Finance and Audit Committee Meeting Minutes

Finance and Audit Committee Meeting Minutes
Minutes
February 18, 2016
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
ROUDEBUSH HALL ROOM 212
OXFORD, OHIO 45056
(513) 529-6225 MAIN
(513) 529-3911 FAX
WWW.MIAMIOH.EDU
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Minutes of the Finance and Audit Committee Meeting
February 18, 2016
104 Roudebush Hall
The Finance and Audit Committee of the Miami University Board of Trustees met
on February 18, 2016 in Roudebush Hall, Room 104, on the Oxford campus. The
meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Mark Ridenour at 1:00 p.m., with a
majority of the members present, constituting a quorum. Attending were Chair Ridenour,
and Committee members John Altman, Jagdish Bhati, David Budig, Robert Coletti, C.
Michael Gooden, and Stephen Wilson, along with Trustees Sharon Mitchell and Robert
Shroder, and National Trustees Terry Hershey and Diane Perlmutter.
In addition to the Trustees, David Creamer, Senior Vice President for Finance and
Business Services, and Treasurer; Phyllis Callahan, Provost and Executive Vice
President; Jayne Brownell, Vice President for Student Affairs; Tom Herbert, Vice
President for Advancement; Michael Kabbaz, Vice President for Enrollment
Management and Student Success. Also present were; Robin Parker, General Counsel;
Deedie Dowdle, Associate Vice President for Communications and Marketing; David
Ellis, Associate Vice President for Budgeting and Analysis; Bruce Guiot, Chief
Investment Officer; Kim Kinsel, Associate Vice President for Auxiliaries; Cody Powell,
Associate Vice President for Facilities, Planning and Operations; Alan Ferrenberg,
Associate Vice President for IT, and Deputy CIO; Sarah Persinger, Controller; Dawn
Fahner, interim Associate Vice President of Human Resources; Joe Bazeley, Assistant
Vice President for IT, and Information Security Officer; Dr. Amit Shukla, Chair, Fiscal
Priorities and Budget Planning Committee; John Seibert, Director, Planning, Architecture
and Engineering; Barbara Jena, Director of Internal Audit and Consulting; Lindsay
Carpenter, Manager, Academic Affairs Budgets; Claire Wagner, Director of University
News and Communications; and Ted Pickerill, Secretary to the Board of Trustees.
Executive Session
On a motion duly made by Trustee Wilson, seconded by Trustee Bhati, and
unanimously approved by the Committee, the Finance and Audit Committee adjourned to
Executive Session in accordance with the Ohio Open Meetings Act, Revised Code
Section 121.22 to consult with counsel, to discuss personnel matters, the hiring of a
public employee, and the sale of property. Following adjournment of the Executive
Session, the Committee convened into the Public Business Session.
Minutes
Overall Page 1 of 187
Minutes Page 1 of 8
Minutes
February 18, 2016
Public Business Session
Chair Mark Ridenour opened the public session and welcomed everyone to the
meeting.
Approval of the Minutes
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved by the Committee,
the Finance and Audit Committee minutes from the previous meeting were approved.
Report on Facilities, Construction and Real Estate
Capital Projects
Associate Vice President Cody Powell, updated the Committee on capital project
construction. He stated that the Gunlock Family Athletic Performance Center’s source
for heating and cooling the facility will be geothermal energy system. He also discussed
the renovations to the Shriver Center which will accommodate new programming to
include an admissions auditorium, Disability Services, the Rinella Learning Center, and a
consolidated catering kitchen on the second floor. He also stated that parking for the
Shriver Center was still being explored with the possibility of reserving adjacent surface
lots for visitors during event days.
Residence Hall Planning.
Associate Vice President Powell also updated the Committee on residence hall
construction and renovation. He stated that they have found neither the expansion of
Clawson nor the renovation of Swing Hall to be financially desirable; the negative impact
will be the loss of approximately 300 fewer.
For Clawson Hall, the cost per bed was too expensive and the space too difficult
to renovate. The cost per bed for Swing Hall was also too high. In each case, new
construction is significantly less expensive than renovating either Clawson or Swing, due
to structural issues, such as the existing steel supports, and low ceiling heights. A more
limited renovation of Clawson Hall, with no new addition, provides a more reasonable
cost per bed. Rather than renovating Swing Hall, new construction on the site of Withrow
Hall, might be preferable, and the topic will be revisited at the May or June meeting.
Mr. Powell was asked about fire safety, and he explained that fire suppression is
being added to older buildings not yet being renovated; there is a plan to add fire
suppression to all residence halls but some buildings are difficult to retrofit and cannot be
accomplished until the building is taken off line to be renovated.
Associate Vice President Powell also discussed the geothermal heating/cooling
project on the Western Campus. The committee then discussed the benefits and costs of
geothermal. He then informed the Committee that Mary Lyon Hall would not be
Minutes
Overall Page 2 of 187
Minutes Page 2 of 8
Minutes
February 18, 2016
renovated, but would be removed to make way for the infrastructure improvements on the
Western Campus; he stated that this has been discussed with the Western Alumnae
Association.
He concluded the residence hall update by stating the former dining facility in
Hamilton Hall would be converted for use as sorority suites. The Committee then
considered three resolutions.
Resolutions
Western Campus Geothermal
Trustee Wilson then moved, Trustee Bhati seconded, and by unanimous voice
vote, the Committee recommended approval by the full Board of Trustees.
RESOLUTION R2016-27
WHEREAS, the Western Campus Geothermal Infrastructure Phase 2 project
expands the capacity of the existing Geothermal Energy Plant and extends geothermal
heating and cooling to five additional buildings on the Western Campus; and
WHEREAS, the project is necessary to fulfill the Utility Master Plan and the
University’s Sustainability Commitments and Goals; and
WHEREAS, Miami University has identified local funds in the amount of
$16,600,000 for the Western Campus Geothermal Infrastructure Phase 2 project; and
WHEREAS, the $16,600,000 budget includes a cost of work estimate of
approximately $13,820,000; and
WHEREAS, the receipt of Guaranteed Maximum Price is planned for February
2016; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to award a contract to the most
responsive and responsible Construction Manager at Risk;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Board of Trustees hereby
authorizes the Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Services and Treasurer, in
accordance with all State guidelines, to proceed with the award of contracts for the
Western Campus Geothermal Infrastructure Phase 2 project with a total project budget
not to exceed $16,600,000.
Executive Summary
for the
Western Campus Geothermal Infrastructure Phase 2 Renovations
February 18, 2016
Minutes
Overall Page 3 of 187
Minutes Page 3 of 8
Minutes
February 18, 2016
The project is the second of three planned phases of the Utility Master Plan converting
the Western Campus to ground sourced heat pump simultaneous heating and cooling. The
existing geothermal system will be expanded to include approximately 400 additional
drilled wells. The project will install 1,400 more tons of available heating/cooling
capacity at the existing Geothermal Energy Plant. The work includes installing extensive
new distribution piping and improvements in mechanical rooms connecting five (5)
existing buildings (Child Care Facility, Havighurst, Clawson, Hoyt and Presser) onto the
Western Campus Geothermal Energy Plant. The project aligns with the Sustainability
Commitments and Goals and will result in significant reductions in energy consumption
and carbon footprint for the campus.
Project component:
Budget:
Est. Consulting Services:
$1,037,100
Est. Construction:
$13,820,000
Site Clearing/Demolition
$560,000
Est. Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment:
$0
Est. Owner’s Contingency:
$1,182,900
Total:
Funding Source:
Local Funds
Local Funds
Bond Funds
Local Funds
Local Funds
$16,600,000
Renovation of Hamilton and Clawson Halls
Trustee Bhati then moved, Trustee Coletti seconded, and by unanimous voice
vote, the Committee recommended approval by the full Board of Trustees.
RESOLUTION R2016-28
WHEREAS, the Hamilton and Clawson Halls Renovation project involves the
renovation of two existing residence halls; and
WHEREAS, Miami University has determined that reduced costs from economy
of scale, speed of implementation, and coordination may be gained by combining the
projects into a single Design Build project delivery method; and
WHEREAS, the opening of Maplestreet Station dining facility allowed the
closure of Hamilton Dining Hall leaving vacant space within the existing residence hall;
and
WHEREAS, the renovation of Hamilton Hall provides the opportunity to use the
vacated dining area as sorority space necessary to allow for future renovations of sorority
spaces in the MacCracken quad; and
Minutes
Overall Page 4 of 187
Minutes Page 4 of 8
Minutes
February 18, 2016
WHEREAS, a limited renovation of Clawson Hall will improve the infrastructure,
life safety systems, and the student experience while extending the life of the facility in a
cost effective manner; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees previously approved a budget not to exceed
$3,843,230 for contracts for the preconstruction phase of the project including the
planning, design, cost estimating, and other services necessary to prepare the Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP); and
WHEREAS, Miami University has identified funds in the amount of $38,000,000
for the Hamilton and Clawson Halls Renovation project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees desires to award a contract to the most
responsive and responsible Design Build firm;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Board of Trustees authorizes
the Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Services and Treasurer, in accordance
with all State guidelines, to proceed with the award of contract for the Hamilton and
Clawson Halls Renovation project with a total project budget not to exceed $38,000,000.
Executive Summary
for the
Hamilton and Clawson Halls Renovations
February 18, 2016
This project will result in the renovation of Hamilton and Clawson Halls as part of the
Long Range Housing Master Plan. The project will be delivered using Design-Build
methodology to reduce the amount of time needed to move from design through
construction, reduce the cost of construction, and minimize the risk to the University.
The Hamilton Hall renovation will include new windows, ADA accessibility
improvements, elevators, insulating of exterior walls and attics, new corridor ceilings,
interior lighting, plumbing systems, sprinkler system, electrical distribution, HVAC
systems, life safety and fire alarm systems, utility tie-ins, site utilities, selective addition
and/or demolition of bedroom walls, and new bedroom finishes. Student life
programming elements such as community rooms, group study rooms, and other support
spaces will be included.
The Hamilton Hall renovation will also include modernized sorority suites in the lower
level of the Hall. Hamilton currently houses 2 sorority suites; the modernization and
ability to house 4 additional suites will create sorority swing space necessary to
accommodate future residence hall renovations in the MacCracken Quad. The vacated
Hamilton Hall dining facility will be repurposed for adequate campus-wide sorority
meeting space and other multi-use student functions.
Minutes
Overall Page 5 of 187
Minutes Page 5 of 8
Minutes
February 18, 2016
Preconstruction services analyzed the feasibility of a 100-bed addition and a full
renovation of Clawson Hall. The services provided a schematic design estimate with a
higher cost per bed than is expected for new construction. Inefficiencies in the design and
construction of the existing building are too substantial to cost effectively renovate and
achieve the desired student experience. A partial renovation of the existing Clawson is
recommended instead that will more cost effectively extended the life of the building.
The work will include elevators, interior lighting upgrades, plumbing systems,
installation of a sprinkler system, electrical distribution, HVAC systems, life safety and
fire alarm systems, utility improvements, site utilities, and limited bedroom finish
improvements. Student life programming elements such as community rooms, group
study rooms, and other support spaces will receive some modernization.
The Clawson Hall work includes a bid alternate to modernize an unused basement space
previously allocated to the Alexander Dining Hall operation. The modernization
contemplates converting the space to a recreation/fitness outpost similar to what is
currently being constructed in the renovation of Martin Dining Hall in the North Quad.
The financial feasibility of this alternate will be evaluated during the GMP negotiations.
Project component:
Budget:
Est. Consulting Services:
Est. Construction:
Est. Clawson Fitness Alternate:
$4,625,000
$27,010,000
Est. Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment:
Owner’s Contingency:
Total:
$1,000,000
$2,035,000
$3,330,000
Funding Source:
Bond Series 2014
Bond Series 2014
Local
Bond Series 2014
Bond Series 2014
$38,000,000
Duke Energy (Edwards Parking) Easement
Trustee Bhati then moved, Trustee Altman seconded, and by unanimous voice
vote, the Committee recommended approval by the full Board of Trustees.
RESOLUTION 2016-26
WHEREAS, the Edwards Parking Lot, located at the southwest corner of High
Street and Tallawanda Road, is scheduled for reconstruction following the erection of the
adjacent Evans Scholars House.
WHERAS, for reasons of design efficiency in connection with this reconstruction,
the University has determined that the overhead electric service currently servicing Old
Manse, 410 East High Street, Oxford OH 45056, from Church Street should be relocated
to an underground electrical service.
WHEREAS, said relocation requires that the University grant a new utility
easement to Duke Energy of Ohio, Inc. to construct and maintain these lines, a copy of
which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein (“Utility Easement”);
Minutes
Overall Page 6 of 187
Minutes Page 6 of 8
Minutes
February 18, 2016
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Board of Trustees approves
the Utility Easement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senior Vice President for Finance and
Business Services be authorized to sign the Utility Easement, and perform those acts
necessary to carry out and perform the terms thereof.
Note: See Attachment A for accompanying/supporting material.
Mr. Powell’s presentation and supporting material for the Duke Easement
Resolution are provided as Attachment A.
Year-to-Date Operating results Compared to Budget
Senior Vice President Creamer addressed the Committee regarding year-to-date
operating results compared to budget, stating there were no significant updates. He then
took questions and was asked about Winter Term revenue. He informed the committee
that the revenue exceeded budget.
The associated materials are included as Attachment B.
Budget Planning
Senior Vice President Creamer updated the Committee on budget planning. He
reviewed historic approaches to increasing revenue, increased state support and, increases
in tuition. He stated the future will likely see tuition increases limited to a 2% maximum,
with possible freezes mandated by the State.
He also reviewed the long range assumptions, and provided a long range budget
forecast through FY2023, stating that without new revenue sources by 2020, the budget
will become quite challenging. The Committee then discussed scholarship endowments,
the trend in yearend excess revenue, and revenue from initiatives undertaken by the
academic divisions (such as a mini-MBA) and certificate programs.
The associated presentation and materials are included as Attachment C.
Review of Task Force Report
Dr. Creamer next updated the Committee on the Governor’s Task Force Report.
Miami must complete an assessment, and Trustees must adopt recommendations and
goals by July 31, 2016. It is expected that the Trustees will consider the report and
recommendations at the June meeting. He highlighted several areas, including;
procurement policy, group purchasing, identifying non-core assets, and assessing the
costs of outsourcing as required by the report.
Minutes
Overall Page 7 of 187
Minutes Page 7 of 8
Minutes
February 18, 2016
The associated presentation and materials are included as Attachment D.
Forward Agenda
It was asked if any universities had gone to market with a bond issue following
the recent GASB change. Bruce Guiot relayed that Moody’s has stated they have already
been factoring in the information for years, so there is little change in university bond
ratings following the accounting change. He also relayed that Standard and Poors stated
they are not seeing wholesale changes in ratings. However, there have been recent rating
downgrades in Illinois due to the inability of the state to adopt a new budget.
The forward agenda is included as Attachment E.
Additional Reports
review:
The following written reports were provided for the Committee’s information and
University Advancement Update, Attachment F
Enrollment Report, Attachment G
Internal Audit High Risk Reporting Update, Attachment H
Lean Project Update, Attachment I
GASB 68 Reporting Comparison, Attachment J
Adjournment
With no other business coming before the Committee, the meeting adjourned the
meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Theodore O. Pickerill II
Secretary to the Board of Trustees
Minutes
Overall Page 8 of 187
Minutes Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
February 18, 2016
Attachment A
Overall Page 9 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
Armstrong Student Center Phase 2
Project Cost: $23,600,000
Completion Date/% Comp: July 2017/2%
Contingency/Balance: $1,000,000/100%
Attachment A
Cost of Work: $18,428,075
Project Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Overall Page 10 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Gunlock Family Athletic Performance Center
Project Cost: $23,000,000
Completion Date/% Comp: November 2016/30%
Contingency/Balance: $650,000/80%
Attachment A
Cost of Work: $19,200,000
Project Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Overall Page 11 of 187
Attachment Page 3 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Gunlock Family Athletic Performance Center
Attachment A
Overall Page 12 of 187
Attachment Page 4 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
North Quad Renovation
Project Cost: $98,300,000
Completion Date/% Comp: August 2016/65%
Contingency/Balance: $8,397,813/93%
Attachment A
Cost of Work: $79,380,873
Project Delivery Method: Design Build
Overall Page 13 of 187
Attachment Page 5 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
North Quad Renovation
Attachment A
Overall Page 14 of 187
Attachment Page 6 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
North Quad Renovation
Attachment A
Overall Page 15 of 187
Attachment Page 7 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
Shriver Center Renovations – Phase 1
Project Cost: $20,000,000
Completion Date: January 2017/8%
Contingency/Balance: $624,987/81%
Attachment A
Cost of Work: $16,021,136
Project Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Overall Page 16 of 187
Attachment Page 8 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Questions?
Attachment A
Overall Page 17 of 187
Attachment Page 9 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
February 18, 2016
Attachment A
Overall Page 18 of 187
Attachment Page 10 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
February 18, 2016
Attachment A
Overall Page 19 of 187
Attachment Page 11 of 50
Attachment A




Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Current bed availability is at least 300 beds short
of the projected demand.
Adding an addition to Clawson Hall and renovating
Swing Hall were evaluated as possible options for
addressing this need.
Both projects were found to not be financially
feasible.
The current recommendation is to construct a new
300 bed building near the Withrow Court site.
Attachment A
Overall Page 20 of 187
Attachment Page 12 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
Clawson (with
planned addition)
Hahne (with
new addition)
New Construction
Tennis Court Site
GMP
$27,015,756
$27,449,359
$30,250,000
$/GSF
$349
$349
$348
$/Bed
$106,781
$78,200
$86,400
GSF/Bed
305
224
247
# of Beds
253
351
350
77,200
78,591
86,758
GSF
Attachment A
Overall Page 21 of 187
Attachment Page 13 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
Clawson (with Swing Full Renovation New Construction
planned addition)
(not escalated)
Residence Hall
GMP
$27,015,756
$26,450,000
$30,250,000
$/GSF
$349
$527
$348
$/Bed
$106,781
$115,000
$86,400
GSF/Bed
305
218
247
# of Beds
253
230
350
77,200
50,221
86,758
GSF
Attachment A
Overall Page 22 of 187
Attachment Page 14 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
New Construction New Construction
Clawson Proposed
Residence Hall
Residence Hall
Limited Renovation
Withrow Site
Tennis Court Site
GMP
$10,600,000
$27,000,000
$30,250,000
$/GSF
$202
$360
$348
$/Bed
$86,179
$90,000
$86,400
GSF/Bed
426
250
247
# of Beds
123
300
350
52,368
75,000
86,758
GSF
Attachment A
Overall Page 23 of 187
Attachment Page 15 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
Overall Page 24 of 187
February 18, 2016
Attachment Page 16 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Questions?
Attachment A
Overall Page 25 of 187
Attachment Page 17 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Cole Service Building
Oxford, Ohio 45056-3609
(513) 529-7000
(513) 529-1732 Fax
www.pfd.muohio.edu
Status of Capital Projects Executive Summary
February 18, 2016
1. Projects completed:
One major project was completed since the last report. Shideler Hall has now reopened and is home to the
Departments of Geology & Environmental Earth Science, Geography, and the Institute for the Environment
and Sustainability (IES). The complete renovation included a significant addition to the east side, improved
laboratory space, an innovative GIS studio, and state-of-the-art classrooms. The project was completed
within budget and on time. Six projects under $500,000 were completed since the last report.
2. Projects added:
Six new major projects and fifteen projects under $500,000 were added during this reporting period. Pearson
Hall Renovations Phase 1 is now in design. The project is the focus of the Oxford Campus’ most recent
capital request now under consideration. The project is a complex, multi-year phased renovation. In
preparation for the Pearson renovation, a project for Hughes Hall C-Wing is necessary to provide swing
space. The space is being designed to accommodate laboratories and offices for the College of Engineering
and Computing after the work at Pearson has been completed. Also beginning in design are the future
renovations of Minnich and Scott Hall as part of the Long Range Housing Master Plan. Other projects
address deferred maintenance, classroom modernization, and administrative space improvements.
3.
Projects in progress:
The second phase of Armstrong Student Center has now begun. Construction fence surrounds Culler Hall,
which will soon become the East Wing of the Armstrong Student Center. The North Quad Renovation
remains on schedule. The project renovates four residence halls and one dining facility -- Flower, Hahne,
Brandon, and Hepburn Halls, and Martin Dining Hall. The brick veneer is being completed on the Hahne
Hall addition. Outside, utility distribution work has been completed and has begun serving the buildings.
Gunlock Family Athletic Performance Center is coming out of the ground with the steel structure being
erected. The renovation of Shriver Center has also just begun.
Respectfully submitted,
Cody J. Powell, PE
Associate Vice President –
Facilities Planning & Operations
Attachment A
Overall Page 26 of 187
Attachment Page 18 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Intentionally blank
Attachment A
Overall Page 27 of 187
Attachment Page 19 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
PROJECT SYNOPSIS ________________________________________________________________ 3
UNDER CONSTRUCTION ____________________________________________________________ 5
Requiring Board of Trustees Approval:
Armstrong Student Center, Phase 2 _________________________________________________ 5
Gunlock Family Athletic Performance Center _________________________________________ 6
North Quad Renovation __________________________________________________________ 7
Shriver Center Renovations – Phase 1 _______________________________________________ 8
Projects Between $500,000 and $2,500,000:
King Library Improvements _______________________________________________________ 9
Yager Site/Infrastructure Improvements _____________________________________________ 10
IN DESIGN _________________________________________________________________________ 11
Hamilton and Clawson Halls Renovation ____________________________________________ 11
Hamilton Campus – Gymnasium Roof Replacement 2016 _______________________________ 12
Hughes Hall C-Wing Renovation___________________________________________________ 12
Hughes Hall Laboratories 141/161 Renovation ________________________________________ 12
Irvin Hall Renovations 2016 ______________________________________________________ 13
Middletown Campus – Gardner Harvey Library Renovation _____________________________ 13
Millett Hall Roof Replacement 2016 ________________________________________________ 13
Minnich and Scott Halls Renovation ________________________________________________ 14
New Residence Hall - North Quad Tennis Court Site ___________________________________ 14
Ogden Hall Roof Repairs 2016 ____________________________________________________ 14
Pearson Hall Renovations_________________________________________________________ 15
Upham Hall Emergency Generator Replacement and Unit Substation Consolidation __________ 15
Upham Hall First Floor Renovation _________________________________________________ 15
Varsity Tennis Courts ____________________________________________________________ 16
Western Campus Geothermal Infrastructure Phase 2 ____________________________________ 16
IN PLANNING ______________________________________________________________________ 17
Campus Avenue Building Lower Level Rehab ________________________________________ 17
Hamilton Campus – Knightsbridge Building Renovation ________________________________ 17
COMPLETED PROJECTS ____________________________________________________________ 19
Shideler Hall Renovation _________________________________________________________ 19
SUMMARY OF PROJECTS LESS THAN $500,000 _______________________________________ 21
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ______________________________________________________________ 25
Attachment A
Overall Page 28 of 187
Attachment Page 20 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Intentionally blank
Attachment A
Overall Page 29 of 187
Attachment Page 21 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
Summary of Active Projects
Number of Projects
Under Construction
In Design
In Planning
Projects Under $500,000
Value
6
15
2
$167,820,733
$112,445,461
TBD
$20,417,627
Total
$300,683,821
New Projects Over $500,000
Hamilton Campus Gymnasium Roof Replacement 2016
Hughes Hall C-Wing Renovation
Irvin Hall Renovations 2016
Minnich and Scott Halls Renovation
Pearson Hall Renovations Phase 1
Campus Avenue Building Lower Level Rehab
Page 12, Item 2
Page 12, Item 3
Page 13, Item 5
Page 14, Item 8
Page 15, Item 11
Page 17, Item 1
Projects Completed Since Last Report
Shideler Hall Renovation
$25,000,000
Total
Attachment A
Overall Page 30 of 187
$25,000,000
Attachment Page 22 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Intentionally blank
Attachment A
Overall Page 31 of 187
Attachment Page 23 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
(Under Contract)
Projects Requiring Board of Trustees Approval
1. Armstrong Student Center, Phase 2: (BOT Sep ’15) (Previous Report – In Design)
This project will complete the Armstrong Student Center through the adaptive reuse of Culler Hall. The project will
renovate the interior of Culler Hall in a similar manner to the adaptive reuse of Gaskill and Rowan Halls. The project
will address needed rehabilitation to the core and shell of the Culler Hall building. The Phase 2 renovation of Culler
Hall will be joined to the existing Armstrong Student Center by a two-story atrium link, creating a unified Armstrong
Student Center. The renovation, addition, and connection will be executed in such a way that the Student Center will
be perceived as one building comprised of distinct but complementary spaces.
The GMP was negotiated with the Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) in late August 2015. The construction work
has been bid and contracts are being awarded by the CMR. The existing Culler Hall was vacated in late January
2016. Construction fencing was installed in late January prior to the start of the spring semester. Demolition and
abatement has begun.
Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Project Cost
Design and Administration
Cost of Work
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
$2,094,100
$18,428,075
$1,000,000
$2,077,825
$23,600,000
Funding Source
Gifts
Local
HDRBS CR&R
University Buildings CR&R
Total
$12,850,000
$7,975,000
$2,600,000
$175,000
$23,600,000
*$10,000,000 to be funded from the redirecting of a portion of
the Rec Center Student Fee. The balance is to be from gifts
Contingency Balance: 100%
Construction Complete: 2%
Project Completion: July 2017
Attachment A
Overall Page 32 of 187
Attachment Page 24 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
2. Gunlock Family Athletic Performance Center: (BOT Jun ’15)
This project will add a new facility housing the varsity football locker rooms, training and rehabilitation facilities, a
football-specific weight room, hydrotherapy, offices for coaches, a team lounge, break out rooms, and a team meeting
room. The facility will replace the North Stands and connect Yager Stadium to the new Dauch Indoor Sports Center.
Construction is on schedule. Foundations and slabs on grade are complete. Steel erection and mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing (MEP) rough-in work is in progress. The geothermal well field system was bid and is on budget.
Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Project Cost
Design and Administration
Cost of Work
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
Funding Source
$2,050,000
$19,200,000
$650,000
$1,100,000
$23,000,000
Gifts
$23,000,000
Total
$23,000,000
Contingency Balance: 80%
Construction Complete: 30%
Project Completion: November 2016
Attachment A
Overall Page 33 of 187
Attachment Page 25 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
3. North Quad Renovation: (BOT Sep ’13)
This project will renovate Brandon, Flower, Hahne, and Hepburn Residence Halls as well as Martin Dining Hall and
a portion of the North Chiller Plant at Billings Hall. Hahne Hall will receive an addition to accommodate
approximately 100 more beds.
The work will include site utilities and infrastructure, landscaping and site
improvements for the identified buildings. These renovations will be comprehensive upgrades of all buildings
systems, addition of fire suppression, accessibility improvements, energy efficiency improvements, and new finishes
throughout. The project will also include a replacement of the existing tunnel top adjacent to the project site.
Construction remains on schedule. Interior framing and MEP rough-in at Martin Dining Hall continues. Masonry on
the Hahne Addition is complete on the connector and continues on the gabled ends. Interior framing, drywall, and
rough-in of MEP infrastructure is complete on the upper three floors of all the residence halls. Drywall is complete in
all the basements. Installation of vinyl plank flooring, doors, and hardware in the residence halls has progressed
down to the first floor. Tile work continues in all the residence halls. Window installation is 95% complete in all
buildings. Roofing is 95% complete on all buildings. For the site work, the deep storm sewers and water lines are
complete. The heating hot water distribution system is complete.
Delivery Method: Design Build
Project Cost
Design and Administration
Construction
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
$7,396,314
$79,380,873
$8,397,813
$3,125,000
$98,300,000
Funding Source
Bond Series 2012
Bond Series 2014
UEA CR&R
University Buildings CR&R
Total
$5,000,000
$90,690,500
$1,400,000
$1,209,500
$98,300,000
Contingency Balance: 93%
Construction Complete: 65%
Project Completion: August 2016
Attachment A
Overall Page 34 of 187
Attachment Page 26 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
4. Shriver Center Renovations – Phase 1: (BOT Sep ’15)
As a result of many functions relocating to the new Armstrong Student Center, this project will initiate renovations of
the Shriver Center. The scope of Phase 1 has evolved to include the following elements. General Exterior: Limited
parking, delivery, and south entry modifications. General Interior: Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing upgrades,
as well as whole-building fire protection and new passenger and freight elevators. First Floor: An admission
welcome center including pre-function space, a 250-seat auditorium, and associated admission offices, counseling
rooms, and support spaces; expanded bookstore retail space; a new convenience store; and renovated circulation and
restrooms. Second Floor: Catering kitchen; an event planning and building management office suite; renovated main
lobby, circulation and restrooms. Third Floor: Rinella Learning Center, Student Disability Services, and renovated
circulation and restrooms.
The scope and schedule of a future Phase 2 continues to evolve and is focused around assigning functions to currently
unassigned spaces that can both drive traffic to the building as well as generate revenue to support the new facility.
Demolition and abatement were completed on schedule in January. Interior framing and MEP rough-in is underway.
Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Project Cost
Design and Administration
Cost of Work
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
Contingency Balance: 81%
Construction Complete: 8%
Project Completion: January 2017
Attachment A
$2,003,877
$16,021,136
$624,987
$1,350,000
$20,000,000
Funding Source
Univ. Bldg. CR&R
$5,000,000
Local
$10,850,000
Shriver Ctr. CR&R
$4,050,000
UEA CR&R
$100,000
Total
$20,000,000
*$3,000,000 from GY 2013 operating surplus,
approved at the September 2013 Finance and Audit
Committee Meeting. $5,000,000 to be taken from
GY 2014 operating surplus, assuming project is
approved.
Overall Page 35 of 187
Attachment Page 27 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
(Under Contract)
Projects Between $500,000 and $2,500,000
1. King Library Improvements:
The removal of Withrow Court has necessitated relocation of University Archives. Improved operational
efficiencies, facilities, and security is realized by co-locating the University Archives with the Special Collections
area on the third floor of King Library. The work also includes a consolidation and improvement of the Howe
Writing Center into a prominent location on the first floor of King Library and relocation of the IT offices within the
facility.
The project is on schedule. Construction is underway with substantial completion expected at the end of March 2016.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Project Cost
Design and Administration
Cost of Work
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
Funding Source
$205,431
$1,312,802
$117,500
$85,000
$1,720,733
Local
$1,720,733
Total
$1,720,733
Contingency Balance: 25%
Construction Complete: 75%
Project Completion: March 2016
Attachment A
Overall Page 36 of 187
Attachment Page 28 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
2. Yager Site/Infrastructure Improvements:
This project removes and adds ductbanks and manholes to complete the loop connecting electric and
telecommunications between the east and west sides of Yager stadium, as well as installing parking for TV trucks,
handicapped and other parking for Yager Stadium. The project improves and integrates the parking and access roads
impacting Yager West Stands, the proposed Varsity Tennis Court site, the Gunlock Family Athletic Performance
Center, and the Dauch Indoor Sports Center.
A portion of the underground utility work has been performed in coordination with the foundation and slab of the
Gunlock Family Athletic Performance Center. The balance of the work is expected to occur during Fall 2016.
Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Project Cost
Design and Administration
Cost of Work
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
Funding Source
$12,000
$1,079,000
$25,000
$84,000
$1,200,00
UEA CR&R
Gifts
$200,000
$1,000,000
Total
$1,200,000
Contingency Balance: 100%
Construction Complete: 2%
Project Completion: November 2016
Attachment A
Overall Page 37 of 187
Attachment Page 29 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
IN DESIGN
(Pre-Contract)
1. Hamilton and Clawson Halls Renovation: (BOT Jun ’15)
This project will renovate Hamilton and Clawson Residence Halls as a continuation of the 2010 Housing and Dining
Master Plan. Hamilton Hall will receive a comprehensive interior renovation and upgrade of all building systems, fire
suppression, energy efficiency, accessibility improvements, landscaping, and site utility connections. Clawson Hall
will receive an upgrade in the mechanical systems, fire suppression, energy efficiency, and minor interior renovations.
The Hamilton Hall renovation will repurpose Hamilton Dining Hall, providing space for additional sorority suites and
multipurpose space, in addition to improved common living areas for the residents. The increase in sorority space in
Hamilton Hall provides necessary swing space during future housing renovations.
Early programming work had suggested an addition to Clawson Hall was worth pursuing. Schematic design estimates
for the renovation and addition exceeded the budget. The age and design of the existing structure created several
challenges and inefficiencies requiring a higher cost of construction. After careful review, the addition and full
renovation is not recommended. A limited renovation of the existing structure is recommended. The recommended
work improves heating, cooling, electrical, life safety systems, and is expected to extend the life of the facility. The
limited renovation improves the student experience, but will not address all of needs as would a complete renovation
or new construction.
Design Development is complete and construction documents are due early February 2016. GMP negotiations will be
in late February.
Delivery Method: Design Build
Estimated Budget: $38,000,000
Estimated Start: March 2016
Estimated Completion: August 2017
Funding Source
Bond Series 2014
Local
Total
$37,000,000
$1,000,000*
$38,000,000
* A bid alternate will be considered in the GMP
negotiations. The alternate will evaluate the possibility of
adding program space for recreation/fitness. If the alternate
is accepted, it will be funded locally through the
Recreational Sports Center CR&R.
Attachment A
Overall Page 38 of 187
Attachment Page 30 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
2. Hamilton Campus Gymnasium Roof Replacement 2016: (New Project This Report)
This project replaces the roof on the Hamilton Campus Gymnasium. The existing Ethylene Propylene Diene
Membrane (EPDM) roof is well beyond its useful life. The roof will be replaced with a highly efficient Thermoplastic
Polyolefin (TPO) product.
An Architect has been selected for the project and design has begun.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $700,000
Estimated Start: May 2016
Estimated Completion: September 2016
Funding Source
Hamilton Campus CR&R
Total
$700,000
$700,000
3. Hughes Hall C-Wing Renovation: (New Project This Report)
The Hughes Hall C-Wing Renovation is an enabling project supporting the renovation of Pearson Hall. The project
will provide flexible interdisciplinary swing space to house occupants of Pearson Hall as sections of the building are
renovated. Once the renovation work in Pearson is completed, the labs will serve as interdisciplinary space and
support specific needs in the College of Engineering and Computing.
The Project is currently in the design phase. A Design Builder has been selected.
Delivery Method: Design Build
Estimated Budget: $11,000,000
Estimated Start: August 2016
Estimated Completion: May 2017
Funding Source
Local
$11,000,000
Total
$11,000,000
4. Hughes Hall Laboratories 141/161 Renovation: (Previous Report – In Planning)
This project renovates Hughes Laboratories 141 and 161 lecture halls. Existing space will be better utilized, allowing
the construction of two additional classrooms in the basement of Hughes Laboratories. The project includes new
finishes, MEP systems, A/V and demonstration stations. The project is in the Design Development/Construction
Drawings phase.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $1,230,626
Estimated Start: May 2016
Estimated Completion: December 2016
Attachment A
Funding Source
Local
$1,230,626
Total
Overall Page 39 of 187
$1,230,626
Attachment Page 31 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
5. Irvin Hall Renovations 2016: (New Project This Report)
This project combines classroom modernization and deferred maintenance projects into one single prime contracting
project. This strategy improves bid economy of scale and offers a coordinated end-product impact to Irvin Hall.
The work to be executed includes: replacing corridor ceilings and installing new LED lighting; replacing HVAC units
with new energy efficient units and controls; replacing the fire alarm system; and modernizing three high-use
classrooms.
The project is in design development phase. Construction documents are due in March 2016. Work is expected to be
bid and awarded in April 2016. Construction on the project will commence immediately after graduation and will be
complete for the Fall semester.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $1,170,000
Estimated Start: May 2016
Estimated Completion: August 2016
Funding Source
Local
$1,170,000
Total
$1,170,000
6. Middletown Campus – Gardner Harvey Library Renovation:
This project will add partitions on the first floor to allow for new study rooms and “maker space,” and provide
additional electrical panels and receptacles to support electronic devices presently in use, as well as provide for future
expansion. The existing lift will be replaced with a new ADA compliant elevator.
The project is in the Construction Document phase.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $880,500
(Revised since last report: $500,000)
Estimated Start: May 2016
(Revised since last report: April 2016)
Estimated Completion: August 2016
Funding Source
State
Local
$877, 500
$3,000
Total
$880,500
7. Millett Hall Roof Replacement 2016:
This project will replace the roof around the lower concourse of Millett Hall. The work will include correction of a
flashing detail around the limestone columns and installation of additional roof drains.
Construction documents are being developed.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $2,000,000
Estimated Start: May 2016
Estimated Completion: September 2016
Attachment A
Funding Source
Local
$2,000,000
Total
Overall Page 40 of 187
$2,000,000
Attachment Page 32 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
8. Minnich and Scott Halls Renovation: (New Project this Report)
This project will renovate two co-located residence halls in the Central Quad. Selection of these two residence halls
aligns with progress on implementing the Utility Master Plan. The Scott Hall program will include new sorority suites,
which creates swing space for sorority suites as the balance of the Central Quad residence halls are renovated.
Design Builders have responded to the Request for Qualifications. A selection should be made in late February 2016.
Delivery Method: Design Build
Estimated Budget: TBD
Estimated Start: May 2017
Estimated Completion: August 2018
Funding Source
TBD
TBD
Total
TBD
9. New Residence Hall – North Quad Tennis Court Site: (BOT Dec ’15)
The increase in student population has created a demand for on-campus beds beyond the Long Range Housing Master
Plan’s original projection. The Master Plan called for 7,100 beds total on campus. Current projections call for a
demand of 8,100 beds on campus.
The site at the location of the varsity tennis courts was one of four sites originally identified in the Master Plan. This
site can take advantage of utilities being upgraded in the current renovation of the North Quad. The program calls for
approximately 350 beds. The new residence hall will be designed to the current design standards used on the other
new residence halls built within the last three years. This residence hall will likely have a Neo-Georgian architectural
style, utilizing materials seen on the other North Quad halls. The project will include hardscape/landscape design to
integrate the new hall into the existing pedestrian and vehicular network in this area of campus.
Schematic design is complete. Selection of the project’s Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) is expected to occur in
mid-February.
Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Estimated Budget: $36,500,000
Estimated Start: June 2016
Estimated Completion: June 2018
Funding Source
Bond Series 2014
$36,500,000
Total
$36,500,000
10. Ogden Hall Roof Repairs 2016:
The copper valleys, flashing, downspouts and gutters are at the end of their useful life and will be replaced with this
project. Approximately 25% of the existing barrel tile roof will be replaced. The balance of the roof tile is in good
condition and will remain.
The Architect has been selected and design work has begun.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $750,000
Estimated Start: May 2016
Estimated Completion: August 2016
Attachment A
Funding Source
HDRBS CR&R
$750,000
Total
Overall Page 41 of 187
$750,000
Attachment Page 33 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
11. Pearson Hall Renovations Phase 1: (New Project This Report)
Pearson Hall, built in 1985, serves the biological sciences including the Departments of Biology and Microbiology.
This phased, occupied rehabilitation will renovate teaching and research labs, offices, common areas, mechanical,
electrical, plumbing and fire systems, and circulation spaces. Because the building is occupied, the work is expected to
occur over approximately four years.
Phase 1 is expected to address at least 50% of the necessary heating, cooling, and lab exhaust systems; replace
electrical switchgear, modernize the public areas, and modernize approximately 50% of the teaching and research
laboratories. The large lecture halls have been modernized in recent years and will not be impacted by this project.
The Criteria Architect has been selected. This project is currently in the programming phase. A Design Build team will
be selected in February 2016.
Delivery Method: Design Build
Estimated Budget: TBD
Estimated Start: May 2017
Estimated Completion: June 2021
Funding Source
State Appropriations
Local
Total
TBD
TBD
TBD
12. Upham Hall Emergency Generator Replacement and Unit Substation Consolidation:
This project will replace the existing diesel fueled emergency generator with a natural gas fueled unit located inside
the building. The project will also consolidate the three existing Unit Substations into one large Unit Substation and
change the medium voltage feeder to the building from 4 kV to 12.5 kV.
The project is in the construction document phase. Bidding is expected to take place in March 2016.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $764,035
Estimated Start: April 2016
Estimated Completion: August 2016
Funding Source
Local
$764,035
Total
$764,035
13. Upham Hall First Floor Renovation: (Previous Report – In Planning)
This project will renovate the classrooms and corridors in the south wing of the first floor of Upham Hall. The
renovation creates additional new space for the College of Arts and Science Academic Advising unit.
Construction Documents are being developed. Bidding is expected to take place in March 2016.
Delivery Method: Single Prime Contracting
Estimated Budget: $850,300
Estimated Start: May 2016
Estimated Completion: August 2016
Attachment A
Funding Source
Local
$850,300
Total
Overall Page 42 of 187
$850,300
Attachment Page 34 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
14. Varsity Tennis Courts:
This project will construct a new tournament level outdoor tennis court complex. The new tennis courts are
necessary to replace the existing courts being razed for construction of a residence hall. The project site is located
northwest of Yager Stadium, immediately north of the existing field hockey field. The facility will include six (6)
competitive level courts and two (2) practice courts including court lighting, scoreboard, viewing area, hose bibs and
drinking fountain.
The project is out to bid. Project mobilization is on schedule for the beginning of March 2016.
Delivery Method: Design Build
Estimated Budget: $2,000,000
Estimated Start: March 2016
Estimated Completion: July 2016
Funding Source
Bond Series 2014
$2,000,000
Total
$2,000,000
15. Western Campus Geothermal Infrastructure, Phase 2:
The University introduced geothermal heating and cooling on the Western Campus in the first phase of this project
in 2013-2014. In the first phase, the heating and cooling needs of the new buildings constructed on the Western
Campus are served by the new geothermal plant. The existing Western Campus buildings remain on the central
heating plant. Plans were made for a future expansion of the geothermal system to convert existing buildings on
Western Campus to geothermal in later phases.
The existing geothermal system will be expanded to include approximately 400 additional deep wells. The project
will all add 1,400 tons of available cooling capacity to the geothermal plant. This project will address the
infrastructure needs for connecting five (5) existing buildings onto the Western Campus geothermal system –
Havighurst, Child Development Center, Clawson, Hoyt and Presser.
The GMP facilitated negotiations are occurring in late February 2016. Completion of the construction documents
and bidding of the work will occur in March and April. The first bid package beginning this spring will include the
drilling of the well field located east of the Geothermal Energy Plant.
Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Estimated Budget: $16,600,000
Estimated Start: April 2016
Estimated Completion: July 2017
Funding Source
Local
Bond Series 2014
$15,540,000
$1,060,000
Total
Attachment A
Overall Page 43 of 187
$16,600,000
Attachment Page 35 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
IN PLANNING
(Pre-A&E)
1. Campus Avenue Building Lower Level Rehab: (New Project This Report)
The CAB Lower Level Rehab project will allow the University to relocate and consolidate the offices of University
Communications and Marketing into space vacated by Student Disability Services and Rinella Learning Center, which
will relocate to the renovated Shriver Center. University Communications and Marketing is currently located in three
separate buildings on campus: Glos Center, MacMillan Hall, and Williams Hall. The CAB project will also realign
some of the remaining work groups with the Division of Enrollment Management and HOME, completing the
University’s goal of creating a one-stop service center for students.
Proposed Budget: TBD
Desired Start: February 2017
Desired Completion: December 2017
Funding Source
TBD
Total
TBD
TBD
2. Hamilton Campus – Knightsbridge Building Renovation:
This project will provide for the renovation of the recently acquired 23,500 square feet Richard Allen Academy
building located on the Hamilton Campus at the intersection of Knightsbridge Drive and University Boulevard in
Hamilton. A facility assessment to be used in developing program and renovation cost has been completed. The
assessment has identified the need for mechanical/electrical upgrades as part of the renovation, reporting
approximately $4,000,000 in probable cost. A recent professionally-prepared campus space plan is contributing to
the programmed scope of this project.
Planning is underway to align the campus space requirements, academic priorities, and existing facilities
condition/needs.
Proposed Budget: TBD
Desired Start: TBD
Desired Completion: TBD
Attachment A
Funding Source
Hamilton Campus CR&R
Total
Overall Page 44 of 187
TBD
TBD
Attachment Page 36 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Intentionally blank
Attachment A
Overall Page 45 of 187
Attachment Page 37 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
COMPLETED PROJECTS
1. Shideler Hall Renovation: (BOT Feb ’14)
The complete renovation of Shideler Hall for Geology and Geography included hazardous material abatement,
replacement of HVAC, plumbing, electric, technology and fire suppression systems with state-of-the-art energy
efficient systems; reconfiguration of classrooms, laboratories, department and staff offices, including a highly
interactive GIS studio. Upgraded finishes included casework, flooring, lighting, ceilings, etc. The work improved
circulation, egress and ADA accessibility. Exterior upgrades including brick tuck pointing, roofing and window
replacements were made.
The building is substantially complete and fully occupied for the Spring Semester.
Delivery Method: Construction Manager at Risk
Project Cost
Design and Administration
Cost of Work
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
$2,336,371
$20,039,255
$1,417,394
$1,207,070
$25,000,000
Project Expense
Design and Administration
Cost of Work
Contingency
Owner Costs
Total
$2,336,371
$20,039,255
$1,417,374
$1,207,070
$24,980,000
Est. Contingency Balance Returned: $20,000
Est. Contingency Balance Returned Percent of Total: 0.1%
Est. Bid Savings / VE: $0
Est. Final Total: $24,980,000
Attachment A
Overall Page 46 of 187
Attachment Page 38 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Intentionally blank
Attachment A
Overall Page 47 of 187
Attachment Page 39 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Projects Between $50,000 and $500,000
Project
Airport RSA Grading Project
Alumni Hall – High Bay Roof Replacement
Armstrong Student Center – Adjacent Tunnel Sump Improvements
Armstrong Student Center – Pavilion Audiovisual Upgrades
Art Building – Classroom 17 Upgrade
Art Building – Room 245 Upgrade
Bachelor Hall – Lecture Hall 102 Renovation
Bachelor Hall – Room 108 Conversion to Classroom
Benton Hall – Agile Classroom
Boyd Hall – Fashion Design Studio
Campus Avenue Water Main Work (in conjunction with City of Oxford)
Central Campus Electrical Modifications – Phase II
Central Campus Utility Upgrade
Chestnut Fields – Fieldhouse Renovation for Club & Rec Sports
Chestnut Fields – Site Infrastructure and Utility Improvements
Classroom Chair Replacement (17 classrooms)
Cole Service Building Reconfiguration
E & G Buildings – Corridor Lighting Control
E & G Buildings – Elevator Repair and Renovation 2015
E & G Buildings – Fan Energy Upgrades
E & G Buildings – Heating Pumps Energy Upgrades
E & G Buildings – Relamping
E & G Buildings – Summer Painting – Building Exteriors 2014/2015
Edwards Parking Lot Rehabilitation
Emergency Phones Phase II
Emerson Hall Emergency Power Upgrades
Engineering Building – Fume Hood Exhaust Fan Resolution
Engineering Building – Lab Improvements 2015
Engineering Building – SEAS – Paper Reconfiguration
Engineering Building – Second Floor Honors Suite
Farmer School of Business – Exterior Entrance Door Repairs
Goggin Ice Center – Stair Repair/Replacement
Hamilton Campus – One Stop Enrollment Management Center
Hamilton Campus – Rentschler Hall Entry Reconstruction
Hamilton Campus – Wilks & Schwarm Halls Building Automation Upgrade
Hamilton Campus – Wilks & Schwarm Halls Fire Alarm Upgrades
Hamilton Campus – Wilks & Schwarm LED Lighting Retrofit
Havighurst Hall – Lighting Upgrades 2016
Hayden Park – FF&E
Heritage Commons – Plumbing Upgrades 2015
Hiestand Hall – Exhaust Improvements
Hiestand Hall - Room 200 - Lab Refresh and Update
HDRBS – Exterior Summer Painting 2014
HDRBS – HVAC Improvements 2016
HDRBS – MEP Improvements 2016
HDRBS – Plumbing Improvements 2016
HDRBS – Residence Hall Signage
HUB Quad Engraved Brick Replacement
Hughes Hall Still Replacement
Attachment A
Overall Page 48 of 187
Budget
$128,320
$250,000
$250,000
$75,000
$80,000
$72,675
$440,000
$110,000
$50,000
$105,375
$150,000
$230,665
$498,000
$500,000
$300,000
$189,685
$187,310
$200,000
$275,000
$72,000
$160,000
$350,000
$187,000
$450,000
$465,000
$125,000
$100,000
$165,000
$75,000
$65,605
$150,000
$80,000
$260,160
$180,000
$200,000
$125,000
$90,000
$345,750
$180,000
$195,000
$70,000
$75,000
$50,000
$100,000
$400,000
$90,000
$260,000
$145,500
$160,000
Attachment Page 40 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Irvin Drive Relocation
Irvin Hall – Classroom 10 Interior Finish Upgrades
Irvin Hall – Classroom 40 Renovation
Irvin Hall – Classrooms 50 & 60 Renovations
Irvin Hall – Room 126 A/V Upgrades
Kreger Hall Furniture Package
Maplestreet Station – Starbucks Renovation
Marcum Conference Center –Building Window Replacement
McGuffey Drive – Water Line Extension
McGuffey Hall – Classroom Expansion (415-417)
McGuffey Hall – Multipurpose Learning Center
McGuffey Hall – Room 100 – EDP Clinic Redesign
McGuffey Hall – Room 128 - AV and Computer Equipment Installation
McGuffey Hall – Rooms 407-408 Renovation
Middletown Campus – Bennett Rec Center Fire Alarm Upgrade
Middletown Campus – One Stop Enrollment Management Center
Middletown Campus – SWORD Drainage Improvements
Middletown Campus – SWORD Roof and Building Repair
Middletown Campus – SWORD Storm Water/Chiller Improvements
Middletown Campus – Thesken Hall Fire Alarm Upgrades
Middletown Campus – Verity Lodge Fire Alarm Upgrades
Millett Hall – Electrical Modifications – 4kv to 12.5kv Conversion
North Campus Utility Improvements
North Chiller Plant – Roof Replacement
Peabody Hall – Lighting and Mechanical Upgrades 2016
Pearson Hall Laboratory AV Upgrades
Pearson Hall Laboratory Upgrades (267 B-F, G, H)
Phillips Hall – Entryway Repairs
Phillips Hall – Gymnasium Netting, Room 30 Renovation
Phillips Hall – Room 113 Cosmetic Improvements
Phillips Hall – Sensory Lab
Presser Hall Stormwater Pond
Psychology Building – Room 36 Hood and Hall Modifications
Recreational Sports Center – Bouldering Cave Replacement
Recreational Sports Center – Envelope Evaluation
Recreational Sports Center – Hardscape Repairs
Recreational Sports Center – Outdoor Pursuits Center
Recreational Sports Center – Scoreboard Replacement
Recreational Sports Center – Volleyball Court Renovation
Regional Campuses – Classroom Technology Upgrade 2015
Rental Property Demolition and Grounds Restoration (406 E. Chestnut Street)
Richard Hall – Electrical Modifications
Sawyer Gym Renovation
Softball Field Scoreboard Upgrade
South Refrigeration Plant Air Conditioning Upgrades
Steam Plant Water Softener Replacement
Tennis Courts Resurfacing
Upham Hall – Second Floor Renovation
Utility Group Control Automation Upgrades
Utility Group Network Reconfiguration
VOA – AV Upgrades
VOA – Exterior Repairs
Western Campus Bridge Reconstruction
Attachment A
Overall Page 49 of 187
February 18, 2016
$200,000
$330,000
$385,000
$225,000
$95,000
$300,000
$325,000
$104,000
$250,000
$55,000
$131,680
$90,000
$85,000
$175,000
$75,000
$171,560
$162,300
$395,000
$200,000
$75,000
$75,000
$200,000
$400,000
$200,000
$275,000
$398,022
$145,850
$75,000
$150,000
$66,000
$120,000
$262,250
$55,000
$65,000
$145,000
$100,000
$90,000
$500,000
$66,500
$306,000
$160,000
$235,000
$400,000
$136,810
$200,000
$61,500
$255,110
$320,000
$200,000
$150,000
$97,000
$100,000
$400,000
Attachment Page 41 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
Western Residence Halls – Closet Additions
Yager Stadium – ICA Storage Building
Yager Stadium – Space for Tennis and Golf Teams
$225,000
$240,000
$250,000
Projects Closed Between $50,000 and $500,000
Project
Original Budget
Campus Avenue Building - One Stop Shop
Center for Performing Arts – Souers Recital Hall – Dimming System
Replacement
Hamilton Campus – Phelps & Parrish Auditorium Lighting Upgrades
Hamilton Campus – University Hall Emergency Generator Installation
North Chiller Plant – Roof Replacement
Attachment A
Overall Page 50 of 187
Returned Funds
$202,000
$2,815
$54,000
$80,000
$100,000
$200,000
$5,920
$20,050
$28,500
$3,350
Attachment Page 42 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Intentionally blank
Attachment A
Overall Page 51 of 187
Attachment Page 43 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
February 18, 2016
Glossary of Terms
Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) – is a delivery method which entails a commitment by the construction manager
to deliver the project within a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). The owner contracts the architectural and engineering
services to perform the design from concept through construction bid documents using the construction manager as a
consultant. The construction manager acts as the equivalent of a general contractor during the construction phase. CMR
arrangement eliminates a "Low Bid" construction project. This method will typically be used on projects with high
complexity and demanding completion schedules.
Contingency – includes both owner contingency and the D/B or CMR contingency where applicable.
Cost of the Work – is the cost of construction. This includes general condition fees, contractor overhead and profit, D/B or
CMR construction stage personnel.
Design & Administration – includes all professional services to support the work. This consists of base
Architect/Engineer (A/E) fees, A/E additional services, A/E reimbursables, non-error/omission A/E contingency fees,
geotechnical services, special inspection services partnering services, multi-vista photo documentation of projects, D/B or
CMR pre-construction services, third party estimator, and local administration fees.
Design Build (D/B) – is a project delivery method in which the design and construction services are contracted by a single
entity and delivered within a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). Design Build relies on a single point of responsibility
contract and is used to minimize risks for the project owner and to reduce the delivery schedule by overlapping the design
phase and construction phase of a project. This method will typically be used on projects with less complexity and have
demanding completion schedules.
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) – is the negotiated contract for construction services when using D/B or CMR.
The owner negotiates a reasonable maximum price for the project (or component of the project) to be delivered within the
prescribed schedule. The D/B firm or CMR is responsible for delivering the project within the agreed upon GMP. This
process eliminates bidding risks experienced by the owner, allows creative value engineering (VE) to manage the budget, and
permits portions of the work to begin far earlier than traditional bidding of the entire project.
Multiple Prime Contracting – is a project delivery method historically allowed by the State of Ohio. The owner
contracts the architectural and engineering services to perform the design from concept through construction bid documents.
The construction services are divided into various trade specialties – each bid as a separate contract (general, plumbing,
mechanical, electrical, sprinkler, etc.). The owner is responsible for managing the terms of each contract and coordinating the
work between the multiple contractors.
Owner Costs – are costs directly borne by the owner to complete the project. This includes furniture, fixtures, and
equipment (FF&E), audio/visual (A/V), IT networking, percent for art (applicable on State funded projects exceeding $4
million), printing and advertising expenses, and any special moving or start-up funds.
Preconstruction Services – are the development and design services provided by a D/B firm or CMR to the owner. These
services are typically performed for an identified cost prior to the negotiation of a GMP. These services are included in
“Design and Administration.”
Single Prime Contracting – is a project delivery method in which the owner contracts the architectural and engineering
services to perform the design from concept through construction bid documents. The construction services are contracted
separately, but through a single entity. Single Prime Contracting is beneficial on projects with specialized construction
requiring more owner oversight or control. This method will typically be used on projects with high complexity and low
schedule importance.
Attachment A
Overall Page 52 of 187
Attachment Page 44 of 50
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
February 18, 2016
February 19, 2016
Finance and Business Services
RESOLUTION 2016-26
WHEREAS, the Edwards Parking Lot, located at the southwest corner of
High Street and Tallawanda Road, is scheduled for reconstruction following the
erection of the adjacent Evans Scholars House.
WHERAS, for reasons of design efficiency in connection with this
reconstruction, the University has determined that the overhead electric service
currently servicing Old Manse, 410 East High Street, Oxford OH 45056, from
Church Street should be relocated to an underground electrical service.
WHEREAS, said relocation requires that the University grant a new utility
easement to Duke Energy of Ohio, Inc. to construct and maintain these lines, a copy
of which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein (“Utility
Easement”);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Board of Trustees
approves the Utility Easement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senior Vice President for Finance
and Business Services be authorized to sign the Utility Easement, and perform those
acts necessary to carry out and perform the terms thereof.
Approved by the Board of Trustees
February 19, 2016
T. O. Pickerill II
Secretary to the Board of Trustees
Attachment A
Overall Page 53 of 187
Attachment Page 45 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
Overall Page 54 of 187
February 18, 2016
Attachment Page 46 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
Overall Page 55 of 187
February 18, 2016
Attachment Page 47 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
Overall Page 56 of 187
February 18, 2016
Attachment Page 48 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
Overall Page 57 of 187
February 18, 2016
Attachment Page 49 of 50
Attachment A
Capital Projects
Cody Powell
Attachment A
Overall Page 58 of 187
February 18, 2016
Attachment Page 50 of 50
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
Business Session
Item #3
Miami University
Finance and Audit Committee
FY 2016 Forecasted Operating Results
Projections Based upon Activity through December 31, 2015
OXFORD
The projection for the Oxford General Fund based on performance through December is a
surplus of approximately $26.6 million. Details of the specific items are highlighted below.
Revenues
The Oxford campus student fee revenues (instructional, general, out-of-state, and other) are
forecast to be approximately $8.9 million over the $317.3 million budget. Gross instructional
revenue (including the out-of-state surcharge) is forecast to be $8.6 higher than budget and financial
aid is forecast to be on budget. The projections include billing from summer, fall, winter terms and
preliminary spring billing. The favorable performance compared to budget is attributable to a larger
than expected incoming class, improved retention rates for continuing students and more ACE
students than assumed in the budget. The forecast may change based on the final performance of the
spring and summer terms of calendar year 2016.
The forecast for the Oxford campus state appropriations are forecast to be $1.9 million over
the $58.5 million budget. The original university budget was based on the Governor’s introduced
budget. The estimates included in this report are based on the final revisions made by the Ohio
Department of Higher Education that incorporate updated degree and enrollment information from
each of the campuses. The Conference Committee budget signed by the Governor incorporated
additional resources to help offset the impact of the state imposed tuition freeze on resident tuition.
Investment income booked through December 31, 2015 was approximately $1,486,000.
This amount does not include an estimate of the year end mark-to-market, which is difficult to
predict at this time. If we had marked the portfolio to market as of December 31, an unrealized loss
of $8,170,000 would have been recorded. Given the volatility of the current market, this number
could change as the year progresses. Therefore, we are forecasting investment income to be equal to
budget.
Other revenue categories are projected as budgeted.
Expenditures and Transfers
Employee salaries for the Oxford campus are projected to be $6.4 million under budget. The
healthcare and staff benefits expense are projected to be $2.6 million under budget based on the
salary projection and do not reflect a forecast of claims experience. Through the first six months of
the fiscal year medical claims, including high cost claims, were lower than budget. Similarly,
prescription drugs costs for regular claims as well as high cost claims were below budget.
Healthcare expense is difficult to estimate due to the volatility of high cost claims. Graduate
assistant fee waivers and undergraduate scholarships and fee waivers are projected $537,500 and
$270,000 less than budgeted, respectively. Departmental support budgets are projected to be $5.9
1
Attachment B
Overall Page 59 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
Business Session
Item #3
million over the original budget reflecting spending of carryforward balances on capital projects and
the movement of resources to designated funds.
Savings in departmental salaries are projected above budget; therefore the forecast estimates
a transfer to departmental budgetary carryforward of $4.5 million. At the end of FY15, departments
on the Oxford Campus underspent these categories by $12.3 million.
HAMILTON & MIDDLETOWN
The Hamilton campus student fee revenue (instructional, out-of-state, general, and other) is
estimated to be $1.0 below budget. The instructional fee, out-of-state surcharge, general fee and
other student revenue for the Middletown campus are forecast to be $445,061 above budget. The
performance of Middletown revenues is attributable to higher than budgeted enrollments by
international students. Expenditures on both campuses are currently forecast on budget.
The state subsidy for the Hamilton campus is expected to be $78,547 above budget and Middletown
campus forecast is to be $328,283 above budget. As noted above, the forecast was updated to reflect
Ohio Department of Higher Education mid-year estimates for the fiscal year.
Overall, the General Fund for Hamilton is projected to end the fiscal year with a $1.2 million deficit
while the Middletown campus is projected to have an operating surplus of approximately $773,343.
VOICE OF AMERICA LEARNING CENTER
The Voice of America Learning Center (VOALC) is projected to end the fiscal year on
budget. As in the prior fiscal year, the funding support for the VOALC has been separately
displayed for all three campuses and the VOALC. This transfer represents the budgeted financial
support from each campus for funding the VOALC administrative operations.
2
Attachment B
Overall Page 60 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
FY2016 Forecast
Oxford General Fund Only
As of December 31, 2015
December
End-of-Year
Forecast
Original
Budget
REVENUES:
Instructional & OOS Surcharge
Less Cohort Financial Aid Discount
Net Instructional Fee & Out-of-State Surcharge
General
Other Student Revenue
Tuition, Fees and Other Student Charges
December
Budget to
Forecast
$ 340,112,881
$ 58,947,656
$ 281,165,225
$ 32,539,258
$
3,601,500
$ 317,305,983
$ 348,709,895 $ 8,597,014
$ 58,947,656 $
$ 289,762,239 $ 8,597,014
$ 32,823,037 $
283,779
$
3,601,500 $
$ 326,186,776 $ 8,880,793
$ 58,489,038
$
4,325,000
$
1,444,000
$ 381,564,021
$ 60,413,643
$
4,325,000
$
1,444,000
$ 392,369,419
$ 1,924,605
$
$
$ 10,805,398
EXPENDITURES:
Salaries
Benefits
Healthcare Expense
Graduate Assistant, Fellowships & Fee Waivers
Undergraduate Scholarships & Student Waivers
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenditures
Multi-year Expenditures
Total Expenditures
$ 168,085,747
$ 32,480,774
$ 29,545,024
$ 30,779,703
$ 12,608,758
$ 13,314,644
$ 27,883,845
$
5,671,742
$ 320,370,237
$ 161,725,995
$ 31,131,969
$ 28,318,130
$ 30,242,203
$ 12,338,758
$ 13,314,644
$ 33,802,843
$
5,671,742
$ 316,546,284
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
DEBT SERVICE AND TRANSFERS:
General Fee
Capital, Renewal & Replacement
Debt Service
Support for VOALC (50%)
Other Miscellaneous Operational Transfers
Total Debt Service and Transfers
$
$
$
$
$
$
(30,151,928)
(7,980,000)
(5,222,213)
(577,383)
(849,727)
(44,781,251)
$
$
$
$
$
$
(30,151,928)
(7,980,000)
(5,222,213)
(577,383)
(849,727)
(44,781,251)
$
$
$
$
$
$
Net Revenues/(Expenditures) Before Adjustments
$
16,412,533
$
31,041,884
$ 14,629,351
ADJUSTMENTS:
Departmental Budgetary Savings
Departmental Budgetary Carryforward
Reserve for Investment Fluctuations
Reserve for Future Budgets
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(4,467,726)
-
$
$ (4,467,726)
$
$
-
$
26,574,158
$ 10,161,625
State Appropriations
Investment Income
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance
$
16,412,533
(6,359,752)
(1,348,805)
(1,226,894)
(537,500)
(270,000)
5,918,998
(3,823,953)
-
3
Attachment B
Overall Page 61 of 187
Attachment Page 3 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
FY2016 Forecast
Hamilton General Fund Only
As of December 31, 2015
December
End-of-Year
Forecast
Original
Budget
REVENUES:
Instructional & OOS Surcharge
Less Continuing & New Scholarships
Net Instructional Fee & Out-of-State Surcharge
General
Other Student Revenue
Tuition, Fees and Other Student Charges
$
$
$
$
$
$
18,297,106 $
723,638 $
17,573,468 $
1,072,238 $
193,500 $
18,839,206 $
State Appropriations
Investment Income
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
$
$
$
$
7,134,467 $
50,000 $
79,500 $
26,103,173 $
EXPENDITURES:
Salaries
Allowance for Unspent Salaries
Benefits
Allowance for Unspent Benefits
Healthcare Expense
Graduate Assistant Fee Waivers
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenditures
Multi-year Expenditures
Total Expenditures
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
14,148,308
(552,558)
2,649,355
(206,325)
2,222,218
696,000
4,895,627
23,852,625
DEBT SERVICE AND TRANSFERS:
General Fee
Capital, Renewal & Replacement
Unrestricted Allocated Funds
Debt Service
Support for VOALC (25%)
Support for Middletown
Other Miscellaneous Operational Transfers
Total Debt Service and Transfers
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(435,461)
(288,691)
(1,827,697)
(2,551,849)
Net Revenues/(Expenditures) Before Adjustments
$
(301,301) $
ADJUSTMENTS:
Departmental Budgetary Savings
Departmental Budgetary Carryforward
Reserve for Investment Fluctuations
Reserve for Future Budgets
$
$
$
$
-
$
(301,301) $
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance
December
Budget to
Forecast
17,472,810 $
869,426 $
16,603,384 $
1,020,624 $
193,500 $
17,817,508 $
7,213,014 $
50,000 $
79,500 $
25,160,022
$
(824,296)
145,788
(970,084)
(51,614)
(1,021,698)
78,547
(943,151)
$
$
14,148,308 $
(552,558) $
$
$
$
2,649,355 $
(206,325) $
2,222,218 $
$
696,000 $
4,895,627 $
$
23,852,625 $
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(435,461)
(288,691)
(1,827,697)
(2,551,849)
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(1,244,452) $
-
$
$
$
$
(1,244,452) $
(943,151)
(943,151)
4
Attachment B
Overall Page 62 of 187
Attachment Page 4 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
FY2016 Forecast
Middletown General Fund Only
As of December 31, 2015
December
End-of-Year
Forecast
Original
Budget
REVENUES:
Instructional & OOS Surcharge
Less Continuing & New Scholarships
Net Instructional Fee & Out-of-State Surcharge
General
Other Student Revenue
Tuition, Fees and Other Student Charges
December
Budget to
Forecast
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,250,720 $
865,638 $
10,385,082 $
630,283 $
80,700 $
11,096,065 $
11,826,887
946,842
10,880,045
580,381
80,700
11,541,126
$ 576,167
$ 81,204
$ 494,963
$ (49,902)
$
$ 445,061
$
$
$
$
4,753,491 $
50,000 $
70,402 $
15,969,958 $
5,081,774
50,000
70,402
16,743,301
$ 328,283
$
$
$ 773,343
EXPENDITURES:
Salaries
Allowance for Unspent Salaries
Benefits
Allowance for Unspent Benefits
Healthcare Expense
Graduate Assistant Fee Waivers
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenditures
Multi-year Expenditures
Total Expenditures
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,554,776
(977,394)
2,115,923
(377,274)
1,581,503
453,500
3,745,301
17,096,335
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,554,776
(977,394)
2,115,923
(377,274)
1,581,503
453,500
3,745,301
17,096,335
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
DEBT SERVICE AND TRANSFERS:
General Fee
Capital, Renewal & Replacement
Unrestricted Allocated Funds
Debt Service
Support for VOALC (25%)
Support From Hamilton
Other Miscellaneous Operational Transfers
Total Debt Service and Transfers
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(157,837)
(254,792)
(288,691)
1,827,697
1,126,377
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(157,837)
(254,792)
(288,691)
1,827,697
1,126,377
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Net Revenues/(Expenditures) Before Adjustments
$
-
$
773,343
ADJUSTMENTS:
Departmental Budgetary Savings
Departmental Budgetary Carryforward
Reserve for Investment Fluctuations
Reserve for Future Budgets
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
State Appropriations
Investment Income
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance
-
$ 773,343
$
$
$
$
773,343
-
$ 773,343
5
Attachment B
Overall Page 63 of 187
Attachment Page 5 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
FY2016 Forecast
Voice of America Learning Center General Fund Only
As of December 31, 2015
December
End-of-Year
Forecast
Original
Budget
REVENUES:
Instructional & OOS Surcharge
Less Continuing & New Scholarships
Net Instructional Fee & Out-of-State Surcharge
General
Other Student Revenue
Tuition, Fees and Other Student Charges
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,000
35,000
$
$
$
$
EXPENDITURES:
Salaries
Benefits
Healthcare Expense
Graduate Assistant Fee Waivers
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenditures
Multi-year Expenditures
Total Expenditures
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
230,955
48,982
44,555
59,900
288,323
672,715
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
230,955
48,982
44,555
59,900
288,323
672,715
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
DEBT SERVICE AND TRANSFERS:
General Fee
Capital, Renewal & Replacement
Unrestricted Allocated Funds
Debt Service
Support for VOALC Transfers
Other Miscellaneous Operational Transfers
Total Debt Service and Transfers
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(35,300)
(481,750)
1,154,765
637,715
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(35,300)
(481,750)
1,154,765
637,715
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Net Revenues/(Expenditures) Before Adjustments
$
-
$
-
$
-
ADJUSTMENTS:
Departmental Budgetary Savings
Departmental Budgetary Carryforward
Reserve for Investment Fluctuations
Reserve for Future Budgets
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
State Appropriations
Investment Income
Other Revenue
Total Revenues
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Fund Balance
-
December
Budget to
Forecast
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,000 $
35,000 $
-
-
-
6
Attachment B
Overall Page 64 of 187
Attachment Page 6 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - by Operational Unit
FY2016 / FY2015 / FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY16
Budget
College of Arts & Sciences
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
48,100,556
12,682,905
9,103,717
4,221,714
74,108,892
$
$
$
$
$
49,577,235
13,531,242
8,688,453
2,887,680
74,684,610
$
$
$
$
$
53,009,961
17,854,044
10,674,846
7,121,064
88,659,915
$
$
$
$
$
23,744,844
8,148,263
5,113,506
2,525,115
39,531,728
$
$
$
$
$
23,143,497
7,885,350
3,496,351
2,024,859
36,550,057
$
$
$
$
$
22,634,018
9,699,466
3,654,358
2,010,204
37,998,046
45%
46%
48%
35%
45%
3%
3%
46%
25%
8%
College of Education, Health, and Society
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
12,132,366
3,149,679
1,716,761
1,474,216
18,473,022
$
$
$
$
$
12,660,948
3,555,743
1,607,878
1,051,840
18,876,409
$
$
$
$
$
13,618,903
4,683,030
2,091,474
2,545,220
22,938,627
$
$
$
$
$
5,982,220
2,100,089
813,913
602,932
9,499,154
$
$
$
$
$
5,954,434
2,044,846
663,859
721,004
9,384,143
$
$
$
$
$
5,686,015
2,124,685
710,849
679,389
9,200,938
44%
45%
39%
24%
41%
0%
3%
23%
-16%
1%
College of Engineering and Computing
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
6,565,594
1,879,312
619,839
697,737
9,762,482
$
$
$
$
$
6,622,190
1,954,333
505,709
525,757
9,607,989
$
$
$
$
$
6,617,666
2,482,294
597,564
611,159
10,308,683
$
$
$
$
$
3,544,925
1,307,368
287,039
380,823
5,520,155
$
$
$
$
$
3,182,635
1,172,521
216,029
347,056
4,918,241
$
$
$
$
$
3,173,535
1,208,728
278,475
396,833
5,057,571
54%
53%
48%
62%
54%
11%
12%
0%
10%
12%
Farmer School of Business
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
17,708,566
6,002,199
505,930
2,036,979
26,253,674
$
$
$
$
$
20,391,366
5,990,636
494,014
1,176,750
28,052,766
$
$
$
$
$
19,570,620
7,587,531
896,346
3,301,666
31,356,163
$
$
$
$
$
10,169,482
3,818,170
461,250
957,227
15,406,129
$
$
$
$
$
9,534,341
3,522,548
229,194
1,148,635
14,434,718
$
$
$
$
$
8,620,263
3,174,776
215,355
1,059,212
13,069,606
52%
50%
51%
29%
49%
7%
8%
0%
-17%
7%
College of Creative Arts
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
8,985,802
2,481,081
1,385,329
1,471,030
14,323,242
$
$
$
$
$
9,117,628
2,692,484
1,273,236
722,677
13,806,025
$
$
$
$
$
9,629,033
3,523,179
1,548,234
1,202,567
15,903,013
$
$
$
$
$
4,462,210
1,587,817
709,603
460,171
7,219,801
$
$
$
$
$
4,388,484
1,539,615
568,078
465,922
6,962,099
$
$
$
$
$
4,295,725
1,678,912
611,389
461,179
7,047,205
46%
45%
46%
38%
45%
2%
3%
25%
-1%
4%
Dolibois European Center - Luxemburg
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,027,975
275,645
49,101
328,037
1,680,758
$
$
$
$
$
$
929,736
261,895
27,203
228,264
1,447,098
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,223,639
446,785
35,220
351,000
2,056,644
$
$
$
$
$
$
293,450
119,957
10,472
173,845
597,724
$
$
$
$
$
$
474,477
166,070
13,691
110,458
764,696
$
$
$
$
$
$
257,706
108,054
9,634
150,774
526,168
24%
27%
0%
30%
50%
29%
-38%
-28%
0%
-24%
57%
-22%
FY2016
Thru December Year To Date
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
7
Attachment B
Overall Page 65 of 187
Attachment Page 7 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - by Operational Unit
FY2016 / FY2015 / FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
Graduate School
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
1,580,813
495,789
13,879,476
309,072
16,265,150
$
$
$
$
$
2,420,009
495,082
14,873,780
252,783
18,041,654
$
$
$
$
$
2,361,004
587,467
12,808,216
548,851
16,305,538
$
$
$
$
$
1,263,455
306,383
12,394,487
167,766
14,132,091
$
$
$
$
$
1,282,862
312,370
14,683,681
461,492
16,740,405
$
$
$
$
$
825,566
278,437
10,905,113
139,788
12,148,904
54%
52%
97%
31%
87%
-2%
-2%
-16%
-64%
-16%
Other Provost Departments
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,211,049
2,390,578
1,245,328
308
5,474,550
17,321,813
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,848,019
2,709,275
528,507
395
5,912,645
16,998,841
$
$
$
$
$
$
8,985,298
3,615,269
109,910
6,424,579
19,135,056
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,165,253
1,654,609
595,881
3,697,593
10,113,336
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,970,845
1,568,530
518,811
338
3,604,039
9,662,563
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,067,999
1,729,997
3,510,871
4,395
4,182,430
12,495,692
46%
46%
542%
0%
58%
53%
5%
5%
0%
-100%
3%
5%
Total Provost Office
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
104,312,721
29,357,188
28,456,380
49,409
16,013,335
178,189,033
$
$
$
$
$
$
109,567,131
31,190,690
27,971,577
27,598
12,758,396
181,515,392
$
$
$
$
$
$
115,016,124
40,779,599
28,726,590
35,220
22,106,106
206,663,639
$
$
$
$
$
$
53,625,839
19,042,656
20,375,679
10,472
8,965,472
102,020,118
$
$
$
$
$
$
51,931,575
18,211,850
20,376,003
14,029
8,883,465
99,416,922
$
$
$
$
$
$
48,560,827
20,003,055
19,886,410
14,029
9,079,809
97,544,130
47%
47%
71%
30%
41%
49%
3%
5%
0%
-25%
1%
3%
Physical Facilities
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,617,710
3,641,987
12,886,292
6,930
771,857
28,924,776
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,940,718
3,741,925
13,159,466
2,423
781,433
29,625,965
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,794,937
5,130,523
13,279,424
27,162
300,562
31,532,608
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,882,886
2,359,832
6,435,734
71,298
14,749,750
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,930,178
2,345,945
6,529,249
558,986
15,364,358
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,563,517
2,189,319
6,440,802
131,684
14,325,322
46%
46%
48%
0%
24%
47%
-1%
1%
-1%
0%
-87%
-4%
Other Finance & Business Services Departments
Salary
$
7,788,857
Benefits
$
2,417,137
Departmental Support Expenses
$
1,910,247
Total Expenses
$
12,116,241
$
$
$
$
8,035,713
2,470,382
1,201,466
11,707,561
$
$
$
$
8,203,199
3,311,193
2,201,227
13,715,619
$
$
$
$
3,649,925
1,467,124
1,369,843
6,486,892
$
$
$
$
3,847,594
1,538,940
1,162,859
6,549,393
$
$
$
$
3,787,693
1,483,456
1,286,213
6,557,362
44%
44%
62%
47%
-5%
-5%
18%
-1%
Enrollment Management & Student Success
Salary
$
Benefits
$
Scholarships & Fellowships
$
Departmental Support Expenses
$
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
6,139,014
1,943,430
62,640,323
2,713,887
73,436,654
$
$
$
$
$
6,826,677
2,754,236
72,548,488
3,581,483
85,710,884
$
$
$
$
$
3,250,139
1,302,063
36,689,158
2,222,865
43,464,225
$
$
$
$
$
2,642,499
1,058,929
32,090,201
1,750,883
37,542,512
$
$
$
$
$
3,762,116
955,478
29,098,141
1,132,176
34,947,911
48%
47%
51%
62%
51%
23%
23%
14%
27%
16%
4,980,451
1,560,108
55,511,208
2,688,059
64,739,826
FY16
Budget
FY2016
Thru December Year To Date
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
8
Attachment B
Overall Page 66 of 187
Attachment Page 8 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - by Operational Unit
FY2016 / FY2015 / FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY16
Budget
Salary
Benefits
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
3,864,846
1,196,472
5,182,721
10,244,039
$
$
$
$
4,060,901
1,230,793
3,957,743
9,249,437
$
$
$
$
4,219,652
1,705,869
3,960,578
9,886,099
$
$
$
$
2,039,147
820,314
1,823,325
4,682,786
$
$
$
$
1,908,894
750,137
1,441,164
4,100,195
$
$
$
$
1,841,448
710,958
2,476,551
5,028,957
48%
48%
46%
47%
7%
9%
27%
14%
Student Affairs
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
5,220,016
1,540,516
953,072
(1,281,496)
6,432,108
$
$
$
$
$
5,031,600
1,550,085
907,265
(1,788,320)
5,700,630
$
$
$
$
$
6,624,312
2,494,316
1,033,877
(1,675,187)
8,477,318
$
$
$
$
$
2,675,183
1,034,147
343,854
(716,420)
3,336,764
$
$
$
$
$
2,752,115
1,022,193
321,745
(744,495)
3,351,558
$
$
$
$
$
2,639,840
1,104,948
320,553
(685,046)
3,380,295
40%
41%
33%
43%
39%
-3%
1%
7%
-4%
0%
University Advancement
Salary
Benefits
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
4,018,665
1,313,240
641,339
5,973,244
$
$
$
$
4,127,538
1,312,412
350,349
5,790,299
$
$
$
$
4,406,315
1,780,629
410,520
6,597,464
$
$
$
$
2,104,921
839,210
213,497
3,157,628
$
$
$
$
2,024,883
807,855
374,504
3,207,242
$
$
$
$
1,991,387
780,132
515,553
3,287,072
48%
47%
52%
48%
4%
4%
-43%
-2%
Information Technology
Salary
Benefits
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
7,759,854
2,489,482
2,585,768
12,835,104
$
$
$
$
7,195,604
2,278,002
1,714,435
11,188,041
$
$
$
$
8,705,000
3,525,525
3,208,904
15,439,429
$
$
$
$
3,517,832
1,422,719
2,947,799
7,888,350
$
$
$
$
3,648,397
1,475,162
2,189,922
7,313,481
$
$
$
$
3,816,277
1,519,121
2,426,874
7,762,272
40%
40%
92%
51%
-4%
-4%
35%
8%
Centrally Budgeted Funds
Salary
Benefits
Departmental Support Expenses
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
5,537
819,405
672,155
$
$
$
$
626
11,123
849,447
861,196
$
$
$
$
1,289,530
543,908
5,700,655
7,534,093
$
$
$
$
(198)
6,119
724,324
730,245
$
$
$
$
7,091
826,440
833,531
$
$
$
$
1,744
670,411
672,155
0%
1%
13%
10%
0%
0%
-12%
-12%
Grand Total
Salary
Benefits
Scholarships & Fellowships
Utilities
Departmental Support Expenses
Admin Service Charge
Multi Year Accounts
Total Expenses
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
76,745,674
28,294,184
57,408,691
6,446,206
17,622,003
(4,053,361)
1,879,121
184,342,518
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
46%
46%
56%
48%
52%
50%
0%
49%
3%
4%
9%
-1%
7%
0%
-11%
5%
FY2016
Thru December Year To Date
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
President
149,563,120
43,521,667
84,927,590
12,935,701
29,331,235
(7,639,099)
4,680,725
317,320,939
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
156,098,845
45,728,842
91,521,588
13,187,064
22,538,836
(8,079,403)
5,110,493
326,106,265
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
168,085,746
62,025,798
102,336,117
13,314,644
34,123,106
(8,106,724)
5,671,742
377,450,429
74,686,135
27,218,102
52,787,949
6,543,278
16,443,728
(4,061,201)
2,103,508
175,721,499
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
71,963,105
28,748,211
49,305,104
6,454,831
17,034,225
(3,823,718)
1,842,414
171,524,172
Note: Excludes Transfers
9
Attachment B
Overall Page 67 of 187
Attachment Page 9 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - Auxiliary Units (Oxford Campus)
FY2016/FY2015/FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY2016
Original Budget
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
88,831,152
-
95,376,089
-
99,106,340
-
97,898,406
95,293,869
-
86,727,285
-
99%
3%
88,831,152
15,344,766
3,938,126
5,614,894
(407,594)
29,339,543
22,303,542
76,133,276
(12,261,837)
436,036
95,376,089
15,732,386
4,046,864
6,179,598
(2,695,243)
33,518,415
13,939
30,866,290
87,662,249
(7,706,422)
7,417
99,106,340
14,198,818
4,470,242
6,191,844
(2,668,480)
37,369,828
44,500
33,909,606
93,516,358
(5,589,982)
-
97,898,406
7,415,239
2,467,468
2,922,029
7,411
17,997,381
38,975
17,047,211
47,895,713
(2,901,682)
47,101,011
95,293,869
7,979,378
2,508,835
3,025,192
(328,636)
15,870,673
3,095
15,438,946
44,497,483
(3,854,115)
46,942,271
86,727,285
7,143,749
2,329,474
2,531,909
(151,793)
14,786,446
922
10,939,436
37,580,143
(4,579,175)
44,567,968
99%
52%
55%
47%
0%
48%
88%
50%
51%
52%
3%
-7%
-2%
-3%
-102%
13%
25,637,661
855,000
26,492,661
4,714,092
1,080,457
508,405
(20,371)
26,044,832
855,000
26,899,832
4,232,203
1,046,556
413,065
(688,444)
27,031,621
872,081
27,903,702
4,330,943
1,362,910
455,429
(637,937)
12,661,271
436,039
13,097,310
1,971,991
632,152
256,088
(203,980)
11,873,524
427,500
12,301,024
2,175,633
681,074
702,913
-
14,636,617
427,500
15,064,117
2,743,075
783,325
659,239
-
47%
50%
47%
46%
46%
56%
32%
7%
2%
6%
-9%
-7%
-64%
0%
3,354,456
14,371,431
57,760
24,066,231
(2,303,909)
122,521
5,247,135
14,127,443
47,326
24,425,284
(2,416,642)
57,906
5,012,470
14,348,714
47,196
24,919,725
(2,983,977)
-
1,737,308
7,678,625
23,687
12,095,870
(1,390,559)
(389,119)
1,732,757
5,422,728
23,748
10,738,853
(477,822)
1,084,349
1,448,128
6,953,090
29,456
12,616,313
(588,926)
1,858,879
35%
54%
50%
49%
47%
0%
42%
0%
13%
191%
-136%
FY2016
Thru Dec YTD
FY2015
FY2014
Residence & Dining Halls
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilites
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
10%
8%
-25%
0%
Shriver Center
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
10
Attachment B
Overall Page 68 of 187
Attachment Page 10 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - Auxiliary Units (Oxford Campus)
FY2016/FY2015/FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY2016
Original Budget
FY2016
Thru Dec YTD
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
50%
6%
50%
40%
45%
39%
0%
42%
36%
6%
-26%
-21%
3%
Marcum Conference Center
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
2,058,362
2,058,362
955,142
203,847
176,623
(7,087)
631,942
5,198
5,092
1,970,757
(18,533)
69,071
1,428,869
1,428,869
535,093
144,168
137,654
(43,000)
454,496
24,525
1,252,936
(141,119)
34,813
5,383,708
15,735,046
383,955
1,226,906
22,729,614
7,688,808
2,373,843
8,800
(117,760)
12,088,308
-
5,987,974
16,107,965
692,406
1,112,975
23,901,320
7,618,940
2,314,442
9,869
(123,173)
13,628,179
-
1,511,562
1,511,562
568,490
178,235
207,448
46,652
485,314
1,500
1,487,639
(23,923)
0
755,175
201,453
544
715,104
715,104
306,220
100,930
78,859
154,851
99
590,579
(11,963)
152,633
640,958
(45,559)
28,587
1,195,927
1,195,927
565,016
189,953
89,028
(12,500)
330,032
296
2,554
1,164,380
31,547
3,348,768
8,055,159
565,526
693,998
12,663,451
3,838,656
1,485,623
7,868
(48,377)
8,239,562
2,107,524
7,758,983
331,805
465,650
10,663,962
3,871,540
1,469,957
6,242
(71,411)
7,563,040
3,578,752
7,747,523
225,556
522,070
12,073,901
3,846,254
1,487,325
6,643
(35,342)
6,532,131
755,175
228,074
79,647
80,861
30%
447%
40%
50%
-8%
-74%
434%
52%
46%
96%
37%
48%
50%
50%
315%
59%
4%
70%
49%
19%
-1%
1%
26%
62%
9%
179,183
102%
79%
434,263
12,450,456
932,864
556,309
33%
56%
265%
-6%
7%
8%
-43%
Intercollegiate Athletics
Revenue
General Fee Support
Designated Revenue
Restricted Revenue
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Designated Expense
436,248
Restricted Expense
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
1,392,619
23,870,866
1,632,054
490,802
746,950
1,349,553
25,544,760
895,565
(747,875)
6,385,883
17,370,318
590,374
1,877,805
26,224,380
7,692,515
2,979,737
2,500
13,309,551
590,374
601,925
1,877,805
26,452,482
228,102
(0)
623,266
14,748,523
605,001
(1,480,070)
335,838
663,089
13,838,295
558,975
(2,615,358)
11
Attachment B
Overall Page 69 of 187
Attachment Page 11 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - Auxiliary Units (Oxford Campus)
FY2016/FY2015/FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY2016
Original Budget
FY2016
Thru Dec YTD
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
54%
50%
52%
47%
46%
56%
11%
0%
-1%
1%
0%
-2%
0%
15%
4%
0%
46%
52%
1%
9%
-13%
81%
50%
69%
46%
46%
52%
5%
1%
4%
-1%
0%
14%
40%
43%
56%
50%
50%
37%
-26%
11%
8%
-10%
-4%
Recreation Center
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
2,820,137
4,501,401
7,321,538
2,569,186
532,432
758,041
1,059,016
187,544
1,393,469
6,499,687
(726,064)
95,786
3,191,209
3,706,729
6,897,938
2,660,057
599,473
717,230
1,429,918
312,791
5,719,468
(1,105,247)
73,223
3,157,940
3,754,534
6,912,474
2,824,883
784,656
746,260
1,461,648
248,000
6,065,447
(847,027)
-
3,518,776
2,238,736
5,757,512
1,225,713
309,369
997,729
356,378
221,049
2,043,168
5,153,404
(557,937)
46,171
3,529,955
2,182,739
5,712,694
1,156,649
323,471
950,515
414,371
203,240
2,039,936
5,088,182
(579,832)
44,681
3,463,860
2,201,527
5,665,387
1,238,055
419,513
1,082,318
461,340
170,000
2,030,650
5,401,876
(263,511)
(0)
1,719,133
1,877,267
3,596,400
1,335,401
360,538
418,223
513,747
161,150
1,733,533
1,853,365
3,586,898
1,358,085
361,395
362,987
519,361
154,769
2,789,060
(437,165)
370,176
2,756,597
(402,623)
427,677
1,455,800
2,250,701
3,706,501
1,265,042
338,346
381,031
453,222
89,401
698,740
3,225,781
(174,682)
306,038
2,821,799
1,100,765
3,922,564
565,396
193,788
564,127
2,694,908
1,091,369
3,786,277
571,997
193,634
495,745
135,452
97,857
1,023,846
2,518,532
(147,282)
1,120,462
2,746,255
1,119,368
3,865,623
621,787
208,234
563,779
173,404
128,481
1,028,210
2,723,895
(128,969)
1,012,760
Goggin Ice Arena
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
`
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
185,021
72,262
1,131,719
2,712,313
(132,407)
1,077,844
12
Attachment B
Overall Page 70 of 187
Attachment Page 12 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - Auxiliary Units (Oxford Campus)
FY2016/FY2015/FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY2016
Original Budget
FY2016
Thru Dec YTD
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
74%
50%
73%
36%
36%
4%
-1%
4%
-22%
-23%
298%
40%
382%
11%
54%
44%
50%
8%
2%
462%
-4%
45%
45%
37%
0%
49%
34%
7%
7%
4%
Parking and Transportation
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
4,130,539
200,000
4,330,539
448,533
132,777
(15,575)
1,798,245
1,937,403
4,301,383
11,171
40,327
3,999,221
200,003
4,199,224
429,872
130,932
(19,603)
1,903,328
1,716,098
4,160,626
(64,355)
(25,758)
4,521,824
199,000
4,720,824
454,048
166,395
3,325,169
99,499
3,424,668
163,545
60,620
(17,500)
2,046,390
(52,098)
814,058
1,710,121
4,359,454
(361,370)
(0)
931,075
1,917,201
(180,688)
1,326,779
3,184,519
100,001
3,284,520
208,978
78,222
(10,820)
732,563
861,504
1,870,446
(32,179)
1,381,895
1,417,016
570,474
12,159,507
(40,000)
(23,734,159)
1,723,506
634,698
255,631
4,532,706
(11,676,375)
591,614
593,569
239,573
4,371,069
(11,568,551)
534,014
2,406,788
(5,496,868)
(5,496,868)
-
1,231,987
(4,429,739)
(2,748,433)
1,681,306
1,208,497
(4,621,829)
(2,769,717)
1,852,112
3,177,932
100,000
3,277,932
223,729
85,479
(7,282)
782,767
862,752
1,947,445
55,585
1,386,072
519,316
209,730
4,857,786
(3,865)
(11,443,808)
703,841
1,230,635
(3,926,365)
(2,618,567)
1,307,797
Utility Enterprise
Revenue
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Expense Recovery
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
1,154,576
382,306
10,821,135
(22,515,171)
1,384,738
331
2,428,526
(6,343,559)
(6,274,088)
69,471
1,258,056
425,303
10,470,089
(23,175,972)
1,216,450
2,407,322
(7,398,751)
(6,964,248)
434,503
51%
81%
50%
1%
11%
2%
-4%
-1%
-9%
13
Attachment B
Overall Page 71 of 187
Attachment Page 13 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - Auxiliary Units (Oxford Campus)
FY2016/FY2015/FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY2016
Original Budget
1,736,418
624,649
1,853,078
477,049
2,252,538
-
1,090,635
939,344
238,525
1,033,938
312,325
48%
16%
-100%
2,361,067
985,363
305,503
1,682
500,155
133,673
1,926,377
(83,411)
351,279
2,330,127
865,807
274,447
5,398
723,080
109,335
1,978,067
(165,439)
186,621
2,252,538
726,763
294,343
5,892
1,090,635
352,551
142,783
2,213
-7%
-18%
-18%
5%
447,151
44,625
42%
32%
31%
-31%
2,242,345
(10,193)
-
989,322
(5,095)
96,218
1,346,263
507,600
204,209
204,651
73,904
990,363
(41,705)
314,194
48%
49%
49%
38%
1,075,347
140,000
1,177,869
429,874
173,878
2,103
341,578
64,870
1,012,303
(32,719)
132,847
44%
50%
-2%
-84%
-28%
1,690,773
-
3,778,234
699,997
3,915,177
841,160
3,660,463
420,581
3,516,636
349,999
1,579,638
93%
50%
4%
20%
1,690,773
141,593
36,952
140,881
4,478,231
334,192
66,444
275,395
701,089
2,407,128
3,784,248
(647,121)
46,862
4,756,337
388,710
85,837
324,692
4,081,044
164,222
36,788
131,566
6%
2%
-1%
0%
477,523
66%
167%
2,454,491
3,978,178
(778,159)
-
1,227,246
2,037,344
(880,239)
1,163,461
1,579,638
15,762
5,819
46,161
67,742
1,511,897
86%
42%
43%
41%
724,448
3,866,635
160,531
37,306
131,641
178,646
1,196,136
1,704,259
(452,731)
1,709,645
FY2016
Thru Dec YTD
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
Student Health Services
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
Armstrong - Student Affairs
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
185,098
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
553,299
1,057,823
(581,623)
51,327
50%
51%
113%
20%
94%
-32%
14
Attachment B
Overall Page 72 of 187
Attachment Page 14 of 15
Attachment B
Year-to-Date Operating Results Compared to Budget
February 18, 2016
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Financial Analysis - Auxiliary Units (Oxford Campus)
FY2016/FY2015/FY2014
FY2014
Year-end Actual
FY2015
Year-end Actual
FY2016
Original Budget
FY2016
Thru Dec YTD
FY2015
FY2014
% of '16 Budget
FY 2016
% Change from '15 YTD
52%
50%
50%
49%
50%
-4%
-87%
-85%
5%
3%
47%
0%
56%
50%
-40%
-49%
Other Auxiliary
Revenue
General Fee Support
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
184,396
4,541,070
4,725,466
67,328
17,139
465,205
349,947
899,618
(3,972,012)
(146,163)
193,706
5,163,646
5,357,353
66,003
18,744
815,995
345,510
1,246,252
(4,486,650)
(375,550)
137,079,353
28,695,902
383,955
1,226,906
167,386,115
35,349,959
9,330,996
19,913,727
(22,515,171)
(568,387)
51,199,848
14,919,226
31,072,206
436,248
1,392,619
140,531,273
(25,215,609)
1,639,233
145,383,166
29,393,128
692,406
1,112,975
176,581,676
34,889,259
9,390,845
19,158,812
(23,175,972)
(3,569,463)
60,052,456
14,791,271
39,829,612
746,950
1,349,553
153,463,323
(23,381,510)
(263,157)
181,106
920,294
1,101,400
71,061
23,270
93,716
460,149
553,865
34,560
11,619
539,058
100
345,255
978,744
(122,656)
-
250,723
192,611
489,513
48,650
113,002
97,775
3,498,218
3,595,993
33,032
11,271
495,210
173,413
712,927
(3,068,068)
(185,002)
84,244
3,335,913
3,420,157
33,381
10,965
217,585
176,051
437,982
(2,661,501)
320,674
122,156,737
15,317,960
331,805
465,650
138,272,152
17,688,836
5,856,075
8,681,006
(11,568,551)
(410,867)
28,258,145
5,743,419
19,926,090
335,838
663,089
75,173,080
(10,723,840)
52,375,232
116,216,389
15,293,329
225,556
522,070
132,257,345
17,484,709
5,852,859
8,525,636
(11,443,808)
(206,916)
25,678,368
7,246,093
14,967,833
179,183
434,263
68,718,220
(9,805,075)
53,734,050
11%
-31%
-102%
-161%
Total Auxiliary
Revenue
General Fee Support
Designated Revenue
Restricted Revenue
Total Sources
Salary
Benefits
Utilities
Expense Recovery
Charge Outs
Operating Expenses
Inventory Purchases
Debt Service
Designated Expense
Restricted Expense
Total Uses
Net Transfers
Net Total
151,527,851
26,158,914
590,374
1,877,805
180,154,944
33,911,302
11,335,612
21,175,890
(23,734,159)
(3,317,265)
64,208,900
14,952,814
42,904,107
590,374
1,877,805
163,905,380
(16,249,564)
(0)
127,374,535
12,449,459
565,526
693,998
141,083,519
16,704,333
5,726,656
8,915,680
(11,676,375)
216,703
31,102,944
7,835,030
21,785,536
601,925
623,266
81,835,698
(8,034,581)
51,213,241
84%
48%
96%
37%
78%
49%
51%
42%
49%
-7%
48%
52%
51%
102%
33%
50%
49%
4%
-19%
70%
49%
2%
-6%
-2%
3%
1%
-153%
10%
36%
9%
79%
-6%
9%
-25%
-2%
15
Attachment B
Overall Page 73 of 187
Attachment Page 15 of 15
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
Business Session
Item 4a
Preliminary
FY2017 Tuition Assumptions
Oxford
Undergraduate Tuition Changes:
Continuing – Non Resident
Continuing – Resident
Tuition Promise – Non Resident
Tuition Promise – Resident
Graduate Tuition Changes:
Non Resident
Resident
Attachment C
1.96%
0%
4.87%
2.74%
Hamilton &
Middletown
2%
0%
2%
0%
Overall Page 74 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
Long Range Budget Assumptions
Assumption
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019 to FY2023
Enrollment
Incoming Class – First Time Students
3,700
3,700
3,700
Enrollment mix – Non‐Resident
44%
44%
44%
Other Incoming Students
807
807
807
Expenses
Salary Increment Pool
3%
3%
3%
Health Care Trend
3%
3%
3%
Utilities Trend
3%
3%
3%
Non‐Personnel Inflation
2%
2%
2%
Staff Benefit Change
No Change
No Change
No Change
Undergraduate Tuition
Continuing Non‐Resident
2%
2%
2%
Continuing Resident
0%
2%
2%
Tuition Promise Non‐Resident
5%
2%
2%
Tuition Promise Cohort Resident
2.9%
2%
2%
Graduate Tuition
Non‐Resident
2%
2%
2%
Resident
0%
2%
2%
Other Revenues
Change in Investment Income
$1.0M
$1.0M
$1.7M‐$3.7M
State Share of Instruction
4%
0%
2%
Winter Term
Reaches capacity Tuition growth only Tuition growth only
Other student charges
2%
2%
2%
Incremental revenue from Initiatives
$6,734,435
$4,720,228
$2,288,389
Attachment C
Overall Page 75 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
FY17 Oxford Undergraduate Fall Class
3,700
Fall Class – First Time Students
Other Incoming Students
Transfer Students
Relocated Students
American Culture & English (ACE) Students
Oxford Pathway Program Students (TOP)
Total Fall Class & Other Students
Attachment C
Overall Page 76 of 187
215
252
300
40
807
4,507
Attachment Page 3 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
FY2017 Regional Budget Assumptions
Enrollment
Fall Class – First Time Students
Enrollment mix - Non-Resident
Other Incoming Students
Revenues
State Share of Instruction - Change from FY16
Change in Investment Income
Expenses
Salary Increment Pool
Health Care Trend
Undergraduate Scholarships (Increase)
Utilities Trend
Non-Personnel Inflation
Staff Benefit Rate
Attachment C
Overall Page 77 of 187
In Development
4%
$0
3.0%
3.0%
$0
3%
2%
No Change
Attachment Page 4 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
Business Session
Item 4b
Oxford Campus Long Range Budget Forecast FY2016 ‐ FY2023
FY2015 Actual
FY 2016 Budget
FY 2016 Est
FY 2017
FY 2018
FY 2019
FY 2020
FY 2021
FY 2022
FY 2023
Total Instructional Fee
$293,758,207 $ 304,320,069 $313,524,614 $327,814,095 $341,753,714 $353,352,444 $357,122,979 $363,289,329 $370,843,273 $379,068,355 Total Financial Aid
$ 62,346,281 $ 71,556,414 $ 71,527,207 $ 84,270,789 $ 89,423,749 $ 95,788,013 $ 99,035,830 $101,923,939 $104,500,327 $106,781,203 Total Net Instructional Revenue
$231,411,926 $ 232,763,655 $241,997,407 $243,543,306 $252,329,965 $257,564,431 $258,087,149 $261,365,390 $266,342,947 $272,287,152 Revenue
Undergraduate Net Instructional Revenue
Graduate Net Instructional Revenue
Total Instructional Fee
$ 35,502,892 $ 35,369,320 $ 35,008,199 $ 35,975,031 $ 36,694,531 $ 37,428,422 $ 38,176,991 $ 38,940,530 $ 39,719,341 $ 40,513,728 Total Financial Aid
$ 32,502,303 $ 30,283,225 $ 29,745,726 $ 31,389,193 $ 31,978,090 $ 32,611,430 $ 33,223,994 $ 33,882,128 $ 34,519,313 $ 35,203,225 Total Net Instructional Revenue
$ 3,000,589 $ 5,086,095 $ 5,262,473 $ 4,585,838 $ 4,716,441 $ 4,816,992 $ 4,952,996 $ 5,058,403 $ 5,200,028 $ 5,310,502 Total Net Instructional Revenue
Total Instructional Fee
$329,261,098 $ 339,689,389 $348,532,813 $363,789,126 $378,448,245 $390,780,867 $395,299,970 $402,229,859 $410,562,614 $419,582,083 Total Financial Aid
$ 94,848,584 $ 101,839,639 $101,272,933 $115,659,982 $121,401,839 $128,399,443 $132,259,824 $135,806,067 $139,019,640 $141,984,428 Total Net Instructional Revenue $234,412,515 $ 237,849,750 $247,259,881 $248,129,144 $257,046,406 $262,381,424 $263,040,145 $266,423,792 $271,542,975 $277,597,654 UG General Fees
$ 30,164,433 $ 30,656,224 $ 31,041,116 $ 31,873,191 $ 32,984,602 $ 34,008,062 $ 34,346,760 $ 34,919,567 $ 35,646,676 $ 36,432,432 GR General Fees
$ 2,099,069 $ 1,878,677 $ 1,781,921 $ 1,781,921 $ 1,817,559 $ 1,853,911 $ 1,890,989 $ 1,928,809 $ 1,967,385 $ 2,006,732 State Support
$ 56,080,674 $ 58,489,038 $ 60,413,643 $ 62,830,189 $ 62,830,189 $ 64,086,792 $ 65,368,528 $ 65,368,528 $ 66,675,899 $ 68,009,417 Other Student Revenue
Investment Income
$ 5,967,422 $ 4,325,000 $ 4,325,000 $ 5,325,000 $ 6,325,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 10,000,000 Other Student Charges
$ 2,235,001 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 $ 3,601,500 All other Revenue
$ 2,789,414 $ 1,444,000 $ 1,444,000 $ 1,472,880 $ 1,502,338 $ 1,532,384 $ 1,563,032 $ 1,594,293 $ 1,626,179 $ 1,658,702 Total Revenue Sources
$333,748,528 $ 338,244,189 $349,867,061 $355,013,825 $366,107,593 $375,464,073 $377,810,955 $382,836,489 $390,060,613 $399,306,438 Salaries
$157,370,492 $ 162,103,356 $155,743,604 $172,896,213 $183,744,244 $193,797,623 $200,125,134 $206,657,877 $213,402,472 $220,365,751 Promotion & Tenure and Faculty Market Increase
$ 1,107,000 $ 1,190,000 $ 1,190,000 $ 1,204,100 $ 1,218,623 $ 513,582 $ 528,989 $ 544,859 $ 561,205 $ 578,041 Health Care
$ 28,098,354 $ 29,811,722 $ 28,318,130 $ 31,479,933 $ 33,421,041 $ 35,136,154 $ 36,190,238 $ 37,275,946 $ 38,394,224 $ 39,546,051 Expense
Other Benefits
$ 29,966,707 $ 32,214,076 $ 31,131,969 $ 33,345,131 $ 33,723,035 $ 33,031,305 $ 33,031,305 $ 33,031,305 $ 33,031,305 $ 33,031,305 Utilities
$ 13,333,451 $ 13,381,375 $ 13,381,375 $ 13,782,816 $ 14,196,301 $ 14,622,190 $ 15,060,855 $ 15,512,681 $ 15,978,062 $ 16,457,403 Non‐Personnel Expenses
$ 31,903,553 $ 32,133,319 $ 38,052,317 $ 34,450,740 $ 36,400,994 $ 37,231,270 $ 38,030,437 $ 38,847,080 $ 39,624,021 $ 40,416,502 Captial Expense & Other Transfers
$ 9,320,414 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 $ 9,407,110 Debt Service
$ 5,617,889 $ 5,222,213 $ 5,222,213 $ 7,583,758 $ 7,547,441 $ 7,556,678 $ 7,250,075 $ 7,226,863 $ 7,220,867 $ 7,190,406 General Fee Allocation
$ 28,777,847 $ 30,151,928 $ 30,151,928 $ 30,984,003 $ 32,131,052 $ 33,190,864 $ 33,566,640 $ 34,177,267 $ 34,942,952 $ 35,768,056 Sub‐Total Expense
$305,495,706 $ 315,615,099 $312,598,646 $335,133,804 $351,789,840 $364,486,775 $373,190,783 $382,680,986 $392,562,217 $402,760,624 $ ‐
$ (522,965)
$ (522,965)
$ (1,837,261)
$ (3,144,986)
$ (3,144,986)
$ (3,144,986)
$ (3,144,986)
$ (3,144,986)
$ (3,144,986)
Productivity Savings
New Investments ‐ Central
$ ‐
$ 5,168,371 $ 5,168,371 $ 5,623,065 $ 2,026,178 $ 54,542 $ 56,034 $ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
New Investments ‐ Divisional
$ ‐
$ 1,581,125 $ 1,581,125 $ 2,050,005 $ 2,744,091 $ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
$305,495,706 $ 321,841,630 $318,825,177 $340,969,612 $353,415,123 $361,396,331 $370,101,831 $379,536,000 $389,417,231 $399,615,638 Total Expense
Surplus / (Deficit)
Attachment C
$28,252,821 $16,402,559 $31,041,884 $14,044,213 Overall Page 78 of 187
$12,692,471 $14,067,743 $7,709,124 $3,300,489 $643,382 ($309,200)
Attachment Page 5 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
FY17 Oxford Undergraduate Financial Aid
Change in Undergraduate Financial Aid Budget from FY16 to FY17 Budget
$12.8M
• Net cost of new cohort replacing exiting cohort in Red Hawk Merit Guarantee
$9.0M
• Increased investment in need based aid
$2.6M
• Impact of improved student retention
$1.0M
• Impact of tuition change on budgeted aid programs
$0.2M
Attachment C
Overall Page 79 of 187
Attachment Page 6 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
Oxford Campus Undergraduate Financial Aid FY2010 ‐ FY2023
(excludes OLS/ORS)
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
FY10
Attachment C
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
FY16
Overall Page 80 of 187
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
Attachment Page 7 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
FY17 Oxford Salary Expense Summary
•Change in Salary Expense from FY16 to FY17
Faculty Market Increase & Promotion & Tenure
– Investments in new Faculty & Staff
–
–
Attachment C
•
Faculty added in Farmer Business School
•
Added Positions Education Health & Society
•
Expanded Admissions Operations
•
Regulatory / Accessibility •
Counselors
$9.6M
$1.2M
$3.6M
$4.8M
Salary Increment
Overall Page 81 of 187
Attachment Page 8 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
New Revenue Assumptions
Description
1. Increase proportion of non‐
resident enrollments
2. Grow Fee Paying Graduate Students
3. Grow ACE Enrollments
4. Top Program
5. Grow Transfer Enrollment
6. Improve Retention and Graduation
7. Winter Term
Attachment C
Business Session
Item 4c
Assumption
44% non resident target reached in FY16, no additional growth assumed for FY17 to FY23 based on initial plan
Target of 189 additional fee paying graduate students not reached, no additional growth currently assumed for FY17 to FY23
300 ACE student target reached in FY16, no additional growth assumed for FY17 to FY23 due to infrastructure constraint
40 TOP students reached in FY2016, no additional growth assumed for FY17 to FY23
Target of 75 additional transfers not reached in FY2016, no additional growth assumed for FY17 to FY23 due to declining trend
Retention rate of 90.3% exceeded target in FY2016 of 89.9% retention rate, rate grows to 91% in FY18 and 92% in FY21
Minimal growth in FY2017, no additional growth assumed for FY18 to FY23
Overall Page 82 of 187
Attachment Page 9 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
Cumulative Performance of Revenue Initiatives
Shown in FY2016 Tuition Dollars
Description
1. Increase proportion of non‐resident enrollments
2. Grow Fee Paying Graduate Students
3. Grow ACE Enrollments
4. Top Program
5. Grow Transfer Enrollment
6. Improve Retention and Graduation
Net Income (Loss)
7. Winter Term
Net Income (Loss) Including Winter Term
Description
1. Increase proportion of non‐resident enrollments
2. Grow Fee Paying Graduate Students
3. Grow ACE Enrollments
4. Top Program
5. Grow Transfer Enrollment
6. Improve Retention and Graduation
Net Income (Loss)
7. Winter Term
Net Income (Loss) Including Winter Term
Attachment C
2014
2015 Target
2015
2016 Target
2016
2017 Target
2017
2018 Target
2018
2019 Target
2019
$385,560 $1,137,183 $2,316,997 $2,051,839 $4,552,066 $3,214,014 $6,864,348 $4,323,420 $8,554,911 $5,454,022 $8,904,696 $647,178 $1,853,409 $617,557 $2,546,282 $704,825 $3,065,897 $704,825 $3,348,752 $704,825 $3,627,417 $704,825 $1,473,696 $2,308,989 $4,756,309 $3,682,804 $9,387,652 $6,015,077 $13,353,731 $6,666,926 $15,852,350 $7,338,590 $16,825,516 $393,916 $573,144 $747,188 $736,846 $878,573 $801,461 $979,516 $807,549 $96,390 $224,024 $328,381 $259,565 $613,335 $338,157 $850,983 $152,718 $1,694,802 $81,946 $2,048,662 $81,946 $2,514,267 $81,946 $211,507 $529,441 $731,695 $943,806 $1,017,381 $1,385,196 $1,459,488 $1,841,265 $1,925,919 $2,073,799 $2,109,780 $ 3,073,896 $ 6,666,381 $ 9,089,096 $ 10,469,630 $ 16,387,786 $ 16,122,173 $ 23,201,184 $ 19,107,599 $ 27,921,412 $ 21,987,611 $ 29,434,312 $ 6,321,903 $ 7,586,626 $ 8,870,034 $ 8,791,071 $ 8,791,071 $ 8,791,071 $ 9,395,799 $ 16,675,722 $ 25,257,820 $ 31,992,255 $ 36,712,483 $ 38,225,383 2020 Target
2020
2021 Target
2023
2021
2022 Target
2022
2023 Target
$6,549,455 $8,904,696 $7,623,694 $8,904,696 $8,523,936 $8,904,696 $9,049,719 $8,904,696 $3,742,654 $704,825 $3,872,558 $704,825 $4,046,461 $704,825 $4,046,461 $704,825 $7,637,106 $16,801,634 $7,637,106 $16,801,634 $7,637,106 $16,801,634 $7,637,106 $16,801,634 $1,080,460 $807,549 $1,181,404 $807,549 $1,282,347 $807,549 $1,358,220 $807,549 $81,946 $2,868,127 $81,946 $2,868,127 $81,946 $2,868,127 $81,946 $2,868,127 $2,384,449 $2,433,495 $2,894,331 $2,969,373 $3,199,542 $3,299,235 $3,199,542 $3,609,151 $ 24,262,251 $ 29,734,145 $ 26,077,220 $ 30,270,024 $ 27,557,520 $ 30,599,886 $ 28,159,175 $ 30,909,802 $ 8,791,071 $ 8,791,071 $ 8,791,071 $ 8,791,071 $ 38,525,216 $ 39,061,095 $ 39,390,957 $ 39,700,873 Overall Page 83 of 187
Attachment Page 10 of 11
Attachment C
Budget Planning
February 18, 2016
Revenue Initiative Targets & Projections Dollars Normalized to FY2016
$45,000,000
Projection Includes Winter Term
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
Projection
$30,000,000
Net Revenue
Target
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$‐
FY14
Attachment C
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
Overall Page 84 of 187
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
Attachment Page 11 of 11
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
February 18, 2016
Attachment D
Overall Page 85 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 70
Attachment D




Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Improve affordability and student outcomes
through increased productivity and efficiency.
Set five year targets for increased efficiency.
Complete assessment by June 30, 2016
Board of Trustees to adopt recommendations
and goals by July 31, 2016
Attachment D
Overall Page 86 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 70
Attachment D




Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Procurement policy
Target group purchasing for copiers/printers,
computers, travel services, outbound
shipping, scientific supplies and equipment
and office supplies
Identify non-core assets
Consider outsourcing or other operational
changes for providing dining, student
housing, student health insurance, child care,
IT help desk, janitorial services, landscaping,
facility maintenance, real estate management
and parking.
Attachment D
Overall Page 87 of 187
Attachment Page 3 of 70
Attachment D






Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Identify affinity partnerships and
sponsorships
Prepare ten year cost diagnostic
Review span of control and organizational
structure
Evaluate State of Ohio Data Center for
providing data center or disaster recovery
services
Review space utilization
Improve textbook affordability and explore
lower cost alternatives
Attachment D
Overall Page 88 of 187
Attachment Page 4 of 70
Attachment D








Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Improve time to degree and graduation rate
Reduce standard number of credit hours to
graduate
Improve advising
Better utilize summer term
Develop pathway agreements with community
colleges
Evaluate competency based education
Evaluate duplicative programs
Improve students’ financial literacy regarding
student loans
Attachment D
Overall Page 89 of 187
Attachment Page 5 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Questions?
Attachment D
Overall Page 90 of 187
Attachment Page 6 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Business
February 18,
2016 Session
Item 5
Action Steps
to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Oct. 1, 2015
Attachment D
Overall Page 91 of 187
Attachment Page 7 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Contents
Our charge .................................................................................................................................... 1
Why action is needed ................................................................................................................... 2
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of recommendations ..................................................................................................... 5
Master recommendations ........................................................................................................ 9
Strategic procurement ........................................................................................................... 12
Assets and operations ........................................................................................................... 18
Administrative cost reforms ................................................................................................... 22
Textbook affordability ............................................................................................................ 28
Time to degree ...................................................................................................................... 31
Duplicative programs............................................................................................................. 37
Co-located campuses............................................................................................................ 39
Policy reforms........................................................................................................................ 41
IMPLEMENTATION
How to move forward .................................................................................................................. 44
OTHER
Other topics of interest................................................................................................................ 48
APPENDICES
A: Executive order ................................................................................................................. 50
B: Our process ...................................................................................................................... 53
C: Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... 54
D: Sources ............................................................................................................................ 55
Attachment D
Overall Page 92 of 187
Attachment Page 8 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Our charge
Gov. John R. Kasich called on this task force to recommend solutions for institutions of higher
education based on three key simultaneous needs:
• to be more efficient both in expense management and revenue generation
• while offering an education of equal or higher quality
• and decreasing costs to students and their families
Scope: Both two-year and four-year public institutions
Deadline: Report due to the governor and General Assembly by Oct. 1, 2015.
[For the full language of the governor’s executive order, see Appendix A]
Members
Governor Appointees:
• Chair: Geoff Chatas, senior vice president and CFO, The Ohio State University
• Pamela Morris, president and CEO, CareSource
• Mark T. Small, senior vice president and CFO, Cleveland Construction
• Patrick Auletta, president emeritus, KeyBank
House of Representatives Appointees
• Rep. Mike Duffey, R-Worthington
• Rep. Dan Ramos, D-Lorain
Senate Appointees
• Senate President Keith Faber, R-Celina
• Sen. Sandra Williams, D-Cleveland
Other contributors
•
•
•
•
•
Chancellor John Carey, Ohio Department of Higher Education
Bruce Johnson, president of the Inter-University Council
Jack Hershey, president and CEO of the Ohio Association of Community Colleges
Sen. Chris Widener, R-Springfield
See Appendix C for full list of contributors
Our charge | Page 1
Attachment D
Overall Page 93 of 187
Attachment Page 9 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Why action is needed
Families are struggling to afford college across the nation, and this issue is becoming more
urgent as student debt levels continue to rise.
The effects are troubling:
•
Some students aren’t able to pursue the education they need to reach their full potential.
•
Debt is forcing some graduates to delay important milestones in their lives, including
home ownership and marriage.
•
And our economy is suffering because the workforce lacks the skills needed to meet
employers’ needs.
Ohio has seen the same trends and concerns as the rest of the nation, but our leaders — in
government, higher education and the private sector — are determined to find solutions that
address college affordability while enhancing the quality of education.
Ohio students who attend our public colleges and universities face tuition prices that are among
the most costly in the country, despite a decade of aggressive controls.
Why action is needed | Page 2
Attachment D
Overall Page 94 of 187
Attachment Page 10 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Ohio’s four-year institutions have limited in-state tuition increases more than any other state
since FY06, and our two-year schools have among the lowest increases.
Yet Ohio’s universities have the 12th-highest average cost of in-state tuition and mandatory fees.
And our community colleges have the 16th-highest prices. 1
Tuition is only one piece of the cost equation for students, who also can face significant
expenses for campus housing, dining, textbooks and fees that support academic programs or
campus operations.
Together, these expenses encompass the total cost to attend. In ways direct and indirect,
students and their families pay all of these costs.
For some students, need- and merit-based financial aid offers relief. But many other students
turn to loans to support their education.
The result?
Too many graduates
leave Ohio
universities with a
heavy burden of
student debt. Other
students fail to
complete their
degrees.
More of our
graduates carry
student debt than is
true nationally, and
the average debt
load is larger than
for graduates
nationwide.
It’s clear that tuition caps (whether imposed by institutions or by the state) are not doing enough
to reduce the burden on Ohio’s families. These measures provide short-term relief for families,
but they do not address the financial dynamic at the root of the problem.
That’s why this task force was created: to investigate the cost side of the equation.
In other words, how can Ohio’s two- and four-year institutions find efficiencies, locate new
Why action is needed | Page 3
Attachment D
Overall Page 95 of 187
Attachment Page 11 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
resources and otherwise innovate to lower costs and reduce the financial burden on students?
In recent years, Ohio’s system of higher education has become a national model for
collaborative solutions:
•
The state developed a performance-based funding formula, devised by working with
public colleges and universities, to distribute state support based on student progress.
•
Institutions work together to prioritize capital construction projects.
•
Ohio’s institutions of higher education collaborate through a variety of technology
resources, including OARnet, the Ohio Supercomputer Center and OhioLINK.
•
Through the Inter-University Council of Ohio, Ohio’s colleges and universities work
together on joint purchasing and a variety of other cost-savings measures.
But more must be done.
In this report, the Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency recommends tangible action steps
for Ohio’s public colleges and universities to address these issues while maintaining high quality
for students.
The task force believes strongly that affordability is always a function of price and quality. One
determines what students pay, and the other determines the value they receive for their time
and money.
To reflect the diverse nature of Ohio’s public institutions, our recommendations include a range
of approaches — some can be addressed with statewide action, while others will need to be
reviewed at each institution.
Affordability is not merely an issue for the students of Ohio — the economic well-being of the
state is at stake.
“The economy of Ohio is increasingly reliant on skills and knowledge that can only be obtained
through postsecondary education,” notes the Lumina Foundation. But among working-age
Ohioans, 37.5 percent hold a two- or four-year degree, trailing the national average of 40
percent. 2
This is why the task force is recommending mandates when possible. The goal is to encourage
a faster pace of change among Ohio’s colleges and universities.
There is no single solution that will solve the entire affordability riddle, but these
recommendations will help our institutions reduce their costs — and, ultimately, relieve the
financial pressure on families.
Why action is needed | Page 4
Attachment D
Overall Page 96 of 187
Attachment Page 12 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Summary: The recommendations
Master recommendation 1 | Students must benefit: Savings and/or new dollars generated
from these recommendations must be employed to reduce the cost of college for students. Any
other uses must have tangible benefits for the quality of students’ education.
Master recommendation 2 | Five-year goals: Each institution must set a goal for efficiency
savings and new resources to be generated through fiscal 2021, along with a framework for
investing those dollars in student affordability while maintaining or improving academic quality.
STRATEGIC PROCUREMENT
Recommendation 3A | Campus contracts: Each institution must require that its employees use
existing contracts for purchasing goods and services.
Recommendation 3B | Collaborative contracts: Ohio’s colleges and universities must pursue
new and/or strengthened joint purchasing agreements in copiers and printers, computers, travel
services, outbound shipping, scientific lab equipment and office supplies.
ASSETS AND OPERATIONS
Recommendation 4A | Asset review: Each institution must conduct an assessment of its noncore assets to determine their market value if sold, leased or otherwise repurposed.
Recommendation 4B | Operations review: Each institution must conduct an assessment of
non-academic operations that might be run more efficiently by a regional cooperative, private
operator or other entity. This review should include dining, housing, student health insurance,
child care, IT help desk, janitorial, landscaping, facility maintenance, real-estate management
and parking.
Recommendation 4C | Affinity partnerships and sponsorships: Institutions must, on
determining assets and operations that are to be retained, evaluate opportunities for affinity
relationships and sponsorships that can support students, faculty and staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST REFORMS
Recommendation 5A | Cost diagnostic: Each institution must produce a diagnostic to identify
its cost drivers, along with priority areas that offer the best opportunities for efficiencies.
Recommendation 5B | Productivity measure: The Department of Higher Education should
develop a common measurement of administrative productivity that can be adopted across
Ohio’s public colleges and universities.
Summary of Recommendations | Page 5
Attachment D
Overall Page 97 of 187
Attachment Page 13 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendation 5C | Organizational structure: Each institution should review its
organizational structure to identify opportunities to streamline and reduce costs.
Recommendation 5D | Health-care costs: To drive down costs and take advantage of
economies of scale, a statewide working group should identify opportunities to collaborate on
health-care costs.
Recommendation 5E | Data centers: Institutions must develop a plan to move their primary or
disaster recovery data centers to the State of Ohio Computer Center.
Recommendation 5F | Space utilization: Each Ohio institution must study the utilization of its
campus and employ a system that encourages optimization of physical spaces.
TEXTBOOK AFFORDABILITY
Recommendation 6A | Negotiate cost: Professional negotiators must be assigned to help
faculty obtain the best deals for textbooks and instructional materials, starting with high-volume,
high-cost courses. Faculty must consider both cost and quality in selecting course materials.
Recommendation 6B | Standardize materials for gateway courses: Institutions must
encourage departments to choose common materials, including digital elements, for gateway
courses that serve large volumes of students.
Recommendation 6C | Develop digital capabilities: Institutions must be part of a consortium to
develop digital tools and materials, including open educational resources, that provide students
with high-quality, low-cost materials.
TIME TO DEGREE
Recommendation 7A | Education campaign: Each institution must develop a campaign to
educate its full-time undergraduates about the course loads needed to graduate on time.
Recommendation 7B | Graduation incentive: Institutions should consider establishing financial
incentives that encourage full-time students to take at least 15 credit hours per semester.
Recommendation 7C | Standardize credits for degree: Institutions should streamline
graduation requirements so that most bachelor’s degree programs can be completed within four
years or less and most associate degree programs can be completed in two years or less.
Exceptions should be allowed because of accreditation or quality requirements.
Recommendation 7D | Data-driven advising: Institutions should enhance academic advising
services so that students benefit from both high-impact, personalized consultations and data
systems that proactively identify risk factors that hinder student success.
Summary of Recommendations | Page 6
Attachment D
Overall Page 98 of 187
Attachment Page 14 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendation 7E | Summer programs: Each campus must develop plans to evaluate
utilization rates for summer session and consider opportunities to increase productive activity.
Recommendation 7F | Pathway agreements: Ohio institutions should continue to develop
agreements that create seamless pathways for students who begin their educations at
community or technical colleges and complete them at universities. \
Recommendation 7G | Competency-based education: Institutions should consider developing
or expanding programs that measure student success based on demonstrated competencies
instead of through the amount of time students spend studying a subject.
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS
Recommendation 8 | Program review: Institutions should consider consolidating programs that
are duplicated at other colleges and universities in their geographic area.
CO-LOCATED CAMPUSES
Recommendation 9 | Joint oversight boards: The state should establish joint oversight boards
between co-located community colleges and regional campuses of universities with a mandate
to improve efficiencies and coordination while maintaining the differentiated mission of each.
POLICY REFORMS
Recommendation 10A | Financial advising: Ohio’s colleges and universities should make
financial literacy a standard part of students’ education.
Recommendation 10B | Obstacles: The Department of Higher Education and/or state
legislature should seek to remove any roadblocks in policy, rule or statute that inhibit the
efficiencies envisioned in these recommendations.
Recommendation 10C | Real estate sales: State law should be updated to streamline the
process for how public institutions sell, convey, lease or enter into easements of real estate.
Recommendation 10D | Insurance pools: State law should be clarified related to the IUC
Insurance Consortium, which buys property and casualty insurance on a group basis for most
institutions.
IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendation | Implementation: The chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher
Education and the state’s public colleges and universities should make use of existing groups
(including the state’s Efficiency Advisory Committee and institutional efficiency councils) and
resources to coordinate next steps from these recommendations.
Summary of Recommendations | Page 7
Attachment D
Overall Page 99 of 187
Attachment Page 15 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
How to read this report
The task force recognizes that solutions in higher education cannot be one size fits all.
But what works at one institution may work at others, and many solutions should be applied to
groups of institutions that are similar because of geography, mission or other factors.
This report is designed to be a practical plan that will empower Ohio’s public institutions of
higher education and state leaders to move smoothly from the report to action steps. To that
end, the task force has identified an action grid that spells out for each recommendation:
• Scope: Statewide, regional or institutional
• Type of institution: 4-year, 2-year or both
• Time frame: Immediate, 1-3 years or 3-5 years
• Type of action: Collaboration vs. individual institution vs. state/statutory
Summary of Recommendations | Page 8
Attachment D
Overall Page 100 of 187
Attachment Page 16 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Master recommendations
Background: Over the past decade, efficiency and affordability efforts at Ohio colleges and
universities have restrained increases in tuition costs, but too many other costs have continued
to rise. These include fees for housing and dining, student life, and other academic costs.
The task force strongly believes that institutions need to redouble their efforts and ensure that
the benefits of cost savings or new revenue generation strategies directly benefit students
through lower costs or improved services. Moreover, the focus on affordability should extend
beyond the specific recommendations of this report to produce a new culture of cost
consciousness in higher education.
Master recommendation 1 | Students must benefit: Savings and/or new dollars generated
from these recommendations must be employed to reduce the cost of college for students. Any
other uses must have tangible benefits for the quality of students’ education.
The task force is allowing some flexibility in the use of these dollars, but the intent of this
recommendation should be unmistakable: Savings should be redirected to have a clear and
direct benefit for students, and primarily in the form of making college more affordable.
To ensure accountability, institutions must track both the savings and how they are redeployed,
including for these uses:
•
Reductions to the total cost of attendance (tuition, fees, room and board, books and
materials, or related costs — such as technology)
•
Student financial aid
•
Student success services, particularly with regard to completion and time to degree
•
Investments in tools related to affordability and efficiency
•
Improvements to high-demand/high-value student programs
Master recommendation 2 | Five-year goals: Each institution must set a goal for efficiency
savings and new resources to be generated through fiscal 2021, along with a framework for
investing those dollars into student affordability while maintaining or improving academic quality.
Ohio’s colleges and universities are diverse, but each should be making affordability and
efficiency key priorities. By developing five-year plans to invest new and redirected dollars
toward lowering the cost of college, our institutions can accelerate their efforts on this front.
Master recommendations | Page 9
Attachment D
Overall Page 101 of 187
Attachment Page 17 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Implementation: The new state budget already calls on the board of trustees of each public
college and university in Ohio to complete an efficiency review based on this report by July 1,
2016, and an implementation plan within 30 days of completing the review. 3
The task force echoes that responsibility in its master recommendations and throughout this
report: Boards are ultimately responsible for the success of their institutions.
For these master recommendations, each board must:
•
Direct its institution to track redeployable dollars on an annual basis and report how those
efficiency savings and new revenues are being used to lower student costs while
maintaining or improving educational quality. Boards must report annually to the Ohio
Department of Higher Education, based on a template that the department should
develop.
•
Set five-year goals for efficiency savings and new resource generation, and track
progress toward those goals on an annual basis. These data, including the use of these
funds, should be part of the annual reports to the Department of Higher Education.
The Department of Higher Education should produce an annual report for the public to detail the
progress of the state’s colleges and universities to redirect savings toward student affordability.
The task force believes in avoiding duplication, including in our efficiency recommendations.
Therefore, we recommend that the Department of Higher Education incorporates its annual
efficiency reports as part of the existing process to survey institutions on efficiency measures.






State/Statutory
Collaboration
3-5 years
1-3 years


Institution
Type of
action
Time frame
Immediate
2-year
4-year
All
Institutional
Regional
Focus areas
Savings benefit students
Five-year goals
Statewide
Master recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution

Master recommendations | Page 10
Attachment D
Overall Page 102 of 187
Attachment Page 18 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Case studies:
•
The Ohio State University’s president set a five-year goal of $400 million in savings and
new revenues to support affordability and excellence. This 2020 Vision plan calls for
expanding need-based aid by at least $100 million over that span, including a $15 million
increase for fiscal 2016.
•
Bowling Green State University has been able to expand a high-demand academic area
by outsourcing its flight program. The private operator, which took over in 2014, provided
about $3.5 million for a new flight training center, new simulation equipment and a new
hangar as well as to acquire plans previously owned by the university. These and other
investments have doubled student enrollment in BGSU’s aviation studies program in less
than two years.
•
Ohio University plans to use proceeds from the sale of seven surplus properties to
expand the amount of student financial aid. The university plans to invest the proceeds to
support OHIO Match, a fundraising campaign in which Ohio University provides 50 cents
for every dollar donated to support certain scholarship endowments.
Master recommendations | Page 11
Attachment D
Overall Page 103 of 187
Attachment Page 19 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendations | Strategic procurement
Background: Ohio colleges and universities already collaborate to lower costs and increase
efficiencies. The purchasing group at the Inter-University Council of Ohio, which includes
representatives of the Ohio Association of Community Colleges, has generated a number of
achievements over the years:
•
34 current joint contracts and price agreements
•
$648 million in reported annual joint purchasing activity
•
$138 million purchased through State of Ohio contracts
Likewise, Ohio is a member of the Midwestern Higher Education Compact, and many
institutions are part of other consortia that can lower the cost of goods and services. But Ohio’s
colleges and universities would generate more savings through greater collaboration —
statewide, regionally and among institutions with shared interests.
Individual campuses could increase their savings simply by requiring employees to use existing
contracts. In too many cases, the decentralized nature of higher education leads to different
buying patterns among campus units. Ultimately, that increases costs and weakens the
institution’s negotiating power because purchasing managers cannot guarantee the size of
spend with their contracted vendors.
By consolidating the spend — both on individual campuses and among multiple institutions —
and focusing on fewer vendors, Ohio’s colleges and universities can reduce cost while
maintaining or improving service levels.
Recommendation 3A | Campus contracts: Each institution must require that its employees use
existing contracts for purchasing goods and services, starting with the areas with the largest
opportunities for savings. To ensure transparency about these decisions, institutions must report
the utilization rates of existing contracts annually to their boards of trustees.
Recommendation 3B | Collaborative contracts: Ohio’s colleges and universities, working
collaboratively through the IUC Purchasing Group, must pursue new and/or strengthened joint
purchasing agreements in the following categories:
 Copier/printer services: A joint contract for copier/printer services across the state
institutions could dramatically reduce costs. The bundled scale would do more than
provide volume discounts on new multifunction devices — an operator would provide
increased reporting on usage patterns, providing analytics that can be used to manage
demand and enhance sustainability efforts.
Strategic procurement | Page 12
Attachment D
Overall Page 104 of 187
Attachment Page 20 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
o Opportunity description: Ohio’s colleges and universities can generate savings
by consolidating their spend, standardizing replacement cycles and better
managing demand. In some cases, desktop printers may be replaced by
multifunction devices that are more efficient.
o Nature of recommendation: Statewide collaboration, with possible expansion to
regional or national contracts. Every public college and university should move to
a single provider of copier/printer supply and services.
 Computer hardware (standard office use): Ohio institutions spent $1.8 million on PCs
in fiscal 2014 through the IUC joint contract, but that’s a fraction of the projected $79
million spend statewide on computer hardware. For standard (non-Apple) configurations
of office computers, the opportunity to focus spending on a few makes and models would
offer substantial opportunities for savings.
o Opportunity description: Ohio institutions should work together to identify a
common set of computing packages that will meet most office needs, with the goal
of creating a short list of standard setups that can be put out to bid with a
guaranteed spend (such as at least 80 percent of applicable purchases) with a
single vendor. This consolidation should yield stronger competitive bids while also
providing for cost savings on maintenance and other factors.
o Nature of recommendation: Statewide collaboration, with possible expansion to
regional or national contracts. Every public college and university should
participate in a single bid for standard computer equipment. Each institution should
also establish parameters for identifying legitimate exceptions to this contract,
such as computers needed for research and scientific purposes.
 Travel services: Ohio institutions use a variety of agencies to provide travel services,
adding unnecessary cost to a category that would benefit from guaranteed volume.
o Opportunity description: An existing IUC Purchasing Group contract offers
strong savings for vehicle rentals, but travel agency services remain an untapped
area for a statewide consolidation of spend. This category was identified by
several institutional councils as a top action step on procurement. Other related
categories, such as relationships with airlines and hotel chains, could also provide
opportunities down the line, but there are more regional issues to consider with
these categories.
o Nature of recommendation: Statewide collaboration, with possible expansion to
regional or national contracts. Every public college and university that uses a
travel management agency should move to a single agency with the capability to
customize services based on each campus’s policies and needs. Campuses
should collaborate to simplify and standardize travel policies to reduce costs.
Strategic procurement | Page 13
Attachment D
Overall Page 105 of 187
Attachment Page 21 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
 Outbound shipping: Most of the outbound shipping service among Ohio institutions is
divided among two national vendors. By consolidating to a single vendor — and adding
mandates at individual campuses to use this contract across campuses — Ohio colleges
and universities could better leverage their spend.
o Opportunity description: Most Ohio institutions either use the state contract or a
consortium arrangement for outbound shipping among one of the major national
competitors in this sector. But few mandate use of the approved vendor, dividing
the spend and limiting opportunities to better manage demand. A secondary
opportunity may exist in inbound shipping, particularly if the same vendor is used
for both inbound and outbound freight. Any contract should ensure quality
requirements needed for scientific/lab shipments.
o Nature of recommendation: Statewide collaboration, with possible expansion to
regional or national contracts. Every public college and university should be on a
single statewide contract for outbound shipping, particularly with regard to
nonscientific packages.
 Scientific Supplies and Equipment: Ohio institutions use at least 114 vendors for
scientific and lab equipment, suggesting strong opportunities to consolidate this
spending.
o Opportunity description: The largest vendors in our study capture about 16
percent to 20 percent of the spend, with nearly half the total divided among smaller
providers. But experts say larger vendors dominate most categories of scientific
supplies and equipment.
o Nature of recommendation: Statewide collaboration, with possible expansion to
regional or national contracts. This contract is most likely to be used predominantly
by research institutions. Every public college and university should use a limited
number of statewide contracts for scientific equipment.
 Office Supplies and Equipment: A small number of national vendors account for most
of the spending on office supplies at Ohio institutions, reflecting a significant opportunity
to consolidate contracts to yield savings.
o Opportunity description: Experts suggest that a joint contract on office supplies
could generate savings of up to 14 percent for Ohio institutions.
o Nature of recommendation: Statewide collaboration, with possible expansion to
regional or national contracts. Every public college and university should be on a
single statewide contract for office supplies.
Benefits: In these six categories, Ohio’s public colleges and universities could collectively save
tens of millions of dollars a year based on current spending — which doesn’t account for the
Strategic procurement | Page 14
Attachment D
Overall Page 106 of 187
Attachment Page 22 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
effect of increasing utilization within each campus. Increased buying power would also give
institutions better leverage on service quality.
Other considerations: The value of combined purchasing power always has to be weighed
against potential tradeoffs, including service quality and specialized needs. Consolidating
vendors may also have the effect of de-coupling some procurement categories from other
priorities, including regional economic development considerations.
We have focused our recommendations on areas where we believe the benefits are likely to
outweigh these considerations. When possible, these joint contracts also should be opened to
private colleges and universities in Ohio, which rarely would have the volume of spend to obtain
optimal pricing.
Implementation plan: Each institution should immediately mandate that employees use the
institution’s current contracted vendor(s) unless there are tangible financial or operational
reasons that consolidation would be harmful. This is an opportunity to save money simply by
consolidating the spend at individual institutions into existing negotiated contracts. Furthermore,
this exercise will set the stage for effective negotiation of cross-campus agreements that fully
leverage the size and scope of Ohio’s colleges and universities.
For collaboration among campuses, the IUC Purchasing Group should determine the best
strategy for joint contracts in the recommended target areas. The task force recognizes that the
Purchasing Group has a successful history, but the group could reap larger savings if more
institutions participated in joint contracts.
The Purchasing Group should use its resources to identify the best process — including how to
best tap specialized expertise — for expanded joint contracts on a timeline that corresponds to
current contract cycles and needs of the institutions. The Purchasing Group may consider
whether statewide or regional contracts make the most sense. Among the options that may be
considered are:
•
Negotiating new contracts in these areas
•
Signing on to the best contract held by an Ohio institution
•
Using state of Ohio contracts
•
Utilizing regional or national consortia to obtain the best deals
The Purchasing Group already strives to allow private institutions to participate in joint contracts,
and that philosophy should continue so that members of the Association of Independent
Colleges & Universities of Ohio can hold down costs for their students.
Strategic procurement | Page 15
Attachment D
Overall Page 107 of 187
Attachment Page 23 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
If the Purchasing Group determines that the parameters for any of the expanded joint contracts
described in this report would not serve the best interest of Ohio institutions, it should
recommend an alternative approach.
To preserve local control and allow for legitimate cases where joint purchasing may not make
sense for a particular college or university, institutions should be given the opportunity to opt
out. We recommend the following conditions:
•
The power to opt out rests with the institution’s board of trustees. A board should provide
a written explanation, including its reasons for choosing not to participate, to the IUC
Purchasing Group and the chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education.
Strategic procurement | Page 16
Attachment D
Overall Page 108 of 187
Attachment Page 24 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY















Statutory
Institution
Type of
action
Collaboration
3-5 years
1-3 years
Immediate
2-year
4-year
All
Institutional
Regional
Focus areas
Institutional mandates to
use current contracts
Copier/printer services
Computer hardware
Travel services
Outbound shipping
Scientific equipment/supply
Office supplies
Statewide
Strategic procurement recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution
Time frame













Case study:
•
Mandated use: Ohio State required that employees purchase office supplies through its
contracted vendor in 2010, when the utilization rate was about 50 percent. By 2015,
utilization had increased to more than 95 percent. That improvement saved the university
$2.5 million over four years and enabled the university to negotiate an even better
contract when it was rebid in 2015. The new contract offers $5 million in savings over
seven years, including $1 million that was distributed as student financial aid.
Strategic procurement | Page 17
Attachment D
Overall Page 109 of 187
Attachment Page 25 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendations | Assets and operations
Background: Ohio’s institutions have accumulated assets and developed operations over time
based on a variety of circumstances. The question now is whether all of these reflect their
institution’s needs and mission.
Some assets may serve a long-term purpose but are underutilized. Others could be sold or
leased to provide new resources for the institution’s primary mission.
Nonacademic operations that were originally developed to serve student or campus needs may
not be the most efficient way of delivering those services. In some cases, collaboration among
institutions would reduce operating costs and provide better scale for purchasing. In others,
private operators may be able to offer better service at a lower cost.
Finally, some assets or operations that are funded by institutions could be better supported
through sponsorships, affinity relationships or other kinds of partnerships.
Recommendation 4A | Asset review: Each institution must conduct an assessment of its noncore assets to determine their market value if sold, leased or otherwise repurposed. Where
opportunities exist, colleges and universities must consider coordinating these efforts with other
Ohio institutions to reap larger benefits of scale.
 Benefits: Colleges and universities can reduce maintenance, energy and other costs
related to unneeded assets, and produce dollars that can be reinvested in the core
mission by monetizing them. Depending on the type of asset and its role on a campus,
institutions can consider a variety of options for disposal, including a sale, lease,
demolition and others.
For non-core assets that should be retained, institutions should evaluate whether private
partnerships would enhance the value and/or provide additional financial support. In
some cases, institutions may find partners where a sponsorship or affinity relationship
would generate student scholarships, internships, research grants or other opportunities
for students, faculty and staff.
 Nature of recommendation: Initially institutional, with opportunities for collaboration
 Other considerations: Institutions should take a long-term approach to monetizing
assets and be wary of short-term considerations. That philosophy should be reflected
both in the decision to monetize and the use of the proceeds. Institutions should carefully
evaluate the pros and cons of monetizing, including whether an asset will be needed in
the future. Where opportunities can be realized, institutions should carefully evaluate the
best use of those dollars for long-term gain. For instance, a targeted investment in an
Assets and operations | Page 18
Attachment D
Overall Page 110 of 187
Attachment Page 26 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
institution’s endowment (funding scholarships or core academic needs) would provide a
recurring benefit instead of using one-time funds to fulfill an immediate need.
Recommendation 4B | Operations review: Each institution must conduct an assessment of
non-academic operations that might be run more efficiently by a regional cooperative, private
operator or other entity. These opportunities must then be evaluated to determine whether
collaboration across institutions would increase efficiencies, improve service or otherwise add
value. This review must encompass these nonacademic areas and any others identified by an
institution:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dining
Housing
Student health insurance
Child care
IT help desk
Janitorial
Landscaping
Facility maintenance
Real-estate management
Parking
 Benefits: Beyond the academic mission of each institution, Ohio’s colleges and
universities have taken on important but non-core operations to serve their students and
communities. However these services evolved, they represent an area of duplication that
is costly to institutions and, ultimately, students. Other operators, whether they are private
or public collaborators, who specialize in those fields, may be able to provide them more
efficiently. Colleges and universities should consider opportunities to outsource these
operations if service levels can be maintained at an appropriate standard.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional, with opportunities for regional or statewide
collaboration
 Other considerations: Any transition to a private vendor should be carefully evaluated
by experts to ensure the correct checks and balances exist on service levels, financial
obligations and incentives.
Institutions also need to consider the implications for employees. In some cases, they
may be retained by a private operator who takes over a university operation, but staff
members often value their connection to a public employer. Likewise, there may be
implications for compensation and benefit packages. Some institutions have responded
to these concerns by providing employees affected by privatization an opportunity to
remain in different roles.
Assets and operations | Page 19
Attachment D
Overall Page 111 of 187
Attachment Page 27 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
This review should be coordinated with the cost diagnostic (Recommendation 5A) and
organizational structure (Recommendation 5C) reviews to identify opportunities to
consolidate operations within a campus. At some schools, there are similar operations
run by different units that could be combined in shared service models.
Recommendation 4C | Affinity partnerships and sponsorships: Institutions must, on
determining assets and operations that are to be retained, evaluate opportunities for affinity
relationships and sponsorships that can support students, faculty and staff. Colleges and
universities can use these types of partnerships to generate new resources by identifying “winwin” opportunities with private entities that are interested in connecting with students, faculty,
staff, alumni or other members of their communities.
 Benefits: Affinity and sponsor relationships, which may be amplified across institutions,
can create new resources, internships, career opportunities, research grants or other
benefits to students, faculty and staff. Often, alumni can participate in these relationships
in a way that is mutually beneficial — for instance, companies may guarantee resources
for an institution in exchange for the ability to market to alumni, who in turn are offered
special discounts if they opt in for services.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional, with opportunities for regional or statewide
collaboration
 Other considerations: Institutions need to retain a careful balance between seeking
support for their students, faculty and staff while protecting their interests. Campuses
should not be commercialized to the degree that they are blanketed in corporate logos
and advertising, nor should students, faculty and staff be barraged by advertising as they
pursue their academic careers. Put simply, institutions will need to ensure that any and all
supportive partnerships are properly scoped.
Implementation plan: Each institution should complete an initial review of assets and the listed
operations to consider whether they should be retained, run differently or subject to disposal.
The review should be presented to each institution’s board of trustees for review and direction.
We encourage institutions to work collaboratively to simplify the evaluation process, perhaps by
using the Inter-University Council Purchasing Group to negotiate a statewide contract with
consultants. This would provide consistency in the approach and lower the per-institution cost.
For affinity and sponsorship opportunities, institutions should seek out possible collaborations
across campuses and share best practices.
Assets and operations | Page 20
Attachment D
Overall Page 112 of 187
Attachment Page 28 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY






Statutory
Institution



3-5 years
1-3 years
Immediate
2-year
4-year
All
Institutional



Type of
action
Collaboration



Regional
Focus areas
Asset review
Operations review
Affinity and sponsorships
Statewide
Assets and operations recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution
Time frame
Case studies:
 IT help desk: Cuyahoga Community College outsourced help desk calls (excluding
faculty-based classroom technology issues) in 2010. This work included self-service
improvements that have cut the annual volume of calls in half by 2015. Those efficiencies
have generated $250,000 a year in annual cost savings by reducing the need for IT Help
Desk equipment and staff.
 Dining services: Bowling Green State University outsourced its dining services to a
private operator in 2008, when students bought fewer than 10,000 meal plans. That
partnership has increased use of its dining services — more than 12,000 meal plans
were purchased in 2015, despite a 3.5 percent decline in undergraduate enrollment since
2008. Students also benefitted from a cost standpoint: For three of the past six years,
there were no increases to dining plan rates.
 Parking: The Ohio State University outsourced its parking operation in 2013, receiving a
$483 million up-front payment for a 50-year concession with a private operator. The
payment was invested in the university’s endowment, which through fiscal 2016 has
provided $83 million in distributions for student scholarships, faculty recruitment in priority
fields, capital investments and campus transportation options.
 Copier/printer service: Since 2010, Cuyahoga Community College has outsourced
copier/printer service with a private vendor that also helps to better manage demand. The
contract initially provided savings of $300,000 annually. Since a contract extension in
October 2014, Tri-C is reaping savings of $426,000 a year.
Assets and operations | Page 21
Attachment D
Overall Page 113 of 187
Attachment Page 29 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendations | Administrative cost reforms
Background: Not surprisingly, more than 60 percent of the expenses at Ohio’s public colleges
and universities are devoted to employee salaries and benefits.
At universities, 38 percent are devoted to noninstructional staff. At community colleges, staff
costs account for 29 percent of expenses. 4
Many of these staff members are providing functions that directly benefit students — including
academic advising, health counseling, enrollment, financial aid, veterans services and the like.
But any opportunities to increase administrative productivity or reduce staff costs can free
funding to lower costs for students or bolster academic quality.
Recommendation 5A | Cost diagnostic: Each institution must produce a diagnostic to identify
its cost drivers, along with priority areas that offer the best opportunities for efficiencies. This
diagnostic must identify, over at least a 10-year period:
•
Key drivers of costs and revenue by administrative function and academic program;
•
Distribution of employee costs — both among types of compensation and among
units;
•
Revenue sources connected to cost increases — whether students are paying for
these through tuition and fees, or whether they are externally funded;
•
Span of control for managers across the institution — how many employees
managers typically oversee, by the manager’s function; and
•
Priority steps that would reduce overhead while maintaining quality — which
recommendations would have the most benefit?
 Benefits: Colleges and universities cannot effectively control their costs without a
detailed look at their finances. This analysis should provide a starting point for improving
operational efficiencies.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: The financial systems at many institutions may not easily yield
the data for this analysis, which amplifies the need for standardization on the analysis
and outcomes. Therefore, institutions should consider using the Inter-University Council
Purchasing Group to seek a joint contract for the analytical work that this diagnostic
would require. This could reduce the cost per institution and standardize findings.
Administrative cost reforms | Page 22
Attachment D
Overall Page 114 of 187
Attachment Page 30 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Institutions will need to prioritize areas of possible efficiencies on a variety of factors.
These should include funding sources — for instance, to distinguish areas such as
sponsored research, where growth would reflect success in attracting funding, and other
areas that might be cost centers. Also, some areas might be growing because of legal
requirements or other obligations outside of an institution’s control.
 Implementation plan: Each institution must review and develop an action plan from the
findings, although institutions may collaborate to reduce the cost. For instance, a group of
institutions could identify a representative example that could be used to generate
findings that would be applied across the group. For each institution, the board of
trustees must approve the action plan stemming from the review.
Recommendation 5B | Productivity measure: The Department of Higher Education should
develop a common measurement of administrative productivity that can be adopted across
Ohio’s public colleges and universities. While the measure should be consistent, each institution
should have latitude to develop its own standards for the proper level of productivity in its units.
This will allow, for instance, for appropriate differences between productivity in high-volume
environments vs. high-touch ones.
 Benefits: A common measurement will empower better analytics of productivity and
cost-savings opportunities within and across campuses. Ohio has the opportunity to be a
national leader on this front — our administrative productivity metric could become the
national standard in higher education.
 Nature of recommendation: Statewide, with application by institutions
 Other considerations: Institutions will need to analyze administrative productivity rates
within their colleges and units to establish baseline data before new standards could be
put in place. Over time, this data could provide better comparison data across institutions,
but variations across Ohio’s colleges and universities are to be expected.
 Implementation plan: The Department of Higher Education must develop an
administrative productivity metric that can be applied across Ohio’s public institutions.
Each institution must develop a plan to apply the agreed-upon measure across its
campus.
Recommendation 5C | Organizational structure: Each institution should, as part or as a
consequence of its cost diagnostic, review its organizational structure in line with best practices
to identify opportunities to streamline and reduce costs. The institutional reviews also should
consider shared business services — among units or between institutions, when appropriate —
for fiscal services, human resources and information technology.
Administrative cost reforms | Page 23
Attachment D
Overall Page 115 of 187
Attachment Page 31 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
 Benefits: When institutions can flatten their organizational structures while maintaining a
focus on quality, they improve their cost structure and enhance operational efficiency. In
other words, institutions should look for opportunities to scale back bureaucracy that does
not add value.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: The task force recognizes that there may not be a one-size-fitsall solution to organizational structure, but the cost diagnostic and standard productivity
measures recommended in this report should aid in benchmarking that will demonstrate
when institutions have opportunities to streamline. When an institution is out of line with
benchmarks, leaders should understand whether they are receiving additional value for
the additional cost.
 Implementation plan: Each institution should produce an organizational review that is
ultimately approved by its board of trustees. This may be conducted as a second phase
of the cost diagnostic and productivity measure work, or in conjunction with those
initiatives. Institutions may benefit from a national best-practice review as a precursor of
this work.
The operations review (recommendation 4B) should also be a useful element of this
work, as it may identify operations within an institution that could be centralized to add
efficiencies.
Recommendation 5D | Health-care costs: Like other employers, colleges and universities have
experienced rapid growth in health-care costs. To drive down costs and take advantage of
economies of scale, the Department of Higher Education should convene a working group to
identify opportunities to collaborate.
 Benefits: Ohio’s colleges and universities repeatedly cited health-care benefits and
related administrative services as key opportunities for efficiencies. Suggestions from
institutional efficiency councils ranged from collaborating on statewide or regional healthcare benefits for higher-ed employees to working together on administrative aspects of
these benefits. A study group of experts in health-care, human resources and finance
could identify achievable opportunities to reduce costs and/or restrain the growth rate.
 Nature of recommendation: Statewide, with recommendations that could be targeted to
regions or types of institutions
 Other considerations: Collaboration on health-care benefits will need to consider
regional differences in provider networks, the existence of academic medical centers, and
competitive considerations in compensation packages, among other issues.
Administrative cost reforms | Page 24
Attachment D
Overall Page 116 of 187
Attachment Page 32 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
 Implementation plan: The Department of Higher Education should convene a working
group to study opportunities for streamlining and cost-savings in health care. The
department should consult with the Department of Insurance on this work, and this
working group should consider possible connections with the state of Ohio that would be
mutually beneficial.
Recommendation 5E | Data centers: Institutions must develop a plan to move their primary or
disaster recovery data centers to the State of Ohio Computer Center.
 Benefits: The State of Ohio Computer Center provides a high-quality, secure
environment at a lower cost than standalone data centers at each campus. This facility
can offer better economies of scale and is better positioned to employ people with the
specialized skills needed to efficiently operate it. Increased volume from higher-education
institutions also could produce additional savings on service and power.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional, with statewide collaboration
 Other considerations: Each institution will need to determine the best timing and
manner for this move, based on its IT needs and capital investments. Institutions will
need to consider disaster requirements and operational capabilities as part of their move
planning, with the goal that all institutions share a common disaster-recovery site.
Institutions should also explore best practices for sharing of common infrastructure
elements and the potential to use cloud technology.
 Implementation plan: Each institution will need to make its own plan, but collaboration
among the chief information officers of Ohio institutions could assist in coordination.
Recommendation 5F | Space utilization: Each Ohio institution must study the utilization of its
campus and employ a system that encourages optimization of physical spaces.
 Benefits: Under-utilized buildings and other spaces require energy, maintenance and
other services that are inefficient. A system that tracks space utilization empowers an
institution to find solutions to these problems, whether by adjusting class schedules,
seeking out alternative uses of these spaces, or reducing the physical imprint of an
institution.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Implementation plan: Institutions, working through the Inter-University Council
Purchasing Group, should seek a joint contract for space utilization systems that can
reduce the cost for institutions that currently do not employ these.
Administrative cost reforms | Page 25
Attachment D
Overall Page 117 of 187
Attachment Page 33 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
















State/Statutory
Institution









Type of
action
Collaboration
3-5 years
1-3 years
Immediate
2-year
4-year
All
Institutional
Regional
Focus areas
Cost diagnostic
Productivity measure
Organizational structure
Health-care working group
Data center
Space utilization
Statewide
Administrative cost reforms recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution
Time frame


Case studies:
•
Productivity: Miami University has an active Lean program focused on operational
efficiencies that has completed 510 projects since 2010 valued at $30 million. These
projects have allowed the university to maintain and enhance service to its students while
reducing headcount by 9.9 percent from fall 2008 through fall 2014. When accounting for
enrollment changes during this period, that reflects a 19 percent decrease in staff
members per student.
•
Space utilization: Stark State College has employed a space utilization system since
2014 that has allowed the institution to improve course schedules and building utilization.
This investment of less than $50,000 a year resulted in an 11 percent improvement in
lecture-room utilization from spring 2014 to spring 2015. The system also is used to
evaluate course offerings each term to ensure that an optimal number of sections are
offered to meet student demand.
•
Reduced footprint: After completing a master plan study of its space needs, Bowling
Green State University plans to reduce its campus footprint by 300,000 square feet by
2017. The university expects to be able to reduce another 100,000 square feet by 2020
to optimize building usage and reduce operational costs. This is expected to generate
utility, maintenance and daily operational savings of $5.50 per square foot, or $1.65
million in fiscal 2014 numbers.
Administrative cost reforms | Page 26
Attachment D
Overall Page 118 of 187
Attachment Page 34 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
•
Joint administrative group: In July 2015, Northwest State Community College and
Terra State Community College created a joint administrative group to reduce cost and
devote more resources to academic programming and student success. Northwest State
and Terra State are community colleges that are 75 miles apart, so this arrangement
represents an example of how institutions can find creative solutions to lower costs while
maintaining their individual missions. Administrative functions will be handled from a third
site with shared officials and services, but Northwest State and Terra State will continue
to provide education and workforce development in their distinct service areas. 5
•
Data center: The Ohio State University avoided $40 million in capital costs and is saving
$1 million a year in operational costs by moving to the State of Ohio Computer Center.
Administrative cost reforms | Page 27
Attachment D
Overall Page 119 of 187
Attachment Page 35 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendation | Textbook affordability
Background: Textbooks can cost the average university student $1,225 a year and a full-time
community college student $1,328 a year. 6
These costs have risen dramatically.
From 1996 to 2004, the cost of new textbooks increased an average of 6 percent a year. That
was more than twice the pace of inflation. 7 The trend has continued unabated in recent years,
with new textbook prices climbing 6 percent a year between 2002 and 2013 while general
household prices increased at an average of 2 percent annually. 8
Textbook rental programs and digital options offer some opportunities for relief, but these
alternatives are still emerging as solutions for many students.
Because textbooks are a reflection of an individual student’s field of study, and the choices
made by the faculty in those courses, students may not know the true cost of their education
until they have enrolled in classes.
Clearly, improving the affordability of textbooks and other course materials offers a direct way to
lower the cost of education for students.
Recommendation 6A | Negotiate cost: Professional negotiators must be assigned to help
faculty obtain the best deals for students on textbooks and instructional materials, starting with
high-volume, high-cost courses. Faculty must consider both cost and quality in the selection of
course materials.
 Benefits: Institutions often employ professional negotiators in their business units, but
they are not always connected to the process of purchasing academic materials. By
working collaboratively, faculty and negotiators can employ business practices — such as
seeking competitive presentations by publishers to department faculty — to drive down
costs and improve offerings for students.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: Faculty must use their subject matter expertise to judge the
quality of materials, but business officials can add value to the negotiation over price and
other terms. Institutions must ensure that negotiators have a clear mission to provide
faculty with support while representing students’ need for affordable materials. Faculty
should continue to focus on academic quality, but they also should be asked to consider
cost as part of their selection of course materials.
Textbook affordability | Page 28
Attachment D
Overall Page 120 of 187
Attachment Page 36 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
 Implementation plan: Institutions must assign professional negotiators — such as
members of their business operations — to assist faculty in their dealings with publishers.
Academic leaders should prioritize the use of these negotiators to courses with high
volumes of students and/or high cost of materials.
Recommendation 6B | Standardize materials for gateway courses: Institutions must
encourage departments to choose common materials, including digital elements, for gateway
courses that serve large volumes of students.
 Benefits: Many students take the same common courses in the early stages of their
degrees, so institutions can effectively reduce costs for large numbers of students by
targeting these gateway courses. Standardizing materials, including using digital options,
for these courses would improve the availability of used materials and allow institutions to
negotiate better prices on behalf of their students.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: Coordination between institutions would amplify the effects of
standardization here, and raise the possibility of enhanced joint purchasing of course
materials to reduce their cost to students. Common materials would also enhance
articulation and transfer among institutions statewide. Institutions should always aim to
maintain the highest quality materials and respect academic freedom.
 Implementation plan: Academic leaders at each institution should home in on high
volume courses and work with faculty who teach those courses to come to common
agreement on materials. When possible, faculty should consider the development or
selection of digital materials that can reduce costs.
Recommendation 6C | Develop digital capabilities: Institutions must be part of a consortium to
develop digital tools and materials, including open educational resources, that provide students
with high-quality, low-cost materials.
 Benefits: Institutions should seek to harness their own intellectual property to create and
adapt learning materials for their students. This can reduce the cost to students and may
provide revenue opportunities by offering tools and materials to other institutions.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional, with opportunity for statewide collaboration
 Other considerations: If all Ohio institutions were part of the same collaborative, our
public colleges and universities could more easily share materials and tools. The task
force recognizes that institutions may have already made a variety of choices on this
front, but it encourages collaboration across the state’s colleges and universities.
Textbook affordability | Page 29
Attachment D
Overall Page 121 of 187
Attachment Page 37 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
 Implementation plan: Institutions should tap the expertise of chief information officers at
Ohio institutions to determine whether a single consortium offers a cost-effective solution.
Each institution must then consider whether to participate or use an alternative system
and report its decision to its board of trustees.




Statutory
Institution
3-5 years
Type of
action
Collaboration



1-3 years
Immediate



2-year
All



4-year
Institutional

Regional
Focus areas
Negotiate cost
Standardize materials
Develop digital capabilities
Statewide
Textbook affordability recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution
Time frame
Case studies:
•
Negotiate cost: The University of Cincinnati employs negotiators from its Division for
Administration and Finance as well as experts from its bookstore to support faculty in
negotiating textbook prices. These tactics have paid off in savings to students that
average $100 per course. For fall semester of 2015, UC students are expected to save
$400,000 to $500,000 compared to list prices for electronic materials in certain highenrollment courses. The cost is included in students’ tuition and fees, so students
automatically have access to these materials. Professors report a significant educational
benefit because this structure means no students skip or delay buying materials.
•
Consider cost: Columbus State Community College students have saved $2.3 million
since July 2013 through a variety of measures, including learning seminars to educate
faculty about options to make course materials more affordable. Other strategies include
the development of digital content, price negotiations, textbook rentals and expanded
availability of used materials.
•
Develop digital capabilities: The Ohio State University is a member of Unizin, a
nonprofit consortium owned by universities that develops digital resources and tools for
higher education. By virtue of Ohio State’s membership in Unizin, other colleges and
universities in Ohio can join for an annual fee. Members can make use of shared tools
and materials that Unizin develops or acquires based on level of entry into the
consortium.
Textbook affordability | Page 30
Attachment D
Overall Page 122 of 187
Attachment Page 38 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendation | Time to degree
Background: One of the most effective ways that colleges and universities can lower costs for
students is to ensure that students complete their degrees in an efficient manner. While
students can use college to investigate possible career paths and interests, that intellectual
exploration must be balanced against the cost.
Students can save thousands of dollars by completing their degrees on time — the result of
taking the appropriate number of credit hours per term, with smart scheduling to ensure they are
on track to meet their program requirements. Avoiding costs associated with an extra term or
two is a powerful way to avoid student debt.
Recommendation 7A | Education campaign: Each institution must develop a coordinated
campaign to educate its full-time undergraduates about the course loads needed to graduate on
time (two years for most associate degrees and four years for most bachelor’s degrees).
 Benefits: Undergraduates who take 12 credit hours in a semester are considered full
time based on federal financial aid rules, but they would need to take an average of 15
credit hours per semester to graduate on time in most programs. Nearly half the full-time
students at Ohio’s community colleges, regional campuses and university main
campuses took fewer than 15 credit hours in the fall semesters of 2011-13. 9
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional, with opportunity for statewide collaboration
 Other considerations: This campaign would be explicitly aimed at full-time
undergraduates. Working adults and other part-time students may not be able to
accelerate their studies because of job, family or other pressures, so advising and other
strategies will be needed to encourage their progress toward a degree. Also, some fulltime programs require more than 15 credit hours per semester to stay on track.
 Implementation plan: Each institution must implement a campaign with its students by
incorporating messages during the advising process and at regular touch points
throughout their college careers. Institutions should consider working together to develop
a standard “tool kit” that each institution could customize to its needs. This collaboration
could save time and money — and provide a standard message across the state.
Recommendation 7B | Graduation incentive: Institutions should consider establishing financial
incentives to encourage full-time students to take at least 15 credits per semester.
 Benefits: Ohio institutions that have implemented incentive programs report that their
students have increased progress toward degree completion. Increased success rates
may also benefit institutions because Ohio’s success-based funding formula awards
State Share of Instruction dollars as a result of their students’ progress to degree.
Time to degree | Page 31
Attachment D
Overall Page 123 of 187
Attachment Page 39 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: Incentive programs are less likely to have a big impact on
student choice at institutions with high on-time graduation rates and instead may be
rewarding existing behavior. Therefore, each institution should evaluate the potential
benefit of these programs to improving time to degree for students.
The upfront costs of these programs may be balanced by increased state support
through the subsidy model, but the actual cost/benefit will vary by institution. Therefore, a
broad expansion of these programs may not be sustainable without state support.
 Implementation plan: The leadership of each institution should consider the applicability
to its campus.
Recommendation 7C | Standardize credits for degree: Institutions should streamline
graduation requirements so that most bachelor’s degree programs can be completed within four
years or less and most associate degree programs can be completed in two years or less.
Exceptions should be allowed because of accreditation or quality requirements.
 Benefits: The requirements of academic programs obviously affect the amount of time
that students spend earning a degree. Streamlining the requirements — when permitted
both on the academic needs of the program and accreditation rules — would allow
students to more quickly move from school to work.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: The benefits of streamlining course requirements must always be
measured against the legitimate academic needs of each program.
The Ohio Department of Higher Education recently updated its program review manual,
which includes mandatory reviews when bachelor’s degree programs exceed 126 hours
and associate degree programs exceed 65 hours. Institutions are already recalibrating
credit requirements to these rules, and that work should continue.
 Implementation plan: Academic leaders at each institution should continue to review the
graduation requirements of programs that exceed the standard levels established by the
state Department of Higher Education.
Recommendation 7D | Data-driven advising: Institutions should enhance academic advising
services so that students benefit from both high-impact, personalized consultations and data
systems that proactively identify risk factors that hinder student success.
 Benefits: Predictive analytics have the potential to prevent problems before they occur,
by identifying early signals of problems or opportunities to course-correct during a
Time to degree | Page 32
Attachment D
Overall Page 124 of 187
Attachment Page 40 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
student’s academic career. When combined with proactive advising — sometimes called
“intrusive advising” to reflect that advisors take the initiative to interact with students —
this process can help guide students through their academic careers.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional, with opportunity for statewide collaboration
 Other considerations: The cost of implementation and training for academic advisers
will create a significant upfront investment of time and money. Also, proactive advising
will need to be carefully applied to show students the best path forward in their chosen
academic careers — not to create roadblocks to a challenging field.
 Implementation plan: Each institution must implement a data-driven analytics system,
as well as training for advisers on how to use the data to provide high-impact
interventions. A statewide contract, perhaps in conjunction with OARnet and/or financial
support from the state, could lower the cost to make this kind of system accessible
across Ohio’s public colleges and universities. Institutions should consider working
collaboratively through a group of chief information officers and Inter-University Council
Purchasing Group to negotiate a statewide contract.
Recommendation 7E | Summer programs: Each campus must develop plans to evaluate
utilization rates for summer session and consider opportunities to increase productive activity. In
particular, institutions should consider adding summer-session options for high-demand classes
and bottleneck courses that are required for degree completion.
 Benefits: Too many campus resources are lightly used during the summer, and too
many in-demand courses are unavailable during the standard fall-spring academic year.
Increasing summer activity could address both issues.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: Even with more summer availability, some students will not be
able to take advantage because of their need to work or gain professional experience.
Others may see adverse consequences to financial aid packages. Faculty schedules will
also need to be addressed, since many focus on research during the summer.
Last, any increase in academic offerings will need to consider the impact on capital
improvement plans for student housing and other facilities. This work often takes place
during the summer session, when it is less disruptive to students.
 Implementation plan: The board of trustees of each institution should identify
opportunities to expand the number of high-demand and core courses available during
summer session.
Time to degree | Page 33
Attachment D
Overall Page 125 of 187
Attachment Page 41 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendation 7F | Pathway agreements: Ohio institutions should continue to develop
agreements that create seamless pathways for students who begin their educations at
community or technical colleges and complete them at universities.
 Benefits: Programs that have articulation agreements help students succeed by
providing them with an academic roadmap that spells out the appropriate coursework
they should take at a college that will fulfill requirements needed to complete their
bachelor’s degree at a university. In these agreements, the institutions ensure that their
academic requirements are aligned. Students benefit from a clear pathway to a degree
as well as cost savings by starting at a less-expensive institution.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional collaborations
 Other considerations: In developing articulation agreements, colleges and universities
must ensure that they have aligned quality and content issues to enhance student
success.
 Implementation plan: Institutions should work collaboratively to increase the number of
articulation agreements, such as 2+2 arrangements, among Ohio colleges and
universities.
Recommendation 7G | Competency-based education: Institutions should consider developing
or expanding programs that measure student success based on demonstrated competencies
instead of through the amount of time students spend studying a subject.
 Benefits: Competency-based programs can help students, particularly working adults or
other nontraditional students, complete degrees more efficiently by allowing them to work
at their own pace instead of on a classroom schedule. These programs are typically more
affordable for students because they use technology, including online modules, in the
educational process.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional
 Other considerations: Institutions will need to ensure that the quality of competencybased programs meets their standards. Competency-based programs also tend to be
more prevalent in certain kinds of fields.
As part of the state budget bill for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, institutions are encouraged
to work with the chancellor of the Department of Higher Education to consider offering
competency-based programs and present plans by July 1, 2016.
 Implementation plan: Each institution should evaluate opportunities to develop or
expand competency-based programs, in consultation with the Department of Higher
Education.
Time to degree | Page 34
Attachment D
Overall Page 126 of 187
Attachment Page 42 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
























State/Statutory
Institution
Type of
action
Collaboration
3-5 years
1-3 years
Immediate
2-year
4-year
All
Institutional
Regional
Focus areas
Education campaign
Graduation incentive
Standardize credits
Data-driven advising
Summer programs
Pathway agreements
Competency-based
education
Statewide
Time to degree recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution
Time frame







Case studies:
•
Graduation incentive: Since fall 2013, Cleveland State University has offered a 2
percent tuition rebate and $200 textbook credit to students who take at least 30 credit
hours over three semesters and meet success and enrollment requirements. In the first
two years of the program, an average of 2,865 undergraduate students qualified, and the
program cost $1.14 million annually, funded through Cleveland State’s operating budget.
This program will continue through the conclusion of students’ fourth year of enrollment.
Freshmen who entered in the fall of 2015 are the last eligible class for the program.
Starting in fall 2015, Cuyahoga Community College began offering a graduation incentive
to students taking at least 15 credit hours in fall or spring semesters. The incentive
equates to a 50 percent discount on any credit hours over 12 in these semesters, so a
student taking 15 credit hours would receive $156.81 per semester. To redeem the
incentive, students must enroll in the subsequent semester for at least 12 credit hours
and maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average.
Time to degree | Page 35
Attachment D
Overall Page 127 of 187
Attachment Page 43 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
•
Competency-based education: Sinclair Community College received federal funds from
the Department of Labor to launch Accelerate IT, an online program that allows
information-technology students to earn certificates and degrees by working at their own
pace. Sinclair and partner institutions that received the grant expect that the program will
allow them to serve more students in these fields. 10
Time to degree | Page 36
Attachment D
Overall Page 128 of 187
Attachment Page 44 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendations | Duplicative programs
Background: Low-enrollment and duplicative programs have long been a concern in Ohio
because these academic programs are considered costly to maintain.
Most recently, the state legislature directed institutions to study low-enrollment programs by
January 2016 and every five years thereafter to identify opportunities for collaboration with other
institutions that are geographically nearby.
That provision in the state budget for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 focuses on low-enrollment
programs but does not address duplicative programs.
Recommendation 8 | Program review: Institutions should consider consolidating programs that
are duplicated at other colleges and universities in their geographic area.
•
Benefits: Colleges and universities could reduce administrative costs while honing their
academic focus by consolidating duplicative programs that do not create a distinct
advantage for their institutions. On co-located campuses, reducing duplication could
particularly provide benefits for students.
•
Nature of recommendation: Institutional collaborations
•
Other considerations: Where there are high-demand programs across the state,
duplication may make sense as a way of serving Ohio students and the state economy.
However, there may be other areas where duplication is not serving the distinct missions
of each school. There, consolidation would allow each institution to focus on what it does
best while still providing an option for students in the region.
•
Implementation plan: The Department of Higher Education should identify duplicative
programs within each region of the state, with particular attention to co-located
campuses. Institutions should then review any programs not covered by the current lowenrollment review ordered by the legislature to identify opportunities to consolidate.
Duplicative programs | Page 37
Attachment D
Overall Page 129 of 187
Attachment Page 45 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY


Statutory
Institution
Type of
action
Collaboration

3-5 years
1-3 years
Immediate

2-year
All

4-year
Institutional
Regional
Focus areas
Review duplication
Statewide
Duplicative programs recommendation
Type of
Scope
institution
Time frame
Duplicative programs | Page 38
Attachment D
Overall Page 130 of 187
Attachment Page 46 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendations | Co-located campuses
Background: On seven campuses throughout Ohio, two- and four-year schools are co-located.
In each instance, a community or technical college shares a campus with a regional campus of
a university.
As of the fall semester of 2014, these campuses served 45,070 students, with two-thirds of the
enrollment at community colleges. 11
Over the years, groups have repeatedly called on these institutions to work better together. For
instance, the Co-located Campuses Review Project Report said in 2004 that operations should
be “reviewed regularly to identify unnecessary duplication, better control expenses and identify
new opportunities to share infrastructure and resources.”
Yet, state higher education leaders agree that co-located campuses demonstrate an uneven
record of success in working together. While campuses across the state should be working
more closely together to reduce costs and improve the educational offerings to their students,
there is a special onus on institutions that share a campus.
Recommendation 9 | Joint oversight boards: The state should establish joint oversight boards
for co-located community colleges and regional campuses of universities. This advisory board’s
mandate should focus on improving efficiencies and coordination among the institutions.
 Benefits: A formalized oversight group that represents both institutions allows each to
maintain its distinct mission but can collectively identify areas for streamlining,
consolidation, shared services and positions, or other efficiencies. The net effect should
be lowered costs for students or improved offerings.
 Nature of recommendation: Statutory
 Other considerations: Joint coordinating boards should also be encouraged among
institutions with similar missions in a geographic region. These groups could identify and
recommend shared services and other efficiency measures that could reduce costs for
campuses.
 Implementation plan: The legislature, working with the state Department of Higher
Education, should develop language to identify how these joint oversight boards should
work — including the possibility that the state appoints independent members to the
oversight board who are not aligned with either institution. Each institution must follow the
direction of the Department in naming members to the oversight boards.
Co-located campuses | Page 39
Attachment D
Overall Page 131 of 187
Attachment Page 47 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY


Statutory
Institution
Type of
action
Collaboration
3-5 years
1-3 years
Immediate
2-year
4-year
All
Institutional
Regional
Focus areas
Joint oversight boards
Statewide
Co-located recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution
Time frame


Co-located campuses | Page 40
Attachment D
Overall Page 132 of 187
Attachment Page 48 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Recommendations | Policy reforms
Background: The task force recognizes that there are debates, both at the state and federal
level, about the appropriate role and level of government support for higher education. Those
are valid and important discussions.
Instead of wading into that debate, the task force has focused on where it could best add value
to the discussion of affordability and efficiency among Ohio’s colleges and universities. Our
mission was to recommend practical action steps to help Ohio’s public colleges and universities
better serve their students from a cost and effectiveness perspective.
The task force believes strongly that federal reforms are needed to address a variety of issues
related to student loans and debt.
We encourage state leaders and Ohio’s congressional delegation to advocate for reforms that
support student success — including ensuring that institutions that benefit from federal dollars
help students complete credentials that improve their prospects in life. In addition, Congress and
the administration should provide more oversight over student loans to ensure responsible
borrowing and to ensure the appropriate level of student responsibility.
Recommendation 10A | Financial advising: Students ultimately determine how much to
borrow, but the task force calls on Ohio’s colleges and universities to help educate students
about those choices by providing financial literacy services.
 Benefits: The task force heard stories throughout its work about students who took on
debt for reasons other than their education because they don’t understand the
consequences that debt can take after graduation. Financial advising services can help
students recognize how debt would affect their lives after college.
 Nature of recommendation: Institutional, with opportunities for statewide collaboration
 Other considerations: This program could be built into existing academic advising,
financial aid, career services or be part of a broader financial literacy program that goes
beyond the question of student debt.
 Implementation plan: Institutions should develop financial literacy programs aimed at
helping students understand the possible consequences of student debt, particularly in
light of the earning potential of their chosen field of study. This area is particularly ripe for
a collaborative approach to develop a statewide program, including the possibility of
offering a basic online service that can be reinforced during in-person sessions with
advisors.
Policy reforms | Page 41
Attachment D
Overall Page 133 of 187
Attachment Page 49 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Beyond this, we are recommending changes to state laws that inhibit the efficient operations of
state institutions of higher education.
Recommendation 10B | Obstacles: The state Department of Higher Education and/or state
legislature should seek to remove any obstacles in policy, rule or statute that inhibit the
efficiencies envisioned in these recommendations.
 Benefits: By carefully removing roadblocks to streamlining and other efficiency
measures, the state can support institutions in their efforts to reduce costs and improve
the quality of students’ education.
 Nature of recommendation: Statutory
 Implementation: The chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education should
review any areas that might prohibit the implementation of recommendations in this
report and make recommendations for appropriate remedies. Institutions should take the
initiative to highlight any potential reforms.
Recommendation 10C | Real estate sales: State law should be updated to streamline the
process for how public colleges and universities sell, convey, lease or enter into easements of
real estate. Institutions should be able to transfer property with the approval of their board of
trustees and the chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education, while still ensuring
legislative oversight/approval by requiring certain transactions be approved by the state
Controlling Board.
 Benefits: Current state law surrounding real-estate sales and easements is cumbersome
and can limit opportunities to negotiate the most advantageous deals for colleges and
universities. Under current state law, Ohio’s public colleges and universities cannot enter
into easements or sell, convey or lease real estate without having legislation passed by
the Ohio General Assembly, which can hinder effective negotiations and/or discourage
potential buyers who are unwilling to wait for a bill.
Updating this process would provide significant administrative efficiencies while
improving institutions’ ability to maximize our assets.
 Nature of recommendation: Statutory
 Other considerations: Parameters could allow more flexibility for smaller transactions
while maintaining executive and legislative oversight on larger ones — for instance, a
dollar threshold below which boards and the chancellor’s office could approve real-estate
transactions.
Policy reforms | Page 42
Attachment D
Overall Page 134 of 187
Attachment Page 50 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
 Implementation plan: The Department of Higher Education should propose
recommendations to the state legislature to streamline the process of disposing of real
estate and/or easements.
Recommendation 10D | Insurance pools: Most state universities buy their property and
casualty insurance on a group basis through the IUC Insurance Consortium, which in FY15
saved members more than $5 million. This function could be handled more effectively through a
different legal framework. Therefore, existing statute should be modified to more closely
resemble the authority granted to political subdivisions (in ORC 2744.081).
 Benefits: Updating ORC 3345.202 would confirm that: The IUC-IC is an insurance pool
and not an insurance company; the IUC-UC is exempt from all state and local taxes; and
each member institution is not liable under a joint self-insurance pool for any amount in
excess of amounts payable pursuant to the written pooling agreement.
 Nature of recommendation: Statutory
 Implementation: The chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education and the
General Assembly should review proposed legislation to facilitate the work of the IUC
Insurance Consortium. In addition, the IUC-IC should form a not-for-profit entity to protect
member institutions from legal entanglements.





State/Statutory
Institution

3-5 years
1-3 years
Time frame
Immediate
2-year
4-year




Type of
action
Collaboration

All
Institutional
Regional
Focus areas
Financial education
Obstacles
Real estate
Insurance pools
Statewide
Policy recommendations
Type of
Scope
institution






Policy reforms | Page 43
Attachment D
Overall Page 135 of 187
Attachment Page 51 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Implementation | How to move forward
As this report indicates, there is no simple panacea that would improve the affordability and
efficiency of higher education in Ohio.
Instead, it will take creativity and drive among our public colleges and universities to provide
high-quality education at a cost that doesn’t drive students into crippling debt. The state will
need to support these efforts, both through legislative relief and other means.
Collaboration among all the stakeholders will become increasingly important to share
information, resources and best practices that can spread among Ohio’s public colleges and
universities.
To ensure that our recommendations can be translated into action, the task force has worked to
distribute responsibility to the appropriate parties. We have purposely avoided spelling out all
the details for our recommendations under the belief that goals are more effective than strict
mandates which can hamper creative approaches.
We see three main actors in carrying out our recommendations:
•
Boards of trustees: For work to be done at the institution level, we are asking boards of
trustees to direct and/or review the progress of these endeavors.
•
The Department of Higher Education: The Department can use its statewide reach and
cross-institutional impact to share best practices, connect colleges and universities to one
another, and provide resources to support our institutions.
•
The Inter-University Council Purchasing Group (including members of the Ohio
Association of Community Colleges): These groups already have developed an
infrastructure for our higher education leaders to work together on effective solutions,
such as joint procurement, that can lower costs. To that end, we view the IUC and OACC
as vital partners who can implement recommendations in a collaborative fashion.
Beyond these organizations, the task force believes that there needs to be a central hub to track
recommendations of this report and oversee the areas for which more study is needed.
Recommendation | Implementation: The chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher
Education and the state’s public colleges and universities should make use of existing groups
and resources to coordinate next steps from these recommendations. In particular:
•
The chancellor should utilize the existing Efficiency Advisory Committee 12 (Section
369.540 of Am. Sub. H.B. No. 64) to coordinate next steps.
Implementation | Page 44
Attachment D
Overall Page 136 of 187
Attachment Page 52 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
•
Where results should be reported statewide, information gathering should be
incorporated into the existing efficiency survey conducted by the Department of
Higher Education.
•
Efficiency councils at each college and university should continue to provide input
on the progress of these steps and identify others going forward.
 Benefits: This report calls for further study or work in several areas, and the advisory
committee already encompasses representatives of all public institutions in Ohio and
works with the Department of Higher Education. The Efficiency Advisory Committee
could be utilized to coordinate areas that need further study or coordination to ease
implementation, such as:
o Standard productivity measure (recommendation 5B)
o Health-care costs (recommendation 5D)
o Develop digital capabilities (recommendation 6C)
In addition, the Efficiency Advisory Committee could work with the Inter-University
Council Purchasing Group to simplify, standardize and reduce the cost of implementation
of the following recommendations:
o Assets and operations reviews (recommendations 4A-C)
o Cost diagnostic (recommendation 5A)
o Space utilization (recommendation 5F)
Each institution, as part of the task force’s work process, was asked to either form or
assign an existing efficiency council to provide input on topics of interest. These groups
were invaluable in providing insights on the most pressing issues facing Ohio institutions
and the areas of most potential.
To that end, we recommend that these institutional councils continue to act as sounding
boards for statewide collaboration and coordination. Similarly, we recommend that each
institution rely on its council to advise and/or implement recommendations for its
campuses.
Timeline: The biennial state budget for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 requires the board of
trustees for each institution to complete an efficiency review based on this report by July 1,
2016, and an implementation plan within 30 days of submitting that review.
Some work can clearly begin in advance of that July 1 deadline, while other recommendations
would take more time to implement.
Implementation | Page 45
Attachment D
Overall Page 137 of 187
Attachment Page 53 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
The chart below provides a summary of the implementation responsibilities for each
recommendation. Where more time is needed to implement, that is reflected.
Implementation matrix
Recommendation
(Deadline if not
July 1, 2016)
1: Savings to
students
(July 1, 2017)
2: Five-year goals
3: Procurement
4: Assets and
operations
(Dec. 31, 2016)
5A: Cost diagnostic
(Dec. 31, 2016)
5B: Productivity
measure
5C: Organizational
structure
5D: Health care
5E: Data centers
5F: Space
utilization
(Dec. 31, 2016)
Recommendation
(Deadline if not
July 1, 2016)
6A: Negotiate
textbook cost
6B: Standardize
materials
Boards of Trustees
Redeploy new dollars to
affordability and quality
Report annually to DHE
Develop goals through
FY2021 for efficiencies
and new resources
Mandate on-campus
utilization, and participate
(or not) in joint
purchasing agreements
Review assets,
operations and
opportunities for
affinity/sponsor
relationships
Dept. of Higher Ed.
Develop template, collect
data and produce annual
reports
Develop template, collect
data and produce annual
reports
Joint contracts
Joint contract?
Produce cost diagnostic
Apply measure
IUC Purchasing Group
Joint contract?
Develop measure
Order review
Convene working group
Develop plan to move
Joint contract?
Order review
Joint contract?
Boards of Trustees
Dept. of Higher Ed./
State legislature
IUC Purchasing Group
Assign negotiators
Direct academic leaders
to develop plan
Implementation | Page 46
Attachment D
Overall Page 138 of 187
Attachment Page 54 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
6C: Develop digital
capabilities
7A: Education
campaign
7B: Graduation
incentive
7C: Standardize
credits
7D: Data-driven
advising
7E: Summer
programs
(Dec. 31, 2016)
7F: Pathway
agreements
7G: Competencybased education
8: Duplicative
programs
(Dec. 31, 2016)
9: Co-located
campuses
10: Policy reforms
Join consortium
Develop and implement
campaign (15 credits)
Study options
Order review
Implement
Statewide contract?
Develop plan
Develop agreements
Consider programs
Consider consolidation
Identify programs
Develop legislation
Financial education
Develop legislation
Remove obstacles
Implementation | Page 47
Attachment D
Overall Page 139 of 187
Attachment Page 55 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Other topics of interest
Individual members of the task force and other stakeholders expressed interest in other topics
that could not be explored in the time frame available.
These are among the areas that were identified:
•
Alumni support: In framing affordability and efficiency goals, institutions should consider
the role that alumni could play in enhancing those efforts. Institutions that demonstrate
strong participation from alumni in this regard could leverage those results to obtain
additional support.
•
Benefits: Beyond the health-care benefits to be addressed by a work group
(Recommendation 5D), Ohio institutions should consider a broader study of other nonpension benefits where coordination may lead to efficiencies.
•
College Credit Plus: Expansion and refinement of this program, so that more students
can earn college credits while in high school, would reduce the cost of higher education
and enhance students’ ability to complete their degrees on time.
•
Construction reform: In 2011, the state enacted construction reforms that benefitted
higher education. The new methodologies allowed for greater efficiencies and ease of
completion, thereby saving time and money. But many other opportunities exist to reduce
the cost of capital projects and allow for greater efficiencies.
•
Differentiated tuition: Currently, institutions are required to set a single tuition rate for all
students, without the ability to differentiate by class rank. More flexibility on this front
might allow institutions to lower costs for underclassmen (but might increase costs for
upperclassmen).
•
Energy efficiencies: Institutions could drive down energy costs and become more
sustainable through conservation efforts. The task force was impressed by many of the
efforts at the University of Cincinnati to creatively attack this problem, including finding
opportunities during unrelated capital projects to improve building sustainability.
•
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: Institutions would benefit from
economies of scale and operational efficiencies if more operated on the same ERP
systems. Given the complexity and scale of these systems, a statewide approach would
be a daunting project across Ohio’s colleges and universities. But there may be
opportunities to begin coordination among similar institutions as they update their
systems.
Other topics of interest | Page 48
Attachment D
Overall Page 140 of 187
Attachment Page 56 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
•
Optimizing building assets: Colleges and universities may be able to better leverage
their physical space through partnerships with other institutions of higher education as
well as government, civic organizations and other groups.
•
Part-time students: Ohio’s colleges serve a variety of students, not just “traditional”
students who attend full-time and begin their degree directly after graduating from high
school. Some of the recommendations in this report will benefit all students, but a special
focus is needed to support the success of part-time students, including working adults.
•
Remediation: Students enrolled in remedial courses graduate in far fewer numbers and
spend more time in school, driving up student debt. Colleges should continue exploring
ways to reform current remediation practices and policies so that there are differentiated
options for students based upon their needs, including co-requisite and parallel
remediation. A program in Tennessee has had promising results by allowing high-school
seniors who earn low ACT scores on the math section to receive math mediation while
still in high school. 13
•
3+1 Programs: Some institutions have developed articulation agreements that allow
students to spend three years at a community college and a fourth year at a university to
complete a bachelor’s degree. As part of the emphasis on multiple pathways to a degree,
this concept deserves further study.
Other topics of interest | Page 49
Attachment D
Overall Page 141 of 187
Attachment Page 57 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Appendix A | Executive order
Appendix A: Executive Order | Page 50
Attachment D
Overall Page 142 of 187
Attachment Page 58 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Appendix A: Executive Order | Page 51
Attachment D
Overall Page 143 of 187
Attachment Page 59 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Appendix A: Executive Order | Page 52
Attachment D
Overall Page 144 of 187
Attachment Page 60 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Appendix B | Our process
To develop our recommendations, the task force sought insights and experiences of higher education
leaders throughout the state as well as national experts.
•
Meetings:
o
June 23 (in Columbus): Priority-setting and data review
o
July 21 (at Cuyahoga Community College): Procurement and time to degree
o
Aug. 17 (at the University of Cincinnati): Assets, academic efficiencies and productivity
o
Sept. 2 (at Bowling Green State University): Administrative efficiencies, IT, co-location
o
Sept. 23 (at Columbus State Community College): Finalize recommendations
•
Speakers: 23 people offered their insights. They represented universities, community colleges,
regional campuses as well as national experts.
•
Data: Analyzed savings opportunities, particularly with regard to procurement
•
Insights: Coordinated with the Department of Higher Education to collect data and insights
•
Institutional surveys: Asked institutional efficiency councils to provide suggestions for possible
action steps throughout the task force process.
•
Feedback: Consulted with a statewide Advisory Panel, representing public colleges and
universities, to obtain feedback throughout the process.
Information about all task force meetings was published online at www.ohiohighered.org/ae.
Appendix B: Our process | Page 53
Attachment D
Overall Page 145 of 187
Attachment Page 61 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Appendix C | Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without the work of a team of people who supported the task force:
Inter-University Council of Ohio
•
Gigi Escoe, University of Cincinnati
•
President Bruce Johnson
•
Adam Fennel, Huron Education
•
Cindy McQuade
•
Scott Friedman, Huron Education
•
Andy Grant, IUC Purchasing Group and
Bowling Green State University
•
Steve Golding, Ohio University
•
Joe Harrell, University of Cincinnati
•
David Harrison, Columbus State
Community College
•
President Alex Johnson, Cuyahoga
Community College
Ohio Association of Community Colleges
•
President Jack Hershey
•
Tom Walsh
Ohio Department of Higher Education
•
Chancellor John Carey
•
Eli Faes
•
Joel Husenits
•
John Magill
•
Para Jones, Stark State College
•
Charles See
•
•
Cynthia Leitson, IUC Purchasing Group
and Cuyahoga Community College
Matt Whatley
•
John Lin, McKinsey & Co.
•
Tim Long, Cleveland State University
•
Mary Ellen Mazey, Bowling Green State
University
Ohio Governor’s Office
The Ohio State University
•
Brian Perera
•
Kelly Des Roches
•
Santa Ono, University of Cincinnati
•
Rob Messinger
•
Gregory Rose, The Ohio State University
at Marion
•
Jennifer Spielvogel, Cuyahoga
Community College
•
Sherideen Stoll, Bowling Green State
University
•
Laura Yaeger, Huron Education
Presenters
•
Brandon Carrus, McKinsey & Co.
•
David Creamer, Miami University
•
Jenifer Cushman, Ohio University
Zanesville
•
John Ellinger, Bowling Green State
University
Appendix C: Acknowledgements | Page 54
Attachment D
Overall Page 146 of 187
Attachment Page 62 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Appendix D | Sources
1
The College Board, Tuition and Fees by Sector and State over Time, http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figurestables/tuition-fees-sector-state-time
2
Lumina, “A Stronger Nation through Higher Education,” http://www.luminafoundation.org/stronger_nation
3
Section 369.560 of Am. Sub. H.B. No. 64: “Upon submission of the Ohio task force on affordability and efficiency in higher
education report as established by governor's executive order, all boards of trustees for state institutions of higher education
as defined in section 3345.011 of the Revised Code, shall complete, by July 1, 2016, an efficiency review based on the report
and recommendations of the task force, and provide a report to the Director of Higher Education within 30 days of the
completion of the efficiency review that includes how each institution will implement the recommendations and any other
cost savings measures.” https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-HB-64
4
Huron Consulting Group analysis, https://www.ohiohighered.org/sites/ohiohighered.org/files/uploads/affordabilityefficiency/Huron-OhioSystemOpportunities_072115.pdf
5
NSCC & Terra Combine Administrative Support, http://northweststate.edu/nscc-terra-combine-administrative-support/
6
The College Board, Average Undergraduate Estimated Budgets 2014-15, http://trends.collegeboard.org/collegepricing/figures-tables/average-estimated-undergraduate-budgets-2014-15
7
General Accountability Office, Enhanced Offerings Appear to Drive Recent Price Increases,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/247332.pdf
8
General Accountability Office, Students Have Greater Access to Textbook Information,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655066.pdf
9
Ohio Department of Higher Education analysis
10
Mathematica Policy Research, “Developing Competency-Based Program Models in Three Community Colleges,”
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/education/compentency-based_program_models.pdf
11
Ohio Department of Higher Education, Higher Education Information System
12
Section 369.540 of Am. Sub. H.B. No. 64. Ohio Department of Higher Education, www.ohiohighered.org/efficiency
13
Pearson, “Tennessee Community Colleges Take Innovative Approach to Remediate High School Math Students,”
www.pearsoned.com/education-blog/tennessee-community-colleges-take-innovative-approach-to-remediate-high-schoolmath-students/
Appendix D: Sources | Page 55
Attachment D
Overall Page 147 of 187
Attachment Page 63 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Action Steps to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Recommendation
Master Recommendation One‐
All savings must be directed to students. Allowable uses are: reduction in the cost of attendance, student financial aid, student success services, affordability and efficiency investments, and improvements to high demand/high value programs.
Master Recommendation Two‐
Each university must set a five year efficiency savings and new resources goal to be accomplished for fiscal years 2017‐
2021.
An efficiency review must be completed by July 1, 2016 with an implementation plan adopted by the Board of Trustees within 30 days. Redeployable dollars are to be tracked and reported annually to the Department of Higher Education (HB 64 Sec. 369.560).
Strategic Procurement‐ Campus Contracts 3A
Each university must require that its employees use prime contracts for good and services that are purchased.
Strategic Procurement‐ Collaborative Contracts 3B
Ohio's public colleges and universities must develop new and/or strengthen joint purchasing agreements for copier/printer services, computer hardware, travel services, outbound shipping, scientific supplies and equipment, and office supplies and equipment.
Attachment D
Responsible Person
Action Plan
David Creamer
David Ellis
Fiscal Priorities
Budget office will work with the Fiscal Priorities Committee to develop a tracking and monitoring system. Guidance from the Department of Higher Education will need to be incorporated into this system. Status of Action Plan
A. David Creamer will work with Fiscal Priorities to develop the goal that also must align with the 2020 Plan.
David Creamer
Ted Pickerill
Fiscal Priorities
David Creamer
Bill Shawver
Fiscal Priorities
David Creamer
Bill Shawver
IUC Purchasing Group
B. Several schools are engaging consultants to assist with the assessment. Our plan is to build on the Accenture study working with the responsible persons for each recommendation to analyze all of the identified area and in conjunction with Fiscal Priorities to consolidate the individual activities into a single assessment report and implementation plan. Policy will be developed for BOT approval in June. Procurement is researching policies at other Update on the progress toward the assessment and the implementation plan will be provided to the universities and working with accounts payable on enforcement strategies.
Finance and Audit Committee at the February and April meetings.
The IUC Purchasing Group is leading this initiative. Overall Page 148 of 187
Several meetings have been conducted by the Purchasing Group and an initial implementation plan has already been offered for consideration.
Attachment Page 64 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Action Steps to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Recommendation
Responsible Person
Assets and Operations‐ Asset Review 4A
Each institution must conduct an assessment of its non‐core assets to determine their market value if sold, leased or otherwise repurposed.
Assets and Operations‐ Operations Review 4B
Each institution must conduct an assessment of non‐
academic operations that might be run more efficiently by a regional cooperative, private entity, or other entity.
The review must include dining, housing, student health insurance, child care, IT help desk, janitorial, landscaping, facility maintenance, real‐estate management and parking.
David Creamer
Cody Powell
Bill Shawver
Action Plan
A. The first assesment will be done internally.
B. Selective consulting services may be needed to fully accomplish this expectation. Status of Action Plan
The initial focus is on determining the merits for retaining the Elm Street building, airport, properties not contiguous to campus, and the power plant. Housing assessment was previously completed.
Most of these operations will need to be assessed independent of each other. David Creamer
Peter Natale
Cody Powell
Kim Kinsel
John McCandless
Dawn Fahner
A. Industry benchmarks will be evaluated with the help of a vendor for janitorial, landscaping, and facility maintenance.
B. Health Center(including insurance) and child care already contracted with providers.
The Compass group is currently working with the administration to assess A. It is too early to know if this will be sufficient.
C. Assessment plans need to be developed for parking and real estate management.
Assets and Operations‐ Affinity Partnerships and Sponsorships 4C
Institutions must, on determining assets and operations that are to be retained, evaluate opportunities for affinity relationships and sponsorships that can support students, faculty and staff.
Attachment D
David Creamer
(?)
Action plan still needs to be developed. Opportunities are unclear.
Overall Page 149 of 187
Attachment Page 65 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Action Steps to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Recommendation
Responsible Person
This diagnostic must over a ten year period identify key drivers of cost and revenue by administrative function and academic programs; distribution of employee costs among units; changes in revenue sources; span of control for managers; and priority steps that would reduce overhead costs while preserving quality.
Status of Action Plan
A. Financial data for ten years will be assembled for evaluation as requested. It will be compiled and evaluated by functional areas and by expense object. Administrative Cost Reforms‐Cost Diagnostic 5A
Each university must produce a cost diagnostic to identify the cost drivers along with priority areas that offer the best opportunities for increased efficiencies. Action Plan
David Creamer
David Ellis
Dawn Fahner
Fiscal Priorities
B. David Creamer will work with Fiscal Priorities to analyze the data and identify opportunities.
C. The 2020 productivity expectations and targets will be included in the priority steps. A. The cost data has been compiled but needs to be displayed in a more useful format. D. The Accenture span of control study will be used as the starting point for the span of control review. Fiscal Priorities will assist with andalyzing the data and identifying possible initiatives.
Administrative Cost Reforms‐Productivity Measure 5B
The Ohio Department of Higher Education is to develop a common measurement of administrative productivity that can be adopted across Ohio's public colleges and universities.
Vice Chancellor
IUC
N/A
N/A
A. The Accenture study will serve as the starting point.
Administrative Cost Reforms‐ Organizational Structure 5C
Each university is to review its organizational structure in line with best practices to identify opportunities to streamline and reduce costs including the adoption of shared services.
Attachment D
David Creamer
Fiscal Priorities
B. Miami organizational structure will be compared to other structures for comparable universities.
C. Fiscal Priorities will assist with the analysis and recommendations.
Overall Page 150 of 187
Attachment Page 66 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Action Steps to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Recommendation
Responsible Person
Action Plan
Peter Natale
Still needs to be developed.
Phyllis Callahan
David Creamer
Lindsay Carpenter
Cody Powell
David Sauter
This is an area where a consultant is likely needed.
Status of Action Plan
Administrative Cost Reforms‐ Data Centers 5E
Each university must develop a plan to move their primary or disaster recovery data centers to the State of Ohio Computer Center.
Administrative Cost Reforms‐ Space Utilization 5F
Each university must study the utilization of its campus and employ a system that encourages optimization of physical spaces.
Textbook Affordability‐ Negotiate Cost 6A
Professional negotiators must be assigned to assist faculty in obtaining the best deals. Faculty must consider both cost and quality in selecting course materials.
Textbook Affordability‐ Standardize Materials 6B
Institutions must encourage academic departments to choose common materials, including digital materials, for courses serving large enrollments.
Textbook Affordability‐ Digital Capabilities 6C
Institutions must participate in a consortium to develop digital tools and materials including open educational resources.
Time to Degree‐ Education Campaign 7A
Each university must develop a coordinated campaign to educate its full‐time undergraduates about the course loads needed to graduate on time (4 years).
Attachment D
Jen Bazeley
Jen Waller
David Creamer
Kim Kinsel
Consultants specilizing in this area are being identified. More information is needed about this approach at Open Educational Resources Committee has been the University of Cincinnati
formed. RFP issued for online bookstore partner.
Jen Bazeley
Jen Waller
David Creamer
Kim Kinsel
To be developed.
Open Educational Resources Committee has been formed.
Phyllis Callahan
Jen Bazeley
Jen Waller
To be developed.
Open Educational Resources Committee has been formed.
Phyllis Callahan
Michael Kabbaz
This recommendation was also made by Miami's Efficiency Advisory Committee this past summer. Overall Page 151 of 187
Attachment Page 67 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Action Steps to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Recommendation
Responsible Person
Action Plan
Status of Action Plan
N/A
The University's Efficiency Advisory committee rejected this idea this past summer. An incoming freshman student already takes 15.7 credit hours on average.
Time to Degree‐ Graduation Incentive 7B
Universities should consider establishing financial incentives to encourage full‐time students to take at least 15 credit hours per semester.
Phyllis Callahan
Michael Kabbaz
David Creamer
A. The reduction in the required Miami Plan credit hours has already been approved by the University Senate. Time to Degree‐ Standardize Credits for Degree 7C
Institutions should streamline graduation requirements so that most bachelor's degree programs can be completed within four years or less with exceptions allowed for accreditation or quality considerations.
Time to Degree‐ Data‐driven Advising 7D
Phyllis Callahan
Institutions should enhance academic advising services so that students benefit from both high impact, personalized consultations and data systems that broadly identify risk factors that hinder student success.
Time to Degree‐ Summer Programs 7E
Phyllis Callahan
Michael Kabbaz
Each campus must develop plans to evaluate utilization rates for summer sessions and consider opportunities to increase activity. In particular, universities should consider adding summer‐session options for high demand classes and bottleneck courses.
B. Process for reducing the number of credit hours to graduate in most majors is already underway. Tools have been acquired that support this recommendation and are being implemented.
Phyllis Callahan
Michael Kabbaz
Time to Degree‐ Pathway Agreements 7F
Ohio's public universities should continue to develop agreements that create seamless pathways for students who begin their education at community or technical colleges.
Attachment D
Michael Kabbaz
Overall Page 152 of 187
Attachment Page 68 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Action Steps to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Recommendation
Responsible Person
Action Plan
Status of Action Plan
N/A
N/A
Time to Degree‐ Competency Based Education 7G
Institutions should consider developing or expanding programs that measure student success based on demonstrated competencies instead of the amount of time students spend studying a subject.
Duplicative Programs‐ Program Review 8
Universities should consider consolidating programs that exist at other colleges and universities in their geographic area.
Co‐Located Campuses 9
Miami does not have a regional campus that is co‐located with an Ohio public community or technical college.
Policy Reform‐ Financial Advising 10A
Students ultimately determine how much to borrow, but universities must help to better educate students about their choices by providing financial literacy services.
Policy Reform‐ Obstacles 10B
The Ohio Department of Higher Education and/or the Ohio General Assembly should seek to remove any obstacles in policy, rule or statute to reduce costs and improve the quality of a student's education.
Policy Reform‐ Real Estate Sales 10C
Ohio law should be updated to streamline the process for public universities to sell, convey, lease or enter into real estate easements.
Attachment D
Phyllis Callahan
IUC‐ Provosts
Phyllis Callahan
IUC‐ Provosts
N/A
A similar recommendation was made by the University's Efficiency Advisory Committee this past summer. Michael Kabbaz
Brent Shock
Ohio Department
of Higher Education
Ohio General Assembly
IUC
N/A
N/A
Ohio General Assembly
IUC
N/A
N/A
Overall Page 153 of 187
Attachment Page 69 of 70
Attachment D
Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
February 18, 2016
Action Steps to Reduce College Costs
Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency
Recommendation
Responsible Person
Action Plan
Status of Action Plan
IUC‐IC
IUC‐ General Counsels
Ohio General Assembly
N/A
N/A
Policy Reform‐ Insurance Pools 10D
The IUC‐ Insurance Consortium can be administered more efficiently through an improved legal framework. Ohio law should be modified to provide the authority granted to political subdvisions (ORC2744.081).
Attachment D
Overall Page 154 of 187
Attachment Page 70 of 70
Attachment E
Forward Agenda
February 18, 2016
DRAFT
Forward Twelve Month Agenda
February
April Winter Spring Meeting Meeting
Agenda Item
Committee Structure:
 Committee Priority Agenda
 Committee Self‐Assessment
x
Strategic Matters and Significant Topics Affecting Miami:
 Annual Campaign Update
 Annual Report on the State of IT
 Health Benefit Strategic Indicators
 Guaranteed Tuition
 Strategic Update on Enrollment Planning
 New Revenue Initiatives
 Governor's Task Force Report on Affordability and Efficiency
x
June
End of Year Meeting
x
x
September
Beginning of December Year Fall Meeting
Meeting
x
Business Session
Item 6
x
x
x
x
x
x
Regular Agenda Items:
 Enrollment Report
 Report on Year‐to‐Date Operating Results
 Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting
 Annual Report on Operating Results
Finance and Accounting Agenda:
 Budget Planning for New Year
 Ten Year Budget Plan
 Appropriation Ordinance (Budget)
 Tuition and Fee Ordinance
 Miscellaneous Fee Ordinance
 Room and Board Ordinance
 Review of Financial Statements
 Annual State of Ohio Fiscal Watch Report
 PMBA Tuition Proposal
 Regional Campuses Long‐term Budget Plan
 Update the Long‐term Budget Plan‐‐Oxford Campus
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Audit and Compliance Agenda:
Planning Meeting with Independent Auditors
 Management Letter and Other Required Communications
 Annual Planning Meeting with Internal Auditor
 Annual Report by Internal Auditor
 Annual Compliance Report
 Risk Assessment Report x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(over)
Attachment E
Overall Page 155 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 2
Attachment E
Forward Agenda
February 18, 2016
DRAFT
Forward Twelve Month Agenda
February
April Winter Spring Meeting Meeting
Agenda Item
June
End of Year Meeting
September
Beginning of December Year Fall Meeting
Meeting
Investment Agenda:
 Semi‐Annual Review of Investment Performance
 Non‐Endowment Return Objectives X
Facilities Agenda:
 Approval of Six‐Year Capital Plan (every other year)
 Facilities Condition Report
 Annual Report of Gift‐Funded Projects
 Status of Capital Projects
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Routine Reports:
 University Advancement Update
 Cash and Investments Report
 Lean Project Summary
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Attachment E
x
x
x
Overall Page 156 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 2
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Board of Trustees
February 19, 2016
Attachment F
Overall Page 157 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
University Advancement Report
Tom Herbert, J.D.
Vice President, University Advancement
Executive Director, Miami University Foundation
Attachment F
Overall Page 158 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Topics
• 2020 Plan Fundraising Update
• Fundraising Focus in FY’16
• Update of New Advancement Initiatives
Attachment F
Overall Page 159 of 187
Attachment Page 3 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
2020 Plan Fundraising Update
Attachment F
Overall Page 160 of 187
Attachment Page 4 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
2020 Plan Fundraising Update
$70,000,000
$65,000,000
$65,800,000
$60,000,000
$59,900,000
FY Goals
$55,000,000
$54,400,000
$50,000,000
$49,500,000
$45,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$40,900,000
$37,200,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$33,800,000
FY13
Attachment F
FY14
FY15
FY16
FY17
Overall Page 161 of 187
FY18
FY19
FY20
Attachment Page 5 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
2020 Plan Fundraising Update
FY’16:
• Goal : $45,000,000
• Raised to date: $32,000,000 (71% of goal)
Attachment F
Overall Page 162 of 187
Attachment Page 6 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
2020 Plan Fundraising Update
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$‐
FY’16
Attachment F
Overall Page 163 of 187
Attachment Page 7 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Fundraising Focus FY’16
Attachment F
Overall Page 164 of 187
Attachment Page 8 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Miami Promise Scholarship Campaign goals
• FY’15: $18.0 million -- $19.8 million raised
• FY’16: $18.0 million -- $8.7 million received to date
• FY’17: $18.7 million
• FY’18: $20.7 million
• FY’19: $24.6 million
Attachment F
Overall Page 165 of 187
Attachment Page 9 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Miami Promise Scholarship Campaign
$100,000,000
$90,000,000
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
goal
$20,000,000
received
Attachment F
Overall Page 166 of 187
Jun‐19
Apr‐19
Feb‐19
Dec‐18
Oct‐18
Aug‐18
Jun‐18
Apr‐18
Feb‐18
Dec‐17
Oct‐17
Aug‐17
Jun‐17
Apr‐17
Feb‐17
Dec‐16
Oct‐16
Aug‐16
Jun‐16
Apr‐16
Feb‐16
Dec‐15
Oct‐15
Aug‐15
Jun‐15
Apr‐15
Feb‐15
Dec‐14
Oct‐14
Overall
Aug‐14
$‐
1‐Jul
$10,000,000
Attachment Page 10 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Campaign for Intercollegiate Athletics
• $80 million campaign publicly announced
• Raised $53.2 million to date
Attachment F
Overall Page 167 of 187
Attachment Page 11 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Campaign for Intercollegiate Athletics
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
goal
$10,000,000
received
$‐
Attachment F
Overall Page 168 of 187
Attachment Page 12 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Armstrong Student Center East Wing
• Fundraising target: $6 million for East Wing
• $7.2 million raised to date
Attachment F
Overall Page 169 of 187
Attachment Page 13 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
The Humanities Center
• Fundraising target: $1.5 million (NEH Challenge Grant, by July 2019)
• FY’15 Fundraising goal of $150,000 achieved
• Raised to date: $312,000
• Goal to qualify for $150,000 FY’16 match: $450,000
Attachment F
Overall Page 170 of 187
Attachment Page 14 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
New Advancement Initiatives
• What is next?
• Wealth Screening
• Refreshed database prospect/donor information
• First phase complete
• Crowdsourcing Implementation
• Beta testing currently
• Staff Additions
• IT, Alumni Relations, Communications – in process
Attachment F
Overall Page 171 of 187
Attachment Page 15 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Pride of Case V Awards
#MoveInMiami
• Gold/Platinum finalist – Best Practices in Fundraising
• Gold – Best Program in Annual Giving
Graduating Champions Campaign Case Statement
• Gold – Best Program in Cultivation Publications
Be Mine Miami, tumblr
• Gold – Best Use of Social Media
Attachment F
Overall Page 172 of 187
Attachment Page 16 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Pride of Case V Awards
#MUThankU (Day Without Donors)
• Bronze – Best Collaborative Program
Endowment Annual Report
• Bronze – Best Program in Donor Recognition
Giving Tribute
• Bronze – Best Tabloid/Newsletter
Attachment F
Overall Page 173 of 187
Attachment Page 17 of 18
Attachment F
Advancement Update
February 18, 2016
Thank you!
Attachment F
Overall Page 174 of 187
Attachment Page 18 of 18
Attachment G
Admission Update
February 18, 2016
Reporting Update
Item 2
Board of Trustees Meeting
February 16, 2016
Finance and Audit Committee
Attachment G
Overall Page 175 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 4
Attachment G
Admission Update
February 18, 2016
Key Enrollment Goals
Fall 2016
First-Year Objectives
»
3,650 first-year target
»
Manage divisional enrollment targets
»
Maintain quality
»
Increase selectivity
»
Increase non-resident enrollment
»
Increase ethnic/racial diversity
Other Enrollment Objectives
»
Maintain ACE Program enrollment
»
Maintain transfer enrollment
»
Spring Admit Program
»
Meet Net Tuition Revenue targets
MiamiOH.edu
Attachment G
Overall Page 176 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 4
Attachment G
Admission Update
February 18, 2016
Application and Key Indicator History
Fall 2016
MiamiOH.edu
Attachment G
Overall Page 177 of 187
Attachment Page 3 of 4
Attachment G
Admission Update
February 18, 2016
Confirmations and Key Indicator History
Fall 2016
MiamiOH.edu
Attachment G
Overall Page 178 of 187
Attachment Page 4 of 4
Attachment H
Internal Audit Update
February 18, 2016
Reporting Update
Item 3
To:
Finance and Audit Committee
From:
Barbara K. Jena, Director of Internal Audit and Consulting Services
Subject: Internal Audit & Consulting Services - High Risk Reporting Update
Date:
January 29, 2016
Two of the four IT issues were closed and one was added. The IT Network Penetration Testing issue
was closed and replaced by the IT Vulnerability Management issue 1/2016. The End User Device
Inventory issue was also closed as further described on page 6. This leaves three current IT issues: two
from the 1/2015 Securing Confidential Information report that pertain to 1) IT security training and 2)
detecting and correcting exposed personally identifiable information; and the 1/2016 IT Vulnerability
Management issue. IT Services has made a business case (referred to as the "IT Security Controls
proposal") requesting funding to deal with all these issues.
The Registrar has been addressing the four issues that arose in the 7/2015 audit of academic record
updates as further described on pages 3-4.
Audit Issue Status
Open audit
issues
11/6/2015
Risk Level
High
8
Added
1
Closed
2
Open audit
issues
1/29/2016
7
Attachment
Cc: David K. Creamer
Attachment H
Overall Page 179 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 6
Attachment H
Line
Audit Name And Date
1 117.1 - Securing
Confidential
Information-Procedure
Review- 1/2015
Internal Audit Update
February 18, 2016
Open Internal Audit Issues
Date
Opened
Date
Due
Risk
Level
1/16/2015
4/30/2016 High
Division
IT Services
Recommendation
Responsible
Person
Management Response and Status
It is recommended that IT Services work with Human Resources
and Academic Personnel management to:
1. require that all new employees (including students) receive
appropriate training regarding Miami's information security
practices;
Joe Bazeley,
Assistant VP for
Security,
Compliance &
Risk
Management
Management concurs. Funding to address objectives one and two
has been requested in the IT Security Controls proposal. Objectives
three and four are being addressed in the MU Confidential Data
Guidelines and Technical Standards document, in draft as of 1/2016.
Implementation will take 2 months after funding is received. As of
1/25/16, no funding has been made available. Funding is expected
by 2/29/16. If that does not occur, the due date will need to be
pushed back.
2. require that all employees (including students) receive
appropriate updates on information security annually;
3. provide appropriate employees with clear documentation
detailing the approved mediums for communicating Personally
Identifiable Information; and,
4. establish procedures to hold employees who have received
training accountable by receiving appropriate disciplinary action
for violating Miami's information security practices.
2 117.2 - Securing
Confidential
Information- Procedure
Review- 1/2015
1/16/2015
6/30/2016 High
IT Services
It is recommended that IT Services management continue to
investigate and implement methods to detect and correct
exposed Personally Identifiable Information (PII). IT Services
should work with General Counsel to define PII.
Joe Bazeley,
Assistant VP for
Security,
Compliance &
Risk
Management
Management concurs. Funding to address this issue has been
requested in the IT Security Controls proposal. Implementation will
take 4 months after funding is received. As of 1/25/16, no funding
has been made available. Funding is expected by 2/29/16. If that
does not occur, the due date will need to be pushed back.
3 137.1 - IT Vulnerability
Management - 1/2016
1/9/2016
6/30/2016 High
IT Services
A process should be in place to detect, classify by risk level, and
timely remediate vulnerabilities to Miami-owned computing
devices. IACS recommends IT Services fully establish and maintain
a process to timely remediate vulnerabilities to Miami-owned
computing devices.
Joe Bazeley,
Assistant VP for
Security,
Compliance &
Risk
Management
Management concurred and made the following points:
1. The University's current security protocol, which relies on open
source tools to enable still largely manual processes, must be
upgraded to enterprise-capable technologies that automatically scan
and identify potential vulnerabilities. Along with technology, in order
to achieve sustainable capability improvements, the investment in
security must include on-going training for dedicated information
security practitioners.
2. Information Security will continue to partner with Finance in
advancing these critical investment requests through the appropriate
University processes. In the meantime, IT Services will continue to
leverage available capabilities (e.g. data center firewall, perimeter
firewall, intrusion prevention system, and other manual vulnerability
management practices) to mitigate the University's vulnerability risk.
3. For those technology owners who have chosen to retain
management responsibility, Vulnerability Management Standards
have been developed and shared with division-level technology
leaders (i.e. the Academic Directors of Technology).
4. The Vulnerability Management Standards will be fully
operationalized by the end of March 2016, and we should have
sufficient data to be audited for compliance against those standards
by the end of June 2016.
2
Attachment H
Overall Page 180 of 187
Attachment Page 2 of 6
Attachment H
Line
Audit Name And Date
4 104.1 - Audit of
Academic Record
Updates - 7/2015
Internal Audit Update
February 18, 2016
Open Internal Audit Issues
Date
Opened
Date
Due
Risk
Level
7/28/2015
2/29/2016 High
Division
Enrollment
Management
& Student
Success
Recommendation
Responsible
Person
Management Response and Status
IACS recommends that the Office of the University Registrar work
with the Office of Student Financial Assistance to revise current
procedures for determining withdrawal dates to align with federal
regulation 34 CFR § 668.22. The University Registrar should work
with the Office of the Provost to enforce the procedures as
needed.
David Sauter,
University
Registrar
Management concurred 7/2015 stating, "The Office of the University
Registrar concurs with the finding that current procedures are
insufficient to comply with the regulation to determine withdrawal
dates."
In a 10/2015 update, management stated, "(1) Photoroster (faculty
class list) provides information as to student (a) attending or (b) last
attended/never attended; (2) University Lean Initiative will provide
policy and process changes to require one online form, notification
and signatory workflow, and process improvements across the
University for all academic and medical withdrawals." The Lean
initiative is an IT project and there is no estimate of when it will be
placed into production.
Management reported 11/2015 that interim measures for
determining withdrawal dates in alignment with federal regulation
were put in place 9/10/2015 and that changes in other withdrawal
procedures resulted in a 60% drop in instances requiring follow-up
with faculty. IACS has a follow-up audit scheduled for 2/2016 to
determine if appropriate action has been taken to resolve this issue.
5 104.2 - Audit of
Academic Record
Updates - 7/2015
7/28/2015
8/31/2016 High
Enrollment
Management
& Student
Success
IACS recommends that appropriate policies and procedures be
established to document if a student began attendance in any
class. In order to obtain and maintain such documentation
consistently and timely, the Office of the University Registrar
should work with the Office of Student Financial Assistance and
the Office of the Provost in designing and enforcing the policies
and procedures.
David Sauter,
University
Registrar
Management concurred 7/2015 stating, "The Office of the University
Registrar concurs with the finding that current procedures are
insufficient to comply with the regulation to determine if a student
began attendance in a class."
In a 10/2015 update, management stated that policies and
procedures are under development that will document if a student
began attendance in any class. More specifically, plans are to
​discontinue student web class drops once classes begin in order to
record attendance information from faculty, using the photo roster
drop process. From 11/2015, the proposed new drop date policy and
class attendance policy has been under review by Academic Affairs
and issues arose with proposed implementation August 2016. In the
interim, management stated 11/2015 that manual mitigating
measures were in place contacting faculty to determine if a student
began attendance in a class and that changes in other withdrawal
procedures resulted in a 60% drop in instances requiring follow-up
with faculty.
IACS has a follow-up audit scheduled for 2/2016.
3
Attachment H
Overall Page 181 of 187
Attachment Page 3 of 6
Attachment H
Line
Audit Name And Date
6 104.3 - Audit of
Academic Record
Updates - 7/2015
Internal Audit Update
February 18, 2016
Open Internal Audit Issues
Date
Opened
Date
Due
Risk
Level
7/28/2015
4/30/2016 High
Division
Enrollment
Management
& Student
Success
Recommendation
Responsible
Person
Management Response and Status
IACS recommends the Office of the University Registrar:
David Sauter,
University
Registrar
Management concurred 7/2015 stating, "The Office of the University
Registrar concurs with the finding that current withdrawal policies
and procedures are insufficient and need to be standardized and
improved. As stated in Management Response #1, a Lean
initiative...will automate and standardize the University withdrawal
process."
a. Standardize and improve withdrawal policies and procedures
as follows:
i. Create a standardized withdrawal form for all campuses and
withdrawal scenarios. The form should include information such
as reason for withdrawal, last date of attendance or never
attended information, registrar's date of receipt, processor and
date posted. This form should be completed by registrar staff if
not provided otherwise and supporting documentation attached.
In a 10/2015 update, management reported:
a.i. and a.ii. Per 104.1, the University LEAN project will include a
standardized on-line form, stored electronically for appropriate
University access. The Lean initiative is an IT project and there is no
estimate of when it will be placed into production.
ii. Retain all withdrawal documents in a central location either
electronically or in paper form.
a.iii. Processing will occur within a timeframe established during the
LEAN project and in accordance with federal regulations. Based on
the current draft LEAN project, the process will require a time length
appropriate to secure various signatures and, last dates of
attendance, and notifications. This is under discussion by the LEAN
project participants as they acknowledge the various types of
withdrawals across the University.
iii. Process withdrawal requests in the timeframe required by
departmental procedures.
b. Define Withdrawal and Enrollment Status codes and their use
to improve input accuracy and consistency.
c. Retrain employees who process withdrawals, including the
Office of Student Financial Assistance and Global Initiatives, to
gain proficiency in the established policies and procedures, and to
minimize inaccurate input, incomplete documentation and nonexecution of required procedures.
b. Banner codes have been updated and are stored in the
appropriate Banner table.
c. Three senior level managers will be re-trained, and each in turn will
re-train her/his staff.
Management stated 1/2016 that implementation of manual
improvements is under consideration, given the delay in the
automated solution.
7 104.4 - Audit of
Academic Record
Updates - 7/2015
7/28/2015
4/30/2016 High
Enrollment
Management
& Student
Success
IACS recommends the Office of the University Registrar continue
working with IT Services to automate the grade change process.
The automated process should be used by all campuses and
include these features:
a. email confirmations to the student and the instructor of record
b. workflow approvals
c. required fields such as the reason for the change
d. capability to attach supporting documentation if applicable
e. audit trail data such as registrar's date of receipt, processor
and date posted
f. trend analysis to detect possible fraud
David Sauter,
University
Registrar
Management concurred 7/2015 stating, "The Office of the University
Registrar concurs with the finding that the process of automating
grade changes continues until completed and that it be used across
the University. This automation has been under development and
with minor adjustments will be put into production. The automated
process includes workflow approvals, fields to indicate reason(s) for
the change, Google document capability, and audit trail data. The
process concludes by sending both the instructor and the student email notification that the grade has been changed for a class. Trend
analysis can be reviewed via Business Intelligence model under
development, either academic-unit-specific (e.g., department,
individual faculty member) or administrative offices (e.g., Provost).
Full compliance is anticipated early Fall 2015."
In a 1/2016 update, management reported that EMSS submitted the
grade change automation project request to IT Services on
10/26/2015. It is on the EMSS priority list and awaits assignment of
IT resources. As an alternative, internal EMSS resources may be used.
4
Attachment H
Overall Page 182 of 187
Attachment Page 4 of 6
Attachment H
Line
1
Audit Name And Date
95.1 - Network
Penetration Testing 3/2014
Internal Audit Update
February 18, 2016
Closed Internal Audit Issues
Date
Opened
3/20/2014
Date Closed
Risk
Level
1/9/2016 High
Division
IT Services
Recommendation
Responsible
Person
IACS outsourced a network vulnerability assessment and
penetration test to CBTS. The goal of the assessment was to
identify gaps in controls and defenses that could allow an
attacker to compromise Miami University's systems, expose
sensitive data, and cause damage to the University. One high
level recommendation was to require that all servers be
managed by IT Services and updates pushed from a central
location. Vulnerabilities were categorized as high, medium, or
low and specific recommendations made to address the
identified risks.
Joe Bazeley,
Assistant VP for
Security,
Compliance &
Risk
Management
Management Response and Status
Management chose not to implement CBTS's high level
recommendation to centralize servers, choosing instead a
decentralized approach working with the Academic Directors of
Technology across campus. As of September 2015, all 85 servers with
high or critical vulnerabilities identified by CBTS (out of 900 sampled)
had been resolved. IT Services has been scanning the entire network
of Miami-owned computing devices and efforts have been directed
towards addressing newly detected high and critical vulnerabilities. As
such, those categorized as medium by CBTS were not addressed.
Given that all the critical or high risk issues raised by CBTS appear
resolved, IACS closed this audit issue (95.1) and issued a new audit
recommendation (137.1) to address management of newly detected
vulnerabilities to Miami-owned computing devices.
5
Attachment H
Overall Page 183 of 187
Attachment Page 5 of 6
Attachment H
Line
Audit Name And Date
2
94.1 - End User Device
Inventory 4/2014
Internal Audit Update
February 18, 2016
Closed Internal Audit Issues
Date
Opened
6/20/2128
Date Closed
Risk
Level
1/24/2132 High
Division
IT Services
Recommendation
Responsible
Person
It is recommended that IT Services explore tracking all University- J. Peter Natale,
owned end user devices. Tracking these devices could reduce or Vice President
avoid cost by enabling IT Services to:
for Information
Technology &
1. reduce the risk of copyright infringement as a result of a
CIO; Phyllis
negative software licensing audit;
Callahan,
2. reduce the risk that devices and any stored data are lost or
Provost & Exec.
stolen with employee turnover;
VP for Academic
3. increase the efficiency gained through automation of
Affairs
deployment;
4. improve scheduling for replacement devices; and
5. provide management with the data needed to establish a
control limiting the number of devices per employee, if
management chose to implement such a control.
At their 6/2014 Finance and Audit Committee meeting, the Board
directed IT Services and Academic Affairs to implement internal
control of University-owned end user devices.
Management Response and Status
IACS closed this comment 1/14/2016, given that IT Services has
researched options for tracking all University-owned end user devices
as recommended by IACS. IT Services plans to address the first two
objectives (1. reduce the risk of copyright infringement as a result of a
negative software licensing audit; and 2. reduce the risk that devices
and any stored data are lost or stolen with employee turnover) by rescoping the IT Security Controls proposal. The IT Security Controls
proposal is also management's planned approach for addressing three
other open audit issues (117.1 and 117.2) regarding Securing
Confidential Information and (137.1) regarding IT Vulnerability
Management. Below is the IT Services management response to this
end-user device issue (94.1):
"IT Services was tasked with exploring potential options and
alternatives for addressing these issues. As a part of that exploration,
Management identified a strong opportunity for alignment between
the objectives stated above and the scope of a similar audit finding
targeting IT Security Controls. In the Management Response to that
finding, which is documented in the January 9th IACS Report entitled IT
Vulnerability Management, IT Services advanced a proposal which
details the tools, training, and staffing required to establish and
maintain a robust, sustainable set of security controls for the
University; one which would provide better visibility, oversight, and
management for the tens of thousands of devices that operate within
the University’s internal computing environments on a daily basis,
along with the operating systems, services, and applications they
contain. It is important to note that the scope of this proposal includes
all University-owned data sources, any University-owned end user
device that connects to our network, and the University-owned
services and devices that synchronize data with end user computing
devices. We must acknowledge that in the past few years data has
gained the ability to easily move from device to device, so we need to
focus our protective efforts on identifying and protecting data sources
which will then allow us to control which end user devices have access
to sensitive data and therefore need additional protection.
Further exploration revealed that in addition to scanning for
vulnerabilities, the proposed security technology could be used to scan
for other types of artifacts, including the presence of specific software
and various forms of personally identifiable information, or PII.
Through the advancement of the IT Security Controls proposal,
Management believes that the first two objectives of the end-user
device recommendation can be achieved. And by re-scoping the first
two objectives of the IACS recommendation within the IT Security
Controls proposal, Management further believes that objectives 3 and
4 can be met through individual Lean projects specifically targeting
process improvements within our existing Miami Buyway portal,
including both the deployment of new technology and the
decommissioning of legacy equipment.
It is therefore Management's recommendation is to re-scope the two
audit findings as described above, which we believe will yield the
desired outcomes in a sustainable manner at a substantially lower
cost."
6
Attachment H
Overall Page 184 of 187
Attachment Page 6 of 6
Attachment I
Lean Update
Reporting Update
Item 4 Lean Project Update
as of 1/4/2016
Completed Projects MU‐Lean Project Status Totals
Division
Finance and Business Services
Procurement Realized*
President+Intercollegiate Athletics
Advancement
Enrollment
Information Technology Services
Provost (including regionals)
Lean Project Total ‐ MU
February 18, 2016
Active
164
Completed
667
Future
50
Total
881
1
3
11
5
9
193
1
8
24
14
7
721
0
1
0
1
0
52
2
12
35
20
16
966
Cost Avoidance Cost Reduction $11,269,646
$5,080,331
$8,352,993
$3,239,808
$2,540
$150,000
$37,000
$213,790
$329,878
$0
$433,113
$0
$2,338,367
$0
$22,763,537
$8,683,929
Revenue Generated
$4,436,282
$906,727
$1,015
$100,000
$37,705
$4,180
$0
$5,485,909
Total
$20,786,259
$12,499,528
$153,555
$350,790
$367,583
$437,293
$2,338,367
$36,933,375
*Procurement Realized through September 30, 2015. Procurement increment reported quarterly‐ July 2015 through September 2015. MU‐Lean Project Changes since 9‐1‐15 report
Division
Finance and Business Services*
Procurement Realized*
President+Intercollegiate Athletics
Advancement
Enrollment
Information Technology Services
Provost (including regionals)
Lean Project Total ‐ MU
Attachment I
Newly Completed Projects since 9‐1‐15 report
Newly Active
Newly Completed
Newly Future
New Total
3
36
‐1
38
0
0
0
‐2
‐2
‐1
0
0
0
2
3
41
0
0
0
0
0
‐1
0
0
0
0
1
39
New New Cost Avoidance Cost Reduction $177,953
$93,186
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,000
$0
$2,336,144
$0
$2,526,097
$93,186
Overall Page 185 of 187
New Revenue Generated
$234,570
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$234,570
New Total
$505,709
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,000
$2,336,144
$2,853,853
Attachment Page 1 of 1
Attachment J
GASB 68 Comparison
February 18, 2016
Miami University
Statements of Net Position
June 30, 2015 and 2014
Miami University
2015 GASB 68
2015 Pre-GASB 68
2015
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents (includes bond
proceeds of $35.4 million)
Investments
Accounts, pledges and notes receivable, net
Inventories
Prepaid expenses and deferred charges
Total current assets
$
Noncurrent Assets
Restricted cash and cash equivalents
Investments
Pledges and notes receivable, net
Net Pension Asset
Nondepreciable capital assets
Depreciable capital assets, net
Total noncurrent assets
Total assets
Deferred Outflows of Resources
Deferred loss on refunding
Deferred outflow - actuarial changes
Deferred outflow - investment gains/losses
Deferred outflow - changes in proportionate share
Deferred outflow - contribution subs.to msmt date
Total Deferred Outflows of Resources
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Accounts payable
Accrued salaries and wages
Accrued compensated absences
Unearned revenue
Deposits
Long-term debt - current portion
Other current liabilities
Total current liabilities
Noncurrent Liabilities
Accrued compensated absences
Bonds payable
Capital leases payable
Federal Perkins loan program
Net Pension Liability
Other noncurrent liabilities
Total noncurrent liabilities
Total liabilities
$
174,444,558
11,385,011
250,519
132,113,966
916,094,419
1,234,288,473
$ 1,984,151,052
$
$
214,575
1,683,515
4,277,306
783
13,627,483
19,803,662
35,351,593
15,501,467
1,492,386
10,912,157
10,721,326
27,358,064
101,336,993
17,061,788
628,373,926
2,403,000
6,552,992
254,748,534
909,140,240
$ 1,010,477,233
-
$
250,519
250,519
$
250,519
$
1,683,515
4,277,306
783
13,627,483
19,589,087
$
$
$
870,615
1,479,732
32,351,826
7,414,463
42,116,636
$
1,479,732
32,351,826
7,414,463
41,246,021
$
564,091,473
$
$
94,117,310
82,437,918
210,714,144
951,360,845
(276,154,950)
$ (276,154,950)
-
100,265,940
591,269,861
50,450,366
3,300,278
4,576,134
749,862,579
$
222,217,793
486,452,808
45,083,632
4,142,695
4,540,143
762,437,071
174,444,558
11,385,011
132,113,966
916,094,419
1,234,037,954
122,644,547
821,001,420
1,133,028,411
$
1,983,900,533
$ 1,895,465,482
277,378
$
214,575
214,575
-
254,748,534
254,748,534
254,748,534
Deferred Inflows of Resources
Deferred gains on refunding
Deferred inflow - actuarial changes
Deferred inflow - investment gains/losses
Deferred inflow - changes in proportionate share
Net Position
Investment in capital assets
Restricted:
Nonexpendable
Expendable
Unrestricted
Total net position
100,265,940
591,269,861
50,450,366
3,300,278
4,576,134
749,862,579
2014
35,351,593
15,501,467
1,492,386
10,912,157
10,721,326
27,358,064
101,336,993
179,581,020
9,801,424
$
277,378
$
34,278,138
14,457,070
1,473,335
7,769,989
12,513,896
23,443,064
93,935,492
$
17,061,788
628,373,926
2,403,000
6,552,992
654,391,706
755,728,699
$
680,251,041
774,186,533
$
870,615
870,615
$
967,350
$
564,091,473
$
529,298,910
$
$
94,117,310
82,437,918
486,869,094
1,227,515,795
$
15,640,527
655,613,190
2,521,800
6,475,524
97,225,874
70,578,905
423,485,288
$ 1,120,588,977
FY14 Net Position is shown prior to restatement
Attachment J
Overall Page 186 of 187
Attachment Page 1 of 2
Reporting
Update Item 5
Attachment J
GASB 68 Comparison
February 18, 2016
Miami University
Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position
Years Ended June 30, 2015 and 2014
2015
Operating Revenues
Tuition, fees, and other student charges
Less allowance for student scholarships
Net tuition, fees, and other student charges
$ 416,605,293
(79,552,497)
337,052,796
-
-
145,843,355
(5,451,244)
140,392,111
137,195,505
(5,121,827)
132,073,678
-
11,520,909
1,888,479
2,425,950
727,481
204,709
10,241,275
504,453,710
13,577,688
2,103,301
3,220,402
480,090
(371,758)
9,981,493
476,260,658
179,540,157
13,942,954
3,635,409
55,659,794
23,691,902
45,010,147
33,292,280
19,285,195
108,721,544
43,292,502
3,942,247
530,014,131
(25,560,421)
168,592,629
14,226,594
2,658,744
56,332,879
21,638,029
43,819,367
33,034,431
17,975,846
104,987,844
41,000,538
6,470,407
510,737,308
(34,476,650)
69,284,263
28,866,651
20,684,821
69,284,263
28,866,651
20,684,821
72,399,116
21,323,618
23,094,957
10,680,607
1,151,262
(28,324,275)
2,638,482
104,981,811
10,680,607
1,151,262
(28,324,275)
2,638,482
104,981,811
42,236,848
1,250,335
(21,326,076)
3,951,074
142,929,872
79,421,390
108,453,222
14,558,787
12,115,252
831,390
27,505,429
15,719,213
11,793,811
593,902
28,106,926
106,926,819
136,560,148
1,120,588,977
984,028,829
1,227,515,796
$ 1,120,588,977
145,843,355
(5,451,244)
140,392,111
Federal contracts
Gifts
Sales and services of educational activities
Private contracts
State contracts
Local contracts
Other
Total operating revenues
11,520,909
1,888,479
2,425,950
727,481
204,709
10,241,275
504,453,710
178,334,980
13,789,283
3,607,350
54,723,216
23,217,533
44,214,921
32,876,467
19,283,546
107,586,374
43,292,502
3,942,247
524,868,419
(20,414,709)
Non-Operating Revenues (Expenses)
State appropriations
Gifts, including those from the University Foundation
Federal grants
Net investment income, net of investment expense of
$2,407,107 for the University and $3,317,961 for the Foundation in FY
State grants
Interest on debt
Payments to Miami University
Other non-operating revenues
Net non-operating revenues (expenses)
Income before other revenues, expenses,
and gains or losses
Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains or Losses
State capital appropriation
Capital grants and gifts
Additions to permanent endowments
Total other revenues, expenses, gains, or losses
Change in net position
Total net position at beginning of year
Total net position at end of year
Attachment J
84,567,102
14,558,787
12,115,252
831,390
27,505,429
112,072,531
$
2014
416,605,293
(79,552,497)
337,052,796
Sales and services of auxiliary enterprises
Less allowance for student scholarships
Net sales and services of auxiliary enterprises
Operating Expenses
Education and General
Instruction and departmental research
Separately budgeted research
Public service
Academic support
Student services
Institutional support
Operation and maintenance of plant
Scholarships and fellowships
Auxiliary enterprises
Depreciation
Other
Total operating expenses
Net operating (loss) income
Miami University
2015 GASB 68 2015 Pre-GASB 68
(1,205,177)
(153,671)
(28,059)
(936,578)
(474,369)
(795,226)
(415,813)
(1,649)
(1,135,170)
(5,145,712)
5,145,712
-
5,145,712
5,145,712
839,288,314
(281,300,662)
$ 951,360,845
$ (276,154,950)
Overall Page 187 of 187
$
$
389,940,924
(74,745,160)
315,195,764
Attachment Page 2 of 2
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement