V. Lane Rawlins

1
Budget, Planning
and Accountability
V. Lane Rawlins
Board of Regents Retreat
August 3, 2004
2
Presentation Outline
II. Budget and Planning Process
III. Benchmarking and Budgets
3
State of the University Budget
Operating Budget

• Stable (for now)
• Stretched
• Uncertain

4
State of the University Budget
The Operating Budget is STABLE because it is
diversified

• State funding is shrinking
• Tuition funding is growing
• Research grant funding is growing

5
2003-2005 Operating Fund Sources
(Total amount 1.3 Billion)
Available for Allocation
Pre-Allocated
Internal Service, Other 8
Net Operating Tuition Fees
Net Investment Income 5
14
Gifts/Endowments 2
Federal Appropriations 1
Auxiliary Enterprises 12
Sales/Services Educ. 2
State Appropriations
Local Grants/Contracts 4
29
State Grants/Contracts 6
Federal Grants/Contracts 15
Net Restricted Student Fees 2
6
2003-2005 Operating Fund Sources
( millions)
106.0
66.5
Total
1,296.9
7
State of the University Budget
No cuts are required in FY 2005 (unlike many
states)

• Small earmarked increases were provided by the
  2004 legislature

8
State of the University Budget
WSU does well competing for state funds when they
are available

• The 2004 legislature made 3.6 million available
  for high demand programs to fund 328 FTE. Of
  that, WSU received 1.9 million for 136 FTE

9
State of the University Budget
2004 Supplemental Operating Budget
( Thousands)
One Time
Permanent
Final
Burrowing Shrimp Asparagus General Enrollment
50
50
0
0
330
330
0
1,043
1,043
(191 FTE)
509
1,430
High Demand from HECB
1,939
(136 FTE for Bioengineering, ESL/Special Ed,
Nursing, MIS, Pre-Science, Pre-Health)
10
State of the University Budget
The Operating Budget is STRETCHED

• Salaries are underfunded
• Enrollment pressures
• Operating budget problems
• Foregone opportunities

11
State of the University Budget
Faculty salaries lag those at peer institutions
by 14.6

• The state has funded no general salary increase
  for the past 3 years

12
State of the University Budget
Public Expectations vs. Funding

• Expenditures per student adjusted for inflation
  are less than 1994 levels, yet we must offer

• More programs
• More technology enriched programs
• More locations
• More enrollment in high cost fields like nursing
  and pharmacy

13
Funding Per Student (Constant Dollars)
14
State of the University Budget
The Operating Budget is UNCERTAIN

• The state faces a 700 million shortfall in
  2005-2007
• Health care, K-12 and corrections all need
  additional funding
• Possible tax increases

15
State of the University Budget
Capital Budget

• Healthy and Stable

• Under Pressure

16
State of the University Budget
The Capital Budget is HEALTHY and STABLE

• Evans/Gardner Act expanded state pool
• Budget is diversified

17
2003-2005 Capital Fund Sources
(Est. Expenditures 185 M)
(Total Authority 245.3 M)
(Includes Reappropriated Balances and FY04
Supplements)
Internal/Local 10
Non-Appropriated
Housing Fees 5
State Gen Obligation Bond 28
Parking Fees 1
SA Facilities 1
Federal 12
Gardner Evans Bond 27
Land Grant Endowment 10
Appropriated
Student Bldg Fee 3
Education Construction 3
18
WSU State Funded Capital Budget History
19
State of the University Budget
WSU State Funded Capital Budget History
Chart data
20
State of the University Budget
Capital Projects with Shared Funding
(Local, Private, Federal, State)
Energy Plant Local/State (Completing
construction with 16M FA Fees)
Tri-Cities Bioproducts Facility Private/State
(Construction request 2005-07)
Agricultural Research Facility Federal
(Construction 2005-07)
Mt. Vernon Research Facility - (Land sale 6 M,
county grant 0.5 M, private donations 1.5M)
21
State of the University Budget
The Capital Budget is UNDER PRESSURE

• Branch campuses need development
• High tech facilities are needed for research
• Existing space needs renovation
• Research stations are woefully outdated
• Other sectors compete for capital funds
  traditionally devoted to universities

22
Presentation Outline
I. State of the University Budget
III. Benchmarking and Budgets
23
Washington State University
Strategic Budgeting and Planning
24
Budget and Planning Process
University and Area Strategic Plans are in place
and are being implemented
25
Washington State University Goals
1. Offer the Best Undergraduate Experience in a
Research University
2. Nurture a World Class Environment for
Research, Scholarship, Graduate Education, the
Arts and Engagement
3. Create an Environment of Trust and Respect in
All We Do
4. Develop a Culture of Shared Commitment to
Quality in All of Our Activities
26
Washington State University
Strategic Budgeting and Planning
University Strategic Plan
Area Strategic Plan
27
Washington State University
Strategic Budgeting and Planning
University Strategic Plan
Area Strategic Plan
Unit Benchmarks
University Benchmarks
28
Washington State University
Strategic Budgeting and Planning
University Strategic Plan
Area Strategic Plan
Unit Benchmarks
University Benchmarks
Budget Request to State
(Fall-Even yrs)
State Appropriation (Spring-Odd yrs)
29
(No Transcript)
30
Presentation Outline
I. State of the University Budget
II. Budget and Planning Process
31
Benchmarks Keys to Accountability

• Implement benchmarks against which we measure our
  progress
• Establish both University level benchmarks and
  unit level benchmarks
• Benchmarks are an integral part of our budget
  process

32
Introduction of Institutional Level Benchmarks
Comparative data from other institutions and
potential benchmarks discussed at

• Regents retreat (August 2003)
• Presidents Cabinet retreat (September 2003)
• General University leadership retreat (Nov 2003)

33
Development of Institutional Level Benchmarks

• Benchmarks refined (2004)
• Endorsed by Executive Council (June 2004)
• Discussed by Board of Regents (August 2004)
• Faculty Senate consulted on benchmarks dealing
  with academic standards (Fall 2004)
• Final list presented to the Board of Regents for
  action (January 2005)

34
Development of Unit Level Benchmarks

• Some units have existing benchmarks
• Provost will work with deans on benchmark
  development and refinement (July - Oct 2004)
• Other vice presidents lead development in their
  areas (July Oct 2004)
• Unit benchmarks approved by the Provost or other
  vice president (Nov 2004)
• Executive Council approval (Dec 2004)

35
Attributes of Unit Level Benchmarks
Unit benchmarks should be

• Similar to and derived from the institutional
  benchmarks where applicable
• Quantifiable
• Measured against predetermined internal or
  external data
• Reflective of unit strategic plan priorities

36
Limits of Unit Level Benchmarks
Not everything that counts can be counted, and
not everything that can be counted counts.
- Albert Einstein
37
Budgets and Benchmarks
During budget hearing (spring 2005) areas will be
expected to

• Explain how existing resources will be deployed
  to make progress in achieving institutional and
  area benchmarks
• Explain how any new resources would advance
  progress in achieving institutional and area
  benchmarks

38
Budget, Planning
and Accountability
V. Lane Rawlins
Board of Regents Retreat
August 3, 2004
39
Budget, Planning
and Accountability
V. Lane Rawlins
Board of Regents Retreat
August 3, 2004