University of Minnesota, Morris

Campus Resources and Planning Committee


October 18, 2007

(Minutes approved: 29 Nov. 2007)


Members Present:            Pete Wyckoff, Jenny Wermerskirchen, Lowell Rasmussen, Sarah Mattson,

                                                   Jennifer Rothchild, Dave Swenson, Maddy Maxeiner, LeAnn Dean,

                                                   Brook Miller, Sara Haugen, Ken Hodgson


Guests:                                   Jacquie Johnson, Gary Strei




Budget Presentation by Gary Strei


Gary began the presentation by distributed a handout that included some background information on how the budget works in addition to budget information for the last three academic years.




UMM has several different financial components that make up our total budget for the campus:

  1. O&M accounts (Centrally funded from the TC + tuition revenues + U fee revenues);
  2. Auxiliary Accounts (self-support units—e.g. residential life, food service, bookstore);
  3. ISO (Internal Service Organizations—these are also self-supporting units—e.g. transportation, duplicating);
  4. Grant accounts;
  5. Gift and Foundation accounts.


We generate a budget for each new fiscal year based on a number of things, including our best estimates of the number of students who will enroll; tuition increases set by the University of Minnesota system; salary increases that are also set system-wide; and by the additional amount of central funds the U of M decides to give us. Jacquie added that there are two key variables that we cannot control – tuition and salaries.




We began the year with a cash balance in the O&M account. That yearŐs budget was based on an estimated enrollment of 1,800 students. The actual enrollment was 1,684. Because of this and other factors, UMM overspent its budget that left us with an overall deficit in our O&M accounts at the end of the fiscal year.




Our budget for this year was based on an enrollment of 1,700 students and our 10 day count showed 1,747 students. Even though our enrollment was slightly higher than expected, the tuition revenue dollars that came in were not as high as we would have hoped because of the mix of credits, the mix of students (degree seeking and non-degree seeking) and because of various tuition waivers. We took measures to address the budget shortfall by doing the following:

-           we did not fill some open positions;

-           we charged the auxiliary units the equivalent of the Institutional Revenue Sharing (IRS)fee, transferring those funds into our O&M accounts; and

-           we reduced everyoneŐs SE&E budgets by 5%.


The discussion will continue at the meeting next week.