Glendale Community College District

McCallum Group Overview What we do Budget Legislation Issues for 2011 & Beyond

2010 Goals Protected Base Funding Provided Augmentation and Low Fees Foundation for Post SB-361Funding Model and Refocus Student Success Discussion Guaranteed Transfer Path Create Single Assessment Tool

2010 Success Of the 5 major goals, McCallum Group accomplished 3 and passed legislation setting the foundation for discussions on the other 2. Despite a $19 billion state budget, Glendale received a $2.8 million augmentation in the recent Budget Act.

MGIMGI McCallum Group is Glendale’s eyes, ears and voice in Sacramento. We spend hours developing and implementing budget and legislative strategy for Glendale.  We build a coalition that includes the Chancellor’s Office, the League, faculty groups and other districts.  Every two-year session there are about 5,000 bills introduced as well as hundreds of regulatory changes proposed and a number of competing budget proposals. We monitor every proposed change and analyze its impact on Glendale.

MGI - Overview Protected base funding – defeated proposed base cut to PE and enrichment offerings ($2 million to Glendale CCD) Successful in growth augmentation ($1.6 million to Glendale CCD) Successful in categorical augmentation ($804,000 to Glendale CCD) Defeated proposed $40/unit fee increase

4 ItemDemocratsGovernorFinalGlendale CCD Enrollment Growth$126 million $1.68 million Categorical Funds$60 million*No augmentation$80 million**$1.07 million Negative COLANo negative COLA-$23 millionNo negative COLA$308,000 FeesNo increase MandateN/A $9.5 million$127,300 DeferralNo Deferral $189 million$2.5 million *$35 million to backfill ARRA funds and $25 million in Economic Development ** Backfill of ARRA funds, Economic Development, and additional $20 million in CTE

* Included Basic Skills and Financial Aid Language Defeated by McCallum Group Final budget deal provides: Funding for additional 26,000 FTES or 60,000 students Funding for additional 800 students at Glendale BUT, leaves $12 billion budget gap for $5-6 billion from Proposition 98

LAO and DOF estimate $10-12 billion budget gap for $5-6 billion of that gap attributable to Proposition 98 Issue of fees, categorical flexibility and funding Issue of PE and enrichment courses Retirement/Pension issues – what type of reform? November Ballot: Majority-vote budget, Governor – who is benefited by a drawn out budget solution?

MGI - Overview SB 1440 (Padilla) – Guaranteed transfer to CSU SB 1143 (Liu) – Student success task force – foundation for post- SB 361 funding model - Refocused student success discussion from performance- based to a value-added discussion AB 2682 (Block) – Single Assessment tool (Vetoed by Governor, but Chancellor’s Office continues implementation)

Amended AB 635 (Del La Torre) – Alternative contracting for roof projects that would have added approximately $5,000 in additional costs per project. AB 2523 (Eng) – Amended out provisions that would have discontinued partial electrical training programs. Vetoed/Stopped AB 827 (De La Torre) – Would have limited contract provisions of local executives. AB 194 (Torrico) – Would have limited creditable compensation to 125% of the Governor’s salary. SB 1425 (Simitian) – Would have limited final compensation for PERS and STRS retirees.

Signed AB 2297 (Brownley) – Nonresident tuition AB 2385 (Perez) – Accelerated Nursing Pilot Project Vetoed AB 1413 (Fuentes) – Dream Act (without competitive grants) AB 2682 (Block) – Single Assessment SB 1460 (Cedillo) – Dream Act

Issues will be driven by Colleges, New Legislators and new Governor. Carol Liu likely Chair of Education or Education Budget Budget: At least 3 tough years maybe only growth High School Graduates Post-SB 361 discussions Fees/Financial aid Legislative: Student Success Accountability/Statewide Goals Technology/Efficiency Facilities/Procurement Dream Act