Summary of Survey Results

The transition team wishes to thank all those who responded to our survey.  We have a final number of 52 surveys and we have tallied the results.  For each question the number of responses for each ranking was tabulated. The transition team then reviewed the composite data as well as all of the individual comments.  Below is the consensus opinion of the team on what the results tell us.

Question A provided 5 different choices that moved through buy property now, as soon as possible, to stay where we are, basically maintaining the status quo.    We asked that you rank the 5 choices with #5 being the most important (do now) and #1 least important (don’t do).   The results for question A1 are almost equally split with 15 #5s(do); 7 #4s; 8 #3s; 7 #2s; 16 #1s(don’t do).  The team decided to treat #3 as neutral or willing to go either way.  Thus for this option 50% of us think buying and moving-on is most important, while 50 % of us think this is the least important thing to do.  For the next choice (A2, alternative worship) the #3 rating had the greatest response with 22; however there were 19 #1s & #2s while only 10 #5s & #4s so this clearly indicates the majority of us do not think we should develop an alternative worship as our primary worship.  For choice 3 (A3, retain current format with diverse music, in a smaller new church space)  showed 15 #3s and 25 #4 & #5s with only 10 #1 &#2s; so clearly 60-70% of us like what we currently experience in worship, would like diverse music, and would like to just find a smaller church to continue as we are (comfort-vision).   Question 4 was the most complex (A4, keep our worship as is, develop alternative worship somewhere else, wait on property alternative) and perhaps was confusing to answer because 2s, 3s, 4s & 5s all were about the same values but 0 #1s; so perhaps some of you where responding to the keep worship as is, while others were responding to alternative worship in alternative space.  Since there were 9 #5s(do something) the data was viewed as a leaning towards developing a separate alternative worship experience.  Finally A5 (maintenance in mission, worship and wait) did show  30 #1, 2, & 3 with only 19 for # 5, 4 and 3;  so roughly 60% of us do not favor just maintenance and waiting.

Interpretation: People like our current worship but are open to some diversity of experience and music (prayer types, sermon formats, responses, etc); we recognize that just maintaining and waiting is not in our best interest.  We would really like to just transport ourselves to a smaller version of what we are now, but we are really split on whether we should go out and buy property.

Question B was designed to tell us what kind of property we should buy; least desirable (worst option) was empty land option 27 #1 & 2s with only 13 # 5 & 4s; most desirable (best option) was land with multipurpose building, move-in ready, 33 # 5 & 4s,  6 #1 & 2s with 8 #3s; For the 3 other option questions we were pretty evenly split: for smaller existing church #4& 5s had 18 and #1 &2s 17 with #3 13 ; for neighborhood building #4 &5s had15 and #1 &2s 14 with #3 18; and for newer construction that we share, the responses were evenly split in all categories.

Interpretation: For those who think we should buy something, better than 70% chose moving to a multipurpose building, but there was adaptability indicated by the evenness of many of the answers.  By 2 to 1 you did not think we should buy land to build on later.

Question C was designed for those who think we should rent property rather than buy. Rent something unconventional had almost no responses, so we consider it a no.  Rent former commercial space had 32 #1, 2, & 3s so not favored at all. Sharing existing building with another congregation had 20 #4,& 5 versus 10 #1,&2s, so somewhat favored.  The highest score was rent existing smaller church with 26 #4,&5s versus 7 #2&1s.

Interpretation: If we rent, more people think a smaller existing church, on our own, would be best, but we could share an existing building with another congregation. This response agrees with answer for A3 which represents a comfortable and familiar vision.

Question D asked about location & setting. You clearly said that location and access really matter to you, but you indicated that you are open to  1- 3 miles (29 #4 & 5s) equally as 3 -5 miles(26 #4 & 5s) from our current location. You answered with 23 #3s and an even distribution for the south Minneapolis question.

Interpretation:  Many members are willing to drive within a 5 mile radius. Be mindful of access and parking.

There were many individual comments, too numerous to share in this report; but one comment, shared more than once, suggested that we needed a congregational discussion on closing and distributing assets as an option for the future.  The transition team fully intends that this will be discussed when we bring our findings on options.  If none of the options we bring seem to provide the right answers for the congregation, as a whole, that will be the time for a discussion on closing.

The age distribution was as follows:  2 0-20;  7 21-40;  9 41- 60;  17 61-80;  8 81+

Respectfully submitted

Pat Dunlop/transition chair

June 25, 2010