Long Range Planning Document --Report to the Board
Appendices
Appendix A: Background Information for May Vote
Appendix B: Property Search Letter
I. Introduction
Welcome to the 2003/2004 LRP Committee Report! The following information isprovided to the Board as a summary of the year's Committee work, but since we met with the Board and had a few congregational meetings, there should not be any surprises. We figure that summing it all up and providing background data can be helpful for keeping everyone together and providing our institutional memory!
As in the past year, LRP members are Paul Rinzler, Sue Chippendale, Tom Friedman, Karen Christian and Andy Pease, chair. Diane Lockhart has been the Board Liaison.
Our focus for the year was to continue detailing the growth options previously discussed and to present the options to the congregation for a decision. We have tried to carefully differentiate that our effort is LONG TERM, meaning that we have options for interim solutions, but need to make decisions now about the long-term solutions. Once we have our long-range plan, we can develop interim steps to get there.
II. Impacts of Growth
The following two charts were presented to the congregation at a meeting in March 2004. The first chart reports on overall membership, which has averaged a 7.6% annual increase over the past 4 years. The second chart indicates a slight growth (1.5%) in children's RE over the past 4 years. However, the RE chart reports on children enrolled, and not children attending; anecdotally the attendance has increased significantly.
Membership at the close of 2003-2004 was 225 members. Reportedly, the building was designed to hold a congregation of 160 members. The impact of this growth has been observed and reported in four general areas:
* Sunday Morning Service: Sanctuary capacity is about 150 for seating. In the past two years (excluding summers), almost every Sunday morning service has been at least 80% full, with several going to 100%.
* Religious Education: Teachers report that the four classrooms upstairs are often crowded, limiting movement and impacting the curriculum available.
* Social Hall: The social hall and back patio are crowded after services. In addition, the sanctuary and social hall combined can no longer accommodate many of our congregation-wide events, such as pledge dinner, weddings, and memorial services.
* Outdoor Space: There is no designated outdoor play space for children, limiting the options during children's RE and social hour. Parking is limited to 32 spaces in the lot, with street parking available throughout the neighborhood.
Terms such as "crowded" and "limited" can be considered subjective; so we have objectively defined "crowded" to mean, "placing one's elbow in someone else's coffee" during social hour. "Limited" for parking means, you beat out the minister to the last space, and feel pleased with yourself.
III. Options for Growth
After careful review, LRP refined the options to the following:
1. Stay - Do Nothing
2. 2 Services in Current Building
3. Stay and Satellite Congregation
4. Relocate - New or Renovate
Expand and Split: No longer an option
Two options from the 2002/2003 report have been eliminated:
* Expand to Adjacent Property - No willing sellers at appropriate price
* Split congregation - damaging to existing congregation and unaffordable for new congregation
The following four tables further describe and compare the remaining four options. Unfortunately no table from the UUA or other organization exists to accurately project the real impact of each option on membership. We surmised as best we could, but good ol' UU questioning of assumptions is appropriate.
Option: Stay, No Change
Description: Stay in current facility, no change to program; re-evaluate in 1 Year Anticipated Membership; 160. (Range of 140 - 220).
Predict possible drop in membership due to crowding. Operations Impact: Loss in revenue based on decreased membership; no capital campaign required.
Programs Impact: Anticipate scheduling conflicts for meetings spaces
Community Impact: Unable to offer broader services to community
Pros:
* No further action required at this time
* No capital campaign required
* This building has worked so far, and membership is still growing
* Congregation is small and potentially more personal
Cons:
* Likely to lose members due to over crowding, especially in children's programs; deter new members
* Loss of membership translates to loss of income, reducing overall fellowship offering and services
* Unable to provide large group space
Option: Stay - Two Services
Description: Stay in this building; develop two services on Sundays to meet growing demand; potential to develop playground deck over parking and remote parking
Anticipated Membership: 200 (Range 180 - 260); Predict slight drop in membership
due to crowded conditions
Operations Impact: Slight loss of income due to decreased membership; additional
Operating expenses for double services
Programs Impact: Anticipate scheduling conflicts for meetings spaces
Community Impact: Unable to offer broader services to community
Pros:
* Only slight capital campaign required for minor improvements
* Changes could be implemented within the calendar year
* Maximum use of space for "small footprint" on the planet.
*
Cons:
* Likely to lose some members due to over crowding, especially in children's programs
* Two services may lose cohesiveness of congregation
* Loss of membership translates to loss of income, reducing overall fellowship offering and services
* Unable to provide large group space
Option: Stay and Satellite
Description: Stay in this building and develop 2nd service in a remote location
in north county and/or south county
Anticipated Membership: 260 (Range 220 - 280); Membership will be able to increase slightly
Operations Impact: Increased operating expenses for Sunday rental and two services. Increase membership involvement in north and south county
Programs Impact: Potential for programs to meet in remote locations; volunteer pool spread out to two locations
Community Impact: More access to offer services to remote locations; unable to provide large group space for community
Pros:
* No capital campaign required (or slight capital campaign for minor improvements)
* Changes could be implemented within the calendar year
* Able to provide services to broader region
* More accessible to non-driving members
Cons:
* Two services may lose cohesiveness of congregation
* Remote location may cause further split in congregation
* Unable to provide large group space
* Volunteers may be spread out thin
Option: Relocate
Description: Relocate to new facilities by purchasing land and building new or purchasing existing and renovating as needed.
Anticipated costs:
$1 million land
$3.5 million building (12,000 SF @ $300/SF Project Cost)
$4.5 million
$ 500,000 sale from Foothill property
$2,500,000 loan @ 7%
$1,000,000 capital campaign
$ 500,000 Grants (UUA, others)
Anticipated Membership: 300 (Range 250 - 350); Significant increase in membership
Operations Impact: Staff expenses increase slightly due to increased membership; major capital campaign required - $1 million; higher mortgage
Programs Impact: Lots of members, lots of space
Community Impact: Large facility and membership available for community service;
central location does not necessarily serve remote locations
Pros:
* Facility needs, especially children's classrooms, playground and parking will be met
* Excitement and momentum develops from new facilities
* Interested members not deterred by crowded conditions
* Congregation can meet altogether, so no loss in cohesiveness
Cons:
* Capital campaign will tap existing and new members
* Large building has environmental impact
* Large building may be unappealing to some members who prefer smaller congregation
* Risk if membership does not increase, mortgage will impact operating budget.
Relocate: Real Estate Search
Throughout the year, the committee initiated several steps in investigating the real options for relocation. The following is a summary of activities related to the specifics
of real estate
1) "This Old House" - This property located on Foothill near O'Connor Way has been the site of many restaurants, is now closed and for sale at around one million. Several UU's looked at the property earlier this year, but decided not to pursue. There are a number of drawbacks, pertaining both to the physical property and legal issues surrounding obtaining approval to use as a church. Key issues are the lack of water, the dilapidated condition of the structure, the probability that the county would require road modifications to provide a left turn lane. Location is ideal, other factors negative.
2) Atoll Business Park on Laurel Lane. Space is for lease, not sale, at about $1 per sq. ft. Good modern building, handicapped access, 2 acres of grass on which the children could play, good location. Does have a large restaurant/meeting room that perhaps could be used for Sunday services, thus reducing the need for permanent space to offices, classrooms and conference rooms.
Possible scenario: Lease space for say 5 years, using large meeting room for Sunday services. Sell Foothill building, uses proceeds as basis for buying land and starting long range building plans.
3) Vacant land on Orcutt Road near the railroad. This property is in process of being rezoned to residential from industrial, and no longer available.
4) Future Margarita development. Prado Road will be extended to Broad Street near the Damon-Garcia sports complex now being constructed. The area will be developed for multi-use ranging from low cost residential to commercial-industrial.
This process will take several years. I have contacted one real estate agent,
Richardson Properties, closely involved in the proposed development. Will seek more details and timing for possible purchase of a few acres. Estimated cost per acre is over $300,000.
5) Letter to real estate agents: Sent out over a dozen letters about our search in February, and so far have received one response.
6) Mission Elementary School: There is some interest in considering our property for kindergarten/ elementary location to free up space at their present location for further expansion to accommodate higher grades. Will pursue.
For this use a current restriction on our property would have to be removed: the use permit contains a condition that prohibits day school activities during the week.
7) Church 'Swapping': Contacted the larger churches in the area to see if any would be moving soon, or would be interested in a swap. Two churches that are moving are currently in leased spaces; the others are all staying in their current facilities.
IV. Congregational Vote
Nothing like a vote to liven up a discussion! Although, as a committee, we felt we were keeping the congregation informed and were soliciting opinions, not until we began discussing a potential vote, did the interaction really come alive. We developed a timeline for communicating with the fellowship:
February 2004 - Meet with Committee Chairs
March 2004 - Meet with the Board (March 10)
March 2004 - Informational Meeting with the Congregation (March 28, after service)
April/May 2004 - Congregation-wide discussion through email, poster, newsletter, and conversations
May 2004 - Open Forum
May 2004 - Vote on ballot measure (May 22, after service).
At the March meeting, we took a straw poll, asking attendees to place and "opinion dot" on one of the four options (as listed in Section III of this report). The response was almost 90% for the Relocate option. We then decided to refine the May Congregational Vote to be a Yes/No vote on the Relocate option.
However, by May's open forum, the discussion became, well, heated, as participants questioned many fundamental points and clearly desired some greater level of information before feeling comfortable with any big steps. As a committee, we were able to answer many of the questions, but it was clear that our glorious efforts at communicating had not been as effective as we had thought. Also, we didn't have concrete answers to a few of the key points, such as:
* Can we raise the capital funds needed?
* Can we build for the price quoted?
* We keep growing in this building - Why would we shrink if we stay?
* What else will we do with new space, such as schools or housing?
* How do we survive during the purchase/construction phase?
* What are we voting on, really?
So, we got more specific with the ballot measure:
Shall the Board initiate steps to acquire larger facilities for this congregation?
A "yes" vote means that the Board will hire an outside consultant at the cost of approximately $1500 to provide an assessment of the congregation's readiness to begin a relocation process. In addition, the Board will continue to evaluate other options for accommodating growth in membership.
With some trepidation, we put the ballot measure to the congregation for a vote:
80 Yes, 6 No, 2 Abstain.
Note that 88 members attending the meeting to vote is considered a pretty good turn-out, but of course only represents 40% of our total membership.
V. Next Steps
Based on the Congregation's vote in May, the Board has hired Howell Lind as a consultant to meet with the congregation and key members in the fall. As for Next Steps, we anticipate that Howell and the various meetings will help focus our efforts for the next year. If the relocation goes forward, a Building Committee will be needed, but we figure the time has not yet come to disband LRP. Also, we may need to help direct the efforts to develop interim steps, such as two services.
A significant issue has simmered on the back burner, but comes forward every now and then. In
2002/2003, we reviewed growth in terms of four major issues: Facilities,
Operations, Programs and Community. Mostly, we have focused on facilities (perhaps the consequence of having an architect chair this committee), with consideration for the other three issues on how they impact the building and budgets. However, there is grave risk of losing our people connections as we dive into the excitement, or worries, of possible relocation or other major changes. LRP will continue to focus on the long-term efforts for this congregation, but we must stress the continued importance of programs that keep long-term members tied together and new members welcomed into the fold. We look to the Board to monitor the work of other members and committees in supporting the social and spiritual growth aspects of our congregation.
We look forward to continuing in the exciting process of accommodating our congregation's growth, and are grateful for your trust and confidence.
Humbly,
Your Long Range Planning Committee
APPENDIX A
UUF SLO - Long Range Planning
Background Information for the Congregational Vote May 23
At the Congregational Meeting on May 23, our members will be voting on a critical issue for the Long
Range Plan of the congregation: Should we initiate the steps required to relocate to larger facilities?
At an informational meeting on March 28, LRP committee members presented background on growth for this fellowship and options for accommodating that growth. The following information summarizes that presentation.
Growth: We are growing! Over the past 10 years, our net membership has increased by 7.6%. In the past 4 years, it has increased by more than 34%, with a current membership count of 225. The sanctuary is at or near seating capacity almost every Sunday of the academic year, and 40 or more kids upstairs in RE. Our current building (5000 SF) is designed for about 160 members.
Options: There are four viable options, as listed below. Two other options,
Splitting and Expanding on this site, were eliminated as unfeasible.
It is important to note that we are asking, Where do you want to be in 5 years?
Some of the options below may be implemented as interim solutions, but we are voting on the long range plan.
A. Stay, Do Nothing: No changes to current facilities or operations. Pros: No capital campaign; no changes to operations. Cons: Possible loss of members due to crowded conditions; member loss would translate to loss of income, so potential loss of programs.
B. Two Services: Two services here on Sunday mornings, with RE at both services. Possible addition of outdoor play deck above parking lot. Pros: Minor capital campaign (for play deck); could accommodate some growth. Cons: Still crowded at coffee hour and parking; operations cost increases for double RE, Music, and Worship Arts.
C. Satellite: One Service here on Sunday morning, and another identical service at a north or south county location (perhaps alternating between north and south). RE at both services. Pros: Assists commuters; could accommodate some growth. Cons: Group may become divided; operations cost increases double RE, Music, Worship Arts and Sunday lease.
D. Relocate: Purchase land and construct new building or purchase land and building for remodel.
Approximate Time line: 4 years. The following indicates the cost breakdown:
COST: $1.0 million land
$3.5 million building (12,000 SF @ $300/SF Project Cost)
$4.5 million
PAID FOR BY: $0.5 million, profit from sale of Foothill property
$2.5 million loan @ 7%
$1.0 million capital campaign
$0.5 million Grants (UUA, others)
$4.5 million
Pros:
Could accommodate membership increases to 300-350 members; all members could fit in the building for larger functions; facilities available for community events; one RE program; play space, parking, etc. Cons: $ 1 million capital campaign from existing members. Disclaimer: Each option is complex, with many nuances. Pro's and Con's are included to initiate discussion and do not provide a complete picture! LRP encourages congregation-wide discussion on this critical issue.
- LRP
APPENDIX B
Property Search Letter
(Not available electronically... Hard copy available by request)
UUFSLO - Long Range Planning Report Page 9 May 2003