FIRST UNITARIAN SOCIETY
PARISH MEETING
MINUTES
MADISON, WI
February 5, 2006
ATTENDANCE
311 members signed the attendance lists.
CALL TO ORDER
First Unitarian Society President Alan Knox
called the meeting to order at time 1:35 p.m.
Michael Schuler provided opening remarks
describing the meaning of democracy
and its
importance. It is important to maintain relationships
and to
avoid polarization.
Alan discussed the process of proceeding with
the new facility as the result
of last May’s parish meeting and what is expected in the coming May
parish meeting. Alan then described how questions would be handled.
REVIEW OF TIMELINE FOR HISTORIC AND NEW FACILITIES
Michael May, the co-chair of the Facilities Development Task Force, pointed out the timeline that was mailed out and how we got where we are. He mentioned that the timeline really extends back before 1998 that is shown on the timeline. We have previously tried started starting new congregations and they have not solved our needs. In 2003, we again decided that the creation of a new congregation would not solve our current growth issue. The vote today will be to decide whether to proceed with a feasibility study to raise funds for the plans under consideration. This is our plan. It is our vision as the result of feedback we have been given. It has an important scope. It includes the historic meeting house and it includes our current needs for space. It also includes our future in the green nature of the building.
PROPOSED PLANS FROM THE KABALA WASHATKO ARCHITECTS
Tom Kabala introduced the design process that the Kabala Washatko firm uses. It is an organic process and it is fluid. It responds to changing conditions. It is interconnected where each decision has an impact on others. It included listening carefully to our needs. The patterns were interwoven. They were smoothed to create good flow. Feedback from the congregation and the public allows it to respond to real needs. Multiple responses were given to test the feedback that was received. So it was a back and forth process.
Vince Micha, lead architect, reviewed the plans for the facility, which is at the schematic design stage. Vince described what would be removed and the new footprint. The size is almost doubled but the footprint is being “lightened.” The roof surfaces are green surfaces. The water will be collected and used for toilet flushing and also will be used in rain gardens and returned to the ground. As little storm water as possible will be sent to the storm sewers. The loggia rooms are remodeled for social spaces. The childcare will be remodeled. Various administrative offices, music rooms, and youth spaces are located in the new wing. They allow the staff and others to “bump” into one another. The new auditorium is flipped from the October design to provide better flow. In response to feedback, the crossing has been expanded, a kitchen with access to the auditorium exists, and classroom sizes are changeable with adjustable walls. The prairie on the north property line will be restored and a labyrinth and a council fire ring are added. Solar energy will be used for both heating and cooling. Vince described the various other aspects of the use of solar energy to heat, cool and produce electricity. The west wall of the new auditorium is constructed of louvered stone to avoid overheating. The roof height is about the same height as the chimney stack by the west living room. It is only about 10’ higher than the current roof of the lower meeting house.
Pete Sekowski talked about costs for the facility. Challenges, particularly recent ones, included water run-off, historic structure compatibility, engineering features, construction management and dealing with subcontractors. The $14,300,000 figure includes construction, demolition, site work, remodeling. Indirect costs include administration to make the project work, new furniture, temporary relocation costs, a contingency fee of 5%, fund raising costs, escalation costs (inflation costs). The major increases leading to cost increases since October include scope increases (size of project), including engineering costs and escalation costs.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and to make comments for no more than two minutes. Questions may also be submitted in writing.
Michael Goodman asked what base data was used for altitude calculations. Sea level is the base.
Jim Jaeger gave his explanation of working on this for five years. He recommended that we take the next step in favor of boldness and finding out if we have the will to build this wonderful design by doing the feasibility study.
Sue Rosea said she is thrilled with the sensitivity to the existing building. She asked about the organ. Vince explained that the organ would be in the balcony because Dan Broner and the acoustical expert said that is the optimal location for it. It is also a piece of art. She asked if the organ will obscure the view out of the back of the window. Vince said the windows by the organ will allow for a view on either side.
Infant and toddler childcare area is crowded now. Is it being expanded? Vince indicated there is another area so there are really other childcare areas, almost doubling in size the area for childcare.
Colleen Hayes asked for the slide showing the crossing outward. Parking is quite visible. Can it be moved. Vince said that door is still open.
Gail Snowden asked about accommodation for people with increasing disabilities. She asked about one elevator limitation and also the fact that people may be limited to the upper balcony. Vince said the elevator is centrally located. It is oversized. It provides reasonable accessibility with our cost limitations. The screen behind the pulpit could allow for visibility for anyone with visual limitations. Hearing limitations will be handled by hearing assistance devices.
Brad Munger expressed a concern about solar overheating and sun washing with glare. Vince explained that they have modeled the new building on our current building to get the sun line for where the overhang should end. This should handle overheating and sunwashing.
Tom Link said his offers to serve on the facilities committee were ignored. He believes we may not have parking in the future and may have to build a parking structure in the future.
Have we been too conservative in our projected seating capacity? The architects have responded to our request for a 500-person capacity in the auditorium. Vince said we have a maximum capacity and we will be at or near it. At 900 people we will be over it for this site.
The size of the crossing did not affect the auditorium size.
Sound proofing classrooms will have a greater sound coefficient than a regular wall.
On parking we will lose about 30 spaces. We are not going to build to accommodate the automobile. We have alternative parking nearby.
Do the cross beams hinder or help the acoustics? The decision was to create a “bright” surface acoustically. The acoustic expert feels that the new space will be good.
The roof. There is not direct teenager access. It is designed to handle snow. It is dormant in the winter and it can handle the load.
Paths around the building. The Americans with Disabilities Act looks at the surface material that is being used. Wood chips are considered accessible. The goal is to make as much of it accessible as possible.
Heather Mann will vote for the feasibility study for the project. She asked about the risk involved with the new engineering concepts. Frank Lloyd Wright was weak on engineering. Vince said that any new innovative building is taking risks. Vince said that they have experience and learned from prior projects and believe they can implement the ideas with minimal risk. It does not come without risk however.
Bob Cabe asked who is going to do the study, what will we learn and will it tell us anything new. Alan explained about Paul Mack’s background. The cost is $14,000. It will tell us by contacting the 50-60 most likely largest donors what we might expect to raise.
Bob Dott asked about what stone work will be done. It has not been decided yet but we want them to be compatible.
Drew Helwig asked about what opportunities there will be to contribute work to this building. We expect to have a number of chances for members to contribute work and “hands-on” efforts.
Will the new auditorium allow use for a variety of new opportunities for the parish? Yes, it can be used for other social gatherings and other functions.
We are not cutting native trees on the south side of the new building. The native trees are remaining.
What concerns have our neighbors expressed? Light, rain runoff and the dumpster were all concerns. We believe we have addressed their concerns in neighborhood meetings we have held.
The elevators could be small or larger. It makes more sense to go with the larger one at first rather than retrofit.
Geothermal wells. Vince described what the test drilling showed.
Will the nursery school expand in the new building? No.
Will there be an organ in the new auditorium? Structurally it can be accommodated. It is not planned as part of the initial structure for cost reasons.
Can the design be phased in? Yes, but they would prefer to hold off on that until the feasibility study is complete. Michael May explained about value engineering, which is the process to decide what to hold off on until we raise the funds and then decide what we can afford.
How will the cost affect the annual operating budget? We do not want to allow a mortgage to cripple our operating budget.
What will the feasibility accomplish? It will determine what we can
afford. If there is a “no” vote today then we call off
the consultant for now and decide what step is next.
Restoration of Building A is included in the total building budget.
We have the potential to get some very large grants.
Barb Avery commented that green buildings are better for the staff so it is not just an operating cost issue.
VOTE ON RESOLUTION
A resolution was offered to approve proceeding with a feasibility study to determine our ability to raise the necessary funds for proceeding with construction of a new facility shown in the plans presented to the congregation and to make necessary renovations to the historic meeting house.
Those favoring the resolution - 287
Those against the resolution - 14
Those abstaining - 1
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Minutes by Thomas Detmer, First Unitarian Society Secretary
EXHIBITS
- Parish Meeting Agenda
- Parish Meeting Facilities Packet
