Page 16 - 16annrep.p65

available for updating and publishing new versions and promoting them. We will have to make a decision soon about whether to abandon our international home, or do something more with that asset to add to the institute’s income stream. Here are some of the options under consideration:
1. Sell part of the land (primarily the 150 Lost Kingdom acres that includes the caves).
Pros: This would give us enough capital to keep the institute going for a few more years.
Cons: Unless we established a lot of new program sites during that period, or figured out other sources of income, we would be right back where we are now financially, but without the glen, the grotto, and the caves to attract visitors.
2. Use the site to generate additional outside income (farming, lodging – bed & breakfast, teepee village, tent camping – special events, etc.), plus hosting training sessions for our own work.
Pros: We already have mowed trails and clearings, hay fields, teepees, and two guesthouses, plus the Great Hall with its pub and adjoining deck (including self-grilling “yakitori” tables that can accom- modate up to 24 people).
Cons: The guesthouses would need some remodeling, and managing rentals, events, and sessions would require additional help.
3. Develop the site as a contemplative retreat focusing on the human relationship with the planet. Pros: The site has a rich, hilly landscape laced with springs and streams, and many secluded spots that lend themselves to solitude and reflection.
Cons: This would require investing in further development of the Quest Gardens and Trails, plus adding some additional housing (tree houses, tiny homes, yurts, etc.).
4. Sell part of the land as above, but use a portion of the capital to develop the site as in option 2 or 3. Pros: This would provide the necessary capital for both site development and institute operations until additional income could be generated.
Cons: It would cut back significantly on the appeal of the landscape (no glen, grotto, cave, etc.), and if no additional income was forthcoming, we would have lost our most valuable asset.
5. Sell the land and find another home base for the institute.
Pros: Another organization, even in another country, might be able to maintain the institute in the future, and the income from the sale of the land would provide the ability for the institute to relocate. Cons: Even if it was possible to find another organization willing to take on the energy intense require- ments of an institute office, given the financial difficulties many other organizations are facing, this would involve some risk as well, either because they would want to use the institute’s capital for their own purposes, or would choose not to continue once that capital was exhausted.
6. Give the land to another organization with the proviso that it maintains an institute office to serve institute programs.
Pros: Another organization with more resources might be able to do something with the site.
Cons: This would provide support for existing programs, but perhaps not a mechanism for establish- ing new ones, or to continue developing those on the drawing board.
7. Raise the funds needed for option 2 and 3 from outside sources.
Pros: This would appear to be a good solution, and probably the most beneficial for the long-term existence of the institute.
Cons: The institute has never engaged in capital fundraising, has always been reluctant to accept corporate funding, and has practically no staff willing and able to pursue such an option.
16/Annual Report