Maple Grove Lutheran Church
Facilities Team Meeting Minutes
February 12, 2007

Members present:  Dick Halzle, Chuck Johnson, Teri Johnson, Bob Johnson, Renae Renstrom, Jen Besser, Doug Cassady, Greg Goeke, Pastor Peterson
SMSQ: Steve Edwins, Pepe Kryzda
Langer: Russ Zellmer

I.          Prayer/Devotion – Pastor Peterson, Psalm 98

II.          Approval of Minutes
A.   Dick Halzle motioned to approve the minutes from the January 8 meeting. Chuck Johnson seconded the motion.  No further discussion needed.  All voted in favor.

III.         Review of Agenda: additions/corrections
A.   Dick Halzle asked to discuss under-floor conduit

IV.        Review of church actions since last meeting
A.   Update on land sale – timetable impact? (Greg)
i.    The agreement has not been signed, but both parties have agreed on price and terms; nearly all conditions have been met; still looking at a June close.
B.   Report on sub-group formation progress (All)
C.   Report on neighbor property (Chuck)

V.         Sub-group review and/or input: (Bob and Steve)
A.   Worship and Music input (see Brief Report) – FT review and response. (Handout)
i.    Handout summarizes meeting with Bob Johnson, Renae Renstrom, Dick Halzle, Ken Turnquist, Suzanne Wimer, Brian Hanson and Chad Thomas
B.   A-V-V: SMSQ proposed approach (see below); Tech review? (Handout)
i.    SMSQ will help with RFP; Bob Mahoney will be involved if needed.
C.   LA and site: review report; decide on ‘dumpster’ enclosure size
i.    Discussion: Need room for recycling (2 or 3 containers) and big garbage dumpster (6-7 cu yard?)
ii.    Arch response: 10’x10’ enclosure would suffice, will be double-gated and landscaped.
D.   Kitchen: SMSQ example for consideration – Consultant, Member Review, or what? (Handout)
i.    Members to involve in the February 27 meeting are Tim Kroeger (sp), Becky and Chris Hilliard, the Backers
ii.    Possible way to breakdown the needs are (1) Have to haves, (2) Like to haves, and (3) Future
iii.   SMSQ needs to know what the eventual finished room will be
iv.   A water heater will need to be located nearby; we could possibly use the one in the office area
v.    If a new water heater is added, we should go with gas.
a)   Discussion: Wait until the existing water heater in office area is dead, then get a new one.
vi.   Dishwashers need 120 degree input.

VI.        Construction Documents Phase progress review  
A.   Schedule review (Pepe & Russ) (Handout)
B.   City process ‘launched’ (SMSQ – Pepe) – FT identify ‘tracker’ person(s)
i.    Comments from Watershed were received: narrowly escaped having to add the pond; will use filtration in the swales (porous material and tall grasses)
ii.    Pepe talked to the City Planner – they will advocate for our cupola; if that holds up, we won’t have to ask for a variance
C.   Design/cost options: beams/trusses/columns (Pictures/$) – FT to review and select one (Handout)
i.    Discussion: Majority of the group picked the “two beams and two trusses with bolts option”; also wanted the Timber Cluster Columns vetted with the structural engineer as that was a well liked option.
D.   Mechanical and Electrical Review in January: design update for ducts; thermostat type approval
      i.          Alternate for existing Office area furnace (2) upgrade?
E.   Arch. Alternate Logic (see Scope Narrative) – FT approve alternate definitions (Handout)
i.    There is logic in lumping together the Kitchen (in either shell or functional form) with the office because of piping for water and gas, and electrical, that is needed for the kitchen
ii.    The office at least needs to go first, prior to kitchen, due to necessary construction work
F.   Arch. Drawing progress – revised and new drawings:
i.    Exterior materials (elevations used with City): Brick samples discussion, general approval (Handout)
ii.    Materials overview: floors and ceilings – approval (Handout)
iii.   Room elevations and Materials: Restrooms (tile) E Exist remodel (glass); approval
G.   Acoustical is in the works (WS surfaces at March FT)
H.   AVV consultant approach (handout brief); approve for use with subcommittee on February 27.
I.    Other questions and discussion

VII.       Next Steps by Facility Team
A.   Assist/coordinate review function and/or input from sub-groups
i.    (Synchronize for FT Meetings ahead and for inclusion in CDs)
B.   Manage/track/present for the City application processes; FT: person(s)?
i.    Greg agreed to take care of this process
C.   Communications with membership (info sheets, ‘workbench’, graphics/pictures)

VIII.       Next Steps by SMSQ design team and/or Langer
A.   Help schedule sub-group interactions w/ questions, lists
B.   Provide M&E with kitchen “rough-in” information, loads (ideally)
C.   Provide pictorial or written materials for “Communications” when requested

IX.         Next Meeting Dates
A.   Subgroups – Tuesday, February 27, 7:00, at church: AVV, Kitchen, Storage/Sacristy/Offices, Data/Communications, Nursery
B.   FT – Tuesday, March 13, 7:00, at church
C.   Subgroups – Tuesday, March 27, 7:00, at church

X.         Lord’s Prayer

Documents reviewed at the meeting: (also CD plan sheets reviewed at meeting)
Beam/truss/column pictures (4 sets of 3) and cost comparisons (Langer)
Alternates: Scope Narrative 8 February 2007
Worship/Music Area – Brief Report
A-V-V Proposed Design Approach Brief
Sample Kitchen Layout and equipment scope
FT monthly and sub-group topic schedule update