FCMAT
Ojai Unified School District Report
fiscal health risk analysis (FHRA)
Read the report at Ojai Unified School District ↗
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
January 13, 2023
Ojai Unified
School District
Michael H. Fine
Chief Executive Officer
January 13, 2023
Tiffany Morse, Ph.D., Superintendent
Ojai Unified School District
414 East Ojai Ave.
Ojai, CA 93023
Dear Superintendent Morse:
In September 2022, the Ojai Unified School District and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assis-
tance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to conduct a review of the district’s fiscal
health. The agreement states that FCMAT would perform the following:
1. Prepare an analysis using the 20 factors in FCMAT’s Fiscal Health Risk Analysis and
identify the district’s specific risk rating for fiscal insolvency.
This report contains the study team’s analysis.
FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve the Ojai Unified School District and extends thanks to
all the staff for their assistance during fieldwork.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Fine
Chief Executive Officer
Michael H. Fine • Chief Executive Officer
1300 17th Street – City Centre, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 • Tel. 661-636-4611 • Fax 661-636-4647
www.fcmat.org
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Contents
About FCMAT ..................................................................................................3
Introduction ......................................................................................................5
Background ...............................................................................................................5
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis Guidelines ...............................................................5
Study Team ................................................................................................................6
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis .......................................................................... 7
Summary .................................................................................................................... 7
About the Analysis ...................................................................................................8
Areas of High Risk....................................................................................................8
Budget and Fiscal Status ....................................................................................................8
Material Weakness Questions ...........................................................................................8
Score Breakdown by Section ...............................................................................10
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis Questions ................................................................11
Annual Independent Audit Report ....................................................................................11
Budget Development and Adoption ...............................................................................12
Budget Monitoring and Updates ......................................................................................13
Cash Management ...............................................................................................................16
Charter Schools ....................................................................................................................17
Collective Bargaining Agreements ..................................................................................17
Contributions and Transfers ..............................................................................................19
Deficit Spending (Unrestricted General Fund) .............................................................19
Employee Benefits ...............................................................................................................19
Enrollment and Attendance ..............................................................................................20
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 1
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Facilities ..................................................................................................................................21
Fund Balance and Reserve for Economic Uncertainty ..............................................22
General Fund – Current Year ...........................................................................................22
Information Systems and Data Management ..............................................................23
Internal Controls and Fraud Prevention ........................................................................23
Leadership and Stability ....................................................................................................25
Multiyear Projections ..........................................................................................................26
Non-Voter-Approved Debt and Risk Management .....................................................27
Position Control ...................................................................................................................28
Special Education ................................................................................................................29
Risk Score, 20 numbered sections only ...........................................................29
District Fiscal Solvency Risk Level, all FHRA factors ....................................29
Appendix ........................................................................................................30
Appendix A: Study Agreement ............................................................................31
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 2
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
About FCMAT
FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial, human
resources 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, support the training
and development of chief business officials and help to create efficient organizational operations. FCMAT’s data management
services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and inform
instructional program decisions.
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 LEA 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.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FCMAT has continued to make adjustments in the types of support provided based on the changing dynamics of K-14 LEAs and
the implementation of major educational reforms. FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools,
workshops and professional learning opportunities to help LEAs operate more effectively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and
data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) division of FCMAT assists the California
Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). CSIS
also hosts and maintains the Ed-Data website (www.ed-data.org) and provides technical expertise to the Ed-Data partnership: the
California Department of Education, EdSource and FCMAT.
FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. AB 107
in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsibility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. AB 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’
mission.
AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal
procedures and accountability standards. AB 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that
have received emergency state loans.
In January 2006, Senate Bill 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s
services to those types of LEAs.
On September 17, 2018 AB 1840 was signed into law. This legislation changed how fiscally insolvent districts are administered
once an emergency appropriation has been made, shifting the former state-centric system to be more consistent with the
principles of local control, and providing new responsibilities to FCMAT associated with the process.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 3
seidutS
fo
rebmuN
Studies by Fiscal Year
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 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform more than 1,400 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 Michael H. Fine, Chief Executive Officer, with
funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to request-
ing agencies.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 4
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Introduction
Background
Historically, FCMAT has not engaged directly with school districts showing distress until it has been invited to do so by the district
or the county superintendent. The state’s 2018-19 Budget Act provides for FCMAT to offer more proactive and preventive services
to fiscally distressed school districts by automatically engaging with a district under the following conditions:
• Disapproved budget
• Negative interim report certification
• Three consecutive qualified interim report certifications
• Downgrade of an interim certification by the county superintendent
• “Lack of going concern” designation
Under these conditions, FCMAT will perform a fiscal health risk analysis to determine the level of risk for insolvency. FCMAT
has updated its Fiscal Health Risk Analysis (FHRA) tool that weights each question based on high, moderate and low risk. The
analysis will not be performed more than once in a 12-month period per district, and the engagement will be coordinated with the
county superintendent and build on their oversight process and activities already in place per Assembly Bill (AB) 1200. There is no
cost to the county superintendent or to the district for the analysis.
This fiscal health risk analysis is being conducted because the district had the following condition, under which an analysis is
required by the 2018-19 State Budget Act.
• Downgrade of district’s 2021-22 second interim certification by the county superintendent
Located in Ventura County, the Ojai Unified School District has a five-member governing board and serves approximately
2,244 students in transitional kindergarten through 12th grade. The district has also authorized one independent charter
school. According to data from the California Department of Education (CDE), student enrollment was 2,625 in 2014-15 and has
decreased each year since then. The district’s unduplicated pupil percentage, which includes those students who are English
learners, foster youth, or qualify for free or reduced-price meals, is 43.75%.
The district’s 2019-20 and 2020-21 unaudited actuals reports show deficit spending of $381,800 and $193,811, respectively, in
the unrestricted general fund. The district’s 2021-22 second interim report shows projected deficit spending of $625,215 in the
budget year, $197,000 in 2022-23 and $93,425 in 2023-24 and projects that the district will not meet the 3% minimum reserve
requirement in the budget or subsequent fiscal years.
FCMAT performed a fiscal health risk analysis to determine the district’s level of risk for insolvency. The 2021-22 second interim
was used as the financial reporting period for FCMAT’s analsysis.
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis Guidelines
FCMAT entered into a study agreement with the Ojai Unified School District on September 23, 2022, and a study team visited the
district on October 19-21, 2022 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. Following fieldwork, the study team
continued to receive, review and analyze documents. This report is the result of those activities.
FCMAT’s reports focus on systems and processes that may need improvement. Those that may be functioning well are generally
not commented on in FCMAT’s reports. In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the Associated Press Stylebook, a comprehensive
guide to usage and accepted style that emphasizes conciseness and clarity. In addition, this guide emphasizes plain language,
discourages the use of jargon and capitalizes relatively few terms.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 5
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Study Team
The team was composed of the following members:
Diane Branham Shayleen Harte
FCMAT Chief Analyst FCMAT Deputy Executive Officer
Leonel Martínez
FCMAT Technical Writer
Each team member reviewed the draft report to confirm its accuracy and to achieve consensus on the analysis.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 6
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
For TK-12 School Districts
Date(s) of fieldwork: October 19-21, 2022
District: Ojai Unified School District
Summary
Since 2019-20 several of the Ventura County Office of Education’s oversight letters have cautioned the district about projected
deficit spending. The 2021-22 second interim letter indicated that the district may not meet its financial obligations for the current
and two subsequent fiscal years. Therefore, the county office changed the district’s second interim certification from positive to
qualified, citing the following:
• A multiyear projection that shows the district did not meet its required minimum reserve for economic uncertainties in
the budget and subsequent fiscal years.
• A position control system that has inaccuracies.
• A Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) calculation with inaccuracies.
• A need to reconcile the cafeteria fund and identify any potential impact on the general fund.
At the second interim reporting period, the district projected it would not meet the state-required 3% minimum reserve for
economic uncertainties, with 2.48% general fund reserves in 2021-22, 1.83% in 2022-23, and 1.50% in 2023-24. Board Policy 3100,
adopted December 9, 2014, states:
To protect the district against unforeseen circumstances such as revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures, the
Board intends to maintain a minimum unassigned fund balance which includes a reserve for economic uncertainties 3
percent of general fund operating expenditures.
If the unassigned fund balance falls below this level due to an emergency situation, unexpected expenditures, or revenue
shortfalls, the Board shall develop a plan to recover the fund balance which may include dedicating new unrestricted
revenues, reducing expenditures, and/or increasing revenues or pursuing other funding sources.
The district’s financial system 2021-22 Cashflow Summary report shows a significant reduction in general fund ending cash, with
a balance of $943,662 as of June 30, 2022. Districts that maintain healthy financial reserves and cash balances and proactively
manage budget adjustments and reductions are in a better position to weather an economic crisis. Districts with minimal reserves
and/or cash balances may be forced to make more drastic cuts to remain fiscally solvent.
The fiscal health risk analysis shows the district is at high risk of insolvency and identifies fiscal weaknesses and areas of concern
that contribute to the district’s fiscal distress. Of significant concern is the lack of an experienced, qualified chief business official
(CBO). The former CBO resigned in June 2022, and at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the position was vacant, and the district was
relying on various outside consultants to fill this role. In addition, the business office has experienced numerous staffing changes
including an executive director of fiscal services hired in August 2022 who is new to school business, a recently filled support
staff position, a vacant support staff position, and an individual who was on extended leave at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. Also
of significant concern is the loss of revenue due to the year-over-year enrollment decline. In response to declining enrollment,
districts must make reductions in staffing and other operating expenses to compensate for revenue loss.
The district’s significant risk factors include, but are not limited to, budget development and monitoring; inadequate cash and
cash management; analysis and disclosure of tentative collective bargaining agreements; deficit spending; enrollment and
attendance projections, analysis, processes, and procedures; erosion of the unrestricted fund balance and inadequate reserves;
internal controls; and position control. These factors require considerable staff training and cross-training, documentation of
procedures, and a significant focus on budget development and monitoring activities to ensure accuracy of the budget, multiyear
financial projections and cash flow projections. These risk factors will also require the governing board and administrators to
continue to make and implement difficult decisions to ensure that the district remains fiscally solvent. Failure to act quickly and
decisively may result in fiscal insolvency and its severe consequences, including the loss of local control and governance.
The governing board is ultimately responsible for the district’s budget. Management is responsible for providing accurate
financial information based on current, reliable data so the board can make sound decisions.
District Fiscal Solvency Risk Level: High
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 7
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
About the Analysis
The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) has developed the Fiscal Health Risk Analysis (FHRA) as a tool to
help evaluate a school district’s fiscal health and risk of insolvency in the current and two subsequent fiscal years.
The FHRA includes 20 sections, each of which contains specific questions. Each section and specific question is included
based on FCMAT’s work since the inception of AB 1200; they are the common indicators of risk or potential insolvency for
districts that have neared insolvency and needed assistance from outside agencies. Each section of this analysis is critical, and
lack of attention to these critical areas will eventually lead to a district’s failure. The analysis focuses on essential functions and
processes to determine the level of risk at the time of assessment.
The greater the number of “no” answers to the questions in the analysis, the greater the potential risk of insolvency or fiscal
issues for the district. Not all sections in the analysis and not all questions within each section carry equal weight; some areas
carry higher risk and thus count more heavily in calculating a district’s fiscal stability. To help the district, narratives are included
for responses that are marked as a “no” so the district can better understand the reason for the response and actions that may be
needed to obtain a “yes” answer.
Identifying issues early is the key to maintaining fiscal health. Diligent planning will enable a district to better understand its
financial objectives and strategies to sustain a high level of fiscal efficiency and overall solvency. A district should consider
completing the FHRA annually to assess its own fiscal health risk and progress over time.
Areas of High Risk
The following sections duplicate certain questions and answers given in the Fiscal Health Risk Analysis Questions later in this
document and identify conditions that create significant risk of fiscal insolvency. The existence of an identified budget or fiscal
status or a material weakness indicated by a “no” answer to any of these items supersedes all other scoring and will elevate the
district’s overall risk level.
Budget and Fiscal Status: Is district currently without the following?: Yes No
Disapproved budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐
Negative interim report certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐
Three consecutive qualified interim report certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐
Downgrade of an interim certification by the county superintendent . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓
“Lack of going concern” designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐
Material Weakness Questions Yes No N/A
2.5 Has the district’s budget been approved unconditionally by its county office of education
in the current and two prior fiscal years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
3.4 Following board approval of collective bargaining agreements, does the district make
necessary budget revisions in the financial system to reflect settlement costs in
accordance with Education Code Section 42142? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
3.6 Has the district addressed any deficiencies the county office of education has identified
in its oversight letters in the most recent and two prior fiscal years? . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
4.3 Does the district forecast its general fund cash flow for the current and subsequent year
and update it as needed to ensure cash flow needs are known? . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
4.4 If the district’s cash flow forecast shows insufficient cash in its general fund to support its
current and projected obligations, does the district have a reasonable plan to address its
cash flow needs for the current and subsequent year? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
5.2 Has the district fulfilled and does it have evidence showing fulfillment of its oversight
responsibilities in accordance with Education Code Section 47604.32? . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 8
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Material Weakness Questions Yes No N/A
5.3 Are all charters authorized by the district going concerns and not in fiscal distress? . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
6.3 Does the district accurately quantify the effects of collective bargaining agreements
and include them in its budget and multiyear projections? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
6.4 Did the district conduct a presettlement analysis and identify related costs or savings,
if any (e.g., statutory benefits, and step and column salary increase), for the current and
subsequent years, and did it identify ongoing revenue sources or expenditure reductions
to support the agreement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
7.2 If the district has deficit spending in funds other than the general fund, has it included in
its multiyear projection any transfers from the unrestricted general fund to cover any
projected negative fund balance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
8.3 If the district has deficit spending in the current or two subsequent fiscal years, has the
board approved and implemented a plan to reduce and/or eliminate deficit spending
to ensure fiscal solvency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
10.6 Are the district’s enrollment projections and assumptions based on historical data,
industry-standard methods, and other reasonable considerations? . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
11.2 Does the district have sufficient and available capital outlay and/or bond funds to cover all
contracted obligations for capital facilities projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
12.1 Is the district able to maintain the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty in the current
year (including Fund 01 and Fund 17) as defined by criteria and standards? . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
12.2 Is the district able to maintain the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty in the two
subsequent years?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
12.3 If the district is not able to maintain the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty,
does the district’s multiyear financial projection include a board-approved plan to
restore the reserve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
19.1 Does the district account for all positions and costs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 9
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Score Breakdown by Section
Because the score is not calculated by category, category values provided are subject to minor rounding error and are provided
for information only.
1. Annual Independent Audit Report 0.5%
2. Budget Development and Adoption 4.9%
3. Budget Monitoring and Updates 7.4%
4. Cash Management 9.6%
5. Charter Schools 0.0%
6. Collective Bargaining Agreements 7.6%
7. Contributions and Transfers 1.0%
8. Deficit Spending (Unrestricted General Fund) 2.9%
9. Employee Benefits 2.2%
10. Enrollment and Attendance 4.5%
11. Facilities 0.4%
12. Fund Balance and Reserve for Economic Uncertainty 3.9%
13. General Fund - Current Year 1.2%
14. Information Systems and Data Management 1.0%
15. Internal Controls and Fraud Prevention 8.0%
16. Leadership and Stability 3.9%
17. Multiyear Projections 2.9%
18. Non-Voter-Approved Debt and Risk Management 0.0%
19. Position Control 4.9%
20. Special Education 1.1%
Score 67.9%
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 10
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis Questions
Budget and Fiscal Status: Is the district currently without the following?: Yes No
Disapproved budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐
Negative interim report certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐
Three consecutive qualified interim report certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐
Downgrade of an interim certification by the county superintendent . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓
“Lack of going concern” designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐
1. Annual Independent Audit Report Yes No N/A
1.1 Has the district corrected the most recent and prior two years’ audit findings without
affecting its fiscal health? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s 2018-19 audit report did not include any findings. The 2019-20 audit
report included two findings; one contained questioned costs of $21,646 and the other
was identified as a significant deficiency. The 2020-21 audit included two findings,
neither of which contained questioned costs. However, one was a repeat, and both
were identified as material weaknesses. Interviews indicated that corrective action
has not yet been taken to fully resolve the 2020-21 audit findings.
1.2 Has the audit report for the most recent fiscal year been completed and presented to
the board within the statutory timeline? (Extensions of the timeline granted by the State
Controller’s Office should be explained.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Education Code Section 41020(h) provides for an extension of the 2020-21 audit
report completion deadline to January 31, 2022, and Section 41020.3(b) provides for
an extension of the board presentation deadline to February 28, 2022. The district’s
2020-21 audit report was completed on April 6, 2022 and was presented to the board
on May 11, 2022.
1.3 Were the district’s most recent and prior two audit reports free of findings of
material weaknesses? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s 2020-21 audit report contained two findings, both of which were
identified as material weaknesses. One was about material misstatements of some
account balances. The other was about the untimely reconciliation of bank accounts
and compilation of capital asset records, as well as backup documents that were not
provided to the audit firm in a timely manner. The report stated that these conditions
caused the completion and issuance of the audit to be delayed.
1.4 Has the district corrected all reported audit findings from the most recent and prior
two audits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that corrective action has not yet been taken to fully resolve the
two 2020-21 audit findings, one of which was a repeat from the 2019-20 audit.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 11
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
2. Budget Development and Adoption Yes No N/A
2.1 Does the district develop and use written budget assumptions and multiyear projections
that are reasonable, are aligned with the county office of education instructions, and have
been clearly articulated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The June 16, 2021 board agenda included an item titled Public Hearing 2021-2022
Proposed Budget. The narrative document included in the board agenda materials
contained many but not all the key assumptions used to develop the budget and
multiyear projections. For example, the information provided did not include items
such as step-and-column cost percentages, the consumer price index, or percentage
increases for supplies and utility costs. The agenda materials also did not include the
Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) documents.
The same narrative document was provided in the board agenda materials when the
budget was presented for adoption at the June 21, 2021 board meeting. However,
the SACS documents provided with the agenda for this meeting were not consistent
with the narrative. For example, the revenue and ending balance on Form 01 and
the enrollment and average daily attendance (ADA) on Form 01CS did not match the
information in the narrative document.
2.2 Does the district use a budget development method other than a prior-year rollover budget,
and, if so, does that method include tasks such as review of prior year estimated actuals by
major object code and removal of one-time revenues and expenses? . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
2.3 Does the district use position control data for budget development? . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated the district uses position control for budget development.
However, the 2021-22 second interim letter from the county office noted a lack of
position control and stated that the district’s position control system did not include
health and welfare costs for approximately 40 employees, which resulted in the
expenditures being understated in the budget and two subsequent years. In addition,
not all positions and costs (e.g., vacant positions and lump sum costs for substitutes)
are accounted for in the position control system. Interviews indicated the district is
working to update the position control data to ensure it is accurate.
2.4 Does the district calculate the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) revenue correctly? . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
As indicated in the county office’s 2021-22 second interim letter, the district did not
calculate its LCFF revenue correctly. Although the district’s enrollment has declined
each year since 2014-15, its projection included flat enrollment and average daily
attendance (ADA) in the budget and subsequent years, ADA that exceeded enrollment
each year, and outdated COLA assumptions.
2.5 Has the district’s budget been approved unconditionally by its county office of education
in the current and two prior fiscal years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
2.6 Does the budget development process include input from staff, administrators, the
governing board, the community, and the budget advisory committee (if there is one)? . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s 2021-22 Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) annual update
indicates that input on the plan was obtained from numerous community, parent and
staff stakeholders.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 12
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the business office staff who were involved in 2021-
22 budget development no longer worked for the district, and specific information
about the process was not available. Although interviews indicated that educational
services staff provide school principals with their budget allocations, these principals
and department managers do not provide documented input (e.g., through budget
worksheets) regarding their budgets. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district did
not have a budget advisory committee, and interviews indicated that board members’
involvement in budget development is limited to the input they provide during the
public hearing prior to budget adoption.
2.7 Does the district budget and expend restricted funds before unrestricted funds? . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that staff have struggled to ensure expenditures are coded
correctly. For example, numerous 2021-22 expenditures that reportedly should have
been coded to COVID funding sources were instead coded to the unrestricted general
fund. It is unknown if all the coding corrections were made prior to year-end closing.
2.8 Have the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) and the budget been adopted
within statutory timelines established by Education Code Sections 42103 and 52062 and
filed with the county superintendent of schools no later than five days after adoption or
by July 1, whichever occurs first, for the current and one prior fiscal year? . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
2.9 Has the district refrained from including carryover funds in its adopted budget? . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
2.10 Other than objects in the 5700s and 7300s and appropriate abatements in accordance
with the California School Accounting Manual, does the district avoid using negative or
contra expenditure accounts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐ ☐
2.11 Does the district have a documented policy and/or procedure for evaluating the proposed
acceptance of grants and other types of restricted funds and the potential multiyear impact
on the district’s unrestricted general fund? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that the district has a process requiring anyone who wants
to write a grant proposal to obtain preapproval from cabinet. However, the district
provided no evidence of a documented policy or procedure for evaluating the
proposed acceptance and potential multiyear impact of grants and other types of
restricted funds.
2.12 Does the district adhere to a budget calendar that includes statutory due dates, major
budget development tasks and deadlines, and the staff members/departments responsible
for completing them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
The district did not provide FCMAT with a 2021-22 budget calendar. Although a
2022-23 budget calendar was provided, that timeframe was after the period under
review, and the calendar does not include all the major budget development tasks
(e.g., review and reconciliation of position control), the deadline for each task, and the
department or person responsible for completing each task. The budget calendar also
lacks the tasks and deadlines for each interim reporting period.
3. Budget Monitoring and Updates Yes No N/A
3.1 Are actual revenues and expenses consistent with the most current budget? . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s Period Statement of Revenues and Expenditures report for July 1, 2021
through January 31, 2022 was summarized and provided by object code rather than
for every account code. However, this less-detailed report shows numerous object
codes with negative balances, which indicates that revenues and expenses were
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 13
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
not consistent with the current budget. In addition, the 2020-21 audit report shows
that general fund expenditures exceeded appropriations in five major object code
categories.
3.2 Are budget revisions posted in the financial system at each interim report, at a minimum? . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
3.3 Are clearly written and articulated budget assumptions that support budget revisions
communicated to the board at each interim report, at a minimum? . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
A budget narrative document was not included in the 2021-22 first interim report
materials provided with the December 15, 2021 board agenda. This practice does not
provide the board and public enough information and time to review the materials
and formulate questions prior to the board meeting. A budget narrative document
was provided to FCMAT, and it included some but not all the key assumptions used
to develop the interim budget and multiyear financial projections. For example, the
narrative document did not include items such as step-and-column cost percentages
for each employee group, the consumer price index, or percentage increases for
supplies and utility costs. The narrative also included outdated lottery revenue
assumptions.
The 2021-22 second interim report materials provided with the March 15, 2022
board agenda contained a budget narrative that included some but not all the key
assumptions used to develop the interim budget and multiyear financial projections.
For example, the narrative document did not include items such as step-and-column
cost percentages for each employee group, the consumer price index, or percentage
increases for supplies and utility costs. Although the district’s enrollment has declined
each year since 2014-15, the narrative included flat enrollment and ADA in the budget
and subsequent years and projected that ADA would exceed enrollment in each year;
it also contained outdated COLA assumptions. The SACS documents provided with
the board agenda were not consistent with the narrative. For example, the revenue
and ending balance on Form 01I did not match the information in the narrative
document. In addition, the narrative stated, “Based on the information in the 2021-
2022 second interim report, Ojai Unified meets all its financial obligations for the
current year and two subsequent school years.” However, a review of the multiyear
projection table in the narrative document and Form 01I and the multiyear projection
spreadsheets included in the board agenda materials shows that the district did not
meet the 3% minimum reserve requirement in the budget or two subsequent fiscal
years.
3.4 Following board approval of collective bargaining agreements, does the district make
necessary budget revisions in the financial system to reflect settlement costs in accordance
with Education Code Section 42142? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
3.5 Do the district’s responses fully explain the variances identified in the criteria and standards? . ☐ ✓ ☐
The 2021-22 second interim report did not include a complete response for Criterion
1, Average Daily Attendance; Criterion 2, Enrollment; Criterion 3, ADA to Enrollment;
and Criterion 4, LCFF Revenue. The district’s enrollment has declined each year
since 2014-15, and the explanations provided did not adequately support the flat
enrollment and ADA projections or the ADA projections that exceeded enrollment in
the budget and subsequent years. The district used a separate spreadsheet rather
than SACS Form MYPI for its multiyear projections, and several criteria and standards
were not completed and/or did not include the correct budget projections for the two
subsequent fiscal years and therefore show a status of “Not Met” or indicate that the
“Change is Outside Explanation Range.”
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 14
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
3.6 Has the district addressed any deficiencies the county office of education has identified
in its oversight letters in the most recent and two prior fiscal years? . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Several of the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 county office letters cautioned the district
about projected deficit spending. The 2021-22 second interim letter states, “Our analysis
of the second interim report indicates the district may not meet its financial obligations
for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. Therefore, in accordance with Education
Code Section 42131, we are changing the second interim report from a positive to a
qualified certification.” The letter indicates that the county office’s determination was
based on: the multiyear projection, which shows the district did not meet the required
minimum reserve for economic uncertainties in the budget and subsequent fiscal years;
position control system and LCFF calculation inaccuracies; and the need to reconcile the
cafeteria fund and identify any potential impact on the general fund.
The 2019-20 and 2020-21 unaudited actuals show deficit spending of $381,800 and
$193,811, respectively, in the unrestricted general fund. The 2021-22 second interim
report projected unrestricted general fund deficit spending of $625,215 in 2021-22,
$197,000 in 2022-23 and $93,425 in 2023-24.
3.7 Does the district prohibit processing of requisitions or purchase orders when the budget
is insufficient to support the expenditure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s Period Statement of Revenues and Expenditures report for July 1, 2021
through January 31, 2022 was summarized and provided by object code, rather than
a more detailed report for every account code. However, the report shows numerous
object codes with negative balances. In addition, the 2020-21 audit report shows that
general fund expenditures exceeded appropriations in five major object code categories.
3.8 Does the district encumber and adjust encumbrances for salaries and benefits? . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s Period Statement of Revenues and Expenditures report does not show
that salaries and benefits are encumbered.
3.9 Are all balance sheet accounts in the general ledger reconciled at least at each interim
report and at year end close? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that staff do not know when balance sheet accounts are
reconciled. However, the 2020-21 audit report included a material weakness finding
regarding internal control that states:
…we identified material misstatements of balances within the district’s 2020-
2021 unaudited actuals financial report. Through review of supporting records,
we noted misstatements in the General Fund, the Building Fund and in the Non-
Major Governmental Funds.
The finding goes on to state that the district failed to clear beginning accounts
payable balances in the general fund.
3.10 For the most recent and two prior fiscal years, have the interim reports and the unaudited
actuals been adopted and filed with the county superintendent of schools within the
timelines established in Education Code? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s board minutes show that the interim and unaudited actuals reports were
provided to the board by the required deadlines. However, the 2019-20 unaudited
actuals report included with the September 9, 2020 board agenda materials did not
include SACS forms for all funds, and the 2019-20 and 2020-21 unaudited actuals
reports provided to the board were not the final documents submitted to the county
office. The scope of FCMAT’s review did not determine whether each interim report
provided to the board was the same as what was submitted to the county office.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 15
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
4. Cash Management Yes No N/A
4.1 Are accounts held by the county treasurer reconciled with the district’s and county office
of education’s reports monthly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
No documents were provided to show that the district reconciles its cash accounts
with the county treasurer.
4.2 Does the district reconcile all bank (cash and investment) accounts with bank statements
monthly? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that the district has more than 20 bank accounts and was in the
process of closing most of the accounts at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. Although
monthly bank statements and reconciliations were not provided for all the district’s
bank accounts, most of the documents provided show little to no activity in the
accounts.
Some but not all the reconciliation documents include the name and signature of the
preparer, but none include the date of preparation or the name, signature and date of
the individual who reviewed the reconciliation. In addition, the district’s 2020-21 audit
report included a material weakness finding regarding bank accounts not reconciled
timely; this was a repeat audit finding from 2019-20.
4.3 Does the district forecast its general fund cash flow for the current and subsequent year
and update it as needed to ensure cash flow needs are known? . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The documents provided show that the district completes a cash flow projection for
the current year but not for the subsequent year. In addition, the cash flow projection
provided with the 2021-22 second interim report did not balance to the 2021-22
projected budget.
4.4 If the district’s cash flow forecast shows insufficient cash in its general fund to support its
current and projected obligations, does the district have a reasonable plan to address its
cash flow needs for the current and subsequent year? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Because the district does not complete a cash flow projection for the subsequent
fiscal year, it is unable to determine if it has sufficient cash to support its projected
obligations and, if needed, develop a reasonable plan to address its cash flow needs.
4.5 Does the district have sufficient cash resources in its other funds to support its current
and projected obligations in those funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
As of the second interim reporting period, the district’s 2021-22 Cashflow Summary
report shows that the cafeteria fund had a negative ending cash balance in October
and November 2021. The second interim report included a projected transfer to the
cafeteria fund of $75,000 in 2021-22, $76,988 in 2022-23, and $78,913 in 2023-24 .
4.6 If interfund borrowing is occurring, does the district comply with Education Code
Section 42603? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
Education Code Section 42603 requires that interfund borrowing be repaid either
in the same fiscal year or in the following fiscal year if the transfer occurs in the final
120 calendar days of a fiscal year. The district’s 2020-21 Account Transaction Detail
report shows that the cafeteria fund owed the general fund $200,000: $150,000 was
a carryover balance from 2019-20 and $50,000 was borrowed on February 1, 2021.
Neither of these amounts were repaid by June 30, 2021.
The 2021-22 Account Transaction Detail report shows that numerous loans were
made from the general fund to the cafeteria and associated student body funds, but
none had been repaid as of the second interim reporting period.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 16
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
4.7 If the district is managing cash in any fund(s) through external borrowing, does the district’s
cash flow projection include repayment based on the terms of the loan agreement? . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
At its June 16, 2021 meeting, the board approved a resolution that authorized
borrowing a maximum of $5.0 million in tax and revenue anticipation notes. Rather
than using the SACS Form CASH document, the district’s 2021-22 second interim cash
flow projection was completed using a separate spreadsheet, which does not include
a line item for current loans (object 9640). Therefore, it is unclear how much the district
borrowed and when the funds were to be repaid.
5. Charter Schools Yes No N/A
5.1 Does the district have a board policy or other written document(s) regarding charter
oversight? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐ ☐
5.2 Has the district fulfilled and does it have evidence showing fulfillment of its oversight
responsibilities in accordance with Education Code Section 47604.32? . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
5.3 Are all charters authorized by the district going concerns and not in fiscal distress? . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
5.4 Has the district identified specific employees in its various departments (e.g., human
resources, business, instructional, and others) to be responsible for oversight of all
approved charter schools? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐ ☐
6. Collective Bargaining Agreements Yes No N/A
6.1 Has the district settled with all its bargaining units for the past two fiscal years? . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that negotiations have not been settled with the classified
bargaining unit for 2020-21.
6.2 Has the district settled with all its bargaining units for the current year? . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that negotiations have not been settled with the certificated
or classified bargaining units for 2021-22. The agreement with the Ojai Federation
of Teachers (OFT) Local 2119 expired June 30, 2021, and the agreement with the
California School Employees Association (CSEA) Ojai Valley Chapter #333 expired
September 30, 2021.
6.3 Does the district accurately quantify the effects of collective bargaining agreements and
include them in its budget and multiyear projections? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
At its November 17, 2021 board meeting, the board voted to ratify a 2.31% salary
increase for certificated staff retroactive to 2020-21. Although the board agenda
item has an approximate amount of the annual fiscal impact, the district did not use
a standardized AB 1200 public disclosure form that would identify the related costs
(e.g., statutory benefits and step and column increases) for the current and subsequent
years and identify ongoing revenue sources to support the agreement.
After the action above, the board voted to approve the same retroactive and
ongoing increase for management, supervisors and unrepresented staff. The board
agenda item again gave an approximate amount of the annual fiscal impact, but a
standardized AB 1200 public disclosure form was not used.
Because the district did not use a standardized disclosure form, FCMAT could not
verify if the district accurately quantified the effects of the collective bargaining
agreements with the groups listed above.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 17
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
6.4 Did the district conduct a presettlement analysis and identify related costs or savings, if any
(e.g., statutory benefits, and step and column salary increase), for the current and
subsequent years, and did it identify ongoing revenue sources or expenditure reductions
to support the agreement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district did not provide evidence that a presettlement analysis was conducted
during the negotiations process.
6.5 In the current and prior two fiscal years, has the district settled the total cost of the
bargaining agreements including step and column increases at or under the funded
cost of living adjustment (COLA)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district did not provide public disclosure documentation of collective bargaining
agreement settlements for fiscal years 2019-20 or 2020-21. Therefore, FCMAT could
not compare the total settlement costs to the funded COLAs for those years.
6.6 If settlements have not been reached in the past two years, has the district identified
resources to cover the costs of the district’s proposal(s)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
A written proposal to CSEA Ojai Valley Chapter #333 for 2020-21 was not provided to
FCMAT, nor was identification of resources to cover the costs of any proposal.
6.7 Did the district comply with public disclosure requirements under Government Code
Sections 3540.2 and 3547.5, and Education Code Section 42142? . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
At its December 18, 2020 meeting, the board voted to approve the December 2020,
COVID-19 Circumstances and Extraordinary Responsibilities Compensation for 2020-
21 agreement with both OFT and CSEA without publicly disclosing the costs of the
additional 1.5% one-time compensation outlined in the agreements.
At its January 25, 2021 meeting, the board voted to approve the COVID-19
Circumstances and Extraordinary Responsibilities Compensation for January – June
2021 agreement with CSEA for certain classified employees to receive a $200 monthly
stipend. This stipend was approved without publicly disclosing the costs of the
additional compensation outlined in the agreement.
At its April 21, 2021 meeting, the board voted to approve the COVID-19 Circumstances
and Extraordinary Responsibilities Compensation for January – June 2021 agreement
with OFT for certain certificated employees to receive a $250 monthly stipend. This
stipend was approved as part of the consent calendar. Later at the same meeting, the
AB 1200 disclosure for both this agreement and the January 2021 CSEA agreement
was approved as part of the consent calendar publicly disclosing the costs of both
agreements; however, neither the superintendent nor the CBO signed it to certify that
the district could afford the agreements. The AB 1200 disclosure item should have
been signed by the superintendent and CBO assuring that the district could afford
the agreements, and it should have been placed on the board agenda prior to the
board taking action to approve the agreements. It is best practice to agendize these
disclosures and agreements as individual items to give the public an opportunity to
comment prior to board approval.
See 6.3 above for additional information.
6.8 Did the superintendent and CBO certify the public disclosure of collective bargaining
agreement prior to board approval? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
See 6.7 above for additional information.
6.9 Is the governing board’s action consistent with the superintendent’s and CBO’s certification? . ☐ ✓ ☐
See 6.7 above for additional information.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 18
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
7. Contributions and Transfers Yes No N/A
7.1 Does the district have a board-approved plan to eliminate, reduce or control any
contributions/transfers from the unrestricted general fund to other restricted programs
and funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Contributions to restricted resources were $3,586,090 in 2019-20, $3,825,320 in
2020-21, and projected to be $4,985,407 at 2021-22 second interim. The district
also transferred $75,000 to the cafeteria fund in 2019-20 and projected to transfer
$75,000 at 2021-22 second interim. The district lacks a board-approved plan to
eliminate, reduce or control contributions or transfers from the unrestricted general
fund.
7.2 If the district has deficit spending in funds other than the general fund, has it included in its
multiyear projection any transfers from the unrestricted general fund to cover any projected
negative fund balance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
7.3 If any contributions/transfers were required for restricted programs and/or other funds in
either of the two prior fiscal years, and there is a need in the current year, did the district
budget for them at reasonable levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
8. Deficit Spending (Unrestricted General Fund) Yes No N/A
8.1 Is the district avoiding deficit spending in the current fiscal year? . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The 2021-22 second interim financial report projected deficit spending of $625,215 in
the budget year.
8.2 Is the district projected to avoid deficit spending in both of the two subsequent fiscal years? . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The 2021-22 second interim financial report projected deficit spending of $197,000 in
2022-23 and $93,425 in 2023-24.
8.3 If the district has deficit spending in the current or two subsequent fiscal years, has the
board approved and implemented a plan to reduce and/or eliminate deficit spending to
ensure fiscal solvency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that the district lacks a board-approved plan to reduce or
eliminate deficit spending.
8.4 Has the district decreased deficit spending over the past two fiscal years? . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
9. Employee Benefits Yes No N/A
9.1 Has the district completed an actuarial valuation in accordance with Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements to determine its unfunded liability
for other post-employment benefits (OPEB)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
9.2 Does the district have a plan to fund its liabilities for retiree health and welfare benefits
with the total of annual required service payments (legal, contractual or locally defined
such as pay-as-you-go premiums, trust agreement obligations, or a board adopted
commitment) no greater than 2% of the district’s unrestricted general fund revenues? . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
According to the 2021-22 second interim report Form 01CSI, the district’s OPEB pay-
as-you-go annual liability was $529,700, which is 2.17% of the projected unrestricted
general fund revenue for the same reporting period.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 19
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
9.3 Has the district followed a policy or collectively bargained agreement to limit accrued
vacation balances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district has a collectively bargained agreement with CSEA to limit accrued
vacation balances to no more than 15 days maximum carryover, unless approved. A
review of vacation balances provided by the district shows at least 14 employees with
more than the allowed carryover, and at least six with a vacation balance of more
than 30 days as of October 1, 2022, the date the leave balance report was generated.
9.4 Within the last five years, has the district conducted a verification and determination
of eligibility for benefits for all active and retired employees and dependents? . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that the district does not periodically verify and determine
eligibility for benefits.
9.5 Does the district track, reconcile and report employees’ compensated leave balances? . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
10. Enrollment and Attendance Yes No N/A
10.1 Has the district’s enrollment been increasing or remained stable for the current and
two prior years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
According to DataQuest, the district’s enrollment has steadily declined by 5.16%, from
2,366 students in 2019-20 to 2,244 students in 2021-22.
10.2 Does the district monitor and analyze enrollment and average daily attendance (ADA)
data at least monthly through the second attendance reporting period (P2)? . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that staff are aware of the district’s declining enrollment trend;
however, the district did not provide any evidence that enrollment and ADA data are
monitored and analyzed monthly.
10.3 Does the district track historical enrollment and ADA data to establish future trends? . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Although the district provided evidence of historical enrollment and ADA data
tracking, this information was not used at the 2021-22 second interim reporting period
to project LCFF revenue.
10.4 Do school sites maintain an accurate record of daily enrollment and attendance that is
reconciled monthly at the site and district levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
10.5 Has the district certified its California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
(CALPADS) data by the required deadlines (Fall 1, Fall 2, EOY) for the current and
two prior years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐ ☐
10.6 Are the district’s enrollment projections and assumptions based on historical data,
industry-standard methods, and other reasonable considerations? . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s data used in the LCFF calculator for the 2021-22 second interim report
does not appear reasonable as it reports the ADA-to-enrollment ratio at 100.74% when
historically the district’s ADA percentage was approximately 95%.
The district’s second interim report also did not project any decline in enrollment in
the two subsequent years, even though the district’s enrollment has been declining
for at least seven years according to DataQuest, and the district’s document labeled
Enrollment Projections Cohort Method Adopted Budget 2122 projects continued
decline in the coming years. Both factors could overstate projected revenues and
have a detrimental effect on the district’s ending fund balance.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 20
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
10.7 Do all applicable sites and departments review and verify their respective CALPADS data
and correct it as needed before the report submission deadlines? . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Some departments review and verify their respective CALPADS data prior to the
report being submitted; however, school sites reported that they are not involved in
this process.
10.8 Has the district planned for enrollment losses to charter schools? . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
10.9 Does the district follow established board policy to limit outgoing interdistrict transfers and
ensure that only students who meet the required qualifications are approved? . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
10.10 Does the district meet the student-to-teacher ratio requirement of no more than 24-to-1
for each school in grades TK-3 classes, or, if not, does it have and adhere to
an alternative collectively bargained agreement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
11. Facilities Yes No N/A
11.1 If the district participates in the state’s School Facilities Program, has it met the required
contribution for the Routine Restricted Maintenance Account? . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
11.2 Does the district have sufficient and available capital outlay and/or bond funds to cover all
contracted obligations for capital facilities projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
11.3 Does the district properly track and account for facility-related projects? . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
In the district’s 2020-21 financial audit for Measure J, the auditors noted material
misstatements of balances in the district’s 2020-21 unaudited actuals report.
Specifically, they noted that Measure J’s accounts payable balance was overstated
by $700,995, and the fair market value of the deposit in the county treasury was
overstated by $11,815, causing the building fund to be understated by $689,180.
Inadequate review processes related to the district’s financial information was stated
as the cause of the material weakness. However, the 2020-21 performance audit for
Measure J concluded that in all significant respects, the district properly accounted for
expenditures and that expenditures were made for authorized bond projects.
11.4 Does the district use its facilities fully in accordance with the Office of Public School
Construction’s loading standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
As a result of declining enrollment, the district does not use its facilities fully in
accordance with the Office of Public School Construction’s loading standards. The
district reports its facility capacity as 3,900 students. According to DataQuest, its
2021-22 enrollment was 2,244 students, which is 57.5% of its reported capacity.
11.5 Does the district include facility needs (maintenance, repair and operating requirements)
when adopting a budget? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that the budget for routine facility needs, such as maintenance
and repair, is based on prior year activity. Although district staff have conversations to
decide which facility needs can be paid for with bond proceeds, the district does not
use any planning tools, such as a facilities master plan or documented preventive and
deferred maintenance schedules, to project facility needs in advance.
Interviews also indicated that some individuals involved in facilities decisions were
unaware that the district participated in the state’s School Facility Program, which
requires an annual contribution to the routine restricted maintenance account,
indicating that the district does not plan for its maintenance and repair needs.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 21
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
11.6 Has the district met the facilities inspection requirements of the Williams Act and resolved
any outstanding issues? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐ ☐
11.7 If the district passed a Proposition 39 general obligation bond, has it met the requirements
for audit, reporting, and a citizens’ bond oversight committee? . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Education Code Section 15286 requires that independent financial and performance
audits be performed annually by March 31 for the preceding fiscal year. The Measure J
bond audits for fiscal years 2019-20 and 2020-21 and the Measure K audits for 2020-
21 were performed but not completed and submitted to the school district or citizens’
bond oversight committee by the required deadline.
11.8 Does the district have a long-range facilities master plan that reflects its current and
projected facility needs?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district lacks a long-range facilities master plan.
12. Fund Balance and Reserve for Economic Uncertainty Yes No N/A
12.1 Is the district able to maintain the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty in the
current year (including Fund 01 and Fund 17) as defined by criteria and standards? . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The 2021-22 second interim report projected available reserves of 2.48%, rather
than the 3% minimum required reserve. In addition, the report did not include the
nonspendable components of ending fund balance for revolving cash and stores,
which would have further reduced the available reserves.
12.2 Is the district able to maintain the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty in the
two subsequent years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The 2021-22 second interim report projected available reserves of 1.83% in 2022-23
and 1.50% in 2023-24, rather than the 3% minimum required reserve. In addition, the
report did not include the nonspendable components of ending fund balance for
revolving cash and stores, which would have further reduced the available reserves.
12.3 If the district is not able to maintain the minimum reserve for economic uncertainty, does
the district’s multiyear financial projection include a board-approved plan to restore
the reserve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
The district lacks a board-approved plan to restore the reserve.
12.4 Is the district’s projected unrestricted fund balance stable or increasing in the two
subsequent fiscal years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The 2021-22 second interim report projected an unrestricted ending fund balance of
$783,920 in 2021-22, $586,920 in 2022-23, and $493,495 in 2023-24.
12.5 If the district has unfunded or contingent liabilities or one-time costs other than
post-employment benefits, does the unrestricted general fund balance include
sufficient assigned or committed reserves above the recommended reserve level? . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
13. General Fund – Current Year Yes No N/A
13.1 Does the district ensure that one-time revenues do not pay for ongoing expenditures? . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
No documents were provided to show that the district adequately monitors one-time
revenues to ensure those revenues do not pay for ongoing expenditures.
13.2 Is the percentage of the district’s general fund unrestricted expenditure budget that is
allocated to salaries and benefits at or below the statewide average for the current year? . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 22
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
13.3 Is the percentage of the district’s general fund unrestricted expenditure budget that is
allocated to salaries and benefits at or below the statewide average for the two prior years? . . ✓ ☐ ☐
13.4 If the district has received any uniform complaints or legal challenges regarding local
use of supplemental and concentration grant funding in the current or two prior years,
is the district addressing the complaint(s)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
13.5 Does the district either ensure that restricted dollars are sufficient to pay for staff assigned
to restricted programs or have a plan to fund these positions with unrestricted funds? . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
13.6 Is the district using its restricted dollars fully by expending allocations for restricted
programs within the required time? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
13.7 Does the district account for program costs, including the maximum allowable indirect
costs, for each restricted resource and other funds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s 2020-21 unaudited actuals report and its 2021-22 Period Statement
of Revenues and Expenditures report through January 2022 show that the district
does not budget and charge the full allowable indirect cost rate to all its restricted
resources and other funds. In addition, the 2020-21 unaudited actuals Form ICR
shows that $1,660 in indirect costs were charged to resource 3220, Coronavirus Relief
Fund: Learning Loss Mitigation; however, indirect costs may not be charged to this
program. To show the true costs of programs, the district should budget and charge
the maximum allowable indirect costs to all restricted programs and funds, including
special education, routine restricted maintenance, and cafeteria.
14. Information Systems and Data Management Yes No N/A
14.1 Does the district use an integrated financial and human resources system? . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
14.2 Does the district use the system(s) to provide key financial and related data, including
personnel information, to help the district make informed decisions? . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Position control data was not updated during the 2021-22 fiscal year, which made
it difficult for the district to obtain accurate personnel information on which to base
informed decisions. Interviews indicated that the district is working to update the
position control data to ensure it contains current and accurate information.
14.3 Has the district accurately identified students who are eligible for free or reduced-price
meals, English learners, and foster youth, in accordance with the LCFF and its LCAP? . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
14.4 Is the district using the same financial system as its county office of education? . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
14.5 If the district is using a separate financial system from its county office of education, is there
an automated interface that allows data to be sent and received by both the district and
county financial systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
14.6 If the district is using a separate financial system from its county office of education, has
the district provided the county office with direct access so the county office can provide
oversight, review and assistance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
15. Internal Controls and Fraud Prevention Yes No N/A
15.1 Does the district have controls that limit access to its financial system and include multiple
levels of authorization? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
District staff indicated that procedures were implemented to require administrator
approval for access to the financial system. However, based on the documentation
provided, it is unknown if staff members have system access that provides for proper
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 23
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
internal control and separation of duties (e.g., whether employees have access
to change vendor information and process vendor payments or input employee
demographic information and process payroll). See 15.2 below for additional
information.
15.2 Are the district’s financial system’s access and authorization controls reviewed and updated
upon employment actions (e.g., resignations, terminations, promotions or demotions) and at
least annually? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
District staff indicated that procedures have been implemented to disable access
to the financial system when an individual leaves the district. However, the
documentation provided shows that some individuals who left still have access. No
evidence was provided to show that access and authorization are reviewed at least
annually and when employees are promoted or demoted.
15.3 Does the district ensure that duties in the following areas are segregated, and that they
are supervised and monitored?:
• Accounts payable (AP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
A supervisory employee does not review accounts payable batches before they
are submitted to the county office for further processing. The best practice is for a
supervisory employee to review all accounts payable transactions and the warrant
prelist before the batch is submitted to the county office.
Accounts payable warrants are printed at the county office and sent to the district
where they are received and distributed by the staff member who processed them.
To provide better segregation of duties, the individual responsible for generating
warrants should not have access to them after they are printed.
• Accounts receivable (AR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
One staff member generates invoices, enters payment information in the financial
system, prepares the deposits, and reconciles the bank statements. To provide for
segregation of duties, the individual responsible for generating invoices should not
have access to payments received for those invoices, and the individual who prepares
the deposits should not be assigned to reconcile the bank statements.
• Purchasing and contracts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .☐ ✓ ☐
The employee responsible for processing purchase orders and for adding and
modifying vendor information in the financial system also has system access to make
payments to vendors. To provide for segregation of duties, the employee assigned to
add and modify vendor information should not have system access to make vendor
payments.
• Payroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐ ☐
• Human resources (i.e., duties relative to position control and payroll processes) . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Although interviews indicated that the position control and payroll processes are
segregated, the position control system has not been properly monitored to ensure
its accuracy. At the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork, the district was working to update the
position control data.
15.4 Are beginning balances for the new fiscal year posted and reconciled with the ending
balances for each fund from the prior fiscal year? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 24
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
15.5 Does the district review and work to clear prior year accruals throughout the year? . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that staff do not know when prior year accruals are cleared and
that many are likely cleared during year-end close. The 2020-21 audit report included
a material weakness finding regarding internal control that states:
…we identified material misstatements of balances within the District’s 2020-
2021 unaudited actuals financial report. Through review of supporting records,
we noted misstatements in the General Fund, the Building Fund and in the Non-
Major Governmental Funds.
The finding goes on to state that the district failed to clear beginning accounts
payable balances in the general fund.
15.6 Has the district reconciled and closed the general ledger (books) within the time prescribed
by the county office of education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Although the 2019-20 and 2020-21 unaudited actuals reports were presented
to and adopted by the board within the timeline established in Education Code
Section 42100, the SACS reports provided to the board were not the final documents
submitted to the county office.
15.7 Does the district have processes and procedures to discourage and detect fraud? . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district has adopted Board Policy 3400 and its website includes links to reporting
resources (see 15.8 below for additional information); however, the district lacks
sufficient internal controls to prevent and detect fraud.
15.8 Does the district have a process for collecting reports of possible fraud (such as an
anonymous fraud reporting hotline) and for following up on such reports? . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s website includes links to an anonymous hotline (WeTip) and to the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security website (See Something, Say Something)
that individuals can use to report suspicious or illegal activities. However, some
individuals interviewed did not know about these resources. Board Policy 3400 states,
“Any employee who suspects fraud, impropriety, or irregularity shall immediately
report those suspicions to his/her immediate supervisor and/or the Superintendent
or designee,” and Administrative Regulation 3400 states, “The Superintendent or
designee shall investigate reports of fraudulent activity…” However, no evidence was
provided to show that the district has a documented process to follow up on reports of
possible fraud.
15.9 Does the district have an internal audit process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district hired an outside consulting firm in November 2020 to review some of its
business office processes and procedures; however, the district lacks a formal internal
audit process.
16. Leadership and Stability Yes No N/A
16.1 Does the district have a chief business official who has been with the district as chief
business official for more than two years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s last CBO resigned effective June 30, 2022. At the time of FCMAT’s
fieldwork, the district had been unable to hire a CBO and had been relying on various
outside consultants to fill this role.
16.2 Does the district have a superintendent who has been with the district as superintendent
for more than two years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 25
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
16.3 Does the superintendent meet on a scheduled and regular basis with all members of their
administrative cabinet? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
16.4 Is training on financial management and budget provided to site and department
administrators who are responsible for budget management? . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated site and department administrators who are responsible for
budget management have not had any recent training on financial management and
budgeting; however, the district recently provided initial training on a newly purchased
product that syncs nightly with the district’s financial system and that reportedly will
allow decision-makers to view and monitor their budgets. Interviews also indicated
that the district still struggles to ensure that the information in the financial system is
accurate.
16.5 Does the governing board adopt and revise policies and administrative regulations annually? . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district updates some board policies (BPs) and administrative regulations (ARs)
periodically, but a comparison of the district’s board policy manual on its webpage
with the California School Board Association’s (CSBA’s) GAMUT sample district policy
manual shows that many of the district’s BPs and ARs are outdated, and more recent
sample policies are available. For example, the district’s BP and AR 1312.1, Complaints
Concerning District Employees, were both last updated in June 2004, even though
CSBA’s last update was in May 2019.
16.6 Are newly adopted or revised policies and administrative regulations implemented,
communicated and available to staff? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district lacks a specific process for communicating to staff about newly adopted or
revised policies and/or administrative regulations.
16.7 Do all board members attend training on the budget and governance at least every
two years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that board members have not attended training on the budget
and governance at least every two years.
16.8 Is the superintendent’s evaluation performed according to the terms of the contract? . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The superintendent’s contract provides that evaluations be conducted annually
during the summer months of each calendar year, or as close to that time as possible.
Interviews indicated, and board agendas support, that this process occurs in closed
session; however, the board minutes do not indicate if the evaluation was completed
or if other action regarding this matter was taken in closed session.
17. Multiyear Projections Yes No N/A
17.1 Has the district developed multiyear projections that include detailed assumptions aligned
with industry standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The June 16, 2021 board agenda included an item titled Public Hearing 2021-2022
Proposed Budget. The narrative document included in the board agenda materials
contained many but not all the key assumptions used to develop the budget and
multiyear projections. For example, the information provided did not include items
such as step-and-column cost percentages, the consumer price index, or percentage
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 26
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
increases for supplies and utility costs. The same narrative document was provided in
the board agenda materials when the budget was presented for adoption at the June
21, 2021 board meeting. See 2.1 above for additional information.
The 2021-22 second interim report materials provided with the March 15, 2022
board agenda contained a budget narrative that included some but not all the key
assumptions used to develop the interim budget and multiyear financial projections.
For example, the narrative document did not include items such as step-and-column
cost percentages for each employee group, the consumer price index, or percentage
increases for supplies and utility costs. Although the district’s enrollment has declined
each year since 2014-15, the narrative included flat enrollment and ADA in the budget
and subsequent years and projected that ADA would exceed enrollment in each
year; it also contained outdated COLA assumptions. See 3.3 above for additional
information.
17.2 To help calculate its multiyear projections, did the district prepare an accurate LCFF
calculation with multiyear considerations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
As indicated in the county office’s 2021-22 second interim letter, the district did not
calculate its LCFF revenue correctly. Although the district’s enrollment has declined
each year since 2014-15, its projection included flat enrollment and ADA in the budget
and subsequent years, ADA that exceeded enrollment each year, and outdated COLA
assumptions.
17.3 Does the district use its most current multiyear projection in making financial decisions? . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
17.4 If the district uses a broad adjustment category in its multiyear projection (such as line B10,
B1d, B2d Other Adjustments, in the SACS Form MYP/MYPI), is there a detailed list of what is
included in the adjustment amount and are the adjustments reasonable? . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
At the 2021-22 second interim reporting period, the district used a summary
spreadsheet for the presentation of its multiyear projection, rather than Form MYPI.
The spreadsheet did not show broad adjustment categories. However, the 2021-22
first interim report included adjustments on Form MYPI line B1d and B2d for 2022-23
and 2023-24. The explanation provided on Form MYPI did not include sufficient detail
to determine if the adjustments were reasonable, and the board agenda materials did
not include detailed written assumptions for the budget and multiyear projections.
18. Non-Voter-Approved Debt and Risk Management Yes No N/A
18.1 Are the sources of repayment for non-voter-approved debt {such as certificates of
participation (COPs), bridge financing, bond anticipation notes (BANS), revenue
anticipation notes (RANS) and others} stable, predictable, and other than unrestricted
general fund? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
18.2 If the district has issued non-voter-approved debt, has its credit rating remained stable or
improved during the current and two prior fiscal years? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
18.3 If the district is self-insured, has the district completed an actuarial valuation as required
and have a plan to pay for any unfunded liabilities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
18.4 If the district has non-voter-approved debt (such as COPs, bridge financing, BANS, RANS
and others), is the total of annual debt service payments no greater than 2% of the district’s
unrestricted general fund revenues? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ☐ ✓
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 27
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
19. Position Control Yes No N/A
19.1 Does the district account for all positions and costs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The 2021-22 second interim review letter from the Ventura County Office of Education
indicated a lack of position control in the district, specifically stating that the position
control system did not include health and welfare costs for approximately 40
employees. As a result, the budgeted health and welfare costs were understated in
the current and two subsequent years.
No evidence was provided indicating that position control is reconciled with payroll
and budget. For example, a comparison of the 2021-22 second interim budget for
certificated and classified salaries with the Position Assignments with Accounts
report as of March 21, 2022 shows the projected budget was $1,262,814 more than
the total in the position control report. This indicates that not all positions and costs
are accounted for in the position control system, such as lump sum costs related to
substitutes and stipends.
Interviews indicated the district has been working to update the position control data
to ensure it is current and accurate.
19.2 Does the district analyze and adjust staffing based on staffing ratios and enrollment? . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The collective bargaining agreement with certificated employees contains an
article with class size maximums and pupil ratios for counselors. The district did not
provide evidence of any other staffing ratios or analysis of other positions based on
enrollment.
19.3 Does the district reconcile budget, payroll and position control regularly, at least at budget
adoption and interim reporting periods? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
No evidence was provided to show that the district has a formal process for
reconciling budget, payroll and position control regularly, and interviews confirmed
this deficiency. If these had been reconciled at the 2021-22 second interim reporting
period, the district would have discovered the discrepancy with the health and welfare
costs described above in 19.1.
19.4 Does the district identify a budget source for each new position before the position is
authorized by the governing board? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district does not identify a budget source for all new positions, such as the
speech-language pathologist assistant position approved by the board on April 21,
2021 and the registered behavior technician position approved by the board on May
12, 2021.
19.5 Does the governing board approve all new positions and extra assignments (e.g., stipends)
before positions are posted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
Interviews indicated that most new positions are approved by the board before they
are posted; however, FCMAT could not confirm through a review of board minutes that
the new English learner and family support position was approved by the board prior
to filling the position.
Interviews also indicated that not all stipends have been board-approved and that
some are not in the collective bargaining agreements.
19.6 Do managers and staff responsible for the district’s human resources, payroll and budget
functions meet regularly to discuss issues and improve processes?. . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 28
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
20. Special Education Yes No N/A
20.1 Does the district monitor, analyze and adjust staffing ratios, class sizes and caseload sizes
to align with statutory requirements and industry standards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
20.2 Does the district access available funding sources for costs related to special education
(e.g., excess cost pool, legal fees, mental health)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
20.3 Does the district use appropriate tools to help it make informed decisions about whether
to add services (e.g., special circumstance instructional assistance process and form,
transportation decision tree)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .✓ ☐ ☐
20.4 Does the district budget and account correctly for all costs related to special education
(e.g., transportation, due process hearings, indirect costs, nonpublic schools and/or
nonpublic agencies)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district has struggled to accurately code expenditures in the financial system,
including those related to special education.
According to the 2020-21 unaudited actuals report, the district did not charge indirect
costs to its special education programs. Although the district must make a contribution
to fund special education services, it should charge allowable indirect costs to
correctly account for all costs related to special education.
20.5 Is the district’s contribution rate to special education at or below the statewide average
contribution rate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ✓ ☐ ☐
20.6 Is the district’s rate of identification of students as eligible for special education at or below
the countywide and statewide average rates? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district’s 2021-22 identification rate was 14.13%, which was higher than the
countywide rate of 13.24% and the statewide rate of 12.65% for the same period.
20.7 Does the district analyze whether it will meet the maintenance of effort requirement at
each interim reporting period? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ☐ ✓ ☐
The district did not provide any evidence that it analyzes whether it will meet the
maintenance of effort requirement at each interim reporting period. Although the
SEMAI form was included with the district’s 2021-22 second interim report, the
form’s 2020-21 prior year actual expenditures column was not completed, so the
district could not analyze the 2021-22 projected expenditures maintenance of effort
requirement. The SEMAI form was not provided with the 2021-22 first interim report.
Risk Score, 20 numbered sections only: 67.9%
Key to Risk Score from 20 numbered sections only:
High Risk: 40% or more
Moderate Risk: 25-39.9%
Low Risk: 24.9% and lower
District Fiscal Solvency Risk Level, all FHRA factors: High
(The existence of any condition from the Budget and Fiscal Status section, and/or a material weakness, will
supersede the score above because it elevates the district’s risk level.)
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 29
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Appendix
Appendix A: Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 30
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
Appendix A: Study Agreement
FISCAL CRISIS & MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TEAM
STUDY AGREEMENT
August 3, 2022
The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), hereinafter referred to as the
team, and the Ojai Unified School District, hereinafter referred to as the district, mutually agree
as follows:
1. BASIS OF AGREEMENT
The team provides a variety of services to local education agencies (LEAs). In accordance
with the 2018-19 Budget Act, the team has been assigned to study the district’s fiscal health
because of the county superintendent’s downgrade of the district’s 2021-22 second interim
report certification per Education Code (EC) 42131. The team may include staff from
FCMAT, county offices of education, the California Department of Education, other school
districts, or private contractors. All work shall be performed in accordance with the terms,
standards and conditions of this agreement.
The county superintendent will be notified of this agreement between the district and
FCMAT and will receive a copy of the final report. The final report will also be published
on the FCMAT website.
2. SCOPE OF THE WORK
A. Scope and Objectives of the Study
Prepare an analysis using the 20 factors in FCMAT’s Fiscal Health Risk Analysis, and
identify the district’s specific risk rating for fiscal insolvency.
B. Services and Products to be Provided
1. Orientation Meeting – If on-site review is needed, the team will conduct an
orientation session at the district to brief district management and supervisory
personnel on the team’s procedures and the purpose and schedule of the study.
2. On-site Review – The team will conduct an on-site review at the district office and
at school sites if necessary.
3. Draft Report – Electronic copies of a preliminary draft report will be delivered to
the district’s administration for review and comment.
4. Final Report – Electronic copies of the final report will be delivered to the district’s
administration and to the county superintendent following completion of the
review. Printed copies are available from FCMAT upon request.
1
Fisc al Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 31
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
5. Board Presentation – The team will make a presentation regarding the final report
at a district board meeting.
3. PROJECT PERSONNEL
The FCMAT study team may include:
A. Diane Branham FCMAT Staff
B. Shayleen Harte FCMAT Staff
4. PROJECT COSTS
Pursuant to the 2018-19 Budget Act, costs for the study shall be as follows:
A. All staff member and consultant daily rates and expenses will be covered by a
specific state apportionment for this purpose.
B. Based on the elements noted in section 2A, the total cost of the services is $0.
5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT
A. The district will provide office and conference room space during on-site reviews.
B. The district will provide the following items:
1. Current or proposed detailed organizational charts.
2. Any documents requested on a supplemental list. Documents requested on the
supplemental list should be provided to FCMAT only in electronic format; if only
hard copies are available, they should be scanned by the district and sent to
FCMAT in electronic format.
3. Documents should be provided in advance of fieldwork; any delay in the receipt of
the requested documents may affect the start date and/or completion date of the
project. Upon approval of the signed study agreement, access will be provided to
FCMAT’s online SharePoint document repository, where the district will upload all
requested documents.
C. The district’s administration will review a draft copy of the report resulting from the
study. Any comments regarding the accuracy of the data presented in the report or the
practicability of the recommendations will be reviewed with the team prior to
completion of the final report. All such comments should be provided to the team
within five working days after receipt of the draft.
Pursuant to EC 45125.1(c), representatives of FCMAT will have limited contact with pupils.
The district shall take appropriate steps to comply with EC 45125.1(c).
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The schedule of services will be determined jointly by FCMAT and the district.
2
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 32
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
7. COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK
FCMAT will begin work as soon as it has assembled an available and appropriate study
team consisting of FCMAT staff and independent consultants, taking into consideration
other jobs FCMAT has previously undertaken and assignments from the state. The team will
work expeditiously to complete its work and deliver its report, subject to the cooperation of
the district and any other parties from which, in the team’s judgment, it must obtain
information. Once the team has completed its fieldwork, it will proceed to prepare a draft
report and a final report. The district understands and agrees that FCMAT is a state agency
and all FCMAT reports are published on the FCMAT website and made available to
interested parties in state government. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances,
FCMAT will not withhold preparation, publication and distribution of a report once
fieldwork has been completed, and the district shall not request that it do so.
8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
FCMAT is an independent contractor and is not an employee or engaged in any manner with
the district. The manner in which FCMAT’s services are rendered shall be within its sole
control and discretion. FCMAT representatives are not authorized to speak for, represent, or
obligate the district in any manner without prior express written authorization from an
officer of the district.
9. INSURANCE
During the term of this agreement, FCMAT shall maintain liability insurance of not less than
$1 million unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the district, automobile liability
insurance in the amount required under California state law, and workers’ compensation as
required under California state law. Upon the request of the district and the receipt of the
signed study agreement, FCMAT shall provide certificates of insurance, with Ojai Unified
School District named as additional insured, indicating applicable insurance coverages.
10. HOLD HARMLESS
FCMAT shall hold the district, its board, officers, agents, and employees harmless from all
suits, claims and liabilities resulting from negligent acts or omissions of FCMAT's board,
officers, agents and employees undertaken under this agreement. Conversely, the district
shall hold FCMAT, its board, officers, agents, and employees harmless from all suits, claims
and liabilities resulting solely from negligent acts or omissions of the district’s board,
officers, agents and employees undertaken under this agreement.
11. COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Because of the existence of COVID-19 and the resulting shelter-at-home orders, local
educational agency closures and other related considerations, at FCMAT’s sole discretion,
the Scope of Work, Project Costs, Responsibilities of the District (Sections I, IV and V
herein) and other provisions herein may be revised. Examples of such revisions may include,
but not be limited to, the following:
3
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 33
Fiscal Health Risk Analysis
9/23/22
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Ojai Unified School District 34