Understanding the
Miami University Budget
And
How it is Developed
University Budget & Institutional Research
September 2003
Overview .............................................................................................................................. 2
Process
................................................................................................................................ 3
Budget
Expenditures .......................................................................................................... 5
Regional Campus
Budgeting ............................................................................................ 5
State Share of
Instruction (SSI) Formula .......................................................................... 6
Capital Budgeting
............................................................................................................... 8
Table 1: State of Ohio Program Costs &
Funding Structure........................................... 10
This document is available on-line with links directly to Ohio Board of
Regents tables at: http://www.units.muohio.edu/bpa/index.htm
A PRIMER
The
Miami University Budget
and
the Budget Building Process
Institutions
of higher education utilize multiple, discreet budgets. Two major categories are Operating budgets
and Capital budget plans. The latter
often span five or six years and apply to facilities construction, renovation
and major renewals, as well as major scientific and academic equipment
acquisitions. Operating budgets may be
distinguished further as Educational & General (E&G) or Auxiliary
Enterprises. The distinction is that
Auxiliary Enterprises do not receive state funds but are either financially
self-sufficient, deriving their income from fee and/or user charges, or may be
partially funded from student general fee income.
Within E&G and auxiliary budgets
three additional distinctions are found: funds may characterize as either
Restricted, Designated, or General Funds.
Restricted funds are defined as those monies that are given to the
institution by a source external to the institution which places a restriction
on how those funds may be used. The
only discretion an institution has is whether or not it will accept the
funds. Once accepted the institution is
obligated to abide scrupulously by the donor's restrictions. Another major source of restricted funds are
grants and contracts.
Funds may become "Designated" in several
ways. The institution's governing body,
the Miami University Board of Trustees, may set aside ("designate")
funds for a specific purpose such as scholarships. Once the Board of Trustees so designates funds, the
administration must use those funds accordingly until such time as the Board of
Trustees elects to re-designate the funds for another purpose. Another way funds may become designated is
when a source provides them for a specific purpose or program. For example, if the state appropriates
line-item funds for gerontological studies or a small business consulting
center or a local police and fire supplement, the University is obligated to
expend those funds for the purpose stated.
Another major source of designated funds is non-credit workshops.
Those funds which are available for
the University administration to manage on a day-to-day basis are referred to
as "General Fund" dollars.
The
Miami University 2003-2004 Revenue Budget
Educational
& General
General
Fund $ 289,383,400
Designated
Funds 8,279,100
Restricted
Funds 26,002,400
E&G
Total Revenues $ 323,664,900
Auxiliary
Enterprises
Unrestricted
Funds $ 88,548,500
Designated Funds 720,700
Restricted
Funds 706,300
Auxiliary
Total Revenues $ 89,975,500
Total
University Budget $ 413,640,400
This
discussion applies to the E&G unrestricted or general fund budget. The operating budget covers a period of one
fiscal year, July 1 through June 30 of the following calendar year. It encompasses an academic year within the
fiscal year, with the exception that it begins with Summer II, III, and IV terms
in the first calendar year and ends with the Summer I term from the second
calendar year. Because the State of
Ohio enacts a biennial operating appropriation on or about June 30 of odd
numbered years, in the past Miami has employed a nine-month budget cycle going
into the second year of a biennium and a 15-month budget cycle approaching a
new biennium. Present practice is to
employ the same schedule annually for developing the budget and to submit it to
the Miami Board of Trustees for approval at their June meeting every year.
At their September
10, 2002 meeting the Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees accepted a
formal Budget Policy (see Appendix A).
At the central administrative level Miami employs an incremental (or
decremental if necessary) budgeting method.
It is important to realize this does not mean programs or departments
are guaranteed continuance from one year to the next, nor should they expect
the same level of funding previously enjoyed.
Programs, units and budgets are selectively reviewed periodically and
budgeted funds have been recovered and reallocated as necessary. The incremental system used at Miami means
we work chiefly with the assignment of new, additional funds in advancing the
University’s priorities.
The President
emphasizes decentralization of decision making within the operation of the
academic and administrative units of the University. While functioning as the Chief Executive Officer of the
University, the President has delegated considerable autonomy to the Provost
and vice presidents. The budget is
developed as the result of two processes which occur somewhat concomitantly.
The first is a bottom-up process from departments, schools and offices within
divisions to the principal operating officer or the vice president for each
division. Thus for the division of
Academic Affairs, all of the departments make known their budget requests to
the deans and the deans, in turn, submit budget requests to the Provost. The same pattern holds true in the other
divisions. It is expected that budget
requests will be consistent with the strategic plans of the unit.
At the same
time, central budget development begins by: 1. estimating enrollment for the
coming year; 2. using the enrollment projections to estimate revenues from
student fees and State Share of Instruction (SSI) or “subsidy” (these two
sources provide 98% of E&G general fund revenues); 3. estimate
income from other revenue sources (sales & services of educational
activities, gifts, grants and contracts, temporary investments, income from
endowment, etc.); 4. compute the estimated incremental increase in revenue from
the current budget. This is
approximately $18.2 million (5.9%) for the general fund E&G budget for
2003-2004 for all campuses.
The next
phase involves estimating the impact of possible expenditures against the
estimated incremental revenue.
Initially, major categories of expenditures are considered centrally by
the President and senior administration in consultation with various governance
representatives, such as the University Senate Committee on Fiscal Priorities
and Budget Planning, the Council of Academic Deans, employee advisory groups,
or the officers of Associated Student Government or Graduate Council, as
appropriate, to arrive at major resource "pools" within the available
incremental resources. The major
categories considered centrally are salaries, staff benefits, support budgets,
fee waivers, utilities, program improvements and transfers. The "pools" comprise a set of
budget parameters or "guidelines" which are submitted by the
President to the Board of Trustees via the Finance Committee of the Board for
review, revision if necessary, and approval.
This usually occurs in April.
Finally, for most budget lines, the pools are distributed among the
divisions and expenditure decisions are made decentrally at the department or
unit level. Those decisions are
reported back, via the vice presidents, to University Budget &
Institutional Research for recording and implementation.
In years
where estimated revenues were insufficient to meet expenditure requirements,
additional resources were identified through a recovery and reallocation
mechanism. Such recoveries were not
necessarily uniform but rather differential, requiring, for example, a smaller
percentage of “give back” from academic or student support units than from
institutional support units. In some
years key areas such as admission, financial aid and some computing were
exempt. Once recovered the funds became
part of all available resources for reallocation. Through this mechanism the share of the total E&G budget
supporting academic endeavors increased from 68% to approximately 72% over ten
years. In more recent years the
President and vice presidents have been able to meet differential budget
recovery targets by using vacancy credits and salary savings without actually
reducing selected unit operating budgets or staffing.
Expenditures
can be thought of as discretionary, non-discretionary, or temporary for one
year. Although faculty and staff
salaries have first priority, non-discretionary expenditures must be addressed
simultaneously. The latter involves
projecting costs for health care and required staff benefits (such as state
mandated increases in rates for worker's compensation); utilities costs; the
increased cost of graduate fee waivers due to increased tuition; state and
federal mandates; legally required transfers of general fee and other funds,
etc. Essentially, non-discretionary
expenditures largely represent "pass-through" type costs.
Salaries and
benefits comprise approximately 78% of the University's expenditure
budget. The personnel budget planning
process begins with setting a cut-off date to establish a salary baseline. The salary baseline for each major division
and operation (see list of Appropriation Units in Appendix B) is the total
expenditures for salaries and wages associated with permanent positions,
whether filled or vacant. A pool of
funds to be used for merit salary increases is derived by testing various
salary percentage increases against the increment pool base salaries in a
robust budget planning model that also considers estimates for expenditures in
the other categories as well. From a
central budgeting perspective, we no longer control positions per se, but
rather the total permanent salary dollars.
As long as Appropriation Units have permanent salary dollars available
to allocate, they may use those dollars to support positions at their
discretion. Positions that are vacant
for more than one year and not under active search will be deactivated, but the
Unit retains the dollars and may use them at their discretion. As a rule of thumb, each one percent
increase in faculty and staff salaries equates to approximately $1,100,000
additional to the budget for salaries and benefits.
Once the
Board of Trustees approves a salary percentage increase as part of the budget
development guidelines, the President makes allocations to the vice presidents,
who in turn make sub-distribution to each of their unit managers where
individual merit salary recommendations are initiated. The sum of all unit or divisional decisions
cannot exceed the pool total. The
President does not get involved in the detailed allocation of funds within, for
example, the College of Arts & Science or in other academic and
administrative departments. Faculty
salary recommendations are primarily the responsibility of department chairs
and deans. Merit salary increases that
are very high (more than 8-10%, depending on the magnitude of the increase for
the pool) have required review by the Provost and the vice presidents.
The
University has routinely set aside funds to address salary equity and
compression matters. For the 2003-2004
budget, in addition to a 2.5% pool for merit increases for faculty and
unclassified staff, $876,000 is included to address faculty and unclassified
staff salary improvements. This is the
seventh installment in a plan to make Miami's faculty salaries more competitive
nationally. The total of salary
augmentation funds added to the budget since 1996 comes to approximately $11
million. Salary enhancements for SATSS
classified staff total $1,500,000, or a 4.25% average increase. Graduate stipends were enhanced differentially
amounting to $1,000,000. The 2003-2004
budget also includes a salary enhancement of $100 to fully offset the cost of
the new health care cost-sharing plan for most employees earning less than
$30,000 a year, and partially offset the cost for other faculty and staff.
Increases for
support budgets (student wages, telephone, travel, services, supplies and
materials, etc.) are generally funded centrally by identifying a pool of funds
representing an increase of x%
across the board. Vice presidents and
deans, however, can assign these funds differentially. Once assigned, each department or unit
manager has the flexibility of re-assigning both base and incremental dollars
among the support budget categories at their discretion. In cases where the minimum wage or postal
rates have been raised nationally, or telephone rates increased, additional
dollars typically have been funded centrally by the Budget Office. Historically, the annual percentage increase
for library books and periodicals has been twice that of other support budgets;
however the FY 2004 budget held operating budgets flat while increasing the
budget for library acquisitions five percent.
Colleges and
universities follow a standard nomenclature for financial accounting and
budgeting which has been developed by the National Association of College and
University Business Officers (NACUBO).
Revenue or expenditures and transfer funds are divided into Educational
and General (E&G) and Auxiliary Enterprises. E&G expenditures are comprised of instruction and
departmental research (academic departmental costs of faculty, secretaries,
graduate assistants; operating expense of departments (travel, telephone,
equipment, etc.), separately budgeted research, public service (costs of
continuing education programs, commuter services), academic support (costs of
library, academic computing, laboratory instrumentation, etc.), student
services (Registrar, Admission, Student Financial Assistance, Office of Career
Services, Student Life, etc.), institutional support (President, Vice
Presidents, Finance and Business Services offices, Public Safety, Governing
Board, University Advancement Offices, etc.), operation & maintenance of
plant, and scholarships & fellowships.
The Oxford campus has 14 Auxiliary Enterprises including Shriver Center,
Recreational Sports Center, Goggin Ice Arena, Housing, Dining & Guest
Services, Intercollegiate Athletics, Telecommunications, Marcum Conference
Center & Inn, Miami Metro, Parking, Millett Hall, Airport, Utilities
(Oxford), Network Services Enterprise, and Network Operations Auxiliary. In addition to developing the detailed
budget according to the NACUBO categories, Miami prepares a budget exhibit by
vice presidential jurisdiction which is distributed separately.
The E&G
and Auxiliary budgets for the Hamilton and Middletown campuses are identified
and maintained separately from the Oxford campus budget. Each campus is responsible for its own
revenue and expenditure stream and resulting bottom line. Budget preparation for all three campuses
occurs simultaneously following the process set forth above. The Executive Directors of the regional
campuses have a role analogous to academic deans in the budgeting process and
work cooperatively where faculty and other resources are shared among the
campuses. Historically, all three
campuses have used the same percentage increase for salary. Revenue dollars as transferred among
campuses to “reimburse” or “true-up” for instruction of students whose tuition
has been collected by one of the other Miami campuses. Because all doctoral State Share of
Instruction (SSI) or “subsidy” is paid by the Ohio Board of Regents (OBOR)
directly to main campuses, SSI funds are transferred from Oxford to the
regional campuses in proportion to their level of Doctoral instruction. The budget for the Dolibois European Center
in Luxembourg is included within the Oxford campus Academic Affairs budget.
THE STATE
SHARE OF INSTRUCTION (SSI) FORMULA
State Share
of Instruction (SSI) or “subsidy” is coupled to student enrollment and is
calculated "uniformly" across state institutions by applying a rather
complex formula. The Ohio Board of
Regents (OBOR): 1) performs a Resource Analysis (discussed below) to determine
the cost to "instruct" one full-time equivalent (FTE) student for every
course of study at each campus in the state (called the "instruction &
support allowance"); 2) it then makes an assumption about how much of the
cost students will pay themselves, referred to as the "Local
Contribution," and subtracts that amount from the instruction &
support allowance to arrive at a "net subsidy per FTE"; 3) applies
these cost factors against projected enrollments to determine how many gross
dollars would be required for instruction & support; 4) computes earnings for
student services using headcounts and plant operation and maintenance
(PO&M) based on activity, not square footage; 5) subtracts enrollments of
out-of-state students (ineligible FTEs); 6) results in each campuses' projected
subsidy entitlement. SSI earnings for Doctoral students are computed using a
different formula. The sum of the
campus entitlements forms the basis for the Regents' budget request for
instructional subsidies to the Governor’s Office. The Regents also request funds for line items and special
programming over and above their request for instructional subsidy. For Miami University these are: Research
Challenge, Access Challenge, Jobs Challenge and Success Challenge. At the conclusion of the political process
the state legislature identifies an amount to be appropriated for higher
education instructional subsidy and line items and sends the legislation back
to the Governor for his signature in late June of odd-numbered years. The Regents then vary the "local contribution"
student fee assumption to make the sum of all the Ohio public campuses’
instructional SSI earnings equal the appropriated amount.
At the
beginning of a fiscal year each institution receives one-twelfth of the
projected amount each month until all space adjustments state-wide can be processed
and actual earnings can be computed.
This occurs usually by November and the Regents make adjustments to the
remaining seven months of payments to make it come out even by the end of the
fiscal year. The significance of this
practice is that the institutions do not really know with certainty what their
state support will be until the year is almost half over. Even though the subsidy formula uses
enrollments from all terms from PRIOR years (current year enrollments are not
used) and the Budget Office models the subsidy formula computations to
determine variations from projections, we do not know precisely what is
occurring at the other public campuses in Ohio and cannot compute how their
enrollments or plant space activity will impact the final subsidy distribution
caused by changing enrollment patterns across the state.
The Resource
Analysis (RA) process performed by the Board of Regents staff uses average cost
data submitted by all public campuses to the Higher Education Information (HEI)
system to determine total resources needed.
Resource Analysis estimates total resources needed using all
students, in-state and out-of-state.
The data submitted include student information, consisting of course
loads, enrollments by academic program and course level; staffing data,
including faculty teaching loads, both credit hours and contact hours, student
credit hours produced, distribution and cost assignment to academic programs;
financial data, including expenditures by object, i.e., salaries, supplies, and
academic program or administrative support unit; physical plant data including
building and room inventories and classroom and laboratory utilization. These data form the basis for computing the
average cost state-wide of educating one FTE in each program. The program costs
align themselves into 15 levels, referred to as cost "models" and are
shown in Table 1. Anytime a program
cost varies by more than 15% from the average for its model for two consecutive
Resource Analyses, it may be moved to another model as suggested by its new
cost.
The
assumption is that ineligible (undergraduate out-of-state) students will
provide the TOTAL costs of their education and that all other students will
share in the costs with the state. The
goal is that the undergraduate student share will approach 35%; however, the
reality is that the state-wide average is closer to 50% and higher in recent
years. State appropriations bills have
limited or “capped” instructional and general fee increases. A tuition cap for this biennium employs a
formula for calculating a “weighted average” of tuition increases across
academic terms, however Miami’s Oxford campus undergraduate tuition is exempt
because of the new tuition restructuring plan.
The subsidy
formula has three components and the approximate percentage of the totals are
as follow: 1) INSTRUCTION &
SUPPORT - faculty compensation and other departmental compensation, support
services, and library = 83%; 2) STUDENT SERVICES = 5%; 3) PLANT
O&M = 12%. The first two
components are related to enrollments.
Plant O&M components are based upon building use, room type and
square footage, although the Regents have transitioned away from a square
footage-based Plant O&M computation to one based on “activity” so as not to
perpetuate incentives for unrestrained growth in space.
To calculate
SSI, the Regents sum all credit hours from all terms (prior summer, fall and
spring) then divide by 30 under a semester calendar (divisor is 45 for quarter
calendars) to determine the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students. Graduate students are not eligible for
subsidy once they have accumulated more than 173 semester hours beyond the
baccalaureate degree.
Even though
Oxford’s enrollment ceiling was raised to 17,000 FTE in the FY 2002-FY 2003
biennium, state subsidy and student fee income for Oxford will not grow
substantially. In fact, for FY 2004 the
projected state dollar support will be approximately the same as in FY 1999
(less when corrected for inflation) in spite of enrollment growth. The Hamilton and Middletown campuses can
generate more income through enrollment growth. New programs will have to be funded by transferring funds from
discontinued or reduced programs, recapturing budget dollars, using reserves,
through extramural support, or a combination of these. Expansion of summer enrollments could
provide some limited income growth at Oxford, as would increased student
average credit hour load, provided the enrollment cap is not exceeded.
“FTE” is also
used to define staff time; thus, a nine-month faculty position is considered
one FTE, while staff other than faculty have one FTE on a 12-month basis. Two one-half time staff equal one FTE.
The subsidy
formula process is complicated by an overlying system of protection phase-down
and “hold harmless” guarantees, and by buffering for enrollment changes. For each campus, program level, and fiscal
year, the subsidy earnings are calculated using a two-year average of FTEs and
a five-year average of FTEs. The FTE
averages are based upon the time period ending in the year prior to the
current year. For example, the
five-year average in FY 2004 encompasses FY 1999 through FY 2003,
inclusive. For any given year, the base
subsidy is the greater of the total subsidy determined by the two computations.
The base subsidy represents the relatively unmodified enrollment-driven
subsidy.
Ohio has
provided additional funding for Instructional & General activities in the
form of a series of line item “Challenge” initiatives. In FY 2004 the Oxford campus is slated to
receive $3,497,800 for Success Challenge, a program focused mainly on
university main campuses. Success
Challenge rewards high retention and graduation performance and success of “at
risk” students. The Hamilton and
Middletown campuses are projected to receive line item funding from Access
Challenge ($1,055,010 and $1,027,895, respectively). Access Challenge funds were provided as a condition of not
increasing FY 2000 tuition for first and second year students at the regional
campuses. In FY 2001, the regional
campuses were required to reduce tuition by 5% in order to receive Access
Challenge funds. There are no
restrictions on fees associated with receiving Access Challenge funds in this
or the previous biennium.
For more information about the state funding system, the
following web page links connect to the Ohio Board of Regents web site at:
http://www.regents.state.oh.us:
Overview
of Higher Education Finance in Ohio
State Share of
Instruction: Content and History
Formula
Funding Issues for Ohio
Board of
Regents Budget/Financial Information
Effectiveness
of Need-Based Aid
How Does
the State Share of Instruction Formula Work?
Policy
Brief on Success Challenge and How it Works
Policy
Brief on Access Challenge
The capital
budgeting process is quite different and decidedly more protracted than
budgeting for operating funds. It is
also biennial, but alternates years with the operating budget cycle. In addition to the Board of Regents, state-level
involvement includes the offices of Budget and Management, the Controlling
Board, the State Architect's office, the Attorney General, Department of
Industrial Relations and others.
The
University must submit an institutional profile stating programs, goals and
objectives; major program services offered; a brief narrative describing
general change in program services over the past six years and planned changes
in the next six years; an explanation of how program services are responding to
the changing character of client populations served by the institutions, etc.
Campuses
request, every two years, funds from the State of Ohio for capital
improvements. The funds may be used to
construct new facilities or renovate existing facilities. Only projects relating directly to academic
mission will be funded. Equipment and
data processing funding is considered as a state-wide need rather than as
peculiar to each institution. The
aggregate of all approved campus capital fund requests becomes an Ohio House
Bill which authorizes the expenditure of State funds. Campuses are then responsible for the debt service on their
portion of the Capital Appropriation.
To service the debt, campuses are provided funds by the State for that
purpose. There are two components to
the formula which provides funds for debt service: Plant Operation and
Maintenance, and Capital Appropriation.
Operating
support for plant operation and maintenance costs is based on volume of credit
instruction, sponsored research, and non-credit job training provided by the
campus.
The Capital
Appropriation formula involves two processes. Beginning the year after a
capital appropriation becomes effective, a campus will receive a deduction to
operating subsidies for the next 15 years equal to ten percent of that
appropriation (debt service deduction).
A component of the instructional subsidy is added to help the campuses
pay for their new debt service (capital component distribution). This component is based 50% on educational
activity and 50% on the age of facilities.
Campuses are
free to request capital appropriations that will lead to debt service
deductions which are more or less than their share of the capital component
distribution.
– If the campus chooses to request fewer capital appropriations than its capital component allocation will support, it retains the difference and can use that amount for any capital-related purpose(s).
– If the campus chooses to request more capital
appropriations than its capital component allocation will support, it is
required to pay the difference in debt service from its operating budget.
The capital
appropriation plan gives campuses, within guidelines, control over capital
improvements while making them financially accountable for their decisions. Even after the appropriation is passed
another four months are required to obtain approvals from local political
subdivisions while preparing a detailed “Program of Requirements: Capital
Improvements Projects” for submission to OBOR.
Only after that has been submitted and approved can the State
Architect's office be requested to prepare a list of "Associate"
Architects from which Miami may interview and select. Miami can then request planning funds from the State Controlling
Board or Office of Budget and Management.
After Controlling Board approval Miami submits encumbrances to the State
Architect's office which completes the contract with the Associate Architect,
subject to review by the Ohio Attorney General's office. The Associate Architect then goes to
work. The State Architect's office has
a three-stage approval process -- after schematic design phase (preliminary
drawings), after development stage (basic drawings) and after construction
document phase (construction documents).
Contracts
with a value of $4 million or more are centrally administered for the State of
Ohio by the State Architect's Office (SAO) unless an institution submits a
request for, and is granted local administration authority. Contracts of less than $4 million can be,
and typically are, locally administered without approval from SAO, including
contracting for design (architectural) services, bidding, awarding contracts,
monitoring progress, and approving changes.
Before the
State Architect can advertise for construction bids the plans must be approved
by the Division of Factory and Buildings.
The construction bids are advertised and the contractors selection
process follows. Strict attention is
paid to contractor compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative
Action (EEO/AA) guidelines before contracts are issued. This often takes from
one to two years after funds have been appropriated.
Also, through
its capital budgeting process, the State of Ohio has provided approximately $2
million in each of the past three biennial capital budgets to augment academic
equipment purchases. The projected
amount for FY 2003-FY 2004 is $1.5 million.
September 2003
Dr. Ralph R. Gutowski,
Assistant Vice President for Budgeting, Planning and
Analysis
University Budget & Institutional Research
G:\bpa\bpashared\04Budget\Primer04.doc
MIAMI UNIVERSITY
Budget Policy
Office of the Vice President for Finance and Business
Services
September 2002
Responsibility
for development and administration of the Miami University budget rests with
the Vice President for Finance and Business Services, in collaboration with the
President and other vice presidents.
Overall budget approval ultimately resides with the University Board of
Trustees.
Miami
University employs multiple strategies for budgeting. Various forms of cost-center budgeting, formula budgeting,
incremental budgeting, performance budgeting, program budgeting and zero-base
budgeting are used where appropriate.
Cost-Center Budgeting:
This form of budgeting is usually applied to auxiliary
enterprises. Units which operate as
independent cost-centers are Housing, Dining and Guest Services, Goggin Ice
Arena, Recreational Sports Center, Shriver Center, Marcum Conference Center
& Inn, Miami Metro, Millett Assembly Hall, Aviation Services,
Telecommunications, Network Services Enterprise, the Network Operations
Auxiliary, Intercollegiate Athletics, and Parking.
Each of these units is responsible for generating its own
revenue from fees and user charges.
Intercollegiate Athletics, Shriver Center, Goggin Ice Arena,
Recreational Sports Center, and Millett Assembly Hall share in portions of the
general fee revenue. Auxiliary revenues
must be sufficient to cover all costs of operation, including salaries and
wages, staff benefit allocations, supplies, materials, utilities, capital
acquisitions, and debt service, if any.
In addition, auxiliaries remit to the Educational & General
(E&G) budget a payment for centralized administrative services provided by
accounting and financial services, personnel, safety and security, budgeting,
and other centralized administrative services operated within the E&G
fund. Auxiliary enterprises fund their
own capital projects and maintain their own reserves for contingencies, repairs
and replacements. Some of these units
may share a common contingency repair and replacement fund, and may separately
contract and pay for facilities maintenance and improvements furnished by the
Department of Physical Facilities or other service units. The annual budget for each of these entities
is self-balancing.
Formula Budgeting &
Performance Budgeting:
Elements
of Formula Budgeting and Performance Budgeting are used for summer session and
workshops. Summer session is operated
with its own budget under the direction of the academic deans. Undergraduate summer session courses use
enrollment contingent thresholds to determine whether or not the course will be
offered; if the enrollment is not sufficient to cover costs of providing the
course, either it is not offered or the instructor compensation is
adjusted. Workshops have their own
budgets that cover the cost of personnel and operating expenses.
Some
University activities are funded through separate State appropriation line
items, such as Success Challenge, which are linked to performance
measures. The better Miami performs
vis-à-vis other Ohio public universities on measures of graduation rate, the
more Miami earns through this line item administered by the Ohio Board of
Regents. Access Challenge, Jobs
Challenge and Research Challenge are also performance-related line items.
Program Budgeting:
During
the annual budget building cycle a form of Program Budgeting (PPBS) is utilized
for prioritizing requests for new initiatives or expansion of existing
programs. Because requested additions
to the annual budget focus on projects or programs, they are referred to as
“Program Improvements.” Elements of
PPBS will continue to be employed to analyze and select new program
initiatives. Units submit a “decision
package” as prescribed by the budget office justifying the need for a new
program or expansion of an existing program.
The decision package contains detailed justification for personnel and
staffing; operating, and capital expenditures; space or facilities
requirements; a timeline for phase-in; possible impact on future budgets; and a
statement discussing the impact if the program improvement request is not
approved. Each vice president selects
the requests she/he will support and prioritizes them.
All
divisional requests are aggregated and considered by the senior administration
against the available resources.
Approval of Program Improvement requests rests with the President and
vice presidents collectively and is reported to the budget office for
implementation.
Zero-Base Budgeting:
A
modified form of Zero-Base Budgeting is used annually to review the
expenditures and justify budget changes for Miami’s core operating areas. These include: clinical and field
experiences, some publications, funds for innovative academic projects,
equipment matching funds, the Luxembourg Center, library automation, continuing
education, credit workshop budgets, the Post-Secondary Education Program
(PSEOP), Liberal Ed program support, commencements and convocations, summer
scholars, the Performing Arts Series, campus planning, liability and property
insurance, patent administration, professional services (auditors, outside
counsel, etc.), endowment management fees, environmental health and safety,
labor relations, copying services, federal and state mandates, office and
computing equipment, Student Health Service, Associated Student Government,
Student Affairs Counsel, various “Scholars” programs, stipends and student aid,
pharmaceutical sales, charge-backs for Plant O&M, indirect cost recoveries,
student aid fee waivers and utilities.
A
modified Zero-Base approach is to be utilized as part of the six-year program
review cycle. Academic units may exempt
tenure and tenure-track faculty from ZBB consideration. They shall prepare and submit ZBB
documentation packages that cover their non-tenure staffing, operating
(support) budget, space, equipment, and capital budgets in accordance with the
guidelines established by the Academic Program Review Committee. Units without tenure commitments shall
re-justify all staffing levels during each six-year program review cycle, along
with their support, space, equipment and capital needs.
Incremental Budgeting:
Within
the context of the budgeting strategies outlined above, Miami University
continues to build annual budgets for E&G and Auxiliary Enterprises by
projecting increases in total and net revenues over the current year. Expenditure budgets are governed by
available incremental revenues along with recoveries, reallocations, reserves
and required transfers.
Appropriation Units
The President
Athletic Director: Intercollegiate Athletics
The Provost
Dean: Arts and Science
Dean: Education and Allied
Professions
Dean: Business
Administration
Dean: Fine Arts
Dean: Engineering and
Applied Science
Dean: Interdisciplinary
Studies
Dean: Graduate Studies
Dean: University Libraries
Executive Director: Hamilton
Campus
Executive Director:
Middletown Campus
Executive Director: Dolibois
European Center
Vice President: Student Affairs
Vice President: Finance and Business Services
Sr. Associate Vice
President: Housing, Dining, and Guest Services
Associate Vice President:
Physical Facilities Department
Vice President: University Advancement
Vice President: Information Technology Services