Community College Planning Task Force Minutes

Task Force Meeting Information

August 25 and 26, 2008

Central Wyoming College Student Center

Task Force Members Present

Senator Henry H.R. “Hank” Coe, Co-Chairman

Representative Del McOmie, Co-Chairman

Senator Michael Von Flatern

Representative Lorraine Quarberg

Jerry Austin, Wamsutter, Representing Oil and Gas

Mary Behrens, Casper, Representing Health Care

Lynn Birleffi, Cheyenne, Representing Travel, Tourism & Recreation

Glenn Dalton, Rock Springs, Representing Community Colleges-Vocational Programs

Joan K. Evans, Cheyenne, Representing Workforce Services

Steve L. Johnson, Sheridan, Representing Mining

Bryan Pedersen, Cheyenne, Representing Public-At-Large

David R. Reetz, Powell, Representing Community Colleges-Academic Programs

Task Force Members Absent

Senator Rae Lynn Job

Representative Pete Jorgensen

Tom Kinnison, Sheridan, Representing Small Business Community

Other Legislators Present

Senator John Schiffer

Senator Eli Bebout

Legislative Service Office Staff

Dave Nelson, School Finance Manager, Brenda Long, School Finance Analyst

Matthew Sackett, Research Analyst, Josh Anderson, Staff Attorney

Others Present at Meeting

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

The Task Force met for two days at Central Wyoming College in Riverton. The Task Force considered documents related to the strategic plan, community college operations funding and capital construction. The Task Force voted to amend those documents and forward them to the September meeting for further consideration.

Call To Order (August 25, 2008)

Co-Chairman Coe called the meeting to order at 8:30 am. The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic. Please refer to Appendix 2 to review the Committee Meeting Agenda.

Approval of Minutes

Senator Von Flatern moved that the task force approve the minutes of the July 24-25, 2008 meeting, the motion was seconded and passed.

Statewide College System Strategic Plan

Mr. Jack Russell of the Community College Commission addressed the Task Force regarding the strategic planning process. Mr. Russell provided a handout to the Task Force (see Appendix 3 for a copy of the handout). Mr. Russell noted that the timeline would provide for the conclusion of the strategic plan next year in the fall. Mr. Russell noted that the strategic plan will be a living and ever changing plan and will be updated at the beginning of each biennium. Mr. Russell noted that the Commission will forward a supplemental budget request that will include a supplement for the overseas combat veteran program of four hundred thousand dollars, a supplement for the strategic planning process of three hundred thousand dollars, utility costs of seven hundred eighty thousand dollars for 2009 and a similar request for 2010.

Mr. Russell noted that the Commission would also present 8 capital construction requests for legislative authorization, including 5 that were presented in 2008. He noted that the requests would not require state funding. Mr. Russell noted that the Commission has requested supplemental data to ensure the requests will be within the future statewide strategic plan.

Mr. Dave Nelson of the Legislative Service Office provided handouts to the Task Force of a series of points to help frame recommendations to help carry forward in reporting to the legislature that consisted of bullet points followed by legislative implementation of those points (see Appendix 4 for a copy of the handouts). The Task Force first considered the strategic plan process. Mr. Nelson explained the handouts on the strategic planning process. He noted that the proposed points build upon the existing strategic planning process and that it continues that effort and puts emphasis on it. Mr. Nelson noted that it focuses on three areas of state interest including 2 year academics, career technical education and training programs to develop workforce, and remedial and continuing education programs to improve employability. In response to a question, he noted that the focus would include GED programs. Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed bullet points and legislation provide that the interests can be accomplished through a comprehensive system, that the strategic plan is integral to the system and that the commission is best positioned to execute and maintain the strategic plan. Mr. Nelson also provided handouts to the Task Force comparing the strategic plans of the individual colleges (see Appendix 5 for a copy of the handouts).

In response to a question, Dr. Jim Rose of the Community College Commission noted that the individual colleges could keep their own strategic plans and that they can develop and maintain their own plans to deal with local issues and interface with the state plan and that they should be complementary. He noted that the statewide plan is not intended to supplant the colleges’ plans.

Mr. Nelson noted that the state will lay out its interests through the strategic plan, tied to funding. He noted that local control still remains and that the colleges can still operate as see fit but state funds will be tied to state interests.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the strategic plan may be the vehicle to develop the accountability piece for the colleges and that they would work with the colleges to determine what some of the benchmarks would be. In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the funding is done on a per credit basis and is determined by census long before the class is completed. He noted that the college has invested the money up front and that if a certain class starts with 30 students and ends with 15, the cost is almost the same for the college. Dr. Rose noted that the strategic plan could be used to set benchmarks for completion and that it could be possible to provide some type of performance funding after the fact where a college could get additional funding if it achieves a good graduation rate. He noted that it would be more incentive based funding rather than punitive but that it could be done either way and noted that in California the colleges are funded at 90% and the remaining 10% is redistributed based on performance.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that as far as the Commission having the power to terminate programs it will be incumbent on the strategic plan to be definite enough to give rationale that the program is outside the plan. He stated that the Commission would work with the colleges to make sure they are not going outside of the plan and that the Commission will have to have definitive measures to make decisions about specific plan. Dr. Rose noted that it could work the other way and things that are not being funded now could be funded because they are truly in the state’s interest.

Community College Operational Funding and Governance

Dr. Rose noted that in the process of developing funding allocation model the Commission is taking a different approach. Dr. Rose noted that the Commission combined the budget request process with the funding allocation model and that the amount that was provided in this biennium will become the standard budget and everything else will be done through an exception budget request. In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that the rules that were the basis for the request were not approved but the request had already gone forward. Dr. Rose stated that the Commission put in emergency rules to distribute the funding. In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that the Governor has agreed to make emergency rules permanent until the Commission can adopt new permanent rules.

Mr. Richard Cox of the Budget office noted that as far as the 2009-2010 biennium the Governor will support the current distribution but noted that the rest of it becomes part of the process of the Task Force. He noted that for the 2011-2012 biennium the budget process will start in about a year.

Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed framework being considered by the Task Force would speak to the next biennium. Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed changes would give the Commission the ability to forward new programs of state interest and the ability to direct funding. Mr. Nelson noted that fixed costs would be based on the college and that the proposal would be to include a hold harmless provision that would allow for transitional funding for a specified period to provide protection for the colleges.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that those requests that are outside of the standard budget will be submitted through the exception request process. He noted that those items would generally be one time funding.

Ms. Brenda Long of the Legislative Service Office provided a handout to the Task Force of LSO's comments on the proposed changes to the funding model (see Appendix 6 for a copy of the handout). Ms. Long explained the handout. She noted that what the proposed funding model does is provide a clear baseline for the state's portion of community college funding. She noted that as to inflation the proposed change would increase transparency and could be modified or removed as necessary by the legislature. Ms. Long noted that the exception budget process would allow targeted funding and that it could allow for reporting or other requirements for accountability. Ms. Long noted that the proposed funding model would be bases on state priorities which would help ensure that requests for funding emanate from the strategic plan and are linked with state priorities.

Ms. Long noted that the other piece is the proposed changes to the distribution formula. She noted that the proposed formula would use baseline costs as opposed to college specific costs. Ms. Long noted that costs should be similar across the system and that under the proposed change it would move away from funding college choices and preferences and move closer to a statewide approach. Ms. Long noted that there was separation of components into two types of costs, fixed and variable. Ms. Long noted that fixed costs are physical and non-variable while variable costs address instructional support. Ms. Long noted that fixed costs identify costs unique to each college which would allow the formula to recognize that costs are not the same across all colleges and that the fixed cost piece could work similar to an economy of scale adjustment.

Ms. Long noted that the proposed formula would use enrollment driven factors for increases and decreases and that the primary funding driver would be enrollment. In response to a question, Ms. Long noted that the enrollment would be predicted and that there would be a pool of money for changes in enrollment.

Mr. Matt Petry of the Community College Commission provided handouts of two funding scenarios and a summary of reserves (see Appendix 7 and Appendix 8 for a copy of the handouts). Mr. Petry noted that scenario number 1 shows a comparison of estimated existing biennial funding and estimated funding under the recommendations. He noted that $881,090.00 would have been an additional request. Mr. Petry noted that some colleges would have seen some wide swings. He noted that this was a result of where their cost was compared to the average and the impact of reserves in the formula. He stated that in the past as they put money aside they decreased expenditures and decreased the cost of operations and so may not have come in with as high a cost as they would have. He noted that in addition the formula recognized that money that the College put aside can be used for operational funding and so it counts against its funding.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose stated that reserves can be used for anything related to operations within the college and that the Commission will not see how the reserves are used until after the fact.

Mr. Petry noted that there are a number of different ways on how to handle reserves and that the Task Force could choose to not count them as operational funding.

Mr. Petry explained the second scenario he noted that the difference between the scenarios was the implementation of the hold harmless provision which restricts the decrease to 98%.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that all kinds of elements can effect the cost of instruction component but that moving to a to system wide amount tells the colleges that they can do what they want but they will only be paid a certain amount.

Mr. Nelson explained the statutory implementation of the proposed changes. He noted that the Commission would have the authority to approve all new programs that qualify for state funding –and bring those programs into the state interest. Mr. Nelson stated that it was possible that non-credit programs could be determined to be part of the state interest and generate funding.

After additional discussion, Mr. David Reetz made a motion on page 1 of the strategic plan process document, under point 1 after "education programs" insert "designed for occupational readiness". The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that on page one in point two after "the efficient use of resources" insert "and meet the needs of state residents and industry". The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Representative Quarberg moved that under point 1, staff add additional bullet points for dual enrollment and distance learning as part of the state's interests in the system. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Co-chair McOmie moved that on page 4 of the statutory implementation of strategic plan recommendations document in paragraph (iii) after "this section" insert “which shall include but not limited to: student goal attainment, persistence, completion rates, placement rates, licensure rates, demonstration of critical literacy skills and success in subsequent related coursework". The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Senator Von Flatern moved that on page 1 in subsection (d)(ii) after "terminate state funding" insert “for operations”. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Co-chair Coe moved that on page 1 before "~~(viii)~~" insert paragraph (v) (see Appendix 9 for a copy of the section) and amend the section to remove the restriction to nursing programs and make it open to all areas. This amendment incorporates distance education as a state interest in the college system. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that on page 3 in subsection (h) after "capital construction" insert “requests and”. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Co-chair Coe moved that the task force carry forward both documents related to the strategic plan as amended for consideration at the September meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz moved that in the funding document in item 2 after bullet point 3 insert “The exception budget process will clearly detail whether the request is one time or requiring some form of continuing funding;”. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that staff change the term “hold-harmless” to “max loss” throughout. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that in the statutory implementation on page 1 in subsection (d)(i) and (ii) and on page 2 in subsection 2 after “state funding” insert “for operations”. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Representative Quarberg moved that language within (d)(ii) on page 1 be conformed to the amended language in the strategic plan proposal with respect to terminating programs inconsistent with the strategic plan. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that on page 2 after “adjusted amount” insert “and shall be one time unless otherwise specified”, to delete "expanded and" throughout and to make any adjustments to the bullet point document to make it match the changes to the statutory language. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Co-chair Coe moved a conceptual amendment that the staff can develop some type of pool, potentially a new subsection in W.S. 21-18-205, which could serve as a funding pool for enrollment adjustments and response to emergency needs. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that in the bullet point document on page 1 , number 2, second bullet after "inflation" delete “and other cost increases”. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Senator Coe moved that the task force forward those documents related to funding as amended for final consideration in the September meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Meeting Recess

The Committee recessed at 5:00 pm.

Call To Order (August 26, 2008)

Co-Chairman McOmie called the meeting to order at 8:30 am.

Capital Construction and Maintenance

Dr. Rose provided a handout to the Task Force (see Appendix 10 for a copy of the handout). Dr. Rose noted that those projects above line on the handout were approved but excluded from major maintenance. Dr. Rose noted that the projects on the list were either approved by the Commission last year but not given legislative authorization or have been approved by the Commission for this year.

Dr. Rose explained some of the forms that the Commission uses in prioritizing capital construction projects and provided a handout to the Task Force (see Appendix 11 for a copy of the handout). Dr. Rose noted that the Commission assigns a numerical score to every project. Dr. Rose stated that the process has been difficult because there are no guiding principals as to what projects are within the state interest. Dr. Rose noted that the process would be clarified by the existence of strategic plan and that the Commission would use the strategic plan to guide the process.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that funding history is scored the lowest but if there are projects of the college which had a project which was funded more recently would get a lower score.

Mr. Nelson provided a handout of an updated division of square footage for the colleges (see Appendix 12 for a copy of the handout). Mr. Nelson discussed the handout of the proposed changes to the capital construction process. Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed mechanism would delegate responsibility to the Commission to request capital construction projects through an established process and linked to the strategic plan. He noted that the proposed changes would require the Commission to keep a database to assess the buildings.

In response to a question, Mr. Nelson noted that the proposed change specifically provides for major maintenance but limits it to space in conformance with the strategic plan. Mr. Nelson noted that this would require a more detailed analysis by the Commission.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that on page 2 of the capital construction document under point 8 after "sufficient" insert “a reprioritization is made pursuant to annual review,” and to adopt the underlined language in the document. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Nelson explained the proposed changes to statutory language.

In response to a question, Dr. Rose noted that the Commission does not have capacity to do a technical review but that the Commission would like responsibility for prioritization and the strategic plan. He noted that the Commission would like to forward the construction requests to the Legislature in a priority order similar to how the University forwards its requests.

Task force member Bryan Pedersen moved that in the statutory implementation of the capital construction recommendation, staff draft an amendment that would be similar to the capital construction process of the University which would provide for state building commission review and budget recommendations. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Mr. Reetz made a motion that on page 2 of the statutory implementation document in subsection (e) after "previously assigned may be" insert “removed or”. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Task Force member Steve Johnson moved that on page 2 in subsection (e) after “prioritized" delete "and scheduled”, "after assigned may be" delete "rescheduled" and insert "reprioritized" and on page 2 in subsection (d) after "prioritize" delete “and schedule”. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Co-chair McOmie moved that the Task Force forward the documents related to capital construction as amended for final consideration at the September meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Next Meeting

The date for the next meeting is September 29 and 30 in Casper, Wyoming.

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Co-Chairman McOmie adjourned the meeting at 11:30 am.

Respectfully submitted,

Senator Coe, Co-Chairman Representative McOmie, Co-Chairman

Appendix	Appendix Topic	Appendix Description	Appendix Provider
1	Committee Sign-In Sheet	Lists meeting attendees	Legislative Service Office
2	Committee Meeting Agenda	Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting	Legislative Service Office
3	Strategic Planning	Strategic planning process	Community College Commission
4	Proposed changes	Proposed changes and implementation	Legislative Service Office
5	Strategic plans	Colleges' strategic plans	Legislative Service Office
6	Funding Recommendations	Funding recommendations	Community College Commission
7	Funding scenarios	Funding scenarios	Community College Commission
8	College reserves	Summary of college reserves	Community College Commission
9	Powers of the commission	W.S. 21-18-202	Legislative Service Office
10	Capital construction	Capital Construction summary	Community College Commission
11	Capital construction	Existing college capital construction	Community College Commission
12	Capital construction	State funded vs. locally funded	Legislative Service Office