CASE VALIDATION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 26, 2009, 7:00 p.m.
UB&T
Minutes:
Present: Chair Chris Eager, Barb Andrew, Thea Brunsell, John Decker, Ron DeKelver, Bill Hartje, Carla Heimerl, Rose Helms, Dan Janes, Fred Juergens, Jim Kopecky, Dan Laux, Kolleen Onsrud, David Ross, Wally Shannon, Audrey Shomos, Diane Skinner, Gil Skinner, Richard Woulfe, Janis Ringhand, Kurt Saterbak, Counsel.
1. Call to Order –
Chris welcomed everyone and expressed his appreciation of all the work that has gone on behind the scenes in the process.
2. Review the Revised Draft
Overall Impression
Thoughts:
Very well put together
Fred Juergens– No clear floor plan, assume that will be forthcoming.
Chris Eager – That is intentional, people tend to fixate on plans, when it is not the final document. We pulled it out of the document, so people understand that the final usage will depend on fundraising.
Thea Brunsell – Won’t some people want to see the plan? Chris – yes, it will work both ways. Budget is being worked on by another group. Fundraising will be determined.
Gil Skinner – The layout and number of rooms will depend on fund raising?
Kurt – We will list rooms as bare minimum. Original design was larger in space that the design with the wood working shops. We don’t know if we have the ability to support that large of a space. Taking the woodshop out of the design could expand other areas that are lacking. We started showing different pictures to the community; we don’t want a third picture to show people. Want to be sure 99% that the plans will be complete before we present to the public. Outline type of rooms and how they can be used, what they will be. Identify spaces; a new group will work on Facility Design. Describe types of things facility will have, not show design.
Wally Shannon - Phase II is discussed, sets some goals for second phase. People mentioned the pool over and over during early discussion, but it was not mentioned in Case, now it is.
Dick Woulfe – Contingent on second phase, contract for another party to use pool, trigger before we proceed. The Executive Director, recruiting weddings, etc., see variable added for bookings, compensation plus variable. WC role as mentors more profound, than a room in the center. City & County support is 15%, city will not contribute more. Grants are important. Answers what the role of the city will be. Puts pressure on others, lost jobs, time of stress. Facility may be nice, Dave Sauer said he wished that it would be further from the creek, doesn’t make sense. More risk on being by creek. Position of the applicant is we will do what we want. City Engineer said it is not reasonable to place by creek.
How is it organized - flow:
Bill Hartje – Nice flow, I like the way the 4 services are listed and expanded. We have seen the first and second draft, someone else might find confusing.
Chris – Radically different than first draft. Other comments.
John Decker – In regard to flow – Woodchuck section is excellent. Might help to have more emphatic statement, not going to be a Wood working shop at new Creekside Place, refer to another section with more explicit statements. Perhaps combine the two sections that relate to the Woodchucks. Letter from Heidi seemed out of place, move forward, closer to other information. A first time reader might get confused. Better explanation, rearrange a couple sentences. Other question this draft raised in my mind, 3 subdivision possibilities in large meeting/community room, then 4 subdivisions were used, which will it be?
Chris - Read comments from Doug Zweizig – outline hierarchy needs work, arrange around 4 core purposes, deal with them sequentially; rambled a bit.
Narrative vs., appendices:
Wally Shannon – Woodchuck fees, page 50? Fees for dues & workshops.
Gil Skinner – Will the Woodchucks pay rent? Yes, they pay the school.
Carla Heimerl – Will Woodchucks still pay fees?
Chris – Woodchucks are still members that will be a role model for others and pay fees.
Carla – Could you mention another group that will pay fees?
Wally Shannon – I &E Group, Lions.
Carla Heimerl – Different than individual groups who meet there, but are not members.
Fred Juergens – Gardening group would be similar, meet there but not garden there.
John Decker – Woodchucks currently hold bi-weekly meetings at Center, not in shop.
Areas not covered:
Fred Juergens – Drawings of building and layout
John Decker – Brief explanation as to why drawings are not present. We need to get it right and building should fit funding.
Chris Eager – We will want the answer nailed down before we solicit.
Fred Juergens – A different emphasis on the structure of the building. We were committed to original building, now we are committed to building to what we can raise funds for?
Chris Eager – There is a lot of confidence that we can accomplish Phase I, donors have been identified; ability to generate funds is there. Janis, can you explain that?
Janis Ringhand – Prospect Review Task Force has identified about 700 people who could be donors, our potential to raise the amount needed exceeds our base goal.
Fred Juergens – Are we building less, is that what I am hearing?
Kurt – We need to guarantee the ability to operate once it is built. We could build a $4M building, but we can’t support it. We need to build what we can afford. We have to consider all factors, employees, utilities, heat, etc. We need to justify expenses. Added space will not bring in more people, will not generate more rent. If we go in the hole because we have a bad year, we need to have an umbrella to protect us. What happens at center must support itself.
Over emphasized areas?
No Comments.
Other thoughts? Good – Bad - Ugly
Dave Ross – Pg 1, this is the opportunity to get hook in, before we launch this project, page 1, lacked punch, passion, somewhat tepid. Project, sitting on Allen’s Creek in Evansville, labeling page Executive Summary, a better title could be “Vision” or something to that affect. First paragraph should be an attention getter. It appears clear that we are asking for money, asking for help. Need some commonality. First page, some rendition of the building or creek, something visual across from first page as an attention getter. Creating a treasure in the heart of Evansville, something creative.
Dan Laux – Impressed with how quickly we came up with a change of name and logo. Been through this before where organization has gone round and round over changes, this went fast, very nice. Good Job.
Carla Heimerl– Agree with Dave, make first page more dramatic or passionate; get rid of over- blown statements and poetry. Fine line there, we need to be careful, Evansville isn’t the only gem in the state of Wisconsin. Greg Anderson quote, don’t need. A little too flowery or overdone.
Kolleen Onsrud – Wondered about audience, donors would be from town, sounds like we are trying to attract out of towners. Use less of a sell job, more utilitarian.
Carla Heimerl – Quote – “when we are motivated by goals…by pure love that needs expressing”? Good Example of overblown.
Diane Skinner – Love the Creekside Place idea, Give-Build-Grow part, bothers me.
Chris –Too obvious of an ask for funds?
Kurt - Give-Build-Grow is the campaign slogan. As you see it written, dark to light print, give will fade, build will fade, grow will be darker. Will go away after the campaign.
Carla Heimerl – Didn’t mention schools as a community asset. It is on the next page.
Chris – Page 3, second paragraph, awkward. Doesn’t flow.
Bill Hartje – 4 ideas, good job of integrating community. Rental should be later, Senior, Community should come first, rent later.
Fred Juergens – Bold work services – EC/SC s/b Creekside Place
Dan Janes – Facility cost is too high, rental rate is too high. Referred to Janesville & Madison.
Carla Heimerl – Facility rental – big thing is providing space for events and meetings. It is an important goal for this center to provide rental space.
Thea – If we were to meet there, Literary Club, would we have to rent the space? Non-profits will not have to pay rent.
John Decker – Someone will have to decide the definition of non-profit, non-income earning entities.
Chris Eager – Thank you everyone for what they have done to date, a lot of work behind the scenes has gone on. Addressing issues that came up, Woodchuck shop, Board of Directors composition, good questions raised, we can’t fumble around, need firm answers.
Carla Heimerl – Doug’s e-mail, complimenting the work that had been done; appreciate the incredible work behind the scenes.
Chris Eager – This group has put a lot of input into the process as well.
3. Turn in copies of draft to Kurt.
4. Next Steps –
Kurt – Fix page 1, tone down a little. We call it the Executive Summary, that is what they want to look at. Some people will cover front to back, other will read summary and say OK. With tonight’s review there is no work stoppage issue. We will print up in draft form; have it bound to take out to the community. We have a list of names to distribute to; next meeting will be a distribution meeting. Bound copies and a question & answer sheet, 7-8 questions. Make sure the doc hits the right cord in the community. Meeting on Thursday, for distribution only, at a mutually agreeable time. Want document to be solid to give to solicitors. Ask people to read and answer questions, is the document doing the right thing for the project.
Carla Heimerl – Used the word solicitor – are we asking them to solicit? We are asking them to read it, make notes, and answer questions. Does this make sense to them? Majority of people we ask for funds do not know the whole story, we have to make sense right away.
Chris Eager – What if Thea hands out the document and the person asks “are you going to ask for money?” Answer is “Not today!”
Dan Janes – Will all 700 get the copy? Will some people be disappointed they weren’t asked?
Kurt – We will have extra’s once it is final, they will be available.
Rose Helms – After we get the comments, we will move forward with solicitation?
Kurt – We will have a final meeting, will identify answers to questions. Group will take all hands up, validate the document. Only change will be if someone gives a large donation to pay for future plans. Will incorporate Dave’s thoughts as well.
Bill Hartje – Floor plan, not putting it in, shows lack of confidence. Want floor plan in there at some point.
Kurt – Original plan is good, this is about operating cost to sustain center once it is built. We can’t show poor management.
Carla Heimerl – Overture Center is an example of what could happen.
Thea Brunsell – Floor plan is important.
Audrey Shomos – I agree, floor plan is important. Seeing the original was exciting.
Kurt – Redesign is essential, traffic flow is important.
Dan Laux – Original drawing is nice, large meeting area, if divided, how do you get to them.
Lots of conversation on drawings.
Kolleen Onsrud – I can look at general space, I don’t need to know where doors are, expandable rooms.
Rose Helms – I hear what you are saying, as a part of non-profit groups, and grant writing, funders look at the budget more than the floor plan. Part of what we are doing will get the validation we are looking for, if people ask, we know we will need the drawing.
Bill Hartje – Difference between building and operating, should that be outlined in the document? Can we raise money to operate with the budget that is in the back?
Kolleen Onsrud – Some of that stress is coming from the school. Population projections that were done can be misleading.
Carla Heimerl – Clear statement that we are concerned about maintenance, we acknowledge that operations are addressed.
Fred Juergens – 3 years of fundraising is stated in document that is a lot.
Rose Helms – Fundraising is part of the process.
Gil Skinner – Grant writing is a major part of job, not just fundraising.
Kurt – Quote on revenue generation, the ability to operate will be dictated by the building. Page 23 under investment, can clean up and maker clearer.
5. Action Items:
Distribute Case Meeting – Date, Time, Location
Thursday, October 29, 2009 from 1-6:00 p.m., Community/Senior Center 320 Fair St. Distribute Case for Support Draft and question and answer script.
Janis will E-mail everyone exact time, if different than above.
6. Other Issues:
None
7. Adjourn at 8:15
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
