Linking Community College Funding With State Policy Objectives
In a presentation to the Assembly Higher Education Committee and Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education at Pasadena City College last week, the Legislative Analyst�s Office (LAO) commented on the state’s policy objectives for California community colleges.The LAO observes that there are many objectives, but no clear priorities. Education Code Section 66010.4(a) lists two primary missions, three essential and important functions, and other authorized and permitted functions.
The Education Code describes community colleges as “postsecondary schools” that are part of the public system of this state, and expresses the Legislature’s intent that community colleges and other higher education segments undertake intersegmental collaboration and coordination. At the same time, local districts (through their governing boards) are empowered to adopt policies and programs that align with local needs so long as they do not conflict with state law or the larger mission of the community college system.
The LAO, in its testimony before the committee, offered the following options for promoting state objectives through community college finance:
Annually Appropriate Funding Consistent with State Objectives
� The amount of funding appropriated for community colleges should be consistent with the cost of meeting stated objectives.
� The statutory requirement that community colleges receive 11% of Proposition 98 funding does not have an obvious link to community college�s funding needs.
� Fees play an important role in community college funding and demand management. Since the Legislature sets fee levels, a clear, rational, and predictable fee policy should be adopted.
Align Degree of Local Discretion with State Objectives
� If the state wishes for local community colleges to have greater discretion in directing funding (within state-prescribed parameters), it could ease some funding restrictions, such as categorical appropriations or full-time faculty requirements.
� If the state wishes to have more control over the outcomes in local districts, it may wish to narrow the range of activities eligible for state funding. This was done in a small way with Chapter 786, Statutes of 2003 (SB 338, Scott), which placed new restrictions on concurrent enrollment eligible apportionment funding.
Clarify State Priorities and Offer Incentives for Higher-Priority Courses
� The overall mission of the community colleges historically is quite broad, in part reflecting differing needs of different regions of the state. At the same time, resource limitations make it difficult to fully fund all of the courses and educational services that students might seek in an open enrollment environment.
� While permitting districts flexibility in local course offerings and other allocation choices, the state could create fiscal incentives to encourage serving the state�s highest priorities.
o For example, a higher per-student funding rate could be provided for higher-priority courses and a lower rate for lower-priority courses.
� As an alternative, differential funding could provide higher rates for higher-cost courses, thus eliminating existing disincentives to provide such courses.
� Districts should be accountable for using resources in a way that achieves specified outcomes.
It is the intent of the two legislative committees to consider the options suggested by the LAO and make recommendations to their respective budget committees during the debate over community college funding in the 2005-06 State Budget.
An Assessment of Differential Funding by the Legislative Analyst�s Office
In the latter half of 2003, the Assembly Higher Education Committee held a series of hearings on higher education finance. The primary objective of these hearings was to identify potential reforms to the state�s existing finance practices. Differential funding�providing separate funding rates for distinct categories of students�was among the reform options selected for further study. As a result, the Legislative Analyst�s Office (LAO) was requested to examine differential funding.
The LAO�s report points out that California uses one of the least differentiated funding systems in the country. California currently distinguishes among enrollments based only upon (1) whether the student is in a credit or noncredit course and (2) which higher education segment the student attends. These factors yield four distinct per-student funding rates. Based on 2003-04 funding rates, the following is the differential funding by segment:
Noncredit
California Community Colleges $2,114 (per student)
Credit
California Community Colleges $4,056 (statewide average)
California State University (CSU) $6,594
University of California (UC) $9,030
As detailed above, among credit courses, the state provides a different per-student funding rate for each of the three public higher education segments. The state provides the highest funding rate for students at UC, a lower rate at CSU, and the lowest rate at community colleges. In addition to these current distinctions, California could distinguish among enrollments based upon many other factors. The most common factors states use to further differentiate among enrollments are: educational level, academic program, and instructional delivery.
According to the LAO, states have many differential funding options, and funding systems range from those with little differentiation, like California, to those with substantial differentiation, like Texas. For California, as for all states, the salient policy question is not whether to adopt differential funding, but rather how extensively to differentiate funding. This involves weighing the advantages and disadvantages of more differentiated funding systems and striking an appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility.
The most common reason states adopt more differentiated funding systems is to account more accurately for specific differences in education costs (such as those relating to faculty compensation and workload, class size, and the use of instructional technology, equipment, and facilities). As long as the funding system is not overly complex or rigid, instituting a more differentiated system can increase transparency, strengthen accountability, and ensure comparable funding for comparable services.
Although more differentiated funding systems can yield some benefits, they also have potential drawbacks. Depending upon how they are designed, some differential funding systems may create more complexity without improving the budget process. In particular, too many enrollment categories can result in too little local flexibility and too much administrative burden.
Conclusion
The LAO�s report points out that differential funding obviously is only one of many reform options the Legislature might implement for higher education. However, before implementing some version of differential funding and eliciting detailed expenditure data from each of the segments, the LAO recommends the Legislature consider all the factors pointed out in their report. The LAO thinks that differential funding does have the potential to increase transparency and strengthen accountability, but it also has potential drawbacks that the Legislature would want to consider when devising any new funding system.
Governor Signs 2004 Retirement Legislation Into Law
Governor Schwarzenegger has signed into law numerous retirement bills. These bills will become effective on January 1, 2005. The majority of these bills do not actually increase benefits for members of the State Teachers� Retirement System (STRS) or the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS); rather, they are largely technical corrections or clarifications to existing retirement law.
The following bills were signed by the Governor:
� SB 102 (Burton, D-San Francisco) Unused Sick Leave Credit. Under existing law, retirement benefits under the Defined Benefit Program of the STRS plan are based on the member�s final compensation and years of credited service. SB 102 would include credit for up to two-tenths of one year of unused sick leave in the calculation of credited service in order for a member to reach certain years of service thresholds to obtain the highest compensation and career/longevity bonuses.
� SB 1603 (Senate Public Employment & Retirement Committee) PERS Housekeeping Bill. Among many other provisions, this bill clarifies that a charter school that elects to participate in PERS would be treated as a school within a school district, and thus subject to PERS law pertaining to the entire school district.
� AB 1586 (Assembly Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security Committee) Part-time Community College Faculty. This bill authorizes STRS to recalculate the retirement benefits of part-time and adult education community college instructors who retired before January 1, 1996, in order to correct an inequity in retirement benefits that affects this group of retirees.
� AB 1852 (Mullin D-South San Francisco) STRS Benefits and �Golden Handshake.� Eliminates the minimum age requirement for a STRS member who elects to receive a partial lump sum payment in return for an actuarial reduction in his or her monthly benefit. The bill imposes on K-12 schools, county offices of education, and community college members of STRS who receive a �Golden Handshake� retirement incentive a one-year prohibition on reemployment with the same employer. However, the retiree may go to work for another public education employer immediately, and earn up to the $25,740 annual earnings limitation without penalty.
� AB 2233 (Assembly Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security Committee) STRS Retirement. This bill is STRS� annual �housekeeping� bill that makes technical, nonsubstantive changes to STRS law. Among other provisions, it clarifies that domestic partners have the same rights as spouses under STRS and clarifies the authority of the Teachers� Retirement Board to set the employer contribution rate as a plan amendment. The bill also eliminates the requirement that two witness signatures are required for a beneficiary designation.
� AB 2554 (Pavley, D-Santa Monica) STRS Post-Retirement Earnings Limitation. Existing law exempts from the earnings limitation, until January 1, 2008, service performed in an emergency situation in certain vacant administrative positions for up to one-half of the full-time equivalent for the position, if certain conditions are met. This bill would limit the period of that exemption to not more than two years after the date the retired member is appointed or assigned to that position. Existing law also exempts from the earnings limitation, until July 1, 2005, any of a list of specified types of service performed by members who retired from service on or before January 1, 2000. This bill would extend that exemption until January 1, 2008, would expand it to apply to service performed by members who retired for service on or before January 1, 2004, and would expand the list of types of service subject to the exemption to include instruction and services provided to pupils in special education programs and English Language Learner programs.
� AB 3076 (Mullins, D-South San Francisco) Part-time Community College Faculty: This bill excludes part-time community college faculty from mandatory membership in STRS as long as they are classified as temporary employees. In the past, temporary faculty who may have worked full-time on a short-term temporary basis could have been forced into the STRS Defined Benefit Program.
Legislation to Restore Teleconnect Funding Signed by the Governor
Governor Schwarzenegger has signed legislation that reauthorizes the California Teleconnect Program by extending the requirement for the State Public Utilities Commission to provide affordable telephone rates in high cost areas and appropriating $18 million to provide discounted rates up to 50% to qualifying schools and other entities.
As discussed in an earlier Update article (see �California Teleconnect Funding for 2004 05 May Yet Survive�But Its Fate Is in the Governor�s Hands� on our Update website), local educational agencies were dealt a major blow when the final State Budget did not include funding for the program. However, toward the end of August, the Legislature and education groups rallied behind SB 1276 (Bowen, D-Marina del Rey) which was amended to include $18 million to support discounted rates to qualifying schools, libraries, and other community organizations.
In clear response to advocacy efforts, the Governor�s press statement reflected that, without the bill, rates for rural telephone customers would increase dramatically and phone service would �clearly become unaffordable in these areas and break California�s long tradition of providing universally available telephone service. Absent SB 1276, phone service could disappear in some high cost areas.� The Governor also commented that the funding contained in the bill could be used to �subsidize the cost of basic phone service and help bridge the �digital divide� by making new technology, such as DSL and broadband service, more affordable.�
The Governor�s signature on this bill will certainly alleviate the concerns voiced by school agencies faced with diminishing resources. The Governor should be commended for reinstating the funds.
Concurrent Enrollment Policies�Are They In the Best Interest of Students?
Policymakers and educators seek options for helping high school students transition successfully into postsecondary education. Though there are a variety of approaches to doing this, some initiatives are based on a body of research demonstrating that postsecondary success is predicated on both rigorous academic preparation and a clear understanding of the expectations in college. Concurrent enrollment programs allow high school students to enroll in college courses and earn college and high school credit simultaneously, thereby exposing them to the academic and social demands of postsecondary education.
In recent years, the policy of allowing high school students to concurrently enroll in community college classes has come under review. Senate Bill 338 (Chapter 786/2003) became law January 1, 2004, and is intended to reform policies related to concurrently enrolled students in community colleges. Specifically, the legislation restricts the ability of community colleges to concurrently enroll high school students in physical education-related classes. Also, legislation was introduced in 2004�SB 905 (Chesbro, D-Arcata)�that would have removed some restrictions on the number of high school students that could be enrolled during the summer session at community colleges. This legislation was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The Governor�s veto message indicated that he was returning SB 905 without his signature because it eliminated a number of important reforms to concurrent enrollment practices implemented last year. Further, the California Performance Review (CPR) has raised significant issues concerning concurrent enrollment. Until the CPR has completed its review, the Governor believes that SB 905 is premature.
A recent report by the Community College Research Center, housed at the Institute on Education and the Economy at Teachers College, Columbia University, outlines findings and recommendations for credit-based concurrent enrollment programs. The report points out that, while most policymakers and educators hope to expand the availability of credit-based transition programs at community colleges for a broader range of high school students, few states have legislation that supports outreach to low-and middle-achieving students. While California may be an exception to some dual enrollment policies, recent legislative actions appear to be inhibiting the spread of dual enrollment programs.
The Community College Research Center�s report identifies ten features by which dual enrollment programs can vary from state to state, including admission requirements, program structure, course content, funding, and whether state policies mandate their existence. The report also finds that the state policies to guide concurrent enrollment programs differ widely. Twelve states do not have any legislation addressing concurrent enrollment at all, while the remaining states do not address all ten features. Where policies exist, states often focus on ensuring that dual enrollment programs preserve the standards of college education, and on protecting their financial investment. These priorities, combined with a lack of legislation in many states, can conflict with the goal of making dual enrollment programs accessible to a broader range of students.
In examining the implications of state policy for programs and students, the report also finds that limited state policies and regulations leave program decisions up to the institutions, thus creating uneven program structures across the states. The study makes the following recommendations for policymakers and program regulators:
� Identify funding mechanisms that meet the needs of all stakeholders. State funds earmarked for concurrent enrollment can be unstable in economic downturns. Instead, high schools and colleges should consider sharing the burden of funding dual enrollment programs since they also share the burden of educating these students.
� Identify the needs of students beyond academic course taking. Developing comprehensive concurrent enrollment programs often requires more resources than single programs, and limited funding may prevent programs from providing services�such as counseling�that can be very beneficial for students.
� Clarify program goals so that the policies and regulations support the stated goals of the program. Policies should be developed to support program goals that encourage participation by a wider range of students. If schools lose funding or are forced to pay for students� tuition, they are unlikely to publicize dual enrollment programs or may limit student participation to those who are most academically able.
� Balance the needs of academically oriented students with the needs of technically oriented students. Concurrent enrollment programs should provide career-related and technical opportunities that offer credit for both technical and academic courses, thus encouraging participation from a broader range of students.
A complete copy of this �State Dual Enrollment Policies� report is available for downloading at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/ccrc/.
The California Performance Review Awaits Action
The California Performance Review commissioners held seven hearings throughout the state during the months of August and September. The purpose of each hearing was to allow for public comment and testimony regarding the 2,500-page California Performance Review (CPR) report. Each of the hearings focused on a particular topic. The commission�s recommendations regarding education, training, and volunteerism were discussed on September 9, 2004, in Los Angeles.
Based on the comments and testimony shared during the hearings, the commissioners are reviewing the more than 1,200 recommendations offered in the CPR. The next step in the CPR process is for the commissioners to identify which recommendations to suggest the Governor pursue, retool, or eliminate. While some of the CPR proposals may be implemented based on executive order, most require legislative and/or voter action. For example, one of the report�s recommendations is to restructure the community college Chancellor�s Office and Board of Governors. Such a change would necessitate a constitutional amendment, requiring either a voter-approved initiative or a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Other recommendations, such as eliminating unnecessary reports�required in the Education Code�and changing the kindergarten enrollment cut-off date would require legislative action.
When the Legislature reconvenes in January, it will have the Governor�s Budget to consider in addition to his ideas on the CPR. However, what remains to be seen is which of the CPR recommendations the Governor will adopt and present to the Legislature. Although the CPR commission was appointed by the Governor, the commission has operated under its own guidance. Hence, as some have pointed out, there have been some conflicts between the CPR recommendations and other actions pursued by the Governor. One of the best examples of this conflict is the Governor�s settlement of the Williams lawsuit and its provision to assign an important role to the county offices of education (COE) to conduct site visits to assess the adequacy of facilities and textbook at school sites. This provision stands in opposition to a recommendation of the CPR to eliminate the COEs and establish regional entities in their place.
We will have to wait until the Governor releases his proposals for governmental reform to see how this and many other conflicts are resolved. What is known for certain is that, in the end, far fewer than 1,200 recommendations will be adopted by the Governor and the Legislature.
2003-04 Fourth Quarter Lottery Apportionment�A Bit of a Surprise
In a year that started a little slow for Lottery sales, momentum built in the second quarter, carried all the way through to the fourth quarter, and made 2003-04 the best year for payments to education since 2000-01. Total Lottery revenues apportioned for the year were approximately $1.09 billion, with total distributions per ADA/FTES of approximately $132, slightly more than a dollar over what was projected at the close of the 2003-04 fiscal year.
The State Controller�s Office estimated the fourth quarter apportionment to be $14.19 per ADA/FTES in unrestricted funding and $15.06 per ADA/FTES for Proposition 20. This is an increase over the fourth quarter of 2002-03 of approximately $0.57 per ADA/FTES in unrestricted funding and $2.55 per ADA/FTES in Proposition 20 funding. The total apportionment for the year will be approximately $132.21 per ADA/FTES, distributed as $114.94 per ADA/FTES unrestricted and $17.27 per ADA/FTES for Proposition 20. However, this amount is subject to revision and adjustment after the final determination of 2003-04 annual ADA/FTES and other prior-year adjustments, with those adjustments to be reflected in the first quarterly payment for 2004-05, which will be made in January 2005.
As we move forward through 2004-05, the fiscal picture is looking brighter than it has for a few years. Nevertheless, uncertainty still abounds regarding how the state will address its structural deficit over the next two years and what pressure that will put on educational funding. So, while current projections from the Lottery peg sales as flat, hopefully the strong finish for 2003-04 carries over to 2004-05 and translates to higher distributions to education. But for now, it is wait and see.
Secretary of State Approves Part-Time Legislature Initiative for Circulation
An initiative to impose a part-time calendar on the currently full-time Legislature has been cleared for circulation by the Office of the Secretary of State. The initiative, sponsored by the same person who started the Gray Davis recall initiative (Ted Costa), would limit the Legislature to no more than 90 days of regular meetings in every two-year session (with an additional 15 days available for reconsideration of gubernatorial vetoes), and would further limit those meetings to between January and June 30. The initiative would also limit per diem expenses to actual days of session.
To qualify for the ballot, Costa needs to collect 598,105 valid signatures of voters by March 7, 2005.
You will be hearing a lot more about this initiative in the months to come�with all ears straining to hear how the �Governator� weighs in. Absent his support, the initiative probably faces an uphill fight, as polls show that the electorate is split on this issue, and you can be sure the big money will be on the opposition side.
Q & A With Arnold Bray
Can We Put Health and Welfare Benefits on the Salary Schedule?
Q. Our district pays $4,800 for employee-only coverage for health benefits. What prevents us from adding that amount to the teachers� salary schedule and then allowing teachers to buy benefits through our IRC 125 plan?
A. There is nothing that would prevent the district from putting the entire amount into salary and then allowing teachers to buy any benefits they need through an IRC 125 plan using pre-tax dollars. In fact, about a dozen districts, mostly in the Bay Area, have done that. Some have had it that way for many years.
The decision is easier to make in some districts than in others. In some districts, including yours, all teachers currently get the same amount for benefits; that is not true in districts where the district pays for a variety of single and family plans.
The upside of including health benefits on the salary schedule is that it increases retirement annuities for teachers and provides maximum flexibility to them in the use of the IRC 125 dollars. For example, if a teacher has benefits coverage through a spouse, the teacher could use the IRC 125 dollars for child care rather than have duplicative benefits coverage.
The downside is that both the employer and employee would be required to make a contribution to the State Teachers� Retirement System on the health and welfare benefits, just as they do for salary. Also, once the benefits are on the schedule, any negotiated increase would be applied to the total, so salary and benefits would advance at the same rate, regardless of insurance rates.
All of that said, we would recommend that you wait to make a decision on how to proceed until after the November election. Proposition 72 is on the ballot which, if approved by the voters, would officially place into law the provisions of SB 2 (Burton, D-San Francisco). A �Yes� vote on Proposition 72 approves, and a �No� vote rejects legislation that:
� Provides for individual and dependent health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers
� Requires that employers pay at least 80% of coverage cost; maximum 20% employee contribution
� Requires employers to pay for health coverage or pay fees to a medical insurance board that purchases primarily private health coverage
� Applies to employers with 200 or more employees beginning January 1, 2006
� Applies to employers with 50 to 199 employees beginning January 1, 2007
� Applies to employers with 20 to 49 employees if tax credit enacted
There are varying opinions on how this new law, if passed, would affect employers that have their health benefits on the salary schedule. In summary, this is a topic that deserves serious consideration since the retirement benefit can be substantial.
What Are the Requirements on Quarterly Investment Reporting to the Board?
Q. Can you tell me the latest requirement on quarterly investment reporting to the Board? I know last year it wasn�t required due to lack of funding in the State Budget. I�m wondering about the status this year. If there is again no funding and, therefore, no requirement, how does that affect the requirement for the annual review of the investment policy?
A. The Legislature took a �belt and suspenders� approach to this mandate, addressing the quarterly investment reporting requirements in two bills this past session. First, in AB 2851 (Chapter 316/2004), the Legislature suspended the requirement that the local treasurer or chief fiscal officer render a quarterly investment report to the chief executive officer or legislative body of the local agency. This act, in conjunction with the 2004 Budget Act, which provided no appropriation for this mandate in 2004-05, suspended the state mandate that school districts and other local agencies provide these reports for 2004-05.
However, more importantly, AB 2853 (Chapter 889/2004) permanently repealed this mandate. Section 3 of this measure makes this reporting requirement permissive, thus eliminating state reimbursement for any local costs incurred in preparing these reports. Prior to the enactment of AB 2853, local agencies were also required to annually consider at a public meeting a statement of its investment policy. Section 3 of AB 2853 also makes this action permissive. Thus, for 2004-05 and beyond, local agencies are no longer required to prepare quarterly investment reports or adopt a statement of investment policy as a matter of state law.
The Legislature, nevertheless, �encourages local agency officials to continue taking the actions formerly mandated.� The state just won�t be paying for them.
Can a Company Refuse to Return Data that Belongs to Our District?
Q. We recently made a change in the company we use for preparation of mandated cost claims. Since making the change, we have been working to get the prior company to release our claim data. That company has indicated that it will not release the claim data until we sign a release agreement and our new company signs a confidentiality agreement. Our new company and our legal counsel advise us not to sign any such agreements since the claim data is ours to begin with. Is this an industry standard, or am I missing something?
A. You are correct to have sought legal counsel, and we urge you to follow his advice. Unless you have specific provisions in your prior contract requiring either signatures demanded, it is highly unusual for a company to refuse to return records for any reason. It is certainly not an industry standard.
Beyond following your attorney�s advice, we would suggest only one other potential action. If the principles of the former providers have state licenses, either as attorneys or CPAs, for example, you may have recourse to their professional licensing agency.
Postscript…
Los Angeles County Union Supports Tuition Free Community Colleges. Delegates from more than 300 union locals in Los Angeles County have agreed to support an initiative that would fund community college tuition and textbooks for students at one of the 21 community colleges in the county. Miguel Contreras, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, is the brain behind the idea. The union is proposing a 1.5% increase in the business utility tax in Los Angeles, which would generate about $59 million a year for a fund that would grant each student about $1,000 a year for textbooks and fees. The proposal is unclear on whether it will be based on financial need or be available to all students regardless of financial need. The union hopes to put the proposal on the Los Angeles city ballot in the summer of 2006 by gathering at least 85,000 signatures on a petition. The proposal would require a two-thirds majority vote to pass.
According to the L.A. Times, local business leaders are withholding comment until more details of the proposal are available. However, it�s a safe bet that any plan to raise taxes on businesses would be met with reservations.
Los Angeles has the highest rate of so-called undereducated adults of any major U.S. metropolitan area, according to a recent study, and employers in Los Angeles often complain of an inadequately trained workforce.
Many Eligible Students Don�t Seek Financial Aid.
A new study by the American Council on Education says hundreds of thousands of college students who may be eligible for federal financial aid don�t get it for a simple reason�they don�t apply. According to the study, half of the eight million undergraduates enrolled in 1999-2000 at institutions participating in federal student aid programs did not complete the main federal aid application form. Many did not meet the financial requirement; however, the study found 1.7 million low and moderate income students also failed to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Two-thirds of community college students did not apply for aid, compared to 42% at public four-year colleges and 13% at private colleges.
The study concludes that 850,000 of these students would have been eligible for a Pell Grant, the principal federal grant for low-income students. The findings underscore a point often made by educators: even as college costs rise, students often miss financial aid opportunities because they aren�t aware of how the system works.
The government is working to simplify the FAFSA form, but it still runs four pages and several worksheets. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education said officials hadn�t had the chance to ready the full report, but noted that the department launched a public relations campaign last year to increase awareness of federal financial aid. It also has reached out to minority groups underrepresented on American campuses.
On a positive note, the California Community College Chancellor�s Office has announced the official launch of www.icanaffordcollege.com. The website was developed to directly connect students and potential students with financial aid offices in their area to get one-on-one assistance with the financial aid application process (both federal and state).
Donna Arduin Resigns as State Finance Director.
Donna Arduin has announced she will resign her position as the state�s top finance officer. Arduin worked with the new Administration to close the prior-year deficits without increasing taxes and through a combination of borrowing and cuts. Her colleague, Chief Deputy Finance Director Mike Genest, will serve as the acting Finance Director until the position is filled.
In an e-mail sent to Department of Finance employees, Arduin indicated, �My commitment to the Governor when he hired me was to get him through his first budget. With your help and hard work we have done so much more than that. We have refinanced our inherited debt and made major strides in bringing the state�s budget deficit under control.� A Governor�s Office spokesperson is quoted in the Sacramento Bee as saying the move was expected and that Governor Schwarzenegger is pleased with the work she did on the 2004-05 Budget.
