Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Formula topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CareerTech director outlines proposed operational funding formula aimed at equity across tech centers
Summary
Director Hakan presented a proposed operational funding formula that would allocate state aid across four components — local needs (70%), secondary service incentive (10%), campus funding (10%), and student-services/cost-per-program — to better target resources and incentivize serving more eligible juniors and seniors; implementation could begin in June if budget increases materialize.
Director Hakan presented a proposed overhaul of CareerTech’s operational funding formula, saying the goal is to use available state dollars more equitably across technology centers.
"The purpose is to make sure that we have equity across the system," Hakan said, outlining four primary components of the proposal: local needs, a secondary service incentive, approved campus funding, and a student-services formula. Hakan described local needs as the largest component (70% of the formula in the presented model), calculated by taking 65% of a center’s local general-fund (ad valorem) revenue and matching it with state allocation to generate an average per-program figure.
Hakan explained the second component — a secondary service incentive — would comprise 10% of the allocation and be distributed to centers based on the share of eligible juniors and seniors they serve. Under the example presented, 67% of that incentive money would go to centers serving 29% or more of eligible juniors and seniors; 33% would go to centers serving 22%–28%; centers below 22% would not receive this portion.
Campus funding was proposed as 10% of the allocation, divided equally among approved campuses to help cover on-site administrative and operating costs; Hakan gave an example of roughly $122,000 per campus in a $75 million scenario. The remaining student-services/cost-per-program component would compare classroom-activity and related expenditure categories to statewide averages and provide bonuses or reductions accordingly.
Hakan emphasized that program definitions are instructor-based (program = instructor), that program capacity and a 60% fill requirement affect eligibility, and that the model is designed to incent serving more students and to adjust over time as ad valorem revenues change.
Board members asked detailed questions about statutory limits on local funds, how the formula would treat growing urban centers versus rural centers losing ad valorem, whether increases or cuts would be phased in, and potential three-year implementation schedules. Hakan said the agency is preparing scenarios tied to the finalized state budget, and he predicted the agency may see an initial increase of about $9 million this cycle; if the legislature finalizes an increase, he expects to bring action items in June to implement at least some changes and to consider a multi-year phase-in.
No vote was taken on the formula at the meeting; the item was presented for discussion and further refinement ahead of potential June action.
