BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND HUMAN RESOURCES JUNE 17, 2010 TAB DESCRIPTION ACTION 1 DIFFERENTIAL FEES Information item BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY 2 Right of Way Vacation Agreement – Ada County Motion to approve Highway District BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY 3 Geothermal Agreement – City of Boise Motion to approve BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY 4 Motion to approve Purchasing Policy BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY 5 Motion to approve Lincoln Avenue Student Housing Project IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY 6 Naming/Memorializing Buildings & Facilities - Softball Motion to approve Fields IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY 7 Motion to approve Idaho Accelerator Center (IAC) Expansion Project UNIVERSITY of IDAHO 8 Motion to approve Outdoor Track Renovation Project UNIVERSITY of IDAHO 9 Motion to approve Request for Proposals – Television Cable Project BAHR – SECTION II i BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND HUMAN RESOURCES JUNE 17, 2010 TAB DESCRIPTION ACTION UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO 10 Kibbie Dome Enhancement Project – Game Day Motion to approve Renovation UNIVERSITY of IDAHO 11 Motion to approve Sponsorship Agreement – Litehouse, Inc. UNIVERSITY of IDAHO 12 Center for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Motion to approve Research (CAMBR) Laboratory LEWIS-CLARK STATE COLLEGE 13 Motion to approve Refinancing of Clearwater Hall FY 2012 LINE ITEMS a. FY 2011 Supplemental Requests b. Summary & Detail 14 c. Occupancy Costs Motion to approve d. Center for Advanced Energy Studies e. Scholarships f. Strategic Initiatives Summary & Detail AMENDMENT TO BOARD POLICY Motion to approve 15 Section V.R.3.a.x. – In-Service Teacher Education Fees, First Reading BAHR – SECTION II ii BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND HUMAN RESOURCES JUNE 17, 2010 SUBJECT Revising Fee Policy to Allow for Differential Fees REFERENCE September 2001 Board authorizes UI to bring a proposal to the Board to implement differential fees on a limited basis. March 2002 UI asks Board for additional time to talk about the issue with students and other stakeholders, and bring a proposal back at a later date. October 2008 Institutions request direction from the Board whether there is support for a mechanism to request differential fees by the college or universities. Board directs staff to bring forward an amendment to Board Policy V.R.3., adding differential fees. APPLICABLE STATUTES, RULE OR POLICY Idaho State Board of Education Governing Policies & Procedures, Section V.R.3.b. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In general terms, differential fees refer to any additional fees that are supplementary to the base tuition level approved by the Board. These fees would be charged to a particular group of students based on criteria identified and approved by the Board. Criteria for differential fees can include college, program, major, class standing, etc. Differential fees are generally intended to: 1) offset higher than average instructional costs; 2) provide supplemental resources to enhance program quality; or 3) reflect the market for programs with high demand. Professional fees, which are allowed under current Board Policy, differ from differential fees. To designate a professional fee for a Board approved program, the program must have credentialing and accreditation requirements as well as extraordinary program costs. Differential fees have been discussed at the concept level in numerous Financial Vice Presidents (FVP) meetings since the Board’s directive in 2008. Last fall, the FVPs and staff began discussing and reviewing draft policy language. CAAP has been included and provided opportunity for input. On April 21, 2010, a joint meeting of CAAP and FVPs was held in Moscow. Board members Edmunds, Lewis, Luna, and Soltman were in attendance. Keith Ickes of UI presented a white paper on differential fees which provided a framework for the discussion. BAHR – SECTION II TAB 1 Page 1 BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND HUMAN RESOURCES JUNE 17, 2010 IMPACT Deans of the colleges of business and colleges of engineering at the three universities have expressed interest in differential fees, but only at the conceptual level. No specific fee amount has been formally identified. Some systems or institutions with differential fees require a financial aid component. For example, one approach used is to set aside a certain percentage of the differential fee for need-based fee remissions to be awarded to needy students who fall under the criteria used to assess the fee. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1- SBOE Review of Differential Tuition Page 3 STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The deans of the colleges of business at the three universities met with Dr. Rush to discuss differential fees. When he pressed the deans to identify their end- goal, they eventually agreed that all they really wanted was to have a portion of the tuition collected from their students to go directly to the colleges of business. This, of course, is a matter of revising internal institutional budget policy and practice, not implementing differential fees. The institutions are requesting direction from the Board whether there is continued support for a mechanism to request differential fees by the college or universities. If the Board directs the institutions to proceed, a proposed policy would be brought for first reading at the August, 2010 meeting. BOARD ACTION This item is for informational purposes only. Any action will be at the Board’s discretion. BAHR – SECTION II TAB 1 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1 Keith Ickes, UI February 22, 2010 State Board of Education Review of Differential Tuition “Differential Tuition” refers to any tuition charge to the students of a particular group that is different than the tuition charged to other students, where the difference is based on certain factual criteria. Tuition can be differentiated on the basis of many different criteria. For example: Residency Class standing College/Major Full-time / Part-time status Funding source Course Delivery Method The tuition is differentiated via specific fees assessed on the basis of any of the previous criteria. The following material will look at examples of differential tuition based on each of the criteria listed above. There is also a brief discussion of the various ways in which institutions allocate or budget the additional revenue these differential tuition rates bring. Residency For most public institutions it is common practice to differentiate tuition according to student residency. In fact, in many public institutions of higher education this is the only manner in which undergraduate tuition is differentiated. Where the state is subsidizing the costs of instruction for its residents, non-residents are expected to pay the full cost of instruction and, in probably the majority of the cases, non-residents pay substantially more than the calculated cost of instruction – from 120% to as high as 150% of calculated instruction cost. In areas where there is local tax district support for an institution (usually a community college or vo-tech school), there may be different charges for students “out-of-district” and even higher charges for students out of state. Tuition based on residency can be differentiated in other ways as well. Non-resident tuition at CU-Boulder is $18,120 per academic year for a full time student. However, CU-Boulder does not have a lower, pro-rated tuition level for non-residents who are less BAHR - SECTION II TAB 1 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 than full time. In short, a non-resident undergraduate at CU-Boulder pays the same tuition ($18,120) per year whether they take 1 credit hour a semester or 18 hours a semester. If the student takes more than 18 credit hours a semester, they pay an additional $1,006 per credit hour to do so. This differentiation, no part-time tuition rate for non-residents, is based on program or, in this case, institution demand. There is so much non-resident interest in the institution that they can demand full time tuition from all non-residents – truly a market driven rate. Miami University of Ohio, a public institution, made national news a number of years ago with their decision to charge resident students the “same” tuition as they charge non-residents. When you read further into their proposal the announced tuition for residents and non-residents would be the same amount, but then resident students would be eligible for special “scholarships” driven by state general fund support for the campus. This proposed tuition program does create the potential for Miami to charge some resident students the full non-resident tuition based on the students’ ability to pay. That is, Miami could (potentially) direct their general fund support to need-based aid for resident students rather than as a generalized subsidy for all enrolled resident students. Colorado State University employs a somewhat similar plan with respect to “unsubsidized” students in the PVM program. Based on the level of state support for the program, there are a fixed number of seats in an entering class for Colorado residents at a subsidized price. Once those seats are filled, other Colorado residents who meet the requirement for admission to the program can attend but will pay the full, unsubsidized tuition rate. This is another example of differential tuition driven by market demand. Class Standing Patrick Callan (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education) references a 1996 California study/proposal that suggested a tuition plan to differentiate tuition rates by class standing, with higher tuition levels for students the higher their class standing. That is, lower tuition levels for freshmen and sophomores and higher tuition levels for juniors and seniors, with the potential that this could be further differentiated so that freshmen paid less than sophomores and juniors less than seniors. Oklahoma State University has practiced a form of such tuition differential by class standing. Their tuition is assessed on a straight per-credit-hour basis. For resident students, upper division courses were priced 6.6% higher than lower division courses; for non-residents the upper division premium was 10.7%. As another example, the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan charges higher tuition for each successive class level.