of x

2009 11 18 Jbc Higher Ed Briefing

Published on 2 weeks ago | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 0 | Comments: 0

Comments

Content

 

COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

FY 2010-11 STAFF BUDGET BRIEFING DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION

JBC Working Document - Subject to Change Staff Recommendation Does Not Represent Committee Decision

Prepared By: Eric Kurtz, JBC Staff  November 18, 2009

For Further Information Contact: Joint Budget Committee Staff  200 E. 14th Avenue, 3rd Floor  Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 866-2061 TDD: (303) 866-3472

 

FY 2010-11 BUDGET BRIEFING STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION Table of Contents

Graphic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Department Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Decision It I tems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 Overview of Numbers Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Issues: Federal funding for higher education from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Closing co colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 "Privatizing" ssttate in institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Proportional reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Eliminating financial aid for private institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendices: A - Numbers Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 36 6 B - Summ Summar ary y of Maj ajor or Leg egis isla lati tion on from rom 2009 2009 Legis egisla lati tive ve Ses Sessio ion n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 C - Upd pdaate on Long Bill Footnote otes and Requ queests for Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 D - Executive Summary of the Five-year Statutory Evaluation of the College Opportunity Fund Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

 

FY 2009-10 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education GRAPHIC OVERVIEW

Department's Share of Statewide General Fund

Department Funding Sources

21.0%

6.1%

8.8%

23.7%

49.2% Department of Higher Education General Fund Cash Funds

Statewide General Fund

Reappropriated Federal Funds Funds

Budget History

FTE History

(Millions of Dollars) 21,500

3,000

21,000

20,891.7

20,954.9

20,951.9

09-10 Approp

09-10 Request

2,500

20,500

2,000

1,500

20,000

1,000

19,500 19,256.4

500

19,000

0

18,500

Tot al

GF

CF

RF/ CFE

FF

FY 2007-08 Actual

18,000

FY 2008-09 Actual

07-08 Actual

FY 2009-10 Appropriation

08-09 Actual

FY 2010-11 Request

Unless otherwise noted, all charts are based on the FY 2008-09 appropriation.

 18-Nov-09

1

HED-brf

 

 

Distribution of General Fund by Division

Other 

Financial Aid

College Opportunity Fund Program

Distribution of Total Funds by Division

Financial Aid Historical Society Other 

College Opportunity Fund Program

Governing Boards Occupational Education

18-Nov-09

2

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW Key Responsibilities T T T T T

Provides higher education opportunities for Colorado residents through 26 state-operated campuses, two local district junior colleges, and four area vocational schools. Administers the College Opportunity Fund Program that provides stipends to students for  undergraduate education.  Negotiates fee-for-service fee-for-service contracts with institutions institutions to provide graduate, professional, specialized, rural, and other education programs. Distributes state financial assistance for students to attend public, private, or proprietary schools. Through the State Historical Society, collects, preserves, exhibits and interprets items and  properties of historical significance. significance.

Factors Driving the Budget

The Department of Higher Education accounts for 8.8 percent of state General Fund appropriations in FY 2009-10, making it the fifth largest General Fund appropriation behind the Department of  Education, Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Department of Human Services, and Department of Corrections. Corrections. The relative rank rank of Higher Education funding may be misleading,  because the FY 2009-10 appropriation app ropriation for Higher Education includes $150 million federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In prior years, years, Higher Education was the third largest General Fund appropriation, although for at least the last 20 years the share of state General Fund dedicated to higher education has trended downward from 20.3 percent in FY 1989-90. Higher  Education has by far the largest number of state employees, with 20,948 appropriated full-timeequivalent (FTE) positions in FY 2009-10. The Colorado Commission on Higher Education (Commission) oversees the higher education delivery system. system. Each state-operated institution institution also reports to a governing board. The members of  the Commission and of the governing boards are appointed by the Governor, except ex cept at the University of Colorado, where they are elected. Through statutes, statutes, the General Assembly has delegated significantt budgetary significan budgetary control control to the governing boards. Within broad parameters the governing boards are allowed to determine how to spend the revenue they earn, and they can retain unspent funds at the end of each fiscal year for future initiatives. The 26 state-operated institutions of higher education (institutions) serve a head-count of roughly 210,000 students from Colorado per year. year. The following table shows the number of resident full-time-equivalent (FTE) students at each institution. It also shows the two independent local district junior colleges that receive state General Fund in addition to local tax revenue. 18-Nov-09

3

HED-brf

 

 

Resident Students by Institution and Governing Board — FY 2008-09 Resident Student FTE

Public Institutions University of Colorado:

35, 691

25. 6%

  CU - Boulder

17, 744

12.7%

  CU - Colorado Springs

6, 118

4. 4%

  CU - Denver

8, 734

6. 3%

  CU - Health Sciences Center

3,095

2. 2%

Colorado State University System:

21, 303

15. 3%

  CSU - Fort Collins

17,884

12.8%

  CSU - Pueblo

3, 419

2. 5%

Fort Lewis College

2, 426

1. 7%

Colorado School of Mines

3, 144

2. 3%

University of Northern Colorado

8, 658

6. 2%

Adams State College

1, 646

1. 2%

Mesa State College

4, 541

3. 3%

15, 621

11. 2%

1, 453

1. 0%

44, 920

32. 2%

4, 370

3. 1%

686

0. 5%

  CC of Aurora

3, 338

2.4%

  CC of Denver

4, 933

3. 5%

  Front Range CC

9, 945

7. 1%

  Lamar CC

674

0. 5%

  Morgan CC

999

0. 7%

  Northeastern Junior College

1, 343

1. 0%

  Otero Junior College   Pikes Peak CC

1, 123 7, 624

0. 8% 5.5%

  Pueblo CC

3, 761

2.7%

  Red Rocks CC

4, 841

3. 5%

  Trinidad State Junior College

1, 283

0.9%

Local District Junior Colleges:

5, 455

3. 9%

  Aims CC

3, 031

2. 2%

  Colorado Mountain College

2, 143

1. 5%

139, 403

100. 0%

Metropolitan State College of Denver Western State College Community College System:

  Arapahoe CC   Northwestern CC

Total Resident Student FTE

18-Nov-09

Percent of Total

4

HED-brf

 

 

Another significant part of the department's duties is to regulate the state's occupational education  programs. The Community College System administers the Colorado Vocational Act, which  provides resources for high school technical education, the federal Perkins program, and economic development funds to help companies provide industry-specific industry-specific training. The Community College System also has responsibility for the four Area Vocational Schools (Emily Griffith Opportunity School, T.H. Pickens Technical Center, Delta-Montrose Vocational Technical Center, and San Sa n Juan Basin Area Vocational School).

Individual versus public responsibility for higher education A key factor driving the budget for the Department of Higher Education is how much policy makers view paying for higher education as an individual versus public responsibility. Higher education  benefits individuals by increasing their earning potential and exposing them to cultural and social experiences that may improve improve their quality of life, but it also also has a public benefit. An educated  populous may attract businesses and cultural resources resources to the community, community, and it is associated with higher wages, and lower lower unemployment and dependence on public resources. Some studies have linked it with better physical health and a greater degree of civic involvement.

Higher education performance expectations Hand in hand with decisions about the degree of individual versus public funding for higher  education, legislators must determine what they expect from public higher education institutions in exchange for the General Fund support. support. Some examples of current statut statutory ory expectations include the minimum percentage of in-state students relative to out-of-state students that an institution must accept, and how selective each institution may be with admissions criteria.

Another type of performance performance criteria is the tuition and fee rates charged by the institutions. Statutes state that the General Assembly retains the ability to approve tuition spending authority for the governing boards (Section (Section 23-5-129 (10), C.R.S.). Furthermore, statutes require that the General Assembly annually note the tuition increases it uses to derive the total spending authority for each governing board in a footnote to the Long Bill (Section 23-18-202 (3) (b), C.R.S.). At times the legislature has attempted to use performance criteria such as time to graduation or  graduation rates as a basis for determining the distribution of funding and/or the total level of  funding for higher education. Currently, higher education institutions report this type type of data as part of performance contracts with the Colorado Commission on Higher Education and, while it may influence legislative funding decisions, it is not overtly part of the General Fund distribution distribution formula.

18-Nov-09

5

HED-brf

 

 

Impact of the statewide budget outlook  During the last economic downturn, reductions to higher education represented a significant portion of the actions by the General Assembly Assembly to adjust the budget to available revenues. This was true not only in Colorado, but in most states nationwide, and it is a pattern pattern seen in prior years as well. The table below compares General Fund appropriations in FY 2000-01 with FY 2004-05. General Fund Appropriations for Major Departments During the Most Recent Recession (in millions) Departm tmeent

FY 2000-0 -01 1 FY 2004-05 Di Diff ffeerence Percent

Health Care

$1,015.0

$1, 280. 8

$265. 8

26 26.2%

Education

$2,143.5

$2,514.6

$371. 1

17.3%

Corrections

$423. 8

$496.8

$73.0

17.2%

Judicial

$206. 5

$ $2 219. 0

$1 $ 12.5

6.1%

Human Services

$498. 4

$484.9

( $13. 5)

-2.7%

Higher Education

$747.6

$ 588. 0

($159.6)

-21.3%

All Other

$366. 3

$256. 8

($109.5)

-29.9%

In this same time frame tuition charges ch arges increased significantly, to some degree mitigating the impact of the General Fund reductions reductions on the operating revenue of the higher education institutions. The increases in tuition transferred more of the burden for funding higher education from state tax revenues to students. The following chart illustrates how tuition supplements General Fund revenues for the higher  education institutions, and perhaps provides a portion of the explanation for why higher education has historically been such a big part pa rt of budget balancing efforts in Colorado and other states during recessions. It also illustrates illustrates how the higher education institutions have faired in terms of General Fund appropriations and tuition spending authority authority in the y years ears following a recession. However, it should be noted that the chart does not include adjustments for changes in the number of students served, or inflationary factors impacting the cost of providing services. Also, it makes no  judgements about whether resources were being used optimally prior to the recession. Thus, legislators should be cautious about drawing conclusions from the chart about the adequacy of  General Fund and tuition increases during during and following the recession. That is a complicated and subjective analysis beyond the scope of this overview.

18-Nov-09

6

HED-brf

 

 

Higher Education Institutions General Fund + Tuition Revenue $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200

Nonresident Tuition

Revenue $1,000 in Millions

$800

Resident Tuition Federal ARRA

$600 $400

General Fund

$200 $0 1 9 9 9- 0 0

2 0 0 1 -0 2

2 00 3 - 04

2 005-06

2 0 0 7- 0 8

2 0 0 9- 1 0

Fiscal Year

College Opportunity Fund Program Colorado uses a method of distributing higher education funding that is unique from other states. Instead of appropriating General Fund directly to the institutions for their day-to-day operations, the General Assembly appropriates money into into a fund that provides stipends to eligible undergraduate students. In addition, the General Assembly appropriates money for differences in tthe he cost of   programs at each institution. This second appropriation appropriation for cost differentials differentials gets to the institutions through what are called fee-for-service contracts between the Commission and the governing boards.

It may be helpful for legislators to focus on the sum of stipends and fee-for-service contracts, rather  than each separately. In practice, once stipends and fee-for-s fee-for-service ervice contracts are paid to a higher  education institution the institution institution makes no distinction between them. The sum of stipends and fee-for-service contracts is the state General Fund support provided to each institution for their  operations.

18-Nov-09

7

HED-brf

 

 

Enterprise Status The bill that authorized stipends and fee-for-service contracts (S.B. 04-189) also provided a mechanism for designating qualifying state higher education institutions as enterprises under  TABOR. Revenue, such as tuition, that that is generated by enterprises is exempt from the limits imposed by TABOR and has no impact on the refund. To achieve enterprise status under TABOR, a program must: (1) be a government-owned business; (2) have authority to to issue revenue bonds; and (3) receive less than 10 percent of annual revenue from state state and local grants. Stipends and feefor-service contracts are defined in statute as different from from a state grant. All of the institutions have  been designated as TABOR enterprises. Tuition As described above, statutes require the General Assembly to annually note the tuition increases it uses to derive the total spending authority for each governing board in a footnote to the Long Bill (Section 23-18-202 (3) (b), C.R.S.). Tuition rates are a central cons consideration ideration in discussions discussions about access and affordability. affordability. Total projected tuition tuition revenue for the governing boards influences legislative decisions about how much General Fund to appropriate for stipends and fee-for-service contracts. The graph below charts changes in tuition rates at selected institutions over the last 12 years.

Tuition Rates Resident, Undergraduate, Undergraduate, Full-time $12,000 Mines, $10,590 $10,000

$8,000

Dollars

CU-Boulder, $6,446

$6,000

CSU, $4,822 $4,000

State College Avg., $3,465 Community Colleges, $2,119

$2,000

$FY 1996996-97 97 FY 19 1998 98-9 -99 9 FY 20 200 000-0 01 FY 20 2002 02-0 -03 3 FY 20 200 044-05 05 FY 20 2006 06-0 -07 7 FY 20 2008 08--09 Fiscal Year

18-Nov-09

8

HED-brf

 

 

Enrollment Enrollment is both a workload and performance measure for the campuses, and it affects tuition revenue.. For a few schools, revenue schools, nonresident enrollment enrollment is important in terms of total revenue, since nonresident tuition helps subsidize resident resident education. Enrollment tends to be counter-cy counter-cyclical. clical. In other words, when the economy slows, higher education enrollment increases. The following chart reports student FTE FTE over the last 12 years. Thirty credit hours in a year year equals one full-timeequivalent student.

Student FTE Enrollment E nrollment 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000

100,000 Nonresident 80,000

Other Resident Stipend-eligible Resident

60,000 40,000 20,000 0 F Y 96 - 9 7

F Y 9 8- 9 9

F Y 0 0- 0 1

FY 02-03

FY 04-05

FY 06-07

F Y 0 8 - 09

Fiscal Year

Financial Aid Of the General Fund appropriation for higher education in FY 2009-10, $103.9 million (16.0  percent) is for financial aid. The majority of the money goes for need based aid and wo work rk study. There are also a number of smaller, special purpose financial aid programs. programs. Financial aid funds are appropriated to the Commission and then allocated to the institutions based on formulas that consider financial need at the schools, total student eenrollment, nrollment, and program eligibility criteria.

18-Nov-09

9

HED-brf

 

 

The following table shows General Fund appropriations a ppropriations for financial aid as a percentage of resident tuition revenues over time. time. The table provides an indication of the buying power of financial aid appropriations. However, it should be noted that financial aid is used for more than paying tuition. tuition. It also helps pay for expenses related to room, board, transportation, student fees, and learning materials. Also, the table does not take into account changes in the economic circumstances circumstances of the overall student population, including the number n umber of students with financial need and the amount of  need for those students.

Buying Power of State Financial Aid Programs General Fund for Financial Financial Aid As a Percentage Per centage of Resident T Tuitio uition n Revenue 30.0%

25.0%

20.0% State Financial Aid Progra Programs ms

Percent of  Resident 15.0% Tuition Revenue

Other Work Study Merit

10.0%

Need

5.0%

0.0% 19 9 9 - 0 0

2 00 1 - 02

2003-04

2 00 5 - 06

2 00 7 - 0 8

2009-10

Fiscal Year

The federal government also provides a significant amount of financial aid for students. The most recent year of data shows federal Pell Grants to the neediest ne ediest students attending schools in Colorado (both public and private) totaled $156.1 million million in FY 2007-08. Federal guaranteed loan programs  provided another $988.4 million for students and their parents. The federal government also  provides tax credits and deductions for tuition. Another source of funding for financial aid is money set aside by the institutions. Some of the money comes from fund raising, but the majority comes from the operating budgets of the schools. There is significant variation in the amount of money available by institution based on differences

18-Nov-09

10

HED-brf

 

 

in school policies and fund raising. The Commission reports the total institutional institutional financial aid available in the state in FY 2007-08 was $288.2 million.

18-Nov-09

11

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education DECISION ITEM PRIORITY LIST Decision Item

GF

1 Governor  C  CC CHE

CF

0 0

RF

0 0

0 0

FF

Total

FTE

(55,981,956) 0

(55,981,956) 0

0. 0 0. 0

Allocations for the College Opportunity Fund and State Fiscal Stabilization Funds Governing Boards.  The Governor's request reflects a reduction of $56.0 million federal funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the higher education institutions, which in addition to the Governing Boards includes the Local Local District Junior Colleges and the Area Vocational Schools. The request is consistent with early supplemental requests submitted in August August and October to spend more of the available ARRA money in FY 2009-10, leaving less for FY 2010-11. The distribution of the reduction by institution is in proportion to increases in state funding provided in FY 2007-08 and FY 2006-07.

CCHE  requests   requests that the combined state and ARRA ARRA funding remain remain unchanged. When CCHE voted on its  budget recommendation, recommendation, the Gover Governor nor had not ye yett submitted his October plan to use the ARRA money money in FY 2009-10. To accomplish CCHE's goal goal would require either either rejecting the Governor's October plan for the ARRA funds, or adding $56.0 $56.0 million General Fund in FY 2010-11. As of this publication, CCHE has not met to consider the Governor's October plan, and so staff is not sure if that information would influence CCHE's request. Statutory authority: Sections 23-18-201 and 202 (2) (c); and 23-5-129 (5) (a), C.R.S.

Adams State College Mesa State College Metro State College Western State College Colorado State University System Fort Lewis College University of Colorado System

FY 2009-10 GF+ARRA $14,608,449 24, 005, 607 49, 713, 412 12, 173, 017 146, 891, 512 12,736,330 209,099,449

Proposed Reduction $1,045,784 1, 730, 136 5, 269, 753 868,516 13, 704, 684 1,134,928 14,992,069

Percent Reduction 7.2% 7. 2% 10. 6% 7.1% 9. 3% 8. 9% 7.2%

Colorado School of Mines University of Northern Colorado Community College System Subtotal - Governing Boards Area Vocational Schools Local District Junior Colleges TOTAL

23,237,386 44,086,311 143, 787, 197 $680,338,670 15, 890, 257 9,736,132 $705, 965, 059

1,598,103 3,115,667 10, 693, 377 $54,153,017 1, 134, 067 694,872 $55,981,956

6.9% 7.1% 7. 4% 8. 0% 7. 1% 7. 1% 7. 9%

18-Nov-09

12

HED-brf

 

 

Decision Item

GF

CF

RF

FF

Total

FTE

2 Governor

0

81, 200, 442

0

0

81, 200, 442

0. 0

 C  CC CHE

0

82, 114, 654

0

0

82,114,654

0. 0

Tuition and Fee Spending Authority Governing Boards.  Both the Governor and CCHE   request tuition spending authority for 9.0 percent increases in resident undergraduate rates. Except at Fort Lewis College (see below), the dollar amounts amounts requested assume graduate tuition will increase at the same rate as undergraduate tuition, and nonresident tuition will increase 5.0 percent, but the requests propose that graduate and nonresident tuition not be li limited mited  by the legislature. For Fort Lewis Lewis College the Governor, but not CCHE , proposes that nonresident tuition be held constant, due to the requirement that the state reimburse Fort Lewis for tuition for qualified Native Americans. Fort Lewis estimates the cost of w waiving aiving tuition for qualified Native Americans in FY 2009-10 as $10.7 million, and 96 percent of this is attributable to nonresidents. Increasing non nonresident resident rates at Fort Lewis would increase the General Fund required the next year for tuition waivers for Native Americans. Statutory authority: Sections 23-5-129 (10); 23-1-104 (1) (a) (I); and 23-18-202 (3) (b), C.R.S.

3 Governor

0

0

0

0

0

0. 0

 C  CC CHE

0

0

0

0

0

0. 0

Fort Lewis College Native American Tuition Waivers Financial Aid.   The Governor   proposes  proposes transferring Fund the Work Studywaivers line item to the Native American Students/Fort Lewis College$1,103,094 l ine item toGeneral line reimburse thefrom college for tuition to qualifying Native American students pursuant to the grant from the federal government that provided the land for the institution and Section 23-52-105 (1) (b), C.R.S. CCHE's request did not specifically account for the increase in costs for Native American tuition waivers, but did request that overall financial aid programs be maintained at the FY 2009-10 funding level. Statutory authority: Section 23-52-105 (1) (b), C.R.S.

 NP - Transfer from K-12

0

0

106,901

0

106,901

0.0

Corresponding Amendment 23 Required Increase (CDE's DI-01) Occupational Education. The Department requests a $106,901 increase in reappropriated funds spending authority to accept a transfer from the Department of Education to administer K-12 occupational education  programs through the Colorado Vocational Act. This decision item will be discussed in more detail during the Department of Education briefing.

 NP - IT Consolidation 0 (22,602) Statewide Information Technology Staff  Consolidation

0

0

(22,602)

(3.0)

Department Administrative Office and State Historical Society. Total Governor

0

81,177,840

106, 901

( 55, 981, 956)

25, 302, 785

(3.0)

T otal C C H E

0

8 82 2,092,052

106,901

0

8 82 2,198,953

( 3.0)

18-Nov-09

13

HED-brf

 

 

Requested FY 2010-11 Annualization of August 24, 2009 and October 28, 2009 Budget Reduction Proposals Decision Item

ES-1

GF

CF

(80,370)

RF

0

FF

0

Total

0

FTE

(80,370)

0. 0

FY 2009-10 Higher Edcaton Budget Balancing General Fund Reduction College Opportunity Fund Program and Governing Boards.  In August August and October the Governor  indicated his intent to submit supplemental requests to reduce FY 2009-10 General Fund for the higher  education institutions and backfill with federal money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The August plan included reducing the stipend stipend rate and fee-for-service fee-for-service contracts. The Governor has not yet  proposed an allocation between stipends and fee-for-service fee-for-service contracts for the October reduction. For FY 201011, the Governor's request largely l argely restores the General Fund to comply with the ARRA maintenance of effort requirement, but all of the restored funding, at least for the August reduction, would be provided to the institutions through fee-for-service fee-for-service contracts. Thus, the FY 2010-11 request reflects a lower stipend rate than the FY 2009-10 appropriation, and a higher higher amount for for fee-for-s fee-for-service ervice contracts. Stipends for students attending private institutions are pegged by statute to 50 percent of the stipend rate for students attending  public institutions, and so the FY 2010-11 request does not include restoring restoring stipends for sstudents tudents at private institutions.

Statutory authority: Sections 23-18-201 and 202 (2) (c); and 23-5-129 (5) (a), C.R.S.

Stipend rate for full-time student Stipend dollars Fee-for-service dollars Private stipend dollars ES-2

(22,500)

FY 2009-10 Approp $2, 040 271,493,400 263, 801, 516 910, 860 536, 205, 776

FY 2010-11 Request $1, 860 247,538,100 287, 756, 816 830,490 536,125,406

Difference ( $180) ( 23, 955, 300) 23,955,300 ( 80, 370) ( 80, 370)

0

0

0

(22,500)

0. 0

CTSRR Annual Routine Maintenance State Historical Society.  In August the Governor indicated his intent to request a supplemental to reduce FY 2009-10 General Fund for maintenance of the Cumbres and and Toltec Scenic Railroad. The FY 2010-11 request continues this proposed reduction. Statutory authority: Section 24-60-1901, C.R.S.  TOTAL

18-Nov-09

( 102, 870)

0

14

0

0

(102,870)

0. 0

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education OVERVIEW OF NUMBERS PAGES

The following table summarizes the total change, in dollars and as a percentage, between the Department's FY 2009-10 appropriation and its FY 2010-11 request. Total Requested Change, FY 2008-09 to FY 2009-10 (millions of dollars) Category

GF

FY 2008-09 Appropriation

$ 660. 6

$1, 373. 5

$585. 6

FY 2009-10 Request

660.5

1, 454. 9

Increase / (Decrease)

($0.1) 0.0%

Percentage Change

CF

RF

FF

Total

FTE

$ 170. 9

$2, 790. 6

20,954.9

585. 7

115.0

2, 816. 1

20,951.9

$81. 4

$0. 1

($55.9)

$25. 5

( 3. 0)

5. 9%

0. 0%

-32.7%

0. 9%

0. 0%

The following table highlights the individual changes contained in the Department's FY 2009-10  budget request, as compared with the FY 2008-09 appropriation. For additional detail, see the numbers pages in Appendix A. Requested Changes, FY 2009-10 to FY 2010-11 Category

GF

CF

RF

FF

Total

FTE

Governing Boards

Federal ARRA Stabilization Funds (DI #1)

$0

$0

$0

($54,153,017)

($54,153,017)

0. 0

Tuition (DI #2; 9 percent for  residents)

0

81, 200, 442

0

0

81, 200, 442

0. 0

$ 0 $81, 200, 442

$0

($54,153,017)

$27, 047, 425

0. 0

Subt o t a l Financial Aid

Work Study (DI #3)

( $1, 103, 094)

$0

$0

$0

( $1, 103, 094)

0. 0

1,103,094

0

0

0

1,103,094

0.0

Subtotal

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

0. 0

Local District Junior Colleges (DI #1)

$0

$0

$0

($1,134,067)

($1,134,067)

0. 0

Area Vocational Schools (DI #1)

$0

$0

$0

($694,872)

($694,872)

0. 0

( $80, 370)

$0

$0

$0

($80,370)

0. 0

$0

$0

$106,901

$0

$106, 901

0. 0

 Native American (DI #3)

Private Stipends (ES #1) Colorado Vocational Act

18-Nov-09

15

HED-brf

 

 

Category

GF

CF

RF

FF

Total

FTE

Historical Society

Museum Operations (NP-IT Consolidation)

$0

($226,008)

$0

$0

($226,008)

(3.0)

( 22, 500)

0

0

0

(22,500)

0. 0

( $22, 500)

( $226, 008 )

$0

$0

($248,508)

(3.0)

$ 22, 412

$445, 061

( $55, 221)

( $1 08, 685)

$303, 567

0. 0

( $80, 458) $81, 419, 495

$51,680

($56,090,641)

$25,300,076

( 3. 0)

Cumbres and Toltec Railroad (ES-2) Subtotal Other Total Change

The request does not include an increase from limited gaming revenues pursuant to Amendment 50 for colleges with a 2-year 2-year mission. OSPB indicates this was an oversight that will be corrected with a budget amendment. OSPB projects the following amounts and distribution distribution based on the constitutional and statutory formulas: Estimated Allocation of Amendment 50 Moneys by Governing Board Fiscal Year 2010-11 Institution

FY08-09 Resident FTE

FY08-09 Projected Percentage of Total FY10-11 Allocation

ACC CNCC CCA CCD FRCC LCC MCC  NJC OJC PPCC PCC

4, 370 686 3,338 4,933 9, 945 674 999 1,343 1,123 7, 624 3, 761

8.4% 1.3% 6. 5% 9. 5% 19. 2% 1.3% 1.9% 2.6% 2. 2% 14.7% 7. 3%

639,086 100,323 488,162 721,421 1,454,395 98, 568 146,098 196,406 164,232 1, 114, 963 550,023

RRCC TSJC CCCS Total

4, 841 1,283 44, 920

9.4% 2. 5% 86. 8%

707, 967 187,631 6,569,274

Aims CC Colora Col orado do Mou Mounta ntain in Col Colleg legee

3,031 2,143 2,143

5. 9% 4.1%

443,265 313,40 313,401 1

Local District Total

5, 174

10. 0%

756, 666

Adams State College Mesa State College

197 0.4% 28, 810 1, 435 2.8% 209,860 Total 51,726 100.0% 7, 564, 610 Note: this distribution is i s based on FY08-09 resident FTE, the most recent year available, per  Section 12-47.1-701.5, (3) (c) (I), C.R.S. (2009).

18-Nov-09

16

HED-brf

 

 

This projected revenue from limited gaming funds is significantly below previous estimates used for  the Blue Book analysis of the amendment by Legislative Council Staff, primarily due to the downturn in the economy. The gaming communities have fully implemented the allowable changes to gaming practices under Amendment 50. For upcoming years, OSPB forecasts the following amounts will be available for expenditure from gaming money: FY 2011-12

$10.4

FY 2012-13

$11.8

FY 2013-14

$13.2

A provision of Amendment 50 stipulates that the money is "to supplement existing ex isting state funding."

18-Nov-09

17

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education BRIEFING ISSUE

higher education from the American American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ISSUE:  Federal funding for higher (ARRA) This issue brief summarizes the impact on the Department of Higher Education of  the Governor's August and October proposals for spending federal ARRA funds, and some key federal rules regarding the expenditure of Education Stabilization Funds from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund of ARRA. SUMMARY: ‘

ARRA funding includes a maintenance of effort requirement equal to FY 2005-06 state support for higher education and K-12.



Colorado probably qualifies for a waiver from this maintenance of effort requirement in FY 2009-10, but not in FY 2010-11, which has a significant impact on other departments that will have to absorb reductions that might otherwise be made to higher education.



The ARRA money for education must be spent to backfill lost General Fund to the FY 20082008 09 funding level. If the General Ass Assembly embly reduces K-12 funding further than proposed by the Governor, some of the ARRA money must be taken from higher education to backfill K12.



August and October plans submitted by the Governor would spend more of the available ARRA money in FY 2009-10, leaving insufficient funds to fully backfill higher education institutions in FY FY 2010-11. The Governor proposes allocating the reduction in ARRA funds to the higher education educa tion institutions in the reverse order of increases in state funding since FY 2005-06.

DISCUSSION:

Of the moneys for Colorado in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), federal statute designates $621.9 million as Education Stabilization Funds that must be spent on higher higher education and K-12 education. The money may be spent over  FY 2008-09, FY 2009-10, and FY 2010-11. ARRA requires states accepting the Education Stabilization Funds to maintain state support for  higher education institutions and K-12 at least at the the levels provided in FY 2005-06. A state may apply for a waiver from this maintenance of effort requirement. requirement. Based on guidance from the federal 18-Nov-09

18

HED-brf

 

 

Department of Education, OSPB believes that Colorado would qualify for a waiver in FY 20 2009-10, 09-10,  but almost certainly would not qualify for a waiver in FY 2010-11. To qualify for a waiver in FY 2010-11, Colorado would need, among other things, to allocate the same percentage of available available revenues for higher education and KK-12 12 as it did in FY 2009-10. Both OSPB and Legislative Council Staff project that General Fund revenues will increase in FY 2010-11, meaning that appropriations for higher education and K-12 would need to increase in order to maintain the same percentage of available revenues and qualify for a waiver. The maintenance of effort requirement applies to state FY 2008-09, FY 2009-10, and FY 2010-11. Colorado must meet the maintenance of effort requirement in each of these fiscal years even if all of the Education Stabilization Fund money is spent spent prior to the end of FY 2010-11. In other words, accelerating ARRA expenditures to FY 2009-10 would not eliminate the FY 2010-11 20 10-11 maintenance of effort requirement. Staff has not found any specific federal guidance on what the sanction would  be for failure to meet the maintenance of effort requirement, but presumably all of the ARRA money would be in jeopardy. The federal government could garnish future federal payments payments to recovery an amount equal to the ARRA funds. The lack of flexibility in higher education funding in FY 2010-11 means the General Assembly will need to make greater reductions and/or revenue enhancements in other areas of the budget than has  been customary in recent years in order to close close the deficit. deficit. When revenues dropped in FY 2008-09, higher education was $150.7 of the General Assembly Assembly's 's solution. In FY 2009-10, despite the constraint of the ARRA maintenance of effort requirement, the Governor proposes an ARRA waiver  so that higher education can be $225.8 million of the solution to the deficit. In the previous previous downturn the legislature followed followed a similar pattern. pattern. In FY 2001-02 higher education supplemental  bills reduced reduce d higher education appropriations $14.6 $1 4.6 million. In FY 2002-03 supplemental bills reduced higher education educati on appropriations appropriations $112.3 million. In FY 2003-04 higher education appropriations were $94.1 million below the FY 2002-03 ending e nding appropriation. The Governor's August and October plans for addressing the FY 2009-10 General Fund shortfall include reducing state support for higher higher education by $225.8 million. million. This requires a federal waiver, current FYof2009-10 appropriation for FY higher education is at theFund minimum to meet thebecause ARRA the maintenance effort requirement. requir ement. For 2010-11 the General must be restored to meet the ARRA maintenance of effort requirement, since Colorado would not meet the waiver criteria. Even if the General Assembly rejected the Governor's Governor's August and October plans, the FY 2010-11 General Fund appropriation for the higher education institutions would still need to equal at least $555.3 million to meet the ARRA maintenance of effort requirement. If the General Assembly accepts the August and October plans, the ARRA money runs out in FY 2010-11 and there is not enough money to fully restore the funding for the higher education institutions to the FY 200809 baseline. The table on the next page summarizes the Governor's proposal for for higher education. For FY 201112 the ARRA money will be gone. Several OSPB documents show estimates for F FY Y 2011-12 with 18-Nov-09

19

HED-brf

 

 

no increase in General Fund to backfill backfill the lost lost ARRA money. Because there will be no maintenance of effort requirement in FY 2011-12, the legislature could reduce General Fund for the higher education institutions below the $555.3 million threshold in that year. Higher Education Institutions, General Fund and Federal ARRA October Plan

$ Millions 800

706.0

706.0

706.0

700 150.7

600

Total

150.7

94.7

ARRA 376.5

500

400

300

650.0

- 56.0

General Fund

555.3

602.0

+225.8 General Fund

-225.8 General Fund

652.9 555.3

555.3

555.3

200 329.5 100

0 FY 06

FY 07

FY 08

FY 09

FY 10 Approp

FY 10 Oct . Plan

FY 11 Req.

Federal guidance requires Colorado to spend Education Education Stabilization Funds first to backfill decreases in higher education and K-12 funding below the original FY FY 2008-09 level. If this threshold threshold is met, then there are other optional ways Colorado may spend spend the ARRA money. Originally the Governor   proposed spending some of the Education Stabilization Funds on K-12 education in FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11. TheFY state funding levelsrequest for hi higher gher education K-12 to proposed inof thethe Governor's October plan and 2010-11 budget would require and Colorado spend all available Education Stabilization Funds on higher education e ducation so that state and ARRA funding are as close to the target FY 2008-09 funding level as possible. For FY 2010-11 the Governor's request for state support for K-12 funding is $6.1 $6. 1 million above the FY 2008-09 funding level. If the legislature legislature reduced K-12 further than requested by the Governor, and below the FY 2008-09 funding level, then higher education would no longer receive all of the Education Stabilization Funds. In that scenario, scenario, ARRA would require require the state to allocate the the Education Stabilization Funds to higher education and K-12 in proportion p roportion to the dollar shortfall of  each below their FY 2008-09 funding level. For example, if the General Assembly reduced $106

18-Nov-09

20

HED-brf

 

 

million more from K-12 funding than proposed by the Governor, then K-12 would receive 40 percent of the available ARRA funds in FY 2010-11, as illustrated in the table below.

Governor's Request in millions Hypothetical additional reduction Subtotal ARRA targeted FY 2008-09 funding level Deficit from FY 2008-09 funding level Percent share of ARRA defined deficit FY 10-11 allocation of available ARRA funds

K-12 3,399.1 (106.0) 3,293.1 3,392.9 ( 99. 8) 40% 37. 7

Higher Ed 555.3 555.3 706.0 ( 150. 7) 60% 57. 0

TOTAL 3, 954. 4 ( 106. 0) 3, 848. 4 4, 098. 9 ( 250. 5) 100% 94. 7

To achieve the FY 2009-10 General Fund reductions for higher education proposed in the August  plan, OSPB recommends reducing the stipend stipend rate from $2,040 for a full-time, full-time, full-year full-year student to $1,860 and taking the remainder from from the fee-for-service fee-for-service contracts. contracts. Reducing the sstipend tipend rate  preserves enough appropriations from the fee-for-service contracts for institutions institutions to continue to take advantage of the more favorable bond rates available through the Higher Education Intercept Program (S.B. 08-245 Windels/Buescher). The Governor has not yet submitted a proposal ffor or how to allocate the October plan reductions, but if access to the Higher Education Intercept Program continues to be a priority, priority, then further reductions in the stipend rate will be necessary necessary.. While staff  would encourage the Committee to concentrate on the combined stipend and fee-for-service amount as the relevant measure of state support for higher education, it is possible that reductions in the stipend rate may be perceived differently by the public than reductions in fee-for-service contracts. Because the FY 2009-10 General Fund reductions proposed in the August and October plans would  be entirely backfilled with ARRA funds, the allocations of the reductions by governing board are not significant, unless one believes they provide some indication of what the Governor would propose if reductions are necessary necessary in FY 2011-12 after after the ARRA money has run out. The August plan allocated half the General Fund reductions to the governing boards in proportion to existing General Fund appropriations, and half in proportion to estimated total General Fund and tuition, with a $10 million adjustment for institutions with the greatest enrollment growth between FY 2005-06 and FY 2008-09. The Governor has not yet yet submitted a plan for allocating the October General Fund Fund reduction. For FY 2010-11, the reduction in ARRA funding is allocated to the higher education institutions in the reverse order of increases in funding since FY 2005-06. So, the reduction eliminates iincreases ncreases  provided between FY FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 first. first. Then, it reduces part of the increases provided  between FY 2005-06 and FY 2006-07. This approach is consistent with the ARRA legislation that treats FY 2005-06 as the maintenance of effort baseline, but the allocation is not mandated by ARRA. To the extent that the increases in funding provided by the legislatur legislaturee between FY 2005-06 and the present were to address funding inequities or other policy concerns at specific institutions, this approach erodes progress toward those objectives.

18-Nov-09

21

HED-brf

 

 

OSPB estimates that the tuition increases recommended by the Governor will offset the loss of  ARRA funding for most institutions.

Governing Board Adams Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition Mesa Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition M et ro Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition Western Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition

FY 2009-10 $22, 555, 317 14,608,449 7,946,868 51, 737, 630 24,005,607 27,732,023 111, 206, 547 49,713,412 61,493,135 21, 520, 488 12,173,017 9,347,471

FY 2010-11 $22, 111, 679 13, 562, 665 8,549,014 52, 320, 225 22, 275, 471 30, 044, 754 111, 205, 576 44, 443, 659 66, 761, 917 21, 319, 100 11, 304, 501 10,014,599

Difference ( $443, 638) ( 1, 045, 784) 6 02, 146 5 82, 595 ( 1, 730, 136) 2, 312, 731 ( 971) ( 5, 269, 753) 5, 268, 782 ( 201, 388) ( 868, 516) 6 67, 128

Percent Dif. - 2. 0% -7.2% 7.6% 1. 1% -7.2% 8.3% 0. 0% -10.6% 8.6% - 0. 9% -7.1% 7.1%

376, 140, 628

378, 918, 856

2, 778, 228

0. 7%

Stipend/FFS/ARRA

146,891,512

133, 186, 828

( 13, 704, 684)

-9.3%

Tuition

245, 732, 028 38, 632, 795 11, 601, 402 27, 031, 393 822, 411, 686 194, 107, 380 628, 304, 306 22, 387, 257 21, 639, 283 71,403,384 101, 447, 747 40, 970, 644 60, 477, 103

16, 482, 912 ( 412, 687) ( 1, 134, 928) 722, 241 16, 619, 996 ( 14, 992, 069) 31, 612, 065 0 ( 1, 598, 103) 4, 722, 673 1, 347, 813 ( 3, 115, 667) 4, 463, 480

7.2% - 1. 1%

Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition CU Regents Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition Mines Stipends Fee-for-service UNC Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition

229,249,116 39, 045, 482 12,736,330 26,309,152 805, 791, 690 209,099,449 596,692,241 22, 387, 257 23, 237, 386 66,680,711 100, 099, 934 44,086,311 56,013,623

Com. Colleges Stipend/FFS/ARRA

315, 552, 744 143,787,197

319, 205, 651 133, 093, 820

3, 652, 907 ( 10, 693, 377)

1. 2% -7.4%

Tuition

171,765,547 $1, 933, 568, 557 680,338,670 1,253,229,887

186, 111, 831 $1, 960, 615, 982 626, 185, 653 1, 334, 430, 329

14, 346, 284 $ 27, 047, 425 ( 54, 153, 017) 81, 200, 442

8.4% 1. 4% -8.0% 6.5%

CSU System

Fort Lewis

TOTAL

Stipend/FFS/ARRA Tuition

18-Nov-09

22

-8.9% 2.7% 2. 1% -7.2% 5.3% 0. 0% -6.9% 7.1% 1. 3% -7.1% 8.0%

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education BRIEFING ISSUE ISSUE: 

Closing colleges This issue brief discusses a hypothetical closure of a small rural community college to provide a rough sense of the cost savings potential and identify policy concerns associated with this strategy. SUMMARY: ‘

The biggest barrier to this strategy is identifying which institution or institutions will be closed.



The institutions with the highest cost per student tend to be the small, rural institutions that don't receive a lot of money in total.



The savings are mitigated if students migrate to another Colorado institution.



Some institutions have significant on-going liabilities, especially for auxiliary facilities such as dormitories, that would need to be addressed.



Indirect impacts on associated businesses, the demand for state services, and state tax revenues could further offset the savings.

DISCUSSION:

One of the fortoo how to reduce thethe scope of Colorado's higher education system is tomore closecommon colleges.suggestions Colorado has many schools, argument goes, and the state would  be more efficient if if it shut some of them down. The biggest barrier barrier to closing instit institutions, utions, and the issue that usually stops the discussion from going any an y further, is identifying which school or schools to close. Without consideration for any policy concern other than reducing the budget, the biggest savings  probably occurs occ urs by closing institutions with high state support per student. This is because the students wouldn't necessarily go away, but rather migrate to another institution, and from a budget  perspective the state would want them to migrate to a lower cost institution. Unfortunately, the small, rural institutions that tend to have the highest state support per student often don't receive a lot of General Fund in total. 18-Nov-09

23

HED-brf

 

 

For illustration purposes, staff decided to model closing Northeastern Junior College in Sterling. According to the Community College budget data book the campus received $3,400 state support  per student FTE in FY 2009-10 not including ARRA funds. In addition to having a relatively relatively high high General Fund per student by Colorado community college standards, Northeastern Junior College is only 45 minutes away from Morgan Community College in Fort Morgan in one direction and the Sidney campus of Western Western Nebraska Community College College in another direction. Western Nebraska Community College actually charges about $600 less in annual tuition for a full-time student from Colorado than Northeastern Junior College, if the student applies through the Western Undergraduate Exchange program organized by the Western Interstate Commission on Higher  Education (WICHE). From a short-term budget savings perspective, the state should hope that a large number of the students either decide not to attend college or go out-of-state. This may sound funny, but it saves the state the most money, because the state doesn't need to pay for those students at another Colorado institution. From a longer term view, those who choose not to attend college are likely to earn less and access more state support services. Those who attend college out of state may not return. Staff  has no basis for guessing how students might respond if Northeastern Junior College were closed,  but for illustration purposes staff assumed a full 60 percent don't cost c ost the state any more money,  because they either don't pursue college (30 percent) or go out of state (30 percent). If the state is fortunate, the percentage will be higher, saving the state more money, but the converse is also  possible. Some students will migrate to another Colorado college. Here the best outcome for the state would  be for the students to migrate to an urban community college, where costs per student are lowest. For illustration, staff assumed assumed 10 percent would go to Denver Community College. Another good option for the state would be for students to attend a local district junior college where property taxes help support the institution. institution. Staff modeled 10 percent of the students attending Aims Community College in Greeley. Greeley. The staff calculations assume only 10 percent choose to attend Morgan Community Commun ity College 45 minutes down the road. If more students choose to stay stay close to home, it would decrease the savings to the state, because Morgan Community College receives more state support per student than Denver or Aims. In fact, Morgan Community College receives more state support student than Northeastern Junior College, might make better candidate for  closure. per However, in total Morgan Morgan receives less thanwhich Northeastern, and itsoa w when hen staff modeled closing Morgan with the same enrollment assumptions the total savings was very similar, and using the same enrollment assumptions may not make sense due to less proximity to out-of-state options. Some students will decide to go straight for a 4-year college, rather than a community college. A logical choice might be Colorado State S tate University at Fort Collins, with it's emphasis on agricultural sciences. Staff assumed 5 percent would attend CSU. Not all of the students will will meet the admission criteria, though, and will choose a less selective school like the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. Greeley. Staff assumed 5 percent would would attend UNC.

18-Nov-09

24

HED-brf

 

 

If the legislature chose not to reimburse institutions for students that migrate from a closed college, those institutions would still experience an increase in costs that would undermine their ability to maintain current service levels. The incremental cost of adding the new students may not be equal to each institution's current cost per student, due to economies of scale. The next consideration is what happens to the facilities. If the state could find find a private buyer who would reuse the facilities for a business purpose this could provide a source of revenue to pay off  liabilities, alternative employment opportunities for the staff, and economic development for the community. A private buyer would significantly significantly improve improve the pro arguments for closing a college. Another option would be for the state to reuse the facility, facility, for example as a prison. This results in more of shift of costs from one department to another, rather than a net savings, but there could be cost avoidance in this scenario if the state would otherwise need to build a new prison facility. This analysis assumes there is no private buyer and the facility will be mothballed. Northeastern Junior College reports $4.6 million in liabilities for bonds and capital leases related to dormitories, food service, parking, and energy improvements. improvements. Staff assumes the state wouldn't attempt to retire this with a lump sum payment, since that would be more than the annual savings from closing the college, but rather the state would make the annual payment of $495,000 from the General Fund.  Not every community college college has this much in liabilities. Otero and Lamar Community Colleges have relatively high General Fund per student FTE operating costs and report no bond or capital lease liabilities. However, Lamar starts with a significantly smaller level of total state support than than Northeastern Junior College, and it may not be reasonable to make the same migration assumptions for Otero.  Northeastern Junior College Resident SFTE State support per SFTE FY 20 2008 08-0 -09 9 stip stipen ends ds an and d FF FFS S Migration Western Nebraska  No college Denver Community College Aims Community College Morgan Community College CSU Fort Collins UNC Migration Liabilities Total Annual payment

18-Nov-09

Savings 1, 343 $3,400 $4,5 $4,566 66,0 ,081 81

$4,5 $4,556 56,0 ,081 81

Cost per SFTE Percent SFTE Cost to State $0 30. 0% $0 $0 $2, 234 $2, 400 $4, 187 $3, 421 $4,063

$4, 471, 266 $494,716

25

30.0% 10. 0% 10. 0% 10. 0% 5.0% 5. 0% 100. 0%

$0 $300,026 $322, 320 $562, 314 $229,720 $272,830 $1, 687, 211 $2, 878, 870

$2, 384, 154

HED-brf

 

 

At this point the estimated savings from closing the institution is $2.4 million with favorable student migration assumptions, but there are several other factors factors to consider. Losses in state income and sales tax may offset the savings. Northeastern reports it is the the third largest employer in the region with 236.8 FTE and salaries, salaries, not including benefits, totaling $5.8 million. If all the staff are unemployed for a year, the lost state taxes would be $235,000, assuming a 3.1 percent effective income tax rate and one third of salaries spent on goods and services subject to the state sales tax of  2.9 percent. Not all of the staff would remain unemployed, and some might find better better paying jobs and/or create more economic development. However, the st student udent migration assumptions assumptions include a large percentage of students going out of state, and so it would be reasonable to assume a ssume some of  the staff follow them out of Colorado. Also, staff hasn't estimated indirect economic impacts such such as fewer pizza parlors, coffee shops, and office suppliers that serve the students and institution. Businesses that depend on the graduates would be impacted, such as health providers, wind farms, and agricultural industries. Family farms farms and other small businesses that stay afloat by having a spouse work at the college could be impacted. There could be an increase in demand for state services such as unemployment insurance and Medicaid associated with the closure. Local property assessed values might might decrease, impacting impa cting the school finance finance formula. The cost to mothball the facility might be significant, depending on the level of facility preservation and the level of  safeguarding safeguar ding against vandalism and liability desired. The campus map identifies 32 structures (some with shared walls) at two different sites.

18-Nov-09

26

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education BRIEFING ISSUE ISSUE: "Privatizing" state institutions

This issue brief discusses a hypothetical "privatization" of a state institution to  provide a rough sense of the cost savings potential and identify policy concerns associated with this strategy. SUMMARY: ‘

"Privatization" in this issue brief means little or no state state support for operating expenses. A wide range of other policy considerations could be part of "privatization," including maintaining some degree of preferential tuition for Colorado residents.



A privatized institution, as opposed to a closed institution, continues to provide an economic  benefit to the local community and state.



With an 18 percent increase in resident tuition rates for two years the CU Boulder campus could completely replace state support, not including ARRA funds. To replace state support and set aside 20 percent of tuition increases for financial aid would require 22.5 percent increases for two years. years. In this scenario, at the end of two years CU Boulder's tui tuition tion rate would still be below many large public research institutions in other states.



Additional increases would be necessary if the state expected CU Boulder to replace ARRA funds, increase compensation, and make quality improvements, as opposed to just maintaining current service levels during the two-year time period.

DISCUSSION:

Along with closing institutions, another commonly promoted idea for reducing the scope of the higher education system system is to "privatize" institutions. Privatization means different different things to different people, and doesn't necessarily necessarily involve cutting all ties to the state. For this discussion, staff  will use the term privatization to mean little or no General Fund for operating expenses. A wide range of other policies could be part of a privatization discussion, such as tuition flexibility, eligibility for state financial aid and capital construction, admission criteria for Colorado residents, nonresident enrollment caps, preferential tuition and financial aid for Colorado residents, governance, legal protections, regulatory regulatory relief, etc. Even if the state doesn't continue to pr provide ovide operating support, it did largely construct the campuses and could demand some performance results in return. In using the term privatization, staff staff is not assuming any a ny particular configuration of   policies other than little or no General Fund support for operating operating expenses. 18-Nov-09

27

HED-brf

 

 

If an institution could successfully operate independent of state support, then it would continue offering an economic benefit to the community, which is an advantage over the policy option of  closing institutions. Both privatization and closing instit institutions utions would reduce the low-cos low-costt higher  education opportunities in the the state. A privatized institution that maintains some ties to the state could, conceivably, still offer some degree of preferential tuition and financial aid to Colorado residents, but expectations in this area would need to be tempered by the need of the institution to earn revenue to replace lost General Fund. To successfully privatize, an institution would need to draw students in Colorado and nationally who are willing and able to pay the higher tuition necessary to backfil backfilll lost General Fund revenue. Also, the smaller the difference between current tuition rates and the amount necessary to backfill lost General Fund revenue, the easier to imagine the privatization succeeding (i.e., the institution doesn't fail). For illustrating this this policy option, staff selected selected the CU Boulder campus. The General Assembly could consider experimenting with a smaller institution with strong nonresident enrollment, such as Western State College, Fort Lewis College, or the Colorado School of Mines, but these three institutions together don't receive as much General Fund as CU Boulder, and so privatizing them would result in less savings. Colorado's constitution specificall specifically y calls for a public higher education institution in Boulder under the control of the the Regents. The legislature would need to consider what it means to be a public institution institution with little or no General Fund for operating expenses. Also, the Boulder campus is part of a system and the legislature would need to consider how privatizing it would impact the other campuses. Would the Colorado Springs and Denver campuses be pr privatized ivatized as well? CU's leadership has testified testified on several occasions that it does not believe the Anschutz Medical Campus could survive without continued state support. For these estimates staff used the FY 2008-09 actual stipends and fee-for-service contracts, not including ARRA money, and the FY 2009-10 estimated resident and nonresident tuition from the CU budget data book. Estimated Revenue

Stipends Fee-for-service General Fund

FY 2009-10

33,274,713 30,670,450 63,945,163

Resident Reside nt Und Underg ergrad raduat uatee Tuit Tuition ion Resident Graduate Tuition  Nonresident Tuition Tuition

121 121,793 ,793,74 ,742 2 27,489,124 235,744,191 385, 027, 057

 Nonresident tuition revenue for CU can be complicated to forecast. CU's already high nonresident rates may be near a threshold where rate increases impact enrollment, and a difference of just 40 students could change revenue by $1.0 million. CU offers nonresident undergraduat undergraduates es a guaranteed tuition rate for four years, and so nonresident rate increases take time to work through the system, 18-Nov-09

28

HED-brf

 

 

as not all students are initially subject subject to the increase. For these reasons staff modeled just the ffive ive  percent per year increase in nonresident tuition included in the Governor's request, and assumed roughly one quarter of the students would pay the higher rate. If CU raised resident undergraduate and graduate tuition rates 18 percent for two years, it could fully replace the $63.9 million General Fund support currently provided by the state.

FY 20 2009-10 es est.

Year 1

Revenue IIn nc .

Year 2

Revenue IIn nc.

Cumulative 2-year Rev. Inc.

121,793,742

18. 0%

21,922,874

18. 0%

25, 868, 991

47,791,864

27,489,124

18.0%

4,948,042

18. 0%

5, 838, 690

10,786,732

 Nonresident

235,744,191

5.0%

2,946,802

5.0%

3,094,143

6,040,945

Tuition

385,027,057

34, 801, 823

64,619,542

Resident Undergraduate Resident Graduate

29,817,718

Current law requires institutions to set aside 20 percent of tuition rate increases in excess of inflation for need based financial aid. For CU to replace the lost General Fund and set aside 20 percent pe rcent of  resident tuition rate increases for financial aid would require a 22.5 percent increase each year for  two years. In two years CU would would set aside $14.6 million for need based financial aid. If the state pursued this strategy, CU Boulder's tuition would probably be one of the highest in the west outside of California, but not out-of-line with public institutions in the mid-west and on the east coast. The table below shows how CU's tuition would compare to a sampling of other insti institutions, tutions, using a conservative assumption that those institutions raise tuition only 3.0 percent each year over  the two-year period. Institution

FY 09-10

FY 10-11

FY 11-12

CU Boulder 18%

6,446 18 1 8. 0%

7,606 18.0%

8, 975

CU Boulder 22.5%

6, 446 22. 5%

7, 896 22. 5%

9, 673

University of Michigan

11, 470

3.0% 11,814

3. 0% 12, 169

University of Delaware

8, 540

3.0%

8, 796

3. 0%

9,060

University of Texas

8, 520

3.0%

8, 776

3. 0%

9,039

University of Missouri

7, 368

3.0%

7, 589

3. 0%

7, 817

University of Washington

7, 125

3.0%

7, 339

3. 0%

7,559

All of these institutions institutions receive more state support support per student than CU B Boulder. oulder. It is probably unreasonable to assume CU could match the quality and amenities of the other institutions without similar state support. This probable disparity in services, along with differ differences ences in local economics and attitudes about tuition, make it difficult to assess if students and families in Colorado would pay these rates for a privatized institution.

18-Nov-09

29

HED-brf

 

 

These tuition rate increases would not provide funds for CU to replace los lostt ARRA money money.. CU Boulder's share of the ARRA money in FY 2008-09 was $22.3 million. If the expectation is that CU Boulder replace this revenue with tuition, as opposed to operating reductions, the institution would need to implement larger rate increases. However, only part of the ARRA money is going aw away ay in FY 2010-11, and so the institution could bank some of the increased revenue from tuition rate increases in that year year to help address the the projected shortfall in FY 2011-12. This would allow CU Boulder to push some of the ARRA cliff to FY 2012-13 and spread tuition rate increases to backfill lost ARRA funds over three years. These tuition rate increases also wouldn't provide CU Boulder any margin for salary and benefit increases, inflation, or quality improvement improvement initiatives. Staff is unsure how this compares with the expectations for other state agencies during the same time period. It could be better than the standard for other state agencies, if the legislature pursues policies like the reduction in the PERA contribution proposed by the Governor. As with closing closing institutions, privatizing institutions may lead to student migration. If students choose to attend, for example, CSU Fort Collins instead of CU Boulder, because of the significant tuition rate increases at CU Boulder, it would offset some of the savings associated with privatizing CU Boulder. It could also make make it harder for CU Boulder Boulder to replace lost General Fund with tuition if the campus experiences a net loss of enrollment. If privatization privatization included additional flexibility regarding nonresident enrollment caps, there could be a net statewide gain in enrollment that might have indirect impacts on the economy. CU Boulder is characterized in the constitution as a statewide institution and this is reflected in the governance structure structure and, to some degree, enrollment enrollment patterns of the institution. Arguably,  privatizing an institution like CU Boulder spreads the burden of budget reductions more broadly across the state than closing small regional institutions.

18-Nov-09

30

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education BRIEFING ISSUE ISSUE: Proportional reductions

This issue brief discusses ways reductions for higher education can be proportional  but not equitable, and factors to consider in evaluating proportional proportion al reductions relative to other cost saving strategies. SUMMARY: ‘

Proportional reductions are perceived as the fairest approach, and have historically been the dominant strategy employed by the General Assembly for reducing higher education.



Proportional reductions based on General Fund can be harder or easier for institutions to absorb according to the availability of tuition revenue and the scope of indirect cost recoveries from auxiliary activities.



Proportional reductions based on total funds can penalize pe nalize students already paying a higher  share of their education costs, reduce the value of entrepreneurial efforts in recruiting and other areas, and reward inefficient institutions.



If reductions are deep and long-term, proportional allocations may result in the state doing lots of things poorly, rather than doing some things mediocre to well and some things not at all.

DISCUSSION:

An across the board reduction in General Fund for all higher education institutions is often perceived as the fairest approach. The allocations of the higher education economic benefit to each student and community are reduced reduced by the same amount per dollar. Also, spreading reductions over a large number of institutions mitigates the impact on any given institution or student. Proportional reductions of one form or another have historically been the dominant, bordering on exclusive,  policy approach employed by the legislature for reducing higher education expenditures. However, reductions that are described as proportional do not always have equitable impacts on every campus by every measure. For example, a reduction based on each governing board's share of General Fund appropriations will be disproportionately harder to manage for an institution like Adams State College than the CSU System, because Adams State College relies much more heavily on the General Fund for operating expenses.

18-Nov-09

31

HED-brf

 

 

Adams Stipends aan nd fe fee-for-service

CSU System

12, 149, 322

113,620,029

Tuition

7,826,753

206,363,756

TOTAL

19, 976, 075

319,983,785

10 pe percent re reduction in GF

1,214,932

11,362,003

Percent TOTAL reduction

6. 1%

3.6%

In addition, the CSU System can spread administrative costs over a larger and more robust array of  auxiliary programs programs than can Adams State College. Portions of the instructors' instructors' salaries can be charged to federally funded research grants, and private private giving is more more significant. None of these are factors in a proportional reduction, but they all contribute to a governing board's b oard's ability to absorb a proportional reduction. The potential inequities of a proportional General Fund reduction can be compounded by tuition  policies that provide more tuition spending authority autho rity to institutions that already raise significant revenue from tuition. Last year, year, the Governor proposed, proposed, and the legislature authorized, ttuition uition increases of 9.0 percent for research institutions, 7.0 percent for 4-year colleges, and 5.0 percent for  community colleges. Not only would a proportional General Fund reduction that year have been easier to manage for institutions with large amounts of tuition in their base appropriation, but those institutions would also have enjoyed the largest offsetting tuition rate increases. The ability of institutions to absorb proportional reductions needs to be a consideration in evaluating whether economic benefits to students and communities are really being reduced equitably. equitably. If   proportional reductions cause an institution to fail to thrive, then those proportional reductions represent a disproportionate burden to the community and students, even though the reduction in funding per base dollar is the same as elsewhere in the state. An alternative to a proportional reduction based on General Fund is a proportional reduction based on total funds including tuition. Some institutions with large large amounts of tuition revenue argue tthat hat this penalizes them for being entrepreneurial, especially in tthe he recruitment of nonresidents. It also  potentially penalizes students that are already being asked to pay a higher higher proportion of the the cost of  their education. Part of the analysis of different proportional reductions for higher education hinges on why there are a re disparities in state support between institutions. Are the disparities because some institutions institutions need the additional state funds to provide services given the parameters of their student population and course offerings? Or are they because these institutions are are inefficient, poor at recruiting, offeri offering ng an inferior product, lacking in support from their local community, and/or insufficiently entrepreneurial in finding ways ways to pay for themselves? themselves? If the later, a proportional proportional reduction based on General Fund may make more sense than a proportional p roportional reduction on total funds. 18-Nov-09

32

HED-brf

 

 

Analyzing the benefits of proportional reductions versus other strategies also boils down to  perceptions about the depth and duration of reductions. A short term term storm can be weathered with  proportional reductions. reductions. But, if if the choice is between doing lots of things poorly for a long time, or  doing some things mediocre to well and some things not at all, then other policy options may be more attractive.

18-Nov-09

33

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Budget Briefing Department of Higher Education BRIEFING ISSUE ISSUE:

Eliminating financial aid for private institutions SUMMARY: ‘

Maintenance of effort requirements for the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Maintenance Reinvestment Act do not apply to financial aid appropriations.



In FY 2009-10 the Colorado Commission on Higher Education allocated $8.2 million financial aid for private institutions. Another $911,000 General Fund was appropriated for  stipend-eligible students attending participating private institutions.

DISCUSSION:

The maintenance of effort requirement of the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) applies to appropriations for higher education institutions, and specifically not to appropriations for financial financial aid. The impact of reducing financial aid is self evident, but there are ways to target reductions based on policy criteria. For example, the state could choose to prioritize financial aid only for students attending state-supported state-supported institutions. As shown in the table on the following page, in FY 2009-10 the Colorado Commission on Higher Education has allocated $8.2 million financial aid for private institutions. Another $911,000 General Fund was appropriated for stipend-eligible students attending  participating private institutions. To be eligible for a stipend at a participating private institution, a student must meet the federal Pell Grant need-based criteria. Also, the stipend amount for a student attending a participating private institution is half the amount for students attending state supported institutions. During debate on the College Opportunity Fund legislation, some legislators legislators argued that the ability of students to spend the stipend at private institutions was a critical component of making the case that stipends are the property of the student and not a state grant for purposes of  determining the enterprise eligibility of institutions under TABOR.

18-Nov-09

34

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2009-10 Financial Aid Allocations Institution

CCRP

GRAD

GOS*

Work-Study

CLEAP*

SLEAP*

Total

Public Four-Year Institutions  Adams State College Colorado School of Mines Colora Colorado do Sta State te Univer Universit sity y Colorado State University - Pueblo Fort Lewis College Mesa State College Metropolitan S tate College of Denver University of Colorado - Boulder University of Colorado - Colorado Springs

1,546,228 848,772 5,8 5,865, 65,235 235 2,259,471 1,014,854 2,777,816 7,516,096 5,420,932 2,775,226

University of Colorado - UCD University of Northern Colorado Western State College

4,063,666 3,541,072 660,766

  343,774   1,0 1,002, 02,828 828   20,571

   

708,272 101,459

  3,297,231   149,945

  111,000   48,150   348,500   187,500   50,000   104,320   169,800   192,600   321,000

37 3 76,770 405,087 40 1 ,628,855 1, 705,377 70 268,856 26 664,590 66 1 ,955,721 1, 1 ,469,666 1, 577,539 57

                 

45,405 48,315 191,806 82,078 6,840 52,390 123,262 197,481 45,841

                 

64,189 94,304 37,642 26,943 48,736 164,434 74,887 38,038

                 

2,143,593 1,694,098 9,131,528 3,292,639 1,367,493 3,647,852 9,929,313 8,063,838 3,859,103

  417,300   350,000   40,000

753,982 75 94 9 45,168 225,155 22 0 0 260,737 26 278,358 27 103,691 10 70,073 70 235,457 23 695,389 69 752,359 75 110,241 11 115,478 11 154,955 15 190,657 19 781,814 78 642,192 64 289,066 28

     

64,468 112,784 33,908

     

127,189 198,510 14,660

                           

36,091 32,744 18,045 10,187 5,676 34,927 63,450 6,840 4,220 8,441 13,534 68,835 48,752 21,247

                           

-

                                     

8,723,836 5,297,478 974,490 1,680,618 1,634,669 504,274 267,912 1,663,324 3,281,906 4,295,527 475,443 535,824 641,643 993,518 4,105,614 3,459,301 1,661,604

          

1,137,812 64,386 219,408 140,500

                                               

  84,888,545 729,452 387,933 1,596,010 1,936,893 725,648 337,275 534,938 355,583 191,963 331,196 50,825 105,948 62,774 209,504 55,559 50,825 50,825 211,055 133,580 117,480

Public Two-Year Institutions  Aims Community College  Arapahoe Community College College Colorado Mountain College Colorado Northwestern Community College Community College of A urora Community College of Denver Front Range Community College Lamar Community College Morgan Community College Northeastern Junior College Otero Junior College Pikes P eak Community College Pueblo Community College Red Rocks Community College Trinidad State Junior College

                           

1,383,790 1,323,568 382,538 187,652 1,392,191 2,486,591 3,479,718 358,362 416,126 478,246 774,327 3,241,465 2,721,357 1,351,291

 

788,790

326,465 32

 

22,557

 

-

     

64,386 179,175 111,467

40 4 0,233 2 5,540 25

     

3,493

     

-

   

30,000 65,000

     

15,000 13,500 47,000

Public Area Vocational Schools Delta-Montrose Emily Griffith TH P ickens SUB TOTAL PUB LIC

59,411,174

5,624,080

2,510,670

 

15,049,472

  1,403,617

  889,532

Non-Profit Private Institutions Colorado Christian University Colorado College Denver University Regis University

  555,917   199,863   944,855   1,084,491

   

27,361 251,387

  32,100   110,567   107,000

173,535 147,675 14 462,961 46 435,540 43

     

8,295 23,720 19,646

     

26,547 38,830

                           

-

                           

-

For-Profit Private Institutions  Art Inst of CO Everest (Blair Jr College) Everest (Parks Jr College) Colorado Technical Univ ConCorde Career Inst Devry (Denver Technical) Heritage College Intellitec Coll--CS Intellitec Coll--GJ Intellitec Health/Med1 International Bty

IBMC Kaplan College Rocky Mtn Col A&D Redstone (Westwood Aviat) Westwood Coll Tech SUBTOTAL PRIVATE

                           

519,335 337,275 515,314 355,583 191,963 331,196 50,825 105,948 62,774 209,504 55,559 50,825 50,825 93,818 133,580 117,480

2 06,313 20 19,624 19

1 17,237 11

5,966,931

278,747

249,667

1,562,884

51,661

65,377  

**Remaining need-based (GOS) funds

TOTAL

65,378,104

5,902,827

  102,877 2,863,214

16,612,357

1,455,278

954,909

8,175,267   102,877 93,166,689

* Estimates for remaining students in GOS program.

**There is a reserve of $102,877 in Need-based (GOS) funds set aside for unanticipated change changes s in the GOS phase out estimates and the transition of new CCRP. If not used by Nov. 15th will be put into undergraduate formula ***CLEAP/SLEAP allocation pending award notice. ***CLEAP/SLEAP

 18  18-Nov-09

35

HED-brf

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Briefing Department of Higher Education APPENDIX A: NUMBERS PAGES PAGES FY 2007-08 Actual

FY 2008-09 Actual

FY 2009-10 Approp

FY 2010-11 CCHE Governor   Request Request

 Notes Governor CCHE

For FY 2008-09 the JBC approved eliminating the cash funds exempt category of appropriations and replacing it with reappropriated funds. Reappropriated funds are tthose hose moneys that are appropriated for a second or more time in the same fiscal fiscal year. Moneys that were previously categorized as cash funds exempt that are not reappropriated funds are characterized in the new budget format as cash funds, regardless of the TABOR status of the funds. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION Executive Director: Director: D. Rico M Munn unn (1) Department Administrative Office (Primary Functions: Centrally appropriated items for the Department Administration, the Commission, the Division of Private Occupational Schools, and the Historical Society. Cash funds reflect the share of costs born by various cash programs within the Department. Reappropriated funds are from indirect cost recoveries.)

Health, Life, and Dental General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Federal Funds Short-term Disability General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Federal Funds S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Federal Funds

683,910 0 243,084 426,498

882,911 0 667,459 186,410

827,863 0 625,844 174,788

852,879 0 584,622 174,525

852,879 0 584,622 174,525

14,328

29,042

27,231

93,732

93,732

9,793 0 3,409 5,525 859

10,878 0 7,626 2,185 1,067

11,236 0 7,989 2,558 689

12,196 0 8,072 2,611 1,513

12,196 0 8,072 2,611 1,513

90,581 0 31,473 51,177 7,931

134,611 0 94,577 26,894 13,140

153,103 0 108,814 34,343 9,946

196,939 0 133,086 40,426 23,427

196,939 0 133,086 40,426 23,427

18-Nov-09

36

HED-brf

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Briefing Department of Higher Education APPENDIX A: NUMBERS PAGES PAGES FY 2007-08 Actual S.B. 06-235 Supplemental Amortization Equalization Disbursement General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Federal Funds

FY 2008-09 Actual

FY 2009-10 Approp

FY 2010-11   CCHE Governor   Request Request

 Notes Governor CCHE

18,904 0 6,557 10,694 1,653

63,042 0 44,277 12 12,606 6,159

95,326 0 68,009 21,101 6,216

143,604 0 97,044 29,477 17,083

143,604 0 97,044 29,477 17,083

Salary Suvey and Senior Executive Service General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Federal Funds

258,113 0 79,165 150,482 28,466

387,536 0 253,197 86,694 47 47,645

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Performance-based Pay Awards General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Federal Funds

123,924 0 34,645 75,954 13,325

122,241 0 83,177 25,182 13 13,882

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

17,542

22,492

33,311

35,038

35,038

Worker's Compensation

 

General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Legal Services # of Hours (non-add) General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Purchase of Services from Computer   Center

0 5,756 11,786

0 16,596 5,896

0 27,963 5,348

0 29,413 5,625

0 29,413 5,625

93,783 61,514 26,447 5,822

33,644 448 0 9,284 24,360

33,770 448 0 9,319 24,451

33,770 448 0 9,319 24,451

33,770 448 0 9,319 24,451

120,097

94,110

94,110

241,836

18-Nov-09

241,836 NP - IT consolidation

37

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Briefing Department of Higher Education APPENDIX A: NUMBERS PAGES PAGES FY 2007-08 Actual General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE

FY 2008-09 Actual

FY 2009-10 Approp

FY 2010-11   CCHE Governor   Request Request

 Notes Governor CCHE

74,732 27,485 17,880

0 14,101 80 80,009

0 14,101 80,009

0 230,467 11,369

Multiuse Network Payments General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE

0

0

0

61,749 0 61,749 0

61,749 NP - IT consolidation 0 61,749 0

Management and Administration of OIT General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE

0

0

0

100,074 0 100,074 0

100,074 NP - IT consolidation 0 100,074 0

28,376 0 755 27,621

46,140 0 44,346 1,794

40,419 0 38,839 1,580

3,484 0 3,011 473

3,484 0 3,011 473

362,265 0 362,265 0

507,150 0 96,149 411,001

514,210 0 102,842 411,368

514,210 0 102,842 411,368

514,210 0 102,842 411,368

Payment to Risk Management/  Property Funds General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE Leased Space General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE

0 230,467 11,369

Approp. Vs. Request TOTAL - (1) Administrative Office   General Fund

 

  Cash Funds   RF/CFE   Federal Funds

1,807,288 136,246

2,304,755 0

1,803,348 0

2,195,779 0

2,195,779 0

21 21.8%

821,041 783,439 66,562

1,330,789 863,031 110,935

1,003,720 755,546 44,082

1,359,699 700,325 135,755

1,359,699 700,325 135,755

35.5% -7.3% 208.0%

 

18-Nov-09

38

HED-brf

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Briefing Department of Higher Education APPENDIX A: NUMBERS PAGES PAGES FY 2007-08 Actual

FY 2008-09 Actual

FY 2009-10 Approp

FY 2010-11   CCHE Governor   Request Request

(2) Colorado Commission on Higher Education (Primary Functions:Serves Functions:Serves as the central policy and coordinating coordinating board for higher education. Cash fund sources include fees from  proprietary schools schools deposited in thePrivate O Occuapation ccuapational al Schools Fund, and payments from other states fo forr veterinary

 Notes Governor CCHE

 

medicine as a part of the exchange program organized organized by WICHE. Reappropria Reappropriated ted Funds are from indirect cost recoveries.) (A) Administration FTE General Fund FTE Cash Funds FTE RF/CFE FTE Federal Funds FTE

2,390,137 30.1 0 0.0 1,905,869 26.5 215,615 0.0 268,653 3.6

2,357,969 31 31.1 0 0.0 147,502 0. 0.0 1,895,016 27.5 315,451 3.6

(B) Div. of Private Occupational Schools Cash Funds FTE

484,585 6.0

514,776 7.8

(C) Special Purpose WICHE (Annual Dues) General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE

116,000 0 116,000 0

WICHE Optometry General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE

395,644 0 395,644 0

2,839,581 31.1 0 0.0 159,735 0.0 2,295,260   27.5 384,586 3.6

2,839,581 31.1 0 0.0 159,735 0.0 2,295,260 27.5 384,586 3.6

640,555 7.8

640,555 7.8

640,555 7.8

120,000 0 0 120,000

120,000 0 0 120,000

120,000 0 0 120,000

120,000 0 0 120,000

381,516 0 0 381,516

399,000 0 0 399,000

399,000 0 0 399,000

399,000 0 0 399,000

18-Nov-09

2,807,179 31.1 0 0.0 159,735 0.0 2,269,848 27.5 S 377,596 3.6

39

HED-brf

 

 

FY 2010-11 Joint Budget Committee Staff Briefing Department of Higher Education APPENDIX A: NUMBERS PAGES PAGES FY 2007-08

FY 2008-09

FY 2009-10

Actual

Actual

Approp

FY 2010-11   CCHE Governor   Request

Request

Distribution to the Higher Education Competitive Research Authority Cash Funds RF/CFE

901,854 0 901,854

330,000 330,000 0

1,330,000 1,330,000 0

1,330,000 1,330,000 0

1,330,000 1,330,000 0

Veterinary School Program Needs General Fund Cash Funds RF/CFE

285,000 0 285,000 0

285,000 0 122,600 162,400

285,000 0 122,600 162,400

285,000 0 122,600 162,400

285,000 0 122,600 162,400

Enro Enrolllm lmen ent/ t/Tu Tuit itio ion n an and d Stip ipen end d Co Cont ntiinge ngenc ncy y Cash Funds RF/CFE

13,9 13,998 98,1 ,159 59 0 13,998,159

11,0 11,038 38,0 ,000 00 11,038,000 0

20, 20,000, 000,00 000 0 20,000,000 0

20 20,0 ,000 00,0 ,000 00 20,000,000 0

20 20,,00 000, 0,00 000 0 20,000,000 0

Subtotal - (C) Special Purpose

15,696,657

12,154,516

22,134,000

22,134,000

22,134,000

 Notes Governor

CCHE

Approp. Vs. Request TOTAL - (2) CCHE FTE   General Fund   Cash Funds   RF/CFE   Federal Funds

 

18,571,379 36.1 0 3,187,098 15,115,628 268,653

15,027,261 38 38.9 0 12,152,878 2,558,932 315,451

25,581,734 38.9 0 2 22 2,252,890 2 2,,951,248 377,596

25,614,136 38.9 0 22,252,890 2,976,660 384,586

25,614,136 38.9 0 22,252,890 2,976,660 384,586

0. 0.1%

0.0% 0.9% 1.9%

  (3) Financial Aid (Primary Functions: Functions: Provides assistance to studen students ts in meeting the costs of higher education. The source of cash funds exempt is money transferred fro from m the  Department of Human Services ffor or the Early Childhood Childhood Professional Loan Repa Repayment yment progra program.) m.)

(A) Need Based Grants General Need Based Grants

18-Nov-09

66,981,729

74,193,958

74,144,146

40

74,144,146

74,144,146

HED-brf

 

Sponsor Documents

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on INBA.INFO

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close