New Blog

The renovation is starting and we decided to move all information to a new Blog.

Please visit:

http://betcsanctuaryrenovation.blogspot.com

Choices

Dear Board of Trustees and Beth El Temple Community,

As you are well aware, the Board of Trustees was convened for a special meeting last week in order to review the current state of the plans for our sanctuary renovation. The Oversight Committee would like to express our thanks to all of you who attended this unexpected meeting, during a time when many of us have our minds on things other than Temple business. It was extremely helpful to us to hear all of your voices. We would also like to apologize for the lack of communication during July and August. It was never our intention to withhold information. The Committee was simply trying to grapple with a very difficult situation. Going forward, we hope to be able to keep the community up to date and aware of all decisions and developments.

Last week’s meeting was quite well attended, with 26 Board members present, as well as 14 additional interested congregants in attendance. All who attended were given an opportunity to speak, and members of the Oversight Committee recorded all comments.

The purpose of this letter is two-fold: 1) To summarize the discussion by the Board at that meeting, and 2) to further clarify some elements of the renovation plans as they were presented, in order that everyone understands not only the purposes, but also the interrelationships of these elements, so that we can make our decisions based on clear knowledge of what is at stake as we redesign our worship space.

At last week’s meeting, three general plans were presented, all of which were post-bid redesigns of the architects’ original plan, since the bids came in much higher than we expected. In brief, the plans range on one end from a design based strictly on the monies we currently have available to us, but which accomplishes very few of our original goals and values, and significantly compromises sightlines, to the other end – the plan that we put out to bid and towards which we were aiming, which accomplishes everything we had set out to do, but would require a significant organizational “stretch” financially, and finally, a plan that is somewhere in the middle, which accomplishes most of our important objectives, and will require some additional monies. The Oversight committee feels that the “budget” scheme has lost some of the essential goals that we have been working towards for the past five years, and cannot recommend that the community go forward with a design scheme that does not at least maintain current sightlines. The committee feels that at a minimum, we need to find a way to increase our budget to at least slope the floor or move the columns. That being said, we also have confidence in Bob Luchetti to adapt any budget to something that will be comfortable and nice – however, the community needs to be aware that it does not meet our mandated goals.

After the presentations, both Board members and non-Board members individually offered their points of view. There did seem to be a very strong desire that both the Board and the community want us to proceed with the renovation as soon as is prudent. What is not clear yet is what our budget should be and which design option we should pursue. Overall, the Board’s concerns about both the Temple’s operating budget and the current economy came through loud and clear, and only a few members appeared to support the full vision. And while some Board members and congregants felt that we should only do what we can with the current budget, a number of Board members were willing to entertain the possibility of trying to increase our budget through a combination of fundraising and additional borrowing if: 1) additional pledges come forward, 2) specific financials are articulated, along with the potential impact on future budgets, 3) it is clear that there are tangible and functional design benefits in terms of our community goals and values, and that we are not simply trying to make ornamental changes or create something “fancy.”

The major goals of our sanctuary renovation, as articulated by members of our community, are to create a warm, comfortable, flexible, and accessible space, with improved sightlines, lighting & acoustics, and if possible, with more natural light. In order to accomplish these goals, several interrelated structural changes need to be implemented. The following is an explanation of what these changes entail, and how they are related both to each other and to our communal goals and values.

1. Moving the Bima Back. There are at least four, important renovation goals that require moving the bima back towards Concord Avenue.

a) .The first two goals requiring us to move the bima back are sightlines and accessibility. In order to have a bima at the height we would like to have available for the High Holy Days (to maximize sightlines from the auditorium), we need to move the bima back so that we still have enough distance to create a wheelchair ramp that complies with building codes (i.e., whose slope is not too steep). Some people think we can accomplish our goal of accessibility by installing a mechanical lift – this neither meets code, saves us money or is an expression of our values since it adds a stigma to those who may need to use it.

b)The third and fourth goals requiring us to move the bima back are flexibility and seating capacity. Flexible seating (which allows us to arrange seats in ways that are more creative and also better nurtures a feeling of community), takes up significantly more floor space than rows of pews. In order to have sufficient room for those flexible seats without losing too many additional seats in the sanctuary, we need to move the bima back. You’ll note that this goal means we’d still need to move the bima back even if we chose not to make the bima accessible (or to use some alternative kind of lift device).

2. Enlarging the Bima Area. The renovation goal achieved by this design feature is the flexibility we need for the many and various services and events when more people are to be present on the bima

3. Moving the Support Columns. Once we decide to move the bima back and enlarge it, the two, vertical columns that support the roof (they’re now hidden behind the bima wall) are uncovered. The renovation goal at stake in moving these columns is to maintain or improve sightlines in the sanctuary. Relocating the vertical columns allows clear sightlines to all areas of the bima – if they are not relocated – some seats on the sides of the sanctuary will likely have obstructed views and thus limited use. Also, because they will be exposed, congregants may find them to be a visual distraction even if they have a clear view of the ark and the center portion of the bima.

4. Adding a Second, Lower Level to the Bima. The two renovation goals fulfilled by the lower bima are flexibility and creating a warmer, more intimate feeling for our intermediate sized, regular services.

a)While we want, ideally, to have a higher bima for the High Holy Days, the vast majority of our services do not require a bima of that height. In fact, with such a high bima, the effectiveness of our regular, smaller services actually is harmed because of the drastic angle of sight from the front rows and also because the high bima creates a sense of physical distance/separation from the people on the bima and discourages the feeling of involvement and active participation in services. In other words, for the vast majority of our services, a higher bima actually makes it more difficult for the clergy to create the kind of warm, participatory experience envisioned by our congregational mission statement. By contrast, a lower bima allows us to create a

warmer, more intimate, more involved feeling for our intermediate sized services (approx. 100-200 people) while still preserving maximal sightlines. Many of our B’nai Mitzvah services, for example, would benefit from being conducted from such a lower bima.

5. Sloping the Floor. The goal of sloping the floor is simply to maintain or improve sightlines in the sanctuary. The new, lower bima—which would be much more appropriate and effective for many of our services—would make it somewhat more difficult to see what takes place on that bima if you’re sitting towards the back of the sanctuary. While this would not be much of an issue for services with attendance of fewer than 100 people (presuming people would sit either in the flexible seats or in the front rows of pews), the decreased angle of sight to the lower bima would be difficult for folks in the rear of the sanctuary (when we have 100-300 people in the sanctuary or a number of folks who simply choose to sit in the back rows). Simply put, even people of average height would find it difficult to see over the heads of the people sitting in front of them.

6. Windows. In the early days of this process, during various opportunities for input (both written and verbal), many members of the congregation expressed their hope for introducing more natural light into the sanctuary. Many said that such light would add a kind of warmth and feeling of connection with nature that is very important to their own sense of spirituality. The plan calls for a skylight over the bima and new windows along the wall. The new windows proposed for the walls of the sanctuary and above the ark are intended to nurture and respond to that sensibility.

At the next Board of Trustees meeting, which is scheduled for September 24^th, Board members will be voting on the renovation plan with which we will proceed. Prior to that meeting, Board members will receive more details regarding the financial implications of the options we face. In addition, the Oversight Committee will hold informational sessions for the community on Sunday, September 14^th from 9:30 –11:00am, and on Tuesday, September 16^th from 7:00-8:30pm, and post updated information on the sanctuary renovation website. The Oversight Committee wants and encourages your input as we attempt to implement our synagogues’s mission to be a community that nurtures a warm, vibrant, beautiful and spiritually nourishing worship life, while at the same time being fiscally responsible and moving forward with this holy project of building a sanctuary that will hopefully serve our needs for many years to come.

On behalf of the Sanctuary Renovation Oversight Committee, thank you for taking the time to read this and to participate in the discussion. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mike Wolfson at mwolfson@alum.mit.edu or Elyse Shuster at elyse.shuster@verizon.net

Options

The following sketches attempt to describe our options.

chart-of-renovation-designs-final

CHART OF MAJOR ELEMENTS IN SANCTUARY DESIGNS
Our Goals: To create a sanctuary that…	Design 1 [fits within current budget]	Design 2 [would require approx. $150,000-$250,000 additional]	Design 3 [would require approx.$400,000 additional]
… is Comfortable (esp. seating)	New seating	New Seating	New Seating
… is Flexible (works for variety of services)	§ Push bima back to make room for flexible seating § Single level bima may have areas with obstructed views lessens not as flexible as other two schemes	§ Push bima back to make room for flexible seating § Larger bima area; moveable reading table – may have some obstructed views at the sides of the bima	§ Push bima back to make room for flexible seating § Larger bima area when many people need to share bima; moveable reading table § Lower bima for intimate services
… is Accessible (to all who join us, including those in wheelchairs)	§ Ramps to a single level bima § Gradual steps	§ Ramps to one or two levels of the bima § Gradual steps	§ Ramps to two levels of bima(s) § Gradual steps
…is Intimate/Welcoming/Warm (to help create community)	§ Lower bima § Partial new lighting § Minimal new wood	§ Lower bima § New hung ceiling and lighting § Moderate use of wood and warm materials	§ Lower bima and upper bima(s) – accommodates smaller groups and flexible seating § Complete hung ceiling and subtle lighting § Increased wood and nicer materials § More sophisticated lighting controls
… has Good Sightlines (it’s easy to see)	§ This scheme does not improve existing site-lines § Relies on temp. upper bima that can be used for High Holy Day or other very large services	Either: § sloped floor for good visibility to floor & lower bima (most services) – leave vertical supports on bima that partially block view § or…move vertical support columns to sides but leave floor flat creating poor sightlines from rear of sanctuary § Relies on temp. upper bima that can be used for High Holidays	§ Upper bima that can be used for High Holy Day or other very large services; § Slope floor for good visibility to floor & lower bima (most services); § Move vertical, ceiling supports to sides of room to prevent obstructed view and avoid visual distraction
… has a Good Sound System (it’s easy to hear)	New Sound System	New Sound System	New Sound System
… allows more Natural Light (inspiration from nature)	Natural light will not be added in this scheme	Skylight over bima	§ Skylight over bima § Add new windows on side walls

August 24 Board meeting minutes

BETH EL TEMPLE CENTER

MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

AUGUST 28, 2008

MINUTES

Participants (Board members): Len Abram, Marlene Archer, Steve Black, David Brams, Mara Klein Collins, Leslie Copes-Finke, Adam Dash, Lynne Delise, Sharon Feinberg, Cantor Fine, Mort Glass, Jodi Greenspan, Jonathan Jacoby, Rabbi Kraus, Ed Mattison, Jonathan Miller, Susan Morrel, Elyse Shuster, Amy Tananbaum, Jill Tapper, Joseph Tovares, Gail Walker, Ted Wayne, John Weiss, Candice Wesson

Participants (non-Board members): Larry Adler, Julia Blatt, Rosalie Epstein, Arlene Feinberg, Carol Goldman, Donald Goldman, Jayne Grudberg, Steve Klionsky, Jane Levin, Yakov Makarovsky Gail Mann, Jane Roth, Shevie Tananbaum, Marc Tapper, Mike Wolfson

1. Jill Tapper provided an overview of the rules of dialogue by which Board meetings are conducted, including the process for participation by non-Board members.

2. Rabbi Kraus offered a d’var torah.

3. Elyse Shuster introduced a report from the sanctuary renovation committee, noting the following points:

- The committee has taken and continues to take their job very seriously, recognizing the tremendous responsibility that has been placed on them to protect the past, present, and future.

- The renovation is a “once in a lifetime opportunity,” since the reality is that we will not renovate again for at least another 50 years, and the committee seeks to view this project through the lens of something that will serve the community over that time period.

- A status letter has been delivered to the entire congregation (incorporated here by reference).

- What we can currently afford with pledges made to date is significantly different from what had been presented last spring; as a result, the committee is unwilling to proceed without Board guidance.

- It is important to understand the ramifications of the decision(s) the committee and the congregation have to make and to understand as well that the committee is trying to do the right thing (whatever that might be).

- A final decision not expected this evening; however, the committee expects resolution of this issue at the September board meeting. The goal tonight is to leave with a fairly clear sense of direction.

- The committee thanks the Board for keeping an open mind and for the time Board members will spend thinking about this over the next several weeks.

Mike Wolfson summarized in more detail how we have arrived at this point, nothing that:

- The process involved developing and refining a design between October 2007 and May 2008 based on a general scheme that it was agreed worked best and met the congregation’s primary objectives.

- At the end of May, drawings were prepared and made ready for bid. Seven bidders were invited; four submitted bids.

- Three of the bids were very similar in price (within $15K of each other, total cost); the fourth bid was much higher.

- The committee interviewed the three lower bidders, even though all bid more than we can currently afford.

- The committee selected a preferred bidder (Hamilton Construction) and began working with them (not under contract) to see if the price could be reduced. Hamilton has continued to work on this over the last two months.

- As a result, the committee now has a much better sense of the tradeoffs and sacrifices that would need to be made in order to stay within our current budget.

- Three new schemes have been prepared, which Mike presented through architectural drawings

· A “full vision” scheme– slightly pared down from the original design, but retaining most of the key elements (sloped floor and ceiling, skylights and clerestory windows, flexible seating area, multi-level bimah, improved acoustics, “room-within-a-room,” handicap accessible).

· A “current budget” scheme – most of the existing ceiling remains, some new lighting, no clerestory windows, flexible seating remains but fixed seating would not be sloped, handicap accessible bimah, single-height bimah (lower than existing bimah, but higher than lower level of “full vision”), existing columns on either side of bimah would be exposed but not removed (creating some obstructed views).

· A “somewhere in between” scheme – the key to this scheme would likely be a choice between achieving greater “vertical” sight lines (by sloping the floor) and achieving greater “horizontal” sight lines (by removing the columns on either side of the bimah as part of the bimah lowering/deepening.

Jayne Grudberg presented an updated overview of the financial situation (summary incorporated here by reference), describing in particular expenses (pre-construction paid already and not yet paid) and potential debt payments (though borrowing details have not been finalized with the bank). Jayne also noted that it is a common practice to borrow above the “exact” amount anticipated.

Mike concluded by stating that the committee feels that what our current budget allows would not meet the congregation’s needs (based on congregational input into the process), but also recognizes the need to be financially responsible (and perhaps sacrifice some of the congregation’s stated needs/desires). In short, we now need to answer the questions, do we agree to make sacrifices?, do we agree to stretch and if so by how much?, or do we choose not to move forward at this time?

4. The floor was opened for questions and requests for clarification from Board members (answers to be provided, where possible, after all questions/requests have been offered).

- Ed Mattison: What is the cost of the three options?

- Lynne Delise: Can we break out the costs of different pieces?

- Mara Klein Collins: Is there a way to stage the project (i.e., do some now and leave other pieces for the future)?

- David Brams: What is the impact on the operating budget of different loan amounts? What is the clergy’s view on the different options (i.e., spiritual ramifications)?

- Jonathan Jacoby: Can the columns be minimized as a structural element?

- Jodi Greenspan: Can the determination of the necessary loan amount be clarified?

- Mara Klein Collins: Is there concern that donors will pull remaining pledges if the full plan is not realized?

- Sharon Sokol: Have we looked at options for dealing with bimah height?

5. The floor was opened for questions and requests for clarification from non-Board members.

Gail Mann: If the project were postponed, what would the Board say to congregation and do with the collected money?

Yakov Makarovsky: Did we spend more money on pre-construction expenses than we anticipated?

Steve Klionsky: Why did the previously estimated contingency of 15 percent drop down to 10 percent in the current financials?

Carol Goldman: Is there an even more minimal plan than the “current budget” plan?

Marc Tapper: What would projected payments be under the alternative schemes?

Rusty Epstein: Is it possible you misinterpreted what the congregation wants? Maybe they just wanted a “comfortable” place to worship, not necessarily an “elaborate” place?

6. Mike Wolfson answered as many of the questions as possible at this time.

- The construction budget for the “full vision” is about $1.2M; “in between” is about $950K-$1M; “current budget” is $795K (keeping in mind that these numbers are estimates and subject to change depending on continued design refinements).

- The cost to create a sloped floor is currently estimated at $200-250K.

- Moving columns is about $50K less than sloping the floor.

- The original estimate for the redesigned ceiling was about $100K; the architect is working on a new design that would be less expensive.

- It is important to note that the inter-related nature of different design elements makes it difficult to be precise about costs.

- The committee is still looking for different, less expensive ways to do things.

- The answer regarding phasing is “yes” and “no” re; for example, creating a sloped floor causes significant disruption and would have to be done at the outset, while the placement of new wood paneling could in theory occur at any time.

- It might be possible to minimize the size of the columns; this possibility could be explored during the process of shoring the current columns up during the construction process. The committee is looking into this further.

- Costs rise over time, so the longer we delay the more expensive the project is likely to be.

- The contingency was set at 15 percent until bidding for flexibility during design (this is a standard practice); since this is a discretionary item, and since the budget is tight, the committee has decided it is not being irresponsible by modifying the contingency to 10 percent. Mike also noted that the “best” projects only use 40-60 percent of the contingency line.

- To be more minimal, we could not do lots of things – don’t do bimah (and lose ramp), don’t do lighting, don’t do sound, etc. The question is whether this is a sacrifice the congregation will accept.

- The committee has looked into a temporary, higher bimah for certain occasions. Rabbi Kraus noted that the sightline issues arise primarily for the “medium”-sized services (i.e., not the High Holidays or the more lightly-attended services).

- Regarding the question of achieving something “comfortable” v. “elaborate,” Mike noted that this is a subjective distinction. The committee does not believe this is an elaborate renovation. While it is impossible to know with certainty what “the congregation” wishes, the committee is confident that it has based its decisions on the input that congregants have provided.

Jayne Grudberg noted that questions about the impact of different amounts of debt cannot be answered at this time, though she did restate that debt service on the loan amount currently approved would come from the House Committee budget.

Elyse noted that we can ask the Finance committee to explore different options for securing additional funds through additional borrowing, etc.

Leslie Copes-Finke addressed the question about communication with the congregation, noting that a specific message that would be delivered if we do not move forward has not yet been considered. Leslie restated the belief, based on recent conversations, that there is a real desire for change, including comfortable seats and accessibility, improved sound and lighting, and flexible seating, and that if we do not accomplish this we will have failed to live up to a promise made to those who have pledged their support.

Sharon Feinberg noted that, as of today, the “bad debt” rate is only one percent and two-thirds of the sanctuary-specific pledges have already been collected.

Mike addressed the question of why the cost is higher than we anticipated:

- Between the last cost estimate and the preparation of bid documents, some design elements “grew” a little. (As a result, the “full vision” is in fact scaled back from what the bid documents described.)

- Some previously anticipated costs did go up or were unanticipated (e.g., we did not know we would need a survey at a cost of $6,100).

- We now have a much better handle on soft costs than we had previously.

7. At this point, Board members engaged in discussion.

Jodi Greenspan: Has there been any consideration of keeping the bimah at its current height and using lifts rather than ramps? Mike responded that this would require a variance, but variances for this are almost never granted. Others noted that this would be a very undesirable alternative, as it unnecessarily draws attention to those who require assistance.

Lynne Delise: What are we looking at in terms of timing (depending on what we choose to do)? Mike replied that we need three to six weeks to get to construction start. The construction process would likely run from three months for the “current budget” plan to approximately six months for the “full vision.”

Len Abram: In retrospect, Liz Karp’s comment (just go with the least expensive original plan A) seems pretty wise.

Jonathan Jacoby: What is the specific aim of tonight’s meeting? Mike answered that the committee wants to ensure that the Board is fully informed, wants to receive input on how/what to prepare for the next Board meeting, and wants any other general feedback the Board wishes to provide.

Mara Klein Collins: Information about the process has not been adequately communicated to the Board. Future communication from the committee should be clear and regular and preferably from one source.

Jodi Greenspan: Are these really our only options? Is a scheme that does not require “construction” possible? Leslie replied that the aesthetic changes secondary to the specific goals that were developed (and that require modification to the sanctuary space). Jodi asked if we can wait until we are able to pay for the full plan. Leslie as well as Elyse replied that this probably would not fly, in part because we would have to hope that prices do not continue to increase. Lynne Delise offered that in conversations with people she clearly hears more than just a desire for comfortable seats.

David Brams: We should commend the committee for all their work and the time they have spent talking to people to develop a community vision and the capital campaign committee for their work soliciting pledges. We should look toward the next generation and take a chance even if it requires finding more money.

Ed Mattison: Either of the possibilities that are beyond our current budget would require additional funds; we need to enter into the discussion of how we would get there.

Additional input was provided by non-Board members.

Rusty Epstein: If the Board is considering a decision that will put the temple into additional debt, shouldn’t the congregation be consulted? It is difficult when appetite is bigger than ability, but we should not try to do more than we’re currently capable of accomplishing.

Marc Tapper: What is the effect on new and future members if we do not proceed? What is the effect if we do less than we had hoped? Membership chair Amy Tananbaum responded that she does not think it is relevant; people join for several reasons (e.g., geography), but mostly because of community, not the sanctuary.

Yakov Makarovsky: It seems that the renovation we can afford now would not satisfy anyone.

Jane Roth: Supports the idea that we work with what he have.

Additional comments were offered in advance, via email, by Len Abram, Sara Reisman, and Steve Klionsky. Those comments are incorporated here by reference; hard copies of the emails will be appended to these minutes.

8. Each Board member (and committee representative) was offered an opportunity to provide their closing thoughts. Elyse asked each member to frame their comments, if possible, in a way that helps the committee to take its next steps.

• Joseph Tovares: Telling people we will borrow more money will not fly.
• Len Abram: We should go with simplest plan because that is what we can afford.
• Jonathan Jacoby: Worried about debt; not bothered greatly by the reduced plan and would go with what we can afford.
• Steve Black: Agree we should spend what we have and keep it simple.
• Mara Klein Collins: We should not spend more than what we have; would also like to look at the temple’s operating budget as part of this conversation.
• Susan Morrell: Whatever decision we come to, we’re dealing with a holy space that needs to serve many different kinds of programming.
• Cantor Fine: Noted the contrast of worship in Zonis v. sanctuary; the former is very warm and inviting. We need to think about the spiritual side of this decision.
• David Brams: We should think of the renovation in terms of creating a holy space.
• Amy Tananbaum. We should do as much as possible without causing a significant and detrimental effect on the operating budget, but we should not make a decision without exploring all financial possibilities (beyond additional debt).
• Candice Wesson: Would like to see us maintain our values during the renovation, but would like us not to go beyond what we can afford.
• Sharon Sokol: Cuts and compromises are inevitable; do we have that discussion now or later? If we wait and try to raise more money, we might lose the good will we currently have. We need to face the hard decisions now, but we’re in a good position to do that.
• Adam Dash: Doing nothing now would be a waste of a lot of time and money. We should commit to vote at next meeting, but would like to see full, itemized financials in advance (including assumptions) and perhaps a fourth option as well.
• Ted Wayne: Would like to know how much can be borrowed comfortably.
• Gail Walker: Likes the idea of the full vision, but we need to understand the impact of financing an additional $400K in construction costs without any additional pledges.
• Rabbi Kraus: Three things are axiomatic: we can’t achieve our most fundamental values with the money we have on hand; we can’t approach this as an a la carte menu of design elements (there are too many practical interconnections); the sanctuary is the most important space in the building. Would like to see this Board be visionary and fully explore options for additional sources of financing.
• Jill Tapper: Not a huge risk taker, but in this case willing to take that leap to accomplish our goals; there are ways we can dig deeper.
• John Weiss: Our decision, including any additional financial considerations, must also be reflective of our values, just as the proposed “full vision” design is.
• Mike Wolfson: Maybe this is the time when the Board steps forward and reaches deep into its own pockets, just the way the renovation committee recently did; we should stretch at least for the middle option.
• Louise Domenitz: The committee should not spend any time thinking about what “less” they can do. The critical next step is exploring financing options. We know what we want, now we have to figure out how to achieve it. We need to tap the energy that already exists and think of creative options.
• Ed Mattison: If we modify the middle scheme, we can probably get within $100K of what we have and can either raise or borrow the difference.
• Jodi Greenspan: Should proceed now based on energy we have; wary of stretching financially and living beyond our means.
• Marlene Archer: Agrees that people join because of the community; whatever we come up with it will be a holy place.
• Lynne Delise: Would like to see more information about the difference between the least expensive and middle plans; there will be disappointment if we don’t do what we set out as our vision.
• Sharon Feinberg: Agreed that we can find creative ways to raise additional money, including going back to people who have pledged and to others who have not yet pledged. Would like to have a Finance committee report that incorporates any budget impact of the change in schedule (e.g., availability to temple spaces for rentals).
• Jonathan Miller: During the last renovation, we decided to put off the bimah until another time; now is that time. This is a good design. We need to push more for additional resources and need to try to achieve the middle scheme, whatever it ends up being.
• Mort Glass: Would like to see us do as much as we can afford, as it is hard to ask for new pledges. Do not want to see any delay.

Meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

John Weiss

Secretary

Informational Meetings

The Renovation Oversight Committee will hold informational sessions for the community on Sunday, September 14th from 9:30 –11:00am, and on Tuesday, September 16th from 7:00-8:30pm, and post updated information on the sanctuary renovation website.

At the next Board of Trustees meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday, September 24th @ 7:30pm, Board members will be voting on the renovation plan with which we will proceed. As always, any congregant is welcome to attend meetings of the Board of Trustees.

Special Board Meeting August 24

The following was sent to the Board of Trustee prior to the August 24th Board meeting:

As most of you are aware the Oversight Committee has been working with the firm of Robert Luchetti and Associates for many years. We initially asked the architect to do a feasibility study and then after the initial efforts by the Capital Campaign to design to our budget. Last October we came to the Board of Trustees and asked for direction on the general scope and budget of the renovation. The Board of Trustees voted to support moving forward with what we called at that time as Scheme B – which kept our basic footprint, but slope the floor. At that point we felt that we could afford this level of renovation with the addition of approximately $200,000 – $250,000 in loans. The general budget for Scheme B at that time was $950,000-$1,000,000. At that time we thought hard construction costs would be around $750,000 and that furniture, audio other non-construction related items would be around $200,000.

Design

The Oversight committee worked with Bob Luchetti and his associates through-out the spring to develop the best design we felt would serve the needs of the community. Our renovation goals were to:

· Improve sightlines

· Improve acoustics

· Improve lighting

· Add flexibility

· Incorporate better accessibility

Beyond that from the committee and their own interviews the architects developed their own set of design goals that included:

· Accommodation of groups of various sizes and different kinds of services

· Optimizing lines-of-sight and comfort of seating

· Preserving the warm feel of the existing sanctuary

· Making the Bimah accessible to those of diverse age and physical condition; better lighting; better acoustics

· Introducing natural light without compromise to the Stained Glass Windows

· Creating a space that enhances community and spirituality, participation not performance

Bidding

In late May we bid the documents to seven contractors and at the beginning of July four contractors submitted bids. There were many reasons why contractors ultimately decided not to bid that included inability to meet our schedule or feeling that they could not be competitive. Of the four contractors that submitted bids – three of them were extremely close and the fourth was nearly a million dollars more. It was our sense that we could work with any of the three and interviewed them. Since all of the three submitted bids significantly over our budget, our goal was to find a contractor we felt could work with us to get within budget. The Oversight Committee unanimously voted to work with Hamilton Construction. Since we have notified them, Hamilton Construction has worked with Bob Luchetti on various cost cutting and budgetary schemes. As a result of this process, we are now at a project budget of $1,100,000 for a scope very much like “Scheme B.” This is about $100,000 over the board’s approved budget, and does not include $130,000 to be put aside for furniture and other items. Deeper cost cuts will result in a scope quite different from “Scheme B”, the project we were authorized to pursue. Thus, we are approaching the Board for guidance at this crossroads.

Budget

Many of you will be asking why the bids were so high and why we appear to be so much over budget. The reality is that from the $1.2 million that the capital campaign raised many costs have been taken out. Attached is a spread sheet that explains some of these costs. In simple terms there are three categories of costs in our budget:

1. Soft costs

- Cost of the Capital campaign – consultants, printing and events

- Cost of the design – architect, hazardous materials testing, surveyor

2. Hard costs

- Contractor costs for the renovation

- Items we are buying directly – Chairs, pews, audio system, signage, misc furniture (torah table)

3. Projected Costs

- Bad debt

- cost of the loan

The reality is not one factor is the cause of our current shortfall, it is a combination of factors including, inflation, scope creep (the design grew from the last estimate to the final bids), we underestimated the cost of the loan and the bad debt.

Choices

The Oversight Committee has looked at the budgets prepared for us by Hamilton Construction and the design options done by Bob Luchetti and feel that we need the Board of Trustees’ guidance. Essentially, we feel that the best design to meet the renovation goals approved by the Board. The Oversight Committee feels strongly that this is our community’s only opportunity to renovate the sanctuary and it is unlikely we will revisit any changes to the Sanctuary for the next fifty years. Even after significant budget cutting and work with the contractor at the extremes we can look at things in two ways:

The full vision – even pared down this still includes the most of the elements of the original vision:

§ Two level enlarged bimah

§ A skylight over the bimah and new clerestory windows at the sides

§ Structurally move columns to improve sightlines and enlarge the bimah

§ Slope the fixed seating area to a lower flat seating area

§ Warm wood through-out the sanctuary

§ Improved lighting and acoustics

§ New chairs and pews

Currently affordable version

§ Single level bima – will be slightly larger than our current and at a similar height

§ Possibly a skylight over the bema but probably not the side clerestory windows

§ Columns in their existing position, but exposed.

§ The floor level will remain flat and some of the sightlines will be similar to what we have but will be compromised when the clergy perform services from the flexible seating area.

§ Warm wood in some parts of the sanctuary but not throughout

§ Improved lighting and acoustics

§ New Ark

§ New chairs and pews

There may be a middle position between these two extremes but we felt that the Board should understand the differences.

Schedule

At this point the earliest we could start would be in at the beginning of October (basically we need six weeks once we have a clear direction from the Board). After the BOT gives us direction the Oversight committee will work with Bob Luchetti and the contractor to tighten up the sub-contractor bids so we can have a hard contract. This process will take approximately three weeks. Depending on the final scope of work construction will take between four to six months. There are some strategic decisions to make regarding schedule. If the congregation feels it is best we can delay the project until next spring. However, there may be costs to this delay.

Attached is a spreadsheet that summarizes the basic budget for the renovation. The finance sub-committee of the Oversight committee has worked with the Temple’s finance committee. This is an ongoing process that will continue in response to the Trustees’ discussions. It is important that the Board understand that every decision we make has a different financial consequences. Our conversation is about the direction we will feel good about and not have regrets. It is about taking a stand and then empowering the Oversight Committee to make sure that vision can be achieved.

We appreciate everyone’s patience as we try to make these hard decisions.

Mike

Construction Delay

Dear Beth El Community,

Many of you have been asking why our sanctuary renovation hasn’t yet started. The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief overview of where things stand and why. The Oversight Committee has been working so hard to see this process through. We have spent many hours reviewing designs, attending meetings, going over budgets, attending more meetings, communicating with B’nai Mitzvah families, reworking designs, more meetings, scanning drawings, sitting in chairs, looking at wood finishes, interviewing contractors, reviewing bids, and preparing for construction to begin. We have even prepared Zonis Auditorium as a temporary site for our services.

So what happened?

When the actual construction bids came in, they all were more than 50% higher than we expected (based on earlier cost estimates we’d been given) and almost double what we actually have to spend on construction! Despite the incredible job that our Capital Campaign Committee did raising $1.25 million dollars, when we subtract all of the ‘soft’ costs associated with the project, our actual construction budget is significantly reduced. These soft costs include expenditures like architectural fees, costs associated with our fundraising consultants, permitting fees, surveying and hazardous materials testing. Then, we also have to deduct an allowance for potential, uncollected debt (pledges that aren’t fulfilled), loan servicing, and the 15% set aside for contingency (a kind of financial safety net for unanticipated costs that could emerge during construction) as well as the money we need to leave aside for items that are not part of the actual construction – new pews, chairs, the ark and bimah furniture.

Even so, the committee began talking with the contractor that we felt would be best suited for the job and with whom we felt we could work well. This contractor and our architect were willing to work with us to get closer to a construction budget that our congregation could afford. We know that it is often the case in construction that through a combination of fine tuning numbers, cutting some line items, and reductions in the scope of a project, some compromise can be reached and a project can proceed.

In the case of our sanctuary renovation, in partnership with the architect and contractor, the committee began scaling down the project, and cutting out design elements. As various, large elements of the project began to get cut, our spirits and enthusiasm waned. More importantly, many of us no longer felt sure that we had a design that meets our original goals. In addition,

some of the central elements that were being cut due to cost (such as the sloped floor and moving two, large structural columns in order to widen the bimah) are not purely aesthetic design elements; they were included in the plan to improve sight lines. If we couldn’t keep those elements in the renovation, we could potentially make sight lines in the sanctuary worse as a result of this work!

In sum, we are no longer sure that we can achieve our minimum goals with regard to sight lines, lighting, acoustics, warmth, comfort, accessibility and flexibility with the funds that are available to us and with the resulting, reduced design. We will, therefore, be gathering the Board of Trustees at a special meeting to ask for guidance about how to proceed.

The Board could choose to direct the committee, despite our misgivings, to continue with construction according to the reduced design. The Board could direct us to postpone the renovation indefinitely, concluding that it is simply not the right time for us to do this work in the sanctuary. Or, the Board could direct us to postpone the construction temporarily in order to identify additional sources of revenue that would permit us to accomplish our basic goals.

The Oversight Committee is trying to be responsible to our congregation and do the right thing—both fiscally and in terms of the sanctuary renovation. So many of us have committed so much time, energy, and money to this project that we want to be sure that we get it right. We are as disappointed as anyone that we are so far from the schedule that we planned. But we also wanted everyone to understand why this is the case.

We are working with the architect to create a design that fits a budget which could be considered realistic for our congregation and still fulfills our basic priorities for the renovation. He is working towards that goal, and the committee is working with him.

The Board of Trustees will continue to advise the Oversight Committee on the best way for our community to proceed. To that end, there will be a special meeting of the Board of Trustees on Thursday, August 28^th at 7:30pm, during which, these issues will be discussed. As with any meeting of the Board of Trustees, Temple members are welcome to attend. Going forward, we anticipate that this issue will be discussed further at the regularly scheduled Board of Trustees meeting in September, and shortly thereafter, we will have a more definite plan to move ahead (or not). A Temple-wide meeting also will be held sometime in September. In the meantime, we will still be able to use our sanctuary and Zonis as usual.

Please note that while it’s clear the sanctuary renovation will not begin before the High Holy Days and our services now will be held in the sanctuary, we still will be following the schedule for double High Holy Day services as planned. A separate communication explaining this decision will follow.

We thank you for your patience and understanding. With your continued support and help, we believe we still can fulfill our dreams for this holy place.

Elyse Shuster & Mike Wolfson

On behalf of the Renovation Oversight Committee

How can you bid if….?

People have asked how can we bid a project if there are still decisions to be made? This is a really good question and we should have explained.

In the building industry this is done all the time in many forms.

In our case the major cost considerations have been described in a way that allows us to bid while continuing to make decisions. This is done in a number of ways:

First, the item in question is specified in a way the contractor know what to price – but before it is actually purchased will need more information. When bidding a project, some items are completely specified – such as the type of window, but often other parts of things are specified in ways that allow decisions to be made. Take the window example – you can say it is an Anderson 500 window with low E glass that can stand a gale force of 100 mph and has to meet certain test criteria, and then say that the provided window should be priced in the manufacturers premium line of 25 colors. So in the case of carpeting – the contractors are bidding a quality of carpet, but it still gives us plenty of time to actually pick the carpet because the contract documents say something to the affect of provide an allowance for any carpet of a certain quality up to a certain monetary value.

Second, we are buying direct. In the case of the chairs and the pews – we have decided not to include these in the contract with the General Contractor – rather we will purchase directly from the manufacturer. Save on overhead. This is true with the Torah table, lectern and some other miscellaneous items. Our architect will be working directly with the woodworkers.

Why haven’t we delayed the project?

First, the longer we delay cost go up. Inflation, material and interest rates are only going up.

Second, we have already told B’nai Mitzvah family and weddings they need to make alternative plans – people in April are already counting on using the space.

Third, we are really ready to go – it may seem like critical things need to be decided but actually the last couple decisions are visually important but not critical to the project.

What is going on?

A couple people have asked what is going on with the renovation so I thought it important to update the blog with what is keeping the Renovation Oversight Committee busy. We have basically been dealing with a number of techinical issues to keep things moving. There are a number of design issues that still need to be addressed that we will endeavor to keep everyone informed of when we get through this technical bottleneck.

We have NOT made any final decisions on chairs, carpeting, ark design, torah table design, colors and a few other miscellaneous items. The committee will be meeting through out the summer with the architect to finalize these items and at some point we will hold an open forum to update the congregation.

1. Contractor bidding – Contractors are in the process of bidding the construction documents – we have scheduled a number of times where members of the committee and the architect are available for the contractors to come by the temple and carefully examine existing conditions and ask questions. Believe it or not this takes a lot of time trying to keep everyone interested in our project. Just because we have contractors bidding the project doesn’t mean all the design decisions have been made – some of these items will be sub-contracted separately or the contractors have been given enough information to price the work without the final design.

2. Finance – the committee (especially Jayne Grudberg-Mocera) has been working with the Capital campaign and the finance committee to double check the accounting to balance how much money has been received by the capital campaign and plan for how money will be allocated during the renovation. They have been working with banks to find the most competitive loan during construction to bridge the time until all the capital campaign pledges come in and the loan the Board of Trustees voted to take to make up the shortfall. We really appreciate the hard work of the both the finance committee and the Capital Campaign.

3. Contracts – the process of coming up with a construction contract is technically complicated and very important to protect the liability of the entire congregation. We are very lucky to have pro bono legal work from congregant.

4. Permitting, surveying and insurance – we are coordinating the logistics of the project with the Town of Belmont in order to make sure our permits will run smoothly. We needed a new survey for the Town and were lucky that the grandson of a past president (Harry Feldman) was able to to help us out pretty much at cost to get this done. At the same time we have been reviewing the Temple’s insurance policies to make sure we are adequately covered during the renovation and beyond.

5. Cleaning out the sanctuary. We are planning how to record the legacy, honor the past and make sure the sanctuary is properly prepped. Thanks must go to our extremely capable office staff lead by Marie Bustard who have anticipated this along with our hard working custodial crew. Irving Gerber has also been extremely helpful in finding a home for our old pews and making sure they get reused in a worthy new worship space.  Much still needs to be done and in late June a work day will be scheduled to clean up.

If you have questions before we are able to schedule a forum please post them and the Committee will try to answer them here. Remember we are all working hard to do the right thing try to be pleasant!

We are hoping to begin construction in mid-July.

On Flooring for the Sanctuary

I was asked recently why the Oversight committee is not looking into Bamboo or cork flooring.

We have discussed both bamboo and cork flooring. They are both materials I am very familiar with and are very fond of.

Bamboo is problematic for a noise reason – like a traditional wood floor being hard it reflects sound – so every person walking in and out of surfaces will create a clacking sound. In addition, bamboo being a hard surface will increase the “live” nature of sound – which will further exacerbate our acoustic issues.

Cork would be better in this regard because it is softer and has better sound absorption – however, cork also is finished with urethanes which also reflect sound – it looks fantastic and warm – unfortunately we cannot afford cork. I wish we could afford even a little bit of cork.

We are still researching a variety of flooring materials. Our goal would be to find some sustainable, affordable acoustic material that is appropriate for the sanctuary. For example recycled rubber material might work but looks appropriate in a gym not a religious space. Linoleum might look alright but is not great acoustically. We are looking into alternatives to carpet – but we may have to settle for “green label” (which is an environmental rating system for carpeting)  carpeting. In my professional life I try never to specify carpeting, but there are circumstances when it is the best and only choice and then we work hard to make sure it is used in the most environmental way. At this point carpeting looks like it is still the best choice for our needs but we will strive to find alternatives.

Reference links:

http://www.carpet-rug.org/commercial-customers/green-building-and-the-environment/green-label-plus/index.cfm

http://www.matsinc.com/productpage/product.aspx?style=185

http://www.ecoact.org/Programs/Green_Building/green_Materials/carpet.htm

http://greenlivingideas.com/carpeting/alternative-fibers-make-healthier-carpets.html