FCMAT
Yuba Community College District Report
fiscal analysis
Read the report at Yuba Community College District ↗
Fiscal Analysis
October 11, 2021
Yuba Community College
District
Michael H. Fine
Chief Executive Officer
October 11, 2021
James Houpis, Interim Chancellor
Yuba Community College District
425 Plumas Blvd., Suite 200
Yuba City, CA 95991
Dear Interim Chancellor Houpis:
On March 1, 2021, the Yuba Community College District and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance
Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to conduct a fiscal analysis of the district. The agree-
ment stated that FCMAT would perform the following:
1. Develop a comparison and trend (5 years) analysis of the following:
Salaries
Benefits
Schedule efficiency
Revenues
Expenses
2. Develop a revenue calculation tool to simulate a class schedule that meets the efficiency
standard for the term length multiplier used.
3. Once historical data is validated, develop a future trends and forecasting tool for planning
activities.
4. Develop a list of recommendations that focuses on the district’s ability to meet classroom
efficiency, salary and benefits percentages, expense of education, and faculty obligation
standards that align with the revenue the college generates.
This report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations.
FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve the Yuba Community College District and extends thanks to
all the staff for their assistance during fieldwork.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Fine
Chief Executive Officer
Michael H. Fine • Chief Executive Officer
1300 17th Street – City Centre, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4533 • Tel. 661-636-4611 • Fax 661-636-4647
www.fcmat.org
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
About FCMAT ...................................................................................................ii
Introduction .......................................................................................................1
Background ................................................................................................................1
Study and Report Guidelines .................................................................................1
Study Team ................................................................................................................2
Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting California Community College
(CCC) Operational Standards ........................................................3
Part 2 - Recommendations ..........................................................................8
Part 3 - District Services...............................................................................13
Part 4 - Yuba College Totals ......................................................................14
Part 5 - Woodland Community College Totals ......................................17
Appendix ...................................................................................................... 20
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict I
About FCMAT
FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and
resolve financial, human resources and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data
management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school
business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help
avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices, support the training and development of chief
business officials and help to create efficient organizational operations. FCMAT’s data management ser-
vices are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data
quality, and inform instructional program decisions.
FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter
school, community college, county office of education, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the
Legislature.
When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the
LEA to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and
recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future.
Studies by Fiscal Year
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21
FCMAT has continued to make adjustments in the types of support provided based on the changing
dynamics of K-14 LEAs and the implementation of major educational reforms. FCMAT also develops and
provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional learning opportunities to help
LEAs operate more effectively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The
California School Information Services (CSIS) division of FCMAT assists the California Department of Edu-
cation with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS).
CSIS also hosts and maintains the Ed-Data website (www.ed-data.org) and provides technical expertise to
the Ed-Data partnership: the California Department of Education, EdSource and FCMAT.
FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial
obligations. AB 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsibility for CSIS and its statewide data management
work. AB 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission.
seidutS
fo
rebmuN
About FCMAT
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict II
About FCMAT
AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together locally
to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. AB 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibili-
ties to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans.
In January 2006, Senate Bill 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and ex-
panded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs.
On September 17, 2018 AB 1840 was signed into law. This legislation changed how fiscally insolvent dis-
tricts are administered once an emergency appropriation has been made, shifting the former state-centric
system to be more consistent with the principles of local control, and providing new responsibilities to
FCMAT associated with the process.
Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform more than 1,400 reviews for LEAs, including school
districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superin-
tendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Michael H. Fine, Chief Execu-
tive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for
charges to requesting agencies.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict III
Introduction
Introduction
In January 2021, the Yuba Community College District asked the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance
Team (FCMAT) to assess its current and future fiscal condition as it relates to current expenses and the
size of personnel. Based on FCMAT’s review of six years of past budgets (2014-15 to 2019-20) along with
staffing levels and operational costs, FCMAT found that the district is not in fiscal crisis and has effectively
managed its budgets. However, without substantial changes in operations, it may face fiscal obstacles in
the future once hold harmless protections end. As part of the review, FCMAT analyzed several areas that
may contribute to these financial issues.
The analysis presented in this report consists of two parts: Part 1 shows the issues the district
faces in meeting the California community college operational standards; and Part 2 provides
recommendations to resolve those issues and meet the standards. The final section includes
the data for each learning location used in the analysis.
Background
The Yuba Community College District spans eight counties and nearly 4,192 square miles of territory in
rural, north-central California. The district serves 13,000 students across the northern Sacramento Valley
and is composed of two colleges: Woodland Community College and Yuba College. Both colleges offer
degrees, certificates and transfer curricula at college campuses in Marysville and Woodland, educational
centers in Clearlake and Yuba City, and through outreach operations in Williams and on Beale Air Force
Base. The two colleges are in Yolo County and Yuba County and there are also campuses in Lake, Colusa,
and Sutter counties.
Study and Report Guidelines
FCMAT virtually visited the district from January 5 through March 5, 2021 to conduct interviews, collect data
and review documents. This report is the result of those activities and is divided into the following sections:
• Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting California Community College (CCC) Operational Stan-
dards
• Part 2 - Recommendations
• Part 3 - District Services
• Part 4 - Yuba College Totals
• Part 5 - Woodland Community College Totals
FCMAT’s reports focus on systems and processes that may need improvement. Those that may be function-
ing well are generally not commented on in FCMAT’s reports. In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the Asso-
ciated Press Stylebook, a comprehensive guide to usage and accepted style that emphasizes conciseness
and clarity. In addition, this guide emphasizes plain language, discourages the use of jargon and capitalizes
relatively few terms.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 1
Introduction
Study Team
The study team was composed of the following members:
Michelle Giacomini Cambridge West Partnership, Inc.
FCMAT Deputy Executive Officer FCMAT Consultant
Leonel Martínez
FCMAT Technical Writer
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 2
Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting Calif ornia Community College (CCC) Operational Standards
Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting California
Community College (CCC) Operational Standards
District Structure
As FCMAT began this analysis, it became clear that the district faces some issues. The team conducted an
overall review of the district’s structure, expenses and funding. The California Community College funding
formula has never funded local education agencies (LEAs) at the level that would easily support a 7,000-
8,000 full-time equivalent student (FTES) multicollege district such as Yuba Community College District.
Although the addition of basic allocation funds for the new college is helpful, it is insufficient to cover the
additional costs required to operate a district office, two colleges and multiple centers. Even if the addition-
al revenue was sufficient, it is extremely difficult for any district to meet the 50% law requirement. In addi-
tion to the added cost of operating multiple facilities, accreditation standards make it difficult to organize
management and support services in a way that is affordable for a multicollege system serving the current
district’s student population and staying solvent. FCMAT fully understands the decision to become a mul-
ticollege district cannot be reversed at this point. It is important to recognize, until substantial enrollment
growth is achieved, the district will experience higher than normal fixed operational costs.
Cost-of-Living Increases
The district’s practice is to increase the salary schedule automatically when a cost-of-living increase is
received on state funding. This practice is not sustainable considering the escalation of its fixed costs, such
as step and column, health care, pension costs, costs of utilities, insurance, leases, and maintenance agree-
ments. Increases to the salary schedule should occur only when cost-of-living increases exceed the amount
necessary to fund district fixed-cost increases.
Declining Enrollments
The district’s total FTES enrollments (including nonresident FTES) have declined by 8% over the six-year
review period from 7,725 FTES in 2014-15 to 7,099 in 2019-20, a drop of 626 FTES. The table below shows
the six-year history of FTES enrollments as reported to the State Chancellor’s Office during the final recal-
culation process. During the review, it appears the district reported stabilization FTES for the Lake County
Campus from fiscal year 2015-16 through 2017-18. These stabilization FTES are associated with the wildfires
in the area since 2015.
Total %
Fiscal Year 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Change
Produced FTES 7,725.56 7,726.17 7,727.23 7,735.91 7,540.89 7,099.64 -8%
Enrollments ultimately translate into revenue for the district. A significant portion of the district’s revenue
from the state (70%) relies on FTES enrollments. The balance of funding (30%) relies on funding from undu-
plicated head count from low-income students and student achievement. The 8% drop in FTES over the
past six years, and the current year’s (2020-21) large decline in FTES due to COVID 19, represents a signif-
icant drop in FTES enrollments that, if not restored, could translate into a significant drop in revenues after
2021-22 when the emergency conditions hold-harmless protections end. A clear understanding of ongoing
revenues (earned) versus one-time funds is crucial for the district’s financial future. While FTES enrollments
do not determine funding this year because the district’s FTES revenue is protected by the emergency con-
ditions hold-harmless provision, they will determine funding once the hold-harmless protections end. The
district must begin to align expenses with earned revenues if FTES levels do not return to prior year levels.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 3
Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting Calif ornia Community College (CCC) Operational Standards
Staffing
Over the six-year period, the number of permanent staffing increased even as district enrollment declined.
The number of management/supervisor positions increased 16%, from 31 to 36, and the number of full-time
equivalent faculty (FTEF) numbers increased by 9%. Classified staff declined by 2% during this time. The
table below shows the number of staff added by the district over the six-year review period.
Fiscal Year Differ-
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 % Change
Staff ence
Contract Teach-
91.36 88.88 85.80 89.80 94.25 98.19 6.83 7%
ing Headcount
Overload (FTEF) 29.14 33.19 34.41 34.47 42.01 38.35 9.21 32%
Adjunct (FTEF) 133.65 156.29 158.61 155.63 145.99 137.56 3.91 3 %
Total Teaching
266.34 290.42 295.85 296.49 299.91 289.50 23.16 9%
Faculty (FTEF)
Release Time
12.18 12.05 17.03 16.58 17.67 15.40 3.22 26%
(FTEF)
Nonteaching
16.92 14.37 24.60 24.57 26.85 25.50 8.58 51%
Faculty
Contract Faculty
Prior year data is not available on CCCCO website 136 - -
Total
Faculty Obliga-
Prior year data is not available on CCCCO website 99 37 -
tion (FON)
Management/
31.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 36.00 5 16%
Supervisors
Classified Staff 133,00 134.00 132.00 132.00 132.00 130.00 -2 -2%
Confidential 15.00 17.00 14.00 15.00 15.00 0 0%
These levels of overall staffing are not justified given the 8% decline in FTES enrollments experienced by
the district over this same period. Increasing enrollments translate into the need for more staff to serve
these students. However, the district’s decline in students should mean it requires fewer personnel, not
more.
The district exceeded its faculty obligation number (FON) for fall 2020-21. In 2019, the district was required
to employ only 99 full-time faculty, but it employed 136. Systemwide, exceeding the FON requirement in-
curs an approximate cost of $82,000* for each position above the requirement. As an example:
Reported full-time faculty Systemwide average cost difference to deliver Total Dollar Amount
above the district obligation in one FTEF teaching load with contract com-
2019-20 pared to adjunct
36 $82,000 $2,952,000
* $82,000 is the 2020 CCC system average cost difference between delivering a teaching load (FTEF) with a permanent full-time faculty member
vs utilizing adjunct instructors.
** Total full-time faculty reported on the FON report. This total includes all faculty (teaching, counseling, librarians) utilizing restricted or unrestricted
funds.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 4
Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting Calif ornia Community College (CCC) Operational Standards
Increasing Personnel Costs (salaries and benefits)
Employee benefit costs (health and welfare) have increased by 33% and retiree health benefits “pay as you
go” have increased by 11%. Salaries have increased by 17% over the six-year review period. The table below
shows the rising health insurance, pension, and salary costs.
Differ- %
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
ence Change
Salaries $27,469,671 $29,330,572 $30,010,998 $31,091,300 $30,642,504 $32,134,311 $4,664,640 17%
CalPERS (w/o
$966,821 $1,044,397 $1,235,780 $1,345,735 $1,607,859 $1,884,082 $917,261 95%
on-behalf)
CalSTRS (w/o
$1,435,749 $1,792,993 $2,047,527 $2,455,595 $2,731,997 $2,901,621 $1,465,872 102%
on-behalf)
Health Insurance
$5,195,579 $5,447,497 $5,613,918 $5,421,105 $5,368,188 $5,406,978 $211,399 4%
Costs
Other Benefits $1,494,384 $1,568,964 $1,597,677 $1,787,076 $1,709,114 $1,883,168 $388,784 36%
Health & Welfare
$9,092,532 $9,853,753 $10,494,902 $11,009,510 $11,417,158 $12,075,848 $2,983,316 33%
Total
Pay As You Go
Retiree Health- $2,593,521 $2,727,909 $2,764,608 $2,701,855 $2,774,866 $2,867,816 $274,295 11%
care
For PERS, the employer rate increased from 11.77% in 2014-15 to 19.72% in 2019-20. The PERS rate is sched-
uled to increase to 27.7% in 2024-25, a 137% rate increase. A similar increase will occur with the STRS rate,
which is scheduled to rise by nearly 103% over the same period. These are large, ongoing, expenditure
increases that will continue to consume larger percentages of the district’s revenues.
Prior Years and Projection: CalPERS
and CalSTRS Employer Rates
Fiscal Year CalPERS CalSTRS
2014-2015 11.77% 8.88%
2015-2016 11.84% 10.73%
2016-2017 13.88% 12.58%
2017-2018 15.53% 14.43%
2018-2019 19.72% 16.28%
2019-2020 19.72% 17.10%
2020-2021 20.70% 16.15%
2021-2022 22.91% 16.92%
2022-2023 26.10% 18.00%
2023-2024 27.10% 18.00%
2024-2025 27.70% 18.00%
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 5
Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting Calif ornia Community College (CCC) Operational Standards
Classroom Efficiency
Due to the number of learning sites and the large geographical area served, which lead to smaller than nor-
mal class sizes, the district is inefficient in the classroom. In 2014-15, the average FTES per full-time equiv-
alent faculty (FTEF) produced districtwide was 29.01 FTES per year. Six years later, efficiency decreased to
24.52 FTES per year, a 15% drop. These numbers are far below the statewide standard of 35 FTES per year
or 17.50 FTES per semester that each full-time equivalent faculty teaching load should produce.
Additionally, the district’s average class size is extremely low and well beneath the statewide standard. In 2014-
15, the district’s average annual class size was 29.50 students per class, and in 2019-20, the average class size
decreased 15% to 24.52 students per class. The average statewide class size standard is 35 students per class.
The table below shows the district’s average annual class size and its average FTES per FTEF.
In fall 2020, the district memorialized the need to improve classroom efficiency in addition to other enroll-
ment management-related areas. A plan was developed to incrementally improve the efficiency ratio over
a four-year period. This plan was much needed, and every effort should be made to reach and sustain
the published goal. In the interim, the district should minimize faculty release time, sabbaticals, and other
reductions to the classroom teaching load until the classroom efficiency goals are achieved. This is evident
when class sizes are increasing over time while efficiency is moving lower. A release time analysis should
be completed to verify the assumption.
Class Size and FTES per FTEF
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 % Change
Average Class Size
29.01 26.55 25.85 25.55 24.26 24.52 (15)%
(Annual)
Average FTES per
29.01 26.60 26.12 26.09 25.14 24.52 -15%
FTEF (Annual)
Educators can justify the benefits of increased program offerings, enhanced support systems, smaller
class sizes, increases to full-time faculty, competitive salary and benefits, etc., but these must be balanced
with available funds. The college system’s funding is established based on Proposition 98 revenues. On
a local level, these funding levels are closely tied to the student population. It is unrealistic to expect the
same funding while serving fewer students. Therefore, the district should abandon an operational model
built around year-over-year growth, which funds inflationary-related increases in addition to cost-of-living
increases. Instead, the district should follow well-established California community college best practices
and standards by aligning services and staff with projected funding and students served. This change in
operational approach will protect it from future declines and prepare the district for growth when it occurs.
Other Operating and Other Outgo
The district budget has large increases in expenses identified as other operating and other outgo. Between
2014-15 and 2019-20, these two expense categories collectively increased from $8,874,862 to $14,413,637,
an increase of $5,538,775 or 62.4%. Further analysis indicated these figures reflect the transfer of obliga-
tion for post-employment benefits (OPEB) and the pay-as-you-go retiree health insurance costs as well as
utility and IT related software expenses. The district is required to fund the post-employment obligation, so
making those deposits a priority was prudent. Liability for retiree health insurance is extremely high for a
district of this size. In 2018, the district approved a plan to address its obligation to the retirees. The district
OPEB liability is $54 million. In fiscal years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the district transferred $6,175,000 to the
OPEB fund. In addition, the pay-as-you-go cost for retiree health insurance was $2,867,816 for fiscal year
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 6
Part 1 - The Challenges in Meeting Calif ornia Community College (CCC) Operational Standards
2019-20. These ongoing expenses are high for a district this size and will continue to hinder the recruitment
and retention efforts of highly skilled staff, faculty and administrators.
Other Operating and Other Outgo
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 % Change
Other Operating $4,692,045 $5,199,553 $5,646,654 $5,740,986 $5,643,689 $6,443,325 37%
Other Outgo $4,182,817 $5,451,021 $5,119,305 $3,959,551 $7,618,052 $7,970,312 91%
Debt Service
The district continues to make debt service payments. In 2019-20, this payment was $1,927,497, represent-
ing more than 3% of the unrestricted general fund budget.
Although the district has substantial debt, it has effectively managed debt service and created a detailed
plan to reduce debt. The chart below identifies the purpose of the debt, balance, and year the debt will be
paid off. The savings in future years may be used to meet the OPEB liability and manage the one-time ex-
penses such as technology related needs. The district should be careful not to absorb future year debt-re-
lated savings into the current expense of education as it will create additional obstacles with the 50% law.
The district should be careful not to spend the newly available debt service funds in the CEE denominator
since that would decrease its ability to meet the 50% law.
Project Annual Debt Service Final Payment Year
Prop 39 - Energy Resource Debt $71,000 2024-2025
Central Plant $527,697 2025-2026
Solar $1,243,949 2026-2027
Lighting Retrofit $69,655 2027-2028
New CREB: (renewal energy bonds) $424,677 2036-2037
Total $2,417,491
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 7
Part 2 - Recommendations
Part 2 - Recommendations
Introduction
Each California community college can determine the best way to serve students as long as it follows laws
and regulations, meets accreditation standards, and adopts well-established best practices. Districts also
have a fiduciary duty to ensure they can meet the immediate and long-term financial obligations created
by their decisions. This analysis found that the district will struggle to meet its fiduciary duty if it continues
to follow its current operational practices, which are not sustainable based on current funding levels in the
California community college system. The fiscal analysis identified the need to take a closer look at how
revenues and expenditures are discussed districtwide. In recent years, California community colleges have
received more one-time funds. The new funding formula has contributed to this new reality. All fiscal dis-
cussions should be based on the fact that one-time funds are not ongoing revenues and therefore should
be budgeted and expended for one-time purposes. The district’s fiscal condition affects every current and
future student and employee. The board of trustees must meet its fiduciary responsibility of ensuring the
district is viable into the future. The district will need to address the following areas using a balanced incre-
mental approach that minimizes the negative impact on the students, faculty, staff, and management of the
district and its two colleges.
Districtwide
Classroom schedule efficiency and personnel sizing - To properly identify the correct number of staff
members needed to operate a comprehensive community college, the district must fully implement the
recently adopted districtwide efficiency standard. In addition to determining staffing levels for instructional
and noninstructional personnel, this standard determines total compensation available for all expenses. In
the 2019-20 fiscal year, the average FTES per FTEF produced districtwide was 24.52 FTES per year. This is
below the statewide standard of 35 per year or 17.5 per semester. The statewide standard is directly related
to the class size average of 35 students and the 525 weekly student contact hours needed to capture one
FTES. These enrollment standards, like the 50% law and the California community college system’s funding
levels are directly related to long-standing practices and the system’s historical relationship with K-12 edu-
cation. Until laws and regulations change, these standards must be followed to maintain fiscal solvency.
While this is a statewide standard identified in the Chief Instructional Officer manual, most similarly-sized
districts in the California community college system often do not achieve it. The focus should be on year-
over-year improvements in efficiency until the adopted districtwide efficiency standard is met. Setting
reasonable annual goals will help the district’s overall fiscal condition. Because class sizes are affected
by many factors, the district should focus on average efficiency rather than class size maximums or min-
imums. Focusing only on class sizes does not consider faculty release time, census vs. daily attendance
production, large lecture classes that can accommodate more students, and most importantly, the need to
offer traditional occupational education programs of study that have small class size requirements. There
is no single way to improve classroom efficiency. As an example, attempts to address small class sizes by
offering large lecture sections are appropriate unless load factors negate any financial benefit. The process
needs to be thoughtful and purposeful. Building a classroom schedule using reasonable average efficiency
goals is the proper way to operate and fund academic programs and give the colleges sufficient staffing
levels to serve the actual student population.
If available funds are used for in-class personnel costs, remaining funds allocated for total compensation
would be utilized for support services. Therefore, a district would use the available funds (after the sched-
ule was expensed) to determine how best to provide these services. Districts decide how to serve students
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 8
Part 2 - Recommendations
and what services to provide; therefore, overstaffing in administration/management or among classified
personnel, for example, is not always apparent. Evaluating necessary staffing levels for support services is
further complicated by the number of student service programs and the restricted funds available to aug-
ment those services and activities. The intermingling of funding “time and effort” of support service person-
nel and managers by using available restricted and unrestricted general fund revenues makes it difficult to
determine the appropriate number of support service personnel necessary for the district.
As classroom efficiency increases, the cost to deliver the schedule is reduced. This reduction in expenses
must be matched with a reduction in support services expenses to meet the 50% law. The total savings
needed to meet the goal established has to be shared equally by both sides. This law (50%) ensures dis-
tricts do not have excessive management and staffing levels.
As a simplified example using current salary and benefits rates, classroom efficiency is used to determine
the cost to deliver the published schedule of courses. This cost also identifies 50% of the current expense of
education (50% law). By default, the remaining 50% of salaries and benefits should be available for operation-
al costs and support services. If the cost to deliver the course schedule exceeds the 50% based on meeting
efficiency standards, funds are moved from operational costs and support services to cover the additional
expense to pay for the course schedule. This reduces the funds available and deficit spending occurs. At the
same time, a perfectly balanced district adjusts support service personnel expenses as classroom efficiency
changes. Total revenue available for all personnel costs is decided by total ongoing revenue driven by stu-
dent population. This is the most fiscally significant operational standard a district follows.
Personnel Levels -- The district has increased the number of personnel while student enrollments
have decreased. This clearly does not follow best practices. This is shown by the increase in contract
faculty and management positions. The addition of a new college and centers in 2010 and 2011 has
contributed to the increases in staffing. This action is shortsighted and will continue to put pressure on
the district’s ability to compensate faculty, staff, and management. As mentioned above, increases in
student population drive the need for additional personnel. When enrollment is declining, personnel
levels should decrease. If costs cannot be reduced because of the number of additional learning sites,
it will prove difficult to meet current and retiree obligations, maintain district assets and provide a com-
petitive compensation package.
Teaching Balance - As classroom scheduling becomes more efficient, an immediate focus is needed
on the balance between contract and adjunct faculty. The FTEF cost difference between utilizing con-
tract faculty vs. adjunct faculty is approximately $82,000 per position systemwide. The California com-
munity college funding levels require districts to take a balanced approach in this area. The implemen-
tation of pension reform and the large increases (current and projected) in employer contributions have
created additional financial pressure on personnel budgets. To help mitigate the rising cost of pensions
and health care, the faculty obligation number should align with the state calculated FON, and the
district should avoid exceeding the state FON rate when possible. It is understandable that CCC dis-
tricts would benefit from having a higher percentage of contract to adjunct faculty, but compensation
levels, pension reform and health-care costs across the state do not support this practice. Establishing
a plan to reduce contracted full-time faculty through regular attrition is the most desirable solution. The
district cannot afford to be unique in this area and continue to exceed the state calculated FON unless
other areas of employee compensation are reduced.
Overload – The districtwide data identifies higher than average increases in overload FTEF. As nonsala-
ry increases to total compensation continue to increase, the district should take a closer look at overload
teaching levels. There could be many beneficial reasons for the increase, such as not having available
qualified faculty for specific disciplines or the ability to offer high level capstone courses. To accomplish this
goal, a more comprehensive analysis of overload FTEF is needed.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 9
Part 2 - Recommendations
Release Time – During the analysis, classroom release time data was difficult to tie to the classroom effi-
ciency calculation. The district will need to better understand the positive and negative effect of classroom
release time. To accomplish this goal, a more comprehensive report is needed when making future decisions.
Health Care - District health-care costs at the district appear stable. Great caution should be exercised
when taking action on any factor that would increase employer contributions toward health-care costs.
Retiree Health Benefits -- The district carries a large OPEB liability for its size because of the number
of retirees receiving lifetime health insurance benefits and the number of current employees. The dis-
trict post-employment benefit obligation is $54 million according to the latest actuarial study, and the
district has funded the trust with more than $6 million to date. In addition to the long-term liability for
all employees, pay-as-you-go payments for current retiree health insurance are more than $3 million
annually. These expenses are in line with much larger districts in the system. The district should greatly
reduce the cost of retiree benefits for future employees. Providing lifetime health insurance benefits for
faculty is not sustainable and will continue to restrict available funds for total compensation for current
and future employees.
Revenue – Over the next three years, the district should position itself to maximize revenue based on
the metrics in the Student-Centered Funding Formula (SCFF). FCMAT does not advise adding sections
to capture FTES enrollments until current sections are producing a realistic efficiency standard. Some
low-cost approaches, which can be used to help maximize state apportionment funding include:
a. Increase enrollment by increasing overall course fill rates. Any increase in fill rates improves
class schedule efficiency and thus increases FTES revenue while adding no additional expenses.
b. Increase special admit FTES. Special admit students receive higher funding per FTES ($5,621)
than traditional credit FTES ($4,009) under SCFF and are not subject to the three-year average
rule used to calculate traditional credit FTES each year. The district should increase outreach
to feeder high schools to strategically increase dual and concurrent enrollment of current high
school students and thus increase funding in this category.
Calculate fixed cost increases - The district should identify all its fixed costs and then estimate the
annual percentage increase of each of these fixed costs. For example, step-and-column increases,
pension payments, utilities, rent, insurance, certain supplies, and operation costs, are all examples of
fixed or ongoing costs that the district must pay each year. Identifying these annual fixed cost costs
will allow the district to understand whether it has sufficient remaining resources to hire more staff or
provide salary increases to existing staff or pay for nonpersonnel items such as facility repairs.
Next steps - The recommendations above are all interconnected. A balanced approach to improving
each of these areas is imperative; therefore, the district should not focus on just a single recommenda-
tion. The goal is not to simply balance the budget, but to stabilize and balance all areas of the spend-
ing plan because if the district does not work on fixing the problem, the fiscal crisis will continue and
possibly escalate.
The final stage of this process focuses on annual goal setting and identifying cost savings associated with
those goals. Once a plan is developed, it is important for it to be approved by the board along with a time-
line and a schedule for updates. This action institutionalizes the plan and gives all constituent groups clear
direction. It is also important that the governing board has the opportunity to review the information need-
ed using standardized reports that board members fully understand. Establishing a calendar where annual
reports look the same each year, are validated, and use the same data source each year is an important
process to follow.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 10
Part 2 - Recommendations
The best strategy is a “reverse the trend” approach to goal setting. Historical trends describe a simple op-
tion that has worked in the past whether it pertains to classroom efficiency, staffing size, percentage of total
compensation, or enrollment,
As an example, bringing the district’s FTES closer to what it was in 2014-15 would make for substantial im-
provement. A brief review of the data reveals the following facts:
a. An increase of 626 FTES equaling $2,635,115 in additional revenue. (This does not in-
clude the additional revenue due to the increase in headcounts in the supplemental and
student success allocation.) This can be achieved without adding any new course sec-
tions but rather increasing fill rates as stated above.
b. Reducing the contract faculty numbers to be more closely aligned with the FON rate cal-
culated by the state will produce savings equal to $82,000 per position. (This is the cost
difference between contract faculty and adjunct faculty.)
c. Reducing the management/supervisor FTE can save the district approximately $150,000
per position (total compensation).
d. Reducing staff FTE head count can save approximately $85,000 per position (total com-
pensation).
Note: The district will need to calculate its average compensation costs for each category.
The combination of savings and increased revenue (utilizing the same section count) could net the dis-
trict significant savings. If the goal is to get back to this level of balance, a five-year plan with incremental
increases annually is the most realistic. Also important is that each individual college create a plan that
follows a similar approach, but is crafted to meet its unique situation related to staffing, enrollments, and
efficiency.
Goal setting - The following goals need to be established.
1. FTES -Disaggregated by different student populations.
2. Percentage of financial needs statement completed by students (financial aid applications)
3. Average classroom efficiency (include goals for reductions in release time and factoring in
daily attendance enrollment shrinkage)
4. Total compensation costs to ongoing revenues (including pay-as-you-go retiree costs)
5. FON
6. Staffing FTE
7. Management/supervisor FTE
8. Reductions in other operating expenses
9. Reduction in other outgo expenses
Using the goals above, the district can calculate the potential savings achieved in the classroom and deter-
mine the remaining reductions needed in operational and support services.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 11
Part 2 - Recommendations
Location Specific Data
The following pages provide the data used in the analysis. Information is included for each college, center,
learning site and district services.
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Summer 0.07 4.44 7.30 10.53 9.57 13.23
Noncredit
Primary Terms 120.60 137.17 172.33 190.56 198.60 169.56 41%
Subtotal 120.67 141.61 179.63 201.09 208.17 182.79 51%
AAccttuuaall
Summer 1,145.87 899.46 927.83 1,061.75 1,015.93 747.23
FFTTEESS Credit
Primary Terms 6,359.46 6,585.35 6,518.55 6,363.16 6,194.57 6,044.42 -5%
D Subtotal 7,505.33 7,484.81 7,446.38 7,424.91 7,210.50 6,791.65 -10% 320 Report
I Non Resident 99.56 99.75 101.22 109.91 122.22 125.20 26%
TToottaall 77,,772255..5566 77,,772266..1177 77,,772277..2233 77,,773355..9911 77,,554400..8899 77,,009999..6644 --88%%
S
Average Class Size* 29.01 26.55 25.85 25.55 24.46 24.52 -15%
T Efficiency FTES/FTEF (annual) 29.01 26.60 26.12 26.09 25.14 24.52 -15%
R Section Count 2,727.00 2,834.00 2,811.00 2,834.00 2,682.00 2,594.00 -5%
I FTE Faculty 266.34 290.42 295.85 296.49 299.91 289.50 9%
FON - Over/Under 37.00
C SSttaaffffiinngg
Management 31 37 37 37 37 36 16%
T Unduplicated Staff 133 134 132 132 132 130 -2%
Headcount
Confidential 15 17 14 14 15 15 0%
T RReevveennuuee $$ 44 66,,119911,,551177 $$ 55 11,,221199,,662288 $$ 55 11,,000011,,664466 $$ 55 33,,554433,,117744 $$ 55 99,,882200,,554488 $$ 66 11,,557733,,446633 3333%%
Salaries Subtotal $ 27,469,671 $ 29,331,172 $ 30,010,998 $ 31,091,300 $ 30,642,504 $ 32,134,361 17%
O
CalPERS (w/o on-behalf) $ 9 66,821 $ 1,044,397 $ 1,235,780 $ 1,345,735 $ 1,607,859 $ 1,884,082 95%
T SSaallaarryy && CalSTRS (w/o on-behalf) $ 1,435,749 $ 1,792,993 $ 2,047,527 $ 2,455,595 $ 2,731,997 $ 2,901,621 102%
A BBeenneeffiittss Benefits Health Insurance $ 5,195,579 $ 5,447,398 $ 5,613,918 $ 5,421,105 $ 5,368,188 $ 5,406,978 4%
L Other Benefits $ 1,494,384 $ 1,568,964 $ 1,597,677 $ 1,787,076 $ 1,709,114 $ 1,883,168 26%
Subtotal $ 9,092,532 $ 9,853,753 $ 1 0,494,902 $ 1 1,009,510 $ 1 1,417,158 $ 1 2,075,848 33%
S
4000 Supplies $ 4 11,527 $ 4 30,535 $ 4 48,676 $ 3 70,280 $ 3 49,279 $ 4 96,778 21%
5000 Other Operating $ 4,692,045 $ 5,199,553 $ 5,646,381 $ 5,740,986 $ 5,643,689 $ 6,443,325 37%
EExxppeennsseess
6000 Capital Outlay $ 8 36,796 $ 4 86,249 $ 5 42,028 $ 1 34,110 $ 1 29,303 $ 5 65,321 -32%
7000 Other Outgo $ 4,182,817 $ 5,451,021 $ 5,119,305 $ 3,959,551 $ 7,618,052 $ 7,970,312 91%
Subtotal $ 1 0,123,185 $ 1 1,567,357 $ 1 1,756,390 $ 1 0,204,926 $ 1 3,740,323 $ 1 5,475,736 53%
TToottaall $$ 44 66,,668855,,338899 $$ 55 00,,775522,,228822 $$ 55 22,,226622,,229900 $$ 55 22,,330055,,773377 $$ 55 55,,779999,,998855 $$ 55 99,,668855,,994455 2288%%
79% 79% 79% 70% 72%
*For each fiscal year the data included from summer is all of summer of the staring year. For example, in 14/15 summer data used is from Summer 14 prior to July 1st and after July 1st. This reflects the current data that is availbe. The
most accurate representation would be to used Summer 14' after July 1st and summer 15' prior to July
.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 12
Part 3 - District Services
Part 3 - District Services
Staffing
Management positions at the district office have increased by 8% (1 FTE) over the six-year period, while the
confidential positions declined by 10%, and staff positions have decreased by 26% (seven positions).
Salaries
Salaries have increased by 19% during the period while revenues districtwide have increased by 33%
Benefits
Benefits costs have increased by 17% during the period.
The data below includes district services compensation and staffing data for M&O, IT and college
police services staff assigned to district services.
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Management 12 14 14 14 13 13 8%
Unduplicated
SSttaaffffiinngg Headcount Staff 27 27 26 26 24 20 -26%
S Confidential 10 11 8 8 9 9 -10%
D Salaries Subtotal $ 4,061,886 $ 4,289,102 $ 4,247,512 $ 4,543,518 $ 4,472,542 $ 4,828,703 19%
e
i CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 423,353 $ 413,134 $ 461,632 $ 508,646 $ 598,605 $ 724,102 71%
r
s SSaallaarryy && CalSTERS (w/o on behalf) $ 4 7,182 $ 5 1,669 $ 5 5,831 $ 103,242 $ 141,904 $ 112,965 139%
t v BBeenneeffiittss Benefits Health Insurance $ 1 ,287,118 $ 1 ,184,340 $ 1 ,247,305 $ 1 ,195,578 $ 1 ,147,665 $ 1 ,229,833 -4%
r i Other Statutory Benefits $ 353,638 $ 356,046 $ 358,009 $ 518,236 $ 376,741 $ 409,021 16%
c Subtotal $ 2 ,111,290 $ 2 ,005,189 $ 2 ,122,778 $ 2 ,325,702 $ 2 ,264,916 $ 2 ,475,920 17%
i
e 4000 Supplies $ (62,490) $ (97,841) $ ( 1,178) $ (19,091) $ (12,668) $ 6 1,838 -199%
c s EExxppeennsseess 5000 Other Operating $ 1 ,789,210 $ 2 ,202,383 $ 1 ,975,373 $ 2 ,138,632 $ 1 ,929,918 $ 2 ,428,276 36%
t 6000 Capital Outlay $ 280,003 $ 129,534 $ 349,160 $ 9 3,371 $ 5 8,306 $ 328,168 17%
*
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 2 ,006,723 $ 2 ,234,075 $ 2 ,323,354 $ 2 ,212,913 $ 1 ,975,556 $ 2 ,818,282 40%
TToottaall $$ 88 ,,117799,,889999 $$ 88 ,,552288,,336666 $$ 88 ,,669933,,664444 $$ 99 ,,008822,,113322 $$ 88 ,,771133,,001144 $$ 1100,,112222,,990055 2244%%
Institutional costs
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
I 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
n Salaries Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
s CalPERS (ON-BEHALF) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
t SSaallaarryy && CalSTRS (ON-BEHALF) $ - 0%
i C BBeenneeffiittss Benefits Health Insurance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
t o Other Statutory Benefits $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
u s Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
t t 4000 Supplies $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
i 5000 Other Operating $ 1 ,049,628 $ 1,117,188 $ 1 ,529,475 $ 1 ,493,272 $ 1 ,336,336 $ 1 ,883,256 79%
EExxppeennsseess
o 6000 Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
n 7000 Other Outgo $ 4 ,182,817 $ 5,451,021 $ 4 ,829,125 $ 3 ,959,551 $ 7 ,618,052 $ 7 ,970,312 91%
a Subtotal $ 5 ,232,444 $ 6,568,210 $ 6 ,358,600 $ 5 ,452,823 $ 8 ,954,388 $ 9 ,853,568 88%
l TToottaall $$ 55 ,,223322,,444444 $$ 66,,556688,,221100 $$ 66 ,,335588,,660000 $$ 55 ,,445522,,882233 $$ 88 ,,995544,,338888 $$ 99 ,,885533,,556688 8888%%
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 13
Part 4 - Yuba College Totals (includes 2 sites)
Part 4 - Yuba College Totals (includes 2 sites)
In 2016-2017 the Lake County Campus was realigned with Woodland Community College. As a result of the
realignment, Yuba College’s FTES and staffing numbers were realigned with Woodland Community College.
The change is reflected in the trend data and is contributing to the findings below.
FTES/Enrollments - When reviewing FTES it is important to focus on primary terms to determine
whether enrollments are increasing or decreasing. This strategy removes the FTES swings associated
with shifting summer full-time equivalent students. The primary terms also determine the level of per-
manent staffing needed. At Yuba College, total FTES enrollment has decreased significantly compared
to the other college, falling by 23% between 2014-15 and 2019-20 for resident credit FTES. Since the
Lake County Campus FTES were moved to Woodland Community College, FTES have dropped 1,086
FTES.
Efficiency* - The efficiency section examines the trends of FTES per FTEF, class size, and section
counts. The California community college standard for classroom efficiency (per the Chief Instructional
Officer (CIO) manual) is that each FTEF should produce 35 FTES annually. The standard for average
class size (throughout the district) consists of 35 students per class for traditionally-scheduled courses
following weekly census attendance accounting practices.
• At Yuba College, the annual production has gone from 28.95 FTES to 24.14 FTES per FTEF,
a drop of 17%. This is far below the 35 annual FTES or 17.5 FTES per FTEF per semester
standard identified in the CCC CIO manual (525 contact hours equals one FTES).
• Average class sizes increased by 6% going from 21.90 to 23.18 over this period. Section
counts have decreased by 21%.
* Classroom efficiency determines the classroom and nonclassroom budgets. As efficiency drops in the classroom, funding is shifted from support
services (backfilled) to the classroom budget. This creates pressure on the district to reduce funding for support services, long-term obligations,
scheduled maintenance, and future capital outlay needs.
Staffing – FTEF declined sharply (7%) in 2019-20. This aligns with the drop in FTES and section count
during the same period.
At Yuba College, management/supervisor positions have remained steady during this period while staff
has increased by 4%.
Expenses (salaries and benefits) - During this period, employee benefit costs have increased by 34%
and salaries increased by 13%. The benefit cost increases are in line with the 33% districtwide increase
for benefits. Salary increases at Yuba College are also slightly lower than the 17% salary increase dis-
trictwide.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 14
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Summer 0.07 4.44 7.30 9.05 7.17 10.46
Noncredit
Primary Terms 113.47 127.60 144.76 137.73 136.23 112.73 -1%
Subtotal 113.54 132.04 152.06 146.78 143.40 123.19 8%
Summer 942.29 625.85 508.83 521.59 507.81 459.34
AAccttuuaall FFTTEESS Credit
Primary Terms 4,734.29 4,815.98 4,354.86 4,132.33 4,055.34 3,891.98 -18%
Subtotal 5,676.58 5,441.83 4,863.69 4,653.92 4,563.15 4,351.32 -23%
Non Resident 86.49 75.07 68.82 71.74 82.95 88.36 2%
TToottaall 55,,887766..6611 55,,664488..9944 55,,008844..5577 44,,887722..4444 44,,778899..5500 44,,556622..8877 --2222%%
Average Class Size 21.90 21.97 21.53 21.04 22.35 23.18 6% Efficiency
FTES/FTEF (annual) 28.95 26.07 25.37 24.35 23.88 24.14 -17%
Section Count 2137 2166 1980 1948 1806 1692 -21%
FTE Faculty 203.01 216.70 200.41 200.09 200.60 189.00 -7%
SSttaaffffiinngg Management 12 14 13 13 13 12 0%
Staff 69 67 69 69 70 72 4%
Confidential 2 2 2 2 2 2 0%
Salaries Subtotal $ 15,588,303 $ 16,444,993 $ 17,033,888 $ 17,687,397 $ 17,498,197 $ 17,592,745 13%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 372,183 $ 413,427 $ 522,051 $ 558,821 $ 673,981 $ 740,962 99%
CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 910,732 $ 1 ,160,647 $ 1 ,333,731 $ 1 ,588,523 $ 1 ,742,462 $ 1 ,832,506 101%
Health Insurance $ 2 ,628,204 $ 2 ,835,054 $ 2 ,893,868 $ 2 ,832,956 $ 2 ,879,212 $ 2 ,745,715 4%
Other Benefits $ 774,597 $ 797,521 $ 822,305 $ 850,055 $ 885,381 $ 952,192 23%
Subtotal $ 4 ,685,717 $ 5 ,206,650 $ 5 ,571,954 $ 5 ,830,356 $ 6 ,181,036 $ 6 ,271,375 34%
4000 Supplies $ 321,124 $ 334,061 $ 279,859 $ 277,117 $ 263,859 $ 304,256 -5%
5000 Other Operating $ 1 ,135,037 $ 1 ,119,522 $ 1 ,277,422 $ 1 ,292,374 $ 1 ,346,170 $ 1 ,157,965 2%
6000 Capital Outlay $ 417,524 $ 246,577 $ 136,509 $ 3 5,216 $ 4 1,652 $ 182,476 -56%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ 7 1,879 $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 1 ,873,685 $ 1 ,700,160 $ 1 ,765,670 $ 1 ,604,707 $ 1 ,651,681 $ 1 ,644,697 -12%
TToottaall $$ 2222,,114477,,770055 $$ 2233,,335511,,880033 $$ 2244,,337711,,551111 $$ 2255,,112222,,446600 $$ 2255,,333300,,991155 $$ 2255,,550088,,881166 1155%%
Yuba
College
Totals
Unduplicated
Headcount
SSaallaarryy &&
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits
EExxppeennsseess
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Noncredit Subtotal 101.10 114.18 137.03 132.93 128.23 110.31 9%
AAccttuuaall FFTTEESS Credit Subtotal 3,400.85 3,447.82 3,394.93 3,236.58 3,187.48 2,990.34 -12%
TToottaall 33,,550011..9955 33,,556622..0000 33,,553311..9966 33,,336699..5511 33,,331155..7711 33,,110000..6655 --1111%%
Section Count 1,381.00 1,420.00 1,400.00 1,419.00 1,307.00 1,198.00 -13%
Management 11 13 12 12 12 12 9%
Unduplicated
Staff 63 60 63 63 64 67 6%
Headcount Confidential 2 2 2 2 2 2 0%
Salaries Subtotal $ 14,226,028 $ 15,162,585 $ 16,078,765 $ 16,872,599 $ 16,702,336 $ 16,777,007 18%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 339,940 $ 380,835 $ 478,542 $ 505,347 $ 612,123 $ 677,894 99%
CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 856,554 $ 1 ,109,139 $ 1 ,299,837 $ 1 ,559,990 $ 1 ,710,328 $ 1 ,803,817 111%
Health Insurance $ 2 ,506,621 $ 2 ,733,951 $ 2 ,784,875 $ 2 ,705,025 $ 2 ,746,793 $ 2 ,641,532 5%
Other Benefits $ 703,962 $ 726,523 $ 766,109 $ 799,508 $ 832,031 $ 895,315 27%
Subtotal $ 4 ,407,076 $ 4 ,950,448 $ 5 ,329,363 $ 5 ,569,870 $ 5 ,901,275 $ 6 ,018,558 37%
4000 Supplies $ 306,639 $ 317,499 $ 257,968 $ 253,407 $ 245,437 $ 288,369 -6%
5000 Other Operating $ 1 ,099,404 $ 1 ,081,260 $ 1 ,211,068 $ 1 ,219,743 $ 1 ,245,184 $ 1 ,080,306 -2%
EExxppeennsseess
6000 Capital Outlay $ 405,916 $ 240,261 $ 9 9,316 $ 3 5,216 $ 3 8,383 $ 177,334 -56%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ 7 1,879 $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 1 ,811,959 $ 1 ,639,020 $ 1 ,640,232 $ 1 ,508,366 $ 1 ,529,004 $ 1 ,546,009 -15%
TToottaall $$ 2200,,444455,,006644 $$ 2211,,775522,,005533 $$ 2233,,004488,,336600 $$ 2233,,995500,,883344 $$ 2244,,113322,,661155 $$ 2244,,334411,,557744 1199%%
Main
Yuba
College
Totals
Part 4 - Yuba College Totals (includes 2 sites)
SSttaaffffiinngg
SSaallaarryy &&
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 15
Sutter County Center
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Noncredit Subtotal 12.82 13.00 12.01 14.01 15.16 12.88 1%
Credit Subtotal 1,312.89 1,414.35 1,424.08 1,462.04 1,434.59 1,427.84 9%
TToottaall 11,,332255..7711 11,,442277..3344 11,,443366..0099 11,,447766..0055 11,,444499..7744 11,,444400..7733 99%%
Section Count 472.00 509.00 521.00 516.00 493.00 491.00 4%
Salaries Subtotal $ 1,190,956 $ 1,131,635 $ 766,059 $ 729,396 $ 715,308 $ 724,224 -39%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 2 6,547 $ 2 6,391 $ 3 5,927 $ 4 4,892 $ 5 0,766 $ 5 0,786 91%
CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 5 0,413 $ 4 3,870 $ 2 7,100 $ 2 5,857 $ 2 9,750 $ 2 4,927 -51%
Health Insurance $ 105,675 $ 7 9,949 $ 8 6,588 $ 105,526 $ 110,013 $ 8 1,778 -23%
Other Benefits $ 6 1,281 $ 6 2,654 $ 4 4,695 $ 4 4,381 $ 4 6,694 $ 4 9,594 -19%
Subtotal $ 243,917 $ 212,864 $ 194,310 $ 220,656 $ 237,224 $ 207,085 -15%
4000 Supplies $ 1 3,848 $ 1 5,507 $ 2 1,283 $ 2 3,133 $ 1 8,159 $ 1 5,395 11%
5000 Other Operating $ 3 5,633 $ 3 8,262 $ 6 4,240 $ 7 0,398 $ 9 7,881 $ 7 4,774 110%
EExxppeennsseess
6000 Capital Outlay $ 1 1,608 $ 6,316 $ 3 7,193 $ - $ 2,525 $ 5,142 -56%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 6 1,088 $ 6 0,084 $ 122,715 $ 9 3,530 $ 118,564 $ 9 5,311 56%
TToottaall $$ 11 ,,449955,,996611 $$ 11 ,,440044,,558833 $$ 11 ,,008833,,008844 $$ 11 ,,004433,,558822 $$ 11 ,,007711,,009966 $$ 11 ,,002266,,661199 --3311%%
Sutter
County
Center
AAccttuuaall FFTTEESS
SSaallaarryy &&
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits
Beale AFB Center
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Noncredit Subtotal 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%
AAccttuuaall FFTTEESS Credit Subtotal 42.78 35.98 28.69 9.08 5.86 3.09 -93%
TToottaall 4422..7788 3355..9988 2288..6699 99..0088 55..8866 33..0099 --9933%%
Section Count 34.00 26.00 22.00 12.00 6.00 3.00 -91%
Salaries Subtotal $ 171,319 $ 150,773 $ 189,064 $ 85,403 $ 80,553 $ 91,514 -47%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 5,697 $ 6,201 $ 7,582 $ 8,583 $ 1 1,093 $ 1 2,281 116%
CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 3,766 $ 7,638 $ 6,793 $ 2,676 $ 2,384 $ 3,762 0%
Health Insurance $ 1 5,907 $ 2 1,155 $ 2 2,405 $ 2 2,405 $ 2 2,405 $ 2 2,405 41%
Other Benefits $ 9,354 $ 8,344 $ 1 1,501 $ 6,166 $ 6,655 $ 7,282 -22%
Subtotal $ 3 4,723 $ 4 3,338 $ 4 8,281 $ 3 9,830 $ 4 2,538 $ 4 5,731 32%
4000 Supplies $ 6 37 $ 1,056 $ 6 08 $ 5 77 $ 2 64 $ 4 92 -23%
EExxppeennsseess 5000 Other Operating $ - $ - $ 2,115 $ 2,234 $ 3,105 $ 2,885 0%
6000 Capital Outlay $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7 44 $ - 0%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 6 37 $ 1,056 $ 2,723 $ 2,811 $ 4,113 $ 3,377 430%
TToottaall $$ 220066,,668800 $$ 119955,,116677 $$ 224400,,006688 $$ 112288,,004433 $$ 112277,,220044 $$ 114400,,662233 --3322%%
Beale
AFB
Part 4 - Yuba College Totals (includes 2 sites)
SSaallaarryy &&
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 16
Section 5 - Woodland Community Colle ge Totals (includes 2 sites)
Section 5 - Woodland Community College To-
tals (includes 2 sites)
In 2016-2017 the Lake County Campus was realigned from Yuba College to Woodland Community College.
As a result of the realignment, Yuba College’s FTES and staffing numbers were realigned with Woodland
Community College. The change is reflected in the trend data and contributing to the findings below.
FTES/Enrollments -In reviewing FTES, it is important to focus on primary terms to determine whether
enrollments are increasing or decreasing. This strategy removes the FTES enrollment swings associ-
ated with shifting summer full-time equivalent students. The primary terms also determine the level
of permanent staffing needed. Woodland Community College FTES enrollment has increased by 33%
when comparing 2014-15 to 2019-20 resident credit FTES. Since the Lake County Campus was re-
aligned with Woodland College in 2016-2017, FTES has dropped by 106 FTES.
Efficiency* -The efficiency section examines the trends of FTES per FTEF, class size, and section
counts. The California community college standard for classroom efficiency (per the CIO manual) is
that each FTEF should produce 17.5 FTES per semester or 35 FTES annually. The standard for average
class size (throughout the district) consists of 35 students per class for traditionally-scheduled courses
following weekly census attendance accounting practices.
• At Woodland, annual production decreased from 29.19 to 25.24 FTES per FTEF, a 14% de-
cline. The CCC systemwide goal is 35 FTES per FTEF.
• Average class size dropped from 24.9 to 24.0 (-4%) over this period, and section counts
have increased by 53%. This may be due to section “stacking” or an increase in noncredit
offerings.
Staffing - Full-time equivalent faculty grew at a rate of 59% during this period.
At Woodland Community College, management/supervisor positions have increased by 57% (from sev-
en to 11 positions) during this period while staff positions have increased by 3%.
Expenses (salaries and benefits) - During this period, employee benefit costs have increased by 45%
and salaries increased by 24%. The benefit cost increases at the college are greater compared to the
districtwide benefit increases. Salary increases at Woodland were also greater than the 17% salary
increase districtwide.
* Classroom efficiency directly informs the classroom and non-classroom budgets. As efficiency drops in the classroom, funding is shifted from
support services (backfilled) to the classroom budget. This creates pressure on the district to reduce funding for support services, long-term obliga-
tions, scheduled maintenance, and future capital outlay needs.
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 17
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Summer 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48 2.40 2.77
Noncredit
Primary Terms 7.13 9.57 27.57 52.83 62.37 56.83 697%
Subtotal 7.13 9.57 27.57 54.31 64.77 59.60 736%
Summer 203.58 273.61 419.00 540.16 508.12 287.89
AAccttuuaall FFTTEESS Credit
Primary Terms 1,625.17 1,769.37 2,163.69 2,230.83 2,139.23 2,152.44 32%
Subtotal 1,828.75 2,042.98 2,582.69 2,770.99 2,647.35 2,440.33 33%
Non Resident 13.07 24.68 32.40 38.17 39.27 36.84 182%
TToottaall 11,,884488..9955 22,,007777..2233 22,,664422..6666 22,,886633..4477 22,,775511..3399 22,,553366..7777 3377%%
Average Class Size 24.90 24.37 24.55 24.65 24.57 24.00 -4%
FTES/FTEF 29.19 28.18 27.69 14.85 28.54 25.24 -14%
Section Count 590.00 668.00 831.00 886.00 876.00 902.00 53%
Faculty 63.34 73.72 95.44 192.79 96.39 100.50 59%
Faculty Coordinators 0%
Management 7 9 10 10 11 11 57%
Staff 37 40 37 37 38 38 3%
Confidential 2 2 2 2 2 2 0%
Salaries Subtotal $ 7,819,482 $ 8,597,077 $ 8,729,598 $ 8,860,385 $ 8,671,765 $ 9,712,913 24%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 1 71,285 $ 2 17,836 $ 2 52,097 $ 2 78,268 $ 3 35,273 $ 4 19,019 145%
CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 4 77,835 $ 5 80,677 $ 6 57,965 $ 7 63,830 $ 8 47,630 $ 9 56,149 100%
Health Insurance $ 1,280,257 $ 1,428,004 $ 1,472,745 $ 1,392,571 $ 1,341,311 $ 1,431,430 12%
Other Benefits $ 3 66,149 $ 4 15,397 $ 4 17,364 $ 4 18,785 $ 4 46,991 $ 5 21,955 43%
Subtotal $ 2,295,526 $ 2,641,913 $ 2,800,171 $ 2,853,453 $ 2,971,206 $ 3,328,553 45%
4000 Supplies $ 1 52,893 $ 1 94,315 $ 1 69,995 $ 1 12,254 $ 98,088 $ 1 30,684 -15%
5000 Other Operating $ 7 18,171 $ 7 60,460 $ 8 64,111 $ 8 16,707 $ 1,031,265 $ 9 73,828 36%
6000 Capital Outlay $ 1 39,269 $ 1 10,138 $ 56,359 $ 5 ,522 $ 29,345 $ 54,678 -61%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ 2 18,300 $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 1,010,333 $ 1,064,912 $ 1,308,766 $ 9 34,484 $ 1,158,698 $ 1,159,190 15%
TToottaall $$ 11 11,,112255,,334411 $$ 11 22,,330033,,990033 $$ 11 22,,883388,,553355 $$ 11 22,,664488,,332222 $$ 11 22,,880011,,666688 $$ 11 44,,220000,,665566 2288%%
Woodland
Community
College
Totals
Efficiency
FTE
SSttaaffffiinngg
Unduplicated
Headcount
SSaallaarryy &&
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits
EExxppeennsseess
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Noncredit Subtotal 6.05 9.22 17.75 32.57 45.55 45.40 651%
Credit Subtotal 1,744.30 1,887.13 1,888.59 1,926.37 1,841.73 1,825.46 5%
TToottaall 11,,775500..3344 11,,889966..3355 11,,990066..3355 11,,995588..9944 11,,888877..2288 11,,887700..8866 77%%
Section Count 555.00 602.00 582.00 595.00 577.00 592.00 7%
Management 7 9 10 10 11 12 71%
Unduplicated
Staff 23 25 23 23 25 25 9%
Headcount
Confidential 2 2 2 2 2 2 0%
Salaries Subtotal $ 5,613,986 $ 6,259,643 $ 6,461,675 $ 6,554,351 $ 6,517,177 $ 7,380,189 31%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 1 18,205 $ 1 61,208 $ 1 85,053 $ 2 02,295 $ 2 41,467 $ 3 11,139 163%
SSaallaarryy && CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 3 48,832 $ 4 18,992 $ 4 89,140 $ 5 66,849 $ 6 49,247 $ 7 40,082 112%
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits Health Insurance $ 9 00,501 $ 1,013,989 $ 1,069,101 $ 9 90,438 $ 9 34,275 $ 1,041,634 16%
Other Benefits $ 2 58,557 $ 3 02,824 $ 3 09,943 $ 3 11,074 $ 3 31,338 $ 3 94,453 53%
Subtotal $ 1,626,095 $ 1,897,013 $ 2,053,237 $ 2,070,656 $ 2,156,326 $ 2,487,308 53%
4000 Supplies $ 1 56,829 $ 1 57,616 $ 1 40,201 $ 78,733 $ 68,314 $ 99,615 -36%
EExxppeennsseess 5000 Other Operating $ 4 25,048 $ 5 23,405 $ 6 07,501 $ 5 60,646 $ 8 04,643 $ 7 08,963 67%
6000 Capital Outlay $ 1 25,891 $ 83,840 $ 46,968 $ 3 ,929 $ 28,628 $ 48,043 -62%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ 2 18,300 $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 7 07,769 $ 7 64,861 $ 1,012,970 $ 6 43,308 $ 9 01,586 $ 8 56,621 21%
TToottaall $$ 77,,994477,,885500 $$ 88,,992211,,551177 $$ 99,,552277,,888822 $$ 99,,226688,,331155 $$ 99,,557755,,008899 $$ 11 00,,772244,,111188 3355%%
Main
Campus
Woodland
Community
College
Section 5 - Woodland Community Colle ge Totals (includes 2 sites)
SSttaaffffiinngg
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 18
Lake County Center
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Noncredit Subtotal 0.00 4.86 12.84 21.12 14.29 10.73 0%
AAccttuuaall FFTTEESS Credit Subtotal 611.94 556.96 492.80 480.40 465.64 491.79 -20%
TToottaall 661111..9944 556611..8822 550055..6644 550011..5522 447799..9933 550022..5522 --1188%%
Section Count 249.00 231.00 223.00 223.00 231.00 234.00 -6%
Salaries Subtotal $ 2,031,267 $ 2,096,713 $ 1,991,992 $ 2,070,343 $ 1,965,714 $ 2,070,568 2%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 47,531 $ 50,543 $ 59,325 $ 65,336 $ 83,558 $ 96,896 104%
SSaallaarryy && CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 1 21,487 $ 1 50,171 $ 1 58,241 $ 1 86,095 $ 1 90,894 $ 1 96,701 62%
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits Health Insurance $ 3 61,005 $ 3 92,465 $ 3 82,949 $ 3 81,726 $ 3 86,629 $ 3 57,263 -1%
Other Benefits $ 98,309 $ 1 00,558 $ 92,327 $ 95,251 $ 1 04,545 $ 1 12,752 15%
Subtotal $ 6 28,332 $ 6 93,737 $ 6 92,842 $ 7 28,408 $ 7 65,625 $ 7 63,613 22%
4000 Supplies $ ( 11,446) $ 30,876 $ 25,615 $ 30,385 $ 23,936 $ 25,460 -322%
5000 Other Operating $ 2 43,482 $ 1 97,665 $ 2 08,768 $ 1 99,203 $ 1 80,648 $ 2 13,503 -12%
EExxppeennsseess
6000 Capital Outlay $ 13,378 $ 21,688 $ 2 ,360 $ - $ 716 $ 4 ,435 -67%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 2 45,414 $ 2 50,228 $ 2 36,743 $ 2 29,588 $ 2 05,300 $ 2 43,398 -1%
TToottaall $$ 22,,990055,,001133 $$ 33,,004400,,667788 $$ 22,,992211,,557777 $$ 33,,002288,,333399 $$ 22,,993366,,663399 $$ 33,,007777,,557788 66%%
Lake
County
Campus
Colusa County Center
YCCD : Enrollment/Staffing/Salary & Benefits/Revenue Comparison
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 5 Year
Noncredit Subtotal 1.08 0.35 0.00 0.63 2.00 0.78 -27%
Credit Subtotal 83.77 91.01 134.85 139.72 144.24 157.48 88%
TToottaall 8844..8855 9911..3366 113344..8855 114400..3355 114466..2244 115588..2266 8877%%
Section Count 36.00 46.00 63.00 69.00 68.00 76.00 111%
Salaries Subtotal $ 174,229 $ 240,722 $ 275,931 $ 235,690 $ 188,874 $ 262,156 50%
CalPERS (w/o on behalf) $ 5 ,548 $ 6 ,085 $ 7 ,719 $ 10,636 $ 10,249 $ 10,983 98%
SSaallaarryy && CalSTRS (w/o on behalf) $ 7 ,516 $ 11,514 $ 10,584 $ 10,887 $ 7 ,490 $ 19,366 158%
BBeenneeffiittss Benefits Health Insurance $ 18,751 $ 21,550 $ 20,695 $ 20,407 $ 20,407 $ 32,533 73%
Other Benefits $ 9 ,282 $ 12,015 $ 15,094 $ 12,460 $ 11,108 $ 14,750 59%
Subtotal $ 41,098 $ 51,163 $ 54,092 $ 54,390 $ 49,254 $ 77,633 89%
4000 Supplies $ 7 ,510 $ 5 ,823 $ 4 ,180 $ 3 ,136 $ 5 ,838 $ 5 ,610 -25%
5000 Other Operating $ 49,641 $ 39,390 $ 47,842 $ 56,859 $ 45,974 $ 51,362 3%
EExxppeennsseess
6000 Capital Outlay $ - $ 4 ,610 $ 7 ,031 $ 1 ,593 $ - $ 2 ,200 0%
7000 Other Outgo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
Subtotal $ 57,151 $ 49,823 $ 59,053 $ 61,587 $ 51,812 $ 59,171 4%
TToottaall $$ 22 7722,,447788 $$ 33 4411,,770088 $$ 33 8899,,007766 $$ 33 5511,,666688 $$ 22 8899,,994400 $$ 33 9988,,996600 4466%%
Colusa
County
Campus
Section 5 - Woodland Community Colle ge Totals (includes 2 sites)
AAccttuuaall FFTTEESS
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 19
Appendix
Appendix
A. Study Agreement
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 20
Appendix
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 21
Appendix
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 22
Appendix
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 23
Appendix
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 24
Appendix
Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team Yuba Community College DIstrict 25