Many on the board would not discuss the pros and cons of each plan without knowing the projected cost for each. Estimated budgets of expenses and revenue were presented. Start-up capital costs were considered a nonfactor because philanthropy was available to cover those expenses. Projected ongoing costs and revenue for Plan A suggested that the program would operate at a loss of approximately $300,000 per year. Plan B was projected to financially operate at a near break-even level based upon predicted annual income. Does this change your choice of plans and, if so, why? Are your biases regarding your choice of plan strengthened or weakened by this information