Hi! I'm Jessica Zephyrs, head of Communications at Adventure Cycling. I've been with the organization over 7 years (started when Jim Sayer was ED and I was a communications manager) and have stayed with the organization through four executive directors. Alongside Nicki (both of us are leadership in the organization), I've collected more answers to your questions.
1) Why does ACA not give ANY reasons for NOT selling? As you know, the founders (the actual creators) of Bikecentennial / ACA, along with several other past "high level" members & employees including a past ACA Executive Director, are against the sell of the building at this time. I am concerned the information the current ACA leadership is providing may not be all of the information available and that the members may not have the entire picture to vote accurately. As you know, ACA leadership should endeavor to do what is best for its members and I would think the current leaders would want to address all concerns if the leadership is trying to be as transparent as reasonably possible. The board and staff considered alternatives and implemented a lot of other incremental changes over the last two years, using other levers before considering a building sale. We acknowledge that the building has value beyond it being a nonliquid asset. HQ can support in-person collaboration, display organizational memorabilia, and potentially generate tenant revenue. But the building also carries real costs and risks: major deferred maintenance (roof/facade/HVAC) estimated at $150k–$250k, plus roughly $55k/year in utilities, and it’s operationally oversized today (7 staff in a 10,000 sq ft building). Setting up the current open floor plan building for tenants would likely require renovations and wouldn’t cover the costs of deferred maintenance.
Keeping it would mean either trying to raise an additional ~$750k+ per year for 3–5 years (with a shrinking membership base) or cutting one of our core program pillars to reduce insolvency risk. The sale is intended to create 3–5 years of runway so ACA can stabilize and rebuild while protecting the four-pillar model (routes, tours, advocacy, magazine), rather than sacrificing one or more pillars to preserve the building at all costs.
With a favorable lease-back plan, ACA keeps a Missoula presence in its historic building with a smaller, right-sized footprint and continues its display and welcoming functions. This also minimizes costly updates and buildout to be able to make the building suitable to subdivide and lease out.
On transparency: The board and staff have had over 20 meetings (virtual and in person) and other communications with the organized member group and individuals opposing the sale, shared requested documents over the last 5 months.
4) What happens if the vote fails? Maybe I am mistaken but I do not think ACA's Leadership has ever specifically mentioned what "Plan B" is. Seriously, what happens if the vote fails to pass? Keep doing votes until it does properly pass? Just close the doors and call it quits? Go until the money runs out? Downsize to only items that pay for themselves? What? This is a very serious consideration for many and it has not been addressed in any specific way that I know. If I am incorrect, please provide a link or post the answer here. This is an important question that deserves a comprehensive answer. If the building sale does not pass, we face several difficult paths forward:
Option 1 - Increased Fundraising: To maintain our current financial runway of 3-5 years without significant additional staff and program cuts, we would need to raise approximately $750,000+ annually from our community of members and donors. While we would pursue this option, we have significant concerns about the sustainability of this approach given current membership trends and donor capacity.
Option 2 - Significant Downsizing: We would need to reduce staff to approximately 3-4 people plus an executive director and directly cut some of our program pillars entirely (tours, routes, advocacy, magazine). This would inevitably reduce the value of membership and diminish our impact as an organization.
Option 3 - Planned Closure: If we are unable achieve the fundraising levels mentioned above or respond to changing trends, we could maximize our remaining resources by creating as many routes as possible, publishing our expertise on guided tours, and then closing our doors while donating all our assets and intellectual property to the cycling community. A planned closure process is more complex than this summary can provide and would require another membership vote.
Option 4 - Organizational Merger: We could explore merging with another organization, though this would mean a fundamental change in Adventure Cycling's independent mission and operations and potentially significantly change how members are supported and programs are delivered into the future.
We want to be clear: none of these alternatives provide the pathway to rebuilding Adventure Cycling into the robust, nationally impactful organization we believe it can and should be. None of these options need a headquarters building because a building is not our mission.
5) What programs, projects, etc. has ACA stopped entirely in order to save money so the building does not have to be sold? Which have been reduced substantially? We have taken extensive measures to reduce expenses, as detailed in our FAQ on the vote page (
https://www.adventurecycling.org/members/member-voting-for-building-sale/).
Specific actions include:
- Strategic initiatives: Discontinued all new programs piloted under our 2024 strategic plan
Retail operations: Limited our Cyclosource store to maps and routes only
Tours program: Reduced the number and frequency of guided tours offered
Publications: Decreased the number of magazine issues published annually
Operating expenses: Reduced insurance and other operational costs
Staffing: Implemented two rounds of layoffs (2023 and 2025), reducing our team from 42 to 17 staff members—a reduction of more than half.
Staff has historically been our largest expense, making these personnel reductions the most significant but also the most difficult step we've had to take.
6) Has ACA Leadership in the past 5 years actually surveyed ex-members as to why they are no longer members? Since a decline in membership is one of the reasons for the dire financial state ACA is in, I would think this would provide ACA Leadership valuable insight as to at least some of the causes of declining membership at ACA because surely not 100% of the drop in membership is solely due to "aging out". Yes, over the last few years we have maintained an ongoing lapsed member survey that provides valuable insights into membership attrition. The data reveals three primary factors, each representing roughly equal portions of membership decline:
1. Aging demographics: It is true that many lapsed members cite aging as a factor for not renewing their membership. It is one of the top three reasons selected in our lapsed member survey. We also recognize that many of our longtime members continue to cycle actively and remain deeply engaged with Adventure Cycling. However, we face a significant challenge in attracting and retaining new members across all age groups and cycling backgrounds. Natural membership attrition occurs in any organization, but our recruitment efforts have not kept pace. This gap represents a fundamental challenge to our membership model.
2. Program and editorial direction: Some members have expressed disagreement with organizational decisions, including concerns about editorial content in the magazine, changes to our tours offerings, and other programmatic directions. We actively incorporate this feedback and continually work to align our programs and content with member preferences. For example, we’ve used this feedback to inform which program pillars to maintain as we face financial challenges (routes, tours, advocacy, and magazine). We have used this feedback to inform story selection in our magazine (more U.S. based, non-epic trips, for example). We used this feedback to think critically about which tours to offer in 2026 (we hear more and more interest in ebike-friendly guided tours). And we are dedicated to continuing implement this feedback.
3. Value perception: Members increasingly question the value of membership given necessary price increases coupled with reduced magazine frequency and fewer member discounts on routes.
These insights directly inform our strategic planning. However, addressing these fundamental challenges requires the financial runway that selling the building would provide. Without this capital, we lack the resources necessary to implement meaningful solutions to these membership concerns.
We also own where we fell short: in the 2018–2023 period, we weren't as focused or consistent as we should have been in member communications and in centering decisions around the member experience.
Why the sale of the building is being pushed as the best choice. Both the staff and board of directors believe the building sale represents the best path forward for Adventure Cycling based on our comprehensive analysis of available options.
Our conviction stems from several key factors:
- Programmatic sustainability: Maintaining our four core pillars (routes, tours, advocacy, and magazine) differentiates us from competitors and provides the foundation for organizational value
Financial runway: The sale provides 3-5 years of financial stability necessary to revitalize these programs and address the fundamental membership challenges identified in our lapsed member surveys
Strategic positioning: This timeline allows us to increase the relevance and value of our programs in ways that directly address member concerns while expanding our impact to reach more cyclists
We believe this approach offers the strongest foundation for rebuilding Adventure Cycling into a thriving, sustainable organization with national impact.
I'm also concerned as to why the first vote has cost the organization $30,000, and they expect the same cost to conduct the second vote? I can understand the cost to design and develop the voting process the first time around, but it seems odd that a second vote would have the same costs since it is using the same system that was already put in place. We understand the concern about the cost of conducting two votes. The expenses for each vote comprise four categories:
Printing and mailing costs for member communications
Third-party administration (Pedal Lucid)
Legal counsel
Staff time and coordination While the second vote benefits from some efficiencies gained during the first vote, it also includes additional complexities and requirements:
- Additional mailings to more members than the first vote
Establishment of a Pedal Lucid-controlled mailbox for mail-in ballots
A Special Member Meeting conducted with formal procedural requirements similar to a city council meeting
Implementation of pro rata voting mechanisms
Increased legal counsel time to ensure full compliance with all procedural requirements
These additional components and expanded legal oversight are expected to result in costs comparable to the first vote, despite some operational efficiencies.
Poll