Session October 8, 2012 Source: Office of Budget & Resource - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Budget Information Session October 8, 2012

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Review Enrollment, Cost Increases, Other Variables

July - August

BOT Adopt Support Budget

September - November

Governor’s Preliminary Budget

December - January

Legislative Analyst Review

February

• Hearings
• May Revise
• Budget

Adopted

May-July

CSU Budget Cycle

Level A Distribution – as approved by the President Fresno State Fiscal Planning Process Governor’s Budget Fresno State Allocation CSU Budget Allocation

Fresno State Budget Cycle

Current Fiscal Year

January February - April May Revise June – July Revisions Aug -Sept September - October November - Potential Adjustments January – Governor’s Budget

Academic Calendar/Fiscal Planning

State Appropriations

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Example:

If Proposition 30 does not pass, our campus will experience a permanent cut of approximately $13.2 million. If it does pass, our campus will experience an immediate “one-time” cut of approximately $9.2 million in 2012/13, due to the tuition fee increase “rollback” that is mandated with it’s passage. In 2013/14, the CSU system will receive an additional allocation of $125 million to offset the $132 million loss to the student tuition “rollback”. Our campus share of the ongoing permanent shortfall will be approximately $400,000.

Level A Allocation – Historical View

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Note: The Level A split between Administrative Services and Plant Operations, documented on previous Budget Books and handouts has been revised effective October 5, 2012, due to transposition errors.

State Appropriations

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Level A Allocation – Divisions & Central

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning $120 $127 $131 $125 $121 $120 $128 $137 $139 $114 $128 $123 $120 $36 $34 $38 $49 $57 $71 $75 $83 $85 $90 $96 $97 $105

77% 79% 78% 72% 68% 63% 63% 62% 62% 56% 57% 56% 53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Centrally Managed Resources Division Budget % of Division to Total Level A

In

Chang nge in Stude udent nt Fee Tuit ition ion

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

$1,428 $1,428 $1,507 $2,046 $2,334 $2,520 $2,520 $2,772 $3,048 $4,026 $4,230 $5,472 $5,970 $7,380 $8,460 $10,170 $11,160

• 0.0%

5.5% 35.8% 14.1% 8.0% 0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 32.1% 5.1% 29.4% 9.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% $- $3,000 $6,000 $9,000 $12,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

State University Tuition Nonresident Tuition Fees % Change of SUF

Comparison of State Appropriation to Student Fee Tuition & SUG

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Centrally Monitored Resources

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Resources that are essential to the operation of the campus and are independent from any particular division’s core activities. Examples Include:

• Benefits Pool
• Compensation Pool
• Risk Pool
• Utilities Reserve
• Student University Grants
• Work-Study, etc.
• Central Reserve
• President’s Reserve
• Revenue Reserve
• Strategic Plan
• Cal State Teach

Centrally Monitored Resources

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning Central Reserves $3,028,071 4% Benefits Pool $38,419,492 52% Risk Pool $3,992,188 5% SUG $15,541,320 21% Work Study $792,154 1% Strategic Plan $1,150,000 2% Compensation Pool $5,446,542 7% Utilities Reserve 5,330,472 7% Cal State Teach $500,000 1% Summer Arts $340,000

2006-2007

Centrally Monitored Resources

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning Central Reserves $2,450,083 2% Benefits Pool $46,908,298 45% Risk Pool $4,405,872 4% SUG $40,702,520 39% Work Study $792,154 1% Strategic Plan $1,150,000 1% Compensation Pool $342,280 0% Utilities Reserve $7,742,472 7% Misc Allocation $ (107,200) 0% Cal State Teach $500,000 1%

2012-2013

Other Funding Considerations

• Reimbursed Activities
• Trust Funds
• Lottery Fund
• CERF Fund

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

• Health Fees
• Parking

Revenues

• Interest Earnings

Campus Fiscal Planning Considerations

Campus Planning

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

KEY BUDGET CONCEPTS

 Not all money is green. Each fund carries certain restrictions complicating

financial management and reporting. In addition, budgets must consider whether funds are on-going or one-time.

 Budget authority. For most core funds, the budget appropriation in the financial

system reflects the authority to spend. Our accounting system automatically encumbers future salary and benefit expenses, but specific action must be taken to encumber other commitments. For other self-supporting funds and campus based fees, budget authority is based on actual revenue generated.

 Funds are on-going or one-time. On-going funds also referred to as base funds

are re-appropriated annually The majority of the campus core fund budget is permanently distributed across campus units. One-time funds (special allocations

• r carryforward funds) are depleted once they are spent.

Campus Planning

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Budgeting Process: The campus budget process considers three major components

 General funds,  Student fee funds, and  Indirect cost funds.

Restricted funds such as sponsored research activities, recharge activities, auxiliary enterprises and the student health center are generally not included.

Campus Planning

.  Review Operating Expenditures

 Fixed Costs

(Centrally managed resources)

 One Time Allocations to

priority programs or initiatives

 Set-aside for mid-year

reductions or unanticipated increases

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Campus Planning

.

 Review Revenues

 New State

Appropriations

 Changes in Tuition

Rate (SUF)

 Enrollment Growth  Carry forward

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Central Carryforward

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Campus Planning

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Campus Planning

Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning

Bridge Funding:

.

Allocating the Academic Affairs Budget

Dennis Nef, Associate Vice President and Dean of Undergraduate Studies John Constable, Chair, University Budget Committee

The Big Allocation Picture

• Funds from Level A to Academic Affairs are broadly

allocated to:

– Schools and Colleges 91.8% – Academic Operations 4% – Recruitment and Start-up 1.6% – Reserve 2% – Other 0.5%

• ….And the actual dollars?

Academic Affairs Budgeting

Schools and Colleges 76,358,799 Academic Operations 3,337,445 Recruitment/start up 1,350,000

Faculty recruitment 1,000,000 Faculty relocation, A/T 100,000 CSM Administration 250,000

Other 417,938 Reserve 1,675,490 Total from level A 83,139,672

Academic Operations

Academic Personnel 412,704 Academic Programs and Resources 454,245 Academic Senate 55,000 COS Center 69,750 Faculty Development 6,792 Graduate Studies 493,779 McNair Program 32,280 Office of Comm. & Economic Develop. 41,047 Office of Research and Sponsored Programs 514,308 Office of Institutional Effectiveness 294,397 Office of the Provost 532,357 Richter Center for Community Engagement 158,326 Smittcamp Family honors college 272,460 Total 3,337,445

Other

Academic Personnel - New Faculty Orientation 5,000 Academic Scheduling - R25 Software 25,000 Academic Senate - Assigned Time (29 WTU) 49,710 Accreditation /Program Review 102,131 First Year Experience 59,272 Indirect/GF Exchange 136,825 Pay-For-Print 15,000 Web Development 25,000 Total 417,938

Schools and Colleges

College Level B model Pass- Throughs One time Cohort Total CAH 13,440,498 258,167 245,000 111,894 14,055,559 CHHS 9,084,452 538,381 115,000 31,500 9,769,333 COSS 7,426,967 70,000 55,008 7,551,975 CSB 6,129,529 71,396 165,000 129,000 6,494,925 CSM 11,068,631 31,904 40,000 58,350 11,198,885 JCAST 4,405,280 6,472,042 155,000 67,656 11,099,978 KSOEHD 6,057,124 1,545,878 115,000 61,968 7,779,970 LCOE 3,399,568 60,000 40,002 3,499,570 Library 4,873,604 35,000 4,908,604 TOTALS 65,885,653 8,917,768 1,000,000 555,378 76,358,799

Pass Throughs

Item

Amount College

Service learning coordinator $9,063 CAH University Art Galleries $16,698 CAH Writing Skills $114,933 CAH English Writing Lab $32,838 CAH Marching Band $64,763 CAH BSN nursing program $174,157 CHHS HHS Nursing Program $364,224 CHHS Aerospace studies $30,892 CSB Military science $40,504 CSB Human subjects $10,968 CSM Student Academic Petitions $10,436 CSM LSAMP $10,500 CSM University veterinarian $9,936 JCAST University Farm Laboratory $1,368,251 JCAST CATI $1,083,919 JCAST ARI $4,000,000 JCAST Programs for children $311,560 KREMEN Educational Doctorate $496,740 KREMEN Liberal Studies $155,068 KREMEN EHD Teacher Preparation $582,510 KREMEN

College Budget Allocations through the Budget model

College Level B model Percent CAH 13,440,498 22% CHHS 9,084,452 15% COSS 7,426,967 13% CSB 6,129,529 9% CSM 11,068,631 18% JCAST 4,405,280 7% KSOEHD 6,057,124 10% LCOE 3,399,568 6% TOTALS 61,012,049 100%

The Budget Model Approach

• Allocation of funds to the Schools and Colleges

seeks to fund instructional programs, maintain and expand facilities, and provide financial flexibility.

– Allocated funds support academic programs and account for differences in School and College instructional characteristics. – The allocation process operates within the budget principles.

The Budget Principles (Selected)

• Support the chosen directions and priorities of the

University.

• Recognize the differences between programs (i.e., delivery

modes).

• Provide certainty of allocation (within realities of public

funding) for long-term efficiency and stability.

• Be perceived to be fair, based on the chosen plan and

policies of the University.

• Utilize minimum resources to administer the allocation

process.

• Decentralize decision making consistent with University

plans and policies.

• Mandate a consultative process within all schools /

departments / units.

History of the Schools/College Allocation

• The Orange Book.
• The budget model was developed to:

– Codify the funding mechanisms outlined in the Orange Book. – Instill a certain degree of consistency in fund allocation to individual colleges. – Capture the unique educational and instructional character of each college.

Final Allocation Table RI Average FTEF Average FTES-HL CY Relative Index M&L SFR School Data APDB Data Report Look-up table with K factors Acad Org Codes CS Table New SFR-LL of University Enrollment Limits High and Low

• No. of Majors

FTES Targets as negotiated by Deans

Enrollment, course data CY FTEF SFR Factors SFR Averages of Univ. SFR Data Calculated FTES Sum of FTES Calculated M&L SFR 10 Yr Average CY RI and FTEF 3 yr RI Average

General Fund Allocation after Level B

Course “costs” Faculty “costs” Look-up tables

Model Issues

• The original budget model is poorly suited for:

– Addressing the increasingly diverse income sources of the University. – A simple explanation of its mechanism of

• peration.

– Budget planning at the school/college level.

• The Budget Model v.2.0 seeks to retain the

basis of the original model by funding classroom operations, but….

Model Issues

• There is interest and desire at many levels for a

model to be more accessible and utilize familiar college-level parameters.

• Therefore, the University Budget Committee

polled the Deans for information on:

– The mechanism used for allocating funds within their School/College; – The key inputs each School/College uses in making fund allocation decisions; – A list of possible inputs to be used in the Budget Model v.2.0.

Possible Inputs & Factors to Include

• Mode, level, and class size
• Differential faculty costs
• Assigned time
• Administrative costs
• Equipment costs
• Student recruitment and retention
• Graduate programs
• Number of majors/graduate students
• Research, Scholarship, Creative Activities
• University strategic goals
• Community engagement activities
• Travel costs

Budget Model v2.0

• The new Budget Model separates funding for

the Schools and Colleges into:

– Instructional funding – Other funding factors

• Student success and engagement
• Administrative and support costs
• Research and creative activities
• Equipment and Technology costs

Instructional funding

• Actual instructional costs from previous year

– Mode and level:

• CS course classification
• Workload
• FTES

– Faculty salaries – Enrollment management

Other funding factors

• Student success and engagement:

– Number of majors, pbacs, and graduate students – Retention and graduation – International students – Service learning

• Administrative and Support costs:

– Deans, Dept. chairs, coordinators

• Faculty support and development:

– Research and creative activity – Assigned time

• Equipment and technology:

– Labs – Facilities

Process

• UBC is collaborating with the Provost and

Deans

– Will be seeking additional input from School and College Deans and faculty.

• Impacts of change will be carefully considered.
• Aggressive timeline to complete the model

this semester.

Continuing and Global Education (CGE)

• Operates in the Continuing Education Revenue Fund (“CERF”)
• Receives no General Fund support
• FY2011-12 Gross Revenues of $5,304,795 / Net Income of $1,635,517
• Must pay all program expenditures and reimburse the campus, system, and state
• Allowed to retain a reserve of 6 months of operating expenditures only (approximately $1.8 million)
• All net income is provided to schools/colleges and Academic Planning and Development (APPD)

1% 4% 15% 29% 51%

Typical Percentage Allocations of Gross Program Revenues

State Controller's Office - 1% Chancellor's Office - 4% Reimbursement to University - 15% Continuing and Global Education - 29% Program Expenses (Faculty Salaries, etc) - 51% 60% 40%

Typical Percentage Allocations

• f Net Income

Schools/College - 60% Academic Planning and Program Development - 40%

Continuing and Global Education (CGE)

• The following table represents the allocations of program reinvestment funds to Schools and

Colleges in FY2011-12:

* Due to independent programs offered by CGE outside of School/College partnerships, actual program reinvestment varies slightly from the general 60/40 ratio depicted on the prior slide. College/School Funding Amount College of Arts & Humanities $152,216.27 College of Health & Human Services $109,254.18 College of Science & Mathematics $84,885.95 College of Social Sciences $189,567.54 Craig School of Business $270,507.92 Division of Graduate Studies $3,100.00 Jordan College of Agricultural Sciences & Technology $38,818.69 Kremen School of Education & Human Development $29,850.44 Lyles College of Engineering $37,635.00 Special Programs (Multi-Disciplinary) $4,922.00 Sub-Total: $920,757.99