Peralta Community
College Budget Allocation
Model
BAM
November 17, 2014

Modeled after SB 361
◦ Used for funding apportionment for all
California Community Colleges
◦ 3 fundamental revenue drivers
 Base allocation
 Credit Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES)
 Non-Credit FTES
◦ Apportionment funding from this formula
represents more than 70% of the District’s
unrestricted revenue
BAM



Simple and easy to understand
Consistent with State’s SB 361 model
Provides –


Utilizes conservative revenue projections
Maintains autonomous decision making at the
college level
Is responsive to the district’s and colleges’
planning processes

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Financial stability
A reserve in accordance with PCCD Board Policy
Clear Accountability
Periodic review and revision
Some services centralized at the District Office
Principles

Between the Colleges and the District Office

Colleges have broad oversight of institutional
responsibilities
◦ To encourage and support collaboration
◦ Primary authority over educational programs and student
services functions
◦ Develops autonomous and individualized processes to
meet state and accreditation standards

District office primarily ensures compliance with
applicable statue and regulatory compliance as
well as essential support functions
◦ Staff responsibility to fulfill fiduciary role of providing
appropriate oversight of District operations
Partnership
Similar allocation to four Colleges as SB
361 allocation to District
 Allocates resources for Revenue, the
District Office, District wide-services and
regulatory costs based on percentage of 3
year rolling average of FTES

Allocations

Applicable Revenue = Revenue less
Exclusions
◦ Amount of revenue to be distributed to
Colleges

Centralized and District Office Expenses
◦ Amount of expenditures to be distributed to
Colleges

Three Year Rolling Averages
◦ 3 year Average of the Total funded Full Time
Equivalent Students (FTES) for each College
Components of Formula Used

Revenue
◦ Computational Revenue as determined by
SB361 at the State
◦ Unrestricted Lottery
◦ Apprenticeship
◦ Student Health Fees
◦ Other Student Fees and Miscellaneous
◦ Transfers in from other sources
◦ Parcel Tax
Budget Allocation Worksheet
Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)
paid for retirees
 OPEB debt service payment

Exclusions











Chancellors Office
Board of Trustees
General Counsel
Information Technology
Public Information
Risk Management
Education and Student Services
Institutional Research
Human Resources
Finance and Purchasing
General Services
District Office Service Centers





DSPS Contribution
Admissions and Records
Facilities
Financial Aid
International Education
Centralized Services

Revenue Allocations to Colleges
◦ Applicable revenue times the percentage
represented by the 3 year rolling FTES average of
the district wide 3 year rolling average

District Office and Centralized Services
◦ Applicable cost of each service time the percentage
represented by the 3 year rolling FTES average of
the district wide 3 year rolling averages

Total of these represent the revenue
allocation to each College
Formula

Budget Cycle
◦ Tentative Budget to board by June 30
◦ Final Budget adopted by board by September
15

Budget Calendar
◦ Positions
◦ Discretionary
◦ Categorical/Grants
Unrestricted Expenditure Budgets
by College
Spreadsheet with prior year positions and
coding sent to College for review and
input
 Rates acquired by the issuing agency
 Cost for each employee computed
 This plus the part time faculty make up
the non-discretionary portion of each
budget

Non-discretionary budgets
FTES targets established for each College
based on funded growth from the State
 17.5 productivity used to determine
number of Full Time Equivalent Faculty
(FTEF) needed to meet the FTES targets
 Full Time position for faculty subtracted
from the number of FTEF needed to
determine part time faculty budget

FTEF calculation
Peralta Community College District
2014-15 1351 Budget
11/17/2014
COA
Laney
Merritt
BCC
Districtwide
Budget Projections
1
FTEF - per position spreadsheets (includes new
positions)
2
3
50.91
106.206
64.92
46.8
268.836
*2 for fall and spring
101.82
212.412
129.84
93.6
537.672
FTEF Targets per Ed. Svs - 19,055 ftes
216.22
466.64
226.99
236.14
1,146.00
2.74
6.44
2.84
3.28
15.30
Total FTEF for target
218.96
473.08
229.83
239.42
1,161.30
4
Difference between targets and contract
instructional faculty (3-2)
117.14
260.67
99.99
145.82
623.63
5
Estimated cost at $22,000 (4*$22,000)
$
2,577,047
$
5,734,791
$
2,199,885
$
3,208,093
$
13,719,816
6
Summer Estimate
$
528,297
$
957,483
$
332,234
$
590,875
$
2,408,889
7
Projected salary savings on existing vacancies
$
1,902,689
8
Amount to allocate ((5+6)-7)
a. Department Chair Release FTEF
390,889
538,098
466,052
507,650
2,714,455
6,154,176
2,066,067
3,291,319
14,226,016
Part-Time Faculty Calculation
Full time positions
 Part Time Faculty Calculation
 Related payroll liabilities
 Medical and Dental premiums

On average, represents about 85% of
College budget
Non-Discretionary Budgets
Prior Year Allocation used for:
 Hourly personnel
 Supplies
 Materials
 Services
 Capital Equipment
Include some fixed costs, such as utilities, rent, maintenance
agreements, etc.
Represents on average 15% of College funding
Object codes
◦ 4xxx-7xxx
◦ 14xx and 13xx (except 1351)
Discretionary Budget

Total of the Discretionary and NonDiscretionary budgets as allocated based
on the previous two slides
Unrestricted Expenditure Budget
by College
As anticipated, there are delta’s between
the Revenue allocation by College and
unrestricted expenditures by College
Identified in the BAM are strategies for
Transition
Differences


Will require multiple years to avoid negative
and sudden operational impacts to programs
and services
Options:
◦ Shifting FTES targets to provide additional
apportionment to some colleges
◦ Deficit reduction plans
◦ Shifting growth money from one college to another
◦ Reductions in centralized support functions and
services
◦ Utilization of international student tuition
Strategies for Transition
Still sorting out remaining issues
 Evaluating the effectiveness of the
procedures outlined
 Suggested review every 3 years
 Keeping the model up to date and
responsive to the changing community
college landscape

Periodic Review
Questions / Comments