OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE: Girls as Youth Members, All Programs

[Rick_in_CA]

I've always thought of the Summit as a luxury lodge for the senior execs, much like the exclusive retreat for generals in The Dirty Dozen.

I thought one of the drivers for the Summit was that the US Army decided it couldn't "host" (i.e. pay for) the BSA Jamborees anymore. So the BSA needed a place to hold the Jamborees going forward. None of the existing BSA properties are even close too having the capacity to host 50,000 plus scouts at once. I suppose they could have chosen an existing site to upgrade, but how many properties does National actually own? Are any of them large enough? Or would it have made sense for National to drop a huge investment into a council owned property somewhere?

 

I suppose they could have done what the US Army did - base the whole thing around temporary infrastructure that they install and remove for every jambo. But, that would probably be a more expensive choice in the long run?

 

Loosing the "special relationship" with the US Government really cost the BSA a lot.

[Back Pack]

I’d bet you could do a dozen or so jamborees for 400 million plus the cost of operating the place since it opened.

[Back Pack]

Didn’t the bsa won the law suit over using the military base for Jamboree? Didn’t they decide on their own to spend the money on Summit? Money they didn’t have?

[qwazse]

Hosting Jambo was a healthy exercise in managing civilians -- a stress-free exercise until our sworn enemies gave themselves props for inflicting casualties on them.

Military bases -- AP Hill especially -- were facing closures. This made it especially hard to train and prepare on a 4 year plan.

Didn’t the bsa won the law suit over using the military base for Jamboree? Didn’t they decide on their own to spend the money on Summit? Money they didn’t have?

BSA agreed to not have bases charter units so that it could maintain its right to have a publicly available membership standard that excluded athiests. In turn, their right to use public spaces was upheld. This is the same principle that guides public schools to not favor a religious practice, but does allow religious groups to practice in them.

 

Also, at the time, large youth concerts were increasingly popular. (I think one festival reached a record 80,000 attendance.) So the possibility of a revenue stream was not that far fetched. Some negotiations with WV limited that.

 

SBR resolves a lot of issues and offers real potential, that's why large donations and bonds are readily available for it. But, it should come as no surprise that businessmen often make excessive projections.

 

They may be making them with this decision as well. But let's not discount that there are folks who are having fun with girls in the mix.

[Back Pack]

Investing 400m plus and going in to debt without a sustained revenue stream makes poor business sense. Yeah I know I’m just a college student but it seems stupid to create something that does not have an return on investment that cannot be met in 3-5 years. Looking at BSA’s financials at a high level it seems ill conceived to float a bond for so much with declining membership, over reliance on private and “other†donations and no clear successful and sustainable revenue stream. I have to write a term paper on a company in trouble and analyze how they got there. I think I’ve found my thesis.

 

https://www.forbes.com/companies/boy-scouts-of-america/

[David CO]

BSA does have a clear revenue stream. They can close a hundred small campgrounds to pay for their luxurious mountaintop retreat for their top execs and billionaire boy scouts.

Edited November 4, 2017 by David CO

[Rick_in_CA]

Didn’t the bsa won the law suit over using the military base for Jamboree? Didn’t they decide on their own to spend the money on Summit? Money they didn’t have?

The BSA actually wasn't a party in the lawsuit, but the court ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to file the suit, so there wasn't a ruling on the merits of the case. The case became moot when the BSA decided to build the Summit.

 

The case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld

 

Like most things, there are probably multiple reasons why the BSA made the decision it did, but I read somewhere that one of the reasons was the fear that a future lawsuit would win and reduce even more the support the BSA gets from the government.

[Rick_in_CA]

I’d bet you could do a dozen or so jamborees for 400 million plus the cost of operating the place since it opened.

Interesting question. An article in Wikipedia says that it cost around $50 million to put on the 2010 jamboree with the military paying $8 million of that. However I can't find a reference for the $50 million number so I don't know where that number comes from and how it breaks down (for example, how much is payed for by the participants fees).

[ianwilkins]

BSA does have a clear revenue stream. They can close a hundred small campgrounds to pay for their luxurious mountaintop retreat for their top execs and billionaire boy scouts.

 

Presumably National don't actually own 100s of small campgrounds, they're all owned by local councils etc no? 

[Stosh]

BSA is a non-profit corporation and the districts function as departments in that corporation.  The assets all belong to the one legal entity.  The only time there is any question as to assets are those acquired by the franchise CO's, They are acquired under the tax id/exempt status of the CO. 

 

If one were to go back and look at who holds the deed to the campground land, it should answer the question.  I don't think that councils can actually hold a deed, not being a legal entity in and of itself.

[ianwilkins]

BSA is a non-profit corporation and the districts function as departments in that corporation.  The assets all belong to the one legal entity.  The only time there is any question as to assets are those acquired by the franchise CO's, They are acquired under the tax id/exempt status of the CO. 

 

If one were to go back and look at who holds the deed to the campground land, it should answer the question.  I don't think that councils can actually hold a deed, not being a legal entity in and of itself.

 

As usual, not as simple as I first thought. Thanks!

[Tampa Turtle]

I do not mean this as a National bash but do share others concerns about the Summit debt. I do see what they were trying to do. 

 

I have been involved in the planning, both logistics and security, of some major special events with comparable duration and attendance. I think they could have figured out other venues around the country and come out ahead. I am think they thought a permanent location would double as a 'Philmont east' and they would get more bang for their buck. It was a reasonable gamble but it appears their assumptions were off (probably wishful thinking) and the development costs were a lot more than expected.

 

Special events today is getting tougher and tougher, peoples expectations and what folks need to provide keep rising and it is a real challenge. (in my opinion that is why I think it may be best to leave that to someone's else venues but I understand the desire to do one's own thing)

 

It is really really hard to make the economics work on virgin land development vs a legacy property. (That is why selling off an old camp is a greater loss than it appears...recreating it would cost so much more).

 

I suspect that the Summit ran into the mountain real estate trap us Florida flat-landers sometime fall into. There is a reason that some hilly land is so cheap and undeveloped....because it can be really expensive to provide access to, develop, and maintain. I do not claim to really understand the balance sheet (I am the only non-accountant in the family) but BSA would not be the 1st entity whose fiscal solvency is threatened by an overly ambitious real estate development. Usually the big winner is the guy picks up the pieces afterward.

 

I am with David Co the Summit events are too rich for my blood...for that kind of money I'd rather do another kind of adventure. I feel like BSA has been slowly pricing my family out (but that and the Summit should be another thread.

[Jameson76]

I do not mean this as a National bash but do share others concerns about the Summit debt. I do see what they were trying to do. 

 

I have been involved in the planning, both logistics and security, of some major special events with comparable duration and attendance. I think they could have figured out other venues around the country and come out ahead. I am think they thought a permanent location would double as a 'Philmont east' and they would get more bang for their buck. It was a reasonable gamble but it appears their assumptions were off (probably wishful thinking) and the development costs were a lot more than expected.

 

Special events today is getting tougher and tougher, peoples expectations and what folks need to provide keep rising and it is a real challenge. (in my opinion that is why I think it may be best to leave that to someone's else venues but I understand the desire to do one's own thing)

 

It is really really hard to make the economics work on virgin land development vs a legacy property. (That is why selling off an old camp is a greater loss than it appears...recreating it would cost so much more).

 

I suspect that the Summit ran into the mountain real estate trap us Florida flat-landers sometime fall into. There is a reason that some hilly land is so cheap and undeveloped....because it can be really expensive to provide access to, develop, and maintain. I do not claim to really understand the balance sheet (I am the only non-accountant in the family) but BSA would not be the 1st entity whose fiscal solvency is threatened by an overly ambitious real estate development. Usually the big winner is the guy picks up the pieces afterward.

 

I am with David Co the Summit events are too rich for my blood...for that kind of money I'd rather do another kind of adventure. I feel like BSA has been slowly pricing my family out (but that and the Summit should be another thread.

 

We looked at Summit and while it was interesting, for what is offered there, I can do it for 1/2 the cost locally (we live in a state with mountains, etc).  As has been noted, more experience and less actual high adventure

 

You do have a good catch on the legacy portion.  Part of the beauty of Philmont (other than the actual beauty) is that it looks very similar and the trek is very similar to what was done 40 - 50 years ago or longer.  I went as a youth, then went 10 years later as an Explorer post advisor (all of this in the 70' and 80').  Then I went 3 years ago with my son and current troop.  Except for the better equipment available, it was really the same experience.  Most of the scouts we send today all come down with IWTGBTP syndrome.

 

Maybe in 20 - 30 years if it survives the Summit will have some of that, but now, do not see it and no real attraction.

 

Though I might want to swing by and see what $500MM buys in a camp property.

[ourlordbadenpowell]

As a former employee of the Summit Bechtel Reserve, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the property.

The SBR is built to hold jamborees first, high adventure second, and scout camp third. The staff who work there are in a difficult position, needing to provide an experience on par with the other high adventure bases without the benefit of the "script" of tradition. Further, capital improvements to the site are governed by the needs of jambo. Everything is built to hold jambo, but also work for HA, etc. This makes the camp feel empty every week, as the facility does not scale nearly as well as national thinks it does. What I can say is that the summer programs grow by leaps and bounds every summer. The staff is dedicated to improving the experience and the facilities are truly world class. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it.

[NJCubScouter]

BSA is a non-profit corporation and the districts function as departments in that corporation.  The assets all belong to the one legal entity.  The only time there is any question as to assets are those acquired by the franchise CO's, They are acquired under the tax id/exempt status of the CO. 

 

If one were to go back and look at who holds the deed to the campground land, it should answer the question.  I don't think that councils can actually hold a deed, not being a legal entity in and of itself.

 

I don't think that's correct, and I think @ianwilkins is correct.  BSA (national) is a non-profit corporation, but each of the councils is a separate non-profit corporation and operates the BSA's programs in its area, under a charter from National.  National owns assets (including the high adventure bases, and presumably the hq property in Irving) and the councils own other assets (including the council camps.)  There may be an exception here and there where a "council camp" is actually (or allegedly) owned by some kind of trust entity, such as that one camp somewhere that pops up in the news every couple of years because the trustees and the council are fighting over it.  But the one entity that does NOT own that camp is national.

 

I believe the council camps operate under guidelines handed down by national, and national does have some leverage over the council when it believes a camp should be closed, but the ownership is in the councils.