Transcript Slide 1

UNITED VISIONING
The
Six Sault Ste Marie United
Churches Review
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
East Korah/Maxwell United
CTA 08-01
East Korah/Maxwell United
Structural Integrity –
Building Envelope
Interiors
Good
Fair but lack of character
Fair
Mechanical/Electrical
Electric heat/older
plumbing/lack of exhaust
Accessibility
To main floor/basement partial.
Has a b/f washroom
Parking good-but no
room for expansion
Minor
Fair
Site Conditions &
Expansion Potential
Capital Outlay
Functionality
CTA 08-01
John Wesley United
CTA 08-01
John Wesley United
Structural Integrity
Building Envelope
Good
Fair/good (water leak boiler
room).
Fair/good (good fire
separations)
HW gas boilers 81% eff. F/A &
security. Good kitchen
Interiors
Mechanical/electrical
Accessibility
Site Conditions & expansion
potential
Capital outlay
Non existent
Problematic lot drainage/ no
expansion
$350k for exterior elevator &
washroom + improved link
Somewhat disjointed
Functionality
CTA 08-01
Emmanuel United
CTA 08-01
Emmanuel United
Structural Integrity
Good
Moderate, some spalling.
Good but poor fire separation
Building Envelope
Interiors
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
Mechanical/electrical
Accessibility
Site Conditions & expansion
Capital Outlay
Functionality
CTA 08-01
Central United
CTA 08-01
Central United
Structural Integrity
Building Envelope
Good
Ongoing stone repair/re-pointing
M. Floor-good. Plaster cracks. Bas’t –fair/poor
High Eff. Boiler. Lighting upgrades.
Interiors
Mechanical/Electrical
Accessibility
Good, high efficiency boiler, lighting
upgrades. Electrical service at limits.
To main floor only.
Limited parking/no expansion required.
Entrances difficult
Site Conditions & Expansion Potential
Capital Outlay
Significant upgrades have been made to
heating, fire separations, detection & sound
system
Functionality
Main floor excellent. Basement, basement
access and washrooms disjointed. Only
single WR at main floor
CTA 08-01
Willowgrove United
CTA 08-01
Willowgrove United
Structural Integrity
Building Envelope
Interiors
Mechanical/Electrical
Capital Outlay
Good
Good-well maintained
Very good
All electric heat/ large
service
Excellent
Good/difficult to expand
nave. Very nicely
landscaped
No major outlay required
Functionality
Excellent. Good kitchen
Accessibility
Site Conditions &
Expansion Potential
CTA 08-01
St Andrews United
CTA 08-01
St Andrews United
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
Structural Integrity
Building Envelope
Interiors
Mechanical/electrical
Accessibility
Site Conditions & Expansion
Potential
Capital Outlay required
Functionality
CTA 08-01
Goulais River United Church
CTA 08-01
Goulais River United Church
Structural Integrity
Building Envelope
Interiors
Mechanical/electrical
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. eventuallyconsider propane. Plumbing fixtures old &
stained. Change thermostat. No F/A intake
Accessibility
Non –existent
Site Conditions & expansion
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
Capital Outlay
Functionality
CTA 08-01
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
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
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
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
Table 3: Capacity @ 80% & the Ability to
Accommodate
Church
Capacity X 80%
Av Attend
Spare
East Korah
84
67.2
70
0
John Wesley
442
354
100
254
Emmanuel
250
200
120
80
Central
700
560
150
410
Willowgrove
380
304
275
29
St Andrews
495
396
190
206
CTA 08-01
Table 4: Capital Cost Summary
CHURCH
Access/WR’s Repair
Total
East Korah¹ $0
$0
$0
J. Wesley
$325k
$25k
$350k
Emmanuel
$180k
$25k
$205k
Willowgrove $0
$0
$0
Central
$350k²
$50k
$400k
St Andrews
$0
$4-500k³ $4-500k
Goulais R.
$3-400k*
$15k
CTA 08-01
$3-415k
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
Summary
CURRENT
FUTURE
Korah: at capacity, economical to operate
and in reasonable condition
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.
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 $4500K to rectify
Goulais River: no access; showing age
CTA 08-01
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Third Option
Amalgamate Central and St Andrews at ?
with East Korah and Emmanuel
amalgamating at John Wesley
Willowgrove remains
CTA 08-01
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
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