UNITED VISIONING

1. UNITED VISIONING The Six Sault Ste Marie United Churches Review

2. These are not Pass or Fail Reviews • The reviews have been carried out to see that of the six churches which three, in our opinion, are best suited to move forward into the next quarter century. • The emphasis was to look for durability, functionality and flexibility. • Our focus concentrated on major items. • The reviews were visual only. • .. and the intent is to provide you with information that will help you in your decision making process CTA 08-01

3. Who were involved in the reviews? • Structural: Randy Beltramin P.Eng of STEM Engineering Inc. • Architectural: Chris Tossell OAA, MRAIC, CAPHC. • Mechanical & Electrical Systems: David Barban P.Eng of Nor Mech Engineering Inc. CTA 08-01

4. On What was the Review Based? • Information/ Audit material provided by the United Visioning Committee • Our On Site Reviews • Some degree of experience and intuition • …and we have tried to view the churches simply as buildings and not as places of worship CTA 08-01

5. What Elements were reviewed? 1) SITE & SITE SERVICES • Zoning • Area • Parking and the relationship to capacity • Paving/storm drainage • Walkways • Accessibility • Landscaping • Ability to accommodate building expansion • Other aspects such as fuel storage tanks CTA 08-01

6. What Elements were reviewed? (continued) 2) STRUCTURAL • Are there any visible discernable problems with the structural components of the building? • Foundations • Framing members of the walls or roof • Exposed columns & beams CTA 08-01

7. What Elements were reviewed? (continued) 3) BUILDING ENVELOPE • Conditions of the exterior walls/history • Roof/flashing condition/ history • Insulation levels • Chimneys & Flues • Exterior windows & doors CTA 08-01

8. What Elements were reviewed? (continued) 4) INTERIORS • Floors (main) • Walls & windows • Ceilings • Attic access where possible • Fire resistant ratings & separations • Stairs • Accessibility • Individual areas - halls, kitchens, administrative areas. • Basements – accessibility and as above • Balconies & mezzanine floors • Seating • Significant installed items e.g. organs, pulpits, screens etc. • Any noted OBC problems • Functionality CTA 08-01

9. What Elements were reviewed? (continued) 5) MECHANICAL SYSTEMS • Heating System, Distribution & fuel type • Mechanical ventilation • Controls • Domestic hot water • Plumbing & drainage • Washrooms/fixtures (barrier free?) • Storm & sanitary drainage • Kitchen Equipment CTA 08-01

10. What Elements were reviewed? (continued) 6) ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS • Service – capacity & expansion potential • Power distribution • Lighting systems & fixtures • Fire alarm detection & annunciation • Sound Systems CTA 08-01

11. What Makes Up a Building? • A Building is a sum of its parts. We call these parts ‘Systems’ • For example there are structural and framing systems, roofing systems, mechanical and electrical systems. • Some Buildings exceed the sum of their parts. They could be termed Landmark Buildings – where the building, the building materials and site location are a major influence on the Cityscape. CTA 08-01

12. Heritage Components • Do the heritage (architectural, historical and functional) values of a building override the identified high operational and maintenance costs? • If so then a financial solution must be found. • If the heritage values do not override then the focus should be on attaining an alternative use • It may be that the ultimate mark of a heritage building is it’s ability to adapt to a new function • There are two landmark buildings in the inventory of which one has heritage designation CTA 08-01

13. CRITERIA FOR MOVING FORWARD • Structural Integrity • Building Envelope Condition • Interior Condition • Mechanical & Electrical Systems • Accessibility • Site Conditions & Expansion Potential • Capital Outlay Necessary • Functionality/ Flexibility • …..and Operating costs CTA 08-01

14. Expectations • We are not clairvoyant about the future but we do think that congregations will have higher expectations for convenience than in the past, that the overall perception of worship will include convenience of access, space to socialise, an ability to cater to all ages and (even) comfort in pews. • So functionality, flexibility and the ability to adapt together with the other criteria do become extremely important CTA 08-01

15. The Churches • These are reviewed in the order that we visited on April 7th and April 10th, 2008. • Goulais River United Church (although not part of the six) was reviewed on May 5th. • The slide notes that follow are a compilation for each church and which summarise the notes and comments recorded at the time of the review • A considerable amount of what we found during the review confirms the results of the audits carried out previously by the United Visioning Group CTA 08-01

16. East Korah/Maxwell United CTA 08-01

17. Structural Integrity – Building Envelope Interiors Mechanical/Electrical Accessibility Site Conditions & Expansion Potential Capital Outlay Functionality Good Fair but lack of character Fair Electric heat/older plumbing/lack of exhaust To main floor/basement partial. Has a b/f washroom Parking good-but no room for expansion Minor Fair East Korah/Maxwell United CTA 08-01

18. John Wesley United CTA 08-01

19. Structural Integrity Building Envelope Interiors Mechanical/electrical Accessibility Site Conditions & expansion potential Capital outlay Functionality Good Fair/good (water leak boiler room). Fair/good (good fire separations) HW gas boilers 81% eff. F/A & security. Good kitchen Non existent Problematic lot drainage/ no expansion $350k for exterior elevator & washroom + improved link Somewhat disjointed John Wesley United CTA 08-01

20. Emmanuel United CTA 08-01

21. Structural Integrity Building Envelope Interiors Mechanical/electrical Accessibility Site Conditions & expansion Capital Outlay Functionality Good Moderate, some spalling. Good but poor fire separation Boiler life limited/electrical at capacity Non existent Excellent/ prime location. limited for nave expansion $180k for access, washrooms and separations Split entrance/ good but dated finishes, kitchen fair Emmanuel United CTA 08-01

22. Central United CTA 08-01

23. Structural Integrity Building Envelope Interiors Mechanical/Electrical Accessibility Site Conditions & Expansion Potential Capital Outlay Functionality Good Ongoing stone repair/re-pointing M. Floor-good. Plaster cracks. Bas’t –fair/poor High Eff. Boiler. Lighting upgrades. Good, high efficiency boiler, lighting upgrades. Electrical service at limits. To main floor only. Limited parking/no expansion required. Entrances difficult Significant upgrades have been made to heating, fire separations, detection & sound system Main floor excellent. Basement, basement access and washrooms disjointed. Only single WR at main floor Central United CTA 08-01

24. Willowgrove United CTA 08-01

25. Structural Integrity Building Envelope Interiors Mechanical/Electrical Accessibility Site Conditions & Expansion Potential Capital Outlay Functionality Good Good-well maintained Very good All electric heat/ large service Excellent Good/difficult to expand nave. Very nicely landscaped No major outlay required Excellent. Good kitchen Willowgrove United CTA 08-01

26. St Andrews United CTA 08-01

27. Structural Integrity Building Envelope Interiors Mechanical/electrical Accessibility Site Conditions & Expansion Potential Capital Outlay required Functionality Generally good but Pinch perimeter wall deteriorating at lintels Pinch & Boiler roof poor, narthex water entry problems, Nave : good. Remainder: fair. Pinch asbestos tile ceiling/cork floors. Asbestos abatement required Heating ½ steam ½ HW. Boiler antiquated/inefficient. Electrical switchgear repair required. Lighting very good Excellent to all areas Parking excellent, no requirement for expansion Pinch roof, windows, walls, floor, boiler, boiler roof, asbestos removal, roof leak repairs $4-$500k. Excellent St Andrews United CTA 08-01

28. Goulais River United Church CTA 08-01

29. Structural Integrity Building Envelope Interiors Mechanical/electrical Accessibility Site Conditions & expansion Capital Outlay Functionality Fair/Good Vinyl siding & brick,-fair, metal roof in good condition Fibreboard wall & ceiling finishes but reasonable. Kitchen – fair. Service good for moderate expansion. Furnace will need replacement. eventually-consider propane. Plumbing fixtures old & stained. Change thermostat. No F/A intake Non –existent Large lot, plenty of parking, room to expand. Well point & septic tank $3-400k on new hall to eliminate basement use Accessibility: possible to main floor by ramp. Difficult & expensive to basement. New WR’s required. Consider possible G.F hall expansion Goulais River United Church CTA 08-01

30. Operating Costs • We looked at operating costs from two perspectives • 1) Annual Heating/Lighting costs averaged over 2006 & 2007 divided by average weekly attendance • 2) Annual Heating/Lighting costs as above divided by the gross building areas CTA 08-01

31. Why are we so focused on energy costs? • Oil & gas reserves are depleting • Exploration is limited • Demand is rising (3%pa. Supply 1%pa) • Natural Gas that was $0.17/m³ in 2001 is currently $0.32/m³ and projected to be above $0.38c later this year • With almost all the churches involved increasing insulation levels is extremely difficult if not impossible. Exceptions would be at flat roof areas when reroofing necessary CTA 08-01

32. Table 1: Operating Costs Divided by Average Weekly Attendance (Ranked) • 1) East Korah $4259.5/70 = $60.85 pp/pa • 2) Emmanuel $7981.0/120 = $66.51 pp/pa • 3) Willowgrove $19,775.0/275= $71.91 pp/pa • 4) Goulais River $4570.0/40 = $114.24 pp/pa • 4) John Wesley $17,227. /100= $172.26 pp/pa • 5) St Andrews $34,726.0/190 = $182.77 pp/pa • 6) Central Utd $ 32,491.5/150 = $216.61 pp/pa CTA 08-01

33. Table 2: Operating Costs Divided by Gross Building Area (Ranked) • 1) East Korah $4,259/5156 sq ft = $0.82 psf • 2) John Wesley $17,227/18,354 sq ft = $0.93 psf • 3) Emmanuel $7981/8,000 sq ft = $0.99 psf • 4) Central $32,495/20,000 sq ft = $1.62 psf • 5) Goulais River $4569/2699 sq ft = $1.69 psf • 6) Willowgrove $19,775/9,560 sq ft = $2.06 psf • 7) St Andrews $34,726/14,700 sq ft = $2.36 psf CTA 08-01

34. Table 3: Capacity @ 80% & the Ability to Accommodate CTA 08-01

35. Table 4: Capital Cost Summary CTA 08-01

36. Notes to Table 4 • 1 - Routine maintenance excluded to all • 2 – Central: this amount would cover accessibility and improved access to make better use of the basement areas, if desired • 3 – St Andrews: a variable amount dependent on the degree of repair necessitated. New boiler/upgraded insulation would substantially reduce heating costs • * - Goulais River: cost based on provision of new hall at same time for both church & community use CTA 08-01

37. Korah: at capacity, economical to operate and in reasonable condition John Wesley: Plenty of space, second lowest in utility cost psf but no accessibility Emmanuel: economical to operate, some masonry/roofing problems. Need for new boiler, no accessibility or separations but large site. Central: Heritage landmark, Largely updated but restricted accessibility. Awkward access to basement/washrooms. Good performance centre. Magnificent organ. Loads of space Willowgrove: Best in condition, function & accessibility though poor operating costs and occupancy at capacity St Andrews: Excellent accessibility and space but major deficiencies requiring $4-500K to rectify Goulais River: no access; showing age Frame construction & vinyl siding more residential than institutional. Unable to expand but marketable Requires addition to include accessibility & WR’s ($350k) Would provide great opportunity for growth Requires accessibility, WR’s & separations. Despite large & valuable site. Worship expansion is not easy. Accept fact that buildings of this type will always be a strain on resources and that some areas may never be totally accessible. Access to basement requires elevator which would require new electrical service Status Quo With capital injection over time will provide excellent accommodation Consider ground floor addition to eliminate basement use rather than funding access. Change oil to propane Summary CURRENT FUTURE CTA 08-01

38. If the Sault Ste Marie congregations want less of their financial contributions spent on operation and maintenance and more on outreach ministries then, based on the forgoing information, both downtown churches should be closed If the closure of both cannot be contemplated then which should remain? CTA 08-01

39. Comparison of the two City Churches • St Andrews has better functionality but requires major capital spending to upgrade. • In our opinion Central has poorer functionality but many upgrades have already been made. • Both are and will always remain expensive buildings to operate and maintain • Both buildings make major architectural contributions to our cityscape. Central is Designated under the Ontario Heritage Act • It would not be easy to find an alternate use for either building CTA 08-01

40. A second issue is, that at this time, Willowgrove, which is the ‘best’ building in all overall respects, is incapable of accommodating any other congregation at the same service time. Any of the other congregations could combine with Willowgrove using alternative service times. However there is need to carefully consider the additional load on the administrative offices, meeting spaces and communal areas. CTA 08-01

41. However, for example, if 75% of the John Wesley congregation (75) combined with Willowgrove on the alternative services basis then operating costs (per person per annum) at Willowgrove would reduce from $71.91pp/pa to $56.50 pp/pa which is a 25% reduction CTA 08-01

42. Here are three options to start with…. They are not in any particular order. There are no easy solutions and each possibility has it’s own set of advantages and problems …..and they have been included simply to provoke thought and discussion CTA 08-01

43. Numbers used in Transfers • There is a rule of thumb (origin unknown) that when a church closes 1/3 of the congregation will move to the designated church, 1/3 to another church and the remaining 1/3 will disappear • We think that largely due to to the process you have followed to date together with the commitment we have sensed that the numbers of members transferring will be considerably higher and we are therefore using a figure of 75% of regularly attending members CTA 08-01

44. First Option • Close both downtown churches together with East Korah with 75% of the combined congregations disbursing to John Wesley (largely) and Emmanuel producing greater economies for both these churches. • Willowgrove would remain CTA 08-01

45. Second Option • Maintain both downtown churches by closing John Wesley, East Korah and Emmanuel. • If say 75% of every regularly attending member of John Wesley (75), Emmanuel (90) and East Korah (50), total 215 went ½ to Central and ½ to St Andrews it would reduce the theoretical cost per person/per annum for Central from $216.61 to $125.93 and for St Andrews from $182.77 to $116.53 • Willowgrove remains CTA 08-01

46. Third Option • Amalgamate Central and St Andrews at ? with East Korah and Emmanuel amalgamating at John Wesley • Willowgrove remains CTA 08-01

47. Interested in a New Building to replace the existing? • As a comparison it may be worthwhile to note that new church construction is currently costing $300.00 per square foot. • A new church say the size of St Andrews with a gross square foot area of approximately 15,000 square feet would then cost $4.5m plus land costs plus site development and services. CTA 08-01

48. Although in the review the strengths and weakness' of the six have been identified we realise that in some respects we may not have made your decision making process any easier. However it was a privilege working with you and we…… Thank You! CTA 08-01