I think that all of us who are members of Lodges that own Historic buildings can agree that we would be much better off now if those Lodges had continued raising money for their building funds, after the buildings were finished.
If they had continued gathering moneys into a fund that was designed to be set aside forever, part of the earnings of which would be utilized for future maintenance and upgrades to the structure.
Not doing so was I think a major mistake made by so many of our Lodges during the Masonic building boom in the early 20th century.
But just because they didn’t do it then, doesn’t mean that we can’t do it now.
Should our Lodges that own historic buildings be creating funds now? Investment funds set up with rules assuring that the principal will not be touched, and that enough interest will be left each year to ensure continued growth of the fund, but from which some of the gains can be drawn for building maintenance or upgrades?
Even small amounts set aside into a fund like that now will, assuming proper investment, be quite substantial one hundred years from now, especially if like amounts are set aside each and every year.
Should we be looking to the future in this way now?
Certainly our most significant buildings, like Centralia’s Masonic Temple pictured above, will still be standing in 100 years. Who owns and controls them is the only real question.
Hello, Broth.'. Cameron! This is a very interesting question and we deal with similar issues here in Brazil. My Lodge does not own its building, but rents it from our equivalent of the Grand Lodge. However, the oldest Lodge of my hometown does own its building and they do not have a fund or something like that to maintain it. As a consequence, its' members' monthly fees are higher to cover the maintenance - just to cover it, mind you, not to provide for the future.
Their main difficulty is that the number of members have been diminishing over the past 3 or 4 decades. One of their younger members [about 45 years old, so that tells you the average age is quite high, around 60 years old] managed to set up a parking space on Lodge grounds, with fixed returns, but that only lasted for 2 years before being folded. I have seen some Lodges renting their grounds for social events, such as marriages and birthday parties.
[As an aside, I think I'll be posting my first text next week. I'll be sure to look up to you for tips and guidance!]
I'm involved in a historic building and such a circumstance. First absolutely yes long-term provisions have to be made. "Setting up a fund" is only the first step though. The challenge is deeper. On this blog we've discussed in the past the year-to-year masonic leadership model of WM, and this is an extremely poor match for long-term continuity such as is needed for keeping a building around 100 years.
Money/fund? Yes, you need that. But only step 1. A fund presumes you need steady fundraising, but also investment guidance. That in turn means you need dedicated volunteers who care about the building separate from the lodge.
Generally that means you're going to end up with a foundation, and a foundation board, distinct from the lodge. I personally don't think that Masonic Lodges should try to do this on their own because operating a historical building is a distraction from core masonic work, because our leadership structures aren't designed to facilitate it, because there isn't enough continuity BUT ALSO here's the grand-daddy reason:
When Masons & Masonic lodges control the building we tend to be worse (as compared to a foundation) at making the building available for community use, and making the community stakeholders in the building.
The real thing that keeps your building alive for another 100 years is a group of humans, as large as possible, that cares whether the building stands or falls. Those humans are the ones who plunk down the money, call the contractors, raise the funds.
When Masonic lodges run historical buildings (most cases, not all) only Masons care about the building. And what do we know about Masons? Their numbers are shrinking. Keeping the governance, fundraising, and control of a historical building strictly masonic is in my view a big mistake, but one we often do for fear of losing control. It guarantees that the base of support for the building will shrink with time.
Suggested good practices:
1. Create a foundation; task it with continuous fundraising & capital improvement plans
2. Require a certain number of seats be held by masons of your GL
3. Require a certain number of seats be held by NON-masons (community members)
Skipping #1 usually overburdens the lodge. If not now, then in 10 years. Skipping #2 creates too much fear in the masonic community (loss of control). Skipping #3 erodes support for the building over time.
The last, nastiest, hardest question is "when to sell the building". In this arrangement, usually the lodge owns the building, the foundation manages it. But another arrangement is that the lodge sells the building to the foundation, negotiates a cheap 100 year lease to give itself permanent access for masonic functions. Today I see this done both ways. If Masonry continues to shrink, I see it mostly going the second way for obvious economic reasons.
>>>When Masons & Masonic lodges control the building we tend to be worse (as compared to a >>>foundation) at making the building available for community use, and making the community >>>stakeholders in the building.
Yes, I certainly see this in my Jurisdiction. Most of our buildings are empty most of the time. It is a shame to see these resources go unutilized, and you make a great point that no one will care about our building if no one uses it.
I really appreciate your foundation idea. I can see how that could be formed in my own Lodge, and whom some of those outside members would likely be. Thank you for providing all of this information and guidance, I plan on taking it to the Temple Board for discussion.
may your buildings be seen as gems of the community. May they be so useful your lodges ask for dispensation to meet on other days to permit good & valuable community activities to take place on their usual dates
Feb 24, 2023·edited Feb 24, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
Would it be good to set aside money for a perpetual building fund? Yes. And isn't the question behind the question, what money? If the building generates income or if the Lodge has a substantial treasury there's always that money. But if the money is supposed to come from increased dues or member assessments I'm not so sure it exists; consider the stout resistance heard at Grand Lodge about raising the per capita fees.
One of the appeals for increased per capita fees is that costs now have to be spread across fewer members. Proposed increases of $5 or $10 are met with passionate resistance. If passed that would be $5 or $10 multiplied by hundreds of members, thereby generating thousands of dollars to support Grand Lodge operations. Now take a similar proposal to a lodge with 30 members. It's easy to think of the ways an old building could use a few hundred dollars but at some point that might feel like sweeping the tide with a broom.
We've all heard the arguments that Masons are cheap, and perhaps there's some truth to that. There's also hard realities today that didn't exist when our forebears broke ground on many of our most cherished buildings. The building projects were supported by much larger membership and household economics were very different. Dad used to work his 9-5 and eventually earn a pension so he could comfortably retire at 65 while mom stayed home to raise the kids and go to women's luncheons. Now many two-income households struggle to make ends meet, pensions are largely a thing of the past, and for decades both college tuition and healthcare costs have inflated at alarming rates.
So, I support the establishment of perpetual building funds if, and only if, the money can be found. If not, we need to swallow hard and realize that Masonry isn't a building.
Sort of reminds me of a Steve Martin joke (not RW Steve Martin): How to live like a millionaire in two easy steps. Step 1: Get a million dollars.
I agree with most of this. We've been through a similar financial analysis where I'm from. Basically: you can't really fund buildings out of the member's pockets (in the long term) unless Masonry is growing substantially.
Imagine you assess a certain fee per member to support the building. Doesn't matter the amount. The long term-dynamic is fewer masons, and increasing building costs. The curves go in opposite directions. You can either keep upping the fees (everyone will eventually call uncle, both the "cheap masons" and also the generous ones) -- or you can acknowledge that members can contribute, but not carry the building.
Membership carrying the building usually only works with very large rolls, or actively growing rolls. If the rolls are small, won't work. If they're medium & shrinking, won't work.
I do not disagree with you that a substantial building can not be supported with dues money. My quick math tells me that dues at Centralia Lodge dues would have to rise 4X just to maintain our current levels of maintenance on our building. And our current levels fall far short of what they should be.
But, luckily, we aren't in that situation. Our building contains commercial space, so the Masonic groups only have to come up with a part of the needed funds.
Clearly though, we in Centralia, like I think most Lodges, need significantly more.
I think that the solution is (if we hope to retain our buildings) short term event rentals. Demand is very high for spaces like this, as are costs. Very few of our Lodges make a serious effort at booking event rentals, but those that do, find great success with it.
In my view, that is one of the ways a perpetual fund could be created. Rent the space, some percentage of that rental goes into upgrading the space/equipment so that higher rents can be realized in the future. Some percentage goes to immediate building needs, and some percentage goes into a perpetual fund.
It just seems to me that our Fraternity has these large assets that could be utilized for financial gain, but we too often let them sit empty instead.
In talking to Brothers about this through the years, it seems to me that most or almost all lack the skills or motivation to pursue a short term rental business, but also are hesitant to hire someone in that business to do it for them. I think that in most cases, the Lodges would greatly benefit from professional help, especially if that help came in the form of a partnership arrangement.
" ...in most cases, the Lodges would greatly benefit from professional help ..." If you think it's expensive to hire a professional try hiring an amateur.
However, how do we do this in Washington under our current Code/Constitution that requires distribution of excess to the Lodge?
Yes, the Lodge could establish the fund, but the management is moved further away from the intent which can cloud the memory of future leaders that only see "a pot of money" and not the vision of longevity.
"Lodge" could be prefixed with "Grand" and similar conversation should be had. 😉
I think that the Lodge could be the holder of the fund, and I think that there are ways to set up a fund legally to preserve the intent.
Or, as was suggested above, an independent foundation could be created, moving us away from the Masonic code entirely.
But, your point is very well taken. The Code can create roadblocks that hamper efforts. In too many cases we have complicated our rules to the point that it causes stagnation.
Timely topic and one that has been pushed aside for too many years. I wrote a paper in 2021 about this same thing. Lodges have failed to provide maintenance reserve funds so that they are prepared to maintain buildings in a proper manner. It is very simple math. Whether the building is historical or not does not matter. Lodges must understand that roofs last 20 to 25 years. They need exterior paint every 12 years or so. HVAC systems need replaced every 12 years now with lower quality replacement units on the market. It can all be easily quantified. Lodges cannot support buildings out of dues. Proven fact. Lodges usually wait until they have system failures and hope they have the funds to fix whatever broke.
I am on the Long Range Planning Committee here in the Oregon jurisdiction and we are working on a guide for Lodge Building and Property Management. I have assembled some spreadsheets that will painfully show Lodges how much they need to be putting away in a DEDICATED maintenance reserve fund to make sure their buildings are properly maintained for effective service. For too many years, too many Lodges ignore these simple facts and one day the boogie man jumps out of the furnace closet and demands $ 8,0000 to replace the 25 year old energy inefficient heating unit.
Assessments will not work, they are not enforceable by most state codes, you only get a 50% maximum participation rate and would likely be around $ 400 per year per member if the Lodge has not outside incomes sources for maintenance. Trying to get Lodges to look at the numbers is often hard, because the assumption is always made that some how the money rabbit will jump out of the hat.
With MWB Camerons permission, I am willing to share the materials I have now to help Lodges assess their buildings current status, evaluate your current maintenance reserve funds, and determine how much you need to be putting away for future unfunded needs. I also have one that compares building ownership with renting space as well. Cue the gargoyles for me mentioning such an idea.
This is an excellent topic and one that Lodge leaders need to get a grip on fast, because with the current membership declines, a lot of jurisdictions will be faced with a lot of degraded Masonic buildings to deal with in the next 10 years. Not to mention that current inflation rates are increasing the costs of basic maintenance and repair operations by over 20% over the next 5 years easily.
>>>With MWB Camerons permission, I am willing to share the materials I have now to help Lodges >>>assess their buildings current status, evaluate your current maintenance reserve funds, and >>>determine how much you need to be putting away for future unfunded needs.
Please do send them along. I would be very pleased to distribute them through Emeth. It is well past time that we start looking at the financial state of our buildings realistically.
>>>I also have one that compares building ownership with renting space as well.
I do believe that most Lodges would be much better off renting as opposed to owning space. Of those Lodges I personally view as the most successful in my Jurisdiction, only one owns its building. All of the others rent.
That keeps energy that would ordinarily be spent on the building, in the Lodge instead.
Hello, Broth.'. Cameron! This is a very interesting question and we deal with similar issues here in Brazil. My Lodge does not own its building, but rents it from our equivalent of the Grand Lodge. However, the oldest Lodge of my hometown does own its building and they do not have a fund or something like that to maintain it. As a consequence, its' members' monthly fees are higher to cover the maintenance - just to cover it, mind you, not to provide for the future.
Their main difficulty is that the number of members have been diminishing over the past 3 or 4 decades. One of their younger members [about 45 years old, so that tells you the average age is quite high, around 60 years old] managed to set up a parking space on Lodge grounds, with fixed returns, but that only lasted for 2 years before being folded. I have seen some Lodges renting their grounds for social events, such as marriages and birthday parties.
[As an aside, I think I'll be posting my first text next week. I'll be sure to look up to you for tips and guidance!]
Here, and I assume in your country, I do think that rentals for social events as you mention could be a very good path forward for our Lodges.
I'm looking forward to your first post!
I'm involved in a historic building and such a circumstance. First absolutely yes long-term provisions have to be made. "Setting up a fund" is only the first step though. The challenge is deeper. On this blog we've discussed in the past the year-to-year masonic leadership model of WM, and this is an extremely poor match for long-term continuity such as is needed for keeping a building around 100 years.
Money/fund? Yes, you need that. But only step 1. A fund presumes you need steady fundraising, but also investment guidance. That in turn means you need dedicated volunteers who care about the building separate from the lodge.
Generally that means you're going to end up with a foundation, and a foundation board, distinct from the lodge. I personally don't think that Masonic Lodges should try to do this on their own because operating a historical building is a distraction from core masonic work, because our leadership structures aren't designed to facilitate it, because there isn't enough continuity BUT ALSO here's the grand-daddy reason:
When Masons & Masonic lodges control the building we tend to be worse (as compared to a foundation) at making the building available for community use, and making the community stakeholders in the building.
The real thing that keeps your building alive for another 100 years is a group of humans, as large as possible, that cares whether the building stands or falls. Those humans are the ones who plunk down the money, call the contractors, raise the funds.
When Masonic lodges run historical buildings (most cases, not all) only Masons care about the building. And what do we know about Masons? Their numbers are shrinking. Keeping the governance, fundraising, and control of a historical building strictly masonic is in my view a big mistake, but one we often do for fear of losing control. It guarantees that the base of support for the building will shrink with time.
Suggested good practices:
1. Create a foundation; task it with continuous fundraising & capital improvement plans
2. Require a certain number of seats be held by masons of your GL
3. Require a certain number of seats be held by NON-masons (community members)
Skipping #1 usually overburdens the lodge. If not now, then in 10 years. Skipping #2 creates too much fear in the masonic community (loss of control). Skipping #3 erodes support for the building over time.
The last, nastiest, hardest question is "when to sell the building". In this arrangement, usually the lodge owns the building, the foundation manages it. But another arrangement is that the lodge sells the building to the foundation, negotiates a cheap 100 year lease to give itself permanent access for masonic functions. Today I see this done both ways. If Masonry continues to shrink, I see it mostly going the second way for obvious economic reasons.
>>>When Masons & Masonic lodges control the building we tend to be worse (as compared to a >>>foundation) at making the building available for community use, and making the community >>>stakeholders in the building.
Yes, I certainly see this in my Jurisdiction. Most of our buildings are empty most of the time. It is a shame to see these resources go unutilized, and you make a great point that no one will care about our building if no one uses it.
I really appreciate your foundation idea. I can see how that could be formed in my own Lodge, and whom some of those outside members would likely be. Thank you for providing all of this information and guidance, I plan on taking it to the Temple Board for discussion.
may your buildings be seen as gems of the community. May they be so useful your lodges ask for dispensation to meet on other days to permit good & valuable community activities to take place on their usual dates
Would it be good to set aside money for a perpetual building fund? Yes. And isn't the question behind the question, what money? If the building generates income or if the Lodge has a substantial treasury there's always that money. But if the money is supposed to come from increased dues or member assessments I'm not so sure it exists; consider the stout resistance heard at Grand Lodge about raising the per capita fees.
One of the appeals for increased per capita fees is that costs now have to be spread across fewer members. Proposed increases of $5 or $10 are met with passionate resistance. If passed that would be $5 or $10 multiplied by hundreds of members, thereby generating thousands of dollars to support Grand Lodge operations. Now take a similar proposal to a lodge with 30 members. It's easy to think of the ways an old building could use a few hundred dollars but at some point that might feel like sweeping the tide with a broom.
We've all heard the arguments that Masons are cheap, and perhaps there's some truth to that. There's also hard realities today that didn't exist when our forebears broke ground on many of our most cherished buildings. The building projects were supported by much larger membership and household economics were very different. Dad used to work his 9-5 and eventually earn a pension so he could comfortably retire at 65 while mom stayed home to raise the kids and go to women's luncheons. Now many two-income households struggle to make ends meet, pensions are largely a thing of the past, and for decades both college tuition and healthcare costs have inflated at alarming rates.
So, I support the establishment of perpetual building funds if, and only if, the money can be found. If not, we need to swallow hard and realize that Masonry isn't a building.
Sort of reminds me of a Steve Martin joke (not RW Steve Martin): How to live like a millionaire in two easy steps. Step 1: Get a million dollars.
I agree with most of this. We've been through a similar financial analysis where I'm from. Basically: you can't really fund buildings out of the member's pockets (in the long term) unless Masonry is growing substantially.
Imagine you assess a certain fee per member to support the building. Doesn't matter the amount. The long term-dynamic is fewer masons, and increasing building costs. The curves go in opposite directions. You can either keep upping the fees (everyone will eventually call uncle, both the "cheap masons" and also the generous ones) -- or you can acknowledge that members can contribute, but not carry the building.
Membership carrying the building usually only works with very large rolls, or actively growing rolls. If the rolls are small, won't work. If they're medium & shrinking, won't work.
I do not disagree with you that a substantial building can not be supported with dues money. My quick math tells me that dues at Centralia Lodge dues would have to rise 4X just to maintain our current levels of maintenance on our building. And our current levels fall far short of what they should be.
But, luckily, we aren't in that situation. Our building contains commercial space, so the Masonic groups only have to come up with a part of the needed funds.
Clearly though, we in Centralia, like I think most Lodges, need significantly more.
I think that the solution is (if we hope to retain our buildings) short term event rentals. Demand is very high for spaces like this, as are costs. Very few of our Lodges make a serious effort at booking event rentals, but those that do, find great success with it.
In my view, that is one of the ways a perpetual fund could be created. Rent the space, some percentage of that rental goes into upgrading the space/equipment so that higher rents can be realized in the future. Some percentage goes to immediate building needs, and some percentage goes into a perpetual fund.
It just seems to me that our Fraternity has these large assets that could be utilized for financial gain, but we too often let them sit empty instead.
In talking to Brothers about this through the years, it seems to me that most or almost all lack the skills or motivation to pursue a short term rental business, but also are hesitant to hire someone in that business to do it for them. I think that in most cases, the Lodges would greatly benefit from professional help, especially if that help came in the form of a partnership arrangement.
" ...in most cases, the Lodges would greatly benefit from professional help ..." If you think it's expensive to hire a professional try hiring an amateur.
Understood, and agree!
AMEN.
However, how do we do this in Washington under our current Code/Constitution that requires distribution of excess to the Lodge?
Yes, the Lodge could establish the fund, but the management is moved further away from the intent which can cloud the memory of future leaders that only see "a pot of money" and not the vision of longevity.
"Lodge" could be prefixed with "Grand" and similar conversation should be had. 😉
I think that the Lodge could be the holder of the fund, and I think that there are ways to set up a fund legally to preserve the intent.
Or, as was suggested above, an independent foundation could be created, moving us away from the Masonic code entirely.
But, your point is very well taken. The Code can create roadblocks that hamper efforts. In too many cases we have complicated our rules to the point that it causes stagnation.
Timely topic and one that has been pushed aside for too many years. I wrote a paper in 2021 about this same thing. Lodges have failed to provide maintenance reserve funds so that they are prepared to maintain buildings in a proper manner. It is very simple math. Whether the building is historical or not does not matter. Lodges must understand that roofs last 20 to 25 years. They need exterior paint every 12 years or so. HVAC systems need replaced every 12 years now with lower quality replacement units on the market. It can all be easily quantified. Lodges cannot support buildings out of dues. Proven fact. Lodges usually wait until they have system failures and hope they have the funds to fix whatever broke.
I am on the Long Range Planning Committee here in the Oregon jurisdiction and we are working on a guide for Lodge Building and Property Management. I have assembled some spreadsheets that will painfully show Lodges how much they need to be putting away in a DEDICATED maintenance reserve fund to make sure their buildings are properly maintained for effective service. For too many years, too many Lodges ignore these simple facts and one day the boogie man jumps out of the furnace closet and demands $ 8,0000 to replace the 25 year old energy inefficient heating unit.
Assessments will not work, they are not enforceable by most state codes, you only get a 50% maximum participation rate and would likely be around $ 400 per year per member if the Lodge has not outside incomes sources for maintenance. Trying to get Lodges to look at the numbers is often hard, because the assumption is always made that some how the money rabbit will jump out of the hat.
With MWB Camerons permission, I am willing to share the materials I have now to help Lodges assess their buildings current status, evaluate your current maintenance reserve funds, and determine how much you need to be putting away for future unfunded needs. I also have one that compares building ownership with renting space as well. Cue the gargoyles for me mentioning such an idea.
This is an excellent topic and one that Lodge leaders need to get a grip on fast, because with the current membership declines, a lot of jurisdictions will be faced with a lot of degraded Masonic buildings to deal with in the next 10 years. Not to mention that current inflation rates are increasing the costs of basic maintenance and repair operations by over 20% over the next 5 years easily.
I am interested in those spread sheets. My Lodge is ok-ish for a while, but then again some simple repairs have gone undone for 3-4 years.
>>>With MWB Camerons permission, I am willing to share the materials I have now to help Lodges >>>assess their buildings current status, evaluate your current maintenance reserve funds, and >>>determine how much you need to be putting away for future unfunded needs.
Please do send them along. I would be very pleased to distribute them through Emeth. It is well past time that we start looking at the financial state of our buildings realistically.
>>>I also have one that compares building ownership with renting space as well.
I do believe that most Lodges would be much better off renting as opposed to owning space. Of those Lodges I personally view as the most successful in my Jurisdiction, only one owns its building. All of the others rent.
That keeps energy that would ordinarily be spent on the building, in the Lodge instead.