St' Andrews Visioning Study

1
St. Andrews Visioning Study

• Option Comparison
• Based on Congregation Retreat
• May 2, 2009

2
Option Comparison - Process

• Input derived from work of Visioning Team and
  Thinking Hats process used at Retreat
• Options compared based on facts, best
  estimates, issues raised by congregation
• More data is required to provide answers to key
  questions

3
Option 1 - Partner with another Church

• Description
• Join with another UC Congregation
• 2 possible scenarios
• 1a - St. Andrews goes to another congregation
• 1b - Other congregation comes to St. Andrews
• In 1a - we sell current building and land (6m)
  and take the funds to new congregation to further
  our program vision
• In 1b - presumes other congregation does similar

4
Option 1 - Partner with another Church

• Implications
• If St. Andrews building is used - major
  renovations are required
• Staff consolidation will likely occur
• Success requires selecting a church partner with
  complimentary theology, style, values and vision
• Success requires a mind-set of a Partnership -
  not a Take-over!
• Success enhanced by selecting a partner with
  complimentary demographics

5
Option 1a - Partner at other church

• Pros
• Large value from sale of current site makes
  option attractive - enhanced by plus value due to
  zoning
• Some proposed renovation work can be foregone
• Sustains and grows mutually agreed key programs
• Allows for new program development
• Likely more functionality in new facility
• Combines talents, resources and gifts of both
  congregations - Best of Both
• Keeps most of the congregation together

6
Option 1a - Partner at other church

• Cons
• Will lose some current members - new location and
  partner selection will be an issue for some
• Potential loss of some staff
• Compatibility with new partner is really unknown
  until after it happens

7
Option 1b - Partner at St. Andrews

• Pros
• Presumed that partner brings proceeds from sale
  of their site - potentially less than 1a
• Programs can be sustained and grown - see 1a
• Maintains St. Andrews identity and location but
  new partner will have same concerns as we would
  have in moving
• Cons
• Major renovations required to provide
  functionality for combined congregation
• Parking will continue to be an issue
• Potential loss of some staff

8
Option 1a and 1b - Church Partnering

• Additional Data Required
• Value of current site
• Market understanding of site value, likelihood
  and timing of sale
• List of potential Partners with an evaluation of
  compatibility
• Input from Presbytery

9
Option 2 - Redevelop site with Major Partner

• Description
• Rebuild on current site in partnership with
  developer - take advantage of MC2 zoning
• Site to include multi-unit residential housing
• Affordable housing, seniors housing etc.
• Site to include Church facilities and space for
  church programs and activities
• Implications
• Develop provides financing but St. Andrews will
  share in costs based on joint ownership
• Ongoing shared management responsibility for new
  partnership

10
Option 2 - Redevelop site with Major Partner

• Pros
• Sustains St Andrews presence and identity on the
  current site
• Takes advantage of current site strengths
• Location - transportation, schools, shopping
• Zoning value
• Compliments our social justice and outreach
  agenda
• Potential for Government or UCC funding support
• Community facility is a possibility
• Church membership enhanced by unit residents
• Provides possible path to future church partner
  on the site
• Major partner brings development and management
  expertise

11
Option 2 - Redevelop site with Major Partner

• Cons
• Constitutes a major development project - current
  site likely out of use for 3 years
• Loss of some members likely
• Costs and potential revenue from unit rent is
  unknown - financial commitment could be large
• Site foot-print influences new development plan -
  parking space would need attention
• Development of low-income housing may raise some
  local community concern
• Local community demographics likely continue to
  limit congregational growth
• Ongoing relationship management with major
  partner - control is shared and objectives may be
  different over time

12
Option 2 - Redevelop site with Major Partner

• Additional Data Required
• Market knowledge of developer interest and
  possible development scenarios
• Economics of the project -
• Development and on-going operations costs
• Unit rental income stream and other facility
  rental
• Likely structure of partnership and financial
  obligations for St. Andrews
• Possibility of other external funding
• Presbytery input

13
Option 3 - Major Renovation of Current Site

• Description
• Stay on existing site and extensively renovate to
  attract new rental income
• St. Andrews continues to own and control site
• Implications
• Renovations would proceed in a phased approach as
  funds allowed
• New rental income delayed until facilities
  complete
• Some existing capability out of service while
  renovations preceed

14
Option 3 - Major Renovation of Current Site

• Pros
• Most of current congregation would remain
• Control and title continues with St. Andrews
• Current staff would be retained
• Provides possible path to future church partner
  on the site
• New design could further our Green agenda

15
Option 3 - Major Renovation of Current Site

• Cons
• Progress pace dependent on funding ability
• Could take a long time
• May run out of money and/or energy
• New income streams do not come until after the
  money is spent
• Project economics is unknown
• Capital and on-going costs - potential large debt
• Sufficient rental income to support costs?
• Local community demographics could continue to
  limit growth
• Parking issues continue or need to be resolved in
  the renovation at a cost
• Loss of some space and capability during
  renovations is likely
• Extent of renovations is unknown - new code
  requirements could make this more extensive than
  planned
• Shift in focus - rental income manager

16
Option 3 - Major Renovation of Current Site

• Additional Data Required
• Project economics research
• Likely scope, costs, timeline
• Potential of rental income - does it pay?
• Financial obligations on St. Andrews
  congregation
• External funding options - UCC or Govt grants
• Tap into experiences of other churches that have
  done this
• Presbytery input

17
Option 4 - New Church Development in S or SE

• Description
• Sell current site and use funds to buy land and
  build a new church in an emerging community (S or
  SE)
• Congregation agrees to re-locate to new site
• Implications
• Likely lose location dependent members
• Need to develop strategies to mitigate (e.g.
  transportation)
• Funds from sale only partially cover new costs -
  results in large debt

18
Option 4 - New Church Development in S or SE

• Pros
• New building is designed as we want it
• Fits our Program Vision
• Built for the future
• Likely includes community facilities/activities
• Extends UCC presence to an area where one does
  not exist
• Excitement of a new church
• Local demographics more favourable to growth

19
Option 4 - New Church Development in S or SE

• Cons
• Costs are likely very high and only partially
  covered by sale
• Will lose some current members due to location
• Risks associated with Build it and they will
  come strategy
• Development takes a long time
• Other denominations are already in action

20
Option 4 - New Church Development in S or SE

• Additional Data Required
• Project economics
• sale value
• development scope and costs
• Congregation financial obligations and energy
  commitment
• Potential for external funding
• Land availability and potential zoning issues
• Demographics of new area - can we draw sufficient
  numbers?
• Presbytery input re develop plans and location

21
Option 5 - Reduce Costs - continue on current site

• Description
• Manage expenses to available income
• Sustain operations on current site
• Implications
• Budget short-falls (current and expected) will
  require reductions in staff and programs
• Extensive stewardship required to hold even
• This is base-case until other alternative is
  developed
• Renovations limited to required repairs only
• Explore other income options

22
Option 5 - Reduce Costs - continue on current site

• Pros
• Lowest cost option (still requires increased
  financial obligation)
• We remain in current location
• Some potential to expand services to local
  community
• Cons
• Financial shortfalls will cause programs and
  staff to be cut
• Short term option only - longer term questions
  remain
• Repair related renovations are significant
• Consistency with Vision is a question - our
  continued focus will be on funding
• Membership loss due to program reduction and lack
  of clear future

23
Option 5 - Reduce Costs - continue on current site

• Additional Data Required
• Future financial forecast based on expected costs
  and revenues
• Time line and scope of expected cuts to meet
  available income
• Potential of additional income streams