2008-2009 Budget Presentation

2008-2009 Budget Presentation March 4, 2008 Academic Senate 3/4/2008 1 2008-2009 Budget Planning Calendar 3/4/2008 2 2008-2009 Budget Planning Calendar Currently, we are preparing estimates of Cal Poly’s share of the Governor’s Budget 3/4/2008 3 Cal Poly Budget Process  Cal Poly has been fully decentralized for approximately 15 Years • • • • Program areas are allocated base funding each year • Responsible for all salaries, benefits and operating costs • Each division/college has its own budget process • • • Depending on the division, their budget process can be centralized or decentralized or a hybrid AVP for Finance sits on committee Committee reviews and advises on the budget as planned by the committee chair Budget and Long Range Planning Committee VPs gather priorities • Request for new base funding come from divisions thru the Vice Presidents President’s Executive Staff approves final allocations 4 3/4/2008 Compact for Higher Education – (established in 2005-2006)       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 equipment, technology, & libraries Identifies importance of restoring more competitive salaries for CSU employees 2.5% Enrollment Growth per year 10% Fee Revenue Increase per year 3/4/2008 5 CSU Support Budget 3/4/2008 6 CSU Support Budget Relatively Smooth Sailing 3/4/2008 7 Compact Fully Funded 2005-2006 thru 2007-2008 (Previous Reduction not restored)    2005-2006 budget allowed for an enrollment increase, included a fee increase of 8% for undergraduates, and was consistent with the Compact 2006-2007 funding was consistent with the Compact, provided a buy-out of the fee increase, allowed an enrollment increase, and provided above-Compact funding for nursing and math/science teacher initiatives 2007-2008 budget was consistent with the Compact, allowed an enrollment increase, and included a fee increase of 10% • Progress made toward reducing the salary gaps 3/4/2008 8 2008-09 CSU Trustees Budget Request (Compact)--November Revenue Assumptions  General Operations (4%)  Enrollment Growth (2.5%)  Academic Infrastructure (1%)  Revenue Augmentation  Compact (General Fund)  Enrollment Growth Revenue  Total Compact Funding $117.0 Million 68.8 Million 29.2 Million 73.2 Million $288.2 Million 34.5 Million $322.7 Million 3/4/2008 9 2008-09 CSU Trustees Budget Request (Compact)--November Expenditure Assumptions  Mandatory Costs  Enrollment Growth (2.5%)  Compensation  Financial Aid  Long Term Need Total Compact Funding $36.0 Million 82.5 Million 154.3 Million 6.9 Million 43.0 Million $322.7 Million 3/4/2008 10 CSU—Mandatory Costs  (Compact) Health Benefits $21.7M  New Space 6.0M  Energy 4.1M  Full Year, service-based salary increases 4.2M Total Mandatory Cost Increase $36.0M 3/4/2008 11 CSU—Compensation  (Compact) Compensation base @ 3% $91.1M  Salary Gap Funding 63.2M Total Compensation Increase $154.3M 3/4/2008 12 CSU—Long-Term Need  (Compact) Library Acquisitions  Deferred Maintenance  Academic Technology Total Long-Term Need Increase $3.0M 6.5M 33.5M $43.0M 3/4/2008 13 Whole Dollars $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $500 $0 CSU Student Fees – Actual vs 10% Incremental Increases 3/4/2008 Actual UG SUF College Year 10% Incremental Increase 14 19 81 /8 2 19 82 /8 3 19 83 /8 4 19 84 /8 5 19 85 /8 6 19 86 /8 7 19 87 /8 8 19 88 /8 9 19 89 /9 0 19 90 /9 1 19 91 /9 2 19 92 /9 3 19 93 /9 4 19 94 /9 19 5 95 /9 6 19 96 /9 7 19 97 /9 8 19 98 /9 9 19 99 /0 0 20 00 /0 1 20 01 /0 2 20 02 /0 3 20 03 /0 4 20 04 /0 5 20 05 /0 6 20 06 /0 7 20 07 /0 8 Student Fees, Comparison Institutions CSU (Average) U of Nevada at Reno 2005/06 Fee Level 2006/07 Increase 2007/08 Increase ASU at Tempe NC State Georgia State U at Atlanta U of Colorado at Denver U of Texas at Arlington George Mason Comparison Average U of Wisconsin at Milwaukee SUNY at Albany Wayne State U Cleveland State U Illinois State U U of Maryland, Baltimore UConn, Storrs Rutgers 3/4/2008 15 CSU Trustees Request – Cal Poly Planning Scenario (Assumes compact fully funded) Sources Employee Compensation Pool (6% of CSU Request) Energy (6% of CSU Request) Student Financial Aid Grants (33% Of Fee Rev Adjustment) New Space 2.5% Enrollment Funding (434 FTES) Total Uses Uses Compensation Energy SUG New Space Enrollment Funding Total Uses Planning Surplus/Deficit $ 5,467,500 240,000 347,200 49,886 3,997,574 10,102,160 7,267,500 240,000 347,200 49,886 1,907,402 9,811,988 290,172 $ $ $ $ 3/4/2008 16 2008-2009 Governor’s Budget--January 3/4/2008 17 Summary of 2008-2009 CSU Funding Shortfall   CSU Board of Trustees Budget Request was $3,265,508,000 Governor’s Budget under funded this request by $386.1M • 10% Budget Reduction • $312.9M • Absence of Student Fee Augmentation • $73.2M 3/4/2008 18 Summary of Recent Budget Reductions to CSU (in Millions) – net of fee increases 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 3 Year Total CSU Cal Poly ($105.4) ($285.3) ($131.6) ($0.6) ($14.9) ($7.5) ($522.3) ($22.9) 3/4/2008 19 CSU Enrollment Growth (2.5%) 3/4/2008 20 2008-2009 Governor’s Budget by Agency (Higher Education = 11.6%) Higher Education received 14.2% of the State’s allocation in 2003-2004 3/4/2008 21 Narrow Opportunities For Spending in California 3/4/2008 22 California Funding For Higher Education •The Postsecondary Education Opportunity (January 2007 publication) reported that California’s funding for Higher Education has decreased by 36.8% since 1980, which is 13.6% below the national average (per $1,000 of State Personal Income). •A Pew Charitable Trusts report (released February 28, 2008), indicates that in 1987, for every dollar spent on education in California, $.32 was spent on corrections, which also was the national average. However, in 2007, for every dollar spent on education, $.83 was spent on corrections, while the national average was $.60. 3/4/2008 23 2008-2009 Budget Shortfall—Cal Poly    If funding for the budget reduction and fee augmentation is restored—No shortfall If NO funding for the for the budget reduction and NO fee augmentation is restored--$9.9M shortfall If No funding for the budget reduction but the fee augmentation IS restored--$7.3M shortfall 3/4/2008 24 Cal Poly Division Uses Over Time 100% 4.7% 90% 18.3% 80% 15.5% 4.3% 70% 60% President University Advancement Student Affairs Administration and Finance Academic Affairs 74.8% 30% 77.7% 50% 40% 20% 10% 0% 2001-2002 2006-2007 3/4/2008 25 Proposed Cuts:    impact student access impact key industries, as CSU is the major supplier of graduates into the state’s workforce impact the long term prospects of increasing college-going rates of underserved communities in California 3/4/2008 26 2008-2009 Budget Planning Calendar— Next Steps -- March thru June 3/4/2008 27 2008-2009 Budget Presentation March 4, 2008 Academic Senate 3/4/2008 28 WHAT’S AT STAKE?   Student Access and Student Success Faculty Recruiting and Professional Development   Staff Excellence and Supporting Resources Strategic Planning and Campaign Launching  This is not a One-Year Problem 3/4/2008 29 Demographic Projections for California 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year White Black Asian All Other Hispanic 3/4/2008 Source: State of California, Dept. of Finance, May 2004 30 STUDENT ACCESS and STUDENT SUCCESS - APPLICATIONS     o o o o o o Partner School Hispanic/Latino African American Native American CAFES CAED CENG CLA OCOB CSM 3/4/2008 Up 17% Up 18% Up 13% Up 18% Up 19% Up 8% Up 14% Up 10% Up 5% Up 10% 31 STUDENT ACCESS and STUDENT SUCCESS Scholarship Support Advising Support Help Sessions/Peer Tutoring Accessibility of Classes Retention 3/4/2008 32 FACULTY RECRUITING and PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT      Competition for the Best Faculty Start-up and Research Initiation Packages Insuring Support Towards Promotion/Tenure Travel and Professional Society Engagement Competitive Salaries 3/4/2008 33 STAFF EXCELLENCE and SUPPORTING RESOURCES      Recruiting Training and Development Smart Classrooms/Labs Institutional Repository Teaching with Technology/Course Transformation 3/4/2008 34 STRATEGIC PLANNING and CAMPAIGN LAUNCHING California Demographics Needs of Industry and Government Our Capacity and Ability to Meet Demand Setting the Stage for the Campaign 3/4/2008 35 2008-2009 Budget Presentation March 4, 2008 Academic Senate 3/4/2008 36