May 27, 2008 Minutes

Emmanuel Lutheran Church
Building Committee Minutes
May 27, 2008 6:30 pm

Present: Shirley Engerbretson, Niklaas Dumroese, Mike Whiteman, Pastor Stewart, Pastor Dawna, Ron Landeck (chair), Tom Brandt, Carolyn Todd

Absent: Tammy Hullin, Garth Sasser, Carolyn Guy, Kurt Olsson, Katie Campbell

Members of Emmanuel: Ben Beard, Kas Dumroese, Shirley Gunther, Dorothy Schnaible, Becky Branson, Dean Vettrus, Phyllis Vettrus, Diana Pals, Jan & Neil Martin

Devotions were led by Pastor Stewart, continuing with the Book of Acts

Bob Dwelle spoke to the committee. He suggests a new approach for a building program that might be financially successful and lead to a feeling of well-being and accomplishment among the congregation. He proposed that the committee consider two phases of the building/renovation program. Phase one would include things that everyone has agreed are necessary such as working with the HVAC system, renovating the kitchen, replacing the tables, putting windows in the sanctuary, and other projects that everyone agrees are priority. Phase two, which would begin after phase one has been accomplished, would consider other items as important, but perhaps merit more discussion. This approach would allow us to raise money in a phased approach, we would feel good about accomplishing something, and we would feel like we’re making progress.

BC thought plan sounded like a good idea, with some questions. Mike suggested that now is the time to visit with a design professional to find out what could be considered for a “phase one” and “phase two.” Ron attempted to determine if it would be helpful to council for the BC to consider routine maintenance items; this appears to be a good idea since committees are low in membership and there is no overall maintenance schedule. Shirley Engerbretson suggested that these are appropriate discussions for the subcommittees.

A motion was attempted to determine a timeline and the abandoned in favor of further discussion. Discussion centered around what exactly would we be asking a consultant to do, how can we determine what items would be in phase one or phase two, what do we do with the information already gathered, and what exactly are we hoping to accomplish. General consensus was that a consultant might help us prioritize so we could reconvene in subcommittees and address the tasks necessary to bring a proposal to council.

Motion (Brandt/Todd)
Building subcommittee groups meet in May, set some priorities
Have architect/consultant meet with whole group (BC & SC ) in June meeting to give us information about process.
Further prioritize; meet with subcommittees and refine priorities
Meet with consultant one more time if necessary
Subcommittees will send recommendations for “phase one” and “phase two” concepts at BC September meeting.
Building committee considers recommendations and sends recommendations to council by one week before October council meeting for annual meeting discussion. PASSED

Schedule meeting of this committee to organize things for June meeting with consultant; we want to pull thoughts together and get subcommittee acts together

Have as much information ready as we can for consultant to look at and understand

Ben: In order to thoughtfully consider proposals, council will need information at least one week prior to the council meeting (third Tuesday of month).

Action necessary in subcommittee; each subcommittee needs to come to BC with specific plans; identify missions, needs, wants.

Carolyn agreed to contact Design West and try to set up an appointment with the architects who have experience in church buildings. We will use some of the $3,000 allocated by the congregation for this.

Concern from Phyllis Vettrus: How are we going to do these things; we don’t seem to have an overall plan of attack? Mike’s response: the designers will lead us through this process, they have a lot of experience, will bring up things we haven’t even thought of.

Committee Reports
· Interior Systems: Vern Kinnison, Neil Martin, Steve Fountain, Garth Sasser, Kas Dumroese, Hugh Maxwell, Dick Harden. Draft minutes for interior systems submitted; Ron asked group to identify phases one and two for architect

· Narthex committee: Carolyn Guy; action item was to look at other churches

· Accessibility subcommittee: Tammy Hullin, Larry Clott, Robbie Giles, Deb Dumroese, Doug Pals; took tour of the building and had a discussion about the legality issues of remodeling and bringing up to code; will have an action plan by next month.

· Music: Niklaas Dumroese, Tom Brandt, Janet Williams, Dean Vettrus, Chris McIntosh; discussed positive aspects of sanctuary, then challenges; realized whatever we (congregation) ends up considering must not preclude future use; recognized & mentioned a number of areas where there will be interaction w/ other subcommittees; accessibility, worship, specific action. Next meeting is reviewing what happened w/sound system and making recommendations.

Brief demographic report about Moscow and Lutheran church (attachment)

Next meeting (depending on consultant): June 24, 6:30 pm. There may be a planning meeting scheduled in between.

Adjourned at 8:50 pm

Some demographic data and websites

The following is brief summary of some demographic data I gathered for the Building Committee. These are all from primary sources.

What’s the future for Moscow? According to the draft comprehensive plan (8/17/07), Moscow is growing at about 1% a year, or very slowly. Growth will depend heavily on the University of Idaho’s enrollment and growth. (visionmoscow.org)

What’s going on with the Lutheran Church nationwide? Membership has declined by 1.62%. Church attendance averages 29.7%; attendance tends to fluctuate between 30 and 31%. (arda.org)

How does the Lutheran church stack up against other denominations in Latah County? 1 – Catholic; 2 – LDS; 3 – Nazarene; 4 – Lutheran (out of 46 total congregations & 19 denominations) (arda.org)

Demographics on Emmanuel Lutheran Church:
Baptized membership, 518 as of 2006, up from 512 in 2000.
Worship Attendance mirrors national trends at 30.9%, with a decline from 39.8% in 2000 (also mirrors national trends), Trinity Lutheran has a higher percentage at 44.1%. However, some of this may be reflected by how recently Trinity cleaned their rolls. Churches who have not cleaned rolls w/in past 5 years reflect a lower percentage of attendance than those who have. (elca.org)

Websites you may find of interest:

Congregational Annual Reports:
http://archive.elca.org/research/trendnet.html

Lutheran membership:
http://habitusnetwork.org/churches-news/lutheran-membership-down-1.6-percent-in-the-us-2.html

Moscow’s draft comprehensive plan:
http://www.visionmoscow.org/Documents/Chapter%201%20%208-17-07.pdf

Church demographic data in general:
http://www.thearda.com/

Minutes, 4/22/08

Building Committee
Minutes
April 21, 2008
5:00 pm

Opened with devotions led by Pr. Dawna.

Ron Landeck amended agenda to include:
Discussion of missions identified in Heart of Emmanuel project
Discussion of the guiding principles of the building committee

Ron’s thoughts: What are the beliefs & understanding of our mission? Bob Baker from Lutherhaven recently completed a major (and successful) capital campaign. He has a powerpoint presentation that has lots of information about trends & church attendance in the United States. Part of understanding our mission is understanding our wider community. Pr. Dawna said all attendance is down in all ministries of mainstream Protestant churches across the country: Sunday School, Bible school, church. Emmanuel needs to figure out what to offer that would be central to a mission in Moscow.

Carolyn Todd will research & provide some demographic data on Moscow & surrounding community before the next meeting.

Questions to consider: How do we develop a vision? The original Heart of Emmanuel study asked people to project 40+ years into the future to see where Emmanuel would be. A vision statement was not constructed after the Heart of Emmanuel meetings.

Kurt Olsson: The Worship committee has to consider many different avenues of worship; a traditional approach and a modern approach. Both need to be respected, embraced. Worship is a rich concept with a diversity of views, all of which have not been tapped. This is a big project.

P. Stewart: How do we broaden that conversation to include as many voices as possible?

Kurt: We need a paragraph on our vision of new & old worship; we need to publish it and discuss it. We need to work to engage everyone. Kurt feels this part of the conversation has not yet occurred.

General discussion, questions raised:
Where are we in the church today as far as people, ie, ages, families v. singles, etc.? We do know a healthy church has a spread of ages. How does our church compare? We really need to look at our building and say, how can this building serve us best as we move into the future? Are we now welcoming to groups that didn’t necessarily participate in church leadership when the building was constructed, ie, women and disabled? Are there other groups we need to consider? The elderly (sound)? Although we need to have a long range plan, we can still talk about specific issues like those listed above.

Ron wants to make sure the youth are considered and their opinions solicited. What do we lack now that will draw and retain a young membership? Maybe we need to think about a new building, with an area for a gym to draw in kids, possibly with a music venue. What kind of worship attracts the youthful members of Moscow? Are we providing it?

Mike Whiteman recommends reading the book “Becoming Lutheran” by Dave Daubert. Daubert discusses many of the issues above, and provides help for building guiding principles. Pr. Dawna has already ordered these.

Announcements:

Meeting structure: monthly meetings with a subcommittee meeting. Building committee meetings will be on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 6:30 pm and will last until 8:30.

Subcommittees: formed to study individual issues in more depth. Subcommittee meetings need to be announced in the bulletin and at announcements at church.

Report from Interior Systems Cmte: Vern Kinnison, Steve Fountain, Neil Martin, Garth Sasser. Looked at each current system, including sound systems, acoustics & lights. Carolyn will forward reports from “team” meetings.

Ron urged everyone to be sure to use the blog, email, etc to keep the process transparent.

Tom suggested every subcommittee pick a mission or two to focus on. Example: the ability currently to invite other people to perform music in our sanctuary space – combine vision and practicality.

Meeting closed with prayer.

Carolyn Todd

Sub-Committees

There are several Sub-Committees that can still be signed up for:

Accessibility-
Includes consideration of persons with disabilities, sound and lighting- Tammy Hullin.


Worship-
Includes consideration of liturgical practices, worship service, pastoral issues, congregational issues- Shirley Engerbretson, Kurt Olsson, Pastors, Synod representative.

Entryway and narthex-
Includes consideration of all uses-Carolyn Guy.


Fellowship Hall and kitchen-
Includes consideration of all uses-Carolyn Todd.

Classrooms, offices and storage-
Includes consideration of all uses-Mike Whiteman, Katie Campbell.


Exterior and grounds-
Includes consideration of building exterior, “green” issues, parking, security, grounds, park- Kim Campbell, Larry Lass, Amy Wolbrecht.

Agenda for April 22 meeting

Emmanuel Building Committee
Proposed Agenda
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
5:00-7:00 p.m. at Emmanuel

[Non-committee members are welcome to attend and participate in discussion of all agenda items]

1. Prayer, Bible Study, and Spritual Dialogue.

2. Timely agenda items:
* Discussion of missions identified in 2006 small groups’ “Heart of Emmanuel”
* Development of Guiding Principles as context of our committee discussion:
– Statement of beliefs/ understanding of mission context.
– Consider means by which we can define and develop mission growth.
– Does present church facility support our missions?
* Discussion of conduct of the business of the building committee, including meeting structure and frequency, use of subcommittees and assignment of tasks to committee members.

3. Consideration of topics/items for future meetings.

4. Discussion of upcoming agenda, prerequisites for committee to meet in executive session and means of continuing dialogue with congregation.

5. Prayer and Adjourn.

Sanctuary Effects on Music

The following list was compiled by Tom Brandt of the Building committee and Music sub-committee.



How music ministry is affected at Emmanuel Lutheran Church

In the Heart of Emmanuel Ministries survey of the congregation, the number one concern, by far, was for better space for music, drama and worship. Below is a comparison of where our sanctuary works well in its current configuration and where it does not. Unless specified otherwise, I will refer to the area between the front of the organ screen and the altar rail as the “music area”.



Acoustics

Good: The acoustics from in front of the organ screen are quite good.

Poor: The acoustics from just about everywhere else in the Sanctuary are quite poor. There are many acoustical “dead spots” in the sanctuary. The sections on either side of the pulpit (where the choir and bell choir frequently perform) are some of the worst places.
Sight lines
Good: There are a few good sight lines from the pews. Circular seating allows congregation members to see some other members. The altar is at the center of the sanctuary.

Poor: From a choir/music perspective, most sight lines are poor in the sanctuary. The raised, solid altar blocks the view from the center aisle to anything in the organ/pulpit area. If the choir stands around the pulpit to sing, or attempts to sing from the entrance way (such as for an introit), it is difficult for the organist and choir director to see each other. Sightlines across the sanctuary from all locations are also blocked. Congregants cannot fully enjoy the visinal aspects of the bell choir, for example. When solo musicians participate in the service, there is not a good place for them to stand. The oversized pulpit blocks almost all views of the organ and music area from everywhere in the sanctuary.

Organ (pipes)

Good: The organ is situated in the best acoustical position in the sanctuary.

Poor: Phase 2 of the organ rebuild will require that the current organ screen be bumped out approx. 6 feet from its current position into the music area. This area is already cramped. If the organ rebuild is undertaken, there will not be room for the bell choir or choir in the music area behind the pulpit.

Organ console

Good: The organ console is currently placed so that the organist can clearly hear the organ (a must). The organ console can have some flexibility in its placement.

Poor: The organ console can not be moved significantly from its current location because of the pulpit and the steps leading to the choir/bells position. As mentioned earlier, the lack of flexibility in the position of the organ console means that the organist can have trouble seeing the choir director.

Pulpit

Good: The large pulpit is high enough so that a reader can be seen over the altar by the congregation.

Poor: The height and width of the pulpit currently impede just about every aspect of worship music. Also, the fact that the pulpit is immovable drastically restricts all activities in that area of the sanctuary.

Steps

Good: Raises, to a degree, people above the altar and the pulpit.

Poor: The steps around the altar and in the music area break up the available floor space and are cumbersome to negotiate. For example only tables with telescoping legs can be used for the handbells. The legs must be extended or collapsed to move the tables making set up and take down much more time consuming. The steps also restrict the placement of things such as the organ console, piano and handbell tables. In addition, they are not ADA compliant and limit, or prevent, access to the music area and the altar to the disabled.

Drama

Poor: Dramatic offerings are essentially impossible in the current configuration of the altar and music areas.

Risers

Good: We have a small set of risers that can be placed in front of the pulpit or in front of the organ screen.

Poor: If the risers are placed in front of the pulpit, access to the altar area from behind is essentially eliminated. Placing the risers behind the pulpit does little to increase visibility of the performers because the risers are not high enough to overcome the height of the pulpit, the stairs up to the organ screen are in the way. Also the bell tables would have to be moved to accommodate the use of risers in the area behind the pulpit.

Bell choirs

Good: The bell choir just fits into the optimal acoustic area of the music area.

Poor: Expansion of the bell choirs is impossible. There is no additional room for more bells or tables. Currently, there is very little room for additional musicians like brass, singers, etc. Access to the bell tables during the service is limited. During Advent and at Easter, the bell tables must be moved to the section of pews east of the music area in order to make room for the Christmas tree, the choir and other instruments. This area of the sanctuary is extremely poor acoustically. In addition, the tables must be raised above recommended playing height to clear the pew backs.

Singing choirs

Good: The choir can usually fit into the music area when no other groups are also performing.

Poor: When the bell tables are up (3/4 of the year), The space in front of the organ screen for the choir is very limited. Also even when the bell tables are not up, the choir must either sit behind the pulpit, isolated from the service, or must get up and walk to the music space from the pews. This can disrupt the flow of the service. It makes the choir seem more like a “performance” and less like part of the worship. When the choir has to sing from the pews on either side of the music area, the acoustics are very bad. The limited space behind the pulpit means that the choir and the bell choir can not participate in worship together very easily.

Outside concerts or other events

Poor: Because there is no performance space and the inflexibility of the configuration of the sanctuary, it is essentially impossible to hold any concert or musical activity involving outside groups. Activities could include recitals, concerts by the Idaho Washington Concert Chorale or Tapestry, etc.

March 18th Meeting Agenda.

[Non-committee members are welcome to attend and participate in discussion of all agenda items]

1. Prayer, Bible Study, and Spritual Dialogue.

2. Develop Emmanuel timeline for use in establishing perspective as to where we have been and where we are going. [This agenda item will commence when Duane LeTourneau and Dean Vettrus arrive which is expected to be at 6:10 p.m.].

* Duane LeTourneau and Dean Vettrus to share background of present building, including origins, hurdles overcome, process (identification of needs and wants), design and implementation.
* Honor that process and result.

3. Timely agenda items:
* Discussion of missions identified in 2006 small groups’ “Heart of Emmanuel”
* Development of Guiding Principles as context of our committee discussion:
– Statement of beliefs/ understanding of mission context.
– Consider means by which we can define and develop mission growth.
– Does present church facility support our missions?
* Discussion of conduct of the business of the building committee, including meeting structure and frequency, use of subcommittees and assignment of tasks to committee members.

4. Consideration of topics/items for future meetings.

5. Discussion of upcoming agenda, prerequisites for committee to meet in executive session and means of continuing dialogue with congregation.

6. Prayer and Adjourn.