↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
MTIOCH UNIVERSITY
REPORT TO THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
2001-02 YEAR END PROJECTION
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET —-
June 6 – 8,2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Introduction 1
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Antioch University-wide Schedules 1 9
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Antioch College 21
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Glen Helen 28
Antioch New England ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Antioch Seattle 41
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Antioch Southern California -53
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Antioch University McGregor 59
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. University Administration 65
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Antioch Review 69
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Ph.D. in Leadership and Change 72
WSO
Public Radio ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 79
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… University-Wide Expenses 91
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Cost Centers 94
Line Items ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 95
#
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
June 6 – 8,2002
I. INTRODUCTION
The 2002-03 Proposed Budget contains the spending plans developed by each of the Campuses and operating units for
consideration and action by the Board of Trustees. The Proposed Budget for each Campus reflects a careful analysis of
their future revenues and expenditures with appropriate adjustments for changes in enrollment and other demand factors.
In nearly every case, program redirection and changing circumstances have necessitated adjustments in staffing and
support cost levels. In some cases, the 2001-02 experience dictated changes for 2002-03 in order to comply with the
policy of the Board of Trustees that each Campus submit and maintain a balanced Operating Budget. One quarter
remained of the 2001-02 year at the time the Proposed Budget was developed, and the year-end projections in this report
were made with two months remaining in the fiscal year. The 2001-02 full-year performance of each Campus will be
reviewed at the October meeting of the Board of Trustees following the close of the fiscal year on June 30.
The financial information in this report is presented using the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 11 7 reporting
standards that became mandatory for independent colleges and universities on July 1, 1995. The objective of this FASB
standard is to enhance the relevance, clarity and comparability of financial statements issued by not-for-profit organi-
zations, regardless of the nature of their operation or mission. In addition, as of this Report, depreciation is recorded for
each campus and operating unit in accord with FASB 93.
i
The material presented in this report provides a detailed view of the budgeted revenues and expenses of the University
and is intended to promote the understanding of University operations as a whole and of each of its units. If you are
familiar with the terms and format of this report, you may want to begin reading at the 2001-02 Year-End Projection
section on page 7.
I. FORMAT AND CONTENT
The 2002-03 Proposed Budget contains summary schedules for the entire University and similar schedules for each
Campus. In addition, each Campus has prepared a narrative description of the significant events that have occurred in
the current year as well as those that are expected to occur during the next year. The purpose of the narrative is to give
an overview of how each Campus is managing and what problems and opportunities it anticipates in the coming year. In
addition, each Campus has proposed capital expenditures for 2002-03 that are also presented as part of the Five-Year
Capital Plan.
Under Board of Trustee policy, Trustee approval is required for any facility or equipment expenditure of more than
$25,000. Expenditures between $10,000 and $25,000 require the advance approval of the Vice Chancellor and they
must be reported to the Finance Committee in a timely manner. The capital expenditures contained in this report are
proposed for purchase in 2002-03. Campuses frequently identify planned purchases of less than $10,000 in order to
provide a more complete picture of their capital spending plan.
Board of Trustee action is needed to authorize tuition and fee schedule changes for 2002-03. Each Campus has
included a schedule of proposed student charges showing the prior year rates, the proposed rates, and the percentage
change. Although a schedule of tuition rate changes is included for the College, the Board of Trustees approved new
tuition and fees for the College at the February meeting. Early action on College tuition and fee rates is necessary in
order to allow the timely preparation of financial aid packets for prospective students.
Ill. THE FUNCTION SCHEDULE
For the University as a whole and for each’of the Campuses, the Proposed Budget contains two schedules. The first is
the 2002-03 Proposed Budget by Function. This schedule provides information about Revenues by Type and Operating
Expenses by Function. The purpose is to show what is happening to the various major revenue streams that support the
University and to show how Operating Expenses are assigned to the various programs or functions.
In both the Revenues and Operating Expenses sections of this schedule is a reference to “E&Gn. This abbreviation
stands for Educational and General and the Total
E&G
lines show the Revenues and the Operating Expenses of all
functions other than those that are classified as Auxiliary Enterprises. The E&G subtotals are provided to simplify
comparison of the revenues and expenses of the primary missions of the University while excluding “support functions”
that are not part of the primary missions. Auxiliary Enterprises include support functions such as dining services,
housing, bookstore, and similar University-operated “businesses”.
An additional Revenues item that appears below the Total E&G Revenue totals is Released from Restrictions. The
amounts on this line reflect funds that were initially received by the University or Campuses for specific purposes and held
until they could be spent to further the specific purpose. Most of this money represents gifts or bequests that have been
provided for such things as scholarships or specific program initiatives. Much of the funding of this type is expended in
the year it is received, but Restricted Funds are often held for several years until they can be expended in accordance
with the conditions set out by the donor. For example, scholarship funds that provide for students with certain types of
abilities or needs will not be expended until such students can be identified. Restricted Funds do not become part of the
Operating Budget until released. Prior to being transferred to the Operating Budget, Restricted Funds are carried in the
accounts of the University and invested in accordance with University policy.
Because restricted revenues do not become part of the unrestricted operating funds of the University until they are
Released from Restrictions, the amounts shown for Gifts and Grants may vary from the figures reported by the
Development Offices for the same period. The Development Offices report gifts on a cash basis, that is, as they are
received, regardless of donor restrictions. The Accounting Office reports gifts on an accrual basis, and restricted gifts are
not reported in the operating budget until they are Released from Restrictions. Pledges are commitments that will be
realized at a future date and are not expendable until the funds are actually received. Funds that are given for a
restricted purpose are invested until they can be expended for the purpose specified by the donor. Several years may
pass before a campus can expend a restricted gift as the donor intended, but the restricted gift is recorded by the
Development Office when it is received.
fhe
financial schedules contained in this report do not reflect restricted revenue
until it is expended. Therefore, reports from the Development Office may show higher or lower giving levels than will
appear on these schedules.
*
Restricted Funds should not be confused with Endowment Funds. Endowment Funds are also separated from
unrestricted revenues and are also limited to specific purposes as provided by their donor. The primary difference is that
the principal of Endowment Funds must be retained in perpetuity and only the income can be expended to satisfy the
purpose of the donor. All expenditures from the Endowment Fund are governed by Board of Trustee policy designed to
protect the principal, meet donor conditions, and assure fund growth. Endowment income appears on the Released from
Restrictions line when expended. The Endowment Income line shows only income from endowment accounts that have
no specified purpose.
The Function schedule in this report for Antioch University as well as the Function schedules for University Administration
and University Wide expenses contain an additional line, “Net Overhead for Central Operations.” This line has been
added to the Function schedules of these three areas to more clearly display the cost of central operations. Ordinarily,
the Overhead used to support the University Administration and the University Wide expenses budget would appear as a
“negative expense” entry, but the Board of Trustees has requested that central operations be displayed more in keeping
with the way the budgets of the individual Campuses are displayed. Accordingly, this line has been added to these three
schedules and appears as a quasi-revenue entry. It shows how much is transferred from the operating units to meet the
costs of central operations and it clearly separates the “revenue” of the central operations from their expenses and makes
it easier to see the true cost of these units.
The Operating Expenses section of the Function schedule provides financial information for each of the primary activities
or programs. Each operating department of the University is classified in accordance with its primary function. For
example, the Languages Department of the College is classified as Instruction and all of its expenditures will be
combined with those of other teaching departments and reported on the Instruction line of the Function schedules. A list
of the Cost Centers that comprise each of the Functions is presented on page 94.
The columns of the 2002-03 Proposed Budget by Function schedules present information about the two prior years, the
current year, and the coming year. For comparison purposes, the first two columns contain the 1999-2000 and 2000-01
actual expenditure history. The third
column
contains the
2001-02
Budget as revised by the Board of Trustees and the
fourth column contains information about how each of the Campuses anticipate their 2001-02 Budget will appear at the
end of the current fiscal year. That is, the 2001-02 Adjusted Budget column is the plan for the current year while the
2001-02 Projected column shows how the plan is likely to play out. The next two columns, Change from 2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected show the dollar amount and percentage variance between the plan for the current year the likely
outcome at June 30.
Because the Proposed 2002-03 Budget is developed from current year operations, it is important to consider how the
current year will end before deciding on what is or is not possible in the new year. For this reason, the Proposed Budget
schedules show the changes from the current year budget to the anticipated year end amounts.
The Proposed 2002-03 Budget is segregated from the other columns by solid vertical lines and bold type to make it stand
out from the other numbers. The next two columns on this schedule compare the Proposed 2002-03 Budget with the
2001-02 Projected outcome, and the last two columns compare the Proposed 2002-03 Budget with the 2001-02 Budget
as adjusted by the Board. Each set of comparisons present the dollar variance and percentage variance. Major
dollarlpercentage
changes tend to signify programmatic shifts or restructuring.
FASB 117 requires the presentation of
information
on an accrual basis, but the actual management of the University also
depends on maintaining an appropriate cash flow so that current obligations can be met. The schedules in this Report
contain an Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis section which identifies those expenses and revenue sources that
must be considered when adjusting from an accrual basis to a cash basis. These items are primarily concerned with
equipment and facilities which, although occurring in one fiscal year, are depreciated over their useful life. Accumulated
depreciation is shown as an offset to the Depreciation Expense that is included as a part of the Plant Maintenance
function. Borrowing proceeds, if any, associated with the expenditures shown are reflected on a separate line, as are the
Principal Payments necessary to retire the loans of previous years.
The Conversion to Cash Basis section also shows the use of any Prior Year Reserves. Prior Year Reserves are
maintained by the University as “funded” or “unfundedn. Whenever the campuses end the year with an operating surplus,
this sum is recorded and carried forward on the books. If the University has sufficient surplus cash at year-end, the
surplus is funded and invested in an interest bearing account. The “Unfunded Reserves” of the campuses become
‘Funded Reserves” whenever there is surplus cash at year-end. If there is not sufficient cash to cover the surplus, the
uncovered portion becomes a credit to the unfunded reserve. Campuses may propose the use of their Prior Year
Reserves in the annual budget, or they may request the Chancellor’s permission to use Funded Reserves to meet
unexpected expenses during the year.
IV. THE CATEGORY SCHEDULE
The second major schedule is the 2002-03 Proposed University Budget by Category. On this schedule, Revenues from
the Function Schedule (including Net Overhead for Central Operations) are condensed to a single line, but Operating
Expenses from the Function schedule are presented by category
(e.g.,
Salaries & Wages, Benefits, Supplies). These
Categories show how the Proposed Budget will be expended by the Major Expense categories that are explained in detail
on page 95.
A section of these schedules show the ContingencyIReserves that the Campuses are required to budget. The “Campus
Contingency, Mandatory” amount is budgeted at 1 % of total revenue. This Reserve wilt be retained centrally until the
University Administration is reasonably sure that the campuses’ Revenues and Expenditures will balance for the year. At
the end of each quarter of the fiscal year, those Campuses that are performing at or above their budgeted level may
request the release of a portion of the Mandatory Reserve. In October we do not anticipate releasing more than 10% of
the total. In January we would expect to release not more than 50% (cumulative) of the total with the remaining 50% to
be released in April. These percentages are guidelines; if total University Revenue appear to be much higher or lower
than budgeted, the percentages that can be released at the end of any quarter will be appropriately adjusted.
The “Campus Program Contingency, Discretionary” is a reserve amount determined by individual Campuses. Depending
on the volatility of its programs, a Campus may elect to hold an additional sum in reserve to offset possible revenue
fluctuations. The amount of this Reserve is determined by the Campus, and the Campus determines when this Revenue
is released for expenditure. Beginning July 1,2000, Campuses have the opportunity to reserve money in an account in
the Major Capital Improvement Fund. This fund has been established to permit campuses to prepare for predictable
future capital purchases such as roof replacements. Deposits to the Major Capital Improvement Fund are budgeted on
this tine. Not all Campuses elect to place funds in this Reserve.
The Liquidity Reserve had accumulated $2.2 million at the end of 2000-01, and beginning in 2001-02, campuses were no
longer required to make additions. The Liquidity Reserve is not available for expenditure for any purpose. The
Accumulated amounts will be held to increase the financial integrity of the University. The funding of Depreciation at the
campus level reduces the need for annual additions to the Liquidity Reserve. .
The Overhead section shows the assessments that are made against each Campus in order to support operations of the
University. Prior to 2001-02, assessments were made at the rate of 13.75% of net student revenue. The methodology
excluded tuition generated by new programs less than two years in operation, tuition discounts and waivers, and
uncollectable tuition and fees. From the overhead, Rebates from the University were transferred to the individual
campuses, as was the Subsidy from Adult Campuses and the Subsidy from Overhead. Campuses that received Rebates
and Subsidies show negative amounts in the various historical columns of this schedule because the transfer was shown
as a “negative expense” rather than as a Revenue. Although these transfers were “income” to the receiving campus,
from the standpoint of the University they represented only the reassignment of revenue from one campus to another. In
2001-02, the Stabilization Task Force simplified the mechanism for support of the University and the College. The
College does not contribute to Overhead in 2002-03.
The Overhead section of the Summary by Category schedule shows the assessments that were made against the
student derived revenue of each campus in order to support operations of the University. Although overhead was
assessed at 13.75% in prior years, Rebates reduced the effective Overhead rate. The Other line in this section of the
Category schedule shows the effect of various contractual relationships between Campuses as well as certain
University-
wide assessments, such as for the University Conference. The University Conference is not scheduled to be held during
2002-03.
In 2002-03, Overhead was allocated to the non-residential campuses and other units in proportion to the size of their
operating budgets. The total is $2.8 million.
The columns on the 2002-03 Proposed Budget by Category schedule are identical to those on the Budget by Function
schedule.
1
V. 2001 -02 YEAR-END PROJECTION
With less than two months remaining in the 2001-02 fiscal year, it appears that the University will experience an annual
operating deficit. The adjusted budget approved by the Board of Trustees in February contemplated an accrual budget
deficit of
-$I
,169,172. At the present time, we are projecting a deficit that is very close to that number, but several
revenue and expense factors have changed from the projection made in February, and conditions may change between
now and the end of the fiscal year.
Virtually all of the revenue categories are projected to be below the level anticipated by the Adjusted Budget. For the
University as a whole,
GrossTuition & Fees are above the budgeted level by $342,013, but Tuition Discounts have more
than absorbed that excess which means that net tuition revenue is down by about -$100,000.
2001-02 TUITION AND FEE REVENUE PROJECTIONS
200 1 -02 200 1-02
Budgeted* Projected Variance
Antioch College 13,109,448 13,333,447 223,999
Glen Helen 1 15,750 116,818 1,068
New England 9,166,305 8,951,385 -214,920
Seattle 9.1 12,698 8,897,500 -215,198
Leadership &
Change 125,000 100,000 -25,000
Southern California 10,433,670 10,880,954 447,284
McGregor 5,120,040 5,244,820 124,780
TOTALS $47,182,911 $47,524,924 $342,013
*as revised by the Board of Trustees
#
The above table shows that the University is projected to have gross tuition revenue of $342,013 more than was
estimated in the Adjusted Budget, despite the fact that New England and Seattle are experiencing Tuition and Fee
shortfalls. The additional $342,013 is less than 1% of the budgeted gross tuition and fee income, but it is more than
offset by the awarding of $440,662 in unplanned Tuition Discounts. The excess Tuition Discounts are nearly 12% more
than were contemplated in the Adjusted Budget. Most of the additional Discounts were awarded by the College
($365,689).
8
Gifts Income is currently projected to be -$455,468 (-17.75%) below the Adjusted Budget. The major shortfalls in gift
income occurred at the College
(-$220,191),
New England (-161,218) and
McGregor
(-$121,632).
Lead Gifts is currently
-$145,033
below the Adjusted Budget level, Endowment Income is down
-$282,532
and Other
Income is down
-$462,368.
Fortunately, Contracts Income is running ahead of budget by $179,141, as is Auxiliary
Enterprises ($298,053) and Released from Restrictions ($531,661). In the aggregate, total Revenues are projected to be
about 1 .O% (-$593,380) below the Adjusted Budget.
Although total revenue is projected to be below the Adjusted Budget, Total Operating Expenses are projected to be
even lower, thereby reducing the budgeted deficit. As things now stand, Total Operating Expenses are expected to be
-$837,857
(-1.35%) below the Budgeted expense level. By operating expense Category, Salaries & Wages are about
2% higher ($608,126) than assumed in the Adjusted Budget, but Benefits are holding at the budget level. Training &
Development, a category that includes most employee travel, is down nearly 18% (-$317,343) as is Student Aid
Services
(-2.74%),
Special Events
(-17.28%),
Supplies (-14.47%) and Business Operations (-9.22%). One of the
factors lowering the cost of Business Operations is the administrative consolidation in Yellow Springs that resulted from
the work of the Stabilization Task Force. Although not all elements of the original plan were adopted by the full Board
of Trustees, implementation has already started and savings are being realized in the 2001-02 fiscal year. Business
Operations savings are also being realized at all campuses as part of a concerted effort to lower operating expenses.
Plant Maintenance, Interest Expense, and Resale Costs are each projected to be slightly above the Adjusted Budget.
In aggregate, the overage for the three is expected to total about $121,600.
One of the most dramatic changes made by the Stabilization Task Force was to assign depreciation expense to the
campuses and other operating units.
~efore
1997, most Universities did not report depreciation on their academic
buildings and equipment because depreciation is not an expenditure of resources. In 1987, Financial Accounting
Standards Board Statement Number 93, “Recognition of Depreciation by Non-for-Profit Organizations”
(FASB93),
required that colleges and universities report depreciation in general purpose external financing statements. Because
Antioch did not have the account detail available to immediately reflect depreciation, the University’s audited financial
statements do not reflect depreciation until 1990-91, at which time accumulated depreciation related to prior years was
recorded along with the current year depreciation.
Between the time Antioch began reporting depreciation and 2000-01, depreciation was budgeted on a University-Wide
basis. During 2001-02, the Stabilization Task Force reviewed the way depreciation was budgeted and concluded that
depreciation should be budgeted at the campus level. As a result, the revised 2001-02 budget moved depreciation from
the University-wide account and added it to the budgets of the campuses and the other operating units. Depreciation in
the 2001-02 adjusted budget is $2,930,000 and $2,885,195 in the budget proposed for 2002-03.
The non-residential campuses are expecting to end 2001-02 with positive accrual and cash balances. As the following
table shows, the positive balances at the non-residential campuses are more than offset by the anticipated deficit at the
College. While these College deficits are certainly significant, they are projected to be lower than in the Adjusted Budget.
The Adjusted Budget called for the College to have an accrual deficit of
-$I
,980,519 but the projected accrual deficit is
likely to be about half a million dollars less. Similarly, the cash deficit was anticipated to be nearly $1.3 million, but the
projected cash deficit is expected to be more than $600,000 less.
2001-02 PROJECTED YEAR-END BALANCES
ANTIOCH GLEN NEW SOUTHERN ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE HELEN ENGLAND SEATTLE CALIFORNIA
McGREGOR
ADMIN. WYSO
TOTAL REVENUE 17,465,316 745,014 10,921,635 9,631,805 1 1,476,186 5,266,486 1,785,879 853,074
TOTAL EXPENSES 18,936,899 591, 185 10,835,477 9,527,662 10,843,721 5,151,546 1,768,683 866,464
ACCRUAL BALANCE -1,471,583 153,829 86,158 104,143 632,465 1 14,940 17,196 -1 3,390
NET CASH BALANCE -652,045 17,175 161,948 49,206 588,580 101,570 0 -4,213
The College is aware of a number of physical plant problems, some of which require urgent attention. For example, mold
and bacteria contamination in Spalt and the Presidents units must be addressed before these units can be used to house
students. The exact cost of the remediation that will be required is not known at this time, but it is likely that some of the
cost of the clean up will be charged against the 2001-02 fiscal year. Similarly, one of the towers on Antioch Hall
has
been
dislodged by high wind and the rotting of its wooden support base. Immediate repair is required to prevent the tower from
being blown off of the building. The cost of this repair is not yet known, but because of the height of the tower, it is
expected to be significant.
Modest balances remain from the $2.2 million Ohio Bond Funding that was acquired two years ago. It is possible that
some of this funding can be used to cover the capital costs of the mold remediation project and to repair the tower.
However, it is certain that this funding will not be sufficient to cover all of the costs of the mold remediation.
VI. 2002-03 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Tuition and Fee income represents the single largest source of revenue for the University. In recent years, optimistic
projections of future tuition and fee income have proven difficult to reach, although tuition and fee income has grown
steadily for several years. In 2001-02, the Adjusted Budget anticipates an increase in gross Tuition & Fees of nearly $2.8
million (6.3%) and the current projections indicate that the campuses should reach this target. The proposed budget for
2002-03 anticipates more optimistic increase in tuition and fee revenue, but the additional $4,496,500 (9.46%) contains
two significant elements. First, the
PhD
in Leadership & Change will add an additional cohort that is nearly double the
size of the initial group of students. This second cohort, plus a full year of tuition and fees from the first cohort, represents
nearly a 500% increase in Tuition & Fee Revenue for the program. The second element is the significant increase in
tuition at the College. Tuition & Fee revenue are anticipated to increase by more than $1.6 million (12.53%) primarily in
response to the effort to increase enrollment through the use of larger tuition discounts. Part of the anticipated growth is
due to the 3% rate increase approved by the Board of Trustees in February, but the additional students that are expected
to attend is the most significant factor. The revised Tuition Discount program was presented to the Board at the February
meeting, and the plan was generally accepted, although some concern remains about whether the stated goals can be
accomplished.
#
The plan assumes that additional students would attend the College if the College was more price competitive. Analysis
by consultant Tom Clough and Dean of Admissions Michael Murphy indicate that the College was not competitive for
students who could afford to pay the full tuition cost, nor was it competitive for those students who have considerable
financial need. By increasing the size of tuition discounts offered to these two groups, the plan suggests that total
enrollment can be increased.
*
While gross tuition revenue is expected to increase at the College as the number of students grows, significantly
increasing the size of tuition discounts will minimize the increase in net tuition income.
CHANGE IN 2002-03 BUDGETED GROSS TUITION AND FEE REVENUE
2001 -02 2002-03 Percent
Projected Budgeted Variance Change
13,333,447 15,003,888 1,670,441 12.53% Antioch College
Glen Helen
New England
Seattle
Leadership & Change
Southern California
McGregor
TOTALS
The above table shows the changes in budgeted Tuition & Fee revenue by campus and compares the budgeted amount
with the amount projected for 2001-02. With the exception of the
PhD
in Leadership & Change and the College, only
Seattle is projecting a double-digit increase in gross tuition revenue. At the College, some of the increase is associated
with the Antioch Education Abroad program. Of the College total, $270,356 is new tuition and fee revenue derived from
AEA, and this represents a 20% increase in
AEA
Tuition and Fees. If the AEA portion of the total is subtracted from the
College total of $1,670,441, the balance associated with the College is about $1.4 million. However, this increase in
gross tuition is possible only with a significant increase in Tuition Discounts.
.
Antioch College
Glen Helen
New England
Seattle
Leadership & Change
Southern California
McGregor
TOTALS
002-03 BUDGETED TUITION DISCO
2001-02 2002-03
UNTS
Percent
Projected Budgeted Variance Change
3,895,068 5,365,000 1,469,932 37.74%
As you can see from the above table, Tuition Discounts at the College will increase by $1,469,932 (37.74%) which is
slightly more than the gross tuition gain being shown by the College.
Although net tuition will likely show a slight decrease in 2002-03, room and board fees should increase by about
$400,000 as a result of additional students being on campus.
The table above showing budgeted tuition discounts shows a significant decrease for Antioch McGregor. In 2001-02,
McGregor is projecting tuition discounts of over $75,000, but no tuition discounts in 2002-03. The change is due to the
correction of an accounting procedure rather than any policy shift. In 2001-02, tuition discounts provided to employees
were shown by McGregor on the Tuition Discounts line rather than as a fringe benefit. In the proposed budget, tuition
discounts for employees are currently budgeted as fringe benefits and the benefits line for McGregor contains a *
comparable employee tuition discount cost.
While Gifts income will decrease by more than 6% on a budget-to-budget basis, Gifts are expected to increase by nearly
$300,000 (1 3.9%) over the amount projected for 2001-02. Nearly all of this increase is contained in the College budget
where the Gifts budget is $1.6 million for 2002-03 compared with $1.33 million for the current year.
The Lead Gifts line is not being budgeted in 2002-03. This is not because the College could not use additional gifts to
support the campaign or other major initiatives, but because it is not prudent to anticipate these kinds of gifts as part of
the operating budget. Rather, the proposed budget attempts to recognize all known costs and associate them with
predictable revenues. Grant Income in 2002-03 is expected to be below the level in the prior budget and the amount
projected to be received in 2002-03. While additional grant proposals are being written, the emphasis is on a
conservative but realistic approach to projecting Grants Income. Endowment Income is budgeted at 9% ($33,500) more
than in the previous budget, but considerably more than the amount projected for
2001-02.
For the second year in a row,
the stock market has struggled unsuccessfully to move ahead. As a result, endowment income has been down in each of
the last two calendar years. White the market continues to struggle, there are signs that the economic downturn is
abating and that the price of equities will improve during the next fiscal year.
Contracts have been budgeted conservatively at 1.3% above the prior budget level, while Other Income is projected to be
15% below the level of the previous budget. For the University as a whole, operating revenue is expected to be 6.65%
($3.85 million) more than in the previous budget, or 7.76% ($4.44 million) greater than the amount being projected for
2001-02.
The summary schedules for the entire University contain a line called Net Overhead for Central Operations. A total of
$2.8 million is budgeted for University Administration and other University Wide operations in 2002-03. This represents a
-1 0.39% (-$324,497) reduction from the 2001-02 level, as considerable efforts where made to reduce central expend-
itures to lessen pressure on the campuses.
NET OVERHEAD AS A PERCENTAGE OF CAMPUS TUITION
Overhead Percent of
Tuition
College
$0
0
New England $743,325 7.95
Seattle $739,060 7.48
Southern California $843,660 7.34
McGregor
$412,061 7.39
In previous years, overhead expense was allocated on the basis of net student derived income which meant that some
types of revenue were not subject to overhead. The Stabilization Task Force recommended that a new methodology be
adopted that recognized that central administrative expenses and the cost of assisting the College not be solely charged
against Tuition & Fees. The Task Force also recommended that the College be exempted from paying overhead during
2002-03 as a transitional device until the College is able to bring its future revenues and expenses into alignment. This
indirect subsidy is worth about $800,000 to the College in 2002-03.
As a percentage of gross tuition and fee income, Net Overhead for Central Operations constitutes 5.38%. If overhead is
calculated against all operating revenues, the rate would be 4.54%.
Released from Restrictions will increase by slightly more than 60% ($1.4 million) primarily because of the Gates
Foundation Grant at Seattle and additional spending in support of the Capital Campaign. In 2002-03, $1,154,953 of the
Released from Restrictions amount is attributable to the Campaign. This amount will be expended in the following ways:
d
Salaries & Wages $ 348,060
Benefits 100,963
Training & Development 200,000
Special Events 50,000 .
Supplies 18,000
Business Operations 437,930
This additional spending significantly influences the year-to-year changes shown in the above categories for the College
and the University as a whole.
Salaries & Wages will increase by $1,132,521 (3.93%) over the previous budget, primarily as a result of salary and wage
increases.
College
New England
Seattle
Southern California
McGregor
University
Administration
CONDITIONAL SALARY INCREASES FOR 2002-03
A 2% across-the-board salary increase has been budgeted for faculty and staff.
Represented employees will receive the increases authorized in their contracts.
An across-the-board salary increase of 3.5% is proposed for faculty and staff.
AUS is budgeting a 2% general salary increase. At mid-year, the campus will assess
whether or not projected revenues have materialized, and, if so, may use mandatory
contingency funds to provide an additional 2% increase. There is the possibility that the
faculty may have the opportunity to further increase their salaries if they approve a
proposed work redistribution plan.
A 3% salary increase is proposed for all AUSC employees, excluding adjunct and
associate teaching staff.
McGregor is planning a 3% salary increase for faculty. Staff represented by the union
will receive the increase negotiated when the contract was signed three years ago.
An across-the-board increase of 2% is contemplated for all staff.
As the above table shows, all campuses have been conservative in the size of their salary increases as a result of a ULC
decision to restrict salary increases. Fringe benefit costs, on the other hand, will increase more than 12% ($1,059,687) in
2002-03 primarily because of the growing cost of health care services. Campuses and operating units have been asked
to plan for a 15% increase in health care costs starting January 1, 2003. At the time the budget was being developed,
this seemed to be an adequate increase, but cost escalations are beginning to suggest that the 15% increase cannot be
delayed until January 1. (While there is little consolation in the fact, many other colleges are finding that medical
insurance is becoming a budget-buster. Oberlin College officials said in April that the institution expects to run budget
deficits for at least the next three years, in part because of rising health care costs. Oberlin’s insurance premiums have
remained constant at about $5 million annually for several years, then jumped to $7.2 million last year. They are
expected to hit $9.4 million this year.) Other fringe benefit costs that have grown rapidly are worker’s compensation in
California. The costs of this benefit have decreased in Ohio during the past several years, but California is experiencing
a major increase.
Training and Development costs will increase in 2002-03 by $485,924 (7.26%) as campuses attempt to reinstate some of
the professional development funds which had been cut in recent years. At the College, Training and Development will
increase by $277,659 (53.56%) as travel expenses are expanded for the Capital Campaign and in the Admissions Office.
Additional travel is needed to support both of these initiatives.
The capital expenditures are decreasing from the 2001-02 level, but this is somewhat misleading. In the last two years,
bond funds have been available to the College and
McGregor
which have enabled them to make capital expenditures
that they otherwise could not have funded. In 2002-03, capital expenditures are being funded from operating funds,
including depreciation, rather than by acquiring additional debt. Therefore, although there has been a decline in the total
amount of capital expenditures, there has been an even more significant decline in borrowing. The consequences of
requiring the campuses and operating
units
to directly budget depreciation is becoming apparent: facilities will be better
maintained and new equipment will be acquired when needed.
VII. SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
*
Although the 2001-02 fiscal year will end with a deficit, the deficit should not be as large as in the previous year or as
large as contemplated in the Adjusted Budget. Considerable work has been done to reduce expenses and to increase
the accuracy of revenue projections. At the moment, the projected deficit is expected to be under $1.0 million, but
circumstances could increase or decrease this outcome. The College has not utilized the Drey revolving fund
($200,000),
and the annual fund could finish with a greater number of gifts than projected ($250,000). In addition, improvements in
the stock market could raise the value of the endowment and the higher values would be reported as gains for the year.
During 2001-02 there has been only one major bequest and the level of bequests is below average. There is no way to
know whether any of these events will occur and to what extent they will affect the year-end balance.
On the negative side, it appears that we will need to increase the “run out” reserve for our self-funded medical plan, but it
is unclear how much additional funding will be required. Last year, the run out cost was about $300,000.
Although the College will experience a deficit in 2001-02 that will likely put the entire University into negative numbers,
the new president is pursuing a strategy to control costs while meeting critical needs. In 2002-03 the deficit will be
reduced by half from the 2001-02 level and it should be possible to reach break-even in 2003-04. Even with the College
operating at a deficit in 2002-03, the University as a whole should be able to have a positive accrual balance at year end.
The largest variable in the 2002-03 budget is the plan to increase College enrollment by providing additional Tuition
Discounts. At present, student deposits are running well ahead of last year at this time, as they have been since the new
policy was implemented. This is not a guarantee that fall enrollments will reach the designated target, but it is a very
positive sign. In addition, at this point the average Tuition Discount promised to those potential students who have made
deposits is within the projected per student cost limit. If the average tuition discount in the incoming class stays below the
target number, and if the College makes its target enrollment of 232 entering students, the budgeted net tuition revenue
goal will be realized. In addition, if a larger than expected number of applicants accept the higher discounts, there will be
no revenue problem so long as the average tuition discount remains at or below the target limit.
#
Glenn Watts
Vice Chancellor and
Chief Financial Officer
Â
Antioch University
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Net Overhead for Central Operations
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
199940
Actual
2000-01 2001-02
Actual Ad] Budget
2001-02
Projected
Change From
2001 -02 Budget Pmosed
to 2001 -02 Projected 2002-03
Budget
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
s %
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries &Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special
Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIResewes
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Cot@
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior
Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
–
56,048,692
26,208,729
7,282,238
1,690,358
1,248,245
31
t,849
1,432,150
5,995,908
3,254.441
1,390,627
776,230
380,985
0
5,400
0
4,813,816
-1,856,201
-5
-400,000
243,760
2,785,307
55,563,837
482,855
1,530,101
-194,921
740,635
-265,547
-2,785,307
-975,039
1,457,894
2000-01
Actual
–
57,985,549
28,167,651
7,935,901
1,667.923
1,646,150
245,279
1,371,591
6,454,261
3,765,560
1,530,194
779,124
389,494
0
16,000
0
4,983,195
-2,033,695
0
-400,ooo
169,627
2,920,157
59,628,412
-1,642,863 ,
2,339,424
-1,953,394
870.1 66
0
-2,920,157
-1,663,961
21,098
Antioch University
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
2001-02
Adj Budget
–
60,978,147
28.840.689
8,641,390
1,782,482
1,702,154
277,356
1,472,860
6,591,658
3,841,871
1,408,340
678,352
471.714
0
130,159
0
3,124,497
0
0
0
253,797
z930,000
62,147,319
-1,169,172
1,766,678
-656.609
988,175
-85,000
-2,930,000
-916,756
-252,416
2001 -02
Projected
–
60,384,767
29,448,815
8,616,633
1,465,139
1,638,537
228,941
1,259,740
5,983,734
3,886,435
1,465,665
698,043
423,284
0
0
0
3,124,495
0
0
0
156,035
2.91 1,966
61,309,462
-924,695
1,784,186
-541,580
1,014,049
-85,000
-2,911,966
-740,311
-184,384
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
I
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
64,501,562
29,973,210
9,701,077
2,268,408
1,585.71
2
331,232
1,464,606
6,589,624
4,0041,,882
1,330,541
724,500
519,395
398,357
248,697
0
2,800 000
0
0
0
224.449
2,885,195
65,039,863
-538,321
1,438,363
-211,000
754,106
0
-2,885,195
-903,726
365,405
Change From
2WH-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
Change From
2001 -02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
s %
ANTIOCH COLLEGE
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
The 2002-03 operating budget for Antioch College was developed using a different process from the one used in recent
years. In part, the change in procedure was made necessary by the administrative restructuring mandated by the
Stabilization Committee, as well as my arrival after the budget process would normally have begun. As a result, the
process of preparing the budget was accelerated and simplified, but despite the compressed schedule, all appropriate
parties have been involved and the budget has been vetted by the campus budget committee and
AdCil
(The
Administrative Council). I believe that the College will be well served by a two-year financial planning cycle in the future,
and I expect to initiate the next budget development process this fall.
REVENUES
Gross Tuition and Fee income is projected to increase by $1,894,440, or 14.45%. This increase is due to the 3%
increase in tuition and fees approved by the Board of Trustees in February, as well as income from additional students
that we believe will enroll as a result of revisions to the tuition discount program. Tom Clough and Michael Murphy
presented a proposal to revise our tuition discount program to the Board of Trustees at the February meeting and the
plan was generally accepted, although the jury is still out about whether it can accomplish all the stated goals.
Briefly, the plan assumes that even students who could pay the full cost of tuition are declining to enroll at Antioch
because they receive more attractive offers from other institutions. In addition, the proposal postulates that students with
need are also failing to enroll in Antioch because other institutions provide more attractive financial aid packages. The
loss of such students is preventing the College from maximizing its revenue potential since a considerably larger number
of students could be taught at a relatively low marginal cost. That is, if additional students were spread throughout the
curriculum, they would not have a major impact on class size, and the cost of teaching them would not increase
significantly. If net tuition increases more than the additional education costs, the College experiences a net gain.
In accepting this proposal, and planning the 2002-03 budget, we assume a negative increase in total Tuition & ~ees
Income for the next several years even though enrollment levels will be increasing. The reason for the decline in Tuition
& Fee Revenue is that although more students will be attending, the overall discount level will be greater. However, each
of these students will be required to pay for room and board, and additional revenue will be generated in these areas.
While the marginal cost is higher for room and board, net revenue is still anticipated.
Under the program, Tuition Discounts will change by
-$I
,835,621, or an increase of 52%.
Gifts income is expected to surpass last year’s budget by only $50,311 , despite, or perhaps because of, the Capital
Campaign.
The amount shown on the Endowment Income line represents the unrestricted portion of the endowment payout. This
amount has changed relatively little from last year even though the total size of the endowment has increased, as has the
total payout. The increase in the endowment has been mainly on the restricted side and, as a consequence, the
additional amount released under the rule of 5% of total principle shows up on the Released from Restrictions line. This
line has increased by
$1,659.81
1 as a result of the higher payout on the larger restricted endowment base. as well as
significant increase in support for the capital campaign. All of the capital campaign expenses are being funded from
temporarily restricted gifts.
Auxiliary Enterprises income has increased by nearly 28%, or $681,160 in order to meet higher costs associated with the
allocation of depreciation, wage and benefit costs, and inflation. Room and Board rate increases were authorized at 3%,
but a larger enrollment will result in more income to the College. Please note that while Auxiliary Enterprises income has
increased by $681,160, Auxiliary Enterprises expenses have increased by only $201,264.
OPERATING EXPENSES
Despite the fact that a 2% across-the-board salary increase has been budgeted, Salaries and Wages have decreased by
-$196,027,
or -2.38%. This has been accomplished by holding some positions vacant and eliminating others as part of
the Administrative Consolidation. The decrease in Salaries and Wages would be even more dramatic were it not for the
addition of a senior administrator–a new Dean of Students–in 2002-03. Although Scott Warren will vacate this position in
August, he will continue to receive his salary as he joins the faculty as a tenured member. A search for a new dean is
currently under way, to be concluded shortly.
A second senior administrator for the College, whose title will be Executive Director of Development, will join the
Development office, but his or her salary will be charged to the capital campaign in 2002-03. The College budget will pick
up this salary in succeeding years. Another possible source of pressure anticipated for the 2003-04 Salaries and Wages
22
budget will come from the results of eleven tenure-track faculty searches expected to take place in 2002-03. Most of
these are already budgeted but are currently filled with visitors. Others were embargoed from 2000 or 2001. Helping to
offset any new expense is expected savings from the tenure relinquishment program implemented this past winter. No
searches will be authorized until Fall 2002 enrollment levels are determined
Fringe benefits have increased, primarily because of a 15% increase in health insurance premiums. Training &
Development costs show a significant 53.56% increase ($277,659). This increase is largely due to higher than
anticipated travel costs in the Capital Campaign Office as well as in the Admissions Office.
In
both cases, the College is
investing in areas where there is an expectation of increasing both current and future revenues.
Utility expenses will exceed the prior year’s budget due, in part, to the unrealistically tow level contained in the Revised
Budget for 2001-02. At the time the Revised Budget was assembled, it was assumed that utility costs would be lower
than originally projected because of mild weather and a favorable contract for natural gas. The optimistic projection was
supported by a compariison of actuals with budget, but the actuals were understated because of delayed billing resulting
from the change in vendors. The new vendor fell behind in submitting bills just at the time that the revised budget was
being developed and this contributed to a miscalculation of what the 2001-02 utility costs will actually be. For this reason,
the actual utility costs for 2002-03 will likely be higher than those projected in the revised budget.
The original draft budget assumed a $1.0 million support level from the non-residential campuses. With this level of
support, the College would be projecting an accrual budget that is very close to balancing. However, it was necessary to
reduce the $1.0 million support level in order to lessen the burden on the non-residential campuses and this is the basis
for the following unanimous recommendation from the ULC. The group will ask the Board to approve an accrual deficit
for the college of about $600,000. The only alternative to such a deficit would be a further reduction in College programs,
which would be exceedingly difficult following the belt-tightening of this past winter.
i
Overall, the budget situation at the College is significantly improved thanks to these earlier measures, and promises to
improve further if our conservative enrollment expectations are met in the Fall.
Joan Straumanis
President
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2001-02
Actual Actual Adj Budget Projected
– – – –
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depredation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
Antloch College
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
Change From
2001-02
Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
-‘
15,003, BB8
-5,365,000
l,6OS,OOO
0
1,250,998
172,358
3,000
90,700
12,770,944
3,136,795
2,373,109
18,280,848
5, 1 13,537
0
0
l,O81,7OS
2,877,653
2,598,050
3,065,296
1,820,271
16,496,512
2,384,336
18,880,848
-600,000
690,764
-211,000
341,375
0
-1,421,139
-600,000
0
Change From
2001-02
Projected
to
2002-03
Budget
$ %
Change From
2001-02
Budget
to
2002-03
Budget
$ %
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Con9
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
–
16,251,501
8,057,006
2,528,251
485,399
1,047,877
111,335
724,557
1.639.321
1,091,322
164,853
322.81
1
251,786
0
5,400
90,545
996,000
-550,000
-200,000
-400,000
-505,669
0
15,860,794
390,707
626,100
-154,045
465,494
0
0
937,549
-546.842
2000-01
Actual
–
16,861,770
8,290,415
2,758,312
483,763
1,455,944
102,638
659,850
1,955.318
1,352,022
264,909
303,167
251,563
0
0
90,316
993,471
-550,000
-200,000
-400,000
-378,422
0
17,433,266
-571,496
1,687,564
-1,585,709
529,206
0
0
631,061
-1,202,557
Antloch College
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
2001-02
Adj Budget
2001 -02
Projected
–
17,465,316
8,908,261
2,830,237
453,523
1,350,289
116,772
659,356
1,914,089
1,195,652
179,126
235,039
255,189
-600,000
2,831
1,436,535
18,936,899
-1,471,583
399,393
-364,487
582,091
0
-1,436,535
-819,538
-652,045
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
– –
863,241 5.20%
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
18,280,848
8,039,410
2,968,582
796,089
1,330,149
187,637
747,027
2,111,270
1,395,587
1S3.571
260,000
238, 718
25,104
0
0
0
0
0
-600,000
-193,435
1,421,139
18,880,848
-600,000
690,764
-21 1,000
341,375
0
-1,421,139
-600,000
0
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
815,532 4.67%
Change From
2001 -02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
7 –
1,678,773 10.1 1%
Campus
Campus
Campus
Campus
Campus
Campus
College
ANTIOCH COLLEGE
2002-03 Capital Budget
Buildings Amount
Total Buildings 0
Building Improvements Amount
Roof Repairs 2 15,000
HVAC Replacements 85,000
Art Building Wiring 65,000
Mold Remediation 81,000
Total Building Improvements 446,000
Equipment Amount
Computer Workstations 20,000
Voice Mail System 30,000
Total Equipment 50,000
Furniture & Fixtures Amount
Cafeteria Fixtures 49,764
Dorm Furniture – Mold Remdtn 65,000
Total Furniture & Fixtures 114,764
Vehicles Amount
d
Total Vehicles
Library Books Amount
Library Books 80,000
Total Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget 690,764
—-*— ——–
Program
——–
Tuition
Room and Board
Fees
Total per Year
Antioch College
Tuition Rate Changes 2002-03
2001 -02 2002-03
Rates Rates % Change
GLEN HELEN ECOLOGY INSTITUTE
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
Revenues:
0 Projected revenue decrease of -12.83% (495,596) to $649,418
Revenue decrease is expected from tuitionlfees, auxiliary enterprises, gifts, and released from restrictions.
Expenses:
Projected expenses will increase by 9.85% ($58,233) to $649,418.
Principal expense increase includes SalariesIWages (14.90%), Benefits (12.1 1 %), and Business operations
(printing) – 2.63%. Increase in salaries includes 2% pay increase for regular staff and the filling of the vacant
Outdoor Education Center Director position.
Expense decrease will come from Special Events. Restricted funds will cover additional plant maintenance
expenses.
Capital Expense:
Budgeted at $5,000 with no major capital expenses anticipated. Current building projects have been completed.
Capital items in this fiscal year will include scientific research equipment (dissecting microscope and global
positioning equipment).
Restricted Funds:
Revenue: $1 11,893 will be released from several restricted cost centers including $51,709 for operating expense;
overall this represents a decrease
of 44% from last fiscal year (due to completion of Cedar Center building
renovation – Headley Cost Center).
Expenses:
o SalariesIWages, to include Volunteer Coordinator position, graduate intern and Trailside Manager.
o Plant Maintenance includes $18,500 representing an increase of 21 % from fiscal year 2002-03. This
represents utilization of restricted building funds instead of from operations. .
28
Current Restricted Cost Centers:
Operations Cost Center is expected to decline by approximately $20,000 by the end of 2001-02. The remaining
funds in this cost center will supplement the GHEI operations in 2002-03.
The Clauser Operating Fund will provide revenue for capital items in 2002-03 with the balance to provide
supplemental operating funds in 2003-04.
The Headley Renovation fund will be close to depletion by the end of 2001-02 and remaining funds will be used for
emergency maintenance expenses at the Outdoor Education Center.
Robert S. Whyte
Director
Revenues
Tuition
&
Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gills
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total
Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
–
1 15,282
0
82,640
9,869
42,000
9,100
361
259,252
247,846
19,407
526,505
0
0
519,944
0
0
0
0
0
519,944
0
51 9,944
6,561
0
0
1,855
0
0
1,855
4,706
Glen Helen
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
2000-01
2001-02
Actual
Adj
Budget
2001-02
Projected
–
116,818
0
101,158
0
0
42,000
7,914
0
267,890
278,169
198,955
745,014
0
0
591,185
0
0
0
0
0
591,185
0
591,185
153,829
154,654
0
0
0
-18,000
136,654
17,175
Change From
2001 -02 Budget
to
2001-02
Projected
$ %
– –
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
Change From Change From
2001-02
Projected
2001-02
Budget
to 2002-03 Budget to
2002-03
Budget
S % $ %
– – – –
Glen Helen
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf)
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
–
526,505
265,955
70,149
8,180
0
0
51,037
50,307
64,675
120
7,382
2,139
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
519,944
6,561
0
0
1,855
0
0
1,855
4,706
2000-01
2001-02
Actual Adj Budget
2001-02
Projected
–
745,014
269,882
83,404
7,752
0
51 6
48,074
55,769
95,451
27
9,685
2,625
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18,000
591,185
153,829
154,654
0
0
0
-1 8,000
136,654
17,175
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
– –
-61,817 -7.66’
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
649,418
310,098
93,506
4,004
0
0
51,600
57,233
102,555
70
8,000
2,010
3,340
17,002
649,418
0
5,000
0
0
0
-17,002
-12,002
12,002
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
-95,596 -12.83%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
-157,413 -19.51%
ANTIOCH NEW ENGLAND GRADUATE SCHOOL
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 2001-02 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
Antioch New England played to mixed reviews in 2001-02. While we are projecting an accrual surplus and a very positive
‘Net Cash Basis Budget” for 2001-02, those numbers were achieved by paying a hefty price in terms of low morale, some
rather significant cuts in operational budgets and in the elimination of personnel. Some of the fiscal realities were related
to the fact that we did not quite hit new student enrollment targets for the full year, although a highly successful fall entry
helped us to come close to reaching target numbers. The bottom line requirements of the Fiscal Stabilization Plan to
achieve goals based on a
“tax”
on total gross revenues hurt ANE terribly because our grants and contracts could not
absorb that kind of 8% hit, given the fact that most grants and contracts had already been negotiated and others had no
overhead attached to them at all. We were forced to cut heavily from operations; as a result, faculty and staff received no
raises, contracted professional development was frozen, and two positions were terminated.
But a look back at 2001-02 goes beyond the fiscal pressures faced by the campus. On the positive side, the following
deserve special mention:
New Program Development – a track in Environmental Organizing and Advocacy in the Department of
Environmental Studies, with the first cohort entering in the fall 2002; and a Certificate Program in Community
Health Care Management, offered through the Department of Organization and Management, with the first group
beginning in the fall 2002.
I
Area Recognition – ANE gained significantly elevated visibility in the Monadnock Region and in New England as
evidenced by a sample of the press releases, which have been sent to members of the Board of Trustees
throughout the course of the academic year. [Rachel Marshall Outdoor Learning Laboratory, a Selectpersons
Institute expansion into the Concord and Portsmouth areas, CO-SEED Projects in
Maiden
(MA) and
Littleton
and
Groveton
(NH), the “Wild Treasures” project, Earth Day celebration, Study of Violence Research Project
conducted in Keene, ANE Speakers Series, etc.]
More Space – Construction build out of an 1800+ square foot complex of offices, conference rooms, etc. to
house the project managers, directors and interns working on our grant and contract projects and activities.
Scholarship – Numerous faculty publications, including many books, reflecting enhanced emphasis on scholarship
and research.
Community Partnering -We formally established a Coalition of Essential Schools partnership with Keene State
College to provide training, etc. to school systems and teacher in ways to incorporate basic CES principles into
their curriculum and overall philosophy of the school.
Steps Forward – ANE launched what we expect will be a successful search for a new President and have put the
pieces into place for the launch of a modest capital campaign effort, which will focus primarily on developing an
endowment for scholarship and fellowship support.
In sum, there was much to celebrate in 2001-02 at Antioch New England Graduate School, and we believe that Horace
Mann’s legacy and charge are being carried forward in substantive and creative ways.
II. 2002-03 BUDGET PROPOSAL HIGHLIGHTS
On the revenue side, projections include carry-forward dollars and new student enrollment projections of 333 (66
summer, 225 fall, and 42 spring). This is a more conservative new student enrollment projection than was budgeted last
year, but we believe it to be more
prudentand
in line with our 2001-02 actual performance.
Tuition increases are factored in and vary by program. In general, tuition increases are in the 4.5% – 5.5% range. In
addition, internship and dissertation fees for doctoral students have been increased and the Comprehensive Fee has
been increased to cover technology costs and career counseling services.
Gift and Grant revenues reflect our best estimate at this time.
On the expense side, there is a 1 .O% contingency reserve, $468,000 for depreciation, a 15% increase in medical
expense, overhead of $743,325, professional development was reinstated, and a
salarytbenefits
(excluding medical)
increase of 3.5% across-the-board for faculty and staff. [In order to achieve this Budget, cuts were made in certain unit
budgets, two staff positions were eliminated (see above 2001-02 summary), one Core Faculty position was eliminated
and the percentage time of one Core Faculty position was reduced to 75%. Nearly half (49%) of the budget is directed to
instruction and academic support.
The detail of the capital expense budget is presented in a separate document.
Jim Craiglow
President
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
7
8,077,458
-73,751
120,188
727,461
0
566,022
388.361
9,805,739
0
285,994
10,091,733
4,147,232
0
1,051,869
507,821
584,762
2,424,488
706,247
463,605
9,886,024
0
9,886,024
205,709
143,217
0
80,000
-57,508
0
165,709
40,000
Antioch New England Graduate School
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
2000-01 2001 -02 2001-02
Actual Adj Budget Projected
– – –
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
– –
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
9352,060
0
57.129
0
1,132,188
0
202,494
191,030
10,934,901
0
197,343
11,132,244
4,953,767
0
713,878
520,147
686,438
2,728,575
1,169,439
360,000
11,132,244
0
11,132,244
0
201,500
100,000
-468,000
-166,500
166,500
Change From
2001 -02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & U~N Con9
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash
Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
7
10,091,733
5,216,276
1,417.193
340,156
53,665
14,479
165,044
972,024
335,399
431,306
0
31,534
0
0
102,739
1,014,645
-364,332
60,200
0
95,696
0
9,886,024
205,709
143,217
0
80,000
-57,508
0
165,709
40,000
Antioch New England Graduate School
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
2000-01 200142
Actual AdJ Budget
2001-02
Projected
–
10,921,635
5,361,000
1,591,000
430,850
68,600
26,694
146,652
1,003,766
306,749
435,819
0
72,513
0
0
0
900,834
0
0
0
61,000
430,000
10,835,477
86,158
242,210
0
1 12,000
0
-430,000
-75,790
161,948
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
– –
-648,334 -5.60%
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
11,132,244
5,641,859
1,823,667
405,466
0
28,367
172,044
889,624
342.251
420,944
23,057
95,156
0
0
743,325
0
0
0
78,484
468,000
11,132,244
0
201,500
0
100,000
0
-468,000
-166,500
166,500
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
210.609 1.93%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
-437,725 -3.78%
ANTIOCH NEW ENGLAND
Tuition Rate Changes 2002-03
Program
———
Applied Psychology Department
Dance & Movement Therapy Certificate
Dance & Movement Therapy MA
Counseling Psychology MA
Marriage & Family Therapy MA
Clinical Psychology Psy.D.
Environmental Studies Department
Environmental Studies MS
Resource Management & Administration MS
Environmental Studies MS w Certification
Environmental Studies
Ph.D.
Fall All
Fall All
Fall Fall, Spring
Spring Spring
Summer Summer
Summer Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall,
Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
2001 -02
Rate
2002-03
Rate
%
Change
Program
————–
Education Department – ~aldorf Programs
Waldorf Certificate
Waldorf 3+2 Certificate
Waldorf
MEd
year round
Waldorf
MEd
Summer Sequence
Education Department – Integrated Learning
Intergrated Learning MEd
All
Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Fall, Spring
Summer
Education Department – Experienced Educator
Experienced Educators MEd (5 semester) All $2,900
Organization & Management
OM Weekend MEdMHSA Spring Fall, Spring $5,100
Summer $3,400
OM Weekend
MEdIMHSA – Fall Fall, Spring $4,000
Summer $3,400
OM Weekend MS , Fall, Spring Fall, Spring $4,800
Summer $4,800
%
Change
ANTIOCH SEATTLE
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
Accomplishments and Setbacks Encountered in 2001-02
Antioch Seattle achieved four major accomplishments this year that will positively strengthen the campus and its finances:
(1) the passage of Washington State Senate Bill 5166, (2) the teacher certification program passing state accreditation,
(3) receiving the Gates Foundation grant for the “early
college”
program, and (4) completion of the 4200 square foot
expansion and renovation project. The passage of SB 5166 provides the Washington Higher Education Board with
authority to review
Antioch’s
application for our students to be eligible for state financial aid grants of $3,200 and work
study funding. Achieving this goal has been three years in the making and required a large investment of time and
money to lobby for our cause. In November the teacher certification program underwent accreditation from the State
Board of Education and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Teacher certification received positive
feedback on its program and was granted a five-year reaccredidation, the longest period of accreditation awarded.
Antioch Seattle also received a $3 million grant from the Gates Foundation to be part of a major thrust to establish 70
“early college models” around the nation. Two million dollars of this money will be re-awarded to Washington State high
schools that serve Native American students and that wish to establish “early colleges.” The remainder of the money will
be used to fulfill our obligations to the Foundation in serving as consultants and evaluators to the high schools. We
recently received notice that the
Kellogg
Foundation will be awarding us approximately $300,000 to evaluate and conduct
research oriented toward the foundation’s focus on community engagement and interaction.
Completing the renovation and
expansioninto
the 4200 square feet of old tenant space has assisted greatly in
decreasing the space problems in classrooms and faculty offices. It has also allowed the personnel in the admissions
offices, development unit, and technology to co-locate. In addition, the Center for Creative Change space was
redesigned to allow the four programs that compose that center to co-locate. The library was expanded and the new
bookcases and circulation desk provide an aesthetically pleasing space for students and faculty to study and perform
research. The computer classroom, with its new furniture and space, allows more students to be taught at one time in a
space more conducive to learning. Although the expansion enabled greater efficiency of our office and service space, we
still have a problem with classroom space. As class size increases for certain programs, we are finding that we have too
many seminar rooms and not enough rooms that can handle 15 students or more. Consequently, at some point
additional renovations may need to occur to reconfigure adjoining seminar rooms into larger classrooms.
In the technology area, progress was made on moving our assessments on line and beginning on-line (via
email)
registration for some programs. Using a technique pioneered at New England, we have also linked some
Datatel
information to a more user-friendly database so the faculty and staff can access course and advisor lists directly. In
addition, our computing staff have used a similar methodology to develop a budget tracking system that gives managers
“real
-timeu
access to their budget status.
The certificate in foster
careladoption,
in collaboration with a local adoption agency, is successfully completing its first
year having met its enrollment projections. Prospects for next year’s class look good as well. We completed the
self-
study report with a fair amount of involvement of the campus in its writing and editing. The Board of Visitors (BOV) has
increased to nine members with one new member indicating an interest in serving on the Board of Trustees. BOV
members have been active in fund raising activities for the scholarship endowment. We have also hosted more alumni
events with some success in attracting participation.
The two greatest setbacks this year were lower than projected enrollment numbers and the negative impact of the
Financial Stabilization Plan. AUS witnessed a shortfall in its fall and winter enrollments resulting in a decrease of 29
annualized FPE, or 3.2%. Total projected FPE fell from 909 to 880 and this was reflected in the mid-year adjusted
budget. The biggest contributor to this shortfall was the inability of the Education Center to launch its Principal
Certification program, amounting to a drop of 40 annualized FPE, and to fill some of its projected site cohorts for MA in
Education. In addition, the Center for Creative Change and the BA program did not meet their enrollments. We
speculate that a majority of the decreases are probably attributable to a combination of the effects of the recession, which
has been particularly severe in the Pacific-Northwest, competition from lower cost institutions, and the uncertainty
experienced by Americans after the September 11 tragedy. These drops were mitigated somewhat by the 31 FPE
increase in the Psychology Center’s enrollments.
The Financial Stabilization Plan further compounded our financial problems by imposing larger revenue and lower
expenditure expectations to cover the increased subsidy to the College and depreciation. Budget freezes restricted any
kind of program development activity or increased marketing and advertising activities. Not investing in these
areas
only
perpetuates a continued enrollment concern in certain programs. Fortunately, the ULC budget proposal freed up some
funds for this important activity.
Development of the 2002-03 Budget
Priorities and goals of the annual budget are set by the campus Planning and Budget Council (P&B). It was challenging
for the Council to develop a budget that incorporated the overhead and depreciation with a flat revenue projection. P&B
deliberated on key aspects of planning and priorities, gaining consensus on the following priorities or objectives:
compensation; establishing future financial stabilitylsustainability; establishingldesigning structures to operate
effectivelylefficiently; a student service position in the Academic Dean’s office; enhancing academic program quality;
improving student access; new program development; and, increased fund raising, development, marketing, and
advertising. At the same time the Council worked within the framework requested by the Board Finance Committee: one
percent contingency; realistic enrollment numbers; increase compensation; moderate increase in tuition; limited
expenditures increase; and full funding of our depreciation.
Enrollment and Revenue Assumptions
Our tuition and fee revenue shows an increase from the projection for this fiscal year as well as an increase over last
year’s budgeted amount. The main sources of the increase are $381,000 from the increase in tuition, $230,000 from
increase in enrollments, and $140,000 from increases in non-matriculated tuition. The non-matriculated increase comes
from the conversion of a pre-enrollment program in Psychology, previously billed as continuing education, to regular full
tuition paying academic enrollment. Total revenue also increases as a result of incorporating $323,000 from the Gates
Grant.
#
Enrollment revenues are derived from an assessment by the Academic Dean and Center Directors of a number of
variables including forthcoming graduates, departures, leaves of absence, continuing students, new enrollments, and
enrollment trends. Some of these variables are more readily determined than others, but all enrollment and revenue
projections for the 2002-03 budget are conservative. The conservative nature is prompted by the uncertain economic
picture, small budgets for advertising, and the lack of finances to invest in the academic program development at this
campus during the last two years. We have increased the funding in these areas for the 2002-03 budget, but
they
are far
below the amounts needed to ensure future sustainability. Currently, Psychology is the only program that is showing
promising growth; and yet, it has a ways to go before reaching its old enrollment figures of the mid-90s.
For the forthcoming fiscal year, our FPE forecast is slightly higher than the forecast used for the 2001-02 Adjusted Budget
(880 to 898 annualized FPE), but still significantly lower than the originally approved budget for 2001-02.
In spite of the enrollment picture, we are proposing a tuition increase of 4.2% for the forthcoming fiscal year. This is
projected to generate $381,000 in additional revenues. Nearly all major institutions in our area will be seeking tuition
increases this year, including the University of Washington, where tuition increases of 16% have been widely publicized in
the region. Private institutions in Washington are announcing increases in tuition for next year in a range from 5.5% to
7.7%. From our meetings in the AUS community, we have found acceptance of the notion that tuition increases are a
necessity to cover the additional costs facing AUS and also to generate reserves for facilities and equipment investments.
Reflective of the quality of the Antioch educational experience, it is not our policy to strive for the lowest tuition in town,
but to remain competitive
with
other comparable private institutions.
There are two additional features of the
ADS
tuition plan that will be noticeable this year. We are continuing efforts to
simplify the tuition schedule with the ultimate goal to have one tuition rate for undergraduate programs and one tuition
rate for graduate programs. This year, we have equalized most of the Psychology Center and Center for Creative
Change programs under a common tuition rate of
$395/credit
hour. This was accomplished by taking the weighted
average of FPE enrollments and tuition throughout the affected programs. Additionally, we have removed the tuition rate
differential in the BA program and on-site MA Education programs that was confusing to some of our students. The
overall effect of these consolidation efforts is revenue neutral, with some programs or students experiencing increases or
decreases in their overall tuition payments depending on circumstances. We still have issues to address in the future
regarding the tuition rates, as there is a measurable difference in the BA program tuition and the BATC, both
undergraduate programs. There is a difference in the MA Education site-based program and campus-based program.
Most problematic is that all of the Education graduate programs show a much lower tuition rate than the BA
undergraduate program. These differences are the artifacts of programs setting their own tuition for years with little
attention paid to an overall campus structure.
Significant Expenses
Total expenses in the 2002-03 AUS budget are projected to increase by $1 ,I 17,867 over the previous budget. The
biggest element of this increase results from the newly implemented depreciation policy amounting to $466,103.
In terms of faculty, decreases in FTE in some areas and increases in other areas provide for a net faculty increase of
2.25 FTE. In the exercise to present a balanced budget, 2.89 staff positions were cut.
For the forthcoming fiscal year, the overall revenuelexpense ratio in the academic centers is 2.22, which is an
improvement over the current year’s rle of 2.13, but short of our goal of 2.5. Although the recent decline in enrollments
has hampered achievement of the 2.5 goal, we believe there is room for improvement in faculty utilization and diminished
reliance on adjunct faculty that will contribute to achievement. We will continue to work closely with the academic centers
to focus on these issues.
Two additional significant expenses show in our cost projections, but offsetting revenues mitigate each. The first of these
is $50,000 that has been budgeted for five new graduate assistant positions that we plan to open in fall 2002.
Essentially, each of these assistants will work to support faculty in the academic centers in exchange for tuition, so the
net effect of this program to our bottom line will be zero. AUS will offer ten graduate assistant positions next year, of
which five will be funded by work-study money. Hopefully, the existence of these positions will assist in recruitment.
Additionally, we are showing $49,000 in increased utility and tax expenses. Actually, this
“increase”
reflects a change in
our accounting procedures. In prior years, utility and tax expenses that were passed along to tenants were budgeted at
net cost to the University. This year, we have changed the budgeting method to show total utility and tax costs along with
the total offsetting tenant payments. In fact, although the utility companies have implemented significant rate increases,
as has been the case in most of the nation, we do not expect abnormal increases in our own expenses because of the
substantial energy conservation improvement from our HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) control system that
was installed this year.
AUS is budgeting a 2% general salary increase to commence at the beginning of the fiscal year. This amounts to
$129,700 including associated benefits. We are mindful that, after considering local inflation and salaries at other
comparable institutions, the AUS Faculty Roles, Compensation, and Welfare Committee has recommended a 5%
minimum increase for 2003. However, budgeting to this extent was not possible because of cost cutting required to
achieve the balanced budget. At mid-year, we will assess whether or not enrollment projections have materialized, and, if
so, we may use mandatory contingency funds to provide an additional 2% increase. There is the possibility that the
faculty may have the opportunity to increase their salary amount further if they approve a proposal by the Academic Dean
regarding work redistribution. However, there has not been sufficient time for the proposal to be reviewed and discussed
for this budget deadline.
The significant increase items identified above total $866,495. All other costs have decreased a total of $44,500
compared with the current year’s original budget. This decrease is directly attributable to the cost cutting that has been
required to balance the current year’s budget in the face of declining enrollments and to balance the forthcoming year’s
budget which has been confronted with the substantial challenge of absorbing the cost of depreciation. The budget
summaries do also show the addition of $323,000 in Contract revenues from the Gates Grant; expenses associated with
the grant offset these revenues.
We are also concerned about our contingency fund, which although it exceeds the amount specified in the guidelines, is
still too low in our opinion. Our region has been disproportionately affected by the recession. Layoffs in our key
industries continue. It is difficult to foresee what effect this will have on enrollments. Additionally, we foresee major
facilities investments and major maintenance in the near future including, for example, the replacement of the roof and
repainting of our building (together roughly estimated to cost $700,000). We need more financial flexibility to provide the
reserves for these necessary expenditures.
Goals and Objectives for 2002-03
The greatest priority is to achieve our project enrollments, thus allowing for the 2% increase in salary in January which,
when added to the July increase, will have a measurable effect on employees’ take home pay. Most of our tangible goals
will be presented in the capital eq~ipment~arena since the budgeting of our depreciation allows for greater expenditure.
The detail of the goals is present in the separate five-year capital plan. It is our intention to under spend this area by
about $100,000 this next year so that we can add to our capital reserve fund in anticipation of redoing the roof in
2002-
03.
We have reserved some money for academic program development in the hopes of continuing to support the Psychology
Center in its efforts to design a doctorate program and investigate professional accreditation of its programs. ~h&
Psychology Center will also begin its partnership with the downtown YWCA by providing interns at the new YWCA facility,
design a certificate for counseling the homeless, and work toward a mental health clinic staffed by our faculty and
graduate students.
The creation of an MFA in creative and possibly technical writing is still on the drawing board, and the Education Center
will need to redesign and implement its Principalship Certification. In addition, the Education Center is bringing on a
special endorsement program for Special Education and launching the new Professional Certification for Teachers, the
design of which was funded by University innovation money.
The Center for Creative Change is undergoing its self-study and university program review this spring. No doubt there
will be curriculum and programmatic changes and recommendations resulting from that review for the Management,
Whole System Design, Organizational Psychology, and the Environment and Community degree programs, as well as the
Center in general.
One area that continues to be of concern is the lack of predictability of the site locations and enrollments for MA for
Experienced Educators and the BATC. A well-oiled system of site development involving the recruiting, admissions, and
matriculation still eludes the education program. In addition, facilities for the sites are becoming quite expensive as
schools begin to increase rent to supplement their revenues because of state budget cutbacks. Consequently, we have
specifically increased our contingency fund above the required 1% because of a concern that the problems we faced this
year with the education enrollments wilt repeat itself next year. Admissions, Financial Aid, Registrar and the Academic
Dean will be working with the program to design a system that more readily addresses the challenges of site development
and services. With the recent loss of our Director of Enrollment Services, we are presented with the opportunity to
continue evaluating the admissions and financial aid structures and performance to look for more effectiveness and
efficiencies. Admittedly, however, the loss of the director and the time it will take to replace her also causes us some
anxiety about making our projected enrollment numbers.
We have financed a 50% faculty position to direct our efforts in student outcomes assessment and provided some money
for professional development opportunities for faculty to become better oriented and educated about outcomes
assessment. We expect now, with resources committed toward this area, that our campus will show measurable forward
movement. Since we have committed more money to faculty professional development, we expect to have faculty more
visible at local, regional, and national conferences presenting their work. The Academic Dean has shared with the faculty
ten proposals that he wishes to focus upon in the upcoming months: (1) strengthening the faculty by increasing salaries,
adopting a faculty handbook, instituting peer performance review, encouraging collaborations across programs, requiring
terminal degrees for core faculty, organizing faculty development programs with a teaching focus, encouraging faculty
scholarship and professional and civic involvement, adopting a faculty workload policy, limiting faculty overloads, and
instituting ten-month faculty contracts; (2) strengthening library resources; (3) encouraging administrationlfaculty
collaboration; (4) limiting meetings and simplifying academic governance; (5) moving toward greater academic policy
consistency across programs; (6) develop a serious, coordinated student service strategy; (7) adopting a code of
expectations; (8) developing a campus diversity plan; (9) critically but seriously embracing the mainstream in the
curriculum; and (10) focusing on ecology and the environment. We still have two program director positions to fill, one in
the BA program and one in the Education Center.
Our goals in fund raising and development continue with a focus on raising money for scholarships and approaching
foundations for program development money. We have established a scholarship committee that will be awarding
campus scholarships for the first time in AUS history. Although they are small in number and amount, the presence of
the committee establishes the commitment of the institution in this area. We are also expecting that the initial recognition
we have received from the Gates and Kellogg grants will assist us greatly in our attempts to approach other foundations.
We plan to bring on three more members to the Board of Visitors (BOV) in June, which will bring our total number to
twelve. We are also hoping to soon have a BOV member serving on the Board of Trustees.
If the Board approves the AUS budget as submitted, we look toward a more financially stable year than this last year.
Although budgets will be tight, we are expecting to make positive improvements in the areas of marketing, fund raising,
program development, student services, faculty development, and capital investment.
Toni Murdock
President
Antioch Seattle
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
– –
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
1999-00
Actual
–
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
200041
Actual
–
2001-02
Adj Budget
–
2001-02
Projected
–
Revenues
Tuition
&
Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
Antloch Seattle
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training
&
Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf)
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash
Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
–
8,733,894
4,032,594
977,005
213,857
49,794
44,826
136,772
754,691
244,345
611,914
254,706
17,995
0
0
108,946
998,673
-317,996
51,800
0
0
0
8,179,922
553,972
417,175
0
120,000
0
0
537,175
16,797
2000-01 2001 -02
Actual Ad] Budget
2001-02
Projected
–
9,631,805
5,025,880
1,234,838
93,074
45,492
47.997
99,948
533,260
301,854
589,039
262,109
27,447
0
0
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
– –
-400,271 -3.99%
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
–
11.130.552
5,666J6S
1,434,141
229,946
46,272
42,90C
135,414
670,698
394,707
585,018
276,000
219,298
105,061
1 19,772
0
739,060
0
0
0
0
466,103
11,130,552
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
1,498,747 15.56%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
1,098,476 10.95%
ANTIOCH SEATTLE
2002-03 Capital Budget
Campus Buildings Amount
Total Buildings 0
Campus Building Improvements Amount
Seattle Security Camera System 10,000
Classroom Expansion 10,000
Total Building Improvements 20,000
Campus
Seattle
Campus
Seattle
Campus
Equipment Amount
Computer Equipment 79,000
Total Equipment 79,000
Furniture & Fixtures Amount
Ergonomic Chairs 15,000
Video Conferencing
Equipmet
17,000
Signage
20,000
Total Furniture & Fixtures 52,000
Library Books
Total Library Books 0
Grand Total Capital Budget 151,000
========
Program
Antioch Seattle
Tuition Rate Changes 2002-03
2001 -02
Proposed
——– ——–
BA Completion Per Credit 335
BA Teachers Certificate Per Credit 270
Psychology Per Credit 375
Whole System Design Per Credit 380
Management Per Credit 450
2002-03
Proposed
——–
345
Education Per Credit 340 330 -2.94%
Site Based 273 287 5.13%
Educationfleacher
Cer
Full Time
Education/TC
MA Full Time 3,560 3,870
8,71%
Organization Systems Ren
Northwest Full Time , 3,955 3,955 0.00%
Midwest Full Time 3,682 3,682 0.00%
Environment & Community LRO
Full Time
Environment & Community SWO
Per Credit
ANTIOCH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
Revenues
Tuition Increase: LA 4% across the board, SB 5.3%. with the exception of MAE, a regional program, at 4.67% for
both campuses. These levels of increases will still keep us competitive with tuition charged by similar schools in
our area.
Gross Tuition revenue is increasing to $1 1,492,460, with a small increase in FPEs.
Total Revenue is $12,187,319.
Expenses
The reduction in overhead has allowed us to put an additional $99,150 in faculty and program development region-
wide.
Compensation: 3% salary increase to all AUSC employees and corresponding fringe increases, excluding adjunct
and associate. AUSC did not give salary increases in the current budgeted year.
As part of the social justice mission of the institution, a “Living Wage” was established regionally to cover all staff.
The “Living Wage” sets a minimum salary of
$13.00/hour
($23,660 annually) for all employees of AUSC.
Currently, 9 employees are being impacted and it will cost $25,000 to bring their salaries to the minimum.
Provision of $20,000 for a Human Resources compensation consultant. Projected fringe benefit increases are
dramatic; increase (nearly doubling) expected to California workers compensation – additional costs of around
$1 80,000. (Our actual increases put into the budget are higher as we have attempted to correct some errors in
payroll from the current year’s budget.)
Increase in medical benefits costs: $50.000.
Mandatory operating cost increases provided for include rent, ADA compliance, insurance, graduation costs, and
utilities.
Limited resources and the higher priority given to compensation issues have resulted in some critical needs such
as Development and Human Resources to be under-funded. *
Per guidelines, we have budgeted 30,000 for search costs for a new AUSC President.
In accordance with parameters, we have budgeted:
Program contingency @I %.
Campus contingency @I %.
University Overhead at $843,660.
Depreciation expense at $1 00,577.
There was no relief in the total Overhead charges in the original budget as compared to fiscal 2002. ($1,170,998
vs. $1,177.678 in current year). The reduction of $168,000 adopted by the ULC provided welcome relief. If
revenues meet their targets and we get to use the Campus contingency for program support, we will allocated the
contingency money as follows:
– MBA Proposal $40,000
– MFA New Genre $ 5,000
– MAEtSocial Change (MAEx) $1 5,000
– BA Weekend College $1 0,000
– MAP MAPICS and MAPIACP $ 5,000
– Faculty Professional Development $10,000
– Program Development (Dean’s Discretionary) $ 3,000
– Reinstitute President’s Regional Alumni Newsletter $10,000
– Program Development (President’s Discretionary) $20,000
Total operating budget is $12,132,219.
Capital Expenses
Total capital items budgeted are $128,600.
Principal items are:
$32,000 for building improvements (i.e. student computer labs)
$45,700 for computer equipment ‘
$20,000 for video-conference system
$20,000 for classroom furniture in LA.
$10,900 for scanning system, microfiche readertprinter and filing cabinets for LA Registrar.
Chloe Reid
Acting President
Antioch Southern California
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
2000-01
Actual
–
9,841,415
-226,300
72,750
0
176,545
0
0
45,393
9,909,803
205,094
220,117
10,335,014
3,678,235
8,600
135,065
763.295
1,149,385
2,656,476
1,381,125
179.729
9,951,910
252,810
10,204,720
130,294
127,469
-100,302
8,513
35,680
94,614
2001-02
Adj Budget
2001 -02
Projected
Change From
2001-02 Budget Proposed
to 2001-02 Projected 2002-03
% Budget
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
611,506 5.62%
-6,816 -5.51%
-23,490 -37.00%
0
172,828 106.20%
0
0
-47,611 -76.29%
706,417 6.40%
20,150 9.60%
-15,434 -7.00%
711,133 6.20%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Con0
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
–
9,497,711
4,510,331
1,008,845
252,122
61,776
98,926
226,033
1,040,740
1,150,051
30,743
191,331
1,544
0
0
103,718
1,140,897
-395,438
53,395
0
0
0
9,475,014
22,697
85,488
0
0
-15,466
0
70,022
-47.325
Antloch Southern California
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
2000-01 2001-02 2001-02
Actual Adj Budget Projected
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
– –
71 1,133 6.20%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
Campus
Campus
Campus
Southern CA
Campus
Southern CA
Campus
ANTIOCH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2002-03 Capital Budget
Buildings
Total Buildings
Building Improvements
Buildout student computer lab
Total Building Improvements
Equipment
Computer Equipment
Video Conferencing System
ScanningIArchiving
System
Total Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Furniture
Total Furniture & Fixtures
Library Books
Total Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget
Amount
Amount
32,000
Amount
45,700
20,000
10,900
Amount
20,000
Antioch Southern California
Tuition Rate Changes 2002-03
2001 -02 2002-03
Rates Proposed
Program Per Quarter Per Quarter % Change
——– ——– ——– ——–
Los Angeles – BA Program 3,700 3,845 3,92%
Los Angeles – MAP & MAOM 3,925 4,080 3.95%
Los Angeles – MFA Program 4,550 4,730 3.96%
Los Angleles – Teacher Cert 3,750 3,925 4.67%
Santa Barbara – BA Program 3,600 3,800 5.56%
Santa Barbara – BA Weekend 4,000
Santa Barbara – MAP Progra 3,750 3,950 5.33%
Santa Barbara – MAOM Pro< 3,750 3,950 5.33%
Santa Barbara - MAOM Weekend 4,150
Santa Barbara - Teacher Ce 3,750 3,925 4.67%
ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY McGREGOR
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
The proposed Antioch University McGregor budget for 2002-03 is a stable and conservative financial projection built on
the foundation of a successful and positive academic budget and financial year in 2001-02. The proposes expenses of
$5,688,293 represents a 6.47% increase over the 2001-02 adjusted budget, but after factoring in a 3% cost-of-living
tuition increase, it represents about a 3.5% increase over 2001-02, an increase that is cautious and one that might permit
us to surpass budgeted revenue projections for the first time in many years.
I. 2001-02 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
There were a number of positive developments that took place in 2001-02, the cumulative beneficial effect of which will
continue to be felt in 2002-03. The undergraduate Weekend College, which for years had seen declining enrollments
largely because of intense new competition in the region, improved enrollments by a dramatic 30 FTE, and this trend
seems likely to continue. We received permission from the Ohio Board of Regents to "bundle" our teacher licensure
program with the
M.ED,
rather than keeping them separate, and this should make the popular teacher licensure area
even more attractive to potential students. The Conflict Resolution program, now a freestanding M.A. after previously
being a
"track"
within the Individualized Liberal and Professional Studies program, attracted its largest cohort class in six
years (25 FTE) and we anticipate similar strong enrollment in 2002-03. Our continuing education programs, especially
the Educational Leadership Seminar Series for educational professionals, continues vibrant and is being expanded to
provide year-round professional development opportunities rather than relying almost exclusively on summer offerings.
Additionally in the continuing education
area,
this summer we are initiating as continuing education the first phase of our
new M.A. in Management for Community College Professionals, with the M.A. itself beginning a year later in July 2003.
This is a program that holds great promise for McGregor and we expect it to be a major new initiative.
The Classroom of the Future project, which has dramatically increased our visibility within the area, and which will provide
close links and partnerships with Miami Valley businesses and school districts, will open this year after gifts totajing over
$750,000 were successfully raised. This project has enormous implications for educational pedagogy and professional
development for teachers, and opens up attractive continuing education opportunities for McGregor faculty. Our
presence and participation in community life in the region has skyrocketed in the last several years and we are now
respected and highly visible as a stakeholder in the Dayton and Miami Valley communities.
Financially, the consolidation of business, technology, facilities, and human resource offices among the three Yellow
Springs units (McGregor,
Antioch
College, and University Administration) has lead to significant cost savings and a much
more efficient and streamlined structure. These efficiencies have had a very positive impact on the preparation of the
2002-03 budget, saving almost $200,000.
I. MAJOR BUDGETARY CHANGES
On the development side, we have realized that our goal of $150,000 for 2001-02 was too ambitious given the relative
"youth" of McGregor and our lack of an alumni network, but this area is growing rapidly and we anticipate raising $80,000
in 2002-03 with a real possibility of surpassing this projection. The grant area is growing as well. In partnership with the
Springfield, Ohio, school district we recently received a State of Ohio grant to help foster diversity in the teaching force
and we plan to devote more time in the future to build the grants areas to higher levels.
Though we feel very positive about this proposed budget, there are still areas of real concern. Faculty salaries remain
low, workloads are too high in many cases, and we need stronger capabilities in institutional research, enrollment
management, and grant writing than we can presently fund. Still, the progress has been real and the progress has been
dramatic in many areas. We look forward to the new year with confidence and renewed optimism.
Barbara Gellman-Danley
i President
Antloch University McGregor
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total
E&G
Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
-
4,983,153
-64,794
9,050
72.400
0
170,978
35,968
5,206,755
26.290
35,000
5,268,0451
2,329,510
0
147,550
158,588
700,270
1,931,988
94,968
15,640
5,378,514
60,261
5,438,775
-170,730
21,843
0
0
-192,573
0
-170,730
0
2000-01
2001-02
Actual Adj Budget
2001-02
Projected
-
5,244,820
-75,186
33,368
0
37,614
0
49,008
15,963
5,305,587
0
-39,101
5,266,486
2,542,417
0
0
130,825
617,017
1,658,423
189,619
13,244
5,151,546
0
5,151,546
114,940
231,750
-50,093
16.81
8
0
-185,105
13,370
101,570
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
- -
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
-
5,578,243
0
80,000
0
14,000
0
0
16,050
5, 688,293
0
0
5,688,293
2,945,393
0
0
20,000
832,044
1,591,240
285,608
14,000
5,688,293
0
5,688,293
0
99,550
18,445
-156,830
-38,835
38,835
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
Antioch University McGregor
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
1999-00
Actual
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Con0
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
2000-01 2001-02
Actual Ad) Budget
2001-02
Projected
-
5,266,486
2,783,002
908,520
51,757
79,734
21,834
40,287
581,976
1 11,267
28,529
0
3,733
0
0
0
500,000
0
0
-150,000
5,802
185,105
5,151,546
114,940
231,750
-50,093
16,818
0
-185,105
13,370
101,570
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
- -
-128,558 -2.38-
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
-
5,688,293
2,901,234
920,119
131,493
150,099
33,968
58,790
685,369
28,336
21,740
0
7,993
56,493
0
0
412,061
0
0
0
123778
156,830
5,680,293
0
99,550
0
18,445
0
-1 56,830
-38,835
38,835
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
421,807 8.01%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
293,249 5.44%
Campus
Campus
Campus
McGregor
Campus
Campus
Antioch University
McGregor
2002-03 Capital Budget
Buildings Amount
Total Buildings
Building Improvements
Remodel Student Services
HeatingICooling
Conference Rm
Signage,
various painting
Total Building Improvements
Equipment
Network Upgrage
First Class Server
Classroom/Future
equipment
Total Equipment
Furniture & Fixtures
Total Furniture & Fixtures
Library Books
Total Library Books
Amount
1 1,700
6,000
16,850
Amount
20,000
15,000
30,000
Amount
Grand Total Capital Budget 99,550
-------- --------
ANTIOCH UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
The budget for the University Administration reflects a number of changes. Some of these are the result of decisions
made by the Stabilization Committee! while others are the result of the need to operate more frugally in order to reduce
overhead pressure on the non-residential campuses. At the February ULC Meeting! it was agreed that the University
Administration and University-Wide budgets should be developed at a total cost of $2.4 million.
In
previous
years?
the
budgets for these two units were developed with a goal of reducing the net overhead percentage rather than on the basis
of a fixed dollar figure. Although the $2.4 million figure turned out to be remarkably close to what would have been
needed to maintain the University Administration and University-Wide operations at a level of the previous
year!
the
Chancellor concluded that we would need to operate with less. As a result! an additional
$2001000
was cut from the
preliminary Overhead allocationl and the proposed Overhead support level is $21
01002
below the prior budget. This is
the
fourth
consecutive year in which Overhead support for the University Administration has declined.
MAJOR CHANGES
The appointment of Jim Craiglow as Acting Chancellor has added an additional salary to the University Administration
budget. At the same time, the former chancellor will remain on the payroll until the end of the calendar year.
As a result of the administrative consolidation in Yellow Springs, one additional position was added to the Human
Resources area. This position is responsible for administering the fringe benefit programs across the University. The
workload associated with fringe benefit
plans!
particularly our medical program? has increased significantly over the last
several years.
In
addition! more individuals are becoming concerned about their retirement plans and are requesting
additional information about SRA and TDA options. Managing the growing cost of these programs and providing
additional employee support will not be possible without a position dedicated to this function.
A clerical position and a major academic administrator position have been dropped from the 2002-03 budget.
Salary increases for all employees in the University Administration budget are projected to increase by 2% in 2002-03.
A 15% increase in the cost of medical benefits has ken budgeted beginning on January I 2003.
The sabbatical escrow for the Vice Chancellors has been increased to
$401000
in order to partially catch up with the
amount needed to fully fund this benefit.
The position in the University Administration responsible for managing networks and handling computer security has been
moved to the Information Technology Shared Services budget.
The budget reflects the shared services costs for Physical
Plantl
Human Relationsl lnformation Technology and Business
Services.
The cost of the
Ph.D.
Program and associated revenue have been removed from the University Administration budget
and established as a separate operating unit.
Glenn H. Watts
Vice Chancellor
University Administration
200243 Budget Summary by Functlon
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifls
Lead Gifls
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Net Overhead for Central Operations
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public
Sewice
Academic Support
Student
Sewices
Institutional
Suppori
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total
E&G
Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capha1
Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year
R~S?N~S
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
199940
Actual
-
0
0
40,736
0
0
0
0
40,736
0
0
40,736
1,970,555
0
0
0
0
1 18,651
1,782,842
0
0
1,901,493
0
1,901,493
109,798
109,798
0
0
0
0
109,798
0
2000-01
Actual
-
0
0
121,500
0
0
0
0
-494
121,006
0
0
121,006
1,932,369
0
0
0
0
104,608
1,894,655
0
0
1,999,263
0
1,999,263
54,112
54,112
0
0
0
0
54,112
0
200142
Adj Budget
-
0
0
35,000
0
0
0
0
0
35,000
0
0
35,000
1,873,912
0
0
0
0
96,622
1,756,290
0
0
1,852,912
0
1,852,912
56,000
56,000
0
0
0
0
56,000
0
2001
42
Projected
Change From
200142 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ Yo
Proposed
200243
Budget
6
t
10, ooc
c
c
c
c
6
10,006
G
0
10,000
1,663,910
0
0
0
0
101,031
1,572,87g
0
0
1,673,910
0
1,673,910
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change From
200142 Projectad
to 200243 Budget
$ Yo
Change From
200142 Budget
to 200243 Budget
$ Yo
- -
Revenues
Operating
Expenss
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid
Se~ces
Special Events
Supplies
Business
Operatbns
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale
Costs
Misceflaneous
ContingencylReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity
Reserve
Cverhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy
hom
Adult Campuses
Subs* from Overhead
Other
(Intercampus
Agree & Univ Con0
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess
Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital
Expendiiures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year
ResetVes
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
199940
Actual
7
2,011,291
1,023,229
m.620
211,123
0
703
40,915
169,240
152,413
676
0
8,019
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,555
0
1,901,493
109,798
109,798
0
0
0
0
109,798
0
University Administration
200243 Budget Summary by Category
200041 200142
Actual Adj Budget
200142
Projected
-
1,785,879
1,040,732
322,838
121,313
0
0
21,057
106,360
154,469
282
0
1,632
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,768,683
17,196
17,196
0
0
0
0
17,196
0
Change From
200142 Budget
to 200142 Projected
$ Yo
200243
Budget
Change From
200142 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
s %
Change From
200142 Budget
to 200243 Budget
$ Yo - -
-235,002 -1 2.31%
ANTIOCH REVIEW
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
The Antioch Review will end the fiscal year with an anticipated deficit of about $1 I 1600. We were unable to meet our
fund raising goal without the single large gift of the previous year and because of fall-off in general support. We have
been able to meet our revenue goals in
salesl
kept our costs to a minimum and scaled back on events to save money.
Editoriallyl it was a successful year with two pieces appearing in the 2003 Pushcart Prize volume and the editor
appearing on a panel on publishing at the Small Press Fair in New York. The Review will be featured this summer on
Preview
Portl
the largest on-line literary service in America with three million hits per month. Warren Bennis, a
distinguished author and graduate of Antioch Collegel agreed to join our national advisory board.
We have added five new volunteer readers to the staff and their efforts should go a long way toward reducing our backlog
of manuscriptsl which has become a significant problem for the magazine. We continue to publish on schedule and the
staff and out-of-house workers remain the same. Next year we hope to increase our annual fund and hope that a grant
application ($10,000) to the N.E.A. for audience development is funded. We will receive a modes grant from the Ohio
Arts Council
($21500)
for next year. Our costs are basic: editoriall printingl stipends and we rely on the continuing
services of the University to provide essential technical services (computer maintenance). We hope to reduce our deficit,
but need continuing support in order to maintain the magazine as a public expression of the
Universityls
commitment to
literary and cultural values.
Robert
Fogarty
Editor
Antloch Review
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Actual Actual Adj Budget
- - -
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
0
Borrowing Proceeds 0
Principal Payments 0
Prior Year Reserves 0
Add back Depreciation 0
Total Cash Items 0
Net Cash Basis Budget -962
2001-02
Projected
-
0
0
37,781
0
3,084
10,149
0
9,200
60,214
55,744
0
115,958
0
0
127,572
0
0
0
0
0
127,572
0
127,572
-11,614
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1 1,614
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
- -
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
-
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree
&
Univ Conf)
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depredation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
-
108,728
32,547
17,539
2,331
0
0
-2,142
54,859
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,556
0
109,690
-962
0
0
0
0
0
0
-962
Antioch Review
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
2000-01 2001-02
Actual Adj Budget
- -
Change From
2001-02 Budget
2001-02 to 2001-02 Projected
Projected
-
1 15,958
51,981
27,464
463
0
0
-2,702
50,366
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127,572
-11,614
0
0
0
0
0
0
-11,614
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
-
132,686
51,300
29,613
2,200
0
0
-2,575
52,150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132,688
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Change From Change From
2001-02 Projected 2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget to 2002-03 Budget
$ % $ %
- - - -
PH.D. IN LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
BUDGET GENERAL SUMMARY
Academic Year 2002-03 will be the first full year of operations for the Ph.D. in Leadership and Change Program. We will
have a small cohort of continuing students as well as a full cohort entering in July 2002. A number of the program's basic
design elements impact budget. Of the most noteworthy: 'one-stop service shop1 for the students, a networked faculty
model with a range of faculty roles, and the use of and payment for many support services provided from other campuses
of the University.
REVENUE
. The $598,250 tuition revenue represents a 36 FTE total enrollment, an entering student cohort of 25 student FTE
and a continuing student cohort of
11.
The tuition discount of $5,500 represents $500 each for 11 students who
are part of Cohort 1, and who receive a $500 tuition discount for each of their three pre-Candidacy years.
. Annual tuition is $16,500 and has been set competitively with other non-traditional doctoral programs.
. There is no grants or contracts revenue anticipated at this time, although it is our goat to begin seeking non-tuition
sources of income during this year.
PERSONNEL EXPENSES
All positions, unless otherwise noted, will receive a 2% across-the-board increase for the full year.
Faculty
Core faculty expenses for 2002-03 cover the following positions:
. The Director (actually divided 50%' in Faculty and 50% in Administration).
. Two full-time, full-year Core Faculty.
. A full-time Library Faculty (housed at ANE) starting in January 03, at $40,000 annual salary.
calculated for this position during this year.
. Al Guskin's salary (0.25 FTE ) is not carried in this budget, but rather, is in the University budget.
Student-Faculty
RatioIExplanation:
36 student FTE: 2.75 Faculty FTE (not including Library Faculty)
No 2% raise is
AdministrationIStaff
AdministrationIStaff expenses for 2002-03 cover the following positions:
. Half of the Director's salary is placed here.
. One full-time Staff AdministratorIRegistrar.
. There is 0.25 FTE of a Library staff member at ANE Library (totaling $7,900.00).
. An annual stipend of $5,000 to Antioch Seattle Registrar for regular registrarial consultation, two site visits, and file
auditing services.
Over the long term, our goal is to keep the staffing small, efficient, and organized around
studentlfaculty
needs. During
this first full-year of operation, the program office staff will be supported by registrar services and financial aid services
from other Antioch campuses.
NON-PERSONNEL EXPENSES
. Business Travel
Business Travel expenses have been set $40,000.
Travel is calculated at $500 airfare per trip for the five residencies scheduled for 2002-03 for a minimum of six
facultylstaff.
One of the residencies is 8 days in YSO; the other four are 4-day trips. Hotel stays are calculated at
$150 per night for hotel; $50 per day for food.
5 res x 6 =30 trips x $500 = $15,000 airfare
1 res x 8 nights x 6 = 48 x $200= $9,600
4 res x 4 nights x 6 = 96 x $150 = $14,400
. Local Meetings
Local Meetings at $16,000 represents $10,000 for a meeting of the Advisory Board to be held in Los Angeles in fall
and then miscellaneous costs incurred at the residencies, such as food, and security if necessary.
. Recruitment
The $10,000 for employee recruitment represents expenses for one national faculty search to start in fall, and one
regional (Northeast) librarian search to also start in fall. *
. Professional Development
Professional Development at $4,500 represents faculty development of $1,000-$1,500 for each Core Faculty
member.
Office Supplies, Computer Supplies, Furniture
Office Supplies ($3,689) and Furniture ($1,000) are estimated amounts to cover the costs of the program office,
and three faculty home offices. The $1,000 is for office furniture for the Core Faculty member who will be hired for
2003-04.
Subscriptions
Subscriptions at $16,000 represents $15,000 for acquisitions at the ANE library, including
ProQuest
PsychIEdu
($5,780),
Dissertation Abstracts ($2,486 annual plus $580 for one-time backlist) and
PsychArticles
($2,500). The
additional $1,000 is for faculty subscriptions to assorted journals, like The Chronicle.
Purchased Services
The $7,000 represents payment to What If Network for computer systems support, including E-mail. ($125
monthly server hosting fee = $1500; $5 per user per month for @ 45 users = $2700; $2800 for modifications, forms
development, etc.)
Consulting Services
Consulting Services at $25,000 is for Visiting Faculty who are on contracts with the program for a range of
curriculum and program assessment consultations and for a range of payments.
Honoraria
The $5,000 is for guest faculty presentations at five residencies, with $3,000 for the summer residency, and $2,000
split between the smaller 3-day residencies.
Printing
Printing at $6,000 represents the printing of brochures, program documents, and mailers.
Postage
Postage expenses are set at $1 0,000, which covers regular mail as well as several larger direct mailings to
university alumni and to targeted mailing lists.
Advertising
Advertising expenses are set at $15,000 and are earmarked for targeted ad placement, such as The Nation and
professional association newsletters.
Telecommunications
$12,000 for telecommunications represents $1,000 a month for phone and conference calls
and~~~cable
modem connections for the home offices of three Core Faculty as well as the telecommunications costs for the
Program Office.
. Computer Maintenance
The $2,000 is set aside to cover computer maintenance at the three faculty home offices.
. Intercampus Agreements
The $6,000 represents the following inter-campus agreements:
For Financial Aid Services: Up to $5.000 to Antioch McGregor Financial Aid Office calculated on $250 per person
times 20 students. In 01-02, McGregor serviced six students in their Financial Aid needs.
For recognition of the registrarial consultation from Antioch Seattle: $1,000 to the Antioch Seattle Registrar's
Office Professional Development line.
. Depreciation
Calculated at $2,964.
Two special notes:
No University Overhead is paid by the
Ph.D.
program this year. Overhead is based on the last 3 years' average actual
operating revenues and, in the case of the
Ph.D.
Program, this is zero. The
Ph.D.
Program will start paying overhead in
2003-04.
While no contingency is shown on the budget schedules, the Program will have $50,000 in its restricted account coming
in July 2002. This will serve as the program's contingency in case of an unexpected situation which cannot be covered
by the tuition-generated income.
Laurien Alexandre
Director
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
PhD In Leadership and Change
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
Half Year
1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Actual Actual Adj Budget
- - -
Change From
2001-02 Budget
2001-02 to 2001-02 Projected
Projected $ %
- - -
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
-
598,251
-5,
Sot
1
c
0
0
0
0
592,750
0
0
592,750
592,750
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
592,750
0
592,750
0
0
0
0
0
-2,964
-2,964
2,964
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
Revenues
PhD In Leadership and Change
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
Half Year
1999-00 2000-01 2001 -02
Actual Actual Adj Budget
- - -
255,527
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencytReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf)
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
2001 -02
Projected
-
180,626
103,330
30,210
14,972
0
0
636
22,498
5,460
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,250
2,217
180,626
0
0
0
0
0
-2,217
-2,217
2,217
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
- -
-74,901 -29.31%
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
-
592,750
302,088
107,509
70,500
0
0
4,689
96,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,000
2,964
592,750
0
0
0
0
0
-2,964
-2,964
2,964
Change From
2001-02 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
412,124 228.16%
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
- -
337,223 131.97%
WYSO RADIO
2002-03 PROPOSED BUDGET
I. 2001-02 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
WYSO Public Radio is the Miami Valley's most popular public radio station (according to Winter 2002 Arbitron audience
data). It is a member station of National Public Radio (NPR) and an affiliate of Public Radio International (PRI). The
station airs and files news stories with NPR News, Ohio Public Radio (OPR), and the Voice of America (VOA) as well as
producing material for other public radio programs including
PRI's
Marketplace and NPR's Justice Talking. Additionally,
WYSO features programming from the BBC World Service, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), and locally-
produced programming of interest to the
DaytonISpringfield
marketplace.
During the current fiscal year, the station has continued along the growth path it has pursued for the last several years.
Nevertheless, while it has consistently demonstrated that targeted investments in talent acquisition, professional
development, and
infrastructurelcapacity
building allow it to operate a relatively self-sufficient public radio service, this
year has been typified by some of the station's greatest accomplishments and most difficult challenges.
WYSO's
weekly listening audience has climbed to all-time highs. Doubtless a beneficiary of increased listenership to
public radio stations nationwide during the months following the tragedies of September 11, 2001,
WYSO1s
weekly
audience within its Total Service Area (TSA) surpassed the 50,000 mark for the first time in its 44-year history. The
Winter 2002 Arbitron book set another record when it showed
WYSO's
Metro service numbers also surpassing the 50K
listenership level for the first time ever.
Tbe
Metro figure is up 44% from the station's Summer 2001 Metro level and 8%
from Fall 2001. Management attributes these successes to solid evidence of significant increases to the station's
newslinformation
programming, particularly due to the addition, in the days following
911 1, of PRI's The World and, in
January
2002,
to the addition of Ryan Warner as WYSO Local
HostIReporter
during
NPR's
Morning Edition. Mr. Warner
is a very notable addition to the WYSO staff and the station's overall service and air sound. Ã
Despite these achievements, this fiscal year saw WYSO going through a difficult stage of its own evolution when the
decision was reached to cancel 14-hours of existing programming out of its 168-hour weekly schedule. These decisions
were not made in haste or without a great deal of research, exploration, and consultation within the public radio
community, as well as with the University Administration and the Resource Board.
The specific causes that led to the cancellations date back nearly a dozen years, when WYSO began to confront the
same facts that have had to be dealt with at public radio stations nationwide:
no matter how much they would like to do so, public radio stations cannot be all things to all people
attempting to do so limits, rather than enhances, public service opportunities, as offering only a handful of hours of
a particular, niche-oriented form of programming tends to be a distraction to listeners (the vast majority of whom
prefer some amount of consistency and continuity)
this, in turn, causes lower, overall levels of listening with the average listener spending fewer hours per week
tuning in
when this occurs, the impetus to donate to the station during on-air membership campaigns is significantly
diminished, and less audience means lower rates can be charged for station underwriting availabilities to local
businesses
All terrestrially-based radio stations, public and commercial, now acknowledge that traditional radio broadcast stations
have entered a period that may very well have as much impact and be seen as being as transformative as was the
introduction of television, five decades ago.
WYSO is preparing to face the challenge of an increasingly complex and competitive media environment. The era of AM
and FM only is long gone. Whether it is the ubiquity of cassette and CD players in automobiles, increased ease-of-use
and proliferation of computer audio distribution technologies
(e.g.,
MP3s),
the introduction of satellite radio services from
XM Satellite Radio (www.xmsatelliteradio.com) and Sirius Satellite Radio (www.siriusradio.com) or, in the not-too-distant
future, easy-to-access wireless Internet.. . the future is here and cannot be ignored.
The construct of public broadcasting in the United States demands that stations pay attention to market forces. Federal
grant dollars, which flow to WYSO and other stations through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), are
predicated on the station's ability to demonstrate that it is serving a baseline of audience relative to its market size (via
Arbitron ratings) or that it can command a certain threshold of community financial support. If the station cannot achieve
80
these benchmarks, it will cease to be eligible to receive continued CPB support (currently accounting for approximately
20% of WYSO's annual budget).
In planning to deal with the changing media environment, WYSO has had to make some very difficult and painful
decisions to remain a vibrant service to the Miami
Vatley.
The station simply could not continue to try to serve as many
constituencies as it was attempting to serve. One of the overarching questions was: In the near future, will the average
listener continue to make an appointment every week to hear a particular type of niche programming when XM or Sirius is
offering not one, but several, streams of this or that genre, around-the-clock.
Regardless of the impact of new technologieslcompetitors, it is also important to include in the strategic dynamic that
long-term analysis of Arbitron research bore out very clear and consistent trends. The station was not commanding the
numbers or loyalty of listeners as most other public radio stations, particularly those primary NPR affiliates in similar mid-
sized markets similar to Dayton. These established public radio stations consistently attract as many as two or even four
times the audience of WYSO.
In an age of exponentially increasing choices being made available to the public, few listeners will accept anything less
than well-produced programming. If standards of presentation do not meet these expectations, listeners will go other
places in the blink of an eye.
WYSO1s
limited programming changes are intended to grow the station's audience and
revenues so that, eventually, WYSO will have the significant capital necessary to produce more local programming with
the consistent appeal and production values to which public radio listeners tend to respond.
WYSO is now working to break out of a double-bind situation. The station cannot attract the revenue necessary to
produce the type of locallregional programming that will allow WYSO to intensely serve its market if it cannot grow its
audience significantly. It cannot grow its audience significantly by trying to serve as many niche constituencies as it has
been. It cannot grow its audience without making some significant changes. Something had to give. And, yes,
programming which was not performing well needed to be replaced by consistent programming that will perform.
All of these factors and considerations had to be understood in the context of public radio's current place in the United
States. Every day, some 25 million Americans are listening to public radio. While it continues to be unique and,
therefore, in marked contrast to all other media choices, it is also, paradoxically, no longer a marginal or subsidiary
service. For huge numbers of listeners, public radio is the primary, if not the sole, source of news and information. It is
also a significant source for arts, culture, and entertainment programming.
In fact, in the last 15-20 years, the aggregate number of Americans using radio has been on a slow and steady decline (a
phenomenon accelerated in the years since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which paved the way for massive media
ownership consolidations). However, when one divides public radio out of this equation, the decline in commercial radio
listenership has been profound, while the audience for public radio has been rapidly increasing (within the last 12 years,
the total audience for public radio has more than doubled).
This is certainly due to the fact that, in many U.S. radio markets, it is now common for two megacorporations
(e.g.,
Clear
Channel) to own most commercial radio frequencies. This has created a situation where radio formats have narrowed
and listeners have decided to look for alternatives. On September 1 I*, 2001, after two decades of deregulation, most
commercial radio stations (which had long ago abandoned news departments or any commitment to any semblance of
local service) had nothing to offer their listeners except maybe the audio feeds from CNN or ABC television. Millions of
citizens throughout a shocked nation began to hit the scan buttons on their radios. Many found themselves listening to
public radio for the first time in their lives. Hard as it may be for some to believe, many of these individuals did not even
know that public radio existed. In the months since the attacks, millions have stayed tuned. In most American radio
markets, public radio stations are just about the only broadcast services left providing a serious and significant amount of
locallregional
news coverage.
WYSO and other public radio stations are, at once, a distinctive, substantive broadcast service that is different from all
other broadcast competitors and a primary media source for a significant percentage of listeners. Accordingly, public
radio's mission has shifted. With this shift comes new responsibilities to serve the American public with the type of depth,
scope, substance, and sensitivity once found in commercial media choices.
In 2002-03, WYSO will add another signature, full-time air personality to one of its core
dayparts
(midday mornings) and
complete construction of the
WYSO
Performance Studio. These will represent major growth opportunities for the station
to provide more consistent, engaging, localized broadcast services to
WYSO1s
expanding base of regular listeners.
Highlights of the past fiscal year include:
WYSO Public Radio began 2001-02 having submitted its fourth consecutive balanced budget.
WSO1s Fall 2001 On-Air Membership Campaign established an overall fundraising goal of $150,000. It was
a multi-record breaking event. The station shared in the positive response experienced by most other public
radio stations nationwide from listeners grateful for the coverage provided on
911
1 and in the days and weeks
following (the sole exceptions being many of those stations with all music formats). Within 24 hours of
commencing the on-air campaign, WYSO decided to revise upwards all of its hourly goals and exceeded even
those for the best fundraising week (actually 8 and a half days} in station history. By the close of the on-air
drive, the campaign tally stood at $160,845. The station secured over 500 new members. Other specifics
include:
Total on-air goal for this drive: $75,000
Total number of on-air pledges: 1,094
Total on-air dollars pledged: $1 11,921
Average pledge: $1 02.30 (on air)
Challenge dollars: $2,750
Total web dollars pledged: $1 3,070
Number of web pledges: 117
Average web pledge: $1 1 1.54
A separate revenue stream WSO receives comes from funds pledged each fall campaign period by federal
employees via the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). The quantity of CFC-pledged funds is neither known
nor available until the following February or March.
CFC
funds pledged during the Fall 2001 campaign totaled
over $42.000.
The Spring 2002 On-Air Membership Campaign was certainly challenging, as it took place approximately six
weeks after the station announced changes to its broadcast schedule. The campaign established an ambitious
overall fundraising goal of $150,000 (based on the post
911
1 successes, this goal was set $30,000 higher than
for the same period a year previous). At this writing, the station has secured almost $1 18,000 for the Spring
2002 campaign season. The first of two, post on-air campaign membership renewal mail drops is already out.
Lapsed members will receive telemarketing calls for membership renewal. As usual in the past few years, an
end-of-fiscal year additional gift mailing will also go out. As well, WYSO will conduct and end-of-fiscal year
on-
air campaign of 3-4 days length. These measures will help the station achieve or surpass its Spring 2002
goats. A side-by-side comparison of
WYSO's
Spring 2002 and Spring 2001 campaign figures does evidence
some very positive trends, as well as others which would appear to have some connection to the downturn in
the economy and a hesitancy on the part of some listeners regarding station schedule changes:
Spring 2001 Spring 2002
Total on-air $75,694 $77,737
Pledges 889 799
Avg . Pledge $85 $97
Billed 416 289
Credit card 470 479
New 366 370
New $26,932 $32,381
Avg . $74 $88
Mail $38,772 $33,072
Avg . $80 $84
Pledges 485 392
Web $10,923 $5,392
Pledges 97 44
Regarding business underwriting of WYSO and its programming, the goal for the current fiscal year is $220,000.
At this writing, the station has secured signed contracts totaling $187,427.26 (85% of goal). Though it is unlikely
the goal will be reached before the close of the fiscal year, the station's dramatic increase in audience is very likely
to show significant growth in underwriting into 2002-03.
WYSO is aggressively exploring opportunities to obtain specific operating grants support to fund capacity building
and infrastructure growth.
WSO received two Ohio Educational Telecommunications (OET) Awards for 2001. These awards were for
a feature piece produced for the
station's
newsmagazine?
WYSO1s
SOUNDS LOCAL, called "Dayton
Desegregation."
It
garnered the 2001 OET Award in the News & Public Affairs? Division Bl category, and
was also selected as Program of the Year.
In
addition! WSO News Director Aileen
LeBlanc
was selected
as
OET
Producer of the Year.
Ms. LeBianc and MORNING EDITION HosvReporter Ryan Warner file news items regularly with NPR1s
hourly newscast unit and with
PRI1s
business news program, MARKETPLACE. Ms.
LeBlanc
continues to
produce feature stories for
NPR1s
premiere newsmagazines
MORNING
EDITIONl ALL THINGS
CONSIDERED, and WEEKEND
EDITION.
WSO Public Radio faces a number of opportunities and challenges in the coming fiscal year, Among these are:
WSO management? in collaboration with the WYSO Resource Boardl will commence a major strategic
planning initiative to take place during the coming fiscal year.
In
2001-021
the station released an RFP to
facilitators and planners experienced in assisting public radio businesses in achieving their full potentials. A
board committee helped draft the
RFPl
reviewed submitted proposalsl and along with management?
selected Loretta M.
Hobbs?
President?
O'Neal-Hobbs
Associates of Washington! DC. Foundation grant
funding support will be requested for this major initiative.
WSO hopes to secure grants support to automate several functions in its master controllon-air operationsl
including program
logsl
music
playlistsl
and music cataloguingltracking/retrieval.
To better serve its expanding Miami Valley audience, WSO will need to establish a separate set of
broadcast telephone
lines?
specifically dedicated to conducting interviews! listener call-ins? etc.
Progress continues to be made in bringing all staff members' compensation tol at least? parity with the
median for similar positions at similarly sized stations within the public radio system. Unfortunately, due to
the nature of the
station's
revenue flow in 2001-02, salaries and compensation for 2002-03 will be '
somewhat more modest than in recent past years.
The State of Ohio continues to face a budget crisis. The annual operating subsidy that WYSO receives
from the Ohio Educational Telecommunications Network Commission (OETNC) was cut by 6%.
Media and telecommunications convergence is constantly placing new demands upon and creating new
paradigms for traditional, terrestrial broadcasters. To remain
competitive1
WYSO must continue to devote
more time and resources toward the development of, among other things' its
website
and the services
provided therein. Of special concern is how the station can generate revenues necessary to support these
services.
11. THE 2002-03 BUDGET
WYSO1s gift revenues are not likely to achieve budgeted goals for the current fiscal year. This is the first time in four
years that the station anticipates a deficit. Although federal grants support from the CPB increased appreciably in
2001-
02,
economic
downturn (modestly affecting listener support, while having a greater impact on underwriting buys),
declining grant support from
OETNC'
and the diversions caused by restructuring of the station's schedule will almost
assuredly leave the station in the red by year's end.
Despite
thisl
significant audience growth and major improvements to
WYSO's
programming and internal operations are
equally likely to establish the foundation for the station to return to its recent record of balanced budgeting. Management
will do all it can to turn in a surplus by the close of 2002-03 equal to or exceeding the amount of any deficit that results at
the close of the current fiscal year.
For the coming fiscal year, WYSO has budgeted major revenue streams producing as follows:
Gifts (listener support) $41 5,000
Federal Grants (CPB) I 20'294
State Grants (OETNC) 50,000
Underwriting 234,025
Other Income
401000
TOTAL $859,319
The two largest cost sectors for WSO arel and will likely remain, staff salaries and the fees the station pays to acquire
programming from NPR and PRI. For the foreseeable future, the station will continue to have critical needs for new
ofice
and broadcast equipment. This is particularly so as digital conversion of the station's production and broadcast chain will
be the imperative. Federal, state, and other grants support will assist in the digitization process, but there
will
also be
cost burdens the station will be required to bear.
While WSO now has a back-up transmitter to assure some continuity to its service when the primary transmitter
failsl
the back-up unit operates at a lower power output than the main transmitter. Therefore, WSO still does not have a full
redundant transmission infrastructure.
In
additionl the main transmitter continues to evidence itself as a somewhat quirky
and a less-than-robust unit. The transmission plant also needs a generator or UPS (uninterrupted power supply) unit to
assure continuation of the broadcast service in the event of power fluctuations
andlor
service disruptions.
I believe that a major capital campaign will need to be organized and conducted within the next two years to allow WSO
to keep pace with the radio broadcast industry, remain competitive within the public radio community, and have the funds,
above and beyond general operating expenses, to protect the University's investment in, and the asset that is, WSO. I
remain hopeful that continued development of the WSO Resource Board will soon allow the station to create the
framework for the establishment of a
WSO
Endowment thereby providing further protection of, and stability withinl the
station.
Steve Spencer
General Manager
Revenues
Tuition
&
Fees
Less Tuition
Discounts
Gifts
Lead
Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total
E&G
Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public
Sewice
Academic
Support
Student
Sewices
Institutional
Suppori
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total
E&G
Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
BOKOW~~~
Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year
Re~Nes
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
199940
Actual
-
0
0
360,549
139,533
0
0
227,474
727,556
124
17,286
744,966
0
0
686,757
0
0
0
0
0
686,757
0
686,757
58,209
78,614
-40t876
17,861
0
0
55,599
2,610
WYSO
200243 Budget Summary by Function
2000-01 200142 200142
Actual Adj Budget Projected
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
- -
Change From
200142 Budget 1 Propsed
200243
Budget
-
0
0
415,000
0
170,294
0
0
274,025
859,319
500
0
859,819
89,240
853,240
89,240
6,579
21,846
0
15,168
0
-30,435
6,579
0
Change From
200142 Projected
to 200243 Budget
$ Yo
- -
Change From
200f-02 Budget
to 200243 Budget
$ Yo
- -
0
0
5,644
1.38%
0
-2,984 -1.72%
0
0
16,275 6.31%
18,935 2.25%
500
0
18,935 2.25%
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training
&
Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
Contingency/Re.serves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity
Resewe
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from
Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Con0
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess
Revenue wer Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash
Item
Net Cash Basis Budget
199940
Actual
-
744,966
226,391
66,363
10,005
0
0
21,046
242,956
37,783
14,232
0
57,110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,871
0
686,757
58,209
78,614
-40,876
17,861
0
0
55,599
2,610
2ooo-01
Actual
WYSO
200243 Budget Summary by Category
200142
Adj Budget
200142
Projected
-
853,074
323,743
101,480
19,419
0
0
1 1,659
31 8,282
51,856
7,905
0
1,284
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,836
866,464
-13,390
6,491
0
15,168
0
-30,836
-9,177
-4,213
Change From
200142
Budget
to 2001-02
Probcted
$ %
- -
12,190 1.45'
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
Change From
200142 Projected
to 200243 Budget
$ Yo
- -
6,745 0.79%
Change From
200142 Budget
to
2002-03
Budget
$ %
- -
18,935 2.25%
WYSO
2002-03 Capital Budget
Buildings
Total Buildings
Amount
Building Improvements Amount
WYSO Wing Renovations 3,500
Total Building Improvements
Equipment
Computer Equipment
Total Equipment
Amount
1 8,346
Furniture & Fixtures Amount
Total Furniture & Fixtures 0
Library Books
Grand Total Capital Budget
University Wide
2002-03 Budget Summary by Function
Change From
2001-02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
- --
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
--
Change From
200142 Projected
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
-- -...
Change From
2001 -02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget
$ %
-- -
1999-00
Actual
--
2000-01
Actual
--
70
0
0
0
123,194
-114,418
0
621,923
630,769
0
553.336
1,184,105
617,131
2001 -02
Adj Budget
--
0
0
0
0
125,000
134,766
0
220,700
480,466
0
589,600
1,070,066
1,250,585
2001 -02
Projected
-
Revenues
Tuition & Fees
Less Tuition Discounts
Gifts
Lead Gifts
Grants
Endowment Income
Contracts
Other Income
Total E&G Revenue
Auxiliary Enterprises
Released From Restrictions
Total Revenues
Net Overhead for Central Operations
Operating Expenses
Instruction
Research
Public Service
Academic Support
Student Services
Institutional Support
Plant Maintenance
Scholarships
Total E&G Expenses
Auxiliary Enterprises
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
Revenues
Operating Expenses
Salaries & Wages
Benefits
Training & Development
Student Aid Services
Special Events
Supplies
Business Operations
Plant Maintenance
Interest Expense
Resale Costs
Miscellaneous
ContingencyIReserves
Campus Contingency, Mandatory
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
Overhead
To the University
Rebates from the University
Subsidy from Adult Campuses
Subsidy from Overhead
Other (Intercampus Agree & Univ Conf)
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses
Excess Revenue over Expenses
Annual Budget Conversion to Cash Basis
Capital Expenditures
Borrowing Proceeds
Principal Payments
Prior Year Reserves
Add back Depreciation
Total Cash Items
Net Cash Basis Budget
1999-00
Actual
-
2,812,318
235,081
162,368
61,144
0
0
6,122
359,433
72,451
1 10,766
0
701
0
0
-466,275
0
0
0
0
178,326
2,785,307
3,505,424
-693,106
47,866
0
55,425
0
-2,785,307
-2,682,016
1,988,910
2000-01
Actual
-
1,801,236
350,255
142,157
129,587
0
0
16,278
429,102
77,003
1 19,926
0
5,569
0
-50,000
-490,031
0
0
0
0
137,534
2,920,157
3,787,537
-1,986,301
24,987
0
84,124
0
-2,920,157
-2,811,046
824,745
University Wide
2002-03 Budget Summary by Category
2001-02
Adj Budget
--
2,320,651
334,170
138,066
165,823
0
0
5,552
356,612
77.870
94,877
0
4,420
0
2,150
0
0
0
0
750,000
125,000
267,890
2,322,430
-1,779
0
0
124,118
0
-267,890
-143,772
141,993
2001
-02
Projected
--
1,942,788
376,218
101,448
1 19,989
0
0
7.423
495,587
62.930
188.01
1
0
31,648
0
0
0
0
0
0
750,000
78,483
267,890
2,479,627
-536,839
10,000
0
124,127
0
-267,890
-133,763
-403,076
Change From
2001 -02 Budget
to 2001-02 Projected
$ %
--. --
-377,863 -16.28%
Proposed
2002-03
Budget
---
2,173,721
Change From Change From
2001-02 Projected 2001-02 Budget
to 2002-03 Budget to 2002-03 Budget
$ % $ %
-- -..- .----- --
230,933 11.89% -146,930 -6.33%
COST CENTERS
INSTRUCTION:
Undergraduate
Heritage Institute
Preparatory-Remedial Education
Teacher Certification
Arts
Human Services
Computer Instruction
Cooperative Education
Environmental Field Program
Continuing Education
History, Philosophy & Religion
Physical Sciences
Languages, Literature & Culture
Environmental & Biological Sciences
Self. Society & Culture
Cultural & Interdisciplinary Studies
Social & Global Studies
AEA (Antioch Education Abroad)
MS Management
MA Psychology
MA Education
OSR
Whole System Design
MA Organizational Management
DancelMovement
Therapy
Counseling Psychology
Marriage and Family Therapy
Environmental Studies
Education
Organization & Management
Applied Psychology
Clinical Psychology
I MA
Weekend Program
Intercultural Relations
INSTRUCTION
(Confd):
STUDENT SERVICES Cont'd:
Conflict Resolution Security
Environment & Community Student Loan Office
Fine Arts Community Government
PhD
in Leadership & Change
RESEARCH:
Individual and Project Research
PUBLIC SERVICE:
Glen Helen
Antioch Review
WSO
Counseling Centers
ACADEMIC SUPPORT:
Academic Administration
General Faculty
AEA Administration
Cross Cultural Program
ArchivesIAntiochiana
LibraryIMedia
Services
Psychological Services Center
Research and Evaluation
Writing Center
WSD Institute
Academic Computing
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT:
Chancellor
Trustees
Provost/President
Fiscal Operations
Business Operations
General Administration
Central Services
Personnel
Alumni
DevelopmenffAdvancement
Public Relations
Publications
Administrative Computer Service
University Administration
PLANT MAINTENANCE:
Maintenance
Custodial
Building & Grounds
Power Plant
Depreciation
STUDENT SERVICES:
Financial Aid Administration
Student Admissions
Registrar (Student Records)
Student Services
Advocate's Office
Infirmary
Counseling
SCHOLARSHIPS:
Grants & Scholarship
AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES:
Dining Services1 Gathering Space
HousinglBookstore
Computer Sales
McGregor
Conference Center
LINE ITEMS
SALARIES & WAGES: Compensation
Paid to Contracted Employees
Core Faculty
Associate Faculty
Adjunct Faculty
Administrators
Administrative Associate
Teaching Assistants
Unionized Staff
Non-Unionized Staff
Students
Retirees
Other Staff Employees
Student Vouchers
Student Stipends
Overseas Allowance
BENEFITS: Required and Non-Required
Benefits Paid
MedicalIDental
Card
Dental
FICA
Worker's Comp
Unemployment
Life Insurance
Long & Short Term Disability
Retirement
Moving Expenses
Employee Tuition Waivers
Miscellaneous Benefits
TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT:
Non-Contracted Expenses for Trg &
Develop
Business Travel
Local
Meetings~Workshops
Professional Development
Employee Recruiting
Program Development
STUDENT AID:
Restricted Grant Scholarships
Student Vouchers
SPECIAL EVENTS:
Graduation
Orientation
Miscellaneous Special Events
SUPPLIES:
Office Supplies
Instructional Supplies
Research Supplies
Duplicating Supplies
Computer Supplies
Computer Software
Maintenance Supplies
Furniture Supplies
Equipment Supplies
Library Supplies
Food Supplies
Miscellaneous Supplies
BUSINESS OPERATIONS COSTS:
General Cost of Doing Business
Subscriptions & Publications
Purchased Services
Consulting
HonorariaIStipends
Information & Communications
Memberships & Dues
Printing
PostageIFreight
Audio~Visual
Advertising
Telecommunications
Internet
& Leased Lines
Legal
Audit
Bad Debt Expense
PLANT MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Costs Related to Facilities
Maintenance Contracts & Repairs
Computer Maintenance
Purchased Services
Utilities
Vehicle Operation
Facility Rental
Equipment Rental
Insurance/Taxes
DEPRECIATION:
INTEREST EXPENSE:
Interest
Bank Charges (include credit card charges)
RESALE COSTS:
Books for Resale
Computers for Resale
Supplies for Resale
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS:
Miscellaneous
Student Activities
Student Insurance
Payments to Annuitants
CONTINGENCYIRESERVES:
Campus Contingency, Mandated
Campus Contingency, Discretionary
Liquidity Reserve
OVERHEAD COSTS:
Regional Overhead
University
OverheadIRebate fr
University Conference
College Fund
Operation Subsidy
Inter-Campus Agreements
