agenda budget and finance committee meeting october 19, 2016 … · 19/10/2016 · budget and...

AGENDA

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

OCTOBER 19, 2016

A. Expenditure Data and Costs Per FTES

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

SUPPLEMENTAL GRAPHS

EXPENDITURE DATA &

COST PER FTES

Fiscal Year 2007- 08 to 2016-17

Office of the Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer ***

October 2016

EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS BY TYPE

Detail on pages 84-94

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTExpenditure Analysis by Type

Unrestricted General Fund Only

90,000

92,000

94,000

96,000

98,000

100,000

102,000

104,000

106,000

108,000

110,000

112,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions

ACADEMIC SALARIES CLASSIFIED SALARIES NON-SALARIES FTES

1


LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

16,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


2


EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


20,500

21,000

21,500

22,000

22,500

23,000

23,500

24,000

24,500

25,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


3


LOS ANGELES HARBOR COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

8,000

8,500

0

5

10

15

20

25

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


4


LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


5,200

5,400

5,600

5,800

6,000

6,200

6,400

6,600

6,800

7,000

7,200

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


5


PIERCE COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

16,000

16,500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


6


LOS ANGELES SOUTHWEST COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


4,400

4,600

4,800

5,000

5,200

5,400

5,600

5,800

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


7


LOS ANGELES TRADE-TECHNICAL COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


10,500

11,000

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


8


LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


11,000

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


9


WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type


4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

8,000

8,500

0

5

10

15

20

25

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

Mill

ions


10


ITVExpenditure Analysis by Type


200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

EXPENDITURES

x 10

0000


11

Detail on Pages 84-94

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES

NON-SALARIES CLASSIFIED SALARIES ACADEMIC SALARIES

90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 115,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

44.44%

43.61%

42.45%

41.71%

41.78%

40.98%

42.57%

42.87%

42.81%

19.32%

18.85%

20.88%

20.10%

20.05%

20.21%

19.75%

19.87%

18.95%

36.24%

37.53%

36.68%

38.19%

38.17%

38.81%

37.68%

37.26%

38.24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL

ACADEMIC SALARIES CLASSIFIED SALARIES NON-SALARIES

12


LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 10 20 30 40

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

54.42%

53.95%

50.86%

52.77%

52.85%

52.15%

55.16%

55.56%

55.26%

20.48%

19.64%

21.65%

20.24%

19.47%

20.36%

18.42%

18.65%

18.41%

25.10%

26.41%

27.49%

27.00%

27.68%

27.50%

26.42%

25.79%

26.33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


13


EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

48.68%

50.49%

51.27%

50.44%

49.14%

49.68%

49.93%

50.45%

50.27%

17.61%

17.89%

19.48%

18.27%

17.47%

18.94%

18.53%

18.12%

17.79%

33.71%

31.62%

29.24%

31.28%

33.39%

31.38%

31.54%

31.42%

31.94%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


14


LOS ANGELES HARBOR COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 5 10 15 20 25

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

56.08%

55.06%

54.11%

53.83%

53.54%

51.08%

52.69%

53.65%

52.72%

20.08%

19.41%

20.07%

19.91%

20.82%

20.97%

20.54%

19.78%

19.66%

23.84%

25.53%

25.81%

26.26%

25.64%

27.95%

26.77%

26.58%

27.62%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


15


LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 5 10 15 20

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

56.84%

54.29%

51.95%

51.27%

48.52%

47.08%

47.94%

49.68%

51.13%

20.12%

21.71%

22.92%

22.72%

23.08%

23.54%

22.67%

22.24%

21.08%

23.05%

24.00%

25.13%

26.01%

28.39%

29.38%

29.39%

28.08%

27.79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


16


PIERCE COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 10 20 30 40

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

54.07%

53.67%

52.34%

51.71%

51.54%

50.83%

53.44%

54.86%

53.72%

19.84%

19.71%

20.90%

20.82%

20.13%

20.64%

19.88%

19.37%

18.80%

26.10%

26.62%

26.76%

27.48%

28.33%

28.53%

26.68%

25.77%

27.47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


17


LOS ANGELES SOUTHWEST COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 5 10 15 20

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

49.90%

51.04%

49.77%

49.80%

49.77%

49.99%

51.41%

50.90%

50.99%

23.19%

21.87%

23.63%

22.56%

21.65%

21.24%

21.34%

20.92%

20.93%

26.91%

27.09%

26.60%

27.64%

28.58%

28.77%

27.25%

28.17%

28.08%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


18


LOS ANGELES TRADE-TECHNICAL COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 13,500

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

56.00%

55.37%

52.08%

51.35%

50.89%

50.50%

50.75%

52.75%

53.47%

19.55%

19.18%

21.29%

20.90%

20.85%

20.77%

20.24%

20.20%

19.40%

24.46%

25.45%

26.63%

27.75%

28.26%

28.73%

29.01%

27.05%

27.13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


19


LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 13,500 14,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

55.54%

55.27%

52.87%

52.31%

51.78%

52.28%

53.27%

54.58%

55.62%

20.80%

19.94%

21.55%

22.03%

21.25%

20.64%

20.12%

19.62%

19.31%

23.66%

24.79%

25.57%

25.66%

26.97%

27.08%

26.61%

25.80%

25.07%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


20


WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 5 10 15 20 25

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Millions

EXPENDITURES


0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

56.31%

55.62%

53.38%

51.32%

48.92%

48.20%

51.05%

51.04%

52.97%

20.33%

20.15%

21.55%

22.15%

22.55%

22.53%

21.37%

21.49%

20.29%

23.36%

24.23%

25.08%

26.54%

28.54%

29.27%

27.58%

27.47%

26.74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


21


ITVExpenditure Analysis by Type

w/FTES COMPARISON

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

x 100000

EXPENDITURES


0 200 400 600 800

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

FTES

60.45%

55.55%

58.26%

58.04%

57.83%

58.34%

57.57%

59.70%

60.35%

10.54%

10.05%

9.92%

10.17%

8.02%

10.49%

9.76%

9.27%

8.45%

29.00%

34.41%

31.82%

31.79%

34.16%

31.17%

32.67%

31.03%

31.20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

PERCENT OF TOTAL


22

COST PER FTES BY LOCATION

detail on pages 84-94

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT2007-08 COST PER FTES

Unrestricted General Fund

2,822

4,467

4,217

4,392

4,753

4,058

4,306

4,704

3,919

4,049

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000

City East Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade-Tech Valley West ITV

Median: 4,262

23




3,234

4,052

4,064

3,987

4,351

3,859

4,075

4,385

4,032

4,174

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000


Median: 4,058

24




2,098

3,974

3,990

3,801

4,154

3,746

3,700

4,179

3,305

4,160

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500


Median: 3,888

25




1,779

3,794

3,994

3,891

4,440

3,933

3,812

3,821

3,587

3,881

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000


Median: 3,851

26




1,948

4,272

4,239

3,992

4,687

4,103

4,127

4,057

3,755

4,011

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000


Median: 4,080

27




2,221

4,391

4,229

4,211

5,009

3,946

4,501

4,472

3,810

4,104

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500


Median: 4,220

28




2,576

4,743

4,141

4,400

4,853

4,086

4,656

4,412

4,182

4,228

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500


Median: 4,314

29




3,030

4,627

4,101

4,281

5,057

4,053

4,537

4,934

4,301

4,468

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500


Median: 4,385

30




3,915

4,792

4,305

4,514

5,431

4,514

4,873

5,165

4,442

4,688

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000


Median: 4,601

31

COST PER FTES TRENDS


LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES

INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES STUDENT SERVICES

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT OTHER SERVICES FTES

32


LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

16,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



33


EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

20,500

21,000

21,500

22,000

22,500

23,000

23,500

24,000

24,500

25,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES

INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES STUDENT SERVICESMAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT OTHER SERVICES FTES

34


LOS ANGELES HARBOR COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



35


LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

5,200

5,400

5,600

5,800

6,000

6,200

6,400

6,600

6,800

7,000

7,200

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



36


PIERCE COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

16,000

16,500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



37


LOS ANGELES SOUTHWEST COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

4,400

4,600

4,800

5,000

5,200

5,400

5,600

5,800

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



38


LOS ANGELES TRADE-TECHNICAL COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

10,500

11,000

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



39


LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

11,000

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



40


WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES



41


INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISIONExpenditure Trends by Functional Area Type

COST PER FTES

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

FTES

COST pER FTES

INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FTES

42

2007-08LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

FTES TO EXPENDITURE COMPARISONAllocation Less Balances and Open Orders

City 14.69%

East 21.69%

Harbor 6.62%

Mission 6.05%

Pierce 14.27%

Southwest 4.83%

TradeTech 11.89%

Valley 12.60%

West 6.94%

ITV 0.43%

City 14.16%

East 20.24%

Harbor 7.41%

Mission 6.20%

Pierce 13.79%

Southwest 5.46%

TradeTech 12.43%

Valley 12.65%

West 7.39%

ITV 0.29%

City 13.97%

East 21.46%

Harbor 6.68%

Mission 6.40%

Pierce 14.22%

Southwest 5.21%

TradeTech 12.05%

Valley 12.42%

West 7.31%

ITV 0.27%

FTES Expenditures Allocation

43



City 13.81%

East 21.07%

Harbor 6.79%

Mission 6.10%

Pierce 14.63%

Southwest 5.21%

TradeTech 11.99%

Valley 12.55%

West 7.47%

ITV 0.39%

City 14.18%

East 20.88%

Harbor 7.32%

Mission 6.12%

Pierce 13.88%

Southwest 5.57%

TradeTech 11.75%

Valley 12.55%

West 7.44%

ITV 0.31%

City 13.98%

East 20.81%

Harbor 6.97%

Mission 6.32%

Pierce 14.19%

Southwest 5.38%

TradeTech 12.07%

Valley 12.59%

West 7.36%

ITV 0.33%


44



City 12.60%

East 22.90%

Harbor 6.83%

Mission 6.48%

Pierce 14.32%

Southwest 5.19%

TradeTech 11.83%

Valley 12.33%

West 6.97%

ITV 0.55%

City 13.83%

East 19.97%

Harbor 7.54%

Mission 6.33%

Pierce 14.17%

Southwest 5.69%

TradeTech 11.87%

Valley 12.98%

West 7.32%

ITV 0.30%

City 14.03%

East 21.08%

Harbor 7.07%

Mission 6.31%

Pierce 14.16%

Southwest 5.26%

TradeTech 12.01%

Valley 12.58%

West 7.18%

ITV 0.33%


45



City 13.65%

East 22.00%

Harbor 7.18%

Mission 6.40%

Pierce 13.94%

Southwest 4.88%

TradeTech 11.90%

Valley 12.44%

West 7.02%

ITV 0.59%

City 13.80%

East 20.56%

Harbor 7.15%

Mission 6.36%

Pierce 14.28%

Southwest 5.64%

TradeTech 12.06%

Valley 12.94%

West 6.94%

ITV 0.27%

City 13.86%

East 21.33%

Harbor 7.06%

Mission 6.34%

Pierce 14.14%

Southwest 5.24%

TradeTech 11.98%

Valley 12.54%

West 7.21%

ITV 0.30%


46



City 13.79%

East 23.75%

Harbor 6.95%

Mission 6.14%

Pierce 13.60%

Southwest 4.84%

TradeTech 12.01%

Valley 11.81%

West 6.55%

ITV 0.56%

City 13.70%

East 22.10%

Harbor 6.98%

Mission 6.28%

Pierce 13.83%

Southwest 5.62%

TradeTech 11.88%

Valley 12.41%

West 6.93%

ITV 0.27%

City 13.80%

East 21.02%

Harbor 7.18%

Mission 6.30%

Pierce 13.93%

Southwest 5.60%

TradeTech 11.98%

Valley 12.62%

West 7.30%

ITV 0.27%


47



City 13.68%

East 22.40%

Harbor 6.67%

Mission 6.03%

Pierce 14.17%

Southwest 5.01%

TradeTech 11.91%

Valley 12.67%

West 6.92%

ITV 0.53%

City 13.53%

East 20.57%

Harbor 7.20%

Mission 6.54%

Pierce 13.48%

Southwest 6.05%

TradeTech 12.09%

Valley 12.92%

West 7.33%

ITV 0.29%

City 14.18%

East 18.33%

Harbor 7.46%

Mission 6.75% Pierce

13.91%

Southwest 6.03%

TradeTech 12.61%

Valley 12.75%

West 7.69%

ITV 0.30%


48



City 13.91%

East 21.66%

Harbor 7.06%

Mission 6.01%

Pierce 14.18%

Southwest 5.08%

TradeTech 11.86%

Valley 12.86%

West 6.90%

ITV 0.47%

City 13.66%

East 21.04%

Harbor 7.23%

Mission 6.50%

Pierce 13.46%

Southwest 5.73%

TradeTech 12.12%

Valley 12.37%

West 7.61%

ITV 0.28%

City 13.50%

East 21.56%

Harbor 7.18%

Mission 6.56%

Pierce 13.67%

Southwest 5.70%

TradeTech 11.89%

Valley 12.22%

West 7.39%

ITV 0.32%


49



City 12.86%

East 22.32%

Harbor 6.45%

Mission 6.22%

Pierce 14.64%

Southwest 5.19%

TradeTech 12.16%

Valley 12.76%

West 6.99%

ITV 0.40%

City 13.15%

East 21.97%

Harbor 7.28%

Mission 6.46%

Pierce 13.58%

Southwest 6.01%

TradeTech 11.91%

Valley 11.97%

West 7.40%

ITV 0.28%

City 12.87%

East 20.96%

Harbor 7.18%

Mission 6.71%

Pierce 14.28%

Southwest 5.70%

TradeTech 12.15%

Valley 12.47%

West 7.48%

ITV 0.19%


50



City 12.22%

East 22.92%

Harbor 6.51%

Mission 6.19%

Pierce 14.47%

Southwest 5.30%

TradeTech 12.40%

Valley 12.48%

West 7.19%

ITV 0.31%

City 12.39%

East 22.02%

Harbor 7.28%

Mission 6.52%

Pierce 14.13%

Southwest 6.22%

TradeTech 12.11%

Valley 11.62%

West 7.45%

ITV 0.26%

City 12.17%

East 22.25%

Harbor 6.74%

Mission 6.62%

Pierce 14.14%

Southwest 5.56%

TradeTech 12.71%

Valley 11.74%

West 7.94%

ITV 0.13%


51

EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS ESC, INFO TECH,

CENTRALIZED SERVICES


Expenditures as Percent of Unrestricted General Fund RevenuesEducational Services Center, Information Technology, and Centralized Accounts

Expenditure Analysis

3.74%

3.87%

4.64%

4.18%

4.44%

4.44%

4.17%

4.20%

4.08%

1.10%

1.20%

1.89%

2.01%

2.00%

1.90%

1.88%

1.82%

1.87%

13.25%

15.21%

12.09%

13.41%

12.75%

14.23%

13.36%

13.98%

12.60%

18.09%

20.28%

18.62%

19.61%

19.18%

20.57%

19.41%

20.00%

18.54%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

ESC IT Centralized

52

DEDICATED REVENUE

Revenue includes: facility rental, Contract Edu, transcript fees, library fines, etc.

LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

53


EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

54


LOS ANGELES HARBOR COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

55


LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

56


PIERCE COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

57


LOS ANGELES SOUTHWEST COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

58


LOS ANGELES TRADE-TECHNICAL COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

59


LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

60


WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGEDEDICATED REVENUE COLLECTED

2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

61

NON-RESIDENT TUITION

LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

62

EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

63

LOS ANGELES HARBOR COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

64

LOS ANGELES MISSION COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

65

PIERCE COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

66

LOS ANGELES SOUTHWEST COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

67

LOS ANGELES TRADE-TECHNICAL COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

68

LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

69

WEST LOS ANGELES COLLEGENON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

70

INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISIONNON-RESIDENT TUITION2007-08 THROUGH 2015-16

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

71

AGENDA


OCTOBER 19, 2016

B. Audit Procedures

Los Angeles Community Colleges

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City • East • Harbor • Mission • Pierce • Southwest • Trade-Technical • Valley • West

Audit Procedures: There are three types of audits:

1. Operational or Performance Audit: The examination of the use of resources to evaluate whether those resources are being used in the most efficient and effective ways to fulfill an organization’s objectives. Additionally, this is an independent and systematic examination of the management of an organization, program, or function to identify whether the management is being carried out in an efficient and effective manner and whether management practices promote improvement to the operation. An operational/performance audit may include elements of a compliance audit, a financial audit, and an information systems audit. This audit is operational when performed by internal audit and performance when performed by an external auditing firm.

2. Compliance Audit: A comprehensive review of an organization's adherence to regulatory guidelines. Independent accounting, security or Information Technology (IT) consultants evaluate the strength and thoroughness of compliance preparations.

3. Financial Audit: An independent, objective evaluation of an organization's financial statements and financial reporting processes. The primary purpose for financial audits is to give regulators, investors, directors, and managers’ reasonable assurance that financial statements are accurate and complete.

The following audits and due dates: 1. External Audits:

A. Annual Financial Audit: Inclusive of financial statements and the OMB Circular 133 Single Audit which is a compliance audit of Federal and State programs and awards and State compliance. The Financial Audit is performed by KPMG and the OMB Circular 133 Single Audit is performed by Vasquez & Co. The annual financial audit must be presented to the Budget and Finance committee and the full Board of Trustees by the end of the calendar year (December 31) following the end of the audit period covered in the audit. (ex. audit period ending June 30, 2016, audit due December 31, 2016)

B. Annual Bond Financial Audit: Audit of the three bonds, prop A, AA and measure J. KPMG performs the audit and reports to the Budget and Finance Committee, the Facilities Master Planning & Oversight Committee, and the full Board of Trustees. This audit is due by December 31. The annual bond financial audit must also be presented to the District’s Citizen’s Oversight Committee by March 31 of subsequent calendar year.

C. Performance Audit: Audit of the three bonds, prop A, AA and measure J. KPMG performs the

audit and reports to the Facilities Master Planning & Oversight Committee and the full board of trustees and the District’s Citizen’s Oversight Committee by March 31 of the following calendar year.

Los Angeles Community Colleges

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City • East • Harbor • Mission • Pierce • Southwest • Trade-Technical • Valley • West

2 of 2

2. Internal Audits:

A. An annual audit plan is submitted to the Budget and Finance committee. On a quarterly basis

Internal Audit submits a report to the Budget and Finance committee on the results of the audits completed in the Annual audit plan. Internal Audit uses a risk basis approach to identify operations to be audited. Additionally, Executive management of the LACCD may request an audit of an operation. The Board can also request an audit of any operation of LACCD.

Management Response to Findings “Corrective Action Plan” (CAP) All findings identified during an audit require management responses indicating the steps management will take to correct these findings. For every audit finding there are recommendations made by the auditing department/firm. These recommendations are suggested procedures that will help correct the finding. It is up to management to accept these recommendations or come up with other procedures that will correct these findings. These recommendations and/or management new procedures are what become the corrective action plan. The corrective action plan details the steps that management plans to take to correct the finding, the date the plan will be implemented, and the employee(s) responsible for ensuring that the plan is fully working as intended.

1. External Audit CAPS: The Internal Audit Department in Collaboration with the Accounting Department and the Educational programs and Institutional Effectiveness Department conducts training to assist the colleges and the Educational Service Center (ESC) in developing effective CAPS. The Internal Audit Department conducts a review of the CAP to ensure that the CAP is fully implemented and thereby negating the reoccurrence of the findings. The Accounting Department requests an assertion from the colleges and ESC that the CAPs were implemented. The External Auditors validate the CAP during the next annual financial Audit and indicate whether or not the CAPs were fully implemented.

2. Internal Audits CAPS

The Internal Audit Department revisits this finding after the completion date to confirm that the findings were corrected. This information is reported to the Budget and Finance Committee.

AGENDA


OCTOBER 19, 2016

D. Enrollment Update

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Enrollment Update

Budget and Finance Committee October 19, 2016

1. Fall 2016 Enrollment and Projected FTES Census enrollments for full-semester classes and most short-term classes were used to develop projected FTES for Fall 2016. The current projection shows that for the District, FTES in Fall 2016 is 99.4% of Fall 2015 FTES. Exhibit 1 displays, by college, projected FTES and the % change in FTES from Fall 2015 to Fall 2016. 2. Annual 2016-17 FTES Projection Final 2015-16 FTES for the District was 107,601, which is base FTES for 2016-17. Moreover, the 2016-17 LACCD budget is predicated on 2% growth, resulting in a target of 109,753 FTES (= 107,601 + 2%). 2016-17 FTES projections were developed for three possible scenarios. These are described below and shown in Exhibit 2.

All scenarios are based on final census data for Summer 2 2016 FTES and projections for Fall 2016, Winter 2017, Spring 2017, and Summer 1 2017. The projection for Fall 2016 incorporates census enrollment for full semester classes and most short-term classes. For Winter 2017, Spring 2017, and Summer 1 2017, FTES projections are based on section counts and estimated FTES per section.

• Scenario I (Worst Case): This scenario assumes that Winter 2017 and Summer 1 2017 FTES are equal to prior year but that Spring 2017 FTES declines by 1.5% in comparison to Spring 2016. In this scenario, 2016-17 FTES would be 2,234 below base and 4,386 FTES below the District’s 2% growth funding target. The potential loss in District revenue would be approximately $21.9 million.

• Scenario II (Flat Model):

This scenario assumes that FTES in Winter 2017, Spring 2017, and Summer 1 2017 are equal to prior year. In this scenario, 2016-17 FTES would be 1,575 below base and 3,727 FTES below the District’s 2% growth funding target. The potential loss in District revenue would be approximately $18.6 million.

• Scenario III (Best Case):

This scenario assumes that FTES in Winter 2017, Spring 2017, and Summer 1 2017 are equal to prior year, but that maximum possible Summer FTES are shifted to and reported in Summer 1 2017. In this scenario, 2016-17 FTES would be 583 FTES above base and 1,569 FTES below the District’s 2% growth funding target. The potential loss in District revenue would be approximately $0.8 million. Shifting FTES would mean that the District would have no Summer 2 2017 FTES to begin the 2017-18 fiscal year.

Exhibit 1

City East Harbor Mission Pierce South-west

Trade-Tech Valley West ITV

Fall 2016 5,395 10,477 3,108 2,929 6,486 2,446 5,716 6,031 3,822 193Fall 2015 5,782 10,291 3,300 3,096 6,756 2,422 5,701 6,107 3,311 142

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

FTE

S

Comparison of Fall FTES By College: 2016 Projected vs 2015 Actual

City East Harbor Mission Pierce South-west

Trade-Tech Valley West ITV Total

% Change Fall FTES -6.7% 1.8% -5.8% -5.4% -4.0% 1.0% 0.3% -1.2% 15.4% 35.4% -0.6%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

% C

hang

e FT

ES

% Change in Fall FTES by College: 2016 Projected vs 2015 Actual

Exhibit 2 2016-17 FTES Scenarios

Semester 2015-2016 2016-2017 DifferenceSummer II 6,680 5,409 -1,271Fall 46,908 46,604 -304Winter 5,716 5,716 0Spring 43,901 43,242 -659Summer I 4,397 4,397 0Total 107,601 105,368 -2,234

Semester 2015-2016 2016-2017 DifferenceSummer II 6,680 5,409 -1,271Fall 46,908 46,604 -304Winter 5,716 5,716 0Spring 43,901 43,901 0Summer I 4,397 4,397 0Total 107,601 106,026 -1,575

Semester 2015-2016 2016-2017 DifferenceSummer II 6,680 5,409 -1,271Fall 46,908 46,604 -304Winter 5,716 5,944 229Spring 43,901 43,901 1Summer I 4,397 6,326 1,929Total 107,601 108,184 583

III. Best Case - Maximum Summer Shift (Two Summers)

II. Flat Model - No Shift

I. Worst Case (Spring 2017 Down by 1.5%)

107,601

105,368

106,026

108,184

109,753

103,000

104,000

105,000

106,000

107,000

108,000

109,000

110,000

111,000

District FTES

2016-17 Projected FTES

2015-2016

I. Worst Case (Spring 2017Down by 1.5%)


III. Best Case - MaximumSummer Shift (TwoSummers)2016-17 Target

-2,234

-1,575

583

-2,500

-2,000

-1,500

-1,000

-500

0

500

1,000

District FTES

FTES Change 2015-16 Actual Compared to 2016-17

Projected

I. Worst Case (Spring2017 Down by 1.5%)


III. Best Case - MaximumSummer Shift (TwoSummers)

agenda budget and finance committee meeting october 19, 2016 … · 19/10/2016 · budget and...

Documents