|
Town Hall Q&A
A town hall meeting was held on June 7, 2009 to discuss an expansion and capital funding project. Attendees were asked to submit questions which would be answered on our web site. If you did not attend the meeting click here to see the slides that were presented. The questions here are composites of those submitted.
Q: Have we considered other options for Sunday morning community meeting space, eg, merging classes, using Union High School, meeting at times other than, or in addition to, 9:15 and 11:00?
All of these have been examined. None have proved viable. There is a high demand for meeting space at the "prime" hours, with the space being connected to the main facility. There is little demand for other scenarios.
Q: At one time, we were going to build out the vacated youth area. Have we considered finishing that space?
Two very nice, large classrooms were created out of space vacated by the youth when they moved to Venue 68.
Q: Have we considered combining 9:15 and “Open House Worship” to free up the CLC?
No. This would not be a popular move. Nor would it solve the problem with meeting space since such space needs to be "permanent" classroom construction. That is not possible in the CLC because the space is used for many other functions.
Q: What will the new classroom space look like?
Current plans vary from 6 to 10 rooms constructed similar to current classrooms.
Q: How much is saved by using the existing slab for adult classrooms? Of the $1 million building expansion, how much is the shell, how much is the interior? If we choose to build classrooms via the master plan in the future, can the gym be converted back to the original intent?
We have not priced the slab since it already exists. The slab cost is not the primary reason for proposing to extend the gym shell. It is proposed because it will work well operationally and because it is much less expensive than extending the adult wing to the east. Cost breakdowns are not yet available but it is estimated that the interior construction will be about 25% of the total. At some later point the interior rooms can be removed and the space used for other purposes such as a gym.
Q: Have we considered adding classrooms at the CLC expansion for the same cost?
We have not studied this option. We will look at it to see if it offers advantages compared to the current proposal.
Q: Can we build the expansion on our north property to keep us more flexible?
It is possible. However, it would be more expensive due to the basic development work that would have to be done. Also, there is some convenience in having the space attached to the main facility.
Q: Is our current structure engineered to add additional stories (3rd and 4th) to our building?
No.
Q: Can we make the Adult Expansion (gym slab) two stories?
The extension of the shell will be full height. It is possible to build two floors in that space but the costs go up substantially. That is why the proposal calls for one story. If it became clear that we needed the space provided by two stories it would probably be best to take the more expensive option and build onto our existing adult classroom wing.
Q: Is the current gym being used now? Is Upwards Basketball still a priority? Does this decision put at risk our gym growth? Does this decision put at risk our walking track?
The gym is being used for Upward Basketball as well as other miscellaneous recreation activities. Upwards Basketball is still a priority. We will continue to have our current gym for such activities. The current proposal does not preclude the eventual construction of the walking track.
Q: What ministry or outreach opportunities would not happen if the 2nd gym is not built?
There are no plans for use of a second gym. If a second gym did exist we might expand Upward Basketball. But the absence of another gym does not materially impact our ministry work.
Q: Have we considered a parking garage? Why can’t we use the 600+ spaces at union instead of building more parking? Has a conveyer walkway system (like in airports) been considered to move people from remote parking areas?
A parking garage has been considered more than once in the past. But the cost is about eight times the cost of ground-level parking. The union spaces have always been available. But in spite of multiple invitations it is not heavily used. As part of the overall parking solution we will again promote its use. Conveyor systems are very expensive and have therefore not been seriously considered.
Q: Is the “permanent fund” for maintenance going to be an investment type fund that will “self-generate” interest to help offset maintenance expenses?
Even though it is not part of the immediate project, we hope to establish a permanent fund for capital expenditures. The idea is that earnings from that fund would augment our other capital funding.
Q: When will MP pledges be complete?
We expect most of the MP pledges to be paid within 2009 but a number of people have indicated they will be paying into 2010.
Q: Why do we think someone that did not give to MP would give to something else? Of the 1700 families who did not participate in MP, how many are active participants?
The financial and spiritual perspectives of individuals change with time, as does the perspective of Asbury as a church home. Our hope is that a significant number of our people will be inclined and able to help with this project. It is hard to determine whether a person is active because not everyone registers their attendance or their service. So that is a difficult question to answer.
Q: When will our current long-term debt be paid off? How much would be saved in interest by paying the $1 mil in 2011?
Our current schedule has the debt paid off in 2017. Paying off the $1 mil will save approx $57,000 per year in interest.
Q: How accurate are the cost estimates?
At this point, we have only estimates. We believe them to be close enough for effective planning.
Q: Can the pledges be for expansion only and not debt reduction? If we don’t raise the $3.6 mil, what then? Would pledges be allotted on a percentage basis to each component?
In campaigns like this it is not common to allow specific designation. However, our intent for this project is to allow a gift to be designated only to debt or only to construction. Undesignated gifts will be considered for the project as a whole. If the total project price is not matched by pledges it has not yet been decided what priority will be assigned.
Q: Why build now?
Our needs are now. Additional meeting space has been needed for several years. Also, we have no other capital project underway.
Q: If we leave the UMC, are we planning financially for the re-purchase of this property?
Should it become necessary to leave the UMC, there is no way to predict the circumstances that would face us at that time. We are not planning for any repurchase.
Q: Are there new and viable strategies for increasing the percentage of donating members?
Yes. Asbury's Objective 6, which is the one calling for members of Asbury to tithe, has been the subject of strategic thinking since the beginning of 2008. Several things have already been implemented, e.g., Crown Financial courses.
Q: Have we considered having a line item on the annual pledge card related to capital expenditures?
This approach has been considered several times in past years. For various reasons Asbury has decided, so far, to separate pledges to the operating budget from those for the capital budget.
Q: Have we planned for additional maintenance staff for the additional space?
The additional space will not be significant enough to require additional maintenance staff.
Q: Why was “In His Steps” terminated?
We discovered that this method of obtaining volunteers was not producing results commensurate with the effort required.
Q: What are some of the ways you are considering solving the worship, community service conflict?
Tom and the other pastors will be talking about this issue more than they have in the past. Communities will be encouraged to make service commitments as a community. Parents who make use of the children's ministry will be asked to volunteer there also. More ideas will develop as this problem receives more attention.
Q: Is this the end of the building programs at Asbury? Have we considered growing the church through church planting?
Asbury will likely build again. We have a master plan that needs to be completed, at least approximately, in order to maximize the original building that we did. Church planting or satellite churches have both been discussed in planning sessions. Those idea have not been ruled out for future opportunities.
|
