skip to main skip to secondary navigation
Navigation

JPBC Minutes: March 11, 2021

Thursday, March 11, 2021
8:30 – 10:30 a.m.
Virtual Meeting via Teams

Attendees:

Voting Members: Sondra Aman, Mike Andriatch, Hannah Arp, Justine Briggs, James Cordeiro, Frances Dearing, Daniel Goebel, Tom Hernandez, Cathy Houston-Wilson, Sharon Jaramillo, Margaret Lane, Jose Maliekal, Dave Mihalyov, Kathy Peterson, Craig Ross, Janet Roy, Elliot Weininger, Katy Wilson

Non-Voting Members: Denise Copelton: Co-Chair, Crystal Hallenbeck, Darson Rhodes: Co-Chair Elect, Karen Riotto, James Spiller, Jim Wall: Co-Chair, Melissa Wight

Guests: Lorraine Acker, Monica Brasted, Steve Cook, Mary Covell, Bob Cushman, Eileen Daniel, Richard Dirmyer, Johnna Frosini, Kerry Gotham, Jenny Green, Scott Haines, Mike Harrison, Erick Hart, Dylan Hill, Sara Kelly, Rachael Killion, Stephanie Learn, Susan Lowey, Teresa Major, Tina Murty, Kevin Rice, Jacques Rinchard, Lisa Robusto-Mack, Cheryl Van Lare

Regrets:

Voting Members: Kalista Cherry, Kandie Gay, Katy Heyning, Mark Stacy

Non-Voting Members: President Macpherson

 

The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m.

Announcements

  • The meeting minutes from the March 4, 2021 meeting are not available yet. They will be shared at our next meeting.
  • The vote for the fee-based budgets has been moved to the April 29, 2021 meeting. This is to allow the Campus Based Fee Review Committee to attend the question and answer session this morning and vote on the fee based budgets at their next meeting. This committee will then vote on whether to endorse the recommendations from the Campus Based Fee Review Committee.

Fee-Based Budget Question & Answer Session

The following questions and answers occurred during the session:

  • The statement was made that the requested update to the slide in the Athletics presentation has been made and is available for review in the meeting folder. This slide is the fee comparison between the schools and how many teams are managed by each school.
  • The question was raised regarding how the Alumni Fee is allocated between scholarships, undergraduate research, campus technology and student alumni activities. It was stated that it is difficult to match where each dollar goes when a fee comes in. The funding that comes in, provides opportunities such as study abroad, internships, travel funds, collaborative research with faculty members and alumni/student networking events. The networking events range from the alumni being brought back onto campus to a NYC trip where students have gone into the workplace of alumni. Another opportunity that the funding provides is for the Extraordinary Academic Scholarship and this is used as a recruiting tool. Finally, the fee helps fund commencement activities that involve the activities that seniors do in their final weeks at the College and the ceremony itself.
  • The question was raised regarding how the drop in enrollment will impact the programs that the Alumni Fee funds. It was stated that decreased enrollment will impact the funding received for these programs and alumni will have to be used much more than they have before to help with the recruitment process.
  • The question was raised if the fee goes into a bigger pool of money or if it is kept separate. It was stated that the funds go directly to the Foundation.
  • The question was raised if the fee did not exist, then all of the programs that the funding supports would be impacted in some way. It was stated that they would.
  • The question was raised if more information could be provided about the LMS migration. It was stated that there are contract negotiations occurring at the SUNY level.
  • The question was raised regarding if alternatives were reviewed when it came to big expenditures from the funds of the Athletic Fee like the purchasing of a bus for example. It was stated that when transportation is one of Athletics big expenses. They are always reviewing the numbers to see if it is more cost effective to pay a bus company to transport or to add another bus to the College’s fleet. The prices of the outside bus companies continue to increase and given the team sizes, we are always going to have a need for a 35-37 passenger buses. The last bus that was purchased was a lease to own and it was a five-year deal. It ended up paying itself off in less than two years. It was also stated that the lease to buy deal is a five year lease and then we stretch out owning the vehicle for another few years. This way we are not paying for the vehicle for three to four years and then we trade it in to start the lease process over again.
  • The question was raised if the cost of owning a bus is more cost effective than contracting out and liability concerns. It was stated that owning a bus is going to save us money. The College has tried conducting bids for individual trips, annual contracts and it comes back that owning a bus is more cost effective. In the past, the bus has paid itself off within two years and the College typically keeps them for five to eight years. It was also stated that the vehicles Athletics used are “people movers” that are basically extended vans. They are not coach buses with bathrooms. We contract out for the coach buses so that there is a bathroom available for the long trips. Those are very expensive diesel buses and very expensive to maintain. We would not be able to purchase a coach bus.
  • The question was raised if there would be a cost advantage to lease a bus instead of owning a bus, similar to the project that Mr. Wall completed with the other campus vehicles. It was stated that the work group has reviewed the Facilities vehicles and campus computers. The buses have not be reviewed by the group, but that is work that will need to be done.
  • The question was raised regarding the Campus Recreation reserves and how the department plans to manage the reserves while factoring in the requested increase. It was stated that for three of the past four years the department had rollovers. The reserves were designated to use to replace the Zamboni and the fitness equipment, but with the impact of COVID the reserves will be going from $470,000 to $115,000. The increase in the fee is to help offset the increase in minimum wage. The department budgeted in hopes that the campus will be opened back up next year, but if not then the reserves will be completely gone next year. It was also stated that when the fee was implemented it was designed to be in thirds. One-third was for overhead to maintain the facility, a third for operations and a third was to go towards carryover to refurbish the fitness center because the equipment is very expensive. The goal was to keep $300,000 to be able to replace the equipment every so many years and now the reserves are way below that. There was a ten year equipment replacement plan that had to be put on hold. In addition, fifty percent of the fee goes towards student employment so it goes right back to the students. Then 30% goes to cover overhead to offset expenses. The last 20% is supposed to go towards replacement of equipment and the preventative maintenance plans that have had to be put on pause but will need to continue again for safety reasons.
  • The statement was made that over 70% of the student body participates in at least one Campus Recreation activity. These activities would be using the fitness center and club sports. In addition, they have high persistence rates and GPAs similar to Athletics. When students are engaged and participate on campus they tend to have a higher persistence rate and GPA.
  • The question was raised regarding how the Technology Fee reserves are managed. It was stated that the reserves are used for new computing hardware replacement or network hardware replacement.
  • The question was raised regarding how Athletics supports the Athletes to achieve the level of persistence and GPAs. It was stated that there is a mandatory study hall. Freshman have a minimum of a four hour study hall a week. In addition, if mid-term grades are not at an acceptable level, than the athlete is removed from the travel roster. This is to help them figure out how to better their time management and succeed in school. It was also stated that in order to meet Athletics eligibility and participate, a student needs to be a full-time student and maintain a certain GPA. This is to ensure that a student is able to graduate in a timely fashion. In addition, if an athlete is struggling the coaches or other staff members in athletics will assist the student in getting the support that they need.

Five-Year Financial Model Update

The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:

  • It was stated that project #24 Academic Issues will not be moving forward as it has been superseded by other initiatives. The correction will be made on the report.
  • The question was raised regarding what percentage of graduate enrollment comes from recruiting the undergraduate students at the College. Also, whether the decrease in undergraduate enrollment was taken into account that the pool would be smaller to recruit from for graduate enrollment. It was stated that is part of the Institutional Research work that is used for the projections but we can double check to see if that is being factored into the outer years. It was also stated that we have added additional programs that factors into the increased graduate enrollment. The programs that have been added aren’t necessarily programs that the undergraduate students would enroll directly into. These programs have been added because market analysis has been completed that suggests there are adults that have been away from college for a while and would benefit from these programs. The overall decline in 18 year olds will eventually have an impact on graduate enrollment as well.
  • The statement was made regarding targeting adult students and thinking about the needs they may have. For example, free daycare. There may be a way to create an opportunity for undergraduate students or graduate students to gain experience while providing services that makes Brockport a better solution for an adult student.
  • The question was raised regarding the reserves and what the worst case scenario and the best case scenario would be since right now some things were included and excluded. It was stated that the worst case scenario would be the reserves decreasing to $10.5 million. The best case would be to receive the salary savings of $2 million and the State only reducing support by 10% instead of 20%, saving us another $1 million. The total for reserves in the best case scenario would be $13.5 million.
  • The question was raised regarding a change in the numbers from the previous financial model update of about $500,000 and if the tuition shortfall that was talked about in the presentation was the reason for the difference. It was stated that in the previous update, the projection was that the reserves would decrease to about $11.3 million at the end of this fiscal year. The new projection is about $10.5 million. There was about a $900,000 tuition shortfall. Our spring enrollment projections were less than what was expected. The outer years projection are fairly consistent because the projection numbers did not change much.
  • The question was raised if the shortfall was undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment or both and if the shortfall was from fewer new students or due to retention. It was stated that it is a combination of all of that. It was also stated that every year the College has to project what the enrollment is going to be. Many factors are used for this projection. Generally we tend to see an increase in enrollment in certain populations during the first week and the third week. In this instance, the report indicated that we had more graduate enrollment but less undergraduate enrollment than projected. This report was shared in the chat with the committee. In addition, we had more no shows and students taking leave of absences. Some of the reasons for this increase are parents have lost their jobs, the students don’t feel comfortable with online learning or they don’t feel comfortable being on campus during a pandemic. There are so many factors that higher education has not had to deal with before. This is not just a Brockport issue, across SUNY it has been a mirror image. The scary question for all the schools is will the students come back.
  • Clarification was requested regarding the $2.7 million tuition shortfall that was excluded from the reserves. It was stated that is the result of a prior tuition shortfall. The College is expecting to have to pay that back or it will be taken as an adjustment against another funding source, so that is why it was not included in the reserves and kept separate.
  • The question was raised regarding if the stimulus funding can assist with the budget deficit. It was stated that the second approved stimulus will provide about $12 million to the College. The final guidance has not be received yet on the $12 million, but our current understanding is that $4 million will be for funding for the students and the other $8 million cannot be used to cover operating costs. We can use the funding to cover the $1.4 million in expenses for testing and PPE. We may be able to do an analysis on the costs to run the test center in volunteer labor and receive some credit for that. We have not received any information on the recent $1.9 trillion approved stimulus. Once the guidance is received, Cabinet will review it to determine what areas qualify for the funding and once the review is complete, it will be communicated with this committee.
  • The question was raised if we have a competitive advantage in terms of offering our financial aid packages before other schools and if not, is there an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage. It was stated that typically we were the first SUNY school to present the financial aid package up until this year. This year we were about a week or two behind others due to still putting the finishing touches on our new start-up software. With the system being new, we needed to ensure there were no errors in any of the packages. We did not want to present incorrect financial aid packages. Going forward, SUNY Oneonta, SUNY Albany and Brockport will be the first three schools to present a financial aid package until other schools get the new system figured out.
  • The question was raised regarding where the data for the enrollment trends comes from and if the trend line is extrapolated from the context of COVID or if census data is used. It was stated that the State Department of Education works closely with SUNY Intuitional Research and provides not only the number of high school graduates in all of the counties, they also provide information on what it happening with applications and graduation rates in community colleges. Traditionally, almost half of a class has been transfer students. The greatest impact has been fewer transfer students being available from the local community colleges. MCC has gone from over 21,000 students to 12,000 students and that has had an incredible impact on the College. Suggestions have been to increase the number of freshman, but there are only so many freshman available and that is the impact the community colleges are feeling as well. We recently received the data on the decline in the numbers in the counties and the projection for the next ten years. This information can be shared with the committee. In addition, bi-weekly the number of applications for the community colleges are reviewed.
  • The question was raised regarding if the information on the current number of kindergarteners is obtained as this would help us project out 15 years instead of just five. It was stated that this information is looked at. There was a recent discussion at Extended Cabinet about how we can get better access to the reports on campus so that individuals have a better sense that there is declining enrollment. The new data has indicated that there was a drop in the birth rate over the pandemic, so in 18 years there will be another decline.
  • The question was raised regarding the transferring of $5 million from BASC reserves to the College reserves and whether that was included in the total funds in the College reserves in the beginning of the year. If not, how much more funding is available in BASC reserves for the College. It was stated that the $5 million was counted in the College reserves. It was discovered that several years ago the funds were put in BASC reserves for flexibility of use. When the BASC balance sheet was reviewed it was found that the funding was sitting in certified deposits and not achieving the investment dollars that was planned. It was moved to the Foundation in the hopes that the funding will gain what the Foundation is able to on an annual basis. The estimate is to achieve about $250,000 and this amount will be able to be applied to various different items.
  • The request was made to have Dr. Wilson present the enrollment trends at a Chairs Council meeting so that there is a better understanding across campus as to the concerns with enrollment and recruitment limitations.
  • The question was raised regarding the students that did not return this semester that may be on an excelsior scholarship and if the State has indicated any exceptions to the 30 credit a year requirement due to the pandemic. It was stated that the State has been asked about allowing as exception, but SUNY has not received an answer yet.
  • The question was asked if there is an opportunity to change the budget model of the College so it is not as dependent on tuition. It was stated that at this point it doesn’t appear that can be changed. Our state operating budget is tuition driven and funded with state support.
  • The question was raised regarding recruiting in areas outside of NYS, particularly in New Jersey. The in-state tuition in New Jersey is higher than the out-of-state tuition for Brockport and the area that could give us a high yield would be the community college students as they tend to be cost conscious. It was stated that we have spent time trying to recruit in New Jersey, but the results were not enough. We tried recruiting in New Jersey for three to four years and also did marketing, but there just wasn’t a return in our investment. New Jersey is facing the same decline in demographics as New York. Much of the Northeast is experiencing this decline and the schools within those states are fighting to keep the students in-state. One of the growing areas in the nation is Texas, but it would be expensive to have a recruiter down there and there may not be the return in the investment.
  • The question was raised regarding if there are discussions among the SUNY schools regarding the decrease in enrollment, working together and making sure one school doesn’t cannibalize another. It was stated that conversations do occur and how we can combine our enrollment opportunities. One example is SUNY Cortland has started doing a little bit of recruitment in Texas with athletes. So the discussion was what if there was a SUNY recruitment effort in Texas where each school pays towards the recruitment instead of one school paying for the whole expense. These conservation was just starting around the time that COVID hit, so there had to be a pause on the idea, but it is believed the idea will be pursued again once we are able to do so. SUNY as a system is interested in finding ways to amplify efforts for all of SUNY. Some efforts are more successful than others. In terms of competing, it is the university centers that the comprehensive colleges are up against. It was added that there are times that the university centers will match the comprehensive colleges tuition and because the university center has a more well-known name, the student will sometimes choose to go there instead. In addition, it was stated that the U of R and RIT have an agreement with the Rochester City School District that the schools will waive some if not all of the tuition for their students. We cannot compete with that because we have to raise a dollar to afford a dollar.
  • The question was raised regarding the ability to offer in-state tuition to students from bordering states as another SUNY was able to do so in the past. It was stated the Board of Trustees has worked with the expansion of in-state tuition for bordering states in pilot programs. It does require approval from the Board of Trustees and legislation to make those adjustments. The College does not have the opportunity to offer a lower tuition rate, as we would have to make up for it in scholarships. This would hit our bottom line instead of helping us.
  • Clarification was requested on the costs of offering in-state tuition to an out-of-state student and if the difference would have to be paid by the College to SUNY. It was stated that the difference would need to be made up by scholarship funds and we would have to raise those funds to do that. Also, the SUNY system is developed to educate NYS students. It becomes a political issues that all state universities face because the state does fund us. The colleges are supposed to educate NYS residents and therefore assist with NYS costs going forward.
  • The question was raised regarding the reduction of State support of about $3.5 million and where that assumption is coming from. It was stated that is based how we have been funded this year on that rate of reduction.
  • The question was raised regarding why SUNY is happy with the proposed State budget if there is a reduction in support to the colleges. It was stated that SUNY is happy with the budget because of a number of items that have not been cut in it. In past years, the Governor has put in cuts to the university wide programs like EOP, EOC, SBDC and University Fellowship. This year the Governor only put in cuts to the SBDC. There is advocacy occurring to eliminate the cut to SBDC. In addition, the initial release is there will be a five to seven percent reduction in State support to campuses. Right now it is supposed to be an equal cut, but SUNY is advocating for the cut to be made to SUNY and then SUNY will distribute the cuts to campuses. If this were to happen, the cuts may not be distributed equally. We are still awaiting for the final decision.
  • The question was raised regarding if there is more of a push to get the regional high school students familiar with the campus now that they are used to online learning and could take advantage of our winter and summer sessions. It was stated that there are a lot of programs going on right now. There is a program going on with the Greece School District about early college that was originally a partnership with MCC and the College. MCC hasn’t been an active partner as they were initially. There are a lot of other initiatives with the local schools. In addition, the President and Provost sit on ROC the Future that is a local “think tank” that looks at Pre-k to 20 stage of education. With this we are working with schools, other local colleges and not-for-profits on the best ways to support students and their parents to be successful.
  • The question was raised if more is being done to increase the enrollment for the winter and summers sessions since the revenue that comes in through special sessions is able to remain at the College. One opportunity would be to facilitate the completion of a degree in three years instead of four years by using the special sessions and are we marketing special sessions in this way. It was stated that we are looking at opportunities to increase special sessions enrollment. The difficulty is ensuring students have access to special sessions because they have to pay extra tuition for it. It was also stated that the Academic Innovations Taskforce is working on a proposal for comprehensive programs utilizing the special sessions and the ability to complete a degree in three years.

Other Items from the Committee

None at this time.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 a.m

DC/JW/mw