Campus Budget

Campus Budget

Meeting Notes - May 11, 2010

 

1) Approval of Notes April 27, 2010 

The notes were approved.


2) Budget  Update

State Budget

The May revise will be released on Friday May 14th. Although there has been much talk about  marginal increases in state revenues and the rise and fall of estimated budget deficits, it is expected that the budget will be essentially flat.

There are talks regarding proposed retirement changes to future employees of PERS/STRS.

The college and district are working to develop the budget for 2010-11, dealing, as usual, with the significant unknowns in the state process. Jeanpierre displayed the district update for the Board meeting on May 3, 2010 (FHDA May Budget Update).

In the document, the district outlined a series of favorable budget developments that have added $2 million to the projected bottom line of the 2010-11 district budget. Although this news is good the critical variable is whether community colleges will sustain another year of big cuts in the state budget. Among factors contributing to the larger-than-expected bottom line are receiving more state apportionment than projected; stabilizing of international student enrollment; and utility rate reductions. If the district does not suffer major state budget cuts in 2010-11, it may be able to bring back those essential positions slated for elimination on June 30, 2011 (Escrow 2). The district expects to have enough money in reserves to cover up to $5 million to $6 million in state budget cuts.

Jeanpierre displayed and explained in detail the handout FHDA Projected Reserves est. 3rd Quarter 09-10. The key points were: General Fund (14) Jeanpierre clarified that restricted meant that the funds would not be swept. $5,447,319 is identified as remaining stability funding. Internal Service/Benefits Fund (Fund 600) Jeanpierre explained the estimated projections to the medical benefits fund. Clarification was needed on why the $2,034,062 figure was listed twice.

According to the Summary of Net Change in fund Balance & Carryover document the net variance (unrestricted budget balance) is $6,762,020. The president would like the group to consider what recommendations they have for using some of the fund balance.

FHDA is one of the few districts that has not had to use its reserve funding. This has allowed for forward planning and more thoughtful decision-making. The team wondered what lessons could be learned from the colleges that are in deep financial trouble.

Parcel Tax: The Board is investigating if it is favorable for FHDA to ask for a parcel tax in November 2010. Parcel taxes are usually requested by K-12 districts. The College of San Mateo is going out for a parcel tax in June. The district requests that the colleges gather ideas for the project remembering that these funds are not ongoing dollars. The district has to have a clear plan for spending the money and this money must be spent as specified in the plan. Perhaps De Anza could use some of the money to fund a grants office or expand textbook rentals. Jeanpierre asked for feedback from the PBTs.

Unfortunately, the OTI CompTECH program has lost it’s funding.

Jeanpierre passed out a refresher of the All Funds Chart. She reminded the group that the funds are separate and could not be co-mingled. She also explained that Enterprise funds are specified in the Ed. Code. This year the district is using Banner not FR.

Jeanpierre shared the Bookstore income statement and Dining Services income statement as of March 31, 2010.  

Bookstore: The Bookstore revenues are somewhat reduced. Jeanpierre highlighted the major reasons the revenues are lower e.g. competition from physical storefronts, online stores, publishers, online sales, etc. It was also explained that last year’s figures were unusually high as there was a period of time that the bookstore across the street was closed which boosted the college’s bookstore’s sales. The increased contractual demand that Apple is placing on all college bookstores was also causing a problem for the department. There was a question on inventory shrinkage and online sales. Montgomery is proactively working to problem-solve issues. Jeanpierre would like the departments to work with the bookstore to support them. 

Dining Services: The revenues for Dining Services have also declined, due in part to the reduced on-campus spending by departments for catering.

Campus Center Fee: A request to keep the campus center fee at $16 per quarter went through the DASB, Campus Center Advisory Board, and was Board approved. A portion of these dollars would go toward funding two custodians.

Measure C Equipment Dollars: Jeanpierre shared a brief summary of Measure C equipment dollars dated March 2010.  She explained the total was $43M. The first draw was $12M but De Anza still have $6M left (allocated but not spent). That leaves $31M left to drawn on. The Board approved allocation of some of these resources to ETS for installations etc. The remaining amount is approx. two draws of $14M each.

Jeanpierre asked for feedback on how the College should allocate funding for the next draw. She also suggested that the College should take the opportunity for programs to re-purpose unspent funds. Jeanpierre reflected on what happened in the first draw and posed the question of how the College could justify asking for more funds while there was still unspent funding. She also noted that Mediated Learning Center was $1M short in technology funding and that the Advanced Technology Center budget was only about $8M and not sufficient to cover equipment.

ETS will do a physical count of computers this summer and would do a 5-year computer refresh program instead of the current 3-years.

There is a technology prioritization meeting every two weeks.

Jeanpierre asked that the members share this info with their constituent groups and request feedback.

A full Measure C discussion would be scheduled.

 

Grants Office Discussion

Jeanpierre noted that a draft proposal for a new grants office was posted on the Web site. She displayed a diagrammatic chart of a draft version of a proposed organizational flow. She asked the group for their feedback. Of main concern was that De Anza should have adequate access to resources if the department resides at Foothill. The teams also strongly recommended the proposal be built for a fully functional model not a step by step model.  Professional Workforce Development has a person to lend to a new grants office. Colleges are being asked to give money to support the set up of an office. Parcel tax dollars would be useful to support the new department.  R. Galope would be invited to a future meeting.

 

 

Present: Argyriou, Bloom, Irvin, Jeanpierre, Jenkins, LeeKlwander, Michaelis, Patlan, Reza, Schroeder, Simes. Notes: Gibson



Governance
Building: Administration
Contact: Pippa Gibson
Phone: 408.864.8936
sizeplaceholder


Last Updated: 6/3/10