© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 1 © 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. BUDGET MODEL REDESIGN STEERING COMMITTEE #6 April 07, 2020 DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 1 © 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
BUDGET MODEL REDESIGNSTEERING COMMITTEE #6
April 07, 2020
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2
Discussion Topics
Huron is pleased to continue conversations with the Steering Committee, with this content intended to focus primarily on revenue allocations, cost pool allocation options, and a central funding mechanism.
Meeting Agenda
1. Decision Points Recap
2. Revenue Allocations
3. Cost Pool Allocations
4. Central Funding Mechanism
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3
DECISION POINTS
1
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4
Huron’s ApproachHuron continues to take an iterative approach to develop a pro forma budget model using actuals financial data from UCCS’s most recent fiscal year (FY2019). The Steering Committee has guided the model philosophy and structure and is actively engaged in conversation around model rules.
Philosophy
Structure
Allocation Rules & Incentives
Customizations and Local Adaptions
Flo
w o
f D
ec
isio
n P
roc
es
s
▪ Philosophy – reflects the university’s desired financial
management model, considering elements such as
centralization, authority, accountability, and
responsibility
▪ Structure – reflects the elements of the model with
respect to scope of funds, categorization of operating
units, presentation of data, etc.
▪ Rules – reflects how the model will portray the
institution’s internal economy and drive behavior
▪ Customizations – reflects model tweaks to address
operational realities, institutional culture, and local unit
needs
Recommendations provided by the Steering Committee have been instrumental in developing and testing scenarios
in the FY19 actuals model.
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 5
Key Steps In Model DevelopmentThe Steering Committee has provided preliminary recommendations on the model’s organizational
framework and devolution of revenue. Cost allocations are the primary focus for today’s conversation.
Element Description
1. Organizational
Framework
▪ Categorization of organizational units
▪ Identification of how hybrid units (e.g., units that have revenue-generating and
support/service-provider components) fall into organizational unit categories
2. Devolution of
Revenue
▪ Identification of sources of revenues and methodology for allocation (formula vs. direct)
▪ Proposing specific incentives for: tuition and fee revenues, appropriations revenues, indirect
(F&A) research revenues
▪ Reviewing overall local vs. central management of revenue streams
3. Allocation of
Costs
▪ Discussing approach to sharing indirect costs to units to reflect full costs of activities
▪ Categorizing costs into cost pools and selecting allocation mechanism (i.e. driver) to share
costs
4. Use of
Subvention Pools
▪ Addressing the provision of resources for operating subsidies or strategic initiatives which
align with the institution’s mission or strategic plan, including a “tax” on revenues or central
retention of select revenue streams
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 6
Preliminary RecommendationsA recap of preliminary recommendations provided by the Steering Committee are documented below.
Element Description
Undergraduate
Tuition Allocation
▪ Tuition premia for Beth-El, Engineering, and Business allocated to College of Record
▪ Base tuition allocated 80% to College of Instruction; 20% to College of Record
Graduate Tuition
Allocation▪ Allocated 100% to College of Record
State Appropriations
(Pending)
▪ Preliminary discussion re: portion for central retention
▪ Preliminary discussion re: portion for research subsidy
▪ Remaining allocable portion allocated 80% to College of Instruction; 20% to College of Record
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 7
STATE APPROPRIATIONS AND F&A RECOVERY
2
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 8
State Appropriations Allocation OptionsThe allocation of state appropriations may follow a range of options. Institutions frequently allocate the
majority of appropriations in a manner similar to tuition; subsidies for research and central retention are
often considered as well.
DRAFT
A retention rate of 35% - 40% would approximate central retention of FFS.
Considerations:
• If centrally-retained
appropriations fund
administrative services “off-the-
top”, which units or functions
should receive the centrally-
retained funding?
• In the event of state
appropriation cuts, how would
the reduction be allocated?
State Appropriations
Allocable Portion Earmarked Portion
0 - 40%Central Pool
0 - 10%Research Subsidy
50 - 100%Instruction & Record
80%College of Instruction
20%College of Record
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 9
(In Thousands)Revenue
Units
Support
Units
Subvention
Pool Total
Revenue
Units
Support
Units
Subvention
Pool Total
Tuition & Fee Revenue 150,000 2,000 - 152,000 150,000 2,000 - 152,000
State Funding 40,000 2,000 - 42,000 20,000 22,000 - 42,000
Other Revenue 82,000 1,000 - 83,000 82,000 1,000 - 83,000
Total Revenue 272,000 5,000 - 277,000 252,000 25,000 - 277,000
Direct Costs (240,000) (30,000) - (270,000) (240,000) (30,000) - (270,000)
Margin Before Allocations 32,000 (25,000) - 7,000 12,000 (5,000) - 7,000
Cost Allocation (25,000) 25,000 - (5,000) 5,000 -
Margin After Allocations 7,000 - - 7,000 7,000 - - 7,000
Tax Assessment 10% (27,200) - 27,200 - 11% (27,200) - 27,200 -
Margin After Tax (20,200) - 27,200 7,000 (20,200) - 27,200 7,000
Subvention Assistance 23,200 - (23,200) - 23,200 - (23,200) -
Net Change in Fund Balance 3,000 - 4,000 7,000 3,000 - 4,000 7,000
Allocate All State Funds to
Schools/Colleges Retain $20MM of State Funds - A&S
Figures for illustrative purposes only
1
2
Total funding from state
is the same in both
scenarios, but
allocation amounts vary
Variance in revenue
and cost allocations
result in differing pre-
and post-allocation
margins
Tax assessment rates
fluctuate based on
taxable revenue base
and initial subvention
pool funding
3
1
2
3
1 2 3
DRAFT
State Funding Allocation Scenarios
Net change in fund
balance is the same in
all scenarios
4 4
4
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 10
While the decision to centrally retain state appropriations or allocate them to schools and colleges does not
change the total resources available to the institution, impacts on volatility exposure, tax rates, and flexibility
should be considered.
Central Retention Allocation
Pros Cons Pros Cons
▪ Reduces size of cost
pool allocations to
primary units
▪ Reduces state
appropriations
volatility risk for
primary units
▪ Reduces
transparency with
respect to strategic
investment/
subvention pool or
A&S costs
▪ Funding for strategic
investment/
subvention or A&S
costs primarily tied to
a singular, volatile
source
▪ Aligns revenue
allocation with
generation and
activity levels
▪ Diversifies taxable
sources of revenue
funding strategic
investment/
subvention fund
▪ Increased
transparency with
respect to A&S costs
▪ Schools and colleges
have limited ability to
influence total state
appropriations
▪ More directly
exposes schools and
colleges to volatility
How do the trade-offs associated with central retention versus allocation of state appropriations align with
the guiding principles or the Steering Committee’s vision for budgeting at UCCS?
DRAFT
Central Retention v Allocation
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 11
Indirect Cost Recovery (1 of 2)
UCCS currently utilizes a funding formula for the University’s indirect cost recovery (F&A), provided below.
F&A Distribution Today (UCCS):
DRAFT
Recovered Facilities &
Administration Costs
School, College,
Center, or
Institute(s)
VCAF VCAA Library
40% 27% 25% 8%
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 12
Indirect Cost Recovery (2 of 2)
Incentive-based models often allocate 100% of all F&A revenue to the unit performing the research. Support
units originally receiving budget from F&A recovery have their unit margins (net expenditures) allocated to
primary units.
Common Incentive-based F&A Distribution:
Considerations:
• Does the common practice for F&A distribution
resonate with UCCS?
• Would allocating 100% of F&A recovery to
academic units incentivize faculty to pursue
additional research?
DRAFT
Schools & Colleges
Recovered Facilities & Administrative Costs
Central Administration
100%
Cost Pool Allocations
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 13
COST POOL ALLOCATIONS
3
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 14
The activity-level metrics are used to allocate the net expenditures of each cost pool. Fluctuations in the
activity-level metrics do not lead to corresponding fluctuations in the size of the cost pools.
Illustrative Support Unit Cost Allocation CalculationThe graphic below is an illustrative example for a Student Affairs cost pool using “Student Headcount” as
the activity-level metric to further explain how support unit costs will be allocated to primary units.
Illustrative Student Affairs Cost Pool Net
Expenditures
Student Affairs Cost Pool Net
Expenditures$15M
Illustrative Student Headcount Metric
College Headcount (HC) HC %
College A 300 15%
College B 700 35%
College C 1,000 50%
College Total 2,000 100%
Illustrative Student Affairs Cost Pool
Allocation
College B
$5.25M
(35%)
• In this particular example, the Student Affairs cost pool
would allocate $7.5K per student headcount.
• In future years, this amount will vary depending on the
approved budget of the Student Affairs cost pool.
College C
$7.5M
(50%)
College A
$2.25M
(15%)
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 15
The following chart outlines UCCS’ cost pools as previously discussed, along with the potential allocation metrics.
Potential Cost Pool Allocations
UCCS Cost Pool Sample Components Potential Allocation Metrics
Facilities
• Building Maintenance
• Utilities
• Grounds & Custodial
• Mailroom
• Debt Service
• Deferred Maintenance
• Net Assignable Square Footage
• Weighted Square Footage
Administration &
Finance
• Human Resources
• Budget Office
• Controller’s Office
• Central Benefits Pool
• Strategic Enrollment
• Total Direct Expenditures
• Total Headcount
• Total Revenues
Exec Leadership &
Advancement
• Chancellor’s Office
• VC Strategic Initiatives
• Intercampus Cost Alloc
• Marketing & Communications
• General Counsel
• Univ Advancement
• Contingency & Cent
Funding Pools
• Total Direct Expenditures
• Total Headcount
• Total Revenues
Information
Technology• Information Technology
• Total Headcount
• Net Assignable Square Footage
For Discussion:
• Allocation of facilities costs can help establish a $/Square Foot cost that includes custodial and routine
maintenance, debt service, and reserves for deferred maintenance. What changes in space allocation and
management structures would help facilitate fair cost allocation?
• UCCS has limited influence over the rising cost of benefits. Would allocation (but continued funding) of benefit
costs help provide transparency and clarity around the “true cost” of employees?
• The CU-mandated Intercampus Cost Allocation and contingency reserves are necessary commitments. What is
the SC perspective on an off-the-top approach to funding these versus allocating to Primary Units?
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 16
The following chart outlines UCCS’ cost pools as previously discussed, along with the potential allocation metrics.
Potential Cost Pool Allocations
UCCS Cost Pool Sample Components Potential Allocation Metrics
Student Success
• Athletics
• Health & Wellness
• Student Success
• Student Life
• Dean of Students
• Student FTE
• Student Headcount
Academic Affairs
• Provost’s Office
• Excel Centers
• Undergraduate Education
• Graduate School
• Faculty Resource Center
• Faculty + Student Headcount
• Faculty + Student FTE
• Total SCH Instructed
Library • Library
• Faculty + Student Headcount
• Faculty + Student FTE
• Total SCH Instructed
Research • Research Office• Research Expenditures
• Direct + Indirect G+C Revenue
For Discussion:
• Do the functions of the Graduate School, and UCCS’ research and growth ambitions, warrant establishing a
discrete Graduate School cost pool?
• Institutions use a range of methods to establish a target contribution to deferred maintenance reserves
• The CU system is also evaluating potential policies for funding maintenance reserves.
• A percentage of building value or annual depreciation can serve as an estimate.
• What information is needed to help inform discussions around enhancing deferred maintenance reserves?
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 17
Institutional Student AidInstitutional aid – distinct from student aid expenses incurred directly by Schools and Colleges – may be
allocated in a variety of methods but is usually treated as a contra-revenue.
Net Institutional Aid
$14MM*
Graduate Aid
$1 MM
Undergraduate
Aid
$13 MM
Proposal:
Allocated as
discount rate
against tuition
allocation
Proposal:
Follows student
enrollment
DRAFT
Source: UCCS FY19 Actuals; Financial Aid Fund Utilization Report
Passthrough student aid dollars excluded from analysis
What institutional aid allocation scenarios should be modeled? What approaches achieve fairness and
transparency?
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 18
CENTRAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 19
One of the most critical elements of an incentive-based budget model is the creation of a pool (or pools) of
resources to address unit-level subsidies, university priorities, revenue growth strategies, and other
strategic initiatives.
Central Funding Mechanism
Central Funding Mechanism Overview
Rationale▪ The sum of the parts is not optimal for the whole therefore the university needs the ability and
flexibility to act as one entity with respect to key initiatives
Funding
Source
▪ Central funds are centrally retained and/or generated revenues purposed for mission and strategic
investment and subvention
Fund
Principles
▪ The Strategic Initiative Pool (and/or Subvention Pool) can be a useful management tool to help
fund long-term initiatives by advancing capital, provide critical subsidies to kick-start initiatives
▪ Funding size should enable leadership to “steer,” which will ultimately benefit the university mission
as a whole
▪ Funds provided to any unit should never be viewed as an annual entitlement only as a way to kick-start
initiatives
▪ A model can use a participation fee to generate the central fund, applying a participation rate to
selected revenues. Having a diverse revenue portfolio rather than a single source allows for stability
▪ Participation fees need to ensure “neutral starting points” at implementation; thus the rate needs to
be high enough to ensure surpluses are available to fill all Revenue Unit deficits
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 20
There are two main approaches that can be used to create a central pool of central resources for use in
supporting Strategic Initiative Pool and Subvention.
Central Funding Development
Does the Steering Committee want to develop a central funding pool by retaining revenues, assessing a
participation fee to select revenues, or a combination of both?
Revenue Retention Participation Fee
Description▪ Select revenues are centrally retained ▪ Participation fee is assessed to all revenue
generating units
Pros
▪ Provides a direct funding mechanism
▪ Relatively simple to implement (particularly if
revenues previously were not distributed)
▪ Considers various revenue sources
▪ Potential for growing size as the institution
experiences revenue growth
Cons
▪ Revenue often limited in terms of future
growth
▪ Funding size can be volatile due to lack of
revenue diversification
▪ Revenue retention dilutes strength of
incentives created through revenue
allocation
▪ Requires diligent assessment of initial rate
▪ Perception is influenced as rate increases due
to diminishing revenues being considered
It is important to distinguish the participation “fee” or “tax” applied to revenues to create the Strategic Initiative Pool and
Subvention Fund, from the cost allocations used to fund Support Units
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 21
APPENDIX
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 22 Figures for illustrative purposes only
1
2
Total funding from state
is the same in both
scenarios, but
allocation amounts vary
Variance in revenue
and cost allocations
result in differing pre-
and post-allocation
margins
Tax assessment rates
fluctuate based on
taxable revenue base
and initial subvention
pool funding
3
1
2
3
1 2 3
DRAFT
State Funding Allocation Scenarios
Net change in fund
balance is the same in
all scenarios
4 4
4
(In Thousands)Revenue
Units
Support
Units
Subvention
Pool Total
Revenue
Units
Support
Units
Subvention
Pool Total
Tuition & Fee Revenue 150,000 2,000 - 152,000 150,000 2,000 - 152,000
State Funding 40,000 2,000 - 42,000 20,000 2,000 20,000 42,000
Other Revenue 82,000 1,000 - 83,000 82,000 1,000 - 83,000
Total Revenue 272,000 5,000 - 277,000 252,000 5,000 20,000 277,000
Direct Costs (240,000) (30,000) - (270,000) (240,000) (30,000) - (270,000)
Margin Before Allocations 32,000 (25,000) - 7,000 12,000 (25,000) 20,000 7,000
Cost Allocation (25,000) 25,000 - (25,000) 25,000 - -
Margin After Allocations 7,000 - - 7,000 (13,000) - 20,000 7,000
Tax Assessment 10% (27,200) - 27,200 - 3% (7,200) 7,200 -
Margin After Tax (20,200) - 27,200 7,000 (20,200) - 27,200 7,000
Subvention Assistance 23,200 - (23,200) - 23,200 - (23,200) -
Net Change in Fund Balance 3,000 - 4,000 7,000 3,000 - 4,000 7,000
Allocate All State Funds to
Schools/Colleges Retain $20MM of State Funds - Subvention
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 23
State Appropriations: Research SubsidyA portion of state appropriations can be allocated to support research activity. The difference between an
institution’s calculated indirect research costs and effective recovery rate can help guide an initial
subsidy estimation.
DRAFT
46%44%
20%
2%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Calculated Negotiated Effective (Avg.)
FY19 Indirect Cost Recovery Rates Calculated Indirect Cost Recovery Rate 46.4%
Negotiated Indirect Cost Recovery Rate 44.0%
FY19 F&A Recovery $1,221,031
FY19 G&C Direct Expenses $6,234,439
FY19 F&A Effective Rate 19.6%
Target Subsidy (Calculated - Effective) 26.8%
Subsidy Value (Target * G&C Dir. Exp) $1,672,996
Allocable State Appropriations $27,900,000
% of State Approp 6%
Source: UCCS FY19 Actuals
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 24
State Appropriations: Allocations
Introducing a central retention of state appropriations reduces the total amount allocable to schools and
colleges, but also reduces the administrative unit margins or subvention fund tax rates.
DRAFT
$11,160,000 40%
$1,674,000 6%
$12,052,800 43%
$3,013,200 11%
$15,066,000 54%
Illustrative FY19 State Appropriations Allocation(Assumes 80/20 Split on Instruction/Record)
Central Pool Research Subsidy Allocated to College of Instruction Allocated to College of Record
How could state appropriation allocation rules align with and incentivize outcomes that are related to the
proposed state performance funding model?
Source: UCCS FY19 Actuals
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 25
State Appropriations: Allocation BenchmarkingHuron has helped many other institutions determine a research subsidization target. The institution’s
mission, research portfolio, and growth strategy heavily influence these calculations.
DRAFT
Source: Internal Huron Data
100%
100%
Follow Research Share
+ Encourages mission-based activities
+ Recognizes the need to subsidize
research
- Must consider legislative intent
- Increases dependency on tuition
revenue
0%
Follow Tuition Allocation
+ Promotes instruction and enrollment
activities
+ Often aligns with legislative intent
- Potential imbalance in funding model
- Increases risk for research portfolio
0%
Tuition
Research
Distribution of State Appropriations
50/50 56/44 64/36 88/12
University F
Limited Research
University A
Medical School
80/20
University E
Medium Research
University C
Research-Intensive
University B
Research-Intensive
77/23
University D
Medium Research
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 26
State Appropriations: COF & FFS
During the last SC meeting, central retention of a portion of state appropriations was discussed, along
with allocations to support research, instruction, and enrollment activities.
DRAFT
State appropriations comprise Colorado Opportunity Fund and Fee-for-Service revenues. While the split is
volatile on a year-to-year basis, the portion derived from Fee for Service has ranged from 32% - 40%.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
FFS
as %
of
Stat
e A
pp
rop
Stat
e A
pp
rop
riat
ion
s ($
MM
s)
Colorado Opportunity Fund & Fee-for-Service
COF FFS FFS %
Source: University of Colorado Current Funds Budgets
FY16 – 19 End of Year June Estimates; FY20 Original Budget Estimate
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 27
Revised PrinciplesTheme Summary Principle Interpretation
Alignment with
Mission
▪ The budget model should align with the core
mission and Strategic Plan and represent
institutional values.
▪ Connects with broad mission areas
▪ Reflects stakeholder input
Financial Authority,
Responsibility, &
Accountability
▪ The budget model should enable and
encourage budget management
responsibility and accountability across
units.
▪ Provides rewards for financial stewardship
▪ Decentralizes responsibility for resource
management
Transparency &
Trust
▪ The budget model and resource allocation
process should be transparent, offer
consistent communications, and foster
collaboration to instill trust between
decision-makers and stakeholders.
▪ Offers accessible data and communicates
rationale for decisions
▪ Transparency is needed in the budget
model development, implementation, and
operation
Equitable Resource
Allocation
▪ The budget model should provide an
equitable, mission driven, opportunity for
resources to be allocated across units.
▪ Provides adequate resources for both
primary and support units
▪ Sufficiently rewards units for generating
their own revenues and containing costs
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 28
Theme Draft Summary Principle Interpretation
Role of Support
Units
▪ The budget model should encourage growth
of net resources while also recognizing
the role of support units in promoting
student success and other mission-critical
outcomes.
▪ Recognizes need for adequately funded
central support services
▪ Creates multiple avenues of clear and
consistent communication among units
Clear & Consistent
Decision-making
▪ The budget model should incorporate
improved infrastructure and data-informed
decision making, providing an
understandable link between resource
allocation and revenue generation.
▪ Allows for reassessment of resource
allocation in future years
▪ Creates a fair, easily-understood set of
guidelines by which units are evaluated
Entrepreneurship &
Innovation
▪ The budget model should encourage
innovative practices while ensuring that
the necessary budget allocation to
existing core and general education are
sustained.
▪ Emphasizes ways to effectively use
resources
▪ Creates opportunities for new revenue
generation
Revised Principles
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 29
(In Thousands)Revenue
Units
Support
Units
Subvention
Pool Total
Revenue
Units
Support
Units
Subvention
Pool Total
Revenue
Units
Support
Units
Subvention
Pool Total
Tuition & Fee Revenue 150,000 2,000 - 152,000 150,000 2,000 - 152,000 150,000 2,000 - 152,000
State Funding 40,000 2,000 - 42,000 20,000 22,000 - 42,000 20,000 2,000 20,000 42,000
Other Revenue 82,000 1,000 - 83,000 82,000 1,000 - 83,000 82,000 1,000 - 83,000
Total Revenue 272,000 5,000 - 277,000 252,000 25,000 - 277,000 252,000 5,000 20,000 277,000
Direct Costs (240,000) (30,000) - (270,000) (240,000) (30,000) - (270,000) (240,000) (30,000) - (270,000)
Margin Before Allocations 32,000 (25,000) - 7,000 12,000 (5,000) - 7,000 12,000 (25,000) 20,000 7,000
Cost Allocation (25,000) 25,000 - (5,000) 5,000 - (25,000) 25,000 - -
Margin After Allocations 7,000 - - 7,000 7,000 - - 7,000 (13,000) - 20,000 7,000
Tax Assessment 10% (27,200) - 27,200 - 11% (27,200) - 27,200 - 3% (7,200) 7,200 -
Margin After Tax (20,200) - 27,200 7,000 (20,200) - 27,200 7,000 (20,200) - 27,200 7,000
Subvention Assistance 23,200 - (23,200) - 23,200 - (23,200) - 23,200 - (23,200) -
Net Change in Fund Balance 3,000 - 4,000 7,000 3,000 - 4,000 7,000 3,000 - 4,000 7,000
Allocate All State Funds to
Schools/Colleges Retain $20MM of State Funds - A&S Retain $20MM of State Funds - Subvention
Figures for illustrative purposes only
1
2
Total funding from state
is the same in both
scenarios, but
allocation amounts vary
Variance in revenue
and cost allocations
result in differing pre-
and post-allocation
margins
Tax assessment rates
fluctuate based on
taxable revenue base
and initial subvention
pool funding
3
1
2
3
1 2 3
DRAFT
State Funding Allocation Scenarios
Net change in fund
balance is the same in
all scenarios
4 4
4
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 30
The below example details how a cost pool allocation would work in practice – each allocation would
follow the same general formula.
Illustrative Cost Pool Allocation
Illustrative Allocation: Square Footage (SQFT)
Universities often allocate centrally-managed facility costs to primary units based on square footage, as it best depicts the
fluctuation of expenditures for the given unit (economic reality). The allocation formula is as follows1:
( )
−=
nnn SUSU
PU
PU
PU esExpenditurRevenuesSQFT
SQFTAllocation
n all of Sum
n
Primary Unit’s share of
square feet
Support Unit’s margin
or (net expenditures)
1 Allocation Formula Notes:
PU = Primary Unit; SU = Support Unit
For PUn, n represents each individual primary unit (academic units, centers & institutes, auxiliaries)
DRAFT
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 31
UCCS FY19 Actuals Funds Flow
DRAFT
Source: UCCS FY19 Actuals. Numbers may not sum to totals due to rounding
Admin Unit Expenses include central benefits, depreciation, intercampus cost
allocations, and other centrally-managed expense pools
Tuition &
Fees
$146.5M
(57.9%)
Institutional
Student Aid
($17.0M)
(-6.7%)
State
Approps.
$30.8M
(12.2%)
Grants &
Contracts
(incl Fin Aid)
$33.2M
(13.1%)
Auxiliaries
$34.5M
(13.6%)
Gifts
$8.9M
(3.5%)
Total
Revenues:
$253.3M
Central Pool
$138.3M (54.5%)
Colleges / Centers / Institutes
$18.4M (7.2%)
Admin. Units
$31.2M (12.3%)
Auxiliaries
$39.7M (15.7%)
$124.4M (85.0%)
$ - (0%)
$ - (0%)
$ - (0%)
$0.1M (0.5%)
$4.4M (3.0%)
$ - (0%)
$6.9M (20.7%)
$0.4M (1.3%)
$3.7M (41.6%)
$3.0M (18.5%)
$12.8M (8.7%)
$ - (0%)
$0.6M (1.8%)
$0.9M (2.6%)
$4.3M (48.3%)
$12.6M (77.1%)
$4.8M (3.3%)
$ - (0%)
$0.2M (0.5%)
$33.2M (96.1%)
$0.9M (10.1%)
$0.6 (3.7%)
Pass Through
$25.6M (10.1%)
$ - (0%)
$ - (0%)
$25.6M (77.0%)
$ - (0%)
$ - (0%)
$0.0M (0.1%)
$30.8M (100%) $ - (0%) $ - (0%) $ - (0%) $ - (0%)
Colleges / Centers / Institutes Admin. Units Auxiliaries Pass Through
$68.4M (27.8%) $113.4M (46.1%) $38.7M (15.7%) $25.5M (10.4%)
Total Expenses, Transfers, &
Other Uses: $246.1M
Misc.
$16.3M
(6.4%)
($17.0M) (100%)
Total Expenses/Transfers
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 32
Allocation of “subpools” based on residency or weighting of credit hours will increase complexity and may
heighten model sensitivity. Incorporation of additional data will change preliminary share calculations.
Preliminary Tuition Allocation SensitivitySignificant variance in the per-School/College share of instructed v enrolled credit hours increases the
model’s sensitivity to changing the allocation split. A preliminary review indicates moderate sensitivity for
Undergraduate Tuition and minimal sensitivity for Graduate Tuition.
DRAFT
Preliminary Fall 2018*
Business EducationEngineering &
Applied ScienceLetters, Arts, &
SciencesNursing &
Health SciencesPublic Affairs
UG - Instructed Credit Hours Share
11% 4% 9% 67% 6% 3%
UG - Enrolled Credit Hours Share
13% 4% 14% 54% 10% 5%
Grad - Instructed Credit Hours Share
17% 31% 11% 15% 16% 9%
Grad - Enrolled Credit Hours Share
17% 32% 11% 15% 16% 9%
*Model to base off Academic Year 2019 or multi-year average
Subtotals may not sum to 100% due to rounding Source: UCCS OIR
© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 33
The below illustration demonstrates how revenues and expenses – direct and allocated – flow through a model, resulting in the allocation of centrally-pooled revenue and A&S unit margins.
Illustrative Allocations
College 1 College 2 College 3 Central Pool Support Units Total
Direct Revenue $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 10,000 50 $ 16,050
Allocated Revenue 2,500 1,500 6,000 (10,000) -
Total Revenue 3,500 3,500 9,000 - 50 16,050
Direct Expenses 2,000 1,500 4,500 - 7,000 15,000
Pre-Allocation Margin 1,500 2,000 4,500 - (6,950) 1,050
Allocation of Support Unit Margin
(1,600) (1,550) (3,800) - 6,950 -
Post-Allocation Margin $ (100) $ 450 $ 700 $ - $ - $ 1,050
Under this illustrative model, Support Unit revenues are netted against Support Unit expenses to reduce
the Support Unit margin allocable to Colleges.
DRAFT