1 / 37

General Fund Budget Fiscal Year 2003

General Fund Budget Fiscal Year 2003. Oakland University Proposed General Fund Budgets FY 2003. Revenue Sources Overview Key Operating Environment Measures FY 2003 Budget Assumptions Non-Discretionary Budget Increases Academic Affairs Highlights and Priorities Other Budget Priorities.

diata
Download Presentation

General Fund Budget Fiscal Year 2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. General Fund Budget Fiscal Year 2003

  2. Oakland University Proposed General Fund BudgetsFY 2003 • Revenue Sources Overview • Key Operating Environment Measures • FY 2003 Budget Assumptions • Non-Discretionary Budget Increases • Academic Affairs Highlights and Priorities • Other Budget Priorities

  3. Revenue Sources Overview

  4. FY 2001 Unrestricted Education and General Revenue Sources Peer Average Oakland Compared to its peers, Oakland University is relatively more reliant on tuition and fees to support its Education and General Expenditures than on state appropriations. Source: FY 2001 Financial Statements of OU & Peer Institutions

  5. Oakland UniversityPeer Institutions Wichita StateCleveland StateIndiana StateWright StateAkronUniversity of Missouri – St. LouisUniversity of Nevada Las Vegas

  6. FY 2001 Unrestricted Education and General Revenue Sources Michigan Average Oakland Compared to other Michigan institutions, Oakland University is relatively more reliant on tuition and fees to support its Education and General Expenditures than on state appropriations. Michigan data does not include three major research universities (MSU, UM & WSU). Source: FY 2001 Financial Statements from OU and Michigan Institutions

  7. Comparison of General Fund Revenue Sources FY 1991 and FY 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 Since 1991, Oakland University’s relative reliance on tuition and fees in the General Fund has grown from 39% to 51% in 2001. Source: OU Financial Statements

  8. Michigan Public Universities % Growth in Appropriation/FYES from FY 1997 to FY 2002 Source: FY 2001 - 2002 Higher Education Appropriations Report

  9. Appropriation per FYESFY 2002 (Ranked) Source: FY 2001 - 2002 Higher Education Appropriations Report

  10. Comparison of State Appropriation Increase with Tuition and Required Fees Increase

  11. Key Operating Environment Measures

  12. FY 2001 Unrestricted Education and General Expenditures Peer Average Oakland Institutional Support 14% Institutional Support 11% Compared to its peers, Oakland University spends more of its Education and General Funds on Instruction, Institutional Support and Student Services, and less on Plant Maintenance, Public Service, and Academic Support. Source: Financial Statements OU and Peer Institutions

  13. FY 2001 Unrestricted Education and General Expenditures Michigan Average Oakland Institutional Support 13% Compared to other Michigan institutions, Oakland University spends more of its Education and General Funds on Instruction, Student Services, and Research and less on Public Service, Financial Aid, Plant Maintenance, and Academic Support. Michigan data does not include three major research universities (MSU, UM & WSU). Source: Financial Statements OU and Michigan Institutions

  14. Fiscal Year Equated Students (FYES)Per Full-Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) FY 2001 UNIVERSITYFYES/FTEF NMU 20.86 OU 19.60 SVSU 19.30 EMU 19.05 CMU 18.65 GVSU 18.02 UMF 16.65 UMD 16.26 LSSU 16.26 FSU 15.61 WMU 15.01 MTU 12.40 MSU 12.01 UMAA 11.37 WSU 10.99 AVERAGE 11 (Excluding OU, MSU, UMAA, WSU) 17.10 Source: Heidi Data Base

  15. Michigan Universities General Fund Expenditures Per FYESFY 2001 UMAA $27,619 MTU 17,971 Dollars WSU 17,122 Median $ 9,534 MSU 15,101 Average 15 12,328 FSU 12,391 Average 12 10,423 NMU 11,240 UMD 10,649 UMF 9,534 OU9,418 (9th) GVSU9,231 WMU 9,207 LSSU 9,070 EMU 8,883 CMU 8,846 SVSU 8,628 Source: Heidi Data Base

  16. Ratio of Credit Hours per Headcount at Michigan Public Universities FY 2001 Source: Heidi Data Base

  17. Univ.Ft2/Student UMAA 351.8 MTU 348.3 MSU 327.9 NMU 293.8 WSU 293.6 LSSU 274.4 FSU 183.6 WMU 162.6 UMD 159.1 SVSU 149.8 EMU 141.6 CMU 137.1 OU 117.6 GVSU 109.1 UMF 107.9 Classroom space, in modules, expanded from 1,200 in Fall 1999 to 1,305 in Fall 2000 with addition of Elliott Hall. Module utilization in Fall 1999 was 75.9%. Available modules were almost all during the day. Night class schedules are close to 100% of module utilization. Gross Sq Feet Per FYES in MichiganFY 2001 Source: Heidi Data Base

  18. Cost Containment Strategies

  19. Cost Reduction Efforts

  20. Revenue Generation • Pepsi exclusive beverage agreement $ 346,000 • Bookstore (lease revenue) $ 400,000 • Meadow Brook Music Festival $ 105,000 • Food Service $ 111,000

  21. FY 2003 Budget Assumptions

  22. FY 2003 Revenue Assumptions • State appropriation projected to remain at FY 2002 level. • Average full-time resident undergraduate tuition and fees rate proposed to be increased by 8.47%. • Increase in Recreation Center Fee by $2 per semester to cover operational cost increases that occurred since 1998. • Increase the General Service Fee by $5 per semester, to support improvements in parking. • A FYES target enrollment of 13,300. This is 8.13% above the FY 2002 budget and 5.6% above the projected actual FYES for FY 2002. • Other revenue increases include $65,000 associated with growth in Charter School activities, and $200,000 in projected Indirect Cost Recovery growth based on actual FY 2002 increases continuing into FY 2003.

  23. Oakland UniversityGeneral Fund Budget RevenuesFiscal Year 2002 Total Proposed Revenues: $111,634,751 Note: Effective FY 2001, Financial Aid is reported as a tuition discount. This has the effect of reducing the percentage of revenues generated by tuition and fees. Gross tuition and fees (before the offset) would be 53.1% of the gross total and state appropriation would drop to 44.5%.

  24. Oakland UniversityGeneral Fund Budget RevenuesFiscal Year 2003 Total Proposed Revenues: $121,074,037 Note: Effective FY 2001, Financial Aid is reported as a tuition discount. This has the effect of reducing the percentage of revenues generated by tuition and fees. Gross tuition and fees (before the offset) would be 56.5% of the gross total and state appropriation would drop to 41.0%.

  25. Non-Discretionary Budget Increases

  26. Non Discretionary Increases

  27. Academic Affairs Highlights and Priorities

  28. Enhancing Instruction Programs

  29. Additional Academic Support

  30. Oakland UniversityFull-Time Faculty Headcount The Part-time faculty budget has increased by $4 million since 1995.

  31. Comparison of Total General Fund Budget to Academic Affairs Allocation 67.2% 67.1% 68.6% 66.6% 65.6% 64.2% * While FY 2003 compensation increases have not yet been determined, $2.5 million of the total compensation pool has been estimated to be part of Academic Affairs.

  32. Comparison of Academic Affairs Budget Percent Increase to FYES Percent Increase $3.9 (In Millions) $4.7 $4.4 $4.9 $3.9 700 617 624 422 $2.3 301 244 FYES Increase is actual, FY 2002 is estimated actual, FY 2003 is budgeted. * While FY 2003 compensation increases have not yet been determined, $2.5 million of the total compensation pool has been estimated to be part of Academic Affairs.

  33. Other Budget Priorities

  34. Improved Service to Students

  35. Health and Safety Improvements

  36. Other Priority Budget Allocations

  37. FY 2003General Fund Budget- END-

More Related