Campus Resources and Planning Committee
April 26, 2010
Attendance: Pete Wyckoff, Bart Finzel, Sydney Sweep, Dave Swenson, Maddie Maxeiner, Janet Erickson, Zak Forde, Mark Privratsky, Leann Dean, Sara Haugen, Brian Herrmann, Colleen Miller, Dave Aronson, Brook Miller, Sarah Mattson, Sandy Olson-Loy, Kathy Julik-Heine
1. Budget Discussion – Colleen Miller
2. Campus Plan Presentation – Dave Aronson
1. Colleen Miller came to present the current status of department budgets after FY10 period 9. She presented the Financial Aid Admin Budget status as an example and then provided the committee with the account information from the various departments across campus. The top page of the department breakdown summarized the departments, grouped by which vice chancellor has jurisdiction. Miller explained that funds have specific designations and that though the first place we may look for funds that could possibly be used for a contingency fund would be “1000” funds or centrally allocated “unrestricted” funds. There are some programs to which money has been given for a specific purpose and could not be pulled for the contingency fund.
Wyckoff explained that the top page of the handouts captures the anticipated reality of “yesterday” as opposed to the current reality of “today,” because the FY 2010 ending balance numbers shown are based on projections from spring of 2009, not the actual expenses through April 2010. Miller explained that this is where the numbers are today, and at the end of the year the numbers will be adjusted. At this point, funds in each budget line will be systematically evaluated and designated viable for inclusion in the contingency fund. B. Miller inquired as to what number specifically we could focus on as the “surplus” from which the contingency funds will be pulled. C. Miller brought the committee’s attention to the UMM subtotal – 9,953,222 – but emphasized that it is important to consider that number only shows our bottom line with three months of FY10 expenses still to happen. . The surplus, C. Miller explained, will only be final and after departments have filed their spring expenses (at the end of the fiscal year).
Haugen inquired about the potential for “scooping” from surplus budgets at the end of the year. C. Miller responded that the processes for building up the contingency fund will be carried out in a systematic way with an end goal of being as equitable as possible. B. Miller inquired as to whether or not the surplus we anticipate arises from excess revenues—and thus is outside the scope of the FY10 budget--or cost avoidance (units spending less than their FY10 allocation). C. Miller responded by saying it is a combination of both. Dean inquired about longer-term results of scooping.
2. Dave Aronson spoke on the restoration of the reflecting pond on the west side of the Welcome Center. He explained that it had been covered up but its restoration was included in the plans of the Welcome Center renovations. A landscaping architect visited campus and the group with which he met decided on a blue print for the pool’s restoration. It is not meant to be a high traffic area; the path that is designed to lead back to the pond will not be maintained in the winter. There are concerns about the depth of the pool because of a Morris legend about a child falling into the pool and nearly drowning. Because of this there are plans to put stones in the pond to make it less deep. There are thoughts about including lily pads. Wyckoff expressed concern regarding the legal ramifications of having an unguarded body of water. Maxeiner also brought up concerns of nighttime walking dangers. The goal is to have the pond done by the building dedication in September. Maxeiner also added that there is a family is donating the funds for the ponds restoration. A plaque will be put up acknowledging the family’s contribution. The plans were brought to CRPC for information and no action was taken.
3. The meeting was adjourned.