|
|
|
| Organ Project - Organ FAQ |
Back to Organ Project Main
The Sanctuary Renewal Project Campaign for
Winnetka Congregational Church
Questions and Answers
November 2005
Why are we proposing this project?
Why should we contribute to the Sanctuary Renewal project?
It is our opportunity and responsibility to respond now to the current and
future needs of WCC. Everything we enjoy at WCC is the result of generous gifts
from those who preceded us; for instance, the north wing that houses fellowship
and education was built 8 years ago funded by a successful $5 million capital
campaign. It replaced a very dated facility across the intersection with modern,
well-lit education facilities, and our children can now be in the same building
with us.
Why replace the organ? Why not just use a piano or an electronic keyboard?
The Organ Committee carefully considered (and listened to) many alternatives and
concluded that a tracker organ is the best alternative because:
• it will offer excellent overall tonal quality (like an electro-pneumatic pipe
organ and better than electronic alternatives that are not pipe organs)
• it will provide a good deal of flexibility in music planning,
• it is a mechanical instrument which will have a lengthy useful life and
require less ongoing maintenance, and
• it will be significantly less expensive in the long term than an
electro-pneumatic pipe organ.
Pipe organ speech operates on wind in exactly the same way human voices operate
on the breath. An organ sound breathes with all singers, trained and untrained,
supporting, augmenting, and coloring voices. Tone is produced on a piano by
means of a percussive striking of a string by a hammer. An electronic substitute
emulates a pipe organ, but has an artificial source of tone production and can’t
lead hymn singing as effectively.
Doesn’t the decision to go with a tracker organ and the new sanctuary design
lock us into traditional music formats? Aren’t churches that feature
contemporary worship growing faster?
Actually, the new design facilitates our efforts to move toward more
contemporary services and the tracker organ would provide excellent versatility.
This instrument would in no way preclude the use of piano, electronic keyboards,
and other instruments. It is our intention to include these alternative
instruments in the design. A more flexible configuration of the chancel would
allow an improved view of both traditional and contemporary worship styles and
provide room for instrumentalists, the Early Word, liturgical dance, etc., as
well as a lift for accessibility.
The new sound system would allow everyone in the congregation to hear and a new
lighting system would facilitate better sight from all parts of the sanctuary.
New audio visual systems would allow us to use 21st century technology in
worship and meetings.
Some churches that feature contemporary forms of worship are growing quickly,
just as some churches that feature different alternatives are growing quickly.
Church growth is a function of many things, but one key is the flexibility of
the sanctuary space to allow many different forms of worship, from contemplative
services to those which engage multimedia, drama, dialogue and visual arts, as
well as a wide range of musical forms.
Is the primary reason we are getting this organ so that we can support and
perform traditional choral music?
No, our primary purposes in acquiring this organ would be to support our
congregation in their praise of God through robust, tender and enlivened hymn
singing and to play appropriate music at weddings, memorial and other services.
In addition, it would accompany a wide range of choral music from classical to
contemporary and could be a vibrant part of musical outreach to the larger
Chicago community.
What portion of this project is absolutely necessary and what portion is
optional?
Strictly speaking, none of the project is absolutely necessary. We could further
delay painting and decorating the sanctuary. We could forego lighting and sound
system upgrades and let the organ continue to deteriorate. The good news is that
about 60 donor families so far have pledged to underwrite the cost of the
project to the extent of $2.8 million. As the project is currently budgeted, we
would need to raise another $1.1 million: $850,000 to complete the renovation
and another $250,000 to fulfill our outreach goal.
How do we know that this project is not the pet project of a few who revere
music in worship, but who may not represent the majority of the congregation?
Unless a majority of those voting approve the project, it will not go forward.
The project has several components, each of which may motivate different people
to respond. It is common in capital campaigns for the generosity of donors
inspired by an aspect of a campaign to help fund the whole project. In this way
the combined campaign is more successful than any of its parts. To date, some 60
families have pledged $2.8 million for more than 70% of the total campaign goal.
While it is impossible to discern donors’ motives completely, these families
represent a cross section of the congregation.
Is the project driven by an attitude of “buy the best to be the best”? What
measures have been considered and/or adopted to demonstrate moderation in
approach, versus the need for superiority and a belief that we should spare no
expense?
Each portion of the project has been subjected to serious cost savings analyses.
Most of those have been published and all are available to anyone interested.
For instance, we looked at the cost of the tracker organ vs. other options and
concluded that over a 20-year period, including repair and maintenance costs the
tracker organ was the least expensive pipe organ alternative. Although the organ
committee recommended a 47-stop organ, the project was budgeted for a 41-stop
organ to reduce costs. A generous donor came forward to pay the cost of the
additional stops. The additional stops do not increase the visible size of the
organ or extend the timing, but they do expand the variety of possible tone
qualities and musical literature to be presented.
What other proposed projects or efforts may wait or be under funded due to
this project (additional staff? salary increases? church school programs?
others?)?
Since this is a capital project funded by special gifts, it is separate from
on-going programs and personnel costs, which are funded annually primarily by
canvass pledges. Typically, capital campaigns have a positive influence on
annual giving because we tend to support our gifts.
Why are we proposing to do this now?
We are in a tight financial situation, recruiting new staff to replace recent
departures and working the kinks out of two services/two education programs.
Wouldn’t it be better to postpone this until we are in a stronger position?
Mainline Protestant churches are in decline across the country. The ones that
“do what we’ve always done” are declining even faster. WCC has always bucked the
trend (we financed and built our current church in the middle of the Great
Depression), but unless we continue to take bold action, such as this campaign -
and by so doing retain our members, recruit and retain new ones - we will join
the trend.
Thriving churches have strong educational programs, offer multiple services,
dynamic leadership and modern facilities. By providing diverse worship and music
alternatives, excellent children’s and youth programs and strong fellowship in
attractive surroundings, they attract dedicated, supportive, involved members.
The proposed project will be designed to preserve and protect the beauty and
character of our current sanctuary while allowing us to attract younger
generations who will hear and see and worship differently than we do.
Why has it taken so long to confirm components and directions?
WCC has a tradition of planning capital initiatives thoughtfully. The process
began with the Organ Selection Committee, whose three years of research
culminated in a congregational vote in June 2002 to make a non-refundable
deposit on a tracker organ to be designed and built by Martin Pasi.
The VOWS (Visioning our Organ and Worship Space) Committee devoted another year
to soliciting congregational input and planning.
Beginning in late 2003, the Project Design/Construction Committee has worked
with architects Weese Langley Weese, organ builder Martin Pasi, and acoustician
Dana Kierkegaard to determine the preliminary scope and design of the Sanctuary
Renewal project and to control costs as much as possible.
The Fund Raising Committee has been quietly engaged for several months in
pre-campaign calls to prospective major donors. Of the $2.8 million pledged to
date, approximately $1.5 million has already been received. Among the gifts and
pledges to date are contributions designated to pay all the cost ($1.1 million)
of the 47-stop organ.
Why do we have to decide on December 4? Will we suffer any economic or other
consequences if we delay the vote to allow for more discussion and education?
December 4 was the last suitable meeting date before the winter holidays. Good
organ builders have long lead times and waiting lists. Our deposit in 2002
secured a time window during which Martin Pasi can build and install the
proposed organ in the latter half of 2007. Since he would design this organ
specifically to fit the chancel space and blend with the sanctuary, the
renovation must be completed first. To meet this schedule, we need to give the
architects and contractors authority to commence bids and preparatory work now.
Renovation has been planned for between Easter and Christmas 2006 to minimize
interference with worship. Delaying the decision risks losing our place in line.
Is now the best time to launch a capital campaign?
There is rarely a perfect time to launch a capital campaign. The congregation
approved making a non-refundable deposit to Pasi Organ Builders in June 2002.
Following that vote, the church entered into a letter of intent with Pasi Organ
Builders to secure a 2007 installation date for the new organ. The construction
phase of the project must be completed in summer 2006 in order for Mr. Pasi to
design the organ for our sanctuary and install it in late 2007.
What is the timing of the project?
When would we hold the first service with the new organ and restored sanctuary?
The Sanctuary Renewal Project would take place between April and November 2006,
after which worship would return to the sanctuary. The 15-month organ building
process would culminate with the installation of our custom instrument in late
2007. We expect to celebrate services for Christmas 2007 with the new organ.
How much will it all cost and how will we pay for it?
The information sheet says that the organ has been paid for, but how much of the
$3.9 million project is related to the organ replacement and fitting?
Approximately 1/3 of the total cost is for the organ replacement, the balance is
for sanctuary renovation and outreach.
Included in the capital project:
• Lighting and acoustical improvements, including a new sound system so that we
all can see and hear well throughout the sanctuary
• Upgrading our 1936 electrical systems
• Structural changes, such as new light lofts and chancel ceiling adjustments to
reduce the flutter echo that currently exists in the chancel
• Chancel redesign to improve acoustics and flexibility for worship styles
• Design and manufacture of other liturgical elements such as the pulpit, cross,
communion table, pastors’ seating, baptismal font, etc.
• A lift to provide accessibility to the chancel area
• Better acoustical arrangement for choirs
Isn’t this project driven by the perceived need to upgrade the organ? Aren’t
a majority of the proposed costs really in support of the new organ?
When we conducted the campaign for the north wing 8 years ago, we considered
adding a sanctuary renovation to the project and concluded that the
educational/fellowship upgrade was as much as we could manage at that time. We
knew that the organ would need substantial and expensive work and decided to
wait for the next campaign.
The cost of purchasing and installing the organ is about $1.3 million of the
$3.9 million project.
It is not possible this early in the design stage to produce a functional budget
breaking out the costs of individual improvements because that is not the way
that contractors bid. If we move forward into the design phase, we would be able
to break out costs.
The proposed improvements have been selected because doing them together is the
most cost efficient plan. Other desirable improvements, such as a new sanctuary
floor, refurbishing the pews and narthex renovation, have been deferred because
they are easily separable and doing them later would not impact the proposed
improvements.
A portion of the money budgeted for the project is for deferred maintenance. Why
raise capital funds to pay for deferred maintenance?
We just completed a major overhaul of the heating system that was paid for from
WCC reserve funds. The sanctuary hasn't been painted in 20+ years and we've
"saved" up a number of maintenance issues because we have anticipated this
project for some time.
It is appropriate to do a number of these projects all at once and include them
in the capital campaign, rather than deplete our healthy reserve fund balance.
What about borrowing money to finance part of this project to spread the
cost?
The church already has received cash gifts totaling $1,495,000. Since pledged
gifts are payable over five years, cash receipts might not equal the schedule of
payments to contractors. While the capital campaign committee anticipates that
all, or substantially all, of the total costs can be financed through pledges
and contributions, outside borrowings might be necessary from time to time
during and following completion of the project.
May I designate my gift towards a particular aspect of the campaign?
Yes. Based on the congregational desires expressed in 2002, Council recommended
that 10% of all gifts be used for Mission Outreach, but, as with all gifts,
donor designations will be respected and honored.
What is the “Katrina” deduction and how can I use it for this campaign?
The Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act (KETRA) allows you to deduct 100% of cash
gifts to qualified charities such as WCC if made by December 31, 2005. Please
consult your tax advisor for details.
What is the difference between the WCC Annual Fund and the Capital Campaign?
For the Annual Fund, gifts are given for the current year in support of ongoing
operating requirements. For the Capital Campaign special gifts are given in
addition to the Annual Fund to support those capital goals, programs and
projects that have been identified by the Council and Congregation in the
Church’s Strategic Plan. Our fundraising challenge has a dual focus: to maintain
a strong Annual Fund, while at the same time meeting our Capital Campaign goals.
All members of the WCC community are being asked to maintain or increase their
Annual Fund gifts during the Capital Campaign.
Why are pledges encouraged rather than one-time contributions?
While we welcome contributions in any form, substantial contributions are
essential to the success of the Campaign. Experience teaches us that most
members make investments of the size required only after thoughtful and careful
consideration, and are most comfortable with a pledge payment plan scheduled
over three to five years.
May I make a contribution/pledge in some form other than cash?
Yes. Gifts of appreciated stocks, bonds, and life insurance are often very
effective ways to support WCC. In fact, many donors have found that gifts of
appreciated stocks are a much more effective way to participate than is giving
cash, as donors who give appreciated stock to an institution avoid paying
capital gains taxes.
What about matching gifts?
Corporations frequently provide a matching-gift program for employees. You
should check with your employer to see if your Capital Campaign gift may be
matched.
What is the Mission Outreach Component? How will it be handled and
communicated?
The outreach component of the campaign was included because many congregation
members expressed a desire to see outreach as part of the campaign. Outreach has
strong roots in history and tradition of our church, as well as in its present.
Based on a congregational survey, an outreach subcommittee has recommended and
Council has agreed that outreach gifts to this campaign should be split equally
among:
• Common Hope
• several agencies currently supported by the church and
• a dedicated fund to support the mission work of the church.
How will this project change the look and feel of our church?
The computer graphics being used to visualize the project make the organ the
focal point of the chancel. Is this our intention? Will we use other furnishings
that make it look like a church?
The computer graphics are just visualizations of what the organ might look like
and we are currently generating others. As the design process proceeds we will
continue to seek input from the congregation. Our goal will remain to make the
fewest possible changes in the look and feel of the sanctuary while providing
the enhancements necessary to bring our worship space into the 21st Century.
All the chancel furnishings will be designed to relate to one another and to the
chancel and sanctuary as a whole. To make the space as flexible as possible, we
adopted a modular design which can include:
• A prominent cross centered and/or suspended, or on a moveable stand
• A moveable/removable pulpit
• A moveable/removable lectern
• A moveable/removable communion table
• Pastors’ seating
• Flower stands
• Baptismal font
• Other elements to be considered and discussed with the congregation
We have requested and will continue to seek congregational input on these
elements.
We have heard very clearly that the congregation expects to preserve and protect
the beauty and character of our current sanctuary and to ensure that the chancel
design and furnishings reflect that it is a sacred Christian worship space, not
a concert or multi-purpose hall. As we move into the decorative design phase,
there will be multiple opportunities to ensure that we understand and respect
those congregational expectations.
What will happen to the 1956 Austin organ that is currently in the chancel?
WCC has an outreach opportunity to give the Austin organ to Emmanuel Lutheran
Church, an African-American congregation in Chicago. The church is excited at
the chance to receive this instrument, as it would be an upgrade over their
current 1920's vintage theater organ. George Miller, WCC's organ technician for
many years, has volunteered to supervise a team of volunteers to dismantle the
old organ and reinstall usable parts at Emmanuel. In order to meet construction
timing, the Austin organ would need to be removed during the last two weeks of
March 2006.
What will happen to the marble covenant in the chancel?
We are considering and seeking input on a number of alternatives. In addition to
a new location, we are investigating putting the version of the covenant we
currently use in the front of the church, perhaps on either side of the new
organ.
What are we deciding on December 4?
What decisions are we actually making on December 4?
Members will vote for or against the following resolution:
“BE IT RESOLVED First, that the Congregation approves a capital plan with three
primary purposes:
• renovation and renewal of the church’s main sanctuary,
• purchase and installation of a new pipe organ, and
• establishment of a mission outreach fund to support ongoing mission and
outreach efforts of the church, and
“BE IT RESOLVED Second, that the Congregation approves a capital campaign to
raise an amount of approximately $3.9 million (of which $2.8 million already has
been pledged) to accomplish those objectives, and
“BE IT RESOLVED Third, that the Congregation asks the Church Council and the
Executive Committee of Council to involve the Congregation in and inform the
Congregation of the renovation and renewal plans for the sanctuary, and
“BE IT RESOLVED Fourth, that the Congregation authorizes and directs Council and
the officers of the Church and other authorized representatives to take such
actions as are necessary to implement the foregoing resolutions.”
What portion of the membership is required to approve moving forward with the
project according to the bylaws of the Church? What procedure (if any) protects
against a vote where supporters (or dissenters) are motivated to turn out and
vote, and others do not vote and voice their views?
The bylaws require a simple majority of those voting to approve the project. As
in all democracies, voters dictate outcomes. Active members who are unable to
attend the meeting in person may request an absentee ballot by contacting the
church office and returning the ballot prior to the meeting at 5:00 pm on
December 4, 2005.
What are the views of our current Church leaders on this project?
Council strongly recommends approval of the resolution.
To the top
|
