OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION
On October 7, 2007 a congregational information meeting was held to share and update the congregation on the progress on Church Conference Commission of Acts 29:2006 of August 20, 2006. The agenda and contents of this informational meeting was cooperatively developed and co-presented by Trustees, Church Council, the Building Committee, and the Capital Runway Committee. The proceedings were officiated by Pastor Kevin Hughes.
The meeting started with an 18-slide power-point presentation, and slide handouts were provided to all in attendance. (The power point presentation is available for viewing on the Church Website or hardcopies of the slides are available by contacting the Building Committee or the Church Office). Each Church Leadership Chair used their power-point slides to provide an overview of their general leadership role, and their role in Acts 29:2006 commission.
As part of its presentation, the Building Committee also presented 4 sketch plans to demonstrate how the activity ministry needs of Messiah United Methodist Church can be met through a 3 pronged commission for renovation and expansion of the existing church facilities at 30 South Penn Street. It was emphasized at this presentation that the sketch plans as presented are NOT final plans for development, but are only draft sketches to provide a visual picture of the vision that Messiah UM Church has for itself.
After the power-point slide presentation, the meeting was opened for congregation questions and observations. Following are notes of the 15 questions and observations shared during the Questions and Answers period at the October 7, 2007 meeting. Please note that every effort has been made to ensure that this is an accurate and clear representation of the exchange of information and ideas brought forward. This is not, nor is it intended to be, an actual transcription of the proceedings.
When there were no further questions or observations, Pastor Hughes, before drawing the meeting to a close, reminded members in attendance that the Building Committee is making themselves available the second and fourth Wednesday of both October and November in Fellowship Hall, starting at 7 pm, to review the sketch plans or discuss questions. In addition, the Sanctuary will be open every Wednesday evening from 6:45 to 7:00 and every Thursday morning from 9:00 to 9:30 for a time of quiet prayer and quiet reflection on the decisions before us.
Pastor Hughes also reminded everyone that the December Church Conference will be the time to decide on the Capital Campaign recommendation and the next step in Acts 29:2006 regarding renovation and expansion.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS NOTES
Response – Consideration for the handicap ramps has been given not only to covering them for weather, but also to allow sufficient access (size and width). Specifics such as covers, overhangs, etc., certainly would be a part of construction design plan (which would be the next step after the sketch design being shown today).
Response – There would be very minimal impact on our present parking situation once construction is completed. During construction (especially for materials staging) there will be some impact (fewer spaces available). After construction is complete, because of the need for a new ramp, existing parking spaces in the rear church lot would need to be extended out, making the lane between the rows of spaces a bit narrower.
Response – At the present time there are no plans for Messiah UM to construct additional parking spaces. There were some earlier discussions regarding structure razing to provide for additional parking, or putting parking under new construction, but the trade off (costs, loss of space, etc.) in comparison to the number of spaces gained did not make these options seem very viable or feasible.
Response – The Building Committee has not gone to that level of detail in the sketches at this stage, but this would be included in the next stage of development – the idea has been discussed already, but not included in these sketches.
Response – In terms of the Building Committee’s commission, and given the layout of existing land and area we have to work with (which was our commission basis) – The proposal for consideration is what has just been presented; a sketch to meet our needs. In terms of proposing something entirely different; such as not on the land we have, or ministries in which we are not actively engaged; that was not a part of our commission so it was not addressed. The prior Study Committee looked at other options, and presented them to Council for consideration. Council specifically commissioned the Building Committee to study expansion and renovation of our present location in order to meet the needs of our active ministries.
Response: In terms of looking at expanding the present location and at the same time looking at an additional location, no, that option has not been looked into. With the exception of additional parking, present and foreseeable future ministry needs can be addressed at the present location through expansion and renovation. Additional locations might be something we could consider after we get some early results of our capital funds campaign as possibly a contingency.
Response – Yes, the removal of the Timothy House for parking was studied early in the process. While it is not entirely out the realm of possibility, if that structure were to be razed, the number of parking spaces that would be made available would be between 17 and 19 (under 20). Also, because of Timothy House being in an historic district, (and potentially being a structure of historic significance) there conceivably could be additional considerations. So while it was considered it is not part of the plan proposal today.
Response – The windows on the courtyard side of the sanctuary would definitely stay. This matter was examined by the design and build firm. They also determined the windows once enclosed could be specially lit so as to be fully viewable from either side. Additionally, as the Trustees pointed out, these windows are the most weather-beaten, requiring the most extensive repairs at present, so enclosure for them after the current repair work would ensure their preservation.
Response – Yes
Response: We already know that our present facilities as well as the Blue House are located in an historic district and the Historical Review Board is very reluctant to allow demolition of buildings in such a district. However, Borough Council has shown a willingness to move forward for buildings that are in an historic district that are of minimal historic significance. It is believed we would not encounter a lot of opposition in proposing the demolition of the Blue House.
Response – The response will only and can only be determined by congregation members and their pledge cards. As pointed out by the Capital Runway Committee during the presentation - if everyone in the congregation were tithing, this would not be an issue. All we can do is wait and see.
Response – The Trustees (responsible for property management) have not checked into this or even considered this as an option recently. The biggest concern with this idea would be with regard to bringing the Timothy House up to current housing standards (accessibility, utility and related codes). It had been considered a while ago, but the decision was made not to pursue this line of action.
Response – Regardless of what facility we would be in or consider being in, and Pastor Kevin noted we are committed to staying at our present location, even if we would build in another location, we would have to consider this as a problem. Providing assistance with parking, and escorting people into the building would be the solution to this issue, whether here (at Penn Street) or somewhere else entirely.
Response – Trustees - not at this time.
15. Concerning expansion; if we are looking to expand and we cannot park those in attendance at present; what about parking for the expanded membership we are projecting?
Response – Planning for parking for future expansion points to the need for us to start becoming creative and serious in addressing the parking issue now. Referencing Conference Lay Speaker Blaine Bargo regarding in-town churches, he said, we need to look at special programs and events – is your parking situation presently having a negative impact? The Building Committee considered Messiah’s highest volume/ attendance services (Christmas Eve and special programs). Based on those, the issue of parking does not appear to be a deterrent to attendance. However, we recognize the need for us to be pro-active in addressing the challenges of in-town parking. As Mr. Bargo said, we need to get out of the “Mall Mentality” mindset that when it comes to parking, if you can’t park directly in front, then there is no way you can get to your destination. The Building Committee and Trustees have noted numerous parking areas within 2 city blocks of our church and we recognize we need to better incorporate these resources in our facility-parking plan now and in the future.
CLOSING
Pastor Kevin reaffirmed that persons who come up with other questions should bring them to the Building Committee meetings the second and fourth Wednesday of October and November, because we will be calling for decision, not questions at our December Conference. Pastor Kevin closed with prayer.