Transcript Higher Ed Finance in Texas

Higher Ed Finance and
UTPA
Two Big Questions
 Where
Does the Money Come From?
– For Texas
– For Higher Ed
– For UTPA
 Where
Does the Money go?
– For Texas
– For Higher Ed
– For UTPA
Let’s Peel The Onion*
*Dr. Nevarez
Where Does Texas Get Its Money?
FY 2003
Sales Tax
24.5%
$14.3B
Federal Gov’t
36.0%
21.0B
Other Taxes (fuel, franchise,
20.3%
11.8B
Alcohol, etc.)
Other Non-Tax (income, fees,
19.2%
11.2B
lottery, etc.)
Total
100.0% $58.3B
Where Does Texas Spend Its
Money?
FY 2003
Health/Human Services
38.0%
$22.9B
Education ($2.7B/4.5%, higher
34.6%
20.8B
8.2%
5.6%
4.9B
3.4B
3.3%
10.3%
2.0B
6.2B
100.0%
$60.2B
Ed)
Transportation
Public Safety & Corrections
Government (Exec, Leg, Judicial)
Other (debt, regulatory, etc.)
Total
Where Does UTPA get Its
Operating Money?
2005 Budget
State (Formula: $35m/19%) $70.2 M
Restricted (mostly fed)
42.0 M
Tuition (reg + desig)
Fees
Investments & Other
Revenue
Other (balances, Indirect
cost…)
Total
37.2%
22.2%
37.9 M
13.5 M
13.6 M
20.1%
7.1%
7.2%
11.7 M
6.2%
$188.9M 100.0%
Where Does UTPA Allocate Its Operating
Funds?
2005 Budget
Faculty Salaries
$36.5M
19.3%
Other Academic Support
14.0M
7.4%
Scholarships
11.7M
6.2%
Benefits
15.8M
8.4%
Institutional Support
11.7M
6.2%
4.9M
2.6%
Restricted Projects
41.8M
22.1%
Auxiliary Services
12.9M
6.9%
Designated (computer labs, etc.)
24.9M
13.2%
Plant Operations
8.4M
4.4%
Other (public serv, HEAF proj. )
6.3M
3.3%
$188.9M
100.0%
Student Services
TOTAL
Eight Funds
(1) Educational & General
(2) Auxiliary
(3) Designated
(4) Restricted
Budgeted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(5) Plant
Only very small portion
used for operations;
most is for construction
(6) Loan
No
(7) Agency
No
(8) Endowment & Similar
Only the portion used
E & G (Appropriated) Funds
 Consists
of two types of funds
– “True” state funds; General Revenue
– Local funds; Mostly tuition along with
some interest, indirect cost, and a few
fees.
What State funds Does UTPA
Receive?

Two Formulas:
– Instruction & Operations
– Infrastructure Support
Special Line Items
 TRB Payments
 HEAF (Constitutionally authorized but
apportionment is driven by legislature)
 Funds Trusteed to the Coordinating Board
(ATP/ARP, Texas Grant, etc.)
 Flow-through funds (UTEP’s Border
Consortium, UTSA’s SBDC, etc.)

Instruction & Operations Formula
The Coordinating Board receives certified
data from the institutions by funding area
and instructional level.
The Legislative Budget Board computes a
base rate to be used, according to how
much money the legislature makes
available for higher education. This base
rate is used in a matrix to calculate the
funding for each SCH in each discipline
and level (Continued)
Instruction & Operations Formula
2004-2005 matrix excerpt
(base rate: $51.25)
Lower
Upper Master Doctoral Special
Liberal Arts
1.00
1.96
3.94
12.04
Science
Engineering
1.53
3.01
3.00
3.46
7.17
8.20
19.29
21.40
Teaching Experience Supplement: An additional weight of 10% is added
to lower & upper division SCHs taught by tenured & tenure-track faculty.
Infrastructure Formula


Driven by the predicted square feet for E&G space
produced by the Space Projection Model.
Looks at an institution’s space needs in five
categories
1. TEACHING (level and program areas of funded
SCHs)
2.
LIBRARY (# of faculty, students, programs, and
holdings)
3.
4.
RESEARCH (Research Expenditures and SCHs)
OFFICE (# of faculty, non-faculty, & current fund
E&G expenditures)
5.
SUPPORT SPACE (% of other factors, 9% in ’02)
Tuition Revenue Projects
 One
of few items that can be
influenced by legislators
 The Coordinating Board rates the
requested projects
– Excellent
– Desirable
– Fair
– Questionable
HEAF
 Established
in 1984
 Allocations started in 1986
 Originally earmarked $100M;
currently $175M is earmarked
 To acquire land, construct &
rehabilitate bldgs, purchase
equipment, library materials, retire
debt (not > 50%)
HEAF (Cont’d)

Four Parts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Space Deficit
Condition of Facilities
Complexity
Set-Asides (Healths, TSTC, TSU)
--Thank You-Questions?
http://dba.panam.edu/budget/index.htm