Campus Resources and Planning Committee

September 10, 2010

Present: Bart Finzel, Martin Seggelke, Maddy Maxeiner, Dave Swenson, Sara Haugen,

Margaret Kuchenreuther, Carol Marxen, Dave Aronson, Syndey Sweep, Lowell

Rasmussen, Zak Forde

Guests: Gwen Rudney, Cheryl Contant, Pareena Lawrence, Jim Hall, Colleen Miller,

Sandy Olson-Loy

Welcome and introductions

Bart Finzel, chair, welcomed members and described the charge/powers of the committee. The committee will plan to meet every Friday from 10:30-11:45 a.m. Agenda items will be discussed from 10:30-11:30; 11:30-11:40 will be reserved for time-sensitive issues. Bart reported that last year thirteen meetings were dominated by budget discussion and four meetings were dominated by enrollment. He is anxious to add additional items to the agenda this year and has deliberately put off an enrollment update at this time. He hopes to address other issues including: technology master plan; discussion of grants development and its role in providing fund raising; revisit the 2009 reorganization and look at measures and metrics; stimulus funded positions; enrollment and budget forecasting; facilities issues; online course development and funding mechanisms.

Budget information

Bart reported that last year CRPC approved a motion to create a campus reserve. A motion was also made proposing that when the decisions regarding using carry-forwards were made during the two-week period in July, members of CRPC and division chairs would be consulted.

As it turned out, the decision was made to wait until the entire committee conveyed again in the fall.

Colleen Miller presented background budget information to the committee. Martin asked for the timeline for establishing the reserve. Bart said budget managers need to know fairly soon—hopefully by the end of the month.

Chancellor Johnson said the time question is an important one. Our hope/intention is that we would have had this conversation in July. This is tied to a budget model we presented in March to the system officers and is based on the assumption of a $2M surplus that would go toward creating a reserve and investment pool in lieu of applying the surplus to paying off the sequestered deficit.

Bart added that last year was the first year we created a chancellor’s reserve. He asked how rapidly the ORL reserve has increased. Sandy Olson-Loy said we have already spent about $714K out of the reserve to upgrade interior furnishings. We project $813K in new reserve funds. We anticipate new revenue coming in; however, we haven’t look at the actual student numbers yet. The residence halls rates have been held steady in the last couple of years while we have been trying to build and enhance the student life experience at the same time. We hope to get approval this fall to dedicate $1M toward the green prairie living and learning facility. Zak Forde enforced how important it is that we ensure this project happens. Bart inquired about the Plant Services reserve. Lowell responded that most of the $1.2M is targeted toward the wind turbine proforma, completing the biomass plant and the NETL grant. Additionally, Plant Services will not have the ability to generate annual reserve dollars. He believes the bigger question is where does the money sit in institutional prevue.

Martin asked if we are trying to scoop money that has or has not been communicated with divisions/disciplines. Colleen replied that this exercise was completed in the budget planning process. Margaret assumes that the academic units were done at the division or discipline level. Martin said from the music discipline, it worked very well and was communicated very clearly by the division chair. Carol Marxen echoed the same for the division of Education. Both Gwen Rudney and Pareena Lawrence said the process worked very well and there were clear instructions from Cheryl Contant.

Dave Swenson stated some of the student fee monies are not eligible due to Regents policy. Lowell encouraged budget mangers to look closely at 1026 and 1100 to make sure we aren’t violating Regents policy or moving funds that cannot be moved. Margaret thinks we should be mindful of perverse incentives.

Jacquie said this is a different way for us to think about funds and incentives. She is pleased to hear the positive comments about the budget communication and the need to create reserves.

Bart encouraged committee members to read the minutes from last year. For next week, he would like members to think about a two-part motion on how we should fund the $2 million contingency and strategic reserve and how we should handle the carry-forward funds in the future.