I remember hearing a Grand Master from another Jurisdiction remark:
“We own a billion dollars of Real Estate, and every bit of it is managed by amateurs.”
I don’t remember which of our Most Worshipful Brothers said it, but I remember those words quite well.
I also don’t know how much Real Estate our Fraternity owns even in the United States, but they are without a doubt extremely substantial holdings. We do after all have buildings, some of them quite substantial in every mid to large size city, quite often multiple buildings. Plus buildings in most small cities, and scattered throughout small towns and communities everywhere. How much does all of that add up to in dollars? Who knows. More than we can count certainly.
It’s true though, that massive investment is generally managed by amateurs.
When I became a Freemason, I didn’t know a thing about managing a large commercial office building. To be honest, I still don’t. But, my Lodge owns a large commercial office building, so guess what? I spent years on the Board that runs that building. No one else on the Board ever had experience with that particular management field either.
We did, and those still on the Board do, the very best we can.
But we are amateurs.
As far as I know, most of our buildings are run in exactly this same way.
So, the question is, is this the right way for us to be doing things?
Or, should be be hiring some professional help?
Should we hire an accountant to run the books, collect the rents, pay the bills, all that paperwork stuff?
Should we hire an agent to negotiate our leases with our tenants?
Should we hire a management company to deal with routine maintenance issues?
If we did these things, would we find that we actually were making more money through a combination of increased revenues and decreased costs?
I ask that imagining that an experienced and professional agent could get us higher rental rates, and that with better maintenance building systems would last longer and break less often. I could be wrong of course, as mentioned above, I don’t really know about these things, but those are my hunches.
So, let’s chat about it. Should we be hiring some professional help for our buildings?
Sunday morning please expect our regular issue of Emeth, as always, an essay by yours truly. Sunday evening we shall have our weekly gathering via Zoom.
The buildings we own are being held in a non-literal trust for the Brothers current and past. Master, boards and committees attempt to carry out the good intent to keep up, rent and protect these resources. Temple Boards as organized and disorganzied as they are, truly have jurisdiction and good intent to maintain and protect their Lodge and associated buildings. Most Lodges cannot afford outside help. Just saying.
I was researching some facility maintenance and inspection checklists for the Tacoma Scottish Rite building association and stumbled
across an article that unfortunately due to an extensive redesign by the website owner is no longer "linkable". The jist of the multi-page paper concluded:
====
Their research indicates educational institutions should be spending 0.5% of their building and system’s current
replacement value (CRV) on ongoing maintenance and regular preventive maintenance and 1.5% of CRV on capital
repairs. His team did extensive research with a number of universities to determine average CRV spending for those
campuses.
====
So on a building that would cost $1,000,000 to replace, we should be spending a minimum of $5,000 a year on
preventative maintenance and budgeting $15,000 a year for capital repairs. I'll let you do the scary math for your
replacement value, if I had to take a wild guess, somewhere in the $2-$3M range for Auburn Masonic Temple (approximately $150-$160 sq ft).
And I LOVE the title of the paper that this information is based on "Before the Roof Caves In"
In short, the answer to all your questions is "YES" we should be hiring these professionals.
And if a Temple Board -ever- says "we can't afford it" that should be immediately translated to "the building is for sale".
I could go on and on, but our real estate advisory committee chair, VWB Chris Haynes wrote an EXCELLENT article in the latest Masonic Tribune, I highly recommend that be read as a starting point if a Board or a member is unsure what to do next.
In my experience, most lodges and by extension Hall Boards are amateurs at best. This is not a slight on them, many lodges don’t have the depth or the finances to do anything else. Likewise, most Halls are maintained by individuals who know just enough to to get by and often “bandaid” issues but do not truly fix things.
Your Hall Board should be diverse, and repairs and maintenance should be done by licensed, bonded, and insured professionals with proper permits.
Likewise, if open to public rentals, a rental manager should be hired, or assigned that is properly compensated for the work they do.
Hall Boards have a way of chewing up Brothers to the point that the stop coming to lodge because they are expected to do “everything” to maintain a building which in some cases is a full time job.
Finally, a Hall Board and Lodge Members need to look at overall expenses and income. If rentals are not covering expenses then the Lodge itself needs to look a Dues and consider that an increase is needed and a percent of the annual dues goes directly into a building fund. And yes, I’m one of those Brothers that thinks our Dues structure if seriously lacking. Remember you get what you pay for.
Very good topic and one which I wrote a paper on last year that I will include here. The building issues are tied in with other Lodge management functions and they all impact each other. Just for reference, I am a former general contractor, residential real estate investor and commercial building manager with an extensive financial background in operational accounting and corporate turn around process's.
Do we have a master / strategic plan that address all facets of Lodge operations including building management ?
Does that plan have a specific building management strategy and plan ?
Do we have a operating cost budget that is accurate and up to date ?
Does this budget have proper costs and allocations for maintenance reserves ?
Do we have the skill sets in our own membership to effectively manage a building ?
If we do not have those skill sets, have we sought out those skill sets from other Lodges or resources ?
After publishing my paper, it came with an offer to share ALL my materials and budgets and planning with any Lodge that wanted to see them. Yep, not one Lodge or Brother asked to see any of these materials.
Have we done the proper management analysis to understand if owing and operating the building is the right financial thing for our Lodges to do ?
Does our Building Committees regularly review our plans and budgets with the membership ?
At one of my Lodges when I became involved with the Building Committee nobody even knew who was on the committee, what the terms were and when the last time they met and where the minutes were. When shown a budget that showed the dark future for that building, there was denial and the usual " we can't afford that " narrative.
Should we be expecting Brothers to provide professional level services for building management without compensation and expecting professional level results ?
I tried to post the paper here, but there is a limit on size of these posts. I am willing to share it if anybody wants to read it I can e mail it to you upon request.
Masonic Lodge Building Infrastructure in Oregon 2021
WB Dale Wiley, PM
Past Master / Past Secretary - Holbrook Masonic Lodge # 30
Senior Warden - Redmond Masonic Lodge # 154
For many of us who are long term Masons, the familiarity of our Lodge buildings often goes back many years. Those of us who are fortunate to have been raised in a Masonic family have memories of being in these buildings as young children accompanying our parents to the various activities of the Fraternity. We have seen the pancake breakfasts, and the multitude of the various fund raisers that were conducted to support the buildings that housed these events.
With the current declines in membership across the Masonic families, the accompanying decline in funds to maintain and preserve these buildings has also been reduced, and as a result many Masonic Lodges in our jurisdictions have fallen into disrepair and are well below 50% in building condition. The reason lies in the fact that Lodges have failed to properly budget for the operations of their buildings, they have failed to establish and fund maintenance reserve funds, and they have failed to keep the charges for building use to both Masonic groups and outside groups in pace with inflation.
The first step in correcting these problems is of course recognizing the problem, quantifying the problem via budget and use spreadsheets, establishing consensus among users for change and implementing that change. Of course, the word change is involved, and we all know what that means in Masonic circles but failing to change will result in the continual loss of Masonic facilities all over the state.
For many years, the various Masonic groups were able to support these buildings via membership dues and fund raisers. There were ample numbers of active members willing to contribute their time and money to support the requisite projects for building maintenance and preservation. With the membership declines, that funding went away, the members aged and were no longer able to perform the maintenance activities, and most of all, Lodge Building Committees failed to keep pace with inflation on making sure rental rates reflected real costs of operations and were keeping paced with CPI adjusted rates of inflation.
Membership dues now, which also are far behind inflation, can no longer support both Lodge operations and the building costs. Members of the various Masonic groups all put up the cry, “We cannot afford to have our rents raised”, “we cannot raise dues, members will quit. “Those arguments while heartful by those raising them, were still a denial of reality and it showed a willingness to kick the can down the road, and let younger members, (if you have any) deal with the eventuality of the issue.
Gone are the days when a Masonic Lodge building can be only for the use of the Masonic groups. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but most Masonic facilities are dated in fit and finish, are often substandard as far as kitchen facilities, may not be even close to energy efficient, are not ADA compliant and are costly to operate on just Lodge funding alone. These factors prevent market rate rents due to the substandard condition of the buildings, and as a result less than market rate rents are all that can be charged.
Many Masonic groups have some sort of rental incomes for their buildings. Some of the buildings lend themselves quite well to this usage and some of the buildings are completely incapable of supporting any types of rental activity due to their lay out, upstairs positioning, or other limiting factors. In some cases, these rental uses need to be a shared use between renters and Masonic groups. In the initial stages for these shared usage attempts, it will be difficult to get consensus from all Masonic groups. Change once again being the main factor here, it must be explained to concordant groups that shared use and rental incomes are the only way these buildings are going to remain in Masonic use.
The overall cost of supporting these buildings and the constant drive to find funding sources takes up a lot of time and energy that would be better put towards Masonic activities in the community, and bringing in good, QUALIFIED candidates and trying to stem the declines in membership that the Craft is currently facing.
As time moves on, building costs increase and membership decreases, we must look at what we can do to preserve the institution of Freemasonry in Oregon. For individual Lodges to keep trying and supporting buildings for the use of ever decreasing numbers of members, is counter productive to what appears to be a trend towards newer members looking more to the esoteric side of Masonry and who have little concern, desire, or ability to engage in continual fundraising activities. When these fundraising activities become the centerpiece of a Lodges survival, then we are not meeting our Masonic obligations to relief, we are not able to focus on bringing in new members to replace our losses, and we are not able to be active community participants outside of perpetual fundraising activities.
Many Masonic Lodges have been able to start a gradual program of updating the physical infrastructure of their buildings with the assistance of Grand Lodge grant programs. While these grant programs help, they still require Lodges to generate matching funds of their own. A huge complicating factor in this process is the current cost of construction materials, and the cost of hiring contractors to perform the work. Construction materials in some cases, such as raw lumber has doubled in price in the last 4 months. Contractors are booked up a year in advance and can be difficult to arrange for work. Many of our members are no longer physical able to perform the labor-intensive work, and we should not expect our younger members to perform all that work either.
At Redmond Masonic Lodge # 154 we have undertaken a building repair and upgrade program. We have utilized Lodge funds, Grand Lodge grand funds and our own labor. To that end, we have been able to get a renter who is using our dining room and kitchen has a day care center for a local alternative school Monday through Friday weekly. This is resulting in a $ 1,200 a month rental rate, cost sharing on utilities and supplies and is working out quite well. We still can have all Masonic meetings in the Lodge room, and while we will have to adapt and change how we serve meals when that is possible again, the shared use of this facility with our renter is vital to the building’s survival. While this rental does not solve all our buildings problems, it certainly covers expenses and is leaving us with a $ 4,000 per year maintenance reserve.
One possible solution to some of these building problems, would be the property consolidation of several Lodges in given areas. Most Masonic Lodges sit empty a good percentage of the time and are under used by Masonic groups. In a given area, for example that has 4 Masonic Lodges, one building could serve the use of all 4 Lodges at a much lower cost. The other 3 buildings could then be sold, with proceeds placed in appropriate accounts with suitable amounts allocated for maintenance reserves, and most likely with funding left over for other masonic activities. This would then represent a solid facility in good condition, with adequate maintenance reserves to guarantee the continual upkeep of the facility. This building could then be used by all the Masonic groups and concordant bodies for their meeting and be much better utilized and allow these groups the function of Masonic activities without the continual pressures of funding building repairs.
Of course, this type of thinking will be met with the usual protests and caveats as to why it will NOT work. But the reality of the situation is, it must work, or you will see the continuing rate of decline of Masonic owned and operated buildings, and we all know of many of these facilities in our jurisdiction, as many of us must drive by these on a regular basis.
For our Craft to survive amid the many pressures facing it currently is our recognition of potential solutions and start working towards these solutions. The subject of building preservation is dependent upon trying to stem the current decline of membership in Oregon. These problems must be worked on in a parallel manner, as they are closely related.
As a young man accompanying my parents to many Masonic activities before becoming a Mason myself in 1984, I have seen the decline of these buildings, and the decline of Masonic activities in general. Masonic activities will never return to those types of participation levels and support. We must adapt to the new level of Masonry, one that recognizes the inherent problems the past has left us with, and the new paths we must take with respect to both membership and ensuring that we have the physical facilities to practice our Craft well into the future.
Fraternally,
WB Dale Wiley, PM
Past Master / Past Secretary - Holbrook Masonic Lodge # 30, Senior Warden - Redmond Masonic Lodge # 154
Just looking at my own home Lodge, we have a large, *old*, expensive building, which now requires a fair amount of maintenance and structural improvement. One particular instance of need is an approved upper fire escape stairwell. The original one, built in the 1950's is rusty and rickety. If there ever were to be a fire on the upper level (God forbid!), more people would be injured or killed in the panic to get away. I figure a conservative estimate to replace the escape stairwell would be in $20k to $30k range. A new coat of paint ain't gonna do it.
Doing anything for the building takes much discussion, argument, and consideration to even get started. Yes, we could hire professional asset managers, but that is a "sunk cost." It would then cost even more time, money, and effort to accomplish requisite repairs and upgrades. Brethren can do only so much before needing the services of professionals.
Do I have a solution? Not yet. But, I suggest that before we start investigating virtual reality for our degree work, let's get the physical plant up-to-date, so we have a place to conduct it.
We probably need to separate the two two groups, those that own Temples/Lodges that are single purpose buildings and those that own properties that are rented/leased to outside businesses. Although every building could use professional management, it’s also not realistic if the only tenant you’re negotiating rent with is a concordant body. If you’re in a landlord/tenant relationship there are a lot of things that don’t fall under the building umbrella, such as snow removal, parking lot maintenance, garbage disposal, etc. These are some things that a professional management group would stay on top of, aside from the building upkeep. When I was asked to be the president of our Temple Board (a bus I didn’t see coming) I had no idea how to maintain a building. I could mow the grass and unplug a toilet but beyond that I was in over my head. The heating unit on the roof had an explosion in it and stopped working. I was fortunate enough to have a brother suggest checking with our insurance to find out if it was covered, and it was. But having a full time job made it difficult to get the bids and have the work completed in a timely manner. The time and energy we’re expending to maintain our aging buildings may also coincide with the decline of Masonic education, with meetings becoming long discussions on how to spend limited financial resources to keep the doors open.
I'm going to suggest that maybe (with buildings that have no non-Masonic tenants) we are thinking about things incorrectly.
I'm going to use a Masonic Building that I know of intimately, that ultimately failed, as an example.
This building was used, for many years, 24 times a year. A meeting each month of the Lodge, and a meeting each month of the OES. It was a major and substantial building. The property taxes and insurance alone were more than the Lodge and the OES could afford to pay, let alone utilities, maintenance, and all the rest.
But the thing is, it sat empty, completely unused, for 341 days a year.
Every single one of those days was a lost opportunity. That Lodge missed 341 opportunities to bring in income, year in and year out.
That Lodge has a very prominent and successful businessman as a member. If you drive around Washington State, chances are mighty good that you see his last name fairly frequently. He suggested that the Lodge/Temple Board recognize the following:
That rents for even the most humble of wedding venues are extremely expensive throughout the Seattle Metro Area, but that if a wedding were held in this particular town, not only the rents, but everything else associated with the wedding day would be significantly less costly.
He also pointed out that the train picks up people throughout the Seattle Metro, and stops at the station not far from the Lodge building.
That the Lodge could sell the idea of an inexpensive wedding venue. Hop on the train in Seattle, shoot on down to the Lodge, have the wedding and reception, then back on the train for the trip back home.
This idea was ignored. The Lodge building is no longer a Lodge building and the Lodge itself likely won't survive the year, having destroyed itself over building issues.
I've heard ideas like this get rejected for four reasons. None of them good:
1. The Lodge Room is a sacred space that can't be used by outsiders.
I agree that it is a sacred space, but renting it out for the use of others in no way negates that.
2. The Lodge/Temple Board is dry, so people won't want to have events at which there is no alcohol permitted.
That is right. People will want the ability to have wine or spirits or whatever. But the argument that the Lodge/Temple Board is dry is spurious. Dry Lodges were an innovation brought about by the long ago discredited temperance movement in the United States. Declaring a Lodge dry directly conflicts with our Masonic Ritual, and therefore any rules that proclaim such a thing are invalid.
3. The building is outdated or in bad shape.
So what? Charge less. If it is a junker currently, just charge a small amount of money for its use. Then plow that money back into making improvements. Then the price can be raised a touch, resulting in more improvements. On and on, soon enough the building will no longer be a junker.
4. It is too much work for the Lodge to do.
I agree. There are people who make a business out of this. The property owner provides the building, the business provides the rental service, moneys received are split. That is how it can be done with ease.
It just seems to me that it is nuts for our Fraternity to own a building that is not in use every single day, or at least available to be used, and marketed as such, every single day. I can't fathom how we have tricked ourselves, as a Fraternity, into believing that we can financially support a building that is used only a few nights a month.
I think this particular subject is a prime candidate for the lodge leadership retreat training. Could even be expanded to include property tax exempt status for the temple requirements.
The buildings we own are being held in a non-literal trust for the Brothers current and past. Master, boards and committees attempt to carry out the good intent to keep up, rent and protect these resources. Temple Boards as organized and disorganzied as they are, truly have jurisdiction and good intent to maintain and protect their Lodge and associated buildings. Most Lodges cannot afford outside help. Just saying.
It’s not just weighing the ROI of hiring expertise.
It’s the Return On Investment of developing that expertise in ourselves and our Lodges.
I was researching some facility maintenance and inspection checklists for the Tacoma Scottish Rite building association and stumbled across an article that unfortunately due to an extensive redesign by the website owner is no longer "linkable". The jist of the multi-page paper concluded:
====
Their research indicates educational institutions should be spending 0.5% of their building and system’s current replacement value (CRV) on ongoing maintenance and regular preventive maintenance and 1.5% of CRV on capital repairs. His team did extensive research with a number of universities to determine average CRV spending for those campuses.
====
So on a building that would cost $1,000,000 to replace, we should be spending a minimum of $5,000 a year on preventative maintenance and budgeting $15,000 a year for capital repairs. I'll let you do the scary math for your replacement value, if I had to take a wild guess, somewhere in the $2-$3M range for Auburn Masonic Temple (approximately $150-$160 sq ft).
And I LOVE the title of the paper that this information is based on "Before the Roof Caves In"
https://www.schooldude.com/Portals/0/Public%20Content/White%20Papers/wp-before-the-roof-caves-in.pdf
In short, the answer to all your questions is "YES" we should be hiring these professionals.
And if a Temple Board -ever- says "we can't afford it" that should be immediately translated to "the building is for sale".
I could go on and on, but our real estate advisory committee chair, VWB Chris Haynes wrote an EXCELLENT article in the latest Masonic Tribune, I highly recommend that be read as a starting point if a Board or a member is unsure what to do next.
Fraternal regards,
--
David Colbeth
Managing Broker, REALTOR
In my experience, most lodges and by extension Hall Boards are amateurs at best. This is not a slight on them, many lodges don’t have the depth or the finances to do anything else. Likewise, most Halls are maintained by individuals who know just enough to to get by and often “bandaid” issues but do not truly fix things.
Your Hall Board should be diverse, and repairs and maintenance should be done by licensed, bonded, and insured professionals with proper permits.
Likewise, if open to public rentals, a rental manager should be hired, or assigned that is properly compensated for the work they do.
Hall Boards have a way of chewing up Brothers to the point that the stop coming to lodge because they are expected to do “everything” to maintain a building which in some cases is a full time job.
Finally, a Hall Board and Lodge Members need to look at overall expenses and income. If rentals are not covering expenses then the Lodge itself needs to look a Dues and consider that an increase is needed and a percent of the annual dues goes directly into a building fund. And yes, I’m one of those Brothers that thinks our Dues structure if seriously lacking. Remember you get what you pay for.
Very good topic and one which I wrote a paper on last year that I will include here. The building issues are tied in with other Lodge management functions and they all impact each other. Just for reference, I am a former general contractor, residential real estate investor and commercial building manager with an extensive financial background in operational accounting and corporate turn around process's.
Do we have a master / strategic plan that address all facets of Lodge operations including building management ?
Does that plan have a specific building management strategy and plan ?
Do we have a operating cost budget that is accurate and up to date ?
Does this budget have proper costs and allocations for maintenance reserves ?
Do we have the skill sets in our own membership to effectively manage a building ?
If we do not have those skill sets, have we sought out those skill sets from other Lodges or resources ?
After publishing my paper, it came with an offer to share ALL my materials and budgets and planning with any Lodge that wanted to see them. Yep, not one Lodge or Brother asked to see any of these materials.
Have we done the proper management analysis to understand if owing and operating the building is the right financial thing for our Lodges to do ?
Does our Building Committees regularly review our plans and budgets with the membership ?
At one of my Lodges when I became involved with the Building Committee nobody even knew who was on the committee, what the terms were and when the last time they met and where the minutes were. When shown a budget that showed the dark future for that building, there was denial and the usual " we can't afford that " narrative.
Should we be expecting Brothers to provide professional level services for building management without compensation and expecting professional level results ?
I tried to post the paper here, but there is a limit on size of these posts. I am willing to share it if anybody wants to read it I can e mail it to you upon request.
Masonic Lodge Building Infrastructure in Oregon 2021
WB Dale Wiley, PM
Past Master / Past Secretary - Holbrook Masonic Lodge # 30
Senior Warden - Redmond Masonic Lodge # 154
For many of us who are long term Masons, the familiarity of our Lodge buildings often goes back many years. Those of us who are fortunate to have been raised in a Masonic family have memories of being in these buildings as young children accompanying our parents to the various activities of the Fraternity. We have seen the pancake breakfasts, and the multitude of the various fund raisers that were conducted to support the buildings that housed these events.
With the current declines in membership across the Masonic families, the accompanying decline in funds to maintain and preserve these buildings has also been reduced, and as a result many Masonic Lodges in our jurisdictions have fallen into disrepair and are well below 50% in building condition. The reason lies in the fact that Lodges have failed to properly budget for the operations of their buildings, they have failed to establish and fund maintenance reserve funds, and they have failed to keep the charges for building use to both Masonic groups and outside groups in pace with inflation.
The first step in correcting these problems is of course recognizing the problem, quantifying the problem via budget and use spreadsheets, establishing consensus among users for change and implementing that change. Of course, the word change is involved, and we all know what that means in Masonic circles but failing to change will result in the continual loss of Masonic facilities all over the state.
For many years, the various Masonic groups were able to support these buildings via membership dues and fund raisers. There were ample numbers of active members willing to contribute their time and money to support the requisite projects for building maintenance and preservation. With the membership declines, that funding went away, the members aged and were no longer able to perform the maintenance activities, and most of all, Lodge Building Committees failed to keep pace with inflation on making sure rental rates reflected real costs of operations and were keeping paced with CPI adjusted rates of inflation.
Membership dues now, which also are far behind inflation, can no longer support both Lodge operations and the building costs. Members of the various Masonic groups all put up the cry, “We cannot afford to have our rents raised”, “we cannot raise dues, members will quit. “Those arguments while heartful by those raising them, were still a denial of reality and it showed a willingness to kick the can down the road, and let younger members, (if you have any) deal with the eventuality of the issue.
Gone are the days when a Masonic Lodge building can be only for the use of the Masonic groups. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but most Masonic facilities are dated in fit and finish, are often substandard as far as kitchen facilities, may not be even close to energy efficient, are not ADA compliant and are costly to operate on just Lodge funding alone. These factors prevent market rate rents due to the substandard condition of the buildings, and as a result less than market rate rents are all that can be charged.
Many Masonic groups have some sort of rental incomes for their buildings. Some of the buildings lend themselves quite well to this usage and some of the buildings are completely incapable of supporting any types of rental activity due to their lay out, upstairs positioning, or other limiting factors. In some cases, these rental uses need to be a shared use between renters and Masonic groups. In the initial stages for these shared usage attempts, it will be difficult to get consensus from all Masonic groups. Change once again being the main factor here, it must be explained to concordant groups that shared use and rental incomes are the only way these buildings are going to remain in Masonic use.
The overall cost of supporting these buildings and the constant drive to find funding sources takes up a lot of time and energy that would be better put towards Masonic activities in the community, and bringing in good, QUALIFIED candidates and trying to stem the declines in membership that the Craft is currently facing.
As time moves on, building costs increase and membership decreases, we must look at what we can do to preserve the institution of Freemasonry in Oregon. For individual Lodges to keep trying and supporting buildings for the use of ever decreasing numbers of members, is counter productive to what appears to be a trend towards newer members looking more to the esoteric side of Masonry and who have little concern, desire, or ability to engage in continual fundraising activities. When these fundraising activities become the centerpiece of a Lodges survival, then we are not meeting our Masonic obligations to relief, we are not able to focus on bringing in new members to replace our losses, and we are not able to be active community participants outside of perpetual fundraising activities.
Many Masonic Lodges have been able to start a gradual program of updating the physical infrastructure of their buildings with the assistance of Grand Lodge grant programs. While these grant programs help, they still require Lodges to generate matching funds of their own. A huge complicating factor in this process is the current cost of construction materials, and the cost of hiring contractors to perform the work. Construction materials in some cases, such as raw lumber has doubled in price in the last 4 months. Contractors are booked up a year in advance and can be difficult to arrange for work. Many of our members are no longer physical able to perform the labor-intensive work, and we should not expect our younger members to perform all that work either.
At Redmond Masonic Lodge # 154 we have undertaken a building repair and upgrade program. We have utilized Lodge funds, Grand Lodge grand funds and our own labor. To that end, we have been able to get a renter who is using our dining room and kitchen has a day care center for a local alternative school Monday through Friday weekly. This is resulting in a $ 1,200 a month rental rate, cost sharing on utilities and supplies and is working out quite well. We still can have all Masonic meetings in the Lodge room, and while we will have to adapt and change how we serve meals when that is possible again, the shared use of this facility with our renter is vital to the building’s survival. While this rental does not solve all our buildings problems, it certainly covers expenses and is leaving us with a $ 4,000 per year maintenance reserve.
One possible solution to some of these building problems, would be the property consolidation of several Lodges in given areas. Most Masonic Lodges sit empty a good percentage of the time and are under used by Masonic groups. In a given area, for example that has 4 Masonic Lodges, one building could serve the use of all 4 Lodges at a much lower cost. The other 3 buildings could then be sold, with proceeds placed in appropriate accounts with suitable amounts allocated for maintenance reserves, and most likely with funding left over for other masonic activities. This would then represent a solid facility in good condition, with adequate maintenance reserves to guarantee the continual upkeep of the facility. This building could then be used by all the Masonic groups and concordant bodies for their meeting and be much better utilized and allow these groups the function of Masonic activities without the continual pressures of funding building repairs.
Of course, this type of thinking will be met with the usual protests and caveats as to why it will NOT work. But the reality of the situation is, it must work, or you will see the continuing rate of decline of Masonic owned and operated buildings, and we all know of many of these facilities in our jurisdiction, as many of us must drive by these on a regular basis.
For our Craft to survive amid the many pressures facing it currently is our recognition of potential solutions and start working towards these solutions. The subject of building preservation is dependent upon trying to stem the current decline of membership in Oregon. These problems must be worked on in a parallel manner, as they are closely related.
As a young man accompanying my parents to many Masonic activities before becoming a Mason myself in 1984, I have seen the decline of these buildings, and the decline of Masonic activities in general. Masonic activities will never return to those types of participation levels and support. We must adapt to the new level of Masonry, one that recognizes the inherent problems the past has left us with, and the new paths we must take with respect to both membership and ensuring that we have the physical facilities to practice our Craft well into the future.
Fraternally,
WB Dale Wiley, PM
Past Master / Past Secretary - Holbrook Masonic Lodge # 30, Senior Warden - Redmond Masonic Lodge # 154
Just looking at my own home Lodge, we have a large, *old*, expensive building, which now requires a fair amount of maintenance and structural improvement. One particular instance of need is an approved upper fire escape stairwell. The original one, built in the 1950's is rusty and rickety. If there ever were to be a fire on the upper level (God forbid!), more people would be injured or killed in the panic to get away. I figure a conservative estimate to replace the escape stairwell would be in $20k to $30k range. A new coat of paint ain't gonna do it.
Doing anything for the building takes much discussion, argument, and consideration to even get started. Yes, we could hire professional asset managers, but that is a "sunk cost." It would then cost even more time, money, and effort to accomplish requisite repairs and upgrades. Brethren can do only so much before needing the services of professionals.
Do I have a solution? Not yet. But, I suggest that before we start investigating virtual reality for our degree work, let's get the physical plant up-to-date, so we have a place to conduct it.
We probably need to separate the two two groups, those that own Temples/Lodges that are single purpose buildings and those that own properties that are rented/leased to outside businesses. Although every building could use professional management, it’s also not realistic if the only tenant you’re negotiating rent with is a concordant body. If you’re in a landlord/tenant relationship there are a lot of things that don’t fall under the building umbrella, such as snow removal, parking lot maintenance, garbage disposal, etc. These are some things that a professional management group would stay on top of, aside from the building upkeep. When I was asked to be the president of our Temple Board (a bus I didn’t see coming) I had no idea how to maintain a building. I could mow the grass and unplug a toilet but beyond that I was in over my head. The heating unit on the roof had an explosion in it and stopped working. I was fortunate enough to have a brother suggest checking with our insurance to find out if it was covered, and it was. But having a full time job made it difficult to get the bids and have the work completed in a timely manner. The time and energy we’re expending to maintain our aging buildings may also coincide with the decline of Masonic education, with meetings becoming long discussions on how to spend limited financial resources to keep the doors open.
I'm going to suggest that maybe (with buildings that have no non-Masonic tenants) we are thinking about things incorrectly.
I'm going to use a Masonic Building that I know of intimately, that ultimately failed, as an example.
This building was used, for many years, 24 times a year. A meeting each month of the Lodge, and a meeting each month of the OES. It was a major and substantial building. The property taxes and insurance alone were more than the Lodge and the OES could afford to pay, let alone utilities, maintenance, and all the rest.
But the thing is, it sat empty, completely unused, for 341 days a year.
Every single one of those days was a lost opportunity. That Lodge missed 341 opportunities to bring in income, year in and year out.
That Lodge has a very prominent and successful businessman as a member. If you drive around Washington State, chances are mighty good that you see his last name fairly frequently. He suggested that the Lodge/Temple Board recognize the following:
That rents for even the most humble of wedding venues are extremely expensive throughout the Seattle Metro Area, but that if a wedding were held in this particular town, not only the rents, but everything else associated with the wedding day would be significantly less costly.
He also pointed out that the train picks up people throughout the Seattle Metro, and stops at the station not far from the Lodge building.
That the Lodge could sell the idea of an inexpensive wedding venue. Hop on the train in Seattle, shoot on down to the Lodge, have the wedding and reception, then back on the train for the trip back home.
This idea was ignored. The Lodge building is no longer a Lodge building and the Lodge itself likely won't survive the year, having destroyed itself over building issues.
I've heard ideas like this get rejected for four reasons. None of them good:
1. The Lodge Room is a sacred space that can't be used by outsiders.
I agree that it is a sacred space, but renting it out for the use of others in no way negates that.
2. The Lodge/Temple Board is dry, so people won't want to have events at which there is no alcohol permitted.
That is right. People will want the ability to have wine or spirits or whatever. But the argument that the Lodge/Temple Board is dry is spurious. Dry Lodges were an innovation brought about by the long ago discredited temperance movement in the United States. Declaring a Lodge dry directly conflicts with our Masonic Ritual, and therefore any rules that proclaim such a thing are invalid.
3. The building is outdated or in bad shape.
So what? Charge less. If it is a junker currently, just charge a small amount of money for its use. Then plow that money back into making improvements. Then the price can be raised a touch, resulting in more improvements. On and on, soon enough the building will no longer be a junker.
4. It is too much work for the Lodge to do.
I agree. There are people who make a business out of this. The property owner provides the building, the business provides the rental service, moneys received are split. That is how it can be done with ease.
It just seems to me that it is nuts for our Fraternity to own a building that is not in use every single day, or at least available to be used, and marketed as such, every single day. I can't fathom how we have tricked ourselves, as a Fraternity, into believing that we can financially support a building that is used only a few nights a month.
I think this particular subject is a prime candidate for the lodge leadership retreat training. Could even be expanded to include property tax exempt status for the temple requirements.