Resource Allocation Planning Model

© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 1 © 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Resource Allocation Planning ModelDeans' Retreat

June 30, 2020

© 2020 HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. AND AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2

AgendaHuron has been pleased to partner with University of Colorado Colorado Springs to support its budget model

redesign initiative by facilitating a series of conversations with campus stakeholders through an inclusive and

iterative process.

▪ Retreat objectives

▪ Project goals and efforts to date

▪ Guiding principles

▪ Key model decisions

▪ Operationalizing the budget model

▪ Next steps


Retreat ObjectivesHuron is pleased to share a proposed budget model that aligns with the project’s guiding principles.

Meeting goals:

1. Develop a clear understanding of model methodology and

incentives

2. Discuss refinements to date for an implementable budget

model

3. Review concepts to operationalize the proposed model,

including a suggested implementation timeline

4. Confirm next steps

Documents shared:

▪ Deans’ Retreat PowerPoint Slide Deck

▪ Budget Model Spreadsheet (current and prior version)

▪ Driver and Allocation Calculation Sheet

Key Questions for Retreat:

• Does the model adhere to

the guiding principles?

• Is the new model better than

the one that the University

uses today?

• Is this an appropriate model

to use for a parallel process

year?


Guiding Principles – Common ThemesAt the outset of the project, Steering Committee members submitted proposals for guiding principles which would result in a collaborative, transparent, mission-driven process.


Summary of Stakeholder FeedbackOver the last few months, as Huron has vetted various model concepts with campus units, stakeholders have

shared some concerns; the most significant topics are summarized below.

Topic Description

1Strategic Investment Fund

Deployment

▪ Stakeholders explained the need for transparency relative to the size and use of the

subvention fund and other strategic investments

2 Governance Structures▪ Deans commented on the importance of strong governance structures that drive

central unit efficiencies and support the long-term integrity of the model

3Model Supporting

Collaboration

▪ Stakeholders expressed a desire to ensure that the new model supports cross-

disciplinary collaboration rather than create competition

4Support for Core

Curriculum

▪ Stakeholders expressed the desire to sufficiently reward the colleges which have a

primary role in providing the core curriculum to students

5 Budgeting Process▪ Academic leaders stressed the need for new tools to support financial planning and

analysis, as well as the ability to retain operating surpluses for future year spending

6 Graduate Financial Aid

▪ Stakeholders expressed a desire to better understand the decision-making process

surrounding the allocation of graduate financial aid and its treatment in the budget

model


Adopted Guiding PrinciplesThe following guiding principles were developed to guide decision-making throughout the development of the proposed budget model.

▪ Be transparent, offer consistent communications, and foster collaboration to instill trust between

decision-makers and stakeholders

▪ Align with the core mission and strategic plan and represent institutional values

▪ Enable and encourage budget management responsibility and accountability across units

▪ Provide an equitable, mission driven opportunity for resources to be allocated across units

▪ Encourage growth of net resources while also recognizing the role of support units in promoting student

success and other mission-critical outcomes

▪ Incorporate improved infrastructure and data-informed decision making, providing an understandable link

between resource allocation and revenue generation

▪ Encourage innovative practices while ensuring that the necessary budget allocation to existing core and

general education are sustained

As we discuss the model and plan for next steps, please continue to consider how the proposed budget model and budget

process aligns with these principles.


Project TimelineSince the project start, Huron has met with over 40 stakeholders to ensure the proposed model meets campus needs. The current phase of the engagement is part of a broader five-phase approach necessary for the successful implementation of a redesigned budget model.

2019-2020 2020-2021

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Jun

e

July

Au

g

Sep

t

Oct

No

v

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

r

May

Jun

e

July

Au

g

Sep

t

Oct

Phase Overview

1. Due Diligence and Visioning Develop a clear understanding and vision through an assessment of current resource allocation practices.

2. Financial Modeling Build-out a “pro-forma” model to provide a platform for testing different model alternatives.

3. Stakeholder Engagement Address change management through methodical, data-driven stakeholder engagement.

4. Infrastructure Development Develop supporting tools, processes, and governance to carry out budget development.

5. Parallel Process Adjust roles, policies, and practices to prepare for the new model’s impact.

Visioning

Financial Modeling

Stakeholder Engagement

Infrastructure Development

Parallel Process

Budget Model Active


Steering Committee MeetingsAt the outset of the project, University leadership established a Steering Committee to provide guidance for this

initiative, to review project status reports, and to validate the opportunities presented.

Steering Committee Meetings

No. Meeting Topics DescriptionScheduled

Date

1 Initiative Kick-OffEstablished project goals, timeline, and approach; discussed the importance

of guiding principlesDec 19

2Model Philosophy and

Structure Discussion

Reviewed interview themes, guiding principles, and the preliminary model

structure; discussed how units will be categorized within the model (i.e.

academic, auxiliary, and central support)

Jan 13

3Revenue & Cost Allocation

Discussion

Finalized guiding principles, discussed initial cost pools for central support

units, introduced revenue allocation methodologiesFeb 7


Discussion

Discussed model structure updates, continued revisions of revenue

allocations, and introduced potential cost pool allocationsFeb 21


DiscussionContinued discussions of revenue and cost pool allocations Mar 2

6Central Funding

Mechanism Introduction

Reviewed model structure and revenue and expense allocations, and

introduced central funding mechanismMar 16


Steering Committee MeetingsAt the onset of the project, University leadership established a Steering Committee of faculty and staff to provide

guidance for this initiative, to review project status reports, and to validate the opportunities presented.

Steering Committee Meetings


Date

7

Revenue & Cost

Allocations, Central

Funding Mechanism

Continued discussions of revenue and cost allocations and central funding

mechanismApr 3

8

Data Definitions, Cost

Pool Allocations, and

Central Funding

Mechanism

Discussed data definitions for inclusion within the model and central funding

mechanism, gave update on dean outreachApr 16

9Model Philosophy and

Structure Discussion

Recapped decision points and introduced budget model governance structure

and potential subcommitteesApr 23

10

Model Governance

Structure and Outstanding

Items

Continued discussion of potential model governance structure, recapped

decision points, and addressed outstanding itemsApr 30

11

Guiding Principles

Alignment & Dean

Outreach

Discussed alignment of model decision points with guiding principles and

began overview of material to be reviewed with deansMay 6


Stakeholder Leadership MeetingsThroughout the project, a series of meetings were held to review iterations of the model with the academic deans,

business officers, auxiliary unit leadership, and other stakeholders.

Stakeholder Meetings


Date

1Model Development

Process Overview

Reviewed the FY19 actuals model, the reorganization of transactions to align

with unit and account definitions

Weeks of May

18 – June 7

2 Initial Model ReviewIntroduced the model that includes the data-driven allocation rules, cost pool

allocations, and the participation fee (tax)

Week of June 1

– June 19

3Budget Model Panel

Discussion

Led a panel discussion with Tom DiLorenzo and Kathy Farrell who answered

questions related to incentive-based budget model implementation at their

universities

Week of May

14

4 Working Group MeetingsCollaborated with Budget Office staff and campus SMEs to solicit additional

feedback on proposed model parameters and design

Periodic

Meetings

January - April


Schools & Colleges Model Summary

Business EducationEngineering & Applied

Science

Letters, Arts, &

Sciences

Nursing & Health

SciencesPublic Affairs

Schools & Colleges

Total

Centers & Institutes

Summary

Admin & Support

SummaryAuxiliaries Summary Subvention Pool Passthroughs Summary Model Total

Row Revenue

10 Student Fees 501,133 333,353 579,430 1,554,190 331,381 88,810 3,388,297 - 14,418,528 4,825,528 - - 22,632,353

11 Direct Student Tuition 45,700 136,806 85,124 606,612 123,263 4,153 1,001,659 1,819 829,820 - 5,079,390 - 6,912,688

12 Tuition Differential Premium 1,686,620 - 1,443,689 77,731 1,871,349 - 5,079,390 - - - (5,079,390) - -

13 Allocated UG Tuition 11,622,349 4,621,335 9,580,788 61,674,449 8,117,984 3,745,645 99,362,550 - - - - - 99,362,550

14 Allocated Grad Tuition 3,310,874 5,004,077 2,190,464 2,099,195 2,974,121 1,963,864 17,542,595 - - - - - 17,542,595

15 Allocated UG Scholarships (1,606,037) (585,736) (1,355,894) (7,816,995) (1,211,783) (474,746) (13,051,191) (13,051,191)

16 Allocated Grad Scholarships (199,409) (252,716) (127,125) (109,939) (171,845) (99,179) (960,212) - - - - - (960,212)

17 Net Tuition and Fees 15,361,229 9,257,120 12,396,477 58,085,242 12,034,471 5,228,547 112,363,086 1,819 15,248,348 4,825,528 - - 132,438,781

18 20% Cent. Ret State Appropriations 2,428,720 1,498,487 1,917,519 11,118,964 1,787,427 869,958 19,621,075 - - - 5,606,021 - 25,227,097

19 Earmarked State Appropriations - - 998,804 - - - 998,804 - 1,801,196 - - - 2,800,000

20 State Approps. Allocated for G&C 11,275 566,472 459,769 592,853 348,766 246,068 2,225,203 498,507 - 79,301 - - 2,803,011

21 Grants & Contracts 22,661 1,179,227 1,026,321 1,235,377 703,058 494,563 4,661,208 1,029,862 583,334 159,074 - 25,529,653 31,963,132

22 F&A Recovery 9,744 95,573 265,512 289,449 150,574 64,801 875,652 296,378 4,383 106 - 44,513 1,221,031

23 Gifts 712,286 32,659 583,335 393,255 147,526 161,672 2,030,733 1,672,061 4,305,338 943,738 - - 8,951,868

30 Sales, Services, Misc & Other Revenue 290,352 167,935 (2,249) 469,463 1,499,828 30,160 2,455,490 1,019,066 6,140,104 33,809,776 (0) 7,449,955 50,874,390

31 Total Revenues 18,836,267 12,797,474 17,645,489 72,184,602 16,671,650 7,095,769 145,231,250 4,517,692 28,082,703 39,817,523 5,606,021 33,024,120 256,279,310

32

33 Expense

34 Salaries & Wages 8,678,362 4,623,669 7,110,036 25,638,064 7,977,413 2,465,122 56,492,666 2,082,785 37,245,244 10,260,212 - 11,305 106,092,212

35 Benefits 105,972 169,439 52,877 287,870 486,492 132,848 1,235,497 442,303 1,308,570 2,633,168 - 2,051 5,621,589

36 Travel 163,532 92,394 160,091 495,923 123,101 69,841 1,104,881 67,455 1,465,621 409,004 - - 3,046,962

37 Utilities - - - 703 - - 703 - 203,145 1,119,908 - - 1,323,757

38 Student Aid 38,300 226,799 584,163 448,370 176,724 5,250 1,479,607 145,445 3,441,768 468,752 - 24,189,927 29,725,498

39 Operating Expenses 1,010,378 586,431 1,069,336 2,196,359 701,583 185,726 5,749,813 948,468 20,242,790 11,492,474 - 16,725 38,450,270

40 Deferred Maintenance - - - - - - - - 8,000,000 - - - 8,000,000

41 Book & Periodicals - - - - - - - - 694,372 - - - 694,372

42 Intercampus Cost Allocation - - - - - - - - 5,833,220 - - - 5,833,220

43 Debt Service - Direct - - - - - - - - 2,631,663 8,650,735 - 1,543,642 12,826,039

44 Voluntary Transfers (87,669) (455,126) (223,631) (129,789) (516,035) (48,719) (1,460,969) (175,266) (8,180,160) 2,051,494 - 1,269,979 (6,494,922)

45 Total Direct Expenses 9,908,875 5,243,606 8,752,871 28,937,500 8,949,278 2,810,068 64,602,199 3,511,190 72,886,232 37,085,747 - 27,033,629 205,118,997

46

47 Direct Unit Margin 8,927,391 7,553,869 8,892,617 43,247,102 7,722,371 4,285,700 80,629,051 1,006,502 (44,803,529) 2,731,776 5,606,021 5,990,491 51,160,313

47.4% 59.0% 50.4% 59.9% 46.3% 60.4%

49 General Fund Benefits Allocation

50 Benefits (2,669,824) (1,306,188) (2,119,741) (7,965,708) (2,093,231) (663,837) (16,818,529) (117,293) (9,630,867) (245,072) - - (26,811,761)

52 Assignable Debt Service Allocation

53 Debt Service Expense (15,360) (9,669) (535,755) (1,537,493) (333,485) (128,498) (2,560,259) (272,782) (201,954) - - - (3,034,995)

58 Assignable Facilities Utilities Allocation

59 Utilities (186,888) (53,370) (359,134) (1,319,932) (88,425) (27,444) (2,035,193) (80,273) - - - - (2,115,466)

61 Total Unit Margin 6,055,320 6,184,642 5,877,987 32,423,969 5,207,230 3,465,922 59,215,069 536,155 (54,636,350) 2,486,704 5,606,021 5,990,491 19,198,090

62

63 Driver Administrative & Support Unit Allocations

64 FTE - Fac + Stud Academic Affairs (759,949) (375,489) (755,470) (2,879,223) (630,828) (303,074) (5,704,033) (1,071) 5,705,104 - - - -

65 GCE - PrU AA - Research (3,566) (179,165) (145,417) (187,509) (110,308) (77,827) (703,792) (157,669) 886,542 (25,082) - - 0

66 FTE - Fac + Stud Library (418,293) (206,678) (415,828) (1,584,789) (347,222) (166,819) (3,139,629) (589) 3,140,218 - - - -

67 HC - Tot Information Technology (572,546) (336,266) (540,705) (2,075,925) (578,795) (279,131) (4,383,367) (6,249) 4,435,742 (46,125) - - (0)

68 SQFT - Acad Facilities (223,377) (63,790) (429,254) (1,577,644) (105,690) (32,802) (2,432,556) (95,946) 2,528,502 - - - -

69 HCS - Tot Student Success (1,521,880) (832,028) (1,430,180) (5,454,035) (1,471,403) (736,122) (11,445,649) - 11,445,649 - - - -

70 DREV - PrU Executive Leadership & Advancement (1,298,824) (882,429) (1,216,715) (4,977,370) (1,149,566) (489,277) (10,014,181) (311,510) 13,071,242 (2,745,551) - - 0

71 DEXP - PrU Administration & Finance (466,181) (246,695) (411,794) (1,361,416) (421,035) (132,205) (3,039,325) (165,190) 4,949,280 (1,744,765) - - (0)

72 HCS - Tot Athletics (63,035) (34,462) (59,237) (225,902) (60,944) (30,490) (474,070) - 474,070 - - - -

73 Total A&S Unit Allocations (5,327,650) (3,157,002) (5,404,600) (20,323,812) (4,875,791) (2,247,747) (41,336,603) (738,224) 46,636,350 (4,561,523) - - 0

74

75 Unit Margin After Cost Allocations 727,669 3,027,640 473,387 12,100,156 331,440 1,218,175 17,878,466 (202,070) (8,000,000) (2,074,819) 5,606,021 5,990,491 19,198,090

77 Deferred Maintenance Allocation

78 No Auxiliaries Deferred Maintenance (706,749) (201,827) (1,358,127) (4,991,551) (334,394) (103,785) (7,696,433) (303,567) 8,000,000 - - - -

80 Unit Margin After Depreciation Allocation 20,920 2,825,813 (884,741) 7,108,605 (2,954) 1,114,390 10,182,033 (505,636) - (2,074,819) 5,606,021 5,990,491 19,198,090

81

82 Tuition Stabilizaton Fund Assessment (877,954) (556,185) (719,133) (3,459,775) (701,557) (316,679) (6,631,282) (25,307) - (43,411) 6,700,000 - -

83 4.5% Break-Even Tax Rate (781,085) (494,819) (639,788) (3,079,350) (685,277) (281,738) (5,962,056) (66,051) - (38,615) 6,066,722 - -

84 Cumulative SIP Assessment (1,659,039) (1,051,003) (1,358,921) (6,539,124) (1,386,833) (598,417) (12,593,338) (91,358) - (82,026) 12,766,722 - -

86 Unit Margin after SIP Assessment (1,638,118) 1,774,810 (2,243,662) 569,481 (1,389,788) 515,973 (2,411,305) (596,994) - (2,156,845) 18,372,743 5,990,491 19,198,090

87 SIP Distribution 1,638,118 - 2,243,662 - 1,389,788 - 5,271,568 667,237 - 2,840,334 (8,779,139) - -

88 Unit Margin after SIP Distribution - 1,774,810 - 569,481 - 515,973 2,860,263 70,243 - 683,489 9,593,604 5,990,491 19,198,090

FY19 Resource Allocation Model - Executive Summary

Model FrameworkThe proposed model framework allows for unit-level funds flow statements. A condensed version of the proposed structure, for illustrative purposes, is shown below.

Revenues and

Direct Costs

Primary Units

Admin & Support Unit Costs

Allocated to Primary Units

Central Funding Mechanism

Provision for Capital Renewal


Key Model Decisions


Decision PointsThe transition to a decentralized and incentive-based model requires dozens of decisions regarding the model’s scope, structure, and methodology; ten of these decisions prove most critical and will be thoroughly discussed today.

Call-outs are included in the following slides to highlight key topics of discussion and decision points.

1. Unit Organization

2. Tuition Revenue Allocation

a) Undergraduate

b) Graduate

3. State Appropriations

a) General Allocable State Appropriations

b) Allocation Illustration

4. Undergraduate and Graduate Aid

a) Allocable Institutional Aid

5. F&A Indirect Cost Recovery

6. Support Unit Cost Pools

a) Support Unit Cost Discussion

b) Cost Pool Structure & Allocations

7. Central Funding

a) Central Funding Approach

b) Revenue Sources for Central Funding

c) Central Funding Levels

8. Carryforward Policy

9. Deferred Maintenance

10. Timing of Revenue and Cost Driver Updates


1. Unit OrganizationCampus units have been categorized as academic units, auxiliary units, or support units based upon their ability to

influence revenue generation and expectations for financial performance.

Academic and Auxiliary Units Support Units

Generally defined by the following characteristics: Generally defined by the following characteristics:

1. Able to influence revenue generation 1. Less opportunity to influence revenue

2. Receive allocation of central unit costs 2. Provides services and/or support to Revenue Units

3. Accountable for performance, retaining both surpluses and shortfalls 3. Accountable for operating within an expense budget (net of direct revenues)

4. Contribute to and may receive distributions from the Strategic Investment Pool 4. Responsible for providing optimum service and may be held to service-level

agreement expectations

College of Business Housing, Dining, Retail Executive Leadership & Advancement Academic Affairs

College of Education Parking and Transportation Services Facilities Information Technology

College of Engineering & Applied Science UCCS Presents University Library Administration & Finance

College of Letters, Arts & Sciences Auxiliary Administrative Services Student Success Research Office

School of Public Affairs THHC, EPIIC, Biofrontiers, Center for The Study of Government & The Individual

Athletics

Johnson Beth-El College of Nursing & Health Sciences

Academic and Auxiliary Units Include: Support Units Include:

Significant Committee Decisions Regarding Unit Organization

▪ No “hybrid” units were utilized, in favor of combining business-type activities of schools and colleges with the related academic operations to

demonstrate the mission-critical function of such functions.

▪ Support unit costs represent the direct operating costs of support units, while additional cost pools are utilized to allocate costs of employee

benefits, utilities, and a deferred maintenance set-aside.


2. Tuition Allocation

Proposed Tuition Allocation

Rows 12-14

Allocable Undergraduate

Tuition$103.0MM

Tuition Premia1

$3.6MMBase Tuition

$99.4MM

College of Record (20%)

$19.9MM$777/HC


$3.6MM

College of Instruction (80%)

$79.5MM$289/CH

Allocable Graduate Tuition

$19.0MM

Tuition Premia1

$1.5MMBase Tuition

$17.5MM


$17.5MM$3,147/HC


$1.5MM

1Undergraduate and Graduate tuition premia vary across the

six colleges by residency, status, and program

Significant Committee Decisions Regarding Tuition Allocation

▪ The undergraduate tuition allocation methodology seeks to align revenue attribution with instruction and enrollment activities while directing tuition

differentials paid by Business, Engineering, and Nursing students to those colleges.

▪ After extensive discussion, the committee proposes allocating 100% of allocable graduate tuition to the college of record:

▪ Significant effort is involved in the maintenance of prestigious programs able to recruit and provide support for graduate students

▪ Additional considerations for 100% allocation include simplicity in maintaining the model using college of record and the ability to handle

interdisciplinary programs through MOUs

In the proposed budget model, tuition is grouped into three primary pools with allocation methodologies applied to

all the groupings.


2a. UG Tuition Allocation: Instruction vs. RecordUCCS’ historical split between instruction and academic support expenses served as a starting point when

considering the allocation of undergraduate tuition revenue.

Course

Completion

35%

Inst. Support

10%

Acad. Support

10%

M&O

10%

Student

Success

35%

Tuition Allocated to College of Instruction

▪ Recognizes direct costs of instruction

▪ Incentive for course competition and redundancy

▪ Misaligned incentives for academic advising

Tuition Allocated to College of Record

▪ Promotes recruitment and retention

▪ Does not recognize direct costs of instruction

▪ Can lead to “holding company” mentality 80/20

College of Instruction

College of Record

50/50 75/2560/40

100%

0%

0%

100%

100/086/14

81% 80% 79% 80% 78% 79%

19% 20% 21% 20% 22% 21%

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 5 YR AVG

UCCS Share of Spending on Select Operating Expenses FY15-FY19

Instruction Academic Support


2a. General (Allocated) Undergraduate TuitionFor the proposed budget model, undergrad tuition is allocated in such a way as to recognize costs of instruction as

well as academic program development and student support.

Proposal▪ Allocate 80% based on instructed UG credit hours (i.e., School of Instruction)

▪ Allocate 20% based on enrolled UG headcount (i.e., School of Record)

Change from

Current Practice

Currently, general undergraduate tuition is received centrally and allocated to campus units as spending

authority through a mostly base plus incremental change budgeting process

RationaleFunds for credit hours that pertain to the School of Instruction will support the direct costs of instruction

while funds for credit hours that pertain to the School of Record will support program development,

student recruitment, and retention.

ImplicationsCompared to the current practice, academic units will benefit from a stronger relationship between

revenue generation and revenue distribution. As a result, there will be much greater emphasis on

effective tools to analyze credit hour trends and make future projections

Row 13


2a. Undergraduate TuitionUndergraduate tuition has been grouped into the following buckets based on dollar amounts in the operating

ledger and information provided by the Bursar.

Allocable Undergraduate Tuition

▪ Identified using tuition receipt information

provided by the Bursar

▪ Allocated based on:

▪ 80% based on each unit’s share of total

instructed credit hours (i.e. College of

Instruction)

▪ 20% based on each unit’s share of total

enrolled headcount (i.e. College of Record)

which has been adjusted to reflect additional

majors, double majors, certificates, and

education licensures

Direct Undergraduate Tuition

▪ Applies to extended studies programs which are

assigned to each academic unit to correspond

with the operating ledger

▪ Also includes undergraduate tuition premiums

which recognizes pricing premiums for specific

programs

Row 13

Undergraduate Tuition

$103.9MM

Direct Undergraduate

Tuition

$4.5MM

Instruction

$79.5MM

Instruction

$/CH

$289

Allocable

Undergraduate Tuition

$99.4MM

Record

$19.9MM

Record

$/HC

$777

80% 20%


2b. Graduate TuitionGraduate tuition has been grouped into the following buckets based on information found in the operating ledger

and information provided by the Bursar.

Allocable Graduate Tuition

▪ Identified using tuition receipt information

provided by the Bursar

▪ Allocated 100% based on each unit’s share of

enrolled graduate headcount (i.e. School of

Record)

▪ Committing 100% of allocable tuition to school of

record reflects marketing, recruitment and student

success efforts; contributes to model simplicity;

and leaves room for the use of MOUs to ensure

that collaborative programs can function within

the model

Direct Graduate Tuition

▪ Applies to extended studies programs which are

assigned to each academic unit to correspond

with operating ledger

▪ Also includes graduate tuition premiums which

recognizes pricing premiums for specific

programs

Row 14

Graduate Tuition

$19.2MM

Direct Graduate

Tuition

$1.7MM

Record

$17.5MM

Record

$/HC

$3,147

Allocable Graduate

Tuition

$17.5MM

100%


3. State AppropriationsFor the proposed model, direct state appropriations are direct assigned to specific units, whereas general

appropriations provide an opportunity to incentivize research, instruction, and other activities.

Direct State Appropriations

▪ Direct state appropriations restricted

for specific purposes are assigned to

the appropriate operating units or

strategic pool based on the restricted

purpose of those funds

▪ The Steering Committee evaluated

what portion of state appropriations

should be directly allocated to the

central pool; retention of 10-20% was

recommended to support necessary

subvention, provide executive

leadership strategic investment

funds, and provide administration

with funds to handle volatility of state

appropriations year-over-year. 20%

was retained, with half being

returned to the schools and colleges

as subvention.

Rows 18-20

1Purpose of earmarked state appropriations include: cybersecurity, chancellor campus commitments,

financial aid, EAS administrative operations, campus benefits

State

Appropriations

$30.8MM

Allocable

Portion

$28.0M

Research

Subsidy (10%)

$2.8M

$0.50/G&C Exp

Central Pool

(20%)

$5.6M

Instruction &

Record (70%)

$19.6M

Earmarked

Portion1

$2.8M

College of

Instruction (80%)

$16M

$65/CH

College of

Record (20%)

$3.9M

$126/HC


3a. General Allocable State AppropriationsFor the proposed model, general state appropriations are allocated to support instruction, research, and a central

strategic pool.

Proposal

Central

(20% of total)

▪ Retain centrally so that administration can effectively handle volatility of state

appropriations year-over-year

Research

(10% of total)▪ Allocate on the proportional share of sponsored grants & contracts expenditures

Instruction/

Record (70%

of total)1

▪ Allocated 80% on the proportional share of credit hours instructed

▪ Allocated 20% based on the proportional share of student headcount of college of

record

Change from

Current Practice

In the current practice, all general state appropriations are received centrally and allocated to campus

units as spending authority through a mostly incremental budgeting process

RationaleRetaining 20% of state appropriations centrally creates a more consistent annual budget for the colleges

in the event of budget fluctuations, while distributing 10% and 70%, for research and instruction/record

respectively, accurately rewards units for driving revenue-producing activities

ImplicationsPlaces greater emphasis on research and academic planning activities because dollars are closely

linked to specific research and enrollment indicators

1For Instruction/Record portion: 70%*(80%) + 70%*(20%) = 56% + 14% = 70% of total

Rows 18-20


3b. Illustrative State Appropriation AllocationAfter setting aside 20% to be retained centrally and another 10% for research subsidization, approximately $19.6

million is left to be allocated based on instruction and enrollment.

10%90%

UCCS General State Approp. ($28.3M)

Research Subsidy: $2.8M Remaining State Approp. : $25.2M

$5,580,000 20%

$2,790,000 10%

$15,624,000 56%

$3,906,000 14%

$19,530,000 70%

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

Record: 20% of 70%

Instruction: 80% of 70%

Row 20

Allocation Aligns With Goals

▪ Allocating a portion of state appropriations to units generating research revenues incentivizes research and offsets the allocated costs of the

central research office.

▪ The 70% of appropriations remaining after research and central pool allocation are then allocated to schools and colleges based on their

instructed credit hours and enrolled students.


4. Undergraduate and Graduate AidFor the proposed model, institutionally awarded undergraduate and graduate scholarships are allocated based on a college’s share of tuition allocated, while departmental aid is directly assigned to units as incurred.

Financial Aid Description

Institutional Aid

Allocable

Undergraduate

($13.0MM)

Allocated based on pro rata share of

undergraduate tuition revenue received

Allocable Graduate

($1.0MM)

Allocated based on pro rata share of graduate

tuition revenue received

Departmental AidDirect

($1.5MM)

Directly assigned scholarships/fellowships where

incurred

Rows 15-16


4a. Allocable Institutional AidMerit and need-based institutional aid, distributed by the Office of Financial Aid, was allocated on the basis of a

unit’s relative share of allocable undergraduate and graduate tuition.

Institutional Aid

▪ Allocable undergraduate scholarships are centrally held

institutional scholarships and mandated tuition waivers

▪ Allocable graduate fellowships and waivers were identified by the

Graduate School and allocated based on allocable graduate

tuition revenue received

Departmental Scholarships

▪ Departmental scholarships were directly assigned to

departments as they were recorded in the general ledger.

Rows 15-16

Allocable Scholarships

$14.0MM

Graduate Allocable

Scholarships/Fellowships

$1.0MM

Undergraduate Allocable

Scholarships

$13.0MM

$/UG Tuition $

Allocated

$0.13

$/GRAD Tuition $

Allocated

$0.05

Graduate Aid

▪ The steering committee held several

discussions related to the allocation of

graduate merit v. need-based financial

aid.

▪ Agreement surrounding the allocation

criteria for merit-based graduate aid

should be sought in future budget

governance discussions.

▪ Huron supports further analysis and

evaluation during the parallel process

year as additional data regarding

awarding of need and merit-based aid

becomes available


5. F&A Indirect Cost Recovery (IDC)In the proposed budget model, indirect cost recovery (IDC) is allocated to the primary units where the research is

performed.

ProposalAllocate 100% of IDC revenue to primary units where research is performed based on each unit’s share

of sponsored research

Change from

Current Practice

In the current practice, 40% of recovered facilities & administration costs go to the unit performing the

research. The remainder of recovered funds is divided with 27% going to the office of Administration &

Finance, 25% going to Academic Affairs, and 8% to the library

RationaleAllocating 100% of IDC to the units should reflect actual amounts generated to support research and

further incentivize the pursuit of higher recovery

Implications

While campus units involved in research will receive 100% of the IDC revenue, a portion of these funds will

be used to cover support unit costs and central investment pools (e.g., strategic investment, deferred

maintenance, etc.); therefore, it may not result in a net revenue increase for a particular campus unit in the

short-term.

The allocation of 10% of state appropriations on the basis of sponsored research expenditures is intended

to help further support and subsidize research costs.

Row 22


6. Cost Pool StructureThose units that are not categorized as primary units are typically considered support units; these are grouped into

cost pools, the number of which should be driven by balancing the desired level of transparency with the desired

level of model complexity.

A model with too few cost pools can obscure the true drivers of overhead costs;

however, too many cost pools increases the complexity of the model mechanics and ruleset.

▪ Increases transparency

▪ Closer approximation of economic reality

▪ Provides functional accountability

▪ Connects costs and service levels

▪ Allows adjustments to balance start points

▪ Simple

▪ Drives academic focus to revenues

▪ Provides flexibility to central administration

▪ Avoids functional “witch-hunts”

▪ Reduces time spent in committees

Number of Pools ManyFew

13 Cost Pools

Rows 64-72

9 Cost Pools

Cost Pool Structure

▪ The nine operating cost pools reflect the direct costs of VCAA, Sponsored Research, Library, IT, Facilities, VCSS, Exec. Leadership &

Advancement, VCAF, Athletics

▪ Additional cost pools reflect central benefits, deferred maintenance, debt service and central utilities.


6a. Support Unit Cost Discussion ItemsDuring conversations with stakeholders, a number of questions arose as to the composition of cost pools, the

costs allocated to academic units, and the details surrounding relevant processes.

▪ Funding Levels: support unit allocations will reflect budgets divided by activity levels; therefore, unit budgets

will not formulaically increase as a result of activity level increases

▪ Funding Methodology: Central units will not bill for their base costs, but rather the budgeted allocable cost will

be deducted from the primary units’ budget at the beginning of the fiscal year.

▪ Exemptions: generally speaking, exemptions are not offered

▪ Level of transparency: all cost pools in the model are composed of a number of administrative units, though

transparency is set at an aggregate level

▪ Validity: this initiative did not assess reasonableness of support unit funding levels

▪ Stakeholder Input: a governance structure is recommended to facilitate stakeholder input and ensure

alignment of support unit service levels with their cost

▪ Service level agreements: selected areas often develop service level agreements during the hold harmless

period to provide clarity with regards to services associated with cost pool allocations


6b. Cost Pool AllocationsUCCS’s support units have been grouped into thirteen cost pools from which net expenditures will be allocated to each primary units based on a single metric that best represents the driver of cost.

Cost Pool Description Allocation Driver (A) Net Exp. (B)FY19 Cost per Unit

(B/A)

Administration &

Finance

Components include HR, budget office, controller’s office,

administrative operations, payroll

Total Direct

Expenditures$4.9MM $0.05

Academic AffairsComponents include provost’s office, excel centers,

graduate school, faculty resource center

Student + Faculty

FTE$5.7MM $544.39

Executive

Leadership &

Advancement

Components include chancellor’s office, VC strategic

initiatives, marketing & communications, general counsel,

university advancement, central funding pools

Total Direct

Revenues$13.1MM $0.07

Information

Technology

Components include IT, Telecommunications, Enterprise

Systems, Academic Computing Services, Networking &

Computing Support

Total HC $4.4MM $297.58

University

LibraryKraemer Family Library

Student FTE +

Faculty FTE$4.5MM $430.69

Athletics University athleticsTotal Student

Headcount$474K $14.14

Rows 64-72

Note: For purposes of headcount and FTE, Steering Committee voted to include

online students pending uncertainty of treatment of CU Online Enterprise


6b. Cost Pool AllocationsUCCS’s support units have been grouped into thirteen cost pools from which net expenditures will be allocated to each primary units based on a single metric that best represents the driver of cost.

Cost Pool Description Allocation Driver (A) Net Exp. (B)FY19 Cost per Unit

(B/A)

Student SuccessComponents include strategic enrollment, bursar, financial

aid ops, advising, counseling, health & wellness, student life

Total Student

Headcount$11.4MM $841.28

Sponsored

ResearchResearch office

Grants & Contracts

Expenditures$886K $0.16

Facilities Facilities Management and Campus ServicesAssignable Sq.

Footage - Acad$3.0MM $11.51

Benefits Central BenefitsSalaries & Wages –

Primary Units$26.8MM $0.33

Debt Service Debt Service ExpenseAssignable Sq.

Footage - Acad$3.0MM $31.08

Central Utilities Campus-level Utilities ExpenseAssignable Sq.

Footage – Acad$2.1MM $8.08

Deferred

Maintenance

Preventive and long-term maintenance set-aside for

classroom and administrative buildings.

Assignable Sq.

Footage – Acad$6.2MM $23.60

Rows 49-59 &

64-72

Note: For purposes of headcount and FTE, Steering Committee voted to include

online students pending uncertainty of treatment of CU Online Enterprise


7. Central Funding CharacteristicsEstablishing a strategic investment pool helps to support funding for unit subvention and mission-aligned strategic

investments, as well as state- required reserves.

The Board of Regents requires that each CU campus maintain an emergency tuition stabilization reserve. Beyond the

strategic investment pool, the model also levies an assessment on revenue to fund this reserve.

Unit Subvention Mission-Aligned Strategic Investments

Definition

▪ A centrally-held pool of revenues to address

mission-critical needs, the nature of which, are not

self-funding

▪ A centrally-held pool of revenues to address

university-wide priorities and revenue growth

strategies

Rationale

▪ Sum of the parts is not optimal for the whole;

UCCS needs the ability to act as one entity to

achieve University-wide goals

▪ In part, the use of the central fund addresses the

economic problem of the commons

Illustrative

Uses

▪ Ensure appropriate subsidies to meet major

institutional goals

▪ Address compliance and regulatory issues as they

arise

▪ Provide start-up funding for high priority academic

programs

▪ Underwrite new initiatives which do not naturally

fall under one unit’s care

Funding

Formula

▪ Various funding models are used across

institutions, each with pros and cons

▪ Various funding models are used across

institutions, each with pros and cons

Rows 82-83


Revenue Retention Legacy Model Adjustment Participation Fee (Tax)

Description▪ Select revenue(s) are centrally

retained

▪ Fixed amount or percentage of

operating surplus is

redistributed from outlier(s) to

select unit(s) to reflect historical

subsidies

▪ Participation fee is assessed on

specific set revenues for all

primary units

Pros

▪ Provides a direct funding

mechanism

▪ Relatively simple to implement

especially if revenues

previously not distributed

▪ Promotes neutral starting points

for new model implementation

▪ Often used to dramatically

reduce tax rates, thereby

strengthening incentives to

grow marginal revenues

▪ Considers various revenue

sources

▪ Potential for increased 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

▪ Difficult to determine legacy

model adjustment amount;

calculation might be considered

“as much art as science”

▪ Requires diligent assessment of

initial rate

▪ Perception is influenced if rate

increases due to diminishing

revenue sources

7a. Central Funding ApproachUniversities with incentive-based models typically choose one or more of the following approaches to fill the

subvention pool as well as the strategy and mission enhancement fund.

UCCS uses a 20% retention of state appropriations, in conjunction with an assessment on select revenues, to establish

the Strategic Investment Pool.

Rows 82-83


7b. Revenue Sources for Central Funding PoolIn the proposed budget model, a participation fee (tax) is applied to select revenue sources across the primary units to fund subvention and strategic initiatives. Below is a table of the selected revenues:

Revenues Operating Revenues Taxed?

Total Undergraduate Tuition $103,974,634 Yes

Total Graduate Tuition $19,013,378 Yes

Total Scholarships/Fellowships/Waivers $(14,011,404) Yes

General State Appropriations $19,621,075 Yes

State Appropriations allocated for Grants & Contracts $2,803,011 Yes

Health Services Operating Revenue $2,354,711 Yes

Earmarked State Appropriations $2,800,000 No

Student Fees $8,213,825 No

Grants, Contracts, and F&A $7,022,280 No

Sales & Services (Auxiliaries, other) $33,654,206 No

Gifts $4,646,531 No

Other Revenue (e.g. misc., internal service center) $1,275,414 No

Total Operating Revenues $175,555,062

The base of revenues for the participation fee represent

70% of the total operating revenues across the primary units.

Rows 82-83


4.5%

4.2%

5.1%

$-

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

$14.0

$16.0

$18.0

$20.0

Mill

ions

Strategic Investment Pool Components (% of Taxable Revenues)

Subvention Tax State Approp. Retention Tuition Stabilization

7c. Central Funding LevelsAfter a 20% retention of state appropriations and a $6.7MM withholding for the tuition stabilization reserve, a

participation fee (tax) of 4.5% on select revenues ensures sufficient funding exists to cover any operating deficits

after primary units have paid the participation fee, while also generating fund for strategic incentives.

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

Uni

t Los

ses

Cov

ered

Participation Fee (Tax) on Select Revenues

Primary Unit Losses Covered by Participation Fee (After Central State Approp.

& Tuition Stabilization Tax)

The FY19 Actuals Model depicts $2.8MM, approximately 10% of state appropriations, remaining in the Strategic

Investment Pool. In a “live” budget year, the SIP fund would be invested in strategic activities. The Tuition

Stabilization Fund may fluctuate depending on carryover reserve levels.

Rows 82-83


8. Carryforward PolicyFor the proposed model, academic units expressed a desire to understand the treatment of year-end carryforwards

to assess the incentives to grow revenue and drive efficiencies in the delivery of academic programs.

ProposalAcademic and auxiliary units retain unrestricted annual surplus (carryforward) amounts for future year

spending. Expectations for reserve thresholds are not yet established but are a critical governance

consideration and will remain a topic of discussion.

Change from

Current Practice

This is not a significant change from current practice. Unrestricted fund carryforward is permitted;

amounts in excess of $10,000 must be transferred to reserve fund. Spending plans must be approved by

UCCS leadership annually. No reserve thresholds are established.

RationaleRetaining carryforward provides primary units with an incentive to generate revenue, spend wisely and

implement efficiencies because they retain all savings

Implications▪ Able to build reserves for multi-year commitments, equipment replacement, and unexpected changes in

revenues and expenditures

▪ Risk that units become too conservative, creating opportunity costs that reduce strategic investments


9. Capital Renewal TreatmentMany universities that use an incentive-based budgeting system require primary units to contribute to the future

renewal of campus infrastructure.

Proposal

Allocate a target amount1 for: (1) known cyclic repair and replacement requirements that extend the life of

facilities and systems that are not normally contained in the operating budget; and (2) maintenance work

that has been deferred on a planned or unplanned basis due to lack of funds. After determining that an

annual target of 2% of current replacement value ($16MM) was not tenable, the target was reduced to

$8MM and then further revised to provide a more realistic target. Discussions are underway at the state

level to determine the adequacy of deferred maintenance set-asides.

Change from

Current Practice

Currently, funds for facility renewal and deferred maintenance are largely sourced from State

appropriations, which have fallen short of meeting the full need to keep campus infrastructure in a state of

good repair.

Rationale

Aligns with APPA’s view of campus facilities as a collection of liabilities that require continual investment

from a dedicated (and protected) funding source; keeps facilities productive to support the University’s

mission and avoid costly repairs when systems and components fail. Anticipates System guidance

requiring larger set-asides for capital funding.

ImplicationsSome campus units are likely to reconsider their current space usage. The more direct nature of

contributions by campus units to support facilities could lead to a shift in priorities for capital planning

processes.

1. The Building Research Board of the National Research Council recommends an annual allocation of 1.5% to 3% of the plant’s current replacement

value for facility renewal; this is a separate amount from any one-time funding to reduce deferred maintenance backlogs. Current replacement value is

the estimated cost of construction for a new facility containing an equal amount of space that is designed and equipped for the same use as the original

building and meets the current commonly accepted standards of construction as well as regulatory requirements.

Row 78


10. Timing of Allocation Driver UpdatesThe Steering Committee has offered a preliminary recommendation that the model use current year plan or budget

for revenue and expense and activity level metrics that are one year in arrears for the allocation methodologies.

ElementDollars Used

in ModelAllocation Metrics

Recommended

Metric Timing

Direct Expenses

Current Year

Plan or Budget

N/A N/A

Direct Revenues N/A N/A

Allocation of Support Unit

(Cost Pool) Expenses

• Total Direct Expenditures

• Total Direct Revenues

• Net Assignable Square Footage

• Total Headcount

• Student and Faculty FTE

• Total Student Headcount

• Sponsored Expenses

Prior Year Actuals

Assignable Debt Service • Actual building usage for debt-funded facilities Budget Year Forecast

Allocation of General

Revenues: General UG Tuition,

General Grad Tuition,

Institutional Scholarships and

General State Appropriations

• Credit Hours Instructed

• Credit Hours Enrolled

• Sponsored Revenue

• Undergraduate General Tuition

• Tuition Received Prior Year Actuals

Timing Spectrum

3-year historical

average1-year in arrears Budget year forecast

Least Responsive,

Most Stable

Most Responsive,

Least Stable

Budget year forecast with year-

end adjustment to reflect actuals


Operationalizing the Model


Implementation TimelineThe implementation timeline should leverage current momentum while providing time for additional engagement,

infrastructure development, and training.

FY 20

(July 19 – June 20)

FY 20


FY 21


FY 22


Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Suggested

Implementation

Timeline

Budget

Model

Development

Parallel Year/Hold

Harmless Year +


“Live” Model (Year 1) “Live” Model (Year 2)

Alternative

Implementation

Timeline

Budget

Model

Development

Parallel Year +


Second Parallel/”Hold

Harmless” Year“Live” Model (Year 1)

Rationale for suggested implementation timeline:

▪ Accelerated implementation timeline allows benefits of the model to be realized sooner

▪ Attempts to avoid budget model redesign fatigue

▪ Maintains project momentum by offering immediate reward and risk to primary units

▪ A parallel year offers the ability to examine model outcomes for unintended consequences prior to going live.


Illustrative Governance Structure In the annual budgeting process, central leadership, primary units, support units, and governance committees work

in close coordination to optimize the use of resources to advance the mission of the institution. The Steering

Committee has proposed an expanded role for UBAC and new subcommittees to guide the budget model.

Executive

Leadership

Academic

Deans

Evolved UBAC

Governance Committee

Supporting Subcommittees

Academic

Subcommittee

Support

Units

Auxiliary

Units

Dept.

Chairs and

Admin.

Curriculum-

Related

Committees

Campus

Support Unit

Subcommittee

Faculty

Gov.

Supplemental Advisory Committees

Space

Management

Committee

Data

Governance

Committee

Key Stakeholders/Participants

Decis

ion

Makin

g F

low

Pending Governance Topics

▪ Establishment of governance structures is

a critical step during the parallel process

year

▪ Previously surfaced topics for discussion

will include reserve targets and policies,

strategic investment guidelines, and

graduate aid allocation processes

▪ Data governance, space management,

and other topics identified as critical to

successful model implementation may be

addressed through temporary or standing

committees


Academic Portfolio

Management

Research Collaboration

Space Management

Admin. Service Delivery

New Program Development

The Budget Model as a Catalyst for Success

While the new incentive-based model is only a management tool, it is intended to be

leveraged to support resource optimization, primarily through the Deans.

Now that Deans have more levers at their disposal to influence the economics of the academic enterprise, there are new financial benefits to examining areas for optimization.

While the new incentive-based model is only a management tool, it is intended to be

leveraged to support resource optimization, primarily through the Deans.


Model’s Impact on Decision MakingIncentive-based models have the potential to materially transform institutions over a five to ten-year period as they

change the culture of decision making.

▪ Executive Leadership: removes the luxury of “all things to all people” by forcing difficult decisions

▪ Institutions understand Colleges and Schools are creating and using resources

▪ Allocations reflect the University's mission and act as “value judgements” for institutional units

▪ Chancellor/Provost/VC of Administration & Finance: force clarity regarding priorities and strategic initiatives

▪ Through the design of incentives, priorities have meaning and produce funding for local units

▪ Full transparency in how resources are used to promote strategic initiatives

▪ Deans: understand the full cost of activities (academic programs, research, etc.) and prioritize them through cross-

subsidies between their revenue generating activities and their mission-driven activities

▪ Program growth is no longer a question of simply “doing more with less”

▪ Promotes understanding that research activities lose money and require investment

▪ Support Units: connect service levels and resource levels

▪ Support unit budgets must be justified and paid for by revenue producing units, which introduces enhanced

accountability and perhaps competition

▪ Department Chairs and Faculty Members: see how activities drive funding for their respective units

▪ Incentivize innovation in the classroom, much like incentives for innovation in research

▪ Drive “trade-off” conversations and proactive prioritization


Academic Portfolio Management

Positive Financial Impact

Mission

Critical Mission

Neutral

Mission Subsidy Program

Provide resources for mission

investments in other academic

programs

Mission Investment Program

Fulfills University’s critical mission

priorities, partially utilizing resources

generated via other initiatives.

Resource Drain Program

May warrant additional study for

resource optimization.

Ideal Program

Represents both investment in

mission and positive financial return

for additional investment

Strategic Investment Required

Academic portfolio analysis highlights the balance between financially beneficial and mission critical programs, which

can support a strong case for central strategic funds.

As incentive-based models push more resource decisions to the school-level, Deans will have more authority and responsibility for managing their academic portfolios to balance resource generation and mission investments


Illustrative Scenario PlanningThe table below illustrates how marginal increases in various metrics can impact a unit’s net operating margin. A template which includes scenario modeling for additional metrics (e.g. research, tuition premia, hiring expenses) will be provided following the deans’ retreat.

Scenarios

A) 30 Additional UG CH

Instructed

B) 30 Additional UG CH

Recorded

C) 30 additional UG CH

consumed within College

Revenues Rates

UG Instruction Allocation $228/CH instructed 6,840$ 6,840$

UG Record Allocation $1,161/HC recorded 3,483 3,483

State Appropriations - College of Instruction $59/CH instructed 1,770 1,770

State Appropriations - College of Record $143/HC recorded 429 429

UG Scholarships 13% (889) (453) (1,342)

Total Revenues 7,721 3,459 11,180

Central Unit Allocations

VCAA 544/FTE 1,360 1,360

Library $431/FTE 1,078 1,078

Information Technology $298/HC 894 894

VCSS $841/Stud. HC 2,523 2,523

Athletics $14/Stud. HC 42 42

Central Unit Allocations 5,897 5,897

Subvention Fund Participation 4.5% 347 156 503

Net Margin 1,477$ 3,304$ 4,780$


Retreat Wrap-Up


Alignment with Guiding PrinciplesUniversity of Colorado Colorado Springs started the project by developing guiding principles for an alternative

resource allocation model. Below is a summary of how the proposed model aligns with the guiding principles:

Guiding Principle Component Description Addressed?

Align financial resources with

university mission

Allocates resources based on the University’s mission, strategic priorates,

and commitment to student successYes

Equitable resource allocationFeatures a design that provides an equitable, mission-driven, opportunity for

resources to be allocated across unitsYes

Clear & consistent decision-

making

Revenues and costs are allocated in a transparent and consistent manner;

institutional data is used as a proxy for what drives central unit costsYes

Promotes entrepreneurship

and innovation

Model features incentives that will reward performance, entrepreneurship,

and innovation while supporting the core curriculumYes

Transparency & trustNew budget process promotes transparency, efficiency, and accountability

across all units and fosters collaboration to instill trustYes

Commitment to fiscal

responsibility

Model incorporates all operating funds to better understand how units

contribute to the University’s fiscal position; primary units retain savings for

future investments, and the strategic investment pool ensure that institutional

priorities can be funded

Yes

Role of support unitsNew budget process and governance structures recognize role of support

units in promoting student success and other mission-critical outcomesYes


Key Retreat QuestionsAs discussed near the beginning of today’s retreat, participants should consider the following key questions:

Key Questions

Does the model adhere to the guiding principles?

Is the new model better than the one that the University uses today?

Is this an appropriate model to use for a parallel partnership year?


Next Steps


Post-Retreat ObjectivesFollowing the retreat discussion, the following activities are suggested:

▪ As Steering Committee co-chairs, the Provost and VC of Administration &

Finance will forward the Committee’s recommendation to the

Chancellor to review and make a final decision

▪ The co-chairs should notify the Steering Committee and Deans of key

decisions

UCCS IRM Scenario Planning Tool

Estimates the incremental revenue and expense impacts for new or incremental academic programs

Uses the metrics and allocation methodology from FY19 revenues and expenses model

Scenario Planning: Incremental Metrics Inputs Estimated Incremental Revenue & Expense Impacts Estimated Revenue & Expense Per Unit Change

Undergraduate Students Undergraduate Revenue Undergraduate Tuition Allocation Drivers Units Dollars Dollars/Unit

Incremental Revenue Drivers INPUT Total Incremental Undergraduate Tuition Revenue 74,048$ Undergraduate Tuition per SCH Instructed 274,659 69,309,882$ 252.35$

Number of Net Additional UG Students 10 Headcount Total Incremental State Appropriations Revenue 16,135$ Undergraduate Tuition per HC Enrolled 25,510 29,704,235$ 1,164.42$

Additional SCH Instructed in Total 225 Credit Hours Total Additional Other Revenue 1,000$

Additional Lower Division SCH Enrolled 100 Credit Hours Scholarships (10,447)$ Graduate Tuition Allocation Drivers Units Dollars Dollars/Unit

Additional Upper Division SCH Enrolled 125 Credit Hours Total Incremental UG Revenue 80,735$ Graduate Tuition per HC Enrolled 5,574 19,013,378$ 3,411.08$

Differential Tuition per Upper Division SCH Enrolled 45$ Dollars

Additional Student Fees Total 1,000$ Dollars Graduate Revenue State Appropriations Units Dollars Dollars/Unit

Additional Other Revenue -$ Dollars Total Incremental Graduate Tuition Revenue -$ State Appropriations per SCH Instructed 274,659 17,939,269$ 65.31$

Total Incremental State Appropriations Revenue -$ State Appropriations per HC Enrolled 31,165 4,484,817$ 143.91$

Graduate Students Total Additional Other Revenue -$

Incremental Revenue Drivers INPUT Fellowships -$

Number of Net Additional Grad Students 0 Headcount Total Incremental Grad Revenue -$

Additional SCH Instructed in Total 0 Credit Hours

Additional Student Fees Total -$ Dollars

Additional Other Revenue -$ Dollars Expenses Expenses

Administrative Support Administrative Support Units Dollars Dollars/Unit

Expenses VCAA 3,179$ VCAA (Faculty + Student FTE) 10,480 4,298,972$ 410.22$

Incremental Expense Drivers INPUT AA - Sponsored Research -$ AA - Sponsored Research (G&C Expenses) 5,131,255 865,476$ 0.17$

Number of Additional Faculty 1.0 Headcount Library 2,315$ Library (Faculty + Student FTE) 10,480 3,130,585$ 298.73$

FTE of Additonal Faculty 0.25 FTE Information Technology 3,291$ Information Technology (Total Headcount) 14,906 4,459,516$ 299.18$

Average Cost of FTE Faculty 75,000$ Dollars VCAF - Facilities -$ VCAF - Facilities (SQFT) 258,681 5,192,544$ 20.07$

Number of Additional Administrative Staff 0.0 Headcount VCSS 9,885$ VCSS (Student Headcount) 13,605 13,448,119$ 988.47$

FTE of Additional Administrative Staff 0.00 FTE Exec Leadership & Advancement 5,482$ Exec Leadership & Advancement (Direct Revenues) 192,369,476 13,061,774$ 0.07$

Average Cost of FTE Administrative -$ Dollars VCAF 602$ VCAF (Direct Expenses) 105,199,136 3,207,679$ 0.03$

Additional M&O Expenses 1,000$ Dollars Athletics 141$ Athletics (Student Headcount) 33,530 472,329$ 14.09$

Additional Space Required 0 SQFT Total Incremental Administrative Support Expenses 24,895$

Additional Research Expenditures -$ Dollars Drivers Additional

Additional Other Expenses -$ Dollars Total Incremental Direct Expenses 19,750$ Student FTE (SFTE) 7.50

Total Incremental Direct Expenses 44,645$ Undergraduate Student FTE (UGFTE) 7.50

Faculty + Student FTE (FAC-S-FTE 7.75

Assumptions: Student HC (SHC) 10.00

1.) All students assumed to be in-state Participation Fee (14%)* 12,626$ Total Direct Expenses (D-EX) 19,750$

2.) No incremental change to state appropriations for benefits or special items Net Assignable Square Footage (SQFT) 0

3.) No incremental change to allocated endowment distributions Net Impact 23,465$ Employee Headcount (EMPLHC) 1.0

4.) Incremental revenue and direct expenses equal for research, endowments, and gifts Total Headcount (THC) 11

5.) Does not include potential impacts to subvention Participation Fee 14%

* Participation fee on total incremental revenues less student fees

Scholarships & Fellowships

Undergraduate 14.1% of total tuition

Graduate 14.1% of total tuition

Dean Scenario Planning Tool▪ Results should be shared more broadly through

ongoing campus-wide faculty and community

engagement sessions

▪ The Campus Budget Office should begin

operationalizing the new budget model

▪ Schools and Colleges begin assessing model

outcomes during the FY21 parallel year


Implementation TimelineRecommended next steps towards implementation are outlined below, with today’s Retreat representing the

culmination of Stakeholder Engagement.

Task Description Status

Due Diligence

and Visioning

(~ 6 Weeks)

• Evaluate the University’s approach to resource allocation, planning, and management

• Assessment of budget model alternatives and an evaluation of the techniques utilized by other

institutions ✓

Financial

Modeling

(~10 Weeks)

• Build-out a pro forma market based budget model, using financial data from fiscal year 2019

• Develop a model to provide executive stakeholders the opportunity to change assumptions and

allocation algorithms for an understanding of the strengths of various incentives and the identification

of unintended consequences ✓

Stakeholder

Engagement

(~18 Weeks)

• Continued stakeholder consensus buying, engagement, and education to develop a well-defined

“UCCS Model”

• Includes steering committee meetings, deans meeting, department meetings, and one-on-one

sessions with key leaders

• Ensure that stakeholders begin to own the new model and acknowledge its potential for success

Underway

Infrastructure

Development

(~12 – 16

Weeks)

• Establishment of governance structures and implementation roadmap

• Continued development of model and support tools; expand model to include FY19 and FY20 budget

• Support administrative and service units to help ensure they are optimally positioned to operate in

new model

Forthcoming

Parallel Process/

Hold Harmless

(1 Year)

• Resource decisions follow the historical model, yet the structure is in place for the redesign model

• Concurrent process helps ensure deans and business managers deeply understand the changed

environment

• Incorporate more formalized model training for relevant stakeholders

• Tweaks to allocation methods may be incorporated if any material issues arise

Forthcoming


Appendix




Science

Letters, Arts, &

Sciences

Nursing & Health


Schools & Colleges

Total

Row Revenue

10 Student Fees 501,133 333,353 579,430 1,554,190 331,381 88,810 3,388,297

11 Direct Student Tuition 45,700 136,806 85,124 606,612 123,263 4,153 1,001,659

12 Tuition Differential Premium 1,686,620 - 1,443,689 77,731 1,871,349 - 5,079,390

13 Allocated UG Tuition 11,622,349 4,621,335 9,580,788 61,674,449 8,117,984 3,745,645 99,362,550

14 Allocated Grad Tuition 3,310,874 5,004,077 2,190,464 2,099,195 2,974,121 1,963,864 17,542,595

15 Allocated UG Scholarships (1,606,037) (585,736) (1,355,894) (7,816,995) (1,211,783) (474,746) (13,051,191)

16 Allocated Grad Scholarships (199,409) (252,716) (127,125) (109,939) (171,845) (99,179) (960,212)

17 Net Tuition and Fees 15,361,229 9,257,120 12,396,477 58,085,242 12,034,471 5,228,547 112,363,086

18 20% Cent. Ret State Appropriations 2,428,720 1,498,487 1,917,519 11,118,964 1,787,427 869,958 19,621,075

19 Earmarked State Appropriations - - 998,804 - - - 998,804

20 State Approps. Allocated for G&C 11,275 566,472 459,769 592,853 348,766 246,068 2,225,203

21 Grants & Contracts 22,661 1,179,227 1,026,321 1,235,377 703,058 494,563 4,661,208

22 F&A Recovery 9,744 95,573 265,512 289,449 150,574 64,801 875,652

23 Gifts 712,286 32,659 583,335 393,255 147,526 161,672 2,030,733

30 Sales, Services, Misc & Other Revenue 290,352 167,935 (2,249) 469,463 1,499,828 30,160 2,455,490

31 Total Revenues 18,836,267 12,797,474 17,645,489 72,184,602 16,671,650 7,095,769 145,231,250

32

33 Expense

34 Salaries & Wages 8,678,362 4,623,669 7,110,036 25,638,064 7,977,413 2,465,122 56,492,666

35 Benefits 105,972 169,439 52,877 287,870 486,492 132,848 1,235,497

36 Travel 163,532 92,394 160,091 495,923 123,101 69,841 1,104,881

37 Utilities - - - 703 - - 703

38 Student Aid 38,300 226,799 584,163 448,370 176,724 5,250 1,479,607

39 Operating Expenses 1,010,378 586,431 1,069,336 2,196,359 701,583 185,726 5,749,813

40 Deferred Maintenance - - - - - - -

41 Book & Periodicals - - - - - - -

42 Intercampus Cost Allocation - - - - - - -

43 Debt Service - Direct - - - - - - -

44 Voluntary Transfers (87,669) (455,126) (223,631) (129,789) (516,035) (48,719) (1,460,969)

45 Total Direct Expenses 9,908,875 5,243,606 8,752,871 28,937,500 8,949,278 2,810,068 64,602,199

46

47 Direct Unit Margin 8,927,391 7,553,869 8,892,617 43,247,102 7,722,371 4,285,700 80,629,051

47.4% 59.0% 50.4% 59.9% 46.3% 60.4%


50 Benefits (2,669,824) (1,306,188) (2,119,741) (7,965,708) (2,093,231) (663,837) (16,818,529)


53 Debt Service Expense (15,360) (9,669) (535,755) (1,537,493) (333,485) (128,498) (2,560,259)


59 Utilities (186,888) (53,370) (359,134) (1,319,932) (88,425) (27,444) (2,035,193)

61 Total Unit Margin 6,055,320 6,184,642 5,877,987 32,423,969 5,207,230 3,465,922 59,215,069

62


64 FTE - Fac + Stud Academic Affairs (759,949) (375,489) (755,470) (2,879,223) (630,828) (303,074) (5,704,033)

65 GCE - PrU AA - Research (3,566) (179,165) (145,417) (187,509) (110,308) (77,827) (703,792)

66 FTE - Fac + Stud Library (418,293) (206,678) (415,828) (1,584,789) (347,222) (166,819) (3,139,629)

67 HC - Tot Information Technology (572,546) (336,266) (540,705) (2,075,925) (578,795) (279,131) (4,383,367)

68 SQFT - Acad Facilities (223,377) (63,790) (429,254) (1,577,644) (105,690) (32,802) (2,432,556)

69 HCS - Tot Student Success (1,521,880) (832,028) (1,430,180) (5,454,035) (1,471,403) (736,122) (11,445,649)

70 DREV - PrU Executive Leadership & Advancement (1,298,824) (882,429) (1,216,715) (4,977,370) (1,149,566) (489,277) (10,014,181)

71 DEXP - PrU Administration & Finance (466,181) (246,695) (411,794) (1,361,416) (421,035) (132,205) (3,039,325)

72 HCS - Tot Athletics (63,035) (34,462) (59,237) (225,902) (60,944) (30,490) (474,070)

73 Total A&S Unit Allocations (5,327,650) (3,157,002) (5,404,600) (20,323,812) (4,875,791) (2,247,747) (41,336,603)

74

75 Unit Margin After Cost Allocations 727,669 3,027,640 473,387 12,100,156 331,440 1,218,175 17,878,466


78 No Auxiliaries Deferred Maintenance (706,749) (201,827) (1,358,127) (4,991,551) (334,394) (103,785) (7,696,433)

80 Unit Margin After Depreciation Allocation 20,920 2,825,813 (884,741) 7,108,605 (2,954) 1,114,390 10,182,033

81

82 Tuition Stabilizaton Fund Assessment (877,954) (556,185) (719,133) (3,459,775) (701,557) (316,679) (6,631,282)

83 4.5% Break-Even Tax Rate (781,085) (494,819) (639,788) (3,079,350) (685,277) (281,738) (5,962,056)

84 Cumulative SIP Assessment (1,659,039) (1,051,003) (1,358,921) (6,539,124) (1,386,833) (598,417) (12,593,338)

86 Unit Margin after SIP Assessment (1,638,118) 1,774,810 (2,243,662) 569,481 (1,389,788) 515,973 (2,411,305)

87 SIP Distribution 1,638,118 - 2,243,662 - 1,389,788 - 5,271,568

88 Unit Margin after SIP Distribution - 1,774,810 - 569,481 - 515,973 2,860,263




Science

Letters, Arts, &

Sciences

Nursing & Health


Schools & Colleges

Total

Row Revenue

10 Student Fees 501,133 333,353 579,430 1,554,190 331,381 88,810 3,388,297












22 F&A Recovery 9,744 95,573 265,512 289,449 150,574 64,801 875,652

23 Gifts 712,286 32,659 583,335 393,255 147,526 161,672 2,030,733


31 Total Revenues 18,836,267 12,797,474 17,645,489 72,184,602 16,671,650 7,095,769 145,231,250

32

33 Expense

34 Salaries & Wages 8,678,362 4,623,669 7,110,036 25,638,064 7,977,413 2,465,122 56,492,666

35 Benefits 105,972 169,439 52,877 287,870 486,492 132,848 1,235,497

36 Travel 163,532 92,394 160,091 495,923 123,101 69,841 1,104,881

37 Utilities - - - 703 - - 703

38 Student Aid 38,300 226,799 584,163 448,370 176,724 5,250 1,479,607








46


47.4% 59.0% 50.4% 59.9% 46.3% 60.4%


50 Benefits (2,669,824) (1,306,188) (2,119,741) (7,965,708) (2,093,231) (663,837) (16,818,529)




59 Utilities (186,888) (53,370) (359,134) (1,319,932) (88,425) (27,444) (2,035,193)


62












74





81










Science

Letters, Arts, &

Sciences

Nursing & Health


Schools & Colleges

Total

Row Revenue

10 Student Fees 501,133 333,353 579,430 1,554,190 331,381 88,810 3,388,297












22 F&A Recovery 9,744 95,573 265,512 289,449 150,574 64,801 875,652

23 Gifts 712,286 32,659 583,335 393,255 147,526 161,672 2,030,733


31 Total Revenues 18,836,267 12,797,474 17,645,489 72,184,602 16,671,650 7,095,769 145,231,250

32

33 Expense

34 Salaries & Wages 8,678,362 4,623,669 7,110,036 25,638,064 7,977,413 2,465,122 56,492,666

35 Benefits 105,972 169,439 52,877 287,870 486,492 132,848 1,235,497

36 Travel 163,532 92,394 160,091 495,923 123,101 69,841 1,104,881

37 Utilities - - - 703 - - 703

38 Student Aid 38,300 226,799 584,163 448,370 176,724 5,250 1,479,607








46


47.4% 59.0% 50.4% 59.9% 46.3% 60.4%


50 Benefits (2,669,824) (1,306,188) (2,119,741) (7,965,708) (2,093,231) (663,837) (16,818,529)




59 Utilities (186,888) (53,370) (359,134) (1,319,932) (88,425) (27,444) (2,035,193)


62












74





81








Model DevelopmentThe process to develop a customized model is an iterative one during which Huron and UCCS relied heavily upon

community feedback for each model iteration, which culminated in a highly customized model that reflects the

unique culture and strengths of the University.

2

▪ Highly customized incentives to

drive mission-critical needs

▪ Fits with University culture and

strengths

▪ Features strategic and mission

enhancement fund for

University priorities

31

Baseline Model Customized ModelActuals Model

▪ No use of allocation rules

▪ Reflects general ledger activity

▪ Reorganization of transactions

to align with unit and account

definition

▪ All data-driven allocation rules

▪ Reflects internal economy

▪ Baseline for sensitivity analysis


Budget Process OverviewThe table below outlines the budget development process milestones and the groups with primary accountability

and responsibility for their completion.

Strong central leadership and relevant feedback from key stakeholders will ensure that the

budget process is equitable for all units and allow for mission-critical and strategic growth.

Course

Completion

35%

Inst. Support

10%

Acad. Support

10%

M&O

10%

Student

Success

35%

Model Development

Budget Modeling & Scenario Planning

Shared Support Unit Budgeting

Revenue Unit Budgeting

Strategy & Mission

Enhancement Fund

Ongoing Budget Management

Central Budget OfficeCentral Support Unit

EngagementDeans (Academic Units) Budget Update Group Central Budget Office

• Undergraduate tuition

forecasted for

forthcoming year (top-

down)

• Central Support Units

prepare budgets and

supplementary

documentation, then

present materials to

the Support Unit

Allocation Committee

• Schools/college receive

allocated revenue and

Central Support Unit

amounts, then build

budgets for direct

revenues and expenses

(bottom-up)

• Academic Unit

budgets are reviewed

and shared, and

negative-margin units

negotiate to receive an

appropriate amount of

the SIP funds to fill any

anticipated shortfalls

• Reports provided to

Academic Units on an

ongoing basis to monitor

actual revenues and

expenses against budgets;

Central Support Unit

allocation amounts will

remain fixed


AppropriationsHuron has helped several other institutions determine the level at which research could be subsidized. This

calculated starting point has ranged between 50/50 and 88/12.

Academic

Research

Distribution of General State

Appropriations Examples

100%

0%

0%

100%

Course

Completion

35%

Acad. Support

10%

Baseline

(Starting Point)

Customized

(80/20)Customized

23 3

General State Approp. to Academic Programs

▪ Promotes externally funded research

▪ Often aligns with legislative intent

▪ Creates a lopsided funded model

▪ Increases risk for research portfolio

General State Approp. to Research

▪ Encourages mission-based activities

▪ Recognizes the need to subsidize research

▪ Optically unfeasible (legislative intent)

▪ May place a large burden on instruction portfolio

50/50

56/44

64/36

University B

Medical School

80/20

University C

Medium Research

University D

Higher Research

University E

High Research

90/10

University A

Lower Research

88/12


46%44%

20%

2%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Calculated Negotiated Effective (Avg.)

FY19 Indirect Cost Recovery Rates

Sponsored Programs Support CalculationsA review of UCCS’ indirect cost recovery rates served as a starting point for discussing how to use state

appropriations to support sponsored research programs.

10% 90%

UCCS General State Approp. ($28.3M)

Research Subsidy: $2.8MRemaining State Approp. : $25.2M

▪ Research subsidy rate of 24% is applied to the primary units’ total sponsored expenses of $4.5 million to calculate a

minimum research subsidy of $2.8 million, representing 10% of general state appropriations

Source: Calculated rate is from UCCS’s latest F&A Rate Proposal, effective 2016-2020; effective rate was provided by the Office of Research and is for FY19.

Row 20


Cost Pool Allocations: ExampleIncentive-based budget models use a variety of metrics to allocate support unit expenditures to the primary units.

The following is an illustrative example for consideration.

Illustrative Allocation: Square Footage (SQFT)

▪ Universities often choose to allocate centrally-managed facilities costs to primary units based on square

footage, as it best depicts the fluctuation of expenditures for the given unit (economic reality). In this

example, 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 net

expenditures

1 Allocation Formula Notes:

PU = Primary Unit; SU = Support Unit

For PUn, n represents each individual primary unit (i.e. academic units, centers & institutes, auxiliaries)


Pass ThroughPer the Executive Team’s recommendation, certain funds have been reclassified as Pass Through in the budget

model because the primary and support units do not have spending authority over these funds.

Reclassification Description

Federally Funded Student

Aid

($25.5MM)

• Reclassified $25.5MM of state-funded aid (including PELL, SEOG, KEES, etc.)

revenue and expense to Pass Through.


7.4 Year-over-Year Subvention Decisions While subvention is set on an annual basis, it is recommended that Academic Unit Leadership meet with the

Chancellor/Provost/VC of Administration & Finance to develop rolling 3-year guidance, which will prevent an

annual formulaic dollar-for-dollar reduction in subvention in relation to positive margins and/or prior-year

carryforwards.

▪ While it is expected that the degree to which subvention occurs will generally decrease over time, this

change is not based on a formula, but data-informed, strategic decisions. As such, an increase in revenues

would not necessarily result in a formulaic and corresponding decrease to subvention.

▪ The degree to which a school is subvented is neither inevitable nor constant over time. As the goal is to

increase strategic initiatives and decrease subvention, conversations with Chancellor/Provost/VC of

Administration & Finance during the initial budget setting process will inform the proposed subvention

requirements over a rolling 3-year timeframe.

▪ While agreements are subject to adjustment in the event of large, external shifts to anticipated revenues (state

funding cuts, tuition freezes, etc.), rolling subvention plans provide time for deans to realize multi-year

growth and cost reduction strategies without substantial changes in subvention.


Model StructureAn incentive-based model requires the identification of units to serve as the drivers of revenue-generating activities; other units are expected to support the activities of revenue generating units.

Central Support Units

▪ Limited-to-no ability to influence

revenue

▪ Provide services and/or support to

academic, research, and auxiliary

units

▪ No allocation of central costs

▪ Accountable for optimal service

levels

▪ Encouraged to justify funding

levels through benchmarking

▪ Accountable for fiscal

performance

▪ IT, HR, and Facilities may have

service-level agreements with

select primary units

Hybrid Units

▪ Units that do not fall cleanly into

one of the other categories; some

operations may act like a primary

unit while others act like a support

unit

▪ For simplicity and consistency,

these are not typically

recommended

Primary Units

▪ Ability to influence revenue

generation:

- Price

- Quantity (not captive market)

▪ Cover direct costs with generated

revenue

▪ Fully-allocated central (support

unit) costs

▪ Accountable for performance,

retaining both surpluses and

losses

▪ Pay subvention tax


Executive Budget CommitteeMany institutions have an Executive Budget Committee that recommends a university-wide budget, including subvention fund allocations, to the Chancellor.

Roles and Charges

▪ Reviews support unit budget proposals

recommended by the Support Unit Allocation

Committee

▪ Recommends a unified support unit budget to the

Chancellor if the Chancellor is not part of the group

▪ Reviews executive summary of primary unit

financial plans, including strategic fund requests, from

the budget hearings in February and March

▪ In April, recommends a university-wide budget to

the Chancellor

▪ Reviews other proposals from various governance

committees for potential Chancellor approval

Example Membership

▪ Executive Leadership Team

▪ Budget Director

▪ Academic Affairs Reps

Chancellor

Campus Support Unit

Subcomittee

Evolved UBAC

Academic

Subcommittee

Executive Budget

Commitee


Evolved UBAC SubcommitteesProposed subcommittees for the Evolved UBAC play important governance, advisory, and support roles related to academic and support unit budget development, concerns arising from model incentives, and service levels.

Roles and Charges

▪ Campus Support Unit Subcommittee proposed roles

include support for unit budget development,

forwarding financial requirements/requests to UBAC,

and addressing service concerns.

▪ Academic Subcommittee proposed roles include

supporting academic entity budget development and

addressing concerns related to program offerings and

revenue allocations.

▪ Proposed subcommittees provide recommendations

and guidance reflective of broad stakeholder feedback

to the broader University Budget Advisory Committee

Proposed Membership To Include

▪ Faculty & Chairs

▪ Staff Council

representatives

▪ Professional Exempt

Staff Association

representatives

▪ Students

▪ Academic & Associate

Deans

▪ Budget Chair

▪ UBAC Chair

Chancellor

Campus Support Unit

Subcomittee

Evolved UBAC

Academic

Subcommittee

Executive Budget

Commitee


Project Team

Andrew Laws,

Managing DirectorWill Campbell,

Project Consultant

Laura Humberger,

Project Director

Glenn McLaurin,

Project Manager

▪ Experience: 16+ years

▪ Focus Area: Andrew has

helped more than 45

universities optimize

institutional resources

through financial modeling

and budget planning

initiatives; revenue

enhancement and cost

reduction initiatives; and

organizational assessment

and business process

redesign initiatives.

▪ Recent Clients: University

of Denver, University of St.

Thomas, University of

Wyoming, University of

Virginia, Auburn University,

University of North Dakota,

University of Kentucky


▪ Focus Area: Will has

supported academic

institutions on a variety of

projects, which include long-

term financial feasibility

assessments, budget

assessment, and academic

portfolio management.

▪ Recent Clients: Oklahoma

State Regents for Higher

Education, Watkins of Art


▪ Focus Area: Laura has

worked on a variety of

finance-related projects,

which include budget model

redesign, debt and capital

planning, business process

automation and efficiency,

financial report development,

strategic planning, fund

balance analysis,

governance and risk

management, and service

delivery design

▪ Recent Clients: University

of Texas – San Antonio,

Oregon State University,

Montana State University


▪ Focus Area: Glenn has

experience supporting

academic institutions with

financial reporting,

institutional financial and

performance assessments,

resource allocation

management, and business

office support

▪ Recent Clients: Oklahoma

State Regents for Higher

Education, Watkins College

of Art, University System of

Georgia, University of North

Carolina – Chapel Hill

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





Steering CommitteeThe Steering Committee will act as a decision-making resource that can speak and act on behalf of the campus.

The primary role of the Committee is to provide guidance for this initiative, to review project status reports, and to

validate the opportunities presented.

Name Title

Tom Christensen Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Co-Chair)

Chuck Litchfield Vice Chancellor, Administration & Finance

Kevin Laudner Dean, Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Beth-El College of Nursing &

Health Sciences

George Reed Dean, School of Public Affairs

Rob Block Associate Dean, College of Business

Alex Ilyasova Associate Dean, College of Letters, Arts, & Sciences

Laura Edwards Finance Manager, College of Engineering & Applied Science

April Keller Finance Manager, College of Education

Dale DeBoer Associate Professor, College of Letters, Arts, & Sciences

Sylvia Mendez Associate Professor & Department Chair, College of Education

Carlos Garcia Interim Vice Chancellor, Student Success

Corrie West Director of Development, University Development

Christina Jimenez Associate Professor, College of Letters, Arts, & Sciences


550 W Van Buren St #1700, Chicago IL, 60607

(312) 583-8700

www.huronconsultinggroup.com