March 12, 2026 Minutes

UNIVERSITY BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE

March 12th, 2026

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Stacey Bosick - Interim Provost, Vice President of Academic Affairs; Chair

Jeff Wilson - Interim CFO, Vice President of Administration and Finance; Vice-Chair

Troi Carleton - Dean, College of Humanities, Social Sciences, and the Arts

Anastasia Tosouni - Vice-Chair of the Faculty, Criminal Justice

Emily Vieira Asencio - CFA Representative; Criminal Justice

Laura Lupei - Associate Vice President for University Budget and Resource Planning

Aidan Humrich - Staff Representative, Office of the Dean, College of ECES

Madelyn Boyd - President, Associated Students

Micah Reyes - Vice President of Finance, Associated Students

Paul Edwards - Ex-officio, Interim Vice President of Strategic Enrollment Management

Mike Ogg - Ex-officio, AVP for Academic Resources

STAFF PRESENT:

Hayley Avery - Budget Manager, Administration and Finance

GUESTS PRESENT:

Michael Spagna - President, Sonoma State University

David Crozier - SFBRN Chief Financial Services Officer and Deputy CFO

Anna Reynolds-Smith - Assistant Vice President for Admin and Financial Planning & Business Ops

Ian Hannah - Assistant Vice President for Advancement Operations

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Diana Grant - Chair of APARC, Criminal Justice

Ajay Gehlawat - Chair of the Faculty, Hutchins

AGENDA

Call to Order and Welcome
Approval of the Minutes: February 5, 2026
2026-2027 Budget Planning
Cost of Education Review
SSU Commitment Funding Recommendations Discussion
Spring 2026 Budget Forum Discussion
Announcements for the Good of the Order

Call to Order and Welcome
Interim Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, Stacey Bosick, welcomed the committee and began the meeting at 9:00 a.m.
Approval of the Minutes: February 5th, 2026
Bosick introduced the agenda and asked if there were any additions. Hearing none, Bosick requested a motion to approve the minutes of the March meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously.
2026-2027 Budget Planning
Laura Lupei presented an update on the 2026–2027 Budget Planning process, providing an overview of the current State and CSU budget environment and outlining key assumptions guiding campus planning. She noted that systemwide budget development is still in progress, with several components of the State and CSU budgets not yet finalized. As a result, the campus is proceeding cautiously and focusing primarily on known, campus-driven budget changes while awaiting additional clarity from the State.

To provide clarification from the previous meeting, Lupei reviewed systemwide loans and the campus line of credit. She explained that, in 2025–2026, the CSU accepted a $143.8M zero-interest loan from the State to fund one-time employee compensation systemwide. The January Governor’s Budget includes a proposal for a second $143.8M zero-interest loan for 2026–2027. Lupei also noted that SSU has access to a $25M campus line of credit, offered as part of the Chancellor’s Office match for SSU Commitment Funding. No funds have been utilized to date, and use of the line of credit is limited to infrastructure improvements related to SSU Commitment Funding initiatives.

Lupei then outlined key campus-driven assumptions for 2026–2027. On the revenue side, these include a projected decrease in tuition revenue due to enrollment decline, adjustments to cost allocation and other campus revenues, and a 5% enrollment reallocation. She also noted that the impacts of the January Governor’s Budget remain unknown. On the expenditure side, Lupei highlighted several cost drivers, including the unknown impacts of collective bargaining and whether those costs will need to be absorbed at the campus level. Additional considerations include moving NAGPRA and Presidential Scholarships into the base budget and addressing unfunded positions in SEM, Marketing, Government Relations, and University Police.

Lupei concluded by noting that the next step in the budget timeline will occur in May, when the Governor releases the 2026–2027 May Revision budget plan.
Cost of Education Review
Lupei reviewed the updated Cost of Education analysis with the committee, noting that the presentation now utilizes the CSU systemwide Data Dashboards to provide a more consistent and transparent view of financial data across campuses. As in prior years, the purpose of the analysis is to better understand the University’s spending trends relative to peer CSU institutions and to inform strategic budgeting, reallocation, and organizational decision-making. The review focuses on actual expenditures and revenues per FTES, rather than budgeted figures, and organizes data into standardized functional categories including Instruction, Academic Support, Student Services, Institutional Support, and Operations and Maintenance of Plant. For benchmarking purposes, the analysis continues to focus exclusively on the Campus Operating Budget, which is comprised of state allocation, student fees, and cost recovery revenues.

Lupei next reviewed the Revenue Comparison Summary, highlighting that Sonoma State generates higher total revenue per FTES than both the CSU and similar-sized campus averages. This variance is primarily driven by a significantly higher proportion of cost recovery revenue (Other Financial Sources) at SSU. While state appropriations remain the largest funding source, followed by student fees, the elevated cost recovery activity at SSU contributes to both higher revenue and higher associated expenditures.

Lupei then reviewed the Expenditures Comparison Summary, which compares spending by functional category across SSU, the CSU average, and similar-sized campuses. SSU’s expenditures per FTES are higher than both comparison groups across most categories, with the largest differences in Institutional Support and Operations and Maintenance of Plant. These higher costs are partially attributable to increased cost recovery activity, particularly in facilities and operational areas. It was noted that when adjusting for cost recovery expenditures that exceed CSU averages, SSU’s overall spending levels and proportional distribution align more closely with peer institutions.

Lupei then summarized the proportional spending trends and multi-year changes across the major functional categories. For 2024–25, SSU allocated approximately 46% of expenditures to the student academic experience (Instruction, Academic Support, and Student Services), which is slightly below the CSU average but consistent with similar-sized campuses. Instruction accounts for approximately 35% of spending, which remains below the CSU average, while Student Services (13%) and Institutional Support (16%) are above CSU averages. Operations and Maintenance of Plant (17%) is notably higher than both CSU and similar campus averages, largely due to increased utility costs and cost recovery-related expenses. Across categories, costs per FTES have increased over time, driven by compensation increases and declining enrollment, while proportional allocations have remained relatively stable with modest increases in Student Services and facilities-related spending.

Finally, Lupei reviewed the University’s FTES per Employee FTE metrics, noting that Sonoma State remains below the CSU average in students per employee. It was also noted that variations in employee composition across campuses are influenced by funding levels and institutional size. Overall, while SSU appears more costly on a per-student basis, much of the difference is driven by cost recovery activity, facilities costs, and structural factors such as enrollment declines and rising compensation, with underlying spending patterns largely consistent with CSU peers.
SSU Commitment Funding Recommendations Discussion
Bosick provided an update on the UBAC SSU Commitment Funding recommendations. The committee has identified individuals to contact for each recommendation in order to gather the additional information requested by the President. As proposals are received, Bosick is reviewing them and issuing approval memos to the respective units. Bosick also proposed that if funds remain available after reviewing the initial proposals, the committee would proceed down the recommendation list and fund the next prioritized items.
Spring 2026 Budget Forum Discussion
Bosick invited the committee to share any ideas or recommendations, via email, they may have on how best to engage the campus during the Spring forum.
Announcements for the Good of the Order
None.

Bosick adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Hayley Avery.