Overall Summary

Objectives

There were four key objectives to the study:

1. Determine how satisfied members and friends of CUC are with the church building and grounds.
2. Determine spending priorities for improvements to the building and grounds.
3. Determine if members and friends want to spend some money from the building fund in 2010 to improve the building and grounds or prefer to save the money as seed money for a  future, major renovation.
4. Determine if there are any significant differences in opinions based on demographic characteristics like age or based on prior contribution to the building fund.

Methodology

1. Survey was developed by the board chair in consultation with the minister.
2. Survey was distributed in two waves to allow for learning and modification.  Two additional questions were asked in the second wave:  if we spend money from the building fund in 2010 what is the maximum % we should spend,  and whether renovations should be energy efficient even if the cost of conservation is more than the savings.
3. Surveys were sent to everyone who supplied CUC with their email address and were also made available to those without emails after the 1-10-10 service.  136 surveys were completed.

Major Findings

The following are the major findings of the research:

1. Members and friends are satisfied with a number of aspects of the facilities including the sanctuary acoustics, the RE classrooms,  Fellowship hall, the parking lot, and the temperature of the sanctuary in the winter.
2. Key areas of dissatisfaction include the bathrooms, main lobby, kitchen, handicap accessibility and lighting of the stairs from the parking lot.
3. The top priorities for improvement indicated in the survey include the bathrooms, main lobby and kitchen followed by handicapped accessibility.  85% of respondents listed the bathrooms in their top three priorities for improvement, 49% listed the kitchen,  46% listed the main lobby., and 28% indicated improving handicap accessibility.
4. Opinion is fairly evenly divided concerning whether we should spend or save the money in the building fund.   When asked about saving the funds 53% agreed or strongly agreed that we should save the funds versus 23% who disagreed or strongly disagreed.  When asked about spending the funds 48% agreed or strongly agreed and 27% disagreed or disagreed strongly.

   When asked how much would be appropriate to spend, if we did spend funds, the average value was 36% but the variation around the average value was large at 21%,  meaning the range was wide -- between 15% and 57%.

5. The attitudes of members and friends 16-49 and 50+ are more similar than dissimilar.  The evaluation of facilities showed no statistical difference on 11 of the 13 items that were evaluated.  There were two significant differences:  members and friends 50 +  are more likely to rate both the kitchen and the lighting over the outdoor stairs as unsatisfactory.

   There were also no differences in the preference to save or spend the money in the building fund.

   The most important difference concerned the order of the priorities for renovations with the 50+ respondent focused on bathrooms (1) the kitchen (2) the lobby (3) and handicap accessibility (4) while the 16-49 year old respondent focused on bathrooms (1), the lobby (2) the kitchen (3) and handicapped accessibility (4).

6. The attitudes of members and friends with children in RE and without children in RE are more similar than different.  The evaluation of facilities showed no statistical difference on 11 of 13 items that were evaluated.  There were two significant differences:  parents with children in RE were more likely to indicate that the RE classrooms were satisfactory (those without children in RE were more likely to indicate that that had no opinion).  Also those without children in RE were more likely to find the temperature of the sanctuary in the summer as not comfortable.

   There were also no statistical differences on spending or saving based on having children in RE or on prior contribution to the building fund.

7. There was a strong opinion (68%) that future renovations should be energy efficient even if the cost of conservation is more than we save.
8. Open ended comments and unsolicited comments were generally consistent with the findings in the survey.  Three points made, however, should be noted.  There were a few open ended comments and unsolicited comments concerning the overall appearance of the Church as shabby.  Some of the individuals who made these comments suggested spending money to improve the first impression of the Church.

   Secondly, there a few open ended and unsolicited comments made about the windows in the sanctuary (question not asked on the survey) concerns were expressed about energy, safety and birds flying into the windows.

   Finally, the survey had a functional focus and one member encouraged the board to consider the spirituality of the buildings and grounds when setting priorities.

Recommendations

To be developed by the Board during the Spring 2010.