MESSIAH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

MESSIAH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

BUILDING COMMITTEE

MEETING NOTES March 26, 2008

OPENING & DEVOTION

Howard opene= d the meeting with Prayer at 7:05. =

Committee Me= mbers Attending: Howard Albrecht, DeAnn Pugh, Kevin Hughes, Heather Deutsch, Joe Hockersmith, Kevin Plasterer, Rod Shaffer, and Beth Evitts.

Committee Me= mbers Excused: BJ Wyrick

Guests: Frank Alexander, Don Morton, Bill Spencer, Dan Turner, Leroy Jones, and Brenda Gabler.

PUBLIC/CONGRE= GATION COMMENTS

&nbs= p; Oral Comments were provided by guests in attendance during various discussion points.

&nbs= p; Summary of Written Comments – none received

OLD BUSINESS<= o:p>

&= nbsp; Howard apologized for not having a typed agenda for the meeting, but said he would follow the Committee’s stan= dard meeting agenda format. <= /o:p>

Howard called for approval of the January 9, 2008 Meeting notes. Motion made by Joe, DeAnn seconded= . There being no further discussion,= the meeting notes for January were accepted.

= ;

NEW BUSINESS<= o:p>

&= nbsp; Sharing Survey Results – Howard then opened by sharing w= ith guests in attendance that like the Capital Campaign Committee, he had asked Building Committee members to informally survey 3 or 4 people they knew at Messiah United Methodist Church to help the Building Committee assess how to best prepare for the next informational meeting. The request was to survey as diver= se a range of Messiah United Methodist Church’s attenders as possible, (age groups, level of activity in the church), to find out what they are expecti= ng to hear next, and any other comments they wished to offer.

<= /o:p>

Summary R= 11; Howard, DeAnn, Kevin, Rod and Heather shared their informal survey results. Comments and findings across age groups (30 through over 70s) and activity levels (highly active = to infrequent attendees) struck the following common/central themes:

<= /o:p>

1 – Ho= w much can we expect to raise in what period of time.

2 – Ho= w much can we get done for the amount raised and where to begin (what are the choices/options).

3 – Vi= sual presentation of options and how they fit into the master plan.

<= /o:p>

Several impo= rtant comments and suggestions were made:

- In= creased coverage/articles in the newsletter; including only if to say there is noth= ing new to report, but work behind the scene is progressing;<= /p>

- Pr= ovide better visuals with next presentation, blueprint-like plans are very hard f= or some people to understand and conceptualize.

- Mo= re inclusive of people at 8:00 service (example: presentation to 8:00 attenders during the 9:00 service).

<= /o:p>

Additional f= eedback from Joe and BJ will be provided at the April meeting. Rod also agreed that he would foll= ow-up on the comment made by one of the groups he surveyed regarding their negati= ve experience with “common process pitfalls”.

<= /o:p>

One other co= mment was noted through the surveys: concern with the general decision to stay at= the present location.

&= nbsp;

OPEN DISCUSSI= ON

Continuat= ion of Preliminary Brainstorming Session - Next steps/assimilating feedback After receiving survey report summaries, discussion focused on assimilating this information and next steps. It was agreed that while is too la= te for inclusion of an update article in the April newsletter, something would be written up for inclusion in the May newsletter. Howard also shared with the group = the Ministry Moments calendar the Beth Evitts shared with Council. He indicated that we need to sched= ule time for some announcements as well as preparing people to arrange their schedules to enable them to attend the next informational meeting. Beth said the hardcopy Howard had = would be updated and she would provide him with an electronic version for the Committee.

<= /o:p>

Timeline wis= e, the plan is for the next informational session to be held as quickly as possible upon receipt of the estimates from Brechbill & Helman, with a Church Conference to be scheduled before Memorial Day weekend.

<= /o:p>

Discussion t= urned to coordinating the presentation of phase 1-building/renovation plans with the Capital Campaign including the actual start of renovation construction. The key point made and to which all agreed needs to be brought to the attention of the general congregation: NO actual renovation or construction will begin until sufficient funds are rai= sed and banked. Kevin Hughes cite= d the following example for our first undertaking: if the first campaign raises h= alf the funds necessary, we could use this as the down payment to begin and immediately launch into our second campaign. Construction conceivably could beg= in during the second campaign. C= oncern was expressed that giving is presently lower than last year during this same time. This led to a discussio= n of presenting the “time-value” of money – the longer it take= s to raise funds, the more we will need to raise as prices will continue to rise= (at the estimated rate of 5% to 6% per year).

<= /o:p>

It was also discussed that it is very unlikely that that the complete master plan build= ing & renovation program as presented in October would be completed as a si= ngle effort, (unless sufficient funds are raised to do so). But the master program plan provid= es us with a framework, or overall program vision. Using this our congregation can co= mplete individual projects or phases in a piece-meal fashion as funds are raised w= ith minimal danger of duplicating work or running into complications or limitat= ions due to not having a master vision or plan for the next phase of activity.

<= /o:p>

Discussion n= ext centered on recognizing changing congregational needs and ministry opportunities. The example was given that at the time the first congregational needs assessment was comple= ted Sunday School attendance was projected to be considerably higher in 2008 th= an current attendance records show that it is now. It was agreed that while the overa= ll need has not changed, specific details, need projections, and growth patter= ns will need to be reviewed at such time as those phases are under considerati= on.

<= /o:p>

Discussion e= nsued regarding scaling back various aspects of specific projects, or campaign goals. This concern emphasize= d the need that it be made clear that scaling back should be translated as necessarily the scaling back of the growth of the affected ministry. There was general agreement that t= he master plan, as well as the inception of the Building Committee was predica= ted upon Messiah’s focus on ministry.&nbs= p; Phase options presented should clearly connect with ministry expansi= on opportunities.

<= /o:p>

The Capital = Campaign Committee will meet with RSI on May 19, 2008, at which time they will review the timetables for presentation and Capital Campaign kick-off.

&nbs= p;

REMINDERS

&= nbsp; Council Meeting

&nbs= p; Next meeting – 4/9/2008

ADJOURN<= /o:p>

There being no further business, Kevin Hughes closed t= he meeting with prayer at 8:40.