UO’s new revenue and reserves

6/24/2013: Work in progress, suggestions and corrections welcome. UO won’t release the long-term financial projections on which Jamie Moffitt is basing her claims that they can’t afford the union salary proposals, this is my stab at figuring out the situation.
Summary:
  • Tuition and fees up $32M for this next year:

2010 $243M
2011 $285M
2012 $324M
2013 $388M
2014 $420M (projection, OUS has approved the increase.)

  • State appropriations are now projected to increase by $2.2M more per year than expected.
  • PERS costs were projected to increase $14.5M next year, now perhaps flat.
So, overall, it looks like UO has about $50M in “unexpected” new revenue and reduced costs just for this year. On top of a $64M increase in tuition and fee revenue last year. And UO’s reserves continue to grow. But the administration still is claiming that they can’t afford to pay for the union salary proposal, which is only about $8M more than the admin has already offered, or about $25M recurring, including benefits.

Tuition and Fees: OUS just voted to approve UO’s proposed tuition and fee increases. From pages 41 and 42 of the pdf, UO’s tuition increases are 4.49% for in-state and 3.45% for out of state (on top of 6.1% and 3.6% increases last year). In addition there are increases to a variety of fees. UO’s predictions of extra revenue from these increases are perhaps intentionally confusing. They did not provide the union with any estimate of the revenue increases from the proposals that were made, or accepted. However, including the fee increases, 5% seems ballpark. UO predicts that this would increase tuition revenue by about $31.5M a year, recurring. That is after taking out $2.5M that goes to JH directly, via Shelton’s budget model, for things like Glock ammo and Jim Bean’s sinecure.



PERS: Jamie told the union that she had been instructed to budget for 30% increases in PERS costs. SB 822 has already cut that substantially, additional legislative changes, administrative changes by PERS, and hiring of new employee into cheaper plans and investment earnings make it possible there will be only a small increase, or none.
State Funding: The admin report to the union assumed a 3% increase in state funding to OUS and noted that UO would likely see less. The current budget proposal is for an 8% increase. UO was already planning for an increase in appropriations from $43.7M to $43.8M for the upcoming year, adding in another 5%, let’s call it $2.2M in new revenue above projections.
Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to UO’s new revenue and reserves

  1. Anonymous says:

    Dog says

    oh, those upgrades, yes not news
    I was hoping for something more along these lines:

    classroom renovation/construction and IT/wifi upgrades

  2. Bernie Madoff says:

    Dog — EMU upgrade, rec center upgrade.

    I’m not arguing for or against anyone’s bargaining position, just saying what the numbers look like to me.

    You’d have to ask them about the details of their reserves — I assume they include my ASA bankings and my grant — don’t go near these, it will get you into trouble of the kind I know!

  3. Bernie Maddoff says:

    UOMatters, I think you need to talk to an economist or an accountant. I have some good ones that used to work for me, would be happy to provide references!

    It’s even worse than Anonymous says. The tuition + fees increase is partly dedicated to new facilities. The rest — a 4.5% tuition increase? — can’t possibly provide that much extra income unless enrollment is going up. But then you need more staff, as has been happening year after year. The increased funding per capita is therefor much less than would be inferred from your simple posting of projected numbers.

    And then, as Anon says, the PERS savings, if there are any, will probably be used to offset part of the tuition increase.

    And don’t forget insurance increases.

    Add it all up, it looks like the Admin is right in claiming they don’t have much left over for raises!

    Better look for it somewhere else — that nice central admin post you made recently? But that would require a redirection of funds — not just dividing up a big new jackpot.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Better look for it somewhere else — that nice central admin post you made recently? But that would require a redirection of funds — not just dividing up a big new jackpot”

      Actually, there is a new big jackpot in town called Pac12 Network revenue. Maybe UOM should start jonesing for it now.

    • Anonymous says:

      Fishwrapper sez: That Pac-12 Network revenue is made from the same fabric as Emperor (Larry) Scott’s new clothes. You thought the UO admin costs ate up revenue? Suckers…

    • Anonymous says:

      Dog

      what new facilities?

    • Anonymous says:

      The administration said at the table that part of the tuition increase was going to cover their proposed raises. This was after they claimed that they had already set aside money for the raises before tuition increase was approved. They also said the intuition increase was going to fund classroom renovation/construction and IT/wifi upgrades. Why are they using recurring funds for one time expenditures when they are sitting on such hefty reserves?

  4. Anonymous says:

    If the PERS cuts go through and survive in court , in all likelihood the legislature will demand that they be used to partially alleviate the tuition increase.

    Some of the tuition increase is slated to be used for financial aid — what is the net tuition increase per student?

    A lot of factors to be considered before one knows how much dough they actually have.

    A nice start, keep working on it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.