Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
Present:
Mary Beth Benvenutti, Linda Berry, Sharon Clegg, Pieter de Haan, Jon Drinnon, Matthew Goldstein, Eric Gravenberg,
Rick Greenspan, Bob Grill, Jenny Lowood, Thuy Nguyen, Mike Orkin, Tae-Soon Park, and Elnora Webb
Chair/Co-Chair: Ronald Gerhard and Karolyn van Putten
Guests:
Jim Grivich, Susan Rinne, Anita Black, Debbie Budd, and Jeff Heyman
Facilitator/Recorder: Linda Sanford and Joseph Bielanski
Absent:
James Blake, Timothy Brice, and Jennifer Lenahan
Agenda Item
Discussion
Meeting Called to
Order
I. Agenda Review
9:00 AM
II. Review of
Minutes:
September 28,
2012
III. Updated PBC
2012-13 Goals
and 2013-14
Budget Building
Calendar
Minutes: APPROVED as amended
Follow-up
Action
Agenda: APPROVED
PBC 2012-13 Goals
 Added item #4. Track the Planning, Assessing, and
Reviewing of the Budget Implications of ACCJC
Recommendation #5.
2013-14 Budget Development Calendar – All Funds
 Added June 11, 2013 – Tentative budget is presented to the
Board of Trustees.
Page 1 of 14
Decisions
(Shared
Agreement/Resolved
or Unresolved?)
IV. Policies and
Administrative
Procedures
Jim Grivich
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
BP 3505 Emergency Response Plan
AP 3505 Emergency Response Plan
AP 3900 Speech: Time, Place, and Manner
AP 5013 Students in the Military
AP 5015 Residence Determination
AP 5031 Instructional Materials Fees
AP 5040 Student Records and Privacy
BP 5200 Student Health Services
AP 5200 Student Health Services
BP 5300 Student Equity
AP 5300 Student Equity
BP 5420 Associated Student Finance
AP 5420 Associated Student Finance
BP 5500 Student Standards of Conduct
AP 5500 Student Standards of Conduct
AP 5520 Student Discipline Procedures and Due Process
AP 5530 Student Rights and Grievance Procedure
BP 6400 Audits
AP 6400 Audits
BP 6500 Property Management
AP 6500 Property Management
BP 6620 Naming of Buildings
AP 6620 Naming of Buildings
BP 7130 Compensation
BP 7140 Collective Bargaining
BP 3505 Emergency Response Plan
 New; no previous Board Policy (BP)
 A Federal regulation
Page 2 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
AP 3505 Emergency Response Plan
 New; no previous Administrative Procedure (AP)
 The District has started a training program.
AP 3900 Speech: Time, Place, and Manner
 Withdrawn.
AP 5013 Students in the Military
 Reformatted existing AP.
AP 5015 Residence Determination
 Reformatted existing AP.
AP 5031 Instructional Materials Fees
 Based on Community College League of California (CCLC)
aka “League” template and the most recent handbook from
the State Chancellor’s Office.
AP 5040 Student Records and Privacy
 Standard administrative procedure.
BP 5200 Student Health Services
AP 5200 Student Health Services
 Used League template.
 Reviewed by Dr. Patricia Dudley.
BP 5300 Student Equity
AP 5300 Student Equity
 A Title 5 requirement.
 Used League template.
 Recommendation was made to have time-certain reports for
Page 3 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
the Board. The process should start in the Spring for program Mr. Grivich
review and discussion with faculty.
will take the
message to the
Chancellor.
BP 5420 Associated Student Finance
AP 5420 Associated Student Finance
 No existing policy in place
 This was one of the large audit findings pertaining to
Mr. Grivich
documented internal control and oversight of those funds.
Each college seems to have their own unique process. One of will revise the
the rules and regulations surrounding ASB clubs and trusts is AP by adding
more detail to
that dual signatures are required on checks. It is to be signed
it and then
off by an Advisor/assigned Dean and also by someone at a
bring it back to
higher level.
the PBC.
 Issues:
1. Documented internal control
2. Accounting system. We are still using Legacy. We
need to transition all the data into PeopleSoft. Mary
Beth Benvenutti has helped us with the process. We
have been working with Business Managers to
develop consistent guidelines district-wide on the use
of ASB trust funds.
 During an internal audit last year, students from ASB clubs
were asked to go through the process of:
1. Obtaining meeting minutes approving the use of those
funds
2. Providing a budget document showing sufficient
budget under the line item to pay for the obligation
3. Having the ASB club trust Advisor sign off on the
requests
 It was recommended that we either spell out the accounting
practices mentioned above by VC Gerhard or to alternatively
Page 4 of 14

Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
build in an appeal process. The former is preferred.
Withdraw AP 5420
BP 5500 Student Standards of Conduct
AP 5500 Studen t Standards of Conduct, Student Discipline
Procedures, and Due Process
 The original BP 4.40 Student Code of Conduct is being
moved to an administrative procedure and a Policy statement
is provided in BP 5500.
 No changes were made to the original 2011 content, only the
formatting changed.
AP 5530 Student Rights and Grievance Procedure
 It is currently BP 4.43, we are changing it to an AP and
keeping the original 2011 approved language.
 Concern was expressed by President Webb regarding the
structure of organization at Laney as it relates to this
procedure. General Counsel Nguyen had a conversation with
the Steven Cohen, Executive Vice President at Laney, months
ago and sent him a one page flow chart. No change in
procedure is needed. Mr. Cohen was to provide a declaration
from the college to be sent out in writing before any
disciplinary actions occur so students know where to go.
BP 6400 Audits
 Required by law.
 Taken from the League template.
AP 6400 Audits
 Follows Education Code and Public Contract Code.
 AICPA issued a guideline to all CPAS, that every 3 years the
Page 5 of 14
To have ASB
student
government
review the AP.


Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
client should either-1. Change auditors; or
2. Change the lead partner in the engagement so to have
a fresh set of eyes.
Five years maximum is the legal requirement.
Every two years, the auditors get an audit. All CPAs go
through a peer audit. We just received our external auditor,
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co.’s peer audit report.
BP 6500 Property Management
AP 6500 Property Management
 New policy using the League’s template.
BP 6620 Naming of Buildings
 The policy is consistent with the League’s template.
 Added “standard guidelines” to the AP.
 Partial replacements should be included, BP 3.09 and 3.54.
AP 6620 Naming of Buildings
 The idea is to use the same convention/methodology and
practice at all four colleges.
 A firm issued a legal opinion pertaining to the 2002
Proposition 39 bonds for facilities and capital projects. The
question was if a donor gave a substantial check for the
naming rights of a building and the building was funded with
Prop. 39 monies, does the contribution have to go back into
the capital outlay fund?
 Per Mr. Grivich, that legal opinion was not found in his
research.
 It was recommended that we research IRS tax rules so the
donor doesn’t violate the tax deduction rule.
Page 6 of 14
The audit will
be uploaded to
the District
website.
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
BP 7130 Compensation
 “The District shall not provide employees any commission,
bonus, or other incentive payment based, directly or
indirectly, on the success in securing financial aid
enrollments, to any person or entity engaged in any student
recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions
regarding the award of student financial assistance.”
 This BP is specific to Financial Aid or some sort of aid.
 It also applies to foreign student recruitments.
 It also applies to Board approved grants. Faculty/Staff cannot
be compensated for obtaining grants, but can be compensated
for managing the grant.
BP 7140 Collective Bargaining
 The first paragraph is from the League’s template
 The last three paragraphs were added from government code
V. Review 311
Report
Motion to approve all with the exception of AP 3900 and AP
5420. APPROVED
Annual Financial Report to the State Chancellor’s Office disclosing
how we ended the fiscal year on June 30, 2012 and the Final
Adopted Budget for fiscal year 2012/13.
Ron Gerhard
Highlights:
Page 2-3: Categorizes the expenses.
Page 4: Percent of Current Expense of Education (CEE). We are in
compliance with the 50% law with 50.66% at the end of the year.
Page 5: Balance Sheet – reporting of our assets, liabilities, and fund
balance by fund groups.
Page 34: Income Statement – the State looks at changes in fund
Page 7 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
balance.
 Fund 11 is the State’s equivalent to our Fund 01. The largest
portion of State Revenue is general apportionment. For Local
Revenues it is property taxes. Revenues – Expenditures +
Transfers = a net increase of $728,191. OPEB and actuals
(Funds 1, 3, 7, 10, 30, and 59) are included in there. Our
beginning Fund Balance (July 1, 2011) was $9,162,671 and
our ending Fund Balance (June 30, 2012) was $12,617,035.
 Fund 12 is our Fund 11 – restricted funds such as categorical
or grants. The budget column does not include carryover. We
cannot determine the carryover amount until we close our
books. Susan Rinne, Budget Director, is in the process of
working with the colleges to determine how they want to load
their carryover monies.
 Fund 41 is Capital Outlay Fund – pass through money that
we are supposed to receive from redevelopment agencies.
Under California statue, 48.5% of all redevelopment monies
are restricted for capital outlay. The rest goes into an
unrestricted general fund. Effective February 2012, under
court rule, the Governor may disband redevelopment
agencies. The Governor viewed it as revenue (billions of
dollars) that he can use to balance the State budget. As a
result, Oversight Boards were formed and are in the process
of determining what are the legal/contractual agreements,
how much money is available to satisfy them, and the
difference ought to be sent to the local agencies such as K-12
schools and community colleges.
VC Gerhard is a representative on five Oversight Boards:
Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland.
Peralta has over 30 active redevelopment projects. Under
Page 8 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
contract and California statute, we are supposed to receive,
but have not been getting, audits from these redevelopment
agencies. The reason why you see approximately $1.2 million
in redevelopment revenue in fiscal year 2011/12 is because
these redevelopment agencies realized that for the last 30+
years, they were supposed to but have not been giving us pass
through on tax increment dollars. It was voiced by the
Oversight Boards to get that money out to community
colleges, K12, cities, and counties, etc.
VC Gerhard will make a recommendation to the Chancellor
to hire a firm who specializes in redevelopment law and
conduct an audit for us. Last year, we received $1.2 million
which was the highest amount received in five years. In most
years, we’ve received $100,000. VC Gerhard is concerned
that we are disbanding these redevelopment funds and at the
end of the day, K-12 schools and community colleges will be
left significantly short of that fund. Since we did not receive
any financial reports, we are not aware of how much we are
owed.
The theory behind the redevelopment law is that we derive
30% of our Unrestricted General Fund from property taxes.
By designating that area a redevelopment project,
redevelopment agencies are depriving us from property tax
dollars that we would otherwise receive. The State, to
appease everyone, said they will backfill funds to us as best
they can. Then over a period of time, people will start paying
property taxes from the redevelopment projects.
Note: Pass through money does not have to be spent in the
same city the funds are received. 51.5% is unrestricted money
Page 9 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
to be allocated as Unrestricted General Fund dollars. It is not
treated any differently from annual property tax money
received. The expenditure side is allocated according to the
Budget Allocation Model (BAM).

VI. Benchmark
Survey Data
Update (including
CCCCD)
Fund 42 is our Measures A, B, and E funds.
At the previous meeting, the outlier district appeared to be Los Rios
CCD due to a formulaic error. The data came from the State
Chancellor’s website via Data Mart. On an annual basis, the State
Chancellor’s Office collects the data via Management Information
System (MIS) submissions from all 72 community colleges.
Ron Gerhard
We’ve expanded our pool by adding Contra Costa Community
College District from the last meeting. This benchmark is used to
compare Peralta to other districts by evaluating our planning. Are
we effectively using our resources? What are some things that our
peers are doing that are innovative and effective compared to what
we are doing? It is not required by the State for districts to submit
their data by colleges (versus by district), but Finance will try to
collect such data to the extent possible.
Peralta CCD Employee FTE vs. Benchmarks
Using Chabot-Las Positas as an example, it has 22 FTE Educational
Administrators which represents 2.52% of Total Full Time
Equivalent Students (FTES).
Position Type
Educational Admin
Tenured Faculty
Chabot-Las Positas
22.0
305.5
Page 10 of 14
Peralta
55.0
319.7
The benchmark
survey will be
resent.
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
Academic Part Time
204.9
295.6
Classified Administrator
31.0
0.0
Classified Professional
1.0
75.9
Classified Support
307.4
277.4
Total FTE
871.8
1023.6
VC Gerhard
The determining factor for a Classified Administrator is if the person will confirm
the
is in CalPERS or CalSTRS. Peralta has nine positions that would be
classification
typically classified as Classified Administrators, four of which are
of positions
currently classified as Classified Professionals.
with Human
Concern was expressed regarding the way we report data to the State. Resources. VC
Gerhard will
We are not reporting the data correctly. There should be a standard
also consult
for Peralta to follow, which was in the spirit of doing this analysis.
with HR as to
The question to the PBC is what is our written defined process in
how extra
submitting data to the State Chancellor’s Office? It requires an
service is
Analyst from the College or IT running a report. The report is then
reported.
signed off by someone from the department and submitted to the
State.
Concern was expressed that Peralta’s Full-time/Part-time ratio and
Classified Support are on the lower end.
Based upon our observations, we will summarize our analysis into a
document and then make a recommendation to the Chancellor.
Peralta Comparison with Peer Districts (legal size document)
Fiscal Data Abstract 2010-2011
Page 11 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
Peralta’s Ratio of Unrestricted in Total General Fund through object
6000 is 84.6%. In other words, out of Peralta’s total general fund,
around 16% was in categorical/grants or restricted funding. San
Francisco CCD is closest to the average with 85.1%.
Line 1: Academic salaries as a percentage of all general fund
expenses - does not include benefits costs. Chabot-Los Positas is
closest to the average at 39.74%. Peralta is the lowest at 35.66%.
Line 2: 50% law ratio – Long Beach CCD is closest to the average at
51.57%. Peralta is the lowest at 51.15%.
The next block, lines 3 – 14 are based on instructional activity codes
and includes both restricted and unrestricted general fund.
Highlights:
Line 3: Non-instructional salary charged to instruction/ratio of total
instructional costs. It consists of classified support and permanent
hourly. San Mateo is the outlier at 34.33%. They account for their
parcel tax as a separate distinct sub fund. San Mateo chose to take
out some instructors and put them in the parcel tax fund leaving the
non-instructional costs in the general fund.
Lines 5 and 6: San Mateo skewed the average. If we omit San Mateo,
Peralta would be closest to the average. The reason we are low is
because of the way we account for current medical benefits and
OPEB. OPEB is costing us $644 per FTES. Other districts don’t
have that amount in terms of OPEB.
Line 11: Student Services as a percentage of total operations thru
6700 – Peralta is the highest with 10.07%. We need to figure out
Page 12 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
what is included in the percentage. This percentage includes
international recruitment. One explanation is the miscoding of
Counseling and Student Services, but if we combined Counseling
with Student Services our percentage is still high.
VII. Committee
Reports
None – no recommendation or action items were forwarded to the
PBC.
Discussion regarding correspondence from Rick Greenspan:
In Fall 2010, four Librarians came to the PBC with concerns about
accreditation requirements due to of lack of funding to support their
library materials and databases. Based upon the memo concerning
prioritizing of funding, the PBC and its members endorsed the
Librarians’ recommendation and forwarded it to the Chancellor for
consideration. Chancellor Allen approved it.
In prior years, we had fairly large amounts of carryover dollars that
were not allocated to the Colleges. Finance would allocate only half
of the restricted lottery dollars to the Colleges. As a result, when the
Librarians came to the PBC and asked for a dedicated funding string,
the funding provided didn’t impact the Colleges’ or the District
Office’s Unrestricted General Fund because we had a large amount
of Proposition 20 restricted money. PBC allocated $40,000 per
college for the cost of annual licenses. Finance met with the
Librarians and collectively created a process to allocate the funding.
When invoices are received, requisitions are processed through IT.
Part of the discussion in the Chancellor’s Cabinet and with Business
Managers was that this funding created hardships on the Colleges’
instructional supplies funding. We are funded based upon funded
FTES. In fiscal year 2008/09, Peralta generated in excess of 22,000
FTES. Right now, we are at 17,800 FTES. Because of that, we have
Page 13 of 14
Peralta Community College District
Planning and Budgeting Council Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2012
had a reduction in lottery money.
The PBC, in the future, needs to critically analyze the impact of our
recommendations. We need to be critical and cautious when we
make recommendations to the Chancellor regarding the shifting of
funds. We are dealing with a finite amount of money here with a
zero-sum game. Money diverted from one budget has to come out
from another budget. We have to critically evaluate the impact of
collateral damage that we are creating.
VIII. Planning for
Implications of
Election Results
(discussion)
IX. Future Topics:
Adjournment:
Next meeting:
Concern was expressed as to how the $160,000 was setup at the
District. There is no way for Business Managers to track how much
was spent. Per Ms. Rinne, the budget is separated by line numbers.
tabled
12:09 PM
November 30, 2012 from 9:00am – 12:00pm
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 14 of 14
Ms. Rinne will
get the actual
budget coding
from IT.