[EMS Discuss] New Storage Rules for Eugene Maker Space

Mr. Clif EMAIL HIDDEN
Thu Oct 31 17:52:22 PDT 2013


Hi Guys,

Sure the Shelf space should cost less. How about $1 / sqft for starters?

Ok I'm not sure about the free 48 hours. If you had someone starting 
their business there then they would always be using the space for free. 
:-) Though the space would be very active. I do agree that floor space 
for active projects should be cheaper though. AA does this:

"Artisan's Asylum offers flexible studio space without walls, and 
charges by the day and by the square foot to use it for time-sensitive 
projects."

I think that the first two days or so (in a month) should be free, then 
charging an even smaller amount per sqft for active projects would be 
good. I just checked storage unit prices which are just under $1 / sqft 
on average. You might argue that shop space is much more useful than 
storage space so you wouldn't want to price it less than that. If so 
then 3c / sqft / day might be about right. If the organization was in 
the black then you might come down a bit to 2c / sqft a day.

I think that we will initially have to fund our new space with a 
combination of pledges for extra dues, and possibly higher rates for 
office / shop resources. A good board of directors would reduce rates 
and pledge amounts when able while keeping the organization in the black.

I also like Rick's idea of EMS sponsored projects with a review date. 
where it must be renewed or it must be shouldered by members.

     Happy Halloween! :-D
     Clif

On 10/30/2013 04:30 PM, Austin McKimmey wrote:
> I am not saying I would be turned away on large projects, If I was 
> doing something that would take a month I understand I should pay 
> more. If am charged for a couple days to 1 week That can make a 
> project less appealing.
>
> But I think Bob made the point of the 48hour Active and Inactive space 
> part.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Rick Osgood 
> <EMAIL HIDDEN <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>> wrote:
>
>     Austin does make a good point about the Shelf space.  Floor space
>     effectively takes up 1sqft from floor to ceiling.  Shelf space
>     allows stacking of things on top so in a way we might say we have
>     more of it.  I guess that depends on how many storage shelves we
>     have vs floor storage space though.
>
>     Austin's comment about possibly turning away because he'd have to
>     shell out extra money for floor space is my primary concern with a
>     model like this.  However, I think it's important for people to
>     remember that there are two reasons we want to implement these rules:
>
>     1. Cut down on wasted space.
>     2. Alternate revenue stream.
>
>     Remember we have some pretty ambitious goals for EMS and we are
>     going to need a lot more money than we are currently making in
>     order to reach these goals.  Remember that charging $25 (or
>     whatever) for you to work on a long term large scale project isn't
>     just to make it a hassle for you.  We don't want to gouge the
>     members of course.  It's a way to make sure people who are using
>     more resources help us to afford the space they are using while
>     they are using it.  If we don't charge money for that space, we
>     might not be able to afford to get the space and then you may not
>     even have the option of working on a larger project.  It also has
>     a side effect of making people really think about whether or not
>     they need that space.
>
>     I think in some cases members might be able to get other members
>     to sponsor their projects if they can't afford it themselves.
>      Maybe you could get a couple other members to put up the $25 (or
>     whatever) for you to have a month to get your awesome project done
>     if you can't afford it.  I'm sure we can work something out one
>     way or another to make sure money is not a huge limiting factor
>     for our members.
>
>
>     On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Bob Miller <EMAIL HIDDEN
>     <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>> wrote:
>
>         I agree that we should have some sort of pro-rating structure.
>          I am
>         wondering if maybe we should have some minimum rental amount
>         -- maybe
>         $10.  Otherwise poor Kevin (or whoever is 2014's treasurer) has a
>         boatload of bookkeeping for very little revenue.
>
>         Combining this with Austin and Clif's point that the shelf
>         space is
>         just as expensive per sq ft as floor space, I think something
>         needs
>         adjusting. I don't know what the right adjustment is.
>
>
>
>         On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Rick Osgood
>         <EMAIL HIDDEN <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>>
>         wrote:
>         > I like the proposal now that I've read it.  I'm still
>         curious about how it
>         > would be billed if someone only needed space for a few days
>         or a week.  I'm
>         > also curious how that time will be enforced.  Also, what
>         happens if people
>         > are using all the space and there ends up not being enough
>         room for others?
>         > Do projects get a maximum time limit so we can get new
>         people in the space
>         > and make sure to share the space?
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Mr. Clif
>         <EMAIL HIDDEN <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>> wrote:
>         >>
>         >> Hi Gang,
>         >>
>         >> So here are my two cents worth.
>         >>
>         >> Just to clarify the annual meeting is on Saturday Dec 7th,
>         not the 8th.
>         >>
>         >> Some of our members were in favor of tiered dues, some were
>         not. One
>         >> possibility here is to include a free bin with the next
>         tier up, and maybe
>         >> also include a discount on classes.
>         >>
>         >> I think that if members are going to get a free bin or box
>         then they are
>         >> required to always be members in good standing, eg don't
>         skip any dues and
>         >> have them paid up. Wheres lower tier members might not have
>         that
>         >> requirement.
>         >>
>         >> I assume that the shelves would be two feet deep which
>         would give you the
>         >> same $2.50 per Sqft rate.
>         >>
>         >> I think constantly updating a date on a tag to show the
>         paid through date
>         >> is impractical. Perhaps we could have an item number that
>         we can look up in
>         >> a data base?
>         >>
>         >> I think that if we make our policy clear on left items and
>         that we try to
>         >> return them for at least 30 days then its probably legal to
>         take possession
>         >> of them after that. Something like this:
>         >>
>         >> "...EMS will make a reasonable effort to return the items
>         for at least 30
>         >> days past due."
>         >>
>         >> I'm not sure about the members voting outside of an
>         official meeting.
>         >> This could be a special meeting as long as it is official,
>         but even so
>         >> getting a members quorum is often very hard, and not
>         requiring one is not
>         >> fair, so not sure what to do here. Just patitioning the
>         board might be an
>         >> option.
>         >>
>         >> At first I thought we could do the gallery like other maker
>         spaces and
>         >> charge for it. But I do like it being kind of a group
>         consensious to show
>         >> off what we're doing. I think the board would decide what
>         area(s) are
>         >> gallery space(s). I think that one year changes in the
>         gallery is way too
>         >> slow. Perhaps it could be updated at each regular
>         membership meeting, or
>         >> online votes. Like Bob I would be less concerned about
>         official meetings
>         >> here but not sure what is fair.
>         >>
>         >>     More thoughts later...
>         >>     Clif
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> On 10/30/2013 01:33 PM, Rick Osgood wrote:
>         >>
>         >> I should clarify that I'm not trying to tear apart this
>         proposal.  I
>         >> actually like the overall ideas I'm just concerned about
>         how we will
>         >> actually be able to enforce them.  Maybe we just need more
>         details or
>         >> clarifications is what I'm getting at.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Rick Osgood
>         <EMAIL HIDDEN <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>>
>         >> wrote:
>         >>>
>         >>> First of all, what is a .md file?  I don't seem to have
>         anything that can
>         >>> open it and I'm not familiar with the extension.
>         >>>
>         >>> Second, I like this idea in general (based only on your
>         summary).  I get
>         >>> Sam's point that we might be restricting what activities
>         will occur at EMS
>         >>> based on who can afford to actually do those activities.
>          It seems a bit
>         >>> unfair that someone with more money essentially has more
>         options but
>         >>> honestly, we have to do SOMEthing.  We need to make sure
>         things don't just
>         >>> collect and sit around forever.
>         >>>
>         >>> How with the $2.50 be billed?  $2.50 per sqft per month?
>         per week?  What
>         >>> if I only use the space for 1-2 weeks but you want to bill
>         me per month?  Do
>         >>> I have to pay for the whole month or do you pro-rate it so
>         I only pay for
>         >>> the time used?  What if it's 1.5 weeks? Do we go per day
>         at that point or
>         >>> round up to the nearest week/month?
>         >>>
>         >>> Also, what if someone wants to keep their large project
>         out for three
>         >>> days?  Two days are free, anything over that and we start
>         charging money.
>         >>> How much will we stick to our guns on that?  I can
>         envision many cases where
>         >>> someone's project sticks around an extra day or two.  Do
>         we then demand them
>         >>> to pay us $2.50 per square foot pro-rated or do we just
>         let it go?
>         >>>
>         >>> I think it might be useful to include a provision that
>         says the
>         >>> board/membership can vote to approve larger projects with
>         the requirement
>         >>> that the motion includes a "review date".  That way if EMS
>         as an
>         >>> organization wants to work on or sponsor some large
>         project, we have a way
>         >>> to approve it.  Requiring the "review date" ensures that a
>         project which has
>         >>> gone stale or has lost momentum can be either booted out
>         or start paying
>         >>> rent.
>         >>>
>         >>> Lastly, EVERYTHING GETS A LABEL OR YOU LOSE IT!  I think
>         this is fair but
>         >>> I'm curious about possible legal ramifications   I'm
>         guessing we would only
>         >>> be able to get an answer to that by talking to a lawyer
>         and we aren't made
>         >>> of money so maybe we just have to consider it a disclaimer
>         and hope for the
>         >>> best.  Worth thinking about anyway though.
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Sam Foster
>         <EMAIL HIDDEN <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>>
>         >>> wrote:
>         >>>>
>         >>>> I have mixed feelings about the storage proposal. I think
>         in general I'm
>         >>>> in favor, but the rates do put larger projects (e.g
>         bike/trailer) out of
>         >>>> reach of my budget. On the flip-side, I think its
>         appropriate that the space
>         >>>> *not* be used for indefinite storage of
>         materials/junk/inactive projects by
>         >>>> members, so the rates are a reasonable deterrent (there's
>         self-storage units
>         >>>> for that). I assume these are the kind of considerations
>         that led to the
>         >>>> current proposal.
>         >>>>
>         >>>> Somewhere in there I worry that we are putting a box
>         around the kinds of
>         >>>> things that can happen at the maker space. But I welcome
>         the clarity and I
>         >>>> assume no policies are set in stone from now till the end
>         of time.
>         >>>>
>         >>>> /Sam
>         >>>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>> On 10/30/2013 12:11 PM, Bob Miller wrote:
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> At our membership meeting Dec. 8th, I am going to
>         propose that we
>         >>>>> adopt some rules about storage.  I have attached a
>         document which
>         >>>>> would amend the Policies Document.  I will propose that
>         these rules
>         >>>>> take effect January 1st.
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>> Since items up for vote have to be proposed 30 days
>         ahead, we have
>         >>>>> until 11/7 to discuss this and refine it.
>          Discuss/refine away!
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>>
>         >>>>
>         >>>> _______________________________________________
>         >>>> Discuss mailing list
>         >>>> EMAIL HIDDEN
>         <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>
>         >>>>
>         >>>>
>         http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
>         >>>
>         >>>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> Discuss mailing list
>         >> EMAIL HIDDEN
>         <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>
>         >>
>         http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
>         >>
>         >>
>         >
>
>
>
>         --
>         Bob Miller  K<bob>
>         EMAIL HIDDEN <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Discuss mailing list
>     EMAIL HIDDEN <mailto:EMAIL HIDDEN>
>     http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eugenemakerspace.com/pipermail/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss/attachments/20131031/ea4e4748/attachment.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list