Completing the Dream:Beth El Temple Center Sanctuary Renovation

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