Road Map for a New TRU Budget Methodology Town Hall – May 15, 2014

Introductions and Acknowledgements ACT 1: Context Setting – TRU Numbers ACT 2: Proposed Budget Methodology ACT 3: Question Period TODAY’S DISCUSSION

Established Terms of Reference and membership Establishment of Guiding Principles for a TRU Budget Methodology Review of current budget methodology Review of alternate budget methodologies Review of TRU revenue sources Examination of major cost drivers Review of budget anomalies Review of carry-forward process/impacts BUDGET MODEL REVIEW AND STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT (BMRSA) – SUB-COMMITTEE OF BCOS WORK TO DATE:

Budget Model Review and Strategic Alignment Committee – Ongoing since October Finance and Administration Director’s Meeting – March 10 Budget Committee of Senate – March 11 Finance Administrative Committee – March 24 Provost’s Council – March 25 Finance Committee: Board of Governors – April 4 TRUSU – April 24 Senate – April 28 Town Hall – RIGHT NOW! Employee Associations – May 20 SCHEDULED CONSULTATIONS:

ACT 1: TRU NUMBERS

Kindergarten and Grade 12 Enrolment Projections School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson Source: Ministry of Education

On-Campus Course Enrolments:

Open Learning Course Enrolments:

TRU Total Course Enrolments: Reliance on Int’l Growth is Risky Growth Driven By OL/Int’l

AVED Government Grants ($000’s): Trend in Declining Grants While Domestic Enrolment Flat-Lines

Academic Expenditure CAUBO Comparison On Campus Expenditures are as of 2011/12 CAUBO/ACPAU Report Comparison Benchmark Reports prepared by TRU Finance.

Administration & General Expenditure CAUBO Comparison On Campus Expenditures are as of 2011/12 CAUBO/ACPAU Report Comparison Benchmark Reports prepared by TRU Finance.

Academic Expenditure CAUBO Comparison On Campus and OL

Administration & General Expenditure CAUBO Comparison On Campus and OL

Other Expense Categories CAUBO Comparison

Average Fall Class Size: Source: BC HEADset Submission

Historical Class Size Distribution: Fall Semester, Kamloops Campus Note: Compiled from annual internal Space Utilization reports.

Course Section Size Breakdown: Small Courses Note. Only includes courses for academic credit. Excludes: co-op work terms, thesis courses, directed studies, or distance studies as identified in Banner. 20% of All Sections <15

All Employee Wages and Benefits ($’000’s) Relative to Course Enrolments:

“Period of Dramatic, Disproportionate, Unsustainable Growth”

All Employee Wages and Benefits ($’000’s) Relative to Course Enrolments:

Percentage of Employee Category Costs Relative to Total TRU Employee Costs:

Employee Headcounts:

Excluded Wages and Benefits (‘000’s): The Moment The World Changed

Average Salary by Employee Group: Average Salary in all Employee Categories is Increasing

Employee Category Salary Increases:

Employee Category Average Salaries:

Annual Surplus: Annual Surplus Trending Downward

5 Year Annual Trend: Accumulated Surplus Accumulated Surplus Trending Upward

Accumulated Surpluses ($‘000’s):

Interest Income: Redistributed in the Block Grant

ACT 2: INTRODUCING A NEW METHODOLOGY

No ability to fund institutional strategic initiatives No ability to fund certain known institutional costs Need to review how we spend our limited resources Block grants to faculties/units have remained largely unchanged since 2007 Management practices inconsistent with an enrolment-based model Leaving too much cash on the table at year-end Creates disincentives for collaboration between units/faculties WHY CHANGE THE MODEL?

Contributes to TRU’s surplus Rewards growing Faculties Budget allocations pre-determined so minimizes administrative work Allows for significant freedom of management decisions Encourages entrepreneurial activities WHAT WORKS IN THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY?

“Managers of financial resources at TRU are expected to make budgetary decisions that are in the best interest of TRU as an institution”. Source: Guiding Principles for a TRU Budget Methodology – Adopted by BCOS, February 2014 Strategically driven Transparent, deliberate, consultative Sustainable Mitigate risks Encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and efficiency Supportive of a common TRU Simple PROCESS CHANGE DRIVEN BY GUIDING PRINCIPLES:

Proposed model is a hybrid model Based on a modified zero-based budgeting methodology with clearly defined elements of performance-based budgeting that aligns with current strategy Zero-based budgeting in its pure form means that all costs must be justified every year; modified zero-based budgeting means, in this context, that continuing employee salaries and benefits will not be zeroed out but workloads will be optimized Performance-based budgeting in this context anticipates that units will be rewarded for achieving against specific metrics Proposed methodology tentatively called the FY2015/16 TRU Budget Methodology PROPOSAL FOR AN UPDATED METHODOLOGY:

Step 1: Zero-out budgets Step 2: Forecasting revenue Step 3: Creating the TRU Strategic Investment Fund (SIF) Step 4: Developing service plans Step 5: Update faculty/unit risk registries Step 6: Base-fund known operational costs Step 7: Base-fund permanent, ongoing employee costs Step 8: Optimizing employee expenditures Step 9: Optimizing operating expenditures Step 10: Budget submissions/review/approval process HOW DOES THE 2015/16 TRU METHODOLOGY WORK?

September: Revenue forecasts and expense assumptions completed; Central revenue pool determined; KPI Incentives determined (if any); SIF percentage determined; Budget submission packages are released; Administration meets with TRUSU to discuss perceived service gaps November: Faculties/units complete work load plans for VP approval; Risk registries submitted to Enterprise Risk Management Committee for review and prioritization; Budget Managers discuss SIF proposals with VP’s for approval for inclusion in budget submissions December: Faculties/Units submit completed budget packages with SIF and operating expense justifications; ERM committee submits its priorities for risk mitigation funding TIMELINE

January: Budgets submissions are reviewed by the President’s budget committee February: Draft budget is presented to BCOS for recommendation for approval March: Budget presented to Senate; Budget approved by the Board and budget letters released to Faculties/Units May: Budget post-mortem. Schedule for zero-base reviews will be determined. TIMELINE continued…

WHY THIS PROPOSED METHODOLOGY? Fully aligns with guiding principles Considers all revenues to be University revenues Effective way of controlling unnecessary or non-strategic costs since all costs must be justified in each budget cycle Encourages optimal work-force planning Aligns resource allocations with service expectations Allows for strategic investment through resource redistribution Respects TRU’s collective agreements

GUIDING PRINCIPLES - CURRENT VS PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLECURRENTPROPOSED Strategically DrivenNO – no mechanism to invest in institutional priorities YES – Creation of a Strategic Investment Fund tied to strategic plan Transparent, Deliberate, Consultative NO - Pre-determined; makes consultation difficult YES – Clearly defined process; service plans define service levels; allows for input SustainableNO - fixed methodology; costs never scrutinized YES - Dynamic – costs reviewed annually Mitigates RiskNO - No money budgeted to mitigate institutional risks YES – Links risk registry with budget process

GUIDING PRINCIPLES - CURRENT VS PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLECURRENTPROPOSED Encourages Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Efficiency YES/NO – “Spend what you earn”; encouraged spending what was earned YES – Incentives provided through business cases and KPI’s; Supportive of a Common TRU NO – Created a sense of “ownership” by the earner of the dollar YES – A dollar earned from a TRU activity is a TRU dollar first SimpleYES/NO – Pre- determination of allocations; complexity in carry-forward rules and other “deals” YES – Process will be clearly defined and communicated; IT WILL BE MORE WORK

Project Funds: Money will be provided, based on solid business cases, for projects that enhance the strategic priorities of the institution or have a defined and reasonable payback period (can be on a short or long term basis); could include funding projects/positions in other areas Continuing Education/Graduate Programs: Revenues earned from continuing education can flow to the source directly less a defined overhead component Specific deliverables: Over achieving against pre-defined key performance indicators (e.g. retention, enrolment targets, etc) could yield specific rewards. Specific deliverables may change on an annual basis depending on need or strategic direction ENCOURAGING INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP:

Road Map for a New Budget Methodology at TRU, Discussion Paper available at: Feedback/Thoughts/Ideas: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

ACT 3: QUESTION PERIOD