rcmiket

Here ya go if interested .

Mike


http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...ecminutes.aspx

"2. Foundation Discussion concerning the makeup and direction of the foundation indicated that there has not a lot of forward movement. Donations through the membership application has continued to bring in funds. In order for the foundation to move forward a long-term strategic plan needs to be created. Tony presented a conceptual drawing of an Indoor site to be developed in Muncie along with some rough figures and a time needed to accomplish this task. This would be a good capital campaign for the foundation with a 5- to 6-year goal to acquire the funding needed to complete this project. Discussion regarding regional sites: good project for the foundation or not? L. Tougas was concerned about “all the money” being put in one location (Muncie) and he still supports regional sites. Tony, with the assistance of the PADCOM committee, is to develop the indoor concept further and present at the July meeting."

It will be interesting to see how regional sites are addressed.

Mike

init4fun

Hi Mike ,

For years I've said "spreading the wealth" by having regional sites would serve far more members than having one location only , and lots of folks have chided me over that belief . It's good , no actually it's great , to think that it's finally at least being considered . I have nothing against Muncie in general , the corporate headquarters have to be somewhere and Muncie is as good a place for that as any other , but to build it into what Franklin likes to call "Taj Muncie" while having exactly nothing elsewhere for folks on either coast , seems a blatant case of "putting all the eggs into only one basket" ....

cj_rumley

Sorry init, but "spreading the wealth" is precisely the reason the EC will never give it serious consideration. The IAC is a money sinkhole, and renting it out for events partially offsets the cost of owning it. Regional sites would be competition to the IAC 's monopoly on that market. Tougas has brought this up since he was running for DVP office. He tried to get support from the EC for a regional site that would be paid for by donations from members in his district. The EC effectively tabled the issue permanently by magnanimously offering to establish a special AMA account to collect those donations. How much do you expect has accumulated in that account over the several years it has existed?

franklin_m

In my 22 year military career, I moved cross country several times. This includes twice while taking 30 days vacation at the same time (in the summer). Not once I have I ever even considered stopping in Muncie. There's just nothing there for people to do if you're not into model aviation (and my wife and kids are not). Given a choice between spending money on hotels and meals to stop in a place that's of interest to only me, or going somewhere we all enjoy, the latter is going to win every time.

I notice they're still pushing a multi-million dollar indoor facility (numbers quoted a couple EC's ago). Their membership revenue is down, so much that they're talking about adjusting lifetime membership costs, and they want to spend MORE money?

What am I missing? Is there a magic money tree growing there?

Hydro Junkie

You're missing nothing, Franklin. It comes across, to me anyway, as a way to attract the "drone crowd". That said, it's a way for the EC to say "Now see how we're using your money, for the benefit of all" while, in reality, it's to the benefit of none.
BTW, you need to check out the warbirds forum. There is someone in the thread about Utah saying how great the AMA did in changing the bill in the Utah legislature and how "You will be crushed" by the great work the AMA is doing

franklin_m

If memory serves, they were looking at a $250K facility purchase, with an additional $1M in work? Now they're talking about something at Muncie itself, but not mentioning figures ... which is a little concerning. I did a quick check and conventional warehouses run $50-$80 per square foot. So just the playing area of a typical HS football field (w/ both end zones) would be 18,198 square feet, or between $0.96M to $1.5M. That seems small for an indoor flying site, and of course I've not accounted for extra cost for things like a very high roof etc. I also don't know if that includes site work, pad, or not, so it could go quite a bit higher.

That seems like a lot of money for them to be spending with membership revenue on the decline and with an uncertain regulatory future.

rcmiket

here's the link.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-w...-400-feet.html

Mike

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

It sounds to me like the discussion is over....Lawrence made his comment about regional sites, and the indoor concept is moving forward into further development.

Astro

rcmiket

I believe your correct but am holding out hope that there will be a actual discussion on the topic. Maybe even getting input from Leader Members on it.

Mike

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Wait a minute.....WHAT?......That would be absurd!!!!!!

LOL
Astro

franklin_m

I just don't get how they feel it's fiscally responsible to spend that kind of money when "Open adult membership renewals are on the decline; must think about how to increase this. There was a decline in the Senior adult membership 2015 to 2016. As the dues went up, the Park Pilot memberships increased almost 33%, 2015 to 2016. The conversion rate on youth members is extremely low."

Who is their target demographic? Open adult members? They're declining. Senior members? They're declining. All those free youth memberships converting to open adult? Oops, that's not happening very often. Perhaps they're going to convince all those Park Fliers to go from outdoor flying to indoor flying? And drive to Muncie?

franklin_m

For what it's worth, I just sent this to the District 3 VP w/ copy to EVP:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I see from the latest EC minutes that the council is still discussing an indoor facility near or at Muncie. Acquiring and outfitting the Rantoul facility was estimated to cost $1.25 million. It's my understanding that was deemed too expensive.

Now I see discussion of building a facility at Muncie. With warehouse type buildings going for $50-$75 per square foot as a rough estimate. And assuming a high school football field sized area, playing area only w/ both end zones or approx. 18,198 square feet. Then we're looking at $0.96 million to $1.5 million. This could be more depending upon what is and is not included for site prep. Furthermore, an indoor facility will burden the organization with utility costs, and heating large indoor spaces is quite expensive (I know what it costs to heat hangars, even in relatively mild California)."

Yet open adult membership are declining, senior memberships are declining, and youth conversion rate is extremely low. Park pilot is up, but each of those memberships brings in far less revenue than either of the other paying types.

So why is the organization even considering such a capital outlay and future burden (support costs) at a time when revenue is dropping?

franklin_m

Even if they go with the absolute cheapest alternative, an air dome, they're looking at $8 - $11 per square foot for a non-permanent structure. For an insulated permanent structure, it's $9 to $14 per square foot. Annual cost is cited at $4 to $5 per square foot. A company that builds them recommends that a dome earn 5 to 7 times its square footage in revenue to cover capital investment, utility bills, insurance, taxes and staffing.

So for the 18,198 square foot example I cited above (hs football field size area w/ both end zones), up front costs would be $160K to $250K, with annual costs of $72K to $91K. And the manufacturer recommends that this facility would need to earn $90K to $127K annually to cover capital investment, utility bills, insurance, taxes, and staffing.

Even though the up front costs are much lower, the annual burden seems like a big commitment at a time when membership revenue is going down.