skip to main skip to secondary navigation
Navigation

JPBC Minutes: May 2, 2024

8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams

Attendees

Voting Members
  • Martin Abraham
  • Lorraine Acker
  • Lexi Bradley
  • Monica Brasted
  • Austin Busch
  • Frances Dearing
  • Michael Doyle
  • Kristin Hartway
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Cathy Houston-Wilson
  • Stephanie Learn
  • Yin Liu
  • Theresa Martinez
  • Carl O’Connor
  • James Onley
  • Kathy Peterson
  • Heather Raczkowski
  • Jamie Spiller
Non-Voting Members
  • Julie Caswell
  • Steve Cook
  • Eileen Daniel
  • Damita Davis
  • Crystal Hallenbeck-McPhall
  • Mike Harrison
  • President Macpherson
  • Skye Paine
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair
  • Elliot Weininger:  Co-Chair
  • Melissa Wight
Guests
  • Mike Baird
  • Jennifer Blood
  • Nathan Bull
  • Laura Coriddi
  • Keith Davis
  • Kandie Gay
  • Jennifer Green
  • Scott Haines
  • Jennifer Haytock
  • Dana Laird
  • Julie Letourneau
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Frank Mancini
  • Tammy Jo Manz
  • Tyler Moesle
  • Pamela O’Keefe
  • Karen Podsiadly
  • Pam Powell
  • Janet Roy
  • William Ruiz
  • Katherine Schaal
  • Bonnie Swoger
  • Christine Walterick
  • Susan Wielgosz
  • Robert Wyant

Regrets

Voting Members
  • Mike Andriatch
  • Sara Kelly
  • Gavin Miller
  • Lily Wegerski

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

 

Approval of the Minutes

 

Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the April 11, 2024, meeting minutes. Dr. Peterson motioned to approve the minutes; Mr. O’Connor seconded the motion. 12 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Dr. Weininger asked the committee to review the April 18, 2024, meeting minutes. Dr. Spiller motioned to approve the minutes; Mr. O’Connor seconded the motion. 13 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

 

Announcements

Dr. Weininger made the following announcement:

  • The Budget Townhall is today at 11:00 a.m. in Edwards 103. All members were encouraged to go if able.
  • The final JPBC meeting for this semester will be in one week on May 9, 2024.

Open Positions and Retirement Eligible Update

Mr. Wall provided an update on the open positions and retirement eligible. The following questions, answers, and discussion items occurred:

  • Appreciation was extended for the event presentation.
  • The question was raised regarding the 24 open positions in Administration & Finance and concerns about them being able to function effectively with that many vacancies. It was stated that Ms. Caswell has been managing the vacancies quite well to ensure all the deliverables are met. There are a lot of positions that open up in the janitorial area and there is a lot of turnover in that area. We try to fill them the best that we can.
  • The question was raised regarding the 9-11 positions that were not going to be refilled and what the long-term trends appear to look like with this number of positions that will not be filled and what the size of the university we imagine having going forward. It was stated that we have to look at the enrollment projections. If we look at the year that we had an enrollment peak of 8300, we have more positions now than we did when we had 8300 students. So our positions over time have grown. This is why it is critical when we have open positions, we have to be mindful if that position is going to be replaced or if there is an opportunity to capture that position. If you look at the enrollment projections that Sara and her team have been sharing we are looking to get back up to the 7500-7600 level and that will help even things out going forward.
  • The question was raised regarding if there could be more positions that are captured to increase savings while we right size the university and maintain our mission. It was stated that we have been operating with 60-80 open positions. This would suggest that the campus can run without the budgeted number of positions. As Cabinet reviews the 2024-25 budget over the summer, they will be looking at open positions and trying to rationalize the open position number to see if more savings can be captured towards the structural deficit.
  • The question was raised regarding if the savings from the open positions is reserved in a budget and released at the end of the year. It was stated that the savings from open positions is collected throughout the year and typically flows at the end of the year into the reserves or the rollovers.
  • The question was raised if the open position funding causes constraints because we can’t use the funds during the year as it designated for the open positions. It was stated that there is opportunity at times when there are open positions that are not being filled to repurpose the funding towards other needs on campus.
  • The question was raised regarding when the savings from the open positions flows into reserves at the end of the year and results in a higher end of year balance in the reserves then projected and does this mean that the reserves are growing and the structural deficit is decreasing. It was stated that the draw on the reserves is not as much as anticipated. The favorability from the open positions and any budgeted spend that isn’t spent. This allows us to take less from reserves than we anticipated to offset the structural deficit.
  • The question was raised regarding the total number of positions now being more than it was at the enrollment peak in 2017 and whether JPBC examines headcount data across divisions to see where the growth has been. It was stated that a faculty and staff analysis was done over a year ago and that could be shared. The growth was in Academic Affairs and the other divisions were flat or decreased. It was added that the Strategic Planning Assessment Committee’s data states that four to five years ago there were 345 faculty and now we have 315. There is no data on the staff side. It was decided this would be added as an agenda item for the fall.

Five-year Financial Model

Mr. Wall provided an update on the Five-year Financial Model. The following questions, answers and discussion items occurred:

  • Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
  • The question was raised regarding the fee-based programs and why we are having to provide funding for them. It was stated that for Athletics we are adjusting that for about $700,000 a year. Currently the Parking and Transportation budget looks healthy, but if you go out two or three years from now, it could go into a negative balance. There are other fee based programs in the same situation where it may look reasonable now, but if you go forward a couple of years the balances start to go negative. We just want to make sure that we have the proper focus and controls in place to have those budgets break even. It was added that SUNY is holding most fees flat so we do not have the opportunity to increase our fees based on our needs. Our fee based organizations have fixed costs like staffing. In addition, virtually all Athletics programs across the nation are not self supporting and are subsidized by campuses. The reason for this is that the retention rate of our athletic students is higher than our non athletic students. In addition, it brings community building and community relations. There is a great deal of benefit that Athletics brings to our campus.
  • The question was raised regarding if there are contingencies in the model if the 1200 new freshman projection is not met because currently SUNY is down 3500 first-year deposits and this could be because of the delayed FASFA. It was stated that Cabinet reviews the Institutional Research (IR) input and they agree on a forecast that looks reasonable. Then Dr. Hallenbeck-McPhall and her team take the information and calculate a revenue forecast that is submitted to SUNY. If we do not meet the revenue forecast, then we have to fund the difference from our reserves. If we over exceed the revenue forecast, then we get to keep the additional funds.
  • The question was raised regarding the need for scholarships as incentive because scholarship students still have a big financial gap with even a $7,000-$8,000 unmet need balance per semester and if the scholarship funding is reduced the 1200 new freshmen goal may not be attainable. It was stated that is part of the work that needs to be done over the summer to understand all of the factors with the scholarship funding.
  • The question was raised regarding the projected flat rate of the 650 transfer students in the future years and if the number was attainable with the reduction of enrollment at community colleges and the societal factors against four year degrees. It was stated that in 2017 there were 1000 transfer students enrolled and this year it was 720. The number is decreasing, but there has been a lot of positive momentum building partnerships with our local community colleges. The addition of online degree completion programs puts us into a new market and a growing market. About 39% of our incoming transfer students are online degree completion program students. Both of these will help reposition us in the transfer landscape.
  • The question was raised regarding the SERC and FBW expenditure of $390,000 and if that includes the $120,000 that Campus Recreation gives to the campus annually towards expenditures to run SERC. It was stated that SERC was built into the model as a temporary ongoing item and a decision was made to make it a permanent allocation in the reserve budget so that it is not a separate temporary item. This does not include Campus Recreation’s overhead contribution back to campus.
  • The question was raised if the FBW building being added to the model is the same situation as the SERC. It was stated that is correct.
  • The question was raised regarding how out of state and international tuition is factored into the model. It was stated that when IR provides projections it includes counts for out of state students and that includes any international growth.
  • The question was raised regarding if Facilities would be right-sized due to the shrinking enrollment and if there would be any projected savings. It was stated that our footprint has maintained constant. Early projections a number of years ago had thought we would be able to get away from utilizing Mortimer. Now we are using Mortimer for various reasons. The only building that has been excluded is Morgan. There really isn’t a lot of savings projected from changing the footprint. In fact, any savings we have obtained from better maintenance initiatives has been used to cover increasing utility costs.
  • The question was raised regarding that there is not excess instructional or office space across campus with opportunity to close a building and we are currently balanced. It was stated that is an opportunity for the Space Committee and Facilities to review to see if there are any areas that could be consolidated.
  • The question was raised regarding the structural deficit balance and if it included the savings for retirements. It was stated that the savings were included.
  • The question was raised regarding the dynamics of scholarship spending and enrollment and how other schools are handling this. It was stated that the summer working group can try to obtain this information. In terms of retaining students, schools share this information with each other, but when it comes to recruiting students the information is not widely shared due to the schools being competitors.

Facilities Projects and Electrical Update

Mike Baird and Bill McGorray provided a presentation on the Facilities projects and electrical update. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • Appreciation was extended for the presentation.
  • The question was raised regarding if the three projected outages will be the time where most of us will feel the impact of the electrical update. It was stated that at this point in time that is correct. There is an issue they are trying to resolve that may result in 30 minute shutdowns to transfer things over to a different circuit, but it would be done at night when it wouldn’t impact people.
  • The question was raised regarding what the update is on the Tower main stage project. It was stated that Mr. Morog is heading up this project and it currently on vacation. This project is a priority and there will be more details in a week or two when Mr. Morog returns.
  • Confirmation was requested regarding the total cost of the Tuttle South renovation being $100,000,000+. It was stated that is correct.
  • The question was raised regarding what the process is for receiving the funding for the Tuttle South renovation. It was stated that usually that State allocates about $550 million to the construction fund. The construction fund looks at the condition index of all of the buildings in SUNY and then prioritizes where the funds will go.
  • The question was raised if it would be more economical to build a new building instead of renovate Tuttle South due to the high cost of the renovation. It was stated that the legislation only allows for the maintenance of buildings.

Additional Items from the Committee

  • The question was raised regarding why there were not investment funds this year. It was stated that there was less innovation of transformation and more use to fill spending gaps with the last round of investment funds. The vision for what investment funds are for and the reality of what they were being used for ended up being two different things. We wanted to take a pause and spend the funds that we wanted to invest but really analyze what it should be used for. Also, we wanted to examine the status of the structural deficit before funding was allocated. If investment funds are to be offered again, there will be clear perimeters around the funds and with the possible focus on recruitment activities.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m.

JW/EW/mw