Renovation Campaign Update
date posted: Oct 16, 2007
Last month 565 of our people attended one of four renovation “Input Forums” to hear a presentation of our Master Facility Plan and Phase 1 project. Dick Beall, our consultant from Church Growth Services, then led the groups in input and discussion. We recived many helpful comments and pertinent questions from our people. Dick then followed up these forums with phone interviews of all of our staff plus 50 of our households. He presented his findings in a report given to the Board, Staff, Renovation Campaign Team, and Pre-Campaign Cabinet on Saturday, October 13. A copy of his report is available at the church office.
In summary, he found approximately 50% of our people were enthusiastic about the renovation. The other 50% had reservations. The current Michigan economy was a main issue. Some respondents did not feel that the Phase 1 project was timely. Some felt all or parts of Phase 1 were not necessary. Our current cash shortfall due to circumstances over the past few months was also an issue.
In conclusion, our Board and Campaign team approved Dick Beall’s recommendation that we not proceed with the Phase 1 renovation at this time.
Q: Pastor Mark, you and the campaign team have been working for 3 years on this multi-phase master plan. Is that a disappointment?
- In some ways yes, but in other ways, no. We are thankful for the feedback that we needed to make a good decision. We are determined to go only from “here to there” together. Besides, our work has not been wasted. Our Board, staff, and Renovation Teams (with the help of almost 200 of our people who served in Focus Groups) spent many hours in prayer and discussion discerning facility needs and designing the Master Plan. Our Renovation Team made an excellent hire in our architect (The Troyer Group) and in our campaign consultant (Dick Beall of Church Growth Services). Their work has served us well and will continue to prove helpful as we proceed.
Q: Besides the reasons above, what brought about the decision to not go ahead with Phase 1?
- We certainly don’t want to proceed without our people fully behind the project. What would really be disappointing would be to embark on an ambitious project then not be able to finish it! We want our people to know that we heard them. The consensus wisdom was that the current economy makes such a venture too risky. I certainly can’t argue with that. We also learned some things. The survey and forum results told us that we need to do a much better and more consistent job in communicating how our master plan is driven by our mission. For example, before I came to pastor SAFMC, I read, with great interest, the congregational survey taken in 2002. I wanted to get a clear read on the church that I was called to pastor. The survey revealed that our people felt that “connecting” in fellowship was a primary need in the church. Since 2004 we have consistently communicated that “connecting”, i.e. “helping people connect with God and with each other in mutually supportive relationships” is a key facet of our Vision Plan. The Phase 1 plan of a larger narthex, fellowship and cafe area came out of that Vision Plan, yet we heard several comments from people who didn’t see how the space fit our mission.
Q: What will you do now?
- After Dick Beall’s presentation last Saturday, I presented a plan to our Board and Campaign Team that included four action steps. The first step is to solidify a response to those who had questions regarding the property on M-60. At the 2004 Society meeting where the congregation voted to purchase the property, the reason we gave was not to relocate or to buy it for an investment, but simply to have some land to give us options for some future date. At the time, you remember, property was selling quickly in the area.
Q: Did the M-60 property confuse people as to why we were renovating our building?
- We’re not sure how big an issue it was, but it did come up in some of the questions. There will always be some who will think we should relocate, and some who think we should build an auxiliary facility out there. That may prove to be the way to go, but such a decision would have to receive a strong consensus rationale and push by the Board matched by strong enthusiasm across our congregation. Things could change, but up to now, the interest in relocating or building off site has not been strong enough to pursue it in detail. After consideration of costs and the value of our current location, we have been proceeding with the plan to invest in our current facility.
Q: What are the other points of the action plan?
- We need to replenish our cash reserves. This summer, following a state inspection late last spring, we had no choice but to renovate our preschool. Some felt we renovated the preschool “last minute without much planning”. The reason was that we had to! We had slated the preschool as a later phase of renovation, but the inspection report moved it to the front of the line. We would have had to close by December 31. The only window we had to gut the area and renovate it was between General Conference in July and the week after Labor Day when preschool started up again. The good news is that we did it, with the tremendous effort of our facilities director, Marv DeVisser and our facilities staff. We renovated 5,000 sq feet of space for about $23 a square foot. That’s a bargain for new and attractive space that will allow our preschool to expand. This summer, we also had a drain issue. It would have been taken care of as part of the Phase 1 renovation, but as the summer progressed, we found it could not wait. It was fixed a couple weeks ago with great assistance from Ken Williams, who attends our church. We have paid for all this renovation, but have seriously cut into our cash reserves to do it. We need to replenish our reserves. We also have a pending surface water drain. The total cost for these three projects will slightly exceed $200,000. We will be putting together a plan to raise these funds to get us back to track financially.
Q: And the third action step?
- Assuming we will not proceed with the Phase 1 of renovation, and that we remain in our current facility, we now have a new set of circumstances to deal with. Some respondents questioned the wisdom of a Phase 1 renovation when they felt we were not maintaining “what we have”. The truth is, we had been holding off on major repairs in both the Phase I area as well as the Sanctuary because the renovation would have taken care of them all. For example, the Phase I area of the Master Plan would have taken care of (or would have rendered moot) both the east and west flat roofs, re-roofing the old sanctuary, carpet throughout both the fellowship area and second floor classrooms, new zones for heating and cooling, new room dividers in the fellowship hall, etc. Now, in lieu of Phase 1, we will, in fact, have to renovate “what we have”. These upgrades and repairs will now involve significant funding, but when they are done, they will not provide us any net gain in space or any increase in the efficiency of the space that we have. That is disappointing to me, but I realize that this may be our only option. Our facilities Director, Marv DeVisser, is putting together a schedule and cost estimate of those upgrades.
Q: What’s the final action step?
- We still need to upgrade our sanctuary. We had projected it as a second phase in the master plan. We are putting together a team who will compose a “master plan” for the sanctuary. All can see that we need new carpet and pews, but what most cannot see is that we also have to address lighting, sound, acoustics, and backstage storage, access, and rehearsal rooms. If we cannot renovate the sanctuary in one phase, then we would have to do it piecemeal. A master plan would help us renovate the sanctuary in the most logical and cost-effective way.
Q: Do you anticipate a financial campaign to address these actions steps?
- I certainly do.
Q: When do you hope to present the plan to the congregation?
- I hope we can have a plan to present before the end of the year, or, at the latest, the first of the new year.
Q: What about the “dollar for dollar” idea? Did people respond favorably to that? Is it also being set aside for now?
- They really did, and no, we are not dropping the idea. We would like to incorporate the “dollar for dollar” plan in whatever form our renovation takes. The dollar for dollar match between renovation and world outreach was not meant to be an apology for renovation. Nor was it meant to be a bait and switch in order to help renovation along. Our facility is our mission base and it cannot be separated from our commitment to the world. It is right to have the most welcoming and most practical facility we can reasonably afford. Our people are excited about immediately helping an orphanage in Romania or providing a house for a widow in Burundi. I want our people to be just as excited about investing in our home “mission base” that shapes hundreds of our children, young people, and households into Kingdom citizens who will impact thousands of lives around the world for generations to come.
Q: Are you encouraged then?
- I am. Our people are committed to moving forward in mission. That has never been in question. We’ll get from here to there together.