In case you missed it…

We are two months into our Welcome Home! campaign and already we have much to report on. Prayerfully, we hope to wrap up this campaign by the end of 2023. Yet, we remain committed to the Lord’s timing. With every campaign there are two components to a capital campaign; income and expenses. 

• As an overview, our Welcome Home! Campaign is designed to be a 14-month campaign. 
• The campaign seeks to tackle 9 different aspects of capital replacement and improvement over that same 14 month period if the Lord allows. You can read more here about the scope of these efforts. 
• We have also committed to not going into long-term debt. 
• Our capital campaign is volunteer-led, and has not been guided by a capital campaign consultant.

Let’s unpack both the income and expense side of the equation at these early stages of the campaign. 

Income:

Pledges: 

As is typical for church capital campaigns, we have encouraged our congregation to pledge toward the campaign. 

As of January 10th, 2023, 59 pledges total $325,000.

Is that good, bad, or otherwise? This is a common question. 

The reality is that some view pledges as primarily a way to register their commitment for their own sake and their own faith journey, others view pledges as a way for the church to plan for expenditures, Still others are not inclined to pledge for a variety of reasons. Additionally, those who do pledge tend to pledge minimum amounts. It is common for pledged amounts to be exceeded by actual giving. 

We have learned  these things from the history of our capital campaign experiences. 

For church planning purposes, pledges are simply one data point for decision making as it relates to the amount and timing of expenditures. History would tell us that pledges may account for 50 to 70% of the dollars that may ultimately come in. More recent history would also indicate that, culturally, younger generations are less inclined to make pledges philanthropically. Further, whether or not people pledge does not necessarily mean they are not committed to support—even quite generously—the campaign. 

So what does that mean for this campaign? It means prayer and steps of faith are required. If we are feeling comfortable as a church, it’s probably not the place where God wants us. So as leadership we are committed to prayer and eager to take steps of faith. 

As of January 10th, 2023, our Welcome Home! Campaign pledged income received was at $166,360 and our non-pledged income totaled $84,500. 

History would tell us that the bigger financial picture emerges after giving patterns are established. Perhaps by the end of the first quarter of 2023, we should have a clearer picture of the income side of the equation.

Keep in mind that due to the generosity of our congregation and the effective stewardship and cost savings from our staff during the last ministry year, $65,000 was allocated toward the campaign when this campaign began. 

Here is the total snapshot as of January 10th, 2023

$325,000 pledged ($166,360 received thus far)

$84,500 non-pledged income

$65,000 prior year giving applied to campaign

$474,500 identified toward this campaign

About capital replacement and improvement expenses and timing

We mention 9 “buckets” that we are trying to tackle with this campaign. Not all buckets—or capital replacement/improvement projects—cost the same amount nor warrant the same priority. Elders and Trustees have been listening to the congregation. In these early stages, we have prioritized those projects/expenditures. They are as follows:

• Accelerated Debt Payments
• Parking Lot Overhaul ($500,000 or 52+% of campaign)
• Worship Center Seating (and the carpet underneath it)

Accelerated Debt Payments

Even before we asked the congregation to participate financially, we heard the two-fold concerns of some in the congregation:  

1) not take on more debt, and

2) ensure that our current debt (roughly $350,000) payments are accelerated.

Our current debt comprises a personal, interest free loan with a current balance of $. Our plan that was implemented Nov 1, 2022 is to pay off that loan by June 30 of 2023. Additionally, we committed to pay on our low-interest bank loan at a rate of $3,250 through June 2023, and then beginning July we will pay down the bank loan at a rate of $4,750 per month to the end of the loan term. That bank loan will balloon in March 2026 at which point we will need to refinance. 

Some have asked why we haven’t paid off the debt thus far. This relates to the rate of inflation of expenditures we know we need to incur; an inflationary rate that exceeds that of the low-interest loan rate.  

When we discuss our plan to not incur any long-term debt, we have some “tools” in our toolbox. We have a healthy balance in our bank account as a matter of course. Our guideline is to keep about three months of operating expenses in reserve. So we would sooner “borrow” from ourselves than take on additional debt. For example, we may borrow from ourselves, in order to place down payments on high ticket items, for example. 

Parking Lot Overhaul

This is our next priority. Our parking lot gets daily use. We have gone through extensive due diligence to vet 3 different companies. Further, one individual (and the leadership of that business) in our congregation has agreed to act as the general contractor for this capital improvement with their fees simply covering the hard costs incurred. So even a worst case scenario keeps us in the zone of our budgeted amount.

Parking lots are more complex than throwing down some asphalt and calling it good. In fact, parking lot longevity is directly correlated to the layers of soil, stone, and other layers underneath what we see and drive on. So when we talk about “worst case scenario” we are referring to what type of erosion has occurred over 22 years and the earth moving that may be needed; something we won’t fully know until the parking lot revamp is underway. We do know our water table has been high in various parts of the parking lot, but we don’t know the extent to which major surgery will be needed under the parking lot until we are able to see it.

The parking lot is a great example of what it means to step out in faith, holding in tension good stewardship.

For example, we could have chosen to pave the parking lot in three stages. This might have reduced our total campaign amount down to $650k (vs. $950k). At the same time the sheer magnitude of the equipment and volume of material required for a parking lot overhaul—staged 3 times—would cost us perhaps $50 or $60k more to stretch this project over three phases. Additionally the rate of inflation is increasing at higher rates than we can borrow money from ourselves or temporarily from our line of credit. 

So while a $650k campaign might feel more humanly comfortable and achievable in the short run, it is more costly and may not be the best stewardship over the long haul. 

We are grateful for a subset of our trustees that have spent hours vetting several companies and have been wrestling with the many crucial details related to the cost, timing, and quality so that this next iteration of the parking lot will last another 20 years!

Worship Center Seating 

Three of the “buckets” we are seeking to tackle with this campaign are somewhat intertwined with Worship Center seating. 

1) Removing seating in the worship center necessitates replacing the carpet under the pews, which

2) leads to the carpet in the balcony and stair wells (which is the only remaining vestige of surface—including green railings—that has not been refreshed in the building), with the exception of

3) about 100 chairs that usually reside in the Creekside and Courtyard rooms that are also green fabric. 

We have researched carpet and painting as it relates to process, timing,  logistics, quality, and cost in mind. Again, we have people in our congregation that work in these industries that desire to help us out in any way they can. We are grateful for those doing the due diligence and also for those offering up their expertise and assistance in these ways.

As for the chairs specifically, we are vetting 3 different companies. Chair technology has indeed changed over the years. And we have spent hours listening to the pros and cons of various seating options. Comfort, flexibility, durability, stackability, maintenance, aesthetic appeal, and cost…all values we are seeking to balance. A team of people will be providing input into any final decision. At this point, however, no decision has been made but for the fact we are confident we are exploring the products of some of the best companies. 

In the midst of the discussion about seating and strong attachments to certain types of seating in a church service and worship center setting, a more fundamental reality is worth noting.

The individual that repairs our pews has indicated that some of our pews are approaching the end of their life. While the pews look safe and sturdy, a few of them are not. Twenty-two years of wear and tear is bound to deteriorate all things—especially sturdy-looking pews that actually have a rich wood veneer but are made of particle board. 

In terms of costs, at this point we haven’t experienced any surprises—except perhaps positively. Meaning we may have an opportunity to spend less than anticipated given the options available as well as the input of those in our congregation that can help with this project.

We are two months into our Welcome Home! campaign and already we have much to report on. Prayerfully, we hope to wrap up this campaign by the end of 2023. Yet, we remain committed to the Lord’s timing. With every campaign there are two components to a capital campaign; income and expenses. 

• As an overview, our Welcome Home! Campaign is designed to be a 14-month campaign. 
• The campaign seeks to tackle 9 different aspects of capital replacement and improvement over that same 14 month period if the Lord allows. You can read more here about the scope of these efforts. 
• We have also committed to not going into long-term debt. 
• Our capital campaign is volunteer-led, and has not been guided by a capital campaign consultant.

 

Let’s unpack both the income and expense side of the equation at these early stages of the campaign. 

 

Income:

 

Pledges: 

As is typical for church capital campaigns, we have encouraged our congregation to pledge toward the campaign. 

 

As of January 5th, 2023, our pledges are at $325,000.

 

Is that good, bad, or otherwise? This is a common question. 

The reality is that some view pledges as primarily a way to register their commitment for their own sake and their own faith journey, others view pledges as a way for the church to plan for expenditures, Still others are not inclined to pledge for a variety of reasons. Additionally, those who do pledge tend to pledge minimum amounts. It is common for pledged amounts to be exceeded by actual giving. 

 

We have learned  these things from the history of our capital campaign experiences. 

For church planning purposes, pledges are simply one data point for decision making as it relates to the amount and timing of expenditures. History would tell us that pledges may account for 50 to 70% of the dollars that may ultimately come in. More recent history would also indicate that, culturally, younger generations are less inclined to make pledges philanthropically.. Further, whether or not people pledge does not necessarily mean they are not committed to support—even quite generously—the campaign. 

 

So what does that mean for this campaign? It means prayer and steps of faith are required. If we are feeling comfortable as a church, it’s probably not the place where God wants us. So as leadership we are committed to prayer and eager to take steps of faith. 

 

As of January 5th, 2023, our Welcome Home! campaign income was at $166,360 (revised from prior report).

 

A natural question to ask at this point is “What portion of the $166,360 given thus far, offsets the $325,000 worth of pledges?”  The short answer is: we don’t know for sure. In part, that is because some pledges are made anonymously. Another part, is that those taking care of the income side of the capital campaign are volunteers who are graciously managing this important aspect of the campaign—something that takes significant time– in the margins of their time. History would tell us that the bigger financial picture emerges after giving patterns are established. Perhaps by the end of the first quarter of 2023, we should have a clearer picture of the income side of the equation.

 

About capital replacement and improvement expenses and timing

 

We mention 9 “buckets” that we are trying to tackle with this campaign. Not all buckets—or capital replacement/improvement projects—cost the same amount nor warrant the same priority. Elders and Trustees have been listening to the congregation. In these early stages, we have prioritized those projects/expenditures. They are as follows:

• Accelerated Debt Payments
• Parking Lot Overhaul ($500,000 or 52+% of campaign)
• Worship Center Seating (and the carpet underneath it)

Accelerated Debt Payments

Even before we asked the congregation to participate financially, we heard the two-fold concerns of some in the congregation:  

 

1) not take on more debt, and

2) ensure that our current debt (roughly $350,000) payments are accelerated.

 

Our current debt comprises a personal, interest free loan with a current balance of $. Our plan that was implemented Nov 1, 2022 is to pay off that loan by June 30 of 2023. Additionally, we committed to pay on our low-interest bank loan at a rate of $3,250 through June 2023, and then beginning July we will pay down the bank loan at a rate of $4,750 per month to the end of the loan term. That bank loan will balloon in March 2026 at which point we will need to refinance. 

 

Some have asked we haven’t paid off the debt thus far. This relates to the rate of inflation of expenditures we know we need to incur; an inflationary rate that exceeds that of the low-interest loan rate.  

 

When we discuss our plan to not incur any long-term debt, we some “tools” in our toolbox. We have a healthy balance in our bank account as a matter of course. Our guideline is to keep about three months of operating expenses in reserve. So we would sooner “borrow” from ourselves than take on additional debt. For example, we may borrow from ourselves, in order to place down payments on high ticket items, for example. 

 

Parking Lot Overhaul

This is our next priority. Our parking lot gets daily use. We have gone through extensive due diligence to vet 3 different companies. Further, one individual (and the leadership of that business) in our congregation has agreed to act as the general contractor for this capital improvement with their fees simply covering the hard costs incurred. So even a worst case scenario keeps us in the zone of our budgeted amount.

 

Parking lots are more complex than throwing down some asphalt and calling it good. In fact, parking lot longevity is directly correlated to the layers of soil, stone, and other layers underneath what we see and drive on. So when we talk about “worst case scenario” we are referring to what type of erosion has occurred over 22 years and the earth moving that may be needed; something we won’t fully know until the parking lot revamp is underway. We do know our water table has been high in various parts of the parking lot, but we don’t know the extent to which major surgery will be needed under the parking lot until we are able to see it.

The parking lot is a great example of what it means to step out in faith, holding in tension good stewardship.

 

For example, we could have chosen to pave the parking lot in three stages. This might have reduced our total campaign amount down to $650k (vs. $950k). At the same time the sheer magnitude of the equipment and volume of material required for a parking lot overhaul—staged 3 times—would cost us perhaps $50 or $60k more to stretch this project over three phases. Additionally the rate of inflation is increasing at higher rates than we can borrow money from ourselves or temporarily from our line of credit. 

 

So while a $650k campaign might feel more humanly comfortable and achievable in the short run, it is more costly and may not be the best stewardship over the long haul. 

We are grateful for a subset of our trustees that have spent hours vetting several companies and have been wrestling with the many crucial details related to the cost, timing, and quality so that this next iteration of the parking lot will last another 20 years!

 

Worship Center Seating 

Three of the “buckets” we are seeking to tackle with this campaign are somewhat intertwined with Worship Center seating. 

 

1) Removing seating in the worship center necessitates replacing the carpet under the pews, which

2) leads to the carpet in the balcony and stair wells (which is the only remaining vestige of surface—including green railings—that has not been refreshed in the building), with the exception of

 

3) about 100 chairs that usually reside in the Creekside and Courtyard rooms that are also green fabric. 

 

We have researched carpet and painting as it relates to process, timing,  logistics, quality, and cost in mind. Again, we have people in our congregation that work in these industries that desire to help us out in any way they can. We are grateful for those doing the due diligence and also for those offering up their expertise and assistance in these ways.

 

As for the chairs specifically, we are vetting 3 different companies. Chair technology has indeed changed over the years. And we have spent hours listening to the pros and cons of various seating options. Comfort, flexibility, durability, stackability, maintenance, aesthetic appeal, and cost…all values we are seeking to balance. A team of people will be providing input into any final decision. At this point, however, no decision has been made but for the fact we are confident we are exploring the products of some of the best companies. 

In the midst of the discussion about seating and strong attachments to certain types of seating in a church service and worship center setting, a more fundamental reality is worth noting.

 

The individual that repairs our pews has indicated that some of our pews are approaching the end of their life. While the pews look safe and sturdy, a few of them are not. Twenty-two years of wear and tear is bound to deteriorate all things—especially sturdy-looking pews that actually have a rich wood veneer but are made of particle board. 

In terms of costs, at this point we haven’t experienced any surprises—except perhaps positively. Meaning we may have an opportunity to spend less than anticipated given the options available as well as the input of those in our congregation that can help with this project.

Less than two months into our Welcome Home! campaign, and already we have much to report on. Prayerfully, we hope to wrap up this campaign by the end of 2023. Yet, we remain committed to the Lord’s timing. With every campaign there are two components to a capital campaign; income and expenses. 

• As an overview, our Welcome Home! Campaign is designed to be a 14-month campaign. 
• The campaign seeks to tackle 9 different aspects of capital replacement and improvement over that same 14 month period if the Lord allows. You can read more here about the scope these efforts. 
• We have also committed to not going into long-term debt. 
• Our capital campaign is volunteer-led, and has not been guided by a capital campaign consultant.

Let’s unpack both the income and expense side of the equation at these early stages of the campaign. 

Income:

Pledges: 

As is typical for church capital campaigns, we have encouraged our congregation to pledge toward the campaign. 

As of December 14, 2022, our pledges are at $318,000.

Is that good, bad, or otherwise? This is a common question. 

The reality is that some view pledges as primarily a way to register their commitment for their own sake and their own faith journey, others view pledges as a way for the church to plan for expenditures, Still others are not inclined to pledge for a variety of reasons. Additionally, those who do pledge tend to pledge minimum amounts. It is common for pledged amounts to be exceeded by actual giving. 

We know these things from the history of capital campaign experiences. 

For church planning purposes, pledges are simply one data point for decision making as it relates to the amount and timing of expenditures. History would tell us that pledges may account for 50 to 70% of the dollars that may ultimately come in. More recent history would also indicate that, culturally, younger generations are less inclined to pledge philanthropically even if they are the “subscription” generations. Further, whether or not people pledge does not necessarily mean they are not committed to support—even quite generously—the campaign. 

So what does that mean for this campaign? It means prayer and steps of faith are required. If we are feeling comfortable as a church, it’s probably not the place where God wants us. So as leadership we are committed to prayer and eager to take steps of faith. 

As of December 14, 2022, our Welcome Home! campaign income was at $170,000.

A natural question to ask at this point is “What portion of the $120,000 given thus far, offsets the $320,000 worth of pledges?”  The short answer is: we don’t know for sure. In part, that is because some pledges are made anonymously. Another part, is that those taking care of the income side of the capital campaign are volunteers who are graciously managing the income side of the campaign—something that takes significant time– in the margins of their time. History would tell us that the bigger financial picture emerges after giving patterns are established. Perhaps by the end of the first quarter of 2023, we should have a clearer picture of the income side of the equation.

About capital replacement and improvement expenses and timing

 We mention 9 “buckets” (you can read more here) that we are trying to tackle. Not all buckets cost the same amount nor warrant the same priority. Elders and Trustees have been listening to the congregation. In these early stages, we have prioritized those expenditures. They are as follows:

• Accelerated Debt Payments
• Parking Lot Overhaul ($500,000 is the worst case scenario—52+% of campaign)
• Worship Center Seating (and the carpet underneath it.)

Accelerated Debt Payments

Even before we asked the congregation to participate financially, we heard the two-fold concerns of some in the congregation:  

1) not take on more debt, and

2) ensure that our current debt (roughly $350,000) payments are accelerated.

Our current debt comprises a personal, interest free loan with a current balance of $. Our plan, that was implemented Nov 1, 2022, is to pay off that loan by June 30 of 2023. Additionally, we committed to pay on our low-interest bank loan at a rate of $3,250 through June 2023, and then beginning July we will pay down the bank loan at a rate of $4,750 per month to the end of the loan term. That bank loan will balloon in March 2026 at which point we will need to refinance. 

Some have asked we haven’t paid off the debt thus far. This relates to the rate of inflation of expenditures we know we need to incur; an inflationary rate that exceeds that of the low-interest loan rate.  

When we discuss our plan to not incur any long-term debt, we some “tools” in our toolbox. We have a healthy balance in our bank account as a matter of course. Our guideline is to keep about three months of operating expenses in reserve. So we would sooner “borrow” from ourselves than take on additional debt. For example, we may borrow from ourselves, in order to place down payments on high ticket items, for example. 

Parking Lot Overhaul

This is our next priority. Our parking lot gets daily use. We have gone through extensive due diligence to vet 3 different companies. Further, one individual (and the leadership of that business) in our congregation has agreed to act as the general contractor for this capital improvement with their fees simply covering the hard costs incurred. So even a worst case scenario keeps us in the zone of our budgeted amount.

Parking lots are more complex than throwing down some asphalt and calling it good. In fact, parking lot longevity is directly correlated to the layers of soil, stone, and other layers underneath what we see and drive on. So when we talk about “worst case scenario” we are referring to what type of erosion has occurred over 22 years and the earth moving that may be needed; something we won’t’ fully know until the parking lot revamp is underway. We do know our water table has been high in various parts of the parking lot, but we don’t know the extent to which major surgery will be needed under the parking lot until we are able to see it.

The parking lot is a great example of what it means to step out in faith, holding in tension good stewardship. For example, we could have chosen to pave the parking lot in three stages. This might have reduced our total campaign amount down to $650k (vs. $950k). At the same time the sheer magnitude of the equipment and volume of material required for a parking lot overhaul—staged 3 times—would cost us perhaps $50 or $60k more to stretch this project over three phases. Additionally the rate of inflation is increasing at higher rates than we can borrow money from ourselves or temporarily from our line of credit. 

So while a $650k campaign might feel more humanly comfortable and achievable in the short run, it is more costly and may not be the best stewardship over the long haul. 

We are grateful for a subset of our trustees that have spent hours vetting several companies and have been wrestling with the many crucial details related to the cost, timing, and quality so that this next iteration of the parking lot will last another 20 years!

Worship Center Seating 

Three of the “buckets” we are seeking to tackle with this campaign are somewhat intertwined with Worship Center seating. 

1) Removing seating in the worship center necessitates replacing the carpet under the pews, which

2) leads to the carpet in the balcony and stairwells (which is the only remaining vestige of surface—including green railings—that has not been refreshed in the building), with the exception of

3) about 100 chairs that usually reside in the Creekside and Courtyard rooms that are also green fabric. 

We have researched carpet and painting as it relates to process, timing and logistics, quality, and cost in mind. Again, we have people in our congregation that work in these industries that desire to help us out in any way they can. We are grateful for those doing the due diligence and also for those offering up their expertise and assistance in these ways.

As for the chairs specifically, we are vetting 3 different companies. Chair technology has indeed changed over the years. And we have spent hours listening to the pros and cons of various seating options. Comfort, flexibility, durability, stackability, maintenance, aesthetic appeal, and cost…all values we are seeking to balance. A team of people will be providing input into any final decision. At this point, however, no decision has been made but for the fact we are confident we are exploring the products of some of the best companies. 

In the midst of the discussion about seating and strong attachments to certain types of seating in a church service and worship center setting, a more fundamental reality is worth noting.

The individual that repairs our pews has indicated that some of our pews are approaching the end of their life. While the pews look safe and sturdy, a few of them are not. Twenty-two years of wear and tear is bound to deteriorate all things—especially sturdy-looking pews that actually have a rich wood veneer but are made of particle board. 

In terms of costs, at this point we haven’t experienced any surprises—except perhaps positively. Meaning we may have an opportunity to spend less than anticipated given the options available as well as the input of those in our congregation that can help with this project.

Over half of the capital campaign budget is to replace the parking lot. As leadership prayed over which capital replacements to tackle in the next year and half, we discerned that more money would be unnecessarily spent repaving the parking lot in two or more stages. And while some are asking the question “why tackle so much?”, others are asking the question “why not tackle more?” Both great questions that anchor us in prayer.

No. We have literally dozens of furnaces, a/c units, large air handling units, a flat roof, and other expenditures that we can anticipate even after this campaign. With this current campaign, we are also laying groundwork for a new outbuilding for which the cost would potentially be paid for through a follow up campaign. What the congregation has approved is the next set of expenditures. With $7+ million dollars in insurable assets—to whom much is given, much is required.

Our current annual ministry budget exceeded one million dollars for the first time this year. We are thankful that even in challenging economic times, God blesses us with the income for such a significant annual budget and amazing ministry opportunities. Philosophically, we have chosen to spend ministry dollars on today’s ministry. Historically we have chosen to tackle capital improvement and replacement, in large part, through capital campaigns. Additionally, a guideline has been to move income in excess of three months operating expenses from the ministry fund into the capital replacement fund. This important topic is something we revisit each year as leadership.

While we incurred some debt during Project Renewal, since then we have also chosen to tackle a few additional big ticket items such as reshingling our entire roof and repaving office parking spots with concrete in lieu of paying off debt. The choice has been made to not gamble with inflation, nor potentially incur higher interest rates. We could service our entire debt in full today if needed.

Fifty thousand dollars is part of this campaign in order to continue making accelerated debt payments. If someone would like to designate their giving to paying off debt we are certainly open to that. At our current interest rate and the effect of inflation on capital replacement costs, we will carry a low interest rate loan as well as a no interest personal loan and continue to pay monthly. At our rate of payment/interest, our debt will be paid off in 2026, with the loan maturing in 2024. Immediately after the vote to proceed with the campaign, the Trustees sat down together to make sure we addressed the plan for debt first and foremost.

No. Not long-term debt. The plan is to address these items in such a way that we borrow only for cash flow purposes. This means that as we anticipate healthy lead gifts and pledges, any initial borrowing would first be from ourselves. Rush Creek maintains a very healthy bank account balance. Second, we may need to dip into our low interest rate line of credit to manage cash flow prior to promised monies being given.

The campaign is 14-months long spanning November of ‘22 through December of “23, encompassing two end year-end giving opportunities. Historically calendar year-end is consistently when our congregation demonstrates incredible financial generosity.

Yes. While general giving allows the most flexibility to accomplish the many tasks at hand, in years’ past, designated giving can also be a powerful encouragement to the congregation as well.

The short answer is everyone! In early November we asked the entire congregation to participate in the campaign. On Sunday morning you often hear us talk about the other ministries that use Rush Creek throughout the week. We will also avail to their leadership some giving opportunities for those in their programs.

Historically, giving to campaigns exceeds what is pledged. This was true for our most recent campaigns. That to say, there is not a simple formula to know if we are on track. We are stepping out in faith. Faith, according to Scripture, is the assurance of the things hoped for; the conviction of things unseen. Humanly, it’s comfortable to know to have assurances. Yet, faith is what prompts us to rely on God’s provision. At the same time, we are attempting to tackle many different projects. And we can and will minimize our financial exposure simply by planning well the timing of our capital replacements/improvements.

Yes. No one person is driving this agenda. This is our first campaign under a new leadership structure of the church and the unity has been a huge blessing navigating through a slightly different process. Among the Elders, Deacons, Trustees and Staff, all have shown unity moving forward there is no indication there will be anything less than 100% financial support behind this campaign.