Get documents about "Florida College System Report of the Council of Presidents on the
Document Sample
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
