Lets make some money!

[RiverAux]

The draft regulation on MOUs http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R111_002_draft_3BC64AF188D6C.pdf has this little tidbit:

(b) Amount of Payment. MOUs calling for payment for non-AFAMs to CAP
need not be limited to the rates established in the current Civil Air Patrol Regulation (CAPR)
173-3, Payment for Civil Air Patrol Support, Attachment 1.

1 Federal Agencies. Under 10 U.S.C. §9442, CAP is the Air Force
Auxiliary when performing a mission for the Federal government. Missions for Federal agencies should be considered AFAMs and MOUs with them provide for reimbursement in accordance with CAPR 173-3.

2 State or Local Governments. MOUs that provide assistance requested
by state or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief missions and activities, other emergencies missions and activities, and non-emergency missions and activities may be performed at a rate less than the rates charged by private sector sources for equivalent services.

3 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). For all other missions,
the MOU must specify a rate at least equal to the rates charged by private sector sources for equivalent services.

So, for the feds we only charge the rates for reimbursement of fuel and oil and basic maintenance as specified by 173-3.  For state and local agencies we can charge more than basic reibursement, but less than commercial sources.  For NGOs we charge the same as private companies. 

I really hope that someone has checked with the FAA on this to see if this will void some of the excemptions CAP gets regarding payment for services.  For example, if we charge the Red Cross the same as private companies do, aren't we then almost by definition, making a profit? 

How are these private company rates going to be determined so that we a) don't exceed them when charging local and state, and b)make sure we charge that rate to NGOs?  Based on current rates in each state?  Do we have to get quotes from private companies for each potential mission to see what we should charge (since their rates are going to be dependent on the mission profile as well)? 

[FW]

Good questions, River.  
1.  FAA exemptions relate to pvt. pilots being reimbursed for flying missions.  Not CAP collecting money for services.
2.  We don't make a "profit".  We make money for programs and expenses.  If we made a "profit".  we would be paying taxes and, I could afford a better car
3.  Rates will be determined by a few factors and may actually be higher than some "local" rates however, I'm sure they will be competitive.

[SJFedor]

Plus we have an MOU with ARC already, and I think they get lumped under either federal agencies or other government organizations. I think they're referring to NGOs like, for example, the university that some wing (SD perhaps?) that's flying them to help them track birds or something like that.

[gistek]

I'd also include the county fair organization that wants CAP to park cars and/or help with safety at the annual fair, or the EAA that want's a CAP to manage FLM on the taxi-way and tarmac.

For the first, the local unit may need to look into what other community service groups (scouts, etc) might request and negotiate based on that information. For fly-ins, the EAA is pretty much stuck with us or overtime for professional FLM's, since most scouts (& etc) don't get FLM training. (In other words we should be able to charge more)

I'm also beginning to like either collecting a per vehicle fee or basing the "donation" on the gate take. I've been involved in several events where the donation has either stayed the same or gone up by maybe $100 or $200 over several years, but the event size (and therefore the gate take) doubled.

And yes, these type events can be considered training, especially if the Incident Command System method is used to manage them. After all, what's the difference between deploying and communicating with ground teams or parking teams?

[RiverAux]

Plus we have an MOU with ARC already, and I think they get lumped under either federal agencies or other government organizations.

Nope, it expired and was not renewed. 

We don't make a "profit".  We make money for programs and expenses.  If we made a "profit".  we would be paying taxes and, I could afford a better car

I'm actually okay with charging a little for general overhead, as that is typical for non-profit corporations, but that isn't what we've got here.  Basically, we're being directed to start charging NGOs what the market will bear no matter what our actual costs are and that we can come real close to that level when charging local and state agencies. 

[FW]

We don't make a "profit".  We make money for programs and expenses.  If we made a "profit".  we would be paying taxes and, I could afford a better car

I'm actually okay with charging a little for general overhead, as that is typical for non-profit corporations, but that isn't what we've got here.  Basically, we're being directed to start charging NGOs what the market will bear no matter what our actual costs are and that we can come real close to that level when charging local and state agencies. 

Exactly.   However, charging the "market price" for services does not mean we are making a profit as in the business world.  As we are a "non profit" organization, the"extra" income we receive from such missions are put back into the CAP for aircraft renovations, upgrades, etc.  I don't see a problem with this at all.  Since all income derived from such missions are pumped back into CAP there is no "profit".