Jan. 23, 2006
Present: Terry Eason, Paul Carew, John McGee, Robert Wright, Barbara Schütz, Martha Dill, Betsy Pringle, Rob Sullivan, Ted Vaden; Stephen Elkins-Williams, Reid Conrad, Matt Poe of Hartman-Cox. Linda Rimer was at a professional meeting in Denver and participated by audio recording.
Ted updated the committee on the work of the Focusing Subcommittee, comprising Terry, Martha and himself. That group has met twice since the Jan. 9 Next Step meeting and has prepared a draft set of posters/slides summarizing the program goals to be achieved as part of the Master Planning process. The draft has been sent to committee members, and they were asked to send comments to Martha Dill before the Next Step Committee’s Feb. 6 meeting.
Ted reminded the group of upcoming dates: Feb. 6 Next Step meeting, at which plan recommendation will be finalized; Feb. 16, present plan to Vestry; Feb. 20, revise plan for presentation to parish; Feb. 26, present recommended master plan to parish. Subsequently, we will hold a parish-wide meeting to gather comment and input. The committee will also schedule small-group meetings with parish groups. Final recommendation will go to the Vestry for its May 12-13 retreat.
Rob presented an update on the Program Review Subcommittee, which met Jan. 22. The subcommittee will recommend as much space as possible in the master plan to accommodate programs, he said. It will discuss staffing needs for the future, prioritized. Final report expected within two months.
Betsy read a statement in which she asked the Next Step Committee to present more than one plan to the parish “so this committee has a broader feel for the wishes and desires of our Parish as a whole.” She called for more transparency in the planning process, including costs and parking, and putting plan options on the website.
Barbara asked for clarification of what the Next Step Committee is requested to do. We re-read the charge from the Vestry, which is appended below. Ted summarized the charge to say that we are charged to present a Master Plan that will accommodate the needs of the parish envisioned for 20 years and beyond. Barbara also raised the question of considering the cost of the project. Other members said cost should not drive our decision to create the best possible plan for the future of the parish.
The committee then did a pro-con analysis of two alternatives: 1) a plan that would preserve the Battle building, incorporated in some new construction; and 2) a plan that would involve all new construction. The pro-con also is appended.
The committee then considered Betsy’s proposal to present more than one plan to the parish. Arguments in favor were that it would allow for more parish engagement in the decision-making process. Arguments against were that the committee had been appointed to recommend a plan, the committee has held three opportunities for parish input previously, and there will be further opportunity for input, and revision of the plan, after the recommendation is made. Rob moved that the committee adopt one plan, Paul seconded, and the motion was approved 7-3. Voting yes were Paul, John, Robert, Martha, Rob, Reed and Ted. Terry, Betsy and Barbara voted no.
The committee then voted on the question of new construction versus renovation. Paul moved that the committee recommend a master plan of new construction, with the understanding that it may be built in two or more phases over a long-range time frame. The committee approved the motion 8-2. Voting yes were Paul, John, Robert, Martha, Rob, Reed, Barbara and Ted. Terry and Betsy voted no. In addition, Linda Rimer indicated in a message recorded before the meeting that she would support a new-construction plan.
The committee postponed a decision on orientation of the Fellowship Hall until the Feb. 6 meeting, on the recommendation of Matt, who said the committee did not have adequate design information at this time to make that decision.
Appendix 1, Vestry charge to the Next Step Committee:
The Long-Range Plan Next Step Committee is responsible for carrying out the recommendations of the parish Long-Range Plan submitted to the Vestry in May 2004. The committee will review the Long-Range Plan recommendations and propose a plan for the most effective means of implementation; establish and monitor an implementation timetable for the various recommendations; facilitate the hiring and direct the work of consultants for design and fund-raising; and call on the Long-Range Planning Committee subcommittees for expert advice, as required. The chair of the committee will report directly to the Rector and Senior Warden and will make periodic status reports to the Vestry.
The committee will conclude its work as the various recommendations are implemented but no later than September 30, 2005.
Appendix 2, Pro-Con
Here are the pros and cons of concept:
Major New Addition with Renovation of Battle Building
Pro:
- Allows a time of discernment, after construction of Fellowship Hall, to decide whether to preserve Battle or not.
- Preservation of the historic Battle Building fabric.
- Preserves well regarded spaces – Rector’s Office, Parlor
- Old building contributes to CotC “sense of identity.” (cited 5 times)
- Allows incremental change.
- Avoids controversy.
- Church can afford only Fellowship Hall
Con:
- Interior circulation would be poor (6 times)
- Poor space organization (3 times)
- As expensive as new space.
- Not much else, besides Rector office and parlor, to be saved.
- Incremental change, as we did 10 years ago, that won’t solve problems.
- Doesn’t fit our current needs (3 times)
- Walk away for lack of vision (3 times)
- Poor stewardship
- Loss of potential space (basement etc.) (4 times)
- Lack of future flexibility for changing program.
- Poor environmental stewardship (new space can be “greener”)
- The church non-worship space is not a museum.
Expansion with All New Construction Replacing Battle and Yates Buildings
Pro:
- Simpler, requires less coordination.
- Gives parish clarity.
- Can duplicate best of old (fireplaces, etc.) in new.
- Ample facility for future growth.
- Flexibility for the future.
- Program requires that amount of space.
- Our people want new, larger space.
- Main access corridor (worship to fellowship hall) essential.
- Will engender excitement in parish.
- Allows excavation for more basement space.
- Embodies a vision.
- More hospitable space.
- Environmental stewardship.
- Capitalizes on our existing investment.
- Creates new identify for CotC of the future.
Con:
- Space not as meaningful as historic space.
- Lost investment (Yates built only 10 years ago)
- Even new space requires us to be careful about circulation.
- Cost.
- Will require phasing, which entails delay.
- Loss of parking.
Last updated: January 26, 2006
