219 replies to this topic

[Bernard]

The TC had a story on the TLC today and their finances.

The article does not make the situation sound great.

[Bernard]

So I was looking their audit and it looks like things are not getting better.

1) Total debt carried by the TLC has risen a lot in the last year - $130,000 or so is in a mortgage from the employees of the TLC. Last year the total debt was 5,898,166, this year it has risen to 7,447,635. Most of this increase is in short term and not long term

2) Cashflow - overall the TLC spent $311,317 more last year than it took in. A big reason for this was the spending on land purchases. Due to the nature of the TLC, the financing from year to year is not nearly as clear as I would like. I think they should be offering five year and ten year audits to see how things balance out over the longer term.

3) Revenues v Operation expenses - on the surface of it TLC looks sustainable on this basis, but I am not certain how tied or not the various donations are they receive. There were a few areas in which the costs rose a lot last year - interest costs rose from $288,408 to $330,274. Staff costs rose from $1,785,012 to $2,303,943

TLC needs ongoing donations of about $2.8 to $3.0 million a year to maintain TLC as it is. This does not include any new property purchases. I also assume they can renew all their mortgages as they come due each year.

One thing that sort to sticks out at me in their books is the increase in salaries. The extra $419k does not seem to make sense to me. TLC seems to have 30 employees now - this means an average cost in salary and benefits of $76,800. In 2010 they had 29 employees but an average cost in salary and benefits of $61,500. This is roughly a 25% pay hike for TLC staff in one year.

[Bernard]

This quote in the audit should cause everyone to be very worried

The Society has a significant working capital deficiency of $3,531,262, and unrestricted deficit of $2,926,520, a decrease in net cash flows of $172,515, and has incurred short and long term debt to fund general operations and for the acquisition of conservation lands and covenants. There is significant doubt about the Society’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Society will need to raise significant cash flow to fund operations and fund current and long term liabilities. The Society has been successful in raising funds over its fourteen years of operation, and has a consistent record of growing its membership base year over years; however, there can be no assurances that additional funding will be available in the future. These uncertainties may cast significant doubt on the Society’s ability to continue as a going concern and, ultimately, the appropriateness of the use of accounting principles applicable to a
going concern.

[LJ]

^Who do they think they are, government?

[Bingo]

This quote in the audit should cause everyone to be very worried.

The Society has been successful in raising funds over its fourteen years of operation, and has a consistent record of growing its membership base year over years; however, there can be no assurances that additional funding will be available in the future.

TLC hired people to promote their "Be the Change" membership drive and post videos by people such as Nelly Furtado to sell the idea. New membership fees don't raise enough money, it's the big donations that sustain the operation. They don't need the cost of mailing out four colour brochures to members when you can get all that stuff online from the TLC website.

http://blog.conservancy.bc.ca/

[Sparky]

One thing that sort to sticks out at me in their books is the increase in salaries. The extra $419k does not seem to make sense to me. TLC seems to have 30 employees now - this means an average cost in salary and benefits of $76,800. In 2010 they had 29 employees but an average cost in salary and benefits of $61,500. This is roughly a 25% pay hike for TLC staff in one year.

I do not know much about the operations of this organization, but do they really need this many employees? A 25% increase in payroll costs with the same amount of staff seems high. Most businesses could not withstand this amount of salary increase.
__________________

[VicHockeyFan]

I do not know much about the operations of this organization, but do they really need this many employees? A 25% increase in payroll costs with the same amount of staff seems high. Most businesses could not withstand this amount of salary increase.
__________________

They hired a canvass team to try to increase memberships, that was part of the increase. They have been laid off now.

[Bernard]

I have heard through sources that the extra costs were for more door to door canvassing - though looking at their figures, this door to door campaign has not been very successful.

The more I look at it, TLC seems to be rather over staffed for such a small land conservancy organization.

Honestly, I think TLC is trying to be a hybrid of many different types of organizations and is not really succeeding at any of them.

[slinkyo]

Let's give the TLC a break you guys. I know the organisation quite well, and I assure you they are a great place that does great things. It's easy to take potshots from your office chair, but what are you doing to improve our community and saving what's left of our wildlife and habitat? Cutting down people that are actually DOING something about it?

Sometime you have to stick your neck out for the greater good, especially when so much is at stake. They'll be remembered for generations to come for the great things they have done for our/YOUR children's children.
A more detailed explanation of their financial audit is below.

Another thing I want to mention is that before you get the itch to reply, I get the general feeling from reading posts on this site that there are a few token forum bullies that post quite often and have oppositional views to those that are supportive to the environment, land conservation and heritage. I think we've heard enough. We get it. Let someone else speak for a change.

https://www.facebook...150393490554954

[Bernard]

Let's give the TLC a break you guys. I know the organisation quite well, and I assure you they are a great place that does great things. It's easy to take potshots from your office chair, but what are you doing to improve our community and saving what's left of our wildlife and habitat? Cutting down people that are actually DOING something about it?

Sometime you have to stick your neck out for the greater good, especially when so much is at stake. They'll be remembered for generations to come for the great things they have done for our/YOUR children's children.
A more detailed explanation of their financial audit is below.

Another thing I want to mention is that before you get the itch to reply, I get the general feeling from reading posts on this site that there are a few token forum bullies that post quite often and have oppositional views to those that are supportive to the environment, land conservation and heritage. I think we've heard enough. We get it. Let someone else speak for a change.

https://www.facebook...150393490554954

I assume you mean me in reference above, my apologies if you see me as a bully on the forums - that is not my intent.

I do take issue with our characterization of my interests in this issue. My concern relates to the protection of the land. If TLC does not continue, the fate of the properties. If the organization is not long term sustainable, the properties will end up on the market again.

I read the audit I do not see a long term sustainable organization, mainly because of the large amount of debt carried and the relatively high operational costs.

Land trusts by nature need to think long term and secure the lands for the long term.

TLC has only been around for 14 years and has not even moved beyond being run by the original founder. Many ENGOs falter in the transition from a strong founding personality to the next generation of leadership. TLC has not yet shown that it is capable of long term thinking and planning.

Do I have a desire to see TLC fail? No. But it would be foolhardy for planning not to be in place for what to do if it happens.

[Bingo]

Craigflower Manor is in dire straights because it is not much of a tourist attraction. The Land Conservancy would be better off facilitating the saving of undeveloped land, instead of attempting to maintain an attraction that looses money.

Return Craigflower Manor to the Province and let them run it.

[Bob Fugger]

Another thing I want to mention is that before you get the itch to reply, I get the general feeling from reading posts on this site that there are a few token forum bullies that post quite often and have oppositional views to those that are supportive to the environment, land conservation and heritage. I think we've heard enough. We get it. Let someone else speak for a change.

It's interesting how those you label as "token forum bullies" all seem to have the exact same views. That's a heck of a phenomenon. Except that it's not: you've committed an association fallacy. Thanks for playing.

I think a lot of passionate individuals on here are pro-environment, pro-conservation and pro-heritage. It's just that it's not being done right and/or it's not balanced with other equally important ideals, like progress and density. In the case of the TLC, I think they have undertaken a noble cause and they do us a great service by preserving green spaces - it's just that they're rubbish at administering its finances and governance.

[Bernard]

My concerns about the long term viability of the TLC are higher now after hearing about the issues around the Craigflower Manor. I have wondered for a long time why TLC was managing this property. From what I see, there is no focused mandate of TLC and they wander into things because of the interests of a few people.

[Bernard]

So the fears I have had about the TLC for the last three or four years seem to have come to pass.

The organization is only 15 years old and is already selling land and missing mortgage payments.

Their latest financial statements available online are from April 2011, released last September. When their auditor specifically warned of the potential insolvency of the organization.

How do they come back from the brink now? The first and most important step is that Bill Turner has retired, he should have left years ago because he clearly was not cut out to manage TLC in accordance with the sort of principles needed to secure generations long protection of the land.

If TLC can not meet the financial obligations they will have to sell land. I heard Alastair Craighead say they are selling a property for $1.9 million.

[Bingo]

So the fears I have had about the TLC for the last three or four years seem to have come to pass.

The organization is only 15 years old and is already selling land and missing mortgage payments.

Their latest financial statements available online are from April 2011, released last September. When their auditor specifically warned of the potential insolvency of the organization.

How do they come back from the brink now? The first and most important step is that Bill Turner has retired, he should have left years ago because he clearly was not cut out to manage TLC in accordance with the sort of principles needed to secure generations long protection of the land.

If TLC can not meet the financial obligations they will have to sell land. I heard Alastair Craighead say they are selling a property for $1.9 million.

This is no surprize to many people connected to TLC. Turner was turfed from the board three years ago and made a comeback with a new board.
However, not much changed and the hole is now a little deeper. No property is really "saved" if you keep increasing the mortgage, while trying to keep your head above water.

[Mike K.]

I never understood the need for them to send so many printed pamphlets and packages to even one-time supporters. A colleague once donated $15 to the TLC and has received fairly expensive packages of printed materials from the TLC for several years in a row, multiple times per year. Each packaged mailed and prepped must cost them close to his one-time donation amount.

[Baro]

A solar panel company donated a very substantial number of expensive panels to them for use on their headquarters building in esquimalt. The panels sit unused because they didn't have the money/knowledge on how to mount them. Such a waste and so indicative of how the org is run.

[Bernard]

I never understood the need for them to send so many printed pamphlets and packages to even one-time supporters. A colleague once donated $15 to the TLC and has received fairly expensive packages of printed materials from the TLC for several years in a row, multiple times per year. Each packaged mailed and prepped must cost them close to his one-time donation amount.

The return on investment on your friend was not good, but in general your expected response from people that have done something to support you in the past high and it is the best source for more donations. A general mailing that gets a 1% return is good. A mailing to "lapsed supporters" should be in the 25% range.

Most ENGOs spend about $100 to $200 on supporter acquisition but expect it to pay off to the tune of about $50 - $100 per year in an on going basis.

TLC has operated much more like an advocacy group than a land conservancy. Land conservancies are the ultra conservatives of the ENGO world and try to reduce risk to as close to zero as is humanly possible. Normally they should not take on debt unless they have a secured funding stream to pay it off.

According to Geoff Young, the TLC has walked away from their commitment on the Western Forest Product lands and thereby effectively removing any ability of the CRD to acquire more park land any time soon.

Can TLC reduce staffing and operations and not collapse? That is a very relevant question and I do not know the answer. Can TLC avoid bankruptcy? I think they can only achieve that through the sale of properties and I am not sure the board has the guts to do that. If bankruptcy happens, it is the trustee that will have the power to decide how to deal with the assets.

[phx]

For the properties that the TLC owns, do they pay the regular property tax rate, or do they get a reduced rate somehow?

[Bingo]

According to Geoff Young, the TLC has walked away from their commitment on the Western Forest Product lands and thereby effectively removing any ability of the CRD to acquire more park land any time soon.

If TLC was making a committment to the CRD, were they making the committment thinking that donations would roll in from people wanting to save the land around Jordan River?

When TLC went through a reorganization three years ago it was because the board had lost confidence in the executive director. The people that used to be donors, are still wary of how their money was spent, so the donations to keep TLC afloat have not been forthcoming.

I am suprised that the CRD did not see this shortfall coming.