GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH

Good Shepherd is starting a Capital Fund Appeal to address needed updates for our building and facilities. To find out more, please check out the PowerPoint presentation entitled "Lifting Us Up" (click the title to view).

Lifting Us Up Capital Fund Campaign

Files for Downloading

Below are some files that you may want to download to get more information on the Capital Fund Campaign or to make a commitment to it. These files are provide in both Microsoft Word and Adobe PDF formats (requires the free Acrobat Reader).

Capital Fund Assessment - MS Word

Info & Commitment Form - MS Word

Capital Fund Assessment - PDF

Info & Commitment Form - PDF

2012 SPENDING PLAN

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

2012 General Spending Plan

1. P7 and p18: The amounts in the daycare budget to come to GSLC total 9650 but p7 says the payment to GSLC is 9460. Which is correct? The $9650 amount is the correct amount. We will need to make the $190 adjustment on Sunday.

2. P.9 I was confused by the Adult Forum discussion of the 17.5% benevolence. Is the $98,700 not all going to the Synod/ ELCA? When we initially identified fixed costs we considered the 17.5% as total mission support not necessarily just directed to Synod/ELCA/ However, when council added an additional $10K for mission support, the decision was made to allocate the initial 17.5% to Synod/ELCA and the additional $10K to world and local mission support.

3. P.14 Witness Ministry / Shalom - What is the plan for the Nurturing line? Is any of this related to NCD? if not, Where are NCD costs being handled? The NCD team felt that no costs in addition to what was already being done by other ministry teams would be required. The Nurturing line in Shalom was for programs directed toward visitors/new members and those in the congregation that interface with them.

4. P.15 Office PT -Is the work that was done during the peak periods by the PT secretary going to be done by volunteers? That is the plan at this time. As the year progresses, if the need arises and we cannot get volunteers or there are extra funds, the council may consider a temporary hire as we did this year. We are also anticipating that some of the office work in collating and creating forms will diminish as we move toward a more technology oriented approach.

5. P 15 Computer Expense - There is an annual amount that is computer related to security that should be included in this line. I am assuming that it is all included in the special projects line on p.17. How much of this is annual license renewals and how much is one time software / hardware purchases? I think we do ourselves an injustice by taking out the annual operating costs of having computers. The line item in the past has been for both hardware repairs/upgrades as well as software licenses and additions. There are donations of labor and items that keep this line item as low as it is. This line item is more for intermittent issues than any particular maintenance or replacement program. The monies under “enhanced mission” for HW/SW upgrade would be specifically focused on such things as: ensuring common operating systems on office staff computers, enabling mass mailings, supporting broader access to manage the website, etc. all directed at the new mode of enabling technological communications.

6. How many hours per week is budgeted for Maintenance and how many for custodian duties? Heits cleaning service cleans the church 3 days per week (not including the daycare area which is accounted for and cleaned separately) for $835 per month. The Maintenance Person, Bill Peterson, is paid $15/hour plus S.S. He works @ 4-5 hours on Sundays, and anywhere from 3-9 hours during the week depending on what projects are scheduled and/or if groups have handed in green sheets requesting set ups for events. The most that Bill can work is 14 hours a week. If more time is needed for a large project, it must be worked out with Property Chair and me first

7. P17 - Finance - Mortgage - This section should have a footnote stating the beg and end of yr balance as well as the remaining term and the current interest rate. Good point. we will make note of this for next year.

8. Last year we said we would include a sheet with all the Thrivent support shown for our outreach ministries. I gave it to Joan and Susan for the newsletter last month. Attached is another copy. Perhaps it could be available. It is a good opportunity to help fund some of the outreach that was reduced. Thanks for providing this. Ed gave us an estimated number of about $8000 - this seems to have a more complete list as the number is higher. We are looking at adjusting the chart of accounts to better track this in a more transparent manner. We will make sure this is available for the meeting.(See attachment later in this document)

9. Please let me know how much the salary and related benefit costs would be to increase salary for 2012 (as a permanent increase -not a one time adjustment) for the three employees who are now paying for their medical contribution. The amount of the increase should correlate to the increase in medical costs (premium only) that they now have to pay. This should not include the Daycare staff as they have been contributing all along and were hired with that in mind.

The total premium for single health coverage is $515 per month. 35% of that would equate to $180.25 per person per month. There would be 11 months in 2012 or $1982.75 per person. For 3 people the total would be $5948.25. Grossed up for Social Security the total cost would be $6403.29.

If you were planning to compensate for 12 months even though they would only bear the cost for 11 months of this year, the per person cost would be $2163 and the 3 person total would be $6489. Grossed up for Social Security the total cost would be $6985.41.

I do want to correct one statement in your email. Not all daycare staff was hired with the understanding that health insurance was contributory. Marcia, when hired, did not have to contribute to health insurance as one example. She was forced to contribute to coverage several years ago - and did so without any compensating increase in salary. I am concerned that by making this compensation change to the church staff to compensate for the out of pocket premium costs, we could be found as discriminatory against certain daycare staff.

The financial ramification to the daycare budget for similar pay treatment for benefits compensation would equate to $4269 for 11 months and $4657 for 12 months including the gross up for social security (2 people are enrolled in coverage)

We also have an HR policy manual that creates only two tiers for coverage and treatment - Rostered and Non-Rostered

Q: I have difficulty understanding two segments of the spending plan. Decreasing the salaries of several of the staff members by forcing these dedicated individuals to pay a significant portion of their health benefits is disrespecting the value of these outstanding employees. The staff members are not upper five-figure or six-figure wage earners. The forced health insurance contribution condiderably affects their wages. It is a fact that there have been numerous individuals in the private and public sectors that have been negatively affected by the economy. However, just because that has happened in those sectors where the individuals earning capacity is most likely to be far more than church employees, do we have to follow suit? As Christians, do we jump in line and join the band wagon, or seek a compassionate solution?

My second concern is with the alternative worship plan. An alternative service appears very inviting. It is intended to attract additional worshipers. This is a gamble that I feel is not warrented at this time considering our financial situation. Will this service attract additional worshipers, or will it allow those who attend the Sunday services another opportunity to attend the alternative service and reduce the attendance each Sunday? What it appears to this person is that we are taking from a certainty to give to an uncertainty. It might be considered a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation. The Peters would be the staff and the Pauls the Enhanced Mission/New Programs.

A: The council had a priority in mind to try and reach as many people as possible with the good news of Jesus Christ – this includes existing members of the congregation as well as those who aren’t currently members and may be looking for a church home. We felt that an alternative day/time for a third service may help meet that. From an internal point of view, we have many members that travel and or have second homes where they reside on weekends, an alternative day service could potentially enable them to attend GSLC services. From an external point of view – as times have evolved, Sunday mornings are not as sacred as they once were. People now have work hours on Sunday mornings, there are children’s sporting events, etc. An alternative day service will help enable those who would like to attend a church but are unable on the traditional Sunday morning, to come to GSLC to worship and hear the Word of God. People in the pews does not automatically translate to more offerings, but it does contribute to enabling others to worship, learn and develop/maintain a relationship with God.

I can assure you the council struggled with how to handle benefits for existing staff. Every year insurance costs escalate. We made a concerted effort to keep the health benefit levels similar to what was previously offered through the ELCA. Yes there is the limitation of staying in network, but overall costs out of pocket for claims is similar. We also continued to fully fund the dental plan and LT disability coverage. We added short term disability and life insurance. In December we adopted an HR policy manual that aligned benefits between the daycare (whose teachers had been paying for health benefits for the past several years) and the church staff. The view was we were not asking the church staff to do anything more than what the daycare staff, who actually make less, were asked to do several years earlier.

As our giving for operations has not grown in any appreciable way for over three years, there are limits to how we can innovate and reach to expand our mission unless we change some of our ways and approaches. The significant decrease in the youth budget will “cost” parents more now for their children to participate – which is similar to a cut in pay. These were all hard decisions, but in the interest of moving forward the council felt these were steps we needed to take.

Thrivent Partnership with GSLC – 2011 the Year in Review

Care in Community ( $5,032)

Service Projects

Prayer Shawls – Various groups $ 302

Easter, Thanksgiving & Christmas Food Baskets for Local Families $ 1,500

VA Picnic, Bingos & Pancake Breakfasts- VA Medical Center

At Lyons $ 900

Backpacking for Others-Lutheran Social Services & Local Families $600

SCS Plant a Row ~ Somerset County Food Bank $130

Angel Tree - Women’s Resource Center $ 500

Angel Tree - Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children $500

Community Playground - GSCDC & Local Community $ 600

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THRIVENT CHOICE

Contributed to:

GSLC $4,931*

GSCDC $ 613*

*through 11/30/11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THRIVENT SEMINAR

Financial Independence – It is Women’s Work (Held 9/19/11)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At year end the Central Jersey Chapter of Thrivent provided GSLC with $100 to be spent as needed

Care in Community ($3,457)

Fund Raisers

LMM Toy Ministry - Somerset County Jail Chaplaincy (raised $1,196, supplement $500)

Summer Food Baskets for Local Families (Raised $3,262, supplement $ 500)

Dinner Dance – Raritan Valley Habitat for Humanity (raised $21,225; supplement $ 1,000)

60 Plussers - Somerset County Food Bank (raised $611, supplement $ 200)

Medical Assistance Hatto/Farfan Family (raised $ 3169, supplement $ 950)

WELCA Fundraiser for SHIP (raised $321, supplement $107)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matching funds were obtained not only from Extra Mile Giving – but also for Clothing Drives, Special SCS Offerings & Dinner Dances

Six Thrivent member families were needed for each activity. Whether you are a Benefit member or an Associate member, this is your membership at work!

Please check with Judy Pfister to make sure you are listed as a Thrivent member on our membership list.

THRIVENT BUILDS

Fourteen members of GSLC participated in two separate week-long Habitat builds in the Gulf Coast. Thrivent supplemented over $2,000 for Thrivent members’ expenses and contributed $16,000 to the Mississippi Gulf Coast Habitat Affiliate on our teams’ behalf.

Interested in a Thrivent Builds trip? Come to the Gulf Coast dinner in March to find out how to participate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To summarize our year in review,

Thrivent Financial

for Lutherans

provided over $32,000 in support of our 2011ministries!

And you contributed over 5,000 hours of service!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Become a GSLC Congregational Advocate and be a part of making these projects happen.

Lifting Us Up Capital Fund Campaign

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is there an opportunity to get funding from other sources such as Thrivent matching funds?

A: The first goal is to have funding come from member contributions. Should we fall short or need an advance, there are options such as a capital loan from Thrivent to add to our mortgage. Additionally, we are beginning to pursue grants for the monies needed for the playground overhaul.

Q: How will the capital plan be funded?

A: Immediately after a positive vote at the annual meeting, there will be a letter and a commitment form distributed to the congregation members, as well as a question and answer sheet.

Q: What is the long term view of what will be needed from a capital perspective?

A: The team believes most of the large capital items are covered in this plan and therefore should not re-occur in the near term. The roves are probably the largest item not covered in this plan, and the majority of them have been replaced in the past 5 years. This is not to say nothing will happen off plan, but there is no anticipation of items as large as this plan.

Q: If we collected the full $250K, what would be left for on-going capital in future years?

A: There would only be dollars left for future years if the actual costs were at the low end of the estimates. Worst case scenario is $0 would be left for future years.

Q: Was any financial analysis done regarding how much would be needed on average from each donor?

A: That analysis is in progress and we hope to have the information by the June meeting.

COMMENT: We need to recognize that we don’t want to get behind again in capital item maintenance and need to consider the long term view of what we should accrue each year for a smoother capital funding.