%
%  Discussion of Cost, Manpower and Schedule
%
%
\section{Explanation of Budget Details and Justification}

\label{sec_budget}

%In 2004-05 the IPP CDF-II group received \$540k in operating 
In 2005-06 the IPP CDF-II group received \$540k in operating 
support from a NSERC Project grant awarded in 2003.  These 
funds have been augmented by approximately \$30k per annum 
in operating support from the University of Toronto plus 
\$15 from FQRNT per year with an additional \$12.5 one-time 
equipment grant.  The \$30k per annum of University support 
will be  reduced to \$20k in the next three years and 
the FQRNT funds have now been exhausted.  The group 
also  relies on 0.5~FTE of technical and computing support provided 
by Major Facilities Access grants held by the University 
of Toronto group.

 This funding has provided the minimum resources to support
approximately 3.5 research associates (RA), 15 graduate
students and the six faculty members involved in the project.
We note that with the two new faculty members joining the IPP-Canada
group, the number of students increased to 14 over the course of
the last grant.

%Our commitments to the CDF-II silicon detector operations,
%Monte Carlo generation and calorimeter software maintenance are 
%such thatsupport of more than four research associates has been necessary, 
%but this has only been possible by arranging to share their support 
%with the ATLAS project. 
%We believe this sharing is of benefit to both projects as it provides
%incentives for good RAs to work on the 
%commissioning of ATLAS and to have access to physics data on CDF.

The group's finances
have benefited in the past from three students holding NSERC PGS 
scholarships.  Two of those students have now graduated and the third 
student's scholarship has expired.  We only intend to take
on one new M.Sc student in 2006 and therefore we do not anticipate
such external support again in the future. 

\subsection{Operating Support}
%

We have estimated the operating support requirements for the CDF-II
project from our 15-year-long experience on the experiment, our
operational commitments and the level of effort required to extract
physics results from the CDF-II data set.

The primary budget ``drivers'' are the personnel commitments for RAs
and graduate students. In section {\bf D} of our proposal we have
justified half of the time of the personnel for which we are
requesting funds. The other half of their time is devoted to physics
analyses (outlined in section {\bf B}). This is summarised in the table
in section {\bf E}.  A reduction in this effort would require us to
renegotiate our role in the CDF-II experiment and reduce our physics
analysis effort at a time when the most exciting results are at
hand.  

  We are requesting funding for the 3 research associates 
currently working with us in 06-07, with a ramp-down to one RA in
the last year of this grant.  This is to be compared to the 3.5 
research associate we currently support. The three research associates 
will work full time on CDF and will do physics analyses at a 
critical time when datasets in the inverse femtobarn range
are available.  We want to emphasize the fact that
we have analysed only 30\% of the data that is now available 
and only 10\% of the data that will have been collected in 2007.
Given NSERC's signficant investment in the CDF II experiment and its
physics programme, it is easy to justify supporting these research 
asscoiates at a time when the physics output of the experiment
reaches its maximum.

Our request for student support is consistent with our
commitments to the current students in our groups and
reflects significant support provided to the students by the host
universities. At this point in the experiment, the financial 
resources necessary to adequately support our students and their
analysis needs are well understood. We anticipate that we will take 
one additonal M.Sc. student in the next 3 years.

Our travel costs are based on our recent experience, anticipated
numbers of field trips to Fermilab, the need to support 2 people
at Fermilab to take shifts over 4 month periods per year, and to
support one research associate living in Chicago (the latter
two are listed as cost of living adjustments [COLA] in the
budget tables). 
We make extensive use of existing videoconference equipment at all three 
of our institutions. These reduce our overall travel requirements by 
providing us with connections to over 10 hours of meetings per week.  
When working in smaller analysis groups, we supplement video conferencing 
with phone conferences and the electronic exchange of documents. Without 
these additional capabilities we would attend less than half of these 
meetings at twice the cost. The video facilities have allowed us to 
integrate new members of the group into CDF physics discussions at 
an early stage, before their presence at Fermilab would be necessitated 
to discuss analyses of their own.  Taking this into account, we find
that senior graduate students need to travel to Fermilab on average five
times per year while junior students will typically go twice, normally
including participation in a Collaboration meeting. These field trips
to Fermilab have allowed our students to make significant
contributions in supporting the experiment and have allowed them to 
play central roles in large analysis groups (e.g., top quark and 
W boson mass).

\subsection{CDF-II Common Fund}
%
A change in funding of the Fermilab CDF operations budget in 1999
required that all non-US collaborators contribute to a ``Common
Fund,'' which has been set at \$5k US per Ph.D. physicist per annum
based on the average annual materials and supplies budget of the CDF
experiment. This commitment, which is being met by most foreign
collaborators (including us), represents a minimum additional burden 
on our group of  \$20k US per year.  The \$5k US per
physicist level of support is reviewed annually by the International Finance
Committee of CDF. Although there has been some discussion of 
offsetting cash contributions to the common fund on the basis of 
off-site computing resources made available to the collaboration
 -- offsetting resources that would have otherwise
been provided by Fermilab -- no agreement has yet been reached. We
have contributed to the common fund in the form of equipment purchased
for the CDF control room, data analysis cluster and video conferencing
and projection systems for meeting rooms. This equipment remains the
property of Canadian based researchers but is on indefinite loan to
CDF.  Over the last three years these items have been purchased with
funds from our NSERC project grant. 

\subsection{Anticipated Expenditure Trends}
%
With these considerations in mind, we include copies of our proposed
budget at each of the three institutions over the next three years,
taking into account recent experience in cost trends. 
During this time we have planned for a reduction of the current
group as the current cohort of students graduates and the
faculty members increase their commitment to the ATLAS 
experiment. 

Research associate salaries are about 5\% higher now than they were two 
years ago and we still find it difficult to compete on the
open market with US institutions for postdocs at the salaries we are
able to pay. 

 Student support represents the single largest item in our
request for NSERC funding.  Our request for NSERC student support 
reflects approximately \$10k per year of support that is provided 
to our students by our physics departments in the form of 
scholarships and teaching assistanceships. 
%Recent experience has shown that the cost of tuition
%is growing much faster than non-NSERC support and consequently our
%share of student support has grown by 20\% in the last three years. 
%To this end we also supported eight summer students in 2005. 
%About half of them were also supported by
%NSERC scholarships. Many were able to make significant
%contributions to our physics analyses in the time they were with the
%group and will be prospective particle physics graduate students in
%the coming years.

Our proposed travel costs are affected by the US-CDN exchange rate,
which we have assumed to be \$1.2 CDN = \$1 US and increases in
airfare due to higher oil prices.
%Ideally this would be one third of our budget as in
%addition to the two members of the group in residence at Fermilab throughout
%the run to fulfill our commitments to the silicon detector, Monte
%Carlo production and data-taking shifts an additional 2 FTEs
%are integrated over shorter visits.
%This includes the \$4k US per year cost of living adjustments listed
%in the budget tables. When trips of 6 months or longer are not
%justified, we provide the cost of a room and a reduced cost of living
%adjustment so that group members commuting to Fermilab do not have to
%relinquish their accommodations in Canada. These are accounted for among
%the trips attributed to various members of the group.

%\subsection{Other Support for the CDF-II Project}

%We have benefited from the support from the University of
%Toronto (\$30k per year) that is provided to one of us (Sinervo)
%as partially compensation for his accepting various administrative
%positions in the University. These funds have been available to
%us over the last 4 years and we expect them to continue for the
%duration of the current proposal.

%In addition to these funds we have benefited from startup support
%to the two new faculty members who have recently joined the CDF-II
%project. These monies are included as additional support during
%NSERC years 2002-03 and 2003-04. These funds will be exhausted during
%the current grant-year and thus we do not list them as possible cash
%contributions during the period covered by this proposal.

