Renovations Task Force

1
Renovations Task Force

• Presentation and Recommendation

2
Renovations Task Force Process

• Took into consideration
• the new Mission and Vision of CLPC,
• the recommendations of Wyn Arn and Peter Pizor,
  church consultants hired by CLPC.
• Congregational input from the recent survey,
• the experience and existing facilities of other
  successful churches in the area,
• the Leading of the Holy Spirit through much
  discussion and prayer.

3
Renovations Task Force Process

• Sought to translate the vision God was giving us
  into plan for our facilities.
• Met with program staff, elders, and dayschool,
• retained Ambrose architects to work in the
  translation process,
• looked at multiple alternatives to renovate the
  current Christian Education facility.
• And our conclusion was

4
CE Renovation Insight

• Even renovated expanded, CE is too small
• Program needs not met - particularly in future
• High cost of code compliance
• Unknown structural integrity of west end
• Finished product will be to small
• Useful life only extended 15 years

5
Proposed Comprehensive Facilities Improvements

• A New CE Building of 24,000 sq. ft.
• Church Life Center Renovation
• Build out east and south sides, 4,400 sq. ft.
• Remodel former Shalom offices
• Sanctuary Building
• Former administration offices removed to expand
  Narthex
• Former Pastors offices converted to large
  classroom
• Roof, wall and window damage repaired

6
(No Transcript)
7
Proposed Comprehensive Campus Improvements

• Parking
• Repave the west lot
• Create 60 to 65 new spaces
• Canopy for Sanctuary drop-off
• Other Campus enhancements
• Carillon
• Landscaping
• Covered walkway between buildings

8
1 CE 2. Carillion 3. Parking 4. Covered Drop
Off 5. Church Life Center 6. Drop Off
9
(No Transcript)
10
Christian Education RebuildingFlexible Decision
Strategy
11
Expanded CLPC Vision RequiresDedicated
Stewardship

• Proposed Project Cost
• Share per Family (750)
• Share per week

• 4 Million
• 2.8M CE Building
• 1.2M Other Costs
• 175 per month
• 44 per week

What might this mean?
12
How do we deal with the uncertainty ofthe
Capital Campaign outcome?

• Strategy 1 Successful 3 year capital campaign!
• Goal of 5M 4M new construction 1M debt
  elimination
• Funded with a construction loan and a short-term
  mortgage (2yrs) to cover cash flow
• Strategy 2 Additional 3 year campaign
  (2006-2009) for residual debt elimination
• Common among growing churches that capital
  campaigns are phased in 3 year increments
• Funded by extending mortgage to 2009
• Strategy 3 Defer some improvements
• Such as carillon, covered drop-off, part of new
  CE building 2nd floor buildout
• Strategy 4 Reverse Decision and Renovate CE
  Building

13
Strategy 3 Project Deferral Options

• Committee Perspective
• Everything is needed for our church to move
  forward in its expanded mission and vision
• However -- Strictly from financial perspective
• Project costs could be reduced by up to 750,000
  (20) through deleting or deferring features
  from the design
• Possible savings from Other Project Costs
• Possible savings from deferred CE Building
  outfitting or other compromises
• NOT RECOMMENDED if pursuing vision is important

14
Possible Project Deferrals
15
Strategy 4Reverse Decision Remediate/Renovate
CE Building

• Committee Perspective
• Incompatible with expanded CLPC vision
• Cannot justify in terms of desired future for
  CLPC
• Growing congregation
• Flexible and expanding Programs to meet greater
  community needs
• Warm, inviting, and accessible atmosphere
• Can only marginally serve CLPC today
• However -- Strictly from financial perspective
• Project costs can be cut by over half
• Latest decision point is mid-summer

16
Comparison of Project CostBetween Renovating CE
and Rebuilding CE
17
Comparison of Investment Value to CLPC Vision
Renovate CE
Rebuild CE

• Recover current program space
• Facility constrains ability to pursue expanded
  vision
• No Front Door critical to visitors
• Office placement confusing to visitors with
  difficult accessibility for some
• Offices adequate for needs of today
• Inadequate dedicated and easily accessible
  storage - major constraint to programs and
  interior aesthetics
• Campus improvements to help exterior aesthetics
  -- but we still look like an office complex

• Expand program space
• Dedicated youth wing
• Tailored facility for innovative, flexible, and
  adaptive outreach
• Facility can support expanded programs as CLPC
  vision is realized
• Offices to support larger operations meeting the
  needs of tomorrow
• Adequate storage placed near greatest program
  needs
• Campus designed to project warmth of the spirit
  and openly inviting for all of community and we
  look like a church!

18
So the Choice Becomes

• Invest to Serve Ourselves Today

• Invest so we can Serve Others Tomorrow

Or
Our decision is the demonstration of our
commitment to realizing the larger CLPC Vision in
the service of God in this community
19
Is this the final opportunity for review?

• This is just the beginning to authorize detailed
  design on the project.
• Basic Floor Plans will be presented in late
  Spring.
•  
• Completed design Development Drawings and
  financial plan reviewed and approved by session
  and presented to the congregation for approval
  this summer.

NO!
20
Requested Actions for Today

• That Session be authorized to retain the
  architectural firm of Ambrose, McEnany and House
  to develop plans for a new Christian Education
  Building and to target presentation of the final
  project design and financial plans for the
  congregations approval in summer of 2003.
• That Session concurrently direct Ambrose, McEnany
  and House to develop plans for the completion of
  the second floor of the Church Life Center, with
  the understanding that this construction is to
  commence after receiving congregational approval
  at the summer 2003 meeting.