Amy Johnson opened the meeting at 12:30 saying that we are gathered to continue the dialog about renovation and to get an update on the exterior work.  She turned the meeting over to Marc Parsons, co-chair, who gave an update about the exterior work, then led discussion, offered explanations, and "walked" people through the committee's rationale for the grouping of the renovation elements. 

Approx. 45-50 people attended and many participated in the open, honest, at times impassioned, discussion.

Handouts were the one-page Project Priorities sheet and a comment form.  People were encouraged to write their comments and return to the committee by April 15.  Marc also told people that the detailed estimate sheets were available.  Julie Hamre also made available a spreadsheet of the Building Fund entries from 1999 thru 3/22/04 plus projected remainder for 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Exterior and Windows:  Marc said that the replacement stone is here for the exterior stonework repair project and that work would continue for another 3 months.  Julie said the total cost would be app. $920,000.  Marc also commented that 40% of the stained glass windows have been removed and shipped to Sioux Falls, SD, for repair.

Campaign Committee: Amy said that a committee is being formed, some have already expressed interest; she asked for volunteers.

Building Campaign Numbers: Julie reported that the total pledged was 3.3M and, of that amount, close to 2M is in planned gifts which may not be realized for anywhere from 10 to 40 years.  The fund now has 1.2M in cash but the $920,000 for stonework, $125,000 for windows and an additional $130,000 for window woodwork repair would bring the fund to app. $650,000 at the end of 2006, if everyone continued to pay their pledges.

Where we are today: Marc said we have to make a decision as to what we do right now.  He said the total costs for all project priorities would be $3,737,000 plus $920,000 for the stonework.  He commented that the committee had put the "100 year plan" into groups and further attempted to prioritize within the groups.  He also said that many of the elements within a group were prioritized so that elements needing the same tools or support could be done in the same group, using as an example the scaffolding, that, once up, could be used for many ceiling and upper level projects.  Marc said that the committee needs feedback from the congregation.

Michael Anderson (Trudy - Sylvia Rortvedt, in her notes, indicated this was Andy Weaver - I don't recall Andy having said this but maybe I'm not remembering correctly -- you get to be the deciding identifier!) said that it would be important to do the work in a cost effective manner even though work may cover both groups 1 and 2;  such as, once scaffolding is up, do work that requires it all at one time; or, only move the organ one time to avoid dust and plaster particles in it.

Will Stewart addressed the congregation saying that costs would only continue to rise the longer we wait - he cited the escalated cost of previous organ repair over a 10 year period.  He said that Luther Place took the risk to support and fund N Street Village over the doubts and objections of some and that the risk paid off, that faith makes the difference. He said that we are paying now for having done nave repairs "on the cheap" over the past 20 years.  He commented  "We want to be a presence to this neighborhood."

Dale thanked the committee for its work.  He then expressed concern about the advisability/necessity of doing everything in Group 1.  He expressed concern about LP outreach giving, noting N Street, vis a vis the renovation, saying that outreach giving is declining, and, further, that LP giving to N Street was only about $2,000 last year.

Julie replied that the $2,000 to N Street was only what was funneled through Luther Place, that many people give directly to N Street.  She said she is torn between having faith and doubting the congregation's ability to fund even groups 1 and 2 of the renovation project.    Julie also brought up the issue of the possibility of selling 1325 Vermont Ave., though she said she knew it would be a controversial topic.  The assessed value of 1325 Vermont is $1+M and it now carries a $250,000 mortgage.

Dale registered his opposition to selling 1325 Vermont Ave.

Chuck Solem said that we need to learn what the congregation will commit to; that we need a renovation fund campaign committee.  He said he would prefer that 1325 Vermont Ave. not be sold.

Amy said that the campaign committee would be organized by May and that it would look to both internal and external funding sources.

Jeff Serfass said that he will volunteer for the campaign committee.  He said, "We need to be a little more creative in our thinking; perhaps consider taking groups 1-4 to the design and development stage at this time."

Tracy Warren  commented regarding the number of  infrastructure items in groups 1 and 2, and that costs will escalate if we don't do some of the work soon.

Regarding Design and Development (D & D), Marc said that the architects could do two things now:

1. Do D & D on groups 1-5 (draw everything and get costs) or,
2. only do D & D on groups 1 and 2 and get drawings and cost estimates for 1 and 2. 

Sean Reilly said the cost would be approx. $68,000 for D & D for groups 1-5 and approx. $42,000 for reduced scope of groups 1 and 2.

Michael Anderson indicated his preference for proceeding with D & D for groups 1 and 2, thus saving the $26,000 for some other aspect of groups 1 or 2. Lowell Endahl commented that architects fees are a relatively small portion of the costs and recommended getting D & D for groups 1-4.

David Kolm asked for and received clarification that the detailed cost estimate sheets are available for everyone to review.  He asked if it is possible to borrow against the planned giving bequests. 

Julie and Chuck both responded; yes, if the bequests are in the form of life insurance policies but, no, if in the form of a will that can be changed.  Also, the ELCA will loan money if we have pledges to cover it.  Also, 1325 Vermont Ave, as well as the church building itself, could be used as collateral.

Dale again said that we are not giving to outreach/other missions.

Phil Langehough said, "I don't think we can proceed until we know what the congregation can do".  Andrew McIlroy said, "Chuck had the right idea.  We need to know what we can raise."

Amy said that we won't be able to report to the congregation at the annual meeting on May 23 because the campaign committee will be starting at that time.  And, Sean said that it would take a year for start of construction after the go-ahead to the architects.  

Serena said that, while she doesn't want Luther Place to be a National Cathedral and believes we, the congregation, would not want to be, she does appreciate worshipping in a decent space and believes others do, too.  She said, "the state we're in now is counter-productive."  She asked us to consider that we may now be losing potential members who come in and see the condition of our worship space.  She said she is in favor of encouraging the congregation to reach and challenge themselves.

Chuck suggested that we ask members who have pledged bequests to give some money now and, also, ask those who are paying their pledges in this seven year period to extend their pledges another seven years.

Will spoke to the fact that we as a congregation were called to build N Street and we did.  We said we would do our church building after N Street, so now we're here.  He said that our worship is necessary to our mission and we need to be good stewards of our building.

Carolyn asked that people return their comments by April 15.

The meeting ended around 1:45 - 2:00.

Scribe:  Marianne  Anderson