Imperial Community College District Report

Imperial Valley College Management Review December 3, 2012 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM December 3, 2012 Victor M. Jaime, Ed.D., Superintendent/President Imperial Valley College 380 East Aten Road Post Office Box 158 Imperial, CA 92251-0158 Dear Superintendent/President Jaime: In March 2012, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the Imperial Community College District entered into a study agreement with the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). The agreement specifically calls for FCMAT to perform the following: The FCMAT Team will assist the college in developing a district-wide strategic vision regarding programs and services that should be offered, redesigned, added or deleted to sustain the college’s financial solvency. The team will review and evaluate the college’s management, faculty and clas- sified staffing assignments to align with commensurate program offerings and position control. Through collaborative organizational planning and prioritization, the team will assist the college in aligning staffing ratios and positions with recommendations for programmatic additions or deletions. This component will also help the college with the budget development process to align programs and staffing to a financial plan that will assist the college in sustaining its recommended reserve levels and financial stability for the benefit of students, the community and college staff. The objective of the report will be to create a data-driven, collaborative analysis that will serve as a foundation and impetus for the college community to accept and promote the necessary changes. The following framework is provided: A. Organizational Planning 1. Establish a broad-based oversight group, as the College deems appropriate, to assist in guiding the project and to ensure college-wide participation 2. Develop a step-by-step process and timeline with campus input 3. Solicit and establish internal and external stakeholder collaboration and needs development/identification 4. Conduct an organizational structure review and comparison 5. Conduct a review of employee bargaining unit contracts FCMAT Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer . . 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93 . 301-4533 Telephone 661-6 . 36-4611 Fax 661-63 . 6-4647 422 Petaluma Blvd North, Suite. C, Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: 707-775-2850 Fax: 707-775-2854 www.fcmat.org Administrative Agent: Christine L. Frazier - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools 6. Review and prioritize the need of all curricular, co-curricular, and non-curricular programs 7. Facilitate creation of a vision that results in program prioritization based upon available funding 8. In terms of strategic vision relative to program reduction, review existing plans to determine relevancy for these efforts and provide coordination of existing plans with this project 9. Assist the College in preparing a comprehensive FTES plan for the next three years 10. Assist the College in reconciling program reduction/expansion/redesign decisions to the MYFP 11. Assist the College in establishing principles and recommendations for program reductions B. Fiscal Management Develop a multi-year financial projection for the current and two subsequent years without any demonstrated adjustments based on today’s economic forecast to determine the level of commitment that will be needed to sustain the College’s financial solvency, recognizing that this will be a snapshot in time regarding the current financial situation and used as the baseline for determining the level of reductions. Scope of work: 1. Determine up to four California community colleges to be used for benchmark comparisons 2. Provide findings and conduct a multi-year financial projection and recommenda- tions for meeting the district’s goals 3. Based on benchmark colleges and Imperial Community College’s program priorities, review critical cost variances, including: a) Review the average class size, as determined by WSCH/FTE faculty b) Evaluate the class schedule based on student demand c) Review the faculty obligation and the amount of reassigned time appropriate for the enrollment, structure, and budget of the College d) Compare managerial positions as reported to IPEDS, and determine whether administration is organized effectively and are the staffing levels appropriate e) Evaluate classified hourly expenses as compared to those of other colleges f) Determine the costs and program impacts of off-site centers and sites g) Review the costs of health benefits for active employees compared to those of other colleges v TABLE OF CONTENTS h) Evaluate Imperial Community College for comparative analysis in terms of 50% Law margins i) Review the unrestricted general fund match for categorical programs and levels of encroachment, if any j) Review FTES and determine if assignments are managed effectively and is the college maximizing its opportunities to generate additional funding The second component of the fiscal review will be to align the recommendations, specific cost proposals to reduce staffing, programs, etc.; and develop a multi-year financial projection that enables the College to sustain its financial solvency and maintain recommended reserve levels. The objective of this component will be to prepare and present a comprehensive report and recommendations covering the following issues: 1. A financial model will be prepared to illustrate options that Imperial Community College could implement to reduce various expenses and/or increase revenue in order to balance the budget and sustain their financial solvency 2. Identify Institutional restriction such as past practices or services that have been identified as the “Imperial Community College culture” of the College including but not limited to collective bargaining contracts, legal constraints including the 50% Law and the Full-Time Faculty Obligation (FON) 3. Develop an implementation plan, including a proposed timeline 4. On the revenue side, the report will review: a) Enrollment opportunities b) College foundation c) Grants and development This report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve you, and extends thanks to all the staff for their assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer ImperIal Valley College vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents About FCMAT .........................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................1 Executive Summary ..............................................................................7 Findings and Recommendations ...................................................13 Fiscal Review and Analysis ........................................................................13 Organizational Review ...............................................................................21 Budget Development .................................................................................29 Enrollment and FTES Analysis ..................................................................39 Program Evaluation .....................................................................................43 Enrollment and FTES Analysis ..................................................................39 Next Steps in Proposed Timeline ...........................................................51 Appendices ............................................................................................53 ImperIal Valley College ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM iii ABOUT FCMAT About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices and efficient operations. FCMAT’s data management services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and share information. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the local education agency to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 ImperIal Valley College seidutS fo rebmuN FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional development opportunities to help local educational agencies operate more effec- tively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) arm of FCMAT assists the California Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and also maintains DataGate, the FCMAT/CSIS software LEAs use for CSIS services. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. Assembly Bill 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsi- bility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. Assembly Bill 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county office of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. In January 2006, SB 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. iv ABOUT FCMAT Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform nearly 850 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Background Imperial Valley College is located on a 160-acre site in the city of Imperial and has approximately 6,100 full-time equivalent students (FTES). In response to the state’s ongoing fiscal crisis, the college recently closed its extended campuses in El Centro, Brawley and Calexico. In March 2012, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the Imperial Community College District entered into a study agreement with the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). Pursuant to Education Code Section 84041 and in accordance with the requirements of Provision 1.(b) of Budget Act item 6870-107-0001, the district may request the board of governors to reimburse FCMAT established in Education Code Section 42127.8 an amount up to $150,000 to provide the district with technical assistance, training and short-term institutional research necessary to address existing or potential accredita- tion deficiencies. In addition to the $150,000, Imperial Community College agreed to pay up to $65,000 from board reserve funds if the cost were to be higher than $150,000, approved by the College Council, Academic Senate, Budget & Fiscal Planning and CTA, as well as the Imperial Community College District Board of Trustees on April 18, 2012. Specifically, the agreement states that FCMAT will perform the following: The FCMAT Team will assist the college in developing a district-wide strategic vision regarding programs and services that should be offered, redesigned, added or deleted to sustain the college’s financial solvency. The team will review and evaluate the college’s management, faculty and classified staffing assignments to align with commensurate program offerings and position control. Through collaborative organizational planning and prioritization, the team will assist the college in aligning staffing ratios and posi- tions with recommendations for programmatic additions or deletions. This component will also help the college with the budget development process to align programs and staffing to a financial plan that will assist the college in sustaining its recommended reserve levels and financial stability for the benefit of students, the community and college staff. The objective of the report will be to create a data-driven, collaborative analysis that will serve as a foundation and impetus for the college community to accept and promote the necessary changes. The following framework is provided: A. Organizational Planning 1. Establish a broad-based oversight group, as the College deems appropriate, to assist in guiding the project and to ensure college-wide participation 2. Develop a step-by-step process and timeline with campus input 3. Solicit and establish internal and external stakeholder collaboration and needs development/identification 4. Conduct an organizational structure review and comparison ImperIal Valley College 2 INTRODUCTION 5. Conduct a review of employee bargaining unit contracts 6. Review and prioritize the need of all curricular, cocurricular, and non- curricular programs 7. Facilitate creation of a vision that results in program prioritization based upon available funding 8. In terms of strategic vision relative to program reduction, review existing plans to determine relevancy for these efforts and provide coordination of existing plans with this project 9. Assist the College in preparing a comprehensive FTES plan for the next three years 10. Assist the College in reconciling program reduction/expansion/redesign deci- sions to the MYFP 11. Assist the College in establishing principles and recommendations for program reductions B. Fiscal Management Develop a multi-year financial projection for the current and two subsequent years without any demonstrated adjustments based on today’s economic forecast to determine the level of commitment that will be needed to sustain the College’s financial solvency, recognizing that this will be a snapshot in time regarding the current financial situation and used as the baseline for determining the level of reductions. Scope of work: 1. Determine up to four California community colleges to be used for bench- mark comparisons 2. Provide findings and conduct a multi-year financial projection and recom- mendations for meeting the district’s goals 3. Based on benchmark colleges and Imperial Community College’s program priorities, review critical cost variances, including: a) Review the average class size, as determined by WSCH/FTE faculty b) Evaluate the class schedule based on student demand c) Review the faculty obligation and the amount of reassigned time appro- priate for the enrollment, structure, and budget of the College d) Compare managerial positions as reported to IPEDS, and determine whether administration is organized effectively and are the staffing levels appropriate e) Evaluate classified hourly expenses as compared to those of other colleges f) Determine the costs and program impacts of off-site centers and sites Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 INTRODUCTION g) Review the costs of health benefits for active employees compared to those of other colleges h) Evaluate Imperial Community College for comparative analysis in terms of 50% Law margins i) Review the unrestricted general fund match for categorical programs and levels of encroachment, if any j) Review FTES and determine if assignments are managed effectively and is the college maximizing its opportunities to generate additional funding The second component of the fiscal review will be to align the recommendations, specific cost proposals to reduce staffing, programs, etc.; and develop a multi-year financial projection that enables the College to sustain its financial solvency and maintain recommended reserve levels. The objective of this component will be to prepare and present a comprehensive report and recommendations covering the following issues: 1. A financial model will be prepared to illustrate options that Imperial Community College could implement to reduce various expenses and/or increase revenue in order to balance the budget and sustain their financial solvency 2. Identify Institutional restriction such as past practices or services that have been identified as the “Imperial Community College culture” of the College including but not limited to collective bargaining contracts, legal constraints including the 50% Law and the Full-Time Faculty Obligation (FON) 3. Develop an implementation plan, including a proposed timeline 4. On the revenue side, the report will review: a) Enrollment opportunities b) College foundation c) Grants and development Fieldwork FCMAT visited the college on May 21, June 11 and 12, June 20, and July 16 through 18, as well as August 17, 2012 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. During that time, FCMAT had discussions with board members, administrators, faculty, and classified staff, as individuals and within groups, including the board of trustees, college council and instructional council. On August 17, FCMAT made a brief presentation to the entire college and held two break-out sessions where the team answered questions. Below is the step-by-step process followed by the team as it worked with the college: ImperIal Valley College 4 INTRODUCTION Imperial Valley College’s Redesign Step-by-Step Process, Summer 2012 Study Purpose: To identify recommended improvements to sustain financial solvency. Areas of study include fiscal practices, FTES and enrollment manage- ment planning, organizational structure, and program evaluation. May 21 Discovery: FCMAT visits college to conduct initial interviews, gather data, and review existing documents June 11-12 Present step-by-step process: FCMAT visits college to meet with the president and leadership team, develop internal college communication strategies, and plan calendar of meetings. College will identify redesign team members to follow through with redesign activities. Begin fiscal analysis: Identify four peer colleges for comparisons (Col- lege of the Desert, Hartnell College, Monterey Peninsula College and Shasta-Tehama-Trinity College), complete comparison of fiscal perfor- mance and administrative structure, share initial data analyses, conduct analysis of 50% Law, employee contracts, and administrative structure. Begin FTES and enrollment management analysis: Gather data. Begin program evaluation process: Share recommended criteria and process and begin creating teams and collecting data. June 20 Board meeting: Review step-by-step process. July 16-18 Meet with Redesign Team: FCMAT meets with redesign team to review step-by-step process, calendar and communication strategies, and share initial data. This group implements communication plan. FTES and enrollment management plan development continues. Facilitate and implement program evaluation process: Program evalu- ation for academic programs to be led by academic team, and process improvement for non-academic departments will be initiated and ongo- ing. August 17 Redesign process: FCMAT visits college to conduct meetings of both internal and external stakeholders to receive input. Team visits college to conduct meetings of: Fiscal analysis FTES and enrollment management Program evaluation November 5 FCMAT sends draft report electronically to college for their review. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 INTRODUCTION November 16 College report review comments due to FCMAT. December 3 FCMAT submits final report electronically to cabinet and board. To be determined Special board meeting: FCMAT presents final report. Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: Michelle Plumbtree Julie Slark FCMAT Chief Management Analyst College Brain Trust, Petaluma, CA Institutional Effectiveness Dana Point, CA Leonel Martinez FCMAT Technical Writer John Spevak, Ph.D. Bakersfield, CA College Brain Trust, Academic Program Analysis Michael Hill Los Banos, CA College Brain Trust, Fiscal and Administrative Analysis Randal Lawson* San Jose, CA Executive Vice President Santa Monica College Pegi Ard Santa Monica, CA College Brain Trust, Fiscal Analysis Cabrillo, CA Walter Packard, Ph.D. College Brain Trust, Team Leader Gold River, CA *As a member of this study team, this consultant was not representing his respective employer but was working solely as an independent contractor for FCMAT. ImperIal Valley College 6 INTRODUCTION Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary In March 2012, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office on behalf of the California Community College Board of Governors entered into a study agreement with the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) to address the growing fiscal crisis at Imperial Valley College. The college is experiencing fiscal challenges caused by external and internal decisions. The analysis and recommendations contained in this report will help the college regain financial stability. Requiring Fiscal Review and Analysis The college has a rapidly declining fund balance and continued operating deficits, which will necessitate immediate and ongoing budget reductions to avoid fiscal insolvency and possible state intervention. FCMAT discussed a broad range of topics with the staff and reviewed many documents to understand the college’s current fiscal circumstance. In some instances, the college has taken proactive steps to address budgetary issues; however, these have not been sufficient to eliminate the ongoing structural deficit and to sustain fiscal solvency. The topics explored with staff and in the document review included the following: • As of June 30, 2012, off-site instructional operations at Brawley, Calexico and El Centro were ended, consolidating instruction on the main campus in an effort to save costs. • Alternative actions other than employee layoffs that would yield savings such as furlough days, retirement incentives, freezing salary schedule step movement and a reduced work year for some categories of employees. Many have been implemented, although furloughs and step freezes were for only one year. The college recently began the process to lay off approximately 17 classified staff. • The CSEA and CTA collective bargaining agreements were reviewed in order to identify items that committed the college to added costs and limited decision-making ability. • The college’s faculty obligation number (FON) in relation to the actual full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty. In IVC’s case the actual faculty FTE is about 50% higher than the FON. • The 50% law calculation and the related components. • Enrollment management strategies such as class sizes, classroom productivity, class schedule building, and FTES. • Unrestricted general fund support for categorical programs and auxiliary operations such as the bookstore and food services. • Grants that anticipated district continuance of expenditures after the grant expired. • Bond program costs that might have implications for future general fund obligations. • Faculty release time related to cost and function. • Retiree health benefits. • College staff apportionment worksheets as compared to State Chancellor’s Office reports. • Budget assumptions being considered for fiscal year 2012-13 and subsequent fiscal years. ImperIal Valley College 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Data models, samples, and templates for decision-making and the processes or procedures that guide major decisions. • Hourly classified costs. • The college’s financial and expenditure history over the last seven years. • Recent external audits, particularly those related to major fiscal issues. The analysis also selected four similar districts to use as comparisons in the areas of expenditures, the 50% law, and administrative staffing. In some instances, FCMAT determined that no further comment was warranted. For example, the closure of off-site operations was completed and therefore needed no further consideration or action from a budgetary standpoint (although there are implications for FTES generation and an enrollment management plan). In many other instances, the college should take further action. Benchmarking and Data Analysis The scope of work specified that FCMAT compare the fiscal performance and administrative structure of Imperial Valley College with those of other districts. Four were selected: College of the Desert, Hartnell College, Monterey Peninsula College and Shasta-Tehama-Trinity College. The two most significant criteria in selecting comparison districts were the level of FTES and being a single-college district. No two districts are identical, but FCMAT’s goal was to select colleges with a sufficient number of similarities for a valid comparison. Therefore, very large and very small FTES colleges, urban, multicollege, basic aid, and those colleges with state-approved centers were immediately excluded. Funding for education has been severely reduced and cash deferrals have increased for the last four years because of the state and federal budget crisis. To address the state’s ongoing budget deficit, state lawmakers have used numerous strategies to help balance the budget, including reducing expenditures, adding new taxes, borrowing money and using federal stimulus funds. However, funding for the 2012-13 fiscal year remains uncertain given the ongoing state budget deficit and reliance on passage of the governor’s November 2012 tax initiative to avoid mid-year budget reductions. During these unprecedented fiscal times districts have been forced to make drastic reductions to programs and staff; prior industry standards and best practices for staffing levels have often been decimated. Therefore, although district comparisons provide valuable information, they may be a somewhat less reliable tool to help determine the number of staff and administrative structure needed to provide the desired level of customer service. The data in the comparison reports (included in the main body of this report) indicate areas to explore for possible cost containment, reduction or organizational modification. The comparison found that Imperial Valley College spends more than its peers, and further highlights the areas in which higher spending occurs. This analysis provides an objective portrait of the college’s opera- tions and a data-driven basis for making important financial decisions; however, the decisions themselves ultimately belong to the college. Financial History Imperial Valley College provided FCMAT with a recap of the last six years of financial data including estimates for 2012-13. The recap identifies FTES and revenues and expenses at a detailed object-type level. The base year was 2006-07, when the college was at 6,501 funded and actual FTES. At that time, revenue was $33.9 million, and costs were $31 million, creating a surplus of $2.9 million. In 2011-12, funded FTES before the decline was 6,558 with revenue Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of $34.1 million, costs of $35.5 million and a deficit of $1.4 million. Projections (prior to reductions) for the 2012-13 year were FTES at 6,162, revenues of $33.1 million, costs of $36.5 million and a deficit of $3.4 million. The district recap is attached as Appendix B to this report. The seven-year history is of value, especially because the base year is comparable to the college’s current situation and provides useful information as the college plans to make significant budget reductions to eliminate its operating deficit. Organizational Review The college’s basic administrative structure differs a little from the comparative districts. At the executive level, the total number of positions is similar, but the titles and duties are different for each district. Similar patterns were observed in the major divisions of student services and business/operations; but the information technology division is larger than at the comparative districts, and the instruction division has fewer identified managers. Although it is possible to minimally reduce the administration based on the data, the compara- tive analysis does not suggest major differences. The more significant issue for Imperial Valley College is the generous use of faculty release time and extended contracts. Faculty Contract The base work year for faculty typically includes class loading and references to other professional duties to complete their contract assignment. The assigned classroom instructional hours for faculty are only part of their expected workload, and along with other professional duties, are the basis for the annual salary compensation. In its faculty contract, the college provides full prorated pay for some work outside the basic contract for winter and summer sessions that is paid at the full prorated share for the first six units of instruction. At most community colleges, other professional duties (such as office hours) are not normally expected and therefore are usually paid at a lesser rate, often the part-time hourly rates of the affected faculty. Imperial Valley College’s contract requirement is more expensive than the comparative districts This report also reviews issues such as nonteaching contract days, the amount of release time allocated, the faculty obligation number and class size stipulated in the contract. All these topics affect the college’s costs for operation and should be part of the discussion as the college works to regain its fiscal health. Budget Development The college has deficit spent for a number of years, with the ending fund balance decreasing from a high of $8.4 million in 2006-07 to $2.4 million at June 30, 2012. Correspondingly, expendi- tures continue to exceed revenues. For the budget year 2012-13, the college anticipates a deficit range of $700,000 to $2.3 million. The projected range is dependent upon the outcome of the governor’s tax measure in November. For several years, the college has addressed budget shortfalls and operating deficits with one-time, temporary budget adjustments instead of ongoing reductions. This is problematic because it has deferred difficult decisions to the future. Districts in the comparison group sustained or increased fund balance over the same time frame while Imperial Valley College’s budget shortfall continued to increase. ImperIal Valley College 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fiscal Planning and Multiyear Financial Projections The college’s financial difficulties, including a declining fund balance and continued operating deficits, have occurred for a number of reasons. Reduced state funding over the past few years is a significant contributing factor; however, other systemic issues are also involved. In the past two years, Imperial Valley College has made decisions that are difficult to financially sustain, without consideration of the college’s ability to pay, causing fiscal distress. The college has also experienced a decline in full time equivalent students (FTES), which decreases the state-funded level of FTES, adding more uncertainty and complexity to multiyear financial planning. The college has developed two multiyear financial projections, one based on passage of the governor’s tax measure and the other on its failure. Further, the college assumes if the measure passes that lost funding because of the decline in FTES will be restored over a three-year period beginning in 2012-13. In the tax-passage scenario, the college experiences $685,000 in deficit spending in 2012-13, and ends the year with a 5% reserve of $1.7 million. In 2013-14, the projection shows a deficit of $1.9 million and without any budget adjustments, a negative ending balance of $236,000. The deficit would continue at about the same level to 2014-15, and the ending balance would be a negative $2.2 million. This is the best-case scenario since it represents the tax measure passing and restoration of the lost FTES over three years. The scenario could be improved if the FTES restoration occurred faster, but that type of improvement is unlikely given the level of decline. The college’s projection for the tax-failure scenario includes one-time budget reductions totaling $1.1 million that could be implemented in 2012-13. These reductions are helpful, but inad- equate and would not eliminate the budget shortfall. The actual 2011-12 FTES level of 6,110 generated by Imperial Valley College is the new base from which FTES workload reductions that are linked to the reduced level of funding for community colleges under the tax-failure scenario would occur. The district would still be eligible to restore lost FTES, but this would only bring the district close to the 6,100 FTES level. In 2011-12; the base FTES for the district was 6,559. The table below provides greater detail on the impact of the FTES changes. Presently Tax Passes Tax Fails FTES FTES FTES Base 2011- 2012 6,559 Base for 12- 13 6,110 Base for 12-13 6,110 Actual 2011- 2012 6,110 Base 12- 13 Tax Passes 6,110 Base Tax Fails 5,664 Difference 449 Restoration - 3 years 449 Restore 3 years 416 Potential FTES 6,559 Potential FTES 6,080 Other than identifying $1.1 million in one-time budget reductions, the college has not planned for the possibility of the tax measure failing. The 2012-13 fiscal year would close with a projected ending balance of $129,000 after the $1.1 million reduction and a deficit in 2013-14 of $4.2 million. The 2013-14 deficit might be less if FTES restoration occurs sooner than anticipated, but that deficit would still be more than $3 million, with reserves projected to range from $129,000 to $800,000 based on how quickly FTES is restored. If the tax measure fails, the college has only months to reduce its operating budget by approximately 10% to 13% or face fiscal insolvency. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The information below summarizes years 2012-13 through 2014-15, with both scenarios presented. These scenarios vary based on whether the governor’s tax measure passes. Under both scenarios, the college has financial challenges, but under the tax failure scenario, the college will have to address a budget shortfall that will require immediate and major changes in operations. Multiyear Financial Projection Analysis 2012-2013 Prop 30 Passes Prop 30 Fails Revenues $33,532,332 $31,492,730 Expenditures (34,217,663) (33,759,663) Deficit (685,331) (2,266,933) Estimated Ending Balance $1,711,020 $129,418 2013-2014 Prop 30 Passes Prop 30 Fails Revenues $34,326,642 $32,136,395 Expenditures (36,273,697) (36,339,697) Deficit (1,947,055) ( 4,203302) Estimated Ending Balance ($236,035) ($4,073,884) 2014-2015 Prop 30 Passes Prop 30 Fails Revenues $35,125,517 $32,935,270 Expenditures (37,117,328) (37,153,199) Deficit (1,991,811) (4,217,929) Estimated Ending Balance ($2,227,846) ($8,291,813) 50% Law The 50% law requires half of each community college district’s current unrestricted general fund to be spent on classroom salaries and benefits. The college’s compliance with the 50% law declined from 54.75% in 2007-08 to 54.21% in 2009-10. The most significant decline occurred in 2010-11, when the college reported 50.82%. An analysis and recommendations on how to manage compliance are provided in this report. Complying with the 50% law constrains budget planning for the college. FTES Analysis A thorough review and analysis of Imperial Valley College’s CCFS-320 attendance reports from 2006 to the present, a review of various course offerings, faculty contact hours, and full-time equivalent faculty reports provided by the college, and discussions with college staff members found the following, which directly affects the institution’s fiscal health: • There is no consistent planning mechanism relating the size of the course offering to the college’s FTES revenue goals and an annual plan that could be clearly communicated to the entire college to drive decision-making at all levels. • Consistently low efficiency/productivity as measured by weekly student contact hours/ full-time equivalent students (WSCH/FTES) and average class size. These factors need to be addressed if the college is to successfully resolve its ongoing fiscal issues. • ImperIal Valley College 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Program Evaluation For this study, academic programs were evaluated using one common process, and for nonaca- demic (administrative, business, and student services) programs, a separate approach was created and used. After FCMAT reviewed the college’s educational master plan, program review reports, and other materials, the college research department and academic program staff provided the requested statistical information on 14 measures for each of 60 academic programs. Deans and department chairs, working under the direction of the vice president for academic services, then developed their own conclusions about the following for each program: • Enrollment demand • The projection for future enrollment demand and opportunities for future advancement • A summary of each program’s health, using criteria suggested FCMAT then reviewed the information and developed recommendations specifically for academic programs. For student services and other nonacademic programs, FCMAT found little data or evidence to demonstrate that evaluation and improvement were routinely conducted at the college. Because of the study’s time constraints, the priority of FCMAT’s program evaluation for these departments was to implement a continuing process improvement activity. Two administrative members of the college’s executive council volunteered to lead the effort, and a cross-functional team process was developed with every department participating. The cross-functional team facilitators first met for an orientation on July 17, 2012. Each department identified one process for evaluation by August 17, 2012, considering opportunities for cost reduction, efficiency enhancement, and contribution to student success and enrollment. By the end of 2012-13, every department will have three processes assessed by cross-functional teams. Overall, the college’s vision and mission, described in the educational master plan, are regularly reviewed and linked to annual expenditure requests via a committee process. However, they were not used during the serious fiscal downturn during the last four years and therefore did not guide prioritization for expenditure reductions. Further, adequate structures and mechanisms for broad communication, coordination of processes, and problem-solving among department leadership staff, both academic and nonacademic, appeared to be lacking or severely limited at best. These will be essential in the college’s efforts to regain its fiscal health. Summary Imperial Valley College is confronted with fiscal problems caused by external and internal deci- sions. Solving these problems will not be easy. The analysis and recommendations contained in this report, along with the tools provided to staff, will help the college maintain financial solvency. The college plays an important role in the community, along with employees and others who are committed to the institution and students. That commitment is essential to the success of the organization and its overall financial viability. If these various parties work together for the greater health of the organization, everyone will benefit in the long run. Some recommendations in this report will be difficult to implement and accept, but their implementation will be neces- sary to remain fiscally solvent. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Findings and Recommendations Fiscal Review and Analysis Although examining the college’s fiscal condition was a key component, this study is not intended to be viewed as a comprehensive audit. This report was developed to review and evaluate how Imperial Valley College projects and allocates its fiscal resources and determine whether the college’s budget assumptions and methods are reasonable and consider key economic and district factors. Like many community colleges across the state, Imperial Valley College has had to deal with declining state revenue for a number of years, rapidly declining fund balance, and continued operating deficits, which necessitate the use of ongoing and significant budget reductions to avoid insolvency and possible state intervention. FCMAT discussed a broad range of topics with the staff and reviewed many documents to complete its analysis. In some instances, the college has taken proactive steps to address budgetary issues; however, more action will be needed to avert fiscal insolvency. The topics and issues included the following: • Evaluation of off-site instructional operations, which were consolidated with the main campus in Imperial as of June 30, 2012 as a budget reduction. • Actions other than layoffs that would yield savings such as furlough days, retirement incentives, freezing salary schedule step movement and a shorter work year for some categories of employees. These have all been implemented although the furloughs and step freezes were for only one fiscal year. The college subsequently has moved to lay off approximately 17 classified staff members. • Collective bargaining agreements with the California School Employees Association (CSEA) and California Teachers Association (CTA), specifically identification of items that committed the college to added costs and limited its decision-making ability. • The college’s faculty obligation number in light of its actual full-time equivalent faculty, which is about 50% higher than the faculty obligation number. • The calculation and related components used to comply with the 50% law, which requires half of each community college district’s current expense of education to be spent on classroom salaries and benefits. • Class sizes, classroom productivity, creation of the class schedule, and the number of full- time equivalent students (FTES) as a component of enrollment management. • Support from the unrestricted general fund for categorical programs and auxiliary operations such as the bookstore and food services. • Grants that anticipated the college continuing the program after the grant expired. • Bond program costs that may be masking future general fund obligations. • The costs and functions of faculty release time. • Retiree health benefits program. ImperIal Valley College 14 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS • Comparing and verifying staffs members’ apportionment worksheets, against the State Chancellor’s Office reports. • Previous budget savings actions and assumptions anticipated for fiscal year 2012-13. • Data tools, processes and procedures used to guide major decisions. • The identification of four other community college districts to be compared with Imperial Valley College in expenditures, the 50% law, and administrative staffing levels. • The college’s financial and expenditure history over the last seven years. • Hourly classified costs. • Recent external financial statement audits to identify any major fiscal issues and audit findings. Some of these topics needed no additional comment beyond the initial discussion since they were completed, or additional analysis indicated they would not yield adequate savings. For example off-site operations at Brawley, Calexico and El Centro were closed in 2011-12, so no further consideration or action was needed from a budgetary standpoint although the implica- tion for FTES generation and an enrollment management plan still needed attention. Another area, hourly classified costs, was primarily in the area of student workers and tutoring and totaled approximately $350,000 when combined or about 1% of the unrestricted general fund budget, which is not significant enough in value for FCMAT to analyze further. The balance of this report includes findings and recommendations in the areas that require further attention. During fieldwork, FCMAT also identified additional issues that required further research and analysis. These are noted throughout the report. The scope of FCMAT’s review included fiscal review and analysis and a benchmark comparison of Imperial Valley College with similar community college districts. This was completed to provide data to help the college make decisions that would help sustain financial solvency and maintain recommended reserve levels. Benchmarking and Data Analysis To provide additional context, four similar community college districts were selected to develop comparisons of fiscal performance and administrative structure. These were College of the Desert, Hartnell College, Monterey Peninsula College and Shasta-Tehama-Trinity College. No two districts are identical, but FCMAT’s goal was to select colleges with a sufficient number of similarities for a valid comparison. Therefore, very large and very small FTES colleges, urban, multicollege, basic aid, and those colleges with state-approved centers were immediately excluded. The two most significant criteria in selecting comparison districts were the level of FTES and being a single-college district. The four selected colleges meet both criteria and are outside of large urban settings. Although not part of the criteria used to select comparison districts, each of the selected colleges has a recent five-year history of having a stable or increasing fund balance. Hartnell College serves a large Hispanic population and supports an active agricultural commu- nity. College of the Desert is located near Imperial Valley College, Shasta-Tehama-Trinity College serves a large geographic area, and Monterey Peninsula College has a diverse student population. Given the number of similarities, FCMAT concluded that this group provided a reasonable peer comparison. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Financial Comparison The following section points out the areas where Imperial Valley tends to spend more than the four similar comparison districts, where spending is similar, and where it spends less. Since this includes a great deal of data, this report summarizes key findings, and includes tables with addi- tional detail. FCMAT also included descriptions of what each line of data represents. Appendix A, which is attached to this report, includes detailed information. Because no two community college districts are the same, any statistical report must be evaluated in context. Although different districts may provide similar services, the extent of services and the methods of providing them can be determined locally by the governing board and are often decided based on the culture of the organization. As a result, each cost area will not exactly match that of other districts. FCMAT examined the degree and level of resources committed to each service and determined the categories where Imperial Valley College spends more or less than similar districts. These differences can be the result of efficiencies, inefficiencies, or the college’s level of commitment to a specific service or category. The data shows that overall, Imperial Valley College spends more than its peers, and highlights where this occurs. These areas can be considered for cost contain- ment, reduction, or organizational modification. Overall, this type of analysis provides a data driven basis to assist in making important financial decisions. The information included in the comparative analysis was collected from the State Chancellor’s Office fiscal data abstract, which is a compilation of information submitted by every California community college district. The most recent data available is for fiscal year 2010-11, and the information available is for the total unrestricted and restricted general fund. Although it would be preferable to have only the unrestricted general fund data for a comparison, the state does not separate the unrestricted data sufficiently. Because of this factor, FCMAT verified the ratio of unrestricted expenditures to the total general fund expenditures for each district to help validate the appropriateness of the selected comparison districts. This ratio is provided in the comparison table immediately following the list of FTES in Appendix A1. Taxonomy of program (TOP) codes 6000 through 6700 reflect mostly unrestricted costs, which again adds credibility to the comparison. FCMAT used two methodologies when compiling the comparisons. The first was to review what percentage of the budget each district spent for a specific activity. For instance, Imperial Valley College spends 1.37% of its budget on admissions and records, while College of the Desert spends 1.65% of its budget for the same function. This comparison was conducted for all the peer districts. FCMAT’s goal was to measure the college against each of the comparison districts to determine its performance for each function. This process reveals where each district places more or less emphasis and helps verify whether resources are spent in accordance with a district’s mission and goals. The second approach was to translate this data into spending per FTES to demonstrate how the college compares to the other districts. For example, the college spends $855 per FTES for general services (TOP code 6700), and College of the Desert spends $632 per FTES for the same function. Imperial Valley College would need to reduce spending by $223 per FTES to spend the same as College of the Desert, which would result in a total reduction of $1,646,000. This example was not provided to suggest that Imperial Valley should spend less in this area, but to illustrate how to interpret the data. The amount spent per FTES is the common denominator that allows FCMAT to place a value on the differences. ImperIal Valley College 16 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS To further distinguish between the two approaches, data in the first half of the comparison through Line 14 responds more slowly to changes in FTES. In the second half of the report, Lines 15 through 28, the measurements are by FTES so changes in that area are immediate as the FTES levels change. Although this information allows comparisons to be made, it requires further validation by the college because other circumstances may affect the results. These circumstances may include errors in posting costs, which FCMAT would not be able to identify as part of this review. As the college reviews this comparison, it may decide that the higher costs are warranted and in line with its goals, but should also recognize that this means fewer resources for other activities. FCMAT has provided the college staff with the forms, samples, and templates to complete this type of analysis in the future if it is determined to be helpful. Because the number of FTES changes and expenditure patterns shift, the data in this type of comparison will change, and the analysis will need to be updated as time progresses. Summary of Results FCMAT initially examined costs by broad categories (Section 1) and then by various operational TOP codes (Section 2). For those TOP code activities that IVC had higher costs, FCMAT also analyzed the TOP code subactivities (Section 3). Section 1 - A ranking of 1 means highest cost and 5 lowest. Value to Major Category Rank Reach Average SPEND Academic Salaries (Line 15 of analysis) 1 -$3,817,000 less Classified Salaries (Line 16 of analysis) 2 -$199,000 less Employee expenses including benefits (Line 17 of analysis) 2 -$5,250,000 less Instructional expenses (Line 19 of analysis) 3 $900,000 more Total Expenditures (Line 18 of the analysis) 2 -$3,720,000 less Total Expenditures just through TOP code 6700 (Line 28 of analysis) 1 -$4,890,000 less For the above categories, FCMAT found that Imperial Valley College spends more per FTES than the four comparison districts. To more closely align this ranking, the college would need to spend less in the listed categories or increase FTES without adding additional costs. FCMAT examined which activities (based on TOP codes) reflect higher costs. Employee expenses, with the addition of benefits, Line 17, increase the variance between Imperial Valley College and the comparison districts, suggesting that the college’s benefit costs are greater than its peers. The total expenditures represented on Line 18 of the analysis include operations such as commu- nity education, student operations, capital projects, and direct student aid, which are reflected in TOP codes 6800 through 7300. The total expenditures on Line 28 of the analysis exclude those activities to obtain a clear picture of general operations. At that level, the college has even a greater disparity with its peer districts. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 17 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The college’s higher-spending pattern is further reflected by the decrease in fund balance over the last five years. Table IX of the fiscal data abstract shows fund balances for the peer districts either being stable or increasing while Imperial Valley College shows a steady decline. Fiscal Data Abstract Five-Year History General Fund Net Ending Balances* Year Imperial Desert Hartnell Monterey Shasta 2006-07 $8,805,490 $8,811,390 $4,432,889 $3,967,088 $7,835,979 2007-08 $7,271,173 $ 8,388,741 $3,778,524 $4,094,007 $6,835,078 2008-09 $5,429,150 $10,137,407 $4,432,473 $4,182,988 $7,438,641 2009-10 $2,832,634 $11,436,573 $5,341,715 $4,268,758 $7,413,099 2010-11 $3,440,519 $11,755,250 $8,724,029 $3,763,830 $10,293,814 *Total General Fund FCMAT’s next step was to review the data based on TOP codes, which are established by the state chancellor’s office in the state budget and accounting manual. Section 2 - TOP Code Level Benchmarking Recap Categories in Which Imperial Valley College Ranked Higher Rank Value to Reach Avg. Spend Instruction Support, TOP code 6100 (Library, etc.) (Line 21 of analysis) 1 -$2,500,000 less Counseling, TOP code 6300 (counsel, guide, trans)(Line 23 of analysis) 1 -$2,800,000 less Gen Serv., TOP code 6700 (HR, Fiscal, IT, Logistics, Staff Dev/Div) (Line 27) 2 -$1,160,000 less Student Serv. (TOP code 6400) (Line 24 of analysis)* 2 $ 340,000 more *For this line Hartnell distorts the results toward an average because their amounts are so different when compared with the other colleges, which affects the calculation of the average. A number of activities are contained in each major TOP code. To better understand which activi- ties vary the most from the peer districts, FCMAT conducted a supplemental analysis using the state CCFS 311 report, which is the state-mandated form used to report data for all the district’s funds, including actual costs at the close of a fiscal year and budgeted costs for the next fiscal year. This was conducted to identify additional data on the major administrative TOP codes. Several of these will be covered in more detail later in this report. The appendix section of this report includes more information on supplemental analyses. ImperIal Valley College 18 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Categories in Which Imperial Valley College Ranked in the Middle Rank Value to Reach Avg. SPEND Maint./Operations, TOP code 6500 (Line 25 of analysis) 3 -$103,000 less Categories in Which IVC Ranked Lower Rank Value to Reach Ave. SPEND Instr. Admin, TOP code 6000 (Line 20 of analysis) 4 -$29,000 less Admissions and Records, TOP code 6200 (Line 22 of analysis) 4 $15,000 more Planning/Policy, TOP code 6600 (Line 26 of analysis) 4 $ 480,000 more For TOP codes where the college ranks in the middle or lower than the peer districts, the dollar variance is small. For TOP codes in which it ranks at the higher end, the variances are quite large given the college’s size. Further, for the 2011-12 fiscal year Imperial Valley College has declined by 1,200 FTES, and costs have not dropped in an equivalent manner, suggesting the variances could be even greater. Section 3 - Subactivity TOP Code Supplemental Analysis Supplemental analysis was performed for the three major TOP codes with the largest vari- ance, 6100 (instructional support), 6300 (counseling) and 6700 (general institutional support services). FCMAT also included TOP code 6000 to provide more information that should show allow the college to perform additional analysis. Since the major category differences are in academic salaries and benefits, and TOP codes 6100 and 6300 include a sizable number of academic staff members, closer analysis is warranted. These have the greatest variance in the comparison districts. In TOP code 6100 (instructional support), the college spent. $947,000 more than the average of the four peer districts on its learning center, and for the subcategory “other,” it spent a significant amount more. However, FCMAT was unable to determine what was included that category. In TOP code 6300 (counseling), the college spent $1.6 million more on matriculation/student assessment than its four peers, as well as in the subcategory of “other”. The third major activity with a sizable variance was TOP code 6700, which is often used to record items that lack specific TOP codes such as noninstructional retiree health benefits. The supplemental analysis indicates that Imperial Valley College spent about $469,000 more than the average of the peer districts on nonacademic retiree health benefits. In addition, the college spent more on management information systems, which was a conscious decision by the college. In TOP code 6700, like 6100 and 6300 mentioned above, there is a large variance for “other,” but state reporting data does not specify what is included in this category. Financial History The college prepared a comparison including actual financial data from the last six years, and the estimated 2012-13 fiscal year, including data on FTES, revenues and expenses at a detailed object type level. Of particular interest is base year 2006-07, when the college was at 6,501 funded and actual FTES, and had revenues of $33.9 million, expenditures of $31 million, and a surplus of revenue over expenses of $2.9 million. In 2011-12, funded FTES before the decline in funded FTES was 6,558 FTES with revenue of $34.1 million, expenditures of $35.5 million Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 19 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS and a deficit of $1.4 million. The 2012-13 data is included prior to any planned reductions, with FTES of 6,162, revenues of $33.1 million, expenditures of $36.5 million and a deficit of $3.4 million is shown. The college’s seven-year history is attached as Appendix B to this report. FCMAT formatted the information by showing only the data for years 2006-07, 2011-12 and 2012-13 to more clearly reflect changes over time. The seven-year history was prepared in early June 2012, when the data for 2011-12 and 2012-13 were estimates. This historical trend, including 2012-13, shows that in a six-year period, the college regressed to the 2006-07 level of FTES, generating about the same amount of revenue, but with costs that are higher by almost $6 million. The comparison shows the areas of change during that time with the most significant being classified salaries of $1.8 million and benefits of $2 million, both of which are discussed in more detail below. Academic salaries increased by $700,000, but costs shifted between the instruction, noninstruction and administrative categories. Those increases and overall changes from one category to another demonstrate how Imperial Valley College came closer to going below the 50% threshold in the calculation of the 50% law requirement. The college may in fact be below 50% as it calculates the actual results for 2011-2012. Academic employee costs have increased, but not as much as those for classified employees. The most significant development in academic salaries involves the shifting of emphasis, as less is spent on instruction and more on noninstructional academic personnel both in faculty and administration as demonstrated by the changes from 2006-07 to 2011-12. Classified employee costs increased substantially. Classified manager costs tripled over the seven- year period, increasing from $381,000 to $1,100,000 in 2012-13. The data shows that three managers were added for restricted general fund programs and several in information technology. Regular classified salary costs also increased by $1.8 million, from $5.8 million in 2006-07 to $7.6 million for 2012-13, even though the total number of employees is 7.7% lower. There were 143 classified employees in 2006-07 and 132 in 2011-12. The classified salary schedule was amended in 2006-07, increasing the number of annual steps to 15, each reflecting a 5% improve- ment on the salary schedule. The increase in costs combined with fewer employees suggests the change in the schedule in 2006-07 is having a major impact on the college’s financial condition. This contractual obligation will continue for years and created a financial burden that will need to be maintained even in the absence of new revenue. Benefit costs increased by $2 million over this seven-year period, some of which is due to state factors such as unemployment insurance and PERS rate increases, which are not fully under the college’s control. The largest benefit category increase is in health benefits, with an increase of $1.1 million. While it is not unusual to see increases in this area, other solutions must be found when no new revenue sources exist to offset rising costs. The college recently implemented some premium copayments by employees, while modest, recognizes the need for a new approach to funding health-insurance costs. Annual payments for an early retirement incentive program will continue for a few more years, and the cost has increased from $455,000 in 2006-07 to $728,000 at present. When this commitment expires, the college will have additional resources to fund other priorities or to increase the fund balance. The level of expenditures for supplies has remained consistent in the seven-year period while services have increased by about $400,000, mainly because of maintenance agreements. The other significant change is in other outgo for certificates of participation (COPS) and lease/ revenue bond payments, adding expenditures of $700,000 that will continue for years. ImperIal Valley College 20 FISCAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Overall, the seven-year history shows that the total revenues in 2006-07 are comparable to the total revenues in 2011-12, but expenditures are significantly greater. Knowing where the vari- ances occur is important as Imperial Valley College makes plans to eliminate its operating deficit. In the seven-year history, the college shows a substantial increase in classified salary expenditures yet in the comparative analysis it does not vary greatly from the average. Since FCMAT’s comparative analysis did not include 2006-07 data, FCMAT can only speculate that the college spent less than its peers on classified salary costs in 2006-07. Even if that is the case, FCMAT has strong concerns about the increase in classified costs on the salary schedule implemented in 2006-2007 because of the impact on an already strained budget. FCMAT’s study agreement included a comparison of Imperial Valley College’s administrative structure to those of the peer districts. The next section of the report addresses this topic, and the changes in the seven-year history show the actions taken by the college in this area. These include increased cost in all related areas during this time and planned reductions during the current fiscal year, even though the specifics of the planned $363,088 reduction had not been determined at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. Administrative Costs Below The Level Of President Category 2006-2007 2012-2013 Change Deans/Proj. Directors $994,664 $1,195,583 $200,919 Planned Reductions (363,088) (363,088) Vice Presidents $271,155 $ 566,148 $294,993 Chairs/Coordinators $274,297 $1,031,886 $ 757,589 Classified Managers $381,882 $1,110,904 $729,02 Totals $1,921,998 $3,541,433 $1,619,435 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 21 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Organizational Review FCMAT reviewed the college’s administrative structure by comparing it with the same group of peer districts. This comparison found similarities and differences. As shown in the above table, the college has experienced a substantial increase in expenditures for administration, the biggest for classified managers and department chairs/coordinators. Although FCMAT was unable to compare Imperial Valley College’s expenditures to that of its peers for 2006-07, the data shows significant increases in the college’s administrative personnel since then. After a year of review and discussion between the academic senate and instructional council, the number of instructional deans at the college increased from four to six in 2010. This increase occurred to improve the efficiency of decision-making in instruction, provide stability in leadership, and respond to an accreditation issue regarding faculty evaluations. This change also allowed timely evaluation of part- and full-time faculty and decreased reassign time (which has increased since 2010), and shifted responsibility from chairs to deans. The number of instructional deans was reduced from six to three in 2012-13. During fieldwork, the college was attempting to hire a nursing director who will be compensated at the same level as a classified manger, but no applications had been received. The college’s organizational structure for the instructional personnel relies heavily on the use of department chairs with a higher level of authority than normally seen in the community college industry. In 2012-13, the equivalent of 4.8 FTE were assigned to serve as department chairs with 199-day contracts, with additional FTE assigned as coordinators or leads. The faculty in the specific divisions elect department chairs every two years. This type of arrangement can be diffi- cult for the person serving as a department chair as well as the senior administration. Department chairs provide input and assist in making decisions on class schedules as well as making faculty assignments. Although department chairs create the schedule, the vice president still has right of assignment, and deans have an advisory role regarding schedule development. The vice president cannot cancel classes based on registration patterns. Instead, this administrator is required to consult with the chair and make recommendations, which has been a difficult process to manage. In 2012-13, the college developed an enrollment management group that has helped in devel- oping the schedule as a group. Department chairs are sometimes caught between the direction of senior administrators and pressure from their peers. Because the role of department chairs is for only two years without re-election, they could encounter retribution for previous decisions from peers or the next elected department chair when they return to being faculty. Fear of retribution can prompt faculty assignment decisions that are not in the best interests of students. It is also difficult for administration to hold chairs accountable because they are elected by their peers and face possible retribution when they return to the classroom. This type of election system could work more effectively with greater involvement from senior administration and less reliance on chairs for difficult decisions such as setting the class schedule, making faculty assignments, and cancelling classes. Imperial Valley College has a large amount of release time for a variety of activities, the majority administrative. Although some release time is to be expected, the college appears to have more than the accepted practice in community colleges. The proper use of release time is critical to avoid utilizing it as an easy solution to immediate problems. If not closely monitored, the amount of release time can increase considerably over time, making for a less efficient, less ImperIal Valley College 22 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW accountable, more costly structure, and masking the actual cost of the administrative function. Department chairs are basically performing administrative duties, a structure that causes exposure in efficiency, accountability, and cost. The student services area has a vice president, two deans and two directors. As part of the faculty contract, a number of extra duty assignments are administrative and also included in the student services department. When viewed in combination of administrators and release time, this struc- ture appears to include more administration in student services than the peer districts. Although the extra duty assignments are stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement along with time and pay, it is unclear that these are necessarily in the best interests of the organization. The formal administrative structure differs slightly from the peer group. At the executive level, the total number of positions is similar, but the actual titles and positions differ from district to district. A review of the major divisions of student services and business/operations found similar patterns. Information technology has a higher number of administrative positions than the peer districts; however, this appears to be by design. Instruction has fewer identified managers. FCMAT was unable to compare Imperial Valley College to the peer districts in the areas of departments of instruction and student services since comparable information on the use and amount of release time could not be obtained. The following chart shows the major groupings including titles and counts. The analysis found that there are no major differences in the amount of administrative staff among the peer districts. The significant variance is the college’s generous use of release time and extended contracts. Organizational Structure - Imperial Valley College and Peer Districts (Executive Level, Academic Services, Student Services, Information Technology and Business Services) The organizational structures presented below are based on information provided by Imperial Valley College and the peer districts. FCMAT was not apprised of any reductions in the peer districts’ administrative structures as a result of state budget actions. Summary of Administrative and Management Positions Imperial Desert Hartnell Monterey Shasta Districtwide # of Administrators and Managers 4 Vice Presidents 1 Assoc. VP/Adm Dean 5 Deans* 3 Vice Presidents 2 Vice Presidents 1 Exec. Director 8 Deans 1 Exec. Vice Pres. 3 Vice Presidents 2 Assoc. Vice Pres. 13 Directors &Mgrs 2 Exec. Directors 4 Vice Presidents 4 Deans 1 Exec. Director 20 Directors & Mgrs. 1 Assoc. VP 1 Assoc. Dean 8 Deans 24 Total** 6 Deans 1 Exec. Director 1 Asst. Dean *A reduction from 8 Deans in 16 Directors & Mgrs. 11 Directors & Mgrs. 21 Directors & Mgrs. recent reorganization **Total was 27 prior to re- duction of Deans 33 Total 28 Total 20 Total 35 Total Direct Reports to the Superintendent/President Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 23 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Executive Level 4 Vice Presidents 1 AVP HR/A-Dean 1 ED Found./PIO 1 Director Executive Level Executive Level Executive Level Executive Level 3 Vice Presidents 1 Executive VP 3 Vice Presidents 2 Vice Presidents 7 Direct Reports 1 Dean 5 Vice Presidents 1 Assoc. Dean HR 2 Assoc. VP *A reduction from 2 directors 2 Executive Dir. 1 Asst. to Supt. 1 ED Foundation in recent reorganization 1 Director 1 ED Foundation 1 Director **Total was 8 prior to reduc- 1 Director tion of director 7 Direct Reports 6 Direct Reports 7 Direct Reports 6 Direct Reports Academic Services, Student Services, Information Technology and Business Services Academic Services 1 Vice President Academic & Student 3 Deans* Academic Affairs Affairs 2 Directors 1 Vice President Academic Affairs Academic Affairs 1 Vice President 5 Deans 1 Vice President 1 Vice President 8 Deans Total 6 5 Directors 6 Deans 2 Deans 1 Asst. Dean *Was 5 Deans prior to reor- 1 Asst. Director 7 Directors 1 Coordinator 11 Directors/Mgmt ganization Total 12 Total 14 Total 4 Total 21 Student Services 1 Vice President 2 Deans* 2 Directors Student Affairs Student Affairs Student Services 1 Vice President 1 Vice President 1 Vice President Total 5 2 Deans 3 Directors 1 Dean *Was 3 Deans prior to reor- 5 Directors 2 Managers 3 Directors See Academic & Student ganization Total 8 Total 6 Total 5 Affairs Information Tech 1 Vice President Info & Media Tech 4 Directors* (Reports to IT & Research Admin. Services) Info Serv. & Tech Total 5 1 Dean Information Tech 1 Dean 1 Assoc. VP *Was 3 Directors prior to 3 Directors 1 Vice President 1 Manager 2 Supervisors reorganization Total 4 Total 1 Total 2 Total 3 Business Affairs Support Oper. 1 Vice President 1 Vice President Admin. Services Admin. Services Business Services 1 Exec. Dir. HR 1 Assoc. VP HR 1 Vice President 1 Vice President 1 Vice President 3 Managers 3 Managers 3 Managers 5 Managers 4 Managers 2 Asst.Dir./Sup. 1 Asst. Director 1 Supervisor 2 Supervisors Total 5 Total 7 Total 6 Total 5 Total 8 Organizational Structure: Executive Level Administrators & Managers Reporting Directly to the Superintendent/President Imperial Desert Hartnell Monterey Shasta Supt/President President Supt/President Supt/President Supt/President Exec. VP Dir. International Education (all VPs report through Asst. to the Supt./Pres. Exec) Assoc. VP HR Reorg: See Support Admin Dean (HR) See Business Services Operations Assoc. Dean HR Assoc. VP HR Foundation ED Foundation ED See below Foundation ED Foundation ED Dir. Community & Media Rel. VP Advancement, Reorg: ED of Public Info and Foundation/Public Marketing Information Officer See Inst. Effectiveness (Foundation ED) ImperIal Valley College 24 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW VP Academic VP Academic Affairs & VP Academic Services VP Academic Affairs Accreditation VP Academic Affairs & Student Affairs VP Student Services VP Student Affairs VP Student Affairs VP Student Services VP Business Services VP Business Affairs VP Support Operations VP Admin. Services VP Admin. Services Assoc. VP Dean IT & Institutional Information Services VP IT Research VP IT Resources See Admin. Serv. & Technology Dir. Research & Planning Organizational Structure: Academic Services Imperial Desert Hartnell Monterey Shasta VP Academic Services VP Academic Affairs VP Academic Affairs VP Academic Affairs VP Academic & Student Affairs 5 Deans 5 Deans 6 Deans 2 Deans 7 Deans Arts & Letters Health Sciences and Curriculum & Instructional Education Instructional Support Planning Science, Lang. Arts & Math Health & Public Safety Applied Sciences and Social & Behavioral Instruction Arts, Comm. & Social Behavioral & Social Sciences Business Sciences Sciences 1 Coordinator Economic & Workforce Arts and Sciences Languages, Fine Arts & Health Sciences & Univ. Development Student Support Fire Academy Programs Communications & Learning Services & Humanities Advanced Technology Safety, PE and Consumer Technology Sci. Library and Learning Science, Math, English & Reorganization: Resources Library Business, Agriculture, 3 Deans Industry & Tech 5 Directors Economic Develop. & SC 2 Directors Education Extended Educ. Economic & Nursing & Allied Health Workforce Dev. Nursing (new admin. posi- 7 Directors tion) Public Safety Academy Enrollment Services Nursing & Health Child, Family and Consumer Partnership & 1 Assoc. Dean Services Community Education Community Collaboratives Library & Articulation Child Development 6 Directors & Managers Center Title V Grants Nursing Students RAP Education Centers Child Development Manager Center 1 Asst. Director Early Childhood Education Western Stage Center Clinical Services Grant Projects Athletics, 50% Athletics Administration of Justice, PT Fire Tech, PT Small Business Dev. Center Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 25 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Organizational Structure: Student Services Imperial Desert Hartnell Monterey Shasta VP Student Services VP Student Affairs VP Student Affairs VP Student Services See VP Academic & Student Affairs 3 Deans 2 Deans 1 Dean Enrollment Serv. Student Support Programs Student Services & Services Student Development & Campus Events Enrollment Services Counseling Reorganization: 2 Deans 2 Directors 5 Directors 3 Directors 3 Directors 5 Directors (report to Dean of Enrollment Financial Aid Financial Aid Categorical Student Students Financial Services) Programs Services Admissions & Records Admissions & Records Financial Aid Student Support Services Registrar Student Health & Disability Grant Admissions and Records Services Children’s Center (40%) Grant Project - Gear Up Title V Project, Student EOPS/DSPS/SSS Affairs Student Development & Student Life 2 Student Affairs Mgrs Outreach Foster & Kinship Care Organizational Structure: Information Technology Imperial Desert Hartnell Monterey Shasta VP, Information Tech Dean, Information Tech VP, IT Resources Dean, Information & Assoc. VP Info Serv. & Inst. Research Media Technology & Tech Services (Reports to VP Admin. Services) 3 Directors 1 Manager 2 Supervisors Application Services 3 Directors Systems & Programs Mgr. Information Services Tech Tech Services Network Services & Supervisor Telecommunications Enterprise Systems Technology Supervisor Education Technology Reorganization: Add 1 & Web Services Director Systems Mgmt & MIS Operations ImperIal Valley College 26 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Organizational Structure: Business Services Imperial Desert Hartnell Monterey Shasta VP Business Services VP Business Affairs VP Support Operations VP Admin. Services VP Admin. Services ED Human Resources Assoc. VP HR & Labor Relations 4 Managers 3 Managers 3 Managers 3 Managers 5 Managers (includes part-time) Fiscal Services Fiscal Services Controller Controller Comptroller Purchasing/Acct. Maintenance & Operations Food Services Facilities Planning & -Asst. Director Mgmt. Food Service Maintenance & Operations -Sup. Custodial Facilities -Custodial Sup. -Asst. Dir. Physical Plant Campus Safety & Security Security & Emergency Preparedness Security -Trans. Sup. -Custodial Sup. Campus Safety (PT) Hazardous Materials Compliance (PT) Administrative Organization While Imperial Valley College’s administrative FTE is not substantially different from that of its peers, the college actually spends more because of extensive release time and extended contracts. The academic program included three deans in 2012-13, in addition to the equivalent of 4.8 FTE administrators as department chairs. This means that there are 7.8 FTEs below the level of vice president in a district of 6,100 FTES, excluding the extra-duty assignments specified in the faculty contract, which is for the most part higher than the peer districts. The college has four vice presidents, which may seem reasonable for a district of this size and organization, but the real issue is whether it can afford that level of commitment. Two peer districts have three vice presidents, and one has two vice presidents and two associate vice presi- dents. One district, Hartnell, has six vice presidents, unusual even for much larger districts. Classified management costs have almost tripled while the number of staff has doubled in the last six years. Some of that increase is attributable to restricted general fund programs. Most of the unrestricted general fund increase occurred in information technology. Faculty Contract Imperial Valley College’s contract with the CTA covers all its full-time academic employees but not retired faculty, temporary administrators, part-time academic employees, supervisory, confi- dential or management employees. Although the agreement contains provisions found in most agreements of this type, it also provides benefits and compensation that may not be sustainable in the current economic envi- ronment. The more costly provisions are described below. The assigned classroom instructional hours for faculty are only part of their expected workload, and, along with other professional duties, are the basis for their annual salary compensation. The college’s faculty contract includes full prorated pay for some work outside of the basic contract for winter and summer session, for which faculty will be paid at full pro rata (the same rate of pay as for regular contract assignment) for the first six units of instruction. Other professional Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 27 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW duties are not normally expected for winter and summer session and are usually paid at a lesser rate at most community colleges, often the part-time hourly rates of the affected faculty instead of the full prorated rate. Other assignments for coordinators are detailed in the contract with specific compensation specifically identifying services and cost, making it difficult for administration to distribute resources according to need. All nonteaching faculty members are on 199-day contracts instead of the more common base contract of 177 days, with lower-rate overload assignments to be used when demand warranted. Once again, IVC’s provision is a more expensive approach to providing services. According to the negotiated agreement, some designated noninstructional faculty members receive one additional hour of pay per contract day, resulting in an eight-hour day instead of a seven-hour day. The comparative analysis indicated the college spends more than its peers for activities in TOP codes 6100 and 6300, which include noninstructional faculty. The 199-day contracts and the stipu- lated extra hour of pay contribute to that variance. Imperial Valley College’s release time totals approximately 12 full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF) positions, although it is distributed among many more than 109 faculty members. This is a high number of FTEFs for a college of this size and is in addition to the extra duty assignments stipu- lated in the contract. The college provides one FTE of release time to the faculty union, which is an expensive benefit during difficult financial times. The college is well above the faculty obligation number (FON) in actual full-time faculty. In fall 2011, the FON was 102, and the district reported it had 158. It appears that some of this is attributable to the amount of release time granted. According to college records, nonteaching faculty members total 36 in 2011-12. Class size is an element of the contract and is set below what many community colleges consider to be the minimum standard of an institution-wide average of 35. This topic will be addressed more directly as part of the enrollment management review later in this report. ImperIal Valley College 28 ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 29 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT Budget Development Imperial Valley College has utilized the practice of including the beginning fund balance (reserves) as a line item in its revenues; however, this misstates actual revenues and does not present a clear picture of the budget when evaluating operating results and revenues versus expen- ditures. The fund balance is not revenue. If expenditures exceed revenues, the deficit normally represents a use of the fund balance. The college has deficit spent for a number of years, with a fund balance decline that varied from a high of $8.4 million in 2006-07 to $2.4 million at June 30, 2012. Correspondingly, expenditures have exceeded revenues year after year. For budget year 2012-13, the college anticipates a deficit range of $700,000 to $2.3 million based on the two scenarios regarding passage of the state tax measure, Proposition 30. Over the last two years, the college reduced costs by implementing layoffs and offering retirement incentives to the staff. These actions helped mitigate but did not eliminate the deficit based on both 2012-13 budget models. The two different budget scenarios were developed because one model includes a smaller deficit based on the governor’s 2012 tax measure passing, and the second model is based on the measure failing. The college has also experienced a decline of approximately 450 FTES below its funded base. For 2011-12, the college began with a funded FTES level of 6,559. The district was unable to maintain that level and only generated 6,110. Because the district declined in FTES in the 2011-12 year, the funded level of FTES going into 2012-13 was reduced to 6,110. Under the state funding regulations, the district can restore the lost FTES over three years starting with the 2012-13 year. It can do so as rapidly as possible, meaning if the district could restore all the FTES in 2012-13, it would be funded for the higher level up to 6,559. If Proposition 30 fails, every community college district will have its funded FTES level reduced by 7.3%. Since Imperial Valley College was already in decline, the state will reduce its base FTES for 2012-13 7.3% from 6,110 to 5,664. The district will still have three years to restore, but now the restora- tion is only to 6,080, derived by reducing the 6,559 FTES by 7.3%. Since the district did produce 6,110 in 2011-12, it likely can generate the same amount in 2012-13. Coincidentally, this means the worst-case scenario, failure of Proposition 30, also appears to be the best-case scenario because of the decline in funded FTES in 2011-12. The following table illustrates this. Presently Tax Passes Tax Fails FTES FTES FTES Base 2011-2012 6,559 Base for 12-13 6,110 Base for 12-13 6,110 Actual 2011-2012 6,110 Base 12-13 Tax Passes 6,110 Base Tax Fails 5,664 Difference 449 Restoration - 3 years 449 Restore 3 years 416 Potential FTES 6,559 Potential FTES 6,080 As a general rule, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office recommends a 5% reserve, and Imperial Valley College plans to make about $1.71 million in reductions for the 2012-13 fiscal year, sufficient to sustain a reserve of this level. A reasonable fund balance is particularly important given the level of uncertainty regarding community college funding in California. However, the additional adjustments that will be made by the college are primarily one-time in nature. They include $33,000 in ongoing reductions, $626,000 in one-time cuts and $685,000 from the fund balance due to deficit spending. Even in the best scenario, the college will need to make $1.95 million in ongoing permanent reductions for 2013-14 to eliminate the ImperIal Valley College 30 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT operating deficit and maintain the 5% reserve. For a number of years, the college has postponed difficult decisions by using temporary one-time measures to mitigate operating deficits, thus deferring difficult decisions to the future. The peer districts used in the FCMAT comparison faced the same external issues but sustained or increased their fund balances while Imperial Valley College did not. The college’s strategy of utilizing one-time temporary measures has resulted in minimal reserves and a projected deficit that exceeds the reserve level. This cannot be continued. Multiyear Financial Projection Although multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) are an important part of the budget process, the college has not historically produced them. In fact, Imperial Valley College historically has not projected beyond the fiscal year for which the budget is being developed despite the fact that MYFPs are necessary to make informed decisions and sustain fiscal solvency. MYFPs would allow the college to project revenues and expenditures and help ensure that it can meet its financial obligations in the current and two subsequent fiscal years. Any financial forecast has inherent limitations because it is based on certain criteria and assump- tions rather than on exact calculations. These imitations include issues such as the accuracy of baseline data, unpredictable timing of negotiations, unanticipated changes in enrollment trends, and changing state, federal and local economic conditions. Therefore, the budget forecasting model should be viewed as a trend based on certain criteria and assumptions rather than as a prediction of exact numbers. To maintain the most accurate and meaningful data, the projection should be updated at frequent intervals as well as when there are significant financial changes to the college’s budget in current or future years. The projection should also be updated during collective bargaining negotiations to determine the fiscal effect of any potential contractual changes. In evaluating the MYFP, much attention is focused on the bottom line, which indicates the college’s undesignated, unappropriated fund balance. If the bottom line shows a positive unap- propriated fund balance, this amount may be used by the governing board and/or the chancellor to improve educational programs, increase employee compensation, improve the fund balance, fund liabilities such as retiree benefits or workers’ compensation, or spend in other categories. However, if the unappropriated fund balance is negative, the deficit is the amount by which the budget must be reduced to sustain the recommended reserve levels and board-designated reserves. The MYFP should be viewed comprehensively, and the college should determine the compounding effects that using any or all of the unappropriated fund balance will have on the MYFP in the current and future years. The unappropriated balance and the corresponding compounding effects can be determined clearly as the years proceed. FCMAT reviewed Imperial Valley College’s records, interviewed staff members, and examined financial reports to gather the information needed to work with staff in generating a MYFP that uses its fiscal year 2012-13 tentative budget as the base year. The projection is reasonable based on FCMAT’s review of the data. Because they include two different outcomes based on the upcoming election, the projections vary greatly from one scenario to another, and the variance increases in the second and third projection years. The college is in a perilous financial position, and cannot afford to err in its budget assumptions or accounting treatments, or incur additional unbudgeted expenses. Even if it can maintain solvency using the measures enacted, it will continue to face numerous difficult spending pres- sures and decisions in the future. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 31 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT With or without new revenues, the college has several ongoing cost increases that should be factored into any financial projection, such as step/column, utilities, and health benefits for both retirees and active employees. Understanding this dynamic is important, as is the dollar amount these ongoing costs represent. Imperial Valley College has a Title V grant that calls for increased general fund support each year and ultimate transition of costs at expiration. In 2011-12, the district obligation was $122,177, for 2012-13. This amount increases to $151,269 in 2013-14; $179,646 in 2014-15; $209,858 in 2015-16; and rises to $429,081 at the end of the grant. This grant must be taken into account in any MYFP. FCMAT worked with IVC to produce the two multiyear projection models that are based on tax-passage and tax-failure scenarios. The failure scenario also assumes that lost funding would be restored for FTES over a three-year period, with 2012-2013 as the first year of recovery. The document attached as Appendix C to this report includes both scenarios, and each reflects ongoing budget issues. Imperial Valley College could face insolvency in two years or less without permanent corrective action in 2012-13 for the 2013-14 school year. The multiyear projection shows that cost cutting will be necessary that year, mostly because of increased operating costs related to significant step-and-column movement, health benefits, and early-retirement incen- tives. If the tax measure fails, the college faces a deficit of more than $4 million for 2013-14 and will utilize most of its fund balance by the end of that fiscal year. The budget focus has been primarily on reducing expenditures. However, the tax-passage scenario includes a revenue enhancement opportunity that would help the college gain control of its budget. If the measure passes, the college can restore the loss of 449 FTES over three years starting with 2012-13, and the total restoration value is $2.16 million. However, based on past trends, it is unknown whether the college can retain the 6,110 FTES, let alone restore beyond that level. If the tax measure fails, the college faces a difficult financial situation not only because of the potential mid-year loss of income, but also because the district has experienced a decline in FTES. This decrease in the state-funded level of FTES, adds uncertainty and complexity to multiyear budget planning. Under the passage scenario, the district will deficit spend $685,000 in 2012-13 and end the year with a 5% reserve of $1.7 million. For 2013-14, once increased operating costs are included, the deficit grows to $1.9 million and results in a negative ending balance of $236,000 if no budget adjustments are enacted. The deficit would continue into 2014-15 at $1.99 million, and the ending balance would be a negative $2.2 million without any correction. This is the best case because it represents the tax measure passing and restoration of the lost FTES over three years. The scenario could be somewhat better if the FTES restoration occurred faster, which is unlikely given the level of decline. The district model for the failure scenario includes additional one-time budget reductions of $1.1 million that could be implemented in 2012-13, but the full deficit would not be eliminated. The actual 2011-12 FTES level of 6,110 generated by the college is the new base from which workload reductions would occur. Imperial Valley College would still be eligible to restore lost FTES, but this would only bring the district to the 6,100 FTES level, and the district’s base FTES in 2011-12 was 6,559. The table provided in the previous section of this report provides greater detail on the impact of the FTES changes. ImperIal Valley College 32 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT The college has not planned for the possibility of the tax measure failing beyond identifying $1.1 million in one-time in reductions. The 2012-13 year would close with an ending balance of $129,000 and a deficit of $4.2 million in 2013-14. The deficit would be reduced if FTES resto- ration occurs sooner than anticipated, but even then, the college would have a deficit of more than $3 million in 2013-14 and reserves ranging between $129,000 and approximately $800,000 based on how quickly FTES is restored. It is important to remember that if the tax measure fails in November 2012, the college has a short period of time to reduce its operating budget since the fiscal year will already be half over by anywhere from 10 to 13% or insolvency may occur. Imperial Valley College faces two possible funding scenarios for 2012-13 and beyond, which are predicated on the governor’s tax measure included on the November 2012 ballot. The fiscal implications and projections for the district vary greatly depending on the election outcome scenario on which they are based. 2012-2013 Prop 30 Passes Prop 30 Fails Revenues $33,532,332 $31,492,730 Expenditures (34,217,663) (33,759,663) Deficit (685,331) (2,266,933) Estimated Ending Balance $1,711,020 $129,418 2013-2014 Prop 30 Passes Prop 30 Fails Revenues $34,326,642 $32,136,395 Expenditures (36,273,697) (36,339,697) Deficit (1,947,055) ( 4,203,302) Estimated Ending Balance ($236,035) ($4,073,884) 2014-2015 Prop 30 Passes Prop 30 Fails Revenues $35,125,517 $32,935,270 Expenditures (37,117,328) (37,153,199) Deficit (1,991,811) (4,217,929) Estimated Ending Balance ($2,227,846) ($8,291,813) Recommendations The college should: 1. Consider operating with three vice presidents instead of filling the open vice president position until there is sufficient growth to warrant a larger staff. 2. Consider restructuring the department chair model to either reduce the number of department chair positions, decreasing the amount of release time for department chairs, or move to a different model that has only deans, eliminating the department chair positions. If the department chairs are retained in some form, greater accountability should be established over class schedule building and faculty assignments to the department chairs. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 33 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT 3. Limit the use of 199-day contracts. They should be used on a very limited basis if they are used at all. 4. Discontinue the practice of providing paid release time to either employee union groups beyond that time required by the Rodda Act and PERB rulings. 5. Make efforts to eliminate specific extra-duty language and pay amounts from the faculty contract. Much of the activity included is administrative and should be at the prerogative of the administration. 6. Seek to eliminate the faculty contract mandate providing an extra hour of pay per day for noninstructional faculty. 7. Redistribute some of the tasks assigned to coordinators to the managers in the student serves unit. Student Services has five management personnel, including the recently created position of dean of counseling and a number of coordinators (according to the faculty contract). 8. Ensure any additional revenue or savings are first used to improve its fund balance. 9. Develop a plan now for failure of the November 2012 state tax measure. 10. More aggressively reduce expenditures by implementing ongoing budget adjustments to avoid insolvency. 11. Assume a very conservative position with its tentative and adoption budgets, and limit spending to an absolute minimum until the November election. Any savings can be used to help address a worst-case scenario in the current year. 12. Ensure multiyear projections include all cost increases such as those for retiree health benefits, utilities, normal step-and-column movement, employee benefits, and payroll. If a deficit occurs after including these items, the college should identify an ongoing revenue source and/or implement permanent cost reductions. 13. Develop a plan to restore the ending fund balance and to fund ongoing obli- gations if the November tax measure passes. 14. Identify changes in revenues and expenditures that separate one-time adjust- ments from ongoing commitments so that there is a clear understanding of the budget’s ongoing status. This includes items such as step/column and utilities and is also important in multiyear modeling. 15. Permanently implement a three-year budget model that allows for analysis of potential outcomes and consistently develop multiyear financial projections. ImperIal Valley College 34 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT 16. Incorporate the impact of the Title V transition into the multiyear modeling. 17. Compare actual revenues to expenditures to determine the surplus or deficit that would affect fund balance, instead of the current practice of including the reserve as a revenue line item since this masks the real operating results. 18. Establish a closer link between budgeting for classes and the FTES targets, ensuring that the business office and instructional office monitor costs and FTES generated. This is important because these represent the greatest expense in the budget and the most significant revenue source. 19. Develop a plan for tax measure passage that restores as much of the 449 lost FTES as possible. Recovery of these means revenue added to the base and is ongoing as long as the funded FTES is maintained. 20. Avoid spending more money in an attempt to regain FTES only to dilute productivity, leading to little change but higher costs. If the college merely adds sections that add cost and do not increase the FTES, it has spent more without additional FTES, which ends up achieving lower productivity in the process. 21. Identify additional, permanent reductions instead of one-time items for 2012-13. 22. Clarify the roles, responsibilities and expectations for budget development and monitoring. 23. Establish a consistent report structure to enhance communication of impor- tant budget information. 24. Implement a budget calendar that outlines the process, actions and dates that personnel districtwide should know. 25. Use the following forms, models, templates, and examples provided by FCMAT to implement these recommendations: • An annualized projection model and template for current year budget performance. • A budget presentation package, including templates and samples. • A three-year modeling worksheet with examples. • Peer district comparative analysis workbooks and documentation to allow for subsequent comparisons. Budget Monitoring The college’s financial system allows managers to produce real-time reports on budget perfor- mance at their discretion. The business office produces periodic reports and presents snapshot data to the administration and board of trustees, and the budget managers have a great deal of latitude in making expenditure budget transfers (increases and decreases). College personnel expressed concern that there is a lack of accountability regarding budget overspending. Monitoring should be completed for revenues as well as costs, especially FTES. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 35 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT Another form of budget monitoring includes the Human Resources Department monitoring retiree benefit eligibility. Approximately 140 retirees receive district-paid benefits. Although a change was enacted for new hires starting in 2010, the number of retirees with benefits will continue to increase. About two years ago, the college went through a verification process with retirees to confirm their status, which needs to continue in the future since the retiree group is mobile and ever-changing. Recommendations The college should: 1. Use the budget-monitoring tool provided by FCMAT that directs attention to the end-of-year expected results so that staff can better anticipate fiscal year results, identify issues and make early adjustments if needed. By further broadening the application of this tool to each unit overseen by a vice presi- dent, the college can develop better budget monitoring and apply resources more effectively. 2. Establish a level of accountability for budget managers that is measured and addressed in evaluating performance. 3. Develop and share a regular schedule of FTES updates and modeling of annual FTES so that there is broad understanding of where the college stands regarding FTES targets, providing time for corrective action if warranted. 4. Implement strict controls to limit expenditure budget transfers that decrease the ending fund balance. 5. Regularly verify retiree status since given the annual cost of benefits, paying for even a few nonqualifying people is costly. Fiscal Planning The college’s lack of fiscal planning is evident in the declining fund balance and continued oper- ating deficits. However, other issues besides those previously mentioned affect fiscal planning. Imperial Valley College provides general fund support for several categorical programs, which is often called subsidizing. Whenever general fund support exceeds the applicable mandate for that specific categorical program, the subsidy is elective on the part of college. When a categorical program is subsidized without discussion or prioritizing, the college is basically stating that this elective support is one of its highest priorities because of limited funds. Imperial Valley provides more than the required match for matriculation, and this is true for other categorical programs such as the child development program and disabled student programs. FCMAT was unable to determine whether the college had discussions about the subsidized programs, decided to add these financial resources to specific programs, or simply assumed it had to provide this level of additional support and never discussed the issue any further. Categorical programs should not be subsidized without analysis and discussion at the administrative level since unrestricted general fund monies are limited and uses should be prioritized. The peer analysis shows that the college spends much more than its peers in counseling, TOP 6300, where much of these subsidies reside, making it even more apparent that additional analysis is needed. ImperIal Valley College 36 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT Imperial Valley College has also made a number of decisions without consideration of its ability to pay for them in the future. These decisions, as well as reduced state funding over the past few years, have affected the fiscal stability of the college. These decisions include the following: • A classified salary schedule that includes steps over 15 years with 5% increments. • Class-size limits that translate into less efficient productivity. • Release time requirements built into the faculty contract, limiting the college’s ability to assign staff based on need. • Excessive reliance on release time to address administrative responsibilities. • Physical classroom space that further limits class sizes. • Lack of enrollment management planning, including clear FTES strategies. • Lack of multiyear budget modeling. • Unclear budget information that does not present the college’s financial condition in a way that stakeholders understand. • Continuing to automatically pay the increased costs of health benefits in the absence of any new revenues. • Retiree health benefit costs that are totally addressed on a pay-as-you-go basis with no plan to address the future cost of the program. • Spending well beyond that of peer districts on a per-FTES basis. • Making short term one-time budget reductions instead of ongoing adjustments. • Becoming less efficient through decline in funded FTES. • Funding full-time faculty positions 50% above the faculty obligation number required by the state. • Turnover at the senior administrative level, causing a leadership void and lack of consistency in decision-making. Recommendations The college should: 1. Initiate negotiations with faculty employees to discuss changes in class size, loading and release time. 2. Initiate negotiations with classified employees to reduce the percentage, the number of steps, or both on the annual step increment. 3. Negotiate with employee groups to limit the rate of increase on health benefits, exploring changes that have the greatest impact on limiting costs while maintaining a reasonable level of health coverage. 4. Evaluate areas where the college spends significantly more than its peer districts to determine whether expenditure reductions should be made, with an emphasis on academic salaries, benefits, TOP code 6100 instructional support, TOP code 6300 counseling and TOP code 6700 general services. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 37 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT 5. Ensure the Counseling Department participates in reviewing its budget given the study findings that counseling expenditures are high compared to peer districts. 6. Explore ways to expand student capacity in classrooms. 7. Develop a working enrollment management program using the guidance provided by FCMAT in this area. 8. Develop clear, consistent budget information to better present and inform those responsible for making key decisions, possibly using the examples provided by FCMAT 9. Consider reducing the number of funded full-time faculty positions over time through attrition or other means. 10. Consider redirecting the amount or a portion of the amount saved when the annual payment for retiree incentives ends towards funding of its other post- employment benefits (OPEB) obligation. The annual incentive cost as of the 2012-2013 budget year is $728,000. 11. Evaluate all requests for categorical program subsidies against all other uses of unrestricted general fund monies, as well as with the college’s other priorities. Subsidies should not be provided without analysis and discussion. 50% Law As explained earlier in this report, the 50% law requires half of each community college district’s current unrestricted general fund to be spent on classroom salaries and benefits. The college’s analysis of 50% law compliance found that this area declined from 54.75% to 54.21% from 2007-08 to 2009-10. The most significant decline occurred in 2010-11, when the college reported 50.82%. In 2010-11, the average of the four comparison districts for the 50% law was 51.01%, a decline of from .04% to 2.27% from 2009-10. However, Imperial Valley College experienced the greatest decline with 3.39%. The primary reason was a reduction of 15.63% in reported instructional salary costs and a reduction of 8.14% in total expenditures prior to exclu- sions for costs that are not part of the calculation. In 2010-11, the comparison districts averaged a 1.21% increase in instructional salaries and a 5.148% increase in total expenditures prior to exclusions. Expenditures for community services, ancillary services, and auxiliary services (TOP codes 6800 – 7390) are excluded from the 50% law. The comparison districts reported on average 4.5% of their total unrestricted general fund expenditures in these excluded activities and Imperial Valley College reported 2.36%. The expenditure of lottery proceeds may also be excluded from the 50% law calculation. The college allocated some lottery proceeds to costs in the activities already excluded (TOP codes 6800-7390), failing to maximize the exclusion in TOP codes 0100-6700 for purpose of calculating the 50% law. Some classroom teaching salaries were also reported in nonteaching TOP codes 6000-6700, instead of TOP codes 0100-5900 as required by the state budget and accounting manual. This causes the 50% to be calculated incorrectly and a penalty will be incurred if the calculation falls below the 50% level. As long as the college stays above 50%, there is no financial impact to the college. ImperIal Valley College 38 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT Recommendations The college should: 1. Establish budget planning criteria for maintaining compliance with the 50% law. 2. Examine and evaluate proposed budget increases and decreases to fully under- stand the impact on the 50% law calculation before they are initiated. 3. Evaluate community services, ancillary services and auxiliary operations (TOP codes 6800 – 7390) to ensure that all direct expenses for services in these programs are accurately reported. Indirect costs to support these programs may also be included (e.g. custodial, accounting, etc.), and this practice may positively affect the 50% law calculation. 4. Consider allocating all lottery proceeds to TOP codes 6000-6700, which might positively affect the 50% law calculation. 5. Report all classroom teaching and instructional aide costs in TOP codes 0100-5900 to positively affect the 50% law calculation. 6. Develop a 1% rate sensitivity calculation so that when the budget is increased or decreased, the collage can quickly determine the effect on the 50% law ratio. The 1% sensitivity calculation allows the college to know how many dollars of change it takes to alter the 50% calculation by 1% in either direc- tion. 7. Ensure that the business office, in consultation with the instructional office, reviews the assignment of TOP codes and object codes for faculty to make certain the expenditures are correctly captured and reported. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 39 ENROLLMENT AND FTES ANALYSIS Enrollment and FTES Analysis FCMAT thoroughly reviewed and analyzed Imperial Valley College’s CCFS-320 attendance reports from 2006 to the present (attached as Appendices D-1 – D-5), various course offerings, faculty contact hours (attached as Appendix D-8), and full-time equivalent faculty reports provided by the college. Discussions were also held with the college staff. These activities prompted the following two related findings that directly affect the institution’s fiscal health. • The college lacks a consistent, coherent planning mechanism that relates the size of the course offering to its FTES revenue goal. It also does not have a resulting annual plan that can be clearly communicated to the entire college to drive decision-making at all levels. • The college has consistently low efficiency/productivity as measured by WSCH/FTES and average class size. These two major findings are related because low efficiency/productivity tends to result in errors in projecting and meeting FTES targets, a costly issue for a college district. The CCFS-320 reports review found that 2006-07 was the last year that the college met its credit FTES target exactly (achieved its growth allocation and had no unfunded FTES). Since then, FTES planning (Appendix D-5) has been extremely problematic, even before the mid-year adjustments in state allocations that occurred in the last few years: • For 2007-08, the college was funded for growth of 105.28 credit FTES, but was over that amount by 226.3 unfunded FTES (3.4%), a significant amount for a college of its size. • For 2008-09, the college was funded for growth of 417.06 credit FTES. As part of a plan to reach the growth target, 497.17 FTES was “borrowed” from summer 2009. When a summer intersession crosses two fiscal years with classes for which the census falls in one fiscal year and the end of the classes occurs in the next fiscal year, the resulting FTES may be reported in either year. Advance reporting of the future summer intersession is commonly referred to as “borrowing.” This resulted in the college having 204.27 unfunded FTES (2.81%) for 2008-09, beginning 2009-10 with a significant unfunded expenditure, and lacking the ability to use the excess FTES to start the new fiscal year. • For 2009-10, the state imposed a workload reduction of 259.19 credit FTES, and the college ended with 203.20 (2.97%) unfunded FTES. This added to the expenditures for the unfunded portion of the summer 2009 FTES “borrowed” for reporting in 2008-09. • For 2010-11, there was funded growth of 206.58 credit FTES (which was actually restoration of a portion of the previous year’s workload reduction), but the college again was over that mount by 188.78 unfunded FTES (2.68%). • For 2011-12, the college was 428.38 credit FTES below its target and was therefore in stabilization. (Under current law, a community college district that falls below its FTES target is held harmless for one year and receives stability funding equal to the difference between the FTES produced and the FTES target that determines its funding base. The district is then given three years to grow back to its FTES target before its base funding is permanently reduced. During these subsequent years, the district receives funding for only the FTES actually produced.) The college’s reported total of 6,071.57 credit FTES included 279.49 FTES from its summer 2012 intersession; however, since this intersession ended June 30, the FTES produced could be used only for 2011-12. ImperIal Valley College 40 ENROLLMENT AND FTES ANALYSIS FCMAT was unable to determine why this decision was made instead of allowing for more stability funding and planning a summer intersession that crossed the two fiscal years. This could have been used to the college’s advantage by contributing to 2012-13’s effort to return to the college’s base FTES number. (That number stands to be reduced by about 7.5% if Proposition 30, the governor’s tax initiative, is not approved by the voters in November 2012.) While the college collects some useful data in areas such as FTES/FTEF and average class size, there is little evidence that this information is used effectively in developing annual FTES plans. The college has not used the concept of FTES per paid faculty contact hour (FCH), which would help determine the size of a semester/intersession needed to reach the desired FTES goal. This measure is useful because it relates FTES to the size of the course offering and its cost. For Imperial Valley College, this ratio has ranged from 0.84 (summer 2009) to 0.98 (fall 2009) for semesters and intersessions from 2008-09 through 2011-12 (Appendix D-7). To illustrate use of this measure in planning, the average FTES/FCH ratio for fall 2011 and spring 2012 was 0.895. Assuming a subsequent semester goal of 3,000 FTES, a good starting point for the faculty contact hour allocation would be 3352 (3000/0.895). Enrollment management is not an exact science, but using this number as a starting point and factoring in any known internal or external factors that would affect the needed allocation size would be extremely helpful in making more accurate projections. Since the ratio is affected by any changes in efficiency/productivity, it is highly important to make this calculation for each semester so that the most current historical data are applied in the projection. In addition, developing the capacity for real-time FTES projection using CCFS-320 logic would provide invaluable assistance in making appropriate adjustments to the initial allocation during enrollment periods. Weekly student contact hours per full-time equivalent faculty (WSCH/FTEF) is a standard efficiency/productivity measure because it gauges average class size. An average class size of 35 is the generally accepted goal among California community colleges, and this translates into 595 WSCH/FTEF for Imperial Valley College (with its compressed calendar). Using actual CCFS-320 reported data, the college’s WSCH/FTEF has ranged from 417.76 (average class size of 24.57) to 477.17 (average class size of 28.07) in the semesters/intersessions from 2008-09 through 2011-12 (Appendix D-6). While an average class size of 35 (595 WSCH/FTEF) can be difficult to attain for a small college, an average class size of 30 (510 WSCH/FTEF) should be achievable over the next three years. Just one additional student in each course section would produce approximately 85 FTES (worth about $388,000 per fiscal year) without incurring additional expenditures, and moving from the 2011-12 overall average class size of 26 to a class size of 30 would produce approximately 340 additional FTES (worth more than $1.5 million per fiscal year), again without additional cost. Achieving this goal will require greatly improved enrollment management practices (attention to historical course enrollment experience in allocating the course offering, timely cancellation of low-enrollment course sections, combining of low-enrollment course sections wherever possible, timely addition of course sections when all other sections of specific courses have filled, etc.). Some contractual provisions present significant obstacles to effective enrollment management. While a minimum class size of 20 is not unusual among California community colleges, the additional provision “or less than half of standard class size” is highly unusual as it is interpreted at Imperial Valley College. If the standard class size is 25, a course section with an enrollment of 13 cannot be cancelled under this provision. The college should not provide large numbers of course sections with such low enrollments, particularly if the class has multiple sections Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 41 ENROLLMENT AND FTES ANALYSIS (Exceptions can be made for courses with external class size limitations, such as nursing clinical rotations). Similarly, establishing the maximum class size at 40 is problematic when there is an expectation of additional compensation for oversized classes because of contract provisions. Colleges of all sizes regularly run lecture classes with a standard class size of 45 or 50, and oversized class compensation generally begins with class sizes of 60 or more. Unusually small classroom sizes also present significant challenges as classes are often limited in size because of capacity rather than demand. There is little indication that the college has an effective data-driven FTES planning process, and no individual or position appears to have been assigned to this function. This type of planning process should be an institutional commitment, and it is imperative to exercise authority and accountability in ensuring that a plan is developed and properly executed. Once implemented, it is important for this process to be effectively and timely communicated to the entire college so that everyone understands decisions will be made based on the outcomes. The results of the FTES planning should be thoroughly evaluated each year to ensure yearly improvement. The following list provides ways to evaluate such results: Measures such as faculty contact hours/FTES must be used in determining the size of classes each semester and intersession so that combined, they will help produce the target FTES for the year. • The vice president, academic services, should establish a formal course allocation process (using a meaningful measure like faculty contact hours) by division/department/ discipline, utilizing relevant historical data (size of the offering in previous semesters, courses with largest enrollments, high enrollment courses, low enrollment courses, course fill rate, course cancellations and additions during enrollment periods, etc.). • During the schedule-building process, the relationship between the planned allocation and the actual scheduling recommendations should be constantly monitored and evaluated. • Enrollment should be constantly monitored so that timely adjustments to the schedule can be made relative to student demand. A real-time FTES projection tool using actual CCFS-320 report logic would be invaluable in evaluating progress toward the FTES goal during enrollment periods to enable timely decisions to adjust the size of the offering. The college should take immediate action to make progress toward increasing average class size to 30 (510 WSCH/FTEF) within the next three years, and once this goal has been achieved and maintained, strive to make steady progress toward an average class size of 35 (595 WSCH/ FTEF). To accomplish this, the vice president, academic services should provide deans and department chairs with leadership and training in effective enrollment management practices, planning course schedules, and making appropriate adjustments (class cancellations, combina- tions, additions, etc.) during enrollment periods and ensure that these practices are implemented and maintained. In addition, the college will need to reconsider, through the collective bargaining process contractual provisions that inhibit effective enrollment management, including, but not limited to, minimum and maximum class size provisions. The college will also need to consider its need for larger lecture classrooms (with a capacity of 45 or 50) in future planning for new and remodeled facilities. ImperIal Valley College 42 ENROLLMENT AND FTES ANALYSIS Recommendations The college should: 1. Immediately establish at the senior administrative level an explicit, data- driven FTES planning process that relates the size of the course offering to the college’s FTES target and other budget goals and will be the basis for all of the college’s enrollment management efforts. 2. Ensure that the FTES planning process is led by the vice president, academic services and the vice president, business service. This process should be dynamically continued throughout the academic year so the plan can be adjusted for external funding changes and actual enrollment results. 3. Communicate the FTES planning process to the entire college so that it guides decision-making processes throughout the organization. 4. Thoroughly evaluate the results of the FTES planning each year to ensure improvement from year to year. 5. Take immediate action to make progress toward increasing average class size to 30 (510 WSCH/FTEF) within the next three years. Once this goal has been achieved and maintained, the college should strive to make steady prog- ress toward an average class size of 35 (595 WSCH/FTEF). 6. Consider its need for larger lecture classrooms with a capacity of 45 or 50 in future planning for new and remodeled facilities. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 43 PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Evaluation A higher education organization’s fiscal health depends on the long-term success of its programs. Therefore, one of the major components of this FCMAT study was to conduct customized but limited program evaluations of Imperial Valley College programs and to make related recommen- dations on long-term, overall program viability. The college should also ensure that it continues to evaluate individual programs for effectiveness and efficiency and make decisions accordingly. Community college programs typically include sets of courses organized to lead to the attain- ment of a certificate or degree such as for history or automotive technology as well as sets of similar student services that are organized in departments such as financial aid and admissions. This effort also addressed administrative services departments, such as human resources and accounting. A comprehensive analysis of a college’s health includes consideration of the educational programs’ coherency and viability, particularly as related to the institution’s mission and goals. An institution would ideally maintain a strategic or master plan to guide decisions, especially when downsizing or increasing the number of staff members, and that plan would be connected to processes, structures, and procedures throughout the college. Public education’s current fiscal environment is unprecedented, and strategies to address declining community college revenues are being developed at Imperial Valley College and community colleges throughout the state. For Imperial Valley College, FCMAT evaluated fiscal, organizational, and enrollment issues, and initiated processes to evaluate educational and other programs. This began with a thorough review of institutional effectiveness practices and related data. Methods and Findings For this study, academic programs were evaluated using one process, and a separate approach was developed and utilized for nonacademic (administrative, business, and student services) programs. Once FCMAT reviewed Imperial Valley College’s educational master plan, available program review reports, and other materials, the college research department and academic program staff provided requested statistical information on 14 measures for 60 academic programs. Deans and department chairs, working with and under the direction of the vice president for academic services, developed their own conclusions about the following for each program: • Enrollment demand. • Projection for future enrollment demand. • Opportunities for future advancement. • A summary of each program’s health, using criteria suggested. FCMAT then reviewed the information and developed recommendations specifically for academic programs. The template below was used for this process. (The document attached as Appendix E to this report includes two samples of completed academic program evaluations. The following link leads to all 60 program evaluations completed by college administrators and faculty: http://spaces.imperial.edu/accreditation/fcmat/) ImperIal Valley College .T.F # sseccuS noitelpmoC fo # fo # ytivitcudorP FETF SETF fo # .xam .gvA stneduts fo # snoitces fo # etaR lliF tnemllornE .xaM tnemllornE margorP -caf etaR etaR seergeD ni setacfiitreC )FETF/SETF( ssalc rep stneduts ssalc rep )2102 gnirps( ytlu sraey 6 ni sraey 6 ____ woL ____ muideM ____ hgiH :dnameD tnemllornE tneceR ____ gninilceD ____ elbatS ____ gniworG :dnameD erutuF rof noitcejorP )smargorp lacinhcet-reerac rof deriuqer atad tekram robaL( ).cte ,seigetarts yranilpicsidretni ,smsinahcem yreviled evitanretla ,tnempoleved mulucirruc wen ,sesseccus( :sisylanA ytinutroppO )semoctuo fo ytilauq dna ,ytivitcudorp ,epocs ,ezis fo noitaredisnoc gnidulcni( :noitaulavE ”htlaeH“ margorP fo yrammuS 44 PROGRAM EVALUATION Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM .T.F # sseccuS noitelpmoC fo # fo # ytivitcudorP FETF SETF fo # .xam .gvA stneduts fo # snoitces fo # etaR lliF tnemllornE .xaM tnemllornE margorP -caf etaR etaR seergeD ni setacfiitreC )FETF/SETF( ssalc rep stneduts ssalc rep )2102 gnirps( ytlu sraey 6 ni sraey 6 ____ woL ____ muideM ____ hgiH :dnameD tnemllornE tneceR ____ gninilceD ____ elbatS ____ gniworG :dnameD erutuF rof noitcejorP )smargorp lacinhcet-reerac rof deriuqer atad tekram robaL( ).cte ,seigetarts yranilpicsidretni ,smsinahcem yreviled evitanretla ,tnempoleved mulucirruc wen ,sesseccus( :sisylanA ytinutroppO )semoctuo fo ytilauq dna ,ytivitcudorp ,epocs ,ezis fo noitaredisnoc gnidulcni( :noitaulavE ”htlaeH“ margorP fo yrammuS 45 PROGRAM EVALUATION FCMAT found little data or evidence to demonstrate the college routinely evaluates and improves student services and other nonacademic programs. Consequently, the priority of program evaluation for these departments was to implement a continuous activity to improve the process. Two administrative members of the college’s executive council who have experience leading continuous process-improvement projects volunteered to chair this effort. Cross- functional teams composed of members from every department were formed to review and evaluate processes. Each of those teams consisted of members from varieties of departments in order to include different perspectives in their analyses. FCMAT and the two college leads, the administrator for human resources and information technology, devised the customized evaluation process to use during on-site visits and subsequent communications, and planned how to implement the process throughout 2012-13. The college’s specific needs were considered, specifically the need for cost effectiveness, employee involvement and development, and ongoing structures. The college leads notified participating departments and invited representatives to the first meeting. Approximately 15 cross-functional team facilitators, primarily the leads or representatives for each department, first met for an orientation on July 17, 2012. The meeting was led by the two college leaders and FCMAT, and its purpose was as follows: • To explain the overall program evaluation feature of the FCMAT project. • To explain the continuous improvement evaluation process planned for student services and nonacademic departments. • To begin planning evaluation activities for the departments represented. Each department identified one process to evaluate by August 17, 2012. For that process, they considered opportunities to address the following requirements: • Cost reduction • Efficiency enhancement • Contribution to student success and enrollment ImperIal Valley College 46 PROGRAM EVALUATION Every department would have three processes assessed by cross-functional teams by the end of 2012-13, each consisting of three or more members from diverse departments. College leads and team facilitators developed the following review schedule, which was being implemented as of FCMAT’s August 17, 2012 site visit: FCMAT Nonacademic Efficiency Team Participant Area Department/Program Processes to be Reviewed 1 Betty Kakiuchi Business Purchasing 2 Carlos Fletes Business Fiscal Services Request to Hire Process Chancellor’s Office Tax Offset program update and monitoring Disbursement of refunds/financial aid to students 3 John Lau Business Business Admin Included in others Maintenance/ 4 Rick Webster Business Operations 5 Tim Nakamura Business Safety and Security 6 Travis Gregory HR HR Admin RTH - Revise and automate the IVC Request To Hire (RTH) form HR Dashboard Reports - Compile an HR Dashboard for managers / administrators Payroll processes – Recently transitioned to HR; analyze current and evaluate for improvement 7 Jeff Cantwell IT Application Services 8 Jeff Enz IT Enterprise Systems 9 Omar Ramos IT Online/Print Services Mail Services Catalog Production 10Todd Finnell IT IT Admin Included in others 11Todd EvangelistPresident’s Office IVC Foundation Automation of Scholarship Application Process Direct Mail Campaign targeting Alumni Alumni Association Development/ Foundation Board Development & Recruitment Gloria 12 Student Services Admissions and RecordsPhone system and incoming calls Carmona Transcript evaluation and the request process Communication to students regarding deadlines & timelines 13Lisa Seals Student Services Financial Aid Student Self-Service Paperless Filing Use of Degreeworks to calculate SAP 14Sergio Lopez Student Services Student Affairs 15Ted Ceasar Student Services Counseling Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 47 PROGRAM EVALUATION Participants continue to identify additional processes that will be reviewed to complete the plan outlined in the schedule, and the two college leads have continued to train and manage evalua- tion activities. The purpose was to initiate an evaluation process that could be implemented over the course of a year, and thus far, it has been successful. Some college programs, such as the library and instructional services, are not included in this study; the college will need to ensure full participation of all departments in the future. These two departments, for example, were not represented in the data sets and lists provided to FCMAT, so they did not receive invitations to participate. Overall, Imperial Valley College’s mission, purposes and goals as described in the educational master plan are regularly reviewed and linked to annual expenditure requests via multiple resource plan committees. However, the college apparently did not link expenditure reduc- tions to those priorities during the last two years, and the planning process lacked the strategic capacity to guide prioritization for these reductions. Further, during the summer of 2012 when additional decisions about budget reductions were under consideration, adequate structures and mechanisms for broad communication, coordination of processes, and problem-solving among department leadership staff, both academic and nonacademic, appeared to be lacking, or severely limited. As a result, critical decisions were made quickly, and many faculty and staff did not seem to have information that they needed to understand the college’s status and situation. The academic program evaluation activity found that various career and technical programs have a low current student demand, a low local labor market demand for the near future, and/ or a low certificate or degree completion rate. Programs that do not show strong data using these criteria include building construction technology and legal assistance. Other programs are often created or redesigned, such as solar energy specialist, and have low enrollment. Programs are usually given five or more years to grow, but in the current severe fiscal climate, these programs need to show growth and succeed much sooner so that they are not a financial burden. A plan should be developed to discontinue career technical education programs that do not increase their enrollments within the next two to three years to an average class size of approximately 20. This process should follow the appropriate regulations in the California Education Code and the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, including, but limited to, California Education Code Section 78016 and California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Sections 51022 and 55130. Imperial Valley College has low success rates in some instructional programs and courses and should work to increase these percentages so that they are at least close to the state average for each individual discipline. State averages, by discipline, by semester, can be found on the California Community College Chancellor’s Office website at http://datamart.cccco.edu/ Outcomes/Course_Ret_Success.aspx. Examples of college disciplines with low success rates in comparison to the state average for the discipline include astronomy (the college rate for 2010-11 was 29.9%, and the statewide average for fall 2010 was 63.68%), history (the college rate for 2010-11 was 51.7%, and the statewide average for fall 2010 was 60.68%), and correctional science (the college rate for 2010-11 was 53.8%, and statewide average for fall 2010 was 74.39%). In courses that are at capacity, unsuccessful students who repeat a class prevent others from taking the same class. Students who repeat classes slow their progress toward a degree or certifi- cate. Additionally, college resources are best used when they result in educational success and course completion for students. Courses with low success rates (with “success” defined as students earning a “C” or higher, and “low” defined as more than five percent lower than the state average ImperIal Valley College 48 PROGRAM EVALUATION for those disciplines) should increase these rates within the next three years so that they that are within five percent of the state average for the discipline. Examples of disciplines with low success rates are astronomy, criminal justice, fire science and history. Recommendations The college should: Overall Program Evaluation 1. Link educational master planning, the college mission and purposes, and related planning processes to processes for cost reduction, prioritization of effort, and program efficiency decisions. 2. Develop organizational, communication, and decision-making linkages or connections among the redesign team/process, program review, planning, and decision-making at the leadership and executive council levels. 3. Prioritize and implement broad, clear, and accurate communication about the college budget, cost reduction activities, FTES issues, and program prioritiza- tion. Information should be easily available and accessible, and distributed regularly, to all faculty and staff, as well as the community. Academic Programs: 1. Continue evaluating academic programs, initiated and developed by college administrators and faculty in summer 2012 as an ongoing process. 2. Ensure each academic program recognizes its particular role in increasing the college’s overall average class size. Lecture classes in the arts and sciences programs, such as history, psychology, sociology, and music appreciation, should increase well beyond the current class maximum of 40. 3. Carefully review career and technical programs that have a low current student demand, a low local labor market demand for the near future, and/ or a low certificate or degree completion rate. The college should develop a plan to increase the minimum class enrollment to 20 for classes that have been allowed to operate with enrollments of much less. Programs should be discontinued if enrollment does not increase to an average class size of approximately 20. There should be few and clearly delineated exceptions for specified advanced courses (This will require discussion as a contractual issue in negotiations between the college and the faculty union.). 4. Require instructional deans and department chairs to focus on scheduling courses that have the greatest student demand, specifically arts and sciences courses, those that fulfill general education requirements (such as United States history), and CTE courses that fulfill core competencies (such as busi- ness communication). Similarly, programs should avoid scheduling elective or optional courses, especially those offered at four-year colleges (such as East Asian history), or that provide skills that could be learned on the job (such as office transcription). Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 49 PROGRAM EVALUATION 5. Direct instructional deans and department chairs in arts and science disci- plines to schedule courses required for upper division coursework in the related majors instead of courses needed to fulfill a single-discipline associate’s degree major. For example, a student who earns an associate degree in English or psychology without transferring to a four-year college is not prepared for a successful career. Arts and sciences programs should schedule courses that fulfill multiple-discipline associate majors (such as humanities or behavioral sciences), which are also typically those within transfer general education patterns such as intersegmental general education transfer courses. 6. Encourage more students to complete certificates instead of simply taking courses and leaving. Selected certificate requirements for career technical education programs should be revised whenever possible so that certificates require fewer total units, focusing on core requirements. In some cases, this may mean offering two or more separate certificates, either in two areas or in beginning and intermediate levels. This will encourage and enable more students to complete certificates, before and after employment. Examples of programs that could benefit from this approach include electrical technology and business office technician. Because an unreasonable number of units is required for a certificate in many career technical education programs, many students drop out after earning enough units for entry-level employment. 7. Require the career and technical programs moving into the college’s new complex in 2014 to develop multiyear plans that outline how they will utilize the facility as enrollment increases. These programs include welding, air conditioning/refrigeration, building construction technology, electrical trades, fire science, emergency medical services, and administration of justice. 8. Increase its online offerings in a variety of programs, whether courses are delivered completely or partially online, to help individuals living far away from the campus as well as those who live closer but wish to complete their coursework more quickly. Moving some classes to the online format such as selected courses in art history, child development, music appreciation, sociology, etc., would strengthen enrollments in many programs and make classroom space available for other courses. The college should also update its distance education plan (part of the college’s educational master plan and last updated in 2011-12) to create an improved, coherent methodology, from the technological and educational perspectives, for expanding its online offerings. 9. Find ways to stabilize or increase enrollment in the next three years without adding new full-time faculty. This would necessitate increasing class sizes and fill rates and/or hiring more adjunct faculty. 10. Openly communicate that any program requests for new faculty will be denied until the college’s overall faculty obligation number decreases to the obligatory level set by the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. Currently, the college’s obligatory faculty obligation number is 94.3 ImperIal Valley College 50 PROGRAM EVALUATION 11. Reduce the amount of release time assigned to faculty for managerial respon- sibilities, to improve the college’s 50% ratio and create more hours of faculty teaching, generating more FTES for their programs. The managerial duties formerly assigned to faculty members would be assumed by instructional administrators. 12. Increase instructional programs and courses with low success rates to percent- ages close to the state average for the discipline. Several approaches could be used to accomplish this, including utilizing the student learning outcomes assessment and improvement process, increasing staff development in pedagogy, modifying course delivery practices such as providing shorter and variable term lengths, and revising course prerequisites. 13. Conduct an assessment to determine factors beyond instructional scheduling that contribute to decreasing enrollments and fill rates. Nonacademic Departments 1. Implement continuous cross-functional team process evaluation and improve- ment, which began the summer of 2012. Each department should review three processes during academic year 2012-13, with plans and structures for ongoing process evaluation and improvement for future years. 2. Implement the program evaluation and improvement process for the library, which was not included in a FCMAT program evaluation process during this study period. Any additional programs that were not part of the FCMAT process should also be evaluated. 3. Evaluate programs, especially those in student services, where the college’s portion of their funding is in excess of the grant “match” requirement to ensure that IVC determines that subsidizing such programs is in line with IVC’s priorities and that these evaluations are collaboratively conducted. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 51 NEXT STEPS AND PROPOSED TIMELINE Next Steps and Proposed Timeline Imperial Valley College should closely review the information in this report and implement the recommendations with which it agrees. For recommendations it does not implement, the college should develop alternate ideas and actions to maintain solvency. Because of its fiscal condition and loss of FTES, the college should act quickly in these efforts. FCMAT has provided tools and templates to help the college implement many of the recom- mendations. Recommendations related to the structural issues such as contractual release time, salary schedule steps, and class sizes, are tied to specific processes such as collective bargaining and require another party’s agreement. The following implementation steps and timeline consider the college’s fiscal condition. Implementation Timeline A Imperial Valley College receives report and recommendations December 2012 It is anticipated that the recommendations will affect a number of areas. Some will be easier to implement than others. Some may not be accepted or acted upon by IVC. Given differing levels of complexity, the recommendations should be categorized into those that can be acted upon quickly and those needing more B time to develop Late December 2012 C Each recommendation should have an approximate value assigned (where appropriate) as estimated by IVC. Late December 2012 D Once steps B and C are completed IVC should organize the list of recommendations in order of priority. Early January 2013 At this point IVC must be prepared to take action sufficient to sustain itself fiscally. Formal board action E may be warranted to establish a clear understanding of IVC’s intent. Early January 2013 Organizational and operational recommendations included in the steps C, D, and E above should be consid- ered at the same time, if possible, especially if they have fiscal implications. Those that do not can be dealt F with over a longer period of time. February-June 2013 Staff should complete and present a follow-up report to IVC community and board, as well as subsequent G reports on the status of open items. April 2013 Implementation of a number of recommendations regarding organization and operations are vital to the college’s long-term fiscal health. Imperial Valley College has immediate fiscal circumstances and long-term structural issues that may be difficult to overcome in a short amount of time. Therefore, it will be critical to organize and understand the complexities of the recommendations included in this report. ImperIal Valley College 52 NEXT STEPS AND PROPOSED TIMELINE Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 53 APPENDICES Appendices A: Financial Comparison With Benchmark Districts B: Imperial Valley College’s Seven-Year History C: Multiyear Model D: Enrollment and FTES Analysis E: Academic Program Evaluations F: Study Agreement ImperIal Valley College 54 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM Appendix A - Financial Comparison With Benchmark Districts slx.2-stcirtsiD_reeP_htiw_nosirapmoC_CVI naideM stneserpeR dloB ni ataD 1102-0102 tcartsbA ataD lacsiF ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atsahS yretnoM llentraH treseD yellaV lairepmI egarevA atsahS yretnoM llentraH treseD 5197 9887 6507 2898 4837 )1 elbat tcartsba atad lacsif( SETF latoT %8.48 %4.78 %9.57 %9.87 %9.97 0006 tcejbo hguorht dnuF neG latoT ni detcirtsernU fo oitaR )tcartsba atad lacsif 2.III dna 1.III selbat( %09.4 %81.8 %75.0- %94.9 %84.2 %60.53 %28.34 %67.33 %77.04 %52.34 pxe dnuf neg lla fo % a sa seiralas cimedacA 1 eniL %69.0- %16.2- %30.2 %87.0 %87.15 %34.35 %97.84 %40.05 %28.05 )6 elbat tcartsba atad lacsif( oitar wal %05 2 eniL 0076-0006 sedoc SPOT nimdA dna 9995-0010 sedoc SPOT lanoitcurtsnI edulcni woleb 41 hguorht 3 seniL %56.1- %56.3 %61.5- %14.3- %07.1- %90.2 %09.01 %61.9 %44.7 %47.5 stsoc rtsni tot fo oitar/noitcurtsni ot degrahc las rtsninoN 3 eniL %49.0- %55.2 %20.8- %70.3 %73.1- %60.4 %26.41 %35.3 %79.7 %06.6 stsoc rtsni tot fo oitar/ noitcurtsni ot degrahc repo/seilppuS 4 eniL %62.3 %94.5- %04.31 %96.1 %34.3 %54.29 %65.37 %72.58 %35.38 %69.68 stsoc rtsni tot fo oitar/rtsni latot fo % a sa seiralas lanoitcurtsnI 5 eniL %90.8- %66.7- %65.81- %92.0 %44.6- %44.84 %43.95 %94.04 %22.74 %87.04 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa stsoc lanoitcurtsnI 6 eniL %04.0- %94.1- %46.3 %38.1- %49.1- %66.6 %45.1 %10.7 %11.7 %71.5 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa nimda rtsnI 7 eniL %13.5 %90.5 %59.5 %23.5 %98.4 %81.5 %23.4 %59.4 %83.5 %72.01 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa troppus rtsnI 8 eniL %22.0- %90.0- %90.0- %24.0- %82.0- %64.1 %64.1 %97.1 %56.1 %73.1 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa R & A 9 eniL %60.6 %00.7 %84.7 %52.7 %05.2 %98.2 %14.2 %46.2 %93.7 %98.9 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa gnilesnuoC 01 eniL %26.1- %10.0 %65.1 %10.9- %79.0 %26.7 %70.6 %56.61 %66.6 %36.7 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa vreS utS 11 eniL %57.0- %01.0 %66.0- %76.0- %57.1- %36.7 %93.8 %04.8 %84.9 %37.7 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa tniam/repO 21 eniL %95.1- %08.1- %37.2- %29.1- %80.0 %23.4 %52.5 %44.4 %44.2 %25.2 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa ycilop/nalP 31 eniL %13.1 %61.1- %14.3 %00.1 %79.1 %97.51 %22.11 %46.31 %76.21 %46.41 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa vres neG 41eniL SETF rep serutidnepxE dnuF lareneG 715$ 624$ 365$ 326$ 754$ 522,2$ 880,2$ 820,2$ 591,2$ 156,2$ SETF / seiralaS cimedacA 51 eniL 72$ 12$ 411$ 49$- 56$ 502,1$ 211,1$ 913,1$ 161,1$ 622,1$ SETF / seiralaS deifissalC 61 eniL 117$ 741$- 263,1$ 877$ 158$ 313,5$ 508,3$ 883,4$ 613,4$ 661,5$ SETF / stifeneb gnidulcni serutidnepxE eeyolpmE 71 eniL 405$ 712$- 463,1$ 321$ 747$ 743,6$ 667,4$ 700,6$ 383,5$ 031,6$ SETF / serutidnepxE latoT 81 eniL 221$- 063$- 172$- 411$ 82$ 347,2$ 456,2$ 962,2$ 553,2$ 383,2$ SETF / esnepxE lanoitcurtsnI 91 eniL 4$ 57$- 432$ 09$- 25$- 773$ 96$ 393$ 553$ 203$ SETF / noitartsinimdA lanoitcurtsnI 02 eniL 243$ 703$ 704$ 323$ 233$ 392$ 391$ 872$ 862$ 006$ SETF / troppuS lanoitcurtsnI 12 eniL 2$- 3$- 51$ 02$- 2$- 38$ 56$ 001$ 28$ 08$ SETF / sdroceR & snoissimdA 22 eniL 183$ 414$ 074$ 034$ 902$ 461$ 801$ 841$ 863$ 875$ SETF / gnilesnuoC 32 eniL 64$- 51$ 471$ 784$- 411$ 134$ 272$ 339$ 233$ 644$ SETF / secivreS tnedutS rehtO 42 eniL 41$ 91$ 67$ 91$- 12$- 234$ 573$ 174$ 374$ 254$ SETF / ecnanetniaM/snoitarepO 52 eniL 56$- 79$- 78$- 201$- 52$ 542$ 532$ 942$ 221$ 741$ SETF / gnikamyciloP/gninnalP 62 eniL 751$ 93$- 353$ 19$ 322$ 498$ 205$ 467$ 236$ 558$ SETF / secivreS troppuS lanoitutitsnI lareneG 72 eniL 266$ 181$ 173,1$ 042$ 758$ 266,5$ 274,4$ 406,5$ 789,4$ 448,5$ 0076-0010 sedoC SPOT SETF / serutidnepxE latoT 82 eniL 004,837$ slauqe ecnereffid fo 001$ hcaE 002,963$ slauqe ecnereffid fo srallod 05$ hcaE 048,37$ slauqe ecnereffid fo 01$ hcaE tcartsbA ataD lacsiF :ecruoS slx.2-stcirtsiD_reeP_htiw_nosirapmoC_CVI 1 fo 1 egaP stsoC lautcA 1102-0102 55 APPENDICES ImperIal Valley College sisylanA laicnaniF evitarapmoC egelloC yellaV lairepmI noitamrofnI latnemelppuS troppuS rtsnI 0016 dna nimdA rtsnI 0006 sedoC poT 1102-0102 113 FSCC ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atsahS yeretnoM llentraH treseD lairepmI egarevA atsahS yeretnoM llentraH treseD 5197 9887 6507 2898 4837 )1 elbat tcartsba atad lacsif( SETF latoT 1 eniL edoC XX06 edoC POT %90.0 %57.0- %51.4 %48.1- %91.1- %29.5 %20.1 %10.7 %63.6 %71.5 nimdA cimedacA0106 2 eniL %81.0- %22.0- %15.0- %00.0 %00.0 %22.0 %25.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 leveD mulucirruC/esruoC0206 3 eniL %22.0- %03.0- %00.0 %00.0 %06.0- %03.0 %00.0 %00.0 %06.0 %00.0 etaneS ytlucaF/cimedacA0306 4 eniL %90.0- %22.0- %00.0 %00.0 %51.0- %22.0 %00.0 %00.0 %51.0 %00.0 rehtO0906 5 eniL %04.0- %94.1- %46.3 %38.1- %49.1- %66.6 %45.1 %10.7 %11.7 %71.5 latoTXX06 6 eniL edoC XX16 edoC POT %51.2 %08.2 %56.1 %50.3 %11.1 %52.0 %04.1 %00.0 %59.1 %50.3 retneC gninraeL0116 7 eniL %05.0- %54.0- %77.0- %81.0- %95.0- %22.2 %45.2 %59.1 %63.2 %77.1 yrarbiL0216 8 eniL %00.1- %17.2- %83.0- %86.0- %32.0- %17.2 %83.0 %86.0 %32.0 %00.0 aideM0316 9 eniL %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 seirellaG/smuesuM0416 01 eniL %33.0- %00.0 %00.0 %43.1- %00.0 %00.0 %00.0 %43.1 %00.0 %00.0 smetsyS ofnI cimedacA0516 11 eniL rehtO0916 21 eniL %13.5 %90.5 %59.5 %23.5 %98.4 %81.5 %23.4 %59.4 %83.5 %72.01 latoTXX16 31 eniL atsahS yeretnoM llentraH treseD lairepmI edoC XX06 edoC POT 642,37$ 960,224$- 800,278,1$ 237,835$- 222,816$- 704,456,2$ 033,063$ 070,177,2$ 065,058,2$ 833,232,2$ nimdA cimedacA0106 2 eniL 887,96$- 023,89$- 365,181$- 663$ 663$ 686,89$ 929,181$ 0$ 0$ 663$ leveD mulucirruC/esruoC0206 3 eniL 532,001$- 857,331$- 0$ 0$ 081,762$- 857,331$ 0$ 0$ 081,762$ 0$ etaneS ytlucaF/cimedacA0306 4 eniL 502,14$- 299,79$- 0$ 0$ 628,66$- 299,79$ 0$ 0$ 628,66$ 0$ rehtO0906 5 eniL 189,731$- 931,257$- 544,096,1$ 663,835$- 268,159$- 348,489,2$ 952,245$ 070,177,2$ 665,481,3$ 407,232,2$ latoTXX06 6 eniL 4$ 57$- 432$ 09$- 25$- 773$ 96$ 393$ 553$ 203$ SETF/tnepS sralloD edoC XX16 edoC POT 308,749$ 220,502,1$ 257,328$ 898,613,1$ 935,544$ 678,111$ 641,394$ 0$ 953,178$ 898,613,1$ retneC gninraeL0116 7 eniL 183,661$- 951,032$- 504,231$- 165,7$- 893,592$- 109,399$ 741,698$ 303,177$ 041,950,1$ 247,367$ yrarbiL0216 8 eniL 898,924$- 178,412,1$- 536,431$- 431,762$- 259,201$- 178,412,1$ 536,431$ 431,762$ 259,201$ 0$ aideM0316 9 eniL 06$- 042$- 0$ 0$ 0$ 042$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ seirellaG/smuesuM0416 01 eniL 562,231$- 0$ 0$ 160,925$- 0$ 0$ 0$ 160,925$ 0$ 0$ smetsyS ofnI cimedacA0516 11 eniL 744,851,2$ 186,053,2$ 186,053,2$ 666,959,1$ 167,279,1$ 0$ 0$ 510,193$ 029,773$ 186,053,2$ rehtO0916 21 eniL 646,773,2$ 334,011,2$ 393,709,2$ 808,274,2$ 059,910,2$ 888,023,2$ 829,325,1$ 315,859,1$ 173,114,2$ 123,134,4$ latoTXX16 31 eniL 243$ 703$ 704$ 323$ 233$ 392$ 391$ 872$ 862$ 006$ SETF/tnepS sralloD 56 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM sisylanA laicnaniF evitarapmoC egelloC yellaV lairepmI noitamrofnI latnemelppuS secivreS neG 0076 dna gnilesnuoC 0036 sedoC poT 1102-0102 113 FSCC ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atsahS yeretnoM llentraH treseD lairepmI egarevA atsahS yeretnoM llentraH treseD 5197 9887 6507 2898 4837 )1 elbat tcartsba atad lacsif( SETF latoT 1 eniL edoC XX36 edoC POT %23.0- %63.1- %46.0 %10.1- %64.0 %99.1 %00.0 %56.1 %71.0 %46.0 ecnadiuG dna gnilesnuoC0136 2 eniL %07.3 %33.3 %70.4 %33.3 %70.4 %47.0 %00.0 %47.0 %00.0 %70.4 tnemssessA tnedutS/noitalucirtaM0236 3 eniL %26.0 %27.0 %97.0 %67.0 %22.0 %70.0 %00.0 %30.0 %65.0 %97.0 smargorP refsnarT0336 4 eniL %90.0- %10.0- %00.0 %00.0 %43.0- %10.0 %00.0 %00.0 %43.0 %00.0 ecnadiuG reeraC0436 5 eniL %41.2 %13.4 %89.1 %71.4 %29.1- %80.0 %14.2 %22.0 %03.6 %93.4 rehtO0936 6 eniL %60.6 %00.7 %84.7 %52.7 %05.2 %98.2 %14.2 %46.2 %93.7 %98.9 latoTXX36 7 eniL edoC XX76 edoC POT %86.0- %54.0- %49.0- %04.1- %50.0 %05.0 %99.0 %64.1 %00.0 %50.0 snoitaleR ytinummoC0176 8 eniL %18.0- %64.0 %32.0 %84.2- %34.1- %27.1 %59.1 %66.4 %16.3 %81.2 snoitarepO lacsiF0276 9 eniL %40.0- %52.0 %71.0 %61.0- %24.0- %81.1 %62.1 %95.1 %58.1 %34.1 secruoseR namuH0376 01 eniL %41.1 %75.3- %38.2 %74.2 %38.2 %04.6 %00.0 %63.0 %00.0 %38.2 neB tnemeriteR rtsni-noN0476 11 eniL %00.0 %20.0- %70.0 %90.0 %41.0- %11.0 %20.0 %00.0 %32.0 %90.0 tnempoleveD ffatS0576 21 eniL %40.0- %00.0 %00.0 %20.0 %71.0- %20.0 %20.0 %00.0 %91.0 %20.0 ytisreviD ffatS0676 31 eniL %81.0- %95.0- %08.0- %92.1 %46.0- %07.2 %19.2 %28.0 %57.2 %11.2 secivreS lacitsigoL0776 41 eniL %56.0 %16.1 %95.0 %61.0- %65.0 %79.2 %99.3 50.0$ %10.4 %85.4 smetsyS ofnI tnemeganaM0876 51 eniL %72.1 %41.1 %62.1 %43.1 %33.1 %02.0 %80.0 00.0$ %10.0 %43.1 rehtO0976 61 eniL %13.1 %61.1- %14.3 %00.1 %79.1 %97.51 %22.11 %46.31 %76.21 %46.41 latoTXX76 71 eniL edoC XX36 edoC POT 682,031$- 179,716$- 633,572$ 179,573$- 264,791$ 703,398$ 0$ 703,156$ 478,77$ 633,572$ ecnadiuG dna gnilesnuoC0136 2 eniL 234,006,1$ 724,424,1$ 301,757,1$ 690,364,1$ 301,757,1$ 676,233$ 0$ 700,492$ 0$ 301,757,1$ tnemssessA tnedutS/noitalucirtaM0236 3 eniL 122,662$ 729,903$ 146,933$ 255,823$ 567,68$ 417,92$ 0$ 980,11$ 678,252$ 146,933$ smargorP refsnarT0336 4 eniL 908,93$- 125,5$- 0$ 0$ 517,351$- 125,5$ 0$ 0$ 517,351$ 0$ ecnadiuG reeraC0436 5 eniL 153,549$ 825,068,1$ 698,340,1$ 127,608,1$ 047,929$- 156,33$ 382,058$ 854,78$ 919,328,2$ 971,498,1$ rehtO0936 6 eniL 019,146,2$ 093,179,2$ 679,514,3$ 893,222,3$ 578,759$ 968,492,1$ 382,058$ 168,340,1$ 483,803,3$ 952,662,4$ latoTXX36 7 eniL 183$ 414$ 074$ 034$ 902$ 461$ 801$ 841$ 863$ 875$ SETF reP tnepS sralloD edoC XX76 edoC POT 469,462$- 072,202$- 885,723$- 027,255$- 427,22$ 499,422$ 213,053$ 444,575$ 0$ 427,22$ snoitaleR ytinummoC0176 8 eniL 419,982$- 554,861$ 203,352$ 299,209$- 124,876$- 871,277$ 133,786$ 526,348,1$ 450,916,1$ 336,049$ snoitarepO lacsiF0276 9 eniL 723,9$ 386,88$ 199,171$ 672,21$- 090,112$- 497,825$ 684,544$ 357,926$ 765,828$ 774,716$ secruoseR namuH0376 01 eniL 504,964$ 900,646,1$- 677,222,1$ 533,970,1$ 815,122,1$ 587,868,2$ 0$ 144,341$ 852,1$ 677,222,1$ neB tnemeriteR rtsni-noN0476 11 eniL 436$- 321,9$- 515,33$ 329,73$ 058,46$- 114,84$ 377,5$ 563,1$ 831,401$ 882,93$ tnempoleveD ffatS0576 21 eniL 435,61$- 922$ 063$ 070,9$ 497,57$- 148,8$ 017,8$ 0$ 468,48$ 070,9$ ytisreviD ffatS0676 31 eniL 617,73$- 666,892$- 103,611$- 548,685$ 147,223$- 532,802,1$ 078,520,1$ 427,223$ 013,232,1$ 965,909$ secivreS lacitsigoL0776 41 eniL 667,273$ 128,546$ 557,665$ 757,001$ 137,771$ 350,033,1$ 911,904,1$ 711,578,1$ 341,897,1$ 478,579,1$ smetsyS ofnI tnemeganaM0876 51 eniL 135,745$ 809,984$ 156,055$ 379,775$ 095,175$ 560,88$ 223,72$ 0$ 383,6$ 379,775$ rehtO0976 61 eniL 862,987$ 279,267$- 164,553,2$ 519,329$ 766,046$ 653,870,7$ 329,959,3$ 964,193,5$ 717,476,5$ 483,513,6$ latoTXX76 71 eniL 751$ 93$- 353$ 19$ 322$ 498$ 205$ 467$ 236$ 558$ SETF/tnepS sralloD 0076-0036latnemelpus 1102-0102 CVI 1 egaP 57 APPENDICES ImperIal Valley College 58 APPENDICES CCFS-311 District Comparisons General Descriptions Key for Categories and Classifications Imperial Community College District Employee Costs Types: Academic Salaries All faculty and certificated administrators Classified Salaries All CSEA and noncertificated supervisors & administrators Instructional Salaries Full-time & part-time instructors, instructional aides Noninstructional Salaries All employees except full- & part-time instructors and instructional aides, such as counselors, librarians, administrator, classified support employees, etc. Functional Areas: Instructional Administration Academic Administration (deans), Course & Curriculum Development, Academic Senate, Faculty Senate Instructional Support Library, Media Center, Campus Technical Support Center Admissions & Records Admissions & Records and Veterans Administration Support Counseling Counseling, Transfer & Articulation, Matriculation, Career Support, Outreach & Retention, Affirm, Enlace, ASPIRE, Puente Other Student Services Financial Aid, Disabled Students, EOPS, CARE, Health Services, CALWORKS, GAIN, HACU Operations/Maintenance Maintenance, Grounds, Custodial, Utilities, Equipment Repairs Planning/Policymaking Board of Trustees, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, College Presidents, Research & Planning, Facilities & Planning General Institutional Support Services Human Resources, College Marketing/Advertising, Diversity Coordinators, Staff Development, Classified Council, ITSS, Web Support, Reprographics, Self Insurance, Business Services, Accounting, Budget, Payroll, Purchasing, Warehouse, Police, Telephone Technology & Support Note: The areas identified above are meant to be examples and are not all inclusive. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 59 APPENDICES Appendix B - Imperial Valley College’s Seven-Year History Imperial Valley College Page 1 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 11-12 12-13 Change Change Actual Budget Budget 06/07 to11/12 06/07 to12/13 Federal 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 State Revenue 26,974,347 27,661,494 27,084,595 687,147 110,248 Local Revenue 6,981,997 6,454,170 6,069,724 -527,827 -912,273 Total Revenue 33,956,344 34,116,780 33,155,435 160,436 -800,909 Cert Salaries 14,788,954 15,064,383 15,489,017 275,429 700,063 1110 Instruction Regular Salaries 7,369,083 6,875,039 7,246,857 -494,044 -122,226 1160 Instruction Substitute Salaries 72,654 84,111 84,111 11,457 11,457 1199 CE Instr Retirement Incentive 0 67,008 67,008 1208 Learning Support Specialist 11,524 0 -11,524 -11,524 1209 Instructional Media Designer 9,192 38,183 39,329 28,992 30,137 1210 Counselor/Library Studies 929,473 1,114,611 1,110,213 185,138 180,740 1211 Project Directors Salaries 529,148 97,121 100,034 -432,027 -429,114 1212 Deans Salaries 465,516 1,003,428 1,095,549 537,912 630,033 1213 Associate Dean 0 0 1214 Vice Presidents Salaries 271,155 525,252 566,148 254,096 294,993 1215 President's Salary 158,557 195,000 200,000 36,443 41,443 1216 Associate Vice President 0 29,074 29,074 1220 Counselor Overload Salaries 44,026 45,820 54,050 1,794 10,024 1270 Chair/Coordinator Salaries 274,297 1,013,795 1,031,886 739,498 757,589 1299 CE Non-Instr Retiree Incentive 0 26,200 26,200 1310 Non Credit Instruction 129,709 36,445 30,000 -93,264 -99,709 1320 FT Summer Teaching 658,201 289,973 289,973 -368,228 -368,228 1325 FT Winter Teaching 699,526 0 -699,526 -699,526 1330 Adjunct Faculty Salaries 1,940,979 2,012,078 2,031,578 71,100 90,599 1340 Overload Full-Time Faculty Salaries 982,577 1,185,680 1,185,680 203,103 203,103 1370 Coaching Salaries 60,535 129,414 131,281 68,879 70,746 1390 Instr - Prof Exp/Extra Duty Agmt 0 104,250 104,250 104,250 104,250 1410 Part-Time Counse/Library Salaries 2,041 80,000 80,000 77,959 77,959 1411 Part-Time Instr Specialist 156,377 0 -156,377 -156,377 1490 Non-Instr Prof Exp/Extra Duty Agmt 19,680 78,701 73,078 59,021 53,398 1491 Stipends 4,704 0 -4,704 -4,704 1492 Meetings Pay 0 33,200 35,000 33,200 35,000 CL Salaries 5,827,150 7,149,183 7,625,654 1,322,033 1,798,504 2101 Admin Tech Salaries 43,248 49,099 54,228 5,851 10,980 2102 Admission/Student Records Salaries 489,473 506,753 505,710 17,280 16,237 2103 Accounting Salaries 308,562 250,520 274,032 -58,042 -34,530 2104 Information Systems Salaries 505,102 800,843 830,226 295,741 325,124 2105 Counseling Services Salaries 69,666 33,821 80,592 -35,845 10,926 2106 Media Services Salaries 58,250 125,324 142,302 67,074 84,052 2107 Classified Confidential 634,219 693,825 634,219 693,825 2108 Classified Managers Salaries 381,882 992,041 1,110,904 610,159 729,022 2109 Night Differential 44,537 45,800 0 1,263 -44,537 2110 Financial Aid Salaries 222,518 264,884 356,682 42,366 134,164 11/27/2012 8:53 AM ImperIal Valley College 60 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 2 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 11-12 12-13 Change Change Actual Budget Budget 06/07 to11/12 06/07 to12/13 2111 Library Salaries 142,940 115,586 129,324 -27,354 -13,616 11/27/2012 8:53 AM Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 61 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 3 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 11-12 12-13 Change Change Actual Budget Budget 06/07 to11/12 06/07 to12/13 2113 Custodial Salaries 544,347 468,482 508,644 -75,866 -35,703 2114 Grounds Salaries 182,670 276,432 241,980 93,762 59,310 2115 Skilled Crafts Salaries 340,775 405,959 447,347 65,184 106,572 2119 Professional Salaries 314,080 167,958 190,037 -146,122 -124,043 2120 Secretarial/Clerical Salaries 1,265,133 1,165,881 1,266,866 -99,252 1,733 2123 Reprographics Salaries 102,594 76,469 55,908 -26,125 -46,686 2199 CL Non-Instr Retiree Incentive 0 102,807 102,807 2210 Child Care Salaries 0 0 2211 Tutorial Salaries 295,184 314,061 368,928 18,877 73,744 2299 CL Instr Retiree Incentive 0 7,457 7,457 2301 Student Salaries 215,244 211,038 229,098 -4,206 13,854 2307 Lead Tutor 0 0 2309 Student Salaries ARWS 100% 0 0 2311 Directors Salaries 93,214 0 -93,214 -93,214 2313 Life Guards - Instruction 0 0 2314 Life Guards - Comm Svc Summer 0 0 2315 Life Guards - Comm Svc Other 0 0 2398 Professional Growth Salaries 8,825 10,300 9,725 1,475 900 2399 Overtime and Extra Pay 64,118 1,299 7,147 -62,819 -56,971 2410 Student Tutorial Salaries 85,701 18,937 18,937 -66,764 -66,764 2420 Nonstudent Tutorial Salaries 49,087 103,212 103,212 54,125 54,125 Benefits 6,750,809 8,422,573 8,795,771 1,671,764 2,044,962 3110 STRS Certificated Instructional 919,092 904,621 916,058 -14,471 -3,034 3111 STRS Certificated Non instructional 222,803 346,162 362,985 123,359 140,182 3120 STRS Classified Non instructional 16,982 28,021 11,039 -16,982 3210 PERS Certificated Instructional 160 0 -160 -160 3211 PERS Certificated Noninstructional 5,648 14,637 8,990 -5,648 3220 PERS Classified Noninstructional 440,117 671,755 713,387 231,638 273,270 3221 PERS Classified Instructional 25,696 34,305 38,010 8,608 12,313 3310 FICA-Certificated 51,365 4,155 -47,210 -51,365 3311 FICA Certificated Non instructional 11,946 1,624 -10,322 -11,946 3320 FICA-Classified 309,606 395,053 404,926 85,447 95,319 3321 FICA Classified Instructional 21,364 19,934 21,575 -1,430 211 3330 Medicare-Certificated 153,855 159,938 161,004 6,083 7,149 3331 MEDICARE Certificated Non instructi 31,359 63,033 63,797 31,674 32,438 3340 Medicare-Classified 75,492 97,555 94,700 22,063 19,208 3341 Medicare-Classified Instructional 4,997 4,662 5,046 -335 49 3411 H&W - Certificated Noninstructional 264,406 475,986 516,804 211,580 252,398 3420 Health Insurance - Classified 1,400,241 2,026,407 2,186,311 626,166 786,070 3421 Health Insurance - Classified Instr 58,207 64,383 89,885 6,176 31,678 3440 Health Insurance/IP - Certificated 826,370 833,000 833,000 6,630 6,630 3450 Self Insurance Expense 3451 Retirees' H&W Co-pay 60,000 60,000 3510 SUI - Certificated 13,953 177,911 178,770 163,958 164,817 3511 SUI - Certificated Non instruction -1,266 70,983 70,837 72,249 72,103 3520 SUI - Classified 6,965 108,042 105,150 101,077 98,185 11/27/2012 8:53 AM ImperIal Valley College 62 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 4 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 11-12 12-13 Change Change Actual Budget Budget 06/07 to11/12 06/07 to12/13 3521 SUI - Classified Instructional -176 5,176 5,602 5,353 5,779 3610 Workers' Comp - Certificated 229,795 74,148 74,027 -155,647 -155,768 3611 Workers' Comp - Certificated Non in 60,242 29,583 29,523 -30,659 -30,719 3620 Workers' Comp - Classified 106,654 46,748 45,361 -59,907 -61,293 3621 Workers' Comp - Classified Instruct 14,236 2,977 3,155 -11,259 -11,081 3630 Workers' Comp - Other -5,629 5,629 5,629 3910 Early Retirement Incentives 273,039 685,000 728,177 411,961 455,138 Supplies 719,093 687,343 695,243 -31,750 -23,850 4210 Books 0 1,841 1,741 1,841 1,741 4220 Magazines, Periodicals, CD's 36,164 5,901 5,678 -30,263 -30,486 4320 Instructional Supplies and Material 198,974 93,741 141,370 -105,233 -57,604 4321 Drama Supplies 732 -732 -732 4323 HR 100 lab fees/materials 5,695 5,695 5,695 5,695 4324 Training Supplies 4325 Music Supplies 4326 Art Fees 0 4340 Media Materials 9,822 5,693 6,028 -4,129 -3,794 4401 Non-Instructional Supply / Material 83,891 114,057 105,981 30,166 22,090 4402 Student Incentives 4410 Safety Supplies 4420 Maintenance Supplies 0 682 672 682 672 4422 Fertilizer and Pesticides 1,948 1,614 1,948 1,614 4424 Soil Amendments 4430 Custodial Supplies 52,417 73,089 73,089 20,672 20,672 4440 Grounds Supplies 25,151 27,555 25,159 2,404 8 4450 Health Supplies 4,978 3,622 3,057 -1,356 -1,921 4455 Copying/Printing 180,928 136,577 118,710 -44,351 -62,218 4458 Microfilm 8,915 3,100 3,100 -5,815 -5,815 4459 Audio Visual/Sings -159 0 159 159 4460 Office Supplies 62,430 51,421 50,230 -11,009 -12,200 4461 Copier Supplies -77,218 20,658 19,638 97,876 96,856 4462 Diploma Abatement 10 3,100 5,400 3,090 5,390 4463 Repair Supplies 108,419 104,509 93,882 -3,909 -14,537 4465 Auto Repair Parts 368 125 118 -243 -250 4466 Checks and Forms 3,301 2,189 2,079 -1,112 -1,222 4470 Gas and Oil 10,396 11,027 12,527 631 2,131 4471 Tires 247 1,219 1,219 972 972 4472 Transportation Tools -137 273 273 410 410 4480 Hospitality 9,463 19,321 17,983 9,858 8,520 Services 2,618,818 3,013,934 3,002,542 395,116 383,724 5110 Consulting Services 185,691 360,984 263,522 175,293 77,831 5120 Plant and Soil Analysis Services 5190 Models 240 1,400 1,330 1,160 1,090 5191 Officials and Referees 25,476 26,904 28,368 1,428 2,892 11/27/2012 8:53 AM Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 63 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 5 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 11-12 12-13 Change Change Actual Budget Budget 06/07 to11/12 06/07 to12/13 5194 Other Personal Services 0 5198 Security Systems 3,319 -3,319 -3,319 5210 Travel - Mileage 9,036 7,699 4,634 -1,337 -4,402 5211 Travel - Student Expenses, Stipends 1,095 1,123 1,936 28 841 5212 Travel - Cultural and Education Act 0 700 700 5213 Travel - Student Room and Board 7,480 0 500 -7,480 -6,980 5220 Travel - Staff Conferences 160,802 156,198 152,644 -4,603 -8,158 5221 Board District #1 Travel 1,250 1,188 1,250 1,188 5222 Board District #2 Travel 1,250 1,188 1,250 1,188 5223 Board District #3 Travel 3,500 3,325 3,500 3,325 5224 Board District #4 Travel 1,250 1,188 1,250 1,188 5225 Board District #5 Travel 1,250 1,188 1,250 1,188 5226 Board District #6 Travel 1,250 1,188 1,250 1,188 5227 Board District #7 Travel 1,250 1,188 1,250 1,188 5310 Memberships and Dues 64,230 97,821 96,125 33,590 31,895 5320 Electronic Database Subscription 67,851 69,000 67,851 69,000 5410 Property and Liability Insurance 154,486 180,461 180,461 25,975 25,975 5420 Crop Insurance 5421 Irrigation Cost 5440 Student Insurance Expense 43,872 70,192 70,192 26,320 26,320 5510 Natural Gas 38,909 23,400 24,336 -15,509 -14,573 5511 Natural Gas - Science Bldg 3,600 3,744 3,600 3,744 5520 Electricity 628,542 533,088 568,491 -95,454 -60,051 5530 Water Trash Sewer 2,096 485 -1,611 -2,096 5540 Telephone and Data Lines 60,000 43,792 57,735 -16,208 -2,265 5541 Cell Phones and Pagers 1,859 5,882 5,320 4,023 3,461 5550 Laundry 331 605 529 274 198 5570 Disposal 17,323 22,300 22,300 4,977 4,977 5620 Other Maintenance Agreements 337,723 601,077 636,728 263,353 299,005 5621 Copier Maintenance Agreements 56,295 84,198 99,779 27,903 43,484 5625 Indirect Cost Expense 5630 Facility/Equipment Rental Expense 230,505 166,839 171,947 -63,666 -58,558 5632 Vehicle Rental Expense 21,162 36,952 40,774 15,790 19,612 5640 Equipment Repairs 39,710 37,226 47,831 -2,484 8,121 5710 Audit Expense 14,500 18,800 18,800 4,300 4,300 5730 Legal Expense 101,355 95,351 96,772 -6,004 -4,583 5731 Election Expense 0 0 5740 Advertising Expense 78,899 20,625 17,618 -58,274 -61,281 5815 Bank Fees 27,034 33,000 31,350 5,966 4,316 5820 Athletics Entry Fees 3,229 5,070 4,888 1,841 1,659 5830 Permits and Bio-assay 20,526 24,683 29,682 4,157 9,156 5840 Physical Exam/Class B Lic Fees 7,565 4,109 4,181 -3,456 -3,384 5850 Fingerprinting 6,155 3,250 2,250 -2,905 -3,905 5860 Postage 40,935 46,283 55,562 5,349 14,627 5890 Other Expense 228,438 221,686 182,060 -6,752 -46,378 0 Capital Outlay 185,530 215,714 27,000 30,184 -158,530 0 11/27/2012 8:53 AM ImperIal Valley College 64 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 6 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 11-12 12-13 Change Change Actual Budget Budget 06/07 to11/12 06/07 to12/13 6129 Sites and Site Improvements 0 0 6130 Sites and Site Improvements - DEP 50,000 50,000 6310 Library Books 62,237 28,434 17,500 -33,803 -44,737 6490 Equipment - New Eqp under 5000 104,297 39,589 9,500 -64,708 -94,797 6502 Capital Software 18,000 -18,000 -18,000 6590 Capital Equipment DEP Asset 996 97,691 96,695 -996 Total Expenses 30,890,355 34,553,130 35,635,227 3,662,775 4,744,872 Other outgo 153,833 864,000 864,000 710,167 710,167 Total Exp/other 31,044,188 35,417,130 36,499,227 4,372,942 5,455,039 11/27/2012 8:53 AM Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 65 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 7 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 11-12 12-13 Change Change Actual Budget Budget 06/07 to11/12 06/07 to12/13 Surplus/-deficit 2,912,156 -1,300,350 -3,343,792 -4,212,506 -6,255,948 Other estimated adjustments to reserves Night Differencial -50,348 Computer equipment replacement program -184,000 English teacher - Dean tfr to classroom -120,634 Summer School printing/supplies -5,626 Student Insurance increase -36,663 Health Insurance Increase 10% - Oct 2012 - June 2013 -248,699 Adjustment after Governor's May Revise Budget (additional r 0 Retirees Insurance Copay adjustment -60,000 Items to be added to budget that decrease reserves -705,970 Retirement savings 450,000 Carry over into 12-13 200,000 Deans 363,088 Calexico - not including CL layoffs 138,894 CL Layoffs * 960,000 Reduce security budget 7,680 Items that reduce budgeted expenses and increase reserves 2,119,662 Subtotal net estimated increase to reserves 1,413,692 Amount still needed to increase reserves to 5% 1,600,000 Total net estimated increase to reserves 3,013,692 New projected deficit 2,912,156 -1,300,350 -330,100 Cost per funded FTES 4,775.29 5,424.84 5,923.28 Sal & Ben % of Inc 80.59% 89.80% 96.24% Sal & Ben % of Exp 88.15% 86.50% 86.30% * This amount will change depending on the final results of bumping/negotiations 11/27/2012 8:53 AM ImperIal Valley College 66 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 1 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 7,086 7,426 7,132 7,290 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,800 7,206 6,929 7,102 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 07-08 08-09 0910 10-11 11-12 12-13 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Federal 2312 1,631 1,101 1,116 1,116 State Revenue 26,974,347 27,528,780 29,910,045 29,100,134 30,246,772 27,661,494 27,084,595 Local Revenue 6,981,997 7,716,514 7,877,467 7,429,777 7,263,236 6,454,170 6,069,724 Total Revenue 33,956,344 35,245,294 37,789,824 36,531,542 37,511,109 34,116,780 33,155,435 Cert Salaries 14,788,954 17,245,304 18,176,241 17,973,028 16,542,597 15,064,383 15,489,017 1110 Instruction Regular Salaries 7,369,083 7,140,959 7,616,480 7,333,902 7,035,534 6,875,039 7,246,857 1160 Instruction Substitute Salaries 72,654 105,650 127,717 101,323 74,082 84,111 84,111 1199 CE Instr Retirement Incentive 0 0 0 0 0 67,008 1208 Learning Support Specialist 11,524 29,634 48,321 31,402 0 0 1209 Instructional Media Designer 9,192 23,637 38,541 43,280 35,680 38,183 39,329 1210 Counselor/Library Studies 929,473 1,024,810 972,973 1,165,389 1,172,230 1,114,611 1,110,213 1211 Project Directors Salaries 529,148 82,709 84,754 96,125 90,024 97,121 100,034 1212 Deans Salaries 465,516 536,949 633,963 555,232 1,191,293 1,003,428 1,095,549 1213 Associate Dean 0 505,678 643,392 603,055 0 0 1214 Vice Presidents Salaries 271,155 406,947 402,454 463,934 565,221 525,252 566,148 1215 President's Salary 158,557 217,007 190,000 211,150 234,515 195,000 200,000 1216 Associate Vice President 0 0 0 0 119,636 29,074 1220 Counselor Overload Salaries 44,026 67,774 85,561 75,570 48,664 45,820 54,050 1270 Chair/Coordinator Salaries 274,297 1,134,803 1,070,967 1,131,449 988,938 1,013,795 1,031,886 1299 CE Non-Instr Retiree Incentive 0 0 0 0 0 26,200 1310 Non Credit Instruction 129,709 252,531 193,509 89,384 37,024 36,445 30,000 1320 FT Summer Teaching 658,201 800,229 694,113 924,493 407,492 289,973 289,973 1325 FT Winter Teaching 699,526 882,801 876,446 625,284 0 0 1330 Adjunct Faculty Salaries 1,940,979 2,502,858 2,787,984 2,577,717 2,624,774 2,012,078 2,031,578 1340 Overload Full-Time Faculty Salaries 982,577 1,327,306 1,417,096 1,480,236 1,434,372 1,185,680 1,185,680 1370 Coaching Salaries 60,535 58,950 61,838 64,860 162,259 129,414 131,281 1390 Instr - Prof Exp/Extra Duty Agmt 0 0 0 74,678 136,758 104,250 104,250 1410 Part-Time Counse/Library Salaries 2,041 11,723 22,419 30,242 36,027 80,000 80,000 1411 Part-Time Instr Specialist 156,377 110,142 153,543 214,130 52,140 0 1490 Non-Instr Prof Exp/Extra Duty Agmt 19,680 17,819 23,820 53,380 75,863 78,701 73,078 1491 Stipends 4,704 0 0 0 0 0 1492 Meetings Pay 0 4,388 30,353 26,813 20,075 33,200 35,000 CL Salaries 5,827,150 6,626,714 7,045,888 7,296,083 7,289,021 7,149,183 7,625,654 2101 Admin Tech Salaries 43,248 48,397 49,607 49,470 36,310 49,099 54,228 2102 Admission/Student Records Salaries 489,473 594,335 626,903 590,615 508,834 506,753 505,710 2103 Accounting Salaries 308,562 364,611 373,969 420,016 294,367 250,520 274,032 2104 Information Systems Salaries 505,102 616,580 748,371 834,890 856,293 800,843 830,226 2105 Counseling Services Salaries 69,666 71,210 75,000 69,646 36,688 33,821 80,592 2106 Media Services Salaries 58,250 93,156 142,827 155,424 167,152 125,324 142,302 2107 Classified Confidential 634,219 693,825 2108 Classified Managers Salaries 381,882 429,768 519,383 812,915 975,217 992,041 1,110,904 2109 Night Differential 44,537 46,538 47,875 43,849 46,799 45,800 0 2110 Financial Aid Salaries 222,518 264,928 312,146 289,652 279,438 264,884 356,682 2111 Library Salaries 142,940 179,274 181,995 152,504 142,080 115,586 129,324 11/5/2012 11:32 AM Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 67 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 2 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 7,086 7,426 7,132 7,290 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,800 7,206 6,929 7,102 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 07-08 08-09 0910 10-11 11-12 12-13 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 2113 Custodial Salaries 544,347 542,458 561,104 589,290 636,184 468,482 508,644 2114 Grounds Salaries 182,670 249,980 238,668 208,664 165,405 276,432 241,980 2115 Skilled Crafts Salaries 340,775 407,319 413,414 442,474 444,734 405,959 447,347 2119 Professional Salaries 314,080 385,885 390,874 386,057 365,585 167,958 190,037 2120 Secretarial/Clerical Salaries 1,265,133 1,473,214 1,529,964 1,488,485 1,535,287 1,165,881 1,266,866 2123 Reprographics Salaries 102,594 76,713 93,091 100,728 87,101 76,469 55,908 2199 CL Non-Instr Retiree Incentive 0 0 0 0 0 102,807 2210 Child Care Salaries 0 0 0 0 5,326 0 2211 Tutorial Salaries 295,184 288,934 310,359 322,165 333,294 314,061 368,928 2299 CL Instr Retiree Incentive 0 0 0 0 0 7,457 2301 Student Salaries 215,244 240,240 235,929 122,131 208,326 211,038 229,098 2307 Lead Tutor 0 0 0 0 0 0 2309 Student Salaries ARWS 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2311 Directors Salaries 93,214 0 0 0 0 0 2313 Life Guards - Instruction 0 0 546 1,683 1,605 0 2314 Life Guards - Comm Svc Summer 0 0 8,527 3,118 3,028 0 2315 Life Guards - Comm Svc Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 2398 Professional Growth Salaries 8,825 7,400 7,375 10,575 10,538 10,300 9,725 2399 Overtime and Extra Pay 64,118 79,522 60,331 27,672 26,521 1,299 7,147 2410 Student Tutorial Salaries 85,701 113,038 91,763 29,275 22,054 18,937 18,937 2420 Nonstudent Tutorial Salaries 49,087 53,215 25,868 144,785 100,854 103,212 103,212 Benefits 6,750,809 7,600,960 8,225,548 9,082,417 8,540,090 8,422,573 8,795,771 3110 STRS Certificated Instructional 919,092 997,995 1,016,572 1,008,123 886,708 904,621 916,058 3111 STRS Certificated Non instructional 222,803 323,788 365,262 360,617 354,168 346,162 362,985 3120 STRS Classified Non instructional 16,982 13,507 13,683 26,172 27,932 28,021 3210 PERS Certificated Instructional 160 1,529 1,218 0 3211 PERS Certificated Noninstructional 5,648 12,052 12,639 13,751 28,093 14,637 3220 PERS Classified Noninstructional 440,117 507,263 578,319 598,388 658,988 671,755 713,387 3221 PERS Classified Instructional 25,696 26,089 28,813 29,770 35,056 34,305 38,010 3310 FICA-Certificated 51,365 66,441 81,263 66,066 72,800 4,155 3311 FICA Certificated Non instructional 11,946 8,111 6,664 13,995 17,255 1,624 3320 FICA-Classified 309,606 358,034 387,135 393,496 391,261 395,053 404,926 3321 FICA Classified Instructional 21,364 22,231 19,721 30,192 27,421 19,934 21,575 3330 Medicare-Certificated 153,855 173,012 181,860 181,638 164,262 159,938 161,004 3331 MEDICARE Certificated Non instructi 31,359 46,190 54,169 57,345 56,366 63,033 63,797 3340 Medicare-Classified 75,492 86,376 93,093 97,603 97,437 97,555 94,700 3341 Medicare-Classified Instructional 4,997 5,160 4,612 7,061 6,413 4,662 5,046 3411 H&W - Certificated Noninstructional 264,406 383,417 284,234 413,289 394,090 475,986 516,804 3420 Health Insurance - Classified 1,400,241 1,670,730 1,929,621 2,169,605 2,146,241 2,026,407 2,186,311 3421 Health Insurance - Classified Instr 58,207 55,356 10,874 42,026 36,058 64,383 89,885 3440 Health Insurance/IP - Certificated 826,370 881,122 925,225 1,155,266 859,304 833,000 833,000 3450 Self Insurance Expense 676 3451 Retirees' H&W Co-pay 50,000 60,000 3510 SUI - Certificated 13,953 17,430 74,715 53,907 136,764 177,911 178,770 3511 SUI - Certificated Non instruction -1,266 -996 -8,043 -7,374 -17,040 70,983 70,837 3520 SUI - Classified 6,965 6,916 23,439 37,528 73,828 108,042 105,150 3521 SUI - Classified Instructional -176 -179 -1,351 -1,295 -2,656 5,176 5,602 3610 Workers' Comp - Certificated 229,795 141,594 88,186 72,343 73,280 74,148 74,027 3611 Workers' Comp - Certificated Non in 60,242 43,346 28,693 25,306 27,548 29,583 29,523 3620 Workers' Comp - Classified 106,654 67,651 45,594 36,506 39,459 46,748 45,361 11/5/2012 11:32 AM ImperIal Valley College 68 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 3 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 7,086 7,426 7,132 7,290 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,800 7,206 6,929 7,102 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 07-08 08-09 0910 10-11 11-12 12-13 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 3621 Workers' Comp - Classified Instruct 14,236 10,744 2,698 5,417 2,757 2,977 3,155 3630 Workers' Comp - Other -5,629 -3,080 -1,686 0 3910 Early Retirement Incentives 273,039 523,728 569,301 836,649 684,306 685,000 728,177 Supplies 719,093 915,535 725,353 614,964 595,327 687,343 695,243 4210 Books 0 878 1,033 781 363 1,841 1,741 4220 Magazines, Periodicals, CD's 36,164 38,877 29,165 8,595 9,463 5,901 5,678 4320 Instructional Supplies and Material 198,974 278,309 148,072 115,989 142,132 93,741 141,370 4321 Drama Supplies 732 1,604 4323 HR 100 lab fees/materials 1,432 -469 -1,724 -1,701 5,695 5,695 4324 Training Supplies 0 0 4325 Music Supplies 1,000 0 4326 Art Fees -211 -1,373 918 -2,377 0 4340 Media Materials 9,822 8,827 17,817 3,606 2,805 5,693 6,028 4401 Non-Instructional Supply / Material 83,891 96,474 96,204 67,479 91,934 114,057 105,981 4402 Student Incentives 0 4410 Safety Supplies 3,745 4420 Maintenance Supplies 0 851 478 182 715 682 672 4422 Fertilizer and Pesticides 2,786 9,735 2,115 0 1,948 1,614 4424 Soil Amendments 0 0 0 0 4430 Custodial Supplies 52,417 53,323 57,175 73,090 59,464 73,089 73,089 4440 Grounds Supplies 25,151 36,351 33,842 18,159 29,386 27,555 25,159 4450 Health Supplies 4,978 6,749 5,787 3,622 5,017 3,622 3,057 4455 Copying/Printing 180,928 194,727 173,618 139,558 100,901 136,577 118,710 4458 Microfilm 8,915 2,922 2,891 3,024 3,406 3,100 3,100 4459 Audio Visual/Sings -159 -633 -448 -248 -167 0 4460 Office Supplies 62,430 90,265 79,121 65,937 53,876 51,421 50,230 4461 Copier Supplies -77,218 -48,021 -85,303 -27,738 -7,909 20,658 19,638 4462 Diploma Abatement 10 2,076 0 3,070 3,065 3,100 5,400 4463 Repair Supplies 108,419 111,085 121,385 99,190 67,846 104,509 93,882 4465 Auto Repair Parts 368 129 848 20 0 125 118 4466 Checks and Forms 3,301 4,126 1,592 2,190 2,074 2,189 2,079 4470 Gas and Oil 10,396 13,343 12,471 11,027 10,801 11,027 12,527 4471 Tires 247 2,149 1,098 1,219 988 1,219 1,219 4472 Transportation Tools -137 0 0 273 273 273 4480 Hospitality 9,463 16,116 20,614 20,885 23,244 19,321 17,983 Services 2,618,818 3,189,707 3,502,029 3,030,097 3,106,721 3,013,934 3,002,542 5110 Consulting Services 185,691 409,284 487,761 519,416 188,847 360,984 263,522 5120 Plant and Soil Analysis Services 2,000 0 0 0 5190 Models 240 120 1,700 1,400 105 1,400 1,330 5191 Officials and Referees 25,476 26,631 33,861 28,600 27,963 26,904 28,368 5194 Other Personal Services 0 0 5198 Security Systems 3,319 22 5210 Travel - Mileage 9,036 9,108 11,478 4,669 3,862 7,699 4,634 5211 Travel - Student Expenses, Stipends 1,095 4,198 1,044 1,123 658 1,123 1,936 5212 Travel - Cultural and Education Act 0 0 700 5213 Travel - Student Room and Board 7,480 3,972 7,236 3,529 0 0 500 5220 Travel - Staff Conferences 160,802 230,102 194,085 150,843 145,334 156,198 152,644 5221 Board District #1 Travel 562 1,453 216 1,250 1,188 11/5/2012 11:32 AM Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 69 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 4 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 7,086 7,426 7,132 7,290 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,800 7,206 6,929 7,102 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 07-08 08-09 0910 10-11 11-12 12-13 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget 5222 Board District #2 Travel 2,000 1,500 1,528 1,250 1,188 5223 Board District #3 Travel 3,331 4,957 3,330 3,500 3,325 5224 Board District #4 Travel 1,684 1,583 1,174 1,250 1,188 5225 Board District #5 Travel 1,126 88 0 1,250 1,188 5226 Board District #6 Travel 1,779 1,500 0 1,250 1,188 5227 Board District #7 Travel 1,396 796 1,888 1,250 1,188 5310 Memberships and Dues 64,230 82,963 100,954 96,143 98,285 97,821 96,125 5320 Electronic Database Subscription 2,025 28,506 25,316 66,042 67,851 69,000 5410 Property and Liability Insurance 154,486 165,990 168,753 181,557 179,824 180,461 180,461 5420 Crop Insurance 153 447 0 0 5421 Irrigation Cost 2,142 5,887 0 0 5440 Student Insurance Expense 43,872 64,594 67,009 70,192 68,623 70,192 70,192 5510 Natural Gas 38,909 49,800 23,736 23,402 31,676 23,400 24,336 5511 Natural Gas - Science Bldg 3,607 3,600 3,744 5520 Electricity 628,542 648,453 698,496 581,092 702,321 533,088 568,491 5530 Water Trash Sewer 2,096 2,815 2,461 3,101 3,428 485 5540 Telephone and Data Lines 60,000 68,470 76,202 66,537 53,625 43,792 57,735 5541 Cell Phones and Pagers 1,859 1,939 5,077 3,915 4,816 5,882 5,320 5550 Laundry 331 1,303 1,023 845 122 605 529 5570 Disposal 17,323 22,872 18,667 12,353 23,402 22,300 22,300 5620 Other Maintenance Agreements 337,723 411,820 518,610 399,387 631,407 601,077 636,728 5621 Copier Maintenance Agreements 56,295 62,500 60,975 60,734 92,964 84,198 99,779 5625 Indirect Cost Expense 0 0 5630 Facility/Equipment Rental Expense 230,505 397,476 400,946 340,748 259,469 166,839 171,947 5632 Vehicle Rental Expense 21,162 37,664 40,197 38,371 36,920 36,952 40,774 5640 Equipment Repairs 39,710 52,106 52,185 36,539 37,468 37,226 47,831 5710 Audit Expense 14,500 14,600 18,100 18,800 19,000 18,800 18,800 5730 Legal Expense 101,355 100,729 35,065 75,763 121,908 95,351 96,772 5731 Election Expense 0 95,572 5740 Advertising Expense 78,899 74,059 75,724 42,743 15,087 20,625 17,618 5815 Bank Fees 27,034 30,257 43,730 33,422 33,253 33,000 31,350 5820 Athletics Entry Fees 3,229 2,660 5,535 4,410 3,575 5,070 4,888 5830 Permits and Bio-assay 20,526 14,434 20,670 30,658 23,813 24,683 29,682 5840 Physical Exam/Class B Lic Fees 7,565 8,223 6,598 5,174 3,853 4,109 4,181 5850 Fingerprinting 6,155 6,564 3,529 3,449 3,595 3,250 2,250 5860 Postage 40,935 67,460 37,636 54,323 39,012 46,283 55,562 5890 Other Expense 228,438 110,222 140,696 96,035 178,328 221,686 182,060 Capital Outlay 185,530 231,542 236,706 90,879 75,205 215,714 27,000 6129 Sites and Site Improvements 0 9,526 21,557 20,515 0 6130 Sites and Site Improvements - DEP 15,000 0 50,000 6310 Library Books 62,237 56,879 44,499 11,150 23,285 28,434 17,500 6490 Equipment - New Eqp under 5000 104,297 77,795 88,218 53,027 34,389 39,589 9,500 6502 Capital Software 18,000 22,694 34,762 283 6590 Capital Equipment DEP Asset 996 49,647 47,670 5,905 17,531 97,691 Total Expenses 30,890,355 35,809,762 37,911,765 38,087,468 36,148,961 34,553,130 35,635,227 Other outgo 153,833 1,000,831 920,917 705,689 842,411 864,000 864,000 Total Exp/other 31,044,188 36,810,593 38,832,682 38,793,157 36,991,372 35,417,130 36,499,227 11/5/2012 11:32 AM ImperIal Valley College 70 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 5 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 7,086 7,426 7,132 7,290 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,800 7,206 6,929 7,102 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 07-08 08-09 0910 10-11 11-12 12-13 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Surplus/-deficit 2,912,156 -1,565,299 -1,042,858 -2,261,615 519,737 -1,300,350 -3,343,792 Beginning Reserves 5,736,495 8,443,154 6,857,894 5,038,578 2,776,963 3,296,700 1,996,350 Prior year adjmts -205,497 -776,458 Adjusted Beg Bal 5,530,998 6,081,436 Board designated Reserve 250,000 Board designated Reserve 0 Ending Reserves 8,443,154 6,877,855 5,038,578 2,776,963 3,296,700 1,996,350 -1,347,442 % of unrestricted GF 27.20% 18.68% 13.0% 7.2% 8.9% 5.64% -3.7% Other estimated adjustments to reserves Night Differencial -50,348 Computer equipment replacement program -184,000 English teacher - Dean tfr to classroom -120,634 Summer School printing/supplies -5,626 Student Insurance increase -36,663 Health Insurance Increase 10% - Oct 2012 - June 2013 -248,699 Adjustment after Governor's May Revise Budget (additional revenue was added $244,550 0 Retirees Insurance Copay adjustment -60,000 Items to be added to budget that decrease reserves -705,970 Retirement savings 450,000 Carry over into 12-13 200,000 Deans 363,088 Calexico - not including CL layoffs 138,894 CL Layoffs * 960,000 Reduce security budget 7,680 Items that reduce budgeted expenses and increase reserves 2,119,662 Subtotal net estimated increase to reserves 1,413,692 Amount still needed to increase reserves to 5% 1,600,000 0 Total net estimated increase to reserves 3,013,692 New projected reserves 8,443,154 6,877,855 5,038,578 2,776,963 3,296,700 1,996,350 1,666,250 % of unrestricted GF 27.20% 18.68% 13.0% 7.2% 8.9% 5.6% 5.0% New projected deficit 2,912,156 -1,565,299 -1,042,858 -2,261,615 519,737 -1,300,350 -330,100 Cost per funded FTES 4,775.29 5,413.32 5,388.94 5,598.67 5,208.59 5,424.84 5,923.28 11/5/2012 11:32 AM Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 71 APPENDICES Imperial Valley College Page 6 7 year funding analysis Unrestricted General Fund Only June 6, 2012 Actual FTES 6,501 7,086 7,426 7,132 7,290 6,529 6,162 Funded FTES 6,501 6,800 7,206 6,929 7,102 6,529 6,162 Growth 0.00% 0.00% 2.40% 0.00% 0.00% 06-07 07-08 08-09 0910 10-11 11-12 12-13 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Sal & Ben % of Inc 80.59% 89.30% 88.51% 94.03% 86.30% 89.80% 96.24% Sal & Ben % of Exp 88.15% 85.50% 86.13% 88.55% 87.51% 86.50% 86.30% * This amount will change depending on the final results of bumping/negotiations 11/5/2012 11:32 AM ImperIal Valley College 72 APPENDICES Appendix C - Multiyear Model Imperial Community College District Budget Planning Scenarios August 20, 2012 2012-13 Fiscal Year and Beyond Assuming that tax measure passes Total 12-13 FTES budgeted 6,110 Plan to restore 449 FTES over three years Unrestricted General Fund FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Budgeted Revenue 6,110 FTES $ 32,895,832 $ 33,523,332 $ 34,317,642 $ 35,116,517 Adjustments (restoration) 100, 174, 175 FTES 456,500 794,310 798,875 Anticipated mandates revenue (new in 12-13) 171,000 - Ongoing 171,000Mandates - - - Revised Revenue $ 33,523,332 $ 34,317,642 $ 35,116,517 $ 35,116,517 Budgeted On going Expenses $ 34,310,972 $ 34,844,597 $ 36,273,697 $ 37,117,328 Step Increases Faculty - 211,850 203,523 189,156 Ongoing 33,000Labor reduction Step Increases Classified 257,934 256,409 249,319 237,627 Step Increases Administrators - 37,079 38,190 34,819 One time 184,441Bond pmt transfer Step Increases Confidential staff - 36,964 33,748 35,324 One time 93,000VP Student Svcs Step Increases Classified Managers - 34,817 30,129 28,313 One time 257,934CL Salary Freeze Health Benefits Increase 25% (9 months 12-13) 708,290 573,977 573,977 573,977 One time 100,000Adjunct rate Health Benefits employee contribution (399,600) - - - VESIP cost 278,005 - - SERP (285,256) 635,375Planned one time Expenditure Reductions Subtotal expenditures $ 34,877,597 $ 36,273,697 $ 37,117,328 $ 38,216,544 Planned Expenditure Reductions (ongoing) $ 33,000 $ - $ - $ - Subtotal ongoing expenditures 34,844,597 36,273,697 37,117,328 38,216,544 Planned Expenditure Reductions (one time) 635,375 Revised expenditures 34,209,222 36,273,697 37,117,328 38,216,544 Revenue less Expense $ (685,889) $ (1,956,055) $ (2,000,811) $ (3,100,026) - Beginning fund bal 12-13 5.84% $ 1,996,350 $ 1,710,461 $ (245,594) $ (2,246,405) Beginning fund balance adjustment - one time $ 400,000 Revised beginning fund balance $ 2,396,350 $ 1,710,461 $ (245,594) $ (2,246,405) Estimated Ending Bal 12-13 5.00% 1,710,461 (245,594) (2,246,405) (5,346,431) Amount of Fund Balance Spent $ (685,889) $ (1,956,055) $ (2,000,811) $ (3,100,026) District General Reserve 5% 1,710,461 1,813,685 1,855,866 1,910,827 Difference $ (0) $ (2,059,279) $ (4,102,271) $ (7,257,258) Please note the figures used are estimates based on current information and subject to change. Potential and significant costs/reductions such as pending CSEA labor agreement issues, and other increases/decreases will affect fund balance and could increase/decrease planned expenditure reductions. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 73 APPENDICES Imperial Community College District Budget Planning Scenarios August 20, 2012 2012-13 Fiscal Year and Beyond Assuming that tax measure does not pass Total 12-13 FTES 6,110 7.3% workload reduction 446 Total 12-13 FTES budgeted 5,664 Plan to restore 416 FTES over three years Unrestricted General Fund FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 Budgeted Revenue $ 30,865,230 $ 31,492,730 $ 32,136,395 $ 32,935,270 Adjustments (restoration) 100, 141, 175 FTES 456,500 643,665 798,875 Anticipated mandates revenue 171,000 - Ongoing 171,000Mandates - Revised Revenue $ 31,492,730 $ 32,136,395 $ 32,935,270 $ 32,935,270 Budgeted On going Expenses $ 34,310,972 $ 34,910,597 $ 36,339,697 $ 37,153,199 Ongoing 33,000Labor reduction Step Increases Faculty - 211,850 203,523 189,156 Step Increases Classified 257,934 256,409 249,319 237,627 Step Increases Administrators - 37,079 38,190 34,819 One time 700,000Bond pmt transfer Step Increases Confidential staff - 36,964 33,748 35,324 One time 93,000VP Student Svcs Step Increases Classified Managers - 34,817 - - One time 257,934CL Salary Freeze Health Benefits Increase 25% (9 months 12-13) 708,290 573,977 573,977 573,977 One time 100,000Adjunct rate Health Benefits employee contribution (399,600) - - - VESIP cost 278,005 - - SERP (285,256) 1,150,934Planned One time Reductions Subtotal expenditures $ 34,877,597 $ 36,339,697 $ 37,153,199 $ 38,224,102 Planned Expenditure Reductions (ongoing) $ 33,000 Subtotal ongoing expenditures 34,910,597 36,339,697 37,153,199 38,224,102 Planned Expenditure Reductions (one time) 1,150,934 Revised expenditures 33,759,663 36,339,697 37,153,199 38,224,102 Revenue less Expense $ (2,266,932) $ (4,203,302) $ (4,217,929) $ (5,288,832) - - Beginning fund bal 12-13 5.91% $ 1,996,350 $ 129,418 $ (4,073,884) $ (8,291,813) Beginning fund balance adjustment - one time $ 400,000 Revised beginning fund balance $ 2,396,350 $ 129,418 $ (4,073,884) $ (8,291,813) Estimated Ending Bal 12-13 0.37% 129,418 (4,073,884) (8,291,813) (13,580,645) Amount of Fund Balance Spent $ (2,266,932) $ (4,203,302) $ (4,217,929) $ (5,288,832) District General Reserve 5% 12-13 1,687,983 1,816,985 1,857,660 1,911,205 Difference $ (1,558,565) $ (5,890,869) $ (10,149,473) $ (15,491,850) Please note the figures used are estimates based on current information and subject to change. Potential and significant costs/reductions such as pending CSEA labor agreement issues, and other increases/decreases will affect fund balance and could increase/decrease planned expenditure reductions. ImperIal Valley College 74 APPENDICES Appendix D - Enrollment and FTES Analysis APPENDIX D‐1 IMPERIAL VALLEY COLLEGE 2008‐2009 FTES Summer WSCH Summer FTES Fall WSCH Fall FTES Spring WSCH Spring FTES Total WSCH Total FTES (+ Winter) (+Winter) Credit Weekly Census Day 60,568.63 1,845.90 58,855.82 1,793.70 119,424.45 3,639.60 Weekly Census Evening 31,620.98 963.69 31,056.28 946.48 62,677.26 1,910.16 Daily Census Day 1,704.60 3.25 79,377.40 151.20 246,732.99 469.97 327,814.99 624.41 Daily Census Evening 14,679.00 27.96 54,973.96 104.71 69,652.96 132.67 Positive Attendance Day 6,940.74 13.22 20,247.14 38.57 39,239.12 74.74 66,427.00 126.53 Positive Attendance Evening 0.00 0.00 6,761.00 12.88 6,761.00 12.88 Alt Att Weekly Day 3,090.50 94.19 3,586.00 109.29 6,676.50 203.47 Alt Att Weekly Evening 1,032.00 31.45 819.00 24.96 1,851.00 56.41 Alt Att Daily Day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31,400.00 59.81 31,400.00 59.81 Alt Att Daily Evening 528.00 1.01 5,856.00 11.15 6,384.00 12.16 8,645.34 16.47 211,143.65 3,153.95 479,280.17 3,607.69 699,069.16 6,778.11 Noncredit Positive Attendance 18,195.75 34.66 27,943.50 53.23 33,107.25 63.06 79,246.50 150.95 CREDIT + NONCREDIT 26,841.09 51.13 239,087.15 3,207.18 512,387.42 3,670.75 778,315.66 6,929.05 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 75 APPENDICES APPENDIX D‐2 IMPERIAL VALLEY COLLEGE 2009‐2010 FTES Summer WSCH Summer FTES Fall WSCH Fall FTES Spring WSCH Spring FTES Total WSCH Total FTES (+ Winter) (+Winter) Credit Weekly Census Day 67,470.09 2,056.23 64,315.14 1,960.08 131,785.23 4,016.31 Weekly Census Evening 31,228.51 951.73 30,079.90 916.72 61,308.41 1,868.45 Daily Census Day 219,809.36 418.68 72,248.15 137.62 205,359.83 391.16 497,417.34 947.46 Daily Census Evening 24,348.60 46.38 51,837.20 98.74 76,185.80 145.12 Positive Attendance Day 12,883.29 24.54 19,484.09 37.11 33,148.05 63.14 65,515.43 124.79 Positive Attendance Evening 8,406.00 16.01 14,344.00 27.32 22,750.00 43.33 Alt Att Weekly Day 3,496.72 106.57 3,813.91 116.23 7,310.63 222.80 Alt Att Weekly Evening 892.50 27.20 784.22 23.90 1,676.72 51.10 Alt Att Daily Day 41,568.00 79.18 0.00 0.00 11,025.00 21.00 52,593.00 100.18 Alt Att Daily Evening 630.00 1.20 5,810.00 11.07 6,440.00 12.27 274,260.65 522.40 228,204.66 3,380.04 420,517.25 3,629.36 922,982.56 7,531.80 Noncredit Positive Attendance 10,553.00 20.10 19,602.25 37.34 20,871.00 39.75 51,026.25 97.19 CREDIT + NONCREDIT 284,813.65 542.50 247,806.91 3,417.38 441,388.25 3,669.12 974,008.81 7,629.00 ImperIal Valley College 76 APPENDICES APPENDIX D‐3 IMPERIAL VALLEY COLLEGE 2010‐2011 FTES Summer WSCH Summer FTES Fall WSCH Fall FTES Spring WSCH Spring FTES Total WSCH Total FTES Credit Weekly Census Day 65,241.84 1,988.32 62,912.28 1,917.33 128,154.12 3,905.65 Weekly Census Evening 32,486.17 990.05 32,400.68 987.45 64,886.85 1,977.50 Daily Census Day 0.00 45,912.42 87.45 39,759.10 75.73 85,671.52 163.18 Daily Census Evening 17,387.70 33.12 16,036.80 30.55 33,424.50 63.67 Positive Attendance Day 0.00 69,810.73 132.97 54,386.69 103.59 124,197.42 236.57 Positive Attendance Evening 0.00 0.00 429.00 0.82 429.00 0.82 Alt Att Weekly Day 5,088.00 155.06 5,769.40 175.83 10,857.40 330.89 Alt Att Weekly Evening 529.50 16.14 495.25 15.09 1,024.75 31.23 Alt Att Daily Day 0.00 5,075.00 9.67 2,625.00 5.00 7,700.00 14.67 Alt Att Daily Evening 472.50 0.90 0.00 0.00 472.50 0.90 0.00 0.00 242,003.86 3,413.69 214,814.20 3,311.39 456,818.06 6,725.08 Noncredit Positive Attendance 0.00 0.00 17,955.00 34.20 15,183.00 28.92 33,138.00 63.12 CREDIT + NONCREDIT 0.00 0.00 259,958.86 3,447.89 229,997.20 3,340.31 489,956.06 6,788.20 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 77 APPENDICES APPENDIX D‐4 IMPERIAL VALLEY COLLEGE 2011‐2012 FTES Summer WSCH Summer 2011 FTES Summer 2012 WSCH Summer 2012 FTES Fall WSCH Fall FTES Spring WSCH Spring FTES Total WSCH Total FTES Credit Weekly Census Day 60,784.01 1,852.47 56,149.32 1,711.22 116,933.33 3,563.68 Weekly Census Evening 26,700.47 813.73 22,449.40 684.17 182,073.56 1,497.90 Daily Census Day 10,501.80 20.00 132,923.69 253.19 41,414.26 78.88 40,489.72 77.12 92,405.78 429.20 Daily Census Evening 12,681.20 24.15 11,104.80 21.15 23,786.00 45.31 Positive Attendance Day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51,764.30 98.60 46,905.63 89.34 98,669.93 187.94 Positive Attendance Evening 299.20 0.57 0.00 0.00 299.20 0.57 Alt Att Weekly Day 4,814.64 146.73 5,406.10 164.76 10,220.74 311.49 Alt Att Weekly Evening 63.00 1.92 0.00 0.00 13,871.00 1.92 Alt Att Daily Day 0.00 0.00 13,808.00 26.30 1,858.00 3.54 1,952.00 3.72 3,810.00 33.56 Alt Att Daily Evening 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 146,731.69 0.00 10,501.80 20.00 146,731.69 279.49 200,379.08 3,020.59 184,456.97 2,751.48 395,337.85 6,071.57 Noncredit Positive Attendance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,906.00 22.68 17,854.00 34.01 29,760.00 56.69 CREDIT + NONCREDIT 10,501.80 20.00 146,731.69 279.49 212,285.08 3,043.27 202,310.97 2,785.49 425,097.85 6,128.25 ImperIal Valley College 78 APPENDICES APPENDIX D‐5 FUNDED/UNFUNDED CREDIT FTES HISTORY Base FTES Funded FTES Unfunded FTES % Unfunded FTES Actual FTES Funded Growth Workload Reduction Stability FTES 2006‐2007 6,448.16 6,551.02 0.00 0.00% 6,551.02 102.86 0.00 0.00 2007‐2008 6,551.02 6,656.30 226.30 3.40% 6,882.60 105.28 0.00 0.00 2008‐2009 6,853.96 7,275.29 204.27 2.81% 7,479.56 417.06 0.00 0.00 2009‐2010 7,071.02 6,831.44 203.20 2.97% 7,034.64 0.00 259.19 0.00 2010‐2011 6,831.44 7,038.03 188.78 2.68% 7,226.81 206.58 0.00 0.00 2011‐2012 6,499.95 6,071.57 0.00 0.00% 6,071.57 0.00 538.08 428.38 FUNDED/UNFUNDED CDCP NONCREDIT FTES HISTORY Base FTES Funded FTES Unfunded FTES % Unfunded FTES Actual FTES Funded Growth Workload Reduction Stability FTES 2006‐2007 0.00 10.64 0.00 0.00% 10.64 10.64 0.00 0.00 2007‐2008 10.64 21.35 23.01 107.78% 44.36 10.71 0.00 0.00 2008‐2009 21.11 54.16 16.18 29.87% 70.34 33.05 0.00 0.00 2009‐2010 51.35 35.81 0.00 0.00% 35.81 0.00 18.35 0.00 2010‐2011 35.81 15.45 0.00 0.00% 15.45 0.00 20.36 0.00 2011‐2012 14.27 8.43 0.00 0.00% 8.43 0.00 1.18 5.84 FUNDED/UNFUNDED OTHER NONCREDIT FTES HISTORY Base FTES Funded FTES Unfunded FTES % Unfunded FTES Actual FTES Funded Growth Workload Reduction Stability FTES 2006‐2007 35.99 110.03 0.00 0.00% 110.03 74.04 0.00 0.00 2007‐2008 110.03 125.49 33.24 26.49% 158.73 15.46 0.00 0.00 2008‐2009 125.15 80.61 16.18 20.07% 96.79 0.00 44.54 0.00 2009‐2010 75.70 61.38 0.00 0.00% 61.38 0.00 15.54 0.00 2010‐2011 61.38 47.67 0.00 0.00% 47.67 0.00 13.71 0.00 2011‐2012 44.03 36.93 0.00 0.00% 36.93 0.00 3.64 7.10 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 79 APPENDICES APPENDIX D‐6 SPRING 2012 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 56,149.32 56,149.32 Weekly Census Evening 22,449.40 22,449.40 Daily Census Day 40,489.72 2,530.61 Daily Census Evening 11,104.80 694.05 Positive Attendance Day 46,905.63 2,931.60 Positive Attendance Evening 0.00 0.00 Alt Att Weekly Day 5,406.10 5,406.10 Alt Att Weekly Evening 0.00 0.00 Alt Att Daily Day 1,952.00 122.00 Alt Att Daily Evening 0.00 0.00 184,456.97 90,283.08 216.11 417.76 24.57 FALL 2011 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 60,784.01 60,784.01 Weekly Census Evening 26,700.47 26,700.47 Daily Census Day 41,414.26 2,588.39 Daily Census Evening 12,681.20 792.58 Positive Attendance Day 51,764.30 3,235.27 Positive Attendance Evening 299.20 18.70 Alt Att Weekly Day 4,814.64 4,814.64 Alt Att Weekly Evening 63.00 63.00 Alt Att Daily Day 1,858.00 116.13 Alt Att Daily Evening 0.00 0.00 200,379.08 99,113.18 216.98 456.78 26.87 SPRING 2011 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 62,912.28 62,912.28 Weekly Census Evening 32,400.68 32,400.68 Daily Census Day 39,759.10 2,484.94 Daily Census Evening 16,036.80 1,002.30 Positive Attendance Day 54,386.69 3,399.17 Positive Attendance Evening 429.00 26.81 Alt Att Weekly Day 5,769.40 5,769.40 Alt Att Weekly Evening 495.25 495.25 Alt Att Daily Day 2,625.00 164.06 Alt Att Daily Evening 0.00 0.00 214,814.20 108,654.90 230.59 471.20 27.72 FALL 2010 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 65,241.84 65,241.84 Weekly Census Evening 32,486.17 32,486.17 Daily Census Day 45,912.42 2,869.53 Daily Census Evening 17,387.70 1,086.73 Positive Attendance Day 69,810.73 4,363.17 Positive Attendance Evening 0.00 0.00 Alt Att Weekly Day 5,088.00 5,088.00 Alt Att Weekly Evening 529.50 529.50 Alt Att Daily Day 5,075.00 317.19 ImperIal Valley College 80 APPENDICES Alt Att Daily Evening 472.50 29.53 242,003.86 112,011.66 237.75 471.13 27.71 WINTER‐SPRING 2010 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 64,315.14 64,315.14 Weekly Census Evening 30,079.90 30,079.90 Daily Census Day 205,359.83 12,834.99 Daily Census Evening 51,837.20 3,239.83 Positive Attendance Day 33,148.05 2,071.75 Positive Attendance Evening 14,344.00 896.50 Alt Att Weekly Day 3,813.91 3,813.91 Alt Att Weekly Evening 784.22 784.22 Alt Att Daily Day 11,025.00 689.06 Alt Att Daily Evening 5,810.00 363.13 420,517.25 119,088.43 266.56 446.76 26.28 FALL 2009 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 67,470.09 67,470.09 Weekly Census Evening 31,228.51 31,228.51 Daily Census Day 72,248.15 4,515.51 Daily Census Evening 24,348.60 1,521.79 Positive Attendance Day 19,484.09 1,217.76 Positive Attendance Evening 8,406.00 525.38 Alt Att Weekly Day 3,496.72 3,496.72 Alt Att Weekly Evening 892.50 892.50 Alt Att Daily Day 0.00 0.00 Alt Att Daily Evening 630.00 39.38 228,204.66 110,907.62 232.43 477.17 28.07 WINTER‐SPRING 2009 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 58,855.82 58,855.82 Weekly Census Evening 31,056.28 31,056.28 Daily Census Day 246,732.99 15,420.81 Daily Census Evening 54,973.96 3,435.87 Positive Attendance Day 39,239.12 2,452.45 Positive Attendance Evening 6,761.00 422.56 Alt Att Weekly Day 3,586.00 3,586.00 Alt Att Weekly Evening 819.00 819.00 Alt Att Daily Day 31,400.00 1,962.50 Alt Att Daily Evening 5,856.00 366.00 479,280.17 118,377.29 278.95 424.37 24.96 FALL 2008 WSCH/FTEF 320 WSCH Adjusted WSCH FTEF WSCH/FTEF Avg Class Size Credit Weekly Census Day 60,568.63 60,568.63 Weekly Census Evening 31,620.98 31,620.98 Daily Census Day 79,377.40 4,961.09 Daily Census Evening 14,679.00 917.44 Positive Attendance Day 20,247.14 1,265.45 Positive Attendance Evening 0.00 0.00 Alt Att Weekly Day 3,090.50 3,090.50 Alt Att Weekly Evening 1,032.00 1,032.00 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 81 APPENDICES Alt Att Daily Day 0.00 0.00 Alt Att Daily Evening 528.00 33.00 211,143.65 103,489.08 241.50 428.53 25.21 26.57(Median Class size—2008‐2012) ImperIal Valley College 82 APPENDICES APPENDIX D‐7 CREDIT FTES/FACULTY CONTACT HOUR FTES FCH FTES/FCH Fall 2008 3,153.95 3,525.73 0.89 Winter‐Spring 2009 3,607.69 4,156.48 0.87 Summer 2009 522.40 622.93 0.84 Fall 2009 3,380.04 3,438.30 0.98 Winter‐Spring 2010 3,629.36 3,955.88 0.92 Summer 2010 522.40 565.55 0.92 Fall 2010 3413.69 3558.28 0.96 Spring 2011 3311.39 3462.00 0.96 Fall 2011 3020.59 3240.68 0.93 Spring 2012 2751.48 3204.88 0.86 Summer 2012 279.49 289.00 0.97 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 83 APPENDICES APPENDIX D-8 Straight Contact Hours by Division/Department/Semester Division Department Fall 2008 Win 2009 Spr 2009 Sum 2009 Fall 2009 Win 2010 Spr 2010 Sum 2010 Fall 2010 Spr 2011Sum 2011 Fall 2011 Spr 2012 Sum 2012 Fall 2012**Projection Only Arts, Letters, & Learning Serv English 457.00 118.00 472.00 126.00 404.00 98.00 413.00 118.00 430.00 420.00 400.00 379.00 29.00 406.00 Arts, Letters, & Learning Serv English as a Second Language 400.00 18.00 387.00 13.00 464.00 51.00 449.00 47.00 439.00 414.00 368.00 356.00 5.00 361.00 Arts, Letters, & Learning Serv Humanities & World Languages 492.00 80.00 493.00 75.00 521.50 27.00 510.50 62.00 513.50 516.00 461.00 473.50 32.00 460.00 Arts, Letters, & Learning Serv Library 7.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Economic/Workforce Development Business 201.00 20.00 199.00 17.00 161.00 8.00 183.00 19.00 169.00 192.00 152.00 164.00 17.00 168.00 Economic/Workforce Development Child Development 45.88 1.00 44.38 10.88 37.00 0.00 46.38 5.00 46.88 41.00 44.88 42.88 0.00 45.88 Economic/Workforce Development Econ Dev & Comm Ed 20.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 16.00 Economic/Workforce Development Exercise/Wellness/Sports 243.00 60.00 228.00 67.00 244.00 39.00 228.00 68.00 250.00 215.00 211.00 221.00 44.00 211.00 Economic/Workforce Development Industrial Tech 232.00 45.00 240.00 5.00 233.00 32.00 235.00 12.00 251.00 247.00 235.00 212.00 6.00 235.00 Economic/Workforce Development Public Safety 86.65 15.55 96.15 15.55 80.10 12.00 110.60 18.55 118.70 132.60 90.60 87.60 6.00 138.60 Health and Sciences Behavioral and Social Science 322.00 78.00 334.00 69.00 346.00 60.00 349.00 63.00 361.00 352.00 349.00 322.00 51.00 334.00 Health and Sciences Nursing and Allied Health 346.20 47.50 352.90 56.50 309.70 10.00 317.40 17.00 350.20 320.40 16.50 334.20 341.90 10.00 351.70 Health and Sciences Science/Math and Engineering 613.00 142.00 594.00 155.00 566.00 118.00 577.00 126.00 554.00 537.00 526.00 540.00 89.00 544.00 Student Services Disabled Student Prog and Ser 28.00 4.00 28.00 4.00 20.00 4.00 16.00 4.00 17.00 24.00 21.00 17.00 0.00 12.00 Student Services Student Services 32.00 0.00 28.00 9.00 33.00 8.00 27.00 6.00 33.00 30.00 27.00 27.00 0.00 27.00 3,525.73 629.053,527.43 622.933,438.30 467.003,488.88 565.553,558.283,462.00 16.503,240.683,204.88 289.00 3,311.18 4,156.48 3,955.88 ImperIal Valley College 84 APPENDICES Appendix E - Academic Program Evaluations Appendix E 1 Imperial Valley College Academic Program Evaluations for Redesign Project Alcohol and Drug Studies Music Anthropology Nursing RN Art Nursing VN Automotive Technology Pharmacy Technician Behavioral Science Physical Education Building Construction Technology and SpecializationsP hysical Science Business Accounting Technician Pre‐Engineering Business Administration Psychology Business Administrative Assistant Spanish – Native Speaker Business Financial Services Spanish ‐ Non‐Native Speaker Business Management Water Treatment Systems Technology Business Marketing Welding Technology Business Office Technician Child Development Child Development – Administration Specialization Child Development – Associate Teacher Child Development – Infant/Toddler Specialization Child Development – School‐Age Specialization CIS Communication Arts Computer Science Correctional Science Court Services Specialist Crop Science DSPS Electrical Technology and Specializations Electrical Trades EMS Energy Efficiency Technology English ESL Fire Technology Firefighter I (Academy) French History Human Relations Journalism Legal Assistant Mathematics Mathematics‐ Basic Skills Medical Assistant Medical Services Multimedia and Web Development Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM noitaulavE margorP cimedacA tcejorP ngisedeR roF ESRUN DERETSIGER – GNISRUN .T.F # % gvA % gvA fo # fo # ytivitcudorP rof FETF SETF .xam .gvA xam gvA fo # lliF .xaM llornE margorP ytlucaf sseccuS noitelpmoC ni seergeD ni .fitreC )FETF÷ SETF( eroc stneduts # tneduts # noitces etaR llornE 21S yllautca htiw rof etaR sraey 6 sraey 6 ssalc .ae ni elbissop 21S s 21S no desab thguat ro ,C ,B ,A sessalc eroc 11’S‐50’F 11’S‐50’F 21S 21S ssalc ssalc rep spaC lla P 21S 21S 7 %80.59 %43.99 653 A/N 37.4 67.31 21.56 17.21 5.31 42 %49 423 503 NR gnisruN %3.6 %3.2 %3.1 ____ woL ____ muideM %79 __X__ hgiH :dnameD tnemllornE tneceR ____ gninilceD __X__ elbatS ____ gniworG :dnameD erutuF rof noitcejorP )"dnameD" ro "kooltuO" dellac osla( tnemyolpmE fo snoitcejorP lanoitapuccO ‐‐ IML sgninepO gvA egnahC % esaercnI # tnemyolpmE detcejorP tnemyolpmE~ rY tcejorP – rY ~ aerA 012,01 7.52 008,06 002,792 004,632 8102 ‐ 8002 ainrofilaC 92 5.02 051 088 037 8102 ‐ 8002 lairepmI lanoitcerroc lacol 2 eht ni segnahc dna ,tnemeriter ,revonruT .retteb si ymonoce eht nehw seicnacav erom .g.e ;ymonoce eht htiw setautculf tekram robal eht yllacoL  .evoba atad eht ni detcelfer syawla ton tcapmi na evah osla snoitutitsni .segnahc tekram eht litnu ytnuoC lairepmI ot etacoler ot sesrun emos gnihsup si ogeiD naS ni sesrun NSB rof dnameD  nepo lliw seicnacav ynam detapicitna si ti ,sevorpmi ymonoce nehw dna gniworg ylidaets si sesrun tnemeriter‐erp fo rebmun ehT  YCNEICIFFE DNA YTIVITCUDORP LANOITCURTSNI .A ylraen ot desaerced saw stneduts NR retsemes ts1 detpecca fo rebmun eht ,denilced tegdub etats eht sa oga sraey owT .tneserp ta elbats si noitareneG SETF  saw dna tekram robal lacol eht ot dengila sah tub ,noitareneg ETF latot detcapmi sah sihT .semulov desaercni dednuf stnarg nehw sraey roirp fo ½ .eettimmoC yrosivdA eht yb detroppus .doog si %49 fo etaR lliF egareva ehT .margorp NR eht ni sretsemes evisseccus 3 eht fo hcae stcapmi hcihw ,retsemes ts1 ni 42‐02~ ot detimil si eziS ssalC  %001 peek tub ,serutcel rof )daol derahs %05( gnihcaet maet desu hcihw fo 4 ,margorp eht ni sessalc 41 era ehT .WOL YLEMERTXE si evoba oitar FETF/SETF  dah evah ew raey tsap eht gniruD .slliks dna lacinilc ni soitar rehcaet‐ot‐tneduts detadnam eht htiw ylpmoc ot )strohoc lacinilc rof( noitces‐bus hcae rof daol .rehtruf neve oitar FETF/SETF eht derewol yltneuqesbus dna sretsemes elpitlum ni strohoc lacinilc rellams neve deriuqer taht tnarg YCNEICIFFE DNA YTIVITCUDORP TNEDUTS .B .%29~ ‐ HGIH si sseccuS tnedutS  %69~ ‐ HGIH si noitneteR tnedutS  .HGIH si noitneter taht demussa eb yam ti margorp retsemes 3 evisseccus a ni %69 fo etar noitneter a htiw ,revewoH .elbaliava ton si atad ecnetsisreP  .%69~ HGIH si etar noitelpmoC :eergeD fo tnemeveihcA/noitelpmoC  .elbaliava ton si atad sseccuS refsnarT  )erutcel maet( 142 ,032 ,122 ,)erutcel maet( 132 ,522 ,422 ,112 ,)erutcel maet( 521 ,121 ,321 ,311 ,211 ,)erutcel maet( 111 ,011 SRUN :EROC 85 APPENDICES ImperIal Valley College noitaulavE margorP cimedacA tcejorP ngisedeR roF ESRUN DERETSIGER – GNISRUN NOISSIM EGELLOC FO TNEMLLIFLUF .C ON – tnemeriuqeR noitaudarG  gniredisnoC .402/ 101 YSP dna ,021 yrotsiH ,001 hceepS ,101 hsilgnE ,101 HTNA ro COS ,ygoloiborciM ,ygoloisyhP ,ymotanA seriuqer tub ,ON – repeeketaG  erom dna evoba sesruoc eht ot SETF fo rebmun doog a seilppus margorp NR gnisruN eht ,noitirtta margorp retfa ,deveihca seerged fo rebmun eht .setisiuqererp rieht dna secneics eht rof yllacificeps yrosivdA ehT .yawa selim 001 revo si margorp tsesolc txen eht dna ytnuoc eht ni eno ylno eht si margorp NR ehT – SEY – tekram boj lacol ot sdnopseR  rieht sa noitadnemmocer eht egnahc yam yeht llaf siht ,revewoh ,margorp eht ot snoissimda fo rebmun eht ni noitcuder eht htiw deerga eettimmoC .erusnecil retfa tnemyolpme dnuof evah setaudarg tnecer ehT .yltnecer desaercni evah seicnacav snoitisop NR lacol eht rof sesrun fo %08‐57 seilppus margorp NR ehT – deen ytinummoc rehto ot sdnopseR  ).cte ,seigetarts yranilpicsidretni ,smsinahcem yreviled evitanretla ,tnempoleved mulucirruc wen ,sesseccus( :SISYLANA YTINUTROPPO .D 1 ni NSB ot NR rof 5921 BA etatilicaf lliw etatS ogeiD naS htiw mulucirruc ’detutitsbus‘ dna ssecorp tnemllorne‐oc eht gniyfidiloS :tnempoleveD mulucirruC  .NSB rieht niatta ot sNR erom pleh osla lliw xineohP fo ytisrevinU htiw esiwekil gnioD .raey ,31‐21 ni snoitpo dirbyh emos gnirolpxe eb lliw tub ,enilno sessalc yna od yltnerruc ton seod margorp NR ehT :yrevileD evitanretlA  tnacilppa eht htiw pleh lliw setisiuqererp ygoloiborcim dna ,ygoloisyhp ,ymotana deriuqer eht ot sgnireffo esruoc eht gnisaercnI :seigetartS yranilpicsidretnI  .sraey 2 tsomla rof desaerced neeb sah hcihw ,ezis loop gnirps/llaf eht sa etis cirtaihcysp ogeiD naS ni tnemecalp etatilicaf dluoc sesruoc gnisrun cirtaihcysp rof snoisses remmus no noitcirtser eht gnivomeR :rehtO  .stsoc ytlucaf ni esaercni na ta emoc dluow tub ,ssecorp eht ytilicaf dluow noitator remmus A .detcapmi ylereves era ’stols‘ )semoctuo fo ytilauq dna ,ytivitcudorp ,epocs ,ezis fo noitaredisnoc gnidulcni( :NOITAULAVE ”HTLAEH“ MARGORP FO YRAMMUS .E noissim eht sevres margorp NR ehT .ytinummoc gnisrun dna erachtlaeh lacol eht yb detroppus dna ,elbaiv ,elbats ,dehsilbatse si margorp NR ehT ‐ YHTLAEH  SETF fo emulov eht rof HGIH si tnemniatta eergeD ehT .erusnecil etats dna noitelpmoc fo smret ni semoctuo evitisop sah margorp ehT .ytinummoc eht dna .supmac no tsehgih eht fo eno – )erutcel maet( 142 ,032 ,122 ,)erutcel maet( 132 ,522 ,422 ,112 ,)erutcel maet( 521 ,121 ,321 ,311 ,211 ,)erutcel maet( 111 ,011 SRUN :EROC 86 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM noitaulavE margorP cimedacA tcejorP ngisedeR roF ROJAM ECNEICS LACISYHP .T.F # % gvA % gvA fo # .fitreC fo # ytivitcudorP rof FETF SETF .xam .gvA xam gvA fo # lliF .xaM llornE margorP ytlucaf sseccuS oitelpmoC seergeD sraey 6 ni SETF( eroc # tneduts # noitces etaR llornE 21S yllautca htiw rof etaR n sraey 6 ni 11’S‐50’F )FETF÷ ssalc stneduts elbissop 21S s 21S no desab thguat ro ,C ,B ,A eroc 11’S‐50’F 21S .ae ni ssalc rep spaC lla P sessalc 21S ssalc 21S 21S 4 %36.18 %48.19 4 A/N 81.01 31.3 68.13 12 92.92 7 %37 502 741 LACISYHP %4.1 %1.1 %6.0 ECNEICS ____ woL ___ muideM %201 __X__ hgiH :dnameD tnemllornE tneceR ____ gninilceD _X elbatS ____ gniworG :dnameD erutuF rof noitcejorP YCNEICIFFE DNA YTIVITCUDORP LANOITCURTSNI .A dna ,ecneicS lacisyhP ,ecneicS lareneG ,ecneicS retupmoC eht ni dnuof era ynam sa etar tnerruc ta eunitnoc lliw sessalc ’eroc‘ eseht rof noitareneG SETF  eerged 1 taht deton eb dluohs ti ,deveihca srebmun eht no desab eerged eht rof noitareneg SETF eht noitseuq yam eno elihW .srojam seidutS ytisrevinU era ohw stneduts 22 yltnerruc era ereht ,noitidda nI .raey cimedaca 1102‐0102 eht ni dedrawa erew 3 dna ,raey cimedaca 0102‐9002 eht ni dedrawa saw sgnireffo esruoc ni noitcuder llarevo desuac snoitcuder ecrofkrow etatS eht ,osla etoN .sraey roirp naht erom si hcihw ,srojam ecneics lacisyhp sa deralced .selcyc dednetxe erom ro retsemes rehto yreve ot sgnireffo esruoc fo gnireggats ro/dna level‐rehgih era eseht taht gniredisnoC .retteb elttil a eb dluoc %37 fo etaR lliF egareva ehT .tnemeerga ATC dna tnemngissa moor eht no desab si eziS ssalC  .detcepxe eb dluow etar llif rewol a gnivah ,setisiuqererp level‐hgih htiw sesruoc .sessalc eroc eseht fo srogir cimedaca eht dna ,etar llif etaredom ,ezis ssalc rellams ylthgils ot eud ytivitcudorp wol yletaredom swohs FETF/SETF  :detseuqeR noitamrofnI lanoitiddA lareneG ,ecneicS larutaN B aerA ni noitpo na sa detsil si 001 RTSA .retsemes yreve dereffo era snoitces 4 yllacipyt dna esruoc 1 sah enilpicsid a sa ymonortsA  6.1~ APG )d dna ,%92~ sseccuS )c ,)thgin ta ssel( %05~ noitneteR )b ,%48~ etaR lliF )a :gva ATAD .seidutS ytisrevinU dna ,ecneicS lacisyhP ,ecneicS ,ecneicS lareneG ,ecneicS larutaN B aerA ni snoitpo sa detsil era sesruoc 011 & 001 LOEG ehT .retsemes yreve dereffo snoitces 2 htiw sesruoc 2 sah ygoloeG  0.2~ APG )d dna ,%25~ sseccuS )c ,% 97~ noitneteR )b ,%68~ etaR lliF )a :gva ATAD .seidutS ytisrevinU dna ,ecneicS lacisyhP YCNEICIFFE DNA YTIVITCUDORP TNEDUTS .B .%28~ sessalc ’eroc‘ eht rof HGIH si sseccuS tnedutS  %29~ htiw eroc eht rof HGIH si noitneteR tnedutS  .elbaliava ton si atad ecnetsisreP .dedrocer neeb evah seerged 4 ylno taht gnitseretni si ti etar noitelpmoc hgih eht gniredisnoC .nwonknu si ecnetsisreP  retteb eb yam stnedutS .)sraey 6 ni 4#( tnemeveihca eerged WOL eht si yrotcidartnoC .%29~ HGIH si etar noitelpmoC :eergeD fo tnemeveihcA/noitelpmoC  ot elbanu neeb sah CVI ,snoitces 001 MEHC fo rebmun desaerced eht ot eud ,oslA .EMS no sisahpme na htiw seidutS ytisrevinU eht ro CMT a htiw devres .eerged eht gninrae erofeb refsnart tsuj yam sessalc yrtsimehC cinagrO ekat ot tnaw ohw stneduts taht elbissop si tI .602 MEHC dna 402 MEHC reffo .elbaliava ton si atad sseccuS refsnarT  )scisyhP( 402 ,202 ,002 SYHP ,)suluclaC( 491 ,291 HTAM )yrtsimehC( 202 ,002 MEHC :EROC 87 APPENDICES ImperIal Valley College noitaulavE margorP cimedacA tcejorP ngisedeR roF ROJAM ECNEICS LACISYHP NOISSIM EGELLOC FO TNEMLLIFLUF .C .secneicS larutaN B aerA dna gniknihT lacitylanA A aerA llifluf nac sesruoc eroc eht fo emos sa SEY – tnemeriuqeR noitaudarG  .eroc sa detsil sessalc eht fo erom ro 2 edulcni srojam seidutS ytisrevinU & ,ecneicS lacisyhP ,ecneicS lareneG ,ecneicS retupmoC – SEY – repeeketaG  ON ‐ tekram boj lacol ot sdnopseR  NWONKNU – deen ytinummoc rehto ot sdnopseR  ).cte ,seigetarts yranilpicsidretni ,smsinahcem yreviled evitanretla ,tnempoleved mulucirruc wen ,sesseccus( :SISYLANA YTINUTROPPO .D .USDS htiw ssecorp ralimis ro CMT eht hguorht seerged fo rebmun ylbissop dna setar refsnart esaercni ot laitnetop si erehT :ytinutroppO mulucirruC  dluohs enilpicsid hcae morf ytlucaf ;srojam seidutS ytisrevinU dna ecneicS lareneG ni detsil osla era sesruoc eroc gnitsixe ehT :ygetartS yranilpicsidretnI  .rojam hcae ni rof ycnerruc dna ycnaveler erolpxe sisylanA rehtO  ot snoitces 001 MEHC hguone reffo ton od eW .srotcurtsni emit‐trap on htiw ,srotcurtsni yrtsimehc emit‐lluf 5.1 evah ylno ew ,yltnerruC :yrtsimehC rof dereffo snoitces fo rebmun dna tnemllorne htob ,rotcurtsni yrtsimehC lanoitidda na htiW .202 MEHC dna 002 MEHC ni tnemllorne gnorts niatniam dluow snoitces 001 MEHC erom gnivaH .sessalc yrtsimehC level‐reppu ekat ot seitinutroppo erom stneduts gnivig ,esaercni dluoc 202 MEHC dna 002 MEHC .eerged eht etelpmoc ot ekat dluow stneduts desucof‐yrtsimehc taht sesruoc era hcihw ,602 MEHC dna 402 MEHC hcaet ot CVI wolla osla .srebmun etauqeda evah dluohs os ,sesruoc scisyhP eht ot etisiuqererp a si 291 htaM tub ,deilppus ton 491 dna 291 htaM rof SETF ot cificeps ataD :htaM .mulucirruc scisyhP egnahc ot deen a si ereht leef ton od ytlucaf eht dna elbats dna gnorts si scisyhp si tnemllornE :scisyhP 291 neht ,.qererp 091 neht ,.qererp 041 htaM neht ,.qererp 09 htaM ‐ HTAM setisiuqererP 002 scisyhP ot roirp htaM evoba lla ‐ SYHP setisiuqererP )gnisruN rof tnemeriuqer( ygoloisyhP & ymotanA dna 202 ,002 MEHC ot etisiuqererp a si 001 MEHC ‐ MEHC setisiuqererP )semoctuo fo ytilauq dna ,ytivitcudorp ,epocs ,ezis fo noitaredisnoc gnidulcni( :NOITAULAVE ”HTLAEH“ MARGORP FO YRAMMUS .E eht fo ytilauq ehT .refsnart dna srojam dengila rof stnemeriuqer rieht htiw stneduts edivorp dna elbats era sesruoc ecneicS lacisyhP ’eroc‘ ehT ‐ YHTLAEH  tuohtiw ytilibisaef enimreted ot derolpxe eb dluohs ytivitcudorp/ycneiciffe evorpmi ot sevitanretlA .doog si ,%28~ fo etaR sseccuS tnedutS ,semoctuo .semoctuo ytilauq no tcapmi fo rebmun wol eht ot eud stneduts eht sevres retteb yam rojam CMT ecneicS lacisyhP a ro seidutS ytisrevinU eht fi enimreted ot deen eW – ETAREDOM  .srebmun eht detcapmi evah yam snoitcuder decrof etats eht niaga etoN .sraey erom ro eerht tsap eht ni seerged )scisyhP( 402 ,202 ,002 SYHP ,)suluclaC( 491 ,291 HTAM )yrtsimehC( 202 ,002 MEHC :EROC 88 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 89 APPENDICES Appendix F - Study Agreement ImperIal Valley College 90 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 91 APPENDICES ImperIal Valley College 92 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 93 APPENDICES ImperIal Valley College 94 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM