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
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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/
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/
Thursday, May 22, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)