California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Report

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office City College of San Francisco Fiscal Review September 14, 2012 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM September 14, 2012 Erik Skinner Executive Vice Chancellor of Programs California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office 1102 Q Street, Suite 4554 Sacramento, CA 95811 Dear Vice Chancellor Skinner: In July 2012, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to provide a fiscal review of the San Francisco Community College District (commonly known as City College of San Francisco) on behalf of the CCCCO. Specifically, the agreement states that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. In accordance with Education Code Section 84041 (a) and (c), the City College of San Francisco may request the Team, pursuant to Education Code Section 42127.8, to assist the district to establish and maintain sound financial and budgetary conditions that comply with principles of sound fiscal management and include the following: a. Complete a fiscal health analysis of the district using the California Community Colleges Sound Fiscal Management Self-Assessment Checklist to determine the district’s current level of financial risk. b. Work with the College to develop a multi-year financial projection for the current and two subsequent years without any demonstrated adjustments based on today’s economic forecast to determine the level of commitment needed to sustain the College’s financial solvency, recognizing that this will be a snapshot in time regarding the current financial situation and used as the baseline for determining the level of reductions. c. Determine up to four California community colleges to be used for bench- mark comparisons. FCMAT Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer . . 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93 . 301-4533 Telephone 661-6 . 36-4611 Fax 661-63 . 6-4647 422 Petaluma Blvd North, Suite. C, Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: 707-775-2850 Fax: 707-775-2854 www.fcmat.org Administrative Agent: Christine L. Frazier - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools d. Provide findings and recommendations for meeting the district’s goals. Work with the College to incorporate into a multi-year projection. e. Based on benchmark colleges and CCSF’s program priorities, review critical cost variances, including: 1. Review revenue per FTES/cost per FTE, separated by credit and non- credit. 2. Review the faculty obligation and the amount of reassigned time appro- priate for the enrollment, structure, and budget of the College. 3. Compare managerial positions as reported to IPEDS, and determine whether administration is organized effectively and if the staffing levels are appropriate. 4. Determine the costs and program impacts of off-site centers and sites. 5. Review the costs of benefits for active employees compared to those of other colleges. 6. Evaluate the college for comparative analysis in terms of 50% law margins. 7. Review the unrestricted general fund match for categorical programs and levels of encroachment, if any. 8. Review FTES and determine if the college is maximizing its opportuni- ties to generate additional funding. 2. The second component of the fiscal review will be to identify recommendations that enable the College to sustain financial solvency and maintain recommended reserve levels. The objective of this component will be to prepare and present a comprehensive report and recommendations covering the following issues: a. Financial modeling that illustrates options that CCSF can implement to reduce various expenses and/or increase revenue to balance the budget and sustain financial solvency. b. Identify institutional restrictions such as past practices or services that have been identified as the “CCSF culture” of the College including but not limited to collective bargaining contracts, legal constraints including the 50% law and the Full Time Faculty Obligation (FON). c. Develop implementation steps, including a proposed timeline for improve- ments. This final report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve you and extends thanks to all the staff of the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the San Francisco Community College District for their cooperation and assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Michelle Plumbtree Joel. D. Montero Chief Management Analyst Chief Executive Officer C: Frederick E. Harris, Assistant Vice Chancellor, College Finance and Facilities Planning Division, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. Pamila J. Fisher, Interim Chancellor, City College of San Francisco i Table of conT enT s Table of Contents About FCMAT .........................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................1 Study Team.......................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ..............................................................................5 Findings and Recommendations ...................................................11 Fiscal Health Analysis ..................................................................................11 Multiyear Financial Projection .................................................................19 Staffing and Operational Costs ...............................................................23 Comparison with Similar Districts ..........................................................39 Enrollment Management ..........................................................................43 Administrative Structure ............................................................................47 Barriers to Fiscal Solvency .........................................................................51 Options to Meet Goals and Sustain Fiscal Solvency .........................55 Appendices ............................................................................................57 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo ii Table of conT enT s Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM iii about FCMat About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices and efficient operations. FCMAT’s data management services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and share information. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the local education agency to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11* 10/11** *Projected **Actual California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo seidutS fo rebmuN FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional development opportunities to help local educational agencies operate more effec- tively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) arm of FCMAT assists the California Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and also maintains DataGate, the FCMAT/CSIS software LEAs use for CSIS services. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. Assembly Bill 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsi- bility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. Assembly Bill 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county office of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. iv about fcmat In January 2006, SB 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform nearly 850 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1 introduction Introduction Background and Study Scope The San Francisco Community College District serves approximately 100,000 students at nine campuses and many other sites throughout the city of San Francisco. FCMAT’s review of CCSF was not an audit; the purpose was to review and evaluate the approach of the San Francisco Community College District (commonly known as the City College of San Francisco, or CCSF) to projecting and allocating its fiscal resources and to determine if CCSF’s budget assumptions and methods are reasonable. FCMAT was also asked to evaluate CCSF’s fiscal health and provide recommendations to help CCSF maintain fiscal solvency. This report reflects these goals and the objectives included in the approved scope of work. Prior to the FCMAT review, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) visited CCSF in March of 2012 and officially delivered an order of show cause. This is the most severe sanction of the ACCJC short of terminating an institution’s accreditation. Both the results of that report and the process for accreditation are separate and distinct from the review performed by the FCMAT team. As is the case with many California community colleges, CCSF has had declining state revenue for a number of years. As one of California’s largest providers of noncredit education, the college’s fiscal health has been further challenged by the state’s ongoing low level of funding for noncredit instruction. CCSF is facing financial difficulties, as evidenced by its declining fund balance and continued large operating deficits. This has brought CCSF to a point at which it must either make significant and ongoing budget adjustments or face the prospect of insolvency and possible state intervention. If the California community college board of governors determines that CCSF is not able to maintain its fiscal solvency under the current budget, the board of governors has the authority to appoint a special trustee to manage CCSF and restore fiscal solvency. CCSF can also request a special trustee, which has also been considered. If the board of governors makes the determination to appoint a state trustee, the special trustee could be authorized to assume control of all facets of operations and management for the period of time deemed necessary for CCSF to achieve fiscal stability or to implement sound fiscal management. The board of governors may reduce or withhold apportionment to pay for the cost of the special trustee, management review, or other extraordinary costs resulting from CCSF’s fiscal difficulties and to ensure the stabilization of the district’s financial condition. To understand CCSF’s current fiscal status, FCMAT explored a number of topics with staff. In some instances CCSF has already begun to proactively address budget issues that FCMAT identified; however, more action will be needed to avert fiscal insolvency. Moreover, significant additional analysis should be performed beyond this current scope of work but was not possible due to the time constraints associated with this engagement. The topics and issues identified in discussions with CCSF staff include the following: • Evaluation of the revenues versus the costs of off-site instructional operations. • Previous budget savings actions and those anticipated for fiscal year 2012-13. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 2 introduction • Employee contracts, specifically identification of items that committed CCSF to added costs and limited its decision-making ability. • CCSF’s faculty obligation number (FON) in light of CCSF’s actual full-time equivalent faculty. • The calculation and related components used for compliance with the 50% law (which requires that half of each community college district’s current expense of education be spent on classroom salaries and benefits). • Class sizes, classroom productivity, creation of the class schedule, and number of full- time equivalent students (FTES) as a component of enrollment management. • Support from the unrestricted general fund for categorical programs and auxiliary operations such as the bookstore and food services. • Grants that anticipated CCSF continuing the program after the grant expired. • Bond program costs that may be masking future general fund obligations. • The costs and functions of faculty release time. • Retiree health benefits program. • Budget assumptions being considered for fiscal year 2012-13. • Data tools, processes and procedures used to guide major decisions. • Identification of five other community college districts against which CCSF would be compared in the areas of expenditures, 50% law, and staffing levels across all employment classifications. • CCSF’s financial and expenditure history over the last seven years. • Recent external financial statement audits to identify any major fiscal issues and audit findings. • CCSF’s recent accreditation report. • Health benefit programs. • The administrative structure and the organizational history. • CCSF’s response to the state community college chancellor’s office’s fiscal management checklist. Some of the above topics needed no additional comment beyond the initial discussion. The balance of this report includes findings and recommendations in those areas that require further attention. FCMAT visited CCSF on July 30 through August 3, 2012 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. This report is the result of those activities. During this fieldwork, FCMAT also identified additional issues that required further research and analysis. These are noted throughout the report. The scope of FCMAT’s review included both a fiscal review and analysis and a benchmark comparison of CCSF against similar community college districts to provide data to help the college make decisions to sustain financial solvency and maintain recommended reserve levels. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 introduction FCMAT was also asked to compare CCSF’s administrative organizational structure with those of the comparison districts. Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: Michelle Plumbtree Michael Hill FCMAT Chief Management Analyst FCMAT Consultant Petaluma, CA San Jose, CA Roy Stutzman Ronald Gerhard* FCMAT Consultant Vice Chancellor for Finance Benicia, CA Peralta Community College District Oakland, CA John Lotze FCMAT Technical Writer Bakersfield, CA *As a member of this study team, this consultant was not representing his employer but was working solely as an independent contractor for FCMAT. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 4 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 executive summary Executive Summary FCMAT’s review of CCSF is not intended to be viewed as a comprehensive audit. The scope of work was conducted to determine how CCSF projects and allocates its fiscal resources and to determine if CCSF’s budget assumptions and methods were reasonable. The review and assessment includes recommendations to help CCSF maintain its fiscal solvency and avoid state intervention. Prior to FCMAT’s review in July, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) visited CCSF in March of 2012 and officially delivered an order of show cause. This is the most severe sanction of the ACCJC short of terminating an institution’s accreditation. Show cause occurs when the ACCJC finds an institution in substantial noncompli- ance with the commission’s eligibility requirements, accreditation standards or policies, or when the institution has not responded to the condition previously imposed by ACCJC. The ACCJC conducted its own independent review to determine accreditation status for CCSF, and results of that report are separate and distinct from the assessment performed by the FCMAT team. Fiscal Health Analysis City College of San Francisco (CCSF) has not developed a plan to fund significant liabilities and obligations such as retiree health benefits, adequate reserves, and workers’ compensation costs. Further, it has been subsidizing categorical programs with unrestricted general fund monies regardless of the effect on the general fund, and has provided salary increases and generous bene- fits with no discernible means to pay for them. The college has also used temporary one-time measures to mitigate its operating deficits, thus deferring difficult decisions to the future. These deficiencies raise significant concerns regarding CCSF’s ability to maintain solvency because of the unknown outcomes of an upcoming local parcel tax measure and the governor’s November 2012 state tax measure referred to as Proposition 30. Multiyear Financial Projection CCSF’s 2012-13 tentative budget is balanced in terms of anticipated revenues and expenditures, but it assumes and depends on passage of the governor’s November 2012 tax measure. Most of the expenditure savings in the tentative budget are one-time concessions from the employee groups for 2012-13 only, which means that CCSF will again need to make reductions for 2013- 14. Even with the passage of the governor’s tax measure, CCSF projects a $13 million shortfall in fiscal year 2013-14. CCSF cannot afford to wait and see if the local parcel tax is approved before implementing expenditure reductions. To maintain financial solvency, reductions for 2013-14 and beyond must be ongoing rather than temporary. CCSF’s 2012-13 tentative budget does not increase the fund balance. Although the budget recognizes the possibility of a small state funding deficit of 0.7%, in today’s economic climate it is likely that the deficit could be higher, which will further reduce the fund balance. CCSF’s minimal ending fund balance leaves no margin for error or unexpected changes to the budget; either could result in fiscal insolvency. The below table summarize the four possible scenarios prepared by CCSF staff for fiscal year 2012-13. These scenarios vary based on whether the different tax measures pass. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 6 executive summary Fiscal Year 2012-13 Funding Scenarios If state tax and If state tax passes If state tax fails but If state tax and parcel parcel tax fail but parcel tax fails parcel tax passes tax pass Total Revenue $175,093,000 $187,299,000 $189,819,000 $201,064,000 Adopted Tentative Expense Budget $186,572,000 $186,572,000 $186,572,000 $186,572,000 (Deficit)/Surplus ($11,479,000) $727,000 $3,247,000 $14,492,000 Key assumption: CCSF continues spending at the level of the tentative budget under all scenarios. There is a possibility that the governor’s tax measure will not pass. Although CCSF has estimated that this would reduce funding by another $11.5 million in fiscal year 2012-13 and beyond, it has not developed a plan to deal with this reduction should it occur, and its ending fund balance is not sufficient to bear the burden. CCSF is in a perilous financial position. It can afford neither errors in its budget assumptions or accounting treatments nor additional unbudgeted expenses. Even if CCSF is able to maintain its fiscal solvency in fiscal year 2012-13 using the temporary measures it has enacted, it will experience numerous challenging, spending pressures and critical decisions in the future. The four multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) developed by CCSF indicate future insolvency in all scenarios except for the one in which both the governor’s tax measure and the local parcel tax pass, and even then CCSF would remain only marginally solvent. The below table summarizes the effect on fund balance under all four funding scenarios. Even under the best alternative, where both the state and local tax pass, by fiscal year 2014-15 a deficit of $2,512,000 occurs based on current revenue and expenditure trends. Estimated Deficit/Surplus Projection Scenarios If state tax and parcel If state tax passes but If state tax fails but par- If state tax and parcel tax fail parcel tax fails cel tax passes tax pass 2012-13 ($11,479,000) $727,000 $3,247,000 $14,492,000 2013-14 ($24,570,000) ($13,254,000) ($10,570,000) $726,658 2014-15 ($27,809,000) ($16,493,000) ($13,809,000) ($2,512,000) Staffing and Operational Costs CCSF has employed twice as many full-time faculty per 1,000 full-time equivalent students (FTES) and incurred expenses that are $17 to $18 million higher than comparison districts, while at the same time having a level of classroom productivity (class size) that is less than that of most of the comparison districts. CCSF also employs more classified staff at higher average salaries than the comparison districts. CCSF’s capital outlay budgets will need to be restored as bond funds dwindle. Retiree health benefits payments will increase from an estimated $6.9 million in fiscal year 2011-12 to $13.0 million annually by 2020-21. Steps added to the classified salary schedule during negotiations will also add significant costs over time. The magnitude of its employee contract obligations makes it difficult for CCSF to continue as a going concern (an organization that is fiscally healthy and able to meet its financial obligations) without change. CCSF needs to be more aggressive in reducing its expenditures to provide for a structurally balanced budget by implementing ongoing budget adjustments and reductions. This is chal- lenging but is essential to avoid insolvency. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 executive summary CCSF’s expenditure per full-time equivalent student (FTES) exceeded its state funding (also known as state apportionment revenues) for fiscal year 2011-12 by $637 per noncredit instruc- tion FTES and by $859 per credit instruction FTES. Thus these amounts had to be provided from other funding sources. Based on a revenue and cost analysis, there is no clear evidence that either credit or noncredit is significantly more efficient than the other. The noncredit funding rate is lower, but costs are lower as well. This is largely due to the difference in teaching load: 15 contact hours per week for credit courses versus 25 contact hours per week in the noncredit program. On a proportional revenue and expense basis, the efficiency of credit and noncredit instruction is nearly equal; apportionment revenue pays for 85.34% of the costs associated with credit courses and 83.99% of the revenue required to support noncredit courses. CCSF’s estimated average rate of pay for a part-time instructor is $113.51 per hour. Based on this rate, the estimated annual cost of one part-time faculty who works the equivalent of full time (one FTEF) is $59,595, or approximately $6,000 per course. FCMAT confirmed these pay rates through information provided by district staff and a review of financial records for fiscal year 2010-11 (the most recent year for which there is certified data) that indicate the total hourly pay in relation to total part-time faculty FTEF. Statutory benefits such as workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance and retirement contributions add 6.6 % to this total. In addition, if a part-time faculty member’s teaching assignment is equal to or greater than 50% (7.5 units for credit and 12.5 units for noncredit) of a full-time load, the employee is eligible for health benefits partially paid by CCSF and for fully paid dental benefits. CCSF’s part-time faculty salary schedule and health benefit provisions in its collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Local 2121 have negated any signifi- cant short-term cost advantage of using part-time faculty. The lower costs associated with part- time faculty have typically allowed community college districts to maintain their class schedules and offerings at a lower cost, but this is not the case at CCSF. Through the California Community College Chancellor’s Office’s (CCCCO’s) management information system (MIS), CCSF reported having 842 tenure-track faculty in 2010-11. When all faculty release time is considered, 14% of CCSF’s full-time faculty are being released to fulfill nonteaching responsibilities. Thus the equivalent of more than 50 full-time, highly qualified, tenured faculty are serving as department chairs rather than instructing students. The proliferation of release time is costly, creates a unique administrative structure that is difficult to manage, reduces accountability, and makes coordination and decision-making more chal- lenging. Comparison with Similar Districts To provide additional context to the analysis of CCSF’s fiscal condition, five similar community college districts were selected against which CCSF would be compared in terms of spending, staffing and productivity. The selected districts are Santa Monica, Long Beach, Foothill-De Anza, Mt. San Antonio and El Camino. The comparison revealed many important distinctions that CCSF should consider as it makes future decisions: • CCSF has significantly more regular full-time equivalent (FTE) employees than the comparison districts, both in total and per FTES. • CCSF has almost twice the number of tenured faculty as the two largest comparison districts, with 23.52 FTE per 1,000 FTES versus 13.69 and 12.17 for Mt. San Antonio and Santa Monica, respectively. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 8 executive summary • CCSF also has significantly more classified staff support than the two largest comparison districts, with 192 more FTE staff than Mt. San Antonio and 243 more FTE staff than Santa Monica. • CCSF is the third lowest of the comparison districts in productivity for credit classes (FTES per section average). CCSF has both more tenured faculty and lower productivity, which compounds its fiscal burden. The results of this data support the findings of the staffing analysis. CCSF’s decisions regarding full-time faculty and increases to the salary schedule and benefit provisions for part-time faculty result in higher costs for academic employees, which in turn result in higher total salaries and benefits and higher total costs. Enrollment Management CCSF shows little evidence of an effective enrollment management plan. It lacks sufficient data provided in a timely and consistent reporting format to make important enrollment management decisions. Serving students when resources are reduced requires maximizing the use and effect of all available resources, but this is not possible without an effective enrollment management plan. CCSF’s enrollment management has focused on student recruitment and marketing, student engagement and connection, technology (distance education), counseling and support. Enrollment management must also focus on enrollment goals for campuses and sites, programs and disciplines; the deployment of resources to achieve those goals; and measurement of progress. Enrollment management will be an important tool as CCSF plans course schedules, seeks to control direct costs, and measures progress toward FTES goals. Because revenue is largely driven by service level (FTES), it is imperative that CCSF manage this aspect of its operations effec- tively. Administrative Structure The use of some release time is normal in the community college system; however, the magnitude and types of release time assignments at CCSF are cause for concern. CCSF allows an inordinate amount of release time, which is expensive because of CCSF’s high salary and benefits for the part-time employees who replace full-time employees when they are on release time. A significant part of this release time is for department chairs; other instructional and noninstructional release time makes up the balance. The structure and responsibilities of department chairs at CCSF differ significantly from what is typical at most California community colleges. Specifically, the department chairs at CCSF operate under a separate collective bargaining agreement and have responsibility for decisions about program and course offerings as well as control over release time assignments. Barriers to Fiscal Solvency Administrative stability is needed at CCSF. Four of its five vice chancellor positions are interim; the vice chancellor for finance and administration is the only administrative position with history in the district. The chancellor is also an interim assignment. Interviews revealed that decisions that have serious financial implications are often made but that no one position is accountable for those decisions. Ultimately the governing board and the chan- cellor must provide leadership and serve as the final authority for important decisions. Fixing the immediate budget problem is imperative, but both the immediate remedy and sustained change depend on recognizing and addressing factors that contribute to poor decisions and a lack of accountability. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 executive summary The costs of employee contracts have increased through a succession of chancellors. A number of the contract provisions have been added without any consideration of CCSF’s ability to pay in the future. As a result, CCSF is facing potential insolvency, which could significantly affect the organization or require state intervention The civil service structure under which CCSF operates is the same as that of the City of San Francisco and is established and maintained in accord with Education Code section 88137. This has both benefits and drawbacks. CCSF is the only community college in California that operates under this structure, which can make creating and managing the classified workforce difficult, especially in times of fiscal crisis, because CCSF often does not have control over who is placed in positions. Interviewees consistently indicated that CCSF has for many years operated based on power, influence and political whim rather than reason, logic and fairness. Interviewees indicated that CCSF’s focus and purpose, which should be serving students, has been lost and is not the basis for decision making. Rather, the emphasis has been on keeping individuals employed and ensuring that they receive benefits, which is a positive goal but should not usurp any college district’s primary goal of serving students. CCSF’s decisions have diminished the resources avail- able to achieve its primary purpose. Past decisions have reduced the management team to spectators rather than organizational leaders. For example, determining how many classified employees are needed and what services are required should be a management function, but at CCSF these decisions are made by a committee. This has been costly to CCSF. Under this organizational and cultural model there is no responsibility or accountability because it is often unclear how or by whom decisions have been made. This has resulted in operational dysfunction, which in turn has contributed to fiscal deficiencies. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 10 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 Fiscal HealtH a nalysis Findings and Recommendations Fiscal Health Analysis Overview Prior to and separate from FCMAT’s review, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) officially issued the San Francisco Community College District (commonly known as City College of San Francisco, or CCSF) an order of show cause, partly because of its fiscal status. The Commission is concerned that CCSF is on the brink of insol- vency. Show cause occurs when the ACCJC finds an institution in substantial noncompliance with the commission’s eligibility requirements, accreditation standards or policies, or when the institution has not responded to the condition previously imposed by ACCJC. In CCSF’s case, CCSF must show cause regarding why the commission should not withdraw accreditation at its June 2013 meeting by demonstrating that it has corrected the deficiencies noted by the commission and is in compliance with the eligibility requirements, accreditation standards and commission policies. Show cause places the burden of proof on CCSF to demonstrate why its accreditation should be continued. The ACCJC conducted its own independent review to determine CCSF’S accreditation status. Both the results of that review and the process for accreditation are separate and distinct from the review performed by the FCMAT team. CCSF has unrestricted revenues of approximately $190 million per year. This includes approxi- mately $15 million in revenues from a local sales tax, a source that most similar college districts do not have. Even with this significant fiscal advantage, CCSF is experiencing severe financial difficulty. Reserve Requirements For at least the last five years CCSF has operated with a reserve of slightly more than 1%, or $1.9M, of its unrestricted general fund expenditures. As a general rule, the CCCCO recom- mends a 5% reserve level. In addition, there has been a fixed $6.6 million board reserve for several years. In fiscal year 2011-12 CCSF overspent its budgeted expenditures because of faulty budget assumptions made when the budget was adopted. To balance the budget, anticipated savings were included in the expense budget as negative line items without identifying any specific reductions. These reductions did not materialize, so the unrestricted fund balance of 1% and $3.5 million of the $6.6 million board reserve were needed to balance the budget for fiscal year 2011-12, leaving CCSF with only $3 million available in the board reserve at the close of the fiscal year. According to CCSF, $1.5 million in one-time internal departmental funds has been carried over from previous years and could be used to augment the $3 million remaining board reserve if the board so decides. Even if that occurs, the combined funds would comprise a 2.25% total reserve, which is insufficient in today’s economic climate, especially based on the CCCCO’s 5% recom- mendation. Based on district information, these are the only remaining sources of emergency funds. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 12 fiscal health analysis Salaries and Benefits It has been noted publicly in various venues that CCSF’s employee salaries and benefits comprise approximately 92% of its unrestricted budget. Operating expenses such as utilities, supplies, property and liability insurance, maintenance agreements and capital outlay are paid out of the remaining 8%. This leaves very little in discretionary funds. Although the 92% figure is true for the 2012-13 budget, CCSF’s employee costs have historically been closer to 90%, compared to approximately 86% for most community college districts. Because so much of its budget is committed to employee costs, resulting in insufficient reserves, CCSF has difficulty responding to unexpected fiscal obligations. If CCSF continues to maintain a high ratio of employee costs, it will need a larger unrestricted fund balance to provide for unanticipated fiscal emergencies. Capital Outlay Capital outlay spending has only been approximately 0.1% of the budget during the last five years because local general obligation bonds have provided funds for capital needs during that time. However, the bond funds will soon be completely depleted, so CCSF will need to start planning to meet ongoing capital needs and restore capital outlay budgets using its operating budget. Unfunded Liabilities Until recently, CCSF has not set aside funds to address its unfunded liability for retiree health benefits. The amount CCSF has currently identified to meet this ongoing obligation is $500,000 per year, which is well below the actuarial recommendation. The July 2011 actuarial analysis of CCSF’s retiree health benefit obligation indicates a present value debt of $235,000,000. CCSF is meeting its annual payment obligation on a pay-as-you-go basis. For the 2011-12 budget year, the annual cost is estimated to be $6.9 million, but this will increase to $13.0 million annually by 2020-21. This cost will continue to increase regardless of CCSF’s revenues or fiscal solvency. This means that as available revenue decreases, the burden that these retiree costs place on the expenditure budget will be amplified. Regardless of the economic growth scenario chosen, the expenditures for pay-as-you-go will increase on a percentage basis faster than increases in revenue. Encroachment The amount CCSF has taken from its unrestricted general fund to subsidize categorical and auxiliary operations has increased from $1.98 million in fiscal year 2008-09 to $6.2 million in fiscal year 2011-12. CCSF has planned to decrease this amount to $2.95 million in 2012-2013; however, part of the planned decrease is created by moving the basic skills program from the restricted general fund to the unrestricted general fund, which changes how the expenditures are recorded but does not decrease the financial burden. Workers’ Compensation Prior to 2009, CCSF paid workers’ compensation expenses on a cash basis. This meant there was no recognition of accrued or expected liability related to outstanding claims. Because claims take time to mature and the costs often occur over more than one fiscal year, community college districts typically use actuarial studies to determine the expected cost of open claims and establish reserves to pay claims. CCSF has conducted actuarial studies but has not set aside funds to fully fund future claims obligations. Since 2009, CCSF has assessed an internal premium to programs and has chosen to address the unfunded claims expense through a 25-year amortization plan. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 Fiscal HealtH a nalysis This structure may be sufficient as long as the claims experience and payouts do not exceed the level of premium assessment. Staffing CCSF has not implemented layoffs, closed any sites or eliminated any programs in the past five years, even with significant decreases in funding. It has replaced some full-time faculty who have left CCSF rather than always recognizing the opportunity to reduce staffing through attrition. One-time actions have been the primary method used to address operating deficits, which means that CCSF must begin anew in its search for fiscal solutions each year to address the ongoing deficits. Based on CCSF’s multiyear financial projections, it is clear that ongoing budget reduc- tions are needed rather than temporary or one-time measures to eliminate deficits and restore fund balances. CCSF has completed the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office’s (CCCCO’s) Fiscal Health Checklist, which is included below. Based on the self-assessment, CCSF has recognized a number of areas in which it is deficient. FCMAT has reviewed the document and agrees with most of CCSF’s statements but differs on some. FCMAT’s comments and opinions regarding the document are provided in italicized text; all other comments and assessments are those of CCSF. CCCCO Sound Fiscal Management Checklist Completed by CCSF FCMAT’s comments are included in italics. 1. Deficit Spending for fiscal year 2011-12 Not Acceptable Revenue estimates are based on past history. Estimate for fiscal year 2011-12 revenues were conservative and within reason. The “February surprise” created substantial challenges. Fiscal year 2010-11 was not a deficit spending year; closeout from the UGF [unrestricted general fund] was more than $3 million. However fiscal year 2011-12 had an unacceptably high level of deficit spending. It was addressed by using fund balance and one-time spending reductions including wage concessions. The district does not automatically build in growth revenue; in fact the 2010-11 closeout was primarily due to the conservative strategy of not including such revenue in the final budget. Growth is only built in when a funding strategy to add sections is also incorporated. 2. Fund Balance for fiscal year 2011-12 Not Acceptable Fund balance declined dramatically during fiscal year 2011-12 as a result of using the undesignated unreserved balance and a substantial portion of the designated reserve to support operations. 3. Enrollment Not Acceptable District has had to make use of stabilization funding due to lack of funds for summer sessions. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 14 fiscal health analysis Demand in Credit remains strong, declining in Non Credit. Data is tracked and analyzed and strategies are developed to meet enrollment targets. However, the college was in stability in both 2011-12 and 2009-10 due to lack of ability to fund summer session. 4. Unrestricted General Fund (UGF) Balance Not acceptable Fund balance includes a long-term prepaid lease for the Mission Campus, currently valued at about $10 million. The portion of fund balance that is available to be used for emergencies is less than 5% of annual unrestricted general fund expenditures. 5. Cash Flow Borrowing Not Acceptable Tax revenue anticipation notes (TRANs) are repaid on time. The college also borrows from the City/County of San Francisco. The college has a negative cash position too often. 6. Bargaining Agreements Acceptable Per the criteria this is acceptable as there have been no across-the-board salary increases for any employee group since July 2007. In the past five years the only negotiated changes have been in the areas of health insurance contributions made by certificated employees and a seniority step increase for some classified employees. Several years ago the college’s contract with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) allocated a portion of new revenue to faculty based on a formula. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) contracts were based on traditional bargaining. Cost analyses were always conducted; wage increases were budgeted. Although CCSF’s statements are correct, FCMAT believes that CCSF’s contracts are not sustainable given the district’s financial condition. Evidence of this is that salaries and benefits consume 92% of the budget. Thus FCMAT would rate this item as Not Acceptable. 7. Unrestricted General Fund Staffing Not Acceptable Deficit spending was incurred in 2011-12; one-time funds were used to support ongoing expenses. The percentage of the unrestricted general fund spent for personnel expenses is greater than 85%. The college is not providing adequate funds for scheduled maintenance or for upgrading technology. 8. Internal Controls Acceptable Internal controls are adequate and are evaluated by both independent audi- tors and an internal auditor. Loss of assets over the years has been negligible. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 Fiscal HealtH a nalysis 9. Management Information Systems (MIS) Acceptable, but some reports are late The college has a task force that makes an ongoing effort to ensure that data is accurate for the state MIS report. In addition, the program review committee works to ensure that data used for such purposes is accurate. The business office completes all required reports but the college has filed its annual audit and 311 reports after the state deadline in several years. This issue can only be addressed by improving available resources 10. Position Control Acceptable as of fall 2012 Position control for classified employees is fine. For certificated employees the college has had an ongoing problem with assignment forms not reaching payroll in a timely manner. This is currently being addressed by the office of instruction. Position control is integrated with payroll but not budget. As noted later in this report, there are concerns regarding CCSF’s inability to link position control to budget, which is a critical function to recon- cile salary and benefit costs. Thus FCMAT would rate this item as Not Acceptable. 11. Budget Monitoring Acceptable, but budget development needs improvement Historically bargaining agreements have been evaluated in advance for budgetary impact. Revenue revisions are timely; expenditures are updated every pay period. The board is kept informed about changes in budget esti- mates throughout the year. The district’s only long-term financial obligations are for other post-employment benefits (OPEB) and workers’ compensation. There are no other long-term debts. Annual budget development needs improvement particularly with respect to costs associated with part-time faculty and health benefits for active employees. 12. Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Not Acceptable Actuarial studies have been completed; the results have been widely shared. The college was strictly pay-as-you-go for this liability until 2011-12 when for the first time it made a $500,000 transfer into a trust fund established by the city. This transfer will be repeated in 2012-13. There is no specific plan to increase these payments. 13. Leadership/Stability Acceptable The chief executive officer retired in April 2012. The chief business official (CBO) has been at the college for 20 years. Several board members have served multiple terms. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 16 fiscal health analysis FCMAT believes that although there is stability in one key position, the CBO, there is instability in other aspects of the senior administrative structure. Thus FCMAT would rate this item as Not Acceptable. 14. District Liability Acceptable There are no active lawsuits that require increased reserves. The college was a founding member of the Statewide Association of Community Colleges for property and liability coverage, but switched to the Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs effective 7/1/12. There are no anticipated settlements at this time. 15. Reporting Not Acceptable with respect to timeliness The college’s annual audit reports have been delivered after January 1 on several occasions. The quarterly and annual 311 reports have also been late on multiple occasions. The district has always met the 50% law. The 320 reports have been timely. Several external audit recommendations have been repeated in multiple audits and remain outstanding. CCSF has stated that it is taking steps to address these recommendations, but it needs to do so more aggressively. FCMAT rates this as Not Acceptable not only with regard to timeliness, but also because of these repeated audit findings. FCMAT’s analysis of the audit findings follows. Audit Findings CCSF has made some progress toward resolving outstanding audit findings in annual audited financial reports for fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. These findings are items that the external independent auditors determined indicate deficiencies in internal controls that could result in material misstatements in CCSF’s financial statements. These audit findings are categorized in terms of severity as either material weaknesses (most severe), significant defi- ciencies (moderately severe), or deficiencies (least severe). The tables below provide an overview of the number and type of findings reported in the last three annual financial audits. Quantity and Types of Audit Findings 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 Material Weaknesses 3 4 0 Significant Deficiencies 3 14 17 Deficiencies 7 0 0 Total 13 18 17 As the table above shows, since fiscal year 2008-09 CCSF has reduced the total number of audit Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 17 Fiscal HealtH a nalysis findings from 17 to 13, but the number of audit findings classified as material weaknesses has increased. This may indicate that there are significant obstacles to timely and accurate reporting of financial statements going forward. Indeed, the nature of the three material weaknesses in the most recent 2010-11 audit report indicates that this is the case. These three audit findings concern the following: • The significant number of financial restatements required by the auditors to ensure that the financial statements were materially accurate. • The significant number of errors in CCSF’s financial records that inhibited its ability to close its books accurately and in a timely manner. • CCSF’s lack of a long-term financing plan that will lower its OPEB liability and relieve the negative unrestricted net asset balance of $25,056,628 as of June 30, 2011. Analysis of Findings 2010-11 2009-10 2008-09 Number of continuing findings 6 8 4 Number of new findings 7 10 13 Total Findings 13 18 17 Recommendations CCSF should: 1. Increase funding for the future cost of retiree health benefits using a struc- tured plan rather than on an ad hoc basis. 2. If funds become available, consider funding its outstanding workers’ compen- sation claims in advance of the current 25-year amortization plan. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 18 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 19 multiyear financial projection Multiyear Financial Projection Potential Funding Scenarios CCSF faces four possible funding scenarios for 2012-13, which are predicated on two different tax proposals included in the November 2012 election: the governor’s tax measure and a local parcel tax for CCSF. The fiscal implications and projections for CCSF vary greatly depending on the election outcome scenario on which they are based. Appendix A includes more detail regarding each scenario, assumptions for each fiscal year, and information for 2014-15. The two tables below summarize the four possible scenarios prepared by CCSF staff for fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Fiscal Year 2012-13 Funding Scenarios If state tax and If state tax passes If state tax fails but If state tax and parcel tax fail but parcel tax fails parcel tax passes parcel tax pass Total Revenue $175,093,000 $187,299,000 $189,819,000 $201,064,000 Adopted Tentative Expense Budget $186,572,000 $186,572,000 $186,572,000 $186,572,000 (Deficit)/Surplus ($11,479,000) $727,000 $3,247,000 $14,492,000 Key assumption: CCSF continues spending at the level of the tentative budget under all scenarios. Fiscal Year 2013-14 Funding Scenarios If state tax and If state tax passes If state tax fails but If state tax and parcel tax fail but parcel tax fails parcel tax passes parcel tax pass Total Revenue $176,880,000 $188,196,000 $190,880,000 $202,176,000 Expected Level of Spending $201,450,000 $201,450,000 $201,450,000 $201,450,000 (Deficit)/Surplus ($24,570,000) ($13,254,000) ($10,570,000) $726,000 Even in the best case scenario in which both taxes pass in November 2012, CCSF’s fiscal condi- tion remains a concern. CCSF must confront its serious and ongoing deficit spending, which is increased partly because of the anticipated increases to support its retiree health benefit obliga- tion, capital outlay, maintenance, and additions to the board reserve. These are all necessary increases for a variety of reasons. Because CCSF’s 2012-13 budget reductions were one-time in nature, the absence of these reductions in fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15 results in increased operating costs and related increased deficit spending year to year. In every scenario other than the best case in which both taxes pass in November, CCSF faces substantial solvency issues over the next several years. Appendix A of this report contains a multiyear financial projection (MYFP) for CCSF that includes an explanation of the revenue and expenditure assumptions used in determining the amounts for each year. The projection includes no permanent, ongoing expenditure reductions beyond those identified in the fiscal year 2012-2013 tentative budget. If voters approve the local parcel tax in November 2012, CCSF will not receive any resulting revenues until fiscal year 2013-14. The administration has held discussions with, and received authorization from, the board to issue debt instruments in order to receive the tax revenue in 2012-13. Although the exact amount of the debt has not yet been established, it is estimated to California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 20 multiyear financial projection be up to approximately $14 million. If CCSF issues the debt, the funding would be accelerated. There is a cost to borrow but it will not be known until the size and timing of the transaction are established. At that time CCSF will need to decide if the earlier receipt of revenue is worth the cost of issuing debt. Multiyear Financial Projection Multiyear financial projections (MYFPs) are an important part of the budget process. They should be produced accurately and contain the most current fiscal information available. MYFPs allow CCSF to project revenues and expenditures and help ensure that it will be able to meet its financial obligations in the current and two subsequent fiscal years. FCMAT reviewed the MYFP prepared by CCSF to ensure its validity. FCMAT reviewed the performance of CCSF’s funds over the last several years to identify trends and formulate ques- tions about the status of accounts. This review allowed FCMAT to validate CCSF’s general fund budget projections for the current and two subsequent fiscal years and indicate any effects that other funds may have on the general fund. Any financial forecast has inherent limitations because it is based on certain criteria and assump- tions rather than on exact calculations. Limitations include issues such as the accuracy of baseline data, unpredictable timing of negotiations, unanticipated changes in enrollment trends, and changing state, federal and local economic conditions. Therefore, the budget forecasting model should be viewed as a trend based on certain criteria and assumptions rather than as a prediction of exact numbers. To maintain the most accurate and meaningful data, the projection should be updated at frequent intervals as well as when there are significant financial changes to CCSF’s budget in current or future years. The projection should also be updated during collective bargaining negotiations to determine the fiscal effect of any potential contractual changes. In evaluating the MYFP, much attention is focused on the bottom line, which indicates CCSF’s undesignated, unappropriated fund balance. If the bottom line shows a positive unappropriated fund balance, this amount may be used by the governing board and/or the chancellor to improve educational programs, increase employee compensation, improve the fund balance, fund liabili- ties such as retiree benefits or workers’ compensation, or spend in other categories. However, if the unappropriated fund balance is negative, the deficit is the amount by which the budget must be reduced to sustain the recommended reserve levels and board-designated reserves. The MYFP must be viewed comprehensively, and CCSF must determine the compounding effects that using any or all of the unappropriated fund balance will have on the MYFP in the current and future years. The unappropriated balance and the corresponding compound effects can be determined clearly as the years proceed. FCMAT reviewed CCSF’s records, interviewed staff members and examined financial reports to gather the information needed to validate CCSF’s MYFP, which uses its fiscal year 2012-13 tentative budget as the base year. Based on FCMAT’s review of the data, the projection is reason- able. Because there are multiple possible outcomes based on the upcoming election, the projec- tions vary greatly from one scenario to another, and the variance increases further in the second and third projection years. CCSF’s 2012-13 tentative budget is balanced in terms of anticipated revenues and expendi- tures, but it both assumes and depends on passage of the governor’s tax measure. Most of the expenditure savings in the tentative budget are one-time concessions from the employee groups for 2012-13 only, which means that CCSF will again need to make reductions for 2013-14. Even with the passage of the governor’s tax measure, CCSF will have a projected shortfall of Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 21 multiyear financial projection $13 million in fiscal year 2013-14. CCSF cannot afford to wait and see if the local parcel tax is approved before implementing expenditure reductions. To maintain fiscal solvency, it would be best to identify reductions for 2013-14 as soon as possible and to ensure that they are ongoing rather than temporary. CCSF’s 2012-13 budget does not reflect increases to the fund balance. Although the budget recognizes the possibility of a small state funding deficit of 0.7%, in today’s economic climate it is likely that the deficit could be higher, which will reduce the fund balance. CCSF’s projected surplus (revenues minus expenditures) if the state tax passes but the local parcel tax fails is $727,000, which is minimal and leaves no margin for error or unexpected changes to the budget; either could result in fiscal insolvency. There is a possibility that the governor’s tax measure will not pass. Although CCSF has estimated that this would reduce funding by another $11.5 million in 2012-13 if both the state tax and parcel tax measures fail, it has not developed a plan to deal with this reduction should it occur, and its ending fund balance is not sufficient to bear the burden. CCSF is in a perilous financial position. It can neither afford to err in its budget assumptions or accounting treatments, nor incur additional unbudgeted expenses. Even if CCSF is able to maintain solvency in fiscal year 2012-13 using the measures it has enacted, it will experience numerous challenging spending pressures and decisions in the future. CCSF Response to the Possible Scenarios At the time of this report, CCSF had planned only for the second scenario, in which the governor’s tax measure passes and the local parcel tax does not pass in November 2012. As in the past, CCSF plans to address the budget shortfall with one-time budget adjustments rather than ongoing solutions, which is problematic. The identified one-time reductions total $6 to $10 million. The variance exists because the reductions include goals to increase classroom productivity as well as the annual calculation of funded full-time equivalent students (FTES), which remains unknown. The interim chancellor and vice chancellor have indicated that they will provide recommendations to the board in September 2012 regarding planning for the worst- case scenario, in which both the state and local tax measures fail. Under this timeline, it will be difficult to complete a plan by the first of November and unlikely that it will be implemented until sometime after that. Recommendations CCSF should: 1. Ensure that any additional revenue or savings that materialize are used first to improve its fund balance. 2. Develop a plan now for the scenario in which both November 2012 tax measures fail. 3. Become more aggressive in reducing expenditures by implementing ongoing budget adjustments to avoid insolvency. 4. Plan for and make permanent reductions to balance its fiscal year 2013-14 budget. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 22 multiyear financial projection 5. Take a very conservative position with its tentative and adoption budgets, and limit spending to an absolute minimum until the November election results are known. Any savings can be used to help address a worst-case scenario in the current year. If the election results are positive, CCSF should assess the situation and then develop a plan to restore the ending fund balance and to fund ongoing obli- gations such as retiree health benefits and workers’ compensation. 6. Before adding any new discretionary costs to the budget, identify a reasonable level of resources to commit to capital outlay from the operating budget, beginning in fiscal year 2013-14. 7. Evaluate all requests for categorical program subsidies against all other uses of unrestricted general fund monies and along with CCSF’s other priorities. Subsidies should not be provided without analysis and discussion. 8. Ensure that multiyear projections include all cost increases such as those for retiree health benefits, utilities, normal step-and-column movement, employee benefits, and payroll. If a shortage occurs after including these items, either identify an ongoing revenue source and/or implement perma- nent cost reductions. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 23 staffing and operational costs Staffing and Operational Costs Collective Bargaining Agreements SEIU, Stationary Engineers and Construction Trade Council Union CCSF’s contract with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) covers the majority of its classified employees. Two other agreements cover a small number of classified employees, stationary engineers and construction trades. In many respects these agreements are consistent with the provisions of the SEIU agreement. The contract with the SEIU contains most of the typical provisions found in such agreements; however, it also provides benefits and compensation for classified employees that may not be sustainable in this economic environment, including the following: • Employees who work at least 20 hours per week receive full health and welfare benefits. • The classified salary schedule has five annual steps. In addition, three longevity steps (steps 6, 7 and 8) have been added, each of which requires five years to reach. The additional pay increment for each step is 5%. These longevity steps add more than 15% to the salary schedule. The contract includes language that allows negotiations to be reopened regarding adding two more steps. • The regular workweek is 37.5 hours. • Employees are entitled to a portion of their accumulated sick leave as a cash payment under the wellness provision. • There are approximately 23 to 24 paid holidays, depending on the day of the week on which Christmas and New Year’s fall. • After 10 years of service, employees earn 22 days of vacation per year and can carry a vacation balance of up to 480 hours, which can be paid out upon leaving employment. • In the past, CCSF paid the employees’ share of the retirement fund contribution. In 2011, the amount CCSF had previously funded was converted to salary and employees were required to begin paying their own contribution. • The contracts have low requirements for employees to qualify for lifetime health benefits. For employees hired before January 9, 2009 the requirement is age 50 with 5 years of service. Effective January 9, 2009, new employees qualify on a sliding scale: employees age 50 with 10 to 15 years of service qualify for 50% payment; those with 15-20 years of service receive 75%; and those with 20 years or more of service receive 100%. • The contract includes provisions for payments for wellness. This creates an obligation that is difficult to quantify or anticipate. The substantial amount of paid time off, the 37.5-hour work week, the high vacation accrual levels and compensatory time provisions make it necessary for CCSF to have more employees on the payroll than would otherwise be the case. American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Local 2121 CCSF’s contract with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) covers all of its full-time and part-time academic employees. It does not cover retired faculty, temporary administrators, super- visory, confidential or management employees. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 24 staffing and operational costs Although the agreement contains the provisions found in most agreements of this type, it also provides benefits and compensation that may not be sustainable in the current economic envi- ronment, including the following: • Release time for contract administration, including grievance processing (3.75 FTE). • Compensation for tenure review committee members and mentors CCSF provides nine hours of non-instructional pay for committee members, 17 hours for committee chairs, and 18 hours for mentors. • Voluntary sick leave bank This pays up to 100 days at half pay to supplement partially paid sick leave for full-time employees, up to 100 days for part-time employees at level of the employee’s current workload, and up to 25 full days of extraordinary benefits if other voluntary sick leave bank benefits have been exhausted. • Pregnancy disability leave Employees receive up to six weeks of this leave, which is paid by CCSF and is not deducted from an employee’s accrued sick leave. • Sabbatical leave Four percent of the total faculty are on leave each semester; at least three-quarters of this must be for one-year sabbaticals. • Load and class size The minimum class size is 20, with some exceptions. Teaching load in the credit program is 15 units per semester or 30 units per year with some adjustment based on varying modes of instruction. Noncredit teaching load is 25 contact hours per week. A joint faculty/management committee was formed many years ago to discuss work load and class size. The current contract contains the following statement acknowledging the work of the joint committee: “ . . . [acknowledges] the work of the Joint Committee as detailed in the Efficiency Committee Report of January 1991. The District and Union affirmed their commitment to further evaluate the Joint Committee’s recommendations with particular emphasis on administrative efficiency, faculty loads and class size in light of median loads and class sizes of other Bay Ten community college districts” • Compensation/Salaries The salary formula may not adequately address CCSF’s rising costs of benefits, including its retiree benefit obligation. Temporary part-time faculty are paid on a prorated basis at 86% of full time rates, up to step 12 of the salary schedule (full-time permanent employees are paid on this basis up to step 16) for the various modes of instruction. Pay for temporary part-time office hours is based on the load assigned, with a range of up to four, eight or 15 hours per semester. Full-time faculty are eligible for annual salary step movement; step progression for part-time faculty is granted after completion of four semesters, up to Step 12. Salary schedule column movement provisions provide incentives to pursue further academic preparation via preapproved undergraduate or Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 25 staffing and operational costs graduate units after initial salary placement. The annual cost for step-and-column movement for full-time and part-time faculty was $1,528,556 in fiscal year 2010-11. • Benefits CCSF pays a city charter-mandated contribution for employee medical insurance premiums for full-time and eligible part-time faculty. CCSF also pays 100% of the premium for dental coverage for full-time and eligible part-time faculty. Part-time employees are eligible if they are beginning at least their third semester and are assigned either 12.5 hours or more per week for a semester in the noncredit program or 7.5 units or more per week for a semester in the credit program. The total annual costs to CCSF of this provision are $3,017,274 for health benefits and $443,779 for dental benefits. • Substitutes CCSF provides higher pay rates for substitute assignments that exceed 12% of the total hours of an academic course. The magnitude of its employee contract obligations makes it difficult for CCSF to continue as a going concern without negotiating to reduce total staffing costs. CCSF has employed twice as many full-time faculty as its peers, incurring expenses that are $17 to $18 million higher than comparison districts. CCSF also employs more classified staff at higher average salaries than the comparison districts. Medical Benefit Costs FCMAT evaluated CCSF’s medical benefit costs compared to those of 10 other Bay Area community college districts. Bay Area districts were used for comparison because of the ease of obtaining data and because the rates, which are usually based on geographic location, were likely to be comparable. The analysis assessed only the medical premium costs associated with the existing plans. An exhaustive analysis would require considering many variables, but this was not possible because of constraints on time and information. The data for fiscal year 2010-11 indi- cate that CCSF’s premium rates are near the median of those for the other 10 Bay Area commu- nity college districts. However, CCSF has approximately two to three times more employees who are eligible for these benefits than the other Bay Area districts used for comparison. Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES) The number of full-time equivalent students (FTES) at CCSF from 2005-06 through 2011-12 has been fairly stable. The decline of 1,237 FTES during that time was due largely to state funding reductions for FTES, which were out of CCSF’s control. During the decline, credit FTES increased from 65.3% of total FTES in 2005-06 to 69.1% in 2011-12. Because credit FTES are funded at a higher rate, this increase mitigated the effect of the decline in total FTES somewhat. In 2011-12 CCSF received stability funds because it had fewer FTES than its base amount for FTES funding. This occurred because of the decision to limit the spring and summer sessions as a money-saving measure. CCSF fully anticipates restoring these FTES in 2012-13, which would eliminate any negative effect on revenues. Although there has been a slight decline in FTES during the seven-year period of 2005-06 through 2011-12, employee costs have increased in all but three categories. The table below summarizes these changes. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 26 staffing and operational costs Changes in Employee Costs, 2005-2012 Employee Category Costs, 2005-06 Costs, 2011-12* Change Instructional Faculty $42.34 million $53.15 million +25.53% Part-Time Instructors $27.33 million $24.55 million -10% Librarians $1.73 million $1.95 million +12.71% Counselors $5.35 million $6.50 million +21.49% Nonteaching Hourly $6.45 million $5.97 million -7.44% Academic Administrators $6.01 million $5.03 million -16.31% Regular Classified $31.26 million $32.54 million +4.09% Classified Hourly $1.44 million $2.05 million +42.36% Total Salaries and Benefits $121.91 million $131.74 million + *The 2011-12 amounts are budgeted figures. During this period basic skills was moved out of the unrestricted general fund, so the 2005-06 amounts include these costs but the 2011-2012 amounts do not. Most of the basic skills salary costs were for faculty. If they were included, the percentage change would be larger. Revenues have increased over this same period by approximately 9.6%, excluding use of reserves and one-time transfers. The above table shows that regular faculty salaries have increased 25% during this period, while FTES have decreased and revenues have increased by less than 10%. The decline in part-time faculty costs is more representative of a decline in state-funded FTES. Increasing the number of regular full-time faculty or increasing the pay structure locks in costs that are hard to reduce during difficult financial times. The same is true for counselors and, to a lesser extent, librarians. Revenue and Cost per FTES for Credit and Noncredit Courses CCSF operates the largest noncredit program of any community college in California. In 2011-12 CCSF served 37,469 full-time equivalent resident and nonresident students (FTES). Of these, 10,429 FTES, or 28%, were enrolled in noncredit courses, and 6,439 of the 10,429 FTES were enrolled in English as a second language courses. Other significant noncredit program enrollments were in transitional studies, learning assistance, and in business and office technology and small business (see Appendix D for enrollment and FTES by discipline). Noncredit funding is classified as either regular or as career development and college preparation (CDCP). In 2006, the state created a funding category for CDCP courses, sometimes referred to as enhanced noncredit courses. The California community college funding formula funds regular noncredit at $2,745 per FTES and CDCP at $3,232 per FTES. Of CCSF’s total 10,429 noncredit FTES, 7,630 were CDCP and 2,799 were regular noncredit. Thus the majority of CCSF’s noncredit FTES are funded at the higher rate. To perform a revenue and cost analysis of the noncredit offerings at CCSF, certain assumptions were used because CCSF does not account for revenues and expenditures in sufficient detail to perform the analysis without them. For example, FCMAT was provided with 2011-12 general fund unrestricted expenditure data for credit, noncredit and support costs. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 27 staffing and operational costs Excerpt of 2011-12 Expenditure Data for Credit, Noncredit and Support Programs Unrestricted General UGF – Internally Program Type Fund (UGF) Designated Fund Total % of Total Credit FTES Expenditures 110,086,873 473,064 110,559,937 55% Non-Credit Expenditures 25,074,789 1,778,108 26,852,897 13% Support Expenditures 60,367,028 2,133,803 62,500,831 31% Total 195,528,690 4,384,975 199,913,665 Source: Data provided by Controller. Report title: FICMAT_CR_NC_SUPPORT_NULL_Expenditure_Distributions. Information provided by CCSF indicates that unrestricted general fund expenditures totaled $199.9 million for fiscal year 2011-12, that 55% of this total is attributed to direct costs associ- ated with credit instruction, 13% to direct cost of noncredit instruction, and 31% to indirect support activity costs. Support activities are activities that provide support services such as facili- ties, administrative and clerical, counseling, and libraries. To accurately show the costs of the credit and noncredit programs, a means of allocating the support costs between the credit and noncredit instruction had to be developed. FCMAT used total direct expenditures for credit ($108,944,937= 80%) and total direct expenditures for noncredit ($28,467,897= 20%) as a basis for allocating the majority of the support costs. In the absence of data regarding the distribution of support costs, the assumption is that support costs are incurred in the same ratio as direct costs. The exception to this 80%/20% distribution of support costs was in the compensation costs for educational administrators; in this case a 70%/30% distribution was used, which approximates the ratio of credit enrollment to noncredit enrollment. Using this allocation method, total expenditures for credit instruction are $158,420,200 ($108,944,937 + $49,475,263) and total expenditures for noncredit instruction are $41,493,465 ($28,467,897 + $13,025,568). The projected costs per FTES are $5,859 for credit and $3,979 for noncredit. Actual 2011-12 FTES, including nonresident FTES, were used in the per-FTES cost calculations (10,429 noncredit and 27,040 credit, including nonresidents). When calculating revenue per credit and noncredit FTES, FCMAT had to make assumptions similar to those made for the cost calculations. FCMAT only factored into the analysis those revenue components that are considered by the state as computational revenue for state appor- tionment purposes. These components include local property taxes, student enrollment fees and state general apportionment. Per the California Community College Chancellor’s Office’s (CCCCO’s) second principal appor- tionment report for fiscal year 2011-12, CCSF’s total computational revenue was $152,686,227. As previously stated, total expenditures for 2011-12 were $199,913,665. Thus expenditures compared to the state computational revenue results in a deficit of $47,227,438 that must be offset by other local revenues such as local sales tax, interest income, nonresident tuition and other sources. State funding provides CCSF with $5,000 per credit FTES and $3,341 per noncredit FTES. The noncredit funding rate is approximately 67% of the funding rate for credit courses. These funding rates include an appropriate allocation of foundation grant funding to the basic appor- tionment rates. The noncredit rate is a proportional blend of the state’s regular noncredit and CDCP noncredit rates, and the state’s basic allocation is 80% to credit and 20% to noncredit, similar to how the support expenditures discussed above are allocated. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 28 staffing and operational costs CCSF’s expenditure per FTES in excess of apportionment revenues for fiscal year 2011-12 was $637 for noncredit instruction and $859 for credit instruction. Thus noncredit requires $637 per FTES from other funding sources, and credit requires $859 per FTES from other funding sources. Based on this analysis, there is little difference in the proportion of revenue to cost when comparing credit offerings to noncredit offerings. For credit courses, 85.34% of funding per FTES is provided by apportionment revenue; for noncredit courses, 84% of funding per FTES is provided by apportionment revenue. The noncredit funding rate is lower, but costs are lower as well. Based on these revenue-to-expense proportions, the efficiency of credit and noncredit offer- ings are nearly equal. The table below summarizes this analysis Credit and Noncredit Cost and Revenue Analysis 2011-12 Actual Apportionment Difference 2011-12 FTES (includ- Revenue per Between Revenue as a General Fund ing nonresi- Expenditure FTES, Including Revenue and Percentage of Type Expenditures dents) per FTES Foundation Grant Expense Expense Credit $158,420,200 27,040 $5,859 $5,000 $859 85.34% Noncredit $41,493,465 10,429 $3,979 $3,342 $637 84.00% Total $199,913,665 37,469 This analysis has used the 2011-12 general apportionment revenue in calculating the revenue per FTES. Actual FTES, including nonresident FTES, was used to calculate expenditures per FTES. Total FTES were used to calculate the per-FTES cost because the general fund expen- ditures incurred in 2011-12 included costs of serving both resident and nonresident students. It is assumed that the nonresident tuition rate per FTES approximates state apportionment revenue since all of the nonresident students appear to be in enrolled in credit courses. Significant assumptions were made in allocating the support costs, which CCSF does not classify in its accounting system. If CCSF continues to use the revenue and expense model in this report, it will need to review more closely the 80%/20% distribution of these costs to confirm the appro- priateness of this assumption. The effect of categorical revenue and expenses would also need to be reviewed as relates to this analysis. The funding rate per noncredit FTES is approximately 70% of the apportionment per credit FTES. However, costs in the noncredit program are also lower. A significant amount of the difference in costs between credit and noncredit is due to differences in teaching load. In the credit program, the teaching load is 15 contact hours per week; in the noncredit program, teaching load is 25 contact hours per week. Thus the teaching load in noncredit is 67% greater. The lower funding rate in the noncredit program is compensated for by the overall cost savings that result from faculty members having a higher teaching load, even though the salary schedule is the same. Instructional productivity, as measured by FTES per full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF), is similar in both programs. According to information provided by CCSF, productivity is 35.53 FTES per FTEF in the credit program and 36.76 FTES per FTEF in the noncredit program. Given the assumptions necessary to complete this analysis, the comparison of revenue and cost per FTES for credit and noncredit programs yielded no significant difference on a proportional basis, even though in terms of absolute dollars credit courses required a greater per-FTES contri- bution from other funding sources ($859) than did noncredit courses ($637). Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 29 staffing and operational costs Faculty Obligation Number (FON) Assembly Bill (AB) 1725 changed the community college funding formula in the early 1990s and included goals to both maintain a required number of full-time faculty teaching in credit programs and to increase the number of full-time faculty as growth funding was provided. The goal established was that 75% of the hours of credit instruction offered should be taught by full- time faculty, and thus the 75-to-25 ratio became part of the community college lexicon. Some limited additional resources were allocated to colleges via the state budget to support this effort for the first two or three years after the passage of AB 1725, but not subsequent to that. Although the goal to maintain and increase full-time faculty remained, the lack of state funding limited progress toward meeting it. The AB 1725 commitment had two parts: To convert part-time faculty to full time to increase the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty in community colleges statewide; and to increase hourly part-time pay so that it would be more comparable to the salaries paid to full-time teaching faculty. Like the funding to hire more full-time faculty, the supplemental allocation to fund part- time faculty pay has been reduced and offset by state general apportionment reductions. The minimum faculty requirement established by AB 1725 remains in place and is calculated each year for each college district based on the prior year number and any growth funding CCSF received. This calculation is based on credit enrollment only. CCSF’s faculty obligation number (FON) for fall 2011 was 483.80 (the FON requirement applies only to the credit program). CCSF’s most recent reporting (November 2011) indicated that it had 661.33 FTEF, which is 177.53, or 36.9%, more FTEF than required. Of the five similar community college districts chosen for comparison purposes, only Santa Monica similarly exceeds its FON, with 36.8% more FTEF than required. Santa Monica has a much lower base FTEF in spite of the fact that its FTES credit enrollment is similar to that of CCSF. Statewide, community college districts exceeded the FON by an average of 11 FTEF. CCSF exceeds its required FON by the greatest amount of any district in the state when measured numerically. Based on its own reports, full-time faculty positions comprise 71.35% of the total credit teaching faculty at CCSF. Statewide, full-time faculty positions comprise an average of 58.24% of total credit teaching faculty at community colleges. To control costs and ensure an appropriate mix of teaching faculty practitioners, most commu- nity college districts seek a faculty staffing level that exceeds their FON to some extent but not significantly. This is because even with the increases in part-time hourly rates, part-time faculty are less expensive than full-time faculty for most districts. However, this is not the case with CCSF because of its hourly teaching rates and contract provisions that provide full health benefits to part-time employees. Although CCSF’s relatively high ratio and number of full-time faculty may not affect short-term costs because of the high level of contractual salaries and benefits paid to part-time faculty, it will affect these costs in the long term because of the implications of retiree health benefits for full-time employees. Greater use of part-time faculty also provides more flexibility and has the potential to make CCSF more responsive to local instructional program needs. Part-Time Faculty Costs CCSF’s estimated average rate of pay for a part-time instructor is $113.51 per hour. Based on this rate, the estimated annual cost of one part-time faculty who works the equivalent of full time (one FTEF) is $59,595, or approximately $6,000 per course. FCMAT confirmed these pay rates California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 30 staffing and operational costs through a review of financial records for fiscal year 2010-11 that indicate the total hourly pay in relation to total part-time faculty. Statutory benefits such as workers’ compensation, unemploy- ment insurance and retirement contributions add 6.6 % to this total. In addition, if a part-time faculty member’s teaching assignment is equal to or greater than 50% (7.5 units for credit and 12.5 units for noncredit) of a full time load, he or she is eligible for health benefits partially paid by CCSF and for fully paid dental benefits. The following table provides a calculation of the total cost of one part-time faculty member who works the equivalent of full time (one FTEF). Cost of One FTEF Part-Time Adjunct Faculty Item Amount Notes and Percentages $113.51 average hourly rate times 525 hours. District-provided total Salary $59,595 estimated salary. STRS (cash balance) $2,384 4% Unemployment Insurance $596 1% Workers’ Compensation $954 1.60% Dental Insurance $1,540 Prescription Drug Insurance $84 Health Benefit $7,487 Health Benefit* $7,487 Total $80,127 *Health benefits are included twice because the table assumes that two half time employees with loads of 50% or more are being used. CCSF’s part-time faculty salary schedule and health benefit provisions in its collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Local 2121 have negated any signifi- cant short-term cost advantage of using part-time faculty. The lower costs associated with part- time faculty have typically allowed community college districts to maintain their class schedules and offerings at a lower cost, but this is not the case at CCSF. Release Time CCSF provides a large amount of faculty release time (also referred to as reassigned time) for a variety of activities, the majority of which are administrative in nature. Some release time is expected and is considered normal to enable an organization to perform administrative functions. The important and often difficult task is to avoid increasing release time as an easy solution to immediate problems. The amount of release time can increase significantly if it is not monitored or used carefully. Using release time to resolve immediate problems or issues contributes to a less efficient, less accountable and more costly structure, and masks the true cost of administrative functions. Analysis reveals that a majority of the release time is used to enable faculty to perform admin- istrative work. CCSF’s release time totals 109.69 full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF) positions, although the release time is distributed among many more than 109 faculty members. CCSF has created an administrative structure that relies heavily on department chairs, who are elected by their peers and approved by CCSF’s academic administration, to perform administra- tive and supervisory functions (this structure is discussed further in the Administrative Structure section later in this report). Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 31 staffing and operational costs The department chairs operate under a collective bargaining agreement between CCSF and the department chair council (DCC). A total of 56.85 FTEF are reassigned to perform administra- tive and supervisory functions. The department chairperson formula for release, which is based on either weekly student contact hours (WSCH) or full-time academic employees in the depart- ment, accounts for 29.4 FTEF release time for 2011-12. Another contract provision enumerates extra specific reassigned units (ESRUs), which are reassigned units in addition to those awarded as part of the base formula. This provision accounts for 20.764 FTEF of release time. In addition to the release time, department chairs are paid a stipend based on years of service. The scope of duties and discretion granted to department chairs differs significantly from the industry stan- dard, to the extent that deans and other senior administrators are marginalized in the operation of CCSF’s instructional program. In addition to the department chair council release time, CCSF has a history of releasing faculty from classroom teaching duties to provide a number of services. This faculty release time is not governed by the DCC collective bargaining agreement and is noninstructional, but is associated with instructional disciplines. This type of release time totals 35.324 FTEF. The information provided by CCSF did not include a specific description of the duties for which reassigned time is being allocated in the 23 instructional disciplines for which it provides support. Some of the instructional disciplines that use significant amounts of this release time include culinary arts, with 2.057 FTEF; English, with 4.46 FTEF; educational technology, with 2.4 FTEF; health education, with 2.4 FTEF; physical education, with 2.8 FTEF; photography, with 2.13 FTEF; and English as a second language (ESL), with 5.378 FTEF. Based on the cost of $80,127 per FTEF for other instructional employees to perform the instructional duties of faculty when they are on release time, the total annual cost of this reassigned time is $2,830,406 (35.324 FTEF multiplied by $80,127). In addition to the release time for instructional discipline support, there are 17.52 FTEF of release time for nondepartmental, noninstructional purposes. These include, but are not limited to, the following: • Academic Senate (2.0 FTEF) • AFT (3.6 FTEF) • Mentoring/grow your own program (0.91 FTEF) • Site Supervision for the eight primary sites (3.90 FTEF) The estimated annual cost of noninstructional reassigned time for 17.52 FTEF is $1,403,825. A total of 109.69 FTEF are being reassigned from classroom responsibilities for the reasons and in the amounts indicated in the table below: Reason for and Amounts and Costs of Reassigned Time Reason FTEF Cost DCC Provisions 56.85 $ 5,229,730 Noninstructional Program related reassignments. 35.32 $2,830,406 Nondepartmental, Noninstructional reassignments 17.52 $1,403,825 Total 109.69 $ 9,463,961 The total cost of these reassignments is $9,463,961. This is the cost to provide hourly instruction for those courses that would otherwise be taught by full-time faculty if they were not on release time. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 32 staffing and operational costs In addition to the 109.69 FTEF release time, CCSF reports that during the 2011-12 school year 16 FTEF were on sabbatical, six FTEF were on ancillary assignments, approximately 12 FTEF were on unpaid leave, and an unreported amount of FTEF were on pre-retirement reduced load. Although there is no industry-standard or common practice regarding faculty release time in community colleges, it is customary for districts to have some faculty release time. Typically, however, release time is granted to improve instruction or support curriculum development, not to provide administrative support. CCSF reported 842 tenure-track faculty in fall of 2011. Including department chair release time and all other releases or sabbatical replacements, approximately 14% of CCSF’s full-time faculty FTEF are being released to fulfill nonteaching responsibilities. CCSF must consider whether it is using this large number of highly qualified classroom instructors in the most effective manner and whether students are benefitting from the current arrangement. The proliferation of release time creates a unique administrative structure that is difficult to manage, reduces accountability and makes coordination and decision-making more challenging. Off-Site Programs and Centers CCSF describes itself as having one main campus, eight centers, and approximately 100 other locations where courses are offered. These locations fall into one of the following categories: • State-approved centers for which CCSF receives foundation grant funding (which is part of the state funding formula for college districts to offset some of the costs of fixed expenses associated with these locations). CCSF is a single-college district and receives foundation grant funding for the college and for state-approved centers, based on the amount of FTES at the college or center. • State-approved centers that are identified but that do not meet criteria for foundation grant funding. • Other sites that are too small to receive any funding other than per-FTES funding. • Campuses, which are identified as such on CCSF’s website. . CCSF characterizes its locations as sites, centers, locations and campuses in different publications and reports; there does not seem to be consistency in how that determination is made. The CCCCO uses the following definitions: College-CCR T5 55827 (a) A degree-granting institution intended to provide instruc- tion through the second year of college, including but not limited to, one or more of the following categories: 1. Standard collegiate courses for transfer to higher institutions; 2. Vocational and technical fields leading to employment; or 3. General or liberal arts courses for which institution the district intends to obtain accreditation Educational Center-CCR T5 55827(b) A postsecondary operation established and administered by an existing college or district at a location away from the campus of the parent institution. An educational center is an operation planned to continue for three or more years and expected to enroll over 500 FTES by the third year of opera- Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 33 staffing and operational costs tion. The center typically has an on-site administrator and may offer programs leading to certificates and/or degrees conferred by the parent institution. Campus-Is like a college in most respects but may not offer a full complement of programs or services and is combined with other campuses or a college into a single institution for accreditation purposes. Outreach Operation-Is an off-campus enterprise administered by an existing college or district and offering courses in leased or owned facilities which have not been formally approved by the Board of Governors. It is often located in other government facilities, usually enrolls less than 500 FTES (approximately 1,000 head count) and may not be considered as having the potential to grow, over a period of time, into a college, campus or educational center. Outreach operations are combined with a college for accreditation and reporting purposes. According to the CCCCO, CCSF consists of the Ocean/Phelan Campus, eight centers, and one district office. In addition, there are more than 100 outreach operations throughout the city. The Ocean Campus and eight state-approved centers are listed in the table below along with the apportionment formula foundation grant funds provided for each. The state community college allocation formula provides for foundation grant funds to partially fund fixed costs associated with these approved campuses and centers. Foundation allocations are based on FTES enroll- ment. The Airport Center does not have sufficient FTES to qualify for foundation grant funding. Foundation Grant Funds for Ocean Campus and State-Approved Centers This includes college centers that are eligible for the basic allocation. It includes both state- approved educational centers as well as previously approved (grandfathered) centers. 2011-12 FTES 2010-11 Annual 320 for 2011-12 State-Approved Centers Threshold State Foundation Grant Recalculation Meets Threshold? Airport CC Center $ - 113.06 N/A Alemany CC Center 924 $1,107,182.00 1,237.17 Yes Chinatown/North Beach CC Center 924 $1,107,182.00 2,739.66 Yes John Adams CC Center 924 $1,107,182.00 3,302.15 Yes John O’Connell/Evans Trade Tech Center 924 $1,107,182.00 833.77 Yes Mission CC Center 924 $1,107,182.00 3,334.38 Yes San Francisco Downtown CC Center 924 $1,107,182.00 2,577.15 Yes Southeast CC Center 231 $276,795.00 454.31 Yes Ocean Campus 18,472 $5,535,909.00 Yes Total $12,455,796.00 Note: The Downtown center is state-approved; the remainder, except for the Airport Center, was approved previously (grandfathered). The Airport Center is neither state-approved nor previously approved. Updated 1/24/2012 by the CCCCO The following tables show the lease cost, if any, and the 2011-12 utilities costs for the centers or outreach locations. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 34 staffing and operational costs Lease Costs for Centers or Outreach Locations Long-Term State-Approved Foundation Site Owner Lease Annual Rent Center? Grant Southeast Campus City/County SF No $241,000 Yes $277,000 Fort Mason Facility Ft Mason Foundation No $230,000 No $ - “St Mary’s” Facility California Realty & Land Inc. Yes $120,000 No $ - Multiple SFUSD No $140,000 No $ - Campus Utilities Costs For Fiscal Year 2011-12 Location Electric Gas Water Garbage Total Airport $ 2,625.00 $ 6,576.00 $3,007.00 $2,935.00 $15,143.00 Chinatown $ 7,294.00 $48,724.00 $24,406.00 $15,068.00 $95,492.00 Civic Center $3,360.00 $5,516.00 $11,687.00 $13,023.00 $33,586.00 Downtown $43,815.00 $18,738.00 $32,797.00 $33,776.00 $129,126.00 Evans $16,713.00 $6,352.00 $140,652.00 $18,010.00 $181,727.00 Fort Mason* $7,091.00 $15,234.00 $465.00 $22,790.00 Gough $10,908.00 $16,760.00 $7,083.00 $8,293.00 $43,044.00 John Adams $15,998.00 $23,946.00 $23,248.00 $18,670.00 $81,862.00 Mission $56,265.00 $54,816.00 $34,488.00 $36,663.00 $182,232.00 Ocean/Phelan $477,022.00 $410,769.00 $350,904.00 $234,391.00 $1,473,086.00 Southeast** $25,167.00 $9,052.00 $34,219.00 Total $666,258.00 $607,431.00 $628,272.00 $390,346.00 $2,292,307.00 *The Fort Mason lease includes water, and includes only one month’s billing for garbage. ** The Southeast lease includes gas and garbage effective March 2012; water is billed through journal entry. For state reporting purposes, all enrollment from the individual locations is assigned to the Ocean Campus or one of the centers, even though courses are offered at more than 100 other locations throughout the district. 2011-12 Enrollment by Primary Site Location Credit Noncredit Total Ocean Campus (College) 22516 862 23378 Airport Center 106 106 Castro Campus 429 6 435 Chinatown/North Beach Campus 41 2475 2516 Civic Center Campus 229 814 1043 Downtown Campus 734 1838 2572 Evans Campus 814 315 1129 Fort Mason Center 0 0 0 Gough Street Site 0 0 0 John Adams Campus 947 1970 2917 Mission Campus 969 1925 2894 Southeast Campus 255 224 479 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 35 staffing and operational costs Total 27040 10429 37469 Includes resident and nonresident enrollment Enrollment numbers do not match 2011-12 CCSF 320 report because summer 2011 enrollment was applied to the 2010-11 school year. The first table in Appendix D shows FTES noncredit enrollment by discipline, and a second table shows the number of course sections offered at each location in spring 2012. Except for the Ocean Campus, the centers and outreach operations offer mostly noncredit courses. These other locations reported 9,567 noncredit FTES and 3,524 credit FTES in 2011-12. For all locations, including the Ocean Campus, 6,439 noncredit FTES were generated by students enrolled in English as a second language courses. Based on information from CCSF, the assumption is that most of these were at the off-campus centers. CCSF does not report information in a way that allows one to match the site, building and number of course sections offered, so FCMAT was unable to perform the type of analysis needed to make definitive conclusions or recommenda- tions in this area. Centers typically have staff assigned to them. CCSF’s organizational charts do not specifically identify center staffing, and the accounting system does not account for costs by center. The industry standard is that outreach locations typically do not have permanent staff assigned, and the expenses are usually limited to the cost of the instructor; however, FCMAT was not able to validate that CCSF follows this standard. Although there is some data regarding off-site instructional operations, it is not sufficient to enable a proper analysis of revenues and costs per site. Therefore FCMAT is unable to provide specific recommendations regarding the viability of these various operations. To evaluate the effectiveness of each of the centers and outreach operations, CCSF will need to begin capturing all cost data by center and, to the extent possible, the costs incurred at outreach locations. CCSF staff would need to analyze this data to match specific programs, course sections, enrollment, productivity and cost data with the many locations. This is an enrollment management function that will require both quantitative and qualitative cost-benefit analysis to arrive at a judgment about the extent to which the outreach effort can be sustained with the resources available. The analysis may reveal that courses could be consolidated to still provide the service but at fewer locations. However, based on the data available at the time of this report, FCMAT was not able to reach definitive conclusions. Additional in-depth study and analysis is needed beyond what FCMAT was able provide in the short time frame for this review. Recommendations (Changes may require negotiations.) CCSF should: 1. Through the collective bargaining process, address the issue of adding steps to the classified salary schedule. 2. For SEIU, Consider combining or eliminating part-time positions, or nego- tiate a benefit structure under which employees qualify for partial benefits only if they work 20 hours or more (a higher threshold could be selected) per week. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 36 staffing and operational costs 3. Consider negotiating to eliminate contract provisions that are out of the ordinary and that increase costs, or for which costs are difficult to quantify or anticipate, such as the SEIU contract provision for wellness payments. 4. Consider negotiating reductions to the contract provisions that provide clas- sified staff with substantial paid time off, a 37.5-hour workweek, and high levels of accrual for vacation and compensatory time. 5. Through the collective bargaining process, negotiate to align staffing with available resources and the college’s need to reorganize programs and course offerings. 6. Analyze the cost-effectiveness of non-instruction-related release time to deter- mine if duties performed are essential or could be done by others. Eliminate this release time when possible, and negotiate reductions if required. 7. Consider negotiating reductions to the AFT contract provisions that provide benefits and compensation that may not be sustainable in the current economic environment, including compensation for tenure review committee members and mentors and generous categories of employee leave. 8. Negotiate to reduce total staffing costs for all bargaining units, including SEIU, AFT and department chairs. This could include rolling back pay schedules, reducing the cost of health benefits, reducing the cost per hour for part-time faculty, and/or reducing or eliminating the cost of part-time faculty health benefits (more specific recommendations related to the department chairs appear in the Administrative Structure section of this report, which begins on page 45). 9. Develop and implement accounting protocols that enable it to determine the full cost of operating each of its nine main sites. 10. Develop criteria to help evaluate the cost effectiveness and service require- ments of the college centers to determine the best future use for them. 11. Develop criteria to eliminate some of the outreach locations where few courses are offered. Criteria might include items such as cost-benefit, logis- tical considerations, ability to manage the site, and availability of courses at a nearby location. 12. Change its descriptions of its off-campus locations to be consistent with the CCCCO’s definitions for them. 13. Account for expenditures by both location and function to provide more detailed data for decisions that affect future budgets. 14. Reduce the number of full-time faculty through attrition. 15. Evaluate ways to increase the productivity and cost-effectiveness of the credit program. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 37 staffing and operational costs 16. Decrease the amount of full-time faculty release time from the current level of approximately 14% so that faculty use highly qualified classroom instructors in a more effective manner to fulfill more teaching responsibilities to ensure that students receive the full benefit of their expertise. 17. To the extent practicable, budget and charge expenditures appropriately to the credit or the noncredit program. 18. Because of the size of the noncredit program, analyze and refine the revenue and cost model used in this report to verify the conclusions. Further analysis may be needed to make policy or operational decisions. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 38 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 39 comparison with similar districts Comparison with Similar Districts To provide additional context to the analysis of CCSF’s fiscal condition, five similar community college districts were selected against which CCSF was compared in terms of spending, staffing, and productivity. The selected districts are Santa Monica, Long Beach, Foothill-De Anza, Mt. San Antonio and El Camino. No district is exactly like another, but FCMAT’s goal was to identify enough similarity to provide a valid comparison. Four of the five comparison districts are large single-college districts in metropolitan settings with diverse student populations. Because all four of these districts are in southern California, FCMAT added a Bay Area district, Foothill-De Anza, which it believes to be the most comparable even though it is a multicollege district. The comparison data for staffing, student demographics and classroom productivity is from the CCCCO’s MIS Data Mart for fall 2011. The financial data is from the CCCCO’s Fiscal Data Abstract and CCSF’s 311, which is the state-mandated form used to report data for all of the district’s funds, including actual costs at the close of a fiscal year and budgeted costs for the next fiscal year. Staffing Comparison CCSF has significantly more regular full-time equivalent (FTE) employees than the comparison districts, both in total and per FTES. Although part of this can be attributed to size, a compar- ison of CCSF with the two districts closest in size, Mt. San Antonio and Santa Monica, and using a common measure such as number of FTE staff per 1,000 FTES, indicates that CCSF still has significantly more FTE staff than these two districts. The table below compares these three districts’ FTE staffing. Comparison of FTE Staffing District CCSF Mt. San Antonio Santa Monica FTES 35,793 32,542 27,302 Total Staff per 1,000 FTES 57.77 40.47 45.95 Tenured Faculty per 1,000 FTES 23.52 13.69 12.17 Class Support per 1,000 FTES 18.80 14.80 15.77 Educational Administrators per 1,000 FTES 1.19 1.18 1.73 Classified Administrators/ Professionals per 1,000 FTES 2.23 1.32 1.93 CCSF has almost double the number of tenured faculty as the two other districts above, at 23.52 FTE per 1,000 FTES versus 13.69 and 12.17 for Mt. San Antonio and Santa Monica, respectively. CCSF has 396 more full-time faculty than Mt. San Antonio and 510 more full-time faculty than Santa Monica. CCSF also ranks higher than these comparison districts in part-time academic employees, with 121 and 39 more than Mt. San Antonio and Santa Monica, respec- tively. In addition, CCSF’s total number of academic full-time equivalent positions is 517 more than Mt. San Antonio and 548 more than Santa Monica. These numbers indicate a substantial difference in cost per FTES served. CCSF also has significantly more classified staff support than these two comparison districts, with 192 more full-time equivalent (FTE) staff than Mt. San Antonio and 243 more FTE staff than Santa Monica in this category. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 40 comparison with similar districts The staffing information above was extracted from the data for CCSF and all five comparison districts, which is provided in the table below Staffing Data for CCSF and Five Comparison Districts. El Camino Foothill-De Long Beach Mt. San San Francisco Santa Monica CCD Anza CCD CCD Antonio CCD CCD CCD Full Time Equivalent 19,153.28 35,514.06 21,166.86 32,542.06 35,793.66 27,302.58 Students % of Position Type FTE % of Total FTE % of Total FTE Total FTE % of Total FTE % of Total FTE % of Total Educational Administrator 25 2.47% 42.0 2.63% 25.2 2.31% 38.3 2.91% 42.5 2.06% 47.3 3.77% Tenured Faculty 339.9 33.58% 549.0 34.43% 357.8 32.73% 445.6 33.82% 842 40.72% 332.3 26.48% Academic Part Time 196.2 19.38% 404.0 25.34% 221 20.22% 309.1 23.46% 430.3 20.81% 391.6 31.21% Classified Administrator 34 3.36% 33.8 2.12% 24.5 2.24% 40 3.04% 0 0.00% 52.8 4.21% Classified Professional 56.5 5.58% 156.6 9.82% 26.6 2.43% 3 0.23% 79.9 3.86% 0 0.00% Classified Support 360.6 35.63% 409.1 25.66% 438.1 40.08% 481.5 36.55% 673.1 32.55% 430.7 34.33% Total FTE 1012.2 100.00% 1594.5 100.00% 1093.2 100.00% 1317.5 100.00% 2067.8 100.00% 1254.7 100.00% CCSF is the third lowest of the comparison districts in productivity for credit classes (FTES per section average). Appendix C provides a more detailed list by discipline, which shows that CCSF has both more tenured faculty and lower productivity, which compounds its fiscal burden. Comparison of Costs and Use of Resources Appendix C also identifies areas in which CCSF tends to spend more than the five similar comparison districts, areas in which its spending is similar, and areas in which it spends less. This report summarizes key findings, and the tables in Appendix C provide additional detail. Because no two community college districts are the same, any statistical report must be evaluated in context. Although different districts may provide similar services, the extent of services and the methods of providing them can be determined locally by the governing board and are often decided based on the culture of the organization. As a result, each cost area will not match exactly those of other districts. However, it is possible to examine the degree and level of resources committed to each of the services and determine in which categories CCSF spends more or less than similar districts, which can be a result of either efficiencies or inefficiencies. Knowing the areas in which CCSF spends its financial resources differently can help in future decision-making. The information included in the comparative analysis is collected from the CCCCO’s Fiscal Data Abstract, which is a compilation of information submitted by every California community college district. The most recent data available is for fiscal year 2010-11. The information avail- able is for the total unrestricted and restricted general fund. Although it would be preferable to have only the unrestricted general fund data for a comparison, the state does not separate the unrestricted data sufficiently. Because of this FCMAT verified the ratio of unrestricted expendi- tures to the total general fund expenditures for each district to help validate the appropriateness of the selected comparison districts. This ratio is provided in the comparison table immediately Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 41 comparison with similar districts following the list of FTES in Appendix C. Taxonomy of program (TOP) codes 6000 through 6700 reflect mostly unrestricted costs, which again adds credibility to the comparison. FCMAT used two approaches when compiling the comparisons. The first was to review what percentage of the budget each district spent for a specific activity. For example, CCSF spends 1.93% of its budget on admissions and records, whereas Santa Monica spends 2.43% of its budget for this function. This comparison was conducted for all the peer districts. FCMAT’s goal was to measure CCSF against each of the comparison districts to determine CCSF’s performance for each function. This process reveals where each district places more or less emphasis and helps verify whether resources are being spent in accordance with a district’s mission and goals. The second approach was to translate this same data into spending per FTES to demonstrate how CCSF compares to the other districts. For example, CCSF spends $282 per FTES for counseling (TOP Code 6300), whereas Mt. San Antonio spends $165 per FTES for the same function. For CCSF to spend the same as Mt. San Antonio it would need to reduce spending by $117 per FTES, which would result in a total reduction of $4,614,000 based on its FTES of 39,438. This example is not given to suggest that CCSF should spend less in this area but to illustrate how to read the data. The amount spent per FTES is the common denominator that allows FCMAT to place a value on the differences. Although this information allows comparisons to be made, it requires further validation by CCSF because other circumstances may affect the results. These circumstances may include errors in the posting of costs. For example, the supplemental information indicates that CCSF spends more than the comparison districts on TOP code 6700, General Institutional Support Services, and more specifically in TOP code 6770, Logistics. FCMAT questioned CCSF regarding this variance and was told that this is the code to which annual retiree health benefit payments are charged, which is not consistent with the comparison districts or the state budget and accounting manual, which identifies TOP code 5900 for these costs for instructional employees and TOP code 6740 for these costs for noninstructional employees. CCSF admin- istrators have indicated their intention to adjust the coding of these costs to adhere to the state budget and accounting manual. As CCSF reviews this comparison, it may decide that the higher costs are warranted and in line with CCSF’s goals, but must also recognize that this means fewer resources for other activities. In the event that CCSF finds this comparison useful, FCMAT has provided CCSF staff with the tools to complete this type of analysis in the future. Because the number of FTES changes and expenditure patterns shift, the data in this type of comparison will change and the analysis will need to be updated. On pages 23-24, 29-30 and 39-40 of this report FCMAT indicated the areas in which CCSF is spending significantly more than its peers. FCMAT also calculated that for CCSF to spend at the average of the five comparison districts, it would need to spend less in the categories listed in the following table: California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 42 comparison with similar districts Categories in Which CCSF’s Spending Exceeds the Comparison Average Amount Spent Spending Reduction needed to Equal per FTES Above Average (amount per FTES above av- Line No.** Category Average No. of FTES erage x No. of FTES) 15 Academic Salaries $430 39,438 ($16,958,000) 19 Instructional Expense $467 39,438 ($18,417,000) 21* Instructional Support $45 39,438 ($1,775,000) 27* General Institutional Support $235 39,438 ($9,268,000) Total Expenses, TOP codes 28 0100-6700 $474 39,438 ($18,694,000) *A more detailed review reveals that for Line 21 the subcategory most affected is Library Services and for Line 27 it is Logistical Services. As noted above, the retiree health premiums were charged to TOP code 6770 in error and will be corrected. **From the first table in Appendix C, titled “Comparison with Peer Districts, Fiscal Data Abstract 2010-11.” The results of this data support the findings of the staffing analysis. CCSF’s decisions regarding full-time faculty result in the higher costs for academic employees, which in turn result in higher total salaries and benefits and higher total costs. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 43 enrollment management Enrollment Management Traditionally, enrollment management focuses on student recruitment and marketing, student engagement and connection, technology (distance education), counseling and support. Enrollment management in the context of this report also focuses on enrollment goals for campuses, sites, programs and disciplines; the deployment of resources to achieve those goals; and measurement of progress. CCSF shows little evidence of an effective enrollment management plan, and no individual or position appears to have been assigned the responsibility for this function. Even though enroll- ment management must be an institutional commitment, authority and accountability for ensuring that a plan is in place and properly executed is imperative. CCSF does not provide sufficient data in a timely and consistent fashion to make important enrollment management decisions in these difficult financial times. Serving students when resources are reduced requires maximizing the use and effect of all available resources, but this is not possible without an effective enrollment management plan. Interviews conducted and documents gathered during FCMAT’s fieldwork suggest that classes at CCSF may be offered based more on tradition, custom and special interest than demand, needs analysis and evaluation of resources required. If this is the case, CCSF is not aligning services with resources, which is its mission. To operate effectively when resources are limited, it is necessary to have timely and reliable enroll- ment management data, and the assurance that those using the data understand it. A comprehensive enrollment management plan requires the development of metrics to measure progress and performance. The Banner software system, which CCSF uses, can be used to produce reliable enrollment and productivity data by site, discipline and course in a consistent format. It is a best practice to design reporting tools to provide needed data for timely review by management, faculty and staff. CCSF is unique in its high number of approved instructional campuses and sites where courses are offered, and in the magnitude of its noncredit offerings. These elements make enrollment management more complicated but also increase the need for data to avoid duplication of effort and maximize the effective use of resources. CCSF has implemented an enrollment strategy for its summer session as a result of having a very limited summer session in 2010. By regulation, summer FTES can be counted either in the fiscal year prior to July 1 or the subsequent fiscal year depending on the start and end dates and the first census period for those courses. Normally, summer session is the first session of a new fiscal year. Regulations also provide that in a year of enrollment decline a district will receive stability funds in that year (2011-12 in CCSF’s case). If enrollment increases back to a district’s funded base FTES in the following year (2012-13 in CCSF’s case), there will be no permanent loss of revenue. CCSF also has three years to fully restore its FTES base. CCSF intends to restore its base in 2012-13 even though the number of course sections has been reduced for fall 2012 and spring 2013 to reduce hourly instructional costs. CCSF’s strategy is to rely on classroom faculty produc- tivity gain (increased class sizes) and use as much summer 2013 FTES as necessary. Depending on the outcome of the governor’s tax proposal and the amount of revenue loss the community college system experiences, CCSF may see a further reduction in its required funding FTES base. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 44 enrollment management According to the second period apportionment report from the CCCCO, stability funding totaling $7,864,724 is being provided to CCSF in 2011-12 for 1,828 FTES. Base credit and noncredit FTES is 34,223 (this number may be adjusted in 2012-13 depending on the California community college system apportionment revenue loss). The final CCSF 320 report filed with the CCCCO on July 15, 2012 reported 32,664 total FTES for 2011-12. California community colleges typically measure classroom teaching faculty productivity in weekly student contact hours per full-time equivalent faculty (WSCH/FTEF), or full-time equivalent students per full-time equivalent faculty (FTES/FTEF). Each measure uses the same variables in its computation. One student taking a full load of 15 semester units and spending 15 hours per week in class for 17.5 weeks over 2 semesters equals 525 weekly student contact hours, so 525 contact hours equals one FTES. If students are taking less than a full course load, it will typically require several of them to equal one FTES. Examples 1) 30 students (head count) X 15 class hours per week X 35 weeks/525 WSCH=30 FTES per FTEF 2) 35 students (head count) X 15 class hours per week X 35 weeks/525 WSCH=35 FTES per FTEF In example #1, the 30 FTES per FTEF is equal to 450 WSCH per FTEF. A common districtwide goal is 525 WSCH per FTEF or higher, which is equal to an average class size of 35 students or more. CCSF calculates the number of FTES per FTEF by discipline, but it is not clear how this information is used. Apparently there is not a districtwide, departmentwide or disciplinewide productivity goal that is widely shared. The number appears in program review documents, but it is not clear how it is used. There are two fundamental strategic considerations in education: • Business decisions related to costs and returns. • Educational decisions related to access to instruction and preservation of instructional quality. Both of these must be considered in light of an institution’s mission and the need to maintain fiscal solvency. The measure of productivity (class size) is an important factor in assumptions made by CCSF for 2012-13. The strategy CCSF is using is to offer fewer course sections with the assumption that enrollment in the remaining sections will increase, thus generating more total FTES. The success of this strategy will depend on how successful CCSF and its teaching faculty are at increasing productivity over historical levels. Time did not permit FCMAT to perform a comprehensive evaluation of classroom productivity by discipline and by site. Based on reports supplied by CCSF, the average productivity for 2011-12 for credit courses was 35.53 FTES per FTEF. For noncredit courses the average was 36.76 FTES per FTEF. FCMAT was not able to confirm these numbers. Enrollment manage- ment will be an important tool as CCSF plans course schedules, seeks to control direct costs, and measures progress toward FTES goals. Because revenue is largely driven by service level (FTES) it is imperative that CCSF manage this aspect of its operations effectively. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 45 enrollment management Recommendations CCSF should: 1. Ensure that the governing board makes enrollment management a key component of strategic planning. 2. Develop and implement an in-depth enrollment management training program for administrators, department chairs and key faculty leadership, focusing first on the fundamentals of enrollment management, including what it is, what it is not, and what is to be accomplished. 3. Prepare an enrollment management plan that focuses on development of the following: • Clearly communicated enrollment strategies. • A clear articulation of institutional and campus- and site-specific enrollment goals for credit and noncredit FTES and WSCH, based on CCSF’s mission. • Classroom and faculty productivity goals to manage instructional resources required to produce desired outcomes. • An institutional commitment to data-driven decisions about course scheduling and program delivery. • A compilation of data and measurements needed to determine progress and monitor the performance of the institution, programs, disciplines, courses and sites. • A means of evaluating enrollment management performance by campus and site to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. • A plan that is constantly updated as institutional needs change. 4. Devote sufficient resources to information technology, and in particular the Banner software system, to develop reporting tools and to provide the timely data needed to support enrollment management. 5. Evaluate its attendance accounting procedures, using either its own staff or outside resources, to ensure that CCSF is claiming all of the FTES it is enti- tled to under current regulations as provided in the California Community Colleges Attendance Accounting Manual. 6. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the vice chancellor for business and the vice chancellor of academic affairs with regard to enrollment management in order to provide needed leadership. 7. Use the Banner software system to produce reliable enrollment and produc- tivity data by site, discipline and course in a consistent format. 8. Ensure that its enrollment management reporting tools are designed to provide data for timely review by management, faculty and staff. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 46 enrollment management 9. Evaluate the process for scheduling classes at each site and determine what enrollment management strategies are used when making scheduling deci- sions. 10. Ensure that a well-developed, data-based program review process serves as the basis for enrollment management decisions. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 47 administrative structure Administrative Structure The data included in the Comparison with Similar Districts section of this report indicate that the number of educational administrators CCSF employs per 1,000 FTES is comparable with those of the comparison districts. CCSF indicates it has no classified administrator positions; rather, it categorizes its classified managers as classified professionals. FCMAT’s comparison combines classified administrators and classified professionals to capture the information in a representative fashion. CCSF has a higher number of employees per FTES in these combined categories than either Mt. San Antonio or Santa Monica. CCSF initially suggested that it had too few academic managers, but the data does not support this assertion. Because of the accelerated timeline for this review and because the comparative data suggest that CCSF is not dissimilar to the comparison districts, FCMAT did not examine and compare the details of each comparison district’s organizational structure to that of CCSF. FCMAT concluded that other areas of the organization required greater attention. Thus data was not gathered from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) as stated in the study agreement; rather, the FCMAT team gathered the data from Datamart, the CCCCO’s database. The use of some release time is normal in the community college system; however, the magnitude and types of release time assignments at CCSF are cause for concern. CCSF allows an inordinate amount of release time, which is expensive because of CCSF’s high salaries and benefits for the part-time employees who replace full-time employees when they are on release time. A significant part of this release time is for department chairs and for release time assignments. Department Chairpersons The structure and responsibilities of department chairs at CCSF differ significantly from what is typical at most California community colleges. Specifically, the department chairs have respon- sibility for decisions about program and course offerings as well as control over release time assignments. Statements made during numerous interviews conducted by FCMAT identified the department chairs as one of the most powerful groups on campus because of the amount of decision-making authority granted to these positions. Correspondingly, as indicated earlier in this report, the decision-making authority of the deans and vice chancellors has been marginalized. Because the department chairs’ work year is the same as that of the faculty, they are not available at various times of the year, which increases the difficulty of managing this structure and limits the administration’s ability to make important program decisions. In addition, the current evalu- ation process creates disincentives for deans to make difficult decisions. This structure makes managing programs, class schedules and assignments much more difficult because senior administrators have little ability to hold individuals accountable or make any significant changes in the way the college functions. This has led to a weakened and ineffective management role in the administration of the instructional program. Department Chair Council (DCC) CCSF is unique in that its board of trustees has recognized the department chair council (DCC) as the sole and exclusive representative of the supervisory employees in positions enumerated in the Equal Employment Relations Board decision HO-R-48, case No. SF-R-509-525, dated California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 48 administrative structure December 22, 1977. As a result, department chairs operate under their own collective bargaining agreement even though they are faculty. This is not common in community colleges. Salaries, benefits and leave rights for academic supervisors are in accordance with CCSF’s collective bargaining agreement with AFT Local 2121. However, the agreement with the DCC contains the additional provisions summarized below, which have cost implications for CCSF: • Forty percent (40%) of a full-time load (i.e., six units of paid reassigned time) shall be granted to the Association. • The base salary of department chairpersons is in accordance with the applicable provisions of CCSF’s contract with AFT Local 2121. Hours or days worked in excess of the work year shall be by mutual agreement between a department chairperson and his or her immediate dean. Department chairpersons serve on one of the instructional calendars for scheduled academic employees as contained in the current contract between CCSF and AFT Local 2121. • Department chairpersons are paid a stipend that ranges from $3,359 per year for a first year supervisor who is reassigned from three units of classroom teaching to $21,157 per year for a supervisor with nine or more years of service who is reassigned from 13.5 units. The total annual cost of the stipends for 64 department chairpersons effective fall 2012 is $674,511. • In addition to the stipend, the collective bargaining agreement sets out the formula for determining the amount of reassigned time for each department chairperson. The amount of reassigned time is based on a department’s weekly student contact hours or its number of full-time equivalent faculty (FTEF). The current amount of reassigned time ranges from three units to 13.5 units per semester. The reassigned time totals 29.4 FTEF and its cost, based on the cost of temporary part-time faculty teaching courses that the department chairpersons would otherwise have taught, is estimated to be $2,355,733 for fiscal year 2012-13. • Reassigned units in addition to those in the formula for reassigned time, known as extra specific reassigned units (ESRUs), may be granted at the discretion of the appropriate vice chancellor following joint union-management recommendations or independent recommendations to the vice chancellor based on the evaluation of requests submitted by current or outgoing supervisors. Currently a minimum of 75 reassigned units are guaranteed for the life of the agreement. The reassigned time totals 20.76 FTEF and has an estimated annual cost of $1,663,436 based on the cost of the temporary part-time faculty needed to teach courses for faculty who are on reassigned time. • The DCC contract provides 6.69 FTEF of reassigned time that shall be worked by coordinators to fulfill supervisory duties and responsibilities in business, English as a second language (ESL), and transitional studies. The annual cost of this reassigned time is $536,050. • To request additional reassigned time for coordination with respective departments, department chairs may use the same process that they use to request other additional reassigned time. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 49 administrative structure Cost of Reassigned Time for Department Chairs Purpose FTEF Cost Stipend $674,511 Formula 29.40 $2,355,733 ESRU 20.76 $1,663,436 Coordination 6.69 $536,050 Total Cost $5,229,730 Recommendations FCMAT understands that many of the recommendations for administrative structure have collective bargaining agreement implications. These recommendations may also result in a cost savings, but their more important purpose is to give CCSF the ability to assert proper control over its instructional program. CCSF should: 1. Clearly define and communicate the roles, responsibilities and expectations of management personnel. Executive staff and the board should take steps to empower managers and support them, and managers should be held account- able for their performance. 2. Ensure that the governing board and the chancellor clarify the advisory nature and role of committees and reaffirm management’s role and responsibility to make final decisions. 3. Consider and implement an administrative structure that will eliminate the redundancy in the roles of the department chair and dean positions. 4. Consider reducing the number of department chairs by collapsing and restructuring the assignment of disciplines and reducing the positions’ role in oversight of the instructional program. 5. Strengthen the roles and responsibilities of the deans, particularly in the administration of the instructional program, and require greater account- ability through performance evaluations. 6. Review and revise the evaluation process so that it does not create disincen- tives for the deans to make difficult decisions. 7. Ensure that managers exercise their right to assign part-time faculty in disci- plines as appropriate and in accord with the AFT collective bargaining agree- ment. Ensure that these assignments are less than 50% (7.5 units in credit and 12.5 units in noncredit instruction) to mitigate the cost of district-paid health benefits. 8. Evaluate the cost and operational effectiveness of the department chair struc- ture so that decisions can be made to reduce or eliminate expenditures in this area. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 50 administrative structure 9. Negotiate consolidation of department responsibilities under the agreement with the department chair council. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 51 barriers to fiscal solvency Barriers to Fiscal Solvency Senior Administrative Turnover There has been turnover in every senior administrative position except the vice chancellor for finance and administration. Four of the five vice chancellors are interim appointments, as is the chancellor. Several management positions are vacant, and these duties have been reassigned to incumbent administrators. Stability is needed. Interviews revealed that decisions that have serious financial implications are often made but that no one is accountable for those decisions. Ultimately the governing board and the chancellor must provide leadership and serve as the final authority for important decisions. Fixing the immediate budget problem is imperative, but both the immediate remedy and sustained change depend on recognizing and addressing factors that contribute to poor decisions and a lack of accountability. Employee Contracts The cost of employee contracts has increased through a succession of chancellors. A number of the contract provisions mentioned in this report were added without any consideration of CCSF’s ability to pay for them in the future. As a result, CCSF is facing potential insolvency, which could end the organization’s existence. The civil service structure under which CCSF operates is the same as that of the City of San Francisco and is established and maintained in accord with Education Code section 88137. This has both benefits and drawbacks. CCSF is the only community college in California that operates under this structure, which can make creating and managing the classified workforce difficult, especially in times of fiscal crisis, because CCSF often does not have control over who is placed in positions. Culture Interviewees consistently expressed the opinion that CCSF has for many years operated based on power, influence and political influences rather than reason, logic and fairness. Interviewees indicated that CCSF’s focus and purpose, which should be serving the students of the greater San Francisco community, has been inconsistent and is not the basis for decision making. Rather, the emphasis has been on keeping people employed and ensuring that they receive benefits, which is a positive goal but should not usurp the purpose of any college district, which is to serve students. CCSF’s decisions have diminished the resources available to achieve its primary purpose. Past decisions have reduced the management team’s organizational leadership role. For example, determining how many classified employees are needed and what services are required should be a management function, but at CCSF this type of decision is made by a committee. It is unclear why this is the case, though responsibility for this diminished role is attributable largely to the previous chancellors and boards. This has been costly to CCSF. Under this organizational and cultural model there is a lack of responsibility or accountability because it is often unclear how or by whom decisions have been made. This has resulted in opera- tional dysfunction, which in turn has contributed to fiscal deficiencies. During interviews, FCMAT was provided verbal information regarding certain practices; however, because of FCMAT’s limited time in the district and the expedited timeline for this study, FCMAT was not able to verify the comments with documented examples of these prac- tices. The following comments are included because they are common themes reiterated inde- California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 52 barriers to fiscal solvency pendently in numerous interviews, but they have not been verified by documentation. Follow-up should be considered that would help to either verify or eliminate these perceptions. • Although CCSF has position control, it does not function the way it was designed, which is to ensure proper checks and balances and to segregate duties. Rather, it is used more as a second form of employee identification. • Employees are hired under grants with the understanding that at the end of the grant their employment with CCSF will end. However, the costs associated with their positions are routinely moved to and paid from the unrestricted general fund when the grant funds are depleted. This has been made difficult to track, in part because of the incomplete use of position control as indicated above. • Rather than delivering instruction in the most economical fashion, CCSF’s practice appears to be to hire as many employees as possible, provide them with benefits and avoid terminating them. • Access to information is limited in order to achieve power and control. • Individuals have learned that making friends is the only way to get things done. • Individuals have learned that there are no consequences for poor service or performance. • Budget development and processes are not made entirely clear and are not well understood. Information Technology Throughout this review, including interviews, FCMAT learned that CCSF is not using the Banner information system’s full capabilities. This is in part because earlier versions of the Banner system were customized, which has hindered the ability to upgrade to newer releases. With the Banner version currently in use, CCSF has not captured or tracked important information related to costs at off-site locations or comprehensive enrollment management. In addition, personnel do not seem familiar with the system and do not appear to have the access needed to carry out management responsibilities. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 53 barriers to fiscal solvency Recommendations CCSF should: 1. Closely monitor staff hired under grants and ensure that their employment does not continue when the grant funding is reduced or eliminated unless there is a complete discussion and agreement that the benefits of continuing employment outweigh the costs to CCSF. 2. Consider changing its approach to budget development and resource alloca- tion, and creating incentives for good budget management. 3. Investigate the possibility of eliminating Education Code Section 88137, which puts CCSF within Civil Service. CCSF is the only community college in the State of California so designated. 4. Increase access to the information needed to carry out management respon- sibilities, and train personnel how to best use data. Consider surveying managers to determine what data is needed and then establishing the proper levels of access in the Banner software application. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 54 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 55 options to meet goals and sustain fiscal solvency Options to Meet Goals and Sustain Fiscal Solvency Next Steps and Proposed Timeline CCSF will need to closely review the information in this report and implement those recom- mendations with which it agrees. For recommendations it does not implement, CCSF will need to develop alternate ideas and actions to maintain solvency. Because of its perilous fiscal condition and the charge it faces from the accreditation commission, it is urgent that CCSF act quickly. Implementation Timeline Step Date Action A September 2012 District receives report and recommendations. It is anticipated that the recommendations will affect a number of areas. Some will be easier to implement than others. Some may not be accepted or acted upon by CCSF. B Late September 2012 Given differing levels of complexity, the recommendations should be catego- rized into those that can be acted upon quickly and those needing more time to develop. An action plan should be developed. Each recommendation should have an approximate value assigned (where C Early October 2012 appropriate) as estimated by CCSF. Once steps B and C are completed, CCSF should organize the list of recom- D Early October 2012 mendations in order of priority. At this point CCSF must be prepared to take action sufficient to sustain itself E Mid-October 2012 fiscally. Formal board action may be warranted to establish a clear under- standing of CCSF’s intent. Organizational and operational recommendations included in steps C, D, and E above should be considered at the same time, if possible, especially if they have fiscal implications. Those that do not can be dealt with over a longer period of time. November 2012 to March F A number of the recommendations regarding organization and operations 2013 are vital to CCSF’s long-term fiscal health. CCSF has both immediate fiscal circumstances and long-term structural issues to address. Trying to tackle all of them in a short time makes it very difficult to succeed. That is why orga- nizing and understanding the recommendations is important. Staff should complete and present a follow-up report to CCSF, community G November 2012 to June 2013 and board after the results of the November election are known, as well as subsequent periodic reports on the status of open items. California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 56 options to meet goals and sustain fiscal solvency CCSF plays an important role in the community it serves and has employees who are dedicated to the institution and students. Those dedicated employees are essential to the success of the organization. If the various constituencies approach CCSF’s serious issues sincerely and work together for the greater health of the organization, then everyone will benefit in the long run. FCMAT understands that some recommendations in this report will be challenging to imple- ment but has sought to focus on the organization as a whole. It is in CCSF’s interest to explore and implement the changes recommended in this report in order to remain fiscally solvent. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5577 appenddricaefst Appendices Appendix A Three-Year Budget Forecast Appendix B 2010-11 FTES Comparison versus Benchmarks Appendix C Data from Comparison with Similar Districts Appendix D Noncredit FTES and FTEF by Academic Discipline Appendix E Release Time Data Appendix F Glossary of terms from Appendix A of the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office’s 2012 Budget and Accounting Manual Appendix G Study Agreement California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 5588 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5599 appenddricaefst Appendix A Three-Year Budget Forecast California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 6600 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 6611 appenddricaefst San Francisco Community College District 2012-13 Tentative Budget June 28, 2012 General Fund Unrestricted Major Budget Assumptions Available Resources The College will be eligible for $155.253M in state apportionment funds and will generate the 34,000 FTES needed to earn this amount. However it is also assumed that there will be a deficit factor of .9933 that will result in less apportionment paid. Sales tax generated in SF will increase by about 4%, but the college's share of sales tax will be adjusted downward in January 2013 due to lower FTES in 2011-12 than in 2010-11. Net result will leave sales tax unchanged. Lottery revenue will increase slightly statewide, but the college's share of lottery will be adjusted downward July 2012 due to lower FTES in 2011-12 than in 2010-11. Net result will be lower lottery at $4.2M for 2012-13. Transfers In to the unrestricted general fund will return to historic levels of about $900,000 per year No additional transfers in from the Board Designated Reserve No closeout from 2011-12 Planned Expenditures Spending will be reduced by about $6M attributable to negotiated and adopted decreases in compensation. These decreases expire on 6/30/13 Certificated Salaries $ 2,951,366 Certificated Benefits 383,678 Classified Salaries 2,124,233 Classified Benefits 637,270 6,096,547 All step increases will be paid when due, estimated cost is $ 1,536,648 All step increases will be paid when due, estimated cost is $ 388,521 Higher premiums for the employer share of health and dental insurance will be paid for all active employees, estimated cost is $951,364 gross with attrition reduction of $816,951. 38 faculty and 43 classifed. Actuary's study used as a guide for increase in OPEB "pay-go". Budget increased by $ 487,000 Class sections will be reduced in both credit and non-credit in a manner that will save $4.2M yet still allow the College to achieve its enrollment target. $ 4,200,000 Salaries and beneifts will be reduced by $2.8M due to attrition of both certificated and classified employees. This number is based on positions that have been defunded for 2012-13. $ 2,800,000 Non-teaching assignments will be reduced by at least $375,000. These changes have already been identified $ 375,000 No significant additional spending is included for maintenance and technology. - The district contribution toward its long term OPEB liability remains at $500,000, the same level as 2011-12. $ 500,000 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 6622 DaRppAeFnTdices San Francisco Community College District 2013-14 Projected Budget General Fund Unrestricted Major Budget Assumptions Available Resources The College will be eligible for $155.508M in state apportionment funds and will generate the 34,000 FTEs needed to earn this amount. Sales tax generated in SF will increase by about 4%, $ 15,600,000 Lottery revenue will increase slightly statewide. District share will increase by 3.5%, and the actual FTES base for SF will be higher $ 4,370,000 Transfers in to the unrestricted general fund will remain at historic level of about $900,000 per year. No additional transfers in from the board-designated reserve. No closeout from 2012-13. Planned Expenditures No reductions in compensation are assumed. All step increases will be paid when due, estimated cost is $ 1,536,648 All step increases will be paid when due, estimated cost is $ 388,521 Higher premiums for the employer share of health and dental insurance will be paid for all active employees, estimated cost is $ 1,000,000 Actuary's study used as a guide for increase in OPEB "pay-go". Budget increased by $ 856,000 Class sections will remain at 2012-13 level and will allow the College to achieve its enrollment target. If productivity does not increase, the College will fall back into "stability" again. Savings from 2012-13 attrition will not be undone, vacant positions will remain vacant. Staffing will be maintained at this level. Non-teaching assignments will not be restored. $2M in additional spending is planned for maintenance and technology. $ 2,000,000 The district contribution toward its long term OPEB liability will increase to $ 2,000,000 $1M will be added to board-designated reserve. $ 1,000,000 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 6633 appenddricaefst San Francisco Community College District 2014-15 Projected Budget General Fund Unrestricted Major Budget Assumptions Available Resources The College will be eligible for $155.508M in state apportionment funds and will generate the 34,000 FTEs needed to earn this amount. The college will also be eligible to earn 1% growth funding and will earn these funds. Sales tax generated in SF will increase by about 4%. $ 16,600,000 Lottery revenue will increase slightly statewide. District share will increase by 3.5%. $ 4,460,000 Transfers in to the unrestricted general fund will remain at historic level of about $900,000 per year. No additional transfers in from the board-designated reserve. No closeout from 2011-12. Planned Expenditures No reductions in compensation are assumed All step increases will be paid when due, estimated cost is $ 1,536,648 All step increases will be paid when due, estimated cost is $ 388,521 Higher premiums for the employer share of health and dental insurance will be paid for all active employees, estimated cost is $ 1,000,000 Actuary's study used as a guide for increase in OPEB "pay-go". Budget increased by $ 904,000 Class sections will be increased from the 2013-14 level by $750,000 to enable the college to achieve its growth target. $ 750,000 Savings from 2012-13 attrition will not be undone, staffing will be maintained at this level. Non-teaching assignments will not be restored. $2M in additional spending added in 2013-14 for maintenance and technology remains an ongoing item. $ 2,000,000 The district contribution toward its long term OPEB liability will increase to $4M $ 2,000,000 $1M will be added to board-designated reserve $ 1,000,000 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 6644 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM A B CD E JK L M N O Q S T 1 2 SFCCD Estimate July 27, 2012 Draft Version 2012-2013 Governor's Governor's Forecast compromise Governor's Forecasted Actual Revenues and Expenditures 2011‐2012 Unrestricted compromise ballot Only Parcel Tax June 28, 2012 ballot measure compromise ballot measure passes Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures 2012‐2013 July 26, 2012 Measure Passes Tentative Budget passes and the measure fails and and the Parcel tax D R A F T Parcel tax fails Parcel tax fails passes 3 (Note 1) Notes: 45 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 6 State General Apportionment (TCR) 99,213,065 155,508,259 155,508,259 155,252,626 155,508,259 155,508,259 7 State General Apportionment - Noncredit 8 State General Apportionment - Noncredit CDCP 9 Growth 10 COLA - CC League Simulation 11 If Revenue Measures Fail In November 2012 (10,346,559) (10,346,559) 6/18/12 12 Governors Compromise Ballot Measure - - 13 Total Apportionment 155,508,259 145,161,700 155,252,626 155,508,259 145,161,700 14 15 Property tax 46,221,252 16 Student Enrollment Fees (98%) 10,073,942 17 Subtotal 56,295,194 - 18 19 Total District General Revenues 1 55,508,259 155,508,259 145,161,700 155,252,626 155,508,259 145,161,700 20 Deficit Factor 0.97667 0.99500 0.99500 0.99330 0.99330 0.99000 21 Revised Deficit Affected Revenues 1 51,879,858 154,730,718 144,435,892 154,212,571 154,466,492 143,710,083 22 23 2245 26 Partnership for Excellence ( ) 27 Prior Year Correction (1) 68,342 28 Lottery 5,100,000 4,220,000 4,220,000 4,220,000 4,220,000 4,220,000 29 Mandated Cost 120,720 950,000 - 950,000 950,000 - 30 Part-Time Equalization 785,955 785,955 785,955 785,955 785,955 785,955 31 Part-Time Faculty Health Ins 84,569 84,569 84,569 84,569 84,569 84,569 32 Part-Time Faculty Office Hours 35,812 35,812 35,812 35,812 35,812 35,812 33 Basic Skills ( ) - - - - - - 34 Apprenticeship 232,547 232,547 232,547 232,547 232,547 232,547 35 One-Time Equalization - - - - - - Increase offset by drop off 36 Sales Tax 15,895,000 15,415,000 15,415,000 15,415,000 15,895,000 15,415,000 in FTE's. 37 Parcel Tax 14,000,000 14,000,000 - - - 38 Interest Income (net) - - - - - - 39 Non-Resident Tuition 8,916,298 8,916,298 8,916,298 8,923,084 8,916,298 8,916,298 Flat 40 Enrollment Fee 132,165 93,171 93,171 112,699 112,699 93,171 41 Other Revenue Fundraising External (collected) 181,271 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 42 Other Revenue Fundraising Internal (collected/new/released) - - - - - Zeroed Out 43 Unclaimed Credit Balances 1,118,959 - - - - - 44 Other Revenue ( See note XX) - 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 45 Transfers in (additional Items see Note 2) 2,781,330 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 46 Transfers In - Designated Internal Serivce 47 Total Categorical Revenues awarded with The Costs - - - - - 48 Total District Other Revenues 35,452,968 46,333,352 45,383,352 32,359,666 32,832,880 31,383,352 49 5501 Total Unrestricted Revenues 1 87,332,826 201,064,070 189,819,244 186,572,237 187,299,372 175,093,435 52 Beginning Balance 3,033,269 - - - - - S 2 c 0 e 1 n 1 a -2 ri 0 o 1 . 2 N P o r R ob e a s b er le v e in 53 Add'l Corpus Release (Note2) [570 Constantino outstanding] 506,000 - - - - - 2012-2013. 54 Departmental Funds - - - - - - 55 Dept Of Election PPD - - - - - - 56 Dividend Refund from Insurance JPA - - - - - - 57 Pr Yr ADJ 'S- for Allow Debt Accts - - - - - - 58 Transfers from Board Designated Reserves 2,000,000 - - - - - 59 Total Resources 1 92,872,095 201,064,070 189,819,244 186,572,237 187,299,372 175,093,435 60 61 Total Certificated Salaries 92,588,153 91,269,682 91,269,682 91,269,682 91,269,682 91,269,682 62 Total Classified Salaries 37,990,661 35,757,775 35,757,775 35,757,775 35,757,775 35,757,775 63 Total Fringe Benefits 44,114,907 43,889,660 43,889,660 43,889,660 43,889,660 43,889,660 64 Supplies and Materials 1,356,161 1,330,299 1,330,299 1,330,299 1,330,299 1,330,299 65 Other Operating Expenses 10,799,710 10,682,873 10,682,873 10,682,873 10,682,873 10,682,873 66 Capital Outlay 58,847 110,547 110,547 110,547 110,547 110,547 67 Transfers out 7,696,813 3,531,401 3,531,401 3,531,401 3,531,401 3,531,401 68 Total Estimated Expenditures, FY 12. Budget Summary Sheet FY 13 1 94,605,252 186,572,237 186,572,237 186,572,237 186,572,237 186,572,237 69 70 Surplus (Deficit) of Revenues over Expenditures "GAP" (1,733,157) 14,491,833 3,247,007 0 727,135 (11,478,802) 293 "Additional" solutions both Revenue and Expenditure (07/26/2012) 231,192 294 Estimated Additional Amount from Board Designated Reserve (1,501,965) 295 296 Budget cuts and negotiated concessions to balance - 3,247,007 0 727,135 (11,478,802) 297 (See Note 1) 298 299 Note 1: Personnel Expenditures in this draft budget reflect approximately $6.0 Million in negotiated changes with the employee organizations which represent the College's employees. These changes have not yet been agreed to or ratified. 300 302 Note 2: Amount includes $570,000 in release of corpus gift still outstanding with 303 Donor(s). 304 305 306 307 Total Certificated Salaries - Furloughs 2,951,366 2,951,366 2,951,366 2,951,366 2,951,366 308 309 Total Classified Salaries - Furloughs 2,124,233 2,124,233 2,124,233 2,124,233 2,124,233 310 311 Total Certificated Salaries - Furloughs Benefits 383,678 383,678 383,678 383,678 383,678 312 Total Classified Salaries - Furloughs Benefits 637,270 637,270 637,270 637,270 637,270 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 Estimate 3 yr budget model 07 27 2012 Update 8-8-2012.xls3 YR MDL 07 24 2012_2013 8/15/2012 3:49 PM A B CDJK L M O Q S T 1 2 SFCCD July 27, 2012 Draft Version 2013-2014 Governor's Governor's compromise Governor's Forecasted Actual Revenues and Expenditures 2011‐2012 compromise ballot Only Parcel Tax ballot measure compromise ballot Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures 2012‐2013 a m nd e a th s e u r e P a p r a c s e s l e ta s x Measure Passes p P a a s r s c e e s l t a a x n d fa t i h ls e m P e a a r s c u e r l e t a fa x i l f s a i a ls n d 3 passes (Note 1) Notes: 45 FY 2013-14 FY 2013-14 FY 2013-14 FY 2013-14 6 State General Apportionment (TCR) 155,508,259 155,508,259 155,508,259 155,508,259 7 State General Apportionment - Noncredit 8 State General Apportionment - Noncredit CDCP 9 Growth 10 COLA - 11 If Revenue Measures Fail In November 2012 (10,346,559) (10,346,559) 12 Governors Compromise Ballot Measure - - 13 Total Apportionment 155,508,259 145,161,700 155,508,259 145,161,700 14 15 Property tax 16 Student Enrollment Fees (98%) 1178 Subtotal - 19 Total District General Revenues 155,508,259 145,161,700 155,508,259 145,161,700 20 Deficit Factor 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 21 Revised Deficit Affected Revenues 155,508,259 145,161,700 155,508,259 145,161,700 22 23 2245 26 Partnership for Excellence ( ) 27 Prior Year Correction (1) 28 Lottery 4,370,000 4,370,000 4,370,000 4,370,000 29 Mandated Cost 950,000 - 950,000 - 30 Part-Time Equalization 785,955 785,955 785,955 785,955 31 Part-Time Faculty Health Ins 84,569 84,569 84,569 84,569 32 Part-Time Faculty Office Hours 35,812 35,812 35,812 35,812 33 Basic Skills ( ) - - - - 34 Apprenticeship 232,547 232,547 232,547 232,547 35 One-Time Equalization - - - - 36 Sales Tax 15,600,000 15,600,000 15,600,000 15,600,000 37 Parcel Tax 14,000,000 14,000,000 - - 38 Interest Income (net) - - - - 39 Non-Resident Tuition 8,916,298 8,916,298 8,916,298 8,916,298 40 Enrollment Fee 93,171 93,171 112,699 93,171 41 Other Revenue Fundraising External (collected) 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 42 Other Revenue Fundraising Internal (collected/new/released) - - - - 43 Unclaimed Credit Balances - - - - 44 Other Revenue ( See note XX) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 45 Transfers in (additional Items see Note 2) 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 46 Transfers In - Designated Internal Serivce 47 Total Categorical Revenues awarded with The Costs - - - - 48 Total District Other Revenues 46,668,352 45,718,352 32,687,880 31,718,352 49 5501 Total Unrestricted Revenues 202,176,611 190,880,052 188,196,139 176,880,052 52 Beginning Balance - - - - 53 Add'l Corpus Release (Note2) - - - - 54 Departmental Funds - - - - 55 Dept Of Election PPD - - - - 56 Dividend Refund from Insurance JPA - - - - 57 Pr Yr ADJ 'S- for Allow Debt Accts - - - - 58 Transfers from Board Designated Reserves - - - - 59 Total Resources 202,176,611 190,880,052 188,196,139 176,880,052 60 61 Total Certificated Salaries 95,757,696 95,757,696 95,757,696 95,757,696 62 Total Classified Salaries 38,270,529 38,270,529 38,270,529 38,270,529 63 Total Fringe Benefits 46,766,608 46,766,608 46,766,608 46,766,608 64 Supplies and Materials 1,330,299 1,330,299 1,330,299 1,330,299 65 Other Operating Expenses 10,682,873 10,682,873 10,682,873 10,682,873 66 Capital Outlay 2,110,547 2,110,547 2,110,547 2,110,547 67 Transfers out 6,531,401 6,531,401 6,531,401 6,531,401 68 Total Estimated Expenditures, 201,449,953 201,449,953 201,449,953 201,449,953 69 70 Surplus (Deficit) of Revenues over Expenditures "GAP" 726,658 (10,569,901) (13,253,814) (24,569,901) 293 "Additional" solutions both Revenue and Expenditure (07/26/2012) 294 Estimated Additional Amount from Board Designated Reserve 295 296 Budget cuts and negotiated concessions to balance - (10,569,901) (13,253,814) (24,569,901) 297 (See Note 1) 298 299 Note 1: Note Used 300 302 Note 2: 303 Note Used 304 305 306 Total Certificated Salaries - Steps 1,536,648 1,536,648 1,536,648 1,536,648 307 Total Certificated Salaries - Furloughs 2,951,366 2,951,366 2,951,366 2,951,366 308 Total Classified Salaries - Steps 388,521 388,521 388,521 388,521 309 Total Classified Salaries - Furloughs 2,124,233 2,124,233 2,124,233 2,124,233 310 311 Total Certificated Salaries - Furloughs Benefits 383,678 383,678 383,678 383,678 312 Total Classified Salaries - Furloughs Benefits 637,270 637,270 637,270 637,270 313 Total Fringe Benefits - Health & Dental 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 314 Total Fringe Benefits - OPEB Pay as you go 856,000 856,000 856,000 856,000 315 Total Fringe Benefits - OPEB ARC - - - - 316 317 Supplies and Materials - - - - 318 Other Operating Expenses - - - - 319 Capital Outlay -DPW and IT 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 320 Transfers out - OPEB ARC 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 321 Transfers out - Reserve 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 322 Total Estimated Expenditures - Changes (Increases / Decreases) 14,877,716 14,877,716 14,877,716 14,877,716 323 Estimate 3 yr budget model 07 27 2012 Update 8-8-2012.xls3 YR MDL 07 24 2013_2014 8/15/2012 3:49 PM A B CDJK L M O Q S T 1 2 SFCCD July 27, 2012 Draft Version 2014-2015 Governor's Governor's compromise Governor's Forecasted Actual Revenues and Expenditures 2011‐2012 compromise ballot Only Parcel Tax ballot measure compromise ballot Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures 2012‐2013 a m nd e a th s e u r e P a p r a c s e s l e ta s x Measure Passes p P a a s r s c e e s l t a a x n d fa t i h ls e m P e a a r s c u e r l e t a fa x i l f s a i a ls n d 3 passes (Note 1) Notes: 4 FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15 6 State General Apportionment (TCR) 155,508,259 155,508,259 155,508,259 155,508,259 7 State General Apportionment - Noncredit 8 State General Apportionment - Noncredit CDCP 9 Growth 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 10 COLA - 11 If Revenue Measures Fail In November 2012 (10,346,559) (10,346,559) 12 Governors Compromise Ballot Measure - - 13 Total Apportionment 157,008,259 146,661,700 157,008,259 146,661,700 14 15 Property tax 16 Student Enrollment Fees (98%) 1178 Subtotal - 19 Total District General Revenues 157,008,259 146,661,700 157,008,259 146,661,700 20 Deficit Factor 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 21 Revised Deficit Affected Revenues 157,008,259 146,661,700 157,008,259 146,661,700 22 23 2245 26 Partnership for Excellence ( ) 27 Prior Year Correction (1) 28 Lottery 4,460,000 4,460,000 4,460,000 4,460,000 29 Mandated Cost 950,000 - 950,000 - 30 Part-Time Equalization 785,955 785,955 785,955 785,955 31 Part-Time Faculty Health Ins 84,569 84,569 84,569 84,569 32 Part-Time Faculty Office Hours 35,812 35,812 35,812 35,812 33 Basic Skills ( ) - - - - 34 Apprenticeship 232,547 232,547 232,547 232,547 35 One-Time Equalization - - - - 36 Sales Tax 16,600,000 16,600,000 16,600,000 16,600,000 37 Parcel Tax 14,000,000 14,000,000 - - 38 Interest Income (net) - - - - 39 Non-Resident Tuition 8,916,298 8,916,298 8,916,298 8,916,298 40 Enrollment Fee 93,171 93,171 112,699 93,171 41 Other Revenue Fundraising External (collected) 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 42 Other Revenue Fundraising Internal (collected/new/released) - - - - 43 Unclaimed Credit Balances - - - - 44 Other Revenue ( See note XX) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 45 Transfers in (additional Items see Note 2) 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 46 Transfers In - Designated Internal Serivce 47 Total categorical revenues awarded with the costs - - - - 48 Total District Other Revenues 47,758,352 46,808,352 33,777,880 32,808,352 49 5501 Total Unrestricted Revenues 204,766,611 193,470,052 190,786,139 179,470,052 52 Beginning Balance - - - - 53 Add'l Corpus Release (Note2) - - - - 54 Departmental Funds - - - - 55 Dept Of Election PPD - - - - 56 Dividend Refund from Insurance JPA - - - - 57 Pr Yr ADJ 'S- for Allow Debt Accts - - - - 58 Transfers from Board Designated Reserves - - - - 59 Total Resources 204,766,611 193,470,052 190,786,139 179,470,052 60 61 Total Certificated Salaries 97,294,344 97,294,344 97,294,344 97,294,344 62 Total Classified Salaries 38,659,050 38,659,050 38,659,050 38,659,050 63 Total Fringe Benefits 48,670,608 48,670,608 48,670,608 48,670,608 64 Supplies and Materials 1,330,299 1,330,299 1,330,299 1,330,299 65 Other Operating Expenses 10,682,873 10,682,873 10,682,873 10,682,873 66 Capital Outlay 2,110,547 2,110,547 2,110,547 2,110,547 67 Transfers out 8,531,401 8,531,401 8,531,401 8,531,401 68 Total Estimated Expenditures 207,279,122 207,279,122 207,279,122 207,279,122 69 70 Surplus (Deficit) of Revenues over Expenditures "GAP" (2,512,511) (13,809,070) (16,492,983) (27,809,070) 293 "Additional" solutions both Revenue and Expenditure (07/26/2012) 294 Estimated Additional Amount from Board Designated Reserve 295 296 Budget cuts and negotiated concessions to balance - (13,809,070) (16,492,983) (27,809,070) 297 (See Note 1) 298 299 Note 1: Note Used 300 302 Note 2: 303 Note Used 304 305 306 Total Certificated Salaries - Steps 1,536,648 1,536,648 1,536,648 1,536,648 307 Total Certificated Salaries - Furloughs - - - - 308 Total Classified Salaries - Steps 388,521 388,521 388,521 388,521 309 Total Classified Salaries - Furloughs - - - - 310 311 Total Certificated Salaries - Furloughs Benefits - - - - 312 Total Classified Salaries - Furloughs Benefits - - - - 313 Total Fringe Benefits - Health & Dental 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 314 Total Fringe Benefits - OPEB Pay as you go 904,000 904,000 904,000 904,000 315 Total Fringe Benefits - OPEB ARC - - - - 316 317 Supplies and Materials - - - - 318 Other Operating Expenses - - - - 319 Capital Outlay -DPW and IT 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 320 Transfers out - OPEB ARC 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 321 Transfers out - Reserve 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 322 Total Estimated Expenditures - Changes (Increases / Decreases) 10,829,169 10,829,169 10,829,169 10,829,169 323 Estimate 3 yr budget model 07 27 2012 Update 8-8-2012.xls3 YR MDL 07 24 2014_2015 8/15/2012 3:49 PM 6688 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 6699 appenddricaefst Appendix B 2010-11 FTES Comparison versus Benchmarks California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo DCC hcaeB gnoL DCC aznAeD-llihtooF DCC onimaC lE -noN tiderC -noN tiderC -noN tiderC tiderC noitceS fo % tiderC noitceS latoT tiderC noitceS latoT fo % SETF latoT SETF tnuoC tiderC latoT SETF latoT SETF tnuoC tiderC latoT fo % SETF SETF tnuoC SETF tiderC enilpicsiD %92.0 71.16 00.0 34 71.16 %69.0 84.933 00.0 531 84.933 %91.0 03.73 00.0 21 03.73 secruoseR larutaN dna erutlucirgA - 10 detaleR dna erutcetihcrA - 20 %53.0 76.47 00.0 23 76.47 %00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 %87.0 36.941 00.0 03 36.941 seigolonhceT dna secneicS latnemnorivnE - 30 %00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 %10.1 11.953 00.0 881 11.953 %30.0 78.4 00.0 2 78.4 seigolonhceT %48.3 14.218 00.0 581 14.218 %22.4 32.005,1 00.0 773 32.005,1 %77.4 72.419 00.0 311 72.419 secneicS lacigoloiB - 40 %85.5 01.281,1 00.0 814 01.281,1 %96.5 93.910,2 00.0 136 93.910,2 %38.2 67.245 00.0 031 67.245 tnemeganaM dna ssenisuB - 50 %01.2 93.444 00.0 031 93.444 %37.1 26.416 00.0 443 26.416 %82.1 76.442 00.0 27 76.442 snoitacinummoC dna aideM - 60 %98.1 41.004 89.5 602 71.493 %09.4 75.837,1 00.0 605 75.837,1 %52.2 82.134 00.0 021 82.134 ygolonhceT noitamrofnI - 70 %47.6 64.724,1 31.4 815 33.324,1 %82.7 27.585,2 46.44 297,1 80.145,2 %40.9 06.137,1 00.0 216 06.137,1 noitacudE - 80 lairtsudnI dna gnireenignE - 90 %95.7 76.606,1 77.0 954 09.506,1 %08.3 54.053,1 00.0 677 54.053,1 %40.4 23.477 00.0 181 23.477 seigolonhceT %72.01 28.471,2 00.0 631,1 28.471,2 %20.11 35.419,3 00.0 467,1 35.419,3 %06.9 08.838,1 40.0 656 67.838,1 strA deilppA dna eniF - 01 %22.4 65.298 00.0 532 65.298 %56.2 89.939 00.0 765 89.939 %84.3 71.666 00.0 881 71.666 egaugnaL ngieroF - 11 %73.4 46.529 87.5 143 58.919 %45.4 37.216,1 39.8 045 08.306,1 %87.2 11.335 00.0 721 11.335 htlaeH - 21 %96.4 32.399 38.3 493 04.989 %86.1 91.795 81.61 252 10.185 %92.2 55.934 00.0 801 55.934 secneicS remusnoC dna ylimaF - 31 %00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 %63.0 61.721 00.0 85 61.721 %38.0 98.951 00.0 34 98.951 waL - 41 %35.21 41.356,2 94.3 382,1 56.946,2 %14.11 97.350,4 00.0 626,1 97.350,4 %87.61 66.312,3 00.0 278 66.312,3 )sretteL( seitinamuH - 51 %71.0 33.53 00.0 91 33.53 %30.0 27.01 00.0 31 27.01 %20.0 85.3 00.0 2 85.3 ecneicS yrarbiL - 61 %43.01 60.981,2 00.0 275 60.981,2 %60.01 32.275,3 00.0 670,1 32.275,3 %57.41 59.428,2 00.0 685 59.428,2 scitamehtaM - 71 %84.3 38.637 00.0 371 38.637 %44.6 09.782,2 00.0 315 09.782,2 %97.5 67.801,1 00.0 791 67.801,1 secneicS lacisyhP - 91 %11.2 14.644 00.0 09 14.644 %61.3 51.221,1 00.0 553 51.221,1 %17.2 04.915 00.0 421 04.915 ygolohcysP - 02 %57.3 73.497 00.0 561 73.497 %27.0 92.652 00.0 621 92.652 %84.1 94.382 00.0 47 94.382 secivreS evitcetorP dna cilbuP - 12 %32.9 55.459,1 00.0 984 55.459,1 %01.11 03.249,3 00.0 744,1 03.249,3 %18.9 22.878,1 00.0 364 22.878,1 secneicS laicoS - 22 %00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 %00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 %81.1 72.522 00.0 22 72.522 secivreS laicremmoC - 03 %34.6 29.163,1 85.262 784 43.990,1 %42.7 25.965,2 97.121 459 37.744,2 %82.3 37.726 00.0 712 37.726 seidutS yranilpicsidretnI - 94 %00.001 68.661,12 65.682 573,7 03.088,02 %00.001 60.415,53 45.191 040,41 25.223,53 %00.001 82.351,91 40.0 159,4 42.351,91 slatoT 7700 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM DCC acinoM atnaS DCC ocsicnarF naS DCC oinotnA naS .tM tiderC -noN tiderC -noN tiderC -noN noitceS tiderC noitceS tiderC noitceS latoT fo % latoT tiderC tnuoC tiderC latoT fo % latoT SETF tnuoC tiderC latoT fo % latoT SETF tnuoC tiderC enilpicsiD larutaN dna erutlucirgA - 10 %00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 %74.0 27.961 00.0 26 27.961 %88.1 00.116 77.32 121 32.785 secruoseR detaleR dna erutcetihcrA - 20 %00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 %84.0 50.371 00.0 76 50.371 %33.0 16.801 83.0 23 32.801 seigolonhceT dna secneicS latnemnorivnE - 30 %00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 %50.0 09.61 00.0 5 09.61 %40.0 57.11 00.0 2 57.11 seigolonhceT %22.5 34.424,1 00.0 00.342 34.424,1 %24.3 18.522,1 00.0 303 18.522,1 %26.4 60.405,1 00.0 442 60.405,1 secneicS lacigoloiB - 40 %18.5 70.785,1 00.0 00.704 70.785,1 %34.5 38.149,1 58.439 033 89.600,1 %27.3 97.112,1 06.65 533 91.551,1 tnemeganaM dna ssenisuB - 50 %53.4 22.881,1 00.0 00.433 22.881,1 %58.1 16.066 93.74 902 22.316 %64.1 79.474 46.9 441 43.564 snoitacinummoC dna aideM - 60 %95.3 35.089 00.0 00.242 35.089 %20.3 80.080,1 18.91 792 72.060,1 %08.2 46.909 88.58 841 67.328 ygolonhceT noitamrofnI - 70 %22.4 11.351,1 53.66 00.862 67.680,1 %69.5 73.431,2 29.925 436 54.406,1 %67.7 54.525,2 94.863 245 69.651,2 noitacudE - 80 lairtsudnI dna gnireenignE - 90 %23.0 16.88 00.0 00.22 16.88 %05.2 80.398 44.351 771 46.937 %71.3 46.030,1 82.201 752 63.829 seigolonhceT %83.41 45.529,3 47.742 00.570,1 08.776,3 %64.6 77.013,2 66.971 977 11.131,2 %56.6 54.461,2 23.451 217 31.010,2 strA deilppA dna eniF - 01 %53.4 56.681,1 00.0 00.232 56.681,1 %05.3 21.352,1 00.0 974 21.352,1 %86.3 09.891,1 00.0 982 09.891,1 egaugnaL ngieroF - 11 %20.1 02.772 32.1 00.021 69.572 %21.8 56.509,2 27.07 304 39.438,2 %57.3 36.022,1 50.76 103 85.351,1 htlaeH - 21 %19.2 26.497 94.24 00.122 31.257 %24.5 63.049,1 53.654 882 20.484,1 %85.3 20.561,1 45.53 163 84.921,1 secneicS remusnoC dna ylimaF - 31 %00.0 92.1 92.1 00.0 00.0 %81.0 55.36 00.0 33 55.36 %14.0 36.231 00.0 63 36.231 waL - 41 %29.31 96.108,3 18.85 00.052,1 88.247,3 %35.6 47.733,2 62.21 187 94.523,2 %48.21 54.971,4 14.03 321,1 40.941,4 )sretteL( seitinamuH - 51 %50.0 19.21 00.0 00.9 19.21 %11.0 32.83 00.0 12 32.83 %40.0 96.11 00.0 7 96.11 ecneicS yrarbiL - 61 %78.21 16.415,3 00.0 00.936 16.415,3 %91.5 15.758,1 00.0 283 15.758,1 %39.9 34.032,3 40.291 976 93.830,3 scitamehtaM - 71 %53.6 35.237,1 00.0 00.692 35.237,1 %52.4 84.125,1 00.0 233 84.125,1 %47.4 07.145,1 00.0 492 07.145,1 secneicS lacisyhP - 91 %80.3 70.048 83.3 00.512 07.638 %06.1 09.175 00.0 061 09.175 %39.1 31.926 68.0 041 72.826 ygolohcysP - 02 %00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 %13.1 23.074 00.0 931 23.074 %12.2 88.917 21.0 261 67.917 secivreS evitcetorP dna cilbuP - 12 %79.01 24.499,2 00.0 00.337 24.499,2 %53.6 04.272,2 07.4 516 07.762,2 %38.6 87.322,2 65.0 735 32.322,2 secneicS laicoS - 22 %75.1 83.924 00.0 00.812 83.924 %83.0 44.531 09.89 51 45.63 %96.0 95.322 00.0 66 95.322 secivreS laicremmoC - 03 %20.5 96.963,1 23.271 00.764 83.791,1 %34.72 27.918,9 74.152,8 015 62.865,1 %49.61 78.215,5 87.278,4 552 01.046 seidutS yranilpicsidretnI - 94 %00.001 85.203,72 26.395 00.199,6 69.807,62 %00.001 66.397,53 74.957,01 120,7 91.430,52 %00.001 60.245,23 27.000,6 787,6 43.145,62 slatoT .traM ataD smetsyS noitamrofnI tnemeganaM ecfifO s’rollecnahC segelloC ytinummoC ainrofilaC morf delipmoc ataD :ecruoS .1102 gnirpS dna ,1102 retniW ,0102 llaF ,0102 remmuS era dedulcni smreT 7711 appenddricaefst California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 7722 DaRppAeFnTdices El Foothill- Long Mt. San San Santa Camino DeAnza Beach Antonio Francisco Monica FTES CCD CCD CCD CCD CCD per FTES per FTES per FTES per FTES per FTES per Discipline Section Section Section Section Section Section 01 - Agriculture and Natural Resources 3.108 2.515 1.422 4.853 2.737 N/A 02 - Architecture and Related Technologies 4.988 0.000 2.334 3.382 2.583 N/A 03 - Environmental Sciences and Technologies 2.435 0.000 0.000 5.877 3.380 N/A 04 - Biological Sciences 8.091 3.979 4.391 6.164 4.046 5.862 05 - Business and Management 4.175 3.200 2.828 3.448 3.051 3.899 06 - Media and Communications 3.398 1.787 3.418 3.232 2.934 3.558 07 - Information Technology 3.594 3.436 1.913 5.566 3.570 4.052 08 - Education 2.829 1.418 2.748 3.980 2.531 4.055 09 - Engineering and Industrial Technologies 4.278 1.740 3.499 3.612 4.179 4.028 10 - Fine and Applied Arts 2.803 2.219 1.914 2.823 2.736 3.421 11 - Foreign Language 3.543 1.658 3.798 4.148 2.616 5.115 12 - Health 4.198 2.970 2.698 3.833 7.035 2.300 13 - Family and Consumer Sciences 4.070 2.306 2.511 3.129 5.153 3.403 14 - Law 3.718 0.000 0.000 3.684 1.926 N/A 15 - Humanities (Letters) 3.685 2.493 2.065 3.695 2.978 2.994 16 - Library Science 1.791 0.825 1.859 1.670 1.820 1.434 17 - Mathematics 4.821 3.320 3.827 4.475 4.863 5.500 19 - Physical Sciences 5.628 4.460 4.259 5.244 4.583 5.853 20 - Psychology 4.189 3.161 4.960 4.488 3.574 3.892 21 - Public and Protective Services 3.831 2.034 4.814 4.443 3.384 N/A 22 - Social Sciences 4.057 2.724 3.997 4.140 3.687 4.085 30 - Commercial Services 10.240 0.000 0.000 3.388 2.436 1.970 49 - Interdisciplinary Studies 2.893 2.566 2.257 2.510 3.075 2.564 Average 3.869 2.516 2.831 3.911 3.566 3.820 Source: Data compiled from California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Management Information Systems Data Mart. Terms included are Summer 2010, Fall 2010, Winter 2011, and Spring 2011. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7733 appenddricaefst Appendix C Data from Comparison with Similar Districts California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo stcirtsiD reeP htiw nosirapmoC 11-0102 tcartsbA ataD lacsiF )naidem eht ot tsesolc stneserper dlob ni ataD( ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF lE atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF lE naS acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC ocsicnarF egarevA DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC 311,72 368,13 974,12 762,53 884,02 834,93 )1 elbat tcartsba atad lacsfi( SETF latoT dnuF neG latoT ni detcirtsernU fo oitaR lacsfi 2.III dna 1.III selbat( 0006 tcejbo hguorht %2.58 %4.98 %9.38 %2.78 %2.38 %1.58 )tcartsba atad %30.6 %86.4 %35.3 %44.9 %08.5 %94.6 %48.24 %99.34 %70.83 %27.14 %30.14 %25.74 pxe dnuf neg lla fo % a sa seiralas cimedacA 1 eniL %93.0 %83.1- %06.0 %89.0 %21.1 %87.15 %55.35 %75.15 %91.15 %50.15 %71.25 )6 elbat tcartsba atad lacsfi( oitar wal %05 2 eniL 0076-0006 sedoc SPOT nimdA dna 9995-0010 sedoc SPOT lanoitcurtsnI edulcni woleb 41 hguorht 3 seniL fo oitar/noitcurtsni ot degrahc las rtsninoN %97.3 %98.8 %79.2- %70.5 %52.0 %51.4 %95.0 %54.21 %14.4 %32.9 %33.5 %84.9 stsoc rtsni tot 3 eniL fo oitar/ noitcurtsni ot degrahc repo/seilppuS %33.2 %38.3 %68.0 %78.1 %01.1 %87.2 %77.0 %47.3 %37.2 %05.3 %28.1 %06.4 stsoc rtsni tot 4 eniL oitar/rtsni latot fo % a sa seiralas lanoitcurtsnI %17.5- %89.21- %29.2 %17.6- %11.2- %60.6- %10.89 %01.28 %37.19 %41.78 %90.19 %30.58 stsoc rtsni tot fo 5 eniL snoitarepo latot fo % a sa stsoc lanoitcurtsnI %49.3 %10.9 %24.3- %70.4 %53.0- %21.6 %65.44 %99.65 %05.94 %29.35 %54.74 %75.35 0076 urht 6 eniL urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa nimda rtsnI %60.1- %57.0- %45.0 %16.1- %86.1- %24.2- %41.5 %58.3 %00.6 %70.6 %18.6 %93.4 0076 7 eniL urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa troppus rtsnI %93.0 %17.0- %93.0- %10.1 %04.1 %76.1 %55.5 %32.5 %38.3 %44.3 %71.3 %48.4 0076 8 eniL %63.0- %15.0- %37.0 %24.0- %02.0- %22.1- %34.2 %02.1 %53.2 %21.2 %51.3 %39.1 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa R & A 9 eniL urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa gnilesnuoC %10.0 %48.1- %25.1 %23.0 %36.1 %40.0 %88.6 %35.3 %27.4 %14.3 %10.5 %40.5 0076 01 eniL %91.1- %37.3- %71.1 %19.0- %46.1 %03.1- %37.9 %28.4 %19.6 %53.4 %92.7 %99.5 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa vreS utS 11 eniL urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa tniam/repO %54.4- %15.3- %35.4- %83.4- %02.3- %83.5- %05.7 %25.8 %73.8 %91.7 %73.9 %99.3 0076 21 eniL urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa ycilop/nalP %92.0- %44.1- %94.0 %61.0 %31.1 %83.0- %72.4 %43.2 %76.2 %07.1 %12.3 %38.2 0076 31 eniL %00.3 %94.3 %09.3 %67.1 %83.0- %78.2 %39.31 %25.31 %66.51 %08.71 %55.41 %24.71 0076 urht snoitarepo latot fo % a sa vres neG 41eniL 7744 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF lE atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF lE naS acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC ocsicnarF egarevA DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC SETF rep serutidnepxE dnuF lareneG 034$ 642$ 965$ 765$ 223$ 933$ 974,2$ 651,2$ 851,2$ 204,2$ 583,2$ 527,2$ SETF / seiralaS cimedacA 51 eniL 571$- 45$- 34$- 042$- 761$- 363$- 942,1$ 832,1$ 534,1$ 263,1$ 755,1$ 591,1$ SETF / seiralaS defiissalC 61 eniL / stfieneb gnidulcni serutidnepxE eeyolpmE 414$ 133$ 848$ 672$ 891$ 991$ 528,4$ 803,4$ 088,4$ 859,4$ 759,4$ 651,5$ SETF 71 eniL 291$ 25$- 238$ 66$ 52$- 97$- 687,5$ 209,4$ 866,5$ 957,5$ 318,5$ 437,5$ SETF / serutidnepxE latoT 81 eniL 764$ 676$ 533$ 324$ 211$ 434$ 423,2$ 566,2$ 775,2$ 888,2$ 565,2$ 000,3$ SETF / esnepxE lanoitcurtsnI 91 eniL 63$- 22$- 66$ 66$- 97$- 221$- 862$ 081$ 213$ 523$ 863$ 642$ SETF / noitartsinimdA lanoitcurtsnI 02 eniL 54$ 91$- 62$ 27$ 78$ 001$ 092$ 542$ 991$ 481$ 171$ 172$ SETF / troppuS lanoitcurtsnI 12 eniL 11$- 91$- 25$ 41$- 6$- 26$- 721$ 65$ 221$ 411$ 071$ 801$ SETF / sdroceR & snoissimdA 22 eniL 22$ 77$- 811$ 73$ 001$ 21$ 953$ 561$ 642$ 381$ 172$ 282$ SETF / gnilesnuoC 32 eniL 63$- 271$- 011$ 42$- 201$ 95$- 705$ 522$ 953$ 332$ 493$ 633$ SETF / secivreS tnedutS rehtO 42 eniL 902$- 861$- 571$- 212$- 261$- 382$- 193$ 893$ 634$ 583$ 705$ 322$ SETF / ecnanetniaM/snoitarepO 52 eniL 3$- 46$- 94$ 91$ 86$ 51$- 322$ 901$ 931$ 19$ 471$ 851$ SETF / gnikamyciloP/gninnalP 62 eniL 532$ 942$ 343$ 061$ 22$ 981$ 727$ 236$ 518$ 359$ 787$ 579$ SETF / secivreS troppuS lanoitutitsnI lareneG 72 eniL -0010 sedoC SPOT SETF / serutidnepxE latoT 474$ 583$ 429$ 493$ 342$ 391$ 512,5$ 676,4$ 602,5$ 653,5$ 704,5$ 006,5$ 0076 82 eniL 7755 appenddricaefst California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo noitamrofnI latnemelppuS 0016 dna 0006 sedoC POT ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM ecnereffiD -llihtooF ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF naS acinoM oinotnA hcaeB gnoL aznAeD onimaC lE acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC lE ocsicnarF egarevA DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC SETF latoT 311,72 368,13 974,12 762,53 884,02 834,93 )1 elbat tcartsba atad lacsfi( 1 eniL edoC XX06 edoC POT %61.1- %27.0- %62.0 %80.1- %59.1- %21.3- %42.4 %62.3 %06.4 %74.5 %56.6 %35.3 nimdA cimedacA 0106 2 eniL mulucirruC/esruoC %26.0 %56.0 %37.0 %33.0 %95.0 %77.0 %22.0 %41.0 %45.0 %72.0 %90.0 %68.0 leveD 0206 3 eniL ytlucaF/cimedacA %43.0- %66.0- %34.0- %82.0- %22.0- %00.0 %66.0 %34.0 %82.0 %22.0 %00.0 %00.0 etaneS 0306 4 eniL %71.0- %10.0- %30.0- %85.0- %11.0- %70.0- %10.0 %30.0 %85.0 %11.0 %70.0 %00.0 rehtO 0906 5 eniL %60.1- %57.0- %45.0 %16.1- %86.1- %24.2- %41.5 %58.3 %00.6 %70.6 %18.6 %93.4 latoT XX06 6 eniL edoC XX16 edoC POT %50.0 %46.0- %34.0- %64.0 %49.0 %38.0 %87.1 %75.1 %96.0 %02.0 %23.0 %41.1 retneC gninraeL 0116 7 eniL %82.1 %36.1 %62.1 %01.1 %71.1 %31.1 %42.1 %26.1 %77.1 %17.1 %47.1 %78.2 yrarbiL 0216 8 eniL %17.0- %40.1- %94.0- %61.1- %55.0- %51.0- %21.1 %75.0 %42.1 %36.0 %32.0 %80.0 aideM 0316 9 eniL %30.0- %30.0- %40.0- %50.0- %40.0- %00.0 %30.0 %40.0 %50.0 %40.0 %00.0 %00.0 seirellaG/smuesuM 0416 01 eniL ofnI cimedacA %03.0- %71.0- %31.1- %03.0 %42.0 %12.0- %74.0 %34.1 %00.0 %60.0 %15.0 %03.0 smetsyS 0516 11 eniL rehtO 0916 21 eniL %93.0 %17.0- %93.0- %10.1 %04.1 %76.1 %55.5 %32.5 %38.3 %44.3 %71.3 %48.4 latoT XX16 31 eniL 7766 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM ecnereffiD -llihtooF ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF naS acinoM oinotnA hcaeB gnoL aznAeD onimaC lE acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC lE ocsicnarF egarevA DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC edoC XX06 edoC POT 467,249,1$ 839,487,1$ 325,629,2$ 882,736,2$ 766,155,2$- 503,224$ 467,000,6$ 971,958,4$ 414,841,5$ 963,733,01$ 793,363,7$ 207,587,7$ nimdA cimedacA 0106 2 eniL mulucirruC/esruoC 384,606,1$ 954,995,1$ 085,807,1$ 440,903,1$ 414,393,1$ 748,808,1$ 756,013$ 635,102$ 270,106$ 207,615$ 962,101$ 611,019,1$ leveD 0206 3 eniL ytlucaF/cimedacA 356,274$- 615,739$- 527,046$- 173,213$- 557,604$- 0$ 615,739$ 527,046$ 173,213$ 557,604$ 0$ 0$ etaneS 0306 4 eniL 312,591$- 365,91$- 070,04$- 720,346$- 292,902$- 091,87$- 943,02$ 658,04$ 318,346$ 870,012$ 679,87$ 687$ rehtO 0906 5 eniL 183,188,2$ 813,724,2$ 803,459,3$ 439,099,2$ 003,477,1$- 269,251,2$ 682,962,7$ 692,247,5$ 076,507,6$ 409,074,11$ 246,345,7$ 406,696,9$ latoT XX06 6 eniL /tnepS sralloD 63$- 22$- 66$ 66$- 97$- 221$- 862$ 081$ 213$ 523$ 863$ 642$ SETF edoC XX16 edoC POT 082,030,1$ 422,9$ 472,281$ 359,657,1$ 213,641,2$ 076,271,2$ 671,615,2$ 621,343,2$ 744,867$ 880,973$ 037,253$ 004,525,2$ retneC gninraeL 0116 7 eniL 596,223,4$ 008,185,4$ 301,339,3$ 010,953,4$ 376,811,3$ 568,614,4$ 910,857,1$ 617,604,2$ 908,089,1$ 641,122,3$ 459,229,1$ 918,933,6$ yrarbiL 0216 8 eniL 401,748$- 357,514,1$- 021,086$- 431,012,1$- 694,310,1$- 804,28$- 955,685,1$ 629,058$ 049,083,1$ 203,481,1$ 412,352$ 608,071$ aideM 0316 9 eniL 669,14$- 331,54$- 258,26$- 978,95$- 655,76$- 0$ 331,54$ 258,26$ 978,95$ 655,76$ 0$ 0$ seirellaG/smuesuM 0416 01 eniL ofnI cimedacA 042,771$- 299,1$- 920,864,1$- 362,066$ 458,155$ 997,001$ 552,266$ 292,821,2$ 0$ 904,801$ 464,955$ 362,066$ smetsyS 0516 11 eniL 356,935$ 376,592$- 918,689$ 747,898$ 994,445$- 717,865$ 294,282,1$ 0$ 270,88$ 813,135,1$ 201,814$ 918,689$ rehtO 0916 21 eniL 813,628,4$ 374,238,2$ 591,198,2$ 069,404,6$ 882,191,4$ 346,671,7$ 436,058,7$ 219,197,7$ 741,872,4$ 918,194,6$ 464,605,3$ 701,386,01$ latoT XX16 31 eniL /tnepS sralloD 54$ 91$- 62$ 27$ 78$ 001$ 092$ 542$ 991$ 481$ 171$ 172$ SETF 7777 appenddricaefst California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo noitamrofnI latnemelppuS 0076 dna 0036 sedoC POT ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF naS acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC lE acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC lE ocsicnarF egarevA DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC SETF latoT 311,72 368,13 974,12 762,53 884,02 834,93 )1 elbat tcartsba atad lacsfi( 1 eniL edoC XX36 edoC POT dna gnilesnuoC %75.2- %55.0- %24.2- %82.3- %70.2- %10.4- %55.0 %24.2 %82.3 %70.2 %10.4 %00.0 ecnadiuG 0136 2 eniL /noitalucirtaM %18.0 %54.0 %34.0 %19.0 %86.0 %34.1 %80.1 %01.1 %26.0 %58.0 %01.0 %35.1 tnemssessA tnedutS 0236 3 eniL %88.0- %87.2- %00.0- %06.0- %91.0- %41.0- %87.2 %00.0 %06.0 %91.0 %41.0 %00.0 smargorP refsnarT 0336 4 eniL %80.0 %41.0 %31.0 %80.0- %20.0- %41.0 %00.0 %10.0 %22.0 %61.0 %00.0 %41.0 ecnadiuG reeraC 0436 5 eniL %75.2 %19.0 %73.3 %73.3 %32.3 %26.2 %74.2 %00.0 %00.0 %41.0 %67.0 %73.3 rehtO 0936 6 eniL %10.0 %48.1- %25.1 %23.0 %36.1 %40.0 %88.6 %35.3 %27.4 %14.3 %10.5 %40.5 latoT XX36 7 eniL edoC XX76 edoC POT ytinummoC %28.0- %46.0- %28.0- %87.0- %20.1- %60.1- %56.0 %38.0 %08.0 %30.1 %70.1 %10.0 snoitaleR 0176 8 eniL %20.0- %92.0- %66.0 %37.0- %29.0- %03.0 %97.2 %58.1 %42.3 %34.3 %02.2 %05.2 snoitarepO lacsiF 0276 9 eniL %81.0 %12.0- %47.0 %73.0- %51.0 %55.0 %48.1 %98.0 %00.2 %84.1 %80.1 %36.1 secruoseR namuH 0376 01 eniL rtsni-noN %69.0- %87.0- %43.1- %65.1- %57.1- %51.0- %87.0 %43.1 %65.1 %57.1 %51.0 %00.0 neB tnemeriteR 0476 11 eniL %20.0- %31.0 %30.0 %50.0 %41.0- %72.0- %20.0 %31.0 %11.0 %03.0 %34.0 %61.0 tnempoleveD ffatS 0576 21 eniL %40.0- %20.0- %10.0- %20.0- %10.0 %31.0- %30.0 %20.0 %30.0 %00.0 %41.0 %10.0 ytisreviD ffatS 0676 31 eniL %60.6 %52.5 %78.6 %02.6 %47.5 %09.5 %86.4 %60.3 %47.3 %02.4 %30.4 %49.9 secivreS lacitsigoL 0776 41 eniL ofnI tnemeganaM %62.1- %03.0 %53.2- %43.1- %69.2- %66.1- %12.2 %58.4 40.0$ %74.5 %61.4 %05.2 smetsyS 0876 51 eniL %11.0- %62.0- %11.0 %23.0 %25.0 %16.0- %29.0 %65.0 00.0$ %51.0 %72.1 %76.0 rehtO 0976 61 eniL %00.3 %94.3 %09.3 %67.1 %83.0- %78.2 %39.31 %25.31 %66.51 %08.71 %55.41 %24.71 latoT XX76 71 eniL 7788 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF ecnereffiD atnaS naS .tM gnoL -llihtooF naS acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC lE acinoM oinotnA hcaeB aznAeD onimaC lE ocsicnarF egarevA DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC DCC edoC XX36 edoC POT dna gnilesnuoC 531,321,3$- 132,677$- 099,006,3$- 949,276,3$- 309,319,3$- 963,244,4$- 132,677$ 099,006,3$ 949,276,3$ 309,319,3$ 963,244,4$ 0$ ecnadiuG 0136 2 eniL /noitalucirtaM 797,293,2$ 034,358,1$ 109,647,1$ 048,396,2$ 292,977,1$ 710,772,3$ 323,335,1$ 258,936,1$ 319,296$ 164,706,1$ 637,901$ 357,683,3$ tnemssessA tnedutS 0236 3 eniL 768,881,1$- 385,439,3$- 794$ 213,766$- 145,353$- 860,451$- 572,639,3$ 591,1$ 400,966$ 332,553$ 067,551$ 296,1$ smargorP refsnarT 0336 4 eniL 967,532$ 854,003$ 854,882$ 307,35$ 204,2$- 854,003$ 0$ 000,21$ 557,642$ 068,203$ 0$ 854,003$ ecnadiuG reeraC 0436 5 eniL 814,763,6$ 641,269,3$ 548,844,7$ 548,844,7$ 631,871,7$ 538,906,6$ 996,684,3$ 0$ 0$ 907,072$ 010,938$ 548,844,7$ rehtO 0936 6 eniL 389,386,4$ 022,504,1$ 117,388,5$ 721,658,5$ 285,786,4$ 378,095,5$ 825,237,9$ 730,452,5$ 126,182,5$ 661,054,6$ 578,645,5$ 847,731,11$ latoT XX36 7 eniL tnepS sralloD 22$ 77$- 811$ 73$ 001$ 21$ 953$ 561$ 642$ 381$ 172$ 282$ SETF reP edoC XX76 edoC POT ytinummoC 042,030,1$- 655,598$- 166,012,1$- 653,068$- 325,429,1$- 683,451,1$- 594,429$ 006,932,1$ 592,988$ 264,359,1$ 523,381,1$ 939,82$ snoitaleR 0176 8 eniL 255,833,2$ 810,975,1$ 310,777,2$ 164,119,1$ 585,349$- 517,680,3$ 997,949,3$ 408,157,2$ 653,716,3$ 204,274,6$ 201,244,2$ 718,825,5$ snoitarepO lacsiF 0276 9 eniL 331,957,1$ 774,200,1$ 797,772,2$ 310,853,1$ 139,608$ 542,893,2$ 985,595,2$ 962,023,1$ 350,042,2$ 531,197,2$ 128,991,1$ 660,895,3$ secruoseR namuH 0376 01 eniL rtsni-noN 361,452,1$- 475,801,1$- 049,699,1$- 101,147,1$- 074,003,3$- 530,071$- 475,801,1$ 049,699,1$ 101,147,1$ 074,003,3$ 530,071$ 0$ neB tnemeriteR 0476 11 eniL 573,931$ 417,013$ 851,651$ 581,022$ 192,412$- 655,921$- 023,23$ 678,681$ 948,221$ 523,755$ 095,274$ 430,343$ tnempoleveD ffatS 0576 21 eniL 173,24$- 802,71$- 388,4$- 748,31$- 412,61$ 645,331$- 013,93$ 589,62$ 949,53$ 888,5$ 846,551$ 201,22$ ytisreviD ffatS 0676 31 eniL 304,589,61$ 397,023,51$ 357,183,71$ 426,567,71$ 138,010,41$ 344,374,71$ 171,126,6$ 112,065,4$ 043,671,4$ 331,139,7$ 125,864,4$ 469,149,12$ secivreS lacitsigoL 0776 41 eniL ofnI tnemeganaM 873,617$ 415,904,2$ 605,896,1$- 041,432,1$ 737,997,4$- 463,029$ 410,221,3$ 430,032,7$ 883,792,4$ 562,133,01$ 461,116,4$ 825,135,5$ smetsyS 0876 51 eniL 393,784$ 012,561$ 221,246$ 241,480,1$ 937,591,1$ 790,85$ 296,403,1$ 087,728$ 067,583$ 361,472$ 508,114,1$ 209,964,1$ rehtO 0976 61 eniL 164,990,02$ 883,667,81$ 358,323,81$ 162,859,02$ 901,748,4$ 143,943,22$ 469,796,91$ 994,041,02$ 190,605,71$ 342,716,33$ 110,511,61$ 253,464,83$ latoT XX76 71 eniL /tnepS sralloD 532$ 942$ 343$ 061$ 22$ 981$ 727$ 236$ 518$ 359$ 787$ 579$ SETF 7799 appenddricaefst California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 8800 DaRppAeFnTdices CCFS-311 District Comparisons General Descriptions Key for Categories and Classifications Employee Costs Types Descriptions Academic Salaries All faculty and certificated administrators Classified Salaries All CSEA and noncertificated supervisors & administrators Instructional Salaries Full-time & part-time instructors, instructional aides All employees except full- & part-time instructors and instructional aides, such as counselors, librar- Noninstructional Salaries ians, administrator, classified support employees, etc. Functional Areas Examples Academic Administration (deans), Course & Curriculum Development, Academic Senate, Faculty Instructional Administration Senate Instructional Support Library, Media Center, Campus Technical Support Center Admissions & Records Admissions & Records and Veterans Administration Support Counseling, Transfer & Articulation, Matriculation, Career Support, Outreach & Retention, Affirm, Counseling Enlace, ASPIRE, Puente Other Student Services Financial Aid, Disabled Students, EOPS, CARE, Health Services, CALWORKS, GAIN, HACU Operations/Maintenance Maintenance, Grounds, Custodial, Utilities, Equipment Repairs Board of Trustees, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, College Presidents, Research & Planning, Facilities & Planning/Policymaking Planning Human Resources, College Marketing/Advertising, Diversity Coordinators, Staff Development, General Institutional Support Services Classified Council, ITSS, Web Support, Reprographics, Self Insurance, Business Services, Accounting, Budget, Payroll, Purchasing, Warehouse, Police, Telephone Technology & Support Note: The areas identified above are meant to be examples and are not all-inclusive. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 8811 appenddricaefst Comparative Financial Analysis Benchmark Category and Classifications Description Key General Fund (Restricted and Unrestricted) Line # On Report Relevant Ratios: Includes Line 1 Academic Sals as % of Total Exp (Gen Fds) Object Codes 1XXX; All general fund funds Line 2 50% Law Ratio State Defined Formula Objects 12XX, 14XX, 21XX, 23XX, 3X2X Line 3 Noninstructional Sals Charged to Instruction in Cost Centers 0100 - 5999 Objects 4XXX, 5XXX Line 4 Supplies/Oper Charged to Instruction in Cost Centers 0100 - 5999 Objects 11XX, 13XX, 22XX, 24XX, 3X1X Line 5 Instructional Sals as % of Total Instructional Exp in Cost Centers 0100 - 5999 Cost Centers 0100 - 5999 / Line 6 Instruction Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 7 Instruct’l Admin Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 60XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 8 Instruct’l Support Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 61XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 9 A & R Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 62XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 10 Counseling Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 63XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 11 Student Services Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 64XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 12 Oper/Maint Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 65XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 13 Plan/Policy Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 66XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 Line 14 Gen’l Serv Total as % of Oper Exp thru 6700 Cost Centers 67XX / Cost Centers 0100 - 6799 General Fund Expenditures / FTES (Full Time Equivalent Students): Line 15 Academic Salaries / FTES Object Codes 1XXX Line 16 Classified Salaries / FTES Object Codes 2XXX Line 17 Employee Expenditures / FTES Object Codes 1XXX + 2XXX + 3XXX Line 18 Total Expenditures / FTES Object Codes 1XXX thru 6XXX Line 19 Instructional Expense / FTES Cost Centers 0100 - 5999 Line 20 Instructional Administration / FTES Cost Centers 60XX Line 21 Instructional Support / FTES Cost Centers 61XX Line 22 Admissions & Records / FTES Cost Centers 62XX Line 23 Counseling / FTES Cost Centers 63XX Line 24 Other Student Services / FTES Cost Centers 64XX Line 25 Operations/Maintenance / FTES Cost Centers 65XX Line 26 Planning/Policymaking / FTES Cost Centers 66XX Line 27 General Institutional Support Services / FTES Cost Centers 67XX Line 28 Total Expenditures / FTES Cost Centers 0100-67XX Object Codes 1XXX-6XXX California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 8822 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 8833 appenddricaefst Appendix D Noncredit FTES and FTEF by Academic Discipline Spring 2012 Class Sections at Each Location California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 8844 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 8855 appenddricaefst Noncredit FTES and FTEF by Academic Discipline 1. FTES 2. FTES FTES 3. FTEF 4. FTEF FTES/ FTE Department Abbreviation Regular CDCP Total Instructional Noninstructional FTE Total Instructional Apprenticeship APPR - 2.14 2.14 0.00 Auto/Moto/ Construction AUTO 11.52 11.52 0.24 0.01 0.25 48.00 Biological Sciences BIOL - 0.10 0.10 Broadcast Electronic Media Art BEMA - 0.01 0.01 Bus/Office Tech/ Small Bus BUS 84.81 792.42 877.23 27.76 0.16 27.92 31.60 Cal Works CALW - 0.11 0.11 Career Dev & Placement Ctr CDPC 1.40 1.40 0.03 0.03 45.81 Child Dev. & Family Studies CDEV 391.80 391.80 12.02 0.05 12.07 32.60 Computer Networking & InfoTech CNIT - 0.08 0.08 Computer Science CS - 0.00 0.00 Consumer Education COED 390.91 390.91 6.60 6.60 59.25 Contract Education CONT - 0.09 0.09 Counseling Continuing Students COUC - 0.02 0.02 Counseling International Study COUI - 0.03 0.03 Counseling New Students COUN 3.33 3.33 0.02 0.02 195.69 Cul Arts & Hospitality Studies CAHS 119.87 119.87 5.33 0.02 5.35 22.49 Disabled Stud Prog & Services DSPS 251.56 24.24 275.80 11.80 11.80 23.37 Engineering & Technology(Weld) ENGN 2.84 2.84 - English As a Second Language ESL 380.38 6,058.90 6,439.29 177.27 0.07 177.34 36.32 Extended Oppo Prog & Services EOPS - 0.03 0.03 Fashion FASH 21.55 7.25 28.80 1.07 0.06 1.13 26.89 Financial Aid FAID - 0.11 0.11 Graphic Communication GRPH 25.73 25.73 0.70 0.03 0.73 36.76 Health Care Technology HCT 38.43 38.43 1.27 1.27 30.16 Health Education HLTH 15.49 15.49 0.36 0.01 0.37 43.02 Institute for Int’l Students INTI - 0.08 0.08 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 8866 DaRppAeFnTdices 1. FTES 2. FTES FTES 3. FTEF 4. FTEF FTES/ FTE Department Abbreviation Regular CDCP Total Instructional Noninstructional FTE Total Instructional Journeyman- Training JRNY 7.37 7.37 0.94 0.94 7.87 Labor and LABR - 0.007 0.01 0.00 Community Studies LBCS 0.08 0.08 0.041 0.04 1.98 Learning Assistance LERN 621.17 621.17 - Library Services LIB 17.88 17.88 - Licensed Vocational Nursing LVN 45.89 45.89 2.50 2.50 18.37 Matriculation MATR - 0.01 0.01 Mission Campus MISS - 0.11 0.11 Older Adults OLAD 325.20 325.20 7.70 7.70 42.24 Phys Education & Dance PE&D - 0.05 0.05 Southeast Campus SEC - 0.11 0.11 Student Health STHL - 0.02 0.02 Teachers’ Resource Center TRC - 0.04 0.04 Trade Skills TRSK 189.76 59.60 249.36 4.29 4.29 58.17 Transitional Studies TRST 1.99 536.76 538.75 21.58 21.58 24.97 Vocational Education VOCE - 0.12 0.12 Women’s Studies WOMN 1.33 1.33 0.04 0.04 36.83 Grand Total 2,799.93 7,629.50 10,429.42 283.69 1.54 285.23 36.76 FTE is full year FTE divided by 2 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 8877 appenddricaefst California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo noitacoL hcaE ta snoitceS ssalC 2102 gnirpS ocsicnarF naS fo egelloC ytiC latoTdnarG tsaehtuoS naecO noissiM smadAnhoJ snavE nwotnwoD nwotanihC ortsaC ynamelA tropriA RC CN RC CN RC CN RC CN RC CN RC CN RC CN RC CN RC CN RC noitacoL etiS edoC etiS 2 2 .tS sillE 103 *GAA 1 1 latanerP sselemoH *PAA 1 1 .evA ht91 1061 *RAA 4 3 1 .tS .ht4 039 *VAA 6 6 supmaC tropriA FSCC PRIA 45 45 supmaC retneC civiC FSCC MELA 2 1 1 loohcS elddiM ininnaiG .P.A *GPA 1 1 .evA dlevenraB 065 *RPA 2 1 1 )knalb( 4 4 supmaC naecO FSCC HCRA 1 1 )knalb( *SMRA 11 4 7 .evA dlevenraB 065 *RAB 3 3 supmaC naecO FSCC LTAB 1 1 retneC .mmoC sthgieH lanreB *REB 2 1 1 )knalb( *SHB 1 1 )knalb( *VRB 1 1 tneC .rS tnioP sretnuH weivyaB *HVB 1 1 )knalb( *RVB 1 1 retneC roineS nahC eikcaJ *JHC 031 8 221 supmaC nwotanihC FSCC BNHC 1 1 .tS hcruhC 544 *UHC 5 5 noitanracnI ehT fO hcruhC *NIC 3 3 supmaC naecO FSCC UOLC 16 16 .tS yalC 088 *YLC 1 1 sdneirF fo elcriC *FOC 2 2 derolpxE ytivitaerC *TRC 2 1 1 teertS dnomaiD 011 *FID 413 49 022 supmaC nwotnwoD FSCC NTND 1 1 dnuorgyalP roislesxE *PCE 7 7 .nssA lacirtcelE .F.S *ELE 2 2 seidutS ylimaF *SLE 2 1 1 yteicoS laeS retsaE *TSE 59 35 14 1 supmaC snavE FSCC SNAVE 86 76 1 supmaC ortsaC FSCC TRVE 1 1 )knalb( *SXE 7 7 hcruhC tsitpaB esenihC tsriF *BCF 1 1 .tS trebliF 927 *BIF 1 1 .tS trebliF 026 *BLF 71 71 ecnerolF daorbA ydutS *OLF 2 2 latipsoH hcnerF *HNF 1 1 tS mosloF 737 *LOF 3 fo 1 egaP sriaffA cimedacA fo eciffO 2102/11/8 8888 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM noitacoL hcaE ta snoitceS ssalC 2102 gnirpS ocsicnarF naS fo egelloC ytiC latoTdnarG tsaehtuoS naecO noissiM smadAnhoJ snavE nwotnwoD nwotanihC ortsaC ynamelA tropriA 55 55 supmaC nosaM troF FSCC TROF 1 1 isissA fO sicnarF .tS *ARF 3 3 supmaC nosaM troF FSCC *TRF 1 1 latipsoH navilluS nedraG *RAG 1 1 )knalb( CDCG 5 4 1 retneC roineS kraP etaG nedloG *PGG 4 4 loohcS hgiH oelilaG *SHG 11 11 retneC hguoG dccfS *UOG 1 1 retneC hguoG dccFS GUOG 3 3 degA roF emoH hsiweJ *AOH 21 01 2 )acsnaL( htlaeH emoH .F.S *HOH 21 2 5 4 1 latipsoH *SOH 1 1 gnisuoH .rS )ehT( egatireH *TRH 652 27 481 supmaC smadA nhoJ FSCC DAJ 01 3 7 retneC ytinummoC hsiweJ *CCJ 3 3 retneC tludA weiV yaB *DEJ 1 1 gelloC ytinummoC llennocO nhoJ *COJ 1 1 retneC roineS ihcomiK *MHK 1 1 nonaC *PIK 1 1 supmaC hcnerF latipsoH resiaK *HSK 6 5 1 latipsoH adnoH anugaL *GAL 1 1 daorbA ydutS *OAL 1 1 )59'vR(dnilB ehT roF esH thgiL *BHL 1 1 muesuM ronoH fO noigeL *OHL 1 1 )knalb( *BIL 1 1 hcruhC .ybserP kraP nlocniL *PPL 91 91 daorbA ydutS *DAM 1 1 )dnomhciR( ACMY *NEM 823 821 002 supmaC noissiM FSCC CIM 1 1 letoH l'tnI ta rtC nwotalinaM *HIM 1 1 supmaC noissiM FSCC SIM 1 1 dE tneraP ecarreT ycreM *STM 2 2 malsI fo ytisrevinU dammahuM *IUM 2 1 1 gnigA fo .tsnI namdloG *AZM 1 1 )knalb( *MAN 1 1 retneC roineS tekraM fO htroN *SMN 2 1 1 retneC htlaeH tludA tkM oS oN *SON 9742 3442 63 supmaC naecO FSCC NAECO 3 1 2 hsuB 3331-koL-nO *KLO 2 1 1 retneC htlaeH koL-nO *HNO 7 7 noinU ecitnerppA gnibmulP *UAP 8 8 hcruhC oidiserP kraP *PKP 3 fo 2 egaP sriaffA cimedacA fo eciffO 2102/11/8 8899 appenddricaefst California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo noitacoL hcaE ta snoitceS ssalC 2102 gnirpS ocsicnarF naS fo egelloC ytiC latoTdnarG tsaehtuoS naecO noissiM smadAnhoJ snavE nwotnwoD nwotanihC ortsaC ynamelA tropriA 1 1 retneC lliH orertoP *HOP 4 4 oidiserP SERP 1 1 loohcS elddiM oidiserP MSERP 1 1 )knalb( *LRP 1 1 .tS tsoP 1051 *TSP 1 1 lG roF pleH fleS rtC weiV eniP *CVP 1 1 ACMY oidiserP *MYP 1 1 oohcS elddiM yellaV noitatisiV *YAR 8 8 pacidnaH roF retneC noitaerceR *CER 1 1 pO-oC niatnuoM ykcoR *COR 3 3 .evA onurB naS 5652 *UBS 35 33 02 supmaC tsaehtuoS FSCC CES 6 5 1 retneC roineS .F.S *NES 1 1 hcruhC .ybserP evA htneveS *VES 2 1 1 retneC noitatilibaheR fS *RFS 2 2 retneC ylredlE roF pleH-fleS *EHS 2 2 ynapmoC xiS esenihC *XIS 1 1 hcnarB nwotnwoD rtnC roineS fS *RNS 1 1 rtC noitaerceR tesnuS htuoS *RSS 1 1 rtC namweN doG fO nhoJ tS *JTS 1 1 )FS.S( etilratS 231 *LTS 1 1 larehtaC syraM tS *MTS 5 5 loohcS elddiM ininnaiG .P.A *NUS 1 1 doohrobhgieN lliH hpargeleT *LET 1 1 enilklaT *LKT 1 1 gnisuoH ocdoT *DOT 2 1 1 .evA dn22 804 *AWT 8 5 3 .eva ht02 0513 *VWT 3 3 retneC deM ainrofilaC fo ytisrevinU FSCU 1 1 U'srkrW laciremmoC&dooF detinU *CFU 2 2 ccC yellaV noitatisiV *SIV 4 3 1 .rtC .rS yellaV noitatisiV *SVV 1 1 retneC mriF noitiddA nretseW *DAW 2 1 1 slarrefeR dnA secruoseR eeY uW *YUW 1 1 ecruoseR ylimaF aneuB abreuY *FBY 2 1 1 ocsicnarF naS fo ACMY *TCY 1 1 nwotsenotS ta ACMY *CMY 4024 53 13 9942 73 821 762 38 872 75 85 59 222 8 891 76 1 75 77 6 latoT dnarG 3 fo 3 egaP sriaffA cimedacA fo eciffO 2102/11/8 9900 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9911 appenddricaefst Appendix E Release Time Data California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 9922 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 2102-1102 stnemngissA lanoitcurtsnI-noN 2102 gnirpS 1102 llaF yrarbiL & secivreS .tS & noitcurtsnI ETF latoT ETF ETF noitpircseD 40.3 14.0 36.2 noitatiderccA 12.1 12.1 00.0 dnuF tcirtsiD-noN .treC 17.3 16.1 01.2 .csiM .lloC 89.0 08.0 81.0 .csiM egelloC 07.9 05.3 02.6 rotanidrooC .gorP egelloC 2102 gnirpS 1102 llaF lanoitcurtsnI-noN rehtO 01.781 12.39 09.39 gnilesnuoC ETF latoT ETF ETF noitpircseD 74.82 71.41 03.41 )03( gnilesnuoC 66.2 03.0 63.2 etaneS cimedacA 02.1 06.0 06.0 eettimmoC mulucirruC 02.4 08.1 04.2 TFA 41.3 03.1 58.1 tnempoleveD mulucirruC 15.11 38.5 76.5 tnemngissA yrallicnA 46.0 64.0 81.0 noitcudorP ecnaD 66.1 46.0 20.1 tnemngissA yralllicnA 77.0 34.0 33.0 CCD 70.7 39.2 31.4 )RC( 51 - tnemeriteR-erP 07.4 04.1 03.3 stinU tcartnoC CCD 03.3 04.1 09.1 RCN( 52 - tnemeriteR-erP 35.95 99.92 45.92 daeH tnemtrapeD 03.0 03.0 00.0 NUOC( 03 - tnemeriteR-erP 84.2 97.0 96.1 .csiM tnemtrapeD 00.23 00.31 00.91 )RC( 51 - lacitabbaS 27.0 24.0 03.0 URSE latnemtrapeD 00.3 00.1 00.2 )RCN( 52 - lacitabbaS 83.68 33.24 50.44 rotanidrooC tpeD 34.11 79.2 74.8 )RC( 51 - evaeL diapnU 11.01 65.3 55.6 URSE daeH tpeD 04.0 02.0 02.0 )RCN( 52 - evaeL diapnU 31.7 89.3 51.3 rotanidrooC .tpeD 84.1 84.0 00.1 )NUOC( 03 - evaeL diapnU 28.5 21.2 07.3 rotinoM baL .tpeD 10.97 58.03 61.84 latoT dnarG 44.11 28.4 36.6 .csiM .tpeD 50.42 31.21 29.11 rotinoM baL.tpeD 00.1 38.0 71.0 rotanidrooc URSE 93.8 59.3 44.4 detaleR baL CAL 30.04 71.02 78.91 )03( nairarbiL 22.5 80.2 41.3 )03( snairarbiL 06.1 01.1 05.0 .poleveD .cirtaM 63.2 00.1 63.1 rotceriD citelhtA EP 99.9 69.6 30.3 hcaoC EP 18.0 04.0 04.0 tsissA hcaoC EP 87.0 54.0 33.0 noitcudorP ecnaD EP 57.8 58.4 09.3 tnempoleveD margorP 51.6 95.2 75.3 rosivrepuS etiS 86.71 98.7 97.9 )03( rolesnuoC htlaeH tnedutS 23.21 93.1 39.01 weiveR eruneT 68.1 75.0 92.1 rotinoM gnitseT 62.965 64.372 08.592 latoT dnarG 2102 ,62 yluJ ,eeinaS .F ,noitcurtsnI fo eciffO 9933 appenddricaefst California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 9944 DaRppAeFnTdices Fall 2012 Non-instructional Assignments - Departmental Dept Name Dept Code Formula FTE ESRU FTE Stipend $ Non-inst FTE Sp 12 Hist F 11 Hist Grant FTE Administration of JuAstDicMe/JFire Scienc0e.400 0.400 8,057 0.06 0.86 1.2 0.85 African American StAudFAieMs 0.200 0.000 4,028 Aircraft MaintenanceA ITReCchnology 0.200 0.000 4,028 Architecture ARCH 0.400 0.200 10,741 0 0.067 0.067 Art ART 0.600 0.400 11,416 0.134 Asian American StudAiSeAsM 0.200 0.000 9,526 Asian Studies ASIA 0.200 0.000 3,359 Astronomy ASTR 0.400 0.000 8,170 Auto/Moto/ConstruActUioTnO 0.600 0.133 15,446 Behavioral SciencesBEHV 0.800 0.000 15,444 Broadcast ElectronicB MEMeAdia Arts 0.400 0.267 12,763 0.8 1.1 1.1 Biological Sciences BIOL 0.800 0.500 14,769 Business BUS 0.800 3.033 14,101 1.27 1.27 1.27 Culinary Arts and HoCsApHitaSlity Service0s.600 0.800 11,416 2.057 0.407 0.407 Child Development CDEV 0.600 0.600 12,085 1 1 1 3.23 Career DevelopmentC DPlPaCcement Cou0n.2se0l0ing 0.000 12,763 Chemistry CHEM 0.600 0.200 13,012 Cinema CINE 0.400 0.200 12,089 1.699 1.913 1.914 Computer NetworkinCgN aITnd Informat0io.6n0 T0echnology0.533 14,096 0.8 Consumer EducationCOED 0.400 0.440 12,763 Continuing Student CCOouUnCseling 0.600 0.200 13,427 0.27 International StudenCtO CUouInseling 0.200 0.000 4,820 New Student CounsCelOinUgN 0.600 0.200 12,085 Transfer Student CoCuOnsUeTling 0.200 0.000 3,359 Comptuer Science CS 0.600 0.200 10,763 Dental Assisting DENT 0.200 0.000 4,820 Radiologic ScienceDsMI/RAD 0.200 0.400 8,178 DSPS DSPS 0.600 0.200 10,071 1.84 1.633 1.698 1.41 Earth Sciences EART 0.200 0.200 3,719 English ENGL 0.900 0.550 16,452 4.46 3.77 4.46 2 Engineering and TecEhNnGolNogy 0.600 0.466 10,071 0.6 0 0 2.2 Environmental HortiEcNuVltNure and Flor0is.2tr0y0 0.600 8,851 EOPS EOPS 0.400 0.000 6,196 ESL ESL 0.900 3.467 17,792 5.378 5.45 5.37 2.8 Educational TechnoloETgEyC 0.200 0.000 3,359 2.4 0.6 0.8 Fashion FASH 0.400 0.133 10,741 Foreign Languages FORL 0.800 0.000 17,455 Graphic CommunicaGtiRoPnHs 0.400 0.133 10,741 0.832 0.834 0.958 Health Care TechnoloHgCyT 0.600 1.066 16,120 1.533 1.533 1.533 Health Education HLTH 0.600 0.933 10,743 2.4 3.999 3.628 1.267 Interdisciplinary StudIDieSsT 0.400 0.200 10,741 Journalism JOUR 0.200 0.000 9,526 Prepared by: F. Saniee, J. Low, and T. Boegel Office of instruction May 23, 2012 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9955 appenddricaefst Fall 2012 Non-instructional Assignments - Departmental Latin American/LatinLoA/LaS Studies 0.200 0.000 6,832 Labor and CommunitLyB CStSudies 0.200 0.400 9,526 Learning AssistanceLERN 0.600 0.000 16,120 0.8 0.8 1.1 2.2 LGBT Studies LGBT 0.200 0.000 6,162 Library LIB 0.600 0.000 10,071 Library Information TeLIcThnology 0.200 0.000 3,359 Nursing, Licensed VoLcVatNional 0.600 0.200 15,446 Mathematics MATH 0.800 0.000 16,112 1.766 1.766 1.766 0.286 Music MUS 0.600 0.067 16,120 Nursing, RegisteredNURS 0.600 0.200 11,416 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.54 Older Adult OLDA 0.400 0.200 8,057 Physical Education &P ED&anDce 0.800 0.000 16,784 2.8 3.2 4.2 Philippine Studies PHIL 0.200 0.000 9,526 Photography PHOT 0.400 0.333 7,387 2.13 2.36 2.37 Physics PHYC 0.600 0.200 11,416 Multicultural StudenRtE RTeNtention 0.400 0.400 7,387 Social Sciences SOSC 0.800 0.167 19,479 Student Health STHL 0.400 0.000 8,727 7.4 Speech SPCH 0.400 0.000 7,387 0.195 0.195 0.293 Theatre Arts TH A 0.200 0.400 7,504 Transitional StudiesTRST 0.600 1.376 14,771 0.2 Women's Studies WOMN 0.200 0.167 4,820 0.7 0.7 0.7 total 29.400 20.764 674,511 35.324 33.657 36.034 25.183 Formula FTE ESRU FTE Stipend $ Non-inst FTE Sp 12 Hist F 11 Hist Grant FTE Formula FTE Contractual, any change requires negotiation, has not changed for decades Stipend $ Contractual, is set based on the formula reassigned units, any change requires negotiation ESRU FTE Contractual, but negotiated each year, 20.764 represents a recently negotiated reduction of 14.3% Non-inst FTE Requested for F 12, majority based on past practice for many years, can be reduced Sp 12 Hist Spring 2012 dept allocation F 11 Hist Fall 2011 dept allocation Grant FTE Various departmental or college grants for numerous activities Savings ESRU FTE DCC/VCAA recently negotiated a reduction of 3.7 FTE x $60k/FTE = $222k (already agreed by DCC) Non-inst FTE 10% overall reduction, not necessarily evenly, would produce 3.5 FTEs x $60k/FTE = $210k 20% overall reduction, not necessarily evenly, would produce 7 FTEs x $60k/FTE = 420k 30% overall reduction, not necessarily evenly, would produce 10.5 FTEs x $60k/FTE = $630k Note FT inload assignments reduce the load balances liability, PT/PX hourly reduce cost directly $60k/FTE estimate is an annual figure based on same reductions in spring 2013 Prepared by: F. Saniee, J. Low, and T. Boegel Office of instruction May 23, 2012 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo stnemngissA lanoitcurtsni-noN latnemtraped-noN 2102 llaF setoN ETF emaNrezinagrO sedoCtnemngissA ytitnE 2 ronigaS neraK)SAP/SAF( sreciffO etaneS cimedacA etaneS cimedacA sretsemes eht revo tahwemos deirav sah eulav sihT 6.3 oznaH sirhC/resseM asilA )FAP/FAF( emiT esaeleR TFA TFA 8.0 kcarA .P naijmoM rahoG stnerruC ytiC 175.0 snoyL einahpetS rotanidrooC margosrePireS erutceL/trecnoC 6.0 legeoB moT eettimmoC mulucirrueeCttimmoC mulucirruC 4.0 otoilA enelraD )CDP/CDF( sreciffO CCD CCD mrof eulb a no pu wohs yam siht raweD aihtnyC tnempoleveD muluciryrugColonhceT lanoitacudE 8.0 raweD aihtnyC troppus eniylngOolonhceT lanoitacudE 2102 gnirpS ni %01 nwod ti demmirt ew ;esaeler %04 a saw yllacirotsiH 63.0 legeoB moT rotanidrooC margorP sronoH 6.0 ikawiroM .K noitalucirtaM retsemes hcae srotcurtsni suoirav 2.0 elbigel ton ngiS ??CV srotcurtsneic 7ivreS dsna gnirotneM 4.0 namowevarB yraM/truB ycarT rotanidrooC margorP PIM 133.01 latot-bus nwod og dluoc tahT .gnirotinom bal fo ETF 0.2 dah ev'yeht ,yllacirotsiH 5.1 legeoB moT )MLP/MLF( rotinoM baL CRCA 33.0 namgreB ailuJ areviR ogeiD areviR ogeiD hcae emit esaeler fo sruoh 9 gnitteg ytlucaf 02 xorppA 492.0 isduK imaS sdnepitS sronoH sronoH 19.0 smailliW ,J nwOruoYworG/gnirotneM TSRT/LSE ni TP/TF rof sdnepits 352.0 sotnaS leumaS licnuoC SA seitivitcA tnedutS 782.3 latot-bus keew rep IN fo sruoh 61 stneserper 64.0 sivaD boB noisivrepuS etiS aicnelaV/ortsaC naed supmac eht fo flaheb no tseuqer detcejorp eht sI 34.0 aT aoH hniM noisivrepuS hectaiSeB htroN/nwotanihC naed supmac eht fo flaheb no tseuqer detcejorp eht sI 34.0 weJ lraC noisivrepuS neotisSaM troF/retneC civiC keew rep IN fo sruoh 51 stneserper 34.0 eroD divaD noisivrepuS etiS nwotnwoD naed supmac eht fo flaheb no tseuqer detcejorp eht sI 34.0 olliruM ecilA noisivrepuS etiS snavE naed supmac eht fo flaheb no tseuqer detcejorp eht sI 34.0 llaH yrreT noisivrepuS etiS smadA nhoJ naed supmac eht fo flaheb no tseuqer detcejorp eht sI 34.0 lleB egroJ noisivrepuS etiS noissiM keew rep IN fo sruoh 51 stneserper 34.0 eeinaS oibaF noisivrepuS etiSnoitcurtsnI fo eciffO naed supmac eht fo flaheb no tseuqer detcejorp eht sI 34.0 noisivrepuS etiS tsaehtuoS 9.3 latot-bus 25.71 LATOT ecuder ot redraH k04$ = k06$ x ETF 66.0 = noitcuder %02 ,k02$ = ETF/k06$ x ETF 33.0 = noitcuder %01 ,decuder eb naC k06$ = ETF/k06$ x ETF 1 = noitcuder %52 ,k74$ = ETF/k06$ x ETF 87.0 = noitcuder %02 ,ecuder ot reisaE yltcerid tsoc ecuder ylruoh XP/TP ,ytilibail secnalab daol eht ecuder stnemngissa daolni TF etoN 3102 gnirps ni noitcuder emas eht no desab erugif launna na si etamitse ETF/k06$ ,legeoB .T dna ,woL .J ,eeinaS .F yb deraperP 2102 ,32 yaM ,noitcurtsnI fo eciffO 9966 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9977 appenddricaefst San Francisco City College Department Chair Reassigned Unit & Stipend Comparison Department Formula Units Annual Stipend ESRU Units Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Change Fall 2011 2012 Change 2012 Administration of Justice/Fire Science 0.40 0.40 0.00 6,819 8,057 1,238 0.40 African-American Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 3,100 4,028 928 - Aircraft Maintenance Technology 0.20 0.20 0.00 3,100 4,028 928 - Architecture 0.40 0.40 0.00 9,295 10,741 1,446 0.20 Art 0.60 0.60 0.00 9,916 11,416 1,500 0.40 Asian Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 5,069 3,359 (1,710) - Asian-American Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 8,793 9,526 733 - Astronomy 0.20 0.40 0.20 8,170 8,170 - - Automotive/Motorcycle/Construction & Building Maintenance 0.60 0.60 0.00 13,635 15,446 1,811 0.13 Behavioral Sciences 0.80 0.80 0.00 13,633 15,444 1,811 - Biological Sciences 0.80 0.80 0.00 13,017 14,769 1,752 0.50 Broadcast Electronic Media Arts 0.40 0.40 0.00 11,781 12,763 982 0.27 Business 0.80 0.80 0.00 12,397 14,101 1,704 3.03 Career Development and 0.40 0.20 -0.20 11,781 12,763 982 - Chemistry 0.60 0.60 0.00 13,012 13,012 - 0.20 Child Development and Family Studies 0.60 0.60 0.00 10,537 12,085 1,548 0.60 Cinema 0.40 0.40 0.00 10,537 12,089 1,552 0.20 Computer Networking & Information Technology 0.60 0.60 0.00 12,394 14,096 1,702 0.53 Computer Science 0.60 0.60 0.00 9,296 10,763 1,467 0.20 Consumer Education 0.40 0.40 0.00 11,781 12,763 982 0.44 Counseling, Continuing Students 0.60 0.60 0.00 11,773 13,427 1,654 0.20 Counseling, International Students 0.20 0.20 0.00 3,719 4,820 1,101 - Counseling, New Students 0.60 0.60 0.00 10,537 12,085 1,548 0.20 Culinary Arts & Hospitality 0.60 0.60 0.00 9,916 11,416 1,500 0.80 Dental Assisting 0.20 0.20 0.00 3,719 4,820 1,101 - Disabled Students Programs and Services 0.60 0.60 0.00 14,258 10,071 (4,187) 0.20 Earth Sciences 0.20 0.20 0.00 3,719 3,719 - 0.20 Educational Technology 0.20 0.20 0.00 3,100 3,359 259 - Engineering and Technology (Welding) 0.60 0.60 0.00 14,880 10,071 (4,809) 0.47 English 0.80 0.90 0.10 13,017 16,452 3,435 0.55 English as a Second Language 0.90 0.90 0.00 15,805 17,792 1,987 3.47 Environmental Horticulture and Floristry 0.20 0.20 0.00 7,549 8,851 1,302 0.60 Extended Opportunity Programs and Services 0.40 0.40 0.00 6,196 6,196 - - Fashion 0.40 0.40 0.00 9,295 10,741 1,446 0.13 Foreign Languages 0.80 0.80 0.00 15,493 17,455 1,962 - Graphic Communications 0.40 0.40 0.00 9,295 10,741 1,446 0.13 Health Care Technology 0.60 0.60 0.00 14,880 16,120 1,240 1.07 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 9988 DaRppAeFnTdices San Francisco City College Department Chair Reassigned Unit & Stipend Comparison Department Formula Units Annual Stipend ESRU Units Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Change Fall 2011 2012 Change 2012 Health Education and Community Health Studies 0.60 0.60 0.00 9,296 10,743 1,447 0.93 Interdisciplinary Studies 0.40 0.40 0.00 9,295 10,741 1,446 0.20 Journalism 0.20 0.20 0.00 8,793 9,526 733 - Labor and Community Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 8,793 9,526 733 0.40 Latin-American Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 5,688 6,832 1,144 - Learning Assistance 0.60 0.60 0.00 14,880 16,120 1,240 - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 5,069 6,162 1,093 - Library and Learning Resources 0.60 0.60 0.00 11,156 10,071 (1,085) - Library Information Technology 0.20 0.20 0.00 8,793 3,359 (5,434) - Mathematics 0.80 0.80 0.00 14,256 16,112 1,856 - Multicultural Retention Services Department (MRSD) 0.40 0.40 0.00 6,196 7,387 1,191 0.40 Music 0.60 0.60 0.00 14,880 16,120 1,240 0.07 Nursing - Licensed Vocational 0.60 0.60 0.00 13,635 15,446 1,811 0.20 Nursing – Registered 0.60 0.60 0.00 9,916 11,416 1,500 0.20 Older Adults 0.40 0.40 0.00 6,819 8,057 1,238 0.20 Philippine Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 8,793 9,526 733 - Photography 0.40 0.40 0.00 6,196 7,387 1,191 0.33 Physical Education and Dance 0.80 0.80 0.00 14,873 16,784 1,911 - Physics 0.40 0.60 0.20 6,819 11,416 4,597 0.20 Radiologic Sciences 0.20 0.20 0.00 6,926 8,178 1,252 0.40 Social Sciences 0.80 0.80 0.00 17,981 19,479 1,498 0.17 Speech Communication 0.40 0.40 0.00 6,196 7,387 1,191 - Student Health Services 0.40 0.40 0.00 7,437 8,727 1,290 - Theatre Arts 0.20 0.20 0.00 6,307 7,504 1,197 0.40 Transfer Student Counseling 0.20 0.20 0.00 5,069 3,359 (1,710) - Transitional Studies 0.60 0.60 0.00 13,012 14,771 1,759 1.38 Women’s Studies 0.20 0.20 0.00 3,719 4,820 1,101 0.17 Grand Total 29.10 29.40 0.30 616,007 674,511 58,504 20.76 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9999 appenddricaefst Appendix F Appendix A of the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office’s 2012 Budget and Accounting Manual This is a glossary of fiscal terms to aid readers. Source: CCCCO’s website: http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/FinanceFacilities/FiscalServicesUnit/FiscalStandards/BudgetandAccountingManual.aspx http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/CFFP/Fiscal_Services/Standards/BAM/bam2012ed/Appendix_A_BAM_Glossary.pdf California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 110000 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 110011 appenddricaefst Appendix A Common Terminology 50PercentLaw: The“50PercentLaw”,asdefinedinEducationCodeSection84362and CaliforniaCodeofRegulationsSection59200etseq.,requiresCaliforniaCommunityCollege districtstospendeachfiscalyear50%ofthecurrentexpenseofeducationforpaymentof salariesofclassroominstructors. Theintentofthestatuteistolimitclasssizeandcontainthe relativegrowthofadministrativeandnoninstructionalcosts. TheAnnualFinancialandBudget Report(CCFS-311)includesactualdataonthedistrict’scurrentexpenseofeducationand compliancewiththe50%Law. (SeeCurrentExpenseofEducation.) Abatement: Acompleteorpartialcancellationofanitemofincomeorexpenditure. AcademicEmployee: Adistrictemployeewhoisrequiredtomeetminimumacademic standardsasaconditionofemployment. AccountCode: Asequenceofnumbersand/orlettersassignedtoledgeraccountstoclassify transactionsbyfund,object,activity,etc. Accounting: (1)Thespecialfieldconcernedwiththedesignandimplementationofprocedures fortheaccumulationandreportingoffinancialdata. (2)Theprocessofidentifying,measuring, andcommunicatingfinancialinformationtopermitinformedjudgmentsanddecisionsbyusers oftheinformation. AccountingPeriod: Anyperiodoftimeattheendofwhichadistrictdeterminesitsfinancial positionandresultsofoperations. AccountingProcedures: Allprocesseswhichidentify,record,classify,andsummarize financialinformationtoproducereportsandtoprovideinternalcontrol. A-1 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 110022 DaRppAeFnTdices AccountingSystem: Thetotalstructureofrecordsandprocedureswhichidentify,record, classify,andreportinformationonthefinancialoperationsofanagencythroughitsfunds, accountgroups,andorganizationalcomponents. AccountsPayable: Ashort-termliabilityaccountreflectingamountsduetoothersforgoods andservicesreceivedpriortotheendofanaccountingperiod(includesamountsbilled,butnot paid). MostofthesedefinitionsarefromGovernmentalAccounting,Auditing,andFinancial Reporting(GAAFR). AccountsReceivable: Anassetaccountreflectingamountsduefromothersforgoodsand servicesprovidedpriortotheendofanaccountingperiod(includesamountsadvancedbutnot repaid). AccrualBasis: Themethodofaccountingwhichcallsforrecognizingrevenue/gainsand expenses/lossesintheaccountingperiodinwhichthetransactionsoccurregardlessofthetiming oftherelatedcashflows. (ContrastwithCashBasis.) Activity: Asetofinstitutionalfunctionsoroperationsrelatedtoanacademicdisciplineora groupingofservices. ActuarialReport:Areportpreparedbyanactuarytodeterminethefinancialimpactofrisks anduncertainties. Generallyusedtodeterminetherequiredcontributionsofpostemployment benefitsorselfinsuredliabilities. Administrator: ForthepurposeofEducationCodeSection84362,“Administrator”meansany employeeinapositionhavingsignificantresponsibilitiesforformulatingdistrictpoliciesor administeringdistrictprograms. AdValoremTax: Ataxbasedontheassessedvalueofrealestateorpersonalproperty. AgencyFund: Afundusedtoaccountforassetsheldbyagovernmentalunitasanagentfor individuals,privateorganizations,othergovernments,and/orotherfunds;forexample,taxes collectedandheldbythecountyforacollegedistrict. Allocation: Divisionordistributionofresourcesaccordingtoapredeterminedplan. A-2 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 110033 appenddricaefst Amortization: (1)Theportionofthecostofalimited-lifeorintangibleassetchargedasan expenseduringaparticularperiod. (2)Thereductionofdebtbyregularpaymentsofprincipal andinterestsufficienttoretirethedebtbymaturity. AnnualAppropriationLimit(GannLimit): InCalifornia,allgovernmentaljurisdictions, includingcommunitycollegedistricts,mustcomputeanannualappropriationlimitbasedonthe amountinprioryearsadjustedforchangesinpopulation,cost-of-living,andotherfactors,if applicable(ArticleXIII-BoftheStateConstitution). Annuity:Aseriesofequalmoneypaymentsmade,orreceived,atequalintervalsduringa designatedperiodoftime. Apportionment: AllocationofStateorFederalaid,districttaxes,orothermoneysto communitycollegedistrictsorothergovernmentalunits. ApportionmentNotice:Adocumentnotifyingcommunitycollegedistrictsofmoneysdeposited ontheirbehalfwiththecountytreasurer. Appraisal: Anestimateofvaluemadebytheuseofsystematicproceduresbaseduponphysical inspectionandinventory,engineeringstudies,andothereconomicfactors. Appropriation: Alegalauthorizationgrantedbyalegislativeorgoverningbodytomake expendituresandincurobligationsforaspecifiedtimeandpurpose. AppropriationforContingencies: Thatportionofcurrentfiscalyear’sbudgetnotappropriated foranyspecificpurposeandheldsubjecttointrabudgettransfer,i.e.,transfertootherspecific appropriationsasneededduringthefiscalyear. AppropriationLedger: Asetofaccountsforamountsallocatedorbudgeted. Suchaccounts usuallyshowtheamountoriginallyappropriated,transferstoorfromotheraccounts,amounts chargedagainsttheappropriation,encumbrances,unencumberedbalances,andotherrelated information. A-3 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 110044 DaRppAeFnTdices Arbitrage: Classically,thesimultaneouspurchaseandsaleofthesameoranequivalentsecurity inordertoprofitfrompricediscrepancies. Ingovernmentfinance,themostcommonoccurrence ofarbitrageinvolvestheinvestmentoftheproceedsfromthesaleoftax-exemptsecuritiesina taxablemoneymarketinstrumentthatyieldsahigherrate,resultingininterestrevenueinexcess ofinterestcosts. AssessedValuation: Valueplaceduponpersonalandrealpropertybyagovernmentalunitasa basisforlevyingtaxes. Assessment: (1)Theprocessofmakingtheofficialvaluationofpropertyforpurposesof taxation. (2)Thevaluationplaceduponpropertyasaresultofthisprocess. AssessmentRoll: Inthecaseofrealproperty,theofficiallistcontainingthelegaldescriptionof eachparcelofpropertyanditsassessedvaluation. Thenameandaddressofthelastknown ownerareusuallylisted. Inthecaseofpersonalproperty,theassessmentrollistheofficiallist containingthenameandaddressoftheowner,adescriptionofthepersonalproperty,andits assessedvalue. Asset: Aprobablefutureeconomicbenefitobtainedorcontrolledbyanentityasaresultofpast transactionsorevents. (SeealsoCurrentassetsandFixedassets.) AssociatedStudentsFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountformoneysheldintrustbythe districtforstudentbodyassociations. Audit: Anofficialexaminationandverificationoffinancialstatementsandrelateddocuments, records,andaccountsforthepurposeofdeterminingtheproprietyoftransactions,whether transactionsarerecordedproperly,andwhetherstatementsdrawnfromaccountsreflectan accuratepictureoffinancialoperationsandfinancialstatus. Auditproceduresmayalsoinclude examinationandverificationofcompliancewithapplicablelawsandregulations,economyand efficiencyofoperations,andeffectivenessinachievingprogramresults. Thegeneralfocusof theannualauditconductedonthedistrictisusuallyafinancialstatementexaminationand complianceaudit. A-4 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 110055 appenddricaefst Auditors’Opinion: Astatementsignedbyanauditorwhichstatesthatsheorhehasexamined thefinancialstatementsoftheentityinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedauditingstandards (withexceptions,ifany)andexpressesanopiniononthefinancialpositionandresultsof operationsofanentity. AutomatedClearingHouse(ACH): Anationwidebankingnetworkthatprovidesfor electronicdistributionandsettlementoffunds. AuxiliaryEnterprise: Self-supportingactivitieswhichprovidenon-instructionalsupportinthe formofgoodsandservicestostudents,faculty,andstaffuponpaymentofaspecificusercharge orfeeforthegoodsandservicesprovided(e.g.StudentHousing,TransportationandParking Services). Thegeneralpublicmaybeservedonlyincidentally. AvailableCash: Cashonhandorondepositinagivenfundthatisunencumberedandcanbe utilizedformeetingcurrentobligations. BalanceSheet: Abasicfinancialstatementthatshowsassets,liabilities,andequityofanentity asofaspecificdateconformitywithGAAP. BalancedBudget: Abudgetinwhichreceiptsareequaltoorgreaterthanoutlaysinafiscal period. BasisofAccounting: Atermusedtorefertowhenrevenues,expenditures,expenses,and transfers–andtherelatedassetsandliabilities–arerecognizedintheaccountsandreportedinthe financialstatements. Specifically,itrelatestothetimingofthemeasurementsmade,regardless ofthenatureofthemeasurement,oneitherthecashortheaccrualmethod. Bond: Mostoften,awrittenpromisetopayaspecifiedsumofmoney,calledthefacevalue,ata specifieddateordatesinthefuture,calledthematuritydate(s),togetherwithperiodicinterestat aspecifiedrate. BondAnticipationNote: Debtinstrumentusedtosecureshorttermfinancinginanticipationof aBondissuance. BondDiscount: Theexcessofthefacevalueofabondovertheprice(exclusiveofaccrued interest)forwhichitisacquiredorsold. A-5 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 110066 DaRppAeFnTdices BondInterestandRedemptionFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountforreceiptand expenditureofpropertytaxrevenuespecifiedforpaymentoftheprincipalandintereston outstandingbondsofthedistrict. (SeealsoRevenueBondInterestandRedemptionFund.) BondPremium: Theexcessofthepurchaseorsalepriceofabond,exclusiveofaccrued interest,overitsfacevalue. BondedDebt: Theportionofdistrictindebtednessrepresentedbyoutstandingbonds. BondsAuthorizedandUnissued: Legallyauthorizedbondsthathavenotbeensold. BookValue: Valueasshowninthe“book”ofaccounts. Inthecaseofassetssubjectto reductionbyvaluationallowances,“bookvalue”referstocostorstatedvaluelessany appropriateallowance. Adistinctionissometimesmadebetween“grossbookvalue”and“net bookvalue”,theformerdesignatingvaluebeforeallowances,andthelatteraftertheirdeduction. Intheabsenceofanymodifier,however,“bookvalue”issynonymouswith“netbookvalue.” BooksofOriginalEntry: Theledgersinwhichtransactionsareformallyrecordedforthefirst time(e.g.thecashjournal,checkregister,orgeneraljournal). Withautomatedbookkeeping methods,onetransactionmayberecordedsimultaneouslyinseveralrecords,oneofwhichmay beregardedasthebookoforiginalentry. Memorandumbooks,checkstubs,filesofduplicate salesinvoices,etc.,whereonfirstorpriorbusinessnotationsmayhavebeenmade,arenotbooks oforiginalentryintheacceptedmeaningoftheterm,unlesstheyarealsousedasthemediumfor directpostingtotheledgers. BookstoreFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountforoperationofthecollegestore. Budget: Aplanoffinancialoperationforagivenperiodconsistingofanestimateof expendituresandtheproposedmeansoffinancingthem. Themostcommonassumptionsof budgetinginclude:  CentralizedBudget: Thisbudgetlocalizedresourceallocationintocentraloperations. A strategyusedtoprovideadditionalcontrolisusuallyinstitutedwhenresourcesare reduced. Thistendstobealeanerallocationsincethereisonlyasingleinstitutional contingencyneeded.  DecentralizedBudget: Thisbudgetprocessallowsresourceallocationtotakeplace outsideofcentraloperations,givinggreatercontroltotheprogramsthathavedirect A-6 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 110077 appenddricaefst interactionwithstudents. Becausethecontingencymustbespreadoveralargenumber ofdepartmentsorprograms,thesebudgetstendtobelargerthanthoseofthesamesize organizationwithacentralizedbudget.  IncrementalorRolloverBudget: Thisisthemostwidelyusedformofbudgetingin highereducation. Itassumesthateachyearisrelativelythesameandthatanynew activityisanadd-on. Itisthemostefficient,cost-effectivewaytobudgetandusuallyhas alargecentralizedcomponent. Itfocusesoninputsratherthanoutcomes.  Zero-basedBudget: Thistypeofbudgetassumesthateachyearstandsonitsown. All expendituresmustbejustifiedeachyear. Thisstrategycreatesaveryleanbudgetwith onlyknownexpenditurespresent.  FormulaBudget: Objectiveformulasbasedonsystematicdataareusedtodistribute resourcestoensureeachprogramorentityisreceivingafairshare. Thisismostoften usedatthestatelevel.  Planning,Programming,andBudgetingSystems(PPBS): Thissystemfocusesoncost benefitsandcontinuousanalysisofalternativesforeachprogramandsystematicallylinks themtothestrategicplan.  Incentive-DrivenBudget: Thisbudgetfallsintotwocategories. Thefirstisusedatthe stateleveltoprovideup-frontfundingtoachieveaspecificoutcome. Thesecondisused inresearchinstitutestodecentralizeresourceallocationtothevariousdepartmentssothat moretimelyandaccuratedecisionscanbemade.  Performance-DrivenBudget: Thisprocessusesperformancemeasurestoallocate resourcesandisusedprimarilyatthestatelevel. Inthismodelthefundingcomesafter themeasureshavebeenachieved. IthasbeensuccessfullyimplementedintheK-12 environment.  Responsibility/orCostCenterBudget: Thismodelrecognizesthateachinstructional programcanstandonitsownandhasarelativeabilitytogenerateincome. Thismodel allocatesalloftherevenuetoeachdepartmentandusesachargebackortaxtocoverthe expensesofthecostcenterslikecentralservices. BudgetDocument: Theinstrumentusedbythebudget-makingauthoritytopresenta comprehensivefinancialprogramtothegoverningauthority(formCCFS-311forCalifornia CommunityColleges). Includedisabalancedstatementofrevenuesandexpenditures(both actualandbudgeted),aswellasotherexhibits. BudgetaryControl: Themanagementofbusinessaffairsinaccordancewithanapprovedplan ofestimatedincomeandexpenditures. A-7 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 110088 DaRppAeFnTdices Budgeting: Theprocessofallocatingavailableresourcesamongpotentialactivitiestoachieve theobjectivesofanorganization. CafeteriaFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountforfoodservices. CapitalAssets: SeeFixedAssets. CapitalOutlay: Theacquisitionoforadditionstofixedassets,includinglandorexisting buildings,improvementsofgrounds,constructionofbuildings,additionstobuildings, remodelingofbuildings,orequipment. CapitalOutlayProjectsFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountfortheaccumulationofreceipts anddisbursementsfortheacquisitionorconstructionofcapitaloutlayitems. Afundestablished underCapitalProjectsFunds. CapitalProjectsFundType: CategoryoffundsintheGovernmentalFundsGroupusedto accountfortheacquisitionorconstructionofcapitaloutlayitems. Cash: Anassetaccountreflectingcurrency,checks,moneyorders,bankdeposits,andbanker’s draftseitheronhandorondepositwithanofficialoragentdesignatedascustodianofcash. Any restrictionsorlimitationsastotheuseofcashmustbeindicated. CashAdvance: Moneyreceivedorpaidoutbeforethegoodsorservices. CashBasisofAccounting: Methodofaccountinginwhichincomeandexpendituresare recordedonlywhencashisactuallyreceivedordisbursed. CashCollectionsAwaitingDeposit: Receiptsonhandorinthebankawaitingdepositinthe countytreasury. CashDiscount: Anallowancereceivedorgivenforpaymentmadeonanaccountwithina statedperiod. Thetermisnottobeconfusedwith“tradediscount.” CashinBank: Cashbalancesinbankaccounts. CashinCountyTreasury: Cashbalancesinthecountytreasury. A-8 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 110099 appenddricaefst CashwithFiscalAgent: Anassetaccountreflectingdepositswithfiscalagents,suchasa commercialbankoratrustcompany,designatedbythedistricttoactasafiduciaryandasthe custodianofmoneysrelatingtodebtfinancing. CFDA: CatalogofFederalDomesticAssistance(Websitelocation:www.cfda.gov). CategoricalFunding: Allocationsthatarerequiredtobespentinaparticularwayorfora designatedprogram. CertificateofParticipation(COP): Atypeoffinancingwhereaninvestorpurchasesashareof theleaserevenuesofaprogram. CertifiedPublicAccountant: AnaccountanttowhomaStatehasgrantedacertificateshowing thatheorshehasmetprescribededucationalexperience,andexaminationrequirementsdesigned toinsurecompetenceinthepracticeofpublicaccounting. Theaccountantholdingsucha certificateispermittedtousethedesignationCertifiedPublicAccountant. ChartofAccounts: Asystematiclistofaccountsapplicabletoaspecificentity. Check: Awrittenorderonabanktopayondemandaspecificsumofmoneytotheorderofthe namedpayee(s)outofmoneyondeposittothecreditofthemaker(payor). ChildDevelopmentFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountforchilddevelopmentservices. Classification: Assignmentofitemsintoasystemofcategories. ClassificationbyActivity: Categorizationofdistrictactivitiesaccordingtotheuniquefunction orpurposeserved. ClassifiedEmployee: Adistrictemployeewhoisnotrequiredtomeetminimumacademic standardsasaconditionofemployment. ClearingAccounts: Accountsusedtoaccumulatetotalreceiptsforclearingpriortodepositing thefundswiththecountytreasuryanddistributingtotheaccountstowhichsuchreceiptsare properlyallocable. A-9 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 111100 DaRppAeFnTdices Code: (1)Adistinguishingreferencenumberorsymbol. (2)Astatementofthelawsofa specificfield;e.g.,EducationCode(EC),PenalCode(PC),CivilCode(CC),LaborCode(LC), etc. Coding: Asystemofnumberingorotherwisedesignatingaccounts,entries,invoices,vouchers, etc.,insuchamannerthatthesymbolusedrevealsquicklycertainrequiredinformation. An exampleisthenumberingofmonthlyrecurringjournalentriestoindicatethemonthandthe natureoftheentryandthenumberingofinvoicesorvoucherssothatthenumberrevealsthedate ofentry. CognizantAgency: TheFederalagencyresponsibleforreviewing,negotiating,andapproving costallocationplans,orindirectcostproposalsdevelopedunderOMBCircularA-87onbehalf ofallFederalagencies. COLA: CostofLivingAllowance. Commingling: Todepositorrecordfundsinageneralaccountwithouttheabilitytoidentify eachspecificsourceoffundsforanyexpenditure CommunityServices: Educational,cultural,andrecreationalserviceswhichaneducational institutionmayprovideforitscommunityinadditiontoitscreditandnoncreditprograms. CommunitycollegedistrictsreceivenodirectStateapportionmentforcommunityservices. CompensatedAbsences: Absences,suchasvacation,andcompensatorytimeoffforwhichitis expectedemployeeswillbepaid. Thetermdoesnotencompassseveranceorterminationpay, postretirementbenefits,deferredcompensation,orotherlong-termfringebenefits,suchasgroup insurance,andlong-termdisabilitypay. ConstructioninProgress(CIP): Ageneralledgeraccountthatreflectsthatcostofconstruction workundertakenoncapitalprojects,butnotcompletedasoftheendoftheaccountingperiod. ContingentLiabilities: Itemswhichmaybecomeliabilitiesasaresultofconditions undeterminedatagivendate,suchasguarantees,pendinglawsuits,judgmentsunderappeal, unsettleddisputedclaims,unfilledpurchaseorders,anduncompletedcontracts. Allcontingent liabilitiesshouldbedisclosedwithinthebasicfinancialstatements,includingthenotesthereto whenthereisareasonablepossibilityalossmayhaveoccurred. A-10 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 111111 appenddricaefst ContractedServices: Servicesrenderedbypersonnelwhoarenotonthepayrollofthecollege system,includingallrelatedexpensescoveredbythecontract. ContributedCapital: Thepermanentfundcapitalofaproprietaryfund. Contributedcapital formsoneoftwoclassificationsofequityfoundonthebalancesheetofaproprietaryfund. Contributedcapitaliscreatedwhenaresidualequitytransferisreceivedbyaproprietaryfund, whenafixedassetis“transferred”toaproprietaryfund,orwhenagrantisreceivedthatis externallyrestrictedtocapitalacquisitionorconstruction. Contributionsrestrictedtocapital acquisitionandconstructionandfixedassetsreceivedfromdevelopersandcustomers,aswellas amountsoftapfeesinexcessofrelatedcosts,alsowouldbereportedinthiscategory. ControllingAccount: Asummaryaccount,usuallymaintainedinthegeneralledger,inwhich isrecordedtheaggregateofdebitandcreditpostingstoanumberofidentical,similar,orrelated accountscalledsubsidiaryaccounts. Itsbalanceequalsthesumofthebalancesofthedetailing accounts. ConversionEntries: Entriesperformedofpublicentitiesatyear-endtoconvertthemodified accrualfundfinancialstatementsintofullaccrual,entity-wideGASB35compliantfinancial statements. Cost: Theamountofmoneyorotherconsiderationexchangedforgoodsorservices. Costmay beincurredevenbeforemoneyispaid;thatis,assoonasliabilityisincurred. CostAccounting: Themethodofaccountingwhichprovidesfortheassemblingandrecording ofalltheelementsofcostincurredtoaccomplishapurpose,tocarryonanactivityoroperation, ortocompleteaunitofworkoraspecificjob. CostofGoodsSold: Thedollaramountincurredformaterials,labor,etc.,usedinproducinga goodsoldduringtheperiod. Forexample,amountpaidforlumber,labor,andutilitiesusedto manufactureachairwouldbethecostofthatitem. Credit: Therightsideofadouble-entryaccountingentry. Acreditreducesassetsor expendituresandincreasesincome,liabilities,orfundbalance. CurrentAsset: Assetsthatareavailableorcanbemadereadilyavailabletopayforthecostof currentoperationsortopaycurrentliabilities. A-11 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 111122 DaRppAeFnTdices CurrentExpenseofEducation(CEE)–EC§84362,CCR§59200etseq: TheUnrestricted GeneralFundexpendituresofacommunitycollegedistrictinObjectsofExpenditure1000 through5000and6400(EquipmentReplacementSubobject)foractivitycodes0100through 6700forthecalculationofcompliancewiththe50%Law. Excludedfromthecurrentexpenseof educationareexpendituresforstudenttransportation,foodservices,communityservices,lease agreementsforplantandequipment,andothercostsspecifiedinlawandregulations. Amounts expendedfromStateLotteryproceedsarealsoexcluded. (See50PercentLaw.) CurrentLiabilities:Amountsdueandpayableforgoodsandservicesreceivedpriortotheend ofthefiscalyear. Currentliabilitiesarepaidwithinarelativelyshortperiodoftime,usually withinayear. CurrentLoan: Aloanpayableinthesamefiscalyearinwhichthemoneywasborrowed. CurrentTaxes: Taxesleviedandbecomingduewithinoneyear. Debarment: AnactiontakenbyaFederalagencytoexcludeapersonorcompanyfrom participatingincoveredtransactions. Apersonorcompanysoexcludedis“debarred”. DataProcessing: (1)Thepreparationandhandlingofinformationanddatafromsourcemedia throughprescribedprocedurestoobtainsuchendresultsasclassification,problemsolution, summarization,andreports. (2)Thepreparationandhandlingoffinancialinformationwhollyor partiallybymechanicalorelectronicmeans. (SeeElectronicDataProcessing[EDP].) Debit: Theleftsideofadouble-entryaccountingentry. Adebitincreasesassetsorexpenditures andreducesincome,liabilities,orfundbalance. DebtLimit: Themaximumamountofbondeddebtforwhichanentitymaylegallyobligate itself. DebtService: Expendituresfortheretirementofprincipalandinterestonlong-termdebt. Deferrals: Statewithholdofapportionmentfundingduetocashflowshortages. A-12 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 111133 appenddricaefst DeferredCharges: Expendituresthatarenotchargeabletothefiscalperiodinwhichtheyare made,butthatarecarriedasanassetonthebalancesheetpendingamortizationorother disposition(e.g.,bondissuancecosts). Deferredchargesdifferfromprepaiditemsinthatthey usuallyextendoveralongperiodoftimeandarenotregularlyrecurringcostsofoperations whicharepaidforpriortotheiroccurrence. Examplesincludediscountedbondssoldand prepaidexpenses,suchasinsurance. DeferredRevenue: Revenuereceivedpriortobeingearnedsuchasbondssoldatapremium, advancesreceivedonFederalorStateprogramgrants,orenrollmentfeesreceivedfora subsequentperiod. Deficit: (1)Theexcessofliabilitiesoverassets. (2)Theexcessofexpendituresorexpenses overrevenuesduringanaccountingperiod. DeficitFactor: AppliedtoApportionmentRevenuebasedonavailablefundingfromtheState Chancellor’sOffice. DelinquentTaxes: Taxesremainingunpaidonorafterthedateonwhichapenaltyfor nonpaymentisattached(seealsoPriorYears’Taxes). Depreciation: Expirationintheservicelifeoffixedassets,otherthanwastingassets, attributabletowearandtear,deterioration,actionofthephysicalelements,inadequacyand obsolescence. Inaccountingfordepreciation,thecostofafixedasset,lessanysalvagevalue,is proratedovertheestimatedservicelifeofsuchanasset,andeachperiodischargedwitha portionofsuchcost. Throughthisprocess,theentirecostoftheassetisultimatelychargedoff asanexpense. DesignatedIncome: Incomereceivedforaspecificpurpose. DirectActivityCharges: Chargesforgoodsorservicesthatexclusivelybenefittheactivity. DirectExpensesorCosts: Expensesspecificallytraceabletospecificgoods,services, activities,programs,functions,units,ordepartments. Disbursements: Paymentsbycurrency,check,orwarrant(thetermisnotsynonymouswith expenditures). A-13 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 111144 DaRppAeFnTdices DoubleEntry: Asystemofbookkeepingthatmaintainsequalityofdebitsandcredits. Drawdown: ProcesswherebyaStateordistrictrequestsandreceivesFederalfunds. DueFromOtherFund: Anassetaccountusedbythelenderfundtoreflectshort-term obligationsowedbyanotherfund. DueToOtherFund: Aliabilityaccountusedbytheborrowingfundtoreflectshort-term obligationsowedtoanotherfund. InterestIncome: Asumofmoneyreceivedorduetobereceivedfortheuseofmoneyloaned orinvested. EducationalAdministrator: EducationCodeSection87002andCaliforniaCodeof RegulationsSection53402(c)define“educationaladministrator”asanadministratorwhois employedinanacademicpositiondesignatedbythegoverningboardofthedistrictashaving directresponsibilityforsupervisingtheoperationoforformulatingpolicyregardingthe instructionalorstudentservicesprogramofthecollegeordistrict. Educationaladministrators include,butarenotlimitedto,chancellors,presidents,andothersupervisory,ormanagement employeesdesignatedbythegoverningboardaseducationaladministrators. EffectiveInterestRate: Therateofearningonabondinvestmentbasedontheactualprice paidforthebond,thecouponrate,thematuritydate,andthelengthoftimebetweeninterest dates,incontrastwiththenominalinterestrate. ElectronicDataProcessing(EDP): Dataprocessingbymeansofelectronicequipment. EminentDomain: Thepowerofagovernmenttoacquireprivatepropertyforpublicpurposes. Itisfrequentlyusedtoobtainrealpropertywhichcannotbepurchasedfromownersina voluntarytransaction. Wherethepowerofeminentdomainisexercised,ownersare compensatedbythegovernmentinanamountdeterminedbythecourts. A-14 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 111155 appenddricaefst EmployeeBenefits: Amountspaidbyanemployeronbehalfofemployees. Examplesare grouphealthorlifeinsurancepayments,contributionstoemployeeretirement,districtshareof O.A.S.D.I.(SocialSecurity)taxes,andworkers’compensationpayments. Theseamountsare notincludedinthegrosssalary,butareoverandabove. Whilenotpaiddirectlytoemployees, theyareapartofthetotalcostofemployees. Encumbrances: Commitmentsrelatedtounperformed(executory)contractsforgoodsor services. Usedinbudgeting,encumbrancesarenotGAAPexpendituresorliabilities,but representtheestimatedamountofexpendituresultimatelytoresultifunperformedcontractsin processarecompleted. EnterpriseFunds: AsubgroupoftheProprietaryFundsGroupusedtoaccountforoperations whenthegoverningboardhasdecidedeitherthatthetotalcostofprovidinggoodsandservices onacontinuingbasis(expensesincludingdepreciation)befinancedorrecoveredprimarily throughusercharges;orthattheperiodicdeterminationofrevenuesearned,expensesincurred, and/ornetincomeisappropriateforcapitalmaintenance,publicpolicy,managementcontrol, accountability,orotherpurposes. Entitlement: Theamountofpaymenttowhichanentityisentitledpursuanttoanallocation formulacontainedinapplicablestatutes. Entry: (1)Therecordofafinancialtransactioninitsappropriatebookofaccount. (2)Theact ofrecordingatransactioninthebooksofaccount. Equipment: Tangiblepropertywithapurchasepriceofatleast$200andausefullifeofmore thanoneyear,otherthanlandorbuildingsandimprovementsthereon. (SeeAppendixD, GuidelinesforDistinguishingBetweenSuppliesandEquipment.) Estimatedrevenue: Expectedreceiptoraccrualsofmoneysfromrevenueornonrevenue sourcesduringagivenperiod. ExpendableTrustFund: ATrustFundwhoseresources,includingbothprincipalandearnings, maybeexpended. ExpendableTrustFundsareaccountedforinessentiallythesamemanneras governmentalfunds. A-15 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 111166 DaRppAeFnTdices Expenditures: Paymentofcashorcashequivalentforpayroll,goodsorservices,oracharge againstavailablefundsinsettlementofanobligation. ExpenseofEducation: ThisincludesallGeneralFundexpenditures,restrictedandunrestricted, forallobjectsofexpenditure1000through5000andallexpendituresofactivityfrom0100 through6700. (Seealso50%Law.) Expenses: Outflowsorotherusingupofassetsorincurrencesofliabilities(oracombinationof both)fromdeliveringorproducinggoods,renderingservicesorcarryingoutotheractivitiesthat constitutetheentity’songoingmajororcentraloperations. Facevalue: Thevaluestatedonanegotiableinstrument. Asappliedtosecurities,theamount statedinthesecuritydocument. FarmOperationFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountfortheoperationofthecollegefarm. Fees:Amountscollectedfromorpaidtoindividualsorgroupsforservicesorforusepurchaseof goodsorservices. Fidelitybond: Awrittenpromisetoindemnifyanemployerforlossesarisingfromtheft, defalcation,ormisappropriationofmoneysbygovernmentofficersandemployees. FiduciaryFundsGroup: Agroupoffundsusedtoaccountforassetsheldbythedistrictina trusteeoragentcapacityonbehalfofindividuals,privateorganizations,studentorganizations, othergovernmentalunits,and/orotherfunds. FinancialandComplianceAudit: Anexaminationleadingtotheexpressionofanopinionon (1)thefairnessofpresentationoftheauditedentity’sbasicfinancialstatementsinconformity withGAAP,and(2)theauditedentity’scompliancewiththevariousfinance-relatedlegaland contractualprovisionsusedtoassureacceptablegovernmentalorganizationalperformanceand effectivemanagementstewardship. Publicsectoroversightbodiestypicallyrequireindependent auditorstoincluderesponsestostandardizedlegalcomplianceauditquestionnairesinfinancial andcomplianceauditreports. Financialresources: Cashandotherassetsthat,inthenormalcourseofoperations,will becomecash. A-16 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 111177 appenddricaefst FiscallyIndependent/FiscallyDependentGovernment: Agovernmentisfiscallyindependent ifitcan(1)determineitsbudgetwithoutanothergovernmenthavingthesubstantiveauthorityto approveandmodifythatbudget,(2)levytaxesorsetratesorchargeswithoutsubstantive approvalbyanothergovernment,and(3)issuebondeddebtwithoutsubstantiveapprovalby anothergovernment. Agovernmentisfiscallydependentifitisunabletocompleteoneormore oftheseprocedureswithoutthesubstantiveapprovalofanothergovernment. Fiscalyear: A12-monthperiodtowhichtheannualoperatingbudgetappliesandattheendof whichagovernmentdeterminesitsfinancialpositionandtheresultsofitsoperations. For governmentalentitiesintheStateofCalifornia,theperiodbeginningJuly1andendingJune30. Fixedassets: Long-livedtangibleassetshavingcontinuingvaluesuchasland,buildings, machinery,furniture,andequipment. Fixedcosts: Costsofprovidinggoodsandservicesthatdonotvaryproportionatelyto enrollmentortothevolumeofgoodsorservicesprovided(e.g.,insuranceandcontributionsto retirementsystems). Fixtures: Attachmentstobuildingsthatarenotintendedtoberemovedandcannotberemoved withoutdamagetothebuildings. Thosefixtureswithausefullifepresumedtobeaslongasthat ofthebuildingitselfareconsideredapartofthebuilding;allothersareclassifiedasequipment. FlowofCurrentFinancialResources: Ameasurementfocusthatrecognizestheneteffectof transactionsoncurrentfinancialresourcesbyrecordingaccrualsforthoserevenueand expendituretransactionswhichhaveoccurredbyyearendthatarenormallyexpectedtoresultin cashreceiptordisbursementearlyenoughinthefollowingyeareither(a)toprovidefinancial resourcestoliquidateliabilitiesrecordedinthefundatyearend,or(b)torequiretheuseof availableexpendablefinancialresourcesreportedatyearend. A-17 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 111188 DaRppAeFnTdices FlowofEconomicResources: Themeasurementfocususedinthecommercialmodelandin proprietaryandsimilartrustfundstomeasureeconomicresources,theclaimstothoseeconomic resourcesandtheeffectsoftransactions,events,andcircumstancesthatchangeeconomic resourcesandclaimstothoseresources. Thisfocusincludesdepreciationoffixedassets, deferralofunearnedrevenuesandprepaidexpenses,andamortizationoftheresultingliabilities andassets. Underthismeasurementfocus,allassetsandliabilitiesarereportedonthebalance sheet,whethercurrentornoncurrent. Also,theaccrualbasisofaccountingisused,withthe resultthatoperatingstatementsreportexpensesratherthanexpenditures. FlowofFinancialResourcesMeasurementFocus: Ameasureoftheextenttowhichfinancial resourcesobtainedduringaperiodaresufficienttocoverclaimsincurredduringthatperiod againstfinancialresources,andthenetfinancialresourcesavailableforfutureperiods. Thisis accomplishedbymeasuringtheincreasesanddecreasesinnetfinancialresourcesandthe balancesofandclaimsagainstfinancialresourcesusinganaccrualbasisofaccounting. This definitionusestheterm“financialresources”inawaythatdiffersfromitscurrentuse. See FinancialResources. Inthisinstance,thetermmeanscash,claimstocash(e.g.,accountsand taxesreceivable),andclaimstogoodsorservices(e.g.,prepaiditems)obtainedorcontrolledasa resultofpasttransactionsorevents. (SeeFlowofCurrentFinancialResources.) Full-TimeEquivalent(FTE)Employees: Ratioofthehoursworkedbaseduponthestandard workhoursofonefull-timeemployee. Forexample,classifiedemployeesmayhaveastandard workloadof40hoursperweek,ifseveralclassifiedemployeesworked380hoursinoneweek, theFTEconversionwouldbe380/40or9.5FTE. Full-TimeEquivalent(FTE)Faculty: Ratioofthestandardworkloadforafull-timefaculty, (e.g.15units). Full-TimeEquivalentFacultyObligation: Thenumberoffull-timefacultypositionsthatare requiredtobemaintainedwithinadistrictperTitle5Section51025. Thissectionrequiresa communitycollegedistricttoincreasethenumberoffull-timefacultyovertheprioryearin proportiontotheamountofgrowthinfundedcreditFTES. Theinverseapplieswhenthereare WorkloadMeasureReduction. A-18 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 111199 appenddricaefst Full-TimeEquivalentStudents(FTES): AnFTESrepresents525class(contact)hoursof studentinstruction/activityincreditandnoncreditcourses. Full-timeequivalentstudent(FTES) isoneoftheworkloadmeasuresusedinthecomputationofstateaidforCaliforniaCommunity Colleges. (SeeformCCFS-320,“ApportionmentAttendanceReport.”) Functionalaccounting: Asystemofaccountinginwhichrecordsaremaintainedtoaccumulate incomeandexpendituredatabypurposeandusuallyarefurtherclassifiedwithingeneralized functionalareassuchasinstruction,administration,oroperations. Fund: Anindependentfiscalandaccountingentitywithaself-balancingsetofaccountsfor recordingcashandotherfinancialresources,togetherwithallrelatedliabilitiesandresidual equitiesorbalances,andchangestherein. Fundbalance: Thedifferencebetweenfundassetsandfundliabilitiesofgovernmentaland similartrustfunds. Fundgroup: Compilationoftwoormoreindividualfundsusedtoreportsourcesandusesof resourcesinprovidingsomemajorserviceorgroupofservices. GannLimit: SeeAnnualAppropriationLimit. GenerallyAcceptedAccountingPrinciples(GAAP): Thesearetheuniformminimum standardsforfinancialaccountingandreporting. Theygoverntheformandcontentofthe financialstatementsofanentity. GAAPencompasstheconventions,rules,andproceduresto defineacceptedaccountingpracticeataparticulartime. Theyincludenotonlybroadguidance ofgeneralapplication,butalsodetailedpracticesandprocedures. Theprimaryauthoritative bodyontheapplicationofGAAPtostateandlocalgovernmentsistheGovernmental AccountingStandardsBoard(GASB). GeneralFund: Thefundusedtoaccountfortheordinaryoperationsofthedistrict. Itis availableforanylegallyauthorizedpurposenotspecifiedforpaymentbyotherfunds. Generalledger: Arecordcontainingtheaccountsneededtoreflectthefinancialpositionand theresultsofoperations. Generalledgeraccountsmaybekeptforanygroupofitemsofreceipts orexpenditures. A-19 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 112200 DaRppAeFnTdices GeneralReserve:Anaccounttorecordthereservebudgetedtoprovideoperatingcashinthe succeedingfiscalyearuntiltaxesandStatefundsbecomeavailable. Gift: Anythingofvaluereceivedfromanysourceforwhichnorepaymentorservicetothe contributorisexpected. Governmentalaccounting: Thecompositeactivityofanalyzing,recording,summarizing, reporting,andinterpretingthefinancialtransactionsofagovernmentalentity. GovernmentalAccountingStandardsBoard(GASB): Theauthoritativeaccountingand financialreportingstandard-settingbodyforgovernmentalentities. Governmentalfunds: Groupingoffundsusedtoaccountforactivitiesdirectlyrelatedtoan institution’seducationalobjectives. ThesefundsincludetheGeneralFund,DebtServiceFunds, SpecialRevenueFunds,andCapitalProjectFunds. Governmental-TypeActivities: Thoseactivitiesofagovernmentthatarecarriedoutprimarily toprovideservicestocitizensandthatarefinancedprimarilythroughtaxesand intergovernmentalgrants. Grants: Contributionsorgiftsofcashorotherassetsfromanothergovernmentorprivate organizationtobeusedorexpendedforaspecifiedpurpose,activity,orfacility. Grossprofit: Netsaleslesscostofgoodssoldexclusiveofsellingandgeneralexpenseswithin theProprietaryorEnterpriseFunds. GrossSales: Totalsalesbeforedeductionofsalesreturnsandsalesallowance. Imprestaccount:Anaccountintowhichafixedamountofmoneyisplacedtomakeminor disbursementsorforaspecificpurpose. Asdisbursementsaremade,avoucheriscompletedto recordtheirdate,amount,nature,andpurpose. Atperiodicintervals,orwhenthemoneyis completelyexpended,areportwithsubstantiatingvouchersispreparedandtheaccountis replenishedfortheexactamountofthedisbursements,andappropriategeneralledgeraccounts arecharged. Thetotalofcashplussubstantiatingvouchersmustatalltimesequalthetotalfixed amountofmoneysetasideintheimprestaccount. (SeePettycashandRevolvingcashaccount.) A-20 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 112211 appenddricaefst Income: Atermusedinproprietaryfund-typeaccountingtorepresent(1)revenues,or(2)the excessofrevenuesoverexpenses. Indirectexpensesorcosts: Thoseelementsofcostnecessaryintheproductionofagoodor servicewhicharenotdirectlytraceabletotheproductorservice. Usuallythesecostsrelateto objectsofexpenditurethatdonotbecomeanintegralpartofthefinishedproductorservice,such asrent,heat,light,supplies,managementandsupervision. In-KindContributions: “Thirdpartyin-kindcontributions”meansthevalueofnon-cash contributionsprovidedbynon-federalthirdparties. Thirdpartyin-kindcontributionsmaybein theformofrealproperty,equipment,supplies,andotherexpendablepropertyandthevalueof goodsandservicesdirectlybenefitingandspecificallyidentifiabletotheprojectorprogram. Instructionalaide: Apersonemployedtoassistclassroominstructorsandothercertificated personnelintheperformanceoftheirduties;inthesupervisionofstudents;andininstructional taskswhich,inthejudgmentofthecertificatedpersonneltowhomtheinstructionalaideis assigned,maybeperformedbyapersonnotlicensedasaclassroominstructor(EC§88243). Interest: Afeechargedaborrowerfortheuseofmoney. Interfundaccounts: Accountsinwhichtransactionsbetweenfundsarereflected. Interfundtransfers: Moneythatistakenfromonefundandaddedtoanotherfundwithoutan expectationofrepayment. Internalaudit: Anexaminationmadebyoneormoreemployeestomakecontinuousor periodiccheckstodeterminewhetheracceptablepoliciesandproceduresarefollowed, establishedstandardsaremet,resourcesareusedefficientlyandeconomically,accountingand reportingproceduresarereliable,andtheorganization’sobjectivesarebeingachieved. Internalcontrolstructure: Aplanoforganizationinwhichemployees’dutiesarearrangedand recordsandproceduresdesignatedtoprovideasystemofself-checking,therebyenhancing accountingcontroloverassets,liabilities,income,andexpenditures. Undersuchasystemthe employees’workissubdividedsothatnooneemployeeperformsacompletecycleofoperation; suchprocedurescallforproperdelegationbydesignatedofficials. A-21 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 112222 DaRppAeFnTdices InternalServiceFunds: AsubgroupoftheProprietaryFundsGroupusedtoaccountforthe financingofgoodsorservicesprovidedonacostreimbursementbasisbyonedepartmentto otherdepartmentswithinoroutsidethecommunitycollegedistrict. Intrabudgettransfers: Amountstransferredfromoneappropriationaccounttoanotherwithin thesamefund. Intrafundtransfer: Thetransferofmoneyswithinafundofthedistrict. Inventory: Adetailedlistshowingquantitiesanddescriptionofpropertyonhandatagiven time. Itmayalsoincludeunitsofmeasure,unitprices,andvalues. InstructionalServiceAgreement: Anagreementwithathirdpartytoprovideinstruction whichisopentoallstudentsandiseligibleforapportionmentifspecificcriteriaaremet. See AppendixCfortheContractGuideforInstructionalServiceAgreementsbetweenCollege DistrictsandPublicAgencies. Investments: Securities,realestate,etc.,heldfortheproductionofrevenuesintheformof interest,dividends,rentals,orleasepayments. Thetermexcludesfixedassetsusedin governmentaloperations. Invoice: Anitemizedstatementofchargesfromthevendortothepurchaserformerchandise soldorservicesrendered. Journal: Anyaccountingrecordinwhichfinancialtransactionsofanentityareformally recordedforthefirsttime;e.g.,thecashreceiptsbook,checkregister,andjournalvoucher. Journalvoucher: Aformprovidedfortherecordingofcertaintransactionsorinformationin placeof,orsupplementaryto,thejournalorregisters. Judgments: Amountsduetobepaidorcollectedbyanentityastheresultofcourtdecisions. Ledger: Agroupofaccountsinwhichthefinancialtransactionsofagovernmentalunitorother organizationarerecorded. (SeealsoGeneralledgerandAppropriationledger.) A-22 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 112233 appenddricaefst Levy: Theimpositionoftaxes,specialassessments,orservicechargesforthesupportof governmentalactivities;also,thetotalamountoftaxes,specialassessments,orservicecharges imposedbyagovernmentalunit. Liabilities: Debtorotherlegalobligations(exclusiveofencumbrances)arisingoutof transactionsinthepastwhichmustbeliquidated,renewed,orrefundedatsomefuturedate. LEA(LocalEducationalAgency): Apublicboardofeducationorotherpublicauthority legallyconstitutedwithinastateforeitheradministrativecontrolofordirectionof,ortoperform servicefunctionsfor,publicelementaryorsecondaryschoolsin:acity,county,township,school district,orotherpoliticalsubdivisionofastate;orsuchcombinationofschooldistrictsor countiesastaterecognizesasanadministrativeagencyforitspublicelementaryorsecondary schools. Anyotherpublicinstitutionoragencythathasadministrativecontrolanddirectionofa publicelementaryschoolorsecondaryschool. Asusedin34CFR,Part400,408,525,526,and 527(vocationaleducationprograms),thetermalsoincludesanyotherpublicinstitutionor agencythathasadministrativecontrolanddirectionofavocationaleducationprogram. Long-termdebt: Aborrowingthatextendsformorethanoneyearfromthebeginningofthe fiscalyear. Marginalcosts: Costsincurredasaresultofaddingoneunitofenrollmentorproduction. Matchingfunds:Thevalueofthird-party,in-kindcontributionsandthatportionofthecostsofa grantsupportedprojectorprogramnotbornebytheFederalgovernment. MeasurementFocus: Theaccountingconventionthatdetermines(1)whichassetsandwhich liabilitiesareincludedonagovernment’sbalancesheetandwheretheyarereportedthere,and (2)whetheranoperatingstatementpresentsinformationontheflowoffinancialresources (revenuesandexpenditures)orinformationontheflowofeconomicresources(revenuesand expenses). A-23 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 112244 DaRppAeFnTdices Modifiedaccrualbasis(modifiedcashbasis): Theaccrualbasisofaccountingadaptedtothe governmentalfund-typemeasurementfocus. Underit,revenuesandotherfinancialresource increments(e.g.,bondissueproceeds)arerecognizedwhentheybecomesusceptibletoaccrual, thatiswhentheybecomeboth“measurable”and“available”tofinanceexpendituresofthe currentperiod.” “Available”meanscollectibleinthecurrentperiodorsoonenoughthereafterto beusedtopayliabilitiesofthecurrentperiod. Expendituresarerecognizedwhenthefund liabilityisincurredexceptfor(1)inventoriesofmaterialsandsuppliesthatmaybeconsidered expenditureseitherwhenpurchasedorwhenused,and(2)prepaidinsuranceandsimilaritems thatmaybeconsideredexpenditureseitherwhenpaidfororwhenconsumed. Allgovernmental funds,expendabletrustfundsandagencyfundsareaccountedforusingthemodifiedaccrual basisofaccounting. MultiyearFinancialPlan(MYFP): Aplanthatpresentsfinancialestimatesofprogramsin tabularformforaperiodofyears. Theseestimateswouldreflectthefuturefinancialimpactof currentdecisions. DataintheMYFPshouldbeorganizedalongthelinesoftheprogram structure. Netassets: Theresidualvalueleftforfutureexpenseafterdeductingallliabilitiesfromall assetswithintheentity-widefinancialstatements. Netprofit: Grossprofitlesssellingandgeneralexpenses. NonexpendableTrustFund: ATrustFund,theprincipalofwhichmaynotbeexpended. NonexpendableTrustFundsareaccountedforonafullaccrualbasisofaccounting. Nonrevenuereceipts: Amountsreceivedthateitherincuranobligationthatmustbemetat somefuturedateorchangetheformofanassetfrompropertytocashandthereforedecreasethe amountandvalueofproperty. Moneyreceivedfromloans,saleofbonds,saleofproperty purchasedfromcapitalfunds,andproceedsfrominsuranceadjustmentsconstitutemost nonrevenuereceipts. ObjectCode: RevenueorExpenditureclassificationwithinthesystem–widechartof accounts. A-24 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 112255 appenddricaefst Obligations: Amountsthatanentitymaybelegallyrequiredtopayoutofitsresources. Includedarenotonlyactualliabilities,butalsounliquidatedencumbrances. (Seealso Liabilities.) OMB: TheUnitedStatesOfficeofManagementandBudget(Website:www.omb.gov). OMBCircularA-21: DefinesdirectandindirectcostsforpurposesofaccountingforFederal funds. (Seehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a021/a021.html.) Operatingexpenses: Expensesrelateddirectlytotheentity’sprimaryactivities. Generally usedinproprietaryfundsandthefullaccrualentity-widefinancialstatements. Operatingincome. Revenuesreceiveddirectlyrelatedtotheentity’sprimaryactivity. Generallyusedinproprietaryfundsandthefullaccrualentity-widefinancialstatements. Opportunitycosts: Thevalueofanactivityoropportunitythatmustbeforegonetoimplement analternative. Overdraft: Theamountbywhichchecks,drafts,orotherdemandsforpaymentonthetreasury oronabankaccountexceedtheamountofthebalanceuponwhichtheyaredrawn;orthe amountbywhichencumbrancesandexpendituresexceedtheappropriationtowhichtheyare chargeable. OtherPost-EmploymentBenefits(OPEB): Post-employmentbenefitsthatanemployeewill begintoreceiveatthestartofretirement. Thisdoesnotincludepensionbenefitspaidtothe retiredemployee. Otherpost-employmentbenefitsthataretireecanbecompensatedforarelife insurancepremiums,healthcarepremiums,anddeferred-compensationarrangements. Parvalue: Thenominalorfacevalueofasecurity. Payrollregister: Adocumentaccompanyingoneormoreordersonafundforthepaymentof salariesorwagestoemployeeswhichcontainsthenamesofsuchemployeesandprovides informationsubstantiatingsuchorders. Payrollwarrant: Adocumentusedasanorderorarequisitiononfundsofanentitytopay salariesorwages. A-25 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 112266 DaRppAeFnTdices PeriodicInventory: Asystemwherebytheentityperformsaphysicalcountofitsinventory periodically,atleastannuallyatfiscalyearend. PerpetualInventory: Asystemwherebytheinventoryquantitiesandvaluesforallpurchases andissuancesarerecordeddirectlyintheinventorysystemastheyoccur. Pettycash: Asumofmoneysetasideonanimprestbasistomakechangeortopaysmall accountsforwhichtheissuanceofaformalvoucherandcheckwouldbetooexpensiveandtime consuming. (SeealsoImprestaccountandRevolvingcashaccount.) Posting: Theactoftransferringdatainanaccountinaledgerthedata,eitherdetailedor summarized,fromabookordocumentoforiginalentrytoanaccountinaledger. Prepaidexpenses: Goodsorservicesforwhichpaymenthasbeenmade,butforwhichbenefits havenotbeenrealizedasofacertaindate;e.g.,prepaidrent,prepaidinterest,andpremiumson unexpiredinsurance. Expensesarerecordedintheaccountingperiodinwhichtherelated benefitsarereceived. PriorYears’Taxes: Taxesreceivedinthecurrentfiscalyearfordelinquenciesorimpoundsin previousfiscalyears. Program: Categoryofactivitieswithcommonoutputsandobjectives. Aprogrammaycut acrossexistingdepartmentsandagencies. Programaccounting: Asystemofaccountinginwhichrecordsaremaintainedtoaccumulate incomeandexpendituredatabyprogramratherthanbyorganizationorbyfund. Programcosts: Costsincurredandallocatedbyprogramratherthanbyorganizationorbyfund. Propertytaxrate: SeeTaxrate. ProprietaryFundsGroup: Agroupoffundsusedtoaccountforthoseongoinggovernment activitieswhich,becauseoftheirincome-producingcharacter,aresimilartothosefoundinthe privatesector. A-26 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 112277 appenddricaefst Proration: Allocationofexpendituresorincomefromasinglesourcetotwoormoreaccounts toshowthecorrectdistributionofchargesorincome. Protested(impounded)taxes: Taxmoneypaidunderprotestandheldbythecountyauditor pendingsettlementoftheprotest. Purchaseorder: Adocumentauthorizingthedeliveryofspecifiedmerchandiseorthe renderingofcertainservicesandthemakingofachargeforthem. RFP: RequestforProposal RFQ: RequestforQuote RFR: RequestforReview RIF: ReductioninForce Realproperty: Propertyconsistingofland,buildings,minerals,timber,landscaping,and relatedimprovements. ReasonableAssurance: Theconceptthatinternalcontrol,nomatterhowwelldesignedand operated,cannotguaranteeanorganization’sobjectiveswillbemet. Thisisbecauseofinherent limitationsinallinternalcontrolsystems. Rebate: Abatementorrefundwhichrepresentsthereturnofallorpartofapayment. Reclassification: Redesignationofcurrentyear’sincomeorexpenditureitemspreviously postedtooneaccountandlaterdeterminedtobemoreproperlychargedtoadifferentaccount. Refund: (Noun)Anamountpaidbackorcreditallowedonaccountofanovercollection. (See Rebate.)(Verb)Topaybackorallowcreditforanamountbecauseofanovercollectionor becauseofthereturnofanobjectsold.(Verb)Toprovideforthepaymentofanobligation throughcashorcreditsecuredbyanewobligation. Registeredwarrant: Awarrantthatisregisteredforfuturepaymentonaccountofapresent lackoffundsandthatistobepaidwithinterestintheorderofitsregistrationnumber. A-27 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 112288 DaRppAeFnTdices Registers: Alistingoftransactionsoflikekindthatmaybetotaledandsummarizedfor convenienceinposting;e.g.,payrollregisters,warrantregisters,andattendanceregisters. Reimbursement: (1)Repaymentsofamountsremittedonbehalfofanotherparty. (2)Interfund transactionsthatconstitutereimbursementstoafundforexpendituresorexpensesinitiallymade fromitbutthatproperlyapplytoanotherfund(e.g.,anexpenditureproperlychargeabletoa specialrevenuefundisinitiallymadefromthegeneralfund,andissubsequentlyreimbursed). Thesetransactionsarerecordedasexpendituresorexpenses(asappropriate)inthereimbursing fundandasreductionsofexpendituresorexpensesinthefundreimbursed. (SeealsoRefund.) Replacementcost: Theamountofcashorotherconsiderationthatwouldberequiredtodayto obtainthesameassetoritsequivalent. Requisition: Awrittendemandorrequest,usuallyfromonedepartmenttothepurchasing officerortoanotherdepartment,forspecifiedarticlesorservices. Reserve: Anamountsetasidetoprovideforestimatedfutureexpendituresorlosses,for workingcapital,orforotherspecifiedpurposes. ReserveforEncumbrances: Thesegregationofaportionofafundbalancetoprovidefor unliquidatedencumbrances. Separateaccountsmaybemaintainedforcurrentandprioryear encumbrances. Resources: Allassetsownedincludingland,buildings,cash,estimatedincomenotrealized, and,incertainfunds,bondsauthorizedbutunissued. Restrictedaccounts: Cashorotherassetswhicharelimitedastouseordispositionbytheir source. Theiridentityisthereforemaintainedandtheirexpenditureoruseisalsorecorded separately. RetainedEarnings: Theaccumulatedearningsofaproprietaryfundthatarenotreserved. Revenue: Increaseinnetassetsfromotherthanexpenseorexpenditurerefundsorother financingsources(e.g.,long-termdebtproceeds,residualequity,andoperatingtransfers,and capitalcontributions). (Seenonrevenuereceipts.) A-28 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 112299 appenddricaefst RevenueBondConstructionFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountforreceiptsand disbursementsoftheproceedsfromthesaleofcommunitycollegerevenuebondsforthe acquisitionorconstructionofauthorizedauxiliaryorsupplementaryfacilities. RevenueBondInterestandRedemptionFund: Thefunddesignatedtopaycurrentinterest andprincipleonbondsissuedfromreceiptsrecordedintheRevenueBondProjectFund. RevenueBondProjectFund: Thefunddesignatedtoreceiverevenuesfromoperationand disbursemoneysforoperationandmaintenanceofauxiliaryorsupplementaryfacilitiesfor individualorgroupaccommodationacquiredorconstructedfromauthorizedcommunitycollege revenuebonds. Revenuebonds: Bondswhoseprincipalandinterestarepayableexclusivelyfromearningsof thefundedfacilitiesoperation. RevolvingCashFund: Astatedamountofmoneyauthorizedbythedistrictgoverningboardto beusedprimarilyforemergencyorsmallsundrydisbursements. Thefundisreimbursed periodicallythroughproperlydocumentedexpenditures,whicharesummarizedandchargedto properaccountclassifications. Salesandusetax: Ataximposeduponthesaleofgoodsandservices. Theusetaxispaidin lieuofthesalestaxongoodspurchasedoutsidethestate,butintendedforuseinthestate. Schedules: Explanatoryorsupplementarystatementsthataccompanythebalancesheetorother financialstatements. ScholarshipandLoanFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountformoneysreceivedand disbursedforscholarships,grants,andloanstostudents. Securedroll: Assessedvalueofrealproperty,suchasland,buildings,securedpersonal property,oranythingpermanentlyattachedtolandasdeterminedbyeachcountyassessorplus thevalueofthepropertyofpublicutilitiesasdeterminedbytheStateBoardofEqualization. Securities: Bonds,notes,mortgages,orotherformsofnegotiableornonnegotiableinstruments. A-29 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 113300 DaRppAeFnTdices Self-InsuranceFund: AnInternalServiceFunddesignatedtoaccountforincomeand expendituresofself-insuranceprograms. SeparationofDuties: Aninternalcontrolpracticeinthatnoonepersonhascompletecontrol overanyfinancialtransaction. Eachperson’sworkshouldroutinelyserveasacomplementary checkonanother’swork. Serialannuitybonds: Consecutivelynumberedorotherwiseidentifiednotesorotherevidence ofobligationinwhichtheannualpaymentofprincipalandinterestcombinedareapproximately thesameeachyear. Serialbonds: Consecutivelynumberedorotherwiseidentifiednotesorotherevidencesof obligationredeemablebyinstallment,eachofwhichistobepaidoutofincomeoftheyearin whichitmatures. Sharedrevenue: Revenuecollectedbyonegovernmentalunitbutshared,usuallyinproportion totheamountcollected,withanotherunitofgovernmentorclassofgovernments. Short-TermDebt: Debtwithamaturityofoneyearorlessafterthedateofissuance. Short termdebtusuallyincludesvariable-ratedebt,bondanticipationnotes,taxrevenueanticipation notes,andrevenueanticipationnotes. Site: Landwhichhasbeenacquiredorisintheprocessofbeingacquired. Sourcedocument: Anyvoucherorotherdocumentthatsupportsanentryintheaccounting records. SpecialPopulations: Usedtoidentifyindividualswiththesameorsimilarcharacteristics. Commonlyusedinconnectionwithcategoricalfundingsourcestoidentifyeligiblerecipients. Morespecificinformationaboutcertaincategoriesofspecialpopulationsmaybeobtainedwith theassistanceofcollegestaffworkinginthoseprogramareas. SpecialRevenueFunds: Acategoryoffundsusedtoaccountforproceedsofspecificlegally restrictedrevenueforandgeneratedfromactivitiesnotdirectlyrelatedtotheeducational programofthecollege. A-30 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 113311 appenddricaefst Specifications: Thoseparticularqualitiesrequiredofproductsorservices. Statements: Formalwrittenpresentationssettingforthfinancialinformation. Thetermincludes exhibits,schedules,andwrittenreports. Stipend: Forcareerstaff,aregularorfixedpaymentmadetoanindividualinrecognitionof addedresponsibility. Stores: (1)Asystemthatenablessuppliestobepurchasedinlargequantitiesandchargedtoan assetaccount. Thesuppliesarechargedtothedepartmentwhendistributed. (2)Thestockpiling oflargeamountsofsuppliesusuallyinawarehouseforfutureuse. (3)Largequantitiesof suppliesinstorage. StudentBodyFund:Afundtocontrolthereceiptsanddisbursementsforstudentassociation activities. StudentFinancialAidFund: Thefunddesignatedtoaccountforthedepositandpaymentof studentfinancialaidincludinggrantsandloansorothermoneysintendedforsimilarpurposes andexcludingadministrativecosts. Sub-recipient: Anon-federalentitythatexpendsFederalawardsreceivedfromapass-through entitytocarryoutaFederalprogram,butdoesnotincludeanindividualthatisabeneficiaryof theprogram. Asub-recipientmayalsobearecipientofotherFederalawardsdirectlyfroma Federalawardingagency. Guidanceondistinguishingbetweenasub-recipientandavendoris providedinsubpartB–Audits.210(OMBCircularA-133). Subsidiaryaccount: Arelatedaccountthatsupportsindetailthedebtandcreditsummaries recordedinacontrollingaccount. Subsidiaryledger: Agroupofsubsidiaryaccounts,thesumofthebalancesofwhichequalthe balanceoftherelatedcontrollingaccount. Subvention: Agrantorprovisionofassistanceorfinancialsupport,usuallyfromone governmentalunittoasubordinatejurisdiction. Summary: Consolidationoflikeitemsforaccountingpurposes. A-31 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 113322 DaRppAeFnTdices Supervisor: ForthepurposeofEducationCodeSection84362(theFiftyPercentLaw), “Supervisor”meansanyemployeehavingauthority,onbehalfofthedistrict,tohire,transfer, suspend,layoff,recall,promote,discharge,assign,reward,disciplineotheremployees,adjust theirgrievances,oreffectivelyrecommendsuchaction,iftheexerciseofsuchauthorityisnotof amerelyroutineorclericalnature. Supplanting: Touseonetypeoffundstoprovidegoodsorservicespreviouslypaidforwith anothertypeoffunds. Generally,thispracticeisprohibitedwhenStateorFederalfundsareused toreplacelocalfunds. Supply: Amaterialitemofanexpendablenaturethatisconsumed,wearsout,ordeterioratesin use;oronethatlosesitsidentitythroughfabricationorincorporationintoadifferentormore complexunitorsubstance. Suretybond: Awrittenpromisetopaydamagesortoindemnifyagainstlossescausedbythe partyorpartiesnamedinthedocumentthroughnonperformanceorthroughdefalcation. For example,asuretybondmightberequiredofacontractororanofficialwhohandlescashor securities. SuspenseAccount: Anaccounttowhichpostingsaremadetemporarilypendingdetermination oftheproperaccounttobechargedorcredited. Taxes: Compulsorychargesleviedwithinitsboundariesbyagovernmentalunitagainstthe incomeorpropertyofpersons,naturalorcorporate,tofinanceservicesperformedforthe commonbenefit. TaxesReceivable: Anassetaccountrepresentingthecollectedportionoftaxesnotyet apportionedtoanentityatthecloseofthefiscalyear. TaxRevenueAnticipationNotes(TRAN): Instrumentsissuedtosecureshort-termmoneys borrowedinexpectationofcollectionoftaxes. Taxliens: Claimsbygovernmentalunitsuponpropertiesforwhichtaxesleviedremainunpaid. Taxrate: Theamountoftaxstatedintermsofaunitofthetaxbase;forexample,25millsper dollarofassessedvaluationoftaxableproperty. A-32 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 113333 appenddricaefst Taxratelimit: Themaximumrateoftaxthatagovernmentalunitmaylevy. Taxredemption: Proceedsfromthesaleoftax-delinquentproperty. Taxreliefsubventions: Amountsreceivedtocompensatecommunitycollegesforrevenueslost duetotaxexemptions,suchasforbusinessinventoryorowneroccupiedproperty. Taxroll: Thelistshowingtheamountoftaxesleviedagainsteachtaxpayerorproperty. Termbonds: Bondsofthesameissuematuringatspecifiedtimes. Tradediscount: Areductionofthelistpriceusuallyexpressedasapercentandrelatedto volumeofbusinesstransacted(nottobeconfusedwithcashdiscount). TrialBalance: Alistofthebalancesoftheaccountsinaledgerkeptbydoubleentrywiththe debitandcreditbalancesshowninseparatecolumns. Ifthetotalsofthedebitandcreditcolumns areequaloriftheirnetbalanceagreeswithacontrollingaccount,theledgersfromwhichthe figuresaretakenaresaidtobe“inbalance.” TrustFund: Afundconsistingofresourcesreceivedandheldbyanentityastrusteetobe expendedorinvestedinaccordancewiththeconditionsofthetrust. Tuition: Anamountchargedtostudentsforinstructionalservicesprovidedtostudents. Unencumberedbalance: Thatportionofanappropriationorallotmentnotyetexpendedor obligated. Unitcost: Thetotalexpenditureforaproduct,program,orservicedividedbythetotalquantity obtainedorsomeotherquantitativemeasure;e.g.,totalexpendituredividedbynumberof studentsequalscostperstudent. Unrealizedincome: Estimatedincomelessincomereceivedtodate;also,theestimatedincome fortheremainderofthefiscalyear. Unsecuredroll: Assessedvalueofpersonalpropertyotherthansecuredproperty. A-33 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 113344 DaRppAeFnTdices Usefullife: Theperiodoftimethatanassetisofphysicalusefulvalue. Itisestablished primarilyfordepreciationandinsurancepurposes. WireTransfer: Thisisanelectronictransferoffundsfromthedistrict’sbanktothebank accountofthevendor. FundsbeingwiredcanbeUSDollarsorforeigncurrencytoeitherUS BankorForeignBank. WithawiretransfernothingismailedfromAccountsPayable. Variablecosts: Thosecoststhatfluctuatedirectlywithenrollmentorvolumeofbusiness,as opposedtofixedcost. Voucher:Awrittendocumentthatevidencestheproprietyoftransactionsandusuallyindicates theaccountsinwhichtheyaretoberecorded. Voucherwarrant: Aformembodyingawarrantandvoucherinonedocument. Warrant: Awrittenorderdrawnbythegoverningboardoritsauthorizedofficer(s)or employee(s)andallowedbythecountyauditor,directingthecountytreasurertopayaspecified amounttoadesignatedpayee. Awarrantmayormaynotbepayableondemandandmayor maynotbenegotiable. Warrantspayable: Thefaceamountofwarrantsoutstandingandunpaid. Withholding: Moneydeductedfromanamountpayabletoanemployeeorabusiness (e.g.,FederalandStateincometaxeswithheldfromemployeepayrollchecksandbycontract agreementtheamountretaineduntilfinalinspectionandacceptanceonconstructionprojects). WorkinProcess(WIP): Anassetrepresentingthevalueofpartiallycompletedwork. (See alsoConstructioninProgress) WorkLoadMeasureReduction: UtilizedtoquantifythereductioninFTESrequiredwhen correspondingreductionsinrevenueshavebeenimposed. Workorder: Awrittenauthorizationfortheperformanceofaparticularjobcontaininga descriptionofthenatureandlocationofthejobandspecificationsfortheworktobeperformed. Suchauthorizationsareusuallyassignedjobnumbersandprovisionismadeforaccumulating andreportinglabor,material,andothercosts. A-34 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 113355 appenddricaefst Appendix G Study Agreement California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 113366 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 113377 appenddricaefst FISCAL CRISIS & MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TEAM STUDY AGREEMENT July 10, 2012 The FISCAL CRISIS AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TEAM (FCMAT), hereinafter referred to as the Team, and theSan Francisco Community College District, hereinafter referred to as City Collegeof San Francisco,mutually agree as follows: 1. BASIS OF AGREEMENT The FCMAT Teamprovides a variety of services to school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community colleges upon request. The City College of San Francisco has requested that the Teamprovide for the assignment of professionals to study specific aspects of the College operations, based on the provisions of Education Code section 84041. These professionals may include staff of the Team, County Offices of Education, the California State Department of Education, school districts, charter schools, community colleges, or private contractors. All work shall be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. SCOPE OF THE WORK A. Scope and Objectives of the Study The scope and objectives of this study are: On behalf of the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, the Team will provide analysis and recommendations that will assist the City College of San Francisco in developing a districtwide multi-year financial plan (MYFP) to sustain the college's financial solvency. This may include recommendations to increase revenues and/or reduce expenditures that will assist the college in sustaining the recommended reserve levels andfinancial stability. 1. In accordance with Education Code Section 84041 (a) and (c), the City College of San Francisco may request the Team, pursuant to Education Code Section 42127.8, to assist the district to establish and maintain sound financial and budgetary conditions that comply with principles of sound fiscal management and include the following: 1 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 113388 DaRppAeFnTdices a. Complete a fiscal health analysis of the district using the California Community Colleges Sound Fiscal Management Self-Assessment Checklist to determinethe district’s current level offinancial risk. b. Work with the College to develop a multi-year financial projection for the current and two subsequent years without any demonstrated adjustments based on today's economic forecast to determine the level ofcommitment needed to sustain the College'sfinancial solvency, recognizing that this will be a snapshot in time regarding the current financial situation and used as the baseline for determining the level of reductions. c. Determine up to four California community colleges to be used for benchmark comparisons. d. Provide findings and recommendations for meeting the district’s goals. Work with the College to incorporate into amulti-year projection. e. Based on benchmark colleges and CCSF's program priorities, review critical cost variances, including: 1) Review revenue per FTES/cost per FTE, separated by credit and non-credit 2) Review the faculty obligation and the amount of reassigned time appropriate for the enrollment, structure, and budgetof the College 3) Compare managerial positions as reported to IPEDS, and determine whether administration is organized effectively and if the staffing levels are appropriate. 4) Determine the costs and programimpacts of off-site centers and sites 5) Review the costs of benefits for active employees compared to those of other colleges 6) Evaluate the college for comparative analysis in terms of 50% law margins. 7) Review the unrestricted general fund match for categorical programs and levels of encroachment, if any. 8) Review FTES and determine if the college is maximizing its opportunities to generate additional funding 2 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 113399 appenddricaefst 2. The second component of the fiscal review will be to identify recommendations that enable the College to sustain financial solvency and maintain recommended reserve levels. The objective of this component will be to prepare and present a comprehensive report and recommendations covering the following issues: a. Financial modeling that illustrates options that CCSF can implement to reduce various expenses and/or increase revenue to balance the budget and sustain financial solvency. b. Identify institutional restrictions such as past practices or services that have been identified as the “CCSF culture” of the College including but not limited to collective bargaining contracts, legal constraints including the 50% law and the Full Time Faculty Obligation (FON) c. Develop implementation steps, including a proposed timeline for improvements. B. Services and Products to be Provided 1) Orientation Meeting -The Teamwill conduct an orientation session at the College to brief College management and supervisory personnel on the procedures of the Teamand on the purpose and schedule of the study. 2) On-site Review -The Teamwill conduct an on-site review at the College office and at College sitesif necessary. 3) Off-site Review-The Teamwill conduct analysis of documents and information provided by the College and correspond with College personnel as necessary for follow up and clarification. 3) Exit Meeting -The Teamwill hold an exit meeting at the conclusion of the on-site review to informthe College of significant findings and recommendations to that point. 4) Exit Letter -The Teamwill issue an exit letter approximately 10 days after the exit meeting detailing significant findings and recommendations to date and memorializing the topics discussed in the exit meeting. 3 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 114400 DaRppAeFnTdices 5) Draft Reports -Sufficient copies ofa preliminary draft report will be delivered to the College administration for review and comment. 6) Final Report -Sufficient copies of the final study report will be delivered to the College following completion ofthe review. The final report will be published on the FCMAT website. 3. PROJECT PERSONNEL The study teamwill be supervised by Anthony L. Bridges, CFE, Deputy Executive Officer, Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office. The study teammay also include: A. Michelle Plumbtree FCMAT Chief Management Analyst B. Michael Hill FCMAT Community College Consultant C. Roy Stutzman FCMAT Community College Consultant D. Deborah Martin FCMAT Community College Consultant E. Ron Gerhardt FCMAT Community College Consultant Other equally qualified consultants will be substituted in the event one of the above noted individuals is unable to participate in the study. 4. PROJECT COSTS The cost for studies requested pursuant to E.C. 42127.8(d)(1) shall be: A. $800.00 per day for each FCMAT staff Member while on site, conducting fieldwork at other locations, presenting and preparing reports, or participating in meetings. The cost ofindependent consultants will be billed at the actual daily rate based on the provisions of Education Code section 84041. The total projected cost for this study shall not exceed the amount of $120,000.00 B. All out-of-pocket expenses, including travel, meals, lodging, etc. C. Any change to the scope will affect the estimate oftotal cost. D. InconsiderationofsatisfactoryperformanceofthisAgreementand the agreement entered into with the Chancellor’s Office,theChancellor's Office agreestopaytheFCMAT’scostsincludingcontractorsin accordancewiththeapproved contractbudget,ExhibitG,whichisalso attachedheretoandbyreferencemadeapartof thisAgreement,andthe ProjectAuthorizationforeachparticularinvestigation,reviewor audit. 4 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 114411 appenddricaefst E. ThetotalamountpayableunderthisAgreementshallnotexceedthe maximumamount ofthisAgreement,specifiedonthefacepageofthis Agreement. Paymentshallbemade monthly in arrears upon receipt of an invoice, in triplicate, specifying this Agreement Numberandthe expendituresforthe periodcovered,brokendownbyProject Authorization. Paymentofallinvoiceswillbesubjecttowithholdingof tenpercentof theexpensesbilledpendingsatisfactoryperformanceof thisAgreement. Nopayments shallbemadewithoutthewritten approval oftheProjectMonitorandtheExecutive ViceChancellor,or his/herdesignee. Such approval is contingent upon the Project Monitor’s approval of the progress the Contractor has made within each respective invoicingperiod. ApprovalofinvoicesbytheProjectMonitor andtheExecutiveVice Chancellor or his/her designee shall not be unreasonably withheld. Payments for FCMAT services are payable toKern County Superintendent of Schools -Administrative Agent. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COLLEGE A. The College will provide office and conference roomspace while on-site reviews are in progress. B. The College will provide the following (ifrequested): 1) Amap of the localarea 2) Existing policies, regulations and prior reports addressing the study request 3) Current or proposed organizational charts 4) Current and two (2) prior years’ audit reports 5) Any documents requested on a supplemental listing 6) Any documents requested on the supplemental listing should be provided to FCMAT in electronic format when possible. 7) Documents that are only available in hard copy should be scanned by the district and sent to FCMAT in an electronic format. 8) All documents should be provided in advance of field work and any delay in the receipt of the requested documentation may affect the start date of the project. C. The College Administration and Chancellor’s Office will review a preliminary draft copy of the study. Any comments regarding the accuracy of the data presented in the report or the practicability ofthe recommendations will be reviewed with the Teamprior to completion of the final report. The final report will be published on the FCMAT website. 5 California Community Colleges ChanCellor’s offiCe — City College of san franCisCo 114422 DaRppAeFnTdices Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM