Operating Budget Allocation Process
description
Transcript of Operating Budget Allocation Process
Operating Budget Allocation Process
College Council
March 20, 2007
2
WARNING!The information you are about to
see is extremely boring! You should not use heavy machinery e.g. pencil sharpeners, for up to 4 hours after this presentation. Viewer discretion is advised! This meeting will NOT be canceled due to weather conditions.
3
Who Am I?
4
Budget Process 30,000 Ft. View
Governor/Office of Financial Management, Legislature, State Board, Presidents
5
State of WashingtonBiennial Budget Process
Currently working on 2007-09 biennial operating and capital budgets
Presidents discuss system budget priorities Request for this biennium $269mil over last
for CTC system (let’s look at handout) How do president’s determine this list?
6
Budget Process Kick-off
7
State of Washington Biennial Budget Process
SBCTC submits operating and capital budget requests to Governor – Fall, even years
Governor makes biennial budget proposal to Legislature– December, even years
Supplemental budgets adjust the biennial budget (odd years)
8
State of WashingtonBiennial Budget Process
Each chamber of the Legislature writes its own budget– Protocol – Chambers take turns going first– The budget is a law! (with a two-year life)– Both chambers must agree on everything!
The Governor signs the budget – has power to veto subsections
Legislature appropriates state funds to SBCTC, which allocates dollars to colleges
9
How are funds allocated to colleges?
Formulas/models have changed over years A “little” history
10
The “old days” for Budget Allocations
Motto: “System solidarity every college for themselves”
Separate formulas for CC’s and TC’s CC formula used from 1985 to 1999 Formula moved funds among colleges
every year
11
Budget Allocations
When CC formula was adopted in 1985, tuition collected by colleges sent to State
In 1994 the Legislature changed tuition policy- now retained by colleges
Formula moved funds from high-collection to low-collection colleges
Old formula abandoned in 1999 too complex and seemingly unfair
12
Current Allocation Method
It was agreed that the new method would not include increases or decreases in enrollmentAllocation of enrollment growth and reductions
due to under-enrollment would be governed by the biennial enrollment plan and State Board adopted enrollment rules
Current SBCTC “rules”
13
Current Allocation Method
Formula frozen in 1999 At that time funding per FTE at the CC’s
ranged from $2,171 to $5,113 per FTE WACTC adopted principles for new
formulaColleges’ “base “ budgets should be
independent of other colleges’ actions/circumstances
14
Current Allocation Method
Colleges “base” budgets should be predictable from one year to the next
There should be no re-distribution of base budgets among colleges
The method needs to be understandable and involve fewer variables
15
Current Allocation Method
The formula would deal only with state general funds. No local revenues including tuition, would be considered in the allocation of state funding* Quiz!
OBC of WACTC worked on new formula from September 1999 to December of 2000
WACTC adopted method in concept in December 2000
16
Current Allocation Method
Other new appropriations-compensation increases, special programs- to be allocated to appropriation bases to be discussed annually at WACTC (presidents)
If new appropriation levels permit, bring up all colleges’ funding with the lowest-funded colleges receiving a larger share of funds
Regression curve (too boring to discuss)
State of WashingtonGeneral Fund Operating Budget2005-07 Biennium
Human Services32.1%
K-12 39.9%
Bonds5.0%
Other 7.9%
Universities 6.5%
Corrections 5.0%
CTC’s 4.1%
CTC’s 38.5%
U of W22.6%
WSU 13.9%
EWU 3.2%
TESC 1.8% CWU 3.2%
WWU 4.0%
HECB 12.7%
Washington State = $28.2B Higher Education = $3.1B
CTCs serve almost 60% of higher education enrollments
$1.2B
18
SBCTC State Funds AllocationsState Operating Budget
“Base Plus” approach – colleges keep the money they have. One-time funds removed, result is college “base budget”.
New money is added – typical new funds include:– Growth enrollment slots
– Compensation increases
– New programs/specified funding
Most allocated money is unrestricted – colleges develop local priorities
19
Allocation of Growth Enrollments
Biennial enrollment plan – intent is to put enrollment growth where it will be needed
NSCC example
Funding for growth enrollments set by Legislature, sometimes some of that funding is set aside for other purposes:– Funding for new program startup
– Aid for low-funded colleges
20
Tuition
Traditionally set by Washington Legislature
Recent trend to delegate authority to State Board to increase CC resident tuition up to legislative maximum– State Board has authority to set CC non-resident tuition
– Since 1993, tuition revenues (except building fees) are retained by colleges
21
Tuition Components of Tuition and Fees
– Operating Fees (80%)
• Retained locally to help pay general expenses of the college
– Building Fees (10%)
• Sent to State Treasurer, funds a portion of the colleges’ capital budget
– Service and Activity Fees (10%)
• Retained locally; used to fund student activities such as sports, clubs, childcare, etc.
• Colleges may charge less than maximum* Students have experienced a doubling of tuition over the last ten years
22
Compensation Increases
Legislature controls salary increases
Increases are delineated in biennial appropriations act
Salary increases are limited to those allowed in the appropriations act – no other increases may be provided by the colleges!
23
Typical Types of Compensation Increases
COLAs – limited to % set by Legislature
Faculty Increments – limited to funds allowed by Legislature, plus turnover savings, sometimes COLA
Part-time Faculty – limited by specific legislative language
Comparison of Full-time Faculty Average Salaries
FY2004-05 Washington CTCs average is 89% of Western States
$78,390
$56,864
$48,202$53,944 $54,094
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
WA ResearchUniversities
WA RegionalUniversities
WA CTCs National CCAverage
Western StatesCC Average
Most recent as of December 11, 2006. To be updated Jan/Feb 2007.
25
Outside Influences on CTC Programs and Budgets
Major recession and economic recovery Significant state budget deficits causing five
consecutive years of CTC budget cuts To partially offset cuts in state funds, cumulative
45% increase in student tuition rates Student tuition waivers were reviewed and a new
charge established for basic skills Passage of Initiatives
26
Conclusions
Implementation of allocation method has:– Protected college base budgets (except for
legislative mandated budget cuts)– Maintained independence of colleges’ budgets
from actions of other colleges– Been easier to understand than former formula– Used “best fit” basis to allocate compensation,
cuts, etc. based on WACTC recommendations to the State Board
27
Conclusions (cont’d)– There is less disparity among the colleges in per FTE
funding than in 2000
– High cost programs and basic skills have been allocated additional funds received from legislative appropriations
– While lowest funded districts have received enhanced funding for their growth FTES, the amount of funding for this purpose has been low
– Enrollment growth funding is where the system has flexibility to affect college allocations
($2,500)
($2,000)
($1,500)
($1,000)
($500)
$0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007G
F R
even
ue
Red
uct
ion
s in
Mil
lion
s Where Has all the Revenue Gone?
(Reductions to General Fund revenue since 1993)
Other
I-747 – Property Tax Limits
I-728 – Lottery & State Property Taxes to K-12
Ref 49 – License Tab Reduction
Ref 47 – Property Tax Reduction
Hi Tech Incentives/Manuf. & Equipment Exemption
Repeal of 1993 B&O Increases
29
District Budget Allocation Process500 ft. view
30
District Allocation Process Overview
IntroductionYears of Change ( 1993-96)
The Middle Years (1997-1999)
Current Process (1997 - present)
Allocation Considerations
31
Introduction
Prior to the mid-1990’s Community College funding was determined through a complex formula administered by the State Board.
Only state funding allocated. Tuition sent to State Treasurer.
Seattle District ran State formula to determine colleges’ state allocation with minor adjustments.
32
Years of Change - District Approach 1995-96
Continued to use state’s tuition estimate as district target.
Adjusted college’s tuition based on actual collections.
At end of year would balance out allocations. In total, no one lost.
District Current Process -1999 to Present
34
Current Process - 1999-present
State Board allocates only state funds to the districts.
Seattle District determines each college’s allocation based on total tuition and state funding.
35
Current Process - 1999-presentDistrict Process
Start with permanent base allocated in prior year.
Includes both state and tuition funding. Adjust funding for Legislative changes. Apply tuition increase percent to last year’s
tuition allocation amount.
Result is permanent base for current year.
Permanent Base - FY 2006-07
Initial Allocation(includes state and tuition)
Permanent StateAllocation FTE*
Central $26,669,126 5,580North $20,589,322 3,795 South $19,436,658 4,316 61,808,914 12,843*Excludes worker retraining and apprenticeship
37
SCCD Colleges Have Own Budget Process
38
North’s Process
Budget Planning Team College Council Executive Team “Two bucket” approach Tie to Strategic Plan Financial Reports
39
Tuition
Target vs AllocationProcessExceptions
40
Tuition - Target vs Allocation
Tuition revenue collection target per college does not equal spending amount per college.
Tuition collected supports other operations - District Office and District Wide Accounts
41
Tuition Target Process
Use same approach for past few years. Verify that colleges met target in prior year. If yes, use target amount from prior year. If no, reduce target by shortfall in revenue
in prior year. Increase target by percentage increase in
tuition.
42
Tuition Allocation Process
Used same approach past few years. Allocate tuition amount in permanent base
from prior year. If target not met in prior year, may or may
not adjust current year tuition allocation. (The total permanent base remains the same. Just the split between state and tuition would change.)
43
Target Vs Allocation
FY 2005-06
Target Allocation
Central $8,587,530 $7,266,284
North 7,031,110 6,240,801
South 5,058,300 4,270,362
Total $20,676,940$17,777,447
44
Tuition Distribution Examples
1. None of the colleges meet their target.
If during the year, it appears that none of the colleges are meeting the target, all budget units would have to take a budget cut.
Target amount is allocation amount for entire district.
45
Tuition Distribution Examples
2. One college (A) misses collection target, however, other 2 colleges (B & C) over collect. Total collections exceed tuition target.
No allocation reductions will occur. In the next year’s carry forward calculation, colleges
B & C will contribute part of their carry forward to college A equal to the deficit, then the remaining tuition over target is spread to all 3 based on the percent of permanent funding.
46
Tuition Distribution Examples
3. All 3 colleges collect more tuition than the target. College B has excess enrollments.
College B can claim a tuition amount for excess enrollment equal to the lower of the amount calculated for excess or the amount collected over target.
The balance of all tuition collected over target (after deducting for Excess) is distributed to the 3 colleges based on percent of permanent funding.
47
Allocation Considerations
Do we increase spending authority (allocation) for estimates of new enrollments?
Do we include other factors in determining a college’s tuition target? (e.g. student mix (FT/PT), collections over target)
Do we need to build in incentives for collecting more tuition?
48
Community and Technical Colleges2005-07 Biennium State Funding
Operating Budget $ 1.172 Billion
FY 2005-06 $ 575.5 Million
FY 2006-07 $ 596.8 Million*
*Adds new enrollments plus miscellaneous increased costs
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Washington CC Students* pay 38.5% of their instructional costs in 2005
Research universities
Comprehensive institutions
Community colleges
41.1%
31.5%
28.8%
*Full tuition paying student receiving no tuition discounts
54.9%
42.6%
38.5%
Community and Technical College Tuition Increases
1991 through 2006
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%
1990
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Change in Tuition
In the last 15 years, tuition and fees have increased from $822 to $2,571
State General Fund Changes
59% 58% 57% 55%59%
0%
FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004
Sh
are
of T
otal
Fu
nd
s
State General Fund
What About The General Fund?
52
We Are Done!!!
Thank you very much for your time!
Questions??