UNIVERSITY OF Board of Regents Budget LOUISIANA SYSTEM - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
university of
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

UNIVERSITY OF Board of Regents Budget LOUISIANA SYSTEM - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 10, 2024 922 likes •1.13k views

UNIVERSITY OF Board of Regents Budget LOUISIANA SYSTEM Presentation 20-YEAR MARCH TO NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS FOR LOUISIANA FUNDING F FUNDING FOR WHA R WHAT? End Goal = End Goal = A Nationally Competitiv A Nationally Competitive e

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Board of Regents Budget Presentation

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM

slide-2
SLIDE 2

20-YEAR MARCH TO NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS FOR LOUISIANA

FUNDING F FUNDING FOR WHA R WHAT?

 End Goal = End Goal = A Nationally Competitiv A Nationally Competitive e Louisiana Louisiana  Health Healthy y Balance Balance of

  • f Middle Skill and

Middle Skill and High High Skill Skill Jobs/Graduat Jobs/Graduates es  Nationally Competitiv Nationally Competitive e Resear search t to Feed eed Inno Innovation/Commer tion/Commercialization ialization  Educat Educated ed Population pulation with Jobs A with Jobs Available ailable in All Sect in All Sector

  • rs

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

20-YEAR MARCH TO NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS FOR LOUISIANA

ST STABILIT ABILITY— Y—Funding s

nding stability i ability in n next 2 xt 2 year ars i s is C Critical itical  Pr Protect the base f ect the base for e r ever ery institution and k y institution and keep tuition re eep tuition revenue nue  Avoid d d dispr spropor portionat ionate c cuts t ts to univer universities for s sities for stability ability

BENCHMARK BENCHMARK—Statistical method t

—Statistical method to pr prop

  • perly b

erly benc nchmar hmark p performance

  • rmance

 Fair fight— ir fight—con connect resour ect resources t ces to e expectations of per pectations of performance

  • rmance

 Account f Account for mission di r mission differentiation erentiation  Analyses t Analyses to under understand st tand stretch but ac retch but achie hievable goals able goals  We n need better m metrics—fo focus o

  • n w

what r really m matters

FUNDING ADEQU FUNDING ADEQUACY—T CY—To meet d

et demands o mands of workf workforce and i e and inno nnovation tion  Plan t to r ramp u up i inve vestment t to a achieve eve g goals fo for d delive vering t the graduat graduates an s and resear d research i inno novation tion to fuel nati fuel national com competitiveness eness

  • f Loui
  • f Louisi

siana  Comprehensiv mprehensive re e revamp o mp of funding policies—more relat funding policies—more related t d to

  • utc
  • utcomes

es

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0%

Retention Rates

20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Graduation Rates

4

PERFORMANCE

Cohort: 1 year prior Cohort: 6 years prior

slide-5
SLIDE 5

UL SYSTEM TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FY 2013/14

TOTAL $751.7 million State Funding $251.2 million 33% Self-Generated $500.4 million 67%

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

56% 56% 62% 62% 63% 63% 58% 58% 54 54% 42% 42% 39% 39% 33% 33% 44% 44% 38% 38% 37 37% 42% 42% 46% 46% 58% 58% 61 61% 67% 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

State Funds Self Generated

UL SYSTEM TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FY 2013/14 FUNDING TREND

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

UL SYSTEM TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET COMPARISON FY08-09 TO FY13-14

Budge Budget 2008-09 2008-09 Budge Budget 20 2013-1

  • 14

Chan Change ge General Fund Direct

$448.9 M $130.2 M

  • $318.7 M

Stat Ded

$17.7 M $121.0 M

$103.3 M Total State

$466.3 M 251.2 M

  • $215.1 M

IAT

$6.3 M $ .74 M

  • $6.2 M

Self Gen

$279.8 M $500.4 M

$220.6 M Total Revenues

$752.5 M $751.7 M

  • $ .8 M

UNO

$121.5 M

  • Total w/UNO

$874.0 M $751.7 M

  • $122.3 M

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

$0 $0 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $140,000,000

FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2013-14 Y 2013-14

State Funds State Funds Stat Ded Stat Ded Self-Generated Self-Generated

  • $20 M T

$20 M Total tal Fu Funds

SOUTHEASTERN’S OPERATING BUDGET

  • $60 M

$60 M General General Fu Fund

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

$0 $0 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 $120,000,000 $140,000,000 $140,000,000

FY 2008-09 FY 2008-09 FY 2013-14 Y 2013-14

State Funds State Funds Stat Ded Stat Ded Self-Generated Self-Generated

  • $19 M T

$19 M Total tal Fu Funds

UNO’S OPERATING BUDGET

  • $53 M

$53 M General General Fu Fund

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Summar Summary Score (0 - Score (0 - 5.00) Based on .00) Based on Three Three Ratios Ratios A composite score at or below 1.75 for two consecutive years would result in an institution being placed on fiscal watch.

FISCAL HEALTH CALCULATIONS

Viability Ratio

=

Expendable Net Assets

÷

Plant Debt Primary Reserve Ratio

=

Expendable Net Assets

÷

Total Operating Expenses Net Income Ratio

=

Change in Total Net Assets

÷

Total Revenues

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

FISCAL HEALTH CALCULATIONS

Fiscal Stress A composite score at or below 1.75 for two consecutive years would result in an institution being placed on fiscal watch.

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

 Core R Core Requirement 2. quirement 2.11 11 – The institution has a sound financial base

and demonstrated financial stability to support the mission of the institution and the scope of programs and services

 Comprehensiv Comprehensive Standard 3. e Standard 3.10.0 .0 – The institution’s recent financial

history demonstrates financial stability. (Recent financial history generally refers to 3-5 years of financially stable conditions with a focus on such entities as revenue stream, expenses, capital investments, and such. If an institution experiences financial instability, it is important that it understands and explains the causes and has a reasonable plan for remedying the situation.)

Ratio Rationale and ale and No Notes s (Financial Stability) Financial stability is an essential component of an institution’s ability to fulfill its mission and is meant to reflect more than a currently balanced budget. Recent financial history generally refers to 3-5 years of financially stable conditions with a focus on such entities as revenue stream, expenses, capital investments, and such. An institution may be overall financially stable, with generally adequate financial and physical resources, and still experience fluctuations in its financial health, such as in funding, enrollment, or

  • expenditures. If an institution experiences financial instability, it is important that it

understands and explains the causes and has a reasonable plan for remedying the situation.

SACS ACCREDITATION

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • $2,373
  • $2,303
  • $1,649
  • $1,329
  • $2,726
  • $2,208
  • $2,435
  • $3,000
  • $2,500
  • $2,000
  • $1,500
  • $1,000
  • $500

$0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ULS - ULS - Funding Gap t unding Gap to 75th P 75th Peer P eer Percentile entile

PEERS FUNDING GAP PER FTE

  • $22.4 Million

Total

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

FY 08- FY 08-09 FY 11-1 Y 11-12 FY 1 Y 12-13 FY 1 Y 13-14 Dif iffere rence % Grambling

700 541 562 507

  • 193
  • 28%

Tech

1,190 1,077 1,042 987

  • 203
  • 17%

McNeese

870 766 715 689

  • 181
  • 21%

Nicholls

803 734 661 663

  • 140
  • 17%

Northwestern

943 763 746 751

  • 192
  • 20%

Southeastern

1,480 1,154 1,072 1,020

  • 460
  • 31%

UL Lafayette

1,951 1,939 1,967 2,021 70

4% UL Monroe

1,160 982 924 898

  • 262
  • 23%

UNO

1,355 963 920 840

  • 515
  • 38%

UL System

25 15 17 18

  • 7
  • 28%

TOTAL

10,477 8,934 8,626 8,393

  • 2,084
  • 20%
  • 20%

BUDGETED FULL TIME POSITIONS

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

$2,581 $2,609 $3,030 $3,322 $3,536 $3,590 $3,673 $3,834 $4,070 $4,472 $4,919 $5,568 $6,254 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000

AVERAGE SYSTEM TUITION

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

17

HISTORICAL ENROLLMENT

slide-17
SLIDE 17

BOR REQUESTED ISSUE: RESERVES

 National benchmark for reserve funds is from 12 to 15 per cent of expenditures, no ULS institution has any reserve balance at June 30, 2013.  The institutions do have restricted fund balances that they have been using to cover operating budget

  • shortfalls. During the 2013-2014 fiscal year

institutions report that they will use from $1 million to $7.25 million to offset the reductions in the

  • perating budget. Use of these restricted funds is

not sustainable and after this current fiscal year will no longer be available at certain institutions.

18

slide-18
SLIDE 18

BOR REQUESTED ISSUE: MANDATED COST

 Since 2009 the UL System appropriation has decreased by $122.3 million.  Mandated costs such as retirement, health insurance, and audit charges have continued to increase while the budget has decreased. These increases and inflation have mitigated savings.  For example, since 2009 salaries have decreased by $91 million (20%) but related benefits (retirement and health insurance) have increased by $18 million (13%), even with salary reductions.  In 2014-2015 audit fees will increase by 20%.

19

slide-19
SLIDE 19

BOR REQUESTED ISSUE: $10 MILLION

 Each management board received the same amount

  • f one-time funding to be used for deferred

maintenance and operations. Institutions are identifying projects these funds will support.  The UL Board approved the distribution to its nine institutions, ranging from $624,000 to $2.1 million based upon these factors:

  • 10% fiscal health calculations
  • 10% formula implementation
  • 80% pro rata of state funding (formula)

20