VOTED DOWN !!!! - USDF 2009/2010 Proposed Fee Increases

[Aleen]

I must have been hiding my head under a stone because it was only in the last two weeks that I have become aware of the proposed fee increases included in the budget being voted on at the convention this week . . . oh, wait - it was only released and posted on 11/12 - so, that is only a couple of weeks ago!

What do you all think? The only way I saw this was on the GMO President's list . . . Please read and email your regional delegates/chairperson while they are out there this week . . .

Aleen Thomas
Windy Hollow Hunt Dressage

Proposed budget at
http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/financials/09-10ProposedBudgetWeb.pdf

USDF Proposed Budget - Fiscal Year 2010 – Overview
November 10, 2008
The USDF proposed fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget, which spans April 1, 2009 –
March 31, 2010, has been posted for review. It will be discussed at the USDF annual
convention in Denver at the open Budget Meeting for Council/Committee Chairs
on Wednesday, December 3, from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. The budget will be presented
to the Board of Governors (BOG) for final approval on December 5. The Executive
Board has approved the proposed budget along with the associated budget balancing
measures outlined below. USDF policy requires the Executive Board to present a
balanced budget to the BOG.

Several factors made balancing this budget particularly challenging. The
downturn in the economy has had, and is forecasted to continue to have, a negative impact on membership numbers and revenue. All indications are that advertising sales
in the USDF Connection will decline over the next 18 months as advertisers tighten
their belts. Although USDF currently has commitments for record revenue in sponsorships,
we are not optimistic that significant growth opportunities will be available.
Attendance at USDF educational events is predicted to decline as people become more budget minded.

USDF has relied on investment income to subsidize the bottom line. In this
regard, we believe it is prudent to take a conservative outlook regarding income
contributions from the investment portfolio. At the same time that some of our revenue sources are declining, inflation has caused our costs to rise. In some areas, these increases have been significant over the past few years. We anticipate that they will continue to increase at a rate higher than our current revenue stream.

To balance the preliminary budget, the following measures were taken, both on the
expense and revenue side; First, the staff proposed to the Executive Board cost cuts of $237,586. These included a reduction in staff administration costs of $111, 394, and a trimming of program and service costs of $126,192. Some of these expense reductions were in staff travel, Executive Board meetings and travel, USDF Regional Education and Team Competition Grants, reduction in FEI Level Trainers conferences from two to one,
reduction in FEI Jr/YR Clinics from nine to five, reduction in print materials and marketing
projects, and the elimination of the Intercollegiate/Interscholastic Committee and
associated programs, and the High School Dressage Club Pin Program.

Despite these cost cuts, the budget still showed a large deficit. We determined that a
combination of a general dues increase and a fee structure increase would be necessary.
The last dues increase was approved at the 2002 annual convention and implemented on
December 1, 2003. Some of USDF’s dues have not changed since 1997. The proposed
dues increase is for the 2010 membership year, which begins on December 1, 2009. GM
and PM dues will have been unchanged for six years when the new dues would go into
effect. The approach to the dues increase was to spread the burden equitably over all
member categories. (Refer to attached proposed dues increases chart)

The proposed dues increase, along with the cost cuts, still did not balance the budget.
The fee structure was reviewed and adjusted to reflect an equitable fee for service
approach. New fees were introduced, and existing fees were increased. Most of USDF’s
fees have not been raised for many years, some as far back as 1994. (Refer to attached
proposed fees increases chart) The combination of all these measures results in a balanced budget for FY 2010. We believe that fiscally responsible cost-cutting measures have been taken, in addition to the efficient management of USDF operations already in place. Overall, the proposed budget growth is about 3%, the smallest percentage increase in USDF recorded history. The budgeted employee headcount will have been decreased each year over the past three budget cycles. Furthermore, for the next 18 months, USDF does not plan to introduce any significant new programs. We are looking forward to a productive discussion on the USDF proposed FY 2010 budget at the annual convention.

Proposed Dues Increases, effective 12/1/2009:
Member Type Current Dues Last Increase New Dues
Participating $ 62 12/1/2003 $ 85
Youth $ 35 12/1/2004 $ 60
GM $ 17 12/1/2003 $ 23
GM Family $ 8 12/1/2006 $ 11
Business $ 175 1999 $ 200
5 Year $ 250 1997 $ 375
Life $ 1,000 1997 $ 2,000
Non member $ 20 10/1/2007 $ 30

Proposed Fee Increases:
USDF Fees For Service - Increases Current Fee New Fee
Last
Increase Effective Date
Competition Related Fees
NAJYRC Declarations $ 50 $ 75 2003 6/1/2009
NAJYRC Late Declarations $ 150 $ 200 2004 6/1/2009
All Breeds Declaration Fee/Change Fee $ - $ 25 NEW 10/1/2009
USDF Horse Performance Certificates $ 25 $ 35 1994 10/1/2009
Rider Awards Processing Fee $ - $ 35 NEW 10/1/2009
Processing Fee - Pas De Deux Awards $ - $ 35 NEW 10/1/2009
Regional Championship Qualified Ride Fee $ 10 $ 12 1998 10/1/2009
Allocate $2 increase to administration
Horse Recordings
Life Horse Recording $ 85 $ 100 2007 10/1/2009
Horse Identification (HID) $ 20 $ 35 2002 10/1/2009
HID Transfers and Name Changes $ 10 $ 25 2002 10/1/2009
Instructor Certification
Associate Instructor Application Fee $ 25 $ 50 2004 4/1/2009
Certified Instructor Annual Fee $ 40 $ 60 2004 4/1/2009
Workshop Recognition Fee $ 65 $ 75 2000 4/1/2009
Testing Fee T-2 $ 600 $ 700 2006 4/1/2009
Testing Fee 3-4 $ 500 $ 600 2006 4/1/2009
University
Accreditation Fee (30 days) $ 25 $ 35 1995 4/1/2009
Late Accreditation Fee $ 50 $ 75 1996 4/1/2009
Judges and L Programs
Annual Listing Fee for L Graduates $ - $ 25 NEW 4/1/2009
CE Program Application Fee $ 25 $ 45 2005 4/1/2009

[Dressage Art]

I have mixed feelings on that. I know that the show fees didn’t increase for about 10 years, yet most of the trainers increased their fees up to 50%. I remember taking lessons for $30, but now the same trainer is charging $65. Yet the show fees are still $45 per class. So I was wondering already for a long time why the show fees are not being increased = how USDF and USEF can stay in business with the same prices?

SO WHY WE DO NOT SEE ANY INCREASES OF THE SHOW FEES? This just doesn’t make much sense to me.

However, I think by increasing the participating member program, many people will just be GMO members and stick only to the local shows and forget about the year end awards and championships. I don't think that will gain any more $ for USDF.

Also I think USDF needs to get some new ideas and catch up with the current times to be able to harvest the $. I don’t think that USDF uses its Magazine the Dressage connections with all that they can do. For example they can charge to riders to publish their photos in the year book - $100 per photo. Why not? USDF gets hundreds of photos submitted and can only choose a small % of them to publish. Their website is also not used to the full potential. While so many other places make good $ for ads and personal pages = even becoming a millionaires, USDF webpage remains dry and stale.

[Dressage Art]

I’m not opposed to the increasing of fees that didn’t increase for a long time, such as:

Accreditation Fee (30 days) $ 25 last increase in 1995
Late Accreditation Fee $ 50 last increase in 1996
Regional Championship Qualified Ride Fee $ 10 last increase in 1998
USDF Horse Performance Certificates $ 25 last increase in 1994
Business $ 175 last increase in 1999
5 Year $ 250 last increase in 1997
Life $ 1,000 last increase in 1997

I’m also open to the new fees for services that used to be free such as:

All Breeds Declaration Fee/Change Fee $
Rider Awards Processing Fee $
Processing Fee - Pas De Deux Awards $
Annual Listing Fee for L Graduates $

I’m opposed to the increases that were done already just a couple of years ago. Why do it again? Such as:

GM Family $ 8 12/1/2006 ------- $ 11
Non member $ 20 10/1/2007 -------- $ 30
Life Horse Recording $ 85 2007 -------- $ 100
Testing Fee T-2 $ 600 2006 --------$ 700
Testing Fee 3-4 $ 500 2006 ------- $ 600

[yaya]

Per-class fees are set by the individual competitions, NOT by USEF or USDF.

Keeping the class fees low is about the only thing show management has control of to keep expenses down for competitors to keep people coming to their show.

[mjhco]

I had reviewed these changes a couple weeks ago.

I understand USDF wanting to increase fees.

But on the other hand, I think they need to examine their operating budget.

I look at the roster of employees.

USDF has more than double the IT staff than my past two employers had and we were software development companies.

USDF has a very large marketing staff. Why so many and what do they do?

In these times, I perceive recommending fee increases of the magnititude they are demanding it very poor judgment.

It appears they put on clinics at a loss. I perceive closer examination of the costs versus income is required and that clinics should be a break even or profit center.

If all of us have to tighten our belts to survive, I perceive USDF needs to do the same.

[Dressage Art]

How much % of "per-class" fees goes to USEF or USDF?

[Spectrum]

I have to say that I find it interesting that over 60% of membership fees go towards "General Office," and only 4% go towards "Programs and Education."

[pluvinel]

I have to say that I find it interesting that over 60% of membership fees go towards "General Office," and only 4% go towards "Programs and Education."

I used to be chair of a United Way Allocations Panel...eg., we were the volunteers that made decisions about where contributors' funds should go and what agencies should get funded in the local community.

Based on not-for-profit benchmarks, good non-profits devote 80% of their revenues in programs.....and 20% is devoted to "overheads."

It is not unreasonable to ask how the USDF member funds are being spent and what does the membership receive for its moneys.

In non-profit governance, some good question to ask are:

(1) whether there is a disproportionate benefit going to a specific group;
(2) whether ther are conflicts of interest between the decision makers and the persons/groups receiving the benefit;
(3) whether the members' funds are being spent for the benefit of the majority.

In corporate governance (for-profit as well as not-for-profit) there is a concept known as "agency conflict"...eg., as to whether the management decisions are done in the best interest of the shareholder (or members for non-profits) or for management's benefit.

[yaya]

How much % of "per-class" fees goes to USEF or USDF?

35 cents of every ride down centerline (Training through Fourth level only) goes to USEF. USDF does not charge a per-ride fee.

Any USEF non-member fees go straight to USEF.
Any USDF non-member fees go straight to USDF.
The entire $12 drug fee goes straight to USEF. (will be $15 next year)
The entire $10 regional championship qualifying fee goes straight to USDF. (They want to raise this to $12)
Shows are not allowed to charge anything over these fees.

Basically, the only money a show gets to keep are the per-class fees, any office fees, and any money charged over and above the cost of stalls and/or shavings.

And that has to go to ribbons, prizes, judges' fees, TD, EMT, announcer fees, housing for judges and officials, facility rental (over and above stall fees), office supplies, and printing and mailing costs for prize lists, programs and publicity.

So unless a show has a top-notch team gathering sponsorships, there is very little (if any) money left over at the end. And people complain that show costs are too high as it is.

[Bogey2]

USDF has more than double the IT staff than my past two employers had and we were software development companies.

USDF has a very large marketing staff. Why so many and what do they do?

these are the sort of issues that bother me about the increases. We paid for the new building. Now it's time they ran a more efficient business.

[Blkarab]

I think changing the participating member fee from $62 to $85 is just too much of an increase. I only belong to USDF to support the organization. I don't show regularly, and when I do, it's local schooling shows, so technically, I really don't need the participating membership. If the increase goes into effect, then I will drop my PM membership. I can't justify that expense any longer for schooling shows.
$23 may not seem like a lot for most people per year, but for dues for an organization that I'm not really receiving much benefit from, it's a lot right now.

I think that USDF needs to reevaluate this, their current expenses and the direction they are going before raising dues. I'm in an area where a lot of the educational opportunities are too far away for my horse and I to attend as well, so my PM membership is really just a luxury.

[Marydell]

As a breeder, I have a real problem with the horse registration being increased yet again. I usually have all my foals life registered with both USDF and USEF. But with the fee now going to $100 per horse/foal, with no consideration given to age of the horse, I can forsee a lot of breeders not doing this.

So how will we keep track of AMERICAN bred horses if breeders no longer can afford to pay these fees? I know I can't with 7 foals due next year.

Maryanna Haymon
www.marydellfarm.com
2007 USEF Breeder of the Year!

[canyonoak]

How much does it cost to register a foal in the European registries?

[Dressage Art]

35 cents of every ride down centerline (Training through Fourth level only) goes to USEF. USDF does not charge a per-ride fee.

Why USDF doesn't charge a fee? USEF doesn't allow that? If USDF started to charge even a $1.00 it may be helpful to their budget?

[Marydell]

I am not talking about breed registries, just USDF and USEF, for the purpose of performance result tracking. I do not know the FN fee but there are no charges to show a foal in Germany I believe(correct me if I am wrong). If there is a fee to show, it would be to only ONE organization-not two.

The USEF has a sliding scale--$35 for weanlings, 85 for yearlings, 160 for 2 yr olds and $200 for three and up.

Lifetime registration fees for the breed registries vary, but are usually around $185 for Hanoverian. More if we use foreign sires.

So as breeder, I am paying fees to three groups for the "privledge" of showing in hand or let the buyers of my youngsters bear the burden of the costs. I can certainly do that, but it will not help to keep track of American bred horses if the owners put "unknown" in the breeder slot or the pedigree.
I know entries were-in general- down for USDF breed shows this year and breeding itself is suffering due to the increase in costs,vet , grain, hay and fuel. To add another increase to an already stressed group of horse owners/breeders is not fair. For some of us, this is NOT a hobby and our finances are not the same as riders who have one or two horses. Many of us have upwards of 4 to 30 horses in our breeding programs. If this increase goes into effect, it will mean that I would pay--just to USDF alone--$700 for lifetime registrations for a year's crop of 7 foals and the same or more each year. This is not counting the required Registy fees and additional fees to USEF if I want my foals to be tracked as they grow and perform.

Maryanna Haymon
www.marydellfarm.com
2007 USEF Breeder of the Year!

[pluvinel]

I had reviewed these changes a couple weeks ago.

I understand USDF wanting to increase fees.

But on the other hand, I think they need to examine their operating budget.

I look at the roster of employees.

USDF has more than double the IT staff than my past two employers had and we were software development companies.

USDF has a very large marketing staff. Why so many and what do they do?

In these times, I perceive recommending fee increases of the magnititude they are demanding it very poor judgment.

It appears they put on clinics at a loss. I perceive closer examination of the costs versus income is required and that clinics should be a break even or profit center.

If all of us have to tighten our belts to survive, I perceive USDF needs to do the same.

The question is whether this is a cost problem, a revenue problem or a combination of both.

Most of the programs on the USDF budget are running in the red. The FEI Trainer's Program is running in the red. When I looked into registration, there are limits to who can attend. Instead of opening up the program and using it as a revenue and membership gathering opportunity, the marketing gurus at USDF choose to limit attendance...eg., limit revenue opportunities.

Instead of charging differential admission depending on your membership, eg., member, non-member, PM member, GM member, TPTB limit attendance, therefore, by definition, limiting revenues. Thus, they annoy a member who is excluded access to an educational opportunity and they reduce revenues that could be charged from a member who would be willing to pay to attend the January FEI Trainers Conference.

In the FEI Trainer's Conf, my experience would say there is a revenue problem with this program. Here you have a member who is willing to pay, but is not "qualified" (that word again) to attend. I am sure I'm not alone. Florida in January would be a great destination.

Perhaps the IT dept question might be a cost problem....or it might be that they have archaic IT systems than need a lot of back-office labor to maintain.

This is why a non-profit director is paid.....to look at these questions and to guide the organization.

[MyCatRules]

Why USDF doesn't charge a fee? USEF doesn't allow that? If USDF started to charge even a $1.00 it may be helpful to their budget?

USDF gets their money from the competitors through membership fees. Most people join USDF to show. If they were to add a per-class fee, it would be an accounting nightmare for the poor show managers who already have a paperwork nightmare to deal with. And many GMOs also get a cut from the shows - CDS always lists their latest take from each show. Talk to a few show managers, they'll tell you the last thing they need is to deal with MORE accounting and paperwork hassles, it is already horrifically complicated. Some of the local chapters refuse to do USDF/USEF recognized shows anymore because of the difficulty. By the way, they do seem to rake in money from penalties and fines to the show managers. And they do get that $10/class qualifying fee.

I have very mixed feelings about some of the programs. The FEI trainers program is only offered on the East Coast. ONE year, they offered it in CA as well, and they were so restrictive on who could attend, I think they lost out on a lot of interested people. It seems, if they continue to offer such programs, they should rotate the programs - and include the mid-States in the rotation, and should open it up to all who are interested.

Clinics/Education are what they are really all about (supposedly) - I don't think they should plan on all clinics making money, their non-profit purpose is EDUCATION. But - what about making that education more accessible? And maybe less marketing staff - and why all those IT staff, I can't say it has made their website more navigable.

I agree with MaryD on the breeding fees, I think they will just see a huge drop off on USDF Recorded horses! Many owners (not just breeders) have already chosen to skip USDF Recording and USEF Registration (even more costly) because it is just TOO MUCH. I think this will just cause more people to skip the Recording.

And with two organizations (USEF and USDF) we must join PLUS our GMO, the membership fees are just plain crazy. And for many who are going for USDF awards, we also have to pay registry fees and even awards program fees - in tight times, I think USDF may actually find they are shooting themselves in the foot, AND shooting their show managers in the face! I realize they haven't raised fees for quite a while - but such a huge fee increase in these economic times (when most businesses are CUTTING prices) seems contradictory.

They need to consider their operations - seems they are very well staffed, maybe over staffed? Are they duplicating efforts done by USEF? Should the two get together and work out some efficiencies?

And maybe just get ride of GMO membership - if you want to show USDF, show under PM - but make the PM more reasonable.

[pluvinel]

USDF gets their money from the competitors through membership fees.
I don't have the USDF budget in front of me, but if I recall, most of their revenue comes from membership fees.

I have very mixed feelings about some of the programs. The FEI trainers program is only offered on the East Coast. ONE year, they offered it in CA as well, and they were so restrictive on who could attend, I think they lost out on a lot of interested people. It seems, if they continue to offer such programs, they should rotate the programs - and include the mid-States in the rotation, and should open it up to all who are interested.
I looked into the details of the FEI Trainer's Conference. Most of the expenses seemed valid, though one could quibble on a few thousand here or there. So in the case of this program, the fact that it is running in the red implies that there is a revenue, not an expense problem. So, to raise revenues, you need to either increase fees or increase attendance. Since the USDF mission is education, it would seem most logical to open up the conference to all members.

Clinics/Education are what they are really all about (supposedly) - I don't think they should plan on all clinics making money, their non-profit purpose is EDUCATION. But - what about making that education more accessible? And maybe less marketing staff - and why all those IT staff, I can't say it has made their website more navigable.
Ahhh....good question. This is the sort of analysis the a financial analyst would do.

I agree with MaryD on the breeding fees, I think they will just see a huge drop off on USDF Recorded horses! Many owners (not just breeders) have already chosen to skip USDF Recording and USEF Registration (even more costly) because it is just TOO MUCH. I think this will just cause more people to skip the Recording.

And with two organizations (USEF and USDF) we must join PLUS our GMO, the membership fees are just plain crazy. And for many who are going for USDF awards, we also have to pay registry fees and even awards program fees - in tight times, I think USDF may actually find they are shooting themselves in the foot, AND shooting their show managers in the face! I realize they haven't raised fees for quite a while - but such a huge fee increase in these economic times (when most businesses are CUTTING prices) seems contradictory.

They need to consider their operations - seems they are very well staffed, maybe over staffed? Are they duplicating efforts done by USEF? Should the two get together and work out some efficiencies?

And maybe just get ride of GMO membership - if you want to show USDF, show under PM - but make the PM more reasonable.

As a person who does process hazards analyses and quality work for a living, the first step to a solution is to clearly define the problem to begin with. I would caution to not act on potential solutions until there is clear definition of the problem. Although most people have a penchant for action, I have found that inveting time up front to clearly understand what is broken makes placing solutions much easier and makes the solutions more clearly targeted at the problem

[Aleen]

Why USDF doesn't charge a fee? USEF doesn't allow that? If USDF started to charge even a $1.00 it may be helpful to their budget?

The $0.35 is a "copyright" fee for the privilege of being able to duplicate each test and use the test in a competition to make money. Should the USDF charge an office fee like the USEF? And the USEF does - it just generally gets called the drug fee - right now of the 2008/9 pricing @ $15 (raised from the familiar $12,) $7 is the drug testing fee - the remainder is a USEF office fee of $8 (up from $5.) This $0.35 fee applies to each ride down the centerline.

Aleen
WHH Dressage

[Dressage Art]

I did go to CA Trainers conference and several of my friends wanted to go with me, but they didn't "qualify". So only 3 of us went and shared the hotel room and car travel. We had a blast! But I think I paid about $500 for AUDITING FEI Conference in fees only for 3 day weekend + hotel + transportation + restaurant! Plus we had to sit thru the presentation of 2 sponsors! The arena space was also donated. If they are in red from that price tag = there is something severally wrong with managing this event.

[Dressage Art]

I agree that multiple fees in CA are ridicules: we need to pay for all 3 USEF, USDF and CDS since most of our shows are "3 stars" shows aka officiated by all 3 organizations USEF, USDF, and CDS. So if we go to the show, we have to have a membership for all 3 of them. However, it’s mostly CA that does this “star” rating – I don’t know why??? It’s confusing for most people and if we have to have all 3 memberships anyway = may be it’s time for them to merge?

[Dressage Art]

I’m not intimate with all of the details of managing the show, but I’m aware that shows are hard pressed to be able to make money. It can be done if show manager owns a barn and manages the show herself and doesn’t have to pay for the arena renting. When I was on the Chapter Board we put out shows that would bring $22K, but the fees that we had to pay were also about $15K + about 70 volunteers + all of the prizes were donated by sponsors. Yet other shows were in the red at times.

[poltroon]

I have very mixed feelings about some of the programs. The FEI trainers program is only offered on the East Coast. ONE year, they offered it in CA as well, and they were so restrictive on who could attend, I think they lost out on a lot of interested people. It seems, if they continue to offer such programs, they should rotate the programs - and include the mid-States in the rotation, and should open it up to all who are interested.

Not only that, but I think I got four emails, urging me to sign up, reminding me how great it would be, telling me it was a fabulous opportunity, that it was critical to support the program... and also that I wasn't qualified to attend. The first message, I kind of laughed it off. But by the 3rd message I was feeling kind of annoyed about it.

[Coreene]

Screw 'em.

I just renewed my California Dressage Society and USEF membership. Should I need USDF membership in the current show year, I will renew my membership with them as well. Until then, adios.

And, just as an aside, there is no excuse in this day and age to put out a magazine that looks as if someone did it at home on Pagemaker.

[Bethe Mounce]

Ah yes, the qualifying to attend a trainers conference....I must not get on my soapbox about that one!

Because of all the fee increases, showing at sanctioned shows perhaps, becomes more about qualifying for championships at year end than anything else. And I know alot of folks want to go to those.

But those of us who don't want to be members of a GMO, USDF, or USEF would consider something different? Have to go right now, but I think I might have a "do-able" solution....

[sporthorsefilly]

Has anyone told USDF that there is a recession boardering on depression????

Have to agree that they spend way too much on staff, especially IT...the revised website, now a year old, is so much more difficult to use, and they charge for everything...yet they need more???

Hello, hunter breeding :)

[Jesse'sMom]

So, i know i am most liklely gonna get attacked for this,. but whatever..

USDF IS SO obnoxious~ they just enjoy ripping every cent from their their members..It costs me MORE to go to ONE DSHB show with ONE horse then it does to show 3 horses in hunter breeding for 2 months at a # of shows..
They are JUST unreal..Lets add, 2006 LIFE reg. went up on orses too=- so they are going up **AGAIN**
So, USEF has it where life if done before they are 1 year old is 35.00, and usdf is 100??
JUST NUTS..
HELLO USDF??? OPEN YOUR EYES.... NOT breeder friendly.


I must have been hiding my head under a stone because it was only in the last two weeks that I have become aware of the proposed fee increases included in the budget being voted on at the convention this week . . . oh, wait - it was only released and posted on 11/12 - so, that is only a couple of weeks ago!

What do you all think? The only way I saw this was on the GMO President's list . . . Please read and email your regional delegates/chairperson while they are out there this week . . .

Aleen Thomas
Windy Hollow Hunt Dressage

Proposed budget at
http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/financials/09-10ProposedBudgetWeb.pdf

USDF Proposed Budget - Fiscal Year 2010 – Overview
November 10, 2008
The USDF proposed fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget, which spans April 1, 2009 –
March 31, 2010, has been posted for review. It will be discussed at the USDF annual
convention in Denver at the open Budget Meeting for Council/Committee Chairs
on Wednesday, December 3, from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. The budget will be presented
to the Board of Governors (BOG) for final approval on December 5. The Executive
Board has approved the proposed budget along with the associated budget balancing
measures outlined below. USDF policy requires the Executive Board to present a
balanced budget to the BOG.

Several factors made balancing this budget particularly challenging. The
downturn in the economy has had, and is forecasted to continue to have, a negative impact on membership numbers and revenue. All indications are that advertising sales
in the USDF Connection will decline over the next 18 months as advertisers tighten
their belts. Although USDF currently has commitments for record revenue in sponsorships,
we are not optimistic that significant growth opportunities will be available.
Attendance at USDF educational events is predicted to decline as people become more budget minded.

USDF has relied on investment income to subsidize the bottom line. In this
regard, we believe it is prudent to take a conservative outlook regarding income
contributions from the investment portfolio. At the same time that some of our revenue sources are declining, inflation has caused our costs to rise. In some areas, these increases have been significant over the past few years. We anticipate that they will continue to increase at a rate higher than our current revenue stream.

To balance the preliminary budget, the following measures were taken, both on the
expense and revenue side; First, the staff proposed to the Executive Board cost cuts of $237,586. These included a reduction in staff administration costs of $111, 394, and a trimming of program and service costs of $126,192. Some of these expense reductions were in staff travel, Executive Board meetings and travel, USDF Regional Education and Team Competition Grants, reduction in FEI Level Trainers conferences from two to one,
reduction in FEI Jr/YR Clinics from nine to five, reduction in print materials and marketing
projects, and the elimination of the Intercollegiate/Interscholastic Committee and
associated programs, and the High School Dressage Club Pin Program.

Despite these cost cuts, the budget still showed a large deficit. We determined that a
combination of a general dues increase and a fee structure increase would be necessary.
The last dues increase was approved at the 2002 annual convention and implemented on
December 1, 2003. Some of USDF’s dues have not changed since 1997. The proposed
dues increase is for the 2010 membership year, which begins on December 1, 2009. GM
and PM dues will have been unchanged for six years when the new dues would go into
effect. The approach to the dues increase was to spread the burden equitably over all
member categories. (Refer to attached proposed dues increases chart)

The proposed dues increase, along with the cost cuts, still did not balance the budget.
The fee structure was reviewed and adjusted to reflect an equitable fee for service
approach. New fees were introduced, and existing fees were increased. Most of USDF’s
fees have not been raised for many years, some as far back as 1994. (Refer to attached
proposed fees increases chart) The combination of all these measures results in a balanced budget for FY 2010. We believe that fiscally responsible cost-cutting measures have been taken, in addition to the efficient management of USDF operations already in place. Overall, the proposed budget growth is about 3%, the smallest percentage increase in USDF recorded history. The budgeted employee headcount will have been decreased each year over the past three budget cycles. Furthermore, for the next 18 months, USDF does not plan to introduce any significant new programs. We are looking forward to a productive discussion on the USDF proposed FY 2010 budget at the annual convention.

Proposed Dues Increases, effective 12/1/2009:
Member Type Current Dues Last Increase New Dues
Participating $ 62 12/1/2003 $ 85
Youth $ 35 12/1/2004 $ 60
GM $ 17 12/1/2003 $ 23
GM Family $ 8 12/1/2006 $ 11
Business $ 175 1999 $ 200
5 Year $ 250 1997 $ 375
Life $ 1,000 1997 $ 2,000
Non member $ 20 10/1/2007 $ 30

Proposed Fee Increases:
USDF Fees For Service - Increases Current Fee New Fee
Last
Increase Effective Date
Competition Related Fees
NAJYRC Declarations $ 50 $ 75 2003 6/1/2009
NAJYRC Late Declarations $ 150 $ 200 2004 6/1/2009
All Breeds Declaration Fee/Change Fee $ - $ 25 NEW 10/1/2009
USDF Horse Performance Certificates $ 25 $ 35 1994 10/1/2009
Rider Awards Processing Fee $ - $ 35 NEW 10/1/2009
Processing Fee - Pas De Deux Awards $ - $ 35 NEW 10/1/2009
Regional Championship Qualified Ride Fee $ 10 $ 12 1998 10/1/2009
Allocate $2 increase to administration
Horse Recordings
Life Horse Recording $ 85 $ 100 2007 10/1/2009
Horse Identification (HID) $ 20 $ 35 2002 10/1/2009
HID Transfers and Name Changes $ 10 $ 25 2002 10/1/2009
Instructor Certification
Associate Instructor Application Fee $ 25 $ 50 2004 4/1/2009
Certified Instructor Annual Fee $ 40 $ 60 2004 4/1/2009
Workshop Recognition Fee $ 65 $ 75 2000 4/1/2009
Testing Fee T-2 $ 600 $ 700 2006 4/1/2009
Testing Fee 3-4 $ 500 $ 600 2006 4/1/2009
University
Accreditation Fee (30 days) $ 25 $ 35 1995 4/1/2009
Late Accreditation Fee $ 50 $ 75 1996 4/1/2009
Judges and L Programs
Annual Listing Fee for L Graduates $ - $ 25 NEW 4/1/2009
CE Program Application Fee $ 25 $ 45 2005 4/1/2009

[TouchstoneAcres]

Thanks for posting this! I haven't gone online for a while and did not know this. I have a few issues with the fee increases.

First, this is a bad time to do it. I am sure entries will be down due to the economy. There is a great danger in raising prices now--entries will fall off more. Showing is optional in a luxury sport. Remember that. If USDF can get by with just the rich participating, go for it.

Second--exactly what does the life recording get me? I already life recording with USEF. It is ridicuous to have 2 data bases. Most companies are cutting cost and improving efficiency in the back office. I think USDF has to show us what they have done to cut costs and improve technology. Show us the plan for next year--like the US auto makers must. You don't just get more money because your costs go up---first you must exhaust all means of containing costs. I don't see it. Companies are replacing people with technology--is the USDF? The $2 increase in admoin --no way. Reduce your costs instead.

Next, USEF lets breeders life record foals in their birth year for $35 instead of $200. What has the USDF done? Nothing. Most breeders would register their foals for a good price break. But again, what do we get for it compared to USEF?

"Testing Fee T-2 $ 600 $ 700 2006 4/1/2009
Testing Fee 3-4 $ 500 $ 600 2006 4/1/2009"
There is no justification to raising prices that amount after only 3 years. The last 3 years have not been inflationary. What's the excuse?

"Annual Listing Fee for L Graduates $ - $ 25 NEW 4/1/2009"
That new fee is for what? Advertising on behalf of the grads? Or are you mandating it?

I think far too much money is going to support an administrative giant without regard for what the customers want. USDF should examine its core programs against goals, look at what works, pare the rest, and improve productivity. The rest of the economy is doing that and many of us are suffering economically for that, yet USDF just gets to increase prices? I don't think so.

[Lisa Holman]

What is the testing fee for? Is that for the new qualification program?

[sm]

well, according to the minutes several areas of revenue are down http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/EB/10-28-08Minutes.pdf

I am wondering why Marketing Expenses are so high, see page 3 http://www.usdf.org/docs/about/about-usdf/financials/audit.pdf


I'm also wondering why USDF Connections is printed and mailed (what a cost that is), why not go into PDF and upload on website -- really Go Green as is the promise on the home page. Yes, some advertisers will be lost but according to the minutes ad revenue is down, and I doubt if it ever covered the printing and mailing costs in the first place. If USDF plays their cards right the magazine can be viewed globally, which can help marketing to new potential members without adding any cost. Also the remaining advertisers may love that.

Also wondering if USDF Connections is considered a Marketing, Educational, or a Membership Expense on the financial report. If it's more educative in nature that would help everything, including generating new membership.

[FriesianX]

OK, another WTF. They are going to CHARGE us for medals? We already pay annual membership fees, Horse Recording fees, a fortune in show fees, and now a medal fee? How often do people qualify for medals - for many (most) of us, it might be a once or twice in a lifetime event - USDF, just GIVE the medals to members. And, I'm one of those L Grad suckers whose going to get slammed with ANOTHER annual fee (after spending a ton of money going through the L programs).

Here's a question - has anyone looked at how many breed registries are in the All Breeds Awards program? It use to be, a registry had to be in existance at least X years, and have at least X members before they could participate in All Breeds. Now, we have brand new registries, duplicate registries, with two or three or four members who are getting awards. Doesn't that seem like a waste of administrative time and effort? Or is this a self supporting program?

If advertising revenue is down, shouldn't marketing staff be down too? Or do we continue to throw good money after bad? Print ads are a failing market EVERYWHERE - newspapers and magazines need to get with the current century and realize that is not going to be the money maker it was in the past. Spiff up the website and move ads to that location - and make them available to everyone, not just members. And, I agree, go digital with the magazine - save printing and postage (printing a full color glossy magazine is EXPENSIVE).

Intead of charging members for everything - give some valid perks with membership - such as free score check reports, a data base worth using, discounts on advertising, discounts on Horse Recording, etc. Don't institute MORE charges - that is a real turn off.

I think they could actually ask members for input and get some good ideas - look at the letter from NEDA. Many of their members understand marketing, finance, computers, etc - why not tap into that expertise? And get realistic, we're entering a recession, raising fees means losing members, yikes!

[Dressage Art]

Has anyone told USDF that there is a recession boardering on depression????
I actually emailed about 30 dressage people that I know asking them a question: "do you feel the recession and are you cutting back?" The responses were dramatically different, some of them emailed me back saying that their barns are fuller than ever, they are even building new stalls and more people are taking lessons... Those kinds of answers I got from people who mostly live in big cities. From rural areas answers were:" oh yes and we are just trying hard to survive"

So it depends if USDF did notice the recession? Some people just have so much money already that even if they will loose their jobs, it will not affect their life styles. For example the other day the mayor of San Francisco said this on the local morning news about shopping: "I understand that we live in the difficult financial times. May be you can not afford to fly for your annual Holiday shopping to New York, but you can come and shop in your own back yard - in San Francisco"! How out of touch is that? How many people are actually do fly for their Holiday shopping to New York?

[Dressage Art]

Print ads are a failing market EVERYWHERE - newspapers and magazines need to get with the current century and realize that is not going to be the money maker it was in the past.

That's another out of touch situation, but I don't think that many old type print magazines want to admit that to themselves. I've been advertising for my DA Horse Gifts business for 3 years now and I think in one month I spend about $1500.00 for COTH magazine, $400 for Dressage Today and $600 for USDF Magazine. At the same time I spend about $50 per pop on several horse related websites. My conversion tracker showed that web ads are performing 80% better than printed ads for my online business. It seems that printed ads are still good for large purchases and a way of building your brand name, but for products that are $50 and under = the web has the best conversion rate hands down. Also it is such a pain to submit ads to different magazines, they all need it 2-3 months in advance + they need different sizes of ads and such. So I decided instead of doing ads, I donate my products to the shows and auctions and spread the word about my DA Horse Gifts this way = good deed + tax deductable.

Oh another little detail that so many people who are not intimate with technology forget: no matter how pretty your website is, if it's stale and with out new up-to-date information = very few people will ever visit it = ghost town = bad for advertising.

[SGray]

so how many non-renewals will it take for the usdf to lose $ on its $23 increase (participating membership)?

[acottongim]

I personally have stopped registering my foals with the USDF unless I go to show them. This is 100% due to the cost of the lifetime registration. I DO however lifetime every single foal born on my property with the USEF the first year that they are born (one on the second year). This is because of the sliding scale fee.

The USDF will continue to raise their prices to the point that I won't pay them any money at all - I can show local and/or take my horses to other type of shows (even though I would RATHER show at a rated dressage show or show my horses at DSHB shows).

They need (esp in these economic times) to revert to a sliding scale fee - heck, make it $50 if you register in the fist year. I'd do that. But when I have to pay $125 or so to register my foal with it's registery, $35 to the USEF, plus all of MY membership dues - I just can't justitfy $100 for every foal every year. I can barely justify the $80. I also think long and hard who I'm going to show each year. If the fees were lower (the registration fees - and sliding fee is fine) I'd be more likely to show more of my horses each year. I just don't want to fork out several hundred dollars to get one horse to 3 shows.

The thinking is skewed. I guess I should be thrilled I only have one foal due next year and I'll hurry up and register my 4 I haven't done yet this year before the rate increase next year... (if it passes).

[Touchstone Farm]

Just like many companies are doing (especially in this economy), the USDF needs to really look at its programs and expenses and eliminate those that are not worthwhile. I mean, how useless is the University credits program? It takes staff time and some out-of-pocket expenses to run that program...and for what? What does it get you -- do you "test out" of some instructor certification classes? Do you "test out" of some of the "L" judge program? No. So what's the point? Education, to me, is a personal thing. I don't need the USDF to award me "credits" for something I was going to do anyway.

How many programs does the USDF run that are similar to this? How about mailing certificates for qualifying for Regional championships? If it was that important to me, I could just download my certificate from the USDF web site. (Or, really, eliminate it completely, but that's just me.)

The qualified rider proposal...it WILL take staff time to manage, whether the fees come from USDF or USEF. Is that a wise way to spend membership dollars and contributions at this point?

Many companies have also implemented a freeze on hiring, so for the time being, if someone leaves, the position is not filled. Is the USDF doing that as well? Of course, it means those left work harder, but in this economy, it may be the best way to help a company/organization get through a rough patch.

RE: the "limited" attendance at the trainers symposium. It's so silly -- if you know someone, you can get it whether you have the "qualifications" or not. The pretense of having these "qualifications" is useless...seems just a way to "pretend" to be better or more important than others in the membership -- not to mention, unwise if they are losing money.

[FriesianX]

I waded through the budget and audit last night - kind of disappointed that they put the audited financials there, but NO supporting schedules and footnotes, they want $20 for that useful information.

One big mystery number is Administration - I can guess what it is though (salaries and benefits of staff who aren't directly related to any of the programs, including information tech, support staff, perhaps part of the exec director salary, etc). EVERY organization does need administration, I'll fully admit (and even support) that, but it seems like a high number, and shows up in many of the program budgets. I'd like to see what is being allocated (assuming this is an allocation), and whether USDF might consider some serious trimming of that number.

Printing the Connection is another huge expense - I think most people would say they'd prefer to see the Connection go "digital" and see dues remain reasonable. On the other hand, at this point, advertising revenue seems to pay for most of the cost - so a big question would be, how much advertising revenue would fall off if the magazine went digital?

The really big cost is in the overall USDF Office cost (all the staff that work in the office, and their equipment, supplies, etc) - and of course, with the new building, they have a huge annual increase in the related long term "write off" of that building (depreciation). This isn't an annual cash cost - the building is already paid for, but accounting rules require it be written off over a longer period of time.

It seems USDF hasn't considered the current financial reality - membership dues are MOST of their revenue, and if they increase dues 35%, they may see a similar decline in number of members. Perhaps the only place they might see a scramble - those looking at life-time memberships better sign up fast - with the doubling of the cost in 2009, yikes! USDF has already generated some pretty negative PR with their support of the Performance Standards - couple that with the huge dues increase, and I think many members will drop out.

Those of us promoting stallions, promoting an up and coming horse, hard core competitors, and of course professionals, don't have much choice, but the majority of the USDF membership DOES have a choice. I really hope USDF rethinks their proposed fee increases in light of the current economic climate, and perhaps scales back on some of their program offerings OR opens them up to make them more accessible (thus generating more income), and seriously reconsiders their overhead and marketing costs.

[rebecca yount]

is being discussed as we speak at the USDF convention,where I am am PM delegate and GMO delegate. People are VERY unhappy with the budget. Tomorrow is the Board of Governors meeting. More later. Tired now. RY

[J-Lu]

Just like many companies are doing (especially in this economy), the USDF needs to really look at its programs and expenses and eliminate those that are not worthwhile. I mean, how useless is the University credits program? It takes staff time and some out-of-pocket expenses to run that program...and for what? What does it get you -- do you "test out" of some instructor certification classes? Do you "test out" of some of the "L" judge program? No. So what's the point? Education, to me, is a personal thing. I don't need the USDF to award me "credits" for something I was going to do anyway.

How many programs does the USDF run that are similar to this? How about mailing certificates for qualifying for Regional championships? If it was that important to me, I could just download my certificate from the USDF web site. (Or, really, eliminate it completely, but that's just me.)

The qualified rider proposal...it WILL take staff time to manage, whether the fees come from USDF or USEF. Is that a wise way to spend membership dollars and contributions at this point?

I couldn't agree more. I've volunteered for a number of USDF sponsored events and I've yet to see someone sign up for "University Credits". And I've always wondered what the point was? Why fork over extra money for something I'm doing anyway? I also agree about mailing the qualifying certificates...we all know when we qualify, what is the point of a certificate? Along these lines, I think that the USDF can save $$ by asking BNTs to *donate* time for things like Young Rider symposia, etc. For many participants, both the BNT and the participant make multiples of my salary...they don't need my subsidy. There are ways to approach a balanced budget than tapping the membership for more money.

[canyonoak]

I'm having a dream...

In this dream, USDF are actually READING this thread, and making notes, and thinking about joining the 21st century, and realizing that we live in an economy and time where even volunteer organizations have to have COMPETENT bodies and minds, not just space filler.

Pop.

I just woke up.

Oh well.

Is it too much to ask our horse sport personnel to REALLY look at the Europe they profess to admire and notice that very few of the people in current positions here would have any kind of job over there?

Because across the pond, horse sport is (I am a broken record broken record) a business-sport and people either produce or are replaced, just like in real life.

[Dressage Art]

What organizations over the pond are doing about declining economy? If anything?

[TouchstoneAcres]

What % of revenue goes to administration rather than to programs for the members? Analyze it like you would a charity asjking for donations. Where does most of the money go? Admin should be small. A computer can replace many people. The organization should be lean and mean.

[SGray]

there are certainly some strange projections
such as under Annual Convention the revenue for registration rises by 50% from $70,000 to $105,000 -- one can only assume that this means that the fee for registration next year will rise by 50% -- again with increasing fees in a down economy???

[Sister Margarita]

there are certainly some strange projections
such as under Annual Convention the revenue for registration rises by 50% from $70,000 to $105,000 -- one can only assume that this means that the fee for registration next year will rise by 50% -- again with increasing fees in a down economy???


If there is an intent to increase registration for the USDF Annual Convention, there is flawed logic in their office. I wanted to go, but with a $600 tab, combined with airfare, lost income, it was a financial no-go for me. I think I was not alone in that, and frankly I have a problem with that situation. I am not at the top of the financial heap, nor am I at the bottom. There are many who had to make a choice to pay a hay bill or go, and guess which prevails? I think there is a problem with not being able to go and involve oneself with the development of their sport or to even listen and learn because the national federation made participation too expensive. There has got to be a solution. I do believe their administrative costs are out of hand too, and rather than cut expenses, trim the fat, we are being asked to foot the bill? Having been involved with USDF organizing, I can see many areas where costs are not enough of a priority.
In the day and age of computers/internet/email, much can replace the former procedures, but have not been visited in a cost-logical way, both for administration and for participating.

It is time for our organizations to be more accountable to its users. Sounds a little like the FEI DC committee issue and presidential campaigns: transparency and change.

[SGray]

anyone have any updates from convention on budget?

[SGray]

were all the proposed increases passed?

[Coreene]

DA, did you speak to trainers in So Cal? Because a lot of them are hurting and a lot of the public stables have replaced their waiting lists with a bunch of empty stalls, both box and pipe.

[Aleen]

Apparently the budget got sent back for better cut-backs on the side of the USDF . . . I am at work and cannot pass exactly what I saw on the GMO Pres list - memory going - but the impression was that the BOG was not happy at all about the dues being raised, etc.

Aleen
WHH

[SGray]

thanks Aleen

[Aleen]

This from the GMO pres list

In meetings prior to the
BOG (Board of Governors), many individuals and groups
indicated their concerns regarding the Performance Standards.
The USEF Dressage Committee recognized the apprehension
and agreed to withdraw the proposal as originally stated.

Also heard, were those who were concerned about losing their
show venue because of the way a USEF rule seemed to be
stating that shows where riders must enter the dressage arena
from the side would be disallowed. We were told that the wording
would be changed and those shows would continue to be allowed.

Perhaps most importantly, the budget where dues and fees would
be increased to make everything balanced, was voted down. There
will be no fee nor dues increases this year. A variety of changes
were made, and the last amount needed to balance the budgets
will be made by subtracting from each of the budgets of the
committees and councils.

The dues and fees increases will need to be re-addressed next year,
but for now things will stay the same.

There was a great deal of discussion prior to the Convention about
all of these topics. Your delegates definitely voted your decisions.
It was an example of how everyone's voice can be heard in USDF.
I hope we are all proud of this group to which we belong. Seldom
are things changed in such a substantial way because the
constituents wish it to be so.

Sherry Guess
GMO Council Chair

Now to keep up the constructive input - that ivory tower is really only bricks and morter and they have to come out for lunch and reality sometime!

Aleen in NY

[SGray]

here's my suggestion for a balanced budget - make the programs/expenditures proportional according to membership category (Jr/YR; AA; O)

[Dressage Art]

DA, did you speak to trainers in So Cal? Because a lot of them are hurting and a lot of the public stables have replaced their waiting lists with a bunch of empty stalls, both box and pipe.

I'm not familiar with S. Ca situation. I'm in N. CA and I did email many of my horse friends asking if they do see a slow economy at their barns. Many emailed back "no, we have an increase of lessons and stalls that are needed". But rural areas emailed back with some horror stories…

Myself, I do feel the slowing economy though, so I' did cut back already (no new saddle, no adequan/legend/supliments and less shows/clinics) and I'm very conserned about the fall/summer situation of economy.

I'm glad that the proposal was voted down.

[slc2]

I am sure qualification will be proposed again.