| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| MidContinent Blogs #7 – Fundraising for Projects https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30016 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | byronlong [ Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | MidContinent Blogs #7 – Fundraising for Projects |
It has become evident from some recent replies to my topic #5 - What is Mid-Continent that I feel the need to elaborate on the process for funding of projects. My experience on the board of Mid-Continent and the reading of the blogs lead me to believe that the leaders of Mid-Continent and maybe leaders of other not-for-profit organizations seem to misunderstand the standard processes for a project. As an academic research biochemist who wrote many federal grant applications and as a project manager in a large pharmaceutical company, I gained significant experience as to how to fund and manage projects. I found the most important components of fundraising are to have programs and projects that are well-planned and a track record of successes. I would appreciate learning the views of readers about this process. A project should have a specific cost and a specific goal and should be a clear component of a master plan, unless there is an emergency need for funds. A project can stand alone or be part of a program of several projects. For example, the Mid-Continent steam program can and does include the C&NW #1385 project, the WC&C #1 project, and the PL #2 project. One situation where I believe Mid-Continent has been wrong is that they fundraise for a program rather than a specific project. By doing so, there is no real measure of how specific contributions are helping any project and this should concern and does concern the donor. It may seem their money has disappeared into a dark hole and this concern heightens when a project fails to meet its goal. A second problem is the concept that the first step is to raise the funds. My experience has taught me this should be the last step before starting the project. The prevailing belief is that the project should not start if not enough funds exist. There are several concerns about this approach. First, failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because it conveys the impression the leaders have doubts. Second, no one knows for sure how much money is needed because accurate estimates have not been undertaken. And third, it is not precisely clear where the money will be going or when it will be used. A third problem is that timelines generally are not established. For example, why fundraise for three different steam locomotives at the same time when the urgent need is for one to be operational as soon as possible? Timelines could also segregate the whole project into sub-projects so that the costs and goals are more palatable to the donor population. I will illustrate these problems using the water line example provided in the May 24, 2010 blog. Mid-Continent Railway Museum needs quality water for steam locomotive boilers, safe and palatable drinking water, and fire protection. The Museum is about 300 yards from the end of North Freedom village water. The blog mentioned a cost of $250,000 for the project but did not describe just what that money would provide, in other words the scope and goals of the project; how that cost estimate was derived, in other words is this someone’s guess or facts; how much water is projected to be used in a month and how much the village will charge; and when will the project start and when will it be completed. The first question I would ask is does this project appear as part of the master plan? The answer is yes. The second question is does this project have a priority over other needs? I believe the answer is yes. The third question is has the board made this a project, defined scope and goals of the project, provided expectations for start and completion dates, and included sewers in the project? The answer is unknown. My thinking is that the project could be broken up into sub-projects. Phase I could be simply getting a water line across the Baraboo River, Phase II could be running water (and sewer) to the museum property, and Phase III could be distributing water to the depot, coach shed, and locomotive shop. Each phase can be bid, funded, and completed separately. After all, success breeds success and small successes would counter the recent string of failures by Mid-Continent. I personally think the $250,000 cost is ridiculous. Now, this is my experience with the Mid-Continent board of directors. The board of directors of Mid-Continent Railway Historical Society unanimously approved the Strategic Short and Long Range Planning Committee (SSLRPC) report of November 4, 2001. This document was amended in 2002 to include a parts storage building, Shay building, and roadway to the parts storage building. After attempts to get other projects going that were blocked by board maneuvers, I tried again. I made a proposal to the board in 2005 that members purchase and assemble a 40 x 60 foot steel building kit to safely store locomotive and car parts so that parts would not be scattered throughout the property in freight and baggage cars. This building would have a concrete floor so that forklifts could access pallets on pallet racks. Furthermore, an inventory of all the parts could be cataloged for easy access. I had pledges from friends for the full cost of $20,000 and I trusted them to deliver. The first step was to present this proposal to the board to approve the project, which included a commitment to comply with all county, state, and federal regulations. The second step would be to plan the building in detail and seek competitive bids for the building and concrete floor and foundation. The third step would be to seek board approval for the plans, total cost, and timelines. The fourth step would be to send donations to Mid-Continent for the approved project. And the fifth step would be to purchase the building materials and construct the building through Mid-Continent. However, all of this was blocked at the first step by a board requirement for a water mitigation study for the entire 10-acre SW quadrant. It is no wonder that the physical plant of the Museum has not been enlarged since 1992 and the place appears to be stagnant. Because of a string of obstructionist and petty activities by the board of directors against any efforts to provide protection for un-restored and restored collection equipment that the members cared about, my friends started a new not-for-profit organization, Lake States Railway Historical Association and their money and more were donated to this organization. The topic next week will focus on the ups and downs of the steam program. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|