Building Committee SPECIAL MEETING with Trustees

MESSIAH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

BUILDING COMMITTEE –

SPECIAL MEETING with Council

MEETING NOTES July 10, 2007

Attendees (Building Committee): Howard Albrecht, BJ Wyrick, DeAnn Pugh

Attendees (Council): Connie Fox, Kathe Hockersmith, Wendy Albrecht, Marlin Johnson, Randy Speer, Bev Horn, Brenda Gabler, Linda Snider, DeAnn Pugh, Danny Lemons, Bruce Levy, Kevin Hughes

Introduction – At the regular meeting the Council the final agenda item was a joint meeting with and presentation by the Building Committee. Howard introduced members of the Building Committee; noting members Heather Deutsch, Joe Hockersmith, Rod Shaffer and Kevin Plasterer were unable to attend the meeting this evening.

Purpose & Presentation – Howard began by thanking the Council for including the Building Committee on thieir agenda and setting aside this time. He noted the purpose was to allow the Building Committee to follow-up from the meeting at which Howard asked for and received Council support in working together as a unified body toward the presentation of a building and renovation program plan for Messiah Church for the fall Church Conference.

Howard provided a brief overview of progress since his last update:

The Building Committee has been working with Brechbill & Helman (B&H) as the selected Design and Build firm, as well as Newcomer & Associates (N&A) as the mutually agreed upon architectural firm.
In May the Building Committee met with B&H and N&A for a program overview, process orientation, and conceptual review of specific projects, goals and target deadlines. Specific discussion at this meeting centered on the 3-project commission of the Building Committee, noting that while the Committee saw its commission as one building program consisting of phasing 3 separate projects; if other alternatives ways of organizing the work could be shown to be more advantageous, the Committee would consider adopting it.
In mid June B&H and N&A responded to the Building Committee and shared some preliminary items for consideration – a draft contractual agreement (presently in the review process), redrafted program sketch plans and a soft-cost estimate based on the Committee’s idea of a 3-project program, and an alternative 2-project program and soft cost estimate (based on the experience of B&H and N&A from highly similar church programs).

Process Clarifications: Building Committee & Trustees

Howard noted that as Council members review the items the Building Committee has received, our present focus is on pre-development and preliminary conceptual clarification. B&H and N&A are working with us to come to as complete an understanding of our needs and wants as possible before they produce the 40% plan. Howard explained the importance of the 40% plan. This outlines for the contractor: the completed program structural footprint, square footage, site location/plot-plan, general landscaping features, exterior façade treatments, utility hook-ups and accesses, and other critical or big-ticket issues. This is also the time when the “hard-cost” estimate is prepared – which is closer to the ultimate contract price than the soft cost estimate which is only a “ball park” figure.

B&H has set as its goal to get the 40% plan to us to review and approve by mid-August. Howard noted that in the spirit of cooperation the Building Committee wants Council to be a full part of the 40% plan review and agreement. To this end, in preparation for the 40% presentation and meeting, B&H and N&A have asked to have another pre-meeting with the Building Committee and members of Council. Howard noted that he and the Building Committee met with Trustees on Monday (7/9/07) at which time he invited members of the Trustees to this meeting for their input and review. Howard extended the invitation to members of Council

With this as an introduction, Howard shared with Council the draft sketch plans, work-plan timeline and soft cost estimates prepared by B&H and N&A. Howard highlighted the essential differences in terms of cost and time between the 3-phase (or project) program and the 2-phase (or project) program. Howard said that based on all the factors before us, the Building Committee recommends that we pursue the 2-phase program. Howard opened the floor for questions, comments, and discussion. Program aspects, considerations, potential concerns, and questions were discussed between members of Council and the Building Committee.

One point raised regarded the specific wording of the commision of the Building Committee. The information prepared and presented appeears to indicate that while the intention or desired outcome of the commission can be accomplished in any number of ways, consideration of alternatives (resulting in wiser stewardship of our resources), might not be perceived as “commissioned” in the strictest literal sense. Pastor Kevin indicated presentation of this matter should be considered carefully and presented very clearly if it should be ultimately pursued.

Call for Support and Concurrence - After discussion concluded, Howard asked for the concurrence, support, and collaboration of Council in further pursuit of a 2-phase program, in working with the Building Committee on the 40% plan, and in co-sponsoring/presenting our plan at the 90% level to Church Conference. Brenda made the motion and called for a voice vote – Council unanimously voice-voted in favor.

Howard thanked Council for their support and also said the Building Committee received the same level of unanimous support and concurrence from Trustees on Monday evening (7/9/07). He reminded everyone that our goal is communication, cooperation, and collaboration, so when the 90% plan is presented at Church Conference, members of the congregation will have the assurance that all church leadership (Building Committee, Trustees, Council, and Capital Runway) are familiar with and in agreement with what is being presented.