Building Usage Task Force

Report of the
Building Usage Task Force
Unitarian Society of Hartford
50 Bloomfield Ave.
Hartford, CT

May 7, 2004

Purpose of study

The Building Usage Task Force (BUTF) has been charged with examining building use and building capacity of the Meeting House, and to further generate options to address opportunities and concerns identified by this study.

Executive Summary

The Unitarian Society of Hartford has occupied its existing facility at 50 Bloomfield Ave. for the past 40 years. During that time, the building has undergone remodeling and renovations that have allowed it to serve the Society as a house of worship, education center and administrative body.

The Meeting House sits on a 5.99 acre site, containing 1.33 acres parking (approx. 140 spaces including 7 handicapped spaces); 1.3 acres front yard & driveways; 1.94 acres for Meeting House; and 1.4 acres back yard/wooded area.

The Meeting House contains approx. 22,775 SF of space, breaking down as follows:

3,577 SF Sanctuary

1,040 SF Chapel

4,212 SF Circulation (Ambulatory, Exits & Lobby, Historical Lounge)

5,352 SF Children’s RE Classrooms

560 SF Library

1,759 SF Administrative offices/Minister’s Studies

3,317 SF Fellowship Hall

402 SF Music Rehearsal/Storage

517 SF Food Preparation/Storage

786 SF Equipment Storage

1,253 SF Mechanical Areas

The Meeting House currently houses all activities of the Society and its 389 members. Society membership has held steady for the past 4 years in a range from 389 (2002 thru present) to 417 (2001-2002) members. Building usage during the week (on days other than Sundays) is limited to administrative function, music program rehearsal, meetings of Adult Religious Education classes, and meetings of outside organizations (AA and the like) that rent the space for their use.

Currently the total facility is experiencing overcrowding of the parking lot on some Sundays, and is at capacity (if enrollment figures are used to assess conditions) in the Religious Education facilities. Additionally, some Religious Education activities are meeting in spaces originally designed to be storage areas, which may be placing a premium on equipment storage space.

The Meeting House, over time, had suffered the effects of aging systems and materials. The Society has been engaged in a long-term program to address these issues and, while conditions have improved, there is still further activity required to fully complete the repairs. The building structural systems require survey to determine their health and long-term functionability. Building heating plant and electrical supply/fuse boxes are aging, and should be scheduled for replacement in the near term. There are floor settlement issues that need to be addressed via reinforcement/jacking to deter further deterioration.

Why and How Study Was Accomplished, and By Whom

This study was undertaken by the BUTF, commissioned in September, 2003 by the Council, under the stated purpose of Strategic Plan Item No. 6.

BUTF was formed to identify building-related issues that may be limiting church vision and mission, as well as formulate recommendations for consideration by the governing body of the Society to bring building use in line with the vision and mission as stated by the Society. The Task Force was asked to both identify problems and highlight opportunities for re-thinking building use that would enhance worship, education and community service programs of the Society.

Building Usage Task Force members are as follow:

Tammy Slater – Chairperson
Gwen Childs – representing Building and Grounds
Roy Cook – representing Chancel Improvement Committee
Ira Greenbaum – representing Religious Education
Charles Huntington – representing Governance Task Force
Margaret Leicach – representing Adult Religious Education
Cheryl Leshay/Arline Sutherland – representing Religious Education
Peter Magistri – representing Administration/Building and Grounds
Brian Mullen – representing Administration
Thomas Schmutzler – representing Music and Worship

Future Growth

The BUTF has concluded that the growth capacity of the Society has been reached, and that future growth of the Society will be limited by features of the Meeting House facility, particularly available parking space and classroom space. As growth is a part of the vision and mission intentions of the Society, creative action must be taken now to work within the physical limits of the Meeting House and re-vision our conception of worship and education programming.

Existing Meeting House

History and Condition of the Meeting House

On June 22, 1960, the Society purchased 5.9 acres of land from The Watkinson School for $50,000. The Society raised money and hired architect Victor Lundy, of New York City, to design its new Meeting House. The Meeting House was designed and constructed for approximately $600,000 (excluding cost of organ and furnishings), and the first services were held within the building at the end of 1964.

Although the Meeting House was welcomed by the congregation, many of its amenities were added over the years following its construction. Some of these amenities include installing the Kitchen, adding partitions separating Fellowship Hall from classrooms, adding indoor/outdoor carpeting, constructing the lower parking lot and adding parking lot lighting, improving the Administrative Office layout, adding Sanctuary lighting, converting a classroom to a Minister’s office, and installing a street sign. Roof improvements were also made.

A $350,000 renovation and improvement project took place between 1992 and 1995. As part of this project, the elevator was installed, toilets were made accessible, indoor/outdoor carpeting was replaced with commercial carpet, lighting and acoustical panels were added in the classrooms and Library, five bays of roofing were replaced, and floor tile was installed in Fellowship Hall.

Since 1995 the Memorial Garden has been constructed, an Assistant Minister’s office has been created from a former storage room, the Administrative offices were refurbished once again, 20-year-old portions of roofing were replaced, a handicapped lift to the Chancel was installed, and Lower Level toilets were refurbished.

Planning and Zoning Limitations

BUTF inquiry with City of Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission has concluded that there is very little opportunity for expansion of any facility at the current site of the Meeting House. The site is zoned R8, “Low-Density Residency District.” Maximum lot occupancy by buildings and other improvements (i.e. parking lots) in this zoning district is 25%. In fact, churches, synagogues and temples are not permitted to be built in R8 zoning districts; those that pre-exist the zoning are “grandfathered” into the district, but carry a further restriction stating “ . . . any addition to or expansion of such churches, synagogues or temples or their accessory parking facilities shall not be permitted.” (Code 1977, Section 35-7.10; Ord. No. 27-98, 6-8-98) Inquiry into the possibility of appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a “unreasonable hardship” finding and thereby obtaining permission for expansion of Meeting House facilities yielded little hope of obtaining this permission. Refer to Appendix A for further information.

Current Value

BUTF research into the value of the Meeting House and its surrounding property has resulted in the following findings:

Site Value (minimum): Six acres at $200,000/acre $1,200,000

Building (replacement value): 27,000 SF @ $300/SF $8,100,000 (Includes Architect’s fees and some site work; probably would not duplicate current architecture)

Organ: $ 300,000

Furniture (estimate): $ 50,000

Total estimated value $9,650,000

See Appendix B for supporting documentation.

Value of the property would vary based on the reason for assessment i.e. cost to replace the building on its current site in case of catastrophe might approach $8M, whereas value of property for redevelopment as housing (fitting with its zoning) could be anywhere from $1.2M as developable land that is sold outright to a developer, to $3M to $7M after site utilities/roads/housing construction is completed. Sale of the facility to another group to be used as a church has not been investigated as yet, but a reasonable guess at its value might put it between the $1.2M figure and the $8.1M figure for replacement. This should be further investigated.

Current Use of Meeting House

Sunday Mornings –

Worship – Average attendance/% of available seats at worship services, and total membership for the past four years are as follow:

Attendance Membership

2000-2001 191/59.7% 405

2001-2002 184/57.5% 417

2002-2003 171/53.4% 389

2003-2004* 151/47.2% 389

*year-to-date

Religious Education – Current average attendance/% of total enrollment and total enrollment in our RE program, in Kindergarten thru 8th Grade is as follows:

Attendance (K-8) Enrollment (K-8)

2003-2004 60.24/61% 99

During the Week

Office – Staff numbers include two (2) ministers, an office attendant, the Society Administrator, the Assistant Minister’s assistant, and Society Sextant. Other staff members that utilize the building during the week include the Music Director and Organist.

Education – Precise information about the number of Adult Education Classes and attendance were not available at the time of this writing.

3. Rentals – Precise information about the number of rentals and their nature were not available at the time of this writing.

Music Rehearsals – One choir rehearsal is scheduled weekly, on Wednesday night, and includes up to 25 participants on a regular basis.

Space Needs, Shortages, Problems and Conflicts

Sunday Mornings

1. Worship – Worship space, at the current level of attendance, appears to be adequate. The Sanctuary can seat approx. 320 persons in the pews and chairs surrounding the back wall. Current recommendations obtained from UUA regarding when a meeting facility is perceived as “full” indicates that 80% of the seats must be filled on a regular basis. 80% of 320 seats are 256 persons. Attendance for the last two years has had us approach this figure only three or four times, and that occurs around the holidays. Average attendance figures quoted above further support the fact that the Society is not regularly filling seats in the Sanctuary above 80% capacity often enough to consider worship space as inadequate or overcrowded.

One tendency noted regarding seating during worship services is that most attendees gravitate toward the ends of the pews, leaving fully 1/3 to ½ of many pews vacant toward the centers of the pews. Additionally, the chairs that line outer walls of the Sanctuary are often well occupied by regular attendees. Although the Society does not experience an overcrowded situation during worship, it is possible that newcomers that arrive just before service begins, or a bit late, may feel daunted in their search for a seat in which they will feel comfortable.

2. Religious Education – Refer to Appendix C for an analysis of current RE enrollment vs. classroom assignments. When total enrollment figures are considered, and the 80% factor mentioned above applied against current space allotment, the Society has reached critical mass in the 1st Grade class, and has exceeded critical mass in both the Kindergarten and Youth Group classes. Further, total square footage in use at this time, factored by 80%, allows for only 17 more children to be enrolled in our RE classes before we’ve reached that perception of “full.” Also note that square footage figures for classrooms can be slightly misleading, as the shape of most rooms is irregular, and may slightly overstate the usable space available in our classrooms. Add to this the 480 SF storage space that is currently being used by the “Breakfast Club” that, technically, should not be used in this way because of lack of emergency egress, and it would appear that more space is needed for Society RE activities based on enrollment figures.

When average attendance noted above is considered as the criteria for analysis, the picture is slightly different. Average attendance for 2003-2004 thus far has been running about 61% of total enrollment. This does not meet the criteria obtained from UUA i.e. 80% of space must be filled on a regular basis, and demonstrates that regular attendance in RE classes does not often constitute a perception of the class being “full.”

This Task Force notes that periodic overcrowding of a classroom, if it becomes an ongoing condition, can be addressed for the short term by reassigning classroom spaces according to attendance figures for each class. If, over the long term, growth continues to occur in the entry level (Nursery, Kindergarten and First Grade) classes, and attendance in upper grades does not slack off i.e. the current “bubble” of enrollment in Nursery through First Grade turns into a regular attendance pattern, the Society will require more space to devote to RE activities on Sunday mornings.

3. Meetings – BUTF is not aware of any issues of overcrowding or lack of facilities for meetings held prior to or after Sunday services.

4. Parking – BUTF does not currently have a running tally of numbers of cars parked at the Meeting House on Sunday mornings to compare with attendance numbers and the like. There are anecdotal experiences of which we are aware that indicate that there are times when current parking facilities are not sufficient i.e. Sunday mornings when late arrivals can only find parking along the front drive or on the front lawn. Recently, the risk inherent in this “illegal” parking was made clear when a Society member fell ill and the front drive became the focal point of activity for emergency vehicles. BUTF is collecting data for the remainder of the year to help identify at what worship service attendance level our parking facility is full. BUTF highlights the fact that, due to our programming, there are a number of families that come to Sunday services in two cars due to commitments before and after worship services, and the fact that our Choir contributes at least 20 single-occupant vehicles to the parking mix every Sunday. Parking appears to be one of the major factors in our inability to grow beyond a certain membership level.

During the Week

Office – BUTF is aware that, currently, Administrative space is at its maximum usage, and the Assistant Minister’s assistant has no permanent workspace to call her own. Addition of Administrative space as the congregation grows will require that space currently in use for Religious Education be absorbed for Administrative use, further reducing the amount of space available to the Religious Education program.

Education – Limitations expressed by Adult Religious Education respondents include lack of adequately soundproofed spaces for certain activities (so as not to disturb/be disturbed by other uses), and the need for a space that can accommodate more than 15 adults and at the same time provide writing facilities.

Rentals – BUTF is not aware of space or facility constraints for weekly rentals clients.

Understanding the Broader Setting

BUTF also examined data obtained from the 2000 U.S. Census that describes our “setting” in the Hartford area in terms of population demographics – ethnicity, earnings, education levels, family size/make-up, and other parameters that can help us understand the broader issues of our location in the area. This is included in Appendix D.

When these same parameters are considered for Society membership, a stark contrast is evident early in the analysis. Many Society members travel from neighborhoods far from the Meeting House, and these neighborhoods are strikingly different from the immediate locale of the Meeting House. BUTF did not study this information in depth, and includes the information as a point of consideration as the Society considers its Mission/Vision, its growth patterns and desires, and its building programming.

Meeting House of the Future

BUTF has identified two issues that appear to be limiting our ability to grow beyond the current membership level: lack of parking facilities, and an impending lack of space for Religious Education classes. BUTF has also considered a number of possible solutions to these issues of, basically, space. They have included the following:

Make Additions to Existing Facilities on Existing Site

Unless there is a change to zoning regulations for the City of Hartford, this option is not likely to succeed, as zoning regulations clearly state that no improvement to the site is allowed under current zoning.

If expansion on this site were possible, a reasonable estimate to add 10,000 SF of space plus required parking is $3,000,000. See Appendix E for a schematic plan of such an addition.

Build a New Building on a New Site

This option requires that a number of questions be answered:

What is the size of congregation that the new facility would be serving? (Society would need to undertake a process to further refine its vision/mission.)
Where would this building be located? Outside Hartford? Downtown? (Society would need to undertake a process to further refine its vision/mission.)
How much would this facility cost? What is the cost of a large enough piece of property? How much would a building cost? (Using figures noted above, a minimum estimate for land costs would include approx. $200,000/acre, and building cost estimate would be whatever square footage was identified multiplied by $300/SF.)
How would this facility be paid for? (Undertake a Capital Campaign to raise money, obtain financing/mortgage for a portion of the cost, ramp up community services/rental usage to increase building income both prior to and after move, sell existing facility, perhaps have to locate an interim meeting site, etc.)

The advantage of this approach is that the Society can develop its “must have” list for facility that will allow it to best accommodate its program and needs. A rough estimate of time required accomplishing a Capital Campaign, gaining financing, identifying a site, obtaining a design, hiring a contractor, and building the building would be three to five years.

Purchase an Existing Facility for Sale

This approach can help to overcome the limitations of the current Meeting House, within the limitations of available facililities. As an example, the Society may find a building that has optimal meeting/classroom/worship space, but may be set within an urban neighborhood that offers no on-site parking. This option requires a process much like the one outlined above for Option B. The time period to accomplish this would be one to three years.

Combine Forces with Another UU Congregation

This option would require approaching another congregation in the area, such as Fern Street, and investigating the possibility of combining both entities into an entirely new, larger organization. This would entail purchasing a facility large enough, or land for the construction of a new facility, that could accommodate a congregation roughly twice the size of our current membership and be programmed for future growth. There may be efficiencies of scale that could be realized in funding for building usage and programming, synergies developed in shared program and focus areas, and opportunities to create an organization with wider community impact than is currently the case for both individual organizations.

A number of questions would have to be addressed between the congregations:

Are the spiritual assumptions at base for worship, governance structures, RE programs, and parameters for community involvement sufficiently similar to allow for combining of energies in a creative way?
Is there sufficient interest within both congregations to pursue such a venture?
What fiscal assets would each organization bring to the new organization? What physical assets? What spiritual assets and intelligences?
Where could such an organization be located to create a draw within Central Connecticut?

The time period to investigate the possibility, move forward with site planning/construction if required, and making this “marriage” would be two to five years.

Revise Programming to include Two Sunday Services/Two RE Sessions

This option requires that a number of questions be answered:

What would these services “look like?” Would they be identical services requiring identical staffing? Or, could they be different in spirit?
How would we staff the additional RE session?
Some RE class enrollments are too low to offer two sessions, therefore, these classes might have to be offered in association with only one of the services.
Would our costs for staffing and special music presentation go up?
How are our operations costs going to be impacted i.e. extra heating/cooling, more facility cleanup/setup services required?
How do we insure that, regardless of the service that a member may attend, all members feel that they are a part of the Society as a whole?
How is the “run-up” to this change handled? Who spearheads “selling” this approach to the Society as a whole?
What resources are available to the Society i.e. consulting or input from other congregations who have taken this approach?

BUTF notes that the Unitarian Society is the only UU congregation in the area that is still maintaining the one-service model. In other words, other churches have successfully made this shift and realized the benefits of such a change. The Society could draw upon the experiences of these congregations in considering/planning for this program change. Also refer to Appendix F for a new publication obtained from UUA, entitled “Adding Worship Services: A How-To Manual” for further information.

Time to implement this change should include opportunities for congregational input and processing i.e. focus groups to discuss the change and its impact. Based upon this need, recommended timeline to investigate/implement this change is one year.

Renovations

In examining current building usage and issues that face the Meeting House, BUTF has become aware of various repairs/renovations that are “in the works” for the Meeting House. Refer to Appendix Gfor a complete listing of repairs/renovations currently on the table within various committees of the Society.

If the decision is taken to continue to occupy this building, there are a number of issues that must be addressed. Depending upon the term of occupancy, some issues are more critical than others.

Below is a hierarchy of concern that has been formulated by BUTF. They place building structural integrity and life safety as the first order of concern, with all other concerns following:

HIGHEST PRIORITY:

Full structural evaluation of the building, particularly including the condition of roof support cables and their supports, and the condition of the structural concrete piers. The results of this evaluation could have an impact on the direction future decision making takes, i.e. the Society could be left with fewer choices if the news is bad.
Patching leaks and exposed reinforcing bars in the structural concrete piers to prevent further deterioration.
Life safety upgrades, particularly as regard safe egress during an emergency. Note that most of these issues fall in the realm of “housekeeping” items and do not require large sums of money or time to accomplish.
Building code compliance, particularly as impact life safety/safe egress issues.

SECOND-TIER PRIORITY:

Electrical improvements, particularly upgrade to the electrical service box/transformers.
Mud-jacking of sagging floor areas
Boiler replacement, after evaluation of mechanical operations costs noted below.
Grounds repairs i.e. uneven pavements, drainage issues.
Chancel expansion and organ upgrades;
Walkway to The Place for Children and Families, for parking/extra classroom access if Society remains at one Sunday service.
Upgrading interior finishes, for comfort/functionality/aesthetics of classrooms and assembly rooms and to improve storage situations.

Recommendations:

Based on all of the information that precedes, the Building Usage Task Force advances the following recommendations:

BUTF recommends that Council give highest consideration to reprogramming the Sunday service schedule to include two (2) services each Sunday morning. This option offers immediate relief to the issues of periodic overcrowding in the parking lot and Sunday RE classes. It also allows the Society to “live” within its current facility and gives opportunity for growth to occur. This move can be taken in a deliberative fashion i.e. allowing new governance to take effect, and then move toward implementing this change.

BUTF recommends that Council proceed with a full structural analysis of the Meeting House as soon as possible. This analysis may impact future decision-making regarding continued occupancy of the Meeting House, regardless of growth and development patterns.

BUTF recommends that Council engage in a study to identify the type/amount of growth that is consistent with the stated vision and mission of the Society. BUTF further recommends that Council include in this study a consideration of the demographics of the Meeting House locale in relation to demographics of its membership. The study should include mapping of Society membership vs. potential membership. Information gained from such a study may have an impact on programming, both for Sunday services and Religious Education as well as for after-hours offerings. Understanding the neighborhood may help define the impulse toward growth, and also allow a refocusing of energy to bring about growth that is reflective of the setting in which the Society finds itself.

This study may reveal that current membership levels and demographics are as large and open as this particular Society desires, and that future growth of a UU presence in the Hartford area is dependent upon “seeding” new churches in areas that are remote from the three churches in existence at the present time and, potentially, focused on their immediate demographic milieu.

BUTF recommends that Council also re-examine a study of mechanical systems/thermal performance of the Meeting House, dated March 5, 2001 and included in Appendix H, in light of future costs of mechanical operations in the Meeting House. It may prove difficult to upgrade mechanical performance simply by replacing the boiler, as the building roof structure may not allow addition of insulation to the roof (a major source of heating/cooling loss). Thermal transfer through the concrete portions of the building may also prove to be an issue in considering operation costs of the building in the future.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Signed electronically by

Tammy Slater, Chairperson Date: May 7, 2004 For the Building Usage Task Force, Unitarian Society of Hartford

Let us know of any comments, errors and corrections - thanks (10-18-04 revised )