PURPOSE: This rule sets forth the standards andprocedures of the Coordi. nating Board for Higher Education, under which community junior college districts may be established.

1. (1) Standards.
2. (A) Standard 1. Initiative to establish a district must cane from the area to be served. Local initiative to establish a community junior college district is demonstrated by submitting a petition to the coordinating board in accordance with the provisions of section 178.800.1, RSMo. The petition and the response to Standard 1 should include the official name of the proposed district. The official name of the district must adhere to the i$lowing format: “The Junior College District , Missouri.”

3. (B) Standard 2. Need must be clearly established in terms of the total area to be served, including educational interest of citizens, manpower needs of local industry, business, government and other consumers, and compatibility with the statewide policy goals established by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE). Clearandconvincing evidence of need for the proposed district shall be demonstrated by providing information which will be generated by a survey, the form and method for administration of the survey to be determined by the CBHE. The cost of the administration of the survey shall be borne by the organizing body for the proposed district. The information provided by the survey will include, but not be limited to, the specific educational services needed by employers, high school students and representatives of the general public which can be provided by a community junior college. So that the respondents to the survey can make an informed judgment relating to the establishment of a community junior college, information will be provided to each respondent regarding the probable tax levy for the first five (5) years of operation of the community junior college, probable capital expenditures required during the first ten (10) years of operation and probable location of the initial site.

   Roy 0. Blunt SeErefarydShh w’88’

   1. 1. Supplemental to the results of the survey, additional demographic information will be provided to the coordinating board to further substantiate the need for a community junior college. The format and method for providing this information will be determined by the coordinating board.
   2. 2. Iftheboarddeterminesa bonafideneed exists after examining the information regarding the establishment of a community junior college, the board will conduct a review to ascertain if alternative agencies within or outside the proposed district can provide the identified services. If the review establishes that the need can be met by these alternative agencies, approval for the establishment of a community junior college will be denied.
   3. (C) Standard 3. Proposed districts must be composed of one (1) or more public school districts. In the case of a proposal encompassing two (2) or more public school districts, those districts must be contiguous. Variations in traffic ar@ies, population density, tax base valuations and public school district boundaries require flexibility in geographic size. As a general guideline, student commuting time should not exceed forty-five (45) minutes each way. The proposed district should be described in terms of the public school districts it will encompass. A map detailing boundaries of the proposed district, the population centers and the boundaries of the public school districts shall be provided.

   4. (D) Standard 4. There shall be substantive evidence to project an enrollment of at least one thousand two hundred fifty (1250) fulltime-equivalent (FTG) students within five (5) years of the initial operation of the new district. Enrollment may be projected for an FTE greater than one thousand two hundred fifty (1250) and the basis for projecting enrollment is as follows:

      1. 1. FTE enrollment, after five (5) years of

operation, shall be estimated on the basis of-

1. A. 1.5% of the proposed district popula-

tion, with a minimum of 1250 FTE, up to and including 100,000 population;

1. B. 1% of the proposed district popula-

tion, but not less than 1500 FTE from 100,001 population to 200,000;

1. C. .9%, but not less than 2000 FTE, from

200,001-300,000;

1. D. .8%, but not less than 2700 FTE, from

300,001-400,000;

1. E. .7%, but not less than 3200 FTE, from

400,001-500,000;

1. F. .6%, but not less than 3500 FTE, from

500,001-600,000; and

1. G. .5%, but not less than 3600 FTE, for

populations over 600,000;

1. 2. The proposed district population shall be determined as follows:

   CODEOFSTATE REGULATIONS 6 CSR IO-6 ,

   m

   1. A. The populations of the component

public school districts as determined from the School District Population Summary Tables prepared after the most recently completed decennial.census will be the base population;

1. B. The school district base populations

will be incremented by the estimated growth rates for the counties in which the districts are headquartered through the most recent year for which county population estimates are available from the State Census Data Center; and

1. C. The district populations derived in

subparagraph (l)(D)2.B. will be projected for future years using the average annual growth between the latest decennial census and the latest county population estimates for the counties in which the districts are headquartered; and

1. 3. In addition to the enrollment projection

method previously described, the average daily attendance of students in grades ten through twelve (10-U) in the high schools within the proposed district must be at least sixteen hundred (1600).

1. (E) Standard5.Thefinancialviabilityofthe proposed district is dependent on several interrelatedfactorsinvolving theestimation of bothrevenueandoperatingcosts.Thebasisfor computing operating costs is given in this subsection. The relevant revenue factors are assessed valuation of the proposed district, local tax levy and local tax income generated from the assessed valuation; student fee level and student fee income; state aid income; and other income. The local portion of revenue consists of the income generated by the tax levy on the assessed valuation of taxable, tangible property in the proposed district. The assessed valuation of the proposed district is a critical factor. The assessed valuation of the proposed district shall provide adequate financial support to the proposed district as determined by the coordinating board. The revenue derived from student fees is dependent upon the FTE enrollment and the fee amount charged to each student. Methods for computing these factors as well as state aid income and other income are given as follows:

   1. 1. Operating costs. Estimations of

operating costs are for education and general, and do not include capital expenditures or cost.s for auxiliary purposes. The estimated operating costs shall be based upon a student faculty ratio oftwenty to one (2O:l) and faculty compensation which is sufficient to attract and retain qualified and competent faculty;

1. 2. Student fee income. This factor is

determined by computing the average percent of total income, less auxiliary and restricted, provided by student fees at existing community junior college districts, established under the provisions of sections 178.770- m 6 CSR lOd-DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

178.890, RSMo for the most recent fiscal year for which data are available preceding the new district proposal. If the proposed district has a population of two hundred thousand (200,000) or fewer, the average for existing districts with populatlonsoftwo hundredthousand(ZOO,OOO) or fewer shall be used. If the proposed district has a population of over two hundred thousand (ZOO,OOO), the average for all existing districts shall be used. This factor shall be computed by the coordinating board staff;

1. 3. State aid income. This factor is deter.

mined by applying the current method of determining state aid to the five (5).year projected size and program diversity of the proposed community junior college. This factor shall be computed by the coordinating board staffi

1. 4. Other income. An amount equal to two

percent (2%) oftheestimatedcost ofoperations shall be allowed as estimation of other income for districts with populations of two hundred thousand (200,000) or less and an allowance of one-half percent (.5%) for proposed districts of over two hundred thousand (200,000) population. If the proposed new district feasibility study categorically demonstrates, in the judgment of the coordinating board, other reliable sources of income, the actual dollars so demonstrated may be added to the two percent (2%) or one-half percent (.5%) allowance;

1. 5. Local tax levy. The tax levy per one

hundred dollars ($100) assessed valuation, for purposes of computing the adequacy of the assessed valuation to support the proposed district, shall be the maximum levy allowed, without voter approval, by section 178.870, RSMo, as follows: LEVY ASSESSED VALUATION $1,000,000,000 plus $500 Million but less than $1 Billion $2 .30 $250 Million but less than $500 Million .40 Less than $25O,OOO,OOa; and

1. 6. Local tax income generated from

assessed valuation. The purpose of establishing an assessed valuation requirement for a proposed new district is to assure that the valuation is sufficient to generate adequate funds to provide a viable college fiscal operaton and education of acceptable quality. That adequacy is assessed by formulae which produce either an assessed valuation from a known amount of needed revenue or the amount of revenue generated from a known assessed valuation. The steps and formulae of the computation are-

1. A. Estimated operating costs less esti-

mated student fee income, less estimated state aid, less estimation of other income produces a balance which is the estimated operating cost to be provided through local tax revenue; Division

1. B. The amount of assessed valuation

required to generate the needed tax revenue is computed with the following formula: (a)(X/lOO) = y in which: a= the amount of the tax levy per $100 of assessed valuation; X = the assessed valuation required to generate needed tax revenue; and y = the tax revenue to be generated. In this formula, X is the unknown. If the computation reveals the value of X to be equal to or less than the actual assessed valuation of proposed district, then the assessed valuation shall be judged to be adequate; and

1. C. The amount of tax revenue which

would be generated by the assessed valuation of the proposed district is computed as follows: (a)(X/lOO) = y in which: a = the amount of the tax levy per $100 of assessed valuation; X = the actual assessed valuation of the proposed district; and y = the tax revenue generated. In this formula, y is the unknown. If the computation reveals the value of y to be as great or greater than the balance of income to be provided through local tax revenue, then the assessed valuation of the proposed district shall be judged to be adequate.

1. (F) Standard 6. A study of the feasibility of a proposed district shall be prepared and submitted to the coordinating board. In addition to comprehensively addressing all other standards and requirements specified in this rule, the feasibility study shall include detailed plans both for meeting the initial physical facility needs of the proposed new district and for meeting the additional start-up instructional and support costs of operation until revenue from local taxes, state aid and student fees become available, above and beyond state appropriations for existing districts.

1. (2) Election. If the coordinating board determines that the proposed district meets the standards established by the board, the board shall order an election in accordance with the provisions of sections 178.800 and 178.820, RSMo.
2. (3) Instructional Programs. In the event the proposal to organize the district receives a majority of the votes cast, programs of instruction shall be submitted for the approval of the coordinating board. Auth: sections 178,770-l 78.820, RSMo (1986). Original rule,%d March 13,196, effectiue July I, 1985. Rescinded and readopted: Filed July 15, 1987, effectiue Oct. 12,1987. IO-Commissioner of Higher Education