BAC home
Frequently Asked Questions
The Building Advisory Committee (BAC) completed its first report regarding The Mountaineers Seattle Building Alternatives on January 6, 2005. The report was posted on the club's website, made available in the library and was presented at various club meetings. An article in The Mountaineer magazine also highlighted the issues. The purpose of this process was to summarize the report's findings and alternative scenarios for meeting the club's identified Seattle facility needs and to provide opportunities for questions and comments from the membership.
The following questions were distilled from the many questions and comments received. Responses were prepared by the BAC; in some cases after the completion of additional analysis prompted by the very interested and thoughtful club membership.
(R-1) Building needs projections were made after evaluating an entire year of building use records, conducting interviews with user groups and measuring building spaces, as needed. Assuming an efficient plan and club activity use expanded to include weekends, a building with a little over one-third of the current building's floor area could accommodate about 98% of its nearly 650 annual club activities. The various assembly spaces would be adequate for all courses, meetings, workshops, presentations by guest lecturers, festivals, rehearsals, the bi-annual Wilderness Conference and nearly all dances. With a capacity of about 350 to 400 people in the largest hall, only the Banff Film Festival, which attracts about 550, and possibly a few of the largest dances could not be accommodated. If the decision is made to construct a new building, it would not be cost effective to provide the additional floor area and support systems needed for so few additional uses. However, if an existing structure with the right volume and configuration could be found, it could be remodeled to include a larger multipurpose assembly hall without resorting to a costly and inefficient balcony. Building 67 at Magnuson Park is the only structure found, to date, that appears to meet these criteria. Recent preliminary design studies indicate that a remodel could likely configure its largest hall to accommodate a little over 500 people.
Has any consideration been given to virtual offices in projecting the number of club administrative staff needed and the extent of office space required?
It is expected that the trend toward the increasing use of computers will continue for many tasks, including activity registrations. This will permit a smaller staff. Compared with the current building, office space requirements would be significantly reduced and more efficiently configured.
In the event that the club decides to sell its Seattle building and move, would a suitable replacement be selected and made ready before the current building is sold to avoid the uncertainty of the club's Seattle facility location and the need to find temporary quarters?
Yes. If it is decided to sell and move, the arrangements for a suitable replacement would be assured before the current building is sold and vacated.
Aren't comments on the BAC report from club members becoming so focused on building financial issues that we are losing sight of the fact that our facilities exist to support our purposes, mission and the needs of the community?
Financial matters appear to dominate the discussions because club members want to make sure that the building decision doesn't jeopardize the club's long-range financial viability. The club does not have sufficient funds to remodel its current building unless it takes on a large debt or substantially depletes its cash reserves and also raises dues. The BAC, through its real estate consultant GVA Kidder Mathews, has not yet been able to locate a suitable and affordable replacement site in Seattle for purchase. Any leased facility would require a long-term lease and financial conditions, including renewal terms, favorable to the club. The BAC is working with city park staff to define the parameters of a possible lease for the Magnuson Park alternative so its financial proforma can be refined and the long-term financial implications can be evaluated. However, at the same time, the BAC is consulting with the building user groups, to define building program needs so that The Mountaineers facility, regardless of which alternative is selected, will serve the club's purpose and mission as well as the community.
Why didn't the BAC report develop any alternatives that would allow the club to stay in its current Seattle building by remodeling it to attract more users, thereby, reducing its 75% unused assembly space capacity and increase its income?
The alternative to remain in the building and remodel it would likely reduce the unused capacity. However, as noted in response (R-4), this would require the club to assume significant debt or deplete its cash reserves and also raise dues. In addition, the use of daytime building capacity is constrained by the availability of area parking, much of which is reserved for other buildings and businesses. The sale and transfer of development rights in order to raise cash, (from the currently unused additional floor area that the property could accommodate if built to its maximum potential), is not permitted due to zoning restrictions at this location. The financial analysis also shows that the building is not the highest and best financial use of the property, which represents nearly $4 million of The Mountaineers assets, according to a recent appraisal. The BAC's analysis demonstrates that the property's greatest value to the club would be as cash that can be used to obtain a more suitable and efficient facility.
Why is the current building not used for club activities on weekends?
Since its acquisition over twenty years ago in a tax-advantaged exchange, the building has been inefficient and under-utilized for The Mountaineers activities. It has also been expensive to maintain. The club found that weekend rentals to outside users at the higher commercial rates could significantly increase building income. Also, the building's capacity was large enough to accommodate nearly all club functions on weekdays. The weekend commercial rate policy continues in the hope of securing outside users, though in recent years, a declining economy, deferred maintenance and modernization, increased competition from newer and more attractive facilities and the high vacancy rate in the area's office market, has resulted in a steady decline in rentals and income from outside sources.
Is it realistic to assume that the Seattle building's income would continue to decline at the current rate of about 12% per year even if significant building improvements were made (by some estimates costing $600,000 to $900,000 or more)?
Perhaps not. It is likely that a major remodel to raise the building's condition to a mid-price market niche would improve revenues. However, as noted previously, significant problems exist with a major remodel, including the lack of an acceptable method of financing and the inability to resolve long-term daytime parking needs.
Why couldn't the club enter into a partnership with a developer to construct suitable replacement facilities for the Seattle building?
Early in the process, because of the high property costs in the primary Seattle focus area north of downtown, consideration was given to the concept of a partnership with an office developer. Offices are daytime uses and The Mountaineers activities peak at other times, so most of the parking could be shared. (The club's activities would conflict with condominium or apartment uses and they could not share parking.) However, current over-building in the Seattle office market and the club's inexperience in real estate partnership development and management convinced the BAC that this approach would be difficult and also financially too risky.
Did the BAC consider the possibility of leasing an office for club administrative staff and requiring the activities, programs, courses and other building users, to rent various spaces throughout the area to meet their needs, such as some of the branches do?
Yes. However this alternative was eliminated early when it became clear that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. Many activities need secure storage space, some substantial, and very few rental spaces for meetings, courses, large AV presentations, workshops, etc., are available with storage. Equipment management, in some cases requiring rental facilities and vans, was considered a disincentive in attracting volunteers to club programs. In addition, many facility owners and managers will not allow the long-term advance scheduling that many club activities require. The BAC also believes that a facility that serves as an attractive regional center for outdoor recreation, conservation, education and outreach programs and activities would represent an important and highly visible symbol of The Mountaineers in the community. A building design that expresses the club's purpose and mission as a fun gathering place for its activities is also viewed as part of a good marketing approach for attracting new members and symbiotic partnerships with other organizations. Generic meeting places can't be adapted to some of the club's unique course needs and they impart no message to the community regarding what The Mountaineers are all about. A fixed location that members, participants and the community will recognize and can count on for most club activities is also favored over less visible locations that may frequently change.
Were buildings at Discovery Park or satellite sites in suburban communities considered?
Discovery Park and satellite facilities have the disadvantages noted in response (R-9). A relatively small facility with a mission driven image is preferred. However, in the event that expansion is needed in the future, satellite facilities could be rented where there is a "critical mass" of participants for specific courses and activities that would not reduce participation in the activities of the other branches.
What is the age and condition of Building 67 at Magnuson Park and could it be remodeled to have a character that reflects the image of The Mountaineers as an outdoor recreation, education and conservation club?
The building is about 55 years old and is basically a structural shell that has had much of its interior already removed. An engineering evaluation indicated the reinforced concrete structure and timber roof trusses are very sound, having been designed for loads that far exceed the needs of The Mountaineers. The brick end-walls and the roof deck will need some additional reinforcement to meet earthquake standards. Insulation and all building systems would also need upgrades and/or replacement. Hazardous material abatement would include some asbestos pipe insulation and lead paint. Preliminary design studies, reviewed with park staff, indicate that a remodel could express the club's rugged outdoor activity image in a manor similar to the REI flagship store.
Could The Mountaineers also use the outdoor facilities at Magnuson Park?
Yes. That is an advantage of the Magnuson Park site that has been recognized by several Seattle Branch activities. Any lease agreement would prioritize some areas near the building for use by The Mountaineers and would be included in any approved remodel. Large activities, that involve concentrations of over 100 people on the grounds, would need to coordinate schedules with the park staff in order to avoid conflicts. Small uses would not need to be scheduled unless specific facilities needed to be reserved. Also, the small boat launch facilities, available for kayak and canoes, located north of Building 67, are scheduled to be renovated this year.
How does the traffic, access and parking at Magnuson Park compare with the conditions at the current Seattle building and other locations considered?
The traffic and access evaluation is nearing completion for site comparisons under evening peak, major event and unrestricted traffic conditions. A parking and transit use evaluation of club activities is also nearing completion.
What would the term and other provisions of a lease at the Magnuson Park site include?
A series of meetings is underway with park staff to reach agreement on the basic provisions of a potential long-term lease for the use and remodel of Building 67 and some of the nearby grounds. Top priorities are being given to the approval process, design considerations and the lease concept, including the cost structure, term and renewal provisions. This process will enable the BAC to evaluate the long-range financial implications and feasibility for the club.
As the largest user of the current Seattle building, what is the Seattle Branch Council (including its 18 activity committee chairs) saying about the current building and a possible move?
Activities of the Seattle Branch represent about 70% of the building's use by the club. The Seattle Branch Council has formulated several questions and concerns that it asked the BAC to address. The issues include the long-term financial viability (particularly if a facility is leased), appropriate management and legal review of the proceeds from any sale of the current building, reasonable access from downtown Seattle employment, adequacy of parking, and the process for consultation with building users in the programming and conceptual design phases to assure that user needs are met. After receiving the BAC's responses, the Branch Council is planning to form its position and recommendation regarding the building alternatives. Some Branch activity committees have already expressed a preference to sell the Seattle building and move Magnuson Park, subject to a favorable lease agreement. Some individual club members have also indicated a desire to remain in the current building.
If the Seattle building (which is a major clubwide asset) is sold, will a plan be developed for managing the proceeds of the sale so the long-term benefits to the club will be optimized and to avoid squandering the funds on short-term special interests or on balancing deficit budgets?
The BAC has indicated that its recommendation to the Board of Trustees, regarding building alternatives, will include related recommendations for implementing the alternative selected. It will also suggest a process for creating a plan for managing the proceeds of any sale. The final decisions regarding a plan are the responsibility of the Board.
Will a financial proforma, which includes a financial analysis that conforms to standard accounting practices, depreciation, an evaluation of the club's internal activity rent structure, and any projected affect on club dues, be prepared for any proposed new facility?
Yes.
What conclusions and recommendations regarding the Seattle building have been included in previous reports on The Mountaineers buildings and properties and what actions were taken?
Building reports and business plans dating back to 1987 depict a continuous struggle with the building, obtained in a 1983 exchange when the previous club site was included in the property acquisitions for the Washington State Convention & Trade Center. Previous reports concluded that the building was inefficient, poorly maintained, obsolete and generally unattractive. It was also much larger than needed and included restaurant, deli and lounge facilities that proved to be financially unsuccessful. Very high operational costs forced the club into the hospitality business to generate needed rental income from outside sources.
Among the alternatives presented for consideration over the years to address financial and operational issues that were not implemented were: (a) Sell the building and lease space for administrative offices and committee activities; (b) Sell the building and buy a smaller building; (c) Rent out the entire building and lease other space for club needs; and (d) Continue club uses, room rentals to outside users and the restaurant and catering businesses.
Remodeling, undertaken to close the restaurant activities and improve the building's configuration for club operations and activities and its rental business, enabled it to operate at a modest profit, until recently. The building remains inefficient and costly to operate with some systems near the end of their useful lives. A shortage of available parking continues to be a problem for daytime rental clients. Over many years, club use has been relatively stable, while rentals to outside groups have declined from nearly five times club use in 1988-89 to parity with club use in 2003-04.
In 2000, The Mountaineers Strategic Plan for Properties, noted that the Seattle clubhouse had a positive cash flow and supported the club's courses and its mission, though the building's future was limited by local development pressures (likely conversion of more of the area's parking lots to buildings), the club's own parking shortage and aging building systems. The plan recommended that no further major building maintenance should be undertaken and that the planning process should begin for occupying a different building in 5-10 years. In the subsequent years, maintenance has been minimal and the start of the planning process was delayed until 2004.
How will the decisions be made on whether to: (a) remain in and remodel the current building; (b) sell, purchase property and remodel or construct a building; or (c) sell and move to Magnuson Park and remodel Building 67 under a long-term lease?
The BAC will consider the comments and questions received and complete its continuing analysis. In late March, it is planning to prepare a report of its conclusions and recommendations regarding the building alternatives, together with a suggested implementation process. The BAC anticipates presenting its report to the Board of Trustees on April 7. After considering the BAC's report, the Board will make a decision.
Copyright 2005 The Mountaineers. Webmaster
