EL CAMINO COLLEGE
Planning & Budgeting Committee
Minutes
Date: April 29, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT
Jackson, Tom – Academic Affairs
Lopez, Jessica – ASO
Ott, Jonathan – Campus Police
Quinones-Perez, Margaret – ECCFT
Reid, Dawn – Student & Community Adv.
Shenefield, Cheryl – Administrative Svcs.
Spor, Arvid – Chair (non-voting)
Turner, Gary – ECCE
Tyler, Harold – Management/Supervisors
Widman, Lance – Academic Senate
OTHERS ATTENDING: Janice Ely, Jo Ann Higdon, Ken Key, Luis Mancia, Jeanie Nishime,
Emily Rader, Regina Smith, Lynn Solomita
Handouts: Summary of Allocations – Fund 15 from the 2009-10 (page 76) Budget Book; On-Going
Fund Request FY 2010-11 (pages 1-3); One-Time Funding Requests 2010-11 (page 45); Summary of allocation – Fund 15 Special Programs Fund Fiscal Year 2010-11 (page
6); Newly Authorized Positions for Hire; Tentative Budget Assumptions; Updated
Planning Process flow charts
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.
Approval of March 18, 2010 Minutes
1. Page 1, #2: add “state-wide CALSTRS” before ‘…actuarial study for June 2008…’
2. Page 2, #5: change ‘intricate’ to ‘integral’.
3. Minutes were approved as amended.
Approval of April 1, 2010 Minutes
1. Minutes were approved with no additions/corrections.
Draft Tentative Budget
1. No new information from the State at this time; May revise is scheduled to be released May 13th
or 14th. Tentative budget must be decided on prior to May revise. Changes made to May revise
will be made in the tentative budget. Will see 2009-10 expenditures at next meeting. Please bring
handouts to next meeting.
2. Page 1 – list of on-going issues approved last year in Fund 15 with the exception of library
books. Also included Media Services Support and SLO Clerical Support. All items went through
process last year and came from program requests and plans. Recommending these items move
to unrestricted general fund (around $1.5M); not approving anything new.
3. Pages 2 & 3 – on-going funding requests to be implemented next year. All items prioritized by
the VPs from area and unit plans in Plan Builder and tied to strategic initiatives. Page 2 items are
identified by the VPs as first priority items and funding source proposed from fund 11. Page 3
items are identified by VPs as second and third priorities with funding source not yet identified.
a. On page 2, how are Accreditation Support and SLO Support ($50,000 each) budgets
used? Will have answer at next meeting.
1
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
b. No money listed under Library/LRC materials on page 2 because may have been covered
on page 1 under library electronic subscriptions. Numbers are still being refined.
Request was made to see what area plans did not make the final VP list to better understand how
process works. A. Spor will collect lists from VPs and send to PBC members. Funding decisions
were discussed and voted by managers at program, unit, and area levels.
What determines requesting a position as regular full-time or temporary? To improve the
likelihood of filling a vacant Matriculation advisor position, Counseling requested the position as
both full-time and temporary. The position was prioritized separately by the SCA managers; the
full-time position was not approved, but the temporary position was. The cost of funding a fulltime position is 30% more than funding an on-going temporary position due to fringe benefits.
Will not see many full-time position requests approved in this current economic environment.
Pages 4 & 5 – one-time funding prioritized requests are categorized by funding sources (Fund
15, Parking Fund, Bond or Capital Outlay, Block Grant, and external grants). Block grants are
monies from the State not yet expended. The external grants category represents funding from
other external sources such as funding from foundations. The ECC Foundation is looking for
corporate donors and legislative earmark for the STEM project.
Page 6 – best estimate for 2010-11 Fund 15 allocation.
a. $1.1M transfer to Fund 12 to backfill categorical shortages due to State budget
reductions.
b. $307K for Student Retention Projects – same as in 2009-10 minus FYE which is on list
of continuing projects.
c. $309K – Unit Plans One-Time Funding Requests.
d. $100K – Library Books if no State block grant funding.
e. $225K – Other Programs including computer hardware for labs and emergency
equipment replacement/repair.
f. $900K – Transfer to Fund 17 for Retiree Health Benefits (GASB) – not increasing
amount to the $1.4M recommended in State actuarial report.
g. $58,512 – Contingencies (to bring allocation total to $3M).
Discussion: CalWORKs funding request was contingent upon receiving county funding.
CalWORKs funding from the State was drastically cut. Indications are they will receive county
funding. The District has not funded CalWORKs in the past. Categorical managers requested
Cabinet to reconsider their position on CalWORKs funding.
Authorized Positions For Hire
1. Faculty and administrator positions authorized for hire last year is listed under Currently in
Process.
2. Currently meeting full-time faculty and 75-25 obligations, but want to ensure still meeting
obligation in the fall by hiring additional full-time faculty to replace retiring faculty members.
Construction Technology position was vacant for awhile, but division’s greater need was for a
Welder position. Will develop a pool of Counselors by recruiting now to fill positions in the
beginning of the next academic year.
3. Many classified positions are currently being filled by temporary employees. A priority list was
submitted and most critical positions were approved for hire. Building Automation Systems
Technician position (replaces HVAC position) was slightly reconfigured to align with modern
technology in new buildings.
4. Announcements for a few positions already posted. The rest will be announced in the near future.
5. Correction to the Assessment Clerk – Admissions and Records position – should be Clerical
Assistant for the Assessment/Testing Office under Enrollment Services.
6. Hope for fair wages, benefits and support of adjunct faculty was mentioned.
2
2010/11 Budget Assumptions 2nd Reading:
1. Page 71, #4 – change approximately 19,000 to 18,910 FTES.
2. Student fees will remain at $26/unit at this time. The Legislative Analyst is still predicting
$40/unit. Basic total funding allocation from the State does not change even with increase in
enrollment. Community colleges do not keep enrollment fees.
3. Proposed 14% increase in CALSTRS needs to be legislated. Campuses do not have to plan for it
now. Proposed increase is not in next year’s tentative budget model.
4. Page 72, letter B – in previous meeting discussed rewording student learning outcomes. A. Spor
will make corrections.
5. Page 71, Ending Fund Balance, #1 (second sentence) –the ending balance in excess of the
reserve for contingency is included in the fund balance.
6. Bottom of page 72 – future topic for PBC discussion is the concept of backfill, especially for
categorical programs.
7. Page 73, #9 – why not just identify where money is coming from? Will change other available
funds to Fund 15.
8. Discussion was made four or five years ago to allocate up to $900K based on available funding.
Unsure whether recommendation was for current year or on-going years. PBC may need to
reconsider amount due to recent actuarial study recommendations. There is a concern that Fund
15 could go away and GASB is a large on-going commitment; GASB was funded from Fund 11
before there was a Fund 15.
9. Page 72, #a – Foundation Base Revenue allocation is related to FTES and not the Foundation. It
is the base dollar amount that includes no growth, no negative COLA, and a deficit factor.
10. Changes to make: page 71, #4 – add 18,910 FTES; reword #7b on page 72; and add Fund 15 to
#9 on page 73.
Updated Planning Process
1. In a March meeting, PBC agreed the Planning Model needed to be clearer.
2. Page 7 shows flowchart on how Plan Development Cycle involving funding works. Need to add
President between PBC and Board of Trustees. Separated out the Plan Evaluation Cycle to show
evaluation process is done twice a year.
3. Page 8 shows Enrollment Management Plan starting with program review recommendations and
ending with funding allocation. Need to add Program/Unit/Area Plan box between Program
Review Recommendations and Enrollment Management Plan. Not all plans come from Program
Review Recommendations.
4. Comprehensive Master Plan on pages 9 and 10 is more complex with multiple inputs. Need to
show the entire Comprehensive Master Plan is sent to the Board of Trustees.
5. Page 8, #2 – endorsement of funding request wording was questioned. It was agreed to change
endorsement to recommend.
6. Page 7 – observation made that Plan Development Cycle September-October timeline is overly
optimistic for faculty to meet. It was designed to push program planning to start early without
waiting until the last minute to complete.
7. Page 7 – Area Plans are plans within VP’s own areas. Area plans are shared with other VPs to
develop prioritized plan for the College. VPs decided their plans need to be more global and not
repeat information already in program and unit plans. A. Spor will send to PBC prioritized area
plans from the VPs.
PBC members were asked to watch Chris Gold’s SLO presentation on linkage between program
review and planning. The link is on the agenda (http://www.elcamino.edu/academics/slo).
The next meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010. The meeting ended at 2:36 p.m.
3