The Governor’s May Revise looked promising – at first. However, after reading the fine print and figuring the numbers, reality quickly snapped back into place.
After the May Revise, 2003/2004 budget reductions totaled $2,744,376 – down from $3,017,559 on April 30. It is important to recognize that the 2003-2004 Tentative Budget is built upon Budget Reduction Plan I and Plan II. Based on the loss of growth funds for 2001-2002, the SB18X mid-year reductions and the Governor’s Proposed State Budget for 2003-2004, the Tentative Budget is projected at $4 million less.
Here’s the latest breakdown: (important – all figures are subject to change)
· One of the few positive things about the May Revise was the funding for DSPS and EOPS. Cuts to those programs have been reduced from 43% to 1.2%. However, this was done by deeper cuts in other areas (more on that below).
· Partnership
for Excellence (PFE) funds will be cut by
50%, or $1,099,414. Because the PFE dollars are part of all employees’
salaries and fund full-time faculty positions, it is not possible to reduce PFE
by 50%. Reductions have to be made across programs and operations; including
classified staffing, and hourly student support. PFE is being cut so much
because it is not a categorical program in the same way as EOPS or DSPS.
· Funds
for Instructional Equipment and Scheduled
Maintenance will be reduced by 64.8%.
· Matriculation will be reduced by 11.1%
· Across
the board reductions of 10.82% will be made for Basic Skills, CalWORKS,
Faculty/Staff Diversity, P/T Faculty Pro Rata, TTIP and Transfer Ed/Artic.
All of the Cuesta Budget Reductions total $2,874,924. It should be noted that this exceeds the required reductions of $2,744,326 by $130,598. However, unfunded costs are projected for 2003/2004. These reductions will come in conjunction with available growth funds of $644,268, for total available funds of $3,519,192 to meet budget reductions and new costs for 2003/2004.
The above list highlights what reductions the District is facing. The District is making every effort to cut costs and protect employee positions, but the following actions may have to be made for the 2003/2004 tentative budget:
·
All permanent faculty
have been retained, but there will be at least six vacant faculty positions
resulting from new and previous unfilled vacancies.
·
The 2002-2003 permanent
faculty vacancies include a PE/Wrestling Coach, PE/Baseball Coach, Business
instructor, and Physics and Astronomy instructor. The Physics/Astronomy position is near completion. The
2003-2004 vacancies include Chemistry, History, ECE/Human Development,
Art/Painting, Music/Vocal & Musical Theatre along with the vacancies from
2002-2003.
· As of May 16, it appears the College can also hire the Chemistry and PE/Baseball replacement faculty positions. In other words, 96% of the 2002-2003 full-time faculty positions are projected to remain in 2003-2004.
· Approximately 94% of the classified positions have been retained, but there will be between four and six permanent (50% or greater) classified staff laid off, depending on whether certain federal contracts are renewed. Reductions of two weeks to two months for 30 classified employees will be made, and seven classified positions will be left vacant.
· Four managerial/administrative/supervisory/confidential positions will be eliminated: Director of Workforce Development Projects, Supervisor of Workforce Development Projects, Director of Cooperative Work Experience, and if the federal contract is not renewed, Director of Small Business Development.
· Two administrative positions will be left vacant: Director of Public Information and Marketing and Dean of PE/Athletics and Community and Non-Credit Programs. Seven positions in this category have been reduced by two to four or more weeks for 2003-2004.
All of these reductions, eliminations, and vacancies will seriously affect the quantity and quality of services to students and the community. Addressing staffing levels for faculty, classified, and administrative/ managerial/supervisory/confidential positions will be a very high priority if the budget does not have to be cut as much as is currently planned.
Other cost-cutting measures include delaying the start-up or expansion of high cost programs. Low-cost programs, such as viticulture and hospitality, will continue to be implemented through part-time instruction, and grant or private support.
The District has been hit with additional costs. Here’s a breakdown:
· New
Costs: PERS increase from 2.587% to
10.42% ($750,401); State Unemployment Insurance increasing from .12% to .30% ($54,337); New
salary schedules may be implemented
($494,091); and Worker’s Compensation increasing from 1.71% to 1.74% ($9,083) – a
total cost increase of $1,307,912
This figure is added to the Governor’s May Revise Reductions of $2,744,376, for a total of $4,052,288.
In summary, here is what the District is facing (as of May Revise – subject to change):
A. Total Reduction/Savings $2,874,924
Available Growth Funds $ 644,268
Total
Available Funds $3,519,192
Governor’s
May Revise Reductions $2,744,376
New
Costs $1,307,912
Total
Needed $4,052,288
Total Available Funds $3,519,192
Total
Needed $4,052,288
Shortfall $ 533,096
Again,
all of these numbers are tentative
– nothing has been finalized. Another factor is something called The
“Fair Share” Alternative Budget Reduction Plan, which assumes
community colleges would get 10.4% of the Prop 98 funds, so Cuesta College
would get an increase in its apportionment. This would significantly reduce
many of the reductions.
For
the latest information on the budget, contact the
Superintendent/President’s Office at
ext. 3118 or the Vice President of Administrative Services Office at ext. 3120.