need to move forward and succeed.
While we had hoped for a better budget—and one not burdened with additional funding
deferrals—the adopted community college budget package is a good one, given the state’s fiscal
condition. Now that the state budget is in place, community college districts must use prudent
planning to harness these resources to deliver on our core mission of providing the basic skills,
career technical education, and transfer coursework Californians need. Our ability to do so will
determine not only how the colleges are treated in subsequent state budgets, but in a very real
way will shape the social and economic reality for Californians as we navigate these challenging
times.
Regards,
Erik Skinner
Executive Vice Chancellor for Programs
California Community Colleges,
Chancellor's Office
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-6549
eskinner@cccco.edu
direct line: 916-323-7007
CPC October 6, 2010
2011-12 through 2013-14
Budget Reduction Process Commitments, Criteria and Strategies
The economic crisis affecting the state budget is conservatively projected to last at least three
years. At the current time, our best efforts at projecting the fiscal impact on Cabrillo indicate
that our state funding may continue to decline.
The intent of the following process commitments, criteria and strategies is to enable Cabrillo to
move from being a college that is organized and staffed to operate on a $60 million budget to an
organization and staffing level that can deliver sustainable services to the community with a
smaller budget.
I.
Process Commitments
A.
Link Budget planning, including program and service reductions and redesign
efficiencies, to long range planning, including the evaluation of the impact on
student success.
B.
Utilize the appropriate forums to dialogue about the restructuring, consolidation,
reductions, and/or elimination of programs and services resulting from a reduction
in resources.
C.
In the event that program and workforce reductions are necessary, the college will
work to preserve faculty, staff and management positions when possible and, if
not possible, will assist with employment-related transitional issues.
D.
The process will be characterized by openness, respect, sensitivity, and
inclusiveness.
The College Master Plan provided the general framework for the following criteria:
II.
Criteria
A.
Compliance Requirements
1.
Maintain accreditation standards of the college and academic programs
2.
Maintain state and federal compliance requirements (CMP Goal B) e.g.:
 50% law
 Full-Time faculty obligation number (FON)
 Accessibility
B.
Preserve transfer, basic skills, and Career Technical Education so students are
able to complete their academic goals (CMP Goal B)
 Core courses toward an AA/AS
 General education breadth
 Labor market
C.
Minimize negative impact on student success (CMP Goals B & C) e.g.
S:\President_Cabinet\2010-11 Board items\Nov 2010\Information\Budget Update\2011-12 Criteria comms and strategies Oct2010.doc

III.
ARCC
D.
Optimize enrollment to achieve maximum state revenues.
E.
Minimize impact of non-base budget programs on General Fund (CMP Goal E)
 Ancillary/Auxiliary operations
 Categorical and grant-funded programs
F.
Maximize efficiency of programs and services (CMP Goal A and Technology
Plan)
 Are college programs and services efficient?
 WSCH/FTEF
 Non-redundant
G.
Minimize the negative impact on the operational needs of new and existing
facilities (CMP Goal D and Facilities Master Plan)
H.
Optimize effective utilization of college facilities (CMP Goal E)
I.
Maximize flexibility and opportunities for employees (Process Commitment C)
Strategies
A.
Design and implement Strategic Enrollment Management Plan and determine the
FTES targets for 2011-12 through 2013-14.
B.
Review all auxiliary and categorical program budgets with the appropriate budget
administrator to identify reductions.
C.
Evaluate college-wide services and systems; explore alternative models across
components; reduce costs, reduce duplication of function, and increase
efficiencies throughout the college.
D.
Management of personnel budget.
Process Overview
Utilize salary savings for vacant positions to reduce the overall budget reduction
target.
 Salary savings may be used to fund replacements for vacant positions based
on demonstrated need and the approval of the Vice President/President.
 Salary savings may not be used to cover other operating expenses or
equipment purchases.
 Cabinet may approve the recruitment of vacant positions based on
demonstrated need.
 Human Resources will provide a list of vacant positions and the status of
recruitments on a weekly basis.
 Administrative Services will provide a report of cumulative salary savings on
a monthly basis.
S:\President_Cabinet\2010-11 Board items\Nov 2010\Information\Budget Update\2011-12 Criteria comms and strategies Oct2010.doc
IV.
E.
Evaluate facility use for efficiency and effectiveness.
 Watsonville
 Scotts Valley
 Energy Use Reduction
F.
Discuss compensation and benefit programs with all employee groups.
Historical Data Available
A.
Internal Data
 Cost Center
Actual 06-07 Expenditures, number of full-time equivalent faculty, staff and
administrators (FTE) and FTES
Actual 07-08 Expenditures, FTE and FTES
Budget 08-09 Expenditures, FTE
 Staffing levels by department and bargaining unit from accreditation selfstudy
 FACT Books http://pro.cabrillo.edu/pro/factbook/index.html
 Space Planning project database
 Suggestion box for anonymous input
 Budget reduction website
 Accreditation Self-Study
http://www.cabrillo.edu/services/pro/accred/index.html
 Program Planning Pages
http://pro.cabrillo.edu/pro/factbook/programPlanningTables.html
B.
External Data
 Fiscal Data Abstract 06-07
 Current Cost of Education 06-07
 WASC Accreditation Standards
http://www.cabrillo.edu/services/pro/accred/pdf/ACCJC%20NEW%20STAN
DARDS.pdf
S:\President_Cabinet\2010-11 Board items\Nov 2010\Information\Budget Update\2011-12 Criteria comms and strategies Oct2010.doc
CABRILLO COLLEGE
Budget Development Timeline
FY 2011-12
CPC 10/6/10
September 7-8, 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL/MANAGER'S MEETING/
CPC MEETING
- 2010-11 Final Budget
- Budget Planning Update For 2011-2014
September 13, 2010
BOARD MEETING
Action Items:
- 2010-11 Final Budget
Information Items:
- Budget Presenation on FY 2010-11 Final Budget
- Budget Planning Update for 2011-2014
- Budget Planning Parameters
September 14-15, 2010 ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL/MANAGER'S MEETING/CPC MEETING
September 15-16, 2010 HEALTH BENEFIT FORUMS
October 4, 2010
BOARD MEETING
October 5-6, 2010
Late October/Early
November
November 1, 2010
November 2-3, 2010
November 17, 2010
Information Items:
- 2010-11 & 2011-12 Budget Update
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL/MANAGER'S MEETING/CPC MEETINGS
Information Items:
- Budget Reduction Goals (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
- Budget Reduction Process Commitments, Criteria and Strategies
- Budget Development Timeline
- Budget Reduction Timeline (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
- FTES Projections for FY 2010-11
- Negotiations Begin
BOARD MEETING
Information Items:
- Budget Reduction Goals
- Budget Reduction Process Commitments,
Criteria and Strategies
- Budget Development Timeline
- Budget Reduction Timeline (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL/MANAGER'S MEETING/
CPC MEETING
- Review Budget Reduction Recommendations (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL/MANAGER'S MEETING/
CPC MEETING
- Review Budget Reduction Recommendations (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
- Budget Town Hall Meeting
S:\President_Cabinet\2010-11 Board items\Nov 2010\Information\Budget Update\2011-12BudgetCalendar10-6-10
1 of 2
CABRILLO COLLEGE
Budget Development Timeline
FY 2011-12
CPC 10/6/10
December 6, 2010
BOARD MEETING
Action Items:
- Budget Reduction Goals
- Budget Reduction Process Commitments,
Criteria and Strategies
- Budget Development Timeline
- Budget Reduction Timeline (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
- Academic Staffing Priorities
Information Items:
- Review Budget Reduction Recommendations (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
December 7-8, 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL/MANAGER'S MEETING/
CPC MEETING
2011-12 GOVERNOR'S STATE BUDGET
BOARD MEETING
Action Items:
- Budget Reduction Recommendations (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
FY 2011-12
STATE BUDGET WORKSHOP
BOARD MEETING
Action Items:
- FY 2010-11 Mid Year Report
- FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12 Budget Update
- Update Budget Parameters FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12
First Principal Apportionment 2010-11
January, 2011
January 10, 2011
January, 2011
February, 2011
February, 2011
March, 2011
April, 2011
BOARD MEETING
Resolution Items:
- Reduction or Discontinuance of Services (Base, Categorical Budgets & Other funds)
(Faculty, Classified, Management and Confidential Personnel)
Continue to Evaluate/Revise Planning Parameters
May, 2011
May Revise
Final Notices to Faculty- Reduction or Discontinuance of Services, update on other personnel
reductions
June, 2011
BOARD MEETING
Action Items:
- Preliminary Budget
S:\President_Cabinet\2010-11 Board items\Nov 2010\Information\Budget Update\2011-12BudgetCalendar10-6-10
2 of 2
CABRILLO COLLEGE
General Unrestricted Fund
2011-12 Budget Reduction Targets by Component
CPC 10/6/10
BASE BUDGET
COMPONENT
SALARY
CAFÉ STIPEND
BENEFITS
TOTAL
SALARY &
BENEFITS
Component
as a % of
Total
President
Certificated
Certificated Acad. Spec
Certificated Adjunct
Confidential
FT Classified
PT Classified
Classified Hourly
Temp Hourly
Management
Total President
238,005
57,305
28,318
305
125,667
604,875
323,628
118,479
1,982,816
285,996
3,403
982,594
3,696,916
76,848
1,361,901
196,474
20,456
245,643
35,384
21,175
375,272
54,138
3,098
752,921
2,629,247
104,006
462,794
7.20%
Certificated
Certificated Acad. Spec -Adjunct
Certificated Adjunct
Confidential
FT Classified
PT Classified
Classified Hourly
Temp Hourly
Management
Total VP Instruction
14,509,389
152,940
7,719,844
87,336
1,419,296
2,002,643
21,943
153,652
1,310,949
27,377,992
2,769,477
1,726,327
16,944
848,453
24,066
391,087
551,827
6,046
15,131
155,892
3,735,773
19,005,193
169,884
8,825,910
124,563
2,206,989
3,057,999
27,989
168,783
1,637,635
35,224,945
68.62%
Certificated Academic Specialist
Certificated Acad. Spec -Adjunct
Certificated Adjunct
Confidential
FT Classified
PT Classified
Classified Hourly
Temp Hourly
Management
Total VP Student Srvcs
1,343,618
56,255
257,680
159,864
6,233
49,252
1,472,775
122,942
17,522
388,636
27,641
13,571
405,823
33,876
1,761,162
62,488
80,345
2,267,234
184,459
29,497
540,591
3,614,930
104,031
795,510
2,905
86,005
708,277
32,402
730,627
5,118,717
9.97%
143,750
859,070
22,273
6,026
2,418
210,894
1,244,431
782,631
4,912,419
117,200
27,894
26,968
1,424,577
7,291,689
14.20%
VP Instruction
257,613
13,161
396,606
503,529
170,794
4,111,180
VP Student Services
VP Admin Services
Certificated
Certificated Acad. Spec
Certificated Adjunct
Confidential
FT Classified
PT Classified
Classified Hourly
Temp Hourly
Management
Total VP Admin Srvcs
521,683
3,117,660
80,826
21,868
24,550
1,026,000
4,792,587
117,198
935,689
14,101
187,683
1,254,671
Grand Total
COMPONENT
President
VP Instruction
VP Student Services
VP Admin Services
Total
51,332,267
Component as a % of Total
7.20%
68.62%
9.97%
14.20%
$2.4 M
Prorated
172,846
1,646,915
239,322
340,917
2,400,000
Avg
Salary
Contracted Sal.
Classification & Benefits/FTE
Certificated
Classified
Confidential
Management
Note:
The following management positions were added back to the calculation: 1) Library Director, 2) Allied Health Director and
3) Associate VP of Information Tech. Additionally, salary and benefit savings were not included.
108,375
79,227
92,319
151,264
100.00%