Budget Information
Session
October 8, 2012
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
CSU Budget Cycle
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
Fresno State Budget Cycle
Current
Fiscal Year
Governor’s Budget
CSU Budget Allocation
Fresno State Allocation
Fresno State Fiscal Planning Process
Level A Distribution – as approved by the President
Academic Calendar/Fiscal Planning
Aug -Sept
January
September - October November - Potential Adjustments
February - April
May Revise
January – Governor’s Budget
June – July Revisions
State Appropriations
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.
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
Level A Allocation – Historical View
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.
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
State Appropriations
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
Level A Allocation – Divisions & Central
$250
90%
In
$200
$150
$100
77%
$36
$120
79%
$34
$83
78%
$38
72%
68%
$49
$57 63%
$71
$85
$96
$75
63%
$90
62%
$121 $120
$128
80%
70%
60%
62%
56%
$127 $131 $125
$97 $105
57%
56%
$137 $139
53%
$114 $128 $123 $120
50%
40%
30%
$50
20%
Centrally Managed Resources
Division Budget
10%
% of Division to Total Level A
$-
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Change in Student Fee Tuition
$12,000
40%
$11,160
State University Tuition
35.8%
Nonresident Tuition Fees
$10,170
% Change of SUF
32.1%
$9,000
30%
29.4%
$8,460
$7,380
$5,970
$6,000
$5,472
$4,026
14.1%
$4,230
$3,048
$2,772
$2,334 $2,520 $2,520
10.0% 10.0%
$2,046
8.0%
$3,000
10%
9.1%
$1,428 $1,428 $1,5075.5%
$-
2000
5.1%
0.0%
2001
0%
0.0%
2002
20%
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Comparison of State Appropriation to Student Fee Tuition & SUG
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
Centrally Monitored Resources
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.
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
•
•
•
•
•
Central Reserve
President’s Reserve
Revenue Reserve
Strategic Plan
Cal State Teach
Centrally Monitored Resources
2006-2007
Risk Pool
$3,992,188
5%
Benefits Pool
$38,419,492
52%
SUG
$15,541,320
21%
Compensation
Pool
$5,446,542
Utilities Reserve
7%
5,330,472
7%
Central Reserves
$3,028,071
4%
Summer Arts
Cal State Teach
$340,000
$500,000 1%
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
Work Study
$792,154
1%
Strategic Plan
$1,150,000
2%
Centrally Monitored Resources
2012-2013
Risk Pool
$4,405,872
4%
SUG
$40,702,520
39%
Benefits Pool
$46,908,298
45%
Utilities
Reserve
$7,742,472
7%
Central Reserves
$2,450,083
2%
Compensation
Cal State Teach
Pool
$500,000 Misc Allocation
$342,280
$ (107,200)
1%
0%
0%
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
Work Study
$792,154
1%
Strategic Plan
$1,150,000
1%
Other Funding Considerations
•
•
•
•
Reimbursed Activities • Health Fees
Trust Funds
• Parking
Lottery Fund
Revenues
CERF Fund
• Interest Earnings
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
Campus Fiscal Planning
Considerations
Campus 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
or carryforward funds) are depleted once they are spent.
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
Campus 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.
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
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
Bridge Funding:
.
Source: Office of Budget & Resource Planning
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
Academic Operations
Recruitment and Start-up
Reserve
Other
• ….And the actual dollars?
91.8%
4%
1.6%
2%
0.5%
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
Reserve
Total from level A
417,938
1,675,490
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
CAH
Level B
model
PassThroughs
One time
Cohort
Total
13,440,498
258,167
245,000 111,894
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
TOTALS
65,885,653
8,917,768
1,000,000 555,378
14,055,559
4,908,604
76,358,799
Pass Throughs
Item
Service learning coordinator
Amount
College
$9,063
CAH
$16,698
CAH
$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
$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
University Art Galleries
Writing Skills
University veterinarian
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%
61,012,049
100%
TOTALS
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.
General Fund
Allocation after
Level B
Final
Allocation
Table
FTES Targets as
negotiated by Deans
Faculty “costs”
3 yr RI Average
RI Average
10 Yr Average
FTEF Average
CY RI and FTEF
CY FTEF
CY Relative
Index
Course “costs”
Calculated FTES
Calculated M&L SFR
FTES-HL
M&L SFR
Sum of FTES
Look-up tables
CS Table New
No. of Majors
Enrollment, course data
APDB Data
Report
Acad Org Codes
Look-up table with K factors
School
Data
SFR Factors
SFR Averages of Univ.
SFR Data
SFR-LL of University
Enrollment Limits
High and Low
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
operation.
– 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)
Typical Percentage Allocations of Gross
Program Revenues
Typical Percentage Allocations
of Net Income
1%
4%
15%
State Controller's Office 1%
Chancellor's Office - 4%
Schools/College - 60%
40%
Reimbursement to
University - 15%
51%
29%
Continuing and Global
Education - 29%
Program Expenses (Faculty
Salaries, etc) - 51%
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:
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
* 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.