San Joaquin Delta Community Colle.docx

San Joaquin Delta
Community College District
Office of Fiscal Services
5151 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95207
TO: Board of Trustees
Jeff Marsee Ph.D, Superintendent/President
District Leadership
FROM: Michael Hill, Administrative Consultant
Raquel Puentes-Griffith, Controller

SUBJECT: 2011-12 Adoption Budget
The budget development process has been much smoother this
year than last. As you will see from the
presentation materials the changes from tentative to adoption
are smaller in number and less dramatic
than 2010-2011. This is a more typical pattern for the
unrestricted general fund portion of the budget.
The heavy lifting is normally done in preparation for the
tentative budget. We do place added emphasis
on the restricted funds moving from the tentative to adoption
budgets.
For the restricted funds there are no major surprises and with
the effort made during this last year by the
fiscal services staff and program managers the restricted funds
budgets are cleaner and reflect more
clearly the true status of programs.
Regarding the unrestricted general fund we are pleased to report
that there is some revenue improvement
as a result of the state budget that was adopted but at the same
time our estimate of the beginning fund
balance turned out to be higher than the actual results. We will

expand on these points in this
memorandum.
We also want to provide you with a sense of what the current
circumstance means for the 2012-2013
fiscal year. It has been the district strategy to approach the
state funding loss in a multi-year plan and the
2011-12 budget represents the first year of the plan.
State Budget
The state budget had to confront a shortfall of $26 billion.
About $13 billion was addressed back in
March through reduced funding of programs, the community
colleges included. This became the best
case scenario in the evaluative process. Facing more cuts to
close the gap for the remaining $13 billion,
extending taxes or a combination of both, the legislature and
governor could not reach agreement on how
to proceed. The process bogged down in the usual political
way.
The “May Revise” is that point where the state measures
revenue flows and makes adjustments to the
revenue estimates for the next year. When that measurement

occurred it was determined that the revenue
estimates could be increased which covered a portion of the $13
billion gap. In the final days of June to
get the budget out the door the revenue estimates were
increased further but because there was a sense the
numbers were soft and unlikely to materialize, triggers were
incorporated which would impose mid-year
cuts. The trigger date for making the determination is
December 15, 2011. The triggers are as follows:
Tier 0
If between $3 and $4 billion of the new revenue materializes, no
additional cuts beyond the best case will
be needed.
Tier 1
If the state only generates between $2 and $3 billion of the new
revenue, then community colleges will
lose $30 million of revenue and student fees will increase from
$36 to $46 a unit.
Tier 2

If less than $2 billion of the new revenue is received, then
community colleges (in addition to Tier 1
actions) will lose $72 million more in revenue.
District’s Approach
While at the time we prepared the tentative budget we did not
have these details the District did adopt a
strategy which is still consistent with the outcome of the final
state budget. We assumed a revenue loss
greater than the best case but targeted our FTES to achieve the
best case in the event funding did come
through at that level.
Given the uncertainty of the state budget and the fact that we
will not truly know what the budget is until
the year is half over the present strategy is further affirmed.
While this is good to know it still clouds our
ability to have clear direction on what to do about the 2012-
2013 year. It appears we will need to make
budget reductions for 2012-2013 but the ultimate dollar amount
is in question. Further as we look at on-
going expenses for step/column and health benefit cost
increases the intense local budget pressure
remains, absent any new revenues. The District is also mindful

of potential items that have budget
implications that are not included in 2011-12, but will have
future budget planning implications and affect
decisions on reduction levels. These are items such as
implementing recommendations of a classification
study, settlement of pending union salary issues and a possible
STRS rate increase.
The Change from Tentative to Adoption Budgets
On the revenue side of the equation the state funding went up
by about $1.3 million from the earlier
estimates. Please note that the District is anticipating state
apportionment at the Tier 2 level. If the final
outcome is better, then clearly that will improve our revenue
position. Based on the assessment from the
Chancellor’s Office, we have also incorporated a .5% one-time
deficit due to the anticipated shortfall in
student fees. Apart from these items, several smaller
adjustments to local revenue were made based on
end-of-year final numbers for 2010-2011. Lottery revenue was
also reduced due to the lower FTES levels
in 2011-12.
We did see a net increase in the expenditure budget due to the

unrestricted Lottery funding decrease
related to positions contained in the budget. There were some
minor operational increases that had not
been picked up when the tentative budget was completed. The
administration has been working with the
SERP results to establish what key operational positions needed
to be replaced, which departments
needed to be re-worked and those results are anticipated in the
budget.
One final piece of the expenditure budget has to do with
incorporating carryovers. These are items that
add to the expense budget but cannot be determined until the
books are closed. The prime example is
faculty travel which is governed by the CTA union contract.
There are some other carryovers as well but
this one is the most significant. Up until a year ago, carryovers
were a major problem for managing and
controlling the District budget. They totaled as much as $1.7
million in a recent fiscal year. This made
budget management and projections extremely difficult. Today
automatic carryovers are no longer the
expectation and approved carryovers are more in line with what

they should be.
The estimate of the beginning balance at the time of the
tentative budget was $15.4 million. This
estimate seemed to be solid and on target for a number of
months. Even as the District moved toward the
end of the year the data supported that number. Because this is
the first year the District is using new
tools to manage and evaluate the budget, there was no history
on what to expect at year end. June is the
catch up month for transactions since it closes out the year.
There was much greater activity than was
expected and some costs came in higher than anticipated. As a
result instead of a fund balance of $15.4
million, the fund balance is $13.2 million. For next year, the
District will have a better understanding of
the “June dynamic” and anticipate these costs in the modeling.
Further, some of the costs categories
contributing to the affect on fund balance are not expected to do
so next year.
Looking Forward
The state’s financial situation is not as dire as it was but still
contains substantial structural problems. The

national economic circumstance suggests that California will
not see a rapid return to prosperity. This
larger picture makes planning for the next couple of years more
difficult. Add to that our own internal
cost pressures and we see tough budget times at least in the
short term.
The District’s fund balance while not at the level we had
anticipated is still very strong and needs to be as
we wrestle with the financial issues confronting us. We need to
begin now planning for the 2012-2013
year even though we lack detailed information about our
funding. The greater control we exercise over
our fate, the better the outcome. As you will see from the
multi-year model, there may still be some
tough decisions ahead.
The Half-full Perspective
The Delta College community worked together to put in place a
reasonable, yet very lean budget for the
2011-12 fiscal year. The District will continue to provide
educational opportunity to more students than
the state will support, in spite of the fiscal downturn. This
budget demonstrated compassion in the way

staff reduction goals were achieved. The District has a strong
financial position to take on the next
battering wave of the financial storm and there is still
continuity and integrity in the educational programs
of the District. The strong financial position must be protected
through constant monitoring, exercising
financial prudence and with support of the collective college
community. The District in its approach to
building this budget avoided hysteria and demonstrated a quiet
strength and resolve which goes a very
long way in producing confidence and support for the needed
operational actions.
Attachments Included:
Attachment #
1 Impact of State Triggers on Delta
2 Major Budget Assumptions
3 Changes in Revenues 2011-12 Tentative Budget to 2011-12
Adoption Budget
4 Changes in Expenditures 2011-12 Tentative Budget to 2011-
12 Adoption Budget
5 Impact on Fund Balance

6 All Funds Summary
7 All Funds Description
8 Table of Budgeted Inter-fund Transfers
9 Multi-year Analysis Based on 2011-12 State Approved Budget
Attachment 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
The State will defund the community college system by $517
million. This represents the “Tier 2”
scenario. Impact on the District – a loss of $6M million which
is an estimated 1,240 FTES reduction.
The District will develop an FTES target for 2011-12 closer to
the “Best Case” to protect potential
revenue enhancement. The target will be 15,000 funded FTES.
The budget anticipates mitigation of the deficit created by the

state action over a three year period.
Funding reductions to categorical programs will result in
reduced expenditures in those programs.
The budget reflects SERP savings net of backfill costs for key
positions in District operations.
San Joaquin Delta Community College District
2011-12 Adopted Budget
September 13, 2011
General Fund Unrestricted
Major Budget Assumptions
A one-time deficit of .5% of $367k has been included in
anticipation of a System shortfall in student
fees of $25M.
Attachment 2
Funded FTES Revenues
2011-12 Base 16,233 79,458,176$
Funding Reductions enacted March 2011 (1,008) (4,592,698)
Best Case Funding Level for 2011-12 15,225 74,865,478$
Tier 1 Impact - $30 million system loss* - (440,000)

Tier 2 Impact - $72 million system loss (232) (1,056,000)
District's Funding at the Tier 2 Level 14,993 73,369,478$
One-time student fee deficit .5% (367,000)
Anticipated 2011-12 Apportionment Funding 73,002,478$
*The Chancellor’s Office has indicated that Tier 1 reductions
will be treated through the deficit
mechanism since it is one-time. This will not reduce the
required level of FTES the district must
generate. It is expected that this will be made up through the
increase of student fees from $36 to
$46 per unit in 2012-13.
Impact of State Triggers on District
September 13, 2011
Attachment 3
2011-12 Tentative Budget Revenues 77,251,900$
Increases to Revenue

Tier 2 Apportionment Increase 878,000$
Facilities Event Use 146,000
Community Education 125,000
Worknet Lease, Public Surplus, Ticket Sales 132,300
1,281,300$
Decreases to Revenue
Lottery (156,600)$
Program Customer Service (42,000)
(198,600)$
Net Change from 2011-12 Tentative to 2011-12 Adopted
1,082,700$ 1,082,700
2011-12 Adopted Budget Revenues 78,334,600$
September 13, 2011
Changes in Revenue
Attachment 4

2011-12 Tentative Budget Expenditures 80,937,700$
Increases to Expenditures
Lottery Salaries/Benefits 156,600$
Facilities Event Use 100,000
Misc Operations 27,000
Faculty Travel Base 16,200
299,800$
Decreases to Expenditures
Salaries/Benefits Adjmts (105,400)
Community Education, Program Customer Service (84,300)
(189,700)$
Net Change from 2011-12 Tentative to 2011-12 Adopted
110,100 110,100
2011-12 Adopted Budget Expenditures Ongoing 81,047,800$
Faculty Travel Carryover (one-time) 232,000$
Student Material Carryover (one-time) 106,600
2011-12 Adopted Budget Expenditures Ongoing and One-Time
81,386,400$

September 13, 2011
Changes in Expenditures
Attachment 5
Fund Balance June 30, 2011 13,202,583$
Adopted Budget Revenues 78,334,600
Adopted Budget Expenditures (81,047,800)
(2,713,200)$ (2,713,200)$
2011-12 Carryovers (one-time) (338,600)$
Projected Ending Fund Balance June 30, 2012 10,150,783$
Net Operating Results for 2011-12 Adopted Budget
(denotes deficit)
September 13, 2011

Impact on Fund Balance
Attachment 6
Fund Fund Description
Beginning Fund
Balance
Budgeted
Revenues
Budgeted
Expenditures
Projected
Ending Fund
Balance
1100 Unrestricted General 13,202,600$ 78,334,600$
81,386,400$ 10,150,800$
1200 Restricted General 139,700 10,337,000
10,337,000 139,700
2100 Debt Service 17,529,500 3,033,300
3300 Child Development - 1,435,900
1,435,900 -

3400 Farm 97,400 190,000 190,000
97,400
3900 Redevelopment 3,207,800 316,000
2,700,000 823,800
4100 Capital Projects 1,322,600 3,138,100
4,460,700 -
4200 Measure L Bond 57,496,300 67,999,400
125,495,700 -
5100 Bookstore 1,027,500 5,901,500 6,064,000
865,000
5200 Food Service - 1,353,100 1,353,100
-
6100 Self Insurance 1,600 1,719,000
1,719,000 1,600
7100 Associated Student Trust 309,000 329,100
7200 Student Rep Fee Trust 59,700 63,100
7400 Student Financial Aid 144,800 157,200
7500 Scholarship and Loan 2,241,300 2,292,400
7900 Other Trust Funds 596,100 621,600
OPEB (Other Post
Employment Benefits) 4,619,100 4,682,400

Totals 101,995,000$ 170,724,600$ 235,141,800$
23,257,400$
All Funds Summary
September 13, 2011
Attachment 7
General Fund (11)
General Fund – Restricted (12)
September 13, 2011
All Funds Description
The following fund description overview is based on the
California Community College
Budget and Accounting Manual that prescribes the accounting
practices and uniform coding
for all colleges in the California Community College System.
The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the district.

It is used to account for those
transactions that, in general, cover the full scope of operations
of the district (instruction,
administration, student services, maintenance and operations,
etc.). All transactions shall be
accounted for in the General Fund unless there is a compelling
reason (e.g., legal or
contractual requirement) to report them in another fund.
Revenues received by or for a
community college district from State apportionments or county
or local taxes (other than
moneys required to be placed in another fund) shall be
deposited in the General Fund of the
district.
For purposes of flexibility, the district may establish any
number of subfunds or accounts to
constitute its General Fund; however, for financial reporting,
these must be consolidated into
either the Unrestricted Subfund (11) or Restricted Subfund (12).
Division of the General
Fund into two subfunds reflects the need to differentiate truly
discretionary revenue from
restricted revenue, while preserving a complete accounting of
the financial operation and

support of educational programs. Accordingly, restricted
revenues (such as those for
categorically-funded programs) are accounted separately from
other general purpose
moneys, but classified as a component of the total fund that
provides instructional and
support services. The General Fund is held in the treasury of the
county having jurisdiction
over the community college district.
The Restricted Subfund is used to account for resources
available for the operation and
support of the educational programs that are specifically
restricted by laws, regulations,
donors, or other outside agencies as to their expenditure. Such
externally imposed
restrictions are to be contrasted with internally created
designations imposed by the
governing board on unrestricted moneys. In general,
unrestricted moneys can be used for
any legal purpose deemed necessary. Restricted moneys are
from an external source that
requires the moneys be used for specific purpose(s).
Moneys such as matching contributions for categorical

programs are unrestricted, but may
be designated by the governing board for those purposes.
Moneys designated as matching
contributions should be maintained in the General Fund,
Unrestricted Subfund.
Circumstances and evidence relative to restrictions may not
always be clear. The district
should seek Chancellor’s Office, legal, and/or contracted
auditor consultation as needed.
Attachment 7
Bond Interest and Redemption Fund (21)
Child Development Fund (33)
Redevelopment Fund (39)
Capital Projects Fund (41)
Measure L Bond Fund (42)
Bookstore Fund (51)
This fund is to be used only to record transactions related to the
receipt and expenditure of
local revenues derived from the property tax levied for the
payment of the principal and

interest on outstanding bonds of the district. The fund shall be
established and maintained in
the appropriate county treasury.
The Child Development Fund is the fund designated to account
for all revenues for, or from
the operation of, child care and development services, including
student fees for child
development services. Costs incurred in the operation and
maintenance of the child care
and development services are paid from this fund. This fund is
established and maintained
in the appropriate county treasury.
This fund is used to account for all other specific revenue
sources that are legally restricted
to expenditures for specified purposes that are not an integral
part of the district’s
instructional or administrative and support operation (e.g.,
dormitory replacement). This fund
may be established and maintained in the county treasury or, as
an alternative, the
governing board may establish a bank account with a financial
institution for each such fund
established.

The Capital Outlay Projects Fund is used to account for the
accumulation and expenditure
of moneys for the acquisition or construction of significant
capital outlay items, and
Scheduled Maintenance and Special Repairs (SMSR) projects.
The Capital Outlay Projects
Fund is used to account for the receipt and expenditure of
proceeds from the sale of district
bonds authorized pursuant to Education Code Section 15100 et
seq. In general, this fund
shall be established and maintained in the appropriate county
treasury and moneys shall be
used only for capital outlay purposes.
The Revenue Bond Construction Fund is used for acquisition or
construction. The Revenue
Bond Construction Fund is the fund designated in Education
Code Section 81961 for the
deposit of proceeds from the sale of all community college
revenue bonds authorized under
the provisions of Education Code Section 81901. Such deposits
are used to meet the costs
of acquisition or construction and all expenses of authorized
projects (i.e., dormitories or
other housing facilities, boarding facilities, student union or

student activity facilities, vehicle
parking facilities, or any other auxiliary or supplementary
facilities as authorized). Proceeds
from the sale of such bonds are deposited with the county
treasurer and, upon order of the
county auditor, credited to the district’s Revenue Bond
Construction Fund.
The Bookstore Fund is the fund designated to receive the
proceeds derived from the
district’s operation of a community college bookstore pursuant
to Education Code Section
81676 when it is the intent of the governing board to recover, in
whole or in part, the costs of
providing the services. All necessary expenses, including
salaries, wages, and cost of
capital improvement for the bookstore may be paid from
generated revenue.
Attachment 7
Food Service Fund (52)
Self Insurance Fund (61)
Associated Students Trust Fund (71)

Student Representation Fee Trust Fund (72)
Student Financial Aid Trust Fund (74)
Scholarship and Loan Trust Fund (75)
Other Trust Funds (79)
The Scholarship and Loan Trust Fund is used to account for
such gifts, donations,
bequests, and devises (subject to donor restrictions) which are
to be used for scholarships
or for grants in aid and loans to students. The Scholarship and
Loan Trust Fund may be
established and maintained in the country treasury.
Other Trust Funds are used to account for all other moneys held
in a trustee capacity by the
college or district for individuals, organizations, or clubs. Such
funds may be established and
maintained in the appropriate country treasury, or as an
alternative, the governing board
may establish a bank account for each trust.
The Cafeteria Fund is the fund designated to receive all moneys
from the sale of food or for
any other services performed by the cafeteria when it is the
intent of the governing board to

recover, in whole or in part, the costs of providing the services.
Costs incurred in the
operation and maintenance of such cafeteria are paid from this
fund. The term “cafeteria” as
used in this section is considered synonymous with the term
“food service.”
The Self-Insurance Fund is the fund designated by Education
Code Section 81602 to
account for income and expenditures of self-insurance programs
authorized by Education
Code Section 72506(d). This fund is maintained in the county
treasury and used to provide
for payments on deductible types of insurance policies, losses
or payments arising from self-
insurance programs, and losses or payments due to noninsured
perils.
The Associated Students Trust Fund is used to account for
moneys held in trust by the
district for organized student body associations (excluding
clubs) established pursuant to
Education Code Section 76060. The governing board must
provide for the supervision of all
moneys raised by any student body or student organization
using the name of the college.

The Student Representation Fee Trust Fund is used to account
for moneys collected
pursuant to Education Code Section 76060.5 that provides for a
student representation fee
of one dollar per semester if approved by two-thirds of the
students voting in the election.
The fee is to be expended to provide for the support of
governmental affairs
representatives who may be stating their positions and
viewpoints before city, county, and
district governments and before offices and agencies of the
State government. A student
may, for religious, political, financial or moral issues, refuse to
pay the student
representation fee. Fees collected shall be under the custody of
the district's chief fiscal
officer.
The Student Financial Aid Trust Fund is used to account for the
deposit and direct payment
of government-funded student financial aid, including grants
and loans or other moneys
intended for similar purposes and the required district matching
share of payments to
students. The Student Financial Aid Trust Fund may be

established and maintained in the
county treasury.
Attachment 8
Transfers Out from Unrestricted General Fund Totaling
$220,000
1 Transfer of $220,000 to Child Development Fund for
operational support costs.
Increase to Fund 33 Child Development Fund 220,000$
Decrease to Fund 11 General Unrestricted Fund (220,000)$
Transfers Out from Bookstore Fund Totaling $412,803.
2
Increase to Fund 52 Food Service Fund 102,142$
Decrease to Fund 51 Bookstore Fund (102,142)$
3
Increase to Fund 11 General Unrestricted Fund 310,661$
Decrease to Fund 51 Bookstore (310,661)$

September 13, 2011
Table of Inter-Fund Budgeted Transfers
Transfer of $310,661 to General Fund for support salaries and
benefits.
Transfer of $102,142 to Food Service Fund for operational
support
costs.
Attachment 9
State Legislated Version
FTES loss of 1,240
Unrestricted General Fund
Reflects Tier 2 of Enacted State Budget
FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15
Budgeted Revenue 84,653,000$ 78,334,600$ 79,141,600$
Adjustments 136,600
Anticipated deficit in 11-12 .5% (367,000) 367,000
Restore Tier 1 440,000
State take away $517 million, Tier 1 and 2 (6,088,000)

Revised Revenue 78,334,600$ 79,141,600$ 79,141,600$
Budgeted On going Expenses 81,047,800$ 81,047,800$
79,928,800$
Step/Column Increases 655,000 655,000
Health Benefits Cost Increases 1,200,000 1,200,000
2nd half year of Pershing Lease (174,000)
Balance of SERP savings (300,000)
Revised expenditures 81,047,800$ 82,428,800$ 81,783,800$
Carryovers One Time 338,600$
Revenue less Expense (3,051,800)$ (3,287,200)$
(2,642,200)$ 257,800$
Planned Expenditure Reductions* 2,500,000 2,700,000
Beginning fund balance 13,202,583$ 10,150,783$ 9,363,583$
9,421,383$
Estimated Ending Balance 10,150,783 9,363,583
9,421,383
Amount of Fund Balance Spent (3,051,800)$ (787,200)$
57,800$
District General Reserve 5% 4,052,390 4,121,440
4,089,190
Difference 6,098,393$ 5,242,143$ 5,332,193$

* 2011-12 budget totals include reductions of $2.75 million
Budget Planning Scenarios
September 13, 2011
2011-12 Fiscal Year and Beyond
Please note the figures used are estimates based on current
information and subject to change. Potential and significant
costs
such as recommendations of a districtwide classification study,
pending CTA salary issue, CalSTRS increase and other
increases
will affect fund balance and could increase planned expenditure
reductions.
Actual Adopted Adopted
2010-11 2010-11 2011-12
Federal 44,873$ 69,629$ 69,629$ 0.0%
State 55,794,560 50,777,712 48,591,478 -4.5%
Local 29,119,697 31,317,302 29,342,849 -6.7%
Transfers In 650,413 310,661 330,661 6.0%

Total Revenue 85,609,543$ 82,475,304$ 78,334,617$
-5.3%
Certificated Salaries 30,831,719$ 31,529,514$
30,793,405$ -2.4%
Classified Salaries 17,973,485 19,446,646 19,069,175
-2.0%
Benefits 20,202,957 21,542,745 20,150,795 -6.9%
Supplies 1,176,276 1,739,482 1,441,297 -20.7%
Other Operating Expense 10,284,007 10,589,443 9,154,315
-15.7%
Capital Outlay 774,810 682,812 557,391 -
22.5%
Transfers/Other Outgo 1,786,729 707,307 220,105
-221.3%
Total Expenditures 83,029,983$ 86,237,949$
81,386,483$ -6.0%
Net Operating Results
Revenue - Expenditures
( ) denotes a deficit 2,579,560$ (3,762,645)$
(3,051,866)$
Beginning Fund Balance 10,623,023$ 10,623,023$
13,202,583$
Ending Fund Balance
After operating results

( ) denotes a deficit 13,202,583$ 6,860,378$
10,150,717$
Variance
Adopted 2011 to
2012
Adopted Budget - General Fund Unrestricted
…
Laramie County
Community College
BUDGET STUDY SESSION
Community College District’s Annual Budget
For Fiscal Year
Beginning July 1, 2012, and Ending June 30, 2013
Presented to the Board of Trustees on April 4, 2012
TM
2012-13 OPERATING BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMBERS
Board of Trustees
...............................................................................................
......................... 3
President’s Cabinet
...............................................................................................
...................... 3
INTRODUCTION
Memorandum from the President
...............................................................................................
4
Percent of Budget in Support of the Strategic Directions Pie
Chart ........................................... 8
Enrollment..............................................................................
..................................................... 9
Comparative Expenditures Per Student FTE
............................................................................ 10
Expenditures by Program
...............................................................................................
.......... 11
Expenditures by Program / FY 2012 Budget
............................................................................ 12
Comparative Revenue Per Student FTE
................................................................................... 13

OPERATING FUNDS
Estimated Funds Available
...............................................................................................
........ 14
Proposed Distribution
...............................................................................................
................ 15
Proposed One-Time Expenses
...............................................................................................
... 17
Revenues
...............................................................................................
.................................... 18
Expenditures
...............................................................................................
.............................. 19
Pie Chart - Revenue and Expenditures
..................................................................................... 21
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 22
ONE MILL
Revenue..................................................................................
................................................... 23

Expenditures
...............................................................................................
.............................. 24
Pie Chart – Revenue and Expenditures
..................................................................................... 25
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 26
AUXILIARY FUND
Revenue..................................................................................
................................................... 27
Expenditures
...............................................................................................
.............................. 28
..................................................................................... 29
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 30
FY 2012-13 Operating Budget 2 April 4, 2012

FIVE MILL
Revenue..................................................................................
................................................... 31
Expenditures
...............................................................................................
.............................. 31
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 32
RESTRICTED FUNDS
Revenue Detail
...............................................................................................
........................... 33
Revenue..................................................................................
................................................... 34
Expenditures
...............................................................................................
.............................. 35
..................................................................................... 36
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 37

ENDOWMENT FUND
Revenue..................................................................................
................................................... 38
Expenditures
...............................................................................................
.............................. 38
..................................................................................... 39
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 40
PLANT FUND
Revenue..................................................................................
................................................... 41
Expenditures
...............................................................................................
.............................. 42
Pie Chart –
Revenue..................................................................................
................................ 44
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 45

FUND BUDGET SUMMARY
Summary
...............................................................................................
.................................... 46
Pie
Chart................................................................................ ......
.............................................. 47
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Greg Thomas, Chairman
Carol Merrell, Vice Chairwoman
Ed Mosher, Treasurer
Dr. Kevin Kilty, Secretary
Bill Dubois

John R. Kaiser
Brenda Lyttle
PRESIDENT’S CABINET
Dr. Joseph Schaffer, President
Dr. Marlene Tignor, Vice President, Instructional Services
Carol Hoglund, Vice President, Administration and Finance
Dr. Grant Wilson, Interim Vice President, Student Services
Stan Torvik, Vice President, Workforce and Community
Development
Lisa Murphy, Executive Director of Public and Governmental
Relations
Peggie Kresl-Hotz, Executive Director, Human Resources
Tom Bradley, Executive Director, Foundation

MEMORANDUM
To: Laramie County Community College Board of Trustees
From: Dr. Joe Schaffer, President
Date: March 28, 2012
RE: Proposed FY13 Budget
On behalf of the faculty, staff, and students at Laramie County
Community College (LCCC), it is my
pleasure to present you with our proposed budget for the
2012/2013 Fiscal Year. In the next few pages
of this memorandum, I want to share with you the broad context
in which we developed this budget, as
well as illustrating how it adheres to the parameters of our
social, fiscal, and political environments,
meets your expectations and priorities, and ultimately aligns
with your strategic plan and the direction

you provided me early in my tenure here at LCCC.
State Context
Over the past decade, the Wyoming state standard budget has
nearly doubled. In his budget proposal
1
,
Governor Matt Mead stated this rapid growth “needs to be
reversed and funding stabilized at a
sustainable level.” This is the same tenor in which the Joint
Appropriations Committee (JAC) took up
its work in mid-January. Unfortunately, as a result of projected
decreases in the price of natural gas, an
estimated decrease of $100 million in State revenue prompted
the Governor to recommend $64 million
in cuts to his original budget.
The Governor’s original budget proposed a relatively flat
standard budget for Wyoming’s community
colleges, as well as $14.4 million in enrollment growth funding.
As a result of the decreased revenue
estimates, he recommended the JAC reduce that amount to $8.8
million. The JAC completely
eliminated all enrollment growth funding in the budget it

advanced to the Legislature. However, the
Legislature restored $7.5 million of enrollment growth funding
in the budget bill it passed, which was
signed by the Governor.
Throughout and since the Legislature has convened, it has been
clear that the expectations have been to
hold the standard budget, and hold State-funded employee
salaries, with only modest allowances for
performance and market adjustments. Even with the restoration
of enrollment growth funding, the
Legislature’s expectations are that those resources should be
applied to the variable costs associated with
enrollment growth over the past years, and not pay raises or
salary adjustments.
Given the budget passed by the Legislature, and after
consideration for the tuition increases approved by
the Wyoming Community College Commission (WCCC), and
finally as a result of the workings of the
WCCC funding formula, we estimated LCCC will have
approximately $2 million in additional revenue
in FY13.

1
2013-2014 Biennium State Budget Requests: Requests and
Recommendations. Available at
http://ai.state.wy.us/budget/20132014Budget.aspx
http://ai.state.wy.us/budget/20132014Budget.aspx
Institutional Context
Shortly after I started at LCCC, I entered mid-stream into the
development of this budget. Fortunately,
the campus and its able staff were already building a budget that
was in line with the institutional
context. This was no small feat, given the multiple parameters
the institution was – and is – working
within. First, and probably least significant, was the transition
in the College’s presidential leadership.
Second was the institution’s strategic and campus master plans.
Third was the Organizational
Assessment and the recommendations provided from the College
Brain Trust (CBT). Finally, and
probably most significant, was the general direction from you,

the Trustees.
Since becoming part of the budget process, I have worked
closely with the College’s leadership to
ensure your priorities are incorporated into the proposed FY13
budget. My interpretation of these, and I
will admit some massaging of my own based on my first few
months on the ground at LCCC, has led us
to focus this budget on the following:
recommendations within the Organizational
Assessment;
structure at the College that addresses
the elements in the Organizational Assessment as well as
existing institutional challenges while
managing the human resources at LCCC;
projects identified as priorities in the
campus master plan;
the General Fund; and
resources to help the institution

navigate unanticipated opportunities and challenges in the near
future.
Although some of these priorities will take multiple fiscal years
and accompanying budgets to be fully
satisfied, I believe the proposed FY13 budget is a good start. In
the remainder of this memorandum I
will provide more specific examples to describe what is, and
what is not within this budget that may
substantiate this claim.
What is in the FY13 Budget
Included in this budget are numerous examples of how we have
addressed the broader state context, as
well as your priorities and our belief in what is needed to
advance LCCC into the future. Here are some
examples:
into instruction, human resources,
and targeted operations increases.
budget includes the addition of five
new faculty lines and moves three faculty positions off of soft
money onto the General Fund.
man

Resources department and structure
through the addition of three new Human Resources personnel,
filling one existing vacancy, and
funding the use of strategic consulting services.
approximately 1% of the current operating
budget to ensure adequate resources are available should we
experience budget reductions, lower
than estimated enrollment, and/or strategic opportunities over
the coming year.
facilities planning, in addition to revenues
carried over from the current year that would be utilized
similarly.
partnership with the LCCC Foundation
by increasing our support by nearly $150,000.
restructuring, while also adopting the CBT’s
recommendation to improve planning, assessment, and
information technology through the
addition of an Associate Vice President for Institutional
Effectiveness.

facilities/grounds improvements
identified in the campus master plan through more than $2
million of investments in facilities
projects across campus.
utilize campus recreational
facilities, engage in intramural sports, and more strongly
connect the College to the community
through recreation and athletics by investing in a full-time
athletic director position.
What isn’t in the FY13 Budget
It is evident there is much in the proposed FY13 budget that
will help move the College forward. But I
also want to point out what isn’t in the budget.
le we are proposing a modest amount for compensation
commitments awarded for
educational advancements, there are no pay increases for steps,
cost of living adjustments,
bonuses, or other compensation adjustments. We firmly believe
that to keep the taxpayers’ and
legislature’s trust in our campus, we must hold true to the
expectations they have set for other
State agencies and their employees. We value our people at
LCCC, but while others are

tightening their belts, we must do our part as well and show our
commitment to the State’s
position in this regard.
Student Services to continue our
improvement in this area, the proposed FY13 budget actually
proposes a decrease overall in this
area. This will help us prepare and work on planned
improvements over the coming year, and
will position the campus to make a strategic, and substantial
investment into Student Services as
the budget allows in coming fiscal years.
The Strategic Plan
We are committed to working toward the strategic directions
and goals identified within your Strategic
Plan for LCCC. I believe the proposed FY13 budget continues
to do just that. Many, if not most, of our
proposed reallocations and investments are targeted toward the
plan and should have significant impact
in helping us achieve the goals set forth within.
toward the achievement of many goals
associated with Strategic Direction 1: Maximize learning

opportunities that foster student
success.
subsequent improvements to
recreational and athletic programming will help us meet the
goals within Strategic Direction 2:
Engage the community through collaborations that are mutually
beneficial.
effectiveness and Strategic Direction 4:
Manage resources to support a dynamic organization by
establishing a continuous improvement
model through the creation of an office of Institutional
Effectiveness and hiring an associate vice
president who will integrate planning, assessment, and
information technology campus-wide.
Strengthen the College through increased
collaboration and communication by investing in and
establishing a strong, centralized human
resources office and structure.

Conclusion
Under your guidance, leadership, and support, LCCC is making
good progress. We are fortunate to live
in a state and community that supports higher education both in
voice and in funding. The proposed
FY13 budget doesn’t do everything, but it does help us sustain,
and perhaps even accelerate, momentum
on the good work that we simply must do to better serve our
students and ultimately our community.
Our budgets are our value statements – say what we will, what
we believe in is evidenced by what we
invest in. I believe the proposed FY13 budget is an investment
in institutional effectiveness and student
success. I hope you will join me in that belief.

Strategic Directions
1. Maximize learning opportunities that foster student success
2. Engage the community through collaborations that are
mutually beneficial
3. Ensure institutional effectiveness
4. Manage resources to support a dynamic organization
5. Strengthen the College through increased collaboration and
communication
47%
6%
9%

32%
6%
Percent of Budget in Support of the
Strategic Directions
1
2
3
4
5
ENROLLMENT
Both headcount and full-time equivalency (FTE) have increased
since the beginning of the College. Over the last

ten years, headcount has increased 52.3% and FTE has
increased 70.4%. For fiscal year 2010-2011, headcount
increased 2.4% and FTE increased 4.0%.
Full-time students comprise 36.5% and part-time students
comprise 63.5% of the student population. The gender
ratio remains similar to past years at 60% women versus 40%
men.
LARAMIE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
COMPARATIVE EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT FTE
LCCC expends less per Student FTE than the average of
Wyoming’s other community colleges.
In FY11, LCCC spent more than the average of Wyoming’s
other community colleges in two categories: Academic Support
and

Scholarships.
-
5,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Comparative Expenditures per Student FTE
FY07 - FY11
LCCC Average WY CC
-
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
3,000.00

3,500.00
4,000.00
Comparative FY11 Expenditures per FTE, by
Program
LCCC Average WY CC
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
%
Change
FY12-
FY13

4.39%
1.79%
3.47%
-3.11%
4.45%
0.01%

0.20%
$18,421,920 Instruction
$301,333
Public Service
$4,752,543
Academic Support
$3,785,814
Student Services
$7,589,224
Institutional Support
$5,361,032
Plant Maintenance
$2,062,400
Scholarships

EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM / FY2012 BUDGET

Instruction
47.48%
Public
Service
.45%
Academic
Support
10.58%
Student
Services
7.70%
Institutional

Support
17.67%
Plant
Maintenance
12.91%
Scholarships
3.20%
CASPER
Instruction
38.91%
Public
Service
.87%
Academic
Support
12.78%
Student
Services
8.18%

Institutional
Support
20.62%
Plant
Maintenance
14.69%
Scholarships
3.96%
CENTRAL
Instruction
37.74%
Public
Service
.69% Academic
Support
8.90%
Student
Services

11.19%
Institutional
Support
24.23%
Plant
Maintenance
11.39%
Scholarships
5.86%
EASTERN
Instruction
42.91%
Public
Service
.72%
Academic
Support
11.17%
Student

Services
9.50%
Institutional
Support
17.67%
Plant
Maintenance
13.03%
Scholarships
5.00%
LCCC
Instruction
41.09%
Public
Service
0.06% Academic
Support
9.99%

Student
Services
12.33%
Institutional
Support
20.56%
Plant
Maintenance
11.68%
Scholarships
4.29%
NORTHERN
Instruction
42.88%
Public
Service
0.46%
Academic

Support
9.48%
Student
Services
11.71%
Institutional
Support
19.89%
Plant
Maintenance
11.45%
Scholarships
4.13%
NORTHWEST
Instruction
41.83%
Public
Service

0.24% Academic
Support
8.81%
Student
Services
9.36%
Institutional
Support
22.47%
Plant
Maintenance
13.00%
Scholarships
4.30%
WESTERN

COMPARATIVE REVENUE PER STUDENT FTE
-
5,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Comparative Revenue per Student FTE
FY07 - FY11
LCCC Average WY CC
-
1,000.00
2,000.00
3,000.00

4,000.00
5,000.00
6,000.00
7,000.00
Tuition & Fees State
Appropriations
Local
Appropriations
Other Sources
Comparative Revenue Distribution per FTE
FY11
LCCC Average WY CC
FY13 ESTIMATED FUNDS AVAILABLE
New Funds:

State Aid $800,607
Reduction in Variable Cost Funding (Low Enrollee Success
Rate) -64,838
Enrollment Growth Funding 836,850
Reduction in Enrollment Growth Funding (Low Enrollee
Success Rate) -5,580
Local Appropriation 96,069
Tuition Increase (5.64% increase in tuition rates) 350,000
One Mill 75,000
Subtotal
$2,088,108
Internal Funds Available:

Positions include salary and benefits
One-time Monies $250,000
Operating Reserve 117,314
In-House Counsel 90,361
Coordinator, International and Diversity Services 51,733
Instructor (Medical Lab Technician) (New Position-FY2010)
59,996
Director, Counseling and Campus Wellness 98,493
Administrative Assistant, Counseling and Campus Wellness
46,122

Equine Show Team Coach (50%) 29,038
Foundation Budget 156,077
Legal Services Operating Budget 21,178
Balance of International Students Operating Budget 18,000
Subtotal
$938,312
Total Funds Available for FY2013
$3,026,420
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION

All positions include salary and benefits
Compensation Package:
Educational Advancements $45,000
Subtotal
$45,000
Instruction
New Positions/Services:
Instructor, English (ACC) $73,000
Instructor, Spanish/ESL 73,000
Instructor, Biology 73,000
Instructor, Communication 73,000

Instructor/Coord., Diagnostic Medical Sonography (Currently
funded by Higher Ed.
Endowment) 73,595
Continuation of Services:
Adjunct/overtime/part-time ESS (salaries and benefits) 45,781
Operating Expenses 174,943
Subtotal
$586,319
Workforce and Community Development
Instructor/Program Director, CTEC Apprenticeship (Funded by
SESP grant until
02/01/13) $37,917
Instructor, Wind Energy Technology (Currently funded by
Auxiliary Fund) 73,000

Instructor, Diesel Technology 73,000
Adjunct/overtime/part-time ESS (salaries and benefits) 97,692
Subtotal
$310,255
Student Services
Athletic Director $100,000
Overtime/part-time ESS (salaries and benefits) 27,970
Operating Expenses -28,321
Subtotal
$99,649

Administration and Finance
Overtime/part-time ESS (salaries and benefits) $7,888
Subtotal
$128,322
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION (Continued)
President
Associate Vice President of Institutional Effectiveness (6
months) $68,250
Human Resources Support Technician/Administrative Assistant
44,000

Compliance/Compensation Analyst (New Position-FY2010)
(Difference from original
budget) 9,812
Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) Specialist 58,500
Human Resource Development (HRD) Specialist 58,500
Foundation Contract Services 306,077
Overtime/part-time ESS (salaries and benefits) -24,545
Subtotal
$592,088
Reserve Account

Operating Reserve (Approximately 1% of revenue) $426,455
Facilities Planning 175,436
One-Time Expenses (See separate list) 662,896
Subtotal
$1,264,787
Total Proposed Distribution
$3,026,420
PROPOSED ONE-TIME EXPENSES
FY2013
Instructional Services:
Computers and furniture for new faculty $19,400

Marimba 10,000
Darkroom Drawers 1,000
Ten Flip Videos 1,000
Subtotal
$31,400*
Workforce and Community Development:
Vehicle Alignment Equipment $20,000
MegaCode Kelly Advanced Manikin
11,498
Thermal Imager
7,500
Ten Lenovo ThinkPad Tablets 6,000
Fire Safe Cabinets
3,500
Crash Kelly Manikin

2,779
Eight Adult CPR Manikins 810
Subtotal
$52,087
Student Services:
Resurface Gym Floor/Renovate the Gym $50,000
Soccer Goals (Two Pair) 15,000
Printer/copier/fax/scanner 3,044
Subtotal
$68,044
Administration and Finance Services:
Redundant Nexus Core-Cisco (5 year lease) ($69,465 per year)
$69,465
Datatel Consulting 50,000
Minivan 25,000
Follow-up Timekeeping Equipment 15,000
Update computers in Accounting and Payroll 7,250

Subtotal
$166,715
President:
Expert Services for ongoing HR efforts on policy/procedures
$100,000
Expert Services to assist/support ongoing HR efforts on a
contemporary organization position
development/analysis/control model
100,000
Conduct national searches for the VP of Student Services/VP of
Academic Affairs 75,000
Computers and furniture for new Human Resources employees
19,050
Expert Services to draft/support finalization of Summary Plan
Document for TIAA/CREF
Retirement Plan plus facilitate process to ensure "Qualified
Plan" determination for IRS
18,000
Replace twelve lap top computers for the Board of Trustees
8,000

Nikon D4 Camera and Lenses 12,600
Expert Services to draft/support finalization of Summary Plan
Documents for various employee
education benefits; ensure SPDs are in compliance with IRS
regulations
12,000
Subtotal
$344,650
GRAND TOTAL
$662,896
*The College invested over $.5 million in FY12, lowering the
request for FY13
UNRESTRICTED OPERATING FUND -- REVENUES

ACTUAL ADOPTED TENTATIVE INCREASE/
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 DECREASE
ITEM REVENUES REVENUES REVENUES
FY2012-
FY2013
Tuition and Fees $10,403,814 $10,345,388 $10,695,388
$350,000
Tuition-In State $3,747,712 $3,689,038 $3,819,038 $130,000
Tuition-Out of District 1,763,486 1,769,594 1,872,594
103,000
Tuition-Out of State 648,141 654,663 691,663 37,000
Tuition-WUE 1,008,765 989,591 1,069,591 80,000
Community Services 159,336 120,000 120,000 0
Business Training 576,410 370,000 …
Running head: EVOLVING NEEDS OF COLLEGE
STUDENTS1
EVOLVING NEEDS OF STUDENTS7

Evolving Needs of Community College Students
Evolving Needs of Community College Students
Introduction
Community colleges were created with the sole purpose of
providing an educational value to the students who could not
make it to university. Most community colleges were built
around a mission to allow those students that may not make it to
other primal facilities of higher learning (O'Banion, 2019). In as
far as the higher education system is concern in the United
States, Community Colleges have played a major part in serve
the greater part of the population. They are geared at providing
very intrinsic value to the business environment. Community
college enables students to acquire hands-on experience that
allows them to operate in a very versatile economic
environment. Some of the students that attend community
colleges do not have enough money because they may be from
disadvantaged backgrounds or fail to win a scholarship to
university.
Stakeholder roles
Internal stakeholders are faculty members, students, staff, the
board of trustees, and professors who form and implement the
students’ curriculum. These stakeholders are responsible for
formulating and designing the lesson plans and designing
frameworks that enable the overall learning to add value to the
student. To a greater extent community colleges have been able

to stay at par with other universities and colleges not only in the
United States, but also across the world. It is tailor-made to suit
specific needs in the job markets and allow the students to be
innovative and inventive within their learning capabilities. The
most immediate results are the ability to gain a competitive
edge in the workforce and also provide innovative solutions.
Other stakeholders are parents, business owners, and teachers.
External stakeholders include the state.
Funding model
There are various ways through which community colleges get
resources in the form of capital to facilitate their operations.
Community colleges get their most significant funding through
state funding. Budget allocation for higher learning by the state
dictates how much comprehensive community colleges get. It is
based on certain factors such as the economic state of the
country. There had been significant budget cuts after the global
recession to community colleges that compromised the quality
of education in the sector (Remington & Remington, 2012). The
second source is tuition revenue, which is also significant. The
local property tax revenue is also a source of funding for
community colleges. Community college facilities require a
high level of financial support to function effectively. Any
decline of the financing gravely affects the quality of education.
Curriculum and Programs
During the recession in 2008, most programs in community
colleges were shut down. Also, many facilities were
consolidated, and the faculty staff was reduced to fit the new
state funding allocations. These moves gravely affected the
curriculums and program, mostly offered at the colleges (Beach,
2011). Many students ended up with less quality of return on
their investment, and they struggled in the job markets. Besides,
the closure of some lab facilities affected how useful the
learning tools were and how applicable the theoretical
framework served the needs of the students. An increase in
funding from 2012 corrected this situation, but still more needs
to be done to ensure that students get their return on investment.

Personnel
Personnel in a community college also need to ensure that they
keenly follow up with students to identify the challenges that
they experience (Gaulee, 2018). The quality of personnel and
experience within a college has a significant impact in the
quality of education that the students receive from said
educational institution. Most university personnel are not
sensitive to the needs of the students and do not follow up with
the social and cultural needs of the students. For instance,
bullying in community colleges is very rampant, and prejudice
may make learning extremely difficult for some students. Some
students are parents, while others are of different family set-ups
or religions, and this results in stigmatization that needs to be
addressed by the colleges. Student affairs personnel may also be
well informed on the particular needs that are presented by the
students that require to be discussed further.
Novel needs in the business world
It is paramount for the funding in community colleges to be
tailor-made to the new age of technology. The use of artificial
intelligence in manufacturing and even in business has made it
very difficult for some skills to survive the job market. In
addressing this challenge over the next ten to twenty years,
curriculums should incorporate artificial intelligence even in
their learning. Community colleges should ensure that they can
adapt to the new needs of the business world, and the teaching
models should always be updated (Remington & Remington,
2012). This move aims to reduce redundancy in the job market
and to make sure that the students remain relevant.
Personalization and authenticity is another new evolution in the
business models. If one needs a specific product, nowadays they
are easily customizable to suit the needs of the customer. A
personalized touch is added to the product marketing model, and
therefore one-size-fits models cannot work for students at the
community colleges. The evolution of customer care is an
essential feature in marketing and should be incorporated within
the teaching models in the business. Awareness of the needs of

the business environment is critical. For instance, the
emergence of social media marketing and digital presence is
necessary for almost every business.
Physical locations are becoming less popular, and over time
everything will be accessible online.
Flexibility in learning is also a vital part when designing the
curriculum for the next twenty years. Flexibility addresses the
needs of models like distance learning. Flexibility is essential to
the learner because, as time goes on, the students have to define
a model within which they can work and study. Besides, it
accommodates students who are not physically able to attend
the class or have other location challenges. The curriculum
needs to accommodate all these needs of the student so that
learning becomes more appealing to the students. Education
delivery models have to adapt to these needs of the students.
Impacts
The most apparent impact of refusing to evolve into the new
world is redundancy. Redundancy is evident where college
students from community colleges fail to join the workforce and
remain unemployed for years after leaving college. It does not
make logical sense educating thousands of students who at the
end of the day will not be able to obtain permanent employment
and hence fend for themselves. Consequently, they may end up
in the field completely different from what they studied for in
school to survive. The students do not feel like their time in
college allowed them the opportunity to fend for themselves and
live a quality life. They end up viewing colleges as a waste of
time. They aspire to never take their children to such an
institution in the future. It is, therefore, going to affect the
overall mission and vision of the college in driving change and
impacting society.
Lack of innovation is another result of a lack of flexibility. The
workforce is very stretched out and requires some level of
innovation to adapt to economic versatilities. Community
college education models should develop skillsets within the
students that enable them to innovate where there is a gap in

their professional lives (Beach, 2011). The skill sets acquired
should provide up to date solutions fo0r the various sectors that
the students engage in and should ensure that they are
enlightened in problem-solving and deriving solutions.
Resultantly, the students remain relevant and are retained at
their places of work for longer.
Conclusion
Comprehensive community colleges play a huge role in society
and the impact on how culture thrives by providing relevant
education to students. Community colleges need to be
continuously updated by revising their curriculum often and
ensuring that the students get the maximum return on
investment. Some of the ways through which community
colleges obtain funding include state funding which is highly
dependent on the economic state the region the college is
located. Budget cuts and the most recent global recession have
had a significant impact in the funds allocated to community
colleges. The students must add value to the sectors in which
they serve and remain valuable. Funding should be geared
towards making sure that the changing nature of education is
made to suit the needs of the students as well as the business
models.
References
Beach, J. M. (2011). Gateway to opportunity? A history of the
community college in the United States. Sterling, Va: Stylus
Pub.
Gaulee, U. (2018). Global adaptations of community college
infrastructure.
O'Banion, T. (2019). 13 ideas that are transforming the
community college world.
Remington, N., & Remington, R. (2012). Alternative Pathways
to the Baccalaureate: Do Community Colleges Offer a Viable

Solution
to the Nation's Knowledge Deficit?. Sterling: Stylus Pub.

San Joaquin Delta Community Colle.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to San Joaquin Delta Community Colle.docx

Similar to San Joaquin Delta Community Colle.docx (20)

More from gertrudebellgrove

More from gertrudebellgrove (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

San Joaquin Delta Community Colle.docx