Summary

Audit Scope and Objectives

The objectives of this operational audit were to obtain an understanding and make overall judgments as to whether management controls regarding the assessment, collection, and expenditure of certain student fees and fines at Florida’s public community colleges promoted and encouraged compliance with applicable laws, administrative rules, and other guidelines during the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001, and selected transactions through March 31, 2002.  Fees for capital improvements were not within the scope of this audit, but are addressed in our operational audits of the colleges.

We conducted this audit in accordance with applicable standards contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

Summary of Audit Findings

Our audit disclosed that, generally, student tuition and matriculation fees were assessed and collected in accordance with applicable laws, administrative rules, and other guidelines.  However, our audit of certain other student fees and fines disclosed some deficiencies.

Matriculation and Tuition Fees Collected for Safety and Security Purposes

Finding No. 1:  Records for three colleges did not demonstrate that the respective boards of trustees had designated that the additional portions of the matriculation and tuition fees collected pursuant to Section 240.35(10), Florida Statutes, were for safety and security purposes.  Additionally, three other colleges did not have written safety plans which demonstrated that the expenditure of resources for safety and security purposes did not supplant general operating funds.

Activity and Service Fees

Finding No. 2:  Some goods and services purchased with student activity and service fees collected pursuant to Section 240.35(10), Florida Statutes, although benefiting the student body in general, appeared to supplant regular operating costs, i.e., the usual cost of doing business.

Finding No. 3:  Three colleges had unexpended balances of activity and service fees at June 30, 2001, which exceeded 50 percent of the amount collected during the 2000-2001 fiscal year.  If student activity and service fee resources are not spent in a timely manner, those students who paid such fees may not benefit from activities financed with these fees.

Financial Aid Fees

Finding No. 4:  At June 30, 2001, one college’s financial aid fee balance exceeded the 40 percent threshold set by Section 240.35(11), Florida Statutes.

User Fees and Fines - Laboratory Fees

Finding No. 5:  Twenty colleges did not have a written methodology in place for determining which courses should assess a laboratory fee and the amount of the fee.  In the absence of such a methodology, a determination could not always be made that the fee assessed did not exceed the unusual costs of the services provided.  The varying practices among the State’s community colleges resulted in different laboratory fee assessments for the same courses.  Similar findings were noted for user fees other than laboratory fees.

Other User Fees and Fines

Finding No. 6:  We noted instances in which a user fee was charged to students on a per contact or credit hour basis instead of a user basis.  It is not apparent how a fee assessed on a per hour basis could equate to the cost of the service provided.

Finding No. 7:  Five colleges provided no evidence that their boards of trustees had approved certain user fees and fines.  In the absence of board approval, a college has no authority to assess the user fee or fine.

Finding No. 8:  Fines are not established to recover costs; rather, fines are assessed as penalties to deter certain behaviors.  Different colleges assessed fines in varying amounts for the same offense.  Language in Section 240.35(15), Florida Statutes, should be revised to delete the requirement that fines not exceed the cost of services and to address fines as assessments to deter certain behaviors.

Technology Fees

Finding No. 9:  Colleges which assessed a separate technology fee did not always adopt technology improvement plans that addressed uses of technology fees or maintain separate accountability of the amounts expended.  Consequently, in these instances, the Colleges could not readily demonstrate that the resources collected were used for the purposes intended.

The Division of Community Colleges and Presidents of the Community Colleges provided their responses to our audit findings and recommendations which, in their entirety, may be viewed on the Auditor General's Web site.