At the November 21, 2024, meeting, Xan Laurence presented the Finance Committee’s report on the 2025 budget. A key issue regarding the budget was that the Committee predicted a shortfall of about $4,030. Xan explained that this came about because of increases in some expenses, for example, a significant increase in the cost of property insurance for the church, and decreases in pledge income, down 3.2%, due to congregational members lost by death or transfer.
Kris Felbeck summarized the current status of the of the greatly increased quote for property insurance in 2025, reporting that our insurance company is moving toward dropping us, for several reasons:
1. We have an old, historic building.
2. We are a church with a large number of people, both staff and volunteers, in and out every week; and
3. Our current company determined that it was insuring too many churches in this immediate geographic area, thus increasing its exposure to claims.
In general, insurance for churches is becoming more and more expensive and difficult to find, given the realities of climate change, and increasingly severe weather. Kris reported that Paul Snyder was working with an insurance broker to identify other companies who might be able to insure us. Currently, the budget reflects only part of the full increase from our current insurance company, since we hope to find a less expensive option. There are two pieces to our insurance coverage—liability and building. Liability is not the costliest, but it is an absolute necessity. We also have reserves, so this cost increase is not a dire issue immediately.
The Board moved to adopt the 2025 budget and recommend it to the congregation, noting that it is an unbalanced budget, and that we have accumulated funds available to cover any shortfall.
The Board then discussed the use of funds that are not restricted in their use that have accumulated to a significant degree. These funds came from various sources: memorial gifts, undesignated bequests, unspent COVID relief funds, and past budget surpluses. A portion of this money will be invested in our First Church Fund. However, keeping in mind our 2024-2025 program goals, the Board identified one-time expenses necessary to support our Flourish initiatives related to increased building use (security systems and kitchen upgrade), and ministry team projects (creation of a logo, upgrades to internal signage and displays, upgrades to external signage, and other requests from ministry teams). The consensus of the Board was that using the undesignated memorial gifts and bequests for these purposes would honor the intents of the givers of such gifts.
The Board then engaged in a brief discussion about reparations. The Board will meet with the Justice League on February 11, 2025, to choose what organizations will receive the reparations money. This will be a time for us to reflect on our values and goals in relation to reparations. A number of questions arose about determining the process for identifying potential recipient organizations and choosing which organizations should receive our reparations funds. Jane and Linda will meet to create and implement a process in consultation with Justice League leaders.
The Board then discussed our stewardship campaign, including determining follow-up logistics like writing thank-you notes to members of the congregation who contributed. Kris suggested that we also write thank-you notes to members of the congregation who provided a whole variety of services to the church this past year. She offered to spearhead that effort, which may take place in February.
The Board also noted that First Church is experiencing the challenge of generational change. Many of our largest donors are also our most senior members, and as they age and die, it falls to younger members of the congregation to make up that financial loss. This is something that needs to be identified for the congregation as we address stewardship throughout the church year.
Jane, Kris, and Linda then presented the Board with a proposed slate of nominations for approval by the Board. The nominations were chosen in some cases as a planned transition for a ministry team, as well as an effort to maintain gender balance, and an intention to include some newer members of the congregation who might bring fresh perspectives to the work of the Board. The Board approved the proposed slate of Board members. Linda thanked those Board members who are leaving the Board for their invaluable contributions to First Church.
The Board then approved that agenda for the Annual Meeting.
The Board received a report from Jane and Linda about capital campaign planning. Linda noted that Joy Gullikson contacted the firm that we have used in the past (James Company), and Linda contacted Partners for Sacred Places. Jane noted that our previous experience with James Company was generally positive. Part of the reason we are considering Partners for Sacred Places is that they purport that we should approach the community for financial support, since everyone in the neighborhood benefits from our church.
Hikaru presented a report to the Board on the Principal Minister Review from the Personnel Committee. Due to Jane’s sabbatical, the review process lasted longer than usual this year. The Personnel Committee did not try to do a survey. Instead, they had one-to-one conversations with selected church members. The Personnel Committee focused on diversifying those who were involved in the conversations.
The committee also conducted one-to-one interviews with Brad, Sarah, and Chris Bohnhoff. Through the review, the overwhelmingly clear sentiment was that Jane is a real gift to our congregation. She is good about empowering people to stretch and grow. She has a good long-term vision of where we are going as a church, especially through the Flourish and Vinery programs. The Board thanked Jane for her presence and all her contributions to First Church. A summary of the Principal Minister Review process will be included in Annual Report.
Finally, the Board heard a report from Paul Fate regarding a proposal from the Investment Subcommittee of the Finance Committee that we change our investment advisor after experiencing problems with our current advisor. The Subcommittee interviewed three possible agencies, and proposed that we engage the United Church Fund, citing their excellent service and their alignment with our values.