The Bursar and Finance Officer introduced the budget for 1999/2000 and cash flow forecast. The figures presented were those agreed by Council at their July 1999 meeting showing a budgeted surplus before transfers of £1.658M. The normal November review had been undertaken and the position was not comfortable. Whilst the Bursar would have preferred to reflect that position in a revised (and lower) forecast, he believed that it would be unacceptable to Council and that the budget previously agreed would be the minimum acceptable to them; hence, no revised forecast had been presented. Council would expect the Committee to use whatever techniques it had available to deliver the budgeted surplus.
As overseas recruitment had been disappointing, income from this source had fallen by approximately £250K. Indications were that the further savings requested from Faculties might not materialise, potentially affecting the budget by up to £500K. Although the Fast-track Initiative was going well, it resulted in significant costs for professorial start-up grants. It would therefore be difficult to achieve the target surplus before transfers of £1.658M required to meet the budget approved by Council.
A member expressed serious concern at the potential consequences to the core business of not releasing funding for the support service infrastructure.
It was observed that whilst appreciating the significant pressure on Faculties, it was necessary to strive to achieve meaningful surpluses in order to secure and improve assets. The Performance Monitoring Group was a good vehicle for conveying to Departments the need for tight spending controls. The Committee was advised that, in an effort to achieve savings, cases for staff replacement were already being closely monitored and, where appropriate, rejected at Faculty level before proceeding to Operations Sub-Committee. It was highlighted that in addition to controlling spending, it was vital that new funding sources were sought and exploited through enterprise and innovation. This might mean that in certain cases significant forward investment must be made to generate income. Whilst acknowledging the need for an entrepreneurial approach, it was thought that the structure of Faculties was such that the introduction of business development managers might not be most effective. Faculties were essentially team-based in their operations and were well served by the support teams in place.
Recommendations from the Estates Management Committee meeting held on 21 October 1999 were considered. Members were advised that the Committee was being asked to approve additional capital expenditure which would be capitalised and would not affect the forecast budget outturn for 1999/2000.
The Committee APPROVED funding for the following in the 1999/2000 financial year:
|
£51K |
|
£158K |
The Committee noted that it was estimated that approximately £200K per year would be required over the next three years to fund Disability Discrimination Act Priority 1 Works if the University was to avoid being in breach of the Act by 2004. The Committee supported the release of £30K of the balance from the Minor Works Fund to fund the works in the current year. It also noted that, in the near future, capital funds amounting to approximately £140K would be required for the replacement of the Durotan heating main.
It was RESOLVED that discussion on the recommended replacement of the surface of the PEC Artificial Pitch should be considered in discussion on the Capital Programme, which was the following agenda item.
Members were requested to treat the information provided as strictly confidential as several projects were the subject of sensitive funding negotiations which would be prejudiced by disclosure.
The Committee received an update on capital developments from the Bursar and Finance Officer. The Capital Plan presented served as a planning aid, individual projects required Council approval. The full programme listed included a number of projects subject to external funding bids, some of which would be unsuccessful and would not proceed. If this were not the case, the University might be in breach of the Annualised Servicing Cost of Borrowing threshold set by HEFCE.
In response to a query, it was confirmed that the University had made a clear commitment to proceed with Central Site Refurbishment, the associated cost was estimated to be up to £3.3M. A member felt this might present a cautious estimate of what was needed to develop the Science base of the University. The University might need to prioritise projects further, seek external partners for projects and accept some surrender of the associated control, risk and rewards. Commitments to develop sporting facilities must proceed or external funding would be withdrawn.
The Committee considered the case for the replacement of the PEC Artificial Pitch, as recommended by the Estates Committee. The number and standard of pitches required needed further consideration. The University had a Memorandum of Understanding with Loughborough College to develop three pitches on the opposite side of Epinal Way, with the College contributing the land. This would require significant investment. The Committee RESOLVED that:
The Committee received a report on 1999/2000 intake positions. Thanks were expressed for the informative commentary provided. In relation to the recruitment of home undergraduates, the significant increase in applications and improved entry standards were noted together with the strategic actions outlined to boost international recruitment.
Members were requested to treat the information provided as strictly confidential.
The Committee considered a report of the meeting of the Performance Monitoring Group held on 22 October 1999. It was noted that under section 3.4 of the report 'minimise research income' should be amended to read 'maximise research income'. The Committee considered the revised Terms of Reference recommended by the Group and RESOLVED to REQUEST that the Group should be asked to review these further to reflect more fully its developed role.
The Committee RECOMMENDED to Council that approval be given to the tuition fees for 1999/2000 outlined in the agenda paper Annex.
The Committee RATIFIED the action of the Chair in approving the remaining matters listed.
The Committee RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to Council that the tuition fee of £2639 previously approved by Council be revised and that a differential fee for students on Arts/Science programmes to be reinstated as follows from the 2000/01 academic session.
|
Arts |
£1800 |
The Committee RESOLVED to APPROVE the following recommendations from the meetings of Operations Sub-Committee held on 4 and 25 October 1999.
|
Staff (or partner) £25 |
The Committee RESOLVED to APPROVE the recommendations from the meeting of Estates Management Committee held on 21 October 1999, as set out in the agenda paper.
The Committee NOTED the Twenty-second Report of the Sub-Committee.