Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI)

Transcription

E-1
OOOO
XXXX
EEEE
Museum of Science
and Industry (MOSI)
Organizational
Assessment
Submitted to
Hillborough County, Florida
by
Museum Management
Consultants, Inc.
San Francisco, California
June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Financial Review.............................................................................................................................. 4
Board of Directors ......................................................................................................................... 19
Visitor Experience ......................................................................................................................... 25
Facility Operations ........................................................................................................................ 29
2025 MOSI Master Plan ................................................................................................................ 31
Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................... 33
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix A: List of Interviewees ............................................................................................ 40
Appendix B: Admissions and Membership in Peer Group Science Centers ........................... 42
Appendix C: Admissions and Membership at Local Tampa Museums ................................... 46
Museum Management Consultants, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
In February 2014, Hillsborough County, Florida (County) retained Museum Management
Consultants, Inc. (MMC) of San Francisco, California to conduct an organizational assessment of
the Museum of Science & Industry (MOSI). MOSI is located in facilities owned by the County
and operated independently on behalf of the County by Museum of Science and Industry, Inc.,
a Florida not-for-profit corporation with County financial support. The retention of MMC
followed concerns expressed by County leadership about MOSI’s financial condition resulting
from the Museum’s inability to meet the repayment terms of a line of credit provided to MOSI
by the County. This report summarizes the findings from MMC’s assessment, which was
conducted by the MMC Consultant Team: Adrienne Horn, President; Stephen Horn II, Senior
Vice President; Katie Sevier Potter, Vice President; and Georgianna de la Torre, Vice President;
with the assistance of MMC Associate Consultant Elizabeth Babcock, Ph.D.
Methodology
The County and MOSI provided MMC with numerous background documents, including MOSI’s
by-laws, legal agreements between the County and MOSI, MOSI financials, the 2025 MOSI
Master Plan (Master Plan), as well as numerous MOSI operational materials. Three members of
the MMC team visited Tampa April 7-10, 2014, toured MOSI and its grounds, and conducted a
total of 34 confidential interviews with representatives of the County Commission, County staff,
MOSI Board of Directors, MOSI staff, and other stakeholders (see Appendix A for a list of
interviewees). Interviewees were asked to share their thoughts about the current state of MOSI
(in terms of leadership, finances, staff effectiveness, exhibit and program offerings, community
perceptions, etc.), how well MOSI achieves its stated mission, MOSI’s strengths and
weaknesses, priorities for the next few years, opinions of the Master Plan, and critical issues
facing the Museum.
In order to provide a broader context and comparison for MOSI’s operations, MMC developed a
Peer Group of nine science centers located in the United States. The museums were chosen
based on their location, facility size, attendance, operating budget, and staff size. Data about
these museums was compiled from the Association of Science-Technology Centers’ (ASTC) 2012
ASTC Statistics Analysis Package, IRS Forms 990 (FY12)1, and MMC research. See Figure 1 below
for an overview of the Peer Group. Data from the Peer Group is interspersed throughout this
report.
1
Peer Group financial data is derived from each organization’s IRS Form 990, but it should be noted that 990s do
not distinguish between operating and capital dollars, nor do they distinguish between restricted and unrestricted
dollars.
1
Figure 1. Overview of Peer Group
Facility
Size
(Gross
Sq Ft)
307,407
On-Site
Attendance
514,680
Operating
Expenses
$10,527,899
FullTime
Staff
59
Institution
MOSI
Location
Tampa, FL
MSA
Population
2,783,243
COSI
Columbus, OH
1,901,974
320,793
627,833
$14,608,887
145
Discovery Place, Inc.
Fernbank Museum of
Natural History
Great Lakes Science Center
Charlotte, NC
2,217,012
194,037
710,646
$9,909,713
80
Atlanta, GA
5,286,728
155,832
387,310
$8,740,078
76
Cleveland, OH
2,077,240
194,154
283,835
$6,989,405
41
Maryland Science Center
Baltimore, MD
2,710,489
100,000
364,919
$7,892,480
78
McWane Science Center
Museum of Discovery and
Science
Oregon Museum of Science
and Industry
Birmingham, AL
Fort
Lauderdale, FL
1,128,047
270,106
359,219
$5,843,459
68
5,564,635
119,000
407,538
$6,827,044
47
Portland, OR
2,226,009
218,000
954,283
$17,815,551
158
Orlando Science Center
Orlando, FL
2,134,411
204,962
338,736
$5,712,761
52
2,217,012
194,154
387,310
$7,892,480
76
PEER GROUP MEDIAN:
Source: US Census, 2012 ASTC Statistics Analysis Package, MOSI audited financial statements, and Peer Group IRS Forms 990
MOSI at a Crossroads
Under the leadership of President and CEO Wit Ostrenko, MOSI has come a long way since it
was spun-off from the County to become an independent non-profit organization almost 30
years ago. Among its achievements, MOSI was accredited by the American Alliance of Museums
in 2007, and it was recently reported in the Tampa Bay Times that cumulative attendance at
the Museum since opening will pass the 15 million mark this year. Ostrenko’s vision has helped
to build MOSI into what it is today: a 300,000 square foot science museum dedicated to
“advancing public knowledge of science, industry, and technology.” Over the years, Ostrenko
has been considered by many Board members to be “the big thinker who made things happen.”
Prior to MMC’s arrival in Tampa, Ostrenko confided his eminent retirement to the MOSI
leadership, and with his departure Board and staff members are now questioning what needs
to change as they consider the future without him.
MOSI is now at a crossroads. MOSI has been struggling financially with negative cash flow for
the past two and a half years; the recent forced closing of the food service operations this year
highlighted latent management issues; and, MOSI faces substantial deferred facility
maintenance and a pressing need to re-energize the visitor experience.
2
This report documents the core issues and opportunities faced by MOSI and the impact these
are having on the current MOSI finances. The MMC team makes suggestions in this report for
revitalization of the Board of Directors, revenue growth and expense control, as well as the
visitor experience, facilities, and the depth of MOSI’s service to County residents.
3
FINANCIAL REVIEW
In FY13, MOSI had an operating budget of $10.5 million, an endowment of approximately $2
million, and access to a line of credit provided by Hillsborough County. The line of credit was
established by the County in 2005 as a $1.2 million reserve account, from which MOSI could
borrow to meet cash flow needs arising from the seasonality of MOSI’s operations. The terms
of the Reserve Agreement require MOSI to repay what is borrowed within 12 months.
Each year until 2013, MOSI’s request for funds from the reserve account has been approved
and MOSI has repaid the amount borrowed within the 12-month period required. But in
November 2012, MOSI borrowed $450,000, and by November 2013, $250,000 remained
outstanding. In the meantime, MOSI made another request for funds in August 2013. The
August request for modification to the Reserve Agreement to allow for increased borrowing
was granted by the County in November 2013 with certain conditions that included greater
accountability and transparency in MOSI’s financial reporting to the County. As of March 31,
2014 the outstanding balance on the reserve account was $599,051.2
In response to the concerns raised by MOSI’s increased borrowing without full repayment, the
County conducted an initial financial review of the Museum. Among the findings were:

A negative operating cash balance at the close of FY13 that continued into the first
months of FY14

Significant increases in accounts payable from FY12 to FY133, much of it related to
obligations connected to the Sea Monsters Revealed exhibition

A significant increase in MOSI’s Property, Plant, and Equipment accounts evidencing
cash expenditures

An operating deficit at the end of FY13

An “aggressive” FY14 budget that projected a $1.2 million surplus, despite the
challenges listed above
Following the concerns raised by the County, Scully Capital of Washington, D.C. was retained to
conduct a review of MOSI’s operations. Mr. Scully’s observations were that, “MOSI is not raising
enough private contributions and that attendance per square foot is less than many other
2
Includes parking lot loan balance of $174,051, operating borrowed FY13 loan balance of $225,000, and operating
borrowed FY14 loan balance of $200,000.
3
Significant increases in accounts payable first appeared between FY11 and FY12, with a 41% increase; the
increase between FY12 and FY13 was 32%.
4
comparable Museums.” The report recommended hiring an outside museum consulting firm to
conduct a review of MOSI; this led to the hiring of MMC.
What follows in this section is MMC’s review of the financial challenges and opportunities
facing MOSI and recommendations for organizational change. The analysis is based on audited
financial statements from FY09-FY13, MOSI income statements from the same time period,
County financial reports, and internal MOSI documents. Where appropriate, MMC has included
comparisons to the median figures from the Peer Group of science centers and data from
ASTC’s member organizations in two groups: those with budgets $3-$10 million and those with
budgets over $10 million, since MOSI is on the cusp of both budget cohorts.
A Note About MOSI’s Financial Reports
In developing the analysis that follows, MMC had access to MOSI’s financial audits, internal
financial reports, and IRS Forms 990, but could not reconcile the figures reported in these three
types of documents. For example, operating revenue and operating expense figures were
reported differently in all three documents for all five years of MMC’s analysis. While the 990s
likely include capital and restricted dollars, and therefore were eliminated from MMC’s
analysis, and MMC worked with MOSI staff to reconcile the internal and audit numbers, there
remained small differences and in a number of cases, the two could not be reconciled. This
happened, despite the fact that the audits and the MOSI income statements should offer
different ways of looking at the same information and line item entries should be identical or
the differences should be easily explained.
Another challenge was the confusing layout and structure of MOSI’s internal financial
statements, which are developed and utilized by the Museum’s finance department. The
number of line items within revenue and expenses is high and very detailed, and the
spreadsheets that back up the “all departments” income statement are overly complex and
challenging to reconcile with the main spreadsheet without assistance from knowledgeable
staff. Further, many departments appear to maintain their own financial tracking systems,
which often do not match up to those of the finance department.
While these reports may be useful for certain MOSI staff, they are quite difficult to navigate
from the outside. The accessibility and ease of use in financial statements is important for the
MOSI Board, who are responsible for financial oversight; the County, which has asked for
greater accountability from MOSI; and other members of the public, such as current and
potential donors. MMC heard from MOSI staff that the Museum auditors have recommended
changing the format of the income statements to more closely resemble the format in their
5
audits, but as of the writing of this report leadership has not implemented the
recommendation.
Confusing financial statements are a concern because MOSI is a public institution, the recipient
of public and private dollars; donors to MOSI and members of the general public should be able
to read the MOSI financial statements and determine the security of their investment. This may
pose a challenge in future fundraising efforts, but it poses an immediate challenge with MOSI’s
Board; a number of Board members expressed frustration with the presentation of MOSI’s
financials. One statement summarizes these sentiments:
“Even for an experienced Board member it is difficult to understand what is going on at
MOSI because the financial statements are difficult to understand. They’re too dense,
and some major items are classified to place them in the most favorable light.”
The following pages reflect MMC’s understanding of the financial issues present at MOSI based
on in-person interviews and analysis of financial reports. Because of the challenges with MOSI’s
internal financial statements, the majority of MMC’s analysis relies on the audited financial
statements. Data sources are listed for clarity throughout.
BUDGETING PROCESS
As described to MMC by interviewees, MOSI’s budgeting process begins with an annual Board
retreat, during which five-year priorities are set. Budgeting is then zero based from the bottom
up by each department; the department data is in turn reviewed by the management team,
which reconciles and balances the budget. The budget is then given to the Board Finance
Committee to vet before obtaining full Board approval.
While this process ensures that checks and balances are in place, MMC heard repeatedly that,
in an effort to achieve an acceptable budget, program and department heads are sometimes
encouraged to increase revenue projections unrealistically to cover expenses. When/if those
inflated revenues do not materialize, the budget is then “adjusted” to bring it into line after the
fact. As one interviewee said, “MOSI’s financials are based more on hope than on strong
business projections. The projections are too optimistic.” Another interviewee expressed the
view that MOSI’s “budgets are often wishful thinking.”
FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
A common theme MMC heard during its interviews was the frustration and concern caused by
MOSI’s internal financial systems. The computer software used for accounting, payroll,
ticketing, etc. were described as out of date, and unable to communicate with each other. With
6
separate systems in use for different departments, the end result is double entry of data, which
is time consuming and can lead to errors.
OVERALL FINANCIAL HEALTH
MOSI’s overall financial health is in decline, with the area of most concern being its liquidity.
The Museum’s ability to pay off current obligations with current assets is decreasing, and the
ability to pay off current obligations with liquid assets is unstable, with less than $1 of liquid
assets for every $1 of current obligations in FY13. MOSI’s ability to sustain operations with
existing cash has declined by almost 30% between FY09 and FY13; although MOSI has a
relatively healthy ratio of days of cash on hand, that figure has been unstable over the five-year
time period.
In FY09, and again in FY13, MOSI ran an operating deficit (see Figure 2); in the three years in
between, the Museum’s surplus fluctuated significantly. Both revenue and expenses at MOSI
have been unstable over the last five years.
Figure 2. MOSI Operating Revenue and Expenses FY09-FY13
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
Operating Revenue
$9,690,733 $8,972,820 $8,593,248 $10,861,284
Operating Expenses
$10,365,563 $8,628,260 $8,521,425
$9,863,781
Surplus (Deficit)
($674,830)
$344,560
$71,823
$997,503
FY13
$10,169,544
$10,527,899
($358,355)
Source: MOSI audits
MOSI has a limited ability to sustain operations with available assets as of FY13. If MOSI were to
pay off its current obligations, the Museum would have less than one day’s worth of assets to
work with. Days of working capital should equal at least one half month of operations, but
three months is considered a healthy ratio.
Due to its relationship with the County, in which the County owns the MOSI buildings and
provides a line of credit, MOSI has been able to sustain long-term solvency, but even this
cushion has decreased. Beginning in FY11, the portion of MOSI’s assets owned by MOSI
compared to those financed by creditors began to decrease, and has been in decline each year
since.
EXPENSES
MOSI’s expenses are on an upward trajectory, but do not appear to be beyond the norm for a
science center of its size. As with any cultural organization, MOSI’s largest expense is personnel.
7
Figure 3 compares MOSI’s FY13 spending on personnel, as well as the number of full- and parttime staff, to the Peer Group and the two ASTC industry cohorts.
Figure 3. MOSI Personnel Compared to Peer Group and ASTC Data
Personnel Expenses
as % of Total
Full-Time
Part-Time
Operating Expenses
Staff
Staff
MOSI
51.2%
59
117
Peer Group Median
53.3%
76
73
ASTC $3-$10M Budget (Median)
53.9%
47
57
ASTC >$10M Budget (Median)
55.3%
145
118
Source: MOSI audits and 2012 ASTC Statistics Analysis Package
As is apparent from the table, MOSI’s spending on personnel is in line with, if not slightly below,
industry standards. Based on MOSI’s income statements, the median percentage spent by the
Museum on personnel FY09-FY13 was 46.7%. A separate analysis showed that MOSI staff
salaries for senior management are similar to those of the Peer Group science centers. MOSI’s
balance between full- and part-time staff stands out in Figure 3 as MOSI leans heavily toward
part-time employees, with almost twice the number of part-time staff as full-time staff. MMC
believes this emphasis on part-time staff is probably necessary to provide support for MOSI’s
current programs and other fee-for-service offerings. But as will be discussed later in this
section, this potentially reflects MOSI spreading itself too thin at the expense of building longterm operations. As stated previously, due to the seasonality of MOSI’s operations, it has
difficulty at times meeting payroll. As one interviewee said, “We barely meet payroll and live
hand to mouth.” As such, higher personnel expenses without a commensurate increase in
revenue are unrealistic.
INCOME
Figure 4 shows MOSI’s income by source FY09-FY13 and the same information from the Peer
Group and ASTC cohorts. The data reveals an imbalance within MOSI’s sources of revenue, with
a high percentage of income from earned sources, a very small amount from contributed
sources, a healthy amount from government grants, and no investment income.4
4
For the purpose of these calculations:




Earned income includes IMAX, education programs, admissions, store sales, restaurant and catering sales,
membership, exhibit and facility rentals, parking lot, ropes course, and interest on bank accounts.
Contributed includes individuals, foundations, corporate sponsorships and underwriting, and income from
fundraising events.
Government income includes federal, state, and local (city and county) grants.
Investment income includes interest on endowment investments.
8
MOSI needs recurring, reliable sources of revenue to build its financial sustainability. That
requires evaluating earned income programs to strengthen those offerings, and building a
fundraising program that will provide a financial cushion for operations. As one interviewee
said, “The business model needs to change.”
Figure 4. Income by Source MOSI FY09-FY13 Compared to Industry Data
ASTC Average by
Peer
MOSI Data by Fiscal Year
Operating Budget Size
Group
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13 Median
$3-$10M
>$10M
Earned
77.0% 77.6%
75.3% 81.8% 80.6%
63.9%
49.6%
41.0%
Contributed
4.1%
6.1%
8.7%
4.1%
5.3%
29.2%
25.2%
19.7%
Government
18.9% 16.3%
16.0% 14.1% 14.1%
7.0%
22.3%
36.6%
Investment
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
2.9%
2.7%
Source: MOSI audits, Peer Group 990s, and 2012 ASTC Statistics Analysis Package
Contributed Income
While MOSI’s earned income is robust, its level of contributed income from private donors,
foundations, corporations, and fundraising events is well below the industry standard. As
illustrated in Figure 4, MOSI received only 5.3% of its revenues from contributed sources in
FY13, compared to 29.2% within the Peer Group and 19.7-27.6% within the two ASTC science
center cohorts.
Interviewees explained that MOSI has done limited fundraising until the May 2012 hiring of a
Vice President of Development, who is at work building a fundraising program from the ground
up. When asked about MOSI’s fundraising until now, responses included: “MOSI’s culture isn’t
geared toward philanthropy,” and “There is a perception that MOSI is supported by the County,
so the public doesn’t give.” The leadership of an organization, including the CEO and Board, are
usually on the front-lines of fundraising, but both entities at MOSI were frequently described as
reticent fundraisers. Board members interviewed by MMC felt their role in fundraising had not
been emphasized or utilized by management. One interviewee pointed out that there are not
many corporate headquarters in the Tampa Bay Area, and that MOSI is not connected to the
major philanthropists in the area. However, a number of interviewees also pointed to the
missed opportunity for national sponsorships and other corporate support, as well as the need
to cultivate what local resources do exist.
There is an urgent need to advance MOSI’s fundraising efforts. It appears that a capable Vice
President of Development is in place to spearhead this effort, but building a development
program takes time. In MOSI’s case, it will require a shift in organizational culture to prioritize
9
fundraising. For example, membership is staffed within the Guest Experience division of MOSI,
where it is classified as part of front-line staff like admissions, instead of being seen as a
fundraising program that promotes close ties to the Museum and has potential for cultivating
larger donations down the line.
While MOSI’s focus on earned income is impressive, putting the same level of effort into the
fundraising program should yield improving returns in the future. Fundraising is built on longterm relationships, as opposed to one-time interactions with programs, and it is these
relationships that will give MOSI greater financial stability, as well as a cadre of community
advocates, in the future.
Government Grants
As reported in Figure 4, MOSI receives
a healthy level of government
funding, even though funding
decreased between FY09 and FY13.
The table shows that MOSI’s
government support as a percentage
of overall operating income is well
within industry standards; it is higher
than the Peer Group median, but
lower than the ASTC science center
cohorts.
Figure 5. MOSI Government Support by
Source FY09-FY13
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
Hillborough County
Federal Government
State of Florida
City of Tampa
Source: MOSI audits
Figure 5 provides a closer look at MOSI’s government support through a breakdown of funding
from the city, county, federal, and state levels. Each source of government funding has
decreased its support to MOSI between FY09 and FY13. Figure 6 compares MOSI’s sources of
government support with the ASTC
Figure 6. Breakdown of Government Support
cohort data. This table shows that
MOSI Compared to ASTC Science Center Data
MOSI receives a comparatively high
ASTC Average Data by
Operating Budget
level of support at the local level,
MOSI
FY13 $3-$10M
> $10M
including city and county, and
62.9%
43.2%
28.8%
significantly less federal funding Local (City & County)
29.3%
26.0%
47.6%
than the average for the ASTC Federal/National
State/Provincial
7.8%
28.9%
23.6%
cohort with large budgets. As of the
Tribal/Other
0.0%
1.8%
0.1%
writing of this report, MOSI had just
Source: MOSI audits and 2012 ASTC Statistics Analysis Package
10
received word about new, increased funding from the State of Florida, including an increase in
operating support, a matching grant for MOSI’s endowment, and funding for MOSI’s STEAM
Showcase and MOSI Technical Institute. These increases are noteworthy, but will not
significantly change the percentages in Figure 6 as most of the support comes in the form of
non-operating funds.
Perceptions of County Support
MMC believes that MOSI’s government funding levels are strong, but can be improved when
considering the national statistics for science centers. At the same time, MMC believes it is
important to fully acknowledge the level of support MOSI receives from the County. In its
interviews, MMC heard concerns that MOSI downplays the level of support it receives from the
County, leading to a common misperception that the County gives MOSI approximately
$500,000 each year, whereas the actual is approximately double that amount. One example
that furthers this misperception is the positioning of the County’s financial reimbursement for
capital maintenance projects on MOSI’s income statement under expenses, “below the line.” As
a result, the County’s support appears to be an expense instead of revenue.
The County appears to value MOSI greatly as a community asset and feels that it has a financial
obligation the Museum. Given the County’s financial support, it is worth documenting:

The County owns the land upon which MOSI sits; MOSI does not pay rent for
occupancy.

The County owns the buildings that make up MOSI and pays for capital
improvements. The value of the capital improvements FY09-FY13 is $1,157,299.

Each year, the County reimburses MOSI for capital maintenance projects; in the
FY09-FY13 time period, this totaled approximately $850,000.5

Deferred maintenance projects that are not included in the County’s capital program
are addressed by the County’s Repair, Replacement, Renovation and Maintenance
(R3M) program. Between FY09 and FY13, the County provided $157,075 for projects
like roof replacement through R3M.

MOSI receives a cash grant in the form of a “management fee” from the County
each year. According to MOSI’s audits, this averages about $521,000 per year, and
totals $2,606,204 for FY09-FY13.
Together, the value of the County’s financial support for capital and operating FY09-FY13 is
over $4.7 million, not including in-kind contributions, or close to $1 million per year on average.
5
MOSI’s reports indicate $844,442, while the County’s indicate $889,121. The difference between these figures
was explained as being due to the timing of reimbursements, which may cross over the end of MOSI’s fiscal year.
11
Investment Income
MOSI’s investment income is listed as zero in Figure 4 because the Museum has made a policy
decision to reinvest the interest on the principal of its endowment, with the goal of building the
endowment to $10 million. In general, science centers receive a small percentage of their
income from investments, but this is an area worth building as it provides a stable, ongoing
source of operating funds. As one interviewee said, “Ideally, we would have an endowment
that is twice the size of our operating budget.” If MOSI were to achieve a long-term goal of
building its endowment to $10 million, and generate 4-5% interest per year that could be used
toward operations, that would translate to $400,000-$500,000 of relatively stable operating
funds annually. In the meantime the current revenue spin off from the $2 million endowment
would average $80,000-$100,000 per year.
Earned Income
MOSI has placed the focus of its efforts on earned income opportunities, sometimes borrowing
funds to invest in revenue generating projects. Some of the projects, like the new paid parking
are successful and bring in a steady stream of revenue for MOSI, but others, like the Zip Line,
are not as successful and become a financial drain on the Museum’s long-term stability. When
these programs are not tied to MOSI’s mission, they only serve to dilute MOSI’s image and
purpose.
Traveling Exhibitions
MOSI brings in one large traveling exhibition each year. Due to their high fixed costs, traveling
exhibitions are risky investments and MOSI’s finances rise and fall with the success or failure of
each exhibition. Many interviewees commented on MOSI’s exhibition program. One
interviewee said, “We need to be more thoughtful in how exhibits are chosen,” while another
said, “We are addicted to blockbusters.” Without an adequate financial safety net in place, an
under-performing exhibition could have a disastrous impact on the MOSI budget.
Despite the fact that MMC heard about MOSI’s “addiction to blockbusters” from numerous
stakeholders, and heard that the last two exhibitions were disappointing in terms of attendance
and revenue, it is difficult to illustrate this point with MOSI’s financials. As one interviewee said,
“MOSI does not account for all income and expenses for traveling shows in one place,” and
another said, “We have no internal systems in place to determine whether or not our
exhibitions and programs are really profitable.” This appears to be a case in which the financials
are presented in the best possible light instead of creating an accurate picture of performance.
12
Figures 7 and 8 show the performance of two recent traveling exhibitions: Mummies of the
World, which took place in FY12, and Sea Monsters Revealed, which took place in FY13.6 The
tables indicate that MOSI budgeted for a surplus with each exhibition, and each exhibition did
in fact end up in the black. But
Figure 7. Performance of Mummies of the World Exhibition
the
expenses
listed
are
Variation
incomplete, as they do not
Budget
Actual (Actual-Budget)
include an assignment of Revenue
$1,603,751
$1,788,892
$185,141
organizational overhead, nor do Expense
$1,165,371
$1,420,948
$255,577
they include a full account of the Surplus/Deficit
$438,380
$367,944
human resources (full-time staff) Source: MOSI internal reports
used to plan and execute these
exhibitions.
When
these
Figure 8. Performance of Sea Monsters Revealed Exhibition
additional
expenses
are
Variation
Budget
Actual
(Actual-Budget)
considered, it is likely that at
Revenue
$1,184,754 $1,105,364
($79,390)
least one, and possibly both, of
Expense
$1,163,640 $1,009,556
($154,084)
the exhibitions would have
Surplus/Deficit
$21,114
$95,808
produced a net financial loss.
Source: MOSI internal reports
The precarious nature of these exhibitions is further documented in the admissions revenue,
which indicates the level of attendance for each exhibition. For Mummies, $1.4 million in
admissions revenue was budgeted, but almost $1.8 million was received, indicating stronger
attendance than anticipated. By contrast, almost $1.2 million in admissions was budgeted for
Sea Monsters attendance, but only $1 million was received, indicating less interest in the
exhibition than anticipated. With higher than expected attendance, Mummies was likely a
“successful” exhibition (even considering higher expenses), but Sea Monsters did not perform
up to expectations and cost MOSI financially, contributing to the FY13 deficit.
Ropes Course, Zip Line & Parking Lot
MOSI opened the Ropes Course and Zip Line in FY11 and FY12, respectively, while the paid
parking opened in FY11. For each of these business ventures, MOSI borrowed funds for the
initial capital investment. MOSI took out term loans to fund the Ropes Course ($479,968) and
Zip Line ($344,499), and borrowed $416,073 from the County reserve fund for the parking
changes.
6
MOSI’s most recent exhibition, MythBusters, has closed, but complete financials could not yet be provided for
this report.
13
In order to evaluate the performance of these ventures, MMC looked at operating revenues
and expenses as reported in MOSI’s audits and income statements. The audits do not
distinguish between the Ropes Course and Zip Line, but according to the income statements,
the Ropes Course has made more money than it has cost in all three years of operations. The
cumulative net profit during FY11-FY13 is approximately $318,000, and no depreciation cost is
assigned. Considering the initial investment of $479,968, it is reasonable to expect the Ropes
Course will return the initial investment.
Conversely, according to MOSI’s financials, the Zip Line made a net profit in FY13, but a net loss
in FY12. This is due to the assignment of depreciation for the Zip Line. As a result, the
cumulative net profit for the Zip Line FY12-FY13 is approximately $8,100, compared to the
initial capital investment of $344,499. Without considering depreciation, cumulative net profit
is $96,000. The Zip Line appears to be a bigger loss to MOSI than the Ropes Course, and it is as
yet unclear if/when it will pay for the initial investment. As stated previously, these calculations
do not include organizational overhead, and potentially other expenses.
Finally, the paid parking is more difficult to quantify because the expense figures vary greatly
between the audits and internal financials. That being said, in both cases, the paid parking is
bringing in more revenue than expense; MOSI’s internal financials report significantly lower
expenses. Considering the more conservative figures, the paid parking has a cumulative net
profit FY11-FY13 of $397,000. When compared to the initial investment of $416,000, it is clear
that the paid parking has been a good investment.
Membership
MOSI has 7,207 paid memberships as of March 2014. The average number of people included
in a MOSI membership is 4, and member attendance is 90,000 per year (17% of total on-site
attendance) which indicates that each “family” attends MOSI approximately three times per
year. Membership revenue began declining in FY09 but has been increasing steadily since FY12
and generated $864,458 in revenue in FY13. Membership revenues are up likely due to
decreased membership fees and increased
Figure 9. MOSI Membership Revenue FY13
admissions fees, which would have provided an
% of Total
incentive for visitors to join as members to save
Membership Operating
Revenue
Revenue
money if they plan to visit MOSI more than
MOSI
$864,458
9.0%
once per year.
Peer Group Median
$808,290
8.8%
Source: MOSI audits and Peer Group 990s
As a percentage of overall revenue, MOSI
membership income is in line with the Peer Group science centers, as seen in Figure 9. For a
14
more detailed view of MOSI’s membership as it compares to the Peer Group and other
museums in MOSI’s local market, see Appendices A and B.
The following issues should be addressed to maximize the membership program:

MOSI’s membership renewal rate is 41%, lower than the industry average of 50%.7
Factors contributing to this include children “aging out” of MOSI’s current programs
by age 13.

Measured against comparable institutions, MOSI has lower than average
membership fees, and higher than average entrance fees (see Appendices A and B
for a comparison of MOSI’s admission fees to the Peer Group and other local Tampa
museums). While the cost-benefit to visitors of becoming members rather than
paying high entrance and attraction fees has resulted in an increase in MOSI’s
membership revenue, it has created a transactional, rather than philanthropic,
membership base. This is contributing not only to the low renewal rate, but also to
the overall lack of contributed income, as this detracts from the formation of longterm relationships with potential donors who start out as members.

Member Services is situated in the Guest Experience rather than the Growth
Experience department. While memberships are considered earned income,
members should be considered donors who have the capacity to increase their
financial contributions when properly cultivated, which takes coordination with the
MOSI development staff.
Figure 10. MOSI Gate and IMAX
Admissions
Admissions Revenue FY09-FY13
MOSI admissions revenue (which $5,000,000
includes standard entrance fees and
$4,000,000
IMAX tickets) fluctuates from year-toyear
depending
on
temporary $3,000,000
exhibitions and IMAX offerings. Figure $2,000,000
10 shows the variability over the last
$1,000,000
five years. Figure 11 shows that MOSI’s
$admissions revenue represents 30.1% of
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
MOSI’s overall operating revenue,
Admissions
IMAX
exceeding the median for the Peer
Source: MOSI audits
Group at 25.9%, but at least some of this
difference can be explained by MOSI’s higher than average admission fees. Figure 12 shows
that MOSI’s basic admissions prices (which include exhibits, one IMAX show, one planetarium
7
2008 ASTC Sourcebook of Statistical Analysis, p. 26, as accessed at
http://library2.jfku.edu/capstone/2008_Sourcebook.pdf
15
show, and Kids in Charge) are significantly higher than those of the medians from the Peer
Group and local Tampa museums.
Finally, admissions revenue rises and falls
with the number of visitors. MOSI’s overall
attendance and the number of visitors per
exhibit square foot is higher than
comparable
organizations,
however,
Figure 11. MOSI Admissions Revenue FY13
% of Total
Admissions
Operating
Revenue
Revenue
MOSI
$2,903,487
30.1%
Peer Group Median
$ 3,103,464
25.9%
Source: MOSI audits and Peer Group 990s
visitors per gross square foot is
Figure 12. MOSI Admission Fees
lower than average, as indicated
Compared to Peer Group and Local Organizations
in Figure 13. At over 300,000
Adult
Senior
Child
square feet, MOSI has a large MOSI
$22.95
$20.95
$18.95
facility, yet a relatively small Peer Group Median
$15.00
$14.00
$12.00
percentage of that space Local Tampa Museums Median
$10.00
$8.00
$6.48
(21.2%) is utilized for exhibits. This percentage is lower than the Peer Group median and two
ASTC cohorts. The data shows that MOSI underutilizes its facility for exhibitions, but by having
a small exhibit space and high attendance, visitation per exhibit space square foot is higher than
the industry average.
Figure 13. MOSI Attendance Performance Rations Compared to Industry Data
Visitors
Interior
% of
per
Facility Size
Exhibit
Space for
On-Site
Gross
(Gross Sq Ft) Space Sq Ft Exhibits Attendance
Sq Ft
MOSI
307,407
65,150
21.2%
514,680
1.7
Peer Group Median
194,154
67,592
34.8%
387,310
2.0
ASTC $3-10M Budget (Median)
102,679
41,000
39.9%
256,006
2.5
ASTC >$10M Budget (Median)8
318,000
97,500
30.7%
747,950
2.4
Visitors
Per
Exhibit
Sq Ft
7.9
5.7
6.2
7.7
Source: Peer Group 990s and 2012 ASTC Statistics Analysis Package
Other Earned Income Sources
As of the writing of this report, MOSI has or will be contracting with an outside vendor to
operate the food service facilities, and retail is already contracted out. Presumably these
agreements reflect industry practice and net income to MOSI. Other earned income sources at
8
For the purposes of Figure 13, calculations for visitors per sq ft for ASTC museums are based on facility sizes as
reported in this chart. This information is derived from ASTC data for all museums, not just U.S. (all other data from
ASTC in this report is for U.S. museums only). ASTC reports independent performance ratios for visitors per gross
sq ft and per exhibit sq ft, which are 6.6 and 7.3, respectively.
16
MOSI include programs, IMAX, and facility rentals, and as noted above, earned income is
already quite high by industry standards, although efforts continue to grow these revenues.
While the financial review above looks at various aspects of MOSI’s operations, it is MMC’s
opinion that the challenges in MOSI’s financial health, which have led to the Museum’s deficit
in FY13 and increased borrowing from the County line of credit, are mainly on the income side.
The key issues driving MOSI’s financial challenges are: 1) a lack of diversity in its funding
sources, with a strong earned income program, but a relatively weak fundraising program and a
lack of investment income for operations, and 2) drifting away from MOSI’s core mission and
developing a pattern of “following the money” with business enterprises that do not clearly tie
to their mission (i.e. Ropes Course, Zip Line) and an exaggerated reliance on “blockbuster”
traveling exhibitions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Modify current budgeting practices to more rigorously evaluate income
and expense components as well as cash flow and capital requirements. When income fails to
meet expectations, adjust expenses accordingly. Schedule formal management team financial
evaluations quarterly for review and adjustments. Since the annual “blockbuster” is a key to
successful financial results, fully load the exhibition budget for overhead and facilities costs.
Recommendation 2: Determine the reasons for variances from financial document to financial
document (i.e. books of account, tax returns, CPA audits) and bring them into alignment.
Recommendation 3: Adopt CPA recommendations for the presentation of financials.
Recommendation 4: Refine MOSI’s internal financial reports for greater clarity and ease of use
for both internal and external readers, including the creation of a simplified Board presentation
financial packet to be distributed to the Board two weeks in advance of Board meetings. As part
of this process, move the County Reimbursement to the revenue section.
Recommendation 5: In the short-term, consider using revenue from the endowment to support
operations until such time as the current business model is more sustainable. In the long-term,
build the endowment so that the annual contribution will be at or above industry standards.
Recommendation 6: Continue to strongly emphasize development efforts to bring contributed
income up to industry standards. In marketing memberships on-site and online, include
17
messages which reinforce the importance of the membership contribution to the mission and
sustainability of MOSI, and to the community impact of the organization. Build awareness that
MOSI is a community asset worthy of support.
Recommendation 7: Update internal software to eliminate redundancies, and increase crossdepartmental utilization.
Recommendation 8: Consider repositioning Membership Services within Growth Experience to
maximize the synergy between membership and development.
18
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MOSI Board members interviewed by MMC stated that there has been a tendency to rely on
the CEO’s ideas and actions rather than being partners with the CEO and providing an oversight
role as is typical for a Board of Directors. There is a feeling amongst MOSI’s Board members
that the Museum has “lost its focus in the past few years.” Some of the concerns deal with not
being true to MOSI’s mission, falling visitor attendance, financial short falls, and the Museum
not working with the Board of Directors to be strategic about the future. As one Board member
said, “The Board as a whole is perfunctory and has relied on the staff.” Another Board member
said, “Museum leadership (Board) is reactionary not strategic.”
With the CEO’s departure, it is time for the MOSI Board of Directors to step forward and
demonstrate its leadership as it looks to adjusting and refining the Board’s roles and
responsibilities based on non-profit governance standards. Good governance provides the
foundation that enables a museum to be successful.
It will be important for the Board to think about making changes to the Board before a Search
Committee is formed to look for the next CEO. There were a number of interviewees who felt
that the next CEO needs to be, “Someone who understands business and finance, and has a
vision for the Museum.”
MUSEUM INDUSTRY GUIDELINES
Good governance is about a functioning governing authority that has a strong working
relationship with the CEO to advance the mission of the museum. Based on the American
Alliance of Museums’ (AAM) guidelines for accreditation:
The governing authority and CEO set the direction of the museum, obtain and
manage the resources needed for it to fulfill its mission, and ensure that the
museum is accountable to the public. The governing authority fulfills the basic
responsibilities of non-profit governance by:

Determining the organization’s mission and purposes

Selecting the chief executive officer and assessing his/her performance

Ensuring effective organizational planning and adequate resources

Managing resources effectively

Ensuring that the organization’s programs and services advance the mission

Enhancing the organization’s public standing
19

Ensuring legal and ethical integrity and maintaining accountability

Recruiting and orienting new members of the governing authority

Assessing performance of the governing authority
ISSUES IMPACTING MOSI BOARD OF DIRECTORS PERFORMANCE
Size of Board
Board members interviewed feel that MOSI’s Board is far too large. How large should a Board
be? Every Board needs a range of expertise to accomplish the museum’s mission, but in the
case of MOSI the size of the Board has overshadowed expertise and function. Board members
feel they are just “rubber stamps” at the Board meetings and do not feel comfortable having a
dialogue about issues since the issues and actions brought to the Board seem to be “a done
deal.” One Board member said, “While there are many loyal members, overall the Board is too
large to be effective.” Another Board member said, “One-third contribute fully, one-third are
mildly committed, and one-third of the Board members do nothing.”
As stated in MOSI’s by-laws, there is no limit to number of Board members: “.…the number of
directors of the corporation shall be not less than three (3) and may be as many as the Board of
Directors may determine from time to time.” Also, there is no limit on the number of years a
Board member can serve. If the size and structure of the Board is not serving the Museum, then
it needs to change, likely by becoming smaller and better focused.
Criteria for Selecting Board Members
The majority of Board members did not know whether there were criteria for selecting Board
members. One member said, “Criteria for new Board members is unclear.” However, some of
the interviewees indicated that, “There is a cross-section of different backgrounds and
disciplines on the Board,” and that, “The Board is looking for people who believe in the mission
while having different points of contact.”
Board Orientation
MMC was told that orientation for new Board members is conducted by the CEO and Vice
President of Development “who walk new Board members through a binder of information”
about the Board roles and expectations. The Board binder is good as it gives information about
MOSI operations, staff, and by-laws, but there are no financials included and the mission of the
Museum provided in the binder is different from the mission stated on the MOSI website. One
of the expectations of Board members is to provide support publically and financially.
However, as one Board member said, “Board members don’t have a financial obligation nor do
20
they have to join MOSI as members.” The Board of Director job description in the orientation
binder indicates that Board members will “participate in 5 of the 6 Board meetings.” Also, the
job description refers to making a personal or business financial contribution and the individual
Board member signs and dates the document to show he/she has read it. It appears that the
Governance Committee is not charged with the responsibility of holding Board members
accountable regarding their financial responsibilities.
Board Meetings
The MOSI Board meets every two months. Board members felt that Board Meetings were “not
interactive and not useful because there are just reports given.” Finances are “confusing to
understand and we need a better breakdown of the profit centers and to be realistic about the
decisions we make.” MMC was told that many people don’t attend Board Meetings because
they believe, “There is no requirement for attendance.” When the Board meets once a year for
the annual strategic Planning Session about the future, “We are lucky if we get 20 people to
attend.”
Board Committees
Much of the work a museum Board accomplishes is through well-functioning committees and
task forces. Currently the following committees exist at MOSI: Executive, Finance, Endowment,
Governance, Nominating, Advocacy, Marketing, Benefits & Compensation, Education, National
Hispanic Scientist of the Year, Einstein on Food & Wine, IT, and Long-Range Planning. Each
committee has an appropriate liaison from the staff.
Many Board interviewees felt that MOSI Board Committees are not functioning well and need
to be re-purposed. From MMC’s perspective, part of the problem is that the committees are
not tied to strategic goals. With the exception of the Executive and Finance Committees, few of
the committee members interviewed seemed to be knowledgeable about the purpose and
goals of their committee. One committee member asked what MMC thought they should be
doing in their committee.
Board Finances and Contributions
MOSI’s financials are covered in the prior section of this report. However, it is important to
emphasize that Board members provide fiduciary oversight and as one Board member said,
“We need to use our resources more effectively. There is not enough emphasis on our financial
issues. Projections are based more on hope than on strong business projections.”
21
Financial support from the Board is low. As noted above, there are no documented
expectations for Board giving. In fact, as seen in the MOSI financials, over the years a small
percentage of income (5.3% in FY13) is from contributed sources, which is considerably lower
than industry averages. Less than 1% of MOSI’s operating income, and 16.2% of its contributed
income
(see
Figure 14. Board Giving to Operations FY09-FY13
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13 Figure 14), is from
Board giving to
Board Giving
$55,597 $59,545 $54,337 $50,217 $82,846
MOSI operations
Board Giving as % of Total
to
Contributed Income
14.5%
11.6%
7.7%
11.7%
16.2% (donations
Board Giving as % of Total
annual giving and
Operating Revenue
0.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.9%
events). However,
Source: MOSI audits and internal reports
it should be noted
that over the last five fiscal years the Board has also given to MOSI’s endowment (over $89,000)
and capital campaign (over $1 million), and made in-kind contributions worth almost $56,000.
During the MMC interviews there was much discussion about the Board giving a minimum
amount annually. Several Board members recommended $2,500 as a minimum gift to either
“give” or “get.” One Board member said, “Fundraising seems minimal as a responsibility if at all,
and there appear to be no expectations of Board members to raise funds.” Another Board
member said, “The Board doesn’t like to talk about fundraising. There is a hesitancy to ask for
money. People are uncomfortable.”
Advisory Board
Based on the by-laws, MOSI’s Advisory Board is “primarily concerned with the long-range and
strategic planning for the corporation’s growth and development. They shall submit their
suggestions to the Board for consideration and approval.” It is generally museum industry
practice that the Board of Directors oversees long-range and strategic planning as they have a
direct oversight role that the Advisory Board does not. There is a Long-Range Planning
Committee of MOSI’s Board, and as such, it is unclear why the Advisory Board’s role is to do
long-range and strategic planning.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 9: Reduce the Board size to approximately 25 members and establish term
limits. Adjust the by-laws accordingly. Typical term limits on museum boards are two, threeyear terms with a hiatus of one year before a Board member can be reappointed. By limiting
Board terms, MOSI will bring in “fresh blood” and new thinking. Board members should be
22
recruited with particular expertise, and with an understanding of what the expectations are,
not only in the role they play, but also in their level of participation.
Recommendation 10: Document specific criteria for selecting Board members and create a
matrix to see how current Board members match up with required skills such as experience on
non-profit boards, expertise in areas such as finance, marketing, education, technology, legal,
etc. Tie expertise to committee needs and museum goals. Be sure that the criteria include
capacity for fundraising.
Recommendation 11: Upgrade the Board orientation process and Orientation Binder. Review
and rewrite the Board member job description; review/redefine Board Committees (see
below). Make sure the mission statement is accurate. Instead of the CEO or Vice President of
Development, Board orientation should be carried out by the Governance Committee to discuss
Board roles and responsibilities peer-to-peer and what is expected of Board members in terms
of time and financial commitment.
Recommendation 12: Rethink how Board meetings are conducted. Engage the Board with
mission-related, governance, or community issues that require attention and discussion.
Today, many non-profit boards are using consent agendas which groups the informational and
self-explanatory (i.e. reports) non-controversial items together. These items are presented to
the Board in a single motion for an up or down vote. Agenda items requiring strategic thought,
decision making, or action are handled to allow for discussion and active Board interaction.
Recommendation 13: Review Board Committees and define/redefine their purpose so that
committees are working on the goals set forth for the Museum. In particular, the Governance
Committee needs to be redefined and reevaluated. The Nominating Committee should be
disbanded and nominations should be a part of the Governance Committee responsibilities. The
Governance Committee serves as the "conscience of the Board." The spirit of the Governance
Committee is to ensure the Board is doing its job well, and if not, provide suggestions to
remedy any problems. The Governance Committee is responsible for recruiting new members,
reviewing how the Board is functioning, how Board members communicate, and whether the
Board is fulfilling its responsibilities and living up to the objectives and aspirations set for itself
and the Museum. The Governance Committee helps Board members be accountable.
Recommendation 14: Establish a policy for minimum Board contributions and make the
Governance Committee responsible for Board members meeting their obligations. Make sure
23
that Board members understand that one of their main responsibilities is to maintain financial
accountability for MOSI.
Recommendation 15: Rethink the purpose of the Advisory Board. The advantage of advisory
groups is that they can serve as advocates/ambassadors for the organization, facilitate access
to policy makers, share technical expertise, and provide an unbiased sounding board for
brainstorming. The Advisory Board recommends actions or policies to the Board and staff.
Some of the questions that need to be answered in having an Advisory Board are:

What is the purpose of the Advisory Board?

What will the Advisory Board expect individual members to do to achieve its
purpose?

How will members be selected? Who will provide the staff support to orient,
educate, and work with members of the group?

How large should the group be?
The membership of the Advisory Board should represent the diversity of Hillsborough County,
and MOSI should work to have significant Hispanic representation so there can be ongoing
engagement with that community throughout the year versus once a year when the Hispanic
Scientist of the Year award is given.
Recommendation 16: Do not search for the next Executive Director until some of the changes
recommended in this report are implemented because it will be difficult to recruit outstanding
candidates without a solid plan for moving forward.
24
VISITOR EXPERIENCE
The MOSI “visitor experience” comprises every aspect of the organization which touches the
public. Overall, in MMC’s conversations and observations, the Education Programs received
universally high marks, while the Exhibits and other aspects of the visitor experience were
called out as needing updating and improvement. The Museum’s visitor experience needs to be
strengthened. The range of topics and kinds of experiences offered by MOSI lack cohesiveness;
the offerings are “all over the place” and vary widely in quality. Reviews on Trip Advisor and
Yelp referred to broken and old exhibits, MythBusters being fun, IMAX being cool, and MOSI
being expensive for the overall experience. Also MOSI’s website, which articulates the
Museum’s program and exhibit offerings, needs upgrading and has broken links.
One obvious shortcoming of the current visitor experience is that it is focused almost
completely on children. MOSI could almost be described as a “children’s museum.” In fact MOSI
has consciously or unconsciously ceded the adult cultural audience to other Tampa area
institutions and finds itself competing with the numerous amusement parks in the region rather
than providing lifelong learning opportunities to the residents of Hillsborough County and
beyond.
The decision to focus almost exclusively on children has numerous financial consequences,
including the ability to retain members and to raise contributed income, admission, and
program revenue, etc. A full critique of the visitor experience is well beyond the scope of this
report; however, we at MMC feel MOSI needs a new Master Plan for the visitor experience to
address this and other issues.
EDUCATION
Everyone MMC spoke with agreed that science and technology education is MOSI’s core
business. MOSI staff and the Learning Experience group are to be congratulated for delivering
high quality public education programs. MOSI education programs were characterized as
“robust,” “responsive to curriculum and needs of students, particularly K-5,” “strong in the area
of teacher preparation and training,” and “interdisciplinary.” The inclusion of “making” and
digital technology programs are examples of current and relevant education offerings.
Similar to the discussion about traveling exhibitions in the Financial Review section of this
report, evaluating the profitability of MOSI’s education programs is challenged by financial
reporting that does not fully load the expenses of each program. According to MOSI’s income
25
statements, all of the education programs are profitable, or have been profitable for the
majority of the last five years. The most successful programs, in terms of net revenue, include
group and public planetarium shows, camps, and school group field trips. The supporting
income statement for each program does not assign Museum or departmental overhead, so it
is likely that a few programs with smaller margins of net revenue run in the red. That being said,
profitability is not the only criteria in evaluating a successful education program.
In order to continue the success, sustainability, and impact of the MOSI education program, the
following issues must be addressed:

The number of education programs being offered is taxing current staffing levels. To
quote a staff member, “We have trouble stopping activities and programs because there
is no formal evaluation criteria.” Yet as noted above, there is little programming for
older children, adults, and seniors.

The lack of funding for transportation to and from MOSI is an issue for some schools.
WAYFINDING

MOSI does not have an organized, graphically consistent signage system directing
visitors through the buildings and grounds.

During its visit, the MMC team did not observe any maps on-site, nor were any online
maps orienting visitors to the buildings, grounds, and exhibits found (with the exception
of the Directions to MOSI and Backwoods Forest Preserve maps).

The main lobby, which contains the ticket booth and an information desk, has the
potential for orienting the visitor and delivering a “wow” factor, given its size and open
configuration. However, this space seems to have a random arrangement of signs and
visuals which do not reinforce MOSI’s core business of science and technology
education (i.e. Diplodocus dinosaur bones with minimal educational interpretation,
posters, an automobile from a local dealership, etc.).
EXHIBITS
For the purpose of this discussion, exhibits refer to permanent and temporary displays,
theaters, planetarium, and interactive experiences (ropes course, cycle, rocket simulator, etc.).
The following issues have been identified:

While MOSI has experienced success in years past with “blockbuster” exhibitions driving
admissions revenue, traveling exhibitions are expensive and risky, as they must be
booked well in advance of the actual exhibition tour. Moreover, these exhibitions are
work-intensive and can divert staff and funds from the core business of science and
technology education.
26

While 30.1% of MOSI’s annual revenue comes from admissions (including IMAX), only
3.7% of FY13 operating expenses were allocated to exhibitions rental and maintenance.
Contrast that with 9.2% spent on advertising each year.

While The Idea Zone and Mission Moon Base are examples of engaging, well-conceived
exhibits, other offerings are seen as “dated,” “unimaginative, and “not competitive.” To
quote one interviewee, “The displays don’t change. Maybe they were ‘cool’ in the 1970s
but they are boring to kids today. Kids are interested in learning how to code, 3-D
printing, and mobile applications.”

Technological interfaces are outdated. This includes the IMAX Dome Theatre, which has
not yet been converted to digital. As a museum of science and industry, MOSI has the
potential to be a model of new technology and innovation. However, technology is
expensive and often becomes obsolete quickly. This will be one of MOSI’s major
challenges going forward.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 17: In the short-term, develop and apply strategic criteria to decide whether
to initiate, update, or discontinue exhibits and education programs. Examples of evaluation
criteria might include support of mission, relevance to community and targeted audience,
potential to strengthen existing or forge new partnerships, innovative nature of program,
generate revenue and sponsorship support, etc.
Recommendation 18: When the new CEO is on board, undertake a complete review of the
current and future visitor experience. Develop a Master Plan to upgrade and integrate
everything that touches the visitors to MOSI.
Recommendation 19: Currently MOSI is perceived as a place for families with children five to
ten years of age. There is a missed opportunity to reinvent MOSI as a place for adults and
families with children. MOSI could choose to tackle a specific set of science and technology
issues that are current, pressing, and interesting. What is MOSI trying to accomplish?

Improve science education?

Increase public literacy in science?

Focus on new technologies?

Enable senior citizens to be informed science voters?
A sense of purpose seems to be lacking in how MOSI presents itself. MMC cautions MOSI
against initiating any program or exhibit which does not significantly support the mission and fit
into an overall MOSI brand.
27
Recommendation 20: In tandem with a re-branding exercise, develop an integrated, graphic
wayfinding system for the entire MOSI campus, along with a campus map.
Recommendation 21: Upgrade the MOSI website in conjunction with rebranding to include not
only informational components, but also development tools. In the short-term, fix the broken
website links.
Recommendation 22: Work with design staff or consultant to optimize the potential of the
main lobby to orient the visitor to MOSI’s mission and offerings.
Recommendation 23: Enlist the support of scientists, technology innovators, educators, and
representatives from target audiences to provide input and feedback on programs and
exhibitions via focus groups. As one interviewee expressed it, “MOSI needs to be relevant to
the community. Visitors should be learning something new, and kids can be helping to solve
problems.”
Recommendation 24: Partner with industry to showcase new technologies and identify donors
to underwrite needed capital expenditures in the area of technology, including the transition to
IMAX digital.
Recommendation 25: Continue to seek public or private funds to underwrite transportation
costs for schools.
Recommendation 26: Consider moving the position of Exhibits Maintenance Manager from
Campus Experience to Guest Experience, where the exhibit programs are situated within the
organizational structure in order to increase communication and opportunities for planning.
28
FACILITY OPERATIONS
As noted previously, MOSI operates in facilities owned by Hillsborough County, which also
provides annual funding for capital maintenance projects. MOSI manages the use and day-today upkeep of the building and provides exhibitions, activities, educational programming, and
amenities (i.e. shop and café) for the public seven days a week. The current MOSI facility first
opened to the public in 1982 and was subsequently expanded in 1995, 2001, and 2005. The
2025 Master Plan, proposes further expansion. The following issues are for consideration in
creating more efficient operations.
ROUTINE FACILITY UPKEEP
The large size of the current facility, combined with seven-day a week operations and the small
facility staff, present challenges to maintaining the cleanliness and functionality of the physical
plant. In March of 2014, the MOSI Café was closed temporarily when health inspectors found
rodent droppings. Individuals interviewed by MMC stated that the lack of routine maintenance
which led to the closing of the Café is symptomatic of “general neglect systemic throughout
MOSI.” During MMC’s visit, the consultant team observed first-hand exhibits which were not
functioning or “closed for repairs,” and a number of behind-the-scenes work areas crowded to
capacity with stored materials and supplies. Staff members talked about equipment long in
need of cleaning or replacement.
SECURITY
In walking through MOSI during public hours, the MMC team observed an absence of security
staff, noted that the multiple entrances and exits are sometimes unmonitored, and witnessed
visitors entering exhibits without paying. The MMC team was never stopped or questioned
while walking around the facility even though the team was not issued badges or other visitor
identification. Entrances to exhibits rely on the honor system, making MOSI vulnerable not only
to un-captured ticket sales but also potential damage to exhibits.
USE OF SPACE
As presented in Figure 13, MOSI is below the Peer Group median of in the allocation of space to
exhibits. MMC observed a number of areas of the facility that are unused or in disrepair. For
example, the Welcome Center is made available for events but appeared mostly empty during
daytime hours. Further, the MOSI facility is home to two tenants – a public elementary school,
and a non-profit organization. The MOSI Partnership School pays rent and is a source of
revenue. However, while MOSI exhibits are made available to the students and there are other
29
collaborations such as teacher training, there is untapped potential for the school to be a true
educational partner with MOSI. The Institute of Business and Home Safety provided MOSI with
funding for the Welcome Center and expertise for the now out-of-date Disasterville exhibit, but
currently pays no rent and has little or no interaction with MOSI.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 27: Consider closing one day per week or, as an alternative, open one hour
later each day in order to address routine cleaning and maintenance issues. This may also result
in a savings on utilities and personnel costs which can be re-directed toward issues of deferred
maintenance. MOSI has made a concerted effort to reduce energy use, which has resulted in a
decrease of utility expenses, and there may be other facility issues that could also generate
reduced operating costs. MMC has provided Don Toeller and Vicki Ahrens at MOSI with
information on the International Association for Museum Facilities Administrators which
provides an annual benchmark study as well as networking and workshop opportunities.
Recommendation 28: Train volunteer or paid staff as floor monitors stationed at each building
and exhibition entrance and exit to monitor the safety of the public and the displays, and to
confirm that visitors have paid entrance fees or are otherwise authorized to be on the
premises.
Recommendation 29: Undertake an audit of the existing facility to determine which spaces are
underutilized, and if the underused spaces should be made available for programming, rental,
or another purpose which supports the mission and sustainability of the organization.
Recommendation 30: Examine the relationship between MOSI and its current tenants to
maximize the mutual benefit of each relationship.
Recommendation 31: Prioritize meeting all AAM facility standards in order to operate at the
highest level and retain accredited status.
30
2025 MOSI MASTER PLAN
In October 2013, MOSI, with the assistance of White Oak Associates, Inc. of Marblehead, MA,
published a Master Plan for the development of the 73-acre County-owned site currently
overseen by MOSI. The Master Plan, funded by the Florida State Legislature, envisions a “MOSI
STEAM Zone” which will connect entrepreneurial innovation with public engagement in
Science, Technology, Education, Arts and Math (STEAM) and which will showcase inventions
and research. The STEAM Zone is divided into program and commercial development
territories. The program areas are to be governed by the MOSI Board of Directors, and the
commercial areas by an appointed board. Land lease payments are envisioned to go directly to
MOSI, which will manage all 73 acres under a lease with Hillsborough County. The STEAM Zone
is presented as having five strategic objectives:
1. Inspire and support STEAM learning and innovation
2. Develop tomorrow’s STEAM learning and innovation
3. Build quality of life and community identity
4. Exemplify and communicate Florida’s commitment to STEAM
5. Invest in MOSI’s public resources
The Master Plan envisions MOSI achieving fiscal viability through increased attendance and
revenue by expanding the MOSI experiences, establishing a “fiscally-stabilizing significant
Endowment,” and maximizing all of MOSI’s resources of land, talent, and support to benefit the
community and MOSI. Included in the Master Plan are development of areas for lease to
STEAM companies and retailers, construction of a hotel, and a STEAM Zone Technology Park to
attract and support STEAM companies. The implementation of the Plan is projected to cost
$177,880,000 and to take 12 years.
There can be no doubt that the Master Plan is a massive undertaking that is both creative and
comprehensive, and an evaluation of The Master Plan is well beyond the scope of the current
MMC assignment. However, the reactions of those interviewed by MMC, while supportive of
the concept of a STEAM Zone and the enhancement of the MOSI visitor experience, were
generally skeptical of MOSI’s ability to carry out a plan to develop 73 acres of real estate. In
addition, there was concern that the MOSI leadership, rather than addressing immediate
financial and operational issues, is focused too much on efforts that will not bear fruit for many
years. As one interviewee said, “It’s OK to dream big for the future, but you have got to have
short and medium term plans as well and invest resources in those as well.” Another said,
31
“MOSI should be part of the North County conversation, but it does not have to be responsible
for it.”
Further, one County official interviewed said, “The County was caught flat-footed by the MOSI
efforts in Tallahassee. MOSI didn’t go through the local political process to explore what the
STEAM Zone realistically could be.” Several County representatives went on to say that the
County is developing its own Master Plan for economic development and job creation in which
MOSI fits the template for science education and STEAM, but most likely not for real estate
development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 32: The MMC team found the Master Plan to be visionary and exciting even
though it may be beyond the capacity of MOSI to implement. MMC recommends that future
MOSI long-range planning efforts be developed in better coordination with The County and
other community organizations and that shorter-range efforts be more focused on the MOSI
audiences and a more sustainable business model.
Recommendation 33: MOSI could benefit from having a well documented five-year strategic
plan. MMC recommends that such planning be deferred until the arrival of a new CEO but that
a strategic plan be undertaken as soon thereafter as possible. The plan can incorporate many of
the ideas in the Master Plan, which should be specific as to goals and measureable objectives,
and should be renewed quarterly by the Strategic Planning Committee of the Board.
32
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDTIONS
Recommendation 1: Modify current budgeting practices to more rigorously evaluate income
and expense components as well as cash flow and capital requirements. When income fails to
meet expectations, adjust expenses accordingly. Schedule formal management team financial
evaluations quarterly for review and adjustments. Since the annual “blockbuster” is a key to
successful financial results, fully load the exhibition budget for overhead and facilities costs.
Recommendation 2: Determine the reasons for variances from financial document to financial
document (i.e. books of account, tax returns, CPA audits) and bring them into alignment.
Recommendation 3: Adopt CPA recommendations for the presentation of financials.
Recommendation 4: Refine MOSI’s internal financial reports for greater clarity and ease of use
for both internal and external readers, including the creation of a simplified Board presentation
financial packet to be distributed to the Board two weeks in advance of Board meetings. As part
of this process, move the County Reimbursement to the revenue section.
Recommendation 5: In the short-term, consider using revenue from the endowment to support
operations until such time as the current business model is more sustainable. In the long-term,
build the endowment so that the annual contribution will be at or above industry standards.
Recommendation 6: Continue to strongly emphasize development efforts to bring contributed
income up to industry standards. In marketing memberships on-site and online, include
messages which reinforce the importance of the membership contribution to the mission and
sustainability of MOSI, and to the community impact of the organization. Build awareness that
MOSI is a community asset worthy of support.
Recommendation 7: Update internal software to eliminate redundancies, and increase crossdepartmental utilization.
Recommendation 8: Consider repositioning Membership Services within Growth Experience to
maximize the synergy between membership and development.
Recommendation 9: Reduce the Board size to approximately 25 members and establish term
limits. Adjust the by-laws accordingly. Typical term limits on museum boards are two, three-
33
year terms with a hiatus of one year before a Board member can be reappointed. By limiting
Board terms, MOSI will bring in “fresh blood” and new thinking. Board members should be
recruited with particular expertise, and with an understanding of what the expectations are,
not only in the role they play, but also in their level of participation.
Recommendation 10: Document specific criteria for selecting Board members and create a
matrix to see how current Board members match up with required skills such as experience on
non-profit boards, expertise in areas such as finance, marketing, education, technology, legal,
etc. Tie expertise to committee needs and museum goals. Be sure that the criteria include
capacity for fundraising.
Recommendation 11: Upgrade the Board orientation process and Orientation Binder. Review
and rewrite the Board member job description; review/redefine Board Committees (see
below). Make sure the mission statement is accurate. Instead of the CEO or Vice President of
Development, Board orientation should be carried out by the Governance Committee to discuss
Board roles and responsibilities peer-to-peer and what is expected of Board members in terms
of time and financial commitment.
Recommendation 12: Rethink how Board meetings are conducted. Engage the Board with
mission-related, governance, or community issues that require attention and discussion.
Today, many non-profit boards are using consent agendas which groups the informational and
self-explanatory (i.e. reports) non-controversial items together. These items are presented to
the Board in a single motion for an up or down vote. Agenda items requiring strategic thought,
decision making, or action are handled to allow for discussion and active Board interaction.
Recommendation 13: Review Board Committees and define/redefine their purpose so that
committees are working on the goals set forth for the Museum. In particular, the Governance
Committee needs to be redefined and reevaluated. The Nominating Committee should be
disbanded and nominations should be a part of the Governance Committee responsibilities. The
Governance Committee serves as the "conscience of the Board." The spirit of the Governance
Committee is to ensure the Board is doing its job well, and if not, provide suggestions to
remedy any problems. The Governance Committee is responsible for recruiting new members,
reviewing how the Board is functioning, how Board members communicate, and whether the
Board is fulfilling its responsibilities and living up to the objectives and aspirations set for itself
and the Museum. The Governance Committee helps Board members be accountable.
34
Recommendation 14: Establish a policy for minimum Board contributions and make the
Governance Committee responsible for Board members meeting their obligations. Make sure
that Board members understand that one of their main responsibilities is to maintain financial
accountability for MOSI.
Recommendation 15: Rethink the purpose of the Advisory Board. The advantage of advisory
groups is that they can serve as advocates/ambassadors for the organization, facilitate access
to policy makers, share technical expertise, and provide an unbiased sounding board for
brainstorming. The Advisory Board recommends actions or policies to the Board and staff.
Some of the questions that need to be answered in having an Advisory Board are:

What is the purpose of the Advisory Board?

What will the Advisory Board expect individual members to do to achieve its
purpose?

How will members be selected? Who will provide the staff support to orient,
educate, and work with members of the group?

How large should the group be?
The membership of the Advisory Board should represent the diversity of Hillsborough County,
and MOSI should work to have significant Hispanic representation so there can be ongoing
engagement with that community throughout the year versus once a year when the Hispanic
Scientist of the Year award is given.
Recommendation 16: Do not search for the next Executive Director until some of the changes
recommended in this report are implemented because it will be difficult to recruit outstanding
candidates without a solid plan for moving forward.
Recommendation 17: In the short-term, develop and apply strategic criteria to decide whether
to initiate, update, or discontinue exhibits and education programs. Examples of evaluation
criteria might include support of mission, relevance to community and targeted audience,
potential to strengthen existing or forge new partnerships, innovative nature of program,
generate revenue and sponsorship support, etc.
Recommendation 18: When the new CEO is on board, undertake a complete review of the
current and future visitor experience. Develop a Master Plan to upgrade and integrate
everything that touches the visitors to MOSI.
35
Recommendation 19: Currently MOSI is perceived as a place for families with children five to
ten years of age. There is a missed opportunity to reinvent MOSI as a place for adults and
families with children. MOSI could choose to tackle a specific set of science and technology
issues that are current, pressing, and interesting. What is MOSI trying to accomplish?

Improve science education?

Increase public literacy in science?

Focus on new technologies?

Enable senior citizens to be informed science voters?
A sense of purpose seems to be lacking in how MOSI presents itself. MMC cautions MOSI
against initiating any program or exhibit which does not significantly support the mission and fit
into an overall MOSI brand.
Recommendation 20: In tandem with a re-branding exercise, develop an integrated, graphic
wayfinding system for the entire MOSI campus, along with a campus map.
Recommendation 21: Upgrade the MOSI website in conjunction with rebranding to include not
only informational components, but also development tools. In the short-term, fix the broken
website links.
Recommendation 22: Work with design staff or consultant to optimize the potential of the
main lobby to orient the visitor to MOSI’s mission and offerings.
Recommendation 23: Enlist the support of scientists, technology innovators, educators, and
representatives from target audiences to provide input and feedback on programs and
exhibitions via focus groups. As one interviewee expressed it, “MOSI needs to be relevant to
the community. Visitors should be learning something new, and kids can be helping to solve
problems.”
Recommendation 24: Partner with industry to showcase new technologies and identify donors
to underwrite needed capital expenditures in the area of technology, including the transition to
IMAX digital.
Recommendation 25: Continue to seek public or private funds to underwrite transportation
costs for schools.
36
Recommendation 26: Consider moving the position of Exhibits Maintenance Manager from
Campus Experience to Guest Experience, where the exhibit programs are situated within the
organizational structure in order to increase communication and opportunities for planning.
Recommendation 27: Consider closing one day per week or, as an alternative, open one hour
later each day in order to address routine cleaning and maintenance issues. This may also result
in a savings on utilities and personnel costs which can be re-directed toward issues of deferred
maintenance. MOSI has made a concerted effort to reduce energy use, which has resulted in a
decrease of utility expenses, and there may be other facility issues that could also generate
reduced operating costs. MMC has provided Don Toeller and Vicki Ahrens at MOSI with
information on the International Association for Museum Facilities Administrators which
provides an annual benchmark study as well as networking and workshop opportunities.
Recommendation 28: Train volunteer or paid staff as floor monitors stationed at each building
and exhibition entrance and exit to monitor the safety of the public and the displays, and to
confirm that visitors have paid entrance fees or are otherwise authorized to be on the
premises.
Recommendation 29: Undertake an audit of the existing facility to determine which spaces are
underutilized, and if the underused spaces should be made available for programming, rental,
or another purpose which supports the mission and sustainability of the organization.
Recommendation 30: Examine the relationship between MOSI and its current tenants to
maximize the mutual benefit of each relationship.
Recommendation 31: Prioritize meeting all AAM facility standards in order to operate at the
highest level and retain accredited status.
Recommendation 32: The MMC team found the Master Plan to be visionary and exciting even
though it may be beyond the capacity of MOSI to implement. MMC recommends that future
MOSI long-range planning efforts be developed in better coordination with The County and
other community organizations and that shorter-range efforts be more focused on the MOSI
audiences and a more sustainable business model.
Recommendation 33: MOSI could benefit from having a well documented five-year strategic
plan. MMC recommends that such planning be deferred until the arrival of a new CEO but that
a strategic plan be undertaken as soon thereafter as possible. The plan can incorporate many of
37
the ideas in the Master Plan, which should be specific as to goals and measureable objectives,
and should be renewed quarterly by the Strategic Planning Committee of the Board.
38
APPENDICES
39
APPENDIX A: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
Hillsborough County
Mary Ellen Elia, School Superintendent
Tom Fessler, Budget Director
Mike Merrill, County Administrator
Mark Sharpe, County Commissioner
Julie Wisdom, Debt and Financial Analysis Manager
Bonnie Wise, Chief Financial Administrator
MOSI Board
Mark Arrigo, Treasurer
Maruchi Azorin Blanco, Immediate Past Chair
Charlotte Brittain, Secretary
Nils Diaz, PHD
Mario Garcia, Jr.
Reid Haney
Joseph Hodges, Second Vice Chair
Robert Lang
Steve Murray
Warren Rodgers
Ulrike Rolinitis
Robert Thomas, Chair
William Tingley
Ryan Toth
Staff
Vicki Ahrens, Senior Vice President of Operations
Anthony Cardinale, Director, Admissions & Member Services
Anthonette Carregal, Vice President of Education
Kelly Curington, Vice President of Human Resources
Beth Curtis, Director, Legacy Giving
Molly Demeulenaere, Vice President of Development
Carl Fullerton, Director IMAX Dome Theatre
Scott Hinckley, Director, Annual Giving
Wit Ostrenko, Director
40
Kathleen Prossick, Vice President of Business and Finance
Jill Rosenhouse, Sr. Director of Sales and Marketing
Arlene Segovia, Education Business Director
Donald Toeller, Vice President of Facilities and Special Projects
Tanya Vomacka, Vice President, Marketing and Corporate Relations
41
APPPENDIX B: ADMISSIONS AND MEMBERSHIP IN PEER GROUP SCIENCE CENTERS
$1,562,551
8.8%
Membership Pricing increases
when you add on: IMAX, Rides,
Exhibits, or Sky Trail
COSI
Admission includes permanent
exhibits and live stage shows
$17.95
$16.95
$12.95
$3,147,454
17.7%
$80 Individual
$95 Single Adult Family
$115 Basic Family
$160 Premium Family
$275 Supporting Family
Membership pricing increases
when you add on: exhibits,
movies, adventures, family
Friday
Basic Membership Benefits
Free admission and parking;
admission to The Saunders
Planetarium; discounts on IMAX
tickets, gift shop, café, guest
tickets, science camps, birthday
parties, special events, programs,
and workshops; invitations to
members-only events;
newsletter; free or discounted
admission to more than 20 local
attractions and to reciprocal ASTC
museums worldwide
Admission; reciprocal ASTC
admission; express check-in;
member previews and events;
discounts on movies, attractions,
workshops, camps, special
exhibits, parking, store and café
purchases
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Express Check-In
Membership Levels
$45 Individual
$79 Dual
$99 Family
$1,000 Galaxy Circle
Discounts
Child
$18.95
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
9.0%
ASTC Reciprocal
Admissions
Senior
$20.95
Total
Membership
Revenue
$864,458
Free Film(s)
Adult
$22.95
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
30.1%
Free Parking
MOSI
Admission pricing includes
exhibits, one IMAX show, one
planetarium show, and Kids in
Charge
Total
Admissions
Revenue*
$2,903,487
MEMBERSHIP
Free Admission
(exhibit hall)
ADMISSIONS
x
42
$1,128,922
13.2%
Admission; discount on IMAX,
Café, store, education programs,
birthday parties; no ticket fee;
expedited entrance
$733,582
8.4%
Admission; reciprocal ASTC
admission; reduced parking;
discounted OMNIMAX tickets;
free guests; discounts on science
camps, family workshops and
other programs; member-only
events
Membership pricing increases
when you add on: membership
to more than 1 of the 3
museums, guest passes, IMAX
$18.00
$14.00
$17.00
$14.00
$16.00
$12.00
$3,103,464
$1,811,260
36.3%
20.7%
$80 Individual
$120 Dual/Family
$300 - $1,000 Patron
Ability to add IMAX and
additional members
$90 Individual
$95 Family
$250 Sustaining Family
$500 Patron Family
$1,000 President's Circle
Ability to add IMAX and guest
passes
Admission; discounts on Birthday
Parties, Summer Camps, Museum
stores and cafes; parking
(Charlotte Nature Museum,
Discovery Place KIDS) and
discounted parking (Discovery
Place); discount admission
vouchers; special events and
exhibition openings; eNewsletter;
reciprocal ASTC admission
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Express Check-In
Membership Levels
$50 Individual
$80 Educator
$100 Family
Free Film(s)
Child
$12.00
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
6.8%
Discounts
Great Lakes Science Center
General admission does not
include OMNIMAX or
Steamship
Senior
$12.00
Total
Membership
Revenue
$977,788
ASTC Reciprocal
Admissions
Fernbank Museum of Natural
History
Admission does not include
IMAX
Adult
$15.00
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
33.0%
Free Parking
Discovery Place, Inc.
Admission is for Discovery
Place museum only; DP Kids
and Charlotte Nature Museum
charge separately
Total
Admissions
Revenue*
$4,741,026
MEMBERSHIP
Free Admission
(exhibit hall)
ADMISSIONS
x
43
$808,290
14.4%
$236,018
3.1%
Additional members $25 each
McWane Science Center
Admission does not include
IMAX Dome which is available
in combo with admission or
separate
Museum of Discovery and
Science
Admission includes museum
exhibits only; IMAX tickets
available in combo with
admission or separate
$13.00
$14.00
$12.00
$13.00
$9.00
$12.00
$1,758,110
$3,778,561
31.3%
50.2%
$75 Individual
$90 Grandparent
$95 Family
$230 Extended Family
Additional members $25 each
$85 Dual
$125 Family
$225- 325 Contributing
Admission to permanent exhibits,
planetarium, observatory;
members entrance; discount to
IMAX, annual fundraisers and
events, store, cafe, parking, and
local businesses; subscription to
Popular Science; Members Only
Events; ASTC reciprocal
admissions
Admission to exhibit halls;
parking; ASTC reciprocal benefits;
discounts on camps & classes,
Cafe; store, birthday parties,
IMAX Hollywood film; guest
tickets; newsletters
Admission to Museum; discount
in store, IMAX theatre, rides,
science camps, birthday parties,
and special programs ; special
events; advance IMAX ticket
reservations with no ticket fee;
reciprocal ASTC admissions;
quarterly magazine
x
x
x
x
Express Check-In
Membership Levels
$75 Individual
$100 Dual
$125 Four Individuals
Discounts
Child
$15.95
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
5.9%
Free Parking
Senior
$17.95
Total
Membership
Revenue
$550,554
Free Film(s)
Adult
$18.95
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
25.9%
ASTC Reciprocal
Admissions
Maryland Science Center
Admission includes exhibit
halls, planetarium, demo
stage; IMAX films extra
Total
Admissions
Revenue*
$2,431,201
MEMBERSHIP
Free Admission
(exhibit hall)
ADMISSIONS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
44
Peer Group Median
Local Tampa Museums
Median
$17
$13
$1,538,357
23.9%
$105 Individual
$120 Dual
$135 Family
$729,283
11.4%
$808,290
8.8%
Additional family members
$25 each; Nanny add-on $50
$15.00
$10.00
$14.00
$8.00
$12.00
$6.48
$3,103,464
25.9%
Admission; discounts on
planetarium, Theater, submarine,
selected featured exhibits ,
events, science camps, classes,
Store; member-only events;
e-mail newsletter; ASTC
Reciprocal membership; parking
Admission to exhibits and films;
Discounts to special events,
special exhibitions, store, camps,
workshops, scout programs and
birthday parties ; parking;
complimentary guest passes
member-only events; reciprocal
ASTC admissions; magazine
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Express Check-In
$19
Membership Levels
$85 Dual
$105 Family
$215 Patron
Discounts
Child
$9.50
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
10.6%
Free Film(s)
Senior
$9.50
Total
Membership
Revenue
$2,336,295
ASTC Reciprocal
Admissions
Orlando Science Center
Admission Includes exhibit
galleries, all films except
Hollywood movie; live
programming
Adult
$13.00
As % of
Total
Operating
Revenue
24.0%
Free Parking
Oregon Museum of Science
and Industry
Admission includes exhibit hall
only; Submarine, Planetarium,
and Theater extra
Total
Admissions
Revenue*
$5,268,456
MEMBERSHIP
Free Admission
(exhibit hall)
ADMISSIONS
* For consistency, total admissions revenue includes entrance fees and IMAX admissions, whether or not IMAX is included in the organization's entrance fee for visitors
45
APPPENDIX C: ADMISSIONS AND MEMBERSHIP AT LOCAL TAMPA MUSEUMS
$79 Dual
$99 Family
$1,000 Galaxy Circle
Membership Pricing increases when you add
on: IMAX, Rides, Exhibits, or Sky Trail
Florida Aquarium
$23.95
$20.95
$18.95
$60 Individual ("Party of One")
$95 Dual ("Party of Two")
$120 Party of Three
Florida Museum of Photographic
Arts
$10.00
$8.00
Not
Listed
$20 for additional individuals up to 5, then $15
per additional individual up to 8
$45 Individual
$25 Student
$85 Family
$250 Founder
x
x
x
x
Free admission for one; newsletter; parking; reciprocal
membership and 50% off admission at AZA member orgs;
discounts for café, gift shop, education programs, birthday
parties, camps, events, and tours, online membership
purchase.
x
x
x
x
Free admission, tours, and lectures; discounts for classes,
workshops, and gift shop; reduced fee for Annual
Members' Show; opportunity to enter one photo in Annual
Members' Show; initiations to openings; passes to one
event at museum
x
Free admission and parking; admission to The Saunders
Planetarium; discounts on IMAX tickets, gift shop, café,
guest tickets, science camps, birthday parties, special
events, programs, and workshops; invitations to membersonly events; newsletter; free or discounted admission to
more than 20 local attractions and museums
Express Check-In
Membership Levels
$45 Individual
Discounts
Child
$18.95
Reciprocal
Museum Benefits
Seniors
$20.95
Free Parking
MOSI
Admission pricing includes exhibits,
one IMAX show, one planetarium
show, and Kids in Charge
Adult
$22.95
Free Film(s)
Museum
MEMBERSHIP
Free Admission
(exhibit hall)
ADMISSIONS
x
$500 Silver
$1,000 Gold
$2,500 Platinum
46
$150 Premium
$300 Deluxe
Henry B. Plant Museum
$10.00
$7.00
$5.00
$50 Museum Friend
$75 Museum Family
$250 Plant's Patron
Free admission; discounts on parties, camps, programs,
advance notice of events, and programs; invitations to
members-only events
x
Free admission; guest passes; newsletter; opening parties;
reciprocal free admission through Southeastern Reciprocal
Museum Program; discounts on gift shop and events
x
Free admission; discounts at gift shop and café; invitations
to special programs and events; opportunity to become
Smithsonian Member at reduced price (museum is
Smithsonian Affiliate)
x
Express Check-In
Membership Levels
$100 Family
Discounts
Child
$9.50
Reciprocal
Museum Benefits
Seniors
$12.50
Free Parking
Adult
$15.00
Free Film(s)
Museum
Glazer Children's Museum
MEMBERSHIP
Free Admission
(exhibit hall)
ADMISSIONS
x
x
$500 Veranda Circle
$1,000 Crescent Club
$2,500 Henry's Private Club
Tampa Bay History Center, Inc.
$12.95
$10.95
$7.95
$55 Individual
$30 Associate (teachers & students)
$75 Companion
$85 Family
x
$150 Supporter
$275 Sponsor
$500 Patron
$1,000 Benefactor
$2,500 Founder
47
$35 Student
$70 Dual
Free admission; invitations to exhibition previews;
discounts at gift shop and café, and on select programs and
activities; use of reference library; reciprocal admission
through the Southeastern Reciprocal Museum Association
x
x
x
x
x
x
Express Check-In
Membership Levels
$50 Individual
Discounts
Child
$5.00
Reciprocal
Museum Benefits
Seniors
$7.50
Free Parking
Adult
$10.00
Free Film(s)
Museum
Tampa Museum of Art
MEMBERSHIP
Free Admission
(exhibit hall)
ADMISSIONS
$80 Household
$125 Sustainer
$250 Patron
$500 Silver Patron
$1,000 Gold Patron
University of South Florida Botanical
Garden
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$25 Individual
$15 Student
$35 Household
$100 Patron
Free/early admission to garden plant sales/ festivals;
discounts on workshops and plant shop; newsletter; annual
plant distribution; reciprocal benefits to more than 150
gardens in North America
x
$100 Group/Organization
$500 Life
LOCAL TAMPA MUSEUMS MEDIAN
$10.00
$8.00
$6.48
PEER GROUP MEDIAN
$15.00
$14.00
$12.00
48

Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI)

Transcription

Similar documents

1994 - 2000 - . . 1846 . . . Location: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll

Baby Shower Packages - Children`s Museum of Phoenix

TAC Update 2/19/16

PIONEERS AND DRIFTERS, COWBOYS AND INDIANS

HP-U-505 MSI.indd

Memberships from Coast to Coast and Everywhere In Between

Arnhem Open Air Museum Holland in one day!

Saturday, June 16th 2:00 to 5:00 pm Tickets: $15

Future Vilnius