Strategy 5–Concept Paper: Camping Covenant with a 501 (c) 3 Organization
The PRTF will draft a concept paper generally describing a covenant relationship between the POC and a separate 501(c) 3 organization whose purpose is to oversee the growth and development of the camping ministry at Presbyterian Camps, including all or part of the current campus. POC would maintain a controlling interest in governance. Some preferred features of the organization are the following:
a. Governance structure and by-laws that reflect PC(USA) polity
b. Roles/responsibilities of governance and management clearly differentiated
c. Board representing key presbytery constituencies
d. Financially self-sustaining
In light of the concept paper, consider two or more alternative models of 501 (c) 3 type organizations that could become a covenant partner with POC in owning and operating Presbyterian Camps. These might include:
- A model currently utilized by other Presbyterian bodies, such as Mo Ranch (Synod of the Sun, Texas)
- A model of the presbytery’s unique design
- The model presented by Lakeshore Camping Consortium, Inc. (LCC) The Lakeshore Camping Consortium is a Michigan-based organization whose board consists of past members of the Presbytery’s Camp Oversight and Development Work Group (CODWG) and other Presbyterians. The LCC has proposed becoming a “covenant partner” with Chicago Presbytery and purchasing the Presbyterian Camp property for $7 million. It would have the dual purposes of continuing the camping ministry for Presbytery congregations and working with the conservation community in Michigan to preserve and protect the camp’s natural environment.
The merits of the LCC proposal are clear: generating dollars from the camp while preserving the camping ministry in Saugatuck. There are also concerns, however. Most prominent is uncertainty regarding the long-term future of the camp. The LCC plans to borrow $10 million to purchase and renovate the camp; this loan must be repaid. If the LCC is unable to meet this obligation, the worst case scenario is that the Presbytery will have sold the property at half its market value and lost the camping ministry at the same time. An additional concern: if the Presbytery sells the camp for $7 million, in effect the Presbytery is investing the remaining $7.3 million of the property’s value in the camp without an ongoing official role in camp governance or program.
