IDLEWILD CHURCH ACTIVITIES
Bible Study, History, Art, Literature, Greek Language
LETTER OF CONCERN RE PROPOSALS
Dear Kirk and Steve,
I appreciate your committee’s hard work in considering plans for our church and in discussing those plans at the recent officers’ meeting. I am also grateful to you for listening to my concerns and for your willingness to involve the congregation as a whole as well as the neighborhood in this decision. I hope that process can begin soon.
Let me propose four facts that I believe should be considered as we proceed:
#1. Neighborhoods need a critical mass of housing to remain viable. We have already destroyed a considerable amount of our residential area. A current example of our impact can be seen across the street on
#2. Even looked at in terms of self-interest, Idlewild needs a vibrant Midtown far more than it needs a larger assembly room. People don’t drive dozens of miles to get here in order to have a little more elbow room at the coffee hour. They come because of our caring congregation and our amazing staff. Moreover, they feel comfortable in coming because we still adjoin a pleasant neighborhood. Having grown up at St. Mary’s Episcopal, I have seen how a church suffers when its neighborhood erodes. I pray that we may never reach that state, but we should look around us. The healthiest areas of Midtown are
#3. Churches by their nature are part-time users of facilities. At Idlewild, we make better than average use of our building during the week, but that still leaves a vast amount of underused space. Churches must build to meet their essential needs, even if their needs only crest for a few hours per week. However, those needs must be critically evaluated to see if they truly are essential. In all cases, this is a matter of good stewardship. When we consider enlarging our already huge footprint, it becomes a matter of justice to our neighbors and concern for our environment as well. We also need to be aware that churches enjoy a freedom from zoning that equips them to be block busters. As the church moves up the block, it creates “facts on the ground” that allow other uses to obtain zoning and to destroy more homes. This again raises the issue of justice to our neighbors—as well as the church’s own enlightened self-interest in preserving a setting that attracts members and visitors.
#4. Overbuilding also harms the general environment. In working with the Park Friends and opposing the digging out
Weighed against these concerns, I cannot see the current plan as desirable for the future of Idlewild—especially the part that is driving the idea of a new gymnasium. Upgrading the entrance, the handicapped access, and the classrooms can all be done within our existing space. The only “need” driving the proposal for a new gym is the desire to replace the T.K. Young Room for such things as coffee hours and first Sunday lunches. That room has served those same functions through times when Idlewild’s congregation greatly exceeded its current or projected size. It is a far more beautiful room than the gym and more accessible to people leaving the Sanctuary. It would be a tragedy for this lovely part of our building to become redundant and serve only as a pass through.
This duplication would also saddle us permanently with two large assembly areas to be heated, cooled and maintained where we only need one. I submit that this part of the proposal is undesirable at any price. Its elimination would enable us to reduce the cost of the project, to exercise mercy toward our neighborhood, and to avoid the risk of creating a white elephant that would forever increase operating costs.
I hope that the Session and the Congregation will take these thoughts into account as we review the proposals. If they are given a clear understanding of the large extent to which the program can be done within our existing footprint and the limited benefit that would come from a new gymnasium, I believe they will make the correct decision.
With Best Personal Regards and Gratitude for Your Service,
Ernest Kelly
LRP HISTORY OF PLANS
October 9, 2009 Idlewild Presbyterian Church, Long Range Planning
Facilities Planning Process to Date 2003‐ began initial groundwork to study facilities and potential deficiencies which should be addressed long term Late 2004 and all of 2005‐TRO, hired by the Long Range Planning Committee, worked with all programcommittees of church and staff to determine programmatic needs that were not currently being met by our existing facilities. Findings were presented in a comprehensive report to the committee. In late 2005 the TRO findings were condensed into a presentation which was reviewed with staff and committees. December 2005‐the TRO presentation was made to the Session. At that meeting there were concernsexpressed regarding the breadth of facilities improvements which were presented as well as the number of residences which were needed to be acquired in order for the expansion to take place (for that plan to be implemented, the Church would have needed to acquire and demolish 5 or 6 residences). Early 06‐A capital campaign feasibility task force was formed (Larry Bryan, Chair, Wallace Bruce, Bena Cates, John Coats, Bill McCorkle, John Pontius and Julie Raines) to determine what might be appropriate next steps. The task force recommended hiring C S Duncan to assist the task force. April 06‐Session approved the hiring of C S Duncan to conduct a preliminary feasibility study for a capitalcampaign. Duncan’s work included conducting several dozen interviews of church members to gaugetheir attitudes towards a capital campaign and get a feel for a likely level of support by the congregationfor a campaign. Conclusion of Duncan’s work (based on feedback of those interviewed) was that, although those interviewed felt a strong sense of commitment to investing in the future of Idlewild, our original project scope (2005) and resultant campaign goal was too aggressive. June 07‐ Outreach Unit identified “at risk” children, ages 0‐5, to be next targeted focus for Idlewild Outreach with a goal of becoming NAEYC accredited. This request was presented to Session and approved (need to review meeting minutes to see exactly what was approved). It was noted in thereport presented to Session that doing this would entail major codes upgrades to the Jones Building. December 07‐ Update made to Session by LRP on the facilities plan which included two new options.One option did not entail any expansion of the existing footprint of our buildings and a second new option was a scaled back expansion (compared to the 2005 plan). It was noted that the upcoming officers retreat in January would included small group discussion of the various facilities options. January 12, 2008‐ at the officers retreat, the three options were once again presented with background on the process that been undertaken to arrive at the current options. By this time, some 100 current and prior officers of the church had been exposed to the facilities options (not to mention the member of the 2005 Session) and had been given opportunity to provide feedback. The comments from thesmall groups were documented on flip charts and summarized for the LRP committee review. There wasnot one comment documented that supported the option that did not include expanding outside of the current church walls. January 16, 2008‐Session approved a motion from the LRP committee to form a Capital CampaignCommittee to move forward with determining the next steps required to advance the planning process for a campaign. The specific targeted scope approved was the new expansion plan (one ultimatelypresented at the first College of Officers dinner). March 19, 2008‐proposal from Arnoult & Associates to conduct final feasibility work for a capital campaign presented to Session and approved. March‐May 08‐Coordinating Forum met bi‐weekly with Arnoult & Associates to begin work on new vision for Idlewild. Ultimately leg work passed on to Project Steering Committee April & May 08‐Arnoult & Associates conducted 20‐25 more interviews with church members and 8‐10 more staff interviews. June 29, 2008‐congregation voted to acquire Douthit residence w/ understanding that members of thecongregation would have an opportunity in the future to voice their concerns about demolishing the residence before such a decision was finalized. July 08‐Project Steering Committee formed and held first meeting. Members are Mary Lou Adams, Kirk Bobo, Larry Bryan, Bob Llewellyn, Milton Lovell, Dorothy McClure, Art Nienhuis, John Pontius, Gwin Scott, Anne Stokes and staff members, Steve Montgomery, Margaret Burnett and Betty Anne Wilson. August 08‐TRO hired under the direction of the Project Steering Committee to develop schematic designdocuments based on the concept approved by the Session in March. One of the initial components of TRO’s work was to determine the scope of building code deficiencies which would need to be addressed in the Jones Building if we were to make any significant improvements to the building. Theirinvestigations revealed that, so long as we planned to continue to operate our early childhood program in the Jones Building (NAYEC accredited or not) after making any substantive improvements to the building, we would be required to bring the building into compliance to current codes. October 2008‐Session endorsed the outreach priority and the formation of a committee to oversee theprocess of pursuing NAEYC accreditation through the formation of the Children and Family Enrichment Committee (CAFÉ Committee). Members of the CAFÉ Committee are Julia Allen, Heather Chauhan, Megan Ford, Thor Kvande, Milton Lovell, Peggy McClure, Eric Miller, Lee Myers and Anne Stokes with Margaret Burnett as staff. December 08‐ Steve’s Montgomery sent a letter to congregation updating them on what has been happening since 2003 on the facilities planning front.2009‐ work of Project Committee slowed intentionally to determine what impact current economy might have on our moving forward. Formed a subcommittee (Anne Stokes, Margaret Burnett and Ashley Larue) to evaluate recreation program in light of possibly cutting back on size of replacement recreation facilities should we move forward with a capital campaign. Trying to determine exactly whatour recreation program should address relative to outreach/community needs (in light of programs thathave come/will come on line in community‐MAM and Kroc Center) as well as needs of congregation. May 5, 2009‐College of Officers presentation of facilities plan by Berger and Bobo.
LRP PROPOSAL AS TO MOVING FORWARD TOWARD A DECISION
October 9, 2009, Idlewild Presbyterian Church, Long Range Planning
Facilities Planning Moving Forward (generally in order, but some activities may be concurrent) • Finalize recreation needs assessment‐this will inform the Project Committee whether or not a new gym will, in fact be needed (vs. converting the current gym into a multi‐purposegym/fellowship hall) and if it is, what it needs to be (single court, single w/ non‐regulation cross courts, or two full courts). • Update from committees investigating future development and expansion of the Child Care Center, including specific provisions for NAEYC accreditation; a recommendation to seek NAEYCaccreditation will be a separate item for Session consideration. • Finalize Case Statement and adopt by Project Steering Committee • Re‐visit architectural planning and cost estimating based on current assessment of worknecessary to fulfill the facilities plan. • Engage congregation in discussions regarding neighborhood property acquisition and the possibility of converting and/or demolishing such properties to support the future expansion of the Idlewild campus. • Complete feasibility work by Arnoult and Project Steering Committee. At the core of this will be presentation of the Case Statement and Project Plans to members of the congregation for feedback • Develop and execute communications plan for neighbors regarding the facilities upgrades • Present recommendation to Session for approval to commence capital campaign (if that is, infactthe recommendation of the Project Steering Committee). Recommendation will include a proposed architectural design concept and estimated costs based on current projections. It will be up to the Session to determine what additional measures of congregational involvement/input they feel is necessary in order to approve moving forward. • Name Campaign Committee (if Session approves recommendation to move forward) and seek Session approval of same. • Commence Campaign
