OHLONE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Video Conference Room / Fremont Campus
43600 Mission Boulevard, Fremont, CA 94539
Minutes of College Council
January 21, 2005 ADOPTED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Keller Doug Treadway
Kathleen Johnson Patrick Lane
Connie Teshara Richard Grotegut
Wayne Takakuwa Tom Holcomb
Elizabeth Silva Linda Evers
Ban-Jin Tan Susan Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Saad Siddiqui
Additional staff rep needed
Additional student rep needed
· Elizabeth Silva noted the omission of a comment during the reorganization discussion regarding the Student Technology Center and where it might fall in this plan.
· Richard Grotegut asked that the minutes be updated to reflect the fact that IS is “busy and will get to the campus-wide calendar” during Spring break.
Moved/Silva; Seconded/Lane; Passed
to approve the January 13, 2005 minutes, as amended.
· Review of Governor's 05-06 state budget proposal as related to community colleges.
· Joanne provided a review of funds and how they are structured.
· Summary of governor's budget (document distributed and will be posted on the CC website)
· Joanne presentation of general funds / Fund 10 – (document distributed and will be posted on the CC website)
· Proposed 2005/2006 Budget Planning Calendar/Activities distributed and reviewed.
Walston discussed how to deal with identifying capital needs. They attempt to include some capital money
in Fund 10 budget, but very little (computers, equipment, etc.). Have not had process in past years that was
global, to consider campus-wide needs.
Perhaps ad hoc group could be formed to address this issue.
o Treadway commented that bargaining units often see COLA as an entitlement.
o Keller asked for a clarification of terms, for the benefit of those new to the process
o Lane asked for clarification of proposed automatic mid-year cut. Joanne replied that all state funded programs could experience automatic cut.
o Keller: So much of budgeting is based on assumptions.
o Joanne Schultz mentioned that there is a general misconception that there is money "now". Budget is actually a guideline for expenditures, but money is not there yet. Budget will have to be modified when actual funds are received.
o Keller: Feb/05 - preliminary budget worksheets? Generally VPs & budget managers review, evaluate, and modify.
o Keller: How do task forces & budget managers interact/overlap? Strategic approach. How will task forces think more globally, beyond initial seed money? What will task force role be? Per Joanne, in each task force, one of the co-chairs is a budget manager. Budget manager in each task force should build budget for assimilation.
o Treadway: Conceptually, he sees College Council role at macro, not micro level. Look at salaries, programs and consider 5-year plan. Matrix to show current funding and how we will grow the budget. Where are the gaps and what are our capacities? Council to look at strategic planning and larger issues.
o Grotegut: Is it possible to get a dollar amount for pie charts shown today? Any comparison data available (from previous years)?
o Joanne will distribute a packet to reflect dollar amounts for expenditures.
o $41M is the "whole pie".
o Lane: Council may operate at higher level, but suggests that budget managers invite increased participation from staff for input re: cost savings and efficiencies.
o Wright: Very little budget variance from one year to the next. Rolls over to the next year. What % of the budget is being applied to each of the college goals? Council should not get involved at detail level.
o Treadway: Small group (2-3 people) to help transition / budget managers’ incentive to develop their own entrepreneurial avenues for discretionary funds. Council to help shape and structure
o Council role regarding budget = strategic plan (1) and budget advisory (2)
for Budget advisory include:
Student? (contact Saad for recommendation)
· Treadway introduction to the topic: statement of concept and assumptions:
o This campus is not our growth campus. Major growth in Newark. Limits to growth: hill slope, traffic, etc. High quality, transfer campus - asset generator, sitting on million dollar property. Need more vocational programming (Newark). Because of the Bond, cannot do private development at NWK for 25 years.
o Fremont campus needs to be more accessible. Parking is about mobility and access (disabled, older students).
o Expansion = vertical expansion. Being receptive to a 4-year college partnership (one or more). Facilities to accommodate university partnerships.
o Board has not internalized the fact that we are State assisted, not State supported.
o We are in different era; need the money this surplus land can generate.
o In general, 66-year lease/income
· Retail value is ~$2M/acre. 10 acres would be $20M sale or $2M/year lease income.
· Housing = potential value ranges from $1.5-$4M (leasing)
· Higher return for residential than retail. Board scenario now is asking them to consider suprlussing all areas "in pink" on Master Plan and let private developers tell us how to make the best use in lease terms.
· If all areas highlighted were leased, the income potential approaches 10% of our annual budget.
o Wayne: Consider what other community colleges have done. Reports/studies available? Benefit from others' experience. Risk vs benefit.
o San Jose/Evergreen & West Valley/Mission - Deanna says we have attorney experienced in asset development.
o Jim Wright: calling for 10-year timeline. Delays have consequences for income stream. Cost of delay is $200K/month.
· TBP/Eichelberger presentation (document distributed).
· Discussion of the process for the sale and/or lease of surplus real property.
· Treadway: summarize into a 1-2 page risk/benefit analysis. Assumption that revenue will have to be taken to build new parking/upgrade athletic fields. Asset funds would go towards capital improvements (not salaries). Outcome, could be new budget with several sources of funding.
· Gary Frye (tBP summary):
o 34 acres available for surplus
o Creation of perimeter road to separate development from parking/athletic fields.
o Consolidation of athletic fields
o Relocation of Facilities building
o Revisioned parking / higher
o Identifying future building sites
o Phases reviewed, in addition to comments regarding overlap with Newark activity.
o Baseball field relocation and two new parking lots so all other projects can advance at will.
o No diminished parking capacity at any time.
o College will have maximum control in relationship with developers to ensure compatibility. We will only accept proposals that have been brought to the Council & Board.
o Perimeter road constraints? Site safety: road has to be a certain number of feet wide. Want to ensure it's not a speedway.
o Wayne: any concern with parking under power lines? No. Parking is most appropriate use of that space.
1) Moved/Lane; Seconded/Evers; Passed unanimously to recommend approval of master plan concept as presented by TBP, including athletic fields and proposed parking. Athletic fields, parking. All in favor
2) Moved/Grotegut; Seconded/Lane; Passed unanimously to recommend surplus of Fremont campus frontage and additional property as presented by TBP, and proceed with requests for proposals (RFPs).
· January 28 (10:00 a.m.– 11:30 / Video Conference Room)
o Re-organization revisited
o Task Force Budget requests
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.