The Art Institute of Chicago had* $1.5+ Million in the Cayman Islands

The Art Institute of Chicago
has $1.5 Million+
in an Offshore Tax Haven
- A Hard Conversation
about Institutional Finances -

This page intentionally left blank.
Wait,
that’s a paradoxical statement.
Anyways,

Art Institute of Chicago
Modern Wing
opened 5/16/09
Michigan Ave Building
opened in 1893.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Historical Time Line of the Art Institute of Chicago
The School of the Art Institute of Chicago was founded in 1866
as the Chicago Academy of Design.
The curriculum comprised of 3 courses in drawing and painting;
tuition was $10 per month, ($130-$175 in 2018 dollars)
classes were held everyday.
In 1869 the Academy was granted a charter from the State of Illinois.
Two years later the Great Chicago Fire destroyed the Academy’s building.
The next year in 1872 “a teaching collection [was] established,
consisting primarily of plaster casts to instruct students
as well as Egyptian and Classical material.”
“Business leaders supplanted this financially troubled organization
by incorporating in 1879 a new Chicago Academy of Fine Arts,
renamed the Art Institute of Chicago in 1882.
It included a museum and a school.”
The World’s Fair was hosted in Chicago in 1893,
that same year the museum and school
moved into the 111 S Michigan Ave building
with a 929 strong student body.
Collaborations with artists in the Stony Island neighborhood
as well as the construction of low-rent studios
and the Fine Arts Building at 410 S Michigan Ave,
“[brought] together artists, musicians, writers, and craftspeople,”
in affordable mixed-use housing with retail space
for small business and entrepreneurial activity.
“...in 1897 artists and supporters created
the Chicago Society of Arts and Crafts,
which championed decorative arts
and a non-hierarchical definition of art,
as [Jane] Addams did by encouraging immigrant crafts…
The number of artists available to participate in such interchanges grew.
“Between 1865 and 1900 the number of Chicagoans listed as ‘artists’
in city directories increased from dozens to several hundred.”
In 1913 SAIC students protested the Armory Show,
holding a mock trial for Matisse, sentencing the painter to death
for, amongst other charges, the “contumacious abuse of title” of artist.
In 1922, SAIC became, “the largest art school in the world
with an enrollment of 4,520 students.”
“A 1925 index of advertising artists and illustrators listed 750.”
By 1930, the school had a 4-year program;
and a School of Industrial Art.
Tuition cost was $134 per year.
($1998 in 2018 dollars)
The first student fashion show was held in 1935.
SAIC became the first art and design school
to be granted a regional accreditation in 1936,
with help from the University of Chicago.
The first Masters of Fine Arts were awarded in 1940.
“During World War II,
enrollment in Chicago’s art schools declined
(at the School of the Art Institute
it dropped 50 percent between 1938 and 1943)
as students entered the military.
Those who remained learned to respond to wartime needs,
for instance by using less fabric,
in short supply thanks to military demand,
in their fashion design classes.

At war’s end the GI Bill helped fill the city’s colleges,
including its art schools,
with former soldiers who brought a new level of maturity
and intensity to undergraduate education.
Enrollments at the School of the Art Institute
and elsewhere surpassed earlier highs.
The New Bauhaus in 1944 became the Institute of Design,
affiliated from 1949 with the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT).
The Institute of Design made Chicago
a national center for study of photography.
Its socially oriented and rationally grounded design tradition
presented an invigorating contrast
to expressive and personal approaches
more typical at the School of the Art Institute.”
In 1948, “SAIC students [held] the show, Exhibition Momentum,
in protest of their exclusion from the museum’s Chicago and Vicinity Show.”
The 1950-60s saw the rise of the gallery system in Chicago’s art society,
which led to the founding of the Museum of Contemporary Art in 1967.
The University of Illinois at Chicago, Roosevelt University, and Columbia College
became important art institutions in this time period.
SAIC’s interdisciplinary curriculum was established in 1969.
The Civil Rights Movement and the movement against Vietnam
were critical for art society.
“Social activism sparked creation of the multiracial Chicago Mural Group (1970),
the Public Art Workshop (1972), and Movimiento Artistico Chicano (1975).
Artists’ cooperative galleries proliferated,
including N.A.M.E. and several with a feminist emphasis,
such as ARC and Artemesia,
outgrowths of women artists’ group the West End Bag, sparked by Ellen Lanyon.
Beginning in the 1960s
the National Endowment for the Arts
and the Illinois Arts Council
provided modest but often crucial support
for organizations and individual artists.”
What would eventually become
the Department of Art and Technology studies,
as well as what is now
the Gene Siskel Film Center,
were established in 1972.
The school’s first building
independent of the museum
was opened at 280 S Columbus in 1976.
What is now CAPX,
Career and Professional Experience,
was established in 1978,
the Early College Program followed in 1982.
In 1988 Tom Buechele,
who is currently SAIC’s Vice President of Campus Operations,
was Student Government Treasurer.
An SAIC student, David K. Nelson Jr. (SAIC 1987,)
displayed a painting of Chicago’s recently deceased mayor,
Harold Washington - Chicago’s first black mayor -
dressed in lingerie with allusions to Washington’s death in the painting.
“The painting was hung in a prominent spot
in SAIC’s Columbus Drive Building,
visible to students and faculty
as well as museum staff
who would pass through regularly.
The events that followed caused one of the largest
First Amendment and race relation controversies in the history of the School,
straining SAIC’s relationship with the City of Chicago.

School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Columbus Dr Building
opened in 1976.
Columbus Dr Building
opened in 1976.

In 1989, “Dread Scott (BFA 1989)
first gained notoriety at the age of 23
when he exhibited What is the Proper Way to Display the US Flag?
at A / Part of the Whole,
an exhibition organized by SAIC’s Black Student Association.
The installation comprised
an American flag displayed on the ground
beneath a photomontage and a comment book.
Visitors were asked to record their impressions in the book
—with the option of standing on the flag while doing so.
The piece sparked national controversy.
Then-President George H.W. Bush deemed the work “disgraceful.”
The United States Congress denounced it
and passed legislation to “protect the flag.”
And, the following year, the government cut funding to SAIC.” ⁵
Tony Jones was President of SAIC from 1986 - 1992,
and again from 1997 - 2008;
having worked at Glasgow University in Scotland
and the Royal College of Art in London.
“When I came to the School there were 700 students,
and now there are 3600
— international students were below 1%, and now its 20%.
We grew from one building,
which I think is a 175,000 square feet,
to our current holdings
of one and a half million square feet.
We bought the Sharp building,
then we bought 112 S. Michigan [MacLean building],
then I went away and came back,
and then we developed an initiative
with parents and students
to discuss what was lacking in the school:
and the one thing everyone said was residence halls.
No one was worried about the strength of the academic program,
but people said students are living further away
and we need to have students downtown.
When that happened, the school changed.
We went from being a commuter school
to a school with community,
and that’s changed the culture of the school, too.
Then we bought 7 W. Madison,
which [became] Jones Hall
— I’m very touched by that,
so then we bought a piece of land
at a corner of Randolph
where there was a really dubious restaurant
where you could get a steak and a baked potato for $3
— I never asked where the meat came from.
There was a very awful wig shop, and a pawn shop,
all on this corner.
We demolished all that,
and then leased that space to Borders Books
and put the new Gene Siskel Film Center in
— the film center was originally in the auditorium
of the Columbus Drive building.
Everything was in that building.”

Maclean and Lakeview
The Sharp Building
162 N State Dorms
Jones Hall

In 1997,
SAIC was named by U.S. News and World Report
as the #1 Fine Arts program in the US.
The faculty and students developed
“the technology and production techniques
for Millennium Park’s Crown Fountain,” in 2001,
SAIC was named “the most influential art school
in the United States,” by Columbia University in 2002.
The school’s laptop requirement program was established in 2004.
In 2009,
SAIC produced “the most Fulbright Scholars
among all art and design schools.”
Walter Massey assumed the Presidency of SAIC in 2010,
President and former Provost Elissa Tenny
succeeded now Chancellor Massey in 2016.
President Tenny’s Provost is Craig Barton.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“...we have courses
that are jointly taught
between our scientists on the faculty
and studio artists.
We are now being seen
in the world of art and design schools
as one of the leading institutions
in this sphere of science.”
Chancellor Walter Massey, PhD
Educator, Physicist, and Executive.
Chancellor Massey,
awarding Kanye West
an Honorary Doctorate
May 2016

“You somewhat spoke to this,
but what are you most proud of
in your role as president?”
“The presidential transition of course.
The Neiman Center.
Imagine no place like that to come together.
Those of us
who have been here longer
can see what a difference
the center has made
in the community spirit
of this institution.
Another thing I am proud of
is that we have made a concerted effort
to be engaged
in the city of Chicago
.
Faculty are always engaged in their individual projects.
But we created an office of community engagement,
and Paul Coffey is the Dean of Community Engagement.
We put in more programs
to recruit more students from Chicago,
including the Massey scholars.
Second, we started a program
to identify students early
in Chicago schools
which is our College Art Access Program (CAAP).
And the third,
we’ve made partnerships
throughout the city with other institutions.
Interestingly enough,
one with my old science institution,
Argonne National Laboratory
. We have programs with Argonne,
the University of Chicago,
Northwestern,
and cultural organizations
like the South Side Community Arts Center.
We now have our very first
off-campus classroom
in Homan Square in North Lawndale.
That’s a joint project
between the community
and the school.
So it’s not as if we are colonizers
imposing what we want in the community
They came to us and asked
if we could do certain things
to help them.
It’s the first year of real operation,
but I think over the years
we are going to see that blossom.
Another source of pride
is we really have started
a serious art and science
series of activities here.
We have lectures,
conversations on art and science
and we have visiting scientists.
We’ve had some very prominent people in that role.
And we have courses
that are jointly taught
between our scientists on the faculty
and studio artists.
We are now being seen
in the world of art and design schools
as one of the leading institutions
in this sphere of science.”
Chancellor Walter Massey
interviewed by F News Magazine
16/5/9

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Glimpse Into the Future
In 2009,
SAIC completed its most recent,
public,
Strategic Planning Initiative.
SAIC adopted an ongoing initiative
called “Build Diversity”
addressing diversity
within the highest levels of school leadership,
the academic departments and curriculum,
and among the student body.
SAIC committed
to supporting
Student Success.
SAIC committed
to sustainability.
The sustainability effort
is being lead
by the Department
of Instructional Resources
and Facilities Management
under Vice President Tom Buechele.
and Sustainability Coordinator Hannah Slodounik.
Under Chancellor Massey,
SAIC committed
to STEAM Education.
Science
Technology
Engineering
Arts
Mathematics
In 2013,
SAIC committed
to collaborating
with Chicago Public Schools (CPS)
That same year,
Mayor Rahm Emanuel and CPS,
closed 53 public schools.
In 2013,
the Art Institute of Chicago’s endowment
achieved $1 billion for the first time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nichols Tower and DRW College Prep,
Former Sears-Roebuck Campus
Paul Coffey,
Vice Provost-
Community Engagement

“By training our students to continuously question,
to explore the world
from different perspectives and angles,
and to seek larger meaning and synergies
between and among their interests,
we not only prepare them
to undertake the challenges
of an ever-changing workplace,
we also prepare them for a life
of continual growth,
learning,
innovation,
and experimentation.”
-President Elissa Tenny, PhD

In 2015,
SAIC made a long term commitment
to the West Side of Chicago,
by opening classroom facilities
at the Nichols Tower,
on the former Sears Roebuck campus
in N Lawndale.
and by establishing
the Office of Engagement
and the Earl and Brenda Shapiro Center
for Research and Collaboration
In 2016,
President Elissa Tenny
became SAIC’s first
female President,
having served as Provost
since 2011.
SAIC also
turned 150 years old.
Donald Trump
was elected as the President
of the United States.
President Tenny wrote a letter,
emphasizing the need
to rally around the common cause
of a fair, just, equitable, and inclusive society
founded on empathy, intellect, and creativity.
On November 1, 2016
President Tenny gave a speech
at Tsinghua University in China.
She spoke at great length
about the future
of art and design education.
She emphasized the importance
of research,
inter-institutional collaboration,
and community partnerships
to artistic practice,
she asked Frances Whitehead’s question,
“What do artists know?”
and gave her answer,
we know
how to create knowledge.
President Tenny emphasized the importance
of civic engagement,
through dynamic and reciprocal dialogue.
She posited SAIC
as a “listening organization,
unafraid to engage with diverse perspectives
and to think creatively and collaboratively
about some of our most pressing challenges.”
She mentioned SAIC at Homan Square,
“we found that SAIC could best support area residents
through skills-building programs
and by strengthening
the neighborhood’s preexisting
cultural assets and resources.”

“There is no opting out of climate change...
The expertise of artists,
their cultural literacy
and imagination,
is required for survival.
This is an opening,
an opportunity
to remodel culture
at all levels
and to evolve
new practices
and outcomes...
In order
to understand
the meaning
of an artistic product,
we have to forget them for a time,
to turn aside from them,
and have recourse
to the ordinary forces
and conditions
of experience
that we do not usually regard
as aesthetic.”
-Frances Whitehead, Hon. PhD
Architecture, Interior Architecture, Designed Objects, and Sculpture Faculty
since 1985, School of the Art Institute of Chicago

“Dear SAIC Community,
It gives me great pleasure to announce NEXT:
The Strategic Plan for the School of the Art Institute of Chicago,
an ambitious statement of our collective goals for the coming years.
More than 1,700 students, faculty, staff, board members, alumni, and friends of SAIC
participated in feedback and listening sessions throughout the year to arrive at this document,
crafted by the Strategic Planning Visioning Committee.
NEXT encapsulates the challenges and opportunities we will face over the next few years,
and it will guide our collective efforts during the implementation phase of the plan,
beginning in the 2018–19 academic year.
You may see the plan in its entirety by following this link.
https://sites.google.com/artic.edu/strategicplanning/preamble?authuser=0
We welcome you to review the plan
and encourage you to participate
in the response survey also found at the link above,
which will gather your feedback and collect contact information
for anyone interested in participating
in the implementation phase of the plan.
Thank you, everyone,
for participating in the strategic planning process
and for investing in the future of SAIC.
I look forward to continuing to work together as we implement the plan.”
Provost Craig Barton
Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs
Chair of the Strategic Planning Visioning Committee
April 18, 2018
So what’s ?

Increase
Affordability
and Value
Over the past few years,
SAIC has reduced
the cost of education
to students
through increased fundraising
for scholarships
and targeted increases
to the discount rate.
The initiative
with the most widespread impact,
however,
was the decrease
in the price of tuition
through the reduction
in the number of credits required
to achieve a bachelor’s degree.
Further initiatives
that make an SAIC education
more affordable,
especially those that address tuition,
while increasing the value of the degree
should be explored and undertaken.
Projected outcomes
include a reduction
in tuition costs
for the average student
as compared to the figure
that would be suggested
by recent annual tuition rate increases.
Student graduation
and retention rates
will increase.
Additionally,
the student population
should become more
socio-economically diverse.

Enhance
Belonging
Like the city
that is core
to its values,
the School
is a community
made up
of many communities
that flourish best
when they bloom in tandem.
A greater sense of belonging
—a desire expressed
by many constituencies
throughout the planning process—
is therefore key
to the success
of the strategic plan.
The sense of belonging, however,
is not easily quantified,
particularly in an ecosystem
that prizes
both unstructured play
and incisive critique,
either of which
may be mistaken
for a lack of belonging.
A committee on belonging
—made up of students,
part- and full-time faculty,
staff,
and alums—
should be created
with the aim of encouraging
an overall sense
of enhanced belonging
throughout the community.
Projected outcomes
include a greater sense
of community
that is felt by all
SAIC constituencies,
including a sustained sense of belonging
among alums
long after graduation.
The School
would feel more collegial,
and policies and processes
would be more evident,
trusted,
and widely understood.

Continue
to Cultivate Diversity
Over the past few years,
the Diversity Advisory Group (DAG)
and its four subcommittees
have achieved
many of the goals
set forth
through the last
strategic plan,
including the establishment
of new staff positions,
increased support
for diverse issues in teaching,
and more robust work
in building diverse faculty search
and prospective student pools.
The success of these efforts
has also functioned
as a reminder
of how many more diversity initiatives
are still needed.
DAG should evaluate its structure
and set new goals
towards the ongoing mission
of increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
Projected outcomes
center around
an increased sense of inclusivity
for all SAIC constituencies,
creating a more collegial
and empathetic work environment
for faculty and staff,
as well as a more rewarding
academic environment
for students.
These improvements
will aid in retention,
increase goodwill,
and enhance wellbeing
among all members
of the SAIC community.

Reimagine
our Time
to Reinvigorate
Learning
The semester-based,
day-long studio
course schedule
has long been a fixture
of academic life
at SAIC.
But
there may be
significant advantages
to adopting
a differently structured
course schedule.
A deep investigation
into the advantages
of changing the course schedule
—particularly
how it can enhance
the School’s intrinsic studio culture—
coupled
with a multifaceted plan
for implementation,
should be undertaken.
Projected outcomes
include increased opportunities
for student and faculty interaction;
the introduction
of new curricula
that would be impossible
to support
during the current
academic schedule;
greater opportunities
for students to earn income
by working;
the possibility
of improving access
to shops and work spaces
for independent art production
by students;
and a more efficient use
of physical
and human resources
throughout the year.

Facilitate
New Forms
of Interdisciplinarity
SAIC
has been an innovator
in interdisciplinary
art and design education,
and there is great desire
for more ambitious
and dynamic
interdisciplinary study
among many students
and faculty members.
To encourage dynamic
curricular synergies
among departments,
curricular opportunities
and administrative capacity
for interdisciplinarity
should be expanded.
Projected outcomes
include innovative new courses,
experiences,
and programs
that more fully reflect
faculty members’
interdisciplinary research
and experimentation
while supporting
a broader range
of student interests.
Greater continuity
and job satisfaction
will be felt
in the administration
of academic departments.

Support
All Faculty
in Teaching
and Learning
Faculty
are the most influential
,inspirational,
and visible presence
in the life of a student.
They are expected
to meet the changing needs
of students
throughout their careers,
and for this
faculty should be able
to count on support
and training.
Professional and leadership development
for faculty
may be the single most effective means
of maintaining the rigor
and quality
of the educational program.
Projected outcomes
include a Center for Teaching and Learning
that will engage all faculty
and expand opportunities
for professional development
and mentoring.
This, in turn,
will benefit our students
by improving their classroom experience.

Build Continuity
Towards Life
after Art School
Since the last strategic plan
,curricular initiatives
such as the Academic Spine
and co-curricular programs
like Career and Professional Experience (CAPX)
have become instrumental
in imparting skills and tools
that students can use
across a lifetime as creative practitioners.
Students
crave more experiences
like these;
therefore,
existing programs
should be extended to students
and, where appropriate, alums
while new programs and approaches
that support students
as they transition
into lives after graduation
should be explored.
Projected outcomes
include alums
experiencing a greater sense of community
while current students
find themselves better prepared
for professional life.
Student loan default rates
will also decrease.

Mission and Governance
The School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC)
is governed
by the Board of Governors
and has an active
Faculty Senate.
The leaders of SAIC
are dedicated
to advancing
the school’s mission
and supporting its objective
as outlined below.
Mission
“To provide excellence
in the delivery
of a global education
in visual, design, media, and related arts,
with attendant studies
in the history and theory
of those disciplines
set within
a broad-based, humanistic curriculum
in the liberal arts and sciences.
To provide instruction
for this education
in a range of formats:
written, spoken, media, and exhibition-based.”
—Excerpted from the Art Institute of Chicago’s Corporate Charter, originally obtained
from the State of Illinois in 1879, and revised in 2004.
Objective
To assemble
a diverse body
of intelligent
and creative
students and faculty
in an environment
designed
to facilitate and encourage
the discovery and production
of significant ideas
and images
and to provide
for the development
of individual excellence
in undergraduate
and graduate programs
in the visual and related arts.
The School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC)
is governed
by two oversight bodies:
the Board of Trustees
of the Art Institute of Chicago
and the Board of Governors
of the school.
The trustees
oversee
both the school and the museum,
while the governors
focus solely on the school.
The governors set policies
for management of the school
and steward SAIC’s
mission, objectives, and core values
within the Art Institute corporation.

Board of Governors
Anita K. Sinha - Chair
Melissa V. Behm
Daniel S. Berger
Robert H. Bergman
Sanford L. Biggers (MFA 1999)
Laurence O. Booth
Charles M. Brennan III
Todd C. Brown
Daniel R. Bryant
Linda Smith Buonanno
William R. Bush
D.H. Chang (MFA 1991)
Lester N. Coney
A. Steven Crown
John A. DiCiurcio
Robert G. Donnelley
Karen W. Frank
Denise B. Gardner
Gordon Gill
Gail Hodges
Holly Hunt
Betsy Karp
Jay Frederick Krehbiel
Carol Levy
Margaret MacLean
Cary D. McMillan
Charles L. Michod, Jr.
Melissa A. Moore
Marian Phelps Pawlick
Charles T. Price
Quintin E. Primo III
Dana Rice
D’Rita Parilla Robinson
Beth K. Rosen
Neal Sales-Griffin
Ellen Sandor (MFA 1975, HON 2014)
Richard L. Sandor
Elizabeth B. Seebeck
Stephanie A. Sick
Anita K. Sinha
John L. Thomson
Charlotte Tieken
Joseph R. Trpik Jr.
David J. Vitale
Kenneth W. Warren
Governors Emeriti
John H. Bryan
John S. Chapman
Michael Conrad
Richard H. Cooper
Marshall Field V
H. Richard Fumo
David C. Hilliard
Richard Hunt
Philip Kotler
Frederick Krehbiel II
Duane R. Kullberg
Patrick J. Leemputte
Barry L. MacLean
Susan R. Manilow
Young-Ju Park
Linda Johnson Rice
Adrian D. Smith
Todd Warnock
Arthur M. Wood, Jr.
Curtis Zeiser
Trustees
Arjun Aggarwal
James N. Bay
Anne Searle Bent
Anita Blanchard
Neil G. Bluhm
Barbara Bluhm-Kaul
Linda Smith Buonanno
John S. Chapman
Lester N. Coney
A. Steven Crown
Shawn M. Donnelley
Janet Duchossois
Fred Eychaner
Aaron Fleischman
Karen Frank
Jay Franke
Stephanie Skestos Gabriele
Denise B. Gardner
Sarah N. Garvey
Matthew R. Gibson
James A. Gordon
Kenneth C. Griffin
Joseph P. Gromacki
Ann E. Grube
Darrel Hackett
Adnaan Hamid
Betty Harris
Caryn Harris
Stephanie Field Harris
Pamela Joyner
Barbara Levy Kipper
Rita Knox
Jay Frederick Krehbiel
Anstiss Hammond Krueck
Paul Lambert
Eric P. Lefkofsky
Lawrence F. Levy
Robert M. Levy
Barry L. MacLean
John F. Manley
Joe Mansueto
Howard M. McCue, III
Eric T. McKissack
Cary D. McMillan
Sylvia M. Neil
Alexandra C. Nichols
Samuel M. Mencoff
Harvey Plotnick
Anne R. Pramaggiore
Thomas J. Pritzker
Bob Rennie
J. Christopher Reyes
Linda Johnson Rice
Andrew M. Rosenfield
Shirley Welsh Ryan
Michael J. Sacks
Ellen Sandor
Scott Santi
Gordon Segal
Sophia Shaw
Brenda M. Shapiro
Stephanie Sick
Prabhakant Sinha
Louis B. Susman
Marilynn Thoma
David J. Vitale
Frederick H. Waddell
Reeve B. Waud
Roger L. Weston
Trustees Emeriti
Karen B. Alexander
Marilynn B. Alsdorf
E.M. Bakwin
John H. Bryan
Gilda Buchbinder
Carolyn S. Bucksbaum
Mike Fox
Barbara E. Franke
Stanley M. Freehling
Richard Gray
Mary Winton Green
David C. Hilliard
Mary Jaharis
Julius Lewis
Beatrice Cummings Mayer
Stuart D. Mishlove
Isobel Neal
Judith Neisser
Marian Phelps Pawlick
Manfred Steinfeld
Irving Stenn, Jr.
Donna Stone
Ex Officio Honorary Trustees
Rahm Emanuel
Mayor, City of Chicago
Jesse Ruiz
President, Chicago Park District
Michael P. Kelly
General Superintendent and CEO,
Chicago Park District
Erin Keane
Comptroller, City of Chicago
Ex Officio Trustees
Woman’s Board
Betsy Rosenfield, President
Board of Governors
Anita Sinha, Chair
Sustaining Fellows
Lori Gray Faversham, President
Auxiliary Board
John McGovern III, President
Leadership Advisory Committee
Rebecca Ford, Co-Chair
Terra Foundation
Marilynn Thoma
Officers
Robert M. Levy
Chair, Board of Trustees
Denise B. Gardner
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
J. Christopher Reyes
Andrew M. Rosenfield
David J. Vitale
Frederick H. Waddell
Jay Krehbiel
Treasurer, Board of Trustees
James Rondeau
President
and Eloise W. Martin Director,
Elissa Tenny
President,
School
Julia E. Getzels
Executive Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary
[vacant]
Executive Vice President/
Chief Financial Officer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Things Currently Stand
As of Fall 2017,
81% of the School’s faculty are White,
6% are Asian or Pacific Islander
5% are Black or African American
4% are Hispanic
4% are Multi-ethnic or did not specify
Of the Student Body,
34.8% are White
33% are International Students
from as many as 63 countries
10.9% are Hispanic
9% are Asian or Pacific Islander
4.8% did not Specify
3.7% are Black or African American
3.1% are Multi-ethnic
0.2% are Native American
SAIC’s Administration
maintains a Diversity Advisory Group,
and 4 Diversity Advisory Group Committees:
Curriculum,
School Climate,
Connectivity,
and Action.
Over 2010 - 2017,
annual tuition/ fee revenue increased
from ~$125 million to ~$160 million
as student enrollment increased.
Grants for student tuition assistance increased
from ~$30 million to ~ $40 million.
SAIC currently enrolls ~3,700 students.
Annual tuition/ room and board
for the 2018-19 school year
is estimated to be ~$50,000 - $65,000.
The maximum awarded merit scholarship
covers 30% of tuition.
Student housing
costs ~$10,000 per year to live with 3 people in one room,
up to ~$17,000 per year to live alone.
Student health insurance
costs ~$2,000 per year.
Part-time students
are automatically unenrolled,
unless a waiver form
is submitted.
U-Passes for unlimited rides
on Chicago’s public transit system,
the CTA,
as a full-time student,
or a part-time student
with a disability,
costs ~$470 per calender year.
SAIC does not offer students
any subsidization for meals.
“SAIC does not offer discounts or coupons
for purchasing a laptop.”

In 2013,
the Art Institute of Chicago’s endowment
achieved $1 billion for the first time.
From 2010 - 2015,
(the last year for which tax form 990 is publicly available,)
the AIC added 700 more employees,
bringing the annual cost of salaries and wages
up from ~$70 million per year to ~$90 million per year.
If the total cost of salaries and wages
were divided equally amongst all 3,811 employees
in tax year 2015,
each person would receive $24,612.90.
In 2015,
the Art Institute of Chicago’s Pension Fund
lost $16.9 million.
The Faculty Senate
is made up of 3 people,
-their collective e-mail address is disabled-
the Director of Collections and Student Insurance
the Director of Media and Instructional Resources
a Special Collections Librarian.
Top administrative pay for the AIC
generally ranges from $150,000 per year
to $650,000+ for a President.
Former President of the Art Institute of Chicago
James Cuno
received a combined ~$2 million from 2010 to 2011.
provided one of its officers
with a mortgage
in 2007.
Chancellor Massey
received ~$151,515 in 2010,
and ~$550,000 - $650,000 annually from 2011 - 2015.
Throughout his presidency,
his employment contract allowed for
“reimbursement for up to $5,000 annually
for fees and membership dues
for athletic, social, or other clubs
used for personal, non-business purposes.
The annual amounts reimbursed
[were] reported as taxable compensation.”
President Tenny, in the position of Provost,
received ~$330,000 in 2011, increasing to ~$485,000 in 2015.
In 2011,
as part of her employment contract,
President Tenny received a housing stipend.
From 2013 - 2015,
as part of her employment contract,
President Tenny received payment for tuition assistance.
President Tenny has not publicly
been awarded a degree or certificate
since receiving a PhD in 2007.
Between 2012 and 2013,
a company called AIC - PP Inc.
was founded in the Cayman Islands.
The Cayman Islands
is a Country or Jurisdiction of Primary Concern
for Money Laundering and Financial Crimes
according to the US State Department.

From 2013 - 2015
AIC - PP Inc
received portions of the AIC’s income
- $195,062 in 2013
- $392,629 in 2014
and
- $800,515 in 2015.
This totals
to $1,388,206.00
From 2006 - 2017
the Art Institute of Chicago
doubled its investments with Hedge Funds
from $138 million to $276.4 million.
This is an increase of $138.4 million.
Hedge funds are defined
as a limited partnership of investors
that use high risk methods,
such as investing with borrowed money,
in hopes of realizing large capital gains.
Over the same time period,
increased its stock holdings
from $388 million to $457.5 million.
This is an increase of 69.5 million.
decreased its bond holdings
from $91.5 million to $49.5 million
This is a decrease of $42 million.
decreased the amount of cash on hand
from $71.7 million to $25.6 million.
This is a decrease of $46.1 million.
From 2008 - 2017
Increased its holdings in private equity
and venture capital
This is an increase of $47.7 million
Over the same time period,
decreased its holdings in real assets,
defined as
real estate,
agricultural land,
precious metals,
etc.
This is a decrease of $60.1 million dollars.
The Art Institute of Chicago has seen a net gain
of ~$107.4 million
over the previous decade
though it now stands
in a position of significant vulnerability
to short and medium term
market dynamics.
Institutional equity and wealth disparities
have also widened over this time period,
as previously reported by F News Magazine.

IRS 990 - 2013
IRS 990 - 2015
IRS 990 - 2014

AIC Financial Statement - 2007
AIC Financial Statement - 2017

=-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point
after an early draft
of this report
was submitted
to the Presidents
of the Museum and School,
Alison D. Sowden
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
released an undated letter.
In fiscal year 2016, operating revenues exceeded expenses by $17 million for the museum and school of the Art
Institute of Chicago, marking the organization’s seventh straight year of consolidated surplus operations. The year was
financially successful across a number of dimensions. Not only were operations strong, buoyed by programming at
the museum, stable enrollment at the school, and continued fiscal discipline, but philanthropy in total was impressive,
with close to $93 million received in total gifts and grants and remarkable progress made in the school’s $50 million
fundraising campaign, which was publicly launched at its 150th anniversary celebration in May 2016.
The financial markets were not as generous, however. For the year that ended June 30, 2016, the endowment returned
-1.5 percent; while disappointing in absolute terms, this performance was above the median for a broad universe of
charitable foundations and endowments. Additionally, it is worth noting that since the financial crisis, performance
(not including gifts) has added $455 million to the value of the endowment, handily exceeding endowment distributions
over that same period of $285 million.
Letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
558
Pooled
endowment
Net gifts Performance Spending Total
146
455
285
874
Growth of Pooled Endowment since 2009 ($ in millions)
2009 2016

School Operations
The school generated a surplus of $14 million for fiscal year 2016. Net tuition revenue was flat at $109 million, owing
to the school’s decision to reduce credit hours for graduation from 132 to 126. This change in credit hours resulted in
a reduction in the cost of an SAIC education by 5 percent and was welcomed by students and parents alike. In making
this change, the school laid careful groundwork by increasing enrollment slightly and managing expenses in order
to protect its financial health. The school has made a consistent effort over the years to use its operating surpluses to
pay down debt and to invest in its buildings and systems to avoid issues of deferred maintenance.
Over the past ten years, the school’s revenues have grown at a rate of 5.7 percent per year, while expenses have grown
at an annualized rate of 5.3 percent. The growth in expense was primarily attributable to a growth in enrollment over
this same period of time of 3.2 percent per year.
Corporate Financial Services
The deficit for Corporate Financial Services of -$4 million represents a non-cash expense for the institution’s defined
benefit pension plan. With discount rates at historical lows and new mortality tables, pension expense increased
substantially in fiscal year 2016. Corporate absorbed the expense to buffer both museum and school operations
from the vicissitudes of external and unpredictable factors. Nevertheless, despite this deficit, the operating surpluses
produced by the museum and school were sufficient to generate a total operating surplus of $17 million.
Conclusion
The Art Institute continues to strengthen its financial foundations. Securing the organization’s financial footing is
a critical step as the museum and school evaluate their strategic plans and ambitions for programmatic growth.
The positive outlook awarded by Moody’s for the second year in a row reflects the Art Institute’s success in doing
important financial spadework in preparation for its dynamic future.
Alison D. Sowden
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
The institution continues to enjoy a strong bond rating: AA- stable outlook with Standard and Poor’s and A1 positive
outlook with Moody’s. The ratings agencies have cited the organization’s discipline in paying down debt, strong
leadership, and proven fundraising success as indicators of its credit strength. As a result of debt payments made in
fiscal year 2016, the Art Institute’s total debt dropped from $230 million to $216 million, and since 2009, when the
debt was at a record high, total debt decreased from $340 million to $216 million.
Museum Operations
The major contributor to the museum’s operating surplus in fiscal year 2016 was the exhibition Van Gogh’s Bedrooms,
which was a blockbuster in the very best sense of the term. The show was popular across a broad audience and
propelled a spike in attendance close to 1.8 million visitors, the museum’s highest attendance in a decade. Admissions,
membership, and related revenues all benefited from the exhibition’s success.
Of the museum’s $7.3 million operating surplus, $4.3 million in unrestricted bequests received in fiscal year 2016
have been directed for investment with the endowment as quasi endowment funds, leaving a net operating surplus of
$3 million. This surplus was used to address capital improvements and to pay down a portion of the museum’s debt.
The museum continues to distinguish itself as a leader among its peers in its ability to generate earned revenues from
its various enterprises. Its growth in revenues for fiscal year 2016 was a robust 10 percent. However, expenses grew
at a more modest rate of 4 percent. What is more remarkable is that since the opening of the Modern Wing in 2009,
expenses have accelerated at a rate of only 1.9 percent per year.
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Debt History

On April 17, 2018
One day
after an early draft
of this report
was submitted
to the Presidents
of the Museum and School,
announced
the largest donation
in the Institution’s history.
$70 million.
A $50 million
unrestricted gift
from Janet and Craig Duchossois
and
a $20 million dollar gift
from Robert and Diane v.S. Levy
for acquisitions and operations.
A Voting Trustee of the Art Institute Board of Trustees,
Janet Duchossois is also Chair of the museum’s Sustaining Fellows.
She serves as Co-Chair of the Committee on Libraries
and is a member of the committees
on Modern and Contemporary Art
and Prints and Drawings.
Craig Duchossois is CEO of The Duchossois Group,
a privately held, family-owned company
with holdings
in the consumer products, technology, and service sectors.
He is Vice Chair of the Boards
of the University of Chicago Medical Center
and the Illinois Institute of Technology,
and serves on the boards of the University of Chicago,
the Culver Educational Foundation,
World Business Chicago,
and the Executives’ Club of Chicago
Robert Levy is in his second term
as Chair of the Art Institute’s Board of Trustees.
He is a retired partner, chairman, and chief investment officer
for U.S. Equities at Harris Associates L.P.
Mr. Levy is vice chair of the board at the University of Pennsylvania
and chairs The Power of Penn campaign.
He also serves as president
of the Robert M. Levy and Diane v.S. Levy Family Foundation,
which he founded with his wife, Diane von Schlegell Levy.
Diane v.S. Levy is currently a member
of the Art Institute’s committees on Textiles,
European Decorative Arts,
and Ancient and Byzantine Arts.
Mrs. Levy is also a member
of the Board of Trustees of the Field Museum,
the Board of Directors of Chicago Botanic Garden,
and served on the Board of Overseers of the Penn Museum for 10 years.

“Our ambitions
are always scaled to our resources;
New resources allow for new ambitions.
I think what we’re thinking about,
along with Bob and Diane
and with Janet and Craig,
is that these gifts are allowing us
to now start to conceive
what our future might look like,
rather than specifically funding
an existing plan.”
-James Rondeau, M.A.
President and Eloise W. Martin Director

------------------------------------------
Charles Lawrence Hutchinson
was the founding President
of the Art Institute of Chicago.
The son of a meat packer
turned founder
of the First National Bank of Chicago,
Hutchinson never attended college.
He instead
became a salesman,
for a business owned by his father.
Charles L. Hutchinson
shared his father’s wealth
with his fellow citizens.
He served
in numerous positions
for at least 44
civic,
philanthropic,
and commercial institutions
Hutchinson served as President
for 42 years.
The Art Institute
moved 7 times
before settling into
the 111 Michigan Ave building.
4 additions
were added
to the building
before Hutchinson’s death,
in 1924.
It is said
that on his death bed,
the Art Institute
was still on his mind.
“I love to lie here
and think of it --
of all it will do
for the people
in the years to come!”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
having $1.5+ million
in the Cayman Islands
is spitting in the face
of Charles L. Hutchinson,
and clearly
at odds
with the Mission
and Objective
of the corporation.
cannot provide excellence
in the delivery and instruction
of a global education
If it cannot support
the development
of individual excellence
through the assembly
of a diverse body
of intelligent
and creative
students
and faculty,
in undergraduate
and graduate programs;
in an environment
designed
to facilitate
and encourage
the discovery
and production
of significant ideas
and images.
Given the corporation’s
tax exempt 501(c)3 non-profit status,
the size of the endowment
and of the fine art collection,
- as well,
as the severe losses
to the AIC’s pension fund -
it can only be assumed
that stashing $1.5+ million
in the Cayman Islands
was an act
of corporate greed
and institutional mismanagement.
The Board of Trustees
and Board of Governors
should be ashamed,
if nothing else.
$4,591.00
should not
be the reason
this author
is unable
to continue his education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------
According
to the Internal Revenue Service
of the United States of America
“A 501(c)(3) organization’s activities
should be directed
toward some exempt purpose.
Its activities
should not serve
the private interests,
or private benefit,
of any individual
or organization
more than insubstantially.
A 501(c)(3) organization
is prohibited
from allowing
its income
or assets
to benefit insiders –
typically board members,
officers,
directors
and important employees
of an organization.
If an organization
benefits insiders,
the insiders
and the organization
could be subject
to penalty excise taxes
and the organization
could lose its tax-exempt status.”
How to lose your 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status (without really trying)
- The IRS
providing one of its officers
with a mortgage
in tax year 2007,
the compensation
afforded to Former President James Cuno,
and the $1.5+ million in the Cayman Islands,
seem to be
in direct violation
of the Inurement Rule.
The compensation package
afforded to then-Provost Tenny
is questionable at best.
However,
the terms of an employment contract
are the responsibility
of the Trustees and Governors.
------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------
If
were to lose
its 501(c)3 status
it would be deserved.
However,
this would provide
the opportunity
for the Art Institute of Chicago
to transition
into a B-Corp.
The current financial market
is short term minded at scale;
most of the planet’s wealth exists
in the stock market,
which is driven by 3 month,
quarterly results.
Governments
can only tax citizens so high
before they will revolt,
therefore private investment
is fundamental
to long-term economic stability
and growth.
The transition of major corporations
into Benefit Corporations
would help to shift the market view.
Corporations are required,
by law,
to seek to maximize their profit.
Benefit Corpoorations are required,
by law,
to seek to maximize their profit,
and declare their commitment
to a general or specific benefit to society
and the environment,
as assessed by a third-party.
B-Corp shareholders
are given the right of action
to ensure their social impact investments
are functioning
according to the declared purpose.
This means that shareholders
not only have the right
to sue the corporation
for not maximizing their profit,
but also to sue the corporation
for not considering
the societal and/ or
environmental impacts
of their actions.

As stated before,
B-Corps are required
to produce Annual Benefit Reports,
which are assessed
against a third-party standard.
This serves to create
a process for mutual indebtedness
for the state
of the human condition.
Adaptive (preferably,)
governmental regulations
establish a bottom-line for standards;
third-party organizations, (such as LEED,)
raise the bar
as they consume and vet new research
at a more rapid pace.
Shareholders
can then hold corporations
accountable
to these standards,
which incentivizes the research,
development,
and implementation
of cost-effective renewable energy
and high-volume energy storage,
resource efficient MEP systems
at residential and provincial scale,
localized resource efficient agricultural systems,
and carbon capturing and recycling systems.
In the macro 7-25+ year timeline,
as well as the multi-generational timeline,
the net return on investment
for these infrastructural
and technological systems
through energy,
food,
and operational
cost savings,
Tax-Credits,
and unrealized gains
(or potential future profits)
should meet or exceed
the expectations
of the market in its current mindset,
given the out-sized risks
posed by the changing climate,
and by societal unrest
in the midst of rising wealth inequality
and mostly stagnant wages
for the middle
and lower income brackets
of society.
------------------------------------------

I believe in the AIC;
in the role
it can play
in the future,
and the present
I also believe
in the role
of art and design education
in building
a fair, just, equitable, and inclusive society.
I am a Global Citizen Artist.
I feel morally obligated to act
due to climate change,
and the role institutions like the AIC
can play in solving climate change.
I do not believe that the AIC
can play this role
if its officers are in jail
for laundering money or tax evasion.
certainly cannot play this role
if it is financially hobbled
by an economic recession.
JP Morgan Chase
has been broadcasting
since as early as 2016,
that a recession
will most likely occur by 2020.
I believe the Art Institute of Chicago
should reinvest it’s unrestricted assets
into renewable energy,
urban agriculture
and materials recovery infrastructure.
The School
should build
its curriculum
to support
this investment;
as an education
in the trades
and sciences
paired
with the intensive intellectual pursuit
demanded by the fine arts.
The cost to deploy
offshore wind turbines
in Lake Michigan
to power the entire Loop
is $500 - $750+ million.
Depending upon
the Art Institute of Chicago’s
level of investment,
a 20 - 30 year
Power Purchase Agreement
could be negotiated
with the City of Chicago
and ComEd.
At 2017 electrical costs,
a PPA could lead to annual revenues
as high as $58+ million.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apple Purchasing Agreement Proposal
The cost
to purchase laptops
for all 3,881 faculty
and 3,605 students
in tax year 2015
at $2500 per laptop
is $18,827,500.
------------------------------------------
In a time
of increasingly mobile,
technology-based
lifestyles
- and with thanks
to great advances
in mobile computing
technology -
there is minimal to 0 need
for stationary,
mid-range computers.
SAIC
could focus
on increasing
affordability,
accessibility,
and inclusion,
by assisting Students
and Faculty
with access
to mobile technology;
particularly laptops.
High-end,
stationary computers
are still needed
for advanced
and Departmental
needs.
Presumably
a purchase of this size
could be negotiated
and a discount price
could be found
through compromise
between all stakeholders.
The Department
of Media and Instructional Resources
could begin a program
of purchasing
laptops in bulk
to offer to students
at subsidized prices.

This effort
would require
the support
of the Faculty Senate
and the Student Government.
The Board of Governors
would need
to support
and present
the program
to the Trustees
of the Art Institute of Chicago.
If the Trustees,
are willing
and able,
The Administration,
Faculty Senate,
and Student Government
should pursue
the negotiation
of a purchasing agreement
with Apple.
------------------------------------------
An agreement
to upgrade the campus
every 3-5 years,
creates the opportunity
to plan
for large-scale
purchases,
and systematic
technological upgrades.
This allows
for the physical space
of SAIC
(1,500,000+ sq. ft.)
to be designed
in a manner
which is stable
yet fluid;
as demanded
by a large-scale
global
fine art
and design education
institution/
corporation.
------------------------------------------

As equipment,
is replaced
during upgrade cycles,
it can be donated,
or sold
at a considerable discount
to local high schools,
libraries,
or to local non-profits
for distribution
to individuals in need.
------------------------------------------
It is reasonable
that similar agreements
could be negotiated
with the manufacturers
and suppliers
of other
Instructional Resources
particularly
for Audio-Visual equipment.
------------------------------------------
The standardization
of equipment
and technology
coupled
with curricula
that incorporates
equipment care,
maintenance,
and repair
allows
for greater quality of equipment,
operational cost reduction,
and discounted purchasing,
Current programs
such as Fire Sales
could be continued
albeit
at a slower rate,
or in some modified fashion.
------------------------------------------
Pursuing this plan
with the help
of fellow Chicago schools,
could allow
for broad cohesion
between institutions
and their systematic platforms,
and increased leverage
in the purchasing negotiation,
allowing for ease
in inter-institutional collaboration.
------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Team Work Makes the Dream Work
At present,
most wind turbines
are manufactured
at 80 meters tall.
Current research
from the US Department of Energy’s
National Renewable Energy Lab
has shown
that wind turbines
manufactured to be 140-200+ meters tall
can produce higher levels
of energy production
with greater continuity.
A team
of faculty and students
from SAIC and IIT
could collaborate
to design
an environmentally and
economically sound,
well-engineered,
and aesthetically beautiful
140+ meter off-shore turbine.
~100 turbines
could power
the entire Loop.
With the help
of the Chicago City Council
and community organizations
such as the
N Lawndale
Community Coordinating Council
the turbine
could be manufactured
-in whole or in part-
through the Chicago Sustainable Industries Plan,
the Industrial Corridors Modernization Initiative,
and the Illinois Enterprise Zone Program.
Private investment
from outside partners
would surely be necessary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In partnership with
LEADERSHIP SERIES
FRAMEWORKS
FOR PRIVATE
FOUNDATIONS
by
Melissa Berman, Ph.D.
Dara Major
Jason Franklin, Ph.D.
A New Model for Impact

GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS 9
GOVERNANCE
COMMITMENTS
MISSION & PURPOSE
SCOPE
PRINCIPLES &
CULTURE
VALUES
TRANSPARENCY
COMMUNICATION
STAKEHOLDERS
EXTERNAL EXPECTATIONS
RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIETY
ACCOUNTABILITY
DECISION MAKING
Operating Capabilities
Dominant approaches
that guide how a
foundation carries out
its work
Implicit or explicit
agreement with society on
the value the foundation
will create
Social Compact
Charter
The foundation’s scope,
form of governance, and
decision-making protocol
RESOURCING
FLEXIBILITY
INITIATIVE
PROGRAMMING
RELATIONSHIPS
DECISION MAKING
Core Framework
Rockefeller Philanthrophy Advisors

GRANTCRAFT, a service of Foundation Center FRAMEWORKS FOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS 25
Where is the change?
People, species, organizations,
and/or places
How do you do it?
Key activities
Who will help you?
Co-creators, co-funders, and supporters
How do you interact?
Relationships
What do you do and why?
Charter, social compact, and capabilities
What do you need?
Key resources
How do you distribute
or disseminate?
Channels
What will it cost?
Budget & opportunity costs
How will you fund it?
Capital, income, and/or co-funders
STATE OF THE WORLD/ISSUE
Problem environment that you are trying to change
RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS
Financial resources available, internally and across the field
REGULATORY
& POLITICAL
ENVIRONMENT
Legal and cultural
policy limitations
that define the
range of possible
actions
ACTOR
LANDSCAPE
The funders,
nonprofits, and
other players
working on the
issue you
care about
Philanthropy Canvas Worksheet
Rockefeller Philanthrophy Advisors

Achieving Success
in Postsecondary Education:
The Facts About Student Debt
Report
01

Achieving Success
Trends in Philanthropy
Report
02

Achieving Success
A Q&A on Student Loans

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Using Power Purchase
Agreements for Solar
Deployment at Universities
Solar power purchase agreements (PPAs) have facilitated
more than 100 megawatts (MW) of solar deployment on
campuses around the country. This brochure provides
guidance to universities on the process of using PPAs and how
PPAs can make economic sense for campus solar deployment.
This document can support university stakeholders charged
with the financial planning of campus solar projects.
What is a Power Purchase Agreement?
In a PPA, a solar purchaser or “offtaker” buys power from
a project developer at a negotiated rate for a specified term
without taking ownership of the system. The project developer
procures, builds, operates, and maintains the system. The
solar photovoltaic (PV) system may be physically located
on the offtaker’s premises (onsite PPA) or located remotely
from the offtaker (offsite PPA). In either case, a PPA is a
financial mechanism that allows the offtaker to accrue many
of the benefits of solar power without owning a system. The
PPA conveys the economic benefits, and in some cases the
environmental benefits, of solar power to the offtaker regardless
of whether the power is physically delivered to serve the
offtaker’s electric demand.
How Does a PPA Work?
The university (offtaker) buys
power at a negotiated PPA rate
($/kWh) for a specified PPA
term without taking ownership
of the solar system. The project
developer or a tax equity
investor owns the system. The developer is responsible for all
permitting, installation, maintenance, and decommissioning.
PPAs: Key Components and Terms
Assignability: The ability of the project developer to transfer
site rights to another party.
Contract term: The period during which the offtaker agrees to
purchase power from the system owner.
Escalator: Contract clause under which the PPA price increases
over time at a pre-determined rate, generally less than 3%.
Expiration: Conditions defining the offtaker’s options at the
end of the contract term, including whether the offtaker will
have the option to purchase the system.
Environmental attributes: Contractual instruments
representing the environmental attributes (renewable energy
certificates) of the system’s output.
Liabilities: The contract defines the obligations of the offtaker
and the system owner for system maintenance, repair, or other
liabilities arising from unforeseen events.
Offtaker: The purchaser of power and/or renewable attributes
of the system.
Performance terms: The PPA specifies the obligations of
both the offtaker and system owner concerning the system’s
performance, including any exclusions under which either
party is exempt from compliance with contract terms (e.g.,
force majeure events).
PPA price: The contract specifies the rate ($/kWh) at which the
offtaker will pay the project developer for the system’s output.
Site right agreement: Agreement defining the developer’s
rights to access and use the offtaker’s property for project
development, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning.
Tax equity: Capital raised from a taxable entity in return for the
receipt of tax incentives.
Cover photos courtesy of University of California-Irvine, Colorado State University,
Mount St. Mary’s University, and Arizona State University.
Average offtaker rates for systems between 100 kW and 5 MW, by
state and region in 2015. Regional figures based on non-weighted
state averages. Data are a representative sample. Source: Mercatus

Using Power Purchase Agreements 2
The PPA Process
Step 1: Preliminary Assessment
Like any solar procurement process, the PPA process
begins with a preliminary assessment of PV suitability on
campus. Universities typically begin by studying whether
PV is an economically viable option or whether PV is in
line with other university goals. Universities can conduct
preliminary site assessments to provide potential developers
with information on proposed sites. Universities can use
NREL’s System Advisor Model (SAM) to perform preliminary
assessments and work with NREL staff to identify cost
effective solar options using NREL’s Renewable Energy
Optimization (REopt) tool.
Step 2: Finding a Project Developer
Offtakers typically use a Request For Proposal (RFP) to
solicit competitive PPA bids. The RFP is one of the most
important steps of the process as subsequent issues can arise
if the RFP terms result in a PPA that does not satisfy the
university’s needs. RFPs must be sufficiently prescriptive but
also flexible enough to ensure a successful RFP. Universities
can identify which elements of the RFP terms will be
negotiable and non-negotiable during PPA development.
Universities may want to base their selection on developer’s
project development experience, financial stability, and
willingness to provide performance guarantees, among other
possible criteria.
Step 3: PPA Negotiation
After a winning bid has been selected, the offtaker negotiates
a long-term contract with the developer to purchase the
system’s power. The parties negotiate site rights (i.e.,
license, easement, or lease), the contract term, the PPA price
structure, and the ownership of the environmental attributes
of the project.
PPA contract terms generally range from 15 to 25 years,
roughly in line with the expected lifetime of solar PV
modules. The PPA typically specifies the offtaker’s options
at the end of the contract, which usually consist of contract
termination and system removal, contract renewal, or the
option to purchase the system at fair market value.
Determining a PPA pricing structure is a crucial step in the
successful outcome of the PPA process. The objective of the
PPA price structure can be maximizing long-term cost savings
or immediate electricity cost savings. A fixed PPA price that
is currently higher than the incumbent utility electricity rate
may make sense if the utility rate is expected to increase
above the fixed PPA rate some time in the future (the Energy
Information Administration projects that average retail
electricity prices will rise by about 0.6% per year over the
next 25 years). A PPA escalator is another form of PPA price
where the PPA price increases over time at some negotiated
rate (generally less than 3%).
Last, PPA negotiation generally addresses ownership of
the environmental incentives and attributes of the project
embodied in renewable energy certificates (RECs). In order
to claim to be using solar power, make environmental
claims, and credit the renewable attributes towards one’s
greenhouse gas reporting, the university (offtaker) must
receive and retain the associated RECs from the project. If the
university wants to use their purchase towards their Climate
Leadership Commitment goals or join the EPA’s Green Power
Partnership, they will need to retain ownership of the RECs.
However, developer ownership of RECs may significantly
improve project economics, depending on the market.
For more information on RECs, see NREL’s Renewable
Electricity: How do you know you are using it?
Short-term losses

3 Using Power Purchase Agreements
Why Use PPAs? – Tax Equity
Several federal and state policies allow investors to reduce
their tax liabilities in proportion to an investment in a solar
project. Universities, as public agencies or 501(c)(3) non-
profit organizations, generally do not pay taxes. Thus,
university ownership of solar systems inevitably leaves
“money on the table” in the form of un-monetized tax
benefits. PPAs allow universities to benefit indirectly from tax
incentives through lower electricity prices by using tax equity.
“PPAs made the most sense for our large projects. As a
nonprofit that cannot take advantage of tax incentives, we
simply couldn’t leave that much money sitting on the table.”
– Carol Dollard, Colorado State University (CSU).
CSU signed a PPA for 5.3 MW in 2009.
Tax equity investors are taxable entities that fully or
partially purchase solar projects in return for the receipt of
tax incentives. Project developers either invest tax equity
themselves or sell the system to a tax equity investor, who then
monetizes the tax incentives (typically within five years). The
tax equity investor leases the project to the developer at a lease
rate that reflects the lower capital cost achieved through the
tax incentives. The project developer can then pass the lower
capital cost to the university offtaker via a lower PPA price.
“PPAs are the model we use. There is no money up front.
We don’t need to bring in new in-house expertise. There is
stable pricing.”
– Rick Coulon, University of California-Irvine.
UC-Irvine has signed a 3.2 MW PPA.
Primary Federal Tax Incentives
The federal solar investment tax credit (ITC) provides
30% of the value of an investment in a solar system.
Following an extension in 2015, the ITC is set to ramp
down in 2020 and will fall to 10% in 2022. Solar projects
are also eligible for accelerated depreciation. Project
developers can make deductions for the full basis of
project cost (after accounting for the ITC deduction)
within five years of project operation.
Other PPA Benefits
No up-front cost: PPAs allow universities to consume power
produced from a solar system without tying up capital in
a large up-front investment. The zero-up-front-cost makes
PPAs an easier sell to university boards and financial planners
concerned about returns on investments.
No additional budgetary outlays: Existing budgetary outlays
for electricity can be converted directly into PPA expenditures,
thus PPAs do not require the creation of a new capital source
to cover the solar investment. Further, PPAs do not require
budgetary outlays for system operation and maintenance.
Electricity price certainty and hedging opportunities:
Long-term PPA contracts improve cost certainty in university
budgets relative to volatile utility electricity rates.
Procedural simplicity and maintenance: PPAs allow
universities to install solar without any requirement for in-
house solar expertise. The project developer is responsible for
all system interconnection procedures during installation and
all maintenance during system operation.
Challenges to PPAs
• PPAs are not available in all states (see next page)
• PPAs entail a learning curve for university staff
• Some university CFOs may be hesitant to enter into a
long-term contract for power
• Low university creditworthiness can result in higher
PPA prices.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
15013 Denver West Parkway
Golden, CO 80401
303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov
NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
NREL/BR-6A20-65567 • January 2016
Where are PPAs Allowed?
State regulations limit or restrict non-utility providers from selling electric power
in regulated electricity markets. Twenty-five states and Washington, D.C. have
facilitated PPAs by clarifying that third-party system owners are not subject to
regulation as a utility. Consult the Database for State Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency for the PPA policy in your state.
Campus PPAs by the Numbers
Many campuses have already used PPAs to procure more than 100 MW of solar capacity. Below are some key numbers and
figures that summarize universities’ experience with PPAs to date.
Figure based on data from The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education Campus Solar Photovoltaics Installation
Database (2015). Data are self-reported and should be interpreted as a representative sample. Data represent PPAs both with and without
offtaker ownership of RECs.
With a PPA
Without
a PPA

ClimateChange.
-ExtremeWeatherEvents.
-Droughts
-HeatWaves
-RisingTemperatures
-StrongerHurricanes
-OceanAcidification.
IntheMidwest-
"Extremeheat,
heavydownpours
andflooding
willaffectinfrastructure,
health,
agriculture,
forestry,
transportation,
airandwaterquality,
andmore.
Climatechange
willalsoexacerbate
arangeofriskstotheGreatLakes."
-NASA
"...sowideopen
thecompetitivepressures
arenon-existent"
-ChamathPalihapitiya
FounderandCEO,SocialCapital
Government-variousscales
Business-variousscales
Privatecitizens
Partner
Owner
Tenant
Like-mindedpartners.
Thisisanarchitecturefirm,
weworkwitheveryone
exceptforassholes.
Andsometimesevenassholes.
Iwouldlike
todesign
aDarrieustype
VerticalAxisOffshoreWindTurbine
withsurroundingplatforms
formaintenance/mooringandanchoring
tobedeployed,enmasse,
inLakeMichigan,topowertheLoop.
Allowingmygrandkid's
grandkids
ahabitableplanet.
TheplanetEarth
7.5-11billionhumans
Whyisthisboxsosmall?
SustainableInfrastructure
-RenewableEnergy
-UrbanAgriculture
-MaterialsRecovery(Recycling)
Resilienthabitation
Vlogs/Podcasts
WhitePapers
Forums/
PanelConversations/
Conventions,
Direct
Peer-to-Peer
RelationshipBuilding
Month1:PurchaseaMacbookPro,installandconfiguresoftware.
Months1-3:Becomeeducatedin3Dmodelingandprinting.
Months4-12:Prototype,reviewdata,iterate.
Months8-12:Continuetobuilduponexistingrelations
withdataandproposalsfortheproject.
Iexpectthisprocess
willtake15-30years.
Revenue:3-5MajorProjects($60-100M)peryear,
10CommunityProjects($1-10M)throughpublicorprivatepartners,
&minimum1pro-bonosocial-impactproject.
Negotiate5-15%equitywhereapplicable.
Otherrevenuefrome-commerce,
rootshomegoods.com,forsustainablelifestyleproducts;andsocialmediarevenue.
"...whatisundeniableisweareripping
apartthebiodiversityofourplanet.What
isundeniableisthatweasahuman
populationwillbeforcedtoconcentrate
becausecertainpartsoftheworldwillget
basically,youknow,subsumedbywater.
Wedonothavefoodsuppliesthatwill
feed-theseareconclusivelyknownto
betrue,yetnobodyisreallyworkingona
problem.Andpartofitisbecausethe
peoplewonʼthavetheambitiontogo
afterit;thecapitalmarketsdon'treward
thatkindofdecisionmaking.Butif
somebodyweretosolveitdon'tyouthink
thattheyareineconomictermsamulti
trillionaire?Ofcourse."
-ChamathPalihapitiya
FounderandCEO,SocialCapital
I'mwilling
toworkharder
andsmarter
thanalargeportion
ofthehumanpopulation.
Italkthetalk
because
Icanwalkthewalk.

Illinois Institute of Technology
History and Campuses
In 1890,
when advanced education
was often reserved for society’s elite,
Chicago minister
Frank Wakely Gunsaulus
delivered what came to be known
as the “Million Dollar Sermon.”
From the pulpit
of his South Side church,
near the site
Illinois Institute of Technology
now occupies,
Gunsaulus said
that with a million dollars
he could build a school
where students of all backgrounds
could prepare for meaningful roles
in a changing industrial society.
Inspired by Gunsaulus’s vision,
Philip Danforth Armour Sr. (1832–1901)
gave $1 million
to found Armour Institute.
Armour,
his wife, Malvina Belle Ogden Armour (1842–1927),
and their son J. (Jonathan) Ogden Armour (1863–1927)
continued to support the university
in its early years.
When Armour Institute opened
in 1893,
it offered professional courses
in engineering,
chemistry,
architecture,
and library science.
Illinois Tech
was created in 1940
by the merger
of Armour Institute
and Lewis Institute.
Located on the west side of Chicago,
Lewis Institute,
established in 1895
by the estate of hardware merchant
and investor
Allen C. Lewis,
offered liberal arts
as well as science
and engineering courses
for both men and women.
At separate meetings
held by their respective boards
on October 26, 1939,
the trustees of Armour and Lewis
voted to merge the two colleges.
A Cook County circuit court decision
on April 23, 1940,
solidified the merger.

Main Building
Constructed 1893
Machinery Building
Constructed 1901

The Institute of Design (ID),
founded in Chicago by Làszlò Moholy-Nagy
in 1937,
merged with Illinois Tech in 1949.
Chicago-Kent College of Law,
founded in 1887,
became part of the university
in 1969,
making Illinois Institute of Technology
one of the few
technology-based universities
with a law school.
Also in 1969,
Stuart School of Management and Finance
—now known as Stuart School of Business—
was established
thanks to a gift
from the estate of Lewis Institute alumnus
and Chicago financier
Harold Leonard Stuart.
The program became Stuart School of Business in 1999.
The Midwest College of Engineering,
founded in 1967,
joined the university in 1986,
giving Illinois Tech a presence
in west suburban Wheaton
with what is today known as Rice Campus—
home to Illinois Tech’s School of Applied Technology.
In December 2006
University Technology Park
at Illinois Institute of Technology
,
an incubator and life sciences/tech startup facility,
was started in existing research buildings
located on the south end
of Mies Campus.
University Technology Park is now home to many companies.
Today,
Illinois Tech is a private,
Ph.D.-granting research university
with programs
in engineering,
science,
human sciences,
applied technology,
architecture,
business,
design,
and law.
One of the 21 institutions
that comprise the Association of Independent Technological Universities (AITU),
Illinois Tech offers exceptional preparation
for professions that require technological sophistication.
Through a committed faculty
and close personal attention,
Illinois Tech provides a challenging academic program
focused by the rigor of the real world.

Jones Hall
Perlstein Hall
Constructed 1947
Paul V. Galvin Library
Constructed 1962
S.R. Crown Hall
Constructed 1955

The university has four campuses
in the Chicago area.
The 120-acre Mies Campus,
centered at 33rd and State streets in Chicago,
as well as many of its buildings,
were designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe,
who directed the architecture program at Illinois Tech
from 1938–1958
and was one of the twentieth century’s
most influential architects.
S. R. Crown Hall,
home of Illinois Tech College of Architecture,
was named a National Historic Landmark in 2001,
and part of the Illinois Tech Mies Campus
was entered into
the National Register of Historic Places
in 2005.
Chicago and Its Environs
Chicago is world renowned
for its museums and architecture,
and offers exceptional career
and internship opportunities
in all of Illinois Tech’s fields of study.
The city and its surroundings
form an international center
of finance and law,
a manufacturing and transportation hub,
and the home of two national research laboratories
(Argonne National Laboratory
and Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory),
as well as numerous medical facilities
and corporate headquarters.
Diversions range
from a world-class symphony orchestra
to major league sports teams.
Located on the southwestern shore
of Lake Michigan,
Chicago boasts miles
of attractive beaches and parks
for jogging,
biking,
swimming,
and boating.
Ethnic neighborhoods
throughout the city
provide an international array
of cultures and cuisine.
Chicago is also rich
in live theater,
and music clubs abound.
http://bulletin.iit.edu/undergraduate/university-overview/iit-history-campuses/

McCormick Tribune Campus Center
Constructed 2003
State Street Village
Constructed 2003

IIT Board of Trustees
Officers
Alan W. ‘Bud’ Wendorf ‘71
Chairman of the Board
Former Chairman/ President/ Chief Executive Officer, Sargent & Lundy
Alan W. Cramb
President
Craig J. Duchossois
Vice Chair
Chief Executive Officer, The Duchossois Group, Inc.
Michael P. Galvin Vice Chair
President, Harrison Street Capital, LLC
Victor A. Morgenstern ‘64
Vice Chair
President, Resolute Advisors, Inc.
David J. Vitale
Vice Chair
University Regents
Craig J. Duchossois
Chief Executive Officer, The Duchossois Group, Inc.
John W. Rowe
Chairman Emeritus, Exelon Corporation
Ralph Wanger
RW Investments
Bob Galvin
(Deceased)
Bob Pritzker
(Deceased)
Al Self
(Deceased)
Bruce C. Liimatainen ‘77
Rosemarie Mitchell
Anita M. Nagler ‘80
Walter Nathan ‘44
Chairman and Co-Founder (Retired) RTC(Global in Store Marketing)
Robert J. Potter
President, R. J. Potter Company
Carole Browe Segal
President, Segal Family Foundation
Carl S. Spetzler ‘63, ‘65, ‘68
Chief Executive Officer, Strategic Decisions Group
Efthimios J. “Tim” Stojka
Chief Executive Officer, Fast Heat, Inc.
Priscilla Anne Walter
Of Counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Alan W. “Bud” Wendorf ‘71
Former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Sargent & Lundy
Trustees
Judson B. Althoff ‘95
Executive Vice President, Worldwide Commercial Business, Microsoft Corporation
Andrea L. Berry ‘84
David L. Crowell ‘79
Managing Director/ CEO, RMC International
A. Steven Crown
General Partner, Henry Crown and Company
Jim Dugan
CEO/ Co-Founder/ Managing Partner, OCA Ventures
Carter H. Eckert Sr. ‘64
S. Christopher Gladwin
CEO, OCIENT
Michael J. Graff ‘77
Chairman/ CEO, American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc.
Elzie Higginbottom
President/ CEO, East Lake Management and Development Corp.
Jeffrey A. “Jeff” Karp ‘79 (Retired)
Chief Executive Officer, Power Construction Company, LLC

Life Trustees
William C. Bartholomay
Chairman, Willis Towers Watson
John P. Calamos Sr. ‘63, ‘70
Founder, Chairman, CEO, and Co-Chief Investment Officer, Calamos Asset Management, Inc.
Martin Cooper ‘50, ‘57
Chairman, Dyna, LLC
Robert A. Cornog ‘61
James E. Cowie
Bryan R. Dunn
President and Chief Executive Officer, Kinship Trust Company, LLC
James R. Gagnard ‘69
Illinois Technology Association
Jamshyd N. Godrej ‘72
Chairman and Managing Director, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
Alvin L. Gorman
Chairman, Power Contracting and Engineering Corporation
Marc R. Hannah, Ph.D. ‘77
Partner, SUDA, LLC (Strategic Urban Development Alliance)
James Hill Jr.
Mitchell & Titus
Martin C. Jischke ‘63
President Emeritus, Purdue University
Ellen M. Jordan ‘79, ‘81
President/ Founder, America’s Food Technologies, Inc.
Norbert O. Kaiser ‘63
Chairman/ Chairman of the Board SSWhite Dental, Inc.
Edward L. Kaplan ‘65
President, Nalpak, Inc.
Chairman Emeritus of Zebra Technologies
Patrick J. Kelly
Chief Executive Officer, DP Holdings, Inc.
Jules F. Knapp
Chairman/ CEO Grisham Security Doors
Kaarina Koskenalusta
Partner/Shareholder, SandPointe, LLC
John H. Krehbiel Jr.
Partner, KF Partners, LLC
Thomas E. Lanctot (Retired)
Partner / Head of Debt Capital Markets, William Blair & Company
Bruce C. Liimatainen ‘77
Rosemarie Mitchell
Anita M. Nagler ‘80
Walter Nathan ‘44
Chairman and Co-Founder (Retired) RTC(Global in Store Marketing)
Robert J. Potter
President, R. J. Potter Company
Carole Browe Segal
President, Segal Family Foundation
Carl S. Spetzler ‘63, ‘65, ‘68
Chief Executive Officer, Strategic Decisions Group
Efthimios J. “Tim” Stojka
Chief Executive Officer, Fast Heat, Inc.
Priscilla Anne Walter
Of Counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Alan W. “Bud” Wendorf ‘71
Former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Sargent & Lundy

Trustees
Judson B. Althoff ‘95
Executive Vice President, Worldwide Commercial Business, Microsoft Corporation
Andrea L. Berry ‘84
David L. Crowell ‘79
Managing Director/ CEO, RMC International
A. Steven Crown
General Partner, Henry Crown and Company
Jim Dugan
CEO/ Co-Founder/ Managing Partner, OCA Ventures
Carter H. Eckert Sr. ‘64
S. Christopher Gladwin
CEO, OCIENT
Michael J. Graff ‘77
Chairman/ CEO, American Air Liquide Holdings, Inc.
Elzie Higginbottom
President/ CEO, East Lake Management and Development Corp.
Jeffrey A. “Jeff” Karp ‘79 (Retired)
Chief Executive Officer, Power Construction Company, LLC
Joel D. Krauss ‘71
Co-Founder/ Managing Partner, Market Strategy Group, LLC
Eric C. Larson
Tilia Holdings, LLC
Richard Neil Levy ‘97
CEO/ Founder, Victory Park Capital
Sherrie B. Littlejohn ‘82 V
Victor Lo ‘73
Chairman/ CEO, Gold Peak Industries (Holdings) Ltd.
Dave J. Miniat
Chief Executive Officer, Miniat Holdings, LLC
Madhavan K. Nayar ‘68
President, E-Prairie, LLC
John G. Olin ‘61
Chairman/ Founder, Sierra Instruments, Inc.
Mayari Pritzker ‘01
President, Robert and Mayari Pritzker Family Foundation
Mitchell Harris “Mitch” Saranow
Chairman/ Founder, The Saranow Group, LLC
Michael Steven Seedman
Executive Partner, Siris Capital Group, LLC
Harold Singleton III ‘83
Stephen Urrutia
Managing Director/ Operations Executive JP Morgan Chase
John C. Walden ‘86
President/ CEO, FTD Companies
Brian C. Walker
Vice President, Digital Architecture and Operations, W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Robert J. Washlow ‘70
Manager, Bay West Management, LLC
Kevin Willer
Partner, Chicago Ventures

Where Things Currently Stand
As of Fall 2017,
IIT
has a student body
of 7,266 students,
amongst 8 colleges.
2,724 are undergraduates,
2,816 are graduate students
1,346
are seeking post-graduate education.
2,581 students are female,
(SAIC percentage comparison)
1,085 are URM*
Defined as
African American,
Hispanic,
American Indian or Alaskan Native,
two or more races,
Native Hawaiian,
or Pacific Islander.
62% of graduate students
are international students
21% of undergraduate students
are international students
from as many as 100 countries.
In the Spring of 2017
IIT awarded
2,775 degrees.
IIT
has 77,194
living alumni,
and a retention rate
of 93%.
SAIC
has a retention rate
of 66%.
2018-2019 tuition/ room and board
is estimated to be ~$46,000-$62,000.
The average scholarships and grants
awarded to a student
who’s FAFSA reports
less than $45,000 per year
in household income
is $41,390
91.98% of Tuition
The average scholarships and grants
awarded to a student
who’s FAFSA reports
greater than $135,000 per year
in household income
is $27,600
61.33%

Over 2007 - 2015,
annual tuition/ fee revenue increased
from ~$85 million to ~$152 million
as student enrollment increased.
Grants for student tuition assistance increased
from ~$46 million to ~ $105 million.
IIT awards 31.25% more grants than SAIC.
Student health insurance
at IIT
costs $1,441 per year.
Students choose
their enrollment duration,
annual,
Spring,
or Summer.
Health insurance
may also be purchased
by students
for spouses
and children.
Student housing
costs $7,200 for 2 people in one room
up to $21,500 to live alone in an apartment.
Meal plans
cost $1,224 for 50 meals per semester
plus 50 “Bonus Points”
which can be spent in dining halls
and rollover from Fall to Spring
up to $6,857 for 21 meals per week
(3 per day, everyday.)
plus 75 “Bonus Points”
IIT participates
in the U-Pass program,
though not in the summer.
IIT maintains
a partnership with Apple,
though they receive standard Education discounts.

“The Duchossois Leadership Scholars Program
is a nationally preeminent,
elite scholarship program
providing full-tuition
with a room and board allowance
attracting top students nationwide
who demonstrate exceptional leadership potential
and academic success
in their projected field.”
Candidates competing
for the Camras Scholars Program,
one of IIT’s highest
undergraduate academic honors,
satisfy very high selection standards.
Students must demonstrate
outstanding academics,
involvement in extracurricular activities
and dedication to leadership.
Camras Scholars enjoy
full tuition benefits,
leadership development
and enhanced access
to research and community service opportunities.
Each year
the Crown Scholarship
provides full tuition
for five years
to one
first-year,
full-time architecture student.
The Crown Scholarship looks
for creativity,
ingenuity
and a desire to study architecture
in a historic place like Chicago,
IIT,
and S. R. Crown Hall.
Students need to provide
academic credentials
and an original freehand drawing.
Selected applicants are invited
to interview on campus
in mid-February
with a panel
of architecture professionals
and college studio faculty.

In tax year 2015
IIT
employed 4,534
faculty and staff.
The total cost
of salaries and wages
was $133,117,812.
Divided equally
amongst all 4,534
faculty and staff
each person
would receive
$29,359.
As of tax year 2015
IIT’s endowment
is $226,847,501
Top administrative pay
generally ranges
from ~$300,000
to~$800,000 for the President.
In tax year 2015
IIT reported
3 financial transactions
with companies
owned or operated
by IIT Trustees.
These transactions
totaled $1,801,195.
IIT lost
~$486,217
due to fundraising
and gaming activities.
This compares
to SAIC’s loss
of -$914,678
IIT operates and maintains
educational facilities
in India.
In tax year 2015,
IIT (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD
recieved $476,407
of IIT’s income
and retained
$189,418 of assets.
As of May 31, 2016
IIT has $24,605,000
in cash equivalents
$12,900,000
in real estate
$5,399,000
in stocks and bonds
$127,729
in equity mutual funds
$52,172,000
in fixed income mutual funds
$16,083,000
in hedge funds and venture capital.
Over the previous decade
IIT has seen a net decrease in investment - or divestment
of $112,419,000 million
at fair market value.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Team Work Makes the Dream Work
Both institutions
stand to gain
financially,
through operational
cost reduction
and
through new revenue streams
or tax credit opportunities.
socially,
through public health benefits
and shared social capital,
and intellectually,
by combining knowledge
and building trust
in order to help solve
the greatest problem of our era;
climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1
World Energy
Resources
Wind | 2016

Wind could provide 26% of
China's electricity by 2030
Company commits to £300m UK
offshore windfarm despite Brexit
Offshore wind power
under development to aid
Fukushima recovery
Endless windmills in the
ocean powering our cities?
It’s not sci-fi, it’s here
Small-scale wind
energy on the rise
US company moves ahead with
765 MW floating wind project
European offshore wind
investment hits €14bn in 2016
Sweden breaks wind
power record by half a
million kWh after storms
Giant wind turbines now at
8 MW, and getting larger
Wind
All electric trains in the
Netherlands now run on
wind energy

Renewable
Power
Generation
Costs in 2017

Future renewable energy costs:
Offshore wind
57 technology innovations that will have greater impact on reducing
the cost of electricity from European offshore wind farms
Update
2017

Cost Modelling of
Floating Wind Farms
Georgios Katsouris
Andrew Marina
March 2016
ECN-E--15- 078

Research and analysis provided by
OFFSHORE WIND
PROJECT COST
OUTLOOK
2014 EDITION

2016 Offshore Wind Technologies Market Report

2016 Wind Technologies Market Report

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308
2015 Cost of Wind Energy
Review
Christopher Mone and Maureen Hand
Mark Bolinger and Joseph Rand
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Donna Heimiller and Jonathan Ho
Technical Report
NREL/TP-6A20-66861
Revised May 2017

The Economics of Offshore Wind
Richard Green and Nicholas Vasilakos*
Department of Economics
University of Birmingham
Birmingham B15 2TT
Tel: +44 121 415 8216
Email: r.j.green@bham.ac.uk
n.vasilakos@bham.ac.uk
Abstract
This paper presents an overview of the main issues associated with the economics of offshore
wind. Investment in offshore wind systems has been growing rapidly throughout Europe, and
the technology will be essential in meeting EU targets for renewable energy in 2020. Offshore
wind suffers from high installation and connection costs, however, making government support
essential. We review various support policies used in Europe, concluding that tender-based
feed-in tariff schemes, as used in Denmark, may be best for providing adequate support while
minimising developers’ rents. It may prove economic to build an international offshore grid by
connecting wind farms belonging to different countries that are sited close to each other.
JEL Codes: D43, L13, L94, Q41, Q42
Keywords: offshore wind power, cost analysis; market trends.
*
This research is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and our industrial
partners, via the Supergen Flexnet Consortium, Grant Number EP/E04011X/1. It has also been supported by
Advantage West Midlands and the European Regional Development Fund via the Birmingham Science City
Energy Efficiency Project. We would like to thank participants at the conference on Offshore Wind Power, held
in Birmingham in August 2009, for helpful comments. The views expressed are ours alone.

INTRODUCTION:
chicago
sustainable
industries
Phase One: A Manufacturing Work Plan for the 21st Century
g y
go
P
CHICAGO
SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES
A BUSINESS PLAN FOR MANUFACTURING
CITY OF CHICAGO
RAHM EMANUEL, MAYOR

IntroductIon:
Chicago Sustainable Industries
2
Introduction:
Chicago’s Sustainable Industries (CSI) initiative is being developed to support the city’s man-
ufacturing sector within an evolving global economy. The initiative’s first phase establishes a
process that will lead to a formal government strategy that maximizes public resources for the
sector’s long-term viability for local workers, the business community and the urban environ-
ment.The process, background and relevant resources are presented in this document.
The CSI initiative is targeting existing manufacturers along with specific manufacturing
sub-sectors that demonstrate an enduring, positive influence on Chicago’s economy.
These sub-sectors, collectively referred to as the city’s manufacturing base, are characterized
by a greater labor concentration than national norms, sales activities that occur beyond the city
and region, and exceptional connections with other types of local businesses.
Manufacturers, by definition, are engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transforma-
tion of materials, substances or components into new products, typically within establishments
referred to as factories, plants and mills. Though Chicago and the United States have experi-
enced substantial declines in manufacturing employment in recent decades, the city remains
the nexus of the country’s historically most production-oriented region. In 2010, approximately
65,000 people were employed by 2,600 companies operating within city limits, according to
the Illinois Department of Employment Security. The United States, meanwhile, still produces
more goods than any other country; approximately 20 percent of the world’s total output, ac-
cording to the Chicago Federal Reserve.

Enabling Wind Power
Nationwide
May 2015

U.S. Offshore Wind Manufacturing
and Supply Chain Development
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Energy
Navigant Consulting, Inc.
77 Bedford Street
Suite 400
Burlington, MA 01803-5154
781.270.8314
www.navigant.com
February 22, 2013

Life-Cycle Cost of a Floating Offshore
Wind Farm
Laura Castro-Santos
Abstract This chapter describes a general methodology in order to calculate the
costs of a floating offshore wind farm. It is based on the analysis of its life-cycle
cost system (LCS). In this sense, several phases have been defined: conception and
definition, design and development, manufacturing, installation, exploitation and
dismantling. The calculation of costs of each of these steps gives the total cost of a
floating offshore wind farm. The method proposed has been applied to the particular
case of the Galician coast, where a floating offshore wind farm could be installed
due to the great offshore wind potential and the depth of its waters. Results indicate
that the most important cost in the life cycle of a floating offshore wind farm is the
manufacturing cost. It is due to the fact that the floating offshore wind platforms and
the offshore wind turbines have a high cost. The methodology proposed can be used
by investors in the future to know the real costs of a floating offshore wind farm.
Keywords Life-cycle cost Á Floating offshore wind farm Á Ocean energy
1 Introduction
Offshore wind energy is an emerging technology which can be subdivided into two
main types of devices: fixed (tri-piles, monopiles, etc.) and floating [semisub-
mersible, spar and tensioned leg platform (TLP)]. Nowadays, fixed structures
compose the offshore wind farms in the North Sea. On the other hand, floating
offshore wind devices are new technologies, the study of which will be developed
in the following years.
In this sense, it is important to know the life cycle of a floating offshore wind
farm. It can be studied considering two views [1, 2]: environmental and economic.
Nevertheless, this chapter will focus on the economic issue.
L. Castro-Santos (&)
Departamento de Enxeñaría Naval e Oceánica, Universidade da Coruña, C/Mendizábal, s/n,
15403 Ferrol, A Coruña, Spain
e-mail: laura.castro.santos@udc.es
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
L. Castro-Santos and V. Diaz-Casas (eds.), Floating Offshore Wind Farms,
Green Energy and Technology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27972-5_2
23

Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Master's Theses Graduate School
2014
Minimization of transportation, installation and
maintenance operations costs for offshore wind
turbines
Tasnim Ibn Faiz
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses
Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU
Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact gcoste1@lsu.edu.
Recommended Citation
Faiz, Tasnim Ibn, "Minimization of transportation, installation and maintenance operations costs for offshore wind turbines" (2014).
LSU Master's Theses. 3368.
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3368

NORTH BRANCH
FRAMEWORK
MAYOREMANUEL’SINDUSTRIALCORRIDORMODERNIZATION
City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development Department of Transportation

iscPress
EditedbyTwyleneMoyer
andGlennHarper
TheNew
Earthwork
ArtActionAgency
The New Earthwork Art Action Agency
Edited by Twylene Moyer and Glenn Harper
C01-04-rev2_cover8/29/1312:34Page1

Edited by
Jesse Colin Jackson
Roderick Grant
Patricio Davila
III. Peter Hall
V. Terreformone
2013
Ecologies
Urban
I. Teddy Cruz
Alomar
Atkinson
Bernbaum & Plaxton
Blackwell
Bogdanowicz
Bowes
Bresler
Briker
Brown & Storey
Colangelo & Davila
Constable & Turnbull
Danahey
Desai
Diamond
Ebrahim
EvERGREEn
Fard & Jafari
Foster
Gloushenkova & Murray
Gray
Hinds, Hastrich & Clarke
Ingram
Jackson & Bell
Kapelos
Khamsi
Lee
Lister
Margolis
McCartney
Montgomery & Roberts
no.9
ormston-Holloway
Pearson
Przybylski
Sarmadi
Schneider
Schwann & Haenrates
Sheppard
Solow-Ruda & Wilson
SPACInG
Stewart
Taalman & Fontenot
WATERFRonT
Whitehead

ABSTRACT
CIVIC EXPERIMENTS: TACTICS FOR PRAXIS
Frances Whitehead, Professor, Sculpture + Architecture, School of the Art Institute of Chicago; Principal, ARTetal
Studio, Inc.
Arriving through dialogue between urban planners and artists, a “knowledge claim” for contemporary artists forms the
basis of a series of experimental projects undertaken since 2006 aimed at exploring the role of culture in
sustainability. This document articulates the tacit, methodological, and cultural knowledge of artists, outside the
dispositional language of “creativity.” A strategic examination of agency evolves, including “free agency” and “double
agency”, as a reflection of the perceived relationship between creative autonomy and agency, especially in the public
sphere. Working initially from Fry’s concept of redirective practice, and the imperative to redirect from within, “opting
in” inverts the conventional mechanisms of activist art practice. This speculative transformation strategy generates a
series of linked civic initiatives, including The Embedded Artist Project. I will describe the formulation of these projects,
and the ways in which they make use of literature relevant to the discourses of (trans)disciplinarity and sustainability.
I also describe a series of emergent “change tactics”, which are informed by ideas from contemporary art theory and
practice as they pertain to sustainability, relationality, and social art practices. These tactics include transliteration,
revaluation, performativity, and the use of multivalent intentions —tacit and explicit.

•
What do Artists Know?
Frances Whitehead © 2006
Beyond a wide range of material practices, histories and techniques, concepts and
theoretical frameworks, artists are trained to use a unique set of skills and
methodologies. These include:
 Synthesizing diverse facts, goals, and references – making connections
and speaking many “languages”. Artists are very “lateral” in their
research and operations and have great intellectual and operational
agility.
 Production of new knowledge as evidenced by the 100+ year history of
innovation and originality as a top criterion
 Creative, in-process problem solving and ongoing processes, not all up-
front creativity: responsivity.
 Artists compose and perform, initiate and carry-thru, design and execute.
This creates a relatively tight “feedback loop” in their process. (see
Complex Adaptive System theory)
 Pro-active not re-active practice: artists are trained to initiate, re-direct
the brief, and consider their intentionality.
 Acute cognizance of individual responsibility for the meanings,
ramifications and consequences of their work. (The down side of this is
that artists are not always team-oriented or willing to compromise due to
the high premium placed on individual responsibility and sole authorship.)
 Understanding of the language of cultural values and how they are
embodied and represented – re-valuation and re-contextualization.
 Participation and maneuvering in non-compensation (social) economies,
idea economies, and other intangible values (capital).
 Proficiency in evaluation and analysis along multiple-criteria -- qualitative
lines, qualitative assessment. Many are skilled in pattern and system
recognition, especially with asymmetrical data.
 Making explicit the implicit -- making visible the invisible.
 Artists do not think outside the box-- there is no box.

The Art Institute of Chicago had* $1.5+ Million in the Cayman Islands

The Art Institute of Chicago had* $1.5+ Million in the Cayman Islands

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Art Institute of Chicago had* $1.5+ Million in the Cayman Islands

Similar to The Art Institute of Chicago had* $1.5+ Million in the Cayman Islands (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Art Institute of Chicago had* $1.5+ Million in the Cayman Islands