Peralta Community College Budget Allocation Model BAM November 17, 2014.
-
Upload
molly-daniel -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
4
Transcript of Peralta Community College Budget Allocation Model BAM November 17, 2014.
BAM
Modeled after SB 361◦Used for funding apportionment for all
California Community Colleges◦3 fundamental revenue drivers
Base allocation Credit Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) Non-Credit FTES
◦Apportionment funding from this formula represents more than 70% of the District’s unrestricted revenue
Principles
Simple and easy to understandConsistent with State’s SB 361 modelProvides –
◦ Financial stability◦ A reserve in accordance with PCCD Board Policy◦ Clear Accountability◦ Periodic review and revision◦ Some services centralized at the District Office
Utilizes conservative revenue projectionsMaintains autonomous decision making at the college
levelIs responsive to the district’s and colleges’ planning
processes
Partnership
Between the Colleges and the District Office◦ To encourage and support collaboration
Colleges have broad oversight of institutional responsibilities◦ Primary authority over educational programs and student
services functions◦ Develops autonomous and individualized processes to meet
state and accreditation standardsDistrict office primarily ensures compliance with
applicable statue and regulatory compliance as well as essential support functions◦ Staff responsibility to fulfill fiduciary role of providing
appropriate oversight of District operations
Allocations
Similar allocation to four Colleges as SB 361 allocation to District
Allocates resources for Revenue, the District Office, District wide-services and regulatory costs based on percentage of 3 year rolling average of FTES
Components of Formula Used
Applicable Revenue = Revenue less Exclusions◦Amount of revenue to be distributed to
CollegesCentralized and District Office Expenses
◦Amount of expenditures to be distributed to Colleges
Three Year Rolling Averages◦3 year Average of the Total funded Full Time
Equivalent Students (FTES) for each College
Budget Allocation Worksheet
Revenue◦Computational Revenue as determined by
SB361 at the State◦Unrestricted Lottery◦Apprenticeship◦Student Health Fees◦Other Student Fees and Miscellaneous◦Transfers in from other sources◦Parcel Tax
District Office Service Centers
Chancellors OfficeBoard of TrusteesGeneral CounselInformation TechnologyPublic InformationRisk ManagementEducation and Student ServicesInstitutional ResearchHuman ResourcesFinance and PurchasingGeneral Services
Centralized Services
DSPS ContributionAdmissions and RecordsFacilitiesFinancial AidInternational Education
Formula
Revenue Allocations to Colleges ◦Applicable revenue times the percentage
represented by the 3 year rolling FTES average of the district wide 3 year rolling average
District Office and Centralized Services◦Applicable cost of each service time the
percentage represented by the 3 year rolling FTES average of the district wide 3 year rolling averages
Total of these represent the revenue allocation to each College
Unrestricted Expenditure Budgets by College
Budget Cycle◦Tentative Budget to board by June 30◦Final Budget adopted by board by September
15Budget Calendar
◦Positions◦Discretionary ◦Categorical/Grants
Non-discretionary budgets
Spreadsheet with prior year positions and coding sent to College for review and input
Rates acquired by the issuing agencyCost for each employee computedThis plus the part time faculty make up
the non-discretionary portion of each budget
FTEF calculation
FTES targets established for each College based on funded growth from the State
17.5 productivity used to determine number of Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) needed to meet the FTES targets
Full Time position for faculty subtracted from the number of FTEF needed to determine part time faculty budget
Part-Time Faculty Calculation
Peralta Community College District2014-15 1351 Budget11/17/2014 COA Laney Merritt BCC Districtwide
Budget Projections
1FTEF - per position spreadsheets (includes new positions) 50.91 106.206 64.92 46.8 268.836
2 *2 for fall and spring 101.82 212.412 129.84 93.6 537.672
3 FTEF Targets per Ed. Svs - 19,055 ftes 216.22 466.64 226.99 236.14 1,146.00
a. Department Chair Release FTEF 2.74 6.44 2.84 3.28 15.30
Total FTEF for target 218.96 473.08 229.83 239.42 1,161.30
4Difference between targets and contract instructional faculty (3-2) 117.14 260.67 99.99 145.82 623.63
5 Estimated cost at $22,000 (4*$22,000) $ 2,577,047 $ 5,734,791 $ 2,199,885 $ 3,208,093 $ 13,719,816
6 Summer Estimate $ 528,297 $ 957,483 $ 332,234 $ 590,875 $ 2,408,889
7 Projected salary savings on existing vacancies 390,889 538,098 466,052 507,650 $ 1,902,689
8 Amount to allocate ((5+6)-7) 2,714,455
6,154,176
2,066,067
3,291,319 14,226,016
Non-Discretionary Budgets
Full time positionsPart Time Faculty CalculationRelated payroll liabilitiesMedical and Dental premiums
On average, represents about 85% of College budget
Discretionary Budget
Prior Year Allocation used for: Hourly personnel Supplies Materials Services Capital Equipment
Include some fixed costs, such as utilities, rent, maintenance agreements, etc.
Represents on average 15% of College funding
Object codes ◦ 4xxx-7xxx ◦ 14xx and 13xx (except 1351)
Unrestricted Expenditure Budget by College
Total of the Discretionary and Non-Discretionary budgets as allocated based on the previous two slides
Differences
As anticipated, there are delta’s between the Revenue allocation by College and unrestricted expenditures by College
Identified in the BAM are strategies for Transition
Strategies for Transition
Will require multiple years to avoid negative and sudden operational impacts to programs and services
Options:◦Shifting FTES targets to provide additional
apportionment to some colleges◦Deficit reduction plans◦Shifting growth money from one college to another◦Reductions in centralized support functions and
services◦Utilization of international student tuition
Periodic Review
Still sorting out remaining issuesEvaluating the effectiveness of the
procedures outlinedSuggested review every 3 yearsKeeping the model up to date and
responsive to the changing community college landscape