.
The presentation is designed at a very high level with three sections:
Section 1:
• Board policy framework
• Control and compliance environment
Section 2:
• Operating budget
• Allocation framework
Section 3:
• Capital investment program
The Board’s primary role is to set fiscal policy and carry out responsibilities
defined in state statute, law or board policy. In general, Board policy is
constructed so to focus the Board’s attention on the “big picture” and the future,
while ensuring that proper policies, procedures and systems are place to ensure
fiscal integrity.
State Statute generally delegated to the Board “ all powers necessary to govern
the state colleges and universities and all related property” to administer the
system. (MSA 136F. 06)
Of course, by separate acts, the legislature can take back to itself any of those
powers, and occasionally has. Capping tuition in law, 60/120 credit requirement,
stopped ATC closing.
Statute goes on to say that “the Board’s powers shall include, but are not limited
to,( with paraphrasing) … set tuition and fees, enter into contracts and other
agreements, and adopt suitable polices for the institutions it governs” .
This section of the statute goes on to say “ To the extent practicable in protecting
statewide interests, the board shall provide autonomy to the campuses while
holding them accountable for their decisions”.
State statute has reserved some powers to the legislature including: appointment
of trustees, institutional missions, establishment of new permanent sites, final
approval of all labor contracts, sale of general obligation bonds, Rev Fund total
indebtedness, Administrator personnel plan design and salary schedule.
Board policy in turn has sorted those powers between those it reserves to itself
and those it delegates in turn to the chancellor.
Board Policy 1A. 2
Subpart B. Finance and Facilities Committee. The finance and facilities
committee of the board shall consist of no fewer than five and no more than
seven members to be appointed by the chair annually. The finance and
facilities committee is charged with oversight of all systemwide fiscal,
facility and technology matters, matters related to system pension
plans, and oversight of system/ foundation relations and
development. This includes biennial budget development, tuition,
allocation formula, capital budget requests, and annual gifts and grants
reports.
You will note that Finance and Administration Board policy statements are
uniformly constructed to establish:
• a Policy statement,
• related authorities,
• responsibilities and
• accountability /reporting
Chapters 5,6 and 7 went through a substantial re-structuring in 2000. The rewrites aligned Board policy with national higher education standards, add policy
where gaps identified and reorganized procedures accordingly.
Since then, policies have been reviewed in accordance with the Board’s 5 year
review policy.
You will also see links to Chancellor’s procedures related to the policy.
Generally board policy concerning finance and administration is contained in
policy chapters 5,6 and 7. The issues rising to Board approval have changed
some since the time of the merger. Most of the movement has been out of policy
into procedure. For example; $1M contract approval changed to $3M, C/U
master Plan approvals delegated
SO you can see from the list, the Board approves substantial items of policy –
• long term financial policy issues ( reserves, bond sales, Retirement
program admin, Biennial budget request)
• major revenue and expense items (annual budgets, tuition rates,
revenue fund room and board rates, contracts over $3M)
• long term asset alterations (Acquisitions/dispositions) and
• mutli-year planning documents.( capital budget, technology master
plan)
These actions are prescribed in Board policy chapters 5,6 and 7.
For some scaling – From 2010 -2012 –
# of $3M contracts approved by the Board - 12 or apprx 4/year
# of land sales – 5 or 1-2/year
# of acquisitions ( policy to board where more that !% of C/U annual
revenue) – 5 or 1-2/year
Bond sales generally every other year
The Board has delegated general authority to the chancellor in Board policy
1A3.
Part 4. Delegation. The chancellor is delegated full authority and responsibility
consistent with the duties of chief executive officer to take actions required for
the system to function appropriately in accordance with board policy, system
procedures, guidelines, and applicable federal and state law, including but not
limited to:
• Following any board action required by board policy, signing and execution of all legal
and financial documents on behalf of the board, including contracts, agreements,
instruments relating to real and personal property transactions, and other legal papers;
• Delegating parts of the chancellor’s authority to employees under the chancellor’s
direct supervision; and
• Appointment of personnel, development and enforcement of personnel programs,
discipline and termination, and signing collective bargaining agreements following
board approval.
This delegation is conditioned upon ongoing compliance with applicable statutes and
law, board policies, system procedures, guidelines, and other applicable state and
federal regulations and policies. The delegation expires upon termination of the
chancellor’s employment or as otherwise determined by the board.
That general delegation is modified by Board policy to grant or limit authority as
shown above. The chancellor then delegates some authority to the presidents
who in turn delegate some authority to their staff. All delegations occur according
to policy and procedure and are done in writing.
You will note that the delegation architecture cascades with authorities
narrowing as policy and procedure move from the Board to the chancellor to
presidents.
Presidents are authorized to delegate some of their authorities to their
employees so long as the principle of not deleting ALL powers is upheld.
The Board has a policy and the chancellor has a procedure in place for
assigning full presidential powers to an acting president in the event of a
presidential leave of absence. (Policy 4.2 part 2)
My office has procedures in place to monitor compliance with the above
authorities.
The control Environment at MnSCU is very layered. The Board, the chancellor
and the presidents all have oversight and monitoring methods.
The Audit committee annual approves an audit workplan which lays out the audit
strategy for the upcoming year. Board policy 1D1 office of Internal Auditing
contains authority and responsibility for the Internal Auditor.
Board policy 5.10 Reserves and year end balances articulates the Board’s
expectation for cash reserve maintenance by the system office and the C/U.
Annual Audit committee discussion of the financial statements has conveyed the
Board’s interest in improvements in UNA and the Composite Financial Index
(CFI).
The CFI is established in procedure 7.3.16 Financial Health and Compliance
Indicators as a reportable measure. The index weights two income statement
performance measures (primary reserve and operating margin) and two balance
sheet measures ( viability and return on net assets) and generates a normalized
expression of C/U’s financial condition.
The index is reported to the Higher learning Commission and subject to added
oversight if it falls below their threshold level. (most colleges add the foundations
# when calculating the CFI for the HLC)
MnSCU was an early adapter of this methodology and had a hand in its design
at the commission level. We have used it for financial planning, monitoring and
oversight for 8 years and find it a useful tool for long term financial health and
performance planning. (non-audited 4-5 years)- 8 years systemwide (7- audited)
Similarly, the facilities condition index is an expression of deferred maintenance
as a % of asset value. (Backlog @$775M/replacement value @ $7.2B = .12%)
The Board has been supportive of a 10 year plan for deferred
maintenance/facility renewal which has as its goal reduction by 50 % of current
deferred maintenance accruals. We manage Cap investment and facility master
plans with a goal of impacting these numbers on a per campus basis.
Board policy requires the system office to report to the BOT on the financial wellbeing of the system and each college and university. The system office oversees
the financial health of the system and its institutions through monitoring,
reporting and certification requirements.
In a system of 31 institutions, significant levels of responsibility rest with our
presidents. These responsibilities include administrative, financial, and budget
management. The Board, chancellor and Finance division have a series of
assurance/monitoring/red flag processes to monitor activities;
Annual financial statements –
presented to the Board
reviewed by VC,
Trends and highlights meetings -
VC
Accountability dashboard review
with annual chancellor’s
Workplan and work product of internal Audit –
Board
approved/reviewed by the
Operating budget review process-
VC and Chancellor
Accounting watch list procedures –
VC level reporting
Facilities reviews -
VC/AVC review
Financial Health Indicators: These replaced our earlier Exception reporting
process with more robust analytics - CFO’s must certify quarterly that they are in
compliance with board-approved financial measurements. Financial concerns
that cannot be resolved are brought to the attention of the board though
exception reporting.
Short Term Financial Health Indicators include:
1. Repair and replacement spending of at least $1 per square foot.
2. The absence of bank overdrafts
3. Monthly MnSCU to SWIFT reconciliation
4. Monthly Bank Reconciliations
Longer Term Financial Health Risk Factors Include:
1. Negative accrual based net operating revenue
2. Low accrual primary reserve levels
3. Low CFI scores
========================================
Concludes the presentation concerning the control environment:
Starts in Statute
Board policy shapes overall environment
Chancellor administers
Board, chancellor VC and presidents all have assurance practices.
These next few slides focus on MnSCU’s operating budget.
The primary factors influencing revenues:
1) The state economic outlook sets the budget parameters for the state: Is the
state facing a surplus or deficit?
2) Public support for higher ed: Is public higher education a budget priority?
How does it compare to other priorities (K-12, health care, etc.)?
3) The tuition rate structure determines how much tuition revenue is generated;
rate changes can also impact enrollment.
4) Enrollment has become increasingly important as state funding falls and
reliance on tuition increases. Changes in enrollment can have a significant
impact on tuition revenues and enrollment projections take on increased
importance.
5) The availability of financial aid can also have a significant impact on
enrollment.
On the expense side, the primary cost driver is compensation, accounting for
66% of MnSCU’s all-funds expenditures. Compensation costs are determined
by negotiated contracts with our faculty and statewide bargaining units (MAPE,
MMA & AFSCME). While we negotiate directly with our three faculty units, the
state negotiates the contracts for the statewide bargaining units.
The state also negotiates the benefit package of state employees, including
MnSCU faculty and staff. Thus, a significant portion of our compensation
expenses are not directly controlled by MnSCU.
Enrollment changes can also drive costs up or down. MnSCU’s ability to
anticipate and respond to changes in enrollment is critical to our ability to
manage revenue and costs.
The cost of maintaining and developing enterprise wide systems, such as ISRS,
is a significant cost driver. Economies of scale and efficiencies can be gained
through enterprise wide applications, but there are challenges in meeting the
needs of all institutions with enterprise systems. Currently, we budget $19.7
million in state funding for enterprise technologies.
With 31 institutions, 54 campuses and an estimated 27 square ft in building, the
cost of operating, maintaining and preserving our physical plant is an important
cost driver. Current board policy calls for $1 square foot investment each year In
repair and replacement spending. Colleges and universities spent $1.22/ft in
2011.
The 2012 numbers are preliminary pending completion of the financial statements
Total 2012 preliminary Revenue of $1.879B
Net tuition and financial aid accounted for almost half of revenues in FY 12. As
tuition and financial aid revenue grow increasingly important as a revenue
source, it is critical to understand and anticipate enrollment trends.
Tuition revenue net of financial aid at
$539M
financial aid applied of
$314M
equals total gross tuition revenue of
$853M
Fully 37% of tuition revenue is derived from state and federal financial aid
programs.
($354 is the financial aid applied to the students accounts including tuition, fees,
room and board - - additional $35 million paid directly to students)
Total revenues have increased 27 percent over the past eight years. Most of the
increase has appeared on the gross tuition line. Financial aid revenue has
grown by approximately $208 million from $146 million to $354 million from FY
2004 levels.
In FY 2004, financial aid accounted for 27 percent of gross tuition. By 2012,
financial aid accounted for 37 percent of gross tuition.
Other revenue includes auxiliary income ( sales, room and board)
2004
2012
change
Tuition
$463M
$539M
1.16%
Financial aid
$208M
$314M
1.51%
Total
$671M
$853M
1.27%
Salaries represent $915M and 50% of total expenditures in 2012
Benefits include FICA, health insurance, dental and other insurance, retirement,
and tuition waiver. In 2012, benefits accounted for 16% of all expenditures
($288M)
Purchased Services examples include technology maintenance and support
services, major software purchases, equipment rental, advertising, printing,
travel reimbursement, utilities
Supplies include non-capitalized equipment (lower cost equipment), software,
lab supplies, other supplies and materials.
Utilities could be in either Supplies or Purchased services. Our annual energy
costs are approx $32M, predominately for electricity.
The components as a percent of total have remained stable over the past 10
years.
Total expenses have risen 33 percent over the past ten years, with the
components rising proportionally.
Note: Other includes financial aid paid to students, repair and replacement,
depreciation.
Total Revenue has declined
2.9% from 2010 to 2012
Total Expenses have declined
2.7%.
Gross margin remained flat at
3.4 - 3.6%
A positive gross margin is the single most powerful means for a C/U to improve
its CFI, or protect it from downward forces on the balance sheet; most typically
cased by year to year capEx changes.
Important to put the margin in perspective:
1 payroll cycle
$46M
1% change down in enrollment
$8M
10% unallottment
$5.5M
1% increase in payroll
$12m
Note: This is all funds- total operating and nonoperating revenue and expenses.
Does not include the capital appropriation revenue or the other misc below the
lines- donated assets, etc.
This slide starts a series of slides that many of you have seen before. I will move through
them quickly but wanted to include them for they tell a powerful story about how this system
has managed itself over the past five-ten years.
Total state support per FYE has fallen 45% since 2000 in inflation adjusted dollars.
Disinvestment in Mn higher educations has been deeper than all but 8 other states over this
period.
In response, colleges and universities implemented strategies to reduce spending, including:
•
The increased productivity of our faculty and staff
•
Wage freeze
•
Cuts in administrative costs
•
More efficient use of space
Tuition has had to increase to offset some of the decline in the state’s investment in higher
education.
13
This slide illustrates credit hours taught per instructional faculty –
The productivity of our faculty has improved significantly – up over 12%
(Note: we do not have the information to update this slide. Info provided by
Craig S.)
14
Over past 12 years, real cost (inflation adjusted) of educating a MnSCU student
is down 10%.
Slide 15 is General Fund (Cash) and slide 17 is all funds (audited financial
statements).
Note: This slide shows the expenditures per FYE student based on general fund
expenditures
15
Over the past decade, the per student revenue from tuition and state
appropriation has remained fairly constant when adjusted for inflation.
In other words, FYE enrollment levels have increased 22%, tuition rates have
gone up and state support has declined = total spending levels per FYE
remained flat.
Contrary to the popular press, tuition increases have not fueled runaway
spending.
They have enabled:
flat to declining per FYE spending and continued access to growing demand
all in the presence of sharply declining state support.
Note: this is only state appropriation and tuition (cash), and does not include all
revenue sources.
The last slide looked at total state and tuition revenues – this slide shows total
expenses across all funds, so it includes auxiliary and revenue funds most notably.
. When total expenses are adjusted for inflation, you see a decline in per FYE
spending of 12% over the past ten years.
Note: Slide 15 is General Fund (Cash) and slide 17 is all funds (audited financial
statements). Also, the expenditures in FY 10-12 were adjusted to allow for
comparison over time. In FY 2010, changes were made to the way costs of goods
sold were handled in the financial statements.
The operating budget environment for our C/U has been stable over the short
term. Our presidents and campus leaders have shown great leadership and
student care in balancing budgets these past ten years.
But we are also subject to some strong long term pressures and long term risk.
• Enrollment – demographic trends, college readiness, geographic
distribution
• Tuition and Revenue – Student ability to pay, family and individual
debt loads, dispersion of current tuition rates, competitive pricing
pressure
• Financial Aid Revenue – Federal program growth rates, state budget
support for state program, growing student dependency
• Gifts and Fundraising – commitment to expansion, capacity building,
• State Support – Long run state budget outlook
• Wage and Benefit Costs – national and regional competitive markets,
employee retirement trends
The chancellor anticipates some attention on the system’s long term financing
strategy as part of the work on the Strategic Framework. These and other
questions will form the basis for that work.
The next six slides provide an overview to the allocation framework and the
methodology used to allocate state-appropriated operating dollars throughout
the system.
I was asked as a part of this presentation to spend some time with the allocation
Framework. I understand the subject arose at the Board’s Sept retreat and
interest in learning more about it expressed.
We use the name ALLOCATION FRAMEWORK to refer to the staff designed
and Board approved method for allocation of state support.
==========Review Slide ===========
The current allocation framework provides the flexibility to fund priority initiatives
and systemwide services, while at the same time providing significant levels
base funding to our colleges and universities through a data-driven allocation
model.
In 2013, the Board was allocated $545M by the legislature.
These State funding were distributed in three ways:
1) $467M - the funding that goes directly to colleges and universities as priority
funds or as base allocations;
2) $ 43M - the funding that is used to support systemwide services such as
enterprise technology, debt service, system audit program, leadership
transition, PALS and repair and replacement
3) $ 33M - The funding that is used to support the system office which is
currently provided through a specific line-item appropriation from the
legislature.
The model was developed in 2000-2001;partial implementation began in 2002
and full implementation in 2006. In FY2000, 40% of total revenue ran through
the model (62% of Gen Fund revenue). In FY2013, as a result of the decline in
state support, only 26% of total revenue runs through the model (36% of gen
fund revenue).
20
Efforts were made in the past five years to move as much of the state support as
possible into the base allocation and out of special initiatives. The base
allocations are the most flexible funds distributed through the model.
This slide illustrates how state funds are distributed through the allocation
framework. The allocation is approved by the Board as a part of the annual
operating budget approval each spring.
• 8% of the funding is allocated to systemwide set asides to fund
services such as enterprise technology and the system audit program that are
provided across the system; (FY2013 = $43M)
• 3% is allocated to colleges and universities as priority funds for
programs such as access and opportunity. Priority funding can be determined
by the board or the legislature through the budget process. ( 15.6M)
• 83%The majority of the funding is allocated to the colleges and
universities as “base” allocation. ($450M)
• The allocation framework determines funding levels based on each school’s
instructional cost, enrollment, and other factors.
• The allocation framework determines each school’s funding levels based on
these factors, but each college and university is given a great deal of
discretion over how these funds are spent.
• That is, funds allocated through the administrative and student support module
do not have to be spent on administrative and student support.
The proportions allocated through each portion of the framework has been fairly
constant over the past ten years with the exception of a 2% drop in the facilities
portion and a corresponding 2% increase in Administrative and Student Services.
• Finally, funding for the system office is provided by a line item appropriation
from the legislature, current funding levels are at $33 million per year.
One important component of the allocation framework is the instructional cost
study. You can find the cost study on our web site.
This annual analysis looks at the cost of instruction at the program or CIP-level.
The costs are “fully allocated “ costs, that is they include both direct and indirect
costs for each C/U applied at the program level.
Using data from the instructional cost study, state funding is distributed to
colleges and universities based on their program mix, their enrollment and the
cost of delivering their educational programs.
The allocation model takes into account the different costs of programs. It
recognizes that some programs, such as ground transportation, are expensive
to provide , while others, such as anthropology, are relatively inexpensive. In
addition, the model takes into account the fact that the cost of delivering the
same program can differ between institutions.
To do this, the model calculates the average cost of delivering a program
throughout the system and calculates a 10 percent band around that average
(10 percent above the average and 10 percent below the average). Colleges
and universities are funded based on whether they fall within the bands.
Institutions operating the below the band are brought up to the “low band”
funding level; those operating above the band are brought down to the “high
band” funding level.
C/U are completely free to spend more than 110%, they simply have to make it
up somewhere else in their program mix in order to break even in the AF.
While the model is complex, it allows us to recognize the diversity of programs
offered and costs of offering programs throughout the system.
It is worth noting that we have watched and measured the effects and trends in
college/university spending as a result of the Framework. We have a staff group
that serves as a Technical Advisory Group and annually studies
elements/dynamics where concerns have emerged.
We have also been very sensitive to concerns raised about access to technical
education.
We find that the framework has driving very minor re-distribution +/-1% between
the college/university sectors over the past ten years.
This is attributed both to enrollment improvements system wide and aggressive
and competitive cost management by the colleges/universities.
The framework was designed to accommodate different program spending
levels and we find that it continues to do so.
It is worth noting however, that the Framework can only distribute what the state
provides us, and that has declined over $100M since the methodology was first
approved.
Chancellor Rosenstone launched a discussion about the Framework early in his
first year.
The discussion with the Leadership Council reviewed the system’s revenue
environment, examined revenue and cost allocation methods, looked at existing
cost sharing principles and devoted substantial leadership time to the current
Framework’s strengths and opportunities.
The questions on the slide represent the core questions that emerged from the
discussion.
The Board will most certainly be brought into our work on this issue in the
months ahead. The chancellor has asked us to set it aside while the Board’s
Strategic work groups proceed. I would expect more committee time on this
matter in winter 2013/spring 2014.
===================================================
Concludes the presentation on the operating budget and the allocation
framework:
Introduced primary revenue and expense drivers
Provided overview of 2012 revenue and expenses
Introduced the allocation framework
Our final section concerns capital improvement financing.
Some would say that one of the principle motivations for the merger law 20
years ago was a legislative desire to rationalize and control the capital budget
process on behalf of the three predecessor systems.
We have succeeded in doing that.
MnSCU has a very mature capital planning process which begins with:
C/U master facility plans
Bi-annual capital project evaluation
Board guidelines tied to the Strategic plan
Successful on budget, on schedule construction execution
Strong legislative support – process credibility and execution credibility
We have established pathways for GO and RF support. We have had very little
investment from outside sources through gifts, or other vehicles.
Our capital assets are valued on our balance sheet at cost, net of depreciation.
The values on our balance sheet do not represent replacement value. As such,
the book value is vastly understated.
Estimated replacement value of $7.2B
MnSCU has stewardship for 27 M Sq Ft of academic, residential and athletic
facilities in 54 locations around the state.
22M
5M
Academic, Administrative
Residential and Athletic
The average age of our building stock exceeds 40 years. The universities were
largely build before 1970,with buildings that average more than 50 years old.
The oldest, WSU, predates statehood and has several original buildings still
standing.
The technical colleges date as far back as the mid 30s, while the community
colleges were largely built between 1960 and 1980.
Our current space management data system is tracking 3,000 rooms with credit
generating capacity.
SU
585 classrooms; 269 labs
C/TC
1,277 classrooms; 909 labs
Note: Other = college housing projects at Itasca, FDTCC, RRCC and Vermillion.
Slide illustrates funding levels, not spending level
Over 10 years, from 2000-2010 Governor and leg approved GO bonds of apx
$1.137B.
[or $7,302 per FYE ranging from high of $14,000/FYE at FDTCC to a low of
$3,305/FYE at ARTCC]
Our requests have had Asset repair and preservation funds as the number one
priority since 1998. this Board, and all its predecessors recognized that we had
a first obligation to care for the facilities that came to us with the merger.
Our long term asset reinvestment program relies on :
State support for HEAPR
$110M/bonding cycle
C/U operating budget investments at $1/Foot/Year
$42M/biennium
at
Capital improvement Programs
modeled
$108M
Total planned revenues
$260M
Uses:
Annual renewal investments
$180M/biennium
Annual Backlog investments
$70M/biennium
Total uses:
$260M
Current estimates of deferred maintenance total $750M ($650M GF and $110
RF)
Our C/U average $1.20/per square foot in annual repair and replacement
spending from operating budget funds. Equated to $26M in 2012
I mentioned FCI earlier today. It is a national benchmark for deferred
maintenance backlog and asset reinvestment rates.
FCI expresses the repair and replacement deficiencies as a percentage of
current replacement value for the assets.
Since the public sector does not book Replacement value, standards of use have
emerged to enable the FCI to be useful both as an absolute value and more
importantly as a trend.
MnSCU’s FCI has been stable around .12 after ten years of public investment.
That is an indication of the size of our physical plant and the annual investment
levels required.
Over the years, this Board has several times adopted a general capital
investment plan:
which targets 3% of annual general fund operating budgets as the debt
service goal and
contemplates $150M/biennium in new CapEx, exclusive of HEAPR.
The model is re-run every two years to update enrollment, revenue and cap ex
spending assumptions. You will see a new run next spring as a part of the 2014
capital budget plan.
The 3% was designed to mirror the State of Mn policy, which has since been
modified effectively upward.
The above slide illustrates that debt service accounts for a very small share of
total spending each year.
A few notes about practices:
The state charges us 1/3 the debt cost for program improvement funds and -0for asset renewal funds.
So, the above chart is substantially understated.
If we looked at this chart for the state, you would see all our HEAPR bonds and
2/3 of the program improvements bonds
Within MnSCU, current practice allocates 50% of the 1/3 annual debt service
costs to the C/U that received the project and pays the other 50% with funds we
withhold from the state allocation.
This is Board policy and subject to change. The Board’s view is that this practice
would introduce some regulation into C/U capital planning and we have seen that
effect.
Note: Expenditures taken from audited financial statements from 2005 to 2011.
We have reviewed the policy and control environment
Had a discussion of the operating budget outlook
And a brief introduction to the system’s physical plant.
I hope you are comforted that board policies are well framed , the financial
environment is stable, and capital planning is well focused.
The goal of the finance leaders across the system is to provide a stable,
predictable, environment and sound advice for leadership. In that way, strategic
academic and student success plans can be conceived and executed.
There are several issues ahead that make this goal of predictability a challenge.
============Review list==================
The chancellor and all the members of the LC, presidents and cabinet members
are working together to advance the strategic framework in the face of these
uncertainties.
Thank you
Note: Looming Fiscal Cliff if unaltered:
Broadly, all education accounts, except for Pell, will be reduced by 8.2 %. In
addition to education accounts, institutions that receive federal funds through
research grants which are funded in fiscal year 2013 as a continuation of a
previous year’s award would be reduced by 8.2 % as well. Institutions that
receive funds through TRIO, Title III programs, or Title V programs should also
plan for reduced funding.
The total estimated impact on MnSCU is $6m in 2013 programs, includes $2.5m
in federal financial aid support.