Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
Present:
Mary Beth Benvenutti, James Blake, Jon Drinnon, Timothy Brice, Matthew Goldstein, Rick Greenspan, Jennifer
Lenahan, Jenny Lowood, Thuy Nguyen, Carl Oliver, Mike Orkin, Tae-Soon Park, Cleavon Smith, Trulie Thompson
Chair/Co-Chair: Ronald Gerhard and Karolyn van Putten
Guest:
Susan Rinne, Calvin Madlock, Debbie Budd, Carlotta Campbell, and Marlene Hurd
Facilitator/Recorder: Linda Sanford and Joseph Bielanski
Absent:
Elmer Bugg, May Chen, and Elnora Webb
Agenda Item
Discussion
Meeting Called to Order
I. Agenda Review
10:55 AM
Agenda: APPROVED
II. Review of Minutes:
August 23, 2013
Minutes: APPROVED as amended
III. Review of PBC
2013-14 Goals
2013-2014 Planning and Budgeting Council Goals
VC Gerhard
Follow-up
Action
Goal #3 - Update the Budget Allocation Model (BAM): second
bullet.
Motion to change the wording to “Consideration of
Differential Funding of Programs”. APPROVED
Motion to include D. 3 Institutional Effectiveness under Item
D. Create a Culture of Innovation and Collaboration.
APPROVED
Goal #6 - Looks at the effectiveness of our BAM.
Goal #7 – New members of the District Education Committee
(DEC) were unclear as to what their charge is, hence this Goal is
important. Ms. Sanford will do an overview of the PBIM process
Page 1 of 8
Decisions
(Shared
Agreement/Resolved
or Unresolved?)
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
this fall.
Goal #8 – Is on the agenda under agenda item #6.
Motion to approve the PCCD Tentative Goals for 2013-14 as
amended. Approved.
IV. 2013-14 Final
Budget
Highlights:
BP 6200 Budget Preparation and AP 6220 Budget Management
VC Gerhard
The Final Budget is the end result of nine months of discussion
and planning, which originated from this Council.
Ms. Rinne gave a presentation on the Final Budget.
State Budget
 This is the 3rd consecutive year that the State budget has
been passed on time and the 4th time for Peralta.
 Over $1 billion in reserve. Governor used a very
conservative revenue forecast.
 No mid-year cuts
 Pay down of deferrals (cash flow for us)
 Access funds instead of growth of $89.4 million
 COLA of $87.5million
 Categorical increases of $88 million
 Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) allocation
has come out, replacing Matriculation. Almost a 50%
increase for all of our colleges.
Page 2 of 8
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
New Items:
 Deferred maintenance of $30 million
 Adult Education - provide $25 million to community
colleges to work in consortium with K-12
 $17 million for Online Education Initiative
 Does not include:
o Trigger languages (positive thing)
o No midyear borrowing
o No Workload reductions this year
Community College Concerns
 EPA (Prop 30) funding will go away at the end of 2016
 Went from 2/3rd guaranteed to 2/3rd of uncertainty
PCCD Budget:
 Access funds of $1.9 million
 COLA of $1.5 million
 Categorical funding – still waiting for DSP&S allocation
 Deferred maintenance of $225,359
 Instructional equipment of $225,363
 Target FTES of 18,830. Funded FTES of 18,556. We are
aiming for 300 FTES over funded.
 Additional positions
o 20 Full-time faculty
o 15 Classified positions
 Unrestricted Lottery dollars funded at $124.25 per funded
FTES
 General Apportionment deficit factor of 2%
 $119 million in estimated revenues with $119 million in
expenditures. An increase from last year.
Page 3 of 8
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
This is the first complete year with parcel tax. 2013/14 parcel tax
budget was based on actual tax receipts from last fiscal year.
Bottom line: Peralta is not where we should be based on
percentage of FTE served, but we are closer than when we first
started.
At the October meeting, you will see actual expenditures from the
311A report. If we have a surplus from the prior year, there are
certain provisions to allocate surplus. Unspent discretionary
dollars will go back to the College with the recommendation of
the Vice Chancellor of Finance and approval from the Chancellor.
The Board of Trustees approved the agreement with Local 1021 at
their last meeting. That will have a budgetary impact.
Regarding the Student Center Fee funds, these funds in Associated
Student Body (ASB) trust accounts follow the same budget
development guidelines. In theory before the end of the academic
year, the study body should develop a tentative budget, approve it
(documented in their meeting minutes), have it signed off by their
advisor, and then forward it to the PBC to be included in our
tentative budget. Students are not accustomed to such a process
because it is not historical practice. This is subject to change at
BCC.
Based on the State’s accounting manual and Title 5, the Student
Center Fee funds can only be used for the maintenance, operations
and the upkeep of the student center. Looking at Laney College,
$6,177 was spent on hourly classified. We’re not sure what the
process was at the college level or how it was vetted and
approved. We will need to defer it to Laney’s administration.
Page 4 of 8
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
V. 2014-15 Budget
Building Calendar
With Ms. Rinne’s leadership and suggestion, we have our 3-year
budget assumptions.
VC Gerhard
We will have some discussion in October/November and make
endorsements/recommendations. It will then be presented to the
Board for review and approval at their January meeting. After the
Governor releases his proposed budget in January 2014, we’ll go
back and update the budget principles. On February 7th , 2014,
we’ll distribute to the colleges the budget guidelines. From
February to April, discussions will occur at the colleges in order to
develop their budgets. On April 18th, the college budgets are due
to District Office of Finance to ensure adequate time to upload and
share the Tentative Budget at the PBC May 9th meeting and be
presented to the Board on June 10th, 2014.
VI. PBIM Process
Assessment: RFP
The Chancellor asked Purchasing to develop a Request for
Proposal (RFP) to do an assessment of our facilities, primarily
attributed to our Measure A and E bonds. How accurate is our
current Facilities Master Plan and how reflective of our
Educational Master Plans? The District will be using the PBIM
structure with the PBC, DEC, DFC, and DTC as part of the
process/selection of a vendor to assist us with that assessment and
guide us through the dialogue.
VC Gerhard
It was commented that the prior process for developing a Facilities
Master Plan was ineffective. We already have a shared governance The SOW will
process, perhaps we can improve upon what we already have.
be placed on
the next
The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) will go out next week.
agenda.
When the District is professionally bidding out services, the
Page 5 of 8
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
typical timeline is generally 4-6 weeks of advertisement. It opens
the time period up for questions from interested firms seeking
clarification on the Scope of Work (SOW), as to what services we
are looking for. Then there is a lapse which provides a few weeks
for firms to submit their responses by the closing date. An
evaluation committee would be setup through appointments by the
Chancellor. Based upon the criteria set up from the evaluation, the
committee will select the vendors for interviews/presentations.
The evaluation committee then makes a recommendation to the
Chancellor. Vendor selection is up to the Chancellor and then the
Board of Trustees.
A comment was made that the Mass Plan was never approved by
the Board. Three of the colleges were approved. Laney had to go
back and redo their plan.
The RFQ does fit into our timeframe. We are to review our
Education Plans every six years. The charge of the PBC is not to
develop the RFQ, but to ask questions.
A clarifying question to be asked of the Chancellor is if the
evaluation is going to be based on the colleges’ current master
plans?
VII. BAM Updates
VC Gerhard
Last fall, the PBC recognized the need for an ongoing funding
stream for IT needs. In the past IT funding needs was solely
reliant on Measure A funding. Each college still has some money
for IT refresh from Measure A -- Phase I and Phase II. Most
colleges spent their Phase I funding and moved on to Phase II.
Once Measure A funding is gone, it’s gone. How do we
proactively have discussions to address this need? Had that
discussion at the DTC, their charge is exactly that. We placed
Page 6 of 8
Ms. Rinne will
add the
November 1st
date to the
budget
calendar for
identification
and allocation
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
language in the BAM with certain timelines. By November 1,
depending on adequate funding, the Chancellor will identify onetime money that goes toward the funding of technology needs
(preferably matching of funds at the college level).
We need to evaluate the IT refresh process. There is controversy
about the process because only two of the four colleges followed
the process and submitted their priority list.
We need a process similar the IT refresh process for Facilities.
Currently, there is no mechanism in our unrestricted general fund
within our allocation model to ensure some ongoing, sustainable
dollars specifically identified and earmarked for scheduled
maintenance and operations. For the DTC, we set the overall
framework, but gave the DTC the responsibility to determine the
criteria. Should we do the same for the Facilities Committee? Set
the overall framework, put it in the BAM, charge the DFC to come
up with the rubric and prioritize those needs?
The PBC does not have authority to create individual line items in
the budget. We make recommendations through the BAM. We
incorporated principles into the BAM where the end result is a line
item. What was missing in the past is the reoccurring funding.
Putting language in the BAM would address that.
VIII. Demonstrating
Institutional
Effectiveness
The ACCJC rubric for Institutional Effectiveness has three parts:
1. Student Learning Outcomes
2. Institutional Planning
3. Program Review
Dr, van Putten
Proficiency level includes examples of behavior/practices that
qualify the colleges to be at proficiency, one of which is decision
Page 7 of 8
of carry over
funds.
A memo will
be sent to the
DFC
informing
them that the
PBC will draft
the language
for the BAM.
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
September 27, 2013
making. Decision making should include dialogue on the results of
assessment of student learning outcomes (course, program,
institutional) and purposefully directed toward aligning
institutional wide practices to support and improve student
learning. To Dr. van Putten’s knowledge, Peralta has never done
that. In order to do that, we have to incorporate assessment results
and review of those results into the ways we gather information
that is used to make recommendations about resource needs.
Information that relates to dialogue on the results of student
learning assessment is essential. The PBC will be aware of this
requirement so that when it is time to make recommendations to
the Chancellor regarding resource requests, we will look for
resource requests that are supported in part by the dialogue on the
results of learning assessment.
IX. Adjournment
1:52pm
Next Meeting
October 25, 2013
Minutes taken: Sui Song
Attachments: All handouts for this meeting can be found at
http://eperalta.org/wp/pbi/planning-and-budgeting-council/pbc-documents/
Page 8 of 8