Approximately 35 people (including NS Committee members) met in the parlor on Sunday, March 5, 2006 between 1 and 3 PM. Posters showing the draft floor plans and the elevations of the church were on display on easels. The model of the parish buildings was on the table in the middle of the room.

Ted Vaden began the meeting by welcoming those in attendance and thanking them for coming. He introduced NS committee members in attendance and then explained that:

-this meeting was a continuation of the “dialogue” which began at the annual meeting;

-that we were discussing a proposed master plan that was far from final;

-that we were anticipating many more opportunities for listening and feedback from parish members.

He then reviewed the drawings, floor by floor.

Gretchen Jordan asked if there would be more classrooms in the ‘new building’ than we currently have; the answer was yes.

Terry encouraged people to consider these drawings as an “overall approach” and try not to fixate on whether any specific room was or was not in any specific place. The committee is seeking feedback which will lead toa re-working of the plan.

Ted stated that the architects have essentially been told that they are on hold until April.

1. Question (Van Quinn): what about three offices lost in the ‘transition phase” with his office being one of the three lost?

Answer (Terry): We do not know at this time where the line is between what occurs in phase I and Phase !!, that there would definitely need to be a contraction of use during the 18 or so months of construction and reassured Dr. Quinn that he would have an office!

2. Question: doesn’t phasing cost more money because we will be creating barriers to access for construction in second phase.

Answer: we are anticipating gaining access along west side of Spencer Dorm.

3. Question: do we have that permission?

Answer: We have received a friendly response at a high level.

4. Question (Betsy Pringle): will we need to take down the big oak?

Answer: it is not anticipated that we will need to do that.

5. Question: where will the staging area be for phase I?

Answer: Existing parking area.

6. Question/Comment (Valerie Bateman Jessup): She thinks the parish ought to have an opportunity to view ALL the options and that having them available in the parish office was insufficient. She asked if we would put all of them on the web. She said she had created her own website which she would make available with a link to the parish website.

She suggested that the alternative plans contained good ideas and might allow us to conclude that we could meet all our needs with less structural changes.

7. She asked if we could have more meetings like the one today after the other plans had been made available for viewing. She further stated that Lent was not a good time for us to be holding these meetings since adult education opportunities were not available (Lenten prayer meetings). She said she has a list of questions which she will submit, and that the committee can re-phrase her questions if desired but she would like to have all of them on the website.

8. Question (Valerie Bateman Jessup): how do our capital plans relate to the needs of the Church of the Advocate. How can we anticipate spending so much money when the Church of the Advocate has so little money and no building?

Answer (Ted): Ted explained why all the plans were not on the website, that they reflected an iterative process; the plans are not a collection of options (though there are some) but variations on previous plans.

Comment (Terry): there are only 3 or 4 distinct plans, with the big determinant being orientation and location of the parish hall.

Comment (Valerie): even if the decision is to “tear down” Yates and Battle, there are still good ideas that can be taken from the other plans and possibly applied to the recommended plan.

9. Question (Valerie): Can the Next Step committee slow down the process.

Answer (Ted): The NS committee has no strong position about this but the Vestry asked the committee to make a recommendation by May. The decision to slow down the process is a vestry question and not a Next Step Committee decision.

10. Question (Ted Pratt): How many parking spaces will we lose?

Answer: The NS committee has discussed the issue of parking extensively and concluded that there is no good answer; we will always have a parking problem now matter what we do.

Matt Poe of Hartman-Cox says we would lose roughly10 of 30 spaces.

11. Question (Ken Robinson): He has a list of questions which he will submit and not go through all of them at this meeting. He has concerns about parking as well but perhaps more so he has concerns about access for garbage and other service vehicles, parents dropping off kids for pre-school. Why not have a parish hall on the second floor with parking underneath – on ground level? Ken did not mean to excavate.

Answer (Terry): The NS committee considered a second floor parish hall but felt it would create more problems in terms of flow, and the requirement for people to wait for elevators or climb stairs could deter attendance and participation at church events.

12. Question (Ken Robinson): Do we need such a grand entrance which seems to impact at least 3 parking spaces?

Answer (Terry): Agreed, we do not need that grand of an entrance. It can be moved more to the interior space.

13. Question (Ted Pratt): The Long Range Planning Committee identified parking as a problem but the NS committee seems to be ignoring it. We say we want to reach out to people but they may not come at all if there is no place for them to park. We need to explain to people why we are taking actions that will cause a loss of parking spaces. Isn’t Morehead losing parking spaces as well?

Answer: No, there will be a re-arrangement but they will have the same amount of parking.

14. Question (Robert Weimer): Expressed concern about tearing down a building that is only about 15 years old. Why?

Answer (Paul C): The Yates addition was about catching up with needs. The Next Step Committee is about looking forward, beyond 20 + years to meet the future needs of the church.

15. Question (Robert Weimer): Who defined that future vision?

Answer (Ted): The long range planning committee, through the work of the program review committee. That committee interviewed lots of parishioners. Ted said he thought that some people had criticized the program report because it seemed to be more of a wish-list than a statement of future needs (perhaps this was created primarily by the projection of needing 20 staff members). Those needs have now been winnowed down and somewhat prioritized.

16. Barbara Schutz pointed out that this process began back in 2002 and it is now 2006, so the process has been ongoing for some time now.

17. Question (Mary Lycan): Where is the report? Is it on the web?

Answer (Ted): the big report is on the website of the parish; the refined report is not.

18. Question (Phil Rees): will we be in trouble with the town about the parking?

Answer (Terry): no, the zoning does not have a minimum parking requirement.

19. Question (Phil Rees): How much of the long range “pie in the sky” got translated into the proposed master plan?

Answer (Ted): Ted described the valuation process that Rob Sullivan designed, assigning numerical points indicating the degree to which specific plans met identified needs.

20. Question (Molly McConnell):If we build the parish hall, and then use it to its fullest, do we still need to tear down any buildings? Maybe we won’t need to tear down anything. Can we build the parish hall and then “reflect” on whether or not we still need to build anything?

Answer (Ted): We can do that. We will actually be doing that anyway given that we cannot start Phase I for another two years or more, and that process will take about 18 months. Then we will be fund-raising for another 5 or 10 or 15 years before we can begin Phase II.

Comment (Valerie Bateman Jessup): We certainly do not need this space now. We never overflow anything. It may be cozy at some times but it is ok.

21. Comment and Question (Susie Holloway): She was surprised by these plans. She considers herself a moderately active parishioner and feel that she has had no chance for input into the planning process. Questions #1 – are we growing in reality? She has been in the church for > 10 years and she is not convinced that we are growing. What are the hard membership numbers? We need to see a graph that documents the growth.

22. Question (Susie Holloway): Where is the money coming from and what is the process for fund-raising. It seems we are doing this backwards – we’re given a plan without the background information that documents that need. We should do a telephone survey of every parishioner to see if they want to pursue these plans.

Answer (Terry and Ted I think): Membership has been fairly flat at about 1600 parishioners. Terry said that 2005 numbers were greater than 2004 numbers.

Ted explained that the growth projections were based on research from the Long Range Planning Committee. Paul Carew said the parish survey done in 2003 found that most respondents favored the moderate growth scenario (1800-2000 members).

One possible explanation for flat growth is that we do not have adequate facilities to support that growth. The LRP committee considered high projections and low projections for growth and settled on a mid-level projection.

23. Question (Molly McConnell): but will growth come to Chapel of the Cross if we have no parking? How can we be building more when the Church of the Advocate doesn’t even have a building?

Comment (Paul C): We are a city parish and we have all the problems associated with a city parish – parking, security. The LRP committee looked long and hard at these issues. There is not real solution to our parking. If Rob Sullivan were at this meeting, he would say that one solution would be to find space on the outskirts of Chapel Hill and big a big church with lots of parking.

Comment (Valerie): This is just what Church of the Advocate – a church on the outskirts with lots of parking.

Comment in response (Terry Eason) The growth projections reflected current knowledge that growth is occurring both at older, urban churches and at newer, suburban churches. Terry further explained that research from PERCEPT had shown that individuals residing in Orange and Durham counties, NC, expressed an “affinity” for Episcopalian church membership at twice the national average.

Added note: PERCEPT is a “strategic information company that offers demographic products and other planning resources to help churches, judicatories, and parachurch organizations engage in mission.” http://www.congregationalresources.org/ShowOne.asp?RID=314&TC=60

24. Question (Valerie): How do the folks at Church of the Advocate feel about Chapel of the Cross building a new church when they do not have a building?

Answer (Ted): We haven’t asked them, that I know of.

25. Comment (Bert Liverance): Bert handed out an analysis that he has done comparing our existing structure with Plans A, B, E and F with regard to the following spaces: office, education, choir, storage, conference, utility closets, elevators. He stated that he doesn’t see much difference among the options. He noted the basic areas of concern were: fellowship hall, youth education, parking, adult education and storage. We need to base our plans on the highest use day, which is Sunday. There is storage space on the 4^th floor of Yates that is packed full because we have a lot of packrats who are unwilling to clean out their things.

We should put the fellowship hall and kitchen behind the church, and then cantilever the second floor out over the existing parking lot. This could also provide covered space for the children to play during inclement weather.

To cut ourselves off from parking now is to shoot ourselves in the foot. Since none of our plans even maintain current parking, we should buy the land west of Spencer dorm from the University to use for parking.

26. Question (Mary Lycan): How did the Program Review report morph into the current plans we are reviewing. What kind of prioritization was used?

Answer (Ted): explained Rob’s spreadsheet that evaluated how well each plan met projected needs.

27. Question (Mary Lycan): Who is looking at redundancies and gaps?

Answer (Nancy Tunnessen): her Program Review Committee. What her committee is finding is that some programs come and some die and when they die, it is usually from a lack of leadership. So flexibility of space is a critical need.

28. Comment and Question:(Mary Lycan): The process that Nancy and her committee are using perpetuates the status quo because you are asking the people who are doing the work what their needs are.

Will the basement meet the code requirements for full child day care?

Answer (Terry): Codes are based on < 4 hour days and > 4 hour days. If we keep the kids on site > 4 hour/day, the requirements for space/child is much greater than what we currently have or for what is proposed.

29. Question (Molly): wouldn’t it be easier to put the pre-school in new space?

30. Question (Mary Lycan): can the NS committee meet with a constituency who wants full time day care? Let’s plan for full time day care. Can’t we at least consider this?

Answer (Terry) we are planning for maximum flexibility.

31. Comment (Gretchen J): She has been with CofC for 4 years and she has never heard people say anything about 8-hour day care!

32. Comment (Nancy T): Her committee has learned from focus group sessions that there is a great need for half day and that it serves an evangelical purpose for CotC.

33. Comment (Susie Holloway): she chaired the committee to evaluate the need for full day program and the biggest problem was the basement space – basement is ok for 4 hours/day but not 8 hour/day.

34. Comment (Ted): an interest in looking at full day care exists so if you put together a group, we can meet with NSC.

35. Comment (Molly): She is not saying one way or the other but that if we are building, we should build in ways that make a future 8 hour day school possible.

36. Question (Larry Logan): How many people are there in the parish and of that number, how many are active?

Answer (Barney Varner): about 560 pledging units – we send out 1000 pledge packets in a parish that has about 1600 parishioners.

37. Question (Tom Bloom): Where will the boy scouts go?

Answer: Basement.

38. Question/Comment (Tom Bloom): He offered a suggestion for the choir room that would allow more flexibility. The sacristy is in an awkward location. It will have the alter guild folks running around with wine among lots of people. Have we checked with the alter guild to see if they need natural light e.g. for arranging flowers? We should consider switching space for alter guild with the acolytes space.

Do we still need approval from UNC for what we do?

Answer (Terry) – No. Terry also commented that we anticipate a separate corridor for people returning from communion to do so without entering busier parts of the church.

39. Question (Betsy Pringle): The church and chapel are not on the same level. How are we dealing with that reality? Have we considered the implications for light (natural) in the basement classrooms as we deal with this issue.

Answer (Terry): Yes we are aware of the need for natural light in the basement classrooms and are looking at options with Hartman and Cox architects. Our architects will also offer options for dealing with the varying levels of the church and chapel and connections with new construction.

40. Question (Larry Logan): Can we have another cloister? If we are moving a wall, will there be more places for names of parishioners in memorial garden?

41. Comment (Chick White): St. Thomas More church has just been purchased by Jim Heavner. This may be a source of stone for us. We should contact Jim right away. Chick also noted there are times when she comes to meetings in the evening at the church and there is no place close to park. At 61, she is willing to walk. At 71, she may not be.

42. Question (Ken Robinson): What about a green roof?

Answer (Linda Rimer): the architects are considering it.

43. Question (Valerie Batemen Jessup): What of the cost? Did the NSC not consider cost?

Answer (Ted): we talked a lot about a cost but that is a separate issue that will be dealt with by a separate committee that is forming.

44. Comment (Valerie): You can’t make decisions in the abstract. We have to know what it will cost as we are deciding. This is how people make decisions in the real world.

45. Question (Ted Pratt): How are we going to pay for this?

Answer (Paul C): The first phase of the capital campaign will be a feasibility study. It will be an iterative process. You need to have something visible for people to react to.

46. Comment (Tom Bloom): a feasibility study is very important. He shared experience from Holy Family where they had to build a model of the nave for people to see.

47. Question: Can Rob Sullivan publish his history of the church and buildings?

48. Question (Molly): St. Paul AME is currently struggling with this same issue of space and they are currently doing a feasibility study. When we ask people to add the capital costs into their tithe, can we include St. Paul and the Church of the Advocate?

Answer (Ted): We learned from our visits and interviews with other churches who have done this before, that you can increase your success by adding in tithing requests.

49. Question (Valerie): Will the minutes of this session today be on the website?

Answer: yes.

50. Question (Valerie): Will NSC offer additional meetings? Can folks come to NSC meetings?

Answer (Ted): we will have another meeting like this, perhaps after Easter. We anticipate submitting notes from today to the NSC and then they will become part of NSC minutes and will be posted on the website.

51. Comment (Valerie): She will post anything we want on the website which she created. She has a link where people can submit questions and she can connect that to CotC website.

52. Comment (Valerie): Push this process beyond May.