Minutes of the University Budget Committee

Meeting Date: October 15, 2009

Regular Members Present: Tim Gavin, Susan DelVecchio, Todd Fraley, Scott MacGilvray, Don Palumbo,

John Given notified Chair of inability to attend.

Ex-officio Members Present: Kevin Seitz, Anne Jenkins, Gary Vanderpool, Louis Warren, Wanda Sandeford, Jeff Shinpaugh, Joe Gaddis, Travis Poole

Meeting was called to order by Chairman Tim Gavin.

Agenda Items:

1. Approval of Committee Goals for 2009-2010:

After a brief discussion, the committee goals proposed at the previous meeting were unanimously approved. The goals are:

a. The first suggestion was to establish a means to ensure that going forward there is not excessive growth of administrative functions.

b. Based on this discussion, a second suggestion was made to set as a goal an internal means of defining and classifying administrative duties that would allow for the consistent tracking of these functions over time.

c. The third suggestion was examine faculty workloads within the context of budget related issues.

A question was raised regarding the mission of the committee. The members were reminded of the committee’s mission. It was also discussed that in order to fulfill the mission that the committee should set aside time at each meeting for discussion of the issues presented that meeting, or other issues that have arisen. In addition, the January meeting is to be set aside without any scheduled presentations to allow for an in depth evaluation of the presentations up to that point and other issues that may arise.

2. Report of Representative to Tuition Committee:

Tim Gavin provided a report to the committee on the proceedings of the Tuition Committee. The tuition increase proposal has been set at the lesser of $200 or 8% for the next academic year. Should this not be accepted by the legislature, there are two other options for determining tuition increases; using the higher education price index, or taking an average of increases from the past 5 years. The only way that either of these would be considered is if the legislature does not approve the first proposal.

Proposed fee increases were also discussed. There is a proposal to increase the education and technology fee by $40 with the goal of being able to use these funds to increase the IT structure as it relates to students, especially with smart classrooms and improved wireless connectivity. A possible increase in the transit fee is also in the early discussion phase.

There is still no final determination on fees, as the guidance on fee increases from GA and the legislature has not yet been finalized.

3. Vice Chancellor Kevin Seitz presentation to committee:

Prior to his presentation there were several questions from the committee that led to discussion

a. What consequences if any will there be to the University for failing to meet the current retention guideline of 80%? The answer is that at this time no one knows what if any consequences are. There is cause for concern given statements that have been made by President Bowles and also from the legislature that there is a desire to hold the Universities within the UNC system accountable to some performance markers, retention rates being one likely marker. The concern is that in failing to meet the retention goals, there could be financial consequences to the University, most likely in the form of a decrease or loss of new monies in the form of enrollment growth funding. With this in mind ECU has had a very strong emphasis on retention related issues for the past several years which will continue.

b. Why is there a tuition surcharge for students who go over a maximum total credit hours, and how are faculty advisors best able to inform their advises about this? While there is a surcharge for excess load on a per semester basis, the members were unsure if there was a surcharge for excess credits beyond 160 hours. Anne Jenkins offered to investigate this and report back to the committee at the next meeting.

c. What happens to the dollars budgeted for positions that remain unfilled? In any given budget year, state funds allocated to salary positions that are unfilled can be reallocated to meet other personnel needs within the unit. Each unit handles this differently, but almost all use these reallocated funds to fund the summer school supplement, DE supplements, graduate assistantships, and other personnel items. Beyond this, further unused funds are reverted to a large central pool that is then reallocated to fund high priority needs throughout the University.

d. What is a public-private partnership (P3) for funding, could this work at ECU, and are there risks? This is an option to fund capital construction projects wherein a private entity serves as the entity to secure the financing for the project and holds the mortgage. The University then leases the building paying the lease fees from the buildings operating revenue stream. At the end of the lease period the ownership of the building reverts to the University. There are some additional costs to the process; specifically the private entity usually attaches a fee raising the initial cost some. The benefit is that you are able to proceed with a capital budget item without the delays associated with waiting for legislative approval. The main opportunity for this type of construction project would be in the construction of new residence halls. The reason most other buildings would not be likely candidates is that the building needs to generate the revenue stream to pay for the mortgage/lease costs as ECU has little discretionary revenue to be able to take on these projects.

Following the question, Mr. Seitz distributed a handout with the summary points he had intended to make regarding the Administration and Finance Division. In the interest of time the presentation was not made, rather the members were asked to review the handout and forward any questions to Mr. Seitz that he would answer. In addition he offered to answer any questions the group may have at the next meeting.

4. Scheduling presentations on budgets and plans regarding ongoing budget restrictions:

November: Gary Vanderpool and Phyllis Horns to provide overview of Health Sciences division

December: Provost Sheerer to discuss faculty workloads and implications for budgets

Next Meeting: November 19, 2009 at 4:00pm in Rawl Annex 142

Items to be discussed:

1. Presentation on Health Sciences Division.

2. Report from Anne Jenkins regarding the tuition surcharge for excess credits.

3. Follow up on any question for Kevin Seitz regarding Administration and Finance.