|
|
|
|
1.
|
What are the goals/objectives of this proposed development?
|
|
|
a.
|
The development is to better help people to know Christ,
serve Christ, proclaim Christ. For this we need a safe, spacious
and increasingly money-saving ministry centre for the church.
In summary…MAKE SAFE - MAKE SPACE - SAVE MONEY. In detail:
|
|
|
|
i.
|
To make good the existing heritage-listed Ministry Centre,
which is in a dangerously dilapidated state. The ground underneath
the building has dried out, and the building is now tilting.
The Centre is a 100 year-old house, so it is not wired for
office facilities. We need to re-wire it to support computers,
air-conditioning, lighting and other facilities required for
a modern office. Whatever happens, this building has to be
renovated.
|
|
|
|
ii.
|
To provide sufficient work and meeting space for the current
Ministry team and flow-over rooms for congregational use.
The current conditions are cramped, freezing cold or boiling
hot, have insufficient storage, and there are not enough rooms
available for ministers to work and meet in privacy with members
of the congregation or outsiders. We mustn't forget that ministry
is not like business. Often our ministers are dealing with
people's extremely private and sensitive matters. To minister
to us effectively, they need private meeting space.
|
|
|
|
iii.
|
To negate the significant cost and risk the parish currently
faces from its requirement to provide rental accommodation
for its Ministry Team. (In the region of $80,000 p.a. and
rising) This is to be done by building attractive accommodation
that can either be commercially rented or used by members
of the Ministry Team.
|
|
|
|
The above three goals aim to use the land which we already
own to meet our needs, rather than continuing to spend money
on renting space on other people's land. By doing this St
Thomas' will also be in a strong position for the future growth
and wellbeing of its ministry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
How much would it cost all up?
|
|
|
a.
|
The total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately
$3.8 million with roughly one-third being the restoration
of the current ministry centre and two-thirds being the construction
of the new facility and accommodation. We are seeking to raise
$2,500,000 in non-tax-deductible contributions. For more information
see the Financial section of this website.
|
|
|
b.
|
The ground floor of the proposed new building would house
the administrative team and two new meeting rooms, with flexible
layouts. The first and second levels would contain units that
could be used by staff or rented out commercially, depending
on the staff profile at any given time.
|
|
|
c.
|
If the existing building's condition is not addressed in
the near future we will have to move our Ministry Centre into
off-site office accommodation at a cost of more than $150,000
pa. Without provision of residential accommodation, we will
need to continue to rent residences off-site at a cost of
more than $80,000 p.a. The proposed new development would
therefore pay for itself in less than 20 years with a saving
of about $230,000 (in current $) and reduced risk on off-site
rental increases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
What benefits would there be for the outsider, the church
member and for the staff?
|
|
|
a.
|
One of the most exciting aspects of the proposed building
is the new 'face' St Thomas' will project into the North Sydney
Civic Park. It won't look like a church property but with
a piazza at the front, our presence and the new facilities
will enable us to really engage with the community and take
advantage of outreach opportunities like the Friday noodle
markets, the Saturday markets, etc.
|
|
|
b.
|
More meeting rooms, a piazza with BBQ facility, a fenced-in
area for the children, and other facilities will allow easier
congregational access and use that is simply not possible
in the currently cramped and closed Ministry Centre.
|
|
|
c.
|
For the staff, the new facilities will provide modern, IT-equipped,
air-conditioned offices (a combination of open-plan and private
studies) that will enable the ministry team and admin staff
to run our church and minister to the congregations more effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Why don't we buy local housing for additional accommodation/offices?
(Instead of building something new.)
|
|
|
a.
|
The cost of acquiring the same accommodation and offices
as planned by the project is much more than the cost of building
them onsite. This is simply because the Parish already owns
the land on which the development is to occur. We are therefore
maximising the value of our existing asset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Why would we need to do both parts at once? Could we split
the development into 2 stages and do the Ministry Centre refurbishment
first and then the new building once we've raised enough money
and are clearer on the requirements for it?
|
|
|
a.
|
The current Ministry Centre (once renovated) is insufficient
for the existing ministry needs of the Parish – let alone
meeting any future growth. For example, on Sunday mornings
currently there are not enough rooms for all the Sunday School
and youth groups, so we have to rent space in the North Sydney
Community Centre. Building both stages at the same time significantly
reduces costs and inconvenience during the construction period.
Our architects estimate the additional cost of developing
in two stages is approximately 30%. This equates to an extra
$1,000,000 and does not take into account the significant
ministry cost of working next to a building site for an extended
period.
|
|
|
b.
|
The project's long term financial viability relies on the
second stage being completed as soon as possible, as rental
income from the units will reduce or provide offset to the
Parish's large rental bill. Delays in construction of the
new building will simply mean a more costly building requirement
for the future.
|
|
|
c.
|
The ministry team and admin team have put a lot of thought
into developing the requirements for the centre – based
on existing and forecast ministry needs. Splitting the project
into two will simply increase costs and create significant
inconvenience and disruption to the Ministry at St Thomas'
in the future. If we only renovate the Ministry Centre it
will be insufficient to meet even the current ministry needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Why would we build residential units for staff? Isn't it
better to keep staff accommodation as a variable cost (ie.
rent) so it can be flexible according to the growth/decline
of the church/staff? What about simply buying accommodation?
|
|
|
a.
|
Rental savings are one of a number of significant benefits
the development is anticipated to deliver. We currently spend
approximately $80,000 per year in accommodation costs for
the Ministry staff. Building our own accommodation would help
to both remove the ongoing burden of this cost from the Parish,
as well as eliminating our exposure to future increases in
the rental market. Indeed, based on recent experience, it
is not difficult to envisage a situation where the Parish
can simply not afford to employ ministers because the cost
of housing is too great.
|
|
|
b.
|
There are always staff like MTS apprentices and pastoral
workers who work with us for 2–3 years and will benefit
from the accommodation without being onsite long-term.
|
|
|
c.
|
Whilst buying accommodation is an alternative to building,
the cost of construction is lower given the land does not
need to be purchased. It is also important to point out that
should the accommodation not be suitable or needed by Ministry
staff; a new income stream would be available by renting the
accommodation out externally.
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Would current and future ministry staff really want to live
onsite?
|
|
|
a.
|
Even though one of our ministers does currently live on-site,
it is quite possible that the future ministry staff will not
want to live in such close proximity to the church. The design
has incorporated comments from existing staff and we have
had staff interest in moving into the accommodation. The design
of the proposed building has also taken into account the requirement
to disconnect the accommodation from the Ministry Centre.
There would, for example, be a separate entrance for these
units from North Sydney Civic Park that would make the units
attractive as commercially rented accommodation, so for outsiders
to live here it wouldn't feel like living on church property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Would the units be big enough for a family of 5–6?
|
|
|
a.
|
No. The largest unit in the proposed building has three bedrooms.
In the instance one of our ministers has a family of this
size, we would use the income from renting the units to pay
for more suitable accommodation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Would there be more meeting rooms, as there's often a shortage?
|
|
|
a.
|
Yes. In the plans for the proposed building, there are two
large meeting rooms with a folding wall between them. They
measure some 30 sq m and 40 sq m and could be connected to
form a contiguous space of some 70 sq m. They would adjoin
a courtyard with some 30 sq m of permanent covered space.
The largest meeting room has been designed to enable the full
staff complement of 20 permanent staff to be able to meet
comfortably around a table.
|
|
|
b.
|
The old Rectory/current Ministry Centre has been designed
to be refitted with offices that would double as meeting rooms
at peak times providing 7 small meeting rooms for up to 4–6
people to meet, and the former kitchen would be converted
into a meeting room (10 sq m) suitable for 10–12 people.
This would help to relieve some of the pressures particularly
on Sunday and Tuesday mornings.
|
|
|
c.
|
In addition, there would be attractive new outdoor spaces
that will be useful for engaging with the local community
during such times as the Friday Noodle or Saturday markets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
|
What if ministers leave or new leadership affects congregational
size? The church congregation could diminish and a smaller
congregation will be left with a large financial burden.
|
|
|
a.
|
Our responsibility is not to plan for less effectiveness
but more effectiveness as God blesses His word. And the need
is upon us.
|
|
|
b.
|
The financial viability of the proposed project actually
rests on the accommodation being constructed. This development
maximises the value of the site and creates an income stream
(akin to the carpark income stream), that would support ministry
activity into the future. In this sense, the project is even
more critical to undertake now in the event that there is
a change in the ministry team in the future.
|
|
|
c.
|
In 2010/2011 we intend to seek pledges of financial support
into the future with the aim of minimising any long-term financial
burden to the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
When will the proposed plans be submitted to the Council?
If approved, when would the work start and finish? How would
you manage overruns?
|
|
|
a.
|
The proposed plans have recently been submitted to North
Sydney Council.
|
|
|
b.
|
The development is proposed to commence in early 2011 and
take one year to complete. What a cause for thanks were the
Project to be competed by Christmas 2011.
|
|
|
c.
|
Once approved by North Sydney Council, a detailed tender
will be prepared by the architects using extensive information
available on the condition of the old building and all aspects
of the site including existing services location and geotechnical
information. The project will be tendered to at least three
competent building companies on a fixed price and time contract
with suitable bonds and guarantees. This arrangement will
ensure minimal risk of cost alterations after contract award.
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.
|
Who has been consulted on the development of the plans to
date?
|
|
|
a.
|
Any renovation and development of church property requires
significant consultation with both internal and external parties.
Before seeking congregational feedback we, the Ministry Centre
Project Team and Wardens, have looked at the needs and possibilities
with those who most use the site, then the appropriate authorities
in church, diocese and council. More specifically:
|
|
|
|
i.
|
the ministry team to ascertain requirements.
|
|
|
|
ii.
|
the Parish – concept plans were first presented for
feedback to the Parish in March 2008 at the Annual Vestry
meeting.
|
|
|
|
iii.
|
the National Trust of Australia (NSW).
|
|
|
|
iv.
|
the Sydney Diocesan Architectural Committee who have final
say on any development / renovation.
|
|
|
|
v.
|
North Sydney Council officers and the North Sydney Mayor,
Genia McCaffrey.
|
|
|
|
vi.
|
the architects, structural engineers, traffic engineers,
quantity surveyors, mechanical and electrical engineers, heritage
advisors and town planners.
|
|
|
|
viii.
|
We originally posted the building plans at the back of the
church in June 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.
|
Where would the ministry team and admin staff be housed
during the building work (for 1+ years)?
|
|
|
a.
|
There is a 'Re-housing' project as part of the overall project
plan. Rod Hills and Willi Schultheis are leading that work
to determine the most sensible and cost-effective approach.
One option we are looking at is demountables, another is to
use some of the rooms around the property such as the rooms
in the vestry at the back of the church and the Conference
/ Meeting Rooms in the Memorial Hall. As that plan is developed
we will keep you informed via this website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
14.
|
I have some questions. When can I ask them directly to the
church leaders?
|
|
|
a.
|
There will be opportunities announced in the newsletter for
question and answer sessions with the wardens. There will
be information available on this Website with an on-line Feedback/Question
facility, as well as a Question Box located at the back of
the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.
|
How would we raise such a large sum of money? What's the
plan?
|
|
|
a.
|
We are going to approach this on 3 fronts in 2010/2011.
|
|
|
|
i.
|
Pledges from the congregation during 2010/2011.
|
|
|
|
ii.
|
Bequests – asking members of the congregation to include
St Thomas' in their will.
|
|
|
|
iii.
|
Any other ideas you have for how you and others could contribute,
please email via this website or drop a note in the Question
Box at the back of church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.
|
What happened to the money that was raised specifically
for the St Thomas' Restoration Project a few years ago?
|
|
|
a.
|
We raised $1,300,000 over 3 years which was used to upgrade
the Memorial Hall and repair the school house and the church
roof. In the fund there remains approximately $600,000 which
will be put towards this new project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.
|
What are the wardens most concerned about in launching this
project?
|
|
|
a.
|
That the donations will come in slower than they need to
and if that happens it will raise the costs of financing the
project. We really hope and pray that our people see the need
for this work and work with us to make it happen during 2010/2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.
|
What should we be praying for with regards to this project?
|
|
|
a.
|
That the plans go smoothly through Council.
|
|
|
b.
|
That people at St Thomas' are aware of the many blessings
that God has given them and are willing to make financial
sacrifices for the benefit of the church and its work to know,
serve and proclaim Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
c.
|
That everyone at St Thomas' will get involved in some way.
This is a wonderful opportunity for us to work together, to
serve together, to give together to equip our church with
the facilities we need to proclaim Jesus inside our church
and outside in our community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.
|
How can members of the congregation help?
|
|
|
a.
|
You can help us by reviewing the proposed building plans
and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and giving your
feedback or questions to the Wardens by:
– completing an on-line Feedback Form on this website
– sending an email to buildingproject@st-thomas.org.au
– writing to the Wardens (you can send a letter by post
or drop one in the mailbox at the back of the church).
|
|
|
b.
|
Please start to consider how you could support the process
financially. We could beat our $2m target if, on top of regular
offertory giving, every young person (200) contributed
$450 over 3 years (ie $150/year ie. $13/month ie. $3/week)
and every church household (500) contributed a minimum
of $4500 over 3 years (ie. $1500/year, ie $125/month, ie.
$30/week). Please prayerfully consider what you could sacrifice
to give to this work which will enable our ministry to grow.
|
| |
c.
|
Giving your time and ideas next year to support additional
fundraising.
|
|
|
d.
|
Praying for the points above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.
|
How do I find out more?
|
|
|
a.
|
Check this website for updates: www.st-thomas.org.au/buildingproject/
|
|
|
b.
|
Attend one of the 'After-church Information Sessions' being
run by the Wardens. (Look out for details in the Bulletin.)
|
|
|
c.
|
Talk to the Wardens – Peter Hicks (10am), John Webster
(10am & 7pm), Martin Dudley (10am)
|
|
|
|
|
|
21.
|
Is there a communication plan in place for how to keep the
church informed and involved? Timings, fund updates, etc?
|
|
|
a.
|
Details of progress will be provided regularly on this website
and through the Weekly Bulletin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
22.
|
What has been the dialogue with the congregation regarding
the Ministry Centre Project?
|
| |
a.
|
The Ministry Centre project has been the subject of Parish
Council and Vestry Meeting deliberations for several years.
At the March 2009 Vestry Meeting, the architects Allen Jack
and Cottier architects presented the plans to the vestry meeting
prior to them being submitted to North Sydney Council for
the first DA which has been subsequently amended and approved.
The church website has contained details regarding the Ministry
Centre project at least since July 2008 and an excerpt is
on the website from this date.
|
| |
b.
|
In around July, 2010 as a result of the DA being approved
a new section of the website was established with a substantial
amount of information including the actual DA drawings, the
DA conditions, a letter from the Rector and FAQ's.
|
| |
c.
|
In September, 2010 the wardens presented on two Sundays to
the congregations and provided answers to any queries raised.
|
| |
d.
|
Every Parish Council meeting discusses the project and its
current status.
|
| |
e.
|
Several editions of the "Parish Council Update"
newsletter have had information on the project.
|
| |
f.
|
All project expenditure by the Parish is reviewed by the
Parish Council regularly and all expenditure requires the
endorsement of two wardens and is subsequently reviewed by
Parish Council.
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.
|
Is the mortgaging of the Preschool site anything to do with
the Ministry Centre Building Project?
|
| |
a.
|
The mortgage of the pre-school site is unrelated to the Ministry
Centre building project and is linked with the renewal of
the Prechool playground which was required due to safety issues
with the old playground.
|
| |
b.
|
The wardens posted a notice on the entry to the church for
several weeks during June, 2010, attended services and announced
the intention to take out a mortgage. There were no objections
raised to the mortgage as a result of these representations.
|
| |
c.
|
The mortgage was approved unanimously by the Parish Council.
|
| |
d.
|
The original intention, as advised by Westpac, was to use
the pre-school lease as security over the loan for the playground.
The pre-school Board therefore advanced the project and the
Wardens and Parish Council gained Diocese architectural approval
for the project. The project was always being funded by St
Thomas pre-school (not the Parish), utilising fee income from
pre-school fees. Subsequently the bank sought a mortgage over
the land and the Parish Council decided to take out a loan
and pass all the fees through to the pre-school via an increased
lease charge. This is currently in progress with the Diocese
having passed the necessary legal approval and the bank loan
presently being under negotiation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
24.
|
What is the current cost of the project and how is it intended
to be funded?
|
| |
a.
|
A cost estimate of $3.8m has been on the website for several
months and was established by the architects prior to the
latest DA change. Once the DA was approved the Parish Council
endorsed the engagement of a Quantity Surveyor (QS) who has
established an initial estimate of approximately $4.5m which
is presently the subject of due diligence by the Ministry
Building Committee. The QS estimate is very detailed and is
we believe an upper limit.
|
| |
b.
|
The Parish Council has considered a report by the Parish
Council finance sub-committee that provided a finance plan
that could see the development proceed utilizing the National
Trust appeal and loan funds. The Parish Council will reconsider
this strategy once the QS estimate is finalised, the tender
documents are finalised, the finance strategy reviewed, the
appeal committee established and prior to seeking tenders.
This is expected to be in late 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.
|
Why is the St Thomas' National Trust appeal funds being
used?
|
| |
a.
|
The St Thomas' National Trust appeal raises funds for the
restoration of all the St Thomas' heritage buildings. Funds
from the appeal have been spent on the Schoolhouse, Memorial
Hall and the Church. It is not an exclusive church building
appeal and over recent years the Parish Council have specifically
stated in its annual letters that the appeal money will be
directed to the Ministry Centre project. The National Trust
funds can only be used for the restoration portion of the
project (circa $1.5m) not the new building portion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
26.
|
Why was Allen Jack and Cottier selected as the project architects?
|
| |
a.
|
Allen Jack and Cottier have been working on the St Thomas'
site for over a decade and were the architects for the renovations
of 34 McLaren Street, the Memorial Hall and the Preschool.
They bring unparalleled knowledge of the site and their costs
are in accordance with industry standard. Their appointment
was endorsed by Parish Council.
|
|
|
|
|
|
27.
|
How much has been spent to date?
|
| |
a.
|
We have spent about $200k over an extended period of time
essentially master planning the site and in response to issues
raised by the Diocese. Approximately the same level of funds
are currently being spent developing the detailed tender documents
required to ensure accurate and competitive tenders are procured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
28.
|
What level of contingency are we planning?
|
| |
a.
|
We will plan circa 10% contingency (or as recommended by
Quantity Surveyor and architect) post the award of the tender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
29.
|
What capital funds do we have at our disposal to put towards
this project?
|
| |
a.
|
The National Trust amount is circa $800k. This fund has regularly
received donations of circa $200k per annum so it is envisaged
that during or shortly after the construction period of the
project the National Trust fund will receive sufficient funds
to entirely fund the restoration part of the project (circa
$1.5m).
|
|
|
|
|
|
30.
|
Do we plan to utilise capital funds which would otherwise
be earmarked for property maintenance? If so what maintenance
will need to be deferred?
|
| |
a.
|
The Parish Council frequently defer maintenance tasks in
favour of mission and staff. Once the National Trust fund
is fully allocated to the restoration part of the Ministry
Centre any funds donated to the fund will return to fund property
maintenance elsewhere on the property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.
|
How will the project affect our operating cashflows e.g.
rents for staff accommodation or disruption to car park revenues
during the project?
|
| |
a.
|
A detailed finance committee report has been made available
to Parish Council on this issue. It is expected that 15 car
parking spaces will be permanently removed and we are currently
assessing the temporary impact of the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.
|
How much funding must be raised outside our available capital
base?
|
| |
a.
|
It is our intention to use the National Trust funds to immediately
pay approximately 20% of the capital costs and to borrow the
remaining 80%. The borrowed funds will be retired over time
through fund raising, savings in rental costs and further
National Trust giving. In the meantime interest costs can
be met from present cashflows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.
|
What should be our target fund raising timetable to reach
the minimum funding commitment? Do we raise funds until we
reach the required threshold or do we set a no/no-go deadline
with the possibility that we do not reach the required threshold?
|
| |
a.
|
Our plan is not to defer the project because building costs,
rentals, etc, will continue to rise and make the project more
expensive over time. Building costs are expected to increase
significantly in the medium term whilst at present they are
not under much pressure. It is our intention to commence construction
as soon as possible to support the mission of the church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
34.
|
What is the tax treatment of the funds we need to raise?
|
| |
a.
|
The Finance Committee is exploring whether tax-deductibility
is possible for the meeting parts of the new structure but
the heritage parts of the project are definitely tax-deductible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.
|
Are there any further opportunities for the project to be
made tax deductible?
|
| |
a.
|
It is possible that the building of meeting rooms may also
be tax-deductible as an education component of the project.
This is being investigated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
36.
|
How will the project be managed?
|
| |
a.
|
It is our intention to engage a single, competitively sourced
builder for the project. The builder will be managed utilising
an appropriate mix of professional assistance from our architects
and available project management resources from the congregation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
37.
|
What are the next steps?
|
| |
a.
|
There is a lot of work going on principally to settle the
detailed tender and finance plan. These will be presented
to Parish Council prior to seeking tender responses early
in 2011. At that time Diocese and bank approval will need
to be sought for the next project stage and financing. Once
these are in place and an appropriate tender is selected we
will then be in a position to again report to Parish Council
on whether or not to appoint a builder. This is expected to
be around mid-2011.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
