Resource and Allocation Committee
Resource and Allocation Committee Minutes|
Hartnell College - 411 Central Avenue (LIB-113), Salinas, CA
July 18, 2012 at 10:00AM
Willard Lewallen, Superintendent/President
Ann Wright, HCFA
* DRAFT MINUTES *
Tony Anderson, Academic Senate
Matt Coombs, Admin
Dale W. Fuge, L-39 Maint.
Al Munoz, Administration
Ismael Ramirez, L-39 Maint.
Joanne Trevino, Classified Senate
Nancy Schur Beymer
|Topic:||Presentation on the Tentative Budget for 2012-13|
|Summary of Agenda Item:||Al Munoz began the meeting with the comments that in 2009-10 the campus went through this exercise and the District again needs to bring down costs. Al then discussed the Governor\'s proposed budget and explained how the college\'s tentative budget has been built. The earlier instruction was to cut $1.2 million from the budget in one quarter; so the Vice Presidents met to examine their respective budgets and they were able to reduce the number to $800,000. |
Additionally, Al pointed out that the tentative budget was built on 7100 FTES yet the college is currently to be funded for 5995. At the Board presentation in June, the college was at 6060, however, the state said to cut more. Mary Dominguez added that FTES would be 6500 and clarification has been requested from the Chancellor. Al added that the 50% law is an additional concern and gave the example that if FTES are reduced to 6500, 50% of expenditures must be instructional. Non-instructional or classified would have to be looked at in order to stay within the 50% requirement. Should the tax initiative pass, the college will be at 6527 funded FTES and that puts the college in a much better position.
Further Al expressed that at the June 5th presentation to the Board, one budget presented contained a $2.5 million deficit. Since then, that amount has been reduced down to $2.2 million. Additionally, King City has reached a threshold on FTES that will be funded. Some discussion and related questions followed.
Al continued the budget presentation. He reiterated that the Board instructed to reduce the deficit, however, they did not state a specific amount. Al pointed out that costs are approximately $2.8 million per month and that the cost relating to human resource is 81% of the budget. Dr. Lewallen pointed out that human resource costs at some districts are over 90% which poses a big problem. Liz Estrella asked if 80% is good to which Al responded that the college is a little bit to the good in this respect.
Al directed the conversation back to the deficit budget presented to the Board and told the group that the Ed Code requires the presentation of a balanced budget which is why two scenarios (balanced and deficit) were presented to the Board. It was known that the balanced budget would not be approved and there was no intent to implement a 5% across the board salary cut. Al stressed that these were scenarios only which would have saved $2.5 million for a balanced budget. Dr. Lewallen included that the first item presented on the balanced budget - a 900 FTES reduction - is unrealistic and would have adversely affected the 50% law.
Al then took the time to explain the balanced budget cuts scenario.
Further questions and discussion followed.
The subject of grant funds was introduced and Al had to remind all in attendance that grant funds reside in the restricted fund and do not apply to the general fund. Restricted funds are for particular programs they are running. Al did say that some faculty might be able to be paid through grants and that will be looked into.
Further questions and discussion related to restricted funds ensued.
Paulette Bumbalough then asked if there is any plan to increase student fees. Dr. Lewallen stated that student fees do not help and are counted against apportionment.
Cheryl O\'Donnell stated that at one time the college had fee-based classes through Community Ed and asked if that could be looked at as a way to generate revenue. She also asked if teaching community ed would count toward the 50%. Dr. Lewallen stated that community ed is a possibility, however, it would have to be self-supporting. General fund money cannot be used to subsidize it.
Dr. Lewallen stated that over the last several years, there have been midyear cuts and money has to be put aside for those surprises. Further, he stated it is his belief that a mid-year cut will happen again next year and the college must be prepared. In addition, the FON (faculty obligation number) is something that has to be maintained because if the college falls below the obligation, a penalty is assessed. The 50% also has to be a part of the discussion.
At this time, many ideas for ways in which to reduce the deficit were brought forth. Dr. Lewallen suggested that an electronic survey be prepared so that ideas could be gathered systematically. He announced that a survey will be prepared and the responses compiled for analysis at an early August RAC meeting.
Tony Anderson suggested that the college community alert friends and students of the importance of the passage of the Prop 30 tax initiative.
|Action(s) required:||Survey will be prepared for distribution with a request for completion by the campus community. Responses will be compiled and brought to an early August RAC meting.|