RESOURCE PLANNING

PROCESS

2009-2010

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH 2009-10 RESOURCE PLANNING PROCESS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Explanatory Notes …………………………..……………………...……….………...... i

Co-Chairs’ Message ….……………………………………………….…….……......... 1 – 5

Membership of Resource Planning Process Task Force ..……………….……...…. 6

2009-10 Sources and Uses Plan .……………………….………………………..…... 7 – 11

Future Challenges, Considerations and Recommendations ……………………….. 12 – 16

Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………….... A1 – D8

A. Guidelines for Budget Submissions ………………………………………… A1 – A8

B. Enrollment Data …..………………………………........................................ B1

C. Schedule of Meetings …………………………………………………………. C1

D. Glossary of Terms ……………………………………………………..……… D1 – D8

This report summarizes the 2009-10 Resource Planning Process at the end of the academic year in May 2009. The data and plans contained within are based on information available at that time. It is acknowledged that there was an unusually high level of uncertainty about the state fiscal situation and much occurred during the summer months. Therefore, the final campus budget plans for 2009-10 are substantially different than what is contained in this report. However, this plan is being published to document the work done by the 2009-10 RPP Task Force.

Page

Explanatory Notes i

EXPLANATORY NOTES ON CONTENTS OF REPORT

MEMBERSHIP OF THE RESOURCE PLANNING PROCESS (RPP) TASK FORCE A representative task force of the campus leadership was charged with the role of advising the President on matters related to the General Fund budget allocations for the coming fiscal year. The membership is comprised of two non-voting co-chairs, and ten voting members representing faculty, staff and student leadership. A representative of the California Faculty Association (CFA) Local Chapter and a representative of the staff unions are invited to participate as observers, and four individuals are appointed as staff support to the Task Force. SOURCES AND USES PLAN This plan prepared by the Office of Administration and Finance provides the Task Force with the perspective of the University's 2009-10 General Fund budget outlook. The plan is updated as new information becomes available. FUTURE CHALLENGES, CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A collection of current and future issues that have budgetary implications for the campus.

APPENDIX GUIDELINES FOR BUDGET SUBMISSIONS A copy of the March 18, 2009 communication from the Task Force to the division heads outlining the guidelines to be used in the campus' 2009-10 budget planning process, along with some of the State and System budget information upon which the initial planning parameters were based. ENROLLMENT DATA A display of the actual student enrollments for 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 as well as the preliminary enrollment targets for 2009-10 based on Governor’s proposed budget. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS A schedule of the 21 separate occasions on which the Task Force convened. Thirteen working and planning meetings were held from January to April, 2009. Six separate open hearings for the operating divisions were conducted in April and May. Following the hearings, the Task Force met twice for a total of 52 hours of deliberation. GLOSSARY OF TERMS A collection of definitions of various terms and phrases specific to CSULB and the CSU used in the RPP Task Force report.

CO-CHAIRS’ MESSAGE

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

Co-Chairs Message 1

To: F. King Alexander, President From: Karen Gould, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

Mary Stephens, Vice President for Administration and Finance Co-chairs, 2009-10 Resource Planning Process (RPP) Task Force

Date: June 11, 2009

Subject: 2009-10 RPP Task Force Budget Recommendations

We are pleased to transmit the budget recommendations of the 2009-10 Resource Planning Process (RPP) Task Force. During this year’s planning, one theme once again gained consensus: CSULB is committed to protecting our students, our faculty, our staff, and the integrity of our core mission. The university views these challenging budget conditions as a shared burden and everyone is fully committed to do the best we can with what we have. SUMMARY

With a substantial shortfall in tax revenues and with voter rejection of budget-related ballot propositions, the state is now faced with a re-emerging budget deficit for 2009-10. As a result, CSULB is facing substantial budget reductions this coming year. Unfortunately, we do not know the final amount, the effect, or even the timing of the budget reduction. However, the RPP Task Force believes it is important to convey the recommended budget plan for 2009-10 to the campus community prior to the start of the academic year. The RPP Task Force has developed recommendations for a 3 percent reduction to instruction, a 4 percent reduction to support areas, and enrollment downsizing to target. Anticipating the likelihood of a worsening situation, the RPP Task Force identified contingencies against a deteriorating budget, now certain. Implementing these budget plans in 2009-10 will impact employment for temporary faculty, class availability, ability to fill vacant staff positions, operating budgets, and faculty and staff workload throughout the university. At this time, several key issues remain unresolved including the full scale of the substantive state budget reductions and possible actions by CSU Trustees to reduce impacts on campuses. Depending on how these issues are ultimately resolved, the recommended contingencies may or may not be adequate to handle reductions for the coming year. Should still-further reductions be necessary in summer or early fall, the RPP Task Force recommends that the campus make every effort to avoid further impacts on the schedule of classes and to protect other vital aspects of the campus mission.

Co-Chairs Message 2

CURRENT BUDGET OUTLOOK

In mid-May, California voters rejected all of the budget-related ballot propositions. State April tax revenues were announced as $15 billion below projections. Falling revenues and rejected propositions together have created a re-emerging state budget deficit of $24 billion. The Governor provided a “May Revision” of his budget which contained additional drastic budget reductions to many state agencies, including all higher education.

The May Revision contains substantial additional budget reductions to the CSU. The Chancellor described the magnitude of the total fiscal impact to the CSU over 2008-09 and 2009-10 ranges from $410 million to $486 million. Although approximately $166 million of the $410 million impact has already been addressed by the CSU and system campuses, $244 million is unresolved at this time. The size of this unresolved CSU budget problem requires that CSULB wait for guidance and direction from the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees. Currently, discussions are already underway to develop an appropriate plan to address the new round of significant state budget reductions. As stated by the Chancellor, “These cuts will severely impact our ability to provide student access to our universities, maintain our workforce, preserve services, and protect the quality of our institutions.” In response, the Chancellor has indicated that he will develop a plan of action in consultation with campus presidents and the CSU Board of Trustees. At this point, there are several significant remaining sources of uncertainty. The state budget situation may stabilize or continue to worsen. The Governor’s budget may be enacted by the Legislature as proposed or it may be modified. CSU Trustees may take system-wide actions that mitigate some of the impacts on CSULB.

At this point, the May Revision is a proposal by the Governor that must be approved by the Legislature, but it is prudent to assume that the final budget will resemble this proposal. Legislative leaders are indicating a desire to respond promptly to the failure of the May ballot propositions and the re-emerging state deficit. It is unclear, however, whether there will be sufficient consensus in Sacramento on solutions so that a final budget will be in place by mid-summer. If not, we could be well into the fall semester before having a final budget for 2009-10.

RECOMMENDATIONS RPP’s budget planning for CSULB, described below, included contingencies for further reductions, which now certainly will need to be invoked. Therefore the RPP Task Force budget recommendation, based on the situation as currently understood, is as follows:

Reduce student FTE enrollment to our funded target.

Implement 3 percent reductions to instruction and 4 percent reductions to support areas effective July 1, 2009.

Provide a $3 million contingency to offset additional reductions.

Utilize University reserves to the extent possible to offset additional reductions. Depending on how uncertainties are resolved, these contingency plans may be adequate to handle the ultimate budget reductions. It is also possible that additional reductions will be necessary. Unfortunately, the RPP Task Force is not in a position to provide more definitive conclusions at this time.

Co-Chairs Message 3

RPP Planning, Based on the State Budget Enacted in February 2009

Most of RPP’s planning was necessarily based on the budget plan signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009. This unprecedented budget plan was intended to cover 18 months from January 2009 to June 2010 and to resolve a then-projected state budget deficit of over $40 billion. In that budget, the CSU was reduced by $97.6 million for 2008-09 from the prior year and an additional $50 million reduction that was tied to (ultimately insufficient) federal stimulus funding. The Governor’s plan did not include funding for mandatory cost increases, enrollment, compensation increases or other operational needs. The total funding shortfall for the CSU in that plan was $283 million, or approximately 10 percent below the amount the CSU would have received under the Trustees’ budget request (based on the Higher Education Compact Agreement between the Governor and the Chancellor). The Governor’s plan assumed voter approval of the May propositions and a projected level of state tax revenues, but neither assumption proved valid.

In that plan, CSULB’s estimated share of the state budget reduction would have been $3.7 million. Unfunded mandatory cost increases for health benefits, energy, new space, and the faculty merit pay pool were projected at $2.8 million. In addition, the campus had identified essential priorities costing $2.3 million for the comprehensive fundraising campaign and enhanced classroom maintenance. Because of anticipated further budget reductions, the RPP Task Force included a $3.0 million risk contingency in planning.

As an offset to these reductions, Trustees enacted a 10 percent student fee increase worth about $4.0 million. The RPP Task Force also identified university-wide budget savings totaling $1.6 million. Positive trends in workers compensation and liability claims and some decreasing insurance premiums permit the university risk management budget to be reduced. In addition, a projected utilities cost increase of almost $900,000 included in our earlier planning figures can be deferred due to the closure of PH3, but this cost will need to be included in 2010-11 budget plans when the new science building opens. Recognizing the centrality of instruction to our core mission, the Task Force has again recommended a lesser percentage reduction in the instructional budget (3 percent) than in non-instructional budgets (4 percent). The RPP co-chairs, in consultation with the President, agreed that the President will apply university end-of-year carryover resources to address a worsening budget situation, although no dollar value for this contingency can be determined until the end of the fiscal year. The table below summarizes the RPP planning, based on the State budget enacted in February 2009. These figures represent changes for 2009-10 beyond the reductions we have already addressed to cover our share of the 2008-09 CSU reduction of $97.6 million (CSULB’s portion was $7.0 million).

Co-Chairs Message 4

REDUCTIONS, COSTS, RISKS, PRIORITIES: (in millions) State Budget Reduction: “Trigger” $3.7 Mandatory Costs: Benefits, Utilities $2.2 Mandatory Costs: Faculty Merit Pay $0.6 Contingency: Risk of Further Reduction $3.0 Campus Priority: Comprehensive Fundraising Campaign $1.8 Campus Priority: Enhanced Classroom Maintenance $0.5 TOTAL REDUCTIONS, COSTS AND RISKS $11.8 OFFSET BY REVENUES AND SAVINGS: 10 Percent Fee Increase Proceeds $7.7 Less: Set-aside for State University Grants ($3.7) Savings in Utilities, Workers Compensation, Insurance $1.6 TOTAL REVENUES AND SAVINGS OFFSET $5.6 ESTIMATED NET CAMPUS BUDGET PROBLEM $6.2

ENROLLMENT

RPP was also faced with a major interrelated change that complicated the planning process significantly: downsizing enrollment to our funded target. In response to Legislative pressure, the Chancellor has directed over-enrolled campuses such as Long Beach to manage student enrollment down to target or face financial penalties. The campus must reduce enrollment to our funded target of 29,430 FTES, a reduction of almost 1,600 FTES from current year enrollment. The Division of Academic Affairs must reduce the fall and spring schedules of classes to accommodate the anticipated enrollment reduction and loss of $2.8 million formerly provided by over-enrollment fee revenue. At the academic department level, this change will function much like a budget cut in that classes must be eliminated, and many part-time faculty will not be offered employment, while the demand for those classes will also diminish.

It is not yet clear what the impact of simultaneously downsizing enrollment significantly and reducing instructional budgets will be on the campus. It is expected that some unusual, unpredictable budget needs may develop as this difficult task is implemented. The RPP Task Force believes that the university reserve is the appropriate funding source for such emergent, one-time needs. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The RPP Task Force recognizes that state budget problems may not be resolved in one year and that the campus probably will face additional substantive reductions next year. Significant reductions will become progressively more difficult and harmful. In the event of continued reductions, the campus may need to explore a range of budget approaches in order to successfully sustain the campus core mission of delivering high-quality, student-focused education.

Co-Chairs Message 5

The full 2009-10 RPP Task Force Report will be published over the summer. The report will contain additional background information, the projected impacts of the budget reduction plan as reported by the operating divisions, and other considerations and recommendations that arose during the process.

The Task Force commends all divisions for their thoughtful, creative and proactive efforts. Essential services have been examined and efficiencies have been maximized. While necessary, the Task Force recognizes that reduction strategies will force the elimination of many less critical services and will slow the delivery of critical services to students and campus constituents. Our university has made virtually all of the reductions that can be made without beginning to affect core mission activities. The Task Force would like to acknowledge the continued hard work of the entire university community and the resolve shown by all. CSULB remains a vital, premiere institution of higher education that is one of the nation’s best. This would not be possible without the energy, creativity, dedication and positive attitude of our faculty, staff and students. C: Associated Students Officers All CSULB Employees

MEMBERSHIP

Membership 6

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

RESOURCE PLANNING PROCESS TASK FORCE

2009-10 MEMBERSHIP

NON-VOTING Karen Gould, Provost and Senior Vice President, Academic Affairs

CO-CHAIRS: Mary Stephens, Vice President for Administration and Finance

VOTING Alan Colburn, Chair, Faculty Personnel Policies Council

MEMBERS: Keith Freesemann, Chair, Program Assessment and Review Council David Huckaby, Chair, Curriculum and Educational Policies Council Patricia Kearney, Chair, University Resources Council

Praveen Soni, Chair, Academic Senate

Sharon Taylor, Representative, Division of Administration and Finance Mary Ann Takemoto, Representative, Division of Student Services Toni Beron, Representative, Division of University Relations and

Development

Marilee Samuelson, Staff Representative, Academic Senate

Erin Swetland, President, Associated Students, Inc.

OBSERVERS: Teri Yamada, Representative, California Faculty Association

STAFF: David Dowell, Vice Provost and Director of Strategic Planning Marianne Hata, Assistant Vice President, Academic Resources, Academic Affairs

Ted Kadowaki, Associate Vice President, Budget and University Services Maggie Wang, Budget Director, Administration and Finance

2009-10 SOURCES AND USES PLAN

CHANGESFY 2008-09 AFFECTING 09-10 FY 2009-10

2008-09 Net State Support 204,868,758$ 2008-09 Revenues and Reimbursements

State University Fee 110,831,691 Other Receipts 22,384,988 Permanent Interest Income from SUF Revenues 463,000 Campus Temporary Resources - One time reduction 2,279,700 Campus Temporary Resources - Budget plan 3,320,300 Total 2008-09 General Fund Budget 344,148,437$

CSU Adjustments to 2008-09 Budget Oct 2008 Reduction (CSU = $31.3M) - One time reduction (2,279,700) Special Session Reduction (CSU = $66.3M) - Base reduction (4,713,000) (6,992,700)

Total 2008-09 General Fund Budget 337,155,737$

Adjustment to 2008-09 General Fund Budget (Retirement rate) (111,180)

2009-10 BEGINNING BUDGET 337,044,557$

Reallocation of funds for new space (564,600) Reallocation of funds for State University Grants (936,300) Federal "Trigger" Reduction (CSU = $50M) Base reduction (3,667,500)

10% Fee Increase Revenue (incremental increase) 7,687,700

Campus Resources

Less: 2008-09 Campus Temporary Resources - Budget plan (3,320,300) Plus: 2009-10 Campus Temporary Resources -

TOTAL 2009-10 GENERAL FUND SOURCES 336,243,557$

USES:

2008-09 Internal Budget

Division Budgets (Base + non-base) 207,608,496$

University-wide Budgets (Base + non-base) 129,547,241

Total 2008-09 Internal Budget 337,155,737$

Changes to 2008-09 Internal BudgetLess: 2008-09 Campus Temporary Resources - Budget plan (3,320,300) PERS Retirement Rate Change (111,180) Changes to University-wide Budgets (risk management budget, utilities deferral) (1,551,000) Division Budget Reductions (6,200,000) Contingency for risk of further reduction 2,977,300

Adjusted 2008-09 General Fund Budget 328,950,557$

2009-10 EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT CHANGES

Directed/Earmarked by System Office

Health Benefits Rate Changes 799,000

Faculty PPI Program 582,000

Energy Rate Changes & Consumption 877,000

State University Grant (incremental increase) 2,687,700

Total Directed/Earmarked by System Office 4,945,700

Funded by CampusComprehensive Fundraising Campaign 1,847,300 Enhanced Classroom Maintenance 500,000

Total Funded by Campus 2,347,300

7,293,000$

TOTAL 2009-10 GENERAL FUND USES 336,243,557$

SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) -$

Explanatory notes that provide detail for each figure immediately follow this exhibit.

2008-09 General Fund Budget

Net Budget Plan Changes

Net 2009-10 Expenditure Changes

State University Fee Income

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

SOURCES:

2009- 2010 BUDGET PLANNING

SOURCES AND USES PLAN

Sources and Uses Plan 7

California State University, Long Beach 2009-10 Resource Planning Process

Sources and Uses Plan

Explanatory Notes

The 2009-10 Sources and Uses Plan estimates the impact of budget decisions made by the State, by the CSU System Office, and the Long Beach campus on the resource allocations for the upcoming year. The plan is based on the unprecedented 18 month budget plan signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009 and the CSU Budget letter B09-01 dated March 5, 2009. The plan does not include any changes that could occur with the legislative proceedings that take place before the final budget is passed. The plan presents permanent and temporary allocations that comprise this year’s budget strategy. The following notes provide an explanation of the numbers shown on the plan. Other related notes and recommendations on the budget strategy and selected topics can be found in the sections following this plan.

SOURCES

2008-09 General Fund Base Budget Net state support and budgeted revenues and reimbursements detailed in the 2008-09 CSULB Internal Budget Document.

2008-09 Net State Support $204,868,758 Represents that portion of the University’s state budget supported by tax revenues.

2008-09 Revenues & Reimbursements

State University Fee $110,831,691 Represents that portion of the University’s budget supported by undergraduate, teacher credential and graduate student fees.

Other Receipts $22,384,988 Represents the portion of the University’s budget comprised of fees and miscellaneous reimbursements for services. Examples include student health center fee, application fee, non-resident tuition, transcript fees, etc. Interest Income From State University Fee Revenues $463,000 The campus is now authorized to deposit and manage student fee revenue in local trust accounts and retain most of the interest income that is generated. In order to keep this revenue shift neutral to the state, an annual payment to the state will be made for lost interest income. Despite this payment to the state, the campus was confident that the total interest income would be sufficient enough to permanently pledge this amount to the campus base budget.

Sources and Uses Plan 8

Temporary Resources – One time reduction $2,279,700 The campus has accumulated sufficient reserves for a temporary bridge until permanent funds become available. The campus was comfortable pledging this amount of temporary resources in order to fund our share of the one-time CSU reduction from the state of $31.3 million. Temporary Resources – Budget plan $3,320,300 The campus has accumulated sufficient reserves for a temporary bridge until permanent funds become available. The campus was comfortable pledging this amount of temporary resources in order to fund campus priorities and unforeseen costs.

CSU Adjustments to the 2008-09 Base Budget

October 2008 Reduction <$2,279,700> Long Beach’s share of the $31.3 million one-time CSU reduction from the state.

Special Session Reduction <$4,713,000> Long Beach’s share of the $66.3 million base budget reduction from the state.

Total 2008-09 General Fund Budget $337,155,737

Adjustment to 2008-09 General Fund Budget <$111,180>

PERS retirement rate change to reflect the decreased cost of employer-paid contributions for employee retirement effective July 1, 2008.

Net Budget Plan General Fund Reduction The net 2009-10 decrease in the campus’s General Fund allocation is based on CSU budget allocations detailed in the CSU system coded memorandum B09-01 on the 2009-10 Governor’s Budget Allocations. Reallocation of funds for new space <$564,600> Reallocation of funds for State University Grants <$936,300>

Campus General Fund budgets are proportionately reduced to redirect funding to campuses that have new space coming on-line and to adjust State University Grant funding levels. Federal “Trigger” Reduction <$3,667,500> Long Beach’s share of the $50 million base reduction from the state that was tied to insufficient federal stimulus funding.

State University Fee Income $7,687,700 CSULB expects a total of $118,519,391 to be collected in State University Fee (SUF) revenue in 2009-10. This increase of $7,687,700 is due to a 10% rate increase for undergraduate, graduate, and credential students effective Fall 2009. This revenue

Sources and Uses Plan 9

projection is contingent on achieving our funded 2009-10 college year enrollment target of 29,430 FTES.

Campus Resources

Less: 2008-09 Campus Temporary Resources <$3,320,300> Represents the amount of campus temporary resources utilized in 2008-09 to fund campus priorities and unforeseen costs. Plus: 2009-10 Campus Temporary Resources $ 0 At this time, no usage of campus temporary resources has been included in the budget plan.

Total 2009-10 General Fund Resources $336,243,557

USES

2008-09 Internal Budget The budgets for the operating divisions and university-wide programs as detailed in the 2008-09 Internal Budget Document.

Divisions' Budgets $207,608,496 Budget allocations for the operating divisions exclusive of permanent compensation allocations awarded in 08-09.

University-wide Budgets $129,547,241 General, necessary, or unavoidable costs that benefit the entire campus rather than a particular operating division.

2008-09 Internal Budget $337,155,737

Changes to 2008-09 Internal Budget Less: 2008-09 Campus Temporary Resources <$3,320,300>

Reflects the reduction in budgetary requirements commensurate with the amount of campus temporary resources utilized in 2008-09.

PERS Retirement - Rate Change <$111,180> This is the offsetting entry to the base budget adjustment to the Benefits budget associated with the rate decrease in campus contributions to the CalPERS employees' retirement program, which became effective during 2008-09. Changes to University Wide budgets <$1,551,000> Positive trends in workers compensation and liability claims and some decreasing

Sources and Uses Plan 10

insurance premiums permit the university risk management budget to be reduced. In addition, a projected utilities cost increase of $877,000 included in planning figures below can be deferred for one year due to the closure of PH3, but this cost will need to be included in 2010-11 budget plans when the new science building opens.

Division Budget Reductions <$6,200,000> Represents the reduction in division budgets required to offset the decrease in General Funds contained in the January Governor’s Budget for CSULB.

Contingency for risk of further reduction $2,977,300 Due to a high level of uncertainty with regard to the state fiscal outlook and because of anticipated further budget reductions, a risk contingency of almost $3 million has been incorporated in planning.

2009-10 CHANGES IN CAMPUS EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS Represents permanent and temporary budget adjustments for divisions and university-wide allocations.

Directed / Earmarked by System Office Health Benefits Rate Changes $799,000

These expenses represent the permanent increase in employer-paid health care costs resulting from January 2009 premium increases.

Faculty Post Promotion Increases (PPIs) $582,000 This is the estimated incremental full year costs of faculty post promotion salary increases to be awarded in 2009-10.

Energy Rate Changes & Consumption $877,000 The amount identified for the campus is based on our proportional share of custodial square footage (SQF4) as indicated in the 2008-09 Capital Planning Design and Construction facility database. However, as noted in Changes to University Wide budgets above, this budget increase can be deferred for one year due to the closure of PH3.

State University Grant (SUG) $2,687,700

Permanent budget adjustment associated with the financial aid set aside of 33% of state university fees from the increased revenue associated with changes in fee rates and enrollment target. This adjustment is a preliminary projection of changes that will occur in campus fiscal year 2009-10 budgeted SUG allocations.

Funded by Campus Comprehensive Fundraising Campaign $1,847,300

Costs required in support of ongoing efforts related to conducting the comprehensive fundraising campaign.

Sources and Uses Plan 11

Enhanced Classroom Maintenance $ 500,000 Costs required to enhance the regular classroom maintenance program that will allow for increased frequency of painting, floor stripping and waxing, carpet cleaning, replacement of chairs and tables, etc.

Net 2009-10 Expenditure Changes $7,293,000

Total 2009-10 General Fund Uses $336,243,557

FUTURE CHALLENGES

AND CONSIDERATIONS

Future Challenges and Considerations 12

California State University, Long Beach 2009-10 Resource Planning Process

Future Challenges and Considerations KEY IMPLICATIONS OF 2009-10 BUDGET PLAN Enrollment In recent years CSULB has experienced a dramatic increase in applications and a marked increase in enrollment. Although CSULB attempted to reduce enrollment for 2008-09, enrollment remained roughly flat year to year and CSULB again exceeded its enrollment target by about 1,573 FTES, resulting in a total of 30,962 FTES. For 2009-10, the CSU system office has assigned CSULB an enrollment target of 29,430 FTES, level with the prior year. Moreover, the Chancellor has directed over-enrolled campuses such as CSULB to manage down to funded targets or face financial penalties. These penalties have occurred in a state environment where the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) recommended that the state should never fund the CSU for over-enrollment. If the Legislature adopted this view, future financial costs to the CSU and to CSULB would be very large. In effect, the LAO recommendation threatens to punish the CSU for responding to student needs. For this reason, the CSU and CSULB must manage toward targets to avoid a severe financial risk. Managing downward will not be easy. All of the factors that drove CSULB enrollment upward in recent years are still in force and additional factors exacerbate upward pressures. Dramatic adjustments in class schedules will be required to adapt to downsizing and maintaining student access to classes. Academic Affairs has worked extensively to develop tools to aid in these adjustments. Enrollment management will continue to play a critical role in campus budget planning. CSULB must be mindful of state funded enrollment levels because we may experience further budget reductions if funded enrollment targets are not met. Student Assistants CSULB has always utilized student assistants to augment the regular workforce to perform ongoing tasks, complete special projects, and accommodate peak seasonal workload demands. This not only allows the university to effectively accomplish its many objectives, it also provides students with valuable training, relevant work experience, and a convenient accessible way to assist them with their personal finances. More importantly, there is evidence that students who work on campus are more engaged in university life which leads to higher retention and graduation rates compared to other students.

Future Challenges and Considerations 13

With budget reductions over the past several years, all divisions have placed a priority on the retention of its faculty and staff workforce. Therefore, divisions have been forced to reduce the utilization of student assistants to achieve their budget cuts. While the RPP Task Force understands that this action has been unavoidable, they urge all divisions to consider the appropriate size of the student assistant workforce when the fiscal situation allows. The RPP Task Force also urges that divisions consider student internships to mitigate reductions to student assistants. Department of Athletics The RPP Task Force discussed the unique situation the Department of Athletics faces during years of budget reduction in which they are negatively affected in three distinct ways. First, they are usually asked to participate in any pro rata state General Fund budget reduction. Second, when enrollments decrease so do student fee allocations (e.g., IRA and Beach Pride), which negatively affects their total resources. Third, because the State University Fee (i.e., tuition rate) often increases when the state budget is cut, the required scholarship expenditure for student athletes increases. These three factors result in decreasing revenue and increasing expenses, which exacerbates the impact of tough budget times on the Department of Athletics. In an attempt to mitigate the impact of these factors and to advance some priorities of the Department of Athletics, a student fee referendum called the Beach Legacy Referendum was conducted during spring 2009. The students voted to not support the terms of the Beach Legacy Referendum as presented, but the Student Fee Advisory Committee recommended that President Alexander consider implementing a modified version of the Referendum. The RPP Task Force recognizes the importance of these financial issues facing the Department of Athletics and urges the university to be mindful of its unique situation during future budget cycles. Information Security The RPP Task Force discussed the importance of effective information and network security measures to protect the valuable assets managed by the campus. The quantitative and qualitative damage to the university that can result from an information security breach is immeasurable. With budget reductions the past several years, it was noted that many information technology areas across the university have chosen to reduce or eliminate efforts related to information security as part of difficult budget choices. The RPP Task Force is concerned about the level of resources being utilized to protect the invaluable information assets of the university. The Task Force urges the university to invest current or future available resources towards strengthening information security efforts to ensure proper safeguards exist. Decentralized Budgets University Wide budgets are centrally held funds set aside for purposes that benefit the entire campus. These budgets do not belong to any one division and are typically considered fixed, unavoidable costs required to operate the university. The best

Future Challenges and Considerations 14

examples of University Wide budgets are utilities, student financial aid, and employee benefits. Because of the unique nature of these budgets, they have been excluded from prorata budget reductions. Over the past several years, the RPP Task Force has conducted a thorough review of University Wide budgets. This process resulted in the identification of several University Wide budget line items that probably do not or no longer should be considered University Wide. These budgets are more appropriately and effectively managed at the division or department level. During 2008-09, several University Wide budgets were decentralized and allocated as base budgets to a division or department. For example, budgets for the Common Management System (CMS) and Baseline Access, Training and Support (BATS) were allocated to the user departments where the ongoing costs reside. For 2009-10, the Task Force supports the decentralization of the following University Wide budgets and the allocation of base budgets to these departments: Classroom Maintenance - $210,200 to Physical Planning and Facilities Management Emergency Preparedness - $50,000 to University Police State Controller’s Assessments - $55,000 to Human Resources Management CSU System Assessments - $30,000 to Financial Management The receiving departments are aware that these allocations will become part of their base operating budgets and therefore subject to future prorata budget reductions. ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN 2010-11 PLANNING Use of Temporary Resources and Carryover Over the past several years, the university exercised tight expenditure controls and prudent fiscal management resulting in the accumulation of temporary campus resources for that “rainy day.” In an effort to mitigate budget problems and substantive disruption, the president has utilized some of this rainy day fund. Along these same lines, the divisions have also utilized carryover funds to help mitigate the full effect of budget reductions. While the RPP Task Force fully supports this decision to utilize temporary resources to help mitigate 2009-10 budget challenges, the RPP Task Force would like to remind the campus community that this only defers the problem to future budget years if additional base funding is not provided in the near term. Veterans Affairs Given changes in overseas deployment philosophies and recent enhancements to veteran’s benefits (G.I. Bill), it is likely that the number of post-war servicemen and women who are interested in higher education will dramatically increase over the next

Future Challenges and Considerations 15

several years. These new students are also likely to require more advising, mentoring, counseling, and learning assistance than the typical matriculating student. The CSULB administration is fully supportive of these students who will bring to the university added diversity, cultural background, and life experiences. Ideally, the university would like to establish a Veterans Center to properly serve the unique needs of these students. It would be a one-stop location for veterans to receive the advising, mentoring, counseling, etc., services that they require. Due to budgetary constraints, this initiative may need to be slowly phased in over time. At the present time, we have a Director of Veterans Affairs and one staff member who serve as a certifying officer. As the number of veteran students on campus increases, there will be a need for additional staff to support this community. The RPP Task Force is fully supportive of the initiative for a Veterans Center and recommends that these services remain a high priority in future budget cycles. Campus E-Mail System The RPP Task Force discussed the importance of having a state-of-the-art campus email system. It was described as vital technology infrastructure required for effectively conducting daily university business, conveying official university communications, and facilitating emergency notifications. The Task Force also discussed the benefits (improved communications and calendaring, consistent support, better control of records and security) of having a common campus email system for all faculty and staff employees. While the benefits of a common email system are significant, the costs and complexities associated with implementing such a system are equally significant. The RPP Task Force urges the university to continue analyzing this ever-changing technology so that it can be prepared to act when the opportunity presents itself. Future Budget Reductions The Task Force commends all divisions for being thoughtful, creative, opportunistic, and aggressive in proposing strategies for 2009-10 to handle budget reductions. While necessary, the Task Force recognizes that strategies will force the elimination of many less critical services and will slow the delivery of critical services to students and other campus constituents. The Task Force also recognizes budget reductions may affect activities and programs that help develop students into well-rounded individuals and help provide a full educational experience. In planning for 2009-10 budget reductions, the Task Force recognizes that essential services have been examined and efficiencies have been maximized. The campus has made virtually all of the reductions that can be made without affecting core mission activities. The RPP Task Force also recognizes that temporary university reserves and carryover amounts are being seriously depleted and divisional flexibility to deal with future cuts are diminished. The RPP Task Force has begun to discuss the potential for future budget reductions. As budgets continue to decrease, the campus should explore creative approaches in order to successfully sustain the campus core mission of delivering high-quality,

Future Challenges and Considerations 16

student-focused education as a premier institution. For example -- taking advantage of economies of scale with regard to campus-wide contracts, reviewing assigned time policies, implementing automated processes to replace paperwork and forms, and combining like departments and programs. The Task Force would like to acknowledge the continued hard work of the entire university community and the resolve shown by all. CSULB remains a vital premiere institution of higher education that remains one of the nation’s best. This would not be possible without the energy, creativity, dedication, and positive attitude by all faculty, staff, and students.

APPENDIX

GUIDELINES FOR BUDGET SUBMISSIONS

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 1

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

DATE: March 18, 2009 TO: Vice Presidents Gould, Stephens, Robinson and Taylor, Director Cegles, Executive Assistant Nakai FROM: 2009-10 Resource Planning Process Task Force – RPP SUBJECT: Campus Budget Planning for FY 2009-10 Executive Summary

California’s structural budget deficit and the international economic downturn combined this year to produce a $41.6 billion state budget deficit. On February 20, 2009, the Governor signed an unprecedented budget plan covering 18 months from January 2009 to June 2010. This plan places the CSU $283 million below its operational needs in 2009-10, or approximately 10 percent below the amount the CSU would have received under the Higher Education Compact Agreement. The budget plan reduced the CSU budget by $97.6 million for 2008-09 and $66.3 million for 2009-10, and provided no funding for mandatory cost increases that function like additional cuts. In 2009-10, the Governor’s budget will mean a reduction of about $6.5 million for CSULB. This is a net figure after considering a 10 percent fee increase likely to be enacted by the Trustees for fall 2009. CSULB has acted conservatively in budget planning for the current year. Had we not done so, impacts would be more severe than we are now projecting. In addition, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) has recommended that the Legislature strip the CSU of future funding associated with current over-enrollment. If enacted, this would result in a future budget cut as large as or larger than current cuts. To avoid this threat, the Chancellor has directed over-enrolled campuses to manage enrollment down to target. For these reasons, the campus must plan for two major, distinct but interrelated changes: (1) Downsizing enrollment to funded target and (2) Budget reductions, per se. Downsizing enrollment: The campus must reduce enrollment to our funded target, 29,430 FTES. The Division of Academic Affairs must reduce the fall and spring schedules of classes to accommodate the anticipated enrollment reduction and loss of $2.8 million formerly provided by over-enrollment fee revenue. At the academic department level, this change will function much like a budget cut in that classes must be eliminated, although the demand for those classes will also diminish.

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 2

Budget Reductions: RPP has established parameters for two budget reduction scenarios:

2 percent reduction to instruction and a 3 percent reduction to non-instructional areas.

3 percent reduction to instruction and a 4 percent reduction to non-instructional areas.

Substantial uncertainties have yet to be resolved. Divisions are asked to plan carefully based on these parameters but (except for enrollment downsizing, which is now unavoidable) to avoid taking other irrevocable measures until greater certainty has been established.

Level of Uncertainty The level of uncertainty with regard to the state fiscal outlook and the Governor’s Budget for 2009-10 is particularly high. The Governor’s budget contains assumptions about three key revenue sources that remain to be confirmed.

In April, the state will determine if California will receive $10 billion in specific categories of federal stimulus revenue necessary to offset General Fund costs.

1

In May, voters must approve a proposition that will allow for future lottery revenues to be securitized, authorizing current borrowing.

In May, tax revenues will be assessed determining whether the budget’s revenue projections were accurate or too optimistic.

Because each of these is a major source of uncertainty, the Governor’s May/June revised budget may be drastically different than the current budget plan. Therefore, although the assumptions and planning parameters contained in this document are based on the latest available information, it is possible that circumstances will change and necessitate adjustments.

California Fiscal Outlook and the Governor’s Budget Proposal California continues to experience decreases in home values, worsening credit availability, growing job losses, and decreasing consumer and business spending. Most economists

1 A portion of the Federal Stimulus package provides state aid that can be used to address budget

shortfalls and funds that supplement existing state spending. It is estimated that California will receive up to $31 billion for these purposes. However, it is unclear how much of this $31 billion can be used to offset state General Fund expenditures. The recently adopted 2009-10 state budget assumes that at least $10 billion in federal stimulus funds will be available by the end of 2009-10 that can offset General Fund expenditures. If this $10 billion threshold is met, additional cuts (including $50 million each for the CSU and UC) and some tax increases will be “triggered off” – not implemented. The controversy is in the definition of what parts of the federal stimulus legislation will actually count toward this $10 billion threshold. The language in the 2009-10 state budget is vague and open to interpretation. But, the budget language requires the State Treasurer and the Director of Finance to determine by April 1, 2009 if the threshold has been met or not. As of this writing, both the Governor’s Office and the Legislative Analyst Office estimate that only $7.8 billion will be available by the end of 2009-10 to offset General Fund expenditures, which would “trigger” the additional $50 million cut to the CSU.

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 3

now agree that the national and state economies have been in recession since December 2007. It is expected that California’s economy will continue to experience negative growth in 2009, followed by weak growth in 2010, and improved growth in 2011. The assumptions and key features of the Governor’s proposed budget for the 18 months from January 2009 to June 2010 are:

State budget deficit of $41.6 billion.

Proposed solutions include revenue enhancements ($12.5 billion), spending reductions ($14.9 billion), securitization of lottery revenues and other borrowing ($5.4 billion), use of federal stimulus funds ($7.8 billion), and line-item vetoes ($1 billion).

Budget proposal relies heavily on borrowing, obtaining voter approval for key budget-balancing propositions, and the successful issuance of billions of dollars of debt in a credit market in turmoil.

Budget Support for the CSU For the second consecutive year, the Governor’s Budget fails to fund the Compact with Higher Education and instead implements a broad overall reduction of 10 percent from the requested Compact level. In summary, the Governor’s Budget for the CSU:

Reduces current year (2008-09) support to the CSU by $97.6 million.

Restores $31.3 million in 2009-10.

Keeps in place a cut to the CSU budget of $66.3 million in 2009-10.

Places the CSU $283 million below its operational needs in 2009-10, or approximately 10 percent less than the requested Compact level.

Fails to provide $86 million of funding in lieu of a 10 percent student fee increase. The impact of this proposed budget can be summarized as follows:

Adversely affects the CSU’s ability to maintain quality and services to its 450,000 current students.

Forces the CSU to reduce enrollment levels by 10,000 FTES to align with funding provided by the state.

Sizable workforce reduction of part-time faculty systemwide due to enrollment downsizing.

Negatively affects the state’s economy by limiting the CSU’s ability to provide graduates in key industries including nursing, agriculture, business, public administration, engineering and technology, and in key educational areas, including science and math educators for K-14.

Required Enrollment Downsizing In recent years CSULB has experienced a dramatic increase in applications and a marked increase in enrollment. These trends were accentuated by the economic downturn that unfolded in 2008 and continues. Although CSULB attempted to reduce enrollment for 2008-09, enrollment remained roughly flat year to year and CSULB again exceeded its enrollment target by about 1,573 FTES, resulting in a total of 30,962 FTES. Although new admission offers were reduced, a remarkable rise in yield from these offers among better qualified freshmen and another increase in continuation rates accounted for this increase. The strength of these trends

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 4

surprised the campus and, as a result, CSULB closed to admissions for spring 2009, except for critical need programs in Nursing and Engineering.

For 2009-10, the CSU system office has assigned CSULB an enrollment target of 29,430 FTES, level with the prior year. Moreover, the Chancellor has directed over-enrolled campuses such as Long Beach to manage down to targets or face financial penalties.

These penalties have arisen in a state environment in which the LAO has recommended to the Legislature that the state should never fund the CSU for over-enrollment. If the Legislature adopted this view, future financial costs to the CSU and to CSULB would be very large. The LAO recommendation fails to consider the recent historic context. Just a few years ago, CSU and CSULB enrollments closely matched targets. However, as high school graduates increased toward a historic peak in 2008, many popular CSU campuses, including Long Beach, responded to sharply increasing demand by accommodating more students, leading to the current over-enrollment. In effect, the LAO recommendation threatens to punish the CSU for responding to student needs. For this reason, the CSU and CSULB must manage toward targets to avoid a severe financial risk.

Managing downward will not be easy. All of the factors that drove CSULB enrollment upward in recent years are still in force and additional factors will exacerbate upward pressures. Our programs are attractive for their recognized high quality. California 2009 high school graduates will remain near the 2008 level, the historic high. CSULB costs are very low compared to most UC and private alternatives. Seven of the ten top competitors to CSULB are UC campuses (UC Irvine is number one) and UCs are restricting freshman enrollment, with UC Irvine restricting the most. CSULB is local for many students, reducing cost of attendance. In times of economic crisis, such as we face in 2009, many families and students are likely to opt for lower cost and more local educational alternatives. With other options restricted, we anticipate a surge in applications and demand for enrollment particularly from better qualified applicants who in other years would consider a wider range of alternatives.

The university has developed a plan to downsize enrollment by about 1,500 FTES for the coming college year (summer, fall and spring). This figure is based on the following components:

Reduce new freshman enrollments about 1,000 headcount.

Reduce new transfer enrollments about 1,100 headcount.

Remain closed to spring admissions except for critical need programs of Nursing and Engineering.

Maintain somewhat reduced summer enrollment, increasing slightly above the summer 2008 summer funding level.

Maintain flat graduate enrollment.

Maintain student access to classes (and therefore maintain continuation rates and average unit loads).

These are dramatic changes that will require major adjustments in class schedules to adapt to downsizing and maintain student access to classes. Academic Affairs has worked extensively to develop tools to aid in these adjustments. These restrictions also will have major effects on our feeder high schools and community colleges and our Outreach Office has worked to keep those partners informed of our actions.

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 5

University Budgets While the university budget is complex, this section provides a general context to help the reader better understand the sections that follow.

The state utilizes an incremental budgeting process. Annual funding increases or decreases are applied to the General Fund base budget depending on financial, economic, and political conditions.

When budget allocations increase, CSULB receives state resources for: 1. Designated or mandatory expenditures, such as compensation increases,

employee benefit changes, etc. Resources must be utilized for these expenditures and the campus has little discretion over their use.

2. Non-designated uses, such as enrollment growth increases over the current year funded enrollment target. The campus does have some discretion over the use of these resources.

When budget allocations decrease, CSULB receives no incremental funding and may also have its base budget reduced, as is projected for 2009-10. This means that:

1. CSULB will be required to reduce its base budgets and also cover the increased costs in mandatory expenditures such as compensation, employee benefit changes, etc.

2. CSULB must be mindful of enrollment levels because we may experience further budget reductions from the CSU if funded enrollment targets are not met or are exceeded by more than 2 percent.

Approximately two-thirds of our university operating budget is provided by state general funds and one-third is generated by student fees. It is important to note that while we do not receive state general funds for enrollment beyond our target, we do generate and retain student fees attributable to over-enrollment.

Budget Recovery Plan The budget recovery plan was crafted during the last state-imposed budget reduction period of 2002 and 2003. The essence of the budget recovery plan was to utilize temporary reserve funds accumulated from general university savings and division savings to mitigate the impact of base budget cuts. While this obviously decreased university reserves for emergencies and unexpected expenditure requirements, the university was comfortable with this action because of the expected receipt of non-designated state resources tied to our steady annual enrollment growth plan. After funding new faculty positions to accommodate enrollment growth, the remainder of the permanent funds was pledged to the recovery plan to restore base budgets and reduce dependency on temporary funding. The budget recovery plan worked as designed for four years. Permanent funds tied to our enrollment growth plan enabled us to steadily replace temporary resources, thus restoring base budgets to funding levels prior to the cuts. In fact, instructional budgets for faculty positions were fully recovered in 2007-08. However, there was not sufficient funding to fully restore non-instructional budgets. Non-instructional budgets were provided $3 million in temporary resources in 2007-08 with the full expectation that permanent base funds would replace them in 2008-09.

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 6

Unfortunately, no enrollment growth funding was available in 2008-09. In order to mitigate the reduction to non-instructional budgets in 2008-09, $1 million in temporary resources was again allocated to non-instructional budgets. However, since enrollment growth funding will not be forthcoming in 2009-10, these areas will be affected by an additional budget cut because they will not receive the temporary funds they are currently utilizing for operations in 2008-09. CSULB Budget Outlook In summary, the total budget impact of the state funding reduction and the unfunded costs that must be covered is $6.5 million for CSULB, as outlined in Exhibit 1. This amount would have been much larger, but we were conservative in 2008-09 and implemented base budget reductions to cover our share of the CSU’s $66.3 million General Fund cut for 2008-09 and 2009-10. In order to continue this conservative approach that has served us well, we have taken a cautious position with regard to the federal stimulus funds. We have assumed for budget planning purposes that the state will not receive over $10 billion in federal stimulus funds that can offset General Fund reductions, “triggering” a funding reduction of $3.7 million for CSULB. After applying additional revenues received from a student fee increase, the costs of presidential priorities, and the application of temporary university resources, the estimated negative budgetary impact to operating divisions is $4.1 million. Please see Exhibit 1 for details. The following narrative attempts to explain this exhibit: CHANGE IN COSTS:

The estimated unfunded costs related to compensation agreements for the budget year is $0.6 million. CSULB’s share of the unfunded mandatory cost increases, including employee health benefits not funded by the state, and CSU budget allocation adjustments is $2.2 million. In addition, our share of the negative outcome from the federal stimulus plan (“Trigger”) is $3.7 million. In aggregate, the estimated state funding reduction and cost requirements that must be funded by CSULB translate into a funding problem of $6.5 million.

CHANGE IN REVENUES:

The budget package assumes a 10 percent State University Fee increase effective fall 2009. This incremental fee revenue increase based on our planned enrollment performance will generate $4 million in resources that will help mitigate the $6.5 million funding problem.

PRESIDENT’S PRIORITIES:

The president has identified several university priorities to be included in the 2009-10 budget:

Comprehensive Fundraising Campaign $1.8M – CSULB is in the early stages of a very important comprehensive fundraising campaign. Interrupting the momentum that has already taken place would set the university back considerably. Campaign results will provide better educational opportunities for our students, build our endowment, significantly build annual fundraising efforts, and strengthen our statewide and national reputation. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees mandated that every campus have a comprehensive effort to further the

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 7

academic mission of the university. With an expected return on investment of 7:1, the campaign has received broad university support since 2006-07 and has been funded with temporary resources due to a lack of permanent discretionary funds.

Enhanced Classroom Maintenance $0.5M – This will continue the enhanced classroom maintenance program that provides for more frequent attention to maintenance issues such as routine classroom maintenance, carpet and floor cleaning, and classroom painting.

The inclusion of the costs related to these university priorities totals $2.3 million. For planning purposes, the president has decided to apply $700,000 of temporary university resources to help mitigate the budget problem. This amount is based on the planning scenario contained in these instructions. It should be noted that the final amount of temporary university resources utilized to mitigate the budget problem may increase or decrease depending on the final budget outcome. The president and the task force recognize that temporary university resources are not unlimited. They also recognize that the utilization of temporary resources to mitigate the full impact of the 2009-10 budget situation largely defers the problem to future budget years. In addition, all non-instructional areas will have to deal with the loss of $1 million in prior non-base funding that they were able to use in 2008-09, which effectively is another 1 percent budget reduction for non-instructional areas. Academic Affairs will also have to deal with the loss of $2.8 million in temporary funding associated with over-enrollment student fee revenue that will not be available because of the required reduction in enrollment. Although over-enrollment (and the associated workload) is being eliminated, that loss is nevertheless a genuine reduction in resources to Academic Affairs and a real loss in instructional employment across the campus. Campus Budget Reduction Plan CSULB is committed to protecting our students, our faculty, our staff, and the integrity of our core mission. The university views these challenging budget conditions as a shared burden and everyone is fully committed to do the best we can with what we have. Notwithstanding, the task force has agreed that in campus budget planning, instruction will be a priority. Hence, the budget reduction to instruction will be less than the reduction to non-instructional areas. The reduction to instruction is proposed at 2 percent and the non-instruction areas of Academic Affairs will share the burden with the rest of the campus at 3 percent. Please see Exhibit 2 for reduction details. The 2008-09 base budgets of the university divisions will be the point of departure for 2009-10 budget reductions. Divisions are expected to identify total divisional carryover resources and the application of these resources to their budget planning. Contingency Planning As mentioned earlier, the level of uncertainty regarding the upcoming budget year is unusually high and the fall semester and fiscal year may have begun before we know the

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 8

final budget outcome for the campus. Accordingly, the task force requests that all divisions prepare contingency plans based on a reduction to instruction at 3 percent and to non-instructional areas at 4 percent. Please see Exhibit 3 for reduction details. Campus Goals The rising excellence of California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) is increasingly recognized. The university is ranked as one of the top five public comprehensive universities in the western United States for the fifth consecutive year

(U.S. News & World

Report) and is named among the best value public universities of all American public colleges and universities (The Princeton Review). CSULB has received these recognitions because, as a high quality, low cost institution, the university provides unusually high return on investment of state resources and makes a remarkable contribution to the “public good.” Further, President Alexander has played a national leadership role in developing the Voluntary System of Accountability, which provides public accountability and highlights university contributions to the public good. CSULB has five Strategic Priorities:

1. Student Success: This year the campus attained a milestone, raising the freshman graduation rate to a historically high level, capping a decade of improving rates. The campus continually works to improve the quality of the student experience in and out of the classroom, and encourages “Beach Pride” among students, staff, faculty and alumni. The campus has set ambitious new goals to further raise graduation rates.

2. Academic Quality: While excellence in teaching is the core of the campus mission, excellence in research and creative activities strengthens academic programs, leads to new areas of disciplinary and interdisciplinary focus, and adds value to CSULB degrees. The campus emphasizes student engagement through undergraduate and graduate student research, artistic and creative expression, academic internships, service learning, and international opportunities.

3. Service Excellence: CSULB seeks to deliver “Excellence Every Day” in services through the concerted efforts of staff and skillful deployment of technology. The campus has set new goals for service improvements.

4. Campus Life: CSULB’s diverse students, faculty, staff, and administration have long enjoyed a distinctive culture marked by respect, collegiality, tolerance, and civility. The university aims to continue and enhance this inclusive culture by promoting respect for all, opportunities to engage in controversial issues with collegiality and respect, opportunities for service to others, and support for diverse perspectives.

5. Sustainable Environment: CSULB’s distinctly beautiful campus provides an excellent environment for student learning and is much admired by visitors. As the new Master Plan is implemented in the coming decade, the university aims to improve sustainability, update and expand the infrastructure, promote environmentally responsible behavior, and preserve campus beauty.

Over the next three-year planning period, CSULB will enact these priorities by achieving a series of Campus Goals described in the CSULB Strategic Priorities and Goals for 2009-12. (http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/aa/planning_enrollment/documents/CampusGoals09-12j.pdf)

Guidelines for Budget Submissions 9

In developing budget plans for the 2009-10 fiscal year, each university division should describe how proposed budget reductions, reallocations, or mitigations will affect:

Student access to essential classes,

Quality of overall student experience both inside and outside the classroom,

Institutional effectiveness, and

Progress toward CSULB’s priorities and goals. Forms and Instructions Exhibits 2 and 3 (attached) provide the specific base budget reduction and non-base funding allocations for Form 3, which are based on the preliminary campus planning parameters described in this document. Deans, directors and department heads should look to their respective division offices for specific instructions on how to respond to internal divisional planning strategies. The task force is in the process of reviewing and editing the traditional RPP forms. The objective is to simplify the forms completion process so that more time can be spent on evaluating, consulting, and planning. We expect to send all revised forms, prescribed formats, and presentation instructions to each division executive by the end of March. Future Updates As the university receives new budget developments, the task force will incorporate any appropriate changes into the budget planning process. Divisions are asked to inform their areas of these latest developments. Attachments Exhibit 1: Preliminary Campus Budget Outlook Exhibit 2: 2009-10 Campus Budget Strategy – Planning Scenario Exhibit 3: 2009-10 Campus Budget Strategy – Contingency Scenario cc: President Alexander Deans, Associate Deans, Directors and Department Heads Academic Senate Executive Committee Staff Council Executive Committee Associated Students Officers CSULB Faculty and Staff Union Chapter Presidents Library Reserve Book Room

% of

(in millions) Base

2008-09 Division base budgets after adjusting for share of $66M reduction $207M

CHANGE IN COSTS

09-10 Faculty Merit Pay Pool (Based on B 09-01) * (0.6)

09-10 Mandatory Costs and Adjustments (Based on B 09-01) * (2.2)

09-10 "Trigger" Reduction (Based on B 09-01) * (3.7)

TOTAL CHANGE IN COSTS (6.5)

CHANGE IN REVENUES

10% Fee Increase based on target of 29,430 FTES 7.7

Less:1/3 set-aside for financial aid and SUG reallocation (3.7)

NET CHANGE IN REVENUES 4.0$

CHANGE IN COSTS / RESOURCES (2.5)

PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES ON NON-BASE FUNDS

Comprehensive Fundraising Campaign (1.8)

Partial Enhanced Classroom Maintenance (0.5)

PRESIDENT'S PRIORITIES (2.3)

GROSS CAMPUS BUDGET PROBLEM (4.8)$ -2.3%

APPLICATION OF TEMPORARY CAMPUS RESOURCES 0.7

NET CAMPUS BUDGET PROBLEM (4.1)$ -2.0%

(Pro rata Base Reduction to all Divisions)

LOSS OF PARTIAL TEMP FUNDS FROM BUDGET RECOVERY PLAN (1.0)$ -1.0%

(Effective Reduction to Non-Instructional Budgets)

TOTAL IMPACT ON OPERATING DIVISIONS (5.1)$ -3.0%

* = B 09-01 is the Preliminary Budget Allocation Memo for 2009/10 from the Chancellor's Office dated March 5, 2009.

ADDITIONAL LOSS TO ACADEMIC AFFAIRS OF OVER-ENROLLMENT (2.8)$

FUNDING DUE TO PLANNED ENROLLMENT REDUCTION

3/18/2009

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

PRELIMINARY CAMPUS BUDGET OUTLOOK

2009-10 GOVERNOR'S BUDGET

(Assumes 09-10 enrollment at FTES target of 29,430)

EXHIBIT 1

EX

HIB

IT 2

- P

LA

NN

ING

SC

EN

AR

IO =

2%

In

str

uc

tio

nal

Cu

t /

3%

No

n-I

ns

tru

cti

on

al

Cu

t

(a)

(b)

2008-0

9

2009-1

02008-0

9Loss o

f2009-1

02008-0

92009-1

0T

ota

lE

ffective

OP

ER

AT

ING

BU

DG

ET

SB

ase

2.0

% C

ut

Base

Non-B

ase

BR

P F

unds

Non-B

ase

Oper

Budget

Oper

Budget

Impact

% C

ut

12

3=

1+

24

56=

4+

51+

43+

62+

5

Acad A

ffairs -

Instr

uction

108,3

68,3

32

-2,1

67,3

67

106,2

00,9

65

00

0108,3

68,3

32

106,2

00,9

65

-2,1

67,3

67

-2.0

%

- N

on-instr

uction

37,2

96,8

70

-745,9

37

36,5

50,9

33

372,2

84

-372,2

84

037,6

69,1

54

36,5

50,9

33

-1,1

18,2

21

-3.0

%

Tota

l A

cadem

ic A

ffairs

145,6

65,2

02

-2,9

13,3

04

142,7

51,8

98

372,2

84

-372,2

84

0146,0

37,4

86

142,7

51,8

98

-3,2

85,5

88

-2.2

%

Adm

in a

nd F

inance

38,6

16,8

18

-772,3

36

37,8

44,4

82

393,0

89

-393,0

89

039,0

09,9

07

37,8

44,4

82

-1,1

65,4

25

-3.0

%

Stu

dent S

erv

ices

12,8

72,4

83

-257,4

50

12,6

15,0

33

138,0

04

-138,0

04

013,0

10,4

87

12,6

15,0

33

-395,4

54

-3.0

%

Univ

Rela

tions a

nd D

evelp

3,8

91,0

14

-77,8

20

3,8

13,1

94

40,1

20

-40,1

20

03,9

31,1

34

3,8

13,1

94

-117,9

40

-3.0

%

Ath

letics

3,7

83,5

23

-75,6

70

3,7

07,8

53

39,2

00

-39,2

00

03,8

22,7

23

3,7

07,8

53

-114,8

70

-3.0

%

Pre

sid

ent's

Off

ice

1,7

79,4

56

-37,3

69

1,7

42,0

87

17,3

03

-17,3

03

01,7

96,7

59

1,7

42,0

87

-54,6

72

-3.0

%

206,6

08,4

96

-4,1

33,9

49

202,4

74,5

47

1,0

00,0

00

-1,0

00,0

00

0207,6

08,4

96

202,4

74,5

47

-5,1

33,9

49

-2.5

%

(a)

- T

hese f

igure

s s

hould

be in the B

ase R

eduction c

olu

mn o

f F

orm

3 -

Budget R

eduction S

tate

ment

(b)

- T

hese f

igure

s s

hould

be in the N

on-B

ase c

olu

mn o

f F

orm

3 -

Budget R

eduction S

tate

ment

EXHIBIT 2C

AL

IFO

RN

IA S

TA

TE

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

, L

ON

G B

EA

CH

20

09

-10

CA

MP

US

BU

DG

ET

ST

RA

TE

GY

3/1

8/2

009

EX

HIB

IT 3

- C

ON

TIN

GE

NC

Y S

CE

NA

RIO

= 3

% I

nstr

uc

tio

nal

Cu

t /

4%

No

n-I

ns

tru

cti

on

al

Cu

t

(a)

(b)

2008-0

9

2009-1

02008-0

9Loss o

f2009-1

02008-0

92009-1

0T

ota

lE

ffective

OP

ER

AT

ING

BU

DG

ET

SB

ase

3.0

% C

ut

Base

Non-B

ase

BR

P F

unds

Non-B

ase

Oper

Budget

Oper

Budget

Impact

% C

ut

12

3=

1+

24

56=

4+

51+

43+

62+

5

Acad A

ffairs -

Instr

uction

108,3

68,3

32

-3,2

51,0

50

105,1

17,2

82

00

0108,3

68,3

32

105,1

17,2

82

-3,2

51,0

50

-3.0

%

- N

on-instr

uction

37,2

96,8

70

-1,1

18,9

06

36,1

77,9

64

372,2

84

-372,2

84

037,6

69,1

54

36,1

77,9

64

-1,4

91,1

90

-4.0

%

Tota

l A

cadem

ic A

ffairs

145,6

65,2

02

-4,3

69,9

56

141,2

95,2

46

372,2

84

-372,2

84

0146,0

37,4

86

141,2

95,2

46

-4,7

42,2

40

-3.2

%

Adm

in a

nd F

inance

38,6

16,8

18

-1,1

58,5

05

37,4

58,3

13

393,0

89

-393,0

89

039,0

09,9

07

37,4

58,3

13

-1,5

51,5

94

-4.0

%

Stu

dent S

erv

ices

12,8

72,4

83

-386,1

74

12,4

86,3

09

138,0

04

-138,0

04

013,0

10,4

87

12,4

86,3

09

-524,1

78

-4.0

%

Univ

Rela

tions a

nd D

evelp

3,8

91,0

14

-116,7

30

3,7

74,2

84

40,1

20

-40,1

20

03,9

31,1

34

3,7

74,2

84

-156,8

50

-4.0

%

Ath

letics

3,7

83,5

23

-113,5

06

3,6

70,0

17

39,2

00

-39,2

00

03,8

22,7

23

3,6

70,0

17

-152,7

06

-4.0

%

Pre

sid

ent's

Off

ice

1,7

79,4

56

-55,1

63

1,7

24,2

93

17,3

03

-17,3

03

01,7

96,7

59

1,7

24,2

93

-72,4

66

-4.0

%

206,6

08,4

96

-6,2

00,0

34

200,4

08,4

62

1,0

00,0

00

-1,0

00,0

00

0207,6

08,4

96

200,4

08,4

62

-7,2

00,0

34

-3.5

%

(a)

- T

hese f

igure

s s

hould

be in the B

ase R

eduction c

olu

mn o

f F

orm

3 -

Budget R

eduction S

tate

ment

(b)

- T

hese f

igure

s s

hould

be in the N

on-B

ase c

olu

mn o

f F

orm

3 -

Budget R

eduction S

tate

ment

3/1

8/2

009

EXHIBIT 3

20

09

-10

CA

MP

US

BU

DG

ET

ST

RA

TE

GY

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

ST

AT

E U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y,

LO

NG

BE

AC

H

ENROLLMENT DATA

FT

ES

BY

CO

LL

EG

ES

AN

D IN

ST

RU

CT

ION

AL

AR

EA

S

(1)

(2)

% O

F%

OF

% O

FS

UM

ME

RF

AL

LS

PR

ING

TO

TA

LT

OT

AL

TO

TA

LS

UM

ME

RF

AL

LS

PR

ING

TO

TA

LT

OT

AL

TO

TA

LS

UM

ME

RF

AL

LS

PR

ING

TO

TA

LT

OT

AL

TO

TA

L

372

4,36

3

(3

)4,

338

(3)

4,72

3

16

%4,

861

478

4,65

0

4,

614

5,11

0

17

%4,

964

377

4,95

6

4,

832

5,27

1

17

%5,

059

320

2,51

4

2,

538

2,84

6

10

%2,

857

298

2,60

2

2,

651

2,92

5

10

%2,

816

215

2,75

6

2,

724

2,95

5

10

%2,

782

206

1,96

1

1,

998

2,18

5

7%

2,07

1

21

02,

059

2,06

9

2,

274

7%2,

074

167

2,08

2

1,

903

2,16

0

7%

2,05

2

681,

388

1,36

5

1,

444

5%1,

451

611,

474

1,45

5

1,

526

5%1,

514

401,

595

1,56

2

1,

619

5%1,

497

602,

861

2,77

4

2,

878

10%

2,92

2

65

3,10

6

2,

782

3,00

9

10

%3,

059

323,

183

2,85

6

3,

052

10%

2,82

5

220

4,11

4

3,

818

4,18

6

14

%4,

401

243

4,24

0

3,

931

4,32

9

14

%4,

391

154

4,42

2

3,

960

4,34

5

14

%4,

072

558

11,0

46

10,1

08

11,1

35

38%

11,4

15

49

711

,326

10

,385

11

,353

37

%11

,429

354

11,5

23

10,4

04

11,3

18

37%

10,4

06

633

0

144

24

3

1%24

3

634

2

114

23

4

1%22

8

437

7

103

24

4

1%19

7

1,80

928

,577

27

,083

29

,639

10

0%30

,221

1,85

929

,799

28

,001

30

,759

10

0%30

,475

1,34

330

,894

28

,344

30

,962

10

1%28

,890

(4)

28,8

98

29,3

57

29,3

57

29

,389

29

,430

No

tes:

* (1)

(2)

(3)

Eff

ective

Fa

ll 2

00

6,

So

cia

l W

ork

MS

W p

rogra

m w

as t

ransfe

rre

d f

rom

se

lf-s

upp

ort

to

sta

te s

upp

ort

.

(4)

14%

36%

1% 100%

2006

- 2

007

HIS

TO

RIC

AL

18%

10%

7% 5% 10%

AC

TU

AL

PR

OJE

CT

ED

2008

-09

2009

- 2

010

% O

F

14%

38%

1% 100%

16%

9% 7% 5% 10%

AC

TU

AL

PR

OJE

CT

ED

2007

-08

2008

- 2

009

% O

F

Inclu

de

s E

duca

tio

na

l O

ppo

rtu

nitie

s P

rogra

m (

EO

P),

Aca

de

mic

Aff

air

s (

VP

AA

), a

nd

Ath

letics D

epa

rtm

ent.

Oth

er U

niv

ersi

ty P

rog

ram

s*

To

tal,

Co

lleg

es/In

stru

ctio

n

En

gin

eeri

ng

Th

e A

rts

Nat

ura

l Sci

ence

s &

Mat

h

Bu

sin

ess

Ad

min

istr

atio

n

2007

- 2

008

CO

LL

EG

E /

DIV

ISIO

N

Hea

lth

& H

um

an S

ervi

ces

Lib

eral

Art

s

% O

F

16%

9% 7% 5% 10%

Ed

uca

tio

n /

ED

SS

Ca

mp

us e

nro

llme

nt

targ

ets

in

clu

de

re

sid

en

t a

nd

non

-re

sid

en

t stu

de

nts

base

d o

n G

ove

rnor's B

udg

et.

Ca

mp

us is f

und

ed

fo

r g

row

th in

re

sid

en

t stu

de

nts

only

. In

200

9-

10,

in r

espo

nse

to

bud

ge

t re

du

ctio

n p

lan,

ca

mp

use

s w

ere

asked

to

clo

se t

o s

pri

ng a

dm

issio

ns.

CS

UL

B's

re

sid

en

t ta

rget

rem

ain

s 2

00

8-0

9 le

ve

ls,

28,1

00

FT

ES

; n

on

-

resid

en

t ta

rget

is 1

,330

FT

ES

.

So

urc

e o

f 2

00

8-0

9 F

TE

S a

llocatio

ns:

Th

e D

ivis

ion o

f A

ca

de

mic

Aff

air

s r

eserv

es t

he r

ight

to a

dju

st

the c

olle

ge

allo

catio

ns a

s m

ore

in

form

atio

n a

bo

ut

the

ch

ara

cte

ristics o

f th

e F

all

200

8 e

nte

rin

g c

lass is o

bta

ined

. T

hese

enro

llme

nt

fig

ure

s a

re p

roje

ctio

ns b

ase

d o

n a

n e

stim

ate

d o

ve

renro

llme

nt

of

121

3+

FT

ES

fo

r 2

00

8-

09.

Pro

jectio

ns d

o n

ot

inclu

de

lib

era

l stu

die

s a

dju

stm

ent.

So

urc

e o

f A

ctu

al 2

00

6-0

7 F

TE

S:

En

rollm

ent

Co

mp

ari

so

n R

epo

rt (

Ce

nsu

s),

In

stitu

tio

na

l R

esea

rch

as a

dju

ste

d b

y A

ca

de

mic

Aff

air

s (

enro

llme

nt

earn

ed

in

CO

TA

, C

LA

,

and

CN

SM

is c

redite

d t

o C

ED

wh

ich

paid

fo

r th

e in

str

uctio

na

l co

sts

).

FT

ES

are

re

be

nch

ed

to

re

fle

ct

24 W

TU

s (

we

ighte

d t

each

ing u

nits)

for

1.0

FT

E f

or

gra

du

ate

stu

de

nts

and

30 W

TU

s f

or

all

oth

er

stu

de

nts

.

Enrollment Data B1

Cam

pu

s E

nro

llmen

t T

arg

et

15%

38%

1% 100%

SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS

Schedule of Meetings C1

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH 2009-10 RESOURCE PLANNING PROCESS

SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS

PREPARATION Friday, January 30, 2009 2:00 – 4:00 PM BH 302 Thursday, February 19, 2009 9:00 AM -- NOON BH 302 Friday, February 20, 2009 2:00 – 4:00 PM BH 302 Thursday, February 26, 2009 9:00 AM – NOON BH 302 Friday, February 27, 2009 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM BH 302

Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:00 AM – NOON BH 302 Friday, March 13, 2009 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM BH 302 Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:00 AM – NOON BH 302 Friday, March 27, 2009 2:00 – 4:00 PM BH 302 Thursday, April 9, 2009 9:00 – NOON BH 302 Friday, April 10, 2009 2:00 – 4:00 PM BH 302 Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:00 AM – NOON BH 302 Friday, April 24, 2009 2:00 – 4:00 PM BH 302

DIVISION HEARINGS Thursday, April 23, 2009 University Relations and Development Thursday, April 30, 2009 Student Services and President’s Office

Friday, May 1, 2009 Administration and Finance Thursday, May 7, 2009 Academic Affairs Friday, May 8, 2009 Academic Affairs Friday, May 15, 2009 Athletics

REVIEW, DELIBERATIONS AND REPORT WRITING Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:00 AM – NOON BH 302 Friday, May 22, 2009 2:00 – 4:00 PM BH 302

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Glossary D1

California State University, Long Beach Resource Planning Process

Glossary of Terms

This glossary is provided to explain various terms and phrases specific to the CSU that are used in this Resource Planning Process document, and/or to provide references to websites where additional information or explanations may be found. The State of California’s glossary of budget terms is an additional reference. However, some terms used therein may not be common jargon or applicable to the CSU. http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/BUD_DOCS/glossary.pdf

Academic Year (AY) For semester campuses, an academic year includes the fall and spring semesters, but not the state-supported Summer session. The college year includes summer, fall, and spring semesters.

Academic Year Full-Time Equivalent Students (AY-FTES) The number of academic year full time equivalent students (FTES) at a semester campus is calculated by adding the student credit hours for the fall and spring semesters and dividing by 24 for graduate students and by 30 for all other students. It is the average enrollment over two semesters based on a full time equivalency of 12 credit hours per semester for graduate students and 15 credit hours per semester for all other students. See term “Rebenching”.

Base Budget Base budget is a term used to distinguish the fixed amount of general fund resources allocated to the campus as compared to other variable, or non-recurring resources, also referred to as non-base budget. The amount of each campus’ general fund base budget appropriation is reestablished each year as authorized by the CSU Board of Trustees in the Final Budget memo. The CSU Budget Office issues this memo when the Governor signs the Final Budget. In addition, the campus is responsible for reestablishing a base budget for its variable revenues that are collected in the general fund, by setting a minimum amount that it expects to collect. The President establishes annual changes to the university’s base budget after review of recommendations from the Resource Planning Process task force. Such changes are normally addressed in the annual President’s Budget Message, issued at the beginning of the Fall semester. The resources available for operating divisions during the annual Resource Allocation process in the Fall are comprised of the general fund state appropriation and those general fund revenues that are not pass-through to the units who earn the revenue (e.g. student health service fee and application fee.) Additional information may be found: http://www.calstate.edu/Budget/FY_budget_info.shtml http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/univ_svcs/budget/docs/index.html

Baseline Access and Training Support (BATS) The CSU Technology Infrastructure Initiative (TII) launched the Baseline Hardware/Software Access, User Training and Support (BATS) project in 1996/97. BATS funding is intended to assist all CSU campuses in developing a “baseline” level of technology infrastructure capability; i.e. the capacity to assure every CSU student, faculty and staff member access to a networked desktop computer, personal productivity, and networking software and campus-specific applications, and training and technical support to use these resources effectively. Additional information may be found at: http://www.csulb.edu/web/bats

Glossary D2

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) This statute, as updated in January 1, 2009, requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. Additional information may be found at: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/

Campus Information Technology Committee The 2002/03 Resource Planning Process task force recommended the establishment of the University Information Technology committee to address the expanded mission in planning for campus-wide information technology needs and recommendations for BATS funding allocations. This group was reformed as the Campus Information Technology Committee with the specific charge of developing a campus-wide IT plan. Other major issues being addressed by the CITC include ensuring access for all students, including those with disabilities, and ensuring the safety of confidential electronic information. Additional information may be found at: http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/aa/planning_enrollment/documents/CampusGoals06-09_.doc

Campus Physical Capacity Campus physical capacity (CPC) is defined as the academic year FTES (or college year FTES) that can be accommodated by the capacity space currently available on a campus. CPC may be equal to or less than the enrollment ceiling approved for a campus. Capacity of campus facilities is usually expressed in terms of student stations, annual FTE student capacity, or office space. Capacity is calculated using the appropriate utilization measures and space standards approved by the state. The CSU uses an Assignable Square Feet/Full Time Equivalent (ASF/FTE) model, described in detail in the following document. A campus cannot request capital outlay funding that will add physical space if the project will result in exceeding the campus’s physical capacity as published in its approved physical master plan. Long Beach currently has a fall 2008 campus physical capacity designated at 25,000 Academic Year FTES. The Campus Master Plan was recently approved to increase campus facilities capacity to 31,000 FTES when additional future funding becomes available. Additional information may be found at: http://www.calstate.edu/CPDC/SUAM/Appendices/App_B-Restructure_Campus_Capacities.pdf http://www.calstate.edu/cpdc/Facilities_Planning/Space_Mgmt/Reports/Campus_Cap/2008/ http://www.calstate.edu/CPDC/suam/SUAM9045-9050.pdf See Campus Physical Master Plan and Enrollment Ceiling.

Campus Physical Master Plan The campus master plan describes the physical facilities approved for planning, design and construction on land owned by the Trustees as part of a CSU campus. Once initially approved, the Trustees must approve all additions to the campus physical master plan. The campus physical master plan also includes the enrollment ceiling approved for the campus based upon the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the site. The Board of Trustees requires that every campus have a physical master plan, showing existing and anticipated facilities necessary to accommodate specified levels of enrollment, in accordance with approved education policies and objectives. Each campus master plan reflects the ultimate physical requirements of academic programs and auxiliary activities. A related element, adopted by the Board, separate from the physical master plan, is the campus enrollment ceiling that specifies the maximum FTE for each campus at build-out. Additional information may be found at: http://www.calstate.edu/CPDC/suam/SUAM9007-9014.pdf http://www.ppfm.csulb.edu/masterplan.html http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/aa/planning_enrollment/#LongRangePlan http://its.calstate.edu/documents/Data_Collection/I_Reports_MOS/mos3_2001/MOS_3-MasterPlanGoals.doc

Glossary D3

Campus Temporary Resources Year-end balances held in university-wide programs are made available as a university contingency reserve to address deterioration in the budget or other emergencies that may arise. Any unspent amount at the end of a fiscal year will carry forward to address the next year’s budget process. These funds are of a one-time, non-recurring nature and are attributable to savings from a variety of programs including benefits, compensation, utilities and general reserves. Excess revenue that results from collections above the base revenue budget requirements for SUF, NRT and Application fees also contribute to campus temporary resources.

Carryover Savings The university is allowed to retain its unspent general fund budget balance at the close of the fiscal year. We refer to these balances that roll forward to the next fiscal year as carryover savings. Also referred to as division or university-wide reserves, carryover savings are published in the Internal Budget document and are labeled as carryover funds or campus temporary resources. Due to the Revenue Management Program (see RMP), the Chancellor’s Office has established a maximum threshold amount that a campus can roll forward to the next fiscal year. If a campus exceeds this threshold, a usage plan must be developed and submitted to the Chancellor’s Office. Additional information can be found at:

http://daf.csulb.edu/offices/univ_svcs/budget/docs/fy0809/Internal_Budget/index.html

Common Management System (CMS) The mission of the Common Management Systems (CMS) is to provide efficient, effective and high quality service to the students, faculty and staff of the 23-campus California State University System (CSU) and the Office of the Chancellor. Utilizing a best practices approach, CMS supports human resources, financials and student services administration functions with a common suite of Oracle Enterprise applications in a shared data center, with a supported data warehouse infrastructure. Additional information can be found at: http://www.csulb.edu/divisions/af/cms/ http://cms.calstate.edu/

Compensation To recognize the salary increase commitments of the CSU collective bargaining agreements and CSU’s Management Personnel Plan, the Resources and Requirements plan projects the amount of incremental cost of negotiated salary increases that go into effect during a given fiscal year. Division Reserves Same as carryover savings

Glossary D4

Enrollment Target The enrollment target is the total number of full-time equivalent students that a campus receives base budget funding for during a college year. The Board of Trustees will establish enrollment targets during the budget process with the intent to publicize campus enrollment targets ten months prior to the beginning of the academic year.

2008/09 FTES Target 2009/10 FTES Target

Bakersfield 6,885.00 6,885.00

Channel Islands 2,467.00 2,467.00

Chico 14,712.00 14,712.00

Dominguez Hills 9,349.00 9,349.00

East Bay 11,764.00 11,764.00

Fresno 18,185.00 18,185.00

Fullerton 27,190.00 27,190.00

Humboldt 7,034.00 7,034.00

Long Beach 28,100.00 28,100.00

Los Angeles 17,000.00 17,000.00

Maritime Academy 870.00 870.00

Monterey Bay 3,640.00 3,640.00

Northridge 25,733.00 25,733.00

Pomona 17,816.00 17,816.00

Sacramento 22,970.00 22,970.00

San Bernardino 14,415.00 14,415.00

San Diego 28,298.00 28,298.00

San Francisco 24,925.00 24,925.00

San Jose 22,460.00 22,460.00

San Luis Obispo 17,350.00 17,350.00

San Marcos 7,283.00 7,283.00

Sonoma 7,500.00 7,500.00

Stanislaus 7,090.00 7,090.00

341,527.00 341,527.00 Information about the CSU enrollment management policy can be found at: http://www.calstate.edu/acadres/docs/CSU_Enroll_Mngment_Policy_Practices.pdf

Final Budget Final Budget refers to the final enacted state budget and CSU allocations. Differentiated from the preliminary budget that is developed after the Governor’s Budget and May Revision and the Legislative Budget Recommendations received by the Governor in June. See Governor’s Budget.

General Fund The General Fund has existed since the beginning of the state as a political entity. It is the government's major source of funds used for most of its activities. Under this fund, various special accounts are created and reserved for particular activities. Chapter 942/77 provides for the treatment of these accounts as other governmental funds for Accounting and Budgeting purposes effective July 1, 1978.

Usage of this fund varies in accordance with legislative authorizations and governing statutes. Except for various constitutional and statutory authorizations without further legislative action, the General Fund is appropriated on a yearly basis. Income to the fund varies in accordance with the governing statutes. A detailed listing is contained in the Governor's Budget and the Controller's Annual Report. Additional information may be found at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/Budgt04-05/BudgetSum04/DescFndClssfctns_04-05.pdf

Glossary D5

Governor’s Budget (January) The State Constitution requires that the Governor submit a budget to the Legislature by January 10. It provides for a balanced budget in that, if the proposed expenditures for the budget year exceed estimated revenues, the Governor is required to recommend the sources for the additional funding. The budget process for California defies a simple concise definition. It is a process rather than a product. It is not the development of the Governor's Budget, the Legislature's enactment of a budget, or the executive branch's administration of the budget. Rather, it is the combination of all of these phases with all the ramifications and influences of political interactions, relationships with federal and local governments, public input, natural events, legal issues, the economy, initiatives and legislation, etc. Although the size and complexity of California and the dynamics of the process make it difficult to establish and maintain an orderly process, these very reasons necessitate an orderly formalized process. By constitutional requirement, the Governor's Budget must be accompanied by a Budget Bill itemizing recommended expenditures that shall be introduced in each house of the Legislature. The Constitution also requires that the Legislature pass the bill by June 15. It is not uncommon for the Legislature to miss this deadline. The following web references summarize the major steps and procedures of California's budget process: http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/ http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/BUD_DOCS/budenact.pdf

Health Benefits Maintenance To recognize the costs required to cover health benefit costs for employees who are compensated from general fund accounts, the Resources and Requirements plan projects the incremental amount of funding necessary to cover the cost of employer-paid benefits that will go into effect in a given fiscal year.

Higher Education Compact The Higher Education Compact is an agreement between Governor Schwarzenegger, the University of California, and the California State University for the period 2005-06 through 2010-11. It commits to a long-term resource plan for UC and CSU that addresses base budget allocations, enrollment, student fees and other key program elements for 2005-06 through 2010-11. In exchange for this long-term stability, UC and CSU commit to focusing their resources to address long-term accountability goals for enrollment, student fees, financial aid, and program quality. To allow appropriate monitoring of progress toward these goals, UC and CSU commit to providing student and institutional outcome data in numerous program areas including program efficiency, utilization of system wide resources, and student-level information. The details of this Compact are contained in the attached: http://www.calstate.edu/budget/fybudget/2009-2010/supportbook1/

Mandatory Costs A typical cost of doing business that is unavoidable is referred to as mandatory. These costs normally include negotiated compensation increases, benefit costs, energy and utility cost increases, insurance premiums, worker’s compensation contributions to the CSU risk pool, and maintenance costs of new building space.

May Revision The May Revision is an annual update to the Governor’s Budget containing a revised estimate of General Fund revenues for the current and ensuing fiscal years, any proposals to adjust expenditures to reflect updated revenue estimates, and all proposed adjustments to Proposition 98, presented by the Department of Finance to the Legislature by May 14 of each year. 2008-2009 May Revision of Governor’s Budget related to Higher Education is contained in the attached: http://2008-09.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/Revised/StateAgencyBudgets/6013/agency.html

Net State Support Another commonly used reference to the total available general fund budget is the term net state support.

Non-base Budget Allocations Non-base budget is a term to distinguish one-time temporary resources which are not added to base budgets. Carryover savings are a type of non-base budget allocation.

Glossary D6

Non-resident Tuition (NRT) The additional fee assessed to students who do not meet the State of California residency requirement. Students need to meet particular requirements to pay in-state tuition (SUF), which is significantly lower than out-of-state tuition (NRT). The requirements are: (1) have attended high school in California for at least 3 full years; (2) have graduated from a California high school or received the equivalent; and (3) be enrolled as a new or continuing student at a CSU campus. If students are without lawful immigration status, they must also file an affidavit with a CSU campus stating that they have filed an application with the INS to legalize their immigration status or that they will do so as soon as they are eligible. The attached link identifies current residency requirements: Visit the campus website at: http://www.csulb.edu/depts/enrollment/admissions/residency.html http://www.csulb.edu/depts/enrollment/registration/fees_basics.html

One-Time, Temporary Resources See Non-base budget allocations.

PERS Retirement Rate Change CalPERS uses contributions from the employer, the employee, and income from investments to pay for employee retirement benefits. Employee and employer contributions are a percentage of applicable employee compensation. The employer contribution is set annually by CalPERS based on annual actuarial valuations. The employee contribution is 5% of salary for Miscellaneous Tier 1 members and 8% for some Peace Officer/Firefighter members (Public Safety Management and Firefighters only) less an exclusion allowance for coordination with Social Security. For eligible CSU Public Safety (R08) employee Peace Officer/Firefighter members, the CSU currently pays for both the employer and employee contributions. CSU Contribution Rates for CalPERS Retirement Coverage – Fiscal Year 2009/10 Effective July 1, 2009, the CSU retirement contribution rates for employees covered by the following CalPERS member Categories are as follows:

Member Category CSU Employee Group 2009/10 Employer Rate State Police Officer/Firefighter Unit 8 33.848%*

State Police Officer/Firefighter MPP Directors & Lieutenants 25.848%

State Miscellaneous Tier 1 All Other CSU Employees 16.917% *Includes 8% employee contributions rate paid by CSU

Rebenching The UC and the Governor have historically calculated graduate FTE based upon 12 units; however, the CSU has always calculated graduate FTE using 15 units. Effective Fiscal Year 2006-07, the CSU has adopted the historical calculation methodology for calculating Graduate FTES. Since the definition for Graduate FTES has changed, prior year information was rebenched i.e. recalculated in order to present comparative FTE data.

Glossary D7

Revenues and Reimbursements The following revenues and reimbursements have been budgeted and collected in the general fund as required by Education Code and CSU Fee Policy:

Revenue Reimbursement General Fund Base Non-General Fund

State University Fee X

Non Resident Tuition X

Application Fee X

Student Health Fee X

ID Card X

Commencement Fee X

Transcripts X

Library Fines X X – excess of base

Late Fees X

Course Fees X

Late Registration Fee X

Bad Check Fee X

Concurrent Enrollment X

Contracts & Grants X

Federal Admin Allowances X

General Fund Base Budget = fungible/available for allocation Non-General Fund = recorded in Course Fees fund, User Fees fund and Higher Ed Fees fund as department or division entitlement.

Revenue Management Program (RMP) The Governor’s Budget enacted RMP in 2006-2007. The CSU has re-engineered substantial financial and reporting changes for cash flows and modified the accounting procedures for all campuses. The new RMP initiative has reduced our dependency on the State of California for fiscal tasks, increased working efficiencies and reduced delays to the year end closing process. The CSU has new responsibilities to monitor and manage the cash flows and any potential earnings that may arise from fee collections to support campus operations. Ongoing changes as a result of new directives and best methods approach along with campus standardization of activities will continue to be issued to enhance financial operations. Additional information may be found at: http://www.calstate.edu/BF/rmp/rmp_home.shtml

State University Fee (SUF) State University Fee is the amount of tuition a resident student pays to attend the California State University. The SUF for a full time student is shown below:

Academic Year

Under-graduate

Graduate Teacher

Credential

Graduate

2009-10 $4,026 $4,674 $4,962

2008-09 $3,048 $3,540 $3,756

2007-08 $2,772 $3,216 $3,414

2006-07 $2,520 $2,922 $3,102

2005-06 $2,520 $2,922 $3,102

2004-05 $2,334 $2,706 $2,820

In addition, all students pay campus fees that vary campus-by-campus and average $801 system-wide (see link below). At CSULB, other mandatory student fees (paid by all students) total $397 for academic year 2008-09. Note that certain courses may charge other special fees that are not included in this amount.

Non-resident students pay the State University Fee, non-resident fee and campus fees. The following chronology gives the full-time (and part-time) undergraduate resident CSU SUF fee (including the total when campus fees are included).

Glossary D8

Academic Year Full-time (part-time) Average Total Fees

Systemwide Fees

2008-09 $3,048 ($1,770) $3,849

2007-08 $2,772 ($1,608) $3,521

2006-07 $2,520 ($1,464) $3,199

2005-06 $2,520 ($1,464) $3,164

2004-05 $2,334 ($1,356) $2,648

2003-04 $2,046 ($1,188) $2,572

2002-03 $1,572 ($912) $2,070

2001-02 $1,428 ($828) $1,877

2000-01 $1,428 ($828) $1,839

1999-00 $1,428 ($828) $1,832

1998-99 $1,506 ($876) $1,890

1997-98 $1,584 ($918) $1,946

1996-97 $1,584 ($918) $1,935

1995-96 $1,584 ($918) $1,892

1994-95 $1,584 ($918) $1,853

1993-94 $1,440 ($834) $1,604

1992-93 $1,308 ($756) $1,460

1991-92 $936 ($540) $1,080

1990-91 $780 ($450) $920

1989-90 $708 ($408) $845

1988-89 $684 ($396) $815

1987-88 $630 ($366) $754

1986-87 $573 ($333) $680

1985-86 $573 ($333) $666

1984-85 $573 ($333) $658

1983-84 $612 ($342) $692

State University Grant (SUG) The State University Grant Program was established by the State of California under the Budget Act of 1982, Chapter 326. Its creation was consistent with legislative intent and recommendations contained in the Report of the Chancellor's Task Force on a New Student Fee and Financial Aid Program (December, 1981). The State University grant program is budgeted in the General Fund. The amount of SUG funds is increased annually by one-third of the marginal cost revenue estimated for enrollment growth, or one-third of the revenue attributable to a SUF rate change. Campuses receive an allocation based on enrollment targets and student need. Additional information may be found at: http://www.csulb.edu/depts/enrollment/financial_aid/grants.html http://www.calstate.edu/AR/fa_programs.shtml

University Wide Budgets Resources that are held centrally to cover mandatory costs, special programs that benefit the entire campus and or campus reserves are held in program budgets referred to as “University Wide.” These funds are administered by various division managers who have fiduciary responsibility and accountability for the programs. Each year these division managers report to RPP. Any unspent balances at year-end are made available to the entire campus.