UPDATE FROM THE PROPERTY COMMITTEE

August, 2007

Rhonda Everson (chair), Ewen Coxworth, Carl von Baeyer, tessera nova

Outline

A. Preface: Ideas to be taken to the designer in September 2007

B. Ideas collected during the 2007 canvass in May 2007

C. Results of written survey of people attending Sunday services in April 2007

A. Preface: Ideas to be taken to the designer in September 2007

These are some of the needs and ideas the property committee will be talking to the interior designer about when we meet with her in September. What we will be asking her to do is help us utilize our space more effectively keeping in mind our needs. The ideas are presented in no particular order.

1. Accommodation for increasing numbers of infants, children and youth.

2. Airlock system for the front door.

3. Doors to the sanctuary which might allow for part or all of the foyer to be used for RE space.

4. Wheelchair accessibility including accessible washroom(s).

5. New colours for visual identity.

6. Making the foyer more attractive.

7. Digging out the crawl space under the foyer to make usable space.

8. Removal of some or all pews from the sanctuary and replacement with chairs.

9. Removal of the fireplace and replacement with a safer, more energy-efficient fireplace or something else that will provide an attractive focal point in the foyer.

10. The concrete front walk needs to be replaced. It could be replaced with paving blocks which would allow: a curved path; a chalice or other decoration set into the paving using different coloured blocks; and sale of individual blocks (bearing names for a high price or no names for a low price).

Friends and member have also brought to the property committee the need for blinds on the sanctuary windows, making the pews more comfortable, a different colour for the sanctuary and foyer, reducing the noise in the sanctuary from the basement, a built in dishwasher in the kitchen to name a few. These are not forgotten.

If anyone has any other ideas please feel free to let us know.

B. Ideas collected during the 2007 canvass in May 2007

Question 4: What is your vision for the building? (35 respondents)

Number of respondents, where more than one, is shown in parentheses

• Sanctuary a different colour (7)
• Wheelchair accessibility washrooms main floor (6)
• Better / softer more adaptable seating (5)
• A crying room (5)
• Sound barrier/door for sanctuary (5)
• Better space for me kids and RE (4)
• Wheelchair accessibility to sanctuary (4)
• A place for the community and community events (4)
• Basement reconfigured and updated for more usefulness (3)
• To serve the needs of the current congregation (2)
• Improved speaker and microphone system (2)
• Green sanctuary (environmental improvements) (2)
• Buy house next door as investment / expand RE (2)
• Building is too Christian /churchy (2)
• Soft cushions (2)
• Sound factor (children & toys, etc.) (2)
• No grass in front (picnic table, benches, play area) outdoor foyer for 3 seasons (2)
• Need a bike stand
• Better dividers for basement
• Bigger front entrance with airlock
• Brighter colours
• Face lift in the entrance/lounge
• A place where it is obvious children are welcome
• Wall to display art
• Video relay to the nursery
• Feels Crying Rooms don't work
• My vision includes lots of activities
• Enlarge coffee area
• Eventually expanded for RE space and social gatherings
• Well insulated
• Low maintenance (easy to clean)
• Quiet spaces for meetings
• Clear of clutter and storage
• Beautiful and functional
• Sell it and rent out a church
• Window blinds for sanctuary
• Remove cross or adapt it
• Space behind organ not safe now
• Founders wall project or similar idea
• Current building not seen as permanent, but a temporary stepping stone till a better space is found

C. Results of written survey of people attending Sunday services in April 2007

“Your vision for our Unitarian Building”
Results of survey of people attending Sunday services, 15-29 April 2007
Report compiled by Carl von Baeyer and tessera nova, May 2007

Outline: (1) Disclaimer. (2) Mean scores. (3) Some technical details. (4) All comments transcribed. (5) Charts of individual response frequencies.

(1) Disclaimer
This report is for guidance and background only and it should not be taken as an indication of decisions made by the Congregation nor by the Property Committee.

(2) Mean scores
In this chart, the items are worded exactly as they were on the survey form. The ranking or rating scale was from 1 (most preferred) to 7 (least preferred). The most preferred items are at the top of the chart and the least preferred are at the bottom.

(3) Technical details

Thirty-seven people provided complete rankings or ratings of the options given and an additional 11 people provided one or more scores, for a total of 48 scored sheets.

Most respondents used the numbers as ranks. A few people skipped ranks or used the numbers as ratings 1 to 7 instead of ranks, i.e., skipping some numbers. All were treated the same, since a rank of 1 out of 7 and a rating of 1 out of 7 can be treated as roughly equivalent. If a person entered only one preference it was scored as 1 and other items
were left missing.

Below is a table showing number, mean, median, and mode for each question.

The median and mode lead to pretty much the same conclusions as shown in the graph of mean scores.

Support for the crying room is statistically significantly higher than for all of the other options. The colours below show how the means fall into four clusters ranked green (most preferred), yellow, tan, and pink (least preferred).

Again, lower scores reflect greater preference.

(4) All comments transcribed, in no particular order

• Elevator: cost is a problem. . Elevator: or acceptable room in the foyer with screen and web cam.
• Wheelchair accessible washrooms: Main floor, not necessarily basement.
• Removing pews (ranked 1): easy to accomplish with little expense.
• Glass doors: or doors with glass.
• Wheelchair accessible washrooms: Basement crossed out.
• Elevator: when we have $.
• Removing all pews to chairs means setups -- slightly higher maintenance of scratched floors or heavier vacuum job of Chapel. Use cushions - donations of.
• I would assume that room dividers are much less costly than many of the above endeavours. Taking care of the children is hugely important. I do not like the 1-7 it does not accurately reflect my feeling, sorry.
• I based my answer on the following: 1. Address perceived current real needs. 2. Address environmental stewardship. 3. Address possible future needs. I am unaware of the cost of these projects which might influence the order I would assign.
  
• On a survey with no ranking: I suggest that we need to, first, decide what our Ministry is, then set priorities on which modifications and improvements will have the most impact in helping us achieve our goals for ministry.
• A sound barrier so the noise from below isn't disruptive?
• More comfortable chairs in the middle floor for elderly people who need support.
• Better RE facilities (written into the #1 ranked item, new room dividers…)
• Blinds for west windows in the Chapel for slide presentation.
• Purchase building two east of property. In considering what to do, first cost of effective change.
• Curtains or blinds for the sanctuary.
• Removing pews: “Some” is circled, “All” is crossed out.
• An effective sound system (I wish I could have heard what the children were saying this morning.
• Solar hot water heating.
• Replacing the elevator item: "wheelchair access to basement. Replacing the wheelchair accessible washrooms item: wheelchair access to sanctuary and main floor washrooms. Wheelchair access should be split into two: access for sanctuary/main washrooms; access for basement. Upstairs can be done for a lot less $$. Why glass doors and not wood with windows?
• Need more space for Children's group, plumbed in dishwasher
• Find a new church with all of these features (less expense), elevator/ramps
• Glass doors for sanctuary entrance - "I don't know what this would be"
• All are important priorities.
  

(5) Charts of individual response frequencies

Please see page 4 of this document: ucs-building-survey-report2.pdf