Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> [Inaudible] started here.
So I will welcome, Austin.
Austin, I did get your email.
I haven't quite read it all but I will do it, I promise.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Jordan is not going to be with us today or do you know?
>> He can't make the meeting session anymore.
>> Oh, not anymore?
>> Yeah.
>> So you guys need a -- then you need another rep.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, good.
All right.
Good. So I'll make a note of that.
John's here, Dave's here, Julie's here,
AC and Mary Ellen will get here I guess when they can.
Or Mary Erin I should say.
So we'll keep -- we'll just go forward
if that's okay with you Julie.
Jeff is here for Carol.
>> Right. That's my son.
>> Ann is -- Ann is here for CSCA,
and is Cha here as an alternate?
>> Yeah.
>> There's Cha.
Hi Cha. How are you?
And Cha is here for Gary.
And we are ready to go.
>> I'm blending in.
>> Like a ninja.
>> So that's call to order and introductions.
Anybody else have any other introductions.
I see Maggie down there and I see Joe down there, so welcome.
Public -- or approval of the minutes November 21,
2013 and October 24, 2013.
And we'll entertain a motion if anybody cares to do so.
We can take them one at a time or both
at the same time whatever your pleasure.
>> I move to approve the Minutes for both meetings.
>> Okay. Moved by John.
We need a second from someone.
>> I second.
>> Thank you, Dave.
Discussion?
All those in favor [inaudible] by saying aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed.
Abstentions.
Jeff's going to abstain.
>> [Inaudible].
>> Okay. Very good.
Thank you folks.
Public comments.
Anyone from the public which is three people [laughter].
[Inaudible].
Okay. Then we will move on.
The first item is the adopted SERP agreement,
and let's do this.
So basically what I wanted to report this is a memo
that everybody has seen that has went out to all of our --
[inaudible] I think it went out district wide
to all of our employees.
We had a total of 19 people thus far take advantage of the SERP.
When I say thus far it is closed, however we are still
in negotiations with the Faculty Association, so it is possible
that further people will take advantage of that
as those negotiations continue and go forward.
We'll see how all that works.
Did anybody have any questions or comments regarding the topic
of the SERP in general?
If anybody would like to share or talk about.
>> I would like to ask, you said it's closed
for classified managers, if the faculty happen to come
to some agreement would it open again for second --
second thinkers on the classified side?
>> I don't want to say yes.
I don't want to say no.
>> Yeah, I figured.
>> But I would say that we had a deadline, it was important
to achieve that deadline from the respect of working
with the PARS Group which is the Public Agency Retirement System,
and -- but one never knows.
>> I'd like you to say no so that I can just close the book
on my mind and that's it.
>> Well, now that you say that John.
>> Right. Now it's open.
Okay.
>> No, so yeah, so the answer is it's a guarded no.
How's that?
There's always discretion on the part
of the Dr. Roach [assumed spelling],
she's the superintendent, president to reopen it
if there was some reason to do
that for based upon some individual's need
or some district need.
>> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> One other comment.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Concern, because I'm immersed in Banner and Lancer Point.
I'm sure we're going to be losing a huge knowledge base
and there are pivotal people, so I may need to be thinking about,
I know this is more of a Lancer Point issue, but who's going
to step in after they go?
>> Yeah. And this is one
of the reasons why the deadline was what the deadline was,
so we had time, we the college has time to identify
where the gaps are going to be and what we need
to backfill some of those gaps.
We do have some -- we have four managers and 14 classified,
many, many of which hold important and critical jobs,
and so that workload has to be either redistributed...
>> Oh, great.
>> ... it has to be -- I said either.
Either redistributed, filled in the capacity in which it emptied
if you will, and/or other opportunities, other positions
that are created that can meld and shape.
The purpose of the SERP is not just to save money,
but it's also to provide an organization the opportunity
to rethink the way that certain business practices are enacted,
what business processes might be enacted in order to approve
on something we're doing.
It also helps a great deal with diversity issues and hiring
of a more diverse staff.
It also provides an opportunity to bring in people of all ages
with different perspectives and different viewpoints on how
to get A through Z done because they have --
they bring with them a wealth
of other experiences that then can do it.
So I'd like to say that a SERP is not really about the money,
it's about the other things.
The money is there, but very often over a period of years
that money is spent on other things and reallocated,
and SERPs cost the District money obviously.
And I think Joe, is it about $1.3 million a year now
that we're paying on the last SERPs over a five-year period.
Is that what it was or --
>> I don't remember, but I don't think it was that high.
>> So it might be a little more like a million or something?
>> Or even lower.
Yeah. I'm not sure Collin.
>> Does that include the savings for the SERP?
>> No, that's -- no, that doesn't include the savings.
That's what the SERP costs.
>> So I think it's a disingenuous to say
that SERPs cost the college money
because by law the SERP can't cost the college money
or you can't offer it.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> To be clear, I didn't mean to be disingenuous.
What I meant to say is
that there is a cost of offering the SERP.
That cost is less expensive
than the savings associated with the SERP.
>> Okay.
>> Unless what you do is is that you immediately backfill all
of your positions and then you are funding all the positions
plus you've got the expense of the SERP, so it depends
on how you look at it.
But yeah, that's correct [inaudible].
I did not mean to mislead.
Yes, sir.
>> Bob, regarding the faculty SERP.
In the past during contract negotiations sometimes both
sides are able to designate certain areas
where they both agree and they issue an IOU saying, "Okay.
On this point we agree and we'll get this in place right now
and then we'll just continue on negotiating the other issues."
Is that a possible for a SERP for faculty for this year?
>> I don't want to speak to the negotiations,
but I would say this, the District is open
to all discussions right now.
So, you know, if that's what comes back
to the table then it's certainly something
that the District would consider.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So moving on then.
The next item, so we wanted to speak a little bit
about the underfunded nature of our workers --
of our workers' comp self-insurance fund.
And the way that this works in general,
and Joe [inaudible] help me out if you think I'm going askew
on this, but the way that this works is we work
with our workers' comp provider to not necessarily
from an actuarial point of view, but from a historic point
of view, historical point of view
to basically project the amount of workers' comp claims
that we might be on the hook to pay
over an extended period of time.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So the bottom line is in any given year x number
of individuals will have a --
will claim a workers' comp claim.
It might be five, it might be 10,
it might be 20, it would be whatever.
The history of workers' comp claims is sometimes they'll
close in a short period of time, many times they're open
for years, 10, 15, 20 years.
Cha who has a great deal of --
as our workers' comp [inaudible] can tell you
that she's been dealing with claims for many years
and we settled one that is 30 years I think.
Almost 30 years.
You know, they go on forever.
So from an actuarial point of view there is a projection
of what the costs are long-term for what it is that you,
the District might be culpable for, or have to pay
for over a period of years.
We have a workers' compensation self-insurance fund
that we fund more or less on an annual basis.
We pay out in the neighborhood of $700,000.00
to $800,000.00 a year to a million in claims.
$700,000.00 to a million in claims annually.
And we do that from a self-funding point of view,
but for the last several years our auditors
and others have been pointing out that from an actuarial point
of view you really should have a fund that is funded
to at least $3 million give or take as I recall the numbers.
>> Right.
>> Joe is nodding affirmatively.
That fund has got about a $280,000.00
in it last time I looked.
Or maybe it's less in there.
It was like -- it was less.
It might have been at one point it was $30-something thousand
at the end of last year.
We usually have about $200,000.00 in it.
So the bottom line is from an audit point of view
and from a good business practice point
of view we are going to have to start contributing
in a much more significant way starting in 14-15
to our workers' compensation fund.
So what I'm doing is I'm kind
of advising the budget resource allocation committee
that as we build the 14 budget we're going to have
to set aside a significant sum of money to fund
that self-insurance fund.
Joe, did I say it pretty much correct?
>> That's right.
>> So that's just FYI.
We're not exactly sure what the number will be,
but it will be substantial.
>> You did give us a copy of the budget
at our previous meeting, right?
That's what I was thinking, a draft budget or something?
>> For...
>> 14?
>> For 14-15.
>> Oh no, we did that online and what we're going to send
out to everybody so they can do their budget request.
That didn't include the...
>> Yeah, but I'm going to give you some budget numbers
for 14-15 here before our meeting is over.
>> Okay. That's what I was trying to find, but yeah, sorry.
>> Yeah, but I'm going to give it to you
because we just got the information last Friday
as a matter of fact.
Hey Danny, how are you sir?
>> Hey, sorry I'm late.
>> That's okay.
So I think that's really what I wanted to say is
that it's dramatically underfunded, it's been that way
for the last three or more years.
We kept it low in particular as a way of helping to deal
with the financial challenges that we had
over the past several years, and now we just can't not --
that's a double negative, we cannot continue to not fund it.
We cannot continue to fund it.
We can't appropriately.
>> Continue to not fund it.
>> We're with you.
>> Hey Collin, we deal with students all the time.
>> Okay. That's right.
Okay. Anything else on that issue?
We're at 4B, Danny just to get you up to speed here.
Okay. So along the same lines we have something called the OPEB,
which is the other post-employment benefit.
And what that is is for those District employees who have had
at least 14 years of service with the District who retire
and go past the age of 65 they get an annual payment
for the rest of their lives of I want to say $1,440.00.
Is that the right number?
>> $1,440.00 is.
>> $1,440.00 annually.
So that's another post-employment benefit.
>> That's towards medical?
>> That's toward -- yeah, they can use it anyway they want,
but usually people use it for a supplemental to Medicare
or whatever they might use.
>> We've called it the Medicare wraparound also.
>> Medicare wraparound.
Okay. And that's our OPEB.
Now in order to -- in order to have the funds that we need
in order to fund that particular benefit we do an actuarial study
every two years which tells us what that liability is.
We have been very good with our OPEB fund in recent years.
We are among -- let's put it this way.
They're not -- there are more districts
that have not funded their OPEB responsibilities
than there are districts that have.
We are on the positive side of that equation.
We have done so.
We have something on the order of just under $16 million
of obligations and that's what we had as of two years ago,
and we have maintained that amount in our OPEB fund.
>> Is that yearly?
>> Fund 64.
No. It's what the total amount is that we have to have.
And as of two years ago the last time we did the actuarial study
we had to have roughly $16 million in that fund.
We were able -- the District has been able to do that.
>> What do we expend yearly out of that?
>> We expend -- we contribute -- the answer is we expend --
I think that's where the $1.3 million comes in my mind,
$1.2, $1.3 million a year.
So you have to fund it two ways.
You have to fund it to make the annual payments to all
of our post-65 year old employees who make the $1,440.00
and that costs us a million one,
million two as I recall annually.
One five?
>> I think that part of it was I think $650,000.00,
but then there's the other part that brings it
up to $1.2 [inaudible].
>> So we have that annual contribution,
which I thought was more in the million dollar range,
but it sounds like it might be a little less than that, right.
But in any event we have the annual contribution
that funds the ongoing annual obligation
and then we have the secondary fund that maintains us --
that keeps us whole in terms of what the overall fund needs
to be funded again actuarially so that we have what we need
to pay everybody going forward.
By law we have to have that study done every two years
to kind of see where we are.
With the number of employees that have left us due
to the supplemental early retirement plan
or through other types of retirements,
we have ongoing obligations.
Now, what I'm saying to you is that we're going
to do another study this year that will likely result
in us having to increase from $16 million
to some additional sum, higher sum because of the number
of retirements and the number of others
that have left the District through retirement or through --
well, through retirement.
And we're actually commissioning that survey
or that study actually this month.
>> And which of the Board approved it
on the contract log last week.
>> Right.
>> We're sending the agreement to the company,
so it's been about two years.
>> Right.
>> And this information that we get
from this actuary will inform how we budget for the 14-15.
>> Right. Now the one last thing I want to say on this topic
by way of explanation, there are two ways
in which you're supposed to fund your OPEB.
Actually, there's one way --
well, there's two options for funding your OPEB.
One is through an irrevocable trust which means
that you put the money away and it cannot be used
for any other purpose other than that obligation.
The other is you put it into a fund.
We call it Fund 64.
It's not irrevocable.
Our Board of Governors, i.e.,
the Board of Trustees has the ability to move that funding
where it might need to for any given reason.
For example, during the last couple of years
where you had cash flow issues
where because the State was not paying us because of deferrals
and what have you, in order -- I could go on two occasions,
actually it might have only been one, but two maximum,
we borrowed $5 million from Fund 64 in order to make a payroll
that particular month.
We had the ability to do that because the money was not
in an irrevocable trust.
Okay. Some of you who've been
around for a while might recall back around 2006 or so
when the Board of Trustees established this --
by law had to come to grips with the OPEB obligation,
the Board after great debate determined
that self-rule was really the way they wanted to go
and they did not want to have their hands be well handcuffed
into being able to use
that money should a District emergency require them to do so.
So they determined not to put it into irrevocable trust.
The topic every once in a while comes back up,
we still have Board members who strongly believe
that that money should not be put in an irrevocable trust.
We have some, we have a new Board member,
he may have a different viewpoint on that going forward,
but for now the money is not in an irrevocable trust.
So from a budgeting point of view we have an obligation
to fund it, and we will,
and then we have an ongoing annual obligation to pay it.
So that's sort of a pre -- kind of a primmer as to where we are
with that and a preview that as we build the 14-15 budget once
we get this actuarial study back it might be another significant
dollar item that we have to deal with going forward.
>> But if other colleges aren't dealing with it commensurate
to us then maybe we are over complying and maybe the people
who are doing our actuarial studies.
>> I'm sorry.
Say that again.
>> Why are other colleges not funding into the level we are?
>> Ross? How are you?
>> Fine.
>> Let me introduce Ross Salvage,
who is our new Area 1 trustee.
Welcome, welcome, welcome.
Let's go around the table real quick
and do a quick introduction so you know who's here.
>> I didn't want to interrupt.
I'm just a spectator.
>> Okay. All right.
Very good.
We're actually talking about the OPEB obligation right now.
The other post-employment benefit obligation
and how that works.
So to answer your question,
at the time that the Board made the determination
to do what they did they determined that they were going
to be as compliant with the obligation
as they possibly could.
They did not want it to be a District
such as the LA Community College District that is literally well
over $100 million in noncompliance.
And they did not want the day to come
which I understand could be coming in the next few years
where there would be a legal obligation
to fund it in its totality.
What the legislation has said up to this point is all
of the employers have the OPEB obligations
that they have to fund.
They have said we are going to give you a period of time
under self-rule if you will to comply to make certain
that your retirees are taken care of.
If at some future date, and that date may be coming sooner
than later now that the economic situation
from the state has improved to such a degree
that people could bring that topic up again.
If it's determined that not enough of the special districts
and school districts and community college districts
and special districts have done what they needed to do
from a self-governance perspective then there very well
may be legislation that comes down and requires it.
Our Board decided a few years ago they didn't want
to be that kind of place.
They wanted to fund it as they need it funded as it goes.
They just did not want to handcuff themselves
with the requirement of having to have to put something
in an irrevocable trust so that they couldn't get their hands
on it if there was ever an emergency.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And fully funding means that if everybody
that were 55 and over...
>> Sixty-five.
>> Well, this also includes benefits if you retire
at 55 you get your full benefits paid until 65.
>> But that's not OPEB though.
That's not OPEB.
>> That's not in here?
I thought it was.
>> The other post-employment benefit is to -- it is in there.
It does pay for the medical.
It is guaranteed that medical is paid for...
>> [Inaudible] that you were talking about.
That's the $1.2.
>> That's right.
And that's the $1.2.
>> That's the one the insurance you believe is the $1.2?
>> Yeah, so Danny brings up a good point.
If you clarify, there's two expenses.
If I retired at the age of 58 the benefit is is
that I get my full District benefits package,
medical package until age 65, and then at age 65
and further I would get the $1,440.00 per year
for life after that.
So the OPEB benefit funds both.
So that's where the actuarial study comes in to try
to determine based upon people's ages, years of service,
all that kind of stuff.
>> Fully funding means that if everybody
that were qualified did it all
at the same time they could handle it.
>> Yeah. Fully funded means
in this case the actuary two years ago determined
that $60 million give or take was fully funded.
Now, as they do the study again as we're obligated to do
that number could go up to $17 million,
it could go down to $15.5,
it could do whatever it's going to do.
It's likely going to go up to some degree
because we've had more people retire in the last couple
of years, but we will have to wait and see.
>> I'm just trying to point
out that fully funding it means something
that is highly unlikely to happen
and that is everybody that's 55
and over retires all at the same time.
>> And that may be, but we --
the Board's made a decision to do it so we go from there.
Okay. Anything else on the OPEB as I have tried to get
that out there on the table.
>> [Inaudible].
>> [Inaudible].
>> Oh good, thank you.
All right.
So now we get into the Governor's proposed budget,
and I have two documents here that I want to distribute.
And I want to say that this information is fresh,
fresh as defined as an interpretation by Dan Troy
who is the Vice Chancellor for College Finance
and [inaudible] Planning for the Cochran Community College System
as to the Governor's proposed 14-15 budget
and its specific impact on community colleges.
I'm going to take a little bit of time.
I'm going to go through this and then I am going
to give you a one-page handout that we prepared
that speaks to the impact on TCC.
I want to make sure though that just as a prelude to this
that everybody understands
that this is the Governor's proposed budget.
That's the first round of the budget development process.
His budget now is considered by the legislature, it's considered
by the entities that are impacted by the budget,
there are many lobbyists and others who get into the mix
and the discussion in between now
and what they call the May revised which usually comes
out about mid-May, there is a lot of negotiations.
When the May revised comes out in mid-May that usually is
like 95 plus percent of what -- of where the budget is going
to be for the California Community Colleges.
And then there's a little bit of wrangling between, you know,
for the last 30 days give or take and then we have a budget.
So what this is, and I think what I might do is I think I
might do these side-by-side because I think
that might be helpful for everybody
to maybe do it that way.
We might be able to [inaudible].
So what I did is I took the information from Dan Troy,
in addition to that -- well, I took the information
from Dan Troy and I then computed what it meant to TCC
in terms of dollars at the moment.
Last Friday Joe and I were at a Chancellor's office
and association, we have a Chief Business Officer's meeting
where there is a workshop on the budget, and I have several pages
of notes from the four presenters.
One was a gentlemen, or a woman from the Department of Finance,
the Deputy Director, and then there was an individual
from the Legislative Analyst office, and then Dan Troy
and then there was someone from Community College,
[inaudible] California.
So I had those notes.
And I'll talk about that after -- in a minute here.
So first of all, we talked --
they start by talking about how things are a little bit better
in general, and how there was a healthy --
there's more resources than was anticipated at this point.
That's just kind of what the first two paragraphs speak to.
However, it also speaks to the fact
that the tax system continues to be heavily reliant
on the capital gains and as an example
of that last year the state collected $10 million
in capital gains and a few years ago they only collected
$3 million.
So the state continues to be very reliant
on capital gains funding that it gets from individuals
and corporations and what have you
when the economy is going well,
but when the economy is not going well there is a dramatic
reduction in tax receipts and what that means is
that if you only budget for when times are good
and you don't consider what will happen when times are bad, i.e.,
rainy day funds and such,
then when times are bad you have a serious, serious problem,
which is what the state just went through.
So what the Governor is saying here in all your stuff
that we won't take the time to talk about now,
but what he's basically saying is yeah,
happy days are here again.
That's a good thing.
But if we don't plan for the next recession we're in trouble.
Recessions usually are in 10 year cycles give
or take theoretically, although I don't necessary believe this,
but theoretically we are four to five years
into an economic recovery right now, supposedly that's what some
of the economists are saying.
So if you believe that then we could be
at another significant recession in four or five years from now.
So what the Governor is saying is that the state has to prepare
for that and every local entity that is responsible
for running its operations needs to develop these funds as well.
Okay. So the first thing they talk about is Prop 98,
and the impact of Prop 98,
and what the additional funds have resulted in.
But now let's get into the specifics
of California Community Colleges.
The Chief budget highlights as it pertains
to CCC's California Community College's bar access.
The system's going to provide a $155.2 million in access.
Generally speaking the past year
at Community College District collects about 1.9%
of everything the system gets.
The hook this year though, and what's different this year is
that they're going to be providing access money
to colleges that identify themselves
of having the greatest unmet need
and adequately serving their community college's higher
education needs, high educational needs.
Now of course the question is what does that mean?
So there is a committee of people representing the CEOs,
the Chief Business Officers, Chief Instructional Officers,
a variety of other stakeholders in trying
to define what that means.
In plainer English what it likely means is completion.
Programs that result in students transferring,
students receiving AA or AS degrees,
students receiving certificates and doing
so in a timely fashion.
Timely might be defined as three years.
You know, back in the day we came through community colleges
and we got here -- we got out in two years.
>> Is time considered completion?
Like if you don't get a degree here.
>> Transfer lines down.
Yes, transfer.
>> Yeah, but you have a pathway?
>> Yes. Yes.
>> And can I ask another question?
>> Sure.
>> Seventy thousand, is this full-time equivalent?
>> This will allow colleges
to add approximately 70,000 headcount.
It's...
>> Full-time though.
That's not a seat.
>> Yes. No, it's not a seat.
Seventy thousand additional bodies is what they're looking
at here.
So they're still trying to define that and where --
it's a system of working through the definition
of that, but it's there.
So presumably we can fulfill whatever those guidelines are
going to be because we are a community college
that is focused on transfer and degrees and certificates
and we're becoming more so in doing that.
Yeah.
>> Do you know the name of the committee Paul?
>> You know, Dan Troy -- didn't give me the name, did he Joe?
>> No.
>> He just talked about this group coming together.
>> Right.
>> There was a little piece on NTR this morning
that I half heard on my way out the door
that was talking about this.
>> Yeah. This is so fresh.
I mean, every District's got significant concern
about exactly what that means.
Significant [inaudible] right?
>> It was interesting.
I didn't really hear the whole thing.
>> And there's a hook tied to the next two funding categories.
So in any event let me just say that the COLA which is .86%
which is the next line, next bullet says COLA $48.5 million
to fund a statutory COLA of .86%.
So since we're basically 1.9% of that number that's about $800
to $75,000.00, so it's important to know that the COLA,
the cost of living allowance, is a relatively small .86%.
In one of these handouts there's a dartboard that's attached
which we'll get to later,
that shows that the COLAs are predicted
for the next several years and they're not dramatically high,
but that's what they're predicting.
We'll get to that in a second.
So we get $875,000.00 and then we get the access money assuming
we're successful, so that gives us an additional $3,375,000.00
which is the first bullet --
the first bolded statement down below,
which is possible 14-15 additional general
unrestricted revenue.
Unrestricted is 01 funds.
It means the District can spend those money any ways
that it sees correct.
So if we were to collect all of the COLA
and all the access money we would be increasing our base
revenue, our general revenue revenue by $3.4 million give
or take, according to the Governor's budget.
This is going to change, but this is kind
of where we are right now.
Now, as far as what the asterisks indicates again
on the next bullet below we have one time,
at least what we think is one time right now
from what we're told thus far,
2014-15 additional restricted revenue.
Now in our world, restricted is the 03 fund.
And what the Governor is proposing is an additional $100
million in what they call student success.
Those of us who've been around for a while know
that as matriculation dollars, matric dollars,
and what they're saying is is that that will be categorical
and restricted very likely to programs that can be proven
to support transfers, degrees, certificates, getting students
through efficiently, effectively,
and get those [inaudible].
And so the Governor is saying,
"I'm going to give the system an extra $100 million
for student success."
Some of you might recall matriculation
as I mentioned is now called student support system program,
or student success system program,
SSSP is the new name for matric.
So they got to throw another $100 million in the pot.
Assuming we can, you know, we would --
we would be successful in applying for that money
which I think we would we could get another $1.9 million.
Then they have the new pot
of money called student equity plans, and these are sort
of from what I understand thus far it's educational plans.
Okay. Our new degree works of program and banner will help us
to develop student equity plans
which are basically education plans.
And programs by which to help students
to complete maybe mentors, maybe additional counselors,
maybe additional resources that will help students achieve
that which is stated in their student equity plans.
All right.
So that's another $1.9 million that I'm assuming
that we would qualify for.
Then there's deferred maintenance.
As many of you know, the District has,
as all districts have separate from a lack
of imprudent maintenance money for many, many, many year,
the Governor is proposing putting $87.5 into the system
and then out of that our share would be $1.65 million again
it's categorical, again it's restricted,
but there is another thing to this,
it's got a onetime match one-to-one,
so if we want $1.65 million we've got
to budget $1.65 million in order to get that full amount.
If we don't want all $1.65
because we can't afford it then whatever it is they'll match
up to $1.65 million.
But we've got to budget that amount.
The same thing with instructional equipment.
For those of you who are needy of instructional equipment
which many of our programs are we've not seen instructional
equipment money for many, many, many years.
The state's saying --
the Governor's saying that he'll put another $87.5
into the pot this year, or to give you kind
of a quick comparison,
we haven't seen instructional equipment money for many years,
this year $280,000.00.
Right? From the state.
>> Should be.
>> $280, then we [inaudible] so it'd be about $400 to spend,
but about $280 from -- it's $287 actually to be exact.
The Governor is saying that we're going to throw
so much more into that pot, PCCC's share,
that same 1.9% could be worth as much as $1.65 million.
So that's a dramatic increase, a huge increase.
Now, in this case it's a one-to-three match,
so we'd only have to come up with $550,000.00
or whatever the number is in order to get the $1.65 million
in instructional equipment money.
Through Joe's good work and Dr. Bell's and some
of the Deans they've already been contacted.
There's a list to get and the preliminary list is
like $1.85 million I think.
>> $1.5.
>> $1.5. I think I saw -- yeah, $1.5 million.
But we'll -- that's just the first brush.
There's more needs than that.
Yes, Julie.
>> That's kind of shocking because as a faculty member
who goes to all my division meetings I've never been asked
what my instructional needs are, and I would think
that the faculty would be the ones
who would be asked what the instructional needs are.
>> Yeah. I can't comment on that.
I know this, I do know this, Dr. Bell
and others have asked the Deans to do this, Joe you can speak
to this, you've sent many emails out,
and you got responses from...
>> The feedback with that was from Deans
and my understanding is that they were going out
and asking what was needed.
>> So maybe -- so it didn't happen in your area.
>> I have a pretty big area.
>> I know, social science is pretty big, pretty big.
>> Okay.
>> But it wasn't the first brush,
and we know that this is probably not capturing the
majority of what's needed.
>> Okay.
>> So in any event, and I think we're looking at $3 million plus
when the dust settles.
>> Yeah, I think they were surprised when it was just $1.5.
>> Okay. So there could be up to an additional $1.65 million.
Now, we get to the deferral mode.
Now this is really important to recall, to remember.
And I'm not going to take the time
and you guys have heard enough of me, but there's --
this is actually a very good document that Dan did
and I tweaked it a little bit that sort of defines
in a pretty good way what these things mean.
And on deferrals he says, "$235.6 million
in budget year funding," so in this current -- well, I'm sorry.
In 14-15 budget you're funding to pay
down the deferrals combined with $356.8 million proposed
in one-time funds for this purpose this would completely
eliminate the system's entry year deferrals.
So dating back to 2007-2008 when the budget issues happened,
community college districts were --
the monies owed to them by the state
to run their districts every year there were certain amounts
that were deferred, and some
of those amounts were deferred beyond the budget year
in which they were in.
They were deferred into the next budget year,
and to make a long story endless here,
as we come to 2014-15 the Pasadena Area Community College
District is owed precisely $11,908,981.00.
Okay. The Governor is proposing that we will get
that amount of cash next year.
Now it's important to remember about that is
that the deferrals are one-time cash.
The cash does not balance the 13-14 budget.
The RDA funds now provided, and I'm going
to come back to that in a second.
What it is is money that is owed to the District,
but it doesn't balance the 13-14 budget,
but it is cash comes to the District.
One-time cash, money that's owed it,
what this committee will talk about,
what the administration will talk about and recommend
to the Board of Trustees is what happens to what -- that cash.
What do we do with that cash?
Do we spend it on instructional equipment?
Do we put it part of it in a rainy day fund?
Do we fund the workers' comp
and the underfunded workers' comp self-insurance fund?
Do we contribute to OPEB if we feel we need to do that?
There will, you know, this is basically one-time cash
that we can do something with, but it's not --
it doesn't balance our 13-14 budget.
Yes.
>> It's not restricted.
>> It is not restricted.
>> So it's money that's included in prior year's budgets
and it was not paid to the District.
>> that's right.
So it's now -- it's the final --
and if the Governor has his way it will make the system whole,
and if I remember correctly it was a total
of like $591,000,000.00 owed system-wide, and actually
if you add up I guess 356
and 235 you get close to that number.
>> 592.
>> 592.4, and now this will pay it out and the districts,
the individual districts can do
with it what they feel is appropriate.
Yes, Dan?
>> But can I just add to that?
>> Oh, sure.
>> I'm sorry.
I just want to enforce that this is a one-time dollar amount.
It's not [inaudible].
>> It's not annual based, it doesn't roll over,
it's just cash, and the idea behind it is
that so many districts were forced to borrow money, the tax
and revenue anticipation notes, the so-called TRANS,
and it made their operations incredibly difficult
because they couldn't make payroll, you know, they had --
they were constantly forced to borrow money, so this amount
of money is supposedly it goes back
to provide fiscal stability, cash flow fiscal stability.
Not accrual budgeting, but cash flow stability
so that you no longer have to pay.
And I'm going to talk about the RDA things in a second here.
I'll go to Dan first, though.
>> All right.
One of the things we've heard is that one of the reasons
that we have to keep a large reserve fund is
to cover these deferral payments while we have
to keep the school going from month to month,
and the state is not sending us the money that we're owed.
So we have to have that rainy day fund to pay
to keep the school going.
If all these deferrals were paid off does
that mean we could reduce the reserve fund?
>> Well, I don't want to speak for the administration
at this point because we're still talking,
while I certainly can't speak for the Board,
but I will say this by law there's a five, we are required
to maintain a reserve of 5% of whatever our general fund is,
so whatever that number is.
>> All right.
>> By practice, our Board of Trustees for at least the going
on 10 years I've been here and I think for a long time before
that always said $12 million is the number that we want to have
in our reserve, and then
in recent years we've maintained another what I would call
operating contingency of $5 or $6 million, so God forbid
if the earthquake comes or something happens
and we need more operating cash we've got that.
So in the last three years that I've been pretty much involved
with the budget we've maintained between 18 and $20 million,
$21 million on the bottom line.
Okay. Now, what happens as go forward with this money is for,
you know, the Board noticed to consider
as we go forward here based upon a recommend,
but certainly we have, you know, we can certainly weigh
in with whatever it is that we think is what we'd
like to weigh in with.
>> Okay. And one more question.
What's the status of our [inaudible]?
>> It's paid off.
It's all completely paid off.
And we did a tran -- one year transfers and I think we,
I won't say ever done, but certainly done in 15
or more years, as it turned out because we had to do be able
to do interfund borrowing, we didn't need it,
and that was cheap money though.
I think it ended up costing us just under or just
over $100,000.00 to have that $10 million available to us
because we didn't know what was going to happen
but when we did come up short one month
with another $5 million we took it out of Fund 64 OPEB
and we just paid it back to the county and we're good to go.
>> Bob, excuse me.
In the event that it's not likely, but it's frugally spent
and there's a balance can it roll
over to the next fiscal year?
>> Ask your question again.
Sorry.
>> In the event that it's all used up
and there's a balance can it be rolled
over to the next fiscal year?
>> Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, in fact all the money that's at the end of our --
at the end of every budget there God willing is money
that was unspent.
Depending on the year that money has been as low as maybe five
or six or seven million to as high as $13 million give
or take, some of us remember the infamous fund 41 days
when all the money was dumped into fund 41.
Remember that Dan?
>> I do.
>> Okay. And when Dr. Roach arrived and a couple
of others we became much more transparent
so now fund 41 is divided very clearly between equipment
and facilities -- of facilities I should say and then equipment,
I should say technology.
Technology and facilities.
And the balance in there is much lower,
so whatever excess funds we have is in that reserve fund.
It's not a pot of money that is dipped
into for various [inaudible] reasons which may
or may not have happened in the past.
I can't tell you.
I can just tell you what's happening now.
But yes, at the end of every fiscal year whatever is left is
rolled over to the following year, maybe distributed
into the different funds that we have like OPEB,
like workers' comp insurance, like whatever we've got.
>> I was just wondering is this particular one applied as well?
Okay.
>> Yeah. It's not -- if it was a grant and you had obligations
and you didn't spend because you weren't able
to get things done quickly enough then more
than likely you have to return those dollars,
but this is not a grant.
These are not grant dollars.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. So going to number eight on this, and then I want
to talk about number nine.
Eight is the Prop 39 energy efficiency dollars and those
of you you might recall that I think it was last year's ballot
or the year before Prop 39 for energy efficiency was passed
by the voters, PCCC's share this year is approximately
$877,000.00 and we're in the final throws
of the paper work necessary.
We're working with the [inaudible] Water
and Power Department to get our hands on matching funds from PWP
in order to take advantage of this.
One's going to be from Energy Management System,
what they call EMS and the other one is
for Cooing Power Replacement.
So what the Governor is proposing is
that he will fund it again next year to the tune of $39 million
and assuming we jump through the right hoops we could get our
hands on $741,000.00.
Now, this is the one that could cause us a little bit
of indigestion.
The redevelopment agencies, and some of you remember
from last year the Governor sunsetted, well the legislature,
the Governor and, is that a proposition?
What's Sunset at the RDAs?
I forget now.
Is it a proposition, was it the Governor or the legislature?
>> Legislature.
>> It's legislature.
Sunsetted redevelopment agencies about two,
maybe three years ago.
>> [Inaudible].
>> I'm sorry, and the Governor signed off on it.
And so what that basically said is that all the money
that was going to the cities for development now would go back
to the state to fund other obligations
that the state had including K-14,
K-12 plus community college is grades 13, 14.
Unfortunately, the collections tied to that
or the payments tied to that have been much less
than people predicted that they would be
because of cities being very cautious
about what they turn back to the state and basically whether it's
through legal action, lawsuits
or whether it's just ongoing work with the Department
of Finance saying this money is already obligated, this money,
you know, this money is not part of what you think it is,
and there's lots of arguments and discussion
over what goes back to whom.
It's been further complicated that every one of the counties
and the state it seems like, and there's over 100 counties
in the state, I forget the number, it's a large number.
They do their calculations and everything differently,
so it's very difficult for the Department of Finance to figure
out exactly what the baseline is and how
to compute it, so it's a real mess.
Now what that's resulted in is that the money
that the state presumed was going to be available for K
through 14 has not materialized anywhere near the amount
that was needed and therefore there's large chunks
of money owed districts, or owed the state and it's now part
of a complicated Prop 30 formula which we'll talk
about briefly in a second.
In 13-14 our budget was built upon the notion
because at the time that we built it we had a pretty strong
sense that they told us that that was going to happen,
that we were going to get $3.5 million give or take.
As it turns out to date we've only collected $700,000.00
of that $3.5.
And we don't know as of January 21 or 22,
whatever today's date is whether or not we're going
to get the balance, that $2.8 million or not this year.
It's -- we're going to get it eventually.
We just don't know if we're going
to get it this year or not.
Since we built it in as a piece of our budget,
the budget that has a healthy reserve I might add,
we will potentially come up $2.8 million short this year
on the 13-14 budget.
Now, how do we fill that $2.8?
We could use some of the $11.9, we could choose not to fill it
at all, which we wouldn't
because the budget would basically come up short,
but next year if we wanted to build the base back
up we could use some of the $11.9 for 14-15, but what I want
to point out to [Brack] today is that at least
as of today we're not sure if we're going to see more
than the $700,000.00 of the $3.5 that was budgeted, okay,
that at the time we put the budget together was a
reasonable expectation.
And that's just another example of the instability
of the whole RDA dissolution process,
resolving the [inaudible] dissolution process.
And I happen to sit because I'm the District's representative I
sit on the successor agencies of five different communities
in our district that have rebuilt agencies
and I can tell you from sitting on those --
at those meetings every one of them is arguing
with the Department of Finance in one form or another.
Arcadia is probably having the least amount of problem.
[Inaudible] has got big problems,
and several others, but it is what it is.
So that's our $2.8 million challenge at the moment.
And the last thing is this thing called apportionment
stabilization, and if you read that bullet which is sort
of towards the bottom part of page two, it's very,
very confusing as to what it means.
So Marie has been talking with the Chancellor's office
and at the end of the day based upon some complex calculations
of individual district apportionment there is some
stabilization dollars that will be, if the Governor has his way,
that will be made available to all the community colleges
to bring them in some form or fashion back
to stabilization vis-a-vis what their base was going back
to 2007, 2008, to contribute
to that more stable time if you will.
The problem is no one knows if that's going to be a dollar,
and I'll just put an outside number,
but it doesn't mean anything.
Or a million dollars to the past [inaudible].
It could be zero, it could be any number above that.
So at the moment I don't plug in any kind of figure
because I don't have any idea what
that number could be or would be.
It could be zero, it could be this.
But even if it -- so whatever it might be there's a stabilization
factor to trying to bring us all back
to where we were before the financial crisis hit.
That's kind of the goal.
The first goal that the Governor has is bring everybody back
to where they were and being to try to fund them
and provide a -- second goal provide additional money
that focuses on completion, student success, you know,
diversity, getting people done, and the third goal is
to grow the system towards that area.
Yes, Julie.
>> If it were a $100.00 per FTES what would
that mean for our college?
>> Well, receive at least $100.00 per --
so our credit FTS is just under $21,000.00, so it'd be whatever
that math is to a million I guess, whatever that math is.
Yeah. So that's -- but it's also it's not just
on a one-year basis, so it could be over a multiple year basis
as they try to get us back to where they were.
It's, yeah.
>> It's unclear right now.
>> It's very unclear.
As a lot of this has been in the last five years right?
It's just been very quick, but we do our best.
Yes, Dan.
>> Okay. Is this the one where we have like a two-year limit
to try to build our...
>> No, that's -- yeah.
Without getting into a long story, they are -- our FTDS --
our base was reduced in 2009-10 and again in 2011-12.
The state has since billed back our 09-10,
it was only like I think 500, 600, 700 FTS.
We've since been billed back to that.
Now the state is trying to build back of the 11-12 dates.
For us it was just under $1,800.00.
It was $1,700.00 and something FTS.
And just a reminder, each FTS is worth $4,600.00,
you know, roughly per FTS.
It's a big number.
In our case our base was
like 1780 is the number that's sticking
in my head, something like that.
What they said last year, actually last May, right,
last June when we were finishing 13-14 budget the plan
at that point was to make the districts whole,
18% per year times about, which is roughly five years,
and you'd have the opportunity to make back 11-12, 18% per year
over for those five years to get your 11-12 our $1,700.0 back.
So part of our goal this year as we have an FTS goal
for the total year, includes 410, 420 FTS and whatever
that number was in order to get that back
because they did say it's a use it or lose it kind of thing.
Each year you're going to get a chance to get 18% back,
but if you don't get your 18% back it's gone to you forever
and we're going to distribute that to districts
that are growing -- aren't able to use that base.
>> Okay. Given that and given the popularity of [inaudible]
into session is the administration considering any
possibility of reinstating [inaudible] session
to help build up our equity [inaudible]?
>> I don't want to speak for the administration
because I'm Bob Miller and I am what I am.
It's a discussion of the, you know,
at the negotiating table what have you,
but what the administration is doing,
what the faculty is doing, what everybody's doing,
we are building a schedule, spring, summer, fall,
whenever we offer courses and we are maximizing that, you know,
we're now going to a block scheduling model to be able
to accommodate students and get more students
into the classes they need to be in so they're not competing
with themselves and trying to get in.
We -- and that way we can use our facilities
and everything a little more efficiently.
We are starting the weekend college in significant ways,
so we're going to be basically going seven days a week,
and that I guess kicks off on February 8.
And the we've got a large online program
that we're going to kick off.
I think it's March 17.
So what we're doing is we are aggressively chasing every FTS
we can find.
However, the caveat to that, the absolute caveat
to that it's got to be efficient FTS.
It doesn't do us any good to chase FTS
that does not have our per section average up as high
as we can get it to 31, 32 students, however we get there
because if we launch a lot of classes that enroll 20 students,
for example, then that same class that costs us 20,
the same class of 20 costs x and if you could get it up to
where it should be at 30 or 35 you'd get
that many more students in there, but if we offer a bunch
of 20 section students because we don't close
because they're -- we don't close the lower end classes then
we're paying the same amount of money serving 20 students
versus serving 30 students.
So it's efficiency that's really important
from an economic point of view.
>> Who decides what classes are mounted?
>> Well, the schedule is built
by the enrollment management team
in relation with the [inaudible].
>> But is there a regression analysis?
It seems like we keep doing --
advanced statistical freshmen know what we need.
>> It's very data driven now.
>> Okay.
>> And when I say now, I mean like just now.
And we are now focusing on a data driven model
of enrollment management versus a distributed model
for enrollment management where every division got this
and you could do anything you want with it.
Now, it's driven by what students need for transfers,
for degrees, for certificates, including what it takes
to prepare students to get ready to be a transfer,
to get ready to get a degree.
>> But is...
>> So that means there's a certain amount of basic skills
or remediation in there as well.
>> ...but is there a way to add, you know --
in industry they call it just in time.
So like, if the classes fill, can we...
>> Yes.
>> ...put in -- and...
>> And we're doing it right now, Julie.
>> Okay.
>> If you went and you talked to [inaudible]...
>> It's not happening in psychology and I need it to...
>> Then you...
>> ...so who do I talk to?
>> ...you should talk to Dr. Arionno [assumed spelling] --
Dr. Price, first of all...
>> Okay.
>> ...and Dr. Arionno.
>> He's willing.
He's willing.
>> I know, definitely.
We -- because if you look at our data, you know, it's the same
without -- this is an overstatement, but it's not much
of a -- it's the same 25 to 35 to 45 classes
that students need to move on.
And guess what, psych is one of them.
Right? You know that.
>> And we can't give what we need.
>> We -- exactly.
>> Okay.
>> So, we've added a ton of additional sections.
The faculty hiring fair that we had which by the way,
hatched onto HR and to the deans and everybody else.
We had well over 300 people at the fair last Saturday.
But you know, we're looking for geographers and psychologists
and social -- I mean, the line was wrapped around the corner --
I'm being a little -- I'm overstating a little bit --
for the humanities and social sciences [inaudible].
You know, there's -- because we need English, we need psych,
we need soch, we need anthro, you know, we need --
you know, we need -- we need the basic math courses
and the algebras and all that kind of stuff.
So, and then we need languages.
I'm looking at Mary Ellen and --
and ESL because we need that to --
if it's ESL, we need that to get the students to the level
of being able to take these course.
So we need a certain number of that
and we need a certain amount of languages
because that also fulfills transfer requirements.
So it's -- it's -- it is about a balance, but then on top
of that balance, it's about putting as many
from a pedagogical perspective, as many students
as we possibly can at each -- into each class.
>> That is not a pedagogical perspective.
You're giving the mathematical perspective...
>> I agree.
>> ...the pedagogical perspective is there is a number
at which -- and the number
for psychology is approximately 32...
>> Okay.
>> ...after which point their success and failure is --
it's inversely proportional...
>> Right.
>> ...to the number of students in the classroom.
>> What I was -- what I was trying
to say is -- is I -- I agree.
There -- there is a balance.
There's a pedagogical balance and there's an economic balance.
And that's -- that's nirvana.
If we can -- if we can get there, that's where we should be
because at the end of the day it's about completion
and persistence and retention and moving people on...
>> But...
>> It's not about some...
>> ...arbitrarily choosing room size as the number
of appropriate seats is not [inaudible].
>> Agreed.
Okay, good.
So -- so, I got on that -- that little tangent on the basis
of the -- the ardea [assumed spelling] monies
and what's happening and budgets and the need for efficiency.
We -- you know, and also on the [inaudible] stabilization,
we're going to get to this money, but in order for us
to grow the college we wanted to grow it and in order for us
to buy the things we need and provide the benefits we want
to provide and everything else, we have to be as efficient
as we can however we get them.
And I guess that's my -- that's my bottom line message there.
So the last thing I want to point
out on this one page is the note down below.
And it says a significant portion
of these funds will require a district match or matches,
as well as aggressive and targeted enrollment management
to be a specific degree transfer
and certificate program completion requirements.
Further additional marketing funds will likely be needed.
So, everything except that last sentence,
we just spend 10 minutes talking about.
The last sentence really means that whether you're Glendale,
Mt. SAC, Citrus, Rio Hondo, East LA College
and whatever other college might be within 20 miles of us.
We're all fighting for the same student right now.
We're all competing for the same student.
Everybody is in the growth mode.
So, you will see -- you will see billboards.
You will see buses.
You will see -- you will hear --
anybody listen to KFI Radio in the morning?
You'll hear commercials because we are working hard.
Now, we have some metrics that we're going to --
that we're going to try to use to try to determine
if we're getting the return on that investment.
And at the end of the day, the metric is -- are we --
are we meeting our incredibly aggressive FDES goals or not?
Because to the extent that we don't meet it this year,
we have to borrow from next year in order to do that.
And we -- we want to -- we want to reduce that amount
of borrowing of FDES from one year to the next.
We -- and we -- last year was the first year we actually did
it in many, many years.
So it's about aggressive, appropriate,
professional marketing to get people here
because everybody else is doing the same thing.
Okay...
>> There's one thing on here that you did an inquiry
and I wanted to ask about it...
>> Oh, I'm sorry, yeah.
>> ...the innovative models of higher education.
>> Oh yeah, thank you.
The reason why I didn't speak to it is
because we don't know what that means yet.
>> Okay.
>> What it means is that they're going to provide $50 million,
but it's not necessarily tied to the 1.9% formulas.
What it is is it's -- now when you think of the things,
for example, one of the initiatives that we're working
on -- we have a first year experience program pathway.
Now, the faculty and other groups are beginning to talk
about the second and third year pathways.
That's innovation dollars.
So just as we've been able to apply for title five money
and be successful, I can imagine that we'll be all over that --
that $50 million once we know what the guidelines are for it.
And I'm pretty sure we'll be successful
because I'm very proud to say
that this college has been a few years ahead of the curve.
Student success taskforce,
our educational master plan was exactly what that turned
out to be in many respects.
So we're ahead of the curve a little bit, and so therefore,
we're very well positioned to apply
for student success dollars and equity plan dollars
and what might be these [inaudible] models
of higher education [inaudible].
I didn't include it because it's not an automatic number,
whereas the other stuff can be
if we provide the follow up and guidelines.
Okay? So that's a lot of words and I apologize.
So that's kind of, where we are right now.
And I'll just end this part of it by saying stay tuned.
This is round one; we are --
as a state, we are incredibly better off
than we have been in years.
One thing I will say -- I've got plenty of notes here
for the meeting of the day,
but the DOF is happy with the governor.
The governor is happy with the DOF -- Department of Finance,
the LAO and the DOS and the governor's office are happy,
but most importantly, the board of --
the chancellor of our system, [inaudible],
the Board of Governors is also in pretty strong agreement
with where the governors at right now,
where the DOF is right now or the LAO is [inaudible],
which means there's not going to be a lot of fighting this year,
which means that pretty much what's on the table
with some massaging, is probably going to happen
in one way or another.
So it's a -- everybody's billing this as -- as --
as an extremely good budget year.
Okay, benefits -- anything else on this topic?
More to come in future meetings.
>> Yeah, well, we...
>> Benefits committee updates.
>> ...okay, our benefits committee met last week
for the first time officially under this new group.
We have representatives --
we invited representatives from each organization.
Most of them showed up, made a good -- a good table.
We had a really good review from our broker on the ECA review
on -- just a brief overview of what the ECA is...
>> Affordable Care Act.
>> Affordable Care Act, sorry.
>> It's okay.
>> And you know, and some of the regulations, some of the impacts
that organizations might be having, but specifically impacts
of the individuals, things that we're going to have to look
out for, that kind of thing.
We reviewed briefly our current study to make sure
that we're going to be in compliance
and identify any issues that we need --
the PCC and the district need to be paying attention to.
And we basically met that --
we let everybody know that eventually it's going
to be a quarterly -- we're thinking of a quarterly meeting,
for right now because we're still getting our bearings
and I'm trying to understand everybody's needs.
We're going to meet on the third Thursday of each month
until we let everybody know it's going to change back
to quarterly and show -- otherwise we asked the group
to provide any topics.
And we'll move on from there.
>> Can you share with us either -- either you, Maggie or Joe,
what's happening with that audit what therefore, Keenan is doing
for us right now in terms of establishing baselines and the
like for the Affordability Care Act?
>> Okay, so what the --
the workforce study basically is looking
at every single individual the district has paid
that has employed over the last two years,
even if it's a student worker
that worked one hour, two years ago.
They're going to be included in that.
So we're looking at all wages paid,
all people that were paid those wages to see
who actually would qualify what our -- what the organizations --
what the district's risk might be and what we need
to pay attention to, as far as where we are in this spectrum
of need to change anything
or certainly are offering the qualified benefits that are --
that Affordable Care Act would require as minimum.
Right now, of course over the last two years,
we do meet the minimum for our full time people.
Our question though, that the study will help us answer,
what about those who are not full time?
Do we meet the minimum requirements for those folks?
It's a very large group of [inaudible] information
that we're looking at -- every wage paid, every person paid,
their job changes, all of these things.
So, analyzing data that big requires obviously a very
fine touch.
So we are -- we've begun this process,
we've sent in an initial -- this is our initial batch of data.
We got a response back that says, okay great,
we need tweaking on these pieces We need to fill in this bit
and so we're looking at within the next couple of months,
being able to get them some more finalized numbers,
possibly another update and then get a final report out.
>> And so the final report is going to tell us what, Joe?
>> It's going to -- the final report is going
to tell us whether or not we're meeting the minimum requirements
of the ACA.
And we believe that we are.
But it's more importantly going to highlight any risks
that we have associated with the ACA.
So, the ACA talks about the Cadillac...
>> Plan.
>> Cadillac fine?
>> The Cadillac tax, basically.
>> The Cadillac tax --
and so that plays a role in what the benefits committee will talk
about when it comes to renew the insurance programs
that we currently have.
Are we okay?
Is there any modification that needs to made?
What modification do we need to make?
If we're all good, let's just sign the contract
and move forward.
>> I was going to ask you for adjunct faculty --
are they considered only for the hours they're on campus
as working or you know, as part of the contract
for full time faculty it says,
"You're obligation is this many hours in the classroom,
but we know that to teach that many hours,
it requires this many hours of preparation."
>> And that's something that the report will tell us.
>> And actually, I think that the ACA offers comment on that.
And so we're looking at getting guidance from Keena
on exactly how to interpret that and apply a reasonable
and fair standard for that, but also the standard looking
to other colleges -- looking at other areas.
What's going to be applied in that sense?
>> [Inaudible].
>> And put that in context, particularly for Dr. Salvage
who might be new to this,
we have roughly 400 full time faculty, give or take --
380, something, I think the current number is.
We have another 70 or so managers.
We have roughly 350, give or take, issue CFT people.
We have another 80 or so CSA people.
When you add it all up, we have a full time complement
of just under 1,000 people.
Okay?
>> 2,000.
>> [Multiple speakers].
>> Yeah, about 800 people.
On top of that, we have adjunct faculty that could --
depending on the semester -- could be 800 to 1,200 people.
And then on top of that --
no, on top of -- that's what we have.
So any -- and then on top of that, we have college assistance
and we have student assistance.
So at any one time, we can have overage
of 3,000 people on the payroll.
At the moment, the 800 to 1,000 people have got benefits.
Part of this study is going to tell us --
what is our obligation under the Affordability Care Act
to the other people, to the adjunct faculty,
to the college assistants, the student workers in terms
of the number of hours they're working or what have you.
Then we as a college, need to make some decisions
about what we're going to be able to do
and we're not going to do.
That's -- we've all heard and seen or read the articles
and you see it on television --
some employers are basically saying, "You know what,
we're just going to give you a monthly stipend
and then you go do your own thing.
And they're taking insurance away from people that had it.
[Inaudible] part timers.
Others are trying to figure
out what is our additional obligation and liability now
as a result of the new federal legislation.
And so for the district, when this process is over
and it's a -- probably a two to three year process
by the time we finally finish it --
there very well may be an additional requirement,
a legal requirement for us to provide some level of benefits
to the employees other than the full time people
that we have now.
That's sort of the bottom line to all of this.
And this study is to help us get a bench, a baseline if you will,
of where we are at the time this study was done
and I think the data is based upon 1215
or spring of 13 or [inaudible].
>> The 1213 and -- well, we began with the 1112
and then 1314, the -- one of the latest comments was
that they also wanted information up to current
when we submit and that won't be a problem.
>> Yeah.
>> So we're officially at two years, but we're actually going
to be -- realistically be a little bit over that.
>> David, it's going to...
>> Is Anne Sherman here?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> But it really is going to answer a lot of questions
that we have about interpretation.
>> So the bottom line to all this is
that the benefits committee is engaged, is working,
got some good outside people under leadership of Maggie
and Joe inside where we're working our way through this
and we're not [inaudible].
>> Maggie's leadership.
>> Maggie's leadership, yeah.
>> Can I just quickly ask the academics senate --
they were supposed to have three reps on there
and either they're having trouble getting a third rep --
did they have a third rep on there yet?
>> I can share...
>> I don't remember.
>> ...I can share the list with you guys.
>> Yeah, okay.
>> We actually postponed.
We were supposed to meet in December
and cancelled the meeting because very few people...
>> Were able to get [inaudible].
>> Then we had -- but we had the January meeting last week.
>> We did.
And I don't remember.
>> I think we just [inaudible].
>> Just [inaudible].
So I think...
>> I thought we [inaudible]...
>> ...we're still short one?
>> ...but yeah.
>> And then I didn't know...
>> No, there's two, there was...
>> ... if the FA got their rep on [inaudible]...
>> [Inaudible].
>> I know they were --
had a position, but I don't know if we filled it.
So anyway, if you could just get me the list...
>> Sure.
>> ...that'd be great.
>> Yeah.
>> Great, thanks.
>> Okay, so let's -- I'm just --
I'm not going to go through this other than to say
that during the month I try
to pull together what I think is good,
interesting materials to share with you.
And one of these -- and I should of handed this
out during the budget discussion,
but I'll just do it right now.
You know, there is a entity called the School Services
of California, which is a nonprofit that's been
around for 30, 40, 50 years that is a great source of information
to higher education of --
K12 and higher education in the state.
So they provide daily community college updates.
And this particular one does a good job of explaining whether
or not prop 30 provides additional funds or not.
And the answer is prop 30 does not provide additional funds.
And it explains that pretty well on here.
What prop 30 does is it removes the liability from the state
of providing the funds that prop 30 now provides.
So prop 30 now is a increase to the sales tax
and then it's an increase on -- in state income tax,
I think on people who make over $250,000 a year
or couples or whatever it is.
Part of that sum sets in 2016 or -- and then the other --
16 or 17 and the other one is 17 or 18, I forget.
Anyway, the bottom line though is that if you go
down to those four bullets,
well in the first paragraph basically says,
the money is used to basically [inaudible]
which the states provide.
That's what the first paragraph speaks to.
And then the second paragraph speaks to what makes
up the money that goes to California Community Colleges.
And then you'll notice that what used to be enrollment fees,
state aid otherwise known as apportionment,
and local property taxes is now augmented
by a fourth [inaudible] category called Education Protection
Account Funds.
So that EPA money is now part --
is now a part of the money that goes to, in our case,
community college districts.
Thereby, relieving the state of providing that money
out of the general fund.
So it's not additional money, it's just money
that -- that is now added.
Now what it does do, and thank God it did,
it provides stabilization.
It avoids, we think a deferral going forward.
Now, there's a baseline now of monies the EPA provides
that basically says, because of the property tax --
because of that state income tax money and that sales tax money,
that I'm going to grab a number because I don't know what it is.
That $500 million that the state may or may not have been able
to give during the past several years,
don't worry about it anymore, it's now going to be there
because of the -- because of the taxpayers of the state,
because people voted for prop 30.
Now, it sunsets in 2016/17 or 17/18 and that's part
of the discussion right now.
That's okay -- well, when the EPA is gone, then what?
But for now, we've got stabilization for the
at least the next, I guess now four years I guess.
Yes?
>> So if could just check...
>> Sure.
>> ...my interpretation of that.
You're saying that this is written
from a schools perspective and so from the perspective
of people who budget for schools,
they're not being provided with additional money,
but the state is getting additional money.
>> The state is getting additional money...
>> The state budget [inaudible]...
>> ...thereby relieving them
of their responsibility to fund that piece.
So...
>> Right.
>> ...the [inaudible] measure said...
>> It is additional money.
>> ...it is additional money, but the state is not --
the state is not giving us the additional money on top
of what the state gave us.
The state is now removing from their obligation
to pay whatever the total prop 30 money is and make it --
so for example, if the pie is 100%
and the state had an obligation to pay 50% of that pie
and for the last five years, they were only able to pay 40%,
that 10% is what resulted in our [inaudible] mess
that we've been having.
>> Right.
>> Now with the EPA money, the state says, "Okay,
I can guarantee you through property taxes,
through state aid and soon enrollment fees and EPA --
I can guarantee our whole 50%."
And the law now requires that.
>> And your deferrals.
>> And your deferrals.
So the deferrals goes away.
No more deferrals because the EPA is going to take care
of that unless we fall
into another gigantic economic disaster,
and then it's no [inaudible].
But at least this provides the stabilization,
particularly to the K12's.
The K12 -- everybody, K12's and the community colleges,
you know, got massacred in the last several years.
Could be the K12's.
This EPA basically says, "Okay, that you'll be okay
for the next [inaudible] five years."
But this I thought was a pretty good definition.
It's not additional money, it's just staple money.
You know what I'm saying?
It's very hard to get your head wrapped around,
but that's kind of what it is.
Okay. Another real quick, this is --
from the CCLC, this is a good discussion
of what prop 98 increases meant to the system and what have you.
It's -- I think makes good reading.
[Inaudible].
There's a nice thing in here on the --
December 13, economic outlook, UCLA economic forecast,
but where we're going as a state.
And some of the things
that I highlighted I thought were interesting things
that kind of helped us understand
where the state's going.
Things are looking up, but again,
Jerry Brown's interpretation things are looking up is good,
this is our opportunity to deal with our rainy day needs and --
and you know, you've heard the expression, "Wall of Debt,"
and to pay down the wall of debt.
So between, you know, John Chang, our controller
and the governor [inaudible] trying to get that wall
of debt paid down with a lot of the additional monies that --
that are coming into the state right now.
And then there's a little thing form LA Times
about the big tax increase in December.
Again, that's primarily due to capital gains.
People having more money, making more money in the stock market.
Oh and then this was the last thing.
This is the SSC Community College financial projection
dark board.
Thank you [inaudible].
I appreciate that.
You're going a great job.
And what's interesting about the dark board is it basically
projects colas, which is helpful.
Statuary called [inaudible],
they're projecting what they would look like going forward.
So, as we talked about 1415, 28, 6 --
then they're looking at 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7.
That's what they're projecting.
And the same thing with the lottery money
and all the rest of it.
And then there's a lot of other information here
about what protected programs are and unprotected programs are
and it's just good -- it's a good -- it's a dark board.
It's just a good, basic piece of information
about how we do our thing.
>> The last few minutes [inaudible].
>> Got it.
Yes, thank you.
>> What is the CPI, something, something [inaudible]?
>> Consumer price index.
>> Consumer price.
>> Consumer price index.
>> Right. And if for us, by the way,
the CPI is the LA Long Beach area.
That's the one that we go --
Los Angeles, Long Beach CPI, for our locally.
I don't know if this CPI is probably based on a state wide,
but for our district, when we -- whenever we have to use CPI,
we benchmark to the LA -- and that's --
and that's because the cost to live here is higher
than living Yuma City or something, you know,
some place up north because the housing costs are cheaper
or whatever.
Okay, so the last thing is -- unfortunately the February 27th,
I have another [inaudible] obligation I've got to do.
So we need to reschedule the 27th.
So we can send around a meeting notice on that
or unless you guys want to have an idea right now.
We're send around a meeting notice on that.
And in three minutes we have the Center for the Arts opening.
So, anything else for the good of the group?
I'm sorry for all the words today, but I hope --
I was trying to give everybody a good sense of where we are.
Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Bye, bye.