March 17, 2011

Present:  David and Carol Willey, Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Phil, Tanya and Bryon Hensch, Dick Gyllstrom, Susan Thompson, Muriel and Vern Foster, Jim Olson, Sandi Thorson, Connie Hanyzewski, Chris and Morris Maudal, Dick Hagemeister, Le Boyer, Floyd and Nellda Lehne, Diane and Perry Weeks, Lowell Wilcox, Mick Baumann, Rick Bladow, Chuck Erickson, Amy Drake and Duane Hanson.  Recording person:  Lynn Melchior 

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  Dave Willey began the meeting with an apology for not having a BPC meeting in a while and bringing everyone up to date.  Four documents with BPC status were distributed via email to the members prior to the meeting.  Dave highlighted the estimated construction costs.  To do the all the projects (education, administration, sanctuary and geothermal), the retail costs would be $940,000 to $950,000.  If Zion used volunteer labor for the education project, the savings would be approx $120,000 to $130,000.  In earlier communications, an estimate of $1.1 Million was given.  This figure was generated by a rule of thumb whereas the new estimate is based on bids.    

The meeting continued with a discussion of issues, questions and concerns.  

Q:  A comment was made via the comment sheet in the Narthex “do what needs to be done and forget the rest”.  How do we define “need”?  The potential dollars to be raised is a range of $500,000 to $700,000.  Is this a vote on what is needed?  It is higher than the required maintenance.  Geothermal payback was also discussed and the savings it can create.  It was noted that converting to Geothermal can save up to half of the electric bill.  However, in Zion’s case, since new space is being added, the heating expense may not go down but stay the same…i.e. although heating will be cheaper, there is more space to heat.  

Q:  What does the volunteer labor entail?  All skilled labor (electricians, plumbers, etc) will be contracted.  Volunteer labor would be used for framing the education project, removing the second floor, painting, trim work, etc. 

Q:  A comment was heard from the congregation about “Why do they think they need to do the project?”  BPC agreed that they did not want to push any part of the project on the congregation but also realized that not every member of the congregation will agree with the project.  There will always be a vocal minority who disagree.  One thing that BPC does have going for them is the support of the council.  It was suggested that questions could be posed in the monthly newsletter that allowed members to raise concerns privately.   

Q:  The Feasibility Study raised a concern of making the new space ‘multi-purpose’.  It was noted that the entire education wing is designed to be ‘multi-purpose’.  When not being used for Sunday school, the new education wing can be used for confirmation, Bible Study, committee meetings, fellowship overflow, funerals, weddings and other activities. 

Q: What is the best way to satisfy the Worship and Music needs?  After the estimates came in on the sanctuary project, the sanctuary project was expensive for the amount of space gained.  Three alternatives were discussed: expanding out in between the kitchen and sanctuary, adding 15’ on to the educational wing and utilizing the current space differently.   

The first option expanding to the North between the kitchen and sanctuary would create a room approximately 20’ x 30’ (600 square feet).  This would provide space needed for the sacristy, altar guild and choir storage.  It would also help resolve roof problems over the old sanctuary.  Entry into the sanctuary could be thru the area where the ushers currently sit.  Expansion of additional seating in the sanctuary would still be possible in the future by adding wings to the West and East of the sanctuary.  It was thought that the additional seating in the sanctuary is a lower priority that could wait.  When talking about priorities, one member cautioned that if you don’t do it all now, in 5 years we will need to do this process over again.   A question was raised if additional seating could be gained if the possible new room was expanded to the end of the whole sanctuary.  A concern was raised as to the feasibility of expanding at all between the kitchen and sanctuary since the roofs of the adjoining walls are at different heights.  

The second option discussed was expanding the education wing 15’ to the west.  The first 15’ of the space would then be devoted to the worship and music needs.  This is a less expensive solution but it does pose more logistical issues for the worship and music teams.   

The third option was to make different use of our current space.  Pr Jim’s office would become the music/robe, altar guild room, the current church office would become the nurses’ office and the nurses’ office in the administration wing would become the sacristy.  The library would expand into the current hallway.   

It was determined that alternatives that were easier and less expensive needed to be looked into.  The construction group will be looking into the alternatives over the next month.   

Q: What are we voting on at the March 27^th congregational meeting?  Is it the actual building project?  The vote on March 27^th will be on hiring Mark Davy & Associates (MDA) to do the capital campaign.  The wording of the vote is: “We ask the congregation to authorize $25,500 to engage Mark Davy & Associates for the capital campaign.  The capital raised from this campaign is projected but not guaranteed by Mark Davy & Associates to be from $500,000 to $700,000.  The proceeds of the capital campaign would be used to fund the proposed building vision pending further approval of the congregation.”  The way the announcement was worded led some members to believe that the vote was on the actual building project.  This Sunday’s bulletin also indicates what the upcoming vote is on. 

Q: Why vote at all if the building project is not approved?  After the Feasibility Study results indicated a large range of potential contributions, it was determined that in good fiduciary responsibility, Zion needed more specifics on how much money would be raised.  This would be done via a capital campaign.  The vote on March 27^th is a confirmation of the building vision and it allows Zion to raise money for that vision.  It also allows us to determine what projects can be done with the money raised.  Plus, banks are more willing to loan to congregations with identified pledges. 

Q:  Where is the money going to come from for MDA’s $25,500 fee?  The fee can be made over a period of 4 to 6 months, depending how the contract is made.  The monthly payments would be made thru reserves and upfront giving.  One characteristic of the congregation is that it tends to operate without reserves.  The Ad Hoc Funding Committee will look into this question. 

Q:  Does the congregation need to vote on the Architect’s fee also?  Yes, since the amount is greater than $10,000, a congregational vote will need to be taken.  The architects’ fee is estimated to be $30,000 with a $6,000 to $10,000 upfront.   

Q: Should we incorporate the Architect’s fee into the March 27^th vote?  It was felt that this would be better off being a separate vote.  It was stated that the March 27^th vote relates to the vision of the project rather than the specifics.  Several more votes will be needed by the congregation including one to determine the size of any residual mortgage.   

Q: Can the volunteer aspect of the proposed project be incorporated into the capital campaign?  It was thought so but needs to be clarified with MDA.  Either way, the congregation needs to be poled regarding its willingness to volunteer labor for the education project.  Zion certainly has a ‘can do’ attitude but the question will be if the energy is available for the volunteer work.   

Q: Why are we hiring an outside group to do the fundraising?  Zion will be hiring skilled help from outside to do the electrical, concrete, plumbing, etc work and hiring fundraising skills is no different.  It will also help us keep out of trouble.  Consultants are also often a target for when things go wrong. In the 1994 building project, the fundraising was done in house, however the congregation is much larger as is the project.  It was felt that this fundraising is too large for Zion to do in house.  Plus, MDA works with Zion for the 3-year commitment time period.  We do not know the actual results of the Feasibility Study response to dollar commitments as this information is confidential.  However, the dollar amount potential is based on more than the Feasibility Study results – the number is a accumulation of additional information like response rate, known negatives, and answers to other questions.  Determining potential fundraising dollars is more of an art than just crunching numbers.     

The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. 

March 3, 2011

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  Approx. 40 people attended the open meeting.  Dave Willey introduced our guest speaker: Greg Swan from Mark Davy & Associates (MDA).  Greg related the findings of the feasibility study MDA completed for Zion.   

Greg indicated that there are two versions of the report:  Summary and Complete version.  Greg reviewed the Summary Report.  The Complete version had additional single comments and the forms used.  Greg also noted that the feasibility study is the current perception of the congregation – and that perceptions may not always be true. 

113 households (of 226 total) participated in the study.  This is over half the households in the congregation.  This is a very good response rate.  Greg walked thru each question asked in the study and highlighted the main responses.  He pointed out a few comments:

1.    The education space needs to multipurpose.

2.    Good leaders may not be on the list.

3.    People may need more information to consider a donation.

4.    Based on the survey, MDA believes Zion has the potential to raise between $500,000 and $700,000 over a 3 year capital campaign.

5.    The estimate is based on MDA’s 20 years of experience – taking into account past giving, response rate, study results, etc. In their experience Sunday giving also increases during a capital campaign.

6.    MDA was not sure how to factor in summer people.  20% of those participating in the study were inactive members.   

The following questions were raised:

1.    Does it cost more to do a phased approach?  In general, yes.  However, Greg related a story of a church that had only enough money to frame in the new building – which was completed two years later when the money was available.  Sometimes construction has to do with what money is available. A prioritized approach to building was discussed.  Raise X dollars and this is done, raise more money and something else can be done, etc.

2.    Why should Zion retain MDA for the capital campaign?  Greg answered by saying that a professional team would raise more money than fundraising in house, has step by step experience and the cost is minimal when compared to the amount raised doing it on your own.  MDA would work with Zion during the capital campaign (3 to 4 months) and then for 2 ½ to 3 years following the campaign to keep the momentum going and pledges fulfilled. MDA’s history is that 95 to 103% of the pledges are fulfilled.

3.    Did everyone answer all the questions?  No.

4.    Could a construction loan be paid back with donations?  10 to 15% of the pledges will come in at the beginning.  Various methods of paying the construction loan were discussed.

5.    A mortgage was discussed – what balance does Zion feel comfortable with?  Will a second campaign to reduce debt be necessary? 

Greg sited one important step:  Communication.  Before the capital campaign, the congregation needs to be educated on what the project specifics are, how it is to be paid for, etc.  This education process can take a minimum of 3 to 4 months.  Greg compared the lack of education on the project to not de-icing a plane just before taking off.  One way to start the communication and education is to provide the study results to the congregation and send out a letter to the congregation.  This letter would thank everyone for their participation and discuss what we learned as well as try and answer the top 12 or so questions.  Greg also warned of difficulties if the construction began prior to the capital campaign.  People may see the construction and think they have all the money they need and thus making it hard to raise the required funds.    

Greg recognized that this was a lot of information and that Zion should feel free to call him with questions.  The survey results have been posted on the website and are available in the office.  The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 

November 10, 2010 

Present:  David Willey, Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Phil, Tanya Hensch, Dick Gyllstrom, Susan Thompson, Muriel and Vern Foster, Jim Olson, Art Johnson, Dan Thorson, Larry Mikkelson.  Recording person:  Lynn Melchior 

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  Dave Willey introduced our guest speaker: Greg Swan from Mark Davies & Associates (MDA).  Greg has been with MDA for 20 years and recently helped the Catholic Church in Battle Lake with their fundraising campaign. 

Greg recommended that Zion complete a ‘feasibility study’.  The feasibility study determines if the proposed project is attainable.  “The purpose of the feasibility study is to determine the readiness of a church to conduct a capital campaign by assessing the following factors:  awareness of the leadership’s plan of the future, the importance of that plan, strengths of the church, areas of concern, available volunteer support for a fundraising effort and financial capability of the church.” (MDA Proposal, Zion Lutheran Church of Amor)  The feasibility study seeks input from members, summer members and visiting ‘members’.  The questions in the feasibility study seek to find out how informed the members are, how important in their life and for the faith community the proposed changes are, whether or not the person would consider a gift of money, who they see as leaders and if they would volunteer for the project.  It also asks for the best way to communicate with the participant and if they are interested in estate planning.  The project is not done by consensus (like the Edsel).  Greg proposed that “If you ask for advice, you get money but if you ask for money, you get advice”.  One end result of the feasibility study is a dollar amount that can be raised (+/- 5%).  This is an important knowledge.  Greg related how it used to be that you went and looked for houses first, then went to the bank for the loan.  Today, you first get qualified for a certain range of houses before you look.  It was thought that details of the current plan should be held until after the feasibility study.   

The feasibility study has three parts:

1.    Interviews. A vision statement of the proposed project and a questionnaire are used in the interviews. Approximately 125 giving units are interviewed over 2 to 3 days.  The interviews are done in ½ hour slots and can be done by phone.  These questions are not done in a group meeting to facilitate sharing.

2.    Surveys.  The same vision statement and questionnaire are used in the surveys. This includes the people who are not interviewed.  This is especially helpful where snow birds are concerned.

3.     Report.  This document contains the answers from the questions asked in the interviews and surveys.   The respondents of the interviews and surveys are also receiving the answers to the questions.    

The whole process takes approximately 6 weeks.  (Between Dec 15 and Jan 10^th is not a good time.)  MDA does the work, while Zion approves of everything that is sent out.  The cost of the feasibility study is $4,500 – all inclusive.  (See MDA proposal for details.)  If Zion chooses to do the next step with MDA, then the feasibility study fee is deducted from the campaign fee.  The feasibility study identifies the need and thoughtfully writes how the need can be fulfilled.  A major part of the 3 year capital funding campaign is communication.  Education is also an important part of the campaign.  The campaign takes 4 months. 

A question was raised as to why 3 years.  Using 5 years, people loose enthusiasm – the fallout rate is 35%.  The economy can also shift in 5 years.  One year is too short to make sacrificial gifts.  The vision statement is revised with the information gained from the feasibility study and includes an estimate of the construction and maintenance. 

The capital campaign has three phases:

1.     Leadership Recruitment and Education.  Five committees are formed during this phase: 

a.    Campaign Chairs – Work with MDA to execute and oversee volunteers. Also approve campaign materials.

b.    Education and PR Committee – educate and communicate with the congregation thru a wide variety of materials.  Sample postcards, brochures and letters were provided.

c.     Gifting Committee – coordinate and implement the process of gifting.  No actual asking is done by these members rather they deliver and pick up sealed envelopes. 

d.    Prayer Committee – allows members who are not able to give financially to still give to the campaign using prayer. 

e.    Youth Committee – allows the youth of Zion to get involved, be generous and take ownership.

2.     Gifting.  This is not seen as a major gift campaign but a equal sacrifice campaign.  A leadership night is planned to start off the event and thank Zion’s leadership.  65 – 72% of the pledge cards are returned in two Sundays.  95 to 103% of the pledges are turned into dollars.  The guideline used is that the capital campaign is over and above regular annual response giving. 

3.    Follow-up.  MDA would still be involved with Zion for three years after the campaign.  A follow up committee is created to assist in keeping track of pledges, planned giving and follow up on issues. 

The capital campaign costs $30,000 with additional costs for printing and postage.  This additional cost is approximately $2,000.  A good time for Zion to do the capital campaign is during the summer months.  The feasibility study has a ‘shelf life’ of 6 months.  Two to three months in between the feasibility study and the campaign is normal.  A possible time line for Zion may be:

        Study                                 Feb/March

        Congregational Meeting             April

        Campaign                          May - August 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 

November 4, 2010 

Present:  David Willey, Dick Hagemeister, Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Phil, Tanya and Byron Hensch, Dick Gyllstrom, Susan Thompson, Le Boyer, Karen Frederick, Keith Fleischauer, Stuart Fleischauer, Vern Foster, Chris Maudal and Lowell Wilcox.  Recording person:  Lynn Melchior 

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  Dave Willey introduced our guest speakers for the first part of the meeting.  Stan Simon, of Simon Engineering, Dan Husted, VP, Communications and Customer Service for Lake Region Electric Co-op and Steve Haiby, Energy Services Supervisor, Lake Region Electric Co-op.   

Stan Simon began by presenting a summary of his findings of the Energy Audit.  Zion has two copies of the full report. One will be reviewed by various individuals in BPC and one will be located in the office.  The slideshow covered the following points:

·        Survey of Existing Building – The older walls are framed studs with some internal insulation plus added sheathing.  The 1995 addition appears to be well insulated with modern windows.

·        Current Energy Usage  - is 35,500 btu/sq ft.  This is slightly better than typical church buildings which average 46,000 btu/sq ft.

·        Operations and Maintenance Procedures - Operating personnel should review monthly utility bills.  Take monthly readings of gas tanks and electrical meters.  Compare to monthly heating or cooling degree days for weather adjustment.  Inspect weather stripping at doors and windows.  Install attic bypasses of conduits, vent pipes, etc.  Caulk envelope interior and exterior.  Verify operation of exhaust fan dampers-check to see that they close when fan shuts off.

·        Energy Cost Reduction measures – Stan listed 9 energy cost reduction measures that could be taken at Zion.  They ranged from 1.1 to 25 years in payback and $80 to $104,200 in cost.  The top three reduction measures were:  Add photocell and motion detector for outside lighting for a cost of $342 and a 1.1-year payback.  The second measure was programmable thermostat for HVAC units at a cost of $1,349 and payback of 3.1 years.  Some programmable thermostats can be controlled via the phone system.  The third measure was to replace incandescent exit lights with LED lights for a cost of $160 and a payback of 3.2 years.  A complete list can be found in the copy of the presentation in the church office.  (An electronic copy of the presentation was requested and will be sent out as soon as it is received.)

·        Conclusions – Strongly consider paybacks if less than five years.  If longer than five years, we should have another reason to address the issue.  IE if it is not broke, do not fix it unless equipment is reaching the end of its expected lifetime.  Consider health and safety needs such as ventilation. 

Dan Husted presented the second portion of the presentation.  Dan reported that Great River Energy has an Energy Efficient Equipment Loan Program.  Great River Energy is Lake Region Electric Co-op’s electricity provider.  The loans are available for high efficiency HVAC systems and heat recovery ventilation systems. The loans are made up to $350,000 per project and require 10 to 20% equity.  The interest rate is as low as 0% based on energy savings.  The loans cannot be used for lighting, building materials and for items with a payback of less than 5 years.  The loan term is determined by the eligible costs, energy savings and cost payback calculation.  GRE loan committee will determine final loan conditions. 

Dan Husted and Stan Simon also discussed Zion’s under slab duct system.  The construction industry stopped using under slab duct systems many years ago due to three reasons:  Asbestos fibers encased in concrete, possible mold and bacterial growth in the pipes and a need for higher airflow.  Under slab duct systems were used in the fellowship, old sanctuary and sanctuary areas.  It is hard to tell what risk of mold Zion has in the duct systems, but it is something to keep in mind that the system could be capped off and new duct system installed.   

The following questions were raised after the presentation:

        Q: What is the overall opinion of the building?

        A:  It is typical for its age; although it does not meet current codes (and

 does not have to until construction), it is not decrepit.  There is

 room for improvements.   

        Q: What is your opinion of motion detector lights indoors? 

A: The motion detector lights work best in areas that are not used

continually like an office.  Bathrooms are one possible place for these lights.  Timers were discussed. 

Q:  Bringing Zion’s building up to code will cost a fair amount money? 

A:  Bringing Zion’s building up to code is required only if construction happens.  It is important to talk to people who are familiar in dealing with these issues.  It was felt that an engineer and contractor would have to work together to review the overall performance of the system.   

Q:  Were thermal scans done during the energy audit?

A:  No. 

Q:  What are your thoughts of the old sanctuary roof?

A:  The roof needs to have a vent to let heat out of the shingles during the summer.  This will lengthen the life of the shingles. 

Q: Zion’s soil was tested and found to be sandy.  Does this effect geothermal installation?

A: The sandy soil may be best suited to vertical bores.  However that decision would be made once the cost/ton is made.  A conservative estimate for Zion would be $1,700 per ton at 40 ton.   

Q: Does this cost estimate ($1,700 per ton at 40 ton=$68,000) for geothermal include the needs to convert the current areas?

A: The estimate only speaks to the cost of the geothermal installation.  The estimate listed in Stan Simon’s report is more accurate estimation of the total package ($104,200).   

The second portion of the meeting was presented by Dick Hagemeister.  Dick reviewed the most current plan and thought it was the closest BPC would get without getting into tiny details.  The following were called out as changes:

·        The bathroom and storage areas were swapped in the Education area to allow for future expansion to the west.

·        The unisex bathroom does not have a door to the woman’s restroom and has a shower.

·        A second door was added to the Apse.

The storm shelter was discussed and possible locations were the Apse and one Education room (location TBD).  Items still to be decided are the ‘little’ bathroom in the Education area and line of sight to the front door for the secretaries.   

Dave Willey hopes to have the following available in the Narthex for the congregations review around Thanksgiving:

·        A full sized copy of the plans

·        A one page description of what work has been done

·        A ball park estimate

·        A physical model (courtesy of Dick Hagemeister)

The purpose of the display is to elicit feedback from the congregation at large on BPC’s vision for the building.  Plans and estimates can also be distributed via email.  NOTE:  the plans will be much smaller via email.   

The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 

October 21, 2010

Present:  David Willey, Dick Hagemeister, Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Phil, Tanya and Byron Hensch, Dick Gyllstrom, Susan Thompson, Le Boyer, Chuck Erickson, Pat Garza, Karen Frederick, Keith Fleischauer, Stuart Fleischauer, Muriel and Vern Foster, Connie Hanyzewski, Sandi Thorson.  Recording person:  Lynn Melchior 

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  The latest concept from Dick Hagemeister was reviewed.  It was noted that this is a living document that will change over time.  The question was raised: does the current plan meet the functions that were called out as needs by the congregation?  The committee unanimously agreed that it does.  It was also agreed that Dick H. did a good job with all the plans. 

Below are some of the comments heard during the review:

·        Where will the storm shelter be? Options discussed were: Sunday School Storage, bathrooms, a lower level area near administration, and apse.

·        Where is the shower?  Zion was approached by the Red Cross at one time to be an emergency shelter in case of disaster.  A shower is one thing that was needed to be considered an emergency shelter.

·        How does the plan take into account future expansion?

·        Does the education wing need a ‘little potty’?  Is the ‘little potty’ needed for the future possibility of a preschool?

·        Remove the door between unisex bathroom and woman’s bathroom.

·        Bathroom doors are best thought to open out.

·        Is the library okay with its proposed size?

·        Do we have enough storage?

·        The plan allows for a phased approach.  Priorities TBD.

·        The current SS area roof has new leaks and required 5 patches. 

The next steps for the BPC were discussed.  The next steps are a two pronged approach.  The first one identified is to research funding.  Dave W mentioned a source of outside help; Mark Davy & Associates.  It was a source the Catholic Church in Battle Lake used.  An email was sent to each committee member with their brochures.   

The second step is to add specifics to the plans and verify the legal dos and don’ts.  Design build vs architects were discussed.  It was believed an architect would be a fee of 8%.  It was also determined that Gary Johnson, who presented Mission Builders, needs to be consulted.  Gary J will be back at Zion in Mid-November.   

Dick H. offered to continue to work on the plans and Dave W. will work on getting rough estimates for each area.  Getting estimates for each area allows for a presentation of a phased approach and for the congregation to determine which areas to proceed with.  Note:  these estimates are not bids.   

It was also discussed that the plans and construction project need to be presented to the congregation.  This will require drawings, models and rough estimates.  These are thought to be informational meetings, temple talks, and articles in the Tidings and the Zion website. 

The energy audit is ready to be presented.  We are hoping to have the presentation Nov 4^th.  Simon Engineering will be presenting and Lake Region Electric will be present.  

It is hoped that Mark Davy & Associates can present to BPC on Nov 18^th.  (The BPC members thought it was appropriate to now start meeting every two weeks.) 

Finally, a 2011 budget for BPC was discussed.  If the project is to move forward expenses will be incurred.  The difficulty will be identifying what expenses and how much they are for 2011.  

The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 

September 30, 2010

Present:  David Willey, Dick Hagemeister, Marilyn Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Phil, Tanya Hensch, Amy Drake, Dick Gyllstrom, Susan Thompson, Le Boyer, Chuck Erickson, Pat Garza, Chris Maudal, Karen Frederick, Keith Fleischauer.  Recording person:  Lynn Melchior 

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  Dick Hagemeister led the meeting reviewing building concept C1.  Specifically, the changes to the administrative area were discussed.  The education area in concept C was thought to not need any additional modifications at this time – with the exception of the switch of the 5^th & 6^th grade classroom and storage room. 

Below are some of the comments heard during the review:

·        Does the reception area need seating? 

·        Should the secretaries have line of site to the front doors?

·        If so, where do we find enough coat storage? (It was proposed that the reception door be in the current narthex. A coat room could then be created out of the area east of the men’s bathroom.)

·        Do the current plans have enough storage?

·        Could the mechanical space for the administration area be located upstairs of the current intern pastor’s office? (Keith F. will look into this option.)

·        Are two doors needed in the Apse?

·        Is the work area in the administration area large enough?

·        Is the nurses/Volunteer Coordinator’s office too large?

·        Is the conference room too small? (Moving mechanicals for Admin area would allow for larger conference room.)

·        The apse area is slightly smaller than in Concept C.

·        Where will the storm shelter be? Options discussed were: Sunday School Storage, bathrooms, a lower level area near administration, and apse 

Current estimates for additional sq footage are:

                Education:                  2,520

                Administration:           1,410

                Apse:                           955

                        Total                 4,885 

In the second half of the meeting, Dave Willey reviewed a hand out that covered costs estimates for four projects: education, administration, apse and current facility.  Please note that these estimates are wild xxx guesses’.   

The important drivers of the estimates are the $120 sq ft for new construction and $50 for remodeling.  Note that these estimates are for conventional heating and not geothermal.  Also geothermal heating is specifically called out in the listing of expenses.  Keith F. will be working on an estimate for geothermal for all projects.  It appears that separate well fields will be needed for each installation.  The horizontal drill method will not work at Zion due to the sandy ground. In-floor heating was discussed for the education wing and possibly the administration areas.  The energy audit has been completed but still has to be reported. 

The following costs were identified as not being in the handout:

·        Relighting the old sanctuary (currently fellowship hall)

·        Electrical upgrades

·        Parking lot improvements

·        Millwork/built-ins/cupboards/counters

·        Storm shelter

·        Fundraising

·        Contingency

·        Moving red shed

·        ‘Architectural’ fees 

The following items were noted as not being on the building plan but needed to be:

·        Vault

·        Storm shelter

·        Nursery – currently thought to be in the old sacristy

·        Switch of the education storage and 5^th & 6^th grade classroom

·        Coat room

·        Reception door in narthex

·        Unisex bathroom

·        Mechanical room above current intern’s office

·        Larger conference room 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. 

September 13, 2010

Present:  David Willey, Dick Hagemeister, Marilyn Wahlgren, Sandi Thorson, Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Chris, Tanya Hensch, Amy Drake, Dick Gyllstrom, Karen Frederick, Vern & Muriel Foster, Lowell Wilcox, Karen Zell, Jim Olson.  Recording person:  Lynn Melchior 

The meeting began at 5:00 p.m.  The meeting was specifically for the Administration and Education sub-committees to review the drafts of the plans Dick Hagemeister created.   

Dick began the meeting by reviewing two separate concepts.  Concept A had the Administration and Education areas both built off to the south of the existing building.  Concept B had the Administration area built off to the south of the existing building and the Education area built to the north/west of the existing building.   

Below are some of the comments heard during the review:

·        Concept B has a better view from the outside

·        The library needs to be bigger

·        Building separate areas (Concept B) costs 1 – 2% more

·        The rooflines for Concept A are more complex due to concerns about valleys, elevations and structure loads

·        Where is adult ed in concept B? Can use Quilt Area

·        Does Concept B’s adult ed area conflict with Sunday School?

·        Multipurpose room can be used for Weddings/Funerals

·        Deck in Concept B is great/ Do away with the Deck

·        Will there be enough light in the old sanctuary?

The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 

August 12, 2010 

Present:  David Willey, Dennis Westlind, Sandi Thorson, Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Chris, Tanya & Byron Hensch, Stuart Fleischauer, Betty Johansen, Connie Hanyzewski, Jon Hartman, Le Boyer, Amy Drake, Karen Frederick, Vern & Muriel Foster, Gary Johnson, Susan Thompson, Lowell Wilcox, Karen Zell.  Recording person:  Lynn Melchior 

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  The meeting was split into three parts: Guest speaker Mike Henkenius, a presentation from Gary Johnson on Mission Builders and a “where do we go from here” wrap up session.

Mike Henkenius:  Mike was involved in Our Lady of The Lake Catholic Church’s construction project in Battle Lake.  After 5 years of planning, they broke ground in April 2008 and completed construction in July 2009.  They added 11,500 sq ft of sanctuary (seating 750), offices, library and restrooms.  In the planning stages, they:

1)    Wrote a “needs assessment”.  Although the building met the basic needs it did not meet summer, wedding, funeral, etc needs. They also reviewed demographics. 

2)    Wrote a “requirements statement”. 

3)    Hired Davies & Associates out of St. Cloud to be their capital fundraisers.  Davies determined what could be raised in a 3 year campaign.  The building was paid for by monies already in the bank, a capital fundraiser and a loan from the archdiocese.  Their budget was $1.7 million and it actually cost $1.9 million.  Davies were paid a flat fee up front.

4)    Interviewed builders.  Initially they hired Roers Construction out of Fargo.  However, their design was beyond their budget due to a tie-in with the existing building on the hill.  Their second choice was Curtis Construction.  Curtis built First Lutheran in Battle Lake.  Curtis’ design was different in how it added onto the existing church.  However the estimate was based on First Lutheran’s experience – and inflation, cost of diesel, building supplies, etc went up since the First Lutheran project.  Plus the cost of the remodel of the existing church was more expensive than expected due to hidden costs.  Mike felt that a year was lost working with Roers. 

 Issues Our Lady of the Lake experienced in building:

§         They did not hammer out the contract enough due to timing issues.

§         They did not have a clear understanding of contract changes.

§         They had subcontractor disputes due to not understanding subcontractor contracts.

§         They needed one contact with Curtis (instead they had a committee which became confusing).

 What they learned:

§         Get expectations met upfront. Curtis Construction changed ownership during the project and the expectations changed.

§         Good documentation is a must.

§         Lower the ceiling, lower the cost, i.e. sanctuary space is more expensive to build.

§         New site was cheaper than dealing with an existing building.

§         Remodeling was cheaper when done in house.  Mike cited the construction of their new kitchen as an example.  The new kitchen was taken out of the contract and finished with volunteers after the building project was completed and as money was available.   

Gary Johnson & Mission Builders:  After working as an engineer whose firm started the design build process in MN, Gary owned his own Mechanical Engineering firm.  He retired early to spend time in the Peace Core and then worked with Mission Builders as a construction manager and later managed all of Mission Builders for the ELCA.  Mission Builders is a volunteer ELCA organization that assists in the construction of churches across the United States.  Mission Builders was started in the Missouri Synod as “Laborers for Christ”.  Now “Laborers for Christ” mostly choose construction projects that include schools.  Gary believes communication is key when working with builders – and even with great communication, no one gets it right.  There will always be issues. 

Gary said there are 4 ways to go about construction:

1)    Hire an architect, have the architect gather estimates and hire a builder.

2)    Hire a contractor who put the estimates together with a price guaranteed based on criteria.

3)    Mission Builders.  Volunteers are paid minimum wage so they are covered by worker’s comp.  They work Tues thru Sat and live in RVs in the parking lot.  The congregation provides volunteers to help in construction, lunches and breaks 2x a day. This can be good for the church as it brings people together.  Mission Builders hire out insulation, sheet rock and concrete work.  There is no wait for Mission Builders right now.

4)    Do it yourself - appointing one person as construction manager.   

Number 1 is the most expensive while #4 is the least expensive.  Gary emphasized that criteria is important.  Once you have criteria, get contractors to give you bids and develop a budget.  The ELCA does have a Mission Investment Fund that helps with how to finance projects.  It does not do fundraising but is a great first step.  Gary thought the questions of “what do we need” and “what can we afford” are a two pronged effort and can be done simultaneously.   

Wrap-up:  Dave W. indicated that we are now at the time to start talking to contractors and getting estimates.  Dick H. has offered to do the initial architectural drawings as a starting place.  This allows us to start gathering information regarding costs. This then allows us to start getting congregational support.  A question was raised: the congregation has the capability but does it have the energy?  A question was also raised as to if we really need the addition or should we be raising money for other church’s building programs or mission needs.  It was suggested that part of the capital fundraising (i.e. 10%) be donated to something like Humble Walk’s building needs.  A discussion followed regarding needs vs wants at Zion.   

The next step is for each group to meet with Dick H. and discuss criteria for their areas.  Currently there are two approaches:

1.     Four Pod Approach.  This entails building out in four separate areas in the existing building.

2.    One Wing Approach.  This entails building one larger wing out to the South for all needs.

A third alternative of building out north or a whole new building were briefly discussed.    

Dave also indicated that we need to be prepared to accept ideas from the outside. 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.  The next BPC meeting will be Thursday, August 19th at 6:30 p.m.   

July 29, 2010 

Present:  David Willey, Dennis Westlind, Chuck Erickson, Sandi Thorson, Pastor Jim, Tanya & Byron Hensch, Stuart Fleischauer, Keith Fleischauer, Casey Haack, Betty Johansen, Connie Hanyzewski, Jon Hartman, Le Boyer, Amy Drake, Chris Maudal, Karen Frederick, Vern & Muriel Foster, Gary Harrington.  Recording person:  Connie Hanyzewski

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m.  David Willey wanted to hear from the various areas as to where they thought they were in their process. 

INFRASTRUCTURE:  Dennis W. discussed the energy audit that will be done on the current building.  He reiterated the fact that this audit will be done at no out- of-pocket cost to Zion.  Stan Simon can do the audit sometime in August; however, certain information needs to be obtained and provided to Stan prior to him coming. 

         Items needed:

        1)    As much data as possible on the current structure – “as built drawings” would be helpful.  We have some drawings already but someone needs to go through them and put them in order showing our current structure.  Dennis will look at forming a sub-committee to get the job done.   

2)    We need the energy costs from the last 2 – 3 years.  The office will provide this information.

Refer to the notes of July 20^th for the detailed reasons why we are doing this energy audit.  Basically, we need to do an audit on the existing facility to assess energy efficiency for current and future building needs.

Discussion occurred regarding types of “green” energy such as solar, geothermal, etc.  Glendalough has a new office building with solar heat that might be a good idea to check out.

EDUCATION:  Tanya H. reviewed the space requirements and multi usage for Sunday school rooms, Confirmation, Adult Ed, Library, Activity room, quilting, etc.  We discussed how all of this new space could serve as overflow for Fellowship Hall, as needed.  Tanya sent current square footage of space to Lynn M.

WORSHIP:  Sandi T. reviewed the option of having a room behind the front Sanctuary that would house choir robes, music files, all sacristy items, which includes communion trays, wine, etc., and the sanctuary banners, paraments, and candles.  It was mentioned we should visit some other churches to see the space requirements for all these items so approximate square footage could be obtained. 

Chris M. brought up the issue of space for the choir and contemporary musicians.  Was there any way, the Sanctuary could be enlarged to provide more space for these folks in the worship area?  A discussion followed the question.  David W. said it was good it was brought up. 

Stuart F & Jon H. brought up the idea of using the current sacristy space.  By enlarging it and going east to match up with the building, it would provide a room for parents with small children that need to leave the sanctuary periodically.  A window and speaker could be installed.  

ADMINISTRATION:  Gary H. asked how much information was needed prior to talking to a builder or architect.  Admin has the proposed square footage and details of what they need for office/meeting space.  Is that enough?  Should we leave it up to the builder to provide the best use of space? 

We started this process identifying the function(s) required, we attached attributes and then we figured what we would like to have.  Have we done that? 

We might need to bring in a builder or architect to pull everything together.  At what point do we say we are ready for the next step.  David W. said we need an “architectural rendering” for the congregation.  The rendering would provide something visible with an estimate of cost. 

Keith F. suggested we bring in members from other area churches that have had additions put on or have built to get an idea if we are at a point to bring in a professional.  Keith F., Stuart F., and Gary H. will invite a representative from Eagle Lake, First Lutheran, and Our Lady of the Lake to our next meeting.   

In addition, to a Q & A, we will ask them to provide us with the following: 

1)      What ended up being really good about what they did.

2)      What would they have done differently if they could do it all over again?

3)      How did they know they were ready for the professionals to come and be a part of the project? 

4)      Are we at that point?

5)      How did they handle the funding of their building projects? 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.  The next BPC meeting will be Thursday, August 12th at 6:30 p.m.   

July 20

Present:  Dave Willey, Chuck Erickson, Richard Hagemeister, Sandi Thorson, Pastor Jim, Dick Gyllstrom, Tanya and Byron Hensch, Stuart Fleischauer, Connie Hanyzewski and Jon Hartman.  Recording Secretary:  Lynn Melchior. 

The meeting began at 5:58 pm. Dave Willey commented that the BPC members have adopted an sense of pragmatism.  This fits well with our congregation.  Dave also discussed the good thinking of multi-use space where functionality of several areas can be met with one room.  As Zion’s space needs are coming together, the BPC can begin moving towards solutions for the space needs.   

Each subgroup then reported their status: 

        EDUCATION:  Tanya H reviewed the Ed subgroups last meeting which focused on multi-use rooms, utilizing existing areas and the possibility of not needed a dedicated 7^th and 8^th grade room.  This age group may be better suited using different areas of the church as needed by their lesson plans.  Please see BPC ED 7-19-10 minutes for more information. 

The possibility of having weekday daycare at Zion was discussed.  Experiences of other church day cares were expressed; location was discussed (SS rooms) and the fact that this is not necessarily a money maker for Zion but an outreach possibility. Zion’s location may be too remote from people’s work and hospitals to be comfortable for some parents.   

A Nursery was discussed.  Where should this room be located?  Could it be multi-used with Prek/Kdg/Mops?  The Nursery will need to meet all applicable codes (which can be tough) and have speaker/video system installed in order to hear/see the service.  

Adult Education/Family Room was discussed.  This is thought to be a large room that can hold a minimum of 50 people.  It could be used as a fellowship overflow.  However, it was also discussed that if this is also used as a family room for weddings, funerals, etc then perhaps it should be more near the administration and Narthex areas. 

        ADMINISTRATION:  Dick G reviewed their interim report.   Note:  This report basically covers a summary of Sq. Ft. estimates with some specific pertinent comments.  Final report to follow. 

1.    Pastors Office

-  Space needs     256 Sq. Ft. minimum/current space is 188 Sq. Ft.

-  Office space to include small conference area with small table and 3 – 4 chairs

-  Consideration of dual entry with access to small conference room

-  Other details included in June 29^th meeting with Pastor Jim, Pat and Connie 

2.    Intern Pastor Office

-  Space needs     100 Sq. Ft minimum/current space is 65 Sq. Ft. usable

-  Location in close proximity to Pastor’s Office     

3.    Future Pastor Office (time frame not determined)/ Interim storage/usable space

-  Space needs     200 Sq. Ft.

-  Location in close proximity to Pastor’s Office 

4.    Church Office & Administrative

-  Space needs     480 Sq. Ft./current space is 249 Sq. Ft.

-  Separate adjoining area for office equipment and supplies

-  Includes reception area

-  Easy access to small conference room

-  Other details included in June 29^th meeting with Pastor Jim, Pat and Connie 

5.    Parish Nurse and Volunteer Coordinator

-  Space needs      144 Sq. Ft.

 6.    Small Conference Room

-  Space needs      320 Sq. Ft.

-  Includes 80 Sq. Ft. of storage space                 

      Current total Sq. Ft.  502

      Proposed total Sq. Ft. 1500 

      Notes:  1. Offices 1,2,3 and 5 require “internal” viewing window.

                  2. During the course of the study the group noted the opportunity

                      and need for additional Fellowship Hall space.

        WORSHIP:   Sandi T. reported that the worship groups main need was an Apse.  This could easily be created by putting an addition on to the existing sanctuary to the North.  No changes would be made to the existing sanctuary walls.  The Apse would allow for music needs, music storage and the sacristy.  It would have an access to the parking lot as well.   

        INFRASTRUCTURE:  Chuck E. reviewed his findings on obtaining and energy audit for Zion.  He reports the energy audit costs which are between $2,500 and $4,500 will be picked up by Lake Region and Great River Energy.  Chuck received permission to get started on the energy audit.  The infrastructure subgroup’s meeting notes are as follows:  

Scope:      

Building Issues Sub-committee is tasked to identify, investigate/analyze, document and recommend an approach to areas within the Zion church’s property, structural & land, that require decisions generic to a new, existing, remodel or add-on structure. 

The sub-committee will state issues as well as identify opportunities that provide cost effective approaches to building, maintaining, energy savings and future needs of the congregation. 

Items of Coverage:

Areas identified to date that require investigation include the following.  This is to be a living document as the project progresses. 

HEATING & COOLING

-         Cost analysis & facility analysis of existing structure over the last 5 years.  Heat vs cooling/other.

-         Perform thermal analysis of existing structure

-         Make recommendations of energy upgrade to lower yearly costs by 25% by 2012

-         Develop plan on cost effective ways to heat & cool

○ Sanctuary

○ Narthex

○ Offices

        ○ Sunday School Rooms

        ○ Kitchen/Fellowship Hall

-         Insulation upgrades needed

-         Suggestion as to enclosed areas with doors vs openness

-         Programmable thermostat/facility usage/peak load

-         Suggesting to architect as to ceiling 8’,  9’, 10’, vault, etc. (room volume)

-         Geothermal investigation and plan 

HOT WATER SYSTEM

    ○ Centralized vs location/demand

    ○ Off peak

    ○ Type of heaters 

WELL

    ○ Size of existing well (capacity)

    ○ Future needs

-   God’s Acres or other

-   Expansion of facility 

SEWER OPTIONS

    ○ Additional location

    ○ Leave as is

    ○ Modify existing system 

RE-SHINGLE

    ○ Upgrade insulation (R-Value)

    ○ Wafer Board concept

    ○ Redesign of ceiling (internal) 

WINDOW SELECTION ON NEW AREAS & REMODEL/EXISTING 

SIDING SELECTION ON NEW AREAS & REMODEL/EXISTING 

OLD DRAWINGS

    ○ Review “old” drawings for pertinent data

    ○ Existing R Value

    ○ Structural designs 

ELECTRICAL COVERAGE

○ Present size

    ○ Increase amperage anticipated     

    ○ Major load change, off peak, etc. 

PARKING LOT MASTER PLAN

○ Where (design plan)

○ When

○ Fill

    ○ Coverage

    ○ Etc. 

SUNDAY SCHOOL ROOM (existing)

    ○ Roof removal & replacement plan

SITE PLAN

    ○ Develop master drawing (scale) of existing structure, set backs, well, sewer, power poles, transformer, parking lot, entrances, etc. 

PRIORITIES:

On going meetings have resulted in prioritizing the list, in that energy cost control is top priority, e.g. heating & cooling and/or associated insulation (or lack of) must be addressed. 

As building plans go forward, new additions must address latest energy savings but existing structure must be looked as an opportunity to bring them up to speed.  As an example, outside wall of the fellowship area (west side) should be upgraded to Hi-R value.  Options may be to go from a 2 x 4 thick wall to a 6” wall with Hi-R such as foam and possible new windows. 

To get a handle on existing structure heat loss, a thermal analysis is suggested for all areas of the buildings.  This is probably going to be a cost item to the congregation unless a cost share is offered. 

Heating and cooling and all the options are being addressed as a priority.  With all the different build phases over the years, what is the right answer for total control of our energy costs?  Is it to go total Geothermal for heating/cooling energy source, keeping some existing systems, modularize new system, etc. 

Priorities are being established to ensure that near term projects must be coordinated so as nothing has to be redone during the new building process. 

PRESENT STATUS:

To date presentations have been made by LREC on Geothermal and opportunities for horizontal boring as to cost benefits along with a lease vs buy option. 

Barry Excavation has discussed present sewer and possible future county/state waste disposal requirements. 

ON GOING DEVELOPMENT:

To implement a priority item of thermal analysis of existing structure, LREC has been contacted.  They have stated an effort will be performed for Zion but anticipated a cost between $2500 to $4500.  However, they have now offered that Great River Energy will pay for half the cost & LREC will pay for the other half.  Therefore, no cost to Zion Lutheran Church.  The energy audit will be performed by a mechanical engineer from Kerkhoven, MN once be can be scheduled.  Chuck Erickson will coordinate the effort.   

The site master plan is ongoing as to existing structure, well, sewer, power pole, etc. 

Parking lot master plan is being developed. 

“Old” drawings are under review. 

The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 pm.  The next BPC meeting will be Thursday, July 29^th at 6:30 pm. 

July 19, 2010

Present:  Tanya Hensch, Muriel Foster, Karen Zell, Dave Willey, and Lowell Wilcox.  Recording Secretary:  Lynn Melchior. 

The meeting started at 6 pm.   

The subgroup discussed the advisability of having as many rooms as possible being cross utilized.  For example, could the adult ed room or the SS common room be used also for fellowship expansion and overflow?  Multi-use rooms are good selling points. 

The subgroup also discussed the assets we currently have in courtyards and landscaping – and how to incorporate those in current planning.  The possibility of removing the fireplace (which is non functional) and replacing the space with doors and windows to utilize outside fellowship was discussed.  

To better understand possible expansion space, the group walked around the outside of the church exploring possible areas of expansion for the Education needs.  Dave Willey was able to point out several options. 

The remainder of the meeting was spent discussing room requirements for education.  The rooms discussed were:  Adult Ed, SS Common, PreK/Kdg/Mops, 1^st – 2^nd grades, 3^rd – 4^th grades, 5^th – 6^th grades, 7^th and 8^th grades, storage/utilities, restrooms, Youth and Library. 

The notes for each room requirement will be updated and emailed to each BPC: Education group member.  

The meeting adjourned at 7:43 pm.

July 8, 2010

Present: Dennis Westlind, Keith Fleischauer, Le Boyer, Dave Willey, Chris Maudal, Chuck Erickson, Richard Hagemeister, Lowell Wilcox, Sandi Thorson, Gary Harrington, Betty Johansen, Karen Frederickson, Pastor Jim, Dick Gyllstrom, Marilyn Wahlgren and Laremie Barry. Recording Secretary: Lynn Melchior.

The meeting began at 6:31 pm. Dave Willey began the meeting talking about the next steps for the BPC. See Handout “Building Committee Interim Report Outline”. Thru the various subgroups, the BPC is looking to consolidate the data in a more concise format; to create a document that is a statement of needs just short of a floor plan. This will help determine the specific building/floor plans needed. Several questions still need to be answered:

1. What programs and services will Zion offer in the future? How will this affect the proposed building?

2. What does Zion predict for membership growth?

3. How do we meet our parking needs – currently and in the future?

Dave suggested that we set aside the idea of a new sanctuary and think thru options with the existing facility and extending the existing facility. For example, if the roof line was extended to the south in the current administration area to the setback line, the added space would be 1,620 sq ft. How could that new space be used and how could the old admin space be used? It is in exploring the reasonable options that meet the major needs that will help in exploring additional options (like new worship space). If we determine that a new sanctuary is needed, then how best to handle the old space will be discussed.

Additional expansion space estimates are: Expand admin and library to the south and 2,304 sq ft is added. Once the education second floor is removed, 320 sq ft is available. Further expansion North and West of the current Sunday School space allows for even more expansion space. NOTE: Removal of the 2^nd floor of the Sunday School wing constitutes a 1,800 sq ft space loss that will have to be made up somewhere else.

Secure storage (fire proof) was discussed and assigned to the Admin subgroup. It was also noted, that people need quick access to the admin area, so that must kept in mind when planning the Admin area. Prioritization of needs, common space, user communities, and double door entries were also discussed. The Infrastructure subgroup will focus on how current facilities are working, how they will work with the proposed building and what Zion needs to move toward.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. A current site plan is needed. Dennis Westlind and Dick Hagemeister will create a drawing that will show current facilities, setbacks, well, septic, etc. A box of drawings in the large Sunday School Room may help with this.

2. Subgroups need to be more formalized. Lynn will send out a subgroup listing.

3. A form will be created to help the subgroup formalize their respective needs.

There is a conflict with BPC meeting times for the next two weeks. It was determined that each subgroup will need to meet individually next week to work on their needs forms. The following week, the BPC as a whole will meet on Tuesday July 20^th at 6:00 pm.

July 1, 2010

 MAIN MEETING: Present:  Amy Drake, Dennis Westlind, Keith Fleischauer, Le Boyer, Dave Willey, Muriel and Vern Foster, Gary Johnson, Tanya and Byron Hensch, Chuck Erickson, Richard Hagemeister, Lowell Wilcox, Sandi Thorson, Pat Garza, Gary Harrington, Casey Haack, Betty Johansen, Karen Frederickson, Pastor Jim, Intern Pastor Chris, Diane Weeks, Connie Hanyzewski, Dick Gyllstrom and Laremie Barry.  Recording Secretary:  Lynn Melchior. 

The meeting began at 6:25 pm. The first order of business was a presentation by Dan, Energy Services Director at Lake Region Power on Geothermal technology and how it might benefit Zion.  The Geothermal technology can be used for heating and cooling. It uses the renewable energy from the earth to heat and cool.   

Lake Region is offering a new program where they own, install and maintain the closed loop system and a fixed monthly charge is added to your electric bill. (The building owner must still pay for the heat pump and duct work.)  This monthly charge is fixed for 35 years.  It effectively locks in your heating and cooling charges, which are 70% of your energy consumption.  Occasionally a secondary heating source may be needed. The remaining 30% of the energy charges is lights, appliances, etc.  This is primarily a residential process – commercial buildings need customized installations and charges.  The closed loop system can be purchased at a depreciated price.  Current prices for a horizontal bore are $1,700 and $1,800 to $2,100 vertical.  Well locations are depicted in the easement with GPS locations. 

Lake Region utilizes horizontal drilling at a depth of 15 ft for 200 – 250 ft in length.  The soil type, loads needed and distance between pipes must be known for geothermal sizing.  Vertical drilling can also be used in Geothermal technology but then a well driller must be involved as anything deeper than 25 feet requires a well drilling permit.  The pipes are filled with methanol.  Backfill is used to maximize energy conduction.  Easements may need to be recorded and setbacks observed on smaller lots.  Test bores may also be needed for larger projects.  An existing structure should have an energy audit.   

A video showed horizontal drilling and talked about the merits of geothermal.  Dan also provided a handout that covers the new geothermal program at Lake Region. 

The second order of business was to create a new sub group of the BPC.  It will focus on worship and fellowship.  Current members are Sandi, Amy, Pastor Jim and hopefully, Chris Maudal.   

Two additional handouts were also provided:  Betty Johansen of the library committee passed out the long range planning request for the Zion Library.  Dave Willey passed out ELCA suggestions for church sizing.   

INFRASTRUCTURE SUB-GROUP: 

Immediately after LREC presentation, the infrastructure sub-group discussed “sewer” with Laramie Barry.  Attendees were Chuck Erickson, Keith Fleischauer, Dick Hagemeister, Dennis Westlind, Stuart Fleischauer, Pastor Jim, Le Boyer and Gary Johnson & Lowell Wilcox.  Recording Secretary: Dennis Westlind. 

Items discussed:

   ●  Present drain field at north of kitchen is approximately 3 feet by 25 feet with a “small” tank.

   ●  Appears that kitchen and sanctuary bathrooms are “Y’d” towards small tank.

   ●  Present field has not been disturbed except for adding cleanout Y and

       additional pipe for future heat tape (or steam).  Work done because of “deepfreeze”.

   ●  We probably don’t need to update existing field but church expansion may dictate another field or change existing field (it is building design dependent).  May need lift pump.

   ●  We are presently at approximately 600 members.

   ●  25 to 30 Sunday School attendees

   ●  Dishwasher will require 50% bigger tank on new system (County/State rule).

   ●  As a “swag” our new plan may require a tank(s) and leach field similar to a 4 bedroom house (may go to that of 5 bedroom house equivalent).

ADMINISTRATION:

The administration sub-Group met on June 29^th.  The following is the minutes from that meeting.  

Zion Bldg/Planning Committee

Meeting with Pastor Jim, Pat G. and Connie June 29, 2010

From: Dick Gyllstrom and Diane Weeks

Subj.: Pastor/Office Administrative Offices 

The purpose of the meeting was to explore office requirements and needs.  The primary goal was to discuss the variety of musts, needs and wants typically found in the Pastor/Office Staff office complex. 

Pastors Office

-         Space for small counseling area, 3 to 4 chairs with small table for personal counseling (family, marriage, etc.)

-         Possible dual entry

-         Have Senior Pastor/Assoc. Pastor/Intern office proximity

-         Easy access to separate staff/general purpose meeting room

-         Personal Library Space (basically bookshelves)

-         Closed Cabinets (Lockable)

-         Lockable AV equipment storage unless located in general office area

Note:  Some measurements were taken of Pastor’s existing office to determine if present size would be adequate.  Determined that the 256 Sq Ft noted in the June 24^th group meetng notes would be adequate and needed. Other area sizes noted in those notes will likely need to be further evaluarted as we go.

Church Office and Associated Space 

-         Recommend open area with controlled access/ counter between office space and visitors.

-         Need space for coats/personal items

-         Upgrade phone system/more flexibility

-         Lockable space for Audio/Visual

-         Copy Area/need functional, controlled space

-         Security Vault

-         Need detailed review of PC use and needs

-         Use close proximity conference/meeting room for organizing mass mailings

Note:  There were other office/productivity/work related ideas that should be considered that do not necessarily affect square footage requirements. 

Further detailed discussion will be needed as space layouts and other options are considered. 

The BPC will meet weekly on Thursday evenings at 6:30 pm.  The next meeting is July 8th.   Thoughts and comments can be emailed to Dave Willey in between meetings.

June 24, 2010 

Present:  Stuart Fleischauer, Amy Drake, Dennis Westlind, Keith Fleischauer, Le Boyer, Dave Willey, Muriel and Vern Foster, Gary Johnson, Tanya Hensch, Chuck Erickson, Susan Thompson, Richard Hagemeister, Lowell Wilcox, Sandi Thorson, Pat Garza, Gary Harrington. 

This BPC meeting was divided into 3 basic areas to investigate, start qualifying and documenting requirements.  The areas discussed were administration, education and infrastructure.  The three groups met separately for 45 minutes to define these needs. 

ADMINISTRATION: 

Participants were:  Sandi Thorson, Pastor Jim, Vern Foster, Pat Garza, Susan Thompson, Gary Johnson, and Gary Harrington, who facilitated.  Pat Garza was the Administration meeting recorder. 

Administration square footage proposed.

Pastor’s office—256 sq ft

Intern office—86 sq ft

Secretary—360 sq ft

Parish nurse—190 sq ft

Future associate Pastor—200 sq ft

Conference/meeting room—480 sq ft 

Present:  Stuart Fleischauer, Amy Drake, Dennis Westlind, Keith Fleischauer, Le Boyer, Dave Willey, Muriel and Vern Foster, Diane Weeks, Karen Frederick, Dick Gyllstrom, Gary Johnson, Bryon and Tanya Hensch, Chuck Erickson, Susan Thompson (observer), Richard Hagemeister, Casey Haack, Chris Maudal, Karen Zell, Intern Pastor Chris Zuraff, Jim Olson.  Recording secretary:  Lynn Melchior  

Summaries of past Space Task Force were posted on the walls for review. 

BOF summary, Opening Devotions and BOF (Philippians 2:1 – 11) were led by Intern Pastor Chris.

Meeting began at 6:30 with Jim Olson summarizing the function of the Building Planning Committee (BPC).  He noted that space needs have long been talked about – the numbers of activities at Zion have increased over the years.  In fact, the current BPC meeting has a space conflict with the contemporary music team as the sanctuary was double booked.   

Jim defined the purpose of the BPC as moving forward with the space issue; to get something done.  Dave Willey will be the Chair.  The committee is a large one that is congregation based.  All congregation members have an open invitation to attend any and all BPC meetings.  Meeting minutes will be sent out via email.  For those without email, a hard copy can be picked up at the office. 

~~A 10 minute break for cookies and lemonade~~ 

The meeting reconvened in the Sunday School Music Room.  Dave Willey led the final portion of the meeting. Dave listed the proposed space priorities of the BPC as:

        Education

        Administration

        Worship

        Fellowship

Dave plans on organizing the BPC into smaller groups (i.e. education, administration, infrastructure, etc). People with expertise in those areas will lead the smaller groups. Congregation members outside of the BPC will be invited to the smaller groups as well.   

Dave reviewed a handout with the proposed order of tasks to be carried out by the BPC.  A question was raised as to whether future space needs were considered by the previous task force.  Dave believed they did to some extent. Jim Thomas had done some demographic summaries and projection.  It was noted that these may need to be updated however; we need not rehash all the work done by the earlier Space Task Force. 

A question was raised as to how the building itself encourage growth. The ELCA believes that limiting factors of a church are twofold:  parking and sanctuary space.  It is believed that we have ample sanctuary space and the parking lot is being worked on.  It was also noted that supporting Mothers builds strong congregations.

Dick Hagemeister reviewed two possible plans for the future space of Zion.  He noted that there are several ways of doing a large project such as this:  Phased and All At Once. He noted that the Phase approach could cost as much as 4% more. Discussion followed as to the pros/cons of the possible plans and keeping the 2^nd floor (1800 sq ft) for other uses.  It was noted that nothing has been decided yet. 

Many wants and needs were discussed:  

·        Technology to be included in the Education space

·        Determination of the function and flow of each space

·        Both private and social space for work to be done

·        Open space for various activities (i.e. MOPS)

·        Ample space for future growth (i.e. Associate Pastor)

·        Dividable rooms (quality dividers needed)

·        Bathrooms in the Sunday School Areas

·        Handicap accessibility in all areas of Zion

·        A separate bathroom in the nursery area

·        Infrastructure review

·        Wise use of old/current building space

·        Best use of our current property (including God’s Acres)

·        Accurate budget and detailed plans

·        Maintaining the beautiful sightlines of the current building

·        Youth Room (Youth = 6^th grade to college)

·        Separate copier space from the office (due to noise)

·        Technology infrastructure

·        Family/Multipurpose Room

·        Children taking ownership in the BPC projects

·        A better cross section of the congregation on the BPC

·        Inviting and easy access to various areas of the church

A focus and understanding of the known and predicted functions of the church will be key to the success of the BPC.

The BPC will meet weekly on Thursday evenings at 6:30 p.m.  The next meeting is June 24^th.   Thoughts and comments can be emailed to Dave Willey in between meetings.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.