October 18, 2011

Archbishop Joseph Naumann Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas 12615 Parallel Parkway Kansas City, KS 66109

Reverend Pat Sullivan, Pastor, Annunciation Parish Frankfort St. Monica\St. Elizabeth Parish Blue Rapids St. Columbkille Parish Blaine 213 E 5th Street Frankfort, KS 66427 (785) 292-4462

Your Excellency,

Per your decree dated June 28th, 2011 you empowered me to establish and chair a commission comprised of parishioners from St. Joseph parish in Lillis. The task of the commission was to provide you with recommendations concerning the disposition of the parish buildings, land and other assets upon the parishes closing.

I’m happy to report that the work of the commission has been completed. We are now ready to give you our recommendations as well as explain the process(s) by which they came about.

Allow me to first share with you the names of those who formed the commission. They selflessly volunteered and have worked many hours formulating their recommendations. They have given much thought and consideration to the subject at hand. I’m truly grateful to these men and women for their dedication to this difficult process. They are:

Robert Bergmann of Vermillion Pat Brady of Vermillion Toby Broxterman of Vermillion Jean Caffrey of Vermillion Jim Caffrey of Vermillion Susan Koch of Frankfort Rita Kramer of Vermillion Marge Miller of Frankfort Harry Moser of Wheaton Gary Rempe of Onaga Tom Wegman of Wheaton

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 1 of 5

Background

 Upon its first gathering the commission decided to work on developing several options for the parishioners to vote on. These would be options the commission would already have formulated as viable recommendations for the .

o The results of the vote were not to be an objective, deciding factor as to what the commission’s recommendations would be, but instead used to gauge how the parishioners were feeling on the subject. That being said, and for what it’s worth, I think many people assumed “the winning vote” would be exactly how the commission recommended. I tried to explain beforehand that it wouldn’t work that way; but perhaps didn’t explain it well enough.

 The commission next met with Leon Roberts to assess the condition of the building. Mr. Roberts inspected the church building and gave the commission a report which is attached as Appendix A.

 The information was used to help parishioners understand the cost and “work” necessary if the building was to remain up as a chapel or oratory. This would become “option 1” on the parish vote.

 The commission also researched the possibility of working with a church relocation company. They also spoke with a broker in Montana who dealt with stone from structures such as the church and parish house. These possibilities would become “option 2” on the parish vote.

 Finally, the commission researched razing the church building under two scenarios. The first scenario would come at the expense of the parish. The parishioners however would be able to retain the profits from the sale of goods in the church (windows, statuary, etc.). This would become “option 3A” on the parish vote.

 The second scenario would entail having the diocese raze the church building at their cost, thus retaining profits gained from the church goods. This would be “option 3B” of the parish vote.

The information the committee collected was presented to the parishioners in the form of a letter mailed to their homes and followed up by a “Question and Answer” session at the church. The information letter is included as Appendix B.

It should be noted that there was an individual who came forward on the night of the information session that expressed a desire to keep the building up and subsequently talked about that with the parishioners.

After the information session the parishioners were given a week to consider all information and then voted on the option they felt was best.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 2 of 5

The results of the parish vote are as follows:

Option 1 31 Keep the church building and use as a chapel. Option 2 01 Sell the church building outright to a “church relocation company". Option 3A Take the building down. The parishioners are responsible for taking the 0 building down. Option 3B Take the building down. The diocese is responsible for the logistics and 41 cost of the building coming down.

As you can see, the majority of the parishioners feel that taking the building down would be the best option.

That being said, shortly after the vote total was made public, those who wanted the church building to “stay up” began to voice their desire to keep the building. This came in the form of phone calls to me as well as letters to the Archdiocese. The leading “voice” in this charge came from a Mr. Jerry Keating who formed a group of people to develop a plan to keep the church building (if the Archbishop would hear him).

After the parish vote, I had a meeting with the commission. The goal of the meeting was to consider what our recommendation to the Archbishop would be. At that time we were solely going off the parish vote and thus decided to make the parish vote the recommendation. However, as time elapsed, I wasn’t comfortable with the final recommendation the commission made and certified. I decided to call the commission back for a second meeting. Before the meeting, I emailed the commission pertinent information I wanted them to consider before we met again (this information is included as Appendix C). During that meeting the commission formulated a refined recommendation that I was more comfortable with.

St. Joseph Cemetery and Cemetery Board

Part of the commission’s task was to recommend what to do with the cemetery, as well as who should oversee it. The cemetery now falls in the boundary of Annunciation parish in Frankfort. Per law, as I understand it, the cemetery is to be governed by the pastor of whose boundaries it falls in.

The current cemetery board has existed for approximately 40 years with its board members changing at various times. In 2006, that board incorporated itself into an L.L.C. It has approximately 80 members including many “local people” as well as those who use to belong to the parish. The group established itself, as I understand, to assure continued support of the cemetery autonomous from the Archdiocese.

There was however no cooperative union, legal or practical, established between the Archdiocese (who legally owns the cemetery) and the L.L.C. set up to take care of it.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 3 of 5

From my experience as Parochial Administrator, and now Pastor of the cemetery, it has always been maintained very well. There are some who have lauded the group for its continued hard work of maintaining the logistical and aesthetical needs of the cemetery. Personally speaking, I have never had any issues with the cemetery board. However, there have been others who have expressed a need for the board to be more transparent and accountable. They would also like more “official” elections of those chosen to be officers.

Father Gary Pennings and I met with the board officers to look over their paper work; to include articles of incorporation and bank statements. Father Pennings was satisfied that the board was functioning properly, with the exception of needing to establish a cooperative agreement between themselves and the Archdiocese; understanding that they report to the Pastor of the parish who represents the legal owner of the cemetery.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 4 of 5

Recommendation(s) of the Saint Joseph Building Advisory Commission

In regards to the church building, house and hall, the commission recommends the following:

a) We recommend that an interested group of person’s be allowed to show their plan to the Archdiocese for keeping the building up. If the Archbishop likes and agrees with the plan, he can establish the conditions the group will work by and they can “go from there”. 1) If the building is to stay up, the house and church hall will be the responsibility of those who “take over” the church. They should not be sold separately or rented out to anyone. They are to be used for the sole purpose of supporting the church building in whatever function it serves.

b) If the “group” cannot convince the Archbishop they are capable of managing the building, we recommend it be razed at the earliest convenience at the expense of the Archdiocese. 1) If the building is to be razed, the parishioners of the former St. Joseph parish would like to negotiate the opportunity to retain some items from the church building (the bell, a particular window, etc.). These items would be used for nostalgia sake in the Saint Joseph cemetery. 2) If the church building is to be razed, the parishioners would like to retain and possibly sell the church hall and house separately (we were informed this would be possible).

In regards to the cemetery, the commission recommends the following:

a) We recommend that the current board be allowed to continue to operate as they are, with the understanding that before they be officially re-commissioned, they will need to adhere to a cooperative agreement set up by the Archdiocese, which establishes an understanding of how to properly manage and oversee the cemetery, which legally belongs to the Archdiocese.

b) If the current cemetery board and\or Archdiocese are unable to agree upon a cooperative arrangement, we recommend the pastor of the cemetery create a new cemetery board to oversee its perpetual care.

On behalf of the commission, I want to thank you for entrusting us with this challenging task. I know that whatever decision is made will be done carefully, thoughtfully, and above all, prayerfully. With this in mind, we can expect God’s will. We look forward to hearing of your decision.

To Jesus through Mary,

Father Pat Sullivan

Cc. Registered parishioners of the former Saint Joseph Parish Father Gary Pennings, Vicar General, Moderator of the Curia Father Brian Schieber, Vicar General, Vicar for Father John Riley, Chancellor

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 5 of 5

APPENDIX A BUILDING EVALUATION BY LEON ROBERTS

St. Joseph

Lillis, Kansas

Building Evaluation

The following is a follow up report to my visit to St. Joseph’s Church in Lillis, Kansas. The report will follow the following format: first will be a review of the condition if the existing structure, second will be a discussion of what is required to keep the structure in good shape with limited use of the facility and third will be some thoughts regarding the directions that St. Joseph church might consider.

The Church has several cracks in the stone that go through the wall system to the interior of the Church. These cracks are at each of the windows. The fix for these cracks will require work to the exterior as well as the interior plaster. Once the repair is made it will require the repainting of the wall in total.

The roofing system is reaching an age in which it will need to be replaced. The flashings of the roof to the parapet walls was done incorrectly and will need to be redone. This should go in as new sheet metal flashing. The gutter system and downspouts also need to be replaced. The fascia system that the gutter hangs from needs to be redone, it shows signs of dryrot and deterioration.

The rose window on the east side is leaking at the intersection of the stone and the window. The stone work around the window needs to be reworked both exterior and interior. A piece of plywood has been installed near the head of the window to direct water away from the interior of the window.

The stained glass in the operable portions of the window is bowing out at the operator portion of the window. These need to be removed to be re-leaded so that the window does not come apart.

The north side of the exterior grad has settled against the building not allowing water to get away quickly. This needs to be regarded to allow water to move away from the building.

There has been some substantial movement to the east foundation wall of the north Apse of the Church. This has resulted in settlement of the wood floor. The cracks in the foundation wall need to be repaired to prevent additional moisture intrusion and probable additional movement of the wall.

Anticipated cost for doing all of this work today is in the range of $135,000-$150,000.

In order for any structure to be kept in good condition particularly with limited use is to maintain a relatively stable temperature and humidity condition on the interior of the building. A temperature range of no colder than 50 degrees and no warmer than 80 degrees is ideal. When there are large temperature and humidity changes the building tends to pull itself apart. It has been our experience when a building is left unoccupied for an extended period of time it deteriorates quickly. If left unattended the plumbing

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 6 of 5

systems should be drained. When there is no one in the building on a regular basis to check on the building, there is no opportunity to catch things that need repair before they become major repair items. The building will need to have the utilities remain on, thus requiring and expenditure on the part of the parish on an ongoing basis. The building will require cleaning from time to time. The opportunity for the infiltration of dust is great. The building will need to have a pest control plan to eliminate the intrusion of mice, squirrels, raccoons, snakes and bugs.

The direction of retaining St. Joseph Church for limited use carries an initial price tag in order to hope to maintain a good building and an ongoing price tag to maintain it in good repair.

The direction of not utilizing the building, clearly suggest that the structure should be razed. There are elements of the Church that could be utilized across the street at the cemetery. They would be utilized to better identify the cemetery and to memorialize St. Joseph’s Church and parishioners.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 7 of 5

APPENDIX B INFORMATION MAILED TO PARISHIONERS COMPILED FROM COMMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED

The Doe Family 1234 Main St Anytown, KS 66544-

Dear John, It’s time to give the Building Advisory Committee input regarding what you think should be done with the church building. We have spent many hours researching what each of the below listed options would entail and want you to be as informed as possible before you decide.

It’s important for you to know there will be a question & answer session on Thursday evening August 25th at 7:00pm in the church. Only registered parishioners with an envelope number can attend the meeting and subsequently vote.

There are three scenarios the committee will recommend to the Archbishop, based off the peoples input and the committee’s knowledge of the entire scope of what can be accomplished. The Archbishop will then make the ultimate decision of what happens to the church building and other properties.

Your ballot(s) are included with this letter. However, please don’t vote until after the August 25th meeting. Once you do vote, ballots can be dropped off at the Annunciation church office or mailed to:

Building Advisory Committee Ballot collection C\O Annunciation Parish 213 E. 5th Street Frankfort, Kansas 66427

There is one ballot per person per registered family (children 18 years and older, considered dependents, can vote). Ballots are due no later than Friday September 2nd, 2011.

Please carefully consider each one of the options and what it will mean for yourself as well as future generations of the local community.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 8 of 5

Option 1)

Keep the church building and use as a chapel.

Pros:

a) The church building could serve as, at least in part, a symbol of the original Christian identity of the community.

b) It could still be used for prayer and limited religious celebrations.

1. Even if the church is available for weddings and funerals, it will not guarantee the availability of a to celebrate such liturgies there on demand. That is to say that it will depend on the availability and willingness of from surrounding parishes to preside at such services.

c) If the population of the area reversed and started to increase, thus at some point there was a need for a church building, the building could be used to fulfill that need assuming an investment could be made to make the building suitable for “new” use.

d) Keeping the church building open can help buffer and ease the pain of the actual parish itself closing.

Cons:

a) The financial cost to an individual group of investors to keep the church building “up” is significant, as well as the “leg work” to keep the building functioning.

i. The building’s overall structure is gravely suffering and in need of major repairs; inside and out. It will cost between $135,000 & $150,000 to get the church building repaired; which needs to be done sooner rather than later.

ii. It will cost approximately $24,000 annually to keep the building running and habitable after initially repair. This is an estimated cost of $600.00 per family annually; that’s assuming all the members would be willing to support such a cost.

iii. The group who forms the corporation to take the building over would have to be committed to its upkeep, entailing much work.

b) The building could become neglected due to lack of attention by the people involved; thus deteriorating and becoming an eyesore (consider the old school building in Frankfort).

c) Keeping the church building prolongs the inedibility of it having to come down at a later time; thus leaving it for a future generation to have to deal with, without the same resources that exist today to take care of that task.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 9 of 5

Conditions for Option 1: in order to be considered a viable option to recommend to the Archbishop the following need to be in play: note this is not a comprehensive list of conditions but exists to illustrate a minimum of expectations.

1) A group needs to come forth and commit to be the “corporation” that takes the church building over. This group needs to understand they will be responsible for the building and its upkeep and “everything” that comes along with that.

2) The group would be subject to an annual inspection wherein the Archdiocese would check to make sure the building is still able to operate as a chapel and has not become dilapidated; as well as checking other conditions set forth in the mutual agreement; that they are being met.

Option 2)

Sell the church building outright to a “church relocation company”. There are several companies in existence that will, once they have an interested buyer, sell the church and relocate it. We currently have pictures and details of the church being reviewed by one of these companies and are waiting to hear back if our building can even be considered.

 This only pertains to the church building, not the house or hall

Pros:

a) Profit of the sale (if there is any) would go to the parishioners.

b) The parishioners would not have to take on the tedious task of “taking down” the building own their own; both financially (estimated cost of $25,000) or logistically.

Cons:

a) We may have to wait awhile before the company finds a buyer, which could possibly never happen.

b) We lose the windows which could possibly be relocated for a profit, and\or bstay within the diocese at the same time.

Conditions for Option 2: in order to be considered a viable option to recommend to the Archbishop, the following need to be in play: note this is not a comprehensive list of conditions but exists to illustrate a minimum of expectations.

1) We have to be confident in the company’s ability to sell the building.

2) We will not use this option if there would be a cost involved to have the company do it.

Option 3)

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 10 of 5

Take the building down. If neither one of the first two options are accepted, the building will have to come down. There are two components under Option 3, 3A and 3B. You will need to pick one or the other.

 Please note that the house and church hall can be segregated from the “church building decision” and sold or kept by the parish on its own.

Option 3A: The parishioners are responsible for taking the building down. Pros:

a) We can sell the religious items in the building, including the windows, and keep the profits from the sale.

Cons:

a) The cost of razing the building was estimated at approximately $25,000. This is more than we have available from our current bank accounts.

b) The profit from the sale of church goods (windows, statuary, etc.) was not estimated to be very high; roughly $2500 at best for each window and unknown for the rest.

i. It would be a gamble to think we could make enough money on the sale of church goods to offset the total cost of razing the building.

c) There would be a lot of work involved if the parish herself took this task on.

Option 3B: The diocese is responsible for the logistics and cost of the building coming down. Pros:

a) The people can unburden themselves from the “leg work” and everything else that comes with having to raze a building.

b) The people can be assured that the diocese will put the church goods to use; most likely going to another church building within our own diocese.

Cons:

a) The diocese retains the profits from sale of the church goods.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 11 of 5

APPENDIX C LETTER SENT TO COMMISSION TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHY I WANTED THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION REVISITED

Memorandum

To: All members of the Building Advisory Commission From: Fr. Pat Sullivan Subject: Recommendation to Archbishop Naumann regarding church property Date: September 30, 2011

Dear commission members,

I’m writing to give you some thoughts that have been running through my head since we last met.

As you remember, the commission agreed (voted) as a body to recommend razing the church building. I think the commission’s decision however was based solely off the parish vote (I too was using this mindset). It would be fine if the parish was voting on a new council member, or if we were voting for the mayor of a city, but our responsibility to the former parishioners as well as the community is much greater than that; and so we can’t go solely off the vote. In short, I think we were too hasty in making our decision and I want us to revisit it. Therefore we need to meet on Monday evening October 3rd. This isn’t to say the commission won’t still recommend razing the building. It also doesn’t mean the parish wouldn’t have still voted the way they did. I simply want you to understand all of this from my standpoint and outside the vote.

You may be scratching your head saying, “wait – we decided this as a commission.” Yes we did, but again, it was decided based off one element, a vote. Allow me to expound.

I don’t think I was clear enough to the parish as to how the vote would work. As a result many thought the vote would be the ultimate deciding factor on how the commission was going to advise the Archbishop. That being said, I know on more than one occasion I did mention to the commission that the vote was not a democratic process. The vote we took from the parishioners was basically used to get a measurement of how they were feeling on the issue.

If there were, let’s say, 65 votes to take it down and 6 to keep it up, that speaks pretty clearly that taking it down would not be “that big of a deal” to the community. On the other hand, the vote of 41 (to raze) 31 (to keep) does speak loudly to the fact that there’s a significant number of people who want the church building to stay up. These people may be lesser in number, but still represent a significant amount that have merit in seeing the building stay up. These are people with real feelings and emotions, and I don’t think their desire to keep it up is at all unreasonable. As a spiritual father, I have to consider and weigh everyone’s feelings on this; this is what we all should be doing as a commission. We should not be looking at this politically or looking at this as a challenge to see “whose side can win”. I have spent more than one sleepless night over this issue and I want to get it right. I’m not at all thinking I’m going to please everyone, but this is something we need to get right, as best we can. We need to put the opinions and vote on a scale and weigh them against each other, not numerically, but as to what repercussions this will have for the people and the community.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 12 of 5

Let me now give you my opinion as to what you should strongly consider as a commission:

1) What is the best thing we can recommend to the Archbishop for the former parishioners of St. Joseph parish, as well as the community of Lillis?

2) Is it really to destroy the building? If so, why? (Remember, we need to look beyond the vote at this point.) a) There has been much suffering as a result of the parish closing; I don’t see how destroying the building so soon after it was closed would help anyone. Especially if it’s “no skin off anyone’s back” to keep it up (yes there will be much work to be done, but this only has to be done by interested parties that care to be involved).

b) There is a group of individuals willing to meet with the Archbishop to showcase their plan of keeping the building up. What’s more, they do have a plan together and a considerable amount of money that has been raised.

3) I agree the building should be taken down if no one can take care of it, and\or if it would eventually become dilapidated and unused. But again, if that’s not the case, why would we tear it down? Should we not at least “give it a go”, with conditions set by the diocese, to let it stay standing for a period of time?

4) The Archdiocese, to include the Archbishop, on more than one occasion, has expressed an openness to keep the building up if it’s reasonable to do so. Why then, again I would ask, are we going to suggest tearing it down?

I think most of these questions can be answered by looking to my hastiness to get this done, and misleading (although unintentionally) everyone as to the finality of the vote. In other words, that the vote would decide it, hands down. That’s not the case.

I would like you to prayerfully consider the information and insight I’ve given you over the weekend. We will discuss this as a commission again on Monday and then revote. I’m well aware the commission could still vote to take it down, and whatever the commission recommends will be what I write in my report to the Archbishop. That being said, the commission would need to not only say that you recommend taking it down, but why. And this would have to extend beyond “because that’s how the parish voted”.

Saint Joseph Building Commission Recommendation Report page 13 of 5