Office of the Chancellor

V. Components of the Multi-Year Plan
A. Revenues
(1) State Appropriation Revenues $ 17.5M

The projections of the Working Group on Financial Resources are updated in Table III. This model projects State revenue through models developed by the Massachusetts Tax Payers Foundation. Based on historical trends and on the fraction dedicated to the Amherst Campus, the table reveals that in each of the 6 year periods, FY77-82, FY83-88, FY89-94, the average growth of the University budget was lower than the growth of State Revenues. From FY77 to FY82 the averages were 7.9% and 7.3%; from FY83 to FY88, 10.3% and 9.8%; from FY89 to FY94, 4.4% and -0.9% respectively. Whether in periods of high growth or of decline, the percentage reaching the Amherst Campus was lower by 1 to 5 percentage points than the overall State increase.

We adopt a more optimistic view of the future. At the Campus and System levels we are committed to a sustained effort in improving the image and funding for public higher education. Therefore, unlike our earlier projections in Strategic Thinking, we shall assume that for the period through to the end of the century the Amherst Campus will at least sustain the average growth of State Revenues, projected at 4.2%. Then the percentage of the state revenues reaching the Amherst Campus will match the current level of 1.54%. Indeed, as we enter the next century and millennium with the demands for knowledge in the Information Age, we find it difficult to imagine how the State could fail to make an even larger investment in its public flagship Land Grant-Research University. For each of the years FY97 onwards this model, when combined with the funding of salary contracts already bargained, and assuming 3% for salary contracts in FY99 and FY2000, the projected revenues beyond salaries will be $3.5 million per year or $17.5 million over five years. (In Strategic Thinking a lower projection of $12.5 million was used).

Note that the growth level of 4.2% in State appropriations translates into roughly 3.5% per year for the State appropriation shown in Table II, since the revenues in Table III include special appropriations for Libraries, Financial Aid, etc., which are not incorporated in Table II. Combined with the other revenues discussed in the following Parts (2) and (3), the overall growth of the Operating Budget to FY2001 relative to FY96 is also approximately 3.5%, which is the number shown in the third panel of Figure 2.

Table of Contents
Next | Fund Raising Revenues

David K. Scott was Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1993-2001. This is an archive of the Chancellor's Web site during his tenure.
V. Components of the Multi-Year Plan A. Revenues (1) State Appropriation Revenues $ 17.5M The projections of the Working Group on Financial Resources are updated in Table III. This model projects State revenue through models developed by the Massachusetts Tax Payers Foundation. Based on historical trends and on the fraction dedicated to the Amherst Campus, the table reveals that in each of the 6 year periods, FY77-82, FY83-88, FY89-94, the average growth of the University budget was lower than the growth of State Revenues. From FY77 to FY82 the averages were 7.9% and 7.3%; from FY83 to FY88, 10.3% and 9.8%; from FY89 to FY94, 4.4% and -0.9% respectively. Whether in periods of high growth or of decline, the percentage reaching the Amherst Campus was lower by 1 to 5 percentage points than the overall State increase. We adopt a more optimistic view of the future. At the Campus and System levels we are committed to a sustained effort in improving the image and funding for public higher education. Therefore, unlike our earlier projections in Strategic Thinking, we shall assume that for the period through to the end of the century the Amherst Campus will at least sustain the average growth of State Revenues, projected at 4.2%. Then the percentage of the state revenues reaching the Amherst Campus will match the current level of 1.54%. Indeed, as we enter the next century and millennium with the demands for knowledge in the Information Age, we find it difficult to imagine how the State could fail to make an even larger investment in its public flagship Land Grant-Research University. For each of the years FY97 onwards this model, when combined with the funding of salary contracts already bargained, and assuming 3% for salary contracts in FY99 and FY2000, the projected revenues beyond salaries will be $3.5 million per year or $17.5 million over five years. (In Strategic Thinking a lower projection of $12.5 million was used). Note that the growth level of 4.2% in State appropriations translates into roughly 3.5% per year for the State appropriation shown in Table II, since the revenues in Table III include special appropriations for Libraries, Financial Aid, etc., which are not incorporated in Table II. Combined with the other revenues discussed in the following Parts (2) and (3), the overall growth of the Operating Budget to FY2001 relative to FY96 is also approximately 3.5%, which is the number shown in the third panel of Figure 2. Table of Contents Next \| Fund Raising Revenues