Skip to content
Fee Transparency Project
Companion to the official sfac.ucsc.edu (opens in new tab) · About this site

April 24th, 2025

3:00 – 4:30 pm

AgendaMinutes

Present: Marshall, Cheryl, Lucy, Lisa, Lauren, Katie, Mel, Trey

  1. Welcome and Introductions
    1. Members introductions: Name, Pronouns, Year, Major, and Space.
    2. Order: Cowell, Stevenson, Crown, Merrill, Kresge, Porter, Oakes, RCC, C9, JRL, GSA, GSC, SAB, Provost, SUA, Lisa, Lucy
  2. Approval of Agenda & Minutes
    1. Approval of April 15th Agenda and April 13th Minutes
    2. Approval of April 22nd Agenda and April 15th Minutes
  3. Public Comment
  4. Announcements & Updates
    1. Member updates
      1. Lucy shares that the we may have a Cowell rep soon
    2. Swag order - jackets are in production
      1. Lucy shares that the jackets are in production. Thank you Shirley for updating the logo.
  5. Subcommittee Meetings Weekly on Zoom - Choose new times
    1. Outreach Committee
    2. Audit Committee
  6. Campus Elections - Vote on Referendum Statements
    1. Schedule + Materials (statements and budgets)
    2. Draft statements:
      1. Theater Arts Fee Increase: The Student Fee Advisory Committee supports this proposed $3.00 fee increase because it reflects the rising costs for payroll, costumes, and production materials; costs that have gone up significantly while the fee itself has remained unchanged since its inception in 2003. This fee increase will help sustain the quality of campus theater while expanding access while allowing students to attend more free performances.
        1. Result of electronic vote: 7- Yes, 0 - No, 0 - Abstentions. Motion Passes.
      2. Resource Centers Fee: SFAC supports this proposed fee because, for the first time, it would provide direct and sustainable funding for the Resource Centers, which have never had a dedicated fee despite their critical role in student support and community building. The budget is responsible and transparent, with a clear focus on expanding student employment opportunities and programming.
        1. Result of electronic vote: 7 - Yes, 0 - No, 0 - Abstentions. Motion Passes.
      3. Student Government Fee Increase: The Student Fee Advisory Committee did not reach consensus on whether to support or not support this fee amendment. Some committee members are supportive of increasing the fee and see benefits of contributing to student government activities; other members do not support the timing of the proposed fee increase because of the significant surplus of funds SUA is holding.
        1. Result of electronic vote: 5- Yes, 1 - No, 1 - Abstention. Motion passes.
      4. Graduate Student Commons Fee Increase: The Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC) supports this fee amendment and increase because the fee has not been increased for twenty years, the fee will sunset, and we appreciate that the Graduate Student Commons is thinking proactively in planning for the future.
        1. Result of electronic vote: 6 - Yes, 1 - No, 0 - Abstention. Motion passes.
      5. Research Pathways: The Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC) supports this new fee because it creates paid research opportunities for students.
        1. Result of electronic vote: 7 - Yes, 0 - No, 0 - Abstentions. Motion Passes.
      6. SEATS: The Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC) supports this fee amendment because it supports increased student involvement with TAPS and seeks to create a healthy and sustainable relationship with TAPS.
        1. Result of electronic vote: 7 - Yes, 0 - No, 0 - Abstentions. Motion Passes.
  7. Funding Call
    1. Tracking Sheet
    2. Updates
      1. Discussion: SUA: Proposal to request $100,000 of carryforward be allocated by SFAC
        1. Mel explains that during the referendum presentations, we learned that SUA has a considerable amount of carryforward.
        2. Mel suggests that SFAC could make a request for carry forward funds to be reallocated to SFAC.
        3. Likely, SUA is allocating funding for SOFA right now and may be finished for the year. We fund very similar activities that are funded through SOFA. We fund activities that are stewarded by administrative departments but go directly to fund students (like food pantries).
        4. Mel explains that we could write to the Parliamentarian and ask to be on the agenda. We can do a presentation and introduce SFAC, talk about our process and make a funding request.
        5. Lucy suggests that we can send a briefing in advance of the meeting.
        6. Lisa suggests that she can provide the carry forward amount.
        7. Mel suggests meeting with the officers and parliamentarians first to preview the topic. We could go to Nareh and preview the topic with her.
        8. Katie summarizing the three main points of the presentation would be helpful. Katie suggests that a smaller group of SFAC could meet prior to prepare the presentation together. We could do a practice presentation here together.
        9. Trey says there is no harm in pursuing this.
        10. Cheryl suggests that we think ahead about what questions SUA might have and be proactive with that information. We can add that information in a more natural way.
      2. Funds that will be returned for this year:
        1. $25,000 - Graduate Student Diversity, Wellness, and Retention Internship
        2. $1,000 - Graduate Student Commons Graduate Student Peer Mentor Program.
      3. What we held in reserve at the beginning of the funding call:
        1. $34,200 EMH - Reserve
          1. Marshall suggests we could exhaust this funding because it’s more restrictive.
          2. Lucy confirms that SFAC will receive $90,000 in EMH again next year.
        2. $51,311 SSF - Reserve
          1. Marshall suggests that we hold on to SSF because it is more broad and we can use it next year.
    3. Deliberations
      1. #7: Advance Scholars Alliance
        1. Cheryl says that we earmarked $31K for this proposal for two student interns. Could we consider funding only one intern?
        2. Lucy suggests funding a dollar amount and giving the department flexibility on how to apply.
        3. Cheryl suggests funding $15,000. Marshall suggested $12,000. Katie agrees with Lucy’s suggestion to offer a set amount. Katie agrees with $12,000. Lauren agrees.
      2. #4:
        1. New funding among 250 membership $19,120
      3. #xx Kresge Pride
        1. Reduce to $7,000 - general support for the event
      4. #6: Expanding Experiential Learning Opportunities & Supporting Student Employment
        1. We could reduce the funding to academic periods only (no summers and no breaks). 33 weeks - two students would be $11,783
      5. #37: Model UN
        1. Discussion regarding reducing the award for only one trip, or reducing the number of students who would go to the trips. We could cut one delegate fee and one plane ticket for Harvard.
        2. We could cut the Harvard allocation in half. That would reduce the award by $4,158.
      6. #22
        1. Lauren suggests that we could decrease this a bit and increase #23 to come closer in alignment.
        2. $6,000 for Women’s Center pantry + $9,000 for hte others = $15,000
      7. #12
        1. Travel could be reduced by one student, so we fund 3 students.
        2. $11,700 is the new
      8. We will finalize the discussion next week and will look at formulas for reducing awards.
      9. IF RC and GSC referendum pass, SFAC will ask for review of any awards issued to reverify that they need the funds, etc. [add this note to spreadsheet]
  8. Discussion on TAPS Letter
    1. 2024 Letter
    2. Response from Dan (to questions we developed on March 11th)
    3. Deliberation
      1. Importance of looking for outside funding.
      2. If SEATS pass, they need to make up the difference to keep operations going.
      3. Encourage them to add more bike signs to help drivers and encourage safety.
      4. Strawpoll on whether to keep the fee increase for next year
        1. Yes - 4. Abstain - 2
        2. Yes, I say that it’s important to increase the fee in the event that SEATS passes.
      5. Concern about the procurement process -
      6. The Director is happy to meet with SFAC, with any student, this hasn’t been true.
      7. We encourage that if SEATS passes that director keep an open mind to working with students. Acknowledging change management can be stressful, but ask for an open mind.
      8. Make TAPS services more accessible. DVS was very difficult, unreliable. Online portal, innovation with the request process.
      9. Bus tracker is positive.
      10. Is the new tracker app replacing the old one? The old is unreliable.
      11. Lucy will have a draft ready for the next meeting and folks.
  9. Adjournment

Upcoming Guests/Topics:.

  1. 2024-2025 Funding Call
    1. Resources
      1. Proposal Folder
      2. Rating Worksheet
      3. Absent Member Notes
  2. Student Fee Summit
    1. Google Doc
  3. Campus Based Fees Review for summer session, FY 26
  4. Planning for Next Year’s Funding Call
    1. Multiple different pools of money for different initiatives (i.e. money only for programs affecting off campus students, etc.)