BUDGET SUB MEET &
CONFER
NOTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 31,
2006
3:00 PM – CSU 204
Please note:
The agenda and supporting documents can be obtained at Web site
http://www.mnsu.edu/finadm/submeetconfer/.
1.
Discussion
Items – No
items were brought up for discussion.
2.
Recreation
Facilities Proposal – Kevin Buisman and Todd Pfingsten
This
presentation has been given to various groups on campus, but most
importantly
to the Student Senate. A few years
ago when working on the Campus Master Plan, Human Performance and
Campus
Recreation put together an outdoor recreational facilities plan. President Davenport asked them to bring
it forward again. The President's
vision is to provide access to health and wellness facilities. The action plan involves five
issues: field conditions, field
locations, program growth and expansion, modernization of facilities,
and
safety. It addresses the following
key programming deficiencies:
field areas/surfaces, condition of existing facilities (e.g.
track),
limited growth potential (capacity/infrastructure), and modernization
to meet
student needs and demands. The
conditions of the fields are poor and there are no bathrooms or water
at the
fields; and the programs have grown tremendously—about 60% of students
participate in recreation programs.
.
The plan proposes a cost
of $21.7 million in two phases of
facilities and field improvements. No student fee money has been used
for MSU's
internal facilities: Taylor center,
Myers Field House, Highland Center or Otto Recreation Center. Similar facilities throughout the
region have utilized student fee support.
The plan benefits health and wellness, which is a key University
initiative, as well as recruitment and retention; increased community
partnership, and improved campus beautification. We
need good equipment and facilities which help keep
students here, plus the students who utilize them get higher GPAs.
The
plan consists of six initiatives:
improve Campus Recreation fields, construct a multi-purpose
stadium,
convert field 3 to a soccer pitch, install synthetic turf at the
multi-purpose
stadium and Blakeslee, install a bubble at Blakeslee and the tennis
courts, and
construct a student ice facility.
To
improve Campus Recreation fields, three new softball fields with
backstops,
skinned infields, dugouts, 300 foot fences, lights and centralized
bathrooms
and storage would be installed.
Participation in Campus Recreation programs has increased to
nearly 60%
of the students with a future goal of 80%. To
meet that goal, the necessary infrastructure improvements
must be made. The Campus
Recreation fields would be improved by adding two lighted flag football
fields
and a lighted multi- purpose field.
This field would relocate the rugby pitch that will be displaced
by the
new residence halls. A lighted
soccer field and a renovated lacrosse field would also be included. Currently, the area is relatively
unusable, but it can be filled and converted to usable play space as
other
construction occurs on campus and can replace spaces lost to campus
projects.
Lighting
fields expands the window of opportunity for organized play. Our current facilities are at
capacity. Softball participation
has gown by 300% in 6 years. Flag
football has grown from 21 teams to over 50 teams.
The
plan includes the construction of a multi-purpose stadium for flag
football,
club soccer, lacrosse, rugby, varsity track and women's soccer. It could also be used regionally by
high schools and for youth programs.
It would be lighted and have a 9-lane all-weather track with
seating for
1,500.
Field
3 would be converted to a soccer pitch so women's varsity soccer would
be
relocated there. The current
varsity field is also used by Campus Recreation.
Synthetic
turf would be installed at the multi-purpose stadium and Blakeslee. Artificial turf wears longer and
extends field use to year round.
Another addition would be a bubble over Blakeslee and the tennis
courts. The bubble would be air
inflated, and the areas would be heated to 55 degrees.
This would also extend the playability
to year round. It would
accommodate more tennis sections which is a high-demand course. The MSU tennis program would also be
brought back "home" from the Gustavus Adolphus courts.
Having a bubble over Blakeslee would
relieve the stress on the Myers Field House schedule.
It could be used for a variety of academic, Campus
Recreation and athletic purposes.
The
proposal includes a student ice facility that would potentially be
built on the
existing Gage Towers site. It
would be used for women's hockey practice and games, men's hockey
practice,
intramurals and sports clubs, academic classes and community uses. This would replace the function of All
Seasons Arena and possibly relieve the community's demand for
additional ice
time. It would be 78,000 square
feet with two sheets of ice and seating for 1,500.
We have commitments that have to be honored with All Seasons
Arena, so the earliest it could be built is in four years.
Eventually the money being paid to All
Seasons Arena would be available for other uses within the University
budget. MnSCU does not fund leases;
M&E operating dollars pay for these leases. The
lease dollars would not go to new facilities but put
back into funding our regular operating costs. The new areas could be
part of
our square footage on campus which would qualify for the allocation of
staff
and utilities and would get back into the facilities allocation formula. It was asked if there would be any
equity issues with women playing on campus and men playing off campus. The women's hockey team has been
offered the opportunity to play at the Civic Center, but they have
declined. It is not known if the men would
complain about the women playing at a new facility.
A lot of city leagues could use the facilities.
There is revenue potential in all the
facilities. The facilities could
be used to host hockey events, track meets and soccer tournaments. They could be a regional attraction
which would aid the community.
The
schedule for the plan is fairly aggressive beginning with the
installation of
the bubbles in November 2006 and with construction ending in August
2008. The estimated construction costs are
as
follows:
Improve
Campus Recreation Fields
$3,950K
Convert
Field 3 to a Soccer Pitch
$300
K
Construct
Multi-Purpose Stadium
$1,250K
Install
Synthetic Turf at MP Stadium & Blakeslee
$1,500K
Install
Bubble at Blakeslee & Tennis Courts
$1,200K
Construct
Student Ice Facility
$10,500K
Contingencies/Design
Fees
`
$3,000K
Total
$21,700K
The
estimated student costs per semester with an amortization term of 20
years are:
Cost
of Funds
5%
Number
of Payments
240
Total
FTE
13,000
Annual
Credit Hours Per Student
28
Cost
Per Credit Hour for Field & Facility Construction
$4.72
Cost
Per Credit Hour for Operations & Maintenance
$.84
Total
Cost Per Credit Hour
$5.56
Cost
Per Student
$77.70
In
a tuition and fees cost comparison with 10 other Minnesota
universities, MSU,
Mankato is #6. The student fee
would be phased in incrementally relative to the approximate
construction
schedule with a cost per semester of:
Year
2006-07
$40.51
Year
2007-08
$40.51
Year
2008-09
$77.70
Years
2027-2029 $48.64
The early reaction from
the students is that they are
interested and willing to engage in further consultation.
They have asked great questions and
have had good suggestions. We are
looking at ways to lighten the financial load for them.
The added revenue could reduce the fees
they would pay. There was a
suggestion to look at some revenue projections that could offset the
fee and
create other fee scenarios. A
presentation was given to Pat Hentges who gave some feedback. Kevin Buisman is aware of what the city
is planning and is on one of the planning committees.
If this fails with the students, there is no back-up
plan.
3.
Indirect
Cost Income Distribution Procedure
One
income item in the budget that
has been handled on a formula distribution basis rather than on a
request basis
is indirect costs. About seven or
eight years ago there was a proposal to distribute indirect costs on a
formula
basis. The idea was to put money
out from the indirect costs earned from grants and contracts to be an
incentive
to generate income through more grants to the institution.
In an accounting sense you can look at
it a couple of ways: (1) distribute
resources on the basis of entitlement or (2) distribute resources by
need, or a
specific area of need in the University, which is the direction we have
tried
to handle most of our allocations.
We want to reassess this to see if the current procedure is
accomplishing what it was intended to do.
If so, maybe we won't make any changes; but if not, we need to
look at
other distribution approaches for the dollars that are currently around
$250,000. We have been talking
more about dealing with initiatives and putting money toward things
that are
going to produce results and measure and hold units accountable for
dollars
received. This item was put on
today's agenda to let you know what we are doing and to get feedback on
the
next steps. Based on this formula,
cost centers are set up for all units or individuals receiving money
through
the formula. We now have over 90
cost centers with balances ranging from $6 to $40,000+.
We carry forward more dollars than what
are spent. Most of these dollars
are being distributed in the Academic Affairs Division, and each year
any
proposed change would not
see the dollars going any place
other than Academic Affairs. One
objective that was considered when the new procedure was put together—
generate
more external grants and contracts.
From the beginning, the cash balances have been growing each
year. The Budget Office does not receive
any expenditure
plans for these dollars. Grants
and Sponsored Programs gets 30% of the dollars. A
report has been sent out regarding the carryforward and
distribution of these dollars in the last few years, and we also send
quarterly
reports to the deans. When dollars
are put out without a spending plan, it takes individuals a while to
decide
what to do with it. Also, if needs
are being met by departments, what do you do with the money? If we allocate the money based on creative
proposals, the money could be spent very quickly and, hopefully,
achieve the
objective of generating more grants and contracts.
A group should be formed to discuss this matter.
It needs faculty representation, and
the Graduate Office has to be involved.
It makes sense to talk to project directors about what they
would
like. It was suggested we look at
other schools that are bringing in this kind of money and see how they
are
using it. Models from other
schools give part of the money back, but it is not known how well this
works. If we did an assessment, it
would show that a lot of the money has not gone to new grant production. A report can be given on where the
money has gone. Members of the
work group to discuss this matter are:
Debbie Sinning and Sharon Sandland from Business Services
(volunteered
by Steve Smith), Lynn Akey, Scott Johnson, Nina NeNoir, and Michael
Bently
(suggested by John Winkworth).
4.
Criteria
Development for Joint Planning & Budget – Update
Attached
to today's agenda were the
materials that had been presented at the January 24, 2006 Planning and
Budget
Sub Meet & Confer by the criteria committee from BSM&C. There was a lot of discussion at that
meeting, and the committee was asked to do additional work. Some of the ideas were a timeline of
when this process would happen and a time when people could submit new
ideas. A template was requested
since there was concern about the questions that were included in the
criteria. Examples of something going
through the
process were requested. The work
group will meet again and come up with an example.
The committee wants everyone to understand what not to
include; groups could be established so people are aware of the
information. The committee hopes
to streamline the process and make it work. A
visual will be created to help show what needs to be
done. There is no desire to
circumvent and duplicate other processes.
Planning is trying to
look at a position description in the
planning area. Programs that are
doing annual assessments and giving data to Tracy Pellett would
indicate that
the quality indicators could be tied in.
The financial area is not reviewed. Broader
indicators could be looked into. Lynn Akey
is doing a lot of Student
Affairs' assessment. On the visual
chart that was included in today's handouts, it looks as though only
new
programs can be "Not Approved".
However, there is an arrow from the bottom box "Future Funding
Decision" that goes up to the "Not Approved" box from existing
programs. This could possibly be
modified.
5.
Information
Items
- FY07 Institutional Equipment –
Lists due February 10, 2006
A
copy of the MSU equipment
allocation process was included with today's agenda.
The FY07 institutional equipment process is now being
done. Information was sent out at
the end of December, and the BSM&C committee will prioritize the
division
lists and give the final list to the Cabinet to approve or make changes. Representatives from each division and
bargaining units are needed to prioritize the FY07 equipment lists. There will be one or two meetings after
February 10.
- FY07 Approved Tuition Rates to
Date
A
report showing the FY07 approved
tuition rates to date was also included with today's agenda. The academic year impact for MSU shows
that in FY06 the rates for two tuition bands was $4,682 and for FY07
will be
$5,104—an increase of $422.
Tuition for full-time graduate students in FY06 is $4,860 and
will
increase to $5,298 in FY07—an increase of $438. Reciprocity
agreements have not yet been received.
- FY006 Enrollment Update
A report showing FYE
enrollment from FY03 to date in FY06 at
MnSCU universities was also included with today's agenda.
Most institutions decreased in
enrollment, but spring semester numbers will still change.
MSU is down about 1% from last
year.
6.
Other
Items – No
items were mentioned.
7.
Next
Meeting Date – February 14, 2006 – 3:00 PM in CSU 204
Dave Cowan will give an update on parking at this meeting. The Parking Advisory Committee is making a recommendation for changes in permit fees.