Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[CynicalScouter]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Regarding your comment that "the councils are voting" just who in the council governing structure is voting?

The Executive Board, although I understand some councils the full council is getting a vote.

So, for example just random the Blackhawk Area Council Executive Committee voted July 6 to sell the camp, but the full Executive Board will meet in August to approve the committee's decision.  https://www.mystateline.com/news/local-news/former-boy-scouts-decry-decision-to-sell-canyon-camp-to-help-pay-national-sex-abuse-lawsuit/

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Its seems like the questions put to the councils are "Does the council participate in contributing to the settlement?" and if so, "What assets are used-cash and/or liquidate real estate?"

Yep. That's exactly right.

Edited July 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

As I understand it from talking to my Council and seeing what other Councils are doing

1. It is take it or leave it. Remember that number the LC is being handed was derived from negotiations with the TCC and is part of the agreement that the TCC and others reached with BSA and the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils to come up with $600 million. The LCs do not get to negotiate this: this is the price that must be paid in order to be released from claims.
2. LCs do not want to do fire sales because that means they have to come up with the difference in cash. In order to avoid fire sales, councils have two options. Sell now if they think they can get a good price OR if they are unable to sell the camp prior to the conclusion of the bankruptcy they will simply transfer the property to the Settlement Trust when the bankruptcy is finalized.
3. Yes. Each LC is allowed to substitute cash for real property under the bankruptcy plan. If somehow a massive fundraising effort occurred OR if a council decided rather than selling their camp they would wipe out their cash and endowments instead, that's up to the LC.
4. Case by case. Some of the "restrictions" were minimal or not relevant regarding a sale. Others were, in effect, iron clad. For example, the Maine Attorney General is suing a council that tried to sell a restricted camp (the AG enforces charity laws) due to under-utilization. https://www.wabi.tv/2021/07/01/lawsuit-fights-stop-sale-central-maine-boy-scout-camp/
5. The formula was based on all of the above (number of claims and ability to pay plus leaving the council enough money to survive) and it may or may not include "restricted". Keep in mind as I said in #4, some of the "restrictions" are limited restrictions and do not impact the ability to sell the camp. Others absolutely do prohibit the sale of the camps.

[satl8]

My understanding for question #2-

Withing 6 months of the bk case being approved Grand canyon council will list for sale our properties on the commercial market. We then have approximately 3 years to sell said property or it will then be basically signed over to the trust. I would assume you want as much as possible for each property since the final amount due is an actual dollar amount and not a property specification.

 

IMO-Seems the settlement wants cash not properties but would take them once a good faith effort is made.

[CynicalScouter]

37 minutes ago, satl8 said:

IMO-Seems the settlement wants cash not properties but would take them once a good faith effort is made.

Right, the TCC has said over and over that they do NOT want the Settlement Trust turning into a real estate company. Settlement trustees are not in the real estate business. So cash is great, but properties are next-best-thing. That's why the agreement is written the way it is $200 million in properties OR additional cash.

[MYCVAStory]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, the TCC has said over and over that they do NOT want the Settlement Trust turning into a real estate company. Settlement trustees are not in the real estate business. So cash is great, but properties are next-best-thing. That's why the agreement is written the way it is $200 million in properties OR additional cash.

Absolutely.  As well, this is why the TCC had CBE conduct appraisals on hundreds of properties.  This prevents an LC from saying "Here you go, it's worth a million" when it's worth a thousand.  As well, it also prevents the LC from trying to transfer the unusable portion of a camp (i.e. swampland).  The reality is that there are a lot of camps out there that while they have been valuable emotionally to LCs because of their history they have been grossly under-utilized.  So, some LCs might sound like they're horrified that their camp will be sold but I bet quite a few scout execs are happy that their hand was forced on this.

[5thGenTexan]

Its hard for me to understand camps that are "underutilized".  I have to look elsewhere for camping locations because our closest camp is almost always booked up full.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Its hard for me to understand camps that are "underutilized". 

When you consider there are councils that have lost 50-70% of their membership in the last few decades, "underutilized" camps start to make sense.

[Sentinel947]

24 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Its hard for me to understand camps that are "underutilized".  I have to look elsewhere for camping locations because our closest camp is almost always booked up full.

 

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

When you consider there are councils that have lost 50-70% of their membership in the last few decades, "underutilized" camps start to make sense.

Depends on the Council, which is somewhat related to Council management success or failure as well as broader economic and social trends. 

[Eagle94-A1]

Even some of the restricted camps will be reverting back to the trusts because councils can't afford the overhead post bankruptcy.  We have a small camp that will revert to the trust because of overhead.

[yknot]

36 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Its hard for me to understand camps that are "underutilized".  I have to look elsewhere for camping locations because our closest camp is almost always booked up full.

I don't understand underutilized camps either. I am in the middle of multiple councils. The ones who have innovative, three and four season programming open to the public and not just scouts are going gangbusters. The ones who regard their summer camps as solely a summer destination for scouts are struggling. 

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Its hard for me to understand camps that are "underutilized".  I have to look elsewhere for camping locations because our closest camp is almost always booked up full.

Well, the BSA NCAP process looks specifically at utilization and strategic analysis of camp plans for usage.  https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/camp-accreditation/

I'm guessing these reports and documents would be available, but under mediation confidentiality, and would have helped inform the Ad-Hoc Committee and TCC regarding the amount of under-utilization that made properties "available." 

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

Depends on the Council, which is somewhat related to Council management success or failure as well as broader economic and social trends. 

Anecdotally, I've visited so many reservations in the past decade where I was told "We have several camps in the reservation but only use one regularly."  It always follows the demographics.  Take Ten Mile River Scout Reservation in New York.  10,000+ acres and at its height 11 independent camps and outposts.  Today, three camps.  Drive the old roads and it looks like one scout camp ghost town after another.  I don't know that Council's plans but if the notion is to hold on to all of that property until eight more camps are filled, well, good luck.  There are others like it.  It's business.  When times get tough, time to close the under-performing franchises.

[Sentinel947]

9 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Anecdotally, I've visited so many reservations in the past decade where I was told "We have several camps in the reservation but only use one regularly."  It always follows the demographics.  Take Ten Mile River Scout Reservation in New York.  10,000+ acres and at its height 11 independent camps and outposts.  Today, three camps.  Drive the old roads and it looks like one scout camp ghost town after another.  I don't know that Council's plans but if the notion is to hold on to all of that property until eight more camps are filled, well, good luck.  There are others like it.  It's business.  When times get tough, time to close the under-performing franchises.

For sure. My council has 4 camps on 2 properties. All are used regularly and maintained. That's probably not the norm for most councils. 

[CynicalScouter]

Point of reference. Blackhawk Area Council last week announced the sale of Camp Canyon to pay for the settlement. After 750+ emails, the council backed down and announced a new plan to pay for the settlement without having to sell properties is coming.

I speculated that the alternative plan (to be announced August 2) will be for the council to use its cash instead of property.

Canyon Camp was, according to BSA's numbers, valued at $1,668,940.

Blackhawk Area Council balance sheet (again, BSA numbers) indicated

Cash & Equivalent = $310,974
Land, Buildings, and Equipment (including Camp Canyon) = $1,832,040 (land value - depreciation)
Long-Term Investments = $3,989,290
Other Assets = $5,881,177

• All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 151 (plus some shared with other councils)
• All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 15

So, while they haven't announced the number, working backwards it looks like they were going to pay $1,668,940 on 151 claims, or roughly $11,000 per.

Illinois is a "Gray 1" state, meaning under the BSA/TCC/Coalition plan claims would be valued at 50%-70%. Blackhawk also includes part of Wisconsin which is Gray 3 (10-25%). I don't know how those 151 or 15 claims breakdown.

 

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Point of reference. Blackhawk Area Council last week announced the sale of Camp Canyon to pay for the settlement. After 750+ emails, the council backed down and announced a new plan to pay for the settlement without having to sell properties is coming.

I speculated that the alternative plan (to be announced August 2) will be for the council to use its cash instead of property.

Canyon Camp was, according to BSA's numbers, valued at $1,668,940.

Blackhawk Area Council balance sheet (again, BSA numbers) indicated

Cash & Equivalent = $310,974
Land, Buildings, and Equipment (including Camp Canyon) = $1,832,040 (land value - depreciation)
Long-Term Investments = $3,989,290
Other Assets = $5,881,177

• All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 151 (plus some shared with other councils)
• All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 15

So, while they haven't announced the number, working backwards it looks like they were going to pay $1,668,940 on 151 claims, or roughly $11,000 per.

Illinois is a "Gray 1" state, meaning under the BSA/TCC/Coalition plan claims would be valued at 50%-70%. Blackhawk also includes part of Wisconsin which is Gray 3 (10-25%). I don't know how those 151 or 15 claims breakdown.

 

So, as I understand this, the settlement will compensate the "Unique and Timely" abuse claims even though not legally enforceable?