Campus Resources and Planning Committee
October 5, 2009
Present: Pete Wyckoff, Lowell Rasmussen, Sydney Sweep, Sara Haugen, Dave Swenson,
Bart Finzel, Maddy Maxeiner, LeAnn Dean, Brook Miller, Kathy Julik-Heine,
Carol Marxen, Mark Privratsky
Guests: Colleen Miller, Gwen Rudney, Pareena Lawrence, Cheryl Contant,
Minutes from 9/28/09 will be approved at the next meeting pending changes/clarifications on some of the financial information questions.
Agenda for future meetings include: IT related proposal; meeting with three subcommittees; discuss charge for enrollment subcommittee. Pete asked if committee members had any questions about the charge. Bart assumed the subcommittee would be allowed to make assumptions about how the economic conditions will affect our enrollment.
Clarification of financial information from Colleen Miller
1. What sorts of things go into the “other unrestricted” category? Why do we anticipate a decline of $1 million in this category (compared to 2009 actuals)?
This is primarily external sales and does not include Sodexho. The decrease is due to the Bookstore sales in FY09. The actuals in FY10 will be included with the TC.
2. Why do we anticipate a decline of $600,000 for “grants and contracts”? Is this related to the one-time influx of money from Sodexho in 2009 to renovate food service?
This is where the $930,000 from Sodexho appears.
2. In the 2010 budget, the combined anticipated expenditures on “equipment and other cap assets” and “repairs, maintenance& supplies” rise by $3 million compared to 2009 actuals. Can we get a breakdown to show us what projects and equipment are driving the increase?
The $737,000 in ORL includes furniture, carpeting, and electronic security equipment. The $740,000 includes biomass, chilled water upgrade and cooling tower retrofit. With the repairs, maintenance and supplies, the general observation is that most people will take their beginning number + their allocations to get to end number. We don’t have a specific schedule yet but that could be done. We are not committed to doing these things but could choose to if we have the money.
3. Transfers in and Transfers out: Does this include only money coming into or leaving UMM, or also money internally transferred? Why did we record a net $929,000 transfer out in 2009, and what is different about 2010 that leads us to anticipate essentially no net transfers?
The transfers in and out include $939,000-$1,230,000 to Sodexho and other transfers that came to us. The net result was $929,000.
1. The 2009 net surplus is anticipated to be $582,656. Does this include the one-time cash influx from Sodexho? If so, what would our number look like without the Sodexho money?
The money is in and out in terms of net; the $582,656 is real.
2. For 2010, we anticipate a current year deficit of $1,343,628. This more than offset by all of the carry forwards from 2009 (if we ignore the sequestered deficit), but nonetheless, we expect an overall erosion of our financial position of $1.34 million owing to more current year expenditures than revenue. Is that correct?
The expenditures are exceeding revenue. Colleen would not say this is an erosion but rather an investment, a spending down of the beginning of the carryforward balance.
Lowell added that we don’t have the flexibility to spend money if it is dedicated for something else and we have asked for approximately $1M through HEAPR funding. Brook asked if we had a sense of how Robert Jones will measure if we are in danger of adding to our sequestered deficit. Is there a figure he will be looking for to analyze whether we’re financially stable? Colleen said that’s the reason for checkpoints. No one budgeted to end the year in deficit and we are not allowed to go into deficit spending. We have a budget plan and if anyone goes away from the plan, there needs to be an explanation. As part of a quarterly review, three sets of schedules will be prepared for this committee that include a look at the start of the year; expenditures and encumbrances; and where we would end up at the end of the year of nothing else happened. Brook asked how we know if we’re in financial trouble or if we’re not. Lowell said the budget office in the TC is happy with what we submitted; however, it will be an ongoing process that we have to manage. Pete said what concerns him is that we re budgeting with an expectation to spend $1.3M more than we take in and we don’t have a huge carry forward base to do that very often.
1. What does the term “Agency” mean in regards to our income and expenses?
The expenses are not included in our numbers.
3. Other than the UMM endowment held at the UMM foundation, are there other pools of money/reserve funds that don’t show up on the “Review of FY2009 year end balances” and the “UMM preliminary budget for FY2010” lists:
A clarification that it is the U of MN foundation, not UMM foundation.
6. Will “period 14” give us the final 2009 actuals? When? Would it be better for CRPC next year to look at the period 14 numbers rather than the more tentative period 13 numbers?
Due to the new system, the schedule may be off a bit this year. Typically the external auditors sign off around mid October. We expect this to be delayed a week or two.
Facility related issues--HEAPR and Gateway naming
Lowell explained that HEAPR means higher education asset preservation renewal funding. This is legislative allocated dollars that are intended to provide money to preserve the state’s investment in their physical infrastructure. All of the HEAPR allocations from the state are fully funded. MNSCU, U of MN, the DOT, etc., all benefit from HEAPR funding. Recent HEAPR funding has allowed us to do some of the following on campus: Camden Hall water proofing; upgrade electrical; Humanities window replacement; Science Aud roof replacement; Food Service sprinkler and alarms; and HFA seating. Some of the requests currently pending include: Education masonry restoration; Transportation garage roof repair, Library wall repair; and Food Service chilled water and electrical upgrades. We prioritize our projects; however, if something should rise to the top, we can proceed as long as it meets HEAPR intent. A list was distributed with a suggestion of projects on how we might spend future funding. HEAPR is responsible for many of the building improvements on our campus and it’s a good plan that serves us well. The challenge is to spend it in the right places. HEAPR cannot be used for non-building infrastructure or to build new space; it is only for existing infrastructure.
Lowell reported that we are approaching crunch time to name the Community Services building. If a new name is not selected, the building will become Gateway by default and it seems not everyone is happy with that name; however, there have not been any significant alternatives. He would like this committee to weigh in on this issue. Taking a simplistic approach, we could name the building the Welcome Center because it would be clear to people visiting campus and would have a wide appeal to everyone visiting that building.
Pete asked committee members to talk to their constituencies and either e-mail Pete or bring suggestions for naming the building to the meeting next week. A name needs to be selected in the next two to three weeks.