Florida College System Report of the Council of Presidents on the

Document Sample
Florida College System Report of the Council of Presidents on the Powered By Docstoc
					                                  Florida College System
            Report of the Council of Presidents on the Equitable Distribution of
                          Public Education Capital Outlay Funds
                In Response to Conference Committee Report on SB 2150


Executive Summary

The following six recommendations are the outcomes of the PECO Task Force and College of
President’s study and are described more fully within this document:


Recommendation One:

The distribution of PECO should give priority to the utilization of Index of Unmet Need as the
basis for institutional funding. Funds so appropriated should be available to meet all categories
of facilities need (new construction, acquisition, remodeling, and renovation) pursuant to
institutional plans submitted by the Board of Trustees and reviewed and approved by the
Florida Department of Education.

Recommendation Two:

In consideration of factors other than relative need with respect to funding for renovation, repair,
and remodeling of existing facilities, the funding for this category should be distributed by using
the current “Sum-of-the-Digits” methodology. Given the importance of sustaining existing
facilities, this category of funding should receive an appropriate amount of the first facilities
dollars appropriated to the System each year.

Recommendation Three:

Within the Facilities Equity Model, distance learning education FTE should be discounted,
recognizing that some modest level of institutional facilities support is appropriate and
necessary to meet the needs of faculty and students in this all important area. The model
accomplishes this by removing instructional space for the distance learning FTE from the
calculation.

Recommendation Four:

The distribution of PECO funds to the smallest colleges (the colleges within the lowest FTE
quartile) will be based on the historic allocation for this quartile (at least 14.8 percent of total
PECO allocations to Florida College System institutions). This combined allocation will then be
distributed to these colleges annually based on prioritization by Florida College System division
staff in accordance with existing guidelines for distribution of PECO.




                                                                                              1
                                                           PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
Recommendation Five:

As the System moves away from the project based funding, it is vital that the transition to the
proposed PECO funding formula methodology allows for the continued funding of projects
currently “in the pipeline” at appropriate stage to ensure continuity and a more effective phase
in process.

Recommendation Six:

The Florida College System Council of President recommends and advocated the passage of
legislation the will serve to authorize and codify in Florida law this proposed formula funding
methodology for System capital funding and provide guidance for its implementation.




                                                                                             2
                                                          PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
    I.   Background

           a. For the past several years, the growing crisis in capital availability and allocation
              in the Florida College System has been discussed in task forces of the Council of
              Presidents. This discussion led to a position paper, attached to this Report, that
              was unanimously approved by the Council and support for conforming bill
              language to address these concerns.

           b. The conforming bill that complements the 2011 Legislative Appropriations Act
              contained the following language:

                  Section 50: The Florida College System Council of Presidents shall develop and
                  recommend an equitable funding formula for the distribution of Public Educational
                  Capital Outlay funds to the Florida College System institutions. The Florida
                  College System Council of Presidents shall submit a report, with
                  recommendations, to the State Board of Education, the Governor, the President of
                  the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31,
                  2011, which specifically includes a proposed funding formula that provides for the
                  equitable distribution of Public Educational Capital Outlay funds to Florida College
                  System institutions for consideration by the Legislature for implementation in the
                  2012-2013 fiscal year.

           c. To fulfill this directive, the Council of Presidents created a committee of its
              members to review current status, explore past efforts, describe the extent of the
              problem to be resolved and to develop a data-driven response that would serve
              as the basis for the recommendation.

           d. The Committee met as a team on three occasions and held one technical
              workshop in an online format to review options and to craft this response.
              Meetings were open to all presidents (and/or their representatives) in order to
              gather the widest range of proposals and constructive criticism.

           e. Significant effort was devoted to understand the existing formulas that are used:

                  i. determine an institution’s calculated ‘unmet’ need for new facilities, and

                  ii. to distribute annually the renovation funds that reflect the ‘sum of the digits’
                      calculation based on existing facilities.




                                                                                               3
                                                            PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
    II.    General Considerations of the Present Approach

           a. Facilities needs have grown dramatically during a period of increasingly limited funds
              within a system that continues to serve a growing enrollment;

           b. The problematic funding levels cause difficult choices in the distribution of available
              funds between new construction and repair and renovation needs of existing facilities;
              deferred maintenance is a rapidly growing issue, although it is often treated as less
              urgent than meeting new needs;

           c. Enrollment in the rapidly growing area of online learning is still counted in the
              underlying formula used to determine facilities’ needs; this inclusion erodes
              confidence in the calculation of needs;

           d. The “projects-based” approach to capital allocation is subject to political anomalies
              that fail to address system needs, sometimes addressing individual institutional
              interests without reference to larger system-wide patterns of need;

           e. The ‘projects-based’ structure of the existing PECO process continues to be seen as
              being more reflective of effective lobbying than to the long term needs of the entire
              system;

           f. The existing system emphasizes and rewards individual institutions rather than the
              system as an entity;

           g. Fast-growing colleges feel particularly disadvantaged by the existing projects-based
              approach.

    III.   Building on Existing Data and Processes

           a. Colleges must undertake a comprehensive educational plant survey of their needs
              once every five years; this survey is mandated by statute and is intended to assure
              that there is a master plan approach to facilities’ needs;

           b. Colleges annually submit a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as the principal basis for
              identifying the institution’s major facilities plans and objectives over the next five
              years;

           c. The CIP is ordered by institutionally determined priority, as approved by the Board of
              Trustees; these priorities can be reordered annually by the Board of Trustees to
              reflect changing conditions in the colleges service area;

           d. Projects listed on the CIP must be classified as new construction, renovation, or
              remodeling or some combination; land acquisition, or other major infrastructure items
              (HVAC, roads, etc.) are contained within these three general categorizations;

           e. The resultant submitted lists are reviewed by the staff of the Florida Department of
              Education using a relative need index and then compiled into a single proposed list

                                                                                                  4
                                                               PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
       that is reviewed and recommended to the State Board of Education (SBE) by the
       Commissioner; upon approval of the SBE, the system list is submitted to the
       Governor’s Office and the Legislature.

    f. The Division of Florida Colleges maintains data on the total square footage that each
       college has in its inventory, disaggregated to categorize space as classroom, non-
       vocational lab, vocational lab, physical education, library, audio-visual,
       auditorium/exhibition, student service, support service and office;

    g. The Division of Florida Colleges likewise maintains the data on classroom and
       facilities utilization, calculated on long-standing metrics that attempt to equalize
       utilization information across the several sectors (K-12, universities, colleges);

    h. The Division of Florida Colleges maintains enrollment projections, calculated annually
       for each college;

    i. From the college’s total square footage, the facilities space needs metrics, and the
       enrollment levels, a college’s classroom and support space need is calculated and
       displayed as a percentage of “Percent of Need Met;” this relative ranking of an
       institution’s needs is an important component in the deliberations of the FLDOE to
       recommend a project for inclusion in the state’s budget.

       The most recent summary calculation of the “Percent of Need Met” highlights the
       critical and growing challenge that has given rise to this review:


                                                    2010‐11
                                                     TOTAL 
                                                CALCULATED NEED    % MET 
                             College                  NSF          NEED 
                                                                       
                             Valencia              2,763,461       39.75% 
                             Broward               2,756,025       42.08% 
                           Miami Dade              4,802,227       45.33% 
                         Pasco Hernando             804,265        53.02% 
                          Hillsborough             1,983,884       53.58% 
                            Seminole               1,468,702       53.78% 
                              Edison               1,002,266       55.98% 
                           Palm Beach              1,761,182       57.20% 
                             Sante Fe              1,142,191       59.66% 
                          St. Johns River           502,091        60.58% 
                             Daytona               1,541,559       61.91% 
                               Polk                 656,443        63.43% 
                      SCF, Manatee‐Sarasota         722,489        64.80% 
                           Indian River            1,335,014       67.08% 



                                                                                             5
                                                          PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
                                                              2010‐11
                                                               TOTAL 
                                                          CALCULATED NEED    % MET 
                                    College                     NSF           NEED 
                                 Central Florida              621,784        67.80% 
                             FL State College @Jax           2,292,992       68.25% 
                                   Pensacola                  876,036        70.53% 
                                    Brevard                  1,320,190       70.55% 
                                   Gulf Coast                 462,102        81.82% 
                                 St. Petersburg              1,851,853       85.33% 
                                  Tallahassee                 995,033        89.76% 
                                  Lake Sumter                 296,390        93.84% 
                                  Florida Keys                113,165        105.05% 
                           Florida Gateway (Lake City)        237,303        109.97% 
                           Northwest FL State (OWC)           487,233        119.94% 
                                  North Florida               120,284        127.60% 
                                     Chipola                  156,036        164.27% 
                                  South Florida               268,161        165.93% 



    IV.   Key Elements of the Proposal

          a. From the outset of the Council of Presidents’ discussions on this issue, there has
             been a strong commitment to the establishment of a clear, equitable, and sustainable
             PECO funding distribution formula that could generate support within the Florida
             College System and within both the executive and legislative branches that maintain
             a responsibility for recommending and funding capital outlay needs. A guide to how
             such support can be developed is found in the operational (CCPF) funding model for
             the Florida College System. In short, this model recognizes differences in size,
             complexity, program mix and mission emphases. Despite its complexity, it has
             served for more than a decade in allocating appropriated funds with little or no efforts
             toward single institutional enhancements.

          b. It is requested that, like the operational Funding Allocation Model, a comprehensive
             equitable facilities funding distribution model would be adopted with the following
             benefits:

               i.    Allow for local discretion in the allocation of appropriated resources, reflective
                     of the historical benefit of institutional responsiveness;

               ii.   Provide greater year-to-year stability for institutional facilities planning;

              iii.   Allow for changes to evolve and improve the model, to be handled through
                     existing Florida College System and Council of Presidents review procedures



                                                                                                       6
                                                                    PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
                    as is done annually for the CCPF;

             iv.    Create a consensus of support among all of the colleges in the system in
                    support of system wide needs rather than competing priorities among the
                    colleges. All colleges have a vested interest in improving the overall funding,
                    rather than a single, institutional-specific initiative;

              v.    Executive and legislative staff have confidence in the equity of the model;

             vi.    The model can be modified to reflect policy changes and shifting emphases in
                    meeting the state’s needs as conveyed through legislative or executive branch
                    interaction;

            vii.    The model attempts to maximize resources through the combined use of
                    PECO, Capital Improvement Funds (CIF) and gifts;

            viii.   Note: Statute and/or rule changes will be necessary for implementation, i.e.,
                    adding a step for Boards of Trustees and the State Board of Education to
                    approve actual projects before the funds can be drawn down.

    V.   Current Calculations

         a. Using the college-by-college calculation of Percent of Need met, it is possible to
            calculate the total unmet need for each college and the total unmet need for the
            entire Florida College System. The most recent calculations provided by the Division
            of State Colleges reflect the following as “Percent of Systemwide Unmet Need” by
            college:


                                                                            INDEX OF NEED* 
                         COLLEGE                  UNMET NEED NSF          (% FCS UNMET NEED) 
                                                                                   
                         Miami Dade                  2,341,539                 20.869% 
                         Valencia                    1,485,623                 13.240% 
                         Broward                     1,407,782                 12.547% 
                         Hillsborough                 790,263                  7.043% 
                         Palm Beach                   644,872                  5.747% 
                         Seminole                     577,954                  5.151% 
                         FL State College @Jax        574,830                  5.123% 
                         Daytona                      483,774                  4.312% 
                         Santa Fe                     383,848                  3.421% 
                         Edison                       382,002                  3.405% 
                         Indian River                 346,278                  3.086% 
                         Pasco Hernando               323,735                  2.885% 
                         Brevard                      299,926                  2.673% 



                                                                                                     7
                                                                  PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
                                                                    INDEX OF NEED*  
                    COLLEGE                  UNMET NEED NSF         (% FCS UNMET NEED) 
                    SCF, Manatee‐Sarasota         213,257                      1.901% 
                    Pensacola                     200,757                      1.789% 
                    Polk                          197,234                      1.758% 
                    St. Johns River               167,257                      1.491% 
                    Central Florida               158,396                      1.412% 
                    St. Petersburg                147,842                      1.318% 
                    Gulf Coast                     52,723                      0.470% 
                    Tallahassee                    40,495                      0.361% 
                    Chipola                                                        
                    Florida Keys                                                   
                    Florida Gateway (Lake 
                                                       
                    City)                                                          
                    Lake Sumter                                                    
                    North Florida                                                  
                    Northwest FL State 
                                                       
                    (OWC)                                                          
                    South Florida                                                  
                    TOTALS                       11,220,386                   100.000% 



    b. The Florida College System also employs a means for distributing funds to the
       colleges for maintenance and repair purposes that is described in sec. 1013.64 of the
       Florida Statutes. The nature of this calculation (the age of the buildings provides the
       basis for the distribution) has led to a general reference to this part of the facilities
       budget as the ‘sum-of-the-digits.” Each sector’s percentage is calculated every year
       using the age and square footage of owned permanent and temporary facilities, the
       statewide average cost of construction and the district (county) cost of construction
       index (from Marshall & Swift). The cost of construction is calculated for higher
       education facilities using college and university data submitted on the annual Cost of
       Construction reports and is the same information used for the CIP submission.
       Appropriated funds are distributed according to these percentages for remodeling,
       renovation, maintenance, repairs, and site improvement for existing facilities.

                    
                   COLLEGE                                     SUM OF THE DIGITS 
                   Miami Dade                                       16.48% 
                   FL State College @Jax                             8.01% 
                   Broward                                           7.47% 
                   Brevard                                           5.98% 
                   St. Petersburg                                    5.87% 
                   Palm Beach                                        5.44% 
                   Daytona                                           4.64% 



                                                                                                  8
                                                               PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
                          
                         COLLEGE                               SUM OF THE DIGITS 
                         Valencia                                   4.60% 
                         Pensacola                                   3.62% 
                         Hillsborough                                3.12% 
                         Santa Fe                                    3.05% 
                         Indian River                                3.00% 
                         Tallahassee                                 2.91% 
                         Edison                                      2.81% 
                         SCF, Manatee‐Sarasota                       2.72% 
                         Seminole                                    2.68% 
                         Central Florida                             2.58% 
                         Polk                                        2.11% 
                         Pasco Hernando                              1.90% 
                         Northwest FL State                          1.68% 
                         St. Johns River                             1.48% 
                         Florida Gateway                             1.46% 
                         Chipola                                     1.44% 
                         Gulf Coast                                  1.38% 
                         South Florida                               1.31% 
                         Lake Sumter                                 0.97% 
                         North Florida                               0.65% 
                         Florida Keys                                0.64% 


    VI.   Working Through the Issues

          a. It is important to emphasize that this report designs a means for systematic and
             equitable distribution of PECO and other facilities funds at some future date, subject
             largely to legislative disposition and transition details; in theory, it could be adopted
             immediately with full implementation scheduled over the next 3-5 years;

          b. The fact that the FCS has a number of facilities projects underway and others that
             had been approved in the legislative process (and not yet fully funded), assures that
             project-based funding will be continued in some measure for several years;

          c. The model does anticipate the shifting of funds from project-based allocations to
             formula-based allocations over a period of time; that shift also can be responsive to
             the desired balance between new construction and renovation/repair/ remodeling;

          d. Additional focus was given to the impact that a formula approach might have on the
             smallest institutions; among other concerns, institutions are wary that they will be
             able to amass the funds needed over time to support new construction.



                                                                                                 9
                                                              PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
VII.      Developing a Model

       a. The background to this proposal rests in a growing crisis in capital in the Florida College
          System brought about by severe limits on the availability of capital (almost exclusively
          PECO funds) over the past decade or more, a situation greatly exacerbated by the
          dramatic growth of the system throughout the recent economic recession. As the data
          suggest, the crisis is felt most keenly among the fastest growing quartile of colleges.
          This situation led to two consecutive task forces of the Council of Presidents seeking
          solutions to the growing crisis, a position paper developed by the institutions most in
          need, and proposed legislative language to commission this formula study that was
          unanimously approved by the Council of Presidents.

          The legislative direction for this proposal arose from an effort by the leaders of Valencia
          College, Broward College, and Miami Dade College to address their urgent and growing
          need through an increase in the allowable Capital Improvement Fee assessed as part of
          the mandatory tuition and fees assessed at registration. Enrollment growth at these
          institutions over a long period of time has moved the Percent of Unmet Needs to levels
          that portend limits on access – in some cases, there is simply no additional classroom
          space available to meet continued growth. Recognizing that available PECO funding for
          the foreseeable future would continue to be at historically low levels, and in recognition
          that a projects-based approach could not respond appropriately to their local needs,
          these three institutions sought a means to generate funds locally to address some small
          portion of the existing facilities’ needs.

       b. For a variety of reasons, this initiative was not supported by the legislature, although the
          effort did raise enough concern to result in the authorization of this white paper that
          might prove to be a basis for improved facilities funding and greatly improved facilities
          planning.

       c. While confidence in the current PECO process to solve our capital crisis is at a low ebb,
          both due to the low levels of capital available and the uncertainties of the allocation
          process, it remains true that the formula approach (CCPF) used to allocate operating
          funds enjoys a high degree of confidence and support. The sophistication of the CCPF
          model, used to distribute operating funds, allows for it to be responsive to the
          uniqueness of each of the 28 institutions. More importantly, it provides for a great deal of
          stability in the allocations process, a factor that translates into valuable commitments to
          the academic and instructional planning at the local level.

       d. The basis of this model is that on a variety of factors, each institution generates a
          projected funding need. Enrollment is a major factor in the need, of course. But the
          model uses a three-year average of enrollment to dampen large fluctuations from year to
          year. The model is sensitive to staffing needs as well as student and institutional support
          that reflect the size and program mix of each college.

       e. When all the needs are combined, each institution’s needs can be displayed as a
          percentage of the total system need. Appropriated funds are then allocated based on
          the relative share of the system’s total needs. Over time, the utilization of this type of
          funding model results in greater equity within the system and promotes a system wide

                                                                                                10
                                                              PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
          consensus for advocacy. “Fund the Model” has been the uniform message of the 28
          colleges and we have been recognized and complimented for this unified approach.


The proposed Facilities Equity Model attempts to pattern the same basic approach that has
been successful in the operating budget model.

Step One: Determine the total square footage needed by the system based on existing
utilization rubrics.

      1. Calculate the need of each institution and the system wide total need for new space. If
         we know the “Percent of Unmet Need” and the total square footage used to determine
         that percentage, we can calculate the additional square footage that each institution
         would need to reach 100% of need met; this unmet need can be aggregated to a total for
         the system;

Institutional unmet needs can then be displayed as a portion of the total system unmet need,
rather than as individual institutional needs. (See below).

Recommendation One:

The distribution of PECO should give priority to the utilization of Index of Unmet Need as
the basis for institutional funding. Funds so appropriated should be available to meet all
categories of facilities need (new construction, acquisition, remodeling, and renovation)
pursuant to institutional plans submitted by the Board of Trustees and reviewed and
approved by the Florida Department of Education.


                                       Calculated Index of Need
                               

                           2010-11 Current     2010-11 TOTAL
                            NSF Met Need       CALCULATED        UNMET       % UNMET    INDEX OF NEED (%
    College              (Inventory, Term 3)     NEED NSF       NEED NSF      NEED      FCS UNMET NEED)


    Valencia                       1,098,409        2,763,461    1,665,052     60.25%             12.53%
    Broward                        1,159,816        2,756,025    1,596,209     57.92%             12.01%
    Miami Dade                     2,177,021        4,802,227    2,625,206     54.67%             19.75%
    Pasco Hernando                   426,416         804,265      377,849      46.98%              2.84%
    Hillsborough                   1,063,004        1,983,884     920,880      46.42%              6.93%
    Seminole                         789,834        1,468,702     678,868      46.22%              5.11%
    Edison                           561,090        1,002,266     441,176      44.02%              3.32%




                                                                                                  11
                                                                PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
                              2010-11 Current     2010-11 TOTAL
                               NSF Met Need       CALCULATED        UNMET       % UNMET    INDEX OF NEED (%
    College                 (Inventory, Term 3)     NEED NSF       NEED NSF      NEED      FCS UNMET NEED)
    Palm Beach                        1,007,320        1,761,182     753,862      42.80%              5.67%
    Sante Fe                            681,413        1,142,191     460,778      40.34%              3.47%
    St. Johns River                     304,163         502,091      197,928      39.42%              1.49%
    Daytona                             954,453        1,541,559     587,106      38.09%              4.42%
    Polk                                416,385         656,443      240,058      36.57%              1.81%
    SCF, Manatee-Sarasota               468,183         722,489      254,306      35.20%              1.91%
    Indian River                        895,499        1,335,014     439,515      32.92%              3.31%
    Central Florida                     421,562         621,784      200,222      32.20%              1.51%
    FL State College @Jax             1,564,980        2,292,992     728,012      31.75%              5.48%
    Pensacola                           617,839         876,036      258,197      29.47%              1.94%
    Brevard                             931,432        1,320,190     388,758      29.45%              2.93%
    Gulf Coast                          378,095         462,102       84,007      18.18%              0.63%
    St. Petersburg                    1,580,238        1,851,853     271,615      14.67%              2.04%
    Tallahassee                         893,161         995,033      101,872      10.24%              0.77%
    Lake Sumter                         278,141         296,390       18,249       6.16%              0.14%
    Florida Keys                        118,883         113,165
    Florida Gateway (Lake
                                        260,951         237,303
    City)
    Northwest FL State
                                        584,375         487,233
    (OWC)
    North Florida                       153,478         120,284
    Chipola                             256,315         156,036
    South Florida                       444,960         268,161

    TOTALS                           20,487,416       33,340,361   13,289,725                       100.00%



Step Two: Use the present “Sum-of-the-Digits” allocation percentages as the basis for
enhanced calculation of the maintenance and repair component of the formula:

           Given the critical importance of the renovation, repair, and remodeling of existing
           facilities, especially on older campuses, it is appropriate to utilize in the proposed formula
           a methodology for funding this category that has been used successfully for many years
           by the Florida College System.

Recommendation Two:

In consideration of factors other than relative need with respect to funding for
renovation, repair, and remodeling of existing facilities, the funding for this category
should be distributed by using the current “Sum-of-the-Digits” methodology. Given the
importance of sustaining existing facilities, this category of funding should receive an
appropriate amount of the first facilities dollars appropriated to the System each year.

                                                                                                     12
                                                                   PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
Step Three: Remove Distance Learning enrollments from the Facilities Equity Model

    1. The rapid expansion of online learning continues unabated. Clearly, Florida seeks to
       encourage this movement where appropriate for reasons of improved access and
       reduced cost of delivery. Presently, some 15% of all enrollment is delivered in a totally
       online format. This average reflects a wide range across the Florida College System,
       from a high of 32% to a low of 2%.

    2. Strong recognition emerged that the inclusion of all online enrollment in a facilities model
       is neither sustainable nor appropriate. At the same time, some institutional commitment
       is needed for the creation of courses, the training of staff, the need for instructional
       support and the recognition that students still desire access to some important portions
       of the institutions’ facilities based programs (counseling, advising, meeting space, etc.).
       Since these forms of instruction and their institutional support needs are still developing,
       consensus emerged that online FTE should be deeply discounted, but that some method
       of recognizing institutional needs in this area be maintained.

    3. According to the latest data, 15% of the system’s total FTE is in distance learning. If we
       discount our instructional space needs (classroom, non-voc and voc labs) by 15%, it cuts
       our calculated need by approximately 2.2 million square feet, and takes our total system
       need from 12.9 million net square feet down to 10.7 million net square feet. Beyond that,
       further study is needed to address all of the 10 space category needs formulas that have
       been in use since the 1970s.

Recommendation Three:

Within the Facilities Equity Model, distance learning education FTE should be
discounted, recognizing that some modest level of institutional facilities support is
appropriate and necessary to meet the needs of faculty and students in this all important
area. The model accomplishes this by removing instructional space for the distance
learning FTE from the calculation.

Step Four: Small Colleges and Special Cases

Historically, the smallest colleges (the seven in the lowest FTE quartile) have received, on
average, 11% of the PECO allocations distributed to FCS institutions. Realizing that major
renovation, building replacement, remodeling, and new construction for special programming
will continue to be needed by smaller institutions regardless of current unmet need levels, the
allocation to the smallest colleges in total should remain consistent with historic allocations.
PECO funds should be distributed to the smallest colleges based on prioritization of major
projects and general remodeling/renovation needs by FCS division staff in accordance with
current allocation procedures and in consultation with the leadership of these colleges.




                                                                                             13
                                                           PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
Recommendation Four:

The distribution of PECO funds to the smallest colleges (the colleges within the lowest
FTE quartile) will be based on the historic allocation for this quartile (at least 14.8
percent of total PECO allocations to Florida College System institutions). This combined
allocation will then be distributed to these colleges annually based on prioritization by
Florida College System division staff in accordance with existing guidelines for
distribution of PECO. (Please see Attachment A.)

Step Five: Related matters

In the discussions of the committee, two other topics commanded the groups’ attention:

       First there was a strong recognition that commitments in place for approved projects be
        maintained while the new model is brought on line. Toward that end, the committee
        asked that the list of projects that have been implemented or otherwise ‘legislatively
        approved’ be developed and attached to this report as a means for documenting the
        commitment to funding these ‘in-the-works’ projects. That list is attached.

Recommendation Five:

As the System moves away from the project based funding, it is vital that the transition
to the proposed PECO funding formula methodology allows for the continued funding of
projects currently “in the pipeline” at appropriate stage to ensure continuity and a more
effective phase in process. (Please see Attachment B.)

       Second, committee members were similarly focused on the benefit of having this, or any
        successor, model codified in statute. Again, this important step would mirror the
        progress and subsequent success of the CCPF Appropriations process.

Recommendation Six:

The Florida College System Council of President recommends and advocated the
passage of legislation the will serve to authorize and codify in Florida law this proposed
formula funding methodology for System capital funding and provide guidance for its
implementation.

The Proposed Model

The following page displays the proposed Facilities Equity Model in one spreadsheet. Pursuant
to the recommendations above, there are two primary components to the model:

    a. Basic Distribution per system need

    b. Distribution for Repair and Renovation




                                                                                           14
                                                         PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
Notes on the following chart:

       This example demonstrates the distribution of $150,000,000;

       It proposes a distribution of 67% for general facilities support, 33% for enhanced
        maintenance/ repair/ renovation;

       Traditional “Sum-of-the-Digits” maintenance funding still occurs outside of this proposed
        PECO distribution formula;

       The proposal discounts instructional space, using enrollment related factors resulting
        from the growing commitment to online learning. The proposed model will result in much
        greater clarity of true classroom and facility needs without the confounding effect of
        online instruction. Accordingly, the instructional space need for the system has been
        discounted in the calculation by 15% to reflect the reduction of distance learning FTE;

       It does not reflect any additional adjustment for the small colleges, nor any anticipated
        enhanced CIP;

       The proposal offered here does not attempt to revisit long-standing calculations used by
        the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) to determine classroom utilization rates.
        Proviso language in the 2011 General Appropriations Act authorizing this study
        contained a directive for a different study to revisit the issue of classroom utilization. We
        have taken care, however, to anticipate that any change in those utilization calculations
        will be incorporated into the proposed facilities equity proposal;




                                                                                              15
                                                            PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
Distribution	Value:	           		                    		                                                 67.00%	                                33.00%	                                          100.00%	   		                		

Amount	to	Distribute:	              $150,000,000		 		                                               $100,500,000	                           $49,500,000	   		                                              		                		

                                                                                                                       Value	2:	Distribution	for	
                                                     Sum‐of‐                                                         General	Renovation,	Remodel,	                                                                            Total	
                                                       the	         Value	1:	Distribution	for	Need	                      Infrastructure	&	Site	                                                                 Project	      PECO	
               College	        Index	of	Need*	        Digits	            (New	Construction)	                                Improvements	                            Total	Formula	Allocations	                 Funding	     Funding	

		                                       		                 		                  	$		                      %	                   $	                %	                         $	                   %	             	$		    %	    $	      %	

Brevard		                                 2.673%	          5.98%	   $											2,686,411	               2.673%	       $			2,960,100.00	         5.98%	         $												5,646,510.62	        3.76%	   		          		    		      		

Broward		                               12.547%	           7.47%	   $								12,609,378	                12.547%	       $			3,697,650.00	         7.47%	         $									16,307,028.33	         10.87%	   		          		    		      		

Central	Florida		                         1.412%	          2.58%	   $											1,418,737	               1.412%	       $			1,277,100.00	         2.58%	         $												2,695,837.16	        1.80%	   		          		    		      		

Chipola	                                        		         1.44%	                                               		     $						712,800.00	        1.44%	         $															712,800.00	       0.48%	   		          		    		      		

Daytona		                                 4.312%	          4.64%	   $											4,333,121	               4.312%	       $			2,296,800.00	         4.64%	         $												6,629,920.68	        4.42%	   		          		    		      		

Edison	                                   3.405%	          2.81%	   $											3,421,560	               3.405%	       $			1,390,950.00	         2.81%	         $												4,812,509.72	        3.21%	   		          		    		      		

FL	State	College	@Jax	                    5.123%	          8.01%	   $											5,148,704	               5.123%	       $			3,964,950.00	         8.01%	         $												9,113,653.90	        6.08%	   		          		    		      		

Florida	Keys		                                  		         0.64%	                                               		     $						316,800.00	        0.64%	         $															316,800.00	       0.21%	   		          		    		      		

Gulf	Coast		                              0.470%	          1.38%	   $														472,236	              0.470%	       $						683,100.00	        1.38%	         $												1,155,335.89	        0.77%	   		          		    		      		

Hillsborough	                             7.043%	          3.12%	   $											7,078,318	               7.043%	       $			1,544,400.00	         3.12%	         $												8,622,718.03	        5.75%	   		          		    		      		

Indian	River		                            3.086%	          3.00%	   $											3,101,578	               3.086%	       $			1,485,000.00	         3.00%	         $												4,586,578.25	        3.06%	   		          		    		      		

Florida	Gateway	(Lake	City)	                    		         1.46%	                                               		     $						722,700.00	        1.46%	         $															722,700.00	       0.48%	   		          		    		      		

Lake	Sumter		                                   		         0.97%	   $																										‐	               		     $						480,150.00	        0.97%	         $															480,150.00	       0.32%	   		          		    		      		

SCF,	Manatee‐Sarasota		                   1.901%	          2.72%	   $											1,910,120	               1.901%	       $			1,346,400.00	         2.72%	         $												3,256,520.41	        2.17%	   		          		    		      		

Miami	Dade	                             20.869%	          16.48%	   $								20,972,956	                20.869%	       $			8,157,600.00	        16.48%	         $									29,130,556.45	         19.42%	   		          		    		      		

North	Florida		                                 		         0.65%	                                               		     $						321,750.00	        0.65%	         $															321,750.00	       0.21%	   		          		    		      		

Northwest	FL	State	(OWC)	                       		         1.68%	                                               		     $						831,600.00	        1.68%	         $															831,600.00	       0.55%	   		          		    		      		

Palm	Beach	                               5.747%	          5.44%	   $											5,776,058	               5.747%	       $			2,692,800.00	         5.44%	         $												8,468,857.55	        5.65%	   		          		    		      		

Pasco	Hernando	                           2.885%	          1.90%	   $											2,899,669	               2.885%	       $						940,500.00	        1.90%	         $												3,840,169.30	        2.56%	   		          		    		      		

Pensacola	                                1.789%	          3.62%	   $											1,798,165	               1.789%	       $			1,791,900.00	         3.62%	         $												3,590,065.24	        2.39%	   		          		    		      		

Polk	                                     1.758%	          2.11%	   $											1,766,607	               1.758%	       $			1,044,450.00	         2.11%	         $												2,811,057.48	        1.87%	   		          		    		      		

St.	Johns	River		                         1.491%	      1.48%	         $											1,498,105	  1.491%	                	$						732,600.00		         1.48%	          	$												2,230,704.78	     1.49%	   		          		    		      		
                                                     Sum‐of‐        Value	1:	Distribution	for	Need	                        Value	2:	Distribution	for	                                                           Project	          Total	
               College	        Index	of	Need*	         the	               (New	Construction)	                         General	Renovation,	Remodel,	                  Total	Formula	Allocations	                 Funding	          PECO	




                                                                                                                                                                                                  16
                                                                                                                                                                PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
            
                               Digits	                                                     Infrastructure	&	Site	                                                                Funding	
                                                                                              Improvements	

St.	Petersburg		    1.318%	     5.87%	        $											1,324,205	      1.318%	    	$			2,905,650.00		       5.87%	        	$												4,229,854.88	      2.82%	   		   		   		   		

Sante	Fe		          3.421%	     3.05%	        $											3,438,088	      3.421%	    	$			1,509,750.00		       3.05%	        	$												4,947,838.37	      3.30%	   		   		   		   		

Seminole		          5.151%	     2.68%	        $											5,176,683	      5.151%	    	$			1,326,600.00		       2.68%	        	$												6,503,283.13	      4.34%	   		   		   		   		

South	Florida		           		    1.31%	                                          		   	$						648,450.00		      1.31%	        	$															648,450.00	     0.43%	   		   		   		   		

Tallahassee	        0.361%	     2.91%	        $														362,707	     0.361%	    	$			1,440,450.00		       2.91%	        	$												1,803,157.06	      1.20%	   		   		   		   		

Valencia		         13.240%	     4.60%	        $								13,306,593	       13.240%	    	$			2,277,000.00		       4.60%	        	$									15,583,592.75	       10.39%	   		   		   		   		

                                         	$						100,500,000		          100.000%	    	$						49,500,000		               	$							150,000,000.00		           100.00%	




                                                                                                                                                             17
                                                                                                                           PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
          
Summary

The Council of Presidents of the Florida College System is deeply appreciative of the
opportunity to provide a proposal to the Legislature on an item of critical importance. The work
of the COP, with strong and detailed support from the staff of the Division of Florida Colleges,
reflects a cohesive effort to strengthen the planning, utilization, and beneficial use of scarce
construction and facilities maintenance dollars.

The proposed model builds on the conceptual and philosophical strengths of the well-
established operating fund distribution model that has been used for more than a decade in the
Legislative Appropriations process;

The proposed model invites a strong dialogue between the institutions and the Legislative/
Executive leadership to address demonstrated needs;

The proposed model builds on the availability of existing data, compiled and submitted by
institutions annually; THE MODEL IMPOSES NO NEW OR ADDITIONAL REPORTING OR
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS;

The proposed model supports facilities commitments and decisions made to date and
anticipates being phased in as those commitments are fulfilled;

The proposed model permits local boards of trustees to establish priorities for the expenditure
of available funds within guidelines and limits established in the appropriations process;

The proposed model puts a very high premium on the enhancement of the facilities planning for
the Florida College System as a whole.

Respectfully Submitted:




                                                                                           18
                                                         PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
    Attachment A




                                                     19
                   PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 
    Attachment B




                                                     20
                   PECO FINAL APPROVED VERSION 12/09/12
 

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:10/9/2012
language:English
pages:20