What might be missing from the proposed project? [It is important to note that this is an open-ended question. Therefore, the seemingly low numbers of support are actually more meaningful than might be initially assumed.]

Nine participants (15%) wish there could be a larger performance area. Several of these people suggest that a larger platform be installed in the sanctuary by removing a couple of the front pews. Seven participants (11%) would like to see a larger gathering space for social and community-oriented events. In addition, the following comments were recorded.

What compliments were shared about the congregation? [It is important to note that this is an open-ended question. Therefore, the seemingly low numbers of support are actually more meaningful than might be initially assumed.]

Feasibility study participants are highly complimentary about the people of the congregation. Their comments are summarized below.

Forty-five participants (73%) spoke in support of your minister, Harold Babcock.. Participants spoke positively about his inspiring, spiritual, personal sermons and his warm, kind, approachable manner.

Forty-three participants (69%) spoke in support of the members and friends of the congregation. These participants often mentioned the friendly, welcoming nature of the congregation. Several participants indicated that the people of the church represent the core of their social network.

More specifically, 20 participants (32%) complimented the lay leadership of the congregation. These feasibility study participants are especially pleased with the dedicated, committed leadership of the Parish Council and the outstanding work of the Space Needs Committee.

And finally, 10 participants (16%) were complimentary about the strong religious education program and its dedicated teachers.

What concerns were shared about the congregation? [It is important to note that this is an open-ended question. Therefore, the seemingly low numbers of support are actually more meaningful than might be initially assumed.]

There were proportionally fewer concerns expressed than compliments, and none of the concerns should be viewed as terminal barriers to conducting a capital campaign. On the other hand, these concerns are significant enough that they deserve the attention of the church lay leadership.

There were 21 participants (34%) who expressed concerns about the music program. These participants are concerned about the overall quality of the program, indicating that it often seems repetitive, monotonous, unchallenging and lacking in variety. Several participants wish for a "seamless" young person to adult music program with a director who would coordinate this comprehensive program.

Fifteen participants (24%) wonder if the congregation will be willing to contribute enough money to support the proposed building project. There is less doubt about the ability of people to financially support the project.

In a related issue, eight participants (13%) are concerned about the level of giving to the annual operating budget. These participants are particularly concerned that the current operating budget does not allow for adequate staffing. Furthermore, these participants are concerned that the operating budget, and specifically staffing requirements, will need to dramatically increase as the congregation grows.

In yet another related issue, seven participants (11%) are concerned about the church administrative system, feeling that it is not a good match for the size of the congregation. In the words of one participant, it is a "pastoral-size administrative system trying to operate in a program-size church." These participants would suggest the creation of a more sophisticated or mature system of administering the church.

Six participants (10%) expressed a need for some specific financial projections in support of the proposed project. These participants are reluctant to give their wholehearted support to the project until they can see these financial projections.

6

l)o you have an up-to-date will?

Twenty-nine participants (47%) indicated that they do have an up-to-date \\ill. while the remaining 33 participants (53%) do not have an up-to-date will.

Is the church mentioned in your will?

Only four participants (7%) have the church mentioned in their will while the remaining 58 participants (93%) do not have the church mentioned in their will.

If the church is not mentioned in your will, would you like information about how you might include the church in your will?

Of the 58 participants who have not included the church in their will, 27 participants would welcome information about how they might mention the church in their will.

What is the ability and willingness of the congregation to financially support the proposed project?

After compiling data from the feasibility study interviews, several mathematical formulas were utilized to make projections about the likely capital campaign giving of the entire congregation. The following information summarizes feasible capital campaign pledge projections in support of your project.

There were 62 feasibility study participants. These 62 participants represent 40 household pledge units and they contributed $7 1,543 to the most recent annual operating budget. Their $71,543 in annual contributions represents 41% of the $173,107 in total congregational giving to that same operating budget.

Based on my previous experience with dozens of Unitarian Universalist congregations, I project that 95% of your current annual household pledge units will make a capital campaign contribution to your proposed project. Ninety-five percent of $173,107 equals $164,452. In turn, $71,543 represents 43.5% of the revised annual contribution total of

$164,452.

Feasibility study participants are willing to contribute at least $322,600 to the proposed project during a three-year capital campaign. Table 3 indicates the anticipated range of contributions from the feasibility study participants.

Dividing $322,600 by 43.5%, a projection of $741,609 in total congregational financial support for a capital campaign can be predicted. However, because some capital campaign pledges will be distributed throughout a three-year capital campaign, and because some personal financial circumstances will change during these three years, a 3% slippage must be factored into the equation. Therefore, it is likely that 97% of $741,609 or $719,360 in capital campaign contributions can be expected from the current members and friends of the congregation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The lay leaders of the First Religious Society of Newburyport have done a fine job of developing a preliminary plan for a proposed building project. Their work has resurrected discussions that have occurred for many years. In addition, their work has accurately captured the needs and wishes of the congregation and their preliminary proposal is meeting with overwhelming congregational support.

In spite of this wonderful work, the congregation is not quite ready to launch a capital campaign. There are four steps that might be taken to better prepare the congregation for a capital campaign.

Step 1. In recent years, your congregation has made great strides in increasing your annual operating budget. This progress must continue with a successful spring annual canvass. Your annual operating budget must continue to grow so that you can better support the programming and staffing that your vital congregation requires. You simply should not proceed with a capital campaign unless your spring annual canvass goal is met. It makes no sense to consider capital needs until your annual operating budget is adequate.

Step 2. You have recently begun a process of clarifying staff job descriptions and reporting relationships. I strongly recommend that this work be completed as soon as possible. Completion of this process will enable you to move forward with your search for a director of religious education and a new secretary. Completion of the process will also allow you to address the future of your music program, listed as an area of concern by a significant number of feasibility study participants.

Step 3. A dedicated core group of people has been instrumental in developing the early stages of your proposed project. You can now focus on developing a wider base of support for the project. It is time to get more people directly involved in the refinement of your project and it is also time to become more active in "spreading the word" about your project. More widespread ownership and buy-in will be needed before a capital campaign can be launched.

Step 4. As your proposed project gets more clearly defined, financial projections can be developed. Before the congregation can be expected to make their financial commitments to the project, they will need to see five-year financial projections that include operating income and expenses, as well as capital income and expenses.

Once these four steps have been completed, you will be ready to launch a capital campaign. I recommend that you consider a fall, 2000 capital campaign launch, with a stretch goal of $800,000 in pledges. I am convinced that this goal will be realistic once these four steps have been completed.

SUMMARY

It was extremely beneficial to meet with the feasibility study participants. They were honest and straightforward in their conversations. They willingly discussed their joys and concerns about the proposed project and the church in general. Especially when discussing some of their concerns, the participants were particularly sensitive and kind in their comments.

The construction of your proposed project is certainly feasible. While there is some work to do before you are ready to launch a capital campaign, I am confident o£ "our ultimate success.

I wish you the very best, and would be pleased to offer you any guidance that might be helpful as you move forward.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne B. Clark, Ph. D.

UUA Director of Congregational Fundraising Services

1. How long have you been involved with this congregation? _____ years.

2. What congregational activities are currently of most interest/importance to you?

3. How knowledgeable are you about the proposed building project?

Very Somewhat Not Very

4. Do you feel that thc project should be a high priority? Yes No

5. What is your vision for the future of this congregation?

6. In what ways does the proposed project support this vision of the future?

7. Are there other priorities (ministerial, programmatic, facilities) that need to be considered to help the congregation achieve its vision?

8. Would you be willing to become a volunteer capital campaign canvasser? You would be asked to canvass no more than four members or friends of the congregation Yes No

 9. If you were seeking a major capital campaign donation of $10,000 or more, who would you ask?

A. From within the congregation B. From within the greater community

 10. If you have already considered your financial support of the proposed project, please indicate the possible amount of your donation. This is not a firm commitment, but an indication to help us plan for an achievable goal. Your capital campaign donation could be spread out over three years and would need to be made in addition to your annual canvass pledge.

A. $50,001 or more E. $15,001 -$20,000

B. $40,001 - $50,000 F. $10,001 - $15,000

C. $30,001 - $40,000 G. $7,501 - $10,000

D. $20,001 - $30,000 H. $5,001 - $7,500

I. $3,001 - $5,000

J. $1,501 -$3,000

K. Nothing at this time

11. What payment schedule would you use for your donation?

Lump Sum Three Annual Payments Six Semi-Annual Payments 36 Monthly Payments

12. When would you be able to begin your capital campaign contributions?

13. What compliments would you like to share about the proposed project or the congregation in general?

14. Are there any concerns that you would like to share about the proposed project or the congregation in general?

15. Do you have an up-to-date will? Yes No

Is the church mentioned in your will? Yes No

Would you like information about how you might include the church in your will? Yes __No

Nancy Crochiere	Frank Morrill	Betty Pike
Scott Pike	Maura Perkins	Ann Cecil
Stan Cecil	John Harwood	Donna Seim
Anne Madden	Lark Madden	John Mercer
Florence Mercer	David Chatfield	Gill Chatfield
Walter Shivik	Blake Hughes	Ruth Hughes
Joan Smart	Bob Smart	Ron Pullins
Rochelle Perry-Platine	Alex Campbell	Liz Campbell
KC Swallow	Steve Swallow	Bob Thurlow
Con Thurlow	Susan Ricker	Bill Zarakos
Cynthia Raschke	Robin Lawson	Bob Fuller
Linda Fuller	Candace Erickson	Peter Erickson
Nancy Allison	Bob Allison	Anne White
Pat Hurzeler	Gerald Hogan	Valerie Hogan
Vickie Dyer	Jim Dyer	David Turner
Bettina Turner	Bill Heenchan	Forest Speck
Anne Verret-Speck	Mama Bedavas	Nancy Kidd
Jim Kidd	Ann Kemp	Steve James
Todd Hermann	Eric Gootkind	Gen Gootkind
Roger Hatch	Rae Mathieu	Les Ferlazzo
Julia Farwell Clay	Howard Fairweather