BUSINESS PLANNING AND FUNDING MODEL… · 2000,UCit #createda# newrate model to...

BUSINESS PLANNING

AND FUNDING MODEL RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES (UCIT) Prepared by: Vivek Choudhury Professor College of Business Sandra Degen Vice President Research William Fant Associate Dean College of Pharmacy Mark Faulkner UCit AVP Network & Telecom Services Victoria Montavon Dean University Libraries Pallavi Patel AVP Campus Services Leland Person Senior Associate Dean College of Arts & Sciences James Plummer, Chair Vice President Finance July 7, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................3 UCIT AT PRESENT ...........................................................................................................................3 THE CHALLENGES ...........................................................................................................................4 NEW MODEL TENETS .......................................................................................................................4 THE MODEL......................................................................................................................................6 BUNDLED SUITE OF SERVICES AND IT BENEFITS ...........................................................................6 FTE CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................................................8 THE WEIGHTED SERVICES INDEX ..................................................................................................9 FINANCIALS .....................................................................................................................................9 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................................11 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................12 APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................................16 APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................................20 APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................................................24

1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In many higher education institutions, a service center that delivers service to other departments may charge a fee to the budgets of receiving departments. These internal charges are often referred to as chargebacks. The use of chargebacks in technology has its origins in the days of centralized mainframe computing to ration access and usage. Since then, computing has changed dramatically on campus. Technology has grown more decentralized and ubiquitous. At the same time, shared infrastructures for computing have grown more complex and expensive. Institutions invest considerably in shared infrastructures that are used by virtually everyone at the institution. For many years, IT organizations were able to subsidize other shared IT services via surplus revenues generated from telecommunication charges. However, the foreseeable impact of reduced revenues, exponential demand for IT services, and the need to incorporate new costs is driving many institutions to reevaluate their IT funding methods, including chargebacks. To fund the future, institutions need to find revenue streams that are better aligned with the drivers of IT costs. For institutions that rely on chargebacks, this implies shifting away from usage-based pricing tied to technologies that are in decline. In addition, institutions need to find ways to recover the costs of the extensive shared technology infrastructure.

Academic Technology Planning Committee (ATPC) recognized many of the above dynamics and recommended that the university review its current policies for recharge services and rates as they apply to networking services. The Executive Technology Strategy Committee (ETSC) agreed with the ATPC request and established a committee consisting of academic and administrative stakeholders to identify potential solutions and develop a new cost recovery model. Our committee underscores below how the existing IT chargeback model fails to meet the current administrative and academic needs of the institution on a number of levels.

Colleges and departments face unprecedented budget pressures causing units to disconnect IT services. This undermines our true mission and at the same time creates a potential adverse impact to chargebacks for those still connected. The existing billing approach requires a fair amount of administrative and clerical overhead in colleges and departments. There is no allocation of student fees towards funding the primary recharge services of the network, wireless and student e-mail. UCit provides a substantial subsidy from the last time we altered the model in 2000. This only serves to escalate the data chargeback for everyone. The current model inhibits keeping UC in a competitive position with other top

between 650-700 wireless access points 3 years ago. In comparison, Ohio State embarked on implementing 10,000 wireless access points back in 2006.

2

The results of our committee work in solving these issues are included in this report, however the following provides highlights:

Transition primary UCit chargeback services from a metered model to an FTE chargeback that delivers a bundled suite of services. Include pervasive wireless coverage throughout the campus. The model would increase the number of wireless access points installed to over 4000. Increase the u support increasing demands in bandwidth, future services from the cloud, and open up the capability for new industry partnerships or inter-institutional research collaborations. Immediately increase wired network access by enabling colleges and departments to utilize the over 10,000 available wired ports that lay dormant across the enterprise. Eliminate the opportunity cost for colleges and departments for maintaining an accurate inventory of connectivity freeing up administrative and clerical resources to perform other functions. Eliminate UCit subsidy from the model.

We believe the FTE model, while not flawless, addresses the existing model shortfalls and provides the university with a flexible model that can adapt to its ever changing vision and technology requirements. To achieve the transition to a new model the committee proposes the following three recommendations for an FY2012 implementation:

Under the new model the committee recommends that the university reallocate any gains within the academic and administrative units to ensure a revenue-neutral implementation across the university for all colleges and departments. goal is for the Decanal and VP areas to remain revenue-neutral in the transition to the FTE model. The committee recommends that the university fund the student expense in the model given the existing pressures on the current ITIE funding pool. The committee further recommends the allocation of all future ITIE increases towards the student FTE expense so that over time the subsidy is reduced to zero. When making a significant change in the funding model sister institutions advise that the university administration must be prepared to subsidize where appropriate. The committee recommends that the university identify an effective and participative governance process to oversee the technology evolution and annual costs for the bundled suite of services. Some may view the FTE model as an approach that amounts to a tax that does not allow the cmake decisions that would lower (or raise) the tax. This recommendation helps to manage that concern. This process may leverage the existing IT governance structure, however at a minimum must have meaningful involvement from the campus administrative and academic stakeholders.

3

II. BACKGROUND A. INTRODUCTION

In May 2009, the Academic Technology Planning Committee (ATPC) recommended that the university review its current policies for recharge services and rates as they apply to networking services. The ATPC expressed concern that, due to budget cutbacks, networking services were being dropped by departments across campus. This would potentially require the remaining users to pay higher rates to cover the fixed costs of the networking operation. It would also affect our ability to grow the wireless infrastructure, adversely affecting the quality of the students education and the institution s competitive position to other top research universities. The ATPC requested the development of a new model that increases access to network services while reducing the amount of administrative and clerical overhead in managing those services. The Executive Technology Strategy Committee (ETSC) agreed with the ATPC request and established a committee consisting of academic and administrative stakeholders to identify potential solutions and develop a new cost recovery model. B. UCIT AT PRESENT As a university service center, UCit is supposed to recover its costs and not make a profit. It attempts to breakeven over rolling five-year periods rather than on a year-to-year basis. In that context, UCit must track historical costs as well as anticipate future costs and then build them into the recharge rates to avoid dramatic fluctuations. In the 1990s, telephone charges subsidized the cost of the rapidly evolving data network. In 2000, UCit created a new rate model to separate telephone and data charges. This required a $3.2M general funds subsidy to avoid any negative budget impact. Since university budgets were unable to subsidize the full $3.2M, UCit covered the $1.2M shortfall through excess cost recovery. Over the past decade, as telecommunication costs declined, additional services have been funded using the primary recharge rates. UCit currently provides a range of infrastructure services via its voice and data recharge model including:

Telephone services Unified messaging (voice mail) Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Wired data access Wireless data access Field technicians Help Desk services Information security Network security E-mail services Mobility services

4

C. THE CHALLENGES The university community and UCit face a number of inter-related issues, which have brought the question of funding primary recharge services to the forefront.

There is an increasing demand for IT services, resources, and access due to the growth of information technologies across the university.

There are across-the-board budget cutbacks and increasing demands for fiscal restraint (throughout the university as well as in UCit) and for UCit to support its rates. Over the past few years these cuts have begun to cause units to disconnect IT services, which in turn, negatively impacts the true missions of the institution and may have an adverse effect on recharge rates. In addition, units spend valuable administrative and clerical resources managing complex and ever changing monthly telecommunication expenses.

The existing model subsidizes student computing. There is a modicum of revenue generated from the ITIE fee to help offset the SSLVPN remote access and ResNet (residence hall networking) services, however no allocation from the student ITIE fee is provided to help recharge services provided to students, including wired or wireless network connections and student e-mail services.

Traditionally separate services (voice, data, and wireless technologies) continue to converge. It is becoming more and more difficult to determine whether any given service is a data service, a voice service, or a combination thereof.

The present Network & Telecommunication Services (NTS) cost allocation model, while detailed and complex, is not easily modified to incorporate new services and project charges that would result from different cost allocation methodologies.

Funding the appropriate growth of innovative technologies and the need to significantly expand existing ones. Capital costs continue to increase as user needs require new and better services such as:

o Internet bandwidth and wide area network requirements continue to experience significant growth in support of the u and Internet-ready devices.

o Ability to transfer multi-terabyte datasets securely due to growth in high performance research requirements.

o The need to significantly increase wireless data (WiFi) coverage to keep pace with peer institutions (Ohio State has deployed 10,000 wireless access points in

.

The above challenges result in an increase in network complexity, additional workload for NTS . D. NEW MODEL TENETS The committee developed the overall new rate plan around the following concepts:

Move away from metered services to a strategic campus value by growing the network and encouraging appropriate use.

Create a baseline charge that is not based on number of lines, ports or usage.

5

Eliminate UCit annual subsidy of $1.2M since it only serves to inflate costs for everyone.

Explore the concept of an employee communication user charge with a bundled suite of services.

Include voice services into the bundled suite of services anticipating a technology convergence between voice and data technologies.

Support the steady transition away from wired connectivity to high-speed wireless as the primary connectivity medium for the majority of users.

Consider the inclusion of new services which are not currently funded under the existing models.

Grow the network model to support and encourage the appropriate use of new technologies and internet ready devices.

Incorporate long term capital needs to support technology refresh. If possible create reserves for the unexpected or research and development.

The committee performed a comprehensive analysis and review of relevant expenses and revenues. As a result the new model is designed to:

Eliminate the department need for review of extensive network and telephone monthly billing.

Significantly and immediately increase access to network and telecommunication services.

Integrate/communicate key bundled services to the community. Align with the uni goals wherever possible. Cover current UCit costs and projected growth. Incorporate capital funding to replenish infrastructure to avoid any periodic budget crisis.

Keep the baseline charge constant for 3-years. Maintain budget neutrality to colleges and departments during the transition from the old to new model.

Create a model that will accommodate new technology trends more easily. Propose a plan endorsed via the IT Governance structure and Recharge Council.

6

III. The Model Today recharge services at many higher education institutions are generally articulated independently, rather than bundled. However, throughout the United States, telecommunications companies offer services to households These bundles are simply

Adoption of this model is beginning to take hold in higher education although the suite of bundled services varies by institution. However, at its core, the intent is to recognize that for the majority of faculty, staff and students, computing has become an essential tool to accomplish their work. These institutions believe that a basic set of technology capabilities is as essential for a worker as a desk and a chair. Therefore, these institutions created a flat fee charge to an individual worker that is allocated to a department based on employee headcount (FTE chargeback). The committee reviewed models from Cornell University, University of California at San Diego, and University of Wisconsin-Madison through Educause research. The committee also reached out to a number of other top research institutions tackling a similar challenge. We talked with University of North Carolina, Vanderbilt University and University of Kentucky. Each of these institutions had either implemented an FTE model or is planning to put one into practice. The committee concluded that each model is unique derived from the principles that reflected the institutio spirations. There are several advantages of the FTE chargeback. First, it is simpler to administrate. Unlike usage-based charges, it does not require dedicated administrative staff to manage internal monthly billings. Second, it provides a more even distribution of technology capability on campus. Units are required to provide a minimum technology capability to their staffs. This in turn minimizes the disparities in technology between units. Third, it provides the university with a more sustainable IT business model since it is not technology dependent. The framework provides the flexibility so that the bundled services can adapt and evolve over time to meet the ever changing needs of the institution. Therefore, as technology evolves, the FTE model is more resistant to rate fluctuations than the existing model. Finally, transitioning to an FTE or headcount chargeback model addresses the concerns raised by the ATPC. The recommended model has four key components:

A. The bundled suite of services and their associated academic IT benefits. B. A . C. A weighted services index (statistical correlation factor of current services to headcount). D. The financial distribution outlining what a unit currently pays versus what they would pay in the new model.

A. BUNDLED SUITE OF SERVICES & IT BENEFITS The committee centered its philosophy on integrating services with a vision towards future technology convergence. These primary services are defined as network, telephone, wireless networking, voice mail and e-mail services. Appendix A outlines what services are and are not included in the model as well as any relevant assumptions

7

involved. Appendix A also provides a matrix of the current Network & Telecommunication service descriptions and chargeback rates that will be absorbed into the model. The current recharge model makes it very difficult to expand wired and wireless coverage to add internet ready devices to the network. For example, new data projectors and photocopying machines could be added to the network allowing remote management and/or shared access to new features. However, the current monthly data charges associated with wired and wireless access prevent departments from taking full advantage of these internet ready devices. The university network infrastructure has over 10,000 ports that lay dormant across the enterprise. The proposed model immediately increases access to wired network services across the enterprise supporting our finite personnel resources to be more efficient and productive. One charge of the ATPC was to reduce the amount of administrative and clerical overhead involved in managing UCit billing. If we conservatively estimate that the university has between 400-450 departments and each department spends approximately 40 hours each year to maintain an accurate inventory and accounting of active ports, then overall the university is spending 16,000-18,000 personnel hours towards this task. The proposed model eliminates the cost of maintaining an accurate inventory of connectivity for users, thus significantly freeing up the administrative and clerical personnel to perform other functions. As noted above, the current model makes it difficult to expand wireless technologies. The university has fallen behind peer institutions in the deployment of wireless technologies with only 700 wireless access points installed across the enterprise. Ohio State began implementing 10,000 wireless access points in 2006. The committee believes that the University of Cincinnati is dedicated to creating an environment conducive to innovation for our faculty, staff, and students. Whether rooted in academia or research, the need for a current, reliable technological infrastructure (both real and virtual) will be viewed as a necessary component to maintaining a competitive edge and planned for strategically with an eye towards efficiencies and effectiveness. To that end, the bundled suite of services increases the number of wireless access points to over 4000 across the campus and a 10 Gigabit (10,000 Megabits) connection to the Internet and Internet2. This provides numerous opportunities to reevaluate how we conduct business. For example, institutions agree that computer labs, much like student centers and libraries before them, are due for an extreme makeover. Universities created computer labs when it was not a reasonable expectation for students to provide their own computer. Current research shows that the vast majority of students at four-year colleges own laptops. Complementing this vast majority with a pervasive wireless campus provides the university an opportunity to redesign and deliver the cloud computer lab of the future. In fact, it transforms all UC space into learning environments where students can work individually or in groups with 24/7 access to Blackboard and libraries. The exponential demand for Internet bandwidth is reflected in the fact that the university had 24 Megabits in September 2000 and today utilizes a 1 Gigabit (1000 Megabits) connection for Internet and Internet2. The bundled suite of services evolves this link to 10 Gigabits opening up

8

new possibilities for inter-institutional collaborations between researchers for high-speed file transfers, streaming high-definition (and possibly 3-D) video, video conferencing, and gaming. Lastly, the University System of Ohio is moving towards a model of technical collaboration and shared services throughout the State of Ohio, and UC has the opportunity to be seen as a leader in this arena. A 10 Gigabit connection provides the university with the ability to either distribute content to or receive services from the cloud. B. FTE CALCULATIONS The committee recognizes that to use a FTE as a basis for charging is not a precise reflection of individual use, but rather considers it a fair mechanism for aggregating and averaging costs across the institution. The FTE (full-time equivalent) model is a way to measure the opportunity to benefit from the bundled suite of services, including, but not limited to, faculty, staff, students, student employees, residents of the campus, and visitors. UCFlex HR is the data source for all employment categories except students. Institutional Research is the data source for students. The FTE is calculated based on a snapshot in time to develop the recharge rate. The UCFlex snapshot is to be conducted in early November of each year and the FTE count is derived from th . autumn report. The FTE rate will remain constant for that fiscal year. The calculation is to be reviewed annually by Recharge Council. The recharge rate is applied monthly to the actual FTE derived from the snapshot of UCFlex and Institutional Research data. Employee categories are faculty, adjunct faculty, emeriti, staff (some union personnel are counted in this category), union, student worker, graduate assistant, corporate and other. Appendix B provides a matrix for each category and employee subgroup along with percent allocation. The committee carefully evaluated each employee subgroup. They determined whether the majority of its constituents did or did not qualify as users of the bundled services and to what extent. Housing allocation is established at 19 percent of an FTE in the model because they only use one of the five primary services and furthermore only use that service significantly for nine months of the year. Today, wired network connectivity is the primary service included into the

Students (both undergraduate and graduate) are carried in the model as 10 percent of an FTE, but these costs will no longer indirectly be a departmental obligation. Those charges will be applied elsewhere. However, if a department employs a student, then any charges for that student as an employee would be a departmental obligation. Appendix B provides a copy of Institutional

utumn 2009 report. Clermont & Raymond Walters numbers are excluded from the student count since they either provide the services locally or obtain them ala carte from UCit. Historically cDue to the academic and administrative restructuring that has taken place over the past few years the committee discovered that financial cost centers do not always align with HR organizational structures. There were also a few HR organizational areas with literally no headcount, but their

9

corresponding financial cost center incurred charges from UCit. To resolve these issues headcounts were grouped into a Dean, VP or sub-VP unit level. This is viewable in Appendix B under the - For example, the

A new HR report (HR180U) was developed within UCFlex to permit each unit to run a detailed assessment of personnel accounting for their area. The report provides each individual tabulated with their corresponding M number. C. THE WEIGHTED SERVICES INDEX The committee used the native FTE counts to run a simulation on recovering the expenses associated with the bundled suite of services to observe whether budgets remained financially neutral during the transition to the new model. The result was that very few units were neutral and in fact there were wide variances across many administrative and academic units. In an attempt to normalize this phenomenon, the committee created a weighted services index based on historical connectivity trends within each unit. The weighted services index is a constant model based on multiple service variables that are dependent on the aggregated install base so that historical connectivity trends are factored into the model. The variables included in the index are voice, data, wireless, and voice mail. The weighted services index is shown at a Dean, VP or sub-VP level in Appendix C. 1. The weighted index is created by first dividing it by their native total FTE count. This initial step creates an individual index for each service variable.

2. Each service variable is then given an overall probability constant or weight. This is calculated for each service variable by taking the total for each variable and dividing it by total connectivity for all service variables.

3. The weighted index is then derived by multiplying the respective weight to each individual service variable index and adding them together.

The weighted index assists in reducing both the financial gains and losses across the model while also lowering the monthly FTE rate to everyone. The final attachment in Appendix C illustrates the application of the weighted services index and employee category percentages to the native FTE count found in Appendix B. D. Financials Although not included in this report, the committee conducted a comprehensive review of annual operating expenses for the bundled suite of services and the required capital expenses to maintain and ensure a sustainable high-end infrastructure for the entire campus. The primary financial dependency for the FTE rate is the recovery of expense for the bundled suite of services. Appendix D provides a comparison of total FY09 recoveries ($11,697,548.99) to the amount needing to be recovered within the new FTE model ($11,592,595). This shows that the overall recovery expense in the new model is slightly less than what was actually recovered

10

from users in FY09. This is attributable to two factors. First, the new model eliminates the $1.2M data subsidy provided by UCit, which is replaced by an increase in capital equipment expenses. Secondly, the UCit gain is accounted for in the model by reducing the

model. The following breakdown helps to understand this important comparison. 1. Area and Cost Center columns - Each human resource area is grouped with its respective financial cost centers by Dean, VP or sub-VP. These high-level human resource structures areas may need to reallocate funding within its respective cost centers to achieve budget neutrality for the overall area.

2. Billed/Recovered FY009 and Actual Paid in 2009 - These two columns provide historical data on what a cost center was billed in FY09 versus what they actually paid that fiscal year. If more than a rounding difference exists between these two columns, then it is an indication that the cost center received some measure of financial subsidy towards its networking services.

3. Amount to Pay in New FTE Model This column shows the amount each cost center would pay in the new FTE model. The monthly FTE rate is set at $52.26 to recover the FTE model expenses. This figure is multiplied against the FTE counts found in the Appendix C matrix, Weighted Services Index & Employee Category Percentages Applied to Native FTE Counts to derive the amounts.

4. Actual Gain or Loss This column reflects whether an actual gain or loss occurs (Actual Paid in 2009 Amount to Pay in New FTE Model) for each individual cost center before a general funds subsidy is applied.

5. Dean/VP Area Gain or Loss before General Fund Subsidy This column takes into account all individual cost center actual gains or losses. A computation is then performed to determine the overall gain or loss for by each Dean or VP area.

6. Dean/VP Area % Loss If a loss is incurred, then this column reflects the percentage of loss by Dean or VP area when weighing against the total net loss for all administrative and academic areas. Note: The total net loss number does not include the Student FTE Equivalent loss because it does not receive any general funds subsidy distribution.

7. General Fund Subsidy to Help Offset Any Loss This column illustrates the amount of general fund subsidy each Dean or VP area would receive to compensate for the overall area loss. There is a total of $1.84M in general funds to reallocate towards this need.

8. New Amount to Pay with GF Subsidy This column shows the impact to each cost center after applying the general fund subsidy.

9. Variance After GF Subsidy This column represents the difference between what was actually paid in 2009 minus the new amount to pay with a general fund subsidy.

10. Dean/VP Area Gain or Loss After General Fund Subsidy This column illustrates the overall impact to a Dean or VP area once a general fund subsidy is applied. As outlined in step 1, these higher-level human resource structures areas may need to reallocate funding within its respective cost centers to achieve budget neutrality for the overall area.

11

IV. RECOMMENDATION Building a new funding model takes time. The committee began its work in June 2009 with the understanding that there must be a full commitment to establishing a sustainable model for funding critical IT services and clear recognition of the benefits to faculty, staff and students. The advantages of the FTE model include:

Enhances ompared with other top research-extensive universities in its ability to recruit and retain the best students, faculty and staff. Simple to administer. Simple to understand. Treats communications as a utility. Allows colleges and departments to consume as much or as little as the need.

We believe the FTE model, while not flawless, addresses the existing model shortfalls and positions the university with a flexible model to adapt to its ever changing vision and technology requirements. To achieve the transition to a new model, the committee proposes the following three recommendations for an FY2012 implementation:

Under the new model the committee recommends that the university reallocate any gains within the academic and administrative units to ensure a revenue-neutral implementation across the university for all colleges and departments. goal is for the Decanal and VP areas to remain revenue-neutral in the transition to the FTE model. The committee recommends that the university fund the student expense in the model given the existing pressures on the current ITIE funding pool. The committee further recommends the allocation of all future ITIE increases towards the student FTE expense so that over time the subsidy is reduced to zero. When making a significant change in the funding model sister institutions advise that the university administration must be prepared to subsidize where appropriate. The committee recommends that the university identify an effective and participative governance process to oversee the technology evolution and annual costs for the bundled suite of services. Some may view the FTE model as an approach that amounts to a tax that does not allow the cmake decisions that would lower (or raise) the tax. This recommendation helps to manage that concern. This process may leverage the existing IT governance structure, however at a minimum must have meaningful involvement from the campus administrative and academic stakeholders.

12

Appendix A

Services included in the model:

Campus Wired-Network Infrastructure (Core, Distribution, Edge and Wide Area Network) Internet and Bandwidth Management Internet2/Research Domain Name Services Network Operation Center (NOC) Services Fiber and copper cable management Network security Capital equipment refresh expenses 802.11 pervasive wireless data and voice coverage Aruba 802.11n gear for 100% campus coverage Dial Tone Access to the Public Telephone Switched Network Single telephone landline or VoIP line (depending on building) Single telephone handset Voice mail Telephone operators Phonetic operator E-directory Public Safety help phones, area rescue phones, and elevator phones Helpdesk Central e-mail services (Faculty, Staff, Student and Affiliates) 85% Information Security Microsoft Licensing costs not currently funded via ITIE Gartner Services ZIX e-mail encryption service UCit is evaluating the following services, which, if developed would be included in the bundle:

o Unified Communications Voice Fixed, Mobile, VoIP and soft-phone Conferencing Audio, Web, Video Instant Messaging/Presence IM, Rich Presence Messaging E-mail, Unified Messaging, Voice Mail Emergency SMS

o Voice over Wi-Fi (transition to cellular when out of Wi-Fi range)

Assumptions in this model: 1. Maintains basic wired network services. 2. 99.5% of client wired ports are 100Mbps. 3. Available wired ports provided in model, meaning if the serving telecommunication facility has open network ports then the client may add additional ports under the utility for just the cost of installation.

13

4. Wireless coverage is architected to support pervasive data coverage, voice and location based services.

5. 802.11n wireless access points are connected via 1Gbps connection to network. 6. Model helps the university transition from traditional voice technologies to the next generation of services.

7. Over a 12-18 month period units move 60-70% of current wired network connections to wireless connections as the primary means of connectivity to lower capital wired equipment refresh expense.

8. Reduced need for voice and data jack installation. 9. Areas can perform their own moves with wireless voice and data connectivity w/o NTS intervention or charges.

10. Continued support for other services currently funded via the voice, data and wireless rates.

11. Capital construction and renovation projects will continue to fund infrastructure needs for building occupancy.

What is not included in this model:

Services for Clermont and Raymond Walters Colleges Services to shared tenant customers Work order installations and move/adds/changes of service will be charged as incurred Long distance (could be included in model in future where mobile devices replace landlines)

University cell phones Cell phone stipends (could be included in model in future where mobile devices replace landlines)

Automated Call Distribution (ACD) Pagers Special circuits Voice trees Network equipment costs for providing service when no available port exists Upgrades of building cabling

14

Current User Charges Included in FTE Rate

Charge Item Description Price DATA ADI100 ADI100 DATA DEVICE 30.00 ADI101 ADI101 RACK MOUNT DATA DEVICE 30.00 DORM_NET DORMITORY DATA 25.00 GIGNET-SUB GIG NETWORK PORT SUBSIDIZED 25.00 GIGNET10-100 GIG NETWORK PORT UNSUBSIDIZED 25.00 EMAIL BEARCAT-ONLI BEARCAT ON LINE ACCESS 5.00 EMAILPLUS E-MAIL PLUS 6.00 EXCHANGE EXCHANGE 10.00 EXCHANGE/REM EXCHANGE AND REMOTE ACCESS 20.00 VOICE MAIL VMBASIC VOICE MAIL BASIC SERVICE 3.00 VMCELL VOICE MAIL CELL FOR TREES 3.00 VMEXTENSION VOICE MAIL EXTENSION MAIL BOX 3.00 VMEXTRA VOICE MAIL EXTRA INFO LINES 3.00 VMFAX VOICE MAIL FAX SERVICE 3.00 VMFAXFONE VOICE MAIL FAXFONE SERVICE 10.00 VMFORMS VOICE MAIL FORM 40.00 VMINFO VOICE MAIL INFORMATION LINE 3.00 VMMESSAGE VOICE MAIL MESSAGE ONLY LINE 3.00 VMPLUS VOICE MAIL PLUS SERVICE 9.00 VMSTAND VOICE MAIL STANDARD SERVICE 6.00 VMTREE VOICE MAIL TREE SERVICE 40.00 VMTREEEXTENS VOICE MAIL TREE EXTENSION 20.00

VMUNIF VOICE MAIL UNIFIED MESSAGING CLASS OF SERVICE 11.00

VOICE DORM_PHONE DORMITORY PHONE 34.00 ISDNPORT ISDN BRI PORT 50.00 ITE12 ITE12 TELEPHONE 37.00 ITE12-D ITE12 TELEPHONE WITH DATA 49.00 ITE12S ITE12S TELEPHONE 38.00 ITE12S-D ITE12S TELEPHONE WITH DATA 49.00 ITE12SD ITE12SD TELEPHONE 39.00 ITE24D ITE24D TELEPHONE 40.00 ITE30SD ITE30SD TELEPHONE 40.00

15

ITE4 ITE4 TELEPHONE 35.00 ITEAP ITEAP TELEPHONE 42.00 ITECONSOLE ITE ATTENDANT CONSOLE 33.00 PORTOPX OPX PORT FOR THE IBX 32.00 PORTSTE STE ANALOG IBX PORT 33.00 PORTT1 T1 PORT 46.00 STEBELL STE ITT EXTENSION BELL 34.50 STEDESK STE DESK TELEPHONE 34.00 STEELEV STE ELEVATOR PHONE 35.00 STEHELP STE HELP PHONE 38.00 STENODIAL STE NO DIAL STE TELEPHONE 35.00 STETAPFLASH STE TAP-FLASH TELEPHONE 34.00 STEWALL STE ANALOG WALL MOUNT PHONE 34.00 STEWEATHER STE WEATHER PROOF TELEPHONE 33.00 STEWEATHERPR STE WALL-WEATHER PHONE 33.00 TRUNKPORT TRUNK PORT IBX 31.00 VAUP VACANT NUMBER UPDATE 3.59 VOIP_BASIC VOICE OVER IP BASIC PHONE 35.00 VOIP_DATA VOICE OVER IP DATA 25.00 VOIP_DATA_BA VOICE OVER IP DATA WITH BASIC PHONE 60.00 VOIP_DATA_MT VOICE OVER IP DATA WITH MULTI PHONE 64.00 VOIP_MULTI VOICE OVER IP MULTI-LINE PHONE 39.00 VOIP_DATA_DX VOICE OVER IP DATA WITH DELUXE PHONE 64.00 VOIP_DELUXE VOICE OVER IP DELUXE PHONE 39.00 VOIP_PORT VOICE OVER IP PORT 33.00 WIRELESS WIRELESS-MC WIRELESS MONTHLY CHARGE 75.00

16

Appendix B Employee Categories & Subgroups

UCFlex Designation Description Comments Percent Faculty

F2 Faculty 9/12 100

F3 Faculty 12/12 100

F4 Faculty Med GEO COM 12/12 faculty employed by the university and UC Physicians

100

F6 Faculty Visiting 9/12 Visiting faculty may or may not be paid employees and are usually at

UC for a short term

100

F7 Faculty Visiting 12/12

Visiting faculty may or may not be paid employees and are usually at

UC for a short term

100

F8 Faculty Affiliated Either ROTC faculty or employees of affiliated institution with faculty

appointments

0

L2 Librarians 9/12 100

L3 Librarians 12/12 100

Adjunct Faculty

The FTE report from UCFlex HR details ~25% time effort for all adjunct positions within the

university

F9 Faculty Term

Adjunct 25

FB Faculty Annual Adjunct 9/12

25

FC Faculty Annual Adjunct 12/12

25

FD Faculty COM Adjunct

25

Emeritus

R1 Non-Emeritus Retirees 0

R2 Emeritus Retirees Uses limited set of services in bundle 10

17

UCFlex Designation Description Comments Percent Staff

A1 Academic Administrators

100

C1 Classified Staff ONA and SEIU 100

E1-E3 Law Enforcement FOP 100

H1 Coaches 100

I1 Interns 100

P1 Post Doc/Research 100

U1 Unclassified Staff 100

U2 Research Assistants and Associates

100

T1 Special Trainee 100

Union

C1 Classified Staff AFSCME and IOUE 25

Student Worker

S1 Student 25

Graduate Assistant

S1 Student 50

Corporate

N4 Corporate 100

Other

N1 Spouse/Dependent 0

N2 Volunteer Unpaid Community volunteers 0

N5 Other No longer employed, need W2 0

O1 Out of Area Post Docs work outside Cincinnati 0

18

Native FTE Counts by Dean, VP or sub-VP Area

Area Cost Center Faculty Adjunct Emeriti Staff Union Student Worker

Graduate Asst. Corporate Housing Students Total

President (60000531 & 60001590) 101XXXXXXX 1 0 1 4 0 0 2 8 Board of Trustees (60002525) 270XXXXXXX 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Faculty Senate (60001487) 280XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VP Admin & Bus Svcs (60000673) 150XXXXXXX 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 2 15 Sr. VP Finance (6001566) 154XXXXXXX 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Internal Audit (60000530) 580XXXXXXX 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 6 VP Legal (60000527) 186XXXXXXX 0 0 0 18 0 4 0 1 23 Purchasing (60000613) 455XXXXXXX 0 0 0 13 0 13 CFO (60000673)Plummer 158XXXXXXX 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3

UC Flex (60000702) 369XXXXXXX 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 Budgetary Services (60000742) 362XXXXXXX 0 0 0 78 0 4 0 82 Financial Services/Treasurer 366XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPA (GCC 60000689) 372XXXXXXX 0 0 0 37 0 0 5 42 Resource Analysis Mgmt. (60000697) 381XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uptown Construction 199XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Mgmt. (60000697) 375XXXXXXX 0 0 0 50 12 2 64 Architect (60000697) 378XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comm. GRPS/Gen Svcs/Instit Svcs 904XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Moving 907XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campus Services Admin (60000634) 450XXXXXXX 0 0 0 58 17 1 359 4019 4454 Facilities (60000909) 451XXXXXXX 0 0 0 90 319 0 11 1 421

Utilities (60000658) 454XXXXXXX 0 0 0 10 32 1 43 Public Safety (60000618) 452XXXXXXX 0 0 0 143 2 0 9 154 Human Resources (60000604) 453XXXXXXX 0 0 7 40 1 0 1 49 Equal Opportunity (60000775) 456XXXXXXX 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Organizational Performance 457XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VP Research (60000505) 166XXXXXXX 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 4

VP Research Units 650XXXXXXX 0 0 0 21 0 0 6 27

VP Research Labs 651XXXXXXX 0 0 0 37 43 0 5 85 Tech. Transfer & Comm. (60000510) 652XXXXXXX 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 12 Lab Animal Medicine 675XXXXXXX 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 Sr. VP Units West (60000008) 714XXXXXXX 13 0 6 45 0 218 16 4 302 Provost Bach Grad (60000001) 170XXXXXXX 0 0 6 13 0 16 3 38 Graduate Education (60000002) 755XXXXXXX 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Continuing Ed (60000106) 731XXXXXXX 0 2 0 7 0 0 1 10 Professional Practice (60000723) 736XXXXXXX 24 0 0 8 0 5 0 37

Honors (60000262) 738XXXXXXX 0 5 0 5 0 3 0 13 Government Relations (60000661) 174XXXXXXX 0 0 0 30 0 17 3 50 PR & Govt. Relations (60000664-666) 560XXXXXXX 0 0 0 61 1 60 3 125

VP UCit (60000699) 182XXXXXXX 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

UCit (60000699) 350XXXXXXX 0 0 0 181 0 209 0 2 392

AIT&L 668XXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19

Area Cost Center Faculty Adjunct Emeriti Staff Union Student Worker

Graduate Asst. Corporate Housing Students Total

Athletics (60000534) 260XXXXXXX 0 0 1 131 13 89 6 240 Athletics-5th 3rd Arena (60000560) 261XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alumni Office (60001491) 290XXXXXXX 0 0 0 10 0 3 0 1 14

VP UC Foundation 189XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 CIO (60001092) Chief Investment Officer 363XXXXXXX 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 6 Community Development (60001775) 368XXXXXXX 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 VP Student Affairs (60000562) 178XXXXXXX 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Student Affairs (60000565) 570XXXXXXX 0 1 0 193 0 90 539 823 Pharmacy (60000285) 625XXXXXXX 37 20 12 19 0 2 33 123 Sr. VP Provost East (60000264) 162XXXXXXX 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Sr. VP Units East (60000279) 614XXXXXXX 0 0 1 27 2 30

COM (60000292) 626XXXXXXX 764 116 202 977 0 425 300 783 3567 Institute for Study of Hlth (60000438) 660XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nursing (60000417) 629XXXXXXX 103 97 17 51 0 59 29 356 Allied Health (60000828) 635XXXXXXX 53 91 2 34 0 38 42 260 Hoxworth (60000454) 665XXXXXXX 3 0 3 179 12 4 1 2 204

UHS (60000493) 672XXXXXXX 0 0 0 67 0 32 0 99

A & S (60000016) 715XXXXXXX 444 239 125 144 0 167 634 1 1754

CCM (60000088) 716XXXXXXX 104 176 29 56 0 251 201 1 818

CECH (60000068) 718XXXXXXX 118 305 36 149 2 152 202 2 966 Engineering (60000076) 720XXXXXXX 154 57 41 88 0 180 431 1 952 Social Work (60000110) 721XXXXXXX 14 15 3 5 0 4 4 45 Business (60000741) 722XXXXXXX 73 46 21 47 0 106 78 1 372

DAAP (60000062) 723XXXXXXX 91 113 32 28 0 114 182 1 561

Law (60000084) 724XXXXXXX 39 2 6 32 0 232 0 311 Applied Science * (6000045) 732XXXXXXX 113 165 38 54 0 97 6 473

CAT 742XXXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Univ Libraries (60000234) 770XXXXXXX 30 0 19 80 1 215 0 345

AIT&L 668XXXXXX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Students - FTE Equivalent 25,611.20 25611.2

TOTALS 2178 1451 609 3388 443 2800 3138 806 4019 44443.2

Note: Chart highlighting is used to distinguish groupings.

20

Appendix C

Weighted Services Index

Cost Center Area Monthly Voice

Qty. Monthly Data

Qty. Monthly VM

Qty. Monthly

Wireless Qty. Head Count Voice Index Data Index VM Index Wireless Index


101xxxxxxx-PRESIDENT 10.00 13.00 7.92 0.00 6.10 1.96 2.74 1.55 0.00 2.30 270xxxxxxx-BOARD OF TRUSTEES 1.58 4.83 2.00 0.00 1.50

280xxxxxxx-FACULTY SENATE 3.33 3.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 150xxxxxxx-VP ADMIN & BUSINESS SERVICES 19.00 685.58 13.75 10.75 15.00

1.38 12.26 1.01 0.19 7.44 154xxxxxxx-SR. VP FINANCE 2.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 580xxxxxxx-INTERNAL AUDIT 5.08 0.00 4.08 0.00 5.50 186xxxxxxx-VP LEGAL 15.42 2.00 12.33 0.00 20.00 455xxxxxxx-PURCHASING ETC. 36.58 5.33 24.08 0.00 13.00 158xxxxxxx-CFO 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00

0.98 0.16 0.77 0.02 0.47

369xxxxxxx-UC FLEX 13.08 13.50 10.58 2.50 12.00 362xxxxxxx-BUGETARY SERVICES 11.83 2.58 9.75 0.00 79.00 366xxxxxxx-FINANCIAL SERVICES / TREASURER 90.83 1.08 68.08 0.00 0.00 372xxxxxxx-SPA 9.17 0.58 8.17 0.00 39.50 381xxxxxxx-RESOURCE ANALYSIS MGMT AND PLANNING 2.58 2.83 2.50 0.00 0.00 199xxxxxxx-UPTOWN CONSTRUCTION COST COLLECTOR 37.08 70.25 11.83 7.42 0.00

2.03 2.71 1.23 0.15 2.26 375xxxxxxx-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 378xxxxxxx-ARCHITECT 61.08 41.17 52.67 1.00 58.00 904xxxxxxx-COMM GRPS/GEN SVCS/INSTIT SVCS 15.25 9.08 6.83 0.00 0.00 907xxxxxxx-OTHER MOVING 4.50 36.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 450xxxxxxx-CAMPUS SRV ADMIN 492.50 3040.08 128.75 13.00 1005.61 0.49 3.02 0.13 0.01 1.85 451xxxxxxx-FACILITES 188.17 22.67 96.08 2.33 176.25 1.21 0.50 0.57 0.01 0.69 454xxxxxxx-UTILITIES 47.17 74.58 15.67 0.00 18.50 452xxxxxxx-PUBLIC SAFETY 125.75 171.50 61.42 5.00 148.00 0.85 1.16 0.41 0.03 0.94 453xxxxxxx-HUMAN RESOURCES 68.17 1.58 53.92 0.00 41.45

1.54 0.03 1.22 0.00 0.62 456xxxxxxx-EQUAL OPPORTUITY 5.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 3.00 457xxxxxxx-ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 166xxxxxxx-VP FOR RESEARCH 1.50 1.00 3.00 0.00 2.75

1.42 1.61 1.00 0.03 1.44

650xxxxxxx-VP RESEARCH UNITS 61.75 62.67 35.08 0.00 24.00 651xxxxxxx-VP RESEARCH LABS 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 50.25 652xxxxxxx-TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER & COMMERCIALIZATION 11.83 11.00 12.92 0.00 8.50 675xxxxxxx-LAB ANIMAL MEDICINE 57.83 75.83 41.58 3.00 8.00 714xxxxxxx-SR. VP UNITS WEST 191.08 420.25 55.92 89.92 125.10

1.53 2.88 0.75 0.46 2.15

170xxxxxxx-SR. VP PROVOST WEST 29.75 57.42 22.75 0.00 19.10 755xxxxxxx-GRAD ED 20.08 1.75 16.17 0.00 2.00 731xxxxxxx-CONTINUING ED 10.67 5.75 10.00 0.00 8.00 736xxxxxxx-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 37.08 48.25 32.75 0.00 33.25 738xxxxxxx-HONORS 8.00 26.17 9.00 0.00 7.00

21

Cost Center Area Monthly Voice

Qty. Monthly Data

Qty. Monthly VM

Qty. Monthly

Wireless Qty. Head Count Voice Index Data Index VM Index Wireless Index


174xxxxxxx-VP GOVT RELATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS 4.00 7.75 3.00 0.00 35.75 0.33 0.50 0.31 0.00 0.42 560xxxxxxx-PR & GOVT RELATIONS 33.83 48.75 32.58 0.00 77.75 182xxxxxxx-VP UCIT 3.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 237.25

2.35 3.56 0.54 0.13 2.70 350xxxxxxx-UCIT 1078.17 1550.08 233.83 50.00 235.25 668xxxxxxx-AIT&L 29.67 129.00 19.08 13.00 0.00 260xxxxxxx-ATHLETICS 215.17 250.92 116.25 18.25 159.60 1.55 1.64 0.80 0.11

1.46 261xxxxxxx-FIFTH THIRD ARENA 32.75 11.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 290xxxxxxx-ALUMNI OFFICE 20.42 10.50 15.75 0.00 11.75 1.74 0.89 1.34 0.00 1.17 189xxxxxxx-VP UC FOUNDATION 141.42 185.00 93.92 0.00 1.00 141.42 185.00 93.92 0.00 156.19 363xxxxxxx-CIO (Chief Investment Officer) 4.58 2.25 4.00 0.00 3.75 1.22 0.60 1.07 0.00 0.83 368xxxxxxx-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.42 178xxxxxxx-VP STUDENT AFFAIRS 7.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.50

0.77 0.92 0.59 0.04 0.81 570xxxxxxx-STUDENT AFFAIRS 365.58 444.08 281.75 16.00 485.25 625xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF PHARMACY 68.25 160.58 56.50 13.00 79.20 0.86 2.03 0.71 0.16 1.48 162xxxxxxx-SR. VP PROVOST EAST 6.00 2.08 3.33 1.25 1.10

0.97 1.28 0.66 0.02 1.08 614xxxxxxx-SR. VP UNITS EAST 135.17 145.92 100.33 7.67 28.10 626xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF MEDICINE 2621.83 3515.58 1793.92 61.08 2829.45 660xxxxxxx-INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF HEALTH 4.17 1.25 2.25 0.00 0.00 629xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF NURSING 164.08 287.33 131.33 12.00 209.20 0.78 1.37 0.63 0.06 1.08 635xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF ALLIED HEALTH 129.42 339.50 90.08 10.25 140.45 0.92 2.42 0.64 0.07 1.71 665xxxxxxx-HOXWORTH BLOOD CENTER 228.75 355.25 120.50 0.00 188.80 1.26 1.88 0.69 0.00 1.50 672xxxxxxx-UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES 104.83 141.75 60.33 1.00 75.00 715xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES 910.08 2486.33 680.42 31.00 1020.00 0.89 2.44 0.67 0.03 1.71 716xxxxxxx-COLLEGE CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC 237.42 433.00 175.42 1.50 371.15 0.64 1.17 0.47 0.00 0.90 718xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF EDUCATION CRIM JUST ETC. 379.33 933.33 358.50 22.50 488.35 0.78 1.91 0.73 0.05 1.40 720xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 418.00 2212.67 281.17 80.67 521.85 0.80 4.24 0.54 0.15 2.69 721xxxxxxx-SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK 23.08 40.75 21.08 0.00 26.05 0.89 1.56 0.81 0.00 1.24 722xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF BUSINESS 219.08 494.83 169.42 9.00 200.10 1.09 2.47 0.85 0.04 1.82 723xxxxxxx-DAAP 163.67 670.33 156.08 32.67 270.95 0.60 2.47 0.58 0.12 1.65 724xxxxxxx-LAW 112.25 210.75 105.83 17.00 130.10 0.86 1.62 0.81 0.13 1.27 732xxxxxxx-COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCE 196.67 805.08 109.42 13.67 239.30 1.19 4.69 0.78 0.08

3.08 742xxxxxxx-CAT 88.17 318.25 78.08 5.00 0.00 770xxxxxxx-UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 183.75 686.58 119.92 15.33 165.90

1.21 4.59 0.79 0.14 3.03 668xxxxxxx-AIT&L 17.08 74.17 10.92 7.42 0.00

Note: Chart highlighting is used to distinguish groupings. Voice Weight = .2591 Data Weight = .5639 Voice Mail Weight = .1621 Wireless Weight = .0149

22

Weighted Services Index & Employee Category Percentages Applied to Native FTE Counts

Area Cost Center Weighted Services Index

Faculty Adjunct Emeriti Staff Union Student Worker GA Corporate Housing Undergrad Total

100% 25% 10% 100% 25% 25% 50% 100% 19% 10%

President (60000531 & 60001590) 101XXXXXXX 2.3 2.3 0 0.23 9.2 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 14.03 Board of Trustees (60002525) 270XXXXXXX 2.3 0 0 0 2.3 0 0 1.15 0 0 0 3.45 Faculty Senate (60001487) 280XXXXXXX 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VP Admin & Bus Svcs (60000673) 150XXXXXXX 7.44 0 0 0 96.72 0 0 0 14.88 0 0 111.6 Sr. VP Finance (6001566) 154XXXXXXX 7.44 0 0 0 22.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.32 Internal Audit (60000530) 580XXXXXXX 7.44 0 0 0 37.2 0 0 3.72 0 0 0 40.92 VP Legal (60000527) 186XXXXXXX 7.44 0 0 0 133.92 0 7.44 0 7.44 0 0 148.8 Purchasing (60000613) 455XXXXXXX 7.44 0 0 0 96.72 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.72 CFO (60000673)Plummer 158XXXXXXX 0.46 0 0 0 1.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.38 UC Flex (60000702) 369XXXXXXX 0.46 0 0 0 5.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.52 Budgetary Services (60000742) 362XXXXXXX 0.46 0 0 0 35.88 0 0.46 0 0 0 0 36.34 Financial Services/Treasurer 366XXXXXXX 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPA (GCC 60000689) 372XXXXXXX 0.46 0 0 0 17.02 0 0 1.15 0 0 0 18.17 Resource Analysis Mgmt. (60000697) 381XXXXXXX 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uptown Construction 199XXXXXXX 2.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Mgmt. (60000697) 375XXXXXXX 2.26 0 0 0 113 0 0 13.56 4.52 0 0 131.08 Architect (60000697) 378XXXXXXX 2.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Comm. GRPS/Gen Svcs/Instit Svcs 904XXXXXXX 2.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Moving 907XXXXXXX 2.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campus Services Admin (60000634) 450XXXXXXX 1.85 0 0 0 107.3 7.8625 0.4625 332.075 0 1412.679 0 1860.379 Facilities (60000909) 451XXXXXXX 0.69 0 0 0 62.1 55.0275 0 3.795 0.69 0 0 121.6125 Utilities (60000658) 454XXXXXXX 0.69 0 0 0 6.9 5.52 0 0.345 0 0 0 12.765 Public Safety (60000618) 452XXXXXXX 0.94 0 0 0 134.42 0.47 0 4.23 0 0 0 139.12 Human Resources (60000604) 453XXXXXXX 0.66 0 0 0.462 26.4 0.165 0 0.33 0 0 0 27.357 Equal Opportunity (60000775) 456XXXXXXX 0.66 0 0 0 1.98 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.98 Organizational Performance 457XXXXXXX 0.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VP Research (60000505) 166XXXXXXX 1.44 0 0.36 0 2.88 0 0 0.72 0 0 0 3.96 VP Research Units 650XXXXXXX 1.44 0 0 0 30.24 0 0 4.32 0 0 0 34.56 VP Research Labs 651XXXXXXX 1.44 0 0 0 53.28 15.48 0 3.6 0 0 0 72.36 Tech. Transfer & Comm. (60000510) 652XXXXXXX 1.44 0 0 0 7.2 0 0 5.04 0 0 0 12.24 Lab Animal Medicine 675XXXXXXX 1.44 0 0 0 11.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.52 Sr. VP Units West (60000008) 714XXXXXXX 2.15 27.95 0 1.29 96.75 0 117.175 17.2 8.6 0 0 268.965 Provost Bach Grad (60000001) 170XXXXXXX 2.15 0 0 1.29 27.95 0 8.6 3.225 0 0 0 41.065 Graduate Education (60000002) 755XXXXXXX 2.15 0 0 0 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.3 Continuing Ed (60000106) 731XXXXXXX 2.15 0 1.075 0 15.05 0 0 1.075 0 0 0 17.2 Professional Practice (60000723) 736XXXXXXX 2.15 51.6 0 0 17.2 0 2.6875 0 0 0 0 71.4875 Honors (60000262) 738XXXXXXX 2.15 0 2.6875 0 10.75 0 1.6125 0 0 0 0 15.05

23

Area Cost Center Weighted Services Index

Faculty Adjunct Emeriti Staff Union Student Worker GA Corporate Housing Undergrad Total

100% 25% 10% 100% 25% 25% 50% 100% 19% 10%

Government Relations (60000661) 174XXXXXXX 0.42 0 0 0 12.6 0 1.785 0.63 0 0 0 15.015 PR & Govt. Relations (60000664-666) 560XXXXXXX 0.42 0 0 0 25.62 0.105 6.3 0.63 0 0 0 32.655 VP UCit (60000699) 182XXXXXXX 5.38 0 0 0 10.76 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.76 UCit (60000699) 350XXXXXXX 5.38 0 0 0 973.78 0 281.105 0 10.76 0 0 1265.645 AIT&L 668XXXXXX 5.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Athletics (60000534) 260XXXXXXX 1.46 0 0 0.146 191.26 4.745 32.485 4.38 0 0 0 233.016 Athletics-5th 3rd Arena (60000560) 261XXXXXXX 1.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alumni Office (60001491) 290XXXXXXX 1.17 0 0 0 11.7 0 0.8775 0 1.17 0 0 13.7475 VP UC Foundation 189XXXXXXX 156.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156.19 0 0 156.19 CIO (60001092) Chief Investment Officer 363XXXXXXX 0.83 0 0 0 2.49 0 0.6225 0 0 0 0 3.1125 Community Development (60001775) 368XXXXXXX 0.42 0 0 0 1.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.68 VP Student Affairs (60000562) 178XXXXXXX 0.81 0 0 0 0.81 0 0 0.405 0 0 0 1.215 Student Affairs (60000565) 570XXXXXXX 0.81 0 0.2025 0 156.33 0 18.225 218.295 0 0 0 393.0525 Pharmacy (60000285) 625XXXXXXX 1.48 54.76 7.4 1.776 28.12 0 0.74 24.42 0 0 0 117.216 Sr. VP Provost East (60000264) 162XXXXXXX 1.08 0 0 0.108 1.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.188 Sr. VP Units East (60000279) 614XXXXXXX 1.08 0 0 0.108 29.16 0 0 1.08 0 0 0 30.348 COM (60000292) 626XXXXXXX 1.08 825.12 31.32 21.816 1055.16 0 114.75 162 845.64 0 0 3055.806 Institute for Study of Hlth (60000438) 660XXXXXXX 1.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nursing (60000417) 629XXXXXXX 1.08 111.24 26.19 1.836 55.08 0 15.93 15.66 0 0 0 225.936 Allied Health (60000828) 635XXXXXXX 1.71 90.63 38.9025 0.342 58.14 0 16.245 35.91 0 0 0 240.1695 Hoxworth (60000454) 665XXXXXXX 1.5 4.5 0 0.45 268.5 4.5 1.5 0.75 3 0 0 283.2 UHS (60000493) 672XXXXXXX 1.5 0 0 0 100.5 0 12 0 0 0 0 112.5 A & S (60000016) 715XXXXXXX 1.71 759.24 102.1725 21.375 246.24 0 71.3925 542.07 1.71 0 0 1744.2 CCM (60000088) 716XXXXXXX 0.9 93.6 39.6 2.61 50.4 0 56.475 90.45 0.9 0 0 334.035 CECH (60000068) 718XXXXXXX 1.4 165.2 106.75 5.04 208.6 0.7 53.2 141.4 2.8 0 0 683.69 Engineering (60000076) 720XXXXXXX 2.69 414.26 38.3325 11.029 236.72 0 121.05 579.695 2.69 0 0 1403.777 Social Work (60000110) 721XXXXXXX 1.24 17.36 4.65 0.372 6.2 0 1.24 2.48 0 0 0 32.302 Business (60000741) 722XXXXXXX 1.82 132.86 20.93 3.822 85.54 0 48.23 70.98 1.82 0 0 364.182 DAAP (60000062) 723XXXXXXX 1.65 150.15 46.6125 5.28 46.2 0 47.025 150.15 1.65 0 0 447.0675 Law (60000084) 724XXXXXXX 1.27 49.53 0.635 0.762 40.64 0 73.66 0 0 0 0 165.227 Applied Science * (6000045) 732XXXXXXX 3.08 348.04 127.05 11.704 166.32 0 74.69 9.24 0 0 0 737.044 CAT 742XXXXXXX 3.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Univ Libraries (60000234) 770XXXXXXX 3.03 90.9 0 5.757 242.4 0.7575 162.8625 0 0 0 0 502.677 AIT&L 668XXXXXX 3.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Students - FTE Equivalent N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2561.12 2561.12

TOTALS 3389.24 594.87 97.605 5499.43 95.3325 1350.828 2448.46 1064.46 1412.679 2561.12 18514.02

24

Appendix D

Comparison of FY09 Charges to New FTE Charges

Area Cost Center Billed/Recovered FY2009

Actual Paid in 2009

Annual Amount to Pay in New FTE Model

Actual Gain or Loss

Dean/VP Area Gain or Loss Before General Fund Subsidy

Dean/VP Area % of Loss

General Fund Subsidy to Help Offset Any Loss

New Amount to Pay with GF Subsidy

Variance After GF Subsidy

Dean/VP Area Gain or Loss After General Fund Subsidy

President (60000531 & 60001590) 101XXXXXXX $ 9,158.52 5,859 8,785 (2,926) 8,785 (2,926)

(358) Board of Trustees (60002525) 270XXXXXXX $ 2,250.14 450 2,160 (1,710) 2,160 (1,710) Faculty Senate (60001487) 280XXXXXXX $ 2,350.20 1,450 0 1,450 (3,186) 0.15% 2,828 (2,828) 4,278 VP Admin & Bus Svcs. (60000673) 150XXXXXXX $ 222,798.45 222,798 69,879 152,920 69,879 152,920 Sr. VP Finance (6001566) 154XXXXXXX $ 1,116.00 1,116 13,976 (12,860) 13,976 (12,860) Internal Audit (60000530) 580XXXXXXX $ 2,377.00 2,377 25,622 (23,245) 25,622 (23,245) VP Legal (60000527) 186XXXXXXX $ 7,982.17 7,982 93,171 (85,189) 93,171 (85,189) Purchasing (60000613) 455XXXXXXX $ 18,456.50 18,457 60,561 (42,105) 60,561 (42,105) CFO (60000673) 158XXXXXXX $ 1,512.00 1,512 864 648 864 648 UC Flex (60000702) 369XXXXXXX $ 11,926.95 11,927 3,456 8,471 3,456 8,471 Budgetary Services (60000742) 362XXXXXXX $ 6,568.25 6,568 22,754 (16,186) 22,754 (16,186) Financial Services/Treasurer 366XXXXXXX $ 45,041.33 45,041 0 45,041 0 45,041 SPA (GCC 60000689) 372XXXXXXX $ 4,545.84 4,546 11,377 (6,831) 11,377 (6,831) Resource Analysis Mgmt. (60000697) 381XXXXXXX $ 2,099.10 2,099 0 2,099 0 2,099 Uptown Construction 199XXXXXXX $ 43,033.69 43,034 0 43,034 0 43,034 Construction Mgmt. (60000697) 375XXXXXXX $ - 0 82,076 (82,076) 82,076 (82,076) Architect (60000697) 378XXXXXXX $ 42,016.59 42,017 0 42,017 0 42,017 Comm. GRPS/Gen Svcs./Instit. Svcs. 904XXXXXXX $ 9,590.78 9,591 0 9,591 0 9,591 Other Moving 907XXXXXXX $ 12,789.33 12,789 0 12,789 0 12,789 Campus Services Admin (60000634) 450XXXXXXX $ 1,131,444.68 1,131,445 1,164,880 (33,435) 1,164,880 (33,435) Facilities (60000909) 451XXXXXXX $ 93,128.50 -70,672 76,148 (146,819) 76,148 (146,819) Utilities (60000658) 454XXXXXXX $ 42,988.53 42,989 7,993 34,996 7,993 34,996 Public Safety (60000618) 452XXXXXXX $ 112,194.48 92,394 87,110 5,284 87,110 5,284 Human Resources (60000604) 453XXXXXXX $ 34,025.57 34,026 17,130 16,896 17,130 16,896 Equal Opportunity (60000775) 456XXXXXXX $ 2,307.33 2,307 1,240 1,068 1,240 1,068 Organizational Performance 457XXXXXXX $ - 0 0 0 (73,895) 3.56% 65,591 (65,591) 65,591 (8,304) VP Research (60000505) 166XXXXXXX $ 1,098.50 1,099 2,480 (1,381) 2,480 (1,381) VP Research Units 650XXXXXXX $ 48,006.46 48,006 21,640 26,367 21,640 26,367 VP Research Labs 651XXXXXXX $ 36.00 36 45,308 (45,272) 45,308 (45,272) Tech. Transfer & Comm. (60000510) 652XXXXXXX $ 9,635.80 9,636 7,664 1,972 7,664 1,972 Lab Animal Medicine 675XXXXXXX $ 53,273.95 53,274 7,213 46,061 27,746 7,213 46,061 27,746

25


Actual Paid in 2009


Actual Gain or Loss







Sr. VP Units West (60000008) 714XXXXXXX $ 289,934.99 198,435 168,413 30,022 168,413 44,722 Provost Bach Grad (60000001) 170XXXXXXX $ 31,261.88 26,462 25,713 749 25,713 749 Graduate Education (60000002) 755XXXXXXX $ 10,215.64 10,216 2,692 7,523 2,692 7,523 Continuing Ed (60000106) 731XXXXXXX $ 6,813.28 6,813 10,770 (3,957) 10,770 (3,957) Professional Practice (60000723) 736XXXXXXX $ 32,015.47 20,015 44,762 (24,747) 44,762 (24,747) Honors (60000262) 738XXXXXXX $ 12,181.10 6,781 9,424 (2,642) 6,949 9,424 (2,642) 21,649 Government Relations (60000661) 174XXXXXXX $ 4,341.00 1,941 9,402 (7,461) 9,402 (7,461) PR & Govt. Relations (60000664-666) 560XXXXXXX $ 30,978.47 23,178 20,447 2,731 (4,729) 0.23% 4,198 16,249 6,929 (531) VP UCit (60000699) 182XXXXXXX $ 1,740.00 1,740 6,737 (4,997) 6,737 (4,997) UCit (60000699) 350XXXXXXX $ 980,499.42 980,499 792,486 188,013 204,871 792,486 188,013 204,872 AIT&L 668XXXXXX $ 63,384.61 21,856 0 21,856 0 21,856 Athletics (60000534) 260XXXXXXX $ 189,220.58 189,221 145,903 43,317 145,903 43,317 Athletics-5th 3rd Arena (60000560) 261XXXXXXX $ 17,854.48 17,854 0 17,854 61,172 0 17,854 61,172 Alumni Office (60001491) 290XXXXXXX $ 13,407.85 13,408 8,608 4,800 4,800 8,608 4,800 4,800 VP UC Foundation 189XXXXXXX $ 119,394.81 119,395 97,799 21,596 21,596 97,799 21,596 21,596 CIO (60001092) Chief Investment Officer 363XXXXXXX $ 2,962.00 2,962 1,949 1,013 1,013 1,949 1,013 1,013 Community Development (60001775) 368XXXXXXX $ 2,088.00 2,088 1,052 1,036 1,036 1,052 1,036 1,036 VP Student Affairs (60000562) 178XXXXXXX $ 7,704.00 6,204 761 5,443 761 5,443 Student Affairs (60000565) 570XXXXXXX $ 323,879.31 233,879 246,111 (12,231) (6,788) 0.33% 6,025 240,085 (6,206) (763) Pharmacy (60000285) 625XXXXXXX $ 91,335.97 50,236 73,395 (23,159) (23,159) 1.12% 20,557 52,838 (2,602) (2,602) Sr. VP Provost East (60000264) 162XXXXXXX $ 4,435.45 4,435 744 3,692 744 3,692 Sr. VP Units East (60000279) 614XXXXXXX $ 115,831.47 115,831 19,002 96,829 19,002 96,829 COM (60000292) 626XXXXXXX $ 2,356,789.91 2,067,290 1,913,399 153,891 1,913,399 153,891 Institute for Study of Hlth. (60000438) 660XXXXXXX $ 2,510.94 2,511 0 2,511 256,922 0 2,511 256,922 Nursing (60000417) 629XXXXXXX $ 173,487.55 112,588 141,470 (28,883) (28,883) 1.39% 25,637 115,833 (3,246) (3,246) Allied Health (60000828) 635XXXXXXX $ 171,026.28 98,426 150,383 (51,956) (51,956) 2.51% 46,118 104,265 (5,838) (5,838) Hoxworth (60000454) 665XXXXXXX $ 209,807.41 209,807 177,326 32,481 177,326 32,481 UHS (60000493) 672XXXXXXX $ 91,556.44 84,956 70,442 14,514 46,995 70,442 14,514 46,995 A & S (60000016) 715XXXXXXX $ 1,183,178.07 632,078 1,092,134 (460,056) (460,056) 22.19% 408,359 683,776 (61,598) (61,598) CCM (60000088) 716XXXXXXX $ 243,194.32 139,694 209,157 (69,462) (69,462) 3.35% 61,657 147,500 (7,806) (7,806) CECH (60000068) 718XXXXXXX $ 473,234.10 326,534 428,094 (101,560) (101,560) 4.90% 90,147 337,947 (11,413) (11,413) Engineering (60000076) 720XXXXXXX $ 926,386.18 289,786 878,978 (589,191) (589,191) 28.42% 522,982 355,995 (66,209) (66,209) Social Work (60000110) 721XXXXXXX $ 22,873.09 22,873 20,226 2,647 2,647 20,226 2,647 2,647 Business (60000741) 722XXXXXXX $ 258,169.65 161,570 228,033 (66,464) (66,464) 3.21% 58,995 169,038 (7,469) (7,469) DAAP (60000062) 723XXXXXXX $ 306,666.46 104,166 279,932 (175,766) (175,766) 8.48% 156,015 123,918 (19,751) (19,751)

26


Actual Paid in 2009


Actual Gain or Loss







Law (60000084) 724XXXXXXX $ 132,642.85 93,943 103,457 (9,514) (9,514) 0.46% 8,445 95,012 (1,069) (1,069) Applied Science * (6000045) 732XXXXXXX $ 341,698.54 172,199 461,502 (289,303) 461,502 (289,303) CAT 742XXXXXXX $ 140,307.46 65,607 0 65,607 (223,696) 10.79% 198,558 (198,558) 264,166 (25,137) Univ Libraries (60000234) 770XXXXXXX $ 302,353.65 117,554 314,752 (197,199) (184,636) 8.91% 163,888 150,864 (43,511) (30,948) AIT&L 668XXXXXX $ 36,433.67 12,563 0 12,563 0 12,563 Students - FTE Equivalent 0 1,603,651 (1,603,651) (1,603,651) 1,603,651 (1,603,651) (1,603,651)

TOTALS $ 11,697,548.99 8,551,749 11,592,595 (3,040,846) (3,040,846) 100.00% 1,840,000 9,752,595 (1,206,245) (1,206,245)

Total of Net Gains 1,181,391 635,747

1,467,267 650,447 Total of Net Losses (4,222,236) *(2,072,942)

(2,673,512) (1,856,692)

Variance Net Gains/Losses (3,040,846) *(1,437,195)

(1,206,245) (1,206,245) Note: Chart highlighting is used to distinguish groupings. * Does not include Student FTE expense into these numbers because they do not receive general funds subsidy distribution. The 2,072,942 in total net losses is divided (if applicable) into the Dean or VP net loss to derive the Dean/VP percentage loss.

Date post:	11-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

BUSINESS PLANNING AND FUNDING MODEL… · 2000,UCit #createda# newrate model to...

Documents