Requests for Comment by the Legislative Analyst

Issues

1. The President should comment on UMB's efforts to raise extramural funding levels.

The analyst has noted that in FY 2007 UMB faculty brought in nearly $411 million in external support for research, an 8.3% increase over FY 06.  In fact, UMB was one of only two academic health centers -- the other being Vanderbilt -- that saw its NIH ranking increase substantially, at a time when NIH funding has been declining in real terms.

Despite that increase, progress has slowed somewhat, and as the analyst has further noted, the $510 million target for externally sponsored research that we had set several years ago for FY 2010 -- three years from now -- may no longer be realistic. 

Certainly the downturn in the economy and the flattening of the NIH budget (our principal source of external research funding) are causes for concern.  So, too, are the enormous investments that other states, like Florida (to which as the analyst noted several of our epidemiology faculty decamped).  However, UMB has been successful in attracting outstanding scholars with well-established research programs -- like Dr. Claire Fraser-Liggett -- whom you have just met.  And it is probably too soon to rule out increases in the NIH budget, given the enormous support NIH has not only in the research community but also in the political arena and in the body politic generally.

Our over-riding concern for our research program, however, remains the fact that has been noted on all sides that UMB is simply out of research space, and, for that matter, classroom space.  According to the State's own estimates, UMB is currently short 1.1 million NASF.  We agree with the analyst that this will continue to be a problem absent the new health sciences facility, HSF III.  That project has been approved by the Regents, and we are actively working with System Administration and our partners in and out of State government to find creative ways to fund it.

2. The President should comment on UMB's progress toward meeting its 2% facility renewal spending goal.

The University of Maryland Baltimore is in its 201st year of operation in Baltimore City.  The replacement value of our fiscal plant is conservatively estimated at approximately $870 million.  Moreover, our facilities renewal backlog is estimated at some $596.9 million. The 2% facilities renewal goal that the Regents have established for the University System of Maryland requires an annual investment of $17.4 million at UMB.  For FY 2009, we are budgeted to spend $9.4 million annually, or about 1.1%.  As the analyst notes, we have continued to make progress toward the Regents' goal, but it remains a goal at this point. 

3. UMB is asked to comment on why unrestricted and restricted revenue estimates have differed from actual attainment in recent years, and the rationale for budgeting no growth in other restricted and restricted revenue in fiscal 2009.

As I emphasized in my testimony, fully two-thirds of our budget comes from the entrepreneurial activities of the faculty.  Therefore, unlike other State agencies or other campuses for that matter, much of our projected revenue is at risk, and there is a strong possibility each year that we will not attain our revenue goals.  Moreover, UMB is a highly decentralized campus with the Deans of the schools directly responsible for bringing in most of the revenue needed to run their operations.  Consequently, the Deans and I have adopted a very conservative position with respect to budgeting so as not to commit to spending revenue that may never be realized.

This position is complementary to the position I enumerated in issue one above -- we set ambitious goals, but keep spending modest until we've actually attained the goals.  Then if additional restricted grant funds and indirect cost payments materialize we are in a position to bring those funds in via budget amendment.

We agree with the analyst that professional education is expensive, and that our medical, law, dental, pharmacy, graduate clinical nursing and social work students pay relatively high tuitions.  These tuitions are well within national norms when compared to peer schools, but are considerably higher than tuitions charged to Maryland's undergraduate students.  Because of this we have kept our student fees well below those at our sister campuses.  Moreover, we have a relatively small student  body to share the cost of paying for auxiliary facilities like student centers so finding ways of funding these is always challenging.

What that has meant in practice is that UMB students have been seriously short-changed in terms of extracurricular activities.  Unlike students on other campuses, UMB students had a worn-out facility that was constructed in the 1950s, consisted of a few shabby meeting rooms with virtually no amenities -- not even a decent food service -- no pool, and athletics facilities on the top floor of a nearby parking garage.

Our students, who merely by virtue of their curricula, are some of the hardest working in the System, deserve better.   So some ten years ago we began planning the construction of a new student center.  We had overwhelming agreement from the student leadership that such a center would be needed and that they would be willing to see increases in their student fees to offset the cost.

The students have been actively involved in all aspects of planning the center.  Our current fees, which are currently less than 50% of the average paid at the other USM campuses, will need additional increases over the next five years to meet our revenue bond obligations.  At the end of that cycle, however, our fees will still be less than those paid at other campuses. 

As part of our capital campaign, we are also actively soliciting our alumni and others in the philanthropic community to help the students pay for their building.  I am pleased to report that the new center will have a pool and up-to-date health and wellness center, and with the anticipated movement of the campus bookstore to a new location on Baltimore Street, decent eating facilities, so that the students will get what they are paying for.

Recommended Action

1. Adopt narrative requiring that UMB submit data on graduate institutional aid similar to data provided for undergraduate aid.

Attached is a summary analysis of institutional grant and scholarship financial aid by school.  By campus policy, all grant aid is need-based.

As with all public campuses in Maryland, UMB provides highly detailed financial information on each of our students -- some 15,000 records in fact -- to the Maryland Higher Education Commission.  We would be pleased to work with MHEC and the Department of Legislative Services to develop a report tailored to DLS needs, should that be desired.

As the committee members may know, State scholarships and other grant programs are largely restricted to undergraduate students.  We appreciate any opportunity to publicize the financial aid needs of our graduate and professional students.