FIRST UNITARIAN SOCIETY
PARISH MEETING
MINUTES
MADISON, WI
September 23, 2007
Attendance
76 members signed the attendance lists.
Opening
Karen Gustafson provided the opening with a reading about striving towards openness and love.
Call to Orderr
First Unitarian Society President Laurie Joiner called the meeting to order at time 12:50 p.m. Laurie reviewed the agenda for the day. There are some official business items but we will also address the building status and provide an opportunity for questions.
Nominations and Elections
A new Treasurer must be approved because the position is currently vacant. Brian Hellmer has been nominated to fill this position. He has significant financial experience and the Board feels that Brian would do an excellent job in this position.
It was MOVED by Michael May to approve Brian Hellmer as the Treasurer. After a second the motion CARRIED unanimously.
We need to approve someone as the Vice President of The Friends of the Meeting House. Donna Hartshorne has agreed to accept this position if she is nominated and elected. It was MOVED to approve Donna Hartshorne as the Vice President of the Friends of the Meeting House. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Treasurer’s Report
Susan Koenig summarized the fiscal year 2007-2008 budget. Susan reviewed the primary details of the fiscal year ending June 30,2007 that are now available because we have more information. We maintained a balanced budget for 2006-2007 and ended the past fiscal year with a slight positive balance. We lost some parking revenue due to early departures prior to June 2007. We also lost some plate collections but that was not a surprise because collections the prior year were “artificially high” due to collections for Hurricane Katrina. We saved money on health insurance by moving to the UUA plan. We increased building insurance to cover the under insurance we had previously.
The current year's budget has a slight deficit, which is expected due to the loss of the nursery school revenue and the parking revenue for the year.
Facilities Update
Michael Schuler thanked everyone for coming out on a beautiful day to attend the meeting.
There is on-going work. Our relationship with Findorff is most positive and harmonious. The Meeting House Nursery School was back in its facilities as scheduled. The work on the historic meeting house has continued and is looking very good. Thus there are a number of things to be happy about in our facilities.
There is a strong rapport among the staff and those involved in this project. There is a powerful reason to make this project work and succeed. There is a community need for a building like ours. We may become a unique faith facility. We are adopting and demonstrating a sustainable facility.
Michael reviewed the many other physical and non-physical reasons for completing this facility. However we face an additional challenge. We must raise additional funds from our congregation to address unexpected shortfalls that will be described in a few minutes. Michael asks all members to consider what they can do in this effort.
Michael May reported on the progress made on the preservation work in the historic meeting house. For example, electrical and painting work has been done. Air movement systems work is under way.
This is an on-going project and we hope that you appreciate it. We owe it to our predecessors and our successors to honor this place and complete this work successfully.
David Weber discussed the work that has been done in the B wing. There have been several surprises. For example we had to lower the floor in the B wing to accommodate height requirements on the stairs.
In the A wing we've plastered and painted the work that has been done restoring the ceilings and walls. The auditorium has had similar work done.
David provided brief commentary on the new construction in its early stages. The hard hat update provides a weekly summary of this work with pictures.
Laurie reviewed the preservation project and new building time line. See the time line Handout. The building budget is $8.91 million and it is $2.5 million more than we expected it to be. We based our financing and fund raising on the information that Bentley Construction had provided to us. It turns out that the information we received was not accurate. It is a painful place to be but we are a strong Society and we can do this project.
Dick Goldberg reviewed where we are going to get the money and can we afford it.
The ability to do this is based on larger mortgage payments and on starting the final mortgage two years later than originally planned. This was a fortuitous assumption that we discovered in our financial modeling. That is, we discovered that we assumed a certain mortgage start date that was earlier than it needed to be. So we gained two years in the financing of the mortgage and that changes our financial assumptions.
The concern is that if rates go up then there is greater difficulty (it is the biggest difficulty) with the model we have used.
Questions
Could Bentley have been required to complete the contract as originally bid by hiring another contractor to finish it on Bentley's behalf? No, because you don't want a business relationship with someone you do not trust. We have a right to sue Bentley for performance of its obligations but it is a tough case to win. Proving damages is hard in that type of lawsuit.
Tom Link asked about a conflict of interest that Sam Lawrence has with the Society and his position with Findorff Construction. Sam abstained from the decision making and has stepped down from any involvement with the project. The Facilities Committee and the Board are comfortable with Sam Lawrence's involvement, with his withdrawal in a timely and ethical manner.
We are happy with our selection of Findorff Construction to complete the project because they were the number two contractor on our original bidding process and they provided the ability to step in at the point where we discovered that Bentley Construction could not perform and handle the work. The relationship with Findorff Construction has been a good one and we believe that there are no conflicts in selecting Findorff Construction.
Have we decided about how to deal with the floors? We are still debating that. There are several alternatives from leaving the floors alone to completely refinishing them. There are advantages and disadvantages to each alternative and those are being considered, with no decision having been made so far.
Richard Miller asked about the next phase of the capital campaign. Laurie solicited help from all of the members present. We are seeking participation by everyone. We can solve this challenge. For example if those who have pledged a sum before would consider simply extending their pledge for one more year that would help. We also want everyone who is a member to become involved in some way.
Elizabeth Barrett indicated that she and Sam Bates give a significant amount. Other members may be like them and may be unable to give any more. Laurie acknowledged that and said the question is how much more people can give and how many more people might give. This questions are being addressed and that is why we need the support of all members and need member help. Certainly those who have given all they can will be respected and will always be welcomed here.
Closing
Karen Gustafson provided the closing.
EXHIBITS
- Agenda
- Treasurer’s report including operating budget
- Building Project Financial Model
- Timeline for construction
