Budget Narrative 2010-2011 for the University of Florida Libraries

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Budget Narrative 2010-2011 for the University of Florida Libraries
Physical Description:
Administrative document
Creator:
Russell, Judith C.
Keith, Brian W.
Publisher:
George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, FL
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
RCM
Responsibility Centered Management ( RCM ) Budgets
Peer Analysis

Notes

Abstract:
This is the Budget Narrative for 2010-2011 for the University of Florida Libraries. It is the companion to the proposed budget for 2010-2011. Included with this is the proposed budget and a series of tables depicting comparative data with peer institutions. A wide variety of institutions was considered before arriving at the following as comparators: University of Michigan, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, University of Wisconsin, University of Washington, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and Michigan State University. Each university is a member of the Association of American Universities and the library system for each is a member of the Association of Research Libraries. Each university is a large, public, research institution, with four or more health colleges and a law school. Four (Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State and Michigan State) are Land Grant institutions, as we are. All of these universities are ranked in the top 30 public universities by US News & World Report for 2010 (see table). UF is ranked 15.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
System ID:
AA00004274:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text



UF |UNIVERSITY of

UFIFLORIDA

George A. Smathers Libraries 535 Library West
Office of the Dean of University Libraries PO Box 117000
Gainesville, FL 32611-7000
352-273-2505
352-392-7251 Fax
www.uflib.ufl.edu



May 10, 2010

I recently conducted a series of presentations on the Proposed 2010-2011 Budget for the Georqe A.
Smathers Libraries. I used these as opportunities to communicate our fiscal circumstances and to convey
our requirements for sustained and increased funding for the new fiscal year. The budget I presented was
based on what I believe is necessary for our libraries to serve our faculty, students and researchers
adequately. Although the total increase requested is substantial, approaching $5 million, this is not a budget
that was predicated on growth or addressing historic funding circumstances. Rather, I sought to restore
$2.4 million in lost purchasing power for materials to the 2006-2007 level and $650,000 to close a long-
standing materials budget gap in the Health Science Center Libraries (HSCL). Similarly, over $675,000 has
been requested to maintain our current level of salaries and benefits, offsetting the potential for loss of
funding for the proposed budget recall and the retirement incentive program, and an additional $220,000
has been requested to replace the loss of external funding for two positions, one of which is in the HSCL.
$765,000 is requested to establish new positions to support underserved disciplines and user groups.

To support the Proposed 2010-2011 Budget for the George A. Smathers Libraries, including the needs of
the Health Science Center Libraries, I have assessed how the resources of the UF libraries and the
demands of our university compare to other similar institutions based on published statistical data. As you
will see, the data has been interpreted using a number of different approaches and the interpretations are
based on a variety of measures for library resources and university characteristics that influence the
demand for library materials and services. The two consistent findings throughout are that the scope of the
population and programs at UF are significantly above average and the fiscal and human resources
available to the libraries are significantly below average when compared to those of peer institutions. Said
differently, the data collected indicates there is a considerable and uniquely steep gap between the scale of
our university programs and populations and the resources of the library system.

I hope that this information will lend context to my requests for increased and sustained investments in the
UF libraries. As the university transitions to managing its budget under RCM, there is an opportunity to
redress the chronic underfunding of the libraries and establish a level of funding that is more appropriate to
the size and complexity of the university. While I understand that there are competing demands for limited
resources, I have proposed a budget that addresses the needs of the UF libraries, not in themselves, but in
order to better serve our users.

Selection of Peers for Comparison
A wide variety of institutions was considered before arriving at the following as comparators: University of
Michigan, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, University of Wisconsin, University of Washington,
Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and Michigan State University.
Each university is a member of the Association of American Universities and the library system for each is a
member of the Association of Research Libraries. Each university is a large, public, research institution,
with four or more health colleges and a law school. Four (Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State and Michigan
State) are Land Grant institutions, as we are. All of these universities are ranked in the top 30 public
universities by US News & World Report for 2010 (see table). UF is ranked 15.




The Foundationfor The Gator Nation
An Equal Opportunity Institution











US News Ranking
University of Michigan 4
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 5
University of Wisconsin 9
University of Washington 11
University of Florida 15
Ohio State University 18
University of Pittsburgh 20
University of Minnesota 22
Michigan State University 29


In analyzing the collected data, we based a number of comparisons on two groupings of these peers: all 8
of the non-UF institutions and those 4 institutions with higher rankings than our own. This layered
comparison is possible due to the fortuitous placement of UF in the middle of the 9 rankings. Where
relevant, the peer group used in the comparisons is indicated.

Data Analysis
The data used in this report was collected from two sources. The university data came from the institutions'
fall 2008 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) report submitted to US Department of
Education's Institute for Education Sciences. The library data came from the most recent published (2008)
ARL Statistics from the Association of Research Libraries.

The data and analysis are depicted in 5 charts that are linked from this narrative.

1. Total Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures
The table reports the total university and total library expenditures for each peer institution. Included is a
scatter chart reflecting this data and the resulting trend line. The data for our university and library system is
also depicted and its plot is considerably below the trend line. Please note the correlation coefficient
(r-squared) for these two data series is .83, representing a strong correlation. Using the formula from the
linear regression analysis of this data for the peer institutions and applying the figure for UF total
expenditures, the projection for comparable library expenditures is calculated at $37,899,670, while the
actual expenditures for this period were $28,573,302. Accounting for the size of the university's financial
resources, this figure represents a considerable gap in the level of investment in library resources between
UF and these 8 peer institutions.

2. Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures
This table and bar chart reflect library expenditures as a percentage of the total university expenditures. The
UF library system's expenditures as a percentage of the university expenditures are the second lowest for
all peers. The only lower percentage is for Michigan, which is a result of the huge level for total university
expenditures (more than double the total expenditures for a number of the peer universities). The total
expenditures for the Michigan libraries were $51.6 million, which is the highest for all peer institution
libraries and 38% above the average for library expenditures of the 8 peer institutions. The expenditures by
the UF library system as a percentage of the university's expenditures is 10% below the average
percentage for both peer sets (all 8 institutions and the 4 higher ranked institutions). Without the downward
skewing of the average percentages caused by Michigan, the gap between UF and its peers would be even
more pronounced.

3. Comparison of UF Library and University Statistics With Peer Institutions
This table compares library and institutional statistics across UF and the 8 peer universities. UF statistics
are compared to the averages for the 8 peers (blue highlighted heading) and the 4 higher ranked peers
(orange highlighted heading). The yellow highlighted cells reflect UF as a percentage of the averages. The
Library Statistics represent resources and the UF library system falls significantly below the average for
each of these measures for both peer sets. The University Statistics are a reflection of demand and UF is
above the average for each of the measures for both peer sets. There is a definite disparity between library
resources and the characteristics of the university that reflect demand for library services and materials
when compared to these peer institutions. These resource and demand statistics are further interpreted in
the final two charts.











4. UF Library Compared to Average Resources of Peer Libraries
One of the challenges in analyzing data across institutions is the need to reflect differences in the scale of
the institutions. In selecting the peer group, we attempted to produce a group of similar universities, but
there is still variance in programs and populations. These tables compare three library resource measures
(Library Material Expenditures, Professional Staff FTE and Total Staff FTE) to several factors intended to
capture the parent institution's size or scale: full time Faculty, PhD Fields, PhD's and Professional degrees
awarded, Graduate and Professional Student count, and Total Student Enrollment. The statistic used here
is UF's percentage of the average of each resource measure divided by the indicated university statistic.
For example, UF's materials expenditures per faculty are 64% of the average for all 8 peers. As another
example, UF's total library staff per total student enrollment is 68% of the average for all 8 peers. The
second table compares UF to just the 4 higher ranked peer institutions. While the exact percentages vary
and no one factor is authoritative when viewed by itself, it is notable that in no comparison for either peer
group does the UF library system exceed 68% of the average.

5. Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures (2 pages)
For each peer institution we collected data reflecting library resources: Library Materials Expenditures, Total
Library Expenditures, Salaries and Wages for Professional Staff, Total Salaries and Wages, and FTE
counts for Professional Staff, Support Staff and Total Staff. We also collected data reflecting the scale and
diversity of the university's programs: PhD's awarded, Professional Degrees awarded, combined PhD's
and Professional degrees awarded, PhD Fields, full time Faculty and Total Student Enrollment. For each
measure the average, excluding UF, was calculated along with the percentage for each institution
compared to this average. For example, looking at Library Resource Measures in the table, Michigan spent
138% of the non-UF average for library materials. As another example, looking at the Demand Measures,
Michigan State only generated 72% of the non-UF average for the number of PhD's awarded. The average
percentage of each university's resource and demand measures is reported, respectively, in the orange and
blue highlighted cells of the table. The bar graph reflects these overall averages and shows the relationship
of resource and demand for each institution. For example, the University of Washington's Library Resource
Measures are 20% higher than the Demand Measures, while the comparable measures for UF show that
Library Resource Measures are 69% below those for Demand Measures. The graph depicts the uniquely
large gap between the UF library system's comparison to averages for resource versus demand measures
compared to these peer institutions. The conclusion is that our library resources are not measuring up to the
demand measures for such a large and complex institution.

If you would like additional information or have any questions or comments regarding the library budget
proposal, please contact:
Judith C. (Judy) Russell
Dean of University Libraries
George A. Smathers Libraries
Phone: 352-273-2505
E-Mail: icrussell(aufl.edu







George A. Smathers Libraries
University of Florida


2010-2011 Budget (proposed)


DSR FUNDING FOR MATERIALS 1

APPROPRIATED FUNDS (RCM)
Materials (Base)
Replace Lost Purchasing Power
Replace HSCL TIPS
Close HSCL Materials Budget Gap
Proposed Materials Budget

Other Expenses (Base) 2
Rent for Off Campus Space 3
Establish HSCL Operating Budget
Replace Lost FCLA Technology Funds 4
Facilities Maintenance & Repair 5
HSCL Integration into Smathers 6
CNS Virtualization of Library Servers
Proposed Expense Budget

OPS -7
OPS Staff for Special Projects 8
Proposed OPS Budget

Salaries & Benefits (Base) 9
Less Budget Recall
Less Retirement Incentive Savings
Plus Offset Lost Salaries 10
Replace Loss of External Funding 11
Essential New Positions 12


Proposed 2010-2011 Budget (RCM only)

Proposed 2010-2011 Budget (RCM & DSR)


2009-2010 Budget (actual)


% of Budget Smathers University HSCL Smathers University HSCL

4.5% $1,451,613 $1,134,000 $317,613 $1,350,000 $1,134,000 $216,000


$8,944,574 $7,513,310 $1,431,264 $8,944,574 $7,513,310 $1,431,264
$2,391,424 $1,929,958 $461,466
$250,000 $250,000
$400,000 $400,000
37.0% $11,985,998 $9,443,268 $2,542,730

$775,567 $770,194 $5,373 $775,567 $770,194 $5,373
$77,995 $77,995
$120,000 $120,000
$74,172 $66,078 $8,094
$432,608 $369,304 $63,304
$55,000 $55,000
$120,000 $120,000
5.1% $1,655,341 $1,403,570 $251,771

$387,179 $309,428 $77,751 $387,179 $309,428 $77,751
$50,531 $44,700 $5,831
1.4% $437,710 $354,128 $83,582

$15,871,580 $13,629,293 $2,242,287 $15,971,580 $13,729,293 $2,242,287
($277,500) ($237,427) ($40,073)
($400,445) ($341,782) ($58,663)
$677,945 $579,209 $98,736
$220,158 $100,000 $120,158
$765,000 $450,000 $315,000
52.0% $16,856,738 $14,179,293 $2,677,445

95.5% $30,935,788 $25,380,259 $5,555,529 $26,078,900 $22,322,225 $3,756,675

100.0% $32,387,401 $26,514,259 $5,873,142 $27,428,900 $23,456,225 $3,972,675


April 13, 2010







George A. Smathers Libraries
University of Florida




Notes:

1 Proposed DSR Funding of 2.0% (Increased from 1.86%); see calculation below
2 2009-2010 Actual reduced by $173,942 for UF budget recall
3 Systems Department to Eastside campus office building; UF share for cost of interim storage prior to build of SUS High Density Storage Facility
4 UF share of reduction in FCLA support for SUS library technology purchases
5 Maintenance of library public spaces not provided by PPD
6 Recurring operational costs identified in HSCL Integration Report, March 2009
7- 2009-2010 Actual reduced by $232,978 for UF budget recall; Actual does NOT include $3,500 from College of Journalism or $8,750 from IFAS for Endnote project;
Actual includes $379 for Gator Grad Care cost increases
8 Special projects include graduate student to support grants administration, cataloging of government documents for storage, assessment of printjouirnals for storage,
and processing of materials for external digitization
9 2009-2010 Actual reduced by $235,376 for UF budget recall; Actual includes $100,000 in special funding for Grants Manager position (year 2 of 2); Actual
includes additional $63,727 from fringe pool and faculty raise adjustments from FY 08-09; Actual reflects $102,251 payroll and benefits transferred from HSCL to
University Libraries for staff reassignment as part of integration; Actual includes Provost funding of $63,900 for trailing spouse (Knudson)
10- If the additional budget recall occurs and salaries from employees taking the retirement incentive are forfeited, the salaries and benefits need to be increased
to offset those reductions.
11 Fund full time HSCL faculty position no longer funded by the College of Nursing; Replace unstable or declining auxiliary money as a source of salaries for HSCL faculty;
Replace nonrecurring funding for Smathers grants manager
12 Essential New Positions for HSCL (4) and University Libraries (5)
13 Clinical Research Librarian for HSCL and Scholarly Communications Librarian for University Libraries as part of President's Jump Start Initiative
14 Recurring funding for trailing spouse (Silver) from Provost and time limited funding for trailing spouse (Milian) from CLAS/Provost (1/3 each for 3 years)




DSR Funding Calculation* 2010-2011 Budget (proposed) 2009-2010 Budget (actual)
Smathers University HSCL Smathers University HSCL
At 2.0% $1,451,613 $1,134,000 $317,613 $1,350,000 $1,134,000 $216,000

* DSR funding for 2009-2010 is 1.86% of IDC; HSCL receives 16% and University Libraries receive 84% on the amount provided to the Libraries.
Under the new formula, HSCL receives 21.9% of the DSR funding, which continues to be used to fund Elsevier Science Direct.


April 13, 2010








US NEWS RANK 4 5 9 11 18 20 22 29
MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE

Total University Expenditures $3,584,455,000 $1,910,670,488 $2,213,956,907 $2,414,795,182 $2,080,354,268 $1,483,328,841 $2,438,931,419 $1,417,054,116

Total Library Expenditures $51,599,110 $41,123,515 $42,879,223 $40,854,830 $38,473,238 $31,660,109 $40,734,045 $25,606,985


Total Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures


$55,000,000



$50,000,000



$45,000,000



$40,000,000



$35,000,000



$30,000,000


$25,000,000 Michigan State


$20,000,000



$15,000,000


$10,000,000 -
$1,400,000,000


$1,900,000,000


$2,400,000,000

Total University Expenditures


$2,900,000,000


Michigan





Wisconsin
UNC Washington.

Minnesota

Ohio State





Pittsburgh
$28 573 302


$3,400,000,000


Formula Total UF Expenditures Actual Library Expenditures Difference


Projected Library
Expenditures per Regression y = 0.0103x + 2E+07 $1,737,832,000 $37,899,670 $28,573,302 $9,326,368
Analysis


* Other Library Systems
-UF
Linear (Other Library Systems)


y = 0.0103x + 2E+07
R2 = 0.8278


UF






US NEWS RANK 4 5 9 11 15 18 20 22 29
MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UF UF as % of Non-UF
I I II I II IIAvg.


US NEWS RANK 4 5 9 11 15 18 20 22 29
MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE

Total University $3,584,455,000 $1,910,670,488 $2,213,956,907 $2,414,795,182 $1,737,832,000 $2,080,354,268 $1,483,328,841 $2,438,931,419 $1,417,054,116
Expenditures

Total Library Expenditures $51,599,110 $41,123,515 $42,879,223 $40,854,830 $28,572,302 $38,473,238 $31,660,109 $40,734,045 $25,606,985



Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures


1.8352%


2.1523%


2.2500%


2.1500%


2.0500%


x 1.9500%


S1.8500%


1.7500%

0I
1.6500%


0 1.5500%
X
UJ

1.4500%


1.3500%


1.2500%
1.2500%


9- I qAAo


1.9368%


1.8494%


1.6919%
[--


1 RAA440/


-,------ .,---------- L _______ A


FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA


1.8352%
1.8071% -




1.6702%


1.8051%


MICHIGAN Avg Excluding UF Avg for 4 Highest
STATE Ranked


OMICHIGAN
0 NORTH CAROLINA
OWISCONSIN
1WASHINGTON
*FLORIDA
DOHIO STATE
3 PITTSBURGH
OMINNESOTA
OMICHIGAN STATE
OAvg Excluding UF
*Avg for 4 Highest Ranked


Library Expenditures as a
% of Total University
Expenditures


1.8051%


91%


1.4395%




-


NORTH
CAROLINA


' '


1.4395%


2.1523%


1.9368%


1.6919%


1.6442%


1.8494%


2.1344%


1.6702%


1.8071%


MICHIGAN


WISCONSIN WASHINGTON























































US NEWS RANK


4 5 9 11


MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UF UF as % of Non-UF Avg.


UNIVERSITY STATISTICS (Source: National Center for Educational Statistics Fall 2008)

PhD's
710 600 755 631 858 759 392 775 458 635 135%
Awarded


Prof Degrees Awarded 730 604 646 503 1,250 852 563 788 324 626 200%


Total PhD's and Prof
D es a1,440 1,204 1,401 1,134 2,108 1,611 955 1,563 782 1,261 167%
Degrees

PhD
Fields 118 69 107 80 124 103 68 100 112 95 131%
Fields


Faculty (Full-Time) 5,290 2,969 3,086 3,668 4,399 3,217 4,123 2,623 2,615 3,449 128%



Total Student Enrollment 41,028 28,567 44,620 44,933 51,474 53,715 35,048 51,140 46,510 43,195 119%


Total Graduate & Prof
Students 15,034 10,672 11,258 11,139 16,820 13,503 10,135 18,583 10,305 12,579 134%
Students


674 127%



621 201%



1,295 163%



94 133%



3,753 117%



39,787 129%



12,026 140%


I I I I I






UF Library Compared to Average Resources of Peer Libraries


UF Library Compared to Average Resources of 8 Peer Libraries UF Library Compared to Average Resources of 4 Peer Libraries for Higher Rated Universities
(Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, and Michigan State) (Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, Wisconsin, and Washington)

Library Materials Total Library Staff Library Materials Total Library Staff (FTE)
Expenditures (FTE) Expenditures (UF as % of Avg for 4
University Statistic as Basis of (UF as% of Non-UF (UF as% of Non-UF University Statistic as Basis of (UF as% of Avg for 4 Highest)
Comparison Ave.) Ave.) Comparison Highest



Per No. of University Faculty 64% 52% 64% Per No.of University Faculty 67% 44% 60%






Per No. of PhD Fields 61% 50% 62% Per No. of PhD Fields 57% 40% 53%





Per No. of PhD's & Prof Degrees 3 Per No. of PhD's & Prof Degrees 3
40% 33% 40% 39% 27% 36%
Awarded Awarded




Per No. of Total Graduate and Prof Per No. of Total Graduate and Prof
61% 49% 61% 57% 39% 51%
Students Students





Per Total Student Enrollment 67% 55% 68% Per Total Student Enrollment 59% 42% 55%










Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures


Library and University Statistics as a % of the Non-UF Average for Each Statistic


US NEWS RANK 4 5 9 11 15 18 20 22 29
MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE
LIBRARY RESOURCE Measures

Library Materials
138.49% 110.13% 74.05% 100.28% 83.85% 88.92% 100.24% 111.86% 76.02%
Expenditures

Total Library
S131.91% 105.13% 109.62% 104.44% 73.05% 98.36% 80.94% 104.14% 65.46%
Expenditures

aes ages 123.89% 111.28% 147.41% 123.96% 62.92% 87.42% 69.55% 81.80% 54.69%
Professional Staff


Total Salaries & Wages 138.57% 101.54% 125.74% 118.08% 74.79% 89.20% 67.21% 97.11% 62.55%


Professional Staff
ro a 113.14% 99.08% 153.31% 129.21% 68.28% 95.73% 80.33% 74.31% 54.90%
(FTE)

Support Staff
SupportStaff 158.75% 108.78% 86.40% 107.22% 98.89% 81.20% 90.05% 104.10% 63.50%
(FTE)

Total Staff
o a 125.55% 99.56% 121.81% 115.20% 83.92% 103.52% 84.14% 86.78% 63.44%
(FTE)









US NEWS RANKI 4 5 9 11 15 18 20 22 29

MICHIGAN NORTHCAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGANSTATE


DEMAND Measures (University Statistics)
PhD's
S111.81% 94.49% 118.90% 99.37% 135.12% 119.53% 61.73% 122.05% 72.13%
Awarded


Prof Degrees Awarded 116.57% 96.45% 103.15% 80.32% 199.60% 136.05% 89.90% 125.83% 51.74%


Total PhD's and Prof
114.17% 95.46% 111.08% 89.91% 167.14% 127.73% 75.72% 123.92% 62.00%
Degrees

PhD
124.70% 72.92% 113.08% 84.54% 131.04% 108.85% 71.86% 105.68% 118.36%
Fields


Faculty (Full-Time) 153.38% 86.09% 89.48% 106.35% 127.55% 93.28% 119.55% 76.05% 75.82%


Total Student Enrollment 94.98% 66.13% 103.30% 104.02% 119.17% 124.35% 81.14% 118.39% 107.67%


Total Graduate & Prof
119.27% 85.26% 106.50% 94.09% 146.60% 118.30% 83.32% 111.99% 81.29%
Students












Library Resource Measures
v. University Demand Measures


+14%


+10%


-18%


-69%


-26%


*Percent of Average of Resource
Measures


000%


Percent of Average of 94.09% 85.26% 119.27% 106.50% 83.32% 111.99% 81.29% 118.30% 146.60%
Demand Measures
Resource %0
Resource 19.97% 19.82% 13.63% 10.41% -1.54% 17.69% -18.35% 26.25% -68.64%
Demand %




Full Text

PAGE 1

The Foundation for The Gator Nation An Equal Opportunity Institution George A. Smathers Libraries 535 Library West Office of the Dean of University Libraries PO Box 117000 Gainesville, FL 32611 7000 352 273 2505 352 392 7251 Fax www.uflib.ufl.edu May 10, 2010 I recently conducted a series of presentations on the Proposed 2010-2011 Budget for the George A. Smathers Libraries I used these as opportunities to communica te our fiscal circumstances and to convey our requirements for sustained and increased funding fo r the new fiscal year. The budget I presented was based on what I believe is necessary for our librari es to serve our faculty, students and researchers adequately. Although the total increase requested is substantial, approaching $5 million, this is not a budget that was predicated on growth or addressing historic funding circumstances. Rather, I sought to restore $2.4 million in lost purchasing power for materials to the 2006-2007 level and $650,000 to close a longstanding materials budget gap in the Health Science Cent er Libraries (HSCL). Similarly, over $675,000 has been requested to maintain our current level of salaries and benefits, offsetting the potential for loss of funding for the proposed budget recall and the retirement incentive program, and an additional $220,000 has been requested to replace the loss of external funding for two positions, one of which is in the HSCL. $765,000 is requested to establish new positions to support underserved disciplines and user groups. To support the Proposed 2010-2011 Budget for the George A. Smathers Libraries including the needs of the Health Science Center Libraries, I have assessed how the resources of the UF libraries and the demands of our university compare to other similar inst itutions based on published statistical data. As you will see, the data has been interpreted using a number of different approaches and the interpretations are based on a variety of measures for library resources and university characteristics that influence the demand for library materials and services. The two consis tent findings throughout are that the scope of the population and programs at UF are significantly above average and the fiscal and human resources available to the libraries are significantly below avera ge when compared to those of peer institutions. Said differently, the data collected indicates there is a considerable and uniquely steep gap between the scale of our university programs and populations and the resources of the library system. I hope that this information will lend context to my r equests for increased and sustained investments in the UF libraries. As the university transitions to managi ng its budget under RCM, there is an opportunity to redress the chronic underfunding of the libraries and est ablish a level of funding that is more appropriate to the size and complexity of the university. While I unde rstand that there are competing demands for limited resources, I have proposed a budget that addresses the needs of the UF libraries, not in themselves, but in order to better serve our users. Selection of Peers for Comparison A wide variety of institutions was considered before arri ving at the following as co mparators: University of Michigan, University of North Caroli na Chapel Hill, University of Wisconsin, University of Washington, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, Univ ersity of Minnesota, and Michigan State University. Each university is a member of the Association of Amer ican Universities and the library system for each is a member of the Association of Research Libraries. Ea ch university is a large, public, research institution, with four or more health colleges and a law school. Four (Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State and Michigan State) are Land Grant institutions, as we are. All of these universities are ranked in the top 30 public universities by US News & World Report for 2010 (see table). UF is ranked 15.

PAGE 2

US News Ranking University of Michigan 4 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 5 University of Wisconsin 9 University of Washington 11 University of Florida 15 Ohio State University 18 University of Pittsburgh 20 University of Minnesota 22 Michigan State University 29 In analyzing the collected data, we based a number of comparisons on two groupings of these peers: all 8 of the non-UF institutions and those 4 institutions with higher rankings than our own. This layered comparison is possible due to the fortuitous placem ent of UF in the middle of the 9 rankings. Where relevant, the peer group used in the comparisons is indicated. Data Analysis The data used in this report was collected from two sources. The university data came from the institutions fall 2008 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) report submitted to US Department of Educations Institute for Education Sc iences. The library data came from the most recent published (2008) ARL Statistics from the Associ ation of Research Libraries. The data and analysis are depicted in 5 charts that are linked from this narrative. 1. Total Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures The table reports the total university and total library expenditures for each peer institution. Included is a scatter chart reflecting this data and the resulting trend line. The data for our university and library system is also depicted and its plot is considerably below the trend line. Please note the correlation coefficient (r-squared) for these two data series is .83, represent ing a strong correlation. Using the formula from the linear regression analysis of this data for the peer institutions and applying the figure for UF total expenditures, the projection for comparable library expenditures is calculated at $37,899,670, while the actual expenditures for this period were $28,573,302. Accounting for the size of the universitys financial resources, this figure represents a considerable gap in the level of investment in library resources between UF and these 8 peer institutions. 2. Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures This table and bar chart reflect library expenditures as a percentage of the total university expenditures. The UF library systems expenditures as a percentage of the university expenditures are the second lowest for all peers. The only lower percentage is for Michigan, wh ich is a result of the huge level for total university expenditures (more than double the total expenditures fo r a number of the peer universities). The total expenditures for the Michigan libraries were $51.6 mill ion, which is the highest for all peer institution libraries and 38% above the average for library expenditur es of the 8 peer institutions. The expenditures by the UF library system as a percentage of the universitys expenditures is 10% below the average percentage for both peer sets (all 8 institutions and the 4 higher ranked institutions ). Without the downward skewing of the average percentages caused by Mi chigan, the gap between UF and its peers would be even more pronounced. 3. Comparison of UF Library and University Statistics With Peer Institutions This table compares library and instit utional statistics across UF and the 8 peer universities. UF statistics are compared to the averages for the 8 peers (bl ue highlighted heading) and the 4 higher ranked peers (orange highlighted heading). The yellow highlighted cell s reflect UF as a percentage of the averages. The Library Statistics represent resources and the UF libra ry system falls significantly below the average for each of these measures for both peer sets. The Univer sity Statistics are a reflection of demand and UF is above the average for each of the measures for both peer sets. There is a definite disparity between library resources and the characteristics of the university t hat reflect demand for library services and materials when compared to these peer institutions. These reso urce and demand statistics are further interpreted in the final two charts.

PAGE 3

4. UF Library Compared to Average Resources of Peer Libraries One of the challenges in analyzing data across instituti ons is the need to reflect differences in the scale of the institutions. In selecting the peer group, we atte mpted to produce a group of similar universities, but there is still variance in programs and populations. These tables compare three library resource measures (Library Material Expenditures, Professional Staff FTE and Total Staff FTE) to several factors intended to capture the parent institutions size or scale: full time Faculty, PhD Fields, PhDs and Professional degrees awarded, Graduate and Professional Student count, and Total Student Enrollment. The statistic used here is UFs percentage of the average of each resource m easure divided by the indicated university statistic. For example, UFs materials expenditures per faculty are 64% of the average for all 8 peers. As another example, UFs total library staff per total student enr ollment is 68% of the average for all 8 peers. The second table compares UF to just the 4 higher ranked peer institutions. While the exact percentages vary and no one factor is authoritative when viewed by itself, it is notable that in no comparison for either peer group does the UF library system exceed 68% of the average. 5. Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures (2 pages) For each peer institution we collected data reflecting library resources: Library Materials Expenditures, Total Library Expenditures, Salaries a nd Wages for Professional Staff, Total Salaries and Wages, and FTE counts for Professional Staff, Support Staff and Total Staff. We also collected data reflecting the scale and diversity of the universitys programs: PhDs awar ded, Professional Degrees awarded, combined PhDs and Professional degrees awarded, PhD Fields, full time Faculty and Total Student Enrollment. For each measure the average, ex cluding UF, was calculated along with the percentage for each institution compared to this average. For exampl e, looking at Library Resource Meas ures in the table, Michigan spent 138% of the non-UF average for library materials. As another example, looking at the Demand Measures, Michigan State only generated 72% of the non-UF average for the number of PhDs awarded. The average percentage of each universitys reso urce and demand measures is reported, respectively, in the orange and blue highlighted cells of the table. The bar graph reflects these overall averages and shows the relationship of resource and demand for each instit ution. For example, the University of Washingtons Library Resource Measures are 20% higher than the Demand Measures, wh ile the comparable measures for UF show that Library Resource Measures are 69% below those for Demand Measures. The graph depicts the uniquely large gap between the UF library systems comparison to averages for resource versus demand measures compared to these peer institutions. The conclusion is that our library resources are not measuring up to the demand measures for such a large and complex institution. If you would like additional information or have any questions or comments regarding the library budget proposal, please contact: Judith C. (Judy) Russell Dean of University Libraries George A. Smathers Libraries Phone: 352-273-2505 E-Mail: jcrussell@ufl.edu

PAGE 4

George A. Smathers Libraries University of Florida 2010-2011 Budget (proposed) 2009-2010 Budget (actual) % of Budget Smathers University HSCL Smathers University HSCL DSR FUNDING FOR MATERIALS 1 4.5% $1,451,613 $1,134,000 $317,613 $1,350,000 $1,134,000 $216,000 APPROPRIATED FUNDS (RCM) Materials (Base) $8,944,574 $7,513,310 $1,431,264 $8,944,574 $7,513,310 $1,431,264 Replace Lost Purchasing Power $2,391,424 $1,929,958 $461,466 Replace HSCL TIPS $250,000 $250,000 Close HSCL Materials Budget Gap $400,000 $400,000 Proposed Materials Budget 37.0% $11,985,998 $9,443,268 $2,542,730 Other Expenses (Base) 2 $775,567 $770,194 $5,373 $775,567 $770,194 $5,373 Rent for Off Campus Space 3 $77,995 $77,995 Establish HSCL Operating Budget $120,000 $120,000 Replace Lost FCLA Technology Funds 4 $74,172 $66,078 $8,094 Facilities Maintenance & Repair 5 $432,608 $369,304 $63,304 HSCL Integration into Smathers 6 $55,000 $55,000 CNS Virtualization of Library Servers $120,000 $120,000 Proposed Expense Budget 5.1% $1,655,341 $1,403,570 $251,771 OPS 7 $387,179 $309,428 $77,751 $387,179 $309,428 $77,751 OPS Staff for Special Projects 8 $50,531 $44,700 $5,831 Proposed OPS Budget 1.4% $437,710 $354,128 $83,582 Salaries & Benefits (Base) 9 $15,871,580 $13,629,293 $2,242,287 $15,971,580 $13,729,293 $2,242,287 Less Budget Recall ($277,500) ($237,427) ($40,073) Less Retirement Incentive Savings ($400,445) ($341,782) ($58,663) Plus Offset Lost Salaries 10 $677,945 $579,209 $98,736 Replace Loss of External Funding 11 $220,158 $100,000 $120,158 Essential New Positions 12 $765,000 $450,000 $315,000 52.0% $16,856,738 $14,179,293 $2,677,445 Proposed 2010-2011 Budget (RCM only) 95.5% $30,935,788 $25,380,259 $5,555,529 $26,078,900 $22,322,225 $3,756,675 Proposed 2010-2011 Budget (RCM & DSR) 100.0% $32,387,401 $26,514,259 $5,873,142 $27,428,900 $23,456,225 $3,972,675 April 13, 2010

PAGE 5

George A. Smathers Libraries University of Florida Notes: 1 Proposed DSR Funding of 2.0% (Increased from 1.86%); see calculation below 2 2009-2010 Actual reduced by $173,942 for UF budget recall 3 Systems Department to Eastside campus office building; UF share for cost of interim storage prior to build of SUS High Density Storage Facility 4 UF share of reduction in FCLA support for SUS library technology purchases 5 Maintenance of library public spaces not provided by PPD 6 Recurring operational costs identified in HSCL Integration Report, March 2009 72009-2010 Actual reduced by $232,978 for UF budget recall; Actual does NOT include $3,500 from College of Journalism or $8,750 from IFAS for Endnote project; Actual includes $379 for Gator Grad Care cost increases 8 Special projects include graduate student to support grants administration, cataloging of government documents for storage, assessment of print jouirnals for storage, and processing of materials for external digitization 9 2009-2010 Actual reduced by $235,376 for UF budget recall; Actual includes $100,000 in special funding for Grants Manager position (year 2 of 2); Actual includes additional $63,727 from fringe pool and faculty raise adjustments from FY 08-09; Actual reflects $102,251 payroll and benefits transferred from HSCL to University Libraries for staff reassignment as part of integration; Actual includes Provost funding of $63,900 for trailing spouse (Knudson) 10If the additional budget recall occurs and salaries from employees taking the retirement incentive are forfeited, the salaries and benefits need to be increased to offset those reductions. 11 Fund full time HSCL faculty position no longer funded by the College of Nursing; Replace unstable or declining auxiliary money as a source of salaries for HSCL faculty; Replace nonrecurring funding for Smathers grants manager 12 Essential New Positions for HSCL (4) and University Libraries (5) 13 Clinical Research Librarian for HSCL and Scholarly Communications Librarian for University Libraries as part of President's Jump Start Initiative 14 Recurring funding for trailing spouse (Silver) from Provost and time limited funding for trailing spouse (Milian) from CLAS/Provost (1/3 each for 3 years) DSR Funding Calculation* 2010-2011 Budget (proposed) 2009-2010 Budget (actual) Smathers University HSCL Smathers University HSCL At 2.0% $1,451,613 $1,134,000 $317,613 $1,350,000 $1,134,000 $216,000 DSR funding for 2009-2010 is 1.86% of IDC; HSCL receives 16% and University Libraries receive 84% on the amount provided to the Libraries. Under the new formula, HSCL receives 21.9% of the DSR funding, which continues to be used to fund Elsevier Science Direct. April 13, 2010

PAGE 6

US NEWS RANK 4591118202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Total University Expenditures$3,584,455,000$1,910,670,488$2,213,956,907$2,414,795,182$2,080,354,268$1,483,328,841$2,438,931,419$1,417,054,116Total Library Expenditures$51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985Total University ExpendituresTotal Library Expenditures4$3,584,455,00 0 $51,599,11 0 UM 5$1,910,670,48 8 $41,123,51 5 UNC 9$2,213,956,90 7 $42,879,223U Wis 11$2,414,795,18 2 $40,854,83 0 U Was 15$2,080,354,26 8 $38,473,23 8 OSU 18$1,483,328,84 1 $31,660,10 9 Pitt 20$2,438,931,41 9 $40,734,04 5 U Minn 21$1,417,054,11 6 $25,606,98 5 MSU $0$28,573,30 2 15$1,737,832,00 0 $28,573,30 2 UF $1,737,832,00 0 $0 173783200 0 37899669. 6 FormulaTotal UF ExpendituresProjected Library ExpendituresActual Library ExpendituresDifference Projected Library Expenditures per Regression Analysisy = 0.0103x + 2E+07$1,737,832,000$37,899,670$28,573,302$9,326,368 Total Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures$28,573,302 y = 0.0103x + 2E+07 R2 = 0.8278 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $1,400,000,000$1,900,000,000$2,400,000,000$2,900,000,000$3,400,000,000 Total University ExpendituresTotal Library Expenditures Other Library Systems UF Linear (Other Library Systems) WisconsinMichigan UNC Ohio State Minnesota Pittsburgh WashingtonMichigan State

PAGE 7

US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UF UF as % of Non UF Av g Avg for 4 Highest Ranked UF as % of Avg for 4 Hi g hest Library Expenditures as a % of Total University Expenditures1.4395%2.1523%1.9368%1.6919%1.6442%1.8494%2.1344%1.6702%1.8071%1.8352%90%1.8051%91%US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Total University Expenditures$3,584,455,000$1,910,670,488$2,213,956,907$2,414,795,182$1,737,832,000$2,080,354,268$1,483,328,841$2,438,931,419$1,417,054,116Total Library Expenditures$51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$28,572,302$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985 21523% 2.2500%Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures 1.4395% 2.1523% 1.9368% 1.6919% 1.6442% 1.8494% 2.1344% 1.6702% 1.8071% 1.8352% 1.8051% 1.4500% 1.5500% 1.6500% 1.7500% 1.8500% 1.9500% 2.0500% 2.1500% 2.2500% L ibrary Expenditures as a Percent of Total University ExpendituresLibrary Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UF Avg for 4 Highest Ranked 1.4395% 2.1523% 1.9368% 1.6919% 1.6442% 1.8494% 2.1344% 1.6702% 1.8071% 1.8352% 1.8051% 1.2500% 1.3500% 1.4500% 1.5500% 1.6500% 1.7500% 1.8500% 1.9500% 2.0500% 2.1500% 2.2500% MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINA WISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UFAvg for 4 Highest RankedLibrary Expenditures as a Percent of Total University ExpendituresLibrary Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UF Avg for 4 Highest Ranked

PAGE 8

Comparison of UF Library and University Statistics With Peer InstitutionsUS NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.Avg for 4 Highest RankedUF as % of Avg for 4 Highest LIBRARY STATISTICS (Source: 2007 2008 Association of Research Libraries Statistics)EXPENDITURES Library Materials Expenditures $20,525,876$16,322,573$10,974,532$14,862,427$12,427,750$13,178,838$14,857,024$16,578,284$11,267,304$14,820,85784%$15,671,35279% Total Library Expenditures $51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$28,573,302$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985$39,116,38273%44,114,17065% PERSONNEL SALARIES Salaries & Wages Professional Staff $11,897,358$10,686,200$14,155,552$11,904,128$6,042,307$8,394,752$6,678,904$7,854,878$5,251,600$9,602,92263%$12,160,81050% Total Salaries &Wages$25,853,159$18,943,723$23,459,430$22,029,970$13,953,783$16,642,379$12,538,822$18,117,695$11,669,365$18,656,81875%$22,571, 57162% PERSONNEL FTE Professional Staff (FTE) 1691482291931021431201118214968%18555% Support Staff ( FTE ) 30520916620619015617320012219299%22286% (FTE) Total Staff (FTE) 57045255352338147038239428845484%52573% US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.Avg for 4 Highest RankedUF as % of Avg for 4 Highest UNIVERSITY STATISTICS (Source: National Center for Educational Statistics Fall 2008)PhD's Awarded 710600755631858759392775458635135%674127% Prof Degrees Awarded7306046465031,250852563788324626200%621201% Total PhD's and Prof Degrees 1,4401,2041,4011,1342,1081,6119551,5637821,261167%1,295163% PhD Fields 11869107801241036810011295131%94133% Faculty (Full Time)5,2902,9693,0863,6684,3993,2174,1232,6232,6153,449128%3,753117% Total Student Enrollment41,02828,56744,62044,93351,47453,71535,04851,14046,51043,195119%39,787129% Total Graduate & Prof Students 15,03410,67211,25811,13916,82013,50310,13518,58310,30512,579134%12,026140%

PAGE 9

UF Library Compared to Average Resources of Peer Libraries UF Library Compared to Average Resources of 8 Peer LibrariesUF Library Compared to Average Resources of 4 Peer Libraries for Higher Rated Universities(Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, and Michigan State)(Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, Wisconsin, and Washington)University Statistic as Basis of Comparison Library Materials Expenditures (UF as % of Non UF Av g ) Professional Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Non UF Av g ) Total Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Non UF Av g ) University Statistic as Basis of Comparison Library Materials Expenditures (UF as % of Avg for 4 Hi g hest ) Professional Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Avg for 4 Hi g hest ) Total Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Avg for 4 Highest) Per No. of University Faculty 64%52%64% Per No.of University Faculty 67%44%60% Per No. of PhD Fields 61%50%62% Per No. of PhD Fields 57%40%53% Per No. of PhD's & Prof Degrees Awarded 40%33%40% Per No. of PhD's & Prof Degrees Awarded 39%27%36% Per No. of Total Graduate and Prof Students 61%49%61% Per No. of Total Graduate and Prof Students 57%39%51% Per Total Student Enrollment 67%55%68% Per Total Student Enrollment 59%42%55%

PAGE 10

Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures Library and University Statistics as a % of the Non UF Average for Each StatisticUS NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATELIBRARY RESOURCE Measures Library Materials Expenditures 138.49%110.13%74.05%100.28%83.85%88.92%100.24%111.86%76.02% Total Library Expenditures 131.91%105.13%109.62%104.44%73.05%98.36%80.94%104.14%65.46% Salaries & Wages Professional Staff 123.89%111.28%147.41%123.96%62.92%87.42%69.55%81.80%54.69% Total Salaries & Wages138.57%101.54%125.74%118.08%74.79%89.20%67.21%97.11%62.55% Professional Staff (FTE) 113.14%99.08%153.31%129.21%68.28%95.73%80.33%74.31%54.90% Support Staff (FTE) 158.75%108.78%86.40%107.22%98.89%81.20%90.05%104.10%63.50% Total Staff (FTE) 125.55%99.56%121.81%115.20%83.92%103.52%84.14%86.78%63.44% Average of Resource Measures 132.90%105.07%116.90%114.06%77.96%92.05%81.78%94.30%62.94% US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE DEMAND Measures (University Statistics) PhD's Awarded 111.81%94.49%118.90%99.37%135.12%119.53%61.73%122.05%72.13% Prof Degrees Awarded116.57%96.45%103.15%80.32%199.60%136.05%89.90%125.83%51.74% Total PhD's and Prof Degrees 114.17%95.46%111.08%89.91%167.14%127.73%75.72%123.92%62.00% PhD Fields 124.70%72.92%113.08%84.54%131.04%108.85%71.86%105.68%118.36% Faculty (Full Time)153.38%86.09%89.48%106.35%127.55%93.28%119.55%76.05%75.82% Total Student Enrollment94.98%66.13%103.30%104.02%119.17%124.35%81.14%118.39%107.67% Total Graduate & Prof Students 119.27%85.26%106.50%94.09%146.60%118.30%83.32%111.99%81.29%

PAGE 11

0.00% 100.00% WASHINGTONNORTH CAROLINAMICHIGANWISCONSINPITT SBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEOHIO STATEFLORIDAPercent of Non-UF Average for MeasuresLibrary SystemLibrary Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures Percent of Average of Resource Measures +20% +20% +14% +10% -2% -18% -26% -18% -69% US NEWS RANK 115492022291815 WASHINGTONNORTH CAROLINAMICHIGANWISCONSINPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEOHIO STATEFLORIDA Percent of Average of Resource Measures 114.06%105.07%132.90%116.90%81.78%94.30%62.94%92.05%77.96% Percent of Average of Demand Measures 94.09%85.26%119.27%106.50%83.32%111.99%81.29%118.30%146.60%Resource % Demand % 19.97%19.82%13.63%10.41% 1.54% 17.69% 18.35% 26.25% 68.64%



PAGE 1

The Foundation for The Gator Nation An Equal Opportunity Institution George A. Smathers Libraries 535 Library West Office of the Dean of University Libraries PO Box 117000 Gainesville, FL 32611 7000 352 273 2505 352 392 7251 Fax www.uflib.ufl.edu May 10, 2010 I recently conducted a series of presentations on the Proposed 2010-2011 Budget for the George A. Smathers Libraries I used these as opportunities to communica te our fiscal circumstances and to convey our requirements for sustained and increased funding fo r the new fiscal year. The budget I presented was based on what I believe is necessary for our librari es to serve our faculty, students and researchers adequately. Although the total increase requested is substantial, approaching $5 million, this is not a budget that was predicated on growth or addressing historic funding circumstances. Rather, I sought to restore $2.4 million in lost purchasing power for materials to the 2006-2007 level and $650,000 to close a longstanding materials budget gap in the Health Science Cent er Libraries (HSCL). Similarly, over $675,000 has been requested to maintain our current level of salaries and benefits, offsetting the potential for loss of funding for the proposed budget recall and the retirement incentive program, and an additional $220,000 has been requested to replace the loss of external funding for two positions, one of which is in the HSCL. $765,000 is requested to establish new positions to support underserved disciplines and user groups. To support the Proposed 2010-2011 Budget for the George A. Smathers Libraries including the needs of the Health Science Center Libraries, I have assessed how the resources of the UF libraries and the demands of our university compare to other similar inst itutions based on published statistical data. As you will see, the data has been interpreted using a number of different approaches and the interpretations are based on a variety of measures for library resources and university characteristics that influence the demand for library materials and services. The two consis tent findings throughout are that the scope of the population and programs at UF are significantly above average and the fiscal and human resources available to the libraries are significantly below avera ge when compared to those of peer institutions. Said differently, the data collected indicates there is a considerable and uniquely steep gap between the scale of our university programs and populations and the resources of the library system. I hope that this information will lend context to my r equests for increased and sustained investments in the UF libraries. As the university transitions to managi ng its budget under RCM, there is an opportunity to redress the chronic underfunding of the libraries and est ablish a level of funding that is more appropriate to the size and complexity of the university. While I unde rstand that there are competing demands for limited resources, I have proposed a budget that addresses the needs of the UF libraries, not in themselves, but in order to better serve our users. Selection of Peers for Comparison A wide variety of institutions was considered before arri ving at the following as co mparators: University of Michigan, University of North Caroli na Chapel Hill, University of Wisconsin, University of Washington, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, Univ ersity of Minnesota, and Michigan State University. Each university is a member of the Association of Amer ican Universities and the library system for each is a member of the Association of Research Libraries. Ea ch university is a large, public, research institution, with four or more health colleges and a law school. Four (Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State and Michigan State) are Land Grant institutions, as we are. All of these universities are ranked in the top 30 public universities by US News & World Report for 2010 (see table). UF is ranked 15.

PAGE 2

US News Ranking University of Michigan 4 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill 5 University of Wisconsin 9 University of Washington 11 University of Florida 15 Ohio State University 18 University of Pittsburgh 20 University of Minnesota 22 Michigan State University 29 In analyzing the collected data, we based a number of comparisons on two groupings of these peers: all 8 of the non-UF institutions and those 4 institutions with higher rankings than our own. This layered comparison is possible due to the fortuitous placem ent of UF in the middle of the 9 rankings. Where relevant, the peer group used in the comparisons is indicated. Data Analysis The data used in this report was collected from two sources. The university data came from the institutions fall 2008 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) report submitted to US Department of Educations Institute for Education Sc iences. The library data came from the most recent published (2008) ARL Statistics from the Associ ation of Research Libraries. The data and analysis are depicted in 5 charts that are linked from this narrative. 1. Total Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures The table reports the total university and total library expenditures for each peer institution. Included is a scatter chart reflecting this data and the resulting trend line. The data for our university and library system is also depicted and its plot is considerably below the trend line. Please note the correlation coefficient (r-squared) for these two data series is .83, represent ing a strong correlation. Using the formula from the linear regression analysis of this data for the peer institutions and applying the figure for UF total expenditures, the projection for comparable library expenditures is calculated at $37,899,670, while the actual expenditures for this period were $28,573,302. Accounting for the size of the universitys financial resources, this figure represents a considerable gap in the level of investment in library resources between UF and these 8 peer institutions. 2. Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures This table and bar chart reflect library expenditures as a percentage of the total university expenditures. The UF library systems expenditures as a percentage of the university expenditures are the second lowest for all peers. The only lower percentage is for Michigan, wh ich is a result of the huge level for total university expenditures (more than double the total expenditures fo r a number of the peer universities). The total expenditures for the Michigan libraries were $51.6 mill ion, which is the highest for all peer institution libraries and 38% above the average for library expenditur es of the 8 peer institutions. The expenditures by the UF library system as a percentage of the universitys expenditures is 10% below the average percentage for both peer sets (all 8 institutions and the 4 higher ranked institutions ). Without the downward skewing of the average percentages caused by Mi chigan, the gap between UF and its peers would be even more pronounced. 3. Comparison of UF Library and University Statistics With Peer Institutions This table compares library and instit utional statistics across UF and the 8 peer universities. UF statistics are compared to the averages for the 8 peers (bl ue highlighted heading) and the 4 higher ranked peers (orange highlighted heading). The yellow highlighted cell s reflect UF as a percentage of the averages. The Library Statistics represent resources and the UF libra ry system falls significantly below the average for each of these measures for both peer sets. The Univer sity Statistics are a reflection of demand and UF is above the average for each of the measures for both peer sets. There is a definite disparity between library resources and the characteristics of the university t hat reflect demand for library services and materials when compared to these peer institutions. These reso urce and demand statistics are further interpreted in the final two charts.

PAGE 3

4. UF Library Compared to Average Resources of Peer Libraries One of the challenges in analyzing data across instituti ons is the need to reflect differences in the scale of the institutions. In selecting the peer group, we atte mpted to produce a group of similar universities, but there is still variance in programs and populations. These tables compare three library resource measures (Library Material Expenditures, Professional Staff FTE and Total Staff FTE) to several factors intended to capture the parent institutions size or scale: full time Faculty, PhD Fields, PhDs and Professional degrees awarded, Graduate and Professional Student count, and Total Student Enrollment. The statistic used here is UFs percentage of the average of each resource m easure divided by the indicated university statistic. For example, UFs materials expenditures per faculty are 64% of the average for all 8 peers. As another example, UFs total library staff per total student enr ollment is 68% of the average for all 8 peers. The second table compares UF to just the 4 higher ranked peer institutions. While the exact percentages vary and no one factor is authoritative when viewed by itself, it is notable that in no comparison for either peer group does the UF library system exceed 68% of the average. 5. Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures (2 pages) For each peer institution we collected data reflecting library resources: Library Materials Expenditures, Total Library Expenditures, Salaries a nd Wages for Professional Staff, Total Salaries and Wages, and FTE counts for Professional Staff, Support Staff and Total Staff. We also collected data reflecting the scale and diversity of the universitys programs: PhDs awar ded, Professional Degrees awarded, combined PhDs and Professional degrees awarded, PhD Fields, full time Faculty and Total Student Enrollment. For each measure the average, ex cluding UF, was calculated along with the percentage for each institution compared to this average. For exampl e, looking at Library Resource Meas ures in the table, Michigan spent 138% of the non-UF average for library materials. As another example, looking at the Demand Measures, Michigan State only generated 72% of the non-UF average for the number of PhDs awarded. The average percentage of each universitys reso urce and demand measures is reported, respectively, in the orange and blue highlighted cells of the table. The bar graph reflects these overall averages and shows the relationship of resource and demand for each instit ution. For example, the University of Washingtons Library Resource Measures are 20% higher than the Demand Measures, wh ile the comparable measures for UF show that Library Resource Measures are 69% below those for Demand Measures. The graph depicts the uniquely large gap between the UF library systems comparison to averages for resource versus demand measures compared to these peer institutions. The conclusion is that our library resources are not measuring up to the demand measures for such a large and complex institution. If you would like additional information or have any questions or comments regarding the library budget proposal, please contact: Judith C. (Judy) Russell Dean of University Libraries George A. Smathers Libraries Phone: 352-273-2505 E-Mail: jcrussell@ufl.edu

PAGE 4

George A. Smathers Libraries University of Florida 2010-2011 Budget (proposed) 2009-2010 Budget (actual) % of Budget Smathers University HSCL Smathers University HSCL DSR FUNDING FOR MATERIALS 1 4.5% $1,451,613 $1,134,000 $317,613 $1,350,000 $1,134,000 $216,000 APPROPRIATED FUNDS (RCM) Materials (Base) $8,944,574 $7,513,310 $1,431,264 $8,944,574 $7,513,310 $1,431,264 Replace Lost Purchasing Power $2,391,424 $1,929,958 $461,466 Replace HSCL TIPS $250,000 $250,000 Close HSCL Materials Budget Gap $400,000 $400,000 Proposed Materials Budget 37.0% $11,985,998 $9,443,268 $2,542,730 Other Expenses (Base) 2 $775,567 $770,194 $5,373 $775,567 $770,194 $5,373 Rent for Off Campus Space 3 $77,995 $77,995 Establish HSCL Operating Budget $120,000 $120,000 Replace Lost FCLA Technology Funds 4 $74,172 $66,078 $8,094 Facilities Maintenance & Repair 5 $432,608 $369,304 $63,304 HSCL Integration into Smathers 6 $55,000 $55,000 CNS Virtualization of Library Servers $120,000 $120,000 Proposed Expense Budget 5.1% $1,655,341 $1,403,570 $251,771 OPS 7 $387,179 $309,428 $77,751 $387,179 $309,428 $77,751 OPS Staff for Special Projects 8 $50,531 $44,700 $5,831 Proposed OPS Budget 1.4% $437,710 $354,128 $83,582 Salaries & Benefits (Base) 9 $15,871,580 $13,629,293 $2,242,287 $15,971,580 $13,729,293 $2,242,287 Less Budget Recall ($277,500) ($237,427) ($40,073) Less Retirement Incentive Savings ($400,445) ($341,782) ($58,663) Plus Offset Lost Salaries 10 $677,945 $579,209 $98,736 Replace Loss of External Funding 11 $220,158 $100,000 $120,158 Essential New Positions 12 $765,000 $450,000 $315,000 52.0% $16,856,738 $14,179,293 $2,677,445 Proposed 2010-2011 Budget (RCM only) 95.5% $30,935,788 $25,380,259 $5,555,529 $26,078,900 $22,322,225 $3,756,675 Proposed 2010-2011 Budget (RCM & DSR) 100.0% $32,387,401 $26,514,259 $5,873,142 $27,428,900 $23,456,225 $3,972,675 April 13, 2010

PAGE 5

George A. Smathers Libraries University of Florida Notes: 1 Proposed DSR Funding of 2.0% (Increased from 1.86%); see calculation below 2 2009-2010 Actual reduced by $173,942 for UF budget recall 3 Systems Department to Eastside campus office building; UF share for cost of interim storage prior to build of SUS High Density Storage Facility 4 UF share of reduction in FCLA support for SUS library technology purchases 5 Maintenance of library public spaces not provided by PPD 6 Recurring operational costs identified in HSCL Integration Report, March 2009 72009-2010 Actual reduced by $232,978 for UF budget recall; Actual does NOT include $3,500 from College of Journalism or $8,750 from IFAS for Endnote project; Actual includes $379 for Gator Grad Care cost increases 8 Special projects include graduate student to support grants administration, cataloging of government documents for storage, assessment of print jouirnals for storage, and processing of materials for external digitization 9 2009-2010 Actual reduced by $235,376 for UF budget recall; Actual includes $100,000 in special funding for Grants Manager position (year 2 of 2); Actual includes additional $63,727 from fringe pool and faculty raise adjustments from FY 08-09; Actual reflects $102,251 payroll and benefits transferred from HSCL to University Libraries for staff reassignment as part of integration; Actual includes Provost funding of $63,900 for trailing spouse (Knudson) 10If the additional budget recall occurs and salaries from employees taking the retirement incentive are forfeited, the salaries and benefits need to be increased to offset those reductions. 11 Fund full time HSCL faculty position no longer funded by the College of Nursing; Replace unstable or declining auxiliary money as a source of salaries for HSCL faculty; Replace nonrecurring funding for Smathers grants manager 12 Essential New Positions for HSCL (4) and University Libraries (5) 13 Clinical Research Librarian for HSCL and Scholarly Communications Librarian for University Libraries as part of President's Jump Start Initiative 14 Recurring funding for trailing spouse (Silver) from Provost and time limited funding for trailing spouse (Milian) from CLAS/Provost (1/3 each for 3 years) DSR Funding Calculation* 2010-2011 Budget (proposed) 2009-2010 Budget (actual) Smathers University HSCL Smathers University HSCL At 2.0% $1,451,613 $1,134,000 $317,613 $1,350,000 $1,134,000 $216,000 DSR funding for 2009-2010 is 1.86% of IDC; HSCL receives 16% and University Libraries receive 84% on the amount provided to the Libraries. Under the new formula, HSCL receives 21.9% of the DSR funding, which continues to be used to fund Elsevier Science Direct. April 13, 2010

PAGE 6

US NEWS RANK 4591118202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Total University Expenditures$3,584,455,000$1,910,670,488$2,213,956,907$2,414,795,182$2,080,354,268$1,483,328,841$2,438,931,419$1,417,054,116Total Library Expenditures$51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985Total University ExpendituresTotal Library Expenditures4$3,584,455,00 0 $51,599,11 0 UM 5$1,910,670,48 8 $41,123,51 5 UNC 9$2,213,956,90 7 $42,879,223U Wis 11$2,414,795,18 2 $40,854,83 0 U Was 15$2,080,354,26 8 $38,473,23 8 OSU 18$1,483,328,84 1 $31,660,10 9 Pitt 20$2,438,931,41 9 $40,734,04 5 U Minn 21$1,417,054,11 6 $25,606,98 5 MSU $0$28,573,30 2 15$1,737,832,00 0 $28,573,30 2 UF $1,737,832,00 0 $0 173783200 0 37899669. 6 FormulaTotal UF ExpendituresProjected Library ExpendituresActual Library ExpendituresDifference Projected Library Expenditures per Regression Analysisy = 0.0103x + 2E+07$1,737,832,000$37,899,670$28,573,302$9,326,368 Total Library Expenditures as a Function of Total University Expenditures$28,573,302 y = 0.0103x + 2E+07 R2 = 0.8278 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $1,400,000,000$1,900,000,000$2,400,000,000$2,900,000,000$3,400,000,000 Total University ExpendituresTotal Library Expenditures Other Library Systems UF Linear (Other Library Systems) WisconsinMichigan UNC Ohio State Minnesota Pittsburgh WashingtonMichigan State

PAGE 7

US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UF UF as % of Non UF Av g Avg for 4 Highest Ranked UF as % of Avg for 4 Hi g hest Library Expenditures as a % of Total University Expenditures1.4395%2.1523%1.9368%1.6919%1.6442%1.8494%2.1344%1.6702%1.8071%1.8352%90%1.8051%91%US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Total University Expenditures$3,584,455,000$1,910,670,488$2,213,956,907$2,414,795,182$1,737,832,000$2,080,354,268$1,483,328,841$2,438,931,419$1,417,054,116Total Library Expenditures$51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$28,572,302$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985 21523% 2.2500%Library Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures 1.4395% 2.1523% 1.9368% 1.6919% 1.6442% 1.8494% 2.1344% 1.6702% 1.8071% 1.8352% 1.8051% 1.4500% 1.5500% 1.6500% 1.7500% 1.8500% 1.9500% 2.0500% 2.1500% 2.2500% L ibrary Expenditures as a Percent of Total University ExpendituresLibrary Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UF Avg for 4 Highest Ranked 1.4395% 2.1523% 1.9368% 1.6919% 1.6442% 1.8494% 2.1344% 1.6702% 1.8071% 1.8352% 1.8051% 1.2500% 1.3500% 1.4500% 1.5500% 1.6500% 1.7500% 1.8500% 1.9500% 2.0500% 2.1500% 2.2500% MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINA WISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UFAvg for 4 Highest RankedLibrary Expenditures as a Percent of Total University ExpendituresLibrary Expenditures as a Percentage of Total University Expenditures MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WISCONSIN WASHINGTON FLORIDA OHIO STATE PITTSBURGH MINNESOTA MICHIGAN STATE Avg Excluding UF Avg for 4 Highest Ranked

PAGE 8

Comparison of UF Library and University Statistics With Peer InstitutionsUS NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.Avg for 4 Highest RankedUF as % of Avg for 4 Highest LIBRARY STATISTICS (Source: 2007 2008 Association of Research Libraries Statistics)EXPENDITURES Library Materials Expenditures $20,525,876$16,322,573$10,974,532$14,862,427$12,427,750$13,178,838$14,857,024$16,578,284$11,267,304$14,820,85784%$15,671,35279% Total Library Expenditures $51,599,110$41,123,515$42,879,223$40,854,830$28,573,302$38,473,238$31,660,109$40,734,045$25,606,985$39,116,38273%44,114,17065% PERSONNEL SALARIES Salaries & Wages Professional Staff $11,897,358$10,686,200$14,155,552$11,904,128$6,042,307$8,394,752$6,678,904$7,854,878$5,251,600$9,602,92263%$12,160,81050% Total Salaries &Wages$25,853,159$18,943,723$23,459,430$22,029,970$13,953,783$16,642,379$12,538,822$18,117,695$11,669,365$18,656,81875%$22,571, 57162% PERSONNEL FTE Professional Staff (FTE) 1691482291931021431201118214968%18555% Support Staff ( FTE ) 30520916620619015617320012219299%22286% (FTE) Total Staff (FTE) 57045255352338147038239428845484%52573% US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEAvg Excluding UFUF as % of Non UF Avg.Avg for 4 Highest RankedUF as % of Avg for 4 Highest UNIVERSITY STATISTICS (Source: National Center for Educational Statistics Fall 2008)PhD's Awarded 710600755631858759392775458635135%674127% Prof Degrees Awarded7306046465031,250852563788324626200%621201% Total PhD's and Prof Degrees 1,4401,2041,4011,1342,1081,6119551,5637821,261167%1,295163% PhD Fields 11869107801241036810011295131%94133% Faculty (Full Time)5,2902,9693,0863,6684,3993,2174,1232,6232,6153,449128%3,753117% Total Student Enrollment41,02828,56744,62044,93351,47453,71535,04851,14046,51043,195119%39,787129% Total Graduate & Prof Students 15,03410,67211,25811,13916,82013,50310,13518,58310,30512,579134%12,026140%

PAGE 9

UF Library Compared to Average Resources of Peer Libraries UF Library Compared to Average Resources of 8 Peer LibrariesUF Library Compared to Average Resources of 4 Peer Libraries for Higher Rated Universities(Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, Wisconsin, Washington, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, and Michigan State)(Michigan, UNC Chapel Hill, Wisconsin, and Washington)University Statistic as Basis of Comparison Library Materials Expenditures (UF as % of Non UF Av g ) Professional Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Non UF Av g ) Total Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Non UF Av g ) University Statistic as Basis of Comparison Library Materials Expenditures (UF as % of Avg for 4 Hi g hest ) Professional Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Avg for 4 Hi g hest ) Total Library Staff (FTE) (UF as % of Avg for 4 Highest) Per No. of University Faculty 64%52%64% Per No.of University Faculty 67%44%60% Per No. of PhD Fields 61%50%62% Per No. of PhD Fields 57%40%53% Per No. of PhD's & Prof Degrees Awarded 40%33%40% Per No. of PhD's & Prof Degrees Awarded 39%27%36% Per No. of Total Graduate and Prof Students 61%49%61% Per No. of Total Graduate and Prof Students 57%39%51% Per Total Student Enrollment 67%55%68% Per Total Student Enrollment 59%42%55%

PAGE 10

Library Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures Library and University Statistics as a % of the Non UF Average for Each StatisticUS NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATELIBRARY RESOURCE Measures Library Materials Expenditures 138.49%110.13%74.05%100.28%83.85%88.92%100.24%111.86%76.02% Total Library Expenditures 131.91%105.13%109.62%104.44%73.05%98.36%80.94%104.14%65.46% Salaries & Wages Professional Staff 123.89%111.28%147.41%123.96%62.92%87.42%69.55%81.80%54.69% Total Salaries & Wages138.57%101.54%125.74%118.08%74.79%89.20%67.21%97.11%62.55% Professional Staff (FTE) 113.14%99.08%153.31%129.21%68.28%95.73%80.33%74.31%54.90% Support Staff (FTE) 158.75%108.78%86.40%107.22%98.89%81.20%90.05%104.10%63.50% Total Staff (FTE) 125.55%99.56%121.81%115.20%83.92%103.52%84.14%86.78%63.44% Average of Resource Measures 132.90%105.07%116.90%114.06%77.96%92.05%81.78%94.30%62.94% US NEWS RANK 459111518202229 MICHIGANNORTH CAROLINAWISCONSINWASHINGTONFLORIDAOHIO STATEPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATE DEMAND Measures (University Statistics) PhD's Awarded 111.81%94.49%118.90%99.37%135.12%119.53%61.73%122.05%72.13% Prof Degrees Awarded116.57%96.45%103.15%80.32%199.60%136.05%89.90%125.83%51.74% Total PhD's and Prof Degrees 114.17%95.46%111.08%89.91%167.14%127.73%75.72%123.92%62.00% PhD Fields 124.70%72.92%113.08%84.54%131.04%108.85%71.86%105.68%118.36% Faculty (Full Time)153.38%86.09%89.48%106.35%127.55%93.28%119.55%76.05%75.82% Total Student Enrollment94.98%66.13%103.30%104.02%119.17%124.35%81.14%118.39%107.67% Total Graduate & Prof Students 119.27%85.26%106.50%94.09%146.60%118.30%83.32%111.99%81.29%

PAGE 11

0.00% 100.00% WASHINGTONNORTH CAROLINAMICHIGANWISCONSINPITT SBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEOHIO STATEFLORIDAPercent of Non-UF Average for MeasuresLibrary SystemLibrary Resource Measures v. University Demand Measures Percent of Average of Resource Measures +20% +20% +14% +10% -2% -18% -26% -18% -69% US NEWS RANK 115492022291815 WASHINGTONNORTH CAROLINAMICHIGANWISCONSINPITTSBURGHMINNESOTAMICHIGAN STATEOHIO STATEFLORIDA Percent of Average of Resource Measures 114.06%105.07%132.90%116.90%81.78%94.30%62.94%92.05%77.96% Percent of Average of Demand Measures 94.09%85.26%119.27%106.50%83.32%111.99%81.29%118.30%146.60%Resource % Demand % 19.97%19.82%13.63%10.41% 1.54% 17.69% 18.35% 26.25% 68.64%