10th June 2010

What a day!

Rejoicing in the news that the Planning Committee had given the go-ahead for the project, I phoned Arnie Glasspoole to find more on the 'concerns' that the Bishop had mentioned to Bill.

All very secretive, because the Planning Committee had asked Arnie to write the letter, but the Bishop had told Arnie not to send the letter to us, but rather send it to him so that he could check it out (because he is handling this project). The Bishop would then send us the letter.

So, what were the concerns? (off the record)

1. Robin Greenwood (Diocesan Administrator) freaked out when he saw that we were intending to with draw the loan from the Diocese and went off to investigate. It turns out that we do have money lodgesd with the Diocese, but it is not a loan. The money was an anonimous donation given to the parish for the care of the needy, and is under the direct responsibility of the churchwardens. The money has lain in an account for years gathering interest, probably because nobody knew it was there. To obtain this money for the building fund we have to hold a Vestry meeting for the congregation to agree to the funds being used for somthing other that the original intention. This resolution must be submitted to the Diocesan Trustees for their approval. IF they agree then the money can be used for the building fund.

2. The Diocese is wary of allowing 'owner/builder' projects, especially of the value of our project. The case quoted was the hall built for Phoenix. The parish started the project with great gusto and then the rector was moved to another parish. The congregation was unsettled and interest in the project fizzled out leaving the hall 80% finished. It now stands derilict some years later and the parish would dearly love to complete it, but haven't got the money.
There muust be a lesson in this ... don't move the rector when there is a building project!

3. We have only allowed a 4% contingency of R110,000. The Planning Committee feels that this is too low as prices will rise during the course of the project. The result will be that we run short of money.

4. Our financial motivation showed that the shortfall between 'cash in hand' and the building cost had been underwritten by a parishioner. The concern raised - has this undertaking been given in writing and signed by the parishioner concerned?

5. The Planning Committee are concerned that with a project of this size wwe should have a registered builder. I felt that what they are actually saying, despite our assurances that we have a professional team, is that theey are not happy witth Peter Berkeley heading up the building team. I pointed out that if we were to have a registered builder the cost of the project would shoot up to the R8.0 mark again.

Arnie expressed his concern that while we are trying to sort out these 'concerns' of the Planning Committee, the prices are going to go up and we are going to get caught having to use our contingency. (see 3 above!)

The final shot was that we has to resolve all these issues and have them documented and ready for the meeting of the Trustees next week.

This is really frustrating!