Budgets in the CSU CSU 101 March 8-11, 2009 Monterey Shawn Bibb, Vice President Administration and Finance Cal State East Bay.

Budgets in the CSU

CSU 101March 8-11, 2009

Monterey

Shawn Bibb, Vice President Administration and Finance

Cal State East Bay

Overview

Some Recent History Review the Compact between Governor and CSU Budget Calendar or Annual Budget Cycle Overview CSU Budgets from the perspective of

– State of California– Chancellor’s Office– Campus

Recent Changes effecting CSU Campus Budgets– CSU General Fund– Enterprise Funds– Other

March 2009 2Bibb

CSU Budget Adjustments, Fiscal Years 2002 - 2005

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 3 Year Total

General FundsBudget Reduction

(102.60) (373.70) (178.10) (654.40)

Fee Revenue Offset 20.00 167.00 101.50 288.50

Unfunded Mandatory Cost (22.80) (78.60) (57.50) (158.90)

Net Fiscal Impact (105.40) (285.30) (134.10) (524.80)

Retirement Costs 68.10 155.10 44.40 267.60

March 2009 3Bibb

Sample Campus

March 2009 4Bibb

Higher Education Higher Education CompactCompact

Long-term planning and fiscal stability to the CSU budget in light of state budget uncertainties

Predictable, moderate, and affordable increases in student fees and allocation of financial aid

Commitment to restore enrollment funding and offer students “authentic access”

Budget support that is consistent with funding levels provided to competing state priorities

March 2009 5Bibb

The Partnership

Governor’s partnership with the CSU– Commits to 4 % baseline funding in return for

educational outcomes CSU Commitment

– Ensuring Access– Maintaining Quality– Improve Academic Development– Contribute to California Economy

March 2009 6Bibb

Components of the Higher Components of the Higher

Education Compact Education Compact

Covers six years – 2005/06 through 2010/11 Adjustments to the base budget:

3% annual increase for 2005/06 – 2006/07 4% annual increase for 2007/08 – 2010/11

An additional 1% annual increase to the base budget for 2008/09 – 2010/11 for core academic needs

State will cover other basic adjustments such as annuitant dental benefits, retirement contributions and debt service

Identifies importance of restoring more competitive salaries for faculty and staff

March 2009 7Bibb

Governor’s Budget – Sources

March 2009 8Bibb

Governor’s Budget - Uses

March 2009 9Bibb

Governor’s Budget – Uses (in millions)

March 2009 10Bibb

March 2009 11Bibb

Break down of Higher Ed – Governor’s Budget

FTES – Governor’s Budget

March 2009 12Bibb

Compact Summary

Current Planning Basis

March 2009 13Bibb

Review the compact agreement for 2007-2008

4% increase over the prior year– $108.7M

2.5% enrollment funding for resident students– $65.5M

– 8,355 FTES

– Funded based on Marginal Cost Formula 10% fee increase

– $97.8M

March 2009 14Bibb

Let’s do the math

March 2009 15Bibb

2007-2008 Marginal Cost Used in Governor’s Budget

March 2009 16Bibb

Simple Version

Simple calculation for state support

March 2009 17Bibb

Simple Version

Not so simple for campus….

March 2009 18Bibb

Common misunderstanding by campus

State support = X Campus ACTUAL projected fee revenue = Y Campus estimates they will receive X + Y

WRONG!!!

State Support = X Marginal Cost Estimated Fee Revenue = Z Campus will receive X + Z

March 2009 19Bibb

Marginal Cost

March 2009 20Bibb

Enrollment Funding

Marginal Cost Formula– Based on expenditure data from the prior year for specific

components expressed as an average of total CSU FTES Faculty Salary and Benefits

– Average New Hire – Assistant Professor level– Student Faculty Ratio 18.9:1

Teaching Associates– Average 10-month Salary w/benefits

Instructional Equipment Instructional Support Academic Support Student Services Institutional Support Operations and Maintenance of Plant

– Currently being “re-worked”

March 2009 21Bibb

2008-09 CSU Budget (Compact)

Compact Revenue Assumptions General Operations (4%) $117 Million Enrollment Growth (2.5%) $67.5 Million Academic Infrastructure (1%) $29.2 Million Revenue Augmentation $73.2 Million Compact (General Fund) $286.9 Million Enrollment Growth Revenue $34.5 Million Total Compact Funding $321.4 Million

March 2009 22Bibb

2008-09 CSU Budget (Compact)

Expenditure Assumptions Mandatory Costs $34.3 Million Enrollment Growth (2.5%) $81.8 Million

(8,572 FTES, 11,000 students)

Compensation $155.2 Million Financial Aid $7.1 Million Long Term Need $43 Million

Total Compact Funding $321.4 Million

March 2009 23Bibb

CSU Enrollment Demand

325,545

334,198

342,8932,565

6,196

8,000

310,000

315,000

320,000

325,000

330,000

335,000

340,000

345,000

350,000

355,000

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Fiscal Year

FT

ES

Target Enrollment Over Target

Est.

($16M)

($45M)

($62M)

March 2009 24Bibb

2008-09 CSU Budget (Compact) Request

Revenue Assumptions General Operations (4%) $117.0 Million Enrollment Growth (3.5%) $94.5 Million

(12,001 FTES, 15,600 students)

Academic Infrastructure (1%) $29.2 Million Revenue Augmentation $73.8 Million Compact (General Fund) $314.5 Million Enrollment Growth Revenue $45.9 Million Total Compact Funding $360.4 Million

March 2009 25Bibb

2008-09 CSU Budget Assumptions (Compact)

Mandatory Costs $34.3 Million Enrollment Growth (3.5%) $114.5 Million Compensation $158.7 Million Financial Aid $9.9 Million Long Term Need $43 Million

Total Compact Funding $360.4 Million

March 2009 26Bibb

CSU Student Fees

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

College Year

Wh

ole

Do

llars

Actual UG SUF 10% Incremental Increase March 2009 27Bibb

Student Fees, Comparison Institutions

Rutgers

UConn, Storrs

U of Maryland, Baltimore

Illinois State U

Cleveland State U

Wayne State U

SUNY at Albany

U of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

Comparison Average

George Mason

U of Texas at Arlington

U of Colorado at Denver

Georgia State U at Atlanta

NC State

ASU at Tempe

U of Nevada at Reno

CSU (Average) 2005/06 Fee Level

2006/07 Increase

2007/08 Increase

Data is not yet available for 2007/08 at Comparison Institutions. 2006/07 CSU Increase reflects increases in average campus mandatory fees. Comparison Average does not include CSU

March 2009 28Bibb

Comparison Institutions, Cost of Attendance

$27,199

$25,254

$21,208

$20,380

$20,009

$19,998

$19,900

$19,752

$19,307

$18,544

$18,404

$18,050

$16,778

$16,361

$16,361

$15,548

Rutgers, Newark

U of Maryland, Baltimore

U of W, Milwaukee

Cleveland State

U of Colorado, Denver

UConn, Storrs

U of Nevada, Reno

Comparison Average

Illinois State

Georgia State, Atlanta

George Mason

SUNY, Albany

CSU LA Region

U of T, Arlington

ASU, Tempe

NC State

*No Data was available for Wayne State University

March 2009 29Bibb

Comparison Institutions, Operating ExpensesState Support Fee Revenue, Other Income

March 2009 30Bibb

CSU Support Budget Cycle

Jun

Statement of Priorities

•

Trustees Approve Budget

Legislative Analyst Analysis

Legislative Hearings & May Revise

Budget Calendar Jan FebAug Sep

Exec Council Review • •

Governor's Budget Issued

•

Nov

••

Preliminary Campus Allocations

••

Apr

•Budget Signed •

Jun

• •May

•

Budget Advisory Com. Review •

March 2009 31Bibb

Trustees Budget Request

March 2009 32Bibb

Whose Source & Whose Use?

March 2009 33Bibb

Trustees Request

March 2009 34Bibb

Trustees Request

March 2009 35Bibb

Marginal Cost

March 2009 36Bibb

Enterprise Budgets

Other CSU Funds – Campus specific budget process

– Housing

– Parking

– Continuing Education

– Instructionally Related Activities

– Lottery

– Misc Trust

March 2009 37Bibb

Annual Budget Submission

Campus submit their annual Budget to the Chancellor’s Office electronically

– Submitted to the FIRMS data base at the SCO Due around the middle of August each year The current year budget submission becomes

the base for the future year budget request

March 2009 38Bibb